(Historical Commentary On The Old Testament.) Houtman, C. - Exodus-Kok (1993)

HISTORICAL COMMENTARY
ON THE OLD TESTAMENT
EXODUS
Editorial Team:
Comelis Houtman
(Kampen, The Netherlands)
Willem S. Prinsloo
(Pretoria, South Africa)
Wilfred G. E. Watson
(New Castle, UK)
A1 Wolters
(Ancaster, Ontario, Canada)
EXODUS
by
Cornells Houtman
Volume 1
KOK PUBLISHING HOUSE - KAMPEN

Translated from the Dutch by Johan Rebel and Sierd Woudstra
i >:
M tt'i/cf'
Cataloging-in-Publication Data Royal Library, The Hague
Houtman, Comelis
Exodus - Vol. 1 (Historical Commentary

on the Old Testament)/
Comelis Houtman
English Translation by Johan Rebel
and Sierd Woudstra
ISBN 90-242-6213-5
1. Old Testament - translations;
2. Old Testament - commentaries
® 1993 Kok Publishing House, Kampen
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording,
or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the publisher.
CONTENTS
Preface ............................................................................................................ ix
Bibliography and abbreviations...................................................................... x
INTRODUCTION
§1 The book of Exodus: its name; place in the Old Testament; genesis;
point of departure for its exegesis......................................................... 1
§2 The book of Exodus: text; translation; divisions ................................. 2
§3 Explanation of several terms used in the book of E xodus.................. 5
§4 Numerals in the book of Exodus ......................................................... 59
§5 Personal names in the book of Exodus; introduction; male names;
P haraoh................................................................................................... 71
§6 Personal names in the book of Exodus; female persons .................... 89
§7 Divine names in the book of Exodus ................................................... 91
§8 Names of people, countries, places, etc., in the book of Exodus . . . . 102
§9 Fauna in the book of Exodus................................................................129
§10 Flora in the book of Exodus ...................................................................150
§11 The book of Exodus and history.............................................................. 171
§12 The book of Exodus and the Old Testament...........................................190
§13 The book of Exodus and the New Testam ent........................................ 212
EXODUS 1:1-22
PHARAOH’S RESISTANCE TO THE FULFILLMENT
OF THE PROMISES TO THE PATRIARCHS
Essentials and perspectives............................................................................... 220

Scholarly exposition I: Introduction to the exegesis ................................... 225
Scholarly exposition II: Exegesis....................................................................226
Prologue (1:1-7) .............................................................................................226
Observations with 1:7 ....................................................................................231
Pharaoh’s resistance to the fulfillment of the promises (1:8-22)............. 234
Observations with 1:10 ................................................................................ 240
Observations with 1:13,14............................................................................ 249
Observations with 1:20,21 .......................................................................... 259
Observations with 1:15-22 .......................................................................... 261
VI CONTENTS
EXODUS 2:1-10
THE BIRTH OF ISRAEL’S DELIVERER
Essentials and perspectives............................................................................. 266

Scholarly exposition I: Introduction to the exegesis ................................. 269
Scholarly exposition II: Exegesis.................................................................. 270
Observations with 2:1,2..................................................................................272
Observations with 2:3 ....................................................................................277
Observations with 2 : 5 .................................................................................... 281
Observations with 2 : 6 .................................................................................... 283
Observations with 2:1-10................................................................................290
exodus 2:11-22
THE DELIVERER REJECTED BY HIS PEOPLE
Essentials and perspectives................................................................................292

Scholarly exposition II: Exegesis.....................................................................297
Observations with 2:12 ..................................................................................300
Observations with 2:15-22............................................................................. 318
exodus 2:23-4:19
THE CALL OF THE DELIVERER
Essentials and perspectives................................................................................322

The situation in Egypt; a look behind the scenes (2:23-25) .................... 327
Moses’ encounter with the God of the promises ........................................ 332
Observations with 3:2,3..................................................................................342
Observations with 3:4-6..................................................................................351
The call of Moses (3:7-10) ........................................................................... 353
‘a land flowing with milk and honey’ (3 :8 ).................................................356
Moses’ first objection and God’sresponse (3:11,12)..................................... 360
The promised proof (3:12) ........................................................................... 364
Moses’ second objection and God’s response (3:13-22) ........................... 365
Observations with 3 :1 8 ..................................................................................375
Observations with 3:21,22 ........................................................................... 382
Moses’ third objection and God’s response (4:1-9).......................................386
The first sign (4:2-4)...................................................................................... 391
The second sign (4:6,7)..................................................................................398
CONTENTS Vii
The third sign (4:8,9) ....................................................................................402

Moses’ fourth objection and God’s response (4:10-12)............................. 403
Moses’ refusal and God’s response. The outcome (4:13-19).................... 413
EXODUS 4:20-31
THE RETURN OF THE DELIVERER TO EGYPT

Scholarly exposition I: Introduction to the exegesis ....................................426
Observations with 4:21-23 ........................................................................... 431
Exodus 4:24-26 ............................................................................................. 432
Exodus 4:24-26 and its history of interpretation.......................................... 439
Exodus 4:24-26 in its context.........................................................................447
Comments on circumcision........................................................................... 449
e x o d u s 5:1-21
FIRST CONFRONTATION WITH PHARAOH

Scholarly exposition I: Introduction to the exegesis ....................................459
Observations with 5:16-19............................................................................. 480
e x o d u s 5:22-7:13
THE DELIVERER AGAIN IN DISCUSSION WITH YHWH
SECOND CONFRONTATION WITH PHARAOH

Moses again in discussion with y h w h (5:22-7:9) ...................................... 497
First interlude: Moses again with the people (6 :9 )................................... 505
The dialogue resumed (6:10-12) .................................................................. 505
Second interlude: Moses’ and Aaron’s lineage (6:13-28)........................... 507
General comments concerning the genealogy (6:14-25) ........................... 508
The leitmotif of the dialogue resumed (6:29-7:5)...................................... 522
Third interlude: A glance into the future (7:6-7)......................................529
The conclusion of the dialogue (7:8-9) ....................................................... 530
V lll CONTENTS
The second confrontation with Pharaoh (7:10-13) ................................... 532

Observations with 7:10-13...........................................................................537
APPENDIX: HISTORICAL COMMENTARY ON THE O T .................... 541

PREFACE
The present volume is a translation of volume I of my commentary on Exodus,

published in 1986 in the Dutch series Commentaar op het Oude Testament.
For this translation the Dutch text was checked through and the biblio
graphical material brought up to date.
I owe a debt of sincere gratitude to the translators, Johan Rebel and Dr.
Sierd Woudstra, for managing the complex job in an exemplary way; to my
assistants Cor de Vos and Peter Zaadstra for their ‘technical’ help; and to the
board of trustees of the Theological University, Kampen, for their financial
support.
Kampen, September 1993 C. Houtman

BIBLIOGRAPHY AND ABBREVIATIONS
The following list includes:

1. An explanation of those abbreviations that do not occur in the HCOT list (see Appendix).
2. Fuller information on litterature which in the main text is indicated by author only, or by an
abbreviated title. When more than one publication of one author is included, the mention of his
name only always pertains to the first publication listed in the bibliography. The bibliography makes
no claim to being exhaustive. Additional litterature may be found at the head of various paragraphs
of the Introduction, at the end of its sub-sections, and - withal - in the commentary itself. Please
note that in the (text of the) Introduction mention of author and page as a rule pertains to
litterature given either at the head of the paragraph or at the end of a sub-section, though it may
also refer to a publication listed below. In the main text of the commentaiy mention of author and
page may refer to litterature listed right after the treatment of a particular term or question.
Reasons of space made it imperative that articles in scientific journals are cited in shortened form
sometimes: by the name of author and journal, year and number of issue, and page, but without the
article’s title.
Aq. Aquilla; zie Field

Artapanus bij Eusebius, PE, IX, xxvii; transl. in Charlesworth (ed.), II,
889ff.; text and transl. in Holladay, I, 189ff.
Attema, D.S. Arabie en de Bijbel, Den Haag 1961
Auerbach, E. Moses, Amsterdam 1953
Auzou, G. De la servitude au service. £tude du livre de VExode, Paris 1961
Baentsch, B. Exodus-Leviticus (HK), Gottingen 1903
Barrois, A.G. Manuel d ’archfologie biblique, Paris 1939, 1953
BB Bibliotheca Biblica, II, Oxford 1722
BAE La Bible de VAlexandrie: L ’Exode, Paris 1989; French transl. of
the LXX, notes etc. by A Le Boulluec and P. Sandevoir.
Beegle, D.M. Moses, the Servant o f Yahweh, Grand Rapids Mi. 1972
Beer, G. Exodus mit einem Beitrag von K. Galling (HAT), Tubingen
1939
Beer, G. Die Mischna II/3: Pesachim, GieBen 1912
Benzinger, I. Hebraische Archaologje, Leipzig 19273
Bertholet, A. Kulturgeschichte Israels, Gottingen 1919
Beyerlin, W. Herkunft und Geschichte der altesten Sinaitraditionen} Tubin
gen 1961
Bienam6, G. Moise et le don de Teau dans la tradition Juive ancienne, Rome
1984
BL H. Bauer, P. Leander, Historische Grammatik der hebrdischen
Sprache des Alien Testamentes, Halle 1922
Boecker, H J . Recht und Gesetz im Alten Testament und im Alten Orient,
Neukirchen-Vluyn 19842
Bocher, O. Ddmonenfurcht und Damonenabwehr, Stuttgart et al. 1970
Bohl, F.M.Th. Exodus (TeU), Groningen/Den Haag 1928
Boman, T. Das hebraische Denken im Vergleich mit dem Griechischen,
Gottingen 19685
Brenner, A. Colour Terms in the Old Testament, Sheffield 1982
* ET: Origins and History o f the Oldest Sinaitic Traditions, Oxford 1965.
ABBREVIATIONS
XI
BRL Biblisches Reallexikon, Hg. v .K. Galling, Tubingen 19772

Brockelmann, C. Hebrdische Syntax, Neukirchen Kreis Moers 1956
Broekhuis, J. De tien plagen en Egypte, Kampen 1984
Buber, M. Moses, Heidelberg 19522
Buber-Rosenzweig M. Buber, F. Rosenzweig, Die fu n f Bucher der Weisung, Hei
delberg 19769
Calmet, A. Commentaire litteral sur tous les livres de VAncien et du Noveau
Testament, I, Paris 1724
Calvin Commentarii Joannis Calvini in quinque libros Mosis: Genesis
seorsumfreliqui quatuor in formam harmoniae digesti, Genevae
1573
Cassuto, U. A Commentary on the Book o f Exodus, Jerusalem 1967
Cazelles, H. A la recherche de Molise, Paris 1979
CE Christelijke Encyclopedic, tweede druk
Charlesworth, J.H.(ed.) The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, London 1983, 1985
Childs, B.S. Exodus: A Commentary (OTL), London 1974
Clamer, A. VExode (SBPC), Paris 1956
Clements, R.E. Exodus (CBCNEB), Cambridge 1972
Clements, R.E. God and Temple, Oxford 1965
Coats, G.W. Rebellion in the Wilderness, Nashville/New York 1968
Coldy, A. A History o f Old Testament Priesthood, Rome 1969
Cole, A. Exodus (TOTC), London 1973
Costa, I. da Bijbellezingen I: Genesis-2 Samuel, 1862 (edition Zwijndrecht
1983)
Couroyer, B. VExode (SBJ), Paris 1968
Curtiss, S.I. Ursemitische Religion im Volksleben des heutigen Orients, Leip
zig 1903
CV Canisiusvertaling; edition 1936-39
Dani61ou, J. Sacramentum flituri, Paris 1950
Dasberg, J. De Pentateuch met Haftaroth in het Nederlands vertaald, Am
sterdam 1970-71
Daube, D. Studies in Biblical Law , Cambridge 1947
Daube, D. The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism , London 1956
Daum, W. Ursemitische Religion, Stuttgart et al. 1985
Davies, G.Henton Exodus (TBC), London 1967
Delitzsch, F. Die Lese- und Schreibfehler im Alten Testament, Beriin/Leipzig
1920
Dillmann, A. Exodus und Leviticus (KEH), 18802
Dhorme, E. VEmploi mttaphorique des noms de parties du corps en Htbreu
et en Akkadien, Paris 1923
D tr Deuteronomist
Durham, J.I. Exodus (WBC), Waco 1987
E Elohist
Eerdmans, B.D. Alttestamentliche Studien III: Das Buch Exodus, GieBen 1910
Eerdmans, B.D. The Religion o f Israel, Leiden 1947
Ephraem R.M. Tonneau, Sancti Ephraem Syri in Genesim et in Exodum
Commentarii (text CSCOS 71, transl. CSCOS 72), Louvain
1955
Ehrlich, A.B. Randglossen zur hebraischen Bibel, I, Leipzig 1908
EiGfeldt, O. Hexateuch-Synopse, Leipzig 1922
Ellenbogen, M. Foreign Words in the Old Testament, London 1962
EMATP F. Postma, E. Talstra, M.Vervenne, Exodus: Materials in
X ll BIBLIOGRAPHY
Automatic Text Processing,, Amsterdam/Tumhout 1983

Eusebius of Caesarea Praeparatio Evangelica, edition K.Mras, Berlin 1954-56
ExR Exodus Rabbah] text: Midrash Rabbah, Wilna 1887; transl.: H.
Freedman, M. Simon (eds.), Midrash Rabbah, London 1939
Ezechiel the Tragedian in Eusebius, PE, IX, xxvii-xxix; transl. in Charlesworth (ed.), II,
803ff.; text and transl. in H Jacobson, The Exagoge o f Ezekiel,
Cambridge 1982, and in Holladay, II, 301 ff.
Farbridge, M.H. Studies in Biblical and Semitic Symbolism, 1923 (reprint. New
York 1970)
Fensham, F.C. Exodus (POT), Nijkerk 1970
Field, F. Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt sive Veterum Interpretum
Gaecorum in totum Vetus Testamentum Fragmenta, I-II, Oxonii
1875-76
Fishbane, M Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel, Oxford 1985
Floss, J.P. Jahwe Dienen-Gottem Dienen, Koln/Bonn 1975
Fohrer, G. Uberlieferung und Geschichte des Exodus, Berlin 1964
Fohrer, G. Theologische Grundstrukturen des Alten Testaments, Berlin 1972
Fontinoy, C. Le duel dans les longues S&nitiques, Paris 1969
Forbes, R J. Studies in Ancient Technology, I-IX, Leiden 1964-722
Fox, E. Now These Are the Names: A New English Rendition o f the
Book o f Exodus, New York 1986
Frankel, T. Ueber den Einfluss der palastinischen Exegese auf die alexandri-
nische Hermeneutik, Leipzig 1831
Franken, H J. Grondstoffen voor de materiele cultuur in Palestina en omlig-
gende gebieden, Kampen 1982
Fretheim, T.E. Exodus (Interpretation), Louisville 1991
Fritz, V. Israel in der Wuste, Marburg 1970
FT Fragment-Targums; text and transl.: M.L. Klein, The Fragment-
Targums o f the Pentateuch, Rome 1980
Fuss, W. Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion in Exodus 3-17,
Berlin/New York 1972
Galbiati, H. La struttura letteraria deWEsodo, Roma 1956
Gaster, T.H. Myth, Legend and Custom in the Old Testament, New York
1969
Geus, C .H J. de The Tribes o f Israel, Assen/Amsterdam 1976
Ginzberg, L. The Legends o f the Jews, I-VII, Philadelphia 1909-38
Gispen, W.H. Het boek Exodus (KVHS),2 I, Kampen 19643, II Kampen
19512
GNB Groot Nieuws Bijbel: Vertaling in omgangstaai, edition 1983
Goldman, S. From Slavery to Freedom, London/New York 1958
Gottwald, N.K. The Tribes o f Yahweh, London 1980
Gradwohl, R. Die Farben im Alten Testament, Berlin 1963
Gray, G.B. Sacrifice in the Old Testament, Oxford 1925
Greenberg, M. Understanding Exodus, New York 1969
Gregory of Nyssa Vita Mosis; text and transl.: J. Dani61ou, Paris 1968
GreBmann, H. Mose und seine Zeit, Gottingen 1913
GreBmann, H. Der Ursprung der israelitisch-judischen Eschatologie, Gottingen
1905
GreBmann, H. Die Anfdnge Israels (SAT), Gottingen 19222
2 ET: Exodus, Grand Rapids 1982.

ABBREVIATIONS X lll
GreBmann, H. Der Messias, Gottingen 1929

Gunkel, H. Das Marchen im Alten Testament, Tubingen 1921
Haran, M. Temples and Temple-service in Ancient Israel, Oxford 1978
Hayes-Miller J.H. Hayes, J.M. Miller (eds.), Israelite and Judean History,
London 1977
HDA Handworterbuch des deutschen Aberglaubens
Heinisch, P. Das Buck Exodus (HSchAT), Bonn 1934
Henninger, J. Les fetes de printemps chez les Semites et la pdque Israelite,
Paris 1975
Hertz, J.H. Pentateuch und Haftaroth, Berlin 1937-38
Hidal, S. Interpretatio Syriaca, Lund 1974
Honig, H.W. Die Bekleidung des Hebrders, Zurich 1957
Holladay, C.R. Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish authors, I, Chico 1983; II,
Atlanta 1989
Holzinger, H. Exodus (KHC), Tubingen et al. 1900
Honeycutt, R.L. Exodus (The Broadman Bible Commentary), Nashville 1973
Houtman, C. Der Himmel im Alten Testament, Leiden 1993
Houtman, C. "De jubelzang van de struiken der wildemis in Psalm 96:12b,”
in Fs N.H.Ridderbos, Loven en geloven, Amsterdam 1975, 151-
74
Houtman, C. Inleiding in de Pentateuch, Kampen 1980
Houtman, C. Wereld en tegenwereld, Baam 1982
Hummelauer, F. de Commentarius in Exodum et Leviticum , Parisiis 1897
Hyatt, J.P. Commentary on Exodus (NCeB), London 1971
Ibn Ezra Abraham Ibn Ezra, Perushe hatorah; edition A Weiser, Jeru-
zalem 1976
Isho bar Nun E.G. Clarke, The selected Questions o f IshO bar Ntln on the
Pentateuch, Leiden 1962
Ishodad J.M. Vost6, C. van den Eynde, Commentaire d ’ISo'dad de Merw
sur TAncien Testamen II: Exode-Deut&onome (text CSCOS 80;
transl. CSCOS 81), Louvain 1958
J Jahwist
Jacob, B. The Second Book o f the Bible: Exodus, Hoboken, NY 1992
Jacob, B. Der Pentateuch: Exegetisch-kritische Forschungen, Leipzig 1905
JaroS, K. Die Stellung des Elohisten zur kanaanaischen Religion, Frei-
burg/Gottingen 1974
Jeremias, J. Die Passahfeier der Samaritaner, GieBen 1932
Jirku, A. Die Damonen und ihre Abwehr im Alten Testament, Leipzig
1912
Jirku, A. Materialien zur Volksreligion Israels, Leipzig 1914
Jouon, P. Grammaire de VHtbreu Biblique} Rome 19472
Johnson, A R . The Vitality o f the Individual in the Thought o f Ancient Israel,
Cardiff 19642
Johnson, A R . The One and the Many in the Israelite Conception o f God,
Cardiff 19612
Johnson, A R . The Cultic Prophet in Ancient Israel, Cardiff 19622
Josephus H.St J . Thackeray, R. Marcus, L.H. Feldman, Josephus with an
English Translation, London/Cambridge Mass. 1926-1965 (AJ
= Antiquitates Judaicae; BJ = De Bello Judaico; CA = Contra
3
ET: A Grammar o f Biblical Hebrew. Translated and Revised by T. Muraoka, Roma 1991.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
XIV
Apionem)
Kalt, E. Genesis, Exodus und Leviticus (Herders Bibelkommentar),
Freiburg 1948
Kaufmann, Y. The Religion o f Israel, New York 1972
Keel, O. Die Welt der altorientalischen Bildsymbolik und das Alte Tes
tament* Zurich/Neukirchen-Vluyn 1972
Keel-Kiichler O. Keel, M. Kiichler, Orte und Landschaften der Bibel, Zurich
et. al./Gottingen 1982-
Keil, C.F. Genesis und Exodus (BC), Leipzig 1878
Kitchen, K.A. Ancient Orient and Old Testament, London 1966
Klostermann, A. Der Pentateuch, Leipzig 1893
Klostermann, A. Der Pentateuch. Neue Folge, Leipzig 1907
Knight, A.F. Theology as Narration: A Commentary on the Book o f Exodus,
Grand Rapids, MI 1976
Kohata, F. Jahwist und Priesterschrift in Exodus 3-14, Berlin/New York
1986
Kohler, L. Theologie des Alten Testaments, Tubingen 1966*
KoHkl F.E. Konig, Historisch-kritisches Lehrgebaude der hebrdischen
Sprache, Leipzig 1881, 1895, 1897
KoSynt F.E. Konig, Historisch-comparative Syntax der hebrdischen Spra
che, Leipzig 1897
KoW E. Konig, Hebraisches und aramaisches Worterbuch zum Alten
Testament, Leipzig 19222+3
Konig, E. Geschichte der alttestamentlichen Religion, Giitersloh 19243+*
KraSovec, J. Der Merismus im Biblisch-Hebraischen und Nordwestsemiti-
schen, Rome 1977
L Codex Leningradensis; cf. BHK3 en BHS
L Laienquelle; see EiBfeldt
Laaf, P. Die Pascha-Feier Israels, Bonn 1970
Lange, J.P. Die Bucher Exodus, Leviticus, Numeri, Bielefeld/Leipzig 1874
Le D6aut, R. La nuit poseale, Rome 1963
Liedke, G. Gestalt und Bezeichnung alttestamentlicher Rechtssatze, Neukir-
chen-Vluyn 1971
Leibowitz, N. Studies in Shemot, Jerusalem 1976
Lipifiski, E. La royauti de Yahwt, Brussel 19682
LXX Septuaginta; edition: A.E. Brooke, N. McLean, The Old Tes
tament in Greek 112: Exodus and Leviticus, Cambridge 1909,
and J.W. Wevers, Septuaginta Vetus Testamentum Graecum
Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis edition II/l:
Exodus, Gottingen 1991; French transl. and notes in BAE;
comments and notes in Wevers, Notes and Text History.
Lucas, A. Ancient Egyptian Materials and Industries, London 1962*
Lundgreen, F. Die Benutzung der Pflanzenwelt in der alttestamentlichen Reli
gion:, GieBen 1908
LuthV Lutherse vertaling (Dutch Luther Translation); edition in Het
Oude Testament in zes Nederlandse vertalingen, ’s Gravenhage
1979-80
LV Leidse vertaling; edition 1899-1901; cf. H. Oort (ed.), Textus
Hebraici emendationes quibus in Vetere Testamento Neerlandice
* ET: The Symbolism o f the Biblical World, New York 1978.

ABBREVIATIONS XV
vertendo usi sunt A. Kuenen, I. Hooykaas, W.H. Kosters, H.Oort,

Lugduni Batavorum 1900
Maiberger, P. Das Manna: Eine literarische, etymologische und naturkundliche
Untersuchung, Wiesbaden 1983
Mandelkem, S. Veteris Testamenti Concordantiae Hebraicae atque Chaldaicae,
Leipzig 1937
McCarthy, D J . Treaty and Covenant, Rome 19782
McNamara, M. The New Testament and the Palestinian Targum to the Pen
tateuch, Rome 1966
McNeile, A.H. The Book o f Exodus (WC), London 19313
Mek. J.Z. Lauterbach, Melalta de-Rabbi Ishmael, Philadelphia 1931-
35
Mendenhall, G.E. The Tenth Generation, Baltimore/London 1973
Meyer, E. Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstdmme, Halle a.S. 1906
Meyer, R. Hebrdische Grammatik, Berlin 1966-723
Michaeli, F. Le livre d VExode (CAT), Neuch£tel 1974
MidrTanh. Exod Midrash Tanhuma; text: S.Buber, MidraS Tanhuma B., Wilna
1885; transl.: H.Bietenhard, Midrasch Tanhuma B: R Tanhu
ma iiber die Tora, genannt Midrasch Jelammedenu, I, Bern et
al. 1980
Milgrom, J. Studies in Levitical terminology, I, Berkeley et al. 1970
Montet, P. l’Egypte et la Bible, NeuchStel 1959
MS(S) manuscript(s)
MT Masoretic text
Murphy, J.G. The Book o f Exodus, Edingburgh 1866
N ‘die nomadische Quellenschicht’; see Fohrer
Nachmanides Moses ben Nachman, Perushe hatorah, edition Ch.B. Chavel,
Jerusalem 1959-60; transl.: Ch.B. Chavel, Ramban (Nach
manides) Commentary on the Torah, New York 1971-76
Notscher, F. Das Angesicht Gottes schauen ’ nach biblischer und babyloni-
scher Auffassung, Wurzburg 1924
Noth, M. Das zweite Buch Mose Exodus (ATD),5 Gottingen 19735
Noth, M. Uberlieferungsgeschichte des Pentateuch,6 Stuttgart 1948
Noth, M. Geschichte Israels,7 Gottingen 19697
Noth, M. Die Welt des Alten Testaments, Berlin 1962*
NV Nieuwe Vertaling = The 1951 Translation of the Dutch Bible
Society
Oesch, J.M. Petucha und Setuma: Untersuchungen zu einer uberlieferten
Gliederung im hebraischen Text des Alten Testaments, Frei-
bung/Gottingen 1979
Origen Homiliae in Exodum ; text: PG, XII, 298ff.; transl.: Orig&ne
Homilies sur VExode, Paris n.d. (transl.: P. Fortier; introduc
tion: H. de Lubac); Origen Homilies on Genesis and Exodus
(transl. R.E. Heine), Washington DC 1982
Ohler, A. Mythologische Elemente im Alten Testament, Dusseldorf 1969
OLZ Orientalistische Literaturzeitung
P Priestly Source
5 ET: Exodus (OTL), Philadelphia 1962.

6 ET: A History o f Pentateuchal Traditions, Englewood Cliffs, NJ 1972.
7 ET: The History o f Israel, New York 1960.
xvi BIBLIOGRAPHY
Palache, J.L. Semantic Notes on the Hebrew Lexicon, Leiden 1959

Palm, J.H. van der Bijbel uitgegeven door J.H. van der Palm, Leiden 1818-30
Pedersen, J. Israel: Its Life and Culture, London/Copenhagen, I-II 1926, III-
IV 1940
Perrot, C. •Petuhot et Setumot: Etude sur les alindas du Pentateuque,-
RB 76 (1969), 50-91
Pesh. The Old Testament in Syriac According to the Peshipa Version
HI: Genesis-Exodus (Exodus prepared by M.D. Koster), Lei
den 1977; cf. M.D. Koster, The Peshipa o f Exodus: The De
velopment o f its Text in the Course o f Fifteen Centuries, As-
sen/Amsterdam 1977
Philo F.H. Colson, G.H. Whitaker, Philo with an English Translation,
London/Cambridge Mass, 1929-1962; R. Marcus, Philo. Sup
plement II: Questions and Answers on Exodus, London/Cam
bridge Mass. 1953
Pixley, G.V. On Exodus: A Liberation Perspective, New York 1987
Plastaras, J. The God o f Exodus, Milwaukee 1966
Pons, J. VOppression dans VAncien Testament, Paris 1981
Potin, J. La fete Juive de la Pentecdte, Paris 1971
Pseudo-Philo Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum; edition: Pseudo-Philon: Les
Antiquitts Bibliques, Paris 1976 (text, transl. and notes); transl.
in Charlesworth (ed.), II, 297ff.
PT Palestinian Targum; text and transl.: M.L. Klein, Genizah
Manuscripts o f Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch, Cincinnati
1986
PWB Y.Sabar (ed.), Pe$a[ wayehi beSallah: A Neo-Aramaic Midrash
on Beshallah (Exodus), Wiesbaden 1976
Rad, G. von Theologie des Alten Testaments* Miinchen, 1,19665, II, 19654
Rashi Solomon ben Isaac, Commentaiy on the Pentateuch,* text and
transl: Nederlandsche Vertaling van den Pentateuch benevens
eene Nederlandsche verklarende vertaling van Rashie’s Pen
tateuch- Commentaar door A.S. Onderwijzer, Amsterdam 1895-
1901
Reindl, J. Das Angesicht Gottes im Sprachgebrauch des Alten Testaments,
Leipzig 1970
Reymond, Ph. VEau, sa vie et sa signification dans VAncien Testament, Leiden
1958
Riesener, I. Der Stamm "Di? im Alten Testament, Berlin/New York 1979
Riessler, P. Altjiidisches Schrifttum aufierhalb der Bibel, Freiburg/Heidel-
berg 1928
Robinson, H.W. Inspiration and Revelation in the Old Testament, Oxford 1946
Rosmarin, A. Moses im Lichte derAgada, New York 1932
Rothenberg, B.(ed.) Sinai: Pharaohs, Miners, Pilgrims and Soldiers, Bern 1979
Rudolph, W. Der Elohist' von Exodus bis Josua, Berlin 1938
Rylaarsdam, J.C. The Book o f Exodus (IB), Nashville 1952
Sam.Pent. Samaritan Pentateuch; edition: A von Gall, Der hebrdische
Pentateuch der Samaritaner, GieBen 1914-18
SamT Samaritan Targum; edition: A Tal, The Samaritan Targum o f
the Pentateuch, Tel Aviv 1980-
8 ET: Theology o f the Old Testament, New York, 1,1962, II, 1965.
ABBREVIATIONS XVII
Sama, N.M. Exploring Exodus: The Heritage o f Biblical Israel, New York
1986
Sama, N.M Exodus (The JPS Torah Commentary), Philadelphia/New York
1991
Schafer-Lichtenberger, C. Stadt und Eidgenossenschaft im Alten Testament, Ber-
lin/NewYork 1983
Scharbert, J. Der Schmerz im Alten Testament, Bonn 1955
Scharbert, J. Exodus (Die Neue Echter Bibel), Wurzburg 1989
Schmid, H. Mose: Uberlieferung und Geschichte, Berlin 1968
Schmid, H. Die Gestalt des Mose: Probleme alttestamentlicher Forschung
unter Berucksichtigung der Pentateuchkrise, Darmstadt 1986
Schmid, H.H. Der sogenannte Jahwist, Zurich 1976
Schmidt, W.H. Exodus (BK), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1974-
Schmidt, W.H. ExoduSy Sinai und Mose, Darmstadt 1983
Schneider, W. Grammatik des biblischen Hebraisch, Munchen 19825
Schuman, N.A Voortvarend en vierend: Stop voor stap door het boek Exodus,
Delft 1985
Schwarzenbach, A W . Die geographische Terminologie im Hebraischen des Alten
Testaments, Leiden 1954
Schwarzbaum, H. Studies in Jewish and World Folklore, Berlin 1968
Segal, J.B. The Hebrew Passover From the Earliest Times to A.D. 70, New
York/Toronto 1963
Segal, M.H. The Pentateuch: Its Composition and its Authorship and other
Biblical Studies, Jerusalem 1967
Skweres, D.E. Die Ruckverweise im Buch Deuteronomium, Rome 1979
Smith, W.R. Lectures on the Religion o f the Semites, London 1894
SS C. Siegfried, B. Stade, Hebraisches Worterbuch zum Alten
Testament, Leipzig 1893
Stade, B. Biblische Theologie des Alten Testaments, I, Tubingen 19051+2
Stadelmann, L.IJ. The Hebrew Conception o f the World, Rome 1970
Steingrimsson, S.O. Vom Zeichen zur Geschichte, Lund 1979
Stol, M. Zwangerschap en geboorte bij de Babyloniers en in de Bijbel,
Leiden 1983
Strack, H.L. Die Bucher Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus und Numeri (KurzgefaB-
ter Kommentar zu den heiligen Schriften Alten und Neuen
Testamentes), Munchen 1894
Strieker, B.H. De geboorte van Homs, Leiden 1963-
Stroete, G. te Exodus (BOT), Roermond/Maaseik 1966
Struys, Th. Ziekte en genezing in het Oude Testament, Kampen 1968
Symm. Symmachus; zie Field; cf. A. Salvesen, Symmachus in the
Pentateuch, Manchester 1991
SV Statenvertaling (Dutch State Translation)
TGI K. Galling (ed.), Textbuch zur Geschichte Israels, Tubingen
19682
Theod. Theodotion; see Field; cf. K.G. O’Connell, The Theodotionic
Revision o f the Book o f Exodus, Cambridge, Mass. 1972
Theodoret of Cyrus Quaestiones et Solutiones in Exodum ; edition: PG, LXXX,
225ff.
Thiel, W. Die soziale Entwicklung Israels in vorstaatlicher Zeit, Neukir
chen-Vluyn 1980
TNf Targum Neofiti 1; text and translations in A. Dfez Macho,
Neophyti 1: Targum Palestinense MS de la Biblioteca Vaticana,
x v iii BIBLIOGRAPHY
Madrid/Barcelona 1968-78; French transl. and notes in R. Le

D6aut, Targum du Pentateuque, Paris 1978-80; cf. B. Barry
Levy, Targum Neophyti 1 A Textual Study: Introduction Gene
sis, Exodus, Lanham et al. 1986
TO Targum Onqelos; text: A. Sperber, The Bible in Aramaic,
Leiden 1959-68; text and transl.: I. Drazin, Targum Onkelos to
Exodus, Denver 1990; transl.: B. Grossfeld, The Targum On
qelos to Exodus, Wilmington 1988
Toom, K. van der Sin and Sanction in Israel and Mesopotamia, Assen/Maastrich
1985
TPsJ Targum Pseudo-Jonathan; text: M. Ginsburger, Pseudo-Jona
than (Thargum Jonathan ben Usiel zum Pentateuch), Berlin
1903; French transl.: R. Le D6aut; see sub TNf
TS Tempel Scroll (11Q Temple); zie Y.Yadin, Mgylt-hmqdS,
Jerusalem 1977
TzUR N.C. Gore, Tzeenah u. Reenah: A Jewish Commentary on the
Book o f Exodus, New York et al. 1965
Uchelen, N.A. van Exodus 1-20, Kampen n.d.
UV Utrechtse vertaling; edition 1934
Valentin, H. Aaron: Eine Studie zur vor-priesterschrifilichen Aaron-Uber-
lieferung, Freiburg/Gottingen 1978
Vaux, R. de Hoe het Oude Israel leefde? Roermond/Maaseik, I, 1961, II,
1962
Vaux, R. de Histoire Ancienne d ’I s r a e l Paris, I, 1971, II, 1973
Vaux, R. de Studies in Old Testament Sacrifice, Cardiff 1964
Vergote, J. Joseph en fcgypte, Louvain 1959
Vischer, W. Das Christuszeugnis des Alten Testaments, I, Miinchen 19363
Vonk, C. De Voorzeide Leer la: Inleiding Genesis, Exodus, Barendrecht
1960
Vorwahl, H. Die Gebdrdensprachen im Alten Testament, Berlin 1932
Vredenburg, J. De Pentateuch en de haphtaroth met Nederlandsche vertaling,
Amsterdam 1899-1903
Vries, S.Ph. de Joodse riten en symbolen, Amsterdam 19845
Vriezen, Th.C. Hoofdlijnen der Theologie van het Oude Testament}1 Wage-
ningen 19663
Vriezen, Th.C. De verkiezing van Israel, Amsterdam 1974
Vulg. Vulgata; edition: Biblia Sacra iuxta Latinam Vulgatam ver-
sionem ad codicum fidem cura et studio monachorum Abbatiae
Pont S. Hieronymi in Urbe O.S.B., 1926-
Wagner, M. Die lexikalischen und grammatikalischen Aramaismen im alttes-
tamentlichen Hebrdisch, Berlin 1966
Waltke-O’Connor B.K. Waltke, M. O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew
Syntax, Winona Lake 1990
Weil, G. Biblische Legenden der Muselmanner, Frankfurt a.M. 1845
Weimar, P. Untersuchungen zur priesterschriftlichen Exodusgeschichte, Wurz
burg 1973910
9 Dutch transl. of Les institutions de TAncien Testament, Paris, I, 1958, II, 1960; ET: Ancient
Israel: Its Life and Institutions, New York 1961.
10 ET: Early History o f Israel, I-II, London 1978.
11 ET: An Outline o f Old Testament Theology, Oxford 1958.
ABBREVIATIONS XIX
Weimar-Zenger P. Weimar, E. Zenger, Exodus: Geschichten und Geschichte,

zur Befreiung Israels, Stuttgart 1975
Wellhausen, J. Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels,12 Berlin 19056
Wellhausen, J. Die Composition des Hexateuch und der historischen Bucher des
Alten Testaments, Berlin 1899 (1963*)
Wellhausen, J. Reste arabischen Heidentums, Berlin/Leipzig 1897 (19272)
Westphal, G. Jahwes Wohnstatten nach den Anschauungen der alten Hebrder,
GieBen 1908
Wette, W.M.L. de Beitrdge zur Einleitung in das Alte Testament, Halle 1806, 1807
Wevers, J.W. Notes on the Greek Text o f Exodus, Atlanta 1990
Wevers, J.W. Text History o f the Greek Exodus, Gottingen 1992
Williams, R J. Hebrew Syntax: An Outline, Toronto/Buffalo 19762
Wilms, F.E. Wunder im Alten Testament, Regensburg 1979
Wolff, H.W. Anthropologie des Alten Testaments, Miinchen 1973
WV Willibrord-Vertaling; edition 1975
Zenger, E. Das Buch Exodus, Diisseldorf 1978
Zenger, E. Die Sinaitheopanie: Untersuchungen zum jahwistischen und
elohistischen Geschichtswerk, Wurzburg 1971
Zenger, E. Israel am Sinai: Anafysen und Interpretationen zu Exodus 17-34,
Altenberge 19852
Zo. F. Zorell, L. Semkowski, Lexicon Hebraicum et Aramaicum
Veteris Testamend, Roma 1940-54 (1968), 1984
Zohar Transl.: The Zohar translated by H. Spelling and M. Simon,
London et al. 1934
12 ET: Prolegomena to the History o f Israel, Edinburgh 1885.

INTRODUCTION
§ 1 The book o f Exodus: its name; place in the Old Testament; genesis; point o f
departure for its exegesis
1.1 The customary designation for the second book of the OT in the
Christian tradition is ‘Exodus.’ The name stems from the Vulgate and from a
transcription of the title which the book bears in the LXX: 'EôSoq (Alyimxo-o)
‘Exodus (from Egypt)’ (cf. 19:1).* The book is designated in the Jewish
tradition by its initial words: nvatt (nbto). The book of Exodus does not stand
on its own. Its content connects it to the previous book and to the subsequent
books. Exodus, together with Genesis, which precedes it, and Leviticus,
Numbers, and Deuteronomy, which follow, has been regarded by the Jewish
tradition as a separate division of the Bible since ancient times. The ‘Torah’
has become the name by which this division is customarily known. In the
Christian tradition ‘Pentateuch’ has become the prevalent term by which the
five-part work is indicated.*2
1.2 For centuries Moses has been regarded as the author of the five-part
work by Jews, Samaritans, and Christians alike. A variety of diverging theories
concerning the authorship of the Pentateuch have supplanted this traditional
notion since the advent of historical critical bible scholarship. Descriptions of
these theories have omitted in the present context.3 We would like to draw
attention at this juncture to our own judgment, which is that Exodus constitu
tes part of a comprehensive historical work encompassing all the books from
Genesis to 2 Kings. This work narrates the election of Israel from among the
nations for service to y h w h in the land which he has given them, the settle
ment of the people in the land, and their unfaithfulness to y h w h which results
in the exile of the people. It focuses attention on the calling of the people of
Israel throughout history and thereby wishes to make plain to the contempora
ries of the author(s) (in the middle of the sixth century BC) how and why the
catastrophe of 586, the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of Judah, came
about. As such, the work is also a continual summons to repentance and to
faithfulness to y h w h and to his commandments. Restoration of the relation
ship to y h w h can only be hoped for if people repent.
Material from various sources with a different nature and of different ages
has unmistakably been used in compiling the comprehensive work. As it is,
* See also H.B. Swete, An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, Cambridge 1914“, I97ff.
2 See Houtman, Ini. Pent., 13ff., with regard to the above.
See Houtman, Ini. Pent, passim-, of the newer studies concerning Exodus, we would like to
mention E. Blum, Studiett zur [Composition des Pentateuch, Berlin/New York 1990; H. Cazelles,
"Redactions et traditions dans I’Exode," Wien et al. 1977, 37-58; Th.L. Thompson, The Origin
Tradition o f Ancient Israel: I. The Literary Formation o f Genesis and Exodus 1-23, Sheffield 1987.
2 INTRODUCTION
however, the present work possesses a considerable unity. Great creativity has
been displayed in erecting a new edifice using elements which differ as to their
provenance. The work is intended to be a unity and wishes to be understood as
a whole. The point of departure for exegesis in this commentary is therefore
the text as we have it, the product of its final editing. If the principle of the
text as the point of departure for exegesis is taken seriously, the exegete will
also continually bear in mind that the results of literary critical studies may not
be overlooked, for familiarity with the text confronts the exegete with its
undeniable unevenness and tensions which can be explained only in terms of
the complex history of its compilation. The building blocks of the new edifice
can by and large still be recognized and do not always (appear to) dovetail
perfectly. The reader is alerted to the problems which the text imposes upon
us in sub-sections entitled “Introduction to the Exegesis"; the exegesis itself
then deals more extensively with them. Consideration is given to tensions and
unevenness inasmuch as this is necessary with a view to understanding the
book of Exodus in its present form. It does not seem to us that it is the
exegete’s task to reconstruct the history of the book’s compilation. The effect
that springs from the combining of heterogeneous materials should be ac
counted for, however. That effect should be described within the context of the
exegesis even though it may not be possible to establish with certainty whether
the effect of the text was intended by the author(s) (final editors) of the book.
It was mentioned above that Exodus belongs to a comprehensive work
encompassing Genesis to 2 Kings and ought to be understood as a part of the
larger work. Particularly, the connection between Exodus and Genesis must be
borne in mind in an endeavour to understand Exodus. Once one is acquainted
with Genesis, the following question arises: How will God realize the promises
to the patriarchs (Gen. 12:2f.,7; 13:15ff.; 15:7; 17:2,8; 26:4; 28:13ff, etc.)? Will
Jacob’s sons multiply into a vast people and will they live in a land of their
own? The books of Exodus to Joshua answer this question. After indicating in
short order that the promise of abundant progeny has been fulfilled
(Exod. 1:7), the theme that links the material in the books of Exodus to
Joshua is the description of the realization of the promise of the land.4
§ 2 The book of Exodus: text; translation; divisions

2.1 The basis for the translation and interpretation given in the com
mentary is the BHS edition of the MT. Consideration is also given to the text
of the Samaritan Pentateuch, to published Exodus fragments from Qumran,5
and to the rendering of the text given by ancient translations. The intention of
4 For the above, see Houtman, InLPent., 243ff.

5 The publication of 4 QpaleoEx1", comprising the greater part of the text of 6:25-37:15, is still
being awaited; cf. P.W. Skehan, JBL 74 (1955), 182-87; idem, JBL 78 (1959), 21-25; for an analysis
of this scroll see J.E. Sanderson, An Exodus Scroll from Qumran, Atlanta, Georgia 1986.
EXPLANATION OF SEVERAL TERMS 3
the author is devote space in a subsequent volume for a consideration of the

history of the text of Exodus.
2.2 It is not possible within the context of a commentary to deal exten
sively with morphological and orthographical features of the MT of Exodus. A
selection of such features, such as the use of locative n (cf. Ges-K § 90c, d;
Joiion § 93c, d; Meyer § 45c), paragogic t (cf. Ges-K § 29m, 47m; Jouon § 44e)
and the occurrence of defective and plene spelling can be found in
EMATP, I, Iff.; cf. J. Barr, The Variable Spellings of the Hebrew Bible, Oxford
1989. One issue will be examined here. The text of Exodus contains a number
of Kethib(K)-Qere(Q) cases. The majority of these belong to a class of cases
which manifest no difference in meaning or pronunciation but which draw
attention to a change in spelling which has occurred (cf. Barr, 28ff.). Verses
27:11; 28:28; 32:19; 35:11; 39:33 contain plural nouns with third person
masculine singular suffixes rendered in defective K and full Q spelling (cf.
Gordis, 86ff.; see also Barr, 29f.); 22:4,26; 32:17 contain singular nouns with
older third person singular suffixes K as well as later suffixes Q (cf. Gordis,
92ff.). mo K in 4:2 is based on contraction (cf. Isa. 3:15; Ezek. 8:6; see Gordis,
96); m no Q serves as clarification. See with regard to 16:13, ib»n, Num. 11:32,
ib&?n K; v^»n Q (cf. Gordis, 92). In a number of cases, there is a difference in
pronunciation but no difference in meaning (cf. Barr, 30f.). See 37:8; 39:4,
vnnsp k; vrvrap q (cf. Gordis, 124; Q seems to indicate a textual variant here)
alongside of 16:2,7, ir 'n k; Q (niph. imperf. consec. of pb; vs.2); ’nibn K;
q (hiph. imperf. of pb; vs.7). K in verse 2 belongs to the same conjugation
(hiph.) as Q in verse 7, while K in verse 7 belongs to the same conjugation
(niph.) as Q in verse 2 (cf. Num. 14:36; 16:11; see Gordis, 133 [q contains
textual variants]). In 21:8 there is no difference in pronunciation but there is a
difference in meaning: xb ‘not’ k; ib ‘for him’ q ;6 this too indicates a textual
variant according to Gordis; Barr, 31, is of the opinion that xb could have
originally meant ‘for him’; Kellermann, 65f., maintains that xb ‘not’ represents
a later interpretation directed against the established rule.7
2.3 Next to the ancient translations, modern translations, in particular
Dutch translations such as SV, LuthV, LV, CV, WV, NV, GNB, Van der
Palm’s translation,8 as well as other translations such as KJV, NEB and the
6 Cf. Gordis, 150ff., and esp. Kellermann; B. Ognibeni, Traduioni orali di lettura e testo ebraico
della Bibbia, Fribourg 1989.
7 See also BH, I, 225f.; IDBS, 716ff.; J. Barr, “A New Look at Kethib-Qere," OTS 21 (1981),
19-37; M. Breuer, “Clarifying some problems in Biblical accents and vocalization," LeSonSnu 45
(1980-81), 260-9; R. Gordis, The Biblical Text in the Making, New York 1971 (1937); D. Keller
mann, “Korrektur, Variante, Wahllesart?", BZ 24 (1980), 57-75; H.M. Orlinsky, “The Origin of the
Kethib-Qere System," SVT 1 (1960), 184-92.
8 For information regarding these translations, see C. Houtman, Nederlandse Vertalingen van het
Oude Testament, ’s-Gravenhage 1980; A.W.G. Jaakke - E.W. Tuinstra (eds.), Otn een verstaanbare
Bijbel: Nederlandse bijbelvertalingen na de Statenbijbel, Haarlem 1990.
4 INTRODUCTION
Buber-Rozenzweig translation, have been regularly consulted in connection

with the rendition of terms and idiom. With regard to the principles guiding
our translation we suffice with referring to C. Houtman, *De kritiek op de
Groot Nieuws Bijbel in het licht van de kritiek of eerdere Nederlandse
bijbelvertalingen,* NedThT 38 (1984), 265-89.
2.4 The conventional chapter divisions in translations of the Bible stem
from the Vulgate. They acquired their position in the Vulgate at the beginning
of the 13th century. They were adopted in the rabbinical bible of 1516—17 and
have since then been included in most editions of the Hebrew Bible. The
Hebrew text itself, however, attests to a much older division in chapters/
paragraphs the division of pettihdt (main sections) and setumot (sub-sections).
For Oesch (see Bibl.) the Qumran texts lent additional credence to the
position he defends, viz., that the divisions in the Hebrew text are very old
indeed and are the work of those who engaged in the final redaction of the
texts. The aim of these divisions is to delineate related segments of text,
according to him.9 The problem which presents itself with regard to this issue
is that the divisions are characterized by wide variation in the text tradition.
Although the Pentateuch show less variation than the remaining books of the
OT, it is present nevertheless. One has only to compare the text of the BHK3/
BHS to that of BHK1'2 to ascertain this. It is often unclear, for instance,
whether a passage should be regarded as pet&hd or as settima, e.g. 2:1 petuha
(BHK1'2)lsetdmd (BHS); 6:29 situma (BHK' ^/petuha (BHS); 7:14 setuma
(B \\K x'2)lpetuha (BHS); 13:11 petuhd (BHKl-2)lsetam& (BHS).10 Despite
such variations, the material presented by Perrot and Oesch does show that
there is a large measure of agreement with regard to the division of the text
matter. Regardless of how one assesses these ancient divisions, they contribute
to our knowledge of the history of the text’s interpretation. The divisions in
the LXX (Swete [§ 1.1], 342ff.) and the Sam. Pentateuch (Oesch, 309ff.) can
also prove to be of importance.
US C.J. Labuschagne11 has stated that the oracular formulas ( ‘y h w h
spoke,’ etc.) determine the structure of the Pentateuch, particularly that of the
Tetrateuch (Genesis to Numbers). He draws attention to the fact that the
formulas occur in series (the number 7 demanding a prominent position in this
regard) which not only mark the boundaries between divisions in the text but
also serve to connect them together and to provide structure for the text as a
whole. The oracular formulas can indisputably serve to introduce new divisions
9 See also J.M. Oesch, "Textgliederung im Alien Testament und in den Qumranhandschriften,*
Henoch 5 (1983), 289-321.
10 See also the overviews compiled by Perrot (see Bibl.), 60f., 65ff.
11 “The Pattern of the Divine Speech Formulas in the Pentateuch,* VT 32 (1982), 268-81; idem,
VT 34 (1984), 91-5, 407-13. See for Labuschagne’s ‘logotechnical’ approach also his “Neue Wege
und Perspektiven in der Pentateuchforschung,* VT 36 (1986), 146-62; Deuteronomium, la, Nijkerk
1987, 21ff.
in the text. In the Masoretic division of Exodus each new section or sub
section starts with such an utterance (4:27; 6:2,10,13,29; 7:1,8,14,19,26, etc.;
according to Labuschagne only 6:13 forms the beginning of new section).
Labuschagne’s division presents a number of problems, however. The delinea
tion of the sections is often not all that natural. New sections are started by
3:18 and 8:1 according to him. In order to round out the structure which he
discovers, Labuschagne takes into account a good number of Deuteronomistic
(?) additions. The boundaries between the sections delineated by Labuschagne
are not always formed by oracular formulas. These do no occur in certain
sections (e.g. 1:1—3:3; Labuschagne considers 2:23-3:14 as one entity); in
other sections they do not occur adjacently (the first formula after 4:14 occurs
in 4:19; Labuschagne considers 4:18 as the beginning of a new section). In
these cases the division is based on other considerations. All in all there is
reason to question whether Labuschagne has reclaimed the structure of the
Tetrateuch from oblivion.12
2.6 The text of Exodus is discussed one section at a time in the commen
tary. In sub-sections entitled “Introduction to the Exegesis," our division of
the text is justified.
§ 3 Explanation of several terms used in the book of Exodus

To promote a thorough understanding of the text and to justify the transla
tion given, much attention is paid by this commentary to the terminology used.
This section discusses terms used in the book of Exodus, particularly those
that occur very frequently. Consideration of frequently occurring terms whose
use is limited to Exod. 25-40 will be given in the introduction to that particular
section. The remaining terms will be treated in the exegesis. As a rule, they
will be treated in discussing the verse where they first crop up. It goes without
saying that our discussion of terminology must virtually limit itself to the use
of these terms by Exodus. By reporting the frequency with which the terms
discussed are employed in the OT as well as in the book of Exodus, an
impression is given of the relative importance which the terms occurring in
Exodus have within the whole of the OT. The reports on frequency are based
on statistical data in the THAT and TWAT and on our own counts. One can
now also avail oneself of the EMATP for frequencies of word use in Exodus.
Exodus employs about 1300 different terms (excluding proper nouns). Of
these, the accusative particle, frequently occurring prepositions and pronouns,
etc., have not been discussed in a systematic fashion.
3.1.1 inx (OT ca. 95x; Exod. 4x), derivative of inn ‘be behind’ [antonym
iy Cf. P.R. Davies - D.M. Gunn, "Pentateuchal Patterns: An Examination of C.J. Labuschagne’s
Theory,* VT 34 (1984), 399-406. For a more positive assessment see F. Langlamet, *‘Le Seigneur
dit £ Moise...’ Une c!6 de lecture des divisions massor6tiques,* in A. Caquot et al. (eds.), Melanges
bibliques et orientaux en I’honneur de M.M. Delcor, Kevelaer/Neukirchen-Vluyn 1985, 255-74.
6 INTRODUCTION
of ‘be in front o f (see §3.42.2 and 4); cf. 10:14; 33:23] is originally a substan
tive (Joiion § 103a: construct of ins*) can assume the function of an adverb
and a preposition ‘subsequently/ ‘afterwards’ (5:1; cf. Lev. 14:8,19; 15:28),
‘after’ (18:2; cf. Gen. 15:1; 22:1), ‘behind’ (3:1; 11:5; cf. 2 Kgs. 11:6; Cant. 2:9).
As a preposition it is chiefly (when suffixes are used always) the construct
plural of nnR that is used (OT ca. 615x; Exod. 24x). For the use of "in« as a
temporal preposition see 10:14; p'nriNQ) ‘afterwards’ (3:20; 11:1,8; 34:32);
vin* isni ‘his seed after him’ (28:43; cf. Gen. 17:7ff., 19; 35:12); v-inx ‘his
sons after him’ (29:29; cf. Gen. 18:19; Lev. 25:46; Deut. 4:10); followed by infin
itive construct to introduce a temporal clause (7:25).13 As a preposition of
place, —irw ‘after,’ ‘behind’ is used in Exodus in connection with verbs which
express or presuppose movement (14:4,8,9,10,17; 23:2 [2 x]; 33:8; 34:15,
16 [2x]; cf. the use of ' iitrd in 14:19 [2x; cf. Josh. 8:2, 4, 14; lKgs. 10:19]).
Sometimes another translation than ‘behind,’ etc., is preferable.’ See also
Joiion § 103a, n; Brockelmann § 116c; Williams § 357ff.
3.1.2 Several other derivatives of tin are used in Exodus: (cf. Joiion
§20c; OT ca. 165x) ‘an other,’ ‘someone else’ (22:4), ‘another one’ (21:10;
fem. sing.), ‘others,’ ‘another’ (adj.) [34:14; inx unique in the OT; the plural
in the expression o n n * d t 6 r ‘other gods,’ that is, other gods next to y h w h
(20:3; 23:13; cf. Deut. 6:14; 8:19; Josh. 24:2,16; etal.); OT63x]. Tin* (OT
41 x) ‘back(side)’ (26:12; 33:23; cf. 1 Kgs. 7:25; Ezek.8:16); ynrw (see § 4.2.2);
the verb iriR (OT 17x; piel 15x) is used in the piel in 22:28 ‘cause to remain
behind,’ ‘hold’ (in the sense of not [yet] giving it its purpose). See also
THAT, I, 110ff.; TWAT, I, 218ff.; IV, 712f.; F.J. Helfmeyer, Die Nachfolge
Gottes im Alten Testament, Bonn 1968.
3.2.1 (OT ca. 2180x; Exod. 96x), pi. m&j* (cf. Ges-K §96; Joiion
§99b; Meyer §58.8), indicates adult man (as opposed to woman; e.g. 11:2;
21:28,29) and also more generally ‘man’ (as distinct from animals [11:7; 19:13;
Lev. 20:15]). O'&in can mean more specifically troops (17:9; cf. 1 Sam. 18:27;
23:3f.; 24:3; 25:13); cf. L. Kutler, JANES 14 (1982), 69-77. In construct chains
the nomen rectum expresses the quality or the nature of 0'x: practising a
profession (nnrtw ti'K with yhwh in mind [15:3; see 1:10]), possessing a certain
property.14 often occurs in apposition with another substantive; in Exodus
with a gentilic name (2:11,13,19) and with Doan *® (2:14). The meaning which
should be ascribed to ti'tt in the former case is a matter of dispute. One is not
strengthened in the idea that has any special significance before a gentilic
name by 2:11,19 (*13» arx) and 2:12,14 (nson). Must one accept the notion
that O'R indicates no more than belonging to a certain category in the case of
DD01nt> etk (cf. Lev. 21:9; Jer. 38:7)? (KoSynt § 291f, 306o, 333s; Joiion § 131b;
13 Cf. Brockelmann § 145bT); Meyer § 121.3b; Williams § 360.

14 Construct chains often serve to characterize an adjective (4:10; 18:21, 25; 22:30), etc. (12:44)
(cf. KoSynt § 306n; Jouon § 129j; Meyer § 97.4c).
cf. also Brockelmann §63a). The notion that in 2:14 indicates a person
with high office has been defended;15 cf. Gen. 42:30,33; 43:3,5; et al. (see Zo.
in particular). Bearing in mind similar use of »*tt elsewhere (e.g. Gen. 13:8;
Judg. 6:8) makes the notion seem improbable.16 One does get the impression
that the meaning of grttn sometimes tends toward ‘Mr.’ (2:20,21), particularly
when nipo grttn occurs (11:3; cf. Num. 12:3; Judg. 17:5; 1 Kgs. 11:28; Dan. 9:21);
one could, for instance, consider whether or not grxn n»n in 32:1,23 connotes
‘Lord Moses’; in any case, D'g>3«n in 5:9; 10:7 seems to have the denigrating
connotation of ‘those guys.’
3.2.2 #*R is frequently used to characterize pronouns. Thus, ‘a man,’ ‘a
certain person’ (2:1) is used to indicate the indefinite pronoun ‘someone,’
‘people,’ ‘whoever’ (21:7,12,14,16,20,26,33,37; 22:4,6; 30:33,38; et al.);
negatively ‘no one’ (2:12; 10:23; 12:22; 16:19,29; 33:4; etal.) (Ges-K § 139d;
Jouon § 147b; Brockelmann § 36b; Meyer § 94.8a);17 with the distributive
sense of ‘each,’ ‘every’ (1:1; 7:12; 11:2; 12:3,4; 16:16,18,21,29; 28:21; 30:12;
39:14) (possibly to be translated as ‘all’); cf. also gTK'ô ‘everyone,’ ‘all’ (25:2;
35:21-23; 36:1,2) and gTK'gTN ‘man for man,’ ‘each’ (36:4; cf. Num. 4:19,49;
Ezek. 14:4,7) (Ges-K § 123x, 139b, c; Jouon § 135d, 147d; Williams § 131). grx
is sometimes used in conjunction with irnn18 (see 2:13) and with vnt< (see
1:6) to express a relationship of reciprocity (Ges-K § 139e; Jouon § 147c;
Meyer § 31.4d; Williams § 132).
3.2.3 Similar remarks can be made concerning r\m (OT ca. 780 x; Exod.
38 x), construct n»K, plural O'gn (Ges-K §96; Jouon §97c; 99c; Meyer §58.9),
‘(adult) woman’ (e.g. 2:2; 19:15; 21:22). ‘Woman’ is often used in Exodus for a
woman belonging to a man, or a wife (4:20; 6:20,23,25; 18:2,5,6; 20:17; 21:3,
4,5; et al.; cf. the use of »*k for ‘husband’ in Gen. 3:6,16; 16:3; 29:32,34).
occurs in apposition19 and is used in the distributive sense (3:22; 11:2; cf.
nghrfe in 35:25) and to indicate reciprocity (see 1:6). See also THAT, I 130ff.,
247ff.; TWAT, I, 238ff.
33.1 tan (OT ca. 800x; qal ca. 740x; Exod. 52x) is used in Exodus with
animals as subject (23:11; cf. Gen. 37:20,33; 40:17,19), especially of ‘devouring’
by locusts (10:5 [2 x], 12,15; cf. Joel 1:4; 2:25; 2Chr. 7:13), bit as a rule it is
used with people as the subject to indicated the eating of meat (16:8,12),
manna (16:25,35 [2x], etal.), etc.; generally takes an accusative (e.g. 23:11)
15 A.D. Crown, VT 24 (1974), 110ff.; B. Couroyer, RB 89 (1982), 48ff.

16 Cf. also R. Gelio, Rivista Biblica 31 (1983), 411-34.
^ Cf. the use of DT03N in 16:20 with the meaning ‘some’; whether ‘someone’ serves to indicate a
man or a person is a somewhat problematical issue; in view of 21:12 one may tend towards the
latter, but in 11:2; 21:28, 29; 35:6, 22, 29 both 2TK and HttfK are mentioned explicitly when every
(adult) person is intended.
18 See e.g. 33:11 ‘a man (person) to another man (person).’
19 1:19; 2:7 (cf. Gen. 24:59; 35:8, where nttfK has been omitted); cf. Judg. 4:4; Josh. 2:1; 6:22;
1 Kgs. 17:10.
8 INTRODUCTION
but also occurs with p (e.g. 34:14) or 3 (12:43f.). Qal ^DR+orf? ‘bread’ (2:20)
has the sense of ‘eating,’ ‘consuming a meal’ (2:20; 16:3; 18:12; cf. Gen. 3:19;
31:54; 37:25; 43:25,32), but such a translation is not always possible or
desirable (e.g. 34:28 and 16:32 hiph.). Qal ôx+nn® ‘drink’ (7:18) is used to
indicate the enjoyment of a full meal (with the result that one feels good)
(24:11; 32:6; 34:28; cf. Gen. 25:34; 26:30; Judg. 19:4,21; 2 Sam. 11:11,13;
et al.).20 Often qal ôx is used in connection with dietary regulations: for the
passover 12:7,8 (2x), 9,11 (2x), 15 (2x), 18,19 (2x), 20 (2x), 43,44,45,48;
13:6; 23:15; 34:18; see also the use of the niph. in 12:16,46; 13:3,7), for priests
(29:32,33 [2x] and 29:34 niph.), and more generally (22:30 and 21:28 niph.).
Qal ^>dr is used in 18:12; 32:6; 34:15 for the use of a sacrificial meal (cf.
Gen. 31:54; Deut. 12:7,18; Ezek. 18:6,11; 22:9). tax occurs metaphorically with
®x as subject (3:1) to mean ‘burn,’ ‘consume’ (24:17 qal; 22:5 niph.; 3:1 pual;
cf. Num. 16:35; 26:10 and see also Exod. 15:7).
33.2 Two derivatives of Vdx occur in Exodus: n^px (OT 18 x) ‘food’
(16:15); i'tdx in the expression ibnx 'zb ®'x ‘each according to his need/appetite’
(12:4; 16:16,18,21) is regarded as a substantive+suffix pox (OT ca. 40x)
‘food’(Gen. 41:35, etc.); according to Mandelkern, Ges-B, Zo., HAL] and as a
qal inf. construct+suffix of i?DX (according to DBD; THAT, 1, 140). See also
THAT, I, 138ff.; TWAT, I, 252ff.; R. Smend, "Essen und Trinken - ein Stuck
Weltlichkeit des Alten Testaments," in Fs W. Zimmerli, Beitrage zur Alttes-
tamentlichen Theologie, Gottingen 1977, 446-59.
3.4.1 dr (OT 1060x; Exod. 60x) is a particle that is used in the great
majority of cases in Exodus to introduce a conditional sentence (Ges-K § 159;
Jouon § 167; Meyer § 122) that refers to a situation in the past or the future
which - if it is/will be real - will(can)/should/ought to result in the event/mea-
sure/action indicated by the apodosis. Both the protasis introduced by dr as
well as the apodosis can be constructed in different ways without consequences
to the meaning of the sentence: protasis+imperf. and apodosis+imperf. (20:25;
21:3a, 9,10,27,32; 22:3,6,11,12,16,26); protasis+imperf. and apodosis+perf.
(4:8,9; 12:4; 13:13; 21:5,11,21,23,30; 22:7a; 23:22; 29:34; 34:20); protasis+
imperf. and nominal apodosis (22:24); protasis+perf. and nominal apodosis
(22:2); nominal protasis and apodosis+ imperf. (22:14; 33:15)/+perf. (1:16;
21:3b, 8; 22:2b)/with nominal apodosis (7:27; 8:17; 9:2; 10:4). A participle
occurs as predicate in a nominal clause more than once. The protasis and/or
apodosis may comprise more than one waw-consec. clause, e.g. 15:26 (protasis:
imperf., imperf. perf. consec., perf. consec.; apodosis: imperf.), 18:23 (protasis:
imperf. perf. consec.; apodosis: perf., imperf.), 21:4 (protasis: imperf., perf.
consec.; apodosis: imperf., imperf.) 21:29 (protasis: nominal clause, perf.
consec., imperf., perf. consec.; apodosis: imperf., imperf.). The connection
More than once the term refers to a surfeit of eating and drinking, or orgy; e.g. 32:6;
Judg. 9:27; 1 Sam. 30:16; 1 Kgs. 1:25.
between protasis and apodosis can be realized by a copula (1:16; 4:8,9; 13:13;
etc.) but can also be asyndetic (12:4; 15:26; 20:25; etc.). The finite verb occurs
in the protasis together with the infinitive absolute of the same verb more than
once (19:5; 21:5; 22:3,11,12,16,25; 23:22); in 22:2 the same phenomenon in
the apodosis. Sometimes ok also expresses a temporal in addition to the
conditional aspect (Jouon § 166p), ‘each time/whenever’ (1:16; 40:37). An
adequate translation often demands insertion of the auxiliary verb ‘must’ in the
apodosis (1:16; 4:9; 12:4; 13:13; 21:3a, 4; etc.); sometimes the insertion of ‘may’
(1:16; 20:25; 21:3b, 10,11; 22:24) or ‘shall’ (22:12) is desirable. The apodosis
can also have the nature of an order, as is demonstrated by the use of the
prohibitive in 33:15.
3.4.2 dr is also used in questions, particularly when there is a double
question: first element+ interrogative n, second element+DR ‘either... or’;
(17:7) (cf. Ges-K § 150c-i; Jouon § 161d-f; Meyer § 111.3a, 114.4b). dr occurs in
elliptical clauses; see 22:7b ‘(to find out) whether he ...’; 22:10 ‘(one will find
out/it will appear) that he ...’; in 32:32 the apodosis must be added in thought,
‘If you will forgive their sins (then it is good) ...’21 (cf. Ges-K § 159dd; Jouon
§ 167r; Meyer § 122.3c). A clause introduced by dr can refer to a situation
realized in the past which functions as a plea, a wish, or a command (33:13
with imperative in the apodosis; 34:9 with jussive in the apodosis). or . . . dr
occurs in 19:13 with the meaning ‘whether ... or.’ See §3.25.2 for dr *3. See
also M.M. Bravmann, “West-Semitic Conditional Conjunction ’im, ’in and
some Related Particles of Arabic and Akkadian,* Museon 84 (1970), 241-48;
C. van Leeuwen, “Die Partikel or," OTS 18 (1973), 15-48.
3.5.1 naR (OT ca. 5300 x; mainly in the qal; Exod. ca. 300 x; idr'I ca.
145 x) ‘say,’ ‘speak’ never indicates speech without telling what is said (see
19:25, however), in contrast to the piel of *oi (§3.12). Qal ior has a much
richer significance than ‘say’: it can mean ‘think,’ ‘consider,’ ‘intend’ (without
lab Vk, or ia » too) (2:14; 3:3; 5:5?; 13:17; 14:3; etal.),22* ‘ask’ (1:18;
2:13,18,20; 3:13; 5:4; etal.), ‘answer’ (1:19; 2:14; 3:4,1 Iff.; etal.), ‘order,’
‘command’ (1:15,16; 2:9; 4:23; 5:16; et al.), ‘explain,’ ‘assure’ (9:27; 10:16; 21:5;
22:8), ‘promise,’ ‘pledge’ (32:13), ‘object to’ (3:11,13; 4:1,10). idr is often used
with God as subject to indicate his revelation: to Moses (4:21; 6:1,2; 7:1; et al.)
but also to Aaron (4:27) and to both together (7:8; 12:1).B idr is also used
of Moses’ speaking to God (3:11,13; 4:1,10; 5:22f.; etal.). Moses repeatedly
announces himself to Pharaoh as the authorized representative of y h w h with
the messenger formula adopted from secular usage (5:10; cf. Gen. 32:5f.;
Num.22:15ff.; etal.); note the use of the formula, mmoR rb, in 4:22; 5:1;
21
It is also possible to translate as an appeal, "Oh, please forgive
Cf. N.P. Bratsiotis, "Der Monolog im Alten Testament," ZAW 13 (1961), 30-70.
Cf. J. Lindblom, "Die Vorstellung vom Sprechen Jahwes zu den Menschen im A.T.", ZAW 15
(1963), 263-88.
10 INTRODUCTION
7:17,26; 8:16; 9:1; 10:3 (cf. also 3:10; 7:16); he announces himself similarly to
the people (e.g. 11:4; 32:27; cf. 3:14ff.; 6:5ff.; 19:3ff.; 20:22ff.; etal.).24
3.5.2 -inub (Exod. ca. 50 x), qal inf. construct +5 (Ges-K § 23d; Jouon
§ 24e, 73g, 103b; Meyer §25.2,77. Id, 87.2c), indicates a breathing stop for
direct speech after ‘say,’ ‘call,’ etc. (to be rendered as a colon) (1:16,22; 5:8,10;
6:10,12,29; et al.). When TOKb follows a verb which does not indicate a specific
expression it can mean ‘(in order) to say’ (e.g. 3:16; 7:16), but it must often be
rendered as ‘with the words/the message,’ “while he spoke,’ etc. (e.g. 5:13,14,
19; 9:4). See also THAT, l, 211ff.; TWAT, I, 353ff.; J. Heller, “Sagen und
Sprechen," in Aufsittze zum Alten Testament, Frankfurt am Main 1988, 117-23;
Labuschagne (see § 2.5); S. Moscati, "La radice semitica ’mr,” Bib 27 (1946),
115-26.
3.6 pi* (OT ca. 2500 x; Exod. 136 x) ‘earth,’ ‘land’ indicates the cosmos
when used in conjunction with heaven, its opposite (19:5; 20:4,11; 31:17;
34:10) (cf. Houtman, Himmel, 26ff.). It is not always possible to ascertain
whether ‘earth’ is intended in the most inclusive sense or whether ‘land’ is
intended (9:14-16,29; ‘earth’ is the term of preference). In 4:3; 8:12f.; 9:22,33;
10:5,12,15; 15:12; 16:14; 23:10; 34:8 p n indicates ‘soil,’ ‘the ground.’ In all
other cases in Exodus the meaning is ‘land (region)’: onsp p tt (4:20; 5:12;
6:13,26,28; etc.; at least 55x), put (8:18; 9:26), )S?3?pR (6:4; 16:35), etc.
pttn in 1:7 apparently signifies the territory of Egypt;25 compare the use of
pttn in 1:10; 3:8; 8:10,20; 12:33. Elsewhere pttn seems to signify the territory
of Goshen (8:18) or Canaan (12:19,48; 23:29ff.; 34:12,15,24; etc.).26 The
meaning ‘underworld’ has also been ascribed to pt<, with an appeal to the
Ugaritic; W.L. Holladay, V T 19 (1969), 123f., has incorrectly ascribed this
meaning to p n in 1:10; 15:12 as well. See also THAT, I, 227ff.; TWAT, I,
423ff.; Stadelmann, If., 6 ,9f., et al.; S. Talmon, ScrHie 8 (1961), 348f.
3.7.1 (OT ca. 5500x; Exod. 309x, of which f t p ca. 50x [1:12],
lx [16:16], itffNn 3x [5:11; 29:27(2x)])27 assumes the function of a relative
pronoun and that of a conjunction. In the first function serves to introd
uce dependent relative clauses which modify a previously mentioned an
tecedent, substantive or pronoun (1:8,14,15; 4:18,21,28,30; etc.),28 or
24 Cf. J. Lindblom, Prophecy in Ancient Israel, Oxford 1962, 55, 103f., 109, 148ff.; N.H. Ridder-
bos, “Einige Bemerkungen iiber den Propheten als Boten von Jahwe," in Fs M.A. Beek, Travels in
the World o f the Old Testament, Assen/Amsterdam 1974, 211-16; D.U. Rottzoll, “Die kh ’mr...-
Legitimationsformel," VT 39 (1989), 323-40.
^ Often identified with the land of Goshen/Raamses (Gen. 45:10 and particularly 47:27; see
§ 8.31); it is sometimes assumed that the Israelites had also settled beyond Goshen.
26 is used ca. 25x with or without further specification to signify Canaan (see also 3:8, 17;
6:8; 12:25; 13:5, 11; 32:13; 33:1, 3).
27 Cf. Ges-K § 36, 38, 155; Jouon § 38, 145, 158; Meyer § 31.3, 115.4a; Williams § 462.
28 Cf. Ges-K § 138a-d; Jouon § 145a, 154f, 157a, b, 158e-k, n, q; Meyer § 115.4b, c; Williams
§463.
indicates ‘the one, who,’ ‘that, that which’ in independent relative clauses
(subject or object clauses) without any antecedent (e.g. 4:12; 14:13b; 22:8b);
with preposition, h &rd ‘from there, where’ (5:11), -» r bx ‘to there, where’
(32:34).29
3.7.2 ibx assumes the function of a conjunction in various ways. When it
follows verbs denoting a mental act such as ‘see,’ ‘hear,’ etc., it is used in the
sense of ‘that’ to introduce object clauses (e.g. 6:1; ll:? ) ;30 *» r is used to
introduce causal clauses (e.g. 5:21; 19:18)31 with or without preposition,32
temporal clauses (17:11; 32:19,20),3334 final clauses (4:17; 20:26), or con
secutive clauses (e.g. 5:2).35 In addition, b ~\m can modify property or author
ship (e.g. 38:30);36 i»x is used in 33:19 in the sense of “whoever at all’ (cf.
Joiion § 158o and see § 7.3.2) in 10:6; 34:18 "it&x has the same meaning as
( 1:12).
3.8 RID (OT ca. 2570x; Exod. 124x; qal 78x; hiph. 45x; hoph. lx )
‘come (in),’ ‘enter,’ ‘go’ is the most frequently occurring verb of movement in
the OT. Exodus usage does not raise problems. It is worth noting that qal rid
is used for going to Canaan (12:25; 16:35; 34:12) while hiph. rid is used for
being brought to Canaan (with yhwh or his messenger as the subject) (6:8;
13:5,11; 15:17; 23:20,23); compare the use of RX' and nby (see §3.24.2 and
3.29.2). See also THAT, I, 264ff.; TWAT, I, 536ff.; E. Jenni, * ‘Kommen’ im
theologischen Sprachgebrauch des Alten Testaments," in Fs W. Eichrodt,
Wort-Gebot-Glaube, Zurich 1970, 251-61; P. Joiion, Bib 17 (1936), 94ff.
3.9.1 n'D (OT ca. 2050 x; Exod. 59 x), plural otid (Ges-K §96; Joiion §98f;
Meyer § 58.15), is used to indicate both a house as well as a class of people.
n'D can be used for any type of abode from the pauper’s hut to the palace of
the king37 (e.g. 3:22; 8:9; 12:30; 22:6,7). n'D recurrently indicates Pharaoh’s
house (7:23,28; 8:20)38 and the houses of his courtiers (sing, in 7:28; 8:20;
plural in 10:6; the singular is generally regarded as a collective noun). Since
man and cattle often lodged under the same roof and in the same room, it is
not strange that n'D can also be used for the cattle’s abode (9:19,20; 6:7,10;
29 Cf. Ges-K § 138e, f; Joiion § 145a, 157f, 158g, I, m; Meyer § 115.5a, b, c; Williams § 463.
30 Cf. Ges-K § 157a, c; Joiion § 157c; Brockelmann § 160b; Meyer § 114.2b; Williams § 464.
31 Cf. Ges-K § 158b; Joiion § 170e, f, g, i; Brockelmann § 163a; Meyer § 120.2 Williams § 468.
32 Cf. Ges-K § 104b; Joiion § 104b; Meyer § 88.2.3.
33 Cf. Ges-K § 164d, f; Joiion § 166n; Brockelmann § 163b; Meyer 121.3b.
34 Cf. Ges-K § 165b; Joiion § 168f; Brockelmann § 161b; Meyer § 117.2; Williams § 466.
35 Cf. KoSynt § 395c; Ges-K § 107u, 166b; Joiion § 169f; Meyer § 118.2; Williams § 465.
36 Cf. Ges-K § 129h; Joiion § 130e; Meyer § 97.3f.
37
As a rule, IV3 is used to denote a domicile constructed from clay, wood, or stone as distinct
from bnx (16:16); cf. BRL, 266ff., 409ff.; DB, II, 431ff.; IDB, I, 209ff.; II, 657.
38 Plural q'nnD 'n 8:5, 7,17; 10:6 (cf. sing, in 7:28); is this a case of an extensive plural (Ges-K
§ 124b; Joiion § 136c), i.e., a complex of buildings?; or does *your houses’ (cf. 7:28; 8:20) signify
the houses of Pharaoh and his courtiers and the houses of the Egyptians (cf. 8:17) in general? (see
10:6, however).
12 INTRODUCTION
Judg. 19:18ff.; 1 Sam. 6:7,10). The very general character of rrn is manifested in
particular by the expression lian n*a (12:29; Jer. 37:16), an empty cistern or a
dried up well used as jail (cf. DB, IV, 130; IDB, I, 874; III, 891f.). Egypt is
designated in 13:3,14; 20:2 (cf. Deut. 5:6; 6:12; et al.) as D"Qi? n*3 ‘slaves’
house.’ n*3 can designate any type of sacred site when used to indicate the
dwelling of a divinity (23:19; 34:26), a sanctuary (1 Sam. 1:7,24; et al.) or even
a spot marked by a cult attribute (Gen. 28:17).39
3.9.2 r a can serve to indicate a kinship group but can also indicate a
community constituted by some other unifying factor. The head of the com
munity, the patriarch or the leader, leaves his mark on the whole community
(cf. De Geus, 127ff., 134ff.; Johnson, The One, 4; Pedersen, I-II, 46ff.; Thiel,
39ff., llOff.). The distinction between ivd and ‘sib’ (see 6:14), and the terms for
‘tribe’ (see §3.21.10) is fluid.40 m can thus be used for larger (16:31; 40:38;
19:3)41 and for smaller communities (1:1,21; 2:1; 12:3f.). r o often designates
a group residing under a single roof (e.g. Gen. 7:1,13; cf. Exod. 3:22), the
parents with their children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren (cf. 20:5 and
see Gen. 46:3ff.), but also includes the slaves (e.g. Gen. 14:14; 17:12f.) and
goods and property (cf. 20:17; Josh. 7:24 and Gen. 30:30; 39:4f.; 44:1,4;
Esth. 8:1); 1:1; 12:3,4 (cf. 22:7) indicates such a group, nisi* n*3 (OT 79x;
Exod. 6:14; 12:3) is the community, or family, or clan established by the
fathers, max fra is usually considered as the plural of 2K rra (KoSynt § 267h;
Ges-K § 124r; Joiion § 136n; Meyer § 97.3d). It seems doubtful to us that this
is indeed the case in 6:14; 12:3; a tribe is apparently meant in 6:14; in 12:3 a
smaller group (see above) seems to be intended. J.P. Weinberg, “Das beit ’abot
im 6-4. Jh. v.u.Z," VT 23 (1973), 400-14, concludes on the basis of a study of
Ezra and Nehemiah (in particular) that matt n'a designates a social entity
comparable to the agnatic groups we know from ancient Iran, ‘ein Verband
vieler Familien’, ‘die miteinander durch Abstammung von drei bis sechs
Generationen friiher lebenden Stammvater Oder Verwandtschaft (reale Oder
fingierte) mit demselben verbunden waren’ (p.407).42
3.9.3 d tq is used as a technical term to indicate frames for ‘bars’ (26:29;
36:3) and ‘poles’ (25:27; 30:4; 37:14,27). n*a can be used adverbially and as a
preposition: rrao ‘inside’ (25:11; 37:2); b irao ‘within’ (26:33; cf. Ges-K § 130a
n. 2); nn*a (with locative n) ‘inwards’ (28:26; 39:19). See also THAT, I, 308ff.;
TWA T, I, 629ff.
39 Cf. K.D. Schunck, Numen 18 (1971), 132-40; see A. Soffer, JBL 75 (1956), 144f. regarding
the LXX translation.
40 Cf. J.W. Rogerson, Anthropology and the Old Testament, Oxford 1978, 93ff.
41 IT'D interchangeable with '3D; see S. Talmon, ScrHie 8 (1961), 346ff.
4^ For the terminology, see also J. Scharbert, "Btyt ’db als soziologische Grosse im Alten
Testament," in Fs J.P.M. van der Ploeg, Von Kanaan bis Kerala, Kevelaer/Neukirchen-Vluyn 1982,
213-37 (2K fTD ‘Grossfamilie’; IVQN rTD is the plural of DN JTD).
3.10.1 1? (OT ca. 4900x; Exod. 233x), construct *p (almost always with
maqqep; rarely p, but always pa*p [e.g. 33:11]); plural cm. n? (OT ca. 580x;
Exod. 23 x), plural nils (cf. Ges-K §96; Joiion §98d; Meyer §33.3,58.4.5). p
often indicates one’s ‘own son’ (2:2,22; 4:20,23b, 25; etc.)43 and na one’s ‘own
daughter’ (2:5,7,8,9,10 [‘the daughter of Pharaoh’ 5x], 16,21; 21:7; 34:16);
compare the use of mn (2:2) and/or *6* (1:15) with respect to p and ro (2:2,
22; 21:4; cf. 1:16,22). 13 and ro are used in contexts where we would sooner
say ‘boy’ and ‘girl’ (1:16,22 [collective]; 21:31) and are often used together
both in the singular and the plural (1:16; 20:10; 21:9, 31; 34:16), ‘son or
daughter’= ‘child’ (21:31; cf. 20:10); ‘sons and/or daughters’ = ‘children’ (3:22;
10:9; 21:4 32:2). 13 (cf. t 1?'; see 1:15) also occurs in the sense of ‘child’ (10:2;
possibly 13:8,14 as well) and d*o in the sense of ‘children’ (17:3; 21:5; 22:23;
34:7; and possibly 12:26). ‘Grandchild’ is designated by q;3*p (10:2; cf. 34:7
pi.). D'I3 can also indicate descendants in a more general sense (12:24; 20:5); cf.
‘jin®* *33 (see §8.13.1).
3.10.2 p and ro often occur in conjunction with another term, for instance,
in formulations which indicate the identity of a particular person, e.g. ‘Bezalel,
the son of Uri, the son of Hur’ (31:2; 35:30; etal.);44 cf. 6:15,25; 31:6; 33:11;
35:34; 38:23; ‘the daughter of Pharaoh’ (2:5; etc.); cf. 6:23,25. p and ro can
express the fact that one belongs to a certain class or group, etc. (cf. Joiion
§ 129j; Meyer § 94.4b, c), ~ orp ‘foreigner’ (12:43), noK*p ‘slave’ (see § 3.37.3),
"6 *33 (32:26,28) and may be employed in expressions which indicate the age
of a person or animal (7:7; 12:5; 29:38; 30:14; 38:26). p is used with respect to
animals to indicate one specimen (not ‘a young (one)’) of a certain sort: -ij?3*p
‘one steer of the cattle’ (29:1). See also THAT, I, 316ff.; TfVAT, I, 668ff., 867ff.
3.10.3 Israel is called ‘son’ by y h w h metaphorically in 4:22-23a; cf. Hos. 11:1;
Wisd.l8:13 and the use of o*)3 in Deut. 14:1; 32:5,19f.; (cf. Deut. 32:6,18);
Isa. 1:2; 43:6; 45:11; 63:8; Jer. 3:14,19,22; Hos. 2:1. See also P.A.H. de Boer, De
zoon van God in het Oude Testament, Leiden 1958 (English transl. in OTS 18
(1973) , 188-207); H. Haag, “Sohn Gottes im Alten Testament,” ThQ 154
(1974) , 223-231; V. Huonder, Israel Sohn Gottes, Freiburg/Gottingen 1975;
W. Schlisske, Gottessdhne und Gottesohn im Alten Testament, Stuttgart 1973;
Vriezen, 188f.; idem, Verkiezing, 102f.
3.11.1 os (OT ca. 765x; Exod. 40x; often joined to the previous word by a
maqqep; D3 can refer to the whole previous clause, however; cf. Ges-K § 153) is
a particle that can be used to express a variety of nuances. It often adds
emphatic force: 3:9 (‘indeed’); 4:14 (Kirrran 03i“D3 ‘truly,’ is reinforced by run
‘he himself in person’); 5:2 (+negation: ‘positively not’); 10:24 (‘evidently’);
43 Often ‘Aaron and his sons’ are mentioned (27:21; 28:1, 4; 29:3, 4; etc. [ca. 30x]).
44 The last name need not be the name of the grandfather but can also be the name of the
(forefather) of the clan to which the person concerned belongs; cf. J.P. Weinberg, VT 23 (1973),
407f.
14 INTRODUCTION
12:32b (‘definitely’; +piel "pa ‘part for good’); 19:9 (‘truly,’ ‘entirely’); 33:12
(‘truly’), 17 (‘indeed,’ ‘surely’); sometimes it also expresses a certain climax:
‘even’ (8:17; 19:22); +negation: ‘not even’ (4:9; 34:3 [2x]; in 12:39 possibly
‘not at all’).
3.11.2 Often m indicates an addition: ‘also,’ ‘above all’ (7:23; 8:28; 12:38;
21:29,35);45 sometimes a certain climax is expressed; 1:10 (‘going from bad to
worse’); 2:19; 11:3. m(i) ... m can (see 12:32, however: ‘an d ... and’; cf. 10:24)
mean ‘both... and,’ ‘not only... but also’ (+negation: ‘neither... nor’; 5:14;
6:4f.; 10:25f.; 12:31; 18:18). In 7:11; 18:23 m expresses correlation: ‘in turn.’ See
also Ges-K § 153,154a; Brockelmann § 68a, 130b; Williams § 378-82; M. Da-
hood, in Melanges E. Tisserant, I, Rome 1964, 86; idem, Bib 45 (1964), 399;
C.J. Labuschagne, "The Emphasizing Particle gam and its Connotations," in
Fs Th.C. Vriezen, Studia Biblica et Semitica, Wageningen 1966, 193-203;
F. McDaniel, Bib 49 (1968), 31f.; C.H.J. van der Merwe, The Old Hebrew
particle gam, St. Ottilien 1990.
3.12.1 *oi (OT 1125x; Exod. 87 x) is used primarily in the piel (qal only
ca. 40x; almost exclusively as a participle, as in Exod. 6:29) in the sense of
‘speak,’ ‘say,’ ‘address,’ ‘announce.’ In contrast to "intt (see § 3.5.1), the piel of
131 can also be used to indicate speech as an activity of God or man which can
occur without mention (by means of direct speech) of what is said (1:17; 4:10,
12,15,16; 5:23; etc.); piel "Oi can be used absolutely (e.g. 4:14); "iqr*? generally
follows to introduce direct speech (e.g. 6:10,12; 7:9; see § 3.5.2) (see 9:1; 32:7;
33:1, however); possibly tor*!? too (6:2);46 piel *m can be used with an ac
cusative (e.g. 4:30; 6:29; 7:2a); to indicate the person addressed bn is generally
used (1:17; 4:10,15; etc.), but also other particles such as nR (25:22; 31:18;
34:29,32-35; cf. 34:34b: +Vr ), 5 (32:34), and w (20:19, [2x]; 33:9). *m has a
significance richer than ‘speak’: ‘charge,’ ‘command,’ ‘prescribe,’ ‘direct,’
‘determine’ (1:17; 11:2; 16:23; 19:8; 23:22; 24:3,7),47 ‘announce’,48 ‘threaten’
(32:14), Visit,’ ‘ask’ (12:31,32; 33:17), ‘promise,’ ‘pledge’ (12:25; 32:13),
‘counsel,’ ‘instill’ (30:31; 31:13), ‘notify’ (19:6; 32:34). Often yhwh is the
subject of 121, for instance, in the formula ib*6 mrr i r n ‘and yhwh
addressed Moses with the (following) words’ (6:10,29; 13:1; 14:1; 16:11; 25:1;
30:11,17,22; 31:1; 40:1; cf. 32:7; 33:1).
3.12.2 The subtleties which characterize the verb are echoed in the use of
^ In 7:23; 8:28 the translation ‘even’ lends itself for consideration but an interpretation with the
sense of ‘but also’ is to be preferred.
46 Piel 121, particularly with IDN^, is interchangeable with 1DK (see 6:12 alongside of 6:30);
there are 14 passages in the Pentateuch where the Sam. Pent, has 121 and the MT has 1DK (incl.
Exod. 5:10; 7:8, 14f., 26; 20:22; 30:34; 31:12; 36:5); the Sam. Pent, has 1DN in 9:1 while the MT has
121; see S. Talmon, ScrHie 8 (1961), 344f.
^ Compare also the use of imperative (6:11; 14:2, 15; 25:2) or jussive (28:3) 121, followed by a
final clause introduced by a w9w copula: ‘address X with the message that X must
48 In the formula mil* T3T TBRD (7:22; 8:11, 15; cf. 9:12, 35).
337 as a substantive noun (OT ca. 1440 x; Exod. 62x; sing 39 x; pi. 23 x),
‘tiding’ (33:4), ‘reauest,’ “wish’ (8:6,9,27; 33:17), ‘order’ (12:35; 32:28), ‘pre
cept,’ ‘ordinance’;49 the plural is used of people’s words (4:10,15; 19:8,9) and
of y h w h ’s (4:28,30); the words of y h w h can have the character of
‘commands,’ ‘ordinances’ (19:6,7; 20:1; 24:3 [2x], 4,8; 34:1,27 [2x], 28 [2x];
35:1); mn— 157 (9:20,21; OT ca. 240x; especially in the prophetic books)
indicates the divine word mediated by Moses.
3.123 also functions as a not vety concrete term with a very general
significance of which the meaning is largely determined by the context, by an
attribute, or by inclusion in a construct chain (e.g. +3j?», see 5:9; -Mora or, see
§ 3.23.1); thus, 333 occurs in the sense of ‘incident’ (2:14,15), ‘dispute,’ ‘(legal)
contest’ (18:16,22 [2x], 26 [2x]; 22:8 [2x]; 23:7?; pi. 18:19; 23:8; 24:14); 333 is
used in a severely weakened sense to render the indefinite pronoun, ‘some
thing’ (9:4; ‘one of the cattle’); -(-negation, ‘nothing’ (5:11; cf. 5:19) (cf.
Brockelmann § 24f; Meyer § 31.4b); the meaning of *otn (18:17,18) or rnn *077
(1:18; 9:5f.; 14:12; 18:14,23; cf. 16:16; etc.; see above) often corresponds to
‘this,’ ‘that’ (the meaning is apparent from the context);50 with a preposition,
131 can assume the function of a preposition or conjunction: 333-*?» ‘in
relation to,’ ‘because,’ ‘since’ (8:8; cf. 22:8 and see Joiion § 129q); 3®r 1312
‘because,’ ‘since’ (18:11). 331 is often the object of piel 331 (cognate accusative)
(4:30; 14:12; 19:6; 20:1; 24:3; 33:17) and other verbs of speaking (4:28; 16:16,
32; 19:7,9; et al.). See also THAT, I, 433ff.; TWAT, II, 89ff.; M. Hutter,
“Bemerkungen uber das ‘Wort Gottes’ bei den Hethitern,’ BN 28 (1985), 17-
26; Labuschagne (see § 2.5); R. Fernhout, Woord en naam in de religies,
Kampen 1979; Steingrimsson, 299ff.; Z. Talshir, "The Detailing Formula wezeh
(had)dabar', Tarbiz 51 (1981), 23-35 (Hebr.).
3.13.1 rrn (OT ca. 3600 x [primarily qal]; Exod. 235 x [niph. 11:6]) can be
used to indicate a circumstance, for instance the presence of a person at a
certain place (24:18; 34:28) and for ‘being large’ in number (1:5; 38:24), but
also for an activity, a development which is being actualized, for instance, the
‘breaking’ of dawn (10:13), the ‘breaking out’ of sores (9:10f.), the ‘outbreak’ of
shouting (12:30) (cf. Joiion § 11 li). rrn is often used as a coupling verb in
nominal clauses for the sake of an accurate indication of time; the perf. refers
to the past as a rule (1:5; 2:22; 8:13; 9:26; etal.); the imperf. refers to the
future (7:1; 10:14);51* nominal clauses with a participial predicate possess a
49 12:24; cf. 29:1 and see the formula T IT T 3 3BK 3377 HI; ‘This is what YHWH has
commanded’ (16:16, 32; 35:4).
50 is not infrequently used with a like meaning as the object of H&W (1:18; 9:5f.; 18:14, 17,
23; 29:1; see, however, 24:3; 33:17).
^ Cf. Ges-K § 141g, i; Joiion § 154m; Riesener, 17ff.; T.W. Thacker, “Compound Tenses
Containing the Verb ‘Be’ in Semitic and Egyptian,- in Fs G.R. Driver, Hebrew and Semitic Studies,
Oxford 1963, 156-71.
16 INTRODUCTION
durative, iterative aspect (e.g. 3:1; 19:15; cf. Ges-K § 116r; Brockelmann §44c;
Meyer § 104.2g); see also the use of the perf. consec. (16:5; 19:11; 26:6; etal.)
and that of the imperf. consec. (1:5; 17:12; 36:13). n*n is also used for the
verbalization of nouns; see for instance, 9:26 (‘hailstoning’; cf. 9:18).
3.13.2 rrn+b is used with a variety of meanings: ‘change into’ (4:3,4; 7:10),
‘befall’ ‘has become o f (32:1,23), ‘have,’ ‘own’ (10:23; 20:3; 29:9; etal.; cf.
Ges-K § 129; Joiion § 130); rrrt+V+inf. construct can designate a destination
(28:35; 38:27; cf. Ges-K §114h-k; Joiion §124). Often is followed by a
double52 use of b; see 12:14 pirn1? or>^ rnn ovn rrm; cf. 2:10; 6:7; 12:6,13; 13:9,
16; 15:2; 19:5; 29:45; 30; 21; in such cases preference is to be given to an active
rendering; e.g. 12:14 ‘this day you have to commemorate time and again.’
3.133 vn (Exod. ca. 40 x) is used ca. 25 x as an introductory formula ‘and
it came to pass;’53 in such cases *m is usually followed (see 17:12, however)
by one or more remarks concerning the time at which and/or the circumstances
(4:24) under which and/or the reasons why (1:21; 13:15) the event/action
mentioned in the attached sentence(s) occurred; such remarks can be con
structed in a variety of ways: substantive or construct chain with the preposi
tion ? (2:11,23; 4:24; 12:29; etal.) or ip (12:41; 18:13; 32:30); inf. construct-!-3
followed by the logical subject (13:17; 16:10; 19:16; 34:29); by a sentence
initiated by *3 (1:21; 13:15) or (32:19); nominal predicates (19:16,19).
The attached sentence begins with a finite verb as a rule (see, however, 12:29;
17:12; 19:19; 34:29) possessing the waw consecutive (asyndeton in 12:41,51;
16:22,27; 17:12; 19:19; 40:17). Since v n does not in the strict sense contribute
to the substance of the sentence54 it is better not to adopt this typically
Hebrew idiom in the translation. Even in the LXX *m was left untranslated in
such instances as 1:21; 2:23 (Exod. 9x; cf. Johannessohn, 163f., 185). The
Vulgate has translated *m only in 12:29; 16:13.
3.13.4 rrm (Exod. ca. 45 x) is used 20 x as an introductory formula ‘and it
shall come to pass;’55 in such cases rrm is usually (see, however, 4:16; 18:22;
33:7) followed by a remark concerning the time at which and/or the cir
cumstances under which and/or the reasons why the event/action mentioned in
the attached sentence(s) is occurring; such remarks can be constructed in a
variety of ways: a substantive noun with a preposition (16:5); inf construct+3
(33:8,9) or 3 (33:22) followed by the logical subject; a clause initiated by '3
(1:10; 3:21; 12:25,26; etal.), dk (4:8,9), or i»K3 (17:11). The attached sentence
c i
Sometimes even by a triple (e.g. 30:16).
53 Cf. Ges-K § lllf-h ; Meyer § 94.8b, 100.3b, 6c and particularly E. Konig, Z A W 19 (1899),
260ff.; M. Johannessohn, "Das biblische icai iy tv tx o und seine Geschichte," ZVSF 53 (1925),
161-212.
54 Cf. L. Koehler, VT 3 (1953), 304; Meyer § 100.3b.
55 Cf. Ges-K § 112y and, in particular, M. Johannessohn, “Die biblische Einfiihrungsformel K ai
£ ax ai," ZAW 50 (1942—43), 129-84, and the literature mentioned in connection with *I"H.
begins with a finite verb as a rule (see, however, 4:16; 18:22; 33:7) possessing
the waw consec. (asyndeton in 3:21; 33:8,9). The attached sentence can
indicate a unique event which will take place with a reasonable amount of
certainty (1:10; 3:21; 4:8,9; 33:22) a future iterative and durative event (4:16;
12:25,26; 13:5; etal.) of an iterative event in the past (17:11; 33:7,8,9; cf.
Ges-K § 112e, dd, tt; Joiion § 119u; Meyer § 101.4b). See §3.13.3 with respect
to its translation. See Johannessohn, 138ff., 180ff., for the ancient translations.
Finally, it may be remarked of both *m and rrm that they serve to focus the
attention of the reader on what follows. See also THAT, I, 477ff.; TWAT, II
393ff.; R. Bartelmus, Hyh. Bedeutung und Funkdon eines hebrdischen Alle-
rweltwortes,’ St.Ottilien 1982; A.F.L. Beeston, JSS 29 (1984), 7-14; J.P. Floss,
BN 30 (1985), 35-101; G.S. Ogden, VT 21 (1971), 451-69; G. Vanoni, BN 17
(1982), 73-82.
3.14.1 *|brt (OT ca. 1550x; Exod. 73x; qal 70x) is used in the qal with a
variety of shades of meaning: ‘leave,’ ‘depart’ (3:19,21; 4:27; etal.), ‘travel
(further)’ (4:29; 13:21; et al.), “walk’ (2:5); ‘go with’ (33:14,15); cf. *|bn+ov
(10:24; 33:16), +? (10:9); it is used of going to (bn) individuals (3:11 etal.), on/
over (3) (14:29; 15:19), in (a) places (3:18; 5:3; 8:23), etc.; it is also used with
respect to cattle (10:26), lightning (9:23), trumpeting (19:19).56 Qal *|bn is
often followed by a finite verb indicating the most important action in the
sentence: +*op (2:7,8); +npb (2:1; 5:11); +310 (4:18,19); +rai (5:8,17; 8:21);
+»»p (5:7); +-QV (10:8,11,24; 12:31); +n»s? (12:28); +nra (32:34); + -rr (19:24;
32:7); in such cases "|bn is more or less superfluous since the main verb or the
context of the sentence presupposes ‘going.’ As a rule, translation of "[bn is
possible but often inelegant and is impossible when *|bn is followed by a verb
of movement (4:18,19,21).
3.14.2 Separate consideration is demanded by the imperatives of *|bn;57 the
imperative in 4:18 should be understood as a blessing; elsewhere (a superior
speaking to an inferior) as an order (2:8; 4:27; 7:15; 10:28; 12:32; 17:5; 19:10;
33:1); the imperative has the sense of a particle of exhortation, particularly in
cases when the imperative is followed by the imperative of the verb which
indicates the main action of the sentence (cf. Ges-K § 105b; Joiion § 105e,
177f; Brockelmann §6a); ‘off you go,’ ‘go ahead,’ ‘well’ (3:10; 4:12,19; 5:4,11,
18; 19:24; 32:7,34); sometimes with a tone of indulgence: ‘okay’ (8:2; 10:8,11,
24; 12:31) or with a connotation of ‘now it’s been enough,’ ‘come on’ (3:16).
3.143 The subject of qal -|bn in 33:16; 34:9 and 13:21 is y h w h ; in 13:21 + 'xb
(cf. 14:19; 23:23; 32:34 alongside of 32:1,23), it is the task of the guide to go
+ dativus commodi in 18:27 (cf. Ges-K § 119s; Joiion § 133d; Meyer § ipWTT^res5li>^
‘proceed’. V J*-
57YHWH to Moses (3:10, 16; 4:12, 19; etal.), to Aaron (4:27); Pharaoh to
11,18; 10:8,11), and to Moses and Aaron (10:24,28; 12:31,32); the daughtfr $
Moses’ sister (2:8); Jethro to Moses (4:18). ~7
18 INTRODUCTION
before; his presence is indispensable in the desert. For the sake of complet
eness we should point out hithp. "|^n ‘walk’ (21:29), hiph. (2:9; 14:21; in 14:21
‘cause to flow away’). Qal "[bn is also used metaphorically in the sense of
‘behave in accordance with,’ ‘act according to’ (+rnin; see 4:15)(16:4), ‘behave
oneself (+-|*n; see 3:16) (18:20). See also THAT, I, 486ff.; TWAT, II, 415ff.
3. 15.1 p (OT ca. lOOx; Exod. 5x) /mn (OT ca. 1055 x; Exod. 41 x; mn
8x; cf. Ges-K § lOOo, p, 147b; Joiion § 102k; mn is an expanded form of p ) is
a particle used in a variety of ways. mn/mn often introduces (see, however, 7:16;
31:6; 32:34; 34:30; 39:43) a nominal sentence with a participial predicate (see,
however, 16:14; 24:8,14; 32:9; 33:21) of which the subject is an event that is
about to happen (4:23; 7:27; 8:17; 9:3,18; 10:4; e ta l.ll)58 or an event which
is already happening (2:6,13; 3:2; 5:16; 14:10; 16:10); sometimes it is uncertain
(4:14; cf. 4:27).59 p/mn is chiefly a deictic particle;60 see 3:4,9; 4:14; 14:17;
etc. The traditional rendering ‘behold’ is not very attractive. The force of mn
can often be expressed in a more acceptable manner: ‘that’ (24:8) (cf. Ges-K
§ 147b); ‘moreover’ (31:6); ‘well’ (33:21); before a personal pronoun run serves
to put all emphasis on the pronoun (4:14; 19:9; 23:20) (cf. mn in 14:17); mn
(cf. Ges-K § 147b) in 3:4 expresses something akin to our “yes, I’m listening’;
etc.
3. 15.2 A number of points remain which merit attention. When mm follows a
sentient verb (14:10; 32:9; 34:30; 39:43) and introduces the result of percep
tion, it can best be rendered by a verbal clause,61 e.g. 32:9, ‘and I have come
to the conclusion...’ In several instances some form of a verb of perception
must be added in thought for mm (2:13; 4:6,7; 9:7; 16:10,14), and mm must be
rendered by a verbal clause in such cases as well (‘suddenly’ may also be
considered as a translation in 4:6,7). mn in 1:9 (cf. p in Gen. 11:6) should also
be mentioned in this context: it introduces a conclusion based on observation,
p/mn can assume the function of a conjunction (cf. Ges-K § 159w; Joiion
§ 1671; Meyer § 122.3a). It can introduce conditional clauses; see the use of p
‘if in 4:1 (ellipsis); 6:12; 8:22 and of mn *when/if,’ ‘as soon as’ in 3:13; 7:15,17;
8:16,25; 17:6.62 p/mn can introduce causal clauses (2:6; 6:30; 24:14);63 it can
also introduce concessive clauses (3:2: 5:5; 32:34; ‘although,’ ‘notwithstanding’
and temporal clauses (34:10; ‘as soon as’; the line between such uses and
conditional clauses is fluid; see 7:15; etc.). Note the use of mn in 5:16 where it
58 Cf. Ges-K § 116p, q; Joiion § 119n; Meyer § 104.2f.

59 See P. Humbert, Opuscules d ’un Hibraisant, Neuchatel 1958, 54-59 for m n+participle (8:17;
9:18; 10:4; 14:17; 16:4; 17:6; 34:11), always referring to God; a variant expression +
participle with God as subject occurs in 4:23; 7:17, 27; 19:9; 23:20; 34:10; Moses is the subject in
8:25.
60 Cf. Joiion § 105d, 164a; Brockelmann § 4, 51, 56b.
61 For a contrary opinion see Joiion § 126b tu 1; Meyer § 104.3b.
in/n:n ‘then’ is also used in the apodosis (4:23; 7:27; 8:17; 9:2f.; 10:4).
63 Cf. -3371 in 9:18 (‘therefore’); 34:11 (‘for’).
introduces a clause which indicates a result, and in 7:16 where it introduces the
apodosis of a concessive clause without any introductory conjunction, p/mn is
used in combination with other particles to reinforce the import: +nry(i) in
3:9; 5:5; +m in 4:14; cf. J. Blau, VT 9 (1959), 132. See also THAT, I, 514ff.;
M. Johannessohn, “Der Wahrnehmungssatz bei den Verben des Sehens in der
hebraischen und griechischen Bibel,* ZVSF 64 (1937), 145-250 (179ff.); idem,
*Das biblische Kai t5ou in der ErzShlung samt seiner hebraischen Vorlage,’
ZVSF 66 (1939), 145-95; S. Kogut, ScrHie 31 (1986), 133-54; C.J. Labuschagne,
“The Particles p and mrt," OTS 18 (1973), 1-14; D.J. McCarthy, ■The Uses of
wehinneh in Biblical Hebrew,’ Bib 61 (1980), 330-42; H.P. Muller, ‘Die
Konstruktion mit hinne ‘siehe’ und ihr sprachge-schichtlicher Hintergrund,*
Zeitschrift filr Althebraistik 2 (1989), 45-76; D.M. Stec, “The use of hen in
Conditional Sentences,* VT 87 (1987), 478-86.
3.16.1 in (OT ca. 550x; Exod. 48x; pi. in 32:12) is used to indicate ‘the
mountains,’ ‘mountain chain’ and for individual mountains. to 7? occurs lOx
in Exodus (19:11,18,20,23; 24:16; 31:18; 34:2,4,29,32) and nip in occurs lx
(33:6). inn often (30 x) occurs.64 Horeb is designated in 3:12, the moun
tain^) (19:lf.) in the Sinai desert (19:2, etc.), called ‘the Sinai mountain(s)’ in
19:11, etc. The following is to be noted concerning the use of inn and to in:
except for 19:11, where to in is used for the first time, and 31:18, where to in
(following ‘the mountain’ in 27:8) is first introduced again, and 34:32, where
to in occurs for the last time in Exodus, to in is apparently used for varia
tion to prevent the occurrence of inn two or three times in a row (19:17f., 20,
23; 24:15f.; 34:3f.). For ancient man, the mountains belonged to those areas
which were full of dangers; to them ‘the mountains’ (32:13) were uninhabitable
places where one could perish in a lamentable way (cf. 1 Kgs. 2:16). Mountains
also seemed to them numinous entities which filled them with trepidation and
awe. This makes it understandable that mountains were deified and were
regarded as places where divine powers were present and active. With the
exception of 15:17 and 32:12, all texts in Exodus containing the term ‘mou
ntain’ refer to ‘the mountain of God’/Horeb/Sinai as the place where yhwh
reveals himself to Moses and the people. Scholarly opinion often presumes th
at the mountain was originally considered as the residence of the divinity (e.g.
Westphal). Whether or not that is a valid assumption, Exodus portrays the
mountain as the site of revelation; yhwh comes there (19:9,11,18,20; 34:5
and 3:7f.). See also ERE, VIII, 863ff.; IDBS, 608f.; THAT, II, 545f.; TWAT, II,
459ff.; Bocher, 68ff.; R.E. Clements, God and Temple, Oxford 1965, 17ff.;
R.J. Clifford, The Cosmic Mountain in Canaan and the Old Testament, Cam
bridge, Mass. 1972, 107ff.; Houtman, Himmel, 127,135,137,152f., 200,231,359;
idem in Fs Ridderbos, 155f., 161; U. Mann, Uberall ist Sinai: Die heiligen Berge
64 3:12; 19:2, 3, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 20 (2x), 23; 20:18; 24:4, 12, 15 (2x), 17, 18; 25:40; 26:30;
27:8; 32:1,15,19; 34:2, 3 (2x), 28.
20 INTRODUCTION
der Menschheit, Freiburg 1988; Schwarzenbach, 6ff.; N.M. Waldman, JQR 71

(1980-81), 176-80; Westphal, Iff.
3.16.2 D'n^Rn in ‘the mountain of God’ (3:1; 4:27; 18:5; 24:13; 1 Kgs. 19:8)
can be compared to expressions such as ovtacn ro? ‘the rod of God’ (4:20;
17:9), trnStmva ‘house of God’ (Judg. 18:31, etal.), □•n'rxn pix ‘the ark of
God’ (1 Sam. 5:1, et al.); omVrh ‘the divinity’ signifies Israel’s God yhwh (see
1 Sam. 5:1 alongside of 5:3);65 compare mrr in in Num. 10:33 (indicates Zion
in Isa. 2:3, et al.; see also Gen. 22:14). The meaning of O'nVRn in should be
distinguished from that of D'r6« (oip) in ‘the (holy) divine mountain’
(Ezek. 28:14,16; cf. Isa. 14:13) but probably corresponds to that of ovtpRmrt in
Ps. 68:16: an impressive mountain(s) where the divinity is present and/or
manifests himself in a special way. To say that ‘the mountain of God’ was at
one time the residence of the divinity (McNeile; Westphal, p.2) would be to
conclude too much. The expression suggests no more than that the mountain
stands in a special relationship to the divinity. See with regard to this
expression also Z. Weisman, “The Mountain of God,* Tarbiz 47 (1978),
107-19 (Hebr.).
3.17 3ni; see § 3.28
3.18.1131 (OT ca. 200 x; Exod. 8x); qal idi ‘remember’ not as a merely
intellectual activity but as ‘remembering’ which springs from perception and
which leads to action, or possibly to not acting. It is often used in the OT with
God as the subject, e.g. 2:24; 6:5: God must take into account what he has
promised to the patriarchs (+ rna, see 2:24; cf. Gen.9:15f.; Lev.26:45; etal.)
and is thus induced into intervening; 32:13 (+P; cf. Deut.9:27, etal; see,
however, Brockelmann §95); bearing in mind the patriarchs and the promises
made to them serve to persuade yhwh to forfeit (vs. 14) his intention to
destroy Israel (vs. 10). Qal 131 occurs with man as the subject in 13:3; 20:8:
‘honour’ (‘remember’ changes into ‘do’; cf. Mai. 3:22; Pss. 103:18; 119:52,55).
Hiph. isi ‘cause someone to remember;’ ‘announce,’ ‘praise’ occurs in 23:13
with the ‘name’ of foreign gods as object (cf. Josh. 23:7), indicating that it is
not permitted to participate in services for foreign gods, nor to mention them
in praise (cf. Ps. 16:4) as yhwh is praised for his deeds (cf. Isa. 12:4; 26:13;
20:8; et al.); it occurs in 20:24 with yhwh as the subject and ‘my name’ as the
object: yhwh reveals himself, presents himself, so that one may be sure that it
is He (cf. Gen. 15:7; 17:1; 28:13; Exod. 3:6; 20:2).
3.18.2 The derivative i3 i (OT 23 x ) is interchangeable with do (see §3.50);
e.g. 131 in Hos. 12:6 alongside of DO in Amos 4:13; 5:8; 9:5f.; id i in Ps. 135b
next to DO in 102:3b; 131 in Exod. 17:14 next to do in Ps. 9:6; etc.; see also the
use of i3i//bo in Exod.3:15; Pss.9:6f.; 135:13; etal.). Remembering and
speaking are closely related (cf. hiph. 131), when someone’s 131 is effaced, he is
65 D'npKil in 3:2, etc., cannot be interpreted as ‘divine beings’ (as Buber, 47 does), at least not
in Exodus in its present form.
relegated to obscurity (17:14; cf. Deut. 32:26; Isa. 26:14; Pss. 34:17; 109:14;
et al.); God wants Israel to call him yhwh, as He who is with his own, when it
remembers him, mentions him, and praises him (3:12,14; cf. 15:3).
3.18.3 The derivative yroi (OT 24 x) is used to indicate something that is
intended to fix someone’s thoughts on something (cf. nix; see 3:12); it is used
with regard to people (12:14; 13:9; 17:14; Num. 17:3,4; Josh. 4:6f.; cf.
Num. 15:39f.; Deut 16:3), but also with regard to God (28:12,29; 30:16; 39:7;
cf. Num. 31:54); it is true of him too that he must be called to attention (e.g.
2:23f.; Num. 10:9) to induce a reaction on his part. See also THAT, I, 507ff.;
TfVAT, II, 571ff.
3.19.1pm (OT ca. 290x; Exod. 15 x) ‘be/become firm/strong’, occurs in
7:13,22; 8:15; 9:35 in the qal with nma ab (see §3.29.1) as object: ‘become
hard/solid’; Pharaoh was adamant, immune to outside influences. Piel pm
occurs in 9:12; 10:20,27; 11:10; 14:4,8 (cf. 4:21) with yhwh as subject and
nma zb as object (cf. 14:17: cnsn nb; Josh. 11:20), ‘cause to be hard/firm’;
yhwh makes Pharaoh unrelenting. See also qal pm+^>» ‘pressure’ (12:33); hiph.
pm+? ‘take hold’ (4:4; cf. Prov. 26:17), ‘hold on’ (9:2; cf. Judg. 7:8; 19:4). The
following derivatives occur in Exodus: the adjectives pin (OT ca. 55 x; Exod.
7x) and pm (OT 2x; 19:19; regarded as a participle by some; see BDB),
‘strong,’ ‘forceful,’ and the substantive noun pm (OT 5x; Exod. 3x)
‘strength’; they are used particularly in connection with t (see § 3.21.2); see
also 10:19; 19:16,19 (‘loud’). See also THAT, I, 538ff.; TWAT, II, 846ff.;
G. Gerleman, “Der Sinnbereich ‘fest-los(e)’ im Hebraischen," ZAW 92
(1980), 404-15.
3.19.2 Forms of (see 4:10) and n»p (see 1:14) are also employed with
regard to Pharaoh’s hardening of heart (cf. EMATP, I, 80ff.). The remark
repeated several times in Exodus about yhwh making Pharaoh obstinate has
always raised question. Can Pharaoh be held responsible when it is yhwh
himself who has incited Pharaoh to stiff-necked resistance? Is it not unjust that
Pharaoh, who does not act of his free will, is punished for deeds to which he
has been driven? Such questions still arise from the somewhat less crassly
formulated thought expressed in 3:19. If yhwh knows in advance how Pharaoh
will act, must we not then conclude that Pharaoh does not have the freedom
to act otherwise? In short, is not Pharaoh really no more than a toy in the
hands of yhwh and a tragic rather than a malicious figure?66 Such questions
are only made more acute when the purpose of the hardening is added to
one’s consideration. The series of plagues which are the result of Pharaoh’s
obstinate resistance are not aimed only at putting pressure on Pharaoh and at
66 One should remark in this connection the explanation of Ephraem; its aim is to prevent
YHWH from being blamed in any way for the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart; see T. Jansma,
OrChrP 39 (1973), 5-28; Hidal, p. 95f.; Ishodad devotes an elaborate consideration to 7:3 and
remarks, "God ascribes numerous actions to himself which people commit of their own free will.’
22 INTRODUCTION
convincing the Egyptians of y h w h ’s superiority (7:5,17; 8:6; 9:14,16,29; 10:1;

11:9; 14:4,17f.), but are also intended to persuade Israel in a very compelling
way that y h w h is capable of truly great deeds; with regard to the ‘hardening’
see also Deut. 2:30; 29:4; Josh. 11:20 (cf. Gen. 15:16; Lev. 18:24ff.); Isa. 6:9f.;
63:17; Pss. 81:13; 105:24; Mark4:10ff.; Rom.9:17f.
In the first place, it should be noted that the question as to the origin of evil
is problematical for any monotheistic religion. If one takes seriously the
acknowledgment of the one and only God and seeks avoid dualism, then one is
forced to derive evil from God one way or another. The OT quite often
assumes a direct relation between God and evil (e.g. Judg. 9:23; 1 Sam. 16:14;
18:10; 19:9; 2 Sam. 17:14; 24:1; 1 Kgs. 12:15; Ezek. 14:9f.; Pss. 42:10; 43:2;
88:7ff.; et al.). y h w h , the god of light and life, also has power over death and
darkness (cf. Isa. 45:7). When it is stated in Exodus that y h w h makes Pharaoh
inexorable, what is meant is that the course of events lies entirely in y h w h ’s
hands. Even though it may appear that Pharaoh is capable of frustrating
y h w h , the reality behind scenes is that Pharaoh is no party for y h w h ; y h w h
has him completely in his power. In sum, y h w h sovereignly guides the
unfolding of events. He does not become disquieted when people dare to enter
into a confrontation with him. He has already anticipated that and reserved a
place in his strategy of human obstinacy.
In the second place, it should be noted that in the OT the awareness that
evil does not exist separately from God is not accompanied by any denial of
human responsibility and a fatalistic view of life. Many things in the OT show
that the destinies with which people are struck raised questions. When
(co-)responsibility for injustice is denied, however, the prophetic protest
resounds, and all the emphasis is placed on human responsibility (Ezek. 18).
There is no room for denial of guilt and excuses. It is not unimportant for
understanding Exodus to keep in mind that Pharaoh too is portrayed as a ruler
who did not relent (see §3.19.1). The blind, the misled, and the misguided
person is also guilty. Exodus allows statements which are discrepant in our
eyes to remain next to each other without reconciliation: y h w h is the cause of
Pharaoh’s obstinacy; Pharaoh himself does not want to listen. The reader must
know about y h w h ’s obstinacy and about Pharaoh’s guilt. Theology has proven
unwilling to allow things to remain at that. To render the relation between the
one statement and the other words and representations have been tentatively
sought throughout the ages. See also H. Berkhof, Christelijk geloof, Nijkerk
1973, 207ff.; G.C. Berkouwer, De ver/dezing Gods, Kampen 1950, 294ff.; idem,
De Zonde, I, II, Kampen 1958, 1960; Childs, 170ff.; D.M. Gunn, “The
‘Hardening of Pharaoh’s Heart’: Plot, Character and Theology in Exodus
1-14," in D.J. Clines, et al., Art and Meaning, Sheffield 1982, 72-96; F.E. Deist,
“Who is to blame: The Pharaoh, Yahweh or Circumstance? On human
responsibility, and divine ordinance in Exodus 1-14," OTWSA 29 (1986), 91-
112; F. Hesse, Das Verstockungsproblem im Alten Testament, Berlin 1954;
Leibowitz, 149ff. (including an outline of discussion within the Jewish

tradition); F. Lindstrom, God and the Origin of Evil, Lund 1983; E. Noort,
•jhwh und das Bose. Bemerkungen zu einer Verhaltnisbestimmung,* OTS 23
(1984), 120-36; von Rad, TAT, II, 158ff.; Vriezen, 237,329ff., 342; R.R. Wilson,
•The Hardening of Pharaoh’s Heart,* CBQ 41 (1979), 18-36 (the motif has its
own shading in J, E, and p ).
"3.20.1 Ron (OT ca. 235x; Exod. 10x) indicates an action which causes harm
to a person(s) (+b) (often God) to whom the agent has a certain relationship;
the action transgresses norms or demands that apply within that relationship;
the verb can also indicate the consequences of ‘sinning’: whoever acts thus
assumes upon himself guilt and exposes himself to retribution; he lands up
within the reach of evil which will undermine his existence if he is not
liberated from it. Derivatives which occur in Exodus: nROii (OT 8x; Exod.
3x); ntjon (Exod. 34:7; Isa. 5:18); man (OT ca. 290x; Exod. 8x). Qal Ron
(OT ca. 180 x) ‘misbehave oneself,’ ‘be guilty of misconduct’ occurs in 9:27,
34; 10:16 with Pharaoh as the subject (in 9:27; 10:16 in the stereotyped
confession *nRon [OT ca. 30x]); in 20:20; 32:30,31,33 with Israel as subject;
in 32:30-33 with regard to idolatry as a serious violation of the relationship
with yhwh; in 30:30,31+nb*n HRon (cognate accusative) ‘be guilty of serious
misconduct’; cf. 32:21 (rib'll nRon as the object of tea hiph. +by); 32:30,32,34
(nRun ‘misconduct’); Israel is held responsible for the misconduct (32:34) (ipa;
see 3:16; cf. 'ipo+'py in 20:5; 34:7) and will be struck by the calamity it has
generated up if it is not averted (30:30,32);67 if the ]i» continues to rest on a
person he is in danger of succumbing; see 28:43 (cf. P. Jotion, Bib 3 [1922],
67f.); it is remarkable that nRon and man are both used twice in 30:30-32;
whether there is a subtle difference between the two terms is difficult to
establish (see, however, TWAT, II, 861).
3.20.2 Hiph. Ron (OT ca. 30 x) occurs in 23:33 in the sense of ‘incite to
misconduct against’ (+b) (cf. Neh. 13:26); piel Ron (OT 15 x) occurs in 29:36
in the sense of ‘bring a sin offering upon’ (+by) (cf. nRon ‘sin offering’,
‘purification offering’ in 29:14,36; 30:10). 34:7 employs three words belonging
to the same semantic field: nt<am iwdi jiv ‘all injustices now matter how great,
how many, or what their nature’ (see also Lev. 16:21; Ezek. 21:29; Dan. 9:24
with regard to these three terms); the pair py and man occur in 34:9 in this
sense (see also 1 Sam.20:l; Isa. 5:18; etal., for this word pair); voq and mart
also occur paired (Isa. 58:1; 59:12; et al.). The terms appear to be
interchangeable. See 32:34 alongside of 20:5 with regard to man and pv; see
30:32 alongside of 23:21 with regard to nRon and iwd. These terms may not be
regarded as synonyms for each other without further ado. As does mon, piy
For 1QD in 30:30 see 29:33; 30:32 attests to a R®3 ‘carrying away’ of the misconduct and its
fatal consequences; see 34:7 (cf. 23:21); YHWH is the subject; in 10:17 Moses is the subject; sec
also Rl&J+py in 28:38.
24 INTRODUCTION
(OT ca. 230 x; Exod. 20:5; 28:38,43; 34:7 [2 x], 9) indicates both the deed as
well as its consequences (the LV translates yiv as ‘guilt’ in Exodus); shod (OT
ca. 95x; Exod. 22:8; 23:21; 34:7) portrays sin above all as a breach (in the
relationship between God and man and of man to man). A formal equivalent
translation of each term is impossible. It does merit effort to keep the terms as
distinct as possible, however: nnon ‘misconduct’; ]iu ‘infraction(s)’; (20:5; 34:7,
9), ‘felonies’ (23:21; 34:7) (iWD” Oi ‘property misdemeanour’ [22:8]). See
also THAT, I, 541ff.; II, 243ff.,488ff.; TfVAT, II,857ff.; TWAT, V, 1160ff.; VI,
791ff.; G. te Stroete, “Siinde im Alten Testament,* in Fs A.R. Hulst,
Uebersetzung und Deulung, Nijkerk 1977, 164-76.
3.21.1 t (OT ca. 1600x; Exod. 109x), dual d*t , indicates ‘hand’ (and in
the wider sense, the wrist/arm) (4:2,6,7,20; 7:15,17,19; etc.) ( t [29:20] =
‘thumb’). As is the case with other body parts, Hebrew uses t to denote
spatial terms (cf. Brockelmann § llOi, 117b), i"bv ‘at the side’; in combination
with a river, ‘along the shore’ (2:15; Num. 13:29; Deut. 2:37; cf. Reymond, 262;
Schwarzenbach, 75f.). The feminine plural niT occurs with the technical
meaning of ‘tenon’ (26:17,19; 36:22,24).
3.21.2 The hand is among body parts by which the strength concentrated in a
person can be outwardly manifested. It is thus not surprising that t can have
the metaphorical sense of ‘strength,’ ‘power’ (e.g. 9:3; 14:31; 18:10) ( d» t n '»
[23:1] ‘make a malicious case with’); often combined with a preposition in a
construct chain: to (2:17,19); T3 ‘in the power o f (4:21; 23:31),‘in possession
o f (21:16; 22:3). When the t of God occurs once must elect to translate either
anthropomorphically or metaphorically (npin T 3 [3:19; 6:1; 13:9; 32:11]; t pirn
[13:3,14,16]; cf. §3.19.1). We have opted for the latter: ‘under heavy pressure’
(3:19; 6:1); ‘by putting heavy pressure on’ (13:3,9,14,16; 32:11). It is worth
considering whether t in 3:20; 7:4,5; 9:15; 24:11 ( y h w h is the subject in all
cases) should be given the sense of ‘destructive power.’ The possibility that
people imagined t in a very concrete way cannot be excluded, however.
Excavations have uncovered idols wielding axes, clubs, or spears in their raised
right hand, or with simply their right hand raised. The deities are ready to
strike as warriors (ANEP, illust. 476,479,486,490,501,532,651,827; WABAT,
illust. 290,291,300ff.).
3.213 The use of t + preposition raises question as to whether the force of
r still makes itself felt or whether t serves to reinforce the preposition (cf.
Brockelmann § 106k). The latter is the case with t s ‘by (agency of)’ in 4:13;
9:35; 35:29; 38:21; the former applies in 10:25; 16:3. The singular in r©o*T3
(34:29) is remarkable (see also 32:15; 34:4 and 32:19 k ; v t o q ). Does this
expression not mean to say more than that Moses had the tables ‘with him’?
The singular is also employed in rtp^+Di’p in 29:25; 32:4. Does Hebrew use the
singular where we would use the plural? t o probably assumes the function of
a preposition. As holds for other parts of the body, t can be used to indicate
the entire person; t portrays an individual as someone who acts forcefully. See
15:9,17; 19:13 (cf. Johnson, 50ff.).

3.21.4 Hands play a role in all sorts of religious customs, such as prayers,
oaths, and blessings (cf. Houtman, Himmel, 352f.). The raising (kkm) of the
(right) hand (=arm) as a gesture accompanying oaths is mentioned in 6:8;
Num. 14:30; Deut. 32:40; et al. A person is seeking to stay in touch with the
divine guarantor for the oath by means of this gesture (reaching towards
heaven; Deut:32:40; Dan. 12:?).68 Yet God is nearly always (even in 6:8) the
subject. It is generally assumed that a human gesture has been transferred to
God.69 Moses’ raising (hiph. on) of his hand(s)=arm(s) in 17:11-12 (MT,
17:11, sing.; 17:12, pi.; Sam. Pent, and LXX, pi. in 17:11-12) has been inter
preted as a gesture of prayer; e.g. Holzinger (originally a gesture with a
sorcerer’s wand); Heinisch, Clamer. The notion that a certain force emanated
from Moses’ hands has been more customary (e.g. TeStroete). Beer even
believes that Moses formed a cross with his arms (the cross having protective
power) from which ‘sources of power’ were transferred to the battling Is
raelites.70 Although it is true that the arms of a man of god may convey
divine power (2 Kgs.l3:16; cf. 2 Kgs.4:34; 5:11 and in the NT Mark 5:23; 7:32;
8:23; 16:18; Luke 4:40; Acts 9:12,17; 27:8), 17:1 If. apparently intends to say
that the power emanates from the rod; cf. GreBmann (SAT), who states that
there is a divine effect at a distance exercised by the rod. ‘Die heiligen Waffen,
Stabe, Lanzen, in denen die Kraft der Gottheit wirksam war und die man
deshalb gottlich verehrte, nahm man als Fahnen Oder Standarten mit in die
Schlacht, um der Gegenwart Gottes gewiB zu sein.’ R. Press, ZAW 51 (1933),
130, speaks of a ‘rod ordeal’: When Moses raises the rod, the battle field is
brought within the magical domain of power exercised by the divine rod.71
The raising of the hand with the rod leads to a victory in 17:11. More general
ly, the raised hand is an expression of a defensive or offensive attitude (cf.
Deut. 32:27; 1 Kgs. ll:26f.; Mic. 5:8). Note should be taken of the use of
non T 3 ‘deliberately’ in Num. 15:30; in Exod. 14:8; Num. 33:3, ‘undauntedly,’
68 Cf. J. Pedersen, Der Eid bei den Semiten, Strassburg 1914, 143ff.
69 See, however, Lust (§ 12.1), 154ff.; the expression indicates a forceful appearance on YHWH’s
part; see also IRE, IX, 376f.; J. Happel, Der Eid im Alien Testament, Leipzig n.d.; Vorwahl, 24ff.;
Westphal, 25If.
70 According to ancient Christian ideas texts such as 17:1 If. and Isa. 65:2 foreshadowed the
cross of Christ; e.g. Ephraem’s explanation of 17:11 (he calls the rod a sign of the cross owing to
14:16; cf. Hidal, 54f.) as well as J. Lindblom, Gesichte und Offenbarungen, Lund 1968, pp.l9f.;
T. Baarda, * ‘Het uitbreiden van mijn handen is zijn teken’,’ jn Fs N.H. Ridderbos, Loven en
geloven, Amsterdam 1975, 245-59.
71 O. Keel, Wirkmdchtige Siegeszeichen im Allen Testament, Freiburg/Gottingen 1974, 91ff.,
believes that originally the narrative only reported the raising of Moses’ hands as an adjuring
gesture.
26 INTRODUCTION
‘purposefully/ ‘triumphantly.’72
3.21.5 d*t is used in 29:10,15,19 as the object of qal 730 in the sense of ‘lay
on’ (+^>) (the head of the sacrificial animal; see THAT, II, 160ff.; TWAT, V,
880ff.). The form, d t t , is also attested (cf. Lev. 4:15; 8:14,18,22; etal.).
Should we regard the form as a dual despite the fact that more than one
person is the subject? When the subject is a single individual iT ‘his hand’ is
usually the object (Lev. 1:4; 3:2,8,13; 4:4,24,29,33).73 In sum, was d<t t
considered to be a dual or is the sense intended perhaps that every person
pressed with his right hand? The significance of the laying on of hands is a
matter of discussion. It has been stated that transference is always what is
signified (e.g. Volz). The gesture has, however, been interpreted differently
with respect to sacrifice (with the exception of Lev. 16), what is signified is an
identification between the one who sacrifices and the sacrificial animal; the
person sacrificing has community with the divinity through the sacrifice (e.g.
Robertson Smith, 423); the person who sacrifices signals that the sacrificial
animal is his and that he has reserved it for y h w h (e.g. Benzinger, 371;
Vriezen, 285); the person sacrificing is thus made aware of the solemn nature
of the sacrifice and of the need to testify to his sincerity (Van der Merwe). In
our judgment some form of transference is always signalled. See also
J. Coppens, L ’imposition des mains et les rites connexes dans le Nouveau
Testament et dans VEglise ancienne, Paris/Wetteren 1925; Daube, Judaism,
224ff.; P.A. Elderenbosch, De oplegging der handen, ’s-Gravenhage 1953;
E. Ferguson, “Laying on of Hands. Its significance in ordination," JThS 26
(1975), 1-12; B.J. van der Merwe, “The Laying on of the Hands in the Old
testament," OuTWP (1962), 34-43; R. Peter, “L’imposition des mains dans
l’Ancien Testament," VT 27 (1977), 48-55; P. Volz, “Die Handauflegung beim
Opfer," ZAW 21 (1901), 93-100; Vorwahl, 38f.
Religious ablution of priests also belongs to the class of religious customs.
Before engaging in their tasks in the sanctuary, they must wash their hands and
feet (pm; see 2:5). The bodily parts which enter into direct contact with the
sacred must be cleansed of all unholy stains by the water (30:19,21; 40:31; cf.
Gen. 20:5; Deut. 21:6; Pss. 24:4; 26:6; 73:13) (see RLAy IV, 96ff.; Reymond,
228ff.). Piel iA d (see 2:16) + t occurs in the technical sense of ‘filling
someone’s hand’= ‘consecrate someone’, endowing someone with the
competence or authority to engage in the service of God [28:41; 29:9,29, 33,
35; cf. Lev. 8:33; 16:32; et al.; see the use of the qal in 32:29 (mrrt d d t 1*60)
and of mAp (see 2:16) ‘consecration’ in 29:22,26,27,31,34; cf. Lev. 7:37; 8:22,
I'y
The expression is wrongly taken to apply to YHWH’s protection; cf. C.J. Labuschagne, “The
Meaning of beydd rClmd in the Old Testament," in Fs J.P.M. van der Ploeg, Von Kanaan bis Kerala,
Kevelaer/Neukirchen-Vluyn 1982, 143-48.
7^ See, however, Lev. 16:21; Num. 27:23 (compare, however, vs.18 and see the Sam. Pent.;
Pesh.); Deut. 34:9 (compare the Sam. Pent., however).
28,29,31,33]. It is uncertain what the original action was that is concealed by

this usage; see THAT, I, 898f. ; TWAT, III, 437; IV, 881ff.; Cody, 153f.;
P. Jouon, Bib 3 (1922), 64f.; ICRupprecht, in Sefer Rendtorff, Dielheim 1975,
73-93; De Vaux II, 219f.; G. Wallis, “ ‘Hand fiillen’ - einen Amtseid leisten
lassen?*, Henoch 3 (1981), 340-49; H. Weinel, ZAW 18 (1898), 60ff.
See for t also DB, II, 293ff.; ERE, VI, 592ff.; THAT, I 667ff.; TWAT, III,
421ff.; Boman, 84ff.; Dhorme, 138ff.; Johnson, 50ff.; P. Joiion, Bib 14
(1933), 452ff.; J.J.M. Roberts, ‘The Hand of Yahweh,’ VT 21 (1971), 244-51;
Vorwahl, 56ff.; et al.
3.21.6*1? is also used to indicate ‘hand’ (OT ca. 200 x; Exod. 9x), dual D'??
[pi. nia? ‘bowls’ (25:29; 37:16; Num. 4:7; etal.)]; *p is the opened hand, the
palm with which something is received (29:24) or covered (33:22f.); often *p
and t are synonyms for one another; see 4:2,4 and Gen. 40:11,13; Isa. 62:3;
Prov. 31:19 and 2 Sam.22:l alongside of Ps. 18:1. *p is used in 9:29,33 in
connection with a gesture of prayer.74 Extending or lifting the hands toward
the place where the divinity is thought to reside (in the sanctuary as a rule) is
a visible prayer. Although opinions on the significance of the gesture are
divergent, it seems obvious that the gesture intends to express yearning to have
community with the divinity. See also TRE, XII, 3Iff.; W.H. Gispen, ‘Het
gebed,“ GThT 58 (1958), 21-43,74-83,111-21,137-42; Houtman, Himmei,
352f.; Th.Ohm, Die Gebetsgebdrden der Vdlker und das Christentum, Leiden
1948; Vorwahl, 40ff.; (for pictures of attitudes of prayer, e.g. WABAT, illust.
41 Iff., 434).
3.21.7 piy ‘right side’ is also used to indicate ‘hand’ (OT ca. 140 x; Exod.
6x). In a construct chain with t , (e.g. Gen. 48:17)75 as well as when used
independently, po' can occur in the sense of Tight hand’.76 The right hand in
particular was seen as the seat of strength. ]'a' depicts y h w h ’s actions in 15:6
(cf. t in 15:9,17), ‘You in your powerful appearance.’ See also orp'i?
‘to the right and the left of them’ (14:22,29; 2 Sam.l6:6; etal.). bum (OT ca.
50x) ‘left side’ is often the opposite of fii'; see RSP, I, 206; TWAT, VII,
804ff.; Melamed, 146f.; KraSovec, 108f. The adjective, (OT ca. 30 x) ‘right’
occurs in 29:20 (3x).
3.21.8 Hand and arm are closely related. It is therefore not strange that »i*ii
(OT ca. 90 x) ‘arm’ can occur in a sense similar to that of ‘hand’; see the
expression, t ip i »i*n?i npin t ? i ‘and with a mighty hand and outstretched arm’
(Deut. 4:34; 5:15; 26:8), which does not occur in this form in Exodus (see,
however, 6:1 alongside of 6:6); the separate components do occur, however;
74 BID (OT ca. 70x) ‘extend,’ ‘spread out’ (see also 25:20; 37:9; 40:19) +ni!V“^R 'QDTN; see
TWAT, VI, 780ff.
75 O r other parts of the body; e.g. I'O'n p'B ‘the right leg’ (29:22; Lev. 7:32f.; et al.). '
76 15:6 (2x), 12; Isa. 41:10; et al.; for T // |'0 \ see RSP, I, 195f.; E.Z. Melamed, ScrHie 8 (1961),
143ff.; KraSovec, 104; for ’['DV/V’lll see Isa. 62:8; Ps. 98:1.
28 INTRODUCTION
the first in 3:19, etal. (see §3.21.2); the second in 6:6; Deut. 9:29; 2 Kgs.l7:36
(see Jer. 21:5; Ps. 89:22 for vm /fr). Acting with outstretched arm means
displaying and employing power. In 15:16 »m portrays yhwh’s appearance as a
powerful one (cf. t in 15:9,17 and p r in 15:6); see Isa. 30:30; 33:2; et al. See
also THAT, I, 522ff.; TWAT, II, 650ff.; Boman, 84ff.; Dhorme, 138ff.; J.K. Hoff-
meier, 'The Arm of God versus the Arm of the Pharaoh in the Exodus
Narratives,* Bib 67 (1986), 378-87; Johnson, 50ff.
3.21.9 In Exodus, T in the sense of the arm and the hand is often the object
of qal ntu ‘stretch out’ (7:5,19; 8:1,2, 13; 9:22; 10:12,21,22; 14:16,21,26,27;
cf. 6:6; 15:12); a few times nta? ‘stick,’ ‘rod’ is the object (8:12; 9:23; 10:13);77
the subject can be yhwh (7:5; cf. 6:6; 15:12); Moses (9:22,23; 10:12,13,21,22;
14:16,21,26,27; for Moses’ hand/rod see also 4:2,4,17; 7:15,17; 14:16; 17:5,
9); or Aaron (7:19; 8:1,2,12,13).78 Comparison of 9:22 to 9:23 and of 10:12
to 10:13 shows that ‘stretching out the hand’= ‘stretching out (the hand with)
the rod’ (cf. Num. 20:11); comparison of 8:1 to 8:2 shows that ‘stretching out
the hand with the rod’= ‘stretching out the hand’; comparison of 8:12 to 8:13
shows that ‘reaching out with the rod’= Teaching out the hand with the rod’;
see also 7:19, ‘take your rod and stretch out your hand,’ and 14:16, Tift up your
rod and stretch forth your hand’ (hendiadys); cf. 17:9 and 17:llf. Other verses
also support the notion that rod and hand are very closely related (4:2,4,17,
20; 7:15,17; 12:11; 17:5). We may thus conclude that in 14:21,26,27 too
(where T occurs by itself), the hand with the rod is intended. Is Moses’ rod the
same one as Aaron’s? The text of 7:15,17,19f. (cf. 7:9f.) lead us to the
conclusion that this was indeed the apparent conviction of the editor of
Exodus.
3.21.10 The term roa is used in the passages above to indicate ‘rod’ (OT
ca. 250x; Exod. 27x; see TWAT, IV, 818ff.). The OT has more than one
term for ‘staff,’ ‘rod’: tan® (21:20), (12:11; see TWAT, IV, 1129ff.),
(21:19). It is difficult to ascertain whether the terms each have a specific
connotation. They are often used as synonyms for each other. The staff/rod was
used on journeys (12:11; Gen. 32:11; 1 Sam. 14:27,43; Mark 6:8; Matt.l0:10;
Luke 9:3) for clearing the way, for support on difficult paths, to ward off
danger, etc.; the old (Zech. 8:4) and infirm (21:19) used it to walk; to punish
77 ntaa (O T ca. 215x; Exod. 22x) in the qal is also used in 33:7 (‘pitch’); 23:2 (+'"in!< ‘turn
aside after,’ ‘join’); hiph. in 23:2?,6 (‘bend’); see TWAT, V, 409ff.
78 For Aaron’s rod see also 7:9, 10,12, 20; other verbs are also used with the hand/rod as
object: )n3 (7:4); hiph. D ll (7:20; 14:16); It1?® (3:20; 4:4; 9:15; 24:11); Keel, (see § 3.21.4), 153ff.
states that rfa tf+ T refers more performing a concrete deed, whereas H Bl+T is the ‘expression of
a sovereign Will’ (157); adherents of the documentary hypothesis think that the rod is Moses’
characteristic attribute in the older layers of tradition; it was P who supposedly put the rod into
Aaron’s hands. In general, the notion that Exodus has interwoven various traditions with regard to
the rod has gained considerable esteem; e.g. Fohrer, 2 9 ,3 8 ,44f., 68, 106; Fuss, 70ff., et al.;
Valentin, 73ff., et al. (see, however, Eerdmans, 15f.).
people (21:20; Prov. 13:24; cf. 2 Sam.7:14; etal.) and animals (Num. 22:27); it
formed an essential piece of equipment for the shepherd (Lev. 27:32; 1 Sam.
17:40; cf. Ezek. 20:37; Mic. 7:14; Ps. 23:4); kings, people with high office, and
prominent citizens carried the staff or sceptre as a sign of their dignity and
power (Gen. 38:18,25; Num. 17:2ff.; 21:18; Judg. 5:14; Amos 1:5,8; Pss. 2:9;
60:9; cf. Rev.2:27; 12:5; 19:15) as bishops continue to do today (cf. ERE, XI,
813). The staff/rod can signify objects with various designs: a stick of about
75 cm. with a blunted end, a club, or a straight stick of various lengths; both
were used by shepherds.79 Of the terms mentioned non is used ca. 180 x (see
31:2,6; 35:30,34; 38:22,23) and 030 (OT ca. 190x) ca. 145x (see 24:4; 28:21;
39:14) for ‘tribe’ as part of the people (compare our use of ‘staff for a council
of people appointed to lead).80
3.21.11 One should probably picture Moses’ and Aaron’s rod as a long
straight stick. In Moses’s case it is a shepherd’s staff (4:2) (BOhl says at 4:9
that it was made of copper [cf. Num. 21:9]). The Egyptian magicians also have
rods (7:Ilf.). The rod in the hands of Moses and Aaron perhaps profiles them
as representatives of their people in the eyes of Pharaoh. Moses’ and Aaron’s
rod was a staff in the form of a snake, according to W. Brede Kristensen (cf.
4:2ff.; 7:9ff.):81 the rod/sceptre represents plant growth and was considered to
be animated by the perpetual vital order of the earth; it brought its bearers
insight into that order; it was carried by kings, judges, poets, and soothesayers,
etc., as a sign of the source of their knowledge and inspiration; the snake
represents the earth; snake and staff are both chthonic symbols and the snake/
staff conveyed the constantly renewed cycle of life on earth (cf. Asklepios’
snake/staff); with the rod in hand, accordingly, Moses and Aaron had the self-
renewing power of life at their disposal and were thus capable of freeing Israel
from the clutches of its fatal enemy. Whether or not this is true, the rod in
Exodus at any rate conveys power. The image of the stick/staff/rod as bearing
power was widespread in the ancient world (and indeed continues in such
customs as the use of a baton by conductors and magicians). The power which
the rod emanates can effect various kinds of miracles (see Judg. 6:21;
2 Kgs. 4:29ff.; cf. Josh. 8:18,26; 2 Kgs. 6:6). The degree to which the rod is
charged with power apparently depends on how ‘charged’ its bearer is (there is
79 See also AuS, VI, 221f., 238ff.; BHHW, III, 1845, 2234; DB, I, 451; IV, 291, 416f.; IDB, IV,
102f.,
O ft
234f., 438f.; see ANEP for illustrations.
The use of ‘staff1 and ‘tribe’ has been explained in a variety of ways: just as sticks are
outgrowths with a common origin, tribes are in like manner part offshoots of one people (DB, IV,
291); the representatives of the tribes carried a staff as a sign of their dignity and in this way the
staff became a token of the tribe; see Noth, WAT, 58, as well as A. Brenner, LeSonCnu 44 (1980),
100ff.; S. Gevirtz, in G. Rendsburg, et al. (eds.), The Bible World (Fs C.H. Gordon), New York
1980, 61-66.
81 See “De slangenstaf en het spraakvermogen van Mozes en Aaron,- in Symbool en Werkelijk-
heid, Zeist 1962, 258-76; cf. M.A.Beek in Fs C J. Bleeker, Liber Amicorum, Leiden 1969, 14-26.
30 INTRODUCTION
an overflow of power into the rod; e.g. 2 Kgs. 2:8,14: the power of the man of
God also permeates his clothing.) The rod can even retain its power in the
absence of its possessor, at least for a certain time (Num. 17:17ff.;
2 Kgs. 4:29ff.). The power of the bearer is a divine gift. The power issuing from
him into the rod makes the staff into orfatn noo ‘the rod of God’ (4:20; 17:9;
cf. §3.16.2). GreBmann, 456 etal., thinks that the rod was among the deity’s
attributes (cf. Judg. 6:21 and his interpretation of 7:17,25) and that the snake/
staff was given to Moses by the deity at Mt.Sinai, at least in the original
version (4:17; cf. Num. 20:9 and see LXX Exod. 4:29, tt|v p&p5ov tf|v rcapa Toil
flecro; see, however, 17:9).
See also ERE, XI, 81 Iff.; Dillmann at 4:20; Gaster, 233f., 301; GreBmann,
47f., 76,85,88ff., etal.; Gunkel, 96ff.; Pedersen, I-II, 170,201; III-IV,
112,118,206,285,614; E. Power, "The Staff of the Apostles,’ Bib 4 (1923),
241-66; idem, ’The Shepherd’s Two Rods in Modern Palestine and in some
Passages of the Old Testament.’ Bib 9 (1928), 434-42; W.H. Propp, ’The Rod
of Aaron and the Sin of Moses,’ JBL 107 (1988), 19-26; A. Rickert, ‘Der Stab
Gottes,* Antaios 4 (1962), 536-48; K. van der Toorn, ’Did Jeremiah See
Aaron’s Staff? JSOT 43 (1989), 83-94; F.J.M. de Waele, The Magic Staff or
Rod in Graeco-Italian Antiquity, Gent 1927; G.J. Wenham, "Aaron’s Rod
(Numbers 17 16-28),’ ZAW 93 (1981), 280-81; G. Widengren, The King and the
Tree o f Life in Ancient Near Eastern Religion, Uppsala 1951; F.A.M. Wig-
germann, “The Staff of NinSubura,’ JEOL 29 (1985-86), 3-34; for Moses’ and
Aaron’s rod in Jewish Tradition, see Ginzberg, p.3, s.v. Aaron, rod of; Index,
p.328, s.v. Moses, rod of; Rosmarin, 73ff. (the rod came from God; it was
passed on through the generations ever since Adam; the tetragrammaton was
engraved upon it, etc.); see Weil, 149f., for the Islamite tradition.
3.22 in* (OT ca. 995 x; Exod. 45 x) ‘know’ does not indicate primarily
cognitive understanding but rather ‘getting to know’ through experience and
through the use of one’s senses: ‘perceive,’ ‘discern,’ ‘notice’; e.g. qal m* in 2:4;
3:7,19; 4:14; 9:30; etal.; niph. »T in 2:14; 21:36; 33:16; one’s mind can certain
ly play a role in this, however; experiences can provide material to contemplate
and can lead to certain insights: ‘reach insight,’ ‘become aware’ (10:7; 33:5 qal),
‘recognize’; see qal in' in 6:7; 10:2; 11:7; 16:6,12; 29:46: 31:13 (Israel); 7:5,17;
8:6,18; 9:14,29; 14:4,18 (Pharaoh/Egypt); 18:11 (Jethro); not only experience
but common sense and counsel also contribute their share in acquiring the
skills of a craftsman (see 36:1 and the use of the substantive run [OT ca. 90 x]
in 31:3; 35:31; cf. G en.25:27; 1 Sam. 16:16,18; etal.). It is not uncommon for
in* to indicate the existence of a close relationship (e.g. 33:12,17). In such
cases »t can mean “want to know about’; see 2:25;82 5:2 (Pharaoh does not
want to have anything to do with y h w h ; cf. Isa. 45:4f.); 1:8.83 Note that even
when ‘know’ has the sense of ‘having a close relationship with,’ cognitive
knowledge is entailed (compare the use of hiph. »t in 18:16,20; 33:12,13);
what y h w h has done for Israel and what he demands of Israel must not be a
matter of purely intellectual knowledge but of existential knowledge; in order
to experience communion with y h w h one must know what He has done for
Israel; the experience of a relationship to y h w h will produce a desire to know
more about Him. The cognitive and the existential components in sn* are very
closely related. See also THAT, I, 682ff.; TWAT, III, 491ff.; Floss, 566ff.;
I.L. Seeligmann, “Erkenntnis Gottes und historisches BewuBtsein im alten
Israel," in Fs W. Zimmerli, BeitriXge zur alttestamentlichen Theologie, Gottingen
1977, 414-45.
3.23.1 Di' (OT ca. 2300x; Exod. 115x), dual O'dv (16:29; 21:21), pi. D*iy
(Exod. 33 x) (Ges-K §96; Joiion §98f; Meyer §58.19) ‘day,’ the period from
sunrise to sunset, the opposite of nb*b (OT ca. 225 x; Exod. 17 x) ‘night’ (also
b'b [OT 7x; Exod. 12:42; cf. Ges-K §90f; Joiion §93g; Meyer § 45.3c]; ‘day’+
‘night’ [merismus; cf. KraSovec, 116] = day [10:13; 24:18; 34:28]; n^b [e.g.
12:30f.; 14:20] is often used as temporal accusative [e.g. Joiion § 126i], ‘at
night’; also occurs together with the adverb dot [Ges-K § lOOg; Joiion § 102b;
Meyer §41.6; 54.3b] ‘during the day’ [13:21,22; 40:38]; for ‘night’ as opposed
to ‘morning’ [12:8,12; 14:21] see 7:15; for 11:4; 12:29 see §4.1).84 The sense
of or is sometimes broader: ‘a 24 hours’day’ (e.g. 21:21); sometimes narrower:
‘a (point in) time,’ ‘instant’ (6:28; 10:6,28; 40:37; see also below), and occurs
in various expressions: or or (Brockelmann § 129a; Meyer § 43.4,60.4,106.2b),
‘daily’ (16:5 ‘on the other days’); iovaoi—q i (KoSynt, p.265 n.l, p.293 n.l),
‘the amount for one day’ (5:13,19; 16:4). ovn (the article has the force of a
demonstrative pronoun; Ges-K § 126a, b; Joiion § 137f; Meyer § 31.1c) in the
form of a temporal accusative (see 10:13; 12:15; 20:8,11; 21:21; 24:18 [Ges-K
§ 100c, 118i; Joiion § 126i; Meyer § 106.2b]) is often used as an adverb, ‘today’
(2:18; 5:14; 13:4; 14:13; et al.), and when used together with a demonstrative
pronoun, indicates a certain day defined more specifically by the context: ‘this/
that day’ (rnnorn [12:14,17,41,51; 13:3; 19:1; in 10:6 ‘today’ may be con
82
God is concerned and cares about Israel’s fate (for the use of without an object, compare
Gen. 18:21; 1 Kgs. 1:11,18; Hos. 8:4); an appeal to Arabic, see e.g. D. Winton Thomas, JThS 49
(1948), 133f., is unnecessary; cf. J. Barr, Comparative Philology, Oxford 1968, 22; W. Johnstone, VT
41 (1991), 49-62; J.A. Emerton, KT41 (1991), 145-63; cf. Nah. 1:7; Pss. 1:6; 31:8; et al., and see 6:3
niph.
83
Which does not mean to say that Pharaoh did not (personally) know Joseph and was not in
possession of information regarding his merits (cf. 10:26; 16:5 qal; 33:12 hiph.), but that he could
care less about Joseph and his merits; cf. 1 Sam. 2:12f.; Judg. 2:10; Job 18:21.
^ See also TWAT, IV, 552ff.; C.J. Bleeker, “La signification religieuse de la nuit,“ in The
Sacred Bridge, Leiden 1963, 72-82.
32 INTRODUCTION
sidered as a translation]; twin ovn [10:13; 13:8; 32:28; in 5:6; 14:30 ‘at that
time’ and in 8:18 ‘then’ may be considered as a translation]), dv is used in a
variety of ways as governing noun in construct chains: +inf. construct (40:37;
cf. 9:18; 10:6,28; 32:34); +verbal/nominal clause (6:28; cf. Joiion § 129p); it
can also be modified by a clause introduced by (13:3; cf. Joiion § 129q). dv
is used with various prepositions; orb in 29:36,38 means ‘each day,’ ‘daily.’
3.23.2 O'p; occurs is the sense of ‘time’ (2:11,23; cf. Gen. 6:4; 21:34; etal.),
‘lifetime’ (20:12; 23:26; cf. Gen. 5:4; 6:3; etal.), “year’ (nirp; o*p*p [Ges-K §90h;
Meyer § 45.3c]: ‘from year to year’ [13:10]). The sing, or pi. are occasionally
connected to a numeral word to indicate a certain day of the month (e.g.
12:6,18; 16:1; cf. 40:2) or week. With the exception of the sixth and seventh
days, the days are indicated only by numbers in Hebrew. Friday, ‘the sixth day’
(§ 4.7.2) can also be indicated by ns>; Saturday, ‘the seventh day,’ can also
be indicated as ra» (see 16:23) or as ra»n ov (20:18 et al.). See also § 4 for dv /
D'D' in combination with numbers. See also THAT, I, 707ff.; TWAT, III, 566ff.;
G. Brin, ZAW 93 (1981), 183-96; J. Goldingay, VT 43 (1993), 112-5; O. Marga-
lit, BetM 27 (1981 —82), 183-213 (Hebrew); S.J. de Vries, Yesterday, Today and
Tomorrow, London 1975; for the calendar and the division of time in the OT,
see BHHW, III, 2211ff.; IDB, IV, 923ff.; Benzinger, 167ff.; Meyer § 61; de Vaux,
I, 315ff.
3.24.1 tor (OT ca. 1070 x; Exod. 94 x; qal 62 x; hiph. 32 x); although usage
is quite varied the sense of ‘go out’ can always be distilled, as is illustrated by
the use of the qal: ‘leave,’ ‘depart’ from the place where one is (2:11,13; 4:14;
5:10,20; etc.), repeatedly with the departure from Egypt as backdrop (12:41;
13:3,8; 16:1; 19:1; 23:15; 34:18; cf. 13:4; 14:8); ‘depart’= ‘be free,’ ‘be liberated’
(21:2ff.,7,11); ‘march out’ (17:9);85 ‘appear’ (17:6; 32:24); ‘break out’ (and
dispersion of fast spreading fire [22:5]; cf. S. Esh, VT 4 [1954], 305f.); ‘spring
from’ (1:5); ‘expel’ (a fetus) (21:22); whethern:»n ntm (23:16) means ‘at the
end of the year’ (outgoing) or ‘at the beginning of the new’ (incoming) is a
matter of discussion; for the latter opinion, e.g. M. Noth, ZDPV 74 (1958),
142f. and HAL; see, however, E. Auerbach, VT 3 (1953), 186f.; E.Kutsch,
ZAW 83 (1971), 15ff.; the former notion, which is traditional, deserves prefer
ence; for ns'+ rid (28:35) (merismus), see P. Boccaccio, Bib 33 (1952), 173ff.;
KraSovec, 83.
3.24.2 hiph. n r has a causative meaning: ‘present’ (4:6f.), ‘produce,’ ‘gen
erate’ (8:14), bring someone/something out (12:39,46; 19:17); hiph. ks* is often
used to refer to Israel being led out of Egypt: 3:10,11,12; 14:11; Deut. 9:12 (by
Moses); 6:13,26,27 (cf. 16:3 and 1 Sam. 12:8) (by Moses and Aaron); 6:6,7;
7:4,5; 12:17,42,51; 13:3,9,14,16; 16:6,32; 18:1; 20:2; 29:46; 32:11,12 (by
85 With YHWH as the subject in 11:4; cf. Judg. 4:14; 5:4; Ps. 81:6; etal.; and see Houtman,
Hirnmel, 139ff., 351ff.; F. Schnutenhaus, "Das Kommen und Erscheinen Gottes im Alten Tes
tament,* ZAW 76 (1964), 1-22.
YHWH). See also THAT, I, 755ff.; TWAT, III, 795ff. The fact that y h w h was
the one who led Israel out of Egypt has with good reason been characterized
by Noth as ‘einer der elementarsten und der am haufigsten wiederholten
Glaubenssatze im Alten Testament.’86 xr is the most used verb employed in
Exodus with regard to the exodus; also used recurrently in this regard is the
verb (§3.39.2) (cf. xia [§ 3.8]; W' [see 2:17]; bm [see 2:19]). Whether hiph.
x r and hiph. nbv have approximately the same sense or whether each has a
specific connotation is a matter of discussion.87 Boecker (39ff.), for instance,
states that hiph. x r initially referred only to the decisive act of salvation, the
destruction of the Egyptians at ‘Yam Suph’, while hiph. referred to the
exodus from Egypt, wandering the desert, and the entry in the land of Canaan.
Others defend the notion that the use of different terms should be ascribed to
the existence of different traditions (see the divergent concepts of Lubsczyk,
Richter, Wijngaards). We will suffice with drawing attention to the following
in the present context: the use of xr puts the ‘going out’ and the temporal
scope of the ‘departure’ at the centre; the entire complex of events (not just
the destruction of the Egyptians) surrounding the exodus (6:6,7; 7:4,5; 13:3,9;
etc.) are being referred to as a rule (see, however, 12:17,42,51);88 focuses
attention more on the journey and the destination, which is repeatedly
mentioned in so many words (e.g. 3:8,17). It seems prudent not to exaggerate
the difference between the two verbs (cf. 3:17; Josh. 24:17; Mic. 6:4). The
considerations mentioned above point out that hiph. xr and hiph. are not
seldom used in more or less fixed formulas with regard to the exodus (see
Gross in particular). There is, however, a wide diversity in the use of the
terminology (cf. EMATP, I, 74ff.).
3.25.1 (OT ca. 4470 x; Exod. 198 x), often followed by maqqep, by origin
a deictic interjection which recurrently assumes the function of an emphatic
particle and frequently assumes that of a conjunction. As an emphatic particle
'D occurs in 1:9; 15:1,21,26; 19:5; 22:22: ‘surely,’ ‘truly.’ Following verbs of
seeing, hearing, knowing, etc., often introduces clauses dependent on that
verb and means ‘that’ (3:19; 4:5,14; 4:31; 6:1,7; 14:5; 17:14; etc.); the subject
of the object clause is quite often mentioned proleptically as the object of the
main clause (2:2; 32:22; cf. Ges-K § 117h; Joiion § 157d); the object of the
main clause is further modified by the clause introduced by 'D in 6:1; 18:1;
34:10, and in such cases "D has the sense of ‘namely, that’; a verb of seeing is
assumed (cf. Joiion § 157e) in 3:12; 13:9,16; clauses dependent on a verb of
86 UP 50; cf. H. Lubsczyk, Der Auszug Israels aus Agypten: Seine theologische Bedeutung in
propetischer und priesterlicher Uberlieferung Leipzig 1963.
87 See H J . Boecker, Die Beurteilung der Anfange des Konigtums in den deuteronomistischen
Abschnitten des /. Samuelbuches, Neukirchen-Vluyn 1969; W. Gross, Z A W 86 (1974), 425-53;
P. Humbert, ThZ 18 (1962), 357-61,433-36; W. Richter, in Fs M. Schmaus, Wahrheit und Verkun-
digung, I, Munich 1967, 178ff.; J. Wijngaards, VT 15 (1965), 91-102.
88 Cf. B.S. Childs in Fs W. Baumgartner, Hebraische Wortforschung Leiden 1967, 30-39.
34 INTRODUCTION
speaking, even in direct discourse, may also be introduced by '3 (1:19; 3:12;
2:10; et al.); *3 can then be rendered as a colon; in such cases, however, it often
possesses emphatic force as well.
3.2S.2 *3 is used to introduce clauses of causation; since '3 does not, as a
rule, have much causal force, translating it as ‘since,’ ‘as,’ or ‘because’ is not
entirely appropriate, and rendering it as ‘for,’ ‘accordingly,’ ‘consequently,’ ‘that
is to say,’ etc., is to be preferred (1:21; 2:22; 3:5,6,7; 4:19; 5:8; etc.). *3 is used
to introduce temporal clauses: ‘then,’ ‘as soon as,’ *when,’ etc. (1:10; 3:21; 7:9;
12:25,26; etc.) (following rrm in 1:10 et al.; following *rn in 13:15 [on the
dageS lene in *3, e.g. Meyer § 14.4]). *3 is used to introduce consecutive clauses
‘that’ (3:11; 14:5; 16:7; 32:21), adversative clauses ‘but’ (after a preceding
negation) (4:1,10; 5:11; 16:8; 23:22,24; 33:3; 34:13) ( ok *3 also occurs [12:9]; cf.
C. van Leeuwen, OTS 18 [1973], 42ff.), concessive clauses ‘although,’ ‘even
though’ (13:17; 34:9), conditional clauses ‘if,’ “when’ (12:48; 20:25;
21:2,7,14,18; etc.).89 ok *3 in 8:17; 9:2; 19:4; 22:22; 23:22 does not form a
logical unity as is often the case; ok introduces a conditional clause in all cases;
in 22:22 *3 is an emphatic particle; in 8:17; 9:2; 10:4; 23:22 '3 has the sense of
an adversative.90 In addition to the grammars, see EMATP, I, 24ff.;
A. Aejmelaeus, "Function and Interpretation of ki in Biblical Hebrew," JBL
105 (1986), 193-209; W.T. Claassen, "Speaker-Orientated Functions of ki in
Biblical Hebrew," JNSL 11 (1983), 29-46; A.Schoors, "The Particle *3,"
OTS 21 (1981), 240-76; F.Zorell, Bib 14 (1933), 465ff.
3.26 b~> (OT ca. 5400 x; Exod. 309 x; often used with maqqep, *b3)
‘totality’ is used only rarely in unbound form (e.g. 29:24); the term is generally
used in various ways in bound form within a construct chains: with a definite
singular noun in the sense of ‘whole,’ ‘all’ (1:6,14,22; 5:12; 7:19; etc.; Ges-K
§ 127b; Jotion § 139e); with a (definite) pi. noun in the sense of ‘all’ (1:6; 3:20;
4:19,21,28; etc.; Ges-K § 127b; Jotion § 139f); the latter is also the case when
the final noun is collective and a genus or category is being indicated (1:22;
7:19; 9:6,19,22,25; 11:8; etc.; Ges-K § 127c; Jotion § 139g). If the final noun is
indefinite, *?3 assumes the function of an indefinite pronoun and may have a
distributive meaning: ‘all sorts o f (e.g. 1:14), ‘whoever’, “which ever,’ ‘some
one,’ ‘everyone,’ etc. (12:44; 18:22,26; 22:8,9; etc.) (repeatedly with a sing,
part. [12:15,19; 19:12; 22:18; 29:37; 30:13; etc.) or with ztk [25:2; 35:21,22,23;
etc.]; Ges-K § 116w, 127b; Jotion § 139h); -t-negation: ‘no one,’ ‘not a single’
(12:16,20,43,48; 20:4,10; etc.; Ges-K § 152b; Jotion § 160k). A relative clause
89 In the Book of the Covenant, '3 , in distinction to OK (§ 3.4.1), introduces universal

conditions; see 22:24, 25, however.
^ Compare the use of with causal force in 9:14; 12:33; 19:13; 23:21; a conditional clause with
DK is apparently assumed following 'D which has the following sense: “if you do (19:13; 23:21)/do
not (9:14; 12:33) do it, then 'D can best be translated as ‘otherwise’; see B. Jacob, ZAW 18
(1898), 295ff., for a different interpretation of in 9:14ff.
with often assumes the function of the unbound noun (6:29; 7:2; 9:19,25;
10:12; 18:1,8; etc.; without -r?k in 9:4). The verb modifies the unbound noun
as a rule (see, however, 1:5; 12:16; Ges-K § 146c; Jouonl50o; Brockelmann
§ 124a). ta+suffix also occurs with the meanings outlined above: ‘all’ (12:33);
‘each’ (14:7); ‘whole’ (19:18; 25:36; 37:22). to reinforces a statement.
Extravagant use of bo in narrative pericopes result in a suffusion of
superlatives and hyperbole in the narrative material (5:12;
7 :1 9 ,2 0 ,2 1 ,2 4 ,2 7 ,2 9 ; 8:12,13,20; 9 :4 ,6 ,9 ,1 1 ,1 4 ,1 6 ,1 9 ,2 2 ,2 4 ,2 5 ;
10:6,12,13,14,15,19,23; 11:5,6,7,8,10; etc.); the use of bo in passages
wherein words by y h w h are directed to Israel/the worshipping community
underscores that everyone is fully aware of what y h w h has to say/demands
(12:3,6,21; 20:1; 24:3,4,7,8; etc.) (see also §3.43.1). See also THAT, I, 828ff.;
TfVAT, IV, 145ff.
3.27 'bo (OT ca. 320x; Exod. 34x), pi. o*Vd (sing, in 35:22), indicates
various articles made of various materials, utensils, tools, etc., and is used in
Exodus 26 x to refer to the implements and the wherewithal of the tent
sanctuary (25:9; 27:19; 31:7; 39:33,40; 40:9), of the lampstand (25:39; 30:27;
31:8; 35:14; 37:24; 39:37), of the altar for burnt offerings (27:3; 30:28; 31:9; 35;
16; 38:3 (2x), 30; 39:39; 40:10), and of the table (30:27; 31:8; 35:13; 37:16;
39:36). Elsewhere articles of ‘silver’ (3:22; 11:2; 12:35) and ‘gold’ (3:22; 11:2;
12:35; 35:22) are referred to; jewelry is likely intended here (they are
mentioned next to clothing in 3:22; 12:35); cf. Gen. 24:53; Num. 31:50f.;
Isa. 61:10; Job 28:17; various rings, chains, and such seem to be what the writer
has in mind (cf. 33:2f. and see BHHW, III, 1603f., 1706ff.; BRL 282ff., et al.;
IDB, I, 871; II, 898ff.). Perhaps 22:6 (oÔ'iK *|0?) also refers to jewelry; in any
case, objects fashioned from precious metals are meant (cf. 1 Sam. 6:8,15;
2 Sam. 8:10; 1 Kgs. 10:25). See also TfVAT, IV, 179ff.
3.28 qo? (OT ca. 400x; Exod. 41 x) ‘silver’ a highly prized precious metal
which was used as money (21:32; 22:16) and thus also can mean ‘money’
(12:44; 21:11,34; 22:6,24; 30:16), ‘property’ (21:21) and ‘proceeds’ (21:35). *po
is used in 3:22; 11:2; 12:35; 20:23 together with arn (OT ca. 385 x;
Exod. 105 x) ‘gold’ (used in 20:23 as material for fashioning idols [cf.
Deut. 7:15; 29:16; Isa. 2:29; et al.]; 32:31 refers to a god made of gold; cf.
32:2f., 24). The terms comprise a frequent word pair in the OT (Gen. 13:2;
24:35,53; 44:8; Num. 22:18; 24:13; Deut. 17:17; etc.). ‘Silver’ is always the
initial term in the texts mentioned. ‘Gold’ can also be first (Ezek. 28:4;
Zech. 14:14; 1 Kgs. 10:22; 2 Kgs. 12:13; etc.).91 The sequence ‘silver’ — ‘gold’
in 3:22, etc., perhaps indicates a climax; it is also possible to think of an
91
Cf. B. Hartmann, Die nominalen Aufreihungen im Alien Testament, Zurich 1955; it is assumed
that the sequence ‘gold’ — ‘silver’ became customary at a later time; it has been suggested that the
sequence is archaic testimony to a lower value for gold ( TWAT, II, 540f.); see, however, Singer,
136ff.
36 INTRODUCTION
expression per merismum referring to what is most precious (e.g.

Prov. 22:1), possession signifies prominence and prosperity. The metals used
for making the tent sanctuary are mentioned in order as ‘gold,’ ‘silver,’ and
‘copper’ (25:3; 31:4; 35:5,32; 38:24,25,27,29). The order no doubt indicates
the assessed value of the metals mentioned. The frequency with which they are
used in Exod. 25—40 (with the exception of 32—34) also contains an indication
of their value. ‘Gold’ is used 97x (25:11,12,13,17,18,24, etc.); ‘silver’ 28x
(26:19,21,25,32; 27:10,11,17; etc.); ‘copper’ (n»m; OT 140x) 39x (26:11,37;
27:2,3,4,6; etc.). Vila ‘iron’ is not mentioned at all (its use in the sanctuary
was not authorized; see Singer, 188f.). The frequency in which ‘gold’ occurs
testifies to the radiance and the splendour of the tent sanctuary and undersco
res the glory of the One who resides there. See also BRL, 219ff.; RLA, III,
504ff.; V, 345ff.; TWAT, II, 534ff.; IV, 283ff.; Benzinger, 197ff.; N. Heutger,
•Geld in altbiblischer Zeit,’ DBAT 23/24 (1987), 186-90; R. Kessler, “Silber
und Gold, Gold und Silber: Zur Wertschatzung der Edelmetalle im Alten
Israel,* BN 31 (1986), 57-69; K.H. Singer, Die Metalle Gold, Silber, Bronze,
Kupfer und Eisen im Alten Testament und ihre Symbolik, Wurzburg 1980;
De Vaux, I, 365ff.
3.29.1 aV/aaV (OT ca. 850 x ; Exod. 47 x [mb in 14:5]) ‘heart’ is used as a
rule while referring to man (see 15:8, however) and is used to only a limited
degree for the organ ‘heart. aV can be characterized as the centre of man; it
is the seat of emotion, of sorrow and joy (4:14; Judg. 16:25; 18:20; etc.), but
usually it is the seat of thought and is the organ with which one acquires
insight, the organ which deliberates on how to act: ‘spirit,’ ‘mind’ (4:21;
7:13f., 22; 9 :1 1 ,1 5 ; etc.) (1 8 x in reference to Pharaoh’s heart; see § 3.19.1 and
taa [see 4:10] and nn>p [see 1:14]). In the Pharaoh’s case, a1? is the place where
politics are settled. When his ‘heart’ is loathe to stir, this means that he
resolutely holds on to the position he has assumed and his policy is immune to
outside influences: his rigid attitude prevents him from discerning which
decisions are or are not dictated by a certain situation (compare b a1? rre rV in
7:23 ‘not allow something to influence the attitude one has assumed; not allow
one to be moved to use his reason’ [cf. 1 Sam. 4:20; 25:25; 2 Sam. 18:3; et al.]
and Vr a5 o*» rV in 9:21). Pharaoh has a ‘heart of stone’ (Ezek. 11:19; 36:26)
and thereby proves himself to be an inept ruler (contrast 1 Kgs. 3:9; 5:9). He is
unable to deviate from the path he has chosen (14:5).
3.29.2 aV is also the seat of abilities (28:3 [along with mi; §3.47.3]; 31:6;
35:10,25; 36:1,2,8) and of the capacity to teach others those skills (35:34). It
follows from the fact that aV is the seat of thinking that a!? can also be the seat92*
92 Cf. KraSovec, 97,113f.

92 See 28:29,30 (2x); is ‘chest’ meant here?; for the latter opinion, see P. Joiion, Bib 5 (1924),
49ff.; Von Meyenfeldl, 131ff.; perhaps 2bmbv is not simply an indication of a place and ‘heart’ also
refers to the centre of thought, etc. (see below); cf. Deut. 6:6; Prov. 6:32.
of the will, of the drive and initiative of a person (25:2; 35:5,21 [next to rm;
see § 3.47.3], 22,26,29; 36:2; with the exception of 36:2, the approximate
meaning of zb is generosity). As with other anthropological terms, Db+prono-
minal suffix can assume the function of a (reinforced) personal pronoun (e.g.
Pss. 27:3; 33:21). This may be the case in 9:14 (see, however, Von Meyenfeldt,
9). The sense of D"3bp in 15:8 is “where the sea is really the sea’ (cf. Von
Meyenfeldt, 194ff.) and the meaning may be ‘open sea’ (Ezek. 27:4; Prov. 23:34;
30:19); 15:8 apparently refers to the depths of the sea (cf. Jonah 2:4; Ps. 46:3).
See also THAT, I, 220ff.; RLA, IV, 367f.; TWAT, IV, 413ff.; Dhorme, 112ff.;
Johnson, 75ff.; R. Lauha, Psychophysischer Sprachgebrauch im Alten Testament:
Eine struktural-semantische Analyse von zb, und rm, Helsinki 1983; F.H.
von Meyenfeldt, Het hart (leb, lebab) in het Oude Testament, Leiden 1950;
F. Rosner, Medicine in the Bible and the Talmud, New York 1977, 77ff.; Struysj
158ff.; Wolff, 68ff.
330 rrpb (OT ca. 965 x; qal ca. 940 x; Exod. 80 x; Exod. 29 14 x) is
frequently used to indicate ‘take,’ ‘take hold’ (with one’s hands) of articles,
materials, etc. (+accus.; the place from which something is taken, preceded by
|d; e.g. 4:9; 12:5,7); npb quite often refers to taking the rod in one’s hand in
Exodus (4:17, etc.; §3.21.9; the hand is explicitly mentioned in 15:20 as
instrument); see also 2:3; 4:9,25; 9:8; 12:7,22; 16:16,33; 17:12; etc. (ca. 40x).
Sometimes ‘taking’ presupposes ‘bringing’ (27:20) and npb can thus also mean
‘fetch,’ ‘pick up’ (2:5; 5:11; 12:21), ‘collect’ (25:2,3; 35:5), ‘provide,’ ‘take care
o f (18:12; cf. Prov. 31:16; Neh. 5:2) (A. Cody, Bib 49 [1968], 159ff., ‘accept’). It
also occurs with the sense of ‘taking along (on a journey, etc.)’ (12:32 and
13:19; 14:6 [+D»]; 17:5 [+n«]; 18:2 and 34:4 [+M'Z; §2.21.3]), ‘take away,’
‘carry off (14:11), ‘remove’ (21:14 [+p]), ‘receive’ (23:8; 30:16; 36:3 and 29:25;
32:4 [+ dto; §2.21.3]), ‘accept’ (22:10). Qal npb+rwxbib (6:20,23,25) as well
as ib npb (21:10) or simply npb (2:1) occur in the sense of ‘take as wife’; npb+b
can also mean ‘choosing a wife for’ (34:16).94 With the meaning just men
tioned, npb comes close to ‘elect,’ ‘choose,’ ‘select’ (cf. 10:26; 12:3,4,5; 14:7;
17:5a; with YHWH as the subject in 6:7; cf. Deut. 4:20; 1 Kgs. 11:37; Isa. 66:21
and see Vriezen, Verfdezing, 22ff.). Often npb is followed by another verb.
‘Taking’ then takes place to enable the action which was the ultimately
intended (2:3; 4:9,25; 7:9,19; 9:8,10; 12:7; etc.).95 npb is sometimes used
aspecifically and serves only to introduce the next verb. Such usage appears to
be redundant. One may consider leaving it untranslated (12:22; 16:33; 24:8;
28:9; 29:5,7,13,20; etc.). In other cases rendering it by ‘take’ may even be
inappropriate, e.g. 4:20, where the apparent sense is: ‘Moses set his wife and
94 Cf. J. Scharbert, “Ehe und Eheschliessung in der Rechtsprache des Pentateuch und beim
Chronisten,* in Fs W. Komfeld, Studien zum Pentateuchy Wien et al. 1977, 213-25.
95 For npb followed by ]ro in 12:7; 30:16, see C.J. Labuschagne in Fs M.A. Beek, Travels in the
World o f the Old Testament Assen 1974, 176-80.
38 INTRODUCTION
his sons on an ass’ (cf. Gen. 2:15; Josh. 2:4; 1 Kgs. 18:4). Hithp. rip!? occurs in
the OT only in 9:24; Ezek. 1:4. See also THAT, I, 875ff.; TWAT, IV, 588ff.
3.31 *opp (OT ca. 270 x; Exod. 27 x) is used to indicate areas which one
would today indicate by the words ‘desert’ (200 mm. annual precipitation) or
‘steppe’ (300 to 400 mm. annual precipitation). In Exodus, where - d i d is used
to refer to the Sinai peninsula, it denotes desert area of which less than half
the terrain is covered by vegetation. The deserts east and south of Palestine
are mainly stone deserts with large mountainous areas. Scanty top soil
nourishes meagre bushes and grasses. There are also large areas devoid of
vegetation (for a description of the landscape, flora, and fauna of the Sinai
peninsula, see, for instance, the various contributions to Rothenberg). The
desert environment can afford an existence to only modest numbers of people
in view of its natural character. Since the vegetation can only serve as food for
camels and goats, only the Bedouin way of life is supportable in the desert,
"ipiii is linked several times to geographical names in Exodus: 15:22a (Shur);
16:1; 17:1 (Sin); 19:lf. (Sinai) but as a rule, it applies to laipn ‘the desert.’ It is
clear from the context that the area intended in 3:18; 4:27; 5:1,3; 7:16;
8:23,24; 13:18,20; 14:3,11; 18:5 is the desert area stretching eastward from
Egypt and adjacent to the southern limit of Palestine. This should also apply
to 3:1 where ‘the desert’ indicates the grazing ground of the Midianites. The
context dictates that ‘the desert’ in 15:22b refers to the Shur desert, in
16:2,3,10,14,32 it applies particularly to the Sin desert (cf. 16:1; 17:1), and in
19:2b it indicates the Sinai desert, "oio in 23:31 refers to the desert area south
of Palestine (cf. Deut. 11:24; Josh. 1:4 and see Num. 13:21).96 On the whole,
*oin has a negative connotation in the OT. To the Israelite it was terrain that
he feared because it was parched, barren, and full of danger; the desert is the
opposite of cultivated land and cities; death and desolation prey there
(Isa. 27:10; 64:9; Jer. 4:26; 9:10f.; Hos. 2:2; etal.; see 14:llf.; cf. Num. 21:5)
because of thirst (15:22), hunger (16:3; cf. Num. 20:5; 2 Sam. 17:29; Ps. 107:5),
hostile Bedouin (17; cf. Jer. 3:2; Lam. 5:9), the chance of losing one’s way
(14:3; cf. Gen. 21:14; Isa. 16:8; Ps. 107:4) (see also Num. 14:3; Deut. 8:15; 32:10;
Jer. 2:6; 17:6). The desert is also mentioned in a more positive sense in the OT
and in Exodus: it provides food for the flock (3:1; cf. 1 Sam. 17:28; 25:4,21;
etal.); it contains the site at which the deity has revealed himself (3:lff.;
19:Iff.; cf. 4:27; 18:5); the Israelites want to worship their God there (3:8;
5:1,3; 7:16; 8:23,24). See also IDBS, 946ff.; TWAT, IV, 660ff.; Bocher, 65ff.;
Houtman, Himmel, 145ff., 292ff.; Noth, WAT, 41ff.; Schwarzenbach, 93ff.;
Stadelmann, 138f.
3.32 ma (OT ca. 845 x; Exod. 59 x) is used in the qal for people who die
in apparently natural fashion (1:6; 2:23; 4:19), as a result of maltreatment
(21:1,12,18,20), hailstones (9:19), drowning (14:30), military violence
96 See the literature referred to at §8.21 and at 10:19.

(14:11,12), wounds caused by an animal (21:28), encounter with God (20:19),

encounter with the holy (28:35,43; 30:20,12; cf. Lev. 8:35; 10:2,6,7,9; et al.;
see also Exod. 19:12; 31:14,15), the intervention of God (11:5; 12:30,33; 16:3);
It is also used for the death of animals which die as a result of natural causes
or causes not indicated (8:9; 22:9,13), as a result of plagues (7:18,21;
9:4,6 [2x], 19) or wounds caused by another animal (21:35,36). Qal nio is also
used of the death of individuals who die as a result of a sentence passed on
them by other people: ‘to be put to death,’ ‘to be executed’ (10:28; 21:14; cf.
Gen. 42:20; 44:9; Lev. 20:20; etal.) The qal inf. abs.+third person sing. hoph.
(Ges-K §1131, m; Joiion § 123e; Meyer § 103.3b) is recurrently used in the
formula nor nio (etymological figure of speech, paronomasia) ‘he shall be
violently put to death’ to characterize the measure of punishment (19:12;
21:12,15,16,17; 22:18; 31:14,15; cf. Gen. 26:11; Lev. 20:2,9,10; et al.; see also
21:29; 35:2 for hoph. mo). As far as the form is concerned no and nno can
indicate the qal perf. third person sing, as well as the qal sing, active participle
(discussion about the form intended is possible in, for instance, 7:21; 9:6b, 7);
the qal participle can mean ‘dying,’ ‘being dead’ (12:30; 14:30; 21:35,36) and
‘about to die’ (12:33) (Ges-K § 116d; Joiion § 121i; Meyer § 104.2); whether no
in 9:6b, 7 means ‘dead cattle (one)’ merits consideration (cf. 21:35,36 non=‘the
dead animal’). Hiph. mo ‘kill’ occurs with man (1:16), y h w h (4:24), and an
animal (21:29) as the subject and sometimes means ‘to cause/allow to die’
(16:3; 17:3; cf. Gen. 38:7,10; Num. 14:15; Deut. 9:28). The derivative mo (OT
ca. 150x) ‘death’ is used in 10:17 in the sense of ‘that which brings death and
destruction’ (cf. 2 Kgs. 4:40), ‘this terrible evil’ (cf. Deut. 30:15).97 See also
IDBS, 219ff.; THAT, I, 893ff.; TWAT, IV, 763ff.
3.33 D'o (OT ca. 580 x; Exod. 44 x) is probably only an apparent dual and
should be regarded as an irregular pi.;989construct form *o (e.g. 15:19) or *o*o
(e.g. 4:9)." cro is a general term to indicate water. It can indicate flowing and
still water (7:19 (2 x); 8:2), and well water, and is often used in Exodus for
‘the Stream’ (§8.10) (2:10; 4:9 [2xJ; 7:15,17,18,20 [2x], 21,24; 8:16; ‘the
water’ in 2:10; 7:15; 8:16 ‘the Stream’ is meant; cf. 2:5) and the water of ‘the
sea’ (14:21,22,26,29; 15:8,10,19) (§8.12 and commentary at 10:19). Water is
among the first human necessities (7:18,21,24; 15:22; 17:6; 32:20) and is used
as such together with ‘bread’ (see 2:20) to indicate the nourishment necessary
to sustain human life (23:25: 34:28). The desert in particular can impose
problems in obtaining (potable) water (15:22ff.; 17:lff.; Num. 20:2ff.). Water is
97
‘Death’ functions as a kind of superlative to indicate that which diminishes a full life.
98 See Fontinoy, 48, 54; cf. 144, 146, 148,151, 231; Ges-K §88d; Joiion §91f, 98e; see also,
however, Meyer §58.16, 18 as well as Houtman, Himmely 5f.; the plural can be regarded as a plural
of extension/composition; see Ges-K §124b; Joiion §136e; Brockelmann §19d.
99 Duplication also occurs when suffixes are used (e.g. 7:9) (Ges-K §96; Joiion §98e, 99e); for
the duplication, see Meyer §43.4 and Ges-K §123c-f, 133i.
40 INTRODUCTION
used to cook in (12:9; cf. Ezek. 24:3ff.; Isa. 64:2; Jer. 1:13), to wash (29:4;
30:18,20; 40:7,12), etc. It is not only beneficial to man but can also bring him
death and destruction (14:28ff.; 15:10,19). For the various aspects of water see
also BRL, 358ff.; BHHW, III, 2138f.; DB, IV, 897ff.; IDB, IV, 806ff.; TWAT, IV,
843ff.; Bocher, 50ff., 195ff.; Reymond, passim. See commentary at 20:4.
334 iv: (OT ca. 240x; Exod. 4x) (fem. rn»3 [OT 63x; Exod. 2:5]) is
normally understood as ‘(small) boy’ (usually sing.) and ‘servant’ (usually pi.).
Consideration of the term’s usage in the OT makes it clear that its meaning
(in Exodus as well) is difficult to ascertain precisely. Although it is not
possible to be elaborate we wish to draw attention to the following: Steif
asserted in 1929 with reference to Gen. 21:12,17,18,20; 22:5,12; 34:18; 37:2;
Exod. 24:5; 33:11; Judg.8:14; 17:7; 1 Sam. 1:24; 2:18; 2 Sam. 14:21;
18:5,12,29,32 that iv:=Anwdrter ‘pretender’, a person who has a claim to a
certain high position; MacDonald characterized *iw in 1976 as a (young) man,
a member of the aristocracy, a squire or knight; Stahli described *iw in 1978 as
a person who did not possess full rights, whose status was characterized by
reliance and dependance: (a) the not yet mature single male person (usually
sing.) under the authority of the father in the family; (b) the male person in
service (usually pi.) (1 Sam. 9:3; 25:8,14,19; etc.) (cf. rnw, ‘maids/servants’
‘courtiers’ [2:5; cf. Esth. 2:9; 4:4,16]). It must be stated in the first place that
though is?: can be used for a very young just born child (2:6; 1 Sam. 1:22; 4:21),
the designation ‘boy’ or ‘lad’ is often incorrect: the seventeen year old (adult)
and thirty year old Joseph is called (Gen. 37:2; 41:12,46); the same person
can be designated as »*r and as iv: (e.g. Judg. 17:7,8); the same persons as
dnsjk and as D”i»? (e.g- Josh. 6:22.23), etc. The fact that is?: is used next to and
in distinction to pi (see 3:16) in expressions per merismum (Gen. 19:4;
Exod. 10:9; Josh. 6:21; etal.; see also 24:1,5,9; Deut. 28:50; Isa. 20:4; 65:20;
etal.; see KraSovec, 124; Stahli, 132ff.) forces us to conclude that *iw cannot
(at least not always) be applied to any member of the male sex regardless of
age; the expression per merismum, according to Stdhli, means ‘die Totalitat
aller, der jiingeren Unmiindigen und Minderberechtigten wie der alteren, voll
Rechtsfahigen.’ (p.134) Furthermore, iw is notably used of the children of
leaders and rulers: Jether (Judg. 8:20); Absalom (2 Sam. 14:21 et al.); Solomon
(1 Kgs.3:6 etal.); Hadad (1 Kgs. 11:17); Abijah (1 Kgs. 14:3,17); Immanuel
(Isa. 7:16); cf. 2 Sam. 12:16; 13:32. *isn seems to amount to ‘prince’ here, uh is
elsewhere used to refer to individuals who are expected to play a preeminent
role (see the texts mentioned by Steif and, for instance, Judg. 13:5ff.). One
could thus assume that -is» in 2:6 is intended to express that Moses already
showed signs of nobility as a child, indicating that he was a lad of high birth. It
is worth mentioning that in 2:1-10 is>3 is used 7x next to iV. Both terms are
used next to one another more often: see Gen. 21:14,15,16 (iV) alongside of
21:12,17 (2x), 18,19,20 (u»); 43:8; 44:22,30,31,32,33 (2x), 34 (*w)
alongside of 44:20 (iV); 2 Sam. 12:15,18,19,21,22 (iV) alongside of 12:16
(uh); 2 Kgs. 4:18,26,34 (iV) alongside of 4:29,30,31,32,35 (u>:), making it

plausible that this is merely a matter of stylistic variation and providing little
basis for major conclusions in matters of interpretation. Joshua is called ‘his
(Moses’) servant’ in 33:11 as well as "m 100 It is thus quite possible that the
sense -is» in 33:11 amounts to ‘confidant,’ the attendant who acts as his
master’s proxy. Stdhli thinks that iuj in 33:11; Judg. 17:7,11,12; 18:3,15;
1 Sam. 2:11b, 18; 3:1a as well as Exod. 24:5 has the technical meaning of ‘cult
servant’ (pp.l84ff.). Although it is apparently presupposed by 33:11 that
Joshua excercised a function in the sanctuary and that he had a similar relation
to Moses as Samuel appears to have had to Eli according to 1 Sam. 1-3,
Stdhli’s conclusions exceed the evidence. Nor can the fact that d**ivj offered
sacrifices according to 24:5 support the conclusion that they were liturgical
servants who performed their tasks in submission to Moses (compare, for
instance, Judg. 6:18ff.). See also H. Barilqo, “The Case of the ne‘arim,m
BetM 27 (1982—82), 101-8 (iV* defines a biological relationship; indicates
care and involvement); J. MacDonald, “The Status and Role of the na'ar in
Israelite Society,’ JNES 35 (1976), 147-70; B. Cutler - J. MacDonald, “Ide
ntification of the na'ar in the Ugaritic Texts,* UF 8 (1976), 27-35; H.P. Stahli,
Knabe-Jilngling-Knecht, Frankfort 1978; M. Steif, “Zur Bedeutung von in
der Bibel,* MGWJ 73 (1929), 315-17.
3.35.1 (OT ca. 755x; Exod. 17x), pi. nitfm (12:4; 16:16; 30:15,16), it is
customarily assumed, has the basic meaning of ‘throat’ (e.g. Isa. 5:14; Hab. 2:5;
Pss. 69:2; 105:18; 107:5,9; see, however, Becker, 6 ,98ff., 120ff., ‘breath’). As the
entryway for food and breath, the throat is an organ vital to supporting the life
of the human body. Yearning, craving for gratification, and satisfaction are
characteristic of the throat, and human life depends on its proper functioning.
It is therefore not surprising that »d: can indicate ‘life,’ Vital force’ (one can
feel the beat of life at someone’s throat) and that it is used to indicate the seat
of desire and affect (compare such expressions as: a lump in one’s throat; to be
at one another’s throat; I have had it up to here (my throat); something caught
her by the throat; ram something down a person’s throat, etc.) and, as the vital
organ of man, can be serve to designate man himself (‘a unit of vital power,’
according to Johnson). occurs in the sense of ‘life’ in 4:19 (OT 30 x as
object of piel »pa; is the concrete background “to cut/be at one another’s
throat’?); 21:23;101 21:30 (cf. Ps.49:9); 30:12 (cf. Num. 35:31; Prov. 13:8);
30:15,16 (cf. Lev. 17:11; Num. 31:50). Whether ‘person’+ pronominal suffix
in 21:30; 30:12,15,16 serves to define the personal pronoun as a reflexive is a*1
100
w in the OT is often a personal attendant (Gen. 18:7; 41:12; Judg. 7:10, 11; 9:54; 16:26;
1 Sam. 2:13, 15; etc.). Amnon’s servant (2 Sam. 13:17) and Elisha’s servant (2 Kgs. 6:15, 17) are
designated as r m o and as (cf. 1 Sam. 2:18; 3:1)^
^ Cf. Deut. 19:21 and see 1 Kgs. 20:39, 42; 2Kgs. 10:24; does 80D3 concretely designate a
throat?; a person or an individual is probably what we should have in mind; cf. Lev. 24:18.
42 INTRODUCTION
question deserving some consideration. Such an interpretation is impossible in

21:30 in view of the contrast to death in 21:29. »d: is used in 15:9 to indicate
(the seat of) desires and affect (the urge to kill, the desire to destroy; is the
concrete background the gaping jaws of a monster?; cf. Isa. 5:14; Hab. 2:5) and
23:9 (the ‘feelings’ of the stranger: the fear of spiritual and physical repression;
the desire to be accepted, feel at home; cf. Prov. 12:10). »d: is used in Exodus
to indicate a person or persons:102 (a) in the formula torn iSDsn nrrpai ‘that
person must be annihilated’ (12:15,19; 31:14; Gen. 17:14; Lev. 7:20,21,27;
etc.); as a singular in form and meaning has a very general meaning
(‘being,’ ‘individual’) and is, as such, suited to use as a legal term; too: functions
as an indefinite pronoun (Jouon § 147b n.2; Meyer § 31.4b); cf. 12:16; (b) »D3
sing, is used collectively for ‘persons’; see 1:5a (cf. Gen. 46:15,22,25,26,27),
5b (cf. Gen. 46:18,27a; Deut. 10:22);103 (c) ufo: as a plural in form and
meaning to designate ‘persons’ (12:4; 16:16).
335.2 The niphal verb ®di is used in 23:12; 31:17; 2Sam. 16:14 (in 23:12//rm
[see 10:14); cf. RSP, II, 23) ‘to be refreshed,’ ‘to be re-invigorated’ (regain one’s
vitality by resting); Qal ‘blow,’ formed by the same radicals, is used in
15:10; Isa. 40:24. See also THAT, II, 71ff; TWAT, V, 531ff; J.H. Becker, Het
begrip nefesj in het Oude Testament, Amsterdam 1942; H.A. Brongers, “Das
Wort ‘npS’ in den Qumranschriften," RdQ 4 (1963 -64), 407-15; M.I. Gruber,
VT 37 (1987), 365-69; Johnson, 3ff; D. Lys, Nephesh, Paris 1959; Wolff, 25ff.
3.36 in: (OT ca. 2010 x; Exod. 115x) ‘give,’ ‘lay,’ ‘put,’ ‘do,’ ‘handle’ in the
qal (OT ca. 1920x) is used with various shades of meaning: ‘hand over/
transfer something (accus.)’ (+ 1?) (24:12; 25:16b, 21; 31:18 [+bR]; 32:24),
‘provide/furnish something (accus.)’ (+b) (5:7,10,16 [niph.], 18 [niph.];
16:8,15,29; 17:2), ‘entrust something (accus.) (to the care of)’ (+b«) (22:6,9),
‘provide’ (5:18), ‘relinquish/devote something (accus.)’ (+b) (22:28,29; cf. 1
Sam. 1:11), ‘give something (accus.) to (+b)/put someone in possession of
something’ (with y h w h as the subject and jnn as the object [6:4,8; 12:25;
13:5,11; 32:13; 33:1; cf. Gen. 15:18; 26:4; 17:8; etal.]; with noiKiri as the object
[20:12]; with the sabbath as the object [16:29; cf. Ezek. 20:12]), ‘give (a wife) in
marriage’ (+b) (2:21; 21:4; 22:16), ‘put something (accus.) at someone’s
disposal’ (+ T 3) (10:25; cf. Gen. 9:2), so that he can do with it as he
pleases,104 ‘reserve something (accus.) for’ (+by) (30:16), ‘pay’ (2:9 [cf.
Gen. 30:18; Deut. 24:15]; 21:22,30,32 [cf. Deut. 22:19,29]; 30:12,13,14,15 [cf.
Lev. 27:23]), ‘compensate’ (21:19), ‘give someone (accus.) permission to’ (inf.
102 Cf. R. Rendtorff, in Fs H.-W. Wolff, Was ist tier Mensch..?, Miinchen 1992,211-20.
103
Lys, 169, considers it possible that the usage is a vestige ‘de I’antique notion tribale d’Sme-
totalitd;’ Johnson, The One, 7ff., 27, characterizes a household, a social unity, as "a single 10D3," a
“corporate personality"; see, however, Becker, 123.
104 Cf. ]ro + T 3 in 23:31; Deut. 7:24; 21:10; et al.
constr.+b) (3:19; 12:23 Gen. 20:6; 31:7; etc.),105 ‘put something (accus.) into
something’ (no®) (16:33; 30:18; 40:30), ‘put/lay something (accus.) in’ (+ ‘tk)
(25:16,21; 28; 30; 40:20; +*?» in 29:3), ‘put/bring something (accus.) on
something’ (+ 1w) (12:7; 29:12,20; 30:33; 34:33). ]n:+^s> is often used (ca. 25x)
in the description of the making of the tent sanctuary: iay/place/put on,’ ‘fix/
fasten to,’ etc. (25:12,16,21,26,30; 26:32,34,35; 28:14,23,25,27; 29:6,17;
etc.).106 ;n:+accus. of the person +nK=‘put a person at someone’s disposal’
(31:6; cf. Gen. 3:16); ]n:+double accus.=‘make into/appoint to’ (7:1; 18:25;
Gen. 17:5; Num. 11:29);107 in:= ‘bring something about/produce/cause’ (7:9
[cf. Josh. 2:12; 1 Kgs. 13:3,5; 2Chr. 32:24]; 9:23; cf. H.J. van Dijk, VT 18 [1968],
23,25; S.C. Reif, VT 20 [1970], 114ff.; 7:4). ]n: is used with abstract concepts as
the object: +]n (see 3:21) (‘make a person favourable towards someone’ [3:21;
11:3; 12:36; Gen. 39:21]; cf. P.Jouon, Bib 2 [1921], 228); +rm?n (see 1:10)
(noDn is called to life in [the ‘heart’ of] a person [31:6; 36:1,2]; cf. 35:34);
+ n :m (see 12:32) (32:29). For the turn of phrase ]n*"n which has become fixed
into a particle of wishing (16:3), see B. Jongeling, VT 24 (1974), 32-40. may
be used in contexts in which another verb could well be substituted without a
(drastic) shift in meaning; e.g. 7:9 (in:) alongside of 11:10 (n»s>); 7:4 (]n:)
alongside of 3:20 (nb») and 7:5 (no:). See also THAT, II, 117ff.; TWAT, V,
693ff.
3.37.1 13V (OT ca. 290x; Exod. 31 x; qal 27x; hiph. 2x; hoph. 2x)
‘serve’ in the qal, has a variety of meanings. It is used for performing labour
requiring (heavy) physical exertion: the labour of the free Israelite in cul
tivating the land (20:9; 34:21); the labour of the slave (21:2,6); the forced
labour of Israel in Egypt (1:13,14; 5:18; 6:5; 14:5,12) (in 1:14 qal nou+instr-
umental 3 ‘cause labour to be performed by’ [cf. Lev. 25:39,46; Jer. 22:13;
et al.]; hiph. izv in 1:13; 6:5). It is used in the sense of ‘serve in the cult,’
“worship’: with respect to y h w h (3:12; 4:23; 7:16,26; 8:16; 9:1,13;
10:3,7,8,11,24,26 (2x); 12:31; 23:25); with respect to the worship of idols
(20:5; 23:24 [hoph. 131) ‘allow oneself to be lured into serving’]; 23:33). Floss,
201ff., 526ff., 551ff., thinks that 13» only means ‘serve in the cult’ in the later
texts, 3:12; 10:24,26 (2 x); following Daube, 39ff.,108 he wants to understand
the formula ‘let my people go’ (7:16 [‘in the desert’ is presumed to be an
addition], 26; 8:16; 9:13; 10:3; cf. 4:13) and the use of 13» in 10:7,8,11 against
the backdrop of the social ‘institution of redemption’ (relatives have the right
and the duty to repurchase and reclaim a farfiily member who has been
105 Cf. KoSynt § 414g; Ges-K 5 157b n l.

106 See also the use of in i+ m n in 26:33; 27:5; +1'3 in 30:18; 40:7; +'?Di? in 30:6, 36; 40:5, 6;
+ 3 in 40:22.
10^ Cf. 23:27, make someone’s enemies into a back for someone (+^K), cause them to show
their backs, i.e., flee; cf. Ps. 18:41.
Idem, in Fs O. EiBfeldt, Von Ugarit bis Qutnran, Berlin 1961, 35ff.
44 INTRODUCTION
reduced to slavery or family property which has been mortgaged): y h w h

claims all sovereignty over Israel and demands that Pharaoh cedes his; Israel
must belong to him and must be no longer bound Pharaoh’s will. Floss
believes that other elements in the text (3:18; 5:1,3,8,17; 8:4,21ff.; 10:9,24-26;
cf. 3:12; 7:16) and editorial arrangement create the impression that ias> refers
to a single cultic solemnity. Floss’s argument is unconvincing. It should be
remarked that the cult worship of y h w h implies entrusting oneself to him and
the recognition of him as Lord. Pharaoh’s refusal to let the people go should
be seen against that background. Permission for the worship of y h w h entails
relinquishing any claim to Israel. ‘Service’ to Pharaoh can no more be recon
ciled with ‘service’ to y h w h than can ‘service’ to idols (20:5; 23:24,33). For
‘serve’ presupposes that one addresses one’s Lord (cf. Deut. 6:13; 10:12,20;
11:13; etc.), y h w h demands Israel’s exclusive devotion with respect to himself
(Deut. 4:19; 7:16; 11:16; 12:2,30; etc.). 'Q» with rniyn as the object in 13:5
(cognate accusative; cf. Gen. 29:17; Num. 3:7,8; etal.) signifies ‘observing the
custom.’
337.2 ids? presupposes a relationship in which the one party is dependent
and submissive to the other. This is also apparent from the use of the substan
tive 131) (OT ca. 800 x; Exod. 43 x) which is used to refer to a considerable
variety of relationships. 13V is always the one who obeys and who performs
commands by piR (see 4:10). The term is not dominated by the notion of
servitude. Nor does the term as such indicate belonging to a certain class.
can indicate a slave (12:44; 20:10,17; 21:2,5,7,20,26,27), but 5:21;
7:10,20,28,29; 8:5,7,17,20,25,27; 9:14,20,30,34; 10:1,6,7; 11:3,8; 12:30 (cf.
Gen. 40:20; 41:10) refer to Pharaoh’s courtiers, confidants, and advisers as
D"Di>,109 who in turn have D” D» ‘slaves’ (9:20,21) at their disposal. One can
express humility with respect to another person by designating oneself as *ds>
(5:15,16 [2x]; cf. Gen. 32:5,19,21; 33:14 and see L.K 6hler, ZAW4Q [1922],
43f.; Riesener, 156ff.). In referring to forced labour, Egypt is called D”DV n*3
‘house of bondage,’ ‘slaves’ house’ (13:3,14; 20:2; Deut. 5:6; 6:12; 7:8; et al.; cf.
Floss, 56ff.). Moses meekly designates himself a ‘servant’ of y h w h to express
that he is at y h w h ’s disposal (cf. 1 Sam. 3:9f.) and must act according to his
directions (cf. Num. 11:11; Deut. 3:23 and see 1 Kgs. 3:7-9). The term here
does not (yet) amount to an indication that there is a relationship of trust
betweeen y h w h and Moses (cf. Num. 12:7f.). Such is the case in 14:31 where
Moses is called ‘his ( y h w h ’s ) servant.’110 Moses designates the patriarchs as
100 is used in the OT of various kinds of functionaries for Israel’s kings, see Riesener,
150ff • U. Rutersworden, Die Beamten der israelitischen Konigszeit, Stuttgart 1985.
11(* Cf. Deut. 34:5; Josh. 1:15; etc. (ca. 40x); see C. Barth, “Mose, Knecht Gottes," in
Fs K. Barth, Parrhesia, Zurich 1966, 66-81.
□may in 32:13 (cf. Deut. 9:27) as a title of honour.111

3 3 7 3 The term does not have a feminine form. The terms tor (OT ca.
55 x; Exod. 9x) and ira® (OT ca. 65 x; Exod. 11:5) are used to indicate
subordinate women. The texts provide little basis for a possible (subtle)
difference between the two terms;11213in Exodus tor occurs particularly in the
legal sections (20:10,17; 21:7,20,26,27,32); tor*)? in 23:12m is no more
than a synonym for ioy (cf. 20:10; Deut. 5:14); tor in 2:5 is the personal
servant, the court lady (cf. Nahum 2:8) of Pharaoh’s daughter. See also
K. Engelken, Frauen im Alten Israel: Eine begriffsgeschichtliche und sozial-
rechtliche Studie zur Stellung der Frau im Alten Testament, Stuttgart 1990.
3.37.4 The substantive rniay (OT ca. 145x; Exod. 23x) is used to indicate
Israel’s forced labout in Egypt (1:14 [3x]; 2:23 [2 x]; 5:9,11; 6:6,9; cf.
Deut. 26:6; 1 Kgs. 12:4). m oy in the OT are used particularly with respect to
the cult and its arrangement: ‘custom,’ ‘ritual’ (12:25,26; 13:5); in the construct
chain rmy 'b~> (27:19; 39:40) to indicate the maintenance of the sanctuary and
the cult which takes place there; rrov is used in 30:16 (cf. 38:25-28); 36:5;
39:32,42 for executing the construction of the sanctuary; the construct chain
rnayn rpRô in 35:24; 36:1,3 (cf. 35:21 [hendiays]) has the same sense; may
possibly qualifies torô as work which must be performed according to
regulations;114 moy in 38:21 is ‘assigned work’ (probably the weighing and
recording of precious metals; see 38:24-29). See also THAT, II, 182ff.; TWAT,
V, 982ff.; Floss; F. Gryglewicz, "La valeur morale du travail manuel dans la
terminologie Grecque de la Bible," Bib 37 (1956), 314-37; Riesener. Consult
the commentary on Exod. 21 for the position of slavery in Israel.
338 (OT ca. 865x; Exod. 34x )115 ‘eye’ is used primarily to indicate
111 The prophets are also designated thus (2Kgs. 9:7; 17:13, 23; et al.); ‘servant of the Lord’ is a
term of veneration which the OT also ascribes to kings and others; see Floss, 49ff.; the usage of
72y outlined above is also attested in testimonials of dependence and veneration from nations in
Israel’s environment; see J.C. de Moor, “Knechten van goden en knechten van mensen,’ in
Fs J.L. Koole, De Knecht, Kampen 1978,127-40.
" 2 See, however, A. Jepsen, “Ama*1 und Schiphcha*1,* VT 8 (1958), 293-97,425: 11700=the
virgin who serves (in particular) the mistress of the house; TOR=the concubine of the master of the
house or the wife of a slave; Riesener, 76ff., justifiably contests Jepsen’s thesis; her own distinction
is also unconvincing: 11100=the working slave, the property of the master and mistress; TOR=slave
girl/female slave who enjoys the protection of her master and who is his concubine.
113 Cf. Gen. 21:10,13; Judg. 9:18; Pss. 86:6; 116:16 and see F.C. Fensham, T h e Son of a
Handmaid in Northwest Semitic,* VT 19 (1969), 312-21.
114 Cf. Lev. 23:7f., 21, 25, 35f.; et al. and see Riesener, 257ff.; Milgrom, 77ff., maintains the
rather unconvincing (see 39:42f.) idea that HIDI? indicates rough and heavy labour while rDKÔ
indicates work requiring artistry and craftsmanship; the chain strikes us as
redundant.
115 Dual 0'1'V; the fem. pi. fWl? is used only as the pi. of as a fixed metaphor with the
sense of ‘well’ (OT 23x and often in geographical names); see 15:27 (cf. Gen. 16:7; 24:13, 16, 29;
et al.).
46 INTRODUCTION
the organ of sight; see 13:9,16;116 21:24 (2x), 26 (3x). Dual p is often
used with a preposition in a construct chain or with a pronominal suffix in
standard expressions: (OT ca. 100 x) ‘before the eyes of,’ ‘in the sight of,’
‘in the presence of;117 (OT ca. 300 x metaphorically) ‘in the eyes o f
(5:21 [2x] [=in the judgment of]; 11:3 [2x]; 15:26; 21:8 [+sn=‘be displeas
ing’; cf. Gen. 21:11,12; 28:8]). The look of the eyes and the face of a person in
general reflect the mood, the judgment, and the feelings of a person. This
aspect gains prominence in the use of *r»a expressions with |n (3:21). See also
THAT, II, 259ff.; TWAT, VI, 31ff.; Dhorme, 75ff.; Johnson, 47ff.; S.C. Reif, SVT
36 (1985), 230-44.
339.1 (OT ca. 890x; Exod. 62x; qal 36x; niph. 3x; hiph. 23x) in
the qal indicates a movement from a lower place to a higher place (r6 u is the
antonym of i t ; see 2:5): climbing a hill (17:10), an altar (20:26); the ap
pearance (coming up) of frogs (7:28,29; 8:2) [cf. hiph. in 8:1,3], of locusts
(10:12,14), of quails (16:13);118 rising smoke (19:18); the lifting of the dew
(16:14); echoing cries for help (2:23; cf. 1 Sam. 5:12; Jer. 14:2 and 2Kgs. 19:28;
Jonah 1:2; Ps. 74:23). See also niph. nh> ‘be taken up/away,’ ‘raise oneself
(40:36,37 [2 x]; Num. 9:17,21f.; 10:11); hiph. nbv ‘light up,’ ‘set alight’ (25:37;
27:20; 30:8; 40:4,25; Lev. 24:2; Num. 8:2,3) [some also suggest that ‘set up’ is
intended]; ‘bring’ (cause sacrifices to go up in fire and smoke) (24:5; 30:9; 32:6;
40:29; OT ca. 75 x).
3.39.2 Qal nbv is often used in Exodus with Moses as the subject (Aaron in
19:24; +Aaron and others in 24:1,9) for climbing to God/YHWH (on
Mt. Sinai)/climbing Mt. Sinai (19:3,20,24; 24:1,9,12,13,15,18; 32:30;
34:2,3,4; cf. 19:12,13,23,24; 24:2]; the climbing assumes entering into a
personal relationship to y h w h (cf. 34:24).119 nbv is also used with respect to
the exodus from Egypt (1:10; 12:38; 13:18) and with respect to leaving the
desert to enter Canaan (33:1,3,5). Egypt is explicitly mentioned a the point of
departure in 13:18. This is also true of the use of hiph. ‘guide’ with y h w h
(3:8,17; the destination is also mentioned), Moses (17:3; 32:1,7,23), and the
golden calf (32:4,8) as the subject (hiph. nbv is used ca. 40 x in the OT with
116 ‘Between the eyes’=on the head; cf. Deut. 6:8; 11:18; 14:1; see Y. Avishur, ‘Expressions of
the Type byn ydym in the Bible and Semitic Languages,* UF 12 (1980), 125-33.
117 4:30; 7:20 (2x); 8:22; 9:8; 17:6; 19:11; 24:17; 40:38; compare the use of *305, see § 3.42.2;
D'lD and are are closely related and sometimes appear to be interchangeable; thus,
n s r t o r s in 10:5, 15; Num. 22:5, 11 occurs as the equivalent of and means
‘the surface of the (whole) land’; see Notscher, 7; Reindl, 294 n.505.
118 Brongers, 30 n. 1, considers the use of the terms in connection with locusts and quails
remarkable, for ‘ist hier doch die Richtung des movens (von oben herab auf das Land) gerade zu
die umgekehrte;’ he speaks of ‘eine abgeschwachte und verallgemeinerte Verwendung’ of
perhaps we would do better to think of their coming up over the horizon.
119 is often used to express approaching the deity (holy sites usually occupied higher
ground); see 2Kgs. 20:5, 8; 23:2; Ps. 24:3; etc.
respect to the exodus); see also 13:19 (cf. 50:25; Josh. 24:32; 2Sam. 21:13);
33:12. See also THAT, II, 272ff.; TWAT, VI, 84ff.; H.A. Brongers, “Das
Zeitwort ‘ala und seine Derivate," in Fs M.A. Beek, Travels in the World of the
Old Testament, Assen 1974, 30-40.
3.40.1cm (OT ca. 1870x; Exod. 175x)120 ‘people’ indicates a community
constituted by communal features; as a rule such a community is marked by
blood ties and/or a common culture (other features can also form the basis for
a community; e.g. Isa. 51:7; Ps. 18:28): a tribe (e.g. Gen. 49:16); the population
of a city (e.g. Gen. 19:24) or a region (e.g. Jer. 37:12); ‘the masses’ in dis
tinction to the ruling class (e.g. Jer. 26:16,23); the people of Israel as a whole.
dv occurs frequently in Exodus with the latter meaning; cmn often occurs
without further designation (1:20; 3:12; 4:16,21,30,31; 5:4,6,7,10,12 etc.; OT
ca. 85x); *a» ‘my people’= y h w h ’s people is much attested (3:7,10; 5:1;
7:4,16,26; 9:1,13; 8:16,17,18,19; 9:17; 10:3,4; 22:24; OT ca. 160x, of which
ca. 105 x in the prophetic books), qo? *your people’= y h w h ’s people (5:23;
15:16; 32:11,12; 33:13,16; OT ca. 75 x ),121 ia» ‘his people’= y h w h ’s people
(18:1; 32:14; OT ca. 75x). ‘People’ is also used often to refer to Egypt,
Pharaoh’s people: *nv ‘my people’= Pharaoh’s people (8:4; 9:27; 12:31), *|0»
‘your people’=Pharaoh’s people (5:16; 7:28,29; 8:5,7,17,19; 9:14,15), lav ‘his
people’ (1:9,22; 8:25,26; 14:6).122*As is apparent from the texts mentioned
above, the first chapters of Exodus deal with the history of two peoples, each
of which has its own past and its own culture and each of which is related to
its ruler, y h w h on the one side and Pharaoh on the other. They are the great
protagonists. Their controversy serves to represent the controversy between the
two D'bsj. People and ruler are related to one another in the closest way (e.g.
5:16; 8:19; 9:27).
3.40.2 The connotations of the use of mn ovn ‘this people’= Israel are quite
varied (3:21; 5:22,23; 17:4; 18:18,23; 32:9,21,31; 33:12): in 5:22,23 it lends an
aloof and businesslike ring to Moses words (cf. “your people’ at the end of
5:23); ‘this people’ has a deprecating ring in 17:4; 32:9,21,31; 33:12 (cf. 32:9
alongside of 33:3,5; 34:9), 18:18,23 suggests a tone of compassion (‘this
poor/foolish people’). Occasionally at) indicates regular people (the rest of
120
Often a collective with a plural verb; see 5:5 and 19:18, for instance, alongside of 24:3 (cf.
KoSvnt § 346g).
1 1 ‘Your people’ also occurs in 32:7; 34:10 (=M oses’ people) and 22:27; 23:1; YHWH distances
himself from the people through the use of *your people’ in 32:7; 34:10 (cf. 33:1); the use of ‘your’
in Moses’ mouth acts as a (legal) ground (32:1 If.; 33:13, 16; cf. 5:23; 32:11, 14).
122 See also 17:13; ‘his people’=Amalek’s people; DV in 14:6; 17:13 is ‘army’ (cf. Num. 21:23, 35
et a lj.
^ See, however, J. Boehmer, " ‘Dieses Volk’,*’ JBL 45 (1926), 134-48. ‘This people’ is never
‘eine verachtliche Bezeichnung Israels;’ the term is used more than occasionally in "a most
honourable and always favourable sense*; the term is perhaps used in the latter sense in 3:21: ‘this
people, this very people rather than some other’.
48 INTRODUCTION
them) in distinction to certain leading figures; it is thus used with respect to

Israel (19:21,22,24; 24:2) and Egypt (7:28,29; 8:5,7,17; 9:14). It is not always
clear which community is meant by djj; “ o: djj in 21:8 apparently means ‘people
who do not belong to one’s own kind’ (people from another city/region/tribe)
(cf. Num. 5:27); in 22:24,27; 23:11 it is also possible to consider that a nar
rower circle than the whole of Israel is being referred to. See also the use of
pi. O'SJJ in 30:33,38; 31:14 in the sense of ‘kin’ (it is generally assumed that the
original meaning of djj is ‘father’s brother’; see THAT, II, 291); it is difficult to
establish exactly which social circle is meant; djj is also used in similar contexts
(Lev. 17:4; 20:3,6,17,18; etal .);124 it does not seem impossible that D'djj=
‘compatriots’ refers to the people as a whole (cf. 12:15,19; Num. 19:13,20;
Ezek. 14:8,9; also compare the LXX). D»rrte in 23:27 serves as an indication
for all population groups in the land of Canaan, and in 33:16 for the entire
world population. PI. O'DU in 15:14; 19:5 corresponds in meaning to D"U (see
below).
3.40.3 The expression jnxn djj (OT ca. 50 x; Exod. 5:5) has been discussed
extensively.125 It is often supposed that a certain social class is meant (at
least when p u n as is used with respect to Judah).126 As far as 5:5 is con
cerned, p«n djj must refer to Israel (cf. 1:9); since it is considered improbable
that Pharaoh would refer to Israel with this turn of phrase, preference is often
given to the reading of ojjd in the Sam. Pent.: Israel is more numerous than the
people of Egypt.127 If the reading of the MT is maintained, the context
might lead one to surmise that pttn djj has a disparaging ring: ‘plebians,’
‘riffraff; the use of pttn djj in Ezra 4:4, where pttn djj is used for the heter
ogeneous population trying to prevent the reconstruction of the temple,
perhaps argues for such a characterization of non-Egyptian elements.
3.40.4 One more term for ‘people’ is attested in the OT: (OT ca. 560 x;
Exod. 6 x). Although *u and djj approach each other in their usage, as far as
their meaning is concerned (they are interchangeable and occur in parallelism;
e.g. S. Talmon, ScrHie 8 [1961], 342f.), each nevertheless has a colour of its
124 W. Zimmerli, Z A W 66 (1954), 17f., states that D*J3JJ=the clan as cult community while DJJ=
the people of Israel as a whole.
125 See Bibl., THAT, II, 299ff.; S. Talmon, SVT 29 (1978), 333ff.; H. Schmid, “Die Gestalt
Abrahams und das Volk des Landes," Jud 36 (1980), 73-87; A.H.J. Gunneweg, ZAW 95 (1983),
437-40; C. Schafer-Lichtenberger, Stadt und Eidgenossenschaft im Alten Testament, Berlin/New York
1983, 391 ff.
126 See e.g. L.A. Snijders, “Het Volk des lands’ in Juda," NedThT 12 (1957—58), 241-56; see,
however, E.W. Nicholson, "The Meaning of the Expression DX? in the Old Testament,"
JSS 10 (1965), 59-66.
^22 Compare, for instance, Gen. 23:7, 12f., “the full citizens of Hebron, the Hittites" (as
opposed to Abraham); see E. Gillischewski, Z A W 40 (1922), 140; 42:6, the inhabitants of Egypt,
possibly the population of the whole world (cf. Gen. 41:57; 42:6ff.); not the rulers of the land,
according to S. Daiches, JThS 30 (1928—29), 245ff., nor the small-time potentates, according to
Snijders, 252; Num. 14:9, the native pre-Israelite inhabitants of Canaan.
own: "ii is not used for related groups within a people but indicates a political
unity ("iV/roîM occurs repeatedly [Jer. 1:10; 18:7,9; Isa. 60:12; etal.]); "n is
used in 9:24 to refer to Egypt as an organized nation; Israel is characterized in
19:6 as »iij? 'it and as D*:rp roVaa ‘a state of priests’; the state of Israel will
perforin the function of priest among the states of the earth ;128 y h w h speaks
of his intention to make a 'it of Moses in 32:10 (cf. Num. 14:12; Deut. 9:14
and see Gen. 12:2; 18:18; 46:3; et al.). The use of "il in 33:13 in a context where
dv is repeatedly employed (33:1,3,4,5,8,10,12,13,16 and see Ch.32 and 34) is
striking. Does Moses use the term to add force to his plea? Does he (cf. 33:12)
want to bring to y h w h ’s attention that Israel is a nation of significance?
(contrast THAT, II, 317). PI. D'iJ occurs in 34:10,24; in 34:10 for the nations of
the earth (cf. dv for Israel in 34:9,10); in 34:24 for the pre-Israelite inhabitants
of Canaan (see 34:llff.; cf. Deut.4:38; 7:1,17,22; etal.; in 23:27 dv is used).
See also THAT, II, 290ff.; TWAT, I, 965ff.; VI, 177ff.; L. Kutler, *A Structural
Semantic Approach to Israelite Communal Terminology,” JANES 14 (1982),
69-77.
3.41.1 nios (OT ca. 2625x; Exod. 323x; qal 316x; niph. 7x) ‘make,’ ‘do’ is
the most frequently occurring verb in Exodus. It is used with both God and
man as the subject and with all kinds of objects: for the manufacture of
(adobe) bricks (5:8,16), the fashioning of idols (20:4,23; 32:1, 4, 8,20,23, 31,
35; 34:7), fabricating of something (accus.) from something (material accus.)
(25:31,39; 29:2; 32:4), the preparation of food, sacrifices, etc., (10:25;
12:16 [niph.], 39; 29:36,38,39,41; 30:32,37,38), celebrating (passover, etc.;
12:47,48; 31:16; 34:22), etc.; (mrt) "Din is a recurrent object (1:18; 9:5,6;
18:17,23; 29:1; 33:17); often (see 12:16) (20:9,10; 31:14,15;
35:2,29,35 [2x]; 36:1,2,4; etal.; in 12:16; 31:15; 35:2 as the subject of niph.
n»»). n»v is used for ‘do,’ ‘make’ as the performance of a command, with
yhwh (-Matt [8:13]; +*m [14:4; 19:18; 23:22; 24:3,7]; -Mis [7:6,10,20;
12:28,50; 29:35; 31:6,11; 35:10,29; 36:5,7; 39:1,32,42,43; 40:16]), Pharaoh
(1:17; 8:22), Moses (8:9,27; 12:35; 17:10; 32:28), and Jethro (18:24) as the one
issuing the command (see our remarks concerning p and hsrd [see 1:12] and
Steingrimsson, 226f.). nfc?» is used with yhwh as the subject+ accus.+^> in the
sense of ‘doing/making something for someone’ (1:21; 13:8; 14:13; 18:1,9,14)
(‘make someone into’ [32:10]), ‘do something to/with someone,’ ‘deal with
someone’ (6:1; 18:8; 19:4; 32:14; 33:5; +3 in 12:12; 14:31; +D» in 34:10) (cf. the
use of n»v with people as the subject [5:15; 14:11; 17:4; 29:1; 32:21] and the
use of niph. [2:4; 3:16; 21:31]). n»v is used very frequently (218x) with
respect to the description of the construction of the tent sanctuary
(Exod. 25—40 with the exception of 32-34): rr»»i (25:11,13,17,18, etc.; 49x);
ntpvn (25:18,29; 26:1,4,5; etc.; 33x); n®»0) (36:8,11,12,14, etc.; 26x);
too
For the text, see H J. Kraus, “Das heilige Volk," in Biblisch-theologische Aufsdtze, Neukir-
chen-Vluyn 1972, 37-49, and see commentary.
50 INTRODUCTION
(36:11,13,14,17, etc.; 43x); W»(l) (25:8, etc.; 12x); W 1 (39:1,6, etc.; 16x);
(31:4,5, etc.; 15x); etc.
3.41.2 ntpya (OT ca. 235 x; Exod. 40 x), pi. D'»»n, often the object of
(cognate accusative) (18:20; 23:16,24; 26:1,31,36; etal.), indicates what is
being done, work, labour (5:4,13: 23:12), the task, duty (18:20), deed, the
manner of doing (23:24) (also used of YHWH [34:10; cf. Deut. 3:24; 11:3,7;
Josh. 24:31; Judg. 2:7,10]), and the result of labour (23:16; §10.1.7), the
outcome, the product (24:10; 32:16); 30x (26:1,31,36, etc.) in describing the
construction of the tent sanctuary, usually in construct; the unbound form
further qualifies the product by mentioning the person who produced it or by
offering a further characterization; can also indicate the method used to
produce it (28:8,15; 39:5,8); the Hebrew idiom cannot be maintained in
translation. See also THAT, II, 359ff.; 7WAT, VI, 413ff.
3.42.1 D*:s (OT ca. 2125x; Exod. 128x) is a plural which usually has the
meaning of a singular (see, however, 20:20; 25:20; 37:9) and is used to indicate
the face (facial features) of y h w h (e.g. 23:15,17; 33:20,23; 34:23,24), of man
(e.g. 3:6; 10:28,29; 34:29,30,35), the cherubs (25:20; 37:19) and the front of an
object (25:37; 26:9; 28:25,27,37; 39:18,20). The face is the most characteristic
part of a person. It is the mirror of the soul. It makes moods and feelings
visible (e.g. 20:20).
3.42.2 D*3D often occurs with a preposition, usually in bound form or with
pronominal suffixes, 'job occurs very fequently (OT ca. 1030 x; Exod. ca.
60 x), often following verbs which indicate a movement which comes to rest in
front of someone/something (7:9,10; 8:16; 9:10,13; etc.) or which occurs in
front of someone (13:21; 14:19; 17:5; etc.): ‘before,’ ‘forward’; *3Q^ often
appears to have no more force that a preposition; the sense of ‘face’ probably
does echo occasionally: ‘in the sight of,’ ‘before his eyes’ (4:21; 7:9,10; 11:10),
‘eye to eye with’ (8:16; 9:13), ‘despite the scrutinizing gaze o f (9:11), ‘for
(someone) to hear’ (33:19), etc. (9:10) or hithp. as* (9:13)=‘be
received for an audience with’; (19:7; 21:l)=‘bring to someone’s
attention’; also occurs with a temporal meaning (10:14). The sense of
+ yhWH/God (ca. 25 x) is not always easy to ascertain. The sense some
times appears to be ‘at the holy place’ (16:33; 28:30; 29:11,23,24,26,42; 34:34;
y h w h himself employs the expression in 29:42); sometimes ‘in the eyes of
y h w h ,’ ‘while y h w h watches’ (28:35,38), ‘meant for/to serve y h w h ’ (25:30;
27:21; 28:12,29; 29:25; 30:8,16; 40:23,25); mrr *jd^>sometimes identifies an act
as holy (6:12,30 [praying with gestures of entreaty; cf. 16:9?]; 18:12 [sacred
meal]). For see 23:28; 35:20; 36:3.
3.42.3 "jpa (OT ca. 300 x; Exod. 17 x) is used following verbs which indicate
spatial separation: ‘away ... from,’ ‘before’ (2:15; 4:3; 14:19,25; 23:29,30,31;
34:11,24), as well as metaphorically after verbs which express fear and awe
(1:12; 9:30; 23:21), and often indicates the reason why something happens:
‘because,’ ‘as a result o f (3:7; 8:20; 9:11; 19:18). The sense of ‘face’ probably
still echoes here: ‘at the sight o f (4:3), ‘at the encounter with’ (3:7), etc.; *300+
yhwh occurs 2x (9:30; 10:3); *3DO+‘the messenger’ lx (23:21).129 D'jd is
also used with other prepositions: with by (20:20 [‘over youTon your faces’];
33:19 [‘pass before your eyes’, ‘display’]; 34:6,33,35; for 20:3 see commentary);
':D“^»+area of the world (16:14; 32:20; 33:16) to indicate the spreading of
people/matters; (cf. boa in 32:12 [cf. Houtman, Himmel, 17f.]); with n??
(10:10); with b\a~bx (28:25; 39:18) and bvan (28:27; 39:20); see also below.
3.42.4 ‘Seeing the face’ (+qal ntn) of a person with a high position means
coming/going to be received for an audience; appear at/frequent the court
(Gen. 43:3,5; 44:23,26; 2Sam. 3:13; etal.); thus, 10:28,29 (+negation) means
‘set foot at the court’ (cf. 10:11 n'snd *39 ntto ‘from the court’). The expression
‘seeing the face’ is also used with respect to yhwh (23:15,17; 34:20,23,
24)'3013and means Visit the sanctuary’ (the presence of the deity in the form
of an idol is the image which forms the backdrop for this expression; in the
OT the expression presupposes the special nearness of yhwh in the sanctua
ry). cns"bR D'?s is used various times in the OT to refer to the relationship of
God/a divine being to (a) man/men: ‘stand eye to eye’ (Jacob [Gen. 32:31; cf.
33:10] and Gideon [Judg. 6:22] are the subject); ‘speak confidentially’ (33:11;
Deut. 5:4; cf. Deut. 34:10; Ezek. 20:35 and see Num. 12:8; 14:14; yhwh is the
subject; in 33:11, etc., the expression is apparently meant metaphorically; cf.
Notscher, 22ff, 54ff.; Reindl, 70ff., 214ff.). Seeing God (see also 24:10f.;
Num. 12:8; Judg. 13:22; Isa. 6:6) is an exceptional event (cf. Gen. 32:31;
Judg. 6:22f. and see Dan. 8:17f.; 10:9ff.). The proximity of God can fill a person
with dread; see 20:19; 33:3,5 and especially 3:6 (also compare 34:29ff. When
Moses shares in the divine glory the people display the same awareness of
distance toward him as they do with regard to God). No man (not even
Moses) can see the face of God and continue to live according to 33:20,23.
The OT nowhere states that any person has seen the fa c e o f YHWH:m a
person cannot directly look into the face of yhwh (33:20) and become
acquainted with the fullness and depth of his being. d*:d can also be used to
indicate the whole person (2Sam. 17:11); this is also possible with respect to
yhwh (‘in person,’ ‘personally’) (33:14,15; cf. Deut. 4:37; Isa. 63:9; Lam. 4:16).
The expression piel r6n+mrr *?p ‘cause yhwh to be favourably minded’ occurs
in 32:11 (cf. 1 Sam. 13:12; 1 Kgs. 13:6; 2 Kgs. 13:4; etal .).132 See 25:30 for
O'B(n) Dftb. See also THAT, II, 432ff.; TWAT, VI, 629ff.; M.D. Fowler, ‘The
The submission in 10:3 was apparently a cultic matter accompanied by religious actions.
130 +niph. m O ‘appear before’; it is normally supposed that the Masoretes modified the
vocalization from qal to niph. (cf. LXX); see THAT, II, 454f.; Notscher, 57ff., 88ff.; Reindl, 147ff.
131 Cf. Gen. 32:31 (D'H^K); Judg. 6:22 (a messenger of YHWH); 24:10 and Isa. 6:5 do attest a
seeing of God but any form of description has been omitted.
Clarification of this manner of expression is a matter of controversy; see THAT, I, 567ff.; II,
456f.; TWAT, II, 960ff.; Notscher, 96ff.; Reindl, 175ff., 213f.
52 INTRODUCTION
Meaning of lipni y h w h in the Old Testament,’ ZAW 99 (1987), 384-90;

Dhorme, 42ff.; M.I. Gruber, ’The Many Faces of Hebrew d' jd k»3 ‘lift up the
face’,’ ZAW 95 (1983), 252-60; Johnson, 40ff.; S. Layton, ’Biblical Hebrew ‘To
Set the Face’ in Light of Akkadian and Ugaritic,’ UF 17 (1986), 169-181;
Notscher, passim; Reindl, passim; Struys, 169ff.
3.43.1ms (OT ca. 495 x; Exod. 53x; piel 53x; pual 34:34) ‘command,’
‘charge,’ ‘ordain,’ ‘instruct’ (‘send with a mission to’ [+*?k][6:13]), with a
superior as subject (Pharaoh [1:22; 5:6]; Moses [16:24; 27:20; 34:22] and also
y h w h ) and a subordinate as object (indicated by accus. [4:28; 5:6; 6:13; 7:2, 6;
etal.], also + 1? [1:22; cf. KoSynt §289 n.l] or +^ k [16:34] or without mention
of the person addressed [e.g. 7:10; 16:16,32]); the command is indicated by an
accus. (4:28; 7:2; 34:11; etal.), by a clause introduced by ti»t6 (1:22; 5:6; 35:4),
by a clause of direct speech (16:16,32), by a clause introduced by waw (27:20),
by an inf. constr.-t-^ (e.g. 6:13; 35:1), etc.; it can also remain unmentioned
(18:23; 32:8). Piel ms is often used with yhwh as the subject in standard turns
of phrase: Divn qisb 'djr *®»t (34:11; Deut.4:40; 6:2,6; etal.); orns
(32:8; Deut. 5:30; 9:12,16; 11:28; 13:6; et al.; na ro^> must be added in thought
in 32:8; cf. Deut. 13:6); mm ms ■oin m (16:16,32; 35:4; Lev.8:5 etal.);
qivts (23:15; cf. 34:18 and Gen. 7:9); n&bviK mm ms
(39:1,5,7,21,26,29,31 [cf. verse 34]; 40:19,21,23,25,27,29,32; see also
12:28,50 and 7:6,10,20; 16:34; 34:4); clauses with *i»rd (see 1:12) form part of
passages which speak of the performance of tasks assigned by y h w h . When
instructions are performed, it is once again confirmed emphatically that their
performance occurs in conformity to y h w h ’s instructions (cf. 16:24, in confor
mity to Moses’ bidding), y h w h announces the instructions through the
mediation of Moses (see also 4:28; 7:2; 19:7; 25:22; cf. 34:34 and 35:1 and see
also 29:35; 31:6,11; 35:29; 38:22; 39:32,42; 40:16; mention of Moses has been
omitted in 35:10; 36:1,5; 39:43). The usto clauses are repeatedly used with
respect to the construction of the tent sanctuary (39:1, etc.). Other forms of
expression also underscore the fact that the work is performed in strict
accordance with the instructions (39:32,42; cf. 40:16 and see 38:22). Remarks
concerning the agreement between the work accomplished and y h w h ’s
directives correlate to earlier statements by y h w h addressed to Moses of
which the substance is that all the work must be performed in accordance with
the instructions; e.g. qrm *»k 5io (31:11; cf. 29:35 and see 36:1) and
qrns "’BK'bp ntc (31:6; cf. 35:10,29; 36:5). The agreement between the instruc
tions and their performance is additionally stressed in 39:32,42,43; 40:16 by
means of a final clause introduced by ]D (see 1:12); see also 7:6; 12:28,50;
16:17 and cf. 7:10,20.
3.43.2 msn (OT ca. 180x; Exod. 4x) ‘command,’ ‘decree,’ ‘ordinance’; used
in Exodus without exception for y h w h ’s command (24:12 [sing.]; 15:26; 16:28;
20:6 [pi.]; -t-synonym [hendiadys] in 16:28; 24:12). See also THAT, II, 530ff.;
TWAT, IV, 1085ff.; Labuschagne (§2.5); A. Pelletier, *Le vocabulaire du
commandement dans le Pentateuque des LXX et dans le Nouveau Tes

tament.* RSR 41 (1953), 519-24; idem, “L’autoritd divine d’apr£s le Pentateu
que Grec,’ VT 32 (1982), 236-42; P. Weimar, BN 23 (1984), 120-3.
3.44.1 snp (OT ca. 165x; Exod. 28x) ‘be/become sacred’ in the qal
(29:11,37; 30:29; cf. 29:43 hiph.), in the piel ‘consecrate,’ ‘devote’ of persons
(13:2; 19:10,14; 28:3,41; 29:1,33,44; 30:30; 31:13; 40:13) and articles
(29:36,37,44; 30:29; 40:9,10,11), etc. (19:23; 20:8,11; 29:37; cf. 19:22 hithp.;
28:38 hiph.). People and articles can be brought into a state of sacredness by
certain rites, by the anointing with sacred oil (28:41; 30:30; 40:9,10,11,13), by
touching a sacred article (29:37; 30:29), by being clothed with sacred vestments
(28:3), by contact with the imp of y h w h (29:43), etc. Being drawn into the
deity’s circle of power implies being pervaded with power that can be trans
ferred and which is radiant. Contact with the sacred is only possible for
mortals under certain conditions (see 3:4-6). There are degrees of holiness (see
below).
3.44.2 flip ‘holiness’ as substantive (OT ca. 470 x; Exod. 70 x) is often used
in unbound form within construct chains to define the adjective (3:5; 12:16;
16:23; 22:30; 28:2,4; 29:29 etc.; cf. Ges-K § 128p, 135n; Joiion § 129f; Brockel-
mann §77d; Meyer § 97.4c),133 even when used without article as a nominal
predicate (28:36; 29:33,34; etc.; cf. Ges-K § 141c; Joiion § 154e; Williams
§562). an'pn is used to indicate the sanctuary (and its wherewithal), the
sanctuary together with the surrounding sacred terrain 134 (28:24,27,29,35,
etc.); »ipn occurs with the same meaning (OT ca. 75x; Exod. 15:17; 25:8); cf.
Milgrom, 23 n. 78; K.D. Schunck, Numen 18 (1971), 132-40. unpn can also be
used for a portion of the sanctuary, ‘the holy (place)’ (26:33), as distinct from
O'Bipn BHp ‘the most holy’ (26:33,34); for a description of the superlative see
also 29:37; 30:10,29,36; 40:10; cf. Ges-K § 133i; Joiion §1411; Brockelmann
§ 97b.
3.443 Although ‘sacred’ in our language connotes ‘without sin,’ ‘pure,’ anp
primarily indicates that a certain article/person has been sequestered and is
consecrated to the deity; ‘holy individuals’ (22:30) are thus not morally perfect
people but people who observe certain dietary regulations (cf. Lev. ll:44f.;
19:2; 20:7,26; Num. 16:3); a ‘holy people’ (19:6) is a people that has been
wholly devoted to the deity (cf. Deut. 7:6; 14:2,21; 26:19; 28:9 and see
§ 3.40.4). See also DBS, X, 1342ff.; IDBS, 782ff.; THAT, II, 589ff.; TWAT, VI,
1179ff.; G. Bettenzoli, Geist der Heiligkeit, Firenze 1979; C. Colpe (ed.), Die
Dikussion um das ‘Heilige, ’ Darmstadt 1977; J.G. Gammie, Holiness in Israel,
Minneapolis 1989; M. Gilbert, “Le Sacrd dans l’Ancien Testament,* in J. Ries,
etal., L ’expression du Sacre dans les grandes religions, I, Louvain-La-Neuve
133 The adjective SHlp (OT ca. 115x; Exod. 2x) is normally used only to modify persons
(19:6) and in the expression O'Hp 0 '7 p (29:31 et al.; see, however, Lev. 10:17).
134 See e.g. 28:43; the altar is outside of the tent sanctuary; cf. Milgrom, 39 n.149.
54 INTRODUCTION
1978, 205-89; J.K. Hoffmeier, Sacred in the Vocabulary o f Ancient Egypt,

Fribourg/Gottingen 1985; J. Verheul, Het heilige en de wereld, Utrecht 1976;
W. Zimmerli, “‘Heiligkeit’ nach dem sogenannten Heiligkeitsgesetz,* VT 30
(1980), 493-512.
3.45.1 Kip I (OT ca. 730x; Exod. 34x; only in the qal in Exodus; for Kip, II
see 1:10) is used to indicate the seeking of contact with someone by the use of
the voice; it is not seldom followed by a verb of saying (iok in 1:18; 3:4;
8:4,21; 9:27; 10:16,24; etal.; 131 in 34:31; o*®+o*i3i in 19:17); n» (19:7f.) and
io k (e.g. l:18f.; 3:4) are used in Exodus for the reaction of the person ad
dressed. Kip (+b or ^>k of the person addressed) occurs with various shades of
meaning: ‘summon’ (with Pharaoh [1:18: 7:11; 8:4,21; 9:27; 10:16; 12:31; +*»
in 10:24], Moses [+ V k in 36:2], and y h w h [19:20] as the subject), ‘invite,’
‘rally’ (Moses is the subject [12:21; 19:7; +S< in 34:31]), ‘call loudly’ ( y h w h is
the subject and Moses is the one addressed [3:4; 19:3; + ‘?k in 24:16]; cf. 19:20;
Lev. 1:1), ‘invite’ (2:20; 34:15); Kip is used in 2:7,8 in the sense of ‘requesting
someone (accus.) to come for the sake of someone (+*?)’: ‘go and call’; in 32:5;
33:7 (cf. 35:6) in the sense of ‘proclaim,’ ‘announce publicly’; in 24:7 in the
sense of ‘recite,’ ‘read aloud in public’ (cf. 2 Kgs. 23:2; Jer. 29:29;
36:6,10,13,14,15,21). Kip is occasionally used with DO: +o»+name ‘give a
name,’ ‘name’ (2:10,22; 15:23; 16:31; 17:7,15); + aw ‘call by name’ (31:2;
35:30); it presupposes a confidential relationship (cf. 33:12, v t + ow ); when a
superior calls an inferior by name, it is a sign of privilege and such usage leads
to the meaning ‘elect,’ ‘nominate to a high position,’ ‘personally appoint’ (cf.
Isa. 40:26; 43:1; 45:3f.; Esth. 2:14) (see Ges-K § 19k for the use of 3); the
expression mrr aw Kip (Gen. 4:26; 12:8; et al.) occurs in 33:19; 34:5 not with
the usual meaning of ‘calling (the name) y h w h ,’ but with y h w h as the subject
in the sense of ‘proclaiming/heralding the name y h w h ’ (cf. 34:6).
3.45.2 Kipp (OT 23 x; Exod. 2x), always occurs as twp'Kipo (12:16 (2x);
19x) in the Pentateuch with the exception of Num. 10:2. E. Kutsch, ZAW 65
(1953), 247ff., contends that the traditional notion of Kipa as ‘festive gathering’
should make way for an interpretation as ‘holiday,’ ‘festive occasion’; P. Katz,
ZAW 65 (1953), 253ff. adds that the LXX and the Vulg. offer no support to
the traditioal interpretation. Kutsch’ interpretation is feasible in
Lev. 23:2f., 4,24; Isa. 1:13. Elsewhere it is not (12:16; Lev. 23:7f., 35f.;
Num. 28:18,25f.; 29:1,7,12). A gathering must be intended at those places.
Rallying the people (e.g. Lev. 23:21; Isa. 1:13) was the task of the priests
according to Num. 10, who used silver trumpets to this end. See also THAT, II,
666ff.; TWAT, VII, 117ff.; Labuschagne (§2.5).
3.46.1 run (OT ca. 1300x; Exod. 92x; 70x in the qal; 16x niph.; 4 x
hiph.; 2x hoph.) ‘see’ in the qal is used both with yhwh and with people as
the subject. The thing/person perceived is normally indicated by means of the
accus. (3:7,9; 4:14,31; etc.) (+b» in 1:16; 5:21; +3 ‘allow one’s gaze to rest on’
in 2:11 [cf. KoSynt § 212b]); what is perceived can also be indicated by a
participial construction (2:11; 4:18; 14:30; 23:5; 33:10) (see Johannessohn

[§3.15.2], ZVSF 64 [1937], 146ff.) or by a clause introduced by *3 (§3.25.1);
several times a clause introduced by rurri (§ 3.15.2) follows the use of ntn (2:6;
3:2; 32:9; 34:30; 39:43; cf. 14:10). run primarily indicates seeing with the eyes
but is used with various shades of meaning: ‘see with one’s own eyes’ (16:32),
‘behold’ (16:7; 19:21; 33:23), ‘witness’ (6:1; 10:6,23; 14:13; 19:4; 20:18,22;
34:10) (in a more technical sense in 22:9; cf. 2:11 [2x]), ‘observe’ (3:3,4),
‘inspect,’ ‘control’ (39:43); ‘investigate,’ ‘inquire into’ (4:18), ‘discover’ (2:5;
10:5; 16:15), ‘discern’ (32:19; 34:30), ‘pay attention to’ (1:16), ‘become aware,’
‘note,’ ‘remark’ (3:2,4; 8:11; 9:34; 32:1; 34:35). The last example shows that ntn
can also be used for mental activity which is nourished by the senses: ‘asce
rtain’ (2:2,12; 32:25), ‘be aware,’ ‘perceive,’ ‘realize’ (5:19; 10:10; 14:31; 16:29;
33:13; compare the use of the imperative ntn ‘mind’, ‘see to it’ in 4:21; 25:40
and the use of the imper. sing as an interjection in 7:1; 31:2; 33:12 (cf. Ges-K
§ 105a, d) and of tin in 35:30). Qal ntn sometimes means ‘meet’ (come to
stand eye to eye) (14:14; 24:10) or ‘be confronted with’ (13:17; 14:13). See
§3.42.4 for ntn+o'ts. ntn with yhwh as subject (e.g. 3:4; 12:13,23) repeatedly
refers to the scrutinizing watchfulness with which yhwh looks at the world as
Lord: seeing it empathically leads to his intervention (2:25; 3:7,9; 4:31); when
he examines people’s conduct this leads to foiling their plans and to punish
ment (5:21; 31:9); see Houtman, Himmel, 331ff.
3.46.2 Niph. ntn ‘be seen’ (33:23), ‘show oneself (34:3) [§3.42.4 for
23:15,17; 34:20,23,24], ‘be present,’ ‘be there’ (13:7; 34:3) is used to indicate
revelation, the appearance of a messenger of yhwh (3:2), of yhwh (3:16;
4:1,5; 6:3), or of the nias of yhwh (16:10). Hiph. ntn has the causative sense
of ‘disclose,’ ‘show’ (9:16;'25:9; 27:8; 33:18; cf. 25:40; 26:30 hoph.). See also the
use of the derivatives ntnn (OT ca. lOOx; Exod. 3:3; 24:17) ‘appearance,’
‘apparition,’ and ntnn ‘mirrrors’ (38:8; cf. Job 37:18). See also THAT, II, 692ff.;
TWAT, VII, 225ff.; R. Knierim, “Offenbarung im Alten Testament," in
FsG. von Rad, Probleme biblischer Theologie, Munchen 1971, 206-35 (216ff.);
H. Molle, Das ‘Erscheinen’ Gottes im Pentateuch, Bern/Frankfort/M 1973;
S. Talmon, ScrHie 8 (1961), 341f.
3.47.1 mn (OT ca. 390x; Exod. 11 x) is used for the “wind’ as well as for
the ‘breath’ of man and beast; though invisible both are a tangible presence;
the difference between the two lies in the far greater volume of the wind; both
contain power; the presence of breath is the condition of human and animal
life; it is the principle of life and the source of vitality, rm ‘wind’ (OT ca.
145x) occurs in 10:13 (2x); 14:21 in construct with D*nj?(n) ‘the east wind’ (cf.
Jer. 18:17; Ezek. 17:10; 19:12; et al.),13S the hard, searing sirocco which
comes from the desert (Jer. 13:24), scorches all vegetation, causes destruction
by its force, and which is rather unpleasant on account of the sand which it
135 D"!p (OT ca. 70x; only here in Exodus).

56 INTRODUCTION
carries (e.g. Isa. 40:7; Jer. 4:11; Ps. 103:16; Job 1:19);136 in construct in 10:19
tf-irn “west wind’ (the expression is attested only here in the OT; cf. 1
Kgs. 18:45; 2 Kgs. 3:17; Jer. 10:13), the wind from the sea which can bring
coolness and rain clouds; the emotional significance of the Vest wind’ (sa
lvation; cf. Num. 10:19) is entirely different than that of the ‘east wind’ (evil).
The force of the wind is accentuated in 10:19 and 14:21 by iki? pin (§ 3.19) and
iv (OT 23 x) ‘strong’ respectively: a blustering wind. The wind has the
potential to bring and to carry off locusts (10:13,19; cf. Num. 11:31; Isa. 57:13;
64:5; Zech. 5:9), to stir water and to let it subside (14:21; cf. Isa. 11:15; 59:19;
Ps. 107:25; Dan. 7:2), and can thus become a weapon in y h w h ’s hand, turned
against those who withstand his will and at the same time the means by which
he liberates those who belong to him (e.g. Houtman, Himmel, 281; Ohler,
49ff.). The characterization of the wind as the tm ‘breath’ of God serves to
underscore the fact that y h w h is the author of this evil wind (15:8,10;
Ps. 18:16; Isa. 30:28; 40:7; etal.). The wind can be called God’s breath just as
thunder can be called the voice of y h w h (see 3.51.2).
3.47.2 rrn does not occur in Exodus with the concrete meaning of ‘breath,’
but it does occur in an expression in which the concrete meaning still bears
recognition: mi nspn ‘due to shortness of breath’ (6:9).137 The expression
allows for various interpretations. Even the ancient translations testify to this
fact: LXX 6Xiyovuxia ‘timid’; Aq. tcoXoftornq 7tve6fiaToq ‘shortness of breath’;
Vulg. angustia spiritus, (lit.) ‘shortness of breath’; TO p'vn rrn ‘due to fear/
stifled by anxiety’; TNf (TPsJ; FT similar) nnapo rrn ‘due to spiritual exhaus
tion (being incensed?).’ It is quite conceivable to consider quick-tempered
(impatience [cf. Prov. 14:29] is often proposed as an interpretation [see KoW,
Ges-B, BDB, Dillmann, Gispen); in addition, see SS ‘Missmut’ and ‘Ungeduld’;
KBL ‘Verzagtheit’); when a person becomes emotional his breath is faster and
there is perceptible irritation. Shortness of breath can also be the result of
gasping for breath (cf. Jer. 2:24; 14:6) or an expression of fear (cf. Dan. 7:15).
When a person does not have enough breath any more his vitality decreases
and he loses his resilience (physical and psychical life mutually influence one
another; cf. Gen. 45:27: Judg. 15:19; 1 Sam. 30:12; 1 Kgs. 21:5). A fairly obvious
possibility is therefore that the Israelites were so exhausted by their forced
labour they were no longer approachable and that they had lost their spirit (cf.
Strack, Baentsch).
3.473 rrn is used for ‘breath,’ something which every living person naturally
possesses, but is also used to indicate a ‘power’ from without, a special ability
136 See e.g. Houtman, Himmel, 146f., 274; Stadelmann, 102IT.

137 The substantive *lSp, a derivative of IS p ‘to be short,’ (see TWAT, VII, 112ff.) is hapax
legomenon; see, however, the use of forms of l^ p + IT P in Mic. 2:7; Job 21:4; Prov. 14:29 and
+®D3 in Num. 21; 4; Judg. 10:16; 16:16; Zech. 11:8; ‘shortness of breath’ forms a contrast to
O'DK 1J"1R ‘longness of breath’ (Prov. 14:29; cf. Prov. 14:17; Eccl. 7:8).
or charisma which can be bestowed on a certain individual as distinct from

other people: naan mi (the unbound noun indicates of what the ability
consists) in 28:3 (cf. Deut. 34:9) is exceptional artistic skill, gifted craftsman
ship; according to 31:3; 35:31 Bezalel is blessed with mi, with extraor
dinary charisma and exceptional talents, (cf. Gen. 41:38; Dan. 4:5f.; et al.). rrn
can be used for the centre of man just as a!? (§ 3.29) and (§ 3.35.1) can: the
seat of the emotions, will, and thought;138 see 6:9 (see above) and 35:21.
3.47.4 Sometimes the existenc of two homonymous roots rrn are taken into
account (KoW, Ges-B, BDB, Zo.): one root is ‘broad/be wide’ with nmi as
derivative (8:11; Lam. 3:56; Ps. 66:12cj) ‘relief (e.g. NV 8:11; WV: ‘deliveran
ce’); the other root with mi and mi ‘smell’ as derivatives (see 5:21), which
occurs as a hiph. verb that means ‘smell,’ ‘enjoy the scent o f (30:38; cf.
Lev. 26:31). Others wish to reckon with only a single root (KBL; THAT, II,
727; Scheepers, 93ff.). It is well possible that nmi is related to ‘breathe’:
breathe a sigh of relief, have a breathing spell; the ‘shortness of breath’ (6:9) is
relieved, the stifling oppresion is alleviated, vitality returns, a person’s spirit is
revived. See also THAT, II, 726ff.; TRE, XII, 170ff.; TWAT, VII, 286ff.;
Dhorme, 80f.; M. Dreytza, Der theologische Gebrauch von Ruach im Alten
Testament, GieCen/Basel 1990; R.D. Haak, "A Study and New Interpretation
of qsr nps," JBL 101 (1982), 161-7; Johnson, 23ff., 82ff., et al.; R. Koch, Bib 27
(1946), 241-68; J.H. Scheepers, Dies gees van God en die gees van die mens in
die Ou Testament, Kampen 1960; Z. Weisman, “The Personal Spirit as Impar
ting Authority," Z A W 93 (1981), 225-34; M. Welker, “Der heilige Geist,“
EvTh 49 (1989), 126-41; C. Westermann, “Geist im Alten Testament,”
EvTh 41 (1981), 223-35; Wolff, 57ff.
3.48 D'» (OT ca. 585 x; Exod. 50x; only in the qal) ‘lay,’ ‘set,’ ‘place’ (+D
[e.g. 2:3], +bv [e.g. 29:6,24], -t-accus. of place [e.g. 40:5]), and more specifical
ly: ‘fasten,’ ‘hang up’ (e.g. 28:26,37; 40:5,28), shows similarity to )m (§3.36)
with respect to its use (both verbs are used together [e.g. 40:5,8,18,20,30]
more than occasionally) and is used with a wide range of connotations: ‘bring
over’ (8:8; 15:26) (cf. J. van Dijk, VT 18 [1968], 27f.), ‘fix’ (9:5), ‘designate’
(21:13), ‘appoint’ (1:11; 2:14; 18:21; cf. Deut. 17:14,15), ‘decree,’ ‘ordain’
(15:25; 19:7; 21:1; cf. Deut. 4:44; Josh. 24:25), ‘charge,’ ‘impose’ (5:8,14), ‘levy,’
‘exact’ (22:24), ‘bring about,’ ‘accomplish’ (8:19; 10:2), ‘make into,’ ‘turn/change
into’ (14:21; cf. Gen. 21:13,18), ‘give to’ (4:11), ‘gird’ (32:27), ‘put on’ (3:22; cf.
Gen. 41:42; Lev. 8:8; et al.), ‘pour’ (24:7; cf. Judg.6:19; Ezek.24:7; Ps.56:9),
‘take to heart’ (+a!?) (9:21), ‘inculcate’ (+ ‘in the ears’) (17:14). See also
TWAT, VII, 804ff.
3.49.1 rbo (OT ca. 845x; Exod. 74x; qal 27x; piel 46x; hiph. lx ) ‘send’
iq o
The terms mentioned are virtually synonymous and interchangeable (e.g. 25:2; 35:5, 22
alongside of 35:21 and 6:9 alongside of Num. 21:4) and occur in parallelism (e.g. 28:3; 35:21;
Isa. 26:9; Job 7:11).
58 INTRODUCTION
is used with y h w h as the subject and a heavenly messenger as the object (33:2;
cf. 33:12; Gen. 24:7,40; Num. 20:16; Judg. 13:8) as well as Moses. Moses is
y h w h ’s representative (3:10,12,13,14; 4:13 [2x), 28; 5:22; 7:16) to Israel (e.g.
3:13,14,15) and Pharaoh (e.g. 3:10; 7:16) (cf. 4:28, r6 » = ‘charge with speaking’;
see P. Joiion, Bib 2 [1921], 227); qal rfoo is often used for the sending of the
prophets (1 Sam. 15:1; 16:1; 2 Sam. 12:1; 24:13; etc.). With y h w h as the
subject and plagues as the object nV» means ‘release,’ ‘allow to break out’
(9:14; 23:28; Josh. 24:12; Jer. 25:16,27; etal.). With t (§3.21.9) as object nbv
occurs in the literal sense of ‘stretch out one’s hand’ (4:4; Deut.25:11; etal.),
in the more or less metaphorical sense of ‘seize’ (22:7,10,11; Gen. 37:22;
etal.), with God as the subject it has the sense of applying his destructive
power against, performing evil to (3:20; 9:15; 24:11; Ps. 138:7; Job 1:11; 2:5;
et al.). Qal followed by a finite verb of action is used in the sense of ‘giving
someone the task of doing something’ (2:5; 24:5; Josh. 7:22; 2 Sam. 10:7; et al.);
it also occurs without an object (messengers or servants must be added in
thought) (9:19,27; Gen.20:2; 27:42,45; etal.) and without object or following
finite verb (servants to launch an inquiry must be added in thought) (9:7; 1
Kgs. 20:17).
3.49.2 Piel vhv ‘send off (18:27; cf. Gen. 19:29), ‘free’ (21:26,27; Ezek. 13:20;
Zech. 9:11) ‘release’ (22:4; Lev. 16:22) (with y h w h as the subject for
‘unleashing’ plagues, etc. [15:7; 23:27; Deut. 7:20; Ezek. 7:3; etal.]), is used in
Exodus particularly (40x) with Pharaoh as the subject (+courtiers in 14:5)
and Israel as the object: ‘let go’ (3:20; 4:21,23 (2x); 5:1,2; etc.), as, for
instance, in the stereotype formula ‘let my people go so that they may worship
me’ (7:16,26; 8:16; 9:1,13; 10:3,7; cf. 4:23; 5:1). See 8:17 for hiph. ‘send,’
‘release.’ The derivative D*m^» (‘gift’ in 1 Kgs. 9:16; Mic. 1:14) in 18:2 has the
sense of ‘the sending off (see, however, G. del Olmo Lete, Bib 51 [1970],
414ff.). See also THAT, I, 673; II, 909ff.; TWAT, III, 453f.; P.B. Wodecki, VT 34
(1984), 482-8.
3.50 Dffl (OT ca. 780 x; Exod. 43 x) ‘name’ is used with respect to people
(1:15 [2x]; 2:10,22; 18:3,4; 28:21; 31:2; 33:12,17; 35:30; 39:14; with the
exception of 6:16 the plural [13x] always refers to the ‘sons of Israel’ [1 :1;
28:9,11,21,29; 39:6,14; cf. 28:10 [2x], 12,21; 39:14]), places (15:23; 17:7),
things (16:31; 17:15), YHWH (3:13,15; 5:23; 6:3; 9:16; 15:3; 20:7,24; 23:21;
33:19; 35:5,14), and idols (23:13). We will suffice with a single remark concer
ning the use of ao with respect to y h w h : o» is often a designation for y h w h
as He reveals himself (cf. Pss. 5:12; 9:11; 20:2; etc.); e.g. 9:16 (‘declare,’
‘repute,’ ‘fame’; cf. Ps. 45:18); 23:21 ( y h w h is present in the messenger; the
messenger acts as y h w h ’s proxy); o» thus approaches the meaning of a
personal pronoun; e.g. 5:23 (qntfa ‘in thy name,’ ‘for you’; it is possible that an
echo of the formula ‘Thus says y h w h ’ which accompanies appearances by
prohets is to be heard here; cf. Deut. 18:18,20; Jer. 29:25; Pss. 20:6); 20:24. See
§3.18.1 for hiph. *cn+n&; see §3.45.1 for Kip+ do or o»p (cf. irr+otfa in
NUMERALS 59
33:12,17). See also THAT, II, 936ff., Fernhout (see §3.12.3), passim;
T.N.D. Mettinger, The Dethronement o f Sabaoth, Lund 1982; see also § 5.
3.51.1 (OT ca. 1160x; Exod. 49x; qal 47x; niph. 2x) ‘hear’ for
sounds of various kinds: rejoice, singing (32:17,28), divine speaking (19:9),
etc., is used with a various shades of meaning: ‘hear of,’ ‘hear’ (2:15; 4:31;
15:14; 18:1; 33:4), ‘heed,’ ‘comply,’ “yield,’ ‘obey’ (with respect to Pharaoh’s
refusal to listen to [St] Moses [and Aaron] [6:12,30; 7:4,13,16,22; 8:11,15;
9:12; 11:9]; with regard to Israel [not] listening to Moses [+St 6:12; -t-Vipb
3:18; +Vip3 4:1; cf. 20:19], y h w h [+SpV 15:26; +Vipn 19:5; frequent in Deut.,
see 4:30, etc., and in Jer., see 3:13, etc.; see Fenz, 38f.] [cf. 24:7], the messenger
of y h w h [+Spa 23:21,22]; with respect to Moses listening to Jethro [+Vipty
Spa 18:19,24]), ‘pay attention to,’ ‘take note o f (+VipV 4:8,9 ); it makes no
difference to the meaning whether vw is used with S<, Spa, or Spb. A few
times y h w h is the subject of vnto; the objects then are the complaints (2:24;
3:7; 6:5), murmurings (16:7,8,9,12) of Israel, and the cry of the afflicted
(22:22,26). The notion related to y h w h ’s hearing is that as the Lord of the
world he meticulously follows events on the earth and reacts in a suitable
manner to what reaches his ears (see Houtman, Himmel, 346ff., 352f., 361). See
23:13; 28:35 for hiph. vw. The derivative vw (OT 17x) ‘hearsay,’ ‘rumour’
occurs in 23:1. See also THAT, II, 632,634,974ff.; J. Arambarri, Der Wort-
stamm ‘hdren’ im Alten Testament, Stuttgart 1990; H.J. Kraus, “Horen und
Sehen in der althebrSischen Tradition,* in Biblisch theologische Aufsatze,
Neukirchen-Vluyn 1972, 84-101; A.K. Fenz, A u f Jahweh’s Stimme hdren, Wien
1964.
3.51.2 viyo is not infrequently used in connection with Sp (see above). Vip
(OT ca. 505 x; Exod. 31 x) can be used for any audible sound: the various
sounds made by the human voice (32:17f. [5x]), the sound of a musical
instrument (19:16,19; 20:18; Josh. 6:5,20; etal.), the jingling of bells (28:35),
the clap of thunder (pi. [9:23,28,29; 19:16; 20:18]), etc. See also: ri«n Vp “what
the sign says’ (4:8 [2x]; cf. Ps. 19:2ff.); Vip ‘in concert/unanimous,’ ‘as one
man’ (24:3; cf. 2 Chr. 5:13); Vip as object of hiph. *av (see 12:12) ‘announce,’
‘proclaim’ (36:6; cf. Ezra 1:1; 10:7; Neh. 8:15). The use of ‘pip with respect to
God in 19:19 is somewhat problematical. The OT does contain the notion of
thunder as the voice of y h w h (Isa. 30:30; Joel4:16; Amos 1:2; Ps. 18:14: etal.),
and one could consider this interpretation in 19:19 in view of the context.
Nonetheless, audible words comprehensible to human beings are spoken by
y h w h in Deut. 4:12; 1 Kgs. 19:13 within the context of describing a theophany
(cf. Isa. 6:8). The possibility thus exists that Vipa in 19:19 means “with a loud
voice’ (cf. Jer. 10:30; Ps. 3:5). See also THAT, II, 629ff.; TWAT, VI, 1237ff.
§ 4 Numerals in the book o f Exodus

Numbers in the Bible are often imbued with ‘surplus value.’ Insight into
their meaning is required for a proper understanding of the text.
60 INTRODUCTION
Bibl. (general): BHHW, III, 2210f.; DB, III, 560ff.; IDB, III, 561ff.; Bocher,
107ff., 176ff.; U. Cassuto, From Adam to Noah, Jerusalem 1961, 251ff.; Farbrid-
ge, 87ff. (cf. XL ff.); Jacob, Pentateuch, 47ff.; C.J. Labuschagne, Deuteronomium
IA, Nijkerk 1987, 25ff.; G. Sauer, Die Sprilche Agurs, Stuttgart 1963, 70ff.;
J. Schildenberger, Vom Geheimnis des Gotteswortes, Heidelberg 1950; J.B. Se
gal, “Numerals in the Old Testament,* JSS 10 (1965), 2-20; M. Wojciec-
howski, BN 23 (1984), 29ff.
Hebrew has both cardinal and ordinal numbers; ordinals only exist for the
numbers between one and ten, however; cardinal numbers are used to indicate
ordinals greater than ten. Cardinal numbers are also used often for numbers
less than ten in chronological notes and in determining the day and the year.
The feminine form of ordinal numbers is used to indicate fractions. For
generating numerals and their use, see KOSynt § 310a-316d; Ges-K
§ 97,98,134; Joiion § 100,101,142; Brockelmann § 83ff.; Meyer § 59,60,61,99;
Williams § 94ff. In what follows, the feminine forms are mentioned only when
they occur in Exodus.
4.1 *an (OT ca. 125x; Exod. 20x) ‘half (a derivative of rran ‘divide’; see
21:35); see 24:6 (2x); 25:10 (3x), 17 (2x), 23: 26:12,16; 37:1 (3x), 6 (2x),
10; sometimes ‘(the) middle’ is possible/necessary in translation (12:29 [cf.
Judg. 16:3; Ruth 3:8]; 27:5; 38:4; compare the use of nisn [OT 3x] in 11:4).
See also rrsiro (30:13).
4.2.1 trot, fern, nmt (OT ca. 970x; Exod. 99x) ‘one’ is used as an adjective
(10:19; 11:1; 12:18,46,49; etc.) as well as independantly (8:27; 30:10; etc.); as a
rule, triN acts a cardinal number but it also occurs in the sense of ‘first’ (26:24;
28:17; 36:29; 39:10) (to indicate ‘the first [day]’ in 40:12,17; cf. Lev. 23:24,
etal.); it sometimes approaches the indefinite article ‘an’ in meaning (16:33;
25:19; 29:3; 37:8; cf. Ges-K § 125b; Joiion § 137u; Meyer §32.6); sometimes it
has the sense of ‘(one and) the same’ (12:46,49; 26:2,8; 36:9,15);139 trtK
occurs with the function of an indefinite pronoun, ‘each/every,’ ‘any’ (16:22;
26:2,8,16,17; etc.); tnRn ... nnxn (17:12; 18:3,4; 25:33; etc.) or *3»n ... irixri
(1:15; 25:12,32; etc.) occur with distributive meaning to indicate a reciprocal
relationship ‘the one ... the other,’ ‘each’; nriK is used in 30:10 adverbially
‘once’ (cf. Lev. 16:34, et al.). inn can be used to indicate very little (23:29;
33:5); +Kb ‘not even one’ (8:27; 9:6,7; 10:19; Josh. 23:14; Judg. 4:16; 1
Kgs. 8:56; etc.). *triK is used in 26:6,11; 36:13,18 with respect to the construc
tion of the tent sanctuary: it is/ought to be a unity (cf. 25:36; 37:22 and see
24:3). See also BHHW, I, 378; IDB, III, 563; THAT, I, 104ff.; TWAT, I, 210ff.;
J. Blau, JNSL 10 (1982), 5ff.
4.2.2 p»to (OT ca. 180x; Exod. 11 x) ‘first’ as opposed to ‘second,’ ‘next’
(4:8; 34:1 [2x], 4; with pintt [OT ca. 50x], derivative of irn< [§3.1.1] as
antipode in 4:8; cf. Isa.41:4,22; 44:6; etal.) is used several times both as
139 See 1 Kgs. 3:17 alongside of 12:46; see Num. 9:14; 15:15; Esth. 4:11 alongside of 12:49.
NUMERALS 61
adjective (12:15 [2x], 16; 40:2,17) and independently (12:2,18) for indications
of time. See also TWAT, VII, 287ff.
43.1 D'3®, c o n s t r . f e m . o'riB, constr. *fi» (OT ca. 770 x; Exod. 113x) is a
dual:140 ‘two,’ ‘both,’ ‘a pair’ (2:13; 4:9; 12:7; etc.), ‘double,’ ‘twice’
(22:3,6,8). ‘Two’ is very frequently (ca. 90 x) used with respect to the const
ruction of the tent sancturary (Exod. 25—40); see 25:12 (2x), 19,22,35 (3x),
etc. Its use shows that the sanctuary and its inventory are symmetrical in
design and are characterized by balance and harmony (cf. 1 Kgs. 7:14ff.; 41;
2 Chr. 3:15; Exod. 40:39ff.; et al.). One ought to bear in mind the ancients’ idea
that harmony was possible thanks to two-ness (see Houtman, Himmel, 75ff.).
The notion of balance is also present elsewhere when ‘two’ is used; see 29:38f.,
the sacrifices keep the day in balance; 18:3,6, Moses had two sons and a duly
complete family (cf. Gen. 4:lff.; 25:19ff.; 46:27; 48:lff.; 1 Sam. 2:34 and, for
instance, also Gen. 42:37; 44:27; Lev. 16:1; Ruth l:lf.; Luke 15:llff.); the
twosome also harbours the danger of disturbing the equilibrium in the family
(e.g. Gen. 4:Iff.). The notion of ‘cogency’ is connected to ‘two’ on more than
one occasion: the testimony of at least two people carries the weight in a law
suit (Num. 35:30; Deut. 17:6; 19:15; 1 Kgs. 21:10ff.; Matt. 18:16); at least two
people should go and scout (Josh. 2:lff.); two midwives resist Pharaoh (1:19);
Moses begins his career with two signs (4:9); he delivers two tables of the law
to Israel (31:18; 32:15; 34:1,4,29; Deut. 4:13; etal .);141 etc. (e.g. Gen. 27:36;
41:lff., 32). One steer and two rams=three animals (§4.4.1) are offered for the
consecration of priests (29:Iff.). See also BHHW, III, 2250; DB, III, 562; IDB,
III, 563; Sauer, 71.
43.2 fem. rnz> (OT ca. 155x; Exod. 26x) ‘second’ is used in in
dications of time (2:13; 16:1; 40:17) and in summaries (28:18; 39:11). See
§4.2.1 for the use of ... trti<n; tr:»n ‘the other’ in 26:20; 27:15; 36:17,25;
38:15 corresponds to a tacit rmn in 26:18; 27:14; 36:17,23; 38:14 respectively.
433 d*:», fem. rrro o'nts (normally +pl.; see, however 24:4) ‘twelve’
(15:27; 24:4 [2x]; 28:21 [2 x ]; 39:14 [2x]) is the number closely related to the
idea that Israel consists of twelve components: the altar for the whole people
was built with twelve stones (24:4; cf. Josh. 4:3,8,9,20; 1 Kgs. 18:31); the priest
who repesents the whole people carries twelve stones with the names of the
tribes inscribed (28:21; 39:14; cf. 28:9ff., 29; 39:6f.);142 there were twelve
water wells in Elim (15:27; Num. 33:9; one for each tribe?; ‘twelve’ indicates at
any rate that there was an abundance of water). See also BHHW, III, 225If.;
DB, III, 563,564f.; U. von Arx, Studien zur Geschichte des alttestamentlichen
140 See Fontinoy, 5 7 ,124f„ 143ff., 149f., 161,167,184.

141 There is even a doubled twosomeness, since both tables were inscribed on both sides
(32:15); persuasiveness is accompanied by harmony.
142 Cf. Lev. 24:5; Num. 7:3; Josh. 4:2f.; Judg. 19:29; Ezek. 48:31ff.; Ezra 6:17; 8:35 and perhaps
2 Sam. 2:15: 1 Kgs. 10:20; 19:19; Ezra 8:24 as well.
62 INTRODUCTION
Zw&lfersymbolismus, I, Frankfort 1990; BOcher, 108f.; Farbridge, 94, 146, 262,

267; A. Jaubert, “La symbolique des douze," in Hommages a A. Dupont-
Sommer, Paris 1971, 453-60; Sauer, 75; Segal, 7f.
4.4.1 fem. n»bi?, constr. (OT ca. 400 x; Exod. 35 x) ‘three’ often
indicates not the exact number ‘three’ but a small, rounded off unit, something
which is attaining completion, something which is perfect and strong; ‘three’
can be used in the sense of ‘several,’ ‘a few,’ e.g. in connection with ‘months’
(2:2) and ‘days’ (3:18; 5:13; 8:23; 10:22,23; 15:22; 19:15; Gen. 30:36;
40:12,13,18,19; 42:17; Num. 10:33; 33:8; etc.; OT ca. 40x) but in such cases
‘three’ often indicates more than a certain quantity; ‘three’ indicate the
maximum; ‘four’ surpasses that and signifies trouble/evil (cf. Amos l:3ff.; John
11:39); three months is the outside limit to Moses’ stay at home (2:2); Moses
is able to identify himself sufficiently with three signs (4:9); a plague which
lasts three days is one which must be endured to the bitter end (10:22,23; cf. 2
Sam. 24:13; Acts 9:9); three days without water indicates the measure of what a
person can bear (15:22; cf. 1 Sam. 30:12; Jonah 2:1; Matt. 15:32; Mark 8:32); a
marriage must meet three conditions for it to be a full marriage (21:11 ); a
pilgrimage of three days is required in preparation for the encounter with
YHWH (3:18; 5:3; 8:23; cf. 19:15 and Gen. 22:4; 2 Kgs. 20:5:8); three meetings
a year are necessary for a complete relationship to YHWH (23:14,17;
34:23,24; Deut. 16:16; 1 Kgs. 9:25). The number ‘three’ also plays a role in the
description of the tent sanctuary: the altar is three cubits high (27:1; 38:1); the
court has twice (symmetry, §4.3.1) three columns and bases (27:14,15;
38:14,15); the lampstand has twice three arms (25:32; 37:18) with three flowers
(25:33; 37:19). ‘Three’ is often used in the OT in connection to the sacred (see
also Gen. 15:9; Lev. 19:23; Num. 24:10; 1 Kgs. 6:37; 7:25,27; 17:21; 18:34;
Ezek. 40:10,21,48; 41:6,16; etc.) and corresponds to ‘seven’ as far as that goes.
Both numbers have approximately the same significance (‘seven’ is a more
powerful number) and are used in similar contexts; Exod. uses both the
number ‘three’ (10:22f.) as well as the number ‘seven’ (7:25) with respect to
the duration of plagues (also compare, for instance, Num. 19:12,14; 31:19;
Num. 23:1,4,14,29 alongside of 22:28,32f.; 24:10; 1 Sam. 6:1 alongside of 2
Sam. 2:11; Gen.31:22f.; Judg. 14:12,14; 2 Sam.24:12f.; Job 1:2; 42:13). ‘Three’
is also used in aggregate numbers (6:18; 7:7; 32:28; 38:26).
4.4.2 'V 'ie (OT ca. lOOx; Exod. 6 x) ‘third’ (19:1,11 (2x), 16; 28:19;
39:12) is used in 19:11,16 (cf. 19:10,15) in the expression ‘the third day’ (OT
ca. 25 x), that is to say, the day on which a significant event takes place, the
day on which marks a pivotal point, the day on which an unfolding process
matures, etc. (e.g. Gen. 22:4; 31:22; 34:25; 40:20f. [cf. 40:12ff.]; 42:18 [cf. 42:17];
Lev. 7:17f.; 1 Kgs. 3:18; Hos. 6:2; Esth. 5:1; Ezra 6:15 and in the NT
Matt. 16:21; 17:23; 20:19; 27:63); occurs in 19:11,16, the day of YHWH’s
revelation; it is perhaps also not without consequence that the event occurs in
the third month after the exodus (19:1), the revelation is preceded by a period
NUMERALS 63
of preparation.
4.43 □'»*?!? (OT ca. 170x; Exod. 9x) ‘thirty’ occurs particularly in ag
gregate numbers in Exodus (6:16,18,20; 12:40,41; 38:24) and also in the
description of the sanctuary curtains (26:8; 36:15) and in a statute concerning
the amount of damages (21:32). ‘Thirty’ expresses to an even stronger degree
the notions inherent in ‘three’ (cf. Gen. 41:46; Judg. 14:11; 1 Sam. 9:22; 2
Sam. 23:9,13,16ff.; 1 Kgs. 6:2; Ezek. 40:67; 41:6; 46:22). On ‘three’ and ‘thirty,’
see also BHHW, I, 354f.; DB, III, 562,565f.; IDB, III, 563f.; J.B. Bauer, “Drei
Tage," Bib 39 (1958), 354-8; Bocher, 112ff., 179ff.; J. Hehn, Siebenzahl und
Sabbat bei den Babyloniem und im Alten Testament, Leipzig 1907, 74f.; H. Ja-
gersma, "... ten derde dage ... *, Kampen 1976; F. Notscher, "Zur Auferste-
hung nach drei Tagen," Bib 35 (1954), 313-9; Sauer, 71f., Segal, 14ff.; B. Stade,
“Die Dreizahl im Alten Testament," ZAW 26 (1906), 124-8.
4.4.4 We should also point out several terms related to ‘three’ at this
juncture: the adverb (OT 24x) ‘three days ago,’ ‘the day before yester
day’ (cf. Joiion § 102b; Meyer § 41.6) which always occurs in fixed expressions
with Vran in Exodus: binn (see Brockelmann § 128 for the asyndeton)
‘yesterday and the day before’=until now (5:7,8,14); a&bo Vopn ‘beforehand,’
‘previously’ (21:19,36); doVbq oj biano m ‘heretofore’ (4:10) (for Vian [OT 23 x;
cf. Joiion § 17a; Meyer § 23.1] ‘yesterday,’ see also the expression Dvn-D? biarrm
[5:14; cf. 1 Sam. 20:27]); O'ttfV® (OT 5x; only in the pi. [for a different view,
Sauer, 120]) which is used to indicate third generation descendents (20:5;
34:7).
4.4.5 tit'bo (OT 17 x; Exod. 14:7; 15:4) is a controversial term which is
normally understood as ‘the third’ (the third man in the chariot, the bearer of
the shield and the weapons).143 Since the king’s ‘third’ was an important
man it is assumed that he performed the function of an adjutant (2
Kgs. 7:2,17; cf. 2 Kgs. 5:8 and see also 2 Kgs. 9:25; 15:25). is used in
14:7; 15:4 (cf. 1 Kgs. 9:22; 2 Kgs. 10:25) to refer to Egyptians. Since it was their
custom to equip a chariot with two men and not three as did others, among
them the Israelites, it is assumed by the interpretation above that the Israelites
projected their own custom on the Egyptians or that the term was used in a
more general sense to indicate a charioteer/chariot driver (cf. RSP, II, 102f.;
Benzinger, 266,303; H. Donner, ZAW 73 [1961], 275f.; DeVaux, I, 219f.; II,
20,24). That the above theory is untenable has been convincingly demons
trated by B.A Mastin:144 tt'ba is an officer of high rank and not a regular
member of the chariot crew. In sum, 14:7 portrays an extraordinary situation
(otherwise the conclusion of the verse would be superfluous): the chariots
were manned by ranking officers; Pharaoh used the military elite for the
pursuit; Egypt’s select troops perished through YHWH’s intervention (15:4).
*4^ See, however, Farbridge, 144, ‘one who has attained the highest rank.’
144 ’Was the Salts the Third Man in the Chariot?’ in SVT 30 (1979), 125-54.
64 INTRODUCTION
Mastin is rather cautious with respect to any connection between and

‘three.’ Perhaps a 0'be is an officer “of the third rank" who follows the king
and his “senior officers’ in the hierarchy. See also N. Na’aman, “The List of
David’s Officers (SaKStm)’ VT 38 (1988), 71-9; O. Margalith, VT (1992), 266;
D.G. Schley, “The SaliStm: Officers or Special Three-Man Squads?’ VT 40
(1990), 321-6; M. Vervenne, “Hebrew SatiS - Ugaritic tit," UF 19 (1987), 355-
73.
4.5.1 w in , fern. nsniK (OT ca. 310x; Exod. 38x) ‘four’ can possess the
notion of ‘completeness,’ ‘perfection,’ ‘balance’; thus, there are ‘the four winds,’
‘the four ends’ of the earth/heaven (Isa. 11:12; Jer. 49:36; Ezek. 37:9; Dan. 7:2;
etal.; cf. Zech. 6:lff.) (see Houtman, Himmel, 19,253), four streams in the
garden of Eden (Gen. 2:10ff.), etc. (e.g. Ezek. l:5ff.; 7:2; 10:9; 14:21;
Dan. 7:3,6,17). ‘Four’ is used in Exodus particularly in describing the tent
sanctuary (33x); see 25:12 (2x), 26 (3x), 34; 26:2,8,32(2x); 27:2, 4 (2x),
16 (2 x); 28:17, etc. (cf. 1 Kgs. 7:2,19,27,30-32,34,38; Ezek. 40:41f.; 41:5;
42:20; 43:14ff., 20; 45:19; 46:21f.). See also 21:37 and the use of ‘four’ in
aggregate numbers (12:40,41; 38:29), + ‘ten’ in 12:6,18 as an ordinal number,
‘fourteen’=2x ‘seven’ (cf. Lev. 23:5; Num. 9:11; 2 Kgs. 30:15; Esth. 9:15). One
should take note of the following: Moses raises objections to his calling four
times (3:11—4:12); the sacred annointing oil and the sacred aromatic spices
each contain four ingredients (30:22ff., 34ff.).
4.5.2 'V'?*), fem. m rm [the k in is a prosthetic n; cf. Ges-K § 19m;
Joiion § 17a; Meyer §29.1] (OT ca. 55x; Exod.28:20; 29:40; 39:13) ‘fourth’;
constr. trio-) in 29:40 has the sense of ‘a fourth’ (cf. Lev. 23:13; Num. 15:4,5;
28:5,7,14); inn (29:40; 1 Sam. 9:8) can also be used (Ges-K § 98b; Joiion
§ 101b; Meyer § 60.3) to indicate the same. Several more terms related to
‘four’ occur in Exodus: D'uai (OT 4x; only in the pi. [for a different view,
Sauer, 120]) which is used to indicate fourth generation descendents (20:5;
34:7); the qal passive part, of which functions as an adjective, ‘square,’
‘rectangular’ (27:1 28:16; 30:2; 37:25; 38:1; 39:9; 1 Kgs. 7:5; Ezek. 41:21;
43:16).145
4.5.3 D'urnK (OT ca. 130x; Exod. 9x) ‘forty’ is often used in connection
with indications of time; ‘forty years’ encompasses the period in which a
human being becomes an adult (Gen. 25:20; 26:34); a man is regarded as being
able to act independently at the age of forty (Josh. 14:7; 2 Sam. 2:10; Acts 7:23;
cf. Exod. 2:1 Iff.); after two periods of forty years, at the age of eighty, he is
regarded as having attained full maturity (7:7; 2 Sam. 19:32,34f.; Ps. 90:10;
Acts 7:30); after three periods of forty years he has reached the maximum age
(Gen. 6:3; Deut. 34:7). ‘Forty years’ is repeatedly used to indicate the period
which has been marked by a certain leader/ruler (Judg. 3:11; 8:28; 13:1; 1
Sam. 4:18; 2 Sam. 5:4; 1 Kgs. 2:11; 11:42); it is the time which is ‘filled’ by a
145 For the pual part, see 1 Kgs. 7:31; Ezek. 40:47; 45:2.
NUMERALS 65
single generation (16:35; Deut. 2:7; 8:2; 29:4; Josh. 5:6; Amos 2:10; 5:25;
Ps. 95:10; Neh. 9:21; Acts 7:36,42; 13:18; Heb. 3:8; cf. Num. 14:33f.; 32:13); 480
years is therefore the time of twelve generations (1 Kgs. 6:1; cf. 1 Chr. 5:29-34;
cf. 5:34-41, up until the deportation by Nebuchednezzar there had been twelve
acting priests; that period thus spanned 480 years too). It takes ‘forty days’
until a mother is again clean after the birth of a son (2 x forty days after the
birth of a daughter; Lev. 12:2ff.); it is the span of time which ought to pass
before one is again permitted to be touch anything the sacred; ‘forty days and
forty nights’ (of fasting) indicates the period of spiritual and moral purification
which ought to precede contact with God (24:18; 34:28; Deut. 9:9,11,18,25;
10:10; 1 Kgs. 19:8; cf. Matt. 4:2); it is the period required for the purification of
the earth by the deluge (Gen. 47:4,12,17), etc. (e.g. Gen. 50:3; Num. 13:25:
Ezek. 14:6; 29:11-13; Jonah 3:4; Acts 1:3); Israel’s forty year stay in the desert
(16:35, etc.) must therefore be regarded as perhaps a period of penitence and
of purification. ‘Forty’ is also used in connection with the description of the
tent sanctuary (26:19,21; 36:24,26; cf. 1 Kgs. 6:17; 7:38; Ezek. 41:2; 46:22). It is
also apparent from Deut. 25:3; 2 Kgs. 8:9 that ‘forty’ expresses to an even
stronger degree the notions inherent in ‘four.’ On ‘four’ and ‘forty,’ see also
BHHW, III, 2109; DB, III, 563f.,565; IDB, III, 565; Bocher, 112,176f.; Farbrid-
ge, 114ff., 144ff.; H. Jagersma, "... veertig dagen en veertig nachten ... *,
NedThT 28 (1974), 1-15; A. Meinhold, BN 33 (1985), 53ff.; Sauer, 72,75; Segal,
lOff.
4.6.1 »arr, fem. n»nn (OT ca. 310x; Exod. 33x) ‘five’ is used only in
describing the tent sanctuary, with the exception of 16:1; 21:37, and occurs
several times paired (26:3,26,27,37a; 27:1; 36:10,31,32,38a), thereby drawing
attention to the symmetry of the structure (cf. 1 Sam. 6:4; 1 Kgs. 6:24;
7:16,39,49; Ezek. 40:48; 41:2; 2 Chr. 4:6,8; 6:13); moreover, 2x ‘five’= ‘ten’
(§4.11.1); see also 26:9,37b; 27:18; 36:16,38b; 38:18 (cf. 1 Kgs. 6:6,10; 7:23;
Ezek. 40:48; 41:2). See also the use of ‘five’ in aggregate numbers (30:23,24;
38:25,26,28); + ‘ten’ in 27:14,15; 38:14,15 (cf. Gen. 7:20); as an ordinal
number in 16:1 (cf. Lev. 23:6,34,39; Num. 28:17; 29:12; 33:3; et al.).
4.6.2 D'»on (OT ca. 160 x; Exod. 23 x) ‘fifty’ is used only in describing the
tent sanctuary, with the exception of 18:21,25, and occurs several times paired
(26:5,10; 27:12,13,18; 36:12,17; 38:12,13); 2x ‘fifty’= ‘a hundred’ (§4.12.1);
see also 26:6,11; 36:13,18 (cf. Gen. 6:15; Ezek. 40:15,21; 42:2,7; 45:2). ‘Fifty’
as half of a ‘hundred’ (cf. 1 Kgs. 18:4) is the size of an organizational unit
(18:21,25; Deut. 1:15; 1 Sam. 8:12; 2 Kgs. l:9ff.; Isa. 3:3 and compare, for
instance, 2 Sam. 15:1; 1 Kgs. 1:5; 2 Kgs. 13:7; 15:25). ‘Fifty’ in 30:23 is part of
an aggregate number. On ‘five’ and ‘fifty,’ see also BHHW, I, 504; DB, III, 564;
IDB, III, 565; W. Hermann, “Mercatores mandatu missi," ZAW 91 (1979),
329-38; Sauer, 72,76; Segal, 8f.
4.7.1 ©©; fem. n©©, constr. n©» (OT ca. 210x; Exod. 28x) ‘six’ is used in
connection with the description of the tent sanctuary; see 28:10 (2 x ‘six’=
66 INTRODUCTION
‘twelve’ [§4.3.3]; cf. Esth. 2:12); 25:32,33,35; 37:18,19,21 (‘six’=2x ‘three’

[§4.4.1]); 26:22; 36:27 (cf. 1 Kgs. 6:6; Ezek. 40:12; 41:1,3,5,8). ‘Six’ is followed
several times by ‘seventh’ (§ 4.8.2): ‘six days’ - ‘on the seventh day’ (16:26;
20:9,11; 23:12; 24:16; 31:15,17; 35:2; Lev. 23:3; Deut.5:13f.; 16:18;
Josh. 6:3f., 14ff.; Ezek. 46:1); ‘six years’ - ‘in the seventh year’ (21:2; 23:10f.;
Lev. 25:3f.; Deut. 15:12,18; 2 Kgs. ll:3f.; 2 Chr. 23:1); what occurs/ought to
take place on the seventh day/in the seventh year is entirely distinct from what
happens in the six days/years; a climax, an important, decisive event takes
place. See also the use of ‘six’ in aggregate number (12:37; 14:7; 26:9,25;
36:16,30; 38:26).
4.7.2 *»», fern, n w (OT 26 x) ‘sixth’ occurs in 16:5,22,29; 26:9. See also
IDB, III, 565; Sauer, 73,76,83; Segal, 13f.
4.8.1 fem. todo, constr. nip® (OT ca. 380x; Exod. 19x) ‘seven,’
possess the notion of ‘fullness,’ ‘perfection,’ ‘completeness’ and was considered
to be a sacred number; the priest of Midian had seven daughters (2:16), an
ideal number (cf. 1 Sam. 2:5; Jer. 15:9; Job 1:2; Ruth 4:15; Acts 19:14 and see
Isa. 4:1 alongside of 2:16), which, as a sacred number, was fitting for a priest;
the first plague lasted seven days (7:25) until the bitter end; the castigation is
complete; (cf. Dan. 4:13,20,22 and see also Gen. 4:15; Lev. 26:18,21,24,28;
Ps. 79:12; Sir. 7:3; 35:13; 40:8). ‘Seven’ is often used in connection with the cult
and cultic events; the passover celebration comprises the perfect period of
seven days (12:15,19; 13:6,7; 23:15; 34:18); the first born of the cattle must
stay with their mother for seven days and thereafter belong to YHWH (22:29;
cf. Lev. 22:27 and see also Gen. 17:12; 21:4; Lev. 12:3); the ordination of priests
lasts seven days (29:30);146 the lampstand in the tent sanctuary contains
seven lamps (25:37; 37:23; cf. Num. 8:2; Zech. 4:2).147
4.8.2 y"yo, fem. mrattf (OT ca. 95 x; Exod. 17 x) ‘seventh’ follows ‘six’ a
number of times (§ 4.7.1); ‘seven’ is followed by ‘seventh’ in a similar way in
13:6: ‘seven days’ - ‘on the seventh day’=the decisive day (cf. Num. 18:24f.; 1
Kgs. 20:29; Esth. 1:5,10) (a special position is also ascribed to ‘the first day’ in
12:16 [cf. 12:15]); ‘the seventh day’ often has the sense of the Sabbath
(16:26, 27,29,30; 20:10,11; 23:12; 24:16; 31:15,17; 34:21; 35:2).
4.8.3 opp® (OT ca. 90x; Exod. 7 x) ‘seventy’ expresses even more strongly
than ‘seven’ the notion of ‘perfection,’ ‘completeness’ (e.g. Gen. 4:24 alongside
of 4:15 and Matt. 18:21f. alongside of Luke 17:4); Jacob boasted the ideal
number of seventy descendents (1:5; cf. Gen. 46:27; Deut. 10:22); he was able
to enjoy the completion of his offspring in his own lifetime (cf. Judg. 8:30;
146 Perfection is required for relations with a perfect God; on seven days as a period necessary
for purification and atonement, see also Lev. 12:2,5; 13:4ff., 26f., 31f.; 1 4 :8 ,9 ,38f.;
15:13,19,24, 28.
14' Hehn (see § 4.4.3), 79, rejects the notion that the lamps symbolize the seven planets and
asserts that the fullness of the light which emanates from YHWH is what is symbolized; it is quite
probable, however, that it is precisely this symbol that as such characterizes light as being perfect.
NUMERALS 67
9:2,24,56; 2 Kgs. 10:1; cf. Judg. 12:14 and see also Gen. 10 [the seventy
descendents of Shem, Ham, and Japheth represent the completed world
population]); seventy elders (24:1,9; Num. 11:16,24) acts as representatives of
the people and, as a consecrated throng, are worthy of entering into contact
with a holy, perfect God; there were seventy palm trees in Elim (15:27;
Num. 33:9) and the site is thereby characterized as a garden of delights. Even
more than is the case with ‘seven,’ ‘seventy’ is meant not as an exact figure but
as a round number. As far as 1:5 is concerned, the number of Jacob’s descen
dents that went to Egypt is determined as seventy in Gen. 46:27 as well; if one
adds the numbers mentioned in Gen. 46:15,18,22,25 than the total is seven-
ty=66 descendents (Gen. 46:26) + Joseph and his two sons (Gen. 46:27)
+Jacob himself; strictly speaking, there is an unevenness here because Jacob
himself needs to be added to the total; the summation in Gen. 46 has an
artificial character; although Gen. 46:7 (cf. verse 15b) speaks of daughters and
granddaughters, only a single daughter and granddaughter are actually men
tioned (Gen. 46:15a, 17). According to Gen. 46:27; Exod. 1:5 in the LXX, the
number of Jacob’s descendents in Egypt was seventy five (similarly, several
MSS of the Pesh., and see Acts 7:14; cf. Gen. 46:20 in the LXX: -(-three
grandsons and great grandsons of Joseph). Segal, 16, draws attention to the
fact that the number seven continually crops up in connection with Jacob148
(Gen. 29:18,20,27,30; 31:23; 33:3; 47:28; 50:3), while the number three 149 is
used significantly in connection with Abraham (Gen. 18:2,6; 22:4; see, how
ever, Gen. 17:24f.; 21:5). ‘Seven’ (6:16,20; 38:24,25,28) and ‘seventy’
(38:25,28,29) are furthermore used in aggregate numbers; the sacred number
is used in connection to Levi (6:16), a descendent of his (6:20), and the
material for the tent sanctuary (38:24,25,28,29; cf. Num. 17:13,85, etal.). In
34:22, the term via® (OT 20 x) ‘period of seven days,’ ‘week’ which is related
to ‘seven’ occurs. On ‘seven’ and ‘seventy,’ see also BHHW, III 1785f.; DB, III,
562f., 565; IDB, IV, 294f.; TWAT, VII, 1000ff.; Bocher, 109ff., 177f.; G.R. Dri
ver, “Sacred Numbers and Round Figures,* in Fs S.H. Hooke, Promise and
Fulfilment, Edinburgh 1963, 62-90; Farbridge, 119ff.; F.C. Fensham, “The
Numeral Seventy in the Old Testament and the Family of Jerubbaal, Ahab,
Panammuwa, and Athirat,’ PEQ 109 (1977), 113-5; R. Gordis, “The Heptad
as an Element of Biblical and Rabbinical Style,’ JBL 62 (1943), 17-26
C.H. Gordon, “The Seventh Day,“ UF 11 (1979), 299-301; Hehn (see §4.4.3),
4ff., 77ff.; idem, “Zur Bedeutung der Siebenzahl,’ in Fs K. Marti, Vom Alien
Testament, GieBen 1925, 128-36; A.S. Kapelrud, “The Number Seven in
Ugaritic Texts,* V T 18 (1968), 494-9; K. Koch, “Sabbatstruktur der Ges-
chichte,“ ZAW 95 (1983), 403-30; O. Ploger, “Siebzig Jahre,* in Fs F. Baum-
gartel, Erlangen 1959, 124-30; Sauer, 26ff., 73f.; Segal, 14ff.; M. Wojciechowski,
148 It “reflects the supernatural, whether divine or royal* (p. 19).

149 Which “represents the basic notion of plurality in human action and thought’ (p. 19).
68 INTRODUCTION
BN 45 (1988), 48-50.
4.9.1 n:oz) (OT ca. 100x; Exod. 4 x) ‘eight’ expresses symmetry as a factor
of ‘two’ (§4.3.1) and four (§4.5.1) (26:25; 36:30; cf. Ezek. 40:9,31,41). See
26:2; 36:9 for its use in aggregate numbers.
4.9.2 (OT ca. 30 x) ‘eighth’ follows ‘seven’ in 22:29: ‘seven days’ - ‘the
eighth day’; ‘eighth’ follows after the rounded out sacral period of ‘seven’; after
its completion a new act can take place (cf. Lev. 9:1; 12:3; 14:10,23; 15:14;
22:27; 23:36,39; 25:22; 1 Kgs. 8:66; 2 Chr. 7:9; 34:3; Neh. 8:19).
4.93 cnetf (OT 38x; Exod. 2x) ‘eighty’ is a twosome (§4.5.3) of ‘forty’
(7:7; cf. Judg. 3:30; 2 Kgs. 6:25; 10:24). For ‘eight’and ‘eigthy’ see also IDB, III,
564f.;F.J. DOlger, Antike und Christentum 4 (1934), 160-82; Sauer, 74,83f.;
Segal, 12f.
4.10 (OT ca. 60 x) ‘nine’ occurs in 38:24 in the aggregate number
‘twenty nine,’ i.e., just short of thirty (cf. Josh. 15:32; 2 Kgs. 14:2; 18:2). See
also IDB, III, 565; Sauer, 74; Segal, 9f.
4. 11.1 fern. rn®», constr. rn»» (OT ca. 490x; Exod. 31 x )150 ‘ten’
forms the basis of the decimal system which probably owes its existence to the
use of the fingers to make calculations, and can be used to indicate an un
determined number, completeness, and unsurpassability (Gen. 31:7; Num.
14:22; Deut. 23:4 [cf. Neh. 13:1]; 1 Sam. 1:8; Job 19:3; Dan. 1:20); the notion of
‘completeness’ is probably present in ‘the ten words’ (34:28; Deut. 4:13; 10:4);
the number of plagues is ten (7:13ff.); YHWH has gone to his utmost in his
case against Pharaoh and Pharaoh has resisted to the utmost before succum
bing. ‘Ten’ is used in the description of the tent sanctuary (26:1,16;
27:12 [2x]; 36:8,21; 38:12 [2x]; cf. 1 Kgs. 6:3,23,24; 7:10,23,24,27,38,43;
Ezek. 40:11; 42:4). The fem. pi. rn»» (cf. Ges-K §97h) ‘tensomes’ occurs in
18:21, 25; Deut. 1:15; a group of ten people is the smallest unity that is capable
of independent and forceful action (cf. Gen. 18:32f.; 42:3; Lev. 26:26; Josh.
22:14; Judg. 20:10; 1 Sam. 25:5; 2 Sam. 18:15; 2 Kgs. 25:25; etal.). ‘Ten’ occurs
with ‘one,’ ‘two,’ etc., to indicate ‘eleven’ (26:7,8; 36:14,15), ‘twelve’ (§ 4.3.3),
‘fourteen’ (12:6,18), ‘fifteen’ (16:1; 27:14,15; 38:14,15), ‘sixteen’ (26:25; 36:30).
4. 11.2 *T®®> fem. m »» (OT 28x) ‘tenth’; the fem. form is used in 16:36 to
indicate ‘one tenth’ (1/10) (cf. Lev. 5:11; 6:13; Num. 5:13). Words related to
‘ten’ which occur are: n&u (OT 16 x) ‘tensome’ in the expression anr6
“on the tenth of the month” (12:3; cf. Lev. 16:29, etal.); p»v (OT 30x) ‘a
tenth (part)’ (29:40; cf. Lev. 14:10; Num. 15:4). On ‘ten,’ see also BHHW, III,
2208; DB, III, 564f.; IDB, III, 565f.; H.A. Brongers, “Die Zehnzahl in der Bibel
und in ihrer Umwelt,” in Fs Th.C. Vriezen, Studia Biblica et Semitica, Wage-
ningen 1966, 30-45; Farbridge, 140ff.; Hermann (see § 4.6.2); Sauer, 74f.; Segal,
150 The number ‘ten’ (OT ca. 320x; Exod. 20x) has a different vocalization in the aggregate
numbers ‘eleven’ through ‘nineteen.’
NUMERALS 69
4ff.
4.113 D")i?u (OT ca. 310x; Exod. 23x) ‘twenty,’ twice ‘ten’ and half of
‘forty’ (§ 4.5.3) occurs only in the description of the tent sanctuary in Exodus
with the exception of 12:18 (26:18,19,20; 27:10 (2x), 11 (2x), 16; 30:13,14;
etc.; cf. 1 Kgs. 6:3,16,20; Ezek. 40:49; 41:2,4,10; 42:3; 45:12; see Lev. 27:3;
Num. 1:3; 14:29; 1 Chr. 23:24,27; 2Chr.31:17; Ezra 3:8 alongside of 30:14=
38:26). ‘Twenty’ is also used in aggregate numbers (12:18; 26:2; 36:9; 38:24).
4.12.1 nt<o, constr. nxn; dual D*nK» (30:23); unbound pi. nixo (OT ca. 580 x;
Exod. 28 x) ‘hundred’ is used in connection to describing the tent sanctuary
(27:9,11,18; 38:9,11,27; cf. 1 Kgs. 7:2; Ezek. 40:19,23; 41:13,14,15; 42:2,8), in
connection to specifying weights (38:25,27 (2 x); cf. 2 Kgs. 23:33; 2 Chr. 25:6,
9; 27:5; Ezra 7:22; 8:26), and apparently possesses in stronger measure the
notions inherent in ‘ten’ (Gen. 33:19; Josh. 24:32; Deut. 22:19; 1 Sam. 18:25; 2
Sam. 3:14; 16:1; etal.). nwo ‘hundreds’ occurs in 18:21,25; Deut. 1:15 (cf.
Num. 31:14,48,52,54; 1 Sam. 22:7; 2 Sam. 18:1; 2 Kgs. 11:4,9f., 15); groups of
a hundred occur more often in the OT (Judg. 7:19; 20:10; 2 Sam. 8:4 1 Kgs.
18:4,13; 2 Kgs. 4:23); as in 18:21,25, there are groups of a ‘hundred’ and a
‘thousand’ in Num. 31:14,48,52,54; 1 Sam. 22:7; 29:2; 2 Sam. 18:1,4; Amos 5:3.
4.12.2 Aggregate numbers with ‘hundred’ and numbers which are factors of a
‘hundred’ which occur in Exodus are: 500 (30:23,24);151 600 (14:7);152 137
(6:16,20; cf. Gen. 25:17); 133 (6:18);153 250=half of 500 (see above) (30:23
[2x]; not used elsewhere with respect to weight; cf. Num. 16:2,17,35; 26:10);
430 (12:40,41) [occurs only Gen. 11:17; Gal. 3:17; cf. Ezek. 4:4-6]; 730 (38:24)
[only here in Bible].
4.13.1 r|‘?K; dual Q's'pR (38:29);154 unbound pi. O'dVk, pi. constr. “dVk (32:28)
(OT ca. 500x; Exod. 11 x) ‘thousand’ is a very forceful (hyperbolic) expres
sion of an undetermined number (20:6; 34:7; cf. Deut. 1:11; 5:10; 7:9; 32:30;
Josh. 23:10; Judg. 15:15f.; 1 Sam. 18:7; 1 Chr. 12:14; 16:15; Ps. 105:8). d*d^k
‘thousands’ occurs in 18:21,25; Deut. 1:15 (§4.12.1, e.g. 1 Sam. 8:12; 18:13);
more often groups of a thousand occur in the OT (e.g. Num. 31:4,5,6;
Judg. 9:49; 20:10; 1 Sam. 13:2; 2 Sam. 10:6; 19:17; 1 Kgs. 12:34; 2 Kgs. 24:16;
Dan. 5:1).
4.13.2 Aggregate numbers with ‘thousand’ and numbers which are factors of
Often in connection with the specification of amounts and numbers; e.g. Num. 31:28; 1
Chr. 4:42; 2 Chr. 35:9; Esth. 9:6; Job 1:3.
152
A cherished number in describing the size of an army or the number of fallen, etc.; e.g.
Judg. 3:31; 18:11, 16, 17; 20:47; 1 Sam. 13:15; 14:2; 23:13; 27:2; 30:9; 2 Sam. 15:18; 1 Macc. 6:42; 2
Macc. 10:31; cf. 14:7 alongside of 12:37: Pharaoh enters one chariot against a thousand marching
Israelites.
153
This number is not used elsewhere in the Bible with respect to age.
154 Cf. Fontinoy, 52f.
70 INTRODUCTION
a ‘thousand’ which occur in Exodus are: 3000 (32:28);155 600,000

(12:37);156 603,550 (38:26);157 the same applies to 500 (e.g. 1 Chr.4:42;
Esth. 9:6; 1 Macc. 6:35; 2 Macc. 12:10; 14:39) and 50 (e.g. Gen. 18:24,26,28;
Num. 31:30,47; 1 Sam. 6:19; 2 Kgs. 2:7,16 and see §4.6.2); the unevenness of
the number and the spectrum of numbers included is perhaps intended to
indicate that this immense people consists of larger and lesser divisions); 1775
(38:25,28) [only here in the Bible); 2400 (38:29; cf. Num. 7:85). For a ‘hund
red’ and a ‘thousand,’ see also BHHW, II, 753; III, 1937; DB, III, 564; IDB, III,
566; A. Frisch, BetM 30 (1984-85), 435-40; Sauer, 76f., 84; Segal, 5f.
4.14 The large numbers, particularly those in 12:37; 38:26 (cf. Num. 1-5;
26) face us with questions. Regarding them as actual numbers means that one
must take into account a total population of several million since the number
of stout men is several hundred thousand stout men. J.W. Colenso asserted as
early as 1862158 that the number cannot possibly be considered to be his
torical. Moreover, other matters appear to imply that Israel was a small people
(Deut. 7:7; cf. 7:1,17) that was incapable of commanding the whole of Qinaan
(23:29f.; Deut. 7:22) and who felt that they were not up to the inhabitants of
Canaan (13:17; Num. 14:lff.; Josh. 7:5; cf. Deut. 9:1; 11:23). It is also noticeable
that Israel, exceedingly large as it is (12:37), fears Pharaoh’s relatively small
army (14:7, lOff.) and that the notably populous tribe of Dan (Num. 26:43) in
Canaan is able to muster only 600 men (Judg. 18:11,16,17). Excavations have
furthermore taught us that the cities in Canaan were of modest size and had a
limited number of inhabitants. Various explanations of the large numbers have
been given; one idea that has been propounded is that qbtt means not a
‘thousand,’ but ‘clan,’ ‘family.’ The numbers become more realistic with this
interpretation.159 It seem more plausible to assume that the numbers had a
different ring to people from the ancient Near East than they do to contem
porary Westerners. The large numbers sound to his ears as a form of hyper
bole so exaggerated that it misses its mark (cf. 1:7). The fact that the large
numbers are round makes it probably that they were not intended as exact
figures but as indications for very large numbers. The variation in numbers and
155 Often used to indicate groups of people; e.g. Josh. 7:3, 4; Judg. 15:11; 16:27; 1 Sam. 13:2;
26:2; 2 Chr. 25:13; 1 Macc. 4:6, 15; 5:20, 22; 7:40; 10:77; 11:44, 74; 12:47; 2 Macc. 4:40; 8:34; 12:33;
Acts 2:41; it indicates a very large number.
156 The number also occurs in Num. 11:21; cf. Sir. 16:10; 46:8; the meaning intended is that the
departing multitude was awesome and stalwart (see § 4.12.2, ‘600’).
157 Cf. Num. 1:46; 2:32; 3000 is used more often in connection with groups of people (see
above).
^ The Pentateuch and the Book o f Joshua, I, London 1862, § 11 Iff., et al.
See the discussion in W.H. Gispen, Numeri, I, Kampen 1959, 29ff.; B. Holwerda, Historia
Revelationis Veteris Testamenti, Kampen n.d., 167ff.; J. de Koning, Studien over de El-Amamabrieven,
Delft 1940, 19ff. (the original text of the OT has not been preserved everywhere); A. Noordtzij,
Numeri, Kampen 19572, 31 ff.; J.W. Wenham, “Large Numbers in the Old Testament," TynB 18
(1967), 19-53.
PERSONAL NAMES 71
the elaborated character which they have in Numbers, for instance, create the
impression that there has been a deliberate use of numbers, and that a naive
view such as children might have of them is inappropriate. The numbers
perhaps express a symbolic world which can no longer be reconstructed.
§ 5 Personal names in the book of Exodus; introduction; male names; Pharaoh

5.a Bibl. (general): DB, III, 481ff.; IDB, III, 503ff.; IDBS, 619ff.; THAT, II,
937ff., 945ff; J. Barr, ‘The Symbolism of Names in the Old Testament,’
BJRL 52 (1969-70), 11-29; idem, “Etymology and the Old Testament,’
OTS 19 (1974), 1-28; P.A.H. de Boer, “Enkele opmerkingen over de betekenis
van namen in het Oude Testament,’ Bijdragen en Mededelingen der Naam-
kunde-Commissie van de Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschap-
pen 13 (1958), 16-24; F.M.Th. Bohl, ’Volksetymologie en woordspeling in de
Genesisverhalen,’ MANW.L 59 A/3 (1925), 49-79; idem, ‘Wortspiele im Alten
Testament,’ JPOS 6 (1926), 196-212, =Opera Minora, Groningen/Jakarta 1953,
11-25; J. Fichtner, “Die etymologische Atiologie in den Namengebungen der
geschichtlichen Bucher des Alten Testaments,’ VT 6 (1956), 372-96; J.D. Fow
ler, Theophoric Personal Names in Ancient Hebrew, Sheffield 1988 (cf. J.A. Em-
erton, VT 39 [1989], 246ff.; C. Frevel, BN 47 [1989], 50f.); M. Garsiel, Biblical
Names: A Literary Study of Midrashic Derivations and Puns, Jerusalem 1991;
J. Heller, “Namengebung und Namendeutung,’ EvTh 27 (1967), 255-66;
A. F. Key, “The Giving of Proper Names in the Old Testament,* JBL 83
(1964), 55-59; B.O. Long, The Problem o f the Etiological Narrative in the Old
Testament, Berlin 1968; S.I.L. Norin, Sein Name allein ist hoch: Das Jhw-hdltige
Suffix althebraischer Personennamen untersucht, Malmo 1986; M. Noth, Die
israelitischen Personennamen im Rahmen der gemeinsemitischen Namengebung,
Stuttgart 1928; R.L. Omanson, “What’s in a Name?“ BiTr 40 (1989), 109-19;
B. J. Oosterhoff, Israelitische persoonsnamen, Delft 1953; J.J. Stamm, Beitrdge zur
hebrdischen und altorientalische Namenkunde, Freiburg/Gottingen 1980;
G.W. Ramsey, “Is Name-Giving an Act of Domination in Genesis 2:23 and
elsewhere?* CBQ 50 (1988), 24-35; A. Struss, Nomen - Omen: La stylistique
sonore des noms propres dans le Pentateuque, Rome 1978; De Vaux, I, 88ff.;
W. Weinberg, “Language Consciousness in the OT,“ ZAW 92 (1980), 185-204
(193ff.); R. Zadok, “Die nichthebrSischen Namen der Israeliten vor dem
hellenistischen Zeitalter,’ UF 17 (1986), 387-98; Z. Zevit, “A Chapter in the
History of Israelite Personal Names,* BASOR 250 (1983),1-16; F. Zimmerman,
'Folk Etymology of Biblical Names,’ in SVT 15 (1966), 311-26.
5.b Several issues are vital with respect to a proper understanding of
proper names. The meaning of many personal names in the OT was clear to
those who gave/bore/knew about them because the name was formed using
current Hebrew terms. The names were apparently often selected or formed
for their meaning quite deliberately. In this respect Israelite nomenclature is
different from ours. In our society names are also chosen deliberately, but
72 INTRODUCTION
generally without attention to their meaning. The choice is normally guided by

the appeal of a name or by a predilection for a family name; papponymy (the
custom of naming a son after his father or an ancestor) did not exist in Israel.
The above does not diminish the fact that names occur in the OT whose
(original) meaning may not (no longer) have been known to the Israelites.
This would have applied particularly in cases where the names were derived
from other languages (e.g. §§ 6,14,25,45,55,56).
5.c Diversity exists with respect to the substance of names in the OT.
There are, for instance, names derived from the animal kingdom (e.g.
§§47,48) and names based on certain features of the newly born child (e.g.
§§39,44,49). Many names are theophoric, i.e., names constituted from a
divine name or a designation for God. They are usually intended as a state
ment concerning what God is/has done for/will do (it is hoped) for someone/
people (e.g. §§1,2,5,8,10,11,12,13, etc.). These names may occur in ab
breviated form without theophoric elements (hypocoristic names; e.g. §§
7.21.23.64, etc.).
5.d Names were given by either the mother (e.g. Gen. 29:31ff.; 1 Sam. 1:20
and see Exod. 2:10) or the father (e.g. 2:22; Gen. 16:15; 21:3 and see
Gen. 35:18).160 A notable phenomenon which occurs especially in Genesis
(e.g. §§ 3,15,16,18,21,22,27,29,33,35,40,50,61,64) but which is not absent
in Exodus (§§ 10,19,45) is the explanation of the name at the christening; also
in connection with localities (15:23; 17:2,7) and with respect to the appellation
‘bridegroom of blood’ (4:26). The explanation then ftirnished is often not
correct according to modern linguistics. It is based on association of the name
with Hebrew terms which, to a greater or lesser degree, display a formal
correspondence to it. The term popular etymology often crops up in scholarly
discussion. It would perhaps be preferable to refer to this form of ‘etymology’
as literary etymology and to include it among the stylistic devices employed. By
explaining the name, the author makes the name serviceable to the narrative.
A single story may even contain/suggest two or more of such associative
explanations (e.g. §§33,35).161 It is thus evident that literary etymology is of
major significance to interpretation; scholarly etymology is not, as a rule.
Scholarship has knowledge and material at its disposal of which the authors of
the bible had not the faintest awareness, and it cannot, therefore, make a
contribution to an understanding of the author’s intention. The meaning of a
name can only be of significance of interpretation when the author refers to it.
If this is not the case, knowledge of a name’s meaning can at best serve
purposes other than those of interpretation, e.g. as a secondary source concer
160 Cf. W. Plautz, ZA W 74 (1962), 13f., and see R. Kessler, ‘Benennung des Kindes durch die
israelitischen Mutter,* Wort und Dienst 18 (1985), 25-35
161 As far as geographical names are concerned, Gen. 21:23-31 contains two explanations of the
name Beersheba.
PERSONAL NAMES 73
ning Israel’s piety in the case of theophoric names. The often advanced view
that the purpose of Hebrew names was to confer certain traits to the people
who bore them (the name indicates what and who a person is) cannot be
maintained, at least not in such a generalized form. Many names, such as those
derived from the animal kingdom and theophoric names, do not allow such
interpretation, and it does not seem plausible that parents would give a child a
name with a negative connotation [e.g. it is improbably that the meaning of
Nabal is ‘fool’; the explanation of the name in 1 Sam. 25:25 is based on a
literary artfulness and a play on words; cf. Stamm, 205ff.]. It is worth pointing
out that historical and linguistic explanations for biblical names did not flower
until in the 19,h and 20th centuries. Up until the 18* century the allegorical
interpretation reigned preeminently among Jews as well as Christians.
5.e The OT displays changes of name on occasion (e.g. §§ 3,16,29 and
see Gen. 32:29). O. EiCfeldt162 remarks: ‘Die Nennung von Ortlichkeiten
oder Personen und damit auch ihre Umnennung bedeutet nicht nur fur das
Alte Testament, sondern wohl fur die ganze Welt und fur alle Zeiten ein
grosses Privileg. Es hacdelt sich hier um ein Hoheitsrecht, das der Nennende
oder Umnennende fiber den Genannten Oder Umgenannten austibt. Dabei
kann die Art, wie dieses Hoheitsrecht wahrgenommen wird, verschieden sein,
indem es bald Beherrschung, wohl gar Ausbeutung der Genannten oder
Umgenannten, bald deren patronhafte Beschfitzung mit sich bringt.’ (p. 69). A
change of name can, at any rate, signal the turning point in a person’s life.
5.f The identity of a person can be designated in more detail in various ways
in Hebrew. A man is often identified as ‘X, the son of Y’ (e.g. 6:25; 33:11;
Gen. 11:31; 23:8; etc.), or possibly as ‘x, the son of Y, the son of z ’ (e.g. 31:2).
A woman’s identity can be clarified by identifying her as ‘the wife of x ’ (18:2;
Gen. 11:31; 24:15; etc.). Another type of relationship can also be called to
mind in elaborating a person’s identity; e.g. ‘x, the father-in-law of Y’ (18:2;
Judg. 1:16 4:11) or the tribe can be mentioned: ‘x, the son of Y, from the z
tribe’ (31:6; cf. 31:2 and 4:14). A person’s occupation, ‘Miriam, the prophetess,
(15:20; cf. 3:1; 18:1), or the profession of their father, ‘X, the son of Y, the
priest,’ (38:21; Num. 3:32; 31:6) may be mentioned. If the person is a king, his
identity may be further designated by mentioning the name of his subjects: ‘x,
king of y’ (6:27; Gen. 14:1; 26:1; Num. 21:21; etal.). Further designation of a
person’s identity may be given when a person is first introduced or reintrodu
ced in the narrative, and can be omitted thereafter (e.g. 3:1 alongside of 4:18
and 18:lff., 12 alongside of 18:9,10; see 4:14 and see 31:6; 35:34 alongside of
36:1,2). It appears that this may also be done when a person is mentioned for
|he last time (38:22,23). Not all people are further identified by way of
introduction (e.g. §§ 2,46). Sometimes further identification is offered in the
162 ,
' "Renaming in the Old Testament," in Fs D. Winton Thomas, Words and Meanings;
Cambridge 1968, 69-79, = KL Schr., V (cited here).
74 INTRODUCTION
course of a narrative (e.g. §§28; Exod. 33:11). Such matters are probably due
to the history of the text’s compilation. On the designation of a person’s
identity, see also D.J.A. Clines, *X, X ben Y, ben Y: Personal names in
Hebrew Narrative Style,’ VT 22 (1972), 266-87; L. Kohler, ’Die Personalien
des Oktateuchs," ZAW 40 (1922), 20-36.
S.g Of the 66 male personal names mentioned in Exodus, Moses occurs
the most frequently (290x), followed by Aaron (116x); the names of other
people follow at quite a distance: Jacob (11 x), Jethro (lOx), Abraham (9x),
Isaac (9 x), Joshua (7 x), Bezalel (6x), Oholiab (5x), etc.
5.h With regard to the overview below, the following remarks should be
made: after the name the meaning of the name is mentioned between square
brackets, as a rule, with the possible addition of an explanatory note. An
asterisk indicates if the explanation is literary; a double asterisk indicates that
the literary explanation coincides with the scholarly explanation. A dagger after
the name indicates that the name occurs only in Exodus; a plus sign indicates
that there is more than one individual in the OT who bears that name (for
more information, consult the reference works, e.g. BHHW, IDB). It should be
pointed out before continuing that the boundaries between personal names
and tribal names and between tribal names and the names of localities or
regions may be fluid (even though ‘Israel’ is a personal name, it is discussed in
§8 rather than here). An overview of the manner in which names from the
LXX have been transcribed in the MSS along with an inquiry into the method
of transcription employed is given by G. Lisowsky, Die Transkription der
hebraeischen Eigennamen des Pentateuch in der Septuaginta, Basel 1940.
5.1 P|0R'3K ‘Abiasaph’ (Sam. Pent. *p'3R ‘Ebyasaph’; cf. 1 Chr. 6:8,22; 9:19;
26:lcj) [‘Father has added’=God has added to the family through birth], the
third son of §§60 (6:24). See THAT, I, 8f.; II, 584; TWAT, I, 16f.; Noth, IP,
33,69f., 173; Stamm, 66,139.
5.2 Kirratt ‘Abihu’ [‘Father is He’=God is the only GodJ, Aaron’s second
son (6:23), mentioned in 24:1,9 together with Nadab’s first son, in 28:1
together with Nadab and the youngest sons of Eleazar and Ithamar (cf.
Num. 3:2; 26:60; 1 Chr. 5:29; 24:1). Nadab and Abihu die (Lev. 10:Iff.;
Num. 3:4; 26:61) without leaving sons (Num. 3:4; 1 Chr. 24:2). Noth, UP, 203ff.,
contends that Nadab and Abihu are eponyms of communities of priests and
were made into sons of Aaron owing to the status of these circles. Lev. 10:Iff.
supposedly discloses that these priestly circles became involved in a conflict
with other groups and lost out. O. EiBfeldt, ’Israels Fiihrer in der Zeit vom
Auszug aus Agypten bis zur Landnahme,* in Fs Th.C. Vriezen, Studia Biblica
et Semitica, Wageningen 1966, 66-70, considers them to be political leaders
who were later made to be sons of Aaron and priests. See also THAT, I, 8f.;
TWAT, I, 16f.; Gressman, 257ff.; Noth, IP, 18,69f., 143; Stamm, 66,69.
5.3 nrnDK ‘Abraham’ (OT ca. 170x; Gen. ca. 130x) [‘father of a mul
titude’ (Gen. 17:5)*; dialectical variant of (Gen. 11:27, etc.; ca. 60x)
PERSONAL NAMES 75
‘Father (=God) is exalted’] only occurs in Exodus—Deuteronomy in connec

tion with the names Isaac and Jacob, usually as the leading name (see, how
ever, Lev. 26:42); always in passages which hark back to what has been nar
rated in Genesis, particularly the promises made to them by y h w h ; see 2:24;
3:6,15,16; 4:5; 6:3,8; 32:13 (‘Israel’ instead of ‘Jacob’ here) cf. 1 Kgs. 18:36; 1
Chr. 29:18; 2 Chr.30:6); 33:1; Lev. 26:42; Num. 32:11; Deut. 1:8; 6:10; 9:5, 27,
29; 29:12; 30:20; 34:4; cf. Gen. 50:24; 2 Kgs. 13:23; Jer. 33:26. See also THAT,
II, 754; TRE, I, 364ff.; P.M. Boogaert (ed.), Abraham dans la Bible et dans la
tradition Juive, Brussel 1977; W.G. Denver - M. Clark, in Hayes-Miller, 170ff.;
M. GOrg, “Abraham - historische Perspektiven,“ BN 41 (1988), 11-4; Hout-
man, Ini. Pent., 141 ff.; H.E. Lona, Abraham in Johannes 8, Bern/Frankfort 1976;
P. Kyle McCarter, “The Historical Abraham,’ Int 42 (1988), 341-52;
W. McKane, Studies in the Patriarchal Narratives, Edinburgh 1979; A.R. Mil
lard —D.J. Wiseman (eds.), Essays in the Patriarchal Narratives, Leicester 1980;
Noth, IP, 52 ,145f.; G. Sauer, “Abraham - tragende Gestalt der Frommig-
keit?“, ThZ 47 (1991), 291-8; Stamm, 66,69; DeVaux, HAI, I, 181ff.; U. Wor-
schech, Abraham: Eine sozialgeschichtliche Studie, Frankfurt am Main 1983.
5.4 ink ‘Ohad’ [?), the son of §§64 (6:15; Gen. 46:10; not in
Num. 26:12ff.; 1 Chr. 4:24f., however).163
5.5 DK'bnx ‘Oholiab’ [(‘father’s tent’ or) ‘a tent is Father’= God provides
protection], the most important colleague of §§ 17 (31:6; 35:34; 36:1,2; 38:23.
Jewish tradition regards Hiram (1 Kgs. 7:13f.) as a descendent of his (Ginz-
berg, III, 156,177f.; VI, 63,295). See also TWAT, 1,133 Noth, IP, 158f.; idem,
UP, 205; G.A. Rendsburg, VT 40 (1990), 204ff.
5.6 prnt ‘Aaron’ (Pent. ca. 300x; Exod. 116x; Lev. ca. 80x; Num. ca.
100x; Deut. 4x; about 45 x outside of the Pentateuch, particularly in
Chronicles; in the prophetic books only in Mic. 6:4) [name of Egyptian origin],
the grandson of §§ 40 (cf. 4:14), older (7:7) brother of Moses (6:20 and see
also 4:14; 28:1,2,4; Num. 26:59) and Miriam (§6.3) (15:20; Num. 26:59), and
father of §§ 46,2,12,9. He is often mentioned in the same breath as Moses,
particularly in passages which deal with the confrontation with Pharaoh
(5:1,4,20; 6:13; 7:6,8,10,20; 8:4,8,21; 9:8,27; 10:3,8,16; 11:10; 12:28,43,50;
16:2,6)164 and is then further identified as Moses’ mouthpiece (4:15f., 30;
7:lf. and also 16:9f.); normally Moses himself acts as the speaker. He is the
one who performs signs for the people (4:30?) and Pharaoh (7:9ff., 19ff.;
8:Iff-, 12ff.; 11:10) at Moses’ command. In the portions dealing with the stay in
the sojourn in the desert and the arrival at Sinai the name of Aaron is heard
relatively little. He is mentioned together with Hur (17:10,12; 24:14), the
elders (18:12; 24:1,9,14) and Nadab and Abihu (24:1,9) (see also Exod. 16;
^ Ibn Ezra: Ohad’s family died in Egypt or in the desert.

Moses is mentioned first, as a rule (see, however, 6:20 and particularly 6:26; also compare
6:27, however).
76 INTRODUCTION
19:24). From 27:21 onward his name occurs frequently again in connection
with the description of the institution of the priesthood165 and the story of
the golden calf [Exod. 32-34; no mention of the sons, but the leaders of the
people (34:31) are mentioned]. He turns against Moses together with Miriam
(Num. 12). He may not enter Canaan because of his disobedience at Meribah.
He dies on Mt. Hor (Num. 20; see Deut. 10:6, however).166 The picture of
Aaron which dominates the Pentateuch to a large extent is one of Aaron as
(high) priest, the patriarch of the Aaronic priesthood (cf. 1 Chr. 5:29ff.; 6:35ff.,
patriarch of the Zadokites). It is commonly believed that this portrayal is the
creation of a later period and is historically incorrect. It is also regarded as
improbable that a family relation existed between Moses and Aaron. Opinions
concerning the picture which we ought then to have of the historical Aaron
(his role in Exod. 17; 18; 24; 32 supposedly points in the direction of Aaron as
a worldly leader) vary considerably. Very different responses are given to the
following questions: Did a relationship between Moses and Aaron exist
historically? (Was Aaron a leader subordinate to Moses or was he an an
tagonist of Moses? Are traditions featuring Aaron as the preeminent person
interwoven with traditions about Moses?, etc.). Was Aaron merely a worldly
leader or did the historical Aaron have priestly functions as well? (Does
Exod. 32 conceal a representation of Aaron as the founder of the cult at
Bethel?). How could Aaron be made into the eponym of the preeminent
priestly caste in the tradition? For Aaron in the NT, see Luke 1:5; Acts 7:40;
Heb. 5:4; 7:11; 9:4. See also Cody, 146ff.; Eififeldt (see §§2), 65f.; M. Gorg,
“Aaron - von einem Titel zum Namen?“ BN 32 (1986), 11-7; A.H.J. Gun-
neweg, Leviten und Priester, Gottingen 1965, 81ff., 138ff.,; Noth, IP, 60,63;
idem, UP, 195ff.; Schmid, 36ff.; Valentin (Bibl.); M. White, “The Elohistic
Depiction of Aaron: A Study in the Levite-Zadokite Controversy,’ SVT 41
(1990), 149-59.
5.7 "ntt ‘Uri’+ (also occurs in Elephantine Papyri) [‘(my) light (is God/
yhwh)’; cf. Uriel and Uriah], the father of §§ 17 and son of §§ 25 (31:2; 35:30;
38:22; 1 Chr. 2:20; 2 Chr. 1:5). See THAT, I, 85,90; Noth, IP, 38,138; Stamm,
52,53,57,109.
5.8 1D0TIK ‘Ahisamach’t [‘Brother (=God) has supported’], the father of
§§ 5 (31:6; 35:34; 38:23). See THAT, I, 103; II, 160; TWAT, I, 210; Noth, IP,
69f., 176; Stamm, 67.
5.9 iDn*tt ‘Ithamar’ [?], the fourth and youngest son of Aaron (6:23) is
mentioned together with his other brothers (§§ 2) and exercises the priesthood
together with Eleazar after the death of Nadab and Abihu (Lev. 10:6,12,16;
165 There is often mention of ‘Aaron and his sons’ (28:4, 43; 29:4, 10,15,19, 20, 21; etc.); the
sons are mentioned by name only in 28:1.
166 Cf. C. Houtman, "Enkele overwegingen bij de beschrijving van het levenseinde van Henoch
and Aaron in het Oude Testament," NedThT 33 (1979), 177-94.
PERSONAL NAMES 77
Num. 3:4; 1 Chr. 24:4). Both are depicted in Chronicles as the patriarchs of the
priests (1 Chr. 24:3,4,6 and see Ezra 8:2); comparison of 1 Sam. 14:3; 22:9 to 1
Chr. 24:3 leads to the conclusion that Eli (1 Sam. Iff.) belonged to the lineage
of Ithamar; similarly, Josephus, AJ, VIII, 10ff.; cf. 1 Sam. 2:27ff.; 2 Kgs. 2:26f.
He is ascribed a position of leadership in 38:21; Num. 4:28,33; 7:8.
5.10 ‘Eliezer’+ [‘God is help’ (18:4)**; cf. 4 Macc. 6:5, ‘divine
seed’*], the second and youngest son of Moses (18:4). He is mentioned in 1
Chr. 23:15,17 (2 x) ; 26:25 as the patriarch of the Levites. A notion accepted
by many is that Eliezer is the same as Eleazar (§§ 12) in the sense that the
priestly circle which regarded Eliezer as its ancestor originally traced his
genealogy to Moses but later to Aaron.167 See THAT, II, 257; Noth, IP,
16,18,154.
5.11 iss'pR ‘Elzaphan’ (=]Dr'?t< ‘Elizaphan’; Num. 3:30; 1 Chr. 15:8; 2
Chr. 29:13)+ [‘God has hidden (=protected)’], the son of §§ 52 (6:22;
Lev. 10:4). See Noth, IP, 34,178; idem, UP, 205.
5.12 ‘Eleazar’+ [‘God has helped’], the third son of Aaron (6:23) is
mentioned together with his other brothers (§§ 2) and appears in the Hexa-
teuch (ca. 50 x) as Aaron’s most important son. He is his father’s successor
(Num. 20:25ff.; cf. Deut. 10:6), assuming his position as Moses’ helper
(Num. 26:1,3,63; 27:2,21), and later assists Joshua (Num. 32:28; 34:17; etal.).
He is the father of Pinehas (6:25) and is the patriarch of the Zadokite pries
thood according to 1 Chr. 5:29ff.; 6:35ff. See §§ 10 and THAT, II, 257; Noth,
IP, 20f.
5.13 nji^R ‘Elkanah’+ [‘God has called to life’], the second son of §§60
(6:24; 1 Clir. 6:8,10). See THAT, II, 651; Noth, IP, 20f., 172.
5.14 ton (Sam. Pent, tior) ‘Assir’+ [is there a connection with ‘Osiris’
(Noth, IP, 63) or with to r ‘prisoner’?], the oldest son of §§60 (6:24; 1
Chr. 6:7). The son of Ebyasaph (§§ 1) bears the same name (1 Chr. 6:8,22).
5.15 i »r ‘Asher’ [explained in Gen. 30:13 with the aid of piel -i»r ‘call
happy’*; according to Noth, IP, 131, the name of a god, the male pendant of
Ashera], the eighth son of Jacob (1:4), the second with Zilpah (Gen. 30:12f.),
eponym of a tribe. See O. Eififeldt, * ‘Gut Gluck!’ in semitischer Namen-
gebung,* JBL 82 (1963), 195-200 (=KI. Schr., IV, 73-78); De Vaux, HAI, I,
529,605ff.
5.16 ]o;:3 ‘Benjamin’ [‘son of the right hand’/‘good luck child’
(Gen. 35:18)*; ‘southerner(s)’], the twelfth son of Jacob (1:3), the second with
Rachel (Gen. 35:17f.), eponym of a tribe. See IDBS, 95f.; THAT, I, 321; TWAT,
III, 658f.; Noth, IP, 60; De Vaux, HAI, I, 587ff., et al.
5.17 ^ 6 x3 ‘Bezalel’+ [‘in the shadow (= protection) of God’], the son of
§§ 7 and the most prominent builder of the tent sanctuary (§§ 5) (31:2; 35:30;
167 See Noth, UP, 203; cf. EiBfeldl (see §§ 2), 64; Gunneweg (§§ 6), 164f.; Gunneweg regards
Eliezer/Eleazar as identical to Eli (1 Sam. Iff.); both have a son called Pinehas.
78 INTRODUCTION
36:1,2; 37:1; 38:22; 1 Chr. 2:20; 2 Chr. 1:5). See Noth, IP, 32,152; idem, UP,
205.
5.18 13 ‘Gad’+ (also the name of a deity; Isa. 65:11) [explained in Gen. 30;
11 with the aid of 13 ‘fortune’***)], the seventh son of Jacob (1:4), the first with
Zilpah (Gen. 30:10f.), eponym of a tribe. See TWAT, I, 920f.; Eififeldt (see
§§ 15); Noth, IP, 5,126; Stamm, 33f., 76; De Vaux, HAI, I, 529ff.
5.19 D8J13 ‘Gershom’+ [explained in 2:22 with the aid of n? ‘guest’ and o»
‘there’ (cf. LXX, rrpodfi, and Vulg., Gersam)*; is there a connection with »13
*what is germinating’ (Holzinger), with uni (see 2:17) ‘expel’: ‘banishment’
(Keil, Dillmann)/‘banished person’ (Heinisch)?; ‘bell’ (Noth, IP, 223, on the
basis of Arabic)], the oldest son of Moses (2:22; 18:3; 1 Chr. 23:15,16; 26:24;
cf. Exod. 4:25). In Judg. 18:30 we find ‘Jonathan, the son of Gershom, the son
of Mannassah,’ the first of a line of priests for the tribe of Dan. It is commonly
believed that the MT is based on an alteration, and with a reference to the
MSS of the LXX and the Vulg., the reading chosen is ‘Gershom, the son of
Moses.’ The oldest son of Levi (§§20) is called Gershom 168 in 1
Chr. 6:16f., 20,43,62,71; 15:7. Noth believes that Judg. 18:30 testifies to a
custom which had existed since the most ancient time. Priestly families sought
to trace their lineage to the great Moses. In a later period, however, there was
a tendency to regard Aaron as the patriarch. Gershom and Gershon are thus
one and the same, according to Noth (UP, 202f.; cf. EiBfeldt [§§ 2], 64).
5.20 pun? ‘Gershon’ [§§ 19], the oldest son of Levi (6:16,17), mentioned
along with Kehat and Merari (6:16; Gen. 46:11; Num. 3:17; 1 Chr. 5:27; 6:1;
23:6), patriarch of the Gershonites (Num. 3:21ff.; 4:22ff; et al.).
5.21 17 ‘Dan’ [‘He (God) has done justice’ (Gen. 30:6)**], the eighth son of
Jacob (1:4), the first with Bilhah (Gen. 30:5f.), eponym of a tribe (31:6; 35:34;
38:23), and the name of a city (Josh. 19:47, et al.). See IDBS, 205; THAT, I,
446ff.; TWAT, II, 203; H.M. Niemann, Die Daniten: Studien zur Geschichte eines
altisraelitischen Stammes, GGttingen 1985; Noth, IP, 187; Stamm, 159-98.
5.22 i!?131 ‘Zebulon’ [explained in Gen. 30:20 with the aid of ta i ‘endow’ and
bai ‘reside’*; Noth, IP, 159, ‘(God is) a dwelling’], the tenth son of Jacob (1:3),
the sixth with Leah (Gen. 30:19f.), eponym of a tribe. See TWAT, II, 352;
De Vaux, HAI, I, 606f.
5.23 ' 7pi ‘Zichri’+ [‘He ( y h w h ) has turned in compassion’ (=Zechariah)],
the son of §§ 34 (6:21). See THAT, I, 507,513f.; Noth, IP, 38,187.
5.24 ii-q>i7 ‘Hebron’+ [Noth, IP, 222 ‘companion’], the third son of §§ 59
(6:18; Num. 3:19; 1 Chr. 5:28; 6:3; 15:9; 23:12,19), patriarch of the Hebronites
(Num. 3:27, etal.). Wellhausen, Composition, 182 n.l, contends that the name
has been derived from the city of the same name (‘Hebron’). The meaning is
the Levites living in Hebron; see also K. Mohlenbrink, ZAW 52 (1934), 194ff.
168 TNf |,as Gershom in 6:16 and Gershon in 6:17; TPsJ also has both names, but in the reverse
order; Pesh. identifies Moses’ son in 2:22 as ‘Gershon’.
PERSONAL NAMES 79
5.25 T in ‘Hur’+ (also occurs in the Elephantine Papyri) [Noth, IP, 221,
‘child’; Brenner, 157, ‘the white one’; a connection with ‘Horus’ has also been
assumed] is the name of two different people in Exodus: (a) an assistant to
Moses always mentioned in conjunction with Aaron (17:10,12; 24:14); (b) the
father of §§ 7,17 (31:2; 35:30; 38:22) from the tribe of Judah; cf. 1 Chr. 2:19f.;
see also 1 Chr. 2:50; 4:1,4, however, and the use of the gentilic name 'in in
Gen. 36:20f. According to Josephus (AJ, III, 54,105), a single person is being
referred to here, and he was the husband of Miriam. According to rabbinic
tradition, Hur was the son of Miriam and Kaleb; he is also identified as the
father of Bezalel (see Ginzberg, III, 121,154). See EiBfeldt (see §§ 2), 67.
5.25.a i^n ‘Hanoch’+ (also a locality; Gen. 4:17) [is there a connection with
*pn ‘consecrate’, ‘ordainee,’ ‘scholar’?], the oldest son of §§61 (6:14; Gen. 46:9;
1 Chr. 5:3), ancestor of a sib (Num. 26:5). See Noth, IP, 228.
5.26 psrt ‘Hezron’+ (also a locality; Josh. 15:3) [?], the third son of §§ 61
(6:14; Gen. 46; 9; 1 Chr. 5:3), ancestor of a sib (Num. 26:6). See Noth, IP,
38,243.
5.27 rnirr ‘Judah’ [explained in Gen. 29:35 (cf. 49:8) with the aid of n r
‘praise’*], the fourth son of Jacob (1:2) with Leah (Gen. 29:35), eponym of a
tribe (31:2; 35:30; 38:20) and the name of the southern kingdom (the as
sumption that ‘Judah’ was originally the name of a geographical region is not
uncommon). See IDBS, 498f.; TWAT, III, 51 Iff.; ; B.J. Diebner, “Erwagungen
zur Namensform ‘Juda’ min' fhudah,* DBAT 25 (1988), 49-73; Noth, IP,
60, 111 .
5.28 twin' ‘Joshua’+ (OT ca. 205 x; particularly in Joshua; outside of it:
Exod. 7x; Num. 13x; Deut. 9x; Judg. 7x; 1 Kgs. 16:34; 1 Chr. 7:27;
Neh. 8:17 and, further, Sir. 46:1; 1 Macc. 2:55; 2 Macc. 12:15; Acts 7:45;
Heb. 4:8) [‘y h w h is help’; the name was given by Moses; he was initially called
»»in ‘Hosea’ +, ‘He has helped’ (Num. 13:8,16)] is mentioned without further
introduction in 17:9,10,13,14 and is not called ‘the son of Nun’ until 33:11
(cf. Num. 11:28; 13:16; 32:28; Deut. 1:38). He is among to the prominents of
the people along with Aaron and Hur (17:9ff.; 24:13f.).169 He acts as general
(17:9ff.), as rntsn, servant, adjutant (24:13; 33:11; Num. 11:28; Josh. 1:1; cf. Sir.
46:1 as well as Deut. 1:38), and as confidant (see also 32:17) of Moses and is
his successor (Num. 27:18ff., Deut. 3:21,28; 31:3,7,14; 34:9). Eleazar assisted
him (§§ 12) just as Aaron assisted Moses (Num. 32:28; 34:17). The historical
value of the biblical traditions concerning Joshua is often assessed as being
very small; e.g. K. Mohlenbrink:170 the relation between Moses and Joshua
was a literary creation; Joshua was a general and not a servant of the cult
Mentioned with Kaleb in Num. 14:6, 30; 26:65; 32:12; Deut. l:36ff.
170 -Josua im Pentateuch,’ Z A W 59 (1943), 14-58.
80 INTRODUCTION
(Exod. 33:11), etc.; J. Dus:171 the traditions concerning Joshua have influen
ced how Moses is portrayed; historically speaking, Joshua is due all the
honour. See also THAT, I, 786; TRE, XVII, 269ff.; EiBfeldt (see §§ 2), 67ff.;
E. Noort, “De naamsverandering in Num. 13:16 als facet van het Jozuabeeld,’
in Fs AS. van der Woude, Profeten en Profetische Geschriften, Katnpen/Nijkerk
1985, 55-70; C. SchSfer-Lichtenberger, “‘Josua’ und ‘Elischa’ - eine biblische
Argumentation zur Begrundung der Autoritat und Legitimist des Nachfol-
gers,“ ZAW 101 (1989), 198-222; H. Schmid, “Erwagungen zur Gestalt Josuas
in Uberlieferung und Geschichte," Jud 24 (1988), 44-57; H. SeebaB, “Josua,"
BN 28 (1985), 53-65.
5.29 ‘Joseph’-I- (Hexateuch ca. 185x ; Gen. ca. 155x ; ca. 25 x outside
the Hexateuch) [explained in Gen. 30:24 with the aid of *10' ‘add’: ‘May He
(God) increase’*; ‘He (God) has increased’; (see also ‘play’ with 'p t in verse
23)], the eleventh son of Jacob (1:5,6, 8; 13:19), the first with Rachel
(Gen. 30:23f.), eponym of a group of tribes. See E.C.B. MacLaurin, “Joseph
and Asaph,“ VT 25 (1975), 27-45; Noth, IP, 28,60,64,212; Th.L. Thompson -
D. Irvin, in Hayes-Miller, 149ff.; Stamm, 62f.; De Vaux, HAI, 1,277ff., 297.
5 3 0 p ; ‘Jachin’+ (cf. 1 Kgs. 7:21) [‘He ( y h w h ) has secured,’ i.e., given the
child strength], the fourth son of §§64 (6:15; Gen. 46:10; the third son
according to Num. 26; 12; cf. 1 Chr. 4:24, ‘Jarib.’ See THAT, I, 813; Noth, IP,
28,202; Stamm, 63.
531 ‘Jemuel’ [?], the oldest son of §§64 (6:15; Gen. 46:10; cf.
Num. 26:12; 1 Chr. 4:24 ‘Nemuel’).
5 3 2 p ; ‘Jamin’ + [Noth, IP, 224 (on the basis of Arabic): ‘good fortune’],
second son of §§ 64 (6:15; Gen. 46:10; Num. 26:12; 1 Chr. 4:24).
5 3 3 Ppsr ‘Jacob’ (OT ca. 305 x; Gen. ca. 180 x; ca. 140 x outside of the
Pentateuch) [explained in Gen. 25:26 with the aid of spv ‘heel’: ‘heel holder’*;
explained in Gen. 27:36 with the aid of apt? ‘deceive’*; ‘He (God) has protec
ted’], patriarch of the people of Israel, mentioned in Exodus in a single breath
with his forefathers, Abraham and Isaac (§§3) and additionally in 1:1,5 (cf.
Josh. 24:4,32; 1 Sam. 12:8; 1 Kgs. 18:31; 2 Kgs. 17:34; Hos. 12:13). Outside of
the Pentateuch ‘Jacob’ is often a designation for the people which he fathered
(within the Pentateuch, see 19:3 [see § 8.13.2] and Gen. 49:6,24;
Num. 23:7,10,21,23; etal.). See 7WAT, III, 752ff.; Noth, IP, 197; Stamm,
62f., 203; De Vaux, HAI, I, 185f., 192; W.D. Whitt, “The Jacob Traditions in
Hosea and their Relation to Genesis,’ ZAW 103 (1991), 18-43.
5 3 4 ins* ‘Izhar’ [‘He (God) has radiantly appeared’?; is there a connection
with " m ‘oil’ (cf. BOhl at 6:23)?], the second son of §§ 59 (6:18,21; Num. 3:19;
16:1; 1 Chr. 6:2,18,38; 23:12,18), patriarch of a Levitical line (Num. 3:27; 1
Chr. 24:22; 26:23,29). See Noth, IP, 205.
171 *Mose Oder Josua? (Zum Problem des Stiflers der israelitischen Religion),* ArOr 39 (1971),
16-45.
PERSONAL NAMES 81
535 pro* ‘Isaac’ (OT ca. llOx; Gen. ca. 80x; 13x outside of the Pen
tateuch) [the name is explained in various ways with the aid of pro ‘laugh’
(Gen. 17:17; 18:12; 21:6; cf. Gen. 21:9; 26:8)*; ‘He (God) has laughed’, i.e.,
smiled on], is mentioned together with Abraham and Jacob in Exodus (§§ 2).
See Noth, IP, 28,210,218; H. Schmid, Die Gestalt des Isaak, Darmstadt 1991;
Stamm, 9-14; De Vaux, HAI, I, 192.
536 ‘Issachar’+ [explained in Gen. 30:18 with the aid of ztr ‘man’
and ~OD “wage’*], the ninth son of Jacob (1:3), the fifth with Leah
(Gen. 30:17f.), eponym of a tribe. See THAT, I, 130; S. Beyerle, BN 62 (1992),
51-60; M. Gorg, BN 45 (1988), 56ff.; De Vaux, HAI, I, 606f.
537 in* ‘Jether’ (4:18)+ [‘He (Father=God) has given abundantly’ (Noth,
IP, 193; ‘remainder’ (Stamm, 54, 77)]/nn* ‘Jethro’ (refer to the alternation
between a?? and in Neh. 6:lf., 6 [e.g. Strack at 3:1]; cf. BL § 503; Delitzsch,
27; Sam. Pent, has nn* in 4:18a too; cf. LXX, Vulg. TPsJ, TNf), ‘priest of
Midian’ (3:1; 18:1), the father-in-law of Moses (3:1; 4:18a; 18:1,2,5,6,12; see
also 4:18b; 18:9,10). The way in which the Pentateuch speaks of Moses’ father-
in-law raises questions. In 2:18 he is called Reuel (§§ 62). Num. 10:29 mentions
‘Hobab, the son of the Midianite Reuel, Moses’ father-in-law.’ It is possible
that ‘Moses’ father-in-law’ modifies Hobab. In that case there are two pos
sibilities: (a) Jethro=Hobab (cf. Judg. 4:11); (b) two traditions exist with
regard to the name of Moses’ father-in-law. The mention of Reuel in 2:18
raises problems in either case, which are then solved as follows: (a) Reuel is
the grandfather of Zipporah (see commentary at 2:18); (b) Reuel is a gloss
based on an incorrect interpretation of Num. 10:29; (c) Adopt the reading
‘Hobab, the son of Reuel’ in 2:18. It is more plausible that ‘Moses’ father-in-
law’ in Num. 10:29 modifies Reuel. In that case 2:18 and Num. 10:29 do not
raise a problem (Hobab would then be the brother-in-law of Moses);
Judg. 4:11 (‘Hobab, Moses’ father-in-law’), however, raises questions of
interpretation which cannot be solved by claiming that ]nn (see 3:1) means
‘brother-in-law’ or that ]nn in Num. 20:29; Judg. 4:11 should be vocalized as ]nn
‘brother-in-law’ and that ‘Jethro’ was a title (e.g. Keil, Reuel bore the title
‘Jethro’; Hobab was his son and Moses’ brother-in-law). The people to which
Moses’ father-in-law belongs is also identified in different ways: Midianites
(2:16; 18:1; Num. 10:29); Kenites (Judg. 1:16; 4:11) (see §8.16). In sum, it
seems that different traditions existed in Israel with respect to the name of
Moses’ father-in-law which cannot be harmonized with explanations of the
following kind: the father-in-law of Moses had seVen names (Rabbinical
interpretation); Reuel had two sons, Jethro and Hobab; Reuel had one son,
who was called both Jethro and Hobab; etc. (see above). A modern attempt at
harmonization has been made by W.F. Albright:172 Reuel (2:18; Num. 10:29)
is a clan name; Jethro (adopting the reading ‘Jethro, the son of Reuel, their
172 •Jethro, Hobab, and Reuel in early Hebrew Tradition,' CBQ 25 (1963), 1-11.
82 INTRODUCTION
father’ in 2:18) is a different person than Hobab; the first is an old man with
seven daughters; the latter is a strong young man (inn in Num. 10:29=‘son-in-
law’); *3p in Judg. 1:16; 4:11 is the name of an occupation, ‘smith’; in short,
Hobab, Moses’ son-in-law was a Midianite, a member of the Reuel clan and a
smith by trade. He defends the idea that it is owing to Jethro in particular that
the worship of y h w h became prevalent in Israel (see §7.3.3-4). See also
Auerbach, 98ff.; Buber, 11 Iff.; Ginzberg, II, 290; V, 410; GreBmann,
161ff., 436ff.; Kitchen, 123 (in Egypt many people had two names); Noth, UP,
184ff., 201ff., 223ff.; Rowley, 149ff.; Schmidt, 78,85ff., 154f.; De Vaux, HAI, I,
313ff.
538 'p-i? ‘Carmi’+ [?], the fourth and youngest son of §§61 (6:14;
Gen. 46:9; 1 Chr. 5:3), eponym of a clan (Num. 26:6).
539 ' 15b ‘Libni’ [‘the white one’; on the basis of the colour of the skin or
the hair of the child?], the oldest son of §§20 (6:17; Num. 3:18; 1
Chr. 6:2,5,14?), eponym of a Levitical line (Num. 3:21; 26:58). See Brenner,
157; Gradwohl, 47,93; Noth, IP, 38,225. Wellhausen, Composition, 182 n.1,
thinks that the name of the city called Libna (Josh. 15:42, et al.) must be
derived: what is meant is Levites whose residence is in Libna; cf. K. Mohlen-
brink, ZAW 52 (1934), 194ff.
5.40 *ib ‘Levi’ [explained in Gen. 29:34 with the aid of niph. mb ‘join’ (cf.
Num. 18:2,4)*; the scholarly etymology is a matter of debate; see TWAT, IV,
503ff.; Cody, 29ff.; De Vaux, II, 237f., 254ff.[, the third son of Jacob (1:2) with
Leah (Gen. 29:34), patriarch of the lineage to which Moses (2:1; 6:20) and
Aaron (6:19) belong, and via the line of Kehat-Amram-Aaron (and via his
daughter Jochebed [2:1; 6:20; Num. 26:59]), the father of the lineage that
exercises the office of priest (e.g. 28:1); patriarch of the lower cult personnel,
the Levites, via his sons, Gershon, Kehat, and Merari. The term *ib (OT ca.
350x; Num. 75 x; Exod. l l x ) is used as a proper name for the patriarch
(1:2; 2:l[2x[; 6:16 [2x[; 32:26,28) and as gentilic name (4:14; 6:19).173 The
pl. D'A (usually with an article) is also used to indicate the descendents of Levi
(6:25); cf. the use of -A'ja in 32:26,28; Num. 3:15; Deut.21:5; 31:9). trA in
38:21 is the name of an occupation, that of the lower cult personnel; the
institution of this profession is not mentioned until Num. 3:6ff; 8:19; 18:lff.
The idea of Levi as the patriarch of the cult servants in Israel is commonly
considered a product of the (post) exilic period. Conceptions of the origin of
the term ‘Levite’ vary. It is disputed, for instance, that there ever was a wordly
tribe called Levi, and the notion that by origin ‘Levite’ is an indication of the
function of ‘priest’ has its supporters. Various authors opt for this conception,
in part because the apposition of ‘the Levite’ after ‘Aaron, your brother’ in
The use of the collective noun “A n ‘the Levites’ (cf. Num. 3:20, 32, et al.) in 6:19 is
conspicuous after ‘Reuben’ in verse 14 and Simeon in verse 15; see, however, *rHjpn in verse 24
and c n b n in verse 25 (cf. KoSynt § 295e, 301b).
PERSONAL NAMES 83
4:14 is somewhat remarkable in view of 2:1 (on this issue, see, for instance,
Cody, 164f.; Gunneweg [see §§ 6], 66f., 95ff.). The prevalent conception is that
the genealogies concerning priestly lineage and the remaining material concer
ning priests and Levites can be used with the aid of interpretational procedu
res to describe the complex history of the priesthood in Israel, a history of
rivalries between various priestly lines which led (whether this actually realized
or merely so desired) to the following picture in the post (exilic) period: Only
descendents of Levi may legitimately serve in functions at the sanctuaiy; the
priesthood is reserved exclusively for Eleazar and Ithamar’s progeny; the
remainig offspring of Levi exercise the function of Levite. See also TfVAT, IV,
499ff.; Cody, passim; Gunneweg (see §§ 6), passim; Houtman, Ini. Pent., 185ff.;
K. MOhlenbrink, “Die levitischen Uberlieferungen des Alten Testaments,*
ZAW 52 (1934), 184-231; L. Sabourin, Priesthood: A Comparative Study, Leiden
1973, 98ff.; G. Schmitt, *Der Ursprung des Levitentums,* ZAW 94 (1982),
575-99; De Vaux, II, 237ff.; idem, HAI, I, 312,375f., 490ff., et al.
5.41 ‘Mushi’ [?], the second and youngest son of §§ 44
(6:19; Num. 3:20; 1 Chr. 6:4,32; etal.), eponym of a Levitical line (Num. 3:33;
26:58); the idea that Mushi (the name is patronymic) is none other than Moses
and that Moses too was originally the patriarch of a Levitical line has it
supporters (e.g. Sabourin [see §§ 40], 121).
5.42 *i?rtn ‘Mahli’+ (the oldest son of Mushi bears the name; 1 Chr. 6:32,
et al.) [Noth, IP, 249, refers to mihalun (Arabic) ‘artifice,’ ‘cunning’], the oldest
son of §§ 44 (6:19; Num. 3:20; 1 Chr. 6:4,14, et al.).
5.43 bvsO'ti ‘MishaeP+ [‘who is what God is?’?], the oldest son of §§52
(6:22; Lev! 10:4). See Noth, IP, 249; idem UP, 205.
5.44 **nn ‘Merari’ [is there a connection with *na ‘bitterness,’ or is the
name of Egyptian origin (‘beloved’), or must we look to Arabic for an explana
tion (mirratun ‘bodily strength’)?], the third and youngest son of Levi (6:16,19;
G en.46:11; Num.3:20, etal.; 1 Chr.5:27, etal.), patriarch of a Levitical line
(Num. 3:33ff, et al.). See RSP, II, 303; Cody, 40 n.4; Noth, IP, 225.
5.45.1 n0b ‘Moses’ (OT ca. 765x; Exod. 290x); the name is explained in
2:10 by means of a play on words (see commentary). Josephus (AJ, II, 228; CA,
I, 286) and Philo (VM, I, 17), apparently assuming that Pharaoh’s daughter
spoke Egyptian, explained the name with the aid of Egyptian/Coptic: ‘the (one)
rescued from the water.’ This explanation probably forms the basis for the
Greek version of the name, MwixTiy; (=md/mou Vater’+eses ‘saved’). The
conception which is currently almost universally accepted is that the name
should be explained with the aid of the Egyptian word msj ‘produce,’ ‘bring
forth,’ and that it is an abbreviated form of a theophoric name. Names such as
Ptah-mose ‘Ptah has been born/has engendered,’ Thut-mose, etc.,174 are
referred to by way of comparison. The name of Moses, which no other person
174 See also J.G. Griffiths, JNES 12 (1953), 225-31; Montet, 34ff.; Schmidt, 73f.
84 INTRODUCTION
in the OT bears, is inseparably linked to the books of Exodus-Deuteronomy.

Any description of the position which the name occupies in Exodus just about
coincides with the interpretation of Exodus. For that reason we wish to suffice
here by stating that Moses acts in particular as the mediator, the one who acts
as y h w h ’s representative for Pharaoh and Israel and who on occasion relays
their words to y h w h . Moses is portrayed as the mediator of revelation par
excellence. In the Pentateuch as we have it, it must be said, he is not featured
as the founder of a new religion or as the reformer of an existing one (see
below). The God that he represents is none other than the God of the fathers
(3:6,13,15; 6:2f.) (cf. § 7.3.2,5 and 7.4.2). Nor is he depicted as the one who
stood at the cradle of Israel’s existence as a people. Israel was already a nation
according to the representation given by the Pentateuch.
5.45.2 One of the consequences of the onset of the rationalist approach to
the Bible at the time of the Enlightenment was that the biblical Moses was
inspected with critical eyes. After the person and work of Moses had been
stripped of any lingering enchantment in circles of enlightened minds in the
18th and 19th centuries,175 the question concerning the extent to which the
picture given of Moses in the Pentateuch may be called historical became an
enduring theme of investigation in OT scholarship, and proved to yield results
which tend to diverge widely. The position was and is maintained that the
portrayal of Moses by the Pentateuch has little or no historical value. Meyer
comments that ‘...diese Frage (ob der Gestalt des Mose eine geschichltliche
Personlichkeit diese Namens zu Grunde liegt) liegt ganzlich jenseits der
Grenzen geschichtlicher Erkenntnis, und hat daher fur die Geschichtsforschung
keine Bedeutung. Der Mose, den wir kennen, ist der Ahnherr der Priester von
QadeS, also eine mit dem Kultus in Beziehung stehende Gestalt der genealogi-
schen Sage, nicht eine geschichtliche Personlichkeit’ (IN, 451 n. 1). Noth, UP,
172ff., thinks that the only reliable historical traditions concerning Moses are
those regarding hfs grave at Beth-Peor and his marriage to a foreign wife and
that little more can be said about him save that he may have had a preeminent
position among the tribes which settled in the middle of Palestine. The
implications of Noth’s position (see GI, 128 n.3) for the historical study of
religion has been articulated by K. Koch,176 Moses is not he founder of
Israel’s religion; he has a number of roots; a number of these reach back in
time to the traditions of pre-Israelite groups which were later assimilate in
Israel; others are rooted in Canaanite soil. In short, Israel’s religion owes its
existence not to one man but was shaped by a historical process. Koch’s
175
See, for instance, the considerations regarding Moses in Apologie oder Schutzschrift fur die
vemiinftigen Verehrer Gottes by Hermann Samuel Reimarus (edition, Frankfurt am Main 1972; I,
267fF); cf. Houtman, Ini Pent., 56f., 59f.
17° “Der Tod des Religionsstifters,* KuD 8 (1962), 100-23.
PERSONAL NAMES 85
position encountered criticism of a varied nature.177 More recently, however,

voices from various quarters have expressed ideas which are more crass still.
Koch still wanted to reserve an important position for the nomadic inheritance
in Israel’s religion and included the demand for exclusive worship of y h w h
without idols among the elements of pre-Israelite origin. Great emphasis is
currently being placed on the Canaanite roots of Israel’s religion, and it is
claimed that Israel’s religion obtained its specific character in Canaan due to
various developments native to Canaanite soil, to the influence of various
individuals, and to the onset of a y h w h only movement. It is avouched that
Israel’s religion was still polytheistic during the monarchical period and that
the trend toward monotheisism did not prevail until the exilic period.178 We
may conclude that theories with respect to the inception of Israel’s religion are
currently again being propounded which are in line with the position adopted
by E. Meyer at the turn of the century.179 Few concurred with his theories
then. Various efforts were made at that time, based on, among other things,
archeological results,180 to argue that Moses could with good cause be con
sidered to be the one who layed the foundations for Israel’s religion and who
furnished the basis for Israel’s existence as a people. The idea that Moses must
be credited with a dominant role in Israel’s (religious) history has also had
fervent supporters the past decennia. It has been avowed that, if not the
outright father of Israel’s monotheism, Moses was in any event the one who
planted its seeds.181
5.453 We will suffice with a few remarks in respect of the various positions
on this issue. The only source for historical knowledge concerning Moses is the
OT, in particular, the Pentateuch. As will be demonstrated in § 11, no consen
sus can be reached regarding its historical content. Any appraisal regarding the
historical substance of the Pentateuch ultimately proves to be conditioned by a
subjective assessment of the facts (cf. 11.6). At this juncture, we would
furthermore like to draw attention to the the appeal made by supporters of the
idea that the Moses of the Pentateuch was a literary creation to the fact Moses
occupies a rather insignificant place in the OT outside of the Pentateuch.182
177 See e.g. F. Baumgartel, KuD 9 (1963), 223-33; Fohrer, 53; S. Herrmann, EvTh 28 (1968),
322ff.: R. Rendtorff, “Mose als Religionsstifter?" in Gesatru Sl zum A T , Miinchen 1975, 152-71.
178 See the contributions to Lang (§7.3.6) and Stolz (§7.3.6) (p.174 rt.176, “Moses is a
projected figure who serves to focus all the monotheistic inclinations and aspirations of a later
period").
179 See Engel (§ 8.a), 76ff., for a description.
180 See, for instance, Houtman, Ini Pent, 82f.
181 See e.g. W.F. Albright, From the Stone Age to Christianity,, Baltimore 19462, 196ff.; idem,
“From the Patriarchs to Moses,- II, BA 36 (1973), 48-76; H.H. Rowley, “Mose und der Monotheis-
mus," ZAW 69 (1957), 1-21; cf. J.C. de Moor, The Rise of Yahwism: The Roots o f Israelite
Monotheism, Leuven 1990.
182 On this issue, see § 12.9.3 and cf. Houtman, Ini. Pent, 144, 145f., 202f.
86 INTRODUCTION
Personally, I believe that the Pentateuch’s portrayal of Moses’ emergence as a

leader was produced with the help of traditions from various periods and of
varying provenance and character and that this process reflects the complex
history of Israel’s religion. The latter implies that a more or less accurate
historical picture of Moses’ person and work cannot be given (cf. § 11.6.9). I
have no reason, however, to cast aspersions on the preeminent position so
unanimously assigned to Moses in Israel’s early (religious) histoiy by Pen-
tateuchal traditions. What exactly ‘the work of Moses’ was is a matter which
will be brought up at various places in the course of the commentary where
interpretation provides occasion.
5.45.4 The literature on Moses is very extensive. We will merely list a
selection drawn from primarily the more recent literature: DBS, V, 1308ff.;
IDBS, 604ff.; LA, IV, 210f.; TWAT, V, 28ff.; S. Ambramsky, “On the Kenite-
Midianite Background of Moses’ Leadership,* Erls 12 (1975), 35-39;
E.F. Campbell, “Moses and the Foundations of Israel,* Int 29 (1975), 141-54;
G.W. Coats, Moses: Heroic Man, Man o f God, Sheffield 1988; A.H.J. Gunne-
weg, *Mose in Midian,* ZThK 61 (1964), 1-9; C. Hauret, “Mo'ise dtait-il
prStre?" Bib 40 (1959), 509-21; C. Houtman, “De dood van Mozes, de Knecht
des Heren,* in Fs J.L. Koole, De Knecht, Kampen 1978, 72-82; A. Jepsen,
“Mose und die Leviten,* VT 31 (1981), 318-23; C.A. Keller, “Von Stand und
Aufgabe der Moseforschung,* ThZ 13 (1957), 430-41; J. Lust, “Freud, Hosea,
and the Murder of Moses in Hosea 12,* EThL 65 (1989), 81-93; P.D. Miller,
“‘Moses My Servant’: The Deuteronomic Portrait of Moses,* Int 41 (1987),
245-55; E. Nielsen, “Moses and the Law,* VT 32 (1982), 87-98 [Moses as the
giver of the law is a Deuteronomistic creation]; E. Osswald, Das Bild des Mose
in der kritischen alttestamentlichen Wissenschaft seit Julius Wellhausen, Berlin
1962; H.M. Orlinsky, * ‘Moses’,* in Essays in Biblical Culture and Bible
Translation, New' York 1974, 5-38; W.H. Schmidt, “Jahwe in Agypten,’
Kairos 18 (1976), 43-54; R. Smend, Das Mosebild von Heinrich Ewald bis Martin
Noth, Tubingen 1959; De Vaux, HAI, I, 310ff.; G. Widengren, “What Do We
Know about Moses?* in Fs G.H. Davies, Proclamation and Presence, London
1970, 21-47.
5.45.5 Extra-biblical traditions regarding Moses are very extensive. His
person and work has been given consideration from various perspectives by
Jewish, Samaritan, Christian, and Islamitic circles, and beyond. Consideration
to extra-biblical traditions will be given in the commentary on occasion. We
will suffice here with listing a selection drawn from the relevant literature. See
the different contributions to Mo'ise I’homme de Valliance, Paris 1955, and
R. Martin Achard (ed.), La figure de Mo'ise, Geneva 1978; M. Beer, “The
Riches of Moses in Rabbinic aggadaTarbiz 43 (1973—74), 70-87; S. Brock,
“Some Syriac Legends Concerning Moses,’ JJS 33 (1982), 237-55; M. Causse,
“ ‘Th6ologie de la rupture et de la communaut6’: Etude sur la vocation de
Mo'ise d’apds le Coran,’ RHPhR 44 (1964), 60-82; J.G. Gager, Moses in Greco-
PERSONAL NAMES 87
Roman Paganism, Nashville/New York 1972; Ginzberg (see Bibl.); J. MacDo

nald, The Theology of the Samaritans, London 1964, 147ff.; W.A. Meeks, The
Prophet-King, Leiden 1967; Rosmarin (see Bibl.); Y. Sabar, The Folk Literature
o f the Kurdistani Jews, New Haven/London 1982; D.J. Silver, "Moses and the
Hungry Birds," JQR 64 (1973—74^, 123-53; D. Timpe, "Moses als Gesetzge-
ber," Saeculum 31 (1980), 66-77; E. Turdeanu, Apocryphes Slaves et Roumains
de I’Ancien Testament, Leiden 1981. See also E.L. Flynn, "Moses in the Visual
Arts," Int 44 (1990), 265-76.
5.46 313 ‘Nadab’+ [‘He (God) has shown generosity’], the oldest son of
Aaron (6:23), always mentioned together with his brother Abihu (§§2). See
RSP, II, 305; TWAT, V, 238; Noth, IP, 22,93; Stamm, 66.
5.47 113 ‘Nun’ [‘fish’], the father of Joshua (33:11); his name only occurs in
the designation ‘Joshua, the son of Nun’ (OT 30x). See F. Rundgren, “Der
Fisch im Semitischen," in Fs G. Widengren, Ex Orbe Religionum, I, Leiden
1972, 72-80; Noth, IP, 230.
5.48 ]i»n3 ‘Nahshon’ [‘snake’], the son of §§53 (6:23) and the brother of
Elisheba (§6.1), the wife of Aaron, and member of the tribe of Judah
(Num. 1:7; 1 Chr. 2:10,11), was a person who execercised leadership during the
desert sojourn (Num. 2:3; 7:12; 10:14) and is called one of forefathers of David
(Ruth 4:20) and Jesus (Matt. 1:4; Luke 3:32). See Noth, IP, 38,230; Stamm, 7.
5.49 303 ‘Nepheg’+ [Noth, IP, 227 (with reference to Arabic), ‘heavy,’
‘slow’], the second son of §§ 34 (6:21).
5.50 '?n?3 ‘Naphtali’ [explained in Gen. 30:8 with the aid of Vno ‘wrestle’*],
the sixth son of Jacob (1:4), the second with Bilhah (Gen. 30:7f.), eponym of a
tribe. It is assumed that Naphtali was originally the name of a region (cf. no:
[Josh. 17:11] and no: [Josh. 11:3, etal.]; ‘mountain ridge’ which became the
name of the tribe.). See De Vaux, HAI, I, 607ff.
5.51 *mo ‘Sithri’f (also ocurs in the Elephantine Papyri) [‘He (God) is a
shelter’], the third and youngest son of §§ 52 (6:22). See THAT, II, 174; TWAT,
V, 968; Noth, IP, 38,158.
5.52 ‘Uzziel’+ (‘God is strength’], the fourth and youngest son of
§§59 (6:18,22; Lev. 10:4; Num. 3:19,30; 1 Chr. 5:28; etal.), patriarch of a
Levitical line (Num. 3:27; 1 Chr. 26:23). See THAT, II, 253; TWAT, VI, 2;
Noth, IP, 18,160; Stamm, 52.
5.53 373*q» ‘Amminadab’+ [‘Kin (God) has shown generosity’; cf. §§46],
the father of Elisheba (§6.1) and the father-in-law of Aaron (6:23), forefather
of David (Ruth 4:19; 1 Chr. 2:10) and Jesus (Iâtt. 1:4; Luke 3:33); his name
occurs 5 x (Num. 1:7, etc.) in the designation ‘Nahshon, the son of Am-
minadab’ (§§ 48). See THAT, II, 292; TWAT, VI, 180ff.; Noth, IP, 20,77,193;
Stamm, 37,68,140; Vriezen, Verkiezing, 93f.
5.54 07133? ‘Amram’+ [‘Kin (God) is exalted’; cf. §§ 3], the oldest son of
§§ 59 (6:18; Num. 3:19 26:58; 1 Chr. 5:28; et al.), father of Aaron, Moses (6:20),
and Miriam (Num. 26:59; 1 Chr. 5:29; 23:13), patriarch of a Levitical line
88 INTRODUCTION
(Num. 3:27; 1 Chr. 26:23). See THAT, II, 292; TWAT, VI, 180ff.; Noth, IP,
16,33,77,145; Stamm, 37,68f., 140.
535 SrptD ‘Putiel’t [Noth, IP, 63, assumes Egyptian influence], the father-
in-law of §§ 12 (6:25).
5.56 onrD ‘Phinehas’+ [Egyptian origin, ‘Moor’], the son of §§ 12 (6:25),
among the leaders of the people (Num. 31:6; Josh. 22:13ff., 30ff.), ardent for
y h w h (Num. 25:7ff.; cf. Ps. 106:30; Sir. 45:23f.; 1 Macc. 2:26,54), patriarch of
the Zadokite priestly line (1 Chr. 5:30ff.; 6:35ff.; see also Josh. 24:33;
Judg. 20:28; 1 Chr. 9:20; Ezra 7: Iff.; 8:2). See Cody, 70f.; Noth, IP, 63.
5.57 riPd ‘Pallu’ [‘He (God) has acted miraculously’], the second son of
§§ 61 (6:14; Gen. 46:9; Num. 26:8; 1 Chr. 5:3), patriarch of the Reubenite line
(Num. 26:5). See Noth, IP, 38,191.
5.58 ins ‘Zohar’+ (Sam. Pent, ms) [‘reddish white’], the fifth son of §§ 64
(6:15; Gen. 45:10) [rrn ‘Zerach’+ mentioned in Num. 26:13; 1 Chr. 4:24]. See
Brenner, 157; Gradwohl, 23f.; Noth, IP, 225.
5.59 nnp ‘Kohath’ [?], the second son of Levi (6:16; Gen. 46:11; Num. 3:17;
1 Chr. 5:27; 6:1; 23:6), father of Amram (6:18, etc.), brother of Jochebed
(§ 6.2), etc., patriarch of a Levitical line (Num. 3:27ff, et al.).
5.60 rnp ‘Korah’+ [‘baldheaded,’ ‘bald head’; possibly ‘tonsure bearer’], the
oldest son of §§34 (6:21), patriarch of the Korahites (6:24; Num. 26:58; 1
Chr. 9:19; et al.); in 1 Chr. 20:19 they act as singers; in the Psalm inscriptions
(42:1, et al.) they are called poets; Num. 16f. (cf. Num. 26:9ff.; 27:3) narrates a
revolt by Korah, Dathan, and Abiram and two hundred and fifty men; it is
commonly assumed that the text contains at least two layers: a tradition about
the revolt of Dathan and Abiram; a tradition about the revolt by Korah and
two hundred men. See GreBmann, 259ff.; Noth, IP, 227; idem, UP, 138f.
5.61 p ita ‘Reuben’ [explained in Gen. 29:32 with the aid of run and
‘y h w h has seen my affliction’*; ‘behold, a son’], the oldest son of Jacob (1:2;
6:14) with Leah (Gen. 29:32), eponym of a tribe. See F.M. Cross, “Reuben,
First-Born of Jacob,* ZAW 100 (1988) (supplement), 46-65; Noth, IP, 256;
Stamm, 61,83,147; De Vaux, HAI, I, 353ff.
5.62 Stun ‘Reuel’+ [‘God is a companion’] (2:18). See THAT, II, 786;
TWAT, VII, 545f.; Noth, IP, 153f.; Stamm, 116, and see also §§ 45.
5.63 S r® ‘Saul’+ [‘asked (of God)’ or ‘devoted/relinquished (to God)’], the
sixth son of §§64 (6:15; Gen. 46:10; mentioned as the fifth son in Num. 26:13;
1 Chr. 4:24), patriarch of the Simeonite line (Num. 26:13). See THAT, II, 841;
Noth, IP, 136.
5.64 ]is?a® ‘Simeon’+ [explained in Gen. 29:33 with the aid of swa® ‘hear’:
‘He (God) has heard’ (heard the prayer)***)], the second son of Jacob (1:2;
6:15) with Leah (Gen. 29:33), eponym of a tribe. See THAT, II, 975; Noth, IP,
38,185; De Vaux, HAI, 303,491f., 501, et al.
5.65 % VW ‘Shimei’+ [‘He (God) has heard’; cf. §§ 64], the second and
youngest son of §§ 20 (6:17; Num. 3:18; 1 Chr. 6:2; 23:7), patriarch of a
PERSONAL NAMES 89
Levitical line (Num. 3:21; 1 Chr. 23:10; Zech. 12:13).

5.66 run? (OT ca. 275x; Hexateuch ca. 215x; Exod. 1:11 —18:10 115x),
‘Pharaoh’ is strictly speaking not a proper name but virtually assumes the
function of a proper name in Exodus [see 6:11, et al.,“Pharaoh, the king of
Egypt,’ alongside of Gen. 26:1, “Abimelech, the king of the Philistines’ (cf.
Gen. 14:1; Num. 21:21; 1 Sam. 12:12; et al.)] and is therefore treated here in an
appendix, nmo is an Egyptian loan word;183 pr”, ‘the big house’ was one of
the designations for the royal palace; metonymic usage of the term to indicate
the resident of the palace started during the 18th dynasty; the term was later
used as a title, followed by a proper name. In the OT too, ‘Pharaoh’ occurs
followed by a proper name (2 Kgs. 23:29; Jer. 44:30; 46:2); normally, however,
the term is used to indicate the ruling Egyptian sovereign without any further
mention of his name. This is true of Exodus as well. See also IDB, III, 773f.;
LA, IV, 1021; TWAT, VI, 760ff.; Vergote, 45ff.
Exodus (13x) also refers to the ruler of Egypt as onsp "£>? ‘the king of
Egypt’ (1:15,17,18; 2:23; 3:18,19; 5:4; 6:11,13,27,29; 14:5,8; cf. 1:8); ‘king of
Egypt’ is in apposition to ‘Pharaoh’ in 6:11,13,27,29; 14:8 (LXX also has
double titulary in 3:10,11,18,19); elsewhere usage alternates between ‘king of
Egypt’ and ‘Pharaoh’ (e.g. 1:11,19,22); the use of two terms for a single
person furnishes no evidence for distinguishing different layers of composition
(see Eerdmans, 9).
§ 6 Personal names in the book o f Exodus; female persons

6.a The OT contains 92 names of women as opposed to about 1400
names of men.184 There are, to be sure, women who play a role in the OT
whose name is not mentioned (35) but that does little to change the total
picture. The large number of men’s names is due mainly to the genealogies in
which consists primarily of men. Exodus mentions six women’s names as
opposed to 66 men’s names. The high number of men’s names is due mainly to
1:2-5; 6:14-25. Along with other material, the frequency of names makes it
clear that men had a more prominent position in Israelite society than did
women. We should note that it is women who play a prominent role in the
first chapters of Exodus (1:15ft; 2:1-10,16ff.; 4:24f.). As elsewhere (e.g. Josh. 2;
6:22ff.; Judg.4; 5; 1 Sam. 19:1 Iff.; 25:14ft; 2 Sam. 14; 20:16ft; Esth. 5ft; Jdt.
8ff.), they were able to influence the course of event to good advantage by
using the possibilities which the cultural climate of that time put at their
disposal (e.g. their shrewdness).185
183 Th.O. Lambdin, JAOS 73 (1953), 153; Ellenbogen, 139.

See J J . Stamm, “Hebraische Frauennamen,' in Fs W. Baumgartner, Hebraische Wortfor-
schung, Leiden 1967, 301-39 =Stamm (see §5.a), 97-135.
^^Consideration will be given to the position of women in Israel during the interpretation of
Exod. 21.
90 INTRODUCTION
6.1 io S'S* ‘Elisheba’f [linked to ‘swear’ in the past: ‘(my) God is an

oath’; nowadays linked to im ‘fortune,’ ‘beatific,’ ‘fullness of blessing’: ‘(my)
God is fullness’], the wife of Aaron (6:23). The LXX renders the name as
‘E \( e ) io d p e d (cf. Luke l:5ff.).186 She was the same person as Puah (§§4)
according to certain Jewish traditions (Ginzberg, III, 187; V, 258,393). See
also DB, I, 697; IDB, II, 92f.; Hehn, "Siebenzahl," (see §4.8.3), 131f.; L. Koeh
ler, ZAW 55 (1937), 165f.; Noth, IP, 146f.; Stamm, 108f.
6.2 "p?i* ‘Jochebed’ [‘y h w h enjoys esteem’], the mother of Aaron, Moses,
and Miriam (6:20; Num. 26:59; cf. Exod. 2:1). Since it is regarded as improb
able that p would use a theophoric name containing ‘y h w h ’ with respect to a
person who was alive to reveal the name ‘y h w h ’ to Moses (§7.4.2), the above
explanation of the name has been contested (on this matter, see Houtman, Ini.
Pent., 223f.). Jochebed is identified with Shiphrah (§§6) in the Rabbinic
tradition. See also THAT, I, 794; M Gorg, BN 61 (1992), 10-14; S. Levin,
•Jocasta and Moses’ Mother Jochebed," Teiresias Supplement 2 (1979), 49-61
(Jocasta is a Greek equivalent of Jochebed; an assumed parallel between
Jocasta/Oedipus and Jochebed/Moses forms the basis for varied conclusions);
Noth, IP, 111; idem, UP, 205; Stamm, 111.
63 D'*)0 ‘Miriam,’ the sister of Aaron and Moses (15:20,21;
Num. 12:1,4(3 x), 5,10,15; 20:1; 26:59; Deut. 24:9; Mic.6:4; 1 Chr.5:29; cf.
Exod. 2:4). The meaning of the name is disputed (see IDB, III, 402 for pre
modern explanations); Stamm, 129, regards two possibilities for interpretation
worth mentioning (a) there is a connection with xm ‘be fat’: ‘fat’ (b) there is a
connection with the Egyptian word mrjlmrj.t ‘beloved’; Egyptian derivations
have been suggested quite* often, more recently by M. Gorg, BZ 23 (1979),
285-89, who suggests that Miriam is an abbreviated theophoric name: ‘beloved
of Amun’; W. von Soden, UF 2 (1970), 269-72, derives the name from on (cf.
the Akkadian word riamu/rdmu II, ‘bestow’) ‘God’s gift’; De Moor, Uw God
(see §7.3.8), 61, offers an explanation on the basis of the Ugaritic mr ym =
‘drive back the Sea!’ The LXX renders ‘Miriam’ as Mapidfi (Josephus has
Mapi&fivii); cf. Mapi&fi/Mapia in the NT. The Rabbinical tradition has iden
tified Miriam with Puah (§§4) (see §5.25 for her relationship to Hur and
Bezalel). It is often believed that the idea that Miriam is the sister of Moses is
an historically incorrect invention. Some scholars are prepared to accept some
kind of a historical relationship between Miriam and Aaron. See also
R.J. Burns, Has the Lord Indeed Spoken Only Through Moses? A Study of the
Biblical Portrait of Miriam, Atlanta 1987; R. Le Ddaut, "Miryam, soeur de
Moise, et Marie, m6re du Messie," Bib 45 (1964), 198-219; EiBfeldt (see §5.2),
64 n. 1, 66; GreBmann, 264ff.; H. Grimme, "Der Name Mirjam," BZ 7 (1909),
245-51; Noth, IP, 250; idem UP, 199f.
186 See Jehosheba (2 Kgs. 11:2) alongside of Jehoshabeath (2 Chr. 22:11).

DIVINE NAMES 91
6.4 n»iD ‘Puah,’f one of the Egyptian midwives (1:15). Scholars explain
the name at the moment by referring to the Ugaritic word pgt ‘girl’ (e.g.
Stamm, 123); Noth, IP, 10, considered the name to be an artificial word
formed from the root vs' ‘lustre.’ The Rabbinic tradition has identified Puah
with Miriam (see TPsJ, FT, TNf in the margin, ExR. I, 13, and Ginzberg, II,
250ff.).
6.5 rnss ‘Zipporah’f [‘small bird’; cf. ‘Zippor’ (Num. 22:2, et al.)], the wife
of Moses (2:21; 4:25; 18:2; cf. 4:20; 18:6). Philo (VM, I, 59) reports that she
was the most beautiful of Jethro’s daughters; in the Rabbinical tradition she
was praised for her beauty as well (see Ginzberg, V, 411 n.88, 423 n. 147). It is
a matter of dispute whether the woman mentioned in Num. 12:1 is Zipporah
(cf. Hab. 3:7);**' did Moses have more than one wife or does the Pentateuch
contain different traditions concerning Moses’ wife? See also GreBmann,
57ff., 162ff., 271f.; Noth, UP, 139ff., 201ff.; Stamm, 126; De Vaux, HAI, I, 313ff.
6.6 rriD» ‘Shiphrah,’+ one of the Egyptian midwives (1:15). The name is
usually explained with the aid of ‘fair,’ ‘be beautiful’: ‘beauty’ (e.g. Noth,
IP, 10; Stamm, 119). The Aramaic form is also known: ktbus or (see
DID, II, no.29, II rev.3); cf. Acts 5:lff. The LXX renders Shiphrah in the same
manner as Zipporah: Zentpopot. Shiphrah has been identified with Jochebed in
Rabbinical tradition (see TPsJ, FT, TNf in the margin, ExR. I, 13 and Ginz
berg, II, 250ff.). The name Sp-ra occurs in an Egyptian list of slaves.18 188 It is
7
difficult to establish whether the names of the midwives have a function in the
narrative. Are they fictional names that aim to characterize the women in a
certain manner?
§ 7 Divine names in the book of Exodus

7.1 (OT ca. 240x; Exod. 7x) is a general Semitic word of which the
etymology is disputed. Alongside use of the term as an appellative with the
meaning of ‘god,’ ‘deity,’ we also know, particularly from the Ugaritic texts,
that it was used as a proper name, bn probably has the latter function in 6:3
(§§ 4). Elsewhere in Exodus, the meaning of bn seems to correspond to crrtbK
(§§2 ).189 It should be noted that bn in the OT, which occurs particularly in
poetical, rhythmic texts, proves to be interchangeable with D*nbt< (see, for
instance, 15:11 alongside of Ps. 86:8) and occurs with certain adjectives much
more often than dv6 n. forms fixed combinations with certain adjectives not
used in combination with D'hVk; e.g. top bx (20:5; 34:14; Deut. 4.24; 5:9; 6:15);
187
As ancient tradition holds; according to Eusebius (PE, IX, 29) Demetrius mentions that
Zipporah was descended from the lineage that derived from the Abraham’s relationship with
Keturah (Gen. 25:1).
188 See W.F. Albright, JAOS 74 (1954), 229; ANET, 553.
189 It has been argued that in 34:6, 14 is also a proper name; e.g. De Moor, Yahwism (see
§§ 3.8), 116, 228, 246, 252; cf. TWAT, I, 263, 275.
92 INTRODUCTION
pim oirn Vk (34:6; Jon. 4:2; Ps. 86:15; Neh. 9:31); (34:14) is used to
designate a foreign god; 0" m o'nbK to designate foreign gods (§ 3.1.2). y h w h
is addressed as ‘my God’ in 15:2;l9i) the pi. dVk is used in 15:11 in an avowal
of y h w h ’s incomparability.19
191 See also THAT, I, 142ff.; TWAT, II, 259ff.
0
7.2.1 bv6 n (OT ca. 2600x; Exod. 139 x) is an appellative: ‘god(s).’ It may
be used as a designation for the god of Israel, a non-Isralite god, or foreign
gods. dy6 k frequently occurs in Exodus with the first meaning and several
times with the latter (12:12; 18:11; 20:3,23 [2x]; 22:19; 23:13,24,32,33;
34:15 [2x], 16 [2x], 17; signifies idols at several places; see also 32:31). ov6 k
is normally judged to be a royal plural (Joiion § 136d; Brockelmann § 19c, 50f)
when used to indicate the god of Israel, a ‘plural of authority/sovereignty’
(Ges-K § 124g, 145h), a ‘intensive (Potenzirender) plural’ (KOSynt § 263a-e; cf.
Johnson, The One, 20,23f., 28,30f.). otiVn can be used as a designation for
Israel’s god without having any definite connotation (e.g. 13:17; 19:3,17,19
and see, for instance, ‘messenger from y h w h ’ [3:2] along side of ‘messenger
from God’ [14:19]). Sometimes it is possible to consider whether oyiVn has
been used because God is not being mentioned with his relationship to Israel
foremost in mind but is being mentioned in his capacity as the Lord of the
world. Exod. 1:17,21; 18:15,19,21,23 perhaps designate God as the author of
moral order in the world. It should be noticed with respect to the use of dt6 k
to refer to the God of Israel that dti'w lacks an article, as a rule, when it
occurs as the subject (cf. Ges-K § 125f),192 while in other cases D'h’tk does
have an article (cf. Ges-K § 126e).193
7.2.2 Occasionally the divine namfi y h w h occurs together with ‘our God’
(3:18; 5:3; 8:6,22,23; 10:25,26; cf. 5:8), “your (pi.) God’ (6:7; 8:24; 10:8,16,17;
16:12; 23:25; cf. 8:21) ‘their God’ (10:7; 29:46), *your (sing.) God’ (15:26;
20:2,5,7,10,12; 23:19; 34:24,26) in apposition. The possessive pronouns
always refer to Israel (or its repesentatives, Moses and Aaron).
Elsewhere y h w h occurs with ‘the god of Israel’ (5:1; 32:17; 34:23; cf. 24:10)
or ‘the God of the Hebrews’ (3:18; 7:16; 9:1; 10:3; cf. 5:3) in apposition. The
appositions mentioned qualify y h w h as the God who has a very special
relationship with Israel. He has associated himself with Israel (6:7; 29:45; cf.
Gen. 17:7; Lev. 26:12; Deut. 26:17f.; 29:12). The characterization of y h w h as
190 Compare the use of “riS t in Num. 22:18; Deut. 4:5; 18:16; 26:14; 31:17, et al. see also
O. EiBfeldt, *Mein Gott,’ 61 (1945 -4 8 ), 3-16 = KL Schr., Ill, 35-47.
191 Cf. Pss. 86:8; 89:7 as well as 1 Sam. 2:2; Mic. 7:18; Pss. 35:10; 71:19; 77:14; 89:9; 113:5; see
also 18:11 (DVfrN) along with Pss. 95:3; 96:4; 135:5 ; see also G. Johannes, Unvergleichlichlceitsfor-
mulierungen im Alten Testament, Mainz 1968, 90ff.; C.J. Labuschagne, The Incomparability o f
Yahweh in the Old Testament, Leiden 1966, 77ff., 96ff., et al.
192 1:20; 2:24 (2x), 25 (2x); 3:4; 6:2; 13:17,18, 19; 18:1, 19, 23; 20:1,19; see also, however,
19:19; 20:20, 21.
193 1:17, 21; 2:23; 3:6, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15; 18:12, 19; 19:3, 17; 24:11; see, however, 18:12, 15, 21;
cf. Y. Lerner, LeSonSnu 48-9 (1984-85), 195-8.
DIVINE NAMES 93
‘our God,’ etc., expresses the opposition between Israel and Egypt and between
y h w h and Pharaoh which dominates the first section of Exodus (cf. § 3.40.1
and 8.25). We do not find ‘our god(s)’ on the part of the Egyptians (me
ntioned only in 12:12) facing off against ‘our God’ on the side of Israel.
y h w h ’s antagonists are not the gods of Egypt but Pharaoh. It is therefore not
surprising that testimony regarding y h w h ’s incomparability is addressed to
Pharaoh (8:6; cf. 9:14)194 and that y h w h is called D'h^ k mrr (9:30) in con
trast to him.195 Elsewhere in Exodus an opposition between y h w h and
other gods is present. It is declared that the worship of ‘y h w h , your God’
(23:35) and ‘their gods’ (23:24,32,33; 34:15 [2 x], 16 [2 x]), the gods of the
inhabitants of Canaan, cannot be reconciled with one another. It may well be
that catholicity is characteristic for God as he is described in Genesis196 and
that Genesis displays a ‘philo-Canaanite tendency.’197 Exodus, in any event,
is imbued with an entirely different spirit. To the above we add that ‘his God’
occurs in apposition to y h w h in 32:11 (cf. 2 Sam. 14:11); the referent of the
pronominal suffix is Moses. ‘God’ is used on several occasions in construct
with a proper noun (3:6,13,15,16; 4:5; 15:2; 18:4).198
7.2.3 D'nbK(n) occurs in bound form in various construct chains: ‘the
mountain of God’ (§3.16.2), ‘rod of God’ (§3.21.11), ‘finger of God’ (8:15;
31:18), ‘God’s thunder claps’ (9:28), ‘the work of God,’ ‘the writing of God’
(32:16), ‘spirit of God’ (§3.47.3). Although it is apparent from the context that
‘of God’ ought to be understood in the light of the involvement of y h w h ,
Israel’s God, in the matters at hand, it is not true that the meaning of this
usage simply coincides with that of ‘of y h w h .’ The use of ‘of God’ signifies
that the unbound word qualitatively and/or quantitatively belongs to that which
surpasses human measure, to that which awes, to the mysterious, to that which
is humanly comprehensible only against the backdrop of intervention by a
divine entity.199
7.2.4 Exod. 1 -2 employs only D'nbx from among the various divine names
(1:17,20,21; 2:23,24,25; see the commentary). Exod. 25 -4 0 (with the excep
tion of Exod. 32-34) employs only y h w h (leaving the unrelated use of D*nb«
in 31:3; and 35:31 out of consideration). As is widely known, the alternation
between the names y h w h and Elohim forms one of the main supports of the
194 See also Johannes (see §§ 1), 102ff.; Labuschagne (see §§ 1), 74ff., 92ff., et al.
196 Cf. 2 Sam. 7:25; Jon. 4:6; Pss. 72:18; 84:12; the sense is apparently: YHWH, the true God,
the highest being due homage; cf. 2 Sam. 7:22; 1 Kgs. 8:60; 18:39; 2 Kgs. 19:19.
19° See B. Gemser, "God in Genesis,- OTS 12 (1958), 1-21.
197 See A. van Seims, “The Canaanites in the Book of Genesis,- OTS 12 (1958), 182-213.
198 See the commentary and also H. Vorlander, Mein Gott: Die Vorstellungen vom personlichai
Gott im Altai Orient und im Alten Testamaitj Kevelaer/Neukirchen-Vluyn 1975, 184ff.
199 Cf. D.W. Thomas, VT 3 (1953), 209ff.; idem, V T 18 (1968), 120ff.; P.P. Saydon, VT 4
(1954), 432f.; note that the concepts just alluded to can also be expressed by ‘YHWH’; see
P.A.H. de Boer, VT 24 (1974), 233ff.; Houtman, Himmel, 274ff.
94 INTRODUCTION
so-called documentary hypothesis.200 The commentary devotes consideration

to the alternation between names whenever the text gives cause. The present
context only allows room for general comments. Problematical passsages in
which D'nSt occurs, such as 21:6,13; 22:7,8,27; 32:1,4,8,16, receive con
sideration in the course of the commentary. See also THAT, I, 153ff.; TWAT, I,
285ff.; J.A. Loewen, “The Names of God in the Old Testament,* BiTr 35
(1984), 201-7.
7.3.1 mn* (OT ca. 6830 x; Exod. 398 x) ‘y h w h ’ is the proper name for
Israel’s God. Along with the long form mn\ there is an abbreviated form rr
(OT ca. 50x; Exod. 15:2; 17:16). The long form should probably be regarded
as the original form.201 It is a familiar fact that the Jews did not pronounce
the divine name and that the Masoretes furnished the consonants with vocal
signs belonging to 'HR or D'n‘?K or nob (e.g. Meyer § 17.2). The theory which
enjoys the most support is that the so-called tetragrammaton was originally
pronounced as ‘Yahweh.’ In addition, pronunciations such as ‘Yahu’ or ‘Yaho’
have been defended (Kinyongo, 49ff.; DeVaux, HA1, I, 322f.; Saeb0, 52f.,
advocates ‘Yahwah’). The etymology of y h w h is a matter of considerable
scholarly dispute. We will suffice by noting that the theory currently prevalent
is that the name should be derived from the root 'in/mn (=Hebr. rrn) ‘be’ (see,
however, GOrg, 263f.; Saeb0, 52f.). Note that opting for this suggestion still
leads to different interpretations: ‘he is,’ ‘he causes to be,’ etc.202 More
important for exegesis than the scholarly etymology is what signficance was
attached to the name in Israel. Information regarding this question is virtually
non-existent. It is quite possible that people then were not aware of the
meaning and that insofar as they showed any interest for the matter, they
relied on the various explanations provided by popularly/literary etymology.
The idea that the phrase rrrnt rrntt in 3:14 contains such an explanation of
the name y h w h is held quite commonly. Theories differ strongly, however,
with regard to the manner in which the phrase should be understood, as is
apparent from a glance at various translations. LXX, ’Ey<b eipv 6 &v ‘I am the
one who is’; Aq. and Theod., toofiai 65 £<xopat ‘I will be who I will be’; TO,
TNf, F T , Pesh. and SamT leave the phrase untranslated;203 Vulg., ego sum
qui sum ‘I am who I am.’ Modern translations offer a still wider range. ‘I will
be who I will be’ (SV, LuthV) ‘I will be who I am’ (Van der Palm), ‘I am who I
am’ (LV, UV, NV), ‘I am: *1 am!* ’ (CV), ‘I am who is’ (WV), ‘I am the one
who is always there’ (GNB), ‘I am who I will be’ (Dasberg), ‘Ich bin, sintemal
200 See Houtman, Ini Pent, 219ff., et al.

201 See Kinyongo, 47ff., 53ff; De Vaux, HAI, I, 321ff.; see, however, Saeb0, 52f. (the long form is
a doubling of the abbreviated form).
202 On the different theories with respect to the etymology, see Kinyongo, 59ff.; De Vaux, HAI,
I, 325ff.
See McNamara, 106ff., for the interpretation in the TNf, TPsJ, and FT.
DIVINE NAMES 95
ich bin’ (Baentsch), ‘Ich werde dasein als der ich dasein werde’ (Buber-Rosen-
zweig), ‘I create what I create’ (D.N. Freedman, JBL 79 [1960], 154; idem,
7WAT, III, 548), etc. We will suffice by referring to the literature with respect
to outlining the argumentation on which the translations are based (e.g.
Kinyongo, 59ff.; De Vaux, HAI, I, 329ff.). For the moment, we would like to
note that the last translation is based on the rather improbable theory,
advanced in particular by W.F. Albright and his pupils, that the first or even
both verbal forms in the phrase should be explained as forms of the
causative.204 We will now limit ourselves to our own interpretaion.
7.3.2 The phrase rrns ibn rrnN contains a so-called idem per idem construc
tion. The verb of the main clause is repeated in the relative clause by KMt.
Constructions of this sort occur also elsewhere in the OT (4:13; 16:23; 33:19; 1
Sam. 23:13; 2 Sam. 15:20; 2 Kgs. 8:1; etal.) and can be used to define an
indefinite form.205 This seems to us what is the case in 3:14 too, where the
indefinite modifies the subject (cf. Ehrlich): ‘I am whosoever I am’ or ‘What
does it matter who I am.’ The words represent a rejoinder to the question
which Moses articulates as that of the Israelites: ‘What is his name?’ (3:13).
God makes it clear that no announcements are to be expected from him
regarding his name. What the reason is can only be a matter for conjecture (cf.
Gen. 32:30; Judg. 13:17ff.). Is there an ancient notion concerning names at the
bottom of God’s reaction?, i.e., knowledge of the name confers power over the
one who bears it and puts one in a position to have his strength at one’s
disposal (cf. Auerbach, 33ff.; GreBmann, 35f., and see Kinyongo, 106ff.). Or
does God wish to preclude in this manner the possibility that people should
consider him as one of the gods, on a par with the other gods? (Ehrlich; cf.
BOhl). Perhaps the substance is as follows: I am so great and so incomparable
that what I am cannot be articulated in a single term; it cannot be expressed
by a name (cf. Philo, VM, I, 75); do not ask concerning his name; one cannot
speak about me at the level of ‘What is his name?’ After God has made Moses
aware of this he tells Moses how he must answer the Israelites. He cannot
report any names but he may provide material concerning the character of his
superior. He may say, rrrtK has sent me. God had given Moses the assurance
that He was rrrm in relation to him (3:12). Moses may now make it clear to
the Israelites that it is characteristic of the one who commissioned him that
He is rrnN. Within the context of the book of Exodus this means that He is the
God who is involved in the plight of the people (cf. 2:24f.; 3:7ff.). Within the
204 See e.g. more recently, W.H. Brownlee, “The Ineffable Name of God,* BASOR 226 (1977),
39-46* note that the idea of creation is already expressed in the TPsJ, TNf, and FT.
20^ See e.g. Brockelmann § 156a; Th.C. Vriezen in Fs A. Bertholet, Tubingen 1950, 498-512
(intensification is intended in 3:14); J.R. Lundbom, HThR 71 (1978), 193-201; N. Kilwing, BN 10
(1979), 70-9 (the construction in 3:14 is, strictly speaking, in a class of its own in the OT);
G.S. Ogden, JSOT 53 (1992), 107-20.
96 INTRODUCTION
wider context it means that Moses can report to the Israelites that God is with
the people just as He was with the partriarchs (see commentary at 3:12).
Moses is therefore quite capable of identifying himself. ‘Being with’ was a
characteristic trait of the god of the fathers. It is an essential feature of the
god of Moses, and ought to generate sufficient confidence. The information
which Moses must report concerning his superior adds nothing new to what
was already known about the God of the Patriarchs. He does not act on behalf
of a new god or a god that renews himself but on behalf of the God of the
fahters. For the relationship between e h y e h in 3:14b to y h w h in 3:15, see the
commentary at 3:15. Note that it generated surprise that Moses was to present
himself as e h y e h ’s envoy. It has been proposed that the text of 3:14b should
be modified so as to read y h w h (e.g. Holzinger and see WV). The theory that
3:14 was originally formulated entirely in the third person has also been
argued.206 Another theory is that e h y e h is a name.20' Note that according
to 6:6 Moses is to address the Israelites with ‘I am y h w h ... .’
7.3.3 The origin of the name y h w h is a matter that has been much dis
cussed (e.g. Kinyongo, 7ff.; DeVaux, HAI, I, 323ff.). Both an Egyptian and
Canaanite origin have been argued, for instance. The occurrence of the name
Yw in the Ugaritic texts (CTA 1 [=KTU 1.1], IV, 14) provided the latter theory
with fresh impetus. In addition, the name has been ascertained in abbreviated
form in Babylonian and Amorite names and more recently in Eblitic names as
well.208 Less subject to debate than the former theories regarding the origin
of the name is the Kenite hypothesis, stating that y h w h was originally a
Kenite god. It is assumed that the Kenites were a Midianite clan (§8.16) and
that Moses became acquainted with y h w h during his stay in Midian.209 The
theory has been expounded with a great deal of vigour and imagination by
Rowley (§ 11.1), 148ff. He even maintains that Moses had Kenite blood in his
veins via his mother, who bears the theophoric name Jochebed, a name in
which y h w h forms an component (p. 160). It is often pointed out with respect
to this hypothesis that yhw’ is mentioned in an Egyptian list of ‘Shasu-count-
ries’ (§ 11.5.2) dating from the period of Amenophis III from a temple in
206 See e.g. C.D. Isbell, JNES 37 (1978), 227-36 (‘He creates what He creates’= ‘He is the
Creator’).
207 M. Delcor in Fs H. Cazelles, De la Torah au Messie, Paris 1981, 361-68; Reisel, 9ff.; cf.
Hos. 1:9 and see also Rev. 1:4, 8; 4:8; 11:17; 16:5; see McNamara, 97ff., with respect to the latter
texts.
208 On the latter, e.g. G. Pettinato, BA 39 (1976), 48; idem in Keel (ed.), Monotheismus, 43ff.;
M. Dahood, in SVT 29 (1978), 105ff.; idem, JBL 100 (1981), 607f.; both authors believe that a god
called Ya(w) was worshipped in Ebla and regard the question of whether this god can be identified
with the biblical YHWH as a matter for further inquiry; with regard to this matter, see in particular
H.P. Muller, ZA 70 (1980); 70-92; idem, Bib 62 (1981), 305-27, and also J.L. Ska, NRTh 100
(19781, 389-98.
2^ For proponents of this hypothesis, consult, for instance, Kinyongo, 7ff., and K.A. Deurloo,
Kaiti eti Abel, Amsterdam 1967, 24ff., 37ff.
DIVINE NAMES 97
Soleb (Nubia). In addition, a certain s'rr (Seir) is mentioned in a copy of the

list in a temple in Amarah West (Nubia) from the period of Ramesses II.210
It is interesting that the Seir region is repeatedly related to the coming of
YHWH in the OT (Deut. 33:2; Judg. 5:4f.; Hab. 3:3).211 If one wishes to as
sume a relation between the region yhw’ and the name of Israel’s God, then
one must presuppose that the name of the region became a divine name (cf.
Asshur as name of a country, people, and god).
73.4 Although the Kenite hypothesis has been accepted my many, this is
not owing to a lack of detractors 212 Examination of the contents of Exodus
leads to the conclusion that it contains no elements which make a Midianite
origin for y h w h probable. Exodus does not produce the impression that
Mt. Horeb/Sinai was the holy mountain of the Midianites. The sacred nature of
the mountain is revealed to Moses for the first time. The mountain is located
outside of Midianite territory (3:1; 4:27; 18:5,27). Moses remains silent
towards his father-in-law concerning the revelation by y h w h (4:18). Jethro’s
confession of y h w h ’s greatness (18:11) does not prove that he was a worship
per of y h w h . The substance of the text is as follows: a non-Israelite, a priest
to boot, recognizes the incomparability of y h w h ! (cf. Gen. 26:28; Josh. 2:9f.;
9:9f.; 1 Kgs. 17:24; 2 Kgs. 5:15; Jdt. 5:5ff. and see Exod. 1:9; 5:5). Whether
Jethro converted himself to y h w h worship can remain undiscussed here (see
18:12 alongside of 2 Kgs. 5:17; 10:18ff.). It is not without significance that
18:12 does not mention that Jethro made sacrifices (Kinyongo, 39ff.) and he is
not presented as the one who initiates Moses into the secrets of religion but as
the one who counsels Moses in legal matters (18:13ff.). Moreover, Jethro is no
longer on the scene (18:27) when the great manifestation of y h w h takes place
(19:lff.). If it could be demonstrated that y h w h was originally the god of the
Midianites, new questions arise: What was the nature of y h w h ? Was he a
mountain, storm, or fire deity? Did He reveal himself to Moses in a wholly
new form, so that, as the God of the Israelites, He actually shared no more
than his name with the god of the Midianites?
7.3.5 More important than the issue of the origin of the name y h w h to the
210 For further details, see I DBS, 971; Gorg, 260ff.; idem, BN 1 (1976), 7-14; S. Herrmann,
EvTh 26 (1966), 281-93; De Vaux, HAI, I, 316f., 325; M. Weippert, Bib 55 (1974), 270ff.; idem,
T A W 84 (1972), 481 n.144.
211 Also take note of the following: Nabatan inscriptions in the Sinai with theophoric names
containing the divine name ’hyw led Delcor (§§ 3.2) to suppose that the Kenite god EHYEH/YHWH
was worshipped in the Sinai up until the second century; cf. E.A. Knauf, BN 23 (1984), 21-8; idem,
BN 26 (1985), 17f.; the name YHWH of Teman (yhwh linn) occurs on inscriptions from Kuntillet
‘Ajrud, about 50 km south of Kades, dated in the 9*h/8t*1 century; the name YHWH of Samaria
(yhwh imm) also appears, however; J.A. Emerton, 7A W 94 (1982), 1-20, states that various
versions of a single YHWH are involved.
212 See Kinyongo, 18f., 39ff., and consult C. H. W. Brekelmans, “Exodus XVIII and the origins
of Yahwism in Israel,* OTS 10 (1954), 215-24; Buber, 51ff.; Kaufmann, 242ff.; De Vaux, HAI, I,
316ff.
98 INTRODUCTION
interpretation of Exodus is answering the question of whether the author was

of the conviction that the disclosure of the name y h w h is related to the
revelation to Moses. Adherents of the documentary hypothesis argue that
according to the version of E (3:13f.) and p (6:2f.), the name y h w h was
revealed to Moses, whereas according to theory of J’s version, the name was
already known before then. It seems that the author of Exodus was of the
latter opinion213 and that his aim in 3:13ff. was to provide some kind of a
portrayal of y h w h (on 6:2f., see §§ 4.2). To him, y h w h was none other than
‘the god of the fathers’ (3:6, etal.) and ElShaddai (6:3). He was ostensibly
unfamiliar with the historical questions concerning the relationship of y h w h
to the ‘God of the fathers’ and to El which plague modern scholars. 14
73.6 An other issue which can be raised with respect to Exodus by the
historical study of religion concerns the exclusivity of y h w h worship. It is hard
to dispute that according to the version of the book of Exodus, y h w h is the
only true god and that he alone merits veneration (cf. 15:11; 20:3; 34:14). The
question which may be posed, however, is whether Exodus bears witness to
Mosaic religion or whether it is a source of material recapitulating the
theology of the author of Exodus and his spiritual kin who lived centuries after
Moses and who present a picture of the religious history of Israel which is
impossible to reconcile with historical reality. At this point, we wish only to
point out that in the past decennia a number of scholars have resolutely
argued that Moses is the founder of the religion of the one God (see § 5.45.2).
Currently, however, it appears that the theory prevalent at the end of the 19th
and the beginning of the 20th century is regaining ground. It holds that the
insistence on the exclusive worship of y h w h was not demanded until a
relatively late period in Israel’s history. Scholars from various quarters state
that originally Israel’s religion was polytheistic and that y h w h was no more
than a national deity who had a goddess next to him as a consort.215 The
213 See Houtman, Ini Pent., 223f.

214 On this controversial issue, e.g. J. Blommendaal, El als fundament en als exponent van het
oudtestamenthch universalisme, Utrecht 1972; Houtman, Himmel, 94f.; De Moor, Yahwism, 49ff.;
H.P. Muller, in Keel (ed.), Monotheismus, 99-142; E. Otto, “El und YHWH in Jerusalem," VT 30
(1980), 316-29; De Vaux, HAI , I, 424ff.; H.J. Zobel, “Der friihe Jahwe-Glaube in der Spannung von
Wiiste und Kulturland,” ZAW 101 (1989), 342-65.
215 See e.g. H. Niehr, Der hochste Gott: Alttestamentlicher JHWH-Glaube im Kontext synsch-
kanaanahcher Religion des 1. Jahrtausends v. Chr., Berlin/New York 1990; M.S. Smith, The Early
History o f God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel, San Francisco et al. 1990; F. Stolz,
in Keel (ed.), Monotheismus; 143-89; the different contributions to B. Lang (ed.), Der einzige Gott,
Miinchen 1981; A. Angerstorfer, BN 17 (1982), 7-16; the last article devotes particular con
sideration to inscriptions from Kuntillet ‘Ajrud (§§ 3.3) en Hirbet el-Q6m (14 km west of Hebron)
which mention YHWH (yhwh) and his Asherah (Ashirtah) (’Srth); on the inscriptions and the
conclusions which they support, see also J.A. Emerton, Z A W 94 (1982), 1-20; J.M. Hadley, “The
Khirbet El-Qom Inscription,- VT 37 (1987), 50-62; idem, “Some Drawings and Inscriptions on Tow
Pithoi from Kuntillet ‘Ajrud," VT 37 (1987), 180-213; B. Margalit, “The Meaning and Significance
DIVINE NAMES 99
commentary will consider this problem in discussing such passages as 20:3;

21:6. A general remark regarding this issue should still be noted here. The
possibility that the faith, experience, and convictions of later generations are
reflected by Exodus must be taken into account. One should guard against too
quick an appraisal of the picture which the OT itself presents of the history of
the religion of Israel, viz., that ever since its inception, representatives of
official religion regarded the worship of other gods beside y h w h as an
expression of religious degeneration, as being unhistorical. This is especially
true in view of the fact that it is quite possible and justifiable from a scholarly
point of view, against the backdrop of the general history of religion in the
Ancient Near East, to situate the demand to worship y h w h exlusively in an
early phase of Israel’s history (cf. De Moor, Yahwism, passim). Note well that
one ought not imagine the religion of Ancient Israel as some kind of Protes
tantism.
73.7 The usage of the name y h w h will be examined in the course of the
commentary when the text provides cause. Note that the name occurs in
formulas whose purpose is self-presentation/praise (cf. 3:6): ‘I am y h w h ’
(6:2,6,29; 12:12); ‘I am y h w h , ...’ (15:26; 20:25). The self-presentation aims
to lend authority to/arouse confidence in the divine words.216 y h w h ’s ac
tions correspond to his self-presentation, and the only adequate reaction,
therefore, which correlate to it, both on the side of the Israelites (6:7; 10:2;
16:12; 29:46; 31:13; cf. 11:7; 16:6) as well as of the Egyptians (7:5,17; 8:18;
14:4,18), is the recognition of the ‘I am y h w h (your/their God)’, the recog
nition of the fact that y h w h is truly involved in the course of events and that
all power and authority is in his hands (cf. 8:6; 9:14,29; 18:11), a recognition
which ought to obtain form in obedience to his will. Finally, a section on the
theology of Exodus in a subsequent volume will examine the manner in which
Exodus portrays YHWH/God.
7.3.8 The literature on the name y h w h is very extensive. In addition to the
works already mentioned, we will refer only to a selection drawn from prima
rily the more recent literature: RLA, V, 246ff.; THAT, I, 701ff.; TWAT, III,
533ff.; S. Dailey, "Yahweh in Hamath in the 8th Century BC: Cuneiform
Material and Historical Deductions," VT 40 (1990), 21-32; H. Gese, “Der
Name Gottes im Alten Testament," in H. von Stietencron (ed.), Der Name
Gottes, Dusseldorf 1975, 75-89; M. Gorg, “Anfange israelitischen Got-
of Asherah," VT 40 (1990), 264-97; S.M. Olyan, Asherah and the Cult o f Yahweh, Atlanta 1988;
P.A.H. de Boer, Fatherhood and Motherhood in Israelite and Judean Piety, Leiden 1974, 38ff.;
M. Dietrich — O. Loretz, TJahwe und seine Aschera", Munster 1992, 76ff., and others have argued
that YHWH had a consort (goddess) in the official religion of Israel prior to the exile; see, however,
O Keel — C. Uehlinger, Gottinnen, Gotter und Gottessymbole, Freiburg et. al 1992, 237ff., 358ff., 463.
216 See K. Elliger, “Ich bin der Herr-euer Gott," in KL Schr. zum AT, Miinchen 1966, 211-31;
W. Zimmerli, " ‘Ich bin Jahwe’," in Gottes Offenbarung, Miinchen 1963, 11-40; M. Dijkstra, Gods
voorstelling Kampen 1980 (Bibl.).
100 INTRODUCTION
tesglaubens,* Kairos 18 (1976), 256-64; O. Keel (ed.), Monotheismus im Alien

Israel und seiner Umwelt, Fribourg 1980; J. Kinyongo, Origin et signification du
nom divin Yahve a la lumiere de recents travaux ed de traditions simitico-
bibliques, Bonn 1970; A. Klawek, “Les noms hdbraiques ‘Jahveh’ et ‘Elohim’,*
Folia Orientalia 27 (1990), 95-9; E.A. Knauf, “Yahwe,* VT 34 (1984), 467-72;
J.C. de Moor, Uw God is mijn God: Over de oorsprong van het geloof in de ene
God, Kampen 1983; idem, The Rise o f Yahwism, Leuven 1990; M. Reisel, The
Mysterious Name Y.H. W.H., Assen 1967; M. Saeb0, “Offenbarung oder Verhiil-
ling?" in Fs H.W. Wolff, Die Botschaft und die Boten, Neukirchen-Vluyn 1981,
43-55; W.H. Schmidt, “Der Jahwename und Exod. 3,14,* in Fs E. Wiirthwein,
Textgemafl, Gottingen 1979, 123-38; J. Schoneveld, “Proeve van een nieuwe
vertaling van ‘fchjfc a&r 6hj6’ in Exodus 3:14,* NedThT 30 (1976), 89-98;
E. Starobinski-Safran, “Signification des noms divins-d’aprSs Exode 3-dans la
tradition rabbinique et chez Philon d’Alexandrie,* RThPh 23 (1973), 426-35;
B.N. Wambac, * ’Eh'yeh ,aSer ’eh'yeh,’ Bib 59 (1978), 317-38; M. Wyschogrod,
*Eine Theologie der jiidischen Einheit," Jud 39 (1983), 75-84.
7.4.1 *30 (OT 48x; Job 31 x) ‘Shaddai’ is preceded in a number of texts
ascribed to P (Gen. 17:1; 28:3; 35:11; 43:14?; 48:3; Exod. 6:3) and in Gen.
49:25cj; Ezek. 10:5 by bn. 'it) occurs elsewhere in parallelism alongside of bx
(Gen. 49:25; Num. 24:4,16; Job 16x).217 It is possible to regard ‘god’ as an
appellative or a proper noun and Shaddai as a proper noun or as epithet: ‘god
Shaddai,’ ‘god/El of Shaddai’ (in constr.); ‘El-Shaddai’ (the deity bears a double
name; there is possibly a merger of two gods); Shaddai is commonly regarded
as an epithet, however: El who is Shaddai. No unanimity exists with respect to
the etymology of Shaddai. We will ommit summarizing all the theories (see
§§4.3 and THAT, II, 875ff.). We wish only to note that the theory that a
connection should be sought between *ii? and the Akkadian word Sadd
‘mountain’, ‘he of the mountain’ (El of the mountain), has enjoyed a certain
amount of authority in the past decennia, while the theory championed by
M. Weippert that a connection exists between *i» and the Canaanite word id
‘field’ (cf. Hebr. nit?), ‘he of the field’ (El of the field), seems to be winning
terrein recently.218 All kinds of questions of a historical nature can be posed
with respect to the name: Is El Shaddai a god which Israel’s ancestors wor
shipped even before their entry into Canaan? Or is he a Canaanite deity who
was later identified with y h w h ? The idea that Shaddai is an old name and a
title of honour applied to some manifestation of the Canaanite god El cur
rently enjoys broad support. It is worth mentioning in this connection that the
217 Cf. E.Z. Melamed, ScrHie 8 (1961), 120f.

2** See, however, De Moor, Yahwism (see §§ 3.8), 125, 152.
DIVINE NAMES 101
pi. Sdyn occurs in the Bileam text from Deir ‘Alla to indicate a group of
gods.219 The text makes it clear, in any event, that the name was known
before the exile. This was disputed by Ehrlich (at 6:3). He believed that the
purpose of 6:3 was to introduce the name and to legitimate its use. Knauf has
recently claimed an Ancient north Arabic origin for the name and states that it
was first used by P. A point of view such as this does not yield any knowledge
about the religion of ancient Israel.220
7.4.2 Of particular importance for the interpretation of 6:3 is answering the
question as what notions the author of Exodus associated with the name
Shaddai. The first thing that should be noted is that the authors of the bible
were probably not familiar with the original meaning of Shaddai. The name is
‘explained’ in Isa. 13:6; Joel 1:15 with the aid of a play on words on t w
‘destroy’: ‘the Destroyer.’221 In the rabbinical literature, '70 is explained by
explicating its components as 0 ‘who’ and '7 ‘enough.’222 The Greek translat
ion licavoq223 is due to this explanation.224 Scholars have truly applied them
selves to making the name comprehensible; the fact that the translation of the
term in the LXX displays wide diversity makes it clear that the name was
already experienced as difficult to understand back then.225 Prevailing theo
ry, furthermore, holds that P made very deliberate use of the name Shaddai in
his description of the ‘religious history’ of Israel; the name El Shaddai has
been reserved for the revelation of God in the period of the patriarchs; God
made himself known to Moses (6:3) using the name y h w h (see Fohrer, 50f.;
GreBmann, 53ff.). Whatever the case may be, it is unlikely that in 6:3 the
author/editor of Exodus aimed to notify readers concerning how the name
y h w h became known. The conception rooted in the pre-critical phase of
biblical exegesis, which holds that God did not make his name known to
Moses, but told him instead that from now on He would manifest himself with
other qualities than was the case during the period of the patriarchs, does the
219 See
, e.g. J.A. Hackett, The Balaam Text from Deir !Alla, Chico, CA 1984; idem, BA 49
(1986), 216-22; P.K. McCarter, BASOR 239 (1980), 57; H.P. Muller, in Keel (see §§ 3.8), 130f.;
idem, ZAW 94 (1982), 223; H. and M. Weippert, ZDPV 98 (1982), 88ff.
220 See also the position held by Lang (see §§ 3.8), 79f.
221 G. Bertram, WO 2 (1954-59), 508 ru3, assumes that P espoused a theory of this kind, and
regarded Shaddai as ‘Almighty’ (actually ‘Ferocious One’); one could also consider *10 - D'70
‘breasts’ in Gen. 49:25 to be an ‘explanatory’ play on words.
222 On the repercussions of this ‘etymology’ for the image of god, see W. Reiss, “Zur Deutung
von '1 0 in der rabbinischen Literatur," FJB 3 (1975), 65-75.
223 See e.g. Aq. at 6:3; see also G. Bertram, ZAW IQ (1958), 20-31; cf. SamTA at 6:3.
224 P embraced the interpretation of ‘Sufficient-God,’ according to Knauf, BN 16 (1981), 22.
225 Rendered in 6:3 as <&V atixCDV ‘being their God’; the prevailing rendering of the
modem translations, ‘(al)mighty,’ is due to the influence of omnipotens in the Vulg., which in turn
is a translation of TcavxOKpaxcop in the LXX version of Job; see also THAT , II, 874f.; G. Ber
tram, WO 2 (1954—59), 510ff.; the name has been left untranslated in the TO, TPsJ, and SamT1;
the TNf and FTV have rendered it as ‘the God of heaven.’
102 INTRODUCTION
most justice to the text of Exodus in its present form.226 God manifested
himself to the fathers as ElShaddai, as the one who made promises
(Gen. 17:lff.; 35:1 Iff.; cf. 28:3f.; 48:3f.). As y h w h , He acts to accomplish those
promises.
7.43 Of the literature we mention here: IDBS, 608f.; D. Biale, ‘The god
with Breasts: El Shaddai in the Bible," HR 21 (1981-82), 240-56 (according
to an old tradition, El Shaddai was a fertility god with both male and female
features [breasts]; according to a later theory, he was a god of war); M. GOrg,
■Sa<Ma/-Ehrenrettung einer Etymologie," BN 16 (1981), 13-15 (a connection
between the name and the Egyptian word id ‘saviour’ is a very good pos
sibility); K. Koch, ‘Saddaj," VT 26 (1976), 299-332; E.A.Knauf, "El Saddai,"
BN 16 (1981), 20-6; idem, "El Saddai - der Gott Abrahams," BZ 29 (1985),
97-103; N. Lohfink, "Die priesterschriftliche Abwertung der Tradition von der
Offenbarung des Jahwenamens an Mose," Bib 49 (1968), 1-8; O. Loretz “Der
kanaaniiische Ursprung des biblischen Gottes-namens El Saddaj," UF (1980),
420-1; E.C.B. MacLaurin, "Shaddai," Abr-n 3 (1961-62), 99-115 (Shaddai is a
storm god; the same one as Hadad); M. Oliva, "Revelacidn del nombre de
Yahweh en la ‘historia sacerdotal’: Ex. 6,2-8," Bib 52 (1971), 1-19; A. Passoni
dell ‘Acqua, "£/ Saddaj I," BeO 22 (1980), 31-54; Vorlander (see §§ 2.2J,
215ff.; M. Weippert, "ErwSgungen zur Etymologie des Gottesnamens ’El
Saddaj;’ ZDMG 111 (1961), 42-62; W. Wifall, "El Shaddai or El of the
Fields," ZAW 92 (1980), 24-32.
§ 8 Names of people, countries, places, etc., in the book o f Exodus

8.a Bibl. (general): Y. Aharoni, The Land o f the Bible, London 19792;
F.M. Abel, Geographic de la Palestine, I-II, Paris 1933, 1938; S. Ahituv, Cana-
anite Toponyms in Ancient Egyptian Documents, Leiden 1984; J.J. Bimson
Redating the Exodus and Conquest, Sheffield 1978; W. Bor6e, Die alten Ortsna-
men Paldstinas, Leipzig 1930; H. Cazelles, "Les localisations de l’Exode et la
critique littdrair," RB 62 (1955), 321-64; G.I. Davies, The Way of the Wilder
ness, Cambridge 1979 (contains information concerning the Jewish, Christian,
and Islamic tradition with regard to the location of places mentioned in
connection with the desert sojourn); H. Engel, Die Vorfahren Israels in Agypten:
Forschungsgeschichtlicher Uberblick ilber die Darstellungen seit Richard Lepsius
(1849), Frankfurt am Main, 1979 (containing information about the theories of
modern scholars regarding the locality of places mentioned in connection with
the exodus); J. Simons, The Geographical and Topographical Texts o f the Old
Testament, Leiden 1959; D.J. Wiseman (ed.), Peoples o f Old Testament Times,
Oxford 1973.
8.b Several remarks made in connection with personal names in § 5.b-e., h
^ 6 See Houtman, Ini. Pent., 233f., on this issue; for the differences and various subtleties with
which the theory has been propounded, see, for instance, Leibowitz, 132ff.
NAMES OF PEOPLE, COUNTRIES, PLACES 103
also apply to the names of localities. Note at the outset that the location of
many places mentioned in Exodus is uncertain (see §§ 34 on this issue). The
names are discussed with respect to their place and function in Exodus. This
may mean that names which occupy an important position in the whole of the
OT receive only scanty attention here. Refer to the literature mentioned in the
sub-sections for further information. For an initial orientation, refer to
standard work of references such as BHHW and IDB. With respect to the
location of the places, consult the maps in works such as H.G. May, Oxford
Bible Atlas, London 19742; Davies, x, xi; Rothenberg, 6,20,112,181,187,222f.;
for the south of Palestine, also look at the map in BHHW, IV.
8.1 Diitt (OT ca. lOOx; Exod. 15:15) ‘Edom(ites)’ [explained in Gen. 25:30
(cf. also 25:25) with the aid of oik ‘be red’*; cf. Brenner, 156,158; Gradwohl,
4ff., 15], neigbouring country (people) of Israel, located (living) to the east
(and to the south?) of Israel, in an area that is bordered by the brook Zered to
the north. The OT mentions Esau=Edom (Gen. 36:1,8) as the patriarch. See
IDBS, 251f.; TRE, IX, 291ff. (Bibl.); J.R. Bartlett, Edom and the Edomites,
Sheffield 1989; C.H.J. de Geus, •Idumaea,' JEOL 26 (1979-80), 53-74; E.A.
Knauf, “Supplementa Ismaelitica,’ BN 45 (1988), 62-81; J.F.A. Sawyer -
D.J.A. Clines, (ed.), Midian, Moab, and Edom: The History and Archaeology of
Late Bronze and Iron Age Jordan and North-West Arabia, Sheffield 1983.
8.2 dVr ‘Elim’ [pi. of b'K ‘big trees’ (Isa. 1:29, etal.), cf. ‘El-Paran’
(Gen. 14:6), ‘Elath’ (Deut. 2:8, et al.)/*Eloth’ (1 Kgs. 9:26, et al.); ‘Beer-Elim’
(Isa. 15:8)],227 oasis, Israelite resting place (15:27; 16:1 [2xj;
Num. 33:9
[2x], 10). Opinions differ with regard to the location; according to one
theory, accepted by many and already present in early Christian tradition, Elim
is the oasis Wadi Garandel, located 80 km to the south of Suez, which flows
into the Gulf of Suez; according to another equally ancient theory, Elim is et-
Tur which is located about 200 km south of Suez on the Gulf of Suez (e.g.
Meyer, IN, 100f.); other proposals are Wadi Tayiba, located a day’s journey to
the south of Wadi Garandel and Ayun Musa, an oasis 15 km to the south of
Suez; Elim has also been identified with Eloth/Elath on the gulf of
Aqaba;228 the view that the location can no longer be discovered is also held
(cf. GreBmann, 414; Noth, 101f.). See DB, I, 692; Abel, II, 210; Bor6e, 51;
Davies, 38,40,43,46,82f., 100 n. 12, 116n.21, 117/1.23; Simons, 252f.
8.3.1 nbR (OT ca. 85x; Exod. 6x) ‘Amorite(s),’ pre-Israelite inhabitants
of Canaan who were partially able to maintain their position after the entry of
Israel into Canaan (Judg. 3:5, et al.). In the OT the name often has no ap
parent meaning other than ‘the pre-/non-Israelite inhabitants of Canaan’
(Gen. 15:16; Deut. 1:27; Josh. 10:6,12; 24:15,18; etal.) and is used in a similar
The assumption made by Stade, 112, and others that a connection exists between ‘Elim’ and
D 'b s = ‘gods’ and that the place was a cult site is unlikely.
More recently by J. Koenig (see §§ 23), for instance.
INTRODUCTION
104
sense as ‘Canaanites’ (§§ 14). It is worth noting in this connection that various
names for the pre-Israelite population of Canaan prove to be interchangeable:
the Hivites (Gen. 34:2; Josh. 9:7; 11:19) are called Amorites (Gen. 48:22; 2
Sam. 21:1); the same (Josh. 10:5f.) applies to the Jebusites (Josh. 15:63; 18:28;
Judg. 1:21; et al.); the Hittites of Hebron (Gen. 23) are apparently the same as
the Amorites of Mamre (Gen. 14:13).229 The Amorites are regarded as very
impressive people in Israel’s traditions (Amos 2:9; cf. Num. 13:28,33;
Deut. 2:10f.; 9:2). They are depicted as evil-doers and as idol worshippers
(Gen. 15:16; Josh. 24:15; Judg. 6:10; 1 Kgs. 21:26; 2 Kgs. 21:11; cf. Ezek. 16:3,45
as well as Lev. 18:28; 20:22f.).
8-3.2 " ior occurs in Exodus only in more or less stereo-typed listings
indicating the pre-Israelite inhabitants of Canaan. The pre-Israelite population,
according to the traditional picture, consisted of seven components (cf.
Acts 13:9): (a) Hittites; (b) Girgashites; (c) Amorites; (d) Canaanites; (e)
Perizzites; (f) Hivites; (g) Jebusites (Deut. 7:1; Josh. 3:10; 24:11). Often only six
names or fewer are mentioned in summaries, b is missing in Exod. 3:8,17;
23:23; 33:2; 34:11 (cf. Deut. 20:17; Josh. 9:1; 11:3; 12:8; Judg. 3:5) (f is missing
in Neh. 9:8);230 b and e are missing in 13:5 (cf. 1 Kgs. 9:20; 2 Chr. 8:7; b and
d are missing); the list in 23:28 consists of d+a+f. See also Gen. 15:21 (the
sequence has been expanded to ten); Ezra 9:1 (five of the ‘traditional’ nations
[minus b and f] -(-three new nations); Judg. 10:1 If. (Amorites + six other
nations); Jdt. 5:15f. (seven nations: c+d+e+g+b+tw o other nations).231 The
order in which the elements of the sequences are mentioned is not stereo
typed. Only the list d+ a+ c+ e+ f+ g occurs 3x (3:8,17; Judg. 3:5); none of the
other sequences are alike with respect to the order; the sequence in 23:23 is
c+ a+ e+ d+ f+ g; in 34:11, c+d+a+e+f+g; etc.; g and f are, as a rule, men
tioned in order (see, however, Josh. 3:10; 11:3); there is some tendency to
mention d as the first element (3:8,17; 13:5; 33:2; Josh. 3:10; 11:3; Judg. 3:5;
Ezra 9:1; Neh. 9:8); this is also true of a (Deut. 7:1; 20:17; Josh. 9:1; 12:8; 2
Chr. 8:7); a is mentioned as the second element more often, however (3:8,17;
13:5; 23:23; Josh. 3:10; Judg. 3:5; 1 Kgs. 9:20; Ezra 9:1; Neh. 9:8).
8 3 3 The Amorites have become a favoured object of study for orientalists
and OT scholars due to the archeological discovery of text material. Their
name has been related to the Akkadian word Amurru, ‘West-land’ (originally,
at least, the Syrian steppe)/‘Westerners,’ which occur in texts as early as the
second half of the third millenium and which is used to indicate different
regions and population groups. The interpretation of the material is uncertain
29Q
According to Josh. 10:5 Hebron is Amorite; according to Judg. 1:10 it is Canaanite; cf.
Gen. 24:4 immediately following on Gen. 23.
230 b is mentioned in Exod. 3:8, 17; 23:23; 33:2; 34:11; Deut. 20:17 (MSS); Josh. 9:1 in the
LXX.
For the possibility of a symbolic value for the numbers, see § 4.
in some respects and is subject to modifications. Owing partly to the scanty

description of such material in the OT, the significance of the extra-biblical
material for the interpretation of the OT is disputed and unsure. A theory
which is currently held is that the designation ‘Amorites’ for pre- and non-
Israelite inhabitants of Canaan emerged due to the the practice of designating
the whole of Syria and Palestine as Amurru, a practice which we know about
from Assyrian texts dating back as early as the 12th century. It should be clear,
in any event, that the term ‘Amorites,’ as is true of other such designations
(e.g. §8.14 and 8.9), is ill-suited to obtaining information concerning the
history and the make up of the original population of Canaan. It is possible,
however, to conclude from the summaries of names in Israelite tradition that
the pre-Israelite population of the land was of a very mixed nature. A dissen
ting view has been advanced by Mendenhall, 142ff., 255. The seven nations
were not ‘ethnic groups and mass populations, but political regimes of foreign
military conquerors together with their fighting forces’ (p. 255), (who were
from Anatolia, to a large extent). See also BH, I, 322ff.; IDBS, 20ff.; Abel, I,
235ff.; W.G. Denver ’ W.M. Clark, in Hayes-Miller, 83ff., 94ff„ et al.; M. Gorg,
“Dor, die Teukrer und die Girgasiter,” BN 28 (1985), 7-14; M. Liverani, in
Wiseman, 100-33; N. Na’aman, "Canaanites and Perizztes,” BN 45 (1988), 42-
7; J. vanSeters, “The Terms ‘Amorite’ and ‘Hittite’ in the Old Testament,”
VT 22 (1972), 64-81; Simons, 3f.; De Vaux, HAI, I, 129ff., et al.
8.4 on»t ‘Etham,’ the first resting place of the Israelites after their depar
ture from §§ 24, situated on the eastern border of Egypt (13:20; Num. 3:6,7,8).
‘Etham’ has been related to the Egyptian word htm, ‘fort,’ and the suggested
location has been put at the exteme north of the great Bitter Lake (e.g. Abel,
I, 208). A number of objections are raised against this theory. A relation
between dtir and htm is linguistically implausible; htm occurs in an Egyptian
letter (papyrus Anastasi, VI, 55,60; cf. ANET, 259a) to indicate a fort near
Tkw (§§ 24); the term is used in an other letter (papyrus Anastasi, V, xix2-xx6;
cf. ANET, 259b], according to one theory (notwithstanding the fact that the
text seems to situate htm south of Tkw; see also §§ 15), to indicate the fortress
of Sile, currently known as el-Quantara; this location, however, is on a route
(§§28) which Israel did not take (13:17). The location of ‘Etham’ has also
been put north of Lake Timsah (where the road from §§24 crosses the
Egyptian border), near Wadi Tumilat, in the vicinity of contemporary Ismailia.
The desert of Etham (Num. 33:8) is called the desert of Shur (§§ 33) in 15:22.
See also Cazelles, 357ff.; Davies, 79f.; M. Gorg, BN 51 (1990), 9f.; Simons, 247;
De Vaux, HAI, I, 356.
8.5 p s by? ‘Baal-Zephon’ (14:2; Num. 33:7) belongs to the category of
composite geographical names based on ‘Baal’ (see Bourse, 95ff., 105;
Mulder, 10f.); the name of the gods worshipped (at least originally) at a
location are used to designate the place; perhaps the name is an abbreviation
of p s by? rr?; for a contrary opinion, see Bourse, 97. The name can be
106 INTRODUCTION
understood as meaning ‘Lord of Zephon,’ ‘Lord Zephon,’ or as a double name,

but it is more likely that Baal is a proper name and that the deity is a local
manifestation (cf. Baal-Berith/Zebub/Peor) of the Baal par excellence whose
worship was already wide spread in the second millennium. Baal Zephon/b7
spn was the deity of Ugarit, who lived on Mount spn (] 1D2), a mountain to the
north of Ugarit, known in Greek as Casios, and currently known as Jebel el-
Aqra. It is assumed that he was the object of worship particularly under
seamen. Various materials indicate that Baal Zephon was worshipped at
several places in Egypt. He was worshipped as Zeus Casios near the Mediter
ranean Sea on the so-called Little Casios, close to Lake Sirbonis east of
ancient Pelusium, known to us from classical antiquity. Opinions on the
correct location of the cult site differ. Proposed sites are contemporary
Mahammediye and on the more eastern peninsula in Lake Sirbonis, contem
porary Ras Qasrun. Baal Zephon is mentioned in a Phoenician papyrus from
Saqqara (6th century) (KAI50) among the gods of Tahpanhes (Daphnae in
Greek), which is also located on the east side of the Delta in the vicinity of
Pelusium. An Egyptian text from the second half of the second millennium
(papyrus Sallier, IV, verso i 5-6; cf. ANET, 250a, 673) mentions him among the
gods worshipped in the port of Memphis. A Migdol (§§ 15) was probably
named after him during the Ptolemaic period (e.g. Davies, 81). Since the
possibility that Baal Zephon, the god of Phoenician mariners, would have been
worshipped beyond areas which they frequented is regarded as slight, various
scholars argue for a rather northern location for Baal-Zephon (although Baal
worship in the pre-Hellenistic period is unknown there). Others elect nonethe
less to situate it to the west of the southern land bridge of Suez, e.g. on
contemporary Jebel Murr. It has been surmised that Baal-Zephon is delibera
tely mentioned right before the journey through the sea: y h w h has led Israel
out of Egypt through the sea at the place where the god who was considered
to have the sea in his power was worshipped (Gese, 127). See also IDBS, 977;
RSP, II, 318ff.; TWAT, I, 709,711f„ 715f., 719ff.; VI, 1093ff.; Cazelles, 332ff.;
Davies, 81f.; H. Gese, in H. Gese, et al., Die Religionen Altsyriens, Altarabiens
und der Mandaer, Stuttgart etal. 1970, 123ff.; M.J. Mulder, Ba'al in het Oude
Testament, ’s-Gravenhage 1962, 117ff., 155ff.; Simons, 248f.; DeVaux, HAI,
1,357.
8.6.1 (fiN)232 ‘(the land of) Goshen,’ the place where Jacob and his
descendents lived in Egypt (Gen. 45:10; 46:28 [2x], 29,34; 47:1,4,6,27; 50:8;
Exod. 8:18; 9:26), an area suitable for cattle (Gen. 45:10; 46:34; 47:4,6). In
view of the above and Gen. 46:29 (Joseph travels eastwards) it seems obvious
to situate the area in the border area east of the Nile Delta. Current theory
232 Also the name of a region (Josh. 10:41; 11:16) and a city (Josh. 15:51) in Judah; the
etymology of the Semitic name is uncertain; it is not a Hebraicized Egyptian name; see Vergote,
183ff.
puts the area at Wadi Tumilat, a narrow stretch of land fit for cultivation and
surrounded by steppe terrein, stretching from the Delta to the Bitter Lakes, a
region which appealed to nomads, as an Egyptian papyrus testifies (papyrus
Anastasi, VI, 55f., 60; cf. ANET, 259a). It remains uncertain, however, precisely
what region was meant by ‘Goshen.’ If it is admitted that ‘Goshen’= ‘land of
Rameses’ (see Gen. 47:11 alongside of Gen. 45:10) and if one accepts the
locations of Pithom (§§ 30) and Rameses (§§31) which are currently proposed,
then the area north of Wadi Tumilat presents an obvious choice. If it is
concluded on the basis of Gen. 41:45 that Joseph lived in On/Heliopolis (cf.
LXX 1:11; see §§30), then, in view of 45:10; 46:28f.; 47:11 (Joseph wants to
have his family close by), one must put Goshen to the south of Wadi Tumilat.
H. Cazelles233 believes that Goshen was located in that part of southern
Judah (Josh. 10:41; 11:16; see above) which was under Egyptian domination
and that it is not identical to ‘the land of Rameses’ (different traditions have
supposedly been assimilated).
8.6.2 As a rule, the LXX renders s>: p n as r&rep (Gen. 47:1, etc.; see
also Jdt. 1:9); in 45:10 as yi) rioeji 'Apctpiaq (see also Gen. 46:34); in Hellenis
tic times, Arabia was one of the districts of the eastern Delta and modern
Fakus was its capital city. The name was also used in a wider sense to indicate
the whole region east of the Nile Delta.234 In the LXX, Gen. 46:28,29
contains the following geographical designation: icafl’ ‘Hprfxov roSXiv (+etq ytiv
Pane«rcrf| in 46:27; see § 8.31);235 according to the LXX, Jacob entered Egypt
through the southern access route and the first part of Wadi Tumilat, in any
event, belongs to the land of Rameses. Does the divergence in translation
mean that ‘Goshen’ did not coincide with the ‘land of Rameses’ for the
translator?
8.6.3 Gen. 46:34 creates the impression that the Israelites lived in isolation
from the Egyptians. In Exodus Goshen plays only a small role as the place
where Israel lived. There are some passages which do create the impression
that the Israelites lived among the Egyptians (2:3ff.; 3:22; 8:16; 9:13; 11:2;
12:21ff, 31,33,35) and in the vicinity of the Nile (1:22; 2:lff.). A more plaus
ible explanation than the suggestion that Israel had spread out throughout
Egypt as a result of population growth (1:7; Gen. 47:27) is the assumption that
different traditions existed with respect to the place where Israel lived in
Egypt. See also Davies, 5,6,8; GreBmann, 400ff.; Z. Mayani, “Sur 1’origine de
‘Goshen’,* RHPhR 35 (1955), 58-60; Montet, 57ff.; Simons, 244ff.; De Vaux,
HAI, 1,287.
8.7 'in (OT 25 x;) ‘Hivite(s),’ pre- and non-Israelite inhabitants of
233 “La localisation de Goshen,* in La toponymie antique, Leiden n.d., 143-50.

234 Neh. 2:19; 6:1, 2 mentions Geshem the Arab (LXX, I~T|(Ta(i); his name occurs on a silver
bowl found in Tell el-Maskhuta.
235 Heroopolis=Tell el-Maskhuta; see §§ 30; cf. the Bohairic translation of 46:28f., ‘Pithom.’
INTRODUCTION
108
Canaan; in Exodus (7x), they are mentioned only in lists (§§3.2). It has been
assumed that they are the same as the ‘Horites’ (Gen. 14:6, et al.)236 whose
name is often related to Hurru (known from Mesopotamian texts).237 The
term is not used in any very definite sense. After the appearance of ‘Hivite’ in
Gen. 34:2, Gen. 34:30 suddenly switches to ‘Canaanites’ and ‘Perizzites.’ See
also §§ 3.1 and §§ 3.2. See further Abel, I, 320; H. Eybers, “Who Were the
Hivites?’ OTWSA.P 1959, 6-14; O. Margalith, “The Hivites,’ ZAW 100
(1988), 60-70; Mendenhall, 154ff.; Simons, 42ff.; De Vaux, HAI, I, 95,133ff.,
575f., 686f., et al.
8.8 :nrt ‘Horeb’ see §§ 23.2
8.9 *nrt (OT 48 x) ‘Hittite(s),’ (a) pre- and non-Israelite inhabitants of
Canaan; (b) (a) people(s) living outside of Canaan (1 Kgs. 10:23, etal.); the
first category is mentioned in lists in Exodus (7x). ‘Hittites’ as a name for
pre-Israelite inhabitants of Canaan raises problems. In the second millennium,
the Hittites forged a powerful empire that reach all the way to Syria in the
fourteenth and thirteenth century. They never penetrated Canaan, however,
according to extra-biblical material. A theory currently emerging is that the
biblical usage corresponds to a custom we find in Assyrian texts dating from
the second half of the ninth century onward. They called all the inhabitants of
northern Syria and Syria in general as well as Canaan Hatti, regardless of their
nation and race. Note also that the Hittites in the OT have Semitic names
(Gen. 23:9 26:34; 36:2; 1 Sam. 26:2; 2 Sam. 11:3; cf. Gen. 10:15). Gen. 27:46 (cf.
Gen. 28:1,8) gives the impression that ‘Hittites’ can serve to indicate the entire
non-Israelite population of Canaan. See also §§3.1 and §§3.2. See further BH,
I, 341,358ff.; IDBS, 41 If.; RLA, IV, 371ff.; Abel, I, 239f.; H.A. Hofner in
Wiseman, 197-228; Van Seters (see §§ 3.3); Simons, 41ff.; De Vaux, HAI, I,
131ff., et al.
8.10 ir * (OT ca. 65x; Exod. 25x; sing., 1:22; 2:3,5; 4:9[2x]; 7:15,17,
18 [3x], 20 [2x], 21 [3x], 24 [2x], 25,28; 8:5,7; 17:5; pi. [OT 17x], 7:19;
S:!)238 ‘Stream’ or ‘River,’ usually a designation for the Nile, but it can also
be used to indicate the Tigris (Dan. 12:5,6,7). The above (see also Isa. 33:21;
Job 28:10) and the fact that in - is ordinarily used with the article and can
occur in the pi. suggests that u r once served as an appellative. The LXX
usually translates *ir* as 6 7ioTap6<; (f| StOpu^ ‘canal’ in 7:18; 8:1); Vulg. flumen
(rivus ‘stream’ in 7:19; 8:1); the targums have tart: (7:19; 8:1 are among the
exceptions here too). The plural can be regarded as a plural of extent (e.g.
Ges-K § 124e; Joiion § 136c). Another possibility is the tributaries and canals
of the Nile in the delta region. See also LA, IV, 480ff.; TfVAT, III, 385ff.;
Montet, 51; Reymond, 88ff.; Schwarzenbach, 64f.; Simons, 68f.
236 See DB, II, 415; IDB, II, 645.

237 See BH, I, 320f., 354ff.; IDBS, 423f.; RLA, IV, 507ff.
238 Egyptian loanword; see Th.O. Lambdin, JAGS 73 (1953), 151; Ellenbogen, 80.
8.11 *012* (OT 39 x) ‘Jebusite(s),’ pre- and non-Israelite inhabitants of

Canaan; they are mentioned only in lists (§§3.2) in Exodus (6x). The OT
(excluding Gen. 10:16) contains no material regarding their origin or race (cf.
Ezek. 16:3,45). See also Abel, I, 320ff.; Simons, 47; De Vaux, HA1,1, 135.
8.12.1 'po'o: (OT 24x; Exod. 5x) is rendered as f| ipudpa 6aXdo<ra ‘the
Red Sea’ in the LXX (with the exception of 1 Kgs. 9:26); see also LXX
Deut. 1:1; 1 Macc. 4:9; Wis. 10:18; cf. Vulg., mare rubrum; the name mare
erythraem is also used in Latin. Herodotus is the first among the classical
authors to mention the Red Sea. In the past it indicated a far vaster area of
ocean than it does now. In addition to the Red Sea, the Arabian Sea, with
beyond it the Indian Ocean, and the Persian Gulf. The origin of the name ‘the
Red Sea’ is unknown. To the translators of the LXX, îo' d* was the Red Sea
along with the two ocean bays surrounding the Sinai Peninsula, the contem
porary Gulf of Suez and the Gulf of Aqaba. Following up a possiblity already
adumbrated by the Bohairic translation which related qio'D' to *po, and Jerome,
who suggested a relationship between qio and îo'D' (see Davies, 28,70,100
n.12), Rashi claimed (referring to 2:3; Isa. 19:6), commenting on 13:18, that *po
in rpomD' indicates a marsh in which reeds grow. This theory has trickled down
into translations such as ‘Sea of Reeds’,‘Reed Sea’ and received support in the
last decennia of the last century from Egyptology: îo is the Hebrew equivalent
of the Egyptian word twf(y) ‘papyrus.’239 qio'D* was thus ascribed the mean
ing ‘papyrus sea’ and ‘YamSuph’ was situated in the marshy area of the
narrows at Suez which contains several lakes. It is presupposed that the Gulf
of Suez extended to the area of the Bitter Lakes and Lake Timsah in antiquity.
The interpretation advanced also offered another advantage in making it
possible to look for ‘YamSuph’ elsewhere in Egypt, which is very rich in
papyrus. Lake Sirbonis adjacent to the Mediterranean Sea has been suggested
as well as a bay in the northeastern delta area which reaches inland a con
siderable distance. The ‘Reed Sea’ interpretation may be considered in 10:19;
13:18; 15:4,22; Num. 33:10f.; Deut. 11:4; Josh. 2:10; 4:23; 24:6 (LXX 2x);
Neh. 9:19; Pss. 106:7,9,22; 136:13,15, but raises problems in 23:31; Num.
14:25; 21:4; Deut. 1:40; 2:1 (cf. 2:8); Judg. 11:16?; 1 Kgs. 9:26; Jer. 49:21. In the
latter verses iyi:rcr is used to refer to the Gulf of Aqaba. Papyrus is found
neither in the Gulf of Aqaba nor in the Gulf of Suez, it being a fresh water
plant.240 The question which arises, then, is whether the association of *yio in
rpo'D' with ‘papyrus’ has been correct (cf. Jonah 2:6),241 and whether or not
239 See e.g. Th.O. Lambdin, JAOS 73 (1953), 153; according to Ward, the term indicates ‘marsh
(plants)’ and, occasionally, ’papyrus.’
^ Some scholars believe that the Gulf of Aqaba is also meant in 13:18; it has even been said
that ‘Yam Suph’ in the OT always applies to the Gulf od Aqaba; see e.g. GreGmann, 414ff.;
Holscher (see §§ 23.7), 130; Schmid, 22f.
^ The suggestion has been made that *po should be vocalized as *po ‘end’; cf. 1 Kgs. 9:26
LXX; e.g. Copisarow; Montgomery; Snaith.
110 INTRODUCTION
is would be wiser to return to the interpretation of the LXX. Since the ‘Red
Sea’ is employed in the narrow sense in modern usage,242 consideration
ought to be given to the possibility of retaining the Hebrew.
8.12.2 Must we conclude from what has been mentioned above that the
location of the crossing was the Gulf of Suez? Somethijg^/hich merits notice
in this respect is the fact that the name *)'io‘o* occurs a mere 4x in the
description of the exodus wheareas □; ‘seaTlake’ (see 10:19) is used very
frequently (22 x), and this also applies to the actual account of the passage
itself (14:2,9,16 [2 x ], 21 [3 x ], 22, 23, 26, 27 [3 x ],28,29,30 and see
15:1,4,8,10,19,21; in 15:4 O'/Apotr). This also gave rise to the view that
Exodus contains various traditions concerning the location of the crossing.
Norin (see § 12.1), 21ff., for example, thinks that in addition to the historically
correct tradition of the crossing of Lake Sirbonis there was the deuteronomis-
tic tradition which held that the crossing had taken place in Yam Suph=Lake
Menzaleh. See §§34.3 on this issue. See further RSP, II, 333; TWAT, V, 794ff.;
Abel, II, 209f.; B. F. Batto, “The Reed Sea: Requiescat in pace,* JBL 102
(1983), 27-35; idem, “Red Sea or Reed Sea,’ BARev 10.4 (1984), 56-63; M.
Bietak, Tell el-Daba‘a, II, Wien 1975; Cazelles, 340ff.; M. Copisarow, “The
Ancient Egyptian, Greek and Hebrew Concept of the Red Sea,“ VT 12 (1962),
1-13; Davies, 6,13,28,31,42,56f., 70ff., 83; A. Mallon, “La Mere Rouge et
PExode,“ Bib 6 (1925), 396-400; Montet, 62f.; J. A. Montgomery, JAOS 58
(1938), 131f.; Reymond, 165f.; Simons, 77f.; N. H. Snaith, VT 15 (1965), 395ff.;
J. R. Towers, “The Red Sea,“ JNES 18 (1959), 150-53; De Vaux, HAT, I, 354f.;
W. A. Ward, “The Semitic Biconsonantal Root sp and the Common Origin of
Egyptian c w f and the Hebrew sup: ‘marsh(-plant)’,* VT 24 (1974), 339-49; W.
Wifall, “The Sea of Reeds as Sheol,* ZAW 92 (1980), 325-32 (the background
of the ‘Reed Sea’ in Exod. 14-15 is Egyptian mythology and the Reed Sea is
identical to Sheol, the underworld; compare also M. Gorg, BN 17 [1982],
26-33); N. Wyatt, “Sea and Desert: Symbolic Geography in West Semitic
Religious Thought,’ UF 19 (1987), 375-89.
8.13.1 (OT ca. 2515x; Exod. 170x) [explained in Gen. 32:29 with the
aid of m» (cf. Hos. 12:4) ‘fight/strive’: ‘he fought with God’*; conceivably, ‘God
fights (with/for you)’*];243 ‘Israel’ is used in Exodus as a personal name
indicating the patriarch Jacob (§5.33); thus 1:1; 6:14; 32:13 (cf. Num. 1:20;
26:5; Judg. 18:29; etal.) and in 28:11,21,29; 39:6,14 (in the construct chain
Sn** cf. Gen. 42:5; 45:21; 46:5,8; 50:25). As a rule, S r t r ‘Israel’ (4:22,
etc.) and Vtofcr *» ‘Israelites’ (1:7, etc.) serve to indicate the people which
^ Cf. W. F. Stinespring in Fs H. G. May, Translating and Understanding the Old Testament,

Nashville/New York 1970, 68ff.
243 Cf. J. P. Fokkelman, Narrative Art in Genesis, Assen/Amsterdam 1975, 216f.; the etymology is
disputed: ‘God (El) is just/exalted/fights/rules/heals/judges’; e.g. R. Coote, HThR 65 (1972), 137-42;
Danell, 22ff.; A. Lemaire, VT 23 (1973), 239-43; Noth, IP, 207ff.
originated with the patriarch. The terms are interchangeable; see, for example,
9:4,7 alongside of 9:6; 19:2 alongside 19:3; 3:16,18 etal. alongside 4:29; 12:3
etal. alongside 16:1 etal. b t n a r ( O T ca. 635x; Exod. 123x) occurs in
Exod. 118x to refer to ‘the Israelites.’ The two-fold use of btrw' (adjacent
to and mingled with each other; 1:1 alongside 1:7,9; 28:11,21,29 alongside
28:1,9,12,30) and the two-fold use of ‘thus* reflects the awareness of a sense
of relationship between ancestor(s) and progeny.244 Expressions used to
refer to Israel as an entity or a community include ^t<KS"n'3 (16:31; 40:38; cf.
Lev. 10:6; 17:3,8,10, etc.; especially in the prophetic books [OT ca. 135 x]; see
§ 3.9 for i t s ) and btcar mu (12:3,6,19,47; cf. Lev. 4:13; Num. 16:9; etal.)/
Ptner •» rnt? (16:1,2,9,10; 17:1; 35:1,4,20; cf. Lev. 16:5; 19:2; Num. 1:2 etal.;
see commentary at 12:3 for rnu).
8.13.2 In 1:1 ‘Jacob’ follows on ‘Israel.’ Such alternation occurs more often
in the OT, and in narrative material occasionally,245 but it occurs primarily
in the poetic and prophetic books/portions (Gen. 49:2,7,24;
Num. 23:7,10,21,23 24:5,17; Deut. 33:10; etc.); the usual order is ‘Jacob’ -
‘Israel’ (but note e.g. Isa. 10:20f.; 41:8; Ezek. 20:5) and the names designate the
people of Israel (contrast e.g. Gen. 48:2; 49:2; Hos. 12:13). a'pir rn//âts*
occurs in 19:3; there are no further occurrences of apv' n*3 in the Pentateuch
and the historical books, but the term occurs repeatedly in the prophetic books
(Isa. 2:5,6; 8:17; etc.) and in Ps. 114:1. See § 11.5 for the historical issue of how
‘Israel in Egypt’ should be construed. See further THAT, I 783ff.; TWAT, III,
986ff.; G.A. Danell, Studies in the Name Israel in the Old Testament, Uppsala
1946; O. Margalith, ‘On the Origin and Antiquity of the Name ‘Israel’,"
ZAW 102 (1990), 225-37; idem, Z A W 103 (1991), 274.
8.14 (OT ca. 90 x; Exod. 3x)246 ‘Canaan’ occurs as a personal
name (Gen.9:18,22,25ff.; etal.) but generally refers to the land promised to
Israel’s fathers by God of which Israel took possession; it often occurs as
p»3 )nt< (6:4; 16:35; Gen. 11:31; 12:5; etal.). The gentilic name 'tt»3 (OT ca.
70x; Exod. 9x) ‘Canaanite(s),’ with the exception of 6:15 (fem. sing.; cf.
Gen. 46:10; 1 Chr. 2:3) and 13:11, is used only in summaries of pre-Israelite
inhabitants of Canaan (§§3.2). In 13:11 (cf. p»3*3p* in 15:15) ‘Canaanites’
refers to the entire pre-Israelite population of the country (cf. Gen. 12:6; 24:3;
Num. 21:1; Judg. 1:3,9f.; + ‘Perizzites’ [§§29] in Gen. 13:7; 34:30; Judg. l:4f.).
The OT contains divergent statements both with regard to the area covered by
Canaan and to the place where the Canaanites had settled. It remains unclear
See e.g. J. L. Koole, “De stamvader,* in Fs W. H. Gispen, Schrifi en Uitleg, Kampen 1970,
79-94; H. Wheeler Robinson, “The Hebrew Conception of Corporate Personality," in Werden und
Wesen des A.T., Berlin 1936, 49-62.
245 See Gen. 47:27 (Israel), 28 (Jacob), 29 (Israel), 31 (Israel); 48:2 (Jacob and Israel); 50:24
(Jacob), 25 (Israel); the names in 50:24 correspond chiastically to the names in Exod. 1:1; compare
also Num. 24:17-19.
246 The etymology is disputed; e.g. De Vaux, HA/, I, 124.
112 INTRODUCTION
whether Canaan is merely a term for the land west of the Jordan247 or whet
her it designates the entire area that came into Israel’s possession according to
the OTs description (e.g,. 6:4; cf. Gen. 17:8 and 50:11). It is assumed in view
of Num. 13:29; Josh. 5:1; 11:3; Judg. 18:7,28; 2 Sam. 24:7; Isa. 23:11 and extra-
biblical data (see IDBS, 125) that ‘Canaan’ was originally a term for the Syrian
(and particularly the Phoenician) coastal area and the northern part of the
Jordan valley which was politically dependent on it,248 and that it later ser
ved to indicate the land which Israel came to possess (e.g. Noth, WAT,
45ff., 70; contrast De Vaux, HAI, I, 57f., 123ff.). The OT castigates the religion
and the morals of Canaan’s pre- and non-Israelite inhabitants on more than
one occasion (e.g. Gen. 9:20ff.; 24:3; 38:2; Lev. 18:3,24ff.; Deut. 9:4; 12:29ff.;
20:18; 1 Kgs. 14:24). See further LA, III, 309f.; RLA, V, 352ff.; TWAT, IV,
224ff.; Abel, I, 254,318f.; II, 12ff.; K. Engelken, ‘Kanaan als nicht-territorialer
Terminus,” BN 52 (1990), 47-63; M. Gorg, ”Der Name ‘Kanaan’ in dgyptischer
Wiedergabe,” BN 18 (1982), 26-27; N.P. Lemche, The Canaanites and Their
Land: The Tradition of the Canaanites, Scheffield 1991; A.R. Millard, in
Wiseman, 29-52; M. Rose, Deuteronomist and Jahwist, Zurich 1982, 173ff.;
Simons, 15ff.; M. Tilly, “Kanaanaer, Handler und der Tempel in Jerusalem,”
BN 57 (1991), 30-6; M. Weippert, ‘Kinahhi,” BN 27 (1985), 18-21.
8.15 Vim 249 ‘Migdol’ (14:2; Num. 33:7 and see also Jer. 44:1; 46:14;
Ezek. 29:10; 30:6) has been located at various places: (a) referring to papyrus
Anastasi V, xix2-xx6 (§§ 4), which mentions Migdol of Seti, some have looked
for Migdol south of Tkw (=Succoth; §§ 24); one suggestion is a fort south of
the Great Bitter Lake and north of Yam Suph on the present Jebel Abu Hassa
(in which case Migdol would be further to the south than Etham; see, to the
contrary, Exod. 14:2); (b) Migdol is identified with the Magdolum known from
the Roman Itinerarium Antonini, situated between Pelusium and Sile (which
some identify with htm of the Anastasi V papyrus; §§ 4) twelve kilometers
south of Pelusium; in that case Migdol is identified with the present Tell
el-Her and would be a fort on ‘the road to the land of the Philistines’ (§§ 28)
(cf. Jer. 44:1; etc.). See further RSP, II, 298f.; Abel, II, 208; Cazelles, 343ff.;
Davies, 81f.; E.D. Oren, ‘Migdol: A New Fortress on the Edge of the Eastern
Nile Delta,” BASOR 256 (1984), 7-44; Simons, 248f., 447f., 457f.; DeVaux,
HAI, I, 356f.
247 See Gen. 13:12; 36:6; Exod. 16:35; cf. Josh. 5:12 and see also Exod. 15:15 and especially
Num. 33:51; 35:10,14; Josh. 22:10, 11, 25, 32.
248 Note that ‘Canaan’ occurs in texts from the Hellenistic period as a term for Phoenicia (see
IDBS, 125); the LX X does render as <t>olviKT) (16:35), <ho(viK£<; (Josh. 5:12); as
<t>o(viKT| (Josh. 5:1; rni)33 as ihotviooa (6:15) and D'l»33 as tonvltceq (Job 40:30); the usual
translation is Xavadv/Xavavato^; compare also Matt. 15:22 alongside of Mark 7:26.
249 Derivative of b l l (see THAT, I, 402; TWAT, II, 929) ‘tower,’ ‘fort’; cf. Migdal-Eder/-EI/-Gad
(see Bourse, 85, 108); also occurs in the Amaraa letters (234, 29) and as a Semitic loan word in
Egyptian texts, as an appellative and as a proper name (see LA, IV, 124f.).
8.16 (OT ca. 60x; Judg. 30x; Exod. 2:15f.; 3:1; 4:19; 18:1) ‘Midian
(ites)’; they are portrayed as caravan traders (Gen. 37:28,36) and as shepherds
(2:16ff.; 3:1); the OT contains positive statements concerning them
(Exod. 2—4; 18:9ff.; compare the position of the ‘Kenites’ in Judg. 1:5; 4:11,17;
1 Sam. 15:6) as well as negative ones (Num. 22:4,7; 25:31; Josh. 13:21;
Judg. 6 -8 ; cf. Rev. 2:14). It has been assumed that ‘Midian’ is a term used for
various clans, including the Kenites.250 According to the information in the
OT, they stayed east of the Jordan and the Arabah (Gen. 36:35; Num. 22; 25;
31; Judg. 6:3,33; 7:12; cf. Gen. 25:6) and, it seems, east of Canaan (1
Kgs. 11:1s).251 Josephus (AJ, II, 257) relates that on his flight, Moses came
to "the city of MaStava, located by the Red Sea and named after one of the
sons which Abraham had conceived with Keturah" (cf. Gen. 25:2,4). It is
generally accepted that one should look for the town in northwestern Arabia
east of the Gulf of Aqaba. Ptolemaeus (Geographia, VI, 7,27) situates a city
along the coast named MoSlava in this area, as well as another city further
inland called M aStava.252 According to tradition, Su'aib (Jethro) supposedly
lived there. See also §§ 23.4 on the issue of the location of Midian. See further
Abel, I, 285ff., 392f.; W.F. Albright, "Midianite Donkey Caravans,* in
Fs H.G. May, Translating and Understanding the Old Testament, Nashville/New
York 1970, 197-205; C.E. Bosworth, “Madyan Shu'ayb in Pre-Islamic and Early
Islamic Lore and History,* JSS 29 (1984), 53-64; Davies, 10,64f.; GreBmann,
417f.; Gottwald, 462f.; G. Hort, “Musil, Madian and the Mountain of the
Law,* in Fs G. Sicher, Jewish Studies, Prague 1955, 81-93; I. Kalimi, "Three
Assumptions about the Kenites,* ZAW 100 (1988), 386-93; Keel-Kiichler, II,
296ff., 302; E.A. Knauf, Midian, Wiesbaden 1988; Mendenhall, 163ff.; J. Mont
gomery, Arabia and the Bible, Philadelphia 1934, 9f., 47; H.St. Philby, The Land
o f Midian, London 1957; Simons, 62f.; Sawyer, et al., (see §§ 1); De Vaux, HA1,
I, 313ff.
8.17 PKio (OT ca. 180x; Exod. 15:15) (in Gen. 19:37 LXX explained with
the aid of £k tou 7iaxp6<; hod=*pi*p ‘from my father’*] ‘Moab(ites),’ neigh
bouring country (people) of Israel located (living) in the area east of the Dead
Sea and bordered on the south by the brook Zered. See further IDBS, 602;
Abel, I, 278ff.; Sawyer, et al., (see §§ 1); J.R. Kautz, “Tracking the Ancient
OCA
Also note the alternating use of ‘Midianites’ and ishmaelites’ in Gen. 37:25,28,36;
Judg. 8:22, 24, 26; see M. An bar (Bernstein), “Changement des noms des tribus nomades dans la
relation d’un m6me 6v6nement,* Bib 49 (1968), 221-32, and Kitchen, 123; W J. Dumbrell,
“Midian - a land or a league?*, VT 25 (1975), 323-37, defends a new form of the theory presented
earlier by P. Haupt which holds that Midian is a term for a confederation of tribes.
251 According to O. EiBfeldt, “Protektorat der Midianiter uber ihre Nachbam im letzten Viertel
des 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr.,* JBL 87 (1968), 383-93, they formed an important power in the last
centuries of the second millenium that made a ‘protectorate’ of the entire area later dominated by
the Nabataeans, including the Sinaitic peninsula.
252 Also mentioned by Eusebius (Onomastikon 124) and by Arabian geographers.
114 INTRODUCTION
Moabites,* BA 44 (1981), 27-35; Simons, 64f.; S. Timm, Moab zwischen den

Mdchten: Studien zu historischen Denkm&lem und Texten, Wiesbaden 1989;
De Vaux, HAJ, I, 480ff.; U. Worschech, Die Beziehungen Moabs zu Israel und
Agypten in der Eisenzeit, Wiesbaden 1990; A.H. van Zijl, The Moabites, Leiden
1960.
8.18 ronpi non ‘Massah (Test) and Meribah (Quarrel)’ (17:7; Ps. 95:8; cf.
Deut. 33:8),253 a double name of which the first element is explained with
the aid of piel no: (17:2,7): Israel has put y h w h to the test, and the second
with the aid of O'n (17:2 ( 2 x ) , 7): Israel has contended with y h w h . ‘Meribah’
in Num. 20 is also explained in terms of 3*n (Num. 20:3,13). ‘Massah and Mer
ibah,’ however, are located near Rephidim (§§32)254 at the beginning of the
desert sojourn; ‘Meribah’ near Kadesh (§§ 23.5) at the end of Israel’s stay in
the desert. Was ‘Meribah’ an old name for Kadesh, a place where judgment
was pronounced (cf. Gen. 14:7 “well of judgment’) which receives a new
explanation in Num. 20? Does 17:7 also contain a new explanation for existing
names? The names Massah and Meribah have not been transcribed by the
LXX (with the exception of Ezek. 47:19; 48:28) and the Vulgate but have been
translated; Massah in 17:7 as neipou^6q and Temptatio; Meribah in 17:7 as
AovSdpTitnq.255 See further Simons, 136,252f., 256f.; De Vaux, HAI, I,
394,494.
8.19 cnsn (OT ca. 680x; Exod. 175x)256 ‘Egypt’ (1:6,8; etc.) /‘Egyp
tians’ (1:13; 3:8,9; etc.).257 H. Winckler adamantly argued at the end of the
19th and the beginning of the 20th century, in connection with his contention
that Israel had never been in Egypt, that D"rc» is often a term for the land of
Musri which is said to have encompassed the area of the later empire of the
Nabataeans (cf. Engel, 62ff.). The theory has been completely abandoned.258
o*iso in Exodus is the area around and near the Nile valley and delta. The
gentilic name "iso (OT 29x) is used in Exodus as a substantive (2:12,14) and
as an adjective (1:19; 2:11,19). In Exodus, Egypt is the land of oppres
^ 3 See also Deut. 6:16; 9:22 for ‘Massah’; see also Num. 20:13, 24; Pss. 81:8; 106:32 for
‘Meribah’; compare also Num. 27:14; 32:51; Ezek. 47:19; 48:28.
254 See also 17:6, however, which mentions Horeb (§§ 23.2).
^ A translation is lacking in the Vulg. which has ‘solved’ the problem of how Num. 20 is
related to Exod. 17 in this way.
True dual ‘Upper and Lower Egypt’ (e.g. KoSynt § 257a) or apparent dual (e.g. Ges-K
§ 88c); cf. Fontinoy, 55f., 65,145; idem, UF 3 (1971), 39; the etymology is uncertain; some
associate it with Akkadian misru(m) ‘border,’ ‘area’ (see AHw, II, 659); it is a Semitic word which
has equivalents in other Semitic languages (see HAL).
25' Construed as sing. (e.g. 12:33; 14:25) as well as pi. (e.g. 1:13; 3:9); cf. KoSynt § 346k.
258 For D'")2Q=an empire in Asia Minor called Musri, e.g. DBS, V, 1468ff.; H. Tadmor, IEJ 11
(1961), 143-50.
sion.259 The term ‘Egypt’ need not to have had a negative ring to an Israelite
by definition (e.g. Gen. 12:10ff.; 47; 50:20; 1 Kgs. 3:1; 11:40; 2 Kgs. 18:21;
Jer. 43). See further RSP, II, 357f.; TRE, I, 465ff.; TWAT, IV, 1099ff.;
P.A.H. de Boer, “Egypt in the Old Testament: Some Aspects of an Ambivalent
Assessment,* OTS 27 (1991), 152-67; W. Caspari, “Der semitische Name
Agyptens und der Agypter," ZAW 29 (1909), 268-74; L.M. Muntingh, “Egypt
as a Hermeneutical Principle in the Theology behind the Plagues of Egypt,"
OTWSA 29 (1986), 113-46; J.M. Reich, “The Geographical Terms Mizraim and
Pathros," JAOS 12 (1928), 43-45; Simons, 26f.; Williams, in Wiseman, 79-99.
8.20 rna ‘Marah (Bitterness)’ (15:23 [3x]; Num. 33:8f.), a place in the
desert whose name is explained with the aid of via (see at 1:14). It is remar
kable that the name is mentioned in advance of the actual naming. This is
apparently the reason that the LXX renders the first two instances as Meppa
and the final instance as riocpta ‘Bitterness’ (the Vulgate leaves ‘Marah’
untranslated and adds id est amaritudinem). ‘Bitterness’ is probably a desert
lake of which the water originates from either a rare downpour or from a
water vein present in the earth. Since the water was stagnant, the latter option
is likely (cf. Reymond, 97). Wells and ponds with stagnant and distasteful
water occur at various places in the desert and their location is thus difficult to
identify. Depending on which theory is affirmed with respect to the location of
the crossing of the Sea and the site of the Sinai, Marah has been identified
with the following places: AinHawara, two hours’ travel north of Wadi
Garandel (§§ 2); Ain Nabah, somewhat southeast of Suez, north of the oasis
Ayun Musa (§§ 2) which lies 15km from Suez; Marah has also been considered
as the chief well of Elim (=et-Tur) [Meyer, IN, 103]; ‘Bitterness’ has in
addition been sought in the Bitter Lakes district and (on the assumption that
Elim= Elat; §§2) on the eastern side of the Gulf of Aqaba. See further Abel,
II, 210; Bourde, 38; Davies, 83f.; GreBmann, 123f., 412ff.; Simons, 251f.
8.21 in ; (OT ca. 120 x ) ‘river’ is used to refer to a stream which as a rule
features ample water (e.g. Num. 24:6). -inin ‘the River’ is used to refer to great
rivers such as the Nile (Isa. 19:5) and the Tigris (Dan. 10:4) and is used more
than occasionally for the paragon of all rivers, the Euphrates (Gen. 31:21;
Num. 22:5; Deut. 11:24; 2 Sam. 8:3; etal.); this also holds true for 23:31 ; ‘the
River’ is used in a description of the boundaries of the land of Canaan.260
The fern. pi. is used in 7:19; 8:1 (cf. Isa. 19:6; Jer. 46:7f.; Ezek. 32:2,14) to
indicate the tributaries and the canals of the Nile. See also our text at §§ 10
7SQ
P. van Oussoren, De eerste lezing 1 (1980), translates as ‘Fearland’; the name is not
explained in the OT, with the aid of T13 I ‘be in crisis,’ or "112 II, ‘treat with hostility’; the
translator/expositor cannot usurp the right to do so.
260 Cf. Gen. 15:18; Deut. 1:7; 11:24; Josh. 1:4; 1 Kgs. 1:5; Isa. 27:12; Mic. 7:12; Zech. 9:10 and
see M. Saeb0, “Grenzbeschreibung und Landideal im Alien Testament mit besonderer Beriicksich-
tigung der min-‘ad-Formel,BZDPV 90 (1974), 14-37.
116 INTRODUCTION
and see further Abel, I, 299, 308; II, 132; Houtman, Himmel, 270f.; Reymond,
85ff.; Schwarzenbach, 63f.; Stadelmann, 158ff.; Simons, 32f., 96.
8.22 fp ‘Sin’ (16:1; 17:1; Num. 33:11,12), the name of the desert situated
between Elim (§§2) and the Sinai (§§23). Determination of the location
depends on the theory affirmed with regard to the site of the afore-mentioned
places. The desert has been identified with the plain of Debbet er-Ramleh on
the western edge of the Sinai plateau on the Sinaitic peninsula but others have
looked for it in the north. ‘Sin’ occurs in Ezek. 30:15f. as the name of an
Egyptian city (identified with Pelusium). The similarity between ]*o and to on
the one hand, and the similarity to p, the name of the desert southeast of what
was later to be Judah (Num. 13:21; 20:1; et al.), on the other hand, command
attention.261 The description of the beginning of Israel’s sojourn in the
desert as well as the description of its end consequently mention a comparable
name. If one is inclined to locate Elim and Meribah (§§ 18) near Kadesh (as
does Bohl, for instance), then it seems apparent that ‘Sin’ and ‘Tsin’ can both
be considered to serve as designations for the same desert. See further Abel, I,
414,434ff.; II, 46,212f.; Simons, 252f.
8.23.1 to (OT 35x; Exod. 13x; outside Exod.-Num. in Deut. 33:2;
Judg. 5:5; Ps. 68:9,18; Neh. 9:13)262 ‘Sinai’ is used in unbound form in 16:1;
Deut. 33:2; Judg. 5:5; Ps. 68:9,18 and, in addition, in the construct chains to in
‘the Sinai mountain(s)’ (19:11, etc.; 17x; §3.16.1) and to i?ip ‘the Sinai
desert’ (19:1,2, etc.; 13x; §3.31). It is not clear whether the desert owes its
name to the mountain or the mountain its name to the desert, to in meaning
‘the mountain in the Sinai desert’ in the latter case (see KBL). Abel, I, 391,
surmises that the mountain was called Horeb and acquired the name Sinai
through its proximity to the Sin desert; he also considers it possible that the
name of both the mountain and the desert stem from the god Sin.
8.23.2 The use of ‘Sinai’ in the Pentateuch virtually remains limited to
Exod.-Num. In Deuteronomy (1:2,6,19, etc.; 9x) and elsewhere as well (3:1;
17:6; 33:6; 1 Kgs. 8:9; 19:8; Mai. 3:22; Ps. 106:19; 2 Chr.5:10; cf. Sir. 48:7
‘Sinai’/‘Horeb’) the name ‘Horeb’ is used to refer to the place where y h w h ’s
revelation occurred. ‘Horeb’ is never related to ‘desert’ and only once to
‘mountain’ (33:6); ‘Horeb’ does stand in apposition to ‘the mountain of God’
twice (3:1; 1 Kgs. 19:8); §3.16.2. Din is generally interpreted as
961 The LXX and the Vulg. have rendered ]'0 and
, ,
in the same fashion, namely as X eiv/Liv
and Sin; in the CV and the WV both terms have also been rendered identically; contrast, e.g. NV
(‘Sin’ and ‘Zin’); GNB (‘Sin’ and ‘Tsin’).
262 'phg etymology and meaning are uncertain; it has been associated with the name of the
Mesopotamian god of the moon, Sin, and with the term rup (see at 3:2).
‘wasteland.’263
The theory generally accepted at the moment is that Sinai and Horeb refer
to the same place. It is assumed that the place of the revelation is indicated by
different terms in different currents of tradition for reasons we cannot
recover.264 A number of scholars admit the theory that the Pentateuch con
tains different traditions with respect to the location of the mountain of God
(see also §§ 23.7) but these do not, as a rule, coincide with passages containing
‘Sinai’ and passages containing ‘Horeb.’ Westphal, 41ff., for instance, states
that Horeb, near Kadesh, is the site of the revelation, while Sinai in the south
of the peninsula has become the mountain of god in the process of tradition,
and the name ‘Horeb’ too has been transferred to that mountain; Kittel
(§§ 23.5) thinks that Sinai was the name of a mountain near Kadesh; the name
was transferred to the Horeb mountains situated to the south. McNeill, ciiff.,
on the contrary, thinks that according to the Sinai passages, the mountain was
close to Kadesh, while according to the Horeb passages, the mountain was
located southeast of the Gulf of Aqaba (Jebel Harb), whereas Holscher affirms
the theory that the Sinai was located southeast of Kadesh, according to J,
Horeb=the mountain of God was located east of the Gulf of Aqaba according
to E, while p ‘moved’ the Sinai to the south of the Sinaitic peninsula. Kitchen,
124, does not want to take various traditions into account. The fact that a
sacred site is referred to with two names is not at all remarkable in the light of
Ancient Near Eastern history, in his opinion (cf. GreBmann, 32). Even so, it
remains noteworthy that Deut. consistently uses ‘Horeb.’ Perlitt believes that
the Deuteronomist introduced the name n7n ‘wasteland’ as ‘substitute’ for
‘Sinai’ because that name was offensive for a variety of reasons (including the
proximity of the mountain to Seir/Edom).265 The last word on this issue has
not yet been spoken.
Another theory that is put forth is that Horeb refers to a larger area than
Sinai, and that Sinai belongs to Horeb.266
8.23.3 The OT contains little information with regard to the site of Sinai
(16:1; 19:2; Num. 10:12) and Horeb (Deut. 1:2,19). Moreover, the information
given is enveloped by uncertainty. It is therefore not surprising that opinion on
the location of the mountain is divergent. According to Christian tradition, the
263 See e.g. TWAT, III, 160ff.; Perlitt, 315ff.; Bohl, commentary at 3:1, relates the name to
YHWH, ‘Destroyer,’ while Auerbach, 33, connects it to D"in ‘sword’ - ‘Sword cliff; the Rabbinic
literature also relates it to ‘sword’ in various ways; e.g. ExR., II, 4; cf. Ginzberg, II, 302; it has been
avowed that the mountain of the revelation bore three, five, or even six names.
264 Sinai in J and P?; Horeb in D and E?; Schmidt, 136f., strongly argues that ‘H o re j^ bris ng ^to
the ‘scope of Deuteronomic-Deuteronomistic Literature.’ f ^ $. V
265 ^he Deuteronomist created a considerable distance between that area
reason (Deut. 1:2).
OKA ' ' / SN N k V
266 According to t< 17:1, 6, Rephidim (§§ 32) also belongs to Horeb; e.g. S egat^T fi t l ^ ^ l i l ^ v isf
not new; e.g. Calmet. Cv
f
118 INTRODUCTION
Sinai is Jebel Musa (2244 m) in the south of the Sinaitic peninsula, which
forms part of a mountain ridge and is flanked to the northwest by the three
peaks of Ras es-Sufsafeh (2045 m) and to the southwest by Jebel Musa and
Jebel Katherin (2606 m).267 The oldest testimony in the traditions dates
from the 4th century, but it is possible that its roots reach back to Jewish
tradition, (see Davies, 15,23f., 27f.). The theory current in the ancient Chris
tian tradition was that Sinai and Horeb were not identical (a theory not shared
by Jerome). Differing notions apparently existed concerning the site of Horeb.
It is possible that Horeb was identified with Jebel Serbal, 30 km northwest of
Jebel Musa near Wadi Feiran (§§ 32; cf. Exod. 17:6).268 The ancient notion
that Sinai= Jebel Musa has had adherents right up to the present day. Their
theory is that Israel encamped (19:lf.; Num. 33:15) in the valley/plain of er-
Raha facing the Ras es-Sufsafeh. In support of the notion that the mountain of
God should be sought in the south of the Sinaitic peninsula on might refer to
Deut. 1:2,19, where it is stated that the distance between Horeb and Kadesh
(§§23.5) is 11 days journey.269 The conclusion which has been drawn from
2nd and 3rd century AD. Nabataean inscriptions on Jebel Musa and particularly
on Jebel Serbal is that these mountains were sacred and have been the object
of pilgrimage since the most ancient times (see Noth, GI, 122; cf. DeVaux,
HAI, I, 401f.). An objection raised against the southern site is that the Egyp
tian presence there (with such aims as mining) would have made the area
unsuitable as a place of refuge and that it is improbable that Israel would have
detoured all the way to the south when the destiny of their journey was
Palestine.
8.23.4 The Englishman Ch.T. Beke alleged in 1834 that the Sinai was a
volcano and should be sought outside of the Sinaitic peninsula since there are
no volcanoes there. His suggestion received no attention initially but at the
end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century some scholars, particular
ly German ones, endorsed it (e.g. GreBmann, 412ff.; Meyer, IN, 67ff.). They
looked for the Sinai east of the Gulf of Aqaba, considered the Gulf of Aqaba
to be Yam Suph (§§ 12) and Elim (§§ 2) to be a place on the Gulf. This theory
has continued to retain adherents (e.g. Gese; Noth, GI, 123f.) and obtained an
ardent champion in the Frenchman J. Koenig. Following the lead of A. Musil,
he and others consider the Hala’l-Bedr ‘the crator of the full moon,’ southeast
of the Gulf of Aqaba in Arabia, to be the biblical Sinai.270 We will state in
267 The renowned St. Catherine monastary was founded in the 61’1 century in the valley between
Jebel Musa and Jebel Katherin.
268 Jebel Serbal was considered as the Sinai in the 19th century; see Dillmann, 192f.; Holzinger,
65; cf. Davies, 43f.
269 Cf. G.I. Davies, "The Significance of Deuteronomy 1.2. for the location of Mount Horeb,"
PEO 111 (1979), 87-101.
270 Other non-volcanic mountains east of the Gulf have also been identified as Sinai; e.g. the
Bagir by Lucas, 70ff. (implying consequences for the sites of other places).
short the arguments on which this theory is based, with the addition of
occasional critical remarks.
2l Midian (§§ 16) was located east of the Gulf of Aqaba. Scholars have
pointed out that in accounts of theophanies (Deut. 33:2; Judg. 5:4f.; Hab. 3:3;
cf. 3:7) YHWH comes from the area east of the Arabah (cf. Deut. 1:2; going by
way Seir). We should, however, note the following: Sinai is not explicitly
located southeast of the Gulf of Aqaba; Edom and Teman are situated a great
distance from the Hala’l-Bedr to the north of the Gulf (the passages would
thus seem to indicate a northern site as more likely); no uncertainty exists with
respect to the correct location of the areas mentioned in theophanic descrip
tion; Paran, and perhaps Seir as well, were located west of the Arabah; the
land of Midian probably extended equally far (according to Exod. 3:1; 18:5,27;
Num. 10:3, the mountain of God was beyond the Midian region); the passages
mentioned do not exclude the possibility that Mt. Sinai was located west of the
Arabah or even further south on the Sinai peninsula (cf. Davies, 64f.; De Vaux,
HAI, I, 408). See further L.E. Axelsson, The Lord Rose Up from Seir: Studies in
the History and Traditions of the Negev and Southern Judah, Stockholm 1987 (cf.
C. Frevel, BN 47 [1989], 58ff.); M. Gorg, ‘Zur Identitat der ‘Seir-Lander’,’ BN
46 (1989), 7-12.
b The description of y h w f Ts appearance on Mt. Sinai displays features
which suggest a volcanic eruption (19:18; 24:15ff.; Deut. 4:llf.; 5:23f.; 9:15; also
compare Judg. 5:5; Isa. 63:19-64:2; Mic. l:3f.; Nah. 1:5; Hab. 3:6; see also
Exod. 13:21f.). This issue will be given consideration in our exegesis of
Exod. 19. It should be pointed out in the present context that the description
contains no images of lava flows and that features reminiscent of a volcanic
eruption may have been adopted on account of stylistic considerations.
Whatever the case may be, Exod. 19 also displays features stemming from
thunder storms (19:16,19), and, moreover, it would be improbable that people
stay in the direct vicinity of an active volcano.271
c The sites mentioned in Exodus and Numbers support the hypothesis.
Thus, for instance, there are those who defend the notion that Num. 33:18-36
(with the exception of 33:30b-34a; cf. Deut. 10:6f.) describes in reverse order
the route that pilgrims would have had to cover from Kadesh via Eshon
Geber/Elath on the northern tip of the Gulf of Aqaba in order to arrive at
Mt. Sinai in Arabia;272 it is pointed out that the route accords with what is
said in Deut. 1:2 (Gese, 84).273 It must be noted, however, that the as
sumption that it was customary in ancient Israel (even in the period of the
kings) to make pilgrimages to Mt. Sinai is rather speculative (1 Kgs. 19 can
271 Cf. Davies, 65f.; De Vaux, HAI, I, 409; Zuber (see § 11.1), 15-59.
272 See Gese, 85ff.; M. Noth, “Der Wallfahrtsweg zum Sinai,* PJB 36 (1940), 5-28.
27^ Pilgrims covered about 50 km per day; the distance between Kadesh and Hala’l-Bedr is
about 560 km.
120 INTRODUCTION
hardly serve as corroboration). It is furthermore by no means certain that

Num. 33:18ff. lists the names of places situated east and southeast of the Gulf
of Aqaba.274
d Material from outside the OT supports the theory. Gese, 88ff., refers to
Gal. 4:25, for instance. The interpretation of the material raises problems,
however.275 It was not until the Middle Ages, asserts Davies, 52f., 55,58, that
the theory that Mt. Sinai was located east of the Gulf of Aqaba originated, a
result of anti-Christian sentiments among Arabic authors, engendered by the
crusades.
8.23.5 H. Graetz suggested in 1878 that Mt. Sinai should be sought in the
vicinity of Kadesh. His suggestion has garnered support in the 20th century
from various quarters.276
tznp (Gen. 14:7, etc; 14x) [‘holy place’] ‘Kadesh’/yro flip (Num. 32:8, etc.;
10 x) [the meaning of ‘Barnea’ is unknown] ‘Kadesh-Barnea’ is an oasis south
of Canaan, west of the Arabah and east of ‘the brook of Egypt’ (Wadi el-
Arish). According to biblical tradition, Israel sojourned there a long time
(Num. 14:34; Deut. 1:46; 2:14) and it was the scene of a whole chain of events
(Num. 13-20:22). Kadesh has in more recent biblical scholarship regularly
been presented as the site where Israel was founded as a nation.277 There
are three oases at some distance from each other in the region mentioned:
Ain Qadeis, Ain el-Qudeirat, Ain el-Quseimeh. Kadesh has been identified with
the first oasis on account of its name. Since the second oasis is bigger and has
much more water, Kadesh is often identified with it instead. Some have also
assumed that Israel sojourned throughout the entire region.278
Those who elect for the above location of Sinai identify the mountain as
274 Cf. Davies, 87ff; De Vaux, HAI, I, 407; Zuber (see § 11.1), 61-72.
275 See Davies, 10f., 30; idem, "Hagar, el-Hegra and the Location of Mount Sinai," VT 22
(1972), 152-63; De Vaux, HAI, I, 406f.
27° See e.g. J. Gray, "The Desert Sojourn of the Hebrews and the Sinai -H o re b tradition," VT 4
(1954), 148-54; Hyatt, 206; C.S. Jarvis, "The Forty Year’s Wandering of the Israelites," PEQ 1938,
25-40* R. Kittel, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, I, Stuttgart 19327, 343ff.
277 See e.g. Auerbach, 74ff.; Meyer, IN, 52ff.; Noth, GI, 123 n. 3, in contrast, states that a long
sojourn by Israel there is a theme with no basis "in the primary deposit of Pentateuch tradition";
others, such as Herrmann, Geschichte (see § 11.1), 108ff. and De Vaux, HAI, I, 392ff., have more
recently placed renewed emphasis on the importance of the role of Kadesh in the history of Israel’s
origins.
^ 78 See further P. Buis, “Qadesh, un lieu maudit?", VT 24 (1974), 268-85; Cazelles, Mo'ise,
116ff.; R. Cohen, BARev 7.3 (1981), 20-33; idem, BA 44 (1981), 93-107; idem, "The Excavations at
Kadesh Barnea, 1976-1982," Qadmoniot 16 (1983),2-14 (Hebr.); V. Fritz et al., "Kadesch in
Geschichte und Uberlieferung," BN 9 (1979), 45-70 (Bibl.); C.HJ. de Geus, "Kadesh Barnea,"
OTS 20 (1977), 56-66; M. Gorg, "Kinza (Qadesch) in hieroglyphischen Namenslisten?," BN 44
(1988), 23-6; GreBmann, 419ff.; Houtman, lnl Pent, 178,207; Z. Kallai, "The Wandering-
Traditions from Kadesh-Barnea to Canaan," in G. Vermes and J. Neusner (eds.), Essays in Honour
o f Y. Yadin, Totowa, NJ 1983, 175-84; Keel/Kuchler, II, 177ff.; E.A. Knauf, BN 61 (1992), 22-6,
(Kadesh = Petra).
Jebel Halal, 40 km west of Kadesh, among other possibilities. Various ar

guments are marshalled in support of this view: a number of texts (§§ 23.4.a)
associate Sinai with the region south of Canaan; Israel engages in battle with
the Amalakites, who lived in the northern part of the Sinai peninsula, at
Rephidim (§§ 32) (near Mt. Sinai; see Exod. 19:2); Meribah (§§ 18) was close
to Kadesh; one would expect the appearance of quails (16:13; Num. ll:31ff.) to
take place on the northwestern part of the peninsula; a location near Kadesh
accords better with 3:18; 5:3; 8:23 (three days journey from Egypt). Objections
which may be raised against this theory include: the journey from Egypt to
Kadesh requires more than three days; Kadesh is associated with the Paran
(Num. 13:26) and the Zin desert (Num. 33:36), but appears nowhere in
relation to the Sinai desert; Num. 33 lists 21 layovers between Sinai (vs. 15)
and Kadesh (vs. 36); Num. 11-13 mentions three such places; Deut. 1:2 puts
the duration of the journey from Horeb to Kadesh at eleven days (see also 1
Kgs. 19:8); the impression which is created is that Sinai was located at great
distance from Kadesh (cf. Davies, 66f.; De Vaux, HAI, I, 399f.).
8.23.6 Z. Ilan, ‘Could ‘Mount Sinai’ be Serabit el-Khadem?", BetM 24
(1979), 278-82, has recently argued that Mt. Sinai should be identified with a
mountain east of the Gulf of Suez in the area of Serabit el-Khadim. The
Egyptians exploited copper, turqoise, and malachite mines there (e.g. Rothen-
berg, 137ff.). Cazelles, Moise, 77ff., portrays the site as a meeting place
between Egyptian and Semitic religion and culture and regards it quite likely
that the sacred mountain was located there according to a certain tradition.
8.23.7 It is not particularly surprising in view of the difficulties which the
biblical material raises that some scholars argue that the OT contains different
traditions concerning the location of the mountain on which the revelation
took place; Koenig (§§ 23.4) believes that the tradition that Mt. Sinai was
located on the Sinai peninsula was introduced into the Pentateuch after the
exile (RHPhR 43 [1963], llff.); Davies, 68f., puts Sinai/Horeb on the southern
part of the peninsula; ‘the mountain of God’ (§3.16.2; ‘Horeb’ is a gloss in
3:1) is three days journey from Egypt (3:18, etc.) in the area of the Jebel Sin
Bisher, approximately 65 km southeast of Suez, or more to the northeast (see
§§23.2 for other theories, and see furthermore Booij; Cazelles, Moise,
46ff., 77ff., 117ff.).
8.23.8 One cannot, in determining one’s view with regard to the site of
y h w h ’s revelation, isolate this question from the position one has adopted
concerning the genesis of the Pentateuch. If one is convinced that the Pen
tateuch encompasses traditions of quite different origin, one will more quickly
tend to seriously consider the possibility that the mountain is located in
northwestern Arabia than if one wishes to grant the Hexateuch a greater
measure of credit - whether or not one is willing to recognize the varied
character of the material it comprises - with regard to the main lines running
through it: Israel’s sojourn in Egypt, the journey through the desert, and the
122 INTRODUCTION
conquest of Canaan. In the last case one will tend to look for the location of
the mountain on which the revelation took place on the Sinai peninsula.
Offhand, such a location seems more plausible, and one will simply have to
accept that the material in the OT does not allow the possibility of indicating
the site more definitively.
Bibl.: TWAT, V, 819ff.; Abel, I, 391ff.; E. Anati, Har Karkom, montagna sacra
del deserto dell’esodo, Milan 1984 (cf. idem, BeO 26 [1984], 3-29,151-8; BARev
11.4 (1985), 42-57; A. Bonora, BeO 26 [1984], 215-7; W.H. Stiebing, BARev
11.4 (1985), 58-69); Th. Booij, “Mountain and Theophany in the Sinai Nar
rative,* Bib 65 (1984), 1-26; Davies, 63ff., etal.; H. Gese in FsL. Rost, Das
feme und das tiahe Wort, Berlin 1967, 81-94; M. Gorg, “Der Sinai: ‘(Der Berg)
des Erzgebietes’?,’ BN 54 (1990), 12-8; G. Holscher, “Sinai und Choreb“, in
Fs R. Bultmann, Stuttgart/Koln 1949, 127-32; J. Koenig, RHPhR 43 (1963),
2-31; idem, RHPhR 44 (1964), 200-35; idem, RHR 166 (1964-B), 121-41; idem,
RHR 167 (1965-A), 129-55; idem, RHR 169 (1966-A), 1-36; idem, RHR 173
(1968-A), 1-42; idem, Le site de Al-Jaw dans I’ancien pays de Madian, Paris
1971; A. Lucas, The Route of the Exodus of the Israelites from Egypt, London
1938; P. Maiberger, Topographische und historische Untersuchungen zum
Sinaiproblem, Freiburg/Gottingen 1984; L. Perlitt, “Sinai und Horeb,* in
Fs W. Zimmerli, Beitrdge zur alttestamentlichen Theologie, Gottingen 1977,
302-22; Simons, 253; De Vaux, HAI, 1, 398ff.
In conclusion, we wish to note that archaeological investigation shows that
the Sinai peninsula was a region already explored and settled in the bronze
age; see Th.L. Thompson, The Settlement of Sinai and the Negev in the Bronze
Age, Wiesbaden, 1975, and various contributions to Z. Meshel/I. Finkelstein
(eds.), Sinai in Antiquity, Tel Aviv 1980, and Rothenberg (both of the last
mentioned works work with many illustrations from the peninsula). See further
I. Beit-Arieh, “Fifteen Years in Sinai,“ BARev 10.4 (1984), 26-54.
8.24 nino ‘Succoth’ (also the name of a place in the trans-Jordan;
Gen. 33:17 et al.), Israel’s first stop during the exodus (12:37; 13:20;
Num. 33:5,6), usually identified with the Tkw (§§ 4) known from Egyptian
texts, which, according to some, is an area extending west of Ismailia in Wadi
Tumilat, but according to others, it is (also) the Egyptian name for the present
Tell el-Maskhuta (§§30), located at the farthest outreach of Wadi Tumilat
(§§6). It was one of the ports of access to the desert, rroo has also been
interpreted and considered as a real Semitic word, ‘huts’ (Gen. 33:17; 2
Sam. 11:11, etal.), a terms for an encampment somewhere on the border. See
further Abel, II, 208; Bourse, 48,108; Cazelles, 354ff.; Davies, 79; Montet, 60f.;
Simons, 246f.; De Vaux, HAI, I, 356.
8.25 " ids, pi. o” os> (DTPV in 3:18 [cf. Ges-K §87a; BL §217fg; Jouon
§90b]); fern. pi. ninay (OT 34x; Exod. 14x) ‘Hebrew’ is usually used as a
substantive but can also be used as an adjective (2:11 [cf. Gen. 39:14]; 2:13;
21:2; 1:15 ?). Scholarly awareness of Akkadian, Egyptian, and Ugaritic texts in
which Apiru are referred to has made ” od a much discussed term. The Apiru
were a category of people who were less than full citizens within the society
where they stayed, existing on the fringes of society, sometimes working as
mercenaries or as ‘itinerant’ labourers. The theory that ‘Hebrew,’ in similarity
to extra-biblical texts, was a term referring (at least in most OT passages) to
people who belonged to the lowest social class and that it was not synonymous
with ‘Israelite,’ as is the case in apocryphal and pseudepigraphic literature and
in the NT, initially enjoyed widespread support. At the moment there are
again articulations of dissent, voicing a preference for considering as a
gentilic name. We are convinced that the OT uses "Q», whatever the historical
background of the term may be, as a gentilic noun and that it is thus syno
nymous with ‘Israelite.’ The following should be noted: the term occurs in a
limited number of passages; Gen. 14:13; Gen. 39-Exod. 10; Exod. 21:2;
Deut. 15:12 (2x); Jer. 34:9 (2x), 14; 1 Sam. 4-29; Jonah 1:9; the term is
spoken by non-Israelites (Gen. 39:14,17; 41:12; Exod. 1:16; 2:6; 1 Sam. 4:6,9;
13:19; 14:11; 29:3) and is used by Israelites in talking to non-Israelites
(Gen. 40:15; Exod. 1:19; 2:7; 3:18; 5:3; 7:16; 9:1,13; 10:3; Jon. 1:9; contrast 1
Sam. 13:3); the term is also employed by the authors (Gen. 14:13; 43:32;
Exod. 1:15; 2:11,13; 1 Sam. 13:7; 14:21) and in legal ordinances (21:2;
Deut. 15:12; Jer. 34:9,14); ‘Israel(ites)’ is also used in the passages mentioned,
however; by non-Israelites (1:9; 1 Sam. 5:8,10,11; 6:3,5; 27:12; 29:3); by
Israelites (5:1); and by the authors (1:12,13; 2:23,25; 1 Sam. 13:3,4,6,7; cf.
Jer. 34:9). In addition, it should be remarked that Exod. Iff. is governed by the
opposition between two peoples (1:9; §3.40.1) and is saturated with an
‘apartheid’ mentality: the Hebrews have their own midwives (l:15ff.); Hebrew
women who give birth are unlike their Egyptian counterparts (1:19); a Hebrew
boy requires a Hebrew nurse (2:6ff.); the Hebrews have their own God (3:18;
5:3; 7:16; 9:1,13; 10:13); cf. Gen. 43:32; 46:34. In 21:2, "Qy -op, *oy indicates
the social status of a person and ”o» the population group to which he
belongs (cf. Gen. 39:17; 41:12); the meaning here is the Israelite slave as
distinct from a foreign slave.279 See further IDBS, 382ff.; LA, II, 952ff.; RLA,
IV, 14ff.; TWAT, V, 1093ff.; Engel, 179ff.; DeGeus, 182ff.; Gottwald, 476ff.,
et al.; K. Koch, “Die Hebraer vom Auszug aus Agypten bis zum GroUreich
Davids,' V T 19 (1969), 37-81; N.P. Lemche, “The ‘Hebrew’ Slave,’ VT 25
(1975), 129-44; idem, “ ‘Hebrew’ as a national Name for Israel,’ STh 33
(1979), 1-23; E. Lipinski, “L’esclave H6breu,“ VT 26 (1976), 120-24; O. Lo-
retz, Habiru-Hebraer, Berlin/New York 1983; Mendenhall, 122ff.; N. Na’aman,
“HABIRU and Hebrews: The Transfer of a Social Term to the Literary
Sphere,’ JNES 45 (1986), 282-7; H. Schult, “Eine einheitliche Erklarung fur
279 Other interpretation, e.g. Koch, 78; J. Lewy, HUCA 14 (1939), 587-623; idem, 11UCA 15
(1940), 47-58; Lipinski, 123; Van Uchelen, 86f.; Weippert, 86f., are unconvincing; see in particular,
Riesener, 115ff.
124 INTRODUCTION
den Ausdruck ‘Hebraer’ in der israelitischen Literatur," D B A T 10 (1975),

22-40; N.A. van Uchelen, Abraham de Hebreeer, Assen 1964; De Vaux, HA I, I,
106ff., 205ff., et al.; M. Weippert (see § 10.1), 66ff.
8.26 pbos (OT 39x; Exod. 17:8-16 7x) ‘Amalek(ites),’ a nomadic tribe
(contrast 1 Sam. 15:5) that lived in the northern part of the Sinai peninsula, at
the fringe of the cultivated land in the area of Kadesh (§§ 23.5),280 whence
they conducted plundering raids (1 Sam. 30:lff., 13f., 18; cf. Judg. 6:3,33; 7:12).
According to the biblical account, a lasting enmity was generated by the clash
between Israel and Amalek at Rephidim (§§32) (17:14,16; cf. Deut. 25:17ff.;
Judg. 10:12; 1 Sam. 15:2). It has been conjectured that the defeat of Amalek
enabled Israel to settle in Kadesh. See also Abel, I, 270ff., 358f.; Auerbach,
82ff.; M. Gorg, “Ein Gott Amalek?,’ BN 40 (1987), 14-5; J. Gr0nbaek, “Juda
und Amalek,’ StTh 18 (1964), 26-45; Meyer, IN, 389ff.; Noth, UP, 131ff.;
Rothenberg, 122f.; Simons, If.
8.27 irv rn *d ‘Pi-Hahiroth’ (14:2,9; Num. 33:7) [rn*rtn in Num. 33:8; a
writing error?], a place where Israel stopped prior to the crossing of Yam
Suph. Since the LXX renders the name as f| &iavA.is ‘encampment,’ ‘set
tlement’ in 14:2,9, it is generally assumed that the translator read rmn (pi. of
isn). Davies, 5f., on the contrary, thinks that the writer was familiar with a
tradition which identified Pi-Hahiroth with a place called 'ETtauXig, whose
location cannot be recovered. In Num. 33:7,8 the translator construed rrrnn as
a proper name and *o as the construct of ns ‘mouth,’ t6 ax6pa Etpdrf); also
compare the haggadic explanation of the name in TPsJ: N n ira m x m T t ' d id
‘mouths of the square rocks’ (cf. TO); TNf, in contrast, reads: nm'n 'p tra
‘houses of ill-repute’ (cf. FT’ and TPsJ on Num. SS^).281 Among modern
exegetes, Cazelles considers it quite possible that 'D means ‘mouth’. Attempts
have also been made to explain the name as an Hebraicized Egyptian name;
some have pointed to the example of pr-hthr, ‘house of Hathor,’ a name borne
by various places; Pi-Hahiroth has been put at a variety of locations in
connection with attempts to determine the site of Baal-Zephon (§§ 5) and
Migdol (§§ 15), e.g. in the marsh area west of Great Bitter Lake; west of Lake
Sirbonis (east of Pelusium), separated from the Mediterranean Sea only by a
land tongue; sometimes scholars content themselves with a no find. TPsJ
identifies the place with Tanis (§§30). See further Abel, II, 208; Cazelles,
250ff.; Davies, 5f., 9 ,20ff., 27,40,81; M. Gorg, “Pi-Hahirot ‘Mundung der
Wasserlaufe’,’ BN 50 (1989), 7-8; Montet, 62; Simons, 248f.; De Vaux, HAI,
1,357.
8.28 (OT 8x; Exod. 15:14) ‘Philistea,’ the stroke of coast land in the*28
280 Cf. Gen. 14:7; Num. 13:29 and see 1 Sam. 15:6 alongside of Judg. 1:16; see also 1 Sam. 15:7;
27:8; Gen. 25:18; Num. 14:25, 41ff. raise questions (cf. Deut. 1:44); Judg. 5:14 ?; 12:15.
28 ^ Does this interpretation demonstrate familiarity with Egyptian per-lpi- ‘house (of)’?; see
further commentary at 14:2 on the haggadic exegesis.
southwest of Canaan inhabited by D*nt?b!? (OT ca. 250 x; Exod. 13:17;

23:31)282283 ‘the Philistines.’ The origins of this non-Semitic nation, whose
name has obtained a lasting form in the name of ‘Palestine’ (first attested to in
the Persian period) has generated much scholarship. Biblical tradition
(Jer. 47:4; Amos 9:7; cf. Deut. 2:23) traces them to Caphtor (Crete; Strange:
Cyprus). It is generally accepted that the Philistines settled in Canaan within
the context of migrations by the Sea Peoples who came from the Aegean
islands and western Asia Minor after Ramesses III of Egypt managed to repel
an offensive by the Sea Peoples in about 1185. Unless one is ready to assume
that elements from the population of the Aegean coastal area had already
settled along the coast of Palestine in prior centuries, the use of ‘Philistines’ in
13:17; 23:31 and in Gen. 21:32,34; 26:1,8,14f., 18 must be termed an anachro
nism. The use of the ‘Philistines’ in Exodus remains limited to geographical
references: crntf^D pi# (13:17; cf. Gen. 21:32, etal.; 12x) and dti&^dd ; (23:31;
see at 10:19). ‘The way by the land of the Philistines’ (13:17), the road from
Egypt along the coast of the Mediterranean Sea, the via maris, was the main
route for communications with the north. It was used for trade and military
expeditions. According to M. Haran, IDBS, 308, the road is the same one as
the ‘road to Shur’ (Gen. 16:7); §§ 33. See further B.J. Beitzel, “The Via Maris
in Literary and Cartographic Sources," BA 54 (1991), 64-75; T. Dothan, The
Philistines and their Material Culture, New Haven/London 1982; Mendenhall,
142ff; A. Noordtzij, De Filistijnen, Kampen 1905; the contributions of E. Oren
and P. Figueras to Le Monde de la Bible 24 (May-July 1982), 3ff. (archaeology
shows that the northern Sinai was densely populated in antiquity); N.K. San-
dars, The Sea Peoples, London 1977; J. Strange, Caphtor/Keftiu, Leiden 1980;
A. Strobel, Der spdtbronzezeitliche Seevolkersturm, Berlin/New York 1976; N.A.
van Uchelen, “De Filistijnen in het Oude Testament,’ NedThT 20 (1955 —66),
339-53; De Vaux, HAI, I, 468ff„ 475ff„ et al.
8.29 t © (OT 23 x) ‘Perizzite(s)’; they are mentioned in Exodus (5x) only
in lists of the pre- and non-Israelite inhabitants of Canaan (§§3.2); the OT
mentions them only in connection with other peoples (§§ 14.1). They were
apparently no more than a nation in the distant past to the authors of the
Bible, similiar to the legendary Rephaites (Deut.2:10f.,20f., etal.) with whom
they are mentioned (Josh. 17:15). 3 Some have offered the unlikely sugges
tion, referring to *n? in Deut. 3:5; 1 Sam. 6:18 and niro in Ezek. 38:11;
Zech. 2:8; Esth. 9:19, that ‘Perizzites’ is a term for a class, the ‘rural folk.’ See
further Abel, I, 322; Simons, 7If.
8.30 or© ‘Pithom’t (1:11); the name is derived from the Egyptian Per-’Itm
‘house of Atum’ (Atum is the god of Heliopolis, identified with the sun god
282 The sing. (OT 33x) always indicates a single person (always with the article) and is
different in this regard from other gentilic nouns; e.g. §§ 6, 7, etc.
283 both nations are not mentioned among the descendants of Canaan (Gen. 10:15ff.).
126 INTRODUCTION
Re at an early stage). TPsJ, FT', TNf identify Pithom with Tanis (§§ 31);
Jewish tradition also identified it with Pi-Hahiroth (§§ 27) (e.g. Mek. 14:2 [II,
188] and Rashi at 14:2). Current scholarly opinion tends to put the city in
Wadi Tumilat (§§ 6). A favourite candidate is Tell el-Maskhuta at the eastern
border of Egypt, at the edge of the wadi. It is assumed that ‘Pithom’ was the
sacred name of the city Tkw (§§ 24), the Greek Heroopolis (§§ 6), the Latin
(H)ero (initially identified in the last age with Rameses). Another serious
candidate is Tell er-Retabe, about 12 km west of Tell el-Maskhuta (Rameses
has been sought there as well). The identification (Uphill) of Pithom with
Heliopolis, about 10 km northeast of the present Cairo, has not found support.
The LXX lists Heliopolis in 1:11 as a third city built for Pharaoh by the
Israelites: < ( "O v , h taxw miow6A.ii; (cf. Gen. 41:45, ‘On,’ rendered by the
k x
LXX as ‘Heliopolis’). This demonstrates that Pithom and Heliopolis were two
different cities for the translator of the LXX (contrast Bimsom, 47). According
to Josephus (AJ, II, 188), Jacob and his sons settled in Heliopolis. 284 See
also DBS, VII, Iff.; LA, II, U llff., IV, 1054ff.; Bimson, 38ff.; W. Helck, “Tkw
und die Ramses-Stadt,“ V T 15 (1965), 35-48; Montet, 57; D.B. Redford,
“Exodus 111,“ VT 13 (1963), 401-18; Schmidt, 36f.; Simons, 244ff.; E.P. Up
hill, “Pithom and Raamses: Their Location and Significance,“ JNES 27
(1968), 291-316; 28 (1969), 15-39; De Vaux, HAI, I, 287.
8.31 oonsn/oomn ‘Raamses’ ( l: ll) /‘Rameses’ (12:37; Num. 33:3,5)
[Gen. 47:11 mentions oa?in fiK; cf. Gen. 46:28 LXX; see also §§ 6]; the name
is derived from the Egyptian Pr-rmssw ‘house of Ramesses.’ Places with which
Rameses has been identified in the course of time include: (a) Tell er-Retabe
(§§ 30); (b) ancient Pelusium (by TPsJ, FT, TNf already); (c) the Greek Tanis
(the biblical Zoan), the present Sanel-Hajar in the northeastern part of the
Delta; (d) the present-day Qantir, 20 km south of San el-Hajar. Theories (a)
and (b) have been abandoned at present. The identification with Qantir is
currently regarded as the most likely. The city of Rameses supposedly owes its
name to its founder, Ramesses II (§11) and was the Pharaoh’s residence
during the 19th and 20th dynasties. Archaeology has demonstrated that the city
must have had the dimensions of ancient Babel or Nineveh. Perhaps 12:37
refers not to the city but to the land of Rameses (Gen. 47:11)285 but there
may also be a connection between 1:11 and 12:37; between 1:11 and 12:37 no
names of cities are mentioned; what is recounted between 1:11 and 12:37
occurred during the building of Raamses; the city was the last object on which
Israel worked; from here the people departed. The use of the name Rameses
in Gen. 47:11 should be qualified as anachronistic in view of 1:11. See further
AJ, II, 315, creates the impression that Josephus also regards On/Heliopolis as the point of
departure for the exodus.
285 According to P. de Lagarde, 1:11 also refers to the land: ‘Pithom in Raamses’; see K. Mik-
etta, Der Pharao des Auszuges, Freiberg i.B. 1903, 40.
DBS, X, 1117ff.; C.F.Aling, “The Biblical City of Ramses,’ JETS 25 (1982),

129- 37; M.Bietak, Tellel-Dab'a, II, Wien 1975, 217ff.; Davies, 5,13,19,21,
27,40,46,57,79,82; M. Dijkstra, “Pithom en Raamses," NedThT 43 (1989),
89-105; Montet, 53ff.; E.B. Pusch, Qantir: Berichte und Beitrdge zu den Arbeiten
an der Ramsesstadt, Wiesbaden 1988; E.P. Uphill, The Temples o f Per Rames-
ses, Warminster 1984; DeVaux, HAI, I, 287,308f.; Vergote, 186f. and see
§§ 30.
8.32 D'TD'i286 ‘Rephidim’ (17:1,8; 19:2). Scholars assign Rephidim var
ious locations depending on the position they adopt with regard to the
location of Mt. Sinai (§§ 23): (a) in Wadi Feiran or Wadi Refayid northwest of
Jebel Musa;28728 (b) in the vicinity of Kadesh; the Amalakites (§§ 26) lived
there (c) east of the Gulf of Aqaba, near present-day er-Raphid. See
further Abel, II, 213; Bor6e, 52; Davies, 7,10,27,32,40,43,45ff., 57,84;
Simons, 252ff.
8.33 -n» ‘Shur’ (15:22; Gen. 16:7; 20:1; 25:18; 1 Sam. 15:7; 27:8), place or
area east of the land tongue of Suez. The following relation between the name
and the term 1110 ‘wall’ (Gen. 49:22; Ps. 18:30=2 Sam. 22:30; Ezra 4:12f., 16) has
been surmised: ‘Shur’ is the fortified northeastern frontier of Egypt; ‘the Shur
desert’ (15:22) (= ‘desert of Etham’; §§ 4) is the adjacent desert through which
‘the way of Shur’ (Gen. 16:7) went, the road from Hebron via Bersheba
through the desert to present-day Isamailia, the middle road of the three
routes of communication between Palestine and Egypt. See further Abel, I,
434; Davies, 18f., 21f., 40,43,74,77,80,82; N. Na’aman, “The Shihor of Egypt
and Shur that is before Egypt,* Tel Aviv 7 (1980), 95-109 (Shur was located on
the southern border of Canaan; cf. however A.F. Rainey, Tel Aviv 9 (1982),
130- 6); Simons, 217,251.
8.34 The route of the exodus and the route to MtSinai

8.34.1 The book of Exodus details the following route: from Rameses (§§ 31)
to Succoth (§§ 24) [12:37]; - the road to the land of the Philistines (§§ 28) is
avoided; through the desert to Yam Suph (§§ 12) [13:18]; from Succoth to
Etham (§§4) [13:20]; the people swerve and sojourn before Pi-Hahiroth
(§§ 27), between Migdol (§§ 15) and the sea, opposite Baal-Zephon (§§ 5) on
the sea (§§ 12) [14:2,9]; there the crossing of the Sea takes place; from
Yam Suph through the Shur desert (§§ 33) [15:22] to Marah (§§ 21) [15:23],
Elim (§§ 2) [15:27] and the Sin desert (§§ 22), between Elim and Sinai [16:1];
286 It has been alleged that 17:8ff. contains the etiology of the name: D 'T D'QI “weak hands,’ or
HTD1 ‘support’ (reading D 'T IDT or D'DT instead of D'IDD n»0 'T in 17:12 and HDT1 instead of
Efbrn in 17:13); see Auerbach, 85f.
Note ‘at Horeb’ in 17:6 and ‘at the mountain of God’ in 18:5 (cf. Deut. l:9ff.); the events
described in 17:1 —19:2 appear to have been assigned to a location near the mountain.
288 See e.g. J. Koenig, RHPhR 43 (1963), 14.
128 INTRODUCTION
through the desert to Rephidim (§§ 32) [17:1], and Massah and Meribah
(§§18) [17:7]; to the Sinai desert and Mt. Sinai (§§23) [19:lf.]. For the
purpose of answering the question as to the precise route which Israel fol
lowed, it must be kept in mind that human travel289 on the Sinai peninsula
is confined to the possibilities which nature sanctions. This implies that only a
limited number of routes can be considered: the via marts (§§ 28) and the road
to Shur (§§ 33) in the northern part of the peninsula; more to the south there
is the road from Suez to Elath (known from later times, since it is the pilgim
route to Mecca);290 from Elath there are roads to Kadesh (Num. 21:4;
Deut. 2:1) and through the Arabah (Deut. 2:8); the more hostile terrain of the
southern part of the peninsula also has routes [see Davies, 76ff.]. All in all,
there are various possibilities (see further Rothenberg, 166ff., 181ff., 191).
8.34.2 It appeared from our discussion of the names of localities that there is
uncertainty with respect to the location of almost every place mentioned. In
trying to solve this quest, we can ascertain that scholars look for fixed points
in order to aid them in outlining an acceptable route. The differing hypotheses
that have been defended are the result of differences with regard to the fixed
points. The following theories can be distinguished, roughly speaking:
a Departing from the northeastern delta area, Israel followed a southern
route and crossed the sea south of the Bitter Lakes in the northern part of the
Gulf of Suez; it is then assumed that Mt. Sinai is located in the south of the
peninsula (§§ 23.3).
b Departing from the northeastern delta area, Israel followed a northern
route; important support for this theory is offered by the notion defended by
various authors in the 19,h century that Baal-Zephon (§§ 5) should be put near
Lake Sirbonis. Eififeldt again placed the theory in the spotlight in 1932, and
since then it has enjoyed the support of various Old Testament scholars. The
theory assumed that the path of flight chosen by the Israelites was a narrow
stroke of sand between the Mediterranean Sea and Lake Sirbonis, and that
Pharaoh’s army perished when waves driven by the wind inundated the land
tongue.
c Interpretation of 'po'D: as ‘papyrus sea’ (§§ 12) resulted in the selection of
various places on the land tongue of Suez and beyond it as the location for the
crossing: on the northern or the southern side of Lake Timsah near Wadi
Tumilat and on the southern side of Lake Menzaleh (e.g. Albright and others;
Baal-Zephon [§§5]=Daphnae). Our opinion is that YamSuph can refer only
to the Gulf of Suez (§§ 12).291 The mention of Yam Suph argues for a south
jo q
Cf. D.A. Dorsey, The Roads and Highways of Ancient Israel, Baltimore 1991.
290 According to Haran, it is the desert route of 13:18.
Note also that 14:22, 29 (see also 15:8) create the impression that the crossing occurred in
deep water, is the approval granted the notion of Yam Suph as a marsh lake due to the fact that
this theory makes the miracle plausible?
FAUNA 129
ern route. The assumption seems justified that at least for those who edited
the Pentateuch, the route from Yam Suph led to the southern part of the Sinai
peninsula (cf. Num. 33:5ff. [particularly 10f.]; Deut. 1:2).
8 34 3 It was stated above that various Old Testament scholars believe that
the Pentateuch contains two (or more) traditions with regard to the location of
the mountain on which the revelation took place (§§ 23.7). The theory that the
Pentateuch also contains different traditions with regard to the route of the
exodus has also been espoused. Divergent positions have been adopted: the
Pentateuch contains a tradition concerning a northern route as well as one
concerning a southern route;292 the OT contains two attempts at specifying a
concrete site: one at the Gulf of Aqaba and the other at Lake Sirbonis (Noth);
three traditions regarding the route of the exodus are present (Haran). Our
attitude is to counsel caution. The location of the various sites is beset by so
much uncertainty that it is difficult to establish whether different traditions
regarding the route of the exodus are indeed present in Exodus. It seems to us
indisputable that diverse materials have been adopted with regard to the
mountain of the revelation (§§ 23) and with regard to the route of the exodus
and the crossing. In view of the uncertainty concerning the locations of the
sites, it remains a matter of debate whether the diverse material adopted
contains contradictions and mutually incompatible traditions. See further
IDBS, 307ff.; W.F. Albright, “Baalzephon,* in Fs A. Bertholet, Tubingen 1950,
1-14; I. Beit-Arieh, 'The Route Through Sinai - Why the Israelites Fleeing
Egypt Went South,* BARev 14.3 (1988), 28-37; Cazelles, 360ff.; L.B. Couroyer,
“L’Exode et la bataille de Qadesh,* RB 97 (1990), 321-58; Davies, 76ff.; idem,
“The Wilderness Itineraries and the Composition of the Pentateuch,’ VT 33
(1983), 1-13; idem, “The Wilderness Itineraries and Recent Archaeological
Research,* SVT 41 (1990), 161-75; O. EiCfeldt, Zeus Kasios und der Durchzug
der Israeliten durchs Meer, Halle 1932; M. Haran, “The Exodus Routes in the
Pentateuch Sources,* Tarbiz 40 (1970-71), 113-43 (Hebr.); idem, “Methodo
logical Observations on the Depiction of the Exodus Route in the Pen-
tateuchal Sources,’ Erls 10 (1971), 138-42 (Hebr.); W. Helck, ThLZ 97 (1972),
182; M. Noth, “Der Schauplatz des Meereswunders,* in Fs O. EiBfeldt, Halle
1947, 181-90; idem, GI, 110f.; A. Perevolotsky and I. Finkelstein, “The South
ern Sinai Exodus Route in Ecological Perspective,* BARev 11.4 (1985), 26-41;
Simons, 233ff.; De Vaux, HAI, I, 354ff., 398ff.; C. de Wit, The Date and Route of
the Exodus, London 1960.
§ 9 Fauna in the book o f Exodus

9.a Bibl. (general): BRL, 351ff.; IDB, II, 246ff.; F. Bodenheimer, Die
Tierwelt Paldstinas, I-II, Leipzig 1920; F.S. Bodenheimer, Animal and Man in
292 See e.g. Cazelles; De Vaux, HAI, 1, 358, thinks that Exodus contains exodus traditions from
two groups of people which were later assimilated in the later Israel.
130 INTRODUCTION
Bible Lands, Leiden 1960 (including material on the fauna of the Ancient Near
East, and in classical and rabbinical literature), 1972 (illustrations); F.J. Bruijel,
Bijbel en natuur, Kampen 1939; G. Cansdale, Animal o f Bible Lands, Exeter
Devon 1970; H. Donner, Einfllhrung in die biblische Landes- und Alter-
tumskunde, Darmstadt 1976 (Bibl.); J. Feliks, The Animal World o f the Bible,
Tel Aviv 1962; I. Low, Fauna und Mineralien der Juden, Hildesheim 1969;
V. M0ller-Christensen —K.E. Jordt Jorgensen, Dierenleven in de Bijbel, Baarn
n. d.2; E. Tchernov, “The Fauna: Meeting Point of Two Continents,’ in
Rothenberg, 93-99.
9.b Great uncertainty exists with regard to the correct meaning of many
animal names in the OT with the exception of the names of domestic animals.
Exodus also contains several such uncertain names. To be true, they have been
translated one way or another, but convincing arguments for determining their
meaning are often lacking. The possibility even exists that the meaning of
certain terms was no longer clear during the process of shaping and compiling
the texts. One must keep in mind that zoology as a science with the express
object of describing and classifying all fauna is a phenomena of the last few
centuries. Ancient man did not share the scientific interest of present-day
zoology. For him, the animal kingdom taken as a whole consisted of two
categories: animals which threatened man, and animals which man could put
to good use, domestic animals, as well as edible insects, for instance. He was
well acquainted with the animals with whom he had direct contact, and could
refer to them accurately [the OT attests to a large number of terms for
livestock, as well as for locusts]; other animals in his environment could count
on little interest on his part; for them he had no accurate nomenclature. It
should be added that the question of whether animals were unclean or not was
central to ancient man’s interest in animals, an interest largely informed by the
possibility of consuming them as food. The place of animal names in Exodus
has been kept in mind in our discussion of them. For more information the
reader is referred to the literature mentioned and to reference works such as
BHHW, BRL, and IDB.
9.1 Domestic Animals

The terms nips, nnnp, and are used in Exodus to refer to (owning)
livestock in general.
9.1.1 nips (OT ca. 75x; Exod. 13 x), a derivative of nip (see 15:16), ‘that
which has been acquired,’ ‘possession’ of land (Gen. 49:32), but particularly of
livestock: ‘livestock,’ ‘herds,’ ‘flocks’ of various kinds; see 9:3 (cf. Gen. 47:17
[alongside vs. 16 and vs. 18]; Job 1:3; 1 Chr. 5:21); 10:26 (cf. vs. 24); 12:38 (see
also vs. 32); 34:19 (compare, for example, Gen. 26:14; Eccl. 2:7; 2 Chr. 32:29; in
Gen. 29:7; Num. 32:16 only ‘flocks’ [small livestock]) and also
9:4 (2x), 6 (2x), 7,19,20,21; 17:3. See further TWAT, VII, 70f.
9.1.2 nans (OT ca. 185x; Exod. 18x) ‘animal,’ ‘beast’ (often as a collective
FAUNA 131
noun), four-footed animals living on the land (Gen. 6:7; 7:23; etal.), though
used to refer to animals living in the wild (Deut. 28:26; Isa. 18:6, et al.), it is
used more particularly to indicate domestic livestock (20:10 [cf. vs. 17];
22:9,18; Lev. 1:2; etc.; often +onKn [see 4:11]; also compare 11:7; 19:13 [cf.
34:3]; see also 11:5; 12:29; 13:2,12,15 [cf. 34:19] and Jer. 7:20; 21:6; 36:9; etc.).
See further TWAT, I, 523ff.
9.13 T»a ‘animals,’ ‘livestock’ (22:4; Gen. 45:17 [donkeys; cf. 43:3,13];
Num. 20:4,8,11; Ps. 78:48). See further THAT, I, 244; TWAT, I, 727ff.
9.1.4 itis (ot ca. 275 x; Exod. 15 x) is a collective term referring to sheep
and goats regardless of their sex or age: ‘flock’ (often +"ij?3 [§§ 1.11]; see 9:3;
10:9,24; 12:32,38; 20:24; 22:29; 34:3; cf. 12:21; 21:37 [e.g. Num. 31:32,36;
Isa. 7:21]) ‘flock’ (2:16,17,19; 3:1 [2x]); sheep and goats occupied the leading
place among the livestock, speaking quantitatively; they generally formed a
single flock together (Gen. 30:31f.; Lev. 1:10; 3:6f., 12, etc.; Matt. 25:32); the
rendering of ‘sheep’ for ]ks is thus not wholly accurate, as a rule.
9.1.5 n® (OT ca. 45 x; Exod. 13 x) ‘one of the flock,’ a single ins, a sheep
or a goat regardless of its sex or age (e.g. Gen. 30:32; 1 Sam. 17:34;
Ezek. 34:17; 45:15); n® is used -Mi® (§§1.12) (21:37; 34:19) and -Mi® -Midi
(§§ 1.16) (22:3,8,9) (cf. KraSovec, 152); n» is sometimes translated as ‘lamb’ or
‘sheep’ (sing./pl.); the first translation is incorrect; the second is justified only
when the context informs us that a sheep is meant; often it is either a sheep or
a goat that is meant (Gen. 30:32; Exod. 12:5; Lev. 5:7; 22:23 [cf. vs. 19], 28 [cf.
vs. 26]; et al.). See also TWAT, VII, 718ff.
9.1.6 'll (OT 17x), a young male member of the flock (23:19; 34:26;
Deut. 14:21; Judg. 14:6; Isa. 11:6), whether a billy kid (Gen. 27:9,16, et al.) or a
young ram. The usual translation of ‘kid’ is not wholly accurate in view of the
last possibility. The translation ‘kid’ is incorrect. The number of male animals
kept was restricted. They were eaten (Gen. 27:9,6; Judg. 6:19; 13:15) or given
away as gifts (Gen.38:17,20,23, etal.). See further RSP, I, 402f.; TWAT, I,
922ff. and also §§ 5.4.
9.1.7 Vn (OT ca. 160 x; Exod. 23 x) ‘ram’ is often mentioned as a sacrifi
cial animai (29:1,3,15 [2x], 16,17,18,19 [2x], 22 [2x], 26,27,31) and occurs
in 25:5; 26:14; 35:7,23; 36:19 in construct with d*Vn rns> ‘rams’ skins’; the term
is used metaphorically in 15:15 in the sense of ‘leader,’ ‘ruler’ (cf. 2
Kgs. 24:15q; Ezek. 17:13; 31:11; 32:21).
9.1.8 ®?3 (OT ca. 105x; Exod. 29:38,39 [2x], 40,41) ‘lamb’ (e.g. KoW,
Ges-B, DBD) or “young ram’ (KBL, HAL); o*®33n ‘the sheep’ is used in 12:5
alongside of ‘the goats’ (§§ 1.9) (cf. Lev. 1:10; 22:19; Num. 15:11; Deut. 14:4; 2
Chr. 35:7); see also the use of in Lev. 7:23, et al.; one gets the impression
that ®:d /3®3 possesses the more general meaning of ‘sheep.’ See further
TWAT IV, 45ff.
9.1.9 w (OT ca. 75x; Exod. 7x) ‘goat’; the pi. o*w is mentioned in 12:5
alongside of ‘sheep’ (§§ 1.8) and is used (metonymically or elliptically) in 25:4;
132 INTRODUCTION
26:7; 35:6,23,26; 36:14 with the meaning of ‘goat hair’ (cf. Num. 31:20; 1
Sam. 19:13,16). See further TWAT, V, 1193ff.
9.1.10 Sheep and goats provided for the fundamental requirements of the
nomad and also of the farmer. They were kept in large numbers on the steppe
(1 Sam. 16:11; 25:2; 2 Kgs. 3:4; Amos 1:1) and in the desert (2:16; 3:1;
Num. 31:32). Possession of large flocks was considered a sign of wealth (e.g.
Gen. 32:14; 1 Sam. 25:2; Job 1:3; 42:12). The male animals in particular served
as sacrifices. They represented the pre-eminent sex; the females, moreover,
were indispensable due to their milk and for reproduction. The sort of sheep
kept included the fat-tailed sheep (e.g. 29:22; Lev. 3:9; 7:3), whose tail can
weigh as much as 4 to 6 kg (a ram’s as much as 10 kg) and serves the same
function as the hump on a camel. In addition to white sheep (Isa. 1:18, etal.)
darker sheep were also kept (Gen. 30:32ff.). Their meat was considered quite
palatable. Sheep were kept above all for their wool (e.g. 2 Kgs. 3:4; Ezek.
27:18; Prov. 27:26; 31:13; Job 31:20). The skins were also used (25:5, etc.). The
ram’s horn was also used, e.g. as a musical instrument (19:13; cf. Josh. 6:4ff.).
The sort of goats which were kept included the long-haired goat. In addition to
black goats (cf. Cant. 4:1; 6:5), goats of other shades were apparently also kept
(Gen. 30:32ff.). The meat of billy kids was judged a delicacy. Meat from billies
was not in great demand. Goats were kept chiefly because of their milk. The
hair was used as raw material for the production of tent cloths (25:4, etc.; cf.
Cant. 1:5; Acts 18:3). The skins were used to make wineskins for water, etc.
(Gen. 21:14f., 19; Mark 2:2) and (poor) clothing (Heb. 11:37). See further AuS,
VI, 180ff.; Benzinger, 24,68,142f., 369f.; Bruijel, 70ff.; Cansdale, 41ff.; M0ller
..., 15ff., 58ff. For illustrations of sheep/rams, see AOB, ill. 132; ANEP,
ill. 366,502,520,600,672, et al.; Keel, WABAT, ill. 62,313; for goats, see AOB,
ill. 51; ANEP, ill. 97,304,600, 614,842, etal.; Keel, WABAT, ill. 97,181,189,
308; idem, Bdcklein (§§ 5.1).
9.1.11 *i|?3 (OT ca. 180x; Exod. 9x) ‘herd,’ a collective noun (pi. occurs
only in Neh. 10:37) to refer to cattle in general, regardless of their sex
(Lev. 3:1) or age, often used in conjunction with ‘flock’ (§§ 1.4); often ‘flock’ is
in initial position (10:9,24; 12:32:38; 20:24; 34:3; Gen. 12:16, et al.); ‘herd’
occasionally leads a well (9:3; Lev. 1:2; 22:21, etal.); see TWAT, I, 737; KraSo-
vec, 86f., 135; together they form the necessary basis for semi-nomadic exis
tence (see 10:9,24; cf. 12:32,38).
9.1.12 *n» (OT ca. 75x; 24x in Exod. 20—23; 34:19) is used for one of the
herd (pi. occurs only in Hos. 12:12), as is (29:1; Gen. 18:7, et al.),
regardless of its sex (e.g. 34:19, ‘cow’; cf. Lev.22:28, etal.) or age (cf. 22:29;
Lev. 22:27; 27:26); see 21:28 (3x), 29 (2x), etc.; *n» sometimes has collective
meaning (Gen. 32:6; Josh. 6:21; et al.); a collective interpretation is possible in
34:19 as well; t © in 22:29 is often understood as a collective noun; this is
probably incorrect; the clause has in mind a farmer with flocks and an ox (cf.
the sing, in 20:17); otherwise "ipn would probably have been used (Deut. 15:19).
FAUNA 133
When the concern is with a goring ox, a translation may elect to render it as
‘bull’ (see 21:28f., 32-37); cf. Job 21:10 Ti»//rn3 ‘cow’; a cow may also be quite
unmanageable (Hos. 4:16); ‘ox’ in older translations is synonymous with ‘one of
the herd’ (cow or bull) and holds no implication about whether the animal has
been castrated. Whether castration of bulls was permitted in ancient Israel is a
matter of dispute; see Lev. 22:24. *m> is often used in combination with n»
(§§ 1.5) and /or -rtarj (§§ 1.16).
9.1.13 id (OT ca. 130x; Exod. 9x) ‘bull’ (not necessarily a young bull), is
usually mentioned as sacrificial animal (24:5; 29:1,3,10 [2x], 11,12,14,36).
See further 7WAT, VI, 725ff.
9.1.14 bw (OT ca. 35 x; Exod. 6x) ‘bull calf (32:4,8,19,14,36). See further
TWAT, V, 1056ff.
9.1.15 Although cattle were not always altogether manageable
(21:28f., 32,35f.; cf. Jer. 31:18),293 they were prized and valuable assets (23:4;
Deut. 22:Iff.) which could serve people well in various ways due to their
strength; pulling a plough (Deut. 22:10; 1 Sam. 11:5; etal.), etc. (Deut. 25:4;
Num. 7:3; 1 Chr. 12:40; etc.). The meat was eaten primarily at festive occasions
(Gen. 18:7; Lev. 17:3; etal.). Their milk was also used (Deut.32:14, et al.).
Cattle were important as sacrificial animals (Lev. 9:4,18, et al.). Since cattle
feed by grazing off grass (Num. 22:4; Ps. 106:20; Dan. 4:25; contrast Isa. 11:7;
30:24), they can only live where there is regular rain fall (cf. Num. 32:1,4), and
belong only to the livestock of semi-nomads and particularly of farmers.
Possession of an ox and/or an ass was a condition for subsistence (cf. Job 24:3).
Possession of cattle in numbers was a sign of wealth (Gen. 12:16; 32:5, et al.).
See the exegesis of Ch. 32 on the bull as a symbol of fertility and strength. See
further AuS, VI, 160ff; RSP, I 400f.,430f.,451f.; TWAT, I, 736ff; Benzinger,
2 4 ,142ff., 369f.; Bruijel, 73ff; Cansdale, 56ff.; Mdller .... 73ff; E. Nielsen, "Ass
and Ox in the Old Testament," in Fs J. Pedersen, Studia Orientalia, Hanniae
1953, 263-74; R. P6ter, id et nw: Note de lexicographic H6braique," VT 25
(1975), 486-96. For illustrations of oxen (for carriages, ploughs)/steers, see
AOB, ill. I ll , 161,165,178, et al.; ANEP, ill. 84,86,88,98ff, 167, etal.; Keel,
WABAT, ill. 127,269f., 277,312,373,437f.; idem, Bdcklein (§§ 5.1).
9.1.16 lion (OT ca. 95 x; Exod. 12 x)294 ‘donkey’ was a valued animal.
Obstinacy, malevolence, and indolence are not included in the characteristics
attributed to donkeys in the Bible (cf. Num. 22:28-30). It was suitable for
riding (4:20; Num. 22:21ff; Josh. 15:18, et al.), even on difficult terrain (cf. 2
Sam. 18:8f.), for hauling (Deut. 22:10; Isa. 30:24), and as a beast of burden
293 The animal had apparently retained some of its original characteristics despite its domes-
tication; a bull or cow living in the wild was an awesome and formidable animal (Num. 23:22;
Isa. 34:7; Ps. 22:22; et al.); see the illustrations in ANEP, ill. 183, 291 f., 297; Keel, WABAT, ill. 104f.
294 For the derivation of 10T1 ‘be red,’ see Gradwohl, 19f.; contrast HAL ; there are white
donkeys in addition to grey ones (cf. Judg. 5:10).
134 INTRODUCTION
(23:5; Gen. 42:26f.; 45:23, et al.). It was not used as a sacrificial animal (13:13;
34:2c))295 and its meat was not to be eaten (Lev. ll:lff.; Deut. 14:3ff.; cont
rast 2 Kgs. 6:25). It is content with straw, thistles, and such food, and its
upkeep is therefore cheap. It has stamina and can tolerate severe treatment (cf.
Num. 22:23,25,27). Together with Titf, it represented the available pool of
animal labour which the farmer had at his disposable; both animals are often
mentioned together (20:17; 21:33; 22:3,8,9; 23:4,12; Isa. 1:3; et al.; Luke 13:15;
‘ox* usually leads; see 22:9 following on 22:8, however; Deut. 22:4 alongside of
22:10; Job 24:3). Possession of donkeys in numbers signified wealth and was
usually accompanied by the possession of other animals (9:3; Gen. 12:16; 24:35;
30:43; 32:5; etal.). See further AuS, II, 112ff.; TWAT, II, 1036ff.; Benzinger,
24,399; Bruijel, 81ff.; Cansdale, 71ff.; M0ller ..., 10ff.; Nielsen (§§1.15). For
illustrations of donkeys (as beasts of burdens, etc.), see AOB> ill. 51,166,170;
ANEP, ill. 3,89,166, et al.; Keel, WABAT, ill. 308,380.
9.1.17 Exod. 9:3 contains a detailed record of four-footed domesticated
animals that were valued by the Israelites, including the camel and the horse.
The contemptible dog and the unclean pig (Lev. 11:7; Deut. 14:8; etal.) are
lacking. Camels did not, it should be noted, and horses even less, form part of
the livestock kept by Israelite farmers, as a rule. They are lacking in the
decalogue (20:17) and the Book of the Covenant, boy (OT ca. 55 x; Exod. 9:3)
‘camel’ usually indicates the single-humped, light brown Arabian camel, it is
assumed. It is an animal often difficult to manage, but it can suffice with very
little and is capable even better than the donkey of serving people on desert
journeys of some distance (Gen. 37:25; Judg. 6:5; et al.) as a beast of burden (1
Kgs. 10:2, etal.) or for riding (Gen. 31:17, etal.). It was also used for hauling,
both in recent and in ancient times. Its hair (Matt. 3:4) was used and probably
its milk as well (cf. Gen. 32:16). It was not sacrificed and its meat was not to
be eaten (Lev. 11:4; Deut. 14:17). Abraham and Jacob are portrayed as being in
possession of camels (Gen. 12:16; 24:10, etc.; 30:43; 31:17,34; 32:8,16; 37:25).
Although evidence shows that depictions of animals were abundantly present
in Egypt, the camel is virtually absent in visual art and in literature until the
Ptolemaic period. The couleur locale of Gen. 12:16 and Exod. 9:3 is apparently
Palestinian and not Egyptian (contrast Montet, 14). Whether this portrayal is
anachronistic is a matter of dispute. The view that camels did not play a role
of significance until the end of the second millennium has been defended by
scholars.296 See further AuS, VI, 147ff.; LA, III, 304f.; RLA, V, 330ff.;
Benzinger, 24,161,400; Bruijel, 76ff.; Cansdale, 64ff.; E.A. Knauf, BN 40
(1987), 20ff.; M0ller ..., 29ff.; P. Wapnish, “Camel Caravans and Camel
^ A donkey foal could be redeemed by a sheep or goat, allowing the farmer to retain the
valuable donkey.
See in particular W.F. Albright (see §§ 8.16); idem, Yahweh and the Gods o f Canaan,
London 1968, 43f., 62f.
FAUNA 135
Pastoralists at Tell Jemmeh," JANES 13 (1981), 101-21. For illustrations of

the camel (often mounted by two men in battle), see ANEP, 6 3 ,187f., 351,
353,355 (two-humped), et al.
9.1.18oio (OT ca. 135 x; Exod.9:3; 14:9,23; 15:1, 19,22)297 ‘horse,’ is used
as a collective noun in 14:9,23; 15:19; Deut. 11:4; etal. (cf. KraSovec, 126,145)
and is followed by 3?p ‘(battle) chariots,’ also serving as a collective term; the
term refers to the (two) horses pulling a chariot, iooii oio in 15:1,21 is often
translated as ‘the horse and its rider’ and can count on support from the
lexicons (e.g. Ges-B, BDB, K6W, KBL). Since cavalry did not play a role in
Ancient Near Eastern warfare until the first half of the first millennium,
15:1,21 must be construed to mean draught horses and 33'*i to mean the
charioteer.298
(OT ca. 120 x; Exod. 10 x; see also 14:6,7; compare the use of rop-u?
[OT ca. 45 x] in 14:25; 15:4; cf. TWAT, VII,508ff.) is followed by in
14:9,17,18,23,26,28; 15:19; Gen.50:9; etal. (cf. KraSovec, 145). The meaning
of sno OT (ca. 55 x) is disputed (see the lexicons). In addition to ‘horse,’ the
meaning of ‘horseman’ is attributed to the term. The term is generally rende
red as such in Exod. 14-15, though incorrectly in all probability for the reason
recorded above. D*»*o probably refers to the crew of a chariot: ‘the charioteers/
warriors.’299 Horses did not form part of the Israelite farmer’s assets (cont
rast Isa. 28:28 ?). It was used in royal circles since the time of David, and in
the army since the time of Solomon because of its speed (e.g. Jer. 4:13;
Hab. 1:8). It was also used in the Ancient Near East for hunting, the campaign
against intimidating wildlife. Horses are represented as negative in many
passages in the OT. It is an undesirable animal that has no utility for man and
that brings him calamity (cf. Josh. 11:6,9; 2 Sam. 8:4; Mic. 5:9f.; Zech. 9:10; cf.
12:4; 14:20). The horse’s negative image had been produced by experiences
with horses. Their presence signalled war, danger, and domination (e.g.
Judg. 1:19; 5:22; Ezek. 23:6,12,20,23; Job 39:19ff.). Chariots and horses are
thus often the symbol of arrogant human power that must be destroyed and in
which one should not put one’s trust to the neglect of trust in y h w h (e.g.
Isa. 30:16; 31:1,3; Hos. 14:4; Pss. 20:8; 33:17; 147:10; Prov. 21:31). The king
uses a donkey in the time of salvation (Zech. 9:9; cf. Mark 11:7 and see 1
Kgs. 1:33,38 alongside of 1 Sam. 8:11; 2 Sam. 15:1; 1 Kgs. 1:5). One should
take note of the fact that the OT nowhere contains absolute disapproval of the
297 Probably a loan word; see Ellenbogen, 123.

298 See THAT, II, 778f.; K. Galling, ZThK 53 (1956), 131ff.; Houtman, Himmel, 324f.;
S. Mowinckel, VT 12 (1926), 278-99; cf. De Vaux, II, 25f.
299 WV: ‘chariot drivers’; see in connection with this issue, D.R. Ap-Thomas, “All the King’s
Horses,” in Fs G.H. Davies, Proclamation and Presence, London 1970, 135-51; W.R. Arnold, “The
Word lin s in the Old Testament, * JBL 24 (1905), 45-53; F.C. Fensham, Ruitery of slrydwabeman-
ning in Exodus,” NGTT 19 (1978), 195-99; O. Loretz — W. Mayer, “Hurrisch paraiS — ‘trainiertes
Pferd’,” ZA 69 (1979), 188-91.
136 INTRODUCTION
use of horses and chariots (cf. Deut. 17:16; 1 Kgs. 9:19,22; 10:28f.). y h w h
himself has heavenly chariots and horses at his disposal (2 Kgs. 2:11; 6:17;
et al.);300 the prophet Elijah is addressed with the title ‘chariots of Israel and
their horsemen’ (2 Kgs. 2:12).301 Finally, it should be noted that Egypt had
always been a land of horses according to the OTs portrait (Gen. 47:17; 2
Kgs. 18:24; Isa. 31:1; Jer. 46:2,4; Ezek. 17:15,17; 2 Chr. 12:3). See further LA,
IV, 1009ff.; RLA, V, 336ff.; TWAT, V, 782ff.; Bruijel, 89ff.; Cansdale, 74ff.;
M. Dietrich —O. Loretz, UF 15 (1983), 301-2; R. Drews, “The ‘Chariots of
Iron’ of Joshua and Judges,* JSOT 45 (1989), 15-23; M0ller ..., 48ff.; D. Par
dee, Les textes hippiatriques (Ras Shamra II), Paris 1985. For illustrations of
horses (in front of the chariot and as a mount), see AOB, ill. 62,72,78, et al.;
ANEP, ill. 28,164f., 172,184,327, et al.; Keel, WABAT, ill. 136,138,321,324f.,
357, et al.; Y. Yadin, The Art of Warfare in Biblical Lands, London 1963,
4f., 37ff., 86ff, etal. With a view to Exod. 14-15, see ANEP, ill. 204 = Keel,
WABAT, ill. 310 (illustration from Ashurbanipal’s palace in Nineveh): horses,
chariots, and riders were swallowed up by water.
9.1.19 3^? OT (ca. 30x) ‘dog’ was a contemptible animal (1 Sam. 17:43; 2
Sam.9:8; Prov.26:11; Mark7:27; Rev.22:15; etal.). Although dogs could be of
benefit to man (Isa. 56:10; Ps. 68:24; Job 30:11; Tob. 5:17; 11:4), they were
more often than not an annoyance (e.g. Isa. 56:11; Luke 16:21). They went
about in packs in search of booty (they cleansed the streets of refuse) and their
behaviour within civilized places was as appalling as that of wild animals
outside (Deut. 28:26; 1 Sam. 17:44,46, et al.): they take their fill of the blood
and corpses of human beings (1 Kgs. 14:11; 16:4, etal.; cf. Ps.22:17,21, etal.).
Exod. 22:30 mentions that they clear away cadavers. Exod. 11:7 has in mind
stray dogs (not guard dogs) that harass man and cattle. F.C. Fensham, “The
Dog in Ex. XI 7,“ VT 16 (1966), 504-7, mistakenly thinks that the text assumes
that dogs wanted to take their fill of the Egyptians, in particular of the first
born that had been killed. Note the contrast between 11:6 and 11:7: uproar
and disarray as opposed to deathly silence and harmony; the virtually impos
sible will happen; no Israelite person or animal would be scared by a dog (cf.
Jdt. 11:19); not the least harm will affect them. See further LA, III, 77ff.; RLA,
IV, 494ff.; RSP, I, 421f.; TWAT, IV, 156ff.; Benzinger, 25,357,398; Bocher,
86ff.; G. Brunet, VT 35 (1985), 485-8; Cansdale, 121ff.; O. Margalith, VT 33
(1983), 491-5; M0ller ..., 23ff.; D. Winton Thomas, VT 10 (1960), 410-27;
M.A.Zippor, ZAW 99 (1987), 423-8. For illustrations of dogs, see ANEP,
ill. 183,228, et al.; Keel, WABAT, ill. 107f.
9.2 Wild animals; vermin

9.2.1 Mammalian wild animals such as the lion, the bear and the panther
300 Cf. Houtman, Himmel, 218f., 324f.

301 Cf. C. Houtman, NedThT 32 (1978), 283-304.
FAUNA 137
are not mentioned by name in Exodus. Generalized allusions to wild animals

do occur: rn»n n*n (23:11,29) (see at 1:14). A variety of animals that vex and
threaten man are mentioned by name in Exodus.
9.2.2 am (OT ca. 30 x; Exod. 4:3; 7:1s)302 ‘snake,’ no matter the kind.
More than 30 kinds from the Ancient Near East are known. The Israelite
showed an ambivalent attitude towards the snake. They inspire fear (cf.
Deut. 8:15; Isa. 30:6; Amos 5:10; Eccl. 10:18). Their bite can easily result in
death (Num. 21:6ff.; Amos 9:3; Prov. 23:32; Job 20:16). It is thus understan
dable that various religions depict snakes as the incarnation of death and chaos
(Isa. 27:1; Job 26:3; Rev. 12:9; 20:2) and that they sometimes serve as an image
of enemies in the Bible (Isa. 14:29; Jer. 8:17; Ps. 140:4; Matt. 3:7; 23:33).
However, they are also regarded as the giver of wisdom (cf. Gen. 3:1; Matt.
10:16) and life (cf. Num. 21:8f.). The snake is also the symbol of natural
renewal on account of the way it sheds and renews its skin; it may also be
considered to possess immortality. The snake was now and then the object of
worship in Israel, albeit it outside the legitimate y h w h cult (2 Kgs. 18:4;
Ezek. 8:20). On the sâke as an animal, see Bodenheimer, Animal, 65ff.;
Cansdale, 202ff.; Low, 25ff.; F.Rosner, Medicine in the Bible, New York 1977,
179ff. On the place that the snake occupies in religion, see ERE, XI, 399ff.;
Bocher, 92ff.; Farbridge, 71ff.; Gaster, 35ff., 573; JaroS, 259ff.; K.R. Joines,
Serpent Symbolism in the Old Testament, Haddonfield, New Jersey 1974;
B.A. Levine - J.M. de Tarragon, “‘Shapsu Cries Out in Heaven’: Dealing with
Snake-Bites at Ugarit," RB 95 (1988), 481-518; J. Maneschg, Die Erzahlung von
der ehemen Schlange (Num. 21:4-9), Frankfurt a.M./Bern 1981; M. Provera, *11
tema e culto del serpente nella tradizione biblica e profana," BeO 32 (1990),
209-14; Th.C. Vriezen, Onderzoek naar de paradijsvoorstelling bij de oude
Semietische volken, Wageningen 1937, 103ff., 172ff.; H. Wohlstein, *Zur Tier-
Damonologie der Bibel,* ZDMG 113 (1963), 483-92. For illustrations, see
AOB, index, s. v., ‘Schlange’; ANEP, index, s. v., ‘serpent’; ‘snake’; Keel, WA-
BAT, ill. 38ff„ 46ff., 90,142, et al.
9.2.3 pn, pi. D'nn, (OT 14x; Exod. 3x) is a somewhat disputed term; pn
in 7:9,10,12 is often rendered as ‘snake’ (cf. Deut. 32:33; Ps. 91:13); in ad
dition, the translation ‘dragon’ is used (cf. Isa. 27:1; 51:9; Jer. 51:34; Ps. 74:13;
Job 7:12) (cf. LXX, Spoticcov, a word which can also be used for a normal snake
in Greek; see also Vulg., coluber [7:9,10; cf. 4:3); draco[(l:\2\ cf. 7:15]); some
have asserted that one should think of a crocodile (cf. Ezek. 29:3; 32:2) here
(e.g. Bohl, Cassuto);303 this is a possibility not discounted by others (e.g.
Beer, Gispen, Cole); ‘crocodile’ would fit the Egyptian environment of 7:8ff.
appropriately; GreBmann, 89, refers to the following story related in the
A link between the sound of the word and the hissing sound of the animal is often assumed.
According to Keel, Jahwes Entgegnung (§§ 5.1), 148, n.410, Ps. 91:13 refers to the same
animal.
138 INTRODUCTION
Westcar papyrus: an Egyptian magician made a wax crocodile that came to life
when put in water and dragged a person in; when the magician took it out, it
changed back into a wax crocodile.304 p n apparently refers to a reptile of
considerable proportions and does not indicate any single kind. It appears
from 7:15 that the author of Exodus had a snake in mind. Perhaps there is
some difference in connotation between p n and »ro: p n is a sizeable snake
that evokes fear; the use of p n makes the event even more awesome (cf.
Rylaarsdam, Honeycutt). See further the literature mentioned at §§ 2.2
9.2.4 Vinos, (8:2; Ps. 78:45; collective), pi. D 'srrm (7:27-29; 8:1-5; Ps. 105:30;
cf. Wis. 19:10) ‘frog’; occurs both in Egypt as weil as Palestine (particularly the
rana esculenta, 4-5 cm big). Among the candidates that have been proposed are
tree frogs (hyla arborea) with suction cups on the ends of their fingers and toes
to facilitate climbing of horizontal planes (M0ller, 131 f.) and toads up to
12 cm in size (bufo viridis) whose skin secretes a poisonous substance (Feliks,
112). The reference is to amphibious creatures, in any case (among them
salamanders). The horror of the second plague lies not in the aggravating
noise of the animals and the fact that contact with the moist and sticky skin is
a repulsive sensation, but the pollution which they caused. Amphibious
animals were unclean animals to Israelites (Lev. ll:10ff., 41; cf. Rev. 16:13) and
their presence in houses and even in the pantries was abhorrent in their view.
See further L A , II, 224ff.; Bocher, 95f.; Bodenheimer, Animal, 68; Cansdale,
210f.; Low, 50ff.
9.2.5 op (8:13,14) is considered to be a collective noun;305 O'p (8:13,14;
Ps. 105:3 l)/bp (8:12) as a pi. of op (Ges-B) or of p (Isa. 51:16) (KoW, KBL,
HAL)-, Sam. Pent, consistently has D*3D. The interpretation ‘mosquitos’ is
current at present (e.g. KOW, Ges-B, HAL). If true, possible candidates are
common mosquitos (culex), malaria mosquitos (anopheles), sand flies (simulii-
dae), and sand fleas (psychodidae). All reproduce in stagnant water and Egypt
is an ideal country for them, with its innumerable pools of water and marshes
(cf. Isa. 7:18). Insects are present in Palestine in large numbers as well. Even
though mosquitos and flies are seldom mentioned in the Bible (see also
Jer. 46:20; Eccl. 10:1; Matt. 23:34), one may safely assume that the Israelites
knew of the calamities that they are capable of bringing to man and beast.
They are capable of attacking in swarms, producing intolerable pains, inducing
fevers, and bringing death. According to an older theory still not abandoned
(IDB, II, 254; Dalman, AuS, I, 395; Bodenheimer, Animal, 72; Feliks, 114,125),
the term refers to ‘lice.’ The theory is known from the work of Josephus (AJ,
304 Transl. in AOT, 62f.; E. Brunner-Traut, Ahagyplische Marchert, Diisseldorf/Koln 1963, llff.;
see also D. Irvin in Hayes—Miller, 194ff., on the motif of inanimate matter which is transformed
into a living animal.
^ Some scholars have suggested that the vocalization is artificial and is owed to the fem. sing.
Tin]; see BDB\ BL § 61k; contrast Ges-K § 85t; C. Rabin, ScrHie 8 (1961), 392.
FAUNA 139
II, 300) and rabbinical sources (see Ginzberg, V, 429). Dalman points out that
according to present-day popular superstition, among the Bedouin, in par
ticular, it is believed that the (commonly present) lice infesting people’s head
or clothing originates from dust (cf. 8:12ff.). Lice should not to be underrated
either. They live off blood which they extract from human beings and animals
and spread diseases such as typhus. In contrast to mosquitos, they do not
reproduce explosively (keep in mind that a miracle is at work here, however).
According to Cansdale, 229ff., it is ticks that are here referred to. Ticks also
live off blood and can spread dangerous diseases to human beings and animals.
Ticks lay their eggs in the ground. Newly hatched ticks find their way from the
dirt to a victim to whose skin they then attach themselves. The ancient
translations render the term as Vermin,’ leaving the reader uninformed about
the kind of animals; TO, uno^p; TPsJ, vshp; TNf, pa^D; LXX, oKvupeq; Vulg.,
sciniphes; the term used by the LXX also occurs in Philo (VM, I, 107ff.); it
seems that he means mosquitos; cf. Origen, Horn, in Exod., IV, 6. See further
Bruijel, 202ff.; Bodenheimer, Animal, 72ff.; Moller,..., 113ff.
9.2.6 3-w (8:17 [2x], 18,20[2x], 25,27; Pss. 78:45; 105:31) is derived from
‘bind together,’ according to KoW: ‘that which attaches itself to something
with extraordinary tenacity’= ‘dog fly;’ cf. LXX, Symm., Kuv6fima=Kuvdjima
‘dog fly’; cf. Philo (VM, I, 130ff.), an animal with the atrocious character of the
dog and of the fly; it assails its victim and bites itself into him, etc.; Vulg.,
omne genus muscarunv, Kuvdfima has been interpreted as Kotv6jruia; f| jnria=
musca ‘fly;’ other lexicographers trace the term to ‘mix’: Vermin’ (Ges-B,
KBL)306 or from ‘swarm (mixture, from incessant, involved motion),’ viz., of
stinging-flies (BDB)\ the derivation of ‘mix’ is old; Aq. renders it as
n&WUK-cot; in Ps. 78:45; the TPsJ has paraphrased as n*o nvn ‘a horde
of various wild animals.’307 Recent Dutch translations have elected to render
the term with ‘gad-flies’ (LV, NV WV, GNB) and ‘horse-flies’ (UV, CV). The
first term is apparently intended as a reference to dangerous insects in general.
The second term, ‘horse-fly,’ admits of two interpretations: (a) a two-winged
insect that afflicts cattle; it settles on the animal to lay its eggs; the larvae live
in the animal for an extended period of time; (b) a large wasp (§§ 2.9; UV and
CV have also used ‘horse-fly’ in rendering 23:28); only the second also threat
ens human beings (cf. 8:16ff.). See further TWAT, VI, 355ff.; Bodenheimer,
Animal, 72ff.; Bruijel, 202ff.; Cansdale, 228f.; M0ller .... 124ff.; J.C. de Moor,
JEOL 27 (1981), 113ff. (on the demonic character of flies).
9.2.7 The interpretation of as ‘mosquitos’ and of as ‘flies’ forces
306 Cf. SV: ‘mixing of vermin’ (in the marginal notes nine sorts are mentioned, from flies to
mice and slugs); the inhabitants of Palestine, according to Dalman, AuS, I, 396, would have thought
about the word in terms of flies, mosquitos, fleas, lice as well as scorpions and snakes.
307 On the notion that lions, bears, wolves, panthers, and birds of prey swept across Egypt, see
Josephus (AJf II, 303); E xR , XI, 2-3; Wis. ll:15ff., as well as Ginzberg, II, 352ff., V, 430.
140 INTRODUCTION
one to conclude that the third (8:12ff.) and the fourth plague (8:16ff.) bore a
similar character. Such a conclusion presents the possibility of assuming that
the third and the fourth plague are actually two different versions of a single
story. In view of the uncertainty connected to the terms, the fact that Ps. 78:45
mentions only while Ps. 105:31 has a*i» //b'» can hardly serve as an
argument for that assumption. oia//b*23 has been translated as ‘lice’ and as
Vermin’ in the present work.
9.2.8 nann (OT 24x; Exod. 10:4,12,13,14 [2x], 19 [2x]; usually a collec
tive noun; contrast 10:19b, for instance) ‘locust,’ the insect mentioned most
often in the OT (ca. 50 x; more than ten terms are used to refer to it); it is
assumed that Exod. 10 refers to the African migratory locust (schistocerca
gregaria); adult locusts are about 5 to 7 cm big and have a wing span of about
12 cm; they can be carried by the wind (cf. 10:13,19; Ps. 109:23) in swarms (cf.
Judg. 6:5; 7:12; etal.) so thick that the sun is blotted out for hours at a time
(cf. Joel 2:2); their arrival is accompanied by a rattling sound; they are vora
cious and leave the land in a devastated state; moreover, they lay the dreaded
eggs from which larvae emerge after some time, and these soon display an
unparalleled voracity; they do not even spare the bark of the trees (cf.
Joel 1:7). In short, they represent the epitome of destruction (Deut. 28:38,42; 1
Kgs.8:37; etal.; Rev.9:3). They also served as food (Lev. 11:21 f.; M att.3:4).
See further LA, II, 1179f.; RLA, IV, 389f.; RSP, I, 395f.; Bodenheimer, Animal,
77; Bruijel, 183ff.; Cansdale, 238ff.; M0ller ..., 120ff. For illustrations, see
ANEP, ill. 535.
9.2.9 G.Hort, “The Plagues of Egypt,’ ZAW 69 (1957), 84-103, 70 (1958),
48-59, contends that the sequence of the arrival of the animals mentioned in
the plagues displays a certain logic: the fish die as a result of pollution
(7:14ff.), and high water in the Nile causes frogs infected with diseases to leave
the water, where they soon die (7:26ff.); the number of mosquitos increases
due to the high water (8:12ff.); when the water starts to drop, the rotting
plants that are exposed form an excellent breeding ground for the flies
(8:16ff.);308 the cattle become ill (9:Iff.) because the earth had been infested
with diseases carried by the frogs; the flies serve to transmit diseases to human
beings (9:8ff.);309 the abundant precipitation of the previous year (which had
caused the high water; cf. 9:13ff.) had produced the conditions for the
devouring locust plague (10:lff.), while the barren land they left behind
provided the perfect circumstances for the khamsin to sweep along so much
sand that the sun was blotted out (10:21 ff.); furthermore, the wind destroyed
all the seedlings, the firstlings of the harvest (ll:lff.; 12:29ff. had originally
308 Cansdale, 210f., 230f., claims that the frogs die because of the parched earth; the flies and
mosauitos were left with no natural enemies after their demise.
^ M0ller 114f., 126, states that the decomposing frogs formed the breeding ground for the
flies; the flies spread the epidemic to people and animals.
FAUNA 141
referred to the crops). Without examining this explanation in detail, it should

be said that it does not do justice to the intentions of the author. We suffice
by mentioning only this: the author does not want to tell about the pollution
of the Nile, but about the transformation of water into real blood (7:14ff.), and
about the transformation of dust into vermin (8:12ff.), etc.
9.2.10 nuns (23:28; Deut. 7:20; Josh. 24:12) is a disputed term; it is a collec
tive term meaning “wasps,’ ‘hornets,’ according to an ancient interpretation
(see LXX, at ayqictai; Vulg., crabones; TO, Nrrsnu; TPsJ and TNf Nmnitt); it
still has those who support it (see Ges-B; BDB; KOW [a connection is seen
with sns ‘strike’, the animal that strikes, stings, wounds]; SV, LV have ‘horse
flies’; cf. §§2.6). Palestine is known to be the habitat of the hornet, a large
wasp (vespa orientalis). Many thousands live together in a nest and when they
feel threatened they will initiate an attack, administering painful stings to their
assailant(s), stings which can in extreme cases result in death. Are they capable
of causing the enemy to take flight? There are reports concerning military
operations where insects entering the theatre of war caused so much panic that
they decided the outcome of the battle. Call to mind that bees and flies also
serve as imagery for enemies (Deut. 1:44; Isa. 7:18; Ps. 118:12), and that in time
of war, when the land lies fallow, all manner of insects and vermin increase.
E. Neufeld310 even believes that insects were utilized deliberately in battle in
the Ancient Near East; a cleverly wrapped wasp nest, for instance, could be
thrown into the enemy camp as a ‘bomb’. Hornets stung the enemy in the eyes,
according to rabbinical exegesis. They were blinded and died of the poison (see
Ginzberg, III, 347, VI, 120f. as well as Rashi; contrast Wis. 12:8). Ibn Ezra sees
a connection between rivis and nans (see at 4:6): an illness weakens the body.
Other derivations of bis ‘strike’ have also let to the interpretation of ‘blow,’
‘plague’ (LuthV, ‘land plagues’) and ‘depression,’ ‘discouragement.’311
Cassuto believes that runs does indeed mean ‘hornet,’ but that the term also
serves metaphorically to indicate ‘panic fright.’312 The fact that the stories
regarding the conquest of Canaan do not mention an offensive by hornets but
do speak of the fear that seized the inhabitants (Josh. 2:9ff.; 5:1; also compare
Exod. 15:14ff.) argues for the interpretation of ‘dismay’. The fact that ‘dismay’
is less suited as the subject of ‘drive out’ (23:28; Josh. 24:12) argues against
this notion, however; ‘hornets’ also fits better in Deut. 7:20 (they are capable
of penetrating hidden refuges). J. Garstang,313 referring to Egyptian hieroglyp
hic writing in which the bee serves to indicate the monarchy of lower Egypt,
310 “Insects as Warfare Agents in the Ancient Near East,’ Or 49 (1980), 30-57.
3*1 L. Koehler, Z A W 54 (1936), 291; idem, Kleine Lichter, Zurich 1945, 17ff.; cf. Noth, ‘alarm’;
Te Stroete, ‘despondent’; WV, ‘dismay’; etc.
312 Cassuto appeals to modem Arabic; scholars have previously pointed to the fact that the
Greek d duxrpcx; ‘hornet,’ ‘horse-fly’ also means ‘intense pain,’ ‘fuiy’; see Dillmann; according to
him, the wasp plague is a term which refers to natural plagues in general.
31^ Joshua, Judges, London 1931, 112, 258ff.; cf. Bodenheimer, Animal, 74f.
142 INTRODUCTION
has defended the theory that the hornet was a symbol of (the dominion of)
Egypt: the nations of Canaan were to be significantly weakened by expeditions
on the part of the Egyptian army before the arrival of Israel. We have elected
for the traditional interpretation pending the presentation of more conclusive
evidence. See further AuS, I, 530; O. Borowski, in Fs D.N. Freedman, The
Word o f the Lord Shall Go Forth, Winona Lake, IN 1983, 315-19; Bruijel,
210ff.; Cansdale, 246f.; J.A. Emerton, VT 34 (1984), 504f.; M0ller ..., 127f.
9.2.11 crvVin (16:20) [pi. of either rmVin, nuVin (Ges-B, KBL) or of vVin (BDB,
KoW)] and no*i (16:24; collective) are generally translated as ‘worms’ (someti
mes ‘maggots’) and it appears from 16:20,24 that they may be regarded as
synonyms (cf. Isa. 14:11, non//rrobin; D'sVin in 16:20 is the object of qal dot ‘be
full worms’). 16:20,24 probably refers to the larvae of insects (cf. Deut. 28:39;
Jonah 4:7). Their presence is the cause and a sign of decay. It has also been
surmised that the meaning is ants. See further Bodenheimer, Animal, 78;
Cansdale, 235ff.; M0ller ..., 151f.
9.2.12 nuVin is used in Exod. 25 -4 0 26 x in the construct chain *?®(n) ns?Vin
‘crimson worm,’314 a scale insect (coccus ilicis), that attaches itself to the
leaves and the twigs of the kermes oak (quercus coccifera); the paint is prepa
red from the dead bodies and the remains of the eggs of the female scale
insects. Just as ‘goats’ (§§ 1.9) may denote ‘goat hair’, ‘crimson worm’ may be
used to indicate the deep red paint and thread (cf. 35:25; 39:3) or cloth treated
with it (25:4; 26; 1,31,36; 27:16; 28:5,6,8,15,33, etc.). In addition to ‘crimson’
(CV), the term is also rendered as ‘scarlet’ (SV, NV). See further AuS, V, 84ff.;
Brenner, 143f.; Cansdale, 236; Forbes, IV, 102ff.; Gradwohl, 73ff.; M0ller ...,
115f.
9.2.13 r.^pn (OT ca. 50 x; Exod. 34 x) and ;anx (OT 40 x; Exod. 26 x)315
are terms indicating dyes obtained from animal substance316 and is used
metonymically to refer to threads or cloth dyed a certain hue; it is assumed
that two kinds of purple are involved; rtan and pntt are mentioned together
26x in Exod. 25 —40 (rfton always leads; cf. Jer. 10:9; Ezek. 27:7; Esth. 1:6; 2
Chr. 3:14; contrast 2 Chr.2:13); see 25:4; 26:1,31,36; 27:16; 28:5,6,8,15,33,
etc.; see also 26:4; 28:28,31,37, etc. for rtan. Purple was obtained from shell
fish from the Mediterranean Sea, in particular, from snails, the murex brandaris
and the murex trunculus. The secretion of the animal’s glands was obtained by
letting it pour out (the amount was a droplet) through a small hole which had
314 (OT 42x) (from TO® ‘gleam’?) refers to ‘crimson’ paint and is used metonymically to
refer to crimson thread (Gen. 38:28, 30) or crimson cloth 2 Sam. 1:24, et al.); can also refer
to scarlet cloth (Lam. 4:5); ‘:B(H) is thus a tautology.
315 Possible loan word; see Ellenbogen, 38f.
316 According to Ges-B, r t o n refers to the purple snail; see also Cansdale, 232;
(§§ 2.11) is also understood as a term for ‘purple’; see Isa. 1:18 in LV, CV, WV; Lam. 4:5 in LV,
UV, CV, WV (LuthV, ‘silk’); cf. Matt. 27:28 alongside John 19:2.
FAUNA 143
been made in its shell. The initially lightly coloured slime eventually obtained
a violet hue due to the influence of sunlight. The kind of shell-fish from which
the liquid is obtained determines the colour. By applying mixing techniques, it
was possible to prepare dyes of various hues. It is not certain exactly to which
colours/shades ntan and p n a refer, ntan is presently considered to indicate
'blue purple/ Violet’ (purple blue)317 while p n a indicates 'red purple.’318
Purple was exceedingly valuable (8000 animals were necessary to raise the
equivalent of a single kilogram). It was used for the sanctuary and for priestly
apparel (see also Num. 4:6ff.; Jer. 10:9; 2 Chr. 2:6,13; 3:14) and for palace
furnishings (Esth. 1:6). Purple was a sign of power and wealth (e.g. Judg. 8:26;
Ezek. 23:6; Esth. 12:6). The Phoenicians exercised monopoly over the purple
industry and trade. See further AuS, V, 78ff.; Brenner, 145ff.; Cansdale, 232;
J. Doumet, “A Study on the Ancient Purple Colour and an Attempt to
Reproduce the Dyeing Procedure of Tyre as Described by Pliny the Elder,"
Beirut 1980; Forbes, IV, 112ff.; Gradwohl, 66f.; L.B. Jensen, “Royal Purple of
Tyre," JNES 22 (1963), 104-18; J. Milgrom, “Of Hems and Tassels," BARev 9,
nr. 3 (1983), 61-5; M0ller ..., 137ff.; W.H. van Soldi, “Fabrics and dyes at
Ugarit," UF 22 (1990, 321-57; I. Ziderman, “First Identification of Authentic
Tekelet," BASOR 265 (1987), 25-33 (see however P.E. McGovern et al.,
BASOR 269 [1988], 81-90).
9.2.14 ]D (16:31,33,35 [2x]; Num. 11:6,7,9; Deut. 8:3,16; Josh. 5:12 [2x];
Ps. 78:24; Neh. 9:20) 'manna,’ was formerly considered to be the secretion of
the tamarisk. The tamarisks on the Sinai peninsula were thought to secrete a
sweet fluid as a result of the bites of the scale insects (e.g. DB> III, 236;
Dalman, 75). Investigation by scholars such as Bodenheimer has led to the
conclusion that the manna was of animal origin. Two scale insects (trabutina
mannipara and najacoccus serpentinus) that live on the tamarix mannifera suck
out the tree’s sap and convert it to a substance which contains sugar and which
can be found after it is secreted as yellowish white droplets of a syrupy
consistency on the tamarisk. When the air is dry these droplets crystallize
within the span of a few days. A portion of the crystals fall from the branches
in the morning and are either gathered by the Bedouin or are hauled away by
ants (16:20,24 refers to ants according to Bodenheimer, 87). The manna melts
in the midday heat (cf. 16:21).319 The heat can cause the manna gathered to
take on a dark hue. The Bedouin use it as a substitute for honey. Manna can
be gathered in the period between the end of May until July. Manna has also
been identified with manna lichen. This only occurs sporadically on the Sinai
peninsula, however. Josephus (AJ, III, 31) as well as Origen (PG, XII, 576) and
317 SV, LuthV, ‘sky blue’; LV, CV, ‘violet’; NV, ‘purple blue’; WV ‘purple.’
318 See e.g. NV; SV, LV, CV, ‘purple’; LuthV, ‘scarlet’ (*3l0(n) has been rendered as
‘pinkish red’); WV, ‘crimson red.’
319 According to Bodenheimer, 60, they do not melt; see Kaiser, 67, however.
144 INTRODUCTION
Ambrose (PL, XVI, 1271) attest to the theory that the biblical manna is the
same manna that is also to found on the Sinai peninsula in later times.
Objections have been noted against the identification of manna with the
secretion of a scale insect on the basis of the biblical material.320 See the
commentary at Exod. 16 on manna in the Bible and in tradition. See further
RGG, IV, 725f.; TWAT, IV, 968ff.; TWNT, IV, 467; W. Baumgartner - M.
Eglin, "Em Gegenstuck zum biblischen Manna,* ThZ 4 (1948), 235-37;
F.S. Bodenheimer —O. Theodor, Ergebnisse der Sinai-Expedition 1927 der
hebr&ischen Universitdt Jerusalem, Leipzig 1929, 45ff.; F.S. Bodenheimer, “The
Manna of Sinai,“ BA 10 (1947), 2-6; G. Dalman, “Das Manna auf dem Markt
von Jerusalem,* PJ 17 (1921), 73-75 (manna is not a foodstuff in Palestine; the
Israelites may have heard about gathering manna from under the tamarisks in
the southern desert; they only knew about manna as food for the people from
stories harking back to the legendary times); A. Kaiser, *Neue naturwis-
senschaftliche Forschungen auf der Sinai-Halbinsel," ZDPV 53 (1930), 63-75.
93 Birds
Bibl.: F.J. Bruijel, “Roofvogels in den Bijbel," GThT 41 (1947), 112-24,
186-191, 236-45; G.R. Driver, “Birds in the Old Testament," PEQ 1955, 5-20,
129-40; A. Parmelee, All the Birds of the Bible, New York 1959.
93.1 (OT 26x; pi. 5x) refers to an impressive large bird of prey, both
to vultures (e.g. Mic. 1:16; Job 39:27; Prov. 30:17) as well as to eagles. The
latter is likely meant in 19:4. ib : impresses people with the speed at which it
travels (Deut. 28:49; 2 Sam. 1:23; Jer. 4:13; Prov. 23:5; etal.) and is a very
powerful animal. A story we know from Mesopotamia tells about Etana, who
ascended to heaven on an eagle (e.g. ANET, 114ff.). See further Bocher, 89ff.;
Cansdale, 142ff.; Feliks, 68ff.; Houtman, Himmel, 10,357; Mpller ..., 76ff.
93.2 iVb (16:13; Num. 11:32; Ps. 105:40; a collective noun; pi. Num. 11:31)
’quail,’ a brown speckled migratory bird that reaches a length of about 20 cm
and resembles a small partridge. Quail migrate from southern Europe in
autumn to warmer areas in Asia and Africa. They return in the spring. Their
bodies are so heavy in relation to the strength of their wings that they are
incapable of flying any substantial distance at one time. They seek out the
shortest traverse over the sea for this reason, and customarily fly with the
wind, usually at night (cf. Num. 11:31). A change in the direction of the wind
and exhaustion resulting from flying over the sea can make it necessary to land
somewhere in order to recoup their strength. Exhausted as they then are, they
make an easy catch. Ancient and recent investigation reveals that they alight in
great numbers on the Mediterranean coast of the Sinai peninsula, and that
they are caught with nets. Reports from before the Second World War
See e.g. CE, IV, 561f.; for an attempt at synthesis, see A. de Guglielmo, “What was the
Manna?’, CBQ 2 (1940), 112-29.
FAUNA 145
mention catches of a million and more. They were exported to Europe to be

served in classy restaurants. Their number has dwindled as a result of hunting.
Quail sporadically appear on the Sinai peninsula outside of the Mediterranean
coast. From the coast, they migrate in a southwesterly or a southeasterly
direction; their route is determined by the presence of food; cf. A. Kaiser,
ZDPV 53 (1930), 63-75. The manna which Exod. 16 mentions together with the
quail is not found along the coast but only in the interior of the peninsula. See
further TfVAT, VII, 802ff.; Bodenheimer, Animal, 59; Cansdale, 150,156,167f.;
M0ller ..., 86ff. See Rosner (see §§2.2), 219f.; Struys, 96ff., with a view to
Num. 11:33; Pss. 78:31; 106:15. For hunting of birds, see, for instance, AuS, VI,
314ff. and for hunting illustrations, see Keel, WABAT, ill. 112,115,120.
9.4 Fish
9.4.1 nn (OT 15 x),321 ‘fish’ (7:18,21; Gen. 1:26,28; Deut.4:18;
Ps. 105:29; et al.). n is a generic term which encompasses more than ‘fish’; it
includes mammals such as seals as well as shell-fish (cf. Lev. ll:9ff.; Deut.
14:9f.). The OT does not contain the names of any fish. Fish formed an
important part of the Egyptian diet (cf. 7:18,21; Isa. 19:8; Ezek. 29:4f. as well
as Num. 11:5). Aside from Num. 11:5 and Neh. 13:16 (cf. ‘Fish Gate’ in
Zeph. 1:10, for instance), there is no mention of the consumption of fish in the
OT. The OT does not speak on the subject of Israelites catching fish (exam
ples in the NT include Matt. 4:18f.; 7:10; Luke5:lff.; 24:42; John 21:9). OT
idiom nevertheless shows that the ancient Israelites were acquainted with the
techniques of catching fish and the associated paraphernalia (Jer. 16:16;
Ezek. 26:5,14; 32:3; 47:10; Amos 4:2; Mic. 7:2; Hab. 1:15; Job 40:20,26). See
further AuS, VI, 343ff.; LA, II, 224ff.; TWAT, II, 139ff.; Bocher, 96f.; Boden
heimer, Tierwelt, 15ff.; Bodenheimer, Animal, 68ff.; Cansdale, 212ff.; M0ller ...,
146ff.; Rundgren (see §5.47). For illustrations, see AOB, ill. 159; ANEP,
ill. 107f., 112ff., 204; Keel, WABAT, ill. 84,120,310.
9.4.2 »nn (OT 15x), used in the construct chain o'iann(n) mi) in 25:5;
26:14; 35:7,23; 36:19; 39:34; cf. »nn mu in Num. 4:6,8,10,11,12,14, is a
disputed term. It is clear (see Ezek. 16:10) that a precious kind of leather is
being referred to and it thus seems likely that onn is the name of the animal
whose skin was used in producing the leather. Ancient translations interpreted
the term as an indication of colour, however. The LXX renders it as
tiaictvflivoi; ‘hyacinth-coloured’ and M kivOck; ‘hyacinth’ (Ezek. 16:10);321322 the
Vulg. has ianthinus Violet’; TO and TPsJ have kjuoo and TNf has p n io o ‘of a
brilliant colour.’ More recent translations are informed by the interpretation of
»nn as an animal: ‘badger skins’ (SV, LuthV); ‘morocco leather’ (LV; margin
321 Generally a collective, see M. Ben-Asher, Sanities 6 (1978), 2, fem. of 37 (O T 18x) ‘fish.’
322 r t e l l (§§ 2.13) has been rendered with the same term; compare also the Vulg.; it is not
certain which colour/plant is indicated by the terms.
146 INTRODUCTION
notes ‘fine ram’s leather’). Current opinion tends to regard enn as referring to
a maritime mammal, either one belonging to the dolphin, or the whale family,
a seal, or a dugong, a kind of sea-cow (cf. the Arabic tuhasun). The last is
considered a particularly serious candidate. The dugong can reach a length of
three to five meters and was present in the Gulf of Aqaba in large numbers up
until the beginning of the 19th century. For centuries, Bedouins on the eastern
part of the Sinai peninsula used its skin for making sandals (Cansdale, 139).
Since the dugong (it has no fins or scales) probably belonged to the class of
unclean animals (cf. Lev. ll:9f.; Deut. 14:9f.), we might well ask whether its
skin could ever have been permitted to be used for the tent sanctuaiy. Render
ings such as ‘sea-cow’323 have not made their way into Dutch translations of
25:5, etc. (CV, ‘tanned hides’; NV, ‘tahas hides’; WV, GNB, ‘fine leather’).
Some also consider cnn to be an Egyptian loan word, ths ‘skin,’ ‘leather’ and as
a term indicating ‘fine leather’ of Egyptian import (cf. WV).324 See further
Cansdale, 138f.; M0ller ...,72ff.
9.5 Man and the fauna

9.5.1 Bibl.: V. Aptowitzer, "The Rewarding and Punishing of Animals and
Inanimate Objects: On the Aggadic view of the World,’ HUCA 3 (1926),
117-55; R. Bartelmus, ’Die Tierwelt in der Bibel,’ BN 37 (1987), 11-37;
S. Bokonyi, Kamid el Loz 12: Tierhaltung und Jagd, Bonn 1990; Farbridge, 53ff.;
E. Heilborn, Das Tier Jehovahs, Berlin 1905; J. Hempel, “Gott, Mensch und
Tier im Alten Testament,’ in Apoxysmata, Berlin 1961, 198-229; M.L. Henry,
Das Tier im religidsen Bewufitsein des alttestamentlichen Menschen, Tubingen
1958; Houtman, Wereld, passim; U. Hubner, ’Schweine, Schweineknochen und
ein Speiseverbot im alten Israel,’ VT 39 (1989), 225-36; O. Keel, Jahwes
Entgegnung an Ijob, Gottingen 1978; idem, Das Bdcklein in der Milch seiner
Mutter und Verwandtes im Lichte eines altorientalischen Bildmotivs, Freiburg/
Gottingen 1980 (see alongside it Jud 37 [1981], 161-65,234-35); E.A.Knauf,
*Zur Herkunft und Sozialgeschichte Israels: ‘Das BOckchen in der Milch
seiner Mutter’,’ Bib 69 (1988), 153-69; C.J. Labuschagne, “‘You Shall Not
Boil a Kid in Its Mother’s Milk’: A New Proposal for the Origin of the
Prohibition,’ SVT 49 (1992), 6-17; W. Pangritz, Das Tier in der Bibel, Miin-
chen/Basel 1963; J. Schreiner, “Der Herr hilft Menschen und Tieren (Ps
36,7),“ TThZ 94 (1985), 280-91; G. Stein, “Das Tier in der Bibel: Der
judische Mensch und sein Verhaitnis zum Tier,’ Jud 36 (1980), 14-16,57-72;
F. E. Wilms, Das Tier: Mitgeschdpf Gott oder Ddmon, Frankfurt am Main 1987;
J. Wohlgemuth, Das Tier und seine Wertung im Alten Judentum, Frankfurt am
^ See e.g. Buber-Rosenzweig, ‘sea-cow hides’; NEB, ‘porpoise-hides’ (accompanied by the

remark ‘strictly sea-cow’).
See Ezek. 16:10 in CV, ‘finest leather,’ cf. WV, GNB; NV has ‘most precious leather’;
contrast NEB, ‘stout hide,’ for instance; the skin of a dugong is tough.
FAUNA 147
Main 1930.
9.5.2 Wild animals were regarded by the Israelites as representatives of the
counter-world, or Chaos, which constituted a continual threat to the ordered
world of creation.325 A large population (see 1:7) was required in order to
persist in the struggle against the counter-world. It is only in this light that we
can understand the notion articulated in 23:29 (cf. Deut. 7:22). Even after the
arrival of Israel the continued presence of the original inhabitants of Palestine
was necessary as long as the Israelites were themselves not abundant enough to
maintain the existing equilibrium between man and the wild animals in the
country. In view of the menace which wild animals and the wilderness repre
sented, it should come as no surprise that the OT nowhere has a com
mandment regarding the protection of wild animals. 23:11 (cf. Lev. 25:7)
should be understood against the following backdrop: the sabbath rest exclu
ded all cultivation of and care for the land on the part of the owner; this
meant by implication that he had to leave the wildlife undisturbed.326 The
owner thus expressed that he was not the owner of the land in the full sense,
but that he had received the land from y h w h in trusteeship (cf. Lev. 25:33). It
should be mentioned that wild animals and even vermin could, in y h w h ’s
hand, serve as weapons in the struggle against evil.327 The invasion of the
counter-world in 7:29ff. (cf. Wis. 11:15) and 23:28, the arrival of various pests,
undeniably has a positive side to it; the enemies of y h w h were pressured and
driven away; for those with y h w h on their side, however, there is no jeopardy;
they are relieved.
9.5.3 The domestic animals, such as oxen and donkeys, sheep and the goats,
were the recipients of the Israelites’ care and devotion. They provided food,
raw materials for making clothes, helped in cultivating the land, etc. They were
of benefit to the people and hardly constituted a threat. The O Ts image of
man, who shoulders the responsibility for his animals, is the picture of the
sober and realistic farmer who has no patience with sentimentality. He knows
that his welfare depends on the welfare of his animals and thus takes good
care of them. Sound and healthy livestock are a cause for contentment on his
part. Yet he has no qualms about laying a stick to the animals to compel
them, and, albeit with mixed feelings, to wield a butcher’s knife.328 In 19:12f.
we are informed that man, but his animals too, will die if they touch Mt. Sinai,
and 21:28 dictates that an ox that gores a man must be stoned. Some have
concluded that no sharp distinction was made between man and beast in
325 For further elucidation and substantiation, see Houtman, Wereld, 27ff.; dogs and horses,
which to us are domestic animals, were also experienced largely as representatives of the counter
world by the Israelites (§§ 1.18, § 19); their attitude towards snakes was also ambivalent (§§ 2.2).
326 p00r are not mentioned in 23:11 as the object of charity; if the owner is obliged not to
perform any work at all on his land, the outcasts, the poor and the wild animals, will be drawn to it.
327 For elaboration, see Houtman, Wereld, 32ff.
328 For details, see Houtman, Wereld, 29, 49f.
148 INTRODUCTION
antiquity.329 The OT undeniably articulates the awareness that man and

beast are closely related physically: ‘man and beast’ are often mentioned in a
single phrase (§§ 1.2); for both, breath is the invigorating principle; they share
the same fate, since both must die; animals can represent man vicariously in
sacrifice (e.g. 13:13); etc. In addition, however, the OT stresses in various ways
the distinction between man and animal.330 It should be noted here that
physical intercourse between man and beast is expressly prohibited in the OT
(22:18; Lev. 18:23; 20:15f.; Deut. 27:21). Condemnation looms over the level
ling of the distinction between man and animal instituted by creation. The
prohibition bespeaks the awareness that differentiation, variety, and order are
fundamental characteristics of creation and that eradication of differences
results in the reversion of cosmos to chaos331 The distinction between man
and animals does not diminish the personal affinity that can exist between man
and animal in the OTs portrayal (e.g. 2 Sam. 12:3). Domestic animals were
considered part of the household and were obliged, for instance, to share in
the sabbath rest (20:10; Deut. 5:14; 23:12 mentions only ox and ass, archetypes
of labour). It is man who controls the relationship, however, and the fate of
the animals depends on him. It is not, all things considered, very likely that
19:12f. and 21:28 presuppose responsibility on the part of animals. A goring ox
must be put to death in order to prevent future calamities. It is man who is
responsible for the livestock. He must take care that no animal enters a sacred
place. 19:12f. is an articulation of shared destiny between man and animal.332
9.5.4 The OT makes apparent that the Israelite farmer had a standard of
conduct in relation to his livestock. Such rules were a part of the Israelite’s
morals and customs. The OT itself contains only a single ordinance dealing
with conduct towards livestock (Deut. 25:4). Other ordinances do mention
animals, but they deal with legal questions arising from the possession of
livestock (21:28ff., 37; 22:3f., 8ff.; Lev. 24:18,21) or have the purpose of social
protection, i.e., it is necessary to make sure that others, even if they are your
enemy, cannot lose their animals, which are the basis of their existence (23:4f.;
Deut. 22:Iff.). The command not to cook a kid in its mother’s milk is difficult
to understand (23:19; 34:26; Deut. 14:26). The command is usually discussed in
relation to two other commands: cows and ewes may not be slaughtered on the
same day as their young (Lev. 22:18); if one takes a bird’s nest, one is per
mitted to take the young but the mother must be allowed to fly away
(Deut. 22:6f.). The last is certainly not a case of protection of wildlife or pity
32^ See e.g. Bodenheimer, Animal, 218; Gaster, 243ff.; Heilbom, 27; Pangritz, 59f.; Wohlgemuth,
23f.; cf. Aptowitzer, 136f., 138 and see E. Westermarck, Ursprung und Entwickelung der Morai
ne, I, Leipzig 19132, 214ff. (includes many examples).
For elaboration, see Houtman, Wereld, 47ff.
331 See C. Houtman, VT 34 (1984), 226-8.
332 Cf. 8:13f.; 9:3, 6, 9f., 19ff., and see further Houtman, Wereld, 50ff., 59ff.
FAUNA 149
for animals, since the mother is robbed of her brood. Hunting of birds was
completely acceptable in ancient Israel (cf. Jer. 5:26; Hos. 9:8; Amos 3:5).
Lev. 22:28 merely prohibits the simultaneous killing of mother and young, and
does not, for instance, demand that the one not be killed while the other looks
on. Keel, Bocklein, offers an outline of the history of the interpretation of the
texts involved (see also TWAT, I, 924ff.; Gaster, 250ff.). The Jewish custom of
not serving a dish containing dairy products with meat during the same meals
is based on the rabbinical interpretation of 23:29; 34:26; Deut. 14:21. Philo (De
Virtutibus § 125-144) states that 22:29 and Lev. 22:27 testify to respect for the
animal: man is not permitted to take a newly born animal away from its
mother in order to indulge himself or with the pretext of sacrificing it; one
should not cause the mother sorrow; pain to the udder and nipples on account
of not suckling must be prevented; 23:19 and Lev. 22:28 also take into account
animals’ feelings and, moreover, contain a lesson for man. If the law-giver
desires so much humanity even for unreasonable animals, how much the more
then does he desire the same of human beings in relation to one another!333
Josephus (CA, II, 213f.) interpreted Deut. 22:6f. as a humane commandment;
Pseudo-Phocylides interpreted it as a useful rule. “ ...allowing the mother to
remain behind, so that she can again provide you with young" (84f.). Maimo-
nides (12th century) also advances the principle of utility in interpreting 23:19,
etc. A kid cooked in its mother’s milk is too rich a dish and causes the blood
to congeal. Considerations of the verses in the same vein as Philo’s treatment
have been offered throughout the ages.
The theory that 23:19; 34:26; and Deut. 14:22 are directed against the
practice, by neighbouring communities of Israel, of customs such as those
prohibited by these texts within the context of idol worship has been winning
increasing adhesion since the second half of the 19th century (although already
present in Maimonides), particularly since the publication of the Ugaritic
material.334 Keel rejects this theory outright and states that a possible
Canaanite background for the passages concerned must be taken into account.
He refers to the many pictures of a cow or a goat suckling her young which
are known from the Ancient Near East. The suckling cow/goat was symbolic of
divinely bestowed fertility and of divine nurture and love of which certain
mother goddesses were the primary representatives; this was the reason that
the sacrifice of suckling cows/goats was beset with taboos; people were loath to
offend the goddesses symbolized by these animals; such taboos were oc
casionally adopted by Israel without precise knowledge of their meaning; in
Israel they developed into general dietary regulations; there is thus at least one
Rabbinical interpretation and Philo applied the commandments to all young animals; ' l l in
23:19 has a narrow sense, however; see §§ 1.6.
^ See, however, R. Ratner — B. Zuckerman, “‘A Kid in Milk’?: New Photographs of KTU
1.23, Line 14,* HUCA 57 (1986), 15-60.
150 INTRODUCTION
case (Deut. 22:6) in which respect for something ordained by the creation
itself, i.e., the mother-child relationship, is articulated. Keel, in summary,
signals a development from sacrificial taboo toward the demand of an attitude
of respect with regard to a particularly obvious example of created order, the
mother-child relationship, in which nature’s concern for the continuation of
life is reflected (pp. 40ff., 142ff.). Keel’s theory remains unconvincing.335 It
does not seem credible to state that Deut. 22:6 evidences a certain piety with
regard to animals. The illustrations which Keel has marshalled demonstrate
that people in the Ancient Near East were greatly impressed by the loving
attitude of cows and goats toward their young (cf. 1 Sam. 6:7ff). It is doubtful
that 22:29 offers testimony to this sentiment, however. It may be assumed with
respect to 22:29 and Lev. 22:28 that the young animal was allowed to remain
with the mother because it needed to have developed somewhat in order to be
suitable as a sacrificial offering. There is nothing which seems to attest to
reverence for the animal. There must be no delay, according to 22:28; yhwh
must be given his due! Our conclusion is that 23:19; 34:26; Deut. 14:21; 22:6f.
manifest taboos the meaning of which we can no longer recover. The forbidden
practices which they outline apparently had to be foregone to avoid inviting
calamity (see the conclusion of Deut. 22:7). C.M. Carmichael, HThR 69 (1976),
1-7, concludes that the aim of the prohibition in 23:19; 34:26 is to avoid
mixing life and death, as when a dead kid is cooked the milk of the mother
which gave birth to him.
§ 10 Flora in the book of Exodus

10.a Bibl. (general): O. Borowski, Apiculture in Iron Age Israel, Winona
Lake, IN 1987; F.J. Bruijel, Tijden en jaren: Het natuurjaar in de Bijbel, n.d.;
idem, “Bossen, bomen en toegepast hout in de Bijbel,* in W. Boerhave
Beekman, Hout in alle tijden, I, Deventer 1949, 589-663; W. Boerhave Beek-
man, "Bossen, bomen en toegepast hout bij de Egyptenaren," in Boerhave
Beekman, I, 399-578; A Danin, “The Flora: Wild and Cultivated Plants," in
Rothenberg, 77-83; Donner (see § 9.a), (Bibl.); Fauna and Flora of the Bible,
London 19802 (Bibl. and illustrations); R.H. Harrison, Healing Herbs o f the
Bible, Leiden 1966; J.F. Healy, “Ancient Agriculture and the Old Testament,"
OTS 23 (1984), 108-19; I. Low, Die Flora der Juden, I—IV, Wien/Leipzig
1924—34; H.N. Moldenke —A.L. Moldenke, Plants of the Bible, New York
1952; V. Moller-Christensen - KE. Jordt Jorgensen, Plantenleven in de Bijbel,
Baarn n.d.; A.E. Rttthy, Die Pflanze und ihre Teile im biblisch-hebrdischen
Sprachgebrauch, Bern 1942; M. Stol, On Trees, Mountains, and Millstones in the
Ancient Near East, Leiden, 1979; W. Walker, All the Plants of the Bible, London
335 Cf. M. Haran, Tarbiz 52 (1982-83), 371-92; idem, ThZ 41 (1985), 135-59; response of Keel
in O. Keel — S. Schroer, Studien zu den Stempelsiegeln aus Palastina/Israel, I, Freiburg/Gottingen
1985, 25-38.
FLORA 151
1958 (+ illustrations); M. de Waal, Medicijn en drogerij in den Bijbel, Amster

dam n.d. (1922); M.Zohary, Plants of the Bible, London 1982 (+Bibl. and
photographic illustrations). For a detailed inventory of the available literature,
see A. van der Wal, Planten uit de Bijbel: Een systematische literatuurlijst,
Amsterdam 19822.
10. b Uncertainty exists with respect to part of the approximately 110 plants
and trees mentioned by the OT. Determining the identity of cultivated plants
and fruit trees generally produces few insurmountable problems. This situation
is often different with regard to other classes of flora. Insufficient knowledge
of Hebrew and a lack of information are the chief impediments in this quest.
Description of flora was not the chief purpose of the authors of the OT, and
they were not botanists. It is not uncommon that rather non-specific terms are
employed (or, perhaps, terms that seem to us rather unspecific) which preclude
that we can ascertain exactly what species is meant. There are also terms that
are used for more than one species, while various terms may be employed for a
single species. The terminology appears not to have been fixed. It is necessary
to take into account the possibility that the same name may be used for
various species of plants depending on the region where it is used, and that the
same plant may be labelled differently by various people. This possibility still
occurs today in popular botany. Such circumstances limit the possibilities for
identifying plants beyond shadow of doubt through such means as comparative
linguistics, study of material from the extant literature of the Ancient Near
East that deals with flora, and/or the current Arabic designations for plants in
Palestine. Applicable material, furthermore, sometimes admits to different
interpretations. Ancient Near Eastern man should not be denied an interest in
the flora about him. It must be kept in mind, however, that botany as a science
possessing a fixed terminology and systematic structure has existed only a few
centuries. This section discusses both plants as well as the products obtained
from them. The same term may refer to the plant and to what it produces in
Hebrew. The place of plant names in Exodus has been kept in mind in our
discussion of them. For more information the reader is referred to the litera
ture mentioned and to reference works such as BHHW, BRL, and IDB.
10.1 General terms; terms for part o f plants

10.1.1 p-v (OT 8x) ‘the green’ is used in 10:15 for the foliage of shrubs and
trees, the green on pastures and fields (the stalks of not yet ripened grain), i.e.,
for that which serves as food for man and beast (cf. Gen. 1:30; 9:3; Num. 22:4).
See further TWAT, III, 948ff,; Brenner, 100ff.; Gradwohl, 27ff.; Riithy, 31ff,36f.
10.1.2 yv (OT ca. 330x; Exod. 31 x) refers to all flora that consist of wood,
from the cedar to the shrub-like marjoram plant (1 Kgs. 5:13; cf. Josh. 2:6); yu
is used alongside of sisv (§§ 1.3) in 9:25; 10:5,15 to refer collectively to the
class of taller foliage, i.e, brushwood and trees; rn»n yv (9:25; cf. 10:25; see at
1:14 for mis) may refer to fruit trees and fruit bushes (e.g. Lev. 26:4;
152 INTRODUCTION
Ezek. 34:27) and to shrubs and trees in general (e.g. Deut. 20:19f.; Isa. 55:12;
Ezek. 17:24; 31:4,5,15; Joel 1:12,19); the first is the case in 9:25; 10:5,15 (cf.
**ia in 10:15); locusts are mentioned in Deut. 28:42 as devourers of p ; note
the following: trees and bushes were snapped (9:25); trees and bushes bereft of
fruit and foliage (10:15). yv in 15:25 may refer to a piece of wood, or to a
branch or a twig (cf. Num. 15:32f.; 1 Kgs. 17:10; Jer. 7:18) or a small bush.
D*33K3i D'sbdi perhaps means ‘even in buildings made of wood and stone’; both
terms are regularly used together to designate building material and the
elementary materials of buildings (Lev. 14:45; 1 Kgs. 5:32; 15:22; Ezek. 26:12;
Hab. 2:11; Zech. 5:4; etal.). There is further mention of p as a material for
the tent sanctuary (31:5; 35:33); particularly in the construct chain crofl *b b
‘acacia wood’ (23 x; 25:5, etc.; see §§2.5); the plural indicates that pieces of
wood from the acacia tree are meant (see KOSynt § 267a; cf. LV 25:5, ‘acacia
trunks’). See further AuS, VII, 28ff.; LA, I, 655ff.; RLA, VI, 453ff.; RSP, I,
387,432f.; THAT, II, 356ff.; TWAT, VI, 284ff.; Benzinger, 102ff., 210ff.; Bruijel,
•Bossen;' Lucas, 429ff.; M.J. Mulder, ZAW 94 (1982), 410-2; K. Nielsen, There
is Hope for a Tree: The Tree as Metaphor in Isaiah, Sheffield 1989; Riithy, 9ff.
See at 3:2 for sacred trees.
10.13 3l?B (OT 32x; Exod. 5x) refers both to grasses and herbs of the
steppe (cf. Jo b 5:25; Ps.72:16) as well as to grain (Gen. 1:29; 3:18; 9:3; etal.);
it occurs in the construct chain rm n 3tsB in 9:22,25; 10:15 (2x) (cf. Gen. 2:5;
3:18; etal.); in the construct chain pKn 3&B (cf. Amos7:2, etal.) in 10:12 (m»
and p x are interchangeable; cf. Lev. 26:4 alongside of 26:20 and see S. Talmon,
ScrHie 8 [1961], 350f.). Exod. 9 and 10, presumably means both the vegetation
of the pasture land (cf. Deut. 11:15; Ps. 106:20) as well as crops in the cul
tivated fields: ‘the grass and the crops in the field’; locusts are reported in
10:12,15; Amos 7:2; Ps. 105:35 as devourers of d &b . See further AuS,
1,334f., 412; TWAT, VI, 410ff; Bruijel, Tijden, 158ff; Riithy, 9,12,29ff, 33,36.
10.1.4 bit (OT ca. 230x; Exod. 6x) [derivative of Bn (OT 55 x) qal ‘sow,’
‘scatter’ (23:10,16)], ‘seed,’ ‘fruit’ (16:31) is used in a variety of ways, among
them, for that which develops from human seed: ‘offspring,’ ‘descendants’
(28:43; 30:21; 32:13 (2x); 33:1). See further TWAT, II, 663ff; Riithy, 69ff.,79;
Strieker, II, 87ff.
10.1.5 nip (OT ca. 120x; Exod. 10:5; cf. Gen. 1:29; 3:2; Lev.23:40; etal.)
‘fruit.’ See further H.L. Ginsberg, " ‘Roots Below and Fruit Above’ and
Related Matters,* in Fs G.R. Driver, Oxford 1963, 72-6; Riithy, 71,79.
10.1.6 nxian (OT 43 x; Exod. 23:10; cf. Lev. 23:39; 25:7,22; etal.) [derivative
of xia (§ 3.8)j ‘the produce’ of the land. See further Riithy, 37,71.
10.1.7 The meaning that is sometimes attributed to n»Bra (§ 3.41.2) in 23:16 is
*yield,’ ‘fruit’ (of the field).336 to b o probably refers rather to the farmer’s
labour (cf. 23:12 and see BDB; KBL), ‘the result of labour’ (concretely, the
336 Cf. Hab. 3:17 and see SS; L. Kopf, VT 9 (1959), 270.
FLORA 153
harvest; viewed not as the yield of the earth but as the product of human
labour; see Deut. 16:15 for both aspects); cf. Deut. 28:12; Isa. 65:22; Hag. 2:17.
10.1.8 rn? (OT 17x; Exod. 8x) [derivative of mo (see at 9:9)] ‘opening
flower’ (Riithy, 66), is mentioned particularly as an ornament (25:31,33
[2x], 34, etc.; cf. Num. 8:4 and see 1 Kgs. 7:26,49; 2 Chr. 4:5,21). See further
Riithy, 44,66f., 68f.
10.1.91?, pi. 0*13 (derivative of 113 [see TWAT, I, 511ff.]), in Ezek. 17:6;
19:14 ‘the strong main rank shared by the vine’ (Riithy, 56) is used in
Exod. 25 -4 0 27x to refer to ‘carrying poles’ (25:13ff., 27f.; 27:6f., etc.; see also
Num. 4:6,8,11,14; 1 Kgs. 8:7f.). See further AuS, IV, 169,301; S. Krauss,
ZAW 21 (1907), 290f.; Low, I, 69.
10.1.10 »*3i, pi. D'?33 (OT 14x; Exod. 8x), ‘bowl,’ ‘goblet’ (Gen. 44:2,
et al.) [for illustrations, e.g. BRL, 76,170,176,181] was apparently also used
for bowl-shaped flower cups (cf. [9:31]; §§3.9) and by extension for
ornaments in the shape of a flower cup (25:31,33 [2x], 34; etc.). See L. Koeh
ler, JBL 59 (1940), 36.
10.1.11 mo? (OT 18x; Exod. 16x) ‘capital’ (Amos 9:1; Zeph. 2:14), as
the ornament of the lampstand (25:31,33 [2x], 34,35 [3x], 36; etc.), it is
usually translated as ‘bud’ and is regarded as a ball-shaped knob-like or
nament;337 inns was probably used to refer to part of the flower cup, the
bud from which the blossoms emerged; cf. KoW, "Knobs, from which the
candelabra lamps sprang like flowers.* See Low, III, 215f., IV, 382.
10.2 Trees
Olive trees, fig trees, and the grape vine were the most valued among the
fruit trees. They are the royal bestowers of blessing (Judg. 9:8ff.) and are
symbolic of human culture and prosperity (1 Kgs. 5:5; Mic. 4:4; Zech. 3:10 and
Exod. 23:11; Josh. 24:13; Hag. 2:19). Together with the pomegranate tree, they
are the pre-eminent fruit trees in Palestine (Deut. 8:8; Hag. 2:19 and
Num. 13:23; 20:5). Of the four, only the fig tree and its fruit (runn; OT ca.
40 x) is unmentioned in Exodus. Only one tree which is not a fruit tree is
mentioned in Exodus, the acacia.
10.2.1 ]*:n ]D3 (Num. 6:4; Judg. 13:14)/]D3 (OT ca. 55 x ) Vine,’ strictly speak
ing not a tree, is not mentioned in Exodus; d i ? (OT ca. 90 x ) is used (see
TWAT, IV, 334ff.) Vineyard,’ mentioned in 22:4 (2x) (alongside ni®, see at
1:14); 23:11 (along with ‘olive garden’). Vine culture demands a great deal of
exertion and care on the part of man (e.g, Isa. 5). The demand made in 23:11
means relinquishing the cultivated land to neglect, weeds, and the wildlife (cf.
Houtman, Wereld, 21f.). The abundance of the vineyard is also threatened by
locusts (Joel l:4f.; Mai. 3:11) and disease (Deut. 28:39), neglect (Prov. 24:30f.)
337 An apple-shaped ornament (Jewish tradition); a ‘lotus bud-shaped, pear-shaped’ ornament;

thus G. Hoffman, ZAW 3 (1883), 124.
154 INTRODUCTION
and disregard by third parties, e.g. shepherds who allow their sheep and
ravenous goats the free run (Jer. 12:10) of the place. 22:4 apparently has the
last possibility in mind. Someone has allowed his livestock to enter the
vineyard, with the apparent purpose of letting them clear the weeds in the
neglected vineyard, but through his inattention, they indulge themselves in
someone else’s vineyard instead. The only fruits of the vine mentioned in
Exodus are (OT ca. 140x; Exod. 29:40) and the hapax legomenon, sen
(22:28) (a derivative of vni “weep’), ‘tears,’ i.e., the juice that was won from
pressing grapes and (or?) olives. In addition to bread and olive oil, red wine
was a staple (Judg. 19:19, et al.), since water of a good quality was relatively
scarce. Wine was also used for enjoyment (Zech. 10:7, et al.). In worship, wine
also served as an drink offering with burnt offerings and sacrifices (29:40;
Lev. 23:13; Num. 15:5,10; et al.). A rule concerning the use of wine during the
passover is not mentioned in Exod. 12; its consumption is first mentioned in
Jubilees 24:6. See further AuS, IV, 291ff.; TWAT, II, 56ff., Ill, 614ff.; M. Broshi,
“Wine in Ancient Palestine - Introductory Notes," The Israel Museum Journal
3 (1984), 21-40; F. Delitzsch, Die Bibel und der Wein, Leipzig 1885; J. Doller,
"Der Wein in Bibel und Talmud," Bib 4 (1923), 143-67,267-99; Forbes, III,
70ff., 106ff.; K. Kirchner, Die sakrale Bedeutung des Weines im Altertum, GieBen
1910; LOw, I, 48ff., IV, 110ff.; Lucas, 16ff.; Lundgreen, 94ff., 107,115ff., 145;
Moldenke, 239ff.; Moller ..., 145ff.; K. Spronk, "De wijn als troost in leven en
sterven: Enkele gedachten over de wijn en de Marzeach in Syrie en Palestina,"
Phoenix 37.1 (1991), 40-54; F. Stolz, "Rausch, Religion und RealitSt in Israel
und seiner Umwelt," VT 26 (1976), 170-86; Strieker, III, 234ff., IV, 458ff.;
V. Zapletal, Der Wein in der Bibel, Freiburg im Breisgrau 1920.
10.2.2 n't (OT 38 x) ‘olive (tree)’; the perennially green olive tree (Olea
europaena L.), a slow growing tree with a thick, knarled, often twisted trunk
that reaches a height of five to eight meters and can become very old. It is one
of the more important trees in Palestine. It requires little care, prospers on
poor soil, and it tolerates the heat well. Olive trees normally stand in groves
together in the vicinity of villages and cities, m in 23:11 has in mind an olive
grove or olive garden (see KoSynt § 256 for the sing.) [cf. Judg. 15:5 and see
the use of b t h following O'ijid in Deut. 6:11; Josh. 24:13; et al]. See further
AuS, IV, 153ff.; TWAT, II, 564ff.; F.J. Bruijel, ‘De Olijfboom," GThT 35
(1934), 273-81; Harrison, 25ff.; Low, II, 286; Lundgreen, 62ff., 89f., 108, et al.;
Moldenke, 157ff.; M0ller .... 99ff.; Zohary, 56f.
1 0 . 2 3 (OT ca. 190 x; Exod. 24 x) [modified as rn |o» in 27:20; 30:24;
Lev. 24:2) ‘oil’ normally refers to ‘olive oil,’ one of the most important pro
ducts of Palestine. The oil was won by mashing338 the fruit in a mortar (e.g.
Franken, 30f.) or by crushing them in an oil mill or press. After this had been
338 Compare the use of n*n? (see TWAT, IV, 406ff.) ‘beaten,’ ‘pounded’ in 27:20; 29:40;
Lev. 24:2; Num. 28:5; 1 Kgs. 5:25.’
FLORA 155
accomplished the pulp was pressed even further. The oil won first possessed
the highest quality. It is to such oil that the term ‘beaten oil’ refers; also
characterized as (27:20; Lev. 24:2) (see TWAT, II, 569ff.) ‘pure,’ i.e., unmixed
and free of foreign substances; cf. 30:34; Lev. 24:7. Olive oil was used for a
variety of purposes: as food (Deut. 12:7f., et al.); as an ingredient in the
preparation of cakes (Num. 11:8; 1 Kgs. 17:12ff.), including cakes intended for
sacrificial offerings (29:2,23; Lev. 2:4; 7:12; Num. 6:15), to improve their
flavour;339 as a liquid with which cakes for offering were coated and saturat
ed (29:2; Lev. 2:4; 7:12; Num. 6:15) [+rron; see at 28:41]. In sum, oil had a
similar function in the preparation of food and as a staple, as butter and
animal fats have for us. Oil was also used for illumination (25:6; 35:8,14;
39:37; et al.; Matt. 25:3ff.); the advantage of pure oil (27:20) was that it burnt
without discharge of soot; a disadvantage was that it is quickly depleted. Oil,
whether perfumed or not, was also used for skin care (2 Sam. 12:20; Ezek. 16:9;
etal.). nroran ‘anointing oil’ (25:6; 29:7,21; 31:11; 35:8,15,28; 39:38; 40:9;
etal.; 15 x) / anp'nrroa (30:25 (2x), 31) / flip n»on la? (37:29) ‘sacred
anointing oil’ used to dedicate people and attributes for the worship of y h w h
(29:7,21, etc.). See §§6.6 for its preparation. In addition to the literature
mentioned in §§ 2.2, see AuS, IV, 259ff., V, 226f., 274,339; RSP, I, 448; Forbes,
III, 101 ff.
10.2.4 pa*), pi. D'3ia*i (OT ca. 30 x), ‘pomegranate (tree)’; the pomegranate is
mentioned in 28:33f.; 39:24ff. as decoration on the hem of priestly apparel; the
mention of the pomegranate as decoration is also known, from Solomon’s
temple (1 Kgs.7:18,20,42, etal.) and from outside of the OT (see BRL,
11,33,191ff., 283). The red (or yellow, greenish) fruit of the Punica granatum
L. may achieve a size greater than that of apples. It is assumed that the
pomegranate was a symbol of fertility (the fruit is actually a berry containing
many seeds the size of kernels of grain which are recessed in a large number of
partitions). See further AuS, I, 60f., 331ff.,377f.,etal.; RLA, III, 616ff.; TWAT,
VII, 528ff.; Bruijel, Tijden, 162ff.; Honig, 159; O. Loretz, Studien zur althebrdis-
chen Poesie 1, Kevelaer/Neukirchen-Vluyn 1971, 27; Low, III, 80ff.; Lundgreen,
18; Moldenke, 189ff.; Moller ..., 52ff.; De Waal, 26.
10.2.5 no®, pi. O'D®340 (Deut. 10:3; Isa. 41:19; Exod. 26x), ‘acacia (wood)’
is used in Exodus in the construct chains d *d ® ' s i ? (25:5,10,13,23,28; 26:15,26;
27:1,6; 30:1,5; etc.; 23x) and d*o» (26:32,37; 36:36). It is not certain
^ 9 In 29:2, the meaning is that olive oil has been used in preparing the dough; PPa (OT ca.
40x; ca. 35x as qal pass, participle ‘prepare’ (Ges-B; BDB\ KoW; cf. LXX) is also
interpreted to mean ‘pour over’ (SS; cf. Ps. 92:11) and ‘wet’ (KBL\ HAL ; cf. Vulg.); qal
is repeatedly mentioned in conjunction with flÔ (§§ 3.3), the basic ingredient of the cakes (29:2;
Lev. 2:4; et al.); see 29:40; Lev. 2:5; 14:10, 21; et al.; it is assumed that the grit was not just
dampened with oil, but that it was also mixed in.
340 Possibly an Egyptian loan word; see Ellenbogen, 160.
156 INTRODUCTION
exactly which tree is meant. It appears from certain geographical names

(Num. 25:1; 33:49; Josh. 2:1; 3:1; et al.) that no® was among the flora of ancient
Palestine. The Acacia albida, which does occur on cultivated land, does not
occur on the Sinai peninsula. On the Sinai peninsula and in the Negev the
Acacia seyal Del. and the sturdier Acacia tortilis Hayne (=Acacia raddiani Savi)
do occur. Their orange-brown wood is durable and is not affected by insects
and is a suitable material for joinery. See further AuS, I, 79,382f.; LA, I, 113;
LOw, II, 377ff.; Lundgreen, 64f., 68ff.; Moldenke, 24ff.; Mdller ..., 7ff.; Zohary,
116.
10.2.6 jpa (Gen. 43:11; Num. 17:23; Jer. 1:11; Eccl. 12:5) ‘almond (tree)’; the
Amygdalus communis L., which occurs in Palestine and Syria, both wild and
under cultivation; a verbal derivative of iptf, O”!i?0i? (pual participle), occurs
6x (25:33 [2x], 34; etc.) modifying d*i?33 (§§ 1.10); the cups have the shape of
almond blossoms or almonds. The almond blossom is shell or bell-shaped
when opened. The same is true of the fruit when it pops open to let go of the
kernel; this is what we normally mean by the term almond. Some have conjec
tured that the seven-branched lampstand is a vestige of/substitute for the
worship of y h w h under sacred trees (Lundgreen, 43ff., 65ff.). Jirku, Volksreli-
gion, 21ff., believes that magical powers were attributed to almond trees and
that the purpose of the ornaments was to inspire awe (cf. idem, Ddmonen,
58f.). The almond tree does not occur on the Sinai peninsula. Its presence in
the Negev makes is possible that it grew on the Sinai peninsula in the past,
according to Zohary, 66f. See further AuS, I, 255ff., 454, et al., IV, 144,405;
Bruijel, Tijden, 134f.; Low, III, 142ff.; Moldenke, 35ff.; M0ller ..., 15ff.; Stol,
15f.
10.2.7 ion (OT 12x; Exod. 15:27; Num. 33:9) ‘(date) palm’; the origin of the
Phoenix dactylifera L. lies in the desert oases; from there it was spread to
cultivated land. It is mainly valued for its fruit (2 to 4 cm long) that ripens at
the end of the summer and that is nourishing and tasty due to its high sugar
content. Dates are eaten fresh, dried, and in the form of cakes. They are also
used to make fruit honey (sm, see at 3:8). The diet of certain groups of
Bedouin consists predominantly of dates and camel milk. The leaves are used
in the manufacture of mats and baskets. See further AuS, IV, 133,378,385;
LA, IV, 658f.; Th. Busink, Der Tempel von Jerusalem, I, Leiden 1970, 272ff.;
S. Fine, “On the Development of a Symbol: The Date Palm in Roman
Palestine and the Jews,* JSP 4 (1989), 105-18; B. Landsberger, The Date Palm
and its By-products according to Cuneiform Sources, Graz 1967; Low, II, 306ff.;
Lundgreen, 18,29,56f., 75f., 79,99,144,171,177; Moldenke, 169ff.; M0ller ...,
107ff.; De Waal, 35; Zohary, 60f.
10.3 Crops of the field

The OT attests to a variety of general terms that refer to ‘grain,’ ‘corn,’ one
of which occurs in Exodus. In addition, various kinds of grain and flax are
FLORA 157
mentioned.
10.3.1 nop (OT 10 x; Exod. 22:5) [a derivative of mp (see at 1:8)] ‘the grain
that still stands’; it is ripe and awaits a reaper. See further Riithy, 50ff. nop is
mentioned in 22:5 in a single phrase with B”ta (OT 4x) ‘bunches of sheaves’
(cf. Judg. 15:5; Job 5:26).
103.2 non (OT 30 x) [cf. KoSynt §2521,255g] “wheat (plant)’ (9:32;
Deut. 8:8; 32:14; etal.) is used particularly in the pi., D'tpn (OT 23x), for the
product of the plant, the wheat grains/ears (29:2; 34:22; G en.30:14; etal.).
Wheat and barley (§§3.5), the most important kinds of grain, are often
mentioned together (9:3If.; Deut. 8:8; 2 Sam. 17:28; Isa. 28:25; et al.). The chief
grain of the Israelites was wheat, the main ingredient for making bread.
Botanists are divided as to what sort of triticum they actually raised: Triticum
sativum, Triticum aestivum, or Triticum durum have all been identified as non.
See further AuS, II, 243ff.; RLA, III, 308ff.; RSP, I, 391,411; LOw, I, 230,776ff.;
Lundgreen, 88f.; Moldenke, 228ff.; M0ller ..., 115ff.; Walker, 228; Zohary, 74f.
103.3 nô (OT ca. 55x; Exod.-Num. ca. 45x; Exod. 29:2,40; etc.)
the construct chain D*en nbo (29:2) refers to a kind of flour (meal) that is to be
distinguished from another kind, npp (OT 14x) [1 Kgs. 5:2 mentions both].
The difference between them is the manner in which they are prepared.
Dalman subscribes to the following view in this respect: rbo is meal ground
from the germs of the grain kernels which is left over along with the bran
when using a fine sieve; nop is the ordinary, fine flour that passes through the
sieve; by subsequently using a coarse sieve, nbo could be separated from the
bran; nop was used for daily bread-making; the coarser nbo ‘groats,’ ‘grit’ was a
luxury item (cf. Gen. 18:6; 2 Kgs. 7:1,16,18; Ezek. 16:13,19) made from wheat
(nop is also normally a wheat product [contrast Num. 5:15]); grits produce a
rather crumbly cake. It should be clear that the popular rendering of nbo as
‘fine flour,’ ‘meal flour’ is incorrect. See further, AuS, III, 284,290ff.; Ben-
zinger, 64,68,369; G. Dalman, “Die Mehlarten im Alten Testament," in
Fs R. Kittel, Alttestamentliche Studien, Leipzig 1913, 61-9; Forbes, III, 84ff.;
Lundgreen, 106f., 122ff.
10.3.4 npp? (9:3; Isa. 28:25; Ezek. 4:9 pi.) [cf. KoSynt §2521,255g] is a
disputed term; it is apparent from the context that some kind of grain must be
meant; there are various theories: (a) rye (KJV in 9:32; Isa. 28:25 [margin
notes ‘spelt’]); (b) ‘bearded wheat,’ ‘spelt’ (Triticum aestivum L. or Triticum
spelta L.) (Harrison, 33; Moldenke, 233f.; Mdller ..., 114f.); (c) ‘fitches’ (KJV),
Vetch’ (Vicia ervilia L.), known among the Arabs as kirsenne (SS; DB, II, 13,
IV, 316f.; cf. Low, I, 355; Vulg. renders it as vicia in Isa. 28:25; Ezek. 4:9 and as
far ‘bearded wheat’ in 9:32); (d) ‘emmer’ (Triticum dioccum) [/4uS, II, 246ff.;
Bruijel, Tijden, 101; Low, I, 767ff.; Zohary, 74f.]; the last interpretation is the
most authoritative. Emmer is a wheat species of less quality than non (§§ 3.2).
Its husks do not separate during threshing. See further RSP, I, 422.
10.3.5 rn»B (OT 32x) [cf. KoSynt §2521,255g] ‘barley’ (9:31 [2x], etal.) is
158 INTRODUCTION
used particularly in the pi., o"UN» (OT 26 x), for the product of the plant, the
barley kernels. Its value was notably less than that of wheat (2 Kgs. 7:1,16,18;
Rev. 6:6). It was used as food particularly by the poor (2 Kgs. 4:42;
John 6:9,13) and was given to animals (1 Kgs. 5:8). See further AuS, II, 251ff.;
Bruijel, Tijden, 100f., 180f.; Forbes, III, 84ff.; Low, I, 707ff.; Lundgreen,
87f„ 148; Moldenke, lllff.; Mpller ..., 48ff.; Zohary, 76.
103.6 With regard to barley, 9:31 contains the remark rnuisn; is
understood to be a collective term, ‘the ears’ (SS); ‘the ripening ears’ (Ges-B);
‘fresh, young ears of barley’ (BDB); ‘the corn in a state of “ripening softness,"
the grains having matured but not yet fully ripened’ (Riithy, 74; cf. AuS, II,
245,305; KBL; HAL). The half ripe ears were consumed after rubbing
(Luke 6:1) or roasting (Lev. 2:14). We have translated it as ‘the barley was half
ripened in the ear.’ In addition to 9:31; Lev. 2:14, occurs in the construct
chain rpxn unri (13:4; 23:15; 34:18 [2x]; Deut. 16:1) ‘month of the ripening
softness of the grain’ (Riithy, 75).
In conjunction to this discussion of grain sorts, consideration will be given to
two waste products.
10.3.7 )3Fi (OT 17x; Exod. 5:7 [2x], 10,11,12,13,16,18) ‘straw’ from wheat
or barley, refers not to the mowed stalks but to the waste that is produced by
threshing, i.e., small broken and tom pieces about 1.5 to 5 cm big; the straw
was mixed with chaff, and both alike were light and perishable (Job 21:18;
41:19). As a waste product (cf. Jer. 23:28) it was used as fodder (Isa. 11:7;
65:25), usually mixed with other feed (Gen. 24:25,32, et al.). When mixed with
clay, it serves as the raw material for the manufacture of bricks (Exod. 5) and
increases the durability and toughness [Egyptian texts also mention straw as a
basic material for pottery; see B. Couroyer, RB 75 (1968), 549-61]. Straw is
obviously available in large quantities only during the harvest. The production
of bricks is only possible when there is no precipitation. In Palestine, they are
made between May and June, and are used in building between July and
August. See further AuS, I, 551, III, 133f., 136ff., 148, etal.; Bruijel, Tijden,
205ff.; Low, IV, 49f.; Moldenke, 254; C.F. Nims, “Bricks without Straw?,’
BA 13 (1950), 22-8. See also at 1:14.
103.8 Bp (OT 16x; Exod. 5:12; 15:7), a collective noun, a term of which the
meaning is somewhat uncertain, ‘(straw) stubble’ (KBL); ‘chaff (BDB); ‘straw
stalks’ (SS);341 waste product of threshing (IDB, IV, 448). Bp is said
to be a substitute for straw in 5:12; the term probably refers to all manner of
plant matter, to the remains of grain stalks, and to parched and thus “woody’
plants, among them plants that were uprooted and broken during the course of
341 G. Gerleman, 7A VV 92 (1980), 414, derives Bp ‘straw stalk’ from HBp ‘be stiff.’
FLORA 159
harvesting342 which served as fodder for the livestock (22:4). The desiccated
and light stems, shafts, and twigs whirl about in the wind and over the fields
(Isa. 40:24; 41:2; etal.). They can be used for fuel but are consumed in an
instant (15:7; Isa. 5:24; 47:14; et al.). It should be clear that it is inadequate to
render the term as ‘stubble.’ In 5:12, »p is the object of the denominative verb
»»p, in the poel ‘gather stalks’; it is used in 5:7 (in a wider sense) with ‘straw’
as its object (cf. Num. 15:32f.; 1 Kgs. 17:10,12; the sense of D'sv here borders
on that of »p). See further AuS, III, 52,137; TWAT, VII, 195ff.
10.3.9 nnt»D (9:31; Isa. 42:3; 43:17) [cf. KoSynt § 255a, g] ‘flax (fibre)’; flax was
a highly valued crop that yielded fibre for the manufacture of linen; the seed
was also used as a food stuff; 9:31 has the latter in mind.343 9:31 contains
the following statement with regard to flax: nnt&Dm; (cf. jraa; §§ 1.10;
Ges-K § 30q, 85s) is interpreted in a variety of ways: ‘flower cup’ (SS; Ges-B);
‘cup-shaped flower’ (KoW);344 ‘bud’ (BDB); ‘flower bud’ or ‘seed-pod’
(KBL).345 The last interpretation is the one we have assumed. See further
AuS, V, 19ff.; Bruijel, Tijden, 201ff.; Low, II, 210ff.; Moldenke, 129ff.; M0ller
.... 128ff.; De Waal, 46f.; Walker, 82; Zohaty, 78. It is generally accepted that
the linen obtained from flax is referred to by different terms in the OT. Two of
these occur in Exodus.
10.3.10 m (OT 38 x; Exod. 33 x; used only in the sing, and unbound
form) is an Egyptian loan word;346 it is used in Exodus in two ways: without
further modification (25:4; 28:5,39 [2x]; 35:6,23,25,35; etc., 13x) and with
the hoph. participle -n»o used attributively347 ‘twined’ (26:1,31,36;
27:9,16,18; etc., 20x). It is certain that is a precious fabric (Gen. 41:42;
Ezek. 16:10,13; 27:7; Prov. 31:22). It is uncertain just which material is meant,
linen or cotton (“white satin’ (LuthV) is incorrect). The LXX has rendered m
as p6oooq or ptcrmvoq (cf. Van der Palm: ‘bissus’), a term that can be used for
any fine fabric.348 The targums have rendered m as pn. The LXX has trans
342 See DB, IV, 625, during the reaping, the grain stalks were pulled out and broken off; there
was thus no stubble in the field afterwards. By contrast, Bruijel, Tijden, 203, for instance, maintains
that the stalks were cut higher than we are accustomed to (20 to 30 cm above the ground).
343 Cf. Forbes, IV, 28; H.P. Muller, UF 2 (1970), 230f.
344 Leading to ‘the flax was in bloom’ as a translation (CV; GNB); cf. NV; WV.
345 See also HAL ; Low, I, 90, 215, and Riithy, 69, ‘flower buds that have not yet opened’; cf.
LV. ‘and the flax in the bud.’
Ellenbogen, 164; Th.O. Lambdin, JAOS 73 (1953), 155; Vergote, 119ff.; cf. Gen. 41:42;
Ezek. 27:7.
347 Hoph. (OT 21 x), with the exception of 39:24 (see the BHS apparatus, however), occurs
only in combination with
34^ Compare the Hebrew (OT 8x) which is supposed to have been introduced in later
times to replace $1ti (see Exod. 26:31 alongside of 2 Chr. 3:14); see Kohler (§ 9.2.9), 48ff., who
claims that is not an animal product, but means ‘white material,’ a costly textile with a light
white colour; just what kind of fabric is meant cannot be gathered from the term; cf. Brenner,
148f.; Gradwohl, 49f.
160 INTRODUCTION
lated fia as fKxTooq or pwrmvo^ as well. Josephus too (AJ, III, 103,110,124,
et al.) puts both terms on a par. It is clear that material of a light colour is
meant. Although the working of flax did take place in Palestine in antiquity, it
was Egypt that was renown as the land of flax cultivation and the land where
flax was made into products of a superior quality, m can indicate the threads,
the yarn, the product of spinning (35:25), as well as the material woven from
the threads. ‘Twined’ linen is linen made from yarn of which the thread
consisted of two or more strands twisted around each other, making it stron
ger. See further AuS, V, 23ff., 67,86,166f., 217, etal.; A. Brenner, “‘White’
textiles in Biblical Hebrew and Mishnaic Hebrew,* Hebrew Annual Review 4
(1980), 39-44; Forbes, IV, 27ff.; F.N. Hepper, “Flax and Linen in Biblical
Times,* Buried History 25 (1989), 105-16; Honig, 44; A. Hurvitz, “The Usage
of and fi3 in the Bible and its Implication for the Date of P,“ HTftR 60
(1967), 117-21; L. Kohler, ZAW 55 (1937), 166f.; Lucas, 142ff.; W.H.vanSoldt
(see § 9.2.13); De Waal, 25.
103.11 1 ? is used 14 x in the sing, in construct chains with terms for
cultic apparel (28:42; 39:28; Lev. 6:3(2 x]; 16:4 [4 x], 23,32; 1 Sam. 2:18;
22:18; 2 Sam. 6:14; 1 Chr. 15:27) and 9x in the plural to refer to the attire of
heavenly beings (Ezek. 9:2f., 11; 10:2,6f.; Dan. 10:5; 12:6f.). The LXX has
rendered 13 in Exodus and Leviticus as Xivow;; the targums have rendered it as
fo ; in adhering to this tradition of translation, the term is usually rendered as
‘linen.’ Are m and is synonyms? The relationship of -ran to i i »d »s? in 39:28 is
important with this question in mind. Is the linen (13) further modified as
twined linen? Can m , as distinct from 13, be used not only of the fabric but
also of the yarn? (DB, III, 125; Cassuto at 28:42, is the name of the
material, whilst 13 denotes the fabric’). Or can nothing be concluded from the
addition of in 39:28 than that *13 was also ‘a white material, either linen or
wool’ (Dillmann at 28:42; he adds that perhaps ‘the concept of normal or
simple white material’ clung to 13). Dalman thinks that *13 and m referred to
linen of different quality: 13 probably referred to an unbleached type of linen
that was coarser than t»» (AuS, V, 29,167,218,223,238; he regards two »» in
39:28 as a later interpolation). A number of scholars contend that 73, at least
originally, had had a completely different meaning than ‘linen.’
Th.C. Foote349 presupposes a relation between 13 and 13 in 25:13ff., which is
usually considered a homonym (§§ 1.9), reaching the conclusion that the
meaning was pars (virilis); 13**0?30 (28:42; 39:28) are thus garments that cover
the male organ, or ‘kilts’ (the interpretation is debatable in view of Lev. 16:4;
Ezek. 9:2; etc.) E. Glaser330 proposes various interpretations on the basis of
the Arabic. 13 is ‘immediate bodily clothing, isolation garment,’ or better,
‘separation garment, perhaps separating the wearer from other people,*39
349 “The Ephod,- JBL 21 (1902), 1-47 (3 n.7, 11, 42, 47).
339 OLZ 9 (1906), 318ff., maintains that ‘13 does not mean a fabric in any case’ (p. 321).
FLORA 161
distinguishing him from them; and thus, honorific clothing, ostentatious attire,
ornate attire, priestly garment’ (p. 319) (cf. HAL, s.v., 72 I and t d ); 72 means
(simultaneously) ‘lot (oracle),’ ‘oracle garment,’ so that nan ”t?a should be
understood to mean ‘oracle clothes’ (p. 319); etc. (cf. Ges-B, s.v., 73 IV, and
HAL, s.v., 73 IV, v). H.J. Elhorst,351 taking his cue from Isa. 44:25 and Jer.
50:36, offers as a proposal that 73 refers to “what is separate,’ ‘what is isolated,’
and that the religious sense of the word refers to that which is removed from
the profane. In Isa. 44:25; Jer. 50:36 it refers to ‘diviners,’ but it was originally
used also of the priest and the sacred. In his view, it appears from 39:28, for
instance, that 73 referred to ‘the priestly.’352 It is possible, at any rate, to
ascertain that 73, in distinction to and p a (see, for instance, Esth. 8:15), is
used only in connection with the clothes of sacred persons. This argues in
favour of a theory in the sense of Elhorst’s. On the other hand, in view of the
contexts in which the word occurs it seems plausible that ‘priestly’ normally
provides an appropriate sense. The manner in which 73 is employed seems to
make it unlikely that a fabric is meant. In accordance with the notion of
‘separate’ associated with ana, we too have chosen for the meaning of ‘the
consecrated’ in line with Elhorst’s interpretation.
103.12 The hemp plant is not mentioned by the OT. It is assumed that
nri'D* (only in the pl.+suffix) ‘rope’ (35:18; 39:40; Num. 3:26,37; 4:26,32) was
made from the strong fibres of the Asiatic hemp plant, which belongs to the
Cannabinaceae family. Rope was also fashioned from other plant matter as
well as from animal matter. The custom of making rope from threads spun
from the hair of goats and camels or from entwining strips of skin from goats
and oxen is not unfamiliar to scholars. See BHHW, III, 1759; BRL, 49; DB, I,
479; IDB, I, 681; De Waal, 27.
10.4 Thoms
10.4.1 pip (OT 12 x; Exod. 22:5) is a general term referring to ‘thorn (bush),’
*weeds.’ Thorns and thistles were the greatest enemies of the farmer. They
continually threatened the crops under cultivation. They are only good for the
fire, but even there they have little use because they are consumed so quickly.
Moreover, when they are introduced to fire, volatile as they are, they can
become an all the more menacing power that easily drags its environment into
havoc along with itself (22:5; Judg. 9:15; Isa. 9:17). The OT stresses only the
negative side to thorns.353 They were, nevertheless, also put to good use.
They served well as hedges (Isa. 5:5; Prov. 15:19; 22:5). Some kinds are suitable
as fodder (Isa. 7:25). In the desert thorn bushes are a welcome provider of*35
351 “Das Ephod," ZAW 30 (1910), 259-76 (266ff.).

35^ 1 3 possibly has the later meaning of ‘linen’ in Lev. 16:4 (p. 268); I. Friedrich, Ephod und
Choschen, Wien 1968, 22, expresses positive sentiments with respect to Elhorst’s theory.
^ For elucidation, see Houtman, Wereld, 21 ff.
162 INTRODUCTION
shade (Gen. 21:15ff.; 1 Kgs. 19:4ff). One should take care not to underestimate
the magnitude of such thorn bushes. Some can reach a height greater than a
man’s. The situation described in 22:15 is possibly a case of someone who
torches carelessly gathered thorns and weeds (cf. Ezek. 15:12ff.; John 15:6), or
the case of someone who burns a field overgrown with weeds, or even a fire in
a hedge surrounding a lot that has ignited itself due to negligence. See further
AuSy I, 51ff., 338ff, 372., e ta l, II, 5 5,138f., 142,308ff., 326f., 329; TWATy VII,
Iff.; Bruijel, Tijden, 60ff., 75,151ff., 156,177ff., 198; Low, IV, 85ff.; Moldenke,
70ff., 153,165f., 202f., 206f., 245,248f.; M0ller ..., 39ff.; Ruthy, 19ff., 23f., 27,65.
10.4.2 n?o354 ‘thorn bush’ (Exod. 3:2 (2x), 3,4; Deut. 33:16). What sort of
shrub is meant is a matter of dispute. Following the example of the LXX, 6
(Jdxcx;, and the Vulg., rubus, the blackberry bush has been suggested, Rubus
discolor; a bush with exceptional vitality.355 Other bushes have also been
suggested: the Craetaegus sinaica, native to the mountains of the Sinai, a
hawthorn of which the crimson red fruit is reminiscent of a flame; the Acacia
nilotica; the Cassia senna, a bush that can grow to be a meter tall with pin
nated leaves and yellow flowers that the Arabs refer to by the name sene. The
senna plant does grow on the Sinai peninsula. The similarity in name with mo
would argue for identifying it as such. Arguing against such identification, on
the other hand, is the fact that the thornless senna plant is rather unimposing
and thus perhaps less than suitable as the vehicle for a theophany. We refrain
from recording still more theories. Identification appears impossible. See
further Low, III, 175ff.; Lundgreen, 26,30f., 47; M0ller ..., 42; Ruthy, 16f.;
Zohary, 140f.
10.5 Water and marsh plants

Among the various terms for ‘reeds’ that occur in the OT, three are present
in Exodus.
10.5.1 kb a (OT 4x)356 ‘rush,’ ‘reed,’ a plant that grows in marshland and
along river banks (Isa. 35:7; Job 8:11). It is uncertain whether a particular
species is meant. In view of 2:3 and Isa. 18:2, the suggestion has been made
that it be identified as the Cyperus papyrus L., a papyrus plant that occurs in
Egypt, in particular, but also in Palestine. It reaches a height of two to six
meters and the base has a diameter of ten cm. Among the uses made of the
reed was the plaiting of quick light boats (Isa. 18:2; cf. Job 9:26).357 See
354 Cf. N'30; see A. Cowley, Aramaic Papyri, Oxford 1923, 218 (tr. ANET, 229f.); cf. R. Toumay,
VT 7 (1957), 410-3.
355 See e.g. AuS, I, 539f., II, 321f.; Low, III, 175ff.; the plant is probably not indigenous to the
Sinai peninsula; the issue, however, is what the author had in mind. The Rubus collinus in the
garden of the St. Catherine monastery is a cultivated plant.
356 An Egyptian loan word; see Ellenbogen, 56; Th.O. Lambdin, JAOS 73 (1953), 149.
357 ANEP , ill. 109; see Dillmann at 2:3 for material from classical authors.
FLORA 163
further Low, I, 559ff.; Lucas, 137ff.; Moldenke, 92f.,249; M0ller ..., 27f.;
D.P. Ryan, “Papyrus," BA 51 (1988), 132-40; Walker, 42; Zohary, 137.
10.5.2 *po occurs exclusively in the construct chain (§8.12) with the
exception of 2:3,5; Isa. 19:6; Jonah 2:6. *po in 2:3,5; Isa. 19:6 refers to plants
that grow in the Nile; Jonah 2:6 refers to plants growing in the ocean. The
term apparently does not refer to a particular kind of water plant. According
to Zohary, 136, the cattail (Typha sp.) is meant. See further Low, I, 574f.;
Moldenke, 92ff.; M0ller 154.
10.5.3 njp, pi. Drip; +suffix, nriip (25:36; 37:22); (OT ca. 55x; Exod. 25x)
Teed stem,’ Teed/ probably a rather general term for species of tall grass or
grass-like plants that grow on marshy wet ground. Species that occur in
Palestine include the Arundo Donax L., which is taller than a man, and the
somewhat smaller Phragmites communis Trin. The bamboo-like stems of the
former can be used for such things as walking canes and measuring rules. It is
possible that 1 Kgs. 14:15; Isa. 19:6; 35:7; etal. refers to such plants. The
original sense of nip is probably ‘hollow stem’ or ‘stalk’ (Gen. 41:5,22) (Ruthy,
39f., 49f., 78f.). nip can, in any event, also be used to refer to hollow tubes or
pipe-shaped objects of various materials: for a measuring rod (Ezek. 40:3,
etal.) and the hollow, tube-shaped shaft (25:31; 37:17) and branches
(25:32,33,35,36; 37:18,19,21,22; etc.; 23x) of the lampstand. See also
§§6.11 for nip. See further AuSy II, 306; RSP, I, 443f.; TWAT> VII, 71ff.; Low,
I, 577,662ff., IV, 48; Lundgreen, 43ff.; Moldenke, 50f., 120f, 172., 222f.; M0ller
..., 110f.; Walker, 170; Zohary, 134.
10.6 Herbsy spices, aromatic substances, resins

In addition to the literature mentioned in §§a, see also DBS, VI, 1310ff.;
LA, II, 555f.; RLA, VI, 214ff.; A. Brenner, “Aromatics and Perfumes in the
Song of Songs," JSOT 25 (1983), 75-81; E. Ebeling, “Mittelassyrische Rezepte
zur Bereitung von wohlriechenden Salben," Or 17 (1948), 129-49,299-313;
Or 18 (1949), 404-18; Or 19 (1950), 265-78; Forbes, III, Iff.; Keel-Kuchler, II,
418ff.; M. LOhr, Das Rciucheropfer im Alten Testament Halle (Saale) 1927;
Lucas, 80ff.; K. Nielsen, Incense in Ancient Israel, Leiden 1986; A. Schmidt,
Drogen und Drogenhandel im Altertumy Leipzig 1927; F. Steinmetzer, “Das
heilige Salbol des Alten Bundes," BZ 1 (1909), 17-29; W. Zwickel, Raucherkult
und Rauchergerdte, Freiburg/Gottingen 1990.
10.6.1 onip (a derivative of "no, see at 1:14) ‘bitter herbs’ (12:8; Num. 9:11;
Lam. 3:15). It is uncertain which herbs are meant. It has been assumed (see
Zohary, 159) that the leaves of a thistle belonging to the Centaurea family are
meant. They are collected in the winter by villagers and Bedouins and used as
salads (IDB, II, 296f.). It is usually believed that a salad made from a variety of
plants, such as watercress, relish, endives, chicory, and lettuce is meant.
Harrison, 34f., considers it possible that thyme was among the herbs. It was
customary in the Ancient Near East to improve the taste of meals by adding
164 INTRODUCTION
salad. It is therefore possible that the bitter herbs of 12:8 are not (in the first
place) intended to remind the Israelites of the bitterness of their life in Egypt.
They are perhaps mentioned as the typical components of a simple, hastily
prepared meal. See further Low, I, 209,426; Lundgreen, 85,144; Moldenke,
74f., 140f.; M0ller ..., 29; Zohary, 95.
10.6.2 aiiR (OT 9x) ‘marjoram’ (Origanum maru L.), a shrub-like plant that
belongs to the labiate family, anx has also been identified with (a) hyssop
(Hyssopus officinalis L.)358 and (b) the caperbush (Capparis spinosa L.) (e.g.
DeWaal, 30,34; cf. Zohary, 98). The ‘marjoram’ interpretation is currently
accepted. Its small felt-like grey-green leaves are covered with fuzz. The thin
stems can easily be broken off and be incorporated into a bunch. A bunch of
them can serve as a brush (12:22) since the fuzzy leaves retain moisture. The
Samaritans used marjoram in the celebration of their passover. It is an
aromatic plant that has been used as seasoning for food since time immem
orial. Medicinal properties were attributed to it. Its use in connection with
purification rites (Lev. 14:4,6,49,51,52; Num. 19:18; Ps. 51:9; see also
Num. 19:6) shows that cleansing power was ascribed to it. The fact that the
strong fragrance of the ethereal oil contained by the plant was capable of
dispelling disagreeable odours may have played a role in this. This was perhaps
also the quality that led to its use in the blood rites which the passover
celebration included. Lev. 14:4 gives cause to conclude that the marjoram was
available in dried form at the sanctuary. Jirku, Damonen, 77ff., believes that
the power of driving away demons was attributed to ‘hyssop.’ The use of the
terms shows that duk was normally used in a collective sense to mean the
stems of the marjoram or the marjoram plant. See A.C. Andrews, “Marjoram
as a Spice in the Classical Era," Classical Philology 56 (1961), 73-82; idem,
“Hyssop in the Classical Era,’ Classical Philology 56 (1961), 230-48; L. Bal-
densperger - G.M. Crowfoot, “Hyssop,’ PEQ 63 (1931), 89-98; Harrison,
43ff.; Low, II, 84ff.; Lundgreen, 83f., 151; Moldenke, 160ff.; M0ller ..., 60ff.;
Zohary, 96ff.
10.6.3 13 (Exod. 16:31; Num. 11:7; see also Exod. 16:14cj; cf. LXX) ‘coriander’
(contrast Zohary, 92). Coriandrum sativum L. is an annual, pungent
umbelliferous plant. The ball-shaped seed the size of a small pea, a pepper
corn, is finely grooved and was already used in ancient times for seasoning and
for medicinal purposes. It is possible that the comparison in 16:13 is limited to
the size and the shape of the seed, which means that it should not be trans
lated as ‘it was white as coriander seed’ (e.g. NV, WV, GNB) but as ‘it was
like the coriander seed, (and) white ...’ (cf. SV, LuthV). See further AuS, II,
188,291, VI, 86; RSP, I, 403; Harrison, 39; Low, III, 441ff.; Moldenke, 86;
M0ller ..., 73f.; De Waal, 40f.
358 A rendering still adopted by NV, WV, GNB, for instance; according to Andrews, 236,
tkrciMlOS in the LXX does not exclude the possibility that the translator had marjoram in mind.
FLORA 165
10.6.4 The general term a*o»3 is used to refer to the ingredients of sacred
anointing oil and sacred perfume (30:22ff., 34ff) in 25:6; 30:23; 35:8. B'o&a (OT
20x) is the plural of cm (OT 8x) / (30:23) that expresses the aromatic
character of two plants in the construct chain in 30:23. In view of the way the
term is employed in Exodus, the question of whether it refers to the balsam
bush can remain beyond consideration (see Zohary, 198f.; cf. Low, I, 299ff.).
Since D'»m also includes resins, the term, as well as the collective, cmn, ought
not to be rendered as ‘spices’ (SV, LuthV, LV, CV, NV) or ‘fragrant herbs’
(WV, GNB), but as ‘aromatic substances.’ The allusion here is to precious
luxuries (1 Kgs. 10:2,10,25; 2 Kgs. 20:13; etal.) that were exceptionally
agreeable (Cant. 4:10,14,16, etal.). See further DBS, VI, 1303; Keel-Kiichler,
II, 421ff.; Stol, 53f.
10.6.5 The term o*op (OT 16x; Exod. 11 x) is used in 30:34 (2x) to refer
to the types of resin of which the perfume is composed: ‘fragrant substances’
(translations such as ‘scented spices’ [SV] or ‘fragrant herbs’ [LV| are less than
adequate). In addition, D'do is used 9x in Exodus in bound forms with map
(OT ca. 60x; Exod. 19x): D'Dornbp (30:7; 40:27; Lev. 16:12; 2 Chr. 2:3;
13:11); D'opn rnBj? (25:6; 31:11; 35:8,15,28; 37:29; 39:38; Lev. 4:7; Num.
4:16).359 In bound forms, d*do expresses the fact that the perfume has been
composed of fragrant substances, rnBp, a derivative of lap (see at 29:13),
normally means ‘perfume’ (30:1,9,35,37) / ‘perfume offer’ (30:8; 40:5). See
also mapn rnm ‘perfume altar’ (30:27; 31:8; 35:15; 37:25). map is also rendered
as ‘incense (offer)’; see also the not always consistent translations in LV, CV;
we have reserved the term ‘incense’ for np1? (§§6.16).
10.6.6 Both the anointing oil and the perfume consist of a melange, called
npi (30:25,35), a derivative of rtpi (OT 9x) ‘mix,’ ‘compose’ (of anointing oil
or perfume) (30:33); the qal participle npi is used to refer to the person who
performs the work (30:25,35; 37:29; Eccl. 10:1; 1 Chr. 9:30; Neh. 3:8) (the work
was also performed by women [1 Sam. 8:13]). He knows the recipes and the
proper manner of preparation. The fact that the anointing oil should be
carefully prepared according to the recipe is expressed in 30:25 by the use of
the construct chain nnppa npi360 ‘a carefully prepared blend.’361 The anoin
ting oil was probably prepared in the following manner: the raw materials were
pulverized in a mortar and mixed with oil in powder form (cf. Esth. 2:12) and
brought to a boil (cf. Job 41:23), causing them to dissolve in the oil; the result
was a thick syrupy substance (Ps. 133:2) that was more or less fluid, depending
359 Often mentioned following anointing oil (25:6; 31:11; 35:8,15,28; 37:29; 39:38; cf.
Ezek. 16:18; 23:41; Prov. 27:9).
360 For nnp*10, see also 1 Chr. 9:30; 2 Chr. 16:14.
'1 (L \
NV; CV, WV have ‘a fragrant blend,’ apparently having assumed that n p l is an aromatic
substance (see DBS, VI, 1309); compare the translation of 30:35; derivatives of n p l are used to
refer to herbs (Cant. 5:13; 8:2); see further the lexicons.
166 INTRODUCTION
on the temperature; the scents of the aromatic substances, which themselves

are volatile, are absorbed and bound by the olive oil which is not ethereal;
economical use of the aromatic substances is possible by means of combining
it with oil in this way. Since the npi (30:35; 37:29) not only prepares anointing
oil but also composes the perfume, the translation ‘perfumer’ (WV) is prefer
able to ‘anointment dresser’ (NV) (SV, ‘pharmacist’; LuthV, ‘herb blender’;
LV, ‘spice dresser’).
10.6.7 In distinction to the anointing oil, the perfume is characterized not as
nnj?7S npi, but simply as np'-i. It appears from 30:34 that incense (§§ 6.16) is the
most important ingredient; as much incense is appropriated as the other three
components together. It is often thought that according to the regulations, an
equal amount of each of the four substances had to be taken. The repetition of
□•go seems intended to indicate that the three aromatic substances subsumed
under it have a part in the melange equal to that of the incense (CV and WV
create the erroneous impression that the melange consists of more than the
four substances). According to later Jewish tradition the perfume consisted of
eleven/thirteen ingredients (DBS, VI, 1323ff.; L6w, IV, 97ff.). In terms of
manner of preparation, it seems a likely assumption that the raw materials
were finely ground (cf. 30:36a) and blended. It is disputed whether salt was
added, nbnrs (pual participle of r6a [cf. nVa ‘salt’]; cf. Lev. 2:13 [qal]; Ezek. 16:4
[hiph.]) is often interpreted as ‘salted’ at present (consult the lexicons). This
contradicts the old interpretation, ‘mixed’ (see commentary). The melange had
to be ‘pure’ (lino), i.e., prepared from original ingredients without addition of
foreign elements. Both the anointing oil as well as the perfume consisted of
four substances (cf. § 4.5.1).
10.6.8 Anointing oil and perfume played an important role in the life of
Ancient Near Eastern man. The use of oil was necessary to protect oneself
against the influence of the climate, against the sun and the wind, which often
contained sharp grains of sand. Administering oil to the skin served hygienic
purposes and prevented cracks and chapping which could provide entrance for
germs (cf. Amos 6:6; Pss. 23:5; 92:11; Ruth 3:3; Eccl. 9:8; et al.). On top of such
necessary use of oil, people also used perfumed oil (cf. 2 Kgs. 20:13; Cant. 1:3;
4:10; Eccl. 7:1; 10:1; Jdt. 10:13) to make life more agreeable, to increase the
attractiveness of people, and to accentuate their good looks. Aromatic substan
ces dispelled disagreeable odours and were a source of physical comfort. They
have cleansing powers and are capable of infusing people with energy and
vitality. No wonder they were associated with joy and gladness (Prov. 27:9).
During mourning people therefore abstained from its use (1 Sam. 14:2;
Dan. 10:3f.). It speaks for itself that the cultic use of aromatic substances
should be viewed in the light of the qualities mentioned here. It should be
added that what is experienced as agreeable is of course relative to one’s
culture. Various substances which were experienced by people in the Ancient
Near East as pleasant are experienced by modern Western people as decidedly
FLORA 167
not a pleasant fragrance.

Anointing oil was prepared from the following ingredients:
10.6.9 10 (OT 12 x) [occurs in Exod. 30:23 in the construct chain Tm-io]
‘myrrh/ a gum resin with a pleasant fragrance and a bitter taste [cf. n o (see at
1:14)] from the Commiphora myrrha (or a related tree) which grows in Arabia,
Ethiopia, and Somalia. When the resin oozes out of the trunk, spontaneously
or after a slash is made, it consists of a yellowish viscous mass. It hardens into
lumps of a yellow-red to brown colour through the influence of the air. The
balsamy fragrance of the precious import commodity was experienced as
exceptionally pleasant (Ps. 45:9; Prov. 7:17; Cant. 1:13; 3:6, etal.; Matt. 2:11;
also compare Mark 15:23; John 19:39). There is uncertainty concerning the
interpretation of iiii. Scholars sometimes relate it to i r n (Lev.25:10, etal.)
‘freedom’; SS, ‘released myrrh= myrrh which has not been extracted but which
issued from the tree itself (i.e., particularly good and precious myrrh; cf. NV);
BDB (T m = ‘a flowing/ ‘free run’), ‘myrrh of flowing/ i.e., ‘fine-flowing myrrh.’
LOw, I, 307, referring to i i (Esth. 1:6), concludes that Tin is ‘the pearl-shaped
tears’; 30:23 refers to ‘reddish-yellow, white speckled grains, droplets named
after the shape of pearls’ (see also AuS, IV, 266; KBL; HAL). Not liquid myrrh
(Cant. 5:5,13) is used for the anointing oil, according to this theory, but grains
of myrrh. G.R. Driver, WO 2 (1954-59), 259ff., states that myrrh hardens in
the shape of lumps and describes the meaning of TrrriD with an appeal to
Arabic as “myrrh as a continuum of agglutinated ‘teardrops’ which have
coagulated into a continuous tangled and solid mass” (p. 260). Since the
myrrh, as distinct from the olive oil (30:24), is weighed, it would probably have
been a solid. See further DBS, VI, 1305f.; RSP, I, 426f.; G.W. van Beek,
“Frankincense and Myrrh,” BA 23 (1960), 70-95; Harrison, 45f.; A. Lucas,
“Notes on Myrrh and Stacte," JEA 23 (1937), 27-33; Moldenke, 77,82ff.;
M0ller ..., 93ff.; De Waal, 51f.; Zohary, 200.
10.6.10 pop (OT 3x), according to rather generally accepted opinion,
‘cinnamon/ the product of the cinnamon tree (Cinnamomum zeylanicum
Nees.)y which was originally indigenous to Ceylon and Malaysia. Cinnamon
comes from the bark of the tree. The young branches are cut from the tree.
The grey-brown to yellow bark is peeled off, and from it the upper cork layer
and the inner bark is removed. In the sun it obtains a yellow brown colour and
rolls up at both ends producing a kind of double tube. Cinnamon has been
used since the most ancient times as a spice and probably also in the com
position of medicines. The OT mentions cinnamon as a pleasantly fragrant
substance (Prov. 7:17; cf. Cant. 4:14). As an article imported from the Far East,
it must have been a precious and exclusive commodity in Palestine. Perhaps
the purpose of Dfin (§§ 6.4) in the construct chain D & 2"pp ‘fragrant cinnamon’
is to qualify the cinnamon as true cinnamon (see SS). Only genuine, costly,
high quality cinnamon may be considered for the anointing oil. See further
DBS, VI, 1309; RSP, I, 144; Harrison, 29f.; Low, II, 107ff.; Moldenke, 76f.;
168 INTRODUCTION
M0ller 66f.; Zohary, 202.

10.6.11 DKrrrnp (30:23), a bound form of rnp (§§5.3) with oâp (§§6.4)
‘fragrant grass’; many subscribe to the theory that (aion) rup (Isa. 43:24;
Jer. 6:20; Ezek. 27:19; Cant. 4:14) refers to calamus (SS; Ges-B; BDB; KOW);
the theory has made its way to translations [‘cinnamon’ is also used as a
translation, e.g. LuthV, Jer. 6:20]. The pungent but pleasantly fragrant root-
stock from the Acorns calamus L., originally from South and East Asia, is used
as a spice and for medicinal ends after having been dried. According to Low, I,
692f., ‘Kahnbartgras’ refers to Cymbopogon Martini (Roxb.) Stapf (Andragon
aromaticus Rayle) (cf. KBL; HAL). Current theory at present holds that one or
several plants belonging to the genus Cymbopogon is meant. These are robust,
perennial grasses which produce and store ethereal oils. The taste and the
smell of the oil differs with each type (the smell/taste of ginger and lemon, for
instance). The grasses are used as spice and for making cosmetics and medicin
es. n:p was an expensive (Isa. 43:24) import (Jer. 6:20; Ezek. 27:19) commodity
in Palestine that was also used in worship (Isa. 43:24; Jer. 6:20). Since the
substance is weighed, it seems implausible that 30:23 concerns oil obtained
from the grass. Mashed leaves are probably meant. See further DBS, VI,
1308f.; Harrison, 42; Moldenke, 39ff.; Moller ..., 65f.; De Waal, 18f.; Zohary,
196.
10.6.12 nip (30:24; Ezek. 27:19), an aromatic substance; it is uncertain
from which plant it comes. Many have accepted the suggestion that it refers to
a product of the Chinese cinnamon tree (Cinnamomum cassia Blume) (e.g.
Ges-B; BDB; KoW). The bark is larger and thicker than that of the Ceylonese
cinnamon trees (§§6.10), it only rolls up in one direction, and forms semi
circular pieces or strokes. The cinnamon has a dark, reddish colour, has less
fragrance and taste than real cinnamon (Cassia vera) and is called Cassia
lignea (wooden Cassia). The cassia is traded ground or in chunks. 30:24 seems
to refer to cinnamon in the form of powder. There is also a possibility that it
refers to the not completely matured fruit of the Cassia. These are collected
and traded as cassia buds (cf. KBL; HAL, ‘cinnamon blossoms,’ ‘cinnamon
cloves’; Low, II, 114, speaks incorrectly of ‘withered and dried blossoms’). They
contain ethereal oil, have an agreeable odour, and count distillation of
cinnamon oil among their uses, nip was also undoubtedly a costly imported
product (Ezek. 27:19). DeWaal, 18, considers it possible that mp should be
equated with the Iris florentina, which grows in the southern Arabian moun
tains. The rootstock possesses a violet odour, and an ethereal buttery iris oil
can be obtained from it. The root can also be made into a powder, mp in
30:24 has been translated as ‘cassia’ by the SV, LN, NV, GNB; CV and WV
(without argumentation) have ‘bay leaf.’ We have adopted the translation
‘cassia cinnamon.’ See further, DBS, VI, 1308; G.R. Driver, WO 2 (1954—59),
261f.; Harrison, 19; Low, II, 107ff., 113f.; Moldenke, 75f., 218f.; M0ller ..., 68f.;
Zohary, 203.
FLORA 169
The perfume was prepared from the following substance (mentioned in a

different order in Sir. 24:15cd).
10.6.13 (30:34) [sometimes considered to be a hapax legomenon; *DtMin
Job 36:27 is sometimes considered to be the pi. constr. of *pj] is a derivative of
*)£« ‘drip’ (e.g. Judg. 5:4,13) meaning gum or resin.362 It is uncertain which
kind is meant. The LXX has rendered *p: as f| craicrf) (cf. Vulg.); this term is
also used by the LXX to translate four other kinds of fragrant substances
(Gen. 37:25; Ezek. 27:6; Cant. 1:13; etal.). Stacte refers to myrrh in particular,
but is also used for other types of gum. Various suggestions have been made
concerning the identity of (a) drops of myrrh are meant, i.e., myrrh in its
purest form (e.g. DB, IV, 613); (b) balsam is meant, gum from the Com
miphora opobalsamum L., a shrub in Arabia and Ethiopia; (c) sap from the
storax (Styrax officinalis L.), is meant, a shrub or small tree which occurs in the
wild in Palestine;363 (d) the fragrant sap of the amber tree is meant
(Liquidambar orientalis MillerJ;364 the gum obtained from the trunk of the
tree, which is indigenous to Anatolia and Lebanon, is a sticky, semi-fluid
brown mass which hardens when affected by the air; (e) the gum resin (mastic)
of the Pistacia lentiscus L., is meant, a shrub-like terebinth which also grows in
Palestine (e.g, AuS, I, 541f.; cf. Stol, 55f.). We have adopted the translation
‘styrax’ a terms which can refer to the resin of various trees. See further DBS,
VI, 1306; B. Greger, BN 45 (1988), 28-39; Moldenke, 224f.; De Waal, 56f.
10.6.14 rfaro (30:34) is a hapax legomenon; the meaning is uncertain. The
theory that it is a vegetable product has been defended (consult Harrison, 47;
Walker, 158,241): (a) ladanum, resin from the rock rose, a small, relatively
dense shrub of the Cistaceae family, of which some species also grow in
Palestine; the strongly aromatic dark brown gum-like secretion is obtained
from its leaves and branches; in times past it was used for medicinal purposes;
it is today still used for making perfume. It is used as incense in the Eastern
church; (b) benzoin, a balsam-like resin from the Styrax benzoin Dryand. The
fact that in post-biblical Hebrew Q’brw means ‘garden cress’ (Low, I, 506ff.,
etal.) argues in support of the theory that a vegetable product is meant, as
well as the fact that the other ingredients mentioned in 30:34 are vegetable.
The LuthV, ‘stacte’ (cf. §§6.13 ), has chosen for n^n® as a vegetable product;
CV, has ‘clove.’365 The theory that an animal product is meant has also been
championed. On the basis of Arabic, it is presupposed the nbrw means ‘shell.’
The LXX translation, 6 6vu^ (cf. Vulg.), lends occasion to assume that the
362 ‘myrrh sap’ (SV); ‘balsam’ (LuthV); ‘stacte’ (LV); ‘amber’ (CV); ‘dripping resin’ (NV);
‘storax balsam’ (WV).
363 See e.g. Low, III, 389ff.; Harrison, 49; M0ller 57f.; attempts in more recent times to
obtain sap from the tree have not led to any results; see BHHW, III, 1851.
364 See e.g. Zohary, 192; he thinks that the name storax actually applies to this tree.
365 Cf. Van der Palm margin, ‘cloves’ (different ones from ours); it is uncertain whether there
were cloves as a spice in ancient Israel; see De Waal, 33f.
170 INTRODUCTION
‘clove’ refers to the operculum (which seals off the larger shell) of a mollusc of
the Strombus genus, which occurs in the Mediterranean and the Red Sea
(‘chimney claw,’ ‘Sea nail’; e.g. SS; Ges-B; KBL). The ‘nails’ emit a sharp,
pungent smell when burnt. The SV, ‘oniche,’ has chosen for nbr© as an animal
product (cf. KJV, ‘onycha’; NEB, ‘aromatic shell’); NV, WV, GNB, ‘onyx.’ LV,
‘nails,’ allows both interpretations. Our preference is for an interpretation as a
vegetable product, ‘rock rose resin.’ See further DBS, VI, 1309f.; RSP, I, 447;
Harrison, 47f.; Low, IV, 99; Moldenke, 223f.
10.6.15 rrabrt (30:34) ‘galbanum’ is a hapax legomenon. It is virtually
accepted by all commentators that the term refers to the yellow brown gum
resin of the Ferula galbaniflua Boisser et Buhse (or a related species), a
perennial umbelliferous plant which is originally indigenous to Persia and
Afghanistan. The gum resin is a milky sap (to associate nnbn and nbn ‘milk’
almost suggests itself) that is obtained by making a slash in the relatively thick
stem a few centimetres above the root. It hardens to a pungent (disagreeable,
one would be inclined to say) substance. Galbanum in the form of grains and
lumps of grains fused together was known in ancient Israel and was used as a
spice and for medicinal purposes. It was an imported article in Palestine, rmbn
is usually translated as ‘galbanum’ (contrast CV, ‘gum’). Our preference is
‘ferula resin.’ See further DBS, VI, 1304; Harrison, 20; Low, III, 455ff.;
Moldenke, 102; M0ller ..., 47; Stol, 62ff., 66f.
10.6.16 (OT 21 x) nab ‘incense,’ is a gum resin of a species of the
Boswellia species which is indigenous to southern Arabia, Ethiopia, Somalia,
and India. The gum is secreted naturally by the leaves and the twigs of what is
usually a low tree or bush, but by making a slash, the flow could be increased.
The gleaming translucent droplets are white, yellow (a relationship between
mab and pb ‘be white’ is assumed) to reddish in colour. They emit a strong
smell, are bitter to the taste, and harden into grains and lumps. During
transport, the pieces grate on each other and become covered with a fine white
substance, becoming darker and less translucent. Incense was an imported
commodity in Palestine (Isa. 60:6; Jer. 6:20). It was used in a variety of ways in
the cult (Lev. 2:1,2,15,16; 6:8; 24:7; Num. 5:15; Isa. 43:23; etal.). Incense
ignites easily, producing sooty, somewhat smelly black smoke. When the flame
has been extinguished, the incense continues to smoulder for a long time,
producing white, agreeably fragrant smoke. There were stores of incense
present in the temple (Neh. 13:5,9; 1 Chr. 9:29). Its use as perfume is also
attested to in the OT (Cant. 3:6; cf. 4:6,14). 30:34 mentions rpi nab ‘pure
incense’ (cf. §§2.3); this possibly refers to resin from the sap which first
appears upon slashing and which is considered to be qualitatively superior; it is
more likely that the expression means to emphasize that genuine, pure incense
was used and not some surrogate; because of the high price of genuine
incense, imitation incense, incense mixed with other materials, was also
brought to market. It is customarily rendered ‘incense’ (contrast with regard to
EXODUS AND HISTORY 171
30:34, CV, ‘resin’; GNB, ‘gum’). See further DBS, VI, 1304f., 1317; TWAT, IV,
454ff.; TWNT, IV, 268f.; Van Beek (see §§ 6.9); D.M. Dixon, ‘The Transplan
tation of Punt Incense Trees in Egypt,” JEA 55 (1969), 55-65; Gradwohl, 39ff.;
Harrison, 43; F.N. Hepper, “Arabian and African Frankincense Trees,”
JEA 55 (1969), 66-72; L. Kohler, ThZ 4 (1948), 233f.; Low, I, 312ff.; Lund-
green, 109f., 133; D. Martinetz et al., Weihrauch und Myrrhe, Stuttgart 1988;
Moldenke, 56ff., 280; W.W. Muller, “Arabian Frankincense in Antiquity
according to Classical Sources,” in Studies in the History of Arabia, Riyadh
1979, 79-92; idem, “Het belang van de wierookhandel voor het antieke Zuid-
Arabie,” Phoenix 33.1 (1987), 30-54; M0ller ..., 139f.; Zohary, 197.
10.7 Man and the flora

Similar remarks can be made concerning ‘man and the flora’ as have been
made concerning ‘man and the fauna’ (§ 9.5). The OT shows that the Israelites
intently acquired knowledge of the flora, that the flora impressed them deeply,
and that they marvelled at it. Many of the images in the Bible stemmed from
the flora. Teachers of wisdom readily refer to the flora to draw lessons from it
for man. Flora play an important role in hymns to God. It had also acquired
prominence in ornamentation and in religious symbolism. The Israelites’ awe
at the flora did not, however, mean that they found all species equally im
posing. Insofar as they inhabited cultivated land, they showed little admiration
for untamed vegetation, weeds, thorns, and thistles, all of which formed a
continual threat to the farmland and which were experienced as representatives
of the counter-world. Their admiration was directed to flora which were of
benefit to them and which made their life more pleasant, such as fruit trees
and trees which produce valuable wood, plants which provided food and raw
materials for clothing, cosmetics, medicines, etc. For further elucidation, see
Houtman, FsRidderbos, 154ff.; idem, Wereld, 21ff., and see further IDB, II,
300ff.; W. Berg, “Israels Land, der Garten Gottes: Der Garten als Bild des
Heiles im Alten Testament,” BZ 32 (1988), 35-51; Farbridge, 27ff.; Jirku,
Volksreligion, 20ff.; Low, IV, 9ff., et al.; Lundgreen; Zohary, 45ff. For the role
of flora in religious experience, see at 3:2.
§ 11 The book o f Exodus and history

11.1 Bibl.(general): G.W. Ahlstrom, Who were the Israelites?, Winona Lake,
IN 1986; J.J. Bimson (see § 8.a); J. Bright, A History o f Israel, Philadelphia
19813; A. de Buck, “De Hebreeen in Egypte,” in Fs A.W. Byvanck, Varia
historica, Assen 1954, 1-16; R.B. Coote - K.W. Whitelam, The Emergence of
Early Israel in Historical Perspective, Sheffield 1987; R.B. Coote, Early Israel: A
New Horizon, Minneapolis 1990; C.H. Dyer, “The Date of the Exodus Reexa
mined,” BS 140 (1983), 225-43; O. EiUfeldt, “Palestine in the Time of the
Nineteenth Dynasty, (a) The Exodus and the Wanderings,’ in Cambridge
Ancient History, II/2, Cambridge 19753, 307-30; H. Engel (see § 8.a); D.N.
172 INTRODUCTION
Freedman - D.F. Graf (eds.), Palestine in Transition: The Emergence o f Ancient

Israel, Sheffield 1983; I. Finkelstein, The Archaeology of the Israelite Settlement,
Jerusalem 1988; C. van Gelderen, Bijbelsch Handboek,ly Kampen 1935, 69-198;
C.H.J. de Geus (see Bibl.); N.K. Gottwald (see Bibl.); S. Herrmann, Israels
Aufenthalt in Agypten, Stuttgart 1970; idem, Geschichte Israels in alttes-
tamentlicher Zeit, Miinchen 1973 (except where noted otherwise, the reference
is to Israels Aufenthalt); H. Jagersma, Geschiedenis van Israel, Kampen 1979; J.
de Koning, Studien over de El-Amamabrieven, Delft 1940; E.-M. Laperrousaz
(ed.), La protohistoire dTsrael: De Texode a la monarchies Paris 1990; N.P.
Lemche, Early Israel: Anthropological and Historical Studies on the Israelite
Society before the Monarchy, Leiden 1985; G.E. Mendenhall (see Bibl.); AR.
Millard - D.J. Wiseman (eds.), Essays on the Patriarchal Narratives, Leicester
1980; J.M. Miller, in Hayes - Miller, 213-84; M. Noth, GI; AF. Rainey (ed.),
Egypt, Israel, Sinai: Archaeological and historical Relationships in the Biblical
Period, Tel Aviv 1987; G.W. Ramsey, The Quest for the Historical Israel,
London 1982; H.H. Rowley, From Joseph to Joshua, London 1950; W.H.
Stiebing, Out of the Desert? Archaeology and the Exodus/Conquest Narratives,
Buffalo, NY 1989; Th.L. Thompson - D. Irvin, in Hayes - Miller, 149-212; R.
de Vaux, HAI; P. Weimar - E. Zenger, Exodus: Geschichten und Geschichte der
Befreiung Israels, Stuttgart 1975, 100-38; M. Weippert, Die Landnahme der
israelitischen Stdmme, Gottingen 1967; K.W. Whitelam, “Recreating the
History of Israel," JSOT 35 (1986), 45-70; B. Zuber, Vier Studien zu den
Ursprilngen Israels, Freiburg/GOttingen 1976.
11.2 The question concerning the place of Israel’s early history in the
history of the Ancient Near East is one that raises numerous questions. For
information about Israel’s arrival in Egypt, its stay there and its departure
from it, the only source we have is the Bible. The information offered in the
Bible does not make it easy to place Israel’s early history in the framework of
Egypt’s history. For example, the biblical narratives do not mention any of the
contemporary Pharaohs by name. The attempts to reconstruct Israel’s history
in Egypt, undertaken since the latter half of the previous century, have led to
divergent results (see Engel). Below I offer three more recent concepts of
Israel’s history in Egypt to give an idea of what has been attempted. In a few
comments about the arguments in the discussion I deal with some basic
questions that touch on the reconstruction. But before that some things should
be noted first.
a. Dates from the history of Egypt are derived from E. Hornung, Grundzilge
der dgyptischen Geschichte, Darmstadt 19782. Establishing the chronology is not
without problems.366
366 See for example, BH , I, 286 ff.; IDBS, 158 ff., 253 ff.; M. Bietak, “Egypt and Canaan during
the Middle Bronze Age,“ BASOR 281 (1991), 27-72, with a rejoinder of W.G. Dever, BASOR 281
(1991), 73-9.
b. In concepts of the history one often meets the term ‘Hyksos.’ The term
goes back to the Egyptian hekau-chasut, ‘rulers of foreign lands.’ It refers to
the non-Egyptian rulers in the so-called ‘Second Intermediate Period,’ (ca.
1650-1540) in Egypt’s history. There are many questions about them. Were
they Hurrians who seized the power, or Amorites, West-Semites, who entered
the country peacefully? Were they forced out? Sure is that from way back
Asiatics, Semites, made their way toward Egypt.367 It has been surmised that
there must be a link between the history of Israel’s ancestors and the Hyksos
(see Engel; esp. pp. 191ff.). Such is already the case in Josephus (CA, I, 73ff.,
2m .).3™
c. Another frequent term is ‘Apiru’ (see § 8.25). They are mentioned in
Egyptian texts and in the Akkadian El-Amarna letters. In these letters the
correspondence between the Pharaohs Amenophis III (1402-1364) and Ameno-
phis IV (1364-1347) and their vassals in Syria/Palestine about the threat of the
Apiru who endanger the political stability is quite prominent. The question
whether there is a connection between the Apiru and the Hebrews is impor
tant for the understanding of Israel’s early history.
d. An important item of discussion is the date of Israel’s exodus. Generally
speaking there are two major views. The exodus occurred either in the 18th
dynasty (ca. 1450) or during the 19,h dynasty (circa 1250).
113 Israel in Egypt; three concepts o f the history

113.1 An 18th dynasty date of the exodus is defended by Bimson.369 He
proposes the following picture of Israel’s history (pp. 249ff.): The Pharaoh of
the exodus was Thutmosis III (1490-1436), a powerful ruler. He had many
buildings constructed in Memphis and apparently also in Heliopolis (cf. 1:11
LXX).370 From labour camps in those cities Moses visited the Pharaoh. The
birth of Moses coincided with the expulsion of the Hyksos (ca. 1550). Due to
their expulsion the hardships for the Semitic Israelites became much more
severe (cf. 1:22). Moses fled from Thutmosis II (1494-1490) (2:15) and retur
ned after his death (2:23; 4:19). The exodus occurred in 1470. The ‘Israel’ of
the exodus at the time it left Egypt already had something of a national
identity and was made up of 72,000 persons, 18,000 of whom were valiant men
(p. 33; cf. pp. 15ff., 236; the figures are based on an interpretation of 12:37).
Their descendants took possession of Canaan (ca. 1430) (cf. pp. 16, 68, 87ff.).
367 See for example BH, I, 317ff.; IDBS, 424f.; LA, I, 462 ff.; Ill 93ff.; RLA, IV, 537ff.; De Vaux,
HA I, I, 78ff., and A. Kempinski, Syrien und Paldstina (Kanaan) in der letzten Phase der Mittelbronze
IIB-Zeit (1650-1570 v. Chr.), Wiesbaden 1983.
368 Josephus draws on Manetho (3rd century B.C.): Hyksos = shepherd princes.
369 Cf. idem - D. Livingston, "Redating the Exodus," BARev 13.5 (1987), 40-53, 66-8; B.
Halpem, "Radical Exodus Redating Fatally Flawed," BARev 13.6 (1987), 56-61, with a reply of
Bimson in BARev 14.4 (1988), 52-5.
370 Cf. p. 47; 1:11 refers to the period from circa 1800 (pp. 39, 43f., 255).
174 INTRODUCTION
Some of the Israelites may have been part of the exploits of the Apiru. At any
rate, nothing in the Amarna letters argues against a dating of the exodus in the
Amarna period (pp. 24Iff.).
113.2 Herrmann chooses a late date of the exodus. His picture of ‘Israel’ in
Egypt is as follows (pp. 3Iff., 34ff., 48ff., 58f.,): During the second millennium
there were often ‘waves’ of Semitic semi-nomads from the Syrian-Arabian
desert region moving toward the cultured lands of the Ancient Near East. At
the time that from the west the ‘Sea Peoples’ (among others the Philistines)
flooded in, there was from the east an Aramaic ‘wave’ which also headed for
Palestine. Part of these Semites settled there. Those who belonged to the
southern arm of the “wave’ settled in the eastern region of the Nile Delta;
however, their settlement amounted to a failed attempt at territorial an
nexation (p. 48), because they were conscripted to work in the building of
cities (1:11). They attempt to regain freedom (pp. 35f., 46ff.). Under the
leadership of Moses and because of him they are successful (pp. 70f.). During
their attempt to escape (14:5) along Lake Sirbonis, an Egyptian army detach
ment, stationed at the border, which had given them chase, perished in a flood
wave. The fugitives attribute the deliverance to Moses’ God, yhwh. In the
wilderness they come in contact with related groups and eventually invade
Palestine. There they meet other groups of the Aramaic Vave’ which are
already settled there. Their experience with yhwh becomes a communal
experience (p. 93). The events took little more than one generation (pp. 39,
71f.) and happened at the time of the 19111 dynasty Ramesses II (1290-1224),
the Pharaoh of the oppression and likely the Pharaoh of the exodus (it could
also be Merenptah [1224-1204]; pp. 18, 30, 74). In Exodus he is pictured as a
complete stereotype without any individual characteristics (p. 63). Herrmann
does not chronologically separate the history of the patriarchs and the history
recorded in Exodus. In his view, the patriarchal narratives reflect what hap
pened to the Aramaic groups (pp. 17, 33ff., 49ff.).
1133 Also De Vaux chooses a late date of the exodus under Moses. How
ever, he makes a distinction between the time of the patriarchs (19th-18th
century) and the time of the exodus (13th century). He holds that in the
intervening time repeatedly groups entered Egypt, from which the later Israel
was formed. That happened for the first time just before or at the beginning of
the rule of the Hyksos (ca. 1650), and for the last time shortly before the
oppression by Ramesses II (I, 301ff.). De Vaux considers it possible that a
Semite named Joseph attained a high position in Egypt and that a group of
people related to him settled in the Delta (I, 300; for arguments against it see
Herrmann, 52ff.). Groups from which the later Israel would be formed left
Egypt again at various points in time. De Vaux detects two traditions in
Exodus: the exodus as a flight (1) and the exodus as the result of expulsion (2).
Both are rooted in history. The flight happened under Moses at the time of
Ramesses II (ca. 1250). The expulsion happened at the time of the expulsion
of the Hyksos during the 18th dynasty (I, 349ff., 365ff.; cf. 358, 383, 397, 616).
Corresponding to the two exodus traditions there is a tradition about a
northern (with 2) and a tradition about a southern exodus route (with 1) (I,
354ff.). Similarly there is a tradition about a stay at Kadesh (with 2) beside a
tradition about a stay at Sinai (with 1) (I, 392ff.). Furthermore, there is a
tradition about an invasion from the south (with 2) and a tradition about an
invasion from Transjordan (with 1) (I, 487ff.). The group under the leadership
of Moses witnessed the deliverance at the sea and was the bearer of the
revelation of yhwh. In Canaan, the groups who had been in Egypt joined
groups that had a different past. All shared in the worship of yhwh.
11.4 Length of the stay in Egypt and the date of the exodus
11.4.1 Proponents of an early date of the exodus appeal to the biblical
chronology. In 1 Kgs. 6:1 it is reported that Solomon built the temple in the
fourth year of his reign (ca. 965), 480 years after Israel’s exodus out of Egypt.
Bimson regards this figure as ‘a rough guide’ (pp. 86, 102) and the figure of
300 year (Judg. 11:26) mentioned by Jephthah in relation to the period of the
conquest as ‘a fairly reliable guide’ (p. 93) for the dating of the exodus.371
11.4.2 In Exod. 12:40f. it is reported that the length of time the Israelites
lived in Egypt was 430 years. In the Sam. Pent, and the LXX the figure is
applied to the period of Israel’s stay in Canaan and Egypt.372 Presumably
what is meant is that the 430 years are to be figured from the time that
Abraham entered Canaan. Exod. 12:40 is also taken up by Bimson in his
chronology. In a contribution to Millard - Wiseman, 59-92, he sets the arrival
of Jacob and his sons in Egypt at about 1877.373* Older proponents of the
early date often prefer the reading of the Sam. Pent, and LXX: After deduc
ting 215 years for the stay of the patriarchs in Canaan (Gen. 12:4; 21:5; 25:26;
47:9) 215 years remain for Israel’s stay in Egypt (see e.g. Van Gelderen). In
that case something can be said in defense of the oft propounded view that
Joseph came to Egypt in the time of the Hyksos (see Engel, 22f., 57, 103f.,
107, 114; De Vaux, HAI, I, 301f.) and that the Amarna letters relate to the
371 For an early date on the basis of the biblical chronology see e.g. also Van Gelderen, 96ff.,
109ff. and De Koning. Their reconstruction of the history differs, however, from that of Bimson.
They think of Amenophis II (Homung: 1438-1412) as the Pharaoh of the exodus. Van Gelderen
considers it likely that Hatshepsut (Homung: 1490-1468) was ‘the daughter of Pharaoh’ (2:5); cf. J.
Feather, ET 43 (1931-2), 423ff. De Koning, 80ff., on the other hand considers it likely that she
issued the order of 1:22. He suggests (pp. 75ff.) that Joseph was given his high position by one of
the Hyksos princes and that the Pharaoh of 1:8 feared an alliance between Israel and the expelled
Hyksos (1:10).
372 See also Gal. 3:17; Josephus (AJ , II, 318); elsewhere (AJ , II, 204; BJ, V, 382) Josephus puts
the length of the oppression at 400 years; cf. Gen. 15:13.
373 In his opinion the version of the LXX is based on a comparison of Gen. 15:13 and Exod.
12:40f.: the sons of Jacob were 30 years in Canaan after Jacob’s return from Haran and 400 years
in Egypt.
176 INTRODUCTION
coming of the Hebrews (see in particular De Koning; cf. Rowley, 9ff. et. al.).
The defenders of the early date cited here belong to conservative groups.3'4
It should be noted, however, that there are also conservative scholars who
favor a late date.375
11.43 Those in favor of a late date usually hold (but see, however, Kitchen,
S3) the view that the figures of biblical chronology are meant theologically and
symbolically and are not to be used for constructing a historical chronology
(e.g. Herrmann, 72ff.; De Vaux, H A1,1, 300f., 365f.). Note for example that the
numeral 480 in 1 Kgs. 6:1 is based on 12 x 40 (see § 4.5.3). At any rate, it is
obvious that the biblical data raise questions. Exod. 12:40 puts the length of
Israel’s stay in Egypt at 430 years. Gen. 15:13 puts the length of the oppression
at 400 years, while in Gen. 15:16 it is said that the fourth generation will come
back to Canaan (according to Kitchen, 54, nil here refers to a longer period).
What is said in Gen. 15:16 agrees with the genealogy of Exod. 6 in which
Moses appears as the great-grandchild of Levi on his father’s side and as the
grandchild of Levi on his mother’s side (vss. 16, 18ff.; cf. Num. 26:57ff.).376
The variant texts have always been a big question. One proposed solution
(Aphraates) is that on account of Israel’s attitude toward Moses (2:14) 30
years were added to the 400 years of Gen. 15:13.377 If the biblical chronology
is abandoned room is created for variant views concerning the length of
Israel’s stay in Egypt, as is evident from the views of Herrmann and De Vaux.
To mention one more view, Rowley, 164, puts the stay at about 130 years.
11.4.4 In my opinion it is best not to draw conclusions from the biblical
figures in the matter of dating the events.378 In this connection I refer once
again to 12:40 in Sam. Pent, and LXX and wish to point out the following.
The LXX reading of 1 Kgs. 6:1 (with the exception of Luc.) has the figure 480.
Paul puts the period between the exodus to the beginning of the reign of
374 For the views of other advocates of an early date see Rowley, 9ff, et.al.
375 See, e.g. Kitchen, 57ff.; R.K. Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament, Grand Rapids
1969 174ff., 315ff.
376 According to Kitchen, 54f., the genealogy is incomplete.
377 For these and other views see Ishodad in his introduction to Exodus; cf. Hidal, 19f.
According to N.H. Tur-Sinai, BiOr 18 (1961), 16f., the problem stems from a wrong understanding
of the text. For a modem attempt at harmonization see for example M. Naor, BetM 27 (1981), 40-
5. For the difficulties in the text of Exodus relative to the chronology, see further the exegesis of
1:8, 11; 2:1, 11, 22, 23; 4:20; 6:14ff.; 7:7; 12:40. Cf. S. Kreuzer, -430 Jahre, 400 Jahre Oder 4
Generationen - Zu den Zeitangaben liber den Agyptenaufenthalt der ‘Israeliten’," ZAW 98 (1986),
199-210; idem, -Zur Prioritat und Auslegungsgeschichte von Exodus 12,40 MT," ZAW 103 (1991),
252-8; D. Liihrmann, -Die 430 Jahre zwischen den VerheiBungen und dem Gesetz (Gal 3,17),"
ZAW 100 (1988), 420-3; S. Talmon, -‘400 Jahre’ Oder Vier Generationen’ (Gen 15, 13-15):
Geschichtliche Zeitangaben oder literarische Motive?" in Fs R. Rendtorff, Die hebrdische Bibel und
ihre zweifache Nachgeschichte, Neukirchen-Vluyn 1990, 13-26.
378 Not after the manner of Bright either, 123: 480 (1 Kgs. 6:1) = 12 generations = ca. 300
year; therefore the exodus took place in the middle of the 13th century.
David at 40 + 450 = 490 (7 x 70) years (Acts 13:17, 22); Josephus puts the
period between the exodus and the building of the temple alternately at 612
years (AJ, XX, 230; G4, II, 19) and at 592 years (AJ, VIII, 61; cf. VII, 68; X,
147). More in general the Sam. Pent, and the LXX often have a different
chronology than the MT, particularly in Gen. 1-11. It is clear that there existed
variant chronological systems with an artificial character.379
11.45 Defenders of the late date of the exodus claim that the book of
Exodus supports that dating. The note in 1:11 that the Israelites were involved
in the building of Pithom and Rameses is considered old and authentic. From
that it is deduced that the exodus must have happened after the king whose
name is preserved in the city of Rameses (Ramesses II) came to the
throne.380 Bimson, 42f., on the other hand, holds that the use of Rameses is
anachronistic (cf. Gen. 47:11).381 Referring, among others, to D.B. Redford,
VT 13 (1963), 401-18, he points out that though the city of Pi-Rameses did not
exist beyond the 20th dynasty, its name nevertheless remained in use through
the centuries (De Vaux, HAI, I, 309 has a different perspective).
11.4.6 Defenders of the early date maintain that their standpoint with respect
to 1:11 is altogether plausible in light of the Merenptah stele. The stele
describes a victory in 1219 of the Pharaoh over the Lybians and Sea Peoples
and in a final poem includes Israel among the peoples and areas that were
controlled by Egypt (ANET, 376ff., TGI, 39f.; cf LA, III, 205). The stele, the
oldest extra-biblical and only Egyptian text in which the name ‘Israel* occurs
makes it impossible, it is held, that the exodus happened under Merenptah
(1224-1204) and unlikely that it happened under the rule of Ramesses II. To
that can be added that at the time of the discovery of the stele (1896) the late
dating was in vogue. The publication of the text led several scholars to choose
the early date, all the more because also the Amarna letters and the results of
the excavations (J. Garstang’s excavation of Jericho) seemed to support it.
Today it is generally held that the mention of the name ‘Israel* is not incom
patible with the late date. Going on the assumption that only part of the later
Israel could look back on a past in Egypt, it is conjectured that the name
379 For research in the nature of the chronology of the OT, see e.g. Jacob, Pentateuch, 23ff.,
39ff.; J. Hughes, Secrets o f the Times: Myth and History in Biblical Chronology, Sheffield 1990; G.
Larsson, The Secret Systetn: A study in the Chronology o f the Old Testament, Leiden 1973; idem,
"The Chronology of the Pentateuch," JBL 102 (1983), 401-9; idem, "The Documentary Hypothesis
and the Chronological Structure of the Old Testament," ZAW 97 (1985), 316-33; D.W. Young,
"On the Application of Numbers from Babylonian Mathematics to Biblical Life Spans and
Epochs," ZAW 100 (1988), 333-61. Cf. also J. Barr, "Why the World was Created in 4004 B.C.:
Archbisshop Ussher and Biblical Chronology," BJRL 67 (1985), 575-608. For the chronological
problems in Israel’s early history see further J.M. Miller, The Old Testament and the Historian,
London 1976; Rowley, 56ff.; S. Tengstrom, Die Toledotformel, Lund 1982, 44ff., 59.
380 See for example, Bright, 121; Herrmann, 18, 30, 74; Rowley, 31ff., 129f.; Weimar - Zenger,
118f. (exodus ca. 1200); De Vaux, HAI, I, 309, 365.
381 See also for example already Van Gelderen, 122f.,; De Koning, 48f.; cf. Rowley, 31 ff.
178 INTRODUCTION
‘Israel’ was already in use to designate a group in Canaan when as yet the
Israel in the later sense of the word did not yet exist.382 Bimson (pp. 74ff.;
cf. idem, JSOT 49 [1991], 24f.), however, is of the opinion that there is no
reason to call into question the fact that at the time of Merenptah all of Israel
was in Palestine.383
11.4.7 In my judgment an anachronistic use of names in 1:11 is not impos
sible. Anachronisms are found more often in the Pentateuch (see ‘land of
Rameses’ in Gen. 47:11; ‘Dan’ in Gen. 14:14 [cf. Judg. 18:29]; ‘Philistines’ in
Gen. 21:22ff.; 26:lff.; Exod. 13:17; 23:31). Apparently the biblical writers use
the geographical terms of their time. In view of the nature of the narratives in
Exodus (see § 11.6.9) it is also possible that in the tradition process the ex
periences in Egypt were given flesh and blood in the sense that the forced
labour the people had to perform in Egypt was later localized in cities which
in Israel enjoyed a special reputation (cf. the localization of the confusion of
tongues and the scattering of mankind in Babel [Gen. 11]). In this connection
it is significant, too, to note that in the LXX the name Heliopolis is added to
the names in 1:11. That may have been the translator’s way of actualizing the
text. Residing in Egypt, he sought to tell his readers that the Heliopolis they
were familiar with (in and around the city were Jewish settlements in the
Hellenistic period) was built on the blood and sweat of their ancestors. We are
not sure if the localization of the forced labour in Pithom and Rameses
became part of the tradition due to the impressive building projects of
Ramesses II (historically Israel’s oppression came before that). One reason we
cannot be sure is because it cannot be determined when the names Pithom and
Rameses were known in Israel.384 All in all, in my judgment 1:11 is hardly a
key witness for dating the exodus.
11.4.8 One cannot deal with te date of the exodus without paying attention
to the time of Israel’s settlement in Canaan. For the determination of the time
of Israel’s entrance into the land arguments derived from the archaeology of
Palestine are often considered as well. In particular W. F. Albright and
followers insist that a 13th century date for the exodus must be assumed. They
maintain that archaeological data support putting the time of the entrance into
Canaan in the second half of the 13th century and the description of it in Josh.
1-12 (see e.g. Bright, 130ff.). The interpretation of the archaeological data
For an overview of the conclusions derived from the stele see J J . Bimson, "Merenptah’s
Israel and Recent Theories of Israel’s Origins,- JSOT 49 (1991), 3-29; H. Engel, "Die Siegesstele
des Merenptah. Kritischer Uberblick iiber die verschiedenen Versuche historischer Auswertung des
SchluBabschnitts," Bib 60 (1979), 373-99.
383 Cf. M. Haran, IDBS, 305f. In agreement with W. F. Albright he considers it possible that the
exodus happened at the beginning of the reign of Ramesses II (ca. 1290). He is also willing to
consider the possibility of an earlier moment for the exodus.
384 D.B. Bedford, VT 13 (1963), 415ff., takes 1:11b as an addition of P and dates the origin of
the tradition between 525 B.C. and the end of the 5th century.
propounded by Albright and his followers has increasingly come under

attack.383* It is argued that the archaeological data by themselves are insuf
ficient to say with certainty that Israel’s settlement in Canaan happened toward
the end of the 13th century. Also Bimson contests the view of Albright and
followers (pp. 52ff., 67ff.). However, he considers the use of arguments derived
from archaeology entirely legitimate. He holds that they support a dating of
the exodus at the end of the 15th century and confirm the picture of Israel’s
history in Joshua and Judges (pp. 115ff.). Bimson drops a number of common
ly held views. He places the destruction of several cities from the Middle-
Bronze era not in the 15th but in the 16th century, and attributes their ruin not
to the Hyksos but to the Israelites (pp. 115ff.). Like Albright and followers,
also Bimson appears to be guided by the biblical givens in his interpretation of
the archaeological data.
11.4.9 There can be no question that there is a tie between the manner in
which the archaeological data are handled and one’s assessment of the biblical
givens. The knowledge gained from archaeological excavations has not resulted
in a consensus about the date and nature of Israel’s settlement in Canaan.
Various views are espoused: Israel’s settlement was at least accompanied by
military operations (1) (W.F. Albright and followers; Bimson); The settlement
was for the most part a peaceable process of infiltration by semi-nomads (2)
(A. Alt; M. Noth; M. Weippert); The settlement was in reality an internal
social revolution (3) (G.E. Mendenhall; N.K. Gottwald).386 These diverse
views are possible because, historically speaking, the archaeological data lend
themselves to a variety of interpretations and because no precise picture of the
history emerges from them (cf. Bimson, 48ff.; Miller, 254ff., 262ff., 270ff.,
279ff.). In brief, it is impossible to determine the date of the exodus and to
construct a picture of the Israel of the exodus only with the use of data derived
from the archaeology of Palestine.
11.5 ‘Israel’s ’ ancestors in Egypt

11.5.1 The views of Herrmann and De Vaux showed that they believe that
See e.g. W.G. Dever, Recent Archaeological Discoveries and Biblical Research, Seattle/London
1990; H J. Franken, "Palestine in the Time of the Nineteenth Dynasty, (b) Archaeological
Evidence," in The Cambridge Ancient History II 12, Cambridge 19753, 331-7; idem, "The Problem of
Identification in Biblical Archaeology," PEQ 108 (1976), 3-11; M.E. Martin, The Appraisal of
Argument in Biblical Archaeology, Leiden 1976; Miller, 256f., 272ff.; Thompson, 152f.; Weippert,
123ff.
Cf. idem, "TWo Models for the Origins of Israel: Social Revolution or Frontier Develop
ment," in Fs G.E. Mendenhall, The Quest for the Kingdom of God, Winona Lake, IN 1983, 5-24;
F.S. Frick, The Formation o f the State in Ancient Israel, Sheffield 1985; D.C. Hopkins, The
Highlands o f Canaan: Agriculture Life in the Early Iron Age, Sheffield 1985; R. Oppermann, “Die
Rebellionsthese in Gottwalds ‘The Tribes of Yahweh’," BN 33 (1986), 80-99. See also J. Dus,
Israelitische Vorfahren - Vasallen palastinischer Stadtstaaten?, Frankfurt am Main 1991.
180 INTRODUCTION
only part of the ancestors of the later Israel were involved in the experiences
in Egypt. Many agree with that and regard the origin of Israel as a complex
event that happened on Canaanite soil and took a long time. So the question
can be asked: Who were the ‘Israelites’ in Egypt and what kind of people were
they?387
11.5.2 Herrmann and De Vaux espouse the view that ‘Israel’s’ ancestors
entered Egypt as semi-nomads, keepers of domestic animals (‘Klein-
viehnomaden’). Herrmann, 42, 53ff., regards ‘Hebrews’ as a term for some of
the Aramaic groups that were in search of land. De Vaux thinks the ancestors
belonged to the Apiru, members of nomadic tribes (HAI, I, 106ff., 202ff.). R.
Giveon, Les bedouins Shosou des documents egyptiennes, Leiden 1971, 267ff.,
defends the view that ‘Israel’s’ prehistory is to be seen in the light of what is
known about the Shasu, groups of Bedouins, whose position and fate was in
many respects similar to that of the Apiru. They, too, are mentioned among
the prisoners of war, served as mercenaries and were used, for example, in the
building activities of the Pharaohs.388 With respect to the exodus (during the
19th dynasty) Giveon notes: ‘II se peut que 1’Exode ait 6t6 un mouvement
d’envergure relativement restreinte, associ6 aux migrations des Shosou. Un tel
ddplacement des clans nomades aurait 6t6 enregistrd par les £gyptiens comme
un mouvement de plus de ces Shosou turbulents, ce qui expliquerait l’absence
de tout tdmoignage direct’ (p. 271).
11.53 On the assumption that Israel’s ancestors were nomads reference is
often made to extra-biblical texts which would make it possible to construct a
reasonably clear picture of the history of ‘Israel’ in Egypt. Egyptian texts
describe the peaceable arrival of Asiatics; a picture in the grave of Khnum-
hotep in Beni-Hassan (beginning 19,h century) shows the arrival in Egypt of a
group of nomads, men, women and children (AOB, ill., 51; ANEP ill. 3; cf
ANET, 229); a report of a border guard from the eighth year of Merenpthah
mentions that they have finished allowing entiy to Shasu from Edom in order
to keep them alive, them and their flocks (ANET, 259; TGI, 40f.). It is men
tioned that the foreigners were not always peace-loving and caused trouble,
especially when the Egyptian government was weak. The offensive behavior of
foreigners is mentioned in the instruction of Merikare (ANET, 416f.), in the
admonitions of Ipuwer (ANET, 441ff.) and in the prophecy of Neferti (ANET,
444ff.) It is assumed that the activities of invading groups prepared and
accompanied the seizure of power by the Hyksos (De Vaux, HAI, I, 299f.).io
io 7
For the discussion of the patriarchs see e.g. Millard - Wiseman; Houtman, InlPenL, 141 ff.;
De IVaux,
CO
HAI, I, 157ff.
Herrmann, 41 ff., is inclined to see a connection between the movements of the Aramaic
groups and the Shasu; for a different perspective, see the critique of Thompson (also on the thesis
of Aramaic migration), 157ff.; for the Shasu see further M. Gorg, BN 9 (1979), 51-3; idem, BN 19
(1982), 15-21; W. Helck, VT 18 (1968), 472-80; M. Weippert, Bib 55 (1974), 265-80, 427-33.
Herrmann, 19ff., and others point out that at the beginning of the 2nd millen
nium Amenemhet I had constructed the so-called ‘Wall of the Ruler’ on the
eastern side of the Delta, a long line studded with watch towers, to prevent
nomads from entering the country. The history of Sinuhe (20th century) shows
that that same border was also a considerable barrier for those in Egypt who
wanted to leave the country illegally (ANET, 18ff.; TGI, Iff.). Also a report
from a border official about the pursuit of two escaped slaves shows that the
border was being protected (ANET, 259) (cf. § 8.4). Semites could be the
victims of round-ups (ANET, 233f., 554ff.). Egyptian texts make mention of
Apiru who were involved in building activities and served in the military (e.g.
TGI, 35f.). ‘Asiatics’ were included in the domestic staff of Egyptians (ANET,
553f.). In Egypt, Semites could attain to a high position in society (cf. Gen.
37ff.).389
11.5.4 It is a widely held idea that Israel’s ancestors were semi-nomads who
came from outside Canaan. An entirely different view with respect to the
origin of Israel has been presented by G.E. Mendenhall, “The Hebrew
Conquest of Palestine,- BA 25 (1962), 66-87. He suggests that a group of
slaves, likely of Palestinian origin, who only had in common that they wor
shiped the same God, escaped from Egypt under Moses and in Canaan roused
the indigenous farmers to revolt against the rulers who resided in the cities.
Israel, so he holds, sprung from this movement. Mendenhall emphasizes the
religious motivation of the revolt and the influence of the y h w h faith on the
formation of Israel. The faith of the ‘Israel’ of Moses exerted a powerful
missionary influence (for a critique see e.g. De Vaux, HAI, I, 452ff.; Weippert,
66ff.). So Mendenhall dismisses the notion that Israel’s ancestors were semi
nomads. In contrast, Gottwald more in general opposes the idea that the
course of world events in the Ancient Near East in the 2nd millennium was
also determined by the population waves of nomads from the Arabian desert
who were eager for land. He points out, among others, that many of the
characteristics of rural life, in which cattle-breeding and agriculture are often
closely interwoven, are incorrectly regarded as typical of true nomads.390
Also Gottwald pictures Israel’s origin as being primarily an internal Canaanite
happening. He thinks of rebellious mercenaries, freed slaves, tribal farmers,
nomads and serfs, a variety of artisans, and apostate priests as banding toget
her and so attacking the political, social and economic structures of the land of
■^9 See in De Vaux, HAI, I, 284ff. Thompson, 155ff., is very critical about the use of such data
in the reconstruction of Israel’s history.
390 See also IDBS, 465ff., 629ff.; also others have faulted the notion that the nomadic life style
and being a fanner are forms of culture that cannot go together; Zuber opposes the idea that the
sedentary mode of life was a phase following that of nomadic existence, a transition from a lower to
a higher form of culture (pp. 99ff.); see further R. Cribb, Nomads in Archaeology, Cambridge 1991;
De Geus, 124ff.; V.H. Matthews, Pastoral Nomadism in the Mari Kingdom (ca. 1830-1760 B.C.),
n.p. 1978.
182 INTRODUCTION
Canaan that was under the control of Egypt. Also De Geus, 164ff., rejects the
picture of the entrance as being a large-scale infiltration or invasion. Accor
ding to him it was only a small group of people associated with the exodus,
originally from Palestine, who entered the land. However, he maintains the
distinction between ‘Israelites’ and ‘Canaanites’ and rejects the notion of a
social revolt. The denial that there was a large-scale invasion makes it possible
for both Mendenhall as well as De Geus and Gottwald to make an easy
connection between the history of ‘Israel’ and the Apiru of the Amarna letters.
11.5.5 Regardless of one’s appraisal of the above (§ 11.5.4) theory of the
origin of Israel,391 there were good reasons to question the notion that
Israel’s ancestors were nomads.392 For that matter, already B.D. Eerdmans,
Alttestamentliche Studien, II, GieBen 1908, rejected the notion that the patri
archs were genuine nomads. Beside the view that the ‘Israel’ in Egypt was of
nomadic origin, there are a number of other less widely held views. W. Helck,
VT 18 (1968), 480 n. 1, believes that the passage cited from ANET, 259; TGI,
40f. (see § 11.5.3) cannot be related to Jacob and his sons because nomads are
in the habit of returning annually, in the dry season, to the civilized world
(transhumance), and then, after the rainy season, of going back to the steppe.
He suggests that the ‘Israel’ of the exodus was a detachment of captives of war
who were put to work at Pithom and Rameses, and who, after their escape,
joined nomadic tribes.393 The notion that ‘Israel’s’ ancestors were captives of
war was already proposed in the previous century (see Engel, 187ff.). De Vaux,
HAI, I, 310, is among those who regard it as plausible that captives of war
teamed up with nomads who were conscripted by Ramesses II. It has also been
suggested that ‘Israel’s’ ancestors were landless farmers. Historical traditions of
fellahs from the Negeb indicate that for generations the Gaza strip witnessed a
constant stream of landless peasants from the overpopulated Nile Delta, many
of whom trekked northward. This leads Zuber to say, ‘Eine keineswegs
haltlose, aber historisch wohl kaum mehr zu verifizierende Annahme, daB
Palastina unter gegebenen Umstanden schon zu biblisch-historischer Zeit
ahnliche Schube erlebt haben konnte, lieBe eine zwanglose Erklarung der
391 See e.g. the discussion in JSOT 7 (1978), 2-52; 8 (1978),46-9; M.G. Brett, JSOT 37 (1987),
15-40; G.A. Herion, JSOT 34 (1986), 3-33; B.S.J. Isserlin, PEQ 115 (1983), 85-94; N.P. Lemche,
BN 21 (1983), 48-58; idem, BN 24 (1984), 94-124; J.Milgrom, JBL 101 (1982), 169-76; E. Otto, BN
23 (1984), 63-80; H. Rosel, BN 25 (1984), 76-91; W. Thiel, ThLZ 113 (1988), 401-10, and esp. M.
and H. Weippert, "Die Vorgeschichte Israels in neuem Licht," ThR 56 (1991), 341-90.
392 Authors who use the designation ‘semi-nomads,’ ‘nomads of small livestock,’ are as a rule
aware that the nomadic nature of Israel’s ancestors should not be overemphasized; see e.g. De
Vaux, HAI , I, 220ff.; Thiel (see § 11.1), 31 ff., but maintain that there is no ground to assume that
Israel evolved especially from sedentary people in Canaan.
393 In ThLZ 97 (1972), 178-82, he characterizes the captives as a heterogenous group who
consisted especially of Southem-Palestinian tribes (Shasu); for a contrary view see Herrmann, 46f.;
idem, Geschichte, 89ff.
biblischen Agypten-Tradition zu’ (p. 127). On the basis of an inscription from

Hatshepsut (1490-1468) H. Goedicke argues that the exodus group consisted
of dissatisfied mercenaries whose pursuers perished in a flash flood.394 Final
ly, I point out that W.F. Albright has characterized Israel’s ancestors as
nomads of donkeys and later as ‘donkey caravaneers’.395
11.5.6 The notion that Israel’s ancestors were prisoners of war, mercenaries
or merchants is not found in the OT. What is said there is that a mixed crowd
(12:38; cf. Lev. 24:10; Num. 11:4; Deut. 29:11; Josh. 8:35) went up with
Israel.396 Moreover, in Gen. 46f. Jacob and his sons are not pictured as
desert dwellers but as inhabitants of Canaan. They do not set up temporary
camps but settle in Goshen. The information contained in Exodus with respect
to the labour of the Israelites is succinct. It is mentioned that they possessed
livestock (9:4ff.; 10:9, 24, 26; 12:32, 38; cf. Gen. 45:10; 46:31ff.; 47:1). Unlike
typical nomads with small livestock they also had cattle. The fact that they
were herdsmen is closely connected with the picture of Israel as living in
Goshen. Beside it there is also the picture of Israel residing in the midst of
Egyptians (see § 8.6.3). From that one might conclude in light of Gen. 46:34
that there were other occupations were practiced in Israel as well. Deut. 11:10
seems to presuppose that the Israelites were mainly agrarians (cf. 9:25f.?), and
that it was an occupation not directly related to their slave status (cf. 1:14).
The accounts of Israel’s stay in the desert give the impression that the people
did not know how to provide for their living in the desert. From these ac
counts one does not get the impression that the Israelites were nomads who
had been forced into slavery and who were eager to live the life of free nomads
again.397 The people in the wilderness are not pictured as a people who are
delighted with their regained freedom, but as people who are totally disorien
ted and almost succumb to the desire for the delights of the civilized world
(16:3; Num. 11: 5f.). Could it be that in Egypt Israel had abandoned its former
way of life? According to biblical tradition, Israel stayed for a while in Kadesh
(see § 8.23.5), an oasis which offered good opportunities for agriculture. In
short, the OT describes the ancestors in Egypt as typical Israelite farmers who
made their living with farming and animal husbandry and whose regular
environment was the civilized world. Could this picture be due to a later
colouring of the events by people whose habitat was the civilized world, who
transferred the world they were familiar with to the Israel of the exodus and
the journey through the wilderness? (cf. § 11.6.9).*S
o
394 See H. Shanks, BARev 7.5 (1981), 42-50; idem, BARev 8.3 (1982), 48-52; cf. C.R. Krah-
malkow, BARev 7.5 (1981), 51-4; E.D. Oren, BARev 7.6 (1981), 49-53; Y.T. Radday, BARev 8.6
I, 68-71.
See e.g. Yahweh and the Gods o f Canaan, London 1968, 56ff., 133ff.; cf. De Vaux, HA I, I,
According to Gottwald, 455f., ‘Israel’ consisted originally entirely of a motley crowd.

So Herrmann (see § 11.3.2); cf. De Vaux, HAI, I, 310.
184 INTRODUCTION
11.6 Notes and observations with the reconstruction o f Israel's early history
11.6.1 We have learned that there are those who believe that the description
of the early history in the Hexateuch may not be regarded as historiography.
Instead, what is recorded there is seen as source material from which the
historian through literary analysis and with the use of extra-biblical data can
reconstruct a plausible picture of the history. We have noted that there is
diversity in the interpretation of the available data with the result that dispa
rate concepts of the history have been proposed. I wish to highlight a few
points.
11.6.2 The OT does not give the impression that the arrival of Jacob and his
sons in Egypt was a kind of infiltration, that their stay there was of short
duration and that it was restricted to the border area. Nevertheless, extra-
biblical data lead Herrmann to this view (see § 11.3.2). On the other hand, De
Vaux who likewise wishes to take the extra-biblical data seriously, also makes
an effort to properly incorporate the biblical data in his reconstruction. That
makes him posit two historical exoduses as well as propose other hypotheses
(see § 11.3.3).39839 In Herrmann’s opinion, only the tradition found in 14:5
may have a historical basis (p. 86), no doubt because an attempted escape by
slaves, followed by pursuit by border officials, seems possible (cf. ANET,
259).3" Also Herrmann’s assessment of the events by the sea is in large part
driven by the desire to reduce the events to historically imaginable propor
tions. Extra-biblical data about the disastrous happenings by the dangerous
Lake Sirbonis and the assumption that the places mentioned in 14:2 are
correct make him say that according to the oldest tradition ‘die des Weges
wohl weitgehend unkundigen ausziehenden Gruppen’ ended up in the vicinity
of Lake Sirbonis and there ran into an Egyptian army detachment stationed at
the border ‘die aber entweder in Unkenntnis der Landesnatur Oder tatsachlich
im Augenblick eines ausbrechenden Seebebens aufgerieben wurde’ (p. 90; cf.
pp. 83ff.). Others have given a different interpretation of what happened by
the sea. L.S. Hay thinks that “What really happened at the Sea of Reeds"
(JBL 83 [1964], 397-403), was a clash between an Egyptian army and armed
Israelites. The Israelites then fled, likely on purpose, to the swampy terrain of
the ‘Sea of Reeds.’ Unable to maneuver there, the Egyptians became an easy
target for the Israelite archers. De Vaux believes that from the historical
perspective not much can be said about what happened at the sea and that, in
view of the epic character of the description, it is wise not to say more than
that ‘Les fugitifs se sont trouv6s dans une situation d£sesp6r6e, ils ont 6t6
sauv6 dans des circonstances qui leur ont paru £tre une intervention puissante
39J* The thesis is not new; see H. Engel, Bib 60 (1979), 395; Rowley, xiii, 6, and e.g. M.B.
Rowton, PEQ 85 (1953), 46-60; R. Schmid, ThZ 21 (1965), 260-8.
399 Only a small number of people can have been involved; according to Weimar - Zenger, 114,
no more than 50 to 150 fugitives.
et miraculeuse de leur Dieu’ (361). It should be added that De Vaux does

avow the historical character of various elements in the description of the
incident at the sea (pp. 358ff.). So he thinks that the idea that Israel went
through the sea while there was a wall of water on their right and on their left
got into the story under the influence of the tradition of the crossing of the
Jordan (Josh. 3-4). The incident recorded there (Josh. 3:13ff.) is anchored in
history. It fits the geography of the place and there is a historical parallel (p.
362). Also others hold that it is impossible to reconstruct the real course of
the events by the sea. So Strobel (see § 8.28), thinking of the traditions about
exodus and conquest that were current in the Ancient Near East and whose
background are the movements of the Sea Peoples (see in the OT Amos 9:7),
defends the proposition that Israel’s memory of exodus and journey through
the desert received its literary form and to some extent its content under the
influence of those traditions. He notes, ‘Fur die fruheste Ausbildung der
Exodustradition Israels ist nicht auszuschlieBen, dafi sie sich im Austausch, im
Nebeneinander und im Gegeniiber zur gleichartigen Uberlieferung der See-
volker-Gruppe der Philister vollzog’ (p. 279); J’s work is from the early
monarchical period ‘in der geboten war, den durch das Konigtum gleichsam
institutionalisierten Landanspruch politisch gegen Agypten zu behaupten.
Noch war bekannt, das ganze Volkerschaften (sc. the Sea Peoples; see also p.
278) der Starke des Pharaonenreiches zum Opfer gefallen waren. Sofern man
sich selbst frei und selbstandig fiihlen konnte, bezeugte man dies unter
Hinweis auf die Gnade gottlicher Fugung und Bewahrung’ (p. 276).
11.6.3 The attempt of De Vaux to incorporate the biblical data as much as
possible in his concept does not lead him to make concessions to the historical
likelihood of the events. He admits that in the tradition miracle has become
quite prominent in the way the events have been recorded. He detects, for
example, legendary features in the stories of the plagues (I, 339ff.). Behind the
tenth plague (death of the firstborn) (ll:lff.; 12:29ff.), the celebration of the
Passover (Exod. 12) and the description of the exodus he discovers the
following course of events: In a certain spring, when the Israelites were
celebrating the Passover (the feast to assure the well-being of the flock; before
the departure for the grazing grounds), the Egyptians were struck by a plague
(an epidemic) which caused much illness and death among them; the confusion
and panic among the Egyptians created a favorable climate for the Israelites to
leave under the leadership of Moses and in the name of their God y h w h (I,
347ff.).400 Also others believe that due to a severe pestilence conditions were
favorable for escape from slavery (e.g. Weimar - Zenger, 110, 114f.).
11.6.4 De Vaux is of the opinion that the various data in the biblical text,
which appear to offer historical information, only serve a literary function.
400 Herrmann, 80ff., in contrast, denies the existence of a historical link between Passover and
exodus.
186 INTRODUCTION
Conservative authors regard 1:8; 2:23 (cf. 4:19) as historical notes (see §
11.6.7). De Vaux and Herrmann, who regard 1:11 as a very important historical
datum for the dating of the oppression of ‘Israel’ under Ramesses II (see §
11.4.5), do not go so far that from it they infer that therefore, in view of 2:23,
Merenptah must have been the Pharaoh of the exodus (Herrmann, 74; De
Vaux, HAI, I, 366). De Vaux thinks that it is the intent of 2:23 to prepare the
story of Moses’ return. He speaks of ‘un moyen de marquer les articulations du
r6cit.’ He believes the same is true of 1:8 of which he says ‘ne fournit pas un
cadre historique’ (I, 366). One gets the impression that De Vaux opts for this
interpretation on account of the problems these texts cause in the reconstruc
tion of the ‘real’ history. Note, too, that conservative authors often assume, for
the sake of a realistic picture of the history, that the list of kings in Exodus is
incomplete (see § 11.6.7).
11.6.5 Time and again one notices that in the appraisal of the biblical data
the criterion whether things can really have happened that way and fit the
‘actual* course of events plays a significant role. Here is one more example. In
connection with his thesis that ‘Israel’ in Egypt descended from Aramaic tribes
in the Sinai peninsula, Herrmann considers it very likely that the wish expres
sed by the Israelites in 3:18 and other passages to worship their God in the
wilderness indicates ‘ein in der Tat ernst zu nehmender Zusammenhang
zwischen Agypten-Gruppe und anderen in der Wuste lebende Gruppen und
Einrichtungen,* one which ‘durchaus nicht nur religioser, sondern auch
ethnischer Art gewesen sein kann’ (p. 52). The presumed connection leads him
to reckon with the possibility that already before the arrival in Egypt the
‘Agypten-Gruppen’ were familiar with y h w h (p. 52; cf. pp. 69f.). It is to be
noted that a particular element in the text of Exodus, which if read casually
does not give the impression that it contains the historical situation conjec
tured by Herrmann, is regarded as a historical fossil.
11.6.6 Herrmann as well as De Vaux attribute a significant role to Moses in
the events (cf. § 5.45) and are of the opinion that the ‘Israelites’ who left Egypt
under his leadership, at Sinai were witnesses of the revelation of y h w h . Both
assume that this group of ‘Israelites’ at Kadesh had contact with the groups
who were there and who later likewise became part of Israel (Herrmann,
Geschichte, 109ff.; De Vaux, HAI, I, 376ff.). They reject the view of Noth and
others that ‘the exodus out of Egypt’ and ‘the revelation at the Sinai’ etc. were
separate traditions which originally were not part of the tradition of one and
the same group.
11.6.7 Not just (moderately) critical OT scholars but also conservative
scholars consider it their task to reconstruct the history with the use of extra-
biblical data. They regard the biblical data as reliable, but also as incomplete,
and feel it is justified to fill out the picture. It would seem that in their
reconstructions they lean not a little on their own imagination and that their
picture of the history, like that of their (moderately) critical colleagues,
deviates considerably from what the Bible itself suggests. The question is
appropriate if the conservative OT scholars, in their desire to demonstrate that
the biblical data are quite compatible with what can be learned from extra-
biblical sources, are doing justice to the manner in which the biblical narrative
itself wants to be understood. To mention only this, Van Gelderen and De
Koning (see § 11.4.1) believe that the king mentioned in 2:23 is not the same
as the king in 1:8, 15; 2:15, and that what is recorded in the first chapters of
Exodus refers to the reigns of different kings. That way of looking at the
narrative likely fails to do justice to the way in which the writer himself wanted
it to be read. He wants to suggest that Israel for many years, without any hope
for deliverance, groaned under the rule of the same tyrant (see exegesis of
2:23). For that matter, it is not just conservative students of the OT who
without justification rely on their imagination. As has become obvious, also
(moderate) critics ask of the readers that they follow them in their assumption
of a story behind the story, one which has emerged from their way of reading
the account. The upshot is that the reconstruction of the history and the
interpretation of Exodus ought to remain strictly separate.
11.6.8 All the subjects discussed above have in common, despite their
differences, that they are more or less based on the picture of the history in
the Hexateuch. The historical framework of the Hexateuch: stay in Egypt,
exodus, journey through the wilderness, entrance into Palestine, is not called
into question. Thompson is unhappy about that and states that it amounts to a
re-telling of the biblical history (for example, pp. 158ff.). In view of the nature
of the biblical material he deems such an approach incorrect. In his view, the
problem in connection with the narratives in the Pentateuch is ‘not so much
that they are historically unverifiable, and especially not that they are untrue
historically, but that they are radically irrelevant as sources of Israel’s early
history’ (p. 212; cf. p. 177). He bases his contention on the fact that the stories
in the Pentateuch are folk stories and hero tales of the kind that was common
throughout the Ancient Near East and which by nature was unhistorical (for
example, pp. 159f., 172f., 210ff.): ‘Nothing more historically concrete about the
historical Moses and Yahweh can be known than about the historical Tammuz
and Ishtar; nor is our knowledge about the wandering in the wilderness
qualitatively different from what we know of Odysseus’ journey’ (p. 177). Not
only the individual stories but also the historical framework is without basis in
history. Thompson even states: ‘In fact, it may even be ventured that the book
of Exodus itself lacks an exodus narrative, and that such a historiographical
perspective is an accidental distortion of the intentionality which formed the
narratives related in this biblical book and has resulted from the union of tales
which have a quite other literary and theological motivation’ (p. 210; cf. pp.
175f.). In brief, according to Thompson from the narratives in the Pentateuch
one can derive no information about Israel’s early history. For Thompson it is
obvious ‘that the only context and date which can be considered as the
188 INTRODUCTION
historical background for the Joseph and Moses narratives and for the for
mation of the earliest traditions related to these narratives is Israel during the
period before the formation of the pentateuch as a coherent whole’ (p. 166).
With this view Thompson opts for an approach that is similar to that ad
vocated by Julius Wellhausen in the previous century with respect to the
patriarchal narratives401 and distances himself (pp. 174ff.) from later scholars
such as Martin Noth. The latter, notwithstanding his farreaching historical
criticism, felt that the Hexateuch was useful as a source for Israel’s early
history and believed that the basic contents of the main themes of the Pen
tateuch was rooted in history.402 Thompson is not alone in his critical asser
tion that the customary descriptions of the history of Israel amount to little
more than a re-telling of biblical history. 403 Earlier already I. Engnell had
minimized the historical content of the narratives in Exodus on the ground
that they contained historicized material that was derived from cultic dra
mas.404
11.6.9 It must be acknowledged that the narratives in Exodus do not belong
to the genre of eyewitness reports.405 The stories show a certain familiarity
with the situation in Egypt. The author has given his account an Egyptian
colouring, but the picture he paints of the Egyptian milieu is imperfect. The
author must have been from Palestine (for example, De Vaux, HAI, I, 312,
341; cf. 282ff.; Thompson, 154f.). Conspicuous is the small scale on which
things happen, the village atmosphere in several narratives. So the king of
Egypt has direct contact with two midwives (1:15ft); the daughter of Pharaoh
bathes in the river (2:5); Pharaoh himself does the same; on that occasion
Moses can strike up a conversation with him (7:15), etc. Such depictions
cannot be regarded as authentic reports. That is why it is wrong to draw the
historical conclusion that because according to 1:15ft Israel had two midwives,
the people cannot have been all that numerous (so for example Jagersma, 66).
401 Wellhausen expressed himself more positively about the historical caliber of the traditions
about the stay in Egypt, Moses, etc.; see Israelitische und Jiidische Geschichte, Berlin/Leipzig 19218,
10ff* cf. Houtman, InlPenL, 141 ff., 150, 217.
462UP, 276; cf. e.g. 52f., 57, 62, 66, 274, 277; GI, 105ff.; see Houtman, InlPenL, 131f.
403 See the discussion of De Vaux’s HAI by M. Liverani in OrAnt 15 (1976), 145-59 (cf. Engel,
169ff.); Zuber, 129ff.). Cf. also B J. Diebner, “Erwagungen zum Thema ‘Exodus’,* Studien zur
altdgyptischen Kultur 11 (1984), 595-630; idem, DBAT 19 (1984), 147-53; H. Friis, *Das Exil und
die Geschichte,* DBAT 18 (1984), 63-84; idem, “Ein neues Paradigma fur die Erforschung der
Vorgeschichte Israels?,* DBAT 19 (1985), 3-22; G. Garbini, History and Ideology in Ancient Israel,
London 1988; N.P. Lemche, Ancient Israel: A New History o f Israelite Society, Sheffield 1988; J.
Sanmartln, “Geschichte und Erzahlung im Alten Orient (I): Die Landnahme Israels,* UP 17
(1986), 253-82; K.W. Whitelam, “Israel’s Traditions of Origin: Reclaiming the Land,* JSOT 44
(1989), 19-42.
40^ See A Rigid Scrutiny, Nashville 1969, 197-206.
405 Cf. J.R. Bartlett, The Bible: Faith and Evidence. A Critical Enquiry into the Nature o f Biblical
History, London 1990.
The easy readability belongs to the nature of the stories that have been
included. The conscientious exegete can hardly avoid the conclusion that the
accounts in Exodus contain legendary and folkloristic material in which
divergent literary motifs have been interwoven. It is likewise important to
realize that the narratives do not acquaint us with the faith and the experien
ces and views of the ‘Israel’ that was in Egypt and left from there. They reflect
the faith and the experiences and views of the later Israel. Therefore it is not
at all meaningful for the understanding of the book of Exodus, under the
heading of ‘The Egyptian State and its Structure’ (Weimar - Zenger, 104), to
provide information about compulsory labour in Egypt, incidents of labour
trouble and the like. Such information does not make clearer the picture the
writer of Exodus aims to give of Israel’s stay in Egypt, namely, that the forced
labour is Pharaoh’s reaction to the fulfillment of the promise that Israel would
become a great nation, and that Pharaoh resisted the fulfillment of the
promises regarding the people and the land they were to receive (l:9ff.), etc.
The standpoint here expressed does not necessarily coincide with that of
Thompson. It is possible for historical experiences to be written up with the
use of legendary and folkloristic material and coloured with the faith and
experiences and views of later generations. Those historical experiences
certainly include the oppression in Egypt and the miraculous rescue. Many
have pointed out that there is no reason to hold that the tradition about the
slavery in Egypt is a fictionalized account, because it is not likely that a nation
would invent such a shameful picture of its past (for example Bright, 120f.; see
further Engel, 89f., 95f., 104). The standpoint here set forth does imply that
one will have to (learn to) live with the knowledge that a more or less his
torically accurate picture of what happened in Egypt, at the exodus, and in the
wilderness cannot be given. It is important to keep in mind that the OT makes
it clear that Israel’s early history was the subject of constant interpretation and
actualization (see § 12.9). A comparison of the books of Samuel/Kings with
Chronicles shows that the rewriting of history can include a lot of fic
tionalizing. This may have happened, too, with the early history of Israel. Note,
for instance, the perspective from which this history is recorded in Deutero
nomy (see for example § § 12.7.10.; 12.8.5.). But it seems likewise beyond
question that the author of the historical books of Genesis through Kings (see
Houtman, InlPent., 243ff.) also in Exodus intended to offer a historical record.
In this connection it is worthy of note that his reproduction of the history, in
contrast to that of the psalmists and prophets, is characterized by attention to
details, such as time and place of events as well as prominent people (cf. §
12.9.3). Nowhere, however, with the exception of 1:11 (cf. also Num. 13:22),
does he make a concrete connection between the history of Israel in Egypt and
the history of Egypt itself. He mentions no Pharaoh by name. Evidently, the
sources at his disposal made that impossible.
11.6.10 Owing to the nature of the narratives in Exodus it is virtually
190 INTRODUCTION
impossible to establish a connection between the data in Exodus and the extra-
biblical data from the 2nd half of the 2nd millennium, the period in which the
historical experiences to which the stories in Exodus owe their existence must
have happened. Of course, one can search for points of similarity between the
Pentateuchal narratives and extra-biblical data, and so with the use of analo
gies try to reconstruct the history. But, as the above may have shown, the
paucity of extra-biblical data and the often disputed interpretation of these
data, means that reconstructions on that basis have all the earmarks of
arbitrariness.
11.6.11 Finally, even if it should be possible to arrive at a precise recon
struction of the early history of Israel as firmly embedded in the history of the
Ancient Near East, and to demonstrate the reliability of the historiography in
Exodus, this still does not prove that y h w h revealed himself to Moses and
entered into a covenant with Israel. It does not document that it was God, the
Father of Jesus Christ, who was concerned about the misery of the people of
Israel and led them out in fulfillment of his promises. Accepting that is a
matter of faith. That faith is not dependent on outside proof and reconstruc
tions of the history. More than that, it may not and should not be based on
such things. For that would mean that the belief in God’s guidance in history
would come to hang on fallible proofs based on our limited knowledge of the
history of the Ancient Near East and on constantly changing reconstructions.
That would mean running the risk of the collapse of our faith in God’s
guidance in history whenever a particular view of what may ‘actually’ have
happened is shown to be faulty.
It goes without saying that it is not the task of the exegete of the book of
Exodus to offer a reconstruction of Israel’s early history. The exegete’s respon
sibility is to explain and clarify the picture the author of Exodus aims to give.
§ 12 The book o f Exodus and the Old Testament

12.1. Bibl.: TRE, X, 732ff. (“Exodusmotiv"); G.W. Ashby, “The Exodus in
the Liturgical Tradition in Psalms and Passover," OTWSA 29 (1986), 172-8;
B.W. Anderson, "Exodus Typology in Second Isaiah," in Fs J. Muilenburg,
Israel’s Prophetic Heritage, London 1962, 177-95; D. Baltzer, Ezechiel und
Deuterojesaja. Berilhrungen in der Heilserwartung der beiden grofien Exilsprophe-
ten, Berlin/New York 1971; M.L. Barrd - J.S. Kselmann, "New Exodus,
Covenant, and Restoration in Psalm 23," in Fs D.N. Freedman, The Word of
the Lord Shall Go Forth, Winona Lake, IN 1983, 97-127; H.M. Barstad, A Way
in the Wilderness: The ‘Second Exodus' in the Message of Second Isaiah, Man
chester 1989; Th. Booij, "The Role of the Darkness in Psalm CV 28," VT 39
(1989), 209-14; G.J. Brooke, “Psalms 105 and 106 at Qumran," RdQ 14
(1989), 267-92; H. Buckers, “Zur Verwertung der Sinaitraditionen in den
Psalmen," Bib 32 (1951), 401-22; D.R. Daniels, Hosea and Salvation History:
The Early Traditions of Israel in the Prophecy of Hosea, Berlin/New York 1990;
EXODUS AND THE OLD TESTAMENT 191
D. Daube, The Exodus Pattern in the Bible, London 1963; M. Deroche, “Jere
miah 2:2-3 and Israel’s Love for God During the Wilderness Wanderings,’
CBQ 45 (1983), 364-76; F.C. Fensham, ’Neh. 9 and Pss. 105, 106, 135 and
136: Post-Exilic Historical Traditions in Poetic Form,’ JNSL 9 (1982), 35-51;
W.H. Gispen, Indirecte gegevens voor het bestaan van den Pentateuch in de
Psalmen?, Zutphen 1928; K. Gouders, ’In Jahwe ist Israels Heil. Exodus,
ErlOsung und Heil,* in Fs G.J. Botterweck, Bausteine biblischer Theologie,
KOln/Bonn 1977, 303-17; J. Harvey, “La typologie de l’Exode dans les Psau-
mes,' ScE 15 (1963), 383-406; E. Haglund, Historical Motifs in the Psalms,
Lund 1984; S.H. Hooke, Alpha and Omega: A Study in the Pattern o f Revela
tion, Digswell Place 1961; A. Jirku, Die diteste Geschichte Israels im Rahmen
lehrhafter Darstellungen, Leipzig 1917; K. Kiesow, Exodustexte im Jesajabuch,
Fribourg/Gottingen, 1979; W.T. Koopmans, “Psalm 78, Canto D - A Respon
se,’ UF 20 (1988), 121-3; H.J. Kraus, “Das Thema ‘Exodus.’ Kritische
Erwfigungen zur Usurpation eines biblischen Begriffs,“ EvTh 31 (1971), 608-
23; S. Kreuzer, Die Frilhgeschichte Israels in Bekenntnis und Verkilndigung des
Alten Testaments, Berlin/New York 1989; J. Kuhlewein, Geschichte in den
Psalmen, Stuttgart 1973; A. Lauha, Die Geschichtsmotive in den alttes-
tamentlichen Psalmen, Helsinki 1945; idem, “Das Schilfmeermotiv im Alten
Testament,’ SVT 9 (1963), 32-46; A.C.C. Lee, “The Context and Function of
the Plagues Tradition in Psalm 78,’ JSOT 48 (1990), 83-9; idem, “Genesis I
and the Plagues Tradition in Psalm CV,“ VT 40 (1990), 257-63; S.E. Loewen-
stamm, “The Number of Plagues in Psalm 105,“ Bib 52 (1971), 34-8; J. Lust,
Traditie, redactie en kerygma bij Ezechiel. Een analyse van Ez., XX, 1-26, Brussel
1969; B. Margulis, “The Plagues Tradition in Ps 105’, Bib 50 (1969), 491-6;
D. Mathias, Die Geschichtstheologie der Geschichtssummarien in den Psalmen,
Leipzig 1989; N. Mendecki, “Die Sammlung und der neue Exodus in Mich 2
12-13,“ Kairos 23 (1981), 96-9; B.J. van der Merwe, Pentateuchtradisies in die
Prediking van Deuterojesaja, Groningen/Djakarta 1955; S.I.L. Norin, Er spaltete
das Meer: Die Auszugstiberlieferung in Psalmen und Kult des alten Israel, Lund
1977; G.S. Ogden, “Moses and Cyrus,’ VT 28 (1978), 195-203; C. Petersen,
Mythos im Alten Testament: Bestimmung des Mythosbegriffs und Untersuchung
der mythischen Elemente in den Psalmen, Berlin/New York 1982; O. Procksch,
Geschichtsbetrachtung und geschichtliche Uberlieferung bei den vorexilischen
Propheten, Leipzig 1902; J.F.J. van Rensburg, “History as Poetry: A study of
Psalm 136,* OTWSA 29 (1986), 80-90; J. Scharbert, “Das ‘Schilfmeerwunder’
in den Texten des Alten Testaments,’ in Melanges bibliques et orientaux en
I’honneur de M. Henri Cazeltes, Kevelaer/Neukirchen-Vluyn 1981, 395-417; M.
Weiss, “The Exodus from Egypt in Ps 114,’ Tarbiz 51 (1981-82), 527-35; C.
Westermann, “VergegenwSrtigung der Geschichte in den Psalmen,’ in Fs K.
Kupisch, Zwischenstation, Munchen 1963, 253-80; A.S. van der Woude, “Hoe
de Here naar Sion wederkeert... Traditiohistorische overwegingen bij Jesaja
52:7-8,’ in Fs J.L. Koole, De Knecht, Kampen 1978, 188-96; A. Zillesen, “Der
192 INTRODUCTION
alte und der neue Exodus,* ARW 6 (1903), 288-304; W. Zimmerli, “Der ‘neue
Exodus’ in der Verkundigung der beiden groBen Exilspropheten,’ in Ges.
Aufs&tze z. AT, Miinchen 1969, 192-204; H.J. Zobel, *Die Zeit der Wiisten-
wanderung Israels im Lichte prophetischer Texte,* VT 41 (1992), 192-202.
12.2 This paragraph addresses the manner in which the other books of the
OT talk about the events related in Exodus. Only the narrative parts are
considered here. In another volume the place of the laws and the tent sanctu
ary outside Exodus will be dealt with. Beside references to texts in the OT
there will also be references to texts in apocryphal and pseudepigraphal books.
The survey is intended to provide a general idea of how the OT interprets the
events recorded in Exodus. Going into great detail is not feasible. Historical
questions on how the various texts and traditions relate to each other are
virtually left untouched.
123 The prelude to the exodus

123.1 Jacob’s arrival in Egypt (1:1; cf. Gen. 46:5ff.; Deut. 10:22; 26:5; see
also Num. 20:15) is told in Josh. 24:4; 1 Sam. 12:8; Ps. 105:23 (see also Isa.
52:4a; Jdt. 5:10; Wis. 19:14, 16; Jub. 47:1). The proliferation of Israel which
was seen as a threat by the Egyptians (1:7-10, 12, 20; cf. Deut. 26:5) is men
tioned in Josh. 24:4 LXX; Ps. 105:24 (see also Neh. 9:23 [cf. Gen. 22:17; 26:4;
Exod. 32:13; Deut. 1:10 et al.J; Jdt. 5:10). Pharaoh’s changed attitude (and that
of the Egyptians) (1:10) is attributed to God in Ps. 105:25a (cf. 4:21; 9:12; 10:1,
20, 27; 14:17) [note the use of to® in both 1:10 and Ps. 105:25a (cf. also Ps.
106:10); not just Israel but the Egyptians are hostile]. Ps. 105:25b alludes to
the measures against Israel (1:1 Iff.; cf. Deut. 26:6) [Israel was put to hard
labour (*os>); Ps. 105:25b calls the Israelites of God]. The abusive
behaviour of the Egyptians is mentioned in Num. 20:15; 1 Sam. 12:8 LXX;
Neh. 9:10b (cf. Exod. 18:11b). Egypt is called ‘house of slavery’ (13:3, 14; 20:2;
Deut. 5:6 et al.; Josh. 24:17; Judg. 6:8; Jer. 34:13; Mic. 6:4; 5 Ezra 1:7; cf. 2:1).
The stay there is like being in a ‘smelting furnace’ (Deut. 4:20; 1 Kgs. 8:52; Jer.
11:4; cf. Isa. 48:10; Ezek. 22:20, 22).406 See also Jdt. 5:11; Wis. 10:15; 19:14,
16. In the Pentateuch Deut. 5:15; 15:15; 16:12; 24:18, 22 recall the forced
labour. Ps. 81:7 speaks concretely about the ‘burden’ (cf. the use of bzo in 1:11;
2:11; 5:4f.; 6:6) and the ‘carrying basket’ (likely used in the work described in
1:14; 5:7ff.). A concrete reference to mistreatment in Egypt occurs in Isa.
10:24b (cf. 5:14, 16). That Israel’s stay in Egypt was very unpleasant is shown
in a peculiar way in Ps. 114:1b. The author writes that Israel went out ‘from a
people whose language is unintelligible,’ that is, from a hostile and frightening
land (cf. Deut. 28:49; Isa. 33:19; Jer. 5:15). It is thought that also Ps. 81:6c
406 According to Norin, 124f., in Ps. 66:10-12 the stay in Egypt is regarded as a time of
purification; others relate the passage to the stay in the desert; still others think it is impossible to
relate the passage to a concrete historical event.
refers to that situation (e.g. J. Ridderbos [COT]). This is not mentioned in

Exodus. There even the daughter of Pharaoh speaks Hebrew (2:10). The
picture of Egypt as the land of oppression lies also behind Hos. 8:13; 9:3, 6;
11:5. For Israel’s difficult stay as foreigners in Egypt see also 22:20; 23:9; Gen.
15:13; Lev. 19:34; Deut. 10:19; 23:8; 4 Ezra 14:29.
123.2 In Wis. 11:7 and 18:5 there is an allusion to Pharaoh’s order to kill
the children (in l:15ff. the order applies only to the boys; similarly in Jub.
47:2). Wis. 11:14 and 18:5 contain an allusion to the abandonment of the baby
Moses (2:3). Isa. 63:11b appears to refer to the rescue of Moses from the Nile
(e.g. B. Duhm [HK]). Jub. 47:3ff. offers its own version of what is narrated in
2:1-10 and in vss. lOff. also relates what is recorded in 2:11-15. God’s awar
eness of the misery of Israel (2:24f.; 3:7, 9; 6:5; cf. Deut. 26:7) is mentioned in
Neh. 9:9a; the promise to the patriarchs (2:24; 6:5, 8, et al.; cf. Gen. 15:7, 18 et
al.) in Ps. 105:8ff., 42; Neh. 9:8, 15; God’s deliverance of the people in res
ponse to their cry (2:23; 3:7, 9: 6:5; cf. also 14:10) in Ps. 108:8a. In contrast to
2:23; 6:5 (but see also Num. 20:16) in 1 Sam. 12:8 and Jdt. 5:12 it is said that
the Israelites cried (prayed) to y h w h . Josh. 24:5; 1 Sam. 12:6, 8; Mic. 6:4 (+
Miriam); Ps. 105:26 relate the mission of Moses and Aaron (Exod. 3-4). Jub.
48:1 (Sinai; not Horeb) and 4 Ezra 14:3 relate the call of Moses. Jub. 48:2-4
contains its own version of 4:24-26. Ogden has propounded that the descrip
tion of Cyrus’ actions in Isa. 44:24-45:13 is literarily dependent on Exod. 6-8
(in particular 6:2-8). It is possible that there is a connection between the
number 430 (390+40) in Ezek. 4:4-6 and the number 430 in 12:40. According
to 1 Sam. 2:27 y h w h , at the time of the oppression in Egypt, revealed himself
to the ancestor (Levi or Aaron) of the family of Eli, that is, (vs. 28) chose him
to be priest (this fact is not mentioned in Exodus; cf. Exod. 28f.).
12.4 The plagues in Egypt

12.4.1 The following plagues are mentioned in Ps. 78:
Vs. 44: water turned into blood (7:17ff.) [first plague]
Vs. 45a: affliction of vermin (8:16ff.) [fourth plague]
Vs. 45b: affliction of frogs (7:26ff.) [second plague]
Vs. 46: affliction of locusts (10:lff.) [eighth plague]
Vss. 47-48: affliction of hail (9:18ff.) [seventh plague]
Vs. 51: death of the firstborn (ll:4ff.; 12:12f., 23, 29f.) [tenth pla
gue]
The suggestion has been made that the fifth plague, the pestilence among
the livestock (9:3ff.), is also mentioned. It is proposed to read i:r6 , ‘to
pestilence’ (cf. 9:3) in vs. 48a in place of Tyab ‘to the hail,’ and to relate D'ptn
in vs. 48b not to the fire from heaven (cf. 9:23f.) but to the fever. By interpre
ting orm in vs. 50b as ‘their livestock’ also this verse is sometimes related to
the fifth plague. However, it is also rendered as ‘their life’ and so make the
verse relate to the death of the firstborn (cf. vs. 51). Exod. 11-12 does not say
194 INTRODUCTION
that the pestilence caused the death, so that in that case one would have to
assume that Ps. 78 contains another interpretation of the event (cf. 9:15; Amos
4:10 and compare 12:23 with 2 Sam. 24:16). In Ps. 78 fewer plagues are
mentioned than in Exodus. Also the order differs. In Ps. 78:45-46 the plagues
caused by the vermin are all mentioned together. Terminologically there are
similarities with the description in Exodus (Gispen, 165ff.). Ps. 78 also contains
terms not found in Exodus, among others terms that were required for the
parallelism: on'Vi: (vs. 44b); Von (vs. 46a); boon (vs. 47b). On the whole the
description is less detailed and (hence) less colourful than in Exodus. On a few
points Ps. 78 goes into greater detail. Ps. 78:47 mentions the vine and the
sycamore (cf. 9:25, 31), whose presence was to the Israelites a sign of a
flourishing culture and prosperity (1 Kgs. 5:5; Mic. 4:4; Zech. 3:10). Ps. 78:49
does not mention a destroying angel (12:23; cf. 1 Sam. 24:16; 2 Kgs. 19:35) but
speaks of a company of messengers who inflict calamity (are they the cause of
the plagues more in general?; see, however, also Jub. 49:2). That makes the
event all the more fearful. God is marked as the author of the plagues (cf. e.g.
7:25; 8:20; 9:6); Moses and Aaron and also Pharaoh are omitted. In Exodus
the ‘signs and wonders’ have as their primary function to put pressure on
Pharaoh (see 3:12); in Ps. 78 they are acts of God which are intended to
inspire Israel to gratefulness, faithfulness and awe toward God (vs. 43; see also
v. 12) [‘the field of Zoan’ (Tanis) = Egypt; cf. Gispen, 135f.; Lauha, 66f.]. The
memory of those acts should have kept Israel from rebelling even in the
wilderness (vs. 40; cf. Num. 14:11, 22). In Ps. 78 the emphasis is on the fact
that the plagues were meant to convince Israel of the greatness and power of
YHWH (10:2; cf. Ps. 78:3f.).
12.4.2 According to the poet of Ps. 106:7a, already in Egypt Israel did not
consider the “wonderful works’ (plagues) (cf. 3:20) of God. In Exodus possible
unbelief on the part of the people is mentioned (4:1, 5, 8) but not actual
unbelief (in fact the opposite; see 4:31). Friction between Moses (and Aaron)
and Israel (5:21; 6:9, 12) is mentioned, but one does not hear of a reaction to
the plagues. Evidently the thought of the poet is that if Israel had paid
attention to the acts of God in Egypt, it would have put greater trust in God
at the sea (vs. 7c).
12.4.3 The following plagues are mentioned in Ps. 105:
Vs. 28a: darkness (10:21ff.) [ninth plague]
Vs. 29: water turned into blood (7:17ff.) [first plague]
Vs. 30: affliction of frogs (7:26ff.) [second plague]
Vs. 31a: affliction of vermin (8:16ff.) [fourth plague]
Vs. 31b: affliction of lice (8:12ff.) [third plague]
Vss. 32-33: affliction of hail (9:18ff.) [seventh plague]
Vss. 34-35: affliction of locusts (10:lff.) [eighth plague]
Vs. 36: death of the firstborn (ll:4ff.; 12:12f., 29f.) [tenth plague]
Ps. 105 lists fewer plagues than Exodus (omitted are the fifth and the sixth
plague) but two more than Ps. 78 (the ninth and the third plague; according to
Loewenstamm both Ps. 78 and Ps. 105 are based on a seven-plague scheme).
Terminologically and as concerns content there are similarities between Ps.
105, Exodus and Ps. 78 (Gispen, 240ff.), but also differences. In view of the
parallelism is used in vs. 34 (cf. Ps. 78:46). Ps. 78 relates that the water
turned into biood became undrinkable (vs. 44b; cf. 7:18, 21, 24). In Ps. 105 it is
said that the fish died (vs. 29b; cf. 7:18, 21). Ps. 105:30 describes the plague of
frogs in more vivid colours than Ps. 78:45b; they even entered the inner
chambers of the princes (cf. 7:28). Unlike Ps. 78:48, Ps. 105 is silent about the
fact that also the livestock were struck by the hail. Both Psalms also omit the
people and the fields; cf. 9:18ff. Ps.78:47 and Ps. 105:33 specifically mention
the vines and fig trees (Ps. 105 uses a different term than Ps. 78; note the use
of yv in 9:25 and Ps. 105:33b). Ps. 78 describes the tenth plague in greater
detail. In the matter of terminology Ps. 78:51b and 105:36b are remarkably
similar (the terminology does not occur in Exodus). Ps. 105:26f. mentions
Moses and Aaron as those who performed ‘the signs and wonders’ (cf. Exod.
7ff.), but like in Ps. 78 all the emphasis is on God as the author of the plagues
(vss. 28ff.); Pharaoh is not mentioned (Ps. 105:30a: ‘princes;’ cf. Wis. 10:16); all
the Egyptians are the enemies and the victims of the plagues (Ps. 105:25ff.);
they (see in contrast 7:13, 22; 8:15; 9:35) refuse to heed the plagues (Ps.
105:28b; read nw ), In view of Ps. 105:28b and the positioning of the plagues
in the psalm before the exodus (cf. Ps. 78:12; in Ps. 78:40ff. there is a look
back on the plagues in the wilderness) it can be stated that the plagues in Ps.
105, even as in Exodus, are primarily portrayed as God’s measures to put
pressure on the Egyptians. Of course, those deeds of God on behalf of Israel
also demand a response from following generations.
12.4.4 Ps. 135:9 refers in general to ‘signs and wonders’ (in distinction from
Ps. 78 and Ps. 105, and in close connection with 5:21; 7:10, 20 et al., mention
is made of ‘Pharaoh and his servants;’ cf. Neh. 9:10 [+ the people]). Ps. 135:10
mentions the tenth plague by name. Likely also Amos 4:10 and perhaps Ps.
81:6b allude to it (it has been proposed to read in 1 Sam. 4:8 *073% ‘and with
pestilence’ instead of 13703, ‘in the wilderness’). The plagues (and the events
around the exodus) are generally called ‘signs’ (Num. 14:11, 22) and ‘signs and
wonders’ (Deut. 4:34; 6:22; 7:19 et al.; Jer. 32:20, 21; Neh. 9:10; cf. also Ps.
78:43; 105:27). Also others terms are used (3:20; Judg. 6:13; Mic. 7:15; Ps. 78:4,
11, 32; 106:21b-22a; see further also Josh. 24:5; cf. Josh. 24:17; 2 Sam. 7:23;
Jdt. 5:12; 3 Macc. 2:6; 6 Ezra 15:11). Problematic is 1 Sam. 4:8: ‘That is the
God who struck the Egyptians with every sort of plague in the wilderness;’ cf.
1 Sam. 6:6.
12.4.5 It has been suggested that in Isa. 50:2d (cf. 7:18) there is an allusion
to the first plague; and in Isa. 50:3 (cf. 10:21ff.) an allusion to the ninth plague
(see Van der Merwe, 151ff.). In Wis. ll:5ff. the first plague is characterized as
a punishment for the massacre of children (1:22). In Wis. ll:15ff. the plague of
196 INTRODUCTION
wild animals (see § 9.2.6) is said to be a retribution for the worship of wild
animals (cf. Wis. 12:23, 27; 16:1). Also other plagues are mentioned in Wis
dom: the frogs (16:3) [people were hungry but lost all appetite because of this
vermin]; the plague of gnats (19:10, 19b); the flies and the grasshoppers (16:9)
[the animals inflicted fatal bites]; the hail (16:16ff.) [accompanied by the
strangest phenomena: the fire of the lightning was even more powerful in the
water; the animals attacking the godless were spared from the fire, etc.; cf. also
19:20f.]; the darkness (17:2ff.) [detailed and concrete description; cf. also
19:17]; death of the firstborn (18:5, lOff.) [there were not enough survivors to
bury the corpses, etc.; cf. also 19:3]. Jub. 48:5ff. lists all ten plagues. The death
of the firstborn is attributed (49:2, 5) to the armies of Mastema (the devil). In
Esth. 10:3f. LXX other ‘signs and wonders’ from God in response to the cries
of his people are mentioned.
12-5 The exodus

12.5.1 Ps. 105 mentions a number of peculiarities about the exodus: Israel
left laden with silver and gold (vs. 37a; cf. 3:21f.; ll:2f.; 12:35f.) [Wis. 10:17;
Jub. 49:18f.: ‘reward’]; ‘among their tribes there was no one who stumbled’ (vs.
37b): effortlessly they kept going (cf. Isa. 5:27; 40:30) [Isa. 63:13 relates this in
reference to the crossing of the sea; it is possible that also Ps. 105:37b refers to
it; the item is not found in Exodus]; the Egyptians rejoiced over Israel’s
departure because they were terrified by them (vs. 38) [terror is mentioned
only in Exodus (12:31ff.; cf. 11:1; Jdt. 5:12; Wis. 19:2f.); Deut. 4:34; 26:8; 34:12;
Jer. 32:21 call y h w h the source of the terror]; the exodus is with joy and
jubilation (vs. 43) [Exodus does not mention this; see, however, also 15:1, 20f.;
Num. 21:17; Ps. 66:6c; 106:12b]; perhaps also Hos. 2:17b alludes to it; joy will
be Israel’s part in the new exodus (Isa. 35:10; 51:11; 55:12). Ps. 81:6a and Ps.
111:4 likely refer to the institution of the Passover (12:14); cf. Wis. 18:6ff.; Jub.
49; 3 Ezra 1:6, 10. Isa. 63:llf. (cf. Bar. 1:20) mentions Moses. Hos. 12:13 (cf.
Wis. 11:1) alludes to Moses as the one who brought out Israel. 1 Sam. 12:8;
Mic. 6:4 (+ Miriam); Ps. 77:21; and 5 Ezra 1:14 mention Moses’ and Aaron’s
part in the exodus. In Num. 20:16 the bringing out is attributed to ‘an angel’
(cf. 14:19; 23:20; 32:34; 33:2). Outside the Pentateuch (see, however, also
15:13; Num. 27:17; cf. Gispen, 181f.) the narratives of the exodus (and the trek
through the wilderness) employ the image of God who like a shepherd
(through Moses and Aaron; Ps. 77:21; Isa. 63:11; cf. Hos. 12:14) leads his flock
(Ps. 78:52-53a). The imagery is also used in the prophetic description of the
new exodus (e.g. Isa. 40:11; 49:9f.; Jer. 23; Ezek. 34). In the Pentateuch it is,
among others, the pillar of cloud/fire (13:21 et al.) and the messenger of God
(14:19 et al.) by which the people are being led; outside those books the
presence of God is indicated by ‘his holy spirit’ (Isa. 63:11; cf. vs. 10), ‘the
spirit of y h w h ’ (Isa. 63:14), ‘his spirit’ (Ps. 106:33; cf. Hag. 2:5), “your good
spirit’ (Neh. 9:20; cf. Ps.l43:10 and also Neh. 9:30).
12.5.2 The fact of the exodus is a frequent theme in the OT. Noth, UP, 50, is
right on when he points out that the statement that y h w h , Israel’s God, the
One is who led Israel out of Egypt, one of the most basic and most often
repeated faith statements in the Old Testament’ is. Through its deliverance out
of Egypt by y h w h Israel becomes the people of y h w h . The event highlights
the greatness of y h w h and his relationship to Israel (20:2; 29:46; 32:4, 8; Lev.
19:36; 22:33 et al.; Num. 23:22; 24:8; Deut. 5:6, 15 et al.; Josh. 24:17; Judg. 2:1;
6:8f.; 19:30; 1 Sam. 8:8; 10:18; 12:6, 8; 2 Sam. 7:6, 23f.; 1 Kgs. 6:1; 8:16 et al.;
Isa. 11:6; Jer. 2:6; 7:22, 25 et al.; Ezek. 20:5, 6, 9, 10; Hos. 2:17; 9:1; 11:1; 12:9;
13:4, 5; Amos 2:10; 3:1; 9:7; Mic. 6:4; 7:15; Ps. 80:9; 81:11 et al.; Dan. 9:15;
Neh. 9:18; cf. also Esth. 4:17g LXX; Bar. l:19f.; 2:11; 4 Ezra 3:17; 14:3; 5 Ezra
1:7).407 When it is rebellious Israel is apt to interpret the exodus as an act
that was intended to destroy the people (Deut. 1:27; cf. 9:28). Outside the
Pentateuch one rarely finds a direct connection between the exodus and the
fulfillment of the promises made to the patriarchs (Josh. 5:4ff.; Judg. 2:11; Ps.
105:42f.; Neh. 9:8ff.; cf. Gen. 15:13ff.; 50:24; Exod. 6:5ff.; 13:5, 11; 33:1; Deut.
4:37f.; 7:8). The new exodus is mentioned in Jer. 16:15; 23:8; Ezek. 20:33ff.,
41f. Some are of the opinion that the description of the new exodus is influen
ced by details from the description of the exodus out of Egypt; so in Isa.
52:12a (cf. 12:11; Deut. 16:3); 52:11 (cf. 12:36).408
12.5.3 It has been propounded that the story of the exodus out of Egypt
served as the model for the composition of extensive literary works. So G.
Gerleman, Esther (BK), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1973, llff., is of the opinion that
the story about Esther was composed after the model of the story of the
exodus.409 The adoption of this thesis requires considerable imagina
tion.410 The same holds for the view of E. Zenger, *Der Juditroman als
Traditionsmodell des Jahweglaubens," TThZ 83 (1974), 65-80, that the book of
Judith was composed and wants to be understood after the pattern of the
exodus. K. Koch, "Ezra and the origins of Judaism,’ JSS 19 (1974), 173-97,
has proposed that in the ‘Ezra-source’ in Ezra-Nehemiah Ezra’s journey from
Babylon to Jerusalem is presented as a cultic procession, which was seen by
Ezra as a second exodus, a partial fulfillment of prophetic expectations. P.
Milne, “Psalm 23: Echoes of the Exodus,’ SR 4 (1974-75), 237-47, under
stands Ps. 23 as the product of reflection on the theme of the exodus out of
the Babylonian captivity. A Malamat, “The Danite Migration and the Pan-
407 See further Noth, UP, 50ff.

408 See Van der Merwe, 157ff.
409 With some modification, J.A. Loader has taken over this assumption, “Esther as a Novel
with Different Levels of Meaning," ZAW 90 (1978), 417-21; idem, Esther (POT), Nijkerk 1980,
148ff.
410 Cf. A. Meinhold, "Die Gattung der Josephsgeschichte und des Estherbuches: Diaspora-
novelle II," ZAW 88 (1976), 72-93.
198 INTRODUCTION
Israelite Exodus-Conquest: A Biblical Narrative Pattern," Bib 51 (1970), 1-

16,411 thinks that a similar narrative pattern underlies the description of the
exodus and the conquest of the land and the story about the way in which the
Danites acquired their inheritance (Judg. 18).
12.6 The crossing of the sea

12.6.1 According to the description in Ps. 77 the crossing of the sea was
made possible by a theophany of y h w h (vss. 16ff.; cf. also Pss. 81:8b; 114:3ff.)
and was accompanied by a commotion in the cosmos.412 Exod. 14 makes no
mention of a downpour, thunderstorm and earthquake.413 According to Ps.
77:20 y h w h himself went through the sea. The intended picture seems to be
that of a receding of the waters at the approach of y h w h ( vs . 17; cf. Ps.
114:3a, 5a) by which the way was cleared for the people. The theophany
description makes of the crossing an event which involved not just the sea but
the rest of the cosmos as well. In Ps. 77:17; 114:3a, 5a (see also Ps. 106:9a; cf.
Ps. 104:7), with a borrowing from imagery from the creation myth as a struggle
against the sea,414 the waters are pictured as an enemy whom God engages
in battle. Norin, llOff., also relates Ps. 74:12ff.; 89:9ff. to the crossing.415
That y h w h ’s creation of a way through the wilderness can be depicted with
the use of images derived from creation is clearly evident from Isa. 51:9f. Exod.
14 does not have the image of the sea as adversary of y h w h (see 14:16, 21 f.;
cf. also Ps. 66a). The sea does not become dry because of a ‘rebuke’ from
y h w h (Ps. 106:9a),416but by an east wind (14:21). What is described in Ps.
106:9a with a mythical image (cf. 15:8, 10 and especially Ps. 18:16), is described
as a natural event in 14:21. Likely also Ps. 78:13a: ‘he split the sea,’ and Ps.
136:13a: ‘Who divided Yam Suph in two,’ have a mythical background. The
411 Cf. idem, Erls 10 (1971), 173-9.

412 Cf. e.g. Judg. 5:4f.; Ps. 18:8ff., 14ff.; Hab. 3:6ff.; see e.g. Houtman, Himmel, 139ff.; Lipinski,
187ff.; Ohler, 44ff. et al.
413 Josephus, y47, II, 343, mentions heavy rain, thunder and lightning; Lauha, 68, regards the
description of the thunderstorm as a poetic reworking of the end of 14:24: in the pillar of cloud
and fire YHWH brings about turmoil among the Egyptians; Lauha also wants to reckon with the
influence of a particular view of creation (see below) and the tradition of the theophany at Sinai
(Exod. 19).
414 See e.g. Ps. 74:12ff.; 89:9ff.; 93:3f.; Job 9:13; 26:12f.; see further e.g. R J. Clifford, “Co-
smogonies in the Ugaritic Texts and in the Bible,* Or 53 (1984), 183-201; J. Day, God's Conflict
with the Dragon and the Sea: Echoes o f a Canaanite Myth in the Old Testament, Cambridge 1985;
W. Herrmann, “Das Aufleben des Mythos unter den Judaem wahrend des babylonischen
Zeitalters,- BN 40 (1987), 97-129; C. Kloos, YHWH’s Combat with the Sea, Amsterdam/Leiden
1986; Norin, 42ff.; M.K. Wakeman, God’s Battle with the Monster, Leiden 1973.
413 Gispen, 121, interprets Ps. 74:14b as saying that the dead bodies of the Egyptians on the
shore (14:30) became prey for the animals in the wilderness.
416 Likely what is meant in Ps. 106 is that YHWH uses the sea as a weapon; cf. Ohler, 49ff.
idea conveyed is that God slashes his adversary.417 The depiction of the
making of a way through the sea with imagery from creation spotlights the
greatness of the event. The making of a way through the sea is equally as great
as the creation event itself!
12.6.2 Ps. 106:7c mentions Israel’s rebellion (against yhwh). The emphasis
in Exodus is different. There the people are afraid (14:10) and turn against
Moses (14:11). Ps. 106:9b employs stronger language than is used in 14:16, 22,
29; 15:19 (‘on dry ground’) and relates about Israel’s going ‘through the
deep.’418 with the addition ‘like in the wilderness.’419 Even more imposing
is the picture in Wis. 19:7ff.: the sea becomes a paved way, the turbulent flood
a grassy plain. According to Ps. 78:13b God made the waters stand ‘like a dam’
(see 15:8; cf. also 14:22, 29: ‘like a wall’). In Ps. 78:53b; 106:11 it is stated that
the waters overwhelmed Israel’s enemies (see 14:28; 15:5, 9f.; cf. also Deut.
11:4). In different words the same is said in 14:28 and Ps. 106:11a that ‘not one
of them was left.’ In 14:28 this information refers to Pharaoh’s army, in Ps.
106: lOf. (as it reads) to all of Israel’s enemies (in Egypt) [it could be asked if
perhaps vs. lib refers to the pursuers], Ps. 136:15a says that yhwh drove
Pharaoh and his army into the Yam Suph (see 14:27; 15:4; cf. Deut. 11:4). All
that can be concluded from 14:27f. and 15:4ff., 10, 19 is that Pharaoh’s army
perished. Ps. 136:15a also refers specifically to Pharaoh’s drowning.420 Ps.
106:12a mentions Israel’s faith after the crossing (14:31). The song of praise
(15:1, 20f.) is referred to in Ps. 66:6c; 106:12b; Wis. 10:20; 19:9; 3 Macc. 2:8
(cf. Hos. 2:17b; Ps. 105:43; see § 12.5.1). In Ps. 105 (but see also § 12.5.1.);
135421 and in Ezek. 20 the crossing is not mentioned. The historical books
only rarely refer to it. In Josh. 2:10; 4:23; Jdt. 5:13 it is reported that yhwh
dried up the waters of the Yam Suph (cf. 14:21), while Josh. 24:6f. (cf Deut.
11:4) in brief relates the events of 14:9ff. Josh. 24:7; Neh. 9:9b mention Israel’s
cry at the Yam Suph (cf. 14:10b; passed over in silence is the grumbling of the
people [14:11]); Neh. 9:9b states specifically that yhwh heard the cry. Neh.
9:11a relates that yhwh ‘divided’ (vpa; see § 12.6.1) the sea so that the
Israelites ‘passed through the sea on dry land’ (cf. 14:16, 21f., 29; 15:19). Neh.
9:11b reports that yhwh destroyed the pursuers (cf. 14:9,23ff.) [compare in
417 Both in 14:16 and in Ps. 78:13a JJp3 qal is used (cf. also 14:21). Could it be that in 14:16
the picture of Ps. 78:13a is entirely ‘demythologized’ (cf. also Isa. 63:12b).
Cf. Isa. 63:13 and Exod. 15:8; see beside 14:16 etc. also Ps. 78:13a; 136:14a and Ps. 66:6b,
which is often wrongly related to the crossing of the Jordan (cf. Ps. 114:3b, 5b); D* (vs. 6a) and "IHJ
(vs. 6b) are synonyms.
419 Jirku, 101: ‘like horses through the wilderness;’ see beside Ps. 106:9b especially Isa. 50:2c,
which however does not refer to the crossing.
420 Lauha, 67, thinks that 14:17f. also implies Pharaoh’s destruction; cf. De Koning (see § 11.1),
75ff., and see also Gispen, 296.
421 But see also Lauha, 67f., ‘signs and wonders’ (mentioned after the tenth plague; vs. 8) refer
to the crossing.
200 INTRODUCTION
particular Neh. 9:11b and 15:5b]. 1 Macc. 4:9 cites the deliverance at the ‘Red
Sea.’
12.63 In the prophetic books it is especially in Isaiah that the crossing is
mentioned. In Isa. 43:16ff. y h w h is called the one who made a way in the sea
(cf. Ps. 77:20) and who brought out and caused the army to perish. As in
78:53b; 106: lOf. the victims of y h w h ’s intervention are not mentioned by name
as Egyptians. In Isa. 51:9f. the crossing is described with elements from the
myth of the ‘Battle with the Sea’ (see § 12.6.1; cf. Isa. 44:27; see Van der
Merwe, 208f.), but the destruction of Egypt’s army is not mentioned (cf. Josh.
2:10; 4:23; Isa. 63:12f.; Ps. 66:6; could it be that in Isa. 51:9f. the ruin of Egypt
coincides with the defeat of Rahab?). A more or less independent account of
the crossing is found in Isa. 63:1 Iff. (vs. 12b [cf. Ps. 78:13a]; vs. 13a [cf. Ps.
106:9b]). Perhaps Isa. 10:26b contains an allusion to the crossing and in
particular to the ruin of the Egyptians (cf. 14:16ff.; not Moses but y h w h lifts
his staff). Also other passages in the OT seem to contain allusions and
statements that may reflect the tradition of the exodus and crossing; so in Ps.
18; 29; 33; 68; 76; 111; 118; 124; Nah. l:2ff.; Hab. 3 (see e.g. Norin, 150ff.); Isa.
42:15b; 43:2a; 50:2cd (see e.g. Van der Merwe, 187f.). The crossing as part of a
new exodus is mentioned in Isa. 11:15; Zech. 10:1Of.
12.6.4 Wis. 10:17ff.; 19:lff., 19a has its own version of the decision of the
‘wicked’ to pursue ‘the godly’: while they were still grieving at the graves, the
Egyptians decided to go after the Israelites; the Israelites robbed the washed-
up bodies (cf. 14:30) of the enemies of their weapons, etc. Also Jub. 48:12ff.
has its own perspective: death in the sea is retribution for their drowning of
the children of the Israelites (1:22) (cf. Wis. 18:5; not so in Wis. 11:7); Jub.
48:17 attributes the hardening of the Egyptians (14:5, 8) to Mastema and
reports that the Lord made him plunge the Egyptians into the sea. The
crossing and the ruin of Pharaoh and his army are also recorded in 1 Macc.
4:9; 3 Macc. 2:7; 5 Ezra 1:10, 13.
12.6.5 The place where the crossing took place is usually called ‘the sea’, ‘the
waters.’ However, in Deut. 11:4; Josh. 2:10; 4:23; 24:7; Ps. 106:7, 9, 22; 136:13,
15; Neh. 9:9 it is called Yam Suph (cf. e.g. Jdt. 5:13; Wis. 10:18; 19:7: ‘Red
Sea’). The assumption is that there were various traditions with respect to the
place of the crossing (see §8.12.2 and 8.34.3).
12.6.6 A miraculous passage through the water occurs more often in the
O.T. Josh. 3f. describes the crossing of the Jordan. In Josh. 4:23 it is compared
and likened to the crossing of Yam Suph (cf. Ps. 66:6b?; 114:3b, 5b). It has
been suggested that the tradition of the crossing of Yam Suph has influenced
the tradition of the crossing of the Jordan.422 There is also the view that the
422 See e.g. H J. Kraus, VT 1 (1951), 186, 190, 194f.

latter tradition has influenced the former.423 There are, however, remarkable
differences between Exod. 14 and Josh. 3f.: In Exod. 14 the people are pursued
and water covers the enemies; the situation in Josh. 3f. is altogether different;
in Exod. 14 staff and wind perform the miracle (14:21f., 27); in Josh. 3f. it is
the priests with the ark (3:13, 15; 4:7, 11, 18); etc. In 2 Kgs. 2 it is reported
that Elijah parts the water of the Jordan by striking it with his mantle (vs. 8).
Elisha repeats the miracle with Elijah’s mantle (vs. 14). The suggestion has
been made that here and elsewhere the tradition concerning Elijah was
influenced by the traditions concerning Moses, which resulted in turning Elijah
into a new Moses.424 Note, however, that there are no striking ter
minological correspondences between 14:16, 21f. and 2 Kgs. 2:8, 14 and that in
both stories the miracle is not brought about by the same means (the staff
does play a role in 2 Kgs. 4:29, 31).
12.7 The sojourn in the desert

12.7.1 Ps. 78:14 (cf. Neh. 9:12, 19) describes y h w h ’s guidance of Israel
‘in/with a cloud’ (]:v3) and ‘in/with a fiery light’ (am nxa) as peculiarities of the
journey through the desert, while in Exodus y h w h ’s leading ‘in a pillar of
cloud’ and ‘in a pillar of fire’ is mentioned already before the passage through
the sea (13:21f.; cf. also 14:29f.; see beside it Josh. 24:7; in view of 13:21 it is
natural to translate a in motra [cf. Neh. 9:12] with ‘in;’ in Ps. 78:14; Neh.
9:12 a can also be translated as ‘with;’ in that case cloud and fire are purely a
means to show the way). The pilar of cloud/fire as guide of the people is not
mentioned in the account of the journey through the desert in Exodus (cf.
33:9; 40:35, 38; Num. 11:25; 12:5; 17:7; Ps. 99:7; see, however, also Num.
9:15ff.; 10:1 Iff.), but its presence is evidently presupposed (13:22; cf. Num.
14:14; Deut. 1:33). In Ps. 105:39 cloud and fire are given a different function
than in 13:21; Ps. 78:14; etc. According to that psalm the cloud was spread for
a covering and the fire to give light by night; the cloud provided protection by
day against the burning heat in the desert (5 Ezra 1:20: in the desert God gave
tree branches for the heat); the light given by y h w h kept the darkness and
terrifying dangers of the night at a distance; cloud and fire are means by which
y h w h protects his people in the desert (cf. Ps. 121:5f. and esp. Isa. 4:5f.).425
Wis. 10:17 reflects Ps. 105:39: Wisdom became to Israel ‘a protection by day
423 See e.g. B.S. Childs, VT 20 (1970), 414f.; L. Hay, JBL 83 (1964), 402; De Vaux (see
§ 11.6.2); M. Rose, Deuteronomist und Jahwist, Zurich 1981, 113ff., even thinks that the tradition of
the crossing was originally connected with Joshua and only later became linked to Moses.
424 See e.g. G. Fohrer, Elia, Zurich 19682, 55ff.; A. Schmitt, Entruckung-Aujhahme-Himmelfahrt,
Stuttgart 1973, 134ff.; cf. Houtman (see § 5.45.4), 79f.
425 It is unlikely that Ps. 105:39 is a reworking of 14:9f.; according to Jirku, 124, the psalm
contains a tradition that is not found in the Pentateuch; Gispen, 124, has a different view; it is
possible that there is a connection between Ps. 105:39 and Num. 10:34; 14:14; ‘the cloud of YHWH’
is over Israel; the ark goes before.
202 INTRODUCTION
and light of stars by night’ (for the ‘flaming column of fire,’ ‘a harmless sun’
for a guide see Wis. 18:3). It has been proposed that behind Isa. 52:12b lies the
image of a pillar of cloud/fire (see Van der Merwe, 162f.). The column of fire
is also mentioned in 5 Ezra 1:14.
12.7.2 Outside the Pentateuch the most extensive account of the stay in the
desert is found in Ps. 78 (vss. 14ff.). The poet emphasizes Israel’s rebellion
against yhwh (vss. 17f., 32ff., 40f.; see also Ezek. 20:13, 16, 21; Ps. 106:6, 13;
Neh. 9:16f.; see further Jer. 7:24f.; Dan. 9:4ff.; Ezra 9:6f. and especially also
Deut. 9:7; cf. 1:26; 9:24 and Num. 14:11, 22). The grumbling of the people is
mentioned in 15:24; 16:2; 17:2f.; Num. 11:1, 4ff.; 20:2ff.; 21:5 (and also 20:24;
27:14). True, it is directed against Moses (and Aaron), but it can also be
characterized as a grumbling against yhwh (16:7ff.; 17:2, 7). The grumbling at
Bitterness (15:22ff.) is not found outside Exodus (see, however, § 12.7.7) [for
the healing of water see 2 Kgs. 2:19-22]. Different from Exodus, Ps. 78
mentions the manna and the quail after the water from the rock. Though 16:2f.
say that the grumbling was due to hunger, according to Ps. 78 the Israelites
tested God (cf. vss. 40f.) by asking if the God who could make water gush out
of the rock could also spread a table in the wilderness (vss. 18-20) [according
to 16:4; Deut. 8:16 (cf. vss. 2f.) yhwh gave the manna to ‘test’ Israel; cf.
§ 12.7.7]. The people’s testing of God is mentioned in 17:2, 7 (cf. Deut. 6:16
and see also Num. 14:22). A component of the story of the “water from the
rock’ (Exod. 17) is incorporated in Ps. 78:17ff. in the description of the manna
and the quails. From 78:21, ‘a fire was kindled’ against Israel, it is evident that
also the account in Num. 11:1-3 is linked with to the story of the manna and
the quails. The narratives in the Pentateuch speak of the anger of yhwh (Ps.
78:21) in connection with the quails, but not in connection with the manna.
12.73 In Exod. 16 the manna is called ‘food from heaven’ (vs. 4) and
described as a gift from heaven similar to frost (cf. Job 38:29), a form of
precipitation from heaven that came with the dew (16:13b-15; Num. 11:9). In
Ps. 78 the manna that is rained down is called ‘grain of heaven’ (vs. 24), that
reaches the earth through ‘the doors of heaven’ (vs. 23); so Israel in the
wilderness can have in abundance ‘the food of the strong (inhabitants of
heaven)’ (vs. 25) [cf. Ps. 105:40: ‘heavenly food;’ Neh. 9:15 (see also vs. 20):
‘food from heaven’]. Nothing is said about manna as a ‘natural phenomenon.’
The entire focus is on the miraculous and the divine origin of the manna. The
description is Haggadic in nature; cf. Wis. 16:20f.: ‘the food of angels’ (see also
5 Ezra 1:19), ‘the food from heaven’ was adapted to the desires and tastes of
evetyone (cf. 19:21b).426 The exuberant description of the manna in Ps. 78
stands in sharp contrast to the little appreciation the people had for the
manna according to Num. ll:4ff.; 21:5. According to Deut. 8:2f., 16 the manna
was to instruct the people.
426
See further Houtman, Himmel, 189f., 251 f., and the exegesis of Exod. 16.
12.7.4 Like Exod. 16, Ps. 78 mentions the raining down of the manna and
the quails in one breath (unlike in Num. ll:4ff.). A difference is that in Exod.
16 first the giving of the bread from heaven is announced (16:4f.), while later
the giving of the meat in the evening and that of bread in the morning is
announced, which also happens in that order (16:8f., 12f.) [Ps. 105 has the two
in the same sequence]. The description in Ps. 78:26ff. of the coming of the
quails and what it did to the people is apparently based on the narrative of
Exod. 16 and Num. ll:4ff. The description in Exod. 16 is succinct (vs. 13a) [is
meat in the evening like bread in the morning a recurring gift?; cf. 16:8, 12f.,
13f.]. The quails are given because the people grumbled about hunger (16:3).
In Num. ll:4ff. the quails are given because the people grumbled about the
manna and craved more exotic foods. According to Ps. 78 the rebellion had
another background (see § 12.7.2). Exod. 16 is silent on how the quails came.
Num. 11:31 reports that a wind caused by y h w h , in other words 'a very strong
wind,’ brought them ‘from the sea.’ Ps. 78:26 mentions the south-east wind
(coming from the Gulf of Aqaba) as the Vehicle’ of the Vinged birds’ (vs. 27;
it is not said what sort of birds they were). The source where the wind came
from is said to be ‘the heavens’ (vs. 26a), meaning ‘his stronghold’ (vs.
26b),427 but it is not said where the birds came from (did they also like the
manna come from there?). Exod. 16:13 is silent about the quantity of the
quails. The poet of Ps. 78 emphasizes the miraculous nature by likening their
amount to dust and the sand of the seas (vs. 27). Even so, with his hyperbolic
description he does not outdo the picture in Num. 11 where it is said that the
quails were lying on all sides around the camp of Israel, about a day’s journey,
and about two cubits deep! (vs. 31; cf. also vss. 19f., 21f.). According to Exod.
16:13a the quails covered the camp. According to Num. 11:31 the wind made
them fall on the camp so that they were lying all around the camp. Ps. 78:28
tells that the birds came down ‘in his camp’/‘around his dwellings,’ but does
not mention the size of the area nor the time it took to collect the birds.
According to Num. 11:32 that took two days and a night. Exod. 16 is silent
about the eating of the birds and its consequences. Both Num. 11 and Ps. 78
tell that God’s anger was kindled. Num. 11:33 mentions the people as the
object of the divine anger. Ps. 78:31 is more evocative and mentions ‘the fat’
(= the strong) and the young men (picture of strength; cf. Isa. 40:33f.) as
victims. Ps. 78:23ff. tells that y h w h , in response to Israel’s doubt, showed
them that he was able to prepare an abundant meal for them in the wilderness
(cf. vss. 18f.). By demonstrating his ability, y h w h at the same time showed his
anger over Israel’s unbelief aad lack of trust and executed his judgment upon
them (vss. 2If., 31).
12.7.5 Ps. 105:40 omits the grumbling of the people and God’s anger and
only briefly mentions the coming of the quails and ‘the food from heaven.’ In
427 See Houtman, Himmel, 162, 235.

204 INTRODUCTION
contrast, Neh. 9 mentions the ‘food from heaven’ and the water from the rock
together (vs. 15; see also vs. 20), and like Deuteronomy omits the coming of
the quails. Ps. 106 does not mention the manna but does allude to the coming
of the quails (vss. 14f.). The people’s abandonment in the desert to the wanton
craving (vs. 14a; cf. Num. 11:4) is interpreted as putting God to the test (vs.
14b; cf. Num. 14:22) even as in Ps. 78:18. As in Ps. 78, y h w h gives in to the
desires of the Israelites and his response is at the same time the carrying out
of the judgment: he made them waste away (cf. Num. ll:33ff.; nopia (vn in Ps.
106:15b is sometimes interpreted as ‘consumption at their throat, neck.’428
The author of Wisdom has his own slant on the tradition of the quails (16:2ff.;
19:11, 12). See also 5 Ezra 1:15. Also Ps. 68:10-12 (see e.g. H. Gunkel [HK])
and Ps. 111:5a (see e.g. Lauha, 59, 82f.) are sometimes regarded as allusions to
the miraculous providing of food for Israel in the wilderness.
12.7.6 The description of the theme of the “water from the rock’ by the poet
of Ps. 78 (vss. 15, 16, 20) can be regarded as an independent and personal
reproduction of what is narrated in Exod. 17:1-7; Num. 20:1-13 (cf. Deut. 6:16;
8:15; 9:22) [compare e.g. o**is in Ps. 78:15 with its in 17:6 and in Ps. 78:16
with Num. 20:8, 10, 11]. In contrast to Exod. 17 and Num. 20, in Ps. 78 the use
of hyperbole emphasizes the miraculous nature of the event; God is splitting
(vs. 15a) [upa piel (cf. vs. 13); cf. Judg. 15:19; Isa. 48:21] and ‘rocks’ are
mentioned (vs. 15a) [see beside it 17:6; Num. 20:11 and also Ps. 78:20; however
in Ps. 78:20 it is the Israelites who are the speakers; is the intention to say that
they minimize an impressive event (vs. 15a)?]; the impression is created that
God made a large opening for the water; note, too, the sequel: so much water
came gushing out that it was ‘as the seas’ (vs. 15b), it was streams, the water
flowed ‘like rivers’ (vs. 16), etc. (vs. 20); and that in the wilderness (vs. 15a)!
Psalm 78 passes over in silence the grumbling of the people because of thirst
(17:2f.; Num. 20:2ff.) as the cause of the miracle. Evidently the miracle is a
response to the putting of God to the test (cf. vs. 17; see § 12.7.2), which was
an expression of Israel’s unbelief and lack of trust in God (vs. 22). It is
specifically stated in Ps. 95:8f. that at ‘Quarrel and Test’ (cf. 17:7) God was
tested, was put to the proof (17:2, 7; cf. Deut. 6:22; Num. 14:22; Ps. 78:17f.,
40f.). Different from Ps. 78, Ps. 95 does not just locate the event ‘in the
wilderness’ (vs. 8; cf. Ps. 78:15), but also mentions specifically where it hap
pened (cf. 17:7). However, the water from the rock is not mentioned in Ps. 95
(compare the end of vs. 9 with Ps. 78:42ff.). Several elements from the descrip
tion in the Pentateuch are not found in Ps. 78. For example, the role of Moses
and Aaron receives no attention. The striking of the rock twice (Num. 20:11)
and the punishment of Moses and Aaron are absent. Some elements are
mentioned in Ps. 106:32f. while elements mentioned in Ps. 78 are absent from
428 See L. Durr, ZA W 43 (1925), 268; Jirku, 131, thinks that vs. 15b reflects an independent
tradition; Lauha, 82, thinks differently.
Ps. 106. Even as in Ps. 95 the miracle is left out in Ps. 106. Ps. 106 has in
common with Ps. 95 that the location is specifically mentioned [vs. 32a: ‘Water
of Quarrel;’ cf. Num. 20:13], but is silent about the putting of God to the test
[the fact is mentioned in connection with the coming of the quails (vs. 14)]. Ps.
106 speaks about the rebellion of the people (vs. 33a; cf. Ps. 78:17 and also Ps.
95:8a) with which they aroused God’s anger429 and refers to Moses’ sin at
Quarrel (vs. 33b; cf. Num. 20:7ff.; in Ps. 106 Aaron is not mentioned) with the
result that because of the people ‘it went ill’ with Moses (cf. Num. 20:12; Deut.
32:51 and see especially Deut. 1:37; 3:26f.; 4:21). In Ps. 106:33b Moses’ sin is
described as ‘and rash words came from his lips.’430 In my judgment it is
possible that Ps. 106:32f. embodies a tradition about the incident at Quarrel
which in that form does not occur in the Pentateuch (see also Lauha, 76f.).
Note, too, that mention is made of rebellion against ‘his spirit’ (vs. 33a) (see
also § 12.5.1).
12.7.7 Also Deut. 33:8 and Ps. 81:8c contain a picture that differs from Exod.
17 and Num. 20. In Deut. 33:8 the statement is made with respect to (the tribe
of) Levi (addressed in the patriarch Aaron or Moses?): ‘whom you (God) put
to the test at Test/with whom you quarreled at the Water of Quarrel.’ In Exod.
17 (see vss. 2, 7) and Num. 20 (see vs. 13) it is told that the people put God to
the test and quarreled with him. According to the picture in Ps. 81:8c: ‘I (God)
tested you (Israel) at the Water of Quarrel,’431 it was not the people who
tested God but God who tested the people. That is also the case in 15:25 (not;
see also 16:4; 20:20). That leads Lauha, 78, to think that the poet of Ps. 81
merged the two stories of the miracles with water (15:22-25; 17:1-6). He also
considers it possible that originally the name Test was connected with the
happening of 15:22-25.
12.7.8 In less detail but in similar manner as Ps. 78 also Ps. 105:41 mentions
the miracle of “water from the rock’ (cf. Ps. 78:20 and also v. 16): it was as if a
river flowed through the desert! In Ps. 105:40 it is still said that the ‘food from
heaven’ was meant to feed the people, in Ps. 105:41 nothing is said about the
purpose of the water. All the emphasis is on the greatness and miracle working
power of God. The actual situation of thirsty people who are in danger of
perishing, which is the point of the narratives in the Pentateuch, is completely
out of the purview (see also Ps. 114:8; cf. Deut. 8:15). The purpose of the
429 Vs. 32a; Ps. 78:21, 23 mentions the anger in connection with the question for ‘bread’ and
‘meat;’ Num. 20 makes no direct mention of the anger; by way of contrast see Deut. 1:37; 3:26;
4:21.
Num. 20:10 describes Moses’ speaking to the people; instead of speaking to the rock (vs. 8)
he strikes it (vs. 11); Jirku, 132f., thinks that Ps. 106:33b refers to the speaking with God (not
recorded in the Pentateuch): Moses and Aaron were ordered to speak to the rock; they refuse and
are punished for it.
Cf. Num. 20:13; for ‘testing’ not H03 (17:2, 7) but ]I"Q is used, which in Ps. 95:9 occurs
parallel with H03; M. Dahood (AB) refers also ]TO in Ps. 66:10 to the stay in the wilderness.
206 INTRODUCTION
water is stated in the brief mention of the event in Neh. 9:15, 20 and also in
Isa. 48:21 which, as regards vocabulary, is reminiscent of Ps. 78:15, 20 (cf. Van
der Merwe, 216ff.). See further also Wis. 11:4, 7f.; 5 Ezra 1:20. The description
of the new exodus in the book of Isaiah speaks about streams of water in the
desert (and about a transformation of the desert) in a manner (Isa. 35:6f.;
41:17ff.; 43:20; 44:3; 49:9ff.; cf. also Ps. 107:35) which recalls Ps. 78:15f., 20;
105:41 (and also Isa. 48:21). Nothing is said, however, about the rock(s) as
source of the water. On the other hand, the Pentateuch and the Psalms are
totally silent about a transformation of the desert. Water from a rock occurs
also in an altogether different context; when Samson is dying from thirst God
splits (i?pa) the hollow place in Lehi so that water came from it (Jdgs. 15:18f.)
12.7.9 Also in a more general sense, the OT, outside the Tetrateuch, speaks
of God’s care for Israel in the desert (e.g. Deut. l:30f.; 2:7; 8:4; 29:4; 32:10ff.;
Josh. 24:17; Amos 2:10; Ps. 78:52-53a; 136:16; Neh. 9:12; Wis. 11:2). Someti
mes details are mentioned that are not found in the Tetrateuch. So it is
mentioned in Deut. 8:4, 15; 29:4; Neh. 9:21 that during the forty years of
Israel’s stay in the desert the clothes (and foot wear) did not wear out and the
feet did not swell. The desert is portrayed as a terrible wilderness (Deut. 1: 19;
8:15; Jer. 2:6). Deut. 8:15 not only mentions fiery snakes (Num. 21:6) but also
scorpions as animals found there (cf. Isa. 30:6). In Jer. 2:6 the desert is called
‘a land that no one passes through and where no one lives’ (cf. Wis. 11:2). All
the emphasis is on the care of God who kept Israel alive in the most terrible
places. Entirely different is the portrayal of the desert in the descriptions of
the new exodus. Whatever threatens life in the desert is removed by God (Isa.
11:6; 35:8f.; 40:3f.; 42:15f.; 43:19; 49:11).
12.7.10 The description of the incident with Amalek in Deut. 25:17-19
differs from the version in 17:8-16. Deuteronomy does not specifically say
where it happened. Nor is it said that Israel engaged Amalek in battle and won
the victory. The emphasis is on an element that is not found in Exodus:
Amalek’s immoral conduct (‘it did not fear God;’ cf. 1:17; Gen. 20:11; 42:18).
When the Israelites were too weary to defend themselves, the Amalekites had
attacked and struck down all who lagged behind (vs. 18; cf. Josh. 10:19). Deut.
25:19 has in common with 17:14, 16 a remark with respect to the fate of
Amalek: the remembrance of Amalek will be blotted out from under heaven.
However, in Exod. 17 y h w h is the subject of the ‘blotting out.’ In Deut. 25
that task is assigned to Israel. In contrast to Exod. 17, Deut. 25 legitimatizes
the liquidation of Amalek (vs. 18f.; cf. 1 Sam. 15:2f.,33). See further also Num.
21:lff., 21ff.; 31:1ft; Wis. 11:3; 5 Ezra 1:16.
12.7.11 The lightening of Moses’ load is mentioned in 18:13ff.; Num.
11:1 Iff.; Deut. 1:9. I draw attention to a number of variations between Exod.
18 and Deut. 1. In Deut. 1 no mention is made of Jethro (18:17ff.). Moses
himself considers his task to heavy to bear432 and takes the initiative to
make changes. According to 18:21, 24f. Moses himself chooses capable men.
According to Deut. 1:13 he asks the people to choose them (the requirements
differ in 18:21 and Deut. 1:13) and only he reserves the right to appoint them
himself (Deut. 1:15). In Deut. 1:15, even as in 18:25, these leaders are called
‘commanders of thousands,’etc. However, in Deut. 1:16 judges are mentioned
as well, whose task receives a restriction (Deut. 1:17b) similar to that imposed
on the commanders in 18:22, 26. From Deuteronomy one gets the impression
that the ‘judges’ were not the same as the commanders, at least did not have
the same tasks; the restructuring introduced by Moses evidently was not
limited to judicial matters. According to Deuteronomy the task assignments
were made at Horeb or after the departure from there (Deut. 1:9; cf. vss. 6ff.;
see also Num. ll:llff.). In Exodus this is done before the arrival at the Sinai.
12.7.12 As indicated above, in many parts of the OT (Ps. 78; 106; Neh. 9 et
al., see also Ezek. 20 [see § 12.8.3]) the journey through the desert is depicted
as a dark period in the history of the people of Israel. Time and again the
people rebel against the Lord. As shown above, also in the Pentateuch the
grumbling of the people is a recurring theme. But in the Pentateuch there are
other sounds as well (e.g. 19:8; 24:3). Those, too, are found outside the
Pentateuch. In Hos. 2:16f.; Jer. 2:2 Israel’s stay in the wilderness is depicted as
a time when the people lived in full harmony with yhwh. That is not how the
Pentateuch depicts the time in the desert. In Hos. 2; Jer. 2 (see beside it Jer.
7:24f.!) as well as in Ps. 78; 106 etc. a onesided picture is given of the time in
the desert for the sake of adding strength to the proclamation (cf. § 12.9.5).
The passages agree herein that the journey through the desert was the time of
yhwh’s loving care for his people (see also Hos. 9:10; 12:10; 13:4f. and cf. e.g.
Ezek. 16:6ff., 43). See further I DBS, 946 ff. (Bibl.).
12.8 The sojourn at the Sinai

12.8.1 Outside the Pentateuch the momentous happenings at the Sinai
(Exod. 19ff.) are barely mentioned. When the names Sinai and Horeb (see
§8.23) do occur, only occasionally the reference is specifically to the events
recorded in Exod. 19ff. In Neh. 9:13, in agreement with 19:18, 20; 20:22; Deut.
4:36, Mount Sinai is designated as the place of the theophany and the giving of
the law (cf. 4 Ezra 3:17ff.; Bar. 2:28; Sir. 17:1 Iff.; 24:33; see also Jdt. 5:14). In 1
Kgs. 8:9 = 2 Chr. 5:10 Horeb is specified as the place of the making of the
covenant; in Mai. 3:22 as the place where the Torah was given through Moses.
In a few Psalms433 one can occasionally detect allusions to the happenings at
the Sinai. Remarkable is that Psalms which deal in great detail with the43
43^ Deut. 1:9, 12; cf. Num. 11:11, 14, 17; in Deut. l:10f. the stress is on the enormous size of
the people; cf. 18:13f.
4" Among others Ps. 50; 81:10f.; 111:5b; 114:4, 6; see further Lauha, 91ff.
208 INTRODUCTION
sojourn in the wilderness, such as Ps. 78; 105; 135; 136, do not even allude to
the events at the Sinai. Barring Mai. 3:22, also the prophetic books do not
specifically refer to it. For G. von Rad this was one more reason to propound
the idea that what took place at the Sinai originally belonged to a separate
tradition.434 To that I add that the book of Deuteronomy (see 4:10ff.; 5:2ff.;
18:16) does devote a great deal of interest to the giving of the law and the
making of the covenant at Horeb.
12.8.2 Though in the prophetic books the mountain of the revelation is
mentioned only once, these books do presuppose the existence of com
mandments given by God before the people entered Canaan. In Jer. 7:22;
ll:3f., 7 the prophet speaks of commandments of y h w h (11:3: “words of the
covenant’) given to the fathers “when I ( y h w h ) brought them/made them go
out of the land of Egypt’ (cf. also Jer. 7:25). In Jer. 31 reference is made to the
covenant y h w h made with the fathers “when I ( y h w h ) took them by the hand
to bring them out of the land of Egypt’ (vs. 31; see also 34:13). This is not the
place to offer an exegesis of these passages.435 It is enough to say that the
giving of the law and the covenant are closely connected with the exodus.436
Must one nevertheless assume that the allusion is to the giving of the law and
the Sinai covenant? Noth, UP, 50 n. 162, wonders whether it is not much more
the ‘bringing out of Egypt’ that is meant to be the act of making the covenant.
Jirku, 119ff., believes that Jeremiah embodies a separate tradition.
12.83 Ezek. 20 gives the following picture of Israel’s early history. It starts
with y h w h ’s election of Israel in Egypt (the patriarchs are not mentioned) and
with y h w h ’s promise that he will bring Israel into the land ‘flowing with milk
and honey’ (vss. 5f.; cf. Exod. 3:6ff.). Already then y h w h required that Israel
would throw away the images of idols and have nothing to do with the idol
worship in Egypt (vs. 7; cf. Ezek. 23:3, 8, 19ff., 27). Because the people refused
to listen (vs. 8 ), as early as at that time y h w h intended to judge them. So as
not to damage his reputation (cf. 32:13; Num. 14:16; Deut. 9:28) among the
nations (the Egyptians) (cf. Neh. 9:10b) y h w h did not do it (vs. 9). Vss. lOf.
recount y h w h ’s leading the people into the wilderness and the giving of the
commandments. The instituting of the sabbath is specifically mentioned
434 See *Das Formgeschichtliche Problem des Hexateuch* (1938), in Ges. Studien m m AT,
Munchen 1961, 9-86; but see also, e.g. E.W. Nicholson, Exodus and Sinai in History and Tradition,
Oxford 1973; De Vaux, HAI, I, 397ff.
Do Jer. 7:21 ff. and Amos 5:25 presuppose that during its sojourn in the desert Israel did not
practice the sacrificial cult? For this problem see, for instance, K. Roubos, Profetie and cultus in
Israel, Wageningen 1956, 85ff., 104ff.
436 Cf. Deut. 29:24; 1 Kgs. 8:9, 21 (in 1 Kgs. 8:9 = 2 Chr. 5:10 both Horeb and the exodus are
mentioned). For the relationship between Jeremiah and the Pentateuch see Houtman, InlPent,
192ff. It should be noticed, too, that in 15:25 the announcement of the will of YHWH happens at
Bitterness. Th. Booij, Bib 65 (1984), 5, postulates that in Ps. 81:8ff. the promulgation of the laws
happened at the waters of Quarrel.
(likewise in Neh. 9:14; see also e.g. Jer. 17:19ff.; 23:38; Jub. 50; cf. Exod.
31:31). Israel ignored the laws, did not keep the sabbath and was attracted to
the idols (vss. 13-17). For the sake of his name also this time y h w h did not
destroy his people. But he did swear that he would not bring the generation of
the exodus into the land he had given them (vs. 15). y h w h urges the new
generation not to act like their ancestors (vss. 18-20). History, however,
repeats itself. Again, for the sake of his name, y h w h does not destroy the
people (Vss. 21-26). But he did swear that he would scatter them among the
nations4^7 and he gives them statutes that were not good (vss. 25f.).437438
12.8.4 Here follow a few comments with Ezek. 20. Exodus is silent about idol
worship in Egypt (vss. 7f.). It is briefly mentioned in Josh. 24:14 (cf. Acts 7:39;
see § 13.4.1). There is a long-held view that the origin of the worship of the
‘golden calf (Exod. 32) is to be sought in Egypt.439 M. Buber440 supposes
on the basis of Ezek. 20:7f. that Moses may have found the tribes in Egypt in a
condition of spiritual decline (for a disharmonious relation between y h w h and
Israel in Egypt see also Ps. 106:7). The name Sinai is not mentioned in
connection with the giving of the laws (vs. 11). The rebellion of the people
does not express itself in unbelief (e.g. Ps. 78; 106) but in not observing
y h w h ’s ordinances, etc. (vss. 13, 16, 21, 24).441 Incidental transgressions of
the sabbath statutes are also found in the Pentateuch (16:27ff.; Num. 15:32ff.).
Ezek. 20 gives the impression that the people as a whole ignored those laws
during the sojourn in the wilderness. The Pentateuch relates incidents of idol
worship (32:lff.; cf. Deut. 9:16; Num. 25:lff.). Ezek. 20 gives the impression
that all the people were guilty of it all the time.44243Ezek. 20 does not say
anything about the people’s willingness to abide by the commandments (19:8;
24:3). According to Ezek. 20:15f. the generation of the exodus was not
allowed to enter the promised land because of its refusal to live by y h w h ’s
ordinances (cf. Num. 14:29ff.). Num. 14:1 Iff. points to Israel’s reaction to the
report of the spies as the cause of the divine anger (Num. 13:27ff.). In short,
437 Vs. 23; the captivity is already in sight; cf. 32:34; Lev. 26:33; Deut. 4:27; 28:64; Jer. 9:15; Ps.
106:27.
43S Usually it is thought that the prophet had in mind the commandment to give the firstborn,
including those of humans (22:28); see e.g. Vriezen, 237, 331; for a detailed discussion see Lust,
134ff.
439 See J. Hahn, Das ‘goldene Kalb,’ Frankfurt a.M./Bem 1981, 314ff.
440 Het geloof der profeten, Wassenaar 1972, 47.
441 Ps. 78 relates the refusal to keep the covenant requirements (vss. 10, 37, 56; cf. also Ps.
105:45), but in Ps. 78 (vss. 11, 32, 35, 42; cf. vss. Iff.) and Ps. 106 (vss. 7, 13, 21f.) the emphasis is
on forgetting the great deeds of YHWH as the cause of the unfaithfulness (cf. also Ps. 105:5); note
also that Ps. 78:39 mentions another reason for the sparing of the people than Ezek. 20:9; etc.
442 According to a certain interpretation of Amos 5:26, Israel was carrying idols in the
wilderness; cf. Acts 7:42f.; see § 13.4.1.
443 Note also the willingness of the people to contribute to the building of the tent sanctuary
(35:20ff.; 36:3ff.).
210 INTRODUCTION
according to Ezek. 20 during its sojourn in the wilderness Israel was always
rebelling against y h w h (see also Ps. 78; 106; Neh. 9 et al.; but see also Ps.
78:34; 106:12, 44). The Pentateuch contains passages that evoke a similar
picture (Deut. 9:7; cf. Deut. 1:26; 9:24; Num. 14:11, 22). But the Pentateuch as
a whole presents a more varied picture of the time in the wilderness.
12.8.5 Outside the Pentateuch the events around the ‘golden calf (Exod. 32;
Deut. 9:8-21) are mentioned in Ps. 106:19-23 and Neh. 9:18. In Ps.l06:19 the
event is located at Horeb (cf. Deut. 9:8). Exod. 32 does not specifically
mention the place (but see 32:15, 33:6; 34:2, 4 etc.). Ps. 106 recounts the
making and worship of ‘the image of an ox that eats grass’ (vs. 20; cf. Jer. 2:11)
and y h w h ’s plan to destroy Israel, something he did not carry out because of
Moses’ intercession for them (vs. 23; cf. 32:9-14; Deut. 9:18ff., 25ff.). According
to Jer. 15:1 Moses (cf. Num. 14:13ff.; 4 Ezra 7:106) and Samuel (cf. 1 Sam. 7:5;
12:9) were major intercessors (cf. Ps. 99:6). Deut. 9:7-10:11 exhibits affinity
with Exod. 24; 31; 32; 34, but there are striking differences as well, including
the following: Moses also fasts the first time he receives the stone tablets
(Deut. 9:9; cf. Exod. 24:12, 18); in contrast to 32:1 Iff., in Deut. 9:18ff., 25ff. the
intercession happens after the return of Moses; Deut. 9:21 passes over the fact
that Moses made the Israelites drink the water with the image that had been
ground to powder (32:20); Exodus leaves Moses’ intercession for Aaron (Deut.
9:20) unmentioned. See further the exegesis of Exod. 32.
12.9 Concluding observations

Looking at the manner in which the OT handles the events narrated in Exodus
one can make the following observations.
12.9.1 The events are not narrated in the same order as in Exodus (the
Pentateuch). So, for example, the plagues referred to in Ps. 78 and Ps. 105 are
not mentioned in the sequence in which they are found in Exodus (see
§ 12.4.1, 3). Ps. 78 describes the plagues (vss. 43ff.) after a narration of the
miracles in the wilderness and, different from Exodus, tells about the water
from the rock before the coming of the manna and the quails (vss. 15ff.). In
Ps. 106:32f. the incident at ‘the Water of Quarrel’ (Num. 20) is mentioned
after the idolatry with the Baal of Peor (Num. 25). In Neh. 9:17 Israel’s plan to
return to Egypt is mentioned (Num. 14:4), while in Neh. 9:18 the worship of
the golden calf (Exod. 32) is related. Events that are scattered through the
Pentateuch are combined with each other (see for instance § 12.7.2, 4, 11).
12.9.2 Outside Exodus one sometimes finds grander accounts of the events
(see for example Ps. 78:15ff. [see 12.7.3ff.) and Ps. 106:9b [see § 12.6.1]). The
inclination to accentuate the miraculous nature of events is also noticeable in
Deuteronomy (e.g. 8:4, 15; 29:4) and may be regarded as typical of the genre of
‘proclamation.’
12.9.3 It is striking that in the Pentateuch Moses (and Aaron) play a domin
ant role as y h w h ’s representatives, but that outside the Pentateuch they are
hardly mentioned as protagonists.444 Always it is y h w h himself who is sub

ject (Ezek. 20; Ps. 78; 105; 106; Neh.9; etc.). The likely reason is not that only
in later times Moses (and Aaron) were given a leading role in the traditions,
but that psalmists and prophets recounted the history with a (somewhat)
different intent than the authors of the so-called historical books. The latter
intended to offer a more or less detailed account of the events (to get a certain
message across! cf. Houtman, InlPent., 243 ff.; see also § 11.6.9). The first reach
for the history for the purpose of exhortation and admonition, confession of
sin, to reinforce prayer, to praise God, and to demonstrate that history is
replete with examples of y h w h ’s goodness and mercy, meaning that there is
hope for the future, etc. Also the latter are interested in the meaning of the
past for the present. They want to show the lessons of history. However, the
psalmists and prophets are more direct in showing the abiding relevance of
history. They easily pass over historical details and instead concentrate on the
meaning of history for the permanently relevant theme of the relationship
between God and Israel. Giving (overly much) historical detail might detract
from the directness of preaching. Mentioning Moses (and Aaron) might divert
the attention from the honor due to y h w h for having cared for Israel through
out history. That in particular is what later generations must know. Hence the
emphasis on y h w h as subject! For example, what is said in Ps. 105:41 is far
different from real life in the wilderness (see § 12.7.8). Past happenings are
told to sing the wonder working power of God. In Ps. 78 the place were the
miracle of water from the rock happened is not mentioned (see § 12.7.6) nor is
the kind of bird with which Israel was fed in the wilderness identified (see
§ 12.7.4). The poet uses history to contrast in sharp colours Israel’s unfaithful
ness through the centuries and God’s constant care for the people (cf. Deut.
l:30f.). Ps. 106:10f. refers only in general terms to ‘enemies’ and ‘adversaries’
rather than to Pharaoh and the Egyptians in connection with what happened
at Yam Suph. The passing over of historical details and the use of general
terms facilitates the actualization and generalization of historical events. It
makes it easier for the hearer of the words to relate them to his own situation.
So past events can become events that (can) repeat themselves. One can reach
back to them to describe future events. Also the use of images derived from
portrayals of creation as a struggle against the sea (see § 12.6.1) involves the
fading of the concrete historical background. So the permanent relevance of
the history is highlighted, namely that from the beginning y h w h showed that
he was able to overcome the menacing power of the chaos. Finally, in light of
what is said above, it would seem that this is also how we should account for
444 For Moses see 1 Kgs. 8:9, 53; 2 Kgs. 18:4; Isa. 63:llff.; Jer. 15:1; Mai. 3:22; Ps. 103:7;
106:23, 32; Neh. 9:14; 1 Chr. 21:29; 2 Chr. 1:3; 5:10; for Moses and Aaron see 1 Sam. 12:6, 8; Mic.
6:4; Ps. 77:21; 105:26; 106:16. Left out are the occurrences of Aaron in genealogies and of Moses
in expressions such as ‘the law of Moses.’
212 INTRODUCTION
the rare mention of Sinai/Horeb outside the Pentateuch (see § 12.8.1).

12.9.4 It has become clear that the preachers in Israel were very free in their
use of the traditions about the past. That free dealing with the traditions was
for the purpose of actualizing history.445 That is why they did not shrink
back from sometimes giving a highly onesided picture of the past (see
§ 12.7.12). This free use is also evident in Deuteronomy (see for example
§§12.7.10; 12.8.5).446 It would seem that also the description in Exodus on
many a point rests on a free handling of the tradition. In my judgment,
generally speaking the preachers had at their disposal the same traditions we
know about from the Tetrateuch. It is not unlikely that in addition they were
also familiar with other traditions not referred to in the Tetrateuch (cf. for
example, § 12.3.1, 4.1, 6.1, 7.6, 8.2). But it is difficult to sift out whether such a
tradition was used or whether there was a free handling of a tradition known
from the Tetrateuch. Moreover, a free use of an existing tradition may have
been the beginning of a new tradition. This free handling of the tradition,
which in the OT is also clearly noticeable in the manner the books of Chronic
les make use of material from the books of Samuel and Kings, was continued,
among others, in rabbinic literature447 and in the NT (see § 13).
§ 13 The book of Exodus and the New Testament

13.1 Bibl.: E.L. Allen, “Jesus and Moses in the New Testament," ET 67
(1955-56), 104-6; T. Baarda, “I Corinthe 10.1-13," GThT 76 (1976), 1-14; F.M.
Braun, “L’6vangile de Saint Jean et les grandes traditions d’Israel. IV. Mo'ise
et l’exode," RThom 60 (1960), 165-84; F.F. Bruce, This is That: The New
Testament Development of Some Old Testament Themes, Exeter 1968; idem,
“Scripture and Tradition in the New Testament," in Holy Book and Holy
Tradition, Manchester 1968, 68-93; D.K. Clark, “Signs in Wisdom and John,"
CBQ 45 (1983), 201-9; J.S. Croatto, “Riletture dell’Esodo nel cap. 6 di San
Giovanni," BeO 17 (1975), 11-20; E.E. Ellis, Pauls Use of the Old Testament,
Edinburgh/London 1957; J.J. Enz, “The Book of Exodus as a Literary Type
for the Gospel of John," JBL 76 (1957), 208-15; E.D. Freed, Old Testament
Quotations in the Gospel of John, Leiden 1965; S.R. Garrett, “Exodus From
Bondage: Luke 9:31 and Acts 12:1-24," CBQ 52 (1990), 656-80; R.H. Gundry,
The Use o f the Old Testament in St. Matthew's Gospel, Leiden 1967; A.T.
Hanson, The New Testament Interpretation of Scripture, London 1980; G.
Hughes, Hebrews and Hermeneutics. The Epistle to the Hebrews as a New
445 Cf. J.W. Groves, Actualization and Interpretation in the Old Testament, Atlanta, Georgia
1987: S. Springer, Neuinterpretation im Alien Testament, Stuttgart 1979.
446 Usually it is thought that Deuteronomy is dependent on J (E). According to Rose (see
§ 12.6.6), 221 ff., 323ff., Deuteronomy has priority. For this question see Houtman, InlPetiL, 177.
447 Cf. for example Fishbane (see Bibl.); L. Eslinger, “Inner-Biblical Exegesis and Inner-Biblical
Allusion: The Question of Category," VT 42 (1992), 47-58; J. Weingreen, From Bible to Mishna.
The Continuity o f Tradition, Manchester 1976.
EXODUS AND THE NEW TESTAMENT 213
Testament Example of Biblical Interpretation, Cambridge etc. 1979; E. Kase-

mann, Das wandemde Gottesvolk: Eine Untersuchung zum Hebraerbrief Gottin
gen 19572; J. Kilgallen, The Stephen Speech, Rome 1976; S.H. Kio, “The
Exodus Symbol of Liberation in the Apocalypse and its Relevance for Some
Aspects of Translation,* BiTr 40 (1989), 120-35; D.-A. Koch, Die Schrift als
Zeuge des Evangeliums, Tubingen 1986 (on Paul’s use of the OT); J. Mdnek,
•The New Exodus in the Books of Luke,“ N T 2 (1958), 8-23; H.P. Muller,
“Die Plagen der Apokalypse,' ZNW 51 (1960), 268-78; R.E. Nixon, The
Exodus in the New Testament, London 1963; idem, “Exodus,* ET 85 (1973-
74), 72-5; S. Pancaro, The Law in the Fourth Gospel, Leiden 1975; E. Richard,
Acts 6:1-8:4: The Author’s Method of Composition, Missoula 1978; R.H. Smith,
“Exodus Typology in the Fourth Gospel,* JBL 81 (1962), 329-42; G. Stem-
berger, “Die Stephanusrede (Apg 7) und die jiidische Tradition,* in A. Fuchs,
Jesus in der Verkiindigung der Kirche, Linz 1976, 154-74; K.J. Thomas, “The
Old Testament Citations in Hebrews,* NTS 9 (1964-65), 303-25; G. Ziener,
“Weisheitsbuch und Johannesevangelium,* Bib 38 (1957), 396-418; 39 (1958),
37-60.
13.2 In this paragraph we look at the way the events described in Exodus
are used in the NT. Like the OT (e.g. Deut. 26:5ff.; Ezek. 20; Ps. 78; 105; 106),
the NT contains a number of more or less schematic surveys of the history of
God and his people.
13.3 Acts 13:16ff. contains the sermon in which Paul in a few broad lines
recalls God’s work in Israel. He mentions, among others, Israel’s stay in Egypt,
the exodus (vs. 17) and the journey through the wilderness (vs. 18) [the
emphasis is on God as subject; cf. § 12.9.4]. Unlike the poet of Ps. 78 for
whom history reached its climax with David (vss. 50ff.), for Paul the climax was
the coming of Jesus (vss. 23-25). He views the history of God and his people
entirely from the perspective of the coming of the promised Messiah (vss. 23,
32).
13.4.1 According to Acts 7:Iff., along the lines of passages like Ezek. 20, Ps.
78 and 106 Stephen portrayed Israel’s history as one of constant rebellion
against God (vs. 51) and his messengers (vs. 52). Israel refused to live
according to the law which, he even stresses, was given from heaven (vs. 53).
History reaches its climax in the murder of the Righteous One (vs. 52). In his
account of Israel in Egypt and in the wilderness he gives a prominent role to
Moses. His accents vary considerably from those in Exodus. He tells how
Moses killed an Egyptian (vss. 23ff.; cf. Exod. 2:1 Iff.), that Moses acted in
response to the abusive conduct of the Egyptian and to defend his people (vs.
24) , and so meant to make them recognize him as the God-sent deliverer (vs.
25) . In contrast to 2:13 Moses is presented as a peace maker (vs. 26). Different
from 2:14f. it is not fear of Pharaoh but the hostile treatment he receives from
his people that is said to be the reason for Moses’ flight. Moses is the rejected
(vss. 27f.) prophet (vs. 37; cf. Deut. 18:18). His life makes visible what will be
214 INTRODUCTION
the fate of prophets after him and that of the Righteous One. He is not recog
nized and acknowledged as the God-sent deliverer (vs. 25; cf. John 1:11).
Because Moses was indeed the one called by God he nevertheless receives the
position for which he had been raised up (note the repetition of vs. 27 in vs.
35). Also as the appointed leader (vss. 30ff.,38) he is spurned (vs. 39). The
rejection of Moses, and so of God himself, manifests itself in the worship of
the ‘golden calf (vss. 39ff.) which showed the people’s desire for the life in
Egypt (vs. 40) [not in Exod. 32; cf. 16:3; Num. ll:4f.; 14:3; see further § 12.8.3].
To punish them God gave them over to the worship of the heavenly bodies
(vs. 42) [reference is made to Amos 5:25ff. in (pretty much) the LXX version:
in the wilderness Israel did not abide by the divine laws regarding sacrifice but
instead succumbed to idol worship; cf. § 12.8.4]. What happened in Egypt and
in the wilderness is a picture of Israel’s attitude throughout history: the people
reject God’s messengers and ignore the commandments of God (cf. vss. 51-53).
The history is told in such a way that Moses becomes prototype of the prophet
and of Christ. Nothing negative is said about Moses. For example, nothing is
said about his reluctance to accept God’s call (3:1 Iff.).
13.4.2 More particulars can be noted. In contrast to Exod. 1-3, in Acts 7
Moses’ life is divided into forty year periods (vss. 23, 30; cf. Deut. 34:7). There
reference is also made to the skills he acquired. Because Acts 7:32f. reproduces
Exod. 3:5f. in reverse order a somewhat different picture of the event is
created. According to Acts 7:38 Moses spoke with ‘the angel’ on Mount Sinai
(cf. also vs. 30) [= Jesus Christ? cf. 13:7.], but according to Exod. 19 etc. with
God himself.
13.5.1 Heb. 11 looks at the life of Moses from the perspective of faith. The
fact that his parents hid him for three months because he was “well-shaped’
(2:2) and defied the king’s command (cf. 1:22) is called an act of faith (vs. 23)
[Exod. 2 only mentions the mother and is silent about what drove her]. Moses’
killing of an Egyptian is not mentioned. His standing up for a member of his
own people (2:11) is interpreted as a break with Pharaoh’s daughter (vs. 24),
as an expression of solidarity with ‘the people of God,’ and as a rejection of
(in the nature of the case ‘pleasurable’) ‘sin’ (vs. 25) [= ‘the treasures of
Egypt’ (vs. 26)]. In contrast to Acts 7:22. here the picture of Moses’ stay at
Egypt’s court is entirely negative. As soon as he becomes aware of what is
going on he says farewell to that environment and chooses ‘the abuse of the
Anointed One’ (vs. 26) [does the writer want to hold before his readers Moses’
bond with ‘the Anointed One’ = the people (vs. 25) as an example of their
bond with Christ or was according to him Christ present in the Israel of
Moses?]. Moses also showed himself as a hero of faith in the exodus (vs.
27).448 He celebrated the Passover and sprinkled the blood, so that the
destroyer would not touch the firstborn of the people (vs. 28) (cf. Exod. 12).
Through the celebration of the Passover, the foreshadowing of the salvation
given in Christ, he showed he was convinced of the power of the blood of the
‘passover lamb.’ Also the Israelites as they left Egypt were an example of faith.
So they passed through the Red Sea ‘as if it were dry land.’ The Egyptians
attempted to do the same, but were drowned (since they did not have faith)
(vs. 29). Not one discordant note is heard. As the writer is silent about the
opposition against Moses (2:13f.), so he does not say one word about the fear
and desperation of the Israelites at Yam Suph (14:10ff.). For the sake of
exhortation the writer presents a highly onesided picture of the history (cf.
§ 12.7.12). His readers must keep before their eyes the example of the people
of Israel and in particular of Moses, who consciously chose the side of Christ
and suffering and who was deeply conscious of the meaning of the blood of
Christ (cf. Heb. 12:2; 13:12f.) [for a positive evaluation of Moses, see also Heb.
3: Iff.].
13.5.2 In Heb. 3:7-4:13 the writer, basing himself on Ps. 95:7-11 (following
the LXX) portrays the Israel of the time in the wilderness (in its entirety; see
3:16ff.) as an unfaithful and apostate people (see § 12.7.6). Pointing to the fate
of Israel in the wilderness, the writer exhorts the readers not to fall away from
God but to persevere in faith.
13.6 In 1 Cor. 10:1-13 Paul states that the history of Israel in the wilder
ness was written down as an example for the Christian church (vss. 6, 11; cf.
Rom. 15:4). By speaking of the Old Israel as ‘our fathers’ (vs. 1) in a letter
addressed to gentile Christians Paul emphasizes the abiding significance of the
history. He underlines it even more by making some analogies. As the church
through baptism ‘in Christ’ (Rom. 6:3; Gal. 3:27) shares in the redemptive
event he represents, so the Israelites, through their being ‘baptized into Moses
in the cloud and in the sea’ (vs. 2) shared in the salvation God gave in Moses
(‘in the cloud’ [cf. § 12.7.1] and ‘through the sea’ [cf. § 12.6] (vs. 1) = ‘the
baptism’ of Israel ‘into Moses’). Not only were ‘all’ (vss. Iff.) the fathers (like
the Corinthians) baptized, but they also ate ‘the same spiritual food’ and drank
‘the same spiritual drink’ (the manna [cf. § 12.7.3] and the water from the rock
[cf. § 12.7.6]). Like the Corinthians they partook of the Lord’s Supper. Paul
carries the analogy so far that he even writes of the fathers: ‘For they drank
from the spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ’ (vs. 4),
that is, they shared continuously in the sacrifice of Christ’s body and blood
448 Likely wrongly the verse is sometimes thought to be referring to the flight to Midian
(2:14f.); cf. the altogether different picture of Moses for instance in 3:11 ff.; 5:22ff.; Num. 20:12 et
al.
216 INTRODUCTION
which he brought through his death.449 Having made it clear that the ances
tors in the wilderness were in the same situation as the church of Corinth Paul
could be even more forceful in his warning: despite the possession of the gifts
of grace of baptism and Lord’s Supper, it hadn’t gone well with the ancestors
(vs. 5)! The Corinthians must remember that. They must be careful not to fall
into the same sins as the forefathers. For example, for a Christian it is not
possible to eat ‘the spiritual food’ and ‘the spiritual drink’ and to participate in
pagan sacrificial meals as well (vss. 7,14ff.). Borrowing words from Exod. 32:6
(LXX) he characterizes such participation as a form of idolatry, of which
already the ancestors were guilty. In short, Paul describes Israel’s history as a
history which is/can become a prototype of the history of the church of
Corinth. He employs the past as a model for the present, going even so far as
using ‘New Testament’ terminology in writing about the history of the ances
tors.
13.7 Paul’s way of looking at the history is not an isolated instance in the
NT. The writer of the epistle of Jude aims to show that judgment is the
inevitable result of unbelief and apostasy. So he points out that ‘Jesus’ (a
reading that is preferable to ‘the Lord’) delivered the people from Egypt, but
that later he destroyed those who did not believe anyway (vs. 5) [cf. Num. 14].
The obvious intent of the allusion to the exodus and the sojourn of Israel in
the wilderness is to make the Christians aware that baptism, Jesus’ delivery, is
no absolute guarantee of salvation. History teaches that he does not leave
unbelief and apostasy unpunished. Note in this connection that according to a
notion that was held widely in the ancient church ‘the messenger (of yhwh)’
in the OT (3:2; 14:19; 23:20; etc.) was the Logos, Jesus Christ. It is not
unlikely that also ‘(the) angel’ in Acts 7:30,38 is a reference to him.450
13.8 It is not only in longer surveys that the history recorded in Exodus is
referred to in the New Testament. Also elsewhere in the NT allusions to it
occur. Without trying to be exhaustive, below follow some of the relevant texts.
Not included are quotations from and allusions to laws and references to the
tent sanctuary.
For allusions to the prologue to the exodus see Acts 7:17ff.; 13:17; Heb.
ll:23ff. (see above). Herod’s attempt to kill Jesus (Matt. 2:13ff.) and the
description of the return of Jesus and his parents from Egypt (Matt. 2:19ff.)
are ‘imaged’ in the history of Israel (2:15; 4:19f.; see also 1:16). Exod. 3:6 is
used by Jesus to substantiate the resurrection from the dead (Mark 12:26 par.;
see also Acts 3:13). The description of the woes in the book of Revelation
seems at certain points to have been influenced by the depictions of the
449 For the rock who traveled with them see, for example, Ginzberg, III, 52ff.; but compare
Ellis, 66ff.
450 See for example Bruce, Scripture, 84ff.; cf. A. Bakker, “Christ an Angel? A Study of Early
Christian Docetism,* ZNW (1933), 255-65.
plagues in Egypt: compare Rev. 8:5ff. (cf. also 16:18, 21) with Exod. 9:22ff.;
Rev. 8:8f. (cf. also 11:6; 16:3f.) with Exod. 7:20ff.; Rev. 8:12 (cf. also 16:10)
with Exod. 10:21ff.; Rev. 9:3ff. with Exod. 10:12ff.; Rev. 16:13 with Exod. 8:9ff.
‘Finger of God’ in Luke 11:20 appears to be an allusion to 8:19 (see in
contrast Matt. 12:28). As regards the assumed parallelism Moses-Jesus it might
be that the number of miracles in Matthew (ten) was inspired by the number
of plagues. For the hardening of Pharaoh (9:16) see Rom. 9:17. The Passover
is the background of John 19:36 (cf. Exod. 12:46); 1 Cor. 5:7; Heb. 11:28 (see
§ 13.5.1). Luke 9:31 is sometimes viewed as an allusion to the new exodus of
the people of God. According to the description of Rev. 15:3ff. the deliverance
wrought by the Lamb is followed by a song even as the ‘old’ exodus (cf.
§ 12.6.2).451 It has been suggested that the forty days of Jesus’ temptation in
the wilderness (Mark l:12f. par.) were modelled on Israel’s forty years of
temptation in the wilderness. Corresponding to that Jesus’ baptism which
preceded it (Mark l:9ff. par.) is seen as a new exodus. Exod. 15:23ff. which
records the healing of the water stands opposite to Rev. 8:11 which speaks of
water becoming bitter. There may be a connection between the miraculous
feeding (Mark 6:30ff. par.) and Israel’s miraculous feeding in the wilderness
(Exod. 16). Jesus calls himself ‘the bread of life’ that came from heaven (John
6:31ff.). He is also ‘the water of life’ (John 4:10ff.; 7:37). Rev. 2:17 mentions
‘the hidden manna,’ a (spiritual) refreshment from God.452 To make the
exhortation more urgent (Heb. 12:14ff.), to call to faithfulness to the Lord
(Heb. 12:25), in Heb. 12:18-29 the situation of the Christians under the new
covenant is contrasted with the situation of Israel at the Sinai (the name occurs
only in Acts 7:30, 38; Gal. 4:24f.): the divine revelation at the mountain
created fear and trembling, even in Moses, on account of the holiness of God
(cf. 19:12f., 16, 18; 20:19; Deut. 4:11; 9:19); the Christians on the other hand
have experienced God’s grace in Jesus Christ (Heb. 12:22ff.); therefore for
those who refuse to heed the voice of God (in Jesus Christ) the punishment
will be so much heavier. 1 Pet. 2:9 reflects 19:5f.; see also Rev. 1:6; 5:10. It is
likely that the announcement of the law of the Sinai (Exod. 19ff.) was the OT
model for Jesus’ sermon on the Mountain (Matt. 5-7).453 The words ‘blood
of the covenant’ (Matt. 26:28; Mark 14:24; see also Luke 24:24; 1 Cor. 11:15,
and compare Heb. 9:18-24 with Exod. 24:3-8 (several details are not found in
Exodus) are derived from 24:8. The description of the transfiguration on the
mountain (Mark 9:2-8 par.) has been linked with Exod. 24 (see also 34:29).
The worship of the ‘golden calf (Exod. 32) is mentioned in Acts 7:39ff.; 1 Cor.
451
In connection with the exodus see also Acts 7:36; 13:17; 1 Cor. 10:If.; Hi
5 (see above) and the use of Hos. 11:1 in Matt. 2:15.
^ For the sojourn in the wilderness see also Acts 13:18; Heb. 3:7ff.; 1 ..
and the use of Exod. 16:18 in 2 Cor. 8:15. Cj r ' ^
453
For the revelation at the Sinai see also Acts 7:38 (see above). ^ c? % ?l
218 INTRODUCTION
10:7 (see above). The picture of ‘the book of life’ (cf. 32:32f.) in Phil. 4:3; Rev.
3:5; 13:8; 20:15; 22:19. Paul in Rom. 9:15 quotes from Exod. 33:19. In 2 Cor.
3:17-18 he makes a Haggadic use of 34:29-35 to make clear to his readers the
difference between living under the old and the new covenant. Moses, whose
name occurs about eighty times in the NT, is rarely mentioned in connection
with historical events. In addition to passages already mentioned, such as for
instance John 6:32; Acts 7; 1 Cor. 11; 2 Cor. 3; Heb. 11, see also John 3:14 (cf.
Num. 21:4ff.). In Rev. ll:3ff. Moses is alluded to. 2 Tim. 3:8 mentions his
opponents Jannes and Jambres who are not found in the OT (see 1:16). Also
Jude 9 contains a note about Moses based on an extra-biblical tradition. In the
NT Moses is preeminently the mediator of revelation, the lawgiver and author
of the Scripture. Moses’ faithful companion Aaron is mentioned five times in
the NT (Luke 1:5; Acts 7:40; Heb. 5:4; 7:11; 9:4).
13.9 Postscript
From the above it is evident that the free and independent use of the tradition
of Israel’s early history as this is found in the OT, is also found in the NT. In
this respect the writers of the NT stand in a tradition. The way Christians used
Scripture did not differ from the way others in their time, including various
Jewish sects and the Samaritans, used Scripture. The difference was that in
their interpretation of the Scripture Christians sought to demonstrate that it
witnesses to the great significance of Jesus Christ and that it was written for
the instruction of the Christian church. The actualization of the OT in the
Christian church happened in a time when the books of the OT were closed
and were regarded as Word of God. Before the canonization it may have been
that there could be interpretation and actualization through elaboration and
alteration of an existing text/tradition (compare for instance 20:8-11 with Deut.
5:12-15), after the canonization this could no longer be done. But this did not
mean the end of the process of interpretation and actualization, as is also clear
from the NT. The sacred text still requires elucidation and actualization and so
enters history, accompanied by a stream of explanatory literature. Moments
from the history of interpretation of Exodus appear on the pages of this
commentary.454
454 For the history of the history of interpretation see e.g. IDBS, 438ff. (Bibl.).
exo dus 1:1-22
PHARAOH’S RESISTANCE TO THE FULFILLMENT

1:1 These are the names of the sons of Israel who came to Egypt; they came
with Jacob, each with his household:
2 Reuben, Simeon, Levi and Judah;
3 Issachar, Zebulon and Benjamin;
4 Dan and Naphtali, Gad and Asher.
5 — The total number of persons who came from Jacob's loins were seventy
persons; Joseph was already in Egypt.
6 And Joseph died and also all his brothers, in fact that whole generation.
7 But the Israelites were fruitful and increased greatly; they increased in
number, in fact they became more and more numerous, so that the land was filled
with them.
8 Then there arose a new king over Egypt who did not care about Joseph.
9 He said to his people: 7 have noticed that the people of the Israelites are
more numerous and more powerful than we.
10 Let us therefore deal shrewdly with them to prevent them from increasing
even more, so that they, in case someone attacks us, make matters worse by
joining our enemies, fight against us and leave the country. '
11 Then they set taskmasters over them to oppress them by forcing them to do
their heavy work So supply cities were built for Pharaoh, Pithom and Rameses.
12 The more they oppressed them, the more they increased in number and
multiplied even more rapidly, so that they began to dread the Israelites.
13 Therefore the Egyptians became ruthless in the forced labour they compelled
them to do.
14 Therefore they made their lives bitter with hard labour, making bricks from
mortar and clay, and with forced labour in the field. On top of all the work they
were forced to do they were mistreated as well.
15 Moreover; the king ordered the midwives of the Hebrew women, one of
whom was named Shiphrah and the other Puah:
16 When you assist the Hebrew women with the delivery and you keep your eye
on her opening if it is a boy you must kill him; if it is a girl she may live. ’
17 The midwives, however; feared God and did not do what the king of Egypt
had ordered them. They let the boys live!
18 Therefore the king of Egypt summoned the midwives and asked them: ‘Why
in the world did you let the boys live?'
19 Then the midwives answered Pharaoh in these words: ‘The Hebrew women
220 exodus 1:1-22
are not like Egyptian women. They are just like animals. Before the midwives get
to them, they have already given birth. '
20 And God dealt well with the midwives and the people continued to grow and
became still more numerous.
21 Because the midwives feared God he made them mothers of tribes.
22 Therefore Pharaoh ordered all his people: All the boys who are bom you
must throw into the River; all the girls you may keep alive. ’
ESSENTIALS AND PERSPECTIVES
Prologue (1:1-7)
At the outset of the book of Exodus, the writer first carries the reader back to
what is said at the end of the book of Genesis. In a few words the writer
recalls that Jacob and his family, the patriarchs of Israel, had come to Egypt,
the land where Joseph was already (1:1-5; cf. Gen. 37ff.). After he has referred
to the death of Joseph (Gen. 50:22f.) the writer in brief offers information the
reader does not yet have; he tells that the whole generation of those who had
come from Canaan to Egypt passed away (1:6). With respect to the fate of
their descendants he records only one incident, but one which is so impressive
that he needs five verbs to describe it: there is a population explosion among
the Israelites, one so large that Egypt teemed with Israelites (1:7).
The context of 1:7 indicates that the writer intended the passage to be a
prologue, an introduction. In a few short words he gives the information that
is needed to be able to understand the narrative of the fate of the Israelites
which starts with 1:8. The introduction 1:1-7 can also be regarded as link
between Genesis and Exodus: in a few sentences the passage leads the reader
from the history of Jacob and his sons to the history of the people of Israel as
a whole. The names of the sons of Jacob, which figure prominently in Genesis,
are briefly mentioned at the beginning of Exodus, but after that are virtually
dropped in Exodus. The subject of Exodus is always the people of Israel as a
whole (cf. Introd. §3.40.1). Also, in contrast to Numbers, the division of Israel
into tribes which is rooted in the family history in Genesis, plays virtually no
role in Exodus.1 In short, by means of this short link the writer enables the
reader to start reading the history of an entire people. And if the reader might
wonder how it could happen that the name of Joseph, who according to Gen.
37-50 played such a significant role in the history of Egypt, hardly occurs in
the history of Israel in Egypt, the writer tells the reader that though Joseph is
not forgotten in Israel (13:19), he no longer has a meaningful role in Israel’s
history in Egypt, because the past no longer plays a role in the confrontation
1 Only 3x (24:4; 28:21; 39:14) the division of the people into twelve tribes is heard; familiarity
with the tribal structure is also seen in 31:2, 6; 35:30, 34; 38:22, 23 and see also e.g. 6:26.
ESSENTIALS AND PERSPECTIVES 221
between Israel and Egypt, but only the present (l:8f.).

The brevity of the introduction is particularly striking in the description of
the history that followed (1:6-7). In only a few words the writer deals with an
episode which, in view of the chronology of the book of Exodus (cf. 12:41 ff.
and see Introd. § 11.4), must have covered a considerable span of time. The
succinctness of the description creates the suggestion that after the death of
Joseph and those of his generation life was pretty normal, without farreaching
and spectacular events; except for the enormous growth of Israel which is so
important that it deserved a more detailed description.
The reader who from Gen. 12 has followed the history of Israel’s patriarchs
and repeatedly read about God’s promises that he would make them a great
nation and give them a country of their own, the land of Canaan (Gen. 12:2;
13:14ff.; 15:5, 16; 17:6ff.; 18:18; 22:17; 26:4; 28:13f.; 35:1 If.; 46:3f.; 50:24), is at
the outset of Exodus again reminded of these promises. In 1:1 it is specifically
stated that Israel’s sons ‘came to’ Egypt (2x). By this it is said that there is no
natural relation between them and the land, unlike that between the Egyptians
and the land. They came to it from the outside. They are strangers. These
words also impress upon the reader that there should not be that kind of
settlement and merging with Egypt. Owing to the promises to the patriarchs,
Egypt can only be a passage way, and the stay there a temporary residence (cf.
Gen. 15:13ff.; 46:2ff.; 50:24). The Israelites must ‘come’ to the promised land
of Canaan (cf. Introd. §§ 3.8; 3.24.2; 3.39.2). But how can this become reality?
The question arises when the reader is told that Joseph and those of his
generation who still had knowledge of life in Canaan had died (1:6). For the
rise of a new generation can mean the start of a new period in the life of a
nation (cf. Judg. 2:8, 10). Strangers can gradually merge with the population of
the land in whose midst they live. Will that happen to Israel, too? But as the
story continues the reader becomes aware that God must be working in
history. In Egypt he has caused the promise made to the patriarchs that they
would become a great nation to become true: Israel is now a great nation and
it continues to grow (1:7). But how will the promise that the land of Canaan
will be the possession of the descendants of the patriarchs be realized? Will
God also soon fulfill that promise? Those questions present themselves to the
reader at the end of the prologue. In 1:8 the writer starts answering these
questions. At 1:7 the reader might think that there would be a quick answer to
the question how God would also fulfill the promise of the land, soon it dawns
on him that history will take a quite different turn. What is recorded is
calculated to instill such fear and trepidation that the anxious question arises
whether the fulfillment of that promise is really going to happen and whether
perhaps the fulfillment that has happened may be brought to naught.
Pharaoh's resistance to the fulfillment of the promises (1:8-22)

The narrative becomes more detailed with 1:8. The reader is put in touch with
222 exodus 1:1-22
a detail of Egypt’s history that is of great importance for the thrust of the
story, the fulfillment of the promises to the patriarchs. The author relates that
in Egypt a king came to power who refused to honour the memory of Joseph
and his services to the country. Changes in rulers and the advent of new
generations often lead to changes in existing relations or the introduction of
new policies.2 This was also the case with the change in power described in
1:8. It inaugurated a turnabout in the relationship between the Egyptians and
the Israelites. In a brief scene in which he presents Pharaoh as a popular
orator the writer gives an explicit picture of what may happen if an Egyptian
ruler no longer appreciates Joseph’s services (1:9-10). The disregard of Joseph
means that his people can no longer count on a sympathy that was based on
thankfulness for his tremendous contribution, but are treated as strangers with
whom one has no ties whatever. When that point has been reached the
Egyptians start noticing the population explosion among the Israelites and
begin to look at their presence as a constant threat. Pharaoh sizes up the
seriousness of the situation and informs his people about the difficulties they
find themselves in (1:9). Not content with an analysis of the situation, he also
institutes a new policy that requires the total support of his subjects. The new
policy is aimed at containing and reducing the population growth of Israel to
forestall the danger that the Israelites may join with foreign enemies, attack
the Egyptians and pull out of the country (1:10). At first sight Pharaoh’s intent
may seem strange. One would have expected that Pharaoh, fearing the loss of
the identity of the Egyptian people and of being overwhelmed by the Israelites,
would have proposed measures to protect their rule and prevent the Israelites
from running over them. His policy, however, is aimed at keeping the Israelites
in the country, while one would have expected that he would rather have been
rid of this people which he views as a threat. Closer examination reveals that
Pharaoh does not act out of economic or cultural considerations, but seeks to
frustrate the fulfillment of the promises to the patriarchs. He wants to prevent
the fulfillment of the promise of the land and call a halt to the realization of
the promise that Israel will become a great nation. The writer sticks to his
theme. For him Pharaoh is the great antagonist of y h w h ’s plans with Israel.
From beginning to end he casts Pharaoh in that role in Exodus.
In his slant on Pharaoh’s opposition to the fulfillment of the promises the
writers sketches a certain development. The king of Egypt, y h w h ’s antagonist,
is forced to notice that numerically Israel is greater than Egypt. So he, the
non-Israelite, affirms that Israel is a blest nation and that the promise that it
would become a large people is fulfilled (1:9). In his words to his people he
states that they must not act rashly. He does not advocate outright exter
mination of the Israelites. He has in mind a carefully planned approach, as is
2 See also at 2:23; 4:19; cf. 1 Kgs. 12 and Judg. 2:8a, 10 and see Th. C. Vriezen, “Exodusstu-
dien. Exodus I.,’ VT 17 (1967), 334-53.
clear from the measures he instituted with regard to Israel (1:11-12). The hard
labour policy is meant to curtail the growth of Israel’s population. The
Israelites are deprived of their freedom. They are made slaves in the expec
tation that many will succumb under the terrible burden. The opportunity to
live like normal human beings and to grow and develop is taken away from
them in hopes that their power and vitality will shrivel. This scheme is without
effect, however. In fact the opposite takes place. The Israelites grow in spite of
the repression (cf. Gen. 41:52). Their growth cannot be stopped. The adding to
the heavy load only leads to further increase in the number of people. Fighting
the evil has the opposite result. It is as if an uncontrollable plague of vermin
has hit. The ever larger numbers of Israelites alarms the Egyptians and makes
them loath these people (1:12). One senses more is going on here than a
population explosion. Their growth in spite of severe repression suggests that a
higher power is at work. Hearing of this encourages the reader. Evidently
Pharaoh is unable to thwart the fulfillment of the promise! In the story the
Egyptians find it hard to stay cool at the failure of their measures. They
become nervous and react accordingly. They try another tack, that of inten
sifying the failed methods. The Israelites are now forced to do other hard work
beside that of building the supply cities and they are brutalized to boot. The
Egyptians are bent on forcing the Israelites into making a choice between
working themselves to death or being beaten to death (1:13-14). In short, they
resort to measures born of panic. Initially Pharaoh himself seems to stay cool.
But secretly he devises a plan to achieve his goal despite the setbacks. Because
compulsory hard labour failed to diminish the vitality of the people, and
because the cause of the population growth could not be removed, he tries to
undo the consequences of the fertility. He orders the two Egyptian women
who serve as midwives to the Hebrews to kill the boys as soon as they are
born, even before they can utter a cry (1:15-16). It scares the reader. However,
also this seemingly effective plan fails miserably. The midwives disobey their
ruler. Unlike him they have a sense of right and wrong, they know what is
acceptable and what is not. They let the boys live (1:17).
Pharaoh notices that also this measure has led nowhere and calls the women
to account. Again (cf. 1:9-10) the writer gives a leading role to Pharaoh. This
time not as the man who addresses his people but as the conspirator who
devised a plot with two midwives and who wants to know why the conspiracy
failed (1:18-19). The reader, naturally sympathetic to the two women, is
apprehensive about the coming confrontation and fears that it won’t go well
with the women. But what happens? The women brilliantly manage to extricate
themselves from the tough situation. They make it seem as if the Hebrew
women are like animals who need no midwives, and they give the impression
to Pharaoh that they share the Egyptians’ loathing of the Israelites (cf. 1:12).
With their bold language they remove all suspicion Pharaoh may have had that
they were on the side of the Israelites. So they can continue to do their work
224 exodus 1:1-22
unhindered and spare the lives of the Israelite boys. So Israel kept multiplying
(1:20). In the favorable fate of the midwives the writer perceives the hand of
God (1:20a). He reports that their sense of right and wrong induced God to
make them, Egyptian women, to share in the promise of a large progeny and
to make them tribal mothers of Israelite families (1:21).
By letting the reader in on the meeting between Pharaoh and the women the
writer can also throw the spotlight on Pharaoh, the cruel tyrant, the adversary
of yhwh, from another angle. He can show Pharaoh as a man who is so naive
that he lets himself be bamboozled by two women who trick him with a
fantastic made-up story; moreover, with their story the women make their own
contribution to the Egyptians’ fear of the Israelites. Pharaoh may be a terrible
man, he is also a laughable character. Women outsmart him.3
The failure of Pharaoh’s measures is reported in 1:20b. Also as early as here
Pharaoh reveals himself as a king who will not give in (cf. Introd. §3.19), who
refuses to budge. He persists. He sticks to his determination that the results of
the fertility of the people must be undone. Initially he tried the ruse of
enlisting the help of the midwives. He seemed to sense that his plan could not
stand the light of day. Now he becomes quite open about it. Again he addres
ses his people (cf. 1:9) and again he tries to achieve his goal with their help
(cf. 1:11-14). Earlier they had been willing to go along with his policy (cf. 1:11-
14) and he believes they are willing to do something even more drastic than
abuse the people with hard labour (cf. 1:12b). This time he does not shrink
from ordering all his people to kill all the boys by drowning them in the River.
Pharaoh’s true face comes more and more into the open. Nothing is too much
for him to accomplish his purpose, the decimation of Israel. He becomes
increasingly more brutal and reckless in his actions. The reader who thus far
has followed the king’s fierce tactics is gripped with fear. What will the future
bring? With such a Pharaoh, what will happen to the fulfillment of the
promises? To be sure, so far he has not managed to stem the population
growth. But who can tell if eventually he will not succeed? And suppose his
blatant order to murder all the boys will not do it either, how can Israel
possibly be rescued from its miserable fate and be led to the promised land
now that Pharaoh seems completely bent on not allowing the people to go
( 1:10)?
The situation seems hopeless. The word ‘seems’ needs underscoring. Though
Exodus 1 does not specifically refer to God’s acts with respect to Israel,4
looking ahead it should be noted that according to the writer the history of
Israel described in Exodus is a divinely guided history (note already 1:7, 12). It
is ultimately God who acts in Pharaoh’s actions. Pharaoh creates the con-*
3 Cf. Introd. § 6.a and see also R.C. Culley, hit. 28 (1974), 171ff.
* God is mentioned in 1:17, 20f.; his work is mentioned in 1:21; but the references only concern
the midwives.
ditions for the rise of an Israelite deliverer. Perhaps one can also say that he
creates the conditions that make it more attractive for Israel to leave Egypt
than to stay there. If the Pharaoh who wanted to have nothing to do with
Joseph had not asserted himself, there might never have been a departure to
the promised land. Owing to its large numbers Israel had a good life in Egypt
(cf. 16:3; Num. 11:5) and it would have been able to maintain its own identity.
Under such circumstances it would have taken a lot to induce the people to
give up the good life and leave. In any case, the Pharaoh’s order was the cause
that brought Moses, the future deliverer, to the court of Pharaoh, and his life
is led in such a way that he becomes Israel’s leader. In short, in l:8ff. it is not
only narrated how Pharaoh is unable to frustrate the fulfillment of the promi
ses, despite increasingly more drastic measures, it is also narrated (l:15ff.) how
against his will he helps to make the fulfillment reality. God intended for good
the evil he had in mind (cf. Gen. 50:20).5 So l:15ff. sets the framework of the
story of the birth of Moses (2:1-10). Pharaoh may be the great antagonist of
y h w h , he is just as much y h w h ’s instrument who contributes his bit to the
realization of the promises (cf. Gen. 45:7; 50:20). Just as in the sequel (see
2:lff., 16ff; 4:22ff.), also in the events in Exodus women play an important role
in the realization of the promises.67
SCHOLARLY EXPOSITION (I)

INTRODUCTION TO THE EXEGESIS
According to the Masoretic division of the text in BHS, a new main unit
(petQha) begins with 1:8 which includes 1:8-2:22. A separate sub unit of this
part is 2:1-22 (setumd)? Though in the present context 2:1-10 must be under
stood in connection with 1:8-22 (1:15-22 serves as introduction to 2:1-10).8 the
passage is nevertheless an independent episode in the story, and therefore it
seems obvious, as many exegetes think, to regard 2:1 as the start of a new
5 In Ps. 105:24f. the changed attitude of the Egyptians is directly traced to God.
6 The idea that pervades Exodus 1 that God is at work in the course of events is regarded as
typical for wisdom circles; see Schmidt, 45, 47, 63, and esp. B.S. Childs, “The Birth of Moses,- JBL
84 (1965), 109-22 (119ff.); in my opinion also others besides the wisdom teachers may have thought
in this vein about the acts of God.
7 But see BHK *'2: a new unit (pZt&hd) begins with 2:1; cf. Perrot, 58, 66.
8 Childs discusses 1:8-2:10 as a coherent whole; C. Isbell, “Exodus 1-2 in the Context of Exodus
1-14," in D J.A. Clines et al. (eds.), Art and Meaning, Sheffield 1982, 37-59, defends the unity of
1:8-2:25; D.W. Wicke, “The Literary Structure of Exodus 1:1-2:10,- JSOT 24 (1982), 99-107, views
1:1-2:10 as a literary unit. See further G.F. Davies, Israel in Egypt: Reading Exodus l-2y Sheffield
1992; J.C. Exum, “You Shall Let Every Daughter Live:’ A Study of Exodus 1:8-2:10," Semeia 28
(1983), 63-82; J. Siebert - Hommes, “Die Geburtsgeschichte des Mose innerhalb des Erzah-
lungzusammenhangs von Exodus I und II,- VT 42 (1992), 398-404; idem, Laat de dochters Itvenf De
literaire architectuur van Exodus 1 en 2 als toegang tot de interpretatie, Kampen 1993.
226 exodus 1:1-22
episode in the story. I agree with the Masoretes that 1:1-7 stands by itself
relative to what follows,9 but because it is such a small passage I discuss it
together with 1:8-22.
It is commonly assumed that Exodus is composed from various sources: J, E
(,L or N ), P. There is substantial agreement that P is recognizable in 1:1-5, 7,
13, 14. TTiere is no consensus about which parts belong to which of the other
sources.10 I limit myself here to pointing out some problems in the chapter
which are thought to stem from the (oral and/or literary) historical origin and
development: 1:11 and 1:13-14 are doublets; similarly 1:20a and 1:21; forced
labour (l:llff.) is an inadequate measure to halt overpopulation (1:7, 9); the
attempt to destroy the newborn boys (l:15ff.) clashes with the economic
benefits hard labour brings; it seems incredible that two midwives (1:15) can
look after an immensely huge people (1:7); then there is also the end of 1:10:
why the attempt to prevent Israel from leaving the country, despite the fear of
being outnumbered by Israel? These questions will be dealt with in the
exegesis.
SCHOLARLY EXPOSITION (II)

EXEGESIS
Prologue (1:1-7)
1:1 These are the names of the sons of Israel who came to Egypt; they came with
Jacobf each with his household:
demonstrative pronoun, occurs here in its original function as deictic
interjection; cf. 32:4b: beside the parallel 1 Kgs. 12:28b: run; for run see
Introd. §3.15; run and the demonstrative pronoun are often interchangeable in
a nominal sentence; e.g. in 24:8 run can be rendered as a demonstrative
pronoun; see further e.g. 35:1; 38:21 (‘behold here,’ ‘behold there’) and the use
of after the use of a substantive in the pi. with suffix of possession in 10:1;
11:8 (cf. Deut. 11:18; 1 Kgs. 8:59; 10:8; 22:23; 2 Kgs. 1:13; Jer. 31:21) with the
meaning ‘these,’ to be rendered with a relative clause; see e.g. 10:1: ‘the signs
which I have performed.’ For this use of demonstrative pronouns see further
A.S. van der Woude, JEOL 18 (1964), 307-13. with waw copulative
establishes the connection with what is recorded in Genesis; cf. 1 Kgs. 1:1;
Ezra 1:1 and the use of waw consecutive e.g. in Lev. 1:1; Num. 1:1; Josh. 1:1;
cf. Ges-K §49b n. 1; beside it see Deut. 1:1: nbx without waw; LXX and Vulg.
lack a translation of the waw in Exod. 1:1; there is, however, no reason to
9 A different position is held by G.W. Coats, VT 22 (1972), 129-42.

10 See beside the commentaries (esp. Childs, Schmidt) EiBfeldt; Fohrer, 9ff.; GreBmann, Iff.;
Meyer, IN, 41 ff.; Weimar, 15ff.; cf. idem, "Aufbau und Struktur der priesterschriftlichen Jakobsges-
chichte,- ZAW 86 (1974), 174-203; see also Eerdmans, 6ff.
SCHOLARLY EXPOSITION 227
assume that originally there was no waw (cf. Schmidt).

‘name,’ see Introd. §3.50 ‘Israel,’ see In trod. §8.13. For the formula
nils? n^K(i) to introduce the names of the descendants of a particular patriarch
see also 6:16 and further e.g. Gen. 25:13; 36:10, 40; 46:8; Num. 3:2f., 18; 27:1
(in Num. 3:3 as closing formula); for the formula see also e.g. Num. 1:5; 13:16;
34:17, 19 and compare the use of the formula ons» ffoo in e.g. Gen. 25:16;
Num. 13:4. The phrase '?? mas occurs in Exod. aiso in 28:9, 11, 21, 29;
39:6, 14 (see also 28:10, 12); cf. Ezek. 48:31.
‘come,’ see Introd. §3.8; the participle refers to a past event (cf. Ges-K
§ 116d). The words nnnsD...n*?Ki are also the first words in Gen. 46:8. ‘Jacob,’
see Introd. § 5.33; LXX has a more elaborate text: “with Jacob their father.’
‘each,’ see Introd. § 3.2.2. ‘household,’ see Introd. § 3.9.2; in'?i tf'R, cf. 1 Sam.
27:3; 2 Sam. 2:3 and also Mic. 2:2; TO, TPsJ, TNf have a slightly larger text:
‘each with the men of his house.’ The waw before in'? is a waw concomitantiae
(e.g. Ges-K § 154a n. 1; Joiion § 150p).
1:2 Reuben, Simeon, Levi and Judah;

1:3 Issachar, Zebulon and Benjamin;
1:4 Dan and Naphtali, Gad and Asher
Asyndetic enumerations are infrequent in Hebrew (Ges-K § 154a n. 1; Joiion
§ 177o, p; Brockelmann § 128). In 1:2 and 1:3 both last names are linked with
the copula, as is done more often in enumerations. In 1:4 each of the pairs of
names is connected with the conjunctive, likely because the two pairs of
brothers were sons of a different mother, the first pair of Bilhah, the second of
Zilpah. According to Ehrlich the copula is used with Napthali to facilitate the
pronunciation. In Sam. Pent, and Pesh. the copula is also used with Simeon,
Issachar and Zebulon. In LXX and Vulg. there is no translation of the
conjunctive with Judah.
In the list Leah’s six sons are mentioned first (see Introd. § 5.61, 64, 40, 27,
36, 22), after that Rachel’s son Benjamin (see Introd. §5.26; for Joseph see
end 1:5) and the two sons of her slave Bilhah (see Introd. §5.21, 50) and
finally Zilpah’s sons (see Introd. §5.18, 15); cf. Gen. 35:23ff. Gen. 46 follows a
different order: sons of Leah (vss. 8-15), of Zilpah (vss. 16-18), of Rachel (vss.
19-22), of Bilhah (vss. 23-25). In these enumerations the sons of Jacob are
listed according to the mother and the order in which they were born (Gen.
29:31-30:24; 35:16-18). The OT contains various lists of the names of Israel’s
patriarchs (see e.g. also Gen. 49:2ff.; Num. l:5ff., 20ff.; 2:3ff.; 7:10ff.; 10:llff.;
13:4ff.; 26:5ff.; 34:19ff.; Deut. 33:6ff.; 1 Chr. 2:lf.). Beside similarities (Reuben
and Simeon e.g. are often mentioned together; cf. also 6:14f.) especially the
dissimilarity is striking. According to W.H. Bennett, DB, IV, 81 If., there are
twenty different orders and only those in Num. 2; 7 and 10 are alike (cf. also
IDB, IV, 699f.; De Vaux, HAI, II, 37ff.). From this variation in the order the
rabbis have concluded, among others, that Scripture wants to teach that the
228 exodus 1:1-22
sons of the wives are not more important than the sons of the maidservants
(ExR. I, 6; MidrTanh. Exod. I, 5).n J.M. Sasson, “A Genealogical ‘Conve
ntion’ in Biblical Chronography,’ ZAW 90 (1978), 171-85, defends the view that
in the lists the seventh place was given to persons whom the writer wished to
give prominence.
1:5 - The total number o f persons who came from Jacob’s loins was seventy
persons; Joseph was already in Egypt.
*rn, Sam. Pent, has pi. (cf. LXX, Vulg.); cf. e.g. Ges-K § 145b, o, 146c. ‘pe
rsons,’ see Introd. §3.35.1. 'tts' (see Introd. §3.24), for the construct chain see
e.g. KoSynt § 241d; Ges-K § 116g, h.
(OT 33 x ); dual. d *? t 28:42, ‘thigh,’ ‘hip,’ ‘loins’ (Ezek. 24:4), the place
where one hangs one’s sword (33:27; Judg. 3:16, 21 et al.), is used here to
denote the place where human life originates.1112 *|T is sometimes called a
euphemism for the sexual organ (membrum virile). In my opinion it could also
be a synecdochic use of the term; in that case what is meant here are the
buttocks, the hips, with what lies in between, the lap, the lower part of the
body (cf. the use of ]03, ‘belly,’ beside yi* in Num. 5). It is the place where a
person’s bodily strength is bundled together, where one is highly vulnerable
(Gen. 32:26, 32, 33; Judg. 15:8), the source of procreation.13 Metaphorically
*[T is used to specify a part of the ‘body’ of an object or building; see 25:31;
37:17 (cf. Num. 8:40); 40:22, 24 (cf. Num. 3:29,35) and see also Lev. 1:11; 2
Kgs. 16:14. See further TWAT, II, 1008ff.; Dhorme, 98; Strieker, I, 70ff.; Struys,
165f.; Wolff, 102f.
‘seventy,’ see Introd. §4.8.3. “was,’ in the clause ‘Joseph was ...’ stands in
contrast to ‘came’ in 1:1, which makes it understandable that in the LXX the
end of 1:5 immediately follows after 1:4; however, in that case the connection
with 1:6 is less elegant; it is best to regard 1:5 to ‘and Joseph’ as a parenthetic
remark.
‘Joseph,’ see Introd. §5.29; with the remark at the end of the verse the
writer recalls what is said in Gen. 37-50. TO, TPsJ, TNf embody a somewhat
different text at the end of the verse: ‘and/with Joseph (and his sons), who
(were) was already in Egypt’ (the text in parentheses only in TPsJ); evidently
what is meant is that Joseph (and his sons) are to be included in the seventy
11 For the rabbinic discussion on the repetition of the names of the sons of Jacob (cf. Gen.
46:8ff.) see e.g. ExR I, 2, 3 and also Rashi.
12 Cf. the use of NS* in Gen. 46:26; Judg. 8:30 (see also K2T -I- in Gen. 35:11; 1 Kgs.
8:19; cf. Jer. 30:6); see further Gen. 24:2, 9; 47:29; in Num. 5:21f., 27 in reference to a woman.
13 Cf. the use of the somewhat synonymous (OT ca. 45x; always dual; Exod. 12:11;
28:42), the place where one girds one’s loins (12:11; 2 Kgs. 4:29; 9:1 et al.), the seat of strength and
life (Nah. 2:2; Job 40:16; Prov. 30:17), of sexual potency (1 Kgs. 12:10), the place where one is very
vulnerable (Deut. 33:11; Isa. 45:1; Ezek. 29:7; Ps. 66:11; 69:34), where pain and dismay make
themselves especially felt (Isa. 21:3; Ezek. 21:3; Nah. 2:11), etc.
(cf. ExR. I, 7); for the question see Introd. § 4.8.3. For the rabbinic discussion
on 1:5 see e.g. ExR. I, 7 and also Rashi.
1:6 And Joseph died and also all his brothers, in fact that whole generation.
Using a chiasmus 1:6 continues first with Joseph mentioned at the end of 1:5
and then again deals with the sons and the other descendants of Jacob (1:1-
5a). ‘die,’, see Introd. § 3.32.
rnj (OT ca. 630x; Exod. 17x), ‘brother;’ the term denotes the blood
brother (1:6), both a full brother (from the same father and mother; e.g. Gen.
4:2, 8, 9, 10; 27:6, 11) and a half brother (from the same father but from a
different mother; e.g. 2 Sam. 13:4); see further 4:14; 7:1, 2; 28:1, 2, 4, 41
(always in reference to Aaron as brother of Moses; cf. 6:20); frequently the
term is used in a more inconclusive meaning as kinsman, member of the same
tribe, of the same people; often it is not clear how wide or how narrow the
term is (2:11; 4:18; 32:27, 29). The use of ‘brother’ for member of the same
tribe etc. is rooted in the idea that the tribe or the people come from a
common ancestor (cf. Pedersen, Israel, I-II, 57ff.). That awareness results in a
strong feeling of solidarity (e.g. 2:11). From that perspective the solidarity of
the Levites with God (32:27, 29) gains even greater significance: they must
detach themselves from the strong tie with their own people. m< is also used in
phrases with ztk (see Introd. §3.2.2) and a following rntt to point to a rela
tionship of mutuality, both in respect to persons (10:23; 16:15) and to things
(25:20; 37:9). Similar remarks can be made about nintt (OT ca. 115x; Exod.
9x) ‘sister.’ In Exod. it is used to indicate a blood sister (2:4, 7; 6:23; 15:20)
and in phrases with disk and a following nriroc to indicate a relationship of
mutuality (26:3, 5, 6, 17). See further THAT, I, 98ff; TWAT, I, 205ff.
1:6 is both the first and last passage in Exod. where ‘brothers’ is used for the
sons of Jacob; with their death the history of Jacob’s family has come to an
end.14
*rn (OT ca. 165x; Exod. 19 x) indicates a period of time; concretely one
can only think of time as ‘filled time’ (‘gefullte Zeit;’ see Von Rad, TAT, II,
109; cf. also Boman, 111, 117, 120) and so -in, as the period of the people who
live and act in it, also stands for the people themselves who live and act in it,
‘die Gesamtheit der gleichzeitig erwachsenen und im offentlichen Leben
handelnden Zeitgenossen’ (Noth, UP, 21 n. 3), ‘the generation’ (1:6; cf. Gen.
7:1; 15:16; Num. 32:13; Deut. 23:3f. et al.). In 1:6 are meant the members of
the families of Jacob who were not born in Egypt (cf. 1:1, 5). *vn is often (OT
37x) used in formulas such as Ti T^> (3:15; in 3:15 // dVisj; cf. Ps. 102:13;
135:13 and see also Ps. 33:11; 90:lf.; 102:25; 145:13; 146:10; Lam. 5:19) and
ti “hd (17:16; cf. e.g. Ps. 10:6; 100:5); the repetition serves to strengthen what
14 Contrast the infrequent use of ‘brother’ in Exod. with its frequent use in Genesis (ca. 180x:
ca. 80x pi.).
230 EXODUS 1:1-22
is said; it indicates a very long, uninterrupted period (cf. KOSynt § 88; Ges-K
§ 1331; Brockelmann § 129c): ‘for ever,’ ‘all the time.’ Several times (OT ca.
40 x) i n pi. is used in Exod. in the formulas 03**nT6 (12:14, 17; 16:32, 33;
29:42; 30:8, 10, 31; 31:13; cf. Gen. 17:12; Lev. 3:17 et al.) and arm 1? (12:42;
27:21; 30:21; 31:16; 40:15; cf. Gen. 17:7, 9; Lev. 7:36 et al.), repeatedly with
oVis (see 3:15) (12:14, 17; 27:21; 30:21; 31:16; 40:15) and also beside Ton (see
25:30) (29:42; 30:8). The formulas are always used in reference to religious
customs and precepts and indicate that they will always be valid. See further
THAT, I, 433ff.; TWAT, II, 181ff.; P.R. Ackroyd, "The Meaning of Hebrew i n
Considered," JSS 13 (1968) 3-10; O. Margalit, "Studies in Several Biblical
Expressions for Time," BetM 27 (1981-82), 183-213.
With the death of Joseph (see already Gen. 50:26), 1:6 also mentions the
death of ‘all his brothers’ and ‘that whole generation.’ The repeated bz>
underscores that with their death the period on which they had put their mark
had definitely come to a close. Usually ‘that whole generation’ is thought to
refer to the group that settled in Egypt with Jacob (cf. 1:5). Ehrlich, however,
believes that the Egyptian contemporaries of Joseph are meant and that their
death is mentioned with an eye to 1:8 (so already Ibn Ezra), while Schmidt
holds that that ‘generation’ also includes the Egyptians who were Joseph’s
contemporaries; Josephus (AJ, II, 199f.) writes that later their descendants also
brought the bodies of the brothers, like that of Joseph himself, with them to
Canaan. They were buried in Hebron.
1:7 But the Israelites were fruitful and increased greatly; they increased in number,
in fact they became more and more numerous, so that the land was filled with
them.
mo (OT 28 x), in qal ‘to bear fruit,’ ‘to be fruitful,’ used for plants (Deut.
29:17; Isa. 32:12 et al.), animals (Gen. 1:22; 8:17; Ezek. 36:11) as well as
humans (Gen. 1:28; 9:1, 7; 26:22; 35:11; 47:27; Exod. 23:30 et al.) [hiph. only in
reference to humans; Gen. 17:6, 20; 28:3 et al.]. mo is used elsewhere in the
OT with the other verbs mentioned in 1:7; with p » qal (OT 14x)15 in Gen.
8:17; 9:7; in Gen. 1:20, 21; 7:21 et al. p® refers to the swarming and teeming
of small animals; similarly in 7:28 (cf. Ps. 105:30); in 1:7, as in Gen. 9:7, the
verb is used in reference to humans: ‘becoming a teeming multitude,’ ‘to
become exceedingly numerous.’ mo qal is used, beside H3*i16 qal in Gen. 1:22,
28; 8:17; 9:1, 7; 35:11; 47:27 et al.; mo hiph. is used beside ran hiph.,17 ‘to
make numerous,’ used in Gen. 17:20; 28:3; 48:4; Lev. 26:9. As regards nm qal
15 Cf. P. Joiion, Bib 21 (1940), 152ff.

16 (OT ca. 225x; qal ca. 60x; hiph. ca. 160x), in qal ‘be/become numerous’ (1:7, 10, 12, 20;
11:9); cf. the use of 331 (OT 24x) in qal (23:29).
*7 Cf. 7:3; 32:13; see also its use for the adverb ‘more’ (+ inf. cstr. with b of a specific verb: ‘to
do something much (more than)’ (30:15; 36:5; cf. 16:17f.).
see also the use of m i qal in Deut. 6:3; Zech. 8:10 (cf. also Gen. 6:1) and the
use of ro i hiph. in Gen. 16:10; 17:2; 22:17; 26:4, 24; Deut. 1:10; 6:3; 8:1 et al.
See further THAT, II, 715ff.; TWAT, VII, 294ff.
ds» (OT 17 x) in qal: ‘be mighty/strong (on account of numbers),’
‘be/become numerous’ (Gen. 26:16 et al.), is not used in the OT in qal next to
m s qal (but see the use of hid hiph. next to os» hiph. in Ps. 105:24). Repea
tedly a form of osu is used next to a form of 13*1/331 (Gen. 1:20; Jer. 5:6; Ps.
139:17f. et al.). In 1:9 the adjective 3i is used in one breath with msy (OT
30x), ‘mighty’, ‘numerous;’ cf. Num. 32:1; Deut. 9:14; 26:5 et al. [see E.
Lipinski, UF 2 (1970), 81; RSP, I, 338]. k5o niph. is nowhere in the OT used
with one of the other verbs mentioned in the verse; xbn qal is used in Gen.
1:22, 28; 9:1 together with ma qal and roi qal; for n’tb see 2:16; for the use of
the accusative with the niph. see KoSynt § 112; Ges-K § 117z, 121c, d; Jouon
§ 125d, 128c; Brockelmann § 98b.
ifca (OT ca. 250 x; Exod. 14 x) is as regards origin a noun, ‘strength,’
‘power’ (Deut. 6:5; 2 Kgs. 23:25), that is usually used adverbially to reinforce
what is said; see e.g. 1:20; 11:3 et al.;18 ikbikim (OT 6x) denotes a very
powerful reinforcement; cf. Gen. 17:2, 6, 20; Ezek. 9:9; 16:13 and see e.g.
KoSynt §318f; Ges-K § 133k. See further TWAT, IV, 611ff.; P. Jouon, Bib 7
(1926) 164f.; idem, Bib 6 (1925), 422 n. 1.
In 1:7 five verbs are used for the growth and expansion of Israel. Nowhere
else in the OT are the five verbs used together. Three of them do occur
together: Gen. 1:22 (ma + nm (2x) + k5d), 28 (mo + ro i + k^>d); 8:17 (pm
+ mo + rm); 9:7 (mo + rm (2x) + p»). Having these five together makes
1:7 unique. So the verse contains a very strong climax, strengthened even more
with iN B ir d 3 .19 The picture conjured up is that of an enormous population
explosion. The use of p® suggests associations with insects and other small
animals who in a short time can become extremely numerous. The use of xbo
creates the suggestion that there was not a spot in the land that was free from
Israelites. 1:7 repeats in more modest terms what is already stated in Gen.
47:27. However, what is said there of Goshen is here applied to the whole
country of Egypt.
Observations with 1:7

Exegetes have always had to face the question how to explain the population
explosion (cf. also 12:37; Num. 1:46). Attention has been drawn to ancient
authors who stated that due to the natural environment Egypt’s inhabitants
18 5x with 133 (see 4:10); 2x with pin (10:19; 19:16); lx with pill (19:19); cf. e.g. Ges-K
§ 100b, c; Williams § 60.
19 In my judgment it is wrong to say, as is done e.g. by Dillmann, that the use of these verbs
indicates that the increase of the population did not come all at once but was spread out over a
longer period of time.
232 exodus 1:1-22
were very fertile. Every pregnancy was said to result in four or five or even
seven children (see BB, 6; Calmet, Keil, Dillmann). In rabbinic literature a
similar fertility is attributed to the Israelite women in Egypt. Per delivery every
woman bore six children (ExR. I, 8; Mek. 12:27 [I, 95]; cf. also TPsJ; TNf and
see Rashi); according to another view even twelve, sixty or seventy children
each time (cf. MidrTanh. Exod. I, 6 and see Ginzberg, IV, 391 n. 4; Rosmarin,
36). According to Keil, the blessing of nature was made still greater by the
grace of the promise. Gispen notes: ‘Land and promise work together, or the
supernatural factor (the promise) avails itself of the natural (the land, namely
Egypt!).’ Whether the writer thought of Egypt as a land that was particularly
suitable to produce a great nation in a short time is impossible to say. The
account’s background in Genesis allows us to say that Egypt was the land that
enabled the forefathers to survive the famine, so that Israel did not prematu
rely perish (cf. Gen. 50:22). Furthermore, it is not open to question that the
writer regarded the population increase as a fulfillment of the promise. The
question ‘how’ this could have happened does not seem to have concerned
him. Murphy, among others, has suggested that the stay in Egypt was necessary
not only for the growth of Israel but also for its origin as a nation; if Israel
had stayed in Canaan it would have been absorbed in the native population.
‘Only in a border land, on a territory specially ceded to them by a people who
had a national antipathy to their pursuits, could a select nation have grown up
without coalescing in blood, in language and in institutions with the surround
ing tribes.’ Writing in similar vein, Heinisch adds that in Egypt Israel learned
agriculture, gained an appreciation of the importance of a civilized state for
the well-being of a people, etc. Neither the one nor the other seems to have
entered the writer’s mind.
In view of terminological similarities between 1:7 and Gen. 1 some suspect a
close connection between both passages. Schmidt notes: ‘Wie Israel die an die
Menschheit insgesamt gerichtete MehrungsverheiBung erfullt..., so verwirklicht
sich mit der Volkswerdung Israels auch die in Gn 1 28 9 1 alien Menschen
geltende Zusage, “die Erde bzw. das Land zu ftillen.” Darf man aus diesem
Zusammenhang einerseits schlieBen, daB bereits der Schopfungsbericht verbor-
gen auf Israel zielt, so darf man andererseits vielleicht die Deutung wagen, daB
sich an Israel auf Grund der gottlichen VerheiBung (Gn 35 11 u.a.) exempla-
risch, protypisch Oder gar stellvertretend vollzieht, was der Menschheit
zugesprochen ist’ (p. 30). W. Brueggemann, "The Kerygma of the Priestly
Writers,” ZAW 84 (1972), 397-414, thinks that p should be understood against
the background of the situation of the exiles in Babylon and that the return to
the promised land is the central theme of his work: Gen. 1:28 (cf. Gen. 8:17;
9:1, 7 etc.; Exod. 1:7) contains the perspective that will soon be realized in the
promised land.20 I cannot go along with these interpretations. In my judg
20 Cf. Houtman, InlPent, 251.

ment one can only connect 1:7 with the promises to the patriarchs.
On the one hand 1:7 makes one think of a fulfillment of the promises to the
patriarchs that they would become a great nation (Gen. 17:2, 6; 22:17; 26:4, 24;
28:3; 35:11; 48:4; Exod. 32:13; Deut. 10:22; Isa. 51:2), and on the other hand -
in close connection with the preceding - of the time of salvation: density in
population is a sign of YHWH’s blessings (Gen. 16:10; 17:20; Lev. 26:9; Deut.
l:10f.; 6:3 et al.; Jer. 3:16; 23:3 et al.; Ezek. 36:11, 37f.; Mic. 2:12; Zech. 8:10;
Ps. 72:16); it belongs to the marks of the world as God envisioned it at
creation (Gen. 1:28; 9:1, 7). A dense population makes it possible to build and
maintain a culture.21 If the population is small the land becomes a wilderness
and practically unfit for human habitation (e.g. 23:29f.). A large population
requires space (e.g. Isa. 26:15; 49:20). Therefore Israel is promised ‘a good and
broad land’ (3:8; cf. Neh. 9:15; see also Exod. 34:24; cf. Deut. 12:20; 19:8).
Space is a prerequisite for population growth (cf. Gen. 26:22; 1 Chr. 4:38ff.)
and therefore also a precious possession that can easily lead to conflicts (Gen.
26:20f.). Not every people lived in a spacious land like the inhabitants of
Shechem, so that they can offer others to share it with them (Gen. 34:21). As
a rule the fear of a drop in one’s standard of living would make one hesitant
to share the space with others (e.g. Gen. 26:12ff.). Rather the wish to maintain
or improve one’s standard of living more often acted as a stimulus to enlarge
one’s ‘Lebensraum,’ an ambition that could only be acted upon at the expense
of the space of others (e.g. 23:29f.; 34:24; Deut. 33:20; Judg. 18:10; Amos 1:13).
Above it was noted that a large population was regarded as a blessing. That
does not mean that in antiquity there was no awareness that an unrestricted
growth of the population might lead to unlivable situations. Myths that deal
with the theme of overpopulation are widespread.22 Apparently also the
Mesopotamian epic about Atrahasis deals with this subject: in the beginning
the gods created humans to take over from them the hard work of which they
had had enough; in less than twelve hundred years the people had multiplied
so much that the tumult on earth caused Enlil sleeplessness; he decided to
destroy the people; first through the plague; then through famine, and finally,
because every time Atrahasis with the help of the god Ea managed to avert the
catastrophe, by bringing a flood on the earth; Atrahasis survives by building an
ark.23 A.D. Kilmer,24 among others, has suggested that the epic deals specifi
cally with the problem of overpopulation. She may be right since the end of
See Houlman, Fs Ridderbos, 151 ff.; idem, Wereld, 95ff.

22 See H. Schwarzbaum, "The Overcrowded Earth,’ Numen 4 (1957), 59-74.
23 See W.G. Lambert - A.R. Millard, Atra-hasis: The Babylonian Story o f the Flood, Oxford
1969; transl. in RTAT , 115ff.
24 See “The Mesopotamian Concept of Overpopulation and Its Solution as Reflected in the
Mythology,’ Or. 41 (1972), 160-77).
234 exodus 1:1-22
the text apparently deals with what to do to limit the number of births.25
In view of the above it would seem that Pharaoh’s opposition to Israel is
altogether understandable. The myriad numbers (1:9; cf. also 5:5) are alarming:
the living space available to the Egyptians is getting smaller and smaller; the
danger of being overrun and losing one’s own culture and identity looms large
as life. It is well-known that larger numbers make people bolder, even to the
point that they no longer heed the established authority (cf. Hos. 4:7). How
ever, the fact that Pharaoh responds quite differently than Abimelech in a
similar situation (Gen. 26:16) shows that in this case the nature of the resis
tance was altogether different. See further at 1:10.
Pharaoh’s resistance to the fulfillment of the promises (1:8-22)

1:8 Then there arose a new king over Egypt who did not care about Joseph.
op-i imperf. cons, qal of Dip (OT ca. 630 x; Exod. 20 x); Dip qal, ‘arise,’ ‘raise
oneself,’ implies the beginning of (more) activity on the part of the subject
(2:17; 12:30 [cf. 1 Sam. 3:6, 8]; 12:31; 24:13; 32:1 [cf. e.g. Gen. 21:18; Judg .
5:12; 8:20f.]; 32:6 [cf. e.g. Gen. 25:34; 1 Sam. 1:9; 20:34]; 33:8, 10). The new
activity may be aggressive in nature (15:7; 32:15; Deut. 19:11; 22:26 et al.). In
contrast to sitting and lying down standing implies activity; the strength in a
person rouses itself and incites action. Not being able to stand (up), whether
due to external situations (10:23) or because of a physical condition (21:19)
means that one is doomed to helplessness, and it is one of the worst things
that can happen to anyone (cf. Isa. 26:14, 19; 43:17; Ps. 18:39; 20:9; 38:11; Job
14:12). Dip hiph. is used in 6:4 with the object r r o (cf. Gen. 6:18; 9:9, 11;
17:19, 21; Ezek. 16:62 and see 2:24) and in 26:30; 40:2, 18, 33 in connection
with the construction of the tent sanctuary (cf. 40:17 hoph.). Repeatedly
Dip qal is used for the ‘entrance’ of leading figures (1:8; Deut. 13:2; 34:10; Judg.
5:7; 10:1, 3 et al.). See further THAT, II, 635 ff.
(OT ca. 2525x), ‘king,’ is always used in Exod (14x) for the king of
Egypt (see Introd. § 5.66)26 See further THAT, I, 908ff.; 7WAT, IV, 926ff.
tfin (OT ca. 55 x), ‘new/ is an adjective which here does not stand for young
and energetic over against ‘old,’ but expresses ‘who was different from his
predecessor’ (cf. Deut. 32:17; Judg. 5:8); here it is a loaded term which marks a
transition and turnabout. Of the king only what is important for the story is
reported. We are not told whether he was old or young, but only that he was
‘new.* With him there comes a change in policy towards Israel. Instead of
sympathy, or at least a trusted toleration of the people on account of Joseph’s
25 See further e.g. V. Fritz, "‘Solange die Erde steht’ - vom Sinn der jahwistischen Fluterzahlung
in Gen. 6-8,* ZAW 94 (1982), 599-614, esp. 605ff.; R.A. Oden, “Divine Aspirations in Atrahasis
and in Genesis 1-11,“ ZAW 93 (1981), 197-216; Stol, 91f., 101.
26 Cf. the use of qal with YHWH as subject in 15:18 and of rp^QO, ‘kingdom,’ in 19:6
(/n i; cf. Introd. § 3.40.4).
SC H O L A R L Y EXPOSITION 235
services to Egypt, there is now intolerance. That is why he is ‘new.’ Note in

this connection that when in 2:23 the death of this king of 1:8 is reported,
nothing is said about a new king. That is not surprising. There was nothing
new under the sun. The king had died but his policies continued. The succes
sor was exactly like his predecessor. For Bin see further THAT, 1, 524ff.;
TWAT, II, 759ff.
nnnm7|ba (LXX: pownXeto; gtepoq; cf. Pseudo-Philo, IX, 1: rex alius) is variously
interpreted. Josephus (AJ, II, 202) thinks that it means that with him a new
dynasty came to power (so also Ibn Ezra, Calmet, Murphy, Keil, McNeile,
Gispen, Cassuto, Clements, Hyatt). In rabbinic literature one finds the view
that what is meant is that the regnant ruler changed his policy (since nothing
is said about the death of a king) (see ExR. I, 8; MidrTanh. Exod. I, 7; Zohar
Exod. 7a and also Rashi); it also mentions the notion that the king had been
deposed for three months because he refused to listen to his people who
demanded that he take measures against the Israelites of whom they were
afraid; when he gave in, he was allowed to take the throne again (e.g. Midr
Tanh. Exod. 1,7; cf. Rosmarin, 33); in that case ‘new’ is understood as ‘di
fferent’ (see also below). Interpreters have also inquired about the identity of
the king (see Introd. § 11.3, 4). Artapanus, 1, calls him Palmanothes; he is the
father of Merris (see 2:5), who was married to Chenephres, the king of
Memphis; in fact Artapanus states that at that time there were various kings in
Egypt; his view is found, among others, in Ishodad. Information from Manetho
(in Josephus, CA, I, 73ff., 228ff.) has led to the conjecture that the king may
have had the name Salitis (see Calmet). The writer seems to have had no
interest in the historical question. He only wants to relate that at a given point
in time the political situation worsened for Israel. His remark is more a figure
of speech than a historical comment.
ut ' k1?; in TO the clause reads: “who invalidated the decrees of Joseph,’ and
in TPsJ, FTV, TNf: Vito did not know/refused to know about Joseph and did
not walk according to his laws.’ Modern exegetes interpret these terms dif
ferently, along the lines of “who had not known’ (e.g. McNeile, Michaeli); it is
conjectured that the ruler not only had not known Joseph personally, but also
that he was not aware of Joseph’s existence and the fine things he had done
for Egypt, so that for him there was no reason to give Israel favorable treat
ment.2' This interpretation produces the following picture: the new king was
not the direct successor of the king who ruled at the time of Joseph; because
considerable time had elapsed between the death of Joseph and the coming to
power of the new king, the memory of Joseph had faded. The text is silent
about it. At the most one can say, in light of 12:40, that the writer may have
thought about it. It is more likely, however, that what is meant is “who did not27
27 Cf. the rendering, *who did not know o f (cf. e.g. Beer, Heinisch, Schmidt and the interprets-
tion of Dillmann, Strack, Ehrlich).
236 exodus 1:1-22
want to have anything to do with’ (Keil, Hyatt); see Introd. § 3.22.
1:9 He said to his people: 7 have noticed that the people o f the Israelites are
more numerous and more powerful than we. ’
D», see Introd. § 3.40.1; the second d v has the disjunctive accent 3'rr (cf. Ges-K
§ 15f; Jotion § 15g; Meyer § 15.2a); for that reason it has been suggested that
the translation should be: ‘a people, viz. the Israelites’ (Ibn Ezra, Keil; see,
however, Dillmann). nan, see Introd. §3.15.2.
2~\ (OT ca. 475 x; Exod. 9x), derivative of (see 1:7), an adjective
denoting a large quantity: ‘numerous,’ ‘much;’ 1:9 (cf. e.g. Gen. 50:20); 2:23
(with respect to time ‘long;’ cf. e.g. Gen. 21:34; 37:34); 5:5; 12:38; in 9:28 it
means ‘enough,’ ‘sufficient’ (cf. e.g. Gen. 45:28; 2 Sam. 24:16): the cup of what
can be endured is full; 3*i is also used as a noun, sing, (as a collective) (19:21)
and pi. (23:2): a large number, a/the mass; in a construct chain :n occurs with
the meaning ‘rich in,’ ‘full o f (34:6); cf. the use of the noun a i (OT ca. 150 x)
in 15:7. See further THAT, II, 715ff.; TfVAT, VII, 294ff.; A Berlin , JBL 100
(1981), 90ff. For an with 013$» see 1:7.
1300 Disvi an; in LXX: ‘a large multitude and is stronger than we,’ and Vulg.:
multus et fortior nobis, i:oo is only related to oiss>; the clause is variously
interpreted: a common interpretation is ‘more numerous and powerful than
we;’ others take it to mean ‘too many and too powerful for us’ (cf. e.g.
McNeile, Heinisch, Cassuto, Rylaarsdam, Leibowitz, 24f.; see beside it also CV:
‘more numerous than we and become too powerful for us’); this last possibility
(cf. Ges-K § 133c; Joiion § 141i) implies that the Egyptians may still have a
(big) majority. Behind this interpretation may lie the notion that it is quite
unlikely that numerically Israel had outstripped Egypt. Either with or without
the preservation of the customary translation all kinds of suggestions have
been made to get around the absoluteness of Pharaoh’s statement: meant is
‘more numerous and stronger than we would like’ (Ehrlich); in the situation at
this point in time perhaps a small tribe at the border caused problems for the
Egyptians (Heinisch, Clamer); the statement only refers to a part of Egypt; at
the time there were various kings in Egypt (Murphy; cf. De Hummelauer); the
king has in mind all the foreigners in Egypt (cf. 12:38) (McNeile). Obser
vations like these are not very convincing. After the hyperbolic 1:7, 1:9 is not
at all strange. It could be that in 1:9 the writer means to portray Pharaoh as a
demagogue who tries to instill feelings of fear and loathing in his people by
giving them an incomplete picture, but it is more likely that the writer means
to have Pharaoh affirm that the promise of a large nation has become reality.
The writer is not interested in the historical question of the precise numerical
relation between Israel and Egypt. That is also borne out by the simplicity of
the description in 1:9: the Pharaoh does not speak to his counselors (according
to Nachmanides he does; cf. Isa. 19:11), but converses with his people, even as
later in the story (l:15ff.) he has direct contact with the two midwives. Here
and in the following chapters the story is marked by a village atmosphere and
a small scale ambiance (see also Introd. § 11.6.9).
1:10 ‘L et us therefore deal shrewdly with them to prevent them from increasing
even more, so that they, in case someone attacks us, make matters worse by
joining our enemies, fight against us and leave the country. ’
nan is usually (but note Ges-B s.v. an) regarded as an energic imperf. qal of
an', ‘give’ (e.g. Gen. 29:21; 30:1; 47:15), which in Gen. ll:3f.; 38:16; Exod. 1:10
serves as an interjection (cf. KoSynt §344g, 355g; Ges-K §69o, 105b; Joiion
§75k, 105e); in Gen. ll:3f., 7; Exod. 1:10 the interjection reinforces the
cohortative and functions as a conjunction: ‘therefore,’ ‘so.’
nnpnn: cohortative hithp. of Dan (OT 27 x ; hithp. 2x), which occurs in
hithp. with the meaning ‘deal wisely, shrewdly’ (cf. Eccl. 7:16); in the OT the
derivatives Dan (OT ca. 140x ; Exod. 7:11; 28:3; 31:6; 35:10; 36:1,2,4,8) and
naan (OT ca. 140x; Exod. 28:3; 31:3,6; 35:25,26,31,35; 36:1,2) are more
frequent than the verb; with the exception of 7:11, in Exodus only in those
parts that deal with the construction of the tent sanctuary. Unlike in wisdom
literature, where “wise’ and “wisdom’ deal with the art of living which is
essentially a matter of discerning the difference between good and bad, in
Exod. the words denote the possession of gifts needed to be an artisan and
craftsman (1 Kgs. 7:14; Isa. 3:3; 10:13; 40:20; Jer. 10:9; Ezek. 27:8; Ps. 107:27
etal.; cf. also 2 Sam. 13:3; Jer. 4:22; Job 5:13). That also applies to 1:10 where
the skills include administrative ability and political insight (cf. Gen. 41:33,39;
Deut. 1:13,15; 34:9; 2 Sam. 14:20; 1 Kgs.2:6,9; 3:12,28 etal.); the history in
Exod. 1 teaches - what is regularly demonstrated in history - that such ‘wisdom’
can lead to measures which may be politically astute but are morally objec
tionable; it is not only in English that the term ‘politics’ contains the notion of
‘cunning’.28 ODn pi. is used in 7:11 in reference to Pharaoh’s political advisers
(cf. G en.41:8; Isa. 19:1 If.; 44:25; Jer. 10:7; 50:35; 51:57 etal.). Not only were
they thought to possess a good mind but especially as having knowledge of the
occult: they were able to interpret dreams and visions (Esth. 1:13; 6:13;
Dan. 1:17; 2:12ff.; 4:3ff.; 5:7ff. etal.) and for that reason were thought to have
administrative gifts (cf. Gen. 41:39ff.; Dan. 2:48; 5:16). The D'i?r>n in 7:11 are
therefore the same people as the d*d» dd (hendiadys); they are the onsp •op'in
(7:11). See further THAT, I, 557ff.; TWAT, II, 920ff.; F.W. Golica, “Die
israelitische Weisheitsschule Oder ‘des Kaisers neue Kleider’,’ VT 33 (1983),
257-70; H.P. Muller, “Magisch-mantische Weisheit und die Gestalt Daniels,*
UF 1 (1969), 79-94; G. von Rad, Weisheit in Israel, Neukirchen-Vluyn 1970;
R.N. Whybray, The Intellectual Tradition in the Old Testament, Berlin/New
York 1974.
28 Cf. the negative interpretation of noDTinj in the LXX: KCtTaocxplotbfieda at)TO\x;, ‘let us
conquer them by trickery’ (cf. Acts 7:19); see also Vulg.: sapienter opprimamus eum.
238 exodus 1:1-22
ib, here and in the following verses the text speaks about Israel in the sing;
the old translations as a rule have opted for the pi. (cf. 1:9); in rabbinic
literature ib is taken as referring to God; see bSota 11a; ExR. 1,9; cf. Rashi.
]D (OT ca. 1 3 0 x ; Exod. 13X),29 usually connected to the following word
with maqqep, is used as conjunctive before final clauses (cf. KoSynt §355i,
396m, n; Ges-K § 107q, 152w; Joiion § 168g, h; Brockelmann § 133e; Williams
§ 463). With respect to its use in Exodus the following can be noted: p (cf. the
Greek jif| and the Latin ne) is used after verbs expressing fear or concern, with
the meaning ‘that,’ or ‘(in order) to’ (34:12; cf. Gen. 24:6; 26:7; 31:24,31 et al.);
often the fear or concern is not explicitly expressed but is implied and p
means ‘lest’ (1:10; 5:3; 19:21f., 24; 23:29,33; 33:3); see in particular also 13:17;
34:15; in 13:17 the implied idea with p is: ‘it must be prevented’;30*however,
in 34:15 in»ri (cf. 34:12) is implied (cf. Deut. 29:17; Isa. 36:18; Jer. 51:46 et
al.). m i, see 1:7; going by the context (1:9) what is meant is that the king
wants to prevent that the Israelites become even more numerous, p , see Introd.
§ 3.25.2.
n iK ip n 3rd pers. pi. fem. qal of K ip ; usually, in view of the difficulty of the
form and with reference to Sam. Pent., U Kipn, 3rd pers. sing. fem. qal + suffix
is read; cf. Delitzsch, 47; KoSynt § 346n; Ges-K § 47k; also the old translations
seem to follow a similar reading; Keil thinks that the MT contains an unusual
form of the 3rd pers. fem. sing.: the ending n: was transfered from the pi. to
the sing, to distinguish the third person from the second (cf. Judg. 5:26;
Job 17:16) (see, however, Dillmann); n/pnbn has also been taken as a collective
(cf. 1 Kgs. 5:17) in the sense of ‘the affliction and misery of the war’ (e.g.
Strack).
Kip II (OT ca. 140x; to be distinguished from Kip I; see Introd. §3.45)
means in 1:10 ‘befall,’ ‘strike’ (cf. Gen. 42:4,38; 49:1; Lev. 10:19; Deut. 31:29)
and is used in qal in Exodus also in the form of the verbal noun (inf. cstr. +
prefix b) riKipb (OT ca. 120x; see J. Hoftijzer, JEOL 28 [1983-84], 103-9) as a
preposition, ‘to meet’ (4:14,27; 5:20; 7:15; 14:27; 18:7; 19:17); cf. Ges-K § 19k;
Joiion § 17e, 49d, 78k; nKipb often occurs with verbs of movement; in 5:20; 7:15
3S3 niph. + nKipb means ‘waiting to meet,’ ‘going out to meet;’ 19:17 speaks of
a meeting between God and Israel (cf. 4:12). Kip is interchangeable with mp
(OT ca. 40 x); see 5:3 beside 3:18 and e.g. Gen. 42:4,38 beside Gen. 42:29. Kip
niph., ‘to happen upon,’ ‘to show up’ (Deut. 22:6; 2 Sam. 1:6; 18:9; 20:1) is used
+ by in 5:3 (cf. mp niph. in 3:18) for the revelation of yhwh ; cf. mp niph. +
^k or riKip1? in Num. 23:3,4,15,16; in these texts revelation is pictured as a
iq
For the disputed etymology see the lexicons and e.g. THAT, II, 433; Joiion § 168g; Brockel
mann § 133e.
30 Cf. Gen. 26:9; 31:31; 38:11; 42:4; Num. 16:34 and see P. Jouon, Bib 2 (1921), 340ff.:
1DK + = ‘fear that...’
SC H O L A R L Y EXPO SITIO N 239
sudden, unexpected appearance of the deity.31 See further THAT, II, 682ff.;
TWAT, VII, 172ff.
narfpn (OT ca. 320x), ‘fight,’ ‘battle’ (1:10; 13:17; 15:3; 17:16; 32:17), is a
derivative from onV;32 dt6 niph. (OT ca,170x), ‘come to blows,’ ‘fight,’
occurs in Exod. in 1:10; 14:25; 17:9,10 (+ ? ‘against’); 17:18 (+ di>, Svith’ =
‘against’); 14:14,25 (+ b, ‘on behalf of); subject are Israel (1:10), Amalek
(17:8), Joshua (17:9,10), y h w h (14:14,25; cf. Deut. 1:30; 20:4; Josh. 10:14;
Isa. 63:10 etal.). y h w h (cf. Ps. 24:8; Isa. 42:13) is called nnnVn »*k , ‘warrior,’ in
15:3 (cf. 1 Sam. 16:18; 17:33; 2 Sam. 17:8 etal.); he is permanently at war with
Amalek (17:16); Israel’s battle is his battle (14:14,25; 15:3; 17:16; cf.
Num.21:14; 31:3; D eut.9:3; 20:4; Judg.4:14 etal.); Israel’s enemies are his
enemies (Judg. 5:31; 1 Sam. 30:26); when there is a conflict he manifests his
presence (Josh. 10:11,14,42; 24:7; Judg.4:15; 5:4,20 etal.); he delivers the
enemies into the hands of Israel (Josh. 6:2; 8:1,18; Judg. 3:28; 7:9,15 et al.).33
The ending of 1:10 suggests that rmrfaa here refers to an invasion, a raid (cf.
Judg. 6:3ff., 11; 1 Sam. 13:17f.; 30:lf.; 2 Kgs. 13:20; cf. also 1 Sam. 27:8ff.;
2 Sam. 3:22); the surprise nature of the attack makes it impossible for the
victim to adequately strike back; in the Egyptian text, ‘The Instruction of
Merikare,’ the way the desert dweller fights is pictured like this: ‘He has been
fighting since the time of Horus; he never conquers, yet he is not conquered,
and he does not announce a day of fighting, like a thief whom a community
has driven out.’34
fjoiji perf. cons. niph. of *)0' (OT ca. 210x; hiph. ca. 175x), is here used
with the meaning ‘join oneself to;’ *p* hiph. (but compare Joiion § 75f) is used
in 8:25; 9:28,34; 10:28,29; 11:6; 14:13 to describe an adverbial phrase (cf. Ges-
K § 120c, d; Joiion § 102g, 177b); the form of qo* is followed by the inf. cstr. of
a particular verb (if need be + b) and indicates that the condition or action
indicated in the verb continues; often with the negative: ‘no longer,’ ‘no more’
(if need be strengthened with T iv ; see 10:29; 14:13); in 11:6 the inf. cstr. of rrn
is implied (cf. e.g. Joel 2:2; Job 20:9). See further TWAT, III, 682ff. m, see
Introd. §3.11.2.
lrtoto part. pi. qal + suffix of Kin? (OT ca. 145x; qal ca. 130x), ‘have a
dislike of,’ ‘be hostile toward;’ in Exodus only the part, qal occurs (1 x sing.:
23:5; 3x pi.), to denote the national enemy (1:10; cf. Gen. 24:60; Lev. 26:17;
There is no need, with an appeal to Arabic and Ugaritic, to understand K"ip/mp in 3:18; 5:3
as ‘invite to a feast;’ so C. Rabin, ScrHie 8 (1961), 399.
^ For the relation of DTT^ I to DTl^ II, ‘to eat’ (cf. DTl^, ‘bread,’ see 2:20) see the lexicons and
L. Koehler, JSS 1 (1956), lOf.
33 See further IDB, IV, 801ff.; TWAT, IV, 914ff.; Houtman, Hirnmel, 139ff., 272ff.; P.D. Miller,
The Divine Warrior in Early Israel, Cambridge, Mass. 1973; G. von Rad, Der heilige Krieg im Alien
Israel, Gottingen 1958; De Vaux, II, 80ff.
^ Transl. R.O. Faulkner, in W.K. Simpson (ed.), The Literature o f Ancient Egypt, New
Haven/London 1972, 188; cf. ANETy 416b.
240 E X O D U S 1:1-22
Ps. 106:10; Esth. 9:1,5,16), the personal enemy (23:5; cf. Deut. 19:11;
Prov. 27:6), to express dislike for evil practices (18:21; cf. Ps. 45:8; 119:63;
Prov. 8:13; 15:27) and in reference to being hostile toward yhwh (20:5; cf.
Deut. 5:9; 7:10; 2 Chr. 19:2). See further THAT, II, 835ff. bo, see Brockelmann
§ 110g.
TPsJ, FTV, TNf offer a somewhat more detailed version; according to TPsJ
Pharaoh expresses also the fear that Israel will collaborate with Egypt’s
enemies ‘to destroy us so that none of us remains...;’ cf. FTV: ‘and they will kill
us and leave the country;’ TNf talks about Pharaoh’s intention ‘to take evil
measure against them (the Israelites),’ ‘to issue laws to diminish them’ (cf. also
TPsJ) and furthermore about his fear that ‘they will appoint a king over
themselves and pull out of the land.’

Why does Pharaoh want to take measures? Josephus (AJ, II, 201 f.) is of the
opinion that jealousy was the reason Pharaoh changed his policy." Josephus
relates how the Egyptians thought that the prosperity of the Israelites, who in
contrast to the Egyptians were an industrious people, was to their disad
vantage. Philo (VM, I, 8) thinks that the king feared that by their large
numbers the Israelites would overwhelm the Egyptians and rob them of their
power. At first sight such a view seems quite plausible (see at 1:7). It is,
however, hard to reconcile with the end of 1:10. Contrary to what one would
have expected, the obvious assumption that the Egyptians would rather be rid
of the Israelites than keep them turns out to be wrong. Already the rabbis
must have felt that the end of 1:10 was problematic. According to bSota 11a
and ExR. I, 9, Pharaoh curses himself, but his curse is aimed at others; meant
is: we will leave the land and they will take possession of it; cf. also Rashi.
Nachmanides disputes this view and suggests, therein followed by Cassuto, that
implied is the unspoken thought: ‘without us having had the chance to avenge
ourselves on the Israelites.’ Modern exegetes have proposed a variety of
explanations. Ehrlich (he reads: p j c r p tbo'*) relates the words to the appearan
ce of a world conqueror: as soon as Israel and its allies have seized the power
in Egypt they will go out and subjugate other nations. Several interpreters (e.g.
Beer, Noth) have adopted the view of M. Lambert, REJ 39 (1899), 299f., that
p ttrrp nby means ‘devenir maitre du pays;’ this notion is no more convincing
than W.L. Holladay’s suggestion (VT 19 [1969], 123f.) that what is meant is
‘arise from the netherworld,’ in the sense of ‘come back to life’.33*36 While
33 This view is also found in rabbinic literature (see Ginzberg, II, 245f.) and among modem
exegetes (e.g. Gispen); Jewish tradition also contains the notion that the oppression was needed to
prevent Israel’s assimilation into Egypt (MidrTanh. Exod. I, 6: the theaters and circus buildings
were full of Israelites); cf. Leibowitz, Iff.; Rosmarin, 32.
36 See K. Rupprecht, ZAW 82 (1970), 442ff.; B. Renaud, tT 3 3 (1983), 495ff.
SC H O LA R LY EXPOSITION 241
keeping the customary translation, the view is also defended that Pharaoh for
the sake of the economy refuses to let Israel go. He regards the Israelites as
his subjects and cannot do without their contribution to the economy; there
fore he tries to control the growth of the population but deems Israel’s
departure undesirable (so already Calmet and see e.g. Rylaarsdam, Fensham).
Though Gen. 47:6 intimates Israel’s participation in the economic life of Egypt,
one does not get the impression that that is what the writer has in mind. Not
until 1:1 Iff. does he talk about it, but there he looks at Israel’s labour from
only one perspective: it must serve to shrink Israel. The writer does not seek
to picture Pharaoh as a ruler who tries to balance various interests such as
holding on to power, the preservation of Egypt’s identity and culture, and
maintaining a healthy economy, but as the man who already at this point in
time exposes himself as the antagonist of yhwh’s intention with Israel. He
does not want them to go to the promised land (cf. Gen. 15:3ff.; 46:2ff.; 50:24)
(see essentials).37 In short, one should be wary of an overly historicizing
interpretation. Falling into that trap is not something of recent date. Jub.
46:5ff. relates how due to political circumstances (war between the king of
Egypt and the king of Canaan) the borders of Egypt were closed. Rabbinic
literature talks about raids of the descendants of Esau on Egypt and about a
victory over a large number of them by a small number of Israelites; that had
the Egyptians worried because they feared that in case of war the Israelites
would use their prowess in the service of the enemy (Ginzberg, II, 155ff.;
Rosmarin, 30f., 33ff.). Some modern interpreters conjecture that with ‘the
enemies’ are meant the Hittites (e.g. Strack, Te Stroete, Fensham). In my
judgment the most one can say is that 1:10 may indicate familiarity with the
fact that more than once Egypt was troubled by invading Asiatics (see Introd.
§11.5.3).
1:11 Then they set taskmasters over them to oppress them by forcing them to do
their heavy work. So supply cities were built for Pharaoh, Pithom and Rameses.
loan (see Introd. § 3.48), the implied subject is ‘the Egyptians;’ the 3rd pers. pi.
is used more often for the indefinite personal subject as in the English ‘they’
(Ges-K § 144f; Joiion § 155b); LXX and Vulg. have the sing.; the implied
subject is the king of Egypt (1:8). The use of the plural intimates that the
people had rallied behind the king. He and his people together embark on an
action against Israel, rby, sing, because of the use of the sing, for Israel in 1:10.
ifc (OT ca. 420 x) (cf. the Akkadian sarru, ‘king’) indicates someone who
possesses power, wields authority, exercises leadership over others, and as such
also has the right to judge or punish his subordinates; the term is used for
both civil and military authorities, for court officials and others; in 1:11 for the
supervisors, the taskmasters in charge of the projects being constructed by
37 In Jub. 46:13 Pharaoh says specifically that Israel’s desire is to go to Canaan.

242 exodus 1 :1 -2 2
forced labourers (cf. 1 Kgs. 5:30; 9:23; for the organizational structure of the
conscripted labour see also 5:6ff.); in 2:14 its is mentioned in one breath with
00» (hendiadys); in 18:21,25 the pi. denotes individuals to whom the ad
ministration of justice in a larger or smaller group of Israelites has been
entrusted.38
on (OT 23 x)39 denotes, as is usually assumed, the institution of ‘forced
service,’ ‘serfdom’ (e.g. Josh. 17:13; Judg. 1:28,30,33,35) and (as collective)
‘the forced labourers’ (1 Kgs. 5:27; 9:15,21; cf. 2 Sam. 20:24; 1 Kgs. 4:6; 5:28;
12:18) (cf. Ges-B; KoW; KBL)\ according to BDB, Zo. especially this last sense
is its real meaning (but see HAL); it indeed fits best the various passages.40
Perhaps o*oo is best rendered as ‘slave drivers;’ cf. already Symm.:
ipyoSubicTou;; see also LXX: fejtujxaxas xwv Ipywv, ‘those who are in charge of
the work,’ and Vulg.: magistros operum; in LXX and Vulg. also nbno is
rendered respectively as xa ipya and opera; see beside it Aq. and Symm.: xd
Paox&Ynaxa, ‘the burdens.’ The pi. D*op is found only here; perhaps it expresses
that the forced labourers worked in groups under one supervisor (but see also
KOSynt § 267a6; Ges-K § 124q).
(OT ca. 270 x; for the derivation see the lexicons), ‘with regard to,’ ‘on
account of,’ is used in Exod. (16x) as a preposition (always before the inf.
cstr. of a verb) and as conjunctive; pa1? + inf. cstr. is found as expressing
purpose, ‘in order to,’ ‘in order that’ (1:11; 10:1) and in the consecutive sense
‘so that,’ ‘with the result that’ (9:16; 11:9); + imperf. is found as expres
sing purpose (13:9; 16:4,32; 20:12; 23:12; 33:13) and in the consecutive sense
(10:2; ‘and consequently,’ ‘so that’); often it is hard to say which is meant (4:5;
8:6,18; 9:29; 11:7).41
in'3» inf. cstr. piel + suffix of n:s> II;42 n:y (OT ca. 60 x) means in piel
‘oppress,’ ‘suppress’ (1:11,12; 22:21,22); in 10:3 n:s> niph. occurs with the
meaning ‘to humble oneself = ‘to stop the resistance.’43 See also the use of
38 See further THAT, I, 932; TWAT, VII, 855ff.; T.N.D. Mettinger, Solomonic State Officials,
Lund 1971; U. Riiterworden, Die Beamten der israelitischen Konigszeit, Stuttgart et al. 1985; C.
Schafer-Lichtenberger, Stadt und Eidgenossenschaft im Alteri Testament, Berlin/New York 1983,
245ff.
39 Also on a seal from the seventh century; see N. Avigad, IEJ 30 (1980), 170ff.
40 See further TWAT, IV, 1006ff.; Mettinger, 128ff.; M.A. Powell (ed.), Labor in the Ancient
Near East, Winona Lake 1987; A.F. Rainey, “Compulsory Labour Gangs in Ancient Israel," IEJ 20
(1970), 191-202; Riesener, 138ff.; J.A. Wainwright, “Zoser’s Pyramid and Solomon’s Temple," ET
91 f l 979-80), 137-40 (00 is ‘unskilled labour’).
41 See further Joiion § 169g; H.A. Brongers, “Die Partikel ]1?Q^ in der biblisch-hebraischen
Sprache," OTS 18 (1973), 84-96; E.F. Sutcliffe, “Effect as Purpose: A Study in Hebrew Thought
Patterns," Bib 35 (1954), 320-57.
42 The lexicons usually distinguish between four homonym roots Hli?; see however L. Delekat,
VT 14 (1964), 35ff.
43 See however Delekat, 41, 42 n. 1: read nii?^, inf. cstr. qal of nil? I (see 4:1), ‘react’ = here
‘obey;’ cf. Jer. 7:13, 27; 35:17; Job 19:16.
the derivatives *jv (OT ca. 35x), ‘oppression,’ ‘misery’ (3:7,17; 4:31), and 'iy
(OT ca. 75 x), which in 22:24 is used to designate someone who socially is an
underdog; one who possesses little or no land and so lacks a ready source of
income; who has no power and influence and always runs the risk of falling
victim to those who belong to the top social classes; with the foreigner
(Lev. 19:10) and the widow and orphan (e.g. Isa. 10:2) he belongs to those who
are often without rights and the victim of social oppression (Isa. 3:14f.; 11:4;
Amos 4:1; 5:12; Ps. 35:10); yhwh cares about them (22:22).44 See further
THAT, II, 341 ff.; TWAT, VI, 247ff.; S.B. Dawes, VT 41 (1991), 38-48; Pons,
99ff.
nVao is a derivative of Vno, ‘to bear,’ ‘carry’ heavy burdens (e.g. Gen. 49:15;
Isa. 46:4,7);45 the term occurs only in the pi. (cf. Ges-K § 124d, e; Jouon
§90f) and only in Exodus (1:11; 2:11; 5:4,5; 6:6,7) and indicates the carrying
of burdens, toiling, doing forced labour (cf. Mettinger, 137ff.). Drftoo:>, in LXX
and Vulg. the suffix is not translated; the suffix refers to the subject of the
sentence (Pharaoh and his people); they laid their burdens on the shoulders of
the Israelites to make them do their heavy work, the project they had in mind.
Cf. 2:11: DnbnoD; the genitive is an objective genitive: the work they had to
carry out.
imperf. cons, qal46 of n:n; the subject is not specifically mentioned;
because in 1:10,11a Israel is referred to in the sing, it is naturally to regard
Israel as subject; it is possible to express the indefinite subject by the use of a
passive tense (cf. Ges-K § 144d,e; Jouon § 155b; Meyer § 94.8a). nn (OT ca.
375 x) is in Exodus used in qal for the building of cities (1:11) and the
construction of an altar (17:15; 20:25; 24:4; 32:5; in 20:25 + accus. of material;
cf. e.g. Ges-K § 117hh, kk; Williams §53). See further THAT, I, 325ff; TWAT,
II, 689 ff.
T» (OT ca. 1090x; Exod. 1:11; 9:29,33), ‘city;’ it should be noted that also a
more or less permanently inhabited settlement, protected by a wall or citadel,
can be called t v and that by our standards the size of cities in the Ancient
Near East was quite small.47 In 1:11 the cities are mentioned by name (see
44 See beside ".V also the use of (OT ca. 60x), ‘poor,’ ‘needy,’ in 23:6, 11 (see THAT, I,
21, 23ff.; II, 344, 346f.; TWAT, I, 28ff.), and of Vi (OT ca. 50x) in 23:3; 30:15 (cf. e.g. Lev. 14:21;
19:15); Vi is clearly the little man, the small farmer, who while not belonging to the unpropertied
proletariat and being a free citizen, has few possessions (cf. Amos 5:11) (see further TWAT, II,
221 ff.); for the poor person in Israel see e.g. De Vaux, I, 133ff.; C. van Leeuwen, Le d6velop-
pement du sense social en Israel, Assen 1954.
45 See beside the lexicons M. Wagner, in Fs W. Baumgartner Hebraische Wortforschung, Leiden
1967, 362ff.
46 In CV, NV, WV, GNB is evidently taken to be a jussive cf. Ezra 3:1): ‘they had to build.’
47 See further BRL , 313ff.; IDB, I, 632ff.; TWAT, VI, 56ff.; D.C. Benjamin, Deuteronomy and
City Life, Washington, DC 1983; V. Fritz, Die Stadt irn alten Israel, Miinchen 1990; C.H.J. de Geus,
De Israelitische stad, Kampen 1984; F. Kolb, Die Stadt irn Altertum, Miinchen 1985; P.S. Hawkins
244 exodus 1 :1 -2 2
Introd. §8.30,31); in 9:29,33 refers to Pharaoh’s residence, though the

name is not mentioned.
rvuDop, ‘storehouses,’ ‘depots,’ occurs only in pi. (1:11; 1 Chr. 9:19 =
2 Chr. 8:6; 2 Chr. 8:4; [16:4?]; 17:12; 32:28); with the exception of 2 Chr. 32:28
always in the construct chain m:DOo(n) LXX translates: TcdXeiq dx'upaq,
‘fortified cities;’ cf. TPsJ (+ ‘to turn them into storehouses for Pharaoh;’ cf.
TO), TNf and see also Jub. 46:14 (it is also said that Israel did repair work on
other Egyptian cities). Aq. and Symm. render: ndXtxq cnciivcopaTcov (cf. Vulg.
urbes tabemacolorum), ‘cities of tents’ = ‘temple cities’ (cf. Acts 7:46 and see
Ps. 132:5); the translation is based on the reading rvuDtfn Later on the
interpretation ‘temple cities’ has been defended with an unjustified appeal to
the Egyptian (mesket, meskenet; see e.g. Keil, Dillmann); cf. W. Helck, VT 15
(1965), 47f.; D.B. Redford, VT 13 (1963), 413. According to 1 Kgs. 9:19 etc. it
was the kings who had the store cities built and they were used to store the
products of the land (see in particular 2 Chr. 32:28). Excavations in Palestine
have unearthed storehouses.48 Noth believes that what is meant in 1 Kgs. 9:19
is that Solomon had storehouses constructed in already existing cities (nn is
used). Conceivably that might also be what is meant in Exod. 1:11.49 Modern
interpreters generally think that the storehouses served commercial and
military purposes. Because nothing more is said about it in the text the
interpretation remains somewhat uncertain. One might also consider if
nTOOo ny could mean ‘administrative centers’ (cf. p'o in Isa. 22:15 and see
KoSynt §267a.) Genesis relates that in Egypt Joseph suggested to build
storehouses for grain in the cities (Gen. 41:35,48f., 56). So one might conjec
ture that the writer had that in mind.

The text does not say when Israel’s oppression precisely began. In Gen. 15:13
the length of the oppression is put at 400 years; cf. Josephus (A/, II, 204).
From Genesis it can be deduced that Joseph was thirty-nine years old when his
family arrived in Egypt (Gen. 41:46 etc.). He died at the age of one hundred
ten years (Gen. 50:22). On the basis of these givens the Israelites had been
seventy-one years in Egypt by that time, where according to Exod. 12:40 they
lived for four hundred thirty years. Simple calculations show that according to
these givens the oppression must already have started during the time of
Joseph. That view is also found in GenR. XCVI, 1: the hostility started after
the death of Jacob. Beside it ExR. I, 4 mentions the death of Joseph and the
( e d A C ivita s: R elig io u s Interpretations o f the C ity, A tlanta 1986; N o th , W A T , 132ff.

S e e B R L , 308f.; J .D . Curvid, "The B e eh iv e G ranaries o f A n cien t Palestine," Z D P V 101
(1 9 8 5 ), 9 7-110; D e G e u s (s e e a b o v e), 70ff.; K e e l-K iic h le r , II, 118ff.; M. N o th , B K , IX , 2 15f.
49 C f. R ashi: existin g citie s are turned in to fo rtr esses and sto re cities; cf. G in zb erg, II, 247; d o e s
G en . 47:11 a ssu m e th e e x isten ce o f the city o f R a m eses?
generation of the immigrants as the terminus postquem of the oppression.

Rabbinic literature also contains the idea that there was a gradual alienation
between Egypt and Israel and that the Egyptians increasingly started to repress
Israel, which began among others with the confiscation of property (Ginzberg,
II, 245f.; Rosmarin, 32f.). For the uneven chronology see Introd. § 11.4.
In light of 1:9-10 it would seem that the expedient of forced labour was
intended to stop the growth of Israel and to curtail it. The measure seems to
be based on the assumption that forced labour leads to high mortality. In a
world in which the erection of buildings and the digging of canals and the like
had to be done with human tools and under abysmal labour conditions, the
number of people who perished in the carrying out of the projects was indeed
extremely high. Herodotus (Hist., II, 158) relates that in the restoration of the
canal from the Nile to the Red Sea under Pharaoh Neco 120,000 people
perished. Moreover, exhaustion also has a negative impact on the procreative
urge (so already Ishodad and e.g. Strack)50 and breaks a people’s spiritual
resilience and readiness to fight for its freedom (cf. 6:9) (cf. e.g. Keil, Dill-
mann, Ehrlich, Heinisch). Politically the measure was no doubt astute: while
the growth of the population of Israel was kept in check, the means to
accomplish it would pay rich dividends. In my judgment, however, it is doubt
ful that the writer had that in mind. He looked at the forced labour as a
strategy intended to foil the fulfillment of the promises (see already at 1:10).
Wasn’t what the Egyptians did reprehensible? Likely not according to the
moral standards of the Ancient Near East. Rulers felt justified to draft their
subjects and others who lived in their land for work on their projects. Though
Israel endured forced labour as a people without power in Egypt, the texts
mentioned in connection with od show that when they themselves were in the
dominant position they felt no scruples in subjecting other groups of people
living in Canaan to forced labour. Under Solomon even the Israelites themsel
ves were pressed into service.51 For that matter, the question whether the
tactic described in 1:11 was as such justified does not seem to have concerned
the author. He objected to it because it contravened the realization of the
divine promises. Furthermore, read against the background of Genesis, 1:11
shows how the Israelites who at first enjoyed favoured-guest status (note
Gen. 47:6) are reduced to a class of outcasts. The incident shows how easily
foreigners could become the toy of those in power. In the laws Israel is
challenged, in its dealings with foreigners and slaves, always to remember its
E x R I, 12, m en tio n s that P haraoh forb ade the Israelites to sle e p at h o m e (n o te a lso 1:15-22).
51 F o r forced lab ou r s e e I. M en d elso h n , “O n C orv6e L abour in A n cien t Israel,* B A S O R 167
(1 9 6 2 ), 31-5; D e V aux, H A I, I, 309f.; for an illustration o f Egyptian su p ervisors w h o w ith w h ip s and
stick s (cf. 5:4, 16) drive w ork ers to keep at it (to m b R ek h -m i-R e ) s e e A O B , ill. 176; A N E P , ill. 115.
C f. a lso W . D ietrich , “D a s harte Joch (1 Kon 12,4): F ronarbeit in d er S alom o-U b erlieferu n g," B N
3 4 (1 9 8 6 ), 7-16 .
246 exodus 1 :1 -2 2
own past (e.g. 22:21f.; Deut. 10:18f.; 15:15 etal.).
1:12 The more they oppressed them, the more they increased in number and mul
tiplied even more rapidly, so that they began to dread the Israelites.
-©nd (OT ca. 550 x; Exod. ca. 50 x) is a conjunction which means, among
others, ‘in accordance with,’ ‘as’ (e.g. 8:23; 16:24; 39:1,5,7), sometimes preceded
by (e.g. 7:10,20; 10:10) (giving it greater emphasis), sometimes followed by p
(e.g. 7:6; 12:28,50) (see Introd. §3.43.1); it is used in comparisons (e.g. 33:11)
and is used in a temporal sense (e.g. 17:11; 32:19); in 1:12 nano followed by p
is used in a comparison to indicate quantity: ‘in the measure that ... so. 2
my, see 1:11. ink, sing, because of the use of the sing, for Israel in 1:10; 2Q Ex3
has the reading oniK (see DID, III, 49); cf the transl. of LXX, Pesh., Vulg. and
targums.
P (OT ca. 355x; Exod. 50x) [for p 1? see 6;6 and for p '^ s see 5:8] is a
particle with a referring function; it refers to something already known to the
reader; in Exodus it is very often followed by a form of the verb nicy (see
Introd. §3.41.1; sometimes nicy goes first; see 7:10,20) and expresses that an
order is carried out (see Introd. §3.43.2 and further e.g. 8:13,22; 14:4; 16:17;
17:6; cf. also 6:9) or an announced act (8:20), that a described act is imitated
by others (7:11,22; 8:3,14), that what is done in one case should also be done
in other circumstances than the one mentioned (22:29; 23:11), that certain
objects should be fashioned in accordance with a prescribed model or pattern
(25:9; 26:4,17; 27:8; 36:11,22,29; cf. 25:33; 26:24; 27:11; 37:19); for
10:10,11,14,29 see the commentary.5 253 nan (imperf.; cf. Ges-K § 107b), see
1:7; 2Q Ex3 has the reading ,q [*i]*; cf. the versions; Sam. Pent, has ma* (cf. 1:7).
p p ' (2Q Ex3 has the reading is*©* [cf. 1:7]; the pi. also in the versions)
imperf. qal of p o (OT ca. 50 x), which in a variety of contexts is used for ‘to
break through/ down/tear loose;’ in 1:12 p o qal is used in regard to Israel’s
population explosion (cf. Gen.28:14; 30:30,43; Isa.54:3; Hos.4:10 etal.); the
still continuing population growth is here expressed with a term not found in
1:7; in 19:22,24 p o qal with God as subject is used with the meaning ‘break
out against (+ p)’ (cf. e.g. 2 Sam. 6:8; Ps. 106:29). See further P.A. Vaccari, Bib
19 (1938), 310ff. The LXX has a more elaborate text: + <rip65pa oipdSpa
(cf.l:7); due to the available space it is possible that 2Q Ex3 contained the text
1KI3 tK n :i.
tsp'i imperf. cons, qal of pp (OT 9x), ‘to loathe,’ ‘to abhor’ (e.g. Gen. 27:46;
Lev. 20:23; Num. 21:5); because what is abhorrent inspires fear, pp qal (+ *:aa;
see Introd. §3.42.3) also means ‘to come to dread’ (1:12; Num. 22:3; Isa. 7:16);
52 Cf. K oSynt § 3 7 1 o ; s e e further K oSynt § 3 8 7 f, k; 3 8 8 h , i; 389g; G e s-K § 161b, c; 164d; Jo iio n

§ 166n , 170k, 174a, b; M ey er § 116.2, 122b; W illiam s § 2 5 6 , 2 6 0 , 2 6 2 , 264; E M A T P , 1, 102ff.
53 S e e furth er M .J. M ulder, “D ie Partikel p im A lten T e sta m en t,’ O T S 21 (1 9 8 1 ), 2 01-27;
O .H . S te ck , D e r Schopfungsbcrichi d e r P riesterschrift, G o ttin g en 1 9 8 1 2, 32ff., 27 8 f., 2 83.
Num. 22:3 speaks of Moab’s dread at the huge numbers of Israel. LXX and
targums specifically mention ‘the Egyptians’ as the subject. 2Q Ex* contains
sufficient space for opsn, which in a repeat of the largest part of 1:12 after
1:13 is specifically mentioned in the text; in the Vulg. the Egyptians are
mentioned by name in 1:12, but not in 1:13. Jub. 46:16 recounts that the
Egyptians regarded the Israelites as unclean.54
1:13 Therefore the Egyptians became ruthless in the forced labour they compelled
them to do.
1:14 Therefore they made their lives bitter with hard labour, making bricks from
mortar and clay, and with forced labour in the field. On top o f all the work they
were forced to do they were mistreated as well
For lau and derivatives see Introd. §3.37. Tip (1:13,14; Lev. 25:43,46,53;
Ezek. 34:4) is usually understood as ‘mistreatment,’ ‘cruelty;’ cf. LXX: pia; an
entirely different interpretation of Tp3 is found in Symm.: dvTpwpc&vxei;, “while
they acted haughtily/mockingly’ (cf. Vulg.: inludentes) and Theod.: gfinaiypfi,
“with mocking.’ 2Q Ex* contains after 1:13 a lacuna, which is followed by the
words 'n *:do qhsb -mp"i, so that there is ground for the conjecture that
in 2Q Ex* the bulk of 1:12 from ipt p is repeated after 1:13. The text offers
enough space for it.
rno'i imperf. cons, piel of vm (OT 16 x), ‘to be bitter;’ in piel ‘to make
bitter;’ cf. the use of ip (OT 38x), ‘bitter(ness)’ in 15:23 and of o*Tva, ‘bitter
herbs’ in 12:8 (cf. Num. 9:11; Lam. 3:15); see Introd. § 10.6.1.55
□*-n (OT ca. 150x) is a plurale tantum (Ges-K § 124d; Joiion § 136h), ‘life,’
and occurs in Exodus in the construct chain x "n •;», ‘the length of the years
of x ’ (6:16,18,20; cf. Gen. 23:1; 25:7,17; 47:8,28) and here; here in the sense
of ‘being,’‘existance’ (cf. Gen. 27:46; Eccl. 2:17; 9:9; 10:19); the verb rrrt (OT ca.
280 x) occurs in qal (OT ca. 200 x), ‘to remain alive,’ in 1:16; 19:33; 33:20;56
rrn piel (OT ca. 55x), ‘to let live,’ occurs in 1:17,18,22; 22:17 (cf. Gen. 12:12;
Num. 31:15; Deut. 6:24; 20:16 etal.);57 see also the use of the following
derivatives: *n (OT ca. 230x) ‘(being) alive’ (4:18; 21:35; 22:3; in 4:18: + t i »;
cf. e.g. Gen. 43:7, 27f.; 45:3, 26, 28, 30; 46:30); rrn (OT ca. lOOx) (collective),
‘living beings’ (in particular animals), in the construct chain rn&n rrn, “wild
animals’ (23:11,29) (see Introd. §9.2.1); for nvn see 1:19. See further THAT, I,
549ff.; TWAT ,11, 874ff.
54 C f. J o se p h u s (C A , I, 3 04ff.): th e
A lexan d rian w riter L ysim achu s portrays the Jew ish p e o p le as a p eo p le o f lep ers and sick p eo p le.
^ S e e further T W A T , V , 15ff.; L. Kutler, U F 16 (1 9 8 4 ), 111-8; D . P ard ee, "The S em itic root
m rr and th e e ty m o lo g y o f U g a ritic tn r(r)llbrk,m U F 10 (1 9 7 8 ), 249-88; idem , V T 35 (1 9 8 5 ), 112-5.
Cf. G en . 20:7; 42:18; N u m . 14:38; 24:23 et al.; im plicitly o r explicitly the con trast w ith ‘d ie ’ is
present; in 19:13 ‘n o t liv e’ is eq u ivalen t to ‘d ie;’ cf. G en . 31:32; 2 Kgs. 10:19; s e e b e sid e 19:13 also
N u m . 4:19; N eh . 6:11; b e sid e 3 3 :2 0 s e e D eu t. 4:33; 5:24f.
57 F o r the u se o f th e piel s e e G es-K § 52g; B L § 292q; J o iio n § 52d.
248 EX O D U S 1:1-22
n»j? (OT 36 x), an adjective derived from n»p (OT 26 x), ‘to be hard;’58;
n»p, ‘heavy’ (1:14; 6:9; cf. Deut. 26:6; 1 Kgs. 12:4; Isa. 14:3), ‘difficult’ (18:26; cf.
use of n»p qal in Deut. 1:17), occurs in 32:9; 33:3,5; 34:9 in the expression
^psrrwp'Dy, ‘stiff-necked,’ ‘stubborn,’ (cf. Deut. 9:6,13; 31:27); the image is
derived from oxen used as draft animals who resist having the yoke placed
upon them. See further THAT, II, 689ff.; TWAT, VII, 205ff.; G. Gerleman,
ZAW, 92 (1980), 411 etal. n»p occurs here without the article with the definite
rmi); perhaps that there is only a tenuous connection between both words in
view of a connection of n»p with what follows.
ipn (OT 17x),59 ‘loam,’ ‘clay,’ was used for making bricks (1:14; Nah.
3:14), as mortar (Gen. 11:3) and as clay for the potter (Isa.29:16; 45:9 etal.).
For the making of bricks the clay was dried in the sun or baked in ovens. The
latter was customary in Mesopotamia (Gen. 11:3), the first, among others, in
Egypt. To make the bricks stronger clay, cut-up straw (5:7) or other plant
fibers were added, np1? (OT 12x), ‘brick;’ with the exception of 24:10 ‘tile(s)’
it occurs in Exodus only in the plural in passages that deal with the making of
tiles as building material (1:14; 5:7,8,16,18,19; cf. Gen. 11:3; Isa. 9:9).60
crnî idtd can be variously translated; it may be that what is meant is that the
Israelites were put to work in potteries and in the tile industry, but it is also
possible that the reference is to skilled bricklayers; in the latter case, using clay
as mortar they had to put up buildings. Most likely the expression is a hen-
diadys: the Israelites were put to work in the making of bricks from loam (cf.
5:7ff.). The ‘heavy slave labour’ mentioned at the beginning of the verse
consisted in the making of bricks. In addition, the Israelites were also forced to
work in the fields.
nit? (OT ca. 330 x; Exod. 22 x), ‘field,’ where it concerns Palestine stands
for the steppe, bare, rocky fields caused by deforestation, as well as for fields
cultivated by human labour; it is the area over which humans have control or
the area where they constantly have to fight the desert to make and keep it
habitable; consequently man’s attitude toward rm is ambivalent: it may present
CO
S e e th e u se o f Httfp hiph. in 7:3 (w ith YHWH as subject and w ith th e m ean ing ‘to h ard en ;’ cf.
D e u t. 2:3 0 ) and 13:15 (w ith Pharaoh as subject and w ith the m ean ing ‘ob je ct to ,’ ‘r e fu se;’ s e e
furth er Introd. § 3 .1 9 .2 .
59 F o r th e d erivation o f "1DH, ‘to be red ,’ s e e T W A T , III, Iff.
60 F o r th e su p p o sed d erivation from p ^ , ‘to be w h ite ,’ se e B renner, 81 ff.; G radw ohl, 4 2ff., and
furth er T W A T , IV, 4 5 Iff.; the p ^ qal, ‘to m ake bricks,’ used in G en . 11:3; E xod. 5:7, 14, is
c o n sid er ed a d e n o m in a tiv e verb of See further A u S , V II, 17ff., 208ff.; B H H W , III,
2 0 0 5 , 2237F ; B R L , 364; D B , I, 326, 447f.; Ill, 438; ID B , I, 465f., 641; III, 846ff.; F ranken, 38f.; J.
H eller, “Z ie g e l o d e r Steine?" in F s S. H erm ann, P ro p h etie u n d gesch ich tlich e W irlichkeit irn alien
Israel, S tuttgart et al. 1991, 165-70; K itchen, 156f.; idem , “From the brick field s o f Egypt," TynB 27
(1 9 7 6 ), 137 -4 7 (w ith g iv en s from E gyptian texts a b ou t the fabrication o f bricks and th e organ ization
o f th e w ork); L ucas, 48ff.; W . M ayer, "Zur Z ieg e lh er stellu n g in N u zi und A rra p h e ," U F 9 (1 9 7 7 ),
191-204; C .F . N im s, ‘B ricks W ithou t Straw ,’ BA 13 (1 9 5 0 ), 22-8; Schw arzenbach, 132f.
a threat - for example there is the threat from m&n rrn (23:11,19 etal.; cf.
Houtman, Himmel, Ilf., 47, 54) —, but the field also offers food to the flocks
(Gen. 25:29; 31:4; 34:5,7; Num. 22:4; Deut. 11:15 etal.) and can be used for
growing crops (Gen. 37:7; 47:24; Lev. 19:19,22; 25:3,4,12 etal.).61 As regards
the use in Exod., mto is used as a collective (1:14; 8:9; 9:3,19,21,22,25;
10:5,15) and in the pi. (8:9) for ‘the lands’ of the Egyptians; the likely refer
ence is to the land around the cities (cf. Gen. 41:48); in 9:3,19,21,22,25 the
reference is likely in particular to the pastures; in the other passages it could
be either pastures or arable land (corn fields; cf. Gen. 47:20,24); cf. 22:4; in
16:25 means steppe land; cf. 22:30; in 22:5; 23:16 ‘arable land’ is meant.
Apparently in 1:14 it is said that the Israelites were put to work as shepherds
and/or farm hands in the fields of the Egyptians. In case the writer had in
mind a typical Egyptian situation, one might refer, as many exegetes do, to
Deut. 11:10 as an illustration: Israel was charged with the irrigation.62 Disp
uted is the interpretation of nx before orn'Dirte. Keil thinks that a second
accus., also dependent on is implied. Many follow Dillman who thinks
that the accus. is used due to a kind of attraction under the influence of the
verb of the relative clause.63 KoSynt §288k thinks of an accus. of relation,
while Jolion § 125j (sub 1) believes that it is a case of an apposition with a
word with a preposition. Cassuto regards nx as a preposition (with the same
meaning as 2 before rmy). Also Ehrlich thinks that nx is not a mark of the
accusative: the sentence is a noun clause with an inserted relative clause; nx
emphasizes the subject; cf. Ges-K § 117i, k, m; Joiion § 125j (sub 3); P.P. Say-
don, VT 14 (1964), 201. orn with instrumental 2 (e.g. Ges-K § 119o). The end
of 1:14 serves as a summary and reinforcement.
Observations with 1:13,14

Whatever one’s view about the origin of the passage (cf. introduction to the
exegesis), in the present context 1:13,14 is more than a doublet of 1:11 (cf.
Eerdmans, 8); 1:13,14 relates the broadening and intensification of the forced
labour; after 1:12, 1:13,14 has a meaningful function: the Egyptians no longer
are quite in control of themselves; their behaviour is determined by emotions;
they no longer only have the Israelites built cities (1:11) but also have them
make tiles and put them to work in the fields, so that the life of the Israelites
becomes one of continuous toiling and slaving (5x the root 12V is used; 2x
strengthened by b2) and mistreatment (2x).
Tradition has added more colour to the description of the slave labour. In
vivid colours Philo (VM> I, 38ff.) depicts the misery that overcame Israel: the
61 F o r m ore d eta ils s e e T W A T , V II, 710ff.; H ou tm an , F s R id d erb os, 156, 160ff. and a lso
S ch w arzen b ach , 8 2 ff.
C f. F orb es, II, Iff.; M o n tet, 82f. and se e as regards 1:14 A O B , ill. 165; A N E P , ill. 8 5 , 95, 115.
63 Cf. H ag. 2:5; Z e c h . 7:7; 8:17 and se e G es-K § 1171; J. Blau, V T 4 (1 9 5 4 ), 11.
250 exodus 1 :1 -2 2
Israelites had to do all the work themselves, both that of the artisan and his
helpers, and procure the material etc.; they had to keep at it without abat
ement; day and night they had to toil; there was no rest for them, so that in a
short time physical exhaustion followed upon mental exhaustion; they died the
one after the other - here Philo deviates from the biblical text (1:12) - as if
they were victims of the plague, and they were thrown by the wayside by their
horribly cruel masters (I, 37,43), while their own people were not permitted to
throw dirt on the bodies or to shed tears; behind it was the attempt to also
break the Israelites mentally. Rabbinic literature relates how the Egyptians
used trickery and deceit. Initially they themselves also participated in the
construction of Pithom and Raamses and paid the Israelites wages; gradually,
however, they withdrew, stopped paying wages, and began to assume the role
of supervisors over the Israelites; women, too, had to work; the members of
the tribe of Levi did not go along; they saw through the Egyptians (Ginzberg,
II, 247f.; Rosmarin, 35f.). Philo (I, 38) also offers a description of the work
that was done: the fabrication of bricks; the gathering of straw for it (cf. 5:7ff.);
the building of homes, walls, cities, the digging of canals. Josephus (AJ, II, 203)
relates the building of fortifications by the cities and the work on irrigation
projects, the construction of canals and dikes to hold back the water and to
prevent the formation of swamps, when the river overflowed its banks. He also
notes the building of pyramids.64 In the Muslim tradition the building ac
tivities are not mentioned until after Moses’ meeting with Pharaoh (cf.
Exod. 5-7): Like Nimrod (cf. Gen. 11) the thought occurs to Pharaoh to make
war on the God of Moses; he had 50,000 people, mainly Israelites, construct a
tower; day and night they had to work on it; at Moses’ prayer the edifice
collapses and buries all the Egyptians who had treated the Israelites cruelly
(Weil, 163f.).
1:15 Moreover; the king ordered the midwives of the Hebrew women, one of
whom was named Shiphrah and the other Puah:
riibypb (for the absence of the dageS forte after the article see e.g. Ges-K
§35b), part. fern. pi. piel -I- prefix of lb' (OT ca. 490x; Exod. 15x); lb' qal,
'to bear,’ 'to beget,’ occurs in Exod. only with the woman as subject (2:2,22;
6:20,23,25; 21:4; in 6:20 etc. + b of the person: 'to give a child to [the
father]’; cf. P. Jouon, Bib 3 [1922], 61f.); ib* piel (for the piel see Ges-K §52g;
BL § 291q”; Jouon § 52d; Ehrlich, in loco), ‘to help/cause to bear,’ is found in
64 N e ith e r P h ilo n o r J o se p h u s m en tio n s th e n am es P ithom and R aam ses; A rtap an u s (in

E u seb iu s, P E , IX , xxiii, 4; xxvii, 1) talks a b ou t the grow th o f Israel and Israel’s b uilding activ ities
(te m p le buildin g in A th o s and in H e lio p o lis) b efo re th e death o f J o se p h and b e fo re th e arrival o f
th e P haraoh w h o treated Israel badly (h e had c ities and tem p les built in K essa = G o sh e n and
H e lio p o lis); E zek iel th e T ragedian, 15ff., m en tio n s the con stru ction o f large b uildings and tow ers in
th e cities.
Exod. 1:15,16,17,18,19 (2x), 20,21; with the exception of 1:16 (inf. cstr.)
only the part, which functions as the substantive ‘midwife’ is used (cf.
Gen. 35:17; 38:28). The derivative tV; (OT ca. 90x; Exod. 12x), ‘child,’
designates a member of the male sex (cf. rnV, ‘girl’ [Gen. 34:4 et al.]); the term
can also be used for grown men (1 Kgs. 12:8,10,14); as to its meaning ib' can
come close to p (cf. Isa. 9:15; Jer. 31:20: iW /p), but normally ib* is more
neutral and the relationship with the parents is not prominent; cf. the use of p
in 2:10 alongside the use of P>\ in reference to Moses, in 2:3,6,7,8,9 (2x),
10 and cf. 1 Kgs. 3:19ff., 25ff.; in 2:6 ib* is used beside iy: (cf. Introd. § 3.34); in
1:17,18; 2:6 the pi. o*ib* clearly refers to ‘boys’ (cf. 1:16), but in 21:4 it
connotes both boys and girls, ‘children’ (cf. e.g. 1 Sam. 2:2; 2 Sam. 6:23; Isa. 1:2;
49:21; 51:18; Ezra 10:1). The problematic O'tV' in 21:22 evidently means
‘offspring,’ ‘fruit;’ the adjectivally used i p ' (for the form see Ges-K §84e;
Meyer § 68.3c), ‘born’ (1:22; cf. Josh. 5:5 et al.) is also found in 2 Sam. 12:14 in
the clause TiPn pn. The pi. nnVin, “what is begotten/brought forth’, is used in
Exodus in the formulas Drrpnb (6:16,19) and ornbirp (28:10), it seems clear
with the meaning ‘in the order in which they were born.’ See further THAT, I,
732ff.; TWAT, III, 633ft; P. Joiion, Bib 1 (1920), 359ff. Finally, the root in
used 21 x in 1:15-2:10. ‘Hebrew,’ see Introd. §8.25. ‘the one ... the other,’ see
Introd. § 4.2.1. ‘Shiphrah’ and ‘Puah,’ see Introd. § 6.6, 4.

Midwives are rarely mentioned in the OT (Gen. 35:17; 38:28; Exod. 1:15ft).
Occasionally we read of the presence of women at a birth (1 Sam. 4:20;
Ruth 4:14,17). Likely they assisted in the delivery65.
A disputed question is whether the midwives were Hebrew or Egyptian. The
targums assume that they were Hebrew women (for the rabbinic tradition see
Ginzberg, II, 250ff.; Rosmarin, 37); this view is held by Medieval Jewish
exegetes (among others Ibn Ezra and Nachmanides) and also modern exegetes
(among others Keil, Noth, Te Stroete, Michaeli, Leibowitz, 31ff.). The notion
that Egyptian women are meant seems to underlie LXX and Vulg. and is also
found in modern exegetes (among others Holzinger, Ehrlich, Baentsch, Beer,
Heinisch, Clamer, Gispen, Rylaarsdam). It has been contended that the
Masoretic vocalization permits only the former interpretation:66 rp-nsn is an
adjective. In defense of the latter interpretation: tvayn is a substantive, it is
pointed out that n"Oi>n can be an accusative governed by mb*ob (cf. Ehrlich,
Beer, Schmidt), and there is also the possibility that a construct chain is
meant. That would require a slight change in the pointing: mVob (cf. e.g. Beer,
^ F o r th e d eliv ery (in a sq u atted p o sitio n ? ) and the role o f the m idw ives, s e e S tol, 5 8ff., 84ff.;
cf. H. R an d , IE J 2 0 (1 9 7 0 ), 2 0 9 ff.
66 S e e e.g. M ich a eli and s e e a lso Schm idt; how ever, o n practical grou n d s h e h old s that th e latter
in terp retation d ese rv es p referen ce.
252 exodus 1 :1 -2 2
and see Ges-K § 116g. In my judgment, several arguments favour the view that
Egyptian women are meant. For according to 1:19 they are also familiar with
the circumstances around the delivery of Egyptian women. Even more impor
tant, ‘all his people’ in 1:22 presupposes that initially Pharaoh gave the order
to destroy the baby boys only to a few; it makes the incident all the more
impressive: two women disobey their own ruler! However, on the assumption
that Hebrew women are meant the image of Pharaoh becomes all the more
gruesome - he wants to force Hebrew women to destroy members of their
own people - and naive as well - he believes he can make Hebrew women do
that. In defense of ‘Hebrew women’ it has also been contended that the women
have Hebrew names (e.g. Te Stroete, Michaeli). Others, however, note that the
Egyptian names of the women may have been hebraicized (e.g. Heinisch,
Clamer). Of course, that kind of interpretative approach only makes sense on
the assumption that the text contains a journalistic report of the event. Things
change if it is held that what is here may be a folk tale in which historical
details are not important and in which people may have fictitious names.
The fact that in spite of the alarming increase of the Israelites (1:7,12) only
two midwives are mentioned has caused surprise. From 1:15 (cf. Deut. 7:7) it
has been concluded that apparently Israel did not become all that large after
all (McNeile, Noth, Henton, Davies, Hyatt). Others have suggested that the
women were the leaders of the guild of midwives and that they were to
communicate the Pharaoh’s orders to their colleagues (Ibn Ezra, Calmet,
Murphy, Keil, Lange). Still others have suggested that in the tradition only two
names were preserved67 and that in view of 1:19 it is not strange that there
were only two midwives (Dillmann, Te Stroete). This particular approach fails
to take into account that the story is a folk tale; it belongs to the nature of
such tales that dramatic events are recounted in only a few words while
historical preciseness is of no great concern. If the aforementioned problematic
is taken seriously one must also answer the question how the Egyptian king
could directly address the midwives and swallow their answer (1:19).
1:16 ‘When you assist the Hebrew women with the delivery and you keep your eye
on her opening, if it is a boy you must kill him; if it is a girl she may live. ’
nstr\ repeated for stylistic reasons (Jouon § 176b n. 2); cf. Cassuto who opines
that the word is repeated because the story was interrupted by the mention of
the names. Similar repetitions, however, also occur when there is no interrup
tion in the story (e.g. Gen. 22:7; 46:2). Lange goes too far when he concludes
from the repetition: ‘er suchte sie zu bereden, und endlich kam der teuflische
Befehl heraus ...,’ I have rendered the repetition with a colon. see 1:15.
n*o, see Introd. §3.46.1. p and ra, see Introd. §3.10.1. ppm (for the form see
67 Cf. D illm a n n and s e e H ein isch , C lam er, C ole; accord in g to C o le it cou ld a lso b e that o n ly the
n am es o f the w o m en w h o d iso b ey ed Pharaoh are m en tion ed .
Ges-K §72w), see Introd. §3.32. rrm (see 1:14), the masculine form is striking
because the subject is feminine (cf. Sam. Pent.: nrrm); it is conjectured that
rrm is a pausal form of rrm (Ges-K §76i [cf. § 67k]; cf. BL § 423) or that mm is
the 3rd pers. sing. fern. perf. qal of "n, ‘life* (cf. Gen. 3:22) (Strack, Baentsch).
ninayrrnK can be understood as a conditional clause with
mnxn-^y as the apodosis (cf. Ges-K § 159k; Meyer § 122.2e). However, in
my judgment it is preferable to include also jrrxm with the protasis (cf. SV,
LuthV, LV), because it is unlikely that with a delivery the women were
ordered to keep an eye on what would be the sex of the child. That kind of
order was not necessary because it was customary among midwives (Gen. 35:17;
1 Sam. 4:20; cf. Gen. 38:38). Pharaoh’s order only bears on how the women are
from now on to deal with the newborn infants. In addition to a conditional
aspect, there is a temporal aspect as well: 'every time that ...,’
The dual mnx (OT 2 x ), which in Jer. 18:3 refers to the potter’s wheel
(consisting of two disks revolving above each other), causes problems in 1:16.
Already the translators of LXX ('and they are at the point of giving birth’) and
Vulg. ('and the time of giving birth is approaching’) sensed problems here.
According to the discussion in ExR. I, 14, also the rabbis have searched their
brains over it. A view that goes far back (see the targums) has it that a birth
stool is meant68 and that the verse shows knowledge of the at the time
customary mode of delivering in a seated position. A newer view holds that
'stool’ refers to two or four bricks or tiles on which the woman sits in a
kneeled position (see Stol, 57f. and e.g. Te Stroete).69 Also defended is the
view that genitals are meant,70 either the mother’s vagina (Keil,
Baentsch).71 or the genitals of the child.72 Auerbach, 16 n. 2, wants to read
m*ox, ‘male genitals,’ while Van der Woude opts for max = cna + pros
thetic x, 'sons.’73 The problematic character of the term makes it difficult to
arrive at a carefully considered choice. The interpretation birth stool/stones
appears to me less likely. It requires of the reader to think of a woman in
labour on a stool or stones. In my opinion the most attractive view is that the
genitals (or more in general the uterus) of the woman in labour is meant. The
68 See e.g. Dillmann and C. Egli, ZWTh 24 (1881), 206ff.

69 Egyptian texts like the votive stele of Neferabet, 1. 5 (transl. ANET, 381; RTAT, 61) and the
prayer of Simut, I. 74 (transl. RTAT, 65) provide illustrations.
70 See e.g. Ehrlich; as is done more often, he derives the term from ITO and regards the X as a
prosthetic Aleph.
71 According to Baentsch the dual refers to the labia.
7~ A possibility also considered by Baentsch; the dual refers to the testicles; Doller offers the
following explanation: D'DDX = D'TD + prosthetic X, ‘das Dazwischen,’ ‘Spalt,’ the space between
the legs (cf. Deut. 28:57), the genitals.
For the much discussed term see further H.A. Brongers — A.S. van der Woude, "Wat is de
betekenis van ’abnSyim in Exodus 1 16?,* NedThT 20 (1965-66), 241-54; J. Doller, BZ 1 (1909),
255ff.; Schmidt.
254 exodus 1:1-22
ancient notion thought of the uterus as two separate but connected chambers
(see Strieker, I, 39ff.).
It is not said how the midwives are to kill the boys. It would seem that they
were to do this secretly during the delivery, without anyone of those who were
present noticing it (women were usually present during delivery; not the
father). The impression was to be given that the child was stillborn (e.g. Ibn
Ezra, Dillmann, Baentsch, Cassuto, Te Stroete). If one assumes that D*nK
refers to the vagina it is obvious that the women had to kill the boys im
mediately after they were born and their sex was determined, before they could
utter the first cry.
1:17 The midwives, however, feared God and did not do what the king o f Egypt
had ordered them. They let the boys live!
jhtw (with defective ending; cf. Ges-K § 471; Jouon § 44d [see also ]"nni in
1:17,18 and piK'rn in 1:19]; Delitzsch, 10, wants to read rn»n*ni) imperf. cons,
qal of to* (OT ca. 330 x), ‘to fear;’ tn* qal, ‘to be filled with fear,’ is used
absolutely in 2:14; 14:10 (meant is fear of death; cf. 2:15; 14:1 If.) and in 14:13;
20:20 in the formula iKTrrbN, ‘do not fear.’74 to* qal + p + inf. cstr. = ‘to
shrink from doing/to be afraid to do’ something (3:6; 34:30; cf. e.g. Gen. 46:3;
1 Sam. 3:15); to* qal + *:do = ‘to stand in aweo f (9:30; cf. e.g. 1 Kgs. 3:28;
Hag. 1:12). Of the midwives it is said that they stood in awe of God
o*nbt<n*nt<; cf. Gen. 20:11; 42:18), that is, of God as the Giver of moral ordinan
ces and ethical norms which are to be heeded by his moral creatures. From the
words it cannot be determined whether the women belonged to Israel, but only
that they reckoned with God as the Lord of the world and therefore were
conscious of norms, possessed insight into what was ethically acceptab
what not (cf. also Gen. 39:9); see also 18:21: D*nbK *tn*, ‘conscious of norms’
(see further Deut. 25:18; 2 Sam. 23:3; Job 1:1,8,9 etal). With yhwh as object
to* qal occurs in 14:31 with the meaning ‘filled with awe for;’ cf. also 9:20. The
part. niph. toij, ‘dreaded,’ ‘awe-inspiring’ (15:11; 34:10), denotes that which
inspires awe in people (see beside 15:11 e.g. Deut. 10:17; Ps.47:3 etal. and
beside 34:10 e.g. Ps. 66:3,5 and Deut. 10:21; 2 Sam. 7:23 et al.). nto* (OT 45x)
is found in 20:20 with the meaning ‘(holy) fear.’ See further THAT, I, 765ff.;
TWAT, III, 869ff.; M.I. Gruber, VT 40 (1990), 411-22.
Perhaps there is a play on words with the verbs ntn (1:16) and to*; the con
sonants of )n*KYi (1:16) are used in 1:17 to construct a form of k t (anagram).
A play on words with these verbs occurs more often in the OT; see e.g.
74 Cf. THAT, I, 77If.; TWAT, III, 883ff.; E.W. Conrad, Fear Not Warrior: A Study o f 'at tird’
Pericopes in the Hebrew Scriptures, Chico, CA 1985; in connection with the threat posed by enemies
the formula is used e.g. in Num. 21:34; Deut. 1:21, 29; 3:2,22 etal.; the formula is used to
introduce words from God or from his messenger and serves to give encouragement.
Gen. 22:12ff.; Exod. 14:10 Sam. Pent. (cf. LXX), 31; 34:30.75 It happens, too,
that both verbs are confused; see e.g. 20:18; 32:5 (Becker, 5f.). Unlike Pharaoh,
the women don’t let sound reason dictate their conduct (cf. 1:10); their norm
is fear of God, which leads them to disobey Pharaoh (cf. Acts 5:29). The
wisdom teachers taught that the sound mind must be directed by ‘the fear of
the Lord’ (Prov. 1:7 etc.).
*6% with waw consecutive. see 1:12. -q i , cf. Ges-K §521. rrn, see 1:14.
i b \ see 1:15. Rabbinic literature elaborates on the ‘let live:’ the midwives took
care that the newborn infants of the poor were given proper nourishment; at
their prayer there were no stillborn babies and also the lives of the mothers
were spared (bSota lib; ExR. I, 15 and also Rashi; see further Ginzberg, II,
252ff.). In any case, the result of the women’s conduct was that Israel kept
growing (1:20).
1:18 Therefore the king of Egypt summoned the midwives and asked them: ‘Why
in the world did you let the boys live?’
‘summoned,’ see Introd. §3.451.; the fact that Nip instead of the in comparison
weaker idn (1:15,16) is used may suggest that the king was extremely per
turbed. snip (OT ca. 70 x) is an interrogative adverb, likely formed by contrac
tion of ?vr*na, Vhat is known?’ (see Ges-K § 99e; Joiion § 102a, i; Brockel-
mann § 133d; Meyer §86.11), meaning ‘wherefore,’ ‘why.’ In 2:18; 3:3 ima
expresses astonishment; such is also the case in 1:18, but here the tone is
especially that of annoyance and indignation (‘how could you do it ...?’);
indignation comes also through in 5:14; bewilderment and incomprehension
(‘why did you do it like that?’), but also something of reproach (‘why didn’t
you use your head?’) are heard in Jethro’s question in 18:14. With the meaning
‘wherefore,’ ‘why,’ also the term nrpb (ca. 175 x) is used in the OT (no2? = no +
b\ see Ges-K §20k,49f,g; 1021,150e; Joiion § 33,37d, 161h). In 2:13, 20 mb
expresses reproach; in 5:4 indignation (‘how dare you ...!’); in 5:15 bewilder
ment and perplexity (Pharaoh’s unreasonableness causes perplexity); the same
notes sound through in 5:22 ( y h w h ’s actions are an enigma to Moses);
reproach and incomprehension are implied in the no*? of 17:3. Striking is the
alternating use of xmo and na*? in the first chapters of Exodus: xmo (1:18) - na^>
(2:13) - tnio (2:18) - m* (2:20) - ima (3:3) - (5:4) - ima (5:14); after that
the alternation no longer occurs. Jepsen maintains that there is a subtle
difference in meaning in both terms; he points out that reproach sounds
through in questions with na1?, whereas questions with tma seek to obtain
information and express astonishment, sympathy and interest; with respect to
5:14 he speaks of ‘(gut gespielte) Verwunderung;’ with respect to 18:14 he
states that Jethro is concerned about Moses, etc. (p. 107). In my opinion
75 Cf. J. Becker, G o ttesfu rc h t im A lten T esta m en t , Rom 1965, 6.

256 exodus 1 :1 -2 2
Jepsen’s distinction should be handled with caution.76

p’nni (in 1:17 3rd pers. pi. fem.; here 2nd pers. pi. fern.), the closing words are
identical to those in 1:17.
1:19 Then the midwives answered Pharaoh in these words: The Hebrew women
are not like Egyptian women. They are just like animals. Before the midwives get
to themy they have already given birth. ’
‘Egyptian,’ see Introd. §8.19. The interpretation of nvn is disputed. Many
favour the view that nvn is a hapax legomenon, the pi. of a presumed sing, rrn,
Vital,’ ‘strong’ (BDB, KBLy HAL; Ges-B stresses the uncertainty of the inter
pretation); see Murphy, Keil, Dillmann, Clamer, Cassuto, Schmidt. For an
explanation reference is also made to the term n>n in later Hebrew where, like
the Aramaic xn-n, the word can denote both the woman in labour as well as
the midwife; on that basis nvn is interpreted as Vhen they deliver;’ see
Holzinger and G.R. Driver, ZAW 67 (1955), 246ff. (he reads nvn), and also e.g.
Te Stroete. It is conjectured that the versions show evidence of acquaintance
with the above possibilities. See LXX: t(ktodctiv, ‘they deliver’: Vulg.: ipsae
enim obstetricandi habent scientiam, ‘for they themselves know the art of
performing the delivery;’ also p"Dn, ‘they are capable,’ in TO and jtram ]vn,
‘they are strong and capable,’ in TPsJ likely rest on this last interpretation; see
also Rashi. In contrast, FT and TNf have the rendering p'n, ‘they are vigorous
(strong).’ In TPsJ, FT, TNf the delivery is not seen as being purely the work of
the woman; reference is made to divine support: before the midwife arrives,
the women in labour pray to their Father in heaven; he hears their prayer and
they give birth. Delitzsch, 115, and Beer, among others, propose the reading
ni*?n (part. pi. fem. qal of Wi): Svhen the travail begins.’ According to an
altogether different interpretation, found already in bSota lib and ExR. I, 16
(see further Rosmarin, 38), nvn is the plural of rrn, ‘wild animals’ (see
1:14):77 like the animals the Hebrew women needed no help with the deliv
ery. The objection that one might expect the particle d, Ehrlich (he reads nvn)
counters by saying that its absence would make the words even more offen
sive.78 An objection would be that this reading all too much betrays rabbinic
subtlety. However, the context makes it attractive. Moreover, in this inter
pretation nvn has a regular meaning. The Masoretic pointing and the rend
ering in the versions are likely due to dismay on the part of the translators
76 See further J. Barr, “Why? in Biblical Hebrew,- JThS 36 (1985), 1-33; A. Jepsen, “Warum?:
Eine lexikalische und theologische Studie," in Fs L. Rost, Das feme und das nahe Wort), Berlin
1967, 106-13; D. Michel, “‘Warum’ und ‘Wozu’?,“ Studien zur interkulturellen Geschichte des
Christentutns 48 (1988), 191-210; M. Ogushi, Der Tadel im Alten Testament, Frankfurt am M. et al.
1978.
77 See e.g. LV, CV, Buber-Rosenzweig (‘tierlebig’), Ehrlich, Heinisch.
78 The LV is based on the reading nvnD (in place of n v n % D).
caused by the shocking expression. Another consideration is that the Masor-

etes may have thought it highly unlikely that Hebrew midwives (cf. 1:15) would
talk like that about members of their own people. If it is assumed that the
midwives were Egyptians the interpretation ‘(wild) animals’ makes excellent
sense: with their shocking language the midwives make it clear to Pharaoh that
they share the Egyptians’ loathing of Israel (cf. 1:12). Bear in mind, too, that
the description of the growth of Israel makes one think of the reproduction of
animals (1:7,12). The midwives would not have been tactful if they would have
depicted the Hebrew women to Pharaoh as vigorous and strong, thereby
implying that the Egyptian women were delicate and weak.79 Their excuse
would have been received as an insult. In contrast, the interpretation ‘animals’
implies that the Egyptian women are normal women and the Hebrew women
abnormal. By calling the Israelites ‘animals’ the women also aggravate the
existing fear of the Israelites.
□ip (OT ca. 50 x) is used to express a negative meaning ‘not yet’ (9:30; 10:7;
Ges-K § 152r; Joiion § 160n; Meyer § 121.2c) and as conjunction meaning
‘before’ (12:34), sometimes + D (1:19; Ges-K § 107c; Joiion § 104b; Meyer
§ 88.2,3); in Exod. d id is always followed by the imperf.;80 in my judgment,
to take the imperf. as indicating a pluperfect in 1:19; 9:30; 10:7 makes good
sense, (see 1:15), the perf. cons, indicates that this is how it always
happened (Ges-K § 112oo; cf. also KoSynt §415w; Brockelmann § 163c, 176a).

In connection with 1:19 exegetes are wont to ask whether the midwives spoke
the truth. Often it is said that their reaction was at least in part based on fact.
In support of that view it is pointed out that also in the modern era bedouin
women and women from the country have little difficulty with the delivery and
that giving birth hardly interrupts their daily routine (e.g. Keil, Dillmann, Beer,
Heinisch, Gispen, Te Stroete, and see also Benzinger, 123). Also the fact that
the reply of the women satisfies Pharaoh and that he does not punish them is
regarded as an indication that there was truth in the answer. In my judg
ment,taking the reply of the women seriously is the wrong approach. The
narrative does not give information about the mode of delivery among Israel
and in Egypt.81* The writer aims to tell that the king of Egypt has the wool
79 See Keil, Dillmann; and also GreBmann, 7, 15, who thinks that the passage reflects the pride
of the Hebrews over their women as well as their contempt for the Egyptian women.
It is assumed that the imperf. usually denotes the past tense; see Ges-K § 107c; Joiion § 113j;
Meyer § 100.2d; but according to Ges-K § 107c; 152r and Joiion § 160n, in 9:30; 10:7 it stands for
the present tense.
^ Beer even thinks that the text correctly indicates that since ancient times Egypt was renowned
for its sciences and especially its medical skills; from the OT one does not get the impression that
the deliveries of Israelite women always went smoothly (e.g. Gen. 3:16; 35:16ff.; 1 Sam. 4:19ff.);
also worth of note are the images derived from pregnancy and labour in the prophets (e.g.
258 E X O D U S 1:1-22
pulled over his eyes by two women who dish up a fantastic story (for the
requirement of needing two witnesses see Introd. § 4.3.1).
In the church’s discussion about the appropriateness of the so-called white lie
1:19 has been one of the more important texts.82
1:20 And God dealt well with the midwives and the people continued to grow and
became still more numerous.
1:21 Because the midwives feared God he made them mothers of tribes.
29^1 imperf. cons. hiph. of 31ohar (+ derivatives; OT ca. 740 x); atr hiph.
here means ‘deal well’ (+ *?) (cf. Gen. 12:16; Num. 10:29,32 etal.) and is used
in 30:7 for preparing and taking care of lamps so that they function properly;
the adjective aio83 often means ‘useful,’ ‘suitable,’ ‘profitable;’ it is used in
reference to a newborn child (2:2): ‘fine’ and so ‘promising’,84 and the land of
Canaan (3:8; cf. Num. 14:7; Deut. 1:25,35; 3:25 etal.) which so is characterized
as a land that is very beneficial because it produces so much (cf. Gen. 41:26; 1
Sam. 8:14; 2 Kgs. 3:19, 25; Ezek. 31:16); see further 14:12; 18:17. roio, is used
in 18:9 for the blessings of God (cf. Judg. 8:35; 9:16; 1 Sam. 24:19).85
a*n (see 1:7) [Sam. Pent.: •d t i ] and lassn (see 1:7), also in 16:4; 33:4 dv is
preceded by a sing, and followed by a pi. (cf. KOSynt § 346d; Ges-K § 145g;
Meyer §94.5d). iko, see 1:7. For the first words in 1:21 see 1:17. s?sn, the
implied subject is God; LXX reads: inohiav iautaiQ oiirfou; (the subject is the
women; similarly in some manuscripts of Pesh.; cf. Ruth 4:11); TPsJ, FT, TNf
have more details in the text; in the first part of it women are the subject:
‘they gained a good reputation for themselves,’ ‘for the generations’ (TPsJ)/
‘among the generations’ (FTv)/‘in the midst of the house of Israel’ (TNf)/*with
their father in heaven’ (FTP); in TPsJ, in the second part, which provides an
interpretation of 1:20b, ‘the Word of YHWH’is subject; in TNf yh w h is
obviously subject, while in FT the women are also the subject of the ‘building’
of ‘the houses’ (see further below). J.E. Hogg, AJSL 41 (1925), 267f., proposes
to read i&sn: ‘they (the midwives) established families for them (the people).’
Note, too, the use of nt»v in 1:17,18 and 1:21: God’s action is correlative with
the (in)action of the midwives, onb, here used instead of ]nb; it happens more
Isa. 13:8; 26:17; 37:3; Jer. 4:31; 22:23 et al.); see e.g. Struys, 213ff.; De Vaux, I, 86ff.
8^ See e.g. BB, Ilf.; Calmet; Childs, 23f.; M.A. Klopfenstein, Die Luge nach dern Alten
Testament, Zurich 1964, 339f.; see also at 5:9.
Q 'l
It cannot always be determined with certainty whether is an adjective or a verbal form; so
for example in 14:12 can be taken as a qal masculine part.
84 Cf. 1 Sam. 8:16; 9:2; 1 Kgs. 20:3 and see also Gen. 6:2; Judg. 15:2; 1 Kgs. 20:3 (brave
women); Gen. 18:7; 27:9; 41:26; 1 Sam. 8:16 (well-fed/fine and strong animals).
85 See further THAT, I, 652ff.; TWAT, III, 315ff.; I. Johag, Qltt-Terminus technicus in
Vertrags- und Biindnisformularen des Alten Orients und des Alten Testaments,- in Fs G J.
Botterweck, Bonn 1977, 3-23; C. Westermann, “Das Schone im Alten Testament,- in Fs W. Zim-
merli, Beitrage zur Alttestamentiichen Theologie, Gottingen 1977, 479-97.
often that masculine suffixes (especially in the pi.) are used with feminine
substantives (KoSynt. § 14; Ges-K § 135o; Brockelmann § 124b); it has also
been suggested that mb is used here on account of the following a (both a and
a are labials) (Holzinger, Cassuto); Calmet points to the possibility that onb
may refer to the Hebrews: the conduct of the midwives made it possible for
God to bring forth generations; in this interpretation and Hogg’s conjecture
1:21b is a repeat in different words of 1:20a. o*ro, see Introd. § 3.9.2.
Observations with 1:20-21

Pharaoh could not appreciate the actions of the midwives, but God did, and he
showed it too. How? Usually ‘to deal well with’ is thought to refer to material
blessings (cf. e.g. Gen. 12:16) and the gift of a numerous offspring (cf.
Gen. 32:13; Deut. 28:63). In this interpretation 1:21b is understood as an
elucidation of 1:20a. Cassuto thinks that 1:20a also reports that God blessed
the work of the midwives so that (see 1:20b) Israel kept increasing. According
to Eerdmans, 9, 1:20a means that through God’s goodness Pharaoh did not kill
the women and not even punished them.86 In my judgment, in view of its
location between 1:19 and 1:20b, 1:20a is best understood as saying that God
treated the women well, that is, he made sure that Pharaoh did not become
suspicious and believed the explanation of the women, so that they could
continue their work unhindered and Israel kept increasing (cf. 1:7 and 1:12).
Whatever Pharaoh undertook, he failed to stop the growth of Israel. In
connection with 1:20 Schmidt points correctly to Prov. 14:27; 19:23 etal.:
because the women feared God they were kept from harm and also the work
of their hands was blessed.
Modern interpreters usually favour the notion that 1:21b says that the
midwives were richly blessed with children. It is even proposed that the women
were unmarried and that they found a husband and had children, or that they,
though married, had remained childless and now were blessed with children.87
Ehrlich considers this interpretation of 1:21b unlikely because in antiquity the
midwives were older women past the age of child bearing. He wants to read
D'nbi onb w i and takes this clause, of which the women would be the subject,
as dependent o n ' d: ‘when ... the women looked after themselves and took pity
on the boys’ (for ntt/s + b see Gen. 27:37; 30:30). Beer notes that 1:21b does
0£
Eerdmans disagrees that 1:20a is a doublet of 1:21 (so, e.g. Meyer, IN, 42); the relation
between 1:20 and 1:21 is disputed: Baentsch regards 1:20b and 1:21a as an addition; Fohrer, 12,
1:20a; often (e.g. Noth, Te Stroete, Rylaarsdam, Schmidt) 1:21 is regarded as a secondary (wrong)
elucidation of 1:20a; Holzinger wonders whether originally l:20f. did not stand between 1:17 and
1:18.
07
Murphy; cf. also Hyatt: likely barren women served as midwife; it is well known that in Israel
having many children was regarded as a great blessing and as a divine reward for being God-fearing
(e.g. Gen. 24:60; 30:11, 13; Exod. 23:26; Deut. 7:14; Ps. 127:3; 128:3); see e.g. De Vaux, I, 84ff.;
Wolff, 259ff.
260 exodus 1 :1 -2 2
not fit the context; Egyptian women whose work took them away from their
homes would hardly welcome a large family since they lacked the time to raise
these children. He thinks that the verse is from a glossarist who thought that
the midwives were Israelite women. In my view, one cannot just interprete
dvo dt6 »sn as ‘he (God) gave them offspring’ (cf. 2 Sam. 7:11; 1 Kgs. 2:24 and
see also Deut. 25:9; 2 Sam. 7:27; 1 Kgs. 11:38; Ruth 4:1 and Ehrlich). The rabbis
rightly saw more in it; in their view, the midwives (according to them Jochebed
and Miriam) became tribal mothers of generations of priests and Levites
(Jochebed) and of kings (Miriam; presumably she was the tribal mother of the
wise man Bezalel and of the family of David).8®Also TPsJ, FT and TNf (see
already above) evidence knowledge of this interpretation; TPsJ and FTV: ‘the
house of the kingship and the house of the highpriesthood;’ TNf: ‘the house of
the kingship and the house of the highpriesthood. Miriam took the crown of
the kingship and Jochebed the crown of the highpriesthood’ (cf. FTP). What
ever one’s view of the exegesis of 1:21b in rabbinic literature, the supposition
that what is meant is that the women became tribal mothers of new ‘houses’,
extended families, is correct. Likely what is meant is that both Egyptian
women were included in Israel and that with them new ‘houses’ were es
tablished. Like in the case of Rahab (Josh. 6:22ff.) and Ruth (Ruth 4:11) (cf.
also Matt. 1:5) this would be a case of non-Israelite women who became tribal
mothers of Israelite families (cf. Leibowitz, 34, 36). In any case this much can
be said: because the women refused to work against the fulfillment of the
promise God lets them share in the realization of the promise of numerous
descendants and so as it were incorporates them into Israel.
1:22 Therefore Pharaoh ordered all his people: ‘A ll the boys who are born you
must throw into the River; all the girls you may keep alive. ’
m s (see Introd. § 3.43.1) is a stronger verb than m* used in 1:15,16. Unless
mx is translated with the colourless ‘to say’ it is hard to bring out the dif
ference in the translation. Clear is that Pharaoh’s patience is at its end. ‘all his
people’ (see Introd. §3.40.1), in contrast to the two midwives (1:15).
and rarrô, see Introd. §3.26. By placing it first prr^D is given emphasis (cf.
Joiion § 125n). mb', see 1:15. ‘River,’ see Introd. §8.10; for the place of the
verb see Joiion § 155s.
irp'^Bn imperf. hiph. + suffix (it relates to p; cf. KoSynt §341c; Ges-K
§ 143b; Joiion § 156c; Brockelmann § 123b) of (OT ca. 125 x); ~pu hiph.
(Exod. 10 x) ‘to throw,’ ‘to cast,’ is used with both persons as well as material
things as object. The purpose is variously expressed; e.g. by n-locale (1:22; 4:3),
by ' 3D1? (7:9f.), by bt< (15:25), by b (22:30), by 3 (32:24). The purpose is not
always specifically mentioned (7:12). In 32:19 hiph. is used in combination8
88 See bSota lib ; ExR I, 17; MidrTanh. Exod. X,5 and also Rashi, and see further Ginzberg, II,
253f.; Rosmarin, 38.
with -00 piel (hendiadys): ‘to smash.’ See further THAT, II, 916ff. M. Cogan,
JNES 27 (1968), 133ff., thinks that *|^0 hiph. is sometimes used with the
meaning ‘to leave someone to his own devices,* ‘to abandon (an infant)’
(Gen. 21:5; Jer. 38:6,9; Ezek. 16:5; Ps. 71:9). Presumably such would also be
the case in 1:22. To avoid the risk of incurring blood guilt Pharaoh orders to
leave the boys near the River (Moses’ mother acts accordingly; see 2:3). This
view is far-fetched (see however at 2:3 and cf. Acts 7:19). rrn, see 1:14. Note
also the repeated bz (3 x) in 1:22; it underscores the power and urgency of
Pharaoh’s order; his patience is exhausted; by means of a drastic measure he
wants to solve the ‘problem* once and for all.

The question presents itself why Pharaoh wants to reach his objective by
having the Israelite boys killed. According to Pseudo-Philo, IX, 1, the Egyp
tians were after the boys because they wanted the girls as wives for their slaves
so that their offspring would serve them. Philo (VM, 1,8) mentions that the
Egyptians let the girls live because, due to their natural weakness, the women
would be incapable to fight; in contrast, a large male population would give
the attacker a distinct advantage, because owing to superior physical strength
the male could not be easily conquered or destroyed. Cassuto points to
Gen. 12:2 (Abram fears that they will kill him in Egypt) and observes: ‘The
parallelism is apparently intended by Scripture in accordance with its principle
that the experiences of the fathers foreshadow those of the descendants.’89 In
my view, the most one can infer from Gen. 12:12 and Exod. 1:16,22 is that in a
strange environment men were more at risk than women. Apparently, unlike
women, they were viewed as the bearers of the essence of a particular people.
In contrast, forcibly or not, through marriage women could be absorbed in
another people (Num. 31:7,9,15,17f.; Deut. 20:13f.; cf. Judg. 21:10ff., and see
also ExR. I, 18).
It has also been suggested that the question why the boys were singled out
and threatened with death can only be answered if the formation of the text is
taken into account. The underlying assumption is that the text in its current
form contains discrepant elements. So, for example, slave labour and the
murder of young boys cannot go together because eventually the latter would
make the former impossible. Moreover, if Pharaoh wanted to annihilate Israel,
why would he only kill the boys and not also the men? Presumably such
considerations lead to the conclusion that the story makes good sense only if it
is assumed that the real purport of the story is a motif that is also found
89 Cf. idem, From Noah to Abraham, II, Jerusalem 1964, 334ff., and The Documentary
Hypothesis, Jerusalem 1961, 78ff. [the parallelism assumed by Cassuto is rooted in Midrash
literature and, among others, is also found in an anonymous Nestorian commentary on the
Pentateuch; cf. T. Jansma, OTS 12 (1958), 168f.
262 exodus 1 :1 -2 2
elsewhere in a variety of forms. According to that motif, a ruler discovers that

a child is or has been born who will take his throne; he does all he can to kill
the rival but does not succeed.90 In brief, according to this construction 1:15-
2:10 would contain the story of a failed attempt by Pharaoh to get rid of his
rival. It is assumed that 1:22 and 2:Iff. have center stage in the story and that
1:15-21 heightens the suspense: Pharaoh makes two attempts to kill his rival
(cf. e.g. BOhl, Beer, GreBmann, 5ff.; Auerbach, 17). In support of this inter
pretation reference is made to the extra-biblical Jewish tradition about
Exod. 1-2. Also in that tradition not Israel’s phenomenal increase but Phar
aoh’s fear at the birth of a rival is adduced as the reason for his actions. In
TPsJ, 1:15 is introduced with the note that a dream made Pharaoh give the
order to the midwives. In his dream he saw the land of Egypt in one of the
scales of a balance and a lamb in the other. The scale with the lamb was the
heaviest. So he summoned all his magicians and their leaders Jannes and
Jambres explained the dream. They told Pharaoh that a child would be born in
Israel who would destroy Egypt.91 Josephus (AJ, II, 205ff.) writes that a wise
man, one of the holy writers who are skilled in accurately predicting the
future, foretold that someone would be born in Israel who would overthrow
the rule of the Egyptians and that, on the advice of the wise man, Pharaoh
decided to destroy the Israelite boys.92
90 Compare what is said not only about Gilgamesh, Cyrus and Oedipus but also about Jesus
(Matt. 2) whose lives were supposedly similarly threatened; see e.g. GreBmann, Iff.; Gaster, 224f.
91 For Jannes and Jambres see also at 7:11 (cf. 2 Tim. 3:8) and further e.g. L.L. Grabbe, "The
Jannes/Jambres Tradition in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan and its Date,* JBL 98 (1979), 393-401;
K. Koch, *Das Lamm, das Agypten vernichtet," ZNW 57 (1966), 79-93 (with critique by J. Jeremias
and C. Burchard on pp. 216-28); McNamara, 82ff.
9^ For the tradition in Jewish literature that Pharaoh, frightened at the coming of a rival,
decides to slaughter all the children, see also e.g. Ginzberg, II, 254ff.; Rosmarin, 38ff. Artapanus
(in Eusebius, PE, IX, xxvii) does not portray the king of Egypt but Chenephres, the husband of
Merris, Pharaoh’s daughter (see 2:5), as the man who views Moses as the rival. He does not
mention the massacre of the children. See also Philo. He tells that Egyptians officials, after Moses
has killed the Egyptian (2:12), accuse him to Pharaoh by suggesting that he might usurp the king’s
throne ( VM, I, 46). According to a Muslim tradition it was three dreams that convinced Pharaoh
that one of the Israelite women had bom a son who would smash him and his people. On the
advice of Haman, his vizier, Pharaoh ordered all the children bom in that year killed as well as all
the pregnant women, and he forbade the men to come near their wives. Seven thousand children
under the age of one were strangled and just as many pregnant women were thrown into the Nile.
On pain of death the men were ordered to stay away from their wives (Weil, 126ff.). In the tales
about Moses’s youth in rabbinic literature the theme of Pharaoh’s fear of a rival is pervasive. So it
is said that when Moses was three years old he grabbed the crown from the head of the king and
put it on his own (Ginzberg, II, 272ff.; Rosmarin, 54ff.). Josephus tells that Pharaoh placed the
crown on Moses’ head and that Moses took it, threw it on the ground and stepped on it (AJ, II,
233ff.). Muslim tradition has it that at the age of four Moses snatched the crown from Pharaoh’s
head, threw it to the ground, and kicked it away with his foot. According to that same tradition, as
a lad of six, in a fit of anger Moses once kicked so hard against Pharaoh’s throne that it fell over,
making Pharaoh fall to the ground so that blood spurted from his nose and mouth (Weil, 141 ff.).
Only if it is assumed that the Egyptians were driven by economic concerns

when they subjected the Israelites to slave labour can the story be regarded as
containing discrepant elements. As noted more often (see at 1:7 and 1:10) the
writer was not interested in Pharaoh’s economic and cultural policies; his
object was to describe how Pharaoh and the Egyptians grew increasingly bolder
in their attempts to stop the fulfillment of the promise of a large offspring (see
essentials).
In my judgment it is wrong to say that 1:15-2:10 only makes good sense if it
read as the story of a failed attempt by Pharaoh to do away with the man who
is after his job. In Exodus Pharaoh’s intent to kill the boys is directed against
the realization of God’s promises. What can be conceded is that in that
explanation 1:15-2:10 becomes a coherent whole which clearly answers the
question why only the boys, and not also the girls and the other Israelites, had
to be killed. The connection between 1:15-22 and 2:1-1093 in Exodus in the
text before us is looser and more tenuous. There are, for example, questions
about the relation between 1:22 and 2:1-10. To whom precisely, to mention no
more, was the order given and how long did it remain in force? (see below).
On this interpretation these questions are not the hardest to answer. In my
exegesis I have stayed with the extant text in which 1:15-22 and 2:1-10 are not
a harmonious whole. However, the function of 1:15-22 is clear. The passage
serves to introduce 2:1-10. Pharaoh’s order creates the conditions necessary for
the rise of the liberator of Israel (see essentials).
What is the precise meaning of ‘all his people’ (1:22)? Modern exegetes
commonly interpret the verse as saying that the Egyptians were ordered to kill
every boy born to the Israelites but may let the girls live (cf. 1:16). However,
the text does not say that only Israelite boys are the intended victims, so the
text could be read as saying that Pharaoh commands to throw all the boys,
including the Egyptian ones, into the river. To exclude that possibility Sam.
Pent, contains after Ti^n the addition (cf. LXX). Also TO, TPsJ, TNf,
SamT contain a pointer to the identity of the boys (cf. also Josephus, AJ,
II, 205; Pseudo-Philo, IX, l).94 In contrast, rabbinic literature contains the
notion that Pharaoh’s command spared no one and that it also included the
Egyptian boys. It places 1:22 in the following setting: the astrologers told
Pharaoh that the mother of Israel’s liberator was already pregnant, but that
they did not know if the liberator would be an Israelite or an Egyptian;
therefore Pharaoh decided that for a period of nine months all the Israelite as
well as the Egyptian boy babies were to be thrown into the river; this the
93 Cf. B. Weber, "‘..Jede Tochter aber sollt ihr am Leben lassen!’ - Beobachtungen zu Ex 1,15-
2,10 und seinem Kontext aus literaturwissenschaflicher Perspektive," BN 55 (1990), 47-76; I. Willi-
Plein, "Ort und literarische Funktion der Geburtsgeschichte des Mose," VT 41 (1991), 110-18.
94 See in this connection B. Chiesa, “Suit ’utilizzazione dell’ Aggadah per la restitutzione del
testo ebraico in Esodo 1 22," Henoch 1 (1979), 342-52.
264 exodus 1 :1 -2 2
Egyptians refused to do on the ground that the liberator could not be a

Egyptian (ExR. I, 18). Another view is that the order was given on the day of
the birth, because the astrologers knew the day on which the liberator was
born but not his nationality.95 Acts 7:19 and Heb. 11:23 presuppose that
Pharaoh’s order was also directed at the Israelites (see Introd. § 13.4,5).
Comparing 2:1-10 with 1:15-22 one gets the impression that the Israelites were
expected to obey Pharaoh’s order (the mother reacts in her own way to
Pharaoh’s order; see 2:3) and so one would almost think that ‘all his people’
also includes the Israelites. Moreover, in light of 2:6 it is obvious that the
order only pertained to the Hebrew children. However, by itself 1:22 supports
neither the one nor the other view. Due to its brevity the meaning of 1:22 is
not entirely clear. However, as stated above, the combination of 1:15-22 with
2:1-10 leads one to think in a certain direction for the meaning of the two
passages is interrelated.
Exodus contains no information about the execution of Pharaoh’s edict.
Extra-biblical tradition, however, fills the gap with a colourful picture of what
happened. Jewish tradition portrays in detail how the Egyptians went all out to
carry out the command of Pharaoh, and the perishing of the Egyptians in the
sea (Exod. 14) is looked upon as retribution for the drowning of the Israelite
boys (see Ginzberg, II, 256ff.; see also at 2:3).
Exegetes sometimes ask how long Pharaoh’s edict lasted and what its effect
was. The question arises because elsewhere Israel is described as a very large
people (12:37; cf. Num. 1:46; but note also Deut. 7:7) (see also at 2:1-10).
Moreover, a tension can be detected between l:15ff. and the following chap
ters: because Pharaoh evidently aimed to destroy Israel it causes surprise that
he only ordered to kill the newborn boys (see above) and because of his fear it
seems strange that he refused to let Israel go (5:2 et al.) (e.g. Keil, Dillmann).
The text is silent about the duration and effect of the measure. Observations
such as that the order was not fully and constantly carried out, that the
Israelites tried to prevent the carrying out of the order, that the Pharaoh of 5:2
was not the same (see 2:23) as the Pharaoh of l:15ff., that he had begun to
realize that Israel could be a big help to Egypt’s economy and that therefore
he wanted to keep the people in Egypt, were not the writer’s concern and are
therefore beside the point. His slant in telling the story was to show that at
every turn in the road Pharaoh opposed the promise of a large offspring and
of a land of their own for the Israelites (see at 1:7,10). Seen in light of 12:37,
also Pharaoh’s cruel order (1:22) accomplished nothing. There is no way to
stop the fulfillment of the promise that Israel would become a large nation.
Josephus (CA, I, 304ff.), borrowing from the work of Lysimachus, relates
that the Egyptian king Bocchoris intended to throw the Jewish people, which
^ bSota 12; MidrTanh Ex.X,5 and further Ginzberg, V, 393. In Jub. 47:3 the duration of the
order is set at seven months. As regards the length of the edict see Ginzberg, V, 399 tl 56.
consisted of lepers and sick people who defiled the temples of Egypt, into the
sea and that, at least as regards the lepers, he also carried out this intent. This
act of violence and also the violence referred to in Exod. l:15ff. is historically
unverifiable. What can be said is that world history is full of such violent acts
(for data in classical authors see Dillmann) (cf. also Ps. 137:9).
exo dus 2 :1 - 1 0
TH E BIRTH OF ISRAEL’S D ELIV ER ER
2:1 Nevertheless a man from the family of Levi dared to take to wife the
daughter of Levi
2 The woman became pregnant and gave birth to a son. When she saw how
well-formed he was she hid him for three months.
3 Because she could hide him no longer she got a papyrus basket for him and
made it water proof with bitumen and tar. She put the boy in it and placed the
basket among the reeds on the bank of the River.
4 His sister remained at a distance to see what would happen to him.
5 Then the daughter of Pharaoh came to bathe in the River. While her ladies
in waiting walked back and forth along the River, she saw the basket among the
reeds. She sent her maid to bring it
6 and opened it. When she saw the boy she felt sorry for him because the lad
started crying and she said, This is one of the Hebrew boys. ’
1 Then his sister asked the daughter of Pharaoh, ‘Shall I go and find a nurse
from the Hebrew women to nurse the boy for you?’
8 The daughter of Pharaoh answered her, ‘Go ahead!’ Then the girl went to
get the mother of the boy.
9 Then the daughter of Pharaoh ordered her, ‘Take this boy and nurse him for
me; I will pay you for it. ’ The mother took the boy and nursed him.
10 The boy grew up and she brought him to Pharaoh’s daughter. She regarded
him as her own son and named him Moses (‘he who goes up*), for, ’ she said, 7
pulled him out of the water. ’
Moving from chapter 1 to 2:1-10 one gets the impression that the writer shifts
his focus from the people of Israel as a whole to a random Israelite family. His
intention seems to be, by means of a vignette of the resourcefulness of one
Israelite family to get around Pharaoh’s order (1:22), to impress upon the
readers the awful predicament of the people and its spiritual resilience.
However, at the end of the pericope the writer indicates that 2:1-10 is not a
story that is to be read as an example of how shrewd Israelite women, driven
by love for their children, tried to find ways to at least save their children from
death. When Pharaoh’s daughter takes the name Moses, ‘he who goes up,’
upon her lips (2:10), it cannot escape the reader that the story is not just
ESSEN T IA LS AND PERSPECTIV ES 267
about a lucky fellow, a little Hebrew boy, who thanks to the dedication and
ingenuity of his mother and sister and owing to fortuitous circumstances not
only stayed alive, but even got a life as a prince. Instead the reader will have
sensed that the story was that of a man who, thanks to Pharaoh’s order, ended
up at Pharaoh’s court and was given the opportunity to train himself to
become the leader of his people, the Israelites, and to lead them out of Egypt.
In short, the name as it comes from the mouth of Pharaoh’s daughter sounds
as a promise. It is intimated to the reader that the birth and rescue of the
child, which is the subject of 2:1- 10, is an anticipation of the liberation of the
enslaved people and the promise that the pledge of the gift of the land will be
kept. The entire story must be read in the light of the end of the story: the act
of the women saved the life of the future deliverer of Israel and enabled him
to become qualified for his task.
The writer has the events happen at the River, the place of calamity (1:22).
He relates how while the edict of Pharaoh was in effect a man from the family
of Levi mustered the courage to marry a daughter of Levi (2:1). That is all he
says about the man. The leading role is taken over by the woman. Initially the
event happens in the quietness (of the home). The writer makes the reader
privy to what happens within those four walls. Suspense mounts when the
reader is told of the birth of, note well, a son. With the Pharaoh’s decree still
ringing in his ears, the reader wonders, ‘am I going to witness a horrible scene,
a mother killing her own son?’ Fortunately the fear is unfounded. Because the
child was a fine looking boy the mother is courageous enough to hide him. For
three months she manages to keep him alive like that (2:2). Then another
critical moment comes up. The mother can no longer keep quiet the presence
of the boy. It is no longer possible to keep him hidden. Suspense mounts
again. Is Pharaoh’s order going to be obeyed and the boy killed after all? With
rivetted attention the reader follows the actions of the mother. The mother
seems to carry out the Pharaoh’s command, though not quite literally. Instead
of throwing the child into the Stream, she deposits him in a basket among the
reeds at the bank of the river (2:3). So the writer has brought the story and
the readers to the spot where all the leading actors and those in subordinate
roles will be and the scenes will unfold before their eyes (2:3-9).
When the basket has been placed among the reeds the mother steps back.
The boy’s sister remains behind, but not at the center of the scene (2:4). At
the center is the basket with its precious cargo. Attentively the sister watches
the basket, wondering what will happen to her little brother. Suddenly the
reader notices movement. Would you believe it, the one appearing on the
scene is the daughter of Pharaoh, the very king who issued the order; she is
accompanied by an entourage of court ladies. Heart pounding, the reader
becomes a participant in a lovely and peaceful scene, the bathing of a princess.
The court ladies, who are to keep unwanted spectators at a distance, cannot
prevent that not only the sister but also the reader sees how Pharaoh’s
268 exodus 2 :1 - 1 0
daughter spots the basket (2:5) and has it brought to her by one of her maids.
How will this turn out? The writer doesn’t mention the look of surprise on the
face of Pharaoh’s daughter. That does not particularly interest the reader.
Knowing what is in the basket, the reader’s absorbing interest is what Phara
oh’s daughter will do once she discovers the child. There is no reason not to
think that she, the daughter of the Pharaoh who issued the order, will right
away carry out that order. It is a highly critical moment. The reader holds her
breath, but then breathes more easily when Pharaoh’s daughter does not
immediately do the expected thing. An inner struggle, not wanting to do what
she knows is expected of her, seems to momentarily paralyze the princess. She
pities the child in the basket, but also knows that he is a Hebrew boy who is
not allowed to live (2:6). At that moment the little boy’s sister takes center
stage in the scene. She acts as if Pharaoh’s daughter has already decided to let
the child live and to keep the boy for herself, and only wonders who can nurse
him for her. Deftly she helps the princess make the right decision. The
princess responds favourably to her suggestion that she find a Hebrew nurse
(2:7,8). Then the reader sees the little boy’s mother reappear on the scene.
She is asked to nurse her own son, even gets paid for it! That is what happens
(2:9). So the boy’s life is preserved because Pharaoh’s daughter adopts him as
her own; he also remains a genuine Israelite and Levite) because his own
mother nurses him. In a final note (2:10) it is stated that the genuinely
Israelite boy became the adopted son of Pharaoh’s daughter and that he owed
his suggestive name to her, a name which she clarified with the observation, ‘I
pulled him out of the water.’ It was in effect her way of saying that she had
gone against the order of her father.
Again (cf. l:15ff.) it is women who manage to circumvent and bring to
nought a command of Pharaoh. Again it is women whose plans prevail. So for
the second time - hence compellingly (see Introd. §4.3.1) - it is brought out
how naive and dense Pharaoh really was.
Though the writer does not mention the name of God (cf. essentials 1:8-22),
there is no doubt that in his mind the hand of God controlled the events and
caused the promising ending.1
All sorts of questions about the story of the birth of the future deliverer of
Israel are bound to remain: How could Pharaoh’s daughter explain her act to
her father? What was done to assure that no one bothered the mother when
she nursed her son? How many boys exactly were thrown into the river and
1 Ephraem removes all doubt in his exegesis of 2:5: it was very warm that day and earlier than
usual Pharaoh’s daughter went to bathe; so it was brought about that she would take from the river
and raise someone who in the sea would avenge the children who had been thrown into the river;
cf. T. Jansma, “Ephraem on Exodus II, 5: Reflections on the Interplay of Human Freewill and
Divine Providence," OrChrP 39 (1973), 5-28; see further at 2:3, 5.
how many did others escape? How long did the decree remain in force?*2 The
writer passes over these questions. His concern is this one child. The reader
has heard enough about Pharaoh’s orders. The thrust of the story is clear:
these orders are doomed to fail. The growth of the people cannot be halted,
no matter the measures tried against it. But there is still the question concer
ning the promise of the land. Will the people take possession of the land of
promise? In a way already in Exodus 2 the writer deals with this question. He
recounts how Israel’s deliverer was born, and how his life was led in such a
way that it equipped him to be the leader of his people, able to resist Pharaoh
and to lead the people out of Egypt.

As noted in the introduction to the exegesis of chapter 1, in my judgment 2:1

starts a new chapter in the story, a chapter comprising 2:1- 10. 2:11 I regard as
the beginning of the next main part. That 2:1-10 occupies a separate place in
the story is not in dispute. However, there are exegetes who view 2:1-10 as a
sub part of a larger unit, 2:1-22 (e.g. Baentsch, Beer, Heinisch), or 2:1-25 (e.g.
Cole, Michaeli), which deals with the birth and early incidents in the life of
Moses.
Several interpreters believe that 2:1-10 is a literary composition, and that in
any case the material is not from P but from older sources J, E (L ). But there is
no consensus about what is to be attributed to which sources.3 The story
contains one striking incongruity. 2:If. gives the impression that the story is
about the birth of the first child of the parents mentioned in the verse, while
2:4, 7ff. assume that there is an older sister. Some exegetes see this incongruity
as an indication that 2:4, 7-10a is a later addition to the story (e.g. Noth,
Schmidt and note also Auerbach, 14f.; GreBmann, Iff.). The question is taken
up in the exegesis of 2:1-2.
'y
* Ishodad cites the problem that if from the moment of the birth of Moses to the time of the
exodus, a time span of eighty years, all the Israelite boys were drowned, not one Israelite would
have been alive anymore. According to him those aware of the problem solved it by holding that
God’s grace protected the children and blinded the eyes of the Egyptians (cf. Gen. 19:11;
2 Kgs. 6:18). ExR I, 24 relates that after Moses had been placed in the water, Pharaoh was
informed that Israel’s deliverer had been thrown into the water and that then he rescinded the
decree; in short, Pharaoh’s daughter did not go against her father’s order (for the length of the
decree see also 1:22). For details on how the tradition has handled 2:1-10 see the exegesis.
3 See beside the commentaries (e.g. Holzinger, Baentsch, Beer, Hyatt) for example EiBfeldt;
Fohrer, 18ff.; GreBmann, Iff. and also Eerdmans, 9ff.
270 EXODUS 2:1-10

EXEGESIS
2:1 Nevertheless a man from the family of Levi dared to take to wife the
daughter of Levi,
see Introd. § 3.14.1; Ibn Ezra reads the verb literally: the man travelled to
another city. The verb seems redundant; the LXX leaves it untranslated
(Ehrlich suggests that the translators probably read t h ). Some have pointed to
the use of *|bn in e.g. Gen. 35:22; Deut. 31:1; Josh. 23:16; that approach might
suggest that ‘go’ is used in the sense of ‘undertake something’ (Nachmanides,
Dillman). It has also been suggested that the digressive introduction brings out
the importance of the act that follows (Keil). As I see it, the close proximity of
■fn to 1:22 may mean ‘he dared to;’ despite the difficult time, in which
marrying seemed a senseless thing to do, there was a man who dared to do just
that, ‘family,’ see Introd. § 3.9.2. Levi, see Introd. § 5.40. ‘to take to wife,’ see
Introd. § 3.30. Note the chiastic use of p and ro in 1:22-2:1-2: p - ro (1:22) -
ro (2:1) - p (2:2).
"6 tovin:, ‘the daughter of Levi;’ cf. 6:16ff., 20; Num. 26:59; Jochebed (see
Introd. § 6.2) was the daughter of Levi and the sister of Amram’s (see Introd.
§ 5.54) father. The LXX has: 65 §Xa|lev tcov fluyaT^pcov Aetiet (see also the
translation of 6:20) “who took of the daughters of Levi.’ Ehrlich believes that
this translation is based on nion, which according to him is the only correct
reading (cf. also e.g. Baentsch), because ro can only mean the biological
daughter of Levi, who at the time must have been at least a hundred years old.
In his view, ‘daughters’ refers to the (great)granddaughters of Levi. The Vulg.
has: accepta uxore stirpis suae. Many modern translations give a rendering
along the lines of LXX and Vulg.: a woman from the tribe of Levi was taken
in marriage. Several interpreters support some such translation (e.g. Heinisch,
Te Stroete, Schmidt). The rendering ‘a daughter of Levi’ is also used (e.g. SV,
LV).4 Grammatically (unless one should think that there is merit in appealing
to Ges-K § 126q; Joiion § 137n) it is unlikely that "ib'ro'nN can mean somet
hing else than ‘the daughter of Levi’ (KoSynt §304a; Ges-K § 117d, 127e;
Joiion § 125f, h, 139b, c, and see also Dillmann, Holzinger, Cassuto). It is also
conjectured that the text causes problems because originally it contained
names (cf. Hos. 1:3) which dropped out or were omitted to avoid discrepancy
with 6:20 (Strack, McNeile, Te Stroete). I opt for the translation ‘the daughter
of Levi.’ The writer assumes that his readers are familiar with 6:20. This
rendering, unlike that of the LXX, yields problems in connection with the
chronological note in 12:40. So it was not the writer’s intention to present a
complete and harmonious chronological picture (see Introd. § 11.4). In light of
4 According to the annotations in SV and LV the woman is Jochebed; see also e.g. Keil,
Michaeli.
the observations at 1:11 (the oppression was not long in coming) a marriage of
Levi’s grandson with the daughter of Levi is quite well possible/
2:1 is meant to impress upon the reader that the boy, whose birth is related
in 2:2, was a real Levite and Israelite. In this connection and with a pointer to
Gen. 49:5; Exod. 32:26; Deut. 33:8, Lange notes, ‘Energische Kuhnheit hat ihn
schon im Stammvater ausgezeichnet ... Obschon urspriinglich nicht ohne Fa-
natismus, indizirte diese Kuhnheit doch die Anlage zum kiinftigen Priester-
thum.’ Gispen presumes that it is unlikely that Israel would have expected
much help from Levi (Gen. 34:25ff.; 49:5ff.; 1 Cor. l:27ff.), but adds that the
forefather was not lacking in courage (Gen. 34:25ff.), like Moses later on in his
anger (2:12). Heinisch draws farreaching conclusions from the explicit mention
of Levi and the omission of the names of the parents. According to him,
Moses - the writer - states that ‘er das Prophetenamt nicht der naturlichen
Herkunft, sondern allein der gottlichen Erwahlung verdankte, so wie er sein
leibliches Leben ohne Eingriff der gottlichen Vorsehung nicht erhalten hatte,
und daB seine Berufung ein urn so groBerer Erweis der gottlichen Huld war,
weil Jakob sterbend iiber Levi und seine Nachkommen einen Fluch aus-
gesprochen hatte Gn 49,5-7.’ However, it should be noted that the name of
Moses’ sister is not mentioned either (2:4ff.) nor the name of the daughter of
Pharaoh (2:5ff.). Next to Levi’s the only name mentioned is Moses (2:10). One
gets the impression that the writer wanted to highlight that name. He men
tions the name Levi because already at this point he wanted to make the
reader aware that Moses was from a very fine family (cf. 6:14-25).
2:2 The woman became pregnant and gave birth to a son. When she saw how
well-formed he was she hid him for three months.
inrn imperf. cons, qal of mn (OT ca. 40 x), ‘to conceive,’ ‘become pregnant’;
in 21:22 the feminine adjective rnn (OT 15x) occurs; see further TWAT, II,
495ff.; often used is the phrase -6rn inrn (Gen. 4:17; 21:2; 29:32-35;
30:5,7,17,19,23 etal.); see further 1:15. mm, see Ges-K §57p; for rrm with
object inK and followed by a dependent clause introduced by and based on
nm see KoSynt § 414c; Ges-K § 117h; Joiion § 157d. y\o (cf. K. Albrecht, ZAW
39 [1921], 165), see 1:20; the rendering ‘fine’ (SV, LuthV, LV, UV, NV) and
‘beautiful’ (WV, GNB) does not capture the full meaning. ‘Strong’ (Ehrlich) or
‘energetic’ (CV) comes closer. Meant is a child that is healthy and without flaw
and who raises expectations; cf. LXX demux;, ‘well-formed’ (see also
Heb. 11:23) and TPsJ: -Q, ‘a boy full of vigor.’
inpsm imperf. cons, qal + suffix of p s (OT 32 x), ‘to hide;’ in 2:3 p s hiph.
(cf. Job 14:13) is used. Ehrlich also prefers a form of hiph. in 2:2. See further
S.E. Balentine, “A Description of the Semantic Field of Hebrew Words for
5 For an attempt to construct a closed chronology see Murphy; note, too, that according to
rabbinic tradition Jochebed was 130 years old when Moses was born (see below).
272 exo dus 2 :1 - 1 0
‘Hide’," VT 30 (1980), 137-53. ‘three’, see Introd. §4.4.1. rrr (OT 12x),
‘month’ (cf. n r, ‘moon,’ and see tfin [12:2]), see IDB> I, 485; TWATy III, 945ff.;
Benzinger, 169f.; De Vaux, I, 324ff.
Observations with 2:1, 2

Comparison of 2:1,2 with Gen. 4:1; 17, 38:2f. and Hos. 1:3 might intimate that
the child born by Levi’s daughter was her first. That cannot be right not only
because of 6:20 (cf. Num. 26:59) where Aaron is Moses’ elder brother, but also
because of the sequel to Exod. 2 where the child has an older sister (2:4ff.). It
has been suggested that Moses was indeed the first child of this woman and
that Aaron and Miriam were children from an earlier marriage of Amram (cf.
Dillmann and see McNeile).6 In that case one would have to assume that
Exod. 2 represents another tradition as regards Moses’ brother and sister than
6:20 and Num. 26:59. This would also be the case if one would assume that
Amram had taken a second wife (cf. Gen. 28:9). Baentsch, for example, shows
he is not troubled by the incongruity when he writes, ‘Der Verfasser erzahlt
sorglos, wie ein Marcherzahler.’ Others explain the inconsistency between
2:1,2 and 2:4, 7ff. by assuming that 2:4,7ff. are not part of the oldest tradition
(see introduction to the exegesis). Still others refuse to see a difficulty here.
Cassuto remarks on the absence in 2:1,2 of the names of the parents and of
any mention of the brother and sister: ‘With fine artistic understanding, the
Bible refrains from introducing here details of secondary import, which might
deflect our attention from the main theme. The narrative records events of the
highest significance, and has no place for genealogical particulars; these will
receive due mention subsequently, when the tension will have subsided’ (cf.
already Nachmanides). Others are of the opinion that Israel’s story tellers
preferred not to mention the names of minor figures until their role in history
came up (Heinisch, Clamer, Cole, Childs). Michaeli regards the announcement
of the birth of Moses as the chief element in the story: ‘tous les autres ren-
seignements relatif & sa famille passent au second plan et Mo'ise est bien
comme un premier-n6, comme un fils unique, m£me s’il a des frSres et soeurs
plus Sg6s que lui.’ These authors seem to assume that the text is to be read as
saying that Moses’ parents were already married at the time of the issuing of
the decree and that considerable time elapsed between the events recounted in
2:1 and 2:2. This view, also held by others, is occasionally reflected in the
translation; see for instance, 2:1 in the C.V.: ‘... who ... had married a wife’
(cf. Bohl). The rabbis understood npb in 2:1 as ‘take to wife again;’ in TPsJ,
where the man and the woman are referred to as Amram and Jochebed (cf.
FT; ‘only Jochebed, his aunt,’ is mentioned by name), it is specifically said that
Amram resumed marital relations with his wife, which he had given up due to
6 See 15:20 and especially Num. 12:1 ff. where Aaron and Miriam oppose Moses.
Pharaoh’s decree.7 Muslim tradition likewise espouses the idea of the divorce
of the Israelite men and women. However, it attributes the divorce to Pharaoh
and offers the following description of how Moses was conceived: the angel
Gabriel brought Amram’s wife to him when, as Pharaoh’s vizier, he was
keeping watch during the night in his bedroom; Gabriel brought Jochebed to
Pharaoh’s bed and ordered Amram, while Pharaoh was snoring, to father the
deliverer of Israel (Weil, 130ff.).8
The above shows that in the history of interpretation there have been all
sorts of attempts to resolve the difficulty inherent in the first verses of Exodus
2. Not to mention more, one might yet consider if perhaps npb could be a
euphemism for ‘have marital relations with’ (cf. Gen. 6:2): despite the awful
consequence the begetting of a son would have, a man dared to have relations
with his wife. It is best, however, to attribute the incongruity to the meshing of
diverse traditions.
In the history of interpretation the exegetical attempts have not been
restricted to giving a simple explanation of y\a (2:2). Rabbinic tradition, for
example, contains the view that when Moses was born the house was filled
with light (cf. Gen. 1:4).9 Also Muslim tradition recounts numerous miracles:
in the night of Moses’ birth the statues in Egypt’s temples toppled; in a dream
Pharaoh heard a voice: ‘Repent and turn to the only God, the creator of
heaven and earth, or your doom is inevitable;’ Pharaoh learns of the birth of
his rival; Haman, Pharaoh’s vizier, on a search, lights the oven in which Moses
lay hidden, but the boy remains unharmed (Weil, 134f.). In Acts 7:20 it is said
of Moses that he was daxeux; to) flea), Svell-pleasing to God;’ this could mean
‘one chosen by God,’ but it could also be a way of describing the superlative,
Very beautiful;’ according to Ishodad both are meant, ‘for isn’t every child,
even if it is ugly, beautiful in the eyes of the mother?’ Josephus (AJ, II, 228ff.)
and Philo (KAf, I, 9, 15,18ff. et al.) describe in detail Moses’ unique abilities,
his beauty, charm, and so on (cf. also Luke 2:52). Josephus (AJy II, 210ff.)
relates that already before the birth Amram had been apprised that Israel’s
deliverer would be born from his union. According to Pseudo-Philo, IX, 1, also
n
When Pharaoh issued his decree, Amram and the Israelite men gave up relations with their
wives and gave them a divorce; see e.g. ExR I, 13, and further Ginzberg, II, 262ff.; Rosmarin, 45f.;
see also bSota 12a; bBaba Bathra 119a; ExR I, 19; Zohar Exod 19a and Rashi. In line with the
rabbinic tradition TPsJ says, too, that at the time Jochebed was a hundred thirty years old but
became young again. The notion that Amram and Jochebed were old is also behind the Testaments
of the twelve patriarchs: Amram and Jochebed, who were bom on the same day, were respectively
a hundred sixteen and a hundred nineteen years old when Moses and Aaron were bom; see P. Gre-
lot, “Quatre cents trente ans (Exode 12, 34)," in Fs W. Komfeld, Studien zum Pentateuch, Wien
et al. 1977, 91-8.
8 Cf. Zohar Exod 11a, 12b; 19a: Gabriel returned Amram’s wife to him.
9 See bSota 12a; ExR I, 20; Zohar Exod l i b and also Rashi. For the miracles which according
to extra-biblical tradition attended the birth of Moses, see Ginzberg, II, 264; Rosmarin, 49f.
274 exo dus 2 :1 - 1 0
Miriam was given revelation in a dream about the future role of Moses (cf.
also e.g. ExR. I, 22 and see Rosmarin, 46).
After 2:1 the MT presents a story about women. In 2:2b and 2:3a the LXX
has the verbs in the plural, and therefore, to make the transition to the
singular, added ‘his mother.’ Apparently according to the LXX, in 2:2b and
2:3a also Amram was actively involved in what transpired (cf. Heb. 11:23).
Josephus (AJy II, 217ff.), in contrast to the LXX, also has both parents make
the basket and place it in the river. See further also Philo (KM, I, 9ff.: the
parents weep when they have left the child and start blaming themselves, etc.)
and Gregory of Nyssa (KM, I, 17).10
Why could the mother keep the boy hidden no more than three months? It
has been suggested that after three months the child’s voice had become so
strong that his presence in the house could no longer be kept a secret (Ibn
Ezra and e.g. Baentsch). That kind of interpretation seems caused by the need
to find a way out of a difficulty. The same applies to the explanation men
tioned by Calmet that Egyptian officials visited the homes of the Israelites
every three months. Some rabbinic traditions, taking their cue from the ‘third
month’, make a connection with 19:1 (e.g. MidrTanh Ex. V, 8; Zohar Exod.
1lb). Others contain the notion that the first three months the baby was not in
danger of the Egyptians, because they counted from the time that Amram had
returned to his wife; however, at the time she was already three months
pregnant (ExR. I, 20). On the other hand, in TPsJ it is said that Jochebed gave
birth already after six months (see also Rashi and further Ginzberg, II, 264).
According to this last view Moses was a so-called seventh-month child. In
Jewish and Christian writings also Isaac, Samuel, Maria and Jesus were such
children. Seventh-month children also occur in Greek and Roman literature.
Birth after six months was seen as a sign that the child was a unique in
dividual, whose birth was due to a divine miracle.11
2:3 Because she could hide him no longer she got a papyrus basket for him and
made it water proof with bitumen and tar. She put the boy in it and placed the
basket among the reeds on the bank of the River.
rto; perf. qal of to* (OT ca. 200 x ; Exod. 13 x), ‘to be able, capable;’ with
the exception of 18:23, the verb is used in Exod. with the negative *6; with the
10 Cf. also E. Schuller, “Women of the Exodus in Biblical Retellings of the Second Temple
Period,* in P.L. Day (ed.), Gender and Difference in Ancient Israel, Minneapolis 1989, 178-94.
11 Cf. Zohar Exod. lib , 12a: the union from which Moses was bom was from the will of the
divine Shekinah; before he entered the world Moses was already in the heavenly realms and
therefore the Shekinah was linked with him from the moment of his birth; see further P.W. van der
Horst, “‘Seven Months’ Children in Jewish and Christian Literature from Antiquity,- EThL 54
(1978), 346-60, and also Strieker, III, 247 ff., 282ff.; Stol, 44f. Daube, Judaism, 5ff., even con
jectures the existence of a Jewish legend according to which Moses’ mother became pregnant
without the involvement of a human father.
exception of 8:14 it is also construed with an inf. cstr., which indicates the
action which can(not) be performed; with the exception of 2:3; 18:18, 23 the
infinitive always has the prefix b (cf. KoSynt §399d; Ges-K § 114m; Joiion
§ 124c); in 8:14 K'înb is implied etc.; always it is people who are agent (see
also 7:21,24; 9:11; 10:5; 12:39; 15:23; 19:23; 33:20; 40:35); see further TWAT,
III, 628ff.
t ip (OT ca. 490x; Exod. 13x) is usually qua origin regarded as a noun
meaning ‘repetition,’ ‘continuation,’ which is used as an adverb.12 As to the
use of t i p , which can be used with a suffix (e.g. 4:18; 9:2,17; see e.g. Joiion
§ 102k; Meyer § 86.9c), the following can be noted: in 4:18; 9:2,17 the term
occurs with the meaning ‘still (yet)’ and indicates that a situation or action still
continues or persists; with n't nip occurs with the meaning ‘no more’ (9:29;
10:29; 14:13), ‘no longer’ (2:3). In line with this t ip can also mean that
something is added to a situation, act and the like: ‘one more’ (11:1; 17:4
[b p o t i p , “yet a little, almost;’ cf. Isa. 10:25; Jer. 51:33; Hos. 1:4 etal. and see
Brockelmann § 13a]); ‘for the second time,’ ‘again,’ ‘also’ (3:15; 4:6; cf.
Gen. 24:20; 35:9; 37:9; et al.), ‘moreover’ (36:3), ‘further’ (36:6). ir o n (with
dageS forte dirimens; Ges-K §20h), see 2:2. ‘got’, see Introd. §3.30.; Sam.
Pent, specifically mentions the subject, iok, ‘his mother;’ cf. LXX. V? is some
what redundant; Cassuto takes it to mean ‘for the sake of his rescue.’
ran, ‘chest,’ ‘box,’ is also used in Gen. 6:14ff. for Noah’s ark. For the origin
of the term scholars have turned to both Akkadian and Egyptian; see the
lexicons. Very likely it is a word borrowed from Egyptian (see also Schmidt).
U. Cassuto13 thinks that both the Egyptian original and the Hebrew bor
rowed term denote ‘an object made in the shape of a parallelepided,’ and that
therefore the word is suitable for the ark as well as the papyrus basket,
because both objects were chest shaped. As regards the shape, Ehrlich expres
ses himself in similar fashion: the term stands for ‘einen verschliessbaren
Kasten’ ‘der auf das blosse Schwimmen, nicht auf Fortbewegung berechnet ist’
(2:6 shows that it was a closed box for it was opened). L. Koehler, JSS 1
(1956), 8, however, denies that the same term is used in Gen. 6:14ff. and
Exod. 2:3,5; he thinks that two different homonymic borrowed words, ‘palace’
and ‘chest,’ are used. A critical discussion of the various views regarding nan is
given by C. Cohen, "Hebrew tbh: Proposed Etymologies," JANES 4 (1972),
36-51. ‘papyrus,’ see Introd. § 10.5.1.
nnonni imperf. qal + suffix (cf. Ges-K §58g, 91e; Joiion §61i) of non (OT
lx ), ‘put on/cover with asphalt,’ which is usually regarded as a denominative
verb of nan, ‘bitumen,’ ‘asphalt’ (Gen. 11:3; 14:10; Exod. 2:3).14 Views about
12 See e.g. J.A. Thompson, JSS 10 (1965), 225; a different view is defended by P. Joiion, Bib 7
(1926), 292f.
13 From Noah to Abraham, II, Jerusalem 1964, 59ff.
14 A different view is found in KBL; see further TWAT, III, Iff.
276 E X O D U S 2:1-10
the etymology of the noun non vary; it has been linked with ion, ‘to be red’
(Ges-B) (however, asphalt is more black than reddish brown) and also with inn
‘to ferment’ (e.g. BDB); for this question see Gradwohl, 16f, and also at 1:14
and 8:10. The use of ion as mortar is mentioned in Gen. 11:3. Vessels made
from braided papyrus (Isa. 18:2) were waterproofed with bitumen (see BRL,
188). In Ugarit asphalt was used to make roofs waterproof (see BRL, 54). In
Palestine asphalt was obtained from the Dead Sea. The biggest consumer was
Egypt (BRL, 16). Another ‘caulking material’ mentioned in 2:3 is not (Isa. 34:9;
Sir. 13:1). Usually the term is rendered as ‘pitch.’ It is not clear whether there
is a difference between ion and rot. Perhaps it concerns different kinds of
bitumen, each with its own composition and cohesiveness. H. Weippert, BRL,
16, suggests that not in 2:3 and Sir. 13:1 perhaps refers to the pitch that is the
residue from the charcoal used for the melting of metal. According to her that
is the kind of pitch which in Gen. 6:14 is called m See further BHHW, I, 141;
III, 1409; DB, I, 304f.; Ill, 886; IDB, I, 444; III, 820; RLA, II, 462f.; Forbes, I.
nam mro (for the use of the article see e.g. KoSynt § 297a; Ges-K § 126n;
Joiion § 137m, o; Brockelmann § 21cB), “with pitch and tar,’ is likely a hen-
diadys; cf. LXX: aocpaX-TOJcltrop (both terms are translated with one term). In
rabbinic tradition the two terms are explained as covering with pitch on the
outside and with loam (cf. 1:14) on the inside, in order that the child would
not smell the foul odour of the pitch (bSota 12a; ExR. I, 21 and also Rashi and
Ginzberg, II, 265). ‘put,’ see Introd. §3.48; otsrn is used 2x; according to
Cassuto the repetition expresses that the mother was just as careful in placing
the basket as when she laid the child in it; M. Cogan (see at 1:22) thinks that
the fact that not *jb», the technical term for ‘abandoning a child,’ is used
indicates that according to the writer a carefully considered plan is executed to
stay in contact with the child. For myself I doubt these words can carry the
freight of such conclusions, tb* (8x in 2:3-10), see 1:15. ‘reeds,’ see Introd.
§ 10.5.2. For *poa and following words TO, TNf and FT offer a different
version: ‘in the Stream by the bank of the river’ (TO); ‘in the meadow on the
bank of the river’ (TNf; FT); cf. Jub. 47:4; Ezekiel the Tragedian (20ff.) does
not mention the basket and in his version of the event writes that Moses’
mother wrapped him in cloths (cf. Luke 2:7), before they left him amid the
vegetation on the bank.
no® (OT ca. 175 x; Exod. 17x), ‘lip,’ the member used in speaking, and
hence also ‘language’ (Gen. 11:1,6f., 9), is used in the dual in 6:12,30 (cf.
D*rtD2? [Job 11:2]: one who is eloquent; □•ra&'NOO (Isa. 6:5): someone who
can only utter unclean language), and is used metaphorically as ‘bank,’ ‘shore’
(of a river, the sea) (2:3; 7:15; 14:30), ‘edge,’ ‘hem’ (of a cloth)
(26:4 [2x], 10 [2x]; 28:26,32; 36:11 [2x], 17 [2x]; 39:19,23). See further
TWAT, VII, 840ff.; Dhorme, 84, 88ff. ‘River,’ see Introd. § 8.10.

The fact that mn occurs only in Exod. 2 and Gen. 6-9 raises the question about
a possible connection between the story of the deluge and that of Moses’
rescue. It is usually assumed that no special link exists. Sometimes it is thought
the term was chosen as a reminder of the ark in which Noah was saved (Keil).
One can also go further, suggesting that the one who was the embodiment of
the deliverance of the people was saved from the water in which others
perished (Te Stroete); ‘In both instances one worthy of being saved and
destined to bring salvation to others is to be rescued from death by drowning.
In the earlier section the salvation of humanity is involved, here it is the
salvation of the chosen people; in the former passage, Scripture tells of the
deliverance of the macrocosm, in the latter it speaks of the deliverance of the
microcosm’ (Cassuto; cf. Michaeli, Knight). In his commentary on Genesis (see
above) Cassuto adds: ‘The experiences of the fathers foreshadow the history of
their descendants.’ Also Cohen (see above), appealing to the Mesopotamian
story of the deluge and the legend about Sargon (see at 2:10), believes there is
a thematic parallelism. In his view, the term mn in Exod. 2 expresses that the
basket was under special divine protection.15 R. Zuurmond,16 on the basis
of the choice of words in the pericope, sees not only a close connection
between the ‘chest of bulrushes’ and ‘the chest’ of the story of deluge, but also
with other parts of the OT. Pointing to did in 2:3 he sees a link with Gen. 1,
and on the basis of the use of *po in 2:3,5, and of *po*cr in 13:18; 15:4,22 he
posits a connection between Exod. 2 and the story of the crossing of the ‘Sea
of Reeds’ (13:17-15:22). According to him the various key words indicate that
the theme is the same in the deluge story as well as in 2:1-10 and in 13:17-
15:22: the concern of the story is the rise of new life from death (water
represents the power of death);17 the NT (cf. Rom. 6:3f.) allows one to say
that these passages also speak about baptism. In brief, according to Zuurmond,
mn and similar words make it possible to extend lines through the entire
Bible. For myself I doubt one is justified in seeing any connection between
Gen. 6-9 and Exod. 2 (cf. also Schmidt). Note, too, that the mn of Gen. 6 was
made of wood (6:14) and the mn of Exod. of bulrushes, and that the material
used to make the ark of Gen. 6 waterproof is indicated with a different term
(6:14) than in Exod. 2:3.
Why did the mother, when she could no longer keep the boy home, place
him on the bank of the River? According to an ancient notion (see already
15 Note also Zohar Exod. lib : the ‘ark’ of Moses is a prefiguration of the ark of the covenant.
16 "Het bijbelse verhaal: verteller en vertaler," in W.G. Overbosch et al., Wie het leest lette er
op!-, Amsterdam n.d. (1971) = Med Prof. Dr. G. van der Leeuw-Stichting 41, 2504-11.
17 Cf. A. Lacocque, VT 15 (1965), 348ff., who holds that Exod. 2 should also be read in the light
of the Osiris myth.
278 exo dus 2 :1 - 1 0
Josephus \AJt II, 219]), also found in modern expositors,18 this means that he
is left to God’s care and protection. This interpretation easily leads to the view
of Schmidt that the mother acted more out of despair than from cool cal
culation, with outcome becoming a kind of miracle. Cajetan (in Calmet) sees a
connection between the order of 1:22 and suggests that the Hebrews did not
drown their children but left them on the bank of the river (cf. Acts 7:19, and
for rabbinic literature Rosmarin, 41f.) where they were picked up by the
Egyptians who, when the boys were grown, put them to work for the common
good, the army or public works. In the present context it indeed makes sense
to link the verse with 1:22: the mother as yet obeys the Pharaoh’s order,
though she puts her own slant on it. To be sure, the writer uses story material
in which abandoning a child to the water was a favourite theme, an act
regarded as entrusting the child to the deity (see at 2:10). Here, in his his-
toricized version of the legendary material, the writer gives much of the credit
for the saving of the boy to his mother and sister. Note here, too, that the
basket was not committed to the river but placed among the reeds, evidently
with the intention that it would not be carried off by the stream (so already
Ishodad), and that the sister (2:4ff.) closely watches what is going to happen
next. From that one gets the impression that the women carried out a carefully
constructed plan. From the story it is not clear what precisely they hoped to
accomplish. Did they know the place where Pharaoh’s daughter was accus
tomed to bathe and did they intentionally place the child there among the
bulrushes in hopes that she would discover it? (cf. Keil, Heinisch, Clamer,
Kalt). It is more likely that the mother placed the child at a spot where there
was a good chance some Egyptian woman might discover it, a place where
Egyptian women were wont to come for various tasks, such as doing their
laundry (cf. Cole). In that case the story relates an unforeseen and breath
taking development: it was not an Egyptian peasant woman who found the
child, but the daughter of the Pharaoh of the decree. For just a moment the
design of the mother and the sister seems to collapse in total failure. However,
the outcome is one they themselves could not have imagined.
Muslim tradition contains a detailed version of what is described in 2:3:
when toward midnight the mother brings Moses to the Nile, a sentinel
discovers her; the earth swallows him and orders him to be silent on pain of
death; Iblis (Satan), lounging on the bank of the Nile in the shape of a large,
black serpent, makes a quick getaway on hearing Moses’ voice (Weil, 135f.).
2:4 His sister remained at a distance to see what would happen to him.
18 For instance Bohl, Noth, Cassuto, Schmidt; here remember that according to Noth and
Schmidt 2:4, 7-10a were not part of the original version; this significantly shrinks the human input
in the event.
asnni, the usual reading, with a reference to Sam. Pent., is nm m ,19 imperf.
cons, hithp. of as' (OT ca. 45 x), ‘to stand,’ (19:17; 34:5), ‘to remain standing’
(14:13; cf. 1 Sam. 12:7,16 et al.); in 2:4 both meanings are possible; it is ap
parently thought that the sister accompanied the mother; for ns* hitp. + *39^,
‘to have an audience with’ (8:16; 9:13) see Introd. § 3.42.2. infix, see 1 :6.
prn (OT ca. 85 x; Exod. 4x) is a derivative of pm, ‘to be dis-
tant/far/removed from’;20 pirn is used both adjectivally (e.g. Deut. 20:15;
29:21) and as a noun (Josh. 3:4); in Exod. always + ]o (2:4; 20:18,21; 24:1), ‘at
a distance’ (cf. e.g. 1 Sam. 26:13; 2 Kgs. 2:7; Ps. 38:12); the translation ‘far off
(so SV in 2:4) is too strong; the translation ‘at some distance’ (LV, CV, NV,
WV) too weak; cf. also the use of pimp (+ tdu; cf. 20:18,21) in Ps. 10:1 (for
the interchangeability of 9 and p see e.g. KoSynt § 330o). nui (for the form see
e.g. KoHkL I, p. 423; Ges-K § 69c, m) inf. cstr. of in* (see Introd. § 3.22).
n&»’“nn (with dageS forte coniunctivum; Ges-K § 37b, c), see Introd. § 3.41.1.
It is obvious that with the unnamed sister the writer was thinking of Miriam
(see Introd. §6.3). Ishodad, however, thinks that the reference must be to a
cousin of Moses, because at the time Miriam was only six (the Syrian fathers
also contain the idea that Miriam was younger than Moses). It is not stated
why the sister stayed to see what was going to happen. In Jub. 47:4 it is said
that Miriam kept watch for seven days to keep the birds away from her brother
(cf. 2 Sam. 21:10), while by night the mother came to nurse the child. Ac
cording to the rabbinic exegesis in ExR. I, 22, Miriam, who had prophesied
that her mother would give birth to the saviour of Israel, wanted to find out
what would come of the prophesy. To the extent that they deal with the
question, modern expositors offer the simple explanation that she stayed
around to help in case of danger (Bohl, Gispen). If one assumes that the
writer intended to narrate a carefully laid plan (see 2:3), it is obvious to think
that the sister stayed to have a hand in the course of events (cf. 2:7ff.).
According to Beer, 2:4 introduces ‘einen neuen lieblichen Zug in das Bild; die
altere Schwester betreut das Leben des jiingeren Bruders.’ In my judgment,
with this remark he bypasses the real intent of the writer. The writer’s prime
concern is to show how the courageous action of the women foiled Pharaoh’s
plans. The mother is not mentioned again until 2:8. It may be assumed that
she returned to her home. Ephraem says so specifically, adding that back in
her home she dropped to her knees and poured out her heart to the God of
Abraham about Pharaoh, uttering prayers and laments.
19 See e.g. Delitzsch, 86; Ges-K § 71; but note J. Blau, VT 7 (1957), 387: DTfim is a hithafal
form (t-form of the hiph.).
20 p m (OT ca. 60x) is used for ‘to abstain from’ (23:7 qal) and for ‘to go away’ (8:24 hiph.) (+
inf. abs.: ‘have gone too far away’); in 33:7 the inf. abs. hiph. serves as an adverb ‘at a distance,’ ‘far
off;’ cf. Gen. 21:16; Josh. 3:16. See further TWAT, VII, 490ff.
280 exodus 2 :1 - 1 0
2:5 Then the daughter of Pharaoh came to bathe in the River: While her ladies
in waiting walked back and forth along the River; she saw the basket among the
reeds. She sent her maid to bring it
T in ] imperf. cons, qal of i t (OT ca. 380 x), ‘to go/come down;* i t qal (Exod.
19x) is used for going down to a river (2:5; cf. 2 Sam. 19:32; 1 Kgs. 2:8;
2 Kgs. 5:14), the coming down of hail (9:19; cf. Num. 11:9; 2 Kgs. 1:10;
Isa. 55:10, and see Houtman, Himmel, 2121 etal.), the ‘coming down’ of
Pharaoh’s officials to Moses (11:8),21*for ‘to sink’ (15:5; cf. Jonah 2:7). Moses
is repeatedly the subject and the verb refers to the going down, the coming
down from (+ p) the mountain (Sinai) (19:14; 32:1,15; 34:29 [2x]; note also
the absolute use of the verb in 19:21,24,25; 32:7; cf. Deut. 9:15; 10:5;
Num. 20:28). i t qal is also used for the coming down of y h w h (3:8;
19:11,18,20; 34:5) and the pillar of cloud (33:9) (see Houtman, Himmel\
35Iff.), i t hiph. is used in 33:5 with the meaning ‘to take off/remove.’ See
further THAT, II, 276ff.; TWAT, III, 894ff.
rono-ra (see also 2:7,8,9,10); the construct chain is similar to that of 'i^ ro
in 2:1; for the exegetical possibilities, see there; I prefer ‘the daughter of
Pharaoh.’ Her name is not mentioned. Tradition has filled the blanks with se
veral names. Josephus (AJf II, 224) calls her Thermuthis (cf. Jub. 47:5);
Artapanus, 3, Merris (cf. Ishodad: Merri) etc. (see e.g. Dillmann, Ginzberg, V,
398 n. 48). According to Philo (VM, I, 13) she was Pharaoh’s only daughter
and childless, and mentally depressed on account of it (she intended Moses to
be Pharaoh’s successor); cf. Josephus (AJy II, 232) and see also Artapanus. La
ter expositors have tried to identify her with persons known in Egypt’s history.
Hatshepsut has been suggested (see Introd. § 11.4.1). According to Te Stroete,
speaking of ‘Pharaoh’s daughter’ sounds naive, because the Pharaohs with their
harems had many children. In my view, the writer is not interested in historical
details. Therefore it makes no real sense either to raise questions about the
daughter’s identity and the location of the event (see e.g. Dillmann, Cole). The
speaking about ‘the daughter of Pharaoh’ fits the small-town atmosphere and
the narrow focus of the story.
frr6 inf. cstr. qal of pm (OT ca. 70 x), ‘to wash,’ ‘purify (with water).’ With
the exception of 2:5, in Exodus it is only used in chapters 25-40 in passages
that deal with the basin for washing in the tent sanctuary (30:18ff.; 40:30ff.),
the cultic cleanness required of Aaron and his sons (29:4; 30:19ff.; 40:12,31f.)
and the purity of the sacrificial animal parts (29:17) (see Reymond, 228ff.). pm
qal can be used transitively with as object parts of the body (30:19,21; 40:31),
persons (29:4; 40:2; cf. Lev. 8:6), parts of a sacrificial animal (29:7; cf.
Lev. 1:9,13; 8:21; 9:14), and intransitively (2:5; cf. e.g. 2 Sam. 11:2; 12:20;
21 Meant is a coming with lowered heads; do they come from the palace on a height — symbol
of power? In that case the choice of words indicates the changed relationships: the power is no
longer with Pharaoh in the palace, but with Moses.
1 Kgs. 22:38; 2 Kgs. 5:10,12,13).22 Sometimes -ix*m^s? is connected with n r i

(see e.g. Rashi, Keil, Dillmann, Te Stroete);23 CV even translates: ‘When the
daughter of Pharaoh went into the Nile, ...’ It is more natural, for example
with Ehrlich, to connect -ix'rrbsj with prrfr; Ehrlich notes that pm + 3
(2 Kgs. 5:10,12) fits well with a small river; on the other hand, pm + by fits
better with a large river like the Nile, because only the shallows near the bank
are suitable for bathing by a woman.
‘ladies in waiting,’ see Introd. § 3.34. roVn (see Ges-K § 141e), these servants
walk back and forth to protect the princess and to make sure that naked she
will not run into an approaching man (Strack, Holzinger, Baentsch, Ehrlich).
For the actual bathing only her personal maid servant (nox) went with her into
the water.24 In the use of *|^n the rabbis detected a hint that the women
would die (cf. Gen. 25:32): Gabriel threw them to the ground because they said
that Pharaoh’s daughter had to carry out the order of her father (bSota 12b;
ExR. 1,23 and also Rashi). t , see Introd. § 3.21.1. torn, see 2:2.
Tjin, ‘middle,’ (e.g. Gen. 15:10; Num. 35:5), occurs in the OT especially in
construct chains or with a pronominal suffix (7:5; 12:49; 25:8; 28:33; 29:46;
39:23) with preceding preposition (Exod. 31 x: 23x + 3; 7x + p; lx +
^>x); often *pin only serves to fortify the preposition;25 -pro can be translated
as ‘between’ (2:5; 9:24; 28:33; 39:3 [4x], 25 [2x]), ‘(right) through’ (11:4;
14:16,22,29; 15:19), ‘(into) the midst’ (14:27), ‘in’ (into) (24:18), ‘among,’ ‘in
the midst o f (12:49; 25:8; 29:45,46), ‘in the middle’ (26:28; 36:33; 39:23); -pnn
with ‘out o f (3:2,4; 7:5; 12:31; 24:16; 28:1; 33:11) and -pn'Vx with ‘into the
middle o f (14:23). ‘to bring,’ see Introd. §3.49.1. ‘maid,’ see Introd. §3.37.3;
the rabbis debated whether nnox might mean ‘her arm’ (cf. nax, ‘ell’);26 the
interpretation ‘she put out her arm’ is found in TO and TPsJ (not in TNf);
this interpretation has impacted portrayals of the event.27

2:5a has raised questions: Why did the daughter of Pharaoh bathe in the river?
Is it likely that a daughter of Pharaoh went to swim in the Nile? As to the first
question: in TPsJ it is said that y h w h had struck the Egyptians with stinging
sores and infections, and that for that reason Pharaoh’s daughter came to
The suggestion has been made that also in 2:5 JTTt is used transitively: With her servants
Pharaoh’s daughter intended to wash the linen items (see in Calmet).
^ Nachmanides wonders whether she went down stairs and stayed on the bottom step to wash
herself, without entering the water, but considers it also possible that bv = D.
24 According to Ezekiel the Tragedian all the women went into the water (25ff.).
^ Cf. Brockelmann § 106i; H.J. van Dijk, VT 18 (1968), 17f., and see the use of (see 3:20).
26 Cf. H.-P. Stahli, "‘Da schickte sie ihre Magd_.’ (Ex 2 5),* Wort und Dienst 17 (1983), 27-54.
27 See K. and U. Schubert, "Die Errettung des Mose aus den Wassem des Nil in der Kunst des
spatantiken Judentums und das Weiterwirken dieses Motivs in der friihchristlichen und judisch-
mittelalterlichen Kunst," in Fs W. Komfeld, Studien zum Pentateuch, Wien et al. 1977, 59-68.
282 E X O D U S 2:1-10
bathe. As soon as she touched the basket she was healed (see also bSota 12b;
ExR. I, 23). Her cure made her take pity on Moses and inspired her love for
him (cf. Ginzberg, II, 266f.; Rosmarin, 5If.). Josephus (AJf II, 244f.) offers a
different picture of what happened: Pharaoh’s daughter was playing on the
bank of the river; she saw the basket floating down the stream28 and had it
brought to her by swimmers. Apparently Josephus did not think it was proper
for the daughter of the Pharaoh to swim in the Nile. According to Gregory of
Nyssa (VM, I, 17) the basket had been carried along by the river and had
gotten stuck by divine intervention; due to the child’s crying the daughter of
Pharaoh discovered it. Muslim tradition has it that owing to the intervention
of an angel the basket holding Moses floated into the canal which linked
Pharaoh’s palace with the Nile; the seven daughters of Pharaoh discover it; not
only the ailing oldest daughter is cured by glancing at Moses, but also the ot
hers become totally clean; so they surpass all women in beauty (Weil, 137f.).
Several modern expositors are of the opinion that the bathing of Pharaoh’s
daughter was not just a bathing for pleasure. Referring to classical authors, it
is pointed out that the Nile was regarded as sacred and its water thought to be
life-restoring (Murphy, Keil, Lange, Dillmann). As to the second question,
many expositors are of the opinion that in antiquity the more modest morals
of later times were still unknown, and that what is related in 2:5a was very well
possible (Murphy, Keil, Lange, Dillmann, Ehrlich). More recent authors are
more skeptical. For instance, Te Stroete notes that though swimming young
ladies are a familiar motif in Egyptian art, Egyptologists consider it unlikely
that a daughter of Pharaoh would venture into the Nile and expose herself to
crocodiles. Referring to Montet, 78, he adds that from the third millennium
every important home in Egypt boasted bathing facilities. It is highly doubtful
that the text should be burdened with such questions. The scenario presented
in the passage fits the village atmosphere of the story: a Hebrew girl observes
an Egyptian princess bathing in the Nile. According to 7:15, also Pharaoh
himself was in the habit of bathing in the Nile.
2:6 and opened it. When she saw the boy she felt sorry for him because the lad
started crying, and she said. This is one of the Hebrew boys. ’
nnprn imperf. cons, qal of nnD (OT ca. 135x), ‘to open’ (see also 2L33);29
Sam. Pent.: nnnom mentions by name the object implied in MT. It is proposed,
following Sam. Pent, to read *nm instead of and to regard n*?-n-nK as a
gloss (Baentsch, Ehrlich). That produces a simple translation: ‘and actually saw
a crying little boy.’ The LXX is sometimes appealed to for support: 6pa rcaiSlov
kXcuov iv xt\ (Kftei, and also the Vulg.: cernensque in ea parvulum vagientem.
28 Cf. also TO: K1ST UD, ‘in the stream,’ instead of ‘in the bulrushes.’
29 The nnD used here is to be distinguished from the nnD piel used in 28:9, 11, 36 and the nnD
pual used in 39:6; the last verb means ‘engrave;’ cf. TWATy VI, 831 ff.
However, both translations could also be a free rendering of the Hebrew text.
The somewhat extravagant Hebrew text contains a construction which occurs
more often (KoSynt § 340m; Ges-K § 131m; Joiion § 146e; Brockelmann § 68b)
which emphasizes the object and defines it more exactly.30 nsrn, see Introd.
§ 3.15. ‘lad,’ see Introd. § 3.34.
roa part, qal of nm (OT ca. 115x), ‘to cry/ ‘to weep/ only here in the OT
the verb is used for the crying of a child (but see also Gen. 21:16cj.). See
further THAT, I, 313ff.; TWATy I, 638ff.; Scharbert, 11 If. Likely the following
is what happened: so long as the boy was rocked by the motion of the water he
did not cry; as soon as the rocking had stopped and the basket was opened, he
started wailing (Eerdmans, 10; cf. F. Zimmermann, JBL 65 [1946], 310, who
reads ‘awake’). If this interpretation is accepted, the result of the opening
is one big surprise. There are also those who assume that the child was already
crying (e.g. Strack: ‘der Aufenthaltsort war schwerlich angenehm; auch fehlte
es an Nahrung’). The use of the indefinite "uh after is a bit striking. Beer
conjectures that the n after run was dropped. Cassuto notes: ‘without the
definite article, because to her it was not the known child but just a boy/ The
alternation ‘the boy’ - ‘lad’ has caught the attention of older exegetes and has
been variously explained. It is suggested that the word change indicates that
the little boy had the voice of a young man (bSota 12b; ExR. I, 24, and also
Rashi), and that physically he was more developed than his age suggested (Ibn
Ezra). On the other hand, Nachmanides takes the words to be synonyms.
Vonrn imperf. cons, qal31 of ôn, ‘to show compassion/ ‘have pity on (+
bv)-y' cf. e.g. 1 Sam. 23:21; Jer. 15:5; Ezek. 16:5, and especially 1 Sam. 15:3,9,15;
2 Sam. 21:7, where the context shows that *?on, ‘to spare/ means ‘not to kill/ so
it might even be possible to translate here ‘she spared him.’ See further THAT,
II, 764f.; TWATy II, 1042ff.
iQKnp, Cassuto understands it as ‘she thought to herself/ cf. Introd. §3.5.1. It
appears that she addresses her maid and perhaps also the ladies in waiting who
had come near. ‘Hebrew/ see Introd. § 8.25.

2:6 has sparked the question how Pharaoh’s daughter could know that the boy
she had discovered belonged to the Hebrews. According to the rabbis she saw
that he had been circumcised (bSota 12b; ExR. 1,24, and see also Pseudo-
Philo, IX, 15, and further Ginzberg, V, 339 n. 51). The same view is also found
among Christian exegetes (see e.g. Theodoret of Cyrus, QE, III). Nachmanides
challenges this interpretation: she did not undress the child, did she? Modern
exegetes note that circumcision was also practiced by the Egyptians and that
30 T h e rabbis p erceiv ed a d e e p e r se n se in th e constru ction : sh e saw H im (th e S h ek in ah ) w ith

th e child; s e e bSota 12b; E x R I, 24.
-*1 Sam . P ent, and L X X m en tio n the subject by name: the dau gh ter o f P haraoh.
284 exodus 2 :1 - 1 0
the abandoned condition of the child was mute witness (Dillmann, Holzinger,
Clamer, Gispen). In contrast, Schmidt points out that the Egyptians did not
circumcise boys until they were about 14 years of age. In his opinion, his
appearance can have helped with the identification. Especially knowledge of
Pharaoh’s decree likely led the princess to her conclusion (cf. also Nach-
manides, Strack).32 By raising the question likely one asks too much of the
writer. With the princess’ statement, ‘This is one of the Hebrew boys,’ he aims
at heightening the suspense. The daughter of the Pharaoh of the decree is
aware that the boy is a Hebrew. Knowing that much, what will be her res
ponse?
In 2:6 Pharaoh’s daughter is portrayed as the opposite of Pharaoh (1:8-22).
While the father did not shrink from genocide, the daughter was already
moved by the crying of a child, let alone that she could stand the sight of
blood, and so she goes against her father’s command. Lange notes: ‘Wie oft
sind bei solchen nationalen Feindseligkeiten die Gefiihle einzelner Frauen
allgemein menschlich im Gegensatz gegen die Menge gewohnlicher fanatischer
Weiber.’
Finally, some observations about word usage: in 2:1-3 the verbs npb (v. 1),
run (v. 2) and npb (v. 3) are used; in 2:5-6 the verb nto (v. 5), rtp1? (v. 5) and
nto (v. 6) [np*? also in v. 9]. The mother sees that the child is a well-formed
child (v. 2); the daughter of Pharaoh that it cries (v. 6); tradition goes a step
further, adding that Pharaoh’s daughter was ecstatic about his posture and
beauty (for instance, Josephus, AJ, II, 224).
2:7 Then his sister asked the daughter of Pharaoh, ‘Shall I go and find a nurse
from the Hebrew women to nurse the boy for you?’
The narrative assumes that the boy’s sister (2:4) had appeared on the
scene.33 for the interrogative particle see e.g. Ges-K § 100m; here
without methegh (so in BHS; but note BHK1"2), see Meyer § 16.2b. 'ntnpi (see
Introd. § 3.45) with waw copulative to introduce a final clause (Ges-K § 165a;
Joiion § 161m, 168b).
nprp part. hiph. of pr (OT ca. 20 x), ‘to suck,’ (qal), ‘to nurse,’ ‘to suckle,’
(hiph. 3x Exod.); nprn tok is a ‘nurse’ (cf. e.g. Gen. 24:59; 35:8).34 p, with
out maqqep; cf. Joiion § 103d. prm jussive (cf. KoSynt § 364e) hiph. of pr. i 1? is
used twice; so the sister, while intimating that Pharaoh’s daughter had already
made up her mind to keep the little boy for herself,35 gives the impression
B e a r in m ind th e rabbinic n o tio n lies th e idea that fo r o n e day P haraoh ’s o rd er (1 :2 2 )

p ertain ed to all children (inclu d in g E gyptian); h en ce the q u estio n , how did P haraoh ’s d au gh ter find
ou t th e identity?; fo r th e circu m cision s e e at 4:24-26.
33 A cco r d in g to E zek iel th e T ragedian, M iriam ca m e running to (3 0 ff.).
34 S e e furth er T W A T , III, 665ff.; M .I. G ruber, “B r ea st-F eed in g P ractices in B iblical Israel and
in O ld B ab ylon ian M e so p o ta m ia ,- J A N E S 19 (1 9 8 9 ), 61-83.
35 ‘und ford ert s o v erm u tlich ein en beziiglich en E ntschluB ’ (Strack ).
that her sole objective is to want to be of service to the princess, without

thinking of her own interests.
Josephus (AJ, II, 225 ff.) relates that Pharaoh’s daughter had an Egyptian
woman brought to nurse the child. The boy, however, refused to drink from
her breast. He also refused attempts by other Egyptian women to nurse him.
Then Miriam advised to get a Hebrew woman, since the child might be willing
to accept the breast of a woman of his own race. Such a woman was obtained
and the child proved indeed willing. Rabbinic literature also has this same
tradition (bSota 12b; ExR. 1,25; note also Rashi and Rosmarin, 52). That
tradition also mentions an explanation for the child’s refusal: the mouth that
some day will speak with God cannot drink from the breast of someone
unclean; Egyptian women must be prevented from saying: ‘I fed him who now
speaks with the Shekinah.’ In the Muslim tradition the incident happens in the
palace of Pharaoh, and the leading role is played by Pharaoh’s spouse Asia. At
the insistence of his wife and daughters Pharaoh lets Moses live. When Moses
refuses to drink the milk of an Egyptian wet nurse, Asia advertises for another
nurse. Moses’ sister sees to it that Jochebed offers her services at the palace
(Weil, 139ff.). Philo (VM, I, 15) thinks that Pharaoh’s daughter needed a nurse
since, because of Pharaoh, she could not take the child home. Some modern
expositors suggest that the sister made a good suggestion because it was not
easy to find an Egyptian nurse (cf. Strack), for people were fearing Pharaoh’s
anger (Heinisch, Clamer). It is also pointed out that the Egyptians wanted to
keep their distance from the Israelites (cf. Gen. 43:22) (Heinisch, Clamer), and
that there were enough Hebrew women available who, bereft of their son by
Pharaoh’s decree, could serve as a nurse (Heinisch, Cassuto). This approach to
the text is too historicizing. Implied in the verse is the notion that a child, if it
is going to be strong, must be nursed by a woman of the same race. In 2:7-9
the writer declares that the future deliverer of Israel is a genuine Hebrew, free
from any foreign element. In brief, in 2:7 it is said that the boy’s sister notices
(if one wants to take that exegetical tack, the boy’s facial expression and the
fact that he was not thrown into the water may have told her) that Pharaoh’s
daughter took pity on him and wanted to keep him for herself. She avails
herself of that opportunity by advancing a suggestion that will make the
princes’ desire come true and will at the same time open the way for the child
to grow up as a genuine Hebrew.
2:8 The daughter of Pharaoh answered her; ‘Go aheadV Then the girl went to
get the mother of the boy.
'ob (see Introd. §3.14.2), see Ges-K § 150n; Joiion § 1611; Cassuto thinks that
the princess’ answer is brief because she is so deeply moved; it is more likely
that the brevity of her response is due to her status; she orders (cf. e.g.
Matt. 8:9). r\br\\ it is natural to assume that the order was quickly carried out
(however, this cannot be deduced from the words used here; contra Cassuto).
286 EXODUS 2:1-10
na^>» (OT 9x; cf. TWAT, VI, 167ff.) denotes a young woman, a nubile girl (in
the Ancient Near East people married at younger ages than in today’s world).
The fact that the text speaks of ‘the girl’ instead of ‘the sister’ is remarkable.
Rabbinic literature deduced from the alternation that Miriam, though still
young, quickly carried out her task (bSota 12b; ExR. 1,25, and note also
Rashi); G. Gerleman, ZAW 91 (1979), 345f., defends the view that means
‘the unknowing,’ the ‘uninitiated,’ and states the term is used in 2:8 because
Moses’ sister plays the role of outsider. Likely the term is used to show how
Pharaoh’s daughter looks at the sister: in her eyes she is just another girl (cf.
Schmidt).
□K (OT ca. 220x; Exod. 7x), ‘mother,’ is sometimes considered a babble
word, comparable to ‘mommy.’36 In Exod. the term stands for the biological
mother of a boy or girl (2:8; 20:12; 21:15, 17)37 and for a mother-animal
(22:29; 23:19; 34:26). See further THAT, I, 173ff., and for the place of the
mother in family and society e.g. Pedersen, I-II, 71ff. et al.; Wolff, 259 ff. and
the lit. at 3N (2:16).
2:9 Then the daughter of Pharaoh ordered her, ‘Take this boy and nurse him for
me; I will pay you for it.' The mother took the boy and nursed him.
The story assumes that the sister carried out the order and that the mother
had come to the daughter of Pharaoh. 'r'rri, it is usually assumed that 'p'în
(imp. sing. fern. hiph. of i^n) should be read; see e.g. Delitzsch, 19, 50; cf. the
translation of TPsJ and TNf; a fragment from the Cairo genizah has the
reading 'D'bn (see BHS); the textual tradition of the Sam. Pent, contains the
readings 'Z>bn and *pbn; it is conjectured that the form wrongly arose under the
influence of the following inprrn (Ges-K §69x; BL §385g’); Ehrlich objects
that hiph. rarely (Zech. 5:10; Eccl. 5:14) occurs with the meaning ‘to bring
a thing/person;’ in his view is a combination of the readings '?'Vin and
Nn (cf. Gen. 47:23) and the latter is the preferred reading (cf. Brockelmann
§4 );38 Pharaoh’s daughter says: ‘look, here is for you’;39 in the light of the
execution of the order (2:9b) P. Joiion (see Ges-B, 182) has proposed the
reading tj^ 'rip; the renderings of LXX: 8iaTfipiio6v, and Vulg. accipe, are
apparently due to the context, pr, see 2:7.
intt (see Introd. §3.36) is given emphasis by the personal pronoun *:k
(KoSynt § 362g; Ges-K § 135a; Joiion § 146a); this emphasis and the preceding
'b express that Pharaoh’s daughter regards the boy as her own. Tip», “your
36 S e e L. K ohler, Z A W 5 5 (1 9 3 7 ), 169f.; id em , JS S 1 (1 9 5 6 ), 12f.

W ith th e ex cep tio n o f 2:8 fo llo w in g a p reced in g 3K (s e e 2:16); B iblical H eb rew has n o w ord
fo r ‘p a r e n ts.’
A lso T O and P esh . are based on this reading.
39 R ea d in g rabbinic literature c o n clu d es that unw ittingly th e d au gh ter o f P haraoh
p rop h esies; sh e said =) Tl, ‘look, it is y o u rs’ (b S o ta 12b; E x R I, 25, and a lso R a sh i).
wages’ in the sense of the wages you deserve; the suffix indicates an objective
genitive (KoSynt § 37; Ges-K § 135m), or perhaps a dative (Joiion § 129h;
Brockelmann §80d). 159 (OT ca. 30x), derivative of ‘to hire,’ (cf. TWAT,
VII, 795ff.) is used in 22:14 for the price of hiring an animal and in 2:9 for
wages for a job performed; cf. the adjectival use of (OT 18 x) with the
meaning ‘hired* in 22:14, and as a noun in 12:45 for ‘hired hand,’ an individual
not part of the regular crew of slaves of a master but one who does odd jobs;
in Lev. 22:10; 25:6, 40, like in Exod. 12:45, the term is used with Dtfin (see
2:15); at least in 12:45 there is a hendiadys: the foreigner who as a hired ser
vant has found a home with an Israelite; see for this category Pedersen, I-II,
42.; Thiel, 153; De Vaux, I, 139f.
namn, cf. the use of ‘the girl’ in 2:8; the term is used to indicate how the
daughter of Pharaoh views the mother: to her the mother is just another
woman; she is completely ignorant of the blood bond there is between the boy
and the two women, inp^rn is problematic; it is proposed that the form is to be
understood as an imperf. cons. hiph. + suffix of a verb p^, which does not
occur in the OT (see Ges-B; BDB; KBL); not a few, with Sam. Pent., want to
read inp^rm (imperf. cons. hiph. + suffix of pr, see 2:7); see further Delitzsch,
55; Ges-K § 70e (scribal error or ‘abnorme Verkurzung der ersten Silbe wegen
des Fortriickens des Tons’); BL § 378j.
It is thought that 2:9 contains a tone of irony or joking: the mother of the
boy is even being paid for taking care of her own child, and that by the
daughter of the man who wanted to kill it (e.g. Beer, Gispen, Te Stroete).
Some expositors assume that 2:9 deals with a more or less official incident. As
is known from texts from the Ancient Near East, affluent women were
accustomed to have their children raised elsewhere than in the parental home
during their first years. It is conjectured that Pharaoh’s daughter, following
that custom, entered into an official agreement with the woman for the rearing
of the young boy.40 In any case, it is clear that the princess regards the boy as
her own. So his life was no longer in danger and the mother need not fear to
take the child home and look after it.
2:10 The boy grew up and she brought him to Pharaoh's daughter. She regarded
him as her own son and named him Moses (‘he who goes up*), ‘for, ’ she said, 7
pulled him out of the water. ’
Vrn imperf. cons, qal of bii (OT ca. 120x), ‘to be great;’ in 2:10,11 the verb
means ‘to grow up’ (cf. e.g. Gen. 21:8,20; 25:27; 38:11,14).41 Ehrlich and
40 S e e F en sh a m , H yatt, and esp e cia lly B.S. C hilds, ‘T h e Birth o f M o se s,“ JB L 8 4 (1 9 6 5 ), 109 -2 2
(1 1 0 ff.); S to l, 86ff.
41 D e r iv e d from ^13 is th e a d jective ^ 1 3 (O T ca. 525 x; E xod. 1 5 x ), w hich has a w id e range
o f nu an ces; its o p p o site is ptDp (O T ca. 55x; E xod. 18:26), w hich variously d e n o te s ‘g r ea t’ (18:11;
3 2:10, 1 1 ), ‘r e s p e c te d ’ (1 1 :3 ), ‘im portan t’ (18:22; o r p erhaps a lso ‘p rob lem atic;’ cf. 18 :2 6 ), ‘a w e
288 exodus 2 :1 - 1 0
Beer want to read ‘and he was weaned/ noting that 2:9 does not allow
the reading ‘and he grew up/ because Pharaoh’s daughter only ordered the
child to be nursed. According to Gen. 21:8, b ir \ qal can also
refer to the moment breast feeding stopped.42 If one opts for this interpreta
tion one must assume that in 2:10 refers to the conclusion of the boy’s
first years and in 2:11 to his growth toward maturity. That need not be a
problem: in Gen. 21:8 (Isaac) Vrn has the first meaning; in Gen. 21:20 (Is-
hmael) the second meaning (compare also 1 Sam. 3:19 with l:22ff.).43 Accor
ding to ExR. I, 26, the boy was nursed for two years. A time span of two to
three years is indeed the most likely (cf. 1 Sam. l:22ff.; 2 Chron. 31:16; 2 Macc.
7:27); see e.g. Benzinger, 123f.; De Vaux, I, 87f., and also Schmidt. For an idea
of what young Moses being brought to the daughter of Pharaoh by his mother
was like one can compare it to little Samuel who was relinquished to the
sanctuary by his mother (1 Sam. 1).
‘to bring/ see Introd. § 3.8. The order of the princess (2:9) implies that she
wants to have the boy back. In 2:10 it is stated that the mother herself returns
the child. So in light of the purport of Exodus one can say that the mother
sets the child on the path that must lead to his ultimate destination; she does
her part in the delivery of Israel, ‘she regarded him as her own son’ (cf. Introd.
§3.13.2), this is often regarded as a kind of adoption (e.g. Keil, Baentsch,
Beer, Heinisch, Te Stroete, Hyatt). This interpretation gives the rendering ‘she
took him as her own son’ (cf. Vulg.). The wording of the text differs from the
comparable passages Esth. 2:7,15 (Mordecai took Esther as his own daughter)
and 2 Sam. 7:14 ( y h w h declares that he will be a father to David’s son and
that he will be a son to him) and only says what Moses meant to Pharaoh’s
daughter (TPsJ states that Pharaoh’s daughter loved Moses as her own son).
That she regards him as her own is brought out by the fact thatshe gives him
a name (for that see Introd. § 5.d). The question about the legalramifications
lay outside the writer’s purview (in an adoption the adopter makes the adoptee
his heir). At most one can say that Pharaoh’s daughter is here pictured as the
foster mother of the boy (cf. Esth. 2:7a), whose parents are known to the
readers, but who is no more than an abandoned child to the princess. The
writer’s concern is to indicate that thanks to the kindness of Pharaoh’s
daughter Moses grows up into a mature man in the house of Pharaoh himself
so m e ,’ ‘m ighty,’ ‘im p o sin g ’ (3:3; 14:31; 15:16), ‘heavy,’ ‘hard’ (6:6; 7:4; 32:21, 30, 3 1 ), ‘lo u d ’ (11:6;
12:30); s e e furth er T H A T , I, 402ff.; T W A T , I, 927ff.
42 D e M o o r (s e e Introd. § 7 .3 .8 ), 5 8 n. 189, co n jectu res that th e boy stayed lo n g er w ith th e
m oth er, till h e w as five.
43 In M idrT a n h . E x o d II, 17, th e d o u b le m en tion ‘and he grew up’ is said to m ean that as a five-
yea r old M o se s co u ld p ass for an 11-year old, both in height and postu re.
(cf. 1 Kgs. 11 :20).44

‘to name,’ see Introd. §3.45.1. upKni, the imperf. cons, is used in an explanat
ory sense (cf. 1 Sam. 7:12, and see Ges-K §11 Id; Joiion § 118j); according to
Cassuto t o r here means ‘to think’ (cf. Introd. §3.5.1). “water,’ see Introd.
§3.33. vtrn&i? perf. qal + suffix of tod (only here; too hiph. with yh w h as
subject is used in 2 Sam. 22:17 = Ps. 18:17).
At the end of 2:10 (cf. also 2:8,9) the writer puts Hebrew words into
Pharaoh’s daughter’s mouth. Ibn Ezra (cf. also e.g. Cole) thinks that she
indeed knew the Hebrew language. Others believe that the writer just makes
her talk Hebrew (e.g. Holzinger, Te Stroete). In any case, the writer has her
carefully choose her words. She explains the name Moses by deriving it from
the root tod, ‘to draw out.’ However, she does it in such a way that - tongue-
in-cheek one might say - she creates the impression that she has not yet fully
mastered the language: in view of her elucidation of the name one would have
expected her to have called him t o d (pass, part.), “who is being drawn out,’
rather then too (act. part.), ‘he who arises out of.’ But by naming him too,
without adding an elucidation, she makes a statement about his future (cf. e.g.
Midrash Haggadol; see Ginzberg, II, 270): she calls him Moses because she had
‘pulled’ him out of the water, and because some day he will ‘pull’ the Israelites
out of Egypt.45 Ishodad thinks that Pharaoh’s daughter on purpose gave
Moses a Hebrew name (md=maje, se=sla, ‘taken back from the water’): the
name was to keep Moses from thinking that he was really her son, so be
coming arrogant, and as a reminder of the good fortune that was his.
2:10 relates that Moses owed his name to Pharaoh’s daughter. Extra-biblical
tradition has not left Moses nameless the first years of his life. According to
Pseudo-Philo, IX, 16, Jochebed named his Melchiel. Isho Bar Nun (question
35) notes that according to some exegetes it is not known what name Moses
received from his parents when he was circumcised on the eighth day, but that
according to others he was called Pantil (as Putiel in 6:25 is translated in the
Pesh.). This is argued on the ground that Eleazar married the daughter of the
brother of his father. The origin of the view, which occurs also in Ishodad, is
not known. For that matter, Ishodad holds that it was not until after his flight
from Pharaoh that Moses took the name Pantil, because God had saved him
from the sword of Pharaoh.46 According to Ishodad, at his circumcision
44 F o r a d o p tio n s e e S. A lla m , “D e I’ad o p tio n en E gyp te Pharaonique,* O rA n t 11 (1 9 7 2 ), 277-95;

B o e c k e r , lO lff. (B ib l.); M . D avid , “A d o p lie in het O u d e Israel,* M N A W .L 18.4 (1 9 5 5 ), 85-103;
H . D o n n e r , "A doption o d e r L egitim ation?," O rA n t 8 (1 9 6 9 ), 87-119; M .H . Prdvost, "R em arques
su r I’a d o p tio n d an s la Bible," R ID A 14 (1 9 6 7 ), 67-77; D e V aux, I, 101 ff. S e e a lso M . M alul,
"A d op tion o f F o u n d lin g s in th e B ib le and M esop otam ian D o cum ents," J S O T 4 6 (1 9 9 0 ), 9 7 -1 2 6 .
45 It is so m e tim e s assu m ed that Isa. 63:11 allu d es to 2:10; B oh l thinks that th e a llu sion is to
M o s e s as th e o n e w h o w as drawn o u t o f the w ater, w h ile C assu to u n d erstan d s Httfb in
Isa. 63:11 as ‘the d eliv erer o f his p e o p le ’ (cf. B uber, 4 3 f.).
46 2 :22 Pesh.; 18:4; th e n a m e is based on a pun from the v erb p s j used in th e P esh .
290 EXODUS 2:1-10
Moses was named Jamkil/Jamlakja; according to Clement of Alexandria

(Stromata, I, 21) the name Joachim. In rabbinic literature it is said that Moses
received various names from different people (Ginzberg, II, 169f.; Rosmarin,
53).
In 2:10 the writer only implies that Moses came to the royal court. He is
silent about a possible relationship with Pharaoh. If it assumed that the writer
presupposes familiarity on the part of the reader with the extra-biblical
traditions about Pharaoh’s fear for the emergence of a rival (see 1:15-22), one
can say that 2:10 by implication portrays how the rival grows up in Pharaoh’s
immediate vicinity. If one stays with the MT, all one can say is that evidently
the writer wishes to suggest that Moses was given the opportunity to qualify
himself for his later task as Israel’s leader. Owing to his being raised by
Pharaoh’s daughter he did not acquire, as Ibn Ezra observes, the slave men
tality of the Israelites. In brief, thanks to Pharaoh’s daughter a man grows up
and is being trained who later on will turn out to be Pharaoh’s great opponent
and who will make his fear ( 1:10 end) come true.
Dissatisfied with the sober description in 2:10, later commentators have
seized it as an opportunity for more fanciful descriptions of Moses’ life at the
court. Not only do they refer to Pharaoh’s daughter’s affection for Moses, but
also to that of Pharaoh himself for Moses. These writers also speak of Moses’
great wisdom at an early age (cf. Luke 2:52); of his handsomeness and about
the suspicion of the wise men at the court that he might be the future rival of
Pharaoh; they talk about his victory over the Ethiopians as general of the
~ tians and about his marriage to an Ethiopian princess (cf. Num. 12:1)

Similar to 1:15-22, also this section has occasioned questions in connection
with extra-biblical givens. The questions are not restricted to the similarity
between the stories about renowned people who, despite threats to which they
were exposed in their life (note 1:15-22), achieved their destination and the
narrative of Moses’ birth. The interest concerns especially the many tales about
the heroes of old who after their birth were committed to the water.4 48 In
7
47 S e e e.g. ExR I, 26; A rtapanus (in E u seb ius, PE, IX, xxvii); J o se p h u s (AJ, II, 230ff.); P h ilo
( VM, I, 18ff.); G regory o f N yssa ( VM, I, 18); E zek iel the T ragedian (in E u seb iu s, PE, IX , xxviii);
Ishodad (a m o n g o th e rs h e tells that J a n n es and Jam bres, s e e 1:15-22, initiated M o se s in to th e
se c r e ts o f so o th sa y in g and m agic), and in the N T A cts 7:21f. (s e e Introd. § 13.4.1); s e e furth er
G in zb erg, II, 296ff.; R o sm a rin , 52 ff., and in particular J. C o h en , The Origin and Evolution o f the
Moses Nativity Story, L eid en 1993; T. R ajak, "M oses in E thiopia: L egen d and Literature," JJS 29
(1 9 7 8 ), 1 10-22, and S. B rock, JJS 3 3 (1 9 8 2 ), 237-55; D .J. Silver, JQR 6 4 (1 9 7 3 -7 4 ), 123-53.
48 F o r that s e e e.g. F ohrer, 19ff.; G reB m ann, 4ff.; G unkel, 116ff.; G aster, 225ff.; D .B . R e d fo rd ,
"The L iterary M o tif o f th e E xp osed Child," Nurnen 14 (1 9 6 7 ), 2 0 9 -2 8 , and in particular B. L ew is,
The Sargon Legend: A Study of the Akkadian Text and the Tale of the Hero Who was Exposed at
particular reference is regularly made to the Mesopotamian story about the

youth of Sargon of Akkad.49 In the story Sargon reports this about his life:
his father he knew not; his mother, a highpriestess, bore him in secret, placed
him in a basket of rushes and closed it with bitumen; she put him in the river
which carried him along; he was pulled out of the water by Akki, the drawer of
water, who made him his gardener; the goddess Ishtar gave him her love; he
became king. These details show there are parallels between the tale about
Sargon and 2:1-10 but that there are clear differences as well: Moses is
exposed under different circumstances; Moses is first kept hidden for three
months; he is placed among the bulrushes and found at the spot where he had
been put; the boy’s sister plays a role in the story; the child is found by a
princess and nursed by his own mother, etc. It is not unlikely that the writer
was somewhat familiar with the tale about Sargon. But it should be noted that
he used the legendary material at his disposal entirely for and integrated it
into his story about Israel’s deliverance from Egypt. In his hands the legendary
material became a phase in Israel’s history: Moses’ exposure in the river is a
response to Pharaoh’s order to throw all boys into the river; through human
agents (Pharaoh, the father, and especially the mother and sister of Moses and
the daughter of Pharaoh) God guided the future deliverer of Israel toward his
destination (cf. Isa. 49:1; Jer. 1:5).
In passing I point out that the OT also relates of other children, whose life
had a decisive impact on the course of history, that in their youth they were
threatened with death: Ishmael (Gen. 21), Isaac (Gen. 22), Joseph (Gen. 37);
cf. also Ezek. 16.
B irth , C am b ridge, M ass. 1 980, 149ff. (fo r literature s e e a lso Schm idt, 5 5 ff.). S e e a lso A . B ren ner,
"F em ale S ocial B ehaviour: T w o D escrip tiv e P atterns w ithin the ‘Birth o f th e H e r o ’ Paradigm ," V T
3 6 f l 9 8 6 ) , 2 5 7 -7 3 .
49 F o r text (tra d itio n ), translation and com m entary s e e Lew is, 1 Iff.; for tran slation s e e e.g. A O T ,
2 3 ff.;A N E T , 119; R T A T y 123f.
exodus 2 :1 1 - 2 2
THE DELIVERER REJECTED BY HIS PEOPLE
2:11 A t that time, Moses, who meanwhile had grown up, went out to his people.
He witnessed the heavy work they had to do, and noticed how an Egyptian beat a
Hebrew, one of his kinsfolk
12 Then he looked to the left and to the right, noted that there was no one
around, killed the Egyptian and hid him in the sand.
13 When he went out the next day, he saw two Hebrew men come to blows. He
said to the instigator: Why do you strike your fellow Hebrew?’
14 He answered: Who made you ruler and judge over us? Do you mean to kill
me as you killed the Egyptian?’ Then Moses became afraid, for he realized that
the incident had become known.
15 Also Pharaoh heard of the incident and he tried to kill Moses. Therefore
Moses fled from Pharaoh. He stopped in the land of Midian and sat down by the
well.
16 Then girls arrived - the seven daughters of the priest of Midian —; they drew
water and filled the troughs to water their father’s flock
17 Then the shepherds arrived. They wanted to drive them away. Moses,
however, sprang into action, came to their defense and watered their flock
18 When they had returned to Reuel their father, he asked them: How did you
get everything done so soon today?’
19 They answered: An Egyptian rid us of the trouble of the shepherds and also
drew water for us and watered the flock ’
20 Then he said to his daughters: And where is he? How could you leave the
man there? Invite him to have something to eat!’
21 Moses accepted the invitation to stay with that man and he gave Moses his
daughter Zipporah in marriage.
22 She bore a son and he named him Gershom, for, ’ he said, 7 have become a
guest in a foreign land. ’
With 2:10 still fresh in the mind, the reader starts 2:11. Will the Moses, who is
so eminently qualified to be the leader of the people, liberate them and lead
them out of Egypt? Initially all the signs for a bright future are positive.
Though reared in an Egyptian milieu, his heart is that of a genuine Hebrew,
eager to be with his people. Besides, the encounter with his kinsfolk is the
ESSEN T IA LS AND PER SPEC T IV ES 293
cause of the turnabout in Moses’ life: he chooses the side of his people against
the Egyptians (2:11-12). The writer highlights this by noting again the miser
able conditions of the people of Israel as a whole (cf. ch. 1), after he had
narrowed his story to the early life of Israel’s future deliverer and those
specially involved in it (2:1-10). In 2:11 he returns to 1:13-14 and gives a vivid
illustration of the miserable situation in which Israel finds itself. Against that
background he brings Israel’s and Moses’ ways together.
He highlights the people’s pitiable situation in two scenes, both of far-
reaching consequences for Moses and so also for the people. The first scene
(2:11-12) shows how Moses, who meanwhile had become a grown man,
witnessed the forced labour of his people and the mistreatment of one of them
by an Egyptian. Moses beats the Egyptian to death. He is incensed that one of
his own people is being beaten. It goads him to an act of violence which stands
in no comparison to the wrong of the Egyptian. Violence begets more violen
ce. The repeated use of the verb ‘beat’ in 2:11,12 insinuates the atmosphere of
violence that had become Israel’s environment, an atmosphere which according
to the use of ‘beat’ in 2:13 had also affected Israel itself. Everything seems to
indicate that Moses’ act, the killing of the Egyptian, would be the spark
touching off the uprising. There is, however, no response from the side of the
people. The next scene (2:13-14) makes clear that they refuse to acknowledge
him as leader. Again the writer depicts the incident against the background of
the forced labour decor. Again he has Moses visit the toilers. Besides Moses,
this time the dramatis personae are two Hebrew workers who had begun to
quarrel and come to blows with each other. Surprised, Moses addresses the
instigator (2:13). Evidently it is beyond him how people who have to endure
the brutality of the Egyptians can also treat each other brutally (cf. Acts 7:26;
see Introd. § 13.4.1). The man’s response demonstrates that Moses’ kinsfolk
did not interpret his act as the sign for revolt. The man who started the
quarrel counters Moses’ one question by asking two himself (2:14). He
challenges Moses’ right to concern himself with the Hebrew men. In his first
question he also involves the first man with whom moments ago he was still
fighting (note the ‘over us’), thereby indicating that together (also in this
respect it is two against one) they form one front against Moses. The language
of the man is hostile through and through. His hostility is even more apparent
in the second question. Now he uses the verb ‘to slay’ (nn), twice in fact. Thus
far the verb ‘to beat’ (n^ hiph.) (2:11-13) was used in the story. It was also
used for Moses’ beating to death of the Egyptian (2:12). In his second question
the Hebrew gives his interpretation of that beating by Moses: it was an act of
murder pure and simple. He seems to say: the beating you did is a lot less
innocent than the beating I did. His reaction is one of accusing Moses. The
narrow world of slave labour in which he lives has dulled his sensitivity to such
an extent, has demoralized him so much, that he cannot imagine that there can
be other reasons than the thirst for blood and the thrill of murder that can
294 exo dus 2 :1 1 - 2 2
make one kill another human being. He views Moses as a meddler who is
looking for an opportunity to kill a fellow human being. In brief, Moses is met
with deaf ears, all his people do is treat him hostilely (cf. Acts 7:25, 27f., 35;
see Introd. § 13.4.1).
At any rate, Moses has no reply to the man’s first question, ‘Who made you
ruler and judge over us?’ What he did sprang from personal initiative. He can
not yet justify his deed by pointing to a mandate from y h w h (cf. 4:lff.;
17:2ff.). The questions mentally disarm him completely. All the ground is cut
from under him. Fear grips him. His act becomes known through the country
and make his life in Egypt unsafe. The hostility of his people tells him that he
need not count on them and that he can find no refuge with them. They do
not want his leadership and help.
Both scenes show that Moses is made of the right stuff. He proves he is
prepared to stand up for a victim of injustice, whether it concerns a fight
between a member of his own people and a stranger (2:11 - 12) or a fight
between two of his own kinsmen (2:13-14). It is this man, who is destined to
be the deliverer of his people, who is forced to flee, because he finds no
response among his own kin. Likely one should also say that such a response
is out of the question because his way of doing things is not in accordance
with the divine will. The writer intimates that redemption is not going to be a
human achievement but solely the work of God. Consequently, the ways of
Israel and Moses, after a brief convergence, will soon part again. Later they
will merge again (4:29ff.). But it is not that far yet.
In two scenes (2:15-22) the writer highlights what happens to Moses after his
rejection by his people. The first scene (2:15-17) is introduced with the infor
mation that also Pharaoh learns of Moses’ slaying of the Egyptian and tries to
kill him. The future leader is compelled to flee. The reader of the story, who
had hoped that the liberation of the people was about to happen (cf. 2:11 - 12),
now anxiously wonders whether anything will come of it and of the promise of
the land. So far Pharaoh’s plans had been stymied. The expedient of forced
labour and the decree of 1:22 had not resulted in the wrecking of the people
and the undoing of the promise that Israel would become a great nation. In
fact due to Pharaoh’s decree, the man, who was destined to become the leader
of the people, could grow up into a man of stature. Is Pharaoh going to win
after all? Will Moses’ absence enable him to prevent the people from leaving
(cf. 1:10) and the promise from becoming reality? Anxiously the reader follows
the events in Moses’ life. After the alarming opening words the writer eases
the reader’s anxiety. He relates that Moses stops in faraway Midian. Moses’ life
is no longer in danger. He adds that there Moses sat down by a well (2:15),
and so he evokes a picture of serenity and peace. However, the well becomes a
unique place of meeting. Moses does not remain alone for very long there.
Seven young women, shepherdesses, appear on the scene to water their flock.
To Moses there is nothing special about them. But the writer discloses to the
reader that they are the daughters of the priest of Midian. With rivetted
attention the reader observes the peaceful scene, the man sitting there sur
rounded by the active shepherdesses (2:16). When the reader is about to
wonder how Moses will react to their arrival, more people arrive on the scene.
This time it is men, the shepherds, and that is the end of the tranquility. They
push ahead and try to profit from the work of the shepherdesses. Moses,
however, gets involved and drives them away. He also helps the shepherdesses
(2:17). Moses’ intervention makes the peace return. Again Moses demonstrates
to have heart for the oppressed (cf. 2:11-14). As well, his involvement is shown
not to be restricted to his kinfolk and members of his own gender.
In the second scene (2:18-20) the writer puts the reader in the home of the
shepherdesses. The young women are met there by their father who is surp
rised that they have returned so soon and asks why. Impressed by the actions
of the gallant ‘Egyptian,’ they report Moses’ actions in an embellished account
(cf. 2:17). The father knows his obligation to be hospitable to the stranger and
invites him to a meal. The writers offers no more scenes to describe what
further happened to Moses. He suffices with a few concluding remarks (2:21-
22). Moses remains in Midian with the father of the shepherdesses who gives
him one of his daughters in marriage. She bore Moses a son, named Gershom.
Also this part of the narrative the writer concludes with a name giving (cf.
2:10). This time it is Moses who gives the name. Also this time the name
contains a promise. By naming his son Gershom (2:22) Moses makes it known
that he has not become part of the people of Midian and has not forgotten his
past. He has preserved his identity. That offers perspectives for the future.
Indeed, Moses has settled in Midian, but his future need not be there. Taking
notice of 2:21-22a, where it is said that Moses settled there, one might think
that there is no way left he can become the saviour of his people. However,
2:22b proclaims that there is a window on the future; the name of his son will
be a constant reminder to Moses of his past and so will keep open the way to
the future. In short, having come to the end of 2:22, the reader can take
courage again. There is still a chance Moses may engage Pharaoh and lead the
people out of Egypt.
In 2:11-22 the writer does not mention the name of God either, but it is not
open to question that he was convinced that here, too, God was at work in the
course of events (cf. essentials 1:8-22; 2:1-10). Again it is women who in large
part determine the course of Moses’ life (cf. 1:15-19; 2:1-10): the meeting with
the daughters of the priest of Midian causes Moses to stay in Midian. His stay
there will have tremendous consequences for his own future and that of Israel
(Exod. 3-4).
As noted already, the writer concludes the passage with some final remarks.
In particular in 2:11-22 his account is marked by great brevity. After 2:20 one
might have expected the writer to mention how the young women invited
Moses, as he was sitting by the well, to come to their home for a meal, that
296 exodus 2 :1 1 - 2 2
Moses would have accepted the invitation, and that he would have been the
guest at a meal in the home of the priest. We are told nothing of the kind.
The writer seems uninterested in such down-home matters and spends no time
on them. In 2:21-22 he moves right along at a brisk pace. There in just a few
words he describes events in Moses’ life that did not happen in only a few
days. Moses moves in with the priest, marries his daughter, and fathers a son.
The writer gives the impression not to want to be bothered by details and not
to want to waste words on a detailed account of what happened to Moses in
Midian. His object is not to write a biography of Moses. His purpose is to tell
how the promises made to the patriarchs are being fulfilled. As regards Moses,
all the reader needs to know is that he found a safe place and that, as is
evident from the name of his son, he did not become assimilated into the
Midianites. The writer is in a hurry. He wants to inform the reader of the
changes in the situation in Egypt, which are of central importance for the
focus of his story, the deliverance from Egypt and the fulfillment of the
promise of the land (2:23-25).

IN T R O D U C T IO N T O T H E E X E G E S IS
As noted in the introduction to the exegesis of 2:1-10, I regard 2:11 as the

beginning of a new chapter which includes 2:11-22.1 In my judgment, the use
of the introductory formula Dnn D'p-p vn in 2:11 favors this division. The same
formula is used in more expansive form in 2:23 as the introduction of the next
chapter.
According to many expositors 2:11-22 is a literary composite. There is
general agreement that the material is to be attributed to old sources (J , E , [L ,
N ] ) , but there is no unanimity on which parts are to be assigned to which
sources.2 Inconsistencies detected including the following: like in 2:10, in 2:11
is used, but with a different meaning;3 the repetition of san in 2:15 with
a different meaning raises questions; there are differences between the descrip
tion of Moses’ action in 2:17b and the report of it given by the daughters of
the priest in 2:19; the priest of Midian is called Reuel in 2:18 but Jethro in
3:1; the events recorded in 2:21-22 do not completely fit the chronology of
1 T h is d ivision is a lso found in M SS o f th e MT; s e e Perrot, 61, 65; C h ild s and S ch m id t take
2 :11-25 as a unit.
2 S e e b e sid e th e co m m e n ta ries (e.g . H olzin ger, B aentsch, B eer, H yatt, C hilds, S ch m id t) E iB feldt,
F ohrer, 24ff.; G reB m ann, 16, and a lso E erdm ans, 9ff.
^ It is su g g ested that originally 2:15 im m ed iately follow ed upon 2:10, and that w hat ca m e to th e
ears o f P haraoh w as not the m urder o f the E gyptian but the raising o f a H eb rew b oy by his
daughter; fearing a future rival (s e e 1 :15-22), Pharaoh se ek s to kill M o se s (e.g. A u erb ach , 19f.).
Exodus.4 Some of these questions are dealt with in the exegesis.

E X E G E S IS
2:11 A t that time, Moses, who meanwhile had grown up, went out to his people.
He witnessed the heavy work they had to do, and noticed how an Egyptian beat a
Hebrew, one of his kinsfolk.
□nrt n'n'o (see Introd. § 3.23.2); there is no reason to understand the words to
mean ‘on a certain day’, as is done by Cassuto; the time reference is not
specifically to the time when the events of 2:1 Iff. happened, but more in
general to the time when Israel was oppressed, which is being narrated from
1:8 on (e.g. Keil, Dillmann, Strack, Baentsch, Heinisch, Schmidt). bnr\ see
2:10. ‘go,’ see Introd. §3.24.1; it is not said where Moses came from; 2:10
suggests from the court of Pharaoh. m$, see 1:6; the term is used twice in 2:11;
the writer stresses the blood ties between Moses and those oppressed.5 It is
not mentioned how Moses knew that the Hebrews were his kinfolk. Some
suggest that he had heard it from the daughter of Pharaoh and also from his
nurse (mother) with whom he had remained in touch (so Strack, De Moor [see
Introd. §7.3.8], 57ff.). Ephraem notes that it was Moses’ name (see at 2:10)
and the fact that he was circumcised6 that had made him conclude that he was
a Hebrew, and he adds that in secret he had learned the history from his
mother and sister. Also Ezekiel the Tragedian (in Eusebius, PE, IX, xxviii, 3)
mention the first-named as the informant). Calmet mention both parents in
this connection.
mo, see Introd. §3.46.1 (-1- y ; see KoSynt §212b). nboo, see 1:11. ‘Egyptian/
see Introd. §8.19; though this man is not called an overseer, it is natural to
think he was; Ishodad writes that his name was Kilition, a friend of Cheneph-
ro’s, the spouse of Merri (Pharaoh’s daughter; see 2:5) and king of Memphis;
because of the murder of his friend, Chenephro presumably dispatched
someone to Moses to kill him; Moses killed that man too and then fled to
Arabia.
HDD hiph. part, of no: (OT ca. 500 x; hiph. 480 x; Exod. 28 x [2x pual;
23 x hiph.; 3x hoph.]), ‘to slay,’ is used in a variety of contexts in Exodus: for
coming to blows with someone (2:13; 21:18f.), for bodily punishments (2:11;
5:14,16; 21:20,26), for the use of violence (21:15; 22:1). In 21:12,20 and 22:1
4 It has b een su g g ested that in 2:23 w as a dded to a lleviate so m e o f th e p rob lem s

in tr od u ce d in th e c h ro n o lo g y by the co m b in a tio n o f d ifferen t m aterial.
^ In th e L X X both tim es it is a dded ‘the so n s o f Israel;’ fo r ‘his brothers’ s e e a lso 4:18.
6 Cf. a lso T h e o d o r e t, Q E , III; Ishodad rejects this view b eca u se circu m cision w as a lso an
E gyp tian cu sto m (Jer. 9:2 5 f.).
298 E X O D U S 2 :1 1 - 2 2
it is specifically stated that the beating resulted in death. Frequently hdd hiph.
occurs with the meaning ‘to kill* (2:12; cf. Gen. 4:15; 8:21; Lev. 24:17,18,21
etal.). roo is also used for the striking of hail (9:25; cf. the use of pual in
9:31,32), for Moses’ and Aaron’s striking with the staff (7:17,20; 8:12f.; 17:5f.)
and with y h w h as subject for the slaying of the firstborn (12:12,29) and for
being afflicted with other calamities (3:20; 7:25; 9:15; 12:13); the object is
usually designated with the accusative; but see 7:17 (+ bv; cf. 7:20); 17:6 (+ d).
In 2:11 the question presents itself whether ro: hiph. means ‘strike,’ or ‘beat to
death’ as in 2:12. Ehrlich, Beer, Bohl, Te Stroete and Schmidt, for example,
hold that the latter is the case. They think it unlikely that Moses would have
killed the Egyptian only because he hit an Israelite. Others think that ‘beating’
is all that is meant here (so e.g. Gispen and Cassuto). In my judgment, the
second is the most likely meaning. What he sees so enrages Moses that he
resorts to an act of violence which stands in no proportion to the wrong of the
Egyptian. ‘Hebrew,* see Introd. § 8.25.
The beginning of 2:11 does not say specifically when the narrated events
took place. All that is said is that in the meantime Moses had become a grown
man (cf. also 2:21). The tradition cites various ages for Moses at the time: 40
years (Acts 7:23, and note e.g. Ephraem, Ishodad), 42 years (Jub. 48:1; cf. 47:1),
or only 20 years.7 Because elsewhere (7:7; Deut. 34:7) the writer appears to
divide Moses’ life into 40-year periods it is natural to think that in his view
Moses was 40 years of age in 2:11. In any case, in 2:11 he transposes the
reader to a period several years later than the time when the events mentioned
in 2:10 transpired. Some think that in those years Moses stayed in touch with
his own people and even visited them (e.g. Murphy, Heinisch). The text is
silent on that. It only recounts happenings that will have radical consequences
for Moses and Israel: Moses chooses for his own people and against the
Egyptians.
2:12 Then he looked to the left and to the right, noted that there was no one
around, killed the Egyptian and hid him in the sand.
ipn imperf. cons, qal of mo (OT ca. 135x; qal ca. 115x; Exod. 6x), ‘to turn
to,’ ‘to turn around;’ usually regarded as a denominative of d^ d (see Introd.
§3.42), in 7:23; 10:6 and 32:15 the verb indicates the opening act for depar
ture; in 2:12 and 16:10 the opening act for observation; the inf. cstr. is used in
14:27 in the expression ipa nup1?, ‘at daybreak,’ ‘at dawn’ (cf. Judg. 19:26;
Ps. 46:6).8 It is usually thought that Moses, eager to keep his deed from
becoming known, first wants to makes sure that no witnesses are present. It is
7 ExR I, 27; th e n u m b er 4 0 is a lso m en tion ed ; for still o th e r sta te m e n ts o f M o s e s’ a g e s e e

G in zb erg, V , 4 0 4 n. 69.
8 A cco r d in g to P. J o iio n , B ib 3 (1 9 2 2 ), 63, m iD has the v a lu e o f a noun: (le f a it d 'etre vers, le
vers,’ w hich + b a cts as a p rep osition .
S C H O L A R L Y E X P O S IT IO N 299
also possible that he acts intuitively: it is the glancing around of a man who is
all fired up and who now acts impulsively. Cassuto suggests that Moses looked
around to see if there might be someone who could come to the Hebrew’s aid
(cf. Isa. 63:5).
ns (OT ca. 580x; Exod. 19x) is a demonstrative adverb (e.g. Joiion § 102h;
Meyer §31. Id), that is used in more or less stereotype formulas to denote the
manner in which something is done or is to be done, with the meaning ’thus’
(usually pointing to what follows); so + *inx (see Introd. §3.5.1) and + n»»
(5:15); it is also used as an adverb of place: rbi ns (for the pointing see Ges-K
§ 104g; Joiion § 104d, and for the repetition KOSynt § 318h), ‘this and that
side’ (2:12; cf. Num. 11:31 etal.), and as adverb of time: nsn», ‘until now’
(7:16; cf. Josh. 17:14).
1*8 (OT ca. 790 x; usually in construct state; Exod. 22 x) is a noun meaning
‘not (existing, available),’ which in translation serves an adverbial function and
normally indicates a negative.9 As to the varied use in Exodus, the following:
px is always used after what is denied; in 17:7 and 32:32 px functions as an
abbreviated clause introduced by ok (see Introd. § 3.4.2), which is intended as
the alternative of a statement made in the preceding clause (cf. Ges-K § 152k;
Williams §408f.); px only functions as a negative in noun clauses (cf. Ges-K
§ 152a; Joiion § 160g; Meyer § 90.4) and then can stand immediately before the
substantive or participle to which the negation refers (2:12; 12:30; 14:11; 17:1;
21:11; 22:9; 32:18; 33:15) (cf. Ges-K § 1521; Williams §407). If the subject to
which the negation refers is a personal pronoun, it is linked to px as suffix
(3:2; 5:10; 8:17). If the predicate is a verb, it takes the form of a participle (3:2;
5:10; 8:17 and also 5:16; 33:15) (cf. Ges-K § 152m; Meyer § 104.1d). It hap
pens, too, that px is separated by shorter words from the word to which the
negation refers (12:30; 22:1); even by various words (5:11). px can also be
placed after the substantive to which the negation refers (5:16; 22:13). The
assumption is that so the word placed first is given greater emphasis (but note
Carmignac, 408). px can also be used in the absolute state with the meaning
‘no one/nothing is’ (8:6; 9:14; 22:2) (cf. Ges-K § 152i, o; Joiion § 160h, i). For
the use of px in a simple circumstantial clause, see 21:11; 22:9; 22:13 (cf. Ges-
K § 152u).10
‘no one/ the apparent meaning is that the overseer was the only Egyptian
around (according to 2:13f. the deed was known to the Hebrews). The meaning
changes if one assumes that the Egyptian slew the Hebrew; then what is meant
is that the overseer was the only human being around, raising the question
9 The negative of BT (OT 140x; Exod. 17:7, ‘there is (available);’ see Ges-K § 152i; Joiion
§ 102k, 154k, 1, 160j, g; Meyer § 86.9b, 104.1d; Williams § 476ff.
10 See further THAT, I, 127ff.; J. Carmignac, “L’emploi de la negation dans la Bible et £
Qumran," RdQ 8 (1972-75), 407-13; Th.C. Vriezen, “Opmerkingen over gebruik en betekenis van
de negatie ’ajin - ’en" in Fs A.R. Hulst, Ubersetzung und Deutung, Nijkerk 1977, 187-203.
300 E X O D U S 2 :1 1 - 2 2
how the act became known (see 2:13). roj, see 2:11.
vroap-i, imperf. cons, qal + suffix of ]oo (OT ca. 30 x), ‘to hide,’ ‘bury;’ see
TWAT, III, 366ff.; S.E. Balentine, VT 30 (1980), 137-53. Vin, ‘sand’ usually
denotes the loose sand by the sea; see TWAT, II, 803ff.; Schwarzenbach, 130.
Holzinger suggests that the scene of 2:12 is the forced labour at the irrigation
works: only few people were around; the Egyptian is buried under the sand of
the abutting desert. Obvious is that it is not said that Moses dug a pit to bury
the Egyptian (cf. Gen. 35:4; Josh. 7:21f.), but that he hastily covered the body
with loose sand that was lying there (cf. Josh. 2:6) to prevent the episode from
getting known.

What to think of Moses’ act? If 2:11 is a case of killing a person, it could be
that Moses acts according to the ius talionis (cf. 21:23ff.) (Beer) or takes into
his own hands and carries out the law that whoever kills someone shall be put
to death (Lev. 24:17; cf. Exod. 21:12) (Schmidt). Referring to Gen. 9:5, Bohl
posits that the duty of avenging blood rests upon Moses. He suggests that
Moses looks around to ascertain if more witnesses are present. None being
there, ‘Moses has no option but himself to avenge the blood, whether he likes
it or not.’ Conservative scholars as a rule say some kind words about Moses’
deed, but do not approve of it. Gispen notes that Moses championed justice
and in his position risked everything for the sake of his people, but even so
acted in a fit of anger without having the right to act as judge; God punished
him with his flight to and residence in Midian (cf. e.g. Keil, Lange). Some
want to press extenuating circumstances. Murphy is of the opinion that it was
not Moses’ intention to strike a fatal blow or that he acted in self-defense. In
any case, as he sees it one must factor in that in those days justice was
trampled under foot, and for that reason one should not too quickly condemn
someone who raises his hand in defense of the weak: ‘He has much of the
spirit of the magistrate, where the law and its administrator are wanting.’
Others refuse to spare Moses. The fact that he looked around before carrying
out his deed, they take as an indication that Moses did not act impulsively but
deliberately (Holzinger, Beer, Heinisch; cf. also Gispen). Heinisch emphatically
states that self-defense is out of the question, adding that the act ought not to
be judged in light of the Christian morality.
The writer does not pass judgment. It is not entirely clear what he thought
of the incident. Perhaps Moses’ deed can be interpreted as a signal to start the
uprising.11 The sequel seems to suggest that in the judgment of the writer
Moses failed to get a response because God had not yet called him.
11 Cf. 1 Macc. 2:23ff.: Mattathias’ killing of a Jew who sacrificed to an idol was the spark for the
Maccabean revolt; note, too, the manner in which some people in Israel became leaders; see
Judg. 3:12ff.; 6:25ff.; 1 Sam. 11.
As stands to reason, the incident in 2:1 If., which more recently has been
labeled an ‘anti-Moses tradition/ 12 already way back received scrutiny. The
NT is a case in point (see Introd. § 13.4,5). That it caused problems is evident
from Artapanus, 7ff., according to whom Moses, on the run from Merris’
spouse Chenephres (see 2:5,11) who viewed Moses as his rival and therefore
sought to kill him, slew the Egyptian Chanethothes who had been ordered by
Chenephres to put him out of the way. Josephus (A/, II, 254ff.) does not even
mention Moses’ act and only relates that Moses fled to Midian because he was
no longer sure of his life in Egypt due to the hatred, envy and fear of the
Egyptians and Pharaoh. In ExR. I, 27ff., it is said that Moses wept when he saw
the back-breaking labour and tried to ease it; thanks to his intervention Pha
raoh gave Israel one day off, the sabbath;13 a love affair was the reason the
Egyptian overseer beat the Hebrew: the latter had caught him in the act of
committing adultery with his wife; the Egyptian wanted to get even; so Moses
had two reasons for killing the man: he had killed someone (Lev. 24:17) and
he was an adulterer (Lev. 21:10); furthermore, there was no one who was
willing to come to the defense of the Hebrew; there was no hope that right
eous persons would come from the Egyptian or his posterity14 etc. (see also
Ginzberg, II, 277ff.; Rosmarin, 56ff.). According to the Muslim tradition the
Israelite involved, named Samari, begged Moses for protection; when Moses
had struck the fatal blow he felt sorry for having overreacted and begs God for
pardon (Weil, 145f.). Moses’ act of violence is also mentioned in some of the
stories dealing with the end of his life. The Christian tradition has it that the
devil tried to prevent Michael from burying Moses’ body on the ground that he
was a murderer.15 According to the Muslim tradition Moses mentioned his
deed as an argument to protest his calling (Weil, 151).16
2:13 When he went out the next day, he saw two Hebrew men come to blows. He
said to the instigator: Why do you strike your fellow Hebrew?'
«2n (cf. 2:11) introduces a new scene. The place where it happens is apparently
the same as that in the earlier scene. It may be too much to say that Moses
returns to the place of the crime; what is meant is that Moses again visited his
12 See T.C. Butler, JSOT 12 (1979), 9-15.

13 For Moses’ attempt to ease the burden see also Philo (FA/, I, 40ff.); he pictures the slain
Egyptian as a monster.
14 The last argument also in TPsJ, FT, TNf in the margin and in e.g. Zohar Exod. 12b.
15 See C. Houtman, “De dood van Moses, de knecht des Heren,“ in Fs J.L. Koole, De hiecht,
Kampen 1978, 72-82 (76f.).
16 From the use of HDK on the tongue of the scoundrel of 2:14 Rashi infers that Moses killed
the Egyptian by pronouncing the tetragammaton (but note Nachmanides); for the thoughts of
Jewish expositors on 2:11-12 see Leibowitz, 42ff., and for a general overview of the history of the
interpretation of the passage B.S Childs, Biblical Theology in Crisis, Philadelphia 1970, 164-83; for a
bold interpretation of Lev. 24:10ff. in light of 2:12 see H. Mittwoch, FT 15 (1965), 386ff.
302 exodus 2 :1 1 -2 2
own people, ‘the next day’ (see Introd. §3.23.1; 4.3.2); according to Acts 7:28;
Jub. 47:12 the Hebrew of 2:14 uses the word ‘yesterday’ in speaking of the
murder of the Egyptian (cf. LXX, Vulg.). nrn, see Introd. §3.15.2. ‘two,’ see
Introd. §4.3.1.
o*s: niph. part, of ns:,17 ‘to fight with each other;’ see also 21:22 (here, too,
is the subject; cf. Deut. 25:11) and Lev. 24:10; 2 Sam. 14:6 (always it is
males who are the subject); ns: denotes more than a quarrel which remains
restricted to a verbal dispute; it is a scuffle that leads to or involves hitting the
other; if no one interferes chances are great that one of the parties involved
will kill the other.
(OT ca. 265 x), a derivative of unn,18 contrasts with p*ts (see 9:27) and
denotes the individual who is in the wrong, the guilty party in a quarrel or
lawsuit (2:13; 9:27; 23:1,7). See further THAT, II, 813ff.; TWAT, VII, 675ff. In
2:13 the instigator of the fight is meant. It goes too far to suppose that Moses
broke up the fighters and found out who of them was in the wrong; Moses had
seen who had delivered the first blow. naV, see 1:18, followed by imperf. of ro:;
in the rabbinic tradition the clause, on account of the use of the imperf., is
understood to mean: ‘Why would you want to hit?’ (the man has not yet struck
but is guilty from the moment he raised his hand) (bSanh. 58b; ExR. 1,29, and
see also Rashi); D's:, however, assumes that the men were already hitting each
other; the imperf. occurs more often after imb (e.g. Gen. 44:7; Exod. 5:15).
in (OT ca. 185x; Exod 20 x .: qin [6 xj; min [14x])19 is used with a
variety of meanings: ‘fellow human being’ (20:16,17; 21:14,18,35;
22:6,7,8,9,10,13), ‘companion’ (2:13), ‘neighbor’ (11:2), ‘friend’ (32:27; 33:11;
in 33:11 fellow human being is also a possibility). Normally the neighbor was a
kinsperson (but compare also 11:2). Often mm is used jointly with with the
meaning ‘everyone,’ ‘someone’ (see Introd. §3.2.2); see e.g. 11:2; 21:14,35 etal.
The joint use of both terms makes it possible to denote a relationship of
reciprocity between two individuals: ‘the one ... the other,’ ‘each other’
(18:7,16). More than once the meaning of m suggests ‘one/the other’
(20:16,17; 21:14,18,35; 22:6-10,13). See further THAT, II, 786ff.; TWAT, VII,
545ff.
In the rabbinic tradition20 the quarreling men are identified as Dathan and
Abiram (cf. Num. 16; 26:9). Presumably they informed Pharaoh (2:15) and
their entire life remained Moses’ enemies (also in Exod. 16:20; Num. 14:4 et al.
17 Ges-B, BOB distinguish three roots rfitl; KBL one, HAL two; cf. J. Barr, Comparative Philolo-
Qt, Oxford 1968, 262f.
18 As a verb BK)*I (OT 35x) in hiph. in 22:8 means ‘to declare guilty.’
19 The term is usually regarded as a derivative of HPI II, ‘to associate with;’ the feminine
(OT 6x) occurs in 11:2.
See TPsJ; ExR I, 29, 31, and also Rashi and Ginzberg, II, 281ff.; Rosmarin, 58.
they are supposedly meant).21 Ishodad mentions two views with respect to
the identity of the instigator of the conflict: either it was the man to whose
rescue Moses came (2:Ilf.), and who later betrayed him, or it was someone
who had overheard the man who had been helped as he was telling his parents
about what Moses had done for him, and then brought the story into the open
so that it also reached Pharaoh. According to the Muslim tradition, also in the
fight of 2:13-14 an Israelite (again Samiri) and an Egyptian were involved.
When Moses accuses Samiri of being belligerent and threateningly lifts his
hand against him, Samiri asks him if he is also going to kill him like he did the
Egyptian the day before. The Egyptian hears it and reports it to Pharaoh, who
strikes back by declaring Moses an outlaw to the relatives of the slain Egyptian
(cf. 4:19). One of Moses’ friends from the palace reports Pharaoh’s decision to
Moses who barely has time to flee (Weil, 146).
2:14 He answered: ‘Who made you ruler and judge over us? Do you mean to kill
me as you killed the Egyptian?} Then Moses became afraid, for he realized that
the incident had become known.
see Introd. §3.48. ant, see Introd. §3.21.1; M. Dahood, Bib 62 (1981),
413f., holds that the b before 2TK denotes the vocative: ‘O mortal!;’ but note,
however, B. Couroyer, RB 89 (1982), 48ff. it?, see 1:11. txto qal part. (OT 58x)
of UDtf (OT ca. 145x), ‘to settle a dispute,’ ‘to judge,’22 is used as a substan
tive.23 BDizn no btk is a man who serves as overseer and judge; perhaps the
expression is in the nature of a hendiadys (cf. the English ‘master and lord’):
an overseer who has the authority to intervene and impose punishment (cf.
Amos 2:3; Prov. 8:16: odtf//ifo);24 elsewhere in the OT dthd or D'OD# are men
who as members of the council of elders (see 3:16) function as the real rulers
of a clan (see De Geus, 140, 145, 205f.; Thiel, 133ff., 147); it is possible that in
the mind of the writer among Israel a similar social and governmental struc
ture prevailed in Egypt as later on in Canaan.
inf. cstr. qal + suffix (preceded by interrogative particle plus prepo
sition) of nn (OT 165x), which is used for inflicting a violent and bloody
21
Û1 = your equal:' he who is as evil as you are.
22 See tDDtf qal in 5:21; 18:13, 16, 22 (2x), 26 (2x); in 5:21 YHWH is the subject; in 18:18 +
to act as arbiter in a fractured relationship, to resolve an impasse (cf. Gen. 16:5; 31:53
et al.).
23 Cf. D'PDtf (OT 16x; 6:6; 7:4; 12:12) to indicate the carrying out of a sentence, the penalties,
and tDDt?p (OT ca. 420x; Exod. llx ), which is variously used: for a certain act (21:9; cf.
Gen. 40:13; Judg. 18:7; 1 Kgs. 18:28), an ‘ordinance,’ ‘rule’ (15:25; 21:31 sing.; 21:1; 24:3 pi.), for
what one is entitled to (23:6; cf. Jer. 5:28; Ps. 140:13), for a word from God, the oracle (28:29, 30a;
cf. 28:15, 30b), for a ‘design’ or better, ‘plan’ 26:30; cf. 1 Kgs. 6:38; Jer. 30:18). See further THAT,
II, 999ff.; TWAT, V, 93ff. H. Niehr, Herrschai und Richtcn: Die Wurzel $p( itn Alten Orient und irn
Altai Testament, Wurzburg 1986.
24 Cf. E.Z. Melamed, ScrHie 8 (1961), 131ff.
304 ex odus 2 :1 1 -2 2
death; both people (2:14 [2x], 15; 5:21; 21:14; 23:7; 32:27) and God (4:23;
13:15; 22:23; 32:12) can be the subject. See further TWAT, II, 483ff. see
Introd. §3.5.1. m \ see 1:17; meant is that Moses feared for his life; ptt,
‘surely,’ is an adverb of affirmation (KoSynt. § 351b; Ges-K § lOOi; Meyer
§31.Id; 86.4). »T, see Introd. §3.22.; the apparent assumption is that the
Hebrew freed by Moses (2:1 If.) or perhaps other Hebrews have given publicity
to the incident (see also 2:13). In the LXX: et obxcoq ûpaviq yiyovtv t6 pfpa
, and Vulg.: quomodo palam factum est verbum istud, the final words of
t o u t o
2:14 are taken as a question. Cassuto points to the recurrence (alliteration) of

the sibilants in the words 'a through and of the r-sounds in 'jnrftn
through ”isan.
2:15 Also Pharaoh heard o f the incident and he tried to kill Moses. Therefore
Moses fled from Pharaoh. He stopped in the land o f Midian and sat down by the
well.
‘to hear of,’ see Introd. §3.51.1. tfjpap! imperf. cons, piel of »pa (OT ca. 225x),
‘to seek;’ followed by the inf. cstr. of a verb with prefix b it means ‘to will,’ ‘to
try,’ ‘to aim at,’ etc.25 Often (OT ca. 30 x) epa occurs with the object
and means ‘seek to kill’ (‘to seek,’ viz. ‘to kill’ [4:19]). opa piel with object
yhwh (33:7) means the same as mrr *id epa (see Notscher, 135ff.; Reindl.
164ff.; THAT, II, 455). See further THAT, I, 333ff.; TWAT, I, 754ff.; L. Diez
Merino, “11 vocabulario relativo alia ‘ricerca di Dio’ nell’ Antico Testamento,"
BeO 24 (1982), 81-96.
jipb, also Pharaoh interprets Moses’ act as murder and wants to punish
Moses in accordance with the ius talionis (cf. 4:19); it is farfetched to suppose
that Pharaoh’s reason for being after Moses’ life was not so much because
Moses had committed murder as to his fear that the energetic Moses might
cause an uprising among the Hebrews (so e.g. Heinisch, Clamer, Gispen).
rnpn imperf. cons, of rro (OT ca. 60x), ‘to flee’ (2:15; 14:5); it denotes the
leaving of the familiar surroundings: ‘to flee to,’ ‘to run away’ (for rro in 26:28;
36:33 see 26:28). See further THAT, II, 47ff.; TWAT, I, 778ff.; B. Grossfeld,
ZA W 91 (1979), 107-23; E. Jenni, “‘Fliehen’ im akkadischen und im Hebrais-
chen Sprachgebrauch," Or 47 (1978), 351-9. ' idq, see Introd. § 3.42.3.
a»'i imperf. cons, qal of as?* (OT ca. 1085x; Exod. 21 x; qal 20x; niph.
lx ); in Exodus the verb occurs with the following meanings: ‘to (go and) sit
“on” (+ *>»)’ (11:5; 12:29; 17:12), ‘at’ (^>s>) (2:15; 16:3; cf. 2 Sam. 2:13), ‘in
order to’ (b) (18:13; 32:6; cf. Joel 4:12),26 ‘to stay’ (16:29; 24:14), ‘to look
for/stay in a place,’ ‘to dwell’ (15:17; 2:21 [+ ntt; cf. Gen. 34:16,22; Josh. 15:63];
2:15; 12:40; 23:33 [always + a]). The qal part, a©*, used as a noun, ‘resident,’
25 2:15 (cf. Gen. 43:30; Deut. 13:11 et al.); 4:24 (without b\ cf. Jer. 26:21); in 10:11 the ‘looked
for’ act is mentioned in the preceding and denotes ‘to wish,’ ‘to strive after’ (cf. 1 Chr. 21:3).
See also 18:14; in 18:13f. the reference is to ‘sitting as judge.’
‘inhabitant,’ is found in 34:12,15 (collective) and 15:14,15; 23:31 (pi.);27 the

niph. part, ‘inhabited,’ in 16:3s.28 See further TWAT, III, 1012ff.; L.H. Brock-
ington, in Essays in Honour o f G.W. Thatcher 1863-1950, Sydney 1967, 117-25.
‘Midian,’ see Introd. § 8.16.
The repetition of nzn in 2:15, first, it appears, in the sense of ‘reside,’ then
in the sense of ‘sitting down,’ is somewhat problematic. The MT gives the
impression of recounting the incidents in reverse order. The text of the LXX
contains more detail: first it relates that Moses lived in the land of Midian,
next that, after having arrived in the land of Midian, he sat down by the well.
On the assumption that the LXX is based on the original text, Ehrlich wants
to supplement the Hebrew text by adding to the second 2nn the words
po K3*i (the current text is presumably due to homoioteleuton; 2 x
p o ). The fact that this version, too, first relates that Moses settled in Midian
he explains as due to the Hebrew way of telling the story: ‘nicht selten greift
im A.T. die Erzahlung zuriick um Einzelheiten nachzutragen.’ Others, with an
appeal to Pesh. and LXX, want to read to-i in place of the first azn (e.g.
Beer);29 Noth omits the first aan as being secondary. Expositors who stay
with the MT go in various interpretive directions; some suggest that Moses
settled in Midian and while there once sat by a well (e.g. Bohl, Heinisch,
Gispen, Te Stroete, Cassuto);30 as soon as he arrived in Midian, where he
intended to settle, Moses sat down by the well (Keil). The first view is at odds
with the Hebrew text. It is improbable, is it not, to take aen as referring to two
incidents which happened far apart in time? The second view, which is
substantially identical to that of those who wish to read to*i, is favoured by the
context: the first thing a fugitive, who is without a place of his own, does, is go
to the well, the central meeting spot of the area (cf. Gen. 29:2ff.). It is doubt
ful, however, that azn can also mean ‘to arrive.’ In my judgment, it is worth
considering whether the first anri might mean that on his flight Moses stops in
97
Gottwald, 512ff., holds that in these texts and elsewhere the term has a negative sound and
denotes the members of the dominant class, the rulers; there is not convincing proof for this.
See also the use of DEHft (OT 44x): the place, the area where a people resides (10:23),
‘residence,’ ‘dwelling’ (12:20; 35:3), ‘length of stay,’ (12:40); DEMF1 (14 x OT): ‘resident alien’
(12:45); the term is regularly used with "12 (see 2:22) (Gen. 23:4; Lev. 25:23, 35, 47 et al.); in that
case one and the same person is meant (hendiadys); both terms highlight a certain aspect of the
place he occupies in society; "12 points to his juridical status; indicates that he has no home of
his own but lives with an Israelite; see further TWAT, I, 990; Pedersen, I-II, 505; De Vaux, I, 139;
in 12:45 the reference is likely to the ‘resident alien’ who is not (yet) circumcised and who is not
yet part of the cultic community of Israel; see further also I"Q{0 (21:19): a (compulsory) time of
sitting still, of interruption of the work (!"□$ is sometimes regarded as derived from DET, so KBL,
sometimes as from flDE?, so Ges-B, BDB).
^ Nachmanides notes that one would expect such a reading, but that the current text expresses
that Moses arrived in Midian only after much wandering.
30
In some translations this is brought out by having the second start a new sentence (e.g.
CV, NV, WV, GNB).
306 exodus 2 :1 1 - 2 2
Midian, while the second san says something about the place where he
interrupts his flight (cf. John 4:6) (cf. Strack, and see also KoSynt § 369c). This
interpretation leads to the following picture: Moses did not intentionally
choose Midian as the land where he would settle, but on his flight, without
having a particular place in mind, he halts by the well of Midian; because of
his deed there he gets to know the family of the priest of Midian, and so
Moses decides to stay there (2:21).31
mol, the article can be variously interpreted. It can mean the well, the only
or most important well in the area where Moses ended up.32 Another pos
sibility is that it refers to 'the well’ near which the incident, which is now the
focus of attention, happened (cf. KdSynt p. 296 n. 2; Ges-K § 126q, r; Jouon
§ 137n and e.g. Cassuto). Yet another possibility is to translate 'a well.’ I opt
for the first interpretation (earlier I mentioned the small-scale character of the
stories; cf. Introd. § 11.6.9). (OT 37 x ; Gen. 23 x), ‘well/ ‘pit/ is a place
where, owing to human effort, it is possible to draw the ground water
(Gen. 21:30; 26:15,18f., 32 et al.); due to the scarcity of water, the presence of
a well often caused strife (Gen. 21:25; 26:20f.) and their use was controlled by
specific rules (Gen. 29:2ff.). See further IDB, IV, 839; TWAT, I, 500ff.; Rey-
mond, 131ff., 145ff.; Robertson Smith, 104f. Bedouins in the Sinai peninsula
were in the habit of erecting more or less permanent dwellings near wells or
pits and of engaging in some form of agricultural pursuit there. Wandering
about with their flocks, they were used to go back there at periodic intervals
(Rothenberg, 44). The well near which Moses sat down might be a well near
such a settlement.
Heb. 11:27 (see Introd. §13.5.1) is sometimes —wrongly in my opinion —
read as referring to Moses* flight to Midian. On this Keil notes that Moses did
not manifest his faith by fleeing - his flight was rather a sign of timidity — but
that he did show it by leaving Egypt; he renounced the position he had in
Egypt, which he might have used to try to get back into the good graces of
Pharaoh and so to aid the Hebrews (cf. also Gispen). For the rabbinic tradi
tion concerning 2:11-15, according to which, among other details, Moses did
not head directly for Midian but first was for a considerable length of time in
Ethiopia (see also at 2:10), see Ginzberg, II, 277ff.; Rosmarin, 56ff.
2:16 Then girls arrived - the seven daughters of the priest of Midian —; they drew
water and filled the troughs to water their father's flock,
]7\d (OT ca. 750x; Exod. 11 x), ‘priest/ is used to designate Moses* father-in
3* Ishodad holds that Moses deliberately fled to Midian because it was far away and beyond the
reach of Pharaoh’s power; the Muslim tradition has it that Moses, after having wandered around
for many days, was led there by an angel who appeared to him as a Bedouin (Weil, 146f.).
32 Another moot question is whether it was the well of the land of Midian or of a certain area
of the country; cf. KoSynt. § 299c and see Keil, Dillmann, Cole.
law Jethro/Reuel (2:16; 3:1; 18:1), Aaron (31:10; 35:19; 38:21; 39:41), Aaron’s
successor (29:30), and in pi. Israel’s priests (already before the formal institu
tion of the priesthood; cf. 28:1) (19:22,24) as well as Israel as a whole
(19:6).33 The information in Exodus is insufficient to get an idea as to what
the priesthood of Jethro/Reuel was like. Whether the fact that he offered
advice to make the task of judging the people more efficient (18:17ff.) is an
indication that he also himself was a judge is a question that cannot be
answered. It is attractive to think of him as a kdhin known among pre-Islamic
Arabians, a seer, a soothsayer who, often in a state of ecstasy, uttered oracles,
and was regarded as the mouthpiece of the deity. He was at once seer, pro
phet, priest and judge, and a man of authority in his tribe. He also functioned
as the leader in raids on hostile tribes.34 This understanding of the priest of
Midian is burdened with two problems: the lack of Old Testament data and
the fact that the data on the kdhin are from a much later time.35
The targums have turned Moses’ future father-in-law into a worldly ruler;
TO: TNf: roi, ‘lord;’ TPsJ: otik, ‘ruler;’ cf. also Artapanus, 19f.: Reuel
even wanted to use armed force to return Moses to Egypt. Behind this
interpretation may lie the notion that the title fD should be reserved for the
priest of the true God (see also Rashi). Note in this connection also that the
rabbis were bothered by 2:16ff.: Did Moses move in with an idol worshiper?
They conjecture that Jethro was converted and had quit his idolatrous priestly
office. That had made him an outcast, and because no one wanted to have
anything to do with him anymore he had to ask his daughters to take care of
the sheep (ExR. I, 32; Zohar Exod. 13b; Rashi; and also Ginzberg, II, 289f.;
Rosmarin, 71).36*Another notion is that Jethro was not converted until he
visited Moses in the wilderness (18:9ff.; see in particular vs. 11) (e.g. Kimchi
and Pererius; see BB, 23). Pererius supposes that Moses, like Melchizedek, was
both king and priest (cf. already Ezekiel the Tragedian, 60).
‘seven,’ see Introd. §4.8.1; the Muslim tradition states that the priest had
two daughters (Weil, 148). nto, see Introd. §3.10.1; it is likely implied that the
33 Cf. the use of piel (OT 23x; Exod. 12x), ‘to occupy the priestly office,’ ‘to serve as a
priest’ (28:1, 3, 4, 41; 29:1, 44; 30:30; 31:10; 35:19; 39:41; 40:13, 15), which is usually regarded as a
denominative ver (but see Ges-B), and of ru rp (OT 12x), ‘priesthood/priestly office’ (29:9, 40:15);
for the disputed etymology of )i"D and the use of cognate terms and their meaning in other Semitic
languages, see ID B S , 687f.; Cody, 14ff., 26ff.; M. Gorg, "Die Priestertitel b n r und k h n " B N 30
(1985), 7-14.
34 See J. Lindblom, P ro p h ecy in A n cien t Israel , Oxford 1962, 8, 12, 33, 75, 86f.; Wellhausen,
R e ste 134ff.; cf. also A. Catastini, JSS 32 (1987), 273-77.
35 Cf. De Vaux, H A I, I, 319f. For a description of the duties of priests in the Ancient Near
East, see D B S , X, 1170w.; L. Sabourin, P riesth ood: A C o m p a ra tive S tu dy , Leiden 1973.
36 Evidently it is assumed that taking care of sheep was lower class work, certainly for women
(but note Gen. 29:9); the fact that the daughters of a famous man, the chief of the Midianites, were
sheepherders makes Ishodad say: ‘it seems that the ancient were humbler than the people of today;
it was not beneath their dignity to do lowly work.’
308 exo dus 2 :1 1 - 2 2
priest had no sons (cf. 3:1). nm ... ]roVi, again picking up the word ‘Midian’
(2:15), in a clause which momentarily interrupts the progress of the story, the
writer offers some information to maintain the reader’s interest in the story;
unlike Moses, already at this point the reader is informed of the identity of the
girls Moses sees approaching. Through that bit of news the writer makes sure
that the reader’s attention remains focused on Moses and on how he will
conduct himself, rather than on the question who these girls may be. rn*orn,
following the as an aside intended clause, the author continues the story with
the use of imperf. consecutives: the girls arrive. The sequel of the verse shows
that the girls were shepherdesses and that they came with their flock. The
LXX says so specifically by supplying after ‘daughters’ the words: Svho watched
over the flock of their father Jethro.’
7\;birv) (cf. Ges-K §75w) imperf. cons, qal of nî, which in 2:16,19 (2x)
means ‘to draw water;’ meant is drawing water from a well whose water can
only be reached by means of a pail hanging from a rope (cf. John 4:11, and see
Ehrlich and also Aus, V, 189; VI, 270f., 275; Reymond, 143ff.); drawing water
was customarily done by women (cf. 1 Sam. 9:11: John 4:7); it goes without
saying that in 2:16 the well from which the water is drawn is the one by which
Moses was sitting (2:15).
imperf. cons, piel of (OT ca. 245x; Exod. 23x; qal 6 x; niph.
2 x; piel 15x); qal is used both intransitively, ‘to be full of something’ (+
accus.)37 and intransitively, ‘to fill’ (40:34,35; cf. 1 Kgs. 8:10f.; Ezek. 10:3;
43:5; 44:4 etal.); niph. ‘to become full’ (1:7) is used in 7:25 for the
‘becoming full,’ the ‘passing’ of days (cf. the use of the piel in 23:26); vba piel
occurs with the meaning ‘to fill up (+ accus.) with something (+ accus.),’38
and with the technical meaning of ‘to mount’ (+ n) of precious stones (28:17;
31:5 35:33; 39:10).39 See further THAT, I, 897ff.; TWAT, IV, 876ff. (for
piel + t see Introd. §3.21.5).
crprn (Gen. 30:38,41; Exod. 2:16; Cant. 7:6), ‘troughs’ (for livestock); they
may have been no more than trenches in the ground; see Reymond, 142f.;
Wagner, 280f. niptfn*p inf. cstr. hiph. of nptf (OT ca. 75 x), ‘to water,’ ‘to give to
drink’ (2:17,19; 32:20); for the watering of the flock seeAuS, VI, 264ff. ‘flock,’
see Introd. § 9.1.4.
dk, pi. rroK, (OT ca. 1200x; Exod. 24x; sing. lOx; pi. 14x), ‘father,’ a
babble word (see at d k , 2:8), can stand for the actual biological father (2:16,18;
^7 8:17; 10:6; see also 15:9: ‘to have one’s fill of.’
Also metaphorically for endowing persons with the spirit (28:3; 31:3; 35:31 and cf. 35:35).
39 Cf. *nK^>p, ‘setting’ (28:17, 20; 39:13), and D'N^Q (OT 15x), ‘setting’ (25:7; 29:22; 35:9, 27)
(see for this term also Introd. § 3.21.5); other derivatives found in Exodus are (OT 38x),
Svliat fills up,’ ‘fullness:’ 9:8 (‘handfuls;’ cf. Lev. 16:12, and see e.g. 1 Kgs. 17:12; Eccl. 4:6);
16:32, 33 (‘a full omer;’ cf. Lev. 16:12; Num. 22:18; 24:13; Judg. 6:38); n t6 p , ‘fullness’ = ‘the entire
yield’ (22:28; cf. Num. 18:27; Deut. 22:9).
20:12; 21:15,17; 22:16; 40:15; in 20:12; 21:15,17 it is followed by dk and refers

to ‘parents’); iydn often has the wider meaning of ‘forefathers’ (20:5; 34:7; cf.
Num. 14:8) and as such refers to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (3:15,16; 4:15; cf.
3:13; 13:5,11); in that wider sense jvqn is used in the combination iyqk rra (see
Introd. §3.9.2), which is often (OT 43 x) abbreviated to rvQN (6:25); in 10:6
Tpn'aK rtoK] jniK is used to refer to a long line of ancestors (cf. Dan. 11:24);
moot is whether in 3:6; 15:2; 18:4 is to be understood in narrower or wider
sense (see there). See further THAT, I, Iff.; TWAT, I, Iff.; for the place of the
father in family and society see P.A.H. de Boer, Fatherhood and Motherhood in
Israelite and Judean Piety, Leiden 1974; Pedersen, I-II, 47ff., et al.; L. Perlitt,
“Der Vater im Alten Testament," in H. Tellenbach (ed.), Das Vaterbild im
Mythos und Geschichte, Stuttgart et al. 1976, 50-101; De Vaux, I, 47ff.; Wolff,
259ff.
2:17 Then the shepherds arrived. They wanted to drive them away. Moses,
however, sprang into action, came to their defense and watered their flock.
ucn, again, as in 2:16, the verb kid is used; still more people appear on the
scene. D'y'in, pi. part, qal of nsn (OT ca. 170 x), which is used transitively, ‘to
lead to a pasture-ground,’ ‘to feed’ (a flock)40 and intransitively (flocks as
subject), ‘to graze’ (34:3). See further THAT, I, 791 ff.; TWAT, VII, 566ff. The
‘shepherds’ are obviously the shepherds of Midian.
imperf. cons, piel 4- suffix41 of ana (OT ca. 45x; Exod. 12x), which
in qal (34:11) and piel (10x) occurs with the meaning ‘chase/drive away;’ with
Pharaoh as subject and the Israelites as object (6:1; 11 :1; see also 12:39 pual),
with nyisn (see Introd. §9.2.10) (23:28) or yhwh (23:29,30; 33:2; see also
34:11 qal) as subject and the people of Canaan as object (cf. Deut. 33:27;
Josh. 24:12,18; Judg. 2:3; 6:9; Ps. 78:55); in 10:11 it means ‘to show the door.’
See further TWAT, II, 72ff.
The context shows that in 2:17 is meant that the shepherds wanted to push
the daughters of Reuel aside and chase them away from the troughs which
they had just filled. Their scheme (for this once) did not succeed thanks to
Moses. Likely what was the case was that the shepherds of Midian made it a
habit to benefit from the work of the daughters of the priest; when the women
had completed the heavy work of filling the troughs the shepherds chased
them and their flocks away and watered their own animals. It seems likely that
it was not just a case of wanting to profit from the labour of others; they may
also have been driven by the fear that there might not be enough water for all
40 The part. H in serves as a noun: ‘shepherd;’ see 2:17, 19; 3:1.

41 The masculine suffix refers to the women and is likely used to avoid confusion with the
paragogic nun (Ges-K § 60h); the feminine suffix is, however, used in the following (cf.
KoSynt § 14; Ges-K § 60d); but it goes too far to conclude from the masculine suffix that servants
drew the water rather than the girls who belonged to a higher societal class (see BB, 24).
310 exodus 2 :1 1 - 2 2
the animals (cf. Josephus, AJ, II, 258). In contrast to these loutish profiteers
Moses is portrayed as a helpful and unselfish man who defends the weak. DjTi,
see 1:8; cf. 2:15: Moses sat down.
flWV] imperf. cons. hiph. + suffix of v®' (ca. OT 205x), which in 2:17 is
used with a human subject and in 14:30 with y h w h as subject with the
meaning ‘to help/ ‘to free’ (to save from danger and oppression).42 See
further THAT, I, 785ff.; TWAT, III, 450, 1035ff. djns, with masculine suffix; a
masculine suffix is used more often in cases where one would expect a femi
nine suffix (cf. e.g. 1:21 and see Ges-K § 135o; Jotion § 149b).
The LXX has a longer text at the end of the verse. Before ‘and watered their
flock’ it has ‘and drew water for them’ (the reading is lacking in LXXA). The
addition is likely due to the influence of 2:19 but does not fit the context,
because the women had already filled the troughs; thanks to Moses the
shepherds did not get the chance to use the water in them; while Moses kept
the shepherds at bay the flock of the women could drink.
Not entirely sure is how Moses handled the situation.43 We do not read of
an open clash with the shepherds. Likely what happened was that Moses took
the side of the girls, and that made these shepherds afraid to go ahead and
made them keep their distance. The text only says something about Moses’
attitude toward the girls. Josephus (AJ, II, 260) also speaks of his attitude
toward the shepherds and relates that he drove them away. In TPsJ Moses’ act
is said to be an act ‘born of the strength of his heroism.’ Nothing of that is
found in Exodus. The writer was apparently not interested in portraying Moses
as a man who was quick to start a fight. The reader must not think that what
is related in 2:12 is typical of Moses. Whether the situation entailed danger for
Moses is not said either. The text is also silent on the number of shepherds
and their age (often the watching of flocks was done by younger folk; see e.g.
1 Sam. 16:llf., 19f.; 17:15,20).
2:18 When they had returned to Reuel their father, he asked them: How did you
get everything done so soon today?’
rrobpn, again, as in 2:16,17, there is the verb ira; in 2:16 it was used for the
appearance of the daughters of the priest at the place where Moses was; now it
is used to introduce a further scene; through the girls the reader gets in touch
with the household of Reuel (see Introd. § 5.62); only by implication it is said
that the girls left Moses. ]T3k, according to an old tradition ‘their grandfather’*4
42 Cf. the use of 7\VV8%(OT ca. 80x) in 14:13; 15:2 to denote the liberation worked by YHWH.
4^ According to MidrTanh. Exod. I, 11, the shepherds had thrown the girls into the water and
Moses had gotten them out; another rabbinic tradition has it that Moses told the shepherds off and
that he pointed out to them that he had a special heart for the underdog (Rosmarin, 71 f.); cf. Philo
( VM, I, 54ff.); in the Muslim tradition, Moses came to the rescue of the women already before the
arrival of the shepherds; awed by his holy zeal, they did not dare to push the girls aside (Weil,
148).
is meant (see e.g. TPsJ and further e.g. Ibn Ezra; Nachmanides; according to
the last writer the father was working in the temple); for the problem, see
Introd. § 5.45.
after 2:13-14 the reader again hears a dialogue; in this section no
further words of Moses are reported, yvio, see 1:18. ]nma (Ges-K §64d) perf.
piel of ma I, ‘to hasten/ ‘to do quickly/ a verb often occurring in combination
with another verb, giving it an adverbial function: ‘hastily/ ‘soon/ (Ges-K
§ 114m; Joiion § 102g); when mo piel is used in combination with the inf. cstr.
of a certain verb, the preposition b usually precedes (cf. KoSynt § 399p); see
10:16; 12:33; however, in 2:18 the preposition is not found; in 34:8 mo is
followed by a finite verb with waw consecutive and again is adverbially used
(cf. Gen. 24:18,20,46; 44:11 etal.); the inf. abs. mo is always used adverbially
immediately after the finite verb (Joiion § 102e, 123r; Meyer § 103.2d; Williams
§204); see 32:8 (cf. Deut.4:26; 7:4,22; 9:3,12,16). See further TWATy IV,
713ff., ‘today/ see Introd. § 3.32.1.
2:19 They answered: An Egyptian rid us of the trouble of the shepherds and also
drew water for us and watered the flock ’
nsp epk, cf. 2:11; the same words are used for Moses as for the man he had
killed (2:12). The rabbis, noting the similarity, inferred from it that it was
really the Egyptian who helped the girls; owing to his act Moses had to flee
and so came to Midian to the well (ExR. I, 32). But ExR. I, 32, also contains
the matter-of-fact observation that the man’s clothing told the girls that he was
an Egyptian. According to modern expositors, likely also the language contri
buted to the identification (e.g. Strack, Heinisch, Cassuto).
perf. hiph. + suffix of bs: (OT ca. 210 x; Exod. 14 x), which occurs in
hiph. with the meaning ‘to take away/ ‘to snatch/ and (in case it is a snatching
from danger and oppression) ‘to free/ ‘to save/ with a human subject (OT ca.
60x) in 2:19; with y h w h as subject (OT ca. 120x) in 3:8; 5:23 (2x); 6:6;
12:27; 18:4,8,9,10 (2x); often + to (OT ca. 60x) (2:19; 3:8; 18:9,10) (in
18:10 also + t nnna) or + ]a (OT ca. 25x) (6:6; 18:14). bzi piel (OT 4x), ‘to
rob someone’ (+ accus.), is found in 3:22; 12:36 (cf. 2Chr. 20:25); bz: hithp.
(OT lx ), ‘to strip/out off (+ accus.), in 33:6. See further THAT, I, 671ff.; II,
96ff.; TWATy III, 449f.
The used in 2:17 is not repeated in 2:19. Perhaps bz: is a slightly more
forceful verb (cf. e.g. Gen. 37:21). The girls use strong language in describing
the incident (see below). E.g. the translation ‘helpen tegen’ (UV, NV) is too
weak t o , see Introd. § 3.21.2. see Introd. § 3.11.2.
n b i ribi (for the construction see e.g. Ges-K §1131ff.; Joiion § 1231ff.), see
2:16; rabbinic tradition (e.g. TPsJ; ExR. I, 32) depicts Moses as a man capable
of unique feats: in one go Moses drew enough water to water not only the
flock of Jethro but also that of the shepherds. In any case, the girls use strong
language. They attribute more to Moses than is said about his feat in 2:17 by
312 exodus 2 :1 1 - 2 2
saying that he also drew water. Cassuto sees no conflict between 2:17 and 2:19,
being of the opinion that the act of watering the animals also included the
drawing of water (Gen. 29:10); the renewed drawing of water (after 2:16) was
likely necessary because some of it had been used by the shepherds (see also
Rylaarsdam) or because part of it was lost in the scuffle or because the girls
had not yet completed the task of drawing water (for the last view see already
Ibn Ezra). It is more likely to assume, with Ehrlich, that the girls exaggerate
and make Moses out to be even better than he was. Note in this connection
that the drawing of water by a man was highly unusual. Rebecca draws water
for the servant of Abraham (Gen. 24:19f.). Therefore what Jacob does for
Rachel (Gen. 29:10) is quite out of the ordinary. The exaggeration by the girls
is an indication that they were surprised and impressed by what Moses did, and
that their designation of him as ‘an Egyptian* was meant positively: he was a
man from the civilized world. In brief, they depict Moses as a highly cultured
and noble man, who in every respect is different from the roguish shepherds.
By referring to him as an ‘Egyptian* they say something of him which he
himself would just as soon not have been called. He did not want to be an
Egyptian. The characterization is at least an indication that his stay with the
daughter of Pharaoh (2:10) had not failed to leave its impact: from a Hebrew
boy (2:6) he had become an Egyptian man. so he could exercise an irresistible
influence on the shepherd girls.
The surprise of the father and the reaction of his daughters (2:18,19) is an
indication that the bothering by the shepherds was a regular, perhaps even a
daily occurrence. In the reader’s mind it evokes the question how the father
could have stood for such abuse. Holzinger thinks that the interference of the
shepherds was not a daily occurrence and that owing to Moses’ help the girls
came home so early. For the way the question was handled in rabbinic tradi
tion, see at 2:16.
2:20 Then he said to his daughters: !And where is he? How could you leave the
man there? Invite him to have something to eatV
‘to his daughters,’ cf. 2:16. vn% interrogative adverb ‘where’ (e.g. Meyer
§ 31.2c, d), + suffix (e.g. Ges-K § lOOo; Joiion § 102k); cf. e.g. 2 Kgs. 19:13;
Jer. 37:19; Mic. 7:10; the waw does not connect with what immediately pre
cedes but with the story of the daughters (Ges-K § 154b; Ehrlich; Cassuto, and
see also KoSynt. §3251; Joiion § 177m); the father means to say: ‘If that man
did all that for you, why didn’t you ask him to come with you?’ na^, see 1:18;
rn is used for emphasis (Ges-K § 136c; Joiion §143g; for the dageS in m see
Ges-K § 20f).
perf. qal of aw (OT ca. 215x), ‘to forsake,’ ‘to leave behind’ etc., is
used in 2:20; 9:21 in the sense of ‘abandoning someone’ (cf. e.g. Gen. 50:8;
Deut. 12:9); for the use of 3W in 23:5 see there.44 »'rh the article has the
force of a demonstrative pronoun (Ges-K § 126a, b; Joiion § 137f).45 itnj? (see
Introd. §3.45.1), the form is unusual; one would have expected njtop or at
least a different pointing (Ges-K §46f; BL §376r). batci (see Introd. §3.3.1),
waw copulative introduces a final clause (KoSynt § 3641; Ges-K § 165a; Joiion
§ 116b; Brockelmann § 135c).
onb (OT ca. 300x; Exod. 21 x; for the etymology see 1:10), ‘bread,’ was
everyday food and part of the staple diet of the Israelite; lacking bread was a
sign of great deprivation (16:3; cf. 1 Sam. 2:36; 2 Sam. 3:29; Jer. 51:14 et al.). As
regular food ‘bread’ is mentioned in conjunction with ‘water’ (see Introd.
§3.33) (23:25; 34:28; cf. Gen. 18:4,5; 21:14; Deut. 23:4; 1 Kgs. 13:8f. et al.; see
Krasovec, 116). They constitute the basic needs. As a vegetable food
(Isa. 30:23; 55:10; Job 28:5) ‘bread’ is distinguished from and mentioned in
conjunction with *195, ‘meat’ (see 4:7) (16:3,8,12; 29:32,34; cf. Lev. 8:31; 23:18;
1 Sam. 25:11; 1 Kgs. 17:6; Dan. 10:3). or6 also can bear the general meaning of
‘food,’ food for animals (Isa. 65:25 et al.) and for humans (Gen. 3:19 et al.); as
the object of it can mean ‘to meat a meal’ (2:20; see Introd. §3.3.1). Bread
was also used as a sacrificial gift (29:2,23 (2x], 32,34; see there; for cnan on1?
see 25:30). The making of bread depends on the availability of grain. In Egypt
it was plentiful (Gen. 41:22ff. and see also Exod. 9:31f.). To stay alive in the
desert (see Introd. §3.31) one had to bring bread or grain (e.g. Gen. 21:4;
1 Sam. 9:7). In the absence of it one is dependent on the miracle of ‘bread
from heaven’ (16:4; cf. 16:8,12,15,22,29,32) (see Introd. §9.2.14). On how it
was prepared, the form, the use of bread (cf. 8:3; 11:5; 12-13; 29:2,23) see
AuS, IV; BRL, 29f., 240f.; BHHW, I, 189f., 274; II, 1329; DB, I, 315ff.; Ill, 637;
IDB, I, 340f., 461 ff.; Ill, 612f.; TWAT, IV, 538ff.; Benzinger, 62ff.
The father, too, is impressed by the incident, but unlike the girls who are so
smitten by the ‘Egyptian’ that it does not enter their minds to ask him over -
it might also be that they did not dare invite him (cf. Gen. 24:28; 29:12) — but
hurried home, he is aware of his duty to extend hospitality. He reproaches his
daughters for having left Moses by the well (of all things, with the shepherds)
and orders them to invite Moses for a meal in his home.46
Hospitality was one of the unwritten laws of the Ancient Near East. Bedou
ins highly valued hospitality and still do. The traveler in a desert or desolate
can count on a royal reception (cf. Gen. 18:1 ff.; Ps. 23:5). The Egyptian travel
story of Sinuhe (see e.g. translation in ANET, 18ff.; TGI, 2f.) and travel reports
from the 19,h and 20th century testify to it. A guest enjoys the protection of his
44 See further THAT, II, 249ff.; TWAT, V, 1200ff.; T. Willi, “Die Freiheit Israels,* in Fs
W. Zimmerli, Beitrdge zur alttcstarncntlichen Thcologie, Gottingen 1977, 531-46 (539ff.
45 Despite 2:18 Nachmanides considers it likely that here not Reuel but Jethro is meant.
46 ExR I, 32, in reference to Gen. 39:6 (where ‘bread’ presumably means the wife of Potiphar),
mentions the view that ‘to eat bread’ means ‘to marry one of you;’ see also Rashi.
314 exodus 2 :1 1 - 2 2
host. The OT talks about the hospitality of tent dwellers474 8as well as of those
who live in a fixed place (Gen. 19:lff.; 24:31ff.; Judg. 19:16ff.; Job 31:32). Not
extending hospitality was a terrible wrong (Deut. 23:4; Judg. 20; Neh. 13:2).
Also the NT regularly refers to hospitality (Matt. 25:35; Luke 7:44; 9:3;
Rom. 12:13,20; 1 Tim. 3:2; Titus 1:8; Heb. 13:2; 1 Pet. 4:9). See further DBy II,
427ff.; IDB, II, 654; Attema, 56f.; Benzinger, 57,136; Curtiss, 49f., 52; J.J.
Glassner, “l’HospitalitS en M6sopotamie ancienne: Aspect de la question de
l’6tranger," ZA 80 (1990), 60-75; S. Nystrom, Beduinentum und Jcihwismus,
Lund 1946, 14ff., 24ff., 146f.; Pedersen, I-II, 356f.; Robertson Smith, 76,269f.;
De Vaux, I, 30f.
2:21 Moses accepted the invitation to stay with that man and he gave Moses his
daughter Zipporah in marriage.
imperf. cons. hiph. of bn' II (OT 19 x); the precise meaning of the verb is
hard to determine;4* here the likely meaning is ‘to accept an invitation’ (cf.
Judg. 17:11 and see also Judg. 19:6). See further THAT, I, 22; II, 70; TWAT, III,
383f. In olden times, it appears, was already seen as problematic. Sam.
Pent, reproduces the form defectively: bxrv, according to Z. Ben Hayyim, in Fs
W. Baumgartner, Hebrdische Wortforschung, Leiden 1967, 13ff., the scriptio
defectiva could cause confusion with ^rn, imperf. hiph. of bbn, ‘to begin’ (n
weakened to n). In any case, this interpretation is represented in the SamT1
('annul; cf. SamTA: snam) and in TNf (nan; see also Theod.: xai fâxo; the
exegetical tradition is also found in ExR. I, 33. See beside it TO: ' dsi, ‘and he
desired;’ TPsJ: 'as, ‘and he chose for;’ Symm.: ftpKiae 5e Mcouafiv, ‘and he made
Moses swear.’ Symm. represents an exegetical tradition also found in ExR.
1,33: ^Ki'i is a form of J"6k ‘to swear’ (cf. the use of the imperf. hiph. in
1 Sam. 14:24); the assumed subject is Jethro: he has Moses swear an oath
because he was from the family of Jacob and like Jacob (see Gen. 31:20) might
walk out without permission (cf. 4:18); see also bNed. 65a and Rashi, and
further H.J. Schoeps, Bib 29 (1948), 33f. The Vulg. opts for the interpretation
‘to swear’ but makes Moses the subject: iuravit ergo Moses. The LXX with its
reading of icaxtpidaflTi Mcowfiq, ‘and Moses settled,’ has avoided translating
bnr\
see 2:15; the interruption of the flight becomes permanent; Moses’ stop
becomes long term; he finds peace and security in the protection of Jethro’s
home. 0'Krrrw, cf. 2:20; there it refers to Moses; here to Reuel; there na is a
particle of the accusative, here preposition. ]rn (see Introd. § 3.36), implied is
(cf. e.g. Gen. 29:19); see e.g. Gen. 30:4; 1 Sam. 18:17,19, 27; Sam. Pent.
47 Gen. 18:1 ff.; Isa. 21:14; Jaels act mentioned in Judg. 4:17ff. is a serious violation of the rule
of hospitality.
48 For the construction + inf. cstr. with b of a specific verb, see e.g. Gen. 18:27.31;
Josh. 7:12; Judg. 17:11.
explicitly has ‘to wife’ at the end of the verse; cf. LXX. In the Vulg. Moses is
subject in the second half of the verse: accepitque Sefforam filiam eius; that
gives the incident a somewhat different twist. ‘Zipporah,’ see Introd. § 6.5.
The text is silent on the feelings of Moses and Zipporah. Nor is it disclosed
why of the seven daughters Zipporah was selected to become Moses’ wife;
according to Philo (VM> I, 59) she was the most beautiful. Ehrlich suggests
that Moses was not in love with her (‘Bei der ihm bevorstehenden grossen
Aufgabe darf Moses nicht verliebt sein’) but married for the sake of having a
family; the text, however, does not say so. Nor is there anything in the text to
believe that Moses loved her as passionately as Jacob loved Rachel
(Gen. 29:10f., 18,20; cf. also 33:2; 37:3,35; 42:38; 45:27f.). The writer has not
turned the encounter at the well into a romance. But from the terminology he
uses it may not be inferred that there was no love between the two spouses. In
the case of Michal who was given to David (1 Sam. 18:20.27) she certainly was
deeply in love.49 But again, the writer is silent on the matter. No more than
in e.g. 2:1-10 is he interested in the feelings and thoughts of the persons
featured in his story. One like Heinisch e.g. goes much too far with his notion
that the reason for Moses’ flights amounted to a recommendation in the eyes
of Jethro, and that he was eager to have the erudite Moses for a son-in-law for
the sake of having him give advice in regards relations with Egypt and the like.
The writer’s concern is to relate how the future deliverer of Israel is being
guided to his destination. A greater interest in the persons is already found in
the rabbinic tradition; so e.g. it is related that already at the well Moses asked
Zipporah to be his wife (Ginzberg, II, 291) and that only Zipporah went to the
well to get Moses and take him home (e.g. ExR. I, 32). Muslim tradition has it
that Moses earned his wife by working eight years as a shepherd for Jethro.
Because he liked it so well, afterwards he remained another two years in
Midian (Weil, 149).
Finally, J. Morgenstern50 defends the view that the marriage of Moses and
Zipporah was a so-called Beena-marriage. Characteristics of such a marriage
include among others: the man joins the clan of the wife which is being
governed by her male relatives; the children are part of the clan of the wife.
This view is too speculative; cf. W. Plautz, ZAW 74 (1962), 23f.
2:22 She bore a son and he named him Gershom, for, ’ he said, 7 have become a
guest in a foreign land. '
49 See further R. Patai, Sex a n d F am ily in the B ib le a n d the M id d le E a s t , Garden City, New York
1959, 46ff.; J. Scharbert, "Ehe und EheschlieBung in der Rechtssprache des Pentateuch und beim
Chronisten," in Fs W. Kornfeld, Studicn zu m P en ta teu ch , Wien et al. 1977, 213-25; De Vaux, I,
64ff.
^ "B een a Marriage (Matriarchat) in Ancient Israel and Its Historical Implications," Z A W 47
(1929), 91-110.
316 exo dus 2 :1 1 - 2 2
ib \ see 1:15; the LXX is more elaborate: £v ya^pi &£ XaPoucra yuvf) gxeicev
ui6v (cf. 2:2). ‘to name,’ cf. 2:10 and see Introd. §3.45.1; some MSS have the
reading *opn], ‘she named;* Zipporah is subject; see also TNf and some MSS of
Pesh. The LXX mentions Moses specifically as subject. The giving of the name
can be done by either father or mother (see Introd. § 5.d). In favour of MT is
that it is unlikely that the mother gives the name and the father explains it.
‘Gershom/ see Introd. §5.19.
■fl (OT ca. 90 x ; Exod. 12 x ), ‘stranger/ ‘guest/ is a derivative of t o (OT ca.
80x; Exod. 4x; hithpol. 3x), ‘to sojourn as a stranger/ which in 6:4 is used
for the sojourn of the patriarchs in Canaan (cf. Gen. 26:3; 35:27); in 12:48,49
for the residence of the *o in the midst of Israel (cf. Lev. 16:29; 17:8,10,12f.
et al.). The part. fern. cstr. qal is used in the combination nrr? rro (3:22) to
designate a woman residing in someone’s home as a guest or resident (cf.
Job 19:15 and also Ps. 15:1; 61:5); cf. also the use of D'"0? (OT 11 x ), ‘resident
alien’ in 6:4; cf. Gen. 17:8; 28:4; 36:7; 37:1; the patriarchs were often called
‘aliens’ (Gen. 21:23,34; 23:4; 32:5 etal.). is the individual who, for whatever
reason, settles for a certain length of time among people other than his own,
people not of his own tribe. He is no slave but a free person, but does not
have the same opportunities and rights as the autochthonous population51 of
the place where he resides and on whom he is very much dependent. He was
at risk of falling into poverty and of dropping to the bottom rungs of the
societal ladder (23:9 [2x]); often he is categorized with other low-classed
individuals (cf. Lev. 19:10; 23:22; Deut. 24:17; 27:19 etal.). As a member of a
minority he ran the risk of falling victim to injustice and hostility (e.g. Ezek.
22:7,29; Mai. 3:5). Through its laws Israel, with a reminder of its own servitude
in Egypt, was admonished to prevent such abusive situations (22:20; 23:9; cf.
Lev. 19:33f.; Deut. 10:19; 24:14, 17f.; 27:19). In the matter of religion, the
‘alien’ is to abide by the rules of the community. Thus he has to keep the
sabbath (20:10; 23:12; cf. Lev. 18:26; 20:2; Deut. 5:14). On certain conditions
he may participate in the cult: if he is circumcised he may celebrate the
Passover (12:19,48f.; cf. Lev. 16:29; 17:8,10-13,15). A variety of reasons may
lead someone to move away from the familiar tribal and family environment,
e.g. famine (Gen. 12:10; 26:1,3; 47:4; 1 Kgs. 17:20; 2 Kgs. 8:1; Ruth 1:1), but
also other considerations (Judg. 17:7ff.; 19:1,16). Moses left Egypt because he
could not be sure of his life, neither with his own people nor at the court of
Pharaoh (2:14f.). Moses was not an alien doomed to live out his days as an
underdog in society. He marries the daughter of the priest of Midian.52
^ Designated with the term rniN (OT 17x), which is frequently used in combination with "13;
see e.g. 12:19, 48, 49; Lev. 16:29 et ai.
For the alien and his status in Israel and the Ancient Near East see further RLA, III, 88ff.;
THAT , I, 409ff.; TWAT, I, 979ff.; C.J. Bleeker, "Fremdling, Vogelfreier, Gottgesandter," in The
Sacred Bridge, Leiden 1963, 147-58; C. Bultmann, Dcr Frcmde im antiken Juda, Gottingen 1992; M.
rr*p3, feminine of the adjective **i?3 (OT 45 x ), ‘strange’ (in ethnic sense),
‘alien;’ in 2:22; 18:3 to designate a land where (as far as Moses is concerned)
‘strange’ people live, to whom he is not connected with ties of blood and
whose culture is strange to him; cf. **03 in 21:8: a group of people to whom
one is not related and with whom culturally and spiritually one has nothing in
common, so that one runs the risk of being treated hostilely (cf. Jdgs 19:12).
**03 is repeatedly employed as a noun (Deut. 14:21; 15:3 et al.), but not in
Exodus; there for the ‘alien’ the term *133*1? (OT 19 x ) is used:53 the man
who in no way is integrated into the society where he resides and who feel no
need to become part of it, for instance, because he is an itinerant merchant
and maintains the ties with the homeland. See further THAT, II, 66ff.;
M. Guttmann, “The Term ‘Foreigner’ (**03) Historically Concerned," HUCA 3
(1926), 1-20. In this connection I point out that in the OT also *n (OT
70 x ) 54 is used for ‘foreigner.’ Not however in the Pentateuch. In 29:33;
30:33 it designates someone not belonging to the priestly class, who therefore
is not entitled and authorized to share in the priestly rites (cf.
Lev. 22:10,12,13; Num. 3:10,38; 17:5; 18:7); in 30:9 it stands for the incense
that does not have the prescribed composition (cf. 30:34ff.) and is not brought
in the prescribed manner and time and hence is unlawful (cf. Lev. 10:1;
Num. 3:4; 26:61). See further THAT, I, 520ff.; TWAT, II, 556 ff.; Milgrom, 5.
*3 and following words also occur in 18:3. But there also a second son is
mentioned and also his name is explained (18:4). LXX, Pesh. contain a more
detailed text in 2:22 and there also mention the birth and name-giving of the
second son (cf. Acts 7:29). This is an instance of harmonization; cf. 4:20: ‘his
sons,’ and also 4:25, ‘her son.’
Various interpretations have been given of Moses’ explanation of the name
Gershom: in a foreign land, far from his kin in Egypt and far from the
promised land, not understood by his wife (4:24-26), Moses feels lost and is
filled with longing for his own people (Keil); Moses who could rightly call
himself an Egyptian in his heart remained a stranger in the wilderness country
(Bohl); the name characterizes all of Moses’ life (Lange); Moses is thankful
because for the time being in Midian he has found a safe home country
(Heinisch). In my judgment, such interpretations fail to do justice to the intent
of the writer. He tells about the name giving because the name contains a
Cohen, “Le ‘ger’ biblique et son status socio-religieux," RHR 207 (1990), 131-58; M. Gorg, “Der
‘Fremde’ (jg€r): Ein Fremdwort im AJten Testament, “ BN 25 (1984), 10-3; C. van Houten, The
Alien in Israelite Law, Sheffield 1991; T.J. Meek, T h e Translation of gSr in the Hexateuch," JBL 49
(1930), 172-80; J. Renger, “Fluclit als soziales Problem in der altbabylonischen Gesellschaft,” in
D.O. Edzard (ed.), Gesellschaftsklasscn im Alien Zwcistromcnland und in den angrcnzendjfn
ABAW.PH 75 (1972), 167-82; J.J. Stamm, “Fremde, Fliichtlinge und ihr Schutz im îeiTlsra^J|.u$<9
in seiner Umwelt," in A. Mercier (ed.), Der Flucfuling in der Weltgeschichtc, Bern 1^4,J$l-(>6. _
^ "D? (OT ca. 35x), ‘what is strange/foreign’ (12:43; cf. Gen. 17:12; Lev. 22:25?fe^.^r;;'7/^7^ ^
54 Part, qal of it is used as an adjective as well as a noun: 'foreign(er).’ : V,
318 exodus 2 :1 1 - 2 2
promise (see essentials).

Josephus (AJ, II, 26Iff.) offers a different version of Moses’ arrival in the
house of Jethro than the one in Exodus. The way he tells it, the girls go to
their father with the request not to let Moses’ courageousness go unrewarded;
he summons Moses to express his thanks to him, receives him as his own son,
gives him one of his daughters in marriage, and appoints him shepherd over
his flocks. The description of TPsJ (see 2:21) has it that Moses was not well
received in the home of Reuel: when Reuel learned that Moses was a fugitive
from Pharaoh he threw him in a pit. Zipporah, however, fed him for ten years.
Then Moses left the pit and entered the court of Reuel. There he prayed to
y h w h and noticed the staff he would later use to do miracles with. He
stretched out his hand and grabbed it.55
In connection with 2:15ff. the rabbis have noted that Moses had taken over
the custom of his forefathers (Isaac and Jacob): he, too, met his wife by the
well (ExR. I, 32).56 They were thinking of Gen. 24:10ff.; 29:Iff., passages
which beside differences also exhibit a number of remarkable similarities with
2:15ff.: in all instances the meeting at the well results in marriage.57 It would
seem natural to assume that the writer in constructing his account of Moses’
arrival in Midian used a current story motif, which is totally rooted in everyday
life: the well is the point of meeting of the people; that is where young men
and women meet each other; there love can blossom; it is also the place where
conflicts can erupt at the drop of a pin.58
2:15ff. recalls the Egyptian story of Sinuhe: Sinuhe is an Egyptian official
who, in order to save his life, leaves Egypt and for some decades lives among
the Bedouins; he marries the daughter of a sheik, starts a family and later
returns to Egypt (for a translation see e.g. ANETf 18ff.; TGIf 2f.). The story
about Sinuhe shows that apparently it happened more often that Egyptians for
one reason or another seek their safety or fortune outside Egypt. Also il
lustrative in this connection is an Egyptian letter (transl. ANET, 259), that
deals with the pursuit of two slaves who managed to escape from Egypt.
If one holds that the writer of Exodus sticks to the precise chronology one
must assume that according to him Moses’ son was born considerable time
after Moses had settled in Midian. For at the time of his return to Egypt
55 For this in two versions occurring tradition about Moses’ coming to Midian see further
Ginzberg, II, 291 ff.; Rosmarin, 71 t'f.
Cf, Cassuto: ‘experiences of the fathers prefigure those of their descendants.’
57 See R.C. Culley, Studies in the Structure of Hebrew Narrative, Philadelphia/Missoula 1976,
41 ff.; J.G. Williams, "The Beautiful and the Barren: Conventions in Biblical Type-scenes," JSOT 17
(1980), 107-19.
58 Cf. for the last point ‘eine modeme Parallele’ in GreBmann, 20.
Moses was eighty years old (7:7),59 while according to the writer he was forty
when he came to Midian (see at 2:11). However, his son was still young at the
time of the exodus out of Egypt: he was carried on a donkey and not yet
circumcised (4:20ff.).60 Indications are that due to the use of various tradi
tions the chronology is not uniformly even in all respects.
Keil characterizes the stay in Midian as ‘a banishment and a school of bitter
humiliation* for Moses. Heinisch speaks of Moses* stay there as a time of
preparation for his task as leader of the people: he learned how a people can
live in the desert; he knew the religion of the Egyptians, worshiped himself the
god of his own people, and became familiar with the religion of the Arabian
tribes living in the desert: ‘Wenn er in der Einsamkeit der Steppe weilte,
konnte er liber religiose Probleme nachdenken und die verschiedenartigen
Vorstellungen miteinander vergleichen. So bereitete er sich unbewuBt auf die
Mission vor, die ihm Gott zugedacht hatte.* Heinisch knows too much. It is,
however, quite well possible that the writer thought of Moses* stay in Midian
as a time of preparation for his task.61 In view of the use of the words ‘guest’
and ‘foreign land* in 2:22 one can hardly go along with Buber, 46, who
characterizes Moses’ stay in Midian as the return of one man of the enslaved
people ‘in die freie und herbe Luft der Vater.*
^9 The Muslim tradition has forty years; he was ten years in Midian (Weil, 150).
60 Nachmanides applies the opening words of 2:23 to the period when Moses was a fugitive (ca.
sixty years); only at the end of that time did Moses come to Midian (according to the Jewish
tradition he first stayed in Ethiopia; see at 2:15); in that case it is not strange that he has young
children.
61 For comparison Fensham points to Jesus’ stay in the wilderness (Mark l:9ff.) and to Paul’s
stay in Arabia (Gal. 1:17).
exodus 2 :2 3 - 4 :1 9
THE CALL OF THE DELIVERER
2:23 After the king of Egypt had died in the course of that long span of time, the
Israelites began to groan on account of the hard labour: They cried out and their
cry on account of the hard labour rose up to God.
24 Then God heard their groaning and God remembered his promise to
Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob.
25 Indeed, God looked upon the Israelites with compassion and God was
concerned about them.
3:1 Now Moses had become shepherd of the flock of his father-in-law Jethro, the
priest of Midian. Once he led the flock beyond the wilderness and so came to the
mountain of God, at Horeb.
2 There a messenger of YHWH appeared to him in a flame of fire out of the
bush. He noticed that, though the bush was ablaze, it was not consumed.
3 So Moses thought, 7 want to go there and see that strange sight (to find
out) why the bush is not burned up.’
4 When y h w h noticed that Moses went there to look, God called him from the
bush, Moses, Moses!’And he answered: Yes, I am listening. ’
5 Then he said, ‘Come no closer. Remove the sandals from your feet. For the
place on which you are standing is holy ground. ’
6 When He continued with: 7 am the God of your father, the God o f Abra
ham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob, ’ Moses hid his face, for he was
afraid to look at God.
I Then y h w h said: 7 have seen the misery of my people in Egypt and I have
heard their cry on account of their taskmasters. So I have gotten to know o f their
suffering.
8 Therefore I have come down to deliver them from the power of the Egyp
tians and to bring them out of that land to a good and broad land, a land flowing
with milk and honey, where the Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites, Perizzites, Hivites
and Jebusites live.
9 Truly, the cry of the Israelites has reached me; I have indeed seen how the
Egyptians oppress them.
10 Well then, therefore I send you to Pharaoh, to bring my people, the Israelites,
out of Egypt. ’
II But Moses said to God, 'Who am I that I should go to Pharaoh, and bring
the Israelites out of Egypt?’
12 He replied: 7 am with you. And this shall be the sign for you that it is I who
sent you: when you have brought the people out of Egypt, you shall worship God
T R A N S L A T IO N 321
by this mountain. ’
13 Moses, however said to God: ‘Suppose I come to the Israelites and tell
them: mthe God of your fathers has sent me,9 and they ask me: mWhat is his
name?9 what shall I say to them?}
14 Then God answered Moses: What does it matter who I am,' and he
continued: Thus you shall answer the Israelites: 9I am has sent me to you9. ’
15 God also answered: Thus you must answer the Israelites: mYHWHf the God
o f your fathers, the God of Abrahamr the God of Isaac and the God o f Jacob has
sent me to yo u 9 This is to be my name forever; so I want to be called for all
generations. ’
16 GOy assemble the elders of Israel and tell them: ‘YHWH', the God of your
fathers appeared to met the God of Abraham, of Isaac and of Jacob, with the
message: 9I have always been deeply concerned about you and about what has
been done to you in Egypt.
17 Therefore I have decided to bring you up out of the misery o f Egyptf to the
land of the Canaanites, Hittites, Amoritesf Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusitesf to a
land flowing with milk and honey.9
18 When they will obey you, you must go to the king of Egypt, you and the
elders of Israel, and you must say to him: 9YHWH, the God of the Hebrews,
suddenly appeared to us. Therefore we would like to go a three days’journey into
the wilderness to offer sacrifices to YHWH, our God.9
19 Of course I know that the king of Egypt will not let you leave unless strong
pressure is put on him.
20 Therefore I will use my destructive power and strike the Egyptians with all
the mighty deeds I can do to them, and after that he will have to let you go.
21 And I will make the Egyptians favorably disposed toward this people and so,
when you leave, you will not have to go empty-handed.
22 For all the women must ask their neighbours and those in their house for
jewelry of silver and of gold and for clothing. These articles you can even put on
your children. So you shall plunder the Egyptians. ’
4:1 But Moses objected: ‘What if they do not believe me and do not want to
obey me, but say: UYHWH did not appear to you,
2 Then YHWH answered him: What do you have in your hand?’ He answered:
A staff.’
3 Thereupon he ordered: Throw it on the ground. ’ He (Moses) threw it on the
ground and it became a snake, so that Moses shrunk back from it.
4 Thereupon YHWH ordered: \Reach out your hand and seize it by the tail. ’ He
reached out his hand and grasped it, and it turned into a staff in his hand.
5 Then they will believe that YHWH, the God of their fathers, the God of
Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob appeared to you. ’
6 YHWH also ordered him: *Put your hand inside your cloak. ’ He put his hand
inside his cloak, and when he took it out it was covered with a snow-like rash.
1 Thereupon he ordered him: \Put your hand back into your cloak. ’ He put his
322 exo dus 2:23-4:19
hand back into his cloak, and when he took it out his cloak, it was again like the
rest of his body.
8 ‘A nd if they will not believe you and pay no attention to the first sign, they
will believe the second sign.
9 But if they will not even believe these two signs and will not obey you, you
must take water from the River and pour it on the land, and the water, that you
have taken from the River, will change, it will change into blood on the land ’
10 Then Moses said to YHWH: ‘O my Lord, I have never been eloquent, neither
in the past nor even now that you have spoken to your servant, but I am slow o f
speech and tongue. ’
11 YHWH answered him: Who has given people the ability to speak? Or who
can make someone mute or deaf or seeing or blind? Is it not I, YHWH?
12 Now go, I will help you speak and tell you what you are to say. '
13 But Moses said: lO my Lord, please send someone else. '
14 Then y h w h became angry with Moses and He said: You also have your
brother, Aaron, the Levite, don't you? I know that he is a fluent speaker. In fact,
he will soon be on his way to you. As soon as he meets you, his heart will be
glad.
15 You will speak to him and put the words in his mouth, and I will help both
you and him in speaking and tell the two of you what you are to do.
16 He will speak to the people on your behalf; so he shall be your spokesman
and you shall be his god,
17 and this staff you must take in your hand so you can perform the signs with
it.'
18 Moses returned to his father-in-law Jether and said to him: 7 would like to
go back to my brothers in Egypt to see if they are still alive. ’ Jethro answered
Moses: ‘By all means go. ’
19 Thereupon y h w h spoke to Moses in Midian: ‘Go now, return to Egypt (your
life is no longer in danger), for all those who were seeking your life are dead. ’
The situation in Egypt; a look behind the scenes (2:23-25)

The account of Moses’ stay in Midian is briefly interrupted in 2:23-25. The
readers are transported back to Egypt and given information that is essential
for the progress of the story: Pharaoh, who introduced the slave labour is dead.
But nothing has changed in the circumstances of the people. They have
reached the end of the rope, don’t know what to do anymore, and cry out
because of their misery. They are ready for the liberation. The death of the
king also means that Moses, the future deliverer, can return to Egypt without
fear for his life (cf. 4:19). And - most important of all — God deeply cares
about Israel’s condition and remembers the promises to the patriarchs. The
E SS E N T IA L S A N D P E R S P E C T IV E S 323
turning point seems to have arrived. In sum, there is reason for hope. How
will the rescue happen and the fulfillment of the promise become reality? In
3:1 the reader is back with Moses in Midian. The reader now is aware of
something Moses is still ignorant of, namely that the situation in Egypt has
taken a turn in favour of Moses, and that a reaction from the side of God can
be expected. So the readers are put on tiptoe. With the question surfacing in
their minds: How will God respond to the favourable situation, how make use
of Moses who is so eminently qualified to play a leading role in the freeing
and bringing out of the people? To answer that question the writer quickly
again picks up the story of Moses who is still unaware of anything.
Moses’ encounter with the God of the promises (3:1-6)

Just as quickly the writer whisks the readers away from Egypt, not to bring
them back to Moses’ family life in Midian, but to make them watch Moses in a
new role, that of shepherd. For that the writer has Moses move outside the
country of Midian to another environment: the desert, where the mountain of
God is, Horeb. Tending the flock, Moses had traveled there - against the
background of the course of the events in the book of Exodus one should say
that God brought Moses there (cf. essentials 1:8-22; 2:1-10, 11-22) - and has
an encounter with the deity who makes himself known as the god of the
fathers, the God of the promise of the land. In short, at Horeb the man who in
every respect is qualified to become the leader of the people of Israel (cf.
2:1 Iff.) and the God who gave the promise of the land meet each other. If the
former is willing to be used by the latter, there will be hope for the future.
With anticipation the reader awaits the outcome of the encounter (for Stepha-
nus’ version of 3:1-6 see Introd. § 13.4).
The call of Moses (3:7-10)

After y h w h has introduced himself to Moses (3:6) he discloses the reason for
his presence. As the ruler of the world, who from heaven with a consuming
interest observes the course of the world and who fully knows everything that
happens,1 he was completely familiar with the hard labour and the anguish of
those whom he, on account of the bond with their ancestors Abraham, Isaac
and Jacob, regarded as his own people (3:7,9). The misery of the people had
made him decide to intervene: He wants to bring them up out of Egypt to a
very desirable land (3:8). Against the background of Genesis one can also say
(cf. 2:24): now he is going to fulfill the promise of the land, given to the
patriarchs (Gen. 13:15; 15:13ff.; 46:4 etal.), for their descendants (cf. 6:4ff.).
Pharaoh’s fear that the people would leave the land (1:10) will come to pass,
not as Pharaoh had imagined it, but due to y h w h ’s intervention. To carry out
his intention, y h w h ’s eye had fallen on Moses. He wants to send him to
1 See Houtman, Himmcl, 331 ff., 351 ff., 360.

324 exodus 2:23-4:19
Pharaoh as his representative. He must lead the people out of Egypt (3:10).
Having come to this point in the book of Exodus and having learned of Moses’
deep concern about the fate of his people (2:1 Iff.), one would expect Moses to
jump at the order and the chance offered him. But what happens? (compare
3:7-10 with Acts 7:34 and see Introd. § 13.4).
3:7-10 exhibits a parallel structure: a (3:7) - b (3:8) - a (3:9) —b (3:10).
Having spoken of the future in 3:8, in 3:9 y h w h returns to the situation of the
moment, and then in 3:10 he again deals with the future in order to disclose
how he expects the liberation mentioned in 3:8 to take place: Moses is the
man who by order of him is to confront Pharaoh and lead out the people.2
The verses exhibit a parallel structure but it is simplistic to regard them as
doublets.3 As concerns 3:7 and 3:9, the use of nnvi and mi in 3:9 establishes a
link with 3:7: y h w h once again emphasizes what he has said before. That kind
of powerful affirmation as reinforcement of an earlier word may be regarded as
characteristic for a spoken word.4 On the one hand 3:10 says more than 3:8:
y h w h wants to work the liberation through Moses as his empowered agent;
the liberation from the power of Egypt will have through confrontation with
Pharaoh, on the other hand less: unlike 3:8, 3:10 does not mention the place
where the people of Israel will be led.
Moses’ objections and God’s reaction; Moses’ refusal and God’s reaction; the
outcome (3:11-4:19)
The suspense builds. After God has charged Moses to take on the task of
freeing Israel (3:10), the reader’s attention is rivetted. How is Moses going to
react? But contrary to all expectation there follows a anticlimax in 3:1 Iff.
Moses does not enthusiastically offer his services (cf. Isa. 6:8), but pretends not
to be the right person for the mission; he tries to convince God that the task
laid upon him is virtually doomed to failure. Four times (expressing the idea of
‘completeness;’ see Introd. §4.5.1) Moses joins the conversation and comes
with arguments to excuse himself. Twice he points to his unsuitability (3:11;
4:10); twice he objects that the people of Israel themselves might be a big
obstacle in the discharge of the mission, since it could happen that the people
might not even accept him as sent by y h w h (3:13; 4:1). God carefully listens
to all of Moses’ objections and gives completely satisfying answers (3:12,14-22;
4:2-9, 11-12). He assures Moses of his presence and guarantees the success of
the undertaking (3:12). He gives detailed instructions concerning the mission,
9
“ In my judgment, Schmidt, 153, construes a forced contrast between 3:8 and 3:10: according to
an older tradition YHWH works the liberation and Moses is his spokesman (cf. 3:16ff.); according
to a younger tradition YHWH works the liberation through the man he had authorized.
The repetitions are used to argue for the literary layering of the text; e.g. Schmidt, 107f.
4 Cf. Eerdmans, 12; if one wants to go in the direction of literary layering one must, in my
opinion, attribute and UX\ to the redactor and say that 3:7-10 now constitute a harmonious
whole.
E SS E N T IA L S A N D P E R S P E C T IV E S 325
so that Moses is well equipped to assume his task (3:14-22). Moreover, he

enables him to perform signs so that he can legitimatize himself as y h w h ’s
emissary (4:2-9) and also promises to ‘give’ him his mouth (4:11-12).
Moses’ two kinds of arguments are listed in chiastic order: a —b —b —a.
One could say: when Moses notices that his argument that he is incapable for
his task (3:11) is devoid of compelling force after God’s answer (3:12), he tries
another tack: he speaks (3:13) as someone who intends to do what he is told
and now tries to make it plausible that there is a good chance that Israel will
not accept him as y h w h ’s messenger, so that God might do better to forget
about sending him. However, God not only refuses to buy Moses’ objection
(3:14-15), but seizes the opportunity to give him full instructions concerning
his mission (3:16-22). It is as if God in 3:16 does not want to give Moses an
opening to present a further objection. The time is past for whatever other
objections there might be and Moses has to be done with raising more
questions. God persists and goes on speaking. As it seems in hopes that
Moses, when he knows what he has to do and what he can expect, will give in.
But what happens? Moses does not give up offering resistance and seems to
almost have ignored the words of God. He again uses the last argument:
perhaps the people will not accept me. He is persistent in using it (4:1). When
also this argument is thrown out - he is given power to give three signs to
legitimatize himself - he falls back on his first argument, his incompetence
(4:10). This time he does not content himself with generalities but points to a
specific inadequacy to show that he is unsuitable. When God has also rebutted
this argument (4:11-12), Moses seems unable to think of further reasons why
he should not go. But if the reader expects that now Moses will comply - for
all problems have been cleared away; Moses has also been assured of God’s
full support — that expectation does not come true. Having exhausted all
arguments, Moses now states openly what so far he had only expressed in
veiled language, through pretenses: let someone else do it (4:13). God, who so
far has been extremely patient with Moses and taken his objections seriously
- note that God’s responses are considerably broader than Moses’ objec
tions - loses his patience (4:14) after Moses’ refusal (4:13). Reacting angrily,
he still in part meets Moses’ request (4:13): though not sending someone else,
he is not going to send Moses alone; his brother Aaron is going to help him
(4:14-17). That is the end of the dialogue. God has the final word. We do not
hear that Moses came back with more words. What follows shows that Moses
had surrendered.
Moses’ insistence that he is incompetent and God’s reaction to it stamp the
entire mission as God’s undertaking: it is not due to human initiative and
willingness that the liberation of Israel gets under way, but only due to God’s
intervention and persistence.
The writer deals in detail with the encounter between God and Moses (3:1-
4:17; thirty-nine verses). One event which took only a few moments is given
326 EXODUS 2:23-4:19
four times as much space in the story than the space devoted to all the many
years of Moses’ stay in Midian (2:15-22; eight verses). The most important gets
all the emphasis. Moreover, the author’s concern was not to produce a
biography of Moses. His focus is: what happens to the promises made to the
patriarchs? Through the lengthy dialogue the question remains unanswered
almost to the end. The suspense is carried to a climax. And now that the story
has reached the point where God is ready to enlist Moses, the man who is
called does not right away assent but comes with endless objections, finally
even bluntly stating that he is not available (4:13). The reader who during the
dialogue oscillated between hope - for God was eminently able to meet
Moses’ problems - and fear - regularly Moses raises new objections - sees
his hope dashed: nothing will come of the liberation and the realization of the
promise of the land. But when the reader has reached the point at which it
seems certain that the situation is again hopeless (2:15), the great reversal
happens. God demands the last word for himself (4:14-17). The danger is past.
To be sure, Moses does not yet go to Egypt, but does say that he willing to go
there (4:18). When he is ready to do, y h w h again speaks to him and the
history can continue (4:19).

In agreement with the Masoretic division of the text I regard 2:23 (cf. 2:11) as
a new main part (petuha of the story. With 3:1 the Masoretes begin a new
section (setuma) that is concluded with 4:17. I agree that 2:23-25 stands apart
from 3:lff. I regard it as the introduction to the next chapter about the call of
Moses. It is a kind of intermezzo which, narrative-wise, occupies an important
function (see essentials). I prefer to regard 4:19 as the end of the description
of the call of Moses (there is some connection between 2:23 and 4:19). It
should be borne in mind that the delineation of the material is somewhat
arbitrary. It is also possible to place the breaks elsewhere; e.g. before 2:11 and
after 4:23 or 4:31 (e.g. Cassuto regards 2:23-4:31 as a main part): the narrative
of Moses’ call is framed by the narrative about his flight from Egypt and by the
story about his return to/arrival in Egypt. Other divisions of the material are
given as well; e.g. 2:23-4:17 (e.g. Baentsch) or 3:1-4:17 (e.g. Te Stroete; for the
various views see Childs, 5If.). The arbitrariness in the presentation of the
material argues for the coherency of the narrative in its current form.
In the main part 2:23-4:19 I distinguish the following sections: 2:23-25, the
situation in Egypt; a look behind the scenes; 3:1-6, Moses’ encounter with the
God of the promises; 3:7-10, the call of Moses; 3:11-4:13, Moses’ objections
and God’s reaction; 4:13-17, Moses’ refusal and God’s reaction; 4:18-19, the
outcome.
The usual idea is that the section to be discussed here came into being in
the course of a lengthy and complex literary history. Though notions about it
vary, it is commonly assumed that 2:23-25 is to be attributed to p, and that 3:1-
4:19 at least contains parts from J and which from E ).5 Even an opponent of
the theory of literary sources, viz. Buber, 55ff. (but note also p. 47), grants that
the text has been edited. Eerdmans, 12ff., on the other hand, holds that 3:1-
4:18 is of one piece.6 The problems found in the text in its current form will
be addressed in the exegesis.
On some points the narrative about the call of Moses resembles the nar
ratives about the call of other charismatics and prophets (see Judg. 6;
1 Sam. 9f.; Jer. 1 and also Isa. 6; Ezek. 1-3). So, for instance, also others who
were called present objections and are given a sign. In the exegesis the
similarities will be looked at.7 In this connection I point out that elsewhere in
the Pentateuch Moses is presented as a prophet (see at 7:1).

EXEGESIS
The situation in Egypt; a look behind the scenes (2:23-25)

2:23 After the king of Egypt had died in the course of that long span o f time, the
Israelites began to groan on account of the hard labour. They cried out and their
cry on account of the hard labour rose up to God.
v n (see Introd. §3.13.3) here, as in 2:11, begins a new passage, ‘in the course
of that long time/8 not only the period of the stay in Midian is meant (so e.g.
5 See e.g. Fohrer, 28ff.; FuB, 21 ff.; GreBmann, 22f.; W. Richter, Die sogenannten vorprophetis-
chen Berufungsberichte, Gottingen 1970, 57ff.; Schmid, 27ff.; Schmidt, 89f., 106ff., 187ff., 209ff.;
P. Weimar, Die Bcrufung des Mose: Literaturwissetischafiliche Analyse von Exodus 2, 23-5, 5,
Freiburg/Gottingen 1980; N. Wyatt, “The Development of Tradition in Exodus 3,“ ZAW 91 (1979),
437-42.
6 Those emphasizing the unity of chapter 3 include A.G. van Daalen, “De plaats waar JHWH
Elohim zich aan Moses liet zien," in Fs M.A. Beek, Verkenningen in een stroomgebied, Amsterdam
1974, 30-40; J. Magonet, “The Bush That Never Burnt," HeyJ 16 (1975), 304-11; E.J. Young, “The
Call of Moses,“ WThJ 29 (1966-67), 117-35; 30 (1967-68), 3-23; see for a detailed literary study G.
Fischer, Jahwe unser Gott: Sprache, Aufbau und Erzahltechnik in der Berufung des Mose (Ex 3-4),
Freiburg/Gottingen 1989.
7 See further GreBmann, 39ff.; K. Gouders, BiLe 12 (1971), 79-93, 162-86; 13 (1972), 89-106,
172-84; F. Garcia L5pez, VT 35 (1985), 1-12; B. Renaud, “La figure proph6tique de Moi'se en
Exode 3,1-4,17,“ RB 93 (1986), 510-34; Richter, op. cit.; H.-C. Schmitt, “Das sogenannte vorpro-
phetische Berufungsschema: Zur ‘geistigen Heimat’ des Berufungsformulars von Ex 3,9-12; Jdc
6,11-24 und I Sam 9,1-10,16,“ ZAW 104 (1992), 202-16; D. Vieweger, Die Spezifik der Berufungsbe
richte Jeremias und Ezechiels bn Umfeld dhnlicher Einheiten des Alten Testaments, Frankfurt am M.
et al. 1986, and also, e.g. Schmid, Jahwist, 19ff. (with conclusions regarding dating); Schmidt, 123ff.
8 See Introd. § 3.32.2; it is doubtful whether the Hebrew permits translations such as ‘na vele
dezer dagen’ (SV) and ‘na langen tijd’ (UV).
328 EXODUS 2:23-4:19
Rashi, Dillmann, Gispen, Cassuto), but the entire period of Israel’s oppression
(from l:8ff. on); cf. 2:11. Unlike in 2:11, the phrase is used with the adjective
21 (see 1:9), evidently to indicate that since Moses’ flight from Egypt much
time has again elapsed and that Israel’s oppression has been of very long
duration. In light of 7:7 (cf. Acts 7:23, 30) it is likely that according to the
writer Moses was forty when he fled, and that he lived forty years in Midian
(see 2:11, and for the chronological problems relative to the context, see at
2:22). The writer evidently places what is said in 2:23 at the end of Moses’ stay
in Midian. ‘had died,’ see Introd. § 3.32. ‘the king of Egypt,’ see Introd. § 5.66;
it is natural to assume that the reference is to the king mentioned in 1:8, who
is mentioned not only in ch. 1 but also in 2:15.9 If it is assumed that the
writer presupposes the above chronology, and if one holds that the events
described in l:8-2:2 took place in a short period of time, the conclusion would
have to be that the king’s reign lasted about eighty years. This consideration,
plus the fact that according to 2:5ff. the king had a grown daughter, has led to
the conjecture that the king mentioned in 2:23 was the successor of the ruler
of 1:8 (e.g. Murphy, Keil; also Dillmann reckons with this possibility; for the
problem see Introd. §11.4.1). In my judgment this view is improbable. The
question is whether the writer’s chronology was that coherent. Furthermore,
the chronology may also have symbolic value: the king’s reign covered 2x 40
years, that is, two generations (see Introd. §4.5.3). In short, the oppression
lasted a very long time. Perhaps one may even say that because of the very
long reign, there was no end to Israel’s yearning for a change in its fate; when
Moses fled the king had been in power about forty years and had completed
the period of a successful ruler, so that the end of his life might be in sight; all
the while Moses was in Midian, the people longed for that in hopes that
Pharaoh’s death might mean a change in their fate.
Only the death of the king is mentioned. No mention is made of the acces
sion of a new ruler. Though presupposed it is not stated. Apparently it was not
important because the policy of the new ruler did not differ from that of his
predecessor (see at 1:8). The question of the identity of the new ruler has been
raised (see Introd. §11.3,4). The writer is not interested in it. In TPsJ it is
related that the ruler was stricken (by leprosy) and ordered that the first-born
children of Israel be killed so that he might bathe in their blood. There TPsJ
represents an exegetical tradition according to which ‘and he died’ is to be
explained as ‘and he became leprous’ (cf. Num. 12:12; it also understands ‘died’
in Isa. 6:1 like that), while the groaning of the Israelites was due to the death
of the children (see e.g. ExR. I, 34, and also Rashi and further Ginzberg, II,
296ff.). So according to this tradition the situation of Israel had even wor
sened.
Tuan imperf. cons. niph. of ton (OT 12x; only here in the Pent.), ‘to groan,’
9 Artapanus, 20, mentions the death of Chenephres (see 2:12).

‘to moan;’ see Scharbert, 112f. ‘the Israelites,’ this is the first time after 1:13
that the designation is used again, after the repeated use of ‘Hebrews.’ ‘hard
labour’ (see Introd. §3.37.4), the double use makes the term emphatic; the
first p means ‘on account of;’ the second p can also mean ‘from;’ the cry
comes from the toiling slave labourers.
p y n imperf. cons, qal of pm (OT 73 x), ‘to shout,’ ‘cry out,’ which only here
occurs in the Pent. What is often used in the Pent, is the verb pus (OT 55 x;
Exod. 10 x), and has the same meaning (the difference between the two is
likely purely orthographical), put /pus often denotes the crying of an individual
who finds himself in an emergency. Then it means ‘to cry for help.’ The cry
may be directed to a person; see 5:8 (crying out caused by hardship), 15 (crying
out from indignation); in both instances pus is followed by ion1? (see 2 Kgs. 4:1
and cf. 2 Kgs. 4:40; 6:5). Often the OT mentions a crying out to y h w h . In 8:8;
14:15; 15:25; 17:4 Moses is subject (cf. Num. 12:13); in 14:10 the Israelites.
When the call is to y h w h the verb also includes the idea of ‘to pray;’ in 8:8 it
means ‘to pray for’ (cf. 8:4 and see 1 Sam. 7:8f.; 15:11; Ezek. 9:8; 11:13;
Hab. 1:2). In 22:22,26 iSe oppressed cry to y h w h . When Exod. speaks of ‘cry
out’ the verb is used with ^tt. In 2:23 it is used in the absolute sense (cf.
Gen. 27:34; Deut. 22:24, 27). So one can say that in 2:23 it is a case of people
who cry out because they do not know what to do anymore. The derivative
npus (OT 21 x; Exod. 5x) is used for the crying of the oppressed Israelites
(3:7,9), of the Egyptians whose firstborn died (11:6; 12:30; cf. 2 Sam. 19:5;
Ezek. 27:30) and for the cry of the oppressed to y h w h (22:22).10 ‘rose up,’
see Introd. §3.39.1. *nui» (OT 11 x; only here in Pent.), ‘cry for help’ (cf. e.g.
1 Sam. 5:12; Jer. 8:19); see Scharbert, 116.
The use of four (see also npto in 2:24) different terms for groaning indicates
that Israel groaned in all sorts of ways. Israel’s hard labour has been men
tioned more often (1:11-14; 2:11-14). Now for the first time we read that they
groaned on account of it. There may a connection between the mention of the
death of the king and the groaning: Israel expected that a new king on the
throne would mean a change in the situation (a new ruler can make new
policies; see l:8ff. and e.g. 1 Kgs. 12:3ff.). However, the hope proved un
founded. When the people realize that they are in a hopeless situation, they
cry out, desperate for deliverance. In that respect the situation now is different
from that of an earlier phase of the time of forced labour (2:14). Israel is now
prepared to welcome a deliverer. Moreover, owing to the death of the king,
Israel’s future deliverer can enter Egypt without having to fear for his life.11
10 See further THAT, II, 568ff.; TWAT, II, 628ff; R.N. Boyce, The Cry to God in the Old
Testament, Atlanta 1988; Scharbert, 116.
11 It is assumed that with the death of the king also those of his generation have died (cf. 1:6),
that is, the people who wanted to kill Moses (cf. 4:19); the LXX at the end of 4:18 repeats the
beginning of 2:23.
330 exo dus 2:23-4:19
(see Introd. §7.2.1), the only designation for God used thus far is
used again, for the first time after 1:17,21; in the following verses, as in 1:20,
is used without article (2 x in 2:24 and 2 x in 2:25); in ch. 1 n'nbx was
only once subject (1:20), in 2:24,25 four times. This accumulation of the term
D'rb# seems the writer’s way of suggesting that God, who thus far stayed in the
background and from there guided the events, now will soon get personally
involved. The passage does not say that the Israelites called to God (so e.g.
Gispen). They cry out in utter misery. In brief, it is not said that distress forces
people to their knees, nor that the Israelites pray now because they hope that
God will take advantage of the favourable moment of the change in king to
make life easier for them. Their screaming is so loud and shrill that it reaches
God (in heaven)12 with the result that it moves him to pity (cf. Judg. 2:18).
So 2:23 presents a different picture than Num. 20:16; Deut. 26:7. According to
2:23, the change in Israel’s fate is entirely due to God’s initiative.13
2:24 Then God heard their groaning and God remembered his promise to
Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob.
‘heard’ (see Introd. §3.51.1), the hearing meant is not one that is the same as
‘take notice of,’ but a ‘hearing’ that, like the ‘see’ of 2:25, involves a being
moved to pity which leads God to action (cf. e.g. Gen. 21:17; 22:11,15;
Exod. 4:31; Deut. 11:12; 26:15; 1 Sam. 1:11; 2 Sam. 26:12; 1 Kgs. 9:3; 2 Kgs. 20:5;
and see Houtman, Himmel, 331 ff.).
njjK? [Sam. Pent, has nr\np: (see also 6:5)], ‘moaning,’ ‘groaning,’ ‘sighing’ (cf.
6:5; Judg. 2:18; Ezek. 30:24 and see Scharbert, 113); in 2:23-24 four terms are
used for the wailing of the Israelites; in 2:24-25 four terms are used for the
reaction of God. ‘remembered,’ see Introd. §3.18.1.
rp ? (OT ca. 285x; Exod. 13x) has been the subject of extensive discus
sions in Old Testament scholarship in recent decades. In particular E. Kutsch
has defended the position that ‘covenant’ often is not an adequate rendering of
the term. At any rate, originally a bilateral relationship was presumably not a
mark of m n. Instead, so it is claimed, m a was a unilateral, solemn promise,
an obligation one assumes, and the obligation imposed upon the other (it is
also possible for two parties to assume obligations with respect to each other).
I wish to make some observations concerning the use of m a in Exodus. Where
the relation God-human partner is in view, it is always God who brings about
the jvq , not man (though we do read of people entering into a m a with idols
[23:32]). For that matter, humans cannot remain passive under the initiative of
^ So specifically stated in TPsJ: ‘to the high heaven of YHWH;’ cf. 1 Sam. 5:12, and see
Houtman, Himmel 361.
13
According to Artapanus, 21, Moses wrought the change; at the death of Chenephres, Moses
pleaded with God to set the Israelites free from the oppression; in response to that God revealed
himself.
God. It is expected of them that they react positively to it. Otherwise it would
be meaningless. Hence reciprocity and communality are essential for rr*o
(Scharbert correctly points out that the frequently used prepositions av and nx
presuppose bilateralness). When God is the subject, ‘compact* is a suitable
rendering (2:24; 6:4,5; 24:8; 34:10,27; cf. also 34:28), ‘compact* in the sense of
a unilaterally assumed obligation to give something, to do or not to do
something, voluntarily agreed to by the addressee; in order to make the
translation as clear as possible I often translate ‘promise;* cf. e.g. Gen. 17:2-8.
In the case of y h w h and Israel it is a compact y h w h wants to enter into (see
at 6:7), which demands of Israel recognition of and respect of y h w h and of
what he asks of Israel, i.o.w. that it live according to y h w h ’s ordinances (cf.
34:27f.). To ‘keep* y h w h ’s compact14 therefore means to observe the obliga
tions imposed by y h w h (19:5; cf. e.g. Gen. 17:9,10). Keeping the sabbath can
be characterized as observing a ivn, ‘an obligation’ (31:16; cf. Gen. 17:10). The
‘book of the compact’ contains the rules given by y h w h which are inherent in
the compact (24:7; cf. 24:3 and e.g. Deut. 4:13; 33:9). Also where Exodus
speaks of Israel making a rr"D with the inhabitants of Canaan (23:32; 34:12,15;
cf. Deut. 7:2; Josh. 9:6,7,11 etal.) and it is assumed that conditions are
formulated and/or accepted, ‘compact* is an appropriate rendering. To denote
the making of a ivd , in Exodus the verb rro 15 and the verb mp hiph. (see
1:8) are used. U. Cassuto16 does not think that the expressions are synon
ymous: the first denotes the giving of the promise; the second the keeping of,
the fulfillment of the promise. It is indeed very well possible that Dip hiph.
points to the ‘maintaining o f a promise.17 ‘Abraham see Introd. §5.3,35,
33.
2:25 IndeedG od looked upon the Israelites with compassion and God was
concerned about them.
14 10® (see 10:28) is regularly used with m s p (e.g. 20:6) and similar terms with which IV D is
exchangeable; see T W A T , I, 785f.
15 See 4:25; not certain is whether the use of IVD is an indication that originally the slaugh
tering of a sacrificial animal was part of the rite that was used in making the compact.
™ F rom N o a h to A b r a h a m , Jerusalem 1964, 35, 67f.
17 Cf. e.g. Gen. 26:3; 1 Sam. 13:14; Jer. 11:5, and see also P.A.H. de Boer, “Quelques remarques
sur Pare dans la nu£e,* in C. Brekelmans (ed.), Q u estio n s d i s p u te s d A n c ie n T e sta m en t , Leuven
1974, 105-14 (the collection contains contributions about and related to ‘covenant’). See further
T H A T , I, 339ff., 858ff.; T R E , VII, 397ff. (+ lit.); T W A T , I, 781ff.; G. Gerleman, in S tu dien zu r
alttesta m en tlich en T h eo lo g ie , Heidelberg 1980, 24-37; K.A. Kitchen, “Egypt, Ugarit, Qatna and
Covenant,* U F 11 (1979), 453-64; idem, “The Fall and Rise of Covenant, Law and Treaty,- TynB
40 (1989), 118-35; P. Kalluveettil, D ecla ra tio n a n d C oven ant: A C o m preh en sive R e view o f C o v e n a n t
F o rm u la e fr o m th e O ld T esta m en t a n d th e A n c ie n t N ea r E a s t , Rome 1982; E. Kutsch, "Kardt b erit
‘eine Verpflichtung festsetzen’,* in Fs K. Elliger, W ort u n d G csch ich te, Kevelaer/Neukirchen-Vluyn
1973, 121-7; J. Scharbert, “‘Berit’ im Pentateuch,* in D e la torah au M essie: M elanges H. C a zelles,
Paris 1981, 163-70; Skweres, 127ff.
332 exo dus 2:23-4:19
‘looked upon/ see Introd. §3.46.1; the reading ‘God looked upon the Is
raelites’ has been called into question as making no sense and the proposal has
been made to read, for example, ‘misery/ instead of (see e.g. Ehrlich
and Beer, and cf. 3:7; 4:31); run qal, however, here means ‘to look upon with
compassion/ as is more often the case, (see Introd. § 3.22), for a variety of
reasons some want to emend the text: the lack of an object is conspicuous;18
in 6:2ff., which it is often assumed was originally the continuation of 2:25
(both passages are assigned to p), v t niph. is used in vs. 3. That suggests the
reading in n , ‘and made himself known’ (e.g. Hyatt, Schmidt); Dillmann
proposes to read kt ] (niph.); some go so far as to add ntfb*? (e.g. Beer). In my
opinion, in the present context a note about the revelation of God prior to 3:2
is less than relevant.
TO and TNf read (translated): ‘y h w h learned about the forced labour of the
Israelites and he decided to free them by his Word.’ In about the same words,
the second half of 2:25 is found in TPsJ at the end of 2:23. What is implicit in
the MT is there made explicit. TPsJ relates in 2:25 that y h w h heard about
Israel’s anguish about the forced labour, and that he learned about the penalty
the Israelites paid in secret in such a manner that they kept it hidden from
each other. The version of TPsJ is understandable in light of the discussion in
rabbinic literature about the question for what reason y h w h wanted to free
Israel. Was it on the basis of the merits of the fathers or on the basis of their
own merits, etc.? (see e.g. ExR. 1,34ff. and further e.g. Ginzberg, II, 299f.).
Moses’ encounter with the God of the promises (3:1-6)

3:1 Now Moses had become shepherd of the flock of his father-in-law Jethro, the
priest of Midian. Once he led the flock beyond the wilderness and so came to the
mountain of God, at Horeb.
using the copulative waw the writer, after the intermezzo of 2:23-25,
resumes his account of the happenings in Moses’ life, ‘had become/ see Introd.
§3.13.1. run. see 2:17; apparently Moses had taken over the work of the
daughters of Jethro (2:16,19);19 like Jacob, he made himself useful in the
foreign country by serving as a shepherd (cf. Gen. 29:15ff.; 30:25ff.). Moses has
in common with others called by y h w h , with David (1 Sam. 16:llff., 19;
17:15,20,34ff.; 2 Sam. 7:8) and with Amos (Am. 1:1; 7:14f.), that his oc
cupation was that of a shepherd. In the Ancient Near East ‘shepherd’ was also
18 It is conjectured that there is a break in the text; see e.g. Heinisch (2:25 is probably a gloss);
the LXX reads: K ai tyvfbctiT] ocutok; (= DJT^K i n n ? ) .
19 In Josephus (AJ , II, 263) and in ExR. I, 33) it is stated in so many words that Jethro gave
Moses the shepherd job; cf. Ginzberg, II, 300.
used as the title for a king, the leader of the people.20 In the OT Cyrus is
called shepherd (Isa. 44:28) and 1 Kgs. 22:17 contains an allusion to Ahab as
the shepherd of his people. In Ezek. 34:23; 37:24 David as messianic king is
called ‘shepherd’ (cf. Jer. 23:4; Mic. 5:3). Of particular significance is
Ps. 78:70f., which speaks of David who was called to leave his sheep so that he
might ‘shepherd’ the people of Israel (run) (cf. also 2 Sam. 5:2). The OT
pictures Moses as a man who from being a shepherd in the literal sense of the
word became a shepherd in the figurative sense (Ps. 77:21). Because watching
sheep was such common daily work (Gen. 37:2) it is doubtful that special
meaning should be attached to the report that Moses became a shepherd.
However, rabbinic tradition and also other writings contain the notion that it
was not without reason that Moses was a shepherd: after Moses and David had
demonstrated their mettle as shepherd, God entrusted to them the task of
‘shepherding’ people.21 The notion has been defended that the image of the
leader of a people, a prophet or a poet as being people who made their living
by being shepherds or farmers was a widespread (particular in the Greco-
Roman world) literary motif, without much of a basis in historical reality. It is
intended to bring out that the particular individual was an ordinary human
being who was not after high honor or status. His position of prominence was
entirely due to his calling by the deity (see in the OT also Judg. 6:11,;
1 Sam. ll:5ff.; 1 Kgs. 19:19ff.).22
‘flock,’ see Introd. §9.1.4; Jethro, see Introd. §5.37. ]r\n (OT 21 x; Exod.
15x; always used for Jethro; 3:1; 4:18; 18:1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12 [2x], 14,
15, 17, 24, 27), part, qal of ]nn, used as a noun meaning ‘father-in-law’ (the
father of the wife); ]nn (hithp.; OT 11 x) is regarded as a denominative verb of
]nn (OT 20x), meaning ‘son-in-law’ (Gen. 19:14; Judg. 15:6), ‘bridegroom’
(4:25f.; Isa. 61:10; 62:5 etal.). A detailed study of the terms has been made by
T. Mitchell.23 His conclusion is that both terms have the broader meaning of
‘relation-by-marriage.’ Besides meaning ‘father-in-law’ ]nn can also stand for
‘brother-in-law.’ This interpretation implies that the names Reuel/Jethro/Ho-
bab (see Introd. § 5.37) are no longer problematic. Reuel would be the father-
in-law and Jethro and Hobab in-laws of Moses (pp. 95f., 105). Mitchell’s study
20
See e.g. K.H. Bernhardt, D a s P ro b lem d cr altorien talisch en K o n igsideologie im A lte n T esta m en t,
Leiden 1961, 68 n. 1; E. Bosetti, B e O 26 (1984), 75-102; I. Engnell, S tu dies in D iv in e K i n s h i p in the
A n c ie n t N e a r E a s t , Oxford 19672, 194; J.C. de Moor, "De goede herder,” in Fs K. Runia, B ew erken
en bew aren , Kampen 1982, 36-45; B. Willmes, D ie sogenan te H irtcnallegorie E z 34: S tu dien zu m B ild
d e s H irten im A lte n T estam en t, Frankfurt am M. et al. 1984.
21 See e.g. ExR. II, 2f.; M id rT a n h . E x o d I, 10; Z o h a r E x o d 20b, 21a; Philo (V M , I, 60ff.);
Clement of Alexandria (S tro m a ta , I, 22); cf. Ginzberg, II, 300f.; on views about the title ‘shepherd’
see R L A , IV, 421ff.; Str-B, I, 775; II, 536f.; T H A T , II, 791ff.; T W N T , VI, 484ff.
22
See H. Schult, “Amos 7 15a und die Legitimation des AuBenseiters,” in Fs. G. von Rad,
P ro b le m e b iblisch er T heologie, Miinchen 1971, 462-78.
23 "The Meaning of the Noun htn in the Old Testament,” V T 19 (1969), 93-112.
334 exodus 2:23-4:19
is not convincing. His proof is for the most part derived from the disputed
texts Num. 10:29; Judg. 1:16; 4:11. See further TWAT, III, 288ff. ins, see 2:16.
Midian, see Introd. § 8.16.
inn (for the form see e.g. Ges-K §66f) imperf. qal of ini (OT 32 x), ‘to
drive on/forward,’ ‘to lead away’ (cf. e.g. Gen. 31:18; 2 Kgs. 4:24). In 10:13 ini
piel is used with the meaning ‘to lead,’ ‘to bring’ (cf. Ps. 78:26), in 14:25 with
the meaning ‘to move/turn.‘ Gunkel, 32, thinks that behind the 3:1 there is the
notion that the flock led Moses. He adduces 3:1 (beside 1 Sam. 6:7ff. and
Gen. 36:24; Num. 22:22ff.) as witnesses for the idea that animals are often
more receptive to the influence of the supernatural than humans. In sum, he
suggests that the flock was drawn by the holiness of the place and moved
outside the regular pasture area.24 The text is silent on it. The question why
Moses moved so far outside the regular grazing area is not answered in the
text, but likely there is a simpler answer to the question (see below).
‘beyond,’ see Introd. §3.1.1; it is possible to understand *m as ‘to the west
o f (see Williams § 359, and compare the use of Tint< in Isa. 9:11; Job 23:8; and
of the phrase pinxn o*n in Deut. 11:24; 34:2 et al.; see further Hyatt and Cole),
but more likely ‘beyond’ is what is meant; see e.g. Baentsch: ‘Hinter die Wiiste
d.h. jenseits der Steppe, wo es gute Weide gab. Gemeint sind jedenfalls hoher
gelegene Weidestriche, die unmittelbar an den Berg stiessen.’ As I see it,
meant is: Moses drove his flock beyond its usually grazing area. According to
Ehrlich imt means ‘to:’ Moses drove the flock into the wilderness;25 Cassuto
even thinks that nanon mtt means ‘seeking after good pasture’ (cf. 39:8). More
likely what is meant is that one day, looking for new grasslands, Moses had
taken his flock to a for him unknown area.26 ‘desert,’ see Introd. § 3.31.
‘the mountain of God,’ see Introd. §3.16.2; the designation is specific. In
what way? Did Moses come to a mountain which was a cultic spot and already
prior to Moses was regarded as the dwelling place of a deity (e.g. Baentsch; see
further below at 3:4-6), or is the designation used proleptically so that what is
meant is: the mountain where God would reveal himself (e.g. Strack, Hol-
zinger, Heinisch, Cassuto)?; cf. also TO: ‘at the mountain where the glory of
Cf. also GreBmann, 31 n. 4; compare also Z o h a r E xod. 21a: led by the holy spirit Moses
recognized that the place was sacred; as soon as Moses saw the mountain, he was drawn to it, like
iron to a magnet; cf. Rosmarin, 81.
25 Cf. already TO: *to the best pasture land of the desert;’ but note also TPsJ: ‘to the very best
pasture behind the desert,’ and TNf: ‘behind the desert.’
26 According to TPsJ (see above) there was excellent pasture ‘on the far side of the desert;’ cf.
also Josephus (AJ, II, 265) and see Auerbach, 31 (Moses came to ‘the far side of the desert,’ that
is, in the oasis of Kadesh); in TPsJ, as also elsewhere in rabbinic literature (cf. Ginzberg, II, 300ff.)
and also in, e.g., the writings of Philo ( VM, I, 63ff.), Moses is therefore portrayed as an outstanding
shepherd. Another tradition has it that Moses led his flock so far away as a precaution against his
flock grazing in the fields of others and becoming guilty of stealing (e.g. E x R II, 3, and also Rashi).
Others have suggested that Moses avoided contact with fellow shepherds and went to the mountain
for prayer and meditation.
yhw h appeared;’ similarly TPsJ and TNf. In my judgment the following is of

importance: the writer is speaking; he makes his readers aware that Moses
comes to the mountain of God which they as well as he are familiar with. So
he creates suspense. He and they, living after the theophany there, know of the
special character of the place. The Moses of the story does not know it.
Unawares he enters the area of the mountain as if it were an ordinary moun
tain. What will be the outcome? That the mountain was already a holy
mountain (e.g. of the Midianites) prior to the revelation to Moses cannot be
inferred from the text. In 3:1, Moses is depicted as the man to whom the
character of the place is being revealed. Also, likely it is not unimportant that
the mountain is situated ‘on the far side of the desert,’ that is, outside the
territory of the Midianites. The encounter with y h w h happens in a kind of no
man’s land: not in Midian and not in Egypt (cf. also 4:27). The LXX left
ovtotn untranslated; why is not clear.27 Horeb, see Introd. § 8.23.2.
3:2 There a messenger of YHWH appeared to him in a flame o f fire out of the
bush. He noticed that, though the bush was ablaze, it was not consumed.
‘appeared,’ see Introd. § 3.46.2; forms of ntn are frequently (lOx) used in 3:2
and following vss. (3:3, 4, 7, 9 and see also 2:25), in a great diversity of
meaning and shades of meaning; it is not possible to regard roo as a ‘Leitwort.’
(OT ca. 210 x), ‘messenger,’ is a derivative of "[xb, ‘to send,’ familiar
from Ugaritic and other Semitic languages (another derivative is rtDKVn; see
12:16). *|K^n is used in Exod. ( 6 x ) only for a messenger sent by j h w h :
mrr (3:2; OT 58x); D7t‘?Nn (14:19; OT 11 x); -jk^d (23:20; 33:2);
'px^n (23:23; 32:34). -|»6» is the ordinary word for ‘messenger,’ the person who
can be dispatched by an individual, prince or leader, or community to another
person or community with a message, order, request or whatever. The OT
regularly refers to messengers whose task is to bridge the spatial distance
between the sender and the person or group one wishes to reach. A very close
relationship exists between them and their sender: they speak/act in his name,
that is, the sender speaks/acts through them. So messengers can be addressed
as if they were the sender himself (Judg. 11:13; 2 Sam. 3:12f. et al.). A rude
treatment of messengers is the same as rude treatment of the master (1 Sam.
25:9ff., 14ff.). As earthly princes have their messengers so y h w h has his
emissaries. Human beings can function in this capacity,28 but ordinarily it is
celestial beings for whom the designation ‘messenger of y h w h ’ is used.
Enthroned in heaven, a king surrounded by his heavenly court (e.g. 1 Kgs.
22:19ff.; Isa. 6; Job 1, 2), y h w h can be present on earth through a member of*25
27 Cf. Schmidt, 102f.; according to Baentsch, the translator was unhappy with ‘mountain of God’
before the giving of the law.
25 In e.g. Isa. 44:26; Mai. 2:7; Eccl. 5:5 the term ‘messenger’ is used in that connection; but the
idea occurs much more often; so Moses, for example, is the messenger of YHWH (3:10) etc.
336 EXODUS 2:23-4:19
his entourage. By means of a messenger he can bridge the distance between

himself and the people, communicate with them and help them. The question
arises whether ‘the messenger of y h w h ’ always refers to the same celestial
being or to different ones. In the early church it was widely held that ‘the
messenger of y h w h ’ was the Logos (see e.g. in Calmet). Few today subscribe
to that kind of theological interpretation. A view that is somewhat popular is
that one particular figure, the Grand Vizier, the prime minister of y h w h , is
meant. Grammatically this view has in its favor that nvr can only mean
‘the messenger of y h w h / There are, however, exceptions to the rule that the
nomen regens is definite when the nomen rectum is definite (particularly in case
of nomina propria) (e.g. Ges-K § 127e; Jouon § 139b, c; Brockelmann § 73a),
so that the possibility cannot be ruled out that mrr is to be understood as
‘a messenger of y h w h / that is, ‘one of the many servants at his disposal/ cf.
e.g. D'n^N(n) bt*k, ‘a man of God’ (Judg. 13:6; 1 Sam. 2:27) with dm^k(h) *]iAo,
‘the/a messenger of God* (e.g. Gen. 21:17; 31:11; Exod. 14:9); see also 23:20;
33:2; Num. 20:16, where ybi* occurs without appellative and is to be translated
as ‘a messenger.’
There is no careful distinction between y h w h and his messenger. The
passages in which a messenger of YHWH/God appears more than once give the
impression that YHWH/God himself is present and speaks. In 3:2 we read of a
messenger of y h w h , while in 3:4ff. YHWH/God is the one who speaks (cf. e.g.
Gen. 16:7ff.; 31:1 Iff.; Judg. 6:llff.; 13:21f.). The sender is present in the one
sent. What is said is that y h w h , the exalted Lord, nevertheless wishes to
bridge the distance separating him from his human creature. Referring to
y h w h as doing the speaking himself is a way of underscoring his personal
involvement. The image of the messenger who represents his Lord, without
being identical with him, safeguards the distance between y h w h and man. The
One who is near is also the exalted Lord. The ministering of a messenger of
y h w h is not limited to a particular time or place. He often appears when
people are in need (e.g. Gen. 16:7ff.; 21:17ff.; 22:1 Iff.; 1 Kgs. 19:5ff.; Ps. 34:8),
for instance to announce deliverance or to command someone to be a deliv
erer (3:2ff.; Judg. 6:1 Iff.; 13:2ff.). He can be in contact with someone for a
short while (3:2ff.), but also accompany people on their journey to protect
them and keep them from losing their way (14:19; 23:20, 23; 32:34; 33:2; cf.
Num. 20:16, and see also Gen. 19:16; 24:7, 40; Ps. 91:11).**29 A messenger of
y h w h can also bring calamity (2 Sam. 24:16f.; 2 Kgs. 19:35; Ps. 35:5f.; 78:49);
^9 In 14:19 the messenger appears somewhat unexpectedly; he has the same function as the
pillar of cloud; it would seem that 14:19a stems from a tradition according to which an emissary of
yhwh brought the people out of Egypt; in 32:34-33:6 the difference between YHWH and his
emissary is strongly emphasized; what in 23:20, 23 is presented as the normal situation is pictured
as irregular in 33:2ff.; see further in loco; according to Hirth, 55, 67, in 23:20, 23; Num. 20:16 the
messenger is Moses.
cf. 12:23 (the term rnnsn is used; see 8:20).

The OT says little about the form in which the messenger appeared. He is
described as ‘man (of God)’ (Judg. 13:6, 8, 10f.; cf. also Gen. 18:1, 16, 22; 19:5
et al.); according to the description of Num. 22:23, 31; 1 Chr. 21:16 he has a
sword in his hand (cf. Josh. 5:13ff.). At first sight he is not recognizable as
y h w h ’s herald (Judg. 13:16). First he has to make himself known as such
through word or deed (Judg. 6:21f.; 13:19ff.; cf. Josh. 4:14). According to Num.
22:22ff, (in particular vs. 31) initially he can be invisible to a person. See in
regards to the ‘messenger of y h w h ’ also 4:24. In Exodus the messenger
remains nameless. Rabbinic tradition has not been content with that. Accor
ding to TPsJ his name was Zagnugael (Zagzagel) (see Ginzberg, Index).
According to other traditions the messenger was Michael or Gabriel (see e.g.
ExR. II, 5, and further Ginzberg, V, 415f.).30
cstruct state of the hapax legomenon rob*, ‘flame;’ Sam Pent, reads nan1?
cstr. st. of nan1?, ‘flame,’ a term which occurs parallel to m (Num. 21:28; Isa.
10:17 et al.) and in construct chains with urn (Isa. 4:5; Ps. 29:7; 105:32 et al.; cf.
an1? in Isa. 29:6 et al.);31 see for the word connection E.Z. Melamed,
ScrHie 8 (1961), 137ff. The MT reading is often regarded as a scribal error and
altered in accordance with the Sam. Pent, (probably, however, that reading is
an accommodation to the vernacular of that time), na1? is also thought to be a
contracted form (e.g. Strack). Ehrlich (cf. already Rashi) proposes to read
»xn aba ‘in the middle of the fire’ (cf. 15:8). For the term see further TWAT,
IV,’ 483ff.
ion (OT ca. 380x; Exod. 19x), ‘fire,’ belongs to the basic human needs. In
the home it is indispensable in preparing meals (see at on1? 2:20) and for
heating against the cold (e.g. Isa. 44:16; Mark 14:54; Acts 28:2).32 The ion in
12:8, 9 may have been a fire made in a hole in the floor or in the corner of the
house (cf. 2 Sam. 13:5; Isa. 30:14), over which the meat was roasted or baked.
It could also be an open fire in the courtyard (Jer. 1:13); cf. Isa. 44:16, 19;
2 Chr. 35:13, and e.g. also 1 Kgs. 19:21; John 21:9. In working with metal it
30 Bibl.: T H A T , I, 900ff.; T W A T , IV, 887ff.; N.G. Cohen, “From N a b i to M a l ’a k to ‘Ancient

Figure’,' JSS 36 (1985), 12-24; J.L. Cunchillos, SKT 32 (1981), 30-51; J.E. Fossum, T he N a m e o f
G o d a n d th e A n g e l o f the L o r d , Tubingen 1985; V. Hirth, G o tte s B o ten im A lte n T esta m en t , Berlin
1975; E. Jacob, “Variations et constantes dans la figure de l’Ange de YHWH,“ R H P h R 68 (1988),
405-14; Johnson, T he O n e , 4ff., 28ff.; S.A. Meier, T he M essenger in th e A n c ie n t S a n itic W orld ,
Atlanta 1988; H. Rottger, M aV ak Jahw e - B o te von G o tt, Regensburg 1978;. For a general
description of conceptions about celestial beings, see Houtman, H im m e l, 109f., 161f., 167, 170f.,
189, 194ff., 354ff., 357f.
31 See in connection with the alternation of the use of rQH^ in the construct chains — it can be
both n o m e n regens and n o m e n rectu m — the fact that, among others, LXX® in 3:2 has the reading
£v 7il)pi (pXoy6Q instead of £v <pA,oyi 7tDpd<;; both readings are also found with respect to Acts
7:30; cf. P. Katz, Z N W 4 6 (1955), 133-8.
32 See A u S , IV; B H H W , I, 270; B R L , 146f.; ID B , I, 679f.; Forbes VI, Iff.
338 exodus 2:23-4:19
was used (32:34) for heating the smelting furnace, for refining the metal (e.g.
Jer. 6:27ff.; Ezek. 22:17ff.; Mai. 3:20), and for making it suitable for pouring
into forms or for molding (e.g. BHHW, II, 1206f.; BRL, 219ff.). Fire was made
by rubbing pieces of wood over each other; later on from striking flint
(2 Macc. 10:3). Obviously kindling a fire was no simple thing. Therefore on a
journey one brought it along (Gen. 22:6) and it was forbidden to kindle a fire
(for domestic purposes) on the sabbath (Gen. 35:3). Fire can make life more
pleasant for people, but in a short time it can also destroy what required great
effort to construct. That made it a favorite weapon in war (Josh. 6:24; 8:8, 19;
Judg. 1:8 et al.). Fire can also destroy a crop in the field; this can happen
intentionally (e.g. Judg. 15:4ff.; 2 Sam. 14:30f.), but also due to negligence, for
example, when a fire to burn thornbushes gets out of hand (22:5). Owing to its
destructive power, fire is suitable for purposes of purification (32:20; cf. e.g.
Deut. 7:5, 25; 12:3; 2 Kgs. 23:11) and to keep the sacred from being desecrated
(12:10; 29:34; cf. e.g. Lev. 4:12. ‘fire’ is also used in connection with lightning
(9:23f.; cf. e.g. Ps. 97:3; 104:4; 148:8). As such it belongs to the phenomena
that can herald the coming of y h w h .
Often ‘fire’ is a sign of the presence of y h w h . Because of its awesome
devastating power and capriciousness, fire can make one shudder with fear and
is a singularly suitable metaphor for denoting the irresistibility, sovereign
power and holiness of God before which nothing impure can stand (cf. Isa.
6:5ff.). For fire as emblem of divine revelation see 3:2 (2x); 19:18 (see in
loco); cf. e.g. Gen. 15:17; Deut. 4 :llf, 15, 33, 36; 5:4f., 22f., 24ff.; 9:10; 10:4;
18:16, and see e.g. also Acts 2:3. But GreBmann, 29, 256, goes too far when he
infers, among others from 3:2, that y h w h was (originally) a Tire deity.’
According to the description of 13:21; 14:24, and see also 40:38 (cf. Num. 9:15;
14:14; Deut. 1:33; Ps. 78:14), during the exodus and stay in the desert, y h w h
was by night present with his people in the tin "no», the ‘pillar of cloud.’
Considering all these aspects of fire, it causes no surprise that the term is used
in a great variety of metaphors associated with y h w h (24:17; cf. e.g. Deut.
4:24; 9:3; Isa. 30:27; 33:14). For the use of (with article) in 3:2; 12:10;
19:18; 29:34; 32:20, 24, see e.g. Ges-K § 126n; Jouon § 137i; Brockelmann
§ 21cp; Williams § 92; it could also be that the article is used in 3:2 because of
the earlier reference to fire in the verse.33
tfKVQta, ‘in a flame of fire;’ some understand a as 2-essentiae (cf. Ges-K
§ 119i; Jouon § 133c; Brockelmann § 106g; Williams § 249), ‘in the form o f
(cf. 6:3); so e.g. Bohl, Gispen, Cassuto, Childs. As I see it, 3:6 which says that
Moses was afraid to look at God argues against this interpretation. The
following is the likely picture of the verse: the messenger is present in the
33 Bibl.: BHHW, I, 479f.; DB, II, 9f.; IDB, II, 268f.; THAT, I, 242ff.; TWAT, I, 457ff.; Bocher,
46ff., 185ff.; T. Fahd (ed.), Le feu dans le Prochc-Orient Antique, Leiden 1973, Gaster, 505f., 586ff.,
689; Houtman, Himmel, 274ff.
form of a man (see above) while the flame around him makes him recog
nizable as emissary of yhwh. In Judg. 13:20 the flame is the ‘vehicle’ in which
the messenger goes to heaven (cf. 2 Kgs. 2:11). Does 3:2 perhaps presuppose
that the messenger came to Horeb by means of the flame? Also in Judg. 6:21
the sudden appearance of fire (there it is a consuming flame) shows that the
person who appears is an emissaty of yhwh (vs. 22). *pna, see 2:5.
mon, see Introd. § 10.4.2; for the use of the article, see Ges-K § 126r; Joiion
§ 137n, o; Brockelmann § 21bp; Williams § 84; it is possible that the context
determines the meaning of the term (in which case one should translate la
thornbush’); the reference could also be to the ‘you-know-which-is-meant
thornbush.’ One should keep in mind that the writer is speaking here. He
speaks of the thornbush of the revelation familiar to him and his readers.
Childs holds that 3:2a is a heading. Whatever the case, in 3:2a the reader is
given a short summary and interpretation of what is narrated in the following
verses (cf. e.g. Gen. 1:1; 18:1a; 22:1a; Judg. 6:12a [cf. vs. 22]; 13:3a [cf. vss. 6,
21]; 2 Kgs. 2:1a). The reader is made privy to something not yet known by
Moses (for Moses the thornbush was initially nothing more than a thornbush)
when he came to Horeb. This information piques the reader’s interest in
Moses’ experiences. What will happen to him? In 3:2b, 3ff., the events are
described in chronological order: at first Moses saw only an apparition which
drew his attention, etc. The similarity between mo and to (see Introd. § 8.23.1)
has led to the view that both terms (presumably based on the bi-consonantal
word p ) are really identical: Sinai = the covered with thornbushes.34 Most
exegetes refuse to go so far as to assume an etymological association between
both words. Many do reckon with the possibility of a pun: mo is an allusion to
Sinai.35 For myself, I doubt that there is some kind of relation between mo and
to, because the name to does not occur in ch. 3. ‘noticed,’ see Introd.
§ 3.46.1. mm, see Introd. § 3.15.1.
TO part, qal of to ; in 3:2 to has the meaning ‘be on fire’ (cf. Deut. 4:11;
5:23 et al.); in 3:3 the meaning ‘burn up,’ ‘consume’ (cf. Num. 11:1,3);
naturally this verb is often used in conjunction with ‘fire;’ see the use of to
hiph. in 22:5: ‘start a fire’ (cf. Judg. 15:5; Ezek. 5:2), and of to piel in 35:3:
‘light a fire’ (cf. e.g. Jer. 7:18). In 22:5 the derivative rnvo, ‘fire,’ is used. As
concerns 3:2f., to occurs more often in connection with descriptions of
theophanies (Deut. 4:11; 5:23; 9:15; Isa. 30:27, 33; Ps. 18:9; 2 Sam. 22:9, 13). In
22:4 t o hiph. occurs with the meaning ‘let graze’ (of livestock) and t o piel
34 See L. Baeck, “Der im Dombusch Wohnende,* in Aus drei Jahrtausenden, Tubingen 1958,
241f. (see already MGWJ 1902, 299f.); GreBmann, Eschaiologie, 56f.; and more recently Auerbach,
32f., according to whom m o denotes something pointed; Sinai = ‘der Spitzige’ or also, ‘der zum
Dombusch gehorige, der Berg des Dombuschs.’
35 See e.g. Westphal, 4, 10; GreBmann, 24, 31; Beer; Noth, and further also Buber, 47f.; Bohl
relates the name *3*0 to YHWH as the one who ‘lives in the thornbush.’
340 EXODUS 2:23-4:19
with the meaning ‘to graze.’ There does not seem to be a connection between
the iw used here and the of 3:2 et al.; the two appear to be homonym
verbs. See further THAT, I, 244; TWAT, I, 727ff.; H. Schmoldt, BN 28 (1985),
45ff.; M. Dietrich - O. Loretz, UF 22 (1990), 51-4. tfio lin, is a case of
homoio-katarkton (repetition of opening sounds).
p<, see 2:12. tax, is regarded as part, pual without preformative a (Ges-K
§ 52s) or as part. pass, qal (Jouon § 58b; Meyer § 68.3c) of box (see Introd. §
3.3.1); Delitzsch, 63, proposes the reading (part. pass. qal).
Because in 3:2 the thornbush is medium of the theophany, one must likely
imagine a bush of considerable size (see Introd. § 10.4.2). In Deut. 33:16
y h w h is characterized as ‘the one who lives in the thornbush.’ Because in
Exod. 3 the thornbush is no more than place of revelation, it has been sug
gested to change mo in Deut. 33:16 to to , or at least to understand mo there
as designation for the Sinai: y h w h lives on Mount Sinai (cf. C. Steuernagel
[HK 19232J). However, the view has also been defended that Deut. 33:16
contains a rudiment of the belief that the deity lives in the thornbush (e.g. S.R.
Driver [ICC 1895]). The view that in antiquity in Israel there existed the belief
that divine beings might live in trees is found more often (e.g. GreBmann, 29f.;
idem, Eschatologie, 55ff.; Stade, 112). That kind of belief is not explicitly
articulated in the OT. Striking is, though, that a few times the theophany of
y h w h or his messenger occurs near trees (Gen. 12:6f.; 18:1; Judg. 6:11, 19; see
also 2 Sam. 5:24 and Gen. 13:18; 21:33; Josh. 24:26 et al.). Probably in these
passages one can hear something of the sense that large trees, which filled
people with awe because of their towering trunks, their majestic appearance,
their enduring power and long life, were bearers of divine power. Bear in mind
that according to Deut. 12:2; Judg. 9:6; 1 Sam. 14:2; 22:6; 31:13; 1 Kgs. 14:23
et al. trees were an integral part of Israel’s religious life. How did the ancients
view the thornbush? To the inhabitants of the civilized world thornbushes were
despised and feared plants (see Introd. § 10.7). On the other hand, those living
in the desert and travelers through the desert had a measure of appreciation
for them. Their presence in the desert was a source of admiration. Because
they could maintain themselves and even keep on growing in the desert,
despite the lack of water and the searing heat, they were regarded as carriers
of a unique vital force. Desert dwellers looked upon them as having some sort
of association with the divine. That outlook is also found in the OT. The
messenger of y h w h appears in a place in the desert where also the thornbush
grows (Gen. 21:15; Exod. 3:2; 1 Kgs. 19:4f.; but the thornbush is not the abode
of the messenger; particularly in Gen. 21:15ff., in the current text, there is no
connection whatever between the thornbush and the messenger). So it is
obvious that the thornbush, as the place where vital power manifests itself,
belongs to those spots in the desert (like e.g. also the spring of water; Gen.
16:7ff.) that are uniquely suitable as places where the deity, in whom all life is
concentrated, can reveal himself.36
3:3 So Moses thought, 7 want to go there and see that strange sight (to find
out) why the bush is not burned up. ’
‘thought/ see Introd. § 3.5.1. rnoK cohortative sing, qal of -no (OT 299 x; qal
159x ; hiph. 134x), ‘turn aside/ occurs in Exodus (qal 7x; hiph. 6x) in a
wide range of shades of meaning: -no qal occurs with the meaning ‘to go
somewhere’ (3:3, 4), likely meaning ‘deviate from the intended route/ ‘go away
from’ (+ p) (8:7, 25, 27), ‘deviate from’ (+ p) (32:8), ‘to be removed’ (with
things as subject; 25:15; cf. e.g. Isa. 14:25); -no hiph. with the meaning ‘remove/
‘take away’ (+ p 8:4; 23:5; + bvQ 10:17; see further 33:23; 34:34); ‘to clog/
(14:25). See further THAT, II, 148f£; TWAT, V, 803ff.
k: is a particle (Ges-K § 105b), which does not occur by itself but always
linked to the preceding word, often by maqqep (e.g. Jouon § 13b; Meyer
§ 16.1); its close association with the preceding word is evident from the use of
dageS forte conjunctivum in 3:3, 18; 4:18; 5:3 (e.g. Ges-K § 20c, d; Meyer
§ 14.2b). In Exod. (15x) no is used to strengthen the jussive as expressing a
wish, a request (precative): 34:9 (Ges-K § 109b; Jouon § 114h, i; Meyer
§ 100.4a), to strengthen a cohortative as expressing a request, a wish (3:18;
4:18; 5:3), to strengthen a cohortative as self-encouragement (3:3) (Ges-K
§ 108b; Jouon § 45b; 114b, c, d, f; Meyer § 100.4b, c), to strengthen an imper.
as expression of an invitation, a command (4:6; 10:11; 11:2), to strengthen an
imper. as expression of a wish (4:13; 10:17; 32:32; 33:13, 18) (Ges-K § llOd;
Joiion § 114m; Meyer § 100.4d). k: often expresses politeness and modesty
(such in connection with request and wish); this is also the case in the use of
after the particle d x ; see 33:13; 34:9 (Ges-K § 105b n. 2; Jouon § 105c).
ntnto, to be understood as cohortative (Joiion § 79o; but see also § 116b).
‘sight/ see Introd. § 3.46.2. Via, see 2:10. pvto, see 1:18. tot-kV, Fuss, 27,
considers Kb an editorial addition; D.N. Freedman, Bib 50 (1969), 245f.,
proposes to vocalize Kb as an emphatic particle Kb: ‘Why indeed the bush
continues to burn/ because it is not likely that nm in 3:2 would mean ‘ablaze’
and in 3:3 ‘burn up.’ An argument against these suggestions is that a blazing
thornbush is not something special. Flammability is characteristic of the
thornbush (see Introd. § 10.4.1). The plant cannot stand fire. It is consumed in
a few moments. That made what is described in 3:2-3 so remarkable and drew
Moses’ attention.
The account in Exodus is rather sober. Tradition has considerably embel-
36 See in connection with the above, RLA , IV, 269ff.; M.A. Beek, “Der Dornbusch als Wohnsitz
Gottes (Deut. XXX 16),- OTS 14 (1965), 155-61; Curtiss, 96ff., 107, 154, 158, 161, 287; Farbridge,
29ff.; Lundgreen, 3ff.; Houtman, in Fs Ridderbos, 156ff., 162ff.; JaroS, 213ff.; H. Kraemer, “De
boom als object van godsdienstige verering,* in W. Boerhave Beekman (ed.), Hout in alle tijdcn, I,
Deventer et al. 1949, 53-84; Robertson Smith, 185ff.; Strieker, III, 381 ff.
342 exo dus 2 :2 3 - 4 :1 9
lished the remarkable nature of the event through a more detailed description.
In FTV it is said that the bush remained wet. Rabbinic tradition relates that
notwithstanding the fire the bush had blossoms; for heavenly fire, it is said, has
three characteristics: it produces blossoms; it does not consume the object
which it engulfs, and it is black in colour (e.g. bYoma 21b; ExR. II, 5, and see
Ginzberg, II, 301). Josephus writes that the ‘fire left the green leaves and the
flowers of the thornbush untouched, and that its fruit branches were not
consumed, although the flame was great and fierce. That strange sight frigh
tened Moses, but he was still more astonished when the fire appeared to have
a tongue and called him ... (AJ, II, 266). Gregory of Nyssa (KM, I, 20) portrays
the event in even bolder colours: on a crystal clear day a light brighter than
that of the sun shone in Moses’ eyes. Surprised by it, he looked to the moun
tain and saw a thornbush from which the light came as a flame. The branches
of the bush remained moist in the flame as if covered by a layer of dew. He
wanted to approach it, but then the miracle of the light touched not only his
eyes, but what was most astonishing of all, through their glittering the rays of
light even entered his ears. The beauty of the light spread over both senses. It
illuminated the eyes through the sparkling of the rays of light and it il
luminated the ears through clear instructions. See further e.g. also the account
of Philo (KM, I, 65f.). Artapanus, 21, is silent about the thornbush and says
that suddenly fire came from the earth even though at that place there was
neither a forest or any other kind of wood. No further designation of the place
is given.37

The miracle described in 3:2, 3 has for ages made expositors wonder about its
meaning. An often used recourse was metaphorical explanations. Philo (KM, I,
67ff.) explains the burning thornbush as symbol of the unjustly treated person
and the blazing fire as symbol of the one who perpetrates the injustice. Philo
thus relates the miracle to the oppression of Israel by Egypt. The fact that the
bush was not consumed he interprets as a sign that the victims of injustice
cannot be destroyed by their oppressors. The angel is symbol of God’s provi
dence who, contrary to everyone’s expectations, easily overrules and quiets
things to hard to bear.38 The hapless are told: Don’t give in to despair,
weakness is your strength! The fire is a rebuke of the hard-hearted: Don’t
pride yourself on account of your strength! A similar explanation is also found
in ExR. II, 5: because Moses had thought to himself that the Egyptians could
37 Cf. Koran 20:10-36; 27:7-12; 28:29-35, and see K. Prenner, "Der ‘brennende Dombusch’ nach
koranischer Darstellung," in Fs G. Molin, Mcqor Hajjim, Graz 1983, 279-89.
^ J.C.H. Lebram, "Eine stoische Auslegung von Ex. 3,2 bei Philo,* D a s Institutum Judaicum dcr
U n iversitat Tubingen 1971-72, 30-4, detects in I, 65ff. influence of the exegetical method of the
Stoics.
consume the Israelites, God showed him a fire that burned yet did not con
sume, while he said to him: 'as the thornbush burns and is not consumed, so
the Egyptians will not be able to annihilate Israel.'39 In Zohar Exod. 21b the
thornbush is applied to the wicked and the not being consumed is interpreted
as sign of God’s mercy.
Christian exegetes, too, have espoused such explanations; see e.g. in Ishodad.
He mentions other interpretations as well: over against Moses, Pharaoh is as
vulnerable as straw before fire; though God could have destroyed the Egyp
tians as straw in the fire, he nevertheless showed mercy to them in the hope
that they might repent and in order that they would have no excuse if they did
not repent. One of the more recent interpreters, Keil, offers the following
elucidation: the thornbush is a figurative representation of Israel as a despised
people; the thornbush burned, that is, the people were in the fire of affliction
in Egypt; the flame of fire did not consume: y h w h is in it; he chastens those
who are his, but does not give them over to death; though the fire of affliction
proceeded from Pharaoh, it was at the same time a fire which the Lord had
kindled to purify his people and prepare it for its calling; moreover, what
Moses saw not only referred to the circumstances of Israel in Egypt, but
figuratively was a prelude of the relationship into which y h w h , on the basis of
the covenant made with the fathers, would enter with Israel in the revelation
on Sinai (he is a jealous God, a consuming fire, etc. ; Deut. 4:24; 6:15 et al.40
Though elsewhere in the OT Israel’s stay in Egypt is likened to being in an
iron-smelter (Deut. 4:20; 1 Kgs. 8:51), the compelling drawback of this
interpretation is that the text clearly connects the fire and the presence of the
emissary of y h w h .
The rabbis wondered why God revealed himself from a thornbush and not
from a tree or some other bush; some of the answers they gave are the
following: no place is without God’s presence, not even a thornbush; as the
thornbush is the humblest of all trees in the world, so Israel was meek and
humble in Egypt; therefore God revealed himself to them and set them free; as
the thornbush is the most prickly of all trees and no bird can go into it and
leave it unscathed, so the slavery in Egypt was more painful to God than all
other servitudes in the world, etc. (e.g. ExR. II, 5, and see further Ginzberg, II,
303f.; Leibowitz, 55ff.). One of the above examples links the thornbush and the
oppression in Egypt. It is to be noted, however, that the thornbush is in
particular used as a metaphor for certain characteristics pertaining to God and
to Israel. Rashi opts for the view that God revealed himself in this humble
manner because of Israel’s affliction (cf. Ps. 91:15), and at 3:12 he sees the
39 Understood like that, 3:2, 3 has through the ages been associated with the suffering and the
threat of annihilation of the Jewish people; see in Leibowitz, 54f.
40 For similar explanations see also e.g. Murphy, Lange, Gispen. For a recent figurative
interpretation see N. Wyatt, T h e Significance of the Burning Bush," VT 36 (1986), 361-5.
344 exo dus 2 :2 3 - 4 :1 9
vision in the thornbush also as a sign that y h w h had sent Moses: as the
thornbush, doing the assignment of y h w h , was not consumed, so Moses will
remain unharmed as he undertakes the assignment given him by y h w h . An
altogether different answer to the question is given, e.g., by Ishodad: the mode
of revelation makes it impossible for the idolatrous people to make an image
of God (cf. also Theodoret, QE, VI). Since the revelation in the thornbush
bespeaks condescension, it is easy to see why Gregory of Nyssa interpreted it
as a type of the revelation of God in the flesh, the incarnation (KM, II, 20); he
even sees the thornbush which burned and was not consumed as symbol of the
mystery of the virgin Mary: the flower of the virginity of her from whom the
light of the deity proceeded, did not wilt.41 Ishodad specifically rejects the
last interpretation. Modern expositors generally consider symbolic explanations
of the miracle irrelevant and/or pay no attention to it.
As I pointed out in the discussion of 3:2, a theophany by a thornbush in the
wilderness is what one might expect. If one takes into consideration the
natural environment where the revelation occurred, the question why God
revealed himself from within the thornbush loses much of its pertinence. That
leaves the question: what might be the significance of the fact that the bush
was not consumed? The phenomenon is an indication that the fire was no
ordinary fire. A fire of such a puzzling and mysterious nature can only be from
the deity. In the light of what follows the answer is that the fire that does not
consume is a sign that y h w h , who can be a consuming fire, now overflows
with kindness.
Moderns are interested in the question how the bush could burn without
being consumed. Robertson Smith, 193f., suggests electrical phenomena in the
clear and dry sky of the desert or of high mountains (cf. GreBmann, Escha-
tologie, 57). Another hypothesis is that the bush had reddish branches and was
full of fiery red berries, so that when the bright sun shone on it, it might seem
as if it were on fire (see M0ller ... [see Introd. §10.a], 42), or that a volcanic
vapour arose, which from a distance might seem to come from a bush on the
mountain (see Gaster, 230). Also other explanations use the hypothesis of an
optical illusion. Meyer, IN, 62, places the thornbush in Kadesh, and thinks of a
fire blazing up from the earth, fed by gasses in the ground: the thornbush was
in the vicinity of the fire, and that made it appear as if the bush was on fire.
Westphal, 10f., holds that the report that the bush was not consumed ‘eine das
Wunderbare steigernde Erweiterung der Sage’ is, while the thornbushes on the
holy mountain, set on fire by lightning, were regarded as ‘Kundgebung des hier
wohnenden Gewittergottes Jahwe.’ Of course, all sorts of hypotheses are
possible. However, it should be kept in mind that they are of no significance
for the interpretation of the story. For the writer the event was likely just as
41 See also Kail in loco, and e.g. E. Benz, De Oosters orthodoxe kerk, Utrecht/Antwerpen 1966,
221 f.
puzzling as for people today, but he did not feel the need to come up with a
natural explanation. The Israelite undoubtedly knew of natural patterns and
laws, but he did not think in terms of natural laws that were independent
entities. To his mind, they had a master: y h w h . The way he experienced
things, there was a direct relationship between y h w h and what happened in
nature: in his sovereignty y h w h can break through natural ordinances.
Knowing that was enough for an Israelite (cf. Houtman, Himmel, 164f., 190ff.,
278f.).
It has been pointed out that there are parallels to the miracle of the blazing
thornbush: holy trees are on fire yet are not harmed (see Curtiss, 98, and
especially GreBmann, 26ff.), spirits appear in the desert in the shape of flames
or accompanied by flames,42 the virgin Mary manifests herself in a burning
thornbush (at Chalons in the year 1400 [Gaster, 230]).
Finally, I wish to draw attention to the view that 3:2, 3 contains the descrip
tion of a vision; for recent authors see e.g. Bohl and Honeycutt. The latter
notes: ‘and one standing next to Moses may have seen nothing extraor
dinary’.43 Obviously, if one holds to some such position, the problem of the
bush that was not consumed no longer exists. A problem with such views is
that the accounts about encounters between a messenger of y h w h and people
(see at 3:2) are evidently intended to describe real encounters.44
3:4 When YHWH noticed that Moses went there to look, God called him from the
thornbush, Moses, Moses!’ And he answered: Yes, I am listening. ’
‘noticed,’ see Introd. § 3.46.1. io, part, qal of tio (see 3:3). ‘called,’ see Introd.
§ 3.45.1; ‘to call’ is used and not the less insistent ‘to speak,’ to elicit a direct
response from Moses (cf. Gen. 21:17; 22:11, 15). ‘from the thornbush,’ cf. 3:2.
‘Moses, Moses!’, a similar doubling of the name of the person called occurs in
Gen. 22:11; 46:2; 1 Sam. 3:10; 1 Kgs. 13:2; in Jer. 22:29 the name is even
repeated three times; doubling also occurs in the LXX in Gen. 22:1; 1 Sam.
3:4; the repetition intensifies the call (cf. KoSynt § 339u); in 3:4 it serves the
following function: Moses must halt immediately and not take one more step,
because of the holiness of the place (see below); for rabbinic interpretation see
42 G. Jacob, Altarabische Parallclcn zum Altai Tcstamait, Berlin 1897, 7f.

43 Already Ishodad points out that scholars were very much in disagreement with each other
about the question whether the fire was real; for the view that it was a vision, see especially
J. Lindblom, "Theophanies in Holy Places in Hebrew Religion," HUCA 32 (1961), 91-106: NTT in
Gen. 12:7: 17:1; 26:24; 35:9; Exod. 3:2; 6:3; Deut. 31:15; 1 Kgs. 9:2 et al. signifies a revelation from
the deity in visions (Visions in waking state, not visual experiences in dreams;’ p. 93); M.A. Beek
(POT 1981) regards the revelation of Josh. 5:13ff. as a vision.
44 Cf. GreBmann, 21 f. (he is opposed by Buber, 49f.; Fohrer, 36); A. Ammassari, "‘Vedere Dio’
Un tema arcaico di religiosity nella Bibbia e in Omero," BeO 18 (1976), 87-93, and see in
connection with the question also G.Ch. Aalders, "The Theophanies in the Old Testament," FUQ 8
(1961), 3-15.
346 E X O D U S 2 :2 3 - 4 :1 9
MidrTanch. Exod. I, 15. *33n, see Introd. § 3.15.1; cf. e.g. Gen. 22:1, 11; 46:2;
1 Sam. 3:4; in the LXX *33n in 3:4 is rendered as xt taxiv; also in Gen. 46:2; in
Gen. 22:1, 11; 1 Sam. 3:4, the LXX has given the literal rendering (5ou £76.
Remarkable in 3:4 is that first rnn* is subject and then In the Sam.
Pent. D*r6 a has been substituted for rnrr in 3:4a. In the LXX D*r6 K is translated
as Kupio^. The Vulg. has left D*r6x untranslated. In the Sam. Pent, and the
versions the text has been made uniform. The alternation of the divine names
is used as an argument for the existence of layers J and E. Opponents of the
sources hypothesis hold that there is a reason why two divine names are used.
Keil notes that the interchange serves to preclude the idea that y h w h might
merely be a national God. Cassuto is of the opinion that Israel, even Moses
himself, had lost the direct knowledge of y h w h , and retained only a general
and vague understanding of the concept ‘god’; therefore when the writer
relates that God calls Moses, he uses the name D*nS* (because that is what
God was to him at the moment); when he makes an objective statement (as in
4:4a), y h w h is used. Cassuto’s explanation does not satisfy. It can be applied
to 3:14-15, but not to 3:7 (in his opinion, y h w h is fitting there since ‘to
Moses’ does not occur there).
In light of the writer’s interpretation of the event in 3:2a, it appears that the
writer, in his use of the names y h w h and Elohim, thinks of YHWH/Elohim as
he is present in his emissary.
3:5 Then he said’ ‘Come no closer. Remove the sandals from your feet. For the
place on which you are standing is holy ground. ’
qal prohibitive of nip (OT ca. 290 x), ‘to approach,’ ‘to be present.’
As concerns its use in Exodus - 16x; it is construed with bn (14:20; 22:7;
28:1; 29:14; 32:19; 40:12, 32) and also with *3D*? (16:9; 29:10) - the following
can be pointed out: nip qal is used for approaching that is neutral (32:19; cf.
e.g. Gen. 37:18), for approaching with hostile intent (14:20; cf. e.g. Deut. 20:10;
Josh. 8:5; Judg. 20:24), for approaching with positive intent (36:20); often also
for approaching ‘the sacred;’4* such is also the case in 22:7 (‘the gods;’ cf. also
the use of nip qal -I- D*r6Krr^N in 1 Sam. 14:36), where nip niph. is used (for
the rest the only other place is Josh. 7:14).4546 nip hiph. occurs (in connection
with carrying out matters pertaining to the cult) with persons as object in the
sense of ‘bring near’ (28:1; 29:4, 8; 40:12, 14), with animals and things as
objects in the sense of ‘(bring) near’ (29:3, 10; cf. e.g. Lev. 2:8; 8:18, 22). In
45 3:5 (sacred area; cf. e.g. Num. 1:51; 3:10, 38 et al.; Deut. 4:11; 5:27); 12:48 (the celebration
of the Passover; nip denotes something like ‘have access to’); 16:9 (YHWH; cf. Lev. 16:1); 40:32
(the altar; cf. Lev. 9:7f.; 2 Kgs. 16:12).
46 The niph. can be understood as a pass, ‘be brought;’ but it is more natural to think of a
reflexive: ‘to go to;’ 22:7 deals with a legal matter; cf. the use of nip in e.g. Num. 27:5; Deut. 1:17;
Josh. 7:14, 16, 18; 1 Sam. 10:20f.; 14:36.
14:10 Dip hiph. has the internal causative meaning of ‘draw near’ (cf. Gen.
12:11; Isa. 26:17). The adjective Diip (OT 77x; Exod. 3x) derived from Dip is
used to denote spatial nearness: in 12:4 (‘neighbor’) and 13:17,47 and is used
as noun in 32:27 where it means ‘friend’ (cf. Ps. 15:3; 38:12; Job 19:14) or
‘blood relative’ (cf. e.g. Lev. 21:2, 3; 25:25). See further THAT, II, 674ff.;
TWATy VII, 147ff.; Milgrom, 16ff., 33ff.
□bn (OT 11 x), adverb of place, ‘here’ (this way)’ cf. e.g. Judg. 18:3; 20:7,
and also 1 Sam. 14:36, where Dip is also used. Nachmanides notes that Moses
was not allowed to come closer, because he did not yet have the status of a
regular prophet and therefore was not yet worthy to be in God’s immediate
presence; for modern expositors compare, e.g., Heinisch and Cole, and see e.g.
19:3, 9, 20; 24:2, 10f., 18 et al.
b® imper. qal of b®: (OT 7x), which here and in Josh. 5:15 occurs with the
meaning of ‘remove’ (i.e. sandals). Ehrlich believes that b®: is to be distin
guished from fbn (Deut. 25:9; Isa. 20:2) and (Ruth 4:7, 8). Presumably the
two last verbs would refer to the ‘removal’ (of shoes), whereas b®: would
denote the shaking off of the sandals: the hands do not touch the sandals to
avoid making them dirty (see further below).
n'bv: pi. (or dual) of by: (OT 22x), ‘sandal’ (3:5; 12:11; cf. e.g. Deut. 29:4;
Josh. 5:15; 9:5, 13; 1 Kgs. 2:5). Sandals were normally made of leather and
fastened with straps to the feet. Especially for the shepherd sandals are very
important. They protect his feet against the heat and the cold of the ground,
against the sharp stones and the briers in the desert (cf. Deut. 29:5). Normally
sandals were not worn inside the home. So the putting on of sandals indicated
readiness for a journey (12:11; cf. Acts 12:8). See further AuSy V, 295ff. (ill.
77ff.); BHHW, III, 1738; BRLy 203; DBy I, 627; IDBy IV, 213f.; Benzinger, 89;
Forbes, V, 21ff.; Honig, 84f.
A fragment from the Cairo Genizah, MSS of the MT and of the Sam. Pent,
and also TO (*|bn bvn *|ro) read the sing, qbyj and corresponding to it qbn bya:
‘(remove) your sandal from your foot.’ Also LXX and Vulg. use a sing, for the
footwear: xd and ccilciamentum. However, these translations do speak
of ‘feet,’ so that the terms in question likely refer to the footwear on both feet.
In Josh. 5:15, which in large measure agrees with 3:5, BHS in the text has the
reading *|bn bvn ibi?3, while in the appar. it is noted that some MSS have the
reading ybv: and many MSS the reading jb n . Also here LXX and Vulg. have
for ‘footwear’ the sing, and for ‘feet’ the pi. Does the use of bv: sing, and of bn
sing, mean that only one sandal was removed? Is this reading based on a
certain interpretation of the act? Cf. Ruth 4:7f. (see also Deut. 25:9f.) and see
also Ps. 60:10; 108:10 (see further below). That is not likely. Note the fol
lowing: in Deut. 29:4 bv: and bn are sing, while the meaning is clearly pi. (cf.
47 ‘nearer;’ the reference is to the road through the land of the Philistines; that road is the
‘nearest’ (sc. Canaan), that is, it offers the shortest route.
348 exodus 2 :2 3 - 4 :1 9
Sam. Pent, and LXX and Vulg.); in 1 Kgs. 2:5; Isa. 20:2 bv: sing, and bn pi. are
used. This shows that bv: sing, can mean ‘footwear’/‘sandals.’ So one might also
consider whether in Deut. 25:9f.; Ps. 60:10; 108:10; Ruth 4:7f. a rendering
‘sandals’/‘shoes’ might not be the best.
arbr\ dual of bn (OTca. 250x), Toot.’ In Exodus (14x) the term usually
denotes a part of the human body (3:5; 12:11; 21:24 [2x]; 30:19, 21; 40:31); in
29:20 in the expression bn ]n'3 ‘big toe* (cf. Lev. 8:23, 24; 14:14, 17, 25, 28;
Judg. 1:6, 7). In 24:10 D'bn is used anthropomorphically in reference to God
(cf. Isa. 60:13; Nah. 1:3; Hab. 3:5; Zech. 14:4; Ps. 18:10); in 25:26; 37:13
metaphorically for the legs of a table (though D'bn is a dual, it is nevertheless
used with the number ‘four;’ cf. Fontinoy, 52, 168). The expression
TpbnantfK nv7\ in 11:8 is to be taken as meaning ‘the people that follows you,
that obeys you,’ that is, ‘your followers’ (cf. e.g. Deut. 11:6; Judg. 8:5; 1 Sam.
25:27, and see Brockelmann § 117d). The lexicons also give the meaning ‘leg’
for bn; see e.g. KBLy where a list of texts is given: Exod. 4:25; Deut. 28:57;
Judg. 5:27; 1 Sam. 17:6 et al. At least in a number of instances it is quite well
possible to understand o*bn as euphemisms for ‘genitals’ (see already Ges-B
and e.g. Wolff, 102). That can also be the case in 4:25 (and 24:10?) (cf. also
e.g. Judg. 3:24). The pi. only occurs in the expression n'br\ ttbtf, ‘three times’
(23:14; Num. 22:28, 32, 33). In 12:37 is found the related word ;bn (OT 12x),
which is to be regarded as an adjective ‘on foot.’ Usually it is used as a
collective (so also in 12:37; Num. 11:21 in reference to Israel), often in military
sense for ‘foot soldiers’ (1 Sam. 4:10; 15:4 et al.). See further BHHWy I, 505f.;
TWATy VII, 330ff.; TWNTy VI, 624ff.; Dhorme, 157ff.
oipo (OT ca. 400 x), a derivative of mp (see 1:8), ‘place,’ is a very common
word, which in Exodus (lOx) is used for the place where someone stands (3:5;
33:21), resides: the dwelling, the house (16:29; 18:23), a group of people
temporarily stays: a stop along the way (17:7), a people lives: a country or
district (3:8; 23:20), y h w h reveals himself (20:24).48 See further TWATy IV,
1113ff.; TWNTy VIII, 193ff.; M. Dahood, Bib 48 (1967), 430f.
itfN, see Introd. § 3.7.1; Ehrlich is of the opinion that rbv ... itfK here (cf.
Gen. 16:7) means ‘in deren Nahe’ and not ‘on which;’ the text shows, however,
that Moses may not go farther; so the command to remove the sandals only
makes sense if Moses is already in the sacred area.
7Diy part, qal of iqi? (OT ca. 520x), which occurs in Exodus (qal 17x; hiph.
lx ) in qal with the meaning ‘(go) stand,’ ‘remain standing’ (3:5; 9:10, 11;
14:19; 17:6; 18:13; 20:18, 21; 32:26; 33:9, 10), often with prepositions of
48 The revelation makes the place sacred; according to 21:14 (altar) is the DlpQ of 21:13 a
sanctuary (cf. e.g. Isa. 26:21; Hos. 5:15; Mic. 1:3; see Houtman, Hi/nmel, 347f.); the 2Hp Dlpft in
29:31 appears to have been a special place in or near the sanctuary (cf. Lev. 6:9, 19f.).
location; e.g. with bv*9 with 3 (32:26), with 'izb (9:10, 11; see Introd.
§ 3.42.2), and with accus. of place (33:9, 10). It is also used in the more
general sense of ‘to stay,’ ‘to reside,’ ‘to dwell’ (8:8; 9:28) and as a building
trade term meaning ‘to be upright’ (26:15; 36:20). idi? qal in 9:11 means ‘to
stay on one’s feet,’ id x ? hiph. in 9:16 means ‘to keep on one’s feet,’ i.e. ‘to keep
alive’ (cf. 1 Kgs. 15:4). ‘to stay on one’s feet’ is used metaphorically in 18:23
(‘to endure’) and 21:21 (‘to survive’). For lin? see 13:22. See further THAT, II,
328ff.; TWAT, VI, 194ff.
n a iK (OT ca. 225x; Exod. 9x) is usually regarded as derived from d i n , ‘to
be red’ (e.g. Gradwohl, 5ff.; Brenner, 161): the reddish ground which, unlike
that of steppe and desert, is suitable for tilling and other agricultural pursuits
(23:19; 34:26). That ‘ground’ (the fertile land, which makes life possible for
human beings) can be said to be a gift from y h w h (20:12; cf. e.g. Num. 11:12;
32:11; Deut. 4:10, 40; 5:16; 7:13 et al.). In a more general sense hoik indicates
‘the ground’ on which is (3:5; 8:17; cf. e.g. Num.l6:30f.); the place where
people, nations live: ‘the earth,’ ‘the ground of the earth’ (10:6; 32:12; 33:16).
rraiK can also designate loose earth (e.g. loam), which is used, among others, to
make something from it (20:24; cf. 1 Kgs. 7:46; Isa. 45:9). See further THAT, I,
57ff.; TWATy I, 95ff.; Schwarzenbach, 133ff.; Stadelmann, 128f., 140. flip, see
Introd. §3.44.2. In Zech. 2:16 the expression znpn npiK is found; there ‘the
holy land’ designates Palestine, the land of which y h w h is the owner (cf.
2 Macc. 1:7); see also Amos 7:17; rwpp npiK, ‘an unclean land’ = a strange
land. Kin, see for its use in the nominal clause e.g. Ges-K § 141g, h; Joiion
§ 154i,j. Schmidt notes similarity between the statement ‘holy ground it is’ and
priestly declaration formula (Lev. 6:18, 22 et al.; see in particular also Exod.
29:34). Though the priests may pronounce such formulas on behalf of God,
here it is God himself who pronounces the judgment. In TPsJ there is added
to 3:5: ‘and you are predestined to receive the law there in order to instruct
the Israelites.’
3:6 When he continued with: 7 am the God of your father; the God o f Abra
ham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob, ’ Moses hid his face, for he was
afraid to look at God.
‘I am ... Jacob,’ (somewhat) comparable expressions are found in Gen. 26:24;
28:13; 31:5, 42; 32:10; 46:3; cf. Deut. 1:21; 6:3; 27:3, and see further Exod. 3:15;
4:5. The first and second member of the enumeration are asyndetically linked;
the first and second by copulative waw (cf. Brockelmann § 128); in the Sam.
Pent, the entire enumeration in 3:6, 15, 16; 4:5 is polysyndetic.
TTPij (for 2K see 2:16), Sam. Pent, has jm N (cf. also Acts 7:32), in agreement
with 3:13, 15f.; 4:5. It is best not to follow this reading (so e.g. Beer), ‘your
49 3:5; 8:8; 17:6; 18:13; in 18:13 bv means ‘around;’ cf. e.g. Gen. 45:1; Judg. 3:19; 1 Sam. 22:6,
7, 17; 1 Kgs. 22:19.
350 E X O D U S 2 :2 3 - 4 :1 9
father’ (cf. 15:2; 18:4) likely refers to Moses’ real father (elsewhere called
Amram; see Introd. § 5.54) (so e.g. Dillmann, Heinisch, Gispen).50 The God
of Moses’ father is further specified as being the God of Abraham etc. In
3:15f.; 4:5 the God of the fathers of the Israelites is similarly further specified.
In that instance with ‘the fathers’ is especially meant the ‘forefathers,’ in
particular the patriarchs Abraham etc. Less likely is that jdk in 3:6 is to be
understood collectively (‘each of your forefathers,’ e.g. Nachmanides and
Murphy), or that in the three patriarchs are classed together as one
(Keil). The use of the sing, jdn beside the pi. ddtok in 3:15 also drew the
attention of the rabbis: they make mention of a question Moses put to God
about it; he is told: ‘First I used every means to persuade you, but from now
on I only speak words of truth with you’ (that is, Amram does not belong to
the patriarchs; in 3:6 he is paid a great honour); see e.g. ExR. Ill, 7, and cf.
Ginzberg, II, 319f. From the text it cannot be told whether ‘your father’ refers
to the personal god of the father or to the god of a more distant forefather of
Moses, whom later theology would have put on one line with ‘the God of
Abraham ...’ (so Hyatt; cf. Te Stroete; in 15:2; 18:4 the further designation
‘the God of Abraham ...’ is missing).51 For the writer it is y h w h (3:5, 7)
who speaks here. By making himself known as ‘the God of your father’ y h w h
points to the existence of a bond between him and Moses’ family and instills
trust in Moses. Moses does not have to be in the dark about the nature of the
divine being that meets him (is it friendly or hostile toward him?). By presen
ting himself as ‘the God of Abraham ...’ y h w h discloses himself as the God of
the promises to the patriarchs (cf. 2:24). Because y h w h introduces himself
Moses is fully informed as to the nature of the person who speaks to him.
Also for the reader this is important information. The God who reveals
himself is no unknown god, but the same the book of Genesis talks about. His
deeds are characterized by continuity (cf. 2:24f.). In Matt. 22:32; Mark 12:26;
Luke 20:37 the words ‘I am the God of Abraham ...’ are cited by Jesus and
placed in a new context (cf. also Acts 24:14).
men imperf. cons. hiph. of mo (OT ca. 80 x), ‘to hide,’ here with cna in the
literal sense (cf. Isa. 50:6 and also Isa. 53:3). Often the verb with y h w h as
subject is employed metaphorically (Deut. 31:17; 32:20; Isa. 8:17 et al. and see
Introd. § 3.42). In the LXX men is rendered as &7i£aTpe\j/ev, ‘he turned away;’
mo hiph. is more often translated as a 7ioaxp£q>eiv in the LXX (Deut. 31:17f.;
32:20; Ps. 9:32; 13:1 et al.). How Moses hid his face is not said. Probably it was
a covering of the face with the mantle (cf. 1 Kgs. 19:13 and see also Gen.
The view that Jethro, Moses’ spiritual father, is meant (so Freedman — O’Connor, TWAT,
III, 55), must be dismissed as being overly speculative.
^ As is known, since the appearance of A. Alt’s study about ‘der Gott der Vater’ (1929) it is
customary to view the god of the fathers as a particular deity, who was later ‘absorbed’ in yhwh; for
this much discussed question, see e.g. Schmid, 33ff.; Schmidt, 120, 147ff.) (+ Bibl.).
24:65), putting the hands on the face (cf. 33:22; Isa. 6:2), or falling on the face
to the ground (cf. Gen. 17:3; Judg. 13:20 and see also Exod. 24:1); cf. Grefi-
mann, 33; Honig, 95, 100; Vorwahl, 52f. The gesture expresses the feeling of
being unworthy and nothing before the holy God, unable to endure his
countenance. This is said with so many words in the text: ‘for he ...’ (for kt
see 1:17). For ino see further THAT, II, 173ff.; TWAT, V, 967ff.
cranp inf. cstr. hiph. + prep, of t»3 (OT ca. 70 x), which in 3:6 (+ bn; cf. e.g.
Num. 21:9; Isa. 8:22) and 33:8 (+ nnx, see Introd. § 3.1.1; cf. Gen. 19:17, 26)
occurs with the meaning ‘to see/ ‘to look.’ For the (im)possibility to see God’s
face, see Introd. § 3.42.4. Dillmann points out that with the Romans the
sacrifices and also the augurs enwrapped their head.
Some detect a measure of incongruity between 3:5 and 3:6: in 3:6b Moses
responds differently from what he is commanded in 3:5 (e.g. Schmidt, 108).
The variation is used as an argument for the hypothesis that in Exod. 3 the
hands of various authors can be detected. Anyway, it is obviously implied that
Moses followed the orders of 3:5 (in Josh. 5:15 this is specifically said of
Joshua). 3:6b continues, not by recounting that Moses did what he was told,
but by mentioning a spontaneous reaction from Moses’ side. As regards the
text as we have it, one can therefore not speak of a ‘doubling.’

The prohibition to enter the sacred area with shod feet is found in almost
identical language in Josh. 5:15, but does not elsewhere occur in the OT.
Though it is likely that priests (29:30; Lev. 8:23; cf. ExR. II, 6) and ordinary
folk entered the sanctuary barefooted. What we have here is a very ancient
custom, familiar from many peoples and cultures, and still in vogue among the
Samaritans on Mount Gerizim, among the Muslims upon entering the mosque,
and the Buddhists when they enter the pagoda. The origin and significance of
the custom is uncertain.52 It is conjectured that the absence of footwear
made a more direct contact with the holy possible, or that the practice is a
remnant of the custom to appear completely naked before the deity. By
removing one’s clothing, one removes one’s uncleanness, making a more
immediate contact with the deity possible. Other suggestions have been made
as well: made from the skin of dead animals, leather sandals were regarded as
unclean and therefore should not be allowed to come in contact with the holy;
on the sandals is the dust and dirt from outside the holy place; taking them off
is a precaution against defilement; the practice is nothing more than a hol
dover of the old habit of walking on bare feet, which persists in the cult. The
inclination to spiritualize the matter is not absent from expositors either. Bohl
thinks that the act is meant to prevent the dust from the steppe from getting
into the sanctuary, but that it ‘is likewise the symbol for the leaving behind of
52 See ERE , XI, 474ff.; Gaster, 231 f.; Vorwahl, 54f., and see also Dillmann and Schmidt in loco.
352 E X O D U S 2 :2 3 - 4 :1 9
all earthly cares.' Lange even states that the act not only expresses reverence,
Svie bei uns das Hutabnehmen,’ but should also be understood as ‘eine
Erinnerung an den moralischen Staub, der sich durch den Lebenswandel an die
Schuhe Oder FiiBe hangt, also an die laBlichen Siinden, liber die man sich in
dem heiligen Moment demuthigen muB.’ Spiritualization is found especially in
the church fathers; see e.g. Gregory of Nyssa (VM, II, 22) and especially also
Ishodad, who lists a number of symbolical and non-symbolical views. I cite two,
also mentioned by Isho bar Nun (question 36): Moses must disabuse himself
from his pagan notions; from now on Moses may no longer have relations with
his wife Zipporah, because he has been sanctified by revelation.
If one looks at passages in the OT where the removal of sandals or going on
bare feet is mentioned, one must conclude that there is no obvious connection
between 3:5 and Ruth 4:7f.; Ps. 60:10; 108:10. It is not likely that the act of 3:5
showed that the trespasser of the holy ground intended to take possession of
it.53 Walking barefoot is mentioned as a custom of mourning and as a sign of
humiliation (2 Sam. 15:30; Isa. 20:2ff.; Ezek. 24:17, 23; Mic. 1:8). Therefore the
act of 3:5 is probably best regarded as an act of laying aside one's dignity and
expressing one’s reverence and subjection to the one whom one wants to meet.
A slave went barefoot (cf. Luke 15:22).
Also elsewhere in Exodus are found instructions pertaining to clothing (and
getting ready) with an eye to contact with the deity, both for the people (19:12,
14) and for the priests (19:22; 20:6; 28:4 et al.; 40:32; see there). There, too, it
becomes clear that people must maintain distance in the encounter with the
deity. Moses is on holy ground, but should not come closer to the bush.
Distance must remain. Evidently the holiness of the place is greatest at the
very spot of the thornbush, while it decreases the farther one moves away from
it (cf. 19:12f.; 20:18, 21; 24:lf.; 34:3 and see also e.g. Josh. 3:4). Violation of
the sacred spells calamity (e.g. Lev. 10; Num. 4:15; 8:19; 17:28; 2 Sam. 6:6f.).
So it is understandable that someone who accidently came in contact with the
holy, the deity, was filled with fear (e.g. Gen. 28:17; Exod. 3:6; Judg. 6,:22f.;
13:22f.; Isa. 6:5f.), for ‘seeing God’ (and hearing, see Deut. 5:26) and remaining
alive was a miracle (Gen. 32:31; Exod. 24:10f.; Judg. 6:22.; 13:22f.; Isa. 6:5f.).
By accident - or better (against the background of the book of Exodus as a
whole): owing to God’s guidance - Moses has come to ‘holy ground.’ The
interpretation of these words as: to the place which is now holy because God
reveals himself there (e.g. Keil, Clamer, Cole) is a modern one. Meant is: the
place which is holy and whose holiness is now revealed to Moses. 3:2ff.
articulates the ancient sentiment that on earth a distinction ought to be made
between holy, to the deity belonging places, and profane, to man belonging
53 For Ruth 4:7f. see D.A. Leggett, The Levirate and Gocl Institutions in the Old Testament,
Cherry Hill, New Jersey 1974, 249ff.; see also his remarks on Deut. 25:9 on pp. 55ff.
places.54 As y h w h revealed himself to Jacob at such a place, so that he

became the discoverer of the holiness of the place (Gen. 28:10ff.),55 so y h w h
revealed himself also to Moses at such a place and he, too, became a dis
coverer of a holy place (cf. GreBmann, 30f., 33, 38). In this connection it is
interesting that Josephus (AJ, II, 264) tells that the Sinai in the time of Moses
was regarded as a holy mountain: it was the highest of the mountains in that
area and very suitable as pasture, but owing to the belief that the deity resided
there, it had not been grazed before; the shepherds did not dare to go there;
Moses, however, did (cf. also Ginzberg, II, 303). In this interpretation Moses is
no longer the one to whom the true nature of the place was revealed. There
are modern exegetes, too, who hold that the place was an existing holy place.
Supposedly according to a ‘sanctuary legend,’ a tradition connected with a
specific holy place, a man (a shepherd) once discovered the presence of a
numen/a divine being, and so the holiness of the place was discovered; the
legend became linked to Moses and applied to the revelation of y h w h : Moses
becomes the discoverer of the holy place and y h w h the god of the holy place;
at the particular holy place it was custom to remove one’s sandals when
entering it; the origin of this custom is traced to the discoverer of the place
(e.g. Beer, Noth, and in particular Schmidt, llOff.). Also Bohl thinks that
Mount Sinai/Horeb already before Moses was a place of divine worship. He
even translates 3:6b as: ‘for the ground on which you stand is part of the area
of a sanctuary!’ Bohl, however, does not view the story as a ‘Kultgriin-
dungssage,’ which was transferred to Moses, but thinks that Moses innocently
entered the area of an existing sanctuary, ‘sacred to the service of the god
Jahu.’ The god there was worshipped as the god of the consuming fire, and the
fire, which as a symbol of the god burned in the center of the sanctuary, was
fueled by thornbushes. There in the sanctuary, in a state of ecstasy (see at 3:2,
3), Moses spots the not being burned up thornbush: ‘So the burning thornbush
..., which consumes everything and itself is never consumed, became the sacred
plant of the desert god who one day would also reign over and consume the
proud sacred trees and plants of Canaan’ (cf. Judg. 9:8ff.). Just looking at the
text, all one can say is that y h w h , who is unmistakably the Lord who is
enthroned in heaven (3:7ff.), when he comes to man on earth does not appear
in entirely random spots, but has preference for certain places (cf. e.g. Gen.
28:10ff. and see the remarks on n:o at 3:2).
The call o f Moses (3:7-10)

3:7 Then y h w h said, 7 have seen the misery of my people in Egypt and I have
heard their cry on account of their taskmasters. So I have gotten to know o f their
suffering. '
^4 Cf. Curtiss, 157 et al. (index s.v. MakSm); Robertson Smith, 115ff.; Wellhausen, Reste, 105f.
55 See C. Houtman, "What Did Jacob See in His Dream at Bethel?* VT 27 (1977), 337-51.
354 exo dus 2 :2 3 - 4 :1 9
The use of nom in both 3:5, 6 and 3:7 is somewhat pleonastic; perhaps one
may say that all the emphasis must fall on the fact that y h w h speaks; for this
is the first occurrence in the book of Exodus; the detailed expression entails
that every statement receives the proper emphasis. run (paranomasia), the
inf. abs. is added to strengthen the verb (e.g. Ges-K § 1131 ff.; Jouon § 123d ff.;
Brockelmann § 93a). 'iv, see 1:11. *oy, here, for the first time in the book of
Exodus, y h w h calls Israel ‘my people’ (see Introd. § 3.40.1), even before its
name has been mentioned; see 3:9. Moses is assumed to know that there is a
relation between y h w h and Israel, not because God had established such a
relationship with them, but because of his relationship with the ancestors of
the people (2:24; 3:6). onpirc, see 2:23; the suffix (pi.) goes with the sing, nv
(compare this with the use of the suffix with oy in 3:7, 8; already in the LXX
the incongruity has been straightened out). ‘I have heard,’ see Introd. § 3.51.1;
the position of Tvotf in relation to Tr*n run has created a chiastic arran
gement.
r&i) part. pi. qal of m: (OT 22 x), which is used, e.g., for forcing people to
work (Isa. 58:3) and for driving animals (Isa. 9:3; Job 39:7). In Exodus only the
part. pi. qal is used (in 5:6 + d; cf. Isa. 9:3) for the Egyptians who, by order of
Pharaoh, forced the Israelites to perform slave labour: ‘the (slave)drivers’ (3:7;
5:6, 10, 13, 14 and cf. Job 3:18, and note also the use of the part, qal for
‘oppressor,’ ‘tyrant’ in Isa. 3:12; 14:2, 4 et al.). In 3:7, with a term not used so
far, reference is made to Israel’s hard labour mentioned in 1:1 Iff. and 2:23. For
the term see further Pons, 104ff. 'Dy see Introd. § 3.25.2. ‘have gotten to know,’
see Introd. § 3.22. aiiqa (OT 16 x), derivative of Dio, ‘pain,’ ‘sorrow,’ ‘su
ffering.*
The verbs nm, vtw and irr occurring in 3:7 were earlier used in the order
yotf, nm and vi' in 2:24, 25 with God as subject. The use of this variety of
verbs serves to bring out that God is in every way familiar with Israel’s plight
and that no aspect of it has escaped his attention. Philo’s slant on the story is
that God did not remain unmoved by Israel’s prayers (VMy I, 72). According to
3:7ff. y h w h ’s intention to intervene is not in response to Israel’s prayer, but is
entirely due to his own initiative (see also at 2:23).
3:8 Therefore I have come down to deliver them from the power o f the Egyp
tians and to bring them out of that land to a good and broad land' a land flowing
with milk and honey, where the Canaanites, Hittitesf Amorites, Perizzites, Hivites
and Jebusites live. ’
tint (for i t see 2:5), the Sam. Pent, has rrnio; cf. rro o in 3:17 and mimo in
6:5 (for the secondary formation see KoSynt § 200c); the likely meaning is not
that y h w h will come down from Mount Horeb (3:1) to go to Egypt (cf. WV:
‘Ik daal af om both Holzinger and Ehrlich understand •mo as meaning ‘to
go to Egypt’). The MT presupposes that y h w h has come down from the place,
where he had seen and heard (heaven), and come to Horeb to bring about (by
putting Moses into his service) Israel’s deliverance, tu o is therefore to be

taken as an imperf. cons, that follows the perfects of 3:7 (I have seen ..., so
that as a result I have come down). see 2:19. ‘from the power of,’ see
Introd. § 3.21.2. ‘to bring out,’ see Introd. § 3.39.2. did, see 1:20. Dm, see 1:7
and TWAT, VII, 449ff.; in view of 1:7, 9 one might say that the Israelites
needed a large land (cf. Gen. 15:18); ‘a good ... land’ stands in contrast to
‘that land’ (viz. Egypt); these expressions are not to be read literalistically; that
might lead to the erroneous notion that ‘this land’ is the land of Goshen (see
Introd. § 8.6), in comparison with which Canaan would be much bigger and
more fruitful (e.g. Murphy, Heinisch); the observation ‘that land’ is not meant
to say something about the size or the fertility of Egypt, but evokes subjective
feelings: however big and fecund it may be, it is cramped there, one cannot live
there because of the oppression (TPsJ has translated: ‘that unclean land’); the
demonstrative pronoun gives the statement a tone of scorn (e.g. Joiion
§ 143d).
rot part. fern, sing.56 qal of dyi (OT ca. 40x), which in Isa. 48:21; Ps. 78:20;
105:41 is used for the flowing of water. In Exodus it is used 4x (3:8, 17; 13:5;
33:3; cf. Lev. 20:24; Num. 13:27; 14:8; 16:14; Deut. 6:3; 11:9 et al.; 19 x; cf.
Skweres, 157ff.) in reference to the land of Canaan with the meaning of
‘running over with,’ ‘dripping with.’ In Num. 16:13 Moses’ enemies apply the
same attributes to Egypt as are used in 3:8 for Canaan.
D/fi (OT ca. 40x; Exod. 6x), ‘milk,’ apart from 3:8 et al., also occurs in
Exod. 23:19 = 34:26 (cf. Deut. 14:21). Milk of sheep and goats and also of
cows (Deut. 32:14; Prov. 27:27), and sometimes also of camels, is an important
part of the staple diet of Bedouins and dairy farmers (Prov. 27:27). In addition
to milk, Sir. 39:26 also mentions honey as part of the basic necessities of
human life. Milk was used to make curds, cream, butter and cheese. (Sour)
milk was used for quenching thirst and was drunk at meals (Gen. 18:8; Judg.
4:19; 5:25; Isa. 55:1; Ezek. 25:4; Cant. 5:1). Milk was also used for cooking
(23:19 = 34:26).57
eni (OT ca. 50x), apart from 3:8 et al., is also found in 16:31. The meaning
of the term, usually translated as ‘honey/ is uncertain. A. Caquot renders it as
‘sweet stuff (TWAT, II, 136). Though zdi can be used for the honey of (wild)
bees (Judg. 14:8f., 14), this is by no means always the case. With reference to
the Arabic dibs, it has been suggested that am may sometimes refer to syrup
made from dates, grapes or other fruits; am is included in the products of
Canaan (Deut. 8:8; 2 Kgs. 18:32; Jer. 41:8; Ezek. 16:13, 19) and could be part
56 As regards the construction: an adjectivally used part, in the cstr. st., to which are added two
nouns, to designate an explicative/epexegetical genitive, see KoSynt § 328k, 336h; Ges-K § 128x;
Joiion § 121m, 129f; Brockelmann § 77f.
57 See AuS, VI, 288ff.; BHHW, II, 1215f.; DB, II, 36f.; IDB, III, 379f.; TWAT, II, 945ff.;
Benzinger, 66ff., 359; Bertholet, 92, 130.
356 E X O D U S 2 :2 3 - 4 :1 9
of a gift or part of merchandise (Gen. 43:11; 1 Kgs. 14:3; Ezek. 27:17).58

‘Honey’ belonged to the basic human needs (Sir. 39:26; cf. 2 Sam. 17:29) and
in the preparation of food had the place sugar has with us (16:31). Orientals
with their sweet tooth were fond of it (cf. the use of ‘honey’ in metaphorical
expressions; Ps. 19:10; 119:103; Prov. 5:3 et al.). ‘Honey’ was thought to
possess fortifying (1 Sam. 14:27ff.; Luke 24:42?) and medicinal qualities.59
tnpo, see 3:5; in 3:17; 13:5 et al. the word p a in used in the same context;
according to Nachmanides, the use of ‘place’ indicates that Israel would take
over the place of the Canaanites etc., and not, like its ancestors, live among
them; Te Stroete wonders whether ‘place’ might be a way of saying that the
land does not really belong to the peoples; as I see it, mpo here is nothing
more than an synonym of p « (cf. e.g. Num. 10:29; 1 Sam. 12:8; 14:46 et al.),
perhaps substituted here by the writer because p « was already used three
times in the verse. Canaanites etc., see Introd. § 8, 14, 9, 29, 7, 11; the parts of
the enumeration are connected by copulative waw; asyndetic enumerations are
infrequent in Hebrew (Ges-K § 154a n. 1; Jouon § 177o, p; Brockelmann
§ 128, 130a); to avoid a Hebraistic rendering, only the last copula has been
translated. Sam. Pent, and LXX have a list consisting of seven elements:
following the Perizzites also the Girgashites are mentioned. This amounts to a
harmonizing addition in order to obtain the stereotypical seven (Deut. 7:1 et
al.; see Introd. § 8.3.2). That six peoples are mentioned underscores even more
that the promised land is a large and fertile land, offering food and living
space to thousands. One sees more in the text than is there, if from the list of
inhabitants it is inferred that y h w h now already points out that the future
land is not without people, so that Israel must expect effort and struggle
(Michaeli).
‘a land flowing with milk and honey' (3:8)

In light of the observations on ‘milk’ and ‘honey,’ it is natural to take the
expression ‘a land flowing with milk and honey’ as a hyperbolic description (cf.
also e.g. Job 20:17) of Canaan as a land with plenty of good pasture, so that
the animals will give an abundance of milk, and that it is excellent for the
growing of vines and other fruit trees, so that it yields a abundance of ‘honey’
(dibs). In short, Canaan is characterized as a land that is excellent for having
livestock as well as the pursuit of agriculture, so that there will be plenty of
food and prosperity. This interpretation, in my judgment, is better than taking
58 Cf. especially also S. Krauss, “Honig in Palestina,* ZDPV 32 (1909), 151-64 (referring to
Talmudic texts); but note also D. Simonsen, “Milch und Honig," ZDPV 33 (1910), 44-6; H. Haus-
ler, “Noch einmal ‘Honig im hi. Lande’," ZDPV 35 (1912), 186-99.
59 Cf. Caster, 454f.; Jirku, Volksrcligon, 29ff.; see further AuS , IV, 354ff., 382ff.; VII, 294ff.;
BHHW, II, 747; DB, II, 37f.; IDB, II, 639; TWATy II, 135ff.; Benzinger, 68f., 158, 359; Bertholet,
131, 160; Forbes, V, 78ff.
the expression symbolically as denoting a land whose fruits are fat as milk and
sweet as honey.60 Equally unacceptable is the notion that it is a poetic expres
sion for all that is needed for a pleasant existence, milk representing ‘das kraft-
und saftspendende Element’ and ‘Honig als Inbegriff aller Sussigkeit die Idee
der Annehmlichkeit, Ergotzlichkeit, der Wurze des Lebens’ embodying; the
same holds for the view that the expression, because in Greece, and likely also
in Israel (Isa. 7:15, 22; Ezek. 16:3), milk and honey were favourite foods for
children, also contains an allusion to the covenant relationship: ‘Das Volk
Gottes soli unter dem fiirsorglichen Walten seines Bundesgottes so ruhig und
sorglos in der neuen Heimat weilen, wie unmiindige Kinder, die, ohne Harm
und Kummer in den Armen einer zartlich liebenden Mutter ruhend, Milch und
Honig schlurfen.’61
The above is an indication that the expression has been the subject of much
discussion. I wish to say something more about that discussion. Benzinger, 67
n, 1, remarks: ‘Der Ausdruck “Land wo Milch und Honig flieBt" hat mit der
Milch- und Honigproduktion PalSstinas so weinig zu tun, wie Nektar und
Ambrosia mit Griechenlands Erzeugnissen. Er entstammt auch nicht dem
Beduinengeschmack, als ob diese im Milch- und Honigessen die groBten
Geniisse des Lebens erblickten.’ According to him, ‘milk and honey’ are foods
of the gods. GreBmann, Eschatologie, 209ff., defends this view with arguments
based on sentiments from Greek literature. He states that, according to the
ancients, milk and honey belonged to the land of the gods and paradise, the
abode of the blessed. Also early Jewish literature was familiar with this way of
looking at it (2 Enoch 8:5ff.; Sib.Or. Ill, 744ff.; V, 281 ff.), while in the OT the
messianic era is described as the time when the hills shall flow with milk (Joel
4:18; cf. Amos 9:13), and in Isa. 7:14f., ‘curds and honey’ are called the food of
the messiah (cf. also Isa. 7:22; 55:1). GreBmann concludes that ‘a land flowing
with milk and honey’ is a mythological image, whose roots are located in
Babylon.62 In sum, Canaan is depicted as a paradise.63 GreBmann’s main
interest, however, is the origin of these images. So he notes that there is no
question that the editors of Joel 4:18; Amos 9:13 understood the image as a
‘prophetisch-iiberschwangliche Ausdruck’ (p. 210). As to the expression of 3:8
et al., he believes that also its original meaning (‘Gotterland’) has become lost.
In the texts it is no more than a technical designation for ‘land of the promise’
60 So the rabbis; see Simonsen, op. ciL, 44f.; see also TNf: ‘a land that produces wonderful
fruits, pure as milk and sweet as honey;’ TO and TPsJ have a matter of fact translation: ‘a land that
produces milk and honey.’
61 So Hausler, op. cit., 192. Earlier I. Guidi, RB 12 (1903), 241-4, had proposed to understand
‘milk and honey’ as ‘milk with honey,’ and to regard the expression as denoting what is uniquely
pleasant.
62 But see also GreBmann, Messias, 157: ‘milk and honey’ are the ideal of nomads.
63 Gunkel, 48ff., relegates these views to the land of fairy tales and characterizes the land of
milk and honey as ‘ein wahres Marchenland’ (p. 50).
358 exodus 2 :2 3 - 4 :1 9
(p. 212 n. 1). I prefer to regard milk and honey as pars pro toto of the good
gifts of the land. It is not strange that as such they occur in depictions of the
messianic age and belong to the gifts of which the gods have a bountiful
supply, and which were given to them (but not in Israel) as sacrifices.64 After
all, people portray the age of bliss and the world of the gods with images
derived from their own conceptual and experiential world.
A. Caquot (TWAT, II, 139) believes that the expression of 3:8 et al. can be
regarded as a repetition of ‘ein Klischee kanaanaischen Ursprungs in etwas
veranderter Form.’ In this connection he points to the Ugaritic text KTU
1.6.III:6f., 12f.: smm. $mn. tmtrn/nhlm. tl/c nbtm (transl. e.g. in ANET, 140;
ARTU, 91). It is said there that El notices that Baal is alive, when he sees in a
dream how ‘der Himmel Fett regnet und die Bache Honig sprudeln’ (transl.
Caquot; for the text see also Houtman, Himmel, 187f.). The passage differs so
much from 3:8 that Caquot’s view in untenable.
The passages 3:8 et al. are not alone in the OT in their fervent depiction of
the fertility of Canaan (cf. e.g. Deut. 8:7ff.; cf. 4:21; 11:1Off. and see also Gen.
13:10; Lev. 26:4f.; Deut. 7:13; 28:3f.). The fertility of Canaan is also praised in
extra-biblical sources. Not only by the Jew Josephus (e.g. BJ, III, 40ff., 516; IV,
459ff.), but also by the Roman Tacitus (Hist., V, 6).65 The Egyptian Sinuhe
(18th cent. B.C.) has described the area of Canaan where he settled as follows:
Tigs were in it, and grapes. It had more wine than water. Plentiful was its
honey, abundant its olives. Every (kind of) fruit was on its trees. Barley was
there, and emmer. There was no limit to any (kind of) cattle’ (transl. e.g. in
AOT, 57; ANET, 19b).
Today’s visitor in Palestine is often struck by how arid and barren the
landscape really is. It should be remembered that the expression should be
heard through the ears of the people of the Ancient Near East who knew the
desert. Furthermore, in the course of time, owing to neglect of irrigation
systems, deforestation and erosion, the natural condition of the land has
changed for the worse, while the expression is to be regarded as hyperbole. By
our standards ancient Canaan was likely a pretty poor country. Fohrer,
Grundstrukturen, 243, writes with respect to its inhabitants: ‘Man muB an-
nehemen, dass die Israeliten weithin an chronischer Unterernahrung gelitten
haben.’ In any case, it should be noted that the harvest was often lost due to
drought, locust plagues and invading enemies, and that to its inhabitants the
land was anything but a land overflowing with milk and honey (cf. e.g. Gen.
12:10ff.; 26:Iff.; Deut. 28:23f.; 2 Sam. 21:1; 1 Kgs. 17f.; Isa. 24:4ff.; 33:9; Jer.
64 Of Gudea of Lagash it is reported that he gave the gods ‘honey and butter’ for food; Cyl. B
3, 24; cf. 3, 18f.
65 Cf. also 2 Kgs. 18:32; for the testimony of the rabbis see Krauss, op. cit., 151 f.
4:28; 12:4; 23:10; Hos. 4:3).66
3:9 Truly, the cry of the Israelites has reached me; I have indeed seen how the
Egyptians oppress them. ’
nw (OT 433 x; 272 x nnsn), ‘now,’ ‘today/ is an adverb of time - some think
it is derived from nv (see 9:18); see Jouon § 93g; Brockelmann § 106b; THAT,
II, 370 —, used to denote the moment that is to be distinguished from the past
or the future. In Exodus (6x nnv; 14x nron) it is used with an eye to the
future in 5:5 (now already the people are so numerous; what would happen if
the forced labour policy were scuttled); 6:1 and 9:15 (now already, not later);
with a look to the past in 9:18 (‘until now’); 18:11 (‘now/ in distinction from
some time ago). In 18:19 nnx? is used with the function of nmn, ‘therefore/ nnxn
is often employed in the OT as a term to sharpen the focus, and as such it is
used only in direct speech, in addresses, conversations, prayers etc., after an
introduction, an explanation, in which a situation is somewhat objectively
described, particular information is offered, which then by means of nnsn is
related to the context of the actual conversation. So nmn gives a turn to the
conversation; it acts as a hinge. The way in which it is translated depends on
the context. Sometimes a translation with ‘therefore/ ‘consequently/ ‘as a
result* is required, nnxn introduces the conclusion of the preceding expose,
denotes its consequence for today and the future (‘seeing that the situation is
such, therefore ...’ ) (3:10, 18; 4:12; 9:19; 32:10). In particular before an imper.
nrun can have the force of a particle of motivation: ‘now therefore/ ‘so now’
(19:5; 33:5), ‘please do* (in prayers; see 10:17; 32:32; 33:13). Sometimes nron is
used before the imper. qal of m ]bn (see Introd. § 3.14.2), giving the motivation
even greater urgency; see 5:18 (‘go now, immediately ../); 32:34 (‘but now go,
../). In 32:30 the translation ‘nevertheless* deserves preference. In 3:9 nnin
comes before run (see Introd. § 3.15.2) and the particles reinforce each
other.67 see 2:23 and cf. 3:7. kid, see Introd. § 3.8. on, see Introd.
§3.11.1. ‘seen/ cf. 3:7.
66 Bibl.: EREy VIII, 635f. (for the place of milk and honey in the various religions, see ERE , VI,
768ff.; VIII, 633ff.); W. Berg, “Israels Land, der Garten Gottes: Der Garten als Bild des Heiles im
Alten Testament," BZ 32 (1988), 35-51; F.C. Fensham, “An Ancient Tradition of the Fertility of
Palestine,- PEQ 1966, 166f.; Fohrer, 37; H. Gross, Die Idee des ewigen und allgemeinen Weltfricdens
im Alten Orient und im Alten Testament, Trier 1956, 70ff.; B. Margalit, ZAW 99 (1987), 402-4; H.
Olivier, “A Land Flowing with Milk and Honey — Some Observations on the Modes of Existence
in Ancient Israel," NGTT 29 (1988), 2-13; Schmidt, 137ff.; P.D. Stem, VT 42 (1992), 554-7;
H. Wildberger, BK, X, 295f.; S.D. Waterhouse, “A land flowing with milk and honey," AUSS 1
(1963), 152-66.
67 See further H.A. Brongers, “Bemerkungen zum Gebrauch des adverbialen we,attdh im Alten
Testament," VT 65 (1965), 289-99; E. Jenni, “Zur Verwendung von (atta ‘jetzt’ im Alten Tes
tament," ThZ 28 (1972), 5-12; A. Laurentin, "W^'att&h - Kai nun. Formule caracteristique des
textes juridiques et liturgiques (5 propos de Jean 17, 5)," Bib 45 (1964), 168-95, 413-32. For 6:1
(Sam. Pent.) see H. Graetz, “Die Verwechselung von HflK und nni?," MGWJ 29 (1880), 49-57.
360 E X O D U S 2 :2 3 - 4 :1 9
ynb (OT lOx), ‘oppression,’ is a derivative of ynb (OT 19x), ‘to oppress,’
that is used in 3:9; 22:20; 23:9; here in a paronomastic construction (cognate
accusative) to strengthen the idea of the verb (e.g. Ges-K § 117p, q; Jouon
§ 125 p, q; Brockelmann § 93e). For the term see further TWAT, IV, 547ff.;
Pons, 95ff.
3:10 ‘Well then, therefore I send you to Pharaoh, to bring my people, the Is
raelites, out of Egypt. ’
n^b nnm, see 3:9. ybom (see Introd. § 3.49.1); this appears to be a case where
the waw ‘exprime plut6t une nuance de sentiment que le lien logique’ (Jouon
§ 177m; cf. also Ges-K § 154b). Pharaoh, cf. 2:23. imm (see Introd. § 3.24.2),
the imper. with copulative waw, after an exhortation, expresses a consequence
which is intended (KoSynt § 364k; Ges-K § llOi); the Sam.Pent. has nicnm;
apparently also the translation of the LXX is based on such a reading: m i
and perhaps that of the Vulg.: ut educas; these may also be free
renderings, however. The reading of the Sam. Pent, seems due to the desire to
simplify the text. According to Ehrlich, Nr hiph. + p means ‘to free from:’
‘und befreie.’ ‘my people, the Israelites,’ as apposition to the in 3:7 used ‘my
people,’ the designation ‘Israelites’ used in 3:9 is mentioned; note that in 3:11
‘Israelites’ occurs alone again and in 3:12 again only ‘the people;’ the term
‘Israelites’ is used in 3:13, 14, 15. onsoo, unlike in 3:8, the purpose of the
exodus is not specified. Cassuto wrongly states that the destination is omitted,
because Moses, who would bring out the people, would not come into the
promised land.
Moses* first objection and God’s response (3:11, 12)

3:11 But Moses said to God, ‘Who am I that I should go to Pharaoh, and bring
the Israelites out of Egypt?’
Responding to God, Moses avails himself of the words used by God in 3:10.
He asserts that he is unfit to carry out the two parts of the divine mandate.
However, in his response he omits to take the p? of 3:10 upon his lips. He
uses the neutral designation ‘the Israelites.’ Does this mean that Moses, after
his disappointing experiences with his own people and after his flight (2:1 Iff.),
has emotionally and intentionally distanced himself from the Israelites? It is
hard to determine precisely what may be the content of P dn p. Has Moses
changed so much that he has become another person? Is he no longer the man
who reacts impulsively (2:1 Iff.), but someone who is cautious, so guarded that
he could be accused of a lack of self-confidence? Or has he turned into a
disillusioned individual, who is no longer prepared to work for God? (see
Cole). Or, on the contrary, is he a realist, who knows what the score is: he is a
fugitive murderer (2:15), a man without influence or power, who passes his
days in foreign parts as a shepherd; if already in his better days he was not
perceived to be much of a leader (2:14), now certainly he seems bereft of the
qualities needed for that role; he is therefore unfit to enter into negotiations
with Pharaoh and to give leadership to the people of Israel. To sum it up, does
Moses shrink back from the task, because he is aware of the immense difficul
ties it entails? (already older exegetes approached it in this vein, and see
further in particular Heinisch). Nachmanides interprets Moses’ answer as
saying that the Israelites do not wish to be brought out because of the fierce
battle with the Canaanites that is awaiting them. Rabbinic tradition, too,
contains a variety of suggestions with respect to the purport of Moses’ words:
Moses points out to God that He had promised Jacob to bring him back again
out of Egypt (Gen. 46:4) and now orders Moses to do it; Moses asked himself
how to deal with all the ‘domestic’ problems: where to find shelter for the
people in summer and in winter; how to find food and drink, how to care for
all the pregnant women and those with young children, etc. (ExR. Ill, 4);
Moses had calculated that the four hundred years of oppression (Gen. 15:13)
were not yet over (cf. Ginzberg, II, 317f.).
For a proper understanding of the ‘who am I’ it is necessary to look at other
assertions of unworthiness in the OT. The OT contains several instances of
people who objected to an assigned task: Gideon points to his humble origin
and his youthful age (Judg. 6:15); Solomon points to the fact that he is still
very young (1 Kgs. 3:7); Jeremiah likewise; he attributes his lack of eloquence
to it (Jer. 1:6); Saul points to his humble family background (1 Sam. 9:21).68
As such 3:11 does not say why Moses protested unfitness for the task. Going
by the book of Exodus in its current form, youthful age is out as an argument
(cf. 7:7). Later on Moses argues lack of eloquence (4:10). These passages might
also make one think of Moses’ humble position for his refusal. Also elsewhere
the phrase ‘who am I’ is used to communicate modesty and unworthiness (e.g.
1 Sam. 18:18; 2 Sam. 7:18; 1 Chr. 29:14; 2 Chr. 2:5 and also e.g. 1 Sam.
9:21).69 In view of the content of the words introduced by "D it is hardly
correct to say that Moses ‘expresses not merely modesty but plumbs the depths
of genuine humility in the Presence of God’ (Henton Davies). Moses’ reaction
to the Holy One is stated in 3:5f. Here Moses protests that he is unworthy to
carry out the ordered task. Is Moses’ genuinely daunted by the task set before
him (Cassuto is sure of it), or is there an implicit refusal to take on the task?
The course of the dialogue, especially 4:13, inclines me to think that the latter
is the case. Moses would rather not.
3:12 He replied: 7 am with you. And this shall be the sign for you that it is I who
sent you: when you have brought the people out of Egypt, you shall worship God
^ Cf. O. Bacilli, "Die Erwahlung des Geringen im AJten Testament," ThZ 22 (1966), 385-95.
69 For the formula see G.W. Coats, "Self-Abasement and Insult Formulas," JBL 89 (1970),
14-26; taking such a formula upon one’s lips and applying it to oneself, it connotes humbleness (cf.
also e.g. 16:7); applying the formula to someone else, it is intended as an affront (cf. 5:2).
362 E X O D U S 2 :2 3 - 4 :1 9
by this mountain. ’
‘He replied,’ the context shows that it is God who addresses Moses (cf. 3:14);
in the LXX (cf. also Pesh.; Vulg.) this is specifically stated: ‘God spoke to
Moses, saying.* 'D, see Introd. § 3.25.1; Ehrlich thinks that the original reading
was "DDK. Nearly 100 x the OT mentions ‘be with’, with YHWH/God being the
subject (the usual form is r r n + d s ?; r r n + n « also occurs), either in direct
speech: YHWH/God makes a promise, gives an assurance,70 or with
YHWH/God in the third person in prayers, wishes, or clauses noting a fact,
etc.71 Often it is a case of y h w h ‘being with’ a patriarch or a king or a
leader, but it can also be a ‘being with’ the people (e.g. Num. 14:43; Deut. 2:7;
20:1). The assurance ‘to be with’ God also gives in response to Gideon’s
assertion of unworthiness (Judg. 6:16) as well as that of Jeremiah (Jer. 1:8; cf.
1:19). God assures Moses that he will be close to him, that is, will protect him,
support him, and enable him to cope with the difficulties that will come his
way. The assurance is meant as a guarantee that the mission will be successful.
In 4:12, 15 y h w h gives the assurance that he will be (rrn) with (Di>) Moses’
tongue: Moses need not worry that he will not be able to find the right words
and give the right response. Also in the NT ‘to be with’ is found, occurring in
benedictions (Luke 1:28; 2 Cor. 13:13), in clauses noting facts (e.g. Acts 10:38),
and in a promise (Matt. 28:20). In the Christian liturgy the greeting ‘The Lord
be with you’ has become a standard greeting.72
God makes it clear to Moses that his objection is groundless. It is as if God
wants to say: who you are is indeed not important; success does not depend on
your abilities; what really matters is my involvement (God’s absence would
assure failure; e.g. Num. 14:43ff.). Note also the contrast. Moses’ insistence
that he is incapable (see also 4:10) throws into even sharper relief that his
inspiring leadership, as described in Exodus and following books, is not from
himself but owing to God’s presence with him. For his work God preferably
uses people who are young and do not think much of themselves (see at 3:11
and also 1 Sam. 16:11), in order that his greatness may shine even more.
Putting it into sharp focus, the Moses of 3:11 who is overawed by his call and
recoils from it, that Moses, unlike the Moses of 2:1 Iff. who took matters into
his own hands, is suitable to be used by God. God’s assurance is the guarantee
that the exodus will succeed. That Moses’ mission will end in success is
specifically announced in the second half of the verse: the Israelites will
70 See e.g. Gen. 26:3; 31:3 (the patriarchs); Deut. 31:23; Josh. 1:5; 3:7 (Joshua); Judg. 6:16
(Gideon); 1 Kgs. 11:38 (Jeroboam).
71 See e.g. Gen. 21:20 (Ishmael); 28:20; 31:5; 35:3 (Jacob); 26:28 (Isaac); 48:21 (Joseph); Exod.
10:10 (the Israelites); 18:19 (Moses) et al.; cf. the name Immanuel (Isa. 7:14; Matt. 1:28).
72 Bibl.: THAT, II, 325ff.; TWAT, I, 485ff.; TIVNT, VII, 766ff.; K. Berge, Die Zcit des Jahwistcn,
Berlin/New York 1990, 195ff.; M. Gorg, "ich bin mil dir.’ Gewicht und Anspruch einer Redeform
im Alten Testament," ThGl 70 (1980), 214-40; H.D. PreuB, *“«. ich will mil dir sein!’," ZAW 80
(1968), 139-73; D. Vetter, Jahwes Mit-Sein ein Ausdruck des Segens, Stuttgart 1971.
worship God at the place of the encounter between God and Moses, far from
Egypt; the worship at the mountain, in full freedom, is proof of God’s invol
vement in Moses’ mission.
rviN (OT 78x); Exod. 16x; usually used as fern.; in 3:12 after m apparently
as masc.) is usually rendered with ‘sign;’ the (virtually) synonymous npio (OT
36x; Exod. 5x) with ‘wonder.’ jyik is used in a greater variety of contexts
than nDm: in 12:13 rm is a sign of recognition (and at once also a protective
sign; cf. Gen. 4:15); in 13:9, 16; 31:13, 17 nw is a sign of remembrance; the
celebration of the Passover (13:9), the consecration of the firstborn (13:16) is
like a sign on the hand to keep before the Israelites what yhwh had done for
Israel, so that they will not forget; the keeping of the sabbath (31:13, 17) is to
fix Israel’s thoughts on the covenant between yhwh and Israel (cf. Ezek. 20:12,
20). The objective of other signs is to give a person insight into something: a
plague, which only struck Egypt and not the place where Israel dwelt, can be
called nw (8:19); it is meant to convince Pharaoh that yhwh is active in Egypt
(8:18) and that he stands behind the demand to let the people go (8:16). In 7:3
‘signs and wonders’ of yhwh are mentioned;73 the reference is to the plagues
and events around the exodus; they are to convince the Egyptians of yhwh’s
superiority (7:5). In 11:9, 10 D'npiD indicates the acts of yhwh which are to
drive home to the Egyptians that the power belongs to yhwh. In 10:1 the
plages are called nink: they are to show Egypt how powerful yhwh is, and
(10:2) to imprint upon the mind of the coming generations of Israel the
greatness of yhwh’s (cf. Deut. 4:34f.). In 4:8, 9, 17, 28, 30 rviK is a miracle (cf.
4:2ff.) intended to be Moses’ credentials as emissary of yhwh (cf. 4:1, 5, 8f.).
In 4:21 Moses is ordered to perform DTiDa (the context might lead one to think
of the miracles of 4:2-9; the reference, however, is probably to the miracles of
7:8ff. and the plagues) before Pharaoh, evidently to impress him, convincing
him that he is dealing with a man of importance, a representative of a mighty
god (cf. 7:9). However, it is possible to witness signs and yet not believe (that
also applies to Israel; e.g. Num. 14:11, 22). In 3:12 yhwh gives Moses the sign
to persuade him to believe that he sent him. A sign as proof of call is also
mentioned in the account of the call of Gideon (cf. also 1 Sam. 10:2ff.);
Gideon, however, asks himself for a sign (Judg. 6:17); the proof is immediately
forthcoming (Judg. 6:22). In the case of Moses, yhwh of his own accord gives
the sign, one, however, that refers to the future (cf. 1 Sam. 2:34; Jer. 44:29). As
yet Moses’ conviction to have been called by yhwh must be rooted in trust in
n -i
The couplet mnN and D'fiDD — perhaps a hendiadys — is found in particular in Deut.; see
4:34; 6:22; 7:19 et al.; cf. B.S. Childs, “Deuteronomic Formulae of the Exodus Traditions," in Fs
W. Baumgartner, Hebrdische Wortforschung, Leiden 1967, 30-9.
364 E X O D U S 2 :2 3 - 4 :1 9
yhwh (but see also below).74

‘sent you/ cf. 3:10 and see Introd. § 3.49.1. ‘you have brought ... out/ cf.
3:10, 11 and see Introd. §3.24.2. DirrnN, in 3:11 Moses used the neutral
designation ‘the Israelites/ God now speaks (cf. 3:10) likewise in neutral
fashion of ‘the people/ but immediately follows with the statement
assumes a close tie between Moses and the people. ‘God/ somewhat striking in
the mouth of God himself; this way of designating God is not an isolated
instance; see e.g. Gen. 19:24; Ps. 50:23; 2 Tim. 1:18 (cf. Houtman, Himmel,
278f.). mn inn by, see Introd. § 3.16.1; the writer seems to have in mind the
events related in Exod. 19ff.: not only Moses, but also the people will be
witness of the revelation of God at the mountain. The translation ‘on the
mountain’ is improbable, at least in view of what is said in Exod. 19ff. (this is
different if one wishes to take into account diverse traditions); compare with
UV: ‘by this mountain’ (cf. the use of bv in e.g. Isa. 38:20; Jer. 17:2; Job 30:4
and cf. also ito in 4:27). It is also possible that n v (see Introd. § 3.37.1)
presupposes a verb of movement:75 you will go to the mountain to worship
God. The verb ‘worship’ implies that they will acknowledge God as Lord and
praise him (for the liberation). The text is silent about what God will do there
with the people; according to a rabbinic tradition, God in 3:12b alludes to the
reception of the Torah (e.g. ExR. Ill, 4, and see also Rashi); TPsJ mentions
the fact specifically.
The promised proof (3:12)

Expositors have wondered why Moses had to wait till much later before
receiving the proof that he was God’s emissary (cf. 2 Kgs. 19:29ff.; Isa. 7:13ff.;
Acts 5:38), and it has occasioned the question if perhaps the text should be
understood differently. Rashi is of the opinion that the sign is that of the
blazing thornbush (3:2f.; cf. also Ibn Ezra and Nachmanides). He makes the
following comparison: as the thornbush fulfilled God’s mission without being
consumed, so Moses in fulfilling God’s mission will remain unharmed; 3:12b
contains an announcement concerning the reception of the Torah (see above;
it is the answer to 3:11a, where Moses, according to Rashi, asks what made the
Israelites deserving of being brought out). Several modern exegetes have
74 Bibl.: T H A T , I, 91 ff.; T W A T , I, 182ff.; IV, 750ff.; M. Fishbanc, -The Biblical mN," S h n a to n 1

(1975), 213-34 (Hebr.); M.V. Fox, “The Sign of the Covenant: Circumcision in the Light of the
Priestly 'o t Etiologies," R B 81 (1974), 557-96; R. Frankena, "‘Dit zij u een teken’," Fs H.A.
Brongers, in Vruchten van d e U ith o f Utrecht 1974, 28-36; E. Starobinski-Safran, "Le r6le des
signes dans l’6pisode du buisson ardent," J u d 35 (1979), 63-76; J. Sievi, "Wunder und Zeichen in
der Exodus-Tradition," T heologische B crichte 5 (1976), 13-35; F. Stolz, "Zeichen und Wunder: Die
prophetische Legitimation und ihre Geschichle," Z T h K 69 (1972), 125-44; S. Vernon McCasland,
"Signs and Wonders," JB L 76 (1957), 149-52; Wheeler Robinson, 34ff.; Wilms, 32ff., 97ff.
75 They occur more often with bV\ e.g. 1 Sam. 2:11; 1 Kgs. 20:43; Isa. 66:20 ( i n bv ); Jer. 14:3;
51:51 et al.
conjectured that part of the text has dropped out, a part in which it is related
that Moses was given a sign similar to the signs mentioned in 4:2-9. In this
interpretation, 3:12b becomes an announcement, a new mandate (see already
Josephus, AJ, II, 269, and see e.g. Holzinger, Noth, Te Stroete). GreBmann, 46,
imagines the column of fire/smoke to be the sign, while Fohrer, 39 (he reads
‘signs’), thinks of ‘die von E erzahlten Plagen’ (cf. also N. Wyatt, ZAW 91
[1979], 439). Ehrlich espouses the view that m relates to ‘I am with you:* that
God is with Moses and helps him, demonstrates that he is God’s emissary (cf.
already ExR. Ill, 4). Childs, 56ff., looks for the origin of the problem in the
history of transmission: originally m referred to the thornbush; the sign
confirmed that Moses was the one sent; 3:12b indicates that the sign was later
applied to the future and Svas seen as a prefigurement of Israel’s experience’
(p. 60).
As I see it, the question is appropriate whether the statement about the
proof ought to be understood in the hard and fast sense. Probably the meaning
is about as follows: when Moses has returned with the people to the place of
revelation, the proof of the divine mission has been given; however, the
achievement of the goal is not separate from the declaration ‘I am with you;’
the entire road, leading to the conclusive proof, is also part of the demon
stration of the divine accompaniment and it, too, shows Moses that he is the
one sent by y h w h . Moreover, the fact that Moses, after the successful ac
complishment of his mission, will come back to the place of the revelation,
shows that there can be no doubt that the God of the revelation accompanied
him, and that the successful outcome was his work. In this regard it should not
be forgotten either that no mention is made, at least not in concrete words,
about doubt on the part of Moses’ as to whether it was really the God of the
fathers who met him (cf. Judg. 6:17). After what is said in 3:2ff., the har
bouring of such doubt is highly unlikely (cf. Judg. 6:19ff.). Moses does not
have to be convinced that it was really God who speaks here and not someone
else. Important is that he become convinced that God really and fully stands
behind the project. That is the meaning of ‘that it is I who sent you.’76
Moses' second objection and God's response (3:13-22)

3:13 Moses, however, said to God, ‘Suppose I come to the Israelites and tell
them: mthe God of your fathers has sent me,9 and they ask me: mwhat is his
name?9 what shall I say to them?'
run, see Introd. § 3.15.2. The use of with respect to Moses is somewhat
remarkable after the use of in 3:12 in the mouth of God; whether there is
76 The pronoun 'DIN is added for emphasis; e.g. Ges-K § 135a; Joiion § 146a; as regards
meaning, these words are fairly similar to the words i am with you.’
366 exo dus 2 :2 3 - 4 :1 9
special significance in the repetition is hard to say.77

(see Introd. § 3.8). part, continued by perfect consecutives (e.g. Ges-K
§ 112t). ‘the God of your fathers/ see 3:6. Moses points out how he envisions
what a meeting with the Israelites may be like. He will introduce himself and
announce on whose orders he acts. Striking is the brevity with which he
indicates his sender: ‘the God of your fathers’ (a lot more succinct than is
necessary; he omits to say ‘the God of Abraham cf. 3:6, 16). It stands to
reason that when an unknown person introduces himself with such vagueness
about his sender, suspicion can easily arise and that there are bound to be
questions for more information. Yoarno (with dageS forte conjunctivum; e.g.
Ges-K § 37c; cf. 'aarrn in 3:15; e.g. Ges-K § 20d), see Introd. § 3.50; for the
phrase see also Gen. 32:28; Prov. 30:4 and cf. Judg. 13:17.
How is the question to be understood? Had the Israelites in Egypt forgotten
the specific name of the God of their fathers? (Cassuto). Did they worship
various gods and did they want to know which god Moses regarded as the God
of the fathers? (Dillmann) (Josh. 24:14 and Ezek. 20:7f. refer to Israel’s
worship of foreign gods in Egypt). In Exodus to 4:31 not a word is said about
worship of God. May it be inferred from that that Israel had forgotten the
God of the fathers and that the Israelites now ask: ‘Well, who is he?’ Or is the
question to be understood against the Egyptian backdrop: the gods of Egypt
had various names, but there was one name that set them apart from other
gods; that name they wanted to know? (Heinisch). Do the Israelites want to
know the name, because they needed to know it in order that through the cult
they can seek contact with the deity (cf. 3:15b and Judg. 13:17)? (Holzinger; cf.
also Heinisch). Is the question the same as: ‘What new revelation have you
received from God?’ (cf. Gen. 16:13)? (Cole). Or does ’idethq mean, ‘What
does his name mean?’ (cf. Segal, 5, referring, among others, to Gen. 21:29;
Exod. 13:14; Josh. 4:21). In my judgment, the question is best understood as a
question to Moses to show his credentials (Moses’ credibility is at stake; cf.
4:1): ‘Tell a bit more about the one who sent you and so show that he, the
God of our fathers, is the one who sent you.’ For knowledge of a person’s
name implies knowledge of his character and presupposes the existence of a
close bond (cf. Isa. 45:3f.). The Israelites want certainty that Moses is indeed
the deputy of their God. If Moses is able to mention his name, can tell
something about the deity and the revelation he had received, he can make his
point stick that he is the one sent (cf. Te Stroete, Henton Davies, Honeycutt,
Clements). Knowledge of God’s name entails that Moses has a special relation
ship with him and enjoys God’s confidence (cf. Gen. 32:30; Judg. 13:17ff.). In
brief, Moses wants to make clear to God that under the circumstances chances
are great his mission may run into trouble, because the people may be skep
77
The rabbis detected in the use of 'D3K an allusion to Moses’ role as mediator between God
and Israel (cf. the use of "DDK in 20:2); see ExR. Ill, 5.
tical about his person and call; cf. already Philo (VM, I, 74f.).
After God’s assurance that he is with Moses (3:12), Moses no longer pleads
personal problems with his call. He tries another tack and insinuates that the
people themselves might be an obstacle. So implicitly he gives himself away;
y h w h ’s assurance has not yet given him the needed confidence in the future.
y h w h may have spoken about Israel as worshipping outside Egypt (3:12),
Moses still entertains doubts about his acceptance by Israel. One can only
guess about the measure of his own confidence in himself as envoy to Pharaoh
(3:11). From now the narrative centers on Moses and the people. Conditio sine
qua non for Moses’ confrontation with Pharaoh (3:18) was that the people
acknowledge him as divinely sent.
3:14 Then God answered Moses: ‘What does it matter who I am / and he
continued: ‘Thus you shall answer the Israelites: 91 am has sent me to you9. '
The repetition of seems a bit superfluous (cf. the use of -van in 3:4b-7);
through the repetition each of the statements receives its proper emphasis. For
3:14 see further Introd. § 7.3.
3:15 God also answered: Thus you must answer the Israelites: 9YHWH, the God
of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob has
sent me to yo u 9 This is to be my name forever, so I want to be called for all
generations. ’
In 3:15 many words from 3:14 are repeated. Instead of 'nb (3:14), 3:15
has the synonymous phrase bK^to' % n mbyy, many MSS and Sam. Pent, also have
this reading in 3:14. tw, see 2:3. ‘the God of your fathers, see 3:6.
□Viy78 is generally regarded as having the basic meaning of ‘remote in time;’
the notions ‘durability,’ ‘unchangableness’ are inherent in the term. nb\vb, ‘for
ever,’ ‘once and for all’ is used in Exod. in connection with y h w h ’s rule
(15:18) and ‘name’ (3:15), with people (19:9; 21:6; ‘while he lives’),79 with the
sabbath (31:17) and the possession of the land (32:13; cf. 2 Chr. 20:7 and see
Gen. 13:15). With similar meaning occurs in 12:24 and 14:13 (with
negative: ‘never again’). In a variety of construct chains cfnv is found in 29:28;
30:21 (cf. Lev. 6:11, 15; 7:34 et al.); 12:14, 17; 27:21; 28:43; 29:9 (cf. Lev. 3:17;
7:36; 10:9 et al.); 31:16 (cf. Gen. 9:16; 17:7, 13, 19; Lev. 24:8 et al.); 40:15 (cf.
Num. 25:13), always in passages about religious practices and the like: these
are to be observed permanently and without change, obw is used repeatedly in
conjunction with vr (see 1:6) (3:15; 12:14, 17; 27:21; 30:21; 40:15). So the
aspect of permanency is heightened even more. In 15:18 chw in used in one
breath with the synonym iv (OT 48x; see THAT, II, 207ff.) (cf. Mic. 4:5; Ps.
78 OT ca. 440x; Exod. 17x; 6x + b (OT ca. 180x); 2x + 15? (OT ca. 80x) and 9x as nomen
rectum in construct chains (OT ca. 130x).
79 Compare 21:6 with Lev. 25:46 and cf. dViI? 131? in Deut. 15:17; 1 Sam. 27:12; Job 40:28.
368 E X O D U S 2 :2 3 - 4 :1 9
9:6; 45:18 et al.). Gerleman has disputed the customary interpretation of nb^.
He describes dVii? as follows: it is a spatial term, which designates a certain
boundary; it can be a remote boundary, all the way to where the eye reaches,
but also a nearby boundary, which can be experienced as a restrictive or
protective boundary; oVii? can be used as a designation of time, but often
means something else. His interpretation results in a drastic reinterpretation of
quite a few texts, also in Exodus, where could point to a restrictive
boundary. It would mean that in 3:15 God announces that the name yhwh is
exclusively his; that in 31:17 it is said that the sabbath is exclusively for Israel.
Similarly in construct chains can indicate a limiting boundary: e.g.
nbw nsrp (40:15) is the priesthood which is the exclusive preserve of Aaron and
his sons; nbw rr"Q (31:16) is the rr*n exclusively with Israel, etc. Though the
traditional interpretation of dVih is not always satisfactory, it is doubtful that
this rigorous new interpretation constitutes an improvement.80
Both Dtf (see Introd. § 3.50) and "Di (see Introd. § 3.18.2) as well as nbw and
•m m (see 1:6) often occur together; see esp. Ps. 135:13 (and 102:13). Many
MSS and Sam. Pent, read m t 6 in agreement with e.g. Ps. 102:13; 135:13 (but
note e.g. 17:16). 3:15b is composed of two parallel members and has an
unmistakably poetic character.
3:15 contains a second reaction to Moses’ question in 3:13. It is possible,
omitting 3:14 and iw in 3:15, to move directly from 3:13 to 3:15. That gives
the following picture: Moses promptly receives an answer to his question; he
can mention the name of his sender as ‘yhwh, the God of your fathers, ...’ It
is as if God corrects Moses: when you introduce yourself (3:13), don’t be vague
by only speaking of ‘the God of your fathers;’ that only raises questions; you
must be as specific as possible about your sender. That Moses receives a two
fold response has led to the view, not only among advocates of the documen
tary hypothesis (e.g. Schmidt, 130ff.), but also among its opponents (e.g.
Eerdmans, 12ff.), that either 3:14 or 3:15 is to be regarded as addition.
Naturally, a two-fold response does not necessarily imply that the passage is
the work of more than just one author. Though, here, in view of the diversity
of answers, it might be the case. Exegetically it is significant that due to the
link between 3:14 and 3:15, as they are in the text before us, the verses impact
each other’s meaning: because in 3:15 the name yhwh is mentioned, the
statement about God as rrnN in 3:14b, which is not intended to be an answer
to the question about the name (see Introd. § 7.3.2), becomes a clarification of
the name yhwh: ‘he is/exists,’ but at the same time through God’s statement
in 3:14a notice is given: the name yhwh (3:15) is not to be regarded as the
name of God; to be sure, it designates an essential attribute of God, because it
80 See for further THAT, II, 228ff.; TWAT, V, 1144ff.; B. Long, “Notes on the Biblical
Use of dVw IU,- WTtxJ 41 (1978-79), 54-67; G. Gerleman, “Die sperrende Grenze: Die wurzel 7m
im Hebraischen," ZAW 9\ (1979), 338-49.
reveals how God manifests himself to his people (3:12, 14b), but in the name
God far from fully discloses himself. He is infinitely more. In the name yhwh
God only shows a glimpse of who he is.
What 3:15b adds to 3:15a is not without significance: so that there can be
communication between God and his human creatures the latter need to know
how to address the deity; otherwise contact with him becomes impossible. So
God instructs that at all times he wishes to be called ‘yhwh, the God of your
fathers, ...’ In that name, which is not to be regarded as the name (3:14), God
is addressable, and that name is to be used when he is being addressed. In
short, God not only enables Moses to inform the people about the character
of his sender, but he can also inform them how God wants to be called.
Ehrlich notes that m not only relates to mrr, but also to the apposition ‘the
God of your fathers,...’ Technically that may be so, but it is doubtful that, £ la
Ehrlich, it should be underscored.81 The extensive summation of the names
can be explained from the context: the need for showing proper credentials
(see 3:13). 2
3:16 ‘Go, assemble the elders of Israel and tell them, "yhwh, the God o f your
fathers appeared to me, the God of Abraham, of Isaac and of Jacob, with the
message: I have always been deeply concerned about you and about what has
been done to you in Egypt'. ’
‘Go,’ see Introd. § 3.14.2. rooto, perf. cons, qal83 of (OT ca. 210x),
which in Exod. occurs in qal (OT ca. 100 x) with the meaning ‘to assemble,’
(3:16; 4:29), ‘gather in,’ ‘to harvest’ (23:10, 16) (cf. Deut. 16:13; Job. 39:12),
and in niph. (OT ca. 80x) with the meaning ‘be brought in’ (9:19); ‘gather
around’ (32:26; cf. Ezra 9:4); cf. also 'I'oxn JO* the feast of the gathering: ‘the
harvest feast’ (23:16; 34:22). See further THAT, II, 583ff.; Palache, 8.
^tn&* rprriK, Sam. Pent, has Soar *33 *:pin«; cf. LXX and Pesh. and see 4:29.
In TNf, ‘the elders of Israel’ is reproduced in 3:18 (and also elsewhere) with
btn»*i K*o*3n, ‘the wise men of Israel.’
p i (OT ca. 175 x) can be used to denote an older man (from about 60
years); pi pi., ‘elders,’ usually signifies a group of office bearers. The dual use
is not surprising: persons of advanced age, by reason of experience, can be
individuals of sound judgment, able to make sensible decisions, and conse
quently competent to exercise authority (cf. Gen. 24:2). However, in the OT
81
In his view, the statement is directed against the universalism of the later prophets (e.g. Isa.
56:3; 66:21, 23).
^ The defective spelling of D^X? has caused some rabbis to associate it with D^XJ, ‘to hide/be
hidden:’ the name HUT may not be pronounced according to the letters of which it consists;
-H*? '" p i ITH is interpreted as follows: always bear in mind that the tetragrammaton is to be
pronounced with use of the substitute Adonai: in short, the passage was read in the light of the
later practice of not pronouncing the divine name (e.g. ExR. Ill, 7, and also Rashi).
As continuation of an imper.; cf. Ges-K § 112r; Jouon § 1191; Brockelmann § 5b, 41 f.
370 exo dus 2 :2 3 - 4 :1 9
is primarily used for office bearers: though the members of the college of
elders for the most part must have been older men, as such the term was a
rather technical one, denoting influential position rather than age; so one
could be an ‘elder’ without being an older person. The post of honour was
reserved for men who were financially independent, who enjoyed a measure of
affluence, usually through owning property. They were the representatives of a
local community, who administered justice, and also set the tone for the
community’s political and social life (Deut. 19:1 If.; 21:lff., 18ff.; 22:13ff.;
25:5ff.; Judg. ll:5ff.; 1 Sam. 30:26ff.; 2 Sam. 5:3 et al.). In Exodus pi is only
found in the pi. (12x). Often we read of bvnto' (3:16, 18; 12:21; 17:5, 6;
18:12; 24:1, 9; cf. 4:29 and see further 19:7; 24:14). Always it is representatives
of the Israelite community that are meant. Also elsewhere the OT mentions
"pi (e.g. 1 Sam. 4:3; 8:4; 2 Sam. 3:17; 5:3); there the reference is to
individuals who are members of the college of elders in the cities and villages
of Israel, and who together represent the population. The nature of the elders
in Exodus remains vague. Trying to explain their position (at 3:16), expositors
use such words as heads of the families, households, and tribes (e.g. Keil,
Heinisch, Gispen) or sheiks (Holzinger; cf. also McNeile).84 In my opinion,
the writer appears to assume that Israel in Egypt had the same societal
structure as later in Canaan. Note here that according to Gen. 50:7 and Num.
22:7, a similar structure is also attributed to Egypt and to Moab and Midian.
As stated above, the elders remain shadowy figures in Exodus. Whatever
official functions they may have had, nothing is said about it;85 nor is any
thing said about personal initiatives on their part. They seem to be no more
than figureheads under Moses (and Aaron). Perhaps one can say that they
represent the people whenever all the people are unable to be present (3:16,
18; 4:29; 17:5f.; 18:12; 24:1, 9, 14). In 12:21; 19:7 they are the ones who are to
communicate Moses’ words to the people. Only once in Exodus (10:9) does
stand for ‘oldsters.’ In combination with (see Introd. § 3.34) the term
is used in an expression per merismum (cf. KraSovec, 97f.).86
rm o , perf. cons, as continuation of an imper. (see above), ‘y h w h ,
Moses must give a specific and clear picture about the God who appeared to
him, so that the elders will be very clear about on whose behalf Moses acts (cf.
84 Holzinger, after the analogy of Arabian classes, thinks of the nobility, people whose status
was hereditary; cf. also Benzinger, 255f.
85 They are mentioned in Exod. 18 (vs. 12), but others are charged with the task of ad
ministering justice (18:21 f.); but cf. also Num. ll:16f.
86 Bibl.: B H H W , I, 76f.; D B , I, 676f.; ID B , II, 72f.; T W A T , II, 639ff.; G. Bettenzoli, B ib 64
(1983), 47-73; J. Buchholz, D ie A ltcsten Israels bn D e u tc ro n o m iu m , Gottingen 1988; E. Jenni,
"Z3q5n, Bemerkungen zum Unterschied von Nominalsatz und Verbalsatz," in Fs W. Zimmerli,
B eitrage zu r a lttcsta m cn tlich en T heologie , Gottingen 1977, 185-95; H. Reviv, The E lders in A n c ie n t
Israel , Jerusalem 1989; J. Scharbert, "Das Alter und die Alten in der Bibel,” S a ecu lu m 30 (1979),
338-54; Thiel, 41f., 106ff., 123 n. 68, 138, 147.
3:13ff.). He must describe God, using the names prescribed by God (3:15). So
he can forestall questions for more information (they are indeed not being
asked; see 4:29ff.). As regards the formulation, there is some difference
between 3:15 and 3:16: viSc is not repeated before Isaac and Jacob (cf. Ges-K
§ 128a; Jouon § 129b; Brockelmann § 70f). The translation in LXX and Vulg.
is in accordance with 3:6, 15. 'bx rona (cf. 3:2 and see Introd. § 3.46.2) inter
rupts the enumeration; in short order the key element of Moses* message is
mentioned: he has received revelation.
TnpD "ips (for the construction see e.g. Ges-K § 1131 ff.; Jouon § 123d ff.;
Brockelmann § 93); God’s involvement in Israel’s misery is here expressed with
a term so far not used in Exodus (cf. 2:24f.; 3:7, 9). ipo (OT ca. 270 x), ‘to
look at/scrutinize/examine someone/something,’ is used in many different ways.
ipD qal (OT ca. 235x; Exod. 16x) is used with God as subject, with the
meaning ‘be very much concerned about’ (3:16; 4:31), in the sense of ‘take
notice o f (13:19), ‘be anxious about,’ ‘come to you;’ God’s care is the exten
sion of it (e.g. Gen. 21:1; 50:24, 25; 1 Sam. 2:21; Ruth 1:6). God’s examining
look can result in help from his side, but its result can also be that he calls
people to account for observed iniquities and punishes them for it. In the
sense of ‘to call to account’ ipD qal is used in the OT (20:5; 32:34; 34:7; Lev.
18:25; Num. 14:18; Deut. 5:9; Isa. 24:21; 26:14, 21 et al.). Carefully looking can
also be done with intent to muster or to count. In the OT ipn is often used in
that sense. That is also the case in 30:12, 13, 14; 38:21, 25, 26 (often the part,
pass. pi. qal is used: ‘those counted’); cf. Num. 1-4; 7:2; 14:29; 26. Controver
sial is Q'TipD in 38:21.87 See further THAT, II, 466ff.; TWAT, VI, 708ff.
Rabbinic tradition sees a connection between 3:16ff. and Gen. 50:24f., where
the dying Joseph speaks, using the phrase with ips: hearing the words spoken
by Joseph signifies to the elders that their fulfillment, the liberation, is near;
consequently they listen to Moses (e.g. ExR. Ill, 8, and see also Rashi, Nach-
manides and Keil). 'Wyr\, part. pass, qal of n&y (see Introd. § 3.41.1); cf. 1:1 Iff.;
2:11, 23; 3:7, 9.
Moses receives good instructions. If he had thought at all that he could just
go to the Israelites as envoy from the God of the fathers (3:13), now he hears
how he can best carry out his mandate: he is to take up contact with the
leaders of the people; that offers advantages: communication is more effective
in smaller groups; if he can persuade the leaders, he can be certain of the
support of all the people. Moses is to follow the official channels. This
approach differs sharply from the way he tried it years ago when on his own he
wanted to achieve the liberation of the people (2:1 Iff.).
87 It is sometimes regarded as a pi. abstract noun: ‘Musterung’ (Ges-B) ‘musterings, i.e.

expenses’ (BDB); different KBL\ see further THAT, II, 470, 473 and in loco, also for the use of IpD
pual (OT 2x).
372 E X O D U S 2 :2 3 - 4 :1 9
3:17 Therefore I have decided to bring you up out of the misery of Egypt, to the
land of the Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusitesy to a
land flowing with milk and honey. ’
LXX® reads in translation: ‘and he has said’ (e.g. Baentsch prefers this
version); Sam. Pent, has mwo (cf. 3:8). For the meaning of iqk here, see
Introd. § 3.5.1. ‘to bring out,’ see Introd. § 3.39.2. 'iv, cf. 3:7 and see 1:11. ‘to
the land see 3:8. Note that here, unlike in 3:8, first the inhabitants of the
land are mentioned and then its fertility (chiasm). Moses is to inform the
elders that y h w h is going to fulfil the promise of the land, given to the
patriarchs. He is ordered to communicate to them, in slightly different and
more restrained words (compare 3:16b-17 with 3:7-8), the revelation God had
given him. A remarkable difference between 3:8 and 3:17 is the use of tiki in
3:8 and of mm in 3:17. The first fits God’s encounter with Moses. The second,
Moses’ meeting with the elders, far from the place of the revelation.
3:18 'When they will obey you, you must go to the king of Egypt, you and the
elders o f Israel, and you must say to him: mYHWH, the God of the Hebrews,
suddenly appeared to us. Therefore we would like to go a three days' journey into
the wilderness to offer sacrifices to YHWH, our God9. ’
‘When ... obey;’ obviously there is more here than a mere formal listening; it
is assumed that the elders, on the ground of Moses’ words, trust him and
acknowledge him as y h w h ’s envoy, and therefore are prepared to carry out his
orders (cf. 4:1). The elders must obediently listen (see beginning of 3:18) if
they are to be part of the delegation the rest of the verse deals with: my\ etc.
(for the construction see e.g. Ges-K § 112kk, 159g; Jouon § 167b; Brockel-
mann § 164a, and see also Heinisch and Noth’s translation). Support for this
interpretation is found in 4:1. If in 3:18 Moses would already have been
assured, black on white, that the elders will hear - the usual interpretation of
3:18 - Moses’ objection in 4:1 becomes unintelligible. In short, the beginning
of 3:18 does not constitute a direct encouragement given to Moses (so e.g.
Gispen). When he comes to the Israelites, he is indeed able to win their trust
(4:31). But later the situation changes; see 5:20f.; 6:9, 12.
For mo + Vip see Introd. § 3.51. nKT etc., for the use of the personal
pronoun see e.g. Jouon § 146c; Brockelmann § 34b; for the use of the verb in
the sing, with a composite subject, see e.g. Ges-K § 146f-g; Jouon § 150p-q;
*?pri with waw concomitantiae (e.g. Ges-K § 154a n. lb; Joiion § 150p, 151a);
for the reading b^®' in Sam. Pent. (cf. LXX and Pesh.) see 4:29. ‘the king
of Egypt,’ see Introd. § 5.66; earlier already (3:10) God had mandated Moses
to go to Pharaoh; here he orders Moses to go with the elders; when Moses
appears before Pharaoh accompanied by the notables, the king will know for
sure that the wishes they make known have the approval of all the people,
□mam, an occasional MS has the sing.; cf. LXX and Vulg.; in that reading
Moses alone is the spokesman. The use of the sing, is likely to be attributed to
the desire to harmonize the text with the course of events: in the narrative of
the execution of the mandate (5:Iff.) only Moses and Aaron (cf. 4:14ff.) are
spokespersons (cf. also 7:10ff.).
‘Hebrews/ see Introd. § 8.25; introducing yhwh to Pharaoh, Moses is to use
different terminology than when he introduced God to the elders (3:16); in
agreement with the religious notions of Pharaoh, according to which every
nation has its own god(s) (cf. 1 Sam. 26:19), he is to introduce yhwh as the
God of the Hebrews. So he also states by implication something that is made
explicit in the request itself: there is no way that this God, who is associated
with the Hebrews, can be worshipped on territory that is the domain of the
gods of Egypt; he must be worshipped at a considerable distance from Egypt
(cf. Holzinger).
M'bv nip:, for n ip see 1:10; the parallel verse 5:3 has the reading M'bv Kips;
Sam. Pent, has this reading also in 3:18; this is likely the basis for interpreting
K ip : as a form of K ip , ‘to call’ (see Introd. § 3.45.1); many translations have
rendered the verb as if it were a form of ‘to call.’ See LXX: rcpoaicîcXTiTai
fjpaq, ‘has invited us/ Vulg.: vocavit nos\ TO and TPsJ; x:bv npnK, ‘has been
called upon us’ (meaning, ‘his name has been pronounced over us/ this is
explicit in TPsJ in 5:3; that is, we are his property, his people; cf. e.g. Jer.
7:10f. and see also Calmet). In contrast, TNf renders: ])'bv ^:nK, ‘appeared to
us.’ In the meeting with Pharaoh the revelation is to be expressed with a
different verb than in the contact with the elders (3:16; hki niph.). What is
precisely said in n ip niph. is difficult to determine. Ehrlich is of the opinion
that n ip + bv is used for encounters which happen at places where none of the
individuals meeting each other lives; the verb that is employed is to make it
clear to Pharaoh that the requested worship of God must happen outside
Egypt’s borders. Perhaps the following can be stated: the emphasis and focus is
to be on the unexpected, in particular on the frightening nature of the revel
ation, which demands an immediate response, because otherwise the people
are in grave danger (cf. 5:3: ‘pestilence or sword’). Before Pharaoh the revel
ation may not be pictured as a salutary event, but rather as an event that is all
threat. After all, the point is to impress upon Pharaoh the requirement to let
the people go.
M'by, ‘to us,’ is somewhat remarkable, because the revelation only came to
Moses. Hyatt’s conjecture that in J’s version of the event also the elders
received the revelation is too speculative.88 Baentsch attributes the for
go
Note in this connection also that according to Noth, UP, 178, 196 (see his commentary on
5:3), the elders in Israel’s traditions used to play a much bigger role; in the course of the tradition
process Moses’ role presumably became much more prominent, at the expense of their position. In
his commentary (pp. 38ff.) Noth points out that in ch. 5 Moses is far less prominent. He defends
the view that, according to the tradition of 5:3-19, YHWH appeared to the Hebrews in Egypt and
that the negotiations with Pharaoh were handled by the people (or its representatives).
374 exodus 2:23-4:19
mulation to calculation: it is much more impressive if the revelation came to a

whole group. The usual assumption is that the revelation at Horeb was not a
private affair, but directed to the whole people. Acknowledging Moses as
y h w h ’s emissary, the elders indicate that they regard him as the representative
of the people and Moses’ encounter with y h w h as being y h w h ’s meeting with
them (in this vein, among others, Keil, Strack, Holzinger, McNeile, Heinisch).
Comparing 3:18 with 5:3 (where Moses and Aaron are the spokespersons), one
must conclude that, in the text as we have it, M'bv refers to the whole people:
‘us, the Hebrews.’ nnm, see 3:9; it is not found in the parallel 5:3; hoc loco also
in Sam. Pent.; cf. LXX and Vulg. w ro 1?!, cohortative to express a desire (e.g.
Ges-K § 108b; Jouon § 114f; Brockelmann § 6b, 8a); see 3:3.
I'll (OT ca. 710 x; Exod. 13 x) is the place/terrain over which one moves to
reach a certain destination. The terrain is not everywhere suitable for travel.
The ground has to be fairly level and without undue obstructions, and there
should be springs, wells, and fodder for the animals. So it is understandable
that roads were formed where the terrain lent itself for it. The purposeful
construction of roads had to wait till later times. Especially the Romans gained
a reputation for building roads.89 in the sense of ‘road’ is found in
Exodus in 13:17, 18, 21 (for 13:17 see Introd. § 8.28). The construct chain
■omn i'll in 13:18 can mean two things: ‘the way to’ or ‘the way through.’ The
first possibility is the most obvious (cf. e.g. Gen. 16:7; 2 Kgs. SÔ).90 *pn also
denotes the movement that is to lead to a particular goal: ‘the act of traveling,’
‘the journey’ (3:18; 5:3; 8:23; cf. Gen. 30:36; Num. 10:33; 33:8 et al.). i'll?
often means ‘on the way,’ ‘during the journey’ (4:24; 18:8; 23:20; cf. e.g. Gen.
48:7; Deut. 6:7 et al.). y n is also used figuratively for ‘conduct,’ ‘behaviour,’
“way of life’ (18:20; 32:8; cf. Deut. 9:2, 16; 13:6 et al.); in 33:13 (pi.) for God’s
way, also as pertains to the future (‘intention’); cf. Deut. 32:4; Isa. 55:8f.; Ps.
103:7 et al.91 ‘three,’ see Introd. § 4.4.1. or, see Introd. § 3.23.1.
rram cohortative qal of rni (OT ca. 135 x), ‘to sacrifice;’ rrn qal (OT 113x)
is found 18 x in Exodus (usually used in the absolute sense; 6x with an
object; see 8:22 [2x]; 13:15; 20:24; 23:18; 24:5). Because elsewhere in the OT
not is used for (sacred) slaying (e.g. 1 Sam. 28:24; 1 Kgs. 1:9, 19, 25; 19:21), it
is natural to assume that the absolute use of not refers primarily to a sacrificial
practice that includes the slaughtering of animals (e.g. 10:25; 13:15; 24:5).
Apart from that, not can also stand for ‘sacrificing’ in the wider meaning of the
term; see e.g. 23:18 (‘blood’); 20:24 (‘burnt offerings’). In the narrative of
89 See e.g. BHHW, III, 1880ff., 2146f.; BRL, 134ff.; DBS, X, lOllff.; 1DB, IV, 101f.; Aharoni
(Introd. § 8.a), 43ff.
90 "OTlSf! “p i also occurs in Josh. 8:15; Judg. 20:42; there it stands for a different direction; see
Aharoni, 60.
91 See further THAT , I, 456ff.; TWAT, II, 288ff.; R. Ratner, "Derek: Morpho-Syntactical
Considerations,* JAOS 107 (1987), 471-73; N. Tidwell, *A Road and a Way: A Contribution to the
Study of Word-Pairs,* Semitics 7 (1980), 50-80.
Moses* (and Aaron’s) negotiations with Pharaoh rrn qal is used in the absolute
sense (except in 8:22) (3:18; 5:3, 8, 17; 8:4, 21, 24, 25; see also 22:19; 32:8;
34:15); the sacrificing is done in honour of (b) ‘y h w h , our/your God’ (3:18;
5:3; 8:22 [2x], 23, 24), ‘our/your God’ (5:8; 8:21), ‘y h w h ’ (5:17; 8:4, 25). Not
entirely clear is what is precisely meant by ‘sacrificing.’ In Exodus it is only
stated that it was offensive to the Egyptians (8:22). Probably it was a sacrificial
feast (cf. 5:1; 10:9 et al.), which including the slaying of sacrificial animals,
bringing sacrifices to y h w h , participation in the sacrificial meal, dancing etc.
(cf. e.g. 24:5; 32:6, 8; 34:15 and 1 Sam. 1-2). Through the sacrificial feast one
gets in touch with the deity who made himself known to the people. Elsewhere
in Exod. other terms are used for the wording of the request of Moses and
those with him, viz. n v (see Introd. § 3.37.1) and an (see 5:1). For nyi see
further TWAT, II, 509ff.; De Vaux, II, 324ff. The request expressed here is later
uttered in almost identical words to Pharaoh himself (5:3). In his response,
Pharaoh uses it in shortened form (5:8, 17), he returns to it in 8:4, 21, and
again in 8:24, after Moses had again made it to Pharaoh in its complete,
original form (8:23; cf. also 8:26).

As was said above, on the basis of the text of Exodus there is little one can say
with certainty about the nature of the sacrificial feast requested by Moses and
the people. One conjecture is that the Passover (in an older form than
described in Exod. 12) is meant (e.g. Meyer, IN, 35ff.). In the expansion and
editing of the text a description of the feast was left out. A remnant of the
exodus tradition, in which the feast played an important role, Meyer, 61 f.,
detects in 15:22b, 25b.92 Schmid, 39ff., gives a traditio-historical explanation
for the undeniably striking fact that nowhere in Exodus it is said that such a
feast, three days into the wilderness, was also actually held; he distinguishes
the tradition of the exodus from the tradition of the ‘Wustenfest,’ in which the
participants are a ‘Wustenfestgruppe’ who had journeyed to Kadesh. Schmid
conjectures that the historical background of the tradition of the ‘Wustenfest’
is as follows: for the sake of a living, families from Kadesh went to Egypt, but
their heart longed for Kadesh, especially its cultic feasts; possibly it happened
once that a larger group of these people received permission to take part in a
cultic feast. G. Hort, ZAW 70 (1958), 56ff., thinks that behind the request of
Moses and his people there may lie an Egyptian tradition: when the water
level of the Nile was especially high or remained very low, one went into the
desert to pray to the deity, while A. Lacocque, VT 15 (1965), 350, suggests that
the purpose of the journey consisted in bringing a substitutionary sacrifice for
the firstborn. Looking at Exodus in its current form raises the question as to
92 After a journey of three days in the wilderness the Israelites came to Massah and Meribah,
that is, Kadesh, where, according to Meyer, Horeb/Sinai was located; see Introd. § 8.23.5.
376 exodus 2:23-4:19
the bearing of 3:18 on the whole of the story.

How are the requests of 3:18 to be squared with the announcement of the
liberation in 3:8, 10, 17? For the words spoken say nothing about the wish to
leave the land for good. The request is only to cross the border for a limited
period of time. Does y h w h here give a command to mislead Pharaoh?93 The
usual view is that it was a sincere request, and that at first Moses was not to
ask too much of Pharaoh, in order to test Pharaoh’s disposition. If Pharaoh
had consented, the demand for complete freedom would have been made (e.g.
Keil, Dillmann, McNeile, Heinisch, Gispen). It is not entirely clear how sincere
the request was according to these commentators: if Pharaoh had responded
favourably, would the journey have been made - in light of 10:9, 25f., it is
unlikely that the people intended to come back - or was the idea to ask for
complete freedom in case Pharaoh proved willing to go along? If the latter is
the case, it is better, as I see it, not to speak of a testing of Pharaoh’s disposi
tion. Perhaps one can say that Moses and the elders are instructed to be very
diplomatic in their talks with Pharaoh;94 cf. 5:3; 7:16, 26; 8:21, 23f.; 9:1, 13;
10:3, 7-11, 24-26; 12:31; 14:5. Also Pharaoh, already at this very first meeting,
seems to have been aware that the request of Moses and the elders was only
the beginning of a much bigger demand (cf. 10:7ff., 24ff.). He even refuses to
entertain the request.
It is obvious that the requests were meant to tell Pharaoh something. What?
The appearance of the deity demands a response in the form of a cultic
ceremony, at the place of the appearance (cf. Gen. 12:7; 28:18ff.; Exod. 20:24).
By implication also the destination of the pilgrimage was disclosed: Horeb (cf.
3:12). It is often thought that Horeb cannot have been meant, because it was
much farther away than a three days’ journey in the wilderness (this is ap
parent for example from 15:22). Therefore, according to some, the reference
may have been to another desert shrine (e.g. Dillmann, McNeile). Others do
not think it was Horeb, but say no more about it (e.g. Heinisch, Gispen). Still
others think that Horeb was indeed the destination (e.g. Bohl, Hyatt,
Clements, Cole, Michaeli). In my judgment, the context favours that view.
Implied in that view is that ‘a three days’ journey’ is regarded as a vague
93 See e.g. ExR III, 8, and Holzinger, Baentsch; cf. Leibowitz, 94; see further e.g. Meyer, IN ,
8ff.: in J the feast is a pretext to mislead the king; E stumbled over that and therefore (5:1)
dropped the three days: ‘Die Forderung ist einfach, das Volk zu entlassen, selbstverstandlich auf
alle Zeit; und daher ist die Erwahnung der Festfeier in der Forderung bei E sachlich vollig
unmotiviert’ (p. 9). A commonly held view is that there was a certain development which presum
ably is reflected in the sources. The fact that P only speaks of release (6:9; 7:2; 9:35; 11:10) shows,
according to Baentsch (at 6:10f.), ‘die grossere Reife des sittlichen Urteils.’ See also GreBmann
(SAT), 44; the oldest version reckons with deceit: ‘Dem einfachen Menschen gilt die List mehr als
die Wahrhaftigkeit, und diese Anschauung spiegelt sich aucli in der Religion wieder.’
94 Cf. Cassuto and Cole; for the way of conducting negotiations in the Ancient Near East, see
e.g. Gen. 23 and passages in which a positive response to a request becomes the occasion for asking
even more (e.g. Gen. 18:22-33; 1 Kgs. 20:3-6).
indication of the length of time (‘three’ in the sense of ‘some’) or designates a

period of preparation (see Introd. § 4.4.1). Also the following should be kept
in mind: the reader, familiar with the revelation to Moses, is aware that a
sacrificial ceremony at Horeb is meant; Pharaoh is not aware of it; going by
the information given to him, he can only suspect that the ceremony will be at
the place of the revelation; he is not told where that place is; that is not
strange; as savvy negotiators, Moses and the elders are not to tip their hand.
Therefore they must not be overly specific either as to who precisely will
participate in the sacrificial feast. Later, when Pharaoh is compelled to enter
into negotiations, for good reason he understands the request to mean - for it
is the males who play a role in the cult - that the adult men want to leave the
land (10:7f.). However, at a given moment Moses expands the ‘we’ to even
include the animals of the Israelites (10:24ff.).
Finally, as pointed out above, against the background of Exodus as a whole,
it is entirely natural to make a connection between the sacrificial feast of 3:18
and the cult at Horeb/Sinai (3:12; cf. Exod. 19ff.).
3:19 ‘Of course I know that the king of Egypt will not let you leave, unless strong
pressure is put on hint.'
3:19-22 offers a kind of synopsis of the consequences of the question to
Pharaoh to permit the people to have a sacrificial feast to y h w h (3:18). In a
nutshell the verse indicates what is narrated in 5:4-12:36. Moses is informed
that the liberation of the people will be slow and difficult. But he is also given
the assurance that the envisioned goal will eventually be reached. So Moses is
encouraged. Running into opposition and setbacks, he need not give up hope,
for he may know that those difficulties were not unforeseen by y h w h . The
course of events is entirely in y h w h ’s hands! (cf. Introd. § 3.19.2). That same
information also assures the reader that y h w h is fully in control of the
situation. In fact, the allusion to the strong measures y h w h will use (3:20),
piques the interest in what is going to happen, and so he reads on, gripped by
the story, eager to learn about the announced events (cf. also 4:21-23; 6:6f.;
7:3ff.).
•jki (cf. K. Albrecht, ZAW 39 [1921], 169), see e.g. Ges-K § 135a; Joiion
§ 146a; Brockelmann § 34b; perhaps the pronoun brings out the following
connection between 3:18 and 3:19: 3:18 might lead Moses to object that it
would be highly unlikely for Pharaoh to respond positively to the request; in
3:19 y h w h forestalls that kind of response and makes it clear that he is
realistic about the situation, 'nvr (see Introd. § 3.22), for the use of the perf.,
see e.g. Ges-K § 106g. ‘let (you) leave,’ see Introd. § 3.36. ‘king of Egypt,’ see
Introd. § 5.66. Tjbnb, inf. cstr. qal (beside rob; see e.g. Ges-K § 69x; Meyer
§ 78.9a) + b of -|bn (see Introd. § 3.14.1).
nj?in t ? (see Introd. § 3.21.2) presents problems in the light of 6:1; 13:3,
9 et al. and also of 3:20, because according to these texts it is precisely strong
378 EXODUS 2:23-4:19
pressure that will cause Pharaoh to let Israel go. For that reason many
exegetes, cf. LXX (iav nf)) and Vulg. (nisi), prefer the reading lib dn or an
explanation in the spirit of LXX and Vulg.; that yields the following picture:
the king does not permit the people to leave, except if heavy pressure is put
on him (the pressure is mentioned in 3:20). This interpretation has always had
many advocates (e.g. Rashi, Baentsch, Bohl, Beer, Heinisch, Noth, Te Stroete).
Whether this interpretation requires a change in the text is hard to decide. The
question whether kVi can mean ‘unless’ is answered both negatively (e.g.
Dillmann) as well as positively (e.g. Ehrlich, Schmidt). Sam. Pent, reads
instead of kVi; that turns the end of 3:19 into a question: ‘won’t he do it by a
mighty hand?’ It is not clear who is the subject (the king?). If one stays with
MT, several interpretations are possible. Rashi mentions the view that the last
words of 3:19 must be related to Pharaoh: the king gives no permission ‘and
not because his hand is mighty’ (for it is not; that is clear from 3:20). The
explanation goes back to TO (cf. also TPsJ; TNf follows MT). There are also
those who relate the last words of 3:19 to Moses and the elders with him: the
king gives no permission, not even when Moses cum suis put pressure on him;
the following contrast between 3:19 and 3:20 is assumed: the t of people
leaves the king cold (3:19); he does not spring into action until he feels the t
of yhwh (e.g. Cassuto; referring to Nachmanides, he describes npin td nVi
with ‘even if you make your demands militantly’). The problem with relating
npin td to people is that elsewhere the phrase is used in reference to yhwh.
Moreover, the pressure which Moses, as yhwh’s messenger, is to put on
Pharaoh cannot be separated from yhwh’s own pressure. According to others,
one can also stay with MT by relating the end of 3:19 to yhwh: despite the
fact that Pharaoh is struck by the hand of yhwh, he keeps refusing; this does
not contradict the fact that yhwh’s smiting of Pharaoh must cause him to let
the people go (3:20); Pharaoh is forced to allow them to go, but he does not
want to; he pursues Israel (14:5ff.), ‘from which it is clearly to be seen that the
strong hand of God had not broken his will, and yet Israel was brought out by
the same strong hand of yhwh’ (Keil; cf. Lange). The last interpretation is
very contrived. If one wants to stay with MT, one can, in connection with 3:20,
relate the words in question to the plagues sent by yhwh: the first nine
plagues are without lasting effect on Pharaoh; not even his disposition chan
ges; not until the tenth plague does he change his mind (cf. 11:1; 12:31); see
e.g. Henton Davies and also Dillmann, who regards 3:19 as a gloss. In the light
of the events narrated in Exodus, this interpretation looks attractive. However,
in view of 3:20, the interpretation ‘unless forced’ is the most obvious.95 In the
light of the sequel, the likely interpretation of 3:19-20 is: driven to the break
ing point by all the plagues, reaching their climax in the tenth plague, Pharaoh
at last must give in; heaven and earth must be moved before Pharaoh finally
95 Cf. E. Puech, “Un emploi m£connu de wV en aram6en et en li^breu," RB 91 (1984), 88-101.

gives in. Elsewhere the positive aspect of Pharaoh’s stubbornness is pointed

out; it offers yhwh the opportunity to abundantly demonstrate his sovereign
power (ll:9ff.).
3:20 ‘Therefore / will use my destructive power and strike the Egyptians with all
the mighty deeds I can do to themy and after that he will have to let you go. ’
*nnton, for the perf. and perfects in the following verses see e.g. Ges-K § 106m.
‘destructive power,’ see Introd. § 3.21.2. roo, see 2:11.
rixto: (OT 44x; Exod. 3:20; 34:10) part. pi. fern. niph. of Nto, ‘to be extraor
dinary,’ ‘to be wonderful.’96 nNto:, ‘wonders,’ is used as a noun and occurs
especially in the Psalms. It signifies yhwh’s startling acting, one that as
tonishes (it is not a case of a setting aside of the natural order; the Israelite
did not know the natural - supernatural distinction). Often that acting results
in the freeing of those who are on yhwh’s side (Josh. 3:5; Judg. 6:13; Ps.
72:18; 86:10 et al.). N to (OT 13x) has a similar meaning in 15:11.97 Here
nN to: denotes the plagues that precede the exodus, to before Ti«to3 can in
some instances also mean ‘all sorts of (cf. LuthV); see e.g. Gen. 24:10; Lev.
19:23. Probably the clause with itfN denotes a restriction: all those deeds which
I, considering the possibilities, can perform in Egypt. In a translation, ‘my
startling deeds’ is less elegant.
iDipp, the suffix relates to onsp, which elsewhere (e.g. 10:7; 12:33) occurs as
a feminine (cf. Ges-K § 106h, i, 134g). Dip (OT ca. 225x; Exod. 16x.), ‘the
inner part’ (of the body), ‘the midst’ (cf. TWAT, VII, 161 ff.), stands in 12:9;
29:13, 17, 22 for the intestines (of the sacrificial animal) (cf. Lev. 1:9, 13; 3:3,
9, 14 et al.). Often Dip is used with a prior preposition (ca. 140x + d ; ca.
40x + p), either in cstr. st. in a construct chain (cf. 8:18; 31:14), or with a
pronominal suffix (e.g. 17:7; 34:9), and often (like -pn; see 2:5) serves to
strengthen the preposition; cf. Brockelmann § 106i; H.J. van Dijk, VT 18
(1968), 17f. DipD can be translated in Exodus as ‘among,’ ‘in the midst of
(3:20; 34:10, 12), as ‘in’ (8:18; 23:21), as ‘with,’ ‘by’ (10:1 [cf. 11:10); 17:7; 33:3,
5; 34:9), while Dipa means ‘out,’ ‘away from’ (23:25; 31:14). p —iron, see Introd.
§3.1.1. nto\ jussive of nto (see Introd. § 3.49); the verb is used 2x in this
verse: the nto of yhwh brings about the nto of Pharaoh.
3:21 And I will make the Egyptians favourably disposed toward this people and
so, when you leave, you will not have to go empty-handed. ’
p (OT ca. 70x; Exod. 9x) is a derivative of pn (OT ca. 80x), ‘to be grac
96 In Exodus also the verb n to is used, which is usually (but note T H A T , II, 416) regarded as
another form of Nto; n to niph. + p , ‘to be different from,’ ‘to be distinct from’ (33:16); nto
hiph. + accus. ‘to except’ (8:18), + pD, ‘to distinguish between’ (deal in different ways with) (9:4;
11:7).
97 See further T H A T , II, 413ff.; T W A T , VI, 569ff.; Wheeler Robinson, 37ff.; Wilms, 115ff.
380 exodus 2:23-4:19
ious.’ In Exodus the term occurs in the expression *rua in in: (3:21; 11:3; 12:36;
see Introd. § 3.36) and in the expression in tcta, ‘find favour in the sight
o f (33:12, 13 [2x], 16, 17; 34:9; cf. Gen. 30:27; 32:6; 33:8, 10, 15 et al.). In
Exodus, Moses is always the subject of the last expression (in 33:6 + the
people) and it denotes the relationship between God and humankind (cf. Gen.
6:8; 18:3; 19:19; Num. 11:11, 15 et al.). More in general, the expression always
has in view the relationship of a person of lower status (the subject) to a
person of higher status. The latter can show his sincere interest (in) in the
former. The expression of the eyes reveals to what extent such is the case, and
so the eyes become the gauge by which the lower placed individual can gauge
how the higher placed one feels toward him. The expression is best rendered
by ‘to gain/enjoy the favour/affection of,’ or by (the subject becomes object) ‘to
be favourably disposed toward.’ The expression can be used as introduction to
or ground of a prayer (33:13; 34:9; cf. e.g. Gen. 18:3; 33:10). The adjective pan
(OT 13 x; always with respect to God) is found in 22:26 with the meaning ‘full
of compassion’ and in 34:6 as part of the word-pair ptm oirn (cf. Ps. 86:15;
103:8; cf. Dvni pan in Ps. 111:4; 112:4 et al.). With the exception of 22:26, pan
always occurs together with a form of om. In this connection note, too, that in
33:19 (2x) after pn qal, ‘to be favourable/gracious,’ a n piel (see 13:2) is used,
can (OT 32 x) functioning as adverb (cf. Ges-K § lOOg; Joiion § 102b; Meyer
§ 41.6) occurs in 21:2, 11 with the meaning ‘for free,’ “without payment.’ See
further THAT, I, 587ff.; TWAT, III, 23ff.
nvrD»n (cf. 3:10, 12), the formulation is striking, because in 3:18ff. yhwh
always spoke of ‘you’ (Moses and the elders and also the Israelites in general);
‘this people’ seems to be employed from the perspective of the Egyptians,
‘leave,’ see Introd. § 3.14.1. Dj?n (OT 16x) (cf. Ges-K lOOg; Joiion § 102b;
Meyer § 41.6) functions as an adverb and in 3:21; 23:15; 34:20 means ‘empty-
handed’ (cf. TWAT, VII, 501 ff.).
3:22 ‘For all the women must ask their neighbours and those in their house for
jewelry o f silver and of gold and for clothing. These articles you can even put on
your children. So you shall plunder the Egyptians. ’
nStB) perf. qal of (OT ca. 170x), ‘to ask,’ is used in many different ways.
In Exodus bt<0 qal (OT ca. 160x) occurs in the sense of requesting infor
mation, turning to someone to be apprised of a certain matter (13:14)98 and
with the meaning ‘to request,’ ‘to desire’ (2 Sam. 3:13; 1 Kgs. 2:16, 20, 22 et
al.); the request can involve wanting to use an item for some length of time:
‘to borrow’ (22:13; cf. 2 Kgs. 4:3; 6:5). Controversial is whether *?kb qal in 3:22,
11:2; 12:35 means ‘to ask to borrow’ or ‘to ask as a gift’ (cf. e.g. Judg. 8:24ff.)
(see below). S<B hiph. (OT 2x; 12:36; 1 Sam. 1:28) signifies the (favourable)
98 So also in standard formulas for greeting: OI^B^ ^KB, ‘inquire concerning someone’s well-
being’ (18:7; see at 4:18).
response to a request: ‘honour the request/ ‘hand over,’ ‘to loan/give as a gift/
See further THAT, II, 841ff.; TWAT, VII, 910ff.
ntfN (see Introd. § 3.2.3), ‘every woman/ I have rendered as a pi., and in
accordance with it also the following words. nn:p» fern. + suffix of (OT ca.
20x; derivative of pa>; see 24:16), ‘neighbour’ (12:4; 2 Kgs. 4:3; Jer. 6:21; Ps.
3:12 et al.). The assumption seems to be that the Israelites live among the
Egyptians (see Introd. § 8.6.3). mi, see 2:22; not entirely clear is who are
meant by the niva rru. Various interpretations are given: ‘de waardin haars
huizes’ (SV), ‘huiswaardin’ (LuthV), that is, the woman who is in charge of the
house where the Israelite woman lives (possibly the translation harks back to
the Vulg.: hospita = guest and hostess); a similar translation is also found in
older commentators; see e.g. Murphy: ‘either a visitor or a mistress whom she
served, in any case her superior, and perhaps owner.’ It is questionable if the
Hebrew can bear this translation. Currently it is customary to think of a
‘member of the family.’99 When additional clarification is given, the term is
defined as a woman who, either as a guest or a tenant, resides for a certain
length of time in the home of the Israelite (Dillmann), or even as a female
slave or hired hand (Baentsch; cf. McNeile). Those last people won’t have had
much to give. If the term is regarded as referring to a guest, one will have to
assume that, according to the picture given here, the Israelites shared in
Egypt’s social life and counted (affluent) Egyptians among their friends. That
assumption flies in the face of the fact that elsewhere in Exodus Israel is
depicted as an oppressed people. Certainly it goes too far to make a sharp
distinction here between Pharaoh’s attitude toward Israel and the attitude of
the Egyptians (see Holzinger and also Dillmann) (cf. 11:3b). What appears to
be meant is that, thanks to y h w h , just prior to the exodus the Egyptians were
favourably disposed to the Israelites (3:21). As regards the term itself, the most
obvious view is that it refers to someone (an Egyptian woman) living in the
same house.
‘jewelry/ see Introd. § 3.27. ‘silver’ and ‘gold/ see Introd. § 3.28. Tbrto (OT
ca. 30x) is used for the upper garment, the mantle (consisting of a large piece
of fabric, that could be thrown over the shoulders) and for clothing in general.
In the last sense it occurs in 3:22; 12:35; 19:10, 14. As a mantle rbrto was used
for keeping and carrying things (12:34; cf. Judg. 8:25; 1 Sam. 21:10; Prov. 30:4
and see also 2 Kgs. 4:39) and for protection against the cold while sleeping
(22:26; cf. Deut. 22:17 and also Gen. 9:25; Deut. 10:18; Isa. 3:6, 7). With the
same meaning as rto&D there is also nrf?? (OT 16x; the term is likely due to
the exchange of the second and third consonants of r6»&); see 22:8, 25 (Sam.
Pent, has also here see also Deut. 24:13; 29:4). The is used for a
99 C f. a lr e a d y LXX: 7iapa yeixovoq x a i a\WJ)cf|VO\) aircfjQ; th e ta r g u m s, t o o , th in k o f

n e ig h b o u r s , p e o p le liv in g n e a r b y , m e m b e r s o f th e fa m ily , w h o a r e to b e th e a d d r e s s e e s o f th e
req u est.
382 exodus 2:23-4:19
cover while sleeping (Deut. 24:13), can be given as a gift (1 Kgs. 10:25) etc.
Silver and gold objects are mentioned more often in connection with clothing,
as gifts or as spoils (3:22; 12:35; cf. e.g. Gen. 24:53; 45:22; Josh. 22:8; 1 Kgs.
10:25; Zech. 14:14). See in connection with clothing also ti? (see 21:8), mcp
(see 21:10) and ruins (see 28:4).100
on?, see Introd. § 3.48; but for a different view, see Philo (VM, I, 141); in the
exodus the Israelites carried the treasures in part on their backs, and in part
they transported them on beasts of burden, ‘children,’ see Introd. § 3.10.1. bn:,
see 2:19.101

3:22 has always raised questions about morality. The verse belongs to those
passages in the OT that caused Marcion to oppose the God of the OT to the
God of the NT (see e.g. Tertullian, Adv, Marc,, II, 20; PL, II, 308). The
question presents itself: does y h w h here order theft? Perhaps it should be
added: and deception? To start with the last question: in Esther Rabbah VII,
13, Hainan accuses the Israelites of all sorts of terrible things. He also talks
about the exodus out of Egypt. He portrays Pharaoh as a great benefactor (he
let the Israelites live in Egypt, fed them during the famine, etc.). However, the
Israelites asked him to be allowed to make sacrifices three days into the
wilderness (5:3; cf. 3:18) and for that asked to borrow silver and gold vessels.
However, they took off with these treasures. Pharaoh, noticing that and
wanting to get his money back, drowned in the sea due to the magic Moses
performed with his staff. Can the Hebrew bear this interpretation? biiti qal can
mean (see above) both ‘to ask as a gift’102 (if not: ‘to demand;* e.g. UV and
CV) as well as ‘to ask to borrow.* It cannot be determined which meaning is
meant here. If one assumes that the Egyptians did not know any better than
that Israel went three days into the wilderness for a sacrificial feast (3:18), one
might opt for the last view and propound that Israel had to rob the Egyptians
by means of a ruse (see e.g. Holzinger; Meyer, IN, 10ff.; Te Stroete on ll:2f.).
Conservative expositors are wary of this approach, all the more because the
morally questionable behaviour is not, like in the case of e.g. Abraham (Gen.
12:10ff.) and Jacob (Gen. 30:37ff.), of human origin, but from y h w h himself.
That leads them to suggest, in the light of the course of events, that after the
plagues and the lengthy negotiations between Pharaoh and Moses, the Egyp
tians must have known that Israel wanted to leave the country permanently. In
100 S e e f u r th e r A u S , V , 1 9 9 f. e t al.; B H H W y II, 9 6 2 ff.; B R L , 1 8 5 ff.; D B , I, 6 2 5 ; ID B , I, 8 6 9 ff .;

T W A T , V II , 8 2 2 ff.; B e n z in g e r , 7 2 ff.; H o n ig , 5 4 ff.
101 F o r th e r e n d e r in g o f in th e v e r s io n s , s e e T h .C . V r ie z e n , J E O L 2 3 ( 1 9 7 3 - 7 4 ) , 3 9 9 ; id e m ,
" O u d e a n d j o n g e r e J o o d s e c o m m e n t a r e n o p E x. 3:21 v. e n v e r w a n te v e r z e n ( l l : 2 v . ; 1 2 :3 5 v .),* in F s
H .A . B r o n g e r s , Vruchten van d e U ithof, U tr e c h t 1 9 7 4 , 1 3 4 -4 2 .
S e v e r a l J e w is h e x e g e te s , a m o n g o th e r s R a s h b a m , h a v e d e fe n d e d th is e x e g e s is ; s e e L e ib o w itz ,
1 8 7 f.
short, the Egyptians knew where they were at and acted in freedom (e.g.
Murphy, Keil, Heinisch). It has also been suggested that the Israelites bor
rowed the ornaments and clothing with the intention of returning them. But
when Pharaoh reneged on his word and went in pursuit, a state of war ensued
between Egypt and Israel, so that Israel, according to war law, could keep the
borrowed stuff (see in Dillmann on 12:35f.). Ibn Ezra believes that, even
though the Israelites had not intended to return the borrowed items, they are
not morally culpable, because all human possessions belong to God and he
may do with them whatever he pleases. Going by the text of Exodus, the
conclusion is inescapable that not only Moses but also the Israelites knew that
the purpose of the confrontation with Pharaoh was the permanent departure
from Egypt (compare 4:30f. with 3:17). Well whatever, a passage like this
ought not to be put on the fine-tuned scale of theological notions. The passage
intends to say how the Israelites can get the better of their arch enemies
because y h w h himself cast a spell on them (3:21), so that they came to like
the Israelites. And as to ‘borrowing* or not ‘borrowing,* the text talks about
‘plundering.* Many different attempts have been made to justify what the
Israelites did.
Keil, e.g., stresses that bxi piel (cf. LXX and Vulg.) is to be read as ‘to
plunder,’ and that Israel’s conduct ought to be seen in the light of the state of
war between Egypt and Israel. The Israelites carry the gifts with them as
trophies of victory (Keil even speaks of ‘a prelude to the victory which the
people of God will one day obtain in their conflict with the power of the
world;’ cf. Zech. 14:14). Moreover, it should not be overlooked that the
Egyptians had exploited the Israelites by subjecting them to compulsory
slavery. The two arguments - a situation of war prevailed; Israel had been
exploited - are also used by others,103 and have a long history. They are
already found in Philo (VMy I, 141f.) and several church fathers.104 The view
that the treasures constituted payment for the slavery is also found in Wisd.
10:17; Jub. 48:18; bSanh. 91a; ExR. Ill, 11. Leibowitz, 189f., draws attention to
the following explanation in Midrash Hemdat Hayamim: the bribes they had to
give to the Egyptians to keep the children alive during the edict of 1:22 are
being reclaimed.
In view of the offensive character of 3:22 it is not strange that also the
allegorical explanation has had its defenders. Gregory of Nyssa (VM> I, 29)
notes that the wealth of Egypt was recompense for the work, but in II, 112ff.,
he does not want to hear of trickery and lies and considers the literal explana-
103 S e e e .g . H e in is c h ( h e a d d s th a t Israel a ls o had to le a v e m u ch p r o p e r ty b e h in d d u e to t h e ir

h a s ty d e p a r tu r e ; h o m e s w ith fu r n ish in g s a n d fie ld s w ith c r o p s ) a n d F e n s h a m ( h e a d d s th a t th e
p r o s p e c t o f s p o ils w a s an e x tra in c e n tiv e to th e m a t e r ia lis tic p e o p le to le a v e ).
^ S e e e .g . C le m e n t o f A le x a n d r ia , S tro m a ta , I, 2 3 , 157; T e r tu llia n , A d v . M a rc., II, 2 0 ; I r e n a e u s ,
A d v . H acr., IV , 3 0 , Iff.
384 exodus 2:23-4:19
tion unsatisfactory: meant is that the Israelites enriched themselves with the
culture and skills of the heathen; they could use these in the construction of
the sanctuary. So for Gregory the story becomes justification for Christians to
make the culture of the Hellenistic world their own. It is to the benefit of the
church! A similar interpretation is already given by Origen (Epist. Greg.
Thaumaturge PG, XI, 88ff.) and had the approval of other patres. This ap
proach is still found today in some form in some commentaries. Knight notes:
'When they go, they will take with them the wisdom and technology of Egypt
and use these to the glory of God in the construction of the Tabernacle and
the priestly vestments.’
Cassuto and Daube, 49f.,105 also link slavery and remuneration, and think
that 3:21 f. must be understood in the light of Deut. 15:13f. (there, too, opn is
used):106 God moves the Egyptians to treat the Israelites in the same way as
the owner of a Hebrew slave had to treat his slave when he was given his
freedom in the seventh year. He had to be showered with gifts. Assuming the
existence of a connection between 3:21 f. and Deut. 15:13ff., the likelihood is
greater, also in the light of the structure of the Pentateuch, that the experien
ces of Israel (3:21f.; 12:35f.) have impacted the origin of Deut. 15:13ff. (see in
particular vs. 15) (cf. Cole; Daube opposes this possibility). Moreover, the
Egyptians do not give of their own accord, but have to be asked. In my
opinion, it is doubtful that this assumed link exists. 3:21f. is to be read as
follows: owing to y h w h ’s spell, the remarkable situation will come about that
the role of the Egyptians toward Israel will be altogether different; from being
oppressors they will turn into friends; no longer do they want to be exploiters,
but instead they are eager to give away their wealth. They make it possible for
the Israelites to leave with all sorts of treasures, and so the Israelites, with the
help of the Egyptians, can plunder the Egyptians. When y h w h ’s effect has
come to an end, when the spell is broken and they are themselves again, they
will realize what has happened and be furious (cf. 14:5).
If the view that the treasures carried along were either payment for the
slavery or spoils of war is rejected, the question concerning the meaning of
3:22 presents itself afresh. Josephus (AJ, II, 314f.) thinks that some Egyptians
gave them gifts to speed the departure, and that others did so on account of
the friendship they had with them.107 He adds that when the Israelites left,
the Egyptians wept and felt sorry that they had treated them so badly. A
modern expositor, Hertz, detects the following tendency in 3:22: the relation
ship with the Egyptians must be restored; the Israelites must leave the Egyp-
165 S e e id e m in F s O . E iB fe ld t, Von Ugarit nach Q u m ra n , B e r lin 1 9 6 1 2 , 3 5 f.; c f. L e ib o w itz ,

1 8 9 ff.
106 T h e n o t io n is n o t n ew ; s e e a lr e a d y B B , 3 9 .
107
A s r e g a r d s th e fr ie n d ly r e la tio n s h ip b e tw e e n E g y p tia n s a n d I sr a e lite s, s e e a ls o M ck. 1 2 :3 6 (I ,
105).
tians with good memories of their friendship, in order that the command of
Deut. 23:8 can be understood and followed by Israel.108 With a reference to
3:18 (and combined with the view that = ‘to borrow’) it has been sug
gested that the ornaments and clothing were intended for the festival in
honour of y h w h ; cf. Hos. 2:15 (see already above and e.g. Holzinger, Hyatt
and also Dillmann). J. Morgenstern109 even believes that one can say that
the girls needed the clothing and jewelry, so that, in bridal dress, they could
participate in the cultic dances (cf. 15:20f.). There is also the idea that 3:22 is
etiological: the verse serves to explain the origin of the treasures which the
Israelites used in the making of the golden calf (32:2ff.) and the construction
of the tent shrine (25:3ff.; 33:4, 6; 35:22ff.).110. Finally, Th.C. Vriezen111
proposes to translate bs: piel as ‘take as much as they could get or carry’112
and advocates that the text is to be read against the background of a custom in
the Ancient Near East: y h w h is the victor; the Israelites share in his victory,
and therefore are entitled to request gifts from the Egyptians, the vanquished
(1 Kgs. 10:25; 2 Sam. 8:10; Isa. 45:14ff.; 49:22ff.; 54; 60; 61; asking for gifts was
not impolite; see 1 Kgs. 10:13).
In my judgment it is wrong to overburden 3:22. The announcement is made
that the Israelites will have the opportunity to despoil their enemies, the
Egyptians. That as such, plus the fact that it will enable them to leave the land
rich (cf. Gen. 15:14; Ps. 105:37 and see also Gen. 12:16, 20), is cause for joy!
What y h w h told Moses in 3:2If., Moses later ordered the Israelites to do
(ll:2f.), an order they also carried out (12:35f.). Looking at the various
passages, it is striking that they are not only quite similar, but also display
remarkable dissimilarities: in 11:2 not only the women, but also the men, all
the people, are ordered to speak to the neighbours (different terms are used
than in 3:22); 12:35 speaks in a general sense of Israelites and Egyptians; 11:2,
while mentioning silver and gold, leaves out clothing; children are mentioned
neither in ll:2f. nor in 12:35f.113 In the Sam. Pent. (cf. also SamT) the
variations are removed by altering the first two words of the MT of 3:22 in
accordance with 11:2 MT to: nmm n«D ru&ro iron nKD ar* and by adding to
the end of 11:2: (see also LXX). Moreover, also in 11:3 the text of the
Sam. Pent, has been adapted to 3:21, while in 3:21, after onso, in agreement
with 12:36, D'fcKan has been added to the text (see also LXX). To many
108 S e e a lr e a d y B . J a c o b , " G o tt u n d P h arao," MGWJ 6 8 (1 9 2 4 ) , 1 1 8 -2 6 , 2 0 2 - 1 1 , 2 6 8 - 8 9 ( 2 8 8 ) .

109 d e s p o ilin g o f th e E g y p tia n s," JBL 6 8 (1 9 4 9 ) , 1 -2 8 .
110 S e e B a e n ts c h , B e e r , H y a tt a n d a ls o D illm a n n , a n d e sp . W . Z im m e r li, " D ie S p e n d u n g v o n
S c h m u c k fu r e in K u lto b je k t," in Melanges bibliqucs ct orientaux en Vhonncur de M. Henri Gazelles,
K e v e la e r /N e u k ir c h e n -V lu y n 1 9 8 1 , 5 1 3 -2 8 .
111 "A R e in te r p r e t a tio n o f E x o d u s 3 :2 1 - 2 2 a n d R e la te d T exts," JEOL 2 3 (1 9 7 3 -7 4 ), 3 8 9 -4 0 1 .
112 In m y o p in io n , th is tr a n s la tio n a g a in c o m e s d o w n to ‘e m p ty o u t ,’ ‘t o r o b ;’ f u r t h e r m o r e , it
d o e s n o t g o w ith ‘y o u m u st p u t o n .’
F o r m o r e d if f e r e n c e s s e e V r ie z e n , JEOL 2 3 ( 1 9 7 3 - 7 4 ) , 3 8 9 ff.
386 EXODUS 2:23-4:19
modern expositors these variations are an indication that the text has various
layers and is the product of a long history of development (see e.g. Vriezen,
op. cit.). To that can be added that several authors consider the mention of the
plundering of the Egyptians by the Israelites as a separate theme, which
originally was only part of a certain tradition about the exodus.114 Coats
even reconstructs the following tradition beside the tradition about the death
of the firstborn and the Passover: when the plagues had no affect on Pharaoh
(10:28f.), the Israelites, thanks to yhwh’s influence on the Egyptians, could
rob the Egyptians under the pretence of wanting to borrow; after that they
escaped in secret. No matter how one judges the view that the texts consists of
various layers, I do not think it is necessary to put the various passages over
against each other. Note, too, that ‘you’ (Moses and the elders; the people) in
3:22 is subject of ‘put on’ and ‘plunder.’ It is good to understand 3:22 as a
weighty statement: women play the chief role in the plundering; even children
will be decked with the ornaments and clothing of the Egyptians. One might
make the pointed observation that it is more typical of women than of men to
ask for jewelry (Ibn Ezra). It seems better, however, to assume that women
and children are mentioned as the representatives of the weaker part of the
population. It is not at the request of strong males that the Egyptians will part
with their treasures, but they will give them to housewives! The likely reason
the children are mentioned is not because the Israelites, like their modern
descendants, always give their children the best, or because there were mis
givings about the plundering, and the wrong would not be as serious if it was
not done for oneself but for children (Ehrlich). What seems to be meant is
that so much jewelry and clothing was given that not only adults but also
children wore it (cf. Strack).
Moses’ third objection and God's response (4:1-9)

Moses is still doubtful about the successful outcome of the liberation of Israel.
He even asks himself if it is possible to make a start with it, and intimates the
possibility that, despite the fact that he can explain in detail who his sender is
(3:14f.), and knows what he must say and do (3:16ff.), his words will fall on
deaf ears. He wonders what he should do in case doubts are raised about the
genuineness of the revelation he received, and his right to act as yhwh’s
spokesman is being questioned (3:16). yhwh enables him, teaches him to do
three signs. With these Moses will be able to convince (for ‘three’ see Introd.
§ 4.4.1) the people of his divine mission. As a wonder-worker (cf. also 15:22f.;
17:lff.; Num. 21:4ff.) he will be able to perform three signs of the same type: a
certain object, a certain substance, is totally changed. Two of the signs he may
perform immediately, namely, the two that consist of a dual manifestation of
miraculous power: not only is a miracle being performed, but the situation is
114 S e e G .W . C o a ts , “D e s p o ilin g th e E g y p tia n s ,- V T 1 8 ( 1 9 6 8 ) , 4 5 0 - 7 .

also brought back to what it was prior to the miracle (4:2ff.).115 One may
perhaps even say that these signs could boost Moses’ self-confidence (so e.g.
Murphy, Keil, Beer, Hyatt). The third can be done only in Egypt (4:9).
The passage is to be read against the background of the thinking of the
ancient world: one who performs or predicts signs shows thereby to be in
contact with the deity (see e.g. Deut. 13:lff.; 1 Sam. 10:7, 9; 1 Kgs. 13:3, 5; Isa.
7:11 and also Jesus’ response in Mark 8:1 Iff. and further John 10:41).116
The three signs have not only in common that everyone of them involves
transformation, they are also alike in that they are governed by the life-death
contrast: the serpent (4:2-4), the hand covered with open sores (4:6-7), the
blood (4:9); all three belong to the sphere of death (see below). So a person
who can call them up or make them disappear is one who has been given
power over life and death. More compelling proof for his relationship with the
deity is not possible.
4:1 But Moses objected: ‘What if they do not believe me and do not want to
obey me, but say, ‘ YU wit did not appear to you,’
)j?*i imperf. cons, qal of mi? I (OT ca. 315x; qal 309x; Exod. 8x) (for mu II
see 1:11). In the lexicons (e.g. Ges-B, BDB, KBL) ‘to answer’ is given as the
primary meaning of mi?. Because it often doesn’t involve a dialogue or a verbal
response, the view has been defended that the primary meaning is ‘to
react.’117 mi? is often used together with t o r , joined by copulative waw (4:1;
19:8; 24:3, and see e.g. Num. 22:18; Deut. 1:14, 41; 21:7). The use of the
formula in the OT shows that, at least originally, there was no tautology.118
According to Cassuto (on 4:1), often it is not a case of simple repetition; the
formula aims ‘to indicate the enunciation of a new thought or plan on the part
of the speaker.’ One can regard it as a hendiadys. That form of speech can be
expressed in various ways, e.g. with ‘object’ (4:1) and with ‘assert,’ ‘assure’
(19:8; 24:3). In these texts humans are the subject. Often God is the subject of
ms? (78x; in Exod. only in 19:19). In 19:19 God responds through thunder. In
the administration of justice ms? is used in 20:16 (+ 3) and 23:2 (+ bv).
Delekat, 39, holds that ms? is used here in its original meaning (according to
him) of ‘to turn to,’ here in the sense of ‘to turn against.’ C.J. Labuschagne,
THAT, II, 339, in contrast, defines the meaning of the verb as ‘responding, on
the basis of a situation one has witnessed, before a court of law.’ Clear is that
here the verb denotes ‘to give witness.’119 Some think that my I is also used
115 C f. S . B e r tm a n , *A N o t e o n th e R e v e r s ib le M ir a c le ,’ H R 3 ( 1 9 6 4 ) , 3 2 3 - 7 .
116 C f. S t o lz ( s e e a t 3 :1 2 ); T .W . O v e r h o lt, ’ S e e in g is B e lie v in g : T h e S o c ia l S e t t in g o f P r o p h e t ic
A c t s o f P o w e r ,- J S O T 2 3 ( 1 9 8 2 ) , 3 -3 1 ; fo r d a ta fr o m o t h e r c u ltu r e s s e e G a s te r , 2 3 2 .
117 T H A T , II, 3 3 5 ff.; c f. L . D e le k a t , V T 14 ( 1 9 6 4 ) , 3 8 ff.; s e e fu r th e r T W A T , V I, 2 3 3 f f .
118 S e e P. J o iio n , B ib 1 3 ( 1 9 3 2 ) , 3 0 9 -1 4 .
**9 C f. H .J . B o e c k e r , R c d c fo n n en ties R cchtslcbcns, N e u k ir c h e n -V lu y n 1 9 7 0 " , 1 0 3 .
388 EXODUS 2:23-4:19
in 15:21; 32:18 (e.g. Mandelkern, who attributes to rm I also the sense of

canere, cantare, carmine celebrare etc.). More often the forms used there are
attributed to a root nw IV ‘to sing’ (e.g. Ges-B, BDB, KBL). Wrongly accor
ding to Joiion: nw also has the meaning ‘entonner’ (starting a song) and
‘reprendre’ (starting, taking over in antiphonal singing); ‘les deux sens entonner
et reprendre du langage musical ne sont que deux extensions naturelles des
deux sens usuels de rox? prendre la parole et repondre’ (312). According to
Joiion, in 15:21 the rendering ‘to start’ is possible (cf. LXX and Vulg. and see
Ps. 147:7), but considering the length of the line in the verse it is more likely
that one should think of the response in antiphonal singing (cf. 1 Sam. 18:7;
Ezra 3:11). The use of the inf. cstr. piel in 32:18 raises questions (see there).
The hapax legomenon njy, used in 21:10, Labuschagne, 337, associates with ruy
I: the favourable response of the woman is assumed (cf. Hos. 2:17 and see also
Hos. 2:23f.). Uncertainty exists about the derivation (e.g. Ges-B, BDB, KBL,
Mandelkern), unanimity about the meaning ‘marital relations.’ ]m (with
adversative waw), see Introd. § 3.15.2.
iroir imperf. hiph. of px. The root px belongs to the most discussed terms
of the OT. Its basic meaning is disputed. Often this is said to be ‘being firm,
reliable.’ I restrict myself to a discussion of the use in Exodus. ]dx hiph. (OT
51 x; Exod. 8x; beside it niph. 45x) is used in 4:1, 8 (2x), 9, with b (OT
14x), in 4:1, 8a with the negative in the sense of ‘refusing to believe,’ that is,
to have no confidence in someone and the words he speaks, regard as un
reliable. px + n'xn bpb in 4:8b can be understood as ‘believing the message/the
significance of the sign’ = believing that Moses is the legitimate envoy of
y h w h (the sign is meant to prove it; it aims to inspire trust, faith; cf. Num.
14:11). Another possibility is that p s hiph. is used in the absolute sense and
an object ‘you’ is implied: they will believe you on the strength of the message
(the compelling power) of the sign. The first view is the most obvious. It is
self-evident that in 4:9 ps> hiph. + b must be understood as px hiph. + bpb (cf.
also the following TjVp1?) in the light of 4:8 and demands a similar interpre
tation. In 4:31 px hiph. is used in the absolute sense. Against the background
of 4:8-9 and 30 it appears one must think here of: (a) the message of the signs,
viz. that y h w h sent Moses and speaks through him, or (what amounts to the
same) (b) Moses, thanks to the signs he performed. Signs can have the result
of inspiring confidence in a person. Also events of another nature can inspire
such confidence. In 14:31; 19:9 ]ox hiph. + 3 (OT 24x) is used in connection
with an event: the result of the crossing of Yam Suph etc. is that the Israelites
‘put their trust in’ y h w h and in Moses (14:31; cf. 2 Chr. 20:20); in the case of
Moses it means that the people are willing to accept him as y h w h ’s spokes
man; because y h w h speaks to Moses in a storm cloud, the people start to
trust Moses, regard him as a true divine emissary etc. (19:19). In 4:5 py hiph.
is followed by a clause beginning with 'D (cf. Job 9:16; 39:12; Lam. 4:12): ‘to
believe that,’ in the sense of ‘assume to be true that.’ In 4:1, 8, 9 px? hiph. is
used in conjunction with qal (see Introd. § 3.51.1) (cf. Deut. 9:23; Ps.
106:24f.). Trust, faith is inseparably associated with listening to, heeding. Of
the derivatives njion (OT 49x) is used in 17:12 (this is the only place where it
is used figuratively) to indicate that Moses* arms remained in the same
position, lifted up without falling down. not< (OT 127x) occurs in 18:21 in the
sense of ‘reliability’ (only here and in Neh. 7:2 in reference to people) and in
34:6 in the combination nDK} ion (cf. e.g. Gen. 24:27; 2 Sam. 6:6; 15:20; Ps.
86:15). Two interpretations are possible: (a) riDK signifies that the ion (see
15:13) of yhwh is firm, unchangeable, reliable; (b) ion and rm each point out
a specific quality of yhwh; naa his faithfulness.120
‘obey,’ see Introd. § 4.51.1; for 'bpo Sam. Pent, has 'b*\pb (see also SamT); cf.
4:8; the elders (see 3:18) are the implied subject of ‘to believe,’ ‘to put trust in’
etc.; here, too, it is assumed that they represent the people and articulate its
feelings (see also 4:29-31); for the imperfects see e.g. Ges-K § 107i. ‘appear,’
see Introd. § 3.46.2 and 3:16. yhwh, LXX reads 6 fleoq.
I have read Moses’ response as an ellipsis: ]m introduces a conditional
sentence; the expected apodosis (‘What then am I to do/say?’; cf. 3:13) is
missing; cf. the LXX; it has made the expected apodosis explicit; going by the
LXX the translators of the LV have complemented the text. The interpre
tation of Moses’ response as a conditional sentence (see e.g. Baentsch, Bohl,
Noth, Michaeli) best does justice to the coherence: Moses hooks into the
words of yhwh: ‘When they will obey you, ...* (3:18), and wants to know what
he must do if it should not turn out that way. It is often thought that Moses
means to say: ‘They will not believe me and will not obey me ...’ (see e.g.
Vulg. and Beer, Gispen, Te Stroete, Childs). The customary explanation of
3:18: ‘They will obey you,’ produces the following situation: Moses questions,
does not trust yhwh’s assurance. That would make Moses’ response unusually
sharp.121 It is not likely that Moses would have been so impudent in addres
sing his exalted conversational partner. Medieval Jewish exegetes have racked
their brains, trying to come up with an answer how to understand Moses’
objection to yhwh’s assurance (3:18). Various suggestions have been made to
show that there is no tension between the two: God said that the elders would
believe Moses; Moses states that the people will not believe him; or: they will
hear (3:18), but not believe in their hearts (4:1) (Ibn Ezra); Moses is under the
impression of what is said in 3:19; he thinks that at first the Israelites will
believe him, but no more when Pharaoh refuses to hear him (cf. 5:21; 6:9),
120 B ib l.: T H A T , I, 1 7 7 ff.; T W A T , I, 3 1 3 ff.; H . G r o s s , " D e r G la u b e a n M o s e n a c h E xodus

( 4 .4 .1 9 ) ," in F s W . E ic h r o d t, W ort - G c b o t - CUaube , Z u r ic h 1 9 7 0 , 5 7 -6 5 ; E . K e lle n b e r g e r , h a sa d
w a ’a m a t a ls A u sd ru c k eincr G la u b c n sfo n n , Z u r ic h 1982; N .H . R id d e r b o s , " E n k e le b e s c h o u w in g e n
n a a r a a n le id in g v an t a ’aminCl in J e s. 7:9," in F s W .H . G is p e n , Schrift cn u itleg , K a m p e n 1 9 7 0 ,
1 6 7 -7 8 .
121 In m y in te r p r e ta tio n , th e m o s t o n e ca n s a y is th a t th e r e w a s n o r e a s o n f o r th e o b j e c t io n o f
4 :1 , b e c a u s e M o s e s c o u ld h a v e in fe r r e d fr o m 3 :1 9 ff. th at th e I sr a e lite s w o u ld o b e y h im .
390 EXODUS 2:23-4:19
because of a true divine messenger it may be expected that Pharaoh will heed
his message (Nachmanides); they will believe in the message of the
rrrwt *»k rrntt (3:14), but not in Moses’ as a prophet (4:1); Moses is the first
prophet; the phenomenon of prophecy was not yet known (Maimonides). See
further Leibowitz, 75ff. These exegetes tty hard to show that Moses did not
contradict God. In contrast, in ExR. Ill, 12, it is stated in unvarnished language
that Moses’ response was improper. As stated above, neither of the two
standpoints is necessary. It is entirely in accord with Moses’ attempt to picture
the liberation of the Israelites as an impossible undertaking, that he counters
by noting that the possibility must be faced that they may not believe him. In
that case, what should he do?
The question has been raised as to a possible reason for Moses’ objection.
Cole suggests that the promised sign (3:12) is not enough for the people,
because it demands faith; Moses pleads for signs that inspire faith; moreover,
he cannot get the experiences described in 2:14 out of his mind (for Moses’
feelings see also 3:11). There is also the view that Moses’ doubt was not so
strange, considering that it had been ages since God had revealed himself
(Gen. 46:2); see Murphy (he adds that Moses, owing to his long absence, was
in some sense a stranger to his people) and cf. Lange, Henton Davies. Such
views are speculative.
4:2 Then YHWH answered him, What do you have in your hand?’ He answered,
A staff.’
rnn, the words no and m have been contracted into one word.122 Sam. Pent,
reads m no; see further Introd. § 2.2. It is not unlikely that both words were
combined to create a play on words with non. There is no way of telling
whether more than a play on words is intended. Rabbinic tradition gives the
following explanation for the contraction: with what you have in your hand —
rnp = ‘by means of this (staff)’ - you deserve to be struck, because you have
slandered the Israelites who are believers. See ExR. Ill, 12, and see also Rashi.
ntaa, see Introd. § 3.21.9,10, 11.
At first sight, y h w h ’s response to Moses’ objection causes surprise. He
seems to ignore Moses’ words and asks a strange question, because the answer
to it is so obvious. What else would a shepherd have in his hand but an
ordinary staff, a stick? Reading on, we discover that there is a reason for the
question: Moses (and along with him the readers) have been given an oppor
tunity to ascertain that Moses really had a stick in his hand, making the
surprise all the greater when moments later that stick turned into a real snake
(4:3).
122 C f. Isa. 3 :1 5 a n d s e e D e litz s c h , 3 0 ; G e s - K § 3 7 c ; J o iio n § 3 7 c a n d a ls o S .E . L o e u w e n s t a m m ,

U F 2 ( 1 9 7 0 ) , 3 1 f.
4:3 Thereupon he ordered, ‘Throw it on the ground. ’ He (Moses) threw it on the

ground and it became a snake, so that Moses shrunk back from it.
‘throw it,’ see 1:22. ‘on the ground,’ see Introd. § 3.6. ‘snake,’ see Introd.
§ 9.2.2. oj’i imperf. cons, qal of ou (OT ca. 160 x; qal ca. 155 x), to tty to get
away from the danger zone: ‘to escape,’ ‘to flee;’ see 4:3; 14:25 (+ ' jdo, see
Introd. § 3.42.3; cf. e.g. Num. 10:35; Josh. 10:11); 14:27; 21:13. In 4:3 (cf. Amos
5:19) it is a case of getting away from an animal; meant is that Moses steps
backward to get out of the reach of the animal. In 9:20 (cf. Judg. 6:11) on
hiph. is used in the sense of ‘to hurry off to a secret place.’ See further THAT,
II, 47ff., and the literature cited in connection with rro (see 2:15).
4:4 Thereupon YHWH ordered, ‘Reach out your hand and seize it by the tail. ’ He
reached out his hand and grasped it, and it turned into a staff in his hand.
‘reach out,’ see Introd. § 3.49.1. ‘hand,’ see Introd. § 3.21.1, 6. ihR) imper. qal
(see Ges-K § 64c; Joiion § 69b) of itir (OT ca. 60 x; qal 57 x), ‘to seize;’ the
verb is also used metaphorically; so in 15:14, 15. mi, ‘tail’ (cf. Judg. 15:14
[2x]; Job 40:17); pirn imperf. cons, qal (see Ges-K § 29g; Joiion § 31d) of pm,
see Introd. § 3.19.1. is, does it refer to the tail (so LXX) or to the serpent?
Both ‘snake’ and ‘tail’ (see Judg. 15:4) are masculine words in Hebrew; likely
to the snake, for in its entirety it turned into a staff.
The first sign (4:2-4)

Snake-charming is an ancient art, which has achieved a high degree of perfec
tion in India and Egypt. Israel, too, was familiar with it (Jer. 8:17; Ps. 58:5f.;
Eccl. 10:11; Sir. 12:13). Often it is done by means of a flute. Classical writers
mention the Psylli, an African people, who also worked in Egypt, and who
either through innate abilities or by means of herbs, incantations, singing etc.
could control snakes. Also witnesses from more recent times tell stories of
snake-charming in Egypt, among others about the custom of making snakes
rigid, stiff as a stick, by hypnotizing them or by putting the hands on the
creature’s head. An eye witness tells an example of the enchanting of a
crocodile. In their rigid condition, the animals can be held by the end of their
tail like a rod. By seizing the snake by the tail, swinging it back and forth, and
by casting it to the ground, the spell is broken and the ‘rod’ turns into an
animal again.123
A person who produces evidence of possessing power to control snakes, so
that they leave him unharmed, proves thereby to others that he maintains a
special relationship with the deity (cf. Mark 16:18; Luke 10:19; Acts 28:2ff. and
see in the OT also Dan. 6:23f.). What is different in 4:2ff. is that in this case
^ See D B , III, 888f.; IV, 460f.; Dillmann on 7:9ff.; Montet, 90ff.; L. Shalit, “How Moses
Turned a Staff Into a Snake and Back Again,* BARev 9.3 (1983), 72-3; E.M. Yamauchi, “Magic in
the Biblical World,* TynB 34 (1983), 169-200.
392 EXODUS 2:23-4:19
there is no charming of a snake, of a turning of the animal into a stick; here

the opposite happens: a stick turns into a serpent, and that through a gesture
which in snake charming ends the charming of the snake. In Moses’ case the
‘charming’ comes to an end - one must think of a slithering, coiling and
hissing snake — by seizing it by the tail, a very dangerous thing to do, for it
increases the risk of getting bitten by the animal. The proper approach is to
grasp it by the neck. Moses is given the opportunity to perform a most
remarkable sign. For the people watching the act, it is impossible to regard
him as just another member of the guild of snake charmers. His ‘charming’ is
in a class by itself. Some have suggested that the ‘reversal’ is due to the
tradition process. Supposedly Moses (and Aaron) could do tricks with snakes;
see e.g. Honeycutt. It is also proposed that Moses had been trained in the
magic arts in Egypt. Neither the one nor the other is certain.
Why was this the sign by which Moses was to announce himself as y h w h ’s
messenger? It has been suggested that the Israelites in Egypt were familiar
with the practice of snake charming; therefore Moses, if he wanted to impress
them, had to employ means that were used by the Egyptians to prove that the
deity was with them (e.g. Holzinger, Clamer, and cf. also Cassuto). That
suggestion is better than the notion that the sign (was not only intended to
serve as Moses’ credentials but also) had a deeper meaning. Keil e.g. thinks
that the casting down of the staff and the confrontation with the serpent was
to make clear that abandoning his shepherd vocation would expose Moses to
many dangers, which he would be eager to escape; moreover, according to
Keil, the serpent who since paradise (Gen. 3:15) had been the enemy of the
seed of the woman, represents the power of the wicked one which prevailed in
Egypt; when Moses seized the snake and it became a rod again, the people
would know that Moses had received the power to overcome the cunning of
the snake and the might of Egypt (see further e.g. Murphy and Lange). A
more recent author, Knight, interprets the snake as the symbol of evil; Moses
has to seize it by the tail, that is, God orders him, ‘to go right into the very
fountain-head of all evil, to go right into the presence of Pharaoh;’ by seizing
it, Moses learned ‘that he could grip evil itself by the tail. He found that by
trusting in God he was doing what God does, that is to say, he was making use
of evil to bring about a new creative act of good.’124
Also the rabbis have associated the serpent with Gen. 3: the rod becomes a
snake because Moses had spoken slanderous language (4:1) and so behaved
like the serpent of Gen. 3:5; see e.g. ExR. Ill, 12 (the snake is also explained as
symbol of Pharaoh) and also Rashi and Nachmanides.
The church fathers and also older Christian commentators were very fond of
the symbolical interpretation. Here are some examples. Origen {Horn, in Exod.,
124 For a symbolic interpretation in similar vein, see also EJ. Hamlin, *The Liberator’s Ordeal:
A Study of Exodus 4:1-9," in Fs J. Muilenburg, Rhetorical Criticism , Pittsburgh 1974, 33-42 (p. 37).
VII) regards Moses’ rod, by which Egypt and Pharaoh were overcome, as a
type of the cross of Christ by which the world and its princes are overcome.
Gregory of Nyssa (VM, II, 31ff.) relates the turning of the staff into the serpent
to the incarnation (the serpent represents sin; Christ assumes the shape of the
serpent = sinful human nature, in order that he might devour the ‘serpents of
Egypt’ [cf. 7:12]). Isho bar Nun (question 37) states the stick became a snake
and not something else, because in Scripture Pharaoh is always called a
serpent, y h w h encouraged Moses by the sign, because it demonstrated that he
would make Pharaoh as weak as the wood of the staff. Also Ishodad gives this
explanation. He further writes that the rod shows how weak and mean-edged
Pharaoh was, while its turning into a snake pointed to the stubbornness with
which Pharaoh would reject God, and the change into a rod the misery that
was awaiting Pharaoh. Ishodad also relates the sign to Israel’s situation in
Egypt: the staff in the hand denotes the period of time the Egyptians were
supporting Israel, thanks to Joseph; however, after that they became serpents
to Israel; now y h w h is going to humiliate them (turn them into what they
were before), so that the Israelites will be able to rob them of their treasures
(3:22). Also in other ways the sign has been associated with the situation in
Egypt: the staff in the hand is a symbol of the prosperity during the reign of
Joseph; the staff on the ground is a symbol of the people under slavery, being
treated with disgust, the way a snake is being treated, because they were
viewed as a threat to Egypt; the staff that was picked up again symbolizes the
people as liberated, now possessing power and authority; see Nicholas of Lyra,
Tostatus, Pererius (see BB, 46). The sign has also been used to defend the
Christian doctrine of the resurrection; so Cyril of Jerusalem and Epiphanius
(see BB, 47).
Josephus (AJ, II, 272) describes the event in detail: the serpent coiled itself
and raised its head, ready to defend itself against attackers (Josephus omits
that Moses grasped the snake). Philo {VM, I, 77ff.) emphasizes that the serpent
was big and strong; when Moses seized it by the tail, it stretched itself full
length and turned into a (smaller) staff; so Philo can speak of a double change.
In Exodus it is not specifically said that Moses performed the sign before the
people (cf. 4:30). In 7:8ff. it is recounted how Aaron performed the sign before
Pharaoh and his court. Also Pharaoh’s magicians - remarkably - are able to
turn their staff into a frightening reptile (7:12). However, the animal they
produce is not called art; but p a For the question whether this means that
another reptile than a snake is meant, see Introd. § 9.2.3.
Because in Isa. 51:9f.; Ezek. 29:3; 32:2 pn stands for Pharaoh/Egypt, Te
Stroete conjectures that there may be a deeper meaning behind 7:8ff.: as
Aaron’s serpent devoured the serpents of the magicians, so Israel triumphs
over Egypt in the power of y h w h (cf. also Michaeli). Rylaarsdam goes so far
as to think that the incident highlights the faith in the sovereignty of Israel’s
God: ‘Aaron’s dragon devours all the other dragons, just as y h w h will
394 EXODUS 2:23-4:19
vanquish all the foreign powers and gods.’ In my judgment, there is no reason
to interpret these passages symbolically.
4:5 ‘Then they will believe that y h w h , the God of their fathers, the God o f
Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob appeared to you.’
see 1:11; vs. 5 is usually regarded as an ellipsis; it is clear that y h w h is
the speaker; the Vulg. makes this explicit by adding inquit; see also e.g. UV:
‘De Heer zeide: Dit is opdat zij usually it is assumed that before ]mb one
should think the following: ‘Do this (p rr®» or p n»»), in order that
KOSynt § 382g, however, proposes that rrrn is left out, and BOhl, Gispen and
Cassuto believe that vs. 4b is to be regarded as a parenthetic statement,
describing what Moses did while y h w h was still speaking; in that case, vs. 5
follows immediately upon vs. 4a; in this interpretation y h w h ’s statement is
somewhat defective (cf. also Ehrlich; he thinks that vs. 5 goes with vs. 4a, but
considers the connection ‘sehr ungeschickt’); not the seizing of the snake as
such inspires faith; sometimes vs. 5 is regarded as an addition (e.g. Noth and
Hyatt), ‘believe,’ see 4:1. ‘appeared,’ see 4:1. As regards terminology, vs. 5 is
quite similar to vs. 1. Unlike Moses, y h w h repeats the full name with which
he wants to be addressed (3:15); he emphasizes again that the God who
appeared to Moses is the same God who revealed himself to the patriarchs; vs.
5 says specifically that the miracle is intended to legitimatize Moses as the
messenger of that God.
4:6 YH W H also ordered him, ‘Put your hand inside your cloak. ’ He put his hand
inside his cloak, and when he took it out it was covered with a snow-like rash.
tiu, see 2:3. ttrton imper. hiph. of tra, see Introd. § 3.8, + tu, see 3:3. ‘hand,’
p*n (OT 38 x) occurs 5x in 4:6-7 and is usually used to denote the ab
domen, the lap, and also the bosom (e.g. Gen. 16:5; 2 Sam. 12:8; 1 Kgs. 1:2; cf.
vs. 4). It is the place where one can nurse a child (so that it falls asleep)
(1 Kgs. 3:20; 17:19; Ruth 4:16; also a pet animal can be held there; 2 Sam.
12:3). The expression p*raK»: also occurs with a child (Num. 11:12) and a
lamb (Isa. 40:11) as its object. There pti refers to the space between breast and
garment: pulling up the garment above the girdle creates a space suitable for
carrying something (Prov. 6:27; 16:33; 17:23). One can also put one’s hand
inside the space between breast and garment, ‘the bosom’ (Ps. 74:11 Q ). Such
is the case in 4:6f.125 Also newer translations (e.g. LV, UV, CV, NV) have
opted for the (in Dutch) archaic rendering ‘in uw boezem’ (cf. the less archaic
English ‘in your bosom,’ RSV). Though less clear, the translation ‘tussen je
kleed’ (Bohl, Te Stroete and WV) is more elegant.
125 See further A uS , V, 238 ff.; BHHW , III, 1716; TWAT, II, 912ff.; Dhonne, 102, 108; Honig,
41, 80f.; Stroys, 166f.
‘to take out,’ see Introd. § 3.24.2. Sam. Pent, continues with ip*rra, a reading
on which also the LXX is based and which agrees with 4:7 in MT; rabbinic
tradition has detected exegetical implications in the fact that there is no ‘from
his cloak’ in 4:6: the hand did not become leprous until it had been pulled out
of the bosom (vs. 6), and it was already healed when it was still in the bosom
(vs. 7); so the emergence of unfounded rumour that something was amiss with
Moses’ skin was prevented (if the hand had become ‘leprous’ in the bosom, his
whole body could have been considered ‘leprous’); a symbolical interpretation
has been given as well: punishment is slow in coming to the righteous, but a
good statement will be quickly fulfilled; see bShab. 97a; ExR. Ill, 13, and also
Rashi. n:m, see Introd. § 3.15.2.
nsn'sa part. fern, pual of snx; of this verb, only the qal pass. part, u ra (5x)
and the pual part, jn'sa (15x) occur in the OT; both participles are usually
rendered as ieprous/leper;’ the noun ninx (OT 34x) as a rule is rendered
with ‘leprosy.’ Hearing this word, the modern reader immediately thinks of a
particular illness, lepra or Hansen’s disease; it is a slowly progressing infection,
caused by a bacillus, characterized by infectious blotches, especially on the skin
and in the nerves, with lumps in the subcutaneous tissues, deep sores, paralysis
and lack of feeling; either the skin infection or the nerve infection, lump lepra
or nerve lepra, is predominant. Lepra is a disease the medical profession, until
recently, could do little about (according to Lev. 13 and Num. 12:15, ran*
could be cured), runs, however, is to be regarded as a term covering a variety
of skin diseases and skin problems. The biblical data do show that they were
terrible illnesses (e.g. Num. 12:10ff.; 2 Kgs. 5), that could cause ghastly
mutilations, barred one from contact with what was holy (e.g. Lev. 13f.) and
other human beings (e.g. Num. 12:15; 2 Kgs. 7:3ff.).126
From the above it is clear that the rendering ‘leprous’ in 4:6 should be
avoided. WV has opted for ‘vol witte uitslag;’ GNB for ‘bedekt met uitslag.’
The former translation has added the adjective ‘white’ (so already in TPsJ). On
the basis of ‘as snow,’ which follows upon nsnsn, and which WV renders
as ‘het leek wel sneeuw,’ it has been conjectured that nsnsn points to a skin
126 Bibl.: BHHfV, I, 167; DB, III, 94ff.; IDB, III, lllff.; TWAT, VI, 1127ff.; J.G. Andersen,
“Leprosy in Translations of the Bible," BiTr 31 (1980), 207-12; M. Loyd Davies, “Levitical
Leprosy: Uncleanness and the Psyche," ET 99 (1988), 136-9; E.V. Hulse, "The Nature of Biblical
‘Leprosy’ and the Use of Alternative Medical Terms in Modem Translations of the Bible," PEQ
107 (1975), 87-105; J.V. Kinnier-Wilson, “Leprosy in Ancient Mesopotamia," RA 60 (1966), 47-58;
L. Kohler, "‘Aussatz’," ZAW 67 (1955), 290-1; V. M0ller Christensen, “Evidence of Leprosy in
Earlier Peoples," in D. Brothwell - A.T. Sandison, Diseases in Antiquity, Springfield 1967, 295-306;
J J . Pilch, “Biblical Leprosy and Body Symbolism," BTB 11 (1981), 108-13; J.F.A. Sawyer, “A Note
on the Etymology of $dra‘atyB VT 26 (1976), 241-5; M. Stol, "Leprosy: New Light from Greek and
Babylonian Sources," JEOL 30 (1987-88), 22-31; Struys, 24f., 408f.; J. Wilkinson, “Leprosy and
Leviticus: The Problem of Description and Identification,” SJTh 30 (1977), 153-69; Wolff, 211ff.; J.
Zias, "Lust and Leprosy: Confusion or Correlation?" BASOR 275 (1989), 27-31.
396 E X O D U S 2:23-4:19
disease that is white in colour. Also other translations are based on that
assumption; see e.g. SV and UV: “wit als sneeuw;’ cf. RSV. Also in other
passages, where “white’ is not specifically mentioned, has been added to
jnxn (Num. 12:10; 2 Kgs. 5:27). (OT 20x)127 is indeed used more often
in comparisons (here as name of the material with the article; see e.g. Ges-K
§ 126n). If the colour of snow is the point of comparison, the colour is always
specifically mentioned in the text (Isa. 1:18; Ps. 51:9; Lam. 4:7; Dan. 7:9; and
also Matt. 28:3; Rev. 1:14). In the case of Exod. 4:6; Num. 12:10; 2 Kgs. 5:27,
one must assume either that “white’ is implied (Gradwohl, 57) or reckon with
the possibility that the point of comparison is not the colour of snow, but
another characteristic. In favour of the first is that in connection with runs in
Lev. 13, “white,’ is often used (vss. 4, 10, 13, 16, 17 et al.; cf. Gradwohl,
34ff.).128 On the other hand, another mark of runs is the presence of ‘raw
flesh,’ exposed due to the open skin (vss. 10, 14ff.). That raises the question
whether one should perhaps think of the perishable nature of snow (cf. Job
6:16; 24:19). Num. 12:12 speaks of skin that is half consumed. May one infer
from it that there and also in Exod. 4:6; 2 Kgs. 5:27 is meant that the skin of
the afflicted person wasted away like snow?
Hulse, 92ff., thinks that the ‘as snow’ indicates that the illness was accom
panied by scales on the skin, which one can rub off like snow flakes: ‘Snow-
like desquamation with underlying redness was the chief characteristic of
sara'af (p. 95). To that it should be added that the interpretation 'white as
snow’ makes it impossible that the disease was lepra. No modern form of lepra
fits that kind of description. A skin disease that is marked by a whitisch colour
and is connected with Exod. 4:6ff., is psoriasis (see e.g. Kohler; according to
Hulse, in any case psoriasis and favus are included in the diseases denoted by
runs). Psoriasis is a dry infection of the skin, characterized by round, red spots,
that are covered with grey-white scales on the scalp, lower back, and especially
behind the knees and elbows and around the nails. Psoriasis is an innocent
disease that does not affect the body as such. It is doubtful that this is the
disease meant in 4:6. Though white is the colour associated with the affliction,
it requires extraordinary imagination to use the comparison “white as snow’ to
describe the illness. The medical picture does not quite fit Num. 12:12 either;
one may assume that Moses’ sign, if it was to impress those who saw it, was
not a fairly innocent affliction, but one that made people shudder.
Finally, there is the view that Egypt was the land of origin of leprosy (lepra)
and that the disease was widespread there (see e.g. Holzinger and Cassuto).
The available sources do not support this view (see Moller-Christensen and
LA, III, 1007f.).
127 See e.g. BHHW, III, 1710; DB, IV, 556f.; IDB, IV, 394; Reymond, 27f., 34.
128 Striking is that in vs. 13 and vs. 17 ‘white’ is associated with purity; is whiteness of the skin a
sign of healing?
The LXX does not have a translation of rarcm. It only states that Moses’
hand had become ‘as snow’ (Aq., Symm. and Theod. do give a complete
translation). In my judgment, a ready explanation for the text of the LXX is
available. The omission of a reference to Xinpa (which does not mean lepra as
we understand it) is not limited to the LXX. Philo (VM, I, 79) also says no
more than that the hand was suddenly ‘whiter than snow;’ Josephus (AJ, II,
273) tells that the hand came out ‘white, and in colour like to chalk;’ Gregory
of Nyssa (VM, II, 29) says no more than that the hand had become unnatural
in colour. The question is, whether this is due to a tradition in which any
suggestion that Moses was afflicted with leprosy was consciously eliminated. As
mentioned above, the rabbis, with a reference to the absence of ip'na in 4:6,
also contended that there is no reason whatever for the suspicion that Moses’
skin might have been diseased. By leaving nmso untranslated, it seems that the
translators, quickly and forcefully, wanted to banish any notion that Moses was
tainted with leprosy. The reason behind this may have been the desire to
forestall the idea as if the Jewish scriptures would lend a measure of support
to the notion, one stubbornly defended by various writers according to Jose
phus (G4, I, 228ff., 288ff., 304ff., AJ, III, 265ff.), that Moses was a ‘leper,’ who
led a large number of sufferers from the same and other maladies out of
Egypt.
4:7 Thereupon he ordered hint, ‘Put your hand back into your cloak. ’ He put his
hand inside his cloak, and when he took it out o f his cloak, it was again like the
rest o f the body.
a»n imper. hiph. of aw (OT ca. 1060 x; qal 683 x; hiph. 360x; hoph. 5x), a
verb of motion; qal is used in Exod. 18 x with people as subject in the
sense of ‘to go back’ (4:18, 19, 20, 21; 5:22; 13:17; 14:2; 32:31; 33:11; in 4:18,
19, 21 in conjunction with “fbn; see Introd. § 3.14.1), ‘to return’ (24:14), ‘to
come again’ (34:31); in 32:27 in conjunction with *ov (see 12:12) in the sense
of ‘to go back and forth,’ ‘to go through’ (cf. Ezek. 35:7; Zech. 7:14; 9:8); with
‘water’ as subject, aw qal occurs with the meaning ‘to run back’ (14:26, 27, 28;
cf. Gen. 8:3; Josh. 4:18; Ps. 104:9); with ‘hand’ as subject in the sense of ‘to
be/become restored,’ ‘to be/become well again’ (4:7; cf. 1 Kgs. 13:6; 2 Kgs. 5:10,
14); with yhwh as subject, only in the expression ion pniro aw (32:12; cf. e.g.
Deut. 13:18; Josh. 7:26; Jonah 3:9); aw hiph. in used in Exodus 9x in the
causative sense: ‘to make restitution’ (21:34; 22:25); ‘to bring back’ (23:4), ‘to
cause to flow back’ (15:19) etc. (4:7; 19:8; 34:35); likewise aw hoph. ‘to be
brought back’ (10:8); the destination can be indicated by (e.g. 4:18; 24:14),
the accus. of direction (4:19), local n (4:20f.; 13:17) and by bv (e.g. 14:20;
15:19); both 5:22 and 32:31 have the clause mrr-VK rwo atri; in 32:31 the
meaning may be (see vs. 30) that Moses ascends to yhwh on the mountain; in
5:22, the context contains no indication as to the place where yhwh is, and it
would seem that aim, followed by a finite verb, indicates the repetition
398 exo dus 2:23-4:19
(‘again’) of the cited act (see KoSynt 369q); see further there.129
n?3 (OT ca. 270 x; Exod. 14 x), ‘flesh/meat,’ is used in reference to humans
as well as animals; meat (12:8, 46; 21:28; 22:30), was part of the Israelite diet
(though infrequently; in Israel as well as elsewhere in biblical times, meat was
not a regular part of the diet, meat was eaten only on special occasions); the
raw meat was prepared for consumption by boiling or roasting; often 1B3 is
used alongside of orrb (see 2:20), food from plants;130 flesh was also used for
sacrifice (29:14, 31); as regards humans, in 4:7; 30:32, *©3 refers to (the visible
part of) the (living) body, the skin (e.g. Lev. 14:9; 15:13, 16; 16:24, 26, 28;
Num. 19:7 et al.); in 28:42 it stands for ‘the naked flesh,’ a euphemism for the
(male) genitals (cf. Lev. 6:3; 16:4 and see also Lev. 15:2ff.; Ezek. 16:26; 23:20;
44:7, 9); in 4:7, beside i r means: his body to the extent it is not his
hand.131
The second sign (4:6, 7)

The second sign is based on the notion that the deity is the one who can both
send and heal illness (Deut. 32:39) (see e.g. Struys, 416ff.); the ability to cause
illness and make it disappear demonstrates the possession of divine power and
of being in contact with the deity.
Also the second sign is meant to enable Moses to establish himself as
y h w h ’s messenger. The context does not permit another purpose. Not all are
agreed. So, e.g. Cassuto, who writes that Moses’ willingness to subject himself
to so grievous a malady, would demonstrate his courage and his readiness to
endure whatever was necessary for the fulfillment of his mission. Knight
contends that Moses’ faith was tested; Moses had to learn ‘that God is he who
both smites with sickness and then makes whole again;’ when the skin is back
to its normal colour it is clear that ‘God had accepted him even as he was in
all his filthiness of heart, and was still determined to use him as his instrument
to rescue his people of Israel from slavery.’
The second sign, too, has been interpreted symbolically in many ways.
Murphy regards leprosy as a sign of the old nature in both Moses and Israel,
tainted as they were by the morals and customs of idolatrous Egypt; the
healthy skin signifies Moses’ consecration to the task of bringing the people
out of Egypt, and also the people’s destination to be his elect nation to
proclaim his praises and to bring about his purposes. Keil argues as follows:
Moses carried the people in his bosom, Le. in his heart; the sign of putting the
129 Bibl.: THAT, II, 884ff.; H J. Fabry, Die Wurzel Mb in der Qumran-Literatur: Zur Semantik
eines Grundbegriffes, Koln/Bonn 1975.
130 See further e.g. AuS, IV, 33f., llOff., 136f. et al.; DB, II, 35f., 39f.; IDB, II, 304f.; Benzinger,
68; Forbes, III, 50ff.
131 Bibl.: IDB, II, 276; THAT, I, 376ff.; TWAT, I, 850ff.; S. Abir, ZAW 98 (1986), 179-98;
Dhorme, 7ff.; Johnson, 9, 37ff.; D. Lys, VT 36 (1986), 163-204; Wolff, 49ff.
hand into the bosom signifies the freeing from Egypt; the hand is leprous, that
is, the nation was like a leper; it was treated contemptuously and had sunk
into the ‘impurity of Egypt;’ the hand is cleansed again, that is, God wants to
teach Moses and the people that through Moses’ hand he can and will deliver
the people ‘from all its bodily and spiritual misery’ (cf. also Lange). An
explanation in this vein is already found in ExR. Ill, 13. More recently,
Hamlin, op. cit. (see at 4:2-4), 38f., has offered this interpretation of the sign:
‘Seen in its dramatic setting, the leprosy of Moses’ hand was a symbolic death
of the man-in-action ... The death of Moses-in-action is the death of pride and
personal ambition ... In his hand, symbol of power, he would carry the
memory of death, so that God’s living power might be manifested through him
(cf. 2 Cor. 4:7-11)’ (p. 38). ‘Death is followed by resurrection. Moses’ hand is
restored to life and action and power ... In renouncing his personal power and
submitting to death, he was raised from death to become God’s servant
"meeker than all men who were on the face of the earth" (Num. 12:3)’ (p.
39).
Several church fathers have related the passage to Christ. Tertullian per
ceived in it a prefiguration of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ (De
resurrectione, XXVIII, 55). Gregory of Nyssa regarded the miracle as a type of
his incarnation (FA/, II, 29f.).
Isho bar Nun (question 37) and Ishodad hold that the leprosy was an
indication that in Egypt Israel committed the sin of animal worship; the pure
hand points to the purity of the people before and after the exodus.
Rabbinic tradition contains the idea that also through this sign God wants to
make clear that Moses spoke slanderous language when he said, ‘they will not
believe’ (4:1); for also Miriam became leprous when she slandered (Num. 12);
see bShab. 97a and also Rashi and Nachmanides; the last one, though, also
states that the signs were intended to boost Moses’ confidence.
As with the other miracles, so also in connection with this miracle there
have been conjectures as to what precisely happened. Knight considers it
possible that Moses slipped and fell on the rocks. He noticed that his arm had
stiffened and become white, and for a moment he feared that he had con
tracted leprosy. Choosing from three possible explanations, Honeycutt men
tions the following: Moses suffered from leprosy which over time healed, ‘but
the time factor has been so compressed by the narrator as to make the
experience instantaneous within the narrative.’ In this case, too, one must say
that while it is possible to understand the purport of the miracles, one cannot
make it transparent.
After this, despite 4:21, the second sign receives no further explicit (see 4:30)
mention in Exodus. Skin disease is, however, included in the plagues (9:8ff.).
4:8 ‘A nd if they will not believe you and pay no attention to the first sign, they
will believe the second sign. ’
400 exo dus 2:23-4:19
‘to believe,’ see 4:1. ‘to pay attention to,’ see Introd. § 3.51.1. bp, see Introd.
§ 3.51.2. ‘sign,’ see 3:12; ‘first,’ and ‘second,’ see § 4.2.2. As concerns the
construction, the same interpretive possibilities present themselves as with 4:5:
it is possible to regard vs. 7b as a parenthetic statement, describing what
Moses did while y h w h was still speaking (so Cassuto); in this view, vs. 8
immediately connects with vs. 7a; it is more natural to regard vs. 8 as an
ellipsis and to think of the words ‘y h w h said further’ as being implied (cf.
UV).
4:9 ‘B ut if they will not even believe these two signs and will not obey you, you
must take water from the River and pour it on the land, and the water, that you
have taken from the River, will change, it will change into blood on the land. ’
‘even,’ see Introd. § 3.11.1. ' 3®*?, see Introd. § 4.3.1; according to Brockelmann
§ 83b, in the declension the rules pertaining to three and higher are followed;
but note, though, that here mtt is likely not a feminine word, as is usually the
case, but a masculine word, as in 3:12; 4:8; 8:19. ‘to take,’ see Introd. § 3.30.
“water,’ see Introd. § 3.33; ‘River,’ see Introd. § 8.10. nposi perf. cons, qal of
*p» (OT ca. 115x; qal ca. 100 x), ‘to pour out,’ is used in 4:9 with “water’ as
object (cf. 1 Sam. 7:6; Amos 5:8; 9:6) and in 29:12 with ‘blood’ as object.132
accus. of direction (see e.g. Ges-K § 118d); (OT 14 x), ‘the
dry(land),’ derivative of t»D\ ‘to be/become dry,’ denotes in 4:9 the dry land, in
distinction from the water133 and so has about the same meaning as p x (cf.
Gen. 1:10 and see Amos 5:8; 9:6: ffn"n is poured out p»tn ')2~by); in 14:16, 22,
29; 15:19 nun* is the dry land, which served the Israelites as a path through the
sea (cf. Ps. 66:6; Neh. 9:11 and see also Josh. 4:22); rw r is found only in 4:9
and Ps. 95:5 and is similar in meaning to mflr (see further TWAT, III, 400ff.;
Stadelmann, 129, 160). For the repetition of vm see Jouon § 176b note (see
also Nachmanides).
DT (OT ca. 360 x; pi. ca. 70 x; Exod. 29 x; pi. 4x), ‘blood’ is used both in
reference to humans and animals; it plays an important role in the emotional
and conceptual world of ancient people; in their thoughts, there was a close
relation between blood and life, in fact the life of the flesh is in the blood (cf.
Lev. 17:11, 14; Deut. 12:23). This conception is hardly strange. Experience
teaches that loss of blood results in loss of strength, life flows away, and if the
bleeding continues death is the outcome. Because blood, on the one hand, is
the obvious source of life, while, on the other hand, the visible presence of
blood points to the realty of death, the attitude toward blood was ambivalent.
Ancient man stood in awe of the vital strength of blood and he tried to utilize
Cf. Lev. 4:7, 18, 25, 30, 34 and see also Deut. 12:16, 24; 15:23 (‘blood like water’); see
further H. Christ, Blutvergiessen im Alten Testament, B asel 1977, 12ff.
133 Cf. Gen. l:9f.; Jonah 1:9, 13; 2:11; Ps. 66:6 (but compare also Isa. 44:3, where the emphasis
is on the fact that the land is parched).
that power. The power in the blood also made him shudder, because this
power could turn against him. The ambivalence toward blood is also found in
the OT. I must restrict myself to some observations regarding the use of tn in
Exodus.
In 4:9; 7:17, 19 (2x), 20, 21, blood (in distinction from water as the source
of life; Introd. § 3.33) is the source of pollution, which defiles the land and
makes it subject to the power of death (7:21). What is described in 7:17ff. must
have been terrifying to the Israelite. If water has turned into blood, one is
constantly at risk of getting it on the hands and clothes, so becoming unclean
(cf. Isa. 1:15; 59:3; Lam. 4:14 and see e.g. also Lev. 15:19ff.). Then chances are
great of ingesting it with the food one eats or of drinking it driven by thirst
(cf. 7:19, 24), and so - at least in the eyes of the Israelite - of becoming
guilty of committing a great sin (see e.g. Gen. 9:4; Lev. 3:17; 7:26; 17:10ff. et
al.; cf. 1 Sam. 14:32ff.; Ezek. 33:25; see, however, also Num. 23:24). The
presence of such a large quantity of uncovered blood (cf. e.g. Gen. 4:10; 37:26;
Lev. 17:13; Ezek. 24:7; Job 16:18) must have looked like a huge threat to
Israelite eyes. Unless purification or expiation is made, the power set free
through the blood can undermine the life of the nation (cf. e.g. Num. 35:33;
Deut. 21:lff.; 2 Sam. 21:lff.; Ps. 106:38).
The blood of sacrificial animals (e.g. 23:18; 34:25) is used for various
purposes in cultic ceremonies. The power in the blood can be used for
purification, for expiation (29:12 [cf. Lev. 8:15]; 29:21 [cf. Lev. 8:30]; 30:10 [cf.
e.g. Lev. 14:4ff., 49ff.; 16:14ff.; 17:11]).
Blood can also be used to express covenant fellowship; see 24:6, 8 (cf. Zech.
9:11): God (the altar represents him) and the people share in the same blood,
partake of the same vital force; they belong together as people related by
blood. The rite described in 29:16, 20 likely also aims at bringing about
fellowship, viz. between priests and God (cf. Robertson Smith, 312ff.; Fiiglister,
161f.).
Blood also possesses apotropaic power. It can ward off the threat of mortal
danger; see 12:7, 13 (2x), 22 (2x), 23: the assumption is that the lamb has
been slaughtered in the door opening, and that because of it the threshold is
splattered with blood; furthermore, also the doorposts and the lintel had to be
touched with blood. The practice is likely based on the following belief: the
blood indicates that death is present; the divine power which seeks to kill,
passes by, under the impression that the house has already been claimed by the
power of death and that, therefore, it can do nothing there to satisfy its lust
for murder. That approach has more to commend itself than the idea that the
power resident in the blood is able to fight the assailant. In the current text,
the blood only functions as a sign that it is Israelites who live in the house
bearing the mark of blood (12:13, 23). Also in the archaic passage 4:24-26,
blood, in the genitive connection D*ni"|nn (4:25f.; the adjective ‘bloody’ is
described by means of the epexegetical genitive), - at least originally such
402 exo dus 2:23-4:19
must have been the case - functions as a deterrent against the divine power
that seeks to kill (see further there). D'ni occurs in 22: If. in the sense of
‘bloodguilt’ (cf. Deut. 19:10; 22:8; 1 Sam. 25:26, 33).134
The third sign (4:8, 9)

In the conditionally-phrased verses 8 and 9, y h w h concludes his response to
Moses’ third objection by returning to Moses’ words (4:1; note the use of |dk
hiph. and of urns qal in vss. 8-9). y h w h wants to make it clear to Moses that
he need not worry at all about his credibility as his messenger. If people will
not believe in him, he can demonstrate with a sign to be in touch with the
deity, and so convince them of his calling (4:5). In case the unlikely would
happen that he would still not be believed, he has a second sign — two is
associated with the notion of power to convince; see Introd. § 4.3.1 - at his
disposal to demonstrate that y h w h did indeed appear to him. But even if the
entirely unthinkable should happen that the people would still be suspicious,
y h w h has a third sign. So, whatever may happen, Moses need not fear that he
will be at a loss what to say or do, as concerns proving on whose behalf he
comes; three signs (that is, more than enough; see Introd. § 4.4.1) are at his
disposal to proof that y h w h did indeed appear to him.
The third sign Moses can only do in Egypt.135 Evidently, Moses’ ex
perience with the two signs is enough to convince him that he will be able to
perform the third sign (for which the term niK is not specifically mentioned) as
well.
Like the first two signs, also the third sign is intended to demonstrate that
the one who performs it possesses divine power. I believe it is wrong to read
more in them. Others think they may go beyond that. Cassuto, e.g., notes that
the Nile, the source of life and fertility in the land of Egypt, is regarded as a
deity by the Egyptians, and that the wonder shows that God rules even over
the Nile, and so proves that he is able to overcome all the forces that exist for
the benefit of Egypt. Some underscore the significance of the sign for the
position of Moses; see e.g. Murphy: he who possesses power over the deified
Nile, is able to withstand all the power of Pharaoh (cf. also Keil and Lange).
According to Knight, God shows beforehand what he will do to Egypt and the
Nile: ‘And by hinting at its life and death nature it indicates the total or
134 Bib!.: ERE, II, 714ff.; IDBS, 114ff.; LA, I, 840ff.; RLA, II, 57ff.; THAT, I, 448ff.; TRE, VI,
121ft ; TWAT, II, 248ff.; C.J. Bleeker, “‘Blut ist ein ganz besondrer Saft’,* in The Sacred Budge,
Leiden 1963, 206-19; Bocher, 54ff., 208ff.; Christ, op. cil\ N. Fuglister, "Siihne durch Blut - Zur
Bedeutung von Leviticus 17, 11,* in Fs W. Komfeld, Studien zum Pentateuch, Wien et al. 1977,
143-64; Gradwohl, 4f., 6, 26; N. Kramer, "A Blood-Plague Motif in Sumerian Mythology,* ArOr 17
(1949), 399-405; Johnson, 69ff.; Wolff, 98ff.; D J. McCarthy, “The Symbolism of Blood and
Sacrifice,* JBL 88 (1969), 166-76.
135 For a different view see Josephus (AJ, II, 273): God orders Moses to take water from a
nearby brook etc.
eschatological act of God about to take place. Ahead lies no bed of roses, but
disease, revolution and the shedding of blood.’ Hamlin, op. tit. (see at 2:2-4),
39ff., even makes an association between the blood and the death of the
firstborn of Egypt (4:23; ll:4f.; 12:29). He wants to regard their death as a
sacrifice, as ransom for y h w h ’s firstborn, Israel (4:22; cf. 13:13, 15; 34:20). The
sacrifice makes life possible for Israel. The significance of the third sign he
describes as follows: ’The task of liberation will involve disintegration and
death of the old society of Egypt in order that the new people of Israel may be
born. But the liberation of Israel through the ransom price of Egypt means the
eventual liberation of Egypt’ (cf. Isa. 19:21f., 24f.) (p. 42). Also older commen
taries often find a deeper meaning in the sign: it indicates that Moses will
avenge the blood of the Hebrew children, whom the Egyptians drowned in the
Nile (Pererius) etc. (see BB, 49). As stated above, in my judgment the sign
only serves to make Moses’ claim to be y h w h ’s emissary believable. The
question whether y h w h is able to deal with the powers of Egypt lies outside
the purview of the writer.
By way of explaining the sign, it has been pointed out that at certain seasons
of the year the Nile deposits reddish-brown silt. When the water is poured out
on the land, if looks like blood.136 Though the MT speaks about ‘becoming
blood,’ Josephus (AJ, II, 273) tells that the colour of the water was that of
blood. In contrast, Philo (VM, II, 79), notes that the water not only had begun
to look like blood, but also had taken on the characteristics of blood. Chan
ging water into blood is a form of magic which is also found in Egypt itself
(Montet, 105).
The sign is performed in the presence of Pharaoh (cf. 4:21). However, then it
is not Moses but Aaron who takes the lead. Also, the transformation of water
into blood is not done by pouring out water, but by striking the water with a
staff. Besides, not just a small quantity of water is changed, but all the water of
Egypt. (7:14ff.)
Moses’fourth objection and God’s response (4:10-12)

Once more Moses makes bold to come with an argument against his as
signment. He is very diplomatic. He is polite and courteous when he speaks.
He presents himself as a man who is at the disposal of y h w h (he calls himself
*dv). It is as if he wants to say: now that I am so well equipped for the mission
(3:11-4:9), you can count on me, but know what you are doing. You are
sending someone who is totally unsuitable for the task, for I am not one who
can speak fluently and convincingly. I may be able to do wonders, but being
able to speak is a prime requirement for a divine messenger (cf. Jer. 1:6 and1
1%
See e.g. Clements and at 7:21 ff., where that suggestion fits better than in 4:9; for in 4:9 it is
specifically stated that the water on the land became blood, became reddish in colour; in 4:9 one
would rather think of a visual illusion produced by the reddish colour of the soil; cf. 2 Kgs. 3:22f.
404 exodus 2:23-4:19
see also 2 Cor. 10:10). In his answer, y h w h points out to Moses that he not
only recruited Moses to liberate the people of Israel, but that, being the
Creator, he also determines what sort of gifts and/or weaknesses someone is
going to have. In short, Moses need not worry about disabilities he may have.
His sender is the Lord of every human being. He will fit Moses for the task. In
the case of other God-sent messengers who considered themselves unqualified,
y h w h directly made them capable speakers, such as Isaiah (Isa. 6:7; cf. Isa.
49:2; 50:4) and Jeremiah (Jer. 1:9). In Moses’ case the promise is given that he
will be able to speak and that he does not need to be concerned about what he
is going to say. y h w h will give the right words to speak; y h w h will speak
through him (cf. Isa. 50:4; Jer. 1:9; Ezek. 3:lff. and see also Matt. 10:19; Mark
13:11; Luke 21:14f.; John 14:26).
Theodoret (QE, XI) answers the question why God uses a stutterer in his
service in this way: to be able to show all the more his divine power; just as he
chose fishermen, tax collectors and tanners to proclaim the gospel, so he puts
the sages of Egypt to shame through a slow and stuttering voice (cf. 2 Cor.
1:26-2:5). In any case, the contrast between Moses who considers himself
unqualified to speak (4:10) and y h w h who promises to speak through him
(4:12) convinces the reader that the greatness of the later Moses is solely
owing to y h w h (see also at 4:12). The theme of Moses’ inability to speak
returns in 6:12.
4:10 Then Moses said to YHWH, ‘O my Lord, I have never been eloquent, neither
in the past nor even now that you have spoken to your servant, but I am slow o f
speech and tongue. ’
'3 is an interjection, a term of politeness, with an undertone of pleading; it is
used when a subordinate addresses someone above him; it is always followed
either by -nx (Gen. 43:20 et al. 7x) or (4:10, 13; Josh. 7:8; Judg. 6:15;
13:8); it can be translated as ‘please, excuse me,’ “with your permission’ (see
further KoSynt § 351f, Ges-K § 19k1, 105b, Joiion § 105c); for more light on
*3, see KoHkL, II/l, 340f.; Ges-B and BDB, s.v.; L. Kohler, ZAW 36 (1916),
26f.; K. Marti, ZAW 36 (1916), 246.
*nn (OT ca. 440 x) is used only for y h w h in the OT. Not entirely certain is
how the remarkable ending -ay is to be understood. A favourite explanation is
that it is to be regarded as a pronominal suffix, and that the vocalization -ay is
the work of the Massoretes; supposedly they altered an original ending -iy
(*nK, ‘my lord’) or -ay ('tin, ‘my Lord;’ the plural is a plural of majesty or of
respect) to -ay, to distinguish the profane use of ynK, ‘lord,’ from its use in
reference to y h w h . In this interpretation, ' j i k is to be understood as ‘my
Lord.’ Espousers of this view admit that the explanation ‘my Lord’ is not
always possible (e.g. 1 Kgs. 2:26; Ezek. 13:9; 23:49 et al.), and they assume that
in colloquial speech the difference in ending was not always felt, while the
word ‘my Lord’, as used in addressing someone, became the title and divine
name ‘Lord.’ Obviously, in many instances it is debatable whether the term is

to be understood as ‘my Lord’ or as ‘Lord.’ Another view is that the ending is
an afformative, intended to strengthen the word, and that means some
thing like ‘Allherr.’ A strong proponent of this view is O. Eififeldt, who
appeals for support to peculiarities in Ugaritic. He regards it as an old
appellation. Though he does consider it possible that in instances where is
used in reference to y h w h , the original reading may have been *n»t or ‘n x ,
and that later the pointing was brought into agreement with “oik (TfVAT, I,
72ff.).
As concerns the use of the term in Exodus, the following deserves mention:
(OT ca. 330 x; excluding the use of *iik ) in profane usage denotes the
lord, the master, in distinction from the subordinate, the servant, the slave (see
Introd. § 3.37.2, 3); see 21:5 (cf. e.g. Ps. 12:5); 21:4 (2x), 6, 8, 32 (cf. e.g. Gen.
24:9; 40:7; Deut. 23:16).137 The term is not restricted to that relationship.
Used as address, it expresses politeness. It is the speaker’s way of ack
nowledging his dependence on the addressee; so e.g. Aaron relative to Moses
(32:22; Num. 12:11; cf. Gen. 18:12; 31:35; 32:5f., 19; 33:8ff.; 1 Kgs. 18:7, 13 et
al.).138 )Tmn is also used as title for y h w h (23:17; 34:23; cf. Isa. 1:24; 3:1 et
al.). As regards the use of 'ntt: in 4:10, 13; 5:22; 34:9 (2x) one might consider
whether the original reading was *ntt (cf. 32:22 et al.) or perhaps even the
plural of majesty ' jik . An argument in favour would be the use of after *3
in Gen. 43:20 et al. (see above); see also e.g. Josh. 5:14; Judg. 6:13. This is
different with 15:17. There, as is more often the case, 'n x parallels mm (cf. e.g.
Isa. 3:17; 49:14; Mic. 1:2; Ps. 30:9; 35:22; 38:16) and is a divine name. In 15:17;
Isa. 3:17 et al. there is a break-up of the double divine name mrr *nR (e.g. Jer.
1:6; Ezek. 4:14; Amos 3:7f. et al.; 310x) or *hk mrr (Ps. 68:21 et al.; 5x); cf.
E.Z. Melamed, ScrHie 8 (1961), 115ff. Here ':tK is to be translated as
‘Lord.’139
For Kb at the beginning of a noun clause, see Ges-K § 152d; Joiion § 160c;
Williams § 399. omai 0'K (e.g. Ges-K § 128t; Joiion § 129j), see Introd. § 3.2.1
and 3.12.2; the root -q i occurs 7x in 4:10-17 (taking "om -m in vs. 14 as
one); so also no (see below), m, see Introd. § 3.11.2. ‘in the past,’ see Introd.
§ 4.4.4; Rashi follows a rabbinic exegesis according to which it can be inferred
from the terminology that God tried for seven days to persuade Moses: dj
indicates an addition; three days are explicitly mentioned; 3x m brings the
number of days to six; Moses speaks the words of vs. 13 on the seventh day; cf.
also the slightly different exegesis in ExR. Ill, 14, and see Ginzberg, II, 322f.;
1:37 A pi. of majesty or of respect is used; see Ges-K § 124i, 145h; Joiion § 136d; Brockelmann
§ 19c, 50f, 59c.
138 See further L. Kohler, ZAW 40 (1922), 39ff.
139 Bibl.: THAT, I, 31 ff.; TWAT, I, 62ff.; O. Loretz, *Vom Baal-Epitheton ADN zu Adonis und
Adonaj,' UF 12 (1980), 287-90 (the appellation '31N derives from Baal); Lust (see § 12.1), 71ff.
406 E X O D U S 2:23-4:19
Nachmanides takes issue with this view.

tro is composed of the adverb tr (OT ca. 130 x) and the preposition in (cf.
Jer. 44:18); itt is a temporal adverb; it is used in reference to the past in the
sense of ‘then,’ ‘after that;’ see 4:26 (+ perf.; cf. e.g. Gen. 4:26; Josh. 10:33);
15:1 (+ imperf.; cf. e.g. Num. 21:17; Josh. 8:30); used in poetry, it can add
emphasis to a statement; see 15:15 (cf. e.g. Judg. 5:8, 11, 13, 19, 22); in
reference to the future it is used in the sense of ‘(only) then’ (when a certain
condition has been met); see 12:44, 48 (+ imperf.; cf. e.g. Gen. 24:41; Deut.
29:19); trd (OT 17 x) is used as adverb and as conjunction in the sense of
‘since,’ ‘from the moment,’ “when;’ see 4:10 (+ inf. cstr.); 5:23; 9:24 (+ finite
verb; cf. e.g. Josh. 14:10);140 because iro is nowhere followed by an inf. cstr.
Ehrlich wants to read man in 4:10; see, however, the use of iro + noun in Ps.
76:8; Ruth 2:7; ‘servant,’ see Introd. § 3.37.2.
naa (OT 40 x; Exod. 12 x) is an adjective from the root 133, ‘to be heavy.’
133, ‘heavy,’ can be used literally, for instance for bodily weight (1 Sam. 4:18).
Weight can also be associated with volume; so 133 can denote large size, a
great number; see 8:20; 9:3, 18, 24; 10:14; 12:38; 19:16. Appreciation for the
voluminous, the numerous, is ambivalent, depending on the nature and effect
it has. If it is something negative, it weighs heavy on one’s mind, is depressing,
even fearful; see 8:20; 9:3, 18, 24; 10:14. The voluminous can both impress and
make one shudder. That is true of a 133 ]:», a dark and threatening storm
cloud (19:16). The voluminous often presents problems, and so it is understan
dable that 133 often stands for the downside of what is heavy. For example, it
expresses weariness (17:12), being overburdened with work (18:18), slow and
unclear speech (4:10; cf. Ezek. 3:5f.), the obstinacy and recalcitrance of
Pharaoh (7:14; Pharaoh’s ‘heart’ cannot be made to budge; see Introd.
§ 3.29.1). The ‘heaviness’ of mouth and tongue (4:10) and the ‘heaviness’ of
the heart (7:14) appears to say that these organs do not function at all or only
improperly; cf. the use of 133 qal with ‘eyes’ as subject in Gen. 48:10, with
‘ears’ as subject in Isa. 59:1, and the use of 133 hiph. with ‘ears’ as object in
Isa. 6:10; Zech. 7:11; see further Introd. § 3.19.1. Cf. also the use of the hapax
legomenon ni33, ‘difficulty,’ in 14:25. The voluminous is experienced positively
if it does not ‘depress’ but gives one ‘weight,’ ‘importance,’ as for example, the
possession of livestock in great numbers (12:38; cf. Gen. 13:2; 50:9; 1 Kgs.
10:2). Repeatedly 133 is made even stronger by mo (see 1:7); see 9:3, 18, 24;
10:14; 12:38.
As a verb 133 (OT 114x; qal 23x; niph. 30x; piel 38x; hiph. 17x)
occurs lOx in Exodus. 133 qal in 5:9 (+ *?!>) with the meaning ‘to lay heavy
upon’ (cf. Neh. 5:18, and see the use of 133 hiph. in e.g. 1 Kgs. 12:10, 14; Neh.
140 See further KdHkL, II/l, 317 n. 1; Ges-K § lOOi, 107c; Joiion § 113i, 129p; Brockelmann
§ 42a, l l l e , 122k, 158, 176b; Meyer § 86.2, 88.3, 100.2d; P. Joiion, Bib 21 (1940), 56f.; T. Piatti,
Bib 27 (1946), 201 ff.; I. Rabbinowitz, VT 33 (1983), 53-62; E. Vogt, Bib 48 (1967), 59ff.
5:15) and in 9:7 with the meaning ‘to be unchangeable, unyielding’ (with ‘heart’
of Pharaoh as subject; cf. 7:14). With Pharaoh as subject and ‘his heart’ as
object, 133 hiph. occurs in the sense of ‘to make/keep heavy, immovable,’ that
is, ‘to remain inflexible;’ see 8:11, 28; 9:34. Cf. also the use of 1 3 3 hiph. with
y h w h as subject and ‘the heart’ of Pharaoh and his servants as object, with the
meaning ‘to make unyielding’ (10:1) (see further Introd. § 3.19). 1 3 3 niph. is
found (+ 3 ) in 14:4, 17, 18 with y h w h as subject with the meaning of ‘to gain
glory for oneself/before, in the presence of:’ y h w h gains weight for himself,
that is, he does things that lead people to be impressed by his power, and that
makes them experience and acknowledge that he is a God ‘of weight,’ who is
not to be mocked at (cf. e.g. Lev. 10:3; Ezek. 28:22; 39:13). 1 3 3 piel (+ accus.
of the person), ‘to honour someone,’ ‘to treat someone respectfully’ (ac
knowledge that someone is a person of weight, importance) is found in 20:12
(cf. e.g. 1 Sam. 2:29; 15:30; 2 Sam. 10:3). Apart from those in Exodus already
mentioned, other derivatives of 333 are: (a) 333 (OT 14x) ‘liver’ (the heavy
organ of the body) in 29:13, 22 (see Dhorme, 129f.; Johnson, 75; Struys, 163;
Wolff, 103f.); (b) 3i33 (see 16:7). See further THAT, I, 794ff.; TWAT, IV, 13ff.;
Pedersen, I-II, 213 ff. et al.
n s (OT ca. 500x; Exod. 23x, of which 7x in 4:10-17), ‘mouth,’ is used
both for humans and animals. Often n s denotes the organ used in speaking, in
reference to God as well as man; as regards the latter see 4:10, 11, 12, 15
(3x), 16; 13:9; 23:13. In 4:10, 12, 15b (2x), ‘mouth’ has the meaning of ‘to
speak,’ in 4:11 ‘ability to speak’ and in 4:16 ‘speaker’ (as the prophet is ‘mouth’
of y h w h ; see Jer. 15:19 and also Isa. 1:20; 40:5; Jer. 9:11; Hos. 6:5), ‘the
mouth’ that speaks the words put into it (4:15a; Num. 22:38; 23:5, 12, 16;
Deut. 18:18; 2 Sam. 14:3, 19; Isa. 51:16; 59:21; Ezra 8:17). In 13:9 the render
ing ‘lips’ is appealing. Like other parts of the body (see e.g. Introd. § 3.21.3
and 3.42, 2, 3), no is often used with prepositions. In such instances the
meaning of no (‘mouth’, ‘what comes from the mouth:’ word, command,
instruction) sometimes comes through. So in the expression 'D'bu, which is
used both in reference to y h w h and to man (17:1; 38:21; cf. Gen. 41:40; 45:21;
Num. 3:36, 39). The meaning of no is not always present. The term can
function as (adding force to the) preposition (cf. Brockelmann § 1071; 117a).
See the use of *d ‘in accordance with,’ ‘on the basis o f (34:27; cf. Gen.
43:7), 'D1?, ‘in proportion to,’ ‘according to’ (12:4; 16:16, 18), *03, idem (16:21).
Sometimes there is reason for doubt. So in the case of the expression of
33ii 'ob (17:13; cf. e.g. Gen. 34:26; Num. 21:24): is the image here that of the
sword as a devouring ‘being’ (cf. Gen. 4:11; Num. 16:30, 32; Isa. 5:14)? It is
more obvious to understand 'ob as ‘in accordance with the measure of,’ that is,
408 E X O D U S 2:23-4:19
to cut down ruthlessly.141 The above is an indication that no can be used in

connection with things. That is fairly often the case. In Exodus no is used for
the neck opening of a garment (28:32; 39:23 and see also Ps. 133:2; cf. Honig,
18). See further THAT, II, 406ff.; TWAT, VI, 522ff.
Parallel to no, (OT 117x) is used in 4:10. ]•©*?, ‘tongue,’ ‘language,’ is
often used in conjunction with no (Ps. 10:7; 37:30; 66:17; 73:9; 78:36 et al.; see
RSP, I, 309f.) and then is quite similar in meaning to ns. is further used in
Exodus as organ of an animal (11:7; cf. Ps. 68:24; Job 20:16; 40:25). See
further THAT, II, 408; TWAT, IV, 595ff.; Dhorme, 84, 86f.
Asserting that he is ‘heavy of mouth and heavy of tongue,’ Moses means to
say that he is not a fluent and convincing speaker, but has difficulty clearly
expressing himself and formulating his thoughts (one might say due to shy
ness). There is no reason to ignore Moses’ words as a pretence (according to
the contents of Exodus 3 and 4 Moses did not use a torrent of words to be
persuasive; his utterances are brief). It should be kept in mind that Moses
wants to get it across that he is not the right person to be y h w h ’s represen
tative. For that reason it was important for Moses not to hide his weaknesses
but to highlight them. Unlikely, Moses draws to y h w h ’s attention that he
suffers from a speech defect. The view has been defended that Moses was a
stutterer,142 that due to a congenital defect he had difficulty pronouncing
certain sounds (Ibn Ezra). Possibly that idea is also behind TPsJ and TNf:
Vtoo -on d d *an, ‘lame of mouth and lame in speech’ (*on = lame, maim,
crippled; cf. FT; in TO 133 is literally translated with t p% ‘heavy;’ similarly in
SamT). The translator of the LXX thought of a speech defect: toxvcfycovo^ xai
PpaSuyXcocjCTos, “with a stuttering voice and a slow tongue.’ Aq. translates 133
literally with fktpbq (a word that also can mean ‘difficult’). The Vulg. is based
on a metaphorical interpretation: impeditioris et tardioris linguae sunt, ‘I am not
quick-witted and slow of speech’ (see further 6:10, 13). It is questionable that
Moses points to something more specific. For example, that Moses meant to
say that he had been so long away from Egypt that he no longer could speak
fluent Egyptian (among others, Calmet conjectures that he had also lost his
command of Hebrew). Or that due to his lengthy and lonely stay in the desert
and the limited contact with other people, he had not been able to develop his
1** See further for the expression P. Grelot, "La bouche du glaive,* Sent 35 (1985), 61-5;
O. Keel, Wirkmachtige Siegeszeichen im Alien Testament, Freiburg/Gottingen 1974, 77ff.; Keel
suggests that behind the expression 3T1 rDH, ‘fur das Maul des Schwertes schlagen,’ there is
the image of the weapon as being a wild animal, and that the meaning is: ‘Jemanden (so) schlagen,
daB das Maul (= the edge) des Schwertes Fleisch zu fressen und Blut zu saufen bekommt’ or
‘lodlich, vemichtend schlagen' (p. 79).
142 So e.g. Rashi and other older exegetes (see BB, 49f.), but see also e.g. Fensham.
speaking ability (e.g. Lange).143

In the light of 4:10 it may seem strange that elsewhere in the Pentateuch
Moses is portrayed as an orator (Deut. l:6ff. et al.; see also Deut. 32).144 In
view of the background of y h w h ’s answer (4:llf.), to the editors and the first
readers of the Pentateuch this cannot have been seen as an inconsistency.
In my opinion, 4:10 is to be understood as an objection. Objecting that even
from the moment he had come into contact with God, his ability to speak had
not markedly improved, Moses implicitly criticizes God (cf. also 5:23): by
nature I don’t possess the gift of speech, and I didn’t get it either from my
contact with you; therefore, if you send me, the undertaking is bound to be a
failure.145 Not convincing is Ehrlich’s suggestion that to ik » m and following
words, ‘also since you s p e a k t h e r e should be added: “you have seen for
yourself that I lack eloquence.’ Moses’ protest that there had not been any
change in his situation, despite the encounter with y h w h , makes it unlikely
that he was being humble in what he said; according to Philo, after God had
spoken to Moses he felt himself quite inadequate; for compared with that of
God, human eloquence amounts to dumbness (VM, I, 83f.; cf. e.g. also the
Epistle of Clement, XVII, 5); one view has it that due to the presence of God,
Moses stammered even more than before (see BB, 49); from the Midrashim,
Rashi derives the idea that Moses did not want to elevate himself above his
brother Aaron, who was older and a prophet.
4:11 YHWH answered him, Who has given people the ability to speak? Or who
can make someone mute or deaf or seeing or blind? Is it not I, y h w h ?’
‘to give,’ see Introd. § 3.48. ‘ability to speak,’ see 4:10.
o ik (OT ca. 550 x; Exod. 14 x) is never used in the pi. and never in the
cstr. state, and in prose in the main with the article. For the most part the
term is used generically and as a collective: ‘humanity,’ ‘man/mankind.’ In
Exodus dtk occurs especially in expressions per merismum n o T D 'i» ) otko (9:25;
12:12 and see also 13:15) and rmarn otkh (8:13, 14; 9:9, 10, 19, 22; 13:2) to
denote ‘humans and animals’ in general, in their totality (see further KraSovec,
75; for nnm Introd. § 9.1.2). o ik is the word used for ‘man’ (‘human beings’) in
passages that speak of God’s creation of ‘man’ (Gen. l:26ff.; 2:5ff.; Deut. 4:32;
Isa. 17:17 et al.). That is the background against which the use of oiK n in 4:11
14^ For more on the history of the interpretation of 4:10 and 6:12 see J.H. Tigay, “ Heavy of
Mouth’ and ‘Heavy of Tongue.’ On Moses’ Speech Difficulty,* BASOR 231 (1978), 57-67 (his own
idea is that Moses suffered from a speech defect); see further also D. Gewalt, *Der ‘Sprachfehler’
des Mose,* DBAT21 (1991), 8-16; W. Weinberg, Z A W 92 (1980), 191ff., 201.
144 Cf. also Acts 7:22; Philo and Josephus attribute eloquence to Moses, with a reference to his
upbringing at the Egyptian court (see 2:10); Josephus did not include what is said in 4:10 in his
account; for Philo, see below.
145 According to Augustine, QE, VII, Moses intimated that he had expected that he would
suddenly and miraculously have become eloquent.
410 exodus 2:23-4:19
(cf. esp. also Ps. 94:9) ought to be understood. In Exodus ‘man’ as related to
God is also found in 33:20. d ik also occurs as nomen rectum in construct
chains (13:13; 30:32; cf. e.g. Gen. 9:6; Deut. 4:28; 1 Kgs. 13:2). In such instan
ces the adjective ‘human’ is often a suitable rendering of d in . See further
THAT, I, 42ff.; TWAT, I, 81ff.; L. Kutler, JANES 14 (1982), 69-77.
in (OT ca. 320 x; Exod. 35 x), ‘or,’ is a disjunctive particle, used where two
or more possibilities from which to choose are listed side by side; see 5:3;
19:13; 21:4, 6, 18, 20, 21 et al. (w occurs 27 x in chaps. 21-23). In 21:31, 36 ik
is used to introduce a sentence which describes another possibility than is
mentioned in the sentence just prior to it, and means ‘in case that,’ ‘if (cf. e.g.
Lev. 13:16, 24; 1 Sam. 28:13; Ezek. 14:17, 19). See further Ges-K § 104c, 150g,
i, 159cc, 162; Jotion § 161e, 175a, d; Brockelmann § 131, 136a, b, 169c; Meyer
§ 88.2a, 111.3a, 114.4c; Williams § 443.
o«r (elsewhere the form m r is found; cf. Meyer § 80.3c; see also Sam. Pent.)
imperf. qal of art/; at the beginning of the verse, d © perf. qal was used; the
tense difference is likely to be explained as follows: the perf. refers to God’s
creative act (cf. TPsJ; it specifically speaks of d ik , ‘the first man’); in
creating man, God gave them a mouth; since then the human race possesses
this organ and is able to speak. The imperf. refers to what God can do for
each (new) member of the human race, which by nature possesses a mouth: he
can cause them to be mute from birth, to be born blind or to become blind
later in life, etc. Rashi regards the verse as an allusion to Moses’ flight from
Egypt: Who taught you to speak when you were arraigned before Pharaoh?
Who made Pharaoh mute, so that he could not insist on your death, etc.?
d^k (OT 6x), ‘mute,’ is an adjective derived from obK (see e.g. the use of
niph. in Isa. 53:7; Ezek. 3:26; 24:27; 33:22). In 4:11 it denotes the inability
to speak. It is often used in imagery (Isa. 56:10; Ps. 38:14; Prov. 31:8 et al.).
According to Ezek. 3:26; Luke l:20ff., it is God who makes people (tem
porarily) mute (in Matt. 9:32ff.; 12:22ff. being mute is attributed to demonic
powers). ‘Mute’ is used a few times along with ‘deaf (see below) (4:11; Isa.
35:5f.; Ps. 38:14). See further BHHW, III, 1886; Struys, 194ff.
©in (OT 9x), ‘deaf,’ is an adjective, derived from ©in, which, it is assumed
(being deaf often goes hand in hand with being mute; cf. Matt. 9:32), can mean
‘being deaf as well as ‘being mute.’ The adjective only occurs with the meaning
‘deaf.’ The verb »*n (OT 47 x) occurs, among others, with the meaning ‘to act
like one is deaf,’ ‘to be deaf,’ ‘to be silent;’ compare the use of ©in hiph. in
14:14: ‘to keep still;’ the Israelites may remain totally passive; even their
mouth may remain inactive (cf. ©in hithp. in Judg. 16:2). In 4:11; Lev. 19:14
©in denotes the inability to hear. It is used more often in imagery (Isa. 29:18;
35:5; 42:18f.; 43:8 et al.). ‘Deafness’ and ‘muteness’ often go together (4:11;
Lev. 19:14; Isa. 29:18; 35:5; 42:18f.; 43:8; note, too, that eyes and ears often are
mentioned together; Deut. 29:3; Isa. 6:10; Ezek. 12:2; Ps. 94:9; 115:5f.; Prov.
20:12; Eccl. 1:8 et al.). An individual who is blind and deaf is virtually bereft of
contact with the outside world. See further THAT, I, 639ff.; TWAT, II, 277ff.;
Struys, 191ff.
npo, ‘seeing,’ is an adjective derived from npa146 and is found only in 4:11
and (metaphorically) in 23:8. In both texts it contrasts with ‘blind’ (cf. Isa.
35:5). Because ‘seeing’ is mentioned here amid other physical deformities, and
‘blind’ more than once in the OT is used in combination with ‘lame,’ ‘lame
ness’ (Lev. 21:18; Deut. 15:21; 2 Sam. 5:6, 8; Jer. 31:8; Mai. 1:8, 13; Job 29:15),
it has been suggested that the correct reading here should be nos, ‘lamb’ (OT
14 x) instead of rtpo; see e.g. Ehrlich; McNeile and further also S.T. Lachs, VT
26 (1976), 249f. Someone who is both blind and lame is almost totally defen
seless (Struys, 209ff.). However, the MT makes good sense and makes the
conjecture unnecessary. S. Speier, VT 10 (1960), 347, notes a view mentioned
by Joseph Bekhor Shor (12th century), namely that npo means ‘hearing and
seeing’ (with a reference to Isa. 42:20).
■ny (26 x OT), ‘blind,’ is an adjective, derived from -n». As a verb, tiv piel
(OT 5x) occurs in the sense of ‘to blind’ (2 Kgs. 25:7; Jer. 39:7; 52:11);
metaphorically in Exod. 23:8; Deut. 16:19. Impaired vision was one of the most
widespread diseases in the Ancient Near East. It could have various causes: old
age (Gen. 27:1; 48:10; 1 Sam. 3:2 et al.), deliberate mutilation (Judg. 16:21;
2 Kgs. 25:7; cf. 1 Sam. 11:2), or abusive treatment (21:26); often blindness may
have been a condition from birth (John 9:Iff.) or the result of ophthalmic
disease, caused by unfavourable climatological and hygienic circumstances.
Laws offered the blind some protection (Lev. 19:14; Deut. 27:18). In the main,
however, they were dependent on charity (Job 29:15). Their existence was quite
unenviable (Mark 10:46; Luke 6:39; cf. the imagery in Deut. 28:29; Isa. 59:10;
Zeph. 1:17) and their social opportunities were extremely restricted (Lev.
21:18). Since God was viewed as the One who caused illness (see 4:6ff. and
Struys, 416ff.), also blindness was thought to be from his hand. This notion
resulted in the belief that blindness was due to sin (John 9:2).147 See further
BHHW, I, 256ff.; DB, III, 330f.; IDB, I, 448f.; TWAT, V, 1190ff.; Struys, 186ff.
K^n (OT ca. 140 x) is used to introduce rhetorical questions to which a
positive response is expected; see 4:11, 14; 14:12; 33:16. In English such
questions can take the form of: you will do that, won’t you? Exclamations can
be in similar vein: that certainly is the case, isn’t it? The assumption is that
both speaker and the one spoken to are in agreement on the contents of the
statement.148
4:11 contains the following contrasts: opposite to ‘eloquence’ are muteness
146 The verb npD (OT qal and niph. 21 x) means ‘to open’ (eyes); see Gen. 21:19 et al.
Healing of blindness by divine power is mentioned in salvation prophecies; see Isa. 29:18;
35:5; Jer. 31:8, and see in the NT Matt. 20:29ff.; Mark 8:22ff.; Luke 4:19 et al.
148 See further Ges-K § 150e; Joiion § 161c, 164d; Brockelmann § 54c; Meyer § 86.3b, 111.2c;
H.A. Brongers, “Some Remarks on the Biblical Particle hal6\mOTS 21 (1981), 177-89.
412 E X O D U S 2:23-4:19
and deafness, the inabilities to speak and to hear/understand (which often go

hand in hand); opposite to sight is blindness. If the same person is suffering
from all three disabilities - muteness, deafness and blindness (Matt. 12:22) —
one can hardly call it ‘human existence’, ‘life’ (cf. Ps. 115:5ff.; 135:16f.).
Although Moses’ main objection appears to be his weakness in clearly expres
sing himself in words it is striking that y h w h in his answer also raises the
subject of human (dis)ability to hear and see. He emphasizes the fact that he
provides all human capabilities to communicate; their absence is likewise
caused by him (cf. Wolff, 116ff.).
4:12 ‘N ow go, I will help you speak and tell you what you are to say. ’
nnw, see 3:9. see Introd. § 3.14.2. thk + cm, see 3:12 and also 3:13, 14;
y h w h informs Moses that he will be m rr with respect to Moses’ mouth.
ipnnim perf. cons. + suff. (cf. Ges-K § 75ee) of m \ Lexicographers are
divided on the question of the number of m* roots: one (BDB) or more, two
or three (Ges-B; KBL; HAL). I suffice with noting that if a plurality of roots is
assumed, rrr qal, with the meaning of ‘to throw in’ (+ a) (15:4) or ‘to cast,’ ‘to
shoot (with arrows?)’ (19:13) and rrr niph. with the meaning of ‘to be cast
down/shot’ (19:13; cf. e.g. Num. 21:30; 1 Sam. 20:36f.; 2 Kgs. 13:17) are derived
from a root m* which should be distinguished from the root rrr, used among
others in 4:12, which in hiph. occurs with the meaning of ‘to teach,’ ‘to give
direction’;149 see 4:12, 15: ‘inform,’ ‘announce’ (cf. Judg. 13:8); 15:25: ‘to
instruct’;150 24:12; 35:34: ‘to teach’.151 The derivative min (OT ca. 220x;
pi. 12x) occurs 7x (pi. 3x) in Exodus with the meaning of ‘instruction,’
‘precept;’ see 12:49 (cf. e.g. Lev. 7:7; Num. 15:16); 16:4; 16:28 (beside nisn, see
Introd. § 3.43.2); 18:16, 20 (beside D*pn, see 5:14); 24:12 (beside rnsp); in 16:28;
18:16, 20 in pi.; in 24:12 it is best to translate the sing, as a pi.; in 13:9 min
must mean ‘teaching’ (see there).152
It is appealing (cf. Holzinger) to apply ‘I will help you speak’ (LXX: ‘and I
will open your mouth’ [see also 4:15]) to the form of speaking — elegant
language would make Moses’ argument more compelling — and ‘I will tell
you ...’ to the contents. The targums treat both statements as synonyms; in TO
the first statement is translated: ‘and my word will be in your mouth;’ in TNf:
149 For a different view see Ehrlich on 4:12, who maintains that the hiph. is to be derived from
m n ; Palache, 68f., proposes a derivation from HN").
150 The proposed reading 1JWH (cf. Sam. Pent.) is unnecessary; see the use of HT hiph. in e.g.
Gen. 46:28; Ps. 45:5; Prov. 6:13.
35:34 refers to the ability to instruct others in the secrets of artisan skills; in 24:12 D rm n^
may mean ‘so as to instruct them (in these things)’ (implied subject is Moses or YHWH), but likely
what is meant is ‘to point them the way’ (subject is YHWH), to make known to them how they are
to act (cf. e.g. 1 Kgs. 8:36; Ps. 25:12; 27:11; 86:11).
152 Bibl.: THAT, II, 1032ff.; TWAT, III, 909ff.; 920ff.; Liedke, 195ff.; A. Renker, Die Tora bei
Maleachi: Ein Beitrag zur Bedeutungsgeschichte von Tora im Alten Testament, Freiburg i.B. 1979.
‘with my mouth I will be with the speaking of your mouth;’ TPsJ offers a
similar rendering (cf. also 4:15). Comparing 4:12 with 4:15, it is readily seen
that the expression refers to speaking in general, both as regards form as well
as contents.
Moses’ refusal and God’s response. The outcome (4:13-19)

Despite the manner in which y h w h has countered all the objections, Moses
politely tells y h w h he does not want to be considered for the task y h w h has
charged him with. He shows his true face. The refusal is not accepted, how
ever. Moses has nothing to say (cf. John 15:16). y h w h loses his patience, and
getting angry he tells Moses in no uncertain terms that refusal is out of the
question. Still, he does enter into Moses’ words (see below at 4:14-16). His
final words, however, contain an instruction (4:16b-17). The time for doubt is
past. Moses will have to go. For a moment it seems as if Moses still does not
plan on carrying out the mandate. Instead of heading for Egypt, he goes in the
other direction, he goes home (4:18a). But his request to his father-in-law
shows that he does not intend to stay there (4:18b). When he is ready to go,
y h w h again speaks to him, urging and encouraging him (4:19).
4:13 But Moses said, ‘O my Lord, please send someone else. ’

For the address see 4:10. The implied object with ‘send’ (Introd. § 3.49.1) is
‘the message’ (cf. e.g. 2 Sam. 12:25; 1 Kgs. 21:11, and see the use of D'-q i in
4:28; cf. e.g. Judg. 11:28); rfaprrTa is a construct chain in which a relative
clause is connected with a nomen regens\ after T3 (see Introd. § 3.21.3) one
would have expected some indication of the acting person (cf. e.g. 1 Sam.
16:20; 2 Sam. 11:14; 1 Kgs. 2:25) in the form of *©k; like rrnx n*ntt in 3:14
the phrase is an idem per idem construction; see further KOSynt 337v; Ges-K
§ 130d, 138e, 155n; Jouon § 129 p, q, 158o.
Moses is very careful in the words he chooses, using polite and courteous
language. One would hardly have expected that of a man who said of himself
that he was not much of a speaker. He does not say openly, send someone
else. He does not say either, why don’t you drop the whole business? please,
don’t start. He phrases in such a way that, given a kind interpretation of his
words, he is not ruled out as a possible candidate for the mission. But it is
clear that with his: ‘Feel free to send whomever you want,’ he leaves unsaid:
‘So long as it is not me!’ y h w h ’s response (4:14) shows that that is how he
took Moses’ words.
The text does not (explicitly) say what motivated Moses to make the state
ment. Way back, his words have been variously understood. The LXX regards
them as stemming from his sense of inadequacy: ‘Pick another, a more capable
individual, whom you will send;’ cf. also TNf: ‘by the hand of someone who is
capable of being sent;’ Also e.g. Nachmanides feels that Moses regarded
everyone else as more fit for the task than he himself. Rabbinic tradition
414 E X O D U S 2:23-4:19
contains the notion that Moses thought that the mission was not a human task
but one for angels, and also the idea that he spoke out of respect for Aaron
who was really entitled to the task; see ExR. Ill, 16; MidrTanh. Exod. I, 24; cf.
Ginzberg, II, 325f., and see also Rashi. TPsJ reads: ‘by the hand of Phinehas,
who is fit to be sent in the end of days’;153 cf. the alternate reading of TNf
in the margin: ‘by the hand of the angel (king?) Messiah, who must be sent.’
Some Christian authors have applied the words to the second person of the
Trinity (the Messiah); so e.g. Novatian, De Trinitate, IX.
Also this statement from Moses has made interpreters wonder about his
motives. Several exegetes do not read the words as Moses’ polite but firm
refusal. They look for extenuating circumstances for Moses and understand his
reaction. Lange thinks that if the words had come from the depths of Moses’
heart, y h w h would have refused to have further dealings with him: ‘der letzte
Seufzer seines Unmuths, seines Zagens macht sich Luft in diesen Worten.’
Lange contests Keil’s idea who thinks that Moses’ words in 4:13 ‘only brought
to light the secret reason in his (sc. Moses’) heart’ (so Keil wants to do full
justice to God’s response in vs. 14), while at the same time attributing Moses’
unwillingness as arising from “weakness of the flesh.’ Like Lange, Murphy
infers from the fact that y h w h responds to Moses’ arguments that Moses’
unwillingness did not come ‘from any unworthy motive, but from an absence of
ambition, a love of retirement, or a deep feeling of humility.’ Heinisch em
phasizes that Moses was ‘seelisch zermiirbt’ through the experiences in his life.
He does not doubt God’s power and plan, but doubts himself. God knows ‘daB
nicht Mangel an Verantwortungsgefuhl - das war bei Moses fast zu groB -
Oder Trdgheit Oder fehlende Opferwilligkeit die Ursache ist, daB Moses sich
ihm versagt, sondern nur die Erkenntnis seiner UnzulSnglichkeit gegeniiber
der ihm gestellten Aufgabe ...’ Cassuto regards it possible that Moses’ objec
tion was due to humility. This is an old interpretation, set forth already by
several of the patres (see Calmet).
The text is silent about Moses’ motives. Following his four objections and
y h w h ’s replies, Moses’ final statement is an anticlimax. In the light of the
conversation between y h w h and Moses, one would have expected a positive
response. Also in view of the divine response (4:14), it seems best to interpret
Moses’ words as a polite yet blunt refusal. No matter the assurances and
instructions he is given, he does not want to.
4:14 Then YH W H became angry with Moses and he said, You also have your
brother, Aaron, the Levite, don’t you? I know that he is a fluent speaker. In fact,
he will soon be on his way to you. As soon as he meets you, his heart will be
glad.’
Phinehas = Elijah; see e.g. Ginzberg, VI, 316, and in particular R. Hayward, "Phinehas —
the Same is Elijah: The Origins of a Rabbinic Tradition," JSS 29 (1978), 22-34.
*)N“ rn , (OT ca. 235x), dual O'DK ( 4 2 x ) occurs with the meaning ‘nose’
(25 x) and ‘wrath’ (of God ca. 170 x; of a human being ca. 40 x). The
connection between the concrete and abstract use of the term is explained in
this way: the nose is the organ used in breathing; when the breathing becomes
more rapid and turns into snorting, this is the body’s way of saying that it is
filled with rage (cf. e.g. 15:8; Ezek. 38:18; Ps. 18:8f., 16; Job 4:9). In Exodus
(8x) *)K always means ‘anger’ (in connection with yhwh 5 x; in connection
with Moses 3x). 6x ^ is subject of mn qal, ‘to glow,’ ‘to burn’;154 see
4:14; 22:23; 32:10, 11 (yhwh); 32:19, 22 (Moses) (compare 32:22 with Gen.
31:55; 44:18). In 11:8 *)N is applied to Moses in the construct chain *)K'” in, ‘hot
anger’155 and in 32:12 in relation to God in the genitive combination *)N“'p*in,
‘fierce wrath’.156 The dual D'DK (the two nostrils; similarly the ‘face’) is used
in 15:8 for God’s nose and in 34:6 in the expression d ' b n t in , ‘merciful;’ cf. e.g.
Num. 14:18; Neh. 9:17 (God); Prov. 14:29; 15:18 (a human being). The wrath
of God is a response to disobedience, improper conduct, unfaithfulness of
people, especially his own (e.g. 22:23; 32:10; Num. 11:1, 10, 33; 12:9; 25:3). Its
follow up is the punishment (though not in 4:14; see below). See further
THAT, I, 220ff., 633ff.; TWAT, I, 376ff.; Ill, 182ff.; Dhorme, 80ff.; Johnson,
49f.; Struys, 168f.
nVh, see 4:11. rw, see 1:6; for the suggestion that Aaron was Moses’ half
brother, see at 2:1; see Introd. § 5.40; the addition ‘the Levite’ to Aaron’s
name (see Introd. § 5.6) has raised questions. Against the background of 2:1, it
seems unlikely that ‘the descendant of Levi’ is meant. ‘Your brother’ would
have said the same thing. Moreover, the apposition ‘the Levite’ creates the
impression that it is intended to in some way set Aaron apart from Moses.
Therefore it is suggested to explain "6rt here as denoting an office: ‘the priest,’
a functionary whose task also included teaching (Lev. 10:11; Deut. 33:10a) and
consequently was a competent speaker; see e.g. Dillmann, Baentsch, Beer, Te
Stroete, Hyatt. That sort of suggestion at least has more to commend itself
than that ‘the Levite’ was a nickname to distinguish Aaron from others with
the same name;157 that the designation is meant to characterize Aaron as a
genuine Levite, ‘ein Muster der Levitenart, mehr als Moses’ (Lange); that the
text is corrupt (Ehrlich reads i^n, ‘druben’ = Egypt); that ‘the Levite’ was not
154 Here the image of fire, heat, is connected with anger rather than the image of snorting;
perhaps the phrase is based on the observation that anger can cause body temperature to rise
sharply; m n (OT 93x; qal 82x) is used exclusively for describing anger ( + 3 , ‘against’) (ca. 50x
*)K is subject).
155 a derivative of nnn and is used in reference to God as well as human
beings.
]1"in (OT 41 x) is a derivative of m n ; it is always used in reference to God (see also 15:7);
in construct chain with *)# 35 x.
See e.g. Gispen; Cole (in that case one has to understand *your brother’ as ‘fellow clansman’
or ‘fellow Israelite’).
416 E X O D U S 2:23-4:19
part of the original text.158 Cassuto believes that 'ibn is used as a word-play
(cf. Num. 18:2): comes from mb, ‘to join;’ *ibn means that Aaron is worthy
of accompanying Moses (cf. also Keil). My preference is to take *ibn as a
nomen gentilicium. Despite 2:1, the writer felt the need to specifically introduce
Aaron as a descendant of Levi.
‘to know,’ see Introd. § 3.22. -q t -q i inf. abs. + finite verb to strengthen the
idea of the verb; see e.g. KoSynt § 329r; Ges-K § 1131 ff.; Joiion § 123d ff.;
Brockelmann § 93. Kin (with emphasis) in contrast to Moses (4:10); the LXX
reads: in t o x a fia i 8n Xdk&v XaXr\at\ aijxdx; aoi(cf. 4:16a). K V r n n ffin, see Introd.
§ 3.11.1. ttr, see Introd. § 3.24.1; for the translation of the part, after rm see
Introd. § 3. IS; it is possible to take the part, as saying that Aaron was already
on the way, had just left, but it is also possible to relate it to the near future.
At issue is the relation of 4:14 to 4:27. In the latter rendering, 4:27 causes no
problems: in 4:14 y h w h announces that Aaron will come to Moses; in 4:27 he
orders Aaron to do that (cf. Acts 8:26f.). In the former view, 4:27 presents
some problems, unless one wants to assume that y h w h expresses himself
forcefully (exaggerates) (in reality he still has to instruct Aaron), or that the
tense in 4:27 is to be understood as a pluperfect. If the latter, one ends up
with the following (rather contrived) picture: when y h w h spoke to Moses he
had already ordered Aaron to get on the way (4:14 and 4:27a deal with about
simultaneous episodes; cf. Acts 10). Nachmanides suggests that Aaron, having
learned that Moses had left Midian, went to meet him, and that on the way
y h w h instructed him concerning the route. In any case, there is no reason to
believe that the writer had two different events in mind in 4:14 and 4:27, a
spontaneous coming of Aaron (for instance, with the report that Moses’
enemies had died; see 2:23 and 4:19) (4:14), separate from a coming instigated
by y h w h (4:27). The place from which Aaron hails is not mentioned. It was
obviously Egypt. Bohl considers it possible that Aaron was high priest of the
sanctuary which, according to him, was situated on Horeb and run by Levites.
He reads 4:14 as saying that Aaron met his own brother at Horeb. In his
opinion, 4:27 recounts a second meeting of the two brothers, at which occasion
Aaron, familiar with the y h w h religion, joins Moses and travels with him to
Egypt to convert the people and Pharaoh. *|ntnpb, see 1:10. i*m, the sentence
is conditional; cf. e.g. Ges-K § 159g; Meyer § 122.2d.
r w (OT 154x; qal 126x), ‘to rejoice,’ is found only here in Exodus, in
conjunction with ■obs; see also Zeph. 3:14 and cf. the use of nos? with 3b as
subject in e.g. Ps. 16:9 et al. (OT 6x); not certain is whether the addition of
13^3 (see Introd. § 3.29.1) is meant to strengthen the idea of the verb; see
further THAT, II, 828ff.; TWAT, VII, 808ff. The reunion brought joy to Aaron
(cf. Judg. 19:3; 1 Sam. 6:13, and see also 4:27). Odd is Ehrlich’s view: he
158 O. Loretz, UF 8 (1976), 454: ‘the Levite,’ a gloss in the margin, was slipped into the text
after ‘your brother/ though it was intended as a note with Aaron.
understands as ‘secretly’ (cf. Lev. 19:17) and he substitutes rom for yn \:

‘Wenn Aharon sehen sollte, daB Moses die Mission ablehnt, dann wiirde er
sich im Geheimen freuen, weil sie dann ihm zufallen wurde. JHVH kennt des
Menschen Herz. Er erweckte in Moses Eifersucht, und die gab den Ausschlag.’
Aaron’s joy implies that Moses can be sure he can count on the devotion and
backing of his brother. The description of Moses in chaps. 3 and 4 contrasts
with the description of Aaron: unlike Moses, he is not only an eloquent man,
he is also depicted as an individual who is quickly roused to action.
4:15 You will speak to him and put the words in his mouth, and I will help both
you and him in speaking and tell the two o f you what you are to do. ’
‘and put the words in his mouth,’ cf. Jer. 1:9 and see the remarks on no in
4:10; LXX and Vulg. read: ‘my words.’ ‘and I will see 4:12 (also for the
versions); the promise is expanded to include Aaron; Aaron’s eloquence
notwithstanding, both Moses (when he puts the words in Aaron’s mouth) and
Aaron (when he passes on Moses’ words) can count on divine assistance; so
they are assured that their message will be compelling. TTTim, see 4:12; unlike
in 4:12, yhwh does not promise here that he will tell what is to be said, but
promises that he will tell what is to be done. Perhaps this formulation is
chosen in view of Aaron’s relation to Moses, as depicted in 4:15, 16: Aaron is
Moses’ spokesman and not the one who acts on his own as God’s messenger.
On the one hand, this formulation says more as concerns Moses than 4:12
- he is told how to act - , and on the other hand less - it is not specifically
said that the substance of the words will come from yhwh. The imperf. pawn
contains the notion of ‘must;’ see e.g. Joiion § 113m.
4:16 ‘He will speak to the people on your behalf; so he shall be your spokesman
and you shall be his god, ’
1^, cf. Isa. 6:8. rrm applies to all of 4:16b and 17; the three clauses of which
4:16b and 17 consist, and which as regards tense have their own colouring, are
thereby included in the consecutive tense of 4:15, 16; the imperfects rrrr and
rrnn likely include the notion of ‘must.’ For no see 4:10. 4:16b is chiastically
phrased relative to 4:15a and 16a; 4:15a is correlative with 4:16b2 and 4:16a
with 4:16b1. The language is obviously metaphorical. There is no reason to
think that Moses is called dy6 k because presumably he is a human being
possessing extraordinary capabilities and clothed with divine power and
authority (see at 7:1). Rather, Moses is informed that his relation to Aaron
will be similar to that of the divinity to his prophet (cf. 7:lf.; there with an eye
to the contact with Pharaoh). For older translators the imagery was a bit
much. In the LXX the final words of 4:16 (in translation) read: ‘you will there
be for him in matters pertaining to God;’ cf. Vulg.: tu autem eris ei iri hjg
ad Deum pertinent. In TO, TPsJ and FTV nzb is rendered as ih^ Jfs[f ^
prvirb, that is, ‘as interpreter.’ In TO dt6 k^> is translated/^ ‘to
418 exo dus 2:23-4:19
master;’ in TPsJ as 'n Dip to pViK m n 31^, ‘to the master who seeks instruc
tion from the side of y h w h ;’ in TNf as "■ Dip p snr6, ‘to the one who
seeks instruction from the side of y h w h ’ (similarly FTV). The terms metur-
geman and rab bring the reader in the sphere of the synagogue and rabbinic
school. In the synagogue the meturgeman stands beside the reader and trans
lates his words from Hebrew into Aramaic. In the rabbinic school the metur
geman clarifies the teaching of the master so that the common folk can
understand it.
4:16 clearly shows that Moses occupies a higher position than Aaron. The
notion has been defended that 4:16 reflects a particular view of the relation in
which the prophet (Moses) stands to the priest (Aaron): the prophet ranks
higher than the priest; the latter receives instructions about God’s will from
the prophet; see e.g. Bohl, Te Stroete, Fensham. Te Stroete adds that the
prophet also needs the priest who was charged with instructing the people:
charisma and institution cannot do without each other. That kind of inter
pretation gains credence if ‘the Levite’ (4:14) is viewed as ‘the priest.’ It is not
favoured by the contents of 4:14ff. The passage is not about the relation in
which the prophet stands to the priest and their meeting with each other, but
describes a meeting of two brothers. Together they must be y h w h ’s emissary,
each having his own unique part, the one providing the message and the words
in which it is couched, the other communicating the announcement. The
prophet appears in the form of a complementary duality. Furthermore, from
the perspective of the redaction of Exodus, it is improbable that already here
Aaron would function as a priest.
As to 4:14-16, the question presents itself whether the help Moses will
receive from Aaron is to be regarded as a way of meeting Moses’ objections, as
a kind gesture from y h w h , or as punishment for his persistent refusal. Rashi
is among those who espouse the last view. He cites a view which, inter alia, is
found in ExR. Ill, 17, and which seeks to account for the striking ‘the Levite’
in 4:14: Moses was destined to become the tribal father of the priests; from
now on, however, he will be ‘the Levite;’ Aaron was destined to be a Levite; he
will be a priest. Strack is a modern expositor who holds that there is punish
ment here: Moses’ speech impediment remains; y h w h looks for another
solution; Cassuto thinks along the same lines: Moses has to share the honour
of being God’s messenger with Aaron. See also McNeile, who by way of
comparison points to Judg. 4:9. Murphy, Keil and Heinisch feel that it is a
case of divine mercy toward Moses who lacks courage. Others think that the
present presentation: Aaron’s help is punishment (Dillmann), an accom
modation (Te Stroete), arose through a later insertion of Aaron into the text;
cf. also Noth. As it stands, the present text makes enough sense, y h w h reaches
a kind of compromise (Baentsch, Beer). He even in part takes up Moses’
suggestion (4:13). Along with Moses he sends another as well. He also comes
with a new solution to Moses’ objection in 4:10. Moses is provided with a
spokesperson. The follow up of y h w h ’s anger is not a meeting out of punish

ment. The wrath is rather a signal to Moses that y h w h has had it with back
talk. From now one he ought to shut up and do what y h w h tells him.
4:17 ‘and this staff you must take in your hand so you can perform the signs with
it.’
‘and this staff,’ see 4:2, 4 and further Introd. § 3.21.10, 11. The LXX has a
longer text, which in translation reads: ‘the staff that was changed into a
snake;’ the expansion is likely based on 7:15. ‘take,’ see Introd. § 3.30. t»r,
introduces a purpose clause, see Introd. § 3.7.2. nix, see 3:12; the pi. (see also
4:9) is a bit striking because the staff is used only with one sign (4:2-4).
Apparently already at this point the writer envisions the role the staff will play
in the controversy with Pharaoh; see 7:10ff., 19ff.; 8:lff; 9:22f. et al. (cf. already
Ibn Ezra and Nachmanides). A recurring notion is that there is a discrepancy
here, caused by the evolution of the text (e.g. Baentsch). In my opinion, 4:17 is
closely linked with 4:16b. The verses depict how Moses and Aaron ought to
conduct themselves: Moses, staff in hand, is to be the high official, accom
panied by Aaron as his spokesman.
4:18 Moses returned to his father-in-law Jether and said to him, 7 would like to
go back to my brothers in Egypt to see if they are still alive. ’ Jethro answered
Moses, ‘By all means go. ’
-|^n, see Introd. § 3.14.1. aan, see 4:7. Jether/Jethro, see Introd. § 5.37; the
Sam. Pent, has removed the ‘discrepancy’ in the spelling of the name and
substituted ‘Jethro’ for ‘Jether;’ also old translations have opted for a uniform
name (Jethro); see LXX, Pesh., Vulg. and TPsJ and TNf; later translations
have followed suit; see e.g. SV, LV (with proposal to alter the text), inn, see
3:1. k:, see 3:3 (for the dageS see Ges-K § 20f). Twice in this verse, the verbs of
motion, "[bn and mo, are used in one breath; the first time for Moses’ return to
Midian; the second time for his return to Egypt (*|^n is used a third time at the
end of the verse); also in 4:19-21 "|^n (2x) and (3x) are used; the
overriding concern in Moses’ life now is the return to Egypt (in 4:18, 19, 20,
21 the word ‘Egypt’ occurs); t ik , see 1:6; if the word is taken to mean ‘me
mbers of my people’ (e.g. Keil, Gispen), there is a kind of parallelism between
2:11 and 4:18 (cf. Cassuto): both verses speak of the going (different verbs are
used) of Moses, of brothers, and of ‘seeing’ (mo). It goes too far to infer from
this that there is a close link between both verses. In 4:18 the brothers must
have been Moses’ closest relatives (e.g. Dillmann, Baentsch, Strack, Clamer).
Otherwise one must assume that Moses — less likely; cf. Ehrlich — reckons
with the possibility that all the members of his people perished in the oppres
sion (so Keil)159 or choose Cassuto’s interpretation of cm (see below).
159 See on this also McNeile: the verse assumes that Israel was small in number in Egypt.
420 exodus 2:23-4:19
□nun (for in? see 2:3) with interrogative n; cf. Ges-K § 100m; Joiion 102n,
and see for the use in indirect questions e.g. Ges-K § 150i; Joiion 161f. o*Tt,
see 1:14; according to Cassuto, ‘if they are still alive’ means ‘how they are
doing’ (cf. Gen. 45:3, said by Joseph, who knows already that his father is still
alive; see Gen. 44:20ff.); the WV has chosen this interpretation; in my opinion,
here it robs the expression of its force; *|^> (cf. Joiion § 114n).
(OT ca. 235 x), a derivative of d^», is a much discussed term. As a verb
(OT ca. 115x) is found in piel (OT ca. 90 x) in Exodus 18 x with the
meaning of ‘to make restitution,’ ‘to pay’ (21:34, 36 [2x], 37; 22:2 [2x], 3, 4,
5 [2x], 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13 [2x], 14). 01^0 occurs with various meanings in a
diversity of contexts. Widely held is the view that □*?© means ‘to be whole/un-
blemished’, and that this meaning comes through in the use of the verb and
derived nouns (see e.g. Eisenbeis). Gerleman disputes this, believing that the
basic meaning is ‘to pay,’ ‘to requite.’ In Exodus O'taff only occurs in standard
phrases: in the formula mb©1? ij*? in 4:18 (cf. e.g. Judg. 18:6; 1 Sam. 1:17): ‘Go
in peace,’ ‘peace be to you’ (cf. e.g. Gen. 43:23; Judg. 6:23); in the expression
b Vn©, ‘inquiring about someone’s welfare,’ in 18:7 (cf. e.g. Gen. 43:27;
Judg. 18:15; 1 Sam. 10:4; 25:5); in the combination Kia qal + Di^wa (cf. 2 Sam.
19:25, 31) in 18:23, ‘go in (complete) peace.’ Eisenbeis, 93f., suggests that in
Jethro’s mouth mb®1? lb likely has a deeper meaning: as priest he wishes Moses
‘er solle zum Heil weggehen, womit vielleicht gemeint ware, Mose moge seine
Reise zum Heil Israels antreten.’ It is to be noted, however, that here it
concerns a standard expression.160
Moses goes home again, to his father-in-law (cf. 3:1). He does not mention
his encounter with y h w h and asks him, the paterfamilias, for permission to go
to Egypt.161 He motivates his request with the remark that he wants to find
out how his kin folk are doing, and so gives the impression that he only wants
to visit Egypt.162 Unclear is why the purpose of the journey is not specifical
ly stated. A conjecture is that Moses wants to prevent Jethro or Zipporah
from stopping him (e.g. Dillmann, Baentsch, Heinisch, Clamer). Ishodad
suggests that Moses did not speak about the revelation because Jethro was a
160 Bibl.: THAT, II, 919ff.; W. Eisenbeis, Die Wurzel □btO im Allen Testament, Berlin 1969;
G. Gerleman, “Die Wurzel Sim," ZAW 85 (1973), 1-14; E. Jenni, "Gehe hin in Frieden
(iISlwm/bSlwm)l* ZAH 1 (1988), 40-6; H.H. Schmid, SalOm ‘Frieden’ in Alten Orient und im Alten
Testament, Stuttgart 1971, 45ff.; D J. Wiseman, “‘Is it Peace?’ - Covenant and Diplomacy," VT 32
(1982), 311-25.
161 £)ifferent from Jacob (Gen. 31), Moses asks leave from the head of the family before
departing; besides other explanations, rabbinic tradition (e.g. ExR IV; V, 4; MidrTanh. E xod I, 18)
contains the idea that Moses returned to Jethro because he had sworn to him that he would not
leave Midian without his knowledge; see also Rashi and cf. Ginzberg, II, 327.
162 Cf. Nachmanides: Moses gives the impression that he only wants to go and return; for that
reason YHWH speaks again (4:19) to Moses; Moses must leave for good; therefore, following
YHWH’s intervention, he also takes his wife and children with him (4:20).
pagan and would mock at him. Keil has a similar idea: Moses is silent about
the real reason, ‘no doubt because Jethro had not the mind to understand such
a divine revelation.’ In contrast, Lange proposes that hearing the whole truth
would have been too much for Jethro. Cassuto states: ‘diplomatic negotiations
cannot be done openly.’ And Rylaarsdam notes: ‘The will of God, before its
execution, is declared only to the prophet.’ Perhaps Moses’ motivation should
also be explained psychologically. It has sunk in on him that resistance to the
mission does not work (cf. Amos 3:8 and the book of Jonah) and that he has
to go to Egypt. But he has not yet reached the point at which he dares to
speak openly to others about the mission he has to carry out. The task laid
upon him still has to grow on him. In any case, his father-in-law in no way
opposes him. Moses is free to accomplish the task set before him.
4:19 Thereupon YH W H spoke to Moses in Midian, ‘Go now, return to Egypt (your
life is no longer in danger), for all those who were seeking your life are dead.’
‘Thereupon y h w h spoke,’ several expositors consider y h w h ’s command to
Moses to go to Egypt, after Moses, according to 4:18 had indicated his
readiness to go, as an inconsistency in the narrative. Apparently already way
back it was felt that something was not quite right in the relation between 4:18
and 4:19. The LXX, for example, repeats the opening words of 2:23: ‘and after
those many days the king of Egypt died’ at the beginning of 4:19, thereby
loosening the connection between 4:18 and 4:19 and making 4:19 the opening
verse of a new passage. Already Ibn Ezra proposed to read n a n as a pluper
fect, ‘he ( y h w h ) had said,’ so reversing the order between the two verses,
intimating that what is recounted in 4:19 is prior to what is said in 4:18. The
translators of the Dutch Statenvertaling record this suggestion in the marginal
notes; the NV and WV (cf. also NIV) made it part of the body of the
text.163 Literary-critical solutions have been proposed as well. Heinisch
considers 4:19 an addition. Many suggest that the inconsistency stems from
combining parts from different documents; e.g. it is proposed that 4:18 and
4:20b (E ) and 4:19 and 4:20a (J) belong together (e.g. Baentsch, Noth, Te
Stroete); GreBmann (SAT) regards 2:23a and 4:19, 20a (4:18 is a parallel
version of 4:19a, 20a) as the end of an old saga, which was unfamiliar with the
revelation at Horeb, and which recounts how Moses fled to Midian and from
there returned to Egypt;164 also others have proposed to regard 4:19, 20a,
along with 4:24-26, as verses which originally followed immediately after 2:23a
(see e.g. Baentsch, McNeile, Auerbach, 50f.). That results in the scenario that
163 See also e.g. Kitchen, 119, who suggests that 4:19 connects with 4:12; but note, however,
KoSynt § 142.
164 Cf. also Eerdmans, 16, 18: 4:19, 20a, 25, 26 was originally connected with 2:25; 3:1-4:18 was
added to relate ‘in welcher Weise der 4:19 erwahnle Ruf an Moses ergangen war.’
422 E X O D U S 2:23-4:19
y h w h reveals himself at Horeb during Moses’ return journey to Egypt.165 In

my judgment, it is not impossible that in 4:19ff. materials from various sources
have been combined. I also believe it has produced a meaningful text. Tying in
with my interpretation of 4:18 that the commission still has to grow on him, I
like to read 4:19 as y h w h ’s response to Moses’ hesitant first step as y h w h ’s
servant (for more see below).
‘Midian,’ see Introd. § 8.16. *[b, In trod. § 3.14.2. 3», see 4:7. ‘to die,’ see
Introd. § 3.32. y h w h informs Moses, who wants to find out if his people are
still alive (4:18), not about his people, but about his adversaries that they are
dead’ ‘those,’ see Introd. § 3.2.2. u>pa, see 2:15; in 0'®paan there is no doubling
of n and p, see Ges-K § 20m; Meyer § 28.3b; ‘life,’ see Introd. § 3.35.1; the
individuals referred to apparently are Pharaoh and his servants (cf. 2:15); one
might also think of the family of the slain Egyptian; in any case, there is a
harking back to what is related in 2:llff. In Matt. 2:20, the end of 4:19, in the
LXX version, is given an updated interpretation, with ri|v xirux^v tou jtaiStou
(viz. Jesus) as object. TPsJ has a longer text in 4:19 (cf. also 10:29), and tells
that all the men who sought Moses’ life ‘have become as nothing and lost their
possessions; behold, they are known as dead men’ (cf. TNf margin); behind this
version lies the idea, familiar from the rabbinic tradition, that Dathan and
Abiram were the men who tried to kill Moses (see e.g. ExR. V, 4; cf. Ginzberg,
II, 327, and see also Rashi); the blind, the leper, the poor and the childless is
regarded as dead (cf. Ginzberg, I, 363f.; V, 422).
The death of Pharaoh, who is not explicitly mentioned here, is already
related in 2:23. In the LXX this fact is mentioned here once again (see above).
The changed situation in Egypt may not have had consequences for the
position of the Israelites there (2:23b), 4:19 shows that at least for Moses the
new situation in Egypt meant a big improvement. That is bound to have
consequences, also for the Israelites.
After Moses has consented to go to Egypt, and so, by implication, aban
doned his resistance to the call (4:18), y h w h speaks again to Moses, this time
in Midian. He urges the man, who has struggled so much with his commission,
to go, and encourages him. Without fear for his life he can go to Egypt.
Having shown his readiness to go to Egypt, Moses may now learn - something
known by the reader throughout y h w h ’s dialogue with Moses - that the
situation in Egypt has changed.
165 This conception already occurs in the Islamic tradition (Weil, 150ff.).
exo dus 4:20-31
THE RETURN OF THE DELIVERER TO EGYPT
4:20 So Moses put his wife and children on a donkey and made ready to return to
the land o f Egypt The staff o f God Moses took in his hand
21 Then YHW H said to Moses, ‘Now that you are ready to return to Egypt,
remember to do before Pharaoh all the wonders I have empowered you to do.
However, I will make him obstinate, so that he will not let the people go,
22 Then you must say to Pharaoh, “Thus says YHWH, Israel is my son, my
firstborn,
23 Therefore I ordered you repeatedly: \Let my son go that he may worship me. '
But because you have refused to let him go, I will soon kill your son, your
firstborn9. '
24 On the way, as he spent the night somewhere, YHW H attacked him and tried
to kill him.
25 Then Zipporah took a flint and cut off her son's foreskin. She dropped it on
his legs' and said, ‘Truly, you are a bloody bridegroom to me!'
26 Thereupon he let him go. On that occasion she said ‘bloody bridegroom' in
view o f the circumcision.
27 YH W H said to Aaron, ‘Go to meet Moses in the wilderness.' He went, met
him at the mountain o f God, and kissed him.
28 Moses told Aaron all the words YHW H had ordered him to speak, and all the
signs he had charged him to do.
29 Thereupon Moses and Aaron went. They assembled all the elders o f Israel.
30 Aaron communicated all the words which YHW H had communicated to
Moses, and he performed the signs in the sight o f the people.
31 The people believed. When they heard that YHW H was really concerned about
the Israelites and had seen their misery, they made obeisance.
In 4:20-31 the writer makes the reader witness four scenes. The first scene
describes Moses’ departure from Midian (4:20-23). The second and third
describe events on the journey to Egypt (4:24-26 and 4:27, 28). The fourth
scene depicts Moses’ arrival and reception by his people (4:29-31).
Having returned with Moses from Horeb to Midian (4:18f.; cf. 2:15f.), the
reader is shown a scene playing there: Moses presents himself to his father-in-
law as someone who had remained a guest in a foreign land (2:22) and who is
424 E X O D U S 4:20-31
eager to find out how his relatives have been doing, and who therefore wants
to return. Once Moses has stated his desire to return to Egypt, events quickly
follow each other. In a minimum of words, the writer recounts a number of
incidents. It seems to be his way of saying that after the interminable and
seemingly fruitless dialogue, things get suddenly and rapidly moving. In a
compressed account, he recites several events that are crucial to the progress
and coherence of the stoiy. Moses states his desire to go to Egypt and his
father-in-law gives his blessing (4:18). y h w h encourages and urges him by
informing him that he no longer need fear for his life (4:19). Right after that
the story goes on to tell that Moses made ready for the journey (4:20). Having
received permission and knowing that there is no more danger, Moses doesn’t
waste time! He takes his wife and children with him. That creates the impres
sion that he wants to leave Midian for good. He also takes the staff. That is
his way of saying that he does not go for a family visit, but that he journeys to
Egypt to present himself there as y h w h ’s representative (cf. 4:2ff., 17). At the
last moment, when Moses is ready to set out, y h w h for the second time
addresses him in Midian. He gives final instructions and information (in a
nutshell the same information that is recorded in 7:18-11:5). It is as if y h w h ,
seeing Moses ready to leave, staff in hand, feels he has to speak to Moses one
more time for the sake of the successful outcome of the undertaking. He
considers himself entirely responsible. Nothing is to be left to chance in the
confrontation with Pharaoh. Everything has to be carefully planned, to the
minutest details. Thus he says again to Moses, ‘Don’t forget to use your staff,
for the purpose for which it is meant, ....’
The information and instruction (4:21-23) is about Moses’ appearance before
Pharaoh, a matter already touched on in 3:18ff, though in different words,
with other accents and details. There the plagues y h w h will perform in the
midst of the Egyptians (3:20) are mentioned. Here the plagues which Moses by
means of the staff has to summon in the sight of Pharaoh (4:21). There it is
said that y h w h is well aware that the king of Egypt (3:19) will stubbornly
refuse. Here that y h w h himself will cause Pharaoh to refuse (4:21). There it is
stated that the pressure of the plagues will make Pharaoh cave in so that he
will let the people go, while the Egyptians, under a YHWH-induced spell, will
allow themselves to be robbed (3:20, 21). Here it is reported that, when the
pressure of the plagues has proved to be ineffective, y h w h at last will act
according to the rule ‘an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth,’ and will strike
Pharaoh where it hurts the most by killing his firstborn son (4:22, 23). In the
light of the account of the course of events in the chapters that follow, the
information and instruction in 3:18ff. and 4:21ff., in the text of the book of
Exodus as it lies before us, can be regarded as complementary. In 4:21 the
position of Moses is underscored. It is said in so many words that he must do
the wonders (plagues) before Pharaoh. He must not only make it clear to the
people that he is a divine emissary (4:lff.), he must also let Pharaoh know that
E SSEN T IA LS AND PER SPEC T IV ES 425
he is dealing with the representative of a mighty God. The information Moses

receives is to be understood as an encouragement for him. When he en
counters obstacles and setbacks he should realize that those are part of
y h w h ’s strategy. Also the readers may share in that information. They, too, as
early as now are to be convinced that also when things hit bottom, y h w h is
sovereignly guiding events according to his plans (see further at 4:21-23). So
once again, the augmentation and expansion of the information and instruction
already provided, as seen against the background of the course of events after
Moses’s arrival in Egypt, serves to demonstrate that y h w h is fully in charge of
the situation. He leaves nothing, absolutely nothing, to chance. "—
Following the scene in Midian, the reader rather abruptly is made a witness
of an incident that happened as Moses journeyed from Midian to Egypt. Just
as the book of Genesis does not give a detailed report of, for example, Jacob’s
journey to Haran, but only records the quintessence of the story, the encounter
with y h w h (Gen. 28:10-22), so also Exodus gives no complete description of
Moses’ return to Egypt. Only two events are recorded, which are paramount
for the ongoing course of events, viz. the nightly encounter with y h w h
(4:24-26) and the meeting with Aaron (4:27, 28).
The first incident on the return journey dismays the reader. He had just
begun to breathe more easily, because Moses had abandoned all resistance and
expressed his willingness to accept the commission (4:18-20). The reader had
also learned that though the liberation of the people would be a hard thing to
pull off, there was no reason at all for despair, because y h w h would through
out be in absolute control of what would transpire (4:21-23). Yet now he has
to witness how y h w h threatens the ready-to-go Moses with death (4:24).
Again it appears as if nothing will come of the liberation of the people. It
appeared imminent, but whatever hard-won hope there was, is now suddenly
dashed. The scene of 4:24-26 intensifies the suspense: How can it be that
y h w h himself demolishes what has been achieved so far with much difficulty?
Again it is a woman whose apt intervention in a crisis situation saves the
situation, so that the history of deliverance is not untimely cut short but can
continue (cf. Introd. § 6.a): Zipporah circumcises her son, and so vicariously
also her husband; him she ‘circumcises’ with blood (4:25). Then the danger is
past (4:26). The reader can breathe more freely again. Furthermore, the reader
now also notices that y h w h ’s assault was for a purpose, at least had a very
positive result. It resulted in Moses’ circumcision and so in an unique sense he
has been consecrated to his task. Now Moses can really go to work. Also, now
that Moses has been consecrated through circumcision, there is no danger that
an event as recorded in 4:24 might happen again. So Moses is all the more
equipped for the task awaiting him.
The second scene on the return trip to Egypt instils fresh joy and new hope
in the reader who had just recovered from the earlier shock. There is every
reason to trust y h w h ! He stands by his word. Acting in accordance with his
4 2 6/ exo dus 4:20-31
promises (4:14), he brings about a meeting between Moses and Aaron. That
yhw h was involved in the meeting of the brothers is crystal clear from the fact
that of all places they meet each other at the mountain of God. There Moses
may initiate Aaron in the revelation he had received and tell him about the
orders given him. Besides, the place of meeting puts y h w h ’s stamp of consent
and stamp of approval upon the initiation of Aaron and so upon his later
ministry.
Making a long story short, also the two scenes from Moses’ journey back to
Egypt are meant to qualify him, to equip him to be y h w h ’s messenger and the
deliverer of his people. Until the very last moment y h w h is active preparing
Moses for his mission. Moses is now circumcised and in the company of
Aaron. In every respect he is suited for his task. The work can begin.
The next scene shows how Moses and Aaron start immediately and act
according to y h w h ’s instructions (4:30, 31; cf. 3:16ff.). Their meeting with the
people proceeds flawlessly. They are recognized as y h w h ’s messengers.
Striking is that the writer is so short about the arrival and reception of
Moses and Aaron. The succinctness seems intended to convey the impression
that the reception went smoothly. After the instructions and preparation by
y h w h one would not have expected otherwise anyway. The untroubled
welcome the two men receive contrasts sharply with Moses’ objections, based
as they were on presumed unbelief and distrust among the people (3:13ff.;
4:Iff.). By his brevity the writer also seems to want to say that Moses’ pro
blems turned out to be ill-founded; his objections were unnecessary. The
difficulties will come from the side of him whose name Moses mentioned once
in his dialogue with y h w h (3:11), viz. Pharaoh. Many, many words will have to
be expended on the confrontation with that man. Not unbelief or distrust on
the part of the people, but Pharaoh’s opposition will turn out to be an almost
insurmountable hurdle. But Moses knows what is awaiting him (3:19ff.;
4:21ff.).

In marking off 2:23-4:19 it was already noted that the delimitation of the parts
to be discussed here is sort of arbitrary. The Masoretes start a new section
(petithd) with 4:18 and 4:27. The latter ends with 6:12 and contains a caesura
before 6:2. With 6:2 a new paragraph (setumd) begins. Some modern exegetes,
e.g. Baentsch and Childs, place a caesura before 4:18 and after 6:1. Expositors
often divide this part in two segments, 4:18-31 and 5:1-6:1 (see e.g. Beer and
Hyatt). It happens, too, that a caesura is placed before 4:19 and after 6:13 (see
NEB). Above I already noted that I wish to see a kind of delimitation after
4:19. In the interest of keeping things to manageable proportions I restrict the
SC H O LA R LY EXPO SITIO N 427
discussion here to 4:20-31.

4:20-31 creates the impression of being composed of several smaller parts of
diverse origin (see also the remarks on 4:18, 19). Not only advocates of the
four-sources theory, but also e.g. Eerdmans, 16ff., point to the complex literary
nature of this section. In the exegesis I deal with such problems in the current
text.

E X E G E S IS
4:20 So Moses put his wife and children on a donkey and made ready to return to
the land o f Egypt. The staff of God Moses took in his hand.
np'i, see Introd. § 3.30. ‘his children,’ many want to read i:a (see 1:16), ‘his
son,’ for the following reasons: according to 2:22 and 4:25 Moses had only one
son; it is conjectured that the fact that two are mentioned in 18:3ff. led to the
reading vja (see e.g. Dillmann, Baentsch, McNeile, Beer, Noth, Te Stroete).
Cassuto suggests that an original form rra, which could be read either as sing,
or pi., was wrongly regarded as a pi. because of Exod. 18. Proponents of the
four-sources theory regard the view that Moses had two sons as belonging to
e ; according to that source, Moses went alone with the staff to Egypt (4:18,
20b) and only later was reunited with his family (18:2ff.; vs. 2b is from R ) . J , on
the other hand, it is suggested, had Moses bring wife and children along (4:19,
20a); see e.g. Dillmann, Baentsch, Noth, Te Stroete, Schmidt (see also Eerd
mans, 16, 18). None of the MSS of the MT and none of the old versions
supports the reading ‘his son.’ Also, e.g., Josephus (AJ, II, 277) and Philo (VM,
I, 85) say that Moses took wife and children with him. Nachmanides, however,
points by way of comparison to Num. 26:8 where the phrase ‘the sons of Pallu’
is found, while only one son is mentioned. He thinks it is possible that
Zipporah became pregnant with Eliezer on the way to Egypt or in Egypt.
Another possibility according to Nachmanides is that the second son, Eliezer
(18:4), was born just before the departure, and that it is his circumcision that
is mentioned in 4:25 (see also e.g. Calmet and Strack). The text itself is quite
cryptic. The reason for that may be that this section contains material from a
variety of sources. From 4:20 and 4:25 one gets the impression that Moses’
child(ren) was (were) still small at the time of his return (cf. Matt. 2:13). Also
the fact that only one donkey was used points in that direction. But other data
hardly accord with that (see Introd. § 11.4 and at 2:22, 23). After 4:26 the
reader hears no more of Moses’ wife and children until chap. 18. Their arrival
and presence in Egypt is not stated. Moses’ bringing wife and children with
him may have been mentioned to bring out that he intended to leave Midian
for good (cf. Gen. ll:31f.; 12:4f.; 31). It has been proposed that the incident
described in 4:24-26 made Moses decide to send his wife and children back to
42$ exo dus 4:20-31
his father-in-law (cf. 18:2b); see e.g. Murphy, Keil, Lange, Heinisch, Clamer (at
their interpretation of 4:26) and further below (see at 4:26). Rabbinic tradition
contains the idea that Moses had sent his wife and children back on the advice
of Aaron (4:27) (see Ginzberg, II, 328; Rosmarin, 86).
Das'!;! imperf. cons. hiph. + suff. of am + bv, ‘to have someone mount an
animal to ride on it’ (cf. e.g. 1 Kgs. 1:33, 38, 44); for 20~\ (OT qal 58 x; hiph.
20x) and derivatives see further THAT, II, 777ff; TWAT, VII, 508ff., and
Introd. § 9.1.18. ‘a donkey,’ see Introd. § 9.1.16; peculiar to Hebrew is the
employment of the article in cases where in English the indefinite article is
mostly used (e.g. Ges-K § 126q, r; Joiion § 137m; Brockelmann § 21bp;
Williams § 84); it is suggested Moses himself went on foot; according to the
LXX several beasts of burden were used: dni xa imo^byux. It is unlikely that
m m is to be regarded as a sing, to denote the class (e.g. Ges-K § 126m; Joiion
§ 137i; Brockelmann § 21cp) and should be translated as a pi.; the LXX is
probably based on the assumption that Moses’ children (xa miSia) were not
that small anymore and that one donkey was hardly enough for three people.
In this connection let me point out, too, that according to W.F. Albright the
Midianites were ‘donkey nomads’ (see Introd. § 8.16).
‘return,’ see 4:7 and 18; the remark introduced by np*i (see Introd. § 3.30) is
unexpected after aan and following words; the logical order would have been,
first to tell that Moses picked up his staff and then that he left; often a
literary-critical explanation is adduced: 4:20a and 4:20b are not part of the
same literary layer (see above and at 4:19); Cassuto considers the most likely
explanation to be that ‘the intention is first to state the fact generally and
thereafter to go into details;’ the reason for the unusual sequence could be the
desire to highlight the fact that Moses takes the staff with him; moreover,
there is a kind of connection between the staff and the wonders of 4:21; ‘the
staff of God in his hand,’ see Introd. § 3.21.3; TO and TNf describe the staff as
‘the staff with which the wonders had been done before yhwh;’ TPsJ says of
the staff that it was ‘the staff which he (Moses) had taken from the garden of
his father-in-law’ (see at 2:21 and further Introd. § 3.21, 10, 11); Moses acts in
accordance with the instruction given him (4:17); the staff is part of the
mission; it is going to be indispensable to the execution of the commission.
4:21 Then YHWH said to Moses, ‘Now that you are ready to return to Egypt,
remember to do before Pharaoh all the wonders I have empowered you to do.
However, I will make him obstinate, so that he will not let the people go. ’
‘ready to return,’ see 4:7 and Introd. § 3.14.1. ntn, see Introd. § 3.46.1. non, see
3:12. -[T3 'no», see Introd. § 3.48 and 3.21.2; there could also be a connection
between *|T2 and its in 4:20: yhwh has put wonders in Moses’ hand (with the
staff); Moses can do wonders thanks to the staff in his hand.
Signs Moses has to perform in the sight of the people were mentioned in
4:2-9. The preceding did not say anything about instructions concerning signs
that are to be done in the sight of Pharaoh. In the light of 7:8ff. and the
description of the plagues, whose number is much larger than the number of
signs in 4:2-9 - moreover there is some resemblance in only two cases one
almost has to assume that the verse makes reference to earlier and not
recorded instructions from yh w h to Moses (at Horeb or in Midian?).1 The
discrepancies between 4:2-9 and 7:8ff. etc. notwithstanding, in my opinion it is
possible that the writer of Exodus consciously makes a connection with 4:2-9,
and that he has in mind an expansion of Moses’ task as he leaves Midian: the
wonders are also to be done in the sight of Pharaoh! ampin (Introd. § 3.41.1);
the suff. relates to the earlier mentioned D'nDian, which is emphasized by
putting it first; for the construction (casus pendens) see e.g. KoSynt § 341,
3678; Ges-K § 112mm, 143d; Joiion § 156c, 1, 176j. *ao expresses emphasis; see
e.g. Ges-K § 135a; Joiion § 146a; Brockelmann § 34b; ‘make him obstinate,’
see Introd. § 3.19.1 and 3.29.1. ‘let go,’ see Introd. § 3.49.2; see also 4:23 (2x).
4:22 ‘Then you must say to Pharaoh: “Thus says YHWH, Israel is my son, my
firstborn*. ’
‘Thus says y h w h ,’ see Introd. § 3.5.1. *33, see 1:16. "b? (OT ca. 120x; Exod.
20 x), ‘firstborn,’ can apply to the first offspring of people as well as of
animals (e.g. 11:5; 12:12, 29; 13:2, 15). The term can be used as a collective
(e.g. 11:5 et al.). Where "on is the first human offspring it can denote the first
child of the father as well as of the mother (e.g. 11:5: firstborn of Pharaoh
beside the firstborn of the female slave). In Israel apparently the firstborn of
the father was regarded as the firstborn of the family (Gen. 49:3; Deut. 21:17).
As a rule the firstborn is not the only child, and so can stand for ‘the
eldest’ (e.g. 6:14). The firstborn son had a privileged position in the family. He
enjoyed the special love of the father (though not always; e.g. Gen. 37:3; Deut.
21:15ff.) and was destined to succeed him as head of the clan. He had to carry
on the ‘name’ of the father (cf. Deut. 25:6; Sir. 30:4). He ranked above his
brothers (Gen. 43:33), also where it concerned the inheritance (Deut. 21:17)
etc. Firstborn boys, the first and hence the best, were regarded as belonging to
y h w h (13:2, 13; 22:28; 34:20) and therefore had to be redeemed. In Exod.
13:1 Iff. this custom and the customs in respect of firstborn of animals is
motivated with a reference to the incident that happened before the exodus:
yh w h killed all the firstborn of Egypt, both human and animal (see there).2
Calling Israel the firstborn is meant to bring out Israel’s unique and privil-
* There was (in different terminology) an allusion to the plagues (3:20).

2 Bibl.: BHHW, I, 434; DB, II, 270ff.; IDBS, 337f.; THAT, II, 709; TWAT, I, 643ff.; Benzinger,
123, 297, 350f.; Bertholet, 100, 118; Pedersen, I-II, 258f.; De Vaux, I, 85f.
430 exodus 4:20-31
eged position with y h w h .3 Elsewhere in the OT Israel is also called ‘son’ (see
Introd. § 3.10.3), but nowhere firstborn. In Jer. 31:9 (cf. vs. 20 and see also Jer.
2:3), the word is applied to Ephraim, in a parallelism with Israel. Applied to
Israel, the term is also used in Sir. 36:12; Jub. 2:20; 19:29; Pss.Sol. 18:4 (cf.
also 13:9); 4 Ezra 6:58. In the last two passages the people are called both
firstborn and only son. It is hard to say whether the designation ‘firstborn son’
in 4:22 includes the tacit assumption that y h w h has more children/peoples
from whose midst he chose Israel to be his very special people (e.g. Gen.
12:lff.; Exod. 19:5f.; Deut. 7:6; 14:lf.; Amos 3:2; Ps. 135:4 et al.); for this topic
see e.g. Murphy, Keil, Strack, Heinisch, Knight. This interpretive approach is
not new. A liturgical fragment from Qumran cites 4:22 in the following
context: ‘For your own honour you have created us, you have destined us to be
your sons in the eyes of all nations. For you have called Israel "my firstborn
son” (4 QDibHam 3).4 The interpretation also occurs, e.g. in Ishodad. Also
Medieval Jewish exegetes have understood 4:22 as a declaration concerning
y h w h ’s special love and favour toward Israel and Israels special position
among the nations; see the extensive overview of Huonder (see Introd.
§ 3.10.3), 56ff. (also the rabbinic tradition is mentioned; one thing it does is
apply 4:22 to Jacob and his securing of the birth right; see pp. 35ff.). The
statement does not appear to be meant to highlight the relation between
y h w h and the nations, and one should be wary to draw far-reaching conclu
sions from it. Note, too, that when y h w h ’s relation to Israel is depicted as
resembling that of a husband to his wife,5 y h w h ’s relation to the nations is
not in view. Also in other respects it is advisable not to press the image (e.g.
by saying that even as the name of the father is continued in the firstborn son,
so also y h w h as it were becomes incarnate in Israel).
In the dispute about the question to whom Israel belongs and who is her
legitimate ruler, Pharaoh or y h w h , y h w h at last will show that he has
intimate emotional ties with Israel. Pharaoh had better know that to y h w h
Israel is not just his own people, they are also very dear to him, and therefore
he will go to bat for them all the way. Pharaoh is going to be hit (4:23) at his
most sensitive spot, the spot where he has touched y h w h himself, viz. in the
love for the firstborn.
'133 is apposition; the suff. is repeated (e.g. KoSynt § 334c; Brockelmann
§ 65a; Meyer § 98.1a); instead of translating ‘my firstborn son’, I have followed
3 Cf. Zech. 12:10; Ps. 89:28, and see also the figurative use of ‘firstborn’ in Isa. 14:30; Job 18:13;
see the use of ‘firstborn’ in the NT as applied to Christ (Rom. 8:29; Col. 1:15, 18; Heb. 1:6; Rev.
1:5) and see also Heb. 12:23. P.G. Bretscher, “Exodus 4:22-23 and the Voice from Heaven," JBL
87 £1968), 301-11, relates texts like Matt. 3:17; 17:5; Mark 1:11 et al. to Exod. 4:22f.
4 See M. Baillet, “Un recueil liturgique de QumrSn. Grotte 4: ‘Les paroles de luminaires’,” RB
68 (1961), 195-250 (pp. 202f.); an English translation is found in G. Vermes, The Dead Sea Scrolls
in English, Harmondsworth 1965, 203.
5 Jer. 2:lff.; Ezek. 16:lff.; Hos. 1-3; see e.g. Vriezen, 189; idem, Verkiezing, 103f.
the Hebrew word order; possibly a kind of climax is intended.
4:23 *Therefore I ordered you repeatedly: ‘L et my son go that he may worship

me. ’ But because you have refused to let him go, I will soon kill your son, your
firstborn."
‘to order,’ see Introd. § 3.5.1. ‘to worship,’ see Introd. § 3.37.1. Being ‘son’ of
y h w h implies that Israel has obligations vis-a-vis y h w h (and not vis-a-vis
Pharaoh); in the Ancient Near East, sonship involved responsibility for the
care of the father (cf. Jer. 10:20; Ps. 127:3ff.; Sir. 3:12, and see also the
juxtaposition of tas? and p in 2 Kgs. 16:7); see O. Eififeldt, "Sohnespflichten
im Alten Orient," Syria 43 (1966), 39-47.
]Korn, imperf. cons, piel of jKn piel (OT 46 x; Exod. 9x), ‘to refuse,’ ‘being
unwilling to;’ in Exodus the verb is always followed by an inf. cstr. + b of the
verb, which denotes the deed the subject of | ko refuses to perform; 5x
Pharaoh is subject,6 in which case the refusal applies to the ‘letting go’ (see
Introd. § 3.49.2) of the (assumed) object D»n (= Israel) (7:14, 27; 9:2; 10:4),
bar 4:23, where the suff. of refers to the preceding ‘my son’ = ‘my
people’ (LXX has translated tdv Xa6v pov; cf. 5:1 et al.); see further 10:3;
16:28; 22:16 (2x) and TWAT, IV, 616ff.
ron, see Introd. § 3.15.1. an, see 2:14. 4:23 is variously translated. I have
taken n tn (imperf. cons, qal) as a consequence of what is said before (e.g.
Ges-K § 1111; Joiion § 118i). As I see it, the statement refers to a recurring
past event (cf. e.g. Ges-K § 107e; Joiion § 113e). The same can be said of
iwam. Also in SV, CV and WV, e.g., the verbs are translated as if they were in
the past tense. But in LuthV, LV, UV and NV, e.g., they are treated as being
in the present tense, and the sentence beginning with ptom is rendered as a
conditional sentence; see e.g. UV: ‘daarom eisch ik ..., maar als gij weigert...,
dan zal i k ...’ That rendering yields the following picture: it is not until the
plagues (4:21) have no impact on Pharaoh whatsoever that the demand of 4:23
is presented. It is more likely the text implies that right from the outset and
along with (prior to) the performance of wonders, Moses came with the
demand that the people be let go (see 5:1; 7:16 et al.) and that Pharaoh’s
response was always negative. Cf. also KoSynt § 369t.

In Exodus it is not specifically stated that Moses, once in Egypt, came to
Pharaoh with the message contained in 4:22, 23 (the Sam. Pent, has removed
this unevenness; after 11:3 it has inserted the message of 4:22, 23). In ll:4f. it
is said that Moses announces the death of the firstborn, not only Pharaoh’s,
6 3x the following clause occurs: nbttb HFIK ]ND'OX; see 7:27; 9:2; 10:4; ]Kli is usually regarded
as a piel part, (for the form see Ges-K § 52s; BL § 217d; Joiion § 52c); some regard it as a verbal
adjective (e.g. Mandelkem; BDB).
432 exodus 4:20-31
but of all people and animals in Egypt (cf. also 12:12, 29; 13:15). The whole
focus of 4:22, 23 is the contrast of y h w h and his firstborn over against
Pharaoh and his firstborn; in agreement with the lex talionis principle, y h w h
visits the evil done to his firstborn upon Pharaoh’s firstborn. Cole’s conjecture
that since y h w h ’s firstborn is a whole nation, Pharaoh’s firstborn must also be
a collective for all the firstborn in Egypt has little to commend itself. Carried
to its logical conclusion, Cole’s argument entails that all of Egypt is Pharaoh’s
firstborn. The relation between 4:23 and ll:4f. etc. remains problematic. It has
been proposed that 4:22f. is a fragment from an older tradition than the one
that is heard in ll:4f. According to that older tradition the revenge would have
been limited to the firstborn of Pharaoh (Meyer, IN, 37). Another suggestion
is that originally 4:22, 23 stood before 10:28 or 11:4 (e.g. Hyatt), or that
4:21-23 should come immediately after 4:17 (Clamer). Often 4:21-23 is regar
ded as a typical redactional passage (e.g. Baentsch, Noth, Te Stroete, Schmidt).
Eerdmans, 17, regards it as a later addition. As noted earlier, 4:20-31 is of a
complex literary nature. That Moses, just about ready to set out for Egypt, at
the last moment is again addressed by y h w h is surprising and (in our eyes) it
overloads the passage. However, 4:21-23 is certainly fitting: Moses (again; cf.
3:18ff.) receives instructions and information as to how he is to speak and act
before Pharaoh. Ahead of time he may know that it is going to be a difficult
confrontation, topped off by a dramatic climax. From the perspective of the
telling of the story, the gain of 4:21-23 is that already at this point the reader
is given some information about what will happen. He learns that the clash
between y h w h and Pharaoh will be hardball and toe to toe. But details are
not revealed. So the interest is piqued and the reader will want to continue
with the story. The information provided, at the same time leaves no doubt
that it is y h w h who pulls all the strings. When it seems that there is no way
to budge Pharaoh and hope fades, the reader can rest assured that despite his
stubbornness Pharaoh still operates within the bounds set for him by y h w h ,
and that Pharaoh is nothing more than a shadow player opposite y h w h .
Moses need not abandon hope, and the reader from the very beginning must
be convinced that y h w h is in full command. The announcement beforehand is
intended to teach that the events to come will not be random happenings.
Exodus 4:24-26
4:24-267 is a passage causing exegetes headaches. Hyatt calls it ‘the most
7 Bibl.: W. Beltz, "Religionsgeschichtliche Marginalie zu Ex 4 24-25," Z A W 87 (1975), 209-10;

R. and E. Blum, “Zippora und ihr htn dm ym " in Fs R. Rendtorff, D ie H ebraische Bibel u n d ihre
zweifache Nachgeschichte , Neukirchen-Vluyn 1990, 41-54; J. Coppens, “La pr£tendue agression
nocturne de Jahv6 contre Moise, S6phorah et leurs fils (E xod IV, 24-26),* ETHL 18 (1941), 68-73;
B J. Diebner, D B A T 18 (1984), 119-26; W. Dumbrell, “Exodus 4:24-26: A Textual Re-examina-
tion,“ H Th R 65 (1972), 285-90; J. de Groot, “The Story of the Bloody Husband (Exodus IV
24-26),“ O T S 2 (1943), 10-7; A. Guillaumont, “Un midrash d’Exode 4, 24-26 chez Aphraate et
SCH O LA R LY EXPOSITION 433
obscure passage in the Book of Exodus.’ The problems with it stem for the
most part from the archaic nature and brevity of the account.
The passage has often been studied in great detail. Widely different interpre
tations have been proposed. Before presenting an overview of these, I offer
verse by verse observations about the terms employed in the text, including
calling attention to the questions evoked by the passage. Then I present an
impression of the history of interpretation of the passage. I end by stating
which interpretation I believe to be the best, and also say something about
circumcision as such.
4:24 On the way, as he spent the night somewhere, y h w h attacked him and tried
to kill him.
j n , see 3:18. for the use of the article see e.g. Ges-K § 126q, r; Jouon
§ 137n; Brockelmann §21b; Williams § 84; ]\bn is a derivative of pfyp*? (see
23:18; 34:25) and denotes the place where one stays for the night. It is used for
the place where people with their animals can find shelter for the night (Gen.
42:27; 43:21) and for the overnight accommodation of an entire army (Josh.
4:3, 8; Isa. 10:29; see also 2 Kgs. 19:23; Jer. 9:1). Tnn’ (KJV) used to be the
translation of ybi* in 4:24. Some maintain that in at least a few passages (Gen.
42:27; 43:21) a caravansary is meant. Newer translations use the more general
‘lodging place’ (e.g. RSV). The term itself does not require that it be a kind of
structure or fenced-in area. It can very well denote a spot in the open that was
suitable for spending the night. Obviously it would have to be a place where
water was available and where a fire could be built. In favour of thinking of a
place under the open sky in 4:24 and on the hard ground, where Moses and
Zipporah spent the night, is the fact that Zipporah right away could pick up a
stone when she needed it (4:25) (cf. Meyer, IN, 17 n. 2; GreBmann, 58). Gen.
Ephrem de Nisibe," in R.H. Fisher (ed.), A Tribute to A rth u r V o o b u s , Chicago 1977, 89-95;
J. Hehn, “Der ‘Blutsbrautigam’ Ex. 4 24-26," T A W 50 (1932), 1-8; C. Houtman, "Exodus 4:24-26
and Its Interpretation," JN SL 11 (1984), 81-105; H. Junker, "Der Blutbrautigam: Eine textkritische
und exegetische Studie zu Ex 4:24-26," in Fs F. Notscher, A lttesta m e n tlich e S tu d ie n , Bonn 1950,
120-8; L. Kaplan, "‘And the Lord Sought to Kill Him’ (Exod 4:24): Yet Once Again," H A R 5
(1981), 65-74; E.A. Knauf, "Supplementa Ismaelitica,” B N 40 (1987), 16-9; H. Kosmala, "The
‘Bloody Husband’," V T 12 (1962), 14-28 = Studies, Essays a n d R e view s , I, Leiden 1978, 52-66; Th.
Lescow, "Ex 4,24-26: Ein archaischer BundesschluBritus,” Z A W 105 (1993), 19-26; J. Morgenstem,
"The ‘Bloody Husband’ (?) (Exod. 4:24-26) Once Again," H U C A 34 (1963), 35-70; M J. Oos-
thuizen, "Some Thoughts on the Interpretation of Exodus 4:24-26," O T W S A 29 (1986), 1-33;
G. Richter, "Zwei alttestamentliche Studien," Z A W 39 (1921), 123-37; B. Robinson, "Zipporah to
the Rescue: A Contextual Study of Exodus IV 24-6," V T 36 (1986), 447-61; H. Schmid, “Mose, der
Blutbrautigam," J u d 22 (1966), 113-8; H.P. Smith, "Ethnological Parallels to Exodus IV. 24-26,"
JB L 25 (1906), 14-24; G. Vermes, "Circumcision and Exodus IV 24-26: Prelude to the Theology of
Baptism," in Scripture a n d T radition in J u d a ism , Leiden 19732, 178-92; for more literature see my
above article.
434 E X O D U S 4:20-31
19:2; 28:11; Judg. 19:15® are evidence that it happened more often that the
night was passed in the open. See further e.g. BHHW, II, 693f.; DB, II, 473f.;
IDB, II, 703f.; TfVAT, IV, 562ff.
In the LXX p6a is translated as to KaraX-upa, a term found more often in
the LXX, but beyond that is not used as a rendering of pbw. The term is used
in the NT in the familiar Luke 2:7 passage and in Mark 14:14; Luke 22:11. It
has the more general meaning of ‘lodging place,’ and can denote a higher
grade inn as well as a room.*9 According to the LXX, Moses in any case did
not have his wife stay in the open for the night, but put her up in a guest
house, not some dingy place. Also the word diversorium used in the Vulg.
means ‘lodging place,’ ‘hostel’ etc. That likely is also what the nron rraa of TO
(similarly TPsJ and TNf) was. De Groot, 12, and others feel that the occur
rence of * |m beside is ‘a little contradictory’ and conjectures that two old
variants became part of the text.
w a p , imperf. cons, qal + suff. of » a (OT 13 x; qal 10 x), ‘to (accidenta
lly) meet/run into/encounter somebody/something’ (e.g. Gen. 32:18; 33:8;
1 Sam. 25:20; 2 Sam. 2:13). In 4:27 ®id unquestionably has the last meaning.
Also in 4:24 the verb is sometimes rendered as ‘to encounter.’ Here and in
Hos. 13:8 the word is, however, used in a pejorative sense. Te Stroete seeks to
bring this out by rendering ‘afkomen op.’ I opt for the translation ‘attack,’
‘grasp’ (cf. KOW and e.g. BOhl). Just as in 4:27 the encounter leads to touch
ing, an embrace as a sign of affection, so in 4:24 the touching expresses the
desire to kill.
mrr, instead of the expected ir6pio<;, LXX reads &yye.\oc, tcupfou (some MSS
only have &yytXoc,); compare with Symm. and Theod. xbpioq; Aq. 6e6q. The
LXX is not alone in this respect. Also TO, TPsJ and TNf have ‘messenger of
y h w h ’ (cf. 3:2). The translation is based on the gut feeling that it is un
thinkable that y h w h himself would want to kill his chosen servant (but see
also 12:23). The idea that a messenger, an angel threatened Moses is also
found in early Jewish (e.g. Bocher, 156ff.), rabbinic (bNed. 31b; ExR. V, 8 and
see Rosmarin, 85), and early Christian literature (among others in the Syrian
patres; see below d). According to Jub. 48: Iff. it was Mastema (Satan) who
sought to kill Moses. Modern expositors like to think that the role, in 4:24
ascribed to y h w h , is really that of a demon. The depiction in 4:24 is said to be
due to the high age of the story. Presumably, originally the text spoke of a
demon, a desert spirit (e.g. Jirku, 31f., 59f.). Fohrer, e.g., thinks that the story
® Cf. W.W. Fields, “The Motif ‘Night as Danger’ Associated with Three Biblical Destruction
Narratives,* in M. Fishbane — E. Tov (eds.), “Sha’arei Talmori*, Winona Lake 1992, 17-32.
9 See further P. Benoit, “Non erat eis locus in diversorio,* in A. Descamps — A de Halleux,
Melanges Bibliques en hommage au RP. Btda Rigaux, Duculot/Gembloux 1970, 173-86; R. Zuur-
mond, *Geen plaats in de herberg: Tekstgeschiedenis en exegese van Lukas 2:7b,* ACEBT 2
(1981), 94-130.
hails from the circle of semi-nomads. The incident took place ‘in der auch fur
den einsamen, wandernden Halbnomaden gefShrlichen Wiiste, in der an einer
nicht nSher bestimmten Statte der dort weilende Damon den nichtsahnend
schlafenden Mann iiberfallt und zu toten sucht. Er will blut sehen (p. 47).
Whatever one’s views about the origin of the story, to the writer of Exodus it
appears not to have been an insuperable problem to attribute to y h w h a (in
our eyes) demonic role: Moses who is willingly going to Egypt by order of
y h w h is threatened with death by the same y h w h (compare also Num. 22:20
with 22:22).10 Also here it should be remembered that the OT often makes a
very direct association between God and evil (see Introd. § 3.19.2). Additional
ly there is the consideration that the writer will have viewed the incident in the
light of the outcome: the consequence of the nightly encounter is the con
secration of Moses for his task (see below).
®pa, see 2:15 and cf. 4:19. lim n (see Introd. § 3.32); who is the object? Moses
(4:21) or ‘her son’ (4:25)? The first is the most obvious; in Pesh. ‘Moses’ is
2x inserted in the verse: after Tn (cf. 2 Sam. 13:30; 1 Kgs. 18:7) and as object
of ‘to kill.’ It is conjectured that Moses’ life was all of a sudden in grave
danger, due to an unexpected serious illness or some other divine incursion (cf.
2 Kgs. 19:35). It is also entirely possible to think of an assault of the deity in
the appearance of a man (cf. Gen. 32:25ff.). The situation can be pictured as
follows: Moses, who in the night has laid himself down to sleep, is suddenly
attacked, his prone position making him even more defenseless. Not included
in the story is why y h w h tries to kill Moses.
4:25 Then Zipporah took a flint and cut off her son’s foreskin. She dropped it on
his ‘legs’ and said, ‘Truly, you are a bloody bridegroom to me!’
‘Zipporah,’ see Introd. § 6.5; cf. 4:20. is, with a reference to Arabic, the term
is often derived from a root *ns, ‘to be sharp;’ meant is probably a hard, sharp
stone (cf. Ezek. 3:9), that lay on the ground. One could also think of a flint
(cf. NewRSV) that was used to set the fire for the night. In SV and NV ns is
translated as ‘een stenen mes’ (but compare LuthV and LV: ‘a stone;’ CV,
WV, GNB: ‘a sharp stone’). With the pi. D*ns in Josh. 5:2, 3 knives of stone are
meant. But there the term is the object of ‘to make.’ It seems probable that
the circumcision was done with a flint knife because it was an old custom
which persisted in the cult long after metal knives had been introduced (‘Denn
die Religion und Kultus sind konservativ und geben das Alte nicht auf, selbst
10 Cf. e.g. P. Volz, Das Damonische in Jahw e, Tubingen 1924; J.L. Crenshaw, P ro p h etic Conflict,
Berlin/New York 1971, 77ff. et al., and see also Buber, 69ff. He writes, ‘Es gehort zum Urwesen
dieses Gottes, daB er den, den er erwahlte, auch restlos anfordert’ (p. 70), and conjectures that
YHWH assails Moses ‘offenbar weil dessen Hingabe, nachdem er seinem Widerstand iiberwunden
hat, ihm noch nicht vollkommen genug erscheint’ (p. 71). See also E. Kellenberger, "Jahwes
unerwarteter Widerstand gegen seinen Beauftragten: Erwagungen zur Episode von Bileams Eselin
(Num 22,22-35)," T h Z 45 (1989), 69-72.
436 exo dus 4:20-31
wenn es sich sichtlich iiberlebt hat,’ so Ehrlich); see further BHHW, III, 1859f.
(ill. in II, 645); DB, II, 15; III, 18; IV, 617; IDB, III, 42; IV, 445f.; THAT, II,
539. Note the alliteration.
rrqrn imperf. cons, qal of n*o (OT ca. 290 x; Exod. 14 x); the verb occurs in
qal (OT ca. 135 x) with the meaning ‘to cut off (4:25; cf. e.g. Num. 13:23f.;
1 Sam. 24:5, 6, 12; 2 Sam. 10:4), ‘to cut down’ (34:13; cf. e.g. Deut. 19:5; 20:19,
20) and in the expression rn a rro (OT ca. 80 x) + dd (24:8; cf. e.g. Gen.
26:28; Deut. 4:23), + m (34:27; cf. e.g. Deut. 5:3; 2 Sam. 3:13), + b (23:32;
34:12, 15; cf. 34:10 and e.g. Deut. 7:2; 1 Sam. 11:1) (for the expression see
2:24). Only in Exod. 4:25 is the verb used for circumcision (cf. Lev. 22:24;
Deut. 23:2: to castrate), m3 hiph. (OT ca. 80 x) occurs in 8:5 in the sense of
‘to destroy,’ ‘to exterminate’ (cf. e.g. Lev. 26:22; Mic. 5:9; Zech. 9:10). rro niph.
(OT ca. 75 x) occurs in Exodus in a more or less fixed expression; in connec
tion with a variety of offenses the following punishment is announced:
torn »Q3n nrrpii (12:15, 19; 31:14) biorn (12:15) / btoar rvroa (12:19) / ir i p v 3f>p
(31:14); in 30:33, 38 an earlier mentioned »'tt is subject of vo»p man. The
formula has been studied by W. Zimmerli11 He characterizes it as ‘eine
Bannformel, die ausdriickt, daC ein Mensch aus der Nahe Gottes ausgeschlos-
sen und damit dem Verderben iibergeben ist’ (p. 19). Often in these passages
m3 niph. is translated as ‘to be exterminated’ (e.g. SV, LV, NV; see beside it
CV and WV: ‘to be cut off;’ in 30:33, 38; 31:14 WV chose for ‘to be removed’).
The usual idea is that it refers to the carrying out of some form of death
penalty by people (e.g. Num. 15:32ff. beside Exod. 31:14; 35:2). On the ground
of the use of the formula with rro hiph. and yhwh as subject (Lev. 17:10;
20:3, 5, 6; Ezek. 14:8; cf. Lev. 20:30; Deut. 4:3), Zimmerli suggests that the
formula as such does not refer to a human act: ‘Die Bannaussage aber besagt
das Hinausgetan-Sein aus dem Lebenskreis *vor Gott," heraus aus der
Kultgemeinschaft der Sippe, heraus aus der Gemeinschaft des Bundesvolkes
Israel. Dort drauBen wird Gott sein Gericht an ihm wirksam werden lassen’ (p.
19). Beside the banning from the cultic community there can be physical
destruction, capital punishment, by the members of one’s people (e.g. Lev.
20:2ff.). The actual carrying out of that sentence was not mandatory. The cultic
community may keep it down to the casting out of the individual in question,
so in effect delivering him over to the judgment of God. The assumption is
that life outside the cultic community does not deserve to be called life in the
true sense of the word. Comparing 31:14b with 31:14a; 35:2, and e.g. Ezek.
14:8 with 14:9, and bearing in mind (which is also pointed out by Zimmerli)
that m3 niph. is exchangeable with verbs that unmistakably denote destruction
(Lev. 23:30; Deut. 4:3), and outside the formula often occurs in the sense of
‘to be destroyed’ (e.g. Gen. 9:11; Isa. 29:20; Mic. 5:8 et al.), the supposition
that also in the formula m3 means ‘to destroy’ is justified. In short, as I see it,
11 “Die Eigenart der prophetischen Rede des Ezechiel,' Z A W 66 (1954), 1-26 (pp. 13ff.).
the formula points to execution by people rather than to the being delivered
over to the divine judgment; the latter does not right away need to be carried
out but can manifest itself, for instance, in a person’s untimely death. See
further THAT, I, 857ff.; TWAT, IV, 355ff.
‘foreskin’ (cf. e.g. Gen. 34:14; 1 Sam. 18:25, 27; 2 Sam. 3:14). Remar
kable is that the circumcision is done by Zipporah, a duty not elsewhere in the
OT performed by women. Does the task fall to her because Moses, owing to
the threat on his life, was unable to do it? ‘her son;’ in the light of 4:20 the
question arises as to which son is meant. Opinions vaiy (see below). Of course,
if one maintains that in 4:20 the correct reading is us the problem disappears.
In view of the employment of ‘son’ in 4:23, one might say that also in 4:25 the
firstborn son is meant (see e.g. Cassuto, who assumes a close relation between
4:24ff. and the preceding verses). Others believe that the redactor put the two
passages side by side because both passages refer to the firstborn son (see
below k). As I see it, there is no way to determine which son the writer had in
mind.
inrn imperf. cons. hiph. of in: (OT ca. 150 x); mi qal (OT ca. 105 x) oc
curs + 3 in Exodus 5x with the meaning ‘to touch something’ (19:12 [2x],
13; 29:37; 30:29); in hiph. (OT ca. 40 x) m: occurs with the meaning ‘to cause
to touch’ (4:25 [+ b] and 12:22 [+ bn]); in 12:22 the meaning must be ‘to
daub’ (with blood); this translation Buber - Rosenzweig also favour for 4:25:
‘die strich sie an seine Beine’.12 Often the rendering ‘to touch’ (viz. with the
foreskin) is preferred; for argumentation see Schmidt). But note against it
KJV: ‘and cast it at his feet.’ In my view, such a translation fits in: hiph. better
than the rendering ‘to touch’ (see e.g. the use of in: hiph. in Isa. 25:15; 26:5;
Ezek. 13:14; Lam. 2:2). I take in: hiph. + b here to mean ‘to cast at/against,’
‘to have come down on.’ Such an interpretation agrees well with the picture of
Moses who is being attacked by y h w h in the form of a man, both wrestling
while lying on the ground. For m: see further THAT, II, 37ff.; TWAT, V, 219ff.
«n, see 3:5; to whom does the suff. of rbnb apply? To the preceding ‘her
son,’ to Moses or to y h w h ? For the various interpretations see below. *3, see
Introd. § 3.25.1. D*nv]nn, for ]nn see 3:1, and for di see 4:9. Is the son, Moses
or y h w h the addressee? In any case, the designation ‘bloody bridegroom’ is
remarkable; for Moses is a married man with a son. That son is probably still
young. For different interpretations see below.
4:26 Thereupon he let him go. On that occasion she said ‘bloody bridegroom ’ in
view o f the circumcision.
pp,i, imperf. cons, qal of non (OT ca. 45 x), ‘to be/become slack;’ run qal (OT
14 x) is used in 4:26 + p with the meaning ‘to let go o f (cf. Judg. 8:3; Neh.
6:9); it has been proposed (see BDB) to read imperf. cons. hiph. (cf. e.g.
12 Elsewhere {Moses, 68), Buber proposes to read VIR) (qal) ‘sie beriihrte.’
438 exodus 4:20-31
Deut. 9:14; Judg. 11:37; Ps. 37:8). SV, LuthV and LV in 4:26 read ‘aflaten van;’
the newer CV, NV, WV and GNB prefer ‘met rust laten’ (cf. NewRSV ‘let him
alone’). The implied subject is y h w h . The usual approach is to apply to
Moses. Grammatically also ‘her son’ (4:25) could be subject. De Hummelauer
wants to read tyirn and makes Zipporah the subject: she let Moses go. This
provides a textual basis for the notion that Moses and Zipporah went separate
ways after the nightly incident: Moses headed for Egypt; Zipporah and her
children returned to Jethro (cf. 18:2b and see at 4:20). rrcn niph. occurs in
the OT only in 5:8, 17; the pi. part, used there means ‘not active,’ ‘lazy.’ For
non see further 7WAT, VII, 636ff. Sam. Pent, has mna instead of i:oo; he
(Moses?) left her (with an eye on 18:2b? see above, and below sub d).
tk, see 4:10; the interpretation of ik is disputed; the Vulg. translates the term
with postquam: Et demisit eum postquam dixerat: Sponsus sanguinum ob
circumcisionem. According to the Vulg., vs. 26b harks back to vs. 25b: y h w h
let go of Moses after Zipporah had said ... Sometimes it is suggested that tn is
used in the sense of ‘thereupon:’ Zipporah (again) started talking after y h w h
had let ‘him’ go (see the different interpretations proposed by Keil, Dillmann,
Cassuto); I doubt that this is the correct approach, ik, it would seem, introdu
ces a clarifying remark from the writer (cf. e.g. Te Stroete, Childs). I take tk to
mean ‘then,’ ‘on that occasion’ (cf. Morgenstern, 67f.; Childs).
rtoe, a hapax legomenon, a pi. of an assumed noun nVio, ‘circumcision,’ a
derivative of Vin (OT ca. 35 x), which occurs in qal (OT 13 x) in Exodus with
the meaning ‘to circumcise’ (12:44; cf. e.g. Gen. 21:4; Josh. 5:3ff.) and in niph.
with the meaning ‘to have oneself circumcised,’ ‘to be circumcised’ (12:48; cf.
e.g. Gen. 17:10, 12ff., 24f.) (see further TWAT, IV, 734ff.). 4:26b is hard to
understand, and hence it causes no surprise that it has been suggested to
amend the text: O'bia*1?, ‘to the circumcised’ (e.g. GreBmann, 57; Beer), rrb&b,
‘fur Beschneidungsmutter’ (Richter, 128). According to Cassuto, no change of
the text is necessary: nVia is a masculine word with a feminine plural ending
(e.g. Ges-K § 87p; Jouon § 90d) and means ‘the circumcised.’ The assumption
underlying the interpretation ‘circumcised ones’ is that 4:26b intends to tell
that ‘bloody bridegroom’ was/had become a term for circumcised persons (see
below). Such an interpretation is also possible if nVio^> in understood as Svith
respect to the circumcision’ (e.g. Baentsch) (for b see e.g. KoSynt § 271c, d;
Ges-K § 119u; BDB, s.v. b 4f). The pi. is often translated as a sing. Apparently
nVin is regarded as a plurale tantum (cf. e.g. Ges-K § 124a-f; Jouon § 136a-k);
could it be that a pi. is used under the influence of the pi. D 'm ? Sometimes the
translation ‘circumcisions’ is chosen (e.g. Dillmann, Gispen, Schmidt). Gispen
thinks of the circumcision of both Gershom and Eliezer. Today it is usual to
take b in the sense of ‘in view of.’ Beside it there is the interpretation ‘because
11^ The Islamic tradition has ignored 4:24-26 and relates that Gabriel returns Zipporah to her
father (Weil, 152).
o f (cf. Ges-B, s.v. b 8e; BDB, s.v. b 4g); see also CV: ‘een bloedige bruidegom
door de besnijdenis.’ Strack posits a close relation between O'OT and nVin^,
offering the translation: ‘BrSutigam durch Beschneidungsbluf (see already
Symm.: vufjuptoq aifiaxcov xf|<; rcepixonfn;); cf. also De Groot, 14: ‘a person
circumcised with blood of circumcision.’ Dillmann defends the translation
‘Blutbrdutigam zu den Beschneidungen’ (see already Aq. and Theod.: nVin1? is
translated with etq nepiTopdq). The problematic nature of the passage makes it
hard to arrive at a carefully considered choice. Willy-nilly I side with the usual
interpretation. Some authors have pointed to the formal similarity between pê
(4:24) and nVio. It is suggested that there is a pun; so H. Gunkel (in GreB-
mann, 58 n. 4) and De Groot, 12. Gunkel thinks ‘daB y6a zugleich in etymolo-
gischer Spielerei als "Ort der Beschneidung’ gedacht sei.’ Morgenstern, 68f.,
even thinks that p“?n here must be understood as a derivative of Vid, rendering
pbra as ‘at the circumcision.’ That is going too far out on a limb (cf. Dumbrell,
285f.).
Exodus 4:24-26 and its history o f interpretation

a. 4:24-26 is a passage which from way back has presented problems to the
reader of Holy Scripture. Above it was already noted that the translation of
the LXX and the targums are evidence that, at least in a certain period, it was
considered unthinkable that y h w h himself would want to kill Moses (see at
4:24); hence the Hebrew text was weakened by substituting the messenger of
y h w h for y h w h himself. That 4:24-26 was thought to be obscure and offen
sive is also evident from the fact that, among others, Flavius Josephus and
Philo of Alexandria in their account of the life of Moses do not breathe a
word about the nocturnal episode. By contrast, the writer of Jubilees does
mention the incident, but in his version the event has been so thoroughly
altered from the way it is found in the Hebrew text, that it is virtually unrecog
nizable: Mastema wanted to kill Moses so as to save the Egyptians from his
hand. God, however, rescued Moses from the hand of Mastema (48:lff.).
Zipporah, the circumcision etc., are not mentioned. Gregory of Nyssa (VM, I,
22) does mention Moses’ encounter with the angel and the circumcision of his
son, but he attributes a deeper meaning to it (II, 37ff.): Greek philosophy is
valuable, provided it is ‘circumcised,’ stripped of the ‘carnal,’ the harmful and
impure.
b. In antiquity historians could permit themselves to silently pass over
obscure and offensive texts, or to come with an altered version of those texts.
The translators of the Bible did not have that freedom. Their duty was to offer
an acceptable and intelligible rendering of the Hebrew text. Also on Exod.
4:24-26 they hewed to that line. In several old translations one can detect the
attempt to elucidate the dark passage. To offer an impression of such attempts,
I start with TPsJ.
TPsJ’s version of 4:24 is significantly larger than that of the MT. It spells out
440 exo dus 4:20-31
why the messenger wanted to kill Moses: Moses had not circumcised his son
Gershom because his father-in-law had not allowed him. Eliezer, on the other
hand, had been circumcised due to an agreement between Moses and his
father-in-law. By implication TPsJ also ‘discloses’ in 4:24 the identity of ‘her
son’ in 4:25. Gershom is also cited by name in 4:25. Besides, in its rendering of
that verse TPsJ clarifies ‘his legs:’ the cut off part of the foreskin was put at
the feet of the messenger. According to TPsJ, on that occasion Zipporah
uttered the following words:
My husband wanted to perform the circumcision, but his father-in-law preven

ted him. Now may the blood o f this circumcision make atonement for my
husband. ’
Also in 4:26 TPsJ gives anything but a literal translation of the Hebrew text.
Having related that the destroying angel left Moses, it is told that Zipporah
offered thanks and said:
‘How precious is the blood of this circumcision, which has saved my husband
from the hand o f the destroying angel. ’
Both in 4:25 and 4:26 TPsJ has given a paraphrasing and interpretive rendering
of the problematic ‘bloody bridegroom’ of the MT. The appellation has been
applied to Moses. He is saved by the reconciling blood of the circumcision.
The plainer versions of FT and TNf (Gershom is not mentioned by name and
the agreement between Moses and his father-in-law is passed over) and the
sober version of TO (it does not mention either that Moses’ son was not
circumcised because his father-in-law objected to it) correspond with TPsJ on
the following points: Moses is the one whose life is in danger; Zipporah speaks
to the messenger (4:25); the blood of the circumcision placates him; Moses is
saved thanks to the blood of the circumcision.
c. Rabbinic tradition contains a clarification of the remark in TPsJ about the
agreement between Moses and Jethro. It is told that Moses could marry
Zipporah, provided he would dedicate his oldest son to the worship of idols
and the next sons to God. Moses had gone along with it (Mek. Exod. II, 168f.).
So he had become very guilty. But rabbinic tradition also contains an inclina
tion to clear Moses of guilt. The neglect to circumcise the son is attributed to
a conflict of duties: Moses’ son (Eliezer) was born eight days before the day
that Moses, by order of y h w h , had to go to Egypt; Moses, rightly, gave
priority to the latter and should have circumcised his son as soon as they had
come to the first stop on the way; because he was tired, he delayed the
procedure, and so sinned; when the religious duty had been carried out the
danger ceased (Mek. Exod. II, 169f.; ExR. V, 8). In short, Moses cannot be
charged with flouting the law and failing to prize and esteem circumcision.
Rabbinic tradition also contains several other interpretations with respect to

the problematic points in the passage: not Moses but the life of the child was
in danger; he was ‘the bloody bridegroom;’ Zipporah touched his feet; Zip-
porah approached the feet of her husband; she initiated the circumcision but
did not perform it (being a woman she was not allowed to).14
<L Early exegetical traditions also mention another reason for the appearance
of the angel of y h w h . According to some Syrian fathers, Moses as well as
Zipporah considered themselves guilty. The Nestorians Isho bar Nun and
Ishodad of Merw conjecture that Moses took his wife and children with him
because he doubted God’s promise. He wanted to have his family with him in
case he would fail in bringing the Israelites out of Egypt and had to stay there.
For that reason the angel, in an angry mood, met him (according to Ishodad
he had a drawn sword in his hand; cf. Num. 22:23) and pretended to want to
kill Moses. Zipporah, however, thought that the angel wanted to kill Moses
because his son had not been circumcised, like he himself and his oldest son.
Zipporah had refused him to be circumcised, because she wanted one son to
remain uncircumcised in agreement with the law of her forefathers. According
to Ishodad, after the circumcision of her son Zipporah fell to the feet of the
angel (see below e). She took hold of him and informed him — this is how the
statement ‘bloody bridegroom’ is interpreted; it is applied to the angel — that
she and her son wanted to follow the worship of y h w h . Ishodad also inter
prets the circumcision as a reconciling sacrifice, brought by Zipporah to save
the life of her husband. According to these two exegetes, Moses recognized the
reason for the angel’s coming and sent his wife and sons back to his father-in-
law (cf. 18:2b). Already Ephraem voices the view that Zipporah wanted to
remain faithful to the religion of her fathers and had opposed the circum
cision. Familiarity with this tradition is also evident in the work of Aphraates.
Ephraem additionally writes that Moses and Zipporah had quarreled that night
in the inn: Zipporah was cross because since the revelation at Horeb, Moses
had had no relations with her, and Moses was in a bad mood because Zip
porah opposed the circumcision (see further Guillaumont and Hidal, 126ff.).
e. Not only the targums but also the LXX contains an interpretive transla
tion of the MT. In 4:25, after the report that Zipporah had circumcised her
son, the LXX continues with:
‘and she fell at (his) feet and said: "Here is the blood o f the circumcision o f my
son’. ’
The interpretation of raises questions. Vermes, 180, proposes the transla

tion ‘staunched’ (the bleeding had stopped). For my interpretation ‘here is’ see
14 JNed. Ill 38b; Mek. Exod. II, 170; cf. Ginzberg, II, 328; V, 423f., and for the history of the
interpretation of 4:24-26 in early Judaism, see esp. Vermes.
442 exodus 4:20-31
Junker, 121; Kosmala, 28. ‘his legs,’ the LXX has applied to the messenger of
y h w h : after the circumcision, Zipporah as a suppliant (cf. Esth. 8:3) falls
down at the feet of the messenger15 and points him to the blood of the
circumcision. One may assume with Vermes that the translation of the LXX
represents a tacit adoption of what is explicit in the targums: the blood of the
circumcision is meant to work reconciliation and to save Moses’ life. 4:26,
which is totally absent from LXXB, contains in the second half a repeat of
Zipporah’s words in 4:25: ‘He left him, because she said: “Here is
Other versions (Aq., Symm., Theod., Pesh., Vulg.) faithfully follow (just
about) MT (see Hehn). One can concur with Vermes that it is improbable that
the LXX might be based on another text than MT. The opposite has been
defended. With an appeal to the LXX, suggestions have been advanced for
securing a ‘better’ text. 6
£ The old view that (the messenger of) y h w h threatened Moses with death
because he had neglected to circumcise his son has had its adherents through
the centuries, including the present time (according to Dillmann and Childs
the redactor of Exodus espoused it). The outworking of this idea varies from
exegete to exegete. Keil, e.g., proposes that y h w h wanted to bring Moses to
an awareness of sin (cf. Gen. 17:14). He conjectures that the omission per
tained to the second son, Eliezer, and that Moses had been remiss because he
had yielded to Zipporah (cf. above d). She had fought ‘gegen diese blutige
Operation’.17 That Zipporah was the cause is inferred from the fact that the
threat of death made her jump into action immediately. She is aware of the
cause of the threat. She throws the foreskin at Moses’ feet and calls him
‘bloody bridegroom:’ death’s attack had almost taken Moses from her; through
the blood of her son she preserved his life; got him back as if from the dead
and married him anew. The entire episode is a kind of test for Moses: ‘Will
aber Mose den gottlichen Auftrag erfolgreich ausrichten, so muB er sich auch
als getreuer Knecht Jahve’s erweisen, zunSchst in seinem eigenen Hause’.18 In
this view, the explanation of the term ‘bloody bridegroom’ sounds rather
contrived, and it raises the question why Moses’ feet are touched with the
foreskin. Murphy views the gesture as a reaction to Moses’ wish that the child
be circumcised. Strack goes a step further, considering it an utterance of slight
toward the Israelite cult (for the same reason she had likely taken a flint
instead of a knife). Gispen feels that Zipporah’s action was symbolic of how
she felt about the whole business; she had to perform the cruel circumcision
^ Also Aq., Symm., Theod., Pesh., TNf (cf. TO) regard the act as a touching of, a grasping of
the feet.
16 See in particular Hehn, and further e.g. Heinisch; for a critique of Hehn see Junker; for a
discussion of the text of the LXX see also Dumbrell.
17 Heinisch: she objected because in her tribe boys were circumcised at a more mature age.
18 For a similar exposition, see e.g. Murphy, Lange, Strack, Gispen; Michaeli, too, thinks that
this is the purport of the passage in its current context.
which she found so disgusting, and by touching Moses’ feet with the foreskin
she symbolically vented her feeling that her marriage to Moses had required a
sacrifice of her.
Likewise Richter presents Zipporah as the woman who kept Moses from
performing the rite of circumcision. However, in his view it concerned the first
child, and he defends the view that Zipporah threw the foreskin at the feet of
y h w h and addresses him as ‘bloody bridegroom.’ Through deed and word she
makes it known that from now on she wishes to follow the religion of her
husband. According to Richter, Zipporah was regarded as the woman who for
the first time used the formula with which in later years non-Israelite women
made it known that they wanted to be part of the religious community of
Israel.
g. As is evident from the above, expositors are inclined to attribute Moses’
neglect to perform the circumcision to a negative influence on him, whether
from his father-in-law or from his wife. Cassuto is not prepared to go that
route. It is his opinion that the son mentioned was the firstborn. With a
reference to Josh. 5:2ff. (the expression ‘on the way’ used in 4:24 occurs 3x;
see vss. 4, 5, 7), he notes that travelers were exempt from circumcision on
account of the danger involved. The uncircumcised condition of the son can
therefore not be regarded as a transgression of the law. The underlying
assumption is that the son as the child of a wayfarer (cf. 2:22), or as a newborn
child, was still uncircumcised. Zipporah nevertheless realized that ‘it was
proper that a person who was journeying on a special mission given him by the
Lord should go beyond the strict letter of the law and act with greater strin
gency,’ and consequently she circumcised her son. She touched Moses’ feet:
‘... so shall the shedding of a few drops of the blood of Moses’ first-born son,
..., serve as an additional and decisive consecration of his father to the Lord’s
mission.’ The appellation ‘bloody bridegroom’ (4:25) addressed to Moses,
Cassuto understands in similar fashion as Keil (see f). However, Cassuto
applies the appellation in 4:26 to the circumcised child. In his view, the verse
aims to explain the origin of this appellation which was applied to circumcised
children, namely, that it comes from Zipporah. Cassuto regards the incident as
a final warning to Moses and as an addition to the instructions he had received
before he left Midian (4:21-23). Moses ought to know that he must be unreser
vedly dedicated to the mission.
h. The interpretations mentioned so far are based on the assumption that
4:24-26 offers an account of an historical event, an episode that is part of a
long series of happenings, which also includes y h w h ’s entering into a covenant
with Abraham and the ordinance to circumcise all male descendants (Gen. 17).
Under the influence of the emergence of the historical-critical method in the
study of the Old Testament many have abandoned this stance. For the exegesis
of 4:24-26 they no longer regard it necessary to take the context into account
and to assume that Gen. 17 was historically prior to 4:24-26. This offers new
444 exo dus 4:20-31
interpretive possibilities. Here follows an impression.

From religious-historical givens that became available Old Testament
scholars learned of the practice found, among others, in Arabian tribes, to
initiate young boys, who had reached the age of maturity, by means of circum
cision into adult membership of the tribe and to consecrate them for marriage.
It so happens that the word inn, ‘bridegroom,’ ‘son-in-law,’ found in 4:25f., as
well the related inn, ‘father-in-law,’ can be derived from the Arabic hatana, ‘to
circumcise’ (inn = ‘one circumcised;’ ]nn = ‘circumciser’); this consideration,
along with other data from the OT (Gen. 34:24ff.; Josh. 5:2f.), prompted the
sentiment that initially also in Israel men/young boys used to be circum
cised.19 So Wellhausen (Prol., 338, and Reste, 175) suggests that 4:24-26
embodies a different tradition about the origin of circumcision in Israel than
Gen. 17. Wellhausen assumes that y h w h was angry because Moses was not a
bloody bridegroom, i.e. because he did not have himself circumcised before his
marriage. Zipporah circumcises her son and, by touching Moses’ sex organs
with the foreskin, symbolically makes him a bloody bridegroom, and so
removes the wrath. According to Wellhausen, the custom of circumcising small
boys is here historically explained as ‘ein gemildertes Aquivalent fur die
urspriingliche Beschneidung der jungen Manner vor der Hochzeit’ (Prol., 339).
Also Baentsch, e.g. maintains that the circumcision of the son serves ‘als
Ersatz und als deckender Schutz’ for Moses. He emphasizes that the story does
not describe the origin of circumcision, but seeks to explain how the practice
of circumcising young men gave way to the custom of circumcising little
boys.20
If y h w h ’s assault on Moses was because Moses had not been circumcised,
the question arises why Zipporah did not circumcise Moses himself (e.g.
Richter, 125). Holzinger proposes that it may have been easier and faster to
perform the operation on a child, or that a woman was permitted to circum
cise children but no adults. Others have conjectured that Moses may have been
too ill to undergo the procedure (e.g. De Groot, 15; Junker, 127; Henton
Davies). Henton Davies is also among those expositors who connect y h w h ’s
anger with the uncircumcised state of both father and son.21
L GreBmann, 56ff, goes a step beyond Wellhausen. He holds that it is not a
case of substitutionary circumcision, np (4:25) is not part of the original story,
but was added when the circumcision of children has become customaiy. The
original reading was rrarn, ‘her husband.’ Building on Meyer’s view, IN, 18, 59,
19 The terms ]nn and inn might be explained as follows: the father-in-law to be is the one who
performs the circumcision of the son-in-law to be.
^ See also Fohrer, 45ff., who has his own slant, and further Bohl, Michaeli.
21 See also e.g. Ehrlich (Moses is the one responsible; therefore he is the victim and not the
child), Te Stroete, Clements.
that in 4:25 applies to y h w h ,22 GreBmann maintains that the story is a

saga, one happening in the night of the wedding, which presupposes the ius
primae noctis, the right of the gods to be the first to have relations with the
bride (cf. Tob. 8:3 and also 3:17; see Bocher, 128ff.). By means of the magic
act and the magic formula she pronounced, Zipporah made herself the wife of
the deity who appears here on the scene as ‘ein wilder Nachtddmon.’ ‘So its es
— nach antikem Empfinden nicht nur scheinbar, sondern — wirklich die
Gottheit, die dem Weibe die Jungfraulichkeit genommen hat, und befriedigt
laBt sie von Mose ab’ (p. 5S).23 GreBmann believes that the material of the
saga is of Midianite origin and only later was associated with Moses and
Zipporah (as regards the last point, see however Schmidt). It concerns an
etiological saga which aims to explain the origin of the custom of circumcising
young men before the wedding and to show its significance, viz. that it is
necessary to ward off demonic beings in the wedding night. The story also
discloses archaic customs about circumcision: stone knives, flints, were used for
the procedure, even when metal objects had long since become common;
young women performed the circumcision; with the foreskin the holy stone or
the abode of y h w h was touched.24
Auerbach, 53ff., has worked out GreBmann’s interpretation in his own way.
As stated above (see at 4:19), he regards 2:23a; 4:19, 20a, 24-26 as verses that
belong together, and whose original location in the narrative was just before
the story of the revelation at Sinai. So he arrives at the following picture:
Moses receives orders to return to Egypt and does what he is told; one night,
unknowingly, he enters upon the sacred area of the deity25 and almost has to
pay for it with his life: ‘Der Grund des Angriffs auf Mosche ist demnach die
geschlechtliche Eifersucht des Demons, der in seinem heiligen Bezirk das
Recht der Prima Nox in Anspruch nimmt’ (p. 55). The original story contains
the following contrast: ‘Im Dunkel der Nacht greift ein damonischer Jahwe der
Urzeit Mosche an; am folgenden Tage, im licht der Sonne, offenbart sich ihm
der Gott des Dornbuschs als Befreier seines Volkes, als Herr aller Menschen,
als gerechter und mitleidiger Richter des Schicksals’ (p. 56).
•yy
Zipporah casts the foreskin on YHWH’s genitals and calls him ‘bloody bridegroom,’ so
turning him into the one who took her along as his bride and who now because of it is smeared
with blood (originally, as is evident from this story, circumcision was a ‘Zaubermittel’ among the
Israelites to banish YHWH’s wrath).
23 For the motif of the deception of the bloodthirsty deity, D. Irvin, in Hayes-Miller, 193f.,
refers to the Egyptian text included in ANET (pp. lOf.) under the title ‘Deliverance of Mankind
from Destruction.’
24 GreBmann’s interpretation is closely followed by Beer, Noth, Rylaarsdam and Schmid.
^ Cf. 3:Iff.; Auerbach locates the incident at Kadesh. Others, too, have conjectured that in the
original story the confrontation with YHWH as a demon was caused by stepping on sacred ground;
see e.g. Bohl (the sacred area around Horeb) and Hyatt (the territory between Midian and Egypt)
and further also Schmidt (he draws attention to the article before p^D).
446 exodus 4:20-31
j. Other expositors are not prepared to follow the newer interpretations of

the passage in its current form, but elaborate on individual details in it. De
Groot suggests that Zipporah, by touching Moses’ genitals with the foreskin of
her son, symbolically circumcised Moses. He adopts what according to him
is the original meaning of inn, viz. ‘one circumcised’ (see h): Zipporah says to
Moses, ‘You are to me as one circumcised with blood’ (in distinction from her
son who was circumcised with a stone). De Groot (pp. 13f.) propounds that
Moses’ circumcision was necessary (see 12:44, 48) in view of the celebration of
the Passover (cf. Josh. 5:2ff.). In this connection he also points to the use of
blood in the story of the celebration of the Passover (12:7, 13, 23) and judges
that 4:24-26 belongs to the introduction to that story, in which the blood rite,
as a means of deliverance, plays such a large role.2627
Also Junker stresses the fact that Moses was uncircumcised and that Zip
porah carried over upon Moses the purifying and sin-removing effect of the
circumcision. However, he stays with the customary interpretation of ]nn as
bridegroom and thinks that the appellation ‘bloody bridegroom’ was pronoun
ced at the circumcision, which served as a kind of firstfruit sacrifice to sanctify
or purify conjugal relations. Zipporah can call Moses that, because now he is
what he should have become before the wedding.
k. Beside exegetes who make it a point to say that Moses was uncircumcised,
there are those who assign hardly or no role to Moses in the story. They point
out that Moses’ name does not occur in the story and regard it as a story
about Zipporah with her son and y h w h . Kosmala thinks that Zipporah’s son
was threatened with death because he had not been circumcised. She corrects
the omission and touches his feet or legs with the foreskin as a sign that the
circumcision has been done (so that y h w h - or better: the deity of the
Midianite desert - is able to see it; cf. 12:13, 23) and calls him ‘a blood-
circumcised’ (cf. h). The story was placed after 4:23 because of the importance
of the firstborn in 4:24ff., as in 4:22f., and because in both passages it is a
matter of life and death.
From the fact that in 4:24-26 the firstborn son is threatened with death Beltz
infers that the redactor placed 4:21b-23 between the originally of one piece
passages 4:20a and 4:24-26. This segment relates how the mother saves the life
of her mortally imperiled, uncircumcised son by circumcising him and by
making the foreskin touch the sex organs of the cultic image or of the deity,
while she addresses the godhead with ‘bloody bridegroom.’ According to Beltz,
26 Clamer proposes that Moses was circumcised and that the symbolic circumcision was a
circumcision of the heart (cf. Jer. 9:26).
27 A different association between 4:24-26 and 12 is made by Smith: on the ground of
ethnological parallels from Australia (cf. also Gaster, 234), he arrives at the conclusion that the
blood of circumcision, and also the foreskin itself, possesses exorcising power; consequently, the
acts described in Exod. 4 and 12 do the same thing; in both cases the threat of death is averted by
blood.
circumcision is an adoption rite. The mother marries the deity. The rite creates
a father-child relationship between child and deity.
Still another interpretive approach is that of Morgenstern. Purpose of the
circumcision is the removal of the tabu, delivering the child from the spirit
who threatened it from birth, and initiation into the clan. Tapping into his
favourite view that the OT exhibits familiarity with the matriarchate (children
are regarded as belonging to the clan of the mother), he suggests that the god
became angry when he noticed that Zipporah joined Moses and so removed
her son, either recently bom or born during the journey, from his territory. He
regards the child as his property and tries to kill it. Zipporah heads off the
threat by circumcising the boy. She gives the deity a bit of blood by putting
some on the body of the child with the foreskin, and by saying ‘Surely one
related by blood (of circumcision) art thou to me’ (p. 69), she makes it known
that the child is a full member of the clan.
Exodus 4:24-26 in its context

As has become apparent, 4:24-26 has given rise to widely varying interpreta
tions. I see no need to consider in greater detail than is done above the pros
and cons of these views. To get to the bottom of the various views, one must
factor in the presuppositions that have gone into their formulation and why
they were adopted, not to mention that with each of the views it would be wise
to try to read between the lines as well. On the assumption that the writer of
Exodus aimed at giving a coherent and meaningful text and that the context
ought to have a decisive role in the interpretation, I do not consider it likely
that 4:24-26 was placed after 4:23, either mechanically or on account of a
common theme (Kosmala and Beltz; see k).28
Consequently, to me it seems most likely that Moses is the implied object of
4:24. Additionally, the explicit ‘her son’ in 4:25 is striking if he would be the
implied object of 4:24. With others, I believe that Moses was attacked because
he was uncircumcised (see h and j). With De Groot et al. I also believe that
with the blood Moses is symbolically being circumcised. Counter arguments
such as that circumcision was in vogue in Egypt; that therefore it is highly
probable that Moses, too, had been circumcised, or that symbolic circumcision
can hardly be regarded as real circumcision (e.g. Richter, 124f.; Kosmala, 16),
do not carry that much weight, the way I see it. The context suggests that
Moses’ circumcision was in effect his consecration to his commission and the
90
Though it remains remarkable that soon after the (intended) killing of the firstborn has been
mentioned (4:23), there is again a reference to ‘killing’ (a different verb than in 4:23 is used) (4:24)
(Coppens even defends the untenable thesis that Pharaoh’s firstborn is the object of 4:24) and to
‘son’ (4:25). Striking, too, is that the verb t03D, used in 4:24, also occurs in 4:27. The passage
4:24-26, which relates an independent episode and which as a rule is attributed to a different
literary source than the preceding and following verses, appears nevertheless to have some kind of
link with it, though the passages deal with different subjects.
448 exodus 4:20-31
official beginning of the task.29 Through his circumcision Moses is now

totally dedicated to y h w h .30
Worthy of note in this connection is that Abraham fathered Isaac after he
was circumcised (Gen. 17:23ff.; cf. vs. 21). Likely it is also implied that now
that Moses has been circumcised, there is no more threat that in the future he
may get into a similar situation as depicted in 4:24. Now Moses is really all set
for his task.
The appellation d' ot inn, addressed, in my judgment, to Moses, and 4:26b
deserve separate attention. The history of interpretation shows that it is not
uncommon in modern research to view 4:24-26 as an etiology or as a story
with etiological features, as a story that aims to explain or legitimatize (see f,
g, h, i) the origin of circumcision and certain attendant customs. In particular
the etiological character of 4:26b has often been scrutinized (also by conser
vative scholars like Richter and Cassuto; see f, g), because the designation
D'ot )nn was first used by Zipporah and she introduced its use (see further e.g.
Baentsch). There are also several authors who have embraced a conjecture by
Ehrlich. He proposes to read r m , ‘they say,’ ‘it is said’ (Junker, 125, proposes
to read idk, ‘it is said’) instead of rnax, and to understand the sentence with tk
(cf. Gen. 4:26) as a clarifying editorial comment with the following contents: at
that time, that is, in the time of Moses, a person who was being circumcised
was called o' ot inn.31 I see no reason to depart from the MT. What does
seem natural is to regard ik and following words as a clarifying comment,
though not etiological in character. It is not impossible that the writer found
the designation o'm onn in the source(s) available to him, and that it mystified
him (cf. Childs). Working with the Hebrew he was familiar with, he was unable
to come up with another meaning than ‘bloody bridegroom’ (although pro
bably the meaning ‘one circumcised with blood’ was originally meant)32 and
therefore draws his readers’ attention to the fact that they should bear in mind
that there is a connection between the designation o*ot inn and circumcision
(he wants to make sure the readers will not get wrong ideas about the term
29 Cf. also Beer, O. EiBfeldt, OLZ 58 (1963), 330f., Te Stroete, Clements and also Cassuto; see
g ‘ 30
It does not seem right to me to conceive of circumcision as a preparation to the celebration
of the Passover (so De Groot; see j); cf. Josh. 5:2ff. (the thrust of the passage has more to do with
preparation for taking possession of the land). Note, too, that ll:5ff., which is the correlate of 4:23,
comes before the account of the Passover (Exod. 12); it does not only have the word D'Dl but also
the verb Dll (4:25 and 12:22). Rabbinic tradition has linked the blood of the circumcision and the
blood of the Passover; see R. Le D6aut, La nuit pascale, Rome, 1963, 209ff.
31 Interpreted by Ehrlich as ‘Beschneidungskandidat;’ see further e.g. GreBmann, 57, 61; Beer
and Noth; though it should be added that it is doubtful that V1QK IK can mean ‘at the time one
used to say.’
'KJ J
For that matter, he may not have been conversant with the ancient custom of circumcision
before marriage and so did not understand the expression.
inn).
Comments on circumcision
Circumcision33 is a more or less visible, ritually performed operation on the
reproductive organs. It is a widely practiced rite which can be done to mem
bers of both the male and female gender. The age at which the act takes place
varies widely, from the seventh day to the seventeenth year. In ancient Israel
only the males were circumcised. There is a wide spectrum of ideas about the
significance of circumcision. This was already touched on in the discussion of
4:24-26. I shall leave that alone, restricting myself to the givens in the OT. The
following passages are of importance: Gen. 17:9ff., 23ff.; 21:4; 34:14ff.; Exod.
4:24-26; 12:43ff.; Lev. 12:3; Josh. 5:2ff. Gen. 17 deals specifically with the
meaning of circumcision, making it clear that through the rite one is incor
porated into the community of the covenant (cf. also Exod. 12:43ff.); circum
cision is a sign which recalls the covenant. It is often proposed that Gen. 17
reflects the conceptions about circumcision from the time of the exile and
afterward. At that time, so it is alleged, the custom arose to circumcise boys on
the eighth day and circumcision became the sign of belonging to the Jewish
people. In contrast, other passages (Gen. 34; Exod. 4; Josh. 5), give evidence
that circumcision had a different function in ancient Israel. In connection with
4:24-26 it is important to note that from several passages it is clear that
circumcision was associated with the notions of dedication, sanctification, and
purification (Gen. 17; Exod. 12; Josh. 5). Illustrative, too, are the passages
where circumcision is used metaphorically (6:12, 30; Lev. 26:41; Deut. 10:16;
30:6; Jer. 4:4; 6:10; 9:25; cf. also Lev. 19:23f.). In some way 4:24-26 can be
compared with Isa. 6:7 and Jer. 1:9, since circumcision qualified Moses to be
yhwh’s ambassador.
4:27 YHWH said to Aaron, ‘Go to meet Moses in the wilderness. ’ He went, met
him at the mountain of God, and kissed him.
‘yhwh said,’ in view of 4:14, dmh is sometimes translated as a pluperfect (e.g.
33 Bibl.: BHHW, I, 223ff.; ERE, III, 659ff.; TRE, V, 714ff.; Benzinger, 126ff„ 287, 390;
D. Flusser - S. Safrai, "Who Sanctified the Beloved in the Womb," Immanuel 11 (1980), 46-55;
M.V. Fox, "The Sign of the Covenant: Circumcision in the Light of the Priestly 'dt Etiologies," RB
81 (1974), 557-96; W.H. Gispen, "De besnijdenis," GThT 54 (1954), 148-57, 174-82; 55 (1955),
9-16; A. Glassberg, Die Beschneidung in ihrer geschichtlichen, ethnographischen, religidsen und
medicinischen Bedeutung: Zum ersten Male umfassend dargestellt, Berlin 1896; R. Gradwohl, "Der
‘Hiigel der Vorhaute’ (Josua V 3)," VT 26 (1976), 235-40; R.G. Hall, "Epipasm and the Dating of
Ancient Jewish Writings," JSP 2 (1988), 71-86; P.A. Mantovani, "Circonsici ed incirconcisi," Hen
10 (1988), 51-68; W.H. Propp, "The Origins of Infant Circumcision in Israel," HAR 11 (1987),
355-70; J.M. Sasson, "Circumcision in the Ancient Near East," JBL 85 (1966), 473-6; Schmidt,
228f.; F. Sierksma, "Quelques remarques sur la circoncision en Israel," OTS 9 (1951), 136-69 (pp.
143ff. on Exod. 4:24ff.); De Vaux, I, 93ff.
450 exo dus 4:20-31
Buber—Rosenzweig, NEB, B6hl; but note KoSynt § 142); see further at 4:14;
y h w h , who showed himself from quite a different side in 4:24-26, here again
reveals himself through speaking (cf. 4:19 and 21) and so directing the course
of events; nothing more is said about the revelation; Cassuto conjectures that
y h w h appeared in a dream, ‘to Aaron,’ the assumption seems to be that
Aaron was in Egypt. »id, see 4:24. Through the use of the terms -qio (see
In trod. § 3.31) and oviStn m (see In trod. § 3.16.2) the reader is mentally
transported back to what is said in 3:Iff. about y h w h ’s revelation to Moses.
Since the encounter happens right at the place of revelation, the place where
the coming of Aaron was announced (4:14) - also the meeting with Jethro
happens there (see 18:5ff.) - , it bears the stamp of y h w h ’s involvement in the
event; this is what y h w h wanted; the encounter is not a pure accident; the
encounter at that particular spot can be taken as encouragement of Moses. As
it were under the watchful eye of y h w h , Moses makes Aaron share in his
experiences (4:28). The fact that precisely there Moses informs Aaron, turns
the encounter into a kind of inauguration of Aaron by Moses, with the
approval of y h w h himself. The encounter at just that spot can be regarded as
a kind of call of Aaron. With the endorsement of y h w h himself, he is given
insight into God’s plans with Israel. Consequently, he is a man who can speak
with authority. Probably one has to picture the mountain of God as being
situated between Midian and Egypt (see also at 3:1). That Moses had to travel
to get there is also presupposed in 4:24.
The fact that Aaron met Moses at the mountain of God, which Moses
according to 4:18 had left, is seen by several authors as an unevenness in the
story,34 stemming from the composite literary character of the text (e.g.
Holzinger, Beer, Noth, Henton Davies, Te Stroete). Neither Josephus (AJ, II,
279f.) nor Philo (VM, I, 85) mention a meeting at the mountain of God.
Josephus writes that the meeting happened when Moses approached the
border of Egypt (he informs Aaron of what had happened to him on the
mountain). The way Josephus pictures it, also the elders of Israel of their own
accord went to meet Moses, because they had heard of his coming. Philo talks
about a meeting of Moses and Aaron during the journey and tells that Moses
was able to persuade Aaron to accompany him. Aaron is prepared to do that,
because God made him receptive to the plea. According to the Islamic
tradition, the meeting happened in Egypt; on his winged horse, Gabriel
brought Aaron to Moses; next, Gabriel brought Moses to his mother (Weil,
152ff.). The meeting with the people is passed over.
p»-i imperf. cons, qal of p»: I (usually two homonymic roots are assumed; but
see KoW), ‘to kiss;’ ps» (OT 32 x; qal 26 x) denotes a gesture of affection
and/or respect. The action consists of touching with one’s lips the lips, cheek,
^ The question concerning the location of the mountain of God also enters in; for that see
Introd. § 8.23.
hand, feet (Isa. 49:23 et al.) of the other person. As a rule it has no erotic
overtones (but note Prov. 7:13; Cant. 1:2; 8:1). It is a standard custom with
farewells and greetings (compare for the latter beside 4:27; 18:7, also Gen.
29:11, 13; 33:4; 45:15; 2 Sam. 20:9). Usually it was accompanied by other
(spontaneous) expressions of being moved: clutching and embracing each other
(Gen. 29:13; 33:4; 48:10; 2 Sam. 15:5; 20:9; Prov. 7:13); tears flowing freely
(Gen. 29:11; 33:4; 45:15; 50:1; 1 Sam. 20:41 et al.); bowing deeply (18:7; 1 Sam.
20:41). In 4:27 two brothers kiss each other (see also Gen. 33:4; 45:15); in 18:7
the son-in-law kisses the father-in-law. See further BHHW, II, 1033f.; ERE,
VII, 739ff.; DB, III, 5f.; IDB, III, 39f.; Vorwahl, 22f.
In 4:27 only the verb is used to describe the manner of meeting. It
appears that here the verb is used pars pro toto for the greeting ritual, which
could also include embracing each other and weeping (of joy; cf. 4:14). Bear in
mind that in this and following verses the writer keeps things brief.
In rabbinic literature the question is discussed as to who is the subject of
‘kissed him,’ Aaron or Moses? Since the verb is in the sing, and it is presup
posed that the ‘kissee’ is greater than the kisser, the question is considered
important. Beyond that, in its treatment of the passage rabbinic literature
focuses on the equality and the harmony of both brothers (e.g. ExR. V, 1, 10,
11, and see further Ginzberg, II, 328ff.). Because it is not said that Moses
reciprocated the kiss, Ehrlich concludes that Aaron’s kiss was hardly ‘der
Ausdruck personlichen Gefuhls.’ Referring to 1 Sam. 10:1, he writes, ‘Der Kuss
gait nicht dem Bruder; er gait dem von yhwh bestellten Befreier Israels.’ In
view of the context, a reference to 1 Sam. 10:1 would have been more to the
point if Moses had been the subject. In view of the use of po: in the OT (see
above), the use of the sing, is not unusual and no far-reaching conclusions
should be drawn from it. According to the LXX: icai Kate«p(XTioav dXkf)Xouq,
the kissing was mutual.
4:28 Moses told Aaron all the words YHW H had ordered him to speak, and all the
signs he had charged him to do.
i n imperf. cons. hiph. of (OT ca. 370x; hiph. 335x; hoph. 35x), ‘to tell;’
ti: hiph. is used in Exodus with the meaning ‘to apprise someone of some
thing’ (+ b; in 19:9 + bn) (4:28; 16:22; 19:3, 9; cf. 14:5 hoph.); it concerns
information, given by one or more individuals who are from elsewhere; the
speaker serves as intermediary; in 13:8, m: hiph. means ‘explain,’ ‘clarify’ (cf.
e.g. Gen. 41:24; Judg. 14:12, 15, 16, 19); see further THAT, II, 31ff.; TWAT, V,
188ff.
‘all the words yhwh had ordered him to speak’ (for nb» see Introd. § 3.49.1),
on the basis of the foregoing, one must think of 3:16ff.; see also 3:14f (for the
last passage, see e.g. Nachmanides); ‘and all the signs ...’ (for itik see 3:12), the
foregoing suggests the signs mentioned in 4:Iff. For ms see Introd. § 3.43.1;
m&SJ1? is implied (as is more often the case with ms; see e.g. 31:6, 11; 36:1); in
452 E X O D U S 4:20-31
the Pesh. and in TPsJ this is specifically brought out in the translation; I have
followed suit, among others with LV and CV.
Aaron is the first person with whom Moses shares his contact with yhwh.
Neither Jethro nor Zipporah were given that honour. Aaron’s status is,
therefore, a very special one (see at 4:27). Moses always treats Aaron in
conformity with the mandate of yhwh.
4:29 Thereupon Moses and Aaron went. They assembled all the elders of Israel.
•fn, Sam. Pent, (see also Pesh.) has the pi. ishn; however, a sing, verb with a
composite subject is not unusual in Hebrew (cf. 3:18; 8:8; but note also e.g.
in 5:1; cf. e.g. Ges-K § 146f, g; Joiion § 150p, q); the waw before pro* can be
regarded as a waw concomitantiae (e.g. Ges-K § 154a n. lb; Joiion § 150p,
151a); the presence of the sing, has been used in support of certain ideas
concerning the genesis of the text; it is alleged that originally Aaron was not in
the text (see at 4:30). Though not specifically mentioned, the destination of the
journey of Moses and Aaron is Egypt (cf. 4:18-21). *pw, see 3:16. ‘all the elders
of Israel,’ see 3:16; the text here differs somewhat from 3:16; in particular the
use of bo is remarkable; Moses and Aaron carefully execute the mandate of
3:16; cf. also the use of bo in 4:28 (2x) and 4:30 (lx ); without omitting a
thing, they do everything they are told!
4:30 Aaron communicated all the words which y h w h had communicated to

Moses, and he performed the signs in the sight of the people.
‘Aaron communicated ...,’ Aaron acts in accordance with yhwh’s will (see
4:16); what he said is not mentioned (see 4:28); to whom he spoke is not
recorded either. The end of 4:29 suggests the elders (cf. also 3:16). By contrast,
in 4:16 Aaron is mentioned by name as spokesman to ‘the people,’ who are
specifically mentioned at the end of 4:30 and the beginning of 4:31. But there
is no mention of an assembling of the people. Quietly the story moves from
the elders to ‘the people;’ cf. also 3:20 (‘you’), 21 (‘this people’); 4:1, 5, 8
(‘they’). This transition can easily happen because the elders in every respect
are the representatives of the people. Note the alliteration produced by the
threefold use of forms of
‘and he performed,’ a disputed point is whether Moses or Aaron is subject.
Syntactically only the latter is possible. Cole and Valentin, 138, e.g., regard
Aaron as the subject. An argument against it is that while Aaron was specific
ally designated by yhwh to be the spokesman (4:15ff.), he was not told to do
wonders. In turn, that argument is weakened by the fact that 4:28 can be
understood as an instruction to Aaron, also in regard to the signs, and that
Aaron, according to 7:10; 8:2 et al., did perform signs. Dillmann, Strack,
Eerdmans, 17, and Schmidt, among others, argue that Moses is the subject. It
could be pointed out that that is what one would expect after 4:Iff., and also
that Moses’ name comes just before ann. A choice is not easy. Editorial
tinkering with the text has been blamed for the problem. It is said that the
prior context leaves only Moses as subject, and that consequently Moses must
also be the original subject of ~qti (4:30a). So the conclusion is reached that
Aaron’s name was added and the words ‘to Moses’ were substituted for ‘to
him;’ similar reasoning is used in connection with 4:29: it is conjectured that
Aaron was inserted into the text and that the pi. idok' i is due to alteration of
the text. It is assumed that the text was changed to give Aaron a more impor
tant role at the expense of Moses; see e.g. Holzinger, Baentsch, McNeile,
Noth, Te Stroete. Eerdmans, 17, disputes that Aaron was later added to the
text.
‘the signs,’ cf. 4:28; bn is not repeated. Some questions arise. In view of 4: Iff.,
is the fact that the signs are mentioned an intimation that the people did not
take Moses and Aaron at their word that they came as representative of y h w h
but demanded solid credentials? That seems to be implied (cf. also Josephus,
AJ, II, 280). Is the omission of bn before nn«n the writer’s way of suggesting
that it was not necessary to do all the signs, but that it took only two signs to
persuade the people (4:8)?
4:31 The people believed. When they heard that y h w h was really concerned about
the Israelites and had seen their misery, they made obeisance.
p tn , see 4:1; Sam. Pent, has the pi. •noK'i (see also Pesh. and cf. 4:1, 8, 9).
What y h w h has announced (4:5, 8) happens. Thanks to the signs, Moses and
Aaron are acknowledged as y h w h ’s messengers, ‘they heard,’ see Introd.
§ 3.51.1; LXX reads: icai ‘and they rejoiced,’ a translation which
presupposes a reading irtttri; Cole, among others, prefers that reading; others
admit that it makes good sense (e.g. Baentsch, McNeile, Henton Davies,
Schmidt); it must at least be said that the placing of ivaen toward the end in
the text is somewhat unusual. The sentences with *D, it may be assumed,
contain the substance of Aaron’s words (4:30a). That means the text offers a
chiasm here (Dvrt p»n is correlative to 4:30b). This is about how events
unrolled: Aaron does the talking and reports that y h w h is intimately familiar
with the misery the people suffer; apparently they are not convinced; not until
they witness the signs, do they believe the messengers and their message and
make obeisance. The act of reverence is not a direct reaction to the lis
tening.35 It must be granted that the LXX offers a more intelligible, at least a
more logical account than the MT. ipo, see 3:16. nto, see Introd. § 3.46.1.
see 1:11. For y h w h ’s care here expressed, see 2:25; 3:7, 9, 16f.
vtj>n imperf. cons, qal (for the form see Ges-K § 67g) of Tip (OT 15 x),
which is always followed by a form of mnn»n (see below); the verb denotes a
bowing and kneeling with the face touching the ground; it is used, e.g. in
35 Unless one imagines things to have happened as follows: Aaron talks to the elders (4:30a); he
performs signs before the people (4:30b); the people believe and listen to Aaron’s words, etc.
454 E X O D U S 4:20-31
1 Sam. 24:9; 28:14; 1 Kgs. 1:31 with rra*iN d'QK; in 34:8 with mn«; in 4:31; 12:27
and elsewhere (e.g. Gen. 24:26, 48; Num. 22:31) no such further definition is
added; as an expression of respect, the verb is used with respect to y h w h (e.g.
Gen. 24:26, 48; Exod. 4:31; 12:27; 34:8) as well as to a prominent individual
(e.g. Gen. 43:28; 1 Sam. 24:9); in KBL T ip is characterized as ‘Vor-
bereitungshandlung’ preceding mnrwn (cf. also THAT, I, 531); in my judgment,
it could very well be a hendiadys, a good English equivalent of which would be
‘make obeisance’ (cf. BOhl); see further below.
iinnri; the derivation is a matter of dispute; in older literature mnrwn is
regarded as a hithpa'lel of nrw, of the root irw (e.g. Ges-B, BDB, KBL); on the
basis of Ugaritic, nowadays it is more common to regard mnrwn as a hiSh-
taph'al of *mn, from a root 'in (e.g. HAL; THAT, I, 530; TWAT, II, 785);
however, in a thoroughly researched study, J.A. Emerton36 concluded that the
available data favour a derivation from nrw; but shortly afterward,
G. Davies37 again defended the root mn as basis of the Hebrew verb, mnrwn
(OT ca. 170x; Exod. 11 x), ‘to prostrate oneself,’ ‘to throw oneself down
before,’ is used both for people and God/gods; in 11:8; 18:7 with respect to
people: in 11:8 Moses announces that Pharaoh’s servants will bow low to him;
so they adopt the posture of suppliants (cf. 2 Sam. 14:4; 15:5) and profess
Moses’ power over them and their dependence on him; in 18:7 Moses’ bowing
down before his father-in-law is a form of greeting in which he gives homage
(cf. e.g. Gen. 18:7; 19:1; 33:7; 1 Sam. 25:23). In 4:31; 12:27 the people are
subject of the verb; an object is not mentioned, but from the context it is plain
that the reverence is toward y h w h ; by this act the people render him homage,
affirm that they acknowledge him as Lord, and express their thankfulness; the
people are also subject in 33:10; the people bow down when the pillar of cloud
(and therewith y h w h ) is present at the tent sanctuary; with this act of prostra
tion the people express their consciousness of the holiness of y h w h , and so
their reverence before him (cf. also 24:1); in 34:8 Moses is subject: assuming
the posture of a suppliant, he hopes that this manifestation of subjection will
help his cause. In 20:5; 23:24; 34:14, images/foreign gods are object of mrtrwn;
in 20:5; 23:24 followed by mu (see Introd. § 3.37.1); cf. e.g. Deut. 4:19; 5:9 and
(in reverse order) Deut. 8:19; 11:16; the ‘bowing down’ includes more than a
cultic giving of honour and praying, it also evidences the inward religious
attitude: subjection to and trust in foreign gods; in 32:8 the verb is used in
connection with the cult of the golden calf. See further THAT, I, 530ff.; TWAT,
II, 784ff.; Floss, 165ff., 172ff.
36 T h e Etymology of hiitohawah,mOTS 20 (1977), 41-55.

37 *A Note on the Etymology of hiStah°wah‘ VT 29 (1979), 493-5. See further S. Kreuzer,
“Zur Bedeutung und Etymologie von hiStahawahfySthwy,“ VT 35 (1985), 39-60; J. Tropper, “Die
hebraischen Verbalwurzeln Suh, Shh und Shh" ZAH 4 (1991), 46-54.
exodus 5:1-21
FIRST CONFRONTATION WITH PHARAOH
5:1 After this, Moses and Aaron went to Pharaoh and said to him, ‘Thus says
YHWH ', the God of Israel, m Let my people go, so that they may hold a festival in
honour of me in the wildernessm.’
2 Pharaoh, however, answered, Who is YHWH, that I should obey him and let
Israel go? I have nothing to do with y h w h and in no way will I let Israel go. ’
3 Then they said, The God of the Hebrews has suddenly appeared to us.
Therefore we would like to go a three days’journey into the wilderness to sacrifice
to YHWH, our God, lest he cut us down with pestilence or the sword. ’
4 But the king of Egypt answered them, What makes you, Moses and Aaron,
stir up the people to quit their work? Get going back to your work!’
5 Pharaoh continued, The strangers are already huge in numbers, and you
want them to interrupt their work?’
6 That same day Pharaoh ordered the taskmasters and the foremen o f the
people:
I You may no longer, like you used to do, supply the people with straw to
make bricks. Let them gather the straw themselves.
8 Nevertheless, you must order them to make the same amount of bricks as
before. Do not reduce the number. They are lazy bums; that is why they keep
crying mWe would like to make sacrifices to our God.9
9 Keep them hard at work, so that they keep occupied with that, and have no
time to dream about harmful desires. ’
10 The taskmasters of the people and the foremen of the people left and spoke
to the people, Thus says Pharaoh, T will no longer supply you with straw9.
II Get going! You have to get straw yourselves, wherever you can find it. But
the amount of work you have to do will not be reduced. ’
12 So the people swarmed out over all the land of Egypt to gather stubble as a
replacement for the straw.
13 The taskmasters kept urging them on, \Finish the work, the same amount per
day you used to make when straw was still available;’
14 and the foremen of the Israelites, who had been given those orders by
Pharaoh’s taskmasters, were beaten, while it was said to them, Why did you not
produce the prescribed quantity of bricks like before? You had to reach that
number, not only yesterday, but also today!’
15 Then the foremen of Israel came to Pharaoh and appealed, Why do you
treat your servants like this?
16 Your servants are no longer supplied with straw, yet we are repeatedly told,
456 exodus 5:1-21
■Make bricks!* The result is that we are being beaten and that blame comes to
rest on your people.'
17 But he answered. You are lazy bums, nothing but lazy bums!’ That is why
you keep saying uWe would like to make sacrifices to YHWH9.
18 Get going get back to work right away. You will not be given straw, but you
have to produce the prescribed quantity o f bricks. ’
19 The foremen of Israel realized they were in trouble now that he himself had
said to them, You may not lower the number of bricks that have to be produced
each day.'
20 They headed straight for Moses and Aaron, for whom they had been waiting
since they had gone away from Pharaoh,
21 and they said to them, May YHW H look upon you and let you have it for
ruining our reputation with Pharaoh and his court, by giving them a reason to kill
us with the sword. ’
After Moses had carried out the first part of his mandate (3:16ff.) and had
been well received by the people of Israel (4:29ff.), he and Aaron went to
Pharaoh in accordance with y h w h ’s instruction (4:18). They introduce them
selves to Pharaoh as y h w h ’s spokesmen and, without beating around the bush,
they relate to him y h w h ’s command, ‘Give the people the opportunity to have
a festival in the wilderness in honour of y h w h ’ (5:1). Pharaoh is not impressed
by the demand, given in a commanding tone of voice. Declaring that he has
nothing to do with y h w h , he denies that y h w h has any right at all to com
mand him. He brushes aside the command (5:2). But Moses and Aaron do not
take no for an answer and try another tack. Changing their tone of voice,
politely they repeat their request. Giving more information, they try to
strengthen their request by pointing out the terrible things that might happen
to them if they do not perform the pilgrimage God requires of them. They try
to convince him that they are solely driven by religious concerns. By appealing
to Pharaoh’s emotions, they try to change his mind (5:3). But without getting
anywhere. No matter what they say to Pharaoh, he will not budge. The way
Pharaoh sizes up the situation, Moses and Aaron are troublemakers who incite
the people to shirk their duty and stop working. Fearful of the Israelites’
runaway growth, he will not give an inch (5:4, 5). Tooth and nail he opposes
the fulfillment of y h w h ’s promise that Israel would become a great nation,
living in a land of its own. Things go the way y h w h had said they would:
Pharaoh will not listen (3:19; 4:21). y h w h had not said, however, that the
failure of the first negotiations would result in an even more intense brutaliz
ation of the people (5:6ff.). The first meeting with Pharaoh has an adverse
effect and only negative consequences. The request of Moses and Aaron seems
ESSEN T IA LS AND PER SPEC T IV ES 457
to have reopened Pharaoh’s eyes to the danger embodied in Israel’s presence

in the land, for which reason he quickly reassesses his strategy toward them.
The scene changes quickly. The leaving of Moses and Aaron, their slipping
away goes unmentioned. The spotlight remains on Pharaoh. Infuriated by the
meeting with Moses and Aaron, he is as it were unstoppable. He keeps talking,
but now his audience is the Egyptian bosses (the taskmasters) and the Israelite
assistant bosses (the foremen), charged with the nuts and bolts details of the
brick making business (5:7-10). He gives them new instructions: they are no
longer to supply the straw needed for the bricks; the slaves must now find the
straw themselves, but their daily quota of bricks is to remain the same. He tells
them that the Israelites have too much free time on their hands, which is why
they got the idea of wanting time off for the sacrificial feast in the wilderness.
By heaping the work on the Israelites, making them sweat all the more and
keeping them from doing anything but working, Pharaoh hopes he can
extinguish whatever spark of spirit and resilience may be left in them, in order
that his Israelite policy - the growth of the people must be stopped and they
must be kept in the land - will stay on track.
Pharaoh’s words remind the reader of the slavery of the people. The mind
turns back to 1:11-14. The hard labour described there contrasts sharply with
Pharaoh’s accusation of laziness. The reader gets angry. Here the impossible is
being asked. Collecting straw is awfully time-consuming. Anyone knows that
reaching the same daily quota of bricks is now out of the question. But the
bosses and assistant bosses register no protest. Before Pharaoh, not a word
escapes from their lips.
Again the scene changes (5:10, 11). The reader, conscious that Pharaoh’s
unreasonable demands could ruin everything, follows the story with much
apprehension and sees the bosses and their deputies go back to their work
stations where they fancy themselves to be in control. No longer servile
subordinates as in Pharaoh’s presence, there they do speak. There others (the
people) are the subordinates and they the top brass. Without a protest, those
others swallow the instructions, even as the supervisors hope that by their
command they can make the people do the impossible, so avoiding Pharaoh’s
wrath and the loss of their jobs. Tlie entire organizational structure is based on
fear: Pharaoh is driven by fear; the slave drivers are driven by fear, etc.
The next scene (5:12-14) depicts the results of Pharaoh’s new policy. The
people obey the order of their superiors (5:11) and swarm out to find whatever
remains of plants they can. The chiefs are after the deputy chiefs, insisting that
the quota of bricks be met, and when they see that it is out of reach, fearing
reprisals from Pharaoh they resort to violence. By flogging their assistants, they
seek to force them to do the impossible. The subordinates do not want a gap
between them and the workers. They refuse to take the injustice out on those
under them by holding them responsible. Not wanting a long chain of violence,
they mount an appeal. They go straight to the one who is first and most
458 exodus 5:1-21
responsible.
Again the writer transports the reader to Pharaoh’s environs (5:15-19). This
time it is not a meeting of Pharaoh and bosses and their deputies, the foremen
(5:6-9), but only of Pharaoh and the foremen. Uninvited, these men of their
own volition have come to Pharaoh in hopes of showing how unreasonable his
demands are and of persuading him to make the treatment more humane.
Presenting themselves as Pharaoh’s loyal and humble servants, they inform him
that by going beyond what is humanly allowable, his people, the Egyptians,
bring guilt upon themselves and may come to grief on account of it (5:16). It
does not help. Everything the Israelites say is interpreted by Pharaoh as a
request for time off, a request which he feels stems from laziness and loafing
(5:17) and which, considering the political realities, cannot possibly be granted
(5:5). The foremen are turned down flat. In fact, in view of Pharaoh’s moun
ting fury (5:17), they may be grateful that the king does not add even more to
the heavy load. They are aware that their situation is hopeless. Pharaoh is
totally insensitive to the reproof from people who know the practical ins and
outs of the new rules. There is no further court of appeal. The highest auth
ority in the land has reaffirmed that the new demands are there to stay (5:18,
19). In short, Israel is worse off than before the meeting with Moses and
Aaron (4:29ff.).
In a following scene (5:20, 21), the writer puts the reader once more in
touch with the Israelite leaders. He recounts their conduct after they had left
Pharaoh. Seeing their hope of a better treatment evaporating before their eyes
and feeling that their position is desperate, they vent their anger on Moses and
Aaron. They feel cheated, and have only one thing in mind, to tell these two
men off and to denounce them, because they are to blame that their name is
now mud to Pharaoh, so much so that they cannot even be sure of their own
life anymore. Since the appearance on the scene of Moses and Aaron has only
worsened the fate of the Israelites and endangered their own life as well, they
feel free to unmask them as dangerous criminals, who duped the Israelites into
accepting them as freedom-bringing divine messengers. So they distance
themselves from Moses and Aaron. No longer having the confidence of the
people, Moses and Aaron find themselves in a position of isolation. The
accusations of Israel’s leaders conclude the brief scene. We do not read that
Moses and Aaron defended themselves. What could they have said anyway
about the accusations? Perhaps only this, that the grievances were directed
against the wrong address.
The tension in the story has reached a near boiling point with chap. 5:
despite the presence of the divine messenger Moses, the terrible condition of
the people of Israel has gotten a lot worse. Is the deliverance promised by
yhwh never going to come? Will the promise of a land of their own never
become reality?

IN T R O D U C T IO N T O T H E E X E G E S IS
5jl-6:l isjoften regarded as a ™hf>rf>nt vnit (pg Heinisch, Cassuto, Hyatt,

Michaeli). I prefer to insert a kind of caesura after 5:21. Though I grant that
this division is somewhat arbitrary and that there is an unmistakable connec
tion between 5:22-6:1 and the preceding section. The continuity in the present
text between 5:22ff. and 6:2ff., makes it seem unwise to introduce a caesura
after 6:1, and therefore I insert one after 5:21 for the sake of ease of reading
and interpretation.
With the exception of 5:1-5, 5:1-6:1 is usually regarded as being for the most
part a literary unit which is assigned to J . In particular, 5:1-5 is often regarded
as a composite account: vs. 3 is a duplicate of vs. 1 and vs. 5 a duplicate of vs.
4. But there is no consensus about the literary provenance of the verses:
Baentsch assigns 5:1, 2, 4 to E and 5:3, 5 (addressed to Moses and the elders)
to J (similarly e.g. Te Stroete and Hyatt); Eififeldt and Beer assign 5:1, 2, 5 to
E and 5:3, 4 to J (in vs. 4 Aaron has been substituted for the elders, according
to Beer; Eififeldt thinks that the names of Aaron and Moses are secondary).
Other views have been advanced as well: Holzinger views Aaron in 5:1, 4, 20
as secondary and the plural verbs in these verses as a later correction, but sees
no reason to deny these verses to J (see also Noth, who contends that 5:4
comes from e ) . For more details, see e.g. Eififeldt; Fohrer, 55ff.; Grefimann,
61f.; Valentin, 366f. and also Eerdmans, 18ff. The remarkable repetitions make
it probable, in my judgment, that the text is a literary composite. Though it
should also be borne in mind that the duplication serves a functional purpose
and that the combination of literary traditions has created a literary effect. I
wish to point out, too, that there is something of a tension between 5:6-11 and
5:12-19. I come back to it.
In chap. 5 several terms are used more than once. The following terms are
used three or more times: D '» p ( vss. 6, 10, 13, 14; see 3:7); trip® (vss. 6, 10, 14,
15, 19); pn (vss. 7 [2x], 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 18; see Introd. § 10.3.7); ]n: with
pn as object (vss. 7, 10, 16, 18); D'p^> (vss. 7, 8, 16, 18, 19; see 1:14); Vi»n
(vss. 7, 8, 14; see Introd. § 4.4.4); sm (vss. 8, 11, 19); D'En? (vss. 8, 17 [2x]);
nun? and n&sro stand for the labour of the Israelites (vss. 4, 9, 13, 16; see Introd.
§ 3.41); similarly *ra» and rrp» (vss. 9, 11, 18; see Introd. § 3.37); three times
the request for leave is heard (vss. 3, 8, 17).

E X E G E S IS
5:1 After this, Moses and Aaron went to Pharaoh and said to him, ‘Thus says
YHWH, the God o f Israel, *Let my people go, so that they may hold a festival in
460 exodus 5:1-21
honour o f me in the wilderness". ’

■too , see Introd. § 3.1.1; meant is: after the favourable reception by the elders,
“went (see Introd. § 3.8) Moses and Aaron,’ cf. 3:18; in view of 4:13ff., 27ff., it
is not surprising that Aaron is mentioned; what is strange is that the elders
(3:16, 18; 4:29) are not mentioned here nor in the following verses (in par
ticularly 5:3f.) and seem to have relinquished their place to Aaron. Rabbinic
tradition has it that the elders, on the way to the palace, fearing Pharaoh,
turned tail one after the other; their punishment was that at the Sinai they
were not permitted to approach y h w h (24:2); see e.g. ExR. V, 14; MidrTanh.
Exod. I, 21, and also Rashi, and further e.g. Ginzberg, II, 330f.; Leibowitz, 87f.
A number of Jewish exegetes inferred from the end of 5:4 (see below) that the
presence of the elders is assumed; see Leibowitz, 85f. Modern exegetes favour
the assumption that the ‘disappearance’ of the elders is due~IcT~i edacllonal
altering of the text. The combination of two literary traditions, the one dealing
with-Moses (and Aaronl. the second nith-M ntn and thr rlflrn resulted in a
text in which MoseTand Aaron were the negotiators with Pharaoh. However,
the original subject of ‘they said’ in 5:3 was Moses and the elders (see intro
duction to the exegesis).
‘Pharaoh,’ for historical questions see Introd. § 11.3, 4. ‘Thus says y h w h ,’
see Introd. § 3.5.1; Moses and Aaron speak with authority as y h w h ’s ambas
sadors to Pharaoh, the way e.g. prophets are wont to speak to kings; cf. Hos.
12:14, and see Buber, 75ff.; ‘y h w h , the God of Israel’ (for ‘Israel’ see Introd.
§ 8.13) is elsewhere in the Pentateuch only found in Exod. 32:27; the desig
nation is more frequent in Joshua (7:13 et al.; 14 x); it is unlikely that the
designation, which is not found elsewhere in a conversation with non-Israelites,
is used to provoke Pharaoh’s question of 5:2 (Ehrlich), ‘let go,’ see Introd.
§ 3.49.2; the word to Pharaoh is in the nature of an imperative (cf. 4:23).
urn imperf. qal (jussive) with copulative waw (e.g. Ges-K § 165a; Joiion
§ 116b; Brockelmann § 135c) of urt (OT 16 x), ‘to keep a festival’ (see also
12:14 [2x]; 23:14). lanoa (see Introd. §3.31) indicates that it is a religious
festival climaxing a pilgrimage (cf. also e.g. 23:14). The text is silent on details
about the feast and the reason for the pilgrimage (but note 5:3). y h w h
characterizes the feast as being ‘in honour of me’ (•“?). Connected with it is the
designation mmin coming from Moses (10:19; see also Lev. 23:39; Judg. 21:19;
Hos. 9:5); from the context it is obvious that it is not a feast celebrated by
y h w h but one unto y h w h , so that materially the expression is similar to
nvrVan (12:14; 13:6; 32:5; Lev. 23:41; Num. 29:12).1 The actual celebration of
a festival in honour of y h w h is found in Exod. only in chap. 32, which
1 311 (OT ca. 60x; Exod. 12x), ‘festival,’ also occurs in Exodus in construct chains specifying the
nature and occasion of the feast (23:15f.; 34:18, 22, 25); 'in in 23:18 is sometimes understood as
‘my festival sacrifice’ (metonymy); see e.g. KoW with reference to Mai. 2:3; Ps. 118:27; but note
e.g. Ges-B with reference to 34:25.
describes the fashioning of the golden calf. See further TWAT, II, 730ff.; M.I.
Gruber, Bib 62 (1981), 329ff. In other passages different words are used for the
request to Pharaoh; with the use of rat, see 3:18, and "Q», see Introd. § 3.37.1.
Cassuto, noting that it is not said in the text that Moses and Aaron were
enjoined by y h w h to go to Pharaoh (see 7:26 et al.), suggests that they acted
on their own initiative and thus precipitately, and so worsened the situation.
Besides, according to him, the fact that their message did not conform to the
directives in 3:18 indicated that they acted with undue haste. Leibowitz, 91ff.,
on the other hand, suggests that initially Moses and Aaron decided not to
speak according to the instruction in 3:18, because events developed differently
than had been foretold (the elders dropped out; see above): ‘Realising their
total failure to achieve results by their aggressive prophetic stance, Moses and
Aaron reverted to the original formulation prescribed by the Almighty’ (5:3)
(p. 93). Such interpretations do not appeal. In 5:1-5 one does well to reckon
with a combination of literary traditions. The lack of a specific mandate from
y h w h (Cassuto) is not strange. The text is about the execution of instructions
y h w h gave to Moses when he called him (3:15ff.). See further at 5:3.
5:1 is very brief in its account of Moses’ and Aaron’s going to Pharaoh. In
giving their message, they do not beat around the bush but come straight to
the point. Jewish literature offers a different picture of the first confrontation.
Josephus (AJ, II, 281ff.) tells how Moses - Aaron he does not mention -
came to Pharaoh, who only recently had come to the throne, and told the king
how some time ago he had defeated the Ethiopians (see at 2:10) but had not
yet received a proper award for it, informed him of his experiences at Sinai,
and concluded by urging the king not to resist God’s plan in unbelief. Rabbinic
literature relates, among others, that Moses and Aaron, despite the heavy
protection of the palace, miraculously managed to get through and reach
Pharaoh: twice Gabriel brought them inside, without the guards noticing
anything; the lions near the entrance, mesmerized by Moses’ staff, snuggled up
to him and danced before him, etc. (see e.g. Ginzberg, II, 331f.; Rosmarin,
89f.). Artapanus, 22f., tells how Pharaoh, when Moses came to him, im
mediately threw him in jail. In the night the doors of the prison opened by
themselves. Some of the guards died from fright and others fainted, while their
weapons broke in pieces. Moses enters the palace where Pharaoh and his
guards are in a deep sleep. Moses communicates to the awakened Pharaoh his
message. Pharaoh inquires after the name of Moses’ God. Being told, he drops
dead. Moses brings him back to life, etc.2
In Josephus’ account (AJ, II, 284ff.), the king views Moses as a deceiver, a
fugitive slave, so that Moses is compelled to do the signs shown him at Sinai.
Josephus mentions specifically the changing of the staff into a serpent (7:10ff.).
2 Cf. Acts 5:19, 23 and also Acts 16:25ff., and see Ginzberg, VI, 461 n. 88; for the miraculous
version of the incident in the Islamic tradition, see Weil, 154ff.
462 E X O D U S 5:1-21
In his account, this wonder happened during the first confrontation with
Pharaoh (note the sequence in 4:21 and 4:23). The same is sometimes also
done in rabbinic literature (see e.g. Ginzberg, II, 334ff.; Rosmarin, 89ff.).
5:2 Pharaoh, however, answered, Who is y h w h , that I should obey hint and let
Israel go? I have nothing to do with YHWH and in no way will I let Israel go. ’
‘Who is y h w h , th a t...’ (for u &n see Introd. § 3.7.2), cf. ‘Who am I t h a t i n
3:11 (+ Bibl.); the question is not to be taken as an honest question (e.g.
Strack, Cassuto, Fensham) - the ‘the God of Israel’ in 5:1 indicates who
y h w h is (Strack surmises that it is an addition) - but as a rhetorical question
bespeaking contempt (cf. Judg. 9:28; 1 Sam. 25:10). It is an insult aimed at
y h w h . To Israelite ears Pharaoh’s question must have sounded l i k f blasphemy
For to Israel y h w h was incomparable (15:11 and see e.g. Ps. 35:10; 71:19;
86:8; 89:7ff.; 113:5f.). Pharaoh’s words are an expression of overweening
arrogance. He blithely dismisses a command of y h w h and denies that y h w h
has any authority over him. The view that he reacts like this because he
considered himself a son and manifestation of the deity (e.g. Cassuto, Cle
ments) I judge to be beside the point. Such an interpretation, for that matter
already present in rabbinic literature,3 is overly historicizing and/or assumes
that the writer presents a story based on his knowledge of Egyptian religion,
‘obey,’ see Introd. § 3.51. For b before rbo see KoSynt § 406a and Ehrlich.
m r rv ttt t i » t Pharaoh does not mean to say that y h w h is unknown to
him, that he has never heard of y h w h , and that the fate of the people demon
strates his powerlessness (e.g. Strack, Heinisch, Clamer, Cassuto), see Introd.
§ 3.22; the sequel of the story reveals that Pharaoh will get to know who
y h w h is. 5:2b exhibits a chiastic word arrangement: verb-object-object-verb;
cm, see Introd. § 3.11.1.
Pharaoh’s reply to y h w h ’s brief command is twofold. In his answer three
terms from 5:1 ( y h w h , Israel, and ‘let go’) are used twice. He considers it
beneath his dignity to have anything to do with y h w h , but he does not want
to sever the existing association with Israel either. With this attitude he
entangles himself in a tricky situation, for - 5:1 mentions it emphatically —:
y h w h is Israel’s God; God and his people are inseparably linked. In short, if
Pharaoh holds on to Israel, the consequence, like it or not, is that he will
automatically have to deal with y h w h , as also history will bear out.
TO and TPsJ present their own version of Pharaoh’s reply. In translation,
Pharaoh’s answer in TO is: ‘The name of y h w h has not been made known to
me that I should listen to his word to let Israel go. y h w h ’s name has not been
made known to me and I will not let Israel go.’ The first half of the answer is
(nearly) similar in TPsJ. Then TPsJ continues with: ‘I have not found the name
of y h w h recorded in the Book of the Angels. I am not afraid of him and I will
^ See e.g. ExR. V, 14 (with a reference to Ezek. 29:3) and further Rosmarin, 90.
not let Israel go either.’ As regards the last lines, it is interesting that rabbinic
literature relates how Pharaoh to no avail searched for the name of y h w h in
his books containing the names of the nations with their gods and kings (see
e.g. ExR. V, 14; MidrTanh. Exod. II, 2). Moses and Aaron retort that Pharaoh
is stupid, because he looks for God among the dead, though he is the living
God (cf. Luke 24:5), and they seize the opportunity to extol y h w h ’s greatness
(see further e.g. Ginzberg, II, 332ff.; Rosmarin, 90).
5:3 Then they said, ‘The God o f the Hebrews has suddenly appeared to us.
Therefore we would like to go a three days’journey into the wilderness to sacrifice
to YHWH, our God, lest he cut us down with pestilence or the sword. ’
‘they said,’ in the context only Moses and Aaron can be the subject (but note
the comments at 5:1). With the exception of the end of the verse (p [see 1:10]
and following words), the words spoken in 5:3 are nearly identical with the
message formulated by y h w h (3:18) when he commissioned Moses to go to
Pharaoh; for the exegesis, see there. Sam. Pent, has rrainn (before i n ) (cf.
SamT) instead of "Oiui ‘The God of the Hebrews,’ in 3:18 there is first the
divine name; perhaps it is omitted here because the name is already announced
in 5:1, and maybe also because Pharaoh had just expressed himself disparag
ingly about y h w h ; though in the sequel to 5:3 the name y h w h does occur
(LXX, however, has left it untranslated; Noth, among others, follows LXX);
for O'TO? (beside ^tner) see Introd. § 8.25.
The tone is altogether different from 5:1. Now there is no longer a command
but a polite request. Since Moses and Aaron voice a message given to them by
y h w h (3:18), Cassuto cannot be right that now they speak as representatives
of their brothers and no longer as ambassadors of y h w h . It does not seem
right to me either to regard the reaction of Moses and Aaron as a reply to
Pharaoh’s question (e.g. Strack, Ehrlich, Eerdmans, 19, Cassuto; cf. also
Baentsch). Ehrlich even wants to read ‘God of the Hebrews’ as a predicate
nomen with an implied subject y h w h : ‘als Gott der Hebraer hat er, JHVH,
uns im fremden Lande aufgesucht.’
In the present context, 5:3 serves the following function: Moses and Aaron
refuse to be put off by Pharaoh’s blunt no; resorting to another strategy, they
politely try to persuade Pharaoh to give his permission; they elaborate in some
detail on their request and reinforce it by pointing out the evil that will come
upon them if they should ignore the manifestation of the deity. That has
brought us to the end of the verse. Before dealing with that, I point out that it
happens more often in the OT that a refusal is not greeted with resigned
acquiescence, but that instead the request is renewed in order as yet to achieve
the goal. Sometimes the attempt is successful (e.g. Gen. 42:3-14; Num.
20:14-21; 22:5-21; 32:1-24; 1 Sam. 17:32-37). Kitchen, 156f., draws attention to
the fact that, according to Egyptian texts, it was not unusual for brick making
workers to get time off, for instance for religious festivals.
464 exodus 5:1-21
15»39' imperf. qal + suff. of (OT 46x; qal 40x; hiph. 6x), which in
5:20; 23:4 occurs with accus. with the meaning ‘to meet/encounter someone/so-
mething.’ mo can be used for a variety of confrontations; among others, for a
violent confrontation, the killing of one human being by another (see mo + o
in e.g. Judg. 8:21; 15:12; 18:25). In 5:3 the verb is used for an hostile treatment
with y h w h as subject. Meant is an assault from the side of y h w h (Van der
Palm translates ‘assault’) with the intent of cutting down Israel.4 To carry it
out y h w h has the sword or pestilence at his command.
131? for the use of the article see e.g. KoSynt § 297b; Joiion § 137m;
Brockelmann § 21by); *i3i (OT ca. 50x) is usually rendered as ‘pestilence.’
The term does not stand for a specific disease (but see against it KBL and
HAL: ‘bubo-pest’), but refers to epidemic diseases in general, such as cholera,
influenza, smallpox, typhus, from which large numbers of people died (in that
sense ‘plague’ was still used in the Middle Ages). The context shows that *ai
was an often fatal illness (e.g. 9:15; Num. 14:12; Deut. 28:21). Normally the
term is used in reference to people, but it can also be applied to a pestilence
affecting livestock (9:3; Jer. 21:6; Ps. 78:50conj.). Usually pestilence is cited in
one breath with other calamities. Often it concerns a triad ‘sword, hunger,
pestilence’ (for ‘hunger,’ see 16:3); see e.g. Jer. 14:12; 21:9; 24:10; 27:8, 13
et al.; Ezek. 6:11; 7:15; there is a logical sequence here: when war disrupts a
society, famine often follows in its wake; weakened people easily succumb to
diseases (the order is not always the same; see e.g. Jer. 21:7; Ezek. 6:12; 12:16;
other nuances are possible as well; see e.g. Lev. 26:25f.). Instead of hunger,
Svild animals’ can be a member of the trio (Ezek. 33:27; for *wild animals’ see
Introd. § 9.2.1). Pestilence, hunger and sword are also used in a longer series
(e.g. Ezek. 5:12, 17; 14:12). Always it concerns plagues sent by y h w h . Exod.
5:3 is the only place where a combination of just two, pestilence and sword,
occurs. See further TWAT, II, 133ff.; Ill, 174f.; Struys, 93, 409ff.
D*ira; 3in (OT ca. 410x; sing. ca. 390x; Exod. 8x) refers to the dagger as
weli as the sword: the two-edged dagger or the short sword (no longer than
about 40 centimeters) (Judg. 3:16, 21), used as a thrusting weapon, and the
longer one-edged curved sword designed for slashing or cutting; in the Iron
Age the latter was more and more replaced by the longer, straight two-sided
sword, which was not all that long either for that matter (maximum length
about 75 centimeters). Bronze and iron were the main metals from which
weapons were made, but copper, silver and gold were used as well (but
4 Translations such as ‘hit with’ (LV, UV, NV) and 'strike with’ (CV, W V ) a re too weak and
impersonal. See further TWAT, VI, 501 ff.; R.L. Hubbard, "The Hebrew Root PG‘ as a Legal
Term," JETS 27 (1984), 129-33.
compare also Josh. 5:2ff.).5

The sword is specifically mentioned in connection with war and battles (15:9;
17:13 and see e.g. 1 Sam. 13:19; 17:45; 21:9). So it is understandable that am
can be used metonymically for “war,’ ‘armed conflict’ (5:3; 22:23 and see e.g.
Lev. 26:25, 33; Isa. 1:20; 3:25; Jer. 4;10; beside Exod. 22:23 see: 1 Sam. 15:33;
Jer. 18:21; Lam. 1:20). The sword is also used in the execution of criminals
(5:21; 18:4; 32:27, and see e.g. 1 Kgs. 2:8, 30f., 34). In 5:21 the expression ‘to
put a sword in someone’s hands (cf. Ezek. 30:24f.) to kill someone’ is to be
understood as ‘to offer someone an occasion to kill someone with the sword.’
See further TWAT, III, 164ff. In 20:25 am has the rare meaning of ‘chisel’ (see
also the use of the pi. for tools in Ezek. 26:9 and 2 Chr. 34:6?). Probably it
refers to a metal tool (cf. Deut. 27:5; Josh. 8:31), though the possibility that it
refers to tools of flint cannot be excluded (cf. Josh. 5:2f.). See further BRL,
148, 318; Franken, 34.
“with pestilence or the sword,’ the LXX has: Mvato<; 1) q>6voq (in contrast see
Aq., Symm. and Theod.), and TO and TPsJ: K'jopa ik ttmoa (in contrast see
TNf), and describe it in general terms as: ‘by a natural or violent death (in a
massacre);’ Ehrlich proposes to read airni instead of 3*ra w, and to think of
the sword of y h w h that causes pestilence (cf. 1 Chr. 21:12, 16), since in this
context the notion of war is excluded.6 This brings us to some final comments
on the end of 5:3.
Moses and Aaron point to the danger that threatens ‘us’ from the side of
y h w h . This raises the question whether this made any impression on Pharaoh,
in particular because he saw the sheer multitude of the people as a threat
(5:5). Therefore it is not strange that rahhiaie -literature7 contains the potion
that they did not really mean ><’ hnt ‘ynn,’ <peaking of ‘us’ out of deference to
the'lung(cf. also Lange). Is it perhaps being intimated to Pharaoh that there
lurks daffgerlor him, too? Some think the words include an implicit warning
to Pharaoh, because a contagious disease will not remain restricted to the
Israelites but affect the Egyptians as well; so the Pharaoh will lose valuable
workers in the epidemic, and Egypt will also suffer from the attack on Israel.8
To me this interpretation appears overly cerebral; besides, the expression
‘pestilence or the sword’ is not to be taken overly literally (followed up by
saying that a reference to war is hardly appropriate here), but connotes ‘fearful
5 Bibl.: BH H W , I, 348; III, 1750f.; BRL, 57ff.; IDB, IV, 469f.; O. Keel, Wirkmdchtige Sieges-
zeichen im A lien Testament , Freiburg/Gottingen 1974, 27ff. (on the sickle sword + ill.); Y. Yadin,
The A rt o f Warfare in Biblical L an ds , London 1963, 10f., 44f., 60f., 78ff. (ill. on pp. 140ff., 172ff.,
205ff. et al.); for ill., also about how the sword was worn, see A N E P %ill. 36, 38, 40, 59, 141, 174,
176, 441, 461, 539, 651, 785 et al. (see index).
6 See against it e.g. McNeile: in Goshen Israel was vulnerable to attacks from desert tribes.
7 See E xR V, 15, and see also Rashi; Nachmanides rejects the interpretation.
** See e.g. Heinisch, Clamer; as regards the first, also Ehrlich; note, too, that 1:10 speaks of war
against Egypt, from which in the long run Israel might well benefit.
466 exodus 5:1-21
calamities’ (merism). Moses and Aaron mean to say that they make the request
only for religious reasons, that they are under enormous pressure and have no
option but to ask Pharaoh for permission. They are not presuming fear on the
part of Pharaoh, but hope that he will be somewhat understanding. Besides, it
is not Israel but Egypt which eventually is going to be the victim of the
afflictions y h w h will bring (7:14ff.).
5:4 But the king of Egypt answered them, What makes you, Moses and Aaron,
stir up the people to quit their work? Get going back to your work!’
‘the king of Egypt,’ for the alternation with ‘Pharaoh’ see Introd. § 5.66. nob,
see 1:18.
is”on imperf. hiph. of sno,9 which is used in a variety of contexts, but always
articulates the notion of being ‘free,’ ‘unfettered.’ In 32:25 the qal pass. part, is
used in reference to the people and the qal perf. with Aaron as subject and the
people as object, to indicate that the people had cast off their true religious
and spiritual constraints (cf. sno niph. in Prov. 29:18 and sna hiph. in 2 Chr.
28:19). In 5:4 the hiph. is used for arousing people to disregard stated oblig
ations, to walk off the job (+ p). According to the king Moses and Aaron
induce the people to take time off.10 Sam. Pent, reads m a n , imperf. hiph. of
■no, ‘to divide.’ ‘Get going,’ see Introd. § 3.14.2. oa*nbaob, see 1:11.
What is precisely meant with the exhortation at the end of 5:4 and to whom
is it addressed? In view of the use of nbao in 5:5 it is improbable that Moses
and Aaron are told to mind their own business (Ehrlich). The end of 5:5 also
makes it improbable that Moses and Aaron are asked to resume their work,
which, however, did not consist of forced labour, because presumably the tribe
of Levi was exempt from it; this last point is inferred from the fact that in the
book of Exodus Moses and Aaron appear free to go where they wanted to (see
ExR. V, 16; MidrTanh. Exod. II, 4, and also Rashi and Nachmanides). Cf. the
version of the LXX which, translated, reads: ‘Get back, each of you, to his
work.’ In that case it would be more natural to assume that Pharaoh chases
them away, since he is under the impression that they, too, belong to the class
of slave workers (e.g. Calmet, McNeile, Gispen, Rylaarsdam) (cf. 5:8) or that
Pharaoh commands them to get personally involved in the hard labour
(Cassuto; cf. CV: ‘Gaat zelf aan de arbeid’ [get to work yourself], and Bohl’s
translation). It is doubtful that the Hebrew permits the last interpretation. On
the assumption that 5:3, 4 is about the meeting of Pharaoh with Moses and the
elders (cf. 5:8), several authors defend the view that the admonition concerns
the elders (e.g. Holzinger, Beer). Others (e.g. Heinisch and Clamer) defend the
9 OT 16x; qal 13x; hiph. 2x; Some lexicons detect several homonymic roots SID; see e.g.
Ges-B; KoW; but see against it Zo.; KBL and HAL.
10 See further TWATy VI, 757ff.; J.G. Janzen, VT 39 (1989), 393ff.; P. Jouon, Bib 7 (1926),
409ff. (he takes it to mean ‘d^couvrir,’ ‘^carter’); T. Piatto, Bib 27 (1946), 190ff.
unity of the passage, but believe that the presence of the elders is assumed (cf.
also e.g. Murphy). They consider it also possible that in the meantime the
people had quit working, and that the warning is addressed to Moses and
Aaron, as the representatives of the people, with the intent that they pass on
the message (cf. also Te Stroete). As I see it, the combination of two traditions
may have turned the warning of Pharaoh into a warning to Moses and Aaron,
so creating the impression that they themselves, too, performed slave labour,
an impression which is not confirmed by everything else that is told about
them.
Pharaoh is totally insensitive to the argument of Moses and Aaron that their
request for time off is a dire necessity, stemming from having to fulfill a
religious duty. In his view, their request has nothing to do with religion: Moses
and Aaron are nothing more than agitators who stir up the people to stop
working; their asking for leave is due to the fact that they have too much free
time already (5:8, 17). Observations like: Pharaoh is only thinking of the
financial losses he may suffer if he gives his slaves a few days off (e.g. Hei-
nisch; cf. also Cassuto) are not germane to the writer’s intent. For his story the
writer does not think about economics. To him, Pharaoh is y h w h ’s great
adversary. That is Pharaoh’s role in the story, not that of secretaty of the
treasury (see also 5:5).
5:5 Pharaoh continued, ‘The strangers are already huge in numbers, and you
want them to interrupt their work?’
For the repeated nn»n see 3:14 and also 3:15. It has been proposed that *vstn
means ‘he thought’ (e.g. Holzinger, Henton Davies, Knight). That is not
impossible (see e.g. 3:3). But that is as far as one can go. Bolstering it by
contending that Pharaoh cannot have spoken the words of 5:5 to Moses and
Aaron, because he would not have made them privy to his Israel policy
(Holzinger) or that, through a remark about Israel’s numerical superiority, he
would have implanted in their minds the idea of an uprising (Henton Davies),
is out of line with the text. In any case, there is a close relation between 5:4
and 5:5. 5:5 elucidates the reaction of Pharaoh described in 5:4. Pharaoh is
portrayed as a person whose thoughts and actions are so utterly controlled by
his own assessment of the situation, and who is so totally convinced that he is
right, that he cannot imagine that others, possessing the same information,
would not think and act the way he does. There is also the improbable
suggestion that a caesura must be assumed between 5:4 and 5:5: Moses and
Aaron have left; Pharaoh now addresses his counselors, some of whom advised
him not to react totally negatively to the wishes expressed (cf. 1 Kgs. 12:7);
like Rehoboam, Pharaoh opts for hard measures (Heinisch; cf. also Clamer);
or also: Pharaoh speaks words of warning to his officials (cf. 5:6) because they
had left the Israelites too much free time. Strack sees something in the last
interpretation. In that case, Pharaoh’s words are not a question but a state
468 exo dus 5:1-21
ment of fact. See also Eerdmans, 19f.: Pharaoh points out that the fixed
number of bricks Israel was to produce is now much too low, since there are
so many more workers because of the growth of the population, as a conse
quence of which they have too much leisure time on their hands; Pharaoh puts
an end to that (5:6ff.). Already LXX and Vulg. seem to have assumed a
caesura between 5:4 and 5:5 (see below).
p , see Introd. § 3.15.2. o*3i (pi. with D»; see e.g. KoSynt § 346g; Joiion
§ 148b), see 1:7; by being placed first the emphasis falls on (e.g. Ges-K
§ 1411); Ehrlich proposes to read d' di: (see 5:8, 17). nnv, see 3:9. ptcn au (see
Introd. § 3.40.3), a large number of LXX MSS lack a translation of pxn;
several commentators (e.g. Heinisch, Te Stroete, Hyatt, Childs) prefer the
reading of the Sam. Pent.: pttn ova, a reading also adopted in several trans
lations (e.g. NEB); this reading assumes that with p»n at) are meant the native
Egyptians.
DFi3»rn perf. cons, hiph.11 of ro» (OT 71 x; qal 27x; niph. 4x; hiph.
40x), which in qal is used with the meaning ‘to cease,’ ‘to come to an end;’ so
e.g. for the cessation of work, resting (16:30; 23:12; 31:17; 34:21 [2x]). ro»
hiph. + p (cf. e.g. Lev. 2:13; 26:6) is used causatively in 5:5; 12:15 for keeping
people from their work, making them stop working (5:5; cf. na» qal + ]a in
Gen. 2:2f.) and for the removal of leaven (12:15). See further THAT, II, 863ff.;
G. Robinson, ZAW 92 (1980), 32ff. (for the noun see 16:23). 0TD»m, the
LXX has a different personal ending: ‘Let us therefore not stop them from
their work;’ perhaps this translation betrays the idea that Pharaoh addresses
his counselors or speaks to himself (see above); the Vulg. has a more detailed
text, which translated reads: ‘You see how numerous they have become; how
much the more (will this be the case) if you give them time off from their
work.’
For the fear expressed in 5:5, see 1:9. Is Pharaoh afraid that Israel, once it
has tasted freedom, will be hard to control again and be prone to start a revolt
(e.g. Baentsch, Heinisch)? Or does he see slave labour as a means to cut down
on and stabilize the population growth? In the comments on l:9f. it was
already noted that the narrative should not be approached with a rationalistic
bent of mind. The same holds for the verses being discussed here. Considering
his fear for the myriads of Israelites, one would expect that Pharaoh would
seize every opportunity to let the Israelites leave the country. In light of
Pharaoh’s fear, the argument used by Moses and Aaron that God might wipe
out Israel (5:3) is logically speaking full of holes, for against the background of
l:15f., 22 a blood bath among Israel, one for which he would bear no respon
sibility, would have to be most welcome to Pharaoh. The incongruities in the
^* To introduce a question; see Ges-K § 112cc; but compare KoSynt $ 367x; see also the
translations; sometimes the sentence is understood as a question; sometimes as an exclamation; in
any case, Pharaoh’s words are a mixture of surprise and indignation.
story hang together with Pharaoh’s role as the antagonist of the fulfillment of
y h w h ’s promises. Being cast in that role, in the story he is caught on the two
horns of a dilemma, which means that he cannot go for the simple solution to
the population problem, namely, to let Israel go. Resisting Israel’s leaving, he
opposes not only the realization of the promise of the land, but he is at the
same time compelled to do something to curtail the growth of Israel’s popul
ation, and so he opposes the promise that Israel would become a large nation.
It may be added that the fact that Pharaoh still fears the Israelites is an
indication that in that respect his policy has so far remained ineffective.
5:6 That same day Pharaoh ordered the taskmasters and the foremen of the
people:
‘That same day,’ see Introd. § 3.23.1; the LXX lacks a translation of these
words; Pharaoh wastes no time.
■Ofr (OT 25x; sing. 2x) denotes a leading figure; the term is used in the pi.
in combination with irjpj (e.g. Num. 11:16) and with D'pDtf (e.g. Deut. 16:18; in
Josh. 8:33 all three terms occur). It is natural to assume an etymological
connection with the Akkadian Sataru, ‘to write’;12 being able to read and
write is a prime requirement for a position which involves handling or
ganizational details (cf. e.g. Josh. 1:10; 3:2). In 5:6, 10, 14, 15, 19 it concerns
Israelites, who are charged with the organization of the brick making industry
and whose job it is to make sure that the stipulated quantity of bricks is
indeed being produced. It appears that that type of work required a measure of
administrative competence. Comparing it with what is said in Num. 11:16 et
al., the question can be raised whether Exod. 5 assumes that in Egypt Israel
had the same governmental and societal structure it had in later times: the
are Israelites with an official, representative function. The word used in
Exod. 5 is variously translated: ‘ambtlieden’ (SV, LuthV, Van der Palm, LV, cf.
KJV: ‘officers’), ‘(werk)leiders’ (UV), ‘onderbazen’ (CV), ‘opzichters’ (NV,
GNB, cf. NewRSV: ‘supervisors’), ‘beambten’ (WV in 5:6, 10), ‘voormannen’
(WV in 5:14, 15, 19). In view of their ‘job description’ mentioned above, my
preference is to call them ‘foremen’ (cf. NEB, NIV and REB). A common
conception is that the dnotf were Israelites who in the chain of command were
under the taskmasters and had been selected by the Egyptians to act as
supervisors (cf. translation in NewRSV) (e.g. Dillmann, Strack, Baentsch,
Cassuto). In my judgment, the Israelites selected for that task were not
randomly picked, but the Egyptians charged the leaders of the people, their
representatives with this duty. Also rabbinic tradition has linked the term in
Exodus with its occurrence elsewhere. With a reference to Num. 11:16 it is
stated that later on ‘the supervisors’ had the privilege to be elected leaders on
account of their loyal attitude toward the members of their people (they bore
12 See e.g. Ellenbogen, 161; in the LXX, in Exod. 5 is translated with YpotmiotT&u;.
470 exodus 5:1-21
the brunt; see 5:14) (see ExR. V, 20 and also Rashi). For the term see Ruter-
wOrden (Introd. § 3.37.2).
Exod. 5 provides a glimpse of the organization of the brick industry: the
slaves laboured under the supervision of their own leaders, who in turn were
accountable to their Egyptian supervisors (5:14); there is no direct contact
between the slaves and the Egyptian bosses.
5:7 You may no longer, like you used to do, supply the people with straw to
make bricks. Let them gather the straw themselves. ’
For the form of poqkn (hiph. of *T0'; see 1:10) see Ges-K § 68h; Delitzsch, 37;
Sam. Pent, has the text one would grammatically have expected: po'cnn; Ehrlich
changes the pointing and leaves out nnV: the overseers are no longer allowed
to collect the straw (Pptt). For the negative here and in 5:8 see e.g. Ges-K
§ 107o; Joiion § 113m. pn, see Introd. § 10.3.7; it is not fuel (so TO and TPsJ)
but raw material for the bricks; according to Ephraem and Ishodad pn refers
to dried grasses; they assume that the incident happened in the spring, the
time of year when the flowers are in bloom and there is no straw; in short, an
enormous burden is placed on the shoulders of the Israelites. GreBmann, 63f.,
conjectures that the fine straw was not used for raw material, but to keep the
wet loam from sticking to the ground, the hands or the molds; this would
speed up the work. cna^n pV? (see 1:14), notice the alliteration, on, see e.g.
Joiion § 146a, 147a. i»»pi, see Introd. § 10.3.8; Sam. Pent, has a jussive, i»»p*i,
instead of a perf. cons.; Delitzsch proposes to read Ws9p\
5:8 ‘Nevertheless, you must order them to make the same amount o f bricks as
before. Do not reduce the number. They are lazy bums; that is why they keep
crying 'We would like to make sacrifices to our God". ’
npnn (derivative of pn; outside Exodus it is found in Ezek. 45:11; 2 Chr.
24:13) denotes the stipulated quantity, the number (of bricks) to be produced.
In 30:32, 37 the term is used for ‘the composition’ (the relationship of the
various ingredients to each other) of the holy oil and the holy incense. With
the same meaning as nnna in 5:8, the noun pn (elsewhere only in Ezek. 45:11)
is used in 5:18. d w , for the use of the part, see e.g. Ges-K § 116o; Joiion
§ 121f; ‘to order,’ see Introd. § 3.48.
unin imperf. qal of mi (OT ca. 20x), which in qal + p is used in 5:8, 19
and + accus. in 21:10 with the meaning ‘to diminish,’ ‘to deduct;’ mi niph. in
5:11 (+ p ) functions as a passive. See further TWAT, II, 70ff.; E.F. Sutcliffe,
Bib 30 (1949), 79ff. oppi, see 4:26; the predicate precedes the subject for the
sake of the accent; cf. 5:5, 17; Ehrlich suggests that d*dh does not mean that
the Israelites were lazy as such, but that it describes the circumstances in which
they found themselves: there was not enough work for them. He may well be
right. Pharaoh interprets the wishes of the Israelites as a case of idleness
leading to trouble; because there is not enough to do for them, they dream up
all sorts of bad schemes (see also 5:9).

13"bs? (OT ca. 140 x) is a particle which often occurs with a preceding or
following causal conjunction (usually *3) to which it is correlative. As regards
the use in Exodus the following syntactical connections are important to note:
(a) the motivation for the clause introduced by p'bv is found in the preceding
noun clause, introduced by *3 (5:8; 15:23), or the clause with finite verb (13:15;
16:29; 20:11); it is advisable to bring out the connection between '3 and p"b»
by translating *3 as ‘because;’ the use of ‘therefore,’ as rendering of p _b», is
optional because in English it is superfluous; see e.g. 13:15: ‘Because Phar
aoh ... and YHWH (consequently), (therefore)...;’ 15:29: ‘Because it was bitter,
(therefore) ...;’ 16:29: ‘See, because yhwh ..., (therefore) ...;’ 20:11: ‘Because
yhwh ..., (therefore)...;’ (b) the motivation is found in a preceding, causally
coloured, noun clause (5:17; cf. 5:8).13
p»s, see 2:23; the part, is used: Pharaoh makes it appear as if the call to be
allowed to go is continuous (cf. e.g. Ges-K § 116n; Jouon § 121c); notice,
moreover, that in 5:3 the verb iok is used; ‘crying’ is not used until 5:15, but
then it is about a different matter; Pharaoh’s exaggeration stems from a greatly
misguided fear. One gets the impression that in 5:8a and 5:9 it is assumed that
Moses and the elders came with their request to Pharaoh as representatives of
the people (see at 5:1, 4). In the current context, Moses and Aaron, to whom
the content of 5:7-9 does not seem directly applicable, function as represen
tatives of the people against whom Pharaoh’s fury is directed, rrau robt,
asyndetic linking of two terms is not all that usual in Hebrew (Brockelmann
§ 128); some MSS have the copulative; see also LXX and Vulg. irnbKb, cf. 5:3
and 5:17; there is a chiastic break-up here of irnbK mrrb of 5:3; in 5:8 ‘our
God’ is included and in 5:17 ‘yhwh.’
5:9 Keep them hard at work, so that they keep occupied with that, and have no
time to dream about harmful desires. ’
133, see 4:10. tain, the waw has the force of a consecutive (cf. e.g. Ges-K
§ 166a; Jouon § 169c); in line with Sam. Pent, and with reference to LXX and
Pesh. several commentators opt for the reading wtf'i (see below) (e.g. Ehrlich,
and see also Baentsch); bK may have a different sound (Pharaoh’s wish arises
from the bottom of his heart; more he cannot do; thoughts are private) than
Kb in 5:7, 8 (e.g. Ges-K § 109b; Jouon § 114i); Sam. Pent, has Kb here too.
issr imperf. qal of (OT 15 x), ‘to look at,’ which occurs only here in
Exod. Translations vary: ‘pay (no) attention to’ (NewRSV, NIV), ‘take (no)
notice o f (NEB), ‘(won’t) have time to listen to’ (TEV), ‘do (not) have time
to stop and listen to’ (JB). The particular rendering of rw + 3 one adopts
here is apparently in part based on interpreting —a i as deceptive language.
See further R. Frankena, “Einige Bemerkungen zum Gebrauch des Adverbs 'al-ken im
Hebraischen,* in Fs Th.C. Vriezen, Studia Biblica et Semitica, Wageningen 1966, 94-9.
472 exodus 5:1-21
The way I see it, Pharaoh does not dismiss the words of Moses and Aaron as
being untrue, but he visualizes the requested leave for the sacrificial feast as
detrimental to himself. In Pharaoh’s view, the Israelites should be busy at
work, and they should not be fascinatedly dreaming about and totally con
centrating on (cf. nv» + 3 in Ps. 119:117) pulling off a plan which he believes
undermines his position. Apparently already the targumists had problems with
war; in translation, in TPsJ the final words of 5:9 go like this: ‘and let them no
longer put their trust in deceptive words;’ in TO: ‘and let them no longer be
busy with vain things/words;’ cf. also TNf.14 Note the alliteration W i&sn.
"ip®"”)?!?; "ipo? (OT 113x) occurs in Exodus in 5:9; 20:16; 23:7 and denotes
what is without value, unwholesome, unreliable, injurious, detrimental to the
neighbour and society, and therefore to be rejected. Kloppenstein notes:
‘Verworfen wird die Luge im Alten Testament nie um der Verletzung eines
abstrakten Wahrheitsprinzips Oder einer personalethischen Wahrhaftig-
keitsmaxime willen, sondern immer um deswillen, daB sie der Jahwe wie dem
NSchsten geschuldeten Gemeinschaftstreue zuwiderlauft, ja sie zerstort, also
gemeingefahrlich ist und darum im Interesse des Gemeinwohles, welches auf
der intakten Gemeinschaft mit Jahwe beruht, radikal aus dem Volkskorper
ausgeschlossen werden muB’ (pp. 321f.). The tv (20:16; cf. Deut. 19:18; Ps.
27:12; Prov. 6:19 et al.; 19x) is a witness who through false statements hurts
the neighbour and society. ipi?” p t (23:7) can be understood as a lawsuit in
which someone by means of a false witness tries to have a matter adjudicated
in his favour (cf. 1 Kgs. 21), but it is also possible to understand 23:7 as an
appeal to judges not to be influenced by lies or as an appeal to witnesses to
stay far away from false testimony. As said above, in my opinion ip®—o i in
5:9 does not refer to ‘deceptive language’ (NV; cf. KJV: Vain words;’ NEB: ‘a
pack pof lies;’ Fox: ‘false words’) or to ‘leugenachtige beloften’ (‘deceptive
promises’ [Van der Palm]), from Moses and Aaron (cf. e.g. Dillmann,
Baentsch, Cassuto). In his reply, Pharaoh does not call in question Moses’ and
Aaron’s words about the revelation of y h w h (5:3). All he does is characterize
the wish to celebrate a sacrificial feast (end of 5:8) as an unwholesome desire
(stemming from idleness; 5:8). Loafing (5:8) as such already jeopardizes the
successful outcome of Pharaoh’s efforts to halt the growth of Israel (5:5),
giving them free days would do that all the more. So, from Pharaoh’s perspec
tive, the desired leave can only be described as ‘harmful desires’.15
5:10 The taskmasters of the people and the foremen o f the people left and spoke
to the people, ‘Thus says Pharaoh, */ will no longer supply you with straw". ’
nen; LXX reads: tcaTtoneuSov 8k ati-coix;, ‘and they urged them to be faster;’
14 For the controversial HV® see P. Joiion, Bib 8 (1927), 58ff.; L. Kopf, VT 8 (1958), 210.
15 See further THAT, II, 1010ff.; M.A. Klopfenstein, Die Luge nach dem Altert Testament, Zurich
1964 (pp. 138ff. on 5:9); T.W. Overholt, The Threat o f Falsehood, London 1970.
this rendering is likely based on the reading ratn (5:13); following the use of
imperfects and jussives in 5:7-9, here the narrative mode is used again)| events
move forward again. McNeile does not think it likely that the taskmasters and
their Israelite subordinates had in person from Pharaoh’s mouth received the
new instructions; those must have come to them by way of the manager of the
buildings. Bear in mind, though, that here, like elsewhere in the narratives, the
story is informed by a small-town atmosphere. For that matter, already
Josephus (AJ, II, 288f.) gives an account along the lines of that of McNeile:
Pharaoh orders the chief taskmaster over the Hebrews to make the burdens
even heavier; the latter (of his own accord) proceeds to withhold the straw; so
the Israelites are not only busy by day, making bricks, they are also busy at
night, collecting straw. ‘Thus says Pharaoh,’ cf. 5:1; what Pharaoh orders,
happens; not what y h w h orders, at least not yet. pt, see 2:12. Sam. Pent, has
r a n instead of r a n (see Introd. § 3.12.1).
5:11 ‘Get going. You have to get straw yourselves, wherever you can find it. But
the amount o f work you have to do will not be reduced. ’
inp 13^ (see Introd. § 3.14.2 and 3.30), asyndetic connection (cf. 5:8); from the
fact that inp is used, not i»»p (5:7), Ehrlich infers that the people were advised
to buy straw (so as not to lose time) and thinks that 5:12 shows that the advise
was not accepted (owing to lack of money); this interpretation can only be
described as contrived. Because i^n is such a common verb also Cassuto’s
suggestion who proposes the following connection between 5:11 and 5:8 (5:3)
must be rejected: they must go; not to sacrifice but to toil for Pharaoh. i»Ka,
ntspn imperf. qal of kso (OT ca. 450x), ‘to find;’ ksb qal (OT ca. 305x;
Exod. 12x.; for kso + ]n see 3:21) is used in various shades of meaning; in
Exodus for looking for something and finding it (5:11; 15:22; 16:25, 27); with
the abstract rn6nn, ‘hardship,’ as subject it occurs in the sense of ‘to befall
(someone),’ ‘to fall to one’s lot’ (cf. 18:8; Num. 20:14; Neh. 9:32); with »«,
‘fire,’ as subject in the sense of ‘spread into’ (22:5). usn niph. (OT 140 x;
Exod. lOx) occurs with the meaning ‘to be found’ (21:16; 22:3), ‘be caught’
(of a thief) (22:1, 6, 7) and with the middle meaning ‘to be somewhere,’ ‘to be
present’ (9:19; 12:19; 35:23f.). See further THAT, I, 922ff.; TWAT, IV, 1043ff.
It is striking that the taskmasters and foremen do not simply brief the people
under them about their conversation with Pharaoh, but start shouting. They
use imperatives. They command. They have as it were become the very
embodiment of Pharaoh’s angiy mood. With a barrage of verbal abuse they try
to move the ‘sluggish’ mass, getting them to hurry. Pharaoh’s word had, at
least, made a impact on them. Is it fear that makes them use such harsh
language? As happens more often in such cases, individuals of lower rank try
to protect their own skin and position and avoid reprisals by unprotestingly
carrying out the totally unreasonable demands of those above them, so making
474 exodus 5:1-21
those under them suffer the consequences. Striking is that, according to 5:11,
also the Israelite leaders (foremen) hound the slaves and seem to be driven by
the same feelings as the taskmasters. 5:14 shows that they failed to secure their
vulnerable position. When the intended goal fails to be reached, they are the
first to be called to account and to suffer the blows. Fearing the loss of their
jobs, the taskmasters go after them. That is how the mechanism operates.
5:12 So the people swarmed out over all the land o f Egypt to gather stubble as a
replacement for the straw.
ftn imperf. cons. hiph. of p a (OT ca. 75 x; in Exodus only here); here in the
intransitive sense of ‘to spread out,’ ‘to scatter’ (cf. 1 Sam. 13:8; Job 38:24);
according to Delitzsch, 72, the pointing fen is to be preferred; ‘over all the
land of Egypt’ is hyperbole (Baentsch), but it would be wrong to weaken it by
contending that it obviously refers to the parts of Egypt where Israel dwelt
(Strack), and that grain could only be grown in the areas inundated by the Nile
(Te Stroete); »p see Introd. § 10.3.8; note the cognate accusative (paron
omasia); striking is that unlike in 5:7, »p and not pn is object; this reinforces
the impression that withholding straw from the Israelites created huge pro
blems for them; not only must they now find their own supplies, in the absence
of straw they are also compelled to find usable substitute material.
^Rabbinic tradition relates how the Egyptians terrorized the Israelites as they
were searching for straw; so not just Pharaoh but all the Egyptian people
incurred guilt; it was right that they were all struck by the plagues (see e.g.
ExR. V, 19; MidrTanh. Exod. II, 4, and see further Ginzberg, II, 336f.).
5:13 The taskmasters kept urging them on, ‘Finish the work, the same amount per
day you used to make when straw was still available, ’
optt qal pi. part, of put (OT 10 x; qal 8x), the meaning of which includes ‘to
hurry’ (e.g. Josh. 10:13); here it has the transitive meaning of ‘to hurry up,’ ‘to
hound.’ The use of the part, expresses the continuity of the act (cf. e.g. Ges-K
§ 116n; Joiion § 121c). d*3K does not have an object. In Sam. Pent.: era d' ixk,
and in LXX: KardaneuSov afoouq, the object is specifically mentioned. It is
generally assumed that the people (5:12) are the implied object. However, the
possibility that the goading was particularly aimed at the Israelite leaders
(5:14) is not altogether without merit. Though these leaders were of one mind
with the taskmasters when the new demands were introduced, when the
measures are actually put into effect these same taskmasters turn against them
to secure their own position.
imper. pi. piel of rto (OT 207x; qal 64x; piel 141 x; pual 2x), ‘to
complete,’ ‘to finish.’ The verb is used in a variety of contexts and with various
shades of meaning. As regards its use in Exodus, the following is worth
noticing: in 39:32 rta qal means ‘to be finished, ready’ (cf. 1 Kgs. 6:38; 1 Chr.
28:20; 2 Chr. 8:16); rto piel (Exod. 9x) is used with the accus. for ‘ac
complishing,’ ‘achieving’ a set goal (5:13, 14; 40:33), with a following inf. + b
for the completion of an act, for instance, ending a conversation (in which the
speaker has said what was on his mind) (31:18; cf. e.g. Gen. 18:33; 24:15, 19,
22); so also with following inf. + p (34:33; cf. e.g. Lev. 16:20; 1 Sam. 10:13).
With y h w h as subject and the accus. of the person, r t e piel is used in the
sense of ‘prepare an end for someone,’ that is, put an end to someone, destroy
(32:10, 12; 33:3, 5; cf. e.g. Lev. 26:44; Num. 16:21; 17:10; 25:11). See further
THAT, I, 831ff.; TWAT, IV, 166ff.
dd '& bo , for the form see e.g. Ges-K § 93ss.: ‘the same amount per day,’ see
Introd. § 3.23.1. i » k d , see 1:12; tacitly there should be added qtt 'p s , ‘like you
completed it when ...’ (cf. TO and TPsJ). See beside 5:13 the verses 5:8a and
5:11b. At the end, Sam. Pent, has after pnn the words CD1? |n: (cf. 5:16), ‘(as
when straw) was given to you;’ the targums and the Pesh. include this expan
sion in their translations (see also LXX and Vulg., and among modern
translations e.g. CV and WV); some commentators have adopted the reading
of the Sam. Pent. (e.g. Dillmann, Baentsch, Beer); this reading has all the
earmarks of being an explanatory expansion of the text.
5:14 and the foremen of the Israelites, who had been given those orders by
Pharaoh’s taskmasters, were beaten, while it was said to them, Why did you not
produce the prescribed quantity of bricks Idee before? You had to reach that
number, not only yesterday, but also today!’
roi, see 2:11; in the story it is presupposed that the taskmasters carried out the
beating, Dflbi? these words are variously interpreted: (a) “whom they
(the taskmasters) had appointed over them (the Israelites)’ (most commen
tators); (b) ‘whom they (the taskmasters) had given orders (to deliver the
prescribed quantity of bricks; see 5:13)’ (cf. NV); in this second interpretation
□'B + by is understood similarly as in 5:8; this is the translation I adopt; it was
the responsibility of the Israelite foremen to make sure that the set quota of
bricks was indeed delivered; that is why their Egyptian superiors (5:13) were
after them and, since they failed to comply with the order, called them to
account and brutalized them to boot; (c) Ehrlich understands □'» + by as ‘to
hold accountable for,’ ‘to blame for’ (cf. Judg. 9:24): the assistant bosses are
blamed for the lower number of bricks that were produced (so also Beer en
Heinisch); Ehrlich, moreover, connects ~mb with by □•»: the taskmasters hold
them responsible with the words ...; usually ~mb is connected with im.
‘Pharaoh’s taskmasters’ are the same as ‘the taskmasters of the people’
(5:10); they are here called ‘Pharaoh’s taskmasters’ for the sake of the contrast
with ‘the foremen of the Israelites;’ that particular designation (Pharaoh’s) is
more apt anyway; they betray their true nature, reveal themselves as true
stooges of Pharaoh, and show that they do not really have the interests of the
people at heart, bud, see 1:18; rto, see 5:13.
eppn (for the pointing see e.g. Ges-K § 93bb; Meyer § 52.2c), ‘the number,
476 exodus 5:1-21
the quantity (of bricks), prescribed to you, which you are obligated to pro
duce;’ pit, pi. D*|?rt, (OT ca. 130 x) is a derivative of ppn, ‘to cut into,’ ‘to
prescribe’ etc., and is used more often to designate the prescribed quantity that
is owed (Gen. 47:22; Ezek. 16:27; 45:14; Prov. 30:8; 31:15). In 29:28 pn is used
for the part of the sacrifices to which by law the priests were entitled (cf. e.g.
Lev. 6:11; 7:34; 10:13ff.). pn also often means ‘statute,’ ‘regulation,’ ‘stipul
ation,’ ‘rule’ (12:24; 30:21), also beside synonymous terms: 15:25 (beside o d » b ,
see 2:14); 15:26 (beside ms?, see Introd. § 3.43.2); 18:16, 20 (beside rnin, see
4:12). These are instances of hendiadys. See further THAT, I, 626ff.; TWAT,
III, 149ff.; Liedke, 154ff.; for the cognate npn see 12:14.
pbb, cf. 5:7; m, see Introd. § 3.11.2; the LXX has left Vinrrm untranslated.
The usual idea is that the Israelite foremen are being accused of not producing
as much ‘today’ as they used to. In several translations this is not clearly
brought out. It is advisable to set the end of the verse off from the rest and to
regard it as a kind of shout, accompanying the blows that are being delivered:
‘So yesterday, so today!’ Another view is that the foremen failed to deliver the
same quantity ‘yesterday and today;’ see the targums and among the commen
tators e.g. Rashi, Murphy, Dillmann, Cassuto, Te Stroete. In that case the
taskmasters let things go for one day, but when also the next day the objective
was not reached, they stepped in. In my opinion, this is also a possibility.
5:15 Then the foremen of Israel came to Pharaoh and appealed, “Why do you
treat your servants like this?’
is correlative with iks' i at the beginning of 5:10: the leaders (foremen) of
Israel go back to Pharaoh, ipvs'i, cf. 5:8; in his imagination Pharaoh heard the
Israelites all the time cry for time off; when they do actually cry to him, the
content of their words is altogether different, no1?, see 1:18.
5:16 Your servants are no longer supplied with straw, yet we are repeatedly told,
“Make bricks!9 The result is that we are being beaten and that blame comes to
rest on your people. ’
)'N, see 2:12. trnVi, it is placed first because pn comes early, ‘as regards the
straw ... and as regards the bricks, they say to us, make them.’ 0" iok, for the
function of the part, see 5:13; since the subject is undefined, there is an ellipsis
here (Williams § 587); the assumed subject is indefinite, ‘they,’ ‘one,’ (e.g.
KoSynt § 324n; Ges-K § 116t; Joiion § 155f). The leaders are not concrete in
their complaint at this point. There is no question that they are thinking of the
taskmasters; in TNf *you’ (Pharaoh) is subject. For the use of *ibk in direct
speech see e.g. KoSynt § 374e; Brockelmann § 175. mm, see Introd. § 3.15.2.
ro:, cf. 5:14; in the LXX the ‘being beaten’ is interpreted as a ‘being whipped:’
ueuaCTTiywvTai; see also Symm., Theod. (not so Aq.).
qpv nxorn is problematic; if one stays with MT nNum is regarded as a 3rd pers.
sing. fern. perf. qal of Non (see Introd. § 3.20) — it concerns an archaic form;
cf. rion in Gen. 33:11 and n*op in Isa. 7:14 - and *|dk as the subject of the
sentence; it is assumed that ds?, which normally is masculine, is feminine here
(cf. Judg. 18:7; Jer. 8:5). Staying with MT can produce a variety of interpreta
tions. Very common is the view that ‘your people,’ that is, the Egyptian drivers
are guilty of misconduct (the contrast is between ‘your servants,’ Israelites, who
are being blamed, and ‘your people,’ Egyptians, who are the villains); see e.g.
Keil, Gispen, Cole. Cassuto contends that the leaders mean to say, ‘you are
guilty,’ but out of respect for Pharaoh changed their words to ‘your people is
guilty.’ He suggests that the foremen intended to say: nm rwam, but did not
finish their first word and for the second substituted Strack regards ‘your
people’ as a designation for the Israelites and understands nan as ‘being treated
as guilty’ (cf. Vulg.: et iniuste agitur contra populum tuum). It is doubtful that
this is what Nan means. The notion that a» refers to the Egyptian people is
found already in the targums; translated TO reads: ‘but your people are guilty
in respect to them;’ TPsJ offers, translated, the following version: ‘but the guilt
of your people is great and increases (?),’ and TNf reads: ‘but the blame rests
with Pharaoh and the people;’ see also Aq.: icat oîotprla Xcup aou, en Theod.:
Kat f) aîaprta etq t6v Xa6v aou.
In view of the uncertainties with the MT (cf. KoSynt § 248f; Ges-K § 74g;
BL § 375) and with an appeal to LXX and Pesh., many scholars prefer to
emend the text to nittpm, ‘and you misbehave with respect to your people
(= Israel);’ see e.g. Baentsch, Beer, Te Stroete. Other suggestions to emend
the text have been made as well. Referring to Symm.: icai duapxtav gjceu;,
Ehrlich chooses the reading *|ipy nK&m, ‘wahrend die Schuld an dir liegt.’ In
regards to the proposed changes and in light of the context, one could ask how
likely it would be for the Israelites to be so forthright in their accusation of
Pharaoh. Dillmann offers two more suggestions to improve the text: read
qpy naan noi ‘and what is the misconduct of your people?’, pm etc., ‘and it is
not the fault of your people.’ LV: ‘Uw dienaren worden geslagen door de
schuld van uw volk (it is the fault of your people that your servants are being
beaten)’ rests on emending man\ changing it to nxarQ. Rashi, apparently
assuming that the text has the reading nxan, contends that qay2? mam is what is
meant, ‘so your people incur guilt.’ Also Rashbam, e.g., regards man as a
noun; see Z. Ben Hayyim, Tarbiz 47 (1978), 247f. In my judgment, the reading
naan deserves consideration. Pharaoh is being made aware that by the unjust
treatment of the Israelites the people of Egypt bring guilt upon themselves and
make themselves vulnerable to dire calamities. The consequences could be
terrible. So let Pharaoh be warned (cf. 1 Sam. 19:4f.)! Finally, one might also
consider whether perhaps "py might refer to Israel. In that case, through their
use of this term Israel’s leaders intimate that the people are as loyal to
Pharaoh as they themselves are, for which reason it must deeply hurt Pharaoh
that, being unable to meet the severe demands, the people burden themselves
with guilt and so bring evil upon themselves (cf. tna in 5:19). According to
478 exo dus 5:1-21
that interpretive approach, the remark is meant to induce Pharaoh to lighten

the load and so remove guilt and calamity.
5:17 But he answered, You are lazy bums, nothing but lazy bums!’ That is why
you keep saying •We would like to make sacrifices to yhwh*. ’
d*di:, cf. 5:8; twice Pharaoh uses this word; his anger mounting, Pharaoh fairly
shouts as he reiterates his earlier position on the Israelites. It is remarkable
that Pharaoh does not (explicitly) deal with the complaint of the Israelites. It
is as if the request to be allowed to leave (5:3, 8) still resounds in his ears. In
any case, the words from the mouth of the Israelites metamorphose themselves
in his ears into a request for leave. It is to that request that he again responds.
In his reply he picks up one word from the grievance of the Israelites, namely
Dnott (in 5:8 opira occurs; so it is not unlikely that d' tok is used because of
5:16); it seems as if he wants to say: that persistent order of mine about which
you complain (5:16) is my answer to your persistent request, mrr^, see 5:8;
LXX has ‘our God’ here too, a translation that is based on harmonization.
Also in TPsJ the end of 5:17 is similar to that of 5:8.
5:18 ‘Get going get back to work right away. You will not be given straw, but you
have to produce the prescribed quantity of bricks. ’
nnsn, see 3:9. vq» isb (for the asyndeton see 5:8), the Israelite leaders humbly
presented themselves to Pharaoh as y n v , “your servants,’ even three times
(5:15, 16); so they affirmed, veiy carefully, their submission and loyalty to
Pharaoh. However, it did not do anything to change Pharaoh’s mind. Now it is
once more driven home to them that they are a people in bondage; their lot in
life is ‘to serve’ Pharaoh (cf. also 5:9, 11). pm (with adversative waw; see e.g.
Ges-K § 163a), see 5:8; note the alliteration in 5:18 and the word play with ]m:
straw is not given, yet bricks must be given; likely it is for the sake of the
alliteration that pn is used instead of n»na (5:8). win (so BHS; but note
against it e.g. BHK3: linn), for the dageS forte in the : see Ges-K § 20i; BL
§218.
5:19 The foremen of Israel realized they were in trouble now that he himself had
said to them, You may not lower the number o f bricks that have to be produced
each day. ’
‘realized,’ see Introd. § 3.46.1. onx, the usual assumption is that its use is
reflexively (cf. KoSynt § 28; Ges-K § 57 note; 153k; Joiion § 146k); by contrast,
Rashi applies it to the Israelites; it appears that the translators of the targums
did the same. That interpretation creates the following picture: the Israelite
foremen saw how awfully miserable the Israelites were, since they had to
inform them: ... (see further below).
jn?; sn (OT ca. 355x; Exod. 3x); fem. run (OT ca. 310x; Exod. 6x),
‘evil,’ ‘bad,’ is an adjective often used as a noun, sn is the opposite of aio (see
1:20) and more than once is used together with its counterpart (KraSovec,
102f.). In 21:8 ran denotes a woman who according to her master does not
meet expectations and therefore is no rnio nsm (e.g. Gen. 6:2; Judg. 15:2;
1 Sam. 25:3); this is not necessarily an ethical disqualification (cf. Gen. 28:8);
the woman is unsatisfactory as a housewife. Inseparably linked with the evil are
the consequences it can lead to. The evil one does can have consequences for
someone else, bring harm to the other. Both in and ran indicate and should
— depending on whether the focus is on the cause, the activity that results in
harm, or on its community-undermining nature - be rendered with ‘evil’ or
‘calamity,’ ‘harm.’ Often the two sides of the same thing are hardly distin
guishable from each other. E.g. in 23:2, where the fem. pi. nun, “wrongdoing’ is
used (cf. e.g. Jer. 2:13; 3:5; 44:9; Ezek. 6:9; 20:43) the emphasis is on the
activity. In 32:22, where it is said of the people of Israel that they are in?, ‘in
the grip of evil,’ the stress is on the origin of human evil conduct. Also of
yhwh it can be said that he does something nun?, ‘in the grip of evil,’ with evil
intent (32:12a), so that it has evil consequences for those involved (32:12b, 14).
An announcement of something intended by yhwh, which will harm Israel,
can be called unn n?nn, ‘the evil tiding’ (33:4). In a world in which evil powers
in all sorts of shapes are operative, people can suddenly be up against terrible
evil (10:10). Repulsed by Pharaoh, the Israelite leaders sense that they are iro,
‘in the grip of the terrible harm (brought on by Pharaoh’s measures),’ they
know they are cornered.16 The verb »m, ‘to be evil/bad’ (OT ca. 95 x) occurs
in hiph. (OT 68 x) in 5:22, 23; both times followed by oub>. The first time
yhwh is subject (cf. Num. 11:11; Josh. 24:20; 1 Kgs. 17:20), the second time
Pharaoh (cf. e.g. Gen. 19:9; 31:7; 43:6; Num. 20:15). They cause harm to the
people or they bring calamity upon the people. See further THAT, II, 794ff.;
TWAT, VII, 582ff.; P. Jotion, Bib 2 (1921), 336ff.
(see Introd. § 3.5.2); as a rule (cf. e.g. KoSynt § 402z; Williams § 195) it
is translated with ‘because it was said’ or something like it (‘after it was said’
[KJV]; “when they were told’ [NEB, NIV]; for a different rendering see WV:
‘nu hij bevolen had’ [‘now that he had ordered’]); at any rate, it is natural to
assume that Pharaoh is the implied subject; to be sure, the words used in 5:19
are not a verbatim reproduction of the words which Pharaoh in person said to
the Israelites (cf. 5:8, 11) during the audience, but they do contain the gist of
what he personally made clear to them (5:18). There is also the view that the
foremen are the implied subject (see the above mentioned interpretation in
the targums and Rashi): the foremen noticed that they were in the awkward
16 Cassuto’s suggestion that S*1 is an allusion to the god Re (Ra) has little to commend itself;
according to Cassuto, they find themselves in the hands of the worshippers of Re or in the hands
of Pharaoh, Re in human form. See for a similar view esp. G.A. Rendsburg, “The Egyptian Sun-
God Ra in the Pentateuch,- H ai 10 (1988), 3-15; idem, VT 38 (1988), 354-57; idem, H at 12
(1990), 15-7.
480 exodus 5:1-21
position of having to tell (their own people): “you ...’ (e.g. Dillmann, Strack,
Baentsch, McNeile). The downside of this view is that the people are not
mentioned in the immediate context. Also Ehrlich holds that it was the
foremen who addressed the people. However, he amends the text drastically:
"iok*? nuns nttp ... ixri, ‘(the foremen) left Pharaoh to report:....’ won, Sam.
Pent, has m r (niph.); cf. 5:11.

Perusing 5:14-19, one gets the following picture of what transpired: the
taskmasters demand of the leaders of Israel that, even though straw is no
longer provided, the same quantity of bricks be produced. Unable to meet this
demand, the foremen are called to account and beaten. They turn to Pharaoh
to complain, apparently in the illusion that it was not Pharaoh himself who
had issued the new rules, but one or more of his officers, and that he, once
they had informed him of the impossibility to meet the demands, would see
the reasonableness of their objections and order the taskmasters to be less
exacting. However, they get nowhere. Their chief boss, Pharaoh, is no less
harsh than the taskmasters. So no court of appeal is left to them. It makes
them sense the terrible predicament they are in. From 5:14-19 one gets the
impression that the leaders were not yet knowledgeable about Pharaoh’s mood
and standpoint, but now in person learn about it. Reading from 5:6ff., it seems
a bit strange that the leaders go to Pharaoh to complain, because they had
already seen him and could have heard ‘straight from the horse’s mouth’ what
he thought about the matter (5:15f. contains in effect a protest against de
mands they themselves had helped proclaim; see 5:10f.). Already then they
could have sensed the seriousness of the situation. Given this tension in the
narrative, it is not surprising that there are those (e.g. Baentsch, Noth) who
hold that the mention of the leaders in 5:6, 10 is secondary, and that they
appear for the first time in 5:14 (in 5:14, 15, 19, in distinction from 5:6, 10,
they are presented as Viols' '?a ”io®). If MT is maintained, the following picture
results: Israel’s leaders do not protest the first time they meet with Pharaoh;
they still hope to make something of it. When that fails and they become
victims of abuse, they do not pass the buck and, in turn, blame those under
them, but, as befits good leaders, appeal to Pharaoh, in hopes that he, hearing
their grievance, will change his mind. That hope proves futile. The second
confrontation with Pharaoh opens their eyes and teaches them that there is no
way ‘to make the best’ of a terrible situation.
5:20 They headed straight for Moses and Aaron, for whom they had been waiting
since they had gone away from Pharaoh,
»jd, see 5:3; the Israelite foremen are the subject; eras: part. pi. niph. of as:
(OT ca. 75x)17 which in niph. (OT 50x; Exod. 8x) means ‘to stand,’ ‘to
stand up/remain standing;’ it is so used with bo, ‘upon,’ in 17:9; 33:21; 34:2;
with accus. of place in 33:8 (cf. Num. 16:27; Judg. 18:16f.); with bo, ‘around,’
‘by’ (a sitting person) in 18:14 (cf. Gen. 18:2; 1 Sam. 4:20; 22:6f. et al.); with
ntnp^ (see 1:10) in the sense of ‘awaiting (someone)’ in 5:20; 7:15 (cf. Num.
22:34) and further for the piling up of water in 15:8 (cf. Gen. 37:7). As a rule
the object of the part, is thought to be Moses and Aaron (cf. e.g. Joiion
§ 126b) and no special attention is given to the question why Moses and
Aaron might be awaiting the Israelite leaders. If the question is being ad
dressed, it is suggested that Moses and Aaron were anxious to hear the
outcome of the audience with Pharaoh, an interview they may even have
initiated themselves (e.g. Gispen), or that Moses and Aaron made ready for a
second audience with Pharaoh (Cassuto). In my opinion, the question whether
perhaps D'3^: might refer to the subject of the sentence deserves serious
consideration.18 That yields an apt sentence: enraged and in a foul mood the
leaders of Israel leave Pharaoh, ready to pounce on Moses and Aaron, the
cause of all the trouble, to call them to account. They lie in wait for them. The
moment they spot them, they head straight for them (even as in 5:3, snn
denotes an hostile confrontation) and vent their futy. ‘since they had gone
away,’ see In trod. § 3.24.1; Sam. Pent, has runs '33 n»t» instead of nma n«n.
5:21 and they said to them, ‘May YHWH look upon you and let you have it for
ruining our reputation with Pharaoh and his court, by giving them a reason to kill
us with the sword. ’
to* jussive qal (e.g. Ges-K § 75q; Joiion § 79i) of nto (see Introd. § 3.46.1);
Sam. Pent, has the more usual, non-apocopated form nto*; the targums are
apparently based on interpreting to* as a niph.; see TNf: ‘May y h w h appear to
you ( ' ^ i n ' ) s e e also TO; TPsJ contains a quite different translation: ‘May
before y h w h our misety be manifest ('‘xrv) and may he also take vengeance on
you;’ Ehrlich proposes to read osnin instead of DS'bu, ‘the evil you have caused’
(cf. 5:19). BDen jussive qal of bd» (see 2:14); cf. e.g. Gen. 16:5; 31:53; 1 Sam.
24:12. iok, see Introd. § 3.7.2.
Dntston perf. hiph. of »to (OT 17 x), ‘to have a foul odour.’ »to qal (OT
5x) is used in 7:18, 21 for the terrible smell of water polluted by the dying off
of fish (cf. Isa. 50:2), in 8:10 for the stench of decomposing frogs, and in 16:20
for the awful smell of spoiled manna, ama hiph. (OT 8x) is used in 16:24 with
17
Deriving it from 33* is another possibility (see 2:4); see e.g. KoW and for the question e.g.
Ges-K § 71; Joiion § 77b.
18 See the rabbinic tradition; the fact that 0*333 is also found in Num. 16:27 offers a reason for
linking 5:20 with Num. 16:27, and provides the ground for the view that the rascals Dathan and
Abiram are the subject of 5:20; see bNed. 64b; ExR V, 20; MidrTanh. Exod. II, 4, and also Rashi,
and further Ginzberg, II, 337f.
482 EXODUS 5:1-21
manna as subject with the meaning of ‘to stink up’ (cf. Ps. 38:6). In short, the
verb contains the notions of decay and rotting. Stuff that is gross and produces
a sense of loathing. So it is understandable that 0»o hiph. can be used meta
phorically in the sense of ‘to cause someone to be hated (by),’ ‘give someone a
bad reputation (with)’ (see e.g. Gen. 34:30 [+ a]; Prov. 13:5; cf. also 1 Sam.
27:12 and the use of BhO niph. in 1 Sam. 13:4; 2 Sam. 10:6; 16:21). In 5:21
it i 19 is object of uma hiph., ‘to cause the scent to smell,’ that is, to ruin a
reputation, seeing to it that one has lost all credibility. See further Palache, 9f.
Rabbinic tradition has interpreted the ‘smelling’ in 5:21 literally; see e.g. ExR.
V, 20 and further Ginzberg, II, 337f.
‘in the sight o f (see Introd. § 3.3.8) is a bit remarkable, because it concerns
smell; however, there is no reason to back Baentsch et al. and to think that the
writer was unaware of the true meaning of &to; much rather, he uses 'n >3 as a
standard expression, in which ‘eyes’ has lost its literal force (cf. Brockelmann
§ 1061). ‘his court,’ see Introd. § 3.37.2. o ra anrrnn1?, see 5:3; for the form of
nn1? see Ges-K § 66i; BL § 638t, and for the function Ges-K § 114f; Joiion
§ 124s; Sam. Pent, has vra, ‘in his (Pharaoh’s) hand;’ cf. also LXX and Vulg.;
Beer follows Sam. Pent, nn, see 2:14.
The Israelite leaders utter a curse, a malediction. Calling upon y h w h , the
one on whose behalf Moses and Aaron pretended to act, they ask him to look
into what these two had been up to and to hold them responsible for the
ruination of the foremen’s reputation with Pharaoh and his court, as a conse
quence of which they can expect more than beatings (5:14), in fact may face
execution if they fail to meet the obligations imposed on them. They portray
Moses and Aaron as lowlifes and crooks, who under the guise of being
liberators, play into the hands of Pharaoh and his stooges, so assuring their
gullible victims a sure death. No reaction from Moses and Aaron is recorded.
It has been suggested that they fled the angry mob in dismay (e.g. Gispen).
Philo (VM, I, 90) relates how Moses in that situation, when he and Aaron
were regarded as deceivers and called names, performed the signs they had
been given, so as to stave off the threat of unbelief in their words (but see
4:30f.). Philo goes directly from 5:21 to 7:10ff.
19 IT7 (OT ca. 60x), ‘scent’ (see Introd. § 3.37.4), is also used in 29:18, 25, 41 in the standard
expression ITIT3 IT I to denote the smell of sacrifices which does not produce a sense of loathing
but instead is pleasing; see there.
EX O D U S 5:22-7:13
THE DELIVERER AGAIN IN DISCUSSION WITH YHWH

SECOND CONFRONTATION WITH PHARAOH
5:22 Then Moses again entered into discussion with YHWH : 4Lord, why do you
bring evil upon this people? Why did you ever send me?
23 For since I went to Pharaoh to speak in your name he has brought evil upon
this people and you have not at all freed them.'
6:1 But YHW H responded Moses: ‘Now you shall witness that I will so deal with
Pharaoh that not only will he let them go under heavy pressure, but he shall even
chase them out of the land under heavy pressure. ’
2 God continued the exchange with Moses with the words: 7 am YHWH.
3 I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob as El Shaddai, although I
did not make myself known to them by my name YHWH.
4 I not only reaffirm the promise which I made to them, that I would give
them the land of Canaan as a heritage, the land o f their exile where they stayed as
sojourners,
5 but I have also heard the groaning of the Israelites who have been forced by
the Egyptians to perform forced labour; and I have remembered my promise.
6 Therefore say to the Israelites, “/ am YHWH; hence I will lead you out from
under the toil exacted by the Egyptians; I will free you from the forced labour
imposed by the Egyptians; I will liberate you with irresistible force, with punishing
blows;
I I will therefore adopt you as my people and I will be God to you and you
will realize that it is I, YHWH, your God, who leads you out from under the labour
imposed by the Egyptians;
8 and I will bring you to the land which I swore that I would give as a
heritage to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, and I will give it to you as a
heritage. I am YHW H9. ’
9 When Moses spoke thus to the Israelites, however, they no longer wished to
listen to Moses because their spirit had been broken by the relentless forced
labour.
10 YH W H then addressed Moses with the following words:
II Go tell Pharaoh, the king of Egypt, the message that he must let the
Israelites leave his country. ’
12 Moses then turned in awe to YHW H with the following words: ‘I f even the
Israelites no longer want to listen to me, why do you suppose that Pharaoh will
want to listen, and then to a person such as myself, who lacks every form of
eloquence?’
484 E X O D U S 5:22-7:13
13 YHW H addressed Moses and Aaron and sent them to the Israelites and to
Pharaoh, the king o f Egypt, charging them with leading the Israelites out o f the
land of Egypt
14 These are the heads of their clan: Reuben, Israels firstborn, had the fol
lowing sons: Hanoch and Pallu, Hezron and CarmL These are the (patriarchs of
the) sibs o f Reuben.
15 Simeon had the following sons: lemuel, Jamin, Ohad, Jachin, Zohar; and
Saul, the son of a Canaanite woman. These are the (patriarchs of the) sibs of
Simeon.
16 And these are the names of the sons of Levi in the order in which they were
bom: Gershon, Kohath, and MerarL Levi lived a hundred and thirty-seven years.
17 Gershon had the following sons: Libni and Shimei; their sibs carry their
names.
18 Kohath had the following sons: Amram, Izhar, Hebron, and Uzziei Kohath
lived a hundred and thirty-three years.
19 And Merari had the following sons: Mahli and MushL These are the
(patriarchs of the) sibs of the Levites in the order in which they were bom.
20 Amram took his aunt Jochebed as wife. She bore him Aaron and Moses.
Amram lived a hundred and thirty-seven years.
21 Izhar had the following sons: Korah, Nepheg and ZichrL
22 Uzziei had the following sons: Mishael, Elzaphan, and SithrL
23 Aaron took Elisheba, the daughter of Amminadab, the sister o f Nahshon as
wife. She bore him Nadab and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar.
24 Korah had the following sons: Assir; Elkanah, and Abiasaph. These are the
(patriarchs of the) sibs of Korahites.
25 And Eleazar, the son of Aaron, took one of the daughters of Putiel as wife.
She bore him Phinehas. These are the heads of the clan of the Levites; their sibs
carry their name.
26 These are the Aaron and Moses to whom YHW H said: Lead the Israelites
out o f Egypt arrayed by tribe. ’
27 It was they who addressed Pharaoh, the king of Egypt, in order to lead the
Israelites of out Egypt. These are Moses and Aaron.
28 That was their position at the time that YHW H addressed Moses in the land
of Egypt.
29 YHW H addressed Moses with the following words: 7 am YHWH. Tell Pharaoh,
the king of Egypt, all the words that I have spoken to you. ’
30 Then Moses spoke in awe to YHWH, Why should Pharaoh listen to me, since
I lack every form of eloquence ?'
7:1 But YHW H answered Moses: Listen, I am assigning you the role o f god in
relationship to Pharaoh and your brother Aaron will be your prophet.
2 You must speak all the words with which I charge you, and your brother
Aaron must convey the message, that he must let the Israelites leave his country,
E SSEN T IA LS AND PER SP EC T IV ES 485
to Pharaoh.
3 I myself will make Pharaoh stiffnecked, however, so that I can perform
untold signs and wonders in the land of Egypt
4 Pharaoh will therefore not want to listen to you and will oblige me to direct
my devastating power against Egypt, applying punishing blows to lead my tribes,
my people, the Israelites, out of the land of Egypt
5 And the Egyptians will be aware that it is I, y h w h , when I bring my devas
tating power upon Egypt in order to lead the Israelites out from among them.;
6 Moses and Aaron did exactly as y h w h had commanded them.

7 Moses was eighty years old and Aaron eighty three years old when they
addressed Pharaoh.
8 YHW H proceeded to speak to Moses and to Aaron:

9 When Pharaoh addresses you, saying *Identify yourselves by performing a
miracle 9 you must say to Aaron, mTafce your staff and throw it down before
Pharaoh’s eyes9; it will change into a serpent. ’
10 So Moses and Aaron went to Pharaoh and did exactly as y h w h had
commanded them; Aaron threw his staff down before Pharaoh’s eyes and the eyes
o f his court; and it changed into a serpent.
11 Then Pharaoh summoned the scholarly magicians. They in turn, the con
jurors o f Egypt, accomplished the same by means o f their incantations.
12 Each of them threw down his staff and these changed into serpents. But
Aaron’s staff swallowed up their staffs.
13 Pharaoh nevertheless remained adamant. He did not want to listen just as
YH W H had announced.
Moses again in discussion with YHW H (5:22-7:9)

The author presents the reader with Moses as a disenchanted man in a first
scene (5:22-6:28). Moses is alone. According to the portrayal in 5:21, the
leaders of Israel had heaped accusations upon Moses and Aaron; yet in 5:22
the reader hears nothing more of Aaron. The omission of any mention of
Aaron seems to suggest that Moses cannot rely even on him any more,
underscoring his isolated position. Moses believes that in this situation he has
every reason to again - he had addressed yhwh last in 4:13 - enter into
discussion with yhwh (5:22-23). After all, his mission has turned into a fiasco.
He has booked no hint of success with Pharaoh. On the contrary, his visit has
had an adverse effect and has led to a dramatic deterioration of the situation,
resulting in a rift between him and the people, who had at first embraced him
and Aaron with open arms (4:30f.). Again there is a breach (cf. 2:14) between
486 E X O D U S 5:22-7:13
him and the people (compare 6:9).1 He has had to endure the hostility of the
leaders and has had to undergo criticism which to his mind should have been
directed towards y h w h . In short, the situation has reached rock bottom. The
people are worse off than when Moses came to Egypt. The appointed liberator
is a disillusioned individual. In shrill contrast there is the arrogance of Pharaoh
which seems to have reached its nadir. Moses, y h w h ’s representative, is
disenfranchised and has been spurned. No limit has been established to
Pharaoh’s power and caprice. The course of events has caused Moses to
regress to the state of mind which held sway over him at the time of his
encounter with y h w h at Mt. Horeb. He is experiencing serious apprehension
regarding his calling and his God. Dismayed by what he has experienced he has
misgivings about the sense of his mission. He believes that in view of the facts
— Pharaoh is behaving like an irrepressible tyrant and y h w h allows him to do
as he pleases without lifting a finger to help the people - he has a perfect
right to enter into discussion with y h w h (5:21-23). Anyone who has been
party to the earlier dialogue, must wonder whether perhaps Moses with his
misgivings about his calling (see 4:1 as well as 5:19-21) is not right after all,
and whether y h w h would not have done better to pursue Moses’ suggestion to
send someone else (see 4:13 as well as 5:22). Moses does not really appear
adequate to his demanding mission. After the first setbacks he seems so
overwhelmed by disappointment that y h w h ’s assurance that he should not
count on short-term success in the struggle with Pharaoh (3:19f.; 4:21) seems
to have lost its cogency.
It is in this rock bottom situation that y h w h chooses to speak (6:1). Now
that the liberation of Israel truly depends solely on Him — cooperation from
the side of the people can no longer be expected after 5:19-21 (the people play
no further role in the confrontation with Pharaoh), and Moses is a despondent
individual - the moment has come to really seize the initiative. The reader
must be fully alerted to the fact that Israel’s liberation is not the work of
mortal man but purely and solely y h w h ’s doing. All credit is due to him alone
in view of the depth of the misery and the miraculous nature of the deliver
ance. He transforms a bottoming out point into a turning point. He disregards
Moses’ questions and states emphatically that Moses will ‘now’ — the turning
point is the moment at which God decides to speak — be witness to how
YHWH will deal with Pharaoh and take the liberation of the people to hand.
Moreover, y h w h wants to carry on with Moses, wavering and faltering though
he be, and with great patience freshly encourages and instructs (6:2ff.) his
nonplussed envoy. Now that Moses has again sought contact with y h w h in his
disillusionment, y h w h is prepared to again enter into dialogue with him (cf.
chaps. 3-4), although in Egypt this time (cf. 6:28). Here too it becomes
* It will not be the last time; see 14:10-31; 15:22-25; 16; 17:1-7; 32 and P. Buis, *Les conflits
entre Moi'se et Israel dans Exode et Nombres,* VT 28 (1978), 257-70.
E SSEN T IA L S AND PER SPEC T IV ES 487
apparent that the liberation is yhwh’s doing (cf. 3:11; 4:10).

Should the reader be under the impression that he is now (after 6:1) about
to witness a description of vigorous action by yhwh against Pharaoh, he is
soon disappointed, yhwh continues the discussion with Moses and makes clear
to him on what His assurance that the turning point has now been reached is
based. The assurance is underpinned by the ‘I am yhwh’ that frames (inclusio)
yhwh’s words (6:2,8). The words themselves prompt the reader to recall the
clarification given earlier by yhwh (3:14) of the name yhwh: yhwh is the
God who has implicated himself in the destiny of the people and - this the
point on which all emphasis falls - manifests this by actually intervening in
the course of events. In this respect there is a dissimilarity with the time of the
patriarchs. God reveals himself in a new posture, not only making a promise,
but also fulfilling it (6:3). This alone should form sufficient guarantee that the
promise of the land will be realized, yhwh himself stands for what he has
promised (6:4). Now that He knows of the drastic situation of Israel in Egypt,
He is constrained by the realization that the promise is still outstanding and
that there is every reason for him to take action briskly to make it tangible
(6:5). There are, in short, three related reasons (indicated in 6:3b, 4, 5) for
swift intervention by yhwh. When yhwh has duly impressed this on Moses
and has thus given him confidence that the liberation is truly at hand, he
considers Moses sufficiently encouraged and instructed to again act as his
representative towards the Israelites (6:6). Just as yhwh himself frames his
words with ‘I am yhwh,’ so Moses too must frame the divine words with ‘I am
yhwh’ (6:6,8) when these cross his lips (the formula occurs 3x in the
passage; see Introd. § 4.4.1 for ‘three’). ‘I am yhwh’ is the guarantee for the
truthfulness and divine origin of the words encompassed by the formula.2
In his formulation of the message that Moses must convey to the Israelites
(6:6-8), yhwh harks back chiastically to his previous words. In a link to 6:5,
He first mentions the liberation from the oppression by the Egyptians (6:6f.).
He subsequently mentions the promise of the land again (6:4) and gives his
assurance that the promise applies to the Israelites (6:8). In short, yhwh first
mentions the point which is most significant to the Israelites, the liberation
from the oppression by the Egyptians. The onus falls on this point.3 yhwh
enters into a relationship with them and they belong to Him by means of the
liberation. The course of events will endow them with this experience (6:7).
Their belonging to yhwh means that the promise of the land given to the
patriarchs applies to them and will be realized. They will actually possess the
2 On the structure of 6:2-8, see also the contributions by P. Auffret and J. Magonet to JSOT 27
(1983), 46-74.
3 The liberation is sketched using three verbs (see Introd. § 4.4.1 for ‘three’) and two terms for
forced labour; note also the partial reiteration of 6:6 in 6:7; the other points have each been
indicated by two verbs; see 6:7, 8.
488 exodus 5:22-7:13
promised land (6:8). A sweeping perspective is connected to this liberation.

In the message which Moses must convey, all emphasis falls on y h w h ’s ‘I.’
The actions by y h w h which are about to occur have been indicated by seven
verbs in the first person with y h w h as subject (one mentions a past action of
y h w h using y h w h ’s ‘I’: 'P ik» j ; 6:8), i.e., the liberation from Egypt, the solem
nizing of the covenant at Sinai, and the gift of the land are due solely and
purely to the sovereign grace of y h w h . Even though Moses had previously
called out in bewilderment that y h w h was not liberating the people at all
(5:23), he must now go to the Israelites to tell them that a seven-fold reaction
(see In trod. § 4.8.1 for ‘seven’) by y h w h is about to take place. When one
views y h w h ’s words in 6:2-8, one would be inclined to characterize them as a
confession if they had been expressed in the second or third person. The great
acts of salvation in Israel’s history are framed succinctly and tersely: y h w h ’s
revelation and promise to the patriarchs (6:3, 4); his concern for Israel’s plight
in Egypt leading to the liberation from forced labour (6:5, 6); the covenant at
Mt. Sinai (6:7), and y h w h ’s guidance through the desert to the promised land
which has been given to Israel as a heritage (6:8; cf. Deut. 26:5-9).
First interlude: Moses again with the people (6:9)

The reader learns nothing of Moses’ reaction to the mission with which y h w h
charges him. The impression is thus created that Moses has taken new courage
and can again cope with his task. A subsequent short scene (6:9) allows the
reader to witness an encounter between Moses and his fellow countrymen.
Moses dutifully conveys y h w h ’s message but receives no response whatsoever.
His fellow countrymen want nothing further to do with him (cf. 5:21). They
have lost their resilience on account of the relentless forced labour and are no
longer approachable, not even when they hear the seven-fold announcement
sealed by ‘I am y h w h .’ The writer thus underscores Moses’ isolation anew and
places the accent on the liberation as purely y h w h ’s doing, for the Israelites
were not even prepared to listen to the announcement of the liberation!
The dialogue resumed (6:10-12)

The picture changes quickly. The next scene sketches Moses again in y h w h ’s
company (6:10-12). y h w h now charges Moses with addressing to Pharaoh the
demand to let the Israelites leave his country (6:11). Moses, who had gone to
the Israelites without objection, cannot help but react now. Since he has found
no audience among the Israelites for a message which can only be regarded as
quite encouraging and convincing, he cannot imagine that Pharaoh would want
to listen to him when he comes before him with his rather far-going demand,
all the more since - his encounter with the Israelites has only served to
convince him afresh — he does not possess the power of persuasion. He has
his doubts concerning the sense of this mission, is bewildered, and expresses
his apprehension to y h w h (6 :1 2 ).
E SSEN T IA LS AND PER SPEC T IV ES 489
The reader wonders along with Moses. Must he again address Pharaoh after
the first debacle (5:lff.)? The reader is left to ponder y h w h ’s patience with
Pharaoh, offering him a second opportunity to respond to the demand of the
divine envoy. Why does y h w h not deal with him forcefully, as he has pledged
to Moses (6 :1 , 6 )? Why does y h w h insist on giving Moses missions of which
no effect can be expected? Does y h w h really want to free the people, in spite
of all the assurances? Will it all remain a matter of words? Will there never be
an end to the oppression in Egypt? The suspense in the narrative accumulates
and is heightened even more by the interruption of the story at 6:13. The
reader must wait a little more before he is to hear how y h w h responds to
Moses’ qualms and bewilderment. The author interrupts the story to furnish
information on Moses’ lineage and on Aaron’s, who is again introduced into
the narrative a little later on. The author, in contrast to the reader, seems to
have all the time in the world and permits himself an elaborate digression
(6:13-28).
All the appearances seem to point to a deliberate delay in the flow of the
story on the part of the author. With what is described in 6:2ff, he achieves a
double effect: (a) the events narrated in 6:2ff. heighten the suspense since they
in no way contribute to bringing about the liberation of Israel and are thus not
actually events; (b) a number of components essential to the story are further
accentuated: y h w h and He alone is the liberator of Israel and the one who
grants Israel the land; Israel plays no role here; Moses does play a role as
y h w h ’s emissary, but he is by nature a vacillating individual and is not up to
his mission; he owes his role in the liberation only to y h w h who continually
comes to his aid.
Second interlude: Moses’ and Aaron’s lineage (6:13-28)

As noted, the author interrupts the narrative in 6:13 in order to supply
additional information about Moses and Aaron by sketching their lineage in an
excursion (6:13-28). He opens the genealogy (6:14-25) with an introductory
formula (6:14) and concludes with a formula (6:25) corresponding to it. Three
components can be distinguished to a certain extent in the genealogy he
provides.
The genealogy of Reuben and Simeon (6:14 and 6:15) follow the heading,
both patterned in the same manner. By mentioning these the author clarifies
the position occupied by the tribe of Levi, which he mentions in 6:16ff., among
the tribes of Israel. Moreover, this precludes any misunderstanding concerning
the relationship of Moses and Aaron, descendants of Levi, to the descendants
of Jacob who came to Egypt (l:lff.). They are full-blooded Israelites!
In 6:16-19 the author provides the genealogy of Levi, again introduced by a
formula and terminated by a corresponding formula. In Reuben and Simeon’s
case he mentions only the sons. Now he continues the line through the second
generation.
E X O D U S 5:22-7:13
. J
6:20-25 elaborates on the genealogy of three sons of Levi’s second son,
Kohath (6:18).4 This happens in divergent fashion. The genealogy of Izhar and
Uzziel (6:18) are continued in 6:21,22, and 24 in the summary fashion familiar
from 6:14-15 and 6:16-19, as well as the genealogy of Izhar’s son Korah. The
progeny of Amram (6:20), Aaron (6:23), and Eleazar (6:25), by contrast, are
reported in a more narrative fashion (the wives are mentioned; those involved
owe their pedigree to mother’s extraction as well!) albeit no less stereotyped,
i.e., the descendants of Levi to whom the author wishes to pay particular
attention. The line of Levi-Kohath-Amram-Aaron and Moses-Eleazar-Phinehas
unmistakably forms the principal strand in the genealogy. Note also that the
life span of the first three are reported.
The author does not limit himself to recounting Moses’ and Aaron’s an
cestry. He also mentions Aaron’s son and grandson. He thereby discloses that
a particular aim of the genealogy is to illuminate the position of Aaron. Not
only his ancestry but also his posterity contribute to Aaron’s greatness and
esteem.
The author concludes his excursion with 6:26-28. He notes explicitly why he
was obliged to supply a genealogy: To provide a picture of Moses’ and Aaron’s
status among the Israelites and the tribe of Levi. It should be completely clear
to the reader that Moses and Aaron are not just anyone, but that they can
claim a distinguished ancestry; they are full-blooded Israelites and full-blooded
Levites. y h w h has taken into his service people who may enjoy one’s fullest
confidence. The author can now be sure that when he will presently narrate
that y h w h has conferred on Aaron the task of addressing Pharaoh as Moses’
spokesman, the reader will be fully aware that y h w h has commissioned an
admirable twosome with the mission of representing him to Pharaoh.
The leitmotif of the dialogue resumed (6:29-7:5)

After his detailed elaboration concerning Moses and Aaron’s ancestry, the
author again picks up the theme of the story in 6:29. He does not resume at
precisely the point at which he had interrupted the narrative (at the close of
6:12) but backtracks two steps to accommodate his readers, resuming at the
beginning of the scene (6:10). Although he starts anew, he does not simply
repeat 6:10-12 in 6:29-30. y h w h now introduces his words emphatically with ‘I
am y h w h ’ (6:29) and Moses leaves unmentioned his negative experiences with
the Israelites (6:30). It is as though the author provides the two participants
with the opportunity of starting anew and as though they seize on the oppor
tunity to revise their earlier words, y h w h now says with emphasis, ‘Moses, be
4 Hebron is not mentioned again; the other three sons are mentioned in further detail in the
order in which they were initially mentioned in 6:18; insofar as he mentions their sons, he again
preserves the order in which they were initially mentioned: first Aaron (6:23), then Korah (6:24),
then Eleazar (6:25).
advised that the God with the name of y h w h is backing you up, even when
you go to Pharaoh.’ Further reflection leads Moses to consider it inappropriate
to illustrate his imperfect persuasive powers by referring to the Israelites’
rebuff. The fact that y h w h wishes to send him to Pharaoh despite his lack of
eloquence continues to puzzle him (6:30). y h w h takes into account the
problem posed by Moses. He does not have to state y h w h ’s demand to
Pharaoh to let the people go (7:lf.) personally, but may use Aaron as inter
mediary. This again serves to etch in the reader’s mind that the great Moses
was in reality no more than a man who considered himself incompetent for his
calling and who could only cope with his role as Pharaoh’s adversary thanks to
the constant intervention of y h w h .
y h w h does more than to accommodate Moses with his problem. He also
informs him concerning the future course of events (cf. 3:19f.; 4:21ff.). This
information forms part of the encouragement provided by y h w h . y h w h
announces that Pharaoh will not want to listen (7:4) to Moses and Aaron but
makes it clear at the same time that Pharaoh’s unwillingness need not be a
reason to lose hope, for y h w h himself will bring this about (7:3). He has his
own purposes. He wants to bring untold plagues upon the Egyptians to bring
such pressure to bear on the Egyptians that he will be able to lead the
Israelites out (7:4-5) and convince the Egyptians of his power and superiority
(7:5; cf. 9:16; ll:9f.). In order to achieve this final goal y h w h has postponed,
as it were, the liberation of Israel. In order to demonstrate his power He does
not free Israel in the blinding flash but takes the route of an extended confron
tation with Pharaoh, y h w h makes it clear to Moses that future events which
might easily be interpreted as setbacks or reversals by outsiders in fact form an
integral part of his strategy, y h w h commands the situation from beginning to
end. All credit for the liberation accrues to him alone, y h w h does not even
grant Pharaoh the opportunity to take a positive approach to Israel. Pharaoh
is denied any opportunity to claim cooperation in the liberation. Heartened
along with Moses, the reader can anticipate future events. These are all
mentioned against the backdrop of y h w h ’s ‘I’ which is sounded again and
again in 7:3-5. y h w h speaks not once but twice about the exodus which he will
bring about (7:4, 5). The backdrop for His words is formed even more by the
plagues that are about to be unleashed and which will strike the Egyptians
than by the exodus itself. The plagues are mentioned four times in the style of
reiterated variants (lx in 7:3; 2x in 7:4; lx in 7:5). The reader anticipates
future events full of expectation. Will the course of events then finally take a
turn for the good? Will y h w h finally act in a convincing manner?
Third interlude: A glance into the future (7:6-7)

The author once again interrupts the flow of the narrative (7:6-7), albeit
briefly. In an aside he divulges Moses’ and Aaron’s reaction to y h w h ’s
mission. Just as y h w h has provided Moses with insight into upcoming devel
492 exodus 5:22-7:13
opments (7:3-5), the author now provides the reader advance information,
disclosing that Moses and Aaron did actually play the role assigned to them in
the upcoming events, doing so with dedication and in compliance to y h w h ’s
instructions (7:6), as indeed the reader might have expected of such mature
personalities (7:7). With these interpolated comments the author elicits
confidence in the future on the part of the reader. The information that y h w h
relays to Moses and the information that the author passes on to Moses and
Aaron ensure that the reader can pursue his way through the text not only
with relative calm, but also with a certain amount of suspense (how exactly will
things work out?).
The conclusion o f the dialogue (7:8-9)

The author continues his portrayal of the discussion between y h w h and Moses
in 7:8. Aaron, who y h w h has picked to reinforce Moses (7:lf.), is also present
now. y h w h equips both properly for their mission to Pharaoh. He has
accommodated Moses and his lack of verbal fluency. On his own initiative, He
tells Moses how he should respond in case Pharaoh requires them to prove
that they do not act of their own accord in demanding to let the Israelites go,
but as divine envoys whose words are backed up by the authority of the deity.
If such a situation should arise Moses must identify himself as the represen
tative of a very powerful God by letting Aaron act as a conjurer: Aaron’s staff
will change into a serpent when thrown down. This will furnish proof that a
powerful God indeed is backing them. They will be enabled to rule over life
and death (7:9)!
The second confrontation with Pharaoh (7:10-13)

The next scene (7:10-12) is enacted in completely different surroundings.
Finally things have reached a crucial juncture. The encouragement and
instructions by y h w h have not been without avail. Moses, accompanied now
by Aaron, carries out the mission of y h w h which initially struck him as
impossible (6:Ilf.). The dialogue has reached its conclusion. The story again
moves on. Moses and Aaron have attended Pharaoh’s court and, according to
the brief description, have demanded the Israelites’ release of him in the
manner ordained by y h w h . The situation foreseen by y h w h does actually
arise. Pharaoh asks them to identify themselves. They are not caught off guard
by the turn of events thanks to y h w h ’s good coaching but are able to respond
in an adequate manner. Aaron performs the serpent miracle in full view of
Pharaoh and a crowd from his court (7:10). The author narrates in a brief and
matter of fact manner, keeping silence concerning the reactions and emotions
of the personages featured in the narrative. Images concerning such reactions
are, however, evoked in the reader. When Pharaoh requires identification the
suspense heightens. Will the staff actually change into a snake? When the
miracle occurs, the reader can relax, imagining Moses and Aaron standing
E SSEN T IA LS AND PE R SP EC T IV E S 493
there relieved, almost triumphant, before Pharaoh and a crowd from his court.
They have endured the test and Pharaoh must now be convinced that they
have spoken to him with authority. The elation of the reader is short-lived,
however. Pharaoh responds, but not with recognition for Moses and Aaron.
Just as Moses commanded Aaron to perform the serpent miracle, Pharaoh
summons his magicians and they prove capable of the same feat as Aaron
(7:11, 12a). Now it is Pharaoh who appears triumphant. He has proved capable
of proliferating the miracle. What Moses has accomplished falls into insig
nificance compared to what Pharaoh has brought about. The reader is abruptly
sobered by what he sees. Outclassed by the magicians and their snakes, Moses
and Aaron appear trivial with their single serpent. But that is not the worst of
it. The worst is that Pharaoh has proved by the actions of his magicians that
he is by no means compelled to act on the demand posed by Moses and Aaron
and does not have to bow before y h w h . For he has shown conclusively that he
is greater than Moses and Aaron and is consequently also superior to their
God. There is every reason to be somber. Is Pharaoh then supremely powerful,
in spite of all contrary allegations by y h w h ? But what does the reader now
see? Aaron’s single serpent swallows up all the others (7:12b)! Proof that
y h w h prevails over Pharaoh! Proof that y h w h is responsible for Aaron’s
miracle and that the magicians have performed theirs only through incan
tations (7:11). The Pharaoh must have been mortified! The reader is again
elated. The exhilaration attendant on the unexpected denouement is im
mediately tempered, however, by the fact that despite the convincing proof of
y h w h ’s superiority, Pharaoh remains adamant (7:13). The reader’s secret hope
that Pharaoh would have responded differently is dashed. But Pharaoh’s
attitude does not fluster him. He has witnessed a sign of hope (7:12b) and is
confident that Pharaoh’s noncompliance does indeed form part of y h w h ’s
strategy (7:3ff.).
The portrayal of the second confrontation with Pharaoh and its consequences
(7:10-13) is brief in comparison with the report of the first confrontation and
its consequences (chap. 5). The account is rather concise. The author depicts
virtually nothing in excess of the ‘competition’ between Aaron and Pharaoh’s
magicians. For the rest he suffices with a backwards glance, signalling the
encounter between Pharaoh and Moses and Aaron (7:10a) with a general
remark. After the culmination (7:12b) of the action he mentions further that
Pharaoh remained inflexible. He considers it unnecessary to portray Moses and
Aaron’s departure or the withdrawal of the magicians. The book of Exodus in
its present form recounts how Pharaoh is granted an opportunity to respond
agreeably (7:10-13) before y h w h must resort to heavy artillery, y h w h gives
Pharaoh a second chance, y h w h is patient with Pharaoh and again offers him
the possibility of responding to the demand conveyed by Moses and Aaron of
releasing the people. The succinctness of the author’s account here creates the
494 E X O D U S 5:22-7:13
impression that he is portraying y h w h ’s patience as no longer without limit.

The terseness with which the encounter with Pharaoh is reported contrasts
with the rather elaborate portrayal of y h w h ’s dialogue with Moses (5:22-7:9).
For Moses y h w h has ample time but Pharaoh seems to have little credit left
with him. One could perhaps state that the author wishes to hasten, as it were,
the liberation of Israel by the terseness of his narrative. Now that the story has
again started to move, he does not wish to give too much consideration to
Pharaoh’s second chance. That would be too great an honour for Pharaoh. The
fact that Pharaoh is again given verbal notification that he must release Israel
amounts to pouring water through a sieve. The writer wants to press on to the
moment at which y h w h will make it unambiguously plain to Pharaoh by
means of deeds that he is serious in his demand that Pharaoh release Israel.
This is the moment for which the reader yearns after all the delays in the
process of liberation, a time which can now dawn since Pharaoh is not respon
ding favourably.
Verse 7:13 almost returns the reader to the point at which he found himself
in 6:1: y h w h will now deal with Pharaoh forcefully. And yet there is a dif
ference. When the reader reaches 7:13 the situation in which Moses and Israel
find themselves can no longer be characterised as ‘rock bottom.’ The Moses of
7:10-13 is not the same Moses as the Moses of 5:22ff. The Moses of 7:10-13 is
one that has been newly encouraged and instructed by y h w h , and Aaron has
been commissioned at his side with a view to the confrontation with Pharaoh.
y h w h ’s solicitude for Moses does not remain without result. Moses and Aaron
now prove capable of resisting Pharaoh and witness a hopeful sign (7:12b).
Although Pharaoh continues to reject their demand to release Israel, after the
telling miracle there is no longer cause for a completely daunted Moses to
address y h w h (cf. 5:22f.). y h w h has betokened his superiority. Moreover, the
Pharaoh of 7:13 no longer appears to be the same Pharaoh as in 5:lff. He
continues to balk but does not initiate any new far-reaching measures against
the people of Israel after the encounter with Moses and Aaron. It is as though
the miracle has had some impact on him after all. In sum, when the reader
reaches 7:13 a careful optimism takes hold of him. The hope seems warranted
that the liberation of Israel from Egypt and with it the promise of the posses
sion of a country of their own given to the patriarchs will be realized.

Among the exegetes it is customary to regard 6:2-7:7 as a new main division

(e.g. Dillmann, Baentsch, Cassuto, Childs). Others, however, do not draw a
division until after 7:13 (e.g. Heinisch, Rylaarsdam). In the Masoretic division
of the text there is a pause in the text preceding 6:2 - 6:2 marks the beginning
of a set&mfi — but a new pet&ha (a brief one, we might add) does not start
until 6:10, followed again by a pet&ha at 6:13 (6:13-29),5 followed by the
pet&hdt at 7:17 and 7:8-13.6 I personally favour a new division at 5:22, as
indicated already at the introduction to the exegesis of 5:1-21. I consider 7:13
as the conclusion of this division. Here again I feel compelled to comment that
the partitioning of the material is somewhat arbitrary.
The section under discussion can be further sub-divided as follows: 5:22-7:9
contains a description of the dialogue between y h w h and Moses, which may
be regarded as laying the groundwork for the second confrontation with
Pharaoh which is described in 7:10-13. The progress of the dialogue is inter
rupted by 6:9; 6:13-28 and 7:6-7. The first interruption recounts a new en
counter between Moses and the people, the second interruption provides
information on Moses’ and Aaron’s ancestry, and the third prefigures the
description of the execution by Moses and Aaron of y h w h ’s mission and
reports their ages.
5:22-6:1 is regarded by adherents of the documentary hypothesis as the
conclusion to 5:1-6:1 and as such is ascribed to J (E). 6:2-7:13 is ascribed to P.
They do not regard this portion (6:2-7:7 is normally regarded as a single unit;
see above) as a piece ‘cast from a single dye.’ Among the arguments advanced
is that y h w h ’s reaction to Moses objection in 6:12b does not follow until 7:1
(that he is not a suitable candidate for the job of going to Pharaoh due to his
lack of eloquence). 6:13-30 is repeatedly considered to be an interpolation.
Further details are left out of consideration.7
It is assumed that the section under discussion contains p’s version of Moses’
(and Aaron’s) calling and of their appearance before Pharaoh. 6:2ff. is sup
posed to link up with 2:23-25 (P). It cannot be denied that there is no im
pediment to skipping from 6:1 to continue reading at 7:14. The reader has
then returned to the point at which had left the JE-version, according to
adherents of the documentary hypothesis. Nor can it be denied that 6:2-7:13
can be considered as a parallel version of chaps. 3-5 (je ) to a certain extent.8
The following similarities can be pointed out: y h w h reveals himself and
reports being aware of the plight of the people in Egypt; He announces the
liberation and conveys to Moses what he must say to the Israelites (3:6-8,14-15
alongside of 6:2-8); Moses is given the task of going to Pharaoh (3:10 along
side of 6:11); Moses points out his incompetence in speaking (4:10 alongside
of 6:12b) and is given assistance from Aaron for that reason (6:16 alongside of
5 According to BHS; see, however, BHK1'^: 6:29 marks a new sitOmd.

6 According to BHS; see, however, BHK*’^: 7:14 marks a sit&mdi\ cf. Perrot, 67.
7 See the examinations (they do not always agree) of Dillmann, Baentsch, Beer, Noth, Te
Stroete, Childs, Fohrer, 48ff., 59ff., Weimar, 77ff., and see also Eerdmans, 20ff.; Steingrimsson,
27ff.
8 See particularly F. Wimmer, “Tradition Reinterpreted in Ex.6:2-7:7,“ Aug 1 (1967), 405-18.
496 E X O D U S 5:22-7:13
7:If.); y h w h announces that Pharaoh will balk and that he will pressure
Pharaoh by means of plagues (3:19f. alongside of 6:6; 7:3f.); Moses goes to
Pharaoh with Aaron (5:lff. alongside of 7:10ff.); 2:1-10 could possibly count as
a ‘parallel’ to 6:14-25. In addition to these parallels there are differences:
y h w h addresses Moses at Mt. Horeb (3:1) - y h w h speaks to Moses in Egypt
(6:28); Moses is received favourably by the people (4:29ff.) - the people do
not want to listen to Moses (6:9); Moses raises objections to his calling even
before he accepts his task (chaps. 3-4) - Moses has misgivings about y h w h ’s
mission after the confrontation with the people (6:9-12); Moses’ signs are
intended to identify him to the people (4:lff., 30) - Aaron performs a sign
before Pharaoh to bolster y h w h ’s words (7:8ff.); Moses asks for leave to be
able to celebrate a feast (3:18; 5:1, 3) - Moses feels obliged to request a
general release from duty (6:12; 7:2); Moses receives assistance from Aaron
with a view to representing him before the people (4:16) — with a view to
representing him before Pharaoh (7:lf.); Pharaoh does not comply with the
request expressed by Moses and Aaron and redoubles the labour (chap. 5) -
Pharaoh pays no heed to the request without intensifying the labour (7:13).
Whether p was familiar with the JE-version is a matter of controversy. Noth
believes that this is the case ( cf. e.g. Fohrer and Te Stroete). Childs believes
that p was familiar with certain traditions in oral form.
Dillmann, Baentsch, Noth, and others have noted that the editor did not
regard 6:2ff. as a parallel version of 3:lff., but regarded it instead as the story
of Moses’ second calling, which happened to him in Egypt in the hour of his
disillusionment. Childs too stresses this: ‘this original call narrative could now
serve as a confirmation of Ex.3.1ff. without any major redactional changes’ (p.
114).9
In my view it is beyond question that 6:2-7:13 cannot be regarded as a
parallel version of chaps. 3-5 in the present form of the book of Exodus. I
have described the effect produced by the position of 6:2-7:13 following chaps.
3-5 in my discussion of the essentials and structure of the passage. I would like
to add — leaving out of consideration how the parallel version may have
originally read - that in its new function as a continuation of chaps. 3-5, the
passage does not give rise to (insurmountable) problems with regard to what
precedes. One might even say that there is a certain degree of harmony with
the preceding section: that the people do not want to listen (6:9) is not
surprising after 5:21; Moses is not placed in an unfavourable light as in 4:13f.;
he is despondent, however, and has misgivings (6:12, 30), but it is no longer
the same Moses as in chaps. 3-4; whether he is prepared to act as God’s envoy
9 See further J.L. Ska, “La place d’Ex 6 2-8 dans la narration de I’Exode,’ Z A W 94 (1982),
530-48. Ska stresses the deliberately chosen and meaningful position of 6:2-8 in the present text,
rejecting the designation of the passage as a call narrative in addition to other kinds of desig
nations. (He sees the passage as peculiar in terms of genre; it is a divine answer to the people).
is no longer under discussion; he goes to the people without objections (6:9);

that Moses hazards a visit to Pharaoh (5:1) is understandable after the favour
able reception by the people (4:30); that he flinches at the prospect (6:12)
after his rejection by the people (6:9) is equally understandable; the encounter
with Pharaoh (7:10ff.) is not followed by an intensification of the forced labour
as in 5:6ff; that would present an anticlimax, since things could not get any
worse (6:9); moreover, that would cancel the impact of the miracle (7:12b).
Less elegant is the fact that Moses expresses his misgivings at the mission to
go to Pharaoh by referring to his reception by the people (6:12); one would
sooner have expected him to refer to the failure of the first encounter.
Recapitulating, we can state that 6:2ff. does not form an entirely homogeneous
unit, but it does form a meaningful and cohesive pericope.

EXEGESIS
Moses again in discussion with YHWH (5:22-7:9)

5:22 Then Moses again entered into discussion with YHWH: 1Lord, why do you
bring evil upon this people? Why did you ever send me?’
see 4:7; it is improbable that a return of Moses to the place of revelation,
Mt. Horeb, is intended (thus Bohl; Bohl points to Elijah’s lot by way of
comparison; see 1 Kgs. 19). Some commentators have submitted that this must
be a case of encounter in prayer (e.g. Baentsch, Heinisch, Cassuto; TNf already
voices this in the margin). Although no particulars are mentioned, one must
apparently consider this as a resumption of the dialogue between Moses and
yhwh. Moses has last addressed yhwh at Mt. Horeb (4:13). Since then yhwh
has been addressing Moses. Now, after his experiences in Egypt, Moses
considers that the time has come to again enter into discussion with yhwh.
The locality of the discussion is now Egypt (cf. 6:28). ':ix, see 4:10; the LXX
translates as though the text was '2 'p x (cf. 4:10,13). no^>, see 1:18; the repe
tition expresses that Moses is bewildered and perplexed; the second is
moreover reinforced by m (see 2:20). The fact that yhwh has sent him is
particularly puzzling to Moses. Many MSS and the Sam. Pent, have adopted a
reading of noVi; a few ancient versions have rendered the text accordingly; L
has an asyndetic construction as it has more often in this chapter (see
5:8,11,18). wn, see 5:19.
5:23 Tor since I went to Pharaoh to speak in your name he has brought evil
upon this people and you have not at all freed them. ’
TKffi (with copulative waw to introduce a causal phrase; e.g. Ges-K § 158a;
Joiion § 170c), see 4:10. Dtf, see Introd. § 3.50. wn, see 5:19; in 5:22 yhwh is
the subject of hiph. inn; ultimately it is yhwh himself who governs Pharaoh’s
498 exo dus 5:22-7:13
actions (see Introd. § 3.19.2). rfetmA Vsm (for this construction, e.g. Ges-K §
113n; Jotion § 123j; for the position of the negation, e.g. KoSynt § 3521; Ges-K
§ 113v), see 2:19 (û). *|0»: Just before, Moses was till speaking of ‘this people’
(in 5:22 as well), see Introd. § 3.40.1. Moses’ remark that y h w h has not freed
his people corresponds to Moses’ first question in 5:22 and warrants the
question. Moses’ remark with regard to his appearance before Pharaoh (5:23a)
corresponds to the second question in 5:22 and motivates it. In short, 5:22-23
is structured chiastically.

Much consideration has been given to the question of how Moses could have
the temerity to address y h w h so boldly, particulary by Jewish exegetes (e.g.
Leibowitz, 108ff.). Moses had been forewarned that Pharaoh would not listen
to him straightaway (3:19f.; 4:21). Jewish tradition has therefore considered
Moses’ questions to be improper and expressions of disbelief.10 Moses is
punished for these words. He will only witness the struggle against Pharaoh
(6:1) and not the conquest of the land; that he is spared even worse he owes
to the fact that his questions arise from concern over Israel’s plight (see
bSanh. 111a; ExR. V, 22f.; VI, 1, as well as Rashi and further Ginzberg, II,
338f.). Various attempts have been made by Jewish exegetes to make Moses’
questions acceptable. It has been stated that Moses complains because he had
been assuming that after an encounter with Pharaoh the oppression would
diminish, whereas this intensified instead and robbed him of any defense
against the Israelite leaders (Ibn Ezra). One might add here that the fact that
his appearance before Pharaoh would lead to a rift between him and the
people had been concealed from him. It has been further submitted that Moses
was disillusioned because he had been assuming that after Pharaoh’s first
refusal the plagues would follow immediately. The events described in chap. 5
occupy a prolonged time span11 without any intervention on y h w h ’s part
(thus Nachmanides).
I would also like to point out that Philo and Josephus ignore the dialogue
reported in 5:22ff in their commentary. Philo (VM, I, 90) makes what is
reported in 5:21 link up directly with 7:10ff. Josephus (AJ, II, 281ff.) has
reordered the material. According to his rendering of events, what is reported
in 7:10-13 precedes the intensification of the forced labour and this dovetails
with the plagues.
The assumption by a modern exegete (Fensham), that the true reason for the
111 TNf has apparently attempted to prevent this impression by an insertion in the text. Moses
commences with the words: ‘I beseech you by the compassion before you, YHWH,„.\
11 ExR V, 20 (cf. Ginzberg, II, 337f.) contains the theory that Moses had returned to Midian
after the first encounter with Pharaoh and had not returned to Egypt until six months later,
becoming embroiled in a conflict with the leaders of the Israelites at his arrival.
failure of Moses’ mission lies in the fact that the people were still too attached
to their current existence, and that Moses had misgivings because he failed to
fathom that y h w h could not free the people for this reason, seems implaus
ible.
To my mind, attributing Moses’ questions to unbelief is going too far. It may
be said that Moses was disillusioned because the reality of the situation was
appreciably more cruel than he had ever dared to think. His actions have led
to a redoubling of the forced labour and to a rift between him and the people,
and y h w h had in no way given any indication of being involved in the course
of events. The harsh reality of the situation had undermined the force of
y h w h ’s earlier assurances and Moses had landed up in a crisis situation. Like
Jeremiah (e.g. ll:18ff; 12:lff.; 15:10, 18; 18:19ff.; 20:7, 14ff.) he has grave
misgivings with regard to his calling and with regard to his God. His adven
tures have caused him to relapse into the state of mind which had held sway
over him during his encounter with y h w h at Mt. Horeb (chaps. 3-4). To
summarize, in order for Moses’ mission to succeed, y h w h will have to en
courage and instruct Moses anew, y h w h does indeed do so ( 6 : Iff.) Once again,
the fact that Israel’s liberation is not man’s but purely y h w h ’s doing is etched
all the more into the mind of the reader who has now become familiar with
Moses’ disenchantment (cf. 3:11; 4:10).
6:1 But YHWH responded Moses: ‘Now you shall witness that I will so deal with
Pharaoh that not only will he let them go under heavy pressure, but he shall even
chase them out o f the land under heavy pressure. ’
nn», see 3:9; the Sam. Pent, reads nn« “you’.12 urn, see Introd. § 3.7.2. *3, see
Introd. § 3.25.1. ‘Under heavy pressure,’ see Introd. § 3.21.2; the second
mention is rendered by the LXX and the Pesh. as though the text read
rntM sinni With outstretched arm’ (see Introd. § 3.21.8). Beer, for example,
follows this translation; incorrectly, since it is based on harmonization. The
Vulg. contains, as it does more often, a reiterated variant: per manum fortem
and in manu robusta. y h w h is customarily regarded as the one who exercises
pressure (by means of plagues). Cassuto, however, considers the second ‘under
heavy pressure’ to be an activity of Pharaoh and his people (cf. 12:33), while
Hyatt even contends that the first ‘under heavy pressure’ modifies Pharaoh;
Noth does the same (though he regards the first statement concerning Pharaoh
as secondary). Fensham even states that God makes it plain to Moses that
liberation is not possible until the people are no longer so attached to the
comforts of Egyptian civilization; Pharaoh must first force the people to part
with ‘the flesh pots of Egypt.’ My interpretation is that the expression indicates
activity by y h w h in both cases and that the recurrence is meaningful. The
pressures which will be exerted on Pharaoh will be so great that he will be
12 For the alternation between both words in the OT, see H. Graetz, MGJW 29 (1880), 49-57.
500 exodus 5:22-7:13
induced to drive the people out. He will no longer wish to keep them in his
land under and circumstances, ‘let go,’ see Introd. § 3.49.2. ®*n, see 2:17; the
suffixes of the verbal forms modify the collective ‘people’ of 5:23.
6:2 God continued the exchange with Moses with the words: 7 am y h w h .
6:3 I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob as El Shaddai, although I
did not make myself known to them by my name y h w h . ’
As mentioned earlier in the Introduction to the exegesis, 6:2 marks the
beginning of p’s version of Moses’ calling and career according to advocates of
the documentary hypothesis. Among exegetes who do not subscribe to the
theory mentioned, Gispen and Cassuto presume that some time has passed
between 6:1 and the events reported in 6:2. My interpretation is that in the
present text, 6:2 is intended to be the continuation of the dialogue. Q'd'tk, the
Sam. Pent, reads mrr; the translation of the TO, TPsJ, TNf, Pesh. and Vulg.
are based on this reading. According to rabbinic tradition, the MT uses dv6 k
to indicate that God speaks as judge in response to Moses’ complaint, whereas
mrr is used at the close of the verse to designate God as the merciful one; see
ExR. VI, 1,3; MidrTanh. Exod., II, 4, as well as Rashi (who interprets “q ti in
the sense of ‘speaking with a stern voice’).
‘I am y h w h ,’ see Introd. § 7.3.7; TPsJ adds the following interpolation to ‘I
am y h w h ’: *who appeared to you from the thorn bush and who said to you: "I
am y h w h ’ .’ mo, see Introd. § 3.46.2; the Sam. Pent, reads moxi (cf. KoSynt §
194b). Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, see Introd. § 5.3, 33, 35; the Sam. Pent,
reads pm' Vki; see also the LXX and Pesh. (cf. Brockelmann § 128). S o, with
z-essentiae, ‘as,’ ‘in the capacity o f (cf. 3:2). ‘Shaddai,’ see Introd. § 7.4. 'Otfi
(with adversative waw); it is a matter of dispute whether 'tso is a subject (in a
verbal phrase possessing a double subject) alongside the personal subject ‘I’
(see Ehrlich, Holzinger; cf. Ges-K § 1441) or an object.1314 'nvTn, see Introd. §
3.22; the LXX contains the rendering dSf|X<oca ‘I have made known’; Pesh.,
Vulg. and the targumim also have ‘my name’ as the object of an active verb.
This does not need to lead to a reading of 'ninin as Beer indicates. The
translations are based on the desire to avoid the somewhat complicated
Hebrew construction in the translation.
6:4 7 not only reaffirm the promise which I made to them, that I would give
them the land o f Canaan as a heritage, the land o f their exile where they stayed as
13 See KoSynt § 338z; Ges-K § 119i; Jouon § 133c; Brockelmann § 106g; Williams § 249, and
see also C.H. Gordon, JBL 100 (1981), 612f.
14 See KoSynt § 328e, g (‘accusative of specification’); Jouon § 126g (‘accusative of limitation’)
as well as Dillmann, Strack. See also W.R. Garr, T h e Grammar and Interpretation of Exodus
6:3 "JBL 111 (1992), 385-408; G.E. Whitney, "Alternative Interpretations of /d ’ in Exodus 6:3 and
Jeremiah 7:22," WThJ 48 (1986), 151-59.
sojourners,
6:5 but I have also heard the groaning o f the Israelites who have been forced by
the Egyptians to perform forced labour; and I have remembered my promise. ’
on (cf. 6:5), see Introd. § 3.11.2. 'rrarri* *nopn, see 2:24. jra, see Introd. § 3.36.
‘Canaan,’ see Introd. § 8.14. ‘the land of their sojourning’ and the following
words is in apposition to ‘the land of Canaan’; onroo and to, see 2:22; it is
mentioned twice that Canaan is the land where the patriarchs stayed as
sojourners, i.e., it did not belong to them. The repetition is meant to accen
tuate that the (later) possession of the land was not self-evident and was not
based on historical ownership, but was a gift from y h w h . See Gen. 17:2-8 with
a view to 6:4; only the promise of the land is not yet mentioned here; the
promise of numerous offspring has been realized (1:7). yields emphasis (e.g.
Ges-K § 135a; Joiion § 146a; Brockelmann § 34b). ‘hear,’ see Introd. § 3.5.1.
npK3, see 2:24; the Sam. Pent, reads nnpi. t»k, see Introd. § 3.7.2; the subor
dinate clause is obviously not to be understood in the sense of limitation, as
though there were two classes of Israelites, oppressed and not oppressed.
Rashi believes that the clause introduced by tb>k contains the substance of
Israel’s complaint: they lament that... A more obvious interpretation is to view
"l&K as causal. The subordinate clause indicates the cause of the groaning.
-Qy, see Introd. § 3.37.1. ‘remembered,’ see Introd. § 3.18.1; the Sam. Pent,
reads maun (cf. 3:8). *rr*o, i.e., the promise mentioned in 6:4; it is assumed
that the promise also counts for the offspring of the patriarchs (cf. Gen.
17:7f.); Rashi relates the mention of r r o to Gen. 15, particularly to the
announcement of a judgement over Egypt in vs. 14. 6:5 agrees with 2:24 to a
large extent, y h w h ’s reasoning in 6:4,5 unfolds as follows: y h w h states that
(a) He has promised the land of Canaan to the patriarchs (6:4) and (b) He is
aware of Israel’s oppression (6:5) and that there is thus every reason for him
to be obliged by his promise to the patriarchs (to act on the realization of that
promise). The fact mentioned in 6:4 itself already provides sufficient grounds
for such action. The situation reported in 6:5 only adds to the urgency for such
action.
6:6 Therefore say to the Israelites, T am YHWH; hence I will lead you out from
under the toil exacted by the Egyptians; I will free you from the forced labour
imposed by the Egyptians; I will liberate you with irresistible force, with punishing
blows*;’
p^, LXX renders as pdSiê ‘go’; some suppose that this translation is based on
a reading of mb (Dillmann) or n:mr\b (Ehrlich); Ehrlich and Beer think that the
context requires a verb of motion (cf. Gen. 37:14); TNf reads mraan ‘with an
oath’= ‘I swear to you!’; our translation is based on 1 Sam. 3:14 where pb is
used in connection with an oath; it may be concluded that the particle assumes
an oath (see ExR. VI, 4; Rashi relates it to the assurance given in Gen.
15:13ff.).
502 E X O D U S 5:22-7:13
]ob (OT ca. 200 x) occurs in Exodus only here. The particle connects what
precedes with what follows; it highlights what follows on the basis of what has
just preceded. At this juncture the sense could be defined as ‘in view of the
situation sketched in 6:2-5’ and the particle translated as ‘therefore’ (‘hence’),
pb is here followed by the qal imper. sing, of istt; this is also true of Num.
25:12 but for the rest this combination occurs only in Ezekiel (8x; ll:16f., et
al.; also with related verbs [7x]; 11:4, et al.).15
‘I am y h w h ,’ an indication of the manner in which Moses is to present
himself (cf. 3:14,15) is not given; a formula such as ‘Thus speaks y h w h ’ (cf.
5:1) is lacking; as y h w h ’s representative Moses must speak as though he were
his Lord himself (cf. 3:2) and must introduce divine words in the same manner
as God himself introduces them (6:2). ‘lead out,’ see Introd. § 3.24.2; the
inverted perfect *ntetim - as well as the other inverted perfects in 6 :6 -8 —
indicate that there is a logical consequence on the basis of the statement ‘I am
YHWH’ (e.g. KoSynt § 367x; Joiion § 119e). nbno (cf. 6:7), see 1:11. see 2:19
and particularly 5:23; Moses used this verb with a strong negation in the
complaint he addresses to y h w h ; y h w h uses it here without negation. The use
of this verbs lends 6 :6 -8 the character of a response by y h w h to 5:23. Moses
complained, it is true, that no trace of an imminent liberation could be
detected, but now y h w h declares that the liberation will come to pass and
further indicates his plans for the people. ‘Forced labour,’ see Introd. § 3.37.4.
•rfooi, qal perf. cons, of Vk: (OT qal ca. 95x; niph. 8x), ‘redeem,’ occurs
2x in Exodus in the qal with y h w h as subject to signify the liberation from
Egypt (6:6; 15:13; cf. Ps. 74:2; 77:16; 78:35; 106:10; Isa. 51:10; 63:9). is
originally a technical term used to indicate the redemption of the possessions
or persons of a sib that have become the property of and fallen under the
control of individuals that do not belong to the sib; the ‘redemption’ en
deavours to supplant the tainted situation with the original situation, to
restore the disturbed equilibrium (e.g. Lev. 25:23ff.). It cannot be established
with certainty to what extent this notion still reverberates in 6:6; 15:13. In 6:6
the term refers to redemption from slavery (cf. Lev. 25:47ff.), whereas in 6:3f.,
8 it refers to y h w h ’s promise to the patriarchs. This makes it possible to
assert that the sense of ‘redeem’ here amounts to ‘freeing from alien control’
(to which state the offspring of the patriarchs had sunk) and to restore to the
authority of the legitimate master; y h w h was obligated to do this by his
promise.16 men m o , see Introd. § 3.21.8; this amounts to a reiterated variant
15 See further W.E. March, “Ldkert: Its Functions and Meanings,* in J J . Jackson — M. Kessler
(eds.), Fs J.Muilenburg, Rhetorical Criticism, Pittsburg 1974, 256-84; B. Jongeling, "Lak5n dans
l’Ancien Testament,* OTS 21 (1981), 190-200; H. Lenhard, ZAW 95 (1983), 269ff.
16 See further THAT , I, 383ff.; TWAT, I, 884ff.; E. Beaucamp, "Alle origini della Parola
‘Redenzione’: 11 ‘Riscatto’ nell’ Antico Testamento," BeO 21 (1979), 3-11; D.A. Leggett, The
Levirate and Goel Institutions in the Old Testament, Cherry Hill, NJ 1974.
of nptrt T 3 in 6:1 (TNf also reads ‘with a strong hand’ in 6:6). The manner in
which yhwh carries out the work of redemption is elaborated (explicative
waw) by the words D'Vii O'DDtfai; see 2:14 and 2:10; the plagues are what is
being referred to here (7:14ff.; cf. Gen. 15:14); the Sam. Pent, reads D*no»n3
here and in 7:4.
6:7 7 will therefore adopt you as my people and I will be God to you and you
will realize that it is I, YHWH, your God, who leads you out from under the labour
imposed by the Egyptians;’
‘adopt’ (‘take’),see Introd. § 3.30; ExR. VI, 4, regards npb as a fourth verb
following the three verbs of 6:5, all serving to signify the liberation (and relates
it to the custom of drinking four glasses during the easter meal; cf. Ps. 116:13);
see also Leibowitz, 122ff.; she rules that this is a climax leading up to the
ultimate purpose of the divine intervention: ‘and I will be God to you’ (6:6); in
my view 6:6 is no longer referring to the liberation and one cannot say that the
second statement in 6:6 represents a climax; the course of events is simply
described in logical sequence and ends with the declaration concerning the
possession of the land, ‘as my people,’ see Introd. § 3.40.1; cf. 19:5; within the
context of Exodus this statement can be understood as an allusion to the
events at Mt. Sinai (cf. Deut. 7:6); see TNf 6:7a in this connection: ‘I will
separate you for my name to be a nation of holy people,’ as well as TO and
TPsJ: ‘I will make you draw near to be (my) people.’
‘and I will be God to you,’ can be understood in this context as an expli
cation of the tetragrammaton; the declaration represents a renewal of the
promise made in Gen. 17:7f.17 onvTi, see Introd. § 3.22; the inverted perfect
here again signifies the presence of a logical consequence; ‘I am yhwh’ (6:6)
underscores that it is yhwh who leads them out, etc.; the aim of this state
ment is to convince the people that yhwh is on their side and helps them; the
pledge to lead them out is accompanied by the announcement that the people
will be fully aware that the exodus is YHWH’s doing; this implies that they in
turn will be wholly and completely devoted to yhwh. Where the announ
cement of liberation uses ‘I am yhwh’ (6:6), now that yhwh has declared that
he will adopt Israel as his people and be their God, the clause introduced by '3
17 With 6:7a in mind see also 29:45; Lev. 11:45; 22:32f.; 25:38; 26:12, 45; Deut. 26:17f.; 29:13;
Isa. 43:1; Jer. 7:23; 11:4; 24:7; 31:33; Ezek. 11:20; Hos. 2:1, 25 as well as A. Jepsen, "Berith: Ein
Beitrag zur Theologie der Exilszeit," in Fs W. Rudolph, Verbannung und Heimkehr, Tubingen 1961,
161-79 (171 f.); E. Kutsch, * ‘Ich wil euer Gott sein’ berit in der Priesterschrift," ZThK 71 (1974),
361-88 (373ff.); as is well known, ‘I am the Lord your God,’ is the ‘constitutive promise to Israel’
according to G. Baumgartel, Verheiflung Gutersloh 19; Von Rad, Theol AT, I, 183f., thinks that in
Gen. 17:7f. the priestly author already adumbrates the revelation at Mt. Sinai; see, however, L.
Dequeker, "Noah and Israel," in C. Brekelmans (ed.), Questions disputes dAncien Testament,
Leuven 1974, 115-29; he asserts (117f.) that the text contains a promise by God that he will be with
the patriarchs and their offspring (cf. Gen. 26:24; 28:13, 15; 31:5; 46:3, 4; Exod. 3:6, 9ff., 16).
504 exo dus 5:22-7:13
is able shift to ‘I, yhwh your God’ instead; the God who presents himself as ‘I
am yhwh’ and who leads the people out is Israel’s own God.
K'sian, it is preferable to translate the participle with the present tense rather
than with the past tense; as soon as yhwh initiates action, awareness will
dawn. In describing what the people will be aware of, the first promise of
yhwh, the exodus, is repeated as representing the totality of God’s promises.
The text does not leave it at that, however. In 6:8 it moves on to state that the
promise of the land made to the patriarchs also applies to their offspring.
6:8 ‘and I will bring you to the land which I swore that I would give as a
heritage to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, and I will give it to you as a
heritage. I am y h w h . ’
*n»om (cf. Ges-K § 72w), see Introd. § 3.8. ■»*, see Introd. § 3.7.1; here it is
the object of two clauses, according to KoSynt § 414k; it seems rather more
plausible to regard Tirol as dependent on ‘I am yhwh’ (6:6).
•ttin *nK»3, for t see Introd. § 3.21.4; is a frequently occurring verb in
the OT (ca. 655x; qal ca. 595x; niph. 33x) and occurs in Exodus 31 x (qal
30x; niph. lx ). The following may be mentioned in terms of its use in
Exodus: qal ‘raise’ (particularly in order to take along), ‘take along,’ ‘carry,’
‘bear’ is used with various things as its object (12:34; 25:14, 27; 27:7; 28:12,
29f.; 30:4; 37:5, 14f.; see also niph. in 25:28), people (metaphorically with
yhwh as subject; 19:4; cf. Deut. 1:31; 32:11), animals (10:13, 19; with the wind
as subject; cf. Job 27:11) as well as metaphorically for assuming or bearing
tasks (18:22; cf. Num. 11:17). With the ‘heart’ (see Introd. § 3.29.2) of a person
as its subject xfco occurs in the sense of getting someone to do something,
driving them to do something (35:21, 26; 36:2; cf. 2 Kgs. 14:10); is also
used for ‘display’ with the mouth, the spoken word; with as (20:7; Deut. 5:11;
cf. Ps. 16:4) and with s?o» (see Introd. § 3.51.1) as its object (23:1; cf. Ps.
15:3)18. tt»: occurs with »to as its object (see 6:14) in the sense of ‘count’
(30:12; cf. Num. 1:2,49, et al.). See Introd. § 3.20.1 for usage of kb: with xon
and related terms as its object, and see Introd. § 3.21.4 (+T ) and §3.38
(+0T») for usage of Kfs: with parts of the body to indicate a gesture. The only
derivatives of Kts: that occur in Exodus are R&o ‘burden’ (23:5; cf. 2 Kgs. 5:17;
8:9) and ir?) (see 16:22). See further THAT, II, 109ff.; TfVAT, V, 626ff.
‘the land’ is obviously the land specified in 6:4; the repetition of the names
of the patriarchs makes this abundantly clear; the mention of the names brings
yhwh back to the beginning of his address; the LXX uses the copula for Isaac
here as well (cf. 6:3). n»nin (OT 9x; Ezek. 7x) ‘possession,’ ‘property’ (cf.
Ezek. 11:15; 25:10; 33:24) is one of the derivatives of sn* ‘take possession o f
that occurs frequently as a verb in the OT (ca. 230x; qal ca. 160x) and of
18 See, however, P. Joiion, Bib 7 (1926), 288ff.; his opinion is that K®3 in 23:1; Deut. 33:3; Ps.
24:5 means ‘recevoir.’
which the meaning is somewhat disputed. Only the hiph. an* occurs 2x in
Exodus (OT ca. 65 x) in the sense of ‘destroy,’ i.e., get rid of the owner in
order to take over his property (15:9; 34:24). In 34:24 y h w h is the subject (cf.
Num. 32:12; Deut. 4:38; 9:4, 5) and is often rendered as ‘drive off.’ The
impression thus raised is that the nations must relinquish their place of
residence and establish themselves elsewhere. This is not correct, however.
They are exterminated. Lohfink suggests that hiph. an* means ‘to make poor’
not only in 1 Sam. 2:7, but also in 15:9; Zech. 9:4 and Job 20:15.19 Israel
receives the land as a possession (cf. Gen. 17:8; 28:4; 35:12). The time of their
sojourning (6:4) will belong to the past.
First interlude: Moses again with the people (6:9)

6:9 When Moses spoke thus to the Israelites, however, they no longer wished to
listen to Moses because their spirit had been broken by the relentless forced
labour.
■d t % cf. 6:2; now with Moses as its subject; Moses accomplishes y h w h ’s
mission; note the alternation between m*t (for Moses’ commissioning; 6:6) and
131 (for its execution), p , see 1:12; Moses conveys the words reported in 6:6-8.
‘not listen,’ see Introd. § 3.51.1; cf. 3:18; 4:1. rm ispo, see Introd. § 3.47.2. ‘the
relentless forced labour,’ see Introd. § 3.37.4 and 1:14 (rrc?p). In the TPsJ the
concluding words of 6:9 have been rendered as follows: ‘and because of the
foreign and heavy service on their hands,’ i.e., the idolatry which they per
formed; TPsJ here articulates an exegetical tradition based on interpreting mai?
in the sense of ‘worship’ and on reading 6:9 in the light of 20:7f.; see also
bSota, lib ; ExR. VI, 5; M ek\2:6 (I, 38).
If one takes into account the coherence which the final editors intended then
the following picture emerges: The Israelites who had initially (4:31) welcomed
the divine envoy wish to have nothing further to do with Moses after the
redoubling of their forced labour (5:6ff.). After 5:21 this was to be expected.
The Sam. Pent. (cf. SamT) forges a connection between 6:9 and 14:12, includ
ing an interpolation at 6:9, n»o btt notn, followed by Vin and the words that
follow it in 14:12. The Sam. Pent, has thus created a niche for words which
must have been spoken during Moses’ stay in Egypt, according to 14:12. See
also Field at 6:9 on this text tradition. Ishodad also mentions this reading.
The dialogue resumed (6:10-12)

6:10 YHWH then addressed Moses with the following words:
6:11 ‘Go tell Pharaoh, the king o f Egypt, the message that he must let the
Israelites leave his land. ’
■o t i , it is again y h w h ’s turn to speak; it is assumed that Moses, now that he
19 See further THAT, I, 778ff.; TWAT, III, 954ff.; N. Lohfink, *Die Bedeutungen von hebr. jri
qal und hit,* BZ 27 (1983), 14-33; Ehrlich at 6:8.
506 exodus 5:22-7:13
no longer has any audience among the Israelites, has again sought contact with
yhwh (cf. 5:22). See Ges-K § 20c, note, for dageS forte coniunctivum; cf. 6:29;
15:24. to (see Introd. § 3.8), the force of the imperative here basically amounts
to a particle of exhortation (cf. KOSynt § 357k). *oi, cf. tok in 6:6. ‘Pharaoh,
the king of Egypt,’ see Introd. § 5.66. rfon (see Introd. § 3.49.2), with copula
tive waw to introduce a final clause after an imperative (cf. KOSynt § 3641;
Ges-K § 165a). ‘Out of his country,’ cf. the close of 6:1; both of the last words
of 6:11 call to mind the promise made by yhwh in 6:1; in order to realize
what was promised in 6:6-8, yhwh cannot dodge a confrontation with Phar
aoh.
The demand with which Moses must go to Pharaoh is reminiscent of 5:1. No
mention is made this time of the destination to which Pharaoh must release
the Israelites (cf. 5:3). This way of drafting the demand makes it more sweep
ing and more inclusive (cf. 4:23 and 7:2; 9:35; 11:10). Within the present form
of the book of Exodus, yhwh’s renewed mission for Moses to go to Pharaoh
signifies that yhwh wants to once more, that is, for the second time, grant
Pharaoh the opportunity to acquiesce in yhwh’s demand before He resorts to
more forceful means.
6:12 Moses then turned in awe to YHWH with the following words: ‘I f even the
Israelites no longer want to listen to me, why do you suppose that Pharaoh will
want to listen, and then to a person such as myself, who lacks every form o f
eloquence?’
mn—id1? msn *q t i , see Introd. § 3.42.2; the expression probably refers to
prayerful speaking, accompanied by the gestures which are associated with
prayer. Moses, who has discharged the mission to address the Israelites without
so much as a word of protest (6:9), ventures to express his doubts about
yhwh’s new mission. The tone, however, is different than that of the earlier
objections voiced in chaps. 3 and 4. Moreover, by going to the people Moses
has shown himself quite willing to act in yhwh’s service. The Moses who
speaks here is not the Moses of 4:13 any more.20 p , see Introd. § 3.15.2.
T« (OT ca. 60 x) ‘how’ is used both for the introduction of questions as
well as exclamations (there is a natural affinity between questions and exclama
tions; e.g. KOSynt § 354f; Ges-K § 148; Joiion § 162b; Brockelmann § 12); j k
is used in 6:12,30 for a question full of bewilderment and incomprehension,
that has the character of an exclamation (cf. Gen. 26:9; 39:9; 44:8). D*nD» Vn?
(for the construct chain see KOSynt § 336h and for the vocalization, Ges-K §
93 hh); the expression has been rendered in various ways by the ancient
versions: LXX &Xoy6<; ‘speechless’ (=not eloquent); in 6:30 it has to%v6<ptov6(;
See, however, Exit VII, 1, 2: Moses’ reference to the people’s reluctance to listen is
characterized as an inappropriate remark which results in the fact that Moses is not allowed to
perform the signs alone, but is given Aaron assistance; cf. Ginzberg, II, 341.
Vith stammering voice,’ however (cf. 4:10); Symm.: o-uk elfii KaOapdq rep
(pdiyjiau ‘I do not have an eloquent voice’; TO V xa^'p' ‘speaking heavily
(with difficulty)’ (cf. 4:10); TPsJ *»p ‘speaking with difficulty’; TNf bbm -art
‘speak falteringly’ (cf. 4:10 and also TPsJ at 4:10); Aq., Theod., and Vulg.
translate literally ‘uncircumcised of lips.’ See 2:2 for no®.
b~\y (OT ca. 35 x) (cf. nVis? in 4:25) is an adjective that means “with fores
kin,’ ‘uncircumcised’ (e.g. Gen. 17:4; Josh. 5:7) which can function as a
substantive (12:48). The term is used metaphorically more than once.212 This
is also true of ‘uncircumcised of lips’ in 6:12,20. Moses declares not to have
been introduced to the secrets of speaking, not to be a practised orator, not to
possess eloquence. Ehrlich, assuming that the author presupposes that Pharaoh
spoke Hebrew (cf. 2:10), believes that Moses means to say that he no longer
speaks fluent Hebrew due to his prolonged stay in foreign parts. The notion
that ‘uncircumcised’ is not used metaphorically but indicates a speech im
pediment (the lips to no separate easily) has also been proposed (e.g. Keil,
Gispen, Te Stroete, Honeycutt, and see further at 4:10). Moses was scep
tical about his persuasive powers with regard to the people in 4:10; now he is
apprehensive about his ability to exert any influence on Pharaoh by means of
words. Judging by the context, it may be said that his doubts had been rein
forced by the lack of any effect which his words had had on the people. It may
also be that the context suggests the following implication: From the fact that
the mission to go to Pharaoh is given to him alone, Moses concludes that
Aaron’s role has drawn to an end. This is for him reason to once again point
out his ineptitude.
Second interlude: Moses’ and Aaron’s lineage (6:13-28)

6:13 YHWH addressed Moses and Aaron and sent them to the Israelites and to
Pharaoh, the king o f Egypt, charging them with leading the Israelites out o f the
land o f Egypt.
It seems that there is loose connection between 6:13 and 6:12 (the Masoretes
too have placed a pause after 6:12). 6:13 is not in the first place intended as
y h w h ’s reaction to Moses’ apprehension. The translators of the LXX, how
ever, have apparently interpreted as such. As a result they have omitted from
their translation any mention of the sending of Moses and Aaron to the
Israelites (see also Beer) as being unintelligible after 6:9 (see also 6:lff.). The
targumim have used a different strategy to make the problematical verse
21 Lev. 19:23; 26:41; Jer. 6:10; 9:25; Ezek. 44:7, 9; see also Deut. 10:16; 30:6; Jer. 4:4; cf. R. Le
D6aut, “Le Th£me de la Circoncision du Coeur (Dtn 30 6; J6r 4 4) dans les Version Anciennes
(LXX et Targum) et a Qumran,“ SVT 32 (1981), 178-205.
22 It should be pointed out that ‘heavy’ in 4:10 and ‘uncircumcised’ here correspond in meaning;
see Isa. 6:10 (cf. Isa. 59:1; Zech. 7:11) where ‘heavy ears’= ‘uncircumcised ears’ in Jer. 6:10; or
Exod. 7:17 where ‘heavy heart’= ‘uncircumcised heart’ in Lev. 26:41; note also that the rendering of
4:10 and 6:12, 30 correspond in TO and TNf.
508 exodus 5:22-7:13
intelligible. The translation of the TPsJ for the words at issue is: ‘and gave
them warnings with the Israelites in mind and sent them to Pharaoh’; TO and
TNf: ‘and gave them commands with respect to the Israelites and with respect
to Pharaoh’ (see also the Vulg.: et dedit mandatum ad Olios Israhel et ad
Pharao ...); the rabbinic tradition takes ‘with respect to the Israelites’ to mean
that Moses and Aaron are to be patient with the people, who will even curse
them and cast stones at them; “with respect to the Pharaoh’ is taken to mean
that they should treat Pharaoh respectfully.23 can mean “with respect to’
(see the lexicons). The context does not seem to lend itself for such an
interpretation, however. 6:13 seems intended as introduction to 6:14ff. The
verse has the character of a summary and as such, refers to what precedes
(Moses and Aaron go to Israel) and to what follows (Moses and Aaron go to
Pharaoh). Before the author goes on to tell how y h w h responds to Moses’s
doubts and misgivings, he considers it appropriate to point out to the reader
and remind him that y h w h has assigned not just Moses but Aaron a role as
well in the exodus from Egypt (cf. 4:14ff., 27ff.; see also 5: Iff., 20). Before
explicitly reporting that God had destined Aaron not only to play a role next
to Moses in relation to the people, but also to act as his spokesman before
Pharaoh, the author considers this juncture an apt moment to provide infor
mation regarding their ancestry. Now that the situation is drastic and entirely
hopeless it is about time to notify the reader that y h w h has not chosen just
any Israelites to act as his representatives.
ms, see Introd. § 3.43.1. ‘to the Israelites,’ the intention is evidently not that
Moses is again sent to the Israelites, this time together with Aaron, but rather
to sum up what has just happened (see above), ‘leading out,’ cf. 6:6, 7 and see
Introd. § 3.24.2.
General comments concerning the genealogy (6:14-25)

The genealogy may be represented schematically as follows:
Reuben (61) Simeon (64)
Hanoch (25a) Jemuel (31)

Pallu (57) Jamin (32)
Hezron (26) Ohad (4)
Carmi (38) Jachin (30)
Zohar (58)
S a u l(63)
Levi (40)
23 See e.g. ExR VII, 3; Mek. I, 101, as well as Rashi, and see further Ginzberg, II, 340f.;
Leibowitz, 141 ff.; in addition to the haggadic explanation, Rashi also offers a rudimentary
explanation: *with regard to Israel and concerning the mission to Pharaoh,’ the content of which is
expounded in the following chapter after the genealogy.
Gershon (20) Kohath (59) Merari (44)
Libni (39) Shimei (65) Mahli (42) Mushi (41)
Amram (54) Izhar (34) Hebron (24) Uzziel (52)
Aaron (6)/Moses (45) Korah (60)/Nepheg (49)/Zichri (23) Mishael (43)/Elzaphan (ll)/Sithri (51)
Nadab (46)/Abihu (2)/Eleazar (12)/Ithamar (9) Assir (14)/Elkanah (13)/Abiasaph (1)
Phinehas (56)
The numbers between parentheses trailing the names indicate the number of
the sub-section where these names are discussed in the Introd. § 5.
a. The names in the genealogy are frequently not merely personal names
but the name designating collective/social units.24 The collectives bear the
name of their ancestor. The name Reuben in the formula p ita nina»o n'w in
6:14 is thus a designation of the tribe of Reuben. rno»n rfo< refers to the
names of the sons of Reuben mentioned just previously. Their names are the
names of the Reubenite sibs of which they are the ancestor (cf. Num. 26:5ff.);
see further 6:15, 19, 24 as well as 6:17, 25.
b. Material from various sources has been used for the composition of the
genealogy (see Baentsch, Heinisch, Childs as well as Eerdmans, 21ff.). Along
side of 6:14, one should examine Gen. 46:9-11, the beginning of the genealogy
of Jacob (cf. Num. 26:5ff.; 1 Chr. 5). The author of Exodus mentions only
Reuben, Simeon (and their sons), and Levi, disregarding the other sons (see
l:lff., however). Although the author mentions only the sons of Reuben and
Simeon, he elaborately reports Levi’s lineage, for which he draws material
from other sources. The genealogy of Levi is described elsewhere as well.
Alongside of 6:16-25, see Num. 3:17ff.; 26:57ff. as well as 1 Chr. 5:27ff.;
23:6ft25 The question that arises is whether we can establish the aim that
guided the author in selecting from the material at his disposal. What is clear
is that his primary concern is to sketch Moses’ and Aaron’s ancestry. If is for
this reason that when he reaches Levi, the author foregoes comment on the
further genealogy of Jacob. For his purpose it is sufficient that the reader has
been made aware that Levi was the ancestor of Moses and Aaron, the third
son of Jacob, and that they are thus authentic Israelites. It is consistent with
his purpose that he pays particular attention to Amram (6:20, Aaron (6:23),
24 It should be noted that a number of the names are gentilic/patronymic in terms of their form:
Carmi (6:14), Merari (6:16), Libni (6:17), Shimei (6:17), Mahli (6:19), Mushi (6:19), Zichri (6:21),
Sithri (6:22).
^ Alongside of 6:23 see Num. 3:2; 26:60 as well as 1 Chr. 5:29; 24:1; with regard to the
genealogy of Levi, see in particular K. Mohlenbrink, "Die levitischen Uberlieferungen des Alten
Testaments," Z A W 52 (1934), 184-231.
510 E X O D U S 5:22-7:13
and Eleazar (6:23), even mentioning their spouses. The reader ought to know
that the Aaronic line is of pure descent on both the paternal and the maternal
side. To accentuate the prominence of Aaron, his lineage is continued through
to his grandson (6:25). This brings us to the question of how the mention of
the remaining persons ought to be interpreted.
Cassuto approvingly refers to Rashbam’s view, who proposes that the Levites
are presented here already so that the reader will know who they are and what
their position within their family was when their names are later en
countered.26 J. Magonet27 subscribes to such a view and even believes that
the genealogy indicates the cause for Korah’s rebellion in a disguised manner.
Korah and Elzaphan as well are nephews of Moses and Aaron and belong to
the same generation; according to Num. 3:30 Elzaphan had attained a promi
nent position; put briefly (pp. 4ff.), Korah fomented an insurrection because
he felt slighted.
The idea that the author wishes to introduce a number of people who are to
play a role in upcoming events by means of the genealogy seems attractive
enough at first blush. The material itself makes it arguable, however. A
number of the persons mentioned is mentioned nowhere else in the OT:
Nepheg and Zichri (6:21), Sithri (6:22), Elisheba (6:23), Putiel (6:25); Assir,
Elkanah, and Abiasaph (6:24) are mentioned nowhere else in the Pen
tateuch.28 The sons of Hebron (6:18), who we know from other material in
the Pentateuch to have been the ancestor of a Levitic line, are left unmen
tioned. As mentioned earlier, the author uses material at his disposal, and he
seems to have gone about incorporating this material rather mechanically.
Note for instance the qualification, ‘the son of a Canaanite woman,’ in 6:15
which does not seem to perform any direct function (it is missing in Num.
25:13; 1 Chr. 4:24). It does not seem that one can draw any conclusions
regarding the author’s purpose purely from the fact that not only Aaron’s
offspring are mentioned, but Korah’s too. All that is apparent is that he wishes
to focus attention on Aaron’s descendants (6:25). This has led him to adopt a
section (which includes persons that play no further role in the narrative)
(6:24) which happened to have been intermediately placed in his sources.
c. The points touched on above make it clear that material which the
author uses reveals familiarity with traditions nowhere else represented in the
OT. In view of the mechanical way in which the author has employed older
material it does not seem plausible to suppose that he has omitted anything
56
Among modem commentators, the theory occurs that Aaron’s and Korah’s genealogy is
continued in 6:23ff. because their families were to play a role in the upcoming history of Israel; e.g.
Keil, Dillmann, Baentsch; cf. Heinisch: Aaron was the high priest; Korah revolted against Moses
(Num. 16) and his family was assigned the task of taking care of the temple music.
27 T h e Korah Rebellion,' JSOT 24 (1982), 3-25.
28 Ibn Ezra, referring to Num. 26:11, comments that they are mentioned because they did not
participate in Korah’s revolt.
which his source material contained with respect to Moses’ descendants.

Various suggestions have been made concerning the omission of Moses’ wife
and children from the genealogy. It has been suggested, for instance, that
Moses’ descendants are not mentioned because they committed idolatry in Dan
(Judg. 18:30, conjecture; see Introd. § 5.19) (e.g. Eerdmans, 22; Heinisch,
Clamer). Ehrlich, on the other hand, thinks that Moses’ wife and children are
not mentioned because they played no role in Israel’s history. Gispen draws
attention to the following: Information has already been given concerning
Moses’ family in 2:21f.; the list contains the names of the heads of priestly
clans; Moses was not a priest. Knight (who also points out that Moses’
grandson committed idolatry) even reaches the following verdict: ‘Moses did
not found a dynasty of saints, rulers, or generals. Ex wants us to see that the
people of Israel are not to be parallelled with the Egyptians ruled by long
kingly dynasties. It is the People of God that matters, not Moses, not the
“ministry".’ Rylaarsdam concludes from the fact that the genealogy proceeds
via Aaron and not via Moses that its aim is to accentuate the legitimacy and
authority of the post-exilic priesthood: ‘Moses is the prophet by whom God
spoke in the foundation of the nation, and who instructed the priests. But he
has no extant continuation. The priests build on the foundation he laid long
ago.’ Attention should be drawn to several studies by R.R. Wilson in this
context.29 He strongly stresses that genealogies were traditionally created not
to provide historical information but on behalf of political-legal and religious
purposes.
d. The fact that the main thrust of the genealogy is formed by the line of
Levi-Kohath-Moses-Amram-Moses and Aaron is also shown by the fact that
lifespans are only supplied for the first three mentioned. Levi’s (6:16) and
Amram’s (6:20) lifespan was a hundred and thirty-seven years; Kohath’s (6:18)
was a hundred and thirty-three.30 It is not unlikely that the numbers possess
symbolic significance. A satisfactory explication cannot be offered, however.
Reference is here made to Heinisch’s theory: Jacob reached the age of a
hundred and forty-seven years (Gen. 47:28) =2x70+7 or 3x7x7; Levi a
hundred and thirty-seven=147-10; Kohath a hundred and thirty-three=
137-4; the ages decrease and so does the symbolical weight. Amram again
29 “The Old Testament Genealogies in Recent Research,* JBL 94 (1975), 169-89; Genealogy
and History in the Biblical World, New Haven 1977; “Between ‘Azel’ and ‘Azel’: Interpreting the
Biblical Genealogies," BA 42 (1979), 11-22; see further G. Galil, “The Sons of Judah and the Sons
of Aaron in Biblical Historiography,* VT 35 (1985), 488-95; M.D. Johnson, The Purpose o f the
Biblical Genealogies with Special Reference to the Setting of the Genealogies o f Jesus, Cambridge
1988^; M. Oeming, Das wahre Israel: Die \genealogische Vorhalle’ 1 Chronik 1-9, Stuttgart et al.
1990; K.F. Plum, “Genealogy as Theology,* SJOT 1 (1989), 66-92; G.A. Rendsburg, “The Internal
Consistency and Historical Reliability of the Biblical Genealogies,* VT 40 (1990), 185-206.
30 There are other traditions with respect to Kohath’s and Amram’s lifespan; see commentary at
6:18,20; see Introd. § 4.4, 8 and 4.14, 2 for the numbers.
512 exodus 5:22-7:13
reaches the age of a hundred and thirty-seven years because he is the father of
Moses and Aaron. The lifespan of Terah, the father of Abraham, was also
greater than his father’s (Gen. 11:25-32). Holzinger considers it possible in
view of the high ages that the genealogy was originally constructed according
to the scheme of Gen. 5; ll:10ff. Baentsch goes no further than to ascertain
that the patriarchs were ascribed lifespans that surpass those of the normal
populace (cf. Strack). He does not believe that the specification of lifespans
has any chronological value. Ehrlich would disagree, stating that the patriarchs
were given such great age to fill out as much as possible the long delay of the
Israelites in Egypt. This brings us to the next point, the chronology.
e. The genealogy raises questions when considered in conjunction with
other material.31 Baentsch, for instance, points out that the genealogy is hard
to reconcile with the remark in 12:40f. that Israel’s stay in Egypt lasted 430
years (see also Gen. 15:30, which mentions 400 years), since the genealogy only
mentions four generations with regard to the sojourn in Egypt (Kohath,
Amram, Aaron, and Nadab). Notwithstanding the advanced ages reported for
Levi, Kohath, and Amram, the period of time mentioned in 12:40 cannot be
filled by four generations.32 The genealogy is also problematical with regard
to the particulars mentioned in Num. 3. The results of the census reported
there, which was held in the second year after the exodus from Egypt, cannot
be reconciled with the genealogy when this is regarded as a family tree in the
narrow sense. The sib of Gershon (who belonged to the second generation
prior to Moses and Aaron), for instance, is reported to count 7500 men and
boys (Num. 3:21f.) It is impossible that a line can expand to this extent in such
a short period. Baentsch concludes that the genealogy represents secondary
material within P. He asserts that all such genealogies amount to the chronol
ogically systematic product of artificial reflection which cannot simply be
accepted without further ado. With this particular genealogy a first glance
already shows as much; just note the confusion of personal names such as
Moses, Jochebed, Aaron, Elisheba, Amminadab with gentilic names such as
Libni, Shimei, Mushi, etc.33 Baentsch terms the presupposition that the
genealogy contains lacunae ‘an unsubstantiated counsel of embarrassment.’ It is
on this presupposition that the conceptions of the authors mentioned below
are based.
Keil believes that the Amram of 6:18 is not the same Amram as in 6:20, and
31 Rashi already drew attention to such problems; J.W. Colenso, one of the fathers of modem
biblical criticism, examines the relevant Old Testament material elaborately; see The Pentateuch
and Book o f Joshua, London 1871, 51ff.
32 Note that the persons mentioned lived simultaneously for part of the time and that Levi and
Kohath were already alive before the arrival in Egypt.
33 Bohl too emphasizes the artificial character of the genealogy: alongside of names which
belong to the ancestry of the priesthood of the Jerusalem sanctuary, the majority of the names
mentioned belong to the priestly lines of the large sanctuaries outside of Jerusalem.
that between the two a long series of generations has dropped out34 since
Num. 3:27f. indicates that in the time of Moses, who had only two sons, the sib
of the Kohathites counted 8600 men and boys.35 If one subscribes to the
theory that the genealogy is incomplete,36 then the period of 430 years
reported in 12:40f. obviously presents no problems. It must be noted that it is
not only conservative exegetes who draw attention to gaps in the genealogy.
Holzinger too focuses attention on this point (cf. also Michaeli). He notes that
it is odd that Aaron belongs to the fourth generation after Jacob while his wife
Elisheba belongs to the sixth (see Ruth 4:20; 1 Chr. 2:4-10). He reckons
Jochebed to the names which ‘float in the air’ in the present text. Jochebed’s
being made into a daughter of Levi in Num. 26:59 may rest on an incorrect
interpretation of 2:1 (according to Baentsch too), since ‘pg could scarcely allow
the high priestly line to descend from a marriage prohibited by Lev. 18:12’ (see
further commentary at 6:20).
Keil as well as Gispen assume with Gen. 15:16 in mind that only four
generations of Levites who lived in Egypt are mentioned (cf. also Heinisch).
Cassuto examines this point more closely and submits that the numbers
mentioned by the genealogy are meant to reconcile the tradition (Gen. 15:16)
that the fourth generation would leave Egypt (Levi represents the first gener
ation; Aaron the fourth) with the tradition of a 430 year stay in Egypt. He
points out that the if the sum of the numbers mentioned in Exod. 6 is increas
ed by Aaron’s age as reported in 7:7, the result amounts to 490 (137+133+
137+83). Taking into account Levi’s and Kohath’s stay in Canaan, he de
creases this amount by 60 (according to him they were using the sexagesimal
system), yielding 430. Cassuto acknowledges that the harmonization is ar
tificial, since no provision is made for the fact that the persons concerned were
contemporaries for at least part of the time. Another suggestion regarding the
genealogy’s chronology has been made by Auerbach, 15. He thinks that Israel’s
stay in Egypt lasted about 50 to 60 years (two generations), and therefore
attaches significance to the genealogy in Exodus 6: arrival in Egypt in Levi’s
time; stay in Egypt during Kohath and Amram’s life; exodus in Moses’ lifetime.
The advanced ages which are reported are secondary in his opinion, represen
34 By way of example he points to Ezra 7:13, where a number of people have been omitted
between two Azariahs, in comparison to 1 Chr. 5:33-35.
35 A consequence of this view is that Jochebed was not a daughter of Levi and a sister of
Kohath, but a female descendant of Levi in the general sense; Num. 26:59 is interpreted accor
dingly, Strack too believes that Jochebed is not a sister of Kohath; he takes a different tack in his
interpretation, however; several generations have been omitted after Kohath; Izhar and Uzziel are
brothers of Amram; their sons, Korah, Mishael, and Elzaphan, were living persons during the
desert wanderings (Lev. 10:4; cf. Num. 3:30); Strack attempts to account for Num. 3:27 by
suggesting that Kohathite clans were named after prominent living persons in Moses’ time (which
implies that the gentilic names do not refer to ancestors). Cf. also S. Levin, “An Unattested
‘Scribal Correction’ in Numbers 26,59?- Bib 71 (1990), 25-33.
36 See also Gispen, who for comparison’s sake refers to Ruth 4:18-22; Matt.l and other places.
514 E X O D U S 5:22-7:13
ting an artificial elaboration of the text meant to attain 430 years for the
duration of the sojourn; 430=80 (the years of Levi’s stay in Egypt) + 133
(Kohath) + 137 (Amram) + 80 (Moses’ ages at the time of the exodus; 7:7).
The above suggestions are based on the MT text of 12:40f. The LXX and the
Sam. Pent., however, relate the number of 430 to the period between the
arrival of the patriarchs in Canaan until the exodus from Egypt. This concep
tion has led to various chronologies in ancient times with respect to the 215
years of the sojourn in Egypt. See the exposition by P. Grelot37 concerning
the chronology of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs and the chronology
of Demetrius (in Eusebius, PE, IX, xxi, 1-19).
When one surveys the various explanations for the observed discrepancies
one can only conclude that they are of a rather manufactured nature. It seems
best simply to acknowledge that the manner in which the author has used
material from the various sources at his disposal has led to a presentation
which is not in every respect balanced and congruous.38
£ Strings of names occur a number of times in the genealogy. They are
normally connected by a copulative waw (cf. Joiion § 177o; Brockelmann §
128, 130a). This applies to pairs of names (6:17, 19, 20), and for summaries by
three (6:21, 22, 24), four (6:18), and six names (6:15). The four names men
tioned in 6:14, 23 are listed two by two, however. The copulative waw connects
the first with the second name and the third with the fourth. It is not easy to
establish whether or not significance should be attached to this. The sons of
Reuben in Gen. 46:9 are all four connected by the copula. In many MSS and
the Sam. Pent., however, the copula is lacking for the third son (contamination
by Exod. 6:14?). This is also true of 1 Chr. 5:3. One might suggest with respect
to Aaron’s sons that the paired listing expresses the connection between the
brothers thus listed which was to become apparent in the course of history
(Lev. 10; Num. 3:4). It should be noted that, as is more often the case, the
usage of the copula differs here from that in the Sam. Pent, and in the ancient
versions; in the Sam. Pent, and in the LXX the copula is missing in 6:16
before Kohath; in the Sam. Pent. 6:17 starts with (cf. 6:17, 19, 21, 22, 24)
(cf. Pesh.); LXX has icai oti-toi -uteri ‘and these are the sons ...’; the copula
before Hebron is missing in 6:18 in the Sam.Pen. and the LXX; the copula is
present before Eleazar in 6:23 in many MSS and in the Sam. Pent. (cf. LXX,
Pesh., Vulg.). It should be further noted that usage of the copula in my
translation agrees with English usage, and the copula has accordingly been left
untranslated in many cases.
g. What is striking in these enumerations of names is how often names with
the same initial letter occur, e.g. 6:19 - two names that start with o; 6:23 -
37 “Quatre cents trente ans (Exode 12,34: A propos de la chronologic sacerdotale du Pentateu-
que,* in Fs W. Komfeld, Studien m m Pentateuch, Wien et al. 1977, 91-8.
38 See also at 2:1 and Introd. § 11.4; cf. D.V. Etz, VT 43 (1993), 185f.
three of Aaron’s four sons have names that start with an k; 6:24 - all three
sons of Korah have names that start with an tc. Also worth mentioning is the
fact that three names in 6:15 start with ' and three (if Simeon is included) start
with an s-sound; both Aaron’s and Elisheba’s name starts with an k (6:23); the
name Nahshon is followed by Nadab (6:23); the name of Putiel is followed by
Phinehas (6:25), etc. All added together, this results in an audible effect
(alliteration).
h. The striking manner in which names have been rendered in the text
tradition represented by the LXX should also be noted with regard to the
genealogy. The same name has often been transcribed differently even within
one and the same MS. Just a few examples by way of illustration: Amram in
LXXb 6:18 has been rendered as ’Afiflpdfi, as ’Afiflpdv in 6:20, and as ’Afipdfi in
Num. 3:19; Izhar has been rendered as ’kyoaxap in 6:18 but as ’ioodp in 6:21.
See for further material the work by G. Lisowsky mentioned in Introd. § 5.h.
The spelling of several names in the Sam. Pent, differs from that of the MT:
-m (6:15); tick (6:24); rp'2* (6:24).
We will forego a reduplication of our translation of the genealogy and suffice

with one or more comments for each verse inasmuch as that is still necessary
after the above considerations.
6:14 nbx, see at 1:1. ®ki, pi. (OT ca. 600x; Exod. 26x) ‘head’ is used
for both man (28:32; 29:6, 7) and animal (12:9; 29:10, 15, 17, 19). The term is
often used metaphorically in a variety of ways: for the top of a hill (17:9, 10),
or a mountain (19:20 [2x]; 24:17; 34:2), or the top of an object (26:24; 36:29,
38; 38:17, 19, 28), for a person with a position of leadership (18:25; cf. Num.
1:16; Deut. 1:15; Judg. 10:18; 11:8, 9, 11), for the primary person or head of a
clan (6:14, 25; cf. Num. 7:2; 17:18; Josh. 22:1, 14),39 and for the most pre
eminent chronologically (12:2//p»iq; cf. Num. 10:10; 28:11) or qualitatively
(30:23; cf. Ezek. 27:22; Cant. 4:14). As the object of tta» (see at 6:8) ©to occurs
in 30:12 in the sense of ‘sum’ or ‘total’ (cf. Lev. 5:24; Num. 5:7; Ps. 139:17).40
D ratrirn , is often interpreted as the plural of 2N*IT3; e.g. WV ‘the heads of
various families’41 and among the exegetes, e.g. Keil, Dillmann, Strack,
Baentsch, Childs;42 see Introd. § 3.9.2, however. The dispute concerns which
persons the suffix of dtok should be taken to refer to. There are two pos-
in
Someone can become ‘head’ by being appointed as such (e.g. 18:25) but can also be ‘head’ on
the basis of birth or the position he occupies within a community (e.g. 6:14).
40 See further THAT, II, 701ff.; TWAT, VII, 271ff.; J.R. Bartlett, T h e Use of the Word E>K1 as
a Title in the Old Testament," V T 19 (1969), 1-10; Dhorme, 19ff.; Johnson, 39f.; Schafer-
Lichtenberger, 305ff.; Wolff, 109f., 310.
41 Similarly in LV, CV; note, by way of contrast, the translation of ‘family heads’ (NV, GNB),
which allows the ambiguity.
4^ See in contrast Cassuto, ‘their fathers’ house.’
516 EXODUS 5:22-7:13
sibilities for interpretation: it refers to at the close of 6:13;43 the

suffix refers to Moses and Aaron (Cassuto). I prefer the latter interpretation.
The author’s aim is to inform the reader as to the ancestry of Moses and
Aaron. The first words of 6:14 are meant as a heading. They are correlated
with the closing words of 6:25 which function as a kind of subscription: rfot,
etc.44 My preference for this interpretation results in inserting a period after
d t o k rather than a colon or a comma, and in proceeding from the presumption
that no close tie exists between dtok and the words following it. It is not until
6:16 that the author commences his enumeration of the heads of the tribe of
Moses and Aaron. Prior to that he supplies some information in 6:14-15
concerning the tribes of Reuben and Simeon to indicate the position which the
tribe of Levi has among the tribes of Israel. The author makes it clear that
Moses and Aaron were genuine Israelites, "oa, see at 4:22. ‘Israel,’ see Introd.
§ 8.13.
rrno»n, pi. mnp»n (OT ca. 300x; Exod. 7x [pi. only]) ‘(extended) family,’
‘sib,’ ‘clan’ indicates a community bound by blood ties, a group distinguished
by relationship to a common ancestor. It is not unusual to regard the nro&n as
a social group with a larger radius than the 3K~n*a, or extended family (see
Introd. § 3.9.2), and a smaller radius than the tribe (De Vaux, I, 25f.; Wolff,
310f.). It should be kept in mind, however, that in the OT the various terms
are not used in agreement with this delineation and are virtually interchan
geable. nriDB>a can be used for ‘(extended) family’ (e.g, Gen. 24:38,40,41
[//itrrra]). nrrosn in 12:21 apparently denotes the same thing as ro to rs in 12:3
(see Introd. § 3.9.2). A tribe can also be called nrotfa (e.g. Judg. 18:2, 11, 19
alongside of 18:2). In 6:14, 15, 17, 19, 24, 25, mratfo refers to sibs that have a
common ancestor and each of which bears the name of one of the sons of that
ancestor. See further De Geus, 134ff.; Pedersen, I-II, 46ff.; Thiel, 38ff., lOlff.,
116ff.
6:15 mv»rt (for the use of the article, e.g. Ges-K § 127m; Brockelmann §
21cB), see Introd. § 8.14; Gen. 38:2ff. indicates a marriage between Judah and
a Canaanite woman. TPsJ deviates from the MT and has a more elaborate text,
which in translation reads ‘that is Zimri who gave himself over to profligacy
like the Canaanites’ (cf. TPsJ at Gen. 46:10); see Num. 25:14 for Zimri and
Ginzberg, I, 363; III, 220, 409; VI, 136.
6:16 mat rfoo, see 1:1. nmbr6, see 1:15 (i“r); in contrast to Reuben and
Simeon, it is explicitly stated in connection with Levi that his sons are men
tioned in the order of their birth (cf. 6:19 end). When the author reaches the
43 See e.g. Dillmann, Strack, Baentsch, Heinisch; it is also possible to hold that 6:14ff. has been
obtained from another text in which the suffix referred to the Israelites; see Gispen.
Holzinger believes that 6:14a fitst best after 6:16b in view of 6:25b.
matter which is his particular concern, the ancestry of Moses and Aaron from
Levi, he again uses an introductory formula. It is as though he wishes to fix the
reader’s attention in this way. The introductory formula corresponds to the
closing formula at the end of 6:19. The two formulae demarcate four verses in
which the genealogy of Levi through the second generation is described
without further details.
roB, pi. D'lB (21:2; 23:10), cstr. pi. *» (6:16, 18, 20) (OT ca. 875x; Exod. ca.
30 x; on the male plural with a female noun, e.g. Ges-K § 87m, n; Joiion §
90b; Meyer § 43.8, 58.19) “year’ is used in Exodus in connection to indicates
age of people (6:16, 18, 20; 7:7; 30:14; 38:26) and of sacrificial animals (12:5;
29:38) as well as in other indications of time (12:2, 40, 41; 16:35; 21:2; 23:10,
14, 16, 17, 29; 30:10; 34:22, 23, 24; 40:17). See further BHHW, II, 792ff.; IDB,
IV, 923f. and the bibl. mentioned in the Introd. § 3.23.2. **n, see 1:14 (rm). A
digression in TPsJ reports that Levi lived long enough see Moses and Aaron,
the liberators of Israel (cf. bBaba Bathra 12b). Ibn Ezra holds that Levi’s ages
is reported in order to honour Moses, while Rashi states that it is mentioned
to indicate how long the period of slavety lasted, since there was no oppres
sion (1:6, 8) as long as the patriarchs lived, and Levi lived the longest of them
all.
6:18 LXXa reports Kohath’s age as a hundred and thirty-three years. TPsJ
calls Kohath kto ti ‘the pious’ and reports in a digression that he lived long
enough to see Phinehas, ‘that is Elijah, the high priest, who will be sent to the
exiles from Israel at the end of days.’ For the identification of Phinehas with
Elijah, see commentary at 4:13.45
6:19 'l^n, see Introd. § 5.40; notwithstanding the use of the article, this is often
translated as ‘Levi,’ e.g. NEB. The ancient versions have set the example here;
see the LXX, Vulg, and the targumim. This translation is rejected with good
cause by Dillmann and Baentsch, among others.
6:20 ‘took as wife,’ cf. 6:23, 25 and see Introd. § 3.30. Jochebed, see Introd. §
6.2. rnn, fem. of Trt, a bable word that occurs in the sense of ‘beloved’ (Cant.
l:13f., 16, et al.) and with more specific meaning of ‘uncle’ (brother of one’s
father) (Levi. 10:4; 20:20, etc.), m n ‘aunt’ is used in Lev. 18:14; 20:20 to
indicate the wife of the father’s brother; in 6:20 it indicates the sister of the
father (cf. 2:1 and Num. 26:59). The LXX reads duyatipa xou dSXcpou xot>
jiaxpdt; orftxou and TNf reads 'trot ma ‘the daughter of his father’s bro
ther’; see also Pesh., ‘the daughter of his uncle,’ i.e., his cousin (cf. Vulg.:
45 On Kohath see also T. Baarda, “Q eh a th -‘What’s in a Name?’ Concerning the Interpretation

of the Name ‘Qehath’ in the Testament of Levi 11:4-6,* JSJ 19 (1988), 215-?9;_E. Ruech, *Le
Testament de Qahat en aram£en de la grotte 4 (4QTQah),* RdQ 15 (1991), 23-54* ^
518 exo dus 5:22-7:13
patruelem suam); note, however, TO: 'man firm ‘the sister of his father,’ and
TPsJ n w an : ‘his aunt.’ Some (e.g. Dillmann, Baentsch) presuppose in view of
Lev. 18:12; 20:19 (a marriage with the sister of one’s father is prohibited) that
the text has been modified. It is also possible, however, that the ancient
translators interpreted m n as the wife of the father’s brother and that the text
has been modified with Lev. 18:14; 20:20 in mind (cf. bSanh 58b). The fact
remains that the text in its present form raises no problems, for in the period
to which the genealogy refers the laws of Leviticus had not yet been promul
gated. They were not given until Mt. Sinai. Note should also be taken of Gen.
20:12 alongside Lev. 18:9. iV\ cf. 6:23,25 and see commentary at 1:15.
The Sam. Pent, has the following elaboration subsequent to ‘Moses’:
□nriK o” ia nto (cf. LXX and Pesh.); the elaboration apparently arose on the
basis of Num. 26:59. vytt, the Sam. Pent, reads m ‘six’ and here represents a
text tradition according to which Amram reached the age of a hundred and
sixty-six years (see also LXX*).46 LXX8 reports an age of hundred and
thirty-two years. In similarity to Kohath, the TPsJ calls Amram ‘the pious’ and
reports in an elaboration that he lived long enough ‘to see the sons of the son
of Gershom, the son of Moses’ (cf. bBaba Bathra 121b). According to 6:20
Aaron is the eldest (see 7:7 as well). It is conceivable that Exod. 2 gives the
impression that Moses was the first-born (see at 2:1 on this issue).
6.22 The name of Mishael has been omitted in a portion of the LXX’s text
tradition.
6:23 Elisheba, see Introd. § 6.1. Amminadab, see Introd. § 5.53. ‘sister,’ see
1:6. Nahshon, see Introd. § 5.48. Elisheba’s identity is indicated not only by
referring to her father, but her (eldest) brother as well (for the latter, e.g. Gen.
28:9; Exod. 15:20); cf. Introd. § 5.f. The rabbinic tradition has drawn the
following lesson from this circumstance: whoever marries a woman should
consider her brother since most children take after the disposition of their
mother’s brother (e.g. bBaba Bathra 110a; ExR. VII,5). A different commentary
is offered by Theodoret (QE, XVI): the royal (Ruth 4:18-20; Matt.l) and the
priestly line were intertwined here; it was from this line that Christ was born,
who is both King and Priest.
6:24 *mprt, As is done at the end of 6:19, the gentilic/patronymic name is used
rather than that of the ancestor. Her again the LXX and the targumim have
translated as though the text contained the personal name Korah. The Vulg.
and modern translations have translated rnpn as gentilic.
46 Cf. B.Z. Wacholder, *A Qumranic Polemic Against a Divergent Reading of Exodus 6:20?,*
JANES 16-17 (1984-85), 225-28.
6:25 Eleazar is emphatically designated the son of Aaron, nvaa, refers to one
of the daughters (cf. Gen. 28:11; Job 27:6). Putiel, see Introd. § 5.55. Accor
ding to the TPsJ Eleazar married one of the daughters of Jethro. The name of
Jethro is followed by the comment, ‘that is Putiel.’ Rabbinic tradition has
identified Putiel (on the basis of the etymology of his name) with Jethro or
with Joseph (bSota 43a; bSanh. 82b; bBaba Bathra 109b; ExR. VII, 5, and see
also Rashi). The theory that Pan til= Putiel was a name for Moses occurs
among the Syrian fathers, see Isho bar Nun (question 35). rvaK (see at 2:6)
here, as occurs more often, is an abbreviated designation for matt rra (see
6:14); cf. Num. 31:26; 32:28; 36:1; Josh. 14:1; 19:51. The author returns to the
beginning with rta, etc., having provided the information that he set out to
furnish. D'lbrt: The Sam. Pent, has "ibn in accordance with 6:19.
6:26 These are the Aaron and Moses to whom y h w h said: ‘Lead the Israelites
out o f Egypt arrayed by tribe. ’
6:27 It was they who addressed Pharaoh, the king o f Egypt, in order to lead the
Israelites o f out Egypt. These are Moses and Aaron.
6:26 and 6:27 are closely connected. 6:26 begins with the nominal clause,
ntfitt ]*nx Kin; 6:27 ends with a variant version (chiasm) of this clause,
pnui n»o ttin (the demonstrative pronoun apparently functions as an interjec
tion; see 1:1). The author’s purpose was to introduce Moses and Aaron (6:13),
a task which he has now accomplished. He has introduced Moses and Aaron
by disclosing their ancestry (6:14-25). It should be added that for an Israelite
one’s family tree was not a relatively minor matter. It was of the greatest
significance for one’s position as a person. It justified one’s status to a large
extent (the lack of an acceptable genealogy endangers a person’s position; cf.
Ezra 2:59; Neh. 7:61). It is thus against the backdrop of 6:14-25 that we must
interpret the fact that the author twice says, ‘These are ... .’ It is as though he
speaks with some pride. His tone is almost triumphant.47 With ‘these are ...’
he meant to say: As you can see for yourself, dear reader, Moses and Aaron
belong to the clan of Levi, which I have just described; that is the environment
from which they hail; this Moses and Aaron who received from y h w h the
mission to lead Israel out, are not just anyone, but come from good family;
they can lay claim to a distinguished ancestry.
6:26-27 is correlated to 6:13. What is there intimated in one breath, as it
were, is unfolded in 6:26-27. Moses and Aaron are commissioned to lead Israel
out of Egypt in 6:26, and 6:27 details their appearance before Pharaoh to
attain that goal, rxin (see Introd. § 3.24.2), compare the use of the imperative
in 3:10. oriK?sml?v, cf. 12:51; ontoa1? occurs more often (e.g. Num. 1:3,52; 2:3ff.);
for bs, see e.g. Williams § 290: ‘according to the (tribal) hosts.’
K33 (OT ca. 485x , of which 315 x plurals; 285x the plural is used in the
47 Eerdmans, 23, characterizes the style as ‘der Stil des Kommentators’ (cf. Gen. 15:2; 36:1).
520 exo dus 5:22-7:13
epithet nitos mrr or a variant thereof) occurs 5x in Exodus (6:26; 7:4; 12:17,
41, 51) and is derived from tos which occurs in 38:8 (2x) as a verb (OT
14x). Qal t02 does occur in the sense of ‘go into battle’ (e.g. Num. 31:7;
31:42) but in 38:8 is used for ‘doing service’ at the tent sanctuary (cf. Num.
4:23; 8:24; 1 Sam. 2:22). K3X is used as a substantive for ‘military service’ (e.g.
Num. 1:3, 20) and ‘the military’ (e.g. Num. 31:21, 32, 48, 53). In the plural it
also occurs with the latter meaning a number of times (e.g. Deut. 20:9; 1 Kgs.
2:5). All in all it is understandable that Baentsch, with onjoa'Vv in 6:26 in
mind, comments: According to p, the Israelites withdrew from Egypt like an
armed force, a horde arrayed by divisions and companies and equipped for war.
Te Stroete, by contrast, believes that mtos here and elsewhere in Exodus does
not have a military connotation but is instead associated with the cult: For p
the people march off to Sinai as though in a procession. Cassuto thinks that
the organized nature of the exodus is expressed by the terminology. The
Israelites leave Egypt ‘not like slaves who flee from their master’s house, but
as a free people that goes on its way in ordered hosts.’ In light of Num. 1 and
2 it seems inescapable to ascertain that rmas apparently refers particularly to
stalwart Israelites (Num. 1:3, et al.). Num. 2 and 10 provides insight into the
manner in which the Israelites were organized for encampment and ex
peditions. Many of the details of the social structure call to mind a military
organization (cf. Exod. 13:18; 14:8). The impression that the sections men
tioned leave, however, is that the military aspect is not prominent and that
what is significant is the organizational structure of Israel. It is this assumption
that Israel is an organized nation consisting of larger and smaller or
ganizational units, tribes, sibs, and families which is at the basis of the use of
mion in Exodus. It is not easy to seize upon an adequate translation. ‘Tribes’
(GNB) is better than ‘army hosts’ (e.g. NV), although this does not reflect the
fact that the term also refers to the sub-divisions of the tribes. I have rendered
(6:26; 12:51) as ‘arrayed by tribes.’ The intention is that the people
will leave in fixed order, while tribe upon tribe (and within a tribe sib upon
sib, etc.) sets off. It should be noted that y h w h refers to Israel not only as ‘my
people’ but also as ‘my tribes’ (7:4; cf. mrr niton in 12:41), and even as “your
(Israel’s) tribes’ (12:17). According to the portrayal given, Israel was already
organized by tribes in Egypt. This picture matches the depiction of Israel as a
sizeable nation (see 1:7; 12:37).48
onnan: The Sam. Pent. (cf. 6:26) reads o'iso pxn; some MSS also read thus;
see also the Pesh. and a portion of the textual witnesses for the LXX. Aaron is
mentioned before Moses at the beginning of 6:26 (this is also the case in Num.
3:1). This is not surprising in view of the preceding genealogy in which Aaron
is the eldest and assumes a more preeminent place (his name was sounded last
48 See further THAT, II, 498ff.; TWAT, VI, 872ff.; J.R. Spencer, T h e Tasks of the Levites: fmr
and sf>’,* Z A W 96 (1984), 267-71.
just before in 6:25) than Moses. At the end of 6:27 Moses is again mentioned
prior to Aaron, as is customary. Aaron has returned to the role which he plays
in the exodus, the role of Moses’ lieutenant.49 The LXX retains the order of
Aaron and then Moses at the end of 6:27. The TPsJ designates Moses as ‘the
prophet’ at the end of 6:27, and Aaron as ‘the priest.’
6:28 That was their position at the time that y h w h addressed Moses in the land
o f Egypt.
*Qi, piel perf. (see Ges-K § 521, o; KoSynt § 385i; cf. Num. 3:1; Deut. 4:15;
Hos. 1:2), is preceded by ova in Num. 3:1 and Deut. 4:15 as well; Strack
prefers a vocalization of (piel inf. cstr.) (for the construction, e.g. Gen.
2:4b); cf. Baentsch; see KOSynt § 121, however. The *m phrase is usually
interpreted as being in a construct chain with dvs (e.g. Ges-K § 130d; Joiion §
129p); the accentuation argues against this according to KOSynt § 337a.
The position of 6:28 within the larger context is problematical. The Masor-
etes assume a pause after 6:28. As a rule, *m is considered to introduce a new
pericope (see Deut. 2:16 for a comparable example) and 6:28 is linked to 6:29
in the following manner: ‘At the time that y h w h addressed Moses ... (6:28),
y h w h addressed Moses ...’ (6:29). Rashi already opted for such an interpre
tation. It is prevalent among modern exegetes and in modern translations.
Matters are different with respect to the ancient versions. It is possible to
interpret the LXX so that 6:28 is closely linked to the preceding: ... xat
&jf)Yayov to^x; utobq Iapaf|X 6k ynq AtyuTtTou afadq ’Aafxbv Kat Mcoof|<; (6:27), fj
fmepa 6XaX-n<rev Kupioq ... (6:28) ‘and they led the Israelites out of Egypt, this
same Aaron and Moses (6:27), at the time that the Lord spoke ... (6:28).’ A
new sentence starts at 6:29 in this division of the text.50 Note also the Vulg.:
... iste Moses et Aaron (6:27) in die qua locutus est Dominus ad Mosen in terra
Aegypti (6:28).51 In the TPsJ 6:28 is connected with neither the preceding nor
with the following verse, but a clause has been provided f o r 'm (which in the
MT appears to hover unattached) by means of an elaboration. The TPsJ in
translation: ‘And it happened in the days th a t... , that Aaron listened closely
and heard what he spoke to them’ (see Mek. I, 1 and I, 22, with regard to this
elaboration). It is worthy of note in this context that Eerdmans, 22, thinks that
6:13-28 represents an insertion into the text, resulting in the fact that 6:28
abruptly interrupts the text and that the reader does not learn what happened
when y h w h addressed Moses. Eerdmans turns against the habit of connecting
49 Mek. I, If., concludes from the alternation that Moses and Aaron were each others’ equals.
50 In Brooke/McLean’s edition the text has been divided in such a manner that 6:28 is the start
of a new sentence which is continued in 6:29.
^ Nachmanides has also connected 6:27 and 6:28 with each other in like manner.
522 exodus 5:22-7:13
6:28 with 6:29, and rightly so, in my view.5253Eerdmans’ suggestion is rather

unconvincing, however. No real justice is done to v n when 6:27 is connected
to 6:28. To my mind it is worth considering whether or not 6:28 forms the
conclusion of 6:13ff., representing a declarative comment (cf. p *m in Gen.
1:7, 9). Corroboration for this possibility is offered by Ehrlich who believes
that the subject of vn is the content of the genealogy ‘or more particularly,
that portion of it which comes into consideration for Moses and Aaron’s
lineage’; the upshot is ‘this is the stage of the development of the house of
Levi (i.e., the number of years reported by the genealogy had passed) on the
day that y h w h spoke with Moses in the Land of Egypt’. Whether the author
specifically has the chronology in mind is doubtful. For the rest I prefer an
interpretation along the lines of Ehrlich’s. With the concluding remark of 6:28,
the author intends to say: This is how the situation was with Moses and Aaron
when ... . At the same time, these closing words form a transition back to his
main theme, the dialogue between y h w h and Moses, of which it is for the first
time said explicitly that it took place in Egypt.
The leitmotif o f the dialogue resumed (6:29-7:5)

6:29 y h w h addressed Moses with the following words: 7 am y h w h . Tell Pharaoh,
the king o f Egypt, all the words that I have spoken to you. ’
6:30 Then Moses spoke in awe to YHWH, Why should Pharaoh listen to me, since
I lack every form o f eloquence?’
The first words of 6:29 are a repetition of 6:10. In 6:29 VBtd is not followed by
the exhortatoiy to as in 6:10-11, but by ‘I am yhwh’ (6:1, 6, 8). The words that
follow immediately correspond to those of 6:11. Where 6:11 specifically reports
the content of the message, 6:29 does not. 6:30 reiterates 6:12 to a certain
extent. 6:30 starts with m tn instead of *oti (6:12) (the verbs are interchan
geable; see Introd. § 3.12.1). This is perhaps the reason that the -idk1? of 6:12 is
not repeated. The observation that the Israelites did not at all want to listen
has been entirely omitted in 6:30. The remaining two clauses of which the
verse is comprised are repeated in reverse order. For p , that has a different
function as a result of circumstances, see Introd. § 3.15.2. The Sam. Pent, reads
vvnsr instead of 'bn swer and thus provides a text which corresponds to 6:12.
The leitmotif of the narrative is resumed by 6:29-30. Fohrer, 49, regards the
latter verse as a clear case of the resumption phenomenon because of the
correspondence between 6:12 and 30. Resumption is a characteristic of OT
52 Baentsch regards the strikingly pointless repetition that results when 6:28 and 6:29 are
connected as a unit to be a sign of ineptitude on the part of the editor ‘Besser hatte der Bear-
beiter seine Unfahigkeit zum Schriftsteller nicht dokumentiren konnen.’
53 See also Murphy, who previously defines DVD VH as follows: ‘This was the state of things at
the time,’ and comments, ‘This verse seems designed to date the time when the conjunction of
circumstances described in the preceding passage regarding the family of Moses had taken place.’
literature that has been described by C. Kuhl.54 Words, verses, or even larger
portions of text are repeated in the narrative following an insertion.55 The
aforementioned facts indicate that resumptive reiteration is present to a
certain extent. The author commences anew with his description of y h w h ’s
mission for Moses to go to Pharaoh. There is not a complete repetition of
6:10-12 in 6:29-30, however. 6:10-12 are repeated in abbreviated and variant
form. Reading 6:29-30 alongside of 6:10-12 evokes associations with a descrip
tion of the rehearsal of a play: The director requests that two actors start a
certain scene over again; they do so, but take certain liberties, creating the
impression that they are tacitly assuming that the first rendering is still freshly
present in the minds of their counterpart and the audience. This time round
y h w h says, ‘I am y h w h ’ (6:29). It is as though he endeavours to prevent
Moses from raising an objection this time. Moses should be aware of who is
backing him up when he speaks to Pharaoh. For the rest, y h w h does not
relate what Moses is to say, but commands him to say ‘all that I have told
you’.56 After all that has been said about the Sour in 6:14-25, it seems as if
Moses tends to keep his silence concerning them the second time (6:30)
around (having more understanding for the causes of Israel’s unaccom
modating attitude; 6:9). Whereas y h w h takes a more forceful approach the
second time around (‘I am y h w h ’), Moses appears to have relinquished an
argument.
7:1 But YHWH answered Moses: ‘Listen, I am assigning you the role o f god in
relationship to Pharaoh and your brother Aaron will be your prophet. ’
run is an interjection; see Introd. § 3.46.1; y h w h addresses Moses in an
encouraging tone. *pnru (see Introd. § 3.36) has been translated as a perfect in
the SV, LuthV, CV but as a present in the LV, UV, NV, WV, GNB; with
good reason (e.g. Ges-K § 106i), for at the instant that y h w h speaks he
executes the action which forms the substance of his words.
oyiVk; TO has translated D'h'tk as an ‘master’ (cf. TNf which reads pm1?
in the margin), and TNf as 3*i ‘master and sovereign’; dyi'w has been
interpreted as an exceptional person (see below); TPsJ has a more elaborate
text: y h w h starts his response with question, ‘Why are you filled with fear?’
and continues, ‘I have already made you an object of fear for Pharaoh, as
though you were his god’; see also commentary at 4:16.
“Die ‘Wiederaufnahme’ - ein literarkritisches Prinzip?*, ZA W 64 (1952), 1-11; cf. also M.

Anbar, *La ‘Reprise’,’ VT 38 (1988), 385-98.
55 CV translates 6:29 as ‘YHWH had said and 6:30 as ‘But Moses had responded to express
the presence of a repetition.
56 ”131 is translated in a variety of ways, in the present tense (e.g. SV, LuthV, NV), the future
(CV), and the past (LV, WV, GNB); in my view there is no full resumptive reiteration; YHWH is
referring to the mission already reported in 6:11; (qal part., related form along with T31Q; e.g,
6:27) ought therefore to be translated as past tense (e.g. Ges-K § 116o).
524 exodus 5:22-7:13
4:16 reports that Moses is a ‘god to* Aaron, i.e., that Moses is the one who
speaks by means of Aaron. That Aaron acts as Moses’ spokesman is also
reported in 7:1, in v.lb to be exact. Just as in 4:16, this is a case of metaphor
ical usage. The question that arises is whether the metaphor here has a
broader meaning than in 4:16. Does the text merely mean to say that in the
negotiations with Pharaoh, Moses will be given the position that a god takes
on with respect to his spokesman (Moses need only address Pharaoh in
directly) (e.g. Hyatt), or does the text assume more? ‘Moses will appear before
Pharaoh with divine authority, even godlike, and let signs and miracles happen
at his command’ (Baentsch). Theories akin in spirit to the latter are proposed
by various exegetes (e.g. Murphy, Keil, Holzinger, Heinisch, Gispen, Rylaars-
dam, Childs). If this is accepted, it means that y h w h ’s response to Moses’
misgivings at the prospect of going to Pharaoh (6:10ff., 29f.) implies far more
than an accommodation to Moses’ problem. Not only ought Moses not to
worry about his lack of rhetorical prowess but he should in addition be aware
that he will stand before Pharaoh arrayed with divine authority. In short, he
has no reason whatsoever to be afraid to appear before Pharaoh (cf. Ezek.
3:8f.).
Based on 7:2, which can be regarded as a clarification of 7:1, there is no
reason to interpret 7:1 differently than 4:16. Aaron is Moses’ mouthpiece and
conveys the words that y h w h speaks to Moses. The difference between 4:16
and 7:1 consists in the fact that in the first case Aaron is a mouthpiece with
respect to the people, whereas in the second case he is a mouthpiece with
respect to Pharaoh. Surveying the remainder of the narrative, it must be
observed that Moses always acts as y h w h ’s representative who carries out the
commands that he is given by y h w h . One might call him o'ribyin an* in this
regard, but not Moses is called D*r6i<n ti'x several times outside of
Exodus (Deut. 33:1; Josh. 14:6; Ps. 90:1; Ezra 3:2; 1 Chr. 23:14; 2 Chr. 20:16).
One could possibly consider whether dt6 n in 7:1 indicates ‘a divine being’
(Bohl translates thus) in the sense of a person who possesses extraordinary
powers.57 It is difficult to reconcile this interpretation with the use of ‘pro
phet’ in 7:1b, however. It should be noted that the term ‘prophet’ is used
various times for Moses (Deut. 18:15, 18; 34:10; cf. Num. ll:25ff.). This term
suits Moses better than Aaron, who is elsewhere in the texts portrayed as a
typical representative of the priestly class. This may be all the more reason not
to attach far-reaching conclusions to the metaphor used here. Moreover, the
narrative itself lends no support to the assumption that Moses was regarded by
anyone as a god in human guise (cf. Acts 14:1 Iff.). Finally, Rashi interprets
as ‘judge and executioner’; Moses has been given the task of executing
judgment upon Pharaoh (cf. ExR. VIII, 3; MidrTanh. Exod. II, 8); this interpre
tation is apparently based on the presupposition that d is a designation
57
See Ps. 45:7 and C. Houtman, *Zu I Samuel 2 25,- ZAW 89 (1977), 412-17.
for judges, magistrates, etc., in various verses (e.g. 21:6).

The rabbinical literature has considered extensively the use of D'n^Kn in
connection with Moses. I will suffice here by noting the theory that the
statement was made because of Pharaoh’s claim to be divine (e.g. ExR. VIII,
1,2; MidrTanh. Exod II, 6-10). Various church fathers also pondered the
phrase. Ambrosius (De Cain et Abel\ II, 7), for instance, says that the title ‘god’
is applied to Moses because he is the type of the coming Teacher. The
representation of Moses as a god played a role in the emergence of the
tradition of Moses’ heavenly enthronement during the theophany at Mt. Sinai,
which we know from the work of Philo and from the rabbinical and Samaritan
literature. God gave Moses his own name; He bestowed on him divine status
and conferred on him a unique position among men; Adam’s lost glory, the
image of God, was restored to Moses and this enabled him to function as
God’s representative on earth, as the one who revealed God’s will, and as the
one who held the office of king on his behalf.58
y m (see at 1:6), Aaron can be designated as ‘your brother’ (see at 4:14
already) with good reason after 6:20. y t'i: has been translated by the TO as
Tomrio, by the TNf as yar\r\ ‘your interpreter’; note also the interpretation of
Rashi and see further at 4:16.
N'Dj (OT ca. 315x) occurs only here in Exodus; the fern, form hicd: (OT
6x) occurs in 15:20. The etymology is disputed. It is customary today to relate
it to the Akkadian nabu ‘call,’ ‘name’ but there is no unanimity about whether
*03 has an active meaning like ‘crier,’ ‘speaker’ (on behalf of the divinity;
perhaps also on behalf of the ritual community toward the divinity), or a
passive meaning like ‘called’ (by the divinity). The issue is of secondary
importance. Familiarity with the OT use of the term leads to the observation
that different kinds of people with diverse functions bear the name of ‘pro
phet.’ Use of the term *03 in 7:1 is based on the image of the prophet as the
divinity’s representative who acts as his mouthpiece. He is the one that utters
the messenger formula, ‘Thus speaks x.’ Matters are different with respect to
the use of rwra for Miriam in 15:20. The term does not mean to say that she
speaks on behalf of God, as did Huldah (2 Kgs. 22:14; 2 Chr. 34:22). In view of
the context it is not at all impossible that the term harbours the conception of
the prophet who is closely associated with the cult and the music which is used
therein (in ancient and recent times music and song are an indispensable
component of prophetism; see 1 Sam. 10:5; 2 Kgs. 3:15 as well as Num.
ll:16f.,24ff.; 1 Chr. 25:lff.).59
co
See W.A.Meeks, “Moses as God and King,- in R elig io n s in A n tiqu ity: E ssa ys in M e m o ry o f
Leiden 1968, 354-71.
E .R G o o d e n o u g h ,
59 See further T H A T , II, 7ff.; T W A T , V, 140ff.; M. Gorg, “Randbemerkungen zum j lings ten
Lexikonartikel zu n d b V f B N 26 (1985), 7-16 (cf. idem, B N 31 [1986], 25f.; H.-P. Muller, B N 29
[1985], 22-7; W.W. Muller, B N 32 [1986], 31-7); S. Herrmann, U rsprung u n d F u n ktion d e r P rop h etie
526 E X O D U S 5:22-7:13
7:2 You must speak all the words with which I charge you, and your brother
Aaron must convey the message, that he must let the Israelites leave his country,
to Pharaoh. ’
nnK, stresses the subject (e.g. Ges-K § 135a; Jouon § 146a); Brockelmann §
34b): *you’ as opposed to Aaron, lain assumes that Moses must speak to
Aaron; this is made explicit in the LXX <rt> 51 XaXfioeu; oc6 t<B; TPsJ adds
■pntt^;60 *p»t, with energic form, cf. 6:13 and see Introd. § 3.43.1; a similar
phrase with in 6:29 uses the verb is i. See the close of 6:11 for inverted
perfect rfa?*) ‘and he will let go’ and the following words. General opinion (e.g.
Baentsch, Beer) is convinced that r6zn ‘so that he will release’ should be read
at the present spot just as in 6:11 (see BHS app. as well as TO, TNf, SamT;
TPsJ read ntsQi in 6:11 and 7:2). Assuming the former case would imply that
the anticipated ultimate result of the negotiations with Pharaoh is already
being declared here (e.g. Keil as well as Holzinger) and means 7:3 must begin
as follows: ‘For I w i l l T h i s theory nevertheless raises difficulties in view of
the sequel. After all y h w h is to lead the people out despite Pharaoh’s resis
tance, yet in the following verses there is no trace of any releasing on Phar
aoh’s part. The apparent sense is that Aaron must go to Pharaoh to make the
demand to let the people go. But no emendation of the text is necessary for
such an interpretation. Ehrlich points out that 7:2 is not a simple case of
analogy with 6:11; the verb in the latter verse depends on the imperative; here
the verb depends on an imperfect (cf. 28:3 alongside of 14:2,15 and 25:2).
Aaron appears before the people in 4:30 as Moses’ spokesman in accordance
with 4:15f. According to the report of 5:1, 3, Moses and Aaron address
Pharaoh together (cf. 7:7 end). In 7:1 Aaron is assigned the role of Moses’
spokesman before Pharaoh. At least, that is how we will have to understand
7:1. y h w h charges Moses with a mission (specifically the mission to go to
Pharaoh and to demand of him the release of the people; see 6:11); Moses
makes Aaron a partner in this mission and Aaron, who is apparently regarded
as possessing rhetorical talent, brings the demand (accompanied by Moses) to
Pharaoh’s attention in the most appropriate manner. Examination of subse
quent events, however, leads to the observation that Aaron does not act as
spokesman before Pharaoh (not even in the p sections, to which 7:lf. is
reckoned), but rather Moses himself is the one who speaks. Aaron is the one
who performs miracles alongside Moses at his command (see Introd. § 5.6).
This is possibly what induced Ehrlich to launch his aforementioned theory,
in alten Israel, Opladen 1976; Johnson, Prophet-, J. Lindblom, Prophecy in Ancient Israel, Oxford
1962; H.-P. Muller, UF 2 (1970), 249ff. (tt'33 is used to indicate a messenger who is acting under
human orders in the Lahis Letters, III, 20; XVI, 5); W.Zimmerli, ‘Der ‘Prophet’ im Pentateuch,*
in Fs W.Komfeld, Studien m m Pentateuch, Wien et al. 1977, 197-211.
60 See Ehrlich, however Moses must himself recite what YHWH has commanded without
addressing Aaron (see further below).
that (i.e., Moses must convey the words to Aaron) does not need to (and
should not be) be added in thought following *mn. In my view it seems
possible that according to the conception of the editor of Exodus, Aaron was
appointed to convey the demand to release the people (specifically) at the
imminent confrontation with Pharaoh. If one admits this supposition, then it is
not surprising that Moses himself later addresses Pharaoh.61 After all, 7:10
implicitly reports that Aaron has accomplished his task as spokesman, and so
his role has been concluded in this regard. The following comment by
Baentsch therefore seems a little too unequivocal: This entire division of
labour is consequently based on pure theory, without having any practical
repercussions.
7:3 7 myself will make Pharaoh’s stiff-necked, however, so that I can perform
untold signs and wonders in the land o f Egypt.
7:4 Pharaoh will therefore not want to listen to you and will oblige me to direct
my devastating power against Egypt, applying punishing blows to lead my tribes,
my people, the Israelites, out o f the land o f Egypt. ’
"3Ri, the subject is stressed: T as opposed to “you’ and Aaron (7:2); 7:1-2 has
described how Moses and Aaron should behave with regard to Pharaoh; in 7:3
y h w h indicates what his relationship to Pharaoh is. ‘make Pharaoh stiff
necked,’ see Introd. § 3.19 and 3.29.1. *n*3tm (see 1:7; rra*i) introduces a final
clause dependent on 7:3a (see Strack, Holzinger; cf. Ges-K § 112p, 165a). m«
and now, see 3:12. 7:4 elaborates and explicates 7:3.
‘Pharaoh ... listen’: The cause of this inattentiveness is the adamancy that
y h w h has effectuated (7:3a). What Moses feared (6:12, 30) would happen shall
indeed happen despite the fact that Aaron will act as his spokesman (7:lf.).
Viewed at a practical level this declaration is rather astounding, y h w h
accommodates the problems raised by Moses but at the same time tacitly
declares that this accommodation is actually pointless. No matter how and by
whom Pharaoh is addressed, no positive response is to be expected since
Pharaoh’s noncompliance is imposed upon on him by y h w h himself and forms
part of y h w h ’s overall strategy, ‘direct my devastating power,’ see Introd. §
3.21.2 and 3.36; reference is being made to the signs and miracles of 7:3;
according to the following words, these serve to present y h w h with the
possibility of leading his people out. 'ntorm introduces a final clause dependent
on the clause introduced by T m TNf has translated the phrase with |n: and
the one with no) (7:5) in the same manner: ‘and I will impose the blows of my
revenge’; this has also happened in the TO: ‘and I will bring the blows of my
strength’; a similar translation occurs in the TPsJ; this is preceded in 7:4 by the
remark, ‘and I will shoot the arrows of death at them.’ 'ntos, see 6:26. 'osrnR,
61 In the aside of 7:7, which is apparently made with the upcoming series of encounters with
Pharaoh in mind, Moses and Aaron are both presented as spokesmen before Pharaoh.
528 exo dus 5:22-7:13
is often regarded as an explanatory gloss (e.g. Dillmann, Strack, Baentsch); the

prophetic books repeatedly include ‘jk'©* *di? (e.g. Jer. 7:23; 12:14; 23:13; 30:3;
Ezek. 14:9; 25:14, et al.; Amos 7:8,15; 8:2; 9:14,). D'iso pt<o, see BHS app. for
the reading D 'isa a ; cf. 6:27. D 'u w n , cf. 6:6; a variant phrase again referring
to the plagues.
All things considered, translations of 7:4 other than the one offered are
possible: ‘Yea, Pharaoh will not want to listen to you, so that I (cf.
LuthV). In that case 7:4 would be more or less parallel to 7:3. Also a pos
sibility is, ‘When Pharaoh does not listen to you, then I shall ...’ (cf. LV, CV
as well as WV, GNB; for the construction, e.g. Joiion § 167b; Brockelmann §
164a). A translation such as the latter dovetails less well with 7:3 and is
somewhat at odds with it in terms of the content. After all, 7:3a eliminates the
possibility that Pharaoh will want to listen. Translations such as, ‘For Phar
aoh ...; and I will ...’ (cf. UV) and ‘but Pharaoh ... Therefore shall I ...’ (cf.
NV) are also less appropriate in view of the context.
7:5 ‘A nd the Egyptians will be aware that it is I, y h w h , when I bring my

devastating power upon Egypt in order to lead the Israelites out from among
them. ’
‘be aware,’ cf. 6:7 and see Introd. § 3.22; according to the Sam. Pent, the
subject is cnsn ô; similarly in 14:18 (see 14:4 as well, however); the LXX
translates ‘all the Egyptians’ in 7:5; 14:4,18; Beer follows the Sam. Pent, in 7:5,
but not in 14:18. The recognition mrr •;« *d is mentioned both with regard to
the Israelites (6:7) as well as the Egyptians (7:5); the first mentioned are aware
that y h w h is on their side; this leads to commitment to y h w h on their part;
the latter mentioned are aware that y h w h is on the side of Israel; recognition
on their part does not imply (ritual) service to y h w h but it does imply the
acknowledgement that all power is y h w h ’s and that He surpasses their gods
(cf. 12:12). ‘my devastating power ... ,’ see Introd. § 3.21.2; y h w h again
announces that He will bring plagues upon Egypt; the expression used in 7:4 is
employed with little variation. The inf. cstr. 'ntiD is continued by the finite
verb 'nttsmi (e.g. Ges-K § 114r; KoSynt § 413a). Just as in 7:4 'ntraim intro
duces a final clause here; the Sam. Pent, mentions 'ov as the object here as
well; see also SamT. *ntan does not provide an indication of time in the strict
sense (see Strack, Ehrlich); what is meant is that the Egyptians will finally
reach the conclusion that superiority belongs to the side of y h w h on the basis
of y h w h ’s interventions by means of plagues and the accompanying exodus of
the Israelites. If one proceeds from Exodus in its present form, this is doubt
less reminiscent of 5:2; Pharaoh will discover who y h w h is and all the Egyp
tians along with him. For according to 7:4, 5, y h w h turns against them on
account of Pharaoh’s not listening to y h w h ’s envoys. It is apparently assumed
that oneness exists in guilt and punishment between Pharaoh and his people.
Be that as it may, this in any case confronts us, as so often happens in the OT,
with the assumption of a shared destiny between the king as the head of his
people and his subjects. This unity can operate disadvantageous^ (cf. 2 Sam.
24:lff., 13ff.; 1 Kgs. 15:34; Jer. 15:lff., 4), as well as advantageously (e.g. Isa.
53:11; Jer. 3:14f.; Ps. 72). Tin, see 2:5. —
Third interlude: A glance into the future (7:6-7)

7:6 Moses and Aaron did exactly as y h w h had commanded them.
7:1 Moses was eighty years old and Aaron eighty three years old when they
addressed Pharaoh.
»in, sing., despite the double subject (cf. Ges-K § 146f, g; Jouon § 150p, q).
See 1:12 for isho with subsequent p; the terms are not seldom used in phrases
with ms; cf. 7:10 and see Introd. § 3.43.1. 7:6 is a general declaration, a short
recapitulation without further mention of the details. Noth (p. 56) suggests
that 7:6 perhaps refers to the subsequent performance of y h w h ’s mission by
Moses and Aaron62 and that it is assumed that their mission remained with
out result. In the ensuing situation y h w h dispatches them anew, but this time
with the capability to perform a miracle (7:8f.). All things being equal, it would
be appealing to interpret 7:6 as a concluding formula that reports the ac
complishment of the mission given (cf. 12:28, 50), upon which a new episode
in the narrative could be introduced. Yet the text in its present form (which is
the result of rearrangement according to Dillmann) seems to allow us no more
than an interpretation of 7:6 as a comment which anticipates the sequel, p , see
Introd. § 3.10.2. nx>, see 6:16. See Introd. § 4.4.1 and 4.9.3 for the numbers.
It is more than happenstance that the age of the participants is mentioned at
crucial junctures in these stories (e.g. Gen. 7:11; 12:4; 16:16; 17:1, 24f.; 25:26).
Ehrlich notes that the ages are mentioned with the encounter with Pharaoh in
mind, as is the case with Joseph (Gen. 41:46) and with Jacob (Gen. 47:8f.). He
believes that the statement of their age, in conjunction with the ages reported
in the genealogy, are meant to give an approximate indication of the duration
of the period of slavery in Egypt. The effect of the statement of Moses’ age is
in any event that the lengthiness of this period is again etched into the mind
of the reader. The mention of their age is perhaps also intended to indicate
that Moses and Aaron are fully mature persons who are able to cope with
their task (cf. Childs and see BB, 87). For the division of Moses’ life into
periods of forty years, see 2:11. Although Aaron is the elder (6:20), Moses’ age
is mentioned first, perhaps in view of his position (7:1). According to Ar-
tapanus, 37, Moses was then eighty-nine years old, a dignified man with long
elegant hair changing colour from gold to silver, a man with a venerable and
distinguished appearance in all respects.
The close of 7:7 mentions nothing about the division of labour between
^ The suggestion indicated by the following translation should be noted: ‘Then Moses and
Aaron did (UV; cf. SV).
530 EXODUS 5:22-7:13
Moses and Aaron with regard to their meeting Pharaoh (see at 7:2). As
already mentioned in the introduction to the exegesis, 7:7 is often regarded as
the final verse for the section formed by 6:2-7:7. According to this conception,
7:6-7 represents a conclusion which reports beforehand that Moses and Aaron
discharged their mission in perfect obedience to y h w h and reports the age of
Moses and Aaron to complement the genealogy. To my mind, 7:8-9 must be
regarded as a continuation of the dialogue with y h w h and 7:6-7 as the third
interruption of that dialogue.
The conclusion o f the dialogue (7:8-9)

7:8 YHW H proceeded to speak to Moses and to Aaron:
ID When Pharaoh addresses you, saying, *Identify yourselves by performing a
miracle * you must say to Aaron, mTake your staff and throw it down before
Pharaoh’s eyes;" it will change into a serpent. ’
In 7:8 the report of the discussion between y h w h and Moses that was inter
rupted by 7:6-7 is resumed, y h w h now addresses Aaron as well (cf. 9:8; see,
however, 7:14, etc.). It must evidently be assumed that since being appointed
to be Moses’ ‘prophet,’ Aaron has joined Moses. Just as is true of what
precedes (e.g. 6:9,10), the reader is supplied with very little information about
the course of things and much is left to his imagination, "into, Sam. Pent. (cf.
6:14) reads *o t i (see Introd. § 3.12.1 for the alternation). cdVn, is spelled
defectively here as in 7:4, 13. ]n:, see Introd. § 3.36. o^>, dativus commodi (e.g.
KoSynt § 35; Ges-K § 119s; Jouon § 133d), ‘on your own behalf,’ i.e., to
identify yourselves, accredit yourselves as speaking with divine authority (cf.
Isa. 7:11; see also, however, Deut. 13:2ff. and see Johnson, Prophet, 52ff.). For
the contrary see Leibowitz, 162f.: Pharaoh has no confidence in Moses and
Aaron and asks the question to shame them publicly; their impotence would
manifest itself and would disgrace them, in the eyes of their countrymen too.
The dative has apparently not been understood by the LXX fpiv ‘for us’ and
the Pesh. ly ‘for me’; Beer prefers to read on the basis of the LXX. noio see
3:12; the Sam. Pent, reads noio ik niK, apparently due to the influence of 7:3;
cf. SamT and LXX. moto, to introduce the apodosis (e.g. Ges-K § 112hh;
Jouon § 167c, f, 176d; Brockelmann § 164c); notwithstanding ‘to Moses and to
Aaron’ (7:8) and ‘to you’ (7:9; pi. *you’), y h w h here (specifically) addresses
only Moses. The LXX directly identifies Aaron as “your brother,’ as it often
does (e.g. 7:19) and as in 7:2,3.
‘take your staff,’ see Introd. § 3.21.10, 11. It seems obvious to think of
Aaron’s staff.63 There are, however, proponents of the notion that the ‘the
staff which you have in your’ hand is meant, to wit, Moses’ staff, which he had
63 Zohar Exod. 28a notes the sanctity of Moses’ staff in response to the question of why Aaron’s
rather than Moses* staff is used; Moses* staff was not allowed to touch those of the Egyptian
magicians.
handed over to Aaron (Ibn Ezra already; see Keil, Gispen). It is assumed that
the author is expressing himself in a very abbreviated manner. Support for this
interpretation is found in 7:15 where the staff which turns into a serpent is
Moses’ staff. The explanation proposed is rather artificial. The discrepancy is
likely as not due to the intertwining of various traditions. The impression
given, however, is that the editor believed that the miracles were performed by
Moses’ staff in all cases. The incongruity signalled is apparently the reason that
in both 7:9 and 7:10 the LXX mentions only ‘the staff (see also Philo, VM, I,
91); see also 7:19, however: *your staff.’
see 1:22; the LXX adds ‘to the ground’ (=rcnK), cf. 4:3. ntno'p1?, cf.
4:21 and see Introd. § 3.42.2; apparently on the basis of 7:10, the LXX adds
‘and before his servants.’ *rr, jussive; the Sam. Pent, reads vn, (cf. 7:10); see
also LXX, Pesh., Vulg., SamT, TNf; various exegetes prefer to read *m (e.g.
Dillmann, Baentsch, Beer); Ehrlich regards a reading of rrni as even better yet;
if the MT is maintained, however, a translation of ‘it must become a large
serpent’ (Gispen) is unnecessary; in that case it is also possible to translate
‘then he will ...’ (see KoSynt § 364m; Ges-K § 109h; Joiion § 116i). ‘serpent,’
see Introd. § 9.2.3; TPsJ has pirn 'vr6 ‘into a poisonous snake.’
Moses was provided with the occasion to identify himself to Israel as y h w h ’s
emissary at Mt. Horeb by changing his staff into a serpent (4:2-4; cf. 4:30).
Now y h w h instructs Aaron to perform this miracle in front of Pharaoh if
necessary in order to prove that the two of them have not addressed Pharaoh
on their own behalf, but that they are acting on the orders of a mighty God.
For a discussion of the miracle (not a snake turning into a stick, but a dead
stick into a serpent!) and its meaning, see commentary at 4:2-4.
TPsJ includes an elaboration at 7:9 which in translation reads: ‘for all the
inhabitants of the earth have been destined to hear the sound of the cries of
the Egyptians, whom I shall crush, just as all creatures heard the sound of the
cries of the serpent when it was exposed in the beginning.’ The text has been
tied in to Gen. 3:14 and the rabbinical exegesis thereof by means of the word
‘serpent’.64 It should be noted that the use of ‘serpent’ has led to associations
with Gen. 3 among Christian exegetes as well; e.g. Murphy and Gispen. The
latter believes that the staffs of the magicians actually turned into snakes and
comments: But the text forces us to think of a real transformation, and we
must then explain it in terms of Satanic power; this is particularly apt here,
where Moses and Aaron are petitioning for the liberation of the woman’s seed
(Gen. 3:15; 2 Thess. 2:9; Rev. 13:12-15). It should further be pointed out that
rabbinical discussion of the passage with regard to the question of why this
particular miracle was to be performed before Pharaoh also extends to other
texts (ExR. IX, 3,4 and Zohar Exod. 28a).
64 See e.g. GenR XX, 5 (the serpent cries when its hands and feet are chopped off) and
Ginzberg, I, 78.
532 exo dus 5:22-7:13
The second confrontation with Pharaoh (7:10-13)

7:10 So Moses and Aaron went to Pharaoh and did exactly as y h w h had
commanded them; Aaron threw his staff down before Pharaoh's eyes and the eyes
o f his court; and it changed into a serpent.
see 7:6 for the sing.; the quite lengthy dialogue has come to an end; at
last a passage is introduced by a verb of motion rather than a verb of speech;
at long last Moses, accompanied now by Aaron, performs the mission com
manded by y h w h that was described in 6:11. n in D " *?K , the Sam. Pent, reads 'izb
instead of bn (cf. 7:9); see also the LXX. See 7:6 for iron and the words
following it. The LXX and the Pesh. translate as though ddk followed mrr just
as in 7:6. See 7:9 for "fan and the words following it. Aaron acts in accordance
with the instructions given to Moses by y h w h . Not only Pharaoh is mentioned
as a witness to the miracle, but also his court (see Introd. § 3.37.2). Pharaoh is
surrounded by a crowd of devoted servants, as any ancient Eastern sovereign
would be. Perhaps the magicians with whom the reader is about to make
acquaintance (7:11-12) were among them. The two brothers confront a throng.
The conciseness of the description is striking. In summary fashion it is
reported that Moses and Aaron acted entirely in accordance with y h w h ’s
command65. In the light of what precedes, what is meant is: Having come to
Pharaoh, Aaron speaks; he conveys to Pharaoh y h w h ’s demand that he release
the Israelites from his land (7:If.). In view of 7:10b the text assumes that
Pharaoh, having listened to Aaron, has asked the two brothers to identify
themselves as representatives of the divinity in whose name they speak. Moses
then asked Aaron to throw down his staff, in accordance with y h w h ’s com
mand (7:9). 7:10b merely mentions the execution of that command and its
result. The inverted imperfect fan assumes Moses* demand to Aaron, which is
reported tacitly in the preceding general statement, and describes his reaction
to that directive. Baentsch states with reference to Ges-K § 11 Id that fan
does not really add to the action and that the inverted imperfect is being used
to introduce an explication of the preceding more general statement. It would
perhaps be better to say that the continuation of one of the actions included in
the general statement is being developed (cf. KoSynt § 369b), to wit, the action
that determines the ongoing progress of the narrative.
7:11 Then Pharaoh summoned the scholarly magicians. They in turn, the con
jurors o f Egypt, accomplished the same by means o f their incantations.
‘summoned,* see Introd. § 3.45.1. m, see Introd. § 3.11.2; a translation for the
first D3 is missing in the LXX and the Pesh.; Da presupposes that Pharaoh acts
in the same way as Moses has; to put it differently, it assumes that Moses has
directed Aaron to act as a ‘magician’; this is only reported tacitly in 7:10. ddtt,
Te Stroete erroneously asserts with regard to 7:8-9 that P nowhere describes the negotiations
with Pharaoh.
see 1:10.
D'D»?o, pi. piel part, of *pz> ‘conjure’ of which with the exception of 2 Chr.
33:6 only the participle occurs in the OT and functions as a substantive; see
further Deut. 18:10 (sing. masc. part.); Mai. 3:5; Dan. 2:2 (pi. masc. part.);
Exod. 22:17 (sing. fem. part.). The rendering ‘sorcerer,’ ‘magician’ for 7:11 is
current at present and “witch,’ ‘sorceress’ in 22:17. It should be pointed out
that O'ddo is mentioned by Gen. 41:8 in one breath with o*no*in, which occurs a
little further on in 7:11, and that D'Dflnn is used alongside 0'ixnrt in Dan. 2:2. It
is impossible to distinguish the various terms. All are designations for one and
the group of people. At issue are people who perform secret arts, who have
power over secret forces. The fact that they were present at the court (cf. Dan.
2:2) demonstrates that they were prestigious people in Egypt and elsewhere
who belonged to the upper crust of society (see also 22:17; Deut. 18:10; Mai.
3:5). After 7:11 they are designated only as D'oenn (7:22, etc.). See further
TWAT, IV, 375ff.
onsn 'acnn is an explanatory apposition with on (e.g. Ges-K § 1311; Joiion §
146e). The Vulg. translates freely: et fecerunt etiam ipsi per incantationes
aegyptias et arcana quaedam similiter, onso *nonn, the same construct chain
occurs in 7:22 and in Gen. 41:8. D'ncnn is further used (only in the plural) in
Gen. 41:24; Exod. 8:3, 14, 15; 9:11 (2x); Dan. 1:20; 2:2 (see also 2:10, 27; 4:4,
6; 5:11) and used to be regarded as a derivative of tnrt, a root from which Bin
(32:4) has been derived: obnn means ‘one who engraves/writes’ and in a derived
sense ‘someone in possession of secret knowledge’ (BDB), or ‘someone who
wields the (slate) chalk,’ as well as a scholar in a more general sense (KoW);
see also Ges-B and Zo.6667 otnn is currently regarded as an Egyptian loan-
word:61hr-tp ‘priest-reader,’ ‘magician.’ Dutch translations have rendered
D'OBin in various ways; in Exodus as ‘magicians’ (SV, LuthV, CV, UV,),
‘symbol interpreters’ (Van der Palm), ‘scholars’ (LV, NV), ‘conjurors’ (WV,
GNB).68 In the OT we encounter the o'ncnn at the Egyptian (Gen. 41; Exod.
7-9) and Babylonian (Dan. 1-2) court. They act as interpreters of dreams and
are considered to have insight into what is secret (Gen. 41; Dan. 1-2; 4-5) and
have power over secret forces, allowing them to act as conjurors (Exod. 7-8).
See also TWAT, III, 189ff.; Vergote, 76ff.
Although the magicians have more than found their match (7:12b), they do
not simply disappear from the stage. 7:10ff describes the beginning of a contest
between Pharaoh’s magicians on one side and Moses and Aaron as ‘magicians’
of y h w h on the other. The struggle continues in the stories of the plagues and
A derivation from Arabic hatama ‘speak through the nose’ has been proposed by G.
Hoffmann, Z AW 3 (1883), 89.
67 See e.g. Th.O. Lambdin, JAOS 73 (1953), 150f.
Q—ISO D'BBTI has been left untranslated in the LV in the assumption (e.g. Holzinger) the
text in 7:11 has been elaborated on the basis of 7:22; see also UV.
534 exo dus 5:22-7:13
contribute to the suspense in these stories. At the first, second, and third
plagues Pharaoh’s magicians are still in the game, so to speak, demonstrating
their prowess. After their defeat in 7:12b they initially make a complete
comeback: they too are capable of transforming water into blood (7:22) and of
making the frogs swarm (8:3) - doubts concerning y h w h ’s power already
resurface in the reader’s mind - but at the third plague they are forced to quit
the contest (8:14f.). It appears that there are limits to their capabilities. Their
definitive humiliation is described in the account of the sixth plague: With all
their learning they seem incapable of sparing themselves from the annoying
sores. Moreover —how ironic!- their initial success (7:22; 8:3) turns out to be
no more than a downright contribution to the total consternation in Egypt.
They cannot reverse the catastrophes, but only increase them, thus contri
buting to y h w h ’s fight against Pharaoh. Gunkel, 103, points out that the
stories mentioned avail themselves of the fairy tale motif of a competition
among wizards (cf. Acta Petri 31f. and Acts 13:8ff.).69
D'pnb* is a hapax legomenon which is customarily regarded as a related form
of mpb. D'ob is used in 7:22; 8:3,14 to indicate ‘magic arts,’ ‘incantations’ (one
may also regard the term as a collective plural). D'pb* is the plural of ab (with
Pttb as a related form, Judg. 4:21), a derivative of P '6 , which is used only in the
expression Dba (1 Sam. 18:22; 24:5; Ruth 3:7) ‘secret.’ D'Db are therefore the
secret arts (e.g. Ges-B, BDB, Zo., HAL). KoW examines D'Dnb more closely
and derives it from a root onb II which he, referring to K&HkL, II/l, 486,
characterizes as an elongated form of mb. Mandelkern mentions the possibility
that rnonb is plural for Dnb, a derivative of Dnb ‘burn,’ ‘consume’ which occurs
in Gen. 3:24 in the expression nppnnpn anna Dnb (for Dnb see TWAT, IV, 488ff.)
and means ‘brilliance,’ ‘flame.’ Mandelkern defines the plural meaning as
prestigiae, oculorum ludibrium. It is apparently assumed that brilliance easily
leads to illusion and deception and that the term may consequently be used to
indicate magic. Lipirtski, 224, takes a different tack: in addition to uab ‘burn,’
the OT uses the verb Dnb (a variant of mb) ‘encircle,’ ‘surround,’ ‘envelop’ (e.g.
Ps. 57:5; 97:3; 104:4); the derivative Dab means ‘spell’ both in Gen. 3:24 as well
as Exod. 7:11.70 Whatever the case, no difference of opinion exists regarding
the meaning of D'Dab in 7:11.
It should be noted that 7:10 says of Moses and Aaron: id iPtn; the same is
said of the magicians in 7:11.71 There is a significant difference, however.
Moses and Aaron act ‘as y h w h had commanded’; the magicians act ‘by means
69 See also G .Q u ell, ‘D as P hanom en des W unders im A lten T estam ent,* in (F s W . R u d o lp h ,

Verbannung und Heimkehr, T ubingen 1961, 253-300 (267ff.).
70 See R ash i at 7:11: ‘a sw ord gyrating as by m agic’ is m eant in G en. 3:24; fo r a differen t
deriv atio n see N achm anides.
71 T h e re is a form al co rrespondence, but no m aterial co rrespondence; th e ‘d oing’ o f th e
m agicians co rre sp o n d s only with A a ro n ’s doing (7:10b).
of their incantations.’ The author points out that although there may be no
difference on the surface between Aaron’s miracle and the miracle of the
magicians, there is nevertheless an essential difference with respect to the
origin of the miracle. Aaron has been enabled by y h w h to perform the
miracle and therefore only appears to be a colleague of the magicians. The
author leaves it at alerting the reader to this. People have subsequently asked
themselves how the magicians were capable of performing this impressive
miracle. Various answers have been offered. The SV has a comment in the
margin saying that the miracle was only an illusion in the case of the magic
ians. This touches on an old point of discussion.72 The explanation contains
two elements to which is often referred in this regard. Keil, for instance,
considers it possible on the one hand that the magicians created the impres
sion of matching Aaron’s feat by means of an illusion (their staffs were
actually paralysed snakes which came to life when thrown to the ground) yet
on the other hand he considers it possible that they were able to perform their
miracle through Satan’s intervention (2 Thess. 2:19) (cf. Gispen). Satanic
power accomplishes more than just casting a spell on the eyes according to
this theory. Others do not wish to take Satanic influence into account at all
and support a rationalistic explanation. Van der Palm explicitly repudiates the
suggestion that a blinding of the eyes through Satanic arts is involved in the
margin of his translation: the magicians are no more than very adroit and
competent performers of tricks. He adds that they could have learned that
Moses had already performed the miracle for the people and thus prepared
themselves in advance. See also Strack and Heinisch. The latter suggests the
following possibility in addition to the rationalistic explanation given by Keil
(it is an illusion created by a trick): the magicians have secretly taken along
snakes; with the dexterity of performers they makes their staffs disappear and
throw down the snakes, while they distract the attention of those present by a
sleight of hand.
TPsJ contains an elaboration after orrm, inserting the names of Jannes and
Jambres. The rabbinical literature tells of their actions (e.g. bMen. 85a; ExR.
IX, 7, and further Ginzberg, II, 334ff.) They have already been discussed earlier
(see at 1:15-22; 2:10). Note that a book about them existed, of which a
fragment has been included in translation by Riessler, 496. It contains a report
spoken by Jannes saying that he ended up in the underworld due to his
72
See e.g. G regory o f Nyssa: th at th ere a re no real, live snakes involved is d e m o n stra ted by th e
fact th a t they d o n o t possess th e strength to defend them selves (VM, I, 24); c o m p are fu rth e r
T ertu llian , De Anima, L V II, fo r instance; the latter points o ut th at G od p erm itted th e m agicians to
p erfo rm th e ir a rts w ith o u t im m ediately punishing them , even though they tu rn ed against him,
w h ereas a fte r th e com ing o f C hrist he reacted q u ite differently in th e case o f Sim on th e s o rc e re r
(A cts 8:9ff.) an d E lym as (A cts 13:8ff.); T h eo d o re t states th at G od perm its th e m agicians to
p erfo rm th e ir m iracles to let th e difference with M oses’ m iracles com e o u t to full advantage ( QE ,
X V III).
exo dus 5:22-7:13
opposition to Moses and Aaron. His unhappy fate induces him to exhort
Jambres and his kin to make sure they pursue the good in life.73
7:12 Each o f them threw down his staff and these changed into serpents. But
Aaron’s staff swallowed up their staffs.
7:12a describes the fact that Pharaoh’s magicians performed the same miracle
as Aaron using roughly the same wording as does 7:10b. Each of them was
able to perform what Aaron had accomplished (‘they threw down, each his
staff; cf. KGSynt § 348w). The miracle is now multiplied. In distinction to
7:10b there is no explicit mention of the audience before whom the miracle is
performed.
qal imperf. cons, of vta74 that occurs in the qal (OT ca. 20 x) in
7:12; 15:12 meaning ‘swallow up,’ ‘devour,’ ‘consume’ (e.g. Gen. 41:7, 24; Isa.
28:4; Hos. 8:7; Jonah 2:1; Ps. 124:3). vbi is used in connection to p n in Jer.
51:34, just as in 7:12. is the subject in 15:12 (cf. Num. 16:30, 32, 34; 26:10;
Deut. 11:6; Ps. 106:17). The land executes judgment upon the enemies of
Y H W H . See further TWAT, I, 658ff.
‘Aaron’s staff swallowed up their staffs’: It seems obvious that the words
should be interpreted as follows: Aaron’s staff, which had been changed into a
serpent, etc. (e.g. Ehrlich). The rabbinic tradition, in contrast, includes the
theory that Aaron’s staff swallowed up the other staffs after it had become a
staff again (e.g. bShab. 97a; ExR. IX, 7; Zohar Exod. 28a and see further
Ginzberg, II, 335f. as well as Rashi). What has happened has become even
more impressive in this way. With regard to the interpretation just mentioned,
TPsJ includes an elaboration of 7:12a in which it is explicitly stated that the
staffs had returned to their original state before they were swallowed up. The
miracle happened in that manner to preclude the following reaction: nothing
unusual has actually taken place since it is the habit of snakes to consume
each other (e.g. ExR. IX, 7, and see further Ginzberg, II, 335f.).
7:13 Pharaoh nevertheless remained adamant. He did not want to listen, just as
YHWH had announced.
‘Remained adamant,’ see Introd. § 3.19. ‘He did not want to listen,’ cf. 7:4;
□rr^t undoubtedly refers to Moses and Aaron; since they were last mentioned
in 7:10a, one would expect their names here sooner than a personal pronoun;
perhaps a personal pronoun has been used due to the correspondence with 7:4.
An explicit connection to 7:4 is made by means of the words ‘as y h w h had
announced.’
73 Cf. A. P ietersm a, “T h e A pocryphon o f Ja n n e s and Ja m b re s ,' SVT 43 (1991), 383-95.

74 O T ca. 50x; SS, BDB, KoW , Z o., assum e a single ro o t sb z; G es-B c o u n ts two, and HAL
even reck o n s th e re a re th re e hom onym ous roots.

The report of the encounter between Moses and Aaron and Pharaoh ends just
when events reach their culmination (7:12). At the climax (7:12b) the author
adds as a concluding remark the fact that Pharaoh remained adamant. He does
not elaborate on why Pharaoh did not revise his position and warded off
external influences. Psychologizing is alien to the author.75 He also leaves the
reader in ignorance concerning the details of the finale. He only relates what is
strictly necessary. Aaron’s triumph over the magicians has no effect on
Pharaoh. This need not be a reason for panic. No better was to be expected
(cf. 7:3ff).
As indicated, the author writes tersely. Details are lacking. What happened
to the staffs/serpents receives no further mention. It appears from what follows
that Aaron’s serpent has changed back into a staff (7:15). Was the magicians’
property restored to them? The author ignores such questions and thereby
leaves room for later exegetes to speculate. Van der Palm, for instance, states
in his margin that vbz (7:12) should be interpreted as ‘bite to death’; the
alleged staffs remained lying on the ground, dead, while the serpent that had
killed them again became a staff in Aaron’s hand. A more elaborate portrayal
of events is already to be found in Josephus and Philo and in the rabbinic
tradition. Josephus (AJ, II, 284ff.), who, as we have mentioned earlier (see at
5:1,22-23), recounts that Moses had performed the signs he had enacted at Mt.
Sinai at his first encounter with Pharaoh, remains silent concerning Aaron76
and reports that Pharaoh is not overawed, instead viewing Moses as a felon
escaped from slavery who is trying to impress him with magic tricks and
conjuring. He summons his priests who then also change their staffs into
serpents. Moses, not at all daunted, responds with the remark: ‘Oh King, I
certainly do not hold the craft of the Egyptians in contempt, but I maintain
that the things which I have wrought surpass their magic and arts by as far as
the divine things are removed from mortal things. I shall show you that my
miracles spring not from sorcery or impediments to good judgment but from
God’s providence and power.’ He then throws his staff to the ground. It
changes into a serpent and consumes the serpents of the priests, after which it
resumes its old form. The king is not surprised, however, but rather indignant,
issuing orders to increase the forced labour (cf. Exod. 5). Josephus disregards
Moses’ despondency and y h w h ’s response (5:22ff.) but reports that Moses
does not become irresolute on account of Pharaoh’s threats and the reproaches
of his countrymen, instead pursuing unflinchingly the liberation of his people.
He returns to Pharaoh and advises him that catastrophes will ensue if he does
75 V an d e r Palm n o tes in th e m argin th at P haraoh do es n o t respond because to his m ind M oses

an d A a ro n a re sim ply even b e tte r m agicians than the E gyptians.
76 G reg o ry o f Nyssa (VM , I, 24) also re p o rts M oses as the one w ho perfo rm s th e se rp en t
m iracle.
538 exodus 5:22-7:13
not comply with the demand to release the Hebrews so that they may offer
sacrifices at Mt. Sinai. Josephus subsequently relates the plagues.
Having narrated how Moses performed signs for his countrymen (see at 5:21
and 5:22-23), Philo describes how they were also performed before Pharaoh
and his court (VM, I, 91ff.): ‘The brother of Moses’ takes the staff and swings
it around in a conspicuous manner before throwing it to the ground where it
changes into a serpent. Those present were amazed, became fearful, and would
have fled had not the magicians present observed that there was no reason for
to be frightened, since they were capable of doing the same, whereupon they
too performed the miracle. The first snake, however, raises itself high, enlarges
its chest, opens its mouth, and by the inflow action of its breath, draws the
other serpents to itself with irresistible force, as a catch of fish is drawn
together in a net, and devours them. After that it resumes it old form. Philo
adds that the incredulity of every malevolent person had been rebuffed by this
miraculous demonstration and that the Egyptians did not regard what had
happened as the result of human skill or of magic tricks, but as the fruit of a
greater divine power, which could accomplish any feat effortlessly. They
nevertheless did not abandon their unyielding attitude and thereby called the
plagues on themselves.
In the rabbinic tradition there is a story of how Pharaoh was not in the least
impressed by Aaron’s serpent miracle, and considered their performance in
Egypt, the centre of all conjuring, akin to carrying coals to Newcastle. The
repetition of m in 7:11 elicits the conclusion that Pharaoh did not only let his
magicians perform the serpent miracle, but also his wife and children of four
and five years old (e.g. ExR. IX, 6,7; MidrTanh. ExocL, II, 12f., and further
Ginzberg, II, 334f.). It has already been noted that rabbinic tradition holds that
it was Aaron’s staff (and not the serpent) that consumed the other staffs (see
at 7:12). Yet not even this marks the culmination of the string of miracles.
Despite the large numbers of staffs that Aaron’s staff had consumed, it was no
fatter than at the beginning, and was recognizable as Aaron’s staff (ExR. IX,
7). Islamic tradition, in similarity to Josephus and Philo, holds that there was
only a single confrontation with Pharaoh before the plagues. This confron
tation consists of a string of miraculous events of which I will mention only a
few here: Moses identifies himself by throwing his staff to the ground; it
changes into a serpent as large and strong as a camel; it addresses Pharaoh; by
sticking his hand into the mouth of the serpent and grabbing hold of its
tongue, Moses changes the serpent back into a staff; Risam and Riyam are
chosen from the ranks of the many magicians in Egypt to prove that Moses
and Aaron are no more than magicians like themselves; during the contest
Moses’ staff turns into a seven-headed serpent; with its mouth gaping wide
open it pursues the magicians; they profess their belief in the God of Moses
and Aaron and seal their faith with martyrdom, as is true some time later of
one of Pharaoh’s daughters and even of his wife (Weil, 152ff.).
As is true of other miracles, the miracle of the serpents has also been
ascribed metaphorical significance in the history of exegesis, and has served as
the point of departure for theological argument. Origen (Horn, in Exod,, IV,
6), for instance, equates the staff with the cross of Christ and the serpent with
Wisdom: the serpent, Wisdom, consumes the serpents of Egypt, the wisdom of
the world; or, in the cross of Christ, the preaching of which seems foolishness,
God has confounded the wisdom of this world. Gregory of Nyssa (VM, II, 63f.)
discerns an allegory of the struggle between virtuous and evil deeds in the
miracles. The book of Zohar Exod, 28a-28b, argues against unbelief in the
resurrection of the dead by referring to Aaron’s staff, which was made of dry
wood, but which the Holy One briefly changed into a living being with body
and soul.
APPENDIX
HISTORICAL COMMENTARY ON THE OLD TESTAMENT

OBJECTIVES
The Historical Commentary on the Old Testament is a new international series

of commentaries to which scholars from all over the world have promised to
contribute (see the list of projected volumes). Only one word in the title of
this new commentary requires an explanation. It is the word: historical. Has
every text in the Old Testament a historical dimension? What is ‘historical’ in
a book like Proverbs? Would it not be more in accord with the current trend
in exegesis to put emphasis on the message of the text in its final, canonical
shape? Or is the adjective ‘historical’ simply a breviloquence for ‘histori
cal-critical’?
The editors of the new series subscribe to the view that the Old Testament is
the product of a long process of transmission of various traditions that were
actualized over and over again in the history of ancient Israel. In modern rea
der-oriented exegesis it is mainly the interaction between reader and es
tablished text that matters. Neither the process of growth before the text
attained its final shape nor the reasons for its adaptation and adoption by
religious communities in the past are matters of prime concern to exegetes
advocating this type of research.
In contrast to this a-historical approach the editors of HCOT firmly believe

that the message of the OT can only be understood properly if the confron
tation with its historical background is not shunned. Knowledge of God was
achieved there and then within the bounds of human history. If there is
anything needed for modern man to accept the lasting value of the Old
Testament, it is the realization that it originated in a normal human society
which in evolutionary terms was not so terribly far removed from our present
human condition. And yet time and again revelation was recognized in the
context of ordinary human history, culture and language, i.e. in a world not
unlike ours. Only in comparing the OT traditions with their historical counter
parts and in confronting them with the results of archaeological research we
may hope to come a little closer to the distinctiveness of the faith of ancient
Israel.
Therefore the editors aim at producing a commentary on the Old Testament

that devotes explicit attention to the history of interpretation of biblical
tradition in all its stages, both within and without the Hebrew canon. As the
term ‘Old Testament’ indicates, the commentary stands in the Christian
exegetical tradition. The team of those who committed themselves to contrib
ute comprises scholars from many different churches and denominations. They
will treat both the Jewish and Christian interpretations of the past with due
respect, but are free to take their own stand in controversial matters.
544 H ISTO RICA L CO M M EN TA RY ON TH E OT
The commentary is intended not only for Old Testament scholars, but also for
ministers and other interested parties. Nowadays the wealth of information on
any biblical text is so overwhelming that any good commentary tends to grow
far beyond what was customary earlier. Unfortunately a well-founded and fully
controlable exegetical argument cannot be presented without constant appeal
to the never ending stream of new data put at our disposal by archaeology and
philology. However, unlike other disciplines, theology cannot afford to write
off previous scholarship and has to carry the burden of many centuries of
exegetical wisdom.
To alleviate the burden this puts on the user of the Historical Commentary,
the technical treatment of every pericope is preceded by a new translation and
a short section called ‘Essentials and Perspectives' in which the author sum
marizes the results of the exegesis in non-technical language. Not even Hebrew
and Greek are used here. Theologically speaking, the final stage of the text
should be assigned the primate in this section of the exegetical exposition.
However, if various levels can be discerned in the development of the present
text, the meaning of every level is elucidated in accordance with our conviction
that every discernable historical stage has a message that is worth our atten
tion. Passages elsewhere in the OT that can be regarded as later applications
or actualizations of the text are discussed. Important insights in the meaning of
the text in the history of Jewish and Christian interpretation are discussed in
full here, especially the use in the New Testament. Although the emphasis is
on the history of interpretation, the authors are free to indicate what they see
as perspectives for modern application of the text.
Ideally, the summary should incite the user to consult the main body of the
exegesis which will be headed ‘Scholarly Exposition. ’ The approach here is that
of modern critical scholarship. This means that no constraints are put upon
the individual contributors with regard to questions of dating, authorship or
method. However, in accordance with the goal formulated above, the authors
are expected to pay due attention to the meaning of every historical stage they
discern in the formation of the text, including its final canonical stage. The
unravelling of tradition history and redactional processes should not become
an aim in itself, but should clearly serve to retrace the history o f interpretation.
If the historical context cannot be defined precisely, as is the case with many
parts of a book like Proverbs, the historical background of the genre as such,
in this case the proverbial wisdom literature of the Ancient Near East, should
serve as a means to re-create the historical atmosphere in which such a text
functioned. Also realia like climate, geology, geography, minerals, flora and
fauna - in short, everything that brings the then existing world nearer to the
reader, should be treated extensively in the scholarly exposition. Finally the
structure of the text belongs to its historical dimension. The ancient scribes
O B JE C TIV E S 545
often omitted to indicate the structural lay-out in their manuscripts because

they knew it by heart and did not want to waste precious writing materials by
incorporating it. However, for our understanding of the text the recovery of
the structure they intended is a major prerequisite. Therefore this aspect of the
text too will receive much attention in the HCOT.
T h e E d ito rs
Cornelis Houtman
Willem S. Prinsloo
Wilfred G.E. Watson
A1 Wolters
PROJECTED VOLUMES AND CONTRIBUTORS
Genesis Erhard Blum, Augsburg, Germany

Exodus Cornelis Houtman, Kampen, The Netherlands
Leviticus James W. Watts, Hastings, Nebraska U.S.A
Numbers
Deuteronomy Cornelis Houtman, Kampen, The Netherlands
Joshua Hartmut RCsel, Haifa, Israel
Judges Johannes C. de Moor, Kampen, The Netherlands
Ruth Marjo C.A Korpel, Utrecht, The Netherlands
1 Samuel Ake Viberg, Lund, Sweden
2 Samuel Jichan Kim, Seoul, Korea
1 Kings Martin J. Mulder, Leiden, The Netherlands
2 Kings
1 & 2 Chronicles Peter B. Dirksen, Leiden, The Netherlands
Ezra Istvdn Karasszon, Budapest, Hungary
Nehemiah Edward Noort, Groningen, The Netherlands
Esther Henk Jagersma, Brussels, Belgium
Job
Psalms 1-72
Psalms 73-150 Willem S. Prinsloo, Pretoria, South Africa
Proverbs James A Loader, Pretoria, South Africa
Ecclesiastes Anton Schoors, Louvain, Belgium
Song of Songs Wilfred G.E. Watson, New Castle, England
Isaiah 1-12 Hendrik Leene, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Isaiah 13-39 Willem AM. Beuken, Louvain, Belgium
Isaiah 40-66 Jan L. Koole, Kampen, The Netherlands
Jeremiah Ben J. Oosterhoff, Apeldoorn, The Netherlands
Lamentations Johan Renkema, Kampen, The Netherlands
Ezekiel
Daniel
Hosea Dwight R. Daniels, Glendale, CA U.S.A
Joel Willem van der Meer, Kampen, The Netherlands
Amos Meindert Dijkstra, Utrecht, The Netherlands
Obadaiah Johan Renkema, Kampen, The Netherlands
Jonah Johannes H. Potgieter, Pretoria, South Africa
Micah Johannes C. de Moor, Kampen, The Netherlands
Nahum Klaas Spronk, Kampen, The Netherlands
Habakuk Gert T.M. Prinsloo, Pretoria, South Africa
Zephaniah Jan Vlaardingerbroek, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Haggai William Th. Koopmans, Orangeville, Ont. Canada
Zechariah A1 Wolters, Ancaster, Ont. Canada
Malachi Raymond C. Van Leeuwen, Grand Rapids, MI U.S.A
ABBREVIATIONS
OF PERIODICALS, REFERENCE WORKS, AND SERIES
AASOR Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research

AB The Anchor Bible
ABD The Anchor Bible Dictionary
ABAW.PH Abhandlungen der (k.) bayrischen Akademie der Wissenschaf-
ten-Philosophisch-historische Abteilung
AbrN Abr Nahrain
ACEBT Amsterdamse Cahiers voor Exegese en Bijbelse Theologie
MO Archiv fur Orientforschung
AHw W. von Soden, Akkadisches Handworterbuch, Wiesbaden 1965,
1972, 1981
AJSL American Journal o f Semitic Languages and Literatures
AnBib Analecta Biblica
ANEP The Ancient Near East in Pictures relating to the Old Testament,
ed. J.B. Pritchard
AN ET Ancient Near Eastern Texts relating to the Old Testament, ed. J.B.
Pritchard
AnOr Analecta Orientalia
AOAT Alter Orient und Altes Testament
AOB Altorientalische Bilder zum Alten Testament, ed. H. Gressmann
AO T Altorientalische Texte m m Alten Testament, ed. H. Gressmann
APOT Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha o f the Old Testament, ed. R.H.
Charles
ARM Archives royales de Mari
ARTU J.C. de Moor, An Anthology o f Religious Texts from Ugarit,
Leiden 1987
ArOr Archiv Orientdlni
ARW Archiv fUr Religionswissenschaft
A STI Annual o f the Swedish Theological Institute
ASV American Standard Version
ATD Das Alte Testament Deutsch
AThANT Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments
Aug Augustinianum
AuS G. Dalman, Arbeit und Sitte in Paldstina, I-VII, Gutersloh 1928-
42
AUSS Andrews University Seminary Studies
AV Authorized Version (King James Version)
BA Biblical Archaeologist
BARev Biblical Archaeology Review
BASOR Bulletin o f the American Schools o f Oriental Research
BBB Bonner biblische Beitrage
548 H ISTO RICA L CO M M EN TA RY ON TH E O T
BC Biblischer Commentar iiber das Alte Testament (Keil & De-

litzsch)
BDB F. Brown, S.R. Driver, C.A. Brigges, A Hebrew and English
Lexicon o f the Old Testament, corrected impression, Oxford
1952
BeO Biblia e Oriente
BetM Beth Mifcra
BETL Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium
BH Bijbels Handboeky1 ed. A.S. van der Woude
BHHW Biblisch-historisches Handworterbuchy ed. B. Reicke and L. Rost
BHK Biblia Hebraicay ed. R. Kittel
BHS Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia
Bib Biblica
BiLe Bibel und Leben
BiOr Bibliotheca Orientalis
BIOSCS Bulletin o f the International Organization for Septuagint and
Cognate Studies
BiTr Bible Translator
BJRL Bulletin o f the John Rylands Library
BK Biblischer Kommentar
BN Biblische Notizen
BOT De Boeken van het Oude Testament
BR Biblical Research
BRL2 Biblisches Reallexikony ed. K. Galling, Tubingen 19772
BS Bibliotheca Sacra
BTB Biblical Theology Bulletin
BTFT Bijdragen: Tijdschrift voor Filosofie en Theologie
BWANT Beitr&ge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament
BWL W.G. Lambert, Babylonian Wisdom Literature, Oxford 1960
BZ Biblische Zeitschrift
BZAW Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fur die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft
BZNW Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fur die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft
CAD The Assyrian Dictionary o f the Oriental Institute o f the University
o f C h i c a g O y ed. L. Oppenheim et al., Chicago 1956-
CAT Commentaire de L’Ancien Testament
CBCNEB The Cambridge Bible Commentary on the New English Bible
CB9C Cambridge-Bible for Schools and Colleges
CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly
CeB The Century Bible
1 ET: Bible Handbook , Vol. I, A.S. van d e r W oude (ed.), The World o f the Bible, G ra n d R ap id s
1986; Vol. II (D u tch edition Ila), A.S. van d e r W oude (ed.), The World o f the Old Testament,
G ra n d R ap id s 1989.
ABBREVIA TIO N S 549
Coll Collationes
ConB Coniectanea Biblica
COT Commentaar op het Oude Testament
CTA A. Herdner, Corpus des tablettes en cuniiformes alphabitiques
decouvertes d Ras Shamra-Ugarit de 1929 d 1939, Paris 1963
CTJ Calvin Theological Journal
DB Dictionary o f the Bible, ed. J. Hastings
DBAT Dielheimer Bldtter zum Alten Testament
DBS Dictionaire de la Bible, Supplement
DISO C.F. Jean, J. Hoftijzer, Dictionnaire des inscriptions semitiques
de TOuesty Leiden 1965
DJD Discoveries in the Judean desert
EchB Echter-Bibel
EH Exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament
EJ Encyclopaedia Judaica
ERE Encyclopaedia o f Religion and Ethics
Erls Eretz-Israel
EstBib Estudios Biblicos
ET Expository Times
EThL Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses
EvQ The Evangelical Quaterly
EvTh Evangelische Theologie
FJB Frankfurter Judaistische Beitrdge
FO Folia Orientalia
FRLANT Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen
Testaments
Fs Festschrift
FUQ Free University Quarterly
FzB Forschungen zur Bibel
GELS J. Lust et al. (eds.), A Greek - English Lexicon o f the Sepuagint,
Stuttgart 1992-
Ges.18 Wilhelm Gesenius hebrdisches und aramdisches Handwdrterbuch
iiber das Alte Testamenty 18th ed., ed. R. Meyer and H. Donner,
Berlin 1987-
Ges-B W. Gesenius, F. Buhl, Hebrdisches und aramdisches Handwdrter
buch aber das Alte Testament, Leipzig 192117
Ges-K W. Gesenius, E. Kautzsch, Hebrdische Grammatik, Leipzig
190928
GKC Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar, ed. E. Kautzsch, tr. A.E. Cowley,
2d English ed., Oxford 1910
GThT Gereformeerd Theologisch Tijdschrift
HAL W. Baumgartner et al., Hebrdisches und aramdisches Lexikon
zum Alten Testamenty Leiden 1967-
550 H ISTO RICA L CO M M EN TA RY ON T H E O T
HAR Hebrew Annual Review

HAT Handbuch zum Alten Testament
HBT Horizons in Biblical Theology
HCOT Historical Commentary on the Old Testament
Hen Henoch
HeyJ Heytrop Journal
HK Handkommentar zum Alten Testament
HR History o f Religions
HSAT Die heilige Schrift des Alten Testaments (Kautzsch)
HSchAT Die heilige Schrift des Alten Testaments (Feldmann & Herken-
ne)
HThR Harvard Theological Review
HTS Hervormde Teologiese Studies
HUCA Hebrew Union College Annual
IB The Interpreter’s Bible
ICC The International Critical Commentary
IDB(S) The Interpreter’s Dictionary o f the Bible (Supplementary Volume)
IEJ Israel Exploration Journal
Int Interpretation
JAAR Journal o f the American Academy o f Religion
JANES Journal a f the Ancient Near Eastern Society o f Columbia Univer
sity
JAOS Journal o f the American Oriental Society
JBC Jerome Biblical Commentary
JBL Journal of Biblical Literature
JCS Journal o f Cuneiform Studies
JE The Jewish Encyclopedia
JEA Journal o f Egyptian Archaeology
JEOL Jaarbericht van het Vooraziatisch-Egyptisch Genootschap Ex
Oriente L iu
JETS Journal o f the Evangelical Theological Society
JJS Journal o f Jewish Studies
JNES Journal o f Near Eastern Studies
JNSL Journal o f Northwest Semitic Languages
JPOS Journal o f the Palestine Oriental Society
JQR Jewish Quarterly Review
JSem Journal o f Semitics
JSJ Journal for the Studie o f Judaism
JSOT Journal for the Study o f the Old Testament
JSOTSup Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series
JSP Journal for the Study o f the Pseudepigrapha
JSS Journal o f Semitic Studies
JThS Journal o f Theological Studies
Jud Judaica
KAI H. Donner, W. ROllig, Kanaandische und aram&ische Inschriften,

I-III, Wiesbaden 1966-692
KAT Kommentar zum Alten Testament
KBL L. Koehler, W. Baumgartner, Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti
Libros, Leiden 1953
KEH Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament
KHC Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum Alten Testament
KJV Authorised King James Version
KK KurzgefaBter Kommentar zu den heiligen Schriften Alten und
Neuen Testamentes (Strack & ZOckler)
KOSynt F.E. Konig, Historisch-comparative Syntax der hebrdische Spra-
che, Leipzig 1897
KOWB E. KOnig, Hebrdisches und aramdisches Wdrterbuch zum Alten
Testament, Leipzig 19222+3
KP Der kleine Pauly: Lexikon der Antike, ed. K. Ziegler and W. Son-
theimer
KS Kleine Schriften
KTU M. Dietrich et al. (eds.), Die keilalphabetischen Texte aus Ugarit,
I, Neukirchen-Vluyn 1976
KuD Kerygma und Dogma
KVHS Korte Verklaring der Heilige Schrift
LA Lexikon der Agyptologie
LThK Lexikon filr Theologie und Kirche
MGWJ Monatsschrift filr Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums
MIOF Mitteilungen des Instituts filr Orientforschung
MNAW.L Mededelingen der Kon. Ned. Adademie van Wetenschappen
Afdeling Letterkunde
M TZ Milnchener theologische Zeitschrift
NAB New American Bible
NASV New American Standard Version
NCeB New Century Bible
NEB The New English Bible
NEchB Die Neue Echter Bibel
NedThT Nederlands Theologisch Tijdschrift
NewRSV New Revised Standard Version
NGTT Nederduits Gereformeerde Teologiese Tydskrif
NICOT The New International Commentary on the Old Testament
NIV New International Version
NJPS The New Jewish Publication Society of America, Translations to
the Holy Scriptures
NorTT Norsk Teologisk Tidsskrift
NRTh Nouvelle Revue Theologique
NT Novum Testamentum
NTS New Testament Studies

OBO Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis
OLZ Orientalistische Literaturzeitung
Or Orientalia
OrAnt Oriens Antiquus
OrChrP Orientalia Christiana Periodica
OTE Old Testament Essays
OTL Old Testament Library
OTP The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, ed. J.H. Charlesworth
OTS Oudtestamentische Studien
0(u)TW (SA)P Papers read at Outestamentiese Werkgemeenskap in Suid-Afrika
PBP Phoenix Bijbelpockets
PEQ Palestine Exploration Quarterly
PRU Le Palais royal dVgarit
PG J.P. Migne, Patrologiae cursus completus. Series Graeca
PJ(B) Paldstinajahrbuch
PL J.P. Migne, Patrologiae cursus completus, Series Latina
POT De Prediking van het Oude Testament
PW Pauly-Wissowa, Realencyclopddie der klassischen Altertumswis-
senschaft
Qad Qadmoniot
RA Revue dAssyriologie et dArcheologie Orientate
RAC Reallexikon flirAntike und Christentum
RB Revue Biblique
RdQ Revue de Qumrdn
RE Realencyclopddie fur protestantische Theologie und Kirche
REB Revised English Bible
REJ Revue des Etudes Juives
RGG Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart
RHPhR Revue d ’Histoire et de Philosophie Religieuses
RHR Revue de THistoire des Religions
RhW Rondom het Woord
RIDA Revue Internationale des Droits de VAntiquite
RLA Reallexikon der Assyriologie
RSP Ras Shamra Parallels
RSR Recherches de Science Religieuse
RSV Revised Standard Version
RTAT W.Beyerlin (ed.), Religionsgeschichtliches Textbuch zum Alten
Testament,2 Gottingen 1975 (19852)
RThom Revue Thomiste
RThPh Revue de Theologie et de Philosophie
^ E T: Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, Philadelphia 1978.

SAT Die Schriften des Alten Testaments (Gunkel & Gressmann)

SBBS The Soncino Books of the Bible
SBJ La Sainte Bible traduite en frangais sous la direction de l’fecole
Biblique de Jerusalem
SBLMS SBL Monograph Series
SBOT The Sacred Books of the Old Testament
SBPC La Sainte Bible, Paris (Pirot & Clamer)
SBS Stuttgarter Bibelstudien
ScE Science et Esprit
ScrHie Scripta Hierosolymitana
se A Svensk Exegetisk Arsbok
Sent Semitica
Semeia Semeia
Semitics Semitics
SJOT Scandinavian Journal o f the Old Testament
SJTh Scottisch Journal o f Theology
SOTSMS Society for Old Testament Study Monograph Series
SR Studies in Religion
SS C. Siegfried, B. Stade, Hebrdisches Wdrterbuch zum Alten Tes
tament, Leipzig 1893
Str-B H.L. Strack, P. Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament
aus Talmud und Midrasch, I-IV, Miinchen 1922-28
StTh Studia Theologica
SVT Supplements to Vetus Testamentum
SVTP Studia in Veteris Testamenti Pseudepigraphia
TBC Torch Bible Commentaries
TDNT Theological Dictionary o f the New Testament, ed. G. Kittel and
G. Friedrich
TDOT Theological Dictionary o f the Old Testament, ed. G.J. Botterweck
and H. Ringgren
TE Theologica Evangelica
TeT Tekst en Toelichting
TeU Tekst en Uitleg
THAT Theologisches Handwdrterbuch zum Alten Testament, ed. E. Jenni
and C. Westermann
ThGl Theologie und Glaube
ThLZ Theologische Literarturzeitung
ThQ Theologische Quartalschrift
ThZ Theologische Zeitschrift
TQ Theologische Quartalschrift
TRE Theologische Realenzy/clopddie
ThR Theologische Rundschau
ThZ Theologische Zeitschrift
TOTC Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries

TS Theological Studies
TSSI J.C. Gibson, Textbook o f Syrian Semitic Inscriptions, I, II, III,
Oxford, 1971, 1975, 1982
TT Theologisch Tijdschrift
TThZ Trierer Theologische Zeitschrift
TUAT Texte aus der Umwelt des Alten Testaments, ed. O. Kaiser
TvT Tijdschrift voor Theologie
TWAT Theologisches Wdrterbuch zum Alten Testament, ed. G.J. Botter-
weck and H. Ringgren
TWNT Theologisches Wdrterbuch zum Neuen Testament, ed. G. Kittel
and G. Friedrich
TynB Tyndale Bulletin
UF Ugarit-Forschungen
VT Vetus Testamentum
WBC Word Biblical Commentary
WC Westminster Commentaries
WMANT Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Tes
tament
WThJ Westminster Theological Journal
WO Die Welt des Orients
ZAS Zeitschrift far dgyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde
ZA Zeitschrift ftlr Assyriologie
ZAH Zeitschrift ftlr Althebraistik
ZAW Zeitschrift fiir die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft
ZBK Zurcher Bibelkommentare
ZDMG Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenlandischen Gesellschaft
ZDPV Zeitschrift des deutschen Paldstina-Vereins
ZKTh Zeitschrift fiir Icatholische Theologie
ZNW Zeitschrift fiir die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft
ZRGG Zeitschrift fur Religions- und Geistesgeischichte
ZS Zeitschrift fiir Semitistik
ZThK Zeitschrift fiir Theologie und Kirche
ZVSF Zeitschrift fiir vergleichende Sprachforschung
ZWTh Zeitschrift fiir wissenschaftliche Theologie
.7*1 THE HISTORICAL COMMENTARY ON THE m i n i ist
a new international series of commentaries which devotes explicit

attention to the history of interpretation of biblical tradition in
all its stages, both within and without the Hebrew canon.
As the term 'Old Testament' indicates, the commentary stands in the
Christian exegetical tradition.
The team of those who committed themselves to contribute comprises
scholars from all over the world and from many different churches and
denominations.
The commentary is intended not only for Old Testament scholars,
but also for ministers and other interested parties.
The treatment of every pericope is preceded by a new translation
and a section called 'Essentials and Perspectives' in which the author
summarizes the results
of the exegesis in non-technical language. The primate here is assigned
to the final stage of the text.
The summary should incite the user to consult the main body of the
exegesis which is headed 'Scfiolary Exposition.’
Here the approach is that of modern critical scholarship.
Critical praise for H outm ans Commentary on Exodus
T h i s is a n i m m e n s e l y in f o r m a tiv e a n d illu m in a t in g c o m m e n t a r y w h ic h n o o n e w o r k in g o n
E x o d u s c a n a ffo r d t o o v e r l o o k .’ - |.W . R o g e r s o n in Book List 1 990, 56.
T h i s c o m m e n t a r y is t o m y m in d o n e o f t h e b e s t a v a i l a b l e o n E x o d u s t o m o d e r n
s c h o la r s .' - Joh n W m W e v e r s in Bibliotheca Orientalis 4 8 (1 9 9 1 ) 8 8 5 .
'It w ill b e c le a r th a t t h e c o m m e n t a r y h a s a g r e a t d e a l t o o f f e r b o t h s c h o la r a n d
la y m a n , a n d ... p r o v i d e s t h e f u l l e s t m o d e r n t r e a t m e n t ... o f E x o d u s t h a t is a v a i l a b l e in a n y
la n g u a g e .' - G .L . D a v i e s in Vetus Testamentum 4 3 (1 9 9 3 ) 4 2 8 .
D i e K o m m e n t ie r u n g e n t h a l t ... e i n e R u b rik m it d e m T ite l " H a u p t lin ie n u n d P e r s p e k t iv e n "

S i e b i e t e t ... e i n e A u s le g u n g , d i e fur j e d e n L e s e r n ic h t n u r e i n G e w in n , s o n d e r n a u c h e i n
G e n u P ist.' - J o a c h im B e c k e r in Biblische Zeitschrift 3 6 (1 9 9 2 ) 1 15.
c ’e s t p a r c e q u e je t i e n s a in s i s t e r s u r s o n im p o r t a n c e ... e l l e (('in fo r m a t io n d e C .H .)
e s t i n c o n t e s t a b l e m e n t p lu s c o m p l e t e q u e c e l l e d e s a u t r e s g r a n d s c o m m e n t a i r e s d e
I 'E x o d e ...' - J. L o za in Revue B iblique 9 8 (1 9 9 1 ) 4 6 2 .
Cornells Houtman is Professor of Old Testament at the Theological

University, Kampen. Major Publications: Introduction to the Pentateuch (1980'
Dutch) and Der Himmel im AIten Testament: Israels Weltbild und Weltanscha
(1993), besides several articles in English
ISBN 90-242-6213-5
KOK
KOK KAMPE
262137 ISBN 90 242

EXODUS
Editorial team:
Comelis Houtman
Willem S. Prinsloo
Wilfred G. Watson
(New Castle, UK)
A1 Wolters
EXODUS
by
Cornelis Houtman
Volume 2
Chapters 7:14 - 19:25
KOK
KOK KAMPEN
KOK PUBLISHING HOUSE - KAMPEN

Translated from the Dutch by Sierd Woudstra
Wi/oT-
Cataloguing-in-Publication Data Royal Library, The Hague
Houtman, Comelis
Exodus - Vol. 2 (Historical Commentary

on the Old Testament)
Comelis Houtman
English Translation by Sierd Woudstra
ISBN 90-242-6194-5
1. Old Testament - translations;
2. Old Testament - commentaries
® 1996 Kok Publishing House, Kampen
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording,
or otherwise,, without the prior written permission of the publisher.
CONTENTS
Editorial P reface................................................................................................. ix
Author’s Preface................................................................................................. xiii
EXODUS 7:14-11:10
PHARAOH PUT UNDER PRESSURE
T ranslation......................................................................................................... 1
Essentials and Perspectives .............................................................................. 8
Scholarly Exposition: Introduction to the Exegesis of 7:1 4 -1 1 :1 0 ................ 10
I Water turned into blood (7:14-25) 24
II Frogs (7:26-8:11)................................................................................. 39
III Lice (8:12-15)...................................................................................... 52
IV Vermin (8:16-28)................................................................................. 58
V Pestilence (9 :1 -7 )................................................................................. 68
VI Infections (9 :8 -1 2 ).............................................................................. 73
VII Hail, thunder, fire and rain (9:13-35) 80
VIII Locusts (10:1-20)................................................................................. 96
IX Darkness (10:21-29) and announcement X (11:1-10) ...................... 114
EXODUS 12:1-13:16
PHARAOH GIVES IN - THE PEOPLE LEAVE
Translation ......................................................................................................... 137

Scholarly Exposition I: Introduction to the Exegesis................................... 146
Passover and feast of unleavened bread (= Matzoth) ................................ 151
Exodus out of Egypt and consecration of the firstborn (13:1-2, 11-16) 162
Scholarly Exposition II: Exegesis................................................................... 166
Observations with 12:3 169
Observations with 12:9 ................................................................................. 180
Observations with 13:12-13........................................................................... 216
The sign on hand and head (1 3 :9 ,1 6 )........................................................... 218
EXODUS 13:17-15:21
PHARAOH’S DESTRUCTION - ISRAEL’S DELIVERANCE
Translation 221
VI CONTENTS

Israel’s song at the sea (15:1-21)................................................................... 240
Observations with 1 3 :1 7 ................................................................................. 250
The pillar of cloud/fire................................................................................... 254
Did also Pharaoh perish in the s e a ? .............................................................. 275
Observations with 1 5 :1 7 ................................................................................. 291
EXODUS 15:22-17:7
ISRAEL PUTS THE FULFILLMENT OF THE PROMISES
TO THE PATRIARCHS AT RISK
Translation ......................................................................................................... 296

I Life is being faithful to yhwh (15:22-27)................................................... 302
Scholarly Exposition I: Introduction to Exegesis of 15:22-27 303
Scholarly Exposition II: Exegesis of 15:22-27 .......................................... 305
II Life is acknowledging yhwh as Lord and faithfully observing
the day of rest (16:1-36)................................................................................. 316
Scholarly Exposition I: Introduction to Exegesis of 16:1-36 ................ 320
Scholarly Exposition II: Exegesis of 16:1-36 ........................................... 328
III Life is being confident of yhwh’s nearness (1 7 :1 -7 )................................ 355
Scholarly Exposition I: Introduction to Exegesis of 1 7 :1-7.................... 357
Scholarly Exposition II: Exegesis of 17:1-7 ............................................ 360
Observations with 17:2-3 .............................................................................. 362
Observations with 17:5-6 .............................................................................. 365
EXODUS 17:8-16
AMALEK OPPOSES THE FULFILLMENT
Translation ......................................................................................................... 369

The gesture with the hands ........................................................................... 383
‘yhwh is my banner’/ ‘it is a “hand” on “the throne” of YH’ 388
CONTENTS vii
EXODUS 1 8 :1 -2 7
INITIAL APPRAISAL - MOSES’ POSITION DELINEATED
Translation ......................................................................................................... 392

Nature of Jethro’s reaction (18:10-12) ........................................................ 411
Nature of Moses’ activities (18:15-16) ........................................................ 414
exodus 19:1-25
GETTING READY FOR GOD’S WORDS
Translation ......................................................................................................... 423

‘A priestly kingdom and a holy nation’ (19:6) 444
P o stscrip t........................................................................................................... 463
HCOT: Projected Volumes and Contributors 465

EDITORIAL PREFACE
The Historical Commentary on the Old Testament is a new commentary series

written by an international team of contributors (see the list of projected volumes).
The operative word in the title is ‘historical,’ by which the editors mean to convey
a specific perspective on the writings of the Old Testament.
In contrast to the ahistorical approach of much of contemporary reader-oriented

exegesis, in which it is mainly the interaction between the modem reader and the
final text that matters, the editors of the HCOT are committed to an approach
which takes seriously the historical embeddedness of the message of the Old
Testament. As itself the product of a long and complex process of transmission,
and as part of the sacred Scriptures which have been embraced by both Judaism
and Christianity, the Hebrew Bible or Old Testament is rooted in the concreteness
of human history, and cannot be properly understood apart from that historical
rootedness.
The editors are committed to the view that the Old Testament was and is a vehicle
of the knowledge of God - a knowledge that was originally imparted at specific
times and places within the bounds of human history. In order for people today to
recognize and accept the permanent validity of that knowledge, they must realize
that the Old Testament originated in a human society which, with respect to the
basic realities of the human condition, was not so very different from our own. It
was in the context of a fundamentally similar society, in the concreteness of
ordinary human history, culture, and language, that the revelation of God was
received over the centuries. It is only by concentrating on the specificity of that
thoroughly historical revelation (often brought into focus by comparing the
traditions of Israel with those of its neighbours), that we can hope to grasp the
uniqueness of the faith of ancient Israel.
In connection with this emphasis, the editors aim at producing a commentary on

the Old Testament that devotes explicit attention to the history of interpretation,
both as this can be discerned within the Hebrew canon itself, and as it has
continued subsequent to the close of the Old Testament canon.
As the term ‘Old Testament’ indicates, the commentary stands in the Christian
exegetical tradition. The contributors, representing a wide range of denominational
affiliation, will treat the history of both Jewish and Christian interpretation with
due respect, but will also be free to take their own stand on controversial issues.
The commentary will seek to be both up-to-date with respect to contemporary

scholarship and in touch with the centuries-long tradition of exegetical reflection
EDITORIAL PREFACE
X
on the Old Testament. On the one hand, it is impossible nowadays to present a

fully argued exegetical case without referring constantly to the flood of new
information which is constantly being made available in such disciplines as
archaeology and philology. The wealth of information on any biblical text is so
overwhelming that a good commentary nowadays will often need to be more
extensive than its predecessors. On the other hand, theological exegesis cannot
afford to write off previous scholarship in its field. There is a wealth of largely
untapped exegetical wisdom that is available in the history of biblical interpreta
tion.
Since the commentary is intended to serve not only the guild of Old Testament
scholars, but also pastors and the educated laity, its format is designed to serve a
wide readership. The discussion of every pericope of the biblical text will consist
of a new translation of the pericope in question, a relatively brief non-technical
section entitled ‘Essentials and Perspectives,’ and a longer, technical section
entitled ‘Scholarly Exposition.’ The translation will be a new rendering based
directly on the Hebrew or Aramaic text. Under the heading Essentials and
Perspectives the authors will summarize the results of their exegesis in non
technical language. In this section, a knowledge of the biblical languages will not
be assumed, and the exegetical exposition will be based primarily on the final
shape of the text. However, if various strata can be discerned in the growth of the
present text, it will be appropriate to elucidate the meaning of every stratum in its
own historical setting. Related passages elsewhere in the Old Testament may also
be adduced in this section, especially those that can be regarded as later ap
plications or actualizations of the text in question. This will also be the place for
the treatment of significant exegetical insights from the history of Jewish and
Christian interpretation outside of the Old Testament itself, especially those found
in the New Testament. Although there is an emphasis in this section on the history
of interpretation, the authors are free to bring forward their own insights with
respect to the contemporary relevance of the text.
The exegetical summary will constitute an invitation to the reader to consult the
subsequent section of Scholarly Exposition , which will contain the more detailed
and technical treatment of the exegetical issues. Here the commentator, though
under no editorial constraints with regard to questions of authorship, dating, or
method, is expected to deal with the full range of issues raised by modem critical
scholarship. However, in accordance with the goal formulated above, the authors
are expected to pay due attention to the meaning of every historical stage which
they discern in the formation of the text, including its final canonical stage.
Tradition-historical and redaction-critical analyses should not become ends in
themselves, but should be subservient to an understanding of the inner-canonical
history of interpretation.
If the historical context cannot be defined precisely (as is the case with many parts
EDITORIAL PREFACE XI
of the book of Proverbs), the historical background of the genre as such (in the
case of Proverbs the proverbial wisdom literature of the Ancient Near East) can
provide the appropriate historical context in terms of which the text should be
understood.
Generally speaking, everything that brings the concrete historical world of the text
closer to the modem reader - whether that be specific data regarding climate,
geology, geography, minerals, flora and fauna, or whatever - should be treated
extensively in the scholarly exposition. Where appropriate, due attention should
also be paid to scribal conventions and the physical aspects of the transmission of
ancient texts.
The Editors
Comelis Houtman
Willem S. Prinsloo
Wilfred G.E. Watson
A1 Wolters
AUTHOR’S PREFACE
The present volume is a translation of Volume II of my commentary on Exodus ,

published in 1989 in the Dutch series Commentaar op het Oude Testament.
For this translation the Dutch text was checked through and the bibliographical
material brought up to date.
I owe a debt of sincere gratitude to the translator Dr. Sierd Woudstra for the
very pleasant co-operation; to my assistant Peter Zaadstra for his ‘technical’ help;
and to the Board of Governors of the Theological University Kampen, for their
kind willingness to finance the cost of the translation.
A final word about the use of this Volume: references to ‘Introd.’ relate to the
general introduction in Volume I; for the Abbreviations and Bibliography the user
is also referred to Volume I; with the exception of the names of commentators,
names of authors whose work has been included in the Bibliography of Volume I
are marked with an asterisk (*); Houtman*, Pent., however, does not refer to the
Dutch Inleiding in de Pentateuch (1980), but to the revised German edition Der
Pentateuch: Die Geschichte seiner Erforschung neben einer Auswertung , Kampen
1994.
Kampen, October 1995 C. Houtman

EXODUS 7 :1 4 -1 1 :1 0
PHARAOH PUT UNDER PRESSURE
7:14 Then y h w h said to Moses: *Pharaoh is stubborn. He refuses to let the people
go •
15 Therefore early in the morning you go to Pharaoh. As he goes to the water,
which he is in the habit o f doing, you must wait fo r him on the bank o f the River.
The staff that was turned into a snake you must take in your hand;
16 and you must say to him: Though y h w h , the God o f the Hebrews, sent me to
you with the message, “Let my people go so that they may worship me in the
wilderness, ” so fa r you have not listened.
17 Therefore thus says YHWH: “This should make you aware that I am YHWH:
when I am striking the water in the River with the staff in my hand it will turn into
blood,
18 so that the fish in the River will die and the River will stink and the Egyptians
will force themselves to drink the water from the River ”. '
19 Then y h w h said to Moses: ‘Speak to Aaron: “Take your staff in your hand
and stretch it out over the water o f the Egyptians, over their canals, their rivers
and their pools, in fact over every spot where they have water, turning it into
blood, and there will be blood in all the land o f Egypt, even in the buildings made
from wood and stone ”. ’
20 Moses and Aaron did exactly as y h w h had ordered them. He raised the staff,
and in the sight o f Pharaoh and in the sight o f his courtiers he struck the water in
the River, and all the water in the River was changed to blood.
21 The fish in the River died, the River began to stink, the Egyptians could not
drink the water from the River, and there was blood in all the land o f Egypt.
22 But the magicians o f Egypt did the same thing by means o f their incantations,
so that Pharaoh remained obstinate. He would not listen to them, as y h w h had
announced.
23 Pharaoh turned around and went home. Even this did not make him change
his mind.
24 All the Egyptians, however, searched fo r drinking water along the River. For
they could not drink the water o f the River.
25 This lasted fo r seven days after y h w h had struck the River.
II
26 Then YHWH said to Moses: *Go to Pharaoh and say to him: Thus says y h w h :
2 EXODUS 7 :1 4 - 1 1 :10
“Let my people go so that they may worship me.

27 I f you refuse to let them go, I will strike all o f your territory with a plague o f
frogs.
28 The River will swarm with frogs. They will come up from it and go into your
house - even into your bedroom, even up to your couch! - and into the houses o f
your courtiers, also o f your people, even into their ovens and kneading troughs!
29 The frogs will also come on you, on your people and on all your courtiers **. ’
8:1 Then y h w h said to Moses: ‘Speak to Aaron: “Stretch your hand with your
staff out over the canals, over the rivers and over the pools, and make the frogs
come up over the land o f Egypt **. ’
2 Aaron stretched his hand out over the water o f Egypt and frogs came out o f it
and covered the land o f Egypt.
3 But the magicians did the same by means o f their incantations. Also they
made frogs come up over the land o f Egypt.
4 Nevertheless, Pharaoh summoned Moses and Aaron and said: ‘Pray to y h w h
to remove the frogs from me and my people. Then I will let the people go to offer
sacrifices to y h w h . *
5 Moses responded to Pharaoh: ‘Please have it your way. At precisely what
time would you want me to pray fo r you, your courtiers and your people, so that
the frogs that are on you and in your houses will be exterminated and only remain
in the River?*
6 ‘Early tomorrow, * he responded. Whereupon he (Moses) assured him: ‘As
you command (it will happen). Thus you will realize that no one is equal to y h w h ,
our God.
I For the frogs will go away from you, your houses, your courtiers and from
your people. Only in the River will they remain. *
8 Then Moses and Aaron went out from Pharaoh, and Moses cried to y h w h
because o f the frogs he had brought on Pharaoh.
9 y h w h did as Moses had promised. The frogs died in the houses, in the
courtyards, even in the fields.
10 They were piled into heaps, heap after heap. They made the land stink.
II When Pharaoh saw that relief had come, he remained stubborn. So he would
not listen to them, as y h w h had announced.
Ill
12 Then y h w h said to Moses: ‘Speak to Aaron: “Stretch out your staff and strike
the dust o f the ground, ” and it will turn into lice in all the land o f Egypt. *
13 So they did. Aaron stretched out his hand holding the staff and struck the dust
o f the ground, and the lice came upon humans and animals. All the dust on the
ground became lice in all the land o f Egypt.
14 The magicians tried to do the same by means o f their incantations, that is,
producing lice, but they were unable. The lice came on both humans and animals.
TRANSLATION 3
15 ( 19) Then the magicians said to Pharaoh: 'A superhuman hand is at work
here. ’ Nevertheless, Pharaoh remained obstinate. So he would not listen to them
(Moses and Aaron), as y h w h had announced.
IV
16 Then y h w h said to Moses: 'Rise early in the morning and confront Pharaoh,
when he goes to the water, which he is in the habit o f doing, and say to him: Thus
says y h w h : "Let my people go so that they may worship me.
17 But if you persist in not letting my people go, 1 will assault you, your
courtiers, your people and houses with vermin, so that the houses o f the Egyptians,
even the ground on which they live, will be fu ll o f vermin.
18 However, then I will make an exception fo r the land o f Goshen, where my
people live, so that there will be no vermin there. Thus you will realize that I,
y h w h , am in this land.
19 / will make a distinction between my people and your people. Early tomorrow
this sign will occur”. '
20 y h w h did so. In great numbers the vermin came into the house o f Pharaoh
and in the houses o f his courtiers, in fact throughout all the land o f Egypt the land
was ruined by the vermin.
21 Then Pharaoh summoned Moses and Aaron and said: 'Go ahead, bring
sacrifices to your God here in the land. ’
22 Moses, however, replied: That would not be the right thing to do. For the
sacrificial practice we carry out in honour o f y h w h , our God, would be offensive
to the Egyptians. Will they not stone us if we perform our sacrificial practice,
which arouses loathing with the Egyptians, before their very eyes?
23 We will go a three days 9journey into the wilderness to bring sacrifices to
y h w h , our God, that meet the requirements he will set. 9
24 Then Pharaoh said: 'In that case I will let you go to bring sacrifices to y h w h ,
your God, in the wilderness; only be sure you do not go very far. Now pray fo r
me. 9
25 Moses replied: 'As soon as I have gone from you, I will pray to y h w h . Then
tomorrow the vermin will leave Pharaoh, his courtiers, and his people; only
Pharaoh must no longer make a fool o f us by not letting the people go to bring
sacrifices to y h w h . '
26 Then Moses left Pharaoh and prayed to y h w h .
27 y h w h did as Moses had promised. The vermin went away from Pharaoh, from
his courtiers and from his people. Not even one remained.
28 However, also this time Pharaoh remained stubborn. So he did not let the
people go.
4 EXODUS 7 :1 4 - 11:1 0
9:1 Then y h w h said to Moses: ‘Go to Pharaoh and tell him: So says y h w h , the
God o f the Hebrews: “Let my people go so that they may worship me.
2 But if you refuse to let them go and keep holding on to them,
3 y h w h 's power will strike the livestock in the fields, the horses, the donkeys,
the camels, the herds and the flocks; a terrible pestilence (will hit them).
4 But y h w h will make a distinction between the livestock o f Israel and the
livestock o f Egypt. O f all the possessions (animals they have) o f the Israelites not
one will die ".'
5 Then y h w h set the time with the words: Tomorrow y h w h will do this in the
land.'
6 The next day y h w h did so. All o f Egypt's livestock died, but from the
livestock o f the Israelites not even one died.
7 Pharaoh investigated. It was found that there was not a single dead animal
among Israel's livestock. Nevertheless, Pharaoh was stubborn. So he did not let the
people go.
VI
8 Then y h w h said to Moses and Aaron: ‘Both o f you take handfuls o f ashes
from the oven and let Moses throw toward heaven in the sight o f Pharaoh.
9 It will spread out like fine dust over all the land o f Egypt, and on humans
and animals it will become infections that will produce boils, in all the land o f
Egypt. ’
10 Then they took ashes from the oven and went to see Pharaoh. Moses threw
them toward heaven, and they produced infections, festering boils, on humans and
animals.
11 Not even the magicians, despite M oses' watchful look, were able to stay on
their feet because o f the infections, fo r like all the other Egyptians they too were
afflicted with infections.
12 But y h w h made Pharaoh obstinate. So he would not listen to them (Moses
and Aaron), as y h w h had announced to Moses.
VII
13 Then y h w h said to Moses: *Rise early in the morning and confront Pharaoh
and say to him: Thus says y h w h , the God o f the Hebrews: “Let my people go so
that they may worship me.
14 Otherwise this time I will bring all my plagues upon you, your courtiers and
your people. So you will realize that there is no one equal to me in all the earth.
15 By now I could have used my destructive power to strike you and your people
TRANSLATION 5
with pestilence, so that you would have been wiped o ff the earth.
16 However, I have let you live to show you my power, so that my fam e might
become known throughout the earth.
17 You keep standing in the way o f my people by not letting it go.
18 Therefore, tomorrow at the same time I will cause the heaviest hail to fall
that has ever fallen in Egypt from the time it was founded until now.
19 Therefore, order your livestock, in fact all you have in the fields, to be
brought to safety, fo r the hail will come down upon all the humans and the animals
that are in the open fields and are not brought home; they will die from it '
20 Everyone o f Pharaoh's courtiers who respected the word o f YHWH hurriedly
brought his slaves and his livestock in safety in the houses.
21 But everyone who paid no attention to the word o f y h w h left his slaves and
his livestock in the open fields.
22 Then y h w h said to Moses: *Stretch out your hand toward heaven and then
hail will come down in all the land o f Egypt, on the humans, on the animals, on
all the grass and on the crops in the fields in the land o f Egypt. ’
23 As Moses stretched out his staff toward heaven, y h w h sent thunder and hail,
and fire came down on the earth, y h w h rained hail on the land o f Egypt.
24 With fire flashing through the hail, the hail was so severe as had never
happened in the land o f Egypt since it had become a nation.
25 Throughout all the land o f Egypt the hail struck down everything in the open
fields, both humans and animals. The hail also beat down all the grass and the
crops in the fields, and it shattered all the trees in the fields.
26 Only in the land o f Goshen, where the Israelites lived, there was no hail.
27 Then Pharaoh summoned Moses and Aaron and assured them: This time I
have done wrong, y h w h is in the right. I and my people are guilty.
28 Pray to y h w h , fo r the unbelievably heavy thunder and hail have become
unbearable. Then I will let you go and you no longer need to stay. ’
29 Moses replied to him: *As soon as I have left the city, I will stretch out my
hands to y h w h ; the thunder will stop and there will be no more hail. Thus you will
realize that the earth belongs to y h w h .
30 Although, as fo r you and your courtiers, it is my impression that you still
have not learned to fear y h w h , who is truly God . '
31 The flax and the barley were ruined. For the barley was half ripe in the ear
and the flax was in bud.
32 But the wheat and the emmer were not ruined, fo r they come up later.
33 Moses left Pharaoh, leaving the city. He stretched out his hands to y h w h ,
and the thunder and the hail stopped and the rain no longer poured down on the
earth.
34 When Pharaoh saw that the rain, the hail and the thunder had stopped, he
continued to do wrong. He and his courtiers remained stubborn.
35 Pharaoh remained obstinate. So he did not let the Israelites go, as y h w h had
announced through Moses.
6 EXODUS 7 :1 4 - 1 1 :10
VIII
10:1 Then y h w h said to Moses: ‘Go to Pharaoh. For I have made him and his
courtiers stubborn, so that I could do to him the signs I have wrought.
2 So you can tell your children and your grandchildren how gruesomely I dealt
with the Egyptians, and what signs I have performed among them. So you will
realize that I am y h w h . '
3 Then Moses, accompanied by Aaron went, to Pharaoh. They said to him:
‘Thus says y h w h , the God o f the Hebrews: “For an awfully long time already you
refuse to humble yourself before me! Let my people go so that they may worship
me.
4 But if you refuse to let my people go, tomorrow I will bring locusts into your
territory.
5 So thickly will they cover the face o f the land that no land can be detected
anymore. They will devour the little that grew fo r you after the hail, and all your
fruit bearing trees in the fields they will eat bare.
6 Your houses, the houses o f all your courtiers and the houses o f all the
Egyptians will be so fu ll o f them - something neither your fathers and their fathers
before experienced, from the time they were on earth till now. ". ’ With that he
turned and went away from Pharaoh.
7 Then Pharaoh’s courtiers said to him: ‘How long will we be bamboozled by
this fellow? Let those good-for-nothings go to worship y h w h , their God. Do you
not yet realize that Egypt is ruined?'
8 So Moses and Aaron were brought back to Pharaoh. He said to them: ‘Go
ahead, worship y h w h , your God. But just who are going?*
9 Then Moses replied: ‘We go with our young and old men, with our boys and
our girls, we go with our flocks and our herds. For we have a festival in honour or
yh w h . '
10 He said to them: ‘y h w h better be with you. Just as I, who don't think about
letting you go with your children, women and elderly. You better watch out. There
is evil fo r you in store.
11 It will not happen. Hurry up, you men, and worship y h w h . That's what you
wanted, isn't it?' So he chased them from the court.
12 Then y h w h said to Moses: ‘Stretch out your hand over the land o f Egypt to
bring up the locusts; then they will come up over the land o f Egypt and devour all
the grass and the crops in the fields, everything left by the h a il.'
13 So Moses stretched out his staff over the land o f Egypt. Then y h w h brought
an east wind over the land, all that day and all that night. When morning came,
the east wind had brought the locusts.
14 The locusts came upon all the land o f Egypt. They settled in huge numbers
everywhere in the territory o f Egypt. Never before had there been such a plague o f
locusts and never again would there be one like it.
15 So densely did they cover the surface o f the whole land that the land was
TRANSLATION 7
black with them. They devoured all the grass, all the crops in the field and all the
fruit o f the trees, which the hail had left. Nothing remained o f the green on the
trees, o f the grass, and o f the crops in the field, in all the land o f Egypt.
16 Then Pharaoh hastily summoned Moses and Aaron and assured: 7 have done
wrong against y h w h , your God, and against you.
17 Oh, forgive my misconduct one more time and pray to y h w h , your God, only
to remove this terrible disaster from me. '
18 He went from Pharaoh and prayed to y h w h .
19 Then y h w h made the wind turn and change it into a very strong west wind. It
carried the locusts along and threw them into Yam Suph. Not one locust remained
in the entire territory o f Egypt.
20 But y h w h made Pharaoh obstinate. So he did not let the Israelites go.
IX
21 Then y h w h said to Moses: ‘Stretch out your hand toward heaven and there
will be darkness over the land o f Egypt, a darkness so thick that one can only
grope one's way around.'
22 So Moses stretched out his hand toward heaven and there was a dense
darkness in all the land o f Egypt, fo r three days.
23 People could not see one another and no one could move from where they
were, fo r three days; but it was light where the Israelites lived.
24 Then Pharaoh summoned Moses and said: ‘Go ahead, worship y h w h . Only
leave your flocks and your herds behind in custody. O f course, your children,
women and elderly may go with you. '
25 But Moses replied: ‘You must not only supply us with animals fo r sacrifice
and burnt offerings, so that we may prepare them fo r y h w h , our God,
26 but also our livestock must go with us - not a hoof may remain behind - ,
fo r from them we must pick some fo r worshipping y h w h , our God; fo r we ourselves
do not know how we are to worship y h w h , until we arrive there. '
27 But yh w h made Pharaoh obstinate. So he would not let them go.
28 Pharaoh then said to him (Moses): ‘Get away from me. Don't you dare to set
one foot in my court again; fo r the moment you set one foot in my court, you will
be put to death.'
29 Moses replied: ‘Just as you say. I will not put one foot in your court again.'
11:1 Then y h w h said to Moses: ‘One more blow will I deal to Pharaoh and the
Egyptians. After that, he will let you go from here. When he lets you go, he will
with no exceptions even drive you away from here.
2 Order the people that every man ask his neighbour and every woman her
neighbour fo r jewelry o f silver and go ld .'
8 EXODUS 7 :1 4 - 1 1 :10
3 And y h w h made the Egyptians favourably disposed toward the people.

Besides, Mr. Moses was highly respected in the land o f Egypt, by Pharaoh’s
courtiers as well as by the people.
4 Moses continued: Thus says the Lord: “At midnight I will move right through
Egypt.
5 Then all the firstborn in the land o f Egypt will die, from the firstborn o f
Pharaoh, who is heir to the throne, to the firstborn o f the slave-girl behind the
mill. Also all the firstborn o f the cattle.
6 Then there will be such loud wailing in all the land o f Egypt, as there has
never been before or will ever be again.
1 But against all the Israelites not a dog will open its mouth and growl - not
against people and not against animals. Thus you will realize that y h w h makes a
distinction between Egyptians and Israelites.
8 Then all these courtiers o f yours will bring themselves to come to me and
prostrate themselves before me with the words: ‘Please go away, you and all your
followers. ’ And after that I will leave”. ’ So he left Pharaoh, fuming with anger.
9 Then y h w h said to Moses: ‘Pharaoh will not listen to you, and so my

wonders in the land o f Egypt can become still more numerous.
10 Moses and Aaron did all these wonders in the sight o f Pharaoh, but yhw h
made Pharaoh obstinate. So he did not let the Israelites leave his country.
Finally the moment has arrived. So far the reader has repeatedly been assured by
yhw h that he would deal forcibly with Pharaoh and make him let Israel go
(3:19ff.; 4:21ff.; 6:1, 6; 7:3ff.). So far, however, it was only words. In view of
the ongoing repression of Israel, these words might evoke the anxious question
whether y h w h was even able to free the people and make the promise to give
them a land of their own come true. To be sure, to the careful observer of the
course of events it was obvious that God was guiding the history. God’s hand was
visible, for opposite Pharaoh he set Moses, the man who in every respect was
capable of taking on Pharaoh. But y h w h had in no way been hard on Pharaoh. So
far, Pharaoh, who had dared to deny that y h w h had any kind of authority over
him (5:2), had not been punished for this defiance. Thus far the harsh measures
had come from him, not from y h w h . Pharaoh acted like a relentless tyrant. The
offensive was his. He made it abundantly clear that he believed that the people of
Israel belonged to him, had to serve him, and that their leaving was out of the
question. Adamantly he resisted the fulfilment of the promises. He wanted to
decimate the Israelites to prevent their departure for Canaan (see especially chs. 1
and 5). It was beyond question that Pharaoh possessed real clout. The same could
not be said of y h w h . Whatever fight there was in him, it hardly amounted to
anything.
The situation changes abruptly. Represented by Moses and Aaron, y h w h enters
the arena as Pharaoh’s powerful opponent. He deals him a lengthy series of blows,
which make Pharaoh’s measures against Israel look utterly puny. Through
incredibly dreadful blows he is told that there is no way he can ignore y h w h , and
that he will have to acknowledge that y h w h ’s sovereignty also extends to Egypt.
He, the Lord of life and death, is the One who holds Egypt in his grip, who
pollutes the lands, renders it uninhabitable. Pharaoh must be made aware of
y h w h ’s sovereignty and incomparable greatness (7:17; 8:6, 18; 9:14, 29; 10:2;
11:7; cf. also 7:5; 14:4, 18; see Introd. § 3.22), and of the necessity to obey
y h w h ’s demand to let the people go.1
So Pharaoh and y h w h face off. Both claim Israel. Both demand Israel’s service
and allegiance for themselves (cf. Introd. § 3.37.1). The course of the plagues
makes it evident who really possesses supreme power. The offensive is entirely
y h w h ’s . Pharaoh is without defense. Death and destruction come down upon him,
and his land and its inhabitants are pulled along in the destruction. Being on
Pharaoh’s side turns out to be being in the grip of death. In contrast, being on
y h w h ’s side spells life (8:18; 9:6, 26; 10:23; 11:7). By dealing differently with
Egypt and Israel, y h w h underscores that Israel belongs to him. There is nothing
Pharaoh can do about it, but the way he reacts is frightening. He behaves like a
madman and displays extreme stubbornness. Though increasingly he seems
prepared to make concessions (8:4, 21 ff.; 9:28ff.; 10:8ff., 24ff.), in reality he
refuses to budge an inch: Israel may not leave Egypt for good (1:11), that is, the
promise of the land may not materialize. Does this mean that y h w h , the Lord of
the world, despite the heavy offensive, is no match for Pharaoh, and that ul
timately the fulfilment of the promises comes to naught? The reader is struck by
how the plagues follow upon each other. Majestically y h w h inflicts the one blow
after the other. He makes Pharaoh drink the cup of his anger to the last drop. Ten
plagues hit him (Introd. § 4.11.1).2 While all this is happening, the stalling of the
fatal blow, the delay in the liberation, also serves to keep the story suspense-filled,
making the reader hover between fear and hope. The writer intimates to the reader
that y h w h has more in mind with the plagues than putting pressure on Pharaoh.
Pharaoh’s stubbornness serves a purpose. To demonstrate his power (9:15f.; 10:2;
11:9), y h w h does not free Israel at once but only after he has engaged Pharaoh in
a lengthy confrontation, y h w h ’s many blows on Pharaoh do not bring out Phara
oh’s power. They are rather part of y h w h ’s strategy. From start to finish y h w h
controls what is happening. He does not even offer Pharaoh a chance to adopt a
1 Another view is that the plagues are meant as retribution and are correlative with the evil deeds of
the Egyptians (see Introd. § 12.4.5 and the discussion of the plagues); nothing in the text points in that
direction.
2 yhwh’s signs soon persuaded Israel (4:30f.); it takes ten plagues to convince Pharaoh, and even
then he does not really give in (14:4, 8, 17f.).
10 EXODUS 7 :1 4 - 1 1 :1 0
positive stance toward Israel (Introd. §3.19.2). Even his absurd conduct is
y h w h ’s doing. Pharaoh is not allowed any initiative in Israel’s liberation. The
reader must be made deeply aware that the freeing of Israel is not the work of man
but is solely y h w h ’s doing.
Pharaoh was completely unyielding, a clear indication that the credit for Israel’s
miraculous rescue goes entirely to y h w h . The reader is shown this once again in
the outcome of the first nine plagues. The developments have led to a dramatic
climax. There is now an huge chasm between Pharaoh and y h w h ’s representative,
Moses (10:28f.; 11:8). Up until that point in time there has been no real headway
in the work of freeing Israel. Pharaoh has not given one inch. When Moses and
Aaron have played out their role before Pharaoh, the clash between y h w h and
Pharaoh has become intensely personal, a signal that the time is ripe for direct
intervention by y h w h himself. So the freeing of Israel, its departure from Egypt,
is really only his doing. But it is not that far yet. After nine plagues the reader
knows little more than that y h w h himself will deal Pharaoh the final blow (11:1,
4ff.). Eagerly he is looking forward to it.3
SCHOLARLY EXPOSITION
7:14-11:10
INTRODUCTION TO THE EXEGESIS OF
7:14-11:10 contains the description of what are called the ten plagues. Below
follows a discussion of a number of subjects that more in general bear on the
plagues. Several of these will be dealt with in greater detail in the treatment of the
individual plagues. The plagues are the following and are indicated by Roman
numerals.
I Water changed into blood
II Frogs
III Lice
IV Vermin
V Pestilence on livestock
VI Boils
VII Hail, thunder, fire and rain
VIII Locusts
IX Darkness
X Death of the firstborn
In Exodus various terms are used for the plagues: ‘mighty deeds’ (3:20); ‘sign’
(8:19); ‘signs’ (4:17; 10:1; cf. also 4:28, 30); ‘signs and wonders’ (7:3); ‘wond
ers’ (4:21; ll:9f.); ‘wonder’ (7:9); ‘plagues’ (9:14); ‘blow’ (11:1); ‘catastrophe’
(12:13); ‘punishing blows’ (6:6; 7:4; 12:12). Seriatim I deal with a number of1
1 For the description of the plagues outside Exodus, see Introd. § 12.4; for the NT, see Introd. §
13.8 and Childs, 162ff., 169.
questions.
a. The demarcation o f the material. 7:8-11:10 is usually regarded as a coherent
unit (e.g. Dillmann, Baentsch, Te Stroete, Cassuto). Some interpreters make a
different division: 7:8-10:29 (e.g. Noth, Henton Davies, and with an appeal to the
structure, McCarthy and Galbiati; see d); 7:14-10:29 (27) (Heinisch); 7:14-11:10
(McNeile, Rylaarsdam). Because the description of X is more or less separate and
11:10 can be viewed as the conclusion of I-IX, I take 11:10 to be the divide. It
should, however, be borne in mind that I-IX are the prelude to X. That would
make it natural to regard 13:16 as the divide (cf. Greflmann*, 66; Fohrer*, 60).
Because putting the break there is a bit arbitrary as well - certain motifs from the
history of the plagues continue to influence the course of the events (14:4, 8, 17f.)
- I opt, also for the sake of clarity, for a smaller section.
7:14 starts the description of the ‘signs and wonders,’ which are like sanctions
aimed at Pharaoh. The wonder described in 7:10-13 does not have that function.
For that reason, and in view of the parallelism between 5:1-21 and 7:10-12 in the
current text of Exodus, I include 7:10-13 with the preceding. I am aware that also
this division is rather arbitrary. There is a close link between 7:14-11:10 and the
preceding, going back to before 7:7.4 Just note the following. Pharaoh’s stub
bornness is mentioned in 7:13, 22 et al., and through the formula ‘just as y h w h
had announced’ connected with 7:3f. (cf. also 4:21); 11:10a is correlative with
7:6; Aaron and the magicians are prominent in 7 :lOff., 19ff. etc.; the plagues are
to lead to submission to y h w h (7:5, 17 etc.).
The further breakdown of 7:14-11:10 presents problems only as concerns the
relationship of 11:1-8 to what precedes (see the exegesis). The beginning of the
description of each of the plagues is recognizable from the formula ‘Then YHWH
said to Moses.’ The formula also occurs within the description of I, II, VII, VIII;
see also 11:1, 9. With the exception of 8:1 (but note Perrot, 61, 65), in the MT
the formula always introduces a petuha or setum a ; see BHS: 7:14 (p [BHK12: s;
cf. Perrot, 67]), 19(s), 26(p); 8:12(s), 16(s); 9:l(p), 8(p), 13(s), 22(p); 10:l(p),
12(p [BHK'-2: s]), 21(p); ll:l(p ), 4(s), 9(s).
b. The setting. Examining the description of the plagues, one is struck by their
variety. A measure of order can be brought about in the diversity in the givens by
taking a systematic look at the setting of the plagues. For starters I point out that it
is only a limited number of individuals who play a role in the narratives. Below I
indicate their place.
y h w h instructs Moses (in VI also Aaron) with respect to Pharaoh’s actions and
the execution of the plagues. Through his representatives Moses and Aaron, he,
Israel’s God, is Pharaoh’s strong opponent (cf. Introd. § 7.2.2). Sent by him, the
God of the Hebrews (Introd. § 3.49.1 and 8.25), Moses presents the demand to let
Israel go to worship him (I, II, IV, V, VII, VIII; cf. Introd. § 3.37.1; 3.49.2;
4 Childs, 13If., 138f., suggests that for the redactor of P, 6:28 was the beginning of the description
of the plagues; Hyatt regards 7:1-13:16 as a unit.
12 EXODUS 7 :1 4 - 1 1 :10
3.31). y h w h is specifically said to be the bringer of the plagues (I, IV, V, VII,
VIII) and the remover of the plagues (II, IV, VIII; cf. also VII). He causes
Pharaoh’s obstinacy (VI, VIII, IX; see Introd. § 3.19).
Moses (Introd. § 5.45) acts as y h w h ’s spokesman before Pharaoh (I, II, IV, V,
VII, VIII) and negotiates with him about Israel’s departure (II, IV, VII, VIII, IX).
At the request of Pharaoh he intercedes with y h w h (II, IV, VII, VIII). By order
of y h w h , he commands Aaron to call forth the plagues with the staff (I, II, III)
and brings forth plagues with the staff (VII, VIII, IX) (Introd. § 3.21.9-12) by
order of y h w h himself (VI).
Aaron (Introd. § 5.6) produces plagues by order of Moses (I, II, III) and is also
found in his company during the other plagues (IV, VI, VII, VIII; cf. 11:10).
Israel(ites) (Introd. § 8.13.1). Not actively involved themselves, they are the
focus of the showdown between y h w h and Pharaoh. Often called ‘the people,’
‘my people’ = y h w h ’s people (Introd. § 3.40.1), Pharaoh refuses to let them go,
though y h w h demands it (I, II, IV, V, VII, VIII). y h w h manifests his bond with
Israel by treating them differently from the people of Egypt during the plagues
(IV, V, VII, IX; cf. 11:7). Their places of residence (IX), the land of Goshen (IV,
VII) (Introd. § 8.6) and their livestock share in the special treatment.
Pharaoh (Introd. § 5.66) refuses to heed y h w h ’s demand to let Israel go. y h w h
strikes him with plagues to make him realize that y h w h is sovereign (I, II, IV,
VII, VIII; cf. 11:7 and Introd. §3.22 and 7.3.7). He starts negotiations with
Moses and increasingly makes apparent concessions (II, IV, VII, VIII, IX), asks
for Moses’ intercession (II, IV, VII, VIII), even admits guilt (VII, VIII), but in
his heart remains obstinate (I, III, VII) and stubborn (I, II, IV, V, VII). y h w h
makes him obstinate (VI, VIII, IX) and stubborn (VIII)/so that he only appears to
be y h w h ’s opponent (Introd. § 3.19).
Pharaoh’s magicians (cf. 7:11) enter the fray and oppose Moses and Aaron.
Initially successful (I, II), later on they are forced to abandon their attempts (III,
VI).
Pharaoh’s courtiers (Introd. § 3.37.2) witness the plagues (I) and, linked with
Pharaoh in obstinacy (VIII), guilt and judgment, become victims of the plagues as
well (II, IV, VII, VIII). First just a handful (VII) does an about-face, later as a
body they desert Pharaoh (VIII; cf. 11:3, 8).
Egyptians (Introd. § 8.19). They do not play an active role in the dispute but are
presented as victims of the plagues (I; cf. IX). They are sometimes indicated as
‘my/his/your people’ = Pharaoh’s people (Introd. §3.40.1; II, IV, VII, men
tioned along with courtiers); sometimes as ‘the humans’ (III, VI, VII; in one
breath mentioned with ‘the animals’; cf. also 11:5). Through their bond with
Pharaoh, they also share his punishment. The punishment even extends to ‘the
animals,’ ‘the livestock’ (V, VII; cf. Introd. § 9.5.3), the vegetation (VII, VIII)
and (all) the land of Egypt (Introd. § 3.6). The underlying notion is the existence
of an inseparable bond between the ruler, his land, his subjects and their proper
ty.5 They are co-victims in the punishment meant for him (e.g. 2 Sam. 24:Iff.,
13ff., 17; Jer. 15:1 ff., 4). But they can also share in his blessing (e.g. Isa. 53:11;
Jer. 3:14f.; Ps. 72).6
As regards time and local o f the faceoff, only summary information is provided.
Four times the time of the arrival of the plague is indicated (IV, V, VII, VIII).
Twice the duration of the plague is mentioned: seven (I) and three days (IX). In
the case of four plagues (II, IV, VII, VIII), it is stated how the plague ended,
namely, upon Moses’ intercession with YHWH; in two instances, the time when the
plague ended is related (II, IV); in one case, the plague causes death and so its
own end (V; cf. X). The setting is, of course, Egypt. A few times the location is
more specifically indicated: by the water (I, IV); outside the city (VII). The events
especially happen at the spot where Pharaoh and his people are. But further details
about it are absent. As the time for the meeting between Moses and Pharaoh, three
times the early morning is mentioned (I, IV, VII). The above shows that the
setting is simple and clear, yet packed with variety.
c. Composition o f the text. The variety in the description has led many to
conclude that the text is literarily heterogeneous. It is pointed out that, in addition
to terminological variety, there are doublets and inconsistencies. Already Reimarus
in his Apologie (Introd. § 5.45.2) dealt extensively with the discrepancies. To him
the inconsistencies and the nature of the description demonstrate historical improb
ability (I, 286ff.). Some of the questions he raises and the comments he makes are
the following.
Having examined the description of I, and, among others, having asked how the
magicians could turn water into blood, since all the water had already turned into
blood, he comments: ‘Die Sache weiset es an sich selbst, dass solch Wunder einer
allgemeinen Verwandlung des Wassers in Blut durch gantz Egypten nicht konne
geschehen seyn. Kein Mensch, kein Vieh, kann sieben Tage lang diirsten; es muste
alles hinfallen; so unentbehrlich ist das Wasser, besonders dem Menschen, (p.
289); ‘Kein Mensch oder Vieh kann in einer Luft so lange Zeit aushalten, die mit
dem ausdampfenden Gestank alles Wassers im gantzen Lande, und so vieler
tausend Aser, alles was Odem hat erstickte und vergiftete ... Eins von beiden muss
also falsch seyn. Entweder ist Wasser und Luft geblieben wie sie waren: so haben
auch die Thiere beym Leben bleiben konnen. Oder sind beide Elemente so viele
Tage hinter einander todlich vergiftet gewesen: so hat keine lebendige Seele sich
erhalten konnen’ (p. 290). Plague II raises the question how the king could
distinguish Aaron’s frogs from those of the magicians. Moreover, it is hard to see
how they could come up from water that had been turned into blood: ‘Sind sie erst
neuerlich darin erschaffen, um wieder getodtet zu werden und zu stinken? oder
konnen Frosche sieben Tage herdurch in verfaultem Blute leben? Das kame auf
5 Cf. also T.E. Fretheim, “The Plagues as Ecological Signs of Historical Disaster”, JBL 110 (1991),
385-96.
h For the ‘corporate personality’ idea, see Lit. Introd. § 8.13.1.
14 EXODUS 7 :1 4 - 1 1 :1 0
einen Versuch an; ich mogte aber ihr Leben nicht assecuriren’ (p. 291). Aaron
could make lice (III); the magicians could not; ‘und der Geschichtsschreiber sagt,
sie hatten eben daran selbst den Finger Gottes erkennen miissen. Vielleicht mogte
man gedenken, sie hatten die Lause eben so nicht im Griffe gehabt, wie Aron.
Denn die Egypter, und sonderlich die Priester, waren reinliche Leute, und
wuschen sich des Tages wohl dreymal, damit ihnen ja kein Ungezieffer ankleben
mogte. Wenigstens, wenn mir ein Jude auch eine gantze Hand voll Lause wo
hervorlangen konnte, so wiirde ich es nicht fur einen Finger Gottes, sondem fur
eines unflatigen Menschen Finger halten’ (p. 291). The writer paid so little
attention to the consequences of his story that he has the animals in Egypt die three
times (9:3ff., 8ff., 18ff.), actually four times, because plague I should already
have made them perish from thirst. Nonetheless, Pharaoh readied 600 chariots to
pursue Israel (14:6ff.), though Israel had already left with all its livestock (12:32):
‘Wo krigte er doch so viele Pferde her? Daran hat wohl der Schreiber selbst nicht
gedacht; aber er brauchte sie zu einem neuen Wunder, sie sollten im rohten Meere
mit dem Pharaoh selbst ersauffen’ (p. 293). Reimarus is astounded at the absurdity
of the description: ‘Nun bedenke doch: Alle Fische Egyptens waren durch die
Verwandlung des Wassers in Blut gestorben; alles Vieh des Feldes war durch
Pestilentz, Blattem und Hagel weggerafft ... Was fur eine scheussliche Wiiste
miiste nicht das Fruchtbare Egypten geworden seyn? und wie schon ware das Land
Gosen dagegen gewesen, welches keines eintzige dieser Plagen getroffen hatte.
Wunder, dass die Israeliten nun weg ziehen wollten!’ (pp. 292f.); ‘Des Konigs
Erstgebomer war kurtz zuvor durch den Wtirgengel umgebracht, der Konig ist mit
seinem gantzen Kriegsheere ... im rohten Meer ersaufft. Gantz Egypten ist ohne
Regenten, Rathgeber, Soldaten, ohne Vieh, Fische, Kraut, Getreyde, Baumfriichte,
in dem grossten Hunger und Kummer ... Lieber! so kehrt doch jetzt um, ihr
frommen Israeliten, nun konnt ihr euch an euren Feinden rachen, nun konnt ihr
gantz Egyptenland ... einnehmen, und die Egypter wieder dienstbar machen. Was
wollet ihr lange in der Wuste wallen, ...? Kehret noch bey Zeiten um, wenigstens
nach eurem gesegneten Gosen. Nein, sie gehen doch fort, in der Einode zu irren,
und selbst durch Hunger und Kummer aufgerieben zu werden. Mein Gott! ists
moglich, dass Menschen, die sonst gesunde Vemunft haben, solche Geschichte, die
so voll von Wiederspriichen ist, ohne alles Nachdenken lesen und blindlings
annehmen konnen? (pp. 293f.).
Later scholars have resorted to literary-critical analysis to explain at least some
of the incongruities cited by Reimarus. The view that three narrative strands: J, E,
P, can be detected in the description, enjoys wide support.7 Not all three are
7 See DBS, VIII, 6ff., 17; B.W. Bacon, JBL 9 (1890), 161-200; Childs, 130ff.; Fohrer*, 60ff.;
GreBmann*, 66ff.; Wellhausen*, Composition, 62ff.; A. Besters, RB 74 (1967), 321-55, attributes
much of the material to E; Schmid*, Jahwist, 44ff., argues for a late date of J; similarly J. Van Seters,
The Life of Moses: The Yahwist as Historian in Exodus-Numbers, Kampen 1994, 77ff.; see, however,
Kohata*, 93ff. J.L. Ska, Bib 60 (1979), 23-35, 191-215, argues that p* shows familiarity with prophetic
traditions, especially those from the ‘school’ of Ezekiel; Fuss*, 130ff., has his own approach. For the
assumed to be present to the same extent: I (J, E, P); II (J, P); III (p); IV (j); V
(J); VI (P); VII (J, E); VIII (j , E); IX (E); X (J, E, P). The bulk of the text is from
J. His version contains seven plagues. E and P have each five plagues. Each of the
layers is presumably recognizable from the words used, construction and content.
Some of the perceived characteristics are: y h w h works the plagues (J); Moses
performs them with the staff (E); Aaron does it by order of Moses (P); the plagues
are means to pressure Pharaoh; they are natural phenomena and only miracles to
the extent that they arrive and end at the announced time (J); the wondrous signs
demonstrate power, and are performed to make Pharaoh recognize y h w h and his
emissaries Moses and Aaron (E, P); the magicians (P) act as competitors; con
sidering the (originally) limited, innocuous and temporary character of the
wonders, which were performed in a small group of onlookers (cf. 7:10-12), that
was entirely possible. Several plagues are regarded as doublets: III and IV (cf.
Introd. § 9.2.7), V and VI, but also I and II (Meyer*, IN y 28), VI and IX
(Greflmann*, 92f.), VII and VIII (Meyer*, IN , 28; Fohrer*, 74).
One point I wish to look at in greater detail. It is held that in J and E Moses is
depicted as a prophet; in J as a messenger, a spokesman;8 in E as the one who
gives a message by means of an act;9 in P the prophetic act is carried out by
Aaron. Moses’ act does indeed contain traits that recall those of the prophets. Note
also his intercession for Pharaoh (II, IV, VII, VIII) (cf. Gen. 20:7; 1 Sam. 12:23;
Amos 7:2, 5). However, the acts of Moses and Aaron before Pharaoh look more
like the sorcery of magicians10 than the symbolic acts of prophets. What is clear
is that it is not a question of acts without y h w h . In the account of the plagues one
meets the ‘man of God’, familiar from the Elijah and Elisha narratives (1 Kgs. 17-
2 Kgs. 13; cf. Buber*, 76). As Elijah faced as his enemies the prophets of Baal,
so Moses and Aaron were confronted with the magicians (cf. also Introd.
§ 12. 6 . 6).
The j e p theory is dominant, but there are other voices as well. In addition to J,
E, P, Eiflfeldt* detects the hand of L (I, X) (Fohrer*: N in X). Rudolph*, 18ff.,
and Noth*, UP, 70ff. (commentary, 45ff.) distinguish only J and P .11 Without
ongoing discussion see W. Johnstone, “The Deuteronomistic Cycles of ‘Signs’ and ‘Wonders’ in
Exodus 1-13,” in A.G. Auld (ed.), Understanding Poets and Prophets (Fs G.W. Anderson), Sheffield
1993, 166-85; L. Schmidt, Beobachtungen zu der Plagenererzahlung in Exodus V II14-X I10, Leiden et
al. 1990; H.-C. Schmitt, “Tradition der Prophetenbiicher in der Schichten der Plagenerzahlung Ex 7,1-
11,10,” in V. Fritz et al. (eds.), Prophet und Prophetenbuch (Fs O. Kaiser), Berlin/New York 1989,
196-216.
MMoses is ordered to go to Pharaoh, etc., with the messenger formula ‘Thus says y h w h ’ (Introd.
§ 3.5.1).
v M.S. Luker, The Figure of Moses in the Plague Traditions, Ann Arbor 1968, 121 ff.; cf. Fohrer*,
68f.; Ska, 192ff.
10 Cf. Gunkel*, 96ff.; Muller (Introd. § 13.1), 272ff.
11 Cf. H. Eising, “Die agyptischen Plagen,” in Lex tua veritas (Fs H. Junker), Trier 1961, 75-87,
who maintains that P reworked older material; for a similar view of P, see Houtman*, Pent., 152ff. et
16 EXODUS 7 :1 4 - 1 1 :1 0
questioning the legitimacy of literary criticism, Eerdmans*, 23ff. has criticized the
je p theory. Others have expressed themselves sceptically about the possibility to
dissect literary layers (e.g. Auerbach*, 57). J. Pedersen12 rejects the distinction
of J, E, P in Exod. 1-15. While admitting that the text has evolved, he emphasizes
the unity.13 B. Jacob14 is convinced of the original unity of Exod. 5-14 (‘eine
einheitliche und absichtvolle Komposition;’ p. 203). Advocates of J, E, P someti
mes show evidence of being impressed by the complex nature of the description.
Meyer*, IN y 26, notes: ‘je sorgfaltiger man aber im einzelnen diese Abschnitte [J,
E, p ] erwagt ..., desto mehr erkennt man, wie wenig damit auszukommen ist, ...
Es ist wie in verwickelten Abschnitten bei Homer, wo innerhalb desselben
Rahmens Schicht auf Schicht liegt und die Faden kaum vollstandig entwirrt werden
konnen.’15 The growth process of 6:28-11:10 has again been analyzed by Stein-
grimsson* with new results: the separate section, only later included in the history,
is composed of three main layers: A (roughly Noth’s P), b and C (contain J
elements); they originated in a pre-exilic tradition in the temple in Jerusalem, each
representing that tradition in a particular phase of development. Words from yhwh
demanding to set Israel free (B), which originally were preparatory to a dramatic
act or sign in the temple cult, were combined with stories (A), which had served as
introduction to the priestly cultic laws and exodus tradition, and expanded with
dialogues (C). There were other additions to it as well. Redaction and additions are
the work of YHWH-believing scribes from the (post-)exilic era: ‘Sie sind Nie-
derschlage der Versuche, dem Gottesdienst des Jahweglaubens ohne Tempelkult
ein neues Leben zu schenken’ (p. 221). In other words, originally ritual texts from
the temple liturgy were adapted and made suitable for recital in the simple worship
of the exilic community.
The details mentioned under b show the diversity in the description. Certain
elements occur frequently, others less so. Attempts, on the basis of recurring
elements, to detect schemes and a fixed order in the description end in failure; the
narrative does not lend itself to such attempts. The most that can be done is a
rough dissection of the material: in III, VI, IX Moses/Aaron call forth the plague
by order of yhwh ; in IV, V the plague strikes following Moses’ encounter with
Pharaoh; in I, II, VII, VIII both occur; there is no need to assume beforehand that
the combination was made later (VII, VIII). It is impossible to unravel the
narratives into narrative strands. Note the following. IV and V are both attributed
to J, but exhibit not only similarities but differences as well; the same is true of III
and VI (p). The motif of yhwh making a distinction between Israel and Egypt is
found in J (IV, V, VII) and E (IX). The formula ‘that you will realize (be awa-
re)/they will realize (be aware) ...’ occurs in P (7:5) and in J (I, II, IV, VII, VIII).
12 “Passahfest und Passahlegende,” Z4W52 (1934), 161-75; idem*, Israel III-IV, 728ff., 794f.
13 Cf. Houtman, Pent., 133f.; S. Mowinckel, StTh 5 (1951), 66-88, rejects Pedersen’s view.
14 “Gott und Pharaoh,” MGWJ 68 (1924), 118-26, 202-11, 268-89.
15 Cf. also Wellhausen, Composition, 67, and in particular Greflmann*, 67f., 80, 81, 87.
The notion that it is YHWH who causes Pharaoh’s obstinacy is attributed to P (VI;
not in I, III) as well as to E (VIII, IX; not in VII). The P- formula ‘as y h w h had
announced’ (I, III, VI) is used in a J context (II) and E context (VII). The ‘Ausfiih-
rungsformel’ (7:6, 10, etc.), typical of P, also occurs in J (8:20). A comparison
of, for example, the introduction of J ’s version of the plagues makes it clear that
beside similarities there is also variety in word usage, construction, etc.; see 7:15-
18 (I), 26-29 (II); 8:16-19 (IV); 9:1-5 (IV), 13-19 (VII); 10:1-6 (VIII). Zeroing in
on the last example, the problematic of literary analysis can be described as
follows: on the one hand one may say that stereotyping was foreign to J; on the
other hand one must leave open the possibility that J has been worked over. The
extent to which one must reckon with either the one or the other is hard to
determine. Consequently, exact literary analysis is not possible, and one can do no
more than note that the description of the plagues drew on literarily heterogeneous
material. In the exegesis various questions will be dealt with in some detail. Here I
note yet that, exegetically speaking, the effect created by the combination of
diverse material is particularly important.16 In connection with this last observati
on note the following: Whatever the answer to the question whether in the tradition
the ‘signs and wonders’ were at one time only ‘Schauwunder,’ in the current text
of Exodus they are plagues which at the same time are signs of y h w h ’s superiority
and means to put pressure on Pharaoh (cf. Childs, 138ff.)
d. Number and sequence o f the plagues. It is commonly held that the number of
ten (Introd. § 4.11.1) plagues originated in the expansion of the tradition about the
plagues and the combination of various traditions. A look at the version of the
plagues in Ps. 78; 105 (Introd. § 12.4) makes this supposition likely; from it we
learn also that the order in which the plagues were related was not fixed.17 In this
connection it is noteworthy that also, for instance in Wisdom of Solomon (Introd.
§ 12.4.5) and in Philo’s VAf, I, 96ff., the sequence in the plagues differs from the
one in Exodus. Philo points out that for the ten plagues - ten being the number of
completeness for those who brought sin to completion - God used the elements
from which the world was made: earth, fire, air, water (I, 96). He cites the
plagues in the following sequence: three belonging to earth and water, brought
about by Aaron I, II, III); three belonging to air/sky and fire, brought about by
Moses (VII, VIII, IX); one plague, brought about by Moses and Aaron (VI); three
plagues brought about by y h w h himself (IV, V, X).18* Philo sees the plagues as
! aving a pedagogical function (I, 146). Flavius Josephus does the same (A/, II,
,.93). He cites the plagues in the sequence of Exodus, but leaves out V and, like
16 Cf. e.g. R.C. Culley, Themes and Variations: A Study of Action in Biblical Narrative, Atlanta
1992, 146ff.; J. KraSovec, “Unifying Themes in Ex 7,8-11,10”, in C. Brekelmans - J. Lust (eds.),
Pentateuchal and Deuteronomistic Studies, Leuven 1990, 47-66.
17 Cf. also S.E. Loewenstamm, VT 24 (1974), 374-8; idem. The Evolution of the Exodus Tradition,
Jerusalem 1992.
IKCf. ExR. XII, 4: the plagues on earth by Aaron (I, II, III); the plagues in the air by?tyo$es^(Vt1>-..
VIII, IX); IV, V, X by God; VI by all three together.
18 EXODUS 7:14 - 11:10
Philo, deviates from Exodus in details. So the order of the plagues varies. Always,
however, X of Exodus is the last.
Is it possible to trace the evolution o f the tradition ?19 As was noted, proponents
of the JEP theory hold that the figure ten was arrived at by the combination of in
part parallel versions. Occasionally the development is traced back even further.
Meyer*, IN , 28ff., believes that the oldest version contained II, IV, VIII or
perhaps only VIII. Auerbach*, 57ff., conjectures that the oldest version mentioned
only one plague, pestilence, which caused the death of livestock (V) and firstborn
(X). Weimar-Zenger*, 22ff., propose that the oldest account of the exodus
contained I, V, X. Several exegetes hold that X is the original plague and that the
others came about by way of introduction to X.20 Others hold that originally the
crossing of the sea (Exod. 14) was the climax of the plagues and that X is
secondary.21 The exegetically significant question of the relationship between X
and the story of the crossing will be taken up in the exegesis of chs. 12-14, in
connection with the question whether there were various traditions: exodus with
Pharaoh’s approval (12:29ff.); exodus as flight (14:5). Here I note yet that also the
origin of motifs in the accounts is being studied. For example, J. Reindl22 believ
es that the motif of the competitive struggle with the magicians derives from an
originally separate story, inserted by P or a redactor into the account of the
plagues, with the intent to show that y h w h ’s power surpassed that of the gods.
The origin of the motif lies with the Jews in the diaspora in Egypt who wrestled
with the problem of the relationship of y h w h to the gods of the nations. In P,
‘Egypt’ is a symbol for Babel (cf. Ska, 197f.). It should be obvious that the
attempt to trace the evolution of the tradition is tantamount to speculation.
Is the sequence of the plagues informed by a conscious ordering? Does a
deliberate redactional objective lie behind it? GreBmann*, 77ff., believes that in its
original form the J version listed similar plagues in pairs: water plagues (I, II),
livestock plagues (IV, V), plant plagues (VII, VIII). After that, human beings are
struck (X). So there is a climax. Moreover, in each pair the second plague is more
severe than the first. Like Beer, Fohrer*, 72, maintains that the current text
always has two somewhat similar plagues follow upon each other: I-II (relating to
the water); III-IV, V-VI, VII-VIII are variants, of which the first two pairs are
harmful to a person’s health and the last one to one’s possessions;23 there is an
ascending line from lighter to heavier plagues, from damaging the food to destroy
lv Grefimann*, 66ff.; Fohrer*, 70ff.. deal with it in detail.

2,1 Greflmann*, 82, 101; Noth*, UP, 73f.; Fohrer*, 72ff.; X is often said to be very old; others, e.g.
Meyer* and Schmid*, 47f.. demur.
21 D.J. McCarthy, “Plagues and Sea of Reeds; Exodus 5-14,” JBL 85 (1966), 137-58; Luker, 18ff.;
Ska, 33ff.
22 “Der Finger Gottes und die Macht der Gotter,” in W. Ernst et al. (eds.), Dienst der Vermittluni.>.
Leipzig 1977, 49-60.
23 Beer: common to IX and X are the darkness, the power of the demonic realm, the destroying
angel.
ing health and property, climaxing in an attack on life (X).

In particular Jewish exegetes, going back to the exegesis of the medieval Jewish
exegetes Rashbam (11th century), Bahya ben Asher (13th century) and Abravanel
(15th century), have pointed out the carefully thought-out composition of the
description: I-IX consist of three cycles of three plagues; in every cycle the first
and second plague happen after a warning from Moses to Pharaoh, while the third
plague happens without prior warning. The description of each first plague in a
cycle starts with the command to Moses to go early in the morning and in the open
air to Pharaoh (I, IV, VII); every second plague with the command to go to
Pharaoh (in the palace) (II, V, VIII). Not only opponents of the sources theory
have drawn attention to this composition (Jacob [see under c], 268ff.; Cassuto),
but also exegetes who acknowledge that the text is a literary composite,24 and
outside Jewish circles by conservative Christian interpreters (Keil; Murphy). Also
in other respects they discern a particular ordering. I, II, III strike Egypt and
Israel; Israel/Goshen is spared from the following plagues (not explicitly stated in
VI and VIII). Murphy further points out that the staff is used by Aaron in I, II,
III; that it is not mentioned in IV, V, VI; that it is used in VII, VIII, IX by
Moses; that of the final seven plagues, IV, V, VI rob people of their health, VII,
VIII, IX rob them of their food, while X brings death. The above Jewish authors
have also pointed to disparate data in the description to further bolster their
contention that the plagues are meaningfully ordered. Cassuto, for example,
discerns in the description also a division into pairs in the spirit of Beer. Zevit
contends that a priestly redactor composed the account of the plagues, using
material from JE and P. Interpreting the plagues in the light of the creation stories
of ur-history, he wished to affirm that y h w h is Lord of the creation. In Egypt,
y h w h undid the work of creation. The ten plagues correlate with the ten creation
words. Others, too, assume a link between creation and plagues. Murphy, e.g.,
holds that IV-X inversely correlate with the work of creation. The text offers
insufficient points of contact for such views. Pars pro toto, the ten plagues stand
for calamities that can strike people and the earth (cf. e.g. Lev. 26:14ff,; Deut.
28:15ff.; 1 Kgs. 8:37; Ezek. 14:21; Amos 4:6ff.). Similar enumerations, in a
variety of contexts, are also found in Israel’s ‘Umwelt.’ According to ancient
eastern thinking, the gods used such catastrophes to punish man; cf. e.g. the
Gilgamesh epic, XI, 182ff. (.ANET , 95); vassal treaties of Esarhaddon, 37ff.
(ANET, 538ff.; TUAT, I, 169ff.).
The current text has also been used to defend other views concerning the
structure. Galbiati*, 11 Iff., regards 7:8-13 as description of the first sign and
discerns a symmetrical structure in 7:8-10:29: 4 x Aaron is the acting individual
(7:10-12: I, II, III); 2 x YHWH (IV, V); 4 x Moses (VI, VII, VIII, IX). D.J.
:j Greenberg*, 15Iff.; Z. Zevit, “The Priestly Redaction and Interpretation of the Plague Narrative
in Exodus.” JQR 66 (1975-76), 193-211; cf. also Y. Hoffmann. ZAW 103 (1991), 406ff.
20 EXODUS 7 :1 4 - 11:10
McCarthy25 concludes on the basis of formal characteristics that there is a con

centric structure to 7:8-10:27; 7:8-13 correlates with IX, I with VIII, II with VII,
etc. Structure and interpretation remain independent of each other, however.
McCarthy’s emphasis on the unity of 7:8-10:27 is inseparably connected with the
thesis of the independence of X (see above).26
The upshot is that there exists no consensus with respect to the composition of
the description, while the view one espouses is also influenced by the demarcation
of the material. In my judgment, it is not impossible that the division of the nine
plagues into three cycles rests on carefully considered redactional activity. Beyond
that, it is hard to discern a clear ordering. It is possible to lump certain plagues
together: in I and II water plays a role (II is actually a land plague), in V and VI
illness; the characteristic mark of I, III, VI is transformation; in II, III, IV, VIII
the plague consists in the affliction of vermin (Introd. § 9.5.2); in VI, VII, IX
heaven is mentioned in connection with the conjuring up of the plagues, in II and
VIII earth/land, etc. But every time it turns out that the data cannot be placed in a
specific system. There is no ascending line as concerns the severity of the plagu
es.27 All the plagues have in common that they bring death and destruction. For
example, of I it is true in the current version that it was a horrible catastrophe.
One gets the impression that to the writer the plagues I-VI did not differ in
severity. This is not the case with the relationship of VII-X to I-VI (see below).
For that matter, there is an obvious coherence and development in the description
of the plagues. A real connecting element is Pharaoh’s obstinacy (cf. Eising,
84ff.). By ignoring y h w h ’s wondrous sign, he summons the first plague (7:13f.).
Because he remains unyielding, the plagues keep coming, enabling y h w h to
demonstrate his power, until at last it results in Pharaoh’s total downfall
(14:17ff.).
Some more points are to be mentioned. The impression is created as if Pharaoh
is increasingly willing to heed y h w h ’s demand to allow Israel to depart (II, IV,
VII, VIII, IX). After the besting of the magicians (III, VI) the courtiers, as
Pharaoh’s protagonists, start playing an active role (VII, VIII; cf. 11:8). With the
withdrawal of Pharaoh’s magicians, also Aaron’s active role as Moses’ ‘magician’
(I, II, III) has ended, y h w h ’s offensive becomes more personal. By himself (IV,
V; cf. also I, VII, VIII) and through Moses’ activity as ‘magician’ (VI, VII, VIII,
IX), he brings about the plagues. He causes Pharaoh’s obstinacy (VI, VIII, IX).
All by himself he acts in X (11:4). The breadth of the description - and the
“Moses’ Dealings with Pharaoh: Ex 7,8-10, 27,’’ CBQ 27 (1965), 336-47.

lh For yet other views on the structure, see F.V. Winnett, The Mosaic Tradition, Toronto 1949, 3ff.;
D. Robertson, The Old Testament and the Literary Critic, Philadelphia 1977, 16ff. (cf. Houtman,
Pent., 259f.); J. Kegler. “Zu (Composition und Theologie der Plagenerzahlungen,’’ in E. Blum et al.
(eds.). Die hehrdische Bihel und ihre zweifache Nachgeschichte (Fs R. Rendtorff). Neukirchen-Vluyn
1990, 55-74; A.M. Vater, “A Plague on Both Our Houses: Form- and Rhetorical-Critical Observations
on Exodus 7-11,” in D.J.A. Clines (ed.). Art and Meaning, Sheffield 1982, 62-71.
11 Cf. also Heinisch: hardship (I-IV); harm to health and possession (V-VIII); hardship (IX).
severity of the plagues - increases, starting with VII (cf. 9:14, 27 and see 9:18,
24; 10:6, 14; 11:6). There is a climax here. The controversy sharpens, dramatical
ly culminating in the break between Pharaoh and Moses (10:28f.; 11:8).
e. The plagues and the Egyptian milieu. As stated, there is coherence in the
description. However, the view that the coherence is so extensive that every new
plague is directly linked with the preceding one is, in my judgment, untenable.
Repeated attempts have been made to make this view plausible. An illustration of a
theory constructed with that objective is given in Introd. § 9.2.9. Conservative
interpreters have hailed it (Beegle*, 92ff.; Kitchen*, 129, 157). This one il
lustration of this approach must suffice.28 I only add that it is not uncommon on
the part of conservative authors to assume a relationship between the natural
seasons in Egypt and the plagues and to draw chronological conclusions from it
(e.g. Heinisch and also Keil, Cole). It is assumed that the events took place from
June till April. From the end of June the Nile rises, making it possible for plague I
to have happened (sometimes I is situated in September/October after the rising of
the Nile). The passover is in April.
In my judgment, linking up the plagues with Egypt’s natural seasons is not
justified. The description is a literary composition. The number and sequence of
the plagues stems from redactional activity (see under d). What is true is that the
writer regards I-IX as prelude to the exodus/the passover in April. 9:3If. can be
regarded as a reference to it.
Also interpreters who do not believe that the account purports to be a sequential
description of actual plagues generally maintain that for a number of plagues (I, II,
III, IV, VI, IX) the author(s) drew from familiarity with the Egyptian milieu (e.g.
Greflmann*, 83; Noth*, UP, 74f.; Fohrer*, 77ff.). As I see it, the description
does not betray specific knowledge of Egypt (Introd. § 11.6.9), while the portrayal
of the plagues conveys the impression that particular attention was given to the
affect it might have upon the residents of Palestine.
It has been proposed that a number of plagues are intended to proclaim y h w h ’s
supremacy over Egypt’s gods and implicitly to criticize the religious beliefs of the
Egyptians (I, II, V, IX, X). I fail to see that such is the case.
f. Nature o f the description. Examination of the portrayal of the plagues shows
that it cannot be taken as historiography in the modern sense of the word. Viewing
it as ordinary writing of history leaves one defenseless against rationalistic
criticism in the spirit of Reimarus (see under c.). But how then should it be
understood?
It is not unusual to contend that at least I-IX is devoid of all historical character.
See A. Ademollo, Rivista di Storia della Medicina 20 (1976), 137-67 (cf. ZAW 90 (1978], 441);
H.M. Duncan Hoyte, The Medical Journal of Australia 158 (1993), 706-8 (cf. 07/1 16 [1993], 50 If.).
McNeile. 44ff., and others detect a causal connection between I-VI; for assorted natural explanations of
the plagues, see Fohrer*, 75ff.; Hyatt, 336ff.; De Vaux*, HAI, I, 339f. Broekhuis*, 36ff., basing
himself, among others, on data from ancient Egypt, defends the credibility of what is said in Exodus
about Israel’s stay in Egypt and the plagues.
22 EXODUS 7 :1 4 - 1 1 :10
Already De Wette*, II, 195, concluded that it is ‘eine mythische Erzahlung,’ ‘die
gar nicht in das Gebiet der Geschichte zu ziehen ist. Mag es seyn, dafl etwas
Wahres zu Grunde liegt; aber dieses Wahre ist mit einer solchen Freiheit und
Phantasie behandelt, und lediglich mit einem dichterischen Zweck, dass es fur uns
gleich viel seyn mufl, ob etwas Wahres zu Grunde liegt oder nicht. Ein Dichter
erzahlt, und ihm ist nicht um die Wahrheit zu thun, sondem gerade um das
Wunderbare, Staunen erregende; er will die Macht Jehovahs zeigen und die Sorge
desselben fur sein Volk.’ Meyer*, IN , 31, characterizes the plagues as ‘freie
Schopfungen des Erzahlers,’ created to make clear how y h w h forced Pharaoh to
let the people go. Beer, 46, holds that the events related in 7:8ff. can only be
regarded as ‘Dichtungen,’ ‘Fabel’ and ‘Marchen.’29 To evaluate such contentions
it is useful to have another careful look at how the story is told.
The account is marked by great simplicity as regards the number of key persons
and the theater of action (see under b). The leading individuals act according to a
fairly fixed scheme. The writer does not shrink from saying things that are absurd.
Time and again words like ‘all’ and ‘whole’ are used (Introd. § 3.26). The writer
is fond of statements expressing incomparability (9:18, 24; 10:6, 14; l l ^ ) , 30 and
other strong statements (e.g. 8:5, 7, 27; 10:19). If the account is read literally, the
only possible conclusion is that after Israel had left, Egypt was almost completely
depopulated, and was stripped bare of vegetation and animals. The writer obvious
ly used legendary and folkloristic material for the construction of his account.31
Note, e.g., the contest between Pharaoh’s magicians and y h w h ’s magicians. The
recital of the lengthy series of plagues and the varied repetitions are intended by
the writer to create and maintain suspense. He knows how to keep the interest of
his readers and their delight in the victory over mighty Egypt. To that end, he
makes good use of his story telling abilities.
The simple and small-scale scenario constructed is that of the folk tale.32 The
depiction contains features found in the midrash.33 In the early tradition and
interpretation, the miraculous nature of the plagues is often sharpened even more;
e.g. in Wisdom of Solomon (Introd. § 12.4.5), in the writings of Philo, Josephus,
rabbinic literature, etc. (see exegesis). The Islamic tradition also contains plagues
not occurring in the OT: many Egyptians, in particular high officials who sup
2V See further e.g. Greflmann*, 82; Fohrer*, 75, and cf. P.D. Miscall, “Biblical Narrative and
Categories of the Fantastic,” Semeia 60 (1992), 39-51.
30 See Johannes (Introd. § 7.1.), 78ff., 102ff.
31 Cf. F. Dumermuth, “Folkloristisches in der Erzahlung von den agyptischen Plagen,” ZAW 76
(1964), 323-5.
32 It is not unusual to lump the stories together under the ‘saga’ label; see especially GreBmann* and
e.g. Baentsch; Gunkel*, 99ff., believes that the description is laced with fairy tale traits (cf. Houtman*,
Pent., 127 n. 6). Childs, 144ff., thinks that the formation of J was influenced by the form of the
prophetic legend; Th. L.Thompson, in Hayes-Miller*, 173, subsumes the stories under the genre of the
‘heroic tale.’
13 Cf. G.M. Camps, “Midras sobre la historia de les plagues,” in Miscellanea Biblica B. Ubach,
Montserrat 1953, 97-113.
ported Pharaoh in his disbelief, turn into stone, along with their property; here, in
the bazaar, one spotted a petrified man, scales in his hand; there another, counting
money, ...; the Nile dried up completely; when the water had returned upon
Moses’ prayer, a small brook flowed from the Nile, which followed Pharaoh, so
that everywhere water was available to him (Weil, 164ff.)
It should be obvious that the account is not to be regarded as a journalistic
report. The narrative is meant as proclamation and instruction, and in that respect
is similar to the portrayal of the plagues in Ps. 78 and 105 (Introd. § 12.4 and
12.9). Using a style that appeals to the reader and so drives home the point, the
writer wants to testify to y h w h ’s incomparable greatness.
The history of the plagues can be characterized as a dramatic narrative intended
to serve the proclamation. Can one go a step further and regard the description as
a textbook of a drama which in the cult is given shape through rite and recitation?
Pedersen (see under c.) contends that Exod. 1-15, though now part of an historical
narrative, was originally a liturgical text, belonging to the passover festival, and
composed with the purpose to honour God, who had fought the enemies of his
people and called the people into being. Presumably the feast, held by night,
beginning in the evening and concluding early in the morning, was celebrated by
the community gathered in the temple. The prescribed acts would be enacted as
rituals; while the narrative parts were recited, likely with the use of mimicry and
division of the roles among various persons. Pedersen regards the domesticized
passover festival as a later development.34 Can one hold with I. Engnell35 that
here is a case of historicization of material derived from cultic dramas? Engnell
and Pedersen believe that y h w h ’s struggle in Egypt coincides with the great
prehistoric battle when y h w h created the ordered world out of chaos by defeating
the chaos dragon.
Pedersen’s thesis is speculative (cf. De Vaux*, HAI, I, 306vv.). From his view
of the ‘Sitz im Leben’ one might have expected that the passover would have been
the climax of the account. However, the crossing of the sea constitutes the climax.
In cultic texts, that event can be depicted as a struggle with the chaos monster. But
the question is whether it might be historicizing of the myth or the mythicizing of
history (cf. Introd. § 12.6 and 12.9.3).
In my view, all one can say is that the account of the plagues and subsequent
events, up to and including the crossing of the sea, is highly dramatic in character;
besides, the description of y h w h ’s clash with Pharaoh and the victory of the
former over the latter is so cogent that anyone reading the story is bound to
34 Others too maintain a similar cultic ‘Sitz im Leben’ for the history of the plagues; see e.g. Henton
Davies, 90f. E. Otto, “Erwagungen zum iiberlieferungsgeschichtlichen Ursprung und ‘Sitz im Leben’
des jahwistischen Plagenzyklus,” VT 26 (1976), 3-27, thinks that the history was recited in the feast -
not identical with the passover — of unleavened bread; X, the aetiology of the sacrifice of the firstborn
was expanded with several other plagues; so the ‘Geschichtsmachtigkeit Jahwes’ was manifested; for a
cultic interpretation see also Steingrimsson (see under c).
” “The Exodus from Egypt,” in A Rigid Scrutiny, Nashville 1969, 197-206.
24 EXODUS 7:14 - 11:10
acknowledge that no power, however great, can stand before yhwh .

g. The nature of the account implies that the actual course o f the events eludes
precise observation (cf. Introd. § 11.6.8-10). All sorts of suggestions have been
made about it. For example, Baentsch thinks it could be that the tradition arose
because catastrophes, which struck Egypt at the time that the Israelites made ready
for the exodus, were understood as interventions from yhw h . But, according to
him, such an explanation is not absolutely necessary. Beer considers it possible
that Moses, as he was negotiating with Pharaoh about relief from the forced labour
and requested leave to celebrate the passover, as ‘Zaubermann’ threatened Pharaoh
with punishments in case his demands were not granted. Buber*, 73ff., presents a
fairly detailed account of the historical course of the events: Moses demands from
Pharaoh the departure of the people, and threatens, as he is pointing to the river,
reddish in colour as is more often the case (I), that there is going to be a catastrop
he if Pharaoh refuses. Some time later the catastrophe arrives in the form of a
plague of frogs (II). So there arises in Egypt around Moses’ acts and interpretation
of the events - yhwh ’s hand is in and behind it - a sense of impending dread,
which mounts when in the winter a hail storm (VII) and (in the following winter?)
a plague of locusts (VIII) destroy the vegetation. To make matters worse, a sand
storm lasting for days darkens the sun (IX). ‘Mitten darin aber, wahrend die
Seuche, eine Kinderseuche, ihr Werk zu tun beginnt, schallt, unangefochten von
den ziehenden Sandmassen, durch die StraBen der Residenzstadt, die Stimme des
Gewaltigen (= Moses). Die Zeichen haben sein Volk iiberwaltigt und um ihn
geschart, die Hoffnung ist starker als die Finstemis, sie sehen Licht (10, 23). Und
da, nach drei Tagen des rasenden Unwetters, in der Nacht, stirbt dem jungen
Konig sein erstgeborener Sohn. Trostlos im innersten Gemache liber die Leiche
gebeugt, nicht mehr ein Gott, sondem der Mensch, der er ist, erblickt er plotzlich
den Verhaflten (= Moses) vor sich. “Fort mit euch,” schreit er’ (pp. 81 f.).
I WATER TURNED INTO BLOOD (7:14-25)

ESSENTIALS AND PERSPECTIVES/INTRODUCTION TO EXEGESIS
1. Nature and purpose o f the plague

As with Moses’ signs (4:1-9), characteristic of I (indicated by "|an [see 7:15] and
run [7:19, 21]) is transformation. Water, indicated by (10x; Introd. § 3.33)
and "iir (13 X; Introd. § 8.10) turns into Di, ‘blood’ (5x; see 4:9), because it is
struck (7:17, 20; cf. 7:25; but note also 7:19) with the staff (4x) held in the hand
(3x) (Introd. § 3.21.9-12). That made it unsuitable for drinking (4x; see 7:18).
That is the focus of what happened. Though the death of the fish and the stench
are mentioned as unpleasant consequences of the transformation, there is no direct
reference to what this does for the eating of fish. The life-death contrast governs
the description. Water, the source of life, becomes a polluting substance, thereby
bringing the land under the power of death. Purpose of the plague is to demon
strate that yhwh has power over life and death, so that all authority belongs to
WATER TURNED INTO BLOOD 25
(7:17); besides, it is a means to bring pressure to bear on Pharaoh to obey y h w h ’s

command and let the people of Israel go.
2. The description: form and content

For starters, the writer mentions the events the reader is going to hear about by
giving an account of y h w h ’s instructions to Moses (7:14-19): y h w h informs
Moses (and so the reader) about the situation; he tells what the reader could
already have guessed (7:14) from 7:13, and he gives Moses an instruction with
respect to Pharaoh (7:15-18) and Aaron (7:19). Then the writer details the events
in a quick succession of scenes/pictures: the execution of y h w h ’s order and the
coming of the plague (7:20, 21); the unannounced and hence surprise performance
of the magicians (7:22a); Pharaoh’s reaction (7:22b-23); the depiction of one of
the consequences of the plague (7:24). He concludes with information about the
duration of the plague (7:25).
The description of I is literarily not homogeneous.36 According to 7:14-18,
Moses receives the following instructions from y h w h : on the bank of the River he
is to smite the water in the presence of Pharaoh, so that it changes into blood. The
transformation refers to the River. This agrees with 7:24, where it is recorded that
the Egyptians start searching for water along the River. In 7:19 follows not the
execution of the order but a new instruction, which in part is an addition to and in
part a correction of the earlier, not quite identical order: not Moses himself is to
bring forth the plague with the staff; he is to order Aaron to take the staff and
stretch it out over all the water of Egypt, turning it into blood. Though 7:20 starts
with noting that Moses and Aaron acted entirely in accordance with the order of
y h w h , the actual description presents a somewhat different picture of their action.
Aaron does not bring about the transformation of the water by waving his staff,
but by striking the water of the River; as such the River was specifically men
tioned in the command given to Moses (7:17), but not in the instruction to Aaron
(7:19). The results of the change wrought by Aaron (7:21) are in harmony with
those announced to Moses (7:18), though in the final words of 7:21 the scope of
the plague is extended to cover all of Egypt, which makes it agree with 7:20. The
instruction for Aaron seems intended to be carried out at the court of Pharaoh.
Also the mention of the courtiers (7:20; cf. 7:10) and the magicians (7:22; cf.
7:11) places one at the court. In the current text, however, it is stated of the
former that they witnessed the wonder by the River; in contrast, the ‘they did the
same thing,’ stated of the latter (7:22), in the current context is not to be taken
with the action announced concerning Aaron (7:19), but with what he actually did
v’ It is often thought that three versions are combined: the death of the fish makes the water stink
and renders it undrinkable (J) (already in 4:8f. J talked about the turning of water into blood): the water
of the Nile changes into blood (II); all the water of Egypt becomes blood (P): see e.g. Baentsch. Beer.
Rylaarsdam. Te Stroete, Hyatt: for another view, e.g. Dillmann. Holzinger: some assume two versions:
e.g. Bold, Noth, Michaeli, and also Eerdmans*, 23ff.
26 EXODUS 7 :1 4 -2 5
(7:20). Possibly this picture resulted from the interweaving of different narrative
material.
The above shows that in 7:14-25 two different versions of I are combined in a
less than seamless manner; la: Moses meets Pharaoh by the River and changes
water into blood; lb: Moses and Aaron visit the court; Aaron turns all the water of
Egypt into blood. Through combination, la and lb permeated and complemented
each other. Ib, the stronger version, which quantitatively is not all that significant
(7:19, 20a, 22), governs to a large degree the final picture: by order of y h w h ,
early in the morning, at the spot where Pharaoh was accustomed to bathe in the
River, a meeting takes place between Pharaoh, accompanied by his courtiers (cf.
2:5), and Moses and Aaron with the staff. Pharaoh is addressed in the name of
y h w h and the plague is announced. Aaron brings it about by striking the water of
the River with the staff. As a result, all the water of Egypt changes into blood.
Because his magicians are able to do the same, Pharaoh does not change his mind.
He leaves the scene and goes home.
Already by itself la gives a horrible picture: the entire River is running with
blood and dead fish are everywhere, producing an unbearable stench; this grosses
out the Egyptians, who can’t bring themselves to drink from it. Those living near
the River, normally a large reservoir of clear and readily available drinking water,
must search for water to drink (7:18, 24) - the irony and gloating over their
misfortune is palpable - and go to great lengths to find water. They worked hard
at it, till they just about drop dead (‘seven days’). However, no matter how
unpleasant the situation, it was still bearable.
In the current version the picture is even more gruesome, to the point of being
absurd: every drop of water has become blood; every effort to find drinking water
is doomed to failure; the blood has polluted the land and made it unlivable. The
wonder has been enormously exaggerated and is heavily emphasized. Pharaoh’s
reaction is incredible and irrational (7:22, 23). No longer human. That even under
these circumstances Pharaoh refuses to give in underscores the seriousness of it
all. What will have to happen to make him change his mind?
That is the question that lingers with the reader after witnessing the encounter
between Moses and Aaron and Pharaoh and his courtiers by the River, the very
spot to which earlier in the story the writer had escorted him (1:22; 2:3ff.). The
sight of all that blood shown him in the story was sickening. Disappointment
gripped him when he learned that also this time (cf. 7:10-12) the encounter turned
into a tug of war - two men against many. On the one hand Moses and Aaron, on
the other Pharaoh and his magicians (7:22). The disillusionment was all the greater
because this time Moses and Aaron were not able to outdo the magicians (cf.
7:12); this meant that apparently the struggle had ended in a draw, with Pharaoh
feeling that he could leave the scene with his resolve and pride intact. To be sure,
the reader was aware that the outcome was only appearance, because the ac
complishment of the Egyptian sages amounted to nothing but a worsening of the
devastation, and so of the squeeze on Pharaoh. For that reason, the reader could
not suppress a feeling of elation. All the more so because, as a resident of
Palestine for whom finding good drinking water was a constant concern, he
watched the Egyptians, who normally did not have to worry about water, wear
themselves out in their search for it (7:24). But cause for joy was out, since, in
comparison with 7:12, it contained a kind of rehabilitation for Pharaoh. Therefore
Pharaoh held his ground. All the reader can do is derive solace from the fact that
Moses and Aaron have the backing of y h w h , and from the knowledge that their
power to do wonders is not owing to magical incantations (7:22; cf. 7:11). In
7:24, the writer once more and specifically highlights y h w h ’s power and invol
vement. y h w h sovereignly makes the Egyptians drink the cup of the ordeal to the
very last drop. There is no cause for despair, y h w h knew that Pharaoh would
refuse (7:23).
3. Miscellaneous observations
The description of I provokes questions not explicitly answered in the text and
which have been variously answered.
Why did Pharaoh go to the Nile at the crack of dawn (7:15)? Several suggestions
have been made: to refresh himself by the water (TNf, FT; cf. e.g. Murphy); to
take the usual stroll (e.g. Cassuto); to bathe (e.g. Ishodad, Murphy, Gispen); to
watch the rising of the Nile (e.g. Ibn Ezra) (but note 7:24); to relieve himself.37
Popular is the view that Pharaoh had a religious purpose in mind: he was a
magician and interested in observing omens (TPsJ, Ishodad, and further Ginz-
berg*, II, 352; V, 428); he went to bring his daily worship to the Nile, which was
Egypt’s life blood and worshipped as a deity (Murphy, Keil, Lange, McNeile,
Gispen, Te Stroete), to bring a drink offering to the Nile (Ephraem)/the animals
found in the Nile (Ishodad), to take a ritual bath (Clements)/to preside over
ceremonies that were part of the Nile cult, in particular at the time of the annual
overflow (Rylaarsdam, Hyatt). The above shows that several exegetes allow for
two or more possibilities. To me, the brief observation in the text is not to be
understood in terms of our knowledge of Egypt’s religion, but in the context of
Exodus (see exegesis 7:15).
Why was Egypt struck with water turning into blood, and why was this the first
plague? Two answers are given:
a. The plague has a pedagogical intent; the Nile was worshipped by the Egyp
tians as a god and therefore struck first;38 by turning the Nile, source of bles
sings, into a source of calamity, y h w h reveals that all power belongs to him (in
this vein e.g. Murphy, Keil, Cassuto, Rylaarsdam, Knight).
b. The plague is intended as revenge; it correlates with the deeds of the Egyp
37 Pharaoh claimed to be a god and to have no need of a toilet; so in secret he had to go to the river;
e.g. TPsJ on 7:23; ExR. IX, 8; MidrTanh. Exod. II, 16; Rashi and Ginzberg*, II, 347f.
3K See ExR. IX, 9; MidrTanh. Exod. II, 14; Zohar Exod. 29a (also with a reference to Pharaoh as
lord of the water; Ezek. 29:3); Rashi, and further Ginzberg*, II, 348; see also Philo (VM, I, 98);
Theodoret (QE, XIX).
28 EXODUS 7 :1 4 -2 5
tians; it comes upon them because they threw the Israelite boys into the Nile
(1:22),39 because they poured out the blood of the Israelites like water (in Leibo-
witz*, 173), because they did not permit the Israelite women their ritual purificati
on after menstruation, so that the people would not increase (ExR . IX, 10), etc.
(Ginzberg*, II, 343, 345). Cf. also Vol. I, 400ff.
The plague is intended to teach a lesson (7:17a). All that can be concluded with
certainty is that it displays y h w h as Lord of life and death (see above sub 1).
How does the order to Moses (7:14-18) relate to the instruction given by Moses
to Aaron (7:19)? Sam. Pent, contains after 7:18 an amplification (see also Qm [cf.
Sanderson*, 86f., 196ff.], SamT and see Field hoc loco), in which the carrying
out of the order given to Moses is described: with Aaron , Moses goes to Pharaoh;
they address him and announce the impending plague. This smoothes the transition
from 7:18 to 7:19. It creates the impression that Moses, in the presence of
Pharaoh, when Pharaoh does not comply, is given a further instruction.40 A
rabbinical exegesis has it that not Moses but Aaron struck the river, because it had
protected Moses when he was bom (TPsJ on 8:2; ExR. IX, 10; Rashi and Ginz
berg*, II, 348; differently Zohar Exod. 29a). According to another interpretation,
it can be inferred that Moses as well as Aaron employed the staff: Moses struck
the Nile (7:20a; cf. 7:17); Aaron stretched out the staff over the rest of the waters
(cf. 7:19) (e.g. Cassuto; note already BB , 93). According to Ibn Ezra, there is a
different way in which 7:20 complements 7:19: first Aaron struck the Nile, then
he stretched out the staff in all directions, for he could not strike all the water; cf.
also Nachmanides: ‘stretch out’ (7:19) = ‘lift up* (7:20) (cf. TO, TPsJ). Back of
the conundrum lies the notion that the text is a homogeneous whole (cf. above sub
2). There is no~4vay to determine with certainty how the writer visualized every
thing.
Was the water actually changed into blood? Philo (VM, I, 98ff.) holds such was
the case. Josephus (AJ, II, 294), however, says that the water had the ‘colour of
blood,’ and Gregory of Nyssa (VM, I, 26) speaks of thickening of the water.
Conservative commentators often think (but note Gispen) that qua colour and
appearance the water looked like blood (cf. 2 Kgs. 3:22; Joel 3:4) (Keil, Lange,
Strack, Heinisch, Clamer, Cassuto, Cole, Knight). In support, reference is made
to natural phenomena about the Nile. In summer, when the water starts rising, it
takes on a reddish colour, caused by tiny parts of tropical earth, carried along by
the Blue Nile from the mountainous country of Ethiopia. Before the water begins
to rise, when the water level is lowest and the water is stagnant in pools, for
months on end the river sometimes has a reddish hue caused by remains of
decaying plants and the presence of small organisms living in the water. The red
colour of the water is also explained as due to the presence of algae and fungi and
3V See Wis. ll:6f. and e.g. Ephraim (the fish, grown fat from the corpses, now die ...), Murphy,
and in Leibowitz*, 173.
40 Cf. e.g. Gispen, and note the insertion of quoque in 7:19 in Vulg.
other tiny organisms.41 When it is low, the water of the Nile smells, tastes awful,
and is harmful to humans but not to fish. When the reddish water of the Nile is
high, it is quite drinkable.42 For that reason, critical scholars (at the most) are
willing to concede that certain natural phenomena may lie behind the description of
the plague (e.g. Baentsch, Beer; cf. also Holzinger). Greftmann*, 69, believes that
J43 likely reworked a fairytale motif about horribly smelling water. Critical
scholars maintain that in the current account there is nothing natural about the
event. Conservative commentators hold that though the happening was a natural
phenomenon, here it amounts to being a miracle that would leave a deep impres
sion upon those who witnessed it, because it took place at the announced moment,
was very extensive in scope, caused fish to die and made the water undrinkable.
To that one might add that the phenomenon did not last for months (7:25), as is
usual, and did not occur, as normally happens, at the rising of the Nile, but when
the water was low (7:24). In my judgment, the writer aims to tell of a disastrous
and real turning of water into blood. In that respect, I is of the same nature as
Moses’ third sign (4:8f.; cf. 4:21). The fact that the Egyptians viewed the Nile as
a god was, as I see it, not part of the writer’s thinking. So there is no reason to
posit, e.g. with Cassuto, that in 4:8f. and here y h w h ’s supremacy over the
‘divine’ creature is being demonstrated.
What happened to the Israelites at the time of the plague? According to TPsJ, in
Goshen the water had remained water. Rabbinic exegesis offers the following
picture: when an Egyptian drew water from a jar, it was blood; when an Israelite
did it, it was water; if an Israelite drew water for an Egyptian, it became blood; if
both drank from the same dish, the Israelite drank water and the Egyptian blood;
not until the Egyptian paid, did he get water; the plague made Israel rich (ExR .
IX, 10, 11; MidrTanh. Exod. II, 14; III, 3; Ginzberg*, II, 349). Josephus (A/, II,
295) relates that when the Egyptians tried to drink from the water, it brought them
great pains and bitter torment, while it remained sweet and fit for Israelites.
Gregory of Nyssa (VM, I, 26) observes that when Israelites drank, blood turned
into water. Since Israel is not mentioned, some opine that also Israel was a victim
(e.g. Ibn Ezra). According to others, the fact that in 7:18b only the Egyptians are
mentioned implies that Israel was spared (e.g. annotations in SV).
Does 7:24 describe a futile or a successful attempt to obtain drinking water? The
question derives from the absolute statements in 7:19, 21 and is answered both
positively and negatively (cf. the discussion in ExR. IX, 11). For a negative
answer see e.g. TPsJ and Philo (VAf, I, 99). Philo relates that blood, as with
bleedings, gushed from the springs they opened up. For a positive answer, see e.g.
41 See in particular Dillmann and e.g. DB, III, 889; Montet*, 94f.
42 Heinisch believes that the death of the fish was caused by small predacious animals. Knight
suggests that the dying off was caused by sulphur that ended up in the water from a volcanic eniption
in Ethiopia.
43 The water became undrinkable from the dying fish (cf. also e.g. Fohrer*, 77).
30 EXODUS 7 :1 4 -2 5
Ishodad and Ibn Ezra; the first notes that God, as a sign of his mercy and to
heighten the greatness of the miracle, gave the Egyptians to drink from the pits
that had been dug on the bank of the river. Some modem commentators believe
that the water collecting in the pits, though coming from the Nile, had been
filtered, because it had to go through a thick layer of earth.44 Gispen believes that
7:24 describes a failed attempt at filtering the water. My view is that in the current
context 7:24 can only be taken as recounting a failed attempt. How people could
live seven days (7:25) without drinking is a question that seems not to have
troubled the writer. Philo was aware of what his description entailed (in a moment
all the water of Ethiopia, all the way to the sea, had become blood): a large
number of people who had perished of thirst lay in heaps at crossings, because the
relatives lacked the strength to carry the dead to the graves.
Relative to 7:19, 21 the question arises: Where did the magicians (named Jannes
and Jambres by Ishodad; see 7:11) obtain water to duplicate the miracle (7:22)?
Various answers have been given: they used water from the Israelites/Goshen,
which was left untouched (e.g. TPsJ; Gregory of Nyssa [VAf, I, 26]; Augustine
[QE , XXIII, XXVI]); they got water from the sea (e.g. Theodoret [QEy XX]);
they used water obtained through digging (7:24) (e.g. Ibn Ezra, Murphy); they did
not use real but make-belief water (Ishodad); gradually and in stages the waters
were affected; the magicians used water from a creek that had not yet turned into
blood; Moses gave them water, etc. (BB , 95); in those directions toward which
Aaron had not yet stretched his staff, pure water was still available (Cassuto); 7:19
is not to be understood in the absolute sense; water drawn before the change was
still good (Keil, Gispen; see also Dillmann); the magicians performed their arts
after the water had become clear again; in 7:22 the text anticipates what is done
after 7:24, 25 (e.g. Strack; cf. Artapanus’ version [see below]). The problem,
which cannot be solved on the basis of a face value reading of the current text,
stems from the combination of various versions of the event (see above under 2).
Possibly 7:22 presupposes a double transformation (see Vol. I, 386f.): Moses/Aar-
on changes the water into blood and then changes it back into water; after that the
magicians made bold to do the same.
How could the magicians perform the miracle (7:22)? What did their magic
consist of? Some exegetes venture an answer: by speaking a magic formula in
secret and in silence (Rashi); they knew the natural cause of the plague (see above)
(Strack); they produced an imitated illusion (Bohl; cf. Ishodad). The tendency
exists to belittle the miracle of the magicians: Aaron could change running water;
they only stagnant water (Ibn Ezra); the miracle they performed was of limited
scope (cf. 7:24) (Murphy, Strack); they showed that they were not real miracle
workers; had they been, they would have reversed the plague; which is what Egypt
needed (Ephraem, Ishodad, and e.g. Van der Palm, Murphy, Cole). According to
rabbinic exegesis (bMen. 85a), Pharaoh made light of the miracle of Moses and
44 See e.g. Heinisch and Cole; in their view, it was no real blood.
Aaron; in Egypt, where sorcery was common, it was not an impressive feat (cf.
Rashi).
How did the plague come to an end (7:25)? TPsJ and TNf have at the end of
7:25 the remark that y h w h made the river healthy. Philo (VAf, I, 101) relates that
after seven days the Egyptians pleaded with Moses and Aaron, upon whose prayer
God took pity and changed the river to what it was before. He does not mention
Pharao. Different from Exodus, Josephus (AJy II, 295) writes that the king,
impressed by the miracle and fearing the Egyptians, gave the Hebrews leave to
depart. When the plague ceased, he changed his mind.45 Artapanus, 28ff., offers
a similar picture. His description of I has its own twist: when Moses strikes the
Nile with the staff, it inundates all of Egypt (since that time the annual inundation
happens); the water thickens, starts smelling, and so the animals in the water die
and the people perish from thirst; the king allows the Israelites to leave, provided
Moses returns the river to its earlier condition; Moses does so with his staff; the
priests summoned by the king make a dragon (serpent) and change the colour of
the River, with the result that the king reneges on his promise and even punishes
and tortures the Israelites. Islamic tradition, too, includes the change of water into
blood among the plagues. But as in Artapanus, the first plague is a flood. The
water reaches to the neck of the tallest men (Weil, 164). Finally, this is how a
modem author deals with the question. Fuss*, 153f., argues that the J-version
contained a request from Pharaoh to Moses to intercede with y h w h to end the
plague (cf. 8:4 et al.). Which is what was done. The redactor followed the E-
version, according to which the plague was still continuing at the beginning of II.
EXEGESIS
7:14 Then yh w h said to Moses: *Pharaoh is stubborn. He refuses to let the people
go.
7:15 Therefore early in the morning you go to Pharaoh. As he goes to the water,
which he is in the habit o f doing, you must wait fo r him on the bank o f the River.
The staff that was turned into a snake you must take in your hand;
7:16 and you must say to him: Though y h w h , the God o f the Hebrews, sent me to
you with the message, uLet my people go so that they may worship me in the
wilderness, ” so fa r you have not listened. ’
‘said,’ for Sam. Pent, see Introd. § 3.12.1 (cf. Qm; see Sanderson*, 118). "QD,
see 4:10. nb, see Introd. § 3.29.1. The clause ‘He refuses (see 4:23) to let the
people (= Israel, see Introd. §3.40.1) go’ (see Introd. §3.49.2) indicates the
consequence of Pharaoh’s stubbornness. Pharaoh’s refusal necessitates a move
45 Josephus attributes no role to either Moses and Aaron in the conning of the plague; he is silent
about its duration; neither he nor Philo mentions the magicians.
32 EXODUS 7 :1 4 -2 5
from y h w h . The story of y h w h ’s reaction is told in 7:15ff. ‘G o/ see Introd.

§ 3.14.2.
ip a ( O T ca. 215x ; Exod. 36x [only sing.]), ‘morning’ does not always means
the same thing. It is used for the dawning of the day, when it gets light, sun
rise;46 see e.g. 10:13; 19:16 (ip a n rrp a , ‘at daybreak’), 14:27 (ip a
‘toward the morning;’ see 2:12), the use of the expression oatf hiph. + ip a a ,
‘arise early in the morning (at the crack of dawn)’ (8:16; 9:13; 24:4; 34:4; cf.
Gen. 19:27; 20:8; 21:14; 22:3; 26:31 et al.),47 and the expression ip a ( n n r ,
‘till the (next) morning (day),’ that is, till it gets light (12:10 [2x ], 22; 16:19, 20,
23, 24; 23:18; 29:34; cf. "ipa^> in 34:25; Deut. 16:4; but note on the other hand
ip a 4? ‘toward the morning,’ in 34:2). "ipa has a broader sense in the expression
"ipaa ip a a (for the repetition see Ges-K § 123c; 134q; Joiion § 135d; 142p;
Brockelmann § 129a, 87), ‘morning upon morning,’ ‘every morning anew,’
(16:21; 30:7; 36:3; Lev. 6:5; 2 Sam. 13:4 et al.). At least in 16:21; 30:7 ip a
indicates a larger period of time than the breaking of the day (in 16:21 the time
until noon/midday). ip a also has the meaning ‘tomorrow morning (early);’ see
ip a a in 7:15; 34:2; Josh. 7:14; 1 Sam. 9:19 and ip a (accus. temporis\ Ges-K
§ 118i; Joiion § 126i; Brockelmann § 100b) in 16:7; Num. 16:5. Relative to the
use of Dae? hiph. + ip a a , one might ask whether ‘early tomorrow morning’
(8:16; 9:13) or (depending on the context) ‘early the next morning’ is meant. In
7:15; 8:16; 9:13; 24:4; 34:2 it is likely assumed that YHWH spoke to Moses during
the night (cf. e.g. Greflmann*, 68; Fuss*, 133).
i p a occurs repeatedly with the opposite a p r (OT ca. 135 x ; Exod. 13 X ; see
TWAT, VI, 359ff.), ‘evening,’ the moment it gets dark, sunset; see the expressions
a ^ y (n )i y ip a o in a (18:13, 14) ‘from early morning until late evening’ (= the
whole day); i p a i r a*ir& (27:21; Lev. 24:3; Num. 9:21, and also Num. 9:15),
‘from the evening until the early morning’ (from sunset until sunrise = the whole
night). In 16:6-8, 13, ajjp/a^ra (in the broader sense), ‘tonight,’ ‘in the evening,’
stands opposite i p a / i p a a , ‘tomorrow morning,’ ‘the following morning’ (cf.
2 Sam. 11:13, 14; Ezek. 33:22; Ps. 30:6); compare also c a i r n p a with i p a a in
16:12. i p a a , ‘early in the morning,’ in 29:39 contrasts with c a i r n p a , ‘in the
evening’ (cf. 29:41; 30:8; Num. 28:4, 8); for c a i r n p a see 12:6.
It is striking that repeatedly Moses has to do/does something early in the
morning (7:15; 8:16; 9:13; 24:4; 34:2, 4). That activities start early in the
morning is often mentioned in the OT (e.g. Josh. 3:1; 6:12; 7:16; 8:10; Judg.
6:28; 19:5, 8; 1 Sam. 1:19; 5:4 et al.; cf. Matt. 20:1; 27:1; Mark 15:1; Luke
21:38; John 8:2; 18:28). Starting early, as soon as it is light, is common in a
46 1p3 follows upon, is the opposite of the night; e.g. 10:13; 12:22 beside 11:4; 12:12, 29; 14:21
beside 14:23; Lev. 6:2; Judg. 19:25 et al.; cf. also 23:18; 34:25; Lev. 19:13; Deut. 16:4.
47 For D2V hiph. (OT 65x ) see also 32:6; MB hiph. ‘to get going early in the morning,’ like l^ n
qal (Introd. § 3.14.1), is often followed by a finite verb which indicates the most important action of
the clause. See further TWAT, VII, 1327ff.
society where the time to work coincides with the presence of daylight. In such
societies, where human activity is circumscribed by the night, the maxim ‘the early
bird catches the worm’ is no empty phrase. Consequently, when it is said to Moses
that he is to do something early in the morning, the meaning is that he has to get
going as soon as possible. Ziegler has defended the idea that the morning was the
time when y h w h would give help. In addition to passages in the Psalms he points
to 14:14,48 27. His proposition is questionable (see TWAT , I, 75Iff.)- 14:24ff. is
to be understood as follows: while it was dark, the Egyptians, without being aware
of it, have ended up in the sea; just before daybreak, when they would be able to
see where they are (and could make an attempt to save their skin), the water
returns. What can be said is that the notion of ‘new,’ ‘surprising,’ may be part of
“ipa. When the darkness of the night recedes, the changes that have taken place
during the night become visible to the human eye (10:13; 14:31; cf. Judg. 6:28;
1 Sam. 5:4; 2 Kgs. 19:35; Mark 11:20; John 21:4).49
run (Qm: mm; cf. Sanderson*, 89), see Introd. §3.15; Sam. Pent, adds for
clarification Kin, ‘he;’ cf. Qm (Sanderson*, 78f.) and LXX; but note e.g. Joiion
§ 146h, 154c; Brockelmann § 29a. ‘go,’ see Introd. § 3.24.1. It is assumed that
Pharaoh goes from his home (cf. 7:23) to the water of the River to bathe (cf. 2:5).
3253 + nNip*?, see 5:20 and 1:10. The perf. cons, continues the imper. (e.g. Ges-
K § 112r; Joiion § 1191). ‘on the bank of the River,’ cf. 2:3, 5f. and also Gen.
41:7; is the same place meant? is it assumed that Pharaoh and his family had a
fixed place for taking a bath? Everything seems to indicate that the writer has the
events happen at a restricted number of locations (cf. also 8:16). In view of the
plague Moses is to announce and bring about, the spot is a fitting one: before his
very eyes Pharaoh sees the sparkling water turn into blood. Also note that Pharaoh
bathes in the very water in which the boys were drowned (1:22). The indication of
the place induced Gispen to say something about the residence of Pharaoh and its
identity (cf. 7:23) (cf. Introd. § 11.4). ‘staff and ‘hand,’ see Introd. § 3.21.9-12;
TPsJ: ‘the staff of Aaron’ (cf. 7:19).
^prip perf. niph. of "jsn (OT ca. 95x; Exod. 5 x); qal: ‘to turn,’ ‘turn around’
(of the direction of the wind; 10:19); niph. ‘be/are changed’ (intrans.) (7:15, 17,
20; 14:5). ‘snake,’ see Introd. § 9.2.2. npn (Introd. § 3.30), juss. qal. The
explanatory comment with ‘staff creates the following effect: the staff will remind
Pharaoh - something the reader already knows - of the miracle and triumph of
Aaron’s snake (7:10-12); the mention of the snake puts Pharaoh and the readers on
4Knpan rnDBN?, ‘in the morning watch’ (cf. 1 Sam. 11:11); rnintpN (from see 10:28); ‘night
watch’ (Judg. 7:19; Lam. 2:19); the morning watch is the last of three night watches; e.g. BHHW, II,
1276; DB, IV, 766; IDB, III, 549.
49 See further TWAT, I, 743ff.; G. Battista Bruzzone, BeO 23 (1981), 65-70, 175-83; L. Delekat, VT
14 (1964), 7f.; B. Janowski, Rettungsgewissheit und Epiphanie des Heils: Das Motiv der Hilfe Gottes
‘am Morgen’ im Alten Orient und im Alten Testament, Neukirchen-Vluyn 1989; P. Joiion, Bib 6 (1925),
317; J. Ziegler, “Die Hilfe Gottes ‘am Morgen’,” in Alttestamentliche Studien (Fs F. Notscher), Bonn
1950, 281-8.
34 EXODUS 7 :1 4 -2 5
notice that another impressive event is about to happen (cf. 4:17 and also 4:3). Let
Pharaoh beware!
m D K i perf. cons, continues imper. ‘go’ (7:15). ‘y h w h , ...,’ see Introd. § 7.2.2;
8:25. ‘send,’ see Introd. § 3.49.1; picking up on the text as it lies before us,
reference is made to 5:1, 3; 7:10 (cf. 6:11, 27; 7:2, 6). ‘let go,’ see Introd.
§3.49.2. ‘to worship,’ cf. Introd. § 3.37.1.50 ‘wilderness,’ see Introd. §3.31.
‘listen,’ see Introd. §3.51.1. n an i;, see 2:12. The words introduced by mm
(Introd. § 3.15) are an assessment of what so far has happened. Pharaoh himself,
too, must find out what y h w h thinks of him (7:14 end). Pharaoh’s ‘hardness of
hearing’ compells y h w h to react (7:17ff.).
7:17 Therefore thus says yhwh: “This should make you aware that I am yhwh :
when l am striking the water in the River with the staff in my hand it will turn into
blood,
7:18 so that the fish in the River will die and the River will stink and the Egyptians
will force themselves to drink the water from the River”. ’
‘Thus says see Introd. § 3.5.1. 7:17 opens with the last word of 7:16. nNT
refers to what follows; in 7:22 to what is prior, ‘make aware,’ see Introd. § 3.22.
‘I am y h w h , ’ see Introd. §7.3.7. nan, see Introd. §3.15. m a, see 2:11.
m&, alliteration. "|an (for the form see Ges-K § 28c), see 7:15. ‘blood,’ see
4:9. It is said that 7:17 contains an incongruity: the second ‘I,’ like the first, can
be related to y h w h (cf. 7:25); such cannot very well be done with ‘my staff.’ As
a rule recourse is taken to literary criticism: two presentations of the author of the
plague ( y h w h himself, Moses with the staff) were combined (e.g. Baentsch, Te
Stroete, Hyatt; «f. also Schmid*, 48). It should be noted, however, that in the OT
the word of God and that of his messenger are often inseparable (cf. 6:6) (see
Strack, Heinisch, Cassuto, and also Eerdmans*, 24).51 Whereas 7:15 held the
question, what kind of event the staff in the hand might bring about, 7:17 brings
out that not only the staff itself could change its appearance, but that it could also
cause the transformation of other substances.
7:18 starts with consecutive waw. ‘fish,’ see Introd. §9.4.1. Qm: "|iro
(cf. Sanderson*, 86f.). (perf. cons.), see 5:21. perf. cons. niph. of
(OT 19x ; niph. 10x), ‘be tired/weary;’ in niph. ‘to tire oneself,’ ‘be tired
of,’ ‘being (mentally) unable to cope (any longer)’ (Isa. 1:14; Jer. 6:11; 15:6;
20:9; Prov. 26:15). The Egyptians will do their utmost to overcome their loathing
(Zo.) and drink the water (blood). Less likely is that the reference is to the effort
in 7:24 (the annotations of the SV [‘become tired’] suggest this possibility). Less
correct here is to translate nab niph. with ‘no longer being able to’ (cf. HAL\ see
already LXX). bD' Nb in 7:21 is similarly translated. So the wrong impression is
50 imperf. qal (juss.) with copulative waw; e.g. Ges-K § 165a; Joiion § 116b; Brockelmann
§ 135c.
51 For the smooth transition between sender and sent, see Johnson*, One, 4ff. et al.
created as if in 7:18 and 7:21 the same verb is used. In my judgment, announ
cement (7:18) and description of the event (7:21) are complementary: 7:18
mentions the effort; 7:21 the result; see beside 7:18, 21 Jer. 20:9.52 The deriva
tive n^bp (OT 5 x ), ‘hardship(s),’ ‘deprivation(s),’ occurs in 18:8 (cf. Num.
20:14; Neh. 9:32). Rashi interprets nab in 7:18 as: search for ways to make the
water again fit for use.
nntf qal (OT ca. 215x ; Exod. 12x), ‘to drink,’ occurs in Exodus only with a
human subject, and with water (Introd. § 3.33) specifically mentioned as object
(7:18, 21, 24a, 24b [+ partitive in]; 15:23 [cf. also vs. 24]; 17:1, 2, 6; 34:28;
see beside it 24:11; 32:6). For ‘eat’ and ‘drink’ see Introd. § 3.3.1. See further
THAT , II, 1022ff.
7:18 expresses the consequences of the turning of water into blood: the fish die,
and the River, also because of the die-off of the fish, begins to smell; the Egypti
ans try to overcome their loathing, heightened by the unbearable stench, and
driven by thirst force themselves to drink from the River.
7:19 Then y h w h said to Moses, ‘Speak to Aaron: uTake your staff in your hand
and stretch it out over the water o f the Egyptians, over their canals, their rivers
and their pools, in fact over every spot where they have water, turning it into
blood, and there will be blood in all the land o f Egypt, even in the buildings made
from wood and stone ”. ’
‘take ... it out,’ see Introd. § 3.21.9; LXX has added ‘your staff after ‘take’ (cf.
7:15, 17). TO, TPsJ: ‘lift up’ (cf. 7:20) instead of ‘stretch out.’ ‘canals,’ see
Introd. § 8.21; LXX, Vulg.: + copula (cf. Ges-K § 154a n. 1; Joiion § 177o, p;
Brockelmann § 128). ‘rivers,’ see Introd. § 8.10; Sam. Pent.: bin; so also MSS
MT; cf. LXX, Pesh. and Vulg. djk (OT 10X; Exod. 7:19; 8 :l),53 ‘pool,’
‘swampland,’ stagnant water in which reeds grow in abundance (e.g. Isa. 14:23;
35:7).54 n.ipp, derivative from mp, ‘to gather together,’ occurs in construct chain
with in Gen. 1:10; Exod. 7:19; Lev. 11:36 (cf. rnpp in Isa. 22:11, and see
Sir. 10:13; 43:20; 48:17; 50:3). Following three specific terms, the general
designation D'D mp& concludes the summing-up. It includes the water reservoirs
listed and all other places where water is collected, such as springs, pits, ponds,
puddles and cisterns. Renderings such as ‘waterpoelen’ (LuthV), ‘waterbakken’
(LV), ‘waterplassen’ (WV) are therefore too restricted.55 The enumeration
intends to convey the notion that all water, running or stagnant, clear or muddy,
will feel the impact of Aaron’s conjuring gesticulation. Every drop of water will
turn into blood, v m , waw introduces a final clause, mm, perf. cons, as con
52 See further TWAT, IV, 409ff.; P. Joiion, Bib 7 (1926), 77f.

53 Likely a term borrowed from Akkadian; see Ellenbogen*, 6f.
54 See further DB, IV, 18; IDB, III, 842; Reymond*, 90, 96; Schwarzenbach*, 71 f.
55 See further M. Dahood, Bib 48 (1967), 109f., 430; Houtman*, Himmel, 271 f.; Reymond*, 90,
95; Schwarzenbach*, 67f.; Stadelmann*, 160.
36 EXODUS 7 :1 4 -2 5
tinuation of the imperf. (e.g. Ges-K § 112p; Jouon § 119h); Sam. Pent.: v n (cf.
7:21); cf. LXX, Theod. (see Frankel*, 80). ftf, see Introd. § 10.1.
]2N (OT ca. 270X; Exod. 33 x), ‘stone,’ denotes a piece of rock, regardless of
size, from a pebble to a huge, massive chunk of stone. Stone was used for lots of
things: construction, the making of tools, pottery, utensils, etc.56 In Exodus stone
denotes a seat (17:12; cf. Gen. 28:11, 18), missile, weapon (21:18; cf. Num.
35:17, 23; 2 Sam. 16:6, 13; 2 Macc. 1:16; 4:41; Sir. 22:20; 27:25, and also
Judg. 20:16; 1 Sam. 17:40, 49f.; Prov. 26:8 et al.). On account of its durability
stone is suitable for giving permanence to the written word (24:12; 31:18; 34:1, 4
[2 x ]; cf. Deut. 4:13; 27:4, 8; Josh. 8:32). Stones were used in the construction of
altars (20:25; cf. Deut. 27:5f.; Josh. 8:31; 1 Kgs. 18:31 ff.; Isa. 27:9; 1 Macc.
4:46f., and also Judg. 6:20f.; 13:19; 1 Sam. 6:14; 14:33; Ezek. 40:42). In
Exodus p x often denotes ‘precious stones’ (25:7 [2x]; 28:9, 10 [2x ], 11 [2x]
12 [2x] etc. [22x]). ‘Stone’ is used in comparisons; in 15:5 (cf. Neh. 9:11) in
connection with its weight (cf. Prov. 27:3 and also Jer. 51:63; Matt. 18:6); in
15:16 in connection with its hardness and unmovability (cf. 1 Sam. 25:37; Ezek.
11:19; 36:26; Job 38:30; 41:16, and also Matt. 3:9; 4:3; 7:9; Luke 19:40).
Not a few hold that in 7:19 and n'l2V refer to vessels of wood and stone
(cf. John 2:6; see TO, TPsJ, Vulg., Ibn Ezra, Rashi, etc., NEB, Buber-Rosen-
zweig. Taking their cue from 19th century travel accounts, some are quite specific
in their identifcation of at least the vessels: in Cairo and elsewhere one finds at the
corners of the streets masonry jars, containing water for the poor (Keil, Gispen;
see also Dillmann). It is also proposed that 7:19 contains an allusion to the custom
of pouring muddy water in jars to make it potable; in that case, the idea would be
that there is no way to purify the water (see in Dillmann). An occasional interpre
ter raises critical questions about the customary interpretation: Egypt has little
wood; the use of wooden vessels is undocumented and improbable; thinking of
‘stones’ one must especially include earthen vessels (e.g. Holzinger, Heinisch). In
my view, the regular explanation is open to question. Elsewhere in the OT the
terms are not used with the proposed meaning. LXX, TNf, FT have a literal
translation: ‘in the wood and the stones’ (cf. SBJ: ‘les arbres et les pierres’). In
addition to the customary explanation other interpretations have been adduced:
meant are images of idols made from wood and stone (cf. Deut. 4:28; 28:36, 64;
2 Kgs. 19:18; Ezek. 20:32, and also Jer. 2:27) (ExR. IX, 11; Zohar Exod. 29a;
Cassuto); Cassuto proposes that the water used for washing the images every
morning turned to blood, and he regards the comment as mockery at the expense
of the Egyptian deities; in addition to the traditional interpretation, Ishodad
suggests the following: if someone wants to make sure it was really blood and
therefore pours it on stones and wood, he will discover that in every instance it
retains the nature of blood; moreover, if he presses on soft wood, blood runs from
* See BHHW, III, 1859f.; BRL, 317ff.; DB, IV, 617ff.; IDB, IV, 445ff.; Franken*, 15ff.; M. Yon
(ed.). Arts et industries de la pierre, Paris 1991.
it; Calmet suggests that possibly also cisterns overlaid with wood or stones are
meant.
Several exegetes (Beer, Noth, Te Stroete, Henton Davies, Hyatt) have adopted
an explanation defended by Eerdmans*, 23: ‘in the trees and in the stones;’ meant
is the sap from the trees and the water from the springs (the reference is evidently
to springs that arise from stony places); this view has found its way in the WV:
‘tot in de bomen en de bronnen toe.’ J. Coppens, EThL 23 (1947), 177f., has
associated Eerdmans’ interpretation with the words labnm wTsm in KTU 1.23 ( =
CTA 23), 66, and suggests that there, too, springs and trees are meant, typical of
an oasis. M.H. Pope,57 however, thinks that these words in the Ugaritic text
denote the dry and barren desert area, where water is extremely scarce and dry
rock sometimes have a bit of pitiful vegetation. He proposes that such an area is
also meant in 7:19, and he translates: ‘scrub and rock.’ Also another Ugaritic
passage (KTU 1.3 [= CTA 3], III, 17ff. 23]), where 's and abn are used alongside
each other, has been used to explain the end of 7:19 (see Z. Zevit, JQR 66 [1975-
76], 199f.); therein, and in the use of mpo and f i x in both Gen. 1:10 and Exod.
7:19, Zevit finds confirmation for his view that the writer (P) wants to get across
‘that the plague contaminated the primeval elements of Egypt, the waters and the
land’ (p. 200). The explanation is too contrived. The downside of Eerdmans’
interpretation is that for no good reason ‘stones’ become ‘springs.’ Rather than
follow Pope, I prefer an exegesis based on the OT (Introd. § 10.1.2): the power of
the stretched-out staff even penetrates solid buildings constructed from wood and
stone; also water found there is affected.
The end of 7:19 accentuates the scope of the plague even more. From time to
time exegetes themselves, too, have enhanced the story: even the saliva of the
Egyptians became blood (ExR . IX, 10; MidrTanh. Exod. II, 14; Ginzberg*, II,
348f.); even the water in the bathhouses and bathtubs became blood (ExR. IX, 11;
Rashi); the dew upon the land became blood (Ishodad).
7:20 Moses and Aaron did exactly as y h w h had ordered them. He raised the staff\
and in the sight o f Pharaoh and in the sight o f his courtiers he struck the water in
the River, and all the water in the River was changed to blood.
7:21 The fish in the River died, the River began to stink, the Egyptians could not
drink the water from the River, and there was blood in all the land o f Egypt.
‘Moses and ... ordered them,’ cf. 7:10 and see 1:12; Introd. § 3.41.1; 3.43.1. In
light of what is said earlier, the meaning must be that Moses and Aaron visit
Pharaoh and deliver y h w h ’s words. Only one aspect of the purpose of their visit
is highlighted: Aaron brings about the coming of the plague. □*;] imperf. cons,
hiph. of o n (OT ca. 90x ; Exod. 7 x ), ‘to be high,’ ‘elevate oneself (for qal in
14:8 see Introd. § 3.21.4), occurs in hiph. with the meaning ‘to lift up,’ among
others of a staff/hand (7:20 -I- 3; 14:16; 17:11; Introd. § 3.21.9); in 35:24 ( +
57 In Biblical and Near Eastern Studies (Fs W.S. LaSor), Grand Rapids 1978, 145ff.
38 EXODUS 7 :1 4 -2 5
n p n n ; see 25:2) in the sense of ‘to offer’ (cf. Num. 15:19, 20; 18:19, 24 and
Exod. 29:27 hoph.). In 15:2 y h w h is object of o n poal: ‘to acknowledge as the
exalted One, the sovereign One’ = ‘to glorify’ (e.g. Isa. 25:1; Ps. 30:2; 34:4).58
ntDQ2; Sam. Pent., LXX: ‘his staff;’ for 2 as object see KoSynt p. 102 n. 1; Ges-
K § 119q; Jouon § 125m; Williams § 244; the idea that ‘his hand’ (cf. Josh. 8:18)
had dropped out (Dillmann), is improbable (Josh. 8:26). ‘in the sight of,’ see
Introd. § 3.38. ‘courtiers,’ see Introd. § 3.37.2.
In 7:20, from HEDD3, the account of the execution of the order and of its results
correlates, as to choice of words, with the instruction in 7:17. Aaron, however, is
the actor; 7:17 does not specifically mention witnesses. The description of the
consequences of the change of water into blood in 7:21 correlates with the
announcement in 7:18. However, instead of .IN4? niph., N*? (see 2:3) is used
(see at 7:18), while 7:21 contains at the end an elaboration correlating with the end
of 7:19.
7:22 But the magicians o f Egypt did the same thing by means o f their incantations,
so that Pharaoh remained obstinate. He would not listen to them, as y h w h had
announced.
7:23 Pharaoh turned around and went home. Even this did not make him change
his mind.
‘But the magicians ... incantations,’ see 7:11, 12. Sam. Pent.: QrrtDnba, see 7:11
MT. ‘so that Pharaoh ... had announced,’ see 7:13 and Introd. § 3.19; 3.51.1;
3.12.1. Suddenly the magicians have reappeared on the scene. The reader must
assume that they were with Pharaoh’s courtiers (7:20) or had been summoned by
him (cf. 7:11). Due to their feat the object of the plague (7:17a) is not achieved
(7:22b). m s, see 2:12; Pharaoh is assumed to be standing on the bank of the
River (cf. 7:15) where the events took place.
n(? perf. qal of rptf (OT ca. 85 x; Exod. 8 x ), ‘to place,’ ‘to set,’ in usage akin
to ]n: (Introd. § 3.36) and D'fr (Introd. § 3.48), is used in a variety of ways: ‘to
do’ (10:1) (cf. H.J. van Dijk, VT 18 [1968], 19, 26ff.), ‘to establish’ (23:31); +
bv: ‘lay upon,’ ‘assess’ 21:22);59 ‘to put on’ (33:4); for 7:23 see Introd.
§3.29.1; for 23:1 see Introd. § 3.21.2. 3b, see Introd, § 3.29.1. ‘Even,’ see
Introd. §3.11.2; the allusion is to 7:10-12. nNT, cf. 7:17. In different words,
7:23b recalls once more (cf. 7:22b) Pharaoh’s obstinacy.
7:24 All the Egyptians, however, searched fo r drinking water along the River. For
they could not drink the water o f the River.
7:25 This lasted fo r seven days after y h w h had struck the River.
T.pn !] imperf. cons, qal of is n I (OT 23 x); qal is used, among others, for the
digging of a well (Gen. 21:30; 26:15, 18f., 21f., 32; Num. 21:18), but also in a
5KSee further THAT, II, 753ff.; TWAT, VII, 425ff.; R. Laurentin, Bib 38 (1957), 5ff.
59 Cf. rvtf hoph. (or pass, qal? see Ges-K § 53u; cf. Jouon § 58) in 21:30 (2x).
FROGS 39
more general sense for ‘to search for,’ ‘to explore’ (e.g. Jer. 13:7; Job 3:21;
39:29). That is also the meaning here (cf. KoW). So they must have dug wells (cf.
Gen. 26:19, and see SS, Zo.): ‘dig for’ (cf. Ges-B, HAL). The LV: ‘groeven
putten’ (GNB: ‘nieuwe putten’!) rests on the assumption that the object of "isn is
left out (cf. Deut. 23:14); in LV, ‘water’ is taken as object of ‘drink.’ rQ'DQ pi.
fern. cstr. st. of (OT ca. 335 x ; Exod. 31 X; in chs. 25-40 28 x ) , derivative
of 220 (OT ca. 160x ; Exod. 4 x ; see TWATy V, 730ff.), ‘to turn,’ ‘to go
around,’ etc.; 220 hiph. in 13:18: ‘cause to turn,’ that is, ‘cause to make a
detour’ (cf. 2 Sam. 5:23; Ezek. 47:2; 2 Chr. 13:13; and also 2 Sam. 20:12); part,
hoph. in 28:11; 39:6, 13 in the technical sense of ‘enclosed in.’ 2'20 is a noun
normally used as adverb and preposition:60 ‘around,’ ‘to go around (it),’ ‘on all
sides;’ see 16:13 (i2 '2 0 \ so also 40:33; cf. KoSynt § 319q); 19:12; 25:11, 24, 25
(2x); 27:17; 28:32-34 etc. The pi. in 7:24 can be taken as a noun: ‘surroun
dings,’ ‘environs,’ ‘neighbourhood,’ or as a preposition: ‘around’ (e.g. Gen. 35:5;
41:48; Num. 11:24). In 7:24a, in LXX ‘water’ is object of ‘to drink’ (cf. LV); but
note Aq., Symm., Theod.
With a reference to the consequences of one of the plagues (7:21) 7:24b
provides the motive for the action stated in 7:24a. 7:24 further elucidates one of
the effects the plagues entailed for the Egyptians. Pharaoh may have acted as if
nothing was the matter (7:23), but 7:24 shows that reality was a far cry from it,
and depicts the horrible fate of the Egyptians.
see 2:16; Sam. Pent.: for the sing, see e.g. Ges-K § 145o; KoSynt
§ 348m; Brockelmann § 50a. ‘seven,’ see Introd. §4.8.1. ‘days,’ see Introd.
§ 3.23. ‘after,’ see Introd. § 3.3.1. Sometimes 7:25 is regarded as the beginning
of a new pericope: ‘After ... had passed, since yhwh ...’ (7:25), ‘yhwh said ...’
(8:1); see e.g. CV, which also gives a harmonizing rendering of 7:25b (cf. 7:20)
and translates: ‘sinds yhwh ... had doen slaan.’ The question here raised lies back
of the discussion in ExR. IX, 12 about the length of the plagues: did the plague
last 24 days and the preparation for the next plague 7 days, or the plague 7 days
and the preparation 24 days? There is no reason to deviate from the customary
view that 7:25 concludes the episode. 7:25 describes the length of the plague and
underscores that it was yhwh ’s doing (not the magicians’). Though Pharaoh may
still question yhw h ’s sovereignty, the reader may entertain no doubts about it.
II FROGS (7:26-8:11)
ESSENTIALS AND PERSPECTIVES/lNTRODUCTION TO EXEGESIS

II concerns the total pollution of Egypt. Aaron’s conjuring hand motion makes
*° Ges-K § 103o; Jouon § 102d, 103n; idem, Bib 15 (1934), 528ff.; Brockelmann § 116h; Meyer
§ 86.7, 87.3g.
40 EXODUS 7 :2 6 - 8:11
frogs (11 x ; Introd. § 9.2.4) come up (n ^v qal in 7:28, 29; hiph. in 8:1, 3;
Introd. § 3.39) from the waters of Egypt (8:If.), which cover ‘all the land of
Egypt’ (3x; cf. 7:27; 8:10), enter the homes (5x), and even come upon Pharaoh,
his courtiers (4 x ; Introd. § 3.37.2) and his people (5x; Introd. § 3.40.1). Land
and inhabitants are polluted. Several exegetes regard II as less serious than I.
Presumably the appearance of the frogs posed no immediate danger, but could
only become an inconvenience and (terrible) nuisance.61 On the assumption that I
left Pharaoh pretty much unscathed, it is sometimes noted that this time Pharaoh
does react (8:4), because now he is also victim himself.62 Note though that
amphibians, animals without fins or scales, were unclean to the Israelites (Lev.
11: lOff., 41). So in their eyes II must have been abominable. Not only the water
but also the land is now thoroughly polluted. Also II is intended to demonstrate
that yhwh has power to bring death and destruction. He is able to use animals as
weapons (Introd. § 9.5.2). yhwh ’s power reaches even further. He is also capable
of restoring everything to what it was before (8:9) (cf. 4:2-7). He is Lord of life
and death, and hence all authority belongs to him (8:6). He must be obeyed. The
plague is meant to drive this home to Pharaoh, and in that sense it is a means to
put pressure on him.

The description of II is a literary composite.63 In 8:1 there does not follow the
carrying out of yhwh ’s order to Moses (7:26-29), but a further instruction to
Moses. Aaron is introduced (8: If.). Despite the combination of somewhat hetero
geneous material, the description is a fairly homogeneous account:64 Moses is
ordered to visit Pharaoh and announce II. The writer does not mention that Moses
carried out the order.65 He does not deem it necessary to specificially mention it.
It speaks for itself that Moses, being yhwh ’s faithful servant, does what he is told,
accompanied by Aaron! When Pharaoh fails to heed Moses’ order, yhwh speaks
to Moses and tells him how he will bring about the plague, now announced to
Pharaoh, he mentioned to Moses at their first encounter (7:27). To that end, Aaron
is to act as Moses’ magician. Again there is no description of the execution of the
order. The writer jumps immediately to Aaron’s action (8:2.) The reader is to
61 See e.g. Noth, Henton Davies, Hyatt, Childs; cf. also Bohl: the occurrence is more a miracle than
a plague.
62 So already the rabbis (Ginzberg*, II, 350;) further e.g. Strack, Gispen; it is also said that II is
worse than I: during I one could dig for water or get it from Goshen, etc. (Ishodad); Pharaoh and the
affluent had wine to drink, etc. (BB, 99).
63 The usual assumption is that a J-version (yhwh makes frogs come from the River) is combined
with a P-version (8:1-3, lib ; Aaron - addition in 8:4, 8 - makes frogs come up from all the waters
of Egypt); see e.g. Baentsch, Rylaarsdam, Te Stroete, Hyatt; cf. also Eerdmans*, 25.
64 See e.g. Strack, Gispen, Cassuto.
M Sam. Pent., picking up on both 7:29 and 8:1, relates the execution of the order by Moses (and
Aaron); see also Qm (cf. Sanderson*, 196ff.), SamT and Field hoc loco.
FROGS 41
assume that it happened in the presence of Pharaoh, and also that Pharaoh’s
magicians were present or called to the scene (8:3). Besides, in light of 8:4, the
reader is to assume that Moses and Aaron went their several ways after they had
performed their task. Relative to 8:2, the current text leaves unclear how the
magicians could duplicate Aaron’s feat (8:3).
For starters, the writer spells out what happened by recounting the instructions
yhwh gives to Moses (7:26-8:1); he follows up by presenting in quick succession
snapshots of images/scenes: the feats of Aaron and the magicians (8:2-3); on
invitation, Moses and Aaron again with Pharaoh - the writer highlights the
encounter through the use of dialogue (8:4-7) - ; intercession not in Pharaoh’s
presence (8:8); results of yhwh ’s response to the intercession (8:9-10); Pharaoh’s
response (8:11).
The description makes unmistakably clear that the plague is meant for Pharaoh.
He himself is portrayed as victim (7:28v.; 8:4). Besides, the recurrent use of
‘your’ (7:27-29; 8:5, 7) and ‘my’ (8:4) indicates that what befell the courtiers,
inhabitants and land of Egypt, even ovens and kneeding troughs, also befell
Pharaoh himself (for sharing a common fate, see introduction to exegesis of 7:14-
11:10 [sub b]).
The descriptions of announcement and arrival of the plague complement each
other and together offer a highly concrete and grissly picture of the catastrophe.
From the waters of Egypt waves of frogs emerge, which wash over the whole
land. They do not halt before the homes but penetrate those as well, even the most
isolated rooms. There they do not restrict themselves to the floor. They even jump
on couches. No one is free from them, and Pharaoh is no exception. He is a
hunted person, having no rest day or night. Nothing can stop the frogs. Normally
shunning dry and hot places, this time they even enter ovens. Kneeding troughs
are favourite spots for them as well. In sum, people are forced to eat polluted and
unclean bread (cf. Lev. 11:29ff.), so that they lose all appetite. Their number is so
huge that they even crawl over people, without in the least being picky on whom
they jump (7:28f.) The land is uninhabitable. To bring this out the writer freely
uses hyperbole.66
Taking in the highly suggestive picture of the misery that came upon Egypt, the
reader finds it hard to suppress a feeling of glee - look at that terrible Pharaoh
66 The severity of the plague is described in even greater detail and more vivid colour by Philo (VM,
I, 303ff.) and Josephus (AJ , II, 296ff.); the latter relates how the frogs fouled the drinking water in
which dead frogs were floating, how the land was full of filthy slime, how the frogs multiplied and
died, were found in food and beds, and how everywhere there was the horrible smell of live, dying and
dead frogs. Rabbinic literature goes even further: their raw croaking was worse than being touched by
them, for they entered people’s bodies and croaked from inside; they entered marble homes because the
marble split (ExR. X, 3, 6); the croaking made conversation impossible; the soil was made filthy;
babies and young children died; extermination was out of the question, because six new frogs emerged
from the belly of everyone that was killed (Zohar Exod. 30a); they even came into the fiery hot flames
of the ovens and devoured the bread, etc. (see Ginzberg*, II, 349f.).
42 EXODUS 7 :2 6 - 8:11
and his stooges! - and gloating - Pharaoh should have been wiser! Above all,
the reader is awed by y h w h ’s stupendous power.
Transported by the writer to Pharaoh’s court, having witnessed Aaron’s bringing
about of the miracle (8:2), the reader anxiously awaits Pharaoh’s response.
Nothing doing. The magicians reappear and their presence makes the reader fear
the worst. For it was due to their intervention that Pharaoh had not folded (cf.
7:1 Iff., 22). Again the reader witnesses a fight of two men with many, which
seems to end in a tie (8:3). Conditioned to expect that Pharaoh will again refuse to
listen, he is surprised to notice that Pharaoh can also react in another way. This
time also Pharaoh himself seems to realize that the accomplishments of the
magicians only consisted in worsening the devastation and that no help from them
is to be expected. He summons Moses and Aaron and asks for their intervention
with YHWH (8:4). At the end of his wits, all he can think of is asking help from
his arch opponent y h w h . The reader is surprised and delighted. As something
entirely unexpected, he is told of Pharaoh’s about-face: through his plea for help
Pharoah acknowledged that the plague is from y h w h and that Moses is y h w h ’s
messenger; for the first time he admits that he cannot ignore y h w h (cf. 5:2), and
consequently wants to comply with his request (8:4). With newly piqued interest
the reader follows the events. He hears how Moses generously lets Pharaoh pick
the moment of the intervention and so of the termination of the plague, thereby
making it impossible for Pharaoh to later try to pull back. With Moses, the reader
is convinced that deliverance, at the moment picked by the adversary, as well as
the nature of the relief, namely, only the frogs outside the River die, are ir
refutable proofs of y h w h ’s incomparable power and control of the situation (8:5-
11). So the reader is once again shown the greatness of y h w h ’s miraculous power.
He is optimistic about what is further going to happen.
At the prayer of Moses what he promised Pharaoh happens. Abruptly the plague
ends. In a moment all the frogs die. y h w h restores the old situation. In fact, he
does more: he not only rids the homes of frogs, but also the courtyards, from
which it was usually hard to keep them away, and even the fields, where all one
can do is leave them alone. There is nothing y h w h cannot do (8:9). The portrayal
of the huge numbers of dead frogs and the penetrating stench they produced - the
stench of decomposing cadavers in the tropical heat defies description - draws the
reader’s attention once again to the severity of the plague and y h w h ’s rigorous
extermination of the frogs (8:10). Again he gets a bit of a kick from the extremely
unpleasant consequences of the eradication of the frogs, while it also makes him
consider that y h w h ’s deliverance of those who oppose him can simultaneously be
a punishment. All the more reason for him to count on it that this time Pharaoh
will be smart and let the people go. Soon, however, he finds that Pharaoh’s
turnaround was short-lived and ended with the ending of the plague. Apparently
y h w h ’s saving intervention, however impressive, was not enough to make him
obey y h w h (8:11a). Though it was not entirely unexpected, the reader is disap
pointed in the outcome (8:11b), but remains hopeful for the future as well. After
all, it has become clear that Pharaoh’s unyielding resolve can be made to waver if
FROGS 43
enough pressure is put on him.
3. Miscellaneous comments
The end of 8:2, in the current text, raises the question how the magicians could
perform the miracle (8:3). Did they do it at the same time as Aaron or right after
him? How could it be determined which frogs were produced by the magicians and
which by Aaron? According to Cassuto, the plague did not reach its full extent in
a moment but gradually, so that the magicians could add to the plague. The
question results from the combination of heterogeneous material. By itself, 8:2-3
seems to assume the following scenario: first Aaron brings about the plague; after
it has run its course the magicians take their turn (Dillmann, Baentsch, Greft-
mann*, 90; cf. Strack, Heinisch). Sometimes the miracle of the magicians is toned
down: they only make frogs come up from small pools of water, not from rivers,
etc., like Aaron did (Ibn Ezra); they could only perform a limited imitation (Keil).
None of the exegetes I have checked deals with the question how the magicians
were able to perform the miracle; it has been suggested that God enabled them
with an eye to Pharaoh’s stubbornness (see BB, 98).
It is not stated when the plague began. It is thought that II followed seven days
after I (Te Stroete; cf. Gispen, and see 7:25). According to rabbinic exegesis the
plague lasted seven days (ExR . X, 5; Ginzberg*, II, 351). Nothing is said about
what happened to Israel. From the recurrent ‘your’ (e.g. 7:28) it has been inferred
that II only struck the Egyptians (e.g. Te Stroete; see already BB , 96). It has been
suggested that the plague was retaliation for the crimes of the Egyptians: Theo-
doret (QE , XIX) points to the resemblance in bodily movements between frogs and
babies, and connects it with the large number of drowned Hebrew children
(1:22);67 the Egyptians had asked the Israelites to bring reptiles and creeping
critters (ExR. X. 4).
It is commonly held that an annually recurring event in Egypt lies back of the
account: in particular when the water level is high in September/October, the Nile
teemed with frogs.68 When the water receded they remained on the land. The ibis
and other birds took care that they could not become a plague. On this approach,
the miracle was not the occurrence as such, but its scope and the fact that the frogs
appear on command and die on request (e.g. Beer, Heinisch, Cassuto, Henton
Davies, Honeycutt). So the event would no longer be a strictly natural event.69
Several exegetes (among others Noth, Hyatt, Cole, Knight) point out that the
Egyptians believed that the frog possessed divine power and viewed it as a symbol
of fertility and life. The goddess Heqet, who assisted women at childbirth, consort
of Khnum, is pictured with the head of a frog (e.g. Broekhuis*, 54ff.; Montet*,
',7 Reference has also been made to the tossing and turning of the children; their wailing has been
likened to the croaking (see BB, 98).
M Rylaarsdam: there was the belief that the silt of the river had the capacity to produce frogs.
M For details on frog plagues in classical authors see DB, III, 890; Dillmann.
44 EXODUS 7 : 2 6 - 8 : 1 1
95). So it conjectured that the account of y h w h ’s supremacy over the ‘divine’

animal demonstrates (Cassuto) and shows that Pharaoh was attacked in his gods
(Gispen; cf. Michaeli). Te Stroete notes: ‘What to Egypt was a symbol of life now
becomes an unsavoury burden.’ For myself I doubt that the writer was thinking of
Egypt’s religion and aimed his barbs at it.
EXEGESIS
7:26 Then y h w h said to Moses: ‘Go to Pharaoh and say to him: Thus says y h w h :
“Let my people go so that they may worship me.
7:28 I f you refuse to let them go, I will strike all o f your territory with a plague of
fro g s”. 9
Is Pharaoh thought to be in his house (cf. 7:23) or is the meeting again to take
place on the bank of the River (cf. 7:15)? In view of the place of the water in the
account the latter is not entirely impossible. But note also 8:4 and 9:1. mONi, for
Sam. Pent, see Introd. §3.12.1; perf. cons, continues imper. (cf. 3:16). ‘Thus
says y h w h , ’ see Introd. § 3.5.1. ‘Let ... worship me,’ see Introd. § 3.49.2;
3.40.1; 3.37.1. ‘If,’ see Introd. §3.4.1. see 4:23. nbtfb, for vocalization
(different e.g. in 5:2; 7:14) see Ges-K § 65e; Joiion § 70e. run, see Introd.
§ 3.15.2.
*1}:, part, qal of HU (OT ca. 50x ; Exod. 7 x ), ‘to push,’ ‘strike’ (resulting in
serious hurt), is used (qal) with different subjects: an animal (21:35), a human
being (21:22; Ps. 91:12; Prov. 3:23), and especially /YHWH; with y h w h in the
metaphorical sense: ‘to deal a blow,’ to bring disaster, calamity upon an individual
(e.g. 1 Sam. 25:38; 26:10; 2 Sam. 12:15) or a group, a people, a country (7:27;
12:23 [2x ], 27; 32:35; Josh. 24:5; Judg. 20:35; 1 Sam. 4:3 et al.). The ‘blow’
inflicted by y h w h is often the fatal, the death blow. It can be in the form of, for
instance, a natural death (caused by illness) (1 Sam. 25:38 et al.) or a massacre
(Judg. 20:35; 1 Sam. 4:3 et al.). Exod. 8 mentions no consequences that are fatal
to human beings; such is the case in Exod. 12; likewise in Exod. 32 the ‘blow’ is
a massacre (32:27ff.). The nature of y h w h ’s ‘blow’ is that of a judgment, a
chastisement. Whoever turns against him will, in a fearful way, come up against
his crushing power. The derivatives (OT 7 x ) and npj& (OT ca. 25x),
‘blow,’ ‘plague,’ ‘catastrophe,’ occur respectively in 12:13; 30:12 (cf. e.g. Num.
17:Ilf.; Josh. 22:17) and (pi.) 9:14 (cf. Num. 14:37; 17:13ff.; 25:8f., 18f.; 31:16
et al.). Often a fatal contagious disease is meant. See further TWAT, V, 227ff.;
Wilms*, 80ff.
biDJ (OT ca. 240x), ‘border,’ is used only metonymically in Exodusor
‘territory,’ ‘land’ (7:27; 10:4, 14, 19; 13:7; 23:31; 34:24). bzu (OT 5 x ; denom.
verb?) occurs in hiph. in 19:12, 23: ‘to mark off,’ ‘draw a boundary,’ mark the
boundaries, ‘frogs,’ see Introd. § 9.2.4; for the use of the article see e.g. KoSynt
§ 297b; Ges-K § 126m; Joiion § 137i; for the absence of dages forte after article,
FROGS 45
see e.g. Ges-K § 20m.
7:28 T he River m il swarm with frogs. They will come up from it and go into your
house - even into your bedroom , even up to your couch! - and into the houses o f
your courtiers, also o f your people , even into their ovens and kneeding troughs!
7:29 The frogs will also come on you, on your people and on all your courtiers. ’
yitf (+ accus.; see KoSynt § 327f; Joiion § 125d; Brockelmann § 90d), see 1:7.
‘River,’ see Introd. § 8.10. ‘house,’ (for dages lene see Ges-K § 21d), see Introd.
§ 3.9.1; LXX: ‘houses;’ cf. 8:5 et al. Sam. Pent., LXX: ‘bedrooms.’ i"J0 (OT
ca. 4 5 x), ‘room,’ in particular one’s private room (e.g. Gen. 43:30; Judg. 3:24;
16:9, 12; Isa. 26:20; Ps. 105:30),70 the room where one lies down to sleep (e.g.
2 Sam. 13:10; 1 Kgs. 1:15) and which can be Called Dptfp Tin, ‘bedroom’ (7:28;
2 Sam. 4:7; 2 Kgs. 6:12; Eccl. 10:20).71
(OT ca. 210x), opposite of Dip (see 1:8), denotes the cessation/end of all
activity; qal: ‘to lie down’ (to rest), ‘to sleep’ (22:26), (euphemistically) ‘sleep
with’ (+ □!?) = have sexual intercourse with (22:15, 18; cf. e.g. Gen. 30:15f.;
39:7, 12, 14). (OT ca. 45x) denotes ‘place of lying,’ ‘couch’ (21:18; Lev.
15:4f., 21, 23f., 26 et al.) and ‘(the act of) lying down to rest’ (7:28 etc.); cf. also
n jp # (OT 9 x): ‘(the act of) lying downn,’ ‘deposit,’ ‘discharge’ (16:13, 14).72
Entirely in agreement with his position, Pharaoh has a home with a private room
to which to withdraw. The furniture in it shows that he is an affluent person. For
taking a rest he does not, as was common, have to lie down on the ground (22:26;
Deut. 24:13; Judg. 4:18). He owns a npp (OT 30x), ‘couch,’ ‘divan,’ ‘sofa.’73
The couch was not only used for resting at night (e.g. Ps. 6:7) or for lying down
in case of feebleness caused by old age or illness or depression (e.g. Gen. 47:31;
48i2; 49:33; 1 Sam. 19:33ff.; 1 Kgs. 21:4; 2 Kgs. 1:6), but it was also used for
resting during the day (1 Sam. 28:23) and for sitting down/lying down at table
(Ezek. 23:41; Amos 3:12; 6:4; 1 Sam. 20:25). Sam. Pent., LXX: ‘beds.’ Note the
climax, ‘houses,’ MT has sing.; Sam. Pent, a pi.; cf. LXX, Vulg. and modern
translations (see further Introd. § 3.39.1). ‘courtiers,’ see Introd. § 3.37.2. ‘your
people,’ see Introd. §3.40.1; LXX renders as if the text read "|Bi;, ‘of your
people;’ did in 7:28 get into the text by way of 7:29? First the courtiers,
Pharaoh’s immediate attendants, are mentioned; then the other subjects.
i n n (OT ca. 15x),74 ‘oven,’ used for baking bread (Lev. 2:4; 7:9; 11:35;
26:26 et al.); meant is a small oven, made from clay (cf. Lev. 11:35), shaped like
70 See C.H.J. de Geus, De Israelitische stad, Kampen 1984, 64ff.

71 Cf. M. Dahood, Bib 39 (1958), 31 If.; 46 (1965), 21 If.
72 Cf. Lev. 15:16ff. (‘emission’); Zo. thinks that this is a case of two homonymous terms; cf.
KoHkL, I, 175; KoSynt § 329f. and in particular H.M. Orlinsky, “The Hebrew Root skb". JBL 63
(1944), 19-44 (37ff.); according to him there is only one term, H3De;, ‘outpouring.’
73 For form and construction see AuS, VII, 186ff.; BHHW, I, 235f.; BRL, 228ff.; IDB, I, 372f.; H.
Gese, VT 12 (1962), 428ff.
74 Originally a Sumerian word; see Ellenbogen*, 168.
46 EXODUS 7 : 2 6 - 8 : 1 1
a cylinder, narrowing toward the top; the oven stood outdoors and often was part
way dug into the ground; a fire was built in the oven; when the flames had died
down, the flat cakes of dough were stuck against the hot inner wall or laid on
stones at the bottom;75 LXXA: + ‘and in your water troughs’ (cf. Frankel*, 102).
(sing.: Deut. 28:5, 17; pi.: Exod. 7:28; 12:34) is usually taken to be a
trough, a bowl (of wood, earthenware or stone)76 for kneeding flour and water
into dough and for leavening it. Sometimes it is linked with iKip, ‘leaven’ (see
12:15), and it is suggested that the reading should be mKtoD (e.g. AuS , IV, 54). It
is also connected with IN#, ‘flesh’ (see 21:10); Palache*, 42f., suggests that at
one phase in the history of its use it also meant ‘food,’ ‘bread,’ from which would
come the meaning of mNtfD. The rendering of the term in Deut. 28:5, 17 in LXX
with eyKataAelppaTa and in Vulg. with reliquiae, ‘leftovers’ (provisions?),
indicates that it was read as derived from "IK®, ‘be left over’ (see 8:5). The Vulg.
opted for the same interpretation in 7:28: et in reliquias ciborum tuorum , ‘and in
your leftovers (provisions?);’ the LXX in 7:28 and 12:34 opted for a rendering
with Tot (J)up&|iccToc, ‘(lumps of) dough’ (cf. Vulg. in 12:34). In LXX the sequence
of the words in 7:28 has been altered. First the dough is mentioned, then the
ovens. In both 7:28 and 12:34 the meaning is troughs, bowls with their contents.
In 7:29, in the LXX first the courtiers are mentioned (‘all’ is missing) and then
the people; cf. 7:28; 8:5, 7; Pesh.: ‘on all your people.’
8:1 Then y h w h said to Moses: ‘Speak to Aaron: “Stretch your hand with your
staff out over the canals, over the rivers and over the pools, and make the frogs
come up over the land o f Egypt ”. ’
8:2 Aaron stretched his hand out over the water o f Egypt and frogs came out o f it
and covered the land o f Egypt.
8:3 But the magicians did the same by means o f their incantations. Also they
made frogs come up over the land o f Egypt.
‘Aaron,’ LXX: + ‘your brother;’ cf. 4:14 and see 1:6; according to rabbinic
interpretation Aaron was the acting person, because the river had protected Moses
after his birth (see TPsJ; Ginzberg*, II, 349). ‘Stretch ... staff,’ see Introd.
§ 3.21.9; Vulg.: ‘Stretch out your hand,’ cf. 8:2. ‘canals ... pools,’ see 7:19. bym
(Ges-K § 75gg), play on words with bi; (4x)? ‘over ... Egypt,’ not in LXX.
‘stretched out his (LXX: the) hand,’ see Introd. § 3.21.9. ‘the water of Egypt,’ cf.
7:19; LXX: + ‘and he made the frogs come up.’ ûm, for the feminine form see
KoSynt § 255h; Ges-K § 122s; Brockelmann § 50c.
03P1, imperf. cons, piel of HOD (OT ca. 150x; piel ca. 130X; Exod. 15 x); ‘to
cover;’ occurs in a variety of contexts (8:2; 10:5, 15; 14:28; 15:5, 10; 16:13;
21:33; 24:15, 16; 26:13; 28:42; 29:13, 22; 40:34); the derivatives occuring in
75 See e.g. AuS, IV, Iff.; BHHW, I, 189f.; BRL, 29f.; IDB, III, 612f.; Benzinger*, 64ff.; Franken*,
39ff.
76 See e.g. AuS, IV, 46, 54; Benzinger*, 64.
FROGS 47
Exodus are: m o p , ‘covering* in 21:10 for clothing; in 22:26 for cloak (cf. 22:25)
(see Honig*, 16); nppo (OT 16x), ‘roof,’ ‘cover’ (26:14 [2x]; 35:11; 36:19
[2x ]; 39:34 [2x]; 40:19).77 The writer uses strong language. There is no spot in
Egypt where there are no frogs. Possibly the writer consciously used the sing,
‘frog:’ the frogs are so numerous that they can no longer be distinguished; it is as
if one humongous frog, one big monster, has Egypt in its grip.78
8:3 describes an occurrence not announced by y h w h and hence surprise
happening. Suddenly the magicians are on the scene again. For 8:3a see 7:22 and
7:11, 12; LXX: ‘magicians of the Egyptians’ (cf. 7:22). For vocalization (see app.
BHS) see E.A. Knauf, BN 19 (1982), 57f.
8:4 Nevertheless, Pharaoh summoned Moses and Aaron and said: ‘Pray to y h w h
to remove the frogs from me and my people. Then I will let the people go to offer
sacrifices to y h w h . ’
In the account it is apparently assumed that some time has passed between what is
related in 8:2-3 and what in 8:4. ‘summoned,’ see Introd. § 3.45.1; it is assumed
that Pharaoh was in his house.
n -n p n (cf. Ges-K § 63o), imper. pi. hiph. of m r (OT 20x), in qal (8:26;
10:18) and hiph. (8:4, 5, 24, 25; 9:28; 10:17):79 ‘to pray,’ ‘to intercede,’ to/with
(*?#/*?) y h w h . The request for intercession comes from Pharaoh, is addressed to
Moses and Aaron (8:4, 28; 9:28; 10:17), and is for his own benefit (b, 8:5; "1173,
8:24). Not being a worshipper of y h w h , Pharaoh cannot approach him directly but
needs the help of y h w h ’s messengers. In accordance with the roll division
described in 4:15f.; 7 :If., Moses, y h w h ’s confidant, offers the prayer of interces
sion. To that end he goes away from Pharaoh (8:8, 30; 10:18), and leaves the city
(9:33). Contact with y h w h apparently required being all by oneself (cf. Mark
6:46). By calling upon (8:8) and stretching out the hands (9:29, 33) Moses seeks
contact with y h w h . The OT text does not support the suggestion, made on the
basis of a presumed Arabic etymology of the verb, that (originally) the prayer was
accompanied by the bringing of a sacrifice.80 The description in Exod. does not
permit the conclusion that originally "inu referred to ‘some kind of sign or signal
made by a man of God, rather than a spoken prayer.’81 All the emphasis is on the
fact that the plagues are from y h w h . Moses cannot himself cause the plagues to
stop, but needs to go to y h w h for that. It is assumed that Moses is a man of God
and enjoys a special relationship with y h w h : y h w h acts in accordance with the
77 See E. Stromberg Krantz, Des Schiffes Weg mitten im Meer, Lund 1982, 137ff. See further
TWAT, IV, 272ff.
7MFor rabbinic speculation concerning the sing, see bSanh. 67b; ExR. X, 4; Ginzberg*, II, 349.
7VRashi on 8:26 discusses the difference qal/hiph.
K0 Cf. D.R. Ap-Thomas, VT 6 (1956), 240f.
Kl So J.F.A. Sawyer, Semitics 7 (1980), 138, with a reference to 9:28f.; but note 8:8.
48 EXODUS 7 :2 6 - 8:11
request from his messenger.82 LXX: ‘pray fo r me\' cf. 8:24; 9:28. "lO'i (from
"no, see 3:3); for construction see KoSynt § 364m; Joiion § 177k. ‘the people,’
LXX: ‘them.’ nor, see 3:18; cf. 7:26.
8:5 Moses responded to Pharaoh: ‘Please have it your way. At precisely what
time would you want me to pray fo r you, your courtiers and your people , so that
the frogs that are on you and in your houses will be exterminated and only remain
in the River?’
-ixpnn, imper. hithp. of "IKS (OT 13x; hithp. 7 x ), in hithp. (of y h w h ) ‘to
glorify oneself (Isa. 44:23 et al., ‘to glorify oneself against (to boast)’ (+ bv)
(Judg. 7:2; Isa. 10:15) (see further THAT, II, 387ff.; TWAT , VI, 494ff.). The
interpretation of 8:5 causes problems. LXX: t&£oci 7tpo<; pe, ‘affirm for me’ (cf.
Vulg., Pesh. and e.g. CV [‘Ge moogt zelf bepalen’], WV). Going by this trans
lation it has been proposed to emend the text: "iNppn (hithp. of ")N3), ‘make clear
to me’ (e.g. Ehrlich). TO renders: ‘ask for yourself a feat of strength, set the time
yourself, ...’ that is, ask me to do something which you believe I cannot do (cf.
Rashi); compare with TPsJ: ‘Glorify yourself for my sake! At the moment you
desire, I will ...;’ TNf and FT: ‘Give me a sign and trust me (TNf)/yourself(FT)
(to set the time) when ...’ C. Rabin, ScrHie 8 (1961), 397, cites the view of N.H.
Tur-Sinai: there is a connection between ")ND and n s , ‘lot’ (Esth. 3:7); Pharaoh is
asked, by means of divination, to pick a day for the end of the plague; Rabin’s
own idea is that there may be a connection with the Akkadian paruy ‘to seek,’
iptaru , ‘to choose.’ For the most part (among others Ibn Ezra, Keil, Dillmann, and
see SS, Ges-B, BDBy HAL ; differently KoW) the statement is regarded as an
expression of courtesy; see e.g. Baentsch: ‘verherrliche dich mir gegeniiber, indem
du mir bestimmst’ = ‘deine Majestat geruhe mir zu befehlen’; Beer (if the text is
correct): ‘tu dich grofi gegen mich’ = ‘verfuge iiber mich!’ It is doubtful that the
term is to be regarded as a statement of courtesy (cf. Ehrlich, Childs). Likely what
is meant is that Moses (not unintentionally; see 8:6b) makes a courtly gesture:
‘The honour is yours to tell me.’ Pharaoh may decide the moment of the interces
sion and so of the end of the plague.
'rip (OT 4 3 x), interrogative adverb, ‘when,’ preceded by b is used in 8:5 in a
real question: ‘(about) when’ or likely: ‘when precisely’ (for b see at ".no, see
8:6); in 10:3, 7 in an exclamation (cf. KoSynt § 17Id); in 10:3 + perf.: ‘how
long yet’ (cf. Ps. 80:5; the voice betrays reproach); in 10:7 + imperf. (cf. e.g.
1 Sam. 1:14; Jer. 14:4; Ps. 94:3; the voice betrays reproach and despair) (cf. SS
and Zo. and further THAT , I, 933f.; TWATy V, 110ff.). Rashi: should not be
linked with ‘pray’ but with ‘exterminate;’ Pharaoh may fix the time for the
K2 See further THAT, II, 385f.; TWAT, VI, 489ff.; S.E. Balentine, JBL 103 (1984), 161-73; W.H.
Gispen, GThT 58 (1958), 21 f.; F. Hesse, Die Furbitte im Alten Testament, Erlangen 1951, 15, 19ff.,
25, 32, 50, 91, 103; J. Scharbert, “Die Furbitte im Alten Testament,” in Fs A. Hofmann, Passau
1984, 91-109.
FROGS 49
extermination of the frogs (see also Strack, Te Stroete). Cassuto thinks that Moses
is cautious and does not inquire when the frogs should be removed, because on
that point he had received no instructions from yhwh . However, what is meant is
that the prayer and the removal of the plague coincide (so already Nachmanides);
cf. 8:8f. and see Matt. 8:13; 15:28.
m a , see 4:25; obvious subject is YHWH. "|DQ, LXX: + ‘and of your people;’
the ‘separating’ force of ]D, ‘away from you,’ is hard to bring out in translation,
‘your houses,’ see Introd. § 3.9.1; Sam. Pent.: + T"JMD1 (cf. 8:7); LXX:
‘your houses’ (so also in 8:7); Vulg.: ‘your house’ (so also in 8:7).
pn (OT ca. llO x ), particle used to denote decrease, restriction, exception, on
condition, provided that, etc.; it can be rendered, among others, by ‘only,’ ‘but,’
‘except’ (8:5, 7, 24, 25; 9:26; 10:17, 24; 21:19).83
n;")K$n, imperf. niph. pi. fern, (in 7:29; 8:3, 7, 9 the masc. pi. is used; cf.
KoSynt § 205d) of iNtf (OT ca. 135x); in niph. ‘to be left/over’ (8:5, 7, 27;
10:5, 19; 14:28), ‘remain behind’ (10:26; cf. e.g. Num. 11:26); in hiph. ‘to be
left’ (10:12); in 8:27; 10:19; 14:28 the term is used with a negation in a similar
expression; the imminent threat is entirely being removed; danger can no longer
assert itself; the total annihilation testified that yhwh is fully in control of the
situation. As concerns 8:27; 10:19: yhwh can bring a plague and put an end to it;
he is Lord over the forces of evil (see further THAT, II, 844ff.; TWAT, VII,
933ff.). Pesh. lacks the end of 8:5. Is the ending more than a self-evident obser
vation? Is the fact that the frogs are in part wiped out and in part remain alive
additional underscoring of yhwh ’s miracle working power? yhwh is even
powerful enough to make a distinction when it comes to frogs! If this is the intent,
the connection between the end of the verse and the preceding should not be
expressed by ‘so that’ (e.g. CV, WV), but by ‘but.’
8:6 ‘Early tomorrow , ' he responded. Whereupon he (Moses) assured him: ‘As
you command (it will happen). Thus you will realize that no one is equal to y h w h ,
our God.
8:7 For the frogs will go away from you, your houses, your courtiers and from
your people. Only in the River will they remain . '
nnp (OT ca. 50x; Exod. 11 x), ‘tomorrow,’ ‘the next day,’ a noun (8:6, 19;
9:18; 16:23) often used as adverbial accusative (8:25; 9:5; 10:4; 17:9; 19:10;
32:5), also in the broader sense of: ‘in time to come’ (13:14; Deut. 6:20; Josh.
4:6, 21 et al.). ‘Tomorrow’ is used, among others, in the announcement of a
future event: the coming of IV (8:19), V (9:5), VII (9:18), VIII (10:4), the end of
IV (8:25); see further 17:9; 32:5. New tasks are not undertaken until the begin
ning of a new day (cf. 18:13; 32:30; Num. 14:25; 16:7, 16; 17:6, 23; 33:3; Josh.
143 See further KoSynt § 392f, g; Williams § 390; B. Jongeling, OTS 18 (1973), 97-107; C.H.J. van
der Merwe, “The Old Hebrew ‘Particles’ ’ak and raq (in Genesis to 2 Kings),” in W. Gross et al.
(eds.), Text, Methode und Grammctik (Fs W. Richter), St. Ottilien 1991, 297-311.
50 EXODUS 7:26 - 8:11
5:1 If.; Judg. 21:4; 1 Sam. 9:16 et al.; see at npa, 7:15). Apparently the same
holds true for God. Consequently ‘tomorrow’ probably means: at the first oppor
tunity. In brief, in 8:6 Pharaoh asks for the earliest possible removal of the
plague. Likely b before in o in 8:6 (cf. 8:19; Num. 11:18; Josh. 7:13 and the use
of in other designations of time; e.g. 14:27; 19:11) is to be regarded as em
phatic i (cf. HAL , s.v. II b) to make it stronger and more precise: ‘at the dawn of
the next day,’ ‘as soon as it is morning.’ In 9:6; 18:13; 32:6, 30 the cognate rnnp
(OT ca. 30x), ‘the following day,’ is used, always with the preposition (cf.
Brockelmann § 111 e): ‘on the next day’ (cf. Gen. 19:34; Lev. 7:16; 19:6 et al.);
in 9:6; 32:6 in the description of the execution of an act that was announced with
the use of nno (9:5; 32:5; cf. 1 Sam. 11:9-11).84 That of a number of plagues
beginning and end are indicated underlines that the plagues are not fortuitous
events, but are from y h w h . Heaven and earth are in his hand. That II comes to an
end at the moment desired by Pharaoh accentuates y h w h ’s omnipotence even
more.
Ideas about the precise meaning of ‘tomorrow’ differ widely: Moses expected it
‘immediately;’ Pharaoh, however, picked a point in time Moses would not have
thought of, so that he could be sure of Moses’ miraculous power (Strack); Pharaoh
hoped that before that the plague would have passed (already in BB, 100); Pharaoh
thought that Moses was stalling for time, and therefore wanted to have it done as
soon as possible; so he accomplished that the plague did not end immediately
(Nachmanides); Pharaoh hardly thought it possible for so great a work to be
performed at once (Keil; cf. Gispen). In my opinion it means ‘at the first oppor
tunity’ (see above) while I believe it is wrong to call the choice ‘unreal’ on the
ground that under the circumstances anyone would/ have said ‘immediately’
(Henton Davies; cf. also Fuss*, 162f., 164f.).
‘As you command,’ see Introd. § 3.12.1. see 1:11. ‘you will realize,’ see
Introd. § 3.22. fN, see 2:12. ‘YHWH, our God,’ see Introd. § 7.2.2; LXX: ‘that
beside y h w h there is no other (God);’ in MT, y h w h ’s incomparability has central
stage. When the plague ends at the exact moment picked by Pharaoh, he cannot
claim that it stopped by itself (or perhaps due to the help of his magicians) and had
come by itself and was not brought on by y h w h ; he is bound to acknowledge that
y h w h controlled the situation from beginning to end (cf. Isa. 7:10ff.).
"no, cf. 8:4. ‘houses,’ cf. 8:5; LXX: + xai ex tg)v ETiauAecov, ‘from the
farms/homesteads,’ cf. 8:9. For the end of 8:7 see end 8:5.
8:8 Then Moses and Aaron went out from Pharaoh, and Moses cried to y h w h
because o f the frogs he had brought on Pharaoh.
8:9 y h w h did as Moses had promised. The frogs died in the houses, in the
courtyards, even in the fields.
K4 See further TWAT, I, 750; IV, 813ff.; S.J. De Vries, VT 25 (1975), 80-105; idem, ZAW 87
(1975), 63-79.
FROGS 51
On the basis of 8:6 one must assume that Moses* prayer and the end of the plague
happened the next day. ‘went out’ (from the house of Pharaoh [cf. 8:4]; to outside
the city? [9:33]), see Introd. § 3.24.1; for sing, with composite subject see e.g.
3:18. pus, see 2:23; Moses’ cry is loud and incisive, ‘because of,’ see Introd.
§ 3.12.3. ‘to bring on,’ see Introd. § 3.48. My tranlation rests on the assumption
that yhwh is subject of the end of 8:8 and that new refers to ‘the frogs.’ LXX:
7 iepi t o u opiopou td)v Parp&xcov a x ; exaâtco <$apad>, ‘with respect to the
promise concerning the frogs, as Pharaoh had stipulated’ (cf. LV; text is altered;
Pharaoh is subject); Vulg.: pro sponsione ranarum quam condixerat Pharaoni, ‘as
regards the promise concerning the frogs which he (Moses) had agreed upon with
Pharaoh.’ Believing that the customary interpretation involves a superfluous
comment, Dillmann and Ehrlich opt for an interpretation that corresponds with
Vulg. (Moses is subject; itiK refers to 131): because of the promise which he had
made to Pharaoh concerning the frogs. Also picking up on ‘cry,’ Ehrlich presents
the following picture of the scene: Without authorization from yhwh , Moses by
himself made a promise to Pharaoh, and now is fearful about its fulfilment; his
honour is at stake (cf. already Ibn Ezra). Ehrlich’s interpretation is improbable.
Moses is so fully assumed to be yhwh ’s messenger that he can make a promise on
his behalf. As such the interpretation offered by Dillmann and Ehrlich is possible
on the basis of the text.
‘to promise,’ see Introd. § 3.12.1. ‘die,’ see Introd. § 3.32; Ehrlich holds that
the original account talked about the disappearance of the frogs from the Nile (cf.
8:27); m a + in 8:5 he understands as ‘cause them to be no longer there;’ he
proposes the reading id iv i (nan + ‘disappear from’). For see 8:5.
"isn (OT ca. 195x; Exod. 29x), ‘fenced in area,’ the court(yard) of a house
(2 Sam. 17:18; Neh. 8:16), of a palace (Jer. 36:20; Esth. 4:11; 5:1 et al.), of the
temple (1 Kgs. 6:36; 7:12; Ezek. 8:16 et al.), of the tent shrine (27:12, 13, 16,
17, 18, 19; 35:17 [2x], 18 etc. [28x ]); only in pi.: ‘settlements,’ ‘villages’ (Gen.
25:16; Lev. 25:31; Josh. 13:23, 28 etc.), in distinction from fortified, walled
cities (BDB : ‘court’ and 1 2 m, 'village,’ are homonyms); ‘courts’ is used
more often with ‘house(s)’ (Ezek. 9:7; Zech. 3:7; Ps. 84:11; 92:14; 135:2). As
concerns 8:9, both ‘courts’ (e.g. SS, BDB) and ‘villages’ (Ges-B, Zo., HAL) are
selected. An argument against the latter would be that ‘villages’ always occurs in
the masc. pi. and not the fern. pi. (8:9; Neh. 8:1b).85 My preference is ‘cour
tyards;’ the description reaches a climax: not only the houses themselves, the
closed-in rooms one keeps vermin-free as much as possible, but also the cour
tyards, where daily activities take place and where vermin is just as unwelcome,
but cannot be completely kept out, are totally rid of frogs. In brief, every last frog
vanishes from human dwellings. As well they die in the fields (m&, see 1:14)
around the dwellings, where normally one cannot get rid of them. The outcome
85 See further AuS, VI, 7, 41; VII, 87ff. et al.; BRL, 139f.; 244ff.; TWAT, III, 140ff.; De Geus (see
7:28), 61 ff., 142.
52 EXODUS 7 :2 6 - 8 : 1 1
highlights the power of y h w h . He does more than restore what once was. He also
does more than was requested of him (compare 8:5 with 8:9).
So in a varied way (cf. 7:28f.) the reader is once more shown the extent of the
plague. Again there is a climax, but this time with respect to the disappearance of
the frogs.
8:10 They were piled into heaps, heap after heap. They made the land stink.
8:11 When Pharaoh saw that relief had come, he remained stubborn. So he would
not listen to them, as yh w h had announced.
•rips-?] imperf. cons, qal of nas (OT 7 x ), ‘to heap up,’ ‘to store’ (e.g. Gen.
41:35, 49); for the indefinite personal subject see e.g. Ges-K § 144f; Jotion
§ 155b; for double accus. see e.g. KoSynt § 327f.; Brockelmann § 92b. DnpQ pi.
of "iph; there is no unanimity about the derivation (cf. the homonym "iph [1:14]
and see "ipn [2:3]): "inn in 8:10 on the one hand and in Lev. 27:16; Num. 11:32
et al. (‘homer’) is derived from ")Dn, ‘to load,’ ‘to heap up’ (Ges-B, KoW, Zo.,
HAL ; "ion in Hab. 3:15 is regarded as a homonym); non in 8:10; Hab. 3:15 is
derived from non, ‘to heap up’ (SS, BDB\ "ion in Lev. 27:16 et al. is regarded as
a homonym); there is agreement about the meaning of non in 8:10; the repetition
of the pi. expresses a climax: there were numerous heaps (Ges-K § 123e; Jotion
§ 135e). cf. 7:18 and see 5:21. Since dead frogs are a worse plague than live
ones and 8:11 talks of relief, Ehrlich (see 8:9) does not think 8:10 is original;86
in my judgment, the writer wants to say that also the deliverance contained a
strong punitive element.
‘saw,’ see Introd. §3.46.1. ‘the (= the requested; cf. 8:4) deliverance,’ see
Introd. § 3.47.4, that is, the termination of the plague. "iMm (see 4:10 and
Introd. § 3.19.2), for the inf. abs. as continuation of the finite verb see KoSynt
§ 218a, 222a; Ges-K § 113z; Jotion § 123x; A. Rubinstein, VT 2 (1952), 362-7.
Sam. Pent.: -QD’n (cf. 8:28). ‘listen,’ see Introd. § 3.51.1. ‘announce,’ see Introd.
§ 3.12.1.
Ill LICE (8:12-15)


III brings death and destruction for man and beast in Egypt. Like I and Moses’
signs (4:1-9), its characteristic is transformation (indicated by rrn; 4 x ). Through
Aaron’s conjuring gesture (8:12f.) the grains of sand ("IBU; 3 x ), ‘in all the land of
Egypt’ (2 x ) turn into lice (4x; see Introd. § 9.2.5, 7), which harm people as well
as animals. One must not think too small of the horrible impact produced by
K6 Cf. Josephus (AJ, II, 296ff.); he includes the dying of the frogs and the stench as belonging to the
plague and not as consequence of its cessation.
LICE 53
zillions of lice: they suck the blood of humans and animals and cause them terrible
itches; they make them sick and unclean (cf. Lev. 11:20ff., 41). A land that is
covered with them is in death’s grip.87 In brief, also III, which unlike I and II
does not have its source in the water but on the land, is intended to demonstrate
that y h w h possesses power to spread death and destruction. In y h w h ’s hand
animals can serve as weapons (cf. Introd. § 9.5.2). Though not specifically stated,
there is no doubt that also III is meant to force Pharaoh to acknowledge (cf. 8:15a)
and obey y h w h , making it another means to put pressure on him.

The description of III is regarded as a homogeneous literary unit.88 The writer
wastes no time in coming straight to the point. He says nothing about an instruc
tion from y h w h to Moses to go to Pharaoh, demanding that he let the people go,
and in case of refusal to announce a plague, etc. (cf. 7:14ff., 26ff.). Right off the
bat he mentions y h w h ’s instruction to Moses for Aaron, and for the rest leaves it
up to the reader to imagine the situation in which y h w h ’s instruction comes to
Moses (cf. 7:19; 8:1). The reader should again imagine himself in the vicinity of
Pharaoh (cf. 9:8) and assume that also the magicians are either present again or
are ordered to come (8:14f.).
The abrupt transition from 8:11 to 8:12 is likely due to the combination of
diverse narrative material. The effect is the following: III follows immediately
upon II; Pharaoh has reneged on his word (8:4, 11); there is no point in wasting
words; now Pharaoh better feel the consequences of his conduct.89 For that
matter, it is not specifically said that Pharaoh was a victim of the plague. The
wording is more general, speaking of ‘humans’ and ‘animals’ (= livestock; here
for the first time mentioned as victims of a plague). The underlying assumption is
that of an inseparable common fate between ruler and subjects. Their fate is his
fate (see introduction to exegesis of 7:14-11:10 [sub b]).
In reciting y h w h ’s instructions to Moses, the writer indicates what next step
YHWH will take in his assault on Pharaoh (8:12). Then, continuing, he talks about
how the order was carried out. Of ‘That is what they did’ (8:13a) he only elabor
ates on the part played by Aaron: Aaron acted as Moses’ magician. By hitting the
ground with the staff with a conjuring motion, Aaron turns the fine, dusty sand
into lice, rendering the land uninhabitable. The dust, normally enough of a bother
since the smallest puff of air or slightest movement makes it whirl up, now covers
humans and animals in the form of destructive lice. Calamity begets a greater
calamity. In describing the plague, in the instruction (8:12) as well as - more
87 A common view is that III is a plague of mosquitos; in that connection it is sometimes said that
the plague, though a terrible nuisance, was not deadly; e.g. Gispen.
HKUsually attributed to P; see e.g. Baentsch, Rylaarsdam, Te Stroete, Hyatt.
89 Cf. the interpretation of Cassuto who regards the text as a unity; for a different interpretation, see
Nachmanides.
54 EXODUS 8:12-15
elaborately - in the execution (8:13), the writer underlines the miraculous

character and the seriousness of the plague. He drives home the point by exag
gerating enormously and by painting an incredibly dreadful picture: a land where
the ground is not covered with sand but with lice, which like dust blow all over
the place, covering humans and beasts and hurting everyone and everybody
(8:13).90
Watching the misery into which Egypt had been plunged, the reader cannot
suppress a feeling of malicious pleasure - Pharaoh should not have gone back on
his word! What is more, he is impressed by YHWH’s miraculous power, wondering
whether this dreadful catastrophe is going to change Pharaoh’s mind. Anxiety takes
hold of the reader when the magicians are again brought to the scene (8:14f.).
Despite their tricks, will Pharaoh again respond the way he used to (8:3f.)? This
time around events take a different turn: in the unequal struggle of the many
against two, the magicians are forced to admit defeat; their incantations are
ineffective; no matter their efforts, there is nothing they can do (8:14). They are
unmasked. Now it is clear that they can only use secret arts and that their capa
bilities are extremely limited. The unexpected turn buoys the reader’s heart. All
the more when the magicians start talking. It is the first time in the story that the
reader hears their voices. Their magic tricks having failed, they are expected to
give an explanation. Not knowing what to do or think, they concede that the
plague must be due to a supernatural power; it is at once their implicit ack
nowledgement that Moses and Aaron are representatives of that power. Unwilling
to give credence to Moses’ message, Pharaoh now hears from the mouth of bona
fide witnesses, his own servants, that there is no disputing the power of y h w h , the
Lord of Moses and Aaron, and that he is to be given all honour.
Having heard the confession of the magicians, the reader anxiously awaits
Pharaoh’s response. Now that his counselors have capitulated, will he do likewise
himself? Pharaoh’s reaction is disappointing. Again there is the refrain that he does
not comply. Yet Pharaoh’s reaction is not entirely unexpected (8:15b). Moreover,
III does not leave the reader completely without hope. For it did accomplish
something. The magicians have capitulated. In his resistance against y h w h , from
now on he will have to do without them. No longer can he use their accomplish
ments as a subterfuge for remaining stubborn.
In connection with 8:13 the question arises: What made the magicians attempt to
perform the same miracle? Is this the situation that is presupposed: First it is
90 Cf. the vivid description in Philo (VM, I, 106ff.; he thinks of mosquitos and addresses the
question why God punishes Egypt with such insignificant small animals) and Josephus (AJ, II, 300); the
latter recounts that the wretched Egyptians perished and that neither lotions nor unguents were of any
use against the vermin; Artapanus, 31, relates that Moses, by striking the ground, brought forth winged
animals, who caused boils on the bodies of the Egyptians (cf. 9:8ff.), which the doctors were unable to
cure; according to ExR. X, 7, digging in the ground people did not find dirt but lice.
LICE 55
Aaron who does things; and then, when the plague has run its course, the magi
cians do their tricks? Bohl, for instance, suggests that Aaron changed a handful of
stuff into mosquitos wherever Pharaoh asked him to do so; the magicians copied
him, but were unable to put an end to the plague, so that the mosquitos remained
on people and animals (8:14b). It is good advice to be cautious here and not try to
make everything in the account fit.
Why were the magicians powerless (8:14)? A rabbinic interpretation holds that a
devilish being has no power over a creature that is smaller in size than a grain of
barley (bSanh. 76b; ExR. X, 7 and also Rashi; cf. Ginzberg*, II, 352; V, 429);
according to another rabbinic notion, the magicians could bring forth but not
create;91 God no longer permits the magicians to use demonical powers (Keil; cf.
also Nachmanides). To the writer it is obvious that y h w h ’s hand is in it (cf.
8:15a). Nothing is said about the end of the plague and what happened to Israel
(the account only talks in general terms about ‘humans and livestock’).
It is suggested that the plague was retribution for Egyptian crimes: the Israelites
had to make bricks from soil (cf. l:12ff.; 5:6ff.) (BBy 101); now they can no
longer be forced to do so (Ginzberg*, V, 430).
On the assumption that the plague consisted of gnats, it is commonly held that
the description is informed by the Egyptian milieu; particularly in October and
November there are dense swarms of gnats, which can become a scourge to
humans and animals. The real miracle would be the size of the plague and the fact
that striking the ground brought the gnats (swarms of gnats often look like a thick
cloud of dust swirling up from the ground). Gnats are not a common pest in
Egypt. The advantage of the interpretation of ‘lice’ is that one does not have to
posit a specific relationship between the plague and the Egyptian milieu.
EXEGESIS
8:12 Then y h w h said to Moses: ‘Speak to Aaron: MStretch out your staff and strike
the dust o f the ground, ” and it will turn into lice in all the land o f Egypt.9
8:13 So they did. Aaron stretched out his hand holding the staff and struck the dust
o f the ground, and the lice came upon humans and animals. All the dust on the
ground became lice in all the land o f Egypt.
‘stretch out your staff (alliteration in the Hebrew text), see Introd. § 3.21.9; Sam.
Pent.: ‘your hand with your staff;’ cf. LXX and see 8:1 and 8:13. According to a
rabbinic interpretation, Aaron had to be the acting person because the sand had
protected Moses (cf. 2:12); see TPsJ; ExR. X, 7; Rashi. "jn (Ges-K § 76c), see
2:11 (HD3).
91 See ExR. X, 7 and also Nachmanides; cf. Dillmann; the plague, it is to be noted again, is about
transformation.
56 EXODUS 8:12-15
ip y (OT ca. llO x ), ‘loose earth,’ ‘dust;’ fiN n "lay, ‘the dust of the earth,’ is
the fine dust that is produced when dryness causes the ground to crumble; the
imagery connotes what is innumerable (Gen. 13:16; 28:14; cf. Num. 23:10 et al.);
here the expression expresses the immense scope of the plague (see further THAT ,
II, 353ff.; TWAT, VI, 275ff.; Schwarzenbach*, 123ff.). To the Israelite, dust was
a life-threatening power (e.g. GreBmann*, Ursprung, 25ff.; Houtman*, Himmel,
146ff., 274), allied with the realm of the death (e.g. N.H. Ridderbos, OTS 5
[1948], 174-8; Gaster*, 826). In short, when dust becomes lice, calamity begets
greater calamity, mm, Sam. Pent.: v ri, cf. 7:9. ‘lice,’ see Introd. § 9.2.5, 7;
LXX: + ‘on humans and animals and,’ cf. 8:13, 14; 9:9, 10.
‘So they did,’ cf. 7:10 and see 1:12; Introd. § 3.41.1; Pesh. has sing, (but note
7:10, 20); the remark is absent in LXX. ‘humans,’ see 4:11. ‘animals’ ( l i v e
stock), see Introd. § 9.1.2. The end of the verse is a nominal clause (cf. Introd.
§ 3.13.1), which briefly interrupts the flow of the account; it contains a depiction
of the situation which once more underscores the severity of the plague. In LXX
the end reads: ‘and in all the dust of the land there were oi o k v u J)£<;.’
8:14 The magicians tried to do the same by means o f their incantations, that is,
producing lice, but they were unable. The lice came on both humans and animals.
8:15 Then the magicians said to Pharaoh: ‘A superhuman hand is at work here . '
Nevertheless, Pharaoh remained obstinate. So he would not listen to them (Moses
and Aaron), as y h w h had announced.
8:14 describes an event not previously announced by YHWH, and hence a surprise
happening. Suddenly the magicians are back on the scene (cf. 7:22; 8:3). ‘The
magicians ... the same,’ see 7:11, 12 and 8:3. The sequel of the verse requires the
translation ‘tried to do.’ Presumably the magicians manipulated their staffs (cf.
7:12) in hopes of producing the same result.92 It is proposed that on the one hand
8:14 talks about the successful attempt to produce gnats and on the other hand
about the failed attempt to make them disappear (cf. Bohl, Dasberg, CV). The
interpretation is dubious, since there is no prior account of the termination of a
plague by the magicians; N2T hiph. (cf. Gen. 1:24 and Introd. § 3.24.2) cannot be
understood as ‘remove’ (see already Rashi). see 2:3. Qm: vm (cf. Sander
son*, 144f.). The end of 8:14 is a repeat of part of 8:13. For that reason Beer and
Noth, e.g., omit it. Likely it intimates that despite all the efforts on the part of the
magicians, things remained as they were; their manipulations were entirely
ineffective.
(OT ca. 30x), ‘finger,’ is used in 29:12 for the index finger (cf. Lev.
4:6, 17, 25 et al.; John 8:6) and, synecdochically, can stand tor ‘hand’ (Introd.
v2 See e.g. Ibn Ezra, Nachmanides, Keil; cf. also Cassuto; Dillman’s suggestion that ‘by means of
their incantations’ points to an operation different from that of Aaron holds no water; for the view that
8:13b makes the same operation impossible (Baentsch), see below.
LICE 57
§ 3.21) (cf. Isa. 2:8; 17:8; Ps. 144:1: hands//fingers; see also Ps. 8:4, 7).93
Ehrlich notes that ‘finger’ and not ‘hand’ is used if the reference is to more
delicate work (cf. 31:18). Implausible is Cassuto’s view that ‘finger,’ in distinction
from ‘hand,’ denotes a work of lesser importance; in his view, the magicians think
that there is only a subsidiary form of assistance here from some Higher Power.
Philo (VM, I, 112), who places the statement in the mouth of ‘all of Egypt,’
understands ‘finger’ as saying that God only uses a small part of his power; not
even the whole universe is a match for his ‘hand.’ In D\lbN V2XX (8:15; 31:18;
Deut. 9:10; cf. Luke 11:20 and alongside it Matt. 12:28), ‘finger’ denotes that it is
God alone who does it (cf. Ps. 8:4); for DYi^K see Introd. § 7.2.3; the translation
‘from a god’ is better than ‘from God,’ but it, too, is overly precise; the magicians
do not say that they believe that y h w h is the author of the plague, but that the
plague cannot be of human origin. So implicitly they admit that y h w h , the God of
Moses and Aaron, is the author.94 Other interpretations of D\n*?N, which often
make a close connection between 8:15a and 8:15b, are unconvincing: it is a divine
work (not that of Aaron), caused by evil stellar constellations which at the time
were over Egypt;95 the plague is attributed to divine power and not to y h w h
(Murphy); divine predestination lies behind the plague and it is not the work of
Moses and Aaron (Strack), and therefore there is no reason for Pharaoh to change
his attitude; the god (= their god) they had turned to admits that Moses’ demand
is justified (Heinisch). Ehrlich notes that with their statement the magicians assert
that the miracle is a divine work of a higher order than the previous ones, which
were only human work. So he contradicts what the writer is actually saying. The
words of the magicians are in the nature of a testimonium paupertatis , an admis
sion of defeat; they admit that their achievements were only due to incantations of
limited power. Some defend the view that ‘finger of God’ is originally an Egyptian
expression (B. Couroyer, RB 63 [1956], 209-19; Broekhuis*, 57f.; cf. also
Gaster*, 236). Because in Egyptian texts ‘the finger of God’ can denote a object
which possesses divine power, B. Couroyer, RB 63 (1956), 481-95, thinks that
here ‘the finger of God’ must refer to Aaron’s staff which was used for the
miracle. In any event, the expression is easily explainable from the Hebrew.
For 8:15b see Introd. § 3.19; 3.51.1; 3.12.1. According to Josephus (AJ , II,
300ff.) Pharaoh did respond; Josephus connects what is related in 10: lOf. with III.
w See further TWAT, III, 447; Dhorme*, 152; Johnson*, 50ff.

94 TPsJ explicitly: it is the work of YHWH; it does not come from the power of Moses and Aaron.
95 So Ibn Ezra; Nachmanides disagrees with him; but note Dillmann: it is the work of the Egyptian
gods.
58 ex od us 8:16-28
IV VERMIN (8:16-28)

IV brings death and destruction upon Pharaoh, his officials and his people, even
penetrating the homes (4x; 8:17, 20, 25, 27), in fact blanketing the whole land of
Egypt (8:17, 20). People and land are victimized by the vermin (7x; see Introd.
§ 9.2.6), which yhwh brings down upon them. Illness, death, destruction,
uncleanness (cf. Lev. 11:20ff., 41) and the accompanying unlivableness of the land
follow in the wake of the pesky animals.96 In brief, also IV, which yhwh causes
without mediation from Moses or Aaron, is intended to demonstrate that yhwh
possesses power to wreak havoc and death. For that he can use animals (cf.
Introd. § 9.5.2). His power, however, is not limited to the bringing of plagues. He
is also able to remove them (8:25, 27; cf. 4:2-7). The Lord’s dominion is under
scored even more by the fact that the plague remains restricted to the territory of
the Egyptians (8:18, 19; cf. Judg. 6:36-40). So the plague seeks to bring Pharaoh
to the admission that yhwh , the Lord of life and death, holds the land in his grip
and also there exercises his might (8:18); by the plague pressure is put on Pharaoh
to obey yhwh and to heed the demand to let the people go (n4?^ pi.; 5 x ) to bring
him sacrifices (nnt; 6 x ; cf. 8:16) in the wilderness (8:23, 24).

The description is regarded as a homogeneous literary unit.97 The writer sketches
the course of the events to come by the construction of a monologue in which
yhwh addresses Moses (8:16-19). Moses is ordered to take up contact with
Pharaoh and to impress upon him the consequences of a fresh refusal to let the
people of Israel go. The writer is silent about the carrying out of the order;98
similarly about Pharaoh’s refusal. That the orders were followed goes without
saying. Moses is yhwh ’s faithful servant; Pharaoh the stubborn refuser. Though
specifically relating the coming of the plague (8:20; cf. 8:17), the writer restricts
himself to recounting the situation in Egypt, while passing over the fate of Goshen
(8:18, 19). The writer expects of the reader that he will regard the account of
announcement (8:17-19) and execution (8:20) as complementary. In combination,
96 Most exegetes opine that the plague consisted of swarms of flies; along with this view there is
sometimes the inclination to view the wounds in humans and animals and the damage sustained, as
results of the plague (e.g. Dillmann, Gispen); in my view, this trivializes the description; meant is that
the land became uninhabitable and a wilderness; in reference to Lev. 19:19; Deut. 22:5, 9-11 one may
perhaps say that the term aniz, ‘mixture,’ already points to chaos.
97 Usually attributed to J and regarded as a variant of III; e.g. Rylaarsdam, Te Stroete, Hyatt; it is
granted that there may be redactional additions (e.g. Aaron in 8:21); some detect E elements in the
account; e.g. Dillmann, Baentsch, and especially Fuss*, 172ff.; but note Eerdmans*, 25f.
9* After 8:19 Sam. Pent, contains an account of the execution of the instructions by Moses and
Aaron; see also Qm (cf. Sanderson*, 196ff.), SamT and Field hoc loco.
VERMIN 59
they offer a picture of the scope and intensity of the plague.

The writer deals rather extensively with Pharaoh’s reaction to the plague.
Understandably so. y h w h had not informed Moses about it. The writer enlivens
the account by casting it into the form of a dialogue (8:21-25). The writer con
cludes with three consecutive snapshots: Moses’ intercession away from Pharaoh
(8:26); y h w h ’s response (8:27); Pharaoh’s final reaction (8:28).
The description makes clear that the plague is intended for Pharaoh. He himself
is depicted as a victim (8:17, 25, 27). Besides, the recurrent ‘you’ (8:17) and ‘his’
(8:25, 27) express the fact that the calamities that struck court officials and people
are a blow to Pharaoh himself (for commonness in fate see introduction to the
exegesis of 7:14-11:10 [sub b]); furthermore, the fact that only Egypt, not Goshen,
was struck by the plague (8:8, 19) is understandable only in light of the shared
fate that exists between the land of Goshen and its residents and y h w h , and of the
land of Egypt and its residents and Pharaoh. A common bond with either Pharaoh
or y h w h (Introd. § 3.40.2) implies a difference in treatment.
The description evokes a repulsive picture. Vermin takes over the land of Egypt.
The loathsome creatures do not stop by the houses but go in, attacking all the
occupants, high and low alike (8:17, 20). Everywhere the offensive bugs cause
ruination. They are so aggressive that there is no way people can keep them away.
Even the ground they walk on is claimed by the ubiquitous pests (8:17 end). So it
causes no surprise that the entire land of Egypt became a wilderness (8:20b).
Reading the account of the misery that came upon Egypt, the reader cannot
suppress a feeling of joy - look at that terrible Pharaoh and his stooges! - and
malicious pleasure - Pharaoh should have obeyed! But the reader is even more
awed by the miraculous power of y h w h , all the more so because the plague
remains contained to Egypt. This is convincing proof that y h w h , Israel’s God, is
the One who brings the plague and that the demand to let the people go is from
him. How will Pharaoh react to such a stunning plague?
The writer makes the reader privy to Pharaoh’s reaction by pulling him inside
Pharaoh’s house; there he has the reader overhear a dialogue between Pharaoh and
Moses, who, routinely, is again accompanied by Aaron (8:21-25). Delightedly the
reader observes that again (cf. 8:4) a plague has made an impact on Pharaoh. He
hears how Pharaoh, indulgently, gives permission to bring sacrifices to y h w h . But
then the words with which Pharaoh concludes his promise turn the reader’s brief
joy into sombemess. Venenum in cauda est! A snake lurks in the grass. On a
earlier occasion, in a general sort of way Pharaoh already had allowed the people
to worship y h w h (8:4). Now he shrewdly takes advantage of the fact that Moses
had not specifically talked about worshipping y h w h outside the country (8:16), by
slipping in the words ‘here in the land’ (8:21). So Pharaoh makes it seem as if for
the most part he is meeting Moses’ request. Only on a seemingly minor point —
Moses had not again talked about the place of worship (8:16) - he holds back. In
effect this restriction means that Pharaoh’s promise had become an empty gesture.
For the ultimate object of Moses* demand was departure from the land (see Vol. I,
375ff.).
60 exodus 8:16-28
Gloom engulfs the reader. What can Moses do to save the situation? He dare not
tip his hand. It would not have been tactful, seeing that Pharaoh seems somewhat
willing to meet Moses’ request. Chances are that in that case Pharaoh immediately
might balk again. But noting that Moses is not at all taken aback the reader
bounces back. Moses, it turns out, possesses the sagacity to counter Pharaoh. He
points out to Pharaoh what will be the consequences of the kind of permission he
gave: gruesome things will happen in the land; deeply offended by the Israelite
sacrificial practices, the Egyptians will lynch the Israelites. Moses points out to
Pharaoh how altogether reasonable the request for worship outside the land really
is (8:22, 23). To that Pharaoh has nothing to say (cf. 1:19). Moses is the clear
winner of the sparring contest. Pharaoh concedes victory. Even so, unable to deny
his true nature as y h w h ’s adversary, he does add that the Israelites should not go
too far (8:24). He wants to retain his hold on them, preferably in his own land. He
does not want them to move away (1:10), because he does not want the promise of
the land to be fulfilled. However, he is no match for Moses, and the pressure on
him is so great that he ends the revised permission with the anguished cry: ‘now
pray for me’ (8:24). Again Moses proves himself master of the situation. He
subtly intimates that in that case Pharaoh makes it appear as if Israel’s fate rests
with him: 7 will let you ...’ (8:24), while in reality Pharaoh’s weal and woe
hinges entirely on his intervention with y h w h : ‘A s soon as / ...’ (8:25).
As y h w h ’s representative Moses makes the promise that the plague will end
‘tomorrow’ (as soon as possible). As to the point in time, the beginning of the
plague correlates with the end (8:19, 25). Since both come at the moment fixed by
y h w h ’s representative, no one can be under the delusion that the plague is not
from y h w h , and that he is not completely in charge (cf. 8:18). The reader is
impressed by Moses’ conduct and performance. His admiration for Moses keeps
mounting when he hears that Moses, like Pharaoh, adds an aside to his promise.
Politely yet firmly Moses warns Pharaoh not again to dupe the Israelites, by
reneging on his promise (8:25). That Moses, he is daring! He is not afraid to
speak his mind.
At Moses’ prayer what he had assured Pharaoh happens. The plague ends. The
vermin disappears, y h w h restores things to what they used to be. More than that.
The pests disappear completely (8:27). The reader is speechless. But y h w h ’s
saving work has a different impact on Pharaoh. It makes him relapse into his
former unyielding attitude (8:28), and thereby he shows that he is in no way to be
trusted (cf. 8:25). In his verbal duel with Pharaoh, Moses’s savvy made him the
undisputed winner. But savvy is no match for untrustworthiness paired with
stubborn obstinacy. Nonetheless, despite the disappointing outcome and the lack of
a clear sign that Pharaoh paid any attention to y h w h ’s words (cf. 8:15), the reader
is not left without hope. Again (cf. 8:4) it has been shown that, given sufficient
pressure, Pharaoh’s rigid posture can be made to buckle. He is not invincible.
No farreaching conclusions should be drawn from 8:22. It goes too far to say that
VERMIN 61
in Egypt the Israelites did not bring sacrifices (e.g. Noth, Te Stroete). In the
‘game’ with Moses, Pharaoh thinks to have made a smart move (8:21). Moses,
however, sees opportunity to make a counter move to which Pharaoh has no
defense (cf. 1:19). The writer’s concern is to show that Moses’ shrewdness
exceeds that of Pharaoh. The shape of Israel’s cult in Egypt is not part of the
writer’s concern. Note, too, that precisely in a story in which it is said that Israel
lived in its own part of the land (8:18f.) the less fitting argument of the umbrage
taken by the Egyptians is mentioned.
What happened to the Israelites outside Goshen? (see also at 8:19). The question
has been variously answered: they were not hurt by the plague either (Nach-
manides); they were hurt by the plague (Heinisch). Also this question does not
seem to have concerned the writer.
It has been proposed that the plague was retribution for Egyptians crimes:
Because a multitude of oppressors had been appointed over the Israelites (1:11)
YHWH brings a multitude of ‘birds of heaven and animals of the earth’ upon the
Egyptians (ExR. XI, 2); because the Israelites had been ordered to get wild
animals, they were brought upon the Egyptians (ExR. XI, 3).
The view that the plague consisted of flies is often conjoined with the notion that
it should be understood against the background of the Egyptian milieu in which
flies are a common phenomenon (cf. Isa. 7:18 and also Isa. 18:1); it happens that
southern winds carry swarms of flies from the Upper Nile region to the Delta (e.g.
Dillmann, Baentsch; cf. Broekhuis*, 58f.). It is suggested that the plague consisted
of beetles, and that it was intended to demonstrate y h w h ’s superiority over the
animals which occupied such an important place in Egyptian worship (Knight). In
my view, there is no specific link between the plague and the Egyptian milieu.
EXEGESIS
8:16 Then yh w h said to Moses: ‘Rise early in the morning and confront Pharaoh,
when he goes down to the water, which he is in the habit o f doing, and say to him:
Thus says y h w h : “Let my people go so that they may worship me.
8:17 But if you persist in not letting my people go, I will assault you, your
courtiers, your people and houses with vermin, so that the houses o f the Egyptians,
even the ground on which they live, will be fu ll o f vermin'*. ’
Qm: + mBN4? (after ‘Moses;’ cf. Sanderson*, 89). QBE? + "ipBB, see 7:15.
32T + 'JD4?, see 2:4; Introd. § 3.42.2. ‘when ... goes,’ see 7:15, also for Sam.
Pent, and LXX; for TPsJ and TNf see introduction to exegesis of plague I. mBNi,
see 7:16. ‘Thus says YHWH,’ see Introd. § 3.5.1; cf. 7:17, 26. ‘Let ... worship
me,’ see Introd. § 3.49.2; 3.37.1; cf. 7:16, 27. Also here Sam. Pent, has 'By nN;
LXX (cf. 5:1; 7:16; 8:24): + ‘in the wilderness;’ note, however, the following:
Pharaoh makes cunning use of the absence of ‘in the wilderness;’ he gives
permission, but himself determines the place where sacrifices are to be made. In
EXODUS 8:16-28
62
7-15 locating Moses’ confrontation with Pharaoh by the water is significant; such
is not the case here; Calvin: Moses is to announce the judgment of God publicly in
the presence of the many people; Fuss*, 179: in the original version, Moses
causes flies to appear by hitting the water of the Nile with the staff; the plague was
restricted to the Nile and environs.
‘But if,’ see Introd. § 3.25.2; 3.4.1. 1'N, see 2:12. mn, see Introd. § 3.15.2.
‘assault (send),’ see Introd. § 3.49.2; note the play on words with nbtf piel and
nbtf hiph., and the contrast ‘my people* - ‘your people* (Introd. §3.40.1).
‘courtiers,’ see Introd. §3.37.2. ‘houses,’ see Introd. §3.9.1; LXX, instead of
‘your (sing.) houses,’ has ‘your (pi.) houses’ + (cf. 8:5, 7); Pesh., TPsJ: ‘your
house;’ TNf: ‘the people of your house.’ ‘vermin,* (for article e.g. KoSynt
§ 297a; Ges-K § 126r), see Introd. § 9.2.6, 7. (A. Cohen, BetM 28 [1982-83],
54f.: ‘startlings’). NbD, see 2:16 (cf. Ges-K § 117z); for the perf. cons, here and
in 8:18, 19 see Ges-K § 112t; Jouon § 119n. Dai, see § 3.11.1. nD“!K (see 3:15),
in contrast with the houses: all the undeveloped land; in short, every spot, inside
the houses or outside has been taken over by the pesky insects; Vulg.: in universa
terra ; these words are the translation of y min bDD in 8:12. on, meant are not the
houses but the Egyptians.
8:18 ‘However, then I will make an exception fo r the land o f Goshen, where my
people live, so that there will be no vermin there. Thus you will realize that I,
y h w h , am in this land.
8:19 I will make a distinction between my people and your people. Early tomorrow
this sign will occur. ’
nbB, see 3:20; LXX: kcci TcapaSoâoo), ‘and I will cause a situation of glory ...;’
TNf: ‘I will perform signs and wonders (V,'bBi 1'0'J) for ...;’ TPsJ: ‘I will perform
wonders Opaba) for ...;’ cf. Vulg.: faciamque mirabilem ... terram Gessen. ‘then,’
see Introd. § 3.23.1. ‘Goshen,* see Introd. § 8.6. lDU, see 3:5; Ehrlich omits id i ;
(dittography); that would heighten the parallelism of irbl? ... ib n and the end of
8:17. Comparison with 8:17 makes it likely, though, that these words in 8:18 refer
to the presence of the Israelites in their homes and outside.
'nb^b (OT ca. llO x )99 functions as the normal negative with the inf. cstr.
(8:18, 25; 9:17) and also occurs as conjunction with the following imperf. (20:20;
2 Sam. 14:14).100 As conjunction 'nbab introduces a final/consecutive clause;
'nbab with inf. cstr. as a rule can also be translated as a final/consecutive clause.
See also the use of the related negation 'bp (OT ca. 60x ) in 14:11, preceded by
ID, ‘on account of,’ and interrogative particle (cf. 2 Kgs. 1:3, 6, 16; Job
99 Is negative (actually a noun) + Tiba can function as a preposition: ‘except’ (22:19; Gen.
21:26 et al.); cf. Ges-K § 163c; Brockelmann § 118; Williams § 422.
100 Cf. Ges-K § 114s, 152t, x; Jouon § 93q, 124e, 1601; Brockelmann § 25bY, 125b, 145a; Williams
§ 423f.; R. Borger, ZAH 2 (1989), 86-90; N.J. Tromp, OTS 21 (1981), 283.
VERMIN 63
24:8).101
]VDi, see 1:11. ‘realize/ see Introd. §3.22. ‘I, y h w h / see Introd. §7.3.7;
yhw h is here used in the sense of ‘the one who is in charge/ cf. LXXB: ‘that I
am Lord, the Lord of all the earth/ LXXA: ‘that I am Lord, the God of all the
earth/ TO, TPsJ: ‘that I am y h w h , who rules .../ TNf: ‘that I am y h w h , whose
Word dwells ...’ (in the margin: ‘the Glory of whose Shekinah dwells’). m p3, see
3:20. An open question is whether fiN (Introd. § 3.6) at the end of 8:18 is to be
rendered as ‘land’ or as ‘earth/ for the latter (e.g. LuthV, Strack, Cassuto) see
9:14, 29; the first interpretation (‘land’ = Egypt, besides Goshen) assumes the
following contrast: not Pharaoh, but y h w h is Lord over Egypt.
‘make,’ see Introd. § 3.48. n ip (OT 4 x ), ‘liberation,’ ‘redemption,’ derivative
of ms (see 13:13), is problematic (cf. R. Althann, OTWSAP 29 [1986], 73-9). In
the context, what is meant is that y h w h protects Israel from the catastrophe. If
ms is given the usual interpretation, one will have to add: ‘by making distinction
between ...’ (cf. Rashi, Strack).102 LXX, Pesh., Vulg.: ‘distinction.’ Proposals
to alter the text include reading n ip (from nba, see 8:18) or n i i p (from "ns);
for more drastic emendations see Baentsch, Ehrlich. It is also proposed to under
stand m s here as derived from m s , ‘be (to be) separated.*103 In the current
interpretation of ms, 8:19a is no more than a noteworthy repetition of 8:18. It is
unlikely that 8:19a refers to the Israelites living in the midst of the Egyptians.
Holzinger proposes to revise 8:17-19, as, in his view, the present reading cannot
stand, i n s 1?, see 8:6. n«, see 3:12; the end of the verse reads in LXX: eoiai
touto 87ii t t )(; y f|< ;, ‘ . . . that will happen in the land/ that Pharaoh is given
opportunity for repentance (Calvin) is unlikely in view of ‘tomorrow’ in 8:25.
8:20 yhw h did so. In great numbers the vermin came into the house o f Pharaoh
and in the houses o f his courtiers, in fact throughout all the land o f Egypt the land
was ruined by the vermin.
8:21 Then Pharaoh summoned Moses and Aaron and said: *Go ahead, bring
sacrifices to your God here in the land. ’
‘did so,’ see 1:12; Introd. § 3.41.1; there is some difference in the wording of the
announcement of the plague and its actual happening; nothing is said explicitly
about the coming of the vermin upon Pharaoh’s people; but there is specific
mention of the consequences of the plague (8:20b); not a word is said about the
situation pertaining in Goshen; in short, the description of announcement and the
bringing of the plague are to some extent complementary, k s i , cf. KoSynt
§ 369b; Pesh., TPsJ: ‘he ( y h w h ) caused.’ 1 3 D , see 4:10; Sam. Pent., Qm: +
1KD (cf. 9:3 et al.; see Sanderson*, 99f.). ‘house,’ (2x) see Introd. § 3.9.1; the
"MCf. Brockelmann § 52bp, 145a; Williams § 417ff.; Tramp, 282f.

102 See also the defining rendering in TO, TPsJ: liberation of my people,’ but ‘a plague upon your
people.’
1,13 For the problem see A.A. Macintosh, VT21 (1971), 548-55; G.I. Davies, VT24 (1974), 489-92.
64 EXODUS 8:16-28
first time with n-locale; the second time without (cf. 7:28 + 3); cf. KoSynt
§ 330c; LXX (see also Vulg.) both times renders the sing, as pi. (cf. 7:28).
Contrary to the Massoretic punctuation, yiK“*?33i (Sam. Pent.: b22 ) is
often regarded as the end of the previous clause,104 and in agreement with that
nntfn105 is taken as the first word of the final clause of the verse. I go with MT.
nn^n imperf. niph.106 of nntf (OT ca. 160x ; niph. 6 x ; piel 39x ; hiph.
115x), in piel (21:26; 32:7) and hiph. ‘to corrupt;* in 21:26, used for blinding
(cf. 4:11), in 32:7 for ‘act perversely;’ the hiph. part, can serve as a noun:
‘destruction* (12:13; Ezek. 5:16; 9:6 et al.) and ‘destroyer’ (destroying angel; cf.
3:2) (12:23; Isa. 54:16; Jer. 4:7; 51:1 et al.; cf. 2 Sam. 24:16); nntf niph. in
8:20: ‘to perish’(see further THAT , II, 891ff.; TWAT , VII, 1233ff.). Subject in
TPsJ is ‘the inhabitants of the land.’ see Introd. § 3.42.3.
‘Then Pharaoh ... said,’ see 8:4; some MSS, Sam. Pent., following 8:4, have
ntfD1? (cf. 9:27; 12:31). The mention of Aaron (cf. 8:16, 26) is sometimes
regarded as a redactional addition (e.g. Baentsch; but see Ehrlich). Presumably, in
the meantime (cf. 8:16) Pharaoh had gone home. ‘Go ahead,’ see Introd. § 3.14.2.
n3T, see 3:18; object is ‘your God;’ in 8:22-24, ‘yhwh, our/your God;* in 8:25
‘yhwh;’ 8:21-25 is bracketed by the parts of the dual designation of the deity.
8:22 Moses, however, replied: ‘That would not be the right thing to do. For the
sacrificial practice we carry out in honour o f y h w h , our God, would be offensive
to the Egyptians. Will they not stone us if we perform our sacrificial practice,
which arouses loathing with the Egyptians, before their very eyes?
8:23 We will go a three days' journey into the wilderness to bring sacrifices to
y h w h , our God, that meet the requirements he will set. ’
I'd ; part. niph. of ]13 (OT ca. 215X; Exod. 7 x ), ‘to stand firm,’ which is used
in a variety of meanings; 113, niph.: ‘to get ready,’ ‘be ready’ (19:11, 15; 34:2;
Josh. 8:4; Ezek. 38:7 et al.), ‘be proper’ (8:22);107 ]13 hiph.: ‘to make ready’
(16:5), ‘to prepare’ (23:20; 1 Chr. 15:3, 12; 2 Chr. 1:4; 3:1); 113 pol. ‘to
establish’ (15:17; Hab. 2:12; Ps. 107:36) (see further THAT , I, 812ff.; TWAT , IV,
95ff.). p , see 1:12. 13 ... 1133, alliteration.
npinn (OT ca. 115x), ‘abomination,’ denotes what violates norms and customs
held by a particular community (people) and is eschewed as strange, repugnant,
dangerous, threatening (Gen. 43:32; 46:34; Prov. 13:19; 16:12 et al.). If the
offense is foreign cultic practices (Lev. 18:30; Deut. 12:31; 17:Iff. et al.), as in
8:22 — Israelite sacrifices and rituals differ from Egyptian - an outburst of divine
104 indeed, in all the land of Egypt;’ but note e.g. LV, CV, Cassuto.
105 Often, with an appeal to Sam. Pent., LXX, Pesh. and Vulg., one reads nntfm; but note KoSynt
§ 330p, 368k.
106 For the use of the imperf. see Ges-K § 107b; Jouon § 113f.
107 Difference of opinion exists about the precise meaning; see e.g. NV, WV: ‘possible’ (already in
LXX, Vulg.); Dillmann: ‘permissible;’ Gispen: ‘raadzaam,’ etc.; Ehrlich: read p ? ;, ‘we can’ (cf.
Judg. 12:6); GreBmann*, 67: read p a ;, ‘wise.’
VERMIN 65
wrath threatens. That is why such practices must be met with strong counter
measures (see further THAT , II, 105Iff.; Lust [Introd. § 12.1], 113ff.). To what
extent the writer knew or was concerned about what Egyptians considered proper
sacrifices, cannot be determined. Exegetes try to shed some light on it; e.g.
Dillmann (referring to classical authors), Te Stroete, Hyatt. Clear is that the writer
was well aware that abnormal religious conduct can cause offense and spark
eruptions of violence. By way of illustration one can point to the destruction of the
Jewish temple in Egypt, mentioned in the Elephantine papyri (5th century; transl.
ANET , 292f.). Going along with the customary interpretation, I take ‘abomination
of the Egyptians’ as an objective genitive. Theoretically also the subjective genitive
is possible: ‘the abomination of the Egyptians* = the gods of the Egyptians (cf.
2 Kgs. 23:13) or the animals they considered sacred and worshipped as a god; see
Pesh., TO, TNf, TPsJ (cf. Ginzberg*, II, 353), Rashi and e.g. Gispen, Cassuto.
The first half of Moses’ statement could be interpreted as follows: ‘the abomi
nation of the Egyptians’ = the sacrificial gifts of the Egyptians (in Egypt sacrific
ing means accommodation to the customs in vogue there), that is, gifts that are
offensive to y h w h and his devotees; 8:22b argues against this explanation; but
note Holzinger, who regards 8:22b as a gloss: ‘Agypten ist ein Jahwe fremdes
Land, jeder Versuch ihn da zu verehren, ware ein Greuel; was dieses Land
hervorbringt ist nicht kosher’ (cf. 1 Sam. 26:19). For the construction (subject
clause), see e.g. Brockelmann § 141; Meyer § 113. Unlike Pharaoh, Moses
specifically mentions the name of y h w h (see also 8:23).
in, see Introd. § 3.15.2. ‘before their very eyes,’ see Introd. § 3.38. xbi, this is
an interrogative sentence not specifically preceded by a particle; see e.g. Ges-K
§ 105a; KoSynt § 353c (Delitzsch*, 114: read K^q);108 in LXX, Pesh., Vulg. the
clause is not rendered as an interrogative sentence but as an affirmative sentence
(but see also Aq., Symm., Theod.).
n^pp^ imperf. qal + suff. of b p o (OT 21 X; Exod. 8 x ; qal 2 x ; niph. 6 x ),
‘to stone,’ of people (8:22; 17:14; 19:13 [2x]), of an animal (21:28 [2x], 29,
32). Execution by stoning is the typical death penalty in the OT. A distinction
should be made between (a) stoning as a form of lynching: the putting to death by
the people (the mob) without due process of law (17:14, and likely 8:22; cf.
1 Sam. 30:6; 1 Kgs. 12:18; 2 Chr. 24:20ff.; Matt. 21:35; 23:37; Luke 20:6; John
8:59; Acts 5:6 et al.); (b) stoning as the final act of an official legal process
(19:13; 21:28f., 32; 1 Kgs. 21:10, 13 etal.). Stoning was the penalty for two
kinds of misdeeds: (a) crimes against the community (Deut. 21:18ff.; 22:22ff.; cf.
Exod. 21:28f., 32); (b) crimes which injure the relationship with the deity (and so
his relationship with the community), which are a violation of what is holy (8:22;
19:13; Lev. 20:2ff., 27; 24:15f.; Num. 25:32ff.; Deut. 13:7ff.; 17:2ff.; Josh.
I0K But note H.P. Smith, JBL 24 (1905), 30 (K*? is an emphatic particle; cf. C.F. Whitley, ZAW 87
[1975], 202-4) and F. Notscher, VT 3 (1953), 375 (read K1? = 1*?); in that case the rendering
‘certainly’ is required (cf. WV).
66 EXODUS 8:16-28
7:25; Luke 20:6; John 8:59; 10:31; 11:8; Acts 5:26; 14:5, 19; 2 Cor. 11:25; cf.
also Num. 14:10; Ezek. 16:40; 23:47; Acts 7:58ff.).109* By stoning, the con
demned was excommunicated from the community. Palestine being a stony
country, stoning was an appropriate mode of execution. Not so in Egypt. The
writer pictures Moses as a man who fears a typically Israelite reaction from the
side of the Egyptians (8:22).1,0
‘We will ... bring sacrifices,’ see 3:18; 5:3; like there, Sam. Pent, uses the same
tense (m m ) for both verbs. 10ND, see 1:12. 1D*T (Introd. § 3.5.1) is rendered in
LXX, Pesh., TNf, Vulg. and modem translations (e.g. LuthV, CV, NV, GNB) as
‘he has said’ (in LXX and Pesh. y h w h is specifically mentioned as subject; the
translation appears to assume that 1DN /" = 1DK m n \ If that be the case, Moses
accentuates his desire to sacrifice outside the country by referring to a requirement
laid down by y h w h . The use of the imperf. makes this interpretation dubious.
Others, including Baentsch, think that the perf. 1DN is original. Ehrlich and Beer,
among others, read 10N3 and maintain that the subordinate clause talks about an
as yet unknown place of sacrifice: ‘... to bring sacrifices there where he will tell
us.’ In the WV the imperf. is rendered as a present (‘... bring the sacrifices he
requires of us;’ cf. e.g. Gispen, Childs); however, in view of 10:26b, rendering it
as a future is preferable (e.g. SV, Van der Palm, LV); Moses says that in the
matter of sacrifices he awaits instructions from his God (cf. Ibn Ezra, Dillmann,
Strack, McNeile). That he ought to go by, not by what Pharaoh says (8:21b).
8:24 Then Pharaoh said: ‘In that case l will let you go to bring sacrifices to y h w h ,
your God, in the wilderness; only be sure you do not go very far. Now pray fo r
me. 9
8:25 Moses replied: ‘As soon as I have gone from you, I will pray to y h w h . Then
tomorrow the vermin will leave Pharaoh, his courtiers, and his people; only
Pharaoh must no longer make a fool o f us by not letting the people go to bring
sacrifices to y h w h . 9
p i, see 8:5. p m (paranomasia, cognate construction; see Ges-K § 113n; Jouon
§ 123e), see 2:4; alliteration from p i. m u , see 8:4; Pesh., TNf (cf. MSS TO): +
HN; cf LXX: ouv; the entreaty to Moses and Aaron111 to intercede comes, in
comparison with 8:4, rather abruptly (cf. Ibn Ezra, Noth); apparently Pharaoh’s
promise (8:21) is to be regarded as a conditional promise and as an implicit
request for intercession, i m , see Brockelmann § 116b; LXX: + ‘to y h w h ’ (cf.
8:4; 9:28).
run, see Introd. §3.15.2. Pharaoh said ‘I 0DJN) (8:24), Moses counters by
109 For lynching as violation of the holy, see 2 Chr. 24:20ff.; Matt. 21:35; 23:37.
1.0 See further e.g. BHHW%III, 1861f., IDB. IV, 447; TWAT, V, 945ff.; Boecker*, 31f.; Pedersen*,
MI, 427f.; De Vaux*, I, 282f.
1.1 This is how the pi. is to be understood; Baentsch, among others, reads sing. (cf. 8:21); Calvin
thinks that the people were asked; ‘you* (pi.) earlier in the verse refers, however, to Moses and Aaron
as representatives of the people.
VERMIN 67
doing the same; Pharaoh claims for himself the credit for the departure; Moses lets
it be known that Pharaoh’s fate rests with him. ‘to y h w h , ’ LXX here and at the
end of 8:26: ‘to God.’ n o , see 3:3; in, e.g., SV, LuthV noi etc. is taken as a
dependent (on ‘pray’) clause (‘... pray that ...’); in that case the realization is
dependent on the hearing of the prayer; in my view, Moses, as God’s messenger,
makes a promise. ‘Pharaoh ...,’ Moses addresses Pharaoh in the third person; his
tone is polite, not caustic; in LXX, Pharaoh is addressed directly: ‘from you, from
your courtiers ....’ "ino, see 8:6. p i, see 8:5. *10', see 1:10. *?nn is usually
regarded as an inf. cstr. hiph. of ^ n 112 (OT 9 x ), ‘to deceive,’ ‘to fool’ (cf.
e.g. Gen. 31:7; Judg. 16:10, 13, 15). - n ^ , see 8:18.
8:26 Then Moses left Pharaoh and prayed to y h w h .

8:27 y h w h did as Moses had promised. The vermin went away from Pharaoh, from
his courtiers and from his people. Not even one remained.
8:28 However, also this time Pharaoh remained stubborn. So he did not let the
people go.
‘y h w h ... promised,’ see 8:9; the general statement is followed by a detailed
description. ‘The vermin ...,’ see 8:25. no"*i can be imperf. cons, qal as well as
imperf. hiph. (e.g. Ges-K § 72t); the first is the most obvious (cf. 8:25); in that
case a m n is subject (but note 8:4, but also 8:9); in LXX, Vulg, and targums (also
in 8:25) y h w h is subject; similarly in e.g. LV (‘removed’); in agreement with
that, in LV 8:25 is, wrongly, translated as a passive (‘be removed’). From the fact
that there is no talk of the death of the vermin (cf. 8:9) rabbinic interpretation has
inferred that only a iu (the wild animals) are removed, so that the Egyptians might
not profit from their skins (ExR. XI, 4; Rashi, Nachmanides); for that reason even
killed animals would have become alive again (Ginzberg*, II, 353f.). 1K&, see
8:5. ‘not even one,’ see Introd. § 4.2.1. 12D, see 4:10; Introd. § 3.19.2. DJ, see
Introd. § 3.11.2.
(OT ca. 120x ; Exod. 9 x ), ‘tread,’ ‘step,’ ‘pace,’ ‘times’ (OT ca. 100x)
occurs in Exodus 7 x as designation of time: nNf n ‘this time’ (8:28; 9:14)
(cf. Joiion § 137f n. 3); Dtf9n, ‘this time* (9:27; 10:17) (cf. KoSynt § 299a; Joiion
§ 137f); masc. pi. (23:17; 34:23, 24). The fern. pi. (cf. KoSynt § 245i) has the
technical meaning of ‘supports,’ ‘feet,’ ‘legs,’ (25:12; 37:3; 1 Kgs. 7:30) (see
further THAT, II, 378; TWAT , VI, 703ff.).
1,2 But note Zo.: piel of ^nn; see further A.D. Singer, JQR 36 (1945-46), 255ff.; F.C. Fensham,
VT9 (1959), 31 Of.
68 EXODUS 9:1-7
V PESTILENCE (9:1-7)

V causes the death (3x) of the livestock (6x) of the Egyptians (9:3f., 6). The
animals are struck by a fatal epidemic disease, originating with y h w h . 113 The
object of the plague, inflicted by y h w h without Moses and Aaron, is to portray
y h w h as the author of a terrible affliction (see also at 4:6ff., 11) and to demon
strate that he has power to cause death and destruction. The greatness of his power
is reinforced by the fact that the plague remains restricted to the livestock of the
Egyptians (9:4, 5, 6, 7). Though not specifically stated, there is no doubt that V is
meant to compel Pharaoh to admit that y h w h , the Lord of life and death, holds
the land in his grip and exercises dominion over it, and so to make him obey
y h w h and to heed the demand to let the people go (9:1, 7).

The description of V is regarded as a homogeneous literary unit.114 The writer
describes the course of the events to come in the form of an address from y h w h
to Moses (9:1-4). Moses is ordered to take up contact with Pharaoh and point out
to him what will be the consequences in case once again he refuses to let the
people go. The writer is silent about the execution of the order;115 he is silent as
well about Pharaoh’s refusal. That all that was done is obvious. Moses is y h w h ’s
faithful servant. Pharaoh the stubborn recusant. The writer does say that y h w h set
the precise moment of the plague. He recounts as well the occurrence of the
plague (9:6). He expects that the reader will regard the detailing of announcement
(9:3, 4) and execution (9:6) as complementary. Only in the announcement does he
provide a detailed summary of the animals that were struck. The entire emphasis is
on the different treatment of the livestock of the Egyptians and that of the Israelites
(9:4, 6, 7a). He concludes with an account of Pharaoh’s initial (9:7a) and final
reaction (9:7b).
In the story it is assumed that the fate that befell the animals, is at once the fate
that befell the animals’ owners and especially Pharaoh, the lord of the land.116
113 “151 (9:3) is used only once; but note the use of the noun “131 (9:4, 5, 6) and the verb (9:1).
The writer ‘plays’ with the consonants; did he perhaps just once mention the illness by name, because
he recoiled from voicing the terrifying word? Auerbach thinks that in 9:4, 5, 6 and also in 18:11 the
word ‘pestilence’ is to be read.
114 Usually attributed to J; see e.g. Baentsch, Te Stroete, Hyatt; but see Noth who talks about a
secondary ‘Zuwachs’ (addition) to the J narrative; idem already Meyer*, IN, 29; see further Eerd-
mans*, 25ff.; Fuss*, 194ff.
115 Sam. Pent, contains after 9:5 an account of the following of the instructions by Moses and
Aaron; see also Qm (cf. Sanderson*, 196ff.), SamT and Field hoc loco.
116 For solidarity in fate between humankind and animals and the animal as victim of the judgment
upon man, see Houtman*, Wereld, 50ff.
PESTILENCE 69
That the livestock of the Egyptians perishes while the animals of the Israelites are
spared (9:4, 6, 7) makes sense only in light of the solidarity of the Israelites and
their animals with y h w h and the solidarity of the Egyptians and their animals with
Pharaoh (cf. Introd. § 3.40.1). The tie with either Pharaoh or y h w h implies being
subject to a different treatment.
The scene is one of utter horror. In a moment all the animals of the Egyptians
drop dead. Witnessing the catastrophe, the reader finds it hard to suppress a
feeling of malicious pleasure. Pharaoh should not have behaved so deceitfully and
have obeyed. Then his people would not have been robbed of their livelihood. He
is especially awed by y h w h ’s miraculous power; all the more so because the
catastrophe happened at the precise moment in time, and because of all the animals
who were grazing side by side only those having Egyptian owners are hit with the
deadly disease, while the animals of the Israelites remain in perfect health.117
Convincing proof that the sovereignty of y h w h , Israel’s God, also extends to
Egypt, and that he is the One who brought the plague and who is behind the
demand to let the people go. He is fully in control of the situation. How is
Pharaoh going to react?
The writer makes the reader privy to Pharaoh’s reaction by informing him about
something Pharaoh does in consequence of the catastrophe. Pharaoh carefully
investigates who are the owners of the dead animals. The report of the blue ribbon
committee, appointed by Pharaoh himself, is clear as clear can be: remarkably, all
of Israel’s livestock is in excellent health, while Egypt’s livestock has perished in
its entirety. Those were the hard facts which Pharaoh’s own people, unbiased
witnesses, could not get around (9:7a; cf. 8:15). Even if they had wanted to, they
were in no position to advise Pharaoh to persist in his unyielding stance. So there
appears to be every reason to think that this time Pharaoh will surrender.
But Pharaoh’s final reaction (9:7b) is terribly disappointing. It drives the reader
up the wall, especially because there had not been the assurance ‘just as y h w h had
announced’ (e.g. 8:15). Is there no way to make Pharaoh budge? What will have
to happen before he is willing to let the people go? Is not even God himself the
equal of Pharaoh’s adamant obstinacy?
It is commonly held that the statement that ‘all of Egypt’s livestock’ died (9:6) is
not to be taken absolutely, because in the account of the plagues that follow the
animals reappear as victims (9:9, 19ff.; 11:5; 13:15).118 The following sugges
tions have been made by way of explanation: it is a case of hyperbole (Cassuto);
117 In ExR. XI, 4 the miracle is enhanced even further: an animal belonging to an Israelite was
spared, even if an Egyptian had taken it; also animals co-owned by Israelites and Egyptians were
spared.
118 Because in 9:19ff. J is again speaking, also critical scholars (e.g. Dillmann, Holzinger) share this
perspective.
70 EXODUS 9 :1 -7
only the animals in the open field (9:3; cf. 9:19ff.) were struck, not those inside
(Calmet, Murphy, Keil, Gispen);119 in some parts of the Delta the livestock was
hit very hard (Heinisch); presumably means ‘all sorts o f (Strack). In my view,
the statement should not be weakened. It is intended to be taken absolutely. The
question how suddenly there could be animals again (9:9 etc.) does not seem to
have bothered the writer.
It has been proposed that the plague was retribution for Egyptians crimes: the
animals of the Egyptians are struck because they had made the Israelites shepherds
of their flocks and scattered their cattle, so that (being forcibly away from their
homes) they could not multiply (ExR. XI, 4; cf. MidrTanh. Exod. Ill, 5).
It is sometimes pointed out that the plague was a demonstration of y h w h ’s
supremacy over animals considered sacred by the Egyptians and regarded as
manifestations of the deities (e.g. Calmet, Gispen, Cole, Knight). For myself I
believe this is a dubious notion.
Exegetes admit that pestilence is not a typical Egyptian disease.120 Taking note
of the animals that are specified, one gets the impression that the writer wrote
from the perspective of a Palestinian milieu (cf. Introd. § 9.1.17).
Various attempts have been made to explain Pharaoh’s refusal: he believed he
could compensate himself for the lost animals by taking the animals of the
Israelites (e.g. Calmet); the plague had not really hit him personally and he was
irritated by the fact that the animals of the Israelites had been spared (Murphy); in
particular the poor of Pharaoh’s subjects were victims (Lange); Pharaoh viewed
y h w h as the One who had destroyed the livestock and therefore he hated him all
the more (Beer); Pharaoh thinks that the plague is the last one (Fensham). As I see
it, what the writer tries to say is that Pharaoh’s obstinacy is so great that he
remains unaffected, despite the fact that unbiased witnesses tell him that his
policies are disastrous. Whittling down on the severity of the plague is doing
injustice to what the writer is saying. To him and his readers in Palestine, pes
tilence among animals was a terrible disaster. They knew that the epidemic could
mean instant ruin.
EXEGESIS
9:1 Then y h w h said to Moses: ‘Go to Pharaoh and tell him: So says yh w h , the
God o f the Hebrews: MLet my people go so that they may worship me.
9:2 But if you refuse to let them go and keep holding on to them,
9:3 y h w h ’s p o w e r w il l s tr ik e th e liv e s to c k in th e f i e ld s , th e h o r s e s , th e d o n k e y s,
th e c a m e ls , th e h e r d s a n d th e f l o c k s ; a te r r ib l e p e s t il e n c e (will hit them).
1,9 See already MidrTanh. Exod. II, 20: how could Pharaoh have the disposal of war chariots (14:7)?
and further e.g. Rashi on 9:10.
,2MFor the Egyptian background see e.g. Dillmann; Montet*, 96; Broekhuis*, 96f.
PESTILENCE 71
9:4 But y h w h will make a distinction between the livestock o f Israel and the
livestock o f Egypt. O f all the possessions (animals they have) o f the Israelites not
one will d ie n. 9
9:1 is virtually identical to 7:26; for "Q“i (Sam. Pent.: ")DN) see Introd. § 3.12.1;
presumably the verb is used here because of the formal similarity with 121 (9:3).
‘the God of the Hebrews,* see Introd. § 8.25. 9:2a is virtually identical to 7:27a;
LXX specifically mentions the object: ‘my people.’ QK 'D, see Introd. § 3.25.2.
9:2b hints at Pharaoh’s persistent obstinacy despite the fact that already repeatedly
yhwh has made his will known to him and battered him with numerous plagues.
n&, see 2:3. ‘keep holding on,’ see Introd. § 3.19.1; for the use of the participle
see Ges-K § 116a; Joiion § 121c. 02, pi. refers to the collective ‘people’ (9:1); cf.
e.g. KoSynt § 346p.
run, see Introd. § 3.19.1. ‘power,’ see Introd. § 3.21.2. With ‘yhwh ’s power’
is meant a destructive power, which can strike, totally unexpected, mysteriously
and terribly; cf. the use of n v r in e.g. Lev. 9:24; 10:2; Num. 11:1, 3; 16:35;
1 Kgs. 18:38 and see Houtman*, Himmel, 276ff. Cassuto links it with ‘finger of
God’ in 8:15: yhwh completely manifests his power (see at 8:15). n ;in , part,
fern, qal of rrn (for n \t + a see e.g. Gen. 37:27; Deut. 2:15; Josh. 2:19); only
here in OT; Sam. Pent.: n'n (fitting would be n\"in); Ehrlich wants to read nin,
‘destruction’ (cf. Isa. 47:11; Ezek. 7:26): ‘the hand of yhwh will become
destruction;’ there is, however, no reason to emend MT; see G.S. Ogden, VT 17
(1967), 483f. m n m n \ ‘play’ with consonants, ‘livestock,’ see Introd. §9.1.1.
m l?, see 1:14. ‘horses,’ etc., see Introd. § 9.1.18, 16, 17, 11, 4; the list goes
with and defines ‘livestock’ (cf. Brockelmann § 620; for asyndesis see Brockel-
mann § 128; but note Sam. Pent., LXX, Pesh., Vulg.; meant is that every
valuable domestic animal is struck; using a similar list of animals, Sennacherib
describes the booty he captured on his campaign against Hezekiah (Sennacherib
prism III, 25f.; transl. ANET, 288; TUAT, I, 389).
121, see 5:3; LXX: Gavcnroc;; cf. TO, TPsJ, TNf: NniD; but note against it Aq.,
Symm.: Aoipoc;; there has been speculation about the nature of the disease; see
e.g. Fensham; discounting foot and mouth disease and cattle pest, along with
others he is inclined to think of anthrax as the possible cause of the slaughter;
note, though, that the writer by speaking of ‘the hand of yhwh ’ wants to say that
the death was of mysterious origin. 122, see 4:10. "IKD, see 1:7. ‘a terrible
pestilence’ goes with and defines ‘hand of yhwh ;’ cf. Brockelmann § 63b.
Despite the fact that 9: lb-4 contains a message introduced by the ‘messenger
formula,’ for which reason in 9:3, 4 one would have expected the first person to
be used for yhwh , it is the third person that is used; this creates the impression
that Moses already addresses Pharaoh and communicates the message in his own
words (see also 9:5; 19:11); cf. 9:3 in Vulg.: ecce manus mea erit super agros
tuos ..., ‘behold, my hand will be over your fields ...;’121 see also 9:3 in TNf:
121 Subject is no longer YHWH (note though 9:4); all of 9:3a is given a free rendering.
72 EXODUS 9 :1 -7
subject is ‘the plagues of my wrath;* 9:4 starts in LXX with the first person.
n^B, see 3:20; cf. 8:18, also for LXX (hoc loco + ‘on that occasion;’ cf. 8:18:
‘on that day’), Vulg. and TPsJ. Sam. Pent.: K^sm. ‘to die,’ see Introd. § 3.22.
for construction see e.g. KoSynt § 337f; Ges-K § 130d, 155n; Ehrlich
proposes: bN iET '33 ‘of none of the Israelites;’ see already LXX. "131, see
Introd. § 3.12.3; ‘play’ with (9:3) in 9:4, 5, 6.
The Israelites, who elsewhere are portrayed as slaves (1:1 Iff.; 5; 6:9) are
depicted as owners of animals in 9:4. It is generally thought that Israel’s cattle
grazed in Goshen (8:18; 9:26) and those of the Egyptians outside it. Goshen,
however, is not specifically mentioned. Additionally, it is sometimes suggested that
a sea wind had kept the flies away from Goshen (8:16-28), and so the bearers of
the disease that killed the animals. To my mind, it is entirely possible that the
writer means to say that the cattle of the Israelites and Egyptians grazed to
gether.122 In that case it is even stranger that only the cattle of the Egyptians
perished. This also impacts the meaning of 9:7: the ownership of the cadavers was
investigated.
9:5 Then y h w h set the time with the words: Tomorrow y h w h will do this in the
land.'
9:6 The next day y h w h did so. All o f Egypt's livestock died, but from the
livestock o f the Israelites not even one died.
9:7 Pharaoh investigated. It was found that there was not a single dead animal
among Israel's livestock. Nevertheless, Pharaoh was stubborn. So he did not let the
people go.
After the beginning of 9:1, it is at the beginning of 9:5 that for the first time again
an imperf. cons, is used. The writer continues the story. He expects that the
reader will have read between the lines that Moses had carried out the order and
that Pharaoh has again refused to comply. When that point has been reached,
y h w h fixes the moment of the start of the plague. It is assumed that subsequently
Moses informed Pharaoh. Note that whereas it is fitting that y h w h is used as
subject in a message (9:5b) from Moses to Pharaoh, it is somewhat strange to hear
y h w h himself mention his own name. The use of the imperf. cons, at the begin
ning of 9:5 makes it unlikely that the verse is to be regarded as the end of the
words Moses is to speak to Pharaoh (9:1b etc.); e.g. Te Stroete; it is translated:
‘y h w h has ... determined.’ ‘to set (the time),’ see Introd. § 3.48. ‘y h w h , ’ LXX:
‘God.’
“iin& (OT ca. 225X; Exod. 38x), derivative of "iir (see 21:8), occurs in
Exodus primarily in the construct chain “lino i y x (see 27:21), and further with
the meaning ‘(fixed) time’ (9:5 [cf. e.g. 2 Sam. 24:15]; 13:10; 23:15; 34:18 [in
regard to the course of the heavenly bodies, cf. Gen. 1:14; Ps. 104:19, appointed
122 Cf. Meyer*, IN, 29; Nachmanides: the Egyptian cattle grazed in fields adjacent to Goshen; there
the animals mixed.
PESTILENCE 73
sacred time of the celebration of the Passover/the feast of unleavened bread]). See
further THAT , I, 742ff.; TWAT , IV, 744ff. nn&, see 8:6. nrn -onn (Sam. Pent.:
+ n«; see also TPsJ and cf. 9:6), see Introd. §3.12.3, what y h w h had an
nounced (9:3, 4). mn&B, see 8:6. ‘not even one,’ see Introd. § 4.2.1.
‘investigated,’ see Introd. § 3.49.1; LXX: i8<bv 8e Oapocd) oti ..., ‘but Pharaoh
seeing that ....’ That Pharaoh reacts differently from the way he did in 8:21 is
because of the plague itself; the animals are dead; that is the end of the plague;
there is therefore no reason for starting negotiations. ‘It was found that,’ see
Introd. § 3.15.2. ‘Israel,’ Sam. Pent., Qm, LXX, TPsJ: ‘sons of Israel’ (idem
LXX in 9:4a); cf. 9:4b, 6. 117, cf. Brockelmann § 341t; Williams § 314. ‘stub
born,’ see 4:10 and Introd. § 3.29.1. ‘and did not let ...,’ cf. 8:28 end. Note the
‘play’ with nbw (cf. e.g. 8:17) at the beginning and end of the verse.
VI INFECTIONS (9:8-12)
E s s e n t ia l s a n d p e r s p e c t iv e s / in t r o d u c t io n t o e x e g e s is

VI brings death and destruction upon people and animals in Egypt alike. Like I
and III and Moses’ signs (4:1-9), its characteristic is transformation (indicated by
mn; 9:9, 10). The ashes (2x), which Moses in a conjuring gesture throws toward
heaven (2x), blow ‘over all the land of Egypt’ (2x; cf. 9:11), falling on humans
and animals (2x; cf. 9:11) in the form of infections (4x) and boils (2x). They
render man and beast unclean (cf. the use of ‘infections’ and ‘swellings’ in Lev.
13) and put the land in death’s grip. In short, also VI, which like III originates on
the land, is intended to demonstrate that y h w h is powerful to wreak death and
destruction. Disease is one of the means at his disposal (cf. 9:1-7). Though not
specifically stated, also VI is meant to put pressure on Pharaoh and force him to
acknowledge and obey y h w h .

The description of VI is regarded as a homogeneous literary unit.123 The account
starts with an instruction from y h w h to Moses and Aaron. It contains an announ
cement of what they are to do and the consequences of their actions (9:8-9). So the
reader is apprised of YHWH’s next step in the offensive against Pharaoh. The
writer does not recount an order to make the demand to let the people go and the
inevitable consequences in case of refusal (cf. e.g. 9:Iff.).124 The absence of
123 Even though in the account Aaron recedes behind Moses, it is usually thought that P’s hand can
be detected in it; e.g. Baentsch, Rylaarsdam, Te Stroete, Hyatt; despite the variations, there are also
those who regard VI as a variant of V.
124 According to Josephus (AJ, II, 304), the reason behind the plague was that, though Pharaoh was
willing to let the husbands take their wives with them, he insisted that the children should be left behind
(cf. 10:10f.).
74 exodus 9:8-12
such an order creates the following impression: words have no effect on Pharaoh;
he must be made to feel that he cannot get away with keeping up his resistance.
For that matter, it is not explicitly stated that also Pharaoh was a victim of the
plague. The victims are said to be ‘the humans’ and ‘the animals’ (= livestock),
and in particular the magicians (9:11). But the underlying assumption is that there
is an inseparable solidarity between the ruler and his subjects and their property.
In them, he himself is struck (see introduction to the exegesis of 7:14-11:10 [sub
b]). In the magicians, he himself is held up to ridicule.
Moses and Aaron obey. With some variation in the description of the instruc
tion, the writer details their activities and the plague effected (9:10) by Moses. The
report of the carrying out of the order places the reader in the company of Moses
and Aaron; first by a dirty kiln and then, filled with anticipation, he goes with
them to Pharaoh. So again the reader meets Pharaoh and the magicians. He
watches Moses act as a ‘magician.’ Moses throws ashes toward heaven. It blows
all over, settling as fine dust on and completely covering humans and animals. The
dust is so fine that it penetrates everywhere. There is no way one can protect
oneself from it. The worst is that, settling on people and livestock, it causes
stinging infections, which cover the whole body and cause swellings which become
itching and painful boils. Suddenly man and beast in Egypt are unclean and in the
grip of death.
Through his description of the plague in the instruction (9:9) and its execution
(9:10), and by once again, very concretely, depicting the consequences of the
plague for the people by telling what happened to the magicians (9:11), the writer
underlines the miraculous nature and the seriousness of the plague. He drives it
home by painting a horrendous picture: there is not a spot in Egypt where living
beings, including the magicians who pretend to be in touch with the world of the
gods and to possess secret powers, are safe from the plague and can remain on
their feet. Horrible scenes transpire.125
Observing the misery that came upon Egypt, the reader cannot suppress a feeling
of malicious pleasure - Pharaoh should have known better and have obeyed! But
he is especially awed by y h w h ’s miraculous power, and he wonders whether this
terrible catastrophe is going to change Pharaoh’s mind. To his surprise, he again
spots the magicians with Pharaoh (9:11). Despite their acknowledgement of
y h w h ’s omnipotence (8:15), Pharaoh has summoned them again, presumably in
hopes that they may be able to take revenge. That hope is futile. Their presence
does no more than produce a comical scene. With Moses looking over their
shoulder, they try very hard not to make a blunder. All to no avail. They cannot
not even get to first base in their attempts to copy Moses’ miracle. Due to the
infections, they cannot keep themselves on their feet while bending themselves all
out of shape. The stately magicians loose all dignity and make themselves a
125 Josephus (AJ, II, 304) relates how also the intestines of the Egyptians were eaten up and that
most of them perished; cf. also Philo’s description (VM, I, 127ff.).
INFECTIONS 75
laughing stock by the deplorable condition in which they find themselves. By

contrast, Moses and Aaron are unaffected and have kept their dignity. Winners,
they stand tall and erect. The magicians are completely defeated. This time they
are worse off than before (8:14f.). Not only are they incapable of performing what
Pharaoh had hoped they would, this time, like all others, they also are victims of
the plague. They, too, are unable to keep the plague at bay. Let alone that they
can exorcise the plague or heal themselves. So for the second time they have
exhibited their impotence. The unmasking is now complete (Introd. § 3.4.1). Their
slide into oblivion final. Earlier they had professed y h w h ’s power and superiority
with their mouths (8:15). Now they testify to it through ‘visible words,’ through
gestures, through the total exposure of their inability.
It gives the reader hope. Now that Pharaoh’s own magicians are reduced to a
heap of misery, it should be obvious to him that there is no disputing the power of
Moses’ Lord, and that he ought to be given all honour. This time around, Pharaoh
must be convinced that he is fighting a lost battle. Will he now also, finally,
capitulate himself? Pharaoh’s reaction is dismaying. Again there is the refrain that
Pharaoh refuses to give in. Though not entirely unexpected (9:12b), the reaction is
frightening. Pharaoh behaves like a man without a shred of humanness in him. His
behaviour, so absurd in view of the situation, can only be explained as being the
work of y h w h himself (9:12a). The story of VI does not leave the reader entirely
without hope, though. For it did accomplish something. The magicians were
compelled to give up and clear the field once and for all. Besides, something
already discernible in the description of IV and V is this time confirmed, y h w h ’s
offensive has become more personal. It is no longer Aaron, but Moses himself,
y h w h ’s representative, who performs the miracle. Aaron’s stepping aside and the
retreat of the magicians have escalated the confrontation into a personal struggle
between Pharaoh and y h w h , represented by Moses.3
The question arises how one should precisely picture the mandate to Moses and
Aaron (9:8, 10), because Aaron is only involved in the first activity. Rabbinic
interpretation holds that there are different miracles here: Moses holds in his hands
also the ashes scooped up by Aaron; the weightless ashes were thrown into the air
and reached the ‘Throne of Glory;’ in one hand Moses held a quantity of ashes
from two hands; one handful of ashes became scattered over all of Egypt (ExR.
XI, 5; cf. also Rashi and see Ginzberg*, II, 354). According to Cassuto, both men
fill their hands with soot and put it in a box or the like, and so - one may not
come before Pharaoh with dirty hands - go to Pharaoh; in Pharaoh’s presence,
Moses does the work of throwing it into the air. The least that can be affirmed is
that Moses and Aaron bring the ashes with them to Pharaoh (9:10). Apparently
what is meant is that Moses tosses also the ashes scooped up by Aaron into the air.
Moses’ gesticulation is intended to bring about the scattering of the plague and
should not be taken as a symbolic act to make visible that the plague was spread
all over (e.g. Struys*, 94). Since Moses and Aaron are again confronted with the
76 EXODUS 9:8-12
magicians, it is a plausible assumption that the gesture was a ‘magic’ act. Besides
spreading, it has another objective as well. The ashes are thrown heavenward so
that God will turn the blowing dust into carriers of disease-bringing germs (cf.
ExR. XI, 5). GreBmann*, 92f. (cf. e.g. Bohl, Michaeli), thinks that the gesture
was originally meant to bring about darkness in the form of impenetrable clouds of
dust. It may be attractive to think of the motion by Moses’ arms and hands as a
conjuration of heaven (cf. 9:22f.; 10:21f.) to bring about its total darkening, but
the current context does not permit this interpretation. For that matter, already
Calvin was of the opinion that Moses’ gesture also brought darkness: God gave his
servants power over the air, so that they could cover it with darkness and poison it
with contamination. For this last point see Nachmanides; according to him it is
possible that Moses had to infect the air over Egypt, so that it would carry the
disease.
Uncertain is whether the writer had a particular illness in mind. Several illnesses
have been suggested: burning sores, smallpox, Nile pox, splenic fever, elephan
tiasis, leprosy, festering boils.126 Gispen, among others, thinks that it must have
been a more serious illness than Nile pox; though it produces unbearable itching, it
is harmless and as such nothing unusual to the Egyptians. Though the writer does
not talk about death as resulting from the disease, to say no more than that it was
‘very troublesome’ (e.g. Hyatt) will not do. It is altogether possible that implicitly
it is said that people and animals perished due to the plague (cf. Josephus, A J , II,
304). In any case, a skin disease is meant which, like dust, covered the entire
body (cf. Deut. 28:35; Job 2:7); it was a gruesome disease, marked by boils that
broke open and likely also, because of the itch they caused, were scratched open,
so posing the danger of infection. Sometimes VI is regarded as the first plague
which threatened the life of people (Keil, Lange, Murphy, Michaeli). And as such,
according to Keil, the plague was the first foreboding of the death which Pharaoh
would bring upon himself by his continued resistance. As I see it, also the prior
plagues were likewise, or in even greater measure, a threat to human life.
Assuming that soot was strewn, it is possible to posit the following connection
between Moses’ act and the sickness: the sickness reveals itself in dark swellings;
people and animals alike are covered as if with soot. No matter whether soot or
ashes is meant, it is likely that the correlation between ‘dust’ and skin disease is as
follows: the ‘dust,’ which can be burning hot when it is pulled from the kiln, stays
like that when it transforms itself on humans and animals: burning infections,
coupled with fever, torment the victims.
Because in ancient times all sorts of skin diseases were widespread and of
frequent occurrence in Egypt (e.g. Broekhuis*, 60ff.) and Egypt is also mentioned
in Deut. 28:27, 60 as a land afflicted by skin disease, it is possible to read the
description of the plague against the background of the Egyptian milieu. It should
l2fi See in addition to the commentaries (e.g. Keil, Dillmann) Broekhuis*, 60ff.; Fohrer*, 78;
Struys*, 94f.
INFECTIONS 77
be borne in mind, however, that in the entire Ancient Near East skin diseases were
an ever present threat to man and beast and that the Israelites, reading the descrip
tion, could vividly visualize what they meant.
It has been proposed that the plague was retribution for Egyptian crimes. Keil,
e.g., offers this explanation: the plague proved to Pharaoh that y h w h possessed
the power to bring ruin upon the Israelites from the kilns - which were used for
making the material for Pharaoh’s splendid edifices, erected for the purpose of
oppressing Israel so much that the people felt they were in a iron smelting furnace
(Deut. 4:20) - by turning the soot or ashes (as the residuum of the fiery heat and
emblem of the furnace in which Israel groaned) into a boils-producing seed (cf.
Lange, and see already BB , 109). Cassuto detects poetic justice here; according to
him, 9:8, 10 refer to a kiln for burning bricks*, and he sees a connection between
the hard work of the toilers making bricks (1:14; 5:7ff.) and the plague: the soot
clinging to the walls of the kiln, product and symbol of the toil of the slaves,
inflicts punishment upon the bodies of the enslavers (but this last cannot be said of
the similarly struck animals). To me, the alleged connection seems contrived.
Again, but now definitely for the last time, the magicians are on the scene.
Why? In light of their eariier activity, the answer must be: so that, for the benefit
of Pharaoh, they might perform the same wonder as Moses. Once again it is
important not to be rigidly logical; it would be beside the point to point out that so
they would aggravate the sufferings of the Egyptians as well as their own pain,
and that one would rather have expected that they would have been ordered to
bring about healing from the disease.127
The text says nothing about what happened to Israel. Gispen infers from the end
of 9:11 that it is likely that Goshen was spared. Whether and how the plague
ended is not stated either. Philo (VM, I, 128) tells that Moses’ intercession brought
relief.
EXEGESIS
9:8 Then y h w h said to Moses and Aaron: ‘Both o f you take handfuls o f ashes
from the oven and let Moses throw it toward heaven in the sight o f Pharaoh . '
Qm: -f TiDNb (after ‘Aaron;’ cf. LXX and see Sanderson*, 85f.). np4?, see
Introd. § 3.30. D'jpn (OT 6 x ; only dual), ‘hollows of both hands;’ for construct
chain with Nbfc see 2:16. rvs (only in Exod. 9:8, 10), accusative of material, a
term of uncertain origin (sometimes derived from ms), is often said to refer to
‘soot’ (e.g. Ges-B, BDB , HAL); this interpretation already occurs in LXX (ai0a-
127 Cf. Greflmann*, 91; Ephraem suggests that the magicians failed because they could not cause
infections on the Israelites and because no healthy spot was left on their own bodies for demonstrating
their own ability.
78 EXODUS 9:8-12
Xr\); beside it is found the interpretation ‘ashes’ (so already Vulg. [cinis] and see
e.g. KoW and KJV); since soot is something like a residue, my preference is to
think of fine, light, blowing ashes. 1033 (Gen. 19:28; Exod. 9:8, 10; 19:18), term
of uncertain origin (often derived from 033), and thought to mean ‘oven;’ likely
the reference is not to a bread oven (7:28); presumably it is a kiln or furnace for
smelting of metals, for the firing of ceramics or for the burning of lime (Van der
Palm, Cassuto: a kiln for burning bricks).128 lpnp perf. cons, qal (as con
tinuation of imperative; with change in person; see Joiion § 119m) of pm (OT ca.
30x), ‘to strew,’ ‘to scatter* (e.g. Job 2:12; 2 Chr. 34:4), ‘to sprinkle’ (24:6, 8;
29:16, 20); in 9:8, 10 throwing into the air is meant; the result is that the ashes
blow away.
D?Q0 (OT ca. 420 x ; Exod. 14 x), ‘heaven’ (see Houtman*, Himmel, passim ;
THAT, II, 965ff.; TWAT, VII, 204ff.). n/TD0n (Sam. Pent., Qm: D'D0n [cf.
Sanderson*, 117]; see Houtman*, 20, 59) may mean more in 9:8, 10 than ‘into
the air,’ ‘up:’ the ashes are brought in contact with God, in order that he may
make them the bearer of illness (see Houtman*, 360; cf. idem, ZAW 90 [1978],
269-72 [on Job 2:12]). ‘in the sight of,’ see Introd. § 3.38; LXX: + ‘and in the
sight of his courtiers;’ cf. 7:20 and also 7:10; Pharaoh has to know that the plague
comes as a direct result of Moses’ activity and therefore is from y h w h . Here, in
distinction from Aaron who accompanies him, Moses is the one who works the
miracle (cf. 4:30? and 10:21). Aaron has stepped back. Background of this
development is likely the escalation of the conflict: it is no longer the servant of
the representative of the deity who is the key figure; now the representative
himself makes his weight felt (cf. 2 Kgs. 4:29ff.); with the withdrawal of Phara
oh’s magicians also Moses’ ‘magician’ withdraws.
9:9 *It will spread out like fine dust over all the land o f Egypt, and on humans
and animals it will become infections that will produce boils , in all the land o f
Egypt. ’
P3£ (OT 6 x ), ‘fine dust’ (see Schwarzenbach*, 129f.); for the deadly threat
posed by dust see 8:12. mn + b (Introd. § 3.13.2) expresses that the ashes, by
being thrown up, behave like fine dust. Apparently the meaning is not that the
ashes turned into fine dust. Transformation is expressed by the second mn +
The ashes settle on humans and animals in the form of skin infections; spreading,
the infections show up in the form of a rash. A translation of mn + b as ‘to
cause’ (LV, WV, GNB; cf. CV) is inadequate, ‘humans,’ see 4:11; ‘animals’
(livestock), see Introd. § 9.1.2. 1T10 (OT 12x) is regarded as a derivative of
]n0 (cf. Akkadian sahanu; Arabic sahana; Aramaic and Syriac shn), ‘to be
(become) warm, hot’ (i.e. having fever), and taken to mean ‘sore;’ often as
collective: ‘sores,’ ‘skin rash’ (9:9, 10, 11; Job 2:7 et al.); in Lev. 13:18ff., 23 as
symptom of ‘leprosy’ (see 4:6f.). Going by the meaning of the root, it seems best
128 See further AuSy VII, 26, 209; BRL, 240f.; IDB, III, 11; TWAT, IV, 54ff.; Franken* 41ff.
INFECTIONS 79
to think of an infection; the skin develops red, burning, stinging spots.

m s part, qal of m s (OT 35x), ‘to sprout,’ ‘opening up’ of flowers, ‘to
blossom’ (Gen. 40:10; Num. 17:20, 23 et al.; cf. Introd. § 10.1.8); ‘to swell,’ ‘to
break open,’ in connection with skin disease (9:9f.); in Lev. 13:12, 20, 25 et al.
used in connection with ‘leprosy;’ for use with accusative see e.g. Ges-K § 117z;
Joiion § 125o. r\V?P2& (only in Exod. 9:9f.; cf. BL § 482j, 487o), plurale
tantum , is usually regarded as a derivative of V2V2m and understood as ‘blis
ters,’ ‘sores,’ ‘boils;’ cf. LXX: (J)Au k t C 6 8 c;; Vulg.: vesicae. In LXX m s , both in
9:9 and 9:10, refers to nuaUN: cAkt|, (f)AuKTi6e<; avaCeouoai (Symm.: eâvOou-
oai, ‘erupting;’ Aq.: TtetaCopevai, ‘extensive’) ‘erupting sores, blisters* (‘on the
humans and the animals;’ in LXX, 9:9 corresponds also on this point with 9:10;
cf. 8:12-14 LXX); cf. Vulg.: vulnera et vesica4 turgentes (9:9); vulnera vesicarum
turgentium (9:10). In Pesh. m s is variously rendered in 9:9 and 9:10; in 9:9 the
same as in LXX; in 9:10 with wprh , ‘and it erupted.’
9:10 Then they took ashes from the oven and went to see Pharaoh. Moses threw
them toward heaven, and they produced infections, festering boils, on humans and
animals.
9:11 Not even the magicians, despite Moses ’ watchful look, were able to stay on
their feet because o f the infections, fo r like all the other Egyptians they, too, were
afflicted with infections.
9:12 But y h w h made Pharaoh obstinate. So he would not listen to them (Moses
and Aaron), as y h w h had announced to Moses.
The language used is for the most part the same as in 9:8f. ‘handfuls’ (9:8) is
absent; this time the object of npb is definite (in LXX subject is sing.: ‘and he
(Moses) took’). It is now specifically stated that Moses and Aaron went to see
Pharaoh (m u , see 3:5; in LXX n s im is left untranslated; cf. Sanderson*, 105f.);
'3D4?, see Introd. § 3.42.2; for the alternation with (9:8) see Introd. § 3.38.
Leaving an oven, Moses and Aaron head for Pharaoh. The term nmstfn is an
indication that one must assume that it was in the open air that Moses, before
Pharaoh, did what he had been told. Subject of v n (Introd. § 3.13.1) is pntf; see
beside it 9:9: ITI#4? ... mm. m s nw»3N , word order changed as compared with
9:9. ‘all the land of Egypt’ (2x in 9:9) is absent (but note 9:11); similarly the
observation that the ashes were scattered like fine dust. Description and fulfilment
of the mandate complement each other.
9:11 describes a not by y h w h announced and hence surprise event. Suddenly the
magicians are back on the scene (cf. 7:22; 8:3, 14). see 2:3. ‘magicians,* see
7:11; for vocalization (cf. app. BHS) see 8:3. 1DU, see 3:5; 'ODb, see Introd.
§ 3.42.2; Greflmann*, 92, on the assumption that originally the plague referred to129
129 In Middle-Hebrew: inter alia: ‘to well up,’ ‘to swell;’ cf. Arabian bagger, Syriac ba'bujatd,
‘bubbles;’ Akkadian bubu’tu, ‘blisters with puss;’ see H.R. Cohen, Biblical Hapax Legomena in the
Light of Akkadian and Ugaritic, Missoula 1978, 109.
80 exodus 9:13-35
darkness, proposes to read ‘Pharaoh’ instead of ‘Moses’ (cf. 7:11 and see 9:10):
the magicians could not even put in an appearance;130 as in 9:10, nor + is
used, but this time with a slightly different meaning; literally and figuratively, the
magicians could not stand before Moses. 'JBO, see Introd. § 3.42.3. o n s tr t M i
(meant is: and on all other Egyptians; cf. e.g. 4:7; 14:7; Jer. 32:20; Ps. 73:5),
some MSS, LXX, Vulg.: ‘and in all the land of Egypt’ (cf. 9:9).
‘made ... obstinate,’ see Introd. § 3.19. For 9:12b see Introd. § 3.51.1; 3.12.1.
For the inclusion of Moses’ name in the final statement see also 9:35. ‘to Moses’
is absent from LXX.
VII HAIL, THUNDER, FIRE AND RAIN (9:13-35)


VII visits death and destruction upon everybody and everything in the outdoors in
Egypt. As Moses stretches his staff toward heaven in a conjuring motion (9:22f.),
the rumble of thunder is heard (9:23 et al.; 5 x ) and hail (9:18 et al.; 14 x), shafts
of lightning (9:23, 24) and rain (9:33, 34) come down, felling (m j [also in 9:15],
see 9:25 [2x], 31, 32; cf. 9:19), throughout (all the land of) Egypt (9:22-25;
5x), vegetation (9:22, 25; cf. also 9:3If.) and people and animals that are out in
the open (9:19, 22, 25; cf. 9:20, 21).
It appears that the plague, the seventh (for ‘seven’ see Introd. § 4.8), is to be
regarded as a very severe plague (cf. 9:14). With one blow, y h w h will all at once
deliver many blows. Like VIII, the description is more detailed than with the
preceding plagues. The emphasis is on the incomparableness of the plague (9:18,
24). Particularly through hail, thunder, lightning and rain, y h w h reveals himself
as the One who rules the world and before whom nobody and nothing can stand
(cf. Houtman*, H immef 140ff., 328). Three times this point is highlighted (9:14,
29, 30). In short, also VII is intended to demonstrate that y h w h has power to
cause death and destruction. For that, he can use meteorological phenomena as
weapons (see Houtman*, Himmel, 272ff.). The fact that he is capable of accurately
aiming his weapons only toward Egypt (9:26) and at the exact time he announced
he would (9:18), and that he can put these weapons aside at the prayer of Moses
(9:33), underscores the greatness of his power. He, the Lord of all the earth, holds
Egypt in his grip. He ought to be obeyed. That is what the plague is meant to
teach Pharaoh, and as such it is also a means to pressure him to let the people go
(cf. 9:13, 28, 35; nbvi is used 8 x in a variety of meanings in the description).
130 Nachmanides: they were afraid to show up in the palace and to have Moses see them in the
street; so they were captives in their own homes.
HAIL, THUNDER, FIRE AND RAIN 81

The description of VII is usually regarded as a literary composite.131 For that
matter, the description reads pretty much like a homogeneous story. Points that
raise problems will be dealt with in the exegesis.
The writer has cast the course of the events to come in the form of a monologue
by y h w h to Moses (9:13-19). Moses is ordered to take up contact with Pharaoh
and to make him aware of the consequences in case he refuses to let the people of
Israel go. He is also instructed to let Pharaoh know why so far y h w h has not dealt
him the final blow (9:15-16). y h w h also enables Moses to serve Pharaoh with
advice about the coming plague (9:19). The writer does not say that Moses carried
out y h w h ’s instructions.132 That Moses did so is obvious. Moses is y h w h ’s
faithful servant. Pharaoh the stubborn rebel. The writer does detail how Pharaoh’s
courtiers reacted to the plague (9:20-21). He also deals in detail with y h w h ’s
instruction to bring about the plague, how Moses carried it out, and he relates as
well the coming of the plague and its consequences (9:22-26). In the form of a
dialogue the writer informs the reader about Pharaoh’s reaction to the plague. He
again offers a head-to-toe picture of Moses and Pharaoh (9:27-30). Following a
clarifying comment (9:31-31), the writer concludes with two quickly changing
scenes: Moses’ intercession outside the city and its effects (9:33), and the final
reaction of Pharaoh and his officials (9:34).
It is specifically stated that the plague is aimed at Pharaoh (9:14). He himself is
cast in the victim role. Due to the terrible weather, he does not know where to
turn (9:28). If he, who used to be so imperturbable, is so out of shape and
overcome by fear, what must his courtiers and people have been like (9:14, 20,
27, 30, 34)? But that the writer does not talk about. He only relates the material
loss they suffered (9:19, 21, 22 et al.). They are struck along with Pharaoh, united
as they are with him in responsibility, guilt and punishment (cf. 9:27, 34 and
introduction to exegesis of 7:14-11:10 [sub b]). Also between the land and its
inhabitants there is a joint fate. That is why only Egypt is struck by the plague
while Goshen is spared (9:26). Union with either Pharaoh or y h w h (cf. Introd.
§ 3.40.1) entails a different treatment.
By giving a concrete picture of the plague, in the description of its announ
cement as well as of its occurrence and what it brought about, the writer highlights
the miraculous nature and severity of the plague. His description is marked by
progression. In the announcement of the plague, hail is mentioned (9:18f., 22).
But in the description of its actual occurrence, the plague turns out to be even*3
131 A basic J-version is thought to be combined with fragments of E (9:22-23, 24a, 25a); besides,
there may be several redactional additions as well (9:14-16, 19-21, 31-32), perhaps even of P (9:35?);
see e.g. Baentsch, Rylaarsdam, Te Stroete, Hyatt; Noth, however, finds only J and P (9:22, 23a, 35) of
the Pentateuchal sources in the text); also Fuss*, 200ff., has his own view; see further Eerdmans*,
25 ff.
I3- Sam. Pent, contains after 9:19 a description of how Moses and Aaron did what y h w h had
commanded; see also Qm (cf. Samderson*, 196ff.), SamT and Field hoc loco.
82 exodus 9 :1 3 -3 5
worse than announced. Loud thunder and fiery lightning accompany the hail
(9:23f.). After 9:24 the writer no longer mentions ‘fire.’ Beside the hail, it is
especially the loud thunder that is emphasized in the account (9:28, 29, 33, 34).
The hellish racket is terribly frightening. In the account of the ending of the plague
(9:33, 34) also rain turns out to have been part of it, making the plague even
worse than it initially appeared. Also in another respect the description is marked
by progression. First, only what the terrible weather did to people and animals
(livestock) is related (9:19), then also the havoc it wreaked upon the crops in the
field (9:22), and finally also what it did to trees and shrubs (9:25). The description
of announcement, coming, ending and consequences of the plague are complemen
tary, and together offer a picture of the unbelievably heavy weather that struck
Egypt, awful weather that could only be regarded as a divine judgment (cf. Isa.
28:2; 30:30; Ezek. 38:22).
Taking note of y h w h ’s instruction to Moses, the reader is encouraged. Though
y h w h had beforehand assured him that Pharaoh would not give in without putting
up a fight (cf. 3:19f.; 4:21; 7:3f.) and knew what was in store for him, the reader
can no longer shake off a sneaking suspicion that Pharaoh might be so stubborn
that he would never give in. The question arose: If y h w h is so powerful, why
does he delay dealing Pharaoh the fatal blow? The message with which Moses is to
address Pharaoh is, therefore, not just a message for Pharaoh, but also for the
reader, telling him that there is no reason for despair. Pharaoh does not offer
resistance because he is so mighty, but because y h w h lets him (cf. Matt. 26:53);
he uses Pharaoh’s resistance to make all people on earth stand in awe of his
mighty deeds (9:15,16; cf. 10:2; 11:9). Along with Pharaoh, they must know that
no one is like y h w h (9:14). In spite of himself, Pharaoh promotes y h w h ’s glory.
The reader is all the more encouraged as he hears what is now going to happen
to Pharaoh. This time - the seventh - Pharaoh is really going to be blasted
(9:14). On top of it, y h w h is so much Pharaoh’s superior in power that he is even
kind enough to forewarn him about actions he can take to contain the damage of
the plague (9:19). Leaving something for his adversary, in no way detracts from
y h w h ’s position. It rather accentuates his superiority. Moreover, the reader senses
that there is a kind of hidden agenda, for the forewarning constitutes a challenge to
Pharaoh. If he acts upon it, he obeys a word from y h w h and so acknowledges that
y h w h is greater than he. Will Pharaoh fall for it? What follows shows the reader
that while Pharaoh disregards the warning, some of his courtiers take it to heart
(9:20, 21). That, too, ch eers the reader, y h w h ’s warning has put holes into
Pharaoh’s front. His position is undermined.
The writer paints an apocalyptic scene. Watching the incredibly heavy weather
that ravages Egypt, destroys all rrops, snaps trees and flattens shrubs, and kills all
people and animals that are outside, the reader cannot suppress a feeling of
malicious pleasure: Egypt is ruined.133

Pharaoh should have been wiser and for once have obeyed. The reader is,
however, especially impressed by y h w h ’s wonder-working power, the more so
because the plague happened exactly twenty-four hours after the announcement
(9:18) at the command of Moses, the man of God (9:22f.) and - to his astonish
ment and joy; y h w h had not mentioned it in the announcement - the land of
Goshen was spared (9:26). Convincing proof that y h w h , Israel’s God, is the One
who brings the plague and has issued the order to let the people go.
Intrigued the reader follows the events, as he hears that the plague has not left
Pharaoh unaffected. The writer lets the reader in on Pharaoh’s reaction by
bringing him inside the walls of Pharaoh’s house, where he makes him overhear a
conversation between Pharaoh and Moses, who, as usual, is accompanied by
Aaron (9:27-30). Hearing how the plague has affected Pharaoh, the reader cannot
suppress a feeling of amusement and gloating. The terrible weather has driven
Pharaoh to the wall, panicky from fear; so much so that this time (cf. II and IV),
assaulted by the powers of nature, he even pleads guilty for himself and his
officials. He acknowledges that y h w h ’s demand is justified, and promises freedom
for Israel, on condition that intercession with y h w h be made on his behalf (9:27-
28). Desperate, Pharaoh turns for deliverance to his great adversary, y h w h . So
again (cf. 8:4, 24), through his plea for help, he admits that y h w h is the source of
the plague and that Moses is his messenger. There is no way he can ignore y h w h
(cf. 5:2). In his answer, Moses once again tells him that this time there is no
evading acknowledging y h w h . He promises the end of the plague, and points out
to Pharaoh that also the fact that y h w h can stop the plague whenever he wants to,
shows his dominion over heaven and earth, compelling all to honour him as the
Lord of all (9:29). Spellbound, the reader follows what is happening. Will this
seventh blow (for ‘seven’ see Introd. § 8.4) cause Pharaoh to throw in the towel?
Moses himself prepares the reader for another disappointing ending. Moses does
not just promise to make intercession. He intimates that he does not trust the
confession of Pharaoh and his men, and that he is aware that their about-face is
only appearance (9:30). So Moses, whose polite and disciplined demeanour
133 Extra-biblical tradition deals with other/more details and sometimes blows up the miracles still
more. Philo (VM, I, 118ff.) emphasizes that Egypt, where rain is rare, was suddenly struck with all the
hardships of a severe winter: rainstorms, heavy hail, strong wind gusts, flashes of lightning, thunder
bolts etc. The astonishing thing was that hail and fiery lightning, which are natural enemies, left each
other alone (cf. e.g. ExR. XII, 4; Rashi), the one did not melt and the other was not extinguished; the
lightning shot back and forth, protecting the hail. Philo does not talk about the death of people, only
about that of animals, who were killed by the extreme cold, the hailstones and the lightning; some
sustained wounds caused by the lightning, a warning to all who saw it. Artapanus, 33, recounts that the
plague (the last one he mentions) happened at night and was accompanied by an earthquake, so that
anyone who escaped the earthquake was killed by the hail, and anyone who escaped the hail became a
victim of the earthquake; all homes and most of the temples collapsed (cf. also Theodoret, QE, XXI).
Josephus (AJ, II, 305) points out that Egypt had never suffered such hail before, and that the hail stones
were bigger than the hail that people living in northern regions see in the middle of spring.
84 EXODUS 9 :1 3 -3 5
without a trace of rancour (9:29) is striking, again comes across to the reader as a
truly great man. Moses is no naive simpleton, easily duped by a fake promise. By
now, Moses knows what kind of person he deals with. He knows how to handle
the situation. He is not afraid of Pharaoh. He is not afraid to boldly tell him and
his courtiers the truth (9:30). He walks away from the conversation the victor.
That does not lessen the reader’s disappointment. Also not when he hears from the
writer why Pharaoh and those about him, despite the fact that the land has been
laid waste, apparently still entertain a glimmer of hope about the future and have
not yet fully capitulated: so far the wheat and the spelt had been spared (9:31, 32).
At Moses’ prayer, the prediction made to Pharaoh comes true (9:29, 33). So
again the reader has witnessed y h w h ’s omnipotence and been given evidence that
Moses is y h w h ’s representative. But he also notices that the impact of the plague
on Pharaoh and his men was quite different; to them the plague again was no more
than a demonstration of y h w h ’s greatness. The announcement, implicit in Moses’
words (9:30) that Pharaoh and his people would not yet cease their resistance,
turns out to be true after the plague has come to a close (9:34, 35). Also for
another reason the outcome is unsettling. After the final pull-back of the magicians
(9:8-12), the reader might think that Pharaoh was alone in his resistance. The
description of the seventh plague teaches him otherwise: Pharaoh can fall back on
courtiers and be fortified by them in his opposition. To be sure, initially some of
them had undermined Pharaoh’s position (9:20; cf. 10:7). But the outcome shows
that their respect for YHWH was only motivated by self-interest; they are not one
whit better than Pharaoh himself. After the plague, he and the courtiers close
ranks again (9:30, 34); see also 9:27). Evidently, saving acts by y h w h are not
enough to make either Pharaoh or his stooges obey y h w h . On the other hand, the
not entirely unsuspected outcome (9:35b) does not leave the reader completely
without hope and perception about what is happening. For again it has been shown
that it is not without purpose that YHWH allows the confrontation to continue
(9:16), and that under immense pressure Pharaoh can be made to waver.
Hail storms are very rare in Egypt.134 For that reason one might say that the
plague was chosen by y h w h because it would make a tremendous impression.135
It is more likely, however, that in the description the writer was thinking more of
the effect it would have on those for whom the story was written than on those
who were visited by the plague. The plague fits the Palestinian milieu very well.
Therefore one may assume that the description of the plague must have made a
tremendous impact on the readers, more so than an account that reckoned with to
the reader unfamiliar climatological circumstances could have done.
It is proposed that the plague was meant as retaliation for Egyptian crimes
134 See e.g. DB, II, 511 f.; III, 891; G. Hort, Z4W70 (1958), 48f.; Broekhuis*, 62.
135 Cf. e.g. Holzinger, Cole, and see already Philo (VM, I, 114ff.).
and/or correlates with it: hail destroyed the plantings, because the Egyptians had
made the Israelites planters of their vineyards etc. (ExR. XII,3; cf. MidrTanh.
Exod. II, 19); the hammering hail is reprisal for the heavy burdens laid on the
Israelites when the people had to search for straw themselves (ch. 5); the terrifying
thunder and fire brought back the memory of the roaring, red-hot flames of the
brick ovens, etc. (BB , 115).
EXEGESIS
9:13 Then yhwh said to Moses: ‘Rise early in the morning and confront Pharaoh
and say to him: Thus says yhwh, the God o f the Hebrews: uLet my people go so
that they may worship me.
9:14 Otherwise this time I will bring all my plagues upon you , your courtiers and
your people. So you will realize that there is no one equal to me in all the earth ”. '
9:13 is virtually identical to 8:16. In 9:13 there is no further specification of the
situation (Pharaoh goes to the water) and y h w h is followed by ‘God of the
Hebrews.’
**D, see Introd. § 3.25.2. DUD, see 8:28. nbw, see Introd. § 3.49.1; cf. use of
piel in 9:13. nDJD, see 7:27; ‘all my plagues’ (cf. 3:20) presents problems.
Because a number of plagues have already taken place, ‘all’ must be taken to mean
‘all the plagues I still have at my disposal.’ The impression is given that Pharaoh
will be dealt the fatal blow. However, in the sequel of the divine message only one
plague is announced, and not the final one at that. Various explanations have been
adduced: (1) the pi. is used with an eye to the frightening side phenomena
(lightning, thunder, rain), which are to be regarded as independent plagues (e.g.
Ibn Ezra, Strack, Baentsch, Beer);136 (2) meant are the plagues still to come,
which y h w h will sent one after the other (e.g. Calvin, Keil, Murphy, Gispen,
Cassuto);137 ‘this time’ (taken by Gispen as referring to the entire period of the
plagues that would follow) hardly fits that view; (3) the pi. is an intensive plural:
‘my most severe plague’ (Te Stroete; cf. WV, GNB); cf. Rashi’s interpretation:
the plague of hail outweighed all previous plagues138 and see Ehrlich (he reads:
"p nbN TID1Q): 9:14-15 referred originally to the last plague (which was as heavy
as all previous ones together).139 Also Te Stroete believes that the expression
136 Baentsch thinks that the redactor who added 9:14-16, beforehand wanted to explain the
impression of the plague on Pharaoh (9:27).
137 Noth: Pharaoh must take to heart all the plagues, those which have already happened and those
which are now announced.
138 It is likely that already TPsJ is based on this interpretation: ‘this time I will send you a plague
from heaven, and this will return to your heart all the plagues with which I have struck you, upon your
courtiers and your people, for they were sent by me and not by human conjuration ...’
139 Holzinger: 9:14-17 is the Yahwistic announcement of the last plague; cf. also Noth on 9:14-16.
86 EXODUS 9:13-35
best fits the last plague. The first interpretation seems best to fit the present
context, though it, too, is unsatisfactory.
Sam. Pent.: bv; since 3 is used for the following terms, it has been
proposed to read 13 (cf. KoSynt § 334y and e.g. Baentsch, Beer). 2b, see
Introd. § 3.29.2; considering the use of 2b in e.g. 9:34, 35, it is not impossible
that this is what is meant: Pharaoh will be struck in his heart of hearts, there
where he makes his decisions, so that he loses his equilibrium and drops his
intransigent attitude. LXX: ‘against your heart, and that of your courtiers and of
your people.’ ‘courtiers,’ see Introd. §3.37.2. ‘people,’ see Introd. §3.40.1.
‘Pharaoh, courtiers, people,’ for the triad see also II and IV. The transition from
‘courtiers’ to ‘people’ and vice versa is fluid; see in particular 9:27, 30, 34; cf.
also 9:20.
T ia a a (OT ca. 50x; Exod. 7 x ) = i-iag, ‘produce’ (Josh. 5:11, 12), + 3,
serves as a preposition: ‘because o f (9:16; 13:8), also before infinitive: ‘in order
to’ (9:16; 20:20 [Ti3y:3^]), and conjunction: with fmal/consecutive meaning
(9:14; 19:9; 20:20). See KoSynt § 396c; Ges-K § 165b; Jouon § 168e, 1701;
Brockelmann § 116m, 145b; Williams § 522. ‘realize,’ see Introd. § 3.22; cf. 5:2;
in 9:29 et al. in n is preceded by 1I7D*?. fN, see 2:12. For the assertion of
incomparability see Introd. § 7.2.2; 7.3.7.
9:15 ‘By now I could have used my destructive power to strike you and your
people with pestilence, so that you would have been wiped o ff the earth. ’
nni?, see 3:9. ‘used ... power,’ see Introd. §3.49.1; 3.21.1; cf. 3:20. The
interpretation of the perf. presents problems. Several suggestions have been
made: (1) according to an interpretation currently in vogue (e.g. UV, NV, WV,
GNB), the perfect denotes an act in the past, whose accomplishment is presented
not as actual but as something that could have happened (e.g. Ges-K § 106p):
‘Now already I could have put forth my hand ....’ In that case, the question dealt
with in 9: 15, 16 is why y h w h did not deal Pharaoh the fatal blow in an earlier
stage of his confrontation with him; 9:16 shows that the reason was not that y h w h
lacked the power to do so. The use of nnu, ‘now,’ does not quite fit this interpre
tation.140 One would rather have expected ‘al eerder’ (‘earlier already,’
WV);141 (2) 9:15 is rendered as a future: ‘Now I will stretch out my hand ...’
(cf. LuthV and see also LXX, Pesh., Vulg.). In that case 9:15 correlates with
9:14a, and there is no connection with 9:16; (3) 9:15 is rendered as a perf.: ‘Now
I have stretched out my hand ...’ (e.g. SV; cf. KoSynt § 123); that kind of
140 CV does not have the problem: ‘Surely, now I could stretch out my hand this rendering is
accompanied by a translation of the perf. in 9:16 as a present.
141 In LV, 9:15 is linked with 9:14b: ‘Otherwise I would indeed have stretched out my hand and
there is a loose connection between 9:15 and 9:16.
translation does not convey a good sense;142 (4) 9:15 is rendered as a pluperfect:
‘Now already I had stretched out my hand, and I stood poised to ...;’143 this
translation conflicts with the Hebrew text. The context favours 1 as the most
plausible interpretation.
HD3, see 2:11; Sam. Pent.: rDNi (cf. Ges-K § 49e and see Neh. 13:25); LXX
gives a free translation: ‘...I will strike you and your people I will kill.* "Q"i, see
5:3; 9:1-7 describes how the animals succumb to ‘the pestilence.* Some hold that
that is what is alluded to: the fate that struck the animals could also have hit you
and your people (see above annot. SV and e.g. ExR. XII, 1; Rashi; Cassuto; cf.
also Noth). Gispen thinks of an allusion to X. Likely the writer talks in general
here, “inpni imperf. niph. of "iro (OT ca. 30 x); here: ‘to be destroyed/wiped
out* (cf. Job 4:7 et al.); cf. use of hiph. in 23:23: ‘to wipe out,’ ‘to exterminate*
(cf. 1 Kgs. 13:34; 2 Chr. 32:21 et al.). See further THAT, II, 177; TWAT, IV,
137ff.
9:16 However , / have let you live to show you my power, so that my fam e might
become known throughout the earth. '
□J?-ik 0) (OT ca. 20x), noun with adverbial function, conjunctive: ‘in contrast,’
‘however* (KoSynt § 372a, 407h; Jouon § 172b; Williams § 553); cf. Gen. 28:19;
48:19; Num. 14:21 et al. i n r a , see 9:14. “IDU, see 3:15. Sam. Pent.: TnN in;
‘to show,’ see Introd. § 3.46.2; logical subject is y h w h ; LXX, Vulg.: ‘in you’
(instead of ‘you’); cf. Rom. 9:17; in that case, y h w h ’s purpose is not the manifes
tation of his power to Pharaoh, but only that of manifesting it to the nations. TPsJ:
‘not to do good to you, but to show you ...;* similarly TNf.
nb (OT ca. 125x), ‘vitality,’ ‘power,’ ‘(omni)potence,* is used both in refer
ence to humans and animals; in Exodus exclusively in connection with y h w h as
Lord of history (9:16; 15:6; 32:11; cf. e.g. Ps. 111:6; Neh. 1:10; 1 Chr. 29:12;
2 Chr. 20:6; 25:8), at the exodus out of Egypt; in 32:11 in the phrase ‘with great
power and with a mighty hand’ (hendiadys; cf. Introd. § 3.21.2); cf. Num. 14:13;
Deut. 4:37; 9:29; 2 Kgs. 17:36 and also Jer. 27:5; 32:17 (in connection with
creation). See further THAT , I, 823ff.; TWAT, IV, 130ff. i*D*, see 1:11.
"1S)0, inf. cstr. piel144 of "IDO (OT ca. 105x), in piel ‘to make known,’ ‘to tell’
(9:16; 10:2; 18:8; 24:3); cf. "ipp (OT ca. 185 x), piece of writing of varied size
and type, among others: ‘scroll,’ ‘document’ (17:14), ‘book (scroll)’ (24:7; 32:32,
33); -ippo (OT ca. 135x), ‘number’ (16:16; 23:26). See further THAT, II, 162ff.;
TWAT , V, 910ff., 945ff.; G. Rinaldi, Bib 40 (1959), 282f. ‘fame,’ see Introd.
§ 3.50. ‘throughout the earth,’ cf. end 9:14 (also 9:15 ends with ‘earth’): not only
142 In the annotations in SV, 9:15a is related to V (9:3, 6) and the sequel of the verse is understood
like this: also Pharaoh could have been struck by the pestilence; for the reason mentioned in 9:16 that
did not happen.
143 Lange; for the view that YHWH was ready to deal the Final blow, see e.g. TO, Calvin.
144 Assumed subject is ‘one,’ ‘they;’ see Ges-K § 115e n. 1; Jouon § 124s; cf. KoSynt § 215a.
88 EXODUS 9:13-35
Pharaoh, but all inhabitants of the earth must know that no one is equal to yhw h.
9:17 ‘You keep standing in the way o f my people by not letting it go. ’
mu, see 2:3. ^ in p p part. (Ges-K § 116a; Jouon § 121c) hithp. (with metathesis)
of bbo (OT 10 x ; see TWAT, V, 867ff.); going by the use of the root elsewhere
(see the lexica) the meaning can be either ‘exalt oneself (BDB), ‘sich hochfah-
rend, frech benehmen’ (HAL), or145 ‘behave haughtily against’ (SS, Zo.; cf. Ges-
B, KoW) = ‘to oppose.’ I opt for the latter interpretation: Pharaoh puts himself in
the way (like a roadblock). Ehrlich proposes to read b b y w (see 10:2). see
8:18. In LuthV, LV, UV, CV, 9:17 is read as a conditional sentence: ‘If you still
continue ...,’ with 9:18 as apodosis: ‘then ...’ (cf. 7:27; 9:2; 10:4, where DK [**3]
is used). In LXX, 9:17 is rendered as an interrogative sentence; see also SV and
cf. Strack. There is no reason for either; 9:17 connects with the preceding (9:7,
12); 9:18 contains an announcement without any condition.
9:18 ‘Therefore, tomorrow at the same time l will cause the heaviest hail to fa ll
that has ever fallen in Egypt from the time it was founded until now. ’
n n , see Introd. § 3.15. TfflPD part. hiph. of noo (OT 17x ) ,146 in hiph.: ‘cause
to rain;’ with various objects: ‘cause to come down’ (9:18, 23; 16:4). For the
various aspects of rain see TWAT , IV, 827ff.; Houtman*, Himmel, 182ff., 244ff.
In 9:33, 34 one can think of rain as a destructive power, as weapon of y h w h ,
aimed at those who resist him; e.g. Gen. 7:lOff.; Judg. 5:4f.; Isa. 28:2, 17;
30:30; Ezek. 13:13; 38:22 and see Houtman* , 140, 151, 216, 239f., 182ff., 281.
TPsJ says that the hail came from the heavenly storehouses.
r\V (OT ca. 295x), ‘(point in) time,’ ‘period,’ is preceded in 9:18 by D (for use
of article see e.g. KoSynt § 299a), which is no different in meaning from b or 2
before n r (cf. Brockelmann § 109b), used in the expression nnp n rp (OT 8 x ),
‘tomorrow at the same time’ (cf. 1 Sam. 9:16; 20:12 et al. and see KoSynt
§ 401o; for nn& see 8:6); in 18:22, 26 n r occurs in the expression nirb (OT
15x), ‘at all times,’ ‘always.’ See further THAT, II, 370ff.; TWAT, VI, 463ff. In
24 hours the plague will come (cf. beside it 8:19; 9:5). Thus there is opportunity
to bring slaves and animals to safety (9:19). According to a rabbinic interpretation,
Moses made an incision on the wall; at the moment the sun would reach that spot
the next day, the plague would start (ExR. XII, 2; MidrTanh. Exod. II, 20: Rashi).
When the plague struck at the moment foretold, Pharaoh cannot say that it was
coincidental, but will have to agree that it came from him who served notice.
"np (OT 29x ; Exod. 17x), ‘hail,’ is, in Exodus (9:18, 19, 22, 23 [2x], 24
145 Sometimes hithpoel is viewed as a denominative of n ^ b , ‘wall,’ ‘rampart;’ e.g. SS, Ges-B; in
ExR. XII, 1, a connection is made with n^QD, ‘road:’ he made them a road over which people traveled;
cf. TO (rve/aD): ‘you push down;’ see beside it TPsJ, TNf (3"i3"inD), ‘you tyrannize’; FTP (rpna);
SamTA and SamT; ‘you deal treacherously.’
146 Often regarded as denominative verb of ip p (OT ca. 4 0 X; Exod. 9:33, 34), ‘rain;’ e.g. BDB,
Zo., HAL.
[2x], 25 [2x], 26, 28, 29, 33, 34; 10:5, 12, 15), a weapon of destruction of
yhw h (cf. Josh. 10:11; Isa. 28:17; Ezek. 13:11, 13; 38:22; Hag. 2:17; Ps.
18:13); in Palestine, during spring thunderstorms, hailstones of 2 inches are not
unusual (thus the Israelite could realistically picture what VII was like); authentic
data from elsewhere speak of hailstones weighing ca. 2 kilos and hailstones as big
as goose eggs. See further Houtman*, Himmel, 272; Reymond*, 24f. 13D, see
4:10. 1ND, see 1:7. inM , cf. 9:24 and "JM in 9:14; there had never been hail like
that before; the incomparable God can produce incomparable hail; from the fact
that it is not said that such heavy hail will never fall again (cf. 10:14; 11:6), rabbis
have drawn the conclusion that it could happen again. They have in mind the time
of Gog and Magog (Ezek. 38:22) and also the time of Joshua (Josh. 10:11); see
ExR. XII, 2, 7; MidrTanh. Exod. II, 20, 22. Nachmanides emphasizes that
something like that had never happened before in Egypt (it had elsewhere).
Statements like that are not to be read as precise journalistic accounts, ‘time,’ see
Introd. §3.23.1; for Drn as nomen regens with article (Sam. Pent.: DVD4?
[followed by m o v i, inf. cstr. piel]), see KoSynt. § 303a; Ges-K § 127f; Brockel-
mann § 73c; Ehrlich proposes to take r n p in as perf. hoph. and as a relative
clause; adopting that reading or going with Sam. Pent, is unavoidable according to
Holzinger; Cassuto thinks that MT uses a rare form of niph. perf.; b in ID4?
denotes the terminus a quo in the account.
r n p jn inf. cstr. niph. + suff. (for suffix see Ges-K § 91e; BL § 2521; Joiion
§ 61i) of no** (OT ca. 4 0 x), ‘laying of foundations,’ ‘to establish,’ ‘to found,’ also
of a city (Josh. 6:26 [piel] et al.); here niph. (also in Isa. 44:28) is used in relation
to the beginning of a nation (cf. 9:24). Of the derivatives, n o ; (OT 19x),
‘foundation’ (Mic. 1:6 et al.), is used in 29:12; Lev. 4:7, 18, 25, 30, 34; 5:9;
8:15; 9:9 for ‘base’ of an altar. See further THAT , I, 736ff.; TWAT, III, 668ff. B.
Couroyer, RB 67 (1960), 42-8, regards ‘from the day ... until now’ as an Egyp-
tianism; see also Johannes (Introd. § 7.1), 78f. n n in m , see 3:9.
9:19 Therefore, order your livestock , in fact all you have in the fields, to be
brought to safety, fo r the hail will come down upon all the humans and the animals
that are in the open fields and are not brought home; they will die from it. ’
nnm, see 3:9. nbP, see Introd. § 3.49.1. Tirn, imper. hiph. of nu (OT 5 x ; hiph.
4 x ), ‘to bring into safety.’ See further THAT, II, 221ff.; TWAT , V, 1130. The
connection is asyndetic; it shows the haste, ‘livestock,’ see Introd. § 9.1.1; in view
of V and VI, the presence of cattle is sometimes regarded as problematic (see
introduction to exegesis V sub 3); the fact that courtiers are mentioned in 9:20, 21
leads Ehrlich to conjecture that the rich, unlike the poor, had been able to buy new
animals, ‘the fields,’ see 1:14. ‘the humans and the animals,’ see Introd. § 9.1.2
and 4:11. N2SQ, see 5:11; the sing, subject means ‘whoever.’ ÔK, see 3:16; niph.
can also be rendered as ‘to withdraw’ (cf. Ps. 104:22). ‘home,’ see Introd.
§ 3.9.1. " n \ see 2:5. Dm1?!;, refers to the humans and the animals, and is placed
early in the sentence (as object) for the sake of emphasis (cf. e.g. Ges-K § 143d).
90 exodus 9:13-35
‘to die,’ see Introd. § 3.22.

The fact that the announcement of the plague is accompanied by advice on how
to get out of harm’s way may seem strange. Why did Moses give this helpful tip?
Several answers are offered: even in his wrath y h w h is gracious toward evil men
and their animals (ExR. XII, 2, 5; MidrTanh. Exod. II, 20); against the back
ground of the conduct of Pharaoh and a group of his courtiers, 9:19-21, as a
redactional addition, aims to express how much Pharaoh had hardened his
heart;147 the deep impression the plague made on Pharaoh is likely due to the
fact that Moses’ helpful counsel had had some effect on Pharaoh (Ehrlich). As I
see it, what can be said is that y h w h ’s superiority is so great that giving a helpful
tip in no way diminishes his position; besides, the advice constitutes a challenge to
Pharaoh; will he heed a word from y h w h ’s envoy and so acknowledge y h w h ’s
authority?
9:20 Everyone o f Pharaoh's courtiers who respected the word o f y h w h hurriedly
brought his slaves and his livestock in safety in the houses.

9:21 But everyone who paid no attention to the word o f y h w h left his slaves and
his livestock in the open fields.
The text is silent about Pharaoh’s reaction. The foregoing has made it obvious that
he felt he was in no position to follow Moses’ advice. It would have been a tacit
recognition that he dreaded y h w h . The conduct of some of his courtiers (9:20)
undermines his position.
KT, see 1:17; the ‘he who feared’ (cf. KoSynt § 408b) was Job according to
TPsJ (cf. FTP and see ExR. XII, 2), while Bileam was the one who ignored
y h w h ’s word (9:21); according to rabbinic exegesis both were advisors to Pharaoh
(see Ginzberg*, II, 250f., 254ff., 296 et al.). "ia"i, see Introd. § 3.12.2; note that
"na, ‘hail,’ is formed from the same consonants. 013, see 4:3; in LXX, Pesh.
translated the same as in 9:19. ‘slaves,’ see Introd. § 3.37.2; in LXX not men
tioned in 9:20, 21 (cf. Sanderson*, 103); evidently the people referred to in 9:19
were in particular the slaves, ‘houses,’ see Introd. §3.9.1. "ION, see Introd.
§ 3.7.1. ‘pay attention to,’ see Introd. § 3.29.1. Sam. Pent.: bv. ary, see 2:20;
TWAT , V, 1200ff.; in 9:21 the apodosis, unlike in 9:20 (D'jn), is introduced by a
waw (cf. KoSynt § 366q, 390e; Ges-K lllh ; Joiion § 176o; Brockelmann § 157).
9:22 Then y h w h said to Moses: ‘Stretch out your hand toward heaven and then
hail will come down in all the land o f Egypt, on the humans, on the animals, on
all the grass and on the crops in the fields in the land o f Egypt. '
9:23 As Moses stretched out his staff toward heaven, y h w h sent thunder and hail,
and fire came down on the earth, y h w h rained hail on the land o f Egypt.
9:24 With fire flashing through the hail, the hail was so severe as had never
147 See e.g. Baentsch; cf. Beer, who also points out that in view of ll:4ff. the presence of animals is
necessary; it is a case of redactional ‘Ausgleich’ (adjustment).
happened in the land o f Egypt since it had become a nation.

The episode evidently happened 24 hours after the announcement of the plague (cf.
9:18) and outside the city (9:29). ‘stretch out the hand,’ see Introd. § 3.21.9.
D’Otfrrti;, meant is that Moses must summon heaven by stretching out his hand
holding the staff toward it (see Houtman*, Himmel, 273f.). Likely it is tacitly
assumed that Moses is to do this outside the city (cf. 9:29, 33). 'm i (cf. 3.13.1).,
juss.; sometimes it is translated: ‘in order that ...’ (e.g. LV, CV, NV); but note
7:9. ‘grass ...,’ see Introd. § 10.1.3. LXX does not have ‘in the fields’ and
‘Egypt’ at the end of 9:22; cf. 9:25.
‘his (hand with the) staff’ (LXX: ‘the hand;’ cf. 9:22), see Introd. § 3.21.9, 10,
11. inJ, see Introd. §3.36; for perf. see Joiion § 118e. ‘thunder,’ see Introd.
§ 3.51.2. "[brim (Introd. § 3.14.1), for the form see Ges-K § 69x; Joiion § 75g;
GreBmann*, 67, reads "J^rtnn. &K, see 3:2. LXX: ‘in all the land of Egypt;’ cf.
9:22. The description in 9:23 does not specifically state that the lightning caused
destruction and struck man and beast. The complementary nature of the account
(see introduction to exegesis sub 2) leaves no doubt that such was the case.
Sam.Pent.: n a n ; cf. LXX: ‘the hail and the fire.’ nnp^nD (Introd. § 3.30) is
also used in Ezek. 1:4 as part, with 0N; the meaning is not entirely certain (see the
lexica); going by the meaning ‘seizing oneself,’ the following interpretations have
been proposed: the lightning is continuous; the lightning is zig-zagging back and
forth; the fiery lightning bolts bunch up, creating fire balls; Ehrlich interprets the
term as ‘feeding itself;’ GreBmann*, 67, proposes to read rD^nnD (cf. 9:23); E.
Nestle, ZAW 25 (1905), 364f., thinks that in Exod. 9:24; Ezek. 1:4 ncDn^no,
‘flaming up,’ is to be read, and that this reading also underlies the rendering in
LXX (c()Aoyi( ov), Symm. (eveiAoupevov), TO (NDn^ntfD [TPsJ; NSDpnD,
‘heaving;’ cf. TNf]), Pesh. (mtgwzl), but note Aq.: ouvavaAapPavopevov = MT;
however, it is entirely possible that the rendering in LXX, etc., rests on interpre
tation (see further G.R. Driver, VT 1 [1950], 60); finally, L. Kopf, VT 8 (1958),
182, suggests that Arabic can help in understanding the term: ‘fertilized’ =
‘flaring up,’ and he points to the possibility of reading nn^pnD, ‘flaring up.’ In
any case, meant is no doubt that the sky was continuously lit up by huge streaks of
lightning, "pro, see 2:5. Sam. Pent., LXX: ‘in Egypt.’ TND, see 4:10. ‘nation,’
see Introd. § 3.40.1; TPsJ, TNf: ‘a nation and a kingdom;’ LXX: ‘from the day
that there was a people there.’ Sometimes mn + b is understood as ‘becoming the
possession of:’ ‘since it was inhabited by a people;’ see Dillmann, Strack,
Baentsch. In a variety of ways the writer indicates the unequalled nature of the
plague (cf. 9:18).
9:25 Throughout all the land o f Egypt the hail struck down everything in the open
fields, both humans and animals. The hail also beat down all the grass and the
crops in the fields, and it shattered all the trees in the fields.
9:26 Only in the land o f Goshen, where the Israelites lived, there was no hail.
H33, see 2:11. LXX does not have ‘all that was in the fields.’ p r, see Introd.
§ 10 . 1.2 .
92 exodus 9:13-35
"12# perf. piel of ")2# (OT ca. 150 x ; qal ca. 50 X; niph. 55 X; piel 35 x), ‘to
break (into pieces);’ qal in 12:46; Num. 9:12 for the breaking of a bone (cf. Ps.
34:21 niph.); niph. in 22:9, 13 for the severe injuring (breaking of limbs) of a
domestic animal, for example by being tom to pieces by a wild animal (e.g. Ezek.
34:4, 16; Zech. 11:16 [cattle] and Isa. 8:15; 28:13; Prov. 6:15; 29:1 (humans)
and see 1 Kgs. 13:26, 28 [qal]; piel in 9:25 for the snapping of trees, branches,
etc. (cf. Ps. 29:5; 105:33 and see Isa. 42:3 [qal]; Isa. 27:11; Ezek. 29:7; 31:12;
Job 24:20 [niph.]), in 23:24; 34:13; Deut. 7:15; 12:3 et al. for ‘smashing’ (of
massebahs), in 32:19; Deut. 9:17 (+ "|b#; see 1:22) for ‘breaking to pieces’
(hendiadys); cf. 34:1; Deut. 10:2.
Alongside 9:25 see 9:31, 32 and 10:5, 15. It would be wrong to tone down the
statement by saying that ‘all’ (cf. Introd. § 3.26) is not meant to be literal. The
description is intended to convey the notion that the plague was unequalled in
severity, p"i, see 8:5. ‘Goshen,’ see Introd. § 8.6. Dzrnew, see e.g. Brockelmann
§ 152b.
9:27 Then Pharaoh summoned Moses and Aaron and assured them: ‘This time /
have done wrong, y h w h is in the right. I and my people are guilty.
9:28 Pray to y h w h , fo r the unbelievably heavy thunder and hail have become
unbearable. Then 1 will let you go and you no longer need to stay. '
n4?#, cf. 9:19; is the explicit use of this verb an indication that Pharaoh sent his
servants, safely remaining inside himself? ‘summon,’ see Introd. § 3.45.1. Since
Aaron’s name suddenly crops up, it has been suggested that it is an addition (cf.
8:21). ‘to do wrong’ (could be translated as a present; cf. Williams § 163), see
Introd. § 3.20. V* Pharaoh confesses he has done wrong (Nachmanides, Holzinger,
and see CV, WV, GNB) and openly asks for forgiveness (cf. Num. 22:34; 1 Sam.
15:24f., 30; 26:21; 2 Sam. 12:13 and see Ehrlich). Up till now (cf. 8:4, 21) he
had not yet reached this point. The sequel shows that the admission of guilt was
only appearance. Differently Baentsch; he translates: ‘Diesmal bin ich im Unrecht
gewesen,’ noting that ‘Pharaoh fasst die ganze Angelegenheit als eine Art Rechts-
streit auf, der nach dem Grundsatz entschieden wird: Der Starkere hat recht’ (cf.
McNeile). DUDn, see 8:28 (cf. 9:14); evidently there is a direct relationship
between the pressure he is subjected to and Pharaoh’s readiness to admit his
wrongdoing; ‘this time’ (now that the squeeze on him is so great; see 9:14) shows
his mind; he limits his confession to his most recent refusal, leaving out previous
occurrences.
p n s n , for the use of the article see Ges-K § 126k; Joiion § 1371; Brockelmann
§ 25; Williams § 33. p n s (OT ca. 205 x), derivative of the much discussed root
p-13, is used juridically in 9:27; 23:7, 8 and designates the one who is in the right
(in contrast to IJjn, the one who is in the wrong, guilty); cf. e.g. Gen. 20:4;
Deut. 25:1, and see the use of pns hiph. (verb OT ca. 40x) in 23:7: ‘declare to
be in the right,’ ‘treat as innocent.*148 Here y h w h is declared to be the one who

opposite to Pharaoh has the right on his side; y h w h ’s demand to let the people go
is justified; likewise the pressure y h w h placed upon Pharaoh through the plagues;
Pharaoh and his people are the cause of the disruption of the relationships, of the
coming of the plagues, yen, see 2:13; TPsJ: ‘guilty of each of the plagues;’
Pharaoh also involves his people in the confession of guilt (the guilt is collective),
though there is no earlier mention of an obstinate attitude on the part of the
people; but note also 9:30, 34; the transition ‘people’ and ‘courtiers’ is fluid.
in y (LXX: + ‘for me;’ cf, 8:24), see 8:4; implied is: ‘if he is willing to stop
the plague;’ the request is based on the confession of sin in 9:27. an, see 1:9.
DTIQ am, see KoSynt § 360d, e, 406i; Ges-K § 119x, 133c; usually, it seems, an
is understood to be adjectival; Baentsch deems it possible to regard am as a
perfect with consecutive waw (cf. Ges-K § 112r). LXX: 7tauoao0G), ‘let him
( y h w h ) stop;’ Vulg.: et desinant, ‘and let them stop;’ TO: ‘that there be sufficient
relief with him in order that thunder claps of cursing like these will no longer
come down on us ...;’ TPsJ: ‘that it may be enough before him;’ TNf: ‘that he
prevent that ....’ □,,n<?K,149 see Introd. § 7.2.3;150 by using to charact
erize the terrible weather Pharaoh acknowledges that it is unparalleled (cf. 9:18,
24) and that the one who causes it must possess unusual powers. LXX (not A first
draft) and a fragment from 2Q (DJD, III, 50) list after hail also the fire (cf. 9:23).
Sam. Pent. (cf. also app. BHS): nbtfNi; for cohortative see Brockelmann § 135c;
cf. § 97c. *10% see 1:10. n&y, see 3:5; TO, TPsJ: ‘be held back.’
With his back against the wall, evidently Pharaoh no longer feels the need to
find an excuse for showing a willingness to negotiate. If his request is granted, he
will no longer come with conditions (cf. 8:21). He gives the impression to allow
even more than was asked of him. He does not talk about ‘worship’ (cf. 8:4;
9:13). In a dual statement (parallelism), one stating it positively (‘let go’), the
other negatively (‘not stay’), he states in 9:28 to have dropped all resistance. The
people are free.
9:29 Moses replied to him: ‘As soon as I have left the city, I will stretch out my
hands to y h w h ; the thunder will stop and there will be no more hail. Thus you will
realize that the earth belongs to y h w h .
9:30 Although, as fo r you and your courtiers, it is my impression that you still
have not learned to fear y h w h , who is truly G od.9
As God’s representative Moses can make the promise. ‘Let go’ (cf. Ges-K
§ 164g), see Introd. § 3.24.1. Evidently it is assumed that Moses, being God’s
envoy, need not fear the hail. In fact, he can go into the open field (cf. 9:33). For
14K See further THAT, II, 507ff.; TWAT, VI, 898ff.; A. Ho, Sedeq and Sedaqah in the Hebrew
Bible, New York et al. 1991.
149 TO: V ^ p , ‘thunder claps of cursing;’ TPsJ: ‘thunder claps of cursing from before y h w h . ’
130 Cf. J. Weingreen, VT4 (1954), 58: ‘unearthly, or unnatural, thunderings and hail.’
94 EXODUS 9:13-35
that matter, the question may not even have entered the writer’s mind. Also
Pharaoh sent people out into the terrible weather, and apparently also they
remained unharmed (9:27). t u ,151 see 1:11; is the reference to Rameses (Introd.
§ 8.31)? According to rabbinic exegesis, Moses prayed outside the city because it
was full of idols (Mek . I, 4; ExR. XII, 5; Ibn Ezra; Rashi); Nachmanides infers
from the specific mention of Moses’ departure from the city that on other oc
casions Moses prayed at home; Noth thinks that Moses went to the place where
the Israelites lived. The likely implied notion is that contact with y h w h requires
solitude, though the nature of the plague must have had something to do with it too
(cf. Nachmanides). Note, too, that only here lifting up of the hands is mentioned
(Introd. § 3.21.6). Right at the spot where the terrible weather is the worst, Moses
will stretch out his hands toward heaven from where the terrible weather comes,
‘to y h w h , ’ the Lord of the world who is enthroned in heaven (9:29b), who caused
the heavy weather (9:23) (see Houtman*, Himmel, 353). Sam. Pent.: mbpm; cf.
LXX, Vulg.; but note Brockelmann § 133c, and for the prominent placing of the
subject e.g. Ges-K § 142f. LXX lists (cf. 9:33) after the hail also the rain.
lib n n ; imperf. qal of ^"in (OT ca. 55x ; Exod. 5 x ), ‘to cease’ (ID + in
finitive; 23:5; 1 Kgs. 15:21), ‘leave alone’ (]D of the person; 14:12; Job 7:16),
‘stop’ (9:29, 33, 34; Isa. 24:8). n r ... K*?, see 2:3. By means of a dual statement
(parallelism) the end of the plague is announced. Upon the prayer, the plague will
end immediately (cf. 8:8f.; compare with 8:25 and also 8:6); cf. 1 Kgs. 17:1.
lUDb (see 1:11) etc.; cf. 8:6, 18 and see 9:14b; y h w h ’s incomparability implies
that he is Lord over the earth and that there his will is law; cf. Gen 18:25; Ps.
24:1. ‘earth’ (Introd. §3.6), possibly ‘land’ (Egypt); cf. 8:18. It has been
suggested to regard ‘both you and your courtiers’ of 9:30a as the end of 9:29 (see
KoSynt § 376a); it is better to see it as an instance of casus pendens (cf. e^g. Ges-
K § 143).
‘have the impression,’ see Introd. § 3.22. D"iD, see 1:19. NT, see 1:17; TO: ‘be
humble’ (cf. TNf margin: ‘that before the plagues reach you, you will not humble
yourself ...’); TPsJ: ‘that before you let the people go, you will be filled with fear
before y h w h God.’ m n \ 152 see Introd. §7.2.2; 7.3.7; perhaps DYibK
picks up on the use in 9:29 - Pharaoh’s admission - and that so Moses sends a
clear signal that y h w h is the omnipotent author of the terrible weather, who is
owed obedience.153
9:31 The fla x and the barley were ruined. For the barley was half ripe in the ear
and the fla x was in bud.
151 For accusative see e.g. KoSynt §21 Id; Joiion § 125n; in rabbinic exegesis, the unusual
accusative has led to the notion that Moses prayed right by the city; see TPsJ; ExR. XII, 7.
152 Sam. Pent.: mrp ’31K; inter alia LXXB: ‘God;’ LXXA: ‘the Lord;’ TNf: ‘YHWH, our God’ (cf.
also app. BHS).
153 For DMbK m?r see J. l’Hour, RB 81 (1974), 524-56.
9:32 But the wheat and the emmer were not mined, fo r they come up later.
9:31, 32 further elucidates what the hail did to the crops (cf. 9:25). Some suggest
that 9:31, 32 originally may have come after 9:25 (cf. Holzinger, Hyatt). Usually
the verses, since they interrupt the flow of the account, are viewed as a later
addition, intended to make clear that there was plenty left for the later locusts (cf.
10:5, 15). The way I see it, it could be that there is also a link between 9:29 and
9:30, 31. The possibility that there could still be a harvest of wheat and spelt is
cause for Pharaoh and his people not to regard the capitulation as final and not to
see the blow as fatal. 9:30, 31 serve to explain the attitude of Pharaoh cum suis.
Pharaoh, who only a short while ago seemed beside himself with fear (9:28), soon
seems to have recovered a bit and discovered an argument for continuing his
resistance (cf. also 9:34). The next plague demolishes that reason.
‘flax,’ etc., see Introd. § 10.3.9, 5, 6; for the predicate of nominal clauses see
Ges-K § 141d; Brockelmann § 14b. roa, see 2:11; cf. 9:25; Sam.Pent.: 1DJ; cf.
9:32. FTP notes about the flax: ‘and had dropped its blossoms.’ Note the chiastic
structure of the verse.
As is evident from 9:31, the writer was quite specific in his mind as to the time
of the plague. Obviously he, and in any case his readers, were thinking of the
Palestinian agricultural calendar, which makes it pointless to inquire about the time
when spelt and flax ripen in Egypt (see e.g. Dillmann). In Palestine the harvest
happened about April, from which it can be concluded that according to the writer
the hailstorm happened in March. Ehrlich suggests that the remark is made in view
of the fixing of the time of the exodus. The time for that would have been April.
‘wheat,’ etc., see Introd. § 10.3.2, 4. pi., is a hapax legomenon of
uncertain derivation; sometimes, like (see 10:22), derived from bSN; see
e.g. KoW: ‘?gegen den Jahresabend reifend;’ Zo.: in obscuro situs, ad hue
sub homo latens: germina frugum serotinarum (cf. SV: ‘bedekt;’ annot. ‘duister
(obscure)’ = still without ears and blades); affinity with the Akkadian uppulu is
more likely; see Cohen (see 9:9), 128 (+ Bibl.). In agreement with LXX: oi|/ipoc;,
Vulg.: serotinus (cf. also Pesh.), the term is usually translated as ‘late;’ but note
Van der Palm: ‘because they had not grown much yet’ (annot.: ‘because they were
still without sap’). Meant is no doubt that the young plants were still so small and
flexible that they could not be snapped and so could survive the hail.154
9:33 Moses left Pharaoh, leaving the city. He stretched out his hands to y h w h ,
and the thunder and the hail stopped and the rain no longer poured down on the
earth.
9:34 When Pharaoh saw that the rain, the hail and the thunder had stopped, he
continued to do wrong. He and his courtiers remained stubborn.
9:35 Pharaoh remained obstinate. So he did not let the Israelites go, as y h w h had
154 E. Auerbach, VT2 (1952), 335, believes that not only a ’SK, but also and n^BN were used
as names for months; but note Y. Kaufmann, VT4 (1954), 311.
96 EXODUS 9:13-35
announced through Moses.

‘Moses left ...;’ cf. 8:26 and in particular 9:29; LXX: ‘the hands.’ "ltDD (Sam.
Pent.: "itDon; cf. LXX), mentioned here for the first time in the account and
therefore now (cf. 9:34) without article, see 9:18; TO, TPsJ: the rain, which was
on the way toward the earth, did not reach it.155 TTJ perf. niph. of "jnj (OT ca.
20x , ‘to be poured out,’ here and in 2 Sam. 21:10 said of water (see TWAT , V,
689ff.). n2n«, cf. 9:23; in the description rain has taken the place of fire.
‘saw,’ see Introd. § 3.46.1. ‘rain,’ etc.; the order is chiastic in respect to 9:33;
Sam.Pent. mentions first hail, then rain. *]©% see 1:10. ‘to do wrong,’ cf. 9:27.
‘stubborn,’ (for sing, see 3:18), see Introd. § 3.29.1; cf. e.g. 8:28; this time also
the courtiers are mentioned as supporters. LXX: ‘he hardened his heart and that of
his courtiers.’
‘obstinate,’ see Introd. § 3.19; 3.29.1. ‘the Israelites,’ cf. 10:20 and also 10:27;
see beside it 8:28; 9:7: ‘the people.’ ‘through (not ‘to,’ as in 9:12, and see also
LXX; TNf [M]) Moses,’ see Introd. § 3.21.3; some hold that it refers back to
9:30 (e.g. Murphy, Ehrlich, Gispen); in that case ‘to Pharaoh’ is tacitly to be
added. Baentsch believes that the here meaningless phrase is used by mistake.
VIII LOCUSTS (10:1-20)


VIII visits death and destruction upon Egypt’s vegetation. When Moses, with a
conjuring wave of his hand, stretches out his staff over the land of Egypt
(10:12f.), y h w h , using an east wind, brings locusts (7 x ; see Introd. §9.2.8)
which cover (10:5, 15) the (whole) land (Egypt) (12x; cf. also ‘territory;’ 3 x ),
even penetrating into the houses (10:6) and devouring (^DX; 4 x ) whatever little
vegetation was left. The coming of the locusts causes devastation (10:5, 12, 15)
and so renders the land unfit for human living. The description of the plague,
which like VII is more detailed than the previous plagues, stresses the unequalled
nature of the plague (10:6, 14). Also VIII is intended to demonstrate that y h w h
possesses power to bring about death and destruction.156 For that he can make
use of animals (cf. Introd. § 9.5.2). His power is highlighted still more by the fact
that he brings on these gluttonous creatures at exactly the time he had announced
he would (10:4, 13) and also is able to remove them at the prayer of Moses
(10:19). He manifests himself as the Lord of the winds (10:13, 19; cf. Matt. 8:27,
and see Houtman*, Himmel, 281 et al.) and more in general as Lord over the
155 The fall of hail etc. was suspended till the battle at Gibeon (Josh. 10:11) and the days of Gog and
Magog (cf. ExR. XII, 7).
136 Locusts are mentioned in maledictory formulas; see F.C. Fensham, ZAW 75 (1963), 168; cf.
Deut. 28:38.
LOCUSTS 97
earth. In the story of the plague only Israel’s recognition of y h w h ’s omnipotence

is cited as the purpose of the plagues (10:2); yet it needs no saying that this plague
is also intended to induce Pharaoh to acknowledge that y h w h , the Lord of life and
death, has the land in his grip and that it is meant to persuade him to obey y h w h
and to let the people go to worship him (10:3f., 7-11; 4 x ; 12V 4 x ).

The account of VIII is generally regarded as a literary composite157. The ac
count, though, reads pretty much like a unified story. Difficult points will be dealt
with in the exegesis.
The reader only learns of the course of the events to come when the writer
transports him, along with Moses and Aaron, to Pharaoh’s court, where he hears
how they, on behalf of y h w h , point out to Pharaoh what will happen in case he
again refuses to let the people of Israel go (10:3-6). This is the first time the
writer employs this method to apprise the reader of a new act in the drama. In his
account of y h w h ’s monologue to Moses at the beginning of the story (10:1, 2),
the writer only mentions y h w h ’s command to go to Pharaoh. Except for that, he
only talks about the meaning of the plagues.158
The writer depicts the flow of events in a series of rapidly changing scenes:
Moses and Aaron visit Pharaoh (10:3-6); Pharaoh and the courtiers (10:7); Moses
and Aaron again at Pharaoh’s court; the dialogue ensues (10:8-11); y h w h instructs
Moses (10:12); Moses summons the plague (10:13-15); Moses and Aaron see
Pharaoh a third time (10:16-17); Moses prays to y h w h ; the plague is removed
(10:18-19). In conclusion, the writer informs the readers about Pharaoh’s final
reaction (10:20).
The description of the plague shows that it is meant for Pharaoh. The ‘you’
(10:4, 6) that is used indicates that Pharaoh himself is struck in the fate that befell
his land, his property, and the property of his subjects (see introduction to exegesis
of 7:14-11:10 [sub b]). That Pharaoh is the victim is also shown in the haste with
which he seeks contact with Moses and Aaron when the plague has come (10:16).
By offering a concrete picture of the plague, both in the announcement and in its
coming, the writer underscores its miraculous nature and its severity. The details
of announcement, coming and consequences of the plague (10:4-6, 12-15) com
plement each other. In the announcement it is said that the locusts will also fill the
houses (10:6). In the portrayal of their coming this detail is omitted; there for the
first time ‘the green’ is mentioned (10:15). In the first announcement the grass is
157 It is usually assumed that a J-version is combined with E-fragments (10:12, 13a, 14*, 15*, 20)
(Noth: P-elements); besides, it is thought that there are some redactional additions, including 10:lb-2
(Deuteronomic addition) and the interpolation of the name of Aaron; see e.g. Baentsch, Rylaarsdam, Te
Stroete, Hyatt; differently Fuss*, 226ff.; see further also Eerdmans*, 26ff.; supposedly the end of the
J-version is incorporated in the description of IX (see at 10:18).
158 Sam. Pent., picking up on 10:2, contains an instruction, based on 10:3-6, about what Moses is to
say to Pharaoh; see also Qm (cf. Sanderson*, 196ff.), SamT and Field hoc loco.
98 EXODUS 1 0 :1 -2 0
not mentioned; it is in the second (10:12) - not in words to Pharaoh, but to

Moses, and so to the reader; therefore, for Pharaoh the coming of the plague is all
the more an unpleasant surprise. Moreover, only in the actual story of the coming
of the plague the reader learns that the locusts are brought by the very uncomfor
table east wind (10:13). So there is progression in the narrative. 10:15 offers the
most detailed description of the vegetation that is destroyed. All in all, the
catastrophe turns out to be worse than announced (note, too, the progression in the
use of $2: 10:5 l x ; 10:6 l x ; 10:12 2 x ; 10:13 2 x ; 10:14 2 x ; 10:15 5 x ).
There is variation as well. The fact that one could no longer see the land on
account of the myriads of locust is described differently in 10:5 and 15. In 10:15
the fruit on the trees is mentioned. In 10:5 the growing of the fruit on the trees.
The extraordinary nature of the plague is expressed differently in 10:6 and 14. So
a highly diverse picture is presented of the scope and intensity of the indescribable
catastrophe that struck Egypt, and which could only be interpreted as a judgment
(cf. Joel 1-2).
Taking note of the words with which y h w h follows up his instruction to Moses
(10:1, 2), the reader is again encouraged. In the words addressed to Moses, he
feels himself addressed. Now that the controversy between y h w h and Pharaoh
keeps dragging on, the question what it is all about becomes all the more pressing.
Why does it take so long before the outcome is evident? So the message to Moses
is in particular a message to the reader. He is apprised of the message conveyed
by the chain of plagues. These plagues are not just meant to impress Pharaoh and
all inhabitants of the earth with y h w h ’s powerful deeds (9:14-16), they are also
meant to teach Israel that all power on earth only belongs to him. It is y h w h ’s
will that the controversy continues and that Pharaoh and his officials do not drop
their resistance, in order that the following generations in Israel may be told about
the great deeds he did for Israel; they, too, must know and believe that all power
and dominion belongs to y h w h and acknowledge him as Lord. Helplessness is not
the reason why so far the definitive blow has failed to materialize, y h w h himself
wants the defiance by Pharaoh and his men, and its only object is to reveal his
superiority.
His confidence restored, the reader watches the unfolding events. The writer
places him, along with Moses and Aaron, before Pharaoh (10:3-6). In the message
which they give, on behalf of y h w h , to Pharaoh, readers hear their own complaint
and despair: Pharaoh, why don’t you abandon your resistance, why don’t you
acknowledge y h w h ’s authority, and why don’t you allow the people to go and
follow y h w h , their God? Learning of the cataclysmic disaster that awaits Pharaoh
bolsters the reader’s hope. Pharaoh will not let his country become a total wilder
ness, will he? A land in which only death rules? The reader again admires Moses,
seeing how self-assured he is in what he does (10:6) and how he intimates that the
cat and mouse game cannot forever continue. As soon as Moses has delivered
God’s message, he breaks off contact. His leaving is ominous. He seems to go
away to summon the plague. When he is not quickly called back, the catastrophe is
already on its way.
LOCUSTS 99
A following scene shows that Moses’ confident conduct is effective (10:7). By

then, Moses has already left. But the writer does not close the door to the reader,
but leaves him behind at the court, where he makes him witness the reaction of
Pharaoh’s courtiers to Moses’ message. As soon as Moses is gone, Pharaoh’s
officials, who only moments ago were reported to be as stubborn as ever (9:34;
10:1), dare - for the first time in the story - to stand up to Pharaoh. With the
previous plagues they had made a bit of an attempt, not to avert the plague, but to
save their own skin from it (9:20f.). This time, only hearing of the plague, en bloc
they desert Pharaoh. As with Moses’ words to Pharaoh (10:3), their words register
complaint and despair. But they do not ask Pharaoh when he will come to his
senses and acknowledge y h w h . They look for the cause of the misery not with
Pharaoh and themselves, but with Moses, and in desperation they point out to
Pharaoh what will be the consequences of his pig-headed policy: the total ruin of
Egypt. Listening to the pathetic appeal of the courtiers to Pharaoh to use his head
and not to sacrifice Egypt by taking up the gauntlet thrown him by ordinary
yokels, the reader’s hope revives. Will this kind of pressure induce Pharaoh to
back off? The next scene shows that such might just happen. For the first time
Pharaoh reacts to the announcement of a plague!
The reader remains at the court and in the vicinity of Pharaoh (10:8-11). He
sees how Moses and Aaron are led back and appear before Pharaoh. Pharaoh
seems to be a changed man. What so far the plagues were unable to do, the words
of his officials seem to have accomplished. Pharaoh is prepared to give in.
Agreeable, he gives permission to worship y h w h . A s an aside, he accompanies his
permission with a question for information. Venenum in cauda est! He likes to
know who precisely will go. The casually put question shows on the one hand that
he is still convinced that the people belong to him and that he is entitled to know
who will go and take advantage of the granted permission; on the other hand it
shows that he wants to give the impression that as far as he knows - divine
worship is a matter for grown men - only some male Israelites will leave the
land. He exhibits greater leniency than before (8:21), but at the same time tacitly
gives the message that there can be no departure of Israel as a whole. Forced by
the situation, Pharaoh appears only willing to continue the talks (see Vol. I, p.
375ff.). Moses, however, now deems the moment come to level with Pharaoh -
as far as it is still necessary - and tell him what he is really up to. He is fully
sure of his cause. Openly, holding nothing back, he informs Pharaoh that the
intention is that all the people go. After all, all must worship y h w h because all
belong to him. So again Pharaoh is given the message that the controversy is really
about the question to whom Israel owes allegiance. When it dawns on him that he
is going to lose his hold on the people, he turns furious. Uttering curses and in
sarcasm-iaced language, his rejoinder to Moses and Aaron is that nothing of the
kind is going to happen, and that now he sees right through them. He who thus far
had always proved unreliable and on whom death and ruin had a stranglehold,
turns haughty and warns them about the terrible things they are bringing upon
themselves by their ruse, by trying to make everyone leave the country for good
100 ex od us 1 0 :1 -2 0
under the guise of worship of YHWH by the men. That Pharaoh cannot allow to
happen. If he allowed that, he would have denied his true role as y h w h ’s adver
sary. Whatever will happen, the people as a whole may not leave the country
(1:10). He does not want the promise of the land to become reality. Now that
Moses and Aaron have shown their hand, all that is left him is to drive them
away. For both parties it is all or nothing. Dismayed, the reader watches the
humiliating departure of Moses and Aaron. They are thrown out as if they are
frauds. Again the hope of an early exodus has been dashed.
Through his negative reaction, Pharaoh brings the calamity upon Egypt (10:12-
15). What was announced, happens. In fact, it is worse. Not Pharaoh but the
reader is allowed to witness the miracle: with his staff Moses puts an evil spell
upon Egypt, so that a most uncomfortable east wind arises. Initially all it does is
make life unpleasant. But at the dawn of the next day Egypt was greeted by a most
unpleasant surprise. When the dark of night had lifted, the land was black with
locusts. Darkness does not give way to light, but to darkness. Chaos retained its
hold on the land and had turned it into a wasteland. The reader is shown an
apocalyptic scene. Clouds of locusts have occupied the land, not even halting
before the houses (10:6). Nothing can stand before their voracity. After the
terrible hailstorm Egypt was a scene of desolation, what with all the flattened
crops and shattered trees. Now the devastation is complete. The land is totally
bare. Everything edible is devoured. The land is uninhabitable. To drive his point
home, the writer presents an out of all proportions scene. Not a spot in Egypt is
not covered by locusts (10:5, 15).159
Seeing the misery that has come upon Egypt, the reader finds it hard to suppress
a sense of malicious pleasure. Pharaoh should have been smarter and complied
with y h w h ’s just demand. The reader is, however, especially awed by the
wonder-working power of y h w h , all the more because the plague came at the
announced time (10:4, 13) and at the command of Moses, the man of God
(10:12f.). So there is no question whatever that the plague is the work of y h w h
and that he is sovereignly in charge of events. How will the plague go down with
Pharaoh?
In the next scene the reader is informed of the impact of the plague upon
Pharaoh (10:16-17). The writer again admits him to the court. Spotting Pharaoh,
the reader almost bursts out laughing. Just look at the haste with which Pharaoh
tries to take up contact again with Moses and Aaron, whom he had so rudely
dismissed. He seems to go all out to put an speedy end to the plague so as to save
at least something from the voracious locusts. He should have thought of that
earlier. Then he could have retained his dignity. Pharaoh is totally confused. He
159 Philo (VM, I, 120ff.) relates that the coming of the dry southern wind (cf. LXX) already by itself
was an ordeal; it caused headaches, produced hardness of hearing, etc.; according to his version, the
courtiers talk to Pharaoh after the coming of the plague; Josephus (AJ, II, 306) is very brief on the
plague; every hope of a crop was dashed.
LOCUSTS 101
admits his guilt to y h w h and Moses and Aaron, even asking for forgiveness (cf.
9:27f.). He does not know where to turn and expects help only from his great
adversary, y h w h . Again (cf. 8:4, 24; 9:28) his plea is his tacit admission that
y h w h is the one who brought the plague and that Moses is his emissary. There is
no way he can ignore y h w h (cf. 5:2). Too upset even to say in so many words
that the people may leave - his mind is too preoccupied with other things - he
gives the impression that this time he is serious about wanting to quit the fight.
Emphatically he states that this is the last time he will ask for intervention to end
the plague. Has he really experienced a change of heart?
Moses’ demeanour remains exemplary. In a following scene (10:18-19) the
writer has the reader leave the court along with Moses. Moses leaves Pharaoh in
the dark about the purpose of this departure. The reader follows Moses, and can
see that Moses, unlike Pharaoh, is a person of stature. Though rudely treated, he
is nevertheless gracious in respect to Pharaoh. He prays to y h w h . The plague
ends. A pleasant wind arises, a west wind so powerful that the locusts that had
been borne on the east wind for quite some time, are now in a moment carried off
to Yam Suph. y h w h completely rids Egypt of the terrible creatures. He can do
with the powers of evil what he wants. The reader is speechless. He learns,
however, that such is not the case with Pharaoh (10:20), and again he must note
that the plague served to demonstrate y h w h ’s greatness. The outcome is again
disappointing. Apparently y h w h ’s delivering act cannot persuade Pharaoh to
become obedient. The outcome though - despite the absence in 10:20 of the
formula ‘as y h w h had announced’ - does not leave the reader entirely without
hope and understanding. He senses that the attempts of the courtiers to change
Pharaoh’s mind were bound to fail - otherwise the Egyptians could have claimed
to have made a contribution to Israel’s deliverance! - and that it is not without
purpose that y h w h lets the confrontation continue (10:1-2). Moreover, it did not
escape the reader that the courtiers are no longer, along with Pharaoh, charac
terized as obstinate (see 10:20 beside 9:34). These officials have quit the fight
(10:7). The reader notices as well that this is the first time that Pharaoh, who now
stands alone, is willing to talk about Israel’s leaving before a plague had actually
come to pass (10:8ff.), that for the first time he openly asked for forgiveness
(10:17), and that he has forfeited his right to once more ask that the plague be
taken away (10:17). The reader counts on it that Pharaoh will indeed no more ask
for intervention, and that in any case he will no longer be given such intervention.
Also the increasing tension in the relationship between the two formidable an
tagonists, Moses and Pharaoh (10:6b, 11, 18a), and the seriousness of the plague
(mentioned ‘death’ in 10:17) are as many cues to the reader that the conflict has
dramatically sharpened and must soon reach its climax.
Locusts could and can be a real catastrophe in North Africa and the Near East. In
Egypt they are not unknown (see eg. DBy III, 891f.; Dillmann; Broekhuis*, 62ff.;
Montet*, 96), but they are less frequent there than in Palestine. The plague fits the
102 EXODUS 10:1-20
Palestinian milieu very well. Also the fact that the east and west wind are men
tioned in connection with the locusts (10:13, 19) suggests that the writer was
thinking of the situation in Palestine. At least that must have been in the mind of
his readers. All in all, it seems that the inspiration for the account has come more
from the impression it would make on the addressees of the story than from the
impact it might make on the victims of the plague. In particular residents of
Palestine, who from experience were familiar with the voraciousness of the
locusts, must have been appalled and dumbfounded by the apocalyptic portrayal.
What happened to Israel in Goshen is not stated. It has been suggested that the
description of the plague of locusts in Joel 1-2 received its inspiration from the
portrayal of VIII.160
According to rabbinic exegesis, the plague correlates with Egyptian misdeeds: in
Egypt the Israelites were sowers of barley and wheat (ExR. XIII, 6) and keepers of
vineyards (MidrTanh. Exod. Ill, 5).
EXEGESIS
10:1 Then y h w h said to Moses: *Go to Pharaoh. For l have made him and his
courtiers stubborn , so that I could do to him the signs I have wrought.
10:2 So you can tell your children and your grandchildren how gruesomely l dealt
with the Egyptians, and what signs I have performed among them. So you will
realize that / am y h w h . ’
‘Go to,’ cf. 7:26; 9:1; in view of what follows, implied is: ‘and tell him ...’ (see
10:3-6). 'D etc. answers the unstated question why so far Pharaoh’s resistance
continues (cf. 9:14-16). 122 hiph., see 4:10; Introd. §3.19. 2 i , see Introd.
§ 3.29.1. As in II, IV, VII, the courtiers (Introd. § 3.37.2) are mentioned while
‘the people’ are not mentioned (but note 10:6). itfDb, see 1:11. rp®, see 7:23; in
LXX the signs are subject: iva e£f)<; eTieXOp ..., ‘in order that without exception
come ...’ (cf. Frankel*, 80). niK, see 3:12; the suff. with the explicit use of 'JN
(Ges-K § 135a; Joiion § 146b) indicates that y h w h is involved in the entire
happening. (without article; Ges-K § 126y; Joiion § 138g; Brockelmann
§ 23d, 60b), see 1:1. *i2ip2 (see 3:20), suff. sing, is rendered in Pesh., TO,
TPsJ, TNf with a pi.; see also LXX: ‘with them;’ it is possible that the suff. refers
to (the unmentioned) ‘Egypt;’ it could also go with Pharaoh (cf. Vulg.: in eo).
lUDb, see 1:11. "IDO, see 9:16. In Moses, every Israelite father is addressed
(Deut. 4:9; 6:7, 20; 31:12f.; Judg. 5:10f.; 6:13; Ps. 78:3ff.; cf. also Exod.
12:26f.; 13:8, 14); see especially also Joel 1:3; LXX has second person pi. (cf.
10:2b); similarly TNf; in agreement with it, ‘your children,’ etc. is used.
160 Compare Joel 1:3 with Exod. 10:2; Joel 2:9 with Exod. 10:6; Joel 2:2 with Exod. 10:14, and
especially Auzou*, 146.
LOCUSTS 103
ljk, dual D?w$, (OT ca 185 x), ‘ear’ (21:6; 29:20 [2x]; 32:2, 3), organ of
hearing; verbs of speaking are often followed by ‘in the ears of 0JT£3) X ,’ ‘in the
hearing of X’ (= ‘to’) (10:2; 11:2; 24:7; cf. 17:14). hiph. (OT ca. 40x), ‘to
turn or lend an ear to,’ ‘to hearken,* ‘to listen,’ is denominative verb (cf. Ges-K
§ 53g; BL § 293a); listening involves paying attention to what is being said; thus
in 15:26 the meaning is ‘to take to heart/give ear to’ (cf. Ps. 54:4; Job 34:16). See
further THAT , I, 95ff.; Dhorme*, 89f.; Johnson*, 50. p , see Introd. § 3.10.1;
here a collective; cf. LXX, Vulg. and several modem translations. ntfK nx, ‘how,’
cf. Deut. 9:7; 2 Kgs. 20:3, and see Ehrlich.
perf. hithp. of i h v I, ‘do something to someone (+ 3);’ sometimes
the lexicons distinguish between texts in which y h w h is subject (10:2; 1 Sam. 6:6)
and the texts where such is not the case (Num. 22:29; Judg. 19:25; 1 Sam. 31:4;
Jer. 38:19; 1 Chr. 10:4); in the latter categories, the use of is regarded as
pejorative: ‘to deal wantonly, ruthlessly, wickedly with,’ while the verb with
y h w h as subject is interpreted as ‘to manifest his power’ (cf. Ges-B, KoW, Zo.);
there is, however, no need for making a distinction (cf. BDB, HAL , Ehrlich, and
see LXX [ep7iai(eiv, ‘to make fun of,’ ‘to ridicule’] and e.g. LV). y h w h goes all
out to put pressure on Pharaoh. It is a gruesome game, because all the time y h w h
causes Pharaoh to harden his heart, whereupon in turn y h w h again lets him have
it for hardening his heart. This manner of dealing with Pharaoh underscores his
supreme greatness. Compare with the highly anthropomorphic MT the translation
of TO and TPsJ: ‘all the wonders which I have done;’ TNf: ‘how I have brought
confusion’ (cf. TNf margin: ‘how I took vengeance on ...’); see beside it SamTA
( n o il) , SamTJ (mpntfN), ‘how I dealt falsely with.* ‘to perform,’ see Introd.
§ 3.48. 03, likely to take with the Egyptians (in the sense of ‘against them’); not
with Israelites (Fensham), ‘realize,’ see Introd. § 3.22; ‘you,’ viz. the Israelites of
generations to come. ‘I am y h w h ’ (Sam. Pent.: + ‘your God;’ cf. 6:7; 16:12),
10:3 Then Moses, accompanied by Aaron, went to Pharaoh. They said to him:
‘Thus says y h w h , the God o f the Hebrews: uFor an awfully long time already you
refuse to humble yourself before me! Let my people go so that they may worship
me.
10:4 But if you refuse to let my people go, tomorrow / will bring locusts into your
territory ”. '
N 3vi, for sing, see 3:18. ‘Thus says y h w h , ’ see Introd. § 3.5.1. ‘the God see
Introd. § 8.25. T u n y , see 8:5, does not really introduce a question (the usual
interpretation), but an exclamation. l«0 (for perf. see Ges-K § 106h; Joiion
§ 112e; Brockelmann § 41e), see 4:23. n iv niph. (cf. Ges-K § 511; can also be
vocalized mjy£ [qal]), see 1:11; meant is the full acknowledgement of y h w h ’s
power, ‘before me,’ see Introd. § 3.42.3. ‘so that ... me,* see Introd. § 3.49.2;
3.37.1.
For 10:4a see 7:27; 9:2. ‘bring,’ see Introd. § 3.8. in&, see 8:6; in LXX
preceded by ‘at the same time’ (cf. 9:8). ‘locusts,’ see Introd. § 9.2.8; LXX: +
104 EXODUS 10:1-20
‘in huge numbers’ (cf. 10:14). ^33, see 7:27; LXX, Pesh.: ‘all your territory’ (cf.
10:14).
10:5 ‘So thickly will they cover the face o f the land that no land can he detected
anymore. They will devour the little that grew fo r you after the hail, and all your
fruit bearing trees in the fields they will eat bare. ’
n03, see 8:2; cf. Num. 22:5. ‘face of the land,’ see Introd. § 3.38; TO:
X2/E2? I'y, ‘the eye (light) of the sun;’ so idem in 10:15; see also there. ^ 3 \ see
2:3; for indefinite subject see KoSynt § 324d; cf. Brockelmann § 34a; Pesh.:
bamasa ; LXX: ‘you’ (Pharaoh) is subject; idem in TNf; Vulg.: ‘and nothing of it
is visible.’ ‘be detected,’ see Introd. § 3.46.1. ‘devour,’ see Introd. § 3.3.1.
ip.? (OT ca. 95x), ‘what is left,’ ‘remainder’ (10:5; 23:11), derivative of u v ;
niph. (OT ca. 80x), ‘to be left,’ ‘to remain’ (10:15; 12:10; 28:10; 29:34 [2x]);
hiph. (OT ca. 25x), ‘to let remain,’ ‘to spare’ (10:15; 12:10; 16:19, 20), ‘to have
abundance’ (36:7; cf. 2 Kgs. 4:43; 2 Chr. 31:10). See further THAT, II, 846;
TWAT , III, 1079ff.
n p to (OT ca. 30 x , derivative of {THAT, II, 420ff.; TWAT, VI, 589ff.),
‘escape,’ ‘deliverance (Jer. 25:35; 50:29 et al.), ‘what escaped,’ ‘the escaped’
(from catastrophe of war) (Isa. 4:2; 10:20 et al.); here (cf. Joel 2:3) the crops that
were not destroyed by the heavy weather of 9:23ff. ntD^sn "in\ ‘the rest of what
escaped,’ that is, the small leftovers (cf. Ges-K § 128p); Ehrlich: ‘the rest of what
escaped’ (what was left after the hail, had in part already been eaten at the
moment of the eighth plague). In LXX, irv etc. is translated as: ‘whatever was
left of the abundance of the land (nav to Tiepiooov tt|<; yf|<; to KaTaAei<t)0ev),
which the hail left for you.’
"1X2/ niph., see 8:5. T")3, see 9:18. No specific connection is made with 9:31,
32. Sam. Pent, and Qm contain after *?3X1 an expansion (cf. Sanderson*, 97f.);
the enumeration is harmonized with that of 10:15. ‘trees,’ see Introd. § 10.1.2;
likely the reference is in particular to the fruit of the trees (cf. 10:15). n&2S part,
qal of fids (OT 33x), ‘to sprout forth,’ ‘to spring up, ‘to grow’ (Gen. 2:5; 41:6,
23; Ezek. 17:6; Eccl. 2:6 et al.); meant is the entire process of growing, sprout
ing, ‘greening’ (see further THAT, II, 563ff.; TWAT, VI, 1068ff.). The evident
meaning is that after the hail several fruit trees had started to grow, had been in
blossom, and developed buds (cf. Nachmanides), offering hope that they would be
a future source of food, mfo, see 1:14. Assuming that the writer and his readers
were thinking of the Palestinian agrarian year, the picture presented here makes
the plague happen about April.
10:6 ‘Your houses, the houses o f all your courtiers and the houses o f all the
Egyptians will be so fu ll o f them - something neither your fathers and their fathers
before them experienced, from the time they were on earth till now . ' With that he
turned and went away from Pharaoh.
xbfc, see 2:16; ‘locusts’ (sing.), grammatically they cannot be subject (but note the
[free?] translation of Vulg.). ‘houses,’ see Introd. §3.9.1; cf. 7:28; LXX: ‘the
LOCUSTS 105
courtiers’ (cf. Pesh.) and ‘all the houses in the land of the Egyptians.’ Meant is
that they devoured everything edible in the houses (cf. Joel 2:9). new, see Introd.
§ 3.7.2; cf. Ges-K § 161h; Joiion § 147f. ‘to experience,’ see Introd. § 3.46.1.
3N, see 2:16; LXX: ‘their forefathers.’ Dr, see Introd. § 3.23.1. nD"iN, see 3:5.
For the unequaled immensity of the plague see 9:18, 24 and 10:14.
m s, see 2:12; the sing, is striking because in 10:3 also Aaron is introduced into
the story (Pesh. has pi.); also in 10:8, 16 his name is mentioned, while in 10:11,
17 (‘prays’) his presence is specifically reported; in 10:6, 7, 17 (‘forgive’), 18 he
is not mentioned; this has given rise to the supposition that Aaron’s presence in the
story is due to interpolation (e.g. Baentsch); it is entirely conceivable that the
writer does not always mention Aaron, because he wants to focus all the attention
on Moses; since Moses is the man of God, it is not strange that Pharaoh’s officials
only mention him (10:7) and that Pharaoh only directs his plea for forgiveness to
Moses, but in his request for prayer includes Aaron (10:17). TNf: ‘and quickly he
went away from Pharaoh.’ Moses reacts in the same way as Pharaoh had earlier
(7:23). This is the first instance that we read of Moses’ departure after he has
given a message from God. The question arises: does the turning around only
introduce his leaving or does it seek to convey a certain attitude? According to
rabbinic interpretation (ExR . XIII), Moses walked out when he noticed that his
words did not do anything and he wanted to give an opportunity for private
discussion (cf. Nachmanides; that is always how Moses acted); Ibn Ezra: Moses
was impolite by leaving Pharaoh without leave; Calvin: Moses’ leaving indicates
indignation. Likely what can be said is that Moses’ conduct is portrayed as self-
assured and firm. He suffices with bringing the divine message and then breaks off
contact (cf. 1 Sam. 15:27ff.) and leaves. His demeanour is composed but threaten
ing. The affect it had on Pharaoh’s courtiers corresponds to it (10:7). The
atmosphere between Moses and Pharaoh worsens. Soon the latter’s conduct is even
going to be rude (10:11; cf. 10:28).
10:7 Then Pharaoh’s courtiers said to him: ‘How long will we be bamboozled by
this fellow ?’ Let those good-for-nothings go to worship y h w h , their God. Do you
not yet realize that Egypt is ruined?’
T i/n y , see 8:5; the words use by Moses (10:3) are now also used by the
courtiers; in that respect they agree with Moses; enough is enough, pit refers to
Moses and is used derogatively (cf. KoSynt §48). tfpiD (OT ca. 25 x); the
meaning is not entirely sure: ‘bait’ or ‘lure’ (e.g. BDB\ see Amos 3:5) or ‘trap’
(of bird-trap on which is the bait [e.g. KoW, HAL] and so standing for the whole
bird-trap); another suggestion is that it means ‘snare’ (the shape resembles that of
the snare);161 as a rule the term is used metaphorically: ‘trap,’ ‘destruction,’
16’ Cf. Ges-B and in particular G.R. Driver, JBL 73 (1954), 131-6; see Amos 3:5; ‘harpoon’ in Job
40:24.
106 EXODUS 10:1-20
‘misfortune’ (10:7; 23:33; 34:12; Deut. 7:16; Josh. 23:13; Judg. 2:3 et al.).162
Vulg.: usquequo patiemur hoc scandalum , ‘how much longer must we endure this
nuisance?’ With ‘nuisance’ they have in mind Moses as the cause of the plagues.
‘those good-for-nothings,’ see Introd. § 3.2.1; note that O'tfJKn, ‘men,’ can also
mean ‘people,’ ‘humans’ (so hoc loco LXX, Vulg.); as he concedes the point,
Pharaoh uses the term in the narrower sense (10:10, 11). LXX lacks ‘yhwh;’
idem in 10:8. DltD, see 1:19. LXX: ‘or would you like to know (f| eiSevai
PouAei) that Egypt is devastated?’ (implied is likely: before you give up). TPsJ
apparently picks up on the expansion at 1:15; Pharaoh is asked if he still remem
bers that Egypt is destined for destruction because of Moses. TNf does not
translate the end of the verse as an interrogative clause: ‘before you learn that
Egypt •••’ (differently TNf margin). Meanwhile, though, the courtiers have learned
to respect yhwh (cf. 9:30) and try to get Pharaoh to do the same as well, rn;i£
perf. qal163 of "DK (OT ca. 185x; qal 117x), ‘to perish’ (cf. Num. 21:29; Jer.
48:46; Amos 1:8 et al.); often yhwh is (in)directly the cause of the downfall;
which is also the case here (see further THAT , I, 17ff.; TWAT, I, 20ff.); for
rH3N:, ‘the destroyed,’ ‘what is lost,’ see 22:8; Lev. 5:22ff.; Deut. 22:3. on^D,
feminine; cf. Brockelmann § 50b; Meyer § 94d.
It is thought that the attitude of the courtiers clashes with their obstinacy related
in 10:1, and that presumably the incongruity is due to the composite character of
the text (e.g. Dillmann, Baentsch, Hyatt). This is possible. But it creates a certain
effect: despite their obstinacy, the courtiers are not unaffected; will Pharaoh also
respond?
10:8 So Moses and Aaron were brought back to Pharaoh. He said to them: *Go
ahead, worship yhwh your God. But just who are going?*
10:9 Then Moses replied: 'We go with our young and old men, with our boys and
girls we go, with our flocks and our herds. For we have a festival in honour o f
yhwh. 9
□10, see 4:7; for passive with object see e.g. KoSynt § 109; Ges-K § 121a, b;
Sam. Pent.: □‘•KH (active); cf. LXX, Pesh., Vulg. The fact that the verb ‘to
summon’ (10:16) is not used here leads Ehrlich to construe the following picture
of what happened: Moses and Aaron had not yet left the palace; while Pharaoh and
his officials were talking, they were in a nearby room, from which they were led
back to Pharaoh. TNf: ‘they said;’ likely it is meant that the courtiers started
talking first. ‘Go ahead,’ see Introd. § 3.14.2. 'Qi "D, see Ges-K § 137a; Brockel
mann § 129d.
‘we,’ namely, the Israelites on whose behalf Moses speaks, ‘young men,’ see
Introd. § 3.34. jpr, see 3.16. ‘boys ...,’ see Introd. § 3.10.1. ‘flocks,’ see Introd.
162 See further AuS, VI, 335f., 339; Keel*, WABAT, 78ff.
163 In the sense of: is on a slide, headed for bottom, or: is lost (that is, if you don’t do something
about it; e.g. Strack).
LOCUSTS 107
§9.1.4. ‘herds,’ see Introd. §9.1.11. The detailed enumeration (with 2 of

accompaniment, see KoSynt § 402s; Brockelmann § 106b; Williams § 248)
indicates that the intention is that the people as a whole, with all their possessions,
will leave; though not as such mentioned, the women are included, m n ^ n (see
5:1), though the nomen rectum is definite: ‘a feast ...’ (cf. Ges-K § 127e; Joiion
§ 139e); possibly: ‘the feast,’ earlier mentioned (cf. KoSynt § 298b). LXX: ‘for it
is a feast of/to y h w h , our God;’ cf. Vulg.: solemnitas Domini nostri.
Moses’ argument is like this: all of us and all we have belong to y h w h ;
therefore all of us must participate in the feast. The point at issue is: to whom
does Israel belong? To Pharaoh, so that it is up to him to decide who is going to
worship y h w h , or to y h w h ? For the feast, see Vol. I, p. 375ff.
10:10 He said to them: 4y h w h better be with you. Just as /, who d on’t think
about letting you go with your children, women and elderly. You better watch out.
There is evil fo r you in store. ’
n\n + DU, see 3:12. 10KD ... p , see 1:12; the text is a bit obscure; Sam. Pent,
has mm instead of \m; evidently it regards the sentence as an interrogative clause:
‘Is y h w h only going to be with you if I allow you and your children to go?’ In
LXX, from ntfND, the sentence is taken as interrogative: ‘when I let you go, I
don’t have to let your baggage go, do I?’ Ehrlich thinks the text is corrupt: ‘Will
y h w h only (mm n.;m p n ) be with you if I let you go with your children?’ (cf.
Greflmann*, 67); the MT is, however, intelligible; my translation is free; a word
for word translation goes: ‘May y h w h be (as little) with you, as little as I let you
go with ...;’ Pharaoh’s reaction is meant ironically; he is not at all of a mind to let
them go with all their families, and he wishes that y h w h ’s protection and help will
be nil; the words cast in the form of a benediction are intended as a malediction.
nNi, waw concomitantiae (Ges-K § 154a n. 1).
*)© (OT ca. 40x), collective, ‘little children,’ often mentioned together with the
women (Gen. 34:29; 46:5; Num. 14:13 et al.), is also (synecdochically) used to
designate the members of a family with the exception of the able-bodied men,
namely, the women, children and aged (10:10, 24; 12:37; Gen. 43:8; 50:8, 21;
Num. 14:31 et al.). In 10:10 also the animals and likely slaves are included (see
10:9 and compare e.g. Gen. 34:28f.; 46:5f.; 50:8 and see 10:24; 12:38). is
translated in LXX (cf. also 10:24; 12:37 et al.) as q aTtooKeufj, ‘baggage;’ see
beside it Aq.: xa vf\n\a upcov, ‘your children;’ Symm.: tov oxôv upcov, ‘your
multitude.’ i*n, see Introd. § 3.46.1. run, see 5:19.
T3.3 (OT ca. 150x), noun used as preposition (e.g. THAT, II, 32; Brockelmann
§ 116d; Meyer § 87.3f.), ‘opposite,’ ‘in presence of,’ ‘before’ (10:10; 19:2;
34:10). om3S "!33 ru n is variously interpreted. Popular is the view: ‘you have evil
in mind’ (cf. Ps. 101:3); see already Vulg.: cui dubium est quodpessime cogitetis?
‘who still questions that you are planning evil.’ Aware that only men will par
ticipate in the ceremony (23:17; 34:23; Deut. 16:16; but note also Deut. 16:11,
14; 1 Sam. l:4ff.) Pharaoh can only interpret Moses’ reply as an announcement
that all the people will leave for good (cf. ExR. XIII, 5), which is the last thing he
108 EXODUS 10:1-20
wants. The imper. does not quite fit this view. According to another view it
means: ‘evil threatens you’ (see already LXX). This view can be made more
specific in a number of ways: the evil you want to do will come back to you (TO);
an evil snare (N^pn, also used in 10:7) lies on the way you will go, before you
reach your place of destination (TPsJ);164165 I (Pharaoh) will repay you with evil
when I see that you seek to escape (Ibn Ezra, Nachmanides); when you press too
hard, my god Re - run is likely an allusion to Re - will oppoaw you (Cassuto).
In any case, Pharaoh finds fault with Moses and Aaron for their vile plans, and
contends that they themselves will fall victim, foiling their entire venture. Pharaoh
dares to be haughty and admonish them. For that matter, as history teaches,
Pharaoh is the one who goes down to defeat, not Moses and Aaron.
10:11 7/ will not happen. Hurry up, you men, and worship yhw h. That’s what
you wanted, isn ’t it? ’ So he chased them from the court.
p a 4? ( idem Qm; Sam. Pent.: p 4? [see 6:6]; cf. Sanderson*, 120f.), could be
taken as a question, but more likely is an absolute refusal; implied may be: ‘as you
may think’ (cf. TPsJ). The imperatives ID4? (Introd. § 3.14.2; for NJ see 3:3) and
iiDin with the vocative onaan (Ges-K § 126e) are evidently seen as problematic;
LXX: ‘Let the men go and let them worship God;’ see further LV: ‘Let the ...’
(with amendment of the text: ID4?1 and HDin); CV: ‘De mannen kunnen ...;’ WV:
‘Alleen de mannen mogen ...’ (cf. NV, GNB). The MT makes good sense,
however.
□'"P? (sing. ID? [OT ca. 65x]), the (mature, able-bodied) men, in distinction
from the women and children (10:11; 12:37; Jer. 41:16; 43:6) and the aged and
invalid men; "id : is a derivative of "id :, ‘to be strong,’ ‘to prevail;’ as verb (OT
25x) i d : occurs in qal in 17:12 (2x) with the meaning ‘to overcome,’ ‘to
prevail’ (cf. 1 Sam. 2:9; 2 Sam. 11:23; Lam. 1:16); the derivative rn iD? (OT ca.
60x), ‘strength,’ ‘power,’ in 32:18 with the meaning ‘prevailing over’ (in battle),
‘victory’ (see further THAT, I, 398ff.; TWAT , I, 901 ff.).
nnx, the antecedent is somewhat vague, but it seems to be: YHWH-worship (by
men); cf. Ges-K § 135p; Joiion § 152b. The context does not favour taking nnK as
an abbreviation of mm nx (‘for you are seeking yhwh;’ cf. Hos. 5:6).165 tfpD,
see 2:15 (cf. Ges-K § 20m). Pharaoh’s words are meant ironically; he knows very
well that his concession will be turned down and that for Moses and Aaron it is all
or nothing; therefore he ends the discussion, e n ri (see 2:17); Sam. Pent.: ushri,
to be taken as pi. piel (cf. LXX, Pesh.): ‘they (sc. servants) chased away,’ or as
pi. pual (cf. Vulg.: eiecti sunt , preceded by statimque , ‘and immediately’): ‘they
(Moses and Aaron) were chased away;’ the subject of MT may be indefinite:
IM Rabbinic tradition contains the notion that ru n is a star god and Pharaoh an astrologer, who as
such foresaw what awaited Israel; see Rashi and Ginzberg*, II, 358; V, 431.
165 See R. Weiss, Z4W76 (1964), 188; but note G.R. Driver, Z4W78 (1966), 1; S. Speier, Bib 48
(1967), 115.
LOCUSTS 109
‘one;’ likely, however, Pharaoh is subject, and rim s 'ID DND is to be understood
as ‘away from the court* (Introd. § 3.42.4). Exposed as planners of evil schemes,
Moses and Aaron are shown the door. A humiliating comedown.
All Pharaoh is willing to do is allow the men to leave the country (which already
by itself is a greater concession; cf. 8:21). Their family and possessions must
remain behind as security. Pharaoh wants to be sure the men will return. He is and
remains the foe of the promise (cf. 1:10).
10:12 Then y h w h said to Moses: ‘Stretch out your hand over the land o f Egypt
to bring up the locusts; then they will come up over the land o f Egypt and devour
all the grass and the crops in the fields, everything left by the hail. ’
Cf. 9:22; also here Sam. Pent, has "|"P nK; now Moses* conjuring wave is directed
to the land; heaven and earth are a frequent pair of words in the OT (see Hout-
man*, Himmel, 26ff.). A disputed question is how to understand the preposition 2
before n 2 mIK. In LXX: kcci avapfjtG) otKpu;, ‘and let the locusts come up,’ the text
(b in n a iio ) is simplified; in TO: pO'i N31J T in , ‘and the locusts will come and
go,’ the addition of a verb has removed the harshness (differently TPsJ:
NUI b'13, ‘in view of the locusts’); Vulg. renders: extende ... ad locustam.
Conjectures proposed include: nsnxn N'3nb, ‘so as to make the locusts come up’
(LV); Nam, ‘and cause to come up’ (cf. McNeile); ND'i, ‘and they came’ (cf.
Holzinger). Baentsch holds that 2 refers to the attending circumstance: ‘among
locusts,’ that is, ‘so that locusts come up;’ Ehrlich disputes this interpretation, and
states that 2 cannot only be used to indicate the price (e.g. Williams § 246), but
also for the purchased object (Joel 4:3; Ps. 17:9); the locusts are as it were the
item to be acquired while the activity is the price (see also Beer), b in (Introd.
§3.39.1), jussive (cf. 9:22). ‘grass,’ see Introd. § 10.1.3. bD nN, Sam. Pent.:
‘and all the fruits on the trees;’ idem also LXX; cf. 10:15. see 8:5; in light
of 10:5, ‘everything ...,’ cannot have been all that much; for what escaped the
hail, see also 10:15.
10:13 So Moses stretched out his staff over the land o f Egypt. Then y h w h
brought an east wind over the land, all that day and all that night. When morning
came, the east wind had brought the locusts.
Cf. 9:23. ‘his staff,’ Sam. Pent.: ‘his hand;’ cf. 10:12: ‘and Moses lifted up the
staff toward heaven.’166 Because the wind brings the locusts, the lifting up to
ward heaven is a meaningful gesture. Stretching it out over the land is much less
so. The usual assumption is that two versions about the origin of the plague are
combined: Moses, right where he is, summons the locusts with his staff (E); YHWH
causes the wind to bring the locusts (J); in the latter, the miracle consists in the
166 Cf. 9:22f.; 10:2If.; there, however, it is always a matter of ‘stretching out of the hand;’ Philo
(VM, I, 120) on VIII: Moses held up his staff in the air; in TO and TPsJ, in 10:12f., 21 f. ‘lift up’ (Dll)
is always used.
110 exodus 1 0 :1 -2 0
fact that the plague comes at the announced time and is unprecedented in severity.
One could say that in the combination of the versions Moses’ gesture becomes a
casting of a spell over the land, so that it as it were attracts the locusts.
aru (for perf. see Jouon § 118e), see 3:1; LXXB does not have ‘y h w h , ’ so that
Moses is the subject, ‘east wind,’ see Introd. § 3.47.1; LXX: ‘south wind’ (cf.
Philo, VMy I, 120); this rendering assumes familiarity with the situation in Egypt;
the wind which brings the locusts comes from the south; however, in Palestine it is
the east wind which brings the locusts; Frankel*, 76f., wrongly concludes from
the fact that also elsewhere Dnp is rendered as voto <; (14:21; Ezek. 27:26, 44;
42:10; 48:10; Ps. 78:26; Job 38:24) that the term can also mean ‘east;’ Aq.,
Symm., Pesh., Vulg. (in accordance with the nature of the east wind): ‘a scor
ching wind.’ ‘day,’ ‘night,’ see Introd. § 3.23.1; the duration of the wind makes it
possible to carry the locusts from afar and in maximum quantities. 1pa, see 7:15;
the next day; cf. 10:4. KfoJ (see 6:8), translated as pluperfect (Ges-K § 164b;
Jouon § 166j). Sam. Pent.: HNfrJ; n n is a feminine as a rule; not in 10:13, 19 (cf.
Brockelmann § 16g).
10:14 The locusts came upon all the land o f Egypt. They settled in huge numbers
everywhere in the territory o f Egypt. Never before had there been such a plague o f
locusts and never again would there be one like it.
LXX seems to have read b in as imperf. cons. hiph. with the wind as subject:
‘and he brought them (the locusts) upon ....’ nj;"] imperf. cons, qal of m3 (OT ca.
145 x); in qal it expresses the conclusion of a particular (mood)swing or action,
the start of a situation of rest: ‘to settle,’ ‘to spread out’ (10:14; 2 Sam. 21:10;
Isa. 7:19), ‘to enjoy rest* (20:11; 23:12; Deut. 5:14);167 there are two types of
hiph. (Ges-K § 72ee; Jouon § 80p; hiph. I: ‘to cause to settle down,’ ‘to lower’
(17:11), ‘to give rest’ (33:14; Deut. 3:20; Josh. 1:13, 15; 22:4; 1 Chr. 23:25);
hiph. II: ‘to lay down,’ ‘to place’ (16:33, 34), ‘to put aside/save’ (16:23, 24); ‘to
leave someone (+ b) alone’ (to change his mind) (32:10; 2 Sam. 16:11; Hos.
4:17).168 Starved from the journey, the locusts immediately settle down and
greedily start devouring whatever is there.
“INDIDD, see 4:10. ‘never before,’ see Introd. § 3.42.2. p , see 1:12; Ehrlich
proposes to omit in&D (cf. 1 Kgs. 10:12). ‘never again,’ see Introd. § 3.11.1; for
the extraordinary nature see 10:6 (there in a divine message; here in a word from
the writer) and also Joel 2:2. 10:14b contains the implied idea: ‘in Egypt.’ Rashi
thinks that the plague in Joel was worse; for the opposite view see Nachmanides.
The writer aims to say that up to his time such a plague had not happened in
167 nn nip (OT ca. 20x), ‘rest,’ includes the notions of ‘security,’ ‘safety,’ ‘be taken care of.’
See further THAT, II, 43ff.; TWAT, V, 298ff.; G. Braulik, SVT 36 (1985), 29-39, J. Ebach,
“Uber ‘Freiheit’ und ‘Heimat’: Aspekte und Tendenzen der rip nip,” in D.R. Daniels et al. (eds.),
Ernten was man sat (Fs K. Koch), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1991, 495-518, and more in general J.
Helderman, Die Anapausis im Evangelium Veritatis, Leiden 1984.
LOCUSTS 111
Egypt.
10:15 So densely did they cover the surface o f the whole land that the land was
black with them. They devoured all the grass, all the crops in the field and all the
fruit o f the trees, which the hail had left. Nothing remained o f the green on the
trees, o f the grass, and o f the crops in the field , in all the land o f Egypt.
Cf. 10:5. qtfnni imperf. cons, qal of "jem (OT 17x); qal, ‘to be/grow dark;’ hiph.
(14:20?), ‘to makeA)ecome dark;’ qpn (OT ca. 80x), ‘darkness,’ occurs in 10:21
(2x), 22; 14:20. Darkness belongs to the constitutive elements of the chaos (Gen.
1:2). At creation, God made it his servant and gave it a place in the cosmos (Gen.
1:3-5). However, it has not completely lost its nature. Potentially it is the power of
the chaos. Associated with it are notions of threat, disorder, evil practices (e.g.
Job 24:13ff.; Prov. 2:13), bondage, misery (e.g. Isa. 5:20; 8:22; 9:1; 42:6f.;
49:9; Mic. 7:8; Ps. 107:10, 14; Eccl. 5:16). Darkness is an aspect of death;
especially the realm of the dead is the abode of darkness (1 Sam. 2:9; Ps. 88:13,
19; 143:3; Job 15:30; 17:13; 18:18; Prov. 20:20). God sovereignly rules over the
darkness (Gen. l:3ff.; Exod. 10:21f.; 14:20; Josh. 24:7; Isa. 45:7; Amos 5:8; Ps.
104:20; Dan. 2:2 et al.). He uses the darkness to execute judgment (e.g. Isa.
13:10; 34:4; 50:3; Ezek. 32:7f.; Joel 2:2, 10; 4:15) (cf. Houtman*, Himmel,
143ff., 193f., 200, 273). If y h w h brings the world under the dominion of
darkness, and if the darkness no longer in turn allows the light its allotted hours,
as it was ordered to do at creation, then the cosmos has relapsed into chaos (Gen.
1:2) and the world has become uninhabitable (cf. Jer. 2:6, 31: 4:23ff.). See
further TWAT , III, 261ff.
Darkness is the counterpart of niN (OT ca. 125x), ‘(day)light’ (10:21-23a
beside 10:23b; Isa. 9:1; Amos 5:18, 20; Job 17:12; 29:3 et al.).169 Light is part
of life (e.g. Ps. 36:10; Job 33:28). Associated with light are notions of happiness,
joy, freedom, prosperity (e.g. Ps. 97:11; Job 18:5f.; 22:28; Prov. 13:9). God is
its source (e.g. Isa. 58:8; Ps. 27:1; 43:3). The verb nw (OT ca. 4 5 x ) occurs in
Exodus with the meaning of ‘to give/spread light’ (13:21; 14:20; 25:37); in 13:21;
14:20 y h w h brings the light, protecting his people through darkness and delivering
them through the light.170 LXX: Kai e<t>0apq q yq, ‘and the land perished’ =
n n tfm ? Vulg.: vastantes omnia , ‘destroying everything;’ for TO see 10:5.
Does the remark on the darkness contain a new element: the sky is so thick with
swarms of locusts that the sun is darkened, casting darkness on earth (e.g. Ibn
Ezra)? It seems best to read the remark in the light of 10:5: the land was dark,
that is, no longer visible, ‘fruits,’ see Introd. § 10.1.5. n n \ see 10:5.
"nan Tm n new (LXX: ‘which were left by the hail’), cf. end 10:12; there with a
different antecedent; see also 10:5. *?a ... N1?, see Ges-K § 152b. ‘green,’ see
169 UN + n\n functions as adjective in 10:23; cf. Zech. 14:7.

170 See further THAT, I, 84ff.; TWAT, I, 160ff.; C.J. Bleeker, JANES 5 (1973), 23-34; B. Langer,
Gott als ‘Licht’ in Israel und Mesopotamien, Klostemeuburg 1989.
112 EXODUS 10:1-20
Introd. § 10.1.1.
10:16 Then Pharaoh hastily summoned Moses and Aaron and assured: 7 have
done wrong against y h w h , your God, and against you.
10:17 Oh, forgive my misconduct one more time and pray to y h w h , your God,
only to remove this terrible disaster from me . '
‘hastily’ (“inQ, see 2:18); this has not been said of Pharaoh before; in view of the
unstoppable voracity of the locusts, there is not a moment to be wasted in order to
save at least something, ‘summon,’ see Introd. § 3.45.1. ‘done wrong’ (Symm.:
eo(t)&Ar|v, ‘I am brought down’), see Introd. 3.20.1; Pharaoh confesses he is guilty
(cf. 9:27), namely, for his refusal to let Israel go; this time also to Moses and
Aaron (Ehrlich: on account of his rude behaviour at his last encounter with them;
see 10:11b; cf. Cassuto, and also ExR. XIII, 6). In LXX, the first time i is
rendered with evavtiov, the second time with ei<; (cf. Frankel*, 87). some read
‘against you’ as referring to Israel (Moses and the people), on the assumption that
Aaron played no role in the original version (e.g. Holzinger, Baentsch).
n n m , see 3:9. Xfc? (K&3, see 6:8; for KJ see 3:3), Sam. Pent.: iKfc, pi.; cf. LXX,
Pesh., Vulg., and e.g. LV (with emendation), UV, CV. Ehrlich prefers ixfr;
according to Cassuto, the imper. here is impersonal: ‘let my sins be forgiven;’ but
see at 10:6. ‘misconduct,’ see Introd. § 3.20.
(OT ca. 155 x), particle commonly understood as having affirmative (‘sure
ly’), restrictive (‘only’) and so also contrarious (‘but’) force; beside the lexicons
see e.g. KoSynt § 351b, 372b, 387d; Williams § 388, 389 (cf. also C.H.J. van der
Merwe [see at 8:5]); but note N.H. Snaith, VT 14 (1964), 221-5: in all instances
‘there is an idea of contrariness, exception, restriction, and even contradiction’
(225), though not always to the same degree. At least as regards Exodus, Snaith’s
observation seems to the point. In 12:15, 16; 21:21; 31:13, ‘but,’ ‘however,’
‘nevertheless,’ make good sense; o ra n IK in 10:17 is to be understood as ‘one
more time’ (cf. Gen. 18:32; Judg. 6:9 et al.). “inr, see 8:4; Sam. Pent.:
bx lTnun (cf. 8:4; 9:28). “no, see 3:3; cf. 8:4. pn, see 8:5; left untranslated in
LXX. Through the use of "]K and p m), Pharaoh intimates that this is really going to
be the last time he will appeal to Moses to intervene with y h w h (cf. Gen. 18:32.
‘this ... disaster’ (TNf: XJmo, ‘pestilence,’ cf. 5:3; TNf margin: XT:n, ‘anger’),
see Introd. § 3.32; cf. D. Winton Thomas, VT 3 (1953), 219ff.; the qualification
heightens the seriousness of the plague; locusts cause famine and so death.
Comparing 10:16-17 with 9:27-28, the following is striking: Pharaoh does not
limit his confession of guilt to ‘this time’ (9:27); now he uses ‘this time’ for his
prayer for forgiveness (10:17); in 9:27 he also involved his people in his confes
sion of guilt (in view of the attitude of the courtiers [10:7] such can now no longer
be done); now he expands his confession of sin to Moses and Aaron (10:16) and
asks specifically for forgiveness (10:17); there is, therefore, progress in the
confession of guilt. Remarkable is that there is no promise from Pharaoh to let the
people go (cf. 9:28). It is implied in his request, though.
LOCUSTS 113
10:18 He went from Pharaoh and prayed to y h w h .

Some MSS, LXX, Pesh., Vulg, mention Moses by name as the subject (see 8:8,
26; 9:33); cf. e.g. LV (with addition to text); but note 11:8. LXX ‘to God.’ Meant
is likely that Moses went to and prayed at the spot where he had summoned the
plague.
In comparison with 8:5, 25; 9:29f. it is remarkable that Moses leaves without
saying anything. Beer and others, including Rylaarsdam, Te Stroete, Hyatt (but
note Michaeli), think that VIII is the last plague in J (see 10:17) before the
definitive blow, and they suggest that 10:24-26, 28-29 was originally the conclu
sion of the description of VIII. Note, though, that the description has a character
of its own. The talks have already taken place. The silent departure produces the
following effect: after his humiliating treatment by Pharaoh (10:11), Moses retains
his dignity; without saying a word, he leaves, leaving Pharaoh behind in fear and
uncertainty; the fact that despite Pharaoh’s rude treatment he is still willing to pray
for him indicates that Moses has class; because Pharaoh had emphatically spoken
of ‘one more time’, he is willing to once more let him have the benefit of the
doubt; Pharaoh will never be able to say that he had not been given the utmost in
mercy.
10:19 Then y h w h made the wind turn and change it into a very strong west
wind. It carried the locusts along and threw them into Yam Suph. Not one locust
remained in the entire territory o f Egypt.
10:20 But y h w h made Pharaoh obstinate. So he did not let the Israelites go.
"|E>n, see 7:15; assumed is that yhwh changed the east wind into a west wind; the
actual subject (the east wind) is not mentioned; only the object created by the act
(west wind); cf. Ehrlich, ‘westerly wind,’ see Introd. § 3.47.1; LXX: avepov cctio
0aAaoor|<; (cf. Philo, VM, I, 122); TNf: n n ; it has opted for a literal
rendering: ‘a wind from sea;’ but note the contrast in TO, TPsJ, TNf margin:
(N)mi7D(D) n n , ‘a west wind;’ in view of the situation in Egypt, there is the
question whether ‘a wind from sea’ may have been the north wind; it could be that
the LXX suggests that the north wind carried the locusts in a southern direction to
the Red Sea. ‘very strong,’ see Introd. § 3.19.1 and 1:7. K&J, cf. 10:3.
in rp n !1] imperf. cons, qal + suff. of Upn (OT ca. 65 x); here something like
‘throwing’ or ‘flinging’ them into (cf. e.g. Judg. 3:21; 4:21; 2 Sam. 8:14); meant
is apparently that the locusts hit the water so hard that they die and disappear into
the water.
□; (OT ca. 395 x; Exod. 39 x) denotes large bodies of water, whose shores are
far apart, large streams (e.g. Isa. 18:2; 19:5; Jer. 51:36; Ezek. 32:2) and seas and
lakes (e.g. Num. 34:11; Josh. 12:3; 13:27). To the Israelites, the sea was especi
ally the Mediterranean Sea. It can simply be called (e.g. Num. 13:29; 34:5),
114 exodus 1 0 :1 -2 0
but also further specified; thus in 23:31 it is called DTiejbD D \m Because the
Mediterranean constituted the entire western border of Palestine, D' can also stand
for ‘the west’ (10:19; 26:22, 27; 27:12; 36:27, 32; 38:12). occurs often (27 x)
in Exod. 14-15. YHWH manifests himself (in his servant Moses) as Lord of C (see
especially 14:16, 21, 26f.; 15:10), which in the eyes of Israel belonged to those
elements in the world that posed a constant threat to life.17172 ppo n » \ with n-
locale in construct chain (KoSynt § 273); Sam. Pent.: *110 D\ For end 10:19 see
end 8:27. LXX: ‘in all the land of Egypt.’
Beside 10:20 see 9:12a, 35b. TPsJ contains an expansion: also the locusts which
the Egyptians had pickled for food were carried off by the wind. It picks up on a
rabbinic explanation: The Egyptians were glad with the locusts, since it provided
them with food; their joy about it was short-lived, however (e.g. ExR. XIII, 7;
Rashi).
IX DARKNESS (10:21-29) AND ANNOUNCEMENT X (11:1-10)


IX, which like VII is summoned by invoking heaven, visits Egypt with death and
destruction. As Moses stretches his staff toward heaven in a conjuring gesture
(10:21f.), a darkness (2x "|tfn; l x n^SK) lasting three days (2x; cf. Introd.
§ 4.4.1) takes over the (whole) land of Egypt (2x). The plague renders the land
completely uninhabitable (10:21-23a). Also IX is meant to demonstrate that yhwh
is powerful to deliver death and destruction. By causing darkness through the
invoking of heaven by his representative Moses, he manifests himself as the Lord
of what is the heart of the terrifying power of chaos, the darkness (see at 10:15),
and more in particular as the Lord of all the earth. Though the account does not
specifically talk about the purpose of the plague, there can be no question that also
IX is meant to persuade Pharaoh to acknowledge that yhwh , the Lord of life and
death, has the land in his iron grip, and to induce Pharaoh to obey yhwh and heed
the demand to let the people go to worship him (cf. 10:24).

Generally speaking, the description of IX and the announcement of X, which are
here discussed together since they are essentially a unit, are regarded as a literary
171 The p]'i0’0" in 23:31 is the Gulf of Aqaba; cf. Zech. 9:10; Ps. 72:8, and see Houtman*, Himmel,
270f.; M. Saebo, VT28 (1978), 83-91.
172 For in 20:11 see Houtman*, Himmel, 25ff. For Yam Suph see Introd. § 8.12. See further
THAT, II, 1027f.; TWAT, III, 645ff.; O. Kaiser, Die mythische Bedeutung des Meeres in Agypten,
Ugarit und Israel, Berlin 1959; C.J. Bleeker, “Quelques reflexions sur la signification religieuse de la
Mer,” in The Sacred Bridge, Leiden 1963, 130-5; Reymond*, 163ff.; Stadelmann*, 154ff.
DARKNESS AND ANNOUNCEMENT X 115
composite.173 Special problems will be dealt with in the exegesis.

The writer comes straight to the point (cf. I and III). He makes no mention of an
instruction from y h w h to Moses to go to Pharaoh and tell him to let the people
go, and in case of refusal to announce a plague (cf. e.g. 9:13ff.), but immediately
talks about y h w h ’s instruction concerning a new plague (10:21). He informs the
reader about y h w h ’s next step in the assault on Pharaoh, and then continues with
the execution of the instruction and its consequences (10:22-23). He leaves it up to
the reader’s imagination to form a mental picture of the situation in which Moses
carried out the mandate. Possibly Moses summoned the plague in Pharaoh’s
presence. That certainly would be irrefutable evidence that Moses’ Lord is the
author of the plague. After the description of the plague, the writer deals in detail
with a dialogue between Pharaoh and Moses (10:24-29: 11:4-8). Twice he
interrupts the dialogue. The first time he throws in an aside remark to elucidate the
background of Pharaoh’s reaction (10:27). In the second instance he acquaints the
reader with revelation which Moses received as he was standing before Pharaoh
(11:1-2). He offers the reader a glimpse into the future (11:3a) as well and
informs him about the fine reputation Moses enjoyed in Egypt (11:3b). Before
closing the account of the nine plagues (11:10), he apprizes the reader of further
divine revelation which Moses receives following his departure from Pharaoh.
Possibly the swift transition from the eighth plague to the ninth is due to the
combination of varied narrative material. It creates the following effect: the course
of events has shown that words as such leave Pharaoh unaffected; he must be
made to feel that y h w h means business and the poundings must follow in quick
succession; words only delay the coming of the plagues. For that matter, Pharaoh
is not mentioned by name as victim of the plague. On the whole, it is the imper
sonal ‘one’ that is used in the story. The account assumes, however, the existence
of an unbreakable joint fate between ruler and subjects. Being linked with either
Pharaoh or y h w h (cf. Introd. § 3.40.1) implies a different treatment. Union with
Pharaoh means death (10:21-23a). Union with YHWH spells life (10:23b) (see
introduction to exegesis of 7:14-11:10 [sub 2]).
Through his stark portrayal of the plague, in the account of the instruction to
Moses, how he carried it out, and in the depiction of the coming of the plague, the
writer highlights the miraculous nature and formidableness of the plague. 10:21b,
22b, 23a are complementary and end in a climax. They present a concrete picture
of the scope and intensity of the catastrophe that struck Egypt, one that could only
be regarded as a judgment (cf. e.g. Isa. 13:10; 34:4; 50:3; Joel 2:10; 4:15; Hab.
3:11).
173 The usual thinking is that the account of the plague (10:21-23, 27) is from E and the account of
the negotiation (10:24-26, 28-29) from J; presumably J did not talk about darkness; owing to redac-
tional efforts, J’s depiction of the talks, which was part of the end of the story of the locust plague,
became a description of the negotiations after IX; 11:1-3 is attributed to E; 11:4-8 to J and 11:9-10 to P;
see e.g. Baentsch, Rylaarsdam, Te Stroete, Hyatt (Noth: 10:21, 22, 27; 11:9, 10 P; 11:2-3 ‘Nebe-
nmotiv;’ 11:7-8 ‘Zusatz;’ remainder J); differently Fuss*, 247ff.; see further Eerdmans*, 26ff.
116 EXODUS 10:21 - 11:10
Learning of y h w h ’s new instruction to Moses (10:21) brings joy to the reader.

Without announcement, without waste of time, the new plague will come over
Egypt. The conflict seems to have accelerated. Suddenly the plague is there.
Dismay seizes the reader as he watches the apocalyptic picture unfold before his
eyes (10:22-23a). A permanent night has fallen upon Egypt. The land has become
uninhabitable, a land in which the powers of darkness have free rein. In that land
of darkness people are like living dead (e.g. Isa. 14:9ff.; Job 3:13; 10:21f.;
14:21f.; Eccl. 9:5f., 10; 11:8). Like an impenetrable wall, darkness holds them
captive. Social contacts are no longer possible. It is every person for himself, and
everyone is reduced to a state of immobility and helplessness, restricted to the
place where they happen to be. For three interminably long days the land suffers
this fate, till it has become unbearable. To drive home the seriousness of the
plague, the writer has exaggerated the portrayal out of all proportions.174
Observing the misery that has come over Egypt, the reader cannot suppress a
feeling of malicious pleasure. Pharaoh should have been wiser! Above all, the
reader is impressed by y h w h ’s power and ability to work miracles; his sense of
awe is heightened by the fact that the plague came at the command of Moses, the
man of God (10:21f.), and by the fact that - to his surprise and joy; y h w h had
not mentioned it in his announcement of the plague - the dwellings of the
Israelites were not affected by the darkness (10:23b). Conclusive evidence that
y h w h , Israel’s God, is the author of the plague and the One who has issued the
demand to let the people go. The course of events evokes expectations. After the
plague had run its course, Pharaoh calls for Moses (10:24). This is the first time
Pharaoh invites Moses for negotiations after a plague. Evidently the plague had so
traumatized him that the fear for yet another - worse - calamity moves him to
seek contact with Moses to head off the impending danger. So there is plenty of
hope that Pharaoh is prepared to accede to y h w h ’s demand.
174 Extra-biblical tradition has expanded and sharpened the miracle even more. According to
Josephus (AJ, II, 307ff.), Pharaoh gave permission to leave before the plague struck (10:24) while
Moses presented the demand to leave after the plague (cf. 10:3), which resulted in an outburst of anger
on the part of Pharaoh (10:28); Josephus also relates that the darkness was so thick that it obstructed
the sight of the Egyptians and that the air was so thick that it made their breathing difficult, so that they
died miserably or were living in fear of being swallowed up by the dark cloud. Philo (VM, I, 123ff.)
writes that the darkness came up suddenly while it was day, caused by an extraordinary eclipse of the
sun, or perhaps because the rays of the sun were obscured by always more clouds which, pushed
together, got compressed into impenetrably dense clouds; whoever lay in bed did not dare to get up;
anyone trying to heed a call of nature, like a blind person groped his way along walls or whatever; for
artificial light was in part put out by the hard wind and in part so blacked out by the deep darkness that
it was entirely ineffective; people could not see, nor could they speak, hear and eat; they just lay down,
quiet and hungry, until Moses again felt pity and prayed to God, who removed the darkness by giving
light. Ishodad notes: even though the Egyptians lit the lamp, it gave them no light, because God
prevented all lights from shining on them; if perchance an Israelite found himself in the midst of the
Egyptians, he could go about his activities unhindered. Also Nachmanides, to mention no more, notes
that no fire or light was a match for the darkness.
A dialogue between Pharaoh and Moses ensues (10:24-26, 27-29; 11:4-8), which
the reader again may witness. Pharaoh starts. Good-natured, he grants consent to
worship y h w h (10:24). To be sure, he adds a stipulation - the animals must
remain behind - , but very tactfully he concludes his consent with a concession.
The leaving of children, women and aged is no longer a point of discussion for
him (cf. 10:8-11). He makes it seem as if in virtually everything he has met
Moses’ wishes. However, compared with the previous encounter, in reality his
attitude has not changed at all. The permission he has granted shows that he
remains convinced that Israel belongs to him - having the animals stay behind is
to be his security that the people will return - and that at best their absence is
only temporary, not a departure for good. Compelled by the circumstances,
Pharaoh is only prepared to have further talks (see Vol. I, 375ff.). Anxiously the
reader awaits the outcome. Will Moses catch on that Pharaoh has set a trap?
Moses’ response makes him breathe easily again. Again Moses demonstrates his
uncanny ability to deal with the situation. He sees through Pharaoh and knows how
to handle him. In turn, he sets a trap for Pharaoh. He pretends as if he believes
that the condition imposed by Pharaoh naturally implies that Pharaoh himself will
make sacrificial animals available (10:25). If Pharaoh were to follow suite and
indeed offer the animals for the worship of y h w h , it would mean that he, too,
would serve and acknowledge y h w h . A s if that is not enough, Moses adds that
even so all the livestock must go with them since they are not familiar with
y h w h ’s requirements (10:26). The reader is impressed by Moses’ ability to rebuff
Pharaoh, and he notes, too, that from the outset Moses has made it impossible for
Pharaoh to say that a sacrificial feast does not require all the animals. Moses is a
step ahead of Pharaoh. Fortunately, Moses is not prepared to any concessions that
might jeopardize the fulfilment of the promises to the patriarchs. To Pharaoh, the
matter is now crystal clear. Moses eyes the permanent departure of the people.
Whatever catastrophes may threaten him, he cannot relinquish authority over the
people of Israel. In an aside comment, the writer notes again that however willing
Pharaoh may appear, in reality he remains the same old ruler (10:27), the foe of
y h w h ’s promises. The people as a whole may not leave the country (1:10).
Again confronted with Moses’ unexpressed but wholly transparent intention -
the sacrificial feast outside the land remains the focus of the discussion - Phara
oh’s mood changes. This time he not only curses Moses and runs him from the
court (10:10f.), he also denies him access, on pain of death should he dare to
show his face again (10:28). Seething with rage, he no longer wants to have
anything to do with Moses and breaks all contacts. At this critical moment the
reader watches Moses. Will he allow himself to be permanently driven from the
court? Does the abrupt end of the audience mean that the chances of leaving are
gone forever? To his joy, the reader sees that now Moses does not let himself be
chased off, but that he remains where he is and, though outraged, controls himself.
Now that the relationship between Pharaoh and Moses has hit bottom
conflict has reached the boiling point, Moses has the last word/,
Pharaoh, already his first words (10:29) offer the reader hope. A ke^tis&nW.whe€
118 exodus 10:21 - 1 1 :1 0
detects in Moses’ guarded answer an announcement of the departure. Ironically,

Moses conveys to Pharaoh that Pharaoh’s desire is precisely what he wants: to cut
all ties with Pharaoh. Pharaoh will get his wish, though not the way he had
imagined. Moses’ threatening words to Pharaoh are like music in the reader’s ears.
His expectation mounts even more as the writer briefly interrupts the account of
Moses’ reaction to talk about a divine message Moses received while standing
before Pharaoh (11:1-2). The message from God tells the reader that Moses’
words rest on solid ground. Moses is right in announcing to Pharaoh the breaking
of all ties, y h w h has told him that it will take just one more plague to move
Pharaoh to let the people go. Through his negative attitude Pharaoh brings the
plagues upon himself and his people. But now for the last time (11:1). Deliverance
is at hand, the exodus - of all things caused by Pharaoh himself! — is near.
Whatever doubts there might still be in the reader’s mind are dispelled when he
hears that Moses is to seek contact with the people (11:2; cf. 3:2If.). The time for
making final preparations has come. Now at last it is going to happen.
Like Moses aware that the end of the confrontation is in sight, the reader
hurriedly reads on, eager to find out how y h w h will get Pharaoh to the point that
he even drives Israel away. For the time being, however, the writer keeps the
reader in the dark about it. Leaving Moses behind with Pharaoh, the writer runs
ahead. Ignoring a number of things, such as Moses’ execution of the instruction of
11:2 - the reader knows that Moses faithfully did what he had been told (cf.
12:35) - the writer transports the reader into the near future, showing him a clip
of one of the episodes that happened after the tenth plague. The writer shows the
reader that, thanks to y h w h ’s influence on the Egyptians, the people will be
loaded with jewelry (11:3a). Besides, now already the writer relates to the reader
what the Egyptians will think of Moses. The reader, whose respect for Moses kept
mounting as he watched him deal with Pharaoh, and who had not failed to notice
that Moses’ conduct slowly had made an impression on the Egyptians (8:15; 9:20;
10:7), now already may learn that the Egyptians, at the climactic point of the
controversy, will confirm the judgment that Moses was a highly respectable
person. All in all, it will soon become evident that there has been a change for the
good in the attitude of the Egyptians toward Israel and its leader.
This look into the near future gives the reader absolute certainty that this time
y h w h will take care of Pharaoh and his people. But again, how will the big
turnabout happen? The writer no longer leaves the reader in the dark about it.
Taking him back to Pharaoh and Moses, he makes him overhear the rest of
Moses’ reply to Pharaoh. In 11:1, 2 the writer informed the reader of words
y h w h had spoken to Moses. Now it turns out that - for the sake of suspense in
the story - he had not reported everything y h w h had said to Moses.175 Now at
173 Sam. Pent, includes in YHWH’s instruction to Moses also the message for Pharaoh; in 11:3 the
divine message of 11:4-7 is mentioned after D31; Sam. Pent, in 11:4 has twice the introductory formula,
‘And Moses said;’ the first time there follows the divine message from 4:22-23 (though now ‘yhwh ’
last the writer openly makes Pharaoh hear the harsh message that was to be
delivered to him by order of y h w h (cf. 4:22f.). Learning of the final catastrophe
that will come upon Egypt, the reader shudders: All firstborn, the flower, the hope
and strength of the nation (cf. Gen. 49:3), will die without exception and without
distinction (11:5). In the death of his own eldest son, and also in the death of the
firstborn of the people and the cattle, y h w h himself will strike Pharaoh in the very
core of his being.*176 The coming plague affects the reader even more when he
hears from Moses’ lips that the mourning for the dead will be accompanied by
unbelievably raw and heartrending wailing (11:6). The announcement sends a
shudder through his soul. Also, he is astonished to learn of what will be the
situation among the Israelites at the time of the tragedy: unlike the great lamen
tation and total disorder among the Egyptians, among the Israelites there will be
quiet peace and serenity; none of the Israelites nor of their livestock will be
harmed in the slightest. Again it will become manifest that belonging to Pharaoh
or to y h w h implies a different treatment (cf. Introd. § 3.40.1). The cogent lesson
is that y h w h , Israel’s God, is the author of the calamity, and that he acts like this
to back up his demand - this time not specifically stated to Pharaoh - to let
Israel go (11:7). Moses announces that the plague will be recognized for what it is
meant to accomplish, and that it will indeed achieve that object, Israel’s departure.
It is indeed the final blow (11:1)! Pharaoh’s courtiers will - on behalf of Pharaoh!
- come to Moses as supplicants, thereby affirming that to Moses, and in him to
Moses’ Lord, belongs all power and that they are dependent on him in everything.
They will implore Moses to leave, along with his people, because his presence is
disastrous to Egypt (cf. 1 Sam. 5-6). The attitude of the courtiers is indicative of
how things have changed. Moses will no longer ask to be allowed to leave (5:Iff.
etc.). He will be asked to leave (11:8). In fact, Pharaoh will drive them out
(11:1). He, the foe of the fulfilment of the promise to the patriarchs, will now
himself advance the fulfilment of the promise of the land.
The way the writer describes Moses’ exit is entirely in line with the content of
the communicated divine message. When Pharaoh threatened Moses with death
(10:28), he refused to be intimidated and showed to be in control of the situation
through his rejoinders to Pharaoh (10:29). The divine message (11:1-2) and the
announcement of the tenth plague (11:4-8) affirmed that Moses had good reason
for being self-assured. For y h w h had in mind to deal Pharaoh the final blow. So
Moses leaves Pharaoh, not as one driven off (10:11), nor as Pharaoh’s intercessor
(8:8, 26; 9:33; 10:18), but in ominous hot anger, a sign that the breach between
him and Pharaoh is now complete and that the plague is at hand (11:8 end). Moses
is indeed a man who commands deep respect (11:3b).
The writer leaves the reader in the company of Moses and makes him witness a
instead of ‘I’ is the subject of ‘kill;’ cf. also SamT and Field hoc loco.
176 For the joint fate between Pharaoh, the people and the property, see introduction to exegesis of
7:14-11:10 (sub b).
120 exodus 10:21 - 11 :1 0
further divine revelation (11:9): also the announcement of the tenth plague will
leave Pharaoh unaffected, he will not move on it. It perplexes the reader. How is
it possible that a person will not go to any length to stave off such a catastrophe?
y h w h tells Moses, and so the reader, that Pharaoh’s unwillingness will have a
positive effect; because Pharaoh resists to the bitter end, the demonstration of the
greatness of y h w h ’s power will reach an unprecedented climax (cf. 9:15f.;
10: If.). So having once again given the reader a prospect of the coming big
events, the writer for now concludes the description of the plagues in Egypt
(11:10). He notes that Moses and Aaron have done a fine job (cf. 7:6), but that,
owing to y h w h ’s influence on Pharaoh, their work so far has not yet had its
intended effect. It was not because of Moses and Aaron that Pharaoh kept up his
refusal. On the cusp of the flow of events - Pharaoh’s fatal date with history is at
hand - the writer deems it appropriate to point this out, since from now on the
role of Moses and Aaron will be different. Now that there is no more reason to
demand of Pharaoh to release the people (10:28; 11:8), their role in the struggle
with Pharaoh has come to an end. The execution of the last plague y h w h has
reserved for himself. Putting it differently, because Pharaoh again defies y h w h ’s
envoys, the moment has arrived for y h w h to intervene himself. And so, ul
timately, all the credit for Israel’s deliverance is entirely his. All in all, from ch.
12 on there is a change in the story and its players. Also Israel, for the first time
after 6:9, will again have an active role in the course of events.
No more than from 8:22 (see Introduction IV), should one conclude from 10:26 in
Egypt Israel was unfamiliar with sacrificial worship (e.g. Te Stroete; cf. Hyatt).
To me it seems doubtful that a serious case for that can be built on 9:26. What
seems meant is that Moses tricked Pharaoh. In the ‘game’ with Moses, Pharaoh
thinks to have pulled a fast one (10:24). Moses, however, through his counter
moves (10:25-26) manages to outwit Pharaoh. The question as to the structure of
Israel’s worship in Egypt seems not to have concerned the writer. His concern was
to show Moses’ shrewdness. In the dialogue with Pharaoh, Moses is sharpest.
It is suggested that IX and X correlate with Egyptian offenses: darkness ( =
locked up in jail) was brought upon the Egyptians because they had imprisoned the
Israelites in jails (MidrTanh. Exod. Ill, 5; cf. Ill, 4) and dark workplaces (BB ,
123f.). As the Hebrews cried when their children were thrown into the river
(1:22), so the Egyptians will cry (Ephraem); in fact, God even showed mercy to
the Egyptians; whereas at Pharaoh’s order all Hebrew boys were put to death, God
only exacts the death of the firstborn (BB , 129). The sons of female slaves were
struck, because they, too, had treated the Israelites as slaves; the prisoners
(12:29), so that they would not get the notion that their god had sent the plague,
and because they had applauded every measure of Pharaoh against Israel (.Mek. I,
98; MidrTanh. Exod. Ill, 18; Rashi).
Modem commentators for the most part contend that the Egyptian milieu is the
background of the description of IX. The darkness is understood as caused by the
khamsin (= ‘fifty days’), a suffocating sandstorm, which can blow from March to
May, filling the air, darkening the light of the sun, and lasting two to three
days.177 The miracle would lie in the intensity of the khamsin , and in the fact
that it came at Moses’ command. Exegetes who link 8:23b with Israel in Goshen
like to point out that the fact that the darkness did not cover the area where Israel
lived, fits the character of the khamsin\ because it can occur locally, one area can
be enveloped in darkness while in another place the sun can be shining brightly
(see also e.g. Cole, Honeycutt). Other natural causes are cited as well: sun
eclipse, darkness caused by locusts (see Houtman*, Himmel, 274), a volcanic
eruption (see Fohrer*, 75).
If the writer indeed means to say that the darkness was caused by sand and dust,
which is how his (first) readers took it, there is certainly no need to hold that he
and those readers had in mind a specific Egyptian phenomenon. Palestine is
familiar with the shirokko , a dust-laden wind which can so fill the air with dust
that sight is limited to barely two meters (cf. Houtman*, Himmel, 143ff.). For that
matter, it is doubtful that the writer thought of the darkness as brought on by a
specific natural cause.178 He aims to describe a miracle: the coming of a totally
unnatural darkness due to Moses’ invoking of heaven. His concern is to point out
that Egypt fell captive to a cataclysmic event (cf. Noth; Fohrer*, 78). Westerners
may be inclined to view the darkness as anticlimactic after the previous plagues,
ancients would have thought differently. To them darkness spelled lawlessness,
anarchy, an existence akin to that of the dead. In maledictory formulas, e.g.,
darkness is mentioned as a gruesome punishment.179
Not a few hold that the plague demonstrates y h w h ’s supremacy over the gods of
Egypt, and that the account abounds with irony: the darkness that lasted three days
was a huge defeat of the sun god and his representative, Pharaoh.180 Several
exegetes detect also in (the announcement of) X a demonstration of y h w h ’s
supremacy over Egypt’s gods. It is pointed out that Egyptian mythology relates
that every night the sun god Re triumphs over the serpent Apophis, the hostile
darkness. However, in the night of y h w h ’s presence, Re - and his incarnation
Pharaoh - will be vanquished and YHWH be victorious (1 l:4ff.).181 There is also
the notion that the animals were struck because they were objects of adoration in
Egypt (e.g. Mek. I, 99; MidrTanh. Exod. Ill, 18; Rashi; Murphy; Cassuto). In my
view, it is doubtful that the writer thought of Egypt’s religion. Neither IX nor X
seem to have a specific connection with the Egyptian milieu. The plagues were
177 See e.g. DB, III, 892; Keil; Dillmann; Strack; Baentsch; Cassuto; G. Hort, ZAW 70 (1958),
52ff.; Broekhuis*, 66ff.
178 For a quite different discussion on the cause of the darkness see ExR. XIV, 2; MidrTanh. Exod.
Ill, 2; for instance, it is suggested that the darkness came from Gehenna.
179 See e.g. F.C. Fensham, ZAW 75 (1963), 170f.; D.R. Hillers, Treaty-Curses and the Old
Testament Prophets, Rome 1964, 17.
,8<’ Cf. Murphy, Gispen, Cassuto, Honeycutt, Knight and D.A. Fox, JAAR 45 (1977), 219.
181 See e.g. Rylaarsdam, Te Stroete, Fensham, Honeycutt, Broekhuis*, 67f.
122 EXODUS 10:21 - 11:10
such that, given Israel’s environment, they made a deep impression on them.
It is not said how IX came to an end. What seems meant is that it just stopped
after three days. Cessation at Moses’ intercession is no longer possible after 10:17.
EXEGESIS
10:21 Then y h w h said to Moses: ‘Stretch out your hand toward heaven and
there will be darkness over the land o f Egypt, a darkness so thick that one can only
grope one's way around . '
10:21a, cf. 9:22a; 10:12a, also for Sam. Pent.; again Moses is to reach with his
staff toward heaven in a conjuring motion, v n , see 9:22. "|em, see 10:15; for the
nature of the darkness see above under 3; Ibn Ezra, drawing on personal ex
perience, likens it to a phenomenon on the Atlantic Ocean; due to heavy fog,
sometimes for five days on end, one cannot make out day or night; to get a feel
for what happened reference has also been made to eruptions of the Etna (BB ,
125). pern tfm , not in Qm (cf. Sanderson*, 147f.).
0Dt\ i is usually regarded as imperf. hiph. of (with ehD as cognate form; cf.
Joiion § 80o, 82o): ‘to touch,’ ‘to feel’ (Gen. 27:12, 22; cf. 27:21); piel: ‘to
grope,’ ‘to explore’ (Gen. 31:34, 37; Deut. 28:29; Job 5:14; 12:25); hiph.: ‘to let
touch’ (Judg. 16:26Q), (directly causative) ‘to feel’ (10:21; Ps. 115:7). In that
case the darkness is assumed to be so thick that ‘one’ (subject of tfB‘,i) can touch
it;182 see already LXX, Vulg. and also ExR. XIV, 1; MidrTanh Exod. Ill, 2 (the
darkness was substantial, thick as a denarius) and further SamTA (riDtfn bsp’1!,
‘and the darkness will be twice as thick’ [cf. ExR. XIV, 3]; differently SamTJ:
rtDtfn pOS'i); TNf, FTV rest on the assumption that "Itfn is accusativus loci (cf.
Calmet, SS): ‘and then one/they will (be as those who [so TNf margin]) who
grope in darkness’ (one suffers the fate of the blind; cf. Deut. 28:29). In TO and
TPsJ tfQ'n is taken to be a form of 2n&, ‘to give way,’ ‘to leave (its place)’ (see
13:22); TO: ‘... after the darkness of the night is gone;’ TPsJ: ‘... at dawn when
the first darkness of the night disappears.’183 Rashi holds that tf&ri = a
form of 27DN, denominative verb of ‘last night’ (e.g. Gen. 19:34): ‘and then
the darkness will be night,’ that is, there will be a very thick darkness; cf. also
Pesh.: w n‘mt h sk \ ‘and the darkness will become dark.’ PDK does not occur as
verb in the OT. The interpretation is a guess and is unsatisfactory. The same can
be said of the view of H.P. Riiger, Z4W 82 (1970), 103-9: in Sir. 40:10b and
IH2 In that connection one could think of the sand and dust carried by the khamsin (e.g. Strack,
Cassuto); because, in view of the construction of the sentence, “Jon is subject rather than object, it has
been proposed to vocalize as niph. of hoph.: ‘and then the darkness will be palpable.’
IK3 Thus it will be shown that it is a miracle; cf. Rashi, who points out that grammatically and
logically such a translation is not possible.
Exod. 10:21 ehD means ‘to happen,’ ‘to materialize;’ "|2?n DD'i is interpretive
gloss. Fuss*, 247 n. 5, takes the hiph. as ‘zum Tasten notigen.’ Ehrlich resorts to
emendation: (niph.), ‘and then the darkness will persist.’ To the above is to
be added that also the absence of the article before the second "|tfn is rather
striking (LV is based on adding it: 'that darkness’). In my view, Fuss’ interpre
tation best fits the hiph. The darkness is subject and necessitates people to grope;
no longer able to see, they must resort to their sense of touch. A possible objection
might be that the people are immobile according to 10:23. However, 10:21 does
not specifically talk about mobility. It should also be kept in mind that the
description builds up toward a climax.
10:22 So Moses stretched out his hand toward heaven and there was a dense
darkness in all the land o f Egypt, fo r three days.
10:23 People could not see one another and no one could move from where they
were, fo r three days; but it was light where the Israelites lived.
10:22a, cf. 9:23a; 10:13a; though ‘staff is not mentioned, it would seem that the
hand holding the staff is meant (cf. Introd. § 3.21.9). (OT 10x), ‘darkness’
(10:22; Deut. 28:29 et al.), in construct chain with the synonymous "Itfn to
describe the superlative (KoSynt § 309k; GesK § 133i; Jotion § 141m); in LXX
‘darkness,’ ‘blackness,’ is followed by OueAAa, ‘storm;’ from that some have
concluded that according to the LXX interpretation the darkness was caused by the
khamsin (e.g. Dillmann); but note also Deut. 4:11; 5:22 in the LXX; also Philo
(VM, I, 124) mentions the wind, but makes no link with a sand storm; it seems
that in the LXX the wind is mentioned as the cause why the lamps went out. ‘three
days,’ see Introd. § 3.23.2; 4.4.1; cf. the three hours of darkness during Jesus’
crucifixion (Matt. 27:45). Rabbinic exegesis has put the duration of the plague at
seven days; the three days of 10:22: due to the darkness one could not see each
other but one could still sit down and stand up + the three days of 10:23;184 the
duration of the darkness was doubled; whoever was sitting could not get up,
whoever was standing could not sit down, etc.; the seventh day is described in
Exod. 14:20 (ExR. XIV, 3; MidrTanh. Exod. Ill, 3; see also Rashi; Ginzberg*, II,
359). Ibn Ezra matter-of-factly remarks that the Egyptians found out from the
Israelites that the darkness lasted three days; because the distinction between day
and night had disappeared, they could not determine it themselves.
‘see,’ see Introd. § 3.46.1. ‘one another,’ see Introd. § 3.2.2. Dip, see 1:8. ‘no
one,’ see Introd. § 3.2.2. rnnnD, cf. 16:29; 2 Sam. 2:23; Zech. 6:12; meant is
that people were lying down and could not get up; LXX: ex t t )<; K o l t r i g , ‘from his
bed.’ UK, see 10:15. DehD, see 2:15; LXX: ‘in all places where they live;’ some
think that 10:23b refers to the Israelites in Goshen (cf. 8:18; 9:26); see e.g.
Strack, Heinisch, Gispen, Cassuto. But it is also possible to think of the residences
of the Israelites who were living among the Egyptians (cf. 9:4 and see Introd.
184 Vulg. does not have the repetition.

124 EXODUS 10:21 - 11:10
§ 8.6.3); that would make the miracle even more impressive: the dense darkness is
punctuated by bright spots; it is also possible to understand DMBhna as ‘in their
dwellings:’ outside and in the homes of the Egyptians it is pitch black, but in the
homes of the Israelites it is light.
TPsJ contains an elaboration; it gives two reasons why there was light among
Israel: (1) it enabled them to able to bury the godless who had died; the allusion is
to the explanation in ExR. XIV, 3, that during the three days of darkness the
Israelites who refused to leave Egypt died; they could be buried without the
Egyptians noticing it and being able to say: ‘look, the same happened to them’ (cf.
Mek. I, 95; Rashi); (2) it enabled them to devote themselves to the study of the
commandments in their homes (cf. TNf margin). Rabbinic exegesis mentions still
another reason for the coming of darkness: it provided the Israelites with the
opportunity to search through the homes of the Egyptians unhindered, so that they
knew exactly what to demand at the exodus (cf. 11:2-3).185 Ephraem: the Is
raelites enjoyed light so that they could rest from their efforts and make prepara
tions for the exodus.
10:24 Then Pharaoh summoned Moses and said: ‘Go ahead, worship y h w h .
Only leave your flocks and your herds behind in custody. O f course, your children,
women and elderly may go with you. ’
Apparently one should picture it like this that Pharaoh, when the plague had
ended, sought contact with Moses; possibly he could not do it earlier on account of
the darkness (cf. 10:21-23).186 The nature of the plague was such that it was
impossible to approach Moses through servants (9:27) or to hastily call him in
(10:16). The plague itself made it impossible for Pharaoh to plead with Moses to
intercede (cf. 10:17). This is the first time that Moses, now without Aaron -
indication of the heating-up of the conflict? (but see 11:9) - is called in after a
plague. Apparently the plague was so terrible that Pharaoh wanted to prevent that
another plague should come on top of it.
‘to summon,’ see Introd. § 3.45.1; Sam. Pent.: + b instead of bx (cf. 8:21). In
TPsJ a time designation precedes: ‘after three days.’ Some MSS, Sam. Pent., Qm
(cf. Sanderson*, 91f., 276ff.), LXX, Vulg., TNf: ‘Moses and Aaron’ (cf. 8:4, 21;
9:27; 10:16). ‘Go ahead ...,’ cf. 10:8 and see 8:21. LXX: ‘YHWH, your God;’ cf.
8:21; 10:8. p i, see 8:5. ‘flocks’ and ‘herds,’ see Introd. § 9.1.4, 11. (sing,
with two collectives as subject; cf. KoSynt § 349r) imperf. hoph. (cf. Ges-K § 71;
Meyer § 78.8b) of J2T (Mandelkem: 32H; cf. Joiion § 77b) (OT 16 x); hiph.: ‘to
put down,’ ‘to set down’ (Gen. 30:38; Deut. 28:56 et al.), ‘to leave behind’ (Gen.
185 See ExR. XIV, 3; MidrTanh. Exod. Ill, 3; Rashi; Ginzberg*, II, 359f.
186 Calvin, e.g., has a different view: in view of the foregoing it is unlikely that Pharaoh was willing
to be accommodating after the plague; the description in 10:23 is hyperbolic; therefore there is no
reason why one cannot assume that Pharaoh sought contact with Moses during the plague; even less
satisfying are notions such as that Moses was within reach of Pharaoh’s voice (BB, 125).
33:15); hoph.: ‘to be given into custody.* LXX does not have the shift in subject:
‘leave behind According to TPsJ the animals have to stay with Pharaoh (‘with
me’). ‘Of course,’ see Introd. § 3.11.1. *]□, see 10:10.
If one assumes that Moses was after no more than a temporary absence of Israel,
one cannot deny, in light of Gen. 50:8, that Pharaoh was rather generous. In a
case like that it is obviously only the men who go. But now Pharaoh is even
willing to let the children, women and aged go as well. The livestock he wants to
keep behind. Needless to say, not to compensate himself for the losses he suffered
on account of the plagues (see Josephus, AJ , II, 307) and/or for the leaving of the
workers (cf. e.g. Calvin, Cole), but as security, to make sure the people would
return. To Pharaoh, a request that the animals go as well is tantamount to an
announcement that the people will leave and not come back. As the foe of y h w h ’s
promise, there is no way he can let that happen.
10:25 But Moses replied: ‘You must not only supply us with animals fo r sacrifice
and burnt offerings, so that we may prepare them fo r y h w h , our God,
10:26 but also our livestock must go with us - not a hoof may remain behind
fo r from them we must pick some fo r worshipping y h w h , our God; fo r we
ourselves do not know how to worship y h w h , until we arrive there. ’
□31 ... □: (cf. 10:26), see Introd. § 3.11.2. nnx, cf. Ges-K § 135a; Jotion § 146a;
Brockelmann § 34b. ‘supply,’ see Introd. § 3.36; 3.21.3. ’JTS, in LXX., Vulg.
translated ad sensum as ‘to us.’
naj (OT ca. 160x; Exod. 9 x ; derivative of rGT [see 3:18 + Bibl.]), ‘victim,’
can denote both the sacrificial animal and the sacrificial meat (23:18; 24:5; 34:15,
25 [2x]) - in 10:25; 18:12 the living animals intended for sacrifice - and more
in general the sacral ritual (12:27), including, among others, the slaying and
sacrificing of the animal and the sacrificial meal (for [nsr] = m t, see
20:24). The occasion was marked by thanksgiving and, also on account of the
meal, was a festive event (cf. Gen. 31:54; Judg. 16:23ff.; 1 Sam. 9:12, 22ff.;
20:5f.; 1 Kgs. 8:5 et al.). ‘animal for sacrifice* is often found, in varying order
(cf. LXX 10:25, and see Sanderson*, 133f.), in combination with ‘burnt offering’
(10:25; 18:12; 24:5; Deut. 12:6; 1 Sam. 15:22; 2 Kgs. 5:17; Hos. 6:6 et al.),
and, in view of their different nature, seem to stand for sacrifices in general
(merismus); cf. also 20:24; 32:6 et al.
(OT ca. 285x ; Exod. 17x ) ,187 ‘burnt offering’ (20:24; 32:6 [beside
□'□be;]; 29:25, 42; 30:9; 40:29), is a sacrifice which, apart from the skin which is
187 Derivative of n^l? (Introd. § 3.39); Brongers (Introd. § 3.39.2): fem. present part.: ‘die, das
Heraufsteigende;’ in 24:5; 30:9; 32:6; 40:29 object of rfosi hiph. (paronomasia); in 30:28; 31:9; 35:16;
38:1; 40:6, 10, 29 in the construct chain ‘altar of burnt offering.’
126 EXODUS 10:21 - 11:10
for the priest, is burnt in its entirety on the altar and in smoke ascends to God
(29:18).188 dtqt is rendered in TO, TPsJ as re n ip noDJ, ‘holy sacrifices.’
‘prepare,* see Introd. § 3.41.1.
‘livestock,’ see Introd. §9.1.1. 1K0, see 8:5; LXX: ‘and we will not leave
behind ...* (cf. Qm; see Sanderson*, 125). np")9 (OT ca. 20x), ‘(cloven) hoof of
cud chewing animals (Lev. 11:3-7, 26; Deut. 14:6-8 et al.), of horses (Isa. 5:28 et
al.); TPsJ: ‘one hoof;’ TNf: ‘the hoof of a leg;* possibly the term is used pars pro
toto to designate a hoof animal, but it can also mean: even the most useless rest of
an animal from the flock (= ‘nothing at all;’ cf. KoSynt § 93, and see the ad
sensum translation in TO: ‘nothing of it will remain’), ‘to pick,’ see Introd.
§ 3.30. unJK, cf. Ges-K § 135a, etc. (see 10:25). ‘know,’ see Introd. § 3.22. no,
Rashi and Holzinger: ‘how many;’ Ehrlich: ‘in what manner’ (of what kind), cf.
Gen. 44:16, and see KoSynt § 332c; Jotion § 144e; nau is used with double acc.;
cf. Isa. 19:21 and see Ges-K § 117ff.; Joiion § 125w. It is obvious that HD refers
to number and kind of sacrificial animals (cf. Ibn Ezra). n&&, the place for
worshipping y h w h or the place of revelation (see Vol. I, 375ff.).
The interpretation of 10:25, 26 is somewhat in dispute. Along with others,
including Rashi, Dillmann, Strack, Baentsch, I hold that Dai ... DJ indicates that
Moses expands a bit on his demand (10:9) by requesting sacrificial animals from
Pharaoh (10:25); that, furthermore, he keeps insisting that all the animals leave,
arguing that certainty is to be preferred to uncertainty, and that, in any case, one
must make sure that there are sufficient sacrificial animals because it is only at the
site that y h w h will reveal how many and which victims he desires (cf. 8:23).
They have to make sure that they can meet y h w h ’s wishes. Because later on
nothing more (specifically; but note 12:32) is said about sacrificial animals given
along by Pharaoh (cf. 12:31),189 Moses’ stronger demand is to be regarded as
part of the negotiation strategy. Moses gives Pharaoh leeway, in a new round of
talks, to make a concession with respect to the leaving of the animals, but to
refuse the offering of sacrificial animals. Pharaoh’s loss of face need not be total.
It seems likely, too, that Moses’ remark in 10:25 is inspired by Pharaoh himself
and that Moses picks up on Pharaoh’s words. Moses only pretends as if Pharaoh,
with his refusal to let the livestock go, implicitly promised that he himself would
provide animals for sacrifice. Worship without sacrifices is unthinkable, isn’t it? In
short, Moses exploits Pharaoh’s words. Moreover, he sets a trap: providing
sacrificial victims is service to y h w h and so recognition of y h w h !
188 See further (also for the uncertain history of the sacrificial worship) TWAT, VI, 105ff.; R.
Rendtorff, Studien zur Geschichte des Opfers im alten Israel, Neukirchen-Vluyn 1967; L. Rost,
“Erwagungen zum israelitischen Brandopfer,” in Von Ugarit nach Qumran (Fs O. Eiflfeldt), Berlin
19612, 177-83. idem, Studien zum Opfer im alten Israel, Stuttgart et al. 1981; W.B. Stevenson,
“Hebrew ‘Olah and Zebach Sacrifices,” in Fs A. Bertholet, Tubingen 1950, 488-97; R. de Vaux,
Studies in Old Testament Sacrifice, Cardiff 1964, 27ff.
189 Ibn Ezra: the sacrifices of 10:25 are offers on behalf of Pharaoh; similarly Nachmanides: the
allusion is to 12:32 end.
Doubtful is whether D21 ... DJ allows other interpretations. It is proposed that

10:25 does not refer to sacrifices/animals as a gift from Pharaoh; presumably,
against the backdrop of the purpose of the journey, Moses points out to Pharaoh
the impossibility of the restriction he imposed: ‘but you’ll have to let us bring
animals with us, won’t you?’ (10:25); ‘therefore also our livestock must go with
us ...’ (10:26) (e.g. Lange; cf. CV). Also the notion that 10:25 is an interrogative
sentence has been defended (Van der Palm; Te Stroete, and see WV): ‘Wilt u ons
dan zelf ... ter beschikking stellen ...?’ 10:26 makes clear that even if such should
be the case, nevertheless all the animals will have to go, since the sacrifices must
come from Israel’s own possessions (UDD, usually applied to the livestock: ‘from
it/them,’ is understood as ‘from what is ours’ [cf. also e.g. NEB; but Van der
Palm: ‘daaruit’]); the nature and extent of the sacrifices is still unknown. Others
explain the verses somewhat differently, e.g. Hyatt: ‘You would have to provide
us ..., if we did not take along our own livestock. Furthermore, we cannot choose
in advance from our own flocks and herds the animals to be sacrificed, and leave
behind the rest, for we ....’ Finally there is also the view that 10:25 and 10:26 are
from different authors (doublet) (e.g. Holzinger; cf. also SBJ).
10:27 But y h w h made Pharaoh obstinate. So he would not let them go.
10:27a, cf. 9:12a; 10:20a. perf. qal of m # (OT ca. 55 x ; almost always with
negation), ‘(not) willing to do something’ (inf. cstr. + b) (cf. Deut. 2:30). See
THAT , I, 20ff.; TWAT , I, 24ff.; E. Jenni, in Fs A. Dupont-Sommer, Paris 1971,
202-7; P. Jotion, Bib 8 (1927), 338f.
10:28 Pharaoh then said to him (Moses): 'Get away from me. D on’t you dare to
set one foot in my court again; fo r the moment you set one foot in my court, you
will be put to death. ’
Pharaoh is furious. Not because the ritual killing of animals is abominable to him
(so Bohl; cf. 8:22), but because Moses’ words leave no doubt that he eyes Israel’s
permanent departure, something that cannot possibly have his backing. "I1? (Introd.
§ 3.14.2), in Sam. Pent, and Pesh. followed by dativus commodi "J4?.
(for vocalization see Ges-K § 5 In) imper. sing. niph. of (OT ca.
470X; qal ca. 425X; niph. ca. 35X; Exod. 25x); qal ( + accus.): ‘to guard,’ ‘to
watch,’ ‘to keep,’ of animals (21:29, 36; 22:9), things (22:6), humans,190 ‘to
observe,’ ‘to abide by,’ of ordinances and the like (12:17, 24, 25; 13:10; 15:26;
16:28; 19:5; 20:6; 34:11), of keeping the sabbath (31:13, 14, 16) and cultic
festivals (12:17; 23:15; 34:18); niph.: ‘to take heed,’ ‘to beware,’ often as
imper.,191 followed by prohibition (10:28; Judg. 13:4; Job 36:21), inf. cstr.
190 In the sense of ‘protect’ (23:20; cf. Gen. 28:15, 20; Num. 6:24; Josh. 24:17; Ps. 91:11 et al.
and Hos. 12:14 niph.).
191 Often with dativus commodi (ethicus) (Ges-K § 119s; Jotion § 133d; Brockelmann § 1070; 10:28;
19:12; 34:12 et al.; cf. 34:11 (qal); jussive in 23:13 (+ □; cf. Deut. 24:8; 2 Sam. 20:10 et al.).
128 EXODUS 10:21 - 11:10
(19:12; in Gen. 31:29; 2 Kgs. 6:9 by inf. + ]D), ID of the person (23:21; Jer.
9:3), a clause introduced by (34:12; Gen. 24:6; 31:24; Deut. 4:9, 23 et al.).
The derivative rnptpp (OT ca. 80x ) in 12:6; 16:23, 32-34; Num. 17:25; 19:9, is
generally thought to mean ‘keeping,’ ‘preservation;’ Milgrom*, 16 (cf. TWAT, V,
84f.), emphasizes that mil contains the idea of ‘seeing to it;’ as concerns
12:6, the point is that one must make sure that the animal remain without blemish
(12:5). □,n p # , which in the OT occurs only in 12:42 (2x), is usually regarded as
a plurale tantum (cf. KoSynt § 261e; Jotion § 136i; the current vogue is to take it
to mean ‘night watch/vigil’ (e.g. Zo., KBL), ‘festliches Wachen’ (KoW; another
view is that it means ‘keeping’ in the sense of observing the Passover and atten
dant customs (SS). See further THAT, II, 982ff.; TWAT , VIII, 280ff.
in L appears due to a scribal error; read with many MSS and editions.
*iph (Ges-K § 69v) of ^0% see 1:10. ‘to set one foot in the court,’ see Introd.
§ 3.42.4. Dr, see Introd. § 3.23.1; cf. Gen. 2:17. ‘to be put to death;’ see Introd.
§ 3.32. Not only the death threat, but also the use of the asyndetically linked
imperatives and prohibition reveal Pharaoh’s highly agitated state of mind. He is
fuming with anger.
10:29 Moses replied: ‘Just as you say. I will not put one foot in your court
again . '
]D is usually taken to mean ‘right’ (cf. Num. 27:7; 36:5, and see KoSynt § 332f);
see already TO, TPsJ, FTP: niK'; FTV: nDKhp (both terms in TNf); LXX has left
ID untranslated; see beside it Aq., Theod.: outgx;; Symm.: opOox;; cf. also
KoSynt § 351h: m D l p = ‘yes.’ Likely, however, meant is: ‘That is what you
have ordered (and that is what will be done);’192 ‘You are waited on hand and
foot.’ Moses’ words are meant ironically as he hints that Pharaoh may yet come to
regret it that he denied him access to the court. Likely his words also contain a
veiled announcement that he and his people will soon leave the country, making
his words at once threatening to Pharaoh and heartening to the reader. is
usually rendered with the auxiliary verb ‘shall;’ my preference is ‘will.’ n r , see
2:3.
TPsJ, TNf, FT in 10:28, 29 offer a version that is sharply different from MT.
FTP e.g. reads in translation: Pharaoh now said to him: ‘Get out of my sight; be
careful not ever again to use language like that in my presence; Pharaoh would
rather die than listen to your words; watch out that I won’t get angry with you and
hand you over to those who seek to kill you;’ and Moses answered him: ‘You
have spoken correctly; when I was still in Midian, I was already informed that the
men who sought my life had died.193 It is not because I felt sorry for you that I
would pray and avert the plague from you. Yes, this plague will be the tenth for
Pharaoh, and I will start with your firstborn son;* and Moses answered him: ‘You
192 Cf. Vulg.: ita fiat ut locutus es.

193 Cf. 4:19; Moses means to say: I have nothing to fear; your threat does not faze me.
have spoken correctly. I shall never again see your face.’ In some places TPsJ,
TNf, FTV offer a somewhat different version.
The content of Moses’ reaction does not seem to fit the sequel. In ll:4ff. he
again speaks to Pharaoh; in 12:31 Pharaoh again takes up contact with Moses and
Aaron. As to 11:4-8: Moses’ words are meant as sequel to 10:29. Various
suggestions have been made about 12:31: Moses did not see Pharaoh again in his
palace; Pharaoh came to him (ExR . XIV, 4); Pharaoh went to the house of Moses
and Aaron and called to them in the dark or he had a message brought to them
(Nachmanides); mentally to 10:29 is to be added: ‘unless you call for me;’ Moses
no longer goes of his own volition (Calmet, Cassuto); Moses nor Pharaoh are
precise in what they say, both speaking in the heat of anger (Cole); 10:29 (J) and
12:31 (E) are not of the same literary layer.*19394 Cole’s suggestion is attractive. All
Pharaoh can do is back down (compare 10:28 with 12:31). There is no way he can
carry out his threat (‘put to death’); all that is left him is to accede to Moses’
demands.
11:1 Then y h w h said to Moses: ‘One more blow will I deal to Pharaoh and the
Egyptians. After that, he will let you go from here. When he lets you go , he will
with no exceptions even drive you away from here . '
m m o N 'i, yhwh ’s words interrupt Moses’ reply to Pharaoh (11:4-8 connects
with 10:29). Did Moses receive revelation as the heated trading of words was
going on?195 Some propose to take the imperf. cons, as a pluperfect: ‘yhwh had
said to Moses,’ taking it as referring to earlier revelation (cf. 3:20-22) (see e.g.
Vulg., Ibn Ezra, Calvin, Calmet, Keil, Gispen). This interpretation, which regards
11:1-3 as parenthetical, is grammatically dubious (e.g. KoSynt § 142). Besides, it
does not fit with ‘one more blow.’ Cassuto: the passage does not refer to a new
revelation, but to what went on in Moses’ mind; standing before Pharaoh, he
becomes aware of previous instructions God gave in respect to the tenth plague; it
was as if the previous announcement was repeated and he was reminded by the
Lord that the impending blow would be the last. Supporters of the documentary
theory hold that the break in the dialogue stems from the intertwining of various
literary layers (10:29; 11:4-8 J; 11:1-3 E). It is also suggested that 11:1-3 is such
an abrupt break in the dialogue that its current position cannot be original or from
the redactor; Dillmann wants to place the passage after 11:8 (so also e.g. Honey
cutt); in GNB it is placed after 11:10; Heinisch recasts the order as follows: 11:1-
2, 4-8a; 10:28-29; 11:8b (11:3 is a gloss); cf. also Clamer, Auzou.
It is obvious that the writer uses material of varied origin. The ordering seems to
have been deliberate, but more with the reader in mind than with respect to
194 So advocates of the documentary theory (e.g. Baentsch), though elsewhere in J Pharaoh is always
the one who does the inviting.
193 Cf. ExR. XVIII, 1; Rashi; Nachmanides; for comparison one could point to Matt. 10:19f. (so
Gispen).
130 EXODUS 10:21 - 11:10
Moses’ actual place in the story. As in the description of VII and VIII (cf. 9:22;
10:12), the writer talks of fresh revelation Moses received, but this time it happens
in Pharaoh’s presence. So the reader is informed of coming events, y h w h ’s
revelation (11:1-2) contains a command to Moses, meant for the people of Israel
(11:2), not for Pharaoh. But Moses continues his dialogue with the announcement
of the last plague (11:4-8). Evidently the reader is to assume that, as Moses was
standing before Pharaoh, y h w h had also informed him about that (earlier already
these things had been brought to Moses’ attention; 3:22; 4:22-23). Note that also
in 10:3ff. it is only in the account of the execution of y h w h ’s instruction that the
content of the plague is disclosed, and that it happens more often that y h w h ’s
instruction to Moses is related while its execution is not described (cf 9:13ff.). As
to 11:1-8, it must be assumed that the instruction and revelation from y h w h and
Moses’ announcement of the plague complement each other. Moses’ mandate with
respect to the people (11:2) is mentioned in the revelation of y h w h . That Moses
did what he had been told is to be assumed (11:3a; cf. 12:35), but is not specific
ally stated. The narrative details the announcement of the last plague by Moses
(11:4-8). That y h w h gave the order to Moses to that effect is to be assumed, but
is not stated in so many words.
n r , see 2:3. Vl) (OT ca. 80x), derivative of VM (see 4:25), ‘blow,’ ‘plague,’
‘illness’ (cf. Gen. 12:17; 1 Kgs. 8:37f.; Ps. 39:11; 89:33 et al.); in 9:14; 12:13
other terms are used for the same thing (see further TWAT , V, 219ff.). The writer
has in mind the death of the firstborn (cf. 10:4ff.). In TPsJ the blow is charac
terized as ‘the one that will be the hardest of all to them.’ ‘one,’ see Introd.
§4.2.1. ‘after that,’ see Introd. § 3.1.1; without waw (cf. KoSynt § 357o); but
note some MS&, Sam. Pent.; cf. LXX, Pesh., Vulg., TPsJ, TNf. In Pesh., I
( y h w h ) is subject of ‘to let go.’ mo (2x), l x reproduced in LXX. inf.
cstr. + D to describe a temporal clause (e.g. KoSynt § 402f.; Ges-K § 164g).
The interpretation of (OT 22x), derivative of (see 5:13), ‘destruction,’
in 11:1 is disputed (Ges-B: ‘unklar’); sometimes it is conjectured that contains
the idea of ‘totally’ and is used in Gen. 18:21 and Exod. 11:1 as an adverbial
accus. (cf. KoSynt § 332d): ‘completely,’ ‘entirely’ (cf. nbsb in 2 Chr.
12:12);196 that kind of explanation finds support in the ancient translations;197*
some opt for emending the text: D$>p or in Gen. 18:21; n$>p in Exod. 11:1
(cf. KBL , HAL). G. Gerleman, THAT, I, 832, considers it possible that in
11:1, as in 1 Sam. 20:33 (cf. KoW and see Zo.; often nn^D is read), means ‘eine
beschlossene Sache.’ Ehrlich resorts to conjecture: n 'r 1?, ‘by night’ (cf. 12:30f.);
idem J. Coppens, EThL 23 (1947), 178f.: inbtfD, ‘like one sends away a
bride’ (that is, loaded with gifts); Coppens views n^D ... as a gloss, to be
m KoW; cf. BDB\ see also Zo.: = irrevocabile decretum, in 11:1 means ‘irrevocable’ or ‘all.’
197 See LXX, Pesh.; TO: NTD3 (cf. TNf margin) evidently seems to mean ‘completeness’ (cf. Rashi)
rather than ‘destruction;’ see also TPsJ: rr*? \ T n t *D3; differently TNf: n » n s 3 , ‘in great haste;’ Vulg.
has left ... ntD untranslated.
connected with the insertion 11:2-3. Also NEB’s translation (cf. NEB) rests on
reading ‘bride:’ ‘he will send you packing, as a man dismisses a rejected bride.’
Fuss*, 255, reads: ‘wird er ganze Sache machen.’ I stick with the cus
tomary interpretation. As in MT, ribs can be taken with the preceding (cf. e.g.
SV and see Baentsch): when he lets you go one and all, that is, without keeping
behind part of the people or the animals (10:8ff., 24ff) or ‘zonder beding’
(unconditionally) (Van der Palm). can also be linked with what follows.198
In that case, though, it is rendered as ‘forcibly’ (e.g. Beer). In my view, such is
not necessary. ehJ (absolute inf. to strengthen the verbal idea; e.g. Ges-K § 113n;
Jouon § 123e), see 2:17; cf. 6:1; 12:33, 39.
11:2 ‘Order the people that every man ask his neighbour and every woman her
neighbour fo r jewelry o f silver and gold. ’
11:3 And y h w h made the Egyptians favourably disposed toward the people.
Besides, Mr. Moses was highly respected in the land o f Egypt, by Pharaoh *s
courtiers as well as by the people . '
For 11:2-3a see 3:21-22.199 ‘To order,’ see Introd. §3.12.1 (for K3 see 3:3).
TTN3, see 10:2. final clause introduced by copulative waw (KoSynt
§ 361g; Ges-K § 165a; Jouon § 168b). ‘every man’ etc., see Introd. § 3.2.2, 3
and 2:13; it is assumed that the neighbours are Egyptians (so specifically TPsJ).
In 11:3a the author rather strikingly switches from y h w h ’s instruction, recorded
in direct speech, to the narrative style. Sam. Pent, continues the direct speech:
Tirol, ‘and I will ...;’ Vulg. relates the verse to the future: dabit autem
Dominus...\ in CV, WV, GNB the imperf. cons, is rendered as a pluperfect.200
MT does not allow such translations. 11:3a assumes that Moses carried out the
order, that the people heeded his instruction, and it indicates why the people could
successfully turn to their Egyptian neighbours. In the present context 11:3a, like
11:3b, can hardly be anything but a parenthetical observation, dealing with an
event that must have happened after Moses’ leaving (11:8; cf. 12:35f.).
‘Besides,’ see Introd. §3.11.2; Sam. Pent.: DJI. ‘Mr. Moses,’ see Introd.
§ 3.2.1; cf. KoSynt. § 333u; Ehrlich, and in particular P. Jouon, Bib 6 (1925),
312ff. bna, see 2:10. "INQ, see 1:7. p-IK3, some MSS: t m (Introd. § 3.38); see
also LXX (with expansion): ‘in the presence of the Egyptians and in the presence
of Pharaoh and in the presence of all his courtiers.’ ‘courtiers’ (Introd. § 3.37.2),
‘people’ (Introd. § 3.40.2) (Vulg.: ‘all the people’); meant is the people of Egypt
(but note Nachmanides: Israel); the trio Pharaoh-courtiers-people (7:28, 29; 8:5,
l9* Cf. LXX: ouv 7iavti eKpaXei upd<; eKpoXf], and the version of Pesh. which differs from MT:
klkwn pwqw Ikwn, ‘leave with all of you, with all you have.’
m Plus the discussion of the passage by Y.T. Radday, “The Spoils of Egypt,” ASTI 12 (1983), 127-
47: the Israelites are to request souvenirs, smaller objects as tokens of friendship; so they free the
Egyptians from shame and disgrace.
200 See e.g. CV: ‘Want reeds had Jahweh the Egyptenaren murw geslagen’ (‘For already YHWH had
beaten the Egyptians numb’).
132 exodus 10:21 - 1 1 :1 0
7, 17, 25, 27; 9:14; 10:6 is broken (cf. 9:20f.; 10:7); again it is affirmed that
Pharaoh stands alone; now it is even noted that Moses’ conduct — his miraculous
deeds and the manner in which he stood up to Pharaoh — compelled the respect of
the Egyptians. 11:3 shows that a change for the better had happened in the attitude
of the Egyptians toward the Israelites. From their side there would be no resis
tance to Israel’s departure.
11:4 Moses continued: ‘Thus says y h w h : “At midnight I will move right through
Egypt.
11:5 Then all the firstborn in the land o f Egypt will die, from the firstborn o f
Pharaoh, who is heir to the throne, to the firstborn o f the slave-girl behind the
mill. Also all the firstborn o f the cattle ”. ’
11:4-8 contains the continuation of Moses’ response201 to Pharaoh,202 picking
up on 10:29. The notion that 11:4-7 is addressed to the courtiers and the Egyptians
(Ehrlich) is no more likely than the view that Israel is the addressee of 11:4-6
(Noth). ‘Thus says y h w h , ’ see Introd. §3.5.1. ‘at midnight,’ see Introd.
§ 3.23.1; 4.1 (Fuss*, 271: ‘um die Gespensterstunde;’ cf. HDA , VI, 418ff.); Sam.
Pent.: rrsri3. msn: is actually inf. cstr. of nan, ‘to halve;’ for 3 see Ges-K
§ 118u; Brockelmann § 109b; the rabbis understood 2 as ‘approximately:’ Moses
mentioned the approximate time, so that the astrologers, in case they miscal
culated, could not say that he had not spoken the truth (bBer. 4a; cf. Rashi). The
next night y h w h will go around;203 but note 12:3, 6ff.: there are a few days
between announcement and the fatal night; evidently there is an incongruity here
caused by the use of varied material; 12:21ff. connects with 11:1-8. ‘to move,’ see
Introd. § 3.24.1; TO, TPsJ, (TNf): ‘I will reveal (TNf: my word will ...) myself.’
-[inn, see 2:5.
‘to die,’ see Introd. § 3.32; the use of the part, in 11:5b is followed by the use
of perfect consecutives in 11:5, 6, 8. Is there a correlation between mo in 10:28
and 11:5204 in this sense that Moses declares that not he but the firstborn will
die? (cf. Beer, Cassuto). 1133, see 4:22. Though the previous plagues were so
terrible that it is hard to imagine that there were no human casualties (explicitly in
9:19), this is the first time (cf. also 9:15) that in an announcement the death of
humans is mentioned. Not clear is the extent of ‘firstborn.’ Are younger persons
meant or all firstborn, irrespective of their age? The first seems most probable.
3 0 \ see 2:15; grammatically the participle can be rendered ‘who sits’ (LXX,
Vulg.) or ‘who will sit’ and to relate it to Pharaoh or the firstborn (cf. Joiion
§ 121i, 139a); the latter and rendering it as a future (cf. TO, TPsJ, TNf) is most
201 Vulg. does not specifically mention ‘Moses,’ evidently in the interest of a smooth story.
202 Explicitly mention in a fragment from 2Q (DJD, III, 50) and TPsJ; cf. 11:8 end.
203 TPsJ: ‘the next night at this hour;’ the Hebrew does not allow the view, to mention no more, of
Nachmanides and Keil, that the night in question is not precisely indicated.
204 In TNf in both texts ôp ithpeal, ‘to be put to death,’ is used.
probable (cf. 1 Kgs. 1:13, 17, 20, 24 etc.; 2:12, 24 et al. and also 2 Kgs. 3:27),
though one could argue that ‘Pharaoh on his throne* is a more fitting contrast with
‘slave-girl behind the mill;’ less likely is that already now the firstborn would be
sitting on Pharaoh’s throne as his colleague and successor. In LXX the suff. of
1K02 is not translated: ‘the throne;* TO, TPsJ, and TNf speak of ‘the throne of his
kingship’
NQ2 (OT ca. 135x ),205 ‘seat,’ ‘throne;’ possession of a seat was a luxury;
sitting on it was the prerogative of distinguished individuals, especially gods and
kings; the seat is the center of power; in 11:5; 12:29 ‘sitting on the throne’ = ‘to
be king;’ ‘seated on’ points to social eminence; in 11:5; 12:29 to the highest
position.206 ‘slave-girl,’ see Introd. § 3.37.3; TPsJ: ‘from the lowest slave-girl in
Egypt, (the child) who was bom to her, as she was milling ....’ m x , see Introd.
§3.1.1. Q'rn (OT 5 x ), dual, ‘hand-mill,’ consisting of a lower stone and a
smaller upper stone of sandstone or basalt, which by hand was pushed back and
forth over the lower stone; the chore of grinding fell to women or slaves (11:5;
Isa. 47:2; Job 31:10; Matt. 24:41; cf. Judg. 16:21; Lam. 5:13) and was done
early in the morning, sitting (kneeling) or standing; the hand-mill was a standard
household item (Num. 11:8; Deut. 24:6; Jer. 25:10).207 Note the merism: op
posite the most important firstborn, Pharaoh’s firstborn, there is the firstborn of
the slave-woman, who performs the humblest of tasks; in a kneeling posture and
leaning over forward, she pushes the millstone (here counterpart of the throne);
consequently, the firstborn of all people, regardless of their position, are going to
be victims. Only one occupies the highest position: Pharaoh. The slave-woman
shares the lowest position with others, making her interchangeable with the
prisoner (12:29). There is no reason to take 11:5 and 12:29 together and to think
of a woman in prison (e.g. Calmet). ‘cattle,’ see Introd. § 9.1.2; the writer passes
over the question how the presence of cattle can be squared with 9:6 (cf. also 9:9,
19ff.). Sam. Pent.: riDnu *?2 1122 im ; cf. LXX.
In MidrTanh. Exod. II, 18 it is related how the firstborn in Egypt go to Pharaoh
and entreat him to let the people go in order to ward off the evil. Pharaoh orders
his servants to strike them down. The firstborn, however, grab their sword and
each kills his own father (the interpretation is based on Ps. 136:10).
11:6 ‘Then there will be such loud wailing in all the land o f Egypt, as there has
never been before or will ever be again.
11:7 But against all the Israelites not a dog will open its mouth and growl - not
205 Loanword from Akkadian; see Ellenbogen*, 89; for punctuation in 11:5; 12:19 see Ges-K
§ 20m.
206 See further TWAT, IV, 247ff. and for the shape of the throne BHHW, III, 1976; BRL, 100f., 105,
229, 23If. et al.; IDB, IV, 636f., and in particular M. Metzger, Konigsthron und Gottesthron:
Thronformen und Throndarstellungen in Agypten und im vorderen Orient, Neukirchen-Vluyn/Kevelaer
1985.
207 See further AuS, III, 207ff.; BRL, 232f.; IDB, III, 380f.; Franken*, 32ff.
134 EXODUS 10:21 - 11:10
against people and not against animals. Thus you will realize that yh w h makes a
distinction between Egyptians and Israelites. ’
npus, see 2:23; easterners are voluble and loud in expressing their emotions;
think, for example, of the raw and continuous cries that were part of the rite of
mourning (1 Kgs. 13:30; Jer. 4:8; 9 :16ff.; 22:18; 49:3; Joel 1:13; Amos 5:16;
Mic. 1:8; Matt. 11:17; Mark 5:38 et al.).208 b iu , see 2:10. Some MSS and
Sam. Pent.: ‘in Egypt;’ cf. 12:30. Pesh.: ‘in the land of Egypt.’ inDD, with masc.
suff. referring to a fern, word (cf. KoSynt § 10, 247a; Ges-K § 135o); Sam.
Pent.: niBD; TPsJ: ‘there has never again been that kind of night with such a
plague.’ Ehrlich proposes to read: m&3. For the affirmation of incomparability
see 9:18, 24; 10:6, 14. n il niph., Holzinger suggests that niph. brings out that it
is about an event wrought by God. *10% see 1:10.
In 11:7 the use of the cons, perfect (11:5, 6, 8) is interrupted. Moses takes time
to focus attention on a particular detail, fin.; imperf. of f in ; it is often thought
that there are two homonymous verbs fin; f in ’ is usually regarded as a form of
a verb ‘to cut (into):’ ‘to decide’ (cf. Palache*, 19); hoc loco (cf. Jdt. 11:19) and
Josh. 10:21: ‘to sharpen’209 of the tongue = to make sound (BDB), to threaten
{HAL). Zo., however, referring to the Arabic harasa , reads fin in 11:7; Josh.
10:21 as meaning hostilit movit linguam suam. Ehrlich argues that 2^2 here is a
derogatory term for a human being and reads fbq: (one sticks out the tongue).
Whatever, obviously one should think of a threatening growling.210 ‘dog,’ see
Introd. § 9.1.19, the creature that is quickest in bothering man and animal; in
short, there will be no trouble at all. see 4:10. For double preposition for
2TN see Brockelmann § 119b. 1UD*?, see 1:11. ‘realize* (Introd. §3.22), Sam.
Pent.: in n ; cf. LXX; the sing, is sometimes preferred (e.g. Baentsch, Beer,
Hyatt). Implied subject must be Pharaoh and his courtiers (cf. 11:8). itfN, see
Introd. § 3.7.2.
(Sam. Pent, has cognate form Nba’), see 3:20; Vulg.: quanto miraculo
dividat. ‘yhwh , ’ though the account is about a divine message, now there is a
shift from the first person in 11:4 to the third person; there is a transition from the
word of yhwh to Moses* word; cf. ‘me’ in 11:8 and see the use of ‘I’ in 7:17.
Whether in 11:7 one should think of a different treatment of the land of Egypt
and Goshen (8:18; 9:26) or of a distinct treatment of Israelites in the midst of
Egyptians (9:4; 10:23) is not entirely clear (but see 11:2; cf. Introd. § 8.6.3). In
the latter case the event is all the more impressive.
11:8 ‘Then all these courtiers o f yours will bring themselves to come to me and
208 See e.g. BHHW, III, 2021f.; IDB, III, 452ff.; De Vaux*, I, 113ff.
2(19 Ges-B, BDB, HAL\ as the case may require intransitive: ‘to be/being sharp’ (with the tongue); cf.
KoW.
210 Cf. LXX (give a sound); Vulg. (to growl); TNf (to bark); TO, TPsJ (to cause damage while
barking).
prostrate themselves before me with the words: uPlease go away, you and all your
followers. ” And after that I will leave. ’ So he left Pharaoh, fuming with anger.
I T , see 2:5; possibly the writer has in mind the situation in Palestine, where
palaces are situated on higher ground (cf. 2 Sam. 11:9; 2 Kgs. 6:33; 7:17); Moses
is no longer willing to appear at the court; hence one has to come to him; at the
same time the verb is used symbolically as well. n^N, see 1:1; Moses points to the
courtiers around Pharaoh’s throne, mnntfn, see 4:31; Sam. Pent.: vinnKH (TO,
TPsJ: ‘to entreat;’ TNf: ‘to greet;’ prostration is due only to God); the courtiers
no longer bow before Pharaoh but before Moses. "^Di, with waw concomitantiae
(Ges-K § 154a n.). see 3:5; ‘all your followers,’ including children, cattle
etc. (cf. 10:9, 25f.). ‘after that,’ cf. 11:1. Note the repeated use of K2P (see also
11:4). Moses refuses to be driven off (cf. 11:28). Not until they beg him will he
leave the country with the people (Vulg.: egrediemur, ‘will we leave’), îcnn
(cf. Ges-K § 9v), see 4:14; next to the ending of 11:8 note 8:8, 26; 9:33; 10:18;
Moses no longer departs in order to pray; his ‘fuming with anger’ indicates that
the drama is moving to a climax.
In the sequel, the event announced in 11:8 is in any case not specifically
reported (cf. 12:31-33). Not altogether clear is how 11:8 is to be understood.
Possibly Pharaoh’s isolated position is underscored (cf. 11:3b). The courtiers no
longer try to influence Pharaoh (cf. 10:7), but turn away from him, pinning their
hopes on Moses. It is also possible that the courtiers, as Pharaoh’s representatives,
sent by him, come to Moses to beg him to leave (cf. 12:31). In that case Moses
announces Pharaoh’s capitulation. In my view, that is what the writer is
saying.211
11:9 Then said to Moses: ‘Pharaoh will not listen to you, and so my
yh w h
wonders in the land o f Egypt can become still more numerous. '
The function of 11:9 is disputed. Two interpretations are dominant: (1) 11:9-10
offers a summary of the history of the plagues (next to 11:9 see 7:3f.) (e.g. Keil,
Baentsch, Beer, Cassuto); on this view one is virtually compelled to understand
lEN'i as a pluperfect: ‘yhwh had said’ (cf. Vulg.); it is doubtful whether this can
be done;212 (2) 11:9 points forward; it carries the story forward (e.g. Holzinger,
Ehrlich, Hyatt, Honeycutt); in my judgment, this view is most acceptable; one
must assume that Moses, following his departure from Pharaoh, received fresh
revelation in which he is told that Pharaoh will not respond to the announcement of
the final plague either (11:4-8), so that yhwh’s glory can become still greater.
‘to listen,’ see Introd. § 3.51.1; if "ibn*1! is understood as pluperfect, 17DCT is
best translated as a future; however, if is rendered as ‘and he said’ UDer is
211 Rabbinic interpretation harmonizes 11:8 with 12:31 like this: out of courtesy Moses does not
explicitly announce that Pharaoh himself will come; bZeb. 102a; ExR. XVIII, 1; cf. Rashi.
2,2 Improbable is Heinisch’s view: the imperf. is used for an action which happened repeatedly in the
past (Ges-K § 107e).
136 EXODUS 10:21 - 11:10
to be translated as a present because Pharaoh does in fact react after the plague.
y h w h informs Moses that Pharaoh does not avail himself of the opportunity to
head off the plague by giving in at this late point in time. that is Moses
and Aaron; the last time Aaron was mentioned is in 10:16; evidently the reader is
to assume that nevertheless he always took part. see 1:11. n m , see 1:7;
LXX: 7iAr|0uv<ov TtAqOuvo), ‘I shall cause to increase still more.’ nsiD, see 3:12;
LXX: ‘signs and wonders’ (also in 11:10); cf. 7:3; TNf: ‘the signs of my wond
ers;’ if is taken as pluperfect, one is to think of the plagues that have been
related; in my view, the final plague and also the crossing of the sea and the
destruction of Pharaoh’s army are meant (cf. Rashi), which likewise were the
result of Pharaoh’s obstinacy and contribute to y h w h ’s renown (cf. 14:4, 8, 17).
For the question why there were so many plagues see 9:15f.; 10: If.
11:10 Moses and Aaron did all these wonders in the sight o f Pharaoh, but yh w h
made Pharaoh obstinate. So he did not let the Israelites leave his country.
11:10 is a concluding remark; 11:10a as looking back correlates with 7:6 as
looking forward, ‘all these wonders,’213 viz. the plagues described in the preced
ing narrative (cf. Vulg.: quae scripta sunt). 11:10b again elucidates why the
plagues left Pharaoh unmoved, ‘y h w h made ...,’ see Introd. § 3.19; 3.29.1; cf.
10:27a. ‘So he did not ...,’ see 9:35; 10:20, 27; only here in the concluding
remark with the addition ‘out of his country’ (LXX: ‘from the land of Egypt’).
213 LXX: ‘all these wonders and signs in the land of Egypt;’ cf. 11:9.
EXODUS 12:1-13:16
PHARAOH GIVES IN - THE PEOPLE LEAVE
12:1 Thereupon y h w h said to Moses and to Aaron in the land o f Egypt:

2 ‘From now on you are to regard this month as the beginning o f months; you
are to regard it as the first month o f the year.
3 Give the following order to the entire community o f Israel: on the tenth o f this
month they are each fo r themselves to select, per family, an animal from the flock,
an animal from the flock per household.
4 But if someone's household is too small to have an animal from the flock, he
is to select one together with the neighbour who lives closest to him, thereby taking
into account the number o f persons; in accordance with the appetite o f the number
o f persons each one o f you is to determine the size o f the animal.
5 An animal from the flock without blemish, o f the male sex and at least one
year old you must use; you may select from the sheep or the goats.
6 Next you are to set it apart until the fourteenth day o f this month. Then the
entire community o f Israel, with no exceptions, are to slaughter it at nightfall.
7 They are to take o f the blood and put it on both doorposts and on the lintel,
on the houses in which they will eat it.
8 They are to eat the meat that night; roasted over the fire, with unleavened
bread and bitter herbs they are to eat it.
9 O f it eat nothing raw or cooked, boiled in water; but roasted over the fire,
complete with its head, its shanks and inner organs (you are to eat from it).
10 And you are to leave nothing o f it until the morning. I f something was left
until the morning you are to burn it with fire.
11 Thus you are to eat it: your waist girded, your sandals on your feet and your
staff in your hand, yes, you are to eat it in nervous haste. It is the meal o f the
passing over in honour o f y h w h .
12 For that night I will pass through the land o f Egypt and strike down all
firstborn, both humans and animals, and all gods o f Egypt I will punish. I am
YHWH.
13 The blood, however, will mark the houses in which you are. When I see the
blood, I will pass you by. So the destroyer will not wreak havoc among you when I
bring blows upon the land o f Egypt.
14 That day you are to remember in perpetuity. You are to celebrate it as a
festive day in honour o f y h w h . Throughout the generations the obligation remains
with you to celebrate it.
15 For seven days you are to eat unleavened bread; but already on the first day
you are to remove the yeast from your houses, fo r if someone eats fermented bread
that person is to be exterminated from Israel; from the first day to the seventh day
138 EXODUS 12:1 - 13:16
(you are to do that).

16 You are to come together fo r a solemn assembly on the first day and fo r a
solemn assembly on the seventh day. On those days no work at all may be done.
But only that which each one eats may be prepared by you.
17 You are to observe the feast o f the unleavened bread, fo r precisely on that
day I led your tribes out o f the land o f Egypt. Therefore you are to observe that
day. Throughout the generations it remains an obligation fo r you in perpetuity.
18 In the first month, from the evening o f the fourteenth day o f the month up to
and including the evening o f the twenty-first day o f the month, you are to eat
unleavened bread.
19 For seven days no yeast may be found in your houses, fo r if someone eats
anything fermented, that person must be exterminated from the community o f
Israel; it makes no difference whether he is an alien or a citizen o f the land.
20 You may eat no fermented bread at all. You are, wherever you live, to eat
unleavened bread. *
21 Thereupon Moses called together all the elders o f Israel and ordered them:
*Go and pick animals from the flock, each one o f you fo r his family, and slaughter
it fo r the meal o f the passing over.
22 Next you are to take a bunch o f marjoram and dip it in the blood on the
doorstep; the lintel and both doorposts you are to smear with blood taken from the
doorstep. After that, no one o f you, yes, absolutely no one, may go outside through
the door opening o f his house until the morning.
23 For y h w h will go around to inflict a catastrophe on the Egyptians. When he
sees the blood on the lintel and on both door posts, y h w h will pass over that
dooropening and not allow the destroyer to enter your houses to inflict a catastro
phe.
24 You are to observe this ordinance. It is a rule you yourself but also your
sons, are always to abide by.
25 Therefore, when you come into the land which y h w h , in accordance with his
promise, will give you as your possession, you are to observe this custom.
26 Therefore, when your sons ask you: uWhat do you mean by this custom?”
27 you are to answer: "This is the ritual o f the meal o f the passing over in
honour o f y h w h . For in Egypt he passed over the houses o f the Israelites; at that
time he inflicted a catastrophe on the Egyptians; however, our households he
delivered”. ' Thereupon the people bowed down in great reverence.
28 And the Israelites went and did so. Just as y h w h had ordered Moses and
Aaron they did.
29 At midnight it happened: then y h w h struck down all the firstborn in the land
o f Egypt, from the firstborn o f Pharaoh who was to sit on his throne to the
firstborn o f the prisoner who was in the dungeon. Also all firstborn o f the cattle.
30 In the night Pharaoh got up, he and all his courtiers and all Egyptians, and
there was a loud wailing in Egypt, fo r there was not a house without someone
TRANSLATION 139
dead.
31 In the night he summoned Moses and Aaron and said: ‘Hurry up, go away
from my people, not only you, also the Israelites. Go ahead, worship y h w h as is
your wish.
32 Take also your flocks and your herds as is your desire and leave, but do ask
fo r a blessing fo r me. *
33 The Egyptians pressured the people to leave the land as fast as they could,
for, they thought, otherwise we will all die.
34 Therefore the people took their dough with them - before it had fermented -
in their kneading troughs, wrapped in their clothing, on their shoulders.
35 At that time the Israelites did as Moses had instructed: they asked the
Egyptians fo r silver and gold jewelry and clothing.
36 And y h w h caused the Egyptians to be favourably disposed toward the people,
so that they went along with their request. So they plundered the Egyptians.
37 The Israelites set out from Rameses on the way to Succoth, about six hundred
thousand persons on foot, men that is; not counting children, women and elderly.
38 Also a large group o f people o f mixed descent left with them, and flocks and
herds - an enormous herd o f livestock!
39 With the dough they had brought from Egypt they baked unleavened cakes o f
bread. For it had not fermented, since they had been driven out o f Egypt. So they
had not been able to wait (for it to be leavened) and they had not even been able
to prepare food fo r themselves fo r the joutney.
40 The duration o f the stay o f the Israelites in Egypt is four hundred thirty years.
41 At the end o f the fo ur hundred thirty years, precisely on that day, all the
tribes o f y h w h left the land o f Egypt.
42 It was a vigil in honour o f y h w h , because he would lead them out o f the land
o f Egypt. That night all Israelites have to keep vigil in honour o f y h w h , throughout
the generations.
43 Thereupon y h w h said to Moses and Aaron: 'These are the obligations with
respect to the meal o f the passing over: not a single foreigner may participate in it.
44 Any bought slave may not participate in it until you have circumcised him.
45 The resident alien hired worker may not participate in it.
46 In one and the same house it must be eaten. From the meat nothing may be
taken outside the house and the bones o f it you may not break.
47 The entire community o f Israel must celebrate it (the meal).
48 And if an alien resides with you and would like to celebrate the meal o f the
passing over in honour o f y h w h , he may not be admitted to the celebration until he
has circumcised every male member. Then he is equal to the citizen o f the land.
Everyone who is not circumcised may not participate in it.
49 These ordinances apply equally to the citizen and the alien who resides in
your midst.
50 And all the Israelites did so. They did just as y h w h had commanded Moses
140 EXODUS 12:1 - 13:16
and Aaron.
51 On precisely that day yh w h led the Israelites out o f the land o f Egypt, divided
into tribes.
13:1 Thereupon y h w h addressed Moses in the following words:

2 'Consecrate all firstborn to me: the firstborn o f every womb among the
Israelites, from humans as well as animals. They belong to me! ’
3 Thereupon Moses said to the people: 'Remember that day on which you came
out o f Egypt's house o f slavery. For y h w h led you away from here by putting on
heavy pressure. Therefore no fermented bread may be eaten.
4 Today you are leaving, in the month o f ears.
5 When y h w h has brought you into the land o f the Canaanites, Hittites,
Amorites, Hivites and Jebusites, which he promised to your fathers under oath to
give you, a land flowing with milk and honey, you must observe this custom in this
month.
6 Seven days you are to eat unleavened bread, and on the seventh day there
must be a festival in honour o f y h w h .
7 Unleavened bread is to be eaten fo r seven days. Then no fermented bread
may be with you, in fact yeast may not be present with you in all your territory.
8 And on that day you are to give your son the following explanation: "Because
o f what y h w h did fo r me, when I left Egypt (I observe that custom).”
9 To you it must be like a sign on your hand or a mark on your head, in order
that the instruction concerning y h w h be on your lips. (It serves to remind you) that
y h w h led you out o f Egypt by putting on heavy pressure.
10 This obligation you are to observe at the time set fo r it, year after year.
11 When YHWH has brought you into the land o f the Canaanites, as he promised
under oath to you and your fathers, and has given you possession o f it,
12 then you are to give over to y h w h every firstborn o f the womb. All firstborn
young, born from the cattle you possess, belong to y h w h , insofar as they are o f the
male gender.
13 However, all firstborn young o f the donkeys you may redeem with a animal
from the flock. I f you do not want to redeem it, you are to break its neck. All
human firstborn o f the boys you are to redeem.
14 When in the future your son asks you: "What is the meaning o f this?" you are
to answer him: "By putting on heavy pressure YHWH brought us out o f Egypt’s
house o f slavery.
15 Because Pharaoh stiff-necked opposed our leaving and y h w h killed all
firstborn in the land o f Egypt, both human firstborn and firstborn o f the cattle, I
am accustomed to sacrifice to y h w h all firstlings from the womb, insofar as they
are o f the male gender, while I redeem all my firstborn boys. ”
16 To you it must be like a sign on your hand or an insignia on your head. (It
serves to remind you) that y h w h led us out o f Egypt by putting on heavy pressure. ’
The crushing blow to Pharaoh is imminent (11:1). Mindful that y h w h himself will
soon directly intervene, the reader eagerly anticipates the events to come. But
again, for the umpteenth time, the writer keeps him in suspense. Shifting gears, he
takes his time to inform the reader about instructions which YHWH gives to Moses
and Aaron (12:1-20). This time the focus of the instructions is not Pharaoh but
Israel. From now on the concern of Moses and Aaron will be Israel. Meticulously
it is laid out how the people are to celebrate the Passover and the feast of the
unleavened bread (= Matzoth). At first the wordiness is unsettling to the reader.
The digression comes across to him as postponement, delay of the deliverance, and
anxiously he wonders whether stalling is not tantamount to shelving. But gradually
it dawns on him that the celebration of Passover and Matzoth are a necessary
component of the departure. He realizes that the Passover celebration is necessary
to shield Israel from the impending plague (12:12f., 23) and that the eating of
unleavened bread is the necessary bridge toward a new existence. Seeing that, the
reader is pleased to observe how the Israelites carefully carry out Moses’ instruc
tions (12:21-28). The people are again willing to cooperate (cf. 6:9) and are ready
for the departure. The curtain can be raised for the final events.
When that moment has arrived, the writer no longer leaves the reader in the
dark. In a few sentences he depicts a horrendous catastrophe: at the pivotal
moment of the night, the hour of midnight (cf. Matt. 25:6), all firstborn, of
humans and animals, insofar as they are Egyptian or are owned by Egyptians,
instantly drop dead. Without distinction and without exception they are struck
(12:29-30). The nation of Egypt is hit where it hurts the most, in its most precious
possession, while - this is assumed - of Israel not a hair is touched (11:7; cf.
12:12f., 23). Solidarity with either Pharaoh or YHWH (cf. Introd. § 3.40.1) entails
a different treatment. Association with the one spells death. Association with the
other means life (cf. 12:12f., 23) (see Introduction to the exegesis of 7:14-11:10
[sub b]). By dealing differently with Israel and Egypt y h w h underscores that Israel
belongs to him.
Seeing how Pharaoh is the first to get up in the darkness of the night, while
death stalks about, and hearing the loud outcry of pain throughout Egypt, the
reader cannot suppress a sense of gloating. Pharaoh should have been smarter!
What especially impresses the reader is y h w h ’s disaster-working power, y h w h
leaves no doubt that he is Lord of life and death and must be obeyed. As it were
on tip-toe, the reader awaits Pharaoh’s reaction to this direct confrontation with
y h w h . Is this really going to be the final blow?
The writer apprises the reader of Pharaoh’s reaction by transporting him into
Pharaoh’s presence (12:3If.). Pharaoh can think of only one cause of the catastro
phe: y h w h ! Therefore he summons his representatives, Moses and Aaron, though
earlier he had chased them off for good (10:28). Pharaoh is so upset that he cannot
wait till morning but wants them immediately. Evidently he fears that while the
darkness lasts, the threat of death lasts as well. Negotiations are a thing of the past
142 EXODUS 12:1 - 13:16
(8:4f., 21 ff.; 9:28ff.; 10:8ff.). Therefore this time the reader does not again
witness a dialogue; what he now hears is a monologue in which Pharaoh gives in
to Moses’ wishes on all points (cf. 10:24ff.). He even asks him to put in a good
word with y h w h on his behalf. In view of the nature of the plague and its prior
history (10:17), there is no point in requesting removal of the plague. Pharaoh has
only one wish: that Israel leave. It is the only means to escape the death threat. Is
he definitely letting go of Israel, thereby acknowledging y h w h ’s claims on Israel?
The reader listens intently to Pharaoh. The emphasis with which he states his
willingness to follow Moses’ wishes, make him uneasy. Evidently Pharaoh wants
to pin Israel down on its expressed intent: a pilgrimage of three days into the
wilderness (3:18 etc.). He still maintains his claims on Israel. He still thinks of
himself as the one who has it in his power to grant permission to leave but who
can also refuse. Even in this hour of dire need, panic-stricken from fear and in no
position to press for conditions, Pharaoh does not deny his true nature as the
antagonist of y h w h and his promises, and shows that even now it has not gotten
through to him that y h w h is sovereign and that no one is like him.
Anyhow, the reader is not given much time for a careful analysis of Pharaoh’s
words. The writer picks up speed. Passing over Moses’ departure from Pharaoh,
he informs the reader about the mood among the Egyptians (12:33; cf. 12:30). For
the first time in the book of Exodus they say openly what they think of Israel’s
presence in their midst: it is the same as having death in their midst. Therefore
they desire that Israel leave as quickly as possible and permanently (cf. 10:7). For
support, Pharaoh can no longer turn to them (cf. 1:10) or to his courtiers (11:8).
In short, neither Pharaoh (cf. 6:1; 11:1) nor any other Egyptian throws up any
kind of road block. No one objects to Israel’s leaving (1:10). Israel can go. Israel
must go away, no matter it is night. They are not even given time for baking
bread (12:34, 39).
After in the story the writer has brought Israel to the point where it is poised for
making its exit, the kneading troughs on their shoulders (12:34), he holds off for
just a while with giving an account of the departure itself (12:37). Emphatically he
points out that at the departure an already twice (3:2If.; ll:2f.) announced event
took place: prompted by y h w h , the Egyptians hand over their prized possessions
to the leavers (12:35f.). Not only did the Israelites carry kneading troughs, they
also carried off the treasures of Egypt!
Then happens what Pharaoh had sought to prevent (1:10). Israel starts the big
trek to the land of promise. The reader witnesses a great mass of people get in
motion (12:37). It reminds him of the fulfilment of the promise of a large people
(1:7) and mentally he notes that Pharaoh had failed to decimate the people (cf.
Exod. 1; 5). Not Israel has shrunk, but Egypt (12:29, 30). Unharmed Israel
walked away from the struggle between Pharaoh and y h w h : it is powerful, strong
and populous; it is rich in livestock, a sign of opulence, and followed by many
non-Israelites (12:37f.). So the Israelites leave, not as fugitives, but orderly and
with their heads held high. While fear and panic have gripped the Egyptians,
discipline and line are the hallmark of the Israelites. Their God controls events.
The reader is deeply impressed. He notes that history is thick with the wondrous
deeds of y h w h . He alone deserves the credit for Israel’s grand-style departure (cf.
11:9).
Now that the writer has informed the reader about the successful departure,
filling him with joy and thankfulness, and the suspense has ebbed away from the
story, the writer deems the moment right for telling the reader more about
instructions which y h w h , through the instrumentality of Moses and Aaron, gave to
Israel in Egypt (12:43-13:16). As to the instructions concerning the Passover, the
reader must assume that they were already given and carried out before the plague
(12:50), Evidently the writer expects that the reader, having learned of Israel’s
departure wrought by y h w h and personally having seen the excellence of y h w h ’s
ordinances, will once again seriously dwell *on these regulations. Finally, he
impresses upon the reader the ordinances concerning Matzoth and the dedication of
the firstborn (13:3-16) by presenting them in the form of a sermon by Moses to
Israel. So twice in a short time the writer introduces Moses as a preacher. Prior to
the plague and the exodus Moses had urged the Israelites to keep celebrating the
Passover through all times (12:24-27a). Now he acquaints the reader with Moses’
lengthy sermon on the day of the exodus (13:4). The reality and meaning of the
happenings in Egypt is to be crystal-clear!
Moses’ sermon at the exodus (13:3-16) concludes the account of the exodus out
of Egypt. Directly and forcefully Moses typifies the exodus as a powerful deed of
y h w h and exhorts the people not ever to forget it. The exhortation to keep alive
the memory of the exodus through celebration was a frequently heard note (12:14,
17, 24-27a, 42). Now the multiplicity of tones combine into a powerful harmony.
Moses’ sermon calls for proclamation and ongoing explanation of the traditional
customs (13:8, 14; cf. also 12:27). All in all, 13:2-6 is not just an appendix but a
rounding off exposition of the significance of the ordinances pertaining to the
exodus and the necessity to abide by them. The people and following generations
are to be instructed in the meaning of the customs rooted in the exodus. Obser
vance of the customs is to permanently focus every Israelite’s mind (13:3, 9f., 16)
on the deliverance wrought by y h w h (13:3, 9, 14, 16; cf. 13:8; 12:17, 27a, 42),
in order that they acknowledge y h w h and remain faithful to him. In the future, the
past is to remain constitutive for the relationship to y h w h . The intended goal is
that the later Israel feel itself one with the Israel of the exodus and will re-live it as
an event they were personally involved in (cf. Deut. 5:2ff., 23ff.; 9:1; 26:17;
27:9f.; 29:10ff.; 30:15; Josh. 24:5,; Ps. 95:7b-9a et al.): ‘Each one, from
generation to generation, is obligated to think of himself as if he personally went
out of Egypt’ (MPes. X, 5).1
The past is to be kept alive in two ways: (1) by making it visible through
religious rituals (13:3, 9, 16; cf. 12:14, 17, 25, 42); (2) by making it audible
through explanation (13:8, 9 [‘on your lips’], 14f.; cf. 12:26, 27a). Through
1 Cf. J.M. Schmidt, “Vergegenwartigung und Uberlieferung,” EvTh 30 (1970), 169-200.

144 EXODUS 12:1 - 13:16
which rituals? To comprehend the entire purport of Exod. 12-13 Moses’ two
sermons (12:24-27a; 13:3-16) are to be taken together; through the observance of
three customs (and so persuasively; see Introd. §4.4.1): Passover, Matzoth and
dedication of the firstborn, the past is as it were to be transformed into the
present. The equal function of the customs is reflected in the parallel construction
of the text: 13:5(-7)//13:ll(-13) (cf. also 12:25); 13:8//13:14f. (cf. also 12:26,
27a); 13:9//13:16.
The customs are to make transparent - in the words of Deuteronomy - that the
people of Israel belong to y h w h and are to be a nation consecrated to y h w h
(mn*6 t f n p o r ) (Deut. 7:6; 14:2; 26:18f.; cf. Exod. 19:6), which out of gratitude
for y h w h ’s mighty deeds is called to live according to his commandments (e.g.
Deut. 7:7ff.; 26:16ff.).2 Not only Passover and Matzoth, but also the consecration
of the firstborn impacts every member of the people. They hold before every
Israelite’s eye y h w h ’s deliverance and summon him to be consecrated to y h w h
(m i r b e h n p ). Looking at y h w h ’s instruction (13:2) against this background,
13:11-16 turns out to be an elucidation of this instruction. But in the elucidation
the emphasis is not on the fact that the firstborn belong to y h w h (13:2) and are to
be set apart to him. The real purpose of 13:11-16 is that the entire nation of Israel
be consecrated to y h w h .
The keeping alive of the memory of the deliverance fixes Israel’s mind on the fact
that it belongs to y h w h and has obligations toward him. But remembrance of the
exodus creates expectations as well. The certainty that y h w h saved his people in
the past offers hope for fresh saving acts of y h w h (for a new exodus in OT see
Introd. § 12.5). The eschatological moment comes to the fore in the later celebra
tion of the Passover. According to early rabbinic interpretation, the future deliver
ance will happen in the night of the Passover (see 12:42). Besides notes of praise
and thanksgiving, notes of hope and expectation resound in the Psalms which,
according to a custom already known from the first century after Christ, are sung
in the celebration of the Passover (the Hallel psalms, 113-118). Praise, thanksgiv
ing and expectation dominate in the Passover-Haggadah of the Seder evening; the
expectation, for example, in the invitation at the beginning: ‘Come, everyone who
is hungry, and eat. Come, everyone, who has no Seder, and celebrate Pesach with
us. This year not free, next year fully independent;’ in looking forward to the
coming of the prophet Elijah (cf. Mai. 3:23); in the prayer: ‘Soon show us again
your almighty power, as in the night of the consecration of the Pesach feast;’ in
the repeated prayer for rebuilding of city and temple: ‘And rebuild Jerusalem, the
holy city, soon, in our days;’ ‘Almighty is he, may he rebuild his temple soon,
soon, ....’
According to Jewish belief, particularly in the Passover night y h w h manifested
his love for Israel. Hence it is not surprising that the Song of Songs, which
2 Cf. Vriezen*, Verkiezing, 34ff.

through allegorical interpretation became applied to y h w h ’s love for Israel,

became the festive scroll of the Passover. In the targum on the Song of Songs, in
which the song is connected with Israel’s history culminating in the coming of the
Messianic realm, 2:8-13 is linked with the night of the Passover.3
Remembrance, praise, thanksgiving and expectation are also essential elements
in the Christian celebration of the Lord’s Supper (cf. Mark 14:22ff. par.; 1 Cor.
ll:23ff.).4 In it, the preservation of the memory of the past is no longer linked
with the exodus out of Egypt but with the Christ event. Whereas according to
Deut. 16:3 the exodus is to govern the entire life of the Israelite, the NT proclaims
that God’s acts in Jesus Christ, the atoning death, the triumph over the darkness,
and the resurrection are to govern the life of the Christian. In the OT, the fact of
belonging to y h w h in virtue of the exodus has ethical consequences (inter alia
Exod. 23:9; Deut. 10:19). In the NT this holds for belonging to Jesus Christ, for
sharing in his death and resurrection (among others Rom. 6 :Iff.; 2 Cor. 5 :14f.;
Col. 3:1 ff.; Eph. 4:21ff.).
Already in the NT, the paschal sacrifice is specifically linked with Jesus himself.
In the Gospel according to John, Jesus’ crucifixion and death happen at the time of
the slaughtering of and the offering of the paschal sacrifices in the temple (cf.
19:31, 42). So the evangelist makes plain that Jesus is the true passover lamb (cf.
John 1:29; 19:36).5
In the Christian exegesis of the Bible, the belief that Jesus is the true Passover
lamb has made for the fact that some OT passages are entirely applied to him.
Thus Ephraem reads Exod. 12 in the light of Jesus’ life and death: on the 10th
Nisan (12:3) Jesus was begotten; on the 14th (12:6) crucified; unleavened bread
indicates his newness; bitter herbs (12:8) the wicked multitude, the cause of his
suffering; the roasting pit (12:9) the cross; the girded waist etc. (12:11) the new
host of disciples, ready to proclaim the glad news; etc.6 That sort of exegesis has
always been a favourite. In conclusion, note for example the views of Da Costa*,
193ff.: the slaughter of the Passover lamb is associated with justification; Matzoth
with sanctification; 12:3 is applied to Jesus’ three-year ministry before the
crucifixion; 12:9 to the extreme suffering Jesus would have to endure and to the
fact that his personality remained unaffected; etc. Reading the OT like this as a
3 See M.J. Mulder, De targum op het Hooglied, Amsterdam 1975.

4 See G.N. Lammens, Tot zijn gedachtenis: Het commemoratieve aspect van de avondmaalsviering,
Kampen 1968.
5 See e.g. Gray*, 38ff. J. Jeremias, Die Abendmahlsworte Jesu, Gottingen 19492, 104ff., thinks that
with his words ‘this is my body’ and ‘this is my blood’ Jesus pointed to himself as the Passover lamb.
See also 1 Cor. 5:7; 1 Pet. 1:19; Rev. 5:6, 8, 12; 12:11; and Heb. 11:28 (Introd. § 13.5.1).
6 See further e.g. O. Gueraud - P. Nautin, Origene sur la Paque, Paris 1979 (annotated English
transl. by R.J. Daly, Origen: Treatise on the Passover and Dialogue with Heraclides and His Fellow
Bishops on the Father, the Son, and the Soul, New York 1992); F. Nikolasch, Das Lamm als
Christussytnbol in den Schriften der Voter, Wien 1963; W. Ullmann, “Exodus und Diabasis: Origenes
‘Uber das Passa’ als Beispiel christlicher Auslegung des Alten Testaments,” BThZ 6 (1989), 234-44.
146 EXODUS 12:1 - 13:16
foreshadowing of the NT does not do justice to either of the two Testaments. The
connecting link between OT and NT is the memorial act, the act of remembering:
as Israel had to remember the exodus, so the Christian community is to remember
the new acts of God in Jesus Christ. On the remembrance by Christians, Da Costa
notes: ‘They still have to learn to experience that they are essentially one brother
hood (‘broedervolk’) that belongs to the Lord, that has been redeemed and left sin
and world behind through the blood of the true Passover lamb’ (212).7

a. Bibl. (especially of more recent date): Beer*, Pes.\ S. Bar-On, “Zur literar-
kritischen Analyse von Ex 12,21-27,” ZAW 107 (1995), 18-30; A. Cooper - R.
Goldstein, “Exodus and Massdt in History and tradition,” Maarav 8 (1992), 15-37;
Daum*, 131 ff.; M. Delcor, “Reflexions sur la Paque du temps de Josias d’apres
2 Rois 23, 21-23,” Hen 4 (1982), 205-19; idem, “Le recit de la celebration de la
Paque au temps d’Ezechias d’apres 2 Chr et ses problemes,” in A. Schenker (ed.),
Studien zu Opfer und Kult im Alten Testament, Tubingen 1992, 93-106; W.H.
Gispen, “De oorsprong van het pascha en het massoth-feest,” G ThT 44 (1943), 33-
64; K. Griinwaldt, Exil und Identitat: Beschneidung, Passa und Sabbat in der
Priesterschrift, Frankfurt am Main 1992; H. Haag, “Das Mazzenfest des Hiskia,”
in Wort und Geschichte (Fs K. Elliger), Kevelaer/Neukirchen-Vluyn 1973, 87-94;
J. Halbe, “Passa-Massot im deuteronomischen Festkalender,” ZAW 87 (1975),
147-68; idem, “Erwagungen zu Ursprung und Wesen des Massothfestes,” ZAW 87
(1975), 324-46; M. Haran, “The Passover Sacrifice,” in Studies in the Religion o f
Ancient Israel , Leiden 1972, 86-116; Henninger*, Printemps; J. Hofbauer, “Die
Pascha-, Massdt- und Erstgeburtgesetze des Auszugberichtes Ex 12 und 13,” ZThK
60 (1936), 188-210; Laaf*, Pascha-Feier; G. Liiling, “Das Passahlam und die
altarabische ‘Mutter der Blutrache,’ die Hyane,” ZRG 34 (1982), 130-47; Norin
(Introd. § 12.1), 170ff.; E. Otto, Das Mazzotfest in Gilgal, Stuttgart et al. 1975;
idem, VT26 (1976), 3-27; S. Ros Garmendia, La Pascua en el Antiguo Testamen-
to , Vitoria 1978; J. Scharbert, “Das Pascha als Fest der Erlosung im Alten
Testament,” in J. Schreiner (ed.), Freude am Gottesdienst (Fs G. Ploger), Stuttgart
1983, 21-30; R. Schmitt, Exodus und Passah , Freiburg/Gottingen 1975 (19822); J.
Schreiner, “Exodus 12, 21-23 und das israelitische Pascha,” in Studien zum
Pentateuch (Fs W. Komfeld), Wien et al. 1977, 69-90; J. van Seters, “The Place
of the Yahwist in the History of Passover and Massot,” ZAW 95 (1983), 167-82;8
B.N. Wambacq, “Les origines de la Pesah Israelite,” Bib 57 (1976), 206-24, 301 -
26; idem, “Les Massot,” Bib 61 (1980), 31-54; idem, “Pesa -Massot,” Bib 62
7 For tenth plague and exodus in OT see Introd. § 12.4 and 12.5.
KCf. idem, The Life of Moses: The Yahwist as Historian in Exodus-Numbers, Kampen 1994, 113-27.
(1981), 499-518; P. Weimar, “Zum Problem der Entstehungsgeschichte von Ex

12,1-14,” ZAW 107 (1995), 1-17; idem, “Exl2,l-14 und die priesterschriftliche
Geschichtsdarstellung,” ZAW 107 (1995), 196-214.
b. Delineation o f the material. Note already Introduction to exegesis of 7:14-
11:10 sub a. As a rule 11:1-13:16 or 12:1-13:16 is regarded as a coherent unit.
Sometimes a break is assumed to exist at 12:37 while 12:37 is taken as the start of
a new subdivision, whose theme is the exodus out of Egypt (e.g. Lange, De
Hummelauer, Clements). The consequence of that kind of division is that the
regulations of 12:43-13:16 are detached from those of 12:1-28. That is un
desirable. In my view, all regulations are assumed to have been given before the
departure. 12:1-13:16 has the following subdivisions:
- 12:1-20: y h w h instructs Moses and Aaron about the celebration of Passover
(12:1-14) and Matzoth (12:15-20).
- 12:21-27a: Moses instructs the elders.
- 12:27b-28: reaction of the people.
- 12:29-33: the tenth plague.
- 12:34-39: departure.
- 12:40-42: concluding remarks.
- 12:43-49: YHWH instructs Moses and Aaron about the celebration of the
Passover.
- 12:50: reaction of the people.
- 12:51: concluding formula.
- 13:1-2: y h w h instructs Moses about the consecration of the firstborn.
- 13:3-16: Moses instructs the people about Matzoth and the consecration of
the firstborn.
This division deviates at some points from the Masoretic division into petuhot/
setumot : 12:1-20 (p; BHK12: s; cf. Perrot*, 67), 21-28 (p), 29-36 (s), 37-42 (p),
43-50 (p), 51 (s); 13:1-10 (p), 11-16 (s; BHK1'2: p; cf. Perrot*, 66).
c. The text. Among the documents discovered at Qumran are a series of frag
ments from texts of prayer boxes (tefillin, phylacteries). The passages found on it
include 12:43-13:16. In particular of 13:1-16 there are a great many fragments.9
Significant variant readings will be mentioned in the exegetical part.
d. Composition o f the text. According to Childs, 184, there is considerable
agreement among the literary critics as to the specific sources to which the
material of Exod. 12-13 belong. He himself attributes the material to J (12:21-23,
27b, 29-34, 37-39), E (12:35, 36), D (12:24-27a; 13:3-16), P (12:1-20, 28, 40-51;
13:1-2). Others espousing that view include Hyatt and Te Stroete. A look at the
history of the investigation discloses that the consensus extends only to P (usually
9 See DJD, I, 72ff. (1 Q 13); III, 149ff. (8 Q 3); VI, 48ff. (4 Q 128ff.); Y. Yadin, Tefillin from
Qumran, Jerusalem 1969 (X Q 1, 3); see also DJD, II, 80ff. (1 Q 13, Mur. 4); P. Wemberg-Moller,
VT 10 (1960), 229f. (fragment of 13:11-16 from Masada); 13:1-4 (4 Q 154) and 13:11-16 (4 Q 155)
are found in fragments of mezuzahs {DJD, VI, 83ff.). Cf. A.S. van der Woude, ThR 55 (1990), 304-7.
148 EXODUS 12:1 - 13:16
regarded as literarily composite). Sometimes 12:21-23, 27b, 33-39 is attributed to

L (Eiflfeldt*) or N (Fohrer*, 82ff). More importantly, opinions differ widely in
particular in regard to the analysis of 12:29-39, and also of 12:21-27 and 13:3-
16.10 Besides, other notions are argued in recent publications: Wambacq at
tributes 12:21-23 - important for the age of the blood rite - to P ,11 and suggests
that 13:6, 7 is an addition to 13:3-16,12 while Van Seters, 172ff., attributes
12:21-28 to P and 13:3-16 to ‘his’ post-exilic J (cf. Houtman*, Pent., 226ff.). The
documentary theory has been criticized, with varied conclusions, by Eerdmans*,
34ff., 115ff., and Segal, Passover, 70ff.
Indisputable is that Exod. 12-13 contains material of greatly variant character
(see already De Wette*, II, 201ff.). Alongside narrative (12:29-39) are found
precepts (12:1-20, 43-49) imbedded into the narrative (12:1, 21, 27b, 28), and
exhortations associated with the precepts (12:24-27a; 13:3-16; cf. 12:14, 17).
Beside regulations for the Passover celebration (12:1-14) are found, but without
intrinsic connection, injunctions for the celebration of Matzoth (12:15-20). Later
there are again regulations for the Passover (12:43-49) as well as instructions for
Matzoth, in association with regulations about the consecration of the firstborn
(13:1-16). Passover, Matzoth and consecration of the firstborn are each cited
twice: Passover in 12:1-14 and 21-27 (additionally also in 12:43-49); Matzoth in
12:15-20 and 13:3-10; the consecration in 13:1-2 and 13:11-16. 12:21-27 and
13:3-16 are literarily related; possibly this is also the case with 12:1-20, 43-49;
13:1-2. Apparently the author(s) drew from two streams of tradition. For the
composition see h.
e. Varied material has been brought together, resulting in discrepancies. So,
e.g., in 12:22 it is forbidden to leave the house until the morning of the next day,
while from 11:4ff.; 12:29ff. one gets the impression that Israel left in the night
and was not busy with the celebration of the Passover but with baking bread.
According to ll:4ff. the plague will strike in the night following upon the announ
cement. Carrying out the instructions of 12:3, 6 takes several days, so that there
must have been at least six days between announcement and striking of the plague.
According to 12:8 unleavened bread is eaten before the departure; according to
12:34, 39 after the departure (for 10:29 and 11:8 beside 12:31 and other in
congruities see the exegesis). Certain is that 11:8, 12:29-39, and 13:17ff. can be
read as a straightforward continuous story. The intervening passages were ap
parently inserted. Exegetically it is important to find out why this was done and
the effect it creates. First off, it can be noted that Exod. 12-13 is more than a
collection of loose texts. That is clear, e.g., from 12:50, 51. In these verses
1,1 See Laaf, 3ff., and e.g. Rudolph*, 24ff.; Fuss*, 254ff.; for the characterization of 12:24-27a;
13:3-16 as protodeuteronomic see M. Caloz, RB 75 (1968), 5-62; J. Loza, RB 78 (1971), 484ff.
11 See Bib 57 (1976), 316ff.; Norin, 75, regards it as even younger; but note also Schreiner, 78ff.
(Jehowist).
12 See Bib 61 (1980), 43f.
12:28, 41 are again cited with the intent of linking 12:43-49 specifically with
earlier events and the exodus out of Egypt (cf. 6:29, 30 and see Fohrer*, 89). So
12:43ff. acquires the same authority and weight as 12: Iff. As was shown under
‘Essentials,’ through the combination of 13:1-2 with 13:11-16 — passages of
different authorship - the latter becomes an elucidation of the first, while placing
13:3-16 at the end has the effect of putting the spotlight emphatically on the
exhortation. The resulting upshot is that the emphasis falls entirely on the necessity
of preserving the memory of the exodus out of Egypt. Therefore it will not do to
characterize 12:43-13:16 as appendices (Cassuto).
Furthermore, in the current text the mention of the regulations for the Passover
in Exod. 12 is meant to spell out how Israel was protected from the tenth plague
(12:12f., 23). Israel’s following those instructions enables y h w h to distinguish
between Egyptians and Israelites (cf. 11:7). Moreover, the citing of the regulations
amounts to an interruption in the story and a delay in the unfolding of events. So
the writer keeps the reader in suspense and forces him to be patient again.
Proper understanding of the text requires that also here, as is more often the
case in the narrative of the plagues, one bears in mind that announcement and
striking of the plague complement each other (read 12:29-33 in conjunction with
11:4-8), and that together they offer a picture of the severity of the plague; instead
of downplaying the plague by restricting it to the Delta or the capital and im
mediate surroundings (Heinisch), one should think of it as an enormous catastrophe
(cf. 2 Sam. 24:15; 2 Kgs. 19:35; Esth. 9:16) (see also r). Moreover, y h w h ’s
instructions to Moses and Aaron (12:1-20; 13:1-2) and Moses’ instructions to the
elders/the people (12:21-27a; 13:3-16) are to be seen as complementing each
other. The writer does not literally repeat everything. He does not have to reckon
with the historical situation. He knows that the readers were listening in when
y h w h spoke to Moses and Aaron, and therefore he can put instructions containing
new elements in Moses’ mouth.13
f. Questions from children. Some passages depict the following situation: as the
prescribed customs are performed, children ask about the meaning of it all; the
father explains (12:26f.; 13:8f., 14f.). In similar words, also elsewhere the same
situation is presented (Deut. 6:20ff.; Josh. 4:6f., 21 ff.)- Some feel that the
questions can hardly be regarded as genuine questions, bom from curiosity, and
that the original ‘Sitz im Leben’ cannot be the domestic circle. Since in the
answers the rituals and regulations are connected with the saving events in history,
exodus and conquest, the view has been defended that the passages are in the form
of catechetical instruction and that the ‘Sitz im Leben’ is the teaching done by
13 The instructions of YHWH (12:1-20, 43-49; 13:1-2) the writer derives from another tradition than
Moses’ instructions for the people (12:21-27a; 13:3-16); the consequence is that they mutually influence
each other]
150 EXODUS 12:1 - 13:16
cultic officials at the sanctuary.14 This hypothesis is quite speculative. Could it be

that the questions are not to be regarded as actually raised by children? But
whatever, the portrayed situation is likely rhetorical. Of course it is not so that the
father will have to await a question and only then give the explanation. The
purport is that every father is to involve the children in the religious customs as
they are performed and always should explain what it is all about (13:8; cf. Deut.
4:9; 6:7; 11:19 and also Exod. 10: If.).15
g. The text raises questions on the part of the modem reader not only on account
of its heterogeneity (see e), but also on account of the presupposed historical
situation. Carrying out the regulations of Exod. 12 takes time: the preparation for
the Passover takes at least six days (12:3, 6); the celebration of Matzoth following
upon it seven days; on the first and last day a gathering is to be held (12:15-20).
According to 12:28, 51 the Israelites carefully did what they had been told. But
how could that be in the state of emergency they were in? How did they celebrate
Matzoth? Hadn’t they left right after the Passover? How could Moses, considering
the hurry with which the departure took place (12:32f.) still give a sermon (13:3-
16) on the day the people left (13:4)? Conservative exegetes opine that the first
celebration of the Passover differed from the way it is prescribed in Exod. 12; for
instance, it is thought that the preparation was omitted and that 12:21 places the
reader at 14th Nisan, prior to the departure (e.g. Calmet, Lange); from the use of
the past tense in 12:17 it is inferred that Moses did not receive the instructions for
Matzoth (12:15-20) until after the exodus.16
But is this not a way of nullifying the force of 12:28, 51? What did the writer
have in mind with his narrative? Clear is that in his account y h w h and Moses are
actually, over the shoulders of the Israel of the exodus - portrayed as an or
ganized cultic community (12:3, 16, 21) and as a nation of free farmers (12:3ff.,
21f.) with personnel (12:43ff.) - addressing later generations (12:17, 19, 20, 21,
43ff.). Evidently with 12:28, 51 the writer wants to present the fathers to them as
an example: the fathers in Egypt strictly followed the religious duties, and in doing
so were blessed. It is of utmost importance to the writer that the celebration of the
exodus will be continued. But can one think that according to the writer the
celebration of Passover/Matzoth is only effective if it is done exactly the way it
used to be done, and does he, despite the historical questions this raises, at least in
the minds of modem readers, therefore project the celebration he deemed proper
14 See J.A. Soggin, “Kultatiologische Sagen und Katechese im Hexateuch,” VT 10 (1960), 341-7; J.
Loza, “Les catecheses etiologiques dans l’AT,” RB 78 (1971), 481-500; Otto, Mazzenfest, 131 ff.;
differently H.J. Fabry; cf. Z4W95 (1983), 279).
15 The fact that four times in the Pentateuch, in different words, a similar situation is portrayed has
caused Jewish exegetes to say that the texts refer to four different sons: a son who does not know how
to ask (13:8a), a bad son (12:25; 13:8b), a dumb son (13:14), and a smart son (Deut. 6:20). See e.g.
Mek. I, 149, 166f.; Rashi on 13:8, 14 and Leibowitz*, 203ff.
16 Keil; cf. Gispen, 120f., 128; for an extensive treatment of the question which instructions were
given before and which after the exodus, see Hofbauer.
back to the time of the exodus? True, the writer implicitly addresses the later
Israel. But that does not mean that he lost sight of all historical perspective, and he
certainly kept in mind that the event happened in Egypt (see 1). Considering
further that a Passover celebration at home, aside from Exod. 12, is not mentioned
in the OT, one can hardly maintain that the writer regarded the Passover celebra
tion with blood rite described in Exod. 12 as a precept for the later Israel. All in
all, one is compelled to assume that somehow the writer (redactor) of Exodus
already operated with the later distinction ‘Passover in Egypt’ - ‘Passover of the
generations’ (see q) and to interpret 12:28, 51 (addressed to the later Israel) as
containing a general but pointed exhortation: in the line of the tradition continue to
celebrate Passover/Matzoth!
h. The issue deserves a further look. In view of the composition o f Exod. 12-13
it is not improbable that according to the writer Matzoth was for the first time
celebrated not in Egypt but on the journey. Note the following: y h w h gives Moses
and Aaron instructions for Passover and Matzoth prior to the exodus (12:1-20);
before the exodus Moses only informs the people about Passover (12:21-27a); the
instruction was necessary in view of the impending plague; the plague and the
departure take place (12:29-39); on the day they leave (13:4) Moses instructs the
people about Matzoth and the consecration of the firstborn (13:3-16); 13:1-2 only
talks about an instruction from y h w h about the consecration of the firstborn. This
need not sound strange. After all, y h w h had already instructed Moses about
Matzoth (12:15-20). However, that particular instruction Moses had not yet passed
on before the plague. That he does as the people leave Egypt, carrying with them
unleavened dough and have to eat unleavened bread (12:34, 39).
i. The above leads me to the following: in Exod. 12-13 a number of precepts
that are to be observed as a perpetual ordinance (12:14, 17, 24, 42; 13:10) are
linked with the exodus: (1) the calendar (12:2); (2) Passover (12:1-14, 21-23, 43-
49); (3) Matzoth (12:15-20; 13:3-10); (4) consecration of the firstborn (13:1-2, 11-
16). Note also the following: the Decalogue is grounded in the exodus (20:2); in
Deut. 5:15 the Sabbath commandment is linked with the exodus; the underlying
reason for several commandments is said to be Israel’s sojourn in Egypt (among
others 23:9; Deut. 10:19); in Jewish belief, also the ordinance to wear phylacteries
was handed down at the exodus (see at 13:16). In short, at a variety of occasions
Israel must afresh be made aware of the exodus, the hour of the nations’s birth,
the event which to Israel is what creation is to the world. All of life is to be lived
under the sign of the blessings received in the exodus. The requirement to obey the
ordinances is anchored in the history of redemption. The ordinances derive their
authority from the fact that they were promulgated by God at the exodus out of
Egypt (12:1, 43; cf. 12:21) and carried out by Israel (12:28, 50) or from the fact
that they were laid down by God at the exodus (13:1, 3f.) as permanent statutes
for life to come in the promised land (13:5, Ilf.; cf. 12:25).
Passover and feast o f unleavened bread (= Matzoth)

j. Directions in regards to the celebration of Passover and Matzoth appear in
152 EXODUS 12:1 - 13:16
several passages in the Pentateuch. Reports about the celebration are found in the
historical books. The overview below lists the passages and a number of similar
ities and differences in the description of the celebration.
Passover I II date III IV V VI
Exod. 12:1-14 X X X 14/1 X
Exod. 12:15-20 X X X
Exod. 12:21-27 X X X
Exod. 12:29-42 X X
Exod. 12:43-51 X
Exod. 13:3-10 Abib X X
Exod. 23:15; 34:18 Abib X X X
Exod. 34:25; 23:18 X X
Lev. 23:5-8 X 14/1 X X
Num. 9:1-14 X 14/1 X
Num. 28:16-25 X 14/1 X
Deut. 16:1-8 X Abib X X
Deut. 16:16 X
Josh. 5:10-12 X 14/1 X
2 Kgs. 23:21-23 X
2 Chr. 8:12-13 X
2 Chr. 30:1-27 X 14/2 X X
2 Chr. 35:1-19 X 14/1 X X
Ezra 6:19-22 X 14/1 X X
I = bloodrite by the houses

II = association with tenth plague
III = eating unleavened bread (no mention of how long)
IV = feast of unleavened bread (specifically mentioned)
V = seven days of unleavened bread
VI = mention of exodus
This survey reveals the existence of marked diversity in the data about Passover
and Matzoth. A look at the actual passages shows that the diversity is even
greater, and that one must, on the one hand, bear in mind that in Israel there were
various views about the mode of celebration, and that, on the other hand, re
interpretation, alteration and expansion of the customs was not unusual. There can
be no question that Passover/Matzoth has had a varied history. What this history
looked like in the Old Testament era is subject to dispute.
In the exegesis of Exod. 12-13, in the interest of comparison, mention of the OT
data about the celebration will always be included in the discussion. One element I
mention already here, since it does not come up in Exod. 12-13: praise and music
as part of the celebration (2 Chr. 30:21; 35:15; cf. Ezra 6:22 and see Jub. 49:6;
MPes. V, 7; IX, 3; X, 5ff.). A commentary is not the place for dealing with the
history of the cult, and therefore I must restrict myself to questions that bear on
Exod. 12-13.
k. Topic of discussion is the origin and character o f the feast. According to
Exod. 12-13 Passover and Matzoth were instituted by Moses by order of y h w h .
Old Testament scholars by and large have adopted the view that both feasts are
non-Israelite in origin, were originally not connected with each other, and only
secondarily became linked with the YHWH religion and the exodus. The rough
outline of the history of the feasts is fleshed out in a variety of ways. I suffice with
giving the salient points of the moderately critical view of De Vaux* (II, 429ff.;
Sacrifice, Iff.; HAI, I, 345ff.) with an occasional aside comment:17 qua origin
Passover is a sacrificial feast of nomads or semi-nomads, celebrated at the first full
17 Foi the history of the interpretation see Gispen, GThT 44 (1943), 33ff.; Laaf, 148ff.; Schmitt,
25ff.; Segal*, Passover, 78ff.
154 EXODUS 12:1 - 13:16
moon in spring when the animals have their young, milk production increases, and
the shepherds break camp and set out for the summer pastures.18 It is a perilous
time, with the well-being of the flock at stake. No one knows the dangers (per
sonified in the destroyer, 12:23)19 that threaten the nomad and his flock. One can
protect oneself against the dangers by daubing blood on the ‘houses’ (= tents) and
likely also on the animals. This ancient ritual, which harks back to Israel’s
nomadic existence and was practiced by Israel’s forefathers and other Semites (for
that see especially Henninger) and was intended to protect the flock, became
associated with the history of Israel in Egypt: the blood rite is to protect the
Israelites from the plague on the firstborn (12:12f., 23).20 Through the ‘his-
toricization,’ which must go way back, the blood rite and other Passover customs
received a new meaning. So, for example, nomadic garb and unleavened bread
became symbolic of the hasty exit from Egypt (12:11, 39).
Matzoth is an agricultural feast that is observed in the spring about the same
time as the nomadic feast, as a celebration of the bursting forth of new life in the
land. For seven days the first fruits of the barley harvest were eaten without the
admixture of any ingredients from the previous harvest. Israel adopted this feast
from the Canaanites after the conquest. Already way back it became linked with
the history of the deliverance from Egypt (23:15; 34:18). After the reform of Josia
(621) Passover and Matzoth were combined (Ezek. 45:18ff.). Combining the two
was not hard because both had been linked with the exodus out of Egypt, had in
common the use of unleavened bread, and were celebrated at the same time.21
Result of the combination was that the date of Matzoth was no longer dependent
on the season, but became fixed.
Many scholars have adopted the broad lines of the above picture. There is also
an altogether different picture as well, one based on the assumption of the exis
tence of a general ‘cult pattern’ in the Ancient Near East.22 Following the earlier
advocacy, among others by I. Engnell,23 of the proposition that Passover/Matzoth
was originally a Canaanite New Year’s festival, Segal*, Passover, 114ff., picking
IK See in particular L. Rost, “Weidewechsel und altisraelitischer Festkalender,” ZDPV 66 (1943),

205-15 = Das kleine Credo etc., Heidelberg 1965, 101-12, and e.g. Laaf, 154ff.
19 O. Keel, ZAW 84 (1972), 414ff.: the power(s) which in spring, when the hot east wind arises,
causes vegetation to wither, springs to dry up and brings diseases.
20 Others argue that the similarity between the situation in which the Passover was celebrated - the
nomads are ready to leave - with the corresponding situation of Israel in Egypt aided in bringing about
the link between Passover and the exodus; for connecting elements see Laaf, 117f.; Schmitt, 58ff.
21 Others argue that originally only Matzoth was linked to the exodus; not until later (Deut. 16) the
same was done with Passover; so e.g. Fohrer*, 92ff. Norin, 184, 189, holds that the association of
Passover and Matzoth with the exodus is of Deuteronomistic origin; prior to that the exodus was
commemorated though (189ff.).
22 For the cultic ‘Sitz im Leben’ of Exod. 1-15 and the enactment of the exodus in a cultic drama
that is associated with it, see already Introduction to exegesis of 7:14-11:10 under f, and the critique by
Schmitt, 89ff.
23 “The Passover,” in A Rigid Scrutiny, Nashville 1969, 185-96.
up on this notion, has tried to fill in some of the details about this spring festival;
besides specifically Israelite traits, presumably it exhibited similarities with the
New Year’s festivals of other nations in the Ancient Near East, and was also from
ancient times celebrated by the Israelites as a pilgrim feast. His view has not
received support. Therefore I leave it alone and return to the first view and its
place in Old Testament research.
1. Was Passover originally a nomadic feast? Following earlier critique of the
prevailing view by the advocates of Passover/Matzoth as New Year’s festival,24
more recently it has been attacked by Wambacq, himself not a defender of that
view,25 for good reasons. There are no good grounds for the proposition that the
customs described in Exod. 12 (roasting of the sacrificial victim, the eating of
unleavened bread and herbs), the dress regulations and the blood ritual can best or
only be explained in light of other customs in vogue among nomads (cf. also
Schreiner, 70ff., 82; Van Seters, 172). Wambacq wants to reckon with Israel’s
capability of creating religious rituals, in this case a feast to commemorate the
exodus.26 Wambacq reads 12:1-23 against the background of Israel’s life in the
exile: owing to the absence of a sanctuary, Passover is a family festival.27 Wam-
bacq’s thesis is less open to criticism than the standpoint of, e.g., Laaf, 131 ff.,
161 f. Reading 12:1-20 against the background of the exile,28 he nevertheless
maintains the nomadic origin of the Passover. In that case one must assume that P,
in a later age, reinstates the old tradition. Though widespread (e.g. Noth; Hyatt;
Schmitt, 79), this view is quite dubious. For that matter, also Wambacq’s explana
tion is speculative.
It should be kept in mind that the author aims to write about the situation in
Egypt. Though there can be no question that over the shoulders of Israel in Egypt
it is the later Israel that is being addressed (see g), the writer does not lose sight of
all historical perspective.29 Note the following: leaving out Exod. 12, in the OT
the Passover is always described as a feast celebrated at the sanctuary (local or
central). The fact that according to Exod. 12 it is to be celebrated at home (rv:i in
12:7, 13, 15, 19, 22, 23, 27, 46) has to do with the situation in Egypt, where
Israel did not yet have a sanctuary. The writer takes into account the global picture
of the history of the cult in the Pentateuch. Therefore he is silent about the role of
24 Cf. also the methodological criticism by J.W. Rogerson, Anthropology and the OT, Oxford 1978,
38f.
25 See Bib 51 (1976), 206ff., 301ff.
26 Van Seters, 170, 172, 177f., emphasizes that the writers were capable, not just of giving new
meaning to existing religious customs, but also of creating and validating new ones.
27 Cf. Van Seters, 180f.; according to him also 13:3-16 reflects the situation of the captivity.
28 See also e.g. Schmitt, 80ff.; Schreiner, 89 (Passover presages that y h w h , like he did in Egypt,
will go through the land and rout the enemies); others, e.g. Fohrer*, 88, relate the P part to the post-
exilic situation.
29 Elsewhere instructions are given that reckon with the situation in the wilderness (Lev. 16:10, 21f.;
24:10-23 et al.); cf. Houtman, Pent., 353ff.
156 EXODUS 12:1 - 13:16
the cultic officials at the ceremony (see at 12:6f.) and likewise about sacrifices
during Matzoth (explicitly mentioned in Lev. 23:18; Num. 28:19ff.), and mentions
that also the parts of the victim which otherwise were put on the altar (12:9f.; cf.
Lev. l:8f. et al.) are to be roasted and eaten.30
m. Was Matzoth originally a harvest festival? Already Holzinger and Beer, Pes . ,
19f., 29, rejected the prevailing view. Beer, though, does regard the feast as
Canaanite in origin. He also related it to the agricultural calendar: unleavened
bread is eaten with an eye to the coming harvest; it was believed that yeast might
be harmful to the ripening of the ears, because it was thought that it would
frighten and drive away the soul of the grain. More recently it has again been
pointed out with cogent arguments that the feast cannot have been the feast of the
firstfruits of the barley harvest.31 It cannot be a harvest festival since it is to be
observed at a fixed time (unlike the feast of weeks and feast of tabernacles) and is
never connected with the harvest. In the month of Abib the barley is not yet ripe
enough for harvesting.
How then explain the custom of unleavened bread? Segal thinks that leaven was
to be removed so as to prevent the spoiling of the coming harvest. Wambacq
concludes that the feast, if not from the beginning, was at least at an early stage
connected with the exodus; he describes the one-day observance as follows: an
animal was sacrificed; for the meal only unleavened bread (23:18; 34:25) was
allowed; people ate as a reminder of the exodus (12:8, 34, 39).32 Halbe maintains
the nomadic origin of the Passover, declaring that the eating of unleavened bread
is typical for travellers and nomadic life. After the exodus, when the nomads turn
farmer, the eating of unleavened bread acquires a new meaning. Initially still
within the framework of Passover (Josh. 5:10-12), it no longer served to make the
users’ think back to departure and journey, but of the first partaking of the yield of
the civilized land after the exodus and journey. Later on the use of unleavened
bread became a separate feast of seven days. Not, however, as an agrarian festival
- during its celebration the unripe grain is standing in the field - but as a feast
that focused the farmers’ attention on the fact that the gift of the crops in the fields
was in fulfilment of the promise of the exodus: ‘das Massothfest gilt dem Heilsge-
schehen, das allem Wirtschaften voraus ist und dem sich aller Reichtum verdankt’
(345). So the feast gained such a firm place for itself that an attempt to restore the
Passover which had fallen into disuse ended in a compromise: Passover/Matzoth as
a dual feast (Deut. 16). In short, Halbe attempts to connect Passover as history -
memorializing feast with agricultural life. Van Seters, 179, rejects the nomadic
origin of Passover, regarding Deut. 16 as the earliest witness of its observance.
Matzoth is still younger: when the temple lay in ruins during the exile and ritual
30 Differently Haran, 114ff.: also Exod. 12 presupposes that the Passover is a feast at the sanctuary.
31 See Segal*, Passover, 108ff., 115f., 128f., 178ff., 194ff.; Halbe, ZAW 87 (1975), 325ff.;
Wambacq, Bib 61 (1980), 31 ff.; cf. also Otto, Mazzenfest, 183; Van Seters, 171 f.
32 See Bib 62 (1981), 505.
slaughtering was impossible, the custom of unleavened bread at the Passover

became a separate seven-day feast. The thesis is possible due to the late dating of J
(see d). Van Seters, however, seems to have failed to take into account that 13:11-
16, which is closely connected with 13:3-10, does presuppose the presence of a
sanctuary.
n. Relationship between Passover and Matzoth. Have two feasts been combined?
Is there a splitting of a two-component feast in Exod. 12, because only the
ceremonies of the Passover were really important at the exodus (Matzoth was not
observed) while at the time of the ‘Compiler* of the Pentateuch only the regula
tions pertaining to Matzoth were kept by the Israelites outside Jerusalem? (Segal*,
Passover, 174ff.; cf. 92ff.). Did an element from the Passover observance evolve
into an independent festival, which later was merged with the Passover, so creating
a twin feast? (Halbe, Van Seters). Wambacq33 defends yet another point of view:
in Deut. 16, Matzoth, which originally lasted one day, is introduced by a new
name: Passover. Passover/Matzoth is to be sharply distinguished from the custom
of eating unleavened bread for seven days. That custom was not connected with
the Passover until after the Exile (before 419; Elephantine Passover papyrus; see
q)-
Evaluation. According to Haran, 110, study of the biblical sources teaches that
all of them confirm the existence of the tie between Passover and Matzoth. From
the statement in 23:18; 34:25, passages regarded as old, that eating unleavened
bread at the Passover is taboo, he concludes that the tie between both is not an
innovation which first occurs in Deut. 16:1-8 or Ezek. 45:21. It remains a
problem, however, that though in Exod. 23 and 34 Matzoth is specifically
mentioned (23:15; 34:18), the festival is not as such linked with the Passover
(23:18; 34:25). Matzoth is emphatically said to be commemoration of the exodus.
Not so Passover. Its meaning is presumed to be known. Whether the significance
presupposed in 23:18; 34 coincides with the meaning attributed to the Passover in
Exod. 12, or whether Exod. 12 contains a new interpretation remains unsure.
Whatever the case, the manner in which Passover and Matzoth are dealt with in
the OT suggests that the link between the two is not original. Coming up with a
description of the history of the feasts is another matter, very hard to do. Pieces of
the textual puzzle seem to permit numerous variations, resulting in always new
theories. In my judgment, the data are such that the notion that pre-Israelite feasts
were adopted and historicized by Israel cannot be demonstrated. It is a product of
Wellhausen’s overly simplistic evolutionistic view of the unfolding of Israel’s
religion. What is plausible is that Israel adapted existing religious customs and
symbols for the commemoration of the great events in its redemptive history and
used them to shape its own feasts. How all this precisely happened cannot be
traced.
Clear is that at a certain moment Passover/Matzoth was celebrated. When?
33 See Bib 62 (1981), 499ff.; cf. Bib 57 (1976), 308ff.

158 EXODUS 12:1 - 13:16
Finding an answer is not easy, since dating the texts is difficult, also because there
is no question that the writers took cognizance of the historical perspective (see 1)
and because our knowledge of Israel’s religious history is skimpy (cf. Houtman*,
Pent., 359ff.). Yet the possibility that it was celebrated before the Exile is not to
be excluded. Reading the passages against the background of the exile is in any
case not satisfactory either. But what did Passover/Matzoth look like? Earlier the
varied character of the Old Testament data was pointed out. The available givens
indicate that it existed in various and changing forms, and that as circumstances
changed the character of the feast was modified as well. On this point, too, lots of
questions present themselves. Was the feast originally only one day? (Wambacq).
It must be conceded that one sometimes gets the impression that leavened bread
was taboo only one day (12:17; 13:3). On the other hand, the period of seven days
is so firmly anchored in the texts that if one accepts Wambacq’s thesis, one has to
assume that the feast underwent drastic change. Moreover, if one assumes that
Passover/Matzoth was originally celebrated at a (local) shrine, a seven-day period
poses no problem - the bread was eaten at home or on the way home, after the
Passover ritual in the sanctuary, as a reminder of the exodus, of being travelling
folk;34 however, 12:16 (cf. Lev. 23:6-8) and 13:5 (cf. Deut. 16:8) each seem to
presuppose yet another situation. Furthermore, one must reckon with changes in
the interpretation of the customs. In this connection I wish to draw attention to the
custom of eating unleavened bread. In the texts prescribing the celebration of
Matzoth reference is made to the exodus out of Egypt but, barring Deut. 16:3, the
use of unleavened bread is not explained. The narrative text does contain an
elucidation of the custom (12:34, 39), but the elucidation does not agree (only in
part?) with that in Deut. 16:3 (see also 12:8, 17).35 Evidently over the course of
time the custom was differently explained.36 Possibly the eating of unleavened
bread and the removal of leavened food was a rite intended for purification and
renewal. Hence regarding unleavened bread as a symbol of purity is not without
basis.37 The exodus out of Egypt is the transition to a new existence. In the
celebration of Passover/Matzoth the Israelites are going out in newness of life, set
free, spared from death and purified. As appears from the celebration of the
Passover and the eating of unleavened bread at the entrance into Canaan (Josh.
5:10ff.) also the entrance was regarded as the transition to a new existence. High
points in the history of redemption are marked by Passover/Matzoth.
34 Deut. 16:5ff.; cf. Halbe, Z4W87 (1975), 165ff.

35 De Vaux*, HAI, I, 348 connects 12:34, 39 and the eating of unleavened bread at the Passover
(nomadic food); cf. Halbe (see above); according to Otto, V7 26 (1976), 15ff., 12:34, 39 belong to the
etiology of Matzoth; idem also Van Seters, 176, and already Eerdmans*, 39, 120; Fuss*, 283f.
36 Josephus (A/, II, 316f.) writes that unleavened bread was eaten in memory of the days when food
was scarce.
37 See e.g. Keil, 424, 433f.: Passover/Matzoth indicates the inward break with heathenism, the
entrance upon the new life of fellowship with God (cf. Lange, 29, 30, 31); Heinisch, 101: the eating of
it admonishes Israel to lead a holy life; Gispen, 124, 126f., 128: it indicates the break with sin.
o. What is the relationship between Passover and the tenth plague , often thought
to be the ur-plague (see Introduction to exegesis of 7:14-11:10 under d)? The
question at issue is: did the story of the death of the firstborn, which in 12:11-13
is connected with the Passover, arise out of the Passover ritual or is the Passover
ritual secondary with respect to the tradition of X? In the case of the first view, it
is alleged that the remarkable fact that only the firstborn are struck can only be
explained on the assumption of the priority of the Passover ritual. This notion is
worked out in a variety of ways (see Schmitt, 37ff.). Thus it has been argued, for
example, that originally the Passover was the sacrifice of the human firstborn.
Because Pharaoh refused Israel to sacrifice its firstborn (Passover = feast in the
wilderness of 3:18 etc.), y h w h slew Egypt’s firstborn - in an older version
Pharaoh’s firstborn son (4:23). The death of the firstborn animals is a later
addition. Later an animal substitute took the place of the human firstborn in the
Passover ritual (cf. Gen. 22) (Grefimann*, 100ff.). Wider acceptance is enjoyed by
the view that X stemmed from the Paschal custom of slaughtering firstborn
animals.38 Pharaoh seeks to prevent it, and the consequence is death, including
that of the human firstborn.39 With a new slant, the notion of the priority of the
Passover ritual has been defended by Noth* (UP, 7 Iff.; Exodus , 68ff.). He gives
prominence to the blood ceremony as essential element: the Passover is an
apotropaic (designed to avert evil) rite, especially aimed at the firstborn. Noth tries
to meet the difficulty that the Passover texts are silent about firstborn animals.
The priority-theory stands or falls with the correctness of the assumption that it
was a firstborn that was slaughtered at Passover. Though still having defenders
(Henninger, 39ff., 127), it is without basis in the OT and has been correctly
dismissed.40 In consequence of that rejection, one is bound to view the Passover
ritual as the means employed by the Israelites to protect themselves against the
destroyer. In that case, tradition-historically speaking, the Passover ritual is
secondary, at least not primary41 and one must assume, for example, that the
theme of the slaying of the firstborn is a narrative motif stemming from their
prominent position or from the fact that it has a base in history (see r).42 In my
view, the Passover became secondarily linked with X. Note that in the Psalms
38 See e.g. Wellhausen*, Prol., 84f.; Beer, Pes., 1if.; Pedersen*, III-IV, 38f.
39 Also Laaf, 119ff., connects the feast in the desert and the death of the firstborn, but considers it
wrong to identify the feast with the Passover; as an aside, the notion that the Passover is the germinal
cell of X does not require that one ascribe literary priority to 12:2Iff., usually regarded as the oldest
version of the Passover ritual; such is certainly not necessary if the feast in the wilderness is identified
with the Passover; e.g. Wellhausen*, Composition, 73ff., regards 12:21-27 as addition to JE or
appendix of Q (= P); see further Otto, VT26 (1976), 3ff.
40 See Fohrer*, 91f; Segal*, Passover, 104f.; De Vaux*, Sacrifice, 6, 17, 21; Wambacq, Bib 57
(1976), 2 12ff.; cf. Schmitt, 42ff.
41 Cf. e.g. Fohrer*, 89ff.; Laaf, 18ff., 119ff.; Otto, VT 26 (1976), 18ff.; Schmid*, 43ff.; Van
Seters, 177ff.; De Vaux*, HAI, I, 347f.
42 Differently M. Gilula, “The Smiting of the Firstborn - an Egyptian Myth?”, Tel Aviv 4 (1977),
94-5; still another point of view is put forward by Otto, Van Seters (see below).
160 exodus 12:1 - 13:16
(Introd. § 12.4) the Passover is not specifically (cf. Introd. § 12.5.1) mentioned
and that the ritual is not entirely congruent with X: the whole family is involved in
the Passover and receives protection, whereas the plague is only directed against
the firstborn.
Otto, VT 76 (1976), 3-27, rejecting X’s derivation from the Passover, closely
connects X and Matzoth: X is the etiology of the during the feast occurring
consecration of the firstborn animals.43
In conclusion I mention the problem of the relationship of X to 4:23. As was
noted, according to GreBmann, in an older version only Pharaoh’s firstborn was
struck by the plague. See also e.g. Schmitt, 60, and further Vol. I, 43If.
p. What is the relationship between the Passover and the feast in the wilderness
(3:18; 5:1, 3 etc.; see Vol. I, 375ff.)? Authors who connect Passover and the
sacrifice of the firstborn (see o), but others as well (e.g. De Vaux*, Sacrifice, 18),
identify the latter as a Passover. GreBmann*, 113, offers a literary explanation for
the fact that Exod. 12 talks about a Passover celebration in Egypt and not in the
wilderness: a later narrator situated the Passover belonging to the Sinai in the time
of the exodus (cf. Meyer*, IN , 40); Henton Davies, lOlff., explains it historically:
owing to Pharaoh’s opposition it was not feasible to celebrate the feast on time in
the wilderness; therefore Moses decided to do it in Egypt.44
q. The history o f the Passover continues after the Old Testament era. As we
know from the Elephantine Passover papyrus (419 B.C.), Jews residing in Egypt
in the 5th century celebrated it,45 while according to TS XVII Passover/Matzoth
were included in the commemorations observed by the Qumran community. Extra-
Biblical sources provide information about customs not mentioned in the OT, such
as the use of wine at the Passover (for the first time mentioned in Jub. 49:6),46
admission to the celebration at the age of 21 (Jub. 49:17; TS XVII, 8) etc., an
indication that in the time of the NT the Passover evolved into a two-part feast: (1)
slaughter by laymen and sprinkling of blood by priests in the temple in Jerusalem
(MPes. V, 2ff.); (2) meal by night in homes in the city (MPes. X, Iff.). Worth
while noting is that according to Jewish exegesis one should distinguish between
‘the Passover of Egypt’ and ‘the Passover of the generations:’ selection of the
animal on the 10th (12:3), the bloodritual and the eating in haste (12:7, 11) were
43 In similar vein Van Seters, 176ff.; cf. also Wambacq, Bib 61 (1980), 42ff.; 62 (1981), 513ff.;
differently Laaf, 124f.: at first the exodus was associated with the death of the firstborn; next Matzoth,
which as feast of the firstfruits of the harvest was closely linked with the consecration of the firstborn
animals, became associated with the exodus.
44 For the problem see Schmitt, 25f.; Segal*, Passover, 152f. (background of 3:18 etc. is the ritual
exodus at the New Year’s festival; cf. 179, 209f.); Wambacq, Bib 57 (1976), 213ff., and Vol. I, 375ff.
43 See B. Porten, Archives from Elephantine, Berkeley-Los Angeles 1968, 122ff.; P. Grelot, “Sur le
‘Papyrus Pascal’ d ’Elephantine,” in Melanges Bibliques etc. (Fs H. Cazelles), Kevelaer/Neukirchen-
Vluyn 1981, 163-72; Segal*, Passover, 8ff., 221ff.
46 Cf. G. Beer, Z4W31 (1931), 153.
for Israel in Egypt, not for later generations.47 Object of the distinction is to
rationalize the discrepancy between the Paschal practice and the biblical regula
tions, but it raises the question as to the force of 12:14, 24, 28, 51 (see g).
Details of later commemoration, insofar as they are not covered in the exegesis
of Exod. 12-13, must go unmentioned.48
Also after the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple (A.D. 70),
Passover remained in existence alongside Matzoth, albeit in modified form,
because the absence of a sanctuary made the slaughter and ritual use of the
Passover lamb impossible. The celebration takes place in the synagogue and in
particular in the domestic setting in the homes, in accordance with the liturgy of
the Passover Haggadah (see e.g. De Vries*, 117ff.), the key elements of which
are already visible in MPes. X (2nd century).49 The Samaritans have through the
centuries carried out the Passover ritual. Focus of their commemoration is strict
adherence to the precepts of Exod. 12.50 Passover was also observed by the
Falashas. Also their observance of the feast included slaughter and meal.51 In the
NT the observance of Passover is closely linked with Jesus’ death; in part owing
to differences between the synoptics and John, it raises several questions, among
others about the date and the nature of Jesus’ final meal with his disciples (Mark
14:12ff. par.; John 13ff.). The view that there are no direct links between the
Lord’s Supper and the Passover (e.g. Beer, Pes., 92ff.) is unconvincing, and the
Lord’s Supper gains depth if looked at from the perspective of Passover (see
Essentials).52
r. In the discussion of the question whether the tenth plague grew out of the
Passover ritual (see o), the question concerning the historical base o f the tenth
plague was already indirectly touched on. Is it still possible to track what precisely
happened? Several scholars, including De Wette*, II, 201 ff.; Grefimann*, 108,
and Auerbach*, 63, answer in the negative. By contrast, Beer propounds that a
plague that broke out during a Passover celebration was interpreted by Israel as
punishment for Pharaoh for his refusal to let Israel celebrate the Passover = feast
in the wilderness, so providing Israel with an opportunity to flee. Fohrer*, 90,
96f., regards the presumed coincidence as unlikely and says no more than that an
47 See e.g. TPsJ on 12:3, 11; Mek. I, 25, 40, 117f.; MPes. IX, 5; bPes. 96a; Rashi, Ibn Ezra,
Nachmanides, and also for example Cassuto; there is no consensus about what precisely belongs to the
first Passover.
48 For information about Jub. 49; Josephus; Philo; MPes. see e.g. Str-B, IV, 41 ff.; Beer, Pes.,
46ff.; Segal*, Passover, 19ff., 231ff.
49 See B.M. Bokser, The Origins o f the Seder, Berkeley 1984.
30 See Jeremias*, Passahfeier (with photos); Segal*, Passover, 25Iff.; cf. R. Pummer, in A.D.
Crown (ed.), The Samaritans, Tubingen 1989, 678-84.
51 See W. Leslau, Coutumes et croyances des Falaches, Paris 1957, 70f.,79f.; Segal*, Passover,
255f.
32 For NT see e.g. TWNT, V, 895ff.; F. Chenderlin, Bib 56 (1975), 369-93; 57 (1976), 1-24; Le
Ddaut*, Nuit\ N. Fuglister, Die Heilsbedeutung des Pascha, Munchen 1963; Gray*, 383ff.; Segal*,
Passover, 33ff., 242ff.
162 EXODUS 12:1 - 13:16
epidemic struck. Schmid*, 46f., looks for the historical nucleus in the sudden
death of a crown prince (cf. 4:22f.). According to Henton Davies, 112, not only
did the prince die but the fate struck other Egyptians as well.53
X is often identified as pestilence (e.g. Keil, Lange, Bohl, and see Dillmann).
Philo (VM, I, 135f.) writes that all firstborn died suddenly without an obvious
cause, and he does not mention the destroying angel. Exod. 12 does not explicitly
mention pestilence (cf. 9:15; Ps. 78:50b-51; Amos 4:10; see Introd. § 12.4.1;
12.4.4). Elsewhere pestilence is mentioned in conjunction with the destroying
angel (2 Sam. 24:15f.).
The nature of X presents problems to modem exegetes. They note that a
‘natural’ explanation is out of the question and that a selective plague like this,
which strikes only the firstborn of the Egyptians, is miraculous in the extreme
(e.g. Hyatt). Sometimes an effort is made, not very successfully, to make the
plague more acceptable. For example, by suggesting that the selectivity of the
tradition caused the most grievous experience, that of the death of the firstborn, to
become highlighted and to overshadow the other deaths, since in reality many
children and animals probably died, but not in every home (e.g. Beegle*, 134).
That angle does not do justice to the writer. It should be borne in mind that the
plague strikes modem people as much more miraculous and problematic than it did
ancients. The latter view the bringer of death as a person. A person is able to
select, striking the one and sparing the other. Another great difficulty to modem
people, the moral question how God could smite so many children, does not seem
to have bothered the writer.54 Gregory of Nyssa (VM, II, 89ff.) cites the problem
(cf. Ezek. 18) and then quickly moves on to a spiritual explanation: the evil must
be nipped in the-bud (cf. Origen, Horn, in Exod., IV). Finally, in his attempt to
portray the exodus as an unequalled event (12:38f.), the writer has painted a
picture that, in modem eyes, defies belief, and which consequently went up in
flames on the altar of western rationalism.55
Exodus out o f Egypt and consecration o f the firstborn (13:1-2, 11-16)

s. Bibl.: DBS , II, 482ff.; J. Day, Molech: A God o f Human Sacrifice in the Old
Testament, Cambridge et al. 1989; F.J. Dolger, “Menschenopfer und rituelle
Kindertotung im heidnischen Zauber,” Antike und Christentum 4 (1934), 21 Iff.; K.
Dronkert, De Molochdienst in het OT , Leiden 1953; A. Gianto, “Some Notes on
the Mulk Inscription from Nebi Yunis (RES 367),” Bib 68 (1987), 397-401;
Gray*, 33ff., 86ff.; A.R.W. Green, The Role o f Human Sacrifice in the Ancient
Near East , Montana 1975; Henninger*, 158ff., 179ff.; G.C. Heider, The Cult o f
Molek: A Reassessment, Sheffield 1985 (cf. D. Edelman, JAOS 107 [1987], 727-
33 See further Hyatt, 144ff.; Schmitt, 55ff.; Segal*, Passover, 188, and Introduction to exegesis of
7:14-11:10 under f, g; Introd. § 11.6.3.
54 For the bond between king and people see Introduction to exegesis of 7:14-11:10 under b.
33 See e.g. De Wette*, II, 202ff.; Reimarus (Introd. § 5.45.2), I, 294ff.
31; J. Lust, EThL 63 [1987], 361-66); O. Kaiser, “Den Erstgeborenen deiner

Sohne sollst du mir geben,” in Denkender Glaube (Fs C.H. Ratschow), Ber-
lin/New York 1976, 24-48; J.D. Levenson, The Death and Resurrection o f the
Beloved Son: The Transformation o f Child Sacrifice in Judaism and Christianity ,
New Haven/London 1993; E. Lipinski, “Syro-Fenicische wortels van de Kar-
thaagse religie,” Phoenix 28.2 (1982), 51-84; F. Rashid, “Uber die Totung
weiblicher Neugeborener zum Zwecke der Verminderung der Geburtenzahl in der
‘Samarra-Tell Halaf’ Zeit,” in B. Alster (ed.), Death in Mesopotamia , Copenhagen
1980, 255-8; Segal*, Passover, 165, 181 ff.; F. Schwenn, Die Menschenopfer bei
den Griechen und Romem, Gieflen 1915; J.A. Soggin, “Child Sacrifice and the
Cult of the Dead in the OT,” in Old Testament and Oriental Studies , Rome 1975,
84-7; De Vaux*, Sacrifice, 52ff.; M. Weinfeld, “The Worship of Molech and of
the Queen of Heaven,” UF 4 (1972), 133-54; W. Zimmerli, “Erstgeborene und
Leviten,” Ges. Aufsdtze , II, Mtinchen 1974, 235-46. For the observance of the
prescriptions in later Judaism (without temple and altar) see e.g. EJy VI, 1308f.;
JEy V, 396f.; De Vries*, 198ff.
It was noted that according to some the Passover ritual sparked the tradition
concerning the death of the firstborn and that their death is interpreted as a
sacrifice to y h w h (see o and below). Such interpretations find no base in the text
of Exodus. There the death is a measure to put pressure on Pharaoh. The death of
the firstborn in Egypt became the motive for the consecration of the firstborn in
Exod. 13. The connection between Exod. 13 and what precedes - by means of
TD3, 11:5 (4x); 12:12, 29 (4x); 13:2, 13, 15 (4x) - is not all that strong,
however.
Stipulations concerning the consecration of the firstborn to y h w h are scattered
through the Pentateuch (13:1-2, 11-16; 22:28f.; 34:19f.; Lev. 27:26f.; Num.
3:11 ff., 44f.; 8:16ff.; 18:15ff.; Deut. 15:19ff.). The passages do not read the
same. Likely there were, on the one hand, different views in Israel on how to deal
with the firstborn, and on the other hand there was reinterpretation of the customs
as well. For particular differences see exegesis of 13:12f. Here I touch on some
general questions.
t. Religious background o f the consecration o f the firstborn. Firstborn belong to
YHWH (13:2, 12; cf. 34:19; Num. 3:13; cf. 8:17). Why? At the exodus y h w h
killed the firstborn of Egypt and spared the firstborn of Israel. Therefore he also
claims Israel’s firstborn (Num. 3:13; 8:17ff.; cf. Exod. 13:15). According to
Exod. 13 and Num. 3:8 y h w h ’s claim is rooted in history. That history, however,
is used to offer a motive for a wide variety of customs. In Exod. 13 the practice of
consecration and redemption of the firstborn; in Num. 3:1 Iff., 44ff.; 8:16ff. the
setting aside by y h w h of the Levites to his service (cf. Heb. 12:23). In the other
passages no reason is given for the custom. By and large it is assumed that the
custom of the consecration of the firstborn goes way back and that the association
with the exodus out of Egypt rests on secondary theological reflection. There is
disagreement on the original motivation: gratitude to the deity (Wellhausen*,
164 ex od us 12:1 - 13:16
Prol. , 85), including the notion that the firstborn consecrates subsequent births,
allowing one free use of them (Dillmann); all domestic animals possess a kind of
intrinsic sanctity; even more so the firstborn; the notion that it constituted a gift
was originally not part of it; firstborn were sacrificed and consumed to strengthen
the bond between the deity and the participants in the meal (Robertson Smith*,
463f.); the consecration of the firstborn signifies consecration of the subsequent
children of the mother animal; more in general, it brings about strengthening and
renewal of the life and fertility of the kind; therefore the firstborn has to be a male
without blemish, a distinctive specimen of the group; through the meal in the
sanctuary also the individual eating it shares in the holiness created by the sacrifice
(Deut. 15); however, the custom more and more turns into a priestly levy (Num.
18) (Pedersen*, III-IV, 314ff.).
Probably the custom originally was an expression of gratitude (for that matter:
payment of tribute), while, pars pro toto, the consecration of the firstborn was
tantamount to recognizing the deity as owner of land and livestock, author of
fertility, and entitled to all the crops and animals. As was stated, in Exod. 13 the
custom is entirely connected to the history. The consecration of the firstborn is to
actualize the history of the deliverance (13:16) (see further Essentials).
u. Age o f the institute o f the redemption o f the human firstborn (13:13, 15).
22:28f. (cf. also 13:2), in what is regarded as being the old Book of the Covenant,
contains the ordinance to give the firstborn of human and animal males to y h w h ,
but is silent on the redemption of the child. Does this imply that originally the
firstborn son was sacrificed and that the practice of redeeming him arose later?
Several exegetes hold that such is the case (e.g. Eerdmans*, Religion , 38f;
Kohler*, ThAT, 9). The view is based, among others, on Gen. 22;56 Mic. 6:7;
Ezek. 20:25f. and passages which deal more in general with child sacrifice (see
below). In the line of H. Oort57 it has even been propounded that 13:13b, 15b,
are post-exilic additions and that also Exod. 13 originally contained the command
to sacrifice all firstborn, without exception, to y h w h .
v. The question raised here brings us to the complex problem o f the place o f
child sacrifice in the Ancient Near East and in ancient Israel, in particular in the
official y h w h religion. The question received fresh attention through the publica
tion of O. Eiflfeldt’s Molk als Opferbegriff im Punischen und Hebraischen und das
Ende des Gottes Moloch (Halle a.S. 1935). On the basis of Punic inscriptions,
Eiflfeldt argued that Molech in the OT (Lev. 18:21; 20:2ff.; 1 Kgs. 11:7; 2 Kgs.
23:10; Jer. 32:35) was wrongly regarded as a god; he says, is to be under
stood as standing for a particular kind of sacrifice. Following up on this con
clusion, Eiftfeldt stated that prior to Josia’s reformation child sacrifice was a
legitimate component of the y h w h cult. Though some have followed him in this
56 Presumably the chapter reflects the change in outlook that occurred: first yhw h demanded the
child; later he is satisfied with an animal substitute (22:8, 13).
57 Het menschenoffer in Israel, Haarlem 1865, 42.
interpretation of (e.g. TWATy IV, 957ff.; Lipinski), it has been challenged on

good grounds (e.g. Dronkert; Weinfeld). Plausible is that "I^B, to be taken as an
epithet, was the designation of a deity. Furthermore, it can hardly be denied that
Israel was familiar with child sacrifice.58 To what extent and how it was done is
difficult to establish. Archaeological data offer no help. The OT is written from a
slanted perspective and is unsuitable for a precise reconstruction of the rituals.
Going by the OT, it appears that child sacrifice was quite prominent in the 8th and
7th centuries. The area of Syro-Phoenicia and Canaan is usually thought to be its
cradle (e.g. Lipinski). Child sacrifice was also found in Punic settlements and in
particular in Carthage, and that, too, is thought to hail from there.59 In the OT
child sacrifice is forbidden (see e.g. also 2 Kgs. 17:31; 21:6; Jer. 19:5; Ezek.
23:37ff.; Ps. 106:37ff.). Was what once was accepted in the official religion later
criticized? That conclusion cannot be proven.
w. It is necessary to deal more in detail with the nature o f child sacrifice. A
distinction must be made between child sacrifice as institute and incidental cases of
offering children. The latter kind, done for instance in consequence of a vow or in
an emergency to appease the anger of the deity, is mentioned in the OT (2 Kgs.
3:27; Mic. 6:7; cf. also Judg. ll:30ff.). Though the texts on immolation of
children give the impression that it was a more or less institutional part of the
idolatrous cult, it seems doubtful that it was a duty imposed upon everyone and
sundry. In this connection, it should also be noted that the texts on child sacrifice
often speak of sons and daughters (Deut. 12:31; 18:10; 2 Kgs. 17:17; 23:10; Jer.
7:31f.; 32:35; Ezek. 16:20f.) and, aside from 2 Kgs. 3:27; Ezek. 20:25; Mic.
6:7, do not mention the firstborn. Therefore one may not as a matter of course
associate them with the institute of the consecration of the firstborn. All in all, the
notion that in ancient Israel the sacrifice of the human firstborn was an established
custom has little to commend itself. Disputed passages such as Gen. 22 and Ezek.
20:25f. (Introd. § 12.8.3) offer no good ground for it.
There may have been an occasional instance of the sacrifice of a firstborn - as
there was an occasional instance of devoting a firstborn to the sanctuary (1 Sam.
38 But note Weinfeld: child sacrifice was not part of Molech worship; ")3U hiph. + BWD (Deut.
18:10; 2 Kgs. 16:3; 17:17; 21:6; 23:10; Ezek. 20:31 et al.) does not point to immolation of children
but to an initiation rite; due to their character (poetry, hyperbole), other texts on child sacrifice (see
below), cannot be regarded as historically reliable; according to D. Plataroti, VT 28 (1978), 286-300:
13# + E7N2 indicates magic and/or divine judgment as part of the Mlk cult, not child sacrifices; but
note TWAT, IV, 966; Kaiser, 33f.; M. Smith, JAOS 95 (1975), 477-9, along with the response of
Weinfeld, UF 10 (1978), 411-6.
39 L.E. Stager defends the view that there is a connection between the child sacrifice in Carthage and
the attempt to curtail the population for economic reasons; see L. Stager - S. Wolff, “Child Sacrifice
at Carthage - Religious Rite or Population Control?”, BAR 10.1 (1984), 31-51; L.E. Stager,
“Phoenicisch Karthago: De handelshaven en de Tofet,” Phoenix 28.2 (1982), 84-113; for the
Carthaginian Tofet (an urn field) see also H. Benichou-Safar, Les tombes puniques de Carthage, Paris
1982; S. Brown, Late Carthaginian Child Sacrifice and Sacrificial Monuments in Their Mediterranean
Context, Sheffield 1991.
166 EXODUS 12:1 - 13:16
If.) - , but it was not in obedience to a general statute. Only witness the many
firstborn that are active in person in the OT. Moreover, in Exod. 22:28ff. it is not
the verb ‘to sacrifice’ that is used but the general ina, which here means ‘dedicate
to’, but which leaves open the manner as to how it was done (cf. Lev. 18:21;
20:2ff.; Num. 18:16, 19; 1 Sam. 1:11; Ezek. 20:26, 31). As to animals, one
might think of it as being brought as a sacrifice or tribute to the sanctuary. As
regards human beings, one might think of redemption (e.g. Cassuto) or, more
likely, a special dedication of the firstborn to the service of y h w h .60
One might possibly consider whether the total silence about the human firstborn
in Lev. 27 and Deut. 15 could be due to familiarity with occasional sacrifice of a
child: the silence about human beings removes any ground for the notion that
y h w h , as he required in the case of animals, would prefer the life of the firstborn
over redemption or another form of consecration (cf. e.g. Eerdmans*, 120f.;
Kaiser, 25). As concerns Deuteronomy, I deem it possible that the firstborn of
human beings are not mentioned in view of the fact that the entire nation was to be
consecrated to y h w h (see Essentials). Rather than regarding the sacrifice of the
firstborn as an ancient practice, it is more likely to be understood as a later
rigorous interpretation (Mic. 6:7) of the statute to dedicate the human firstborn to
YHWH.
Finally, Lipiriski interprets the death of Egypt’s firstborn in the context of child
sacrifice in crisis situations: ‘In order to head off the calamity from Israel and
make the exodus possible, it seems that a massive child sacrifice had to be brought
to the deity. The tradition meets that requirement through a double substitution:
Egypt’s firstborn are sacrificed in place of Israel’s children, while, moreover, with
the Israelites the sacrifice of a paschal lamb replaces a sacrifice of firstborns’ (78).
As noted, this interpretation is groundless.

EXEGESIS
12:1 Thereupon y h w h said to Moses and Aaron in the land o f Egypt:

Not only Moses (6:1; 7:1, 14, 19 etc.), but also Aaron is being addressed (cf. 7:8;
9:8; 12:43; Num. 2:1; 20:23). It is specifically stated (cf. 6:28) that the revelation
came to them in Egypt. "iDKb, see Introd. § 3.5.2. This localization in the opening
sentence means that from the outset the regulations that follow, the first to be
given by y h w h through Moses to Israel, are emphatically linked with Israel’s
sojourn in and exodus out of Egypt. As usual, it is not said how and precisely
where the revelation happened. Rabbinic exegesis has it that the revelation was
60 Cf. Konig*, GAR, 219f.; IDBS, 338; for the eighth day as day of the consecration of every male
child see e.g. Lev. 12:31; according to Jewish belief, the firstborn functioned as priests (Exod. 24:5)
when there was no tent shrine yet; see e.g. De Vries*, 201.
given outside the city since it was full of idols (cf. 9:29 and see Mek. I, 3f.;
Rashi). In any case, for his revelation y h w h is not restricted to a specific place;
he speaks freely in hostile Egypt.
12:2 ‘From now on you are to regard this month as the beginning o f months; you
are to regard it as the first month o f the year . '
12:2 consists of two synonymous nominal clauses; the repetition of the statement
in different form reinforces it.
tfqn (OT ca. 280x ; Exod. 18x), derivative of enn (cf. 1:8), ‘new moon*
(1 Sam. 20:5, 28, 24 et al.), ‘(moon)month’ (beginning with the new moon) (12:2
[3x], 3, 6, 18 [2x ]; 13:4, 5; 16:1; 19:1; 23:15; 34:18 [2x]; 40:2 [2x], 17
[2x ]); cf. rn : (see 2:2). See TWATy II, 759ff., and lit. Introd. § 3.23.2. In the
interest of good English, the pi. □’’qnq (in Sam. Pent, with article) is rendered as
a sing. For the same reason the implied ‘from now on’ has been added, ‘this
month,’ viz. the month in which y h w h now speaks to Moses and Aaron and the
exodus will take place. Meant is the month which elsewhere is called Abib (see
13:4) or Nisan (Neh. 2:1; Esth. 3:7). TNf, FTP (in 12:2) and TO (in 12:18), TPsJ
(in 12:8, 18) explicitly mention the latter name.61
The nominal sentences are constructed without a form of irn (cf. KoSynt
§ 338p). It is presumed that v r, ‘it must be,’ is mentally to be added (e.g. Strack,
Baentsch); Cassuto disagrees: ‘this is not a positive precept to commence the year
with the month of Nissan;’ ‘We have here a statement of an existing fact, serving
as a prefatory note to what follows;’ yet, a little later he explains the statement as
saying: ‘You are now beginning to count a new year ....’ DDb, in Moses and
Aaron the Israelites are being addressed; Nachmanides has a different view: the
determination of the new moon is the task of experts, such as Moses and Aaron;
therefore the people are not addressed. For the rendering of n\n + b as an active
see Introd. §3.13.2. (see 6:14) alliterates with the related litfm (Introd.
§ 4.2.2). iitim is genitivally related to 'ennb (cf. KoSynt § 280c). njtf, see 6:16.
It is evidently presumed that prior to that another month formed the beginning of
the year (cf. 23:16; 34:22). y h w h ’s deliverance of Israel is such an impressive
event, a turnaround, that it is to be the start of a new time reckoning. The turn in
Israel’s fortune is given concrete shape in the change of the year. Comparable
events, to some extent, are the beginning of the Christian era with the birth of
Jesus and the beginning of the Muslim era with Mohammed’s journey to Medina
(A.D. 622). It is often thought that Babylonian influence led Israel to change its
autumnal calendar (the beginning of the year falls in the autumn) to a spring
calendar (the new year starts in the spring); see e.g. Benzinger*, 167ff.; De
Vaux*, I, 336ff. There is also the view that Israel used both a religious calendar
(beginning with spring) and a civil calendar (beginning with autumn); see e.g. DBy
61 Cf. Mek. I, 16ff.; FTP contains a broad amplification in 12:2: God wants to select a month in
which to liberate Israel; each of the months commends itself; Moses selects Nisan.
168 EXODUS 12:1 - 13:16
IV, 764; the distinction is found already in Josephus (AJ , I, 81). In TPsJ it is
specifically stated that ‘this month’ is to be the terminus a quo for calculating the
liturgical year.62
12:3 'Give the following order to the entire community o f Israel: on the tenth o f
this month they are each fo r themselves to select, per family , an animal from the
flock , an animal from the flock per household . '
r a n (Sam. Pent.: + Kl, see 3:3), see Introd. §3.12.1. rni? (OT ca. 150x;
Exod. 15x), derivative of "iir (see 21:8), ‘swarm* (Judg. 14:8), ‘company,’
‘congregation’ etc. (Num. 16:5f., 11, 16; Ps. 1:5; 22:17; 82:1 et al.), a group of
individuals united by a common bond; the term, which occurs more often in
construct chains, is used in Exodus as designation for the people of Israel as a
juridical and cultic community held together by a common bond with y h w h : (1)
rny.f^ p) (12:3, 19, 47; cf. 12:6); (2) m irtD (16:1, 2, 9, 10;
17:1; 35:1, 4, 20);63 (3) rni?n W w (16:22; cf. 34:31 and see Num. 4:34; 16:2
et al.); see also 38:25. In 12:6 the combination rn y bnp is remarkable (cf.
Num. 14:5). The interpretation is somewhat disputed, bnp (OT ca. 125 X; Exod.
2 x ), ‘assembly,’ ‘crowd,’ ‘multitude’ (Gen. 49:6; Num. 22:4; Judg. 20:20 et al.),
can be a designation of Israel as a national and cultic community, among others in
the combination mm bnp (Num. 16:3; 20:4; Deut. 23:2ff. et al.) and biofer *?np
(Lev. 16:17; Deut. 31:30 et al.). Used like that, in p is evidently synonymous
with mfi (cf. the alternation of both terms in e.g. Lev. 4:13, 14, 15, 21; Num.
10:2, 3, 7; 20:1, 2, 8, 10, 11, 12). That makes it possible to see mu bnp in 12:6
as a pleonasm (e.g. Baentsch, Beer). Kritzinger, 19f., argues that inp in 12:6 and
elsewhere (among others 16:3) is not, as is often thought, a term for the cultic
community, but denotes a ‘multitude,’ ‘totality’ (cf. 12:6 LXX: to 7i At)0o<;
ouvaycayfy;). In my view, mu bnp is a combination of synonyms (cf. e.g.
n^SN""itfn in 10:22).64 It strengthens the idea (cf. e.g. KoSynt § 309k; Ges-K
§ 133i; Joiion § 141m): ‘the entire community without exceptions.’ Relative to
meaning, my interpretation coincides pretty much with that of Kritzinger. Trans
lations like ‘the assembly of the congregation’ (e.g. LV, NV, KJV) or ‘the
congregation of the assembly’ (SV) are unclear, since they suggest that inp is part
of an m v . The rendering ‘the assembled community/congregation’ (e.g. WV,
NEB) (wrongly) suggests that the animal from the flock is slaughtered in a
gathering of the whole community. Also in 16:3 (cf. Num. 20:12) bnp, in my
62 For the problematic question of the calendar see e.g. IDB, I, 483ff.; IV, 764; D.J.A. Clines, JBL
93 (1974), 22-40 (critical toward the autumnal calendar); G. Larsson, “Ancient Calendars Indicated in
the OT,” JSOT 54 (1992), 61-76. For the fixation of the first month and the Passover date see Gray*,
34Iff.; De Vaux*, I, 333ff.
63 This formula, which is more frequent in the OT than the previous one, is found in Sam. Pent,
also in 12:3, 6, 47; cf. LXX, Pesh., Vulg., TNf (in 12:2, 6) and occurs also in MSS of the MT; for
‘Israel’ see Introd. § 8.13.1.
64 Cf. S. Talmon, ScrHie 8 (1961), 338.
view, is synonymous with m y ; for that reason the rendering ‘menigte’ (multitude)
(e.g. Van der Palm, CV), ‘schare’ (crowd) (e.g. Beer), ‘mensen’ (people) (WV) is
undesirable. In conclusion I refer to the denominative verb bnp (OT ca. 40 x);
niph.: ‘to be assembled’ (32:1); hiph.: ‘to convoke’ (35:1).65 In 12:3 Israel in
Egypt is presented as an organized community (cf. also 12:21).
IBN4?, cf. 12:1, is not followed by direct speech, as one would have expected
(direct speech is not used until the end of 12:4; indirect speech is again used in
12:7; direct speech in 12:9). Ehrlich proposes that "IQN*? in 12:1 was originally
followed by the text of 12:2; in translations the indirect speech is often obscured
(already in Vulg.): e.g. RSV: ‘... they shall take every man a ...’ (cf. KJV, SV
etc.); compare Vredenburg: ‘... dan zullen zij ... nemen.’ ‘on the tenth of the
month,’ see Introd. § 4.11.2; for placing it first see KoSynt § 34lq; for genitival
connection with b e.g. Ges-K 129f; Joiion § 130d. inp^ (Introd. § 3.30; cf. Joiion
p. 335 n. 1; § 176k), pi. correlates with sing. (cf. Kosynt § 346c; Ges-K
§ 145c); implied is: ‘from their flocks’ (cf. 12:21). Ibn Ezra: ‘take’ from their
own flock or by buying, on^, functioning as reflexive pronoun (cf. Kosynt § 28;
Ges-K § 135i). ‘each’ (Introd. § 3.2.2), viz., each family head, ‘an animal from
the flock,’ see Introd. § 9.1.5 (cf. 12:5). ‘family,’ ‘household,’ see Introd. § 3.9.2
(cf. 12:21); TPsJ makes a distinction between the two and mentions the possibility
that one family might be too large for one animal; in that case there should be one
per household (cf. Mek. I, 26). Ehrlich believes that r\2H rra cannot be used in a
narrow sense and contends that nnx is due to dittography and should be stricken;
according to him the repetition of rra^ ne; has distributive force (cf. Beer). In my
view, ‘family’ is further defined as ‘household,’ the members of the group who
live under one roof. The qualifying repetition serves to reinforce the necessity to
closely follow the instruction.

What accounts for the prominence given to the tenth day? Ishodad’s exegesis sheds
lights on the notions of older exegetes. He lists, among others, the following
explanations: for four days divine hymns were sung to dedicate the animal; the
four days typologically symbolize (the four arms of) the cross of our Saviour, just
as the lamb symbolizes the Lamb of God (cf. Isho bar Nun [question 38]); on the
tenth of Nisan the lamb of God was conceived in the womb of the virgin (see
already Ephraem; cf. Hidal*, 52f.). Suggestions from modem exegetes include the
following: the tenth day is an important day since it concludes the first decade of
the three-decade month; cf. the tenth of the seventh month as the day of the Great
Day of Atonement and the announcement of the Year of Jubilee (Lev. 16:29;
23:27; 25:9) (cf. Dillmann, Gassuto). Noth wonders whether this is a case of a
secondary ‘development’ of the cult act due to a difference in the dating, which
65 See THAT, I, 742ff.; II, 609ff.; TWAT, V, 1079ff.; VI, 1204ff.; J.D.W. Kritzinger, Qhal Jahwe:
Wat dit is en wie daaraan mag behoort, Kampen 1957; Palache*, 66.
170 EXODUS 12:1 - 13:16
may have arisen from the false co-ordination of a new calendar to the rhythm of a
natural year; for comparison he points to the position of the Day of Atonement on
the tenth (Lev. 23:27) relative to the Feast of Tabernacles which begins on the
fifteenth of the seventh month (Lev. 23:39). It has been pointed out, for example,
that with the Arabs it was customary to regard the tenth day of the month in
question as a special feast day (Wellhausen*, Reste , 79ff.) and that marking of the
sacrificial animals was part of the ritual acts of the festive month (Holzinger).
Henton Davies considers it possible that on the first nine days of the month the
history of the first nine plagues was recited, and that on the tenth day the first
ceremony of the feast was performed, after which, following a period of waiting
for purposes of purification, the sacrifice was made. For still other suggestions see
Segal*, Passover , 143ff. My view is that there is no way to trace the reason for
the choice of the tenth. Clear is, though, that the celebration proper required a
period of preparation (see at 12:6). Elsewhere being clean is mentioned as required
of the participants (Num. 9:6ff.; cf. Josh. 3:5; 2 Chr. 30:18) and attendant cultic
officials (2 Chr. 30:3, 15ff.; Ezra 6:20); conceivably it was a seven-day period of
preparation (cf. Jeremias, 72f.; Segal*, 138ff., 199f., 253); see also Gen. 35:2;
Exod. 19: lOff.
Who took part in the meal? Segal*, 134ff., concludes from the requirement of
circumcision (12:48f.) that originally it was only the grown men who took part (cf.
e.g. 23:17; 34:23f.) and that it was only in later times that the meal became a
festive domestic happening. The use of rva shows that certainly for Exod. 12 his
view is improbable. See further Beer*, Pes., 6, 8; Jeremias*, 97f. According to
later data lepers and the like were excluded (Josephus, BJy VIII, 426f.; MPes.
VIII, 5; IX, 1, 4) and fasting preceded (MPes. X, 1).
12:4 ‘But i f someone’s household is too small to have an animal from the flock , he
is to select one together with the neighbour who lives closest to him , thereby taking
into account the number o f persons; in accordance with the appetite o f the number
o f persons each one o f you is to determine the size o f the animal. ’
□Hi, see Introd. §3.4.1. CDypn imperf. qal of BUD (OT 22x), ‘to be/become
small/few’ (the opposite of nan [see 1:7]; see e.g. 16:17f.; 30:15); here with ]D
+ inf. ‘be too small* (e.g. Ges-K § 133c); hiph.: ‘to make little/small;* in 16:17f.;
30:15 to characterize a from the context to be inferred act. The noun ayp (OT ca.
lOOx), ‘a little, a few,’ occurs in 17:4 in a temporal sense: l tDUDTii;, ‘in a
moment’ (cf. Jer. 51:33; Hos. 1:4; Ps. 37:10); in 23:30 (2x) as verbal accus. (cf.
Meyer § 86.7) with a local aspect: ‘little by little,* ‘very gradually* (cf. Deut.
7:22); for the repetition see KoSynt § 318f; Ges-K § 133k. See further TWATy IV,
1030ff.
rvan, ‘the household,’ namely of someone, the family head who has to select an
animal (12:3). nt&OiTn, ‘be of a young from the flock (sheep or goats),’ that is,
being in the position to eat an animal in its entirety in one meal; though the
meaning is clear, the expression is strange, unusual; Dillmann: it is a ‘]D der
Zugehorigkeit, zur Umschreibung des Gen.’ (cf. Strack); Baentsch offers the
following description: ‘in der einem Schafe entsprechende Anzahl vorhanden sein;’
Holzinger thinks ]D HM means: ‘von etwas wegkommen, sich einer Sache entledi-
gen;’ Beer sees as partitive in meaning; Ehrlich omits rrriD as ‘unhebraisch;’
C. Rabin, ScrHie 8 (1961), 394, understands n&D as a noun from the maqtalah
class and meaning ‘a place where a sheep is available* or ‘a place where a whole
sheep can be eaten.’
npbi, for sing, see 3:18; the object is not specifically mentioned; not only at the
beginning of the verse but also here LXX offers a free rendering: ‘and he will take
in his neighbour ...;’ the neighbour and not the animal is object; cf. also Vulg.
p tf, see 3:22; I have left the suffix untranslated, a n p (see 3:5) excludes a free
choice (cf. KoSynt § 309b; Ges-K § 133g; Joiion § 141j); meant is local proxim
ity; Cassuto leaves room for the possibility that the reference may be to a relative,
while Childs thinks that the choice of neighbour must be on the basis of the size of
his family (‘the closest neighbor in the number of persons’) (see also Ehrlich).
nODD2 (Sam. Pent.: ni03M ); for 2 of standard or measurement see e.g. BDB
s.v. 2 III, 8: HAL s.v. 2 I, 8. nppp (12:4; Lev. 27:23), ‘number,’ ‘amount;*
derivative of 00D, which as a verb occurs in the OT only in 12:4; the context (in
12:4, 5 only the requirements the animal has to meet are described) rules out the
possibility that OOD qal means the dividing in portions of the animal (so Te
Stroete, WV; cf. Arabic kassa , ‘to smash’); OOD means ‘to calculate/reckon’ (see
the lexicons); two factors that are of importance for the choice of animal are listed
in 12:4: (1) the number of persons sharing in the meal; (2) their appetite. Henton
Davies’ suggestion that the counting is also done in view of the departure and that
the counting is the origin of the later annual numbering of the people is improb
able. ‘persons,’ see Introd. § 3.35.1. For the prominent position of KPN (cf. 12:3)
see KoSynt § 406h; Ges-K § 139c; Joiion § 147d. '3*?, see 4:10 and Introd.
3.3.2. Not everyone requires the same size portion; children, adults, aged and the
sick all have different appetites and there are individual differences as well.
According to Mek. I, 27f., a piece the size of an olive was to be regarded as the
smallest portion; one should not take into account those who ate less (cf. MPes.
VIII, 3, 7; Rashi).
lO ip imperf. qal of 00D (see above; in TPsJ interpreted as ‘to slaughter;’ cf.
Mek. I, 28; bPes. 61a); Ehrlich offers a different interpretation: ne?S]n03D2 =
‘an Kopfsteuer;’ the family head in charge is to look for a neighbour whose family
is the same size as his; then both families bear each half of the cost; if an identical
family is not found, the costs are to be prorated (00D = ‘beisteuem’).
According to 12:10 the animal had to be consumed in one night. So the size of
the animal determines the minimum number of persons that share in the meal.
12:4 answers the question what to do if a household is so small that, even if one
picks the smallest (one-year old, see 12:5) animal available, it is still impossible to
eat all of it. Two families are to get together. An animal is to be chosen according
to a strict selection process. There should be enough for everyone to eat, but the
chance of leftovers is to be avoided. In TPsJ the minimum number of participants
172 EXODUS 12:1 - 13:16
is put at ten.66 In later times one reads of parties (e.g. Josephus, AJ , II, 312; III,
248) which together celebrated the Passover, but whose members were not
necessarily from one family (cf. e.g. Matt. 26:17ff.). If two groups have to
celebrate the feast in one room they are to sit with their backs toward each other
(MPes. VII, 13; VIII, 7; cf. Gray*, 372f.).
12:5 ‘An animal from the flock without blemish, o f the male sex and at least one
year old you must use; you may select from the sheep or the goats. '
This verse sums up the requirements which the animal, aside from size and
weight, has to meet. □’•pp (OT ca. 90 x), adjective, derived from Dftn, ‘complete/
flawless/whole,’ is used in 12:5; 29:1; Lev. 1:3, 10; 3:1, 6 etc. (ca. 55x) in
reference to the specifications for sacrificial animals: they are to be healthy,
normal animals, without blemish or injury (without d -i d , cf. Lev. 22:19-22; Deut.
15:21; 17:1; Mai. 1:14).67 The animal must be ‘without spot or wrinkle,’ because
the Passover meal is no ordinary meal but is sacred in character (cf. 12:11, 27);
cf. the requirements for priests (Lev. 21:17ff.) and lay people (Deut. 23:2f.) for
participation in cultic activities.
"ipj (OT ca. 80x), ‘male,’ of animals (12:5; 13:12, 15) and humans (12:48; cf.
Gen. 17:10, 12, 14, 23; 34:15, 22, 24 et al.); cf. the use of the collective "H DT
(23:17; 34:23; Deut. 16:16; 20:13), ‘all that is male.’68 In 12:5 IDT is
appositional. Also the burnt offering demanded a male animal (Lev. 1:3, 10). Was
it considered more valuable than a female animal? Compare Lev. 4:22f with 4:27f.
and see also Mai. 1:14; note also Lev. 3:1. Was the male the representative of the
kind par excellence? Did one preferably sacrifice an animal of the same gender to
the male god? ExR. XV, 12: male, because God struck all Egypt’s male firstborn
and spared those of Israel; cf. Keil: ‘It was to be a male, as taking the place of the
male firstborn of Israel’ (cf. Gispen on 12:13); Segal*, Passover, 142: a male is
less at risk of becoming unclean than a female.
njKrp, see Introd. § 3.10.2 and KoSynt § 306h; Ges-K § 128v; Jotion § 129j;
cf. e.g. Lev. 9:3; 23:18f.; the interpretation is disputed: (1) ‘being in the first year
of life’ (from the eighth day; 22:29; Lev. 22:27);69 Segal*, 141f.: for the sake of
being clean the animal may not yet have mated; thus it must be young; (2) ac
cording to the Samaritans, an animal of the calendar year that began in October is
meant; (3) ‘one year old;’ this is the currently favoured interpretation; it needs
66 Cf. Josephus (BJ, VI, 423); bPes. 64b. Ishodad mentions ten (besides twelve, the number of Jesus
and his disciples) as fixed number; cf. Isho bar Nun (question 39).
67 See THAT, II, 1045ff.; Jeremias*, 76f.; P. Jouon, Bib 8 (1927), 62ff.; Pedersen*, MI, 337, 359,
528; P.J. du Plessis, Teleios: The Idea o f Perfection in the NT, Kampen 1959, 56ff., 94ff. (also for
LXX).
68 See further F. Schwally, ZAW 11 (1891), 176-80.
M See e.g. Vredenburg: ‘under one year;’ SBJ in note: ‘fils d’un an,’ c’est-a-dire: age d’un an, ou
bien: ne dans l’annee; Murphy, Cole, Michaeli; this is an old interpretation; see the discussion in Mek.
I, 29, and Rashi, Ibn Ezra, and in Dillmann.
clarification; is the reference to an approximately one year old animal? in my

opinion, it is stated that it must have reached the age of one year; only an animal
that is not overly young is suitable (see further Gray*, 348ff.; De Vaux*, Sacri
fice, 4f.).
The three characteristics the animal must conform to are summed up asyndetical-
ly (cf. KoSynt § 376m; 3340). ‘sheep,’ ‘goats,’ see Introd. § 9.1.8,9; TWAT, V,
1193ff. Sam. Pent, has synonymous D '3 & 3 n ; in the targums ‘sheep’ is rendered as
‘lambs’ (N'lD'N); that the translators had in mind young animals is also evident
from their rendering of ‘goats’ as N” ?y '33 (TO, TPsJ) and N''i3 N'Ty '33 (TNf),
‘he-goats;’ for ) as meaning ‘or’ see e.g. KoSynt § 371a, 375f; Joiion § 175a (for
the view that it means ‘and,’ that is two animals are necessary, see Calmet). Deut.
16:2 also includes animals from the herd (cf. 2 Chr. 30:24; 35:7ff.).70 A disputed
point is whether the animals from the herd are also to be used for the Passover (cf.
Jeremias*, 74f.; Segal*, Passover, 203ff.); elsewhere mention is made of sacri
fices in connection with the celebration of the Passover (Ezek. 45:22ff.; 2 Chr.
30:15, 22, 24; 35:12, 14, 16). The contention (e.g. Baentsch) that in later times it
was customary to use a sheep/lamb is dismissed by Gray*, 346ff. There was a
measure of freedom in the choice of animal. The possibility that no suitable animal
might be found was not there.
12:6 'Next you are to set it apart until the fourteenth day o f this month. Then the
entire community o f Israel, with no exceptions, are to slaughter it at nightfall. ’
mDBD, see 10:28 (TPsJ included a reference to the tying of the animal); it may
not remain with the flock; evidently to make sure that no animal other than the one
selected might mistakenly be slaughtered (cf. Mai. 1:14) or that the animal as yet
might get sick or injured (e.g. bPes. 96a: it must be checked for possible blem
ishes; cf. Rashi); it is a case of reservatio ad sacrum ; according to rabbinic and
Samaritan regulations, while it is slaughtered it is checked for possible internal
defects (Jeremias*, 77, 88f.); improbable is the view of older exegetes that the
sight of the animal was to induce the Israelites to make preparations for the feast
and to reflection (noted e.g. by Keil, Baentsch); Keil detects an element of truth in
it, and additionally cites the view that ‘four’ refers to the four generations of Israel
(Gen. 15:16). TPsJ contains the following motivation: so you will know that you
need not fear the Egyptians when they see it.71 Rashi, drawing from Mek. I,
33ff., and ExR. XVII, 3; XIX, 5, points out that Israel did not yet have laws
obedience to which might constitute a ground for deliverance; God gives the laws
of Passover and circumcision,72 to be implemented in the same night (he also
70 Cf. also Ezekiel the Tragedian, 176f.

71 The idea is that the slaughtering, and with it the keeping of the animals for sacrifice, induces
loathing on the part of the Egyptians; see 12:21.
72 In both blood plays a role; see also TPsJ on 12:10 and Ginzberg*, II, 364; Le Deaut*, Nuit,
209ff.
174 ex od us 12:1 - 13:16
asks them to evince that they are not idol worshippers; cf. 12:21). Since this
interpretation fails to offer a satisfactory explanation for the tenth day as day for
selecting the animals, and since circumcision in the night of the Passover is
unlikely on account of the inconvenience, Jewish exegetes have proposed that the
selection of the animal, followed by the circumcision, took place on the tenth day
and that the three subsequent days (cf. Gen. 34:25) were needed for recovery,
making it possible for the animal to be slaughtered on the fourteenth (in Leibo-
witz*, 196f.). In this connection it may be pointed out that according to Josh. 4:19
the preparation for the Passover (circumcision; Josh. 5:2) evidently happened on
the tenth day and was followed by the feast on the fourteenth (Josh. 5:10).
Circumcision as preparation for the Passover is mentioned in 12:48; not however
in 12:3ff. What seems clear is that the period of time from the tenth to the
fourteenth was apparently meant to be the time of preparation.
‘fourteenth,’ see Introd. § 4.5.1; 4.11.1 (see also Lev. 23:5; Num. 28:16; Josh.
5:10; Ezek. 45:21; 2 Chr. 35:1; Ezra 6:19); cf. Deut. 16:1; the day is calculated
from morning to morning (cf. De Vaux*, I, 319ff.; see also 12:18). Passover is
celebrated on a fixed day (see e.g. De Vaux*, Sacrifice, 12ff.); a commonly held
view is that the night of the fourteenth to the fifteenth was the night of the full
moon; J.W. McKay, ZAW 84 (1972), 435-47, argues against it: it is the second,
sometimes also the first or the third night after full moon; the date is related to the
solar cycle and was established under Babylonian influence.
ltDnyi (for pi. see 12:3) perf. qal of one; (OT ca. 85x), ‘to slaughter,’ usually
used in connection with sacrificial animals (12:6, 21; 29:11, 16, 20; 34:25). No
information is given about how the slaughter is to be performed;73 it is assumed
to be known; according to illustrations from the Ancient Near East (see Keel*,
WABAT, ill. 438-9a), animals were slaughtered lying on their back or with their
legs tied or kept together; the animal died74 through severing its windpipe and
neck artery; killing the animal in this manner allows the blood to drain from the
body. Other elements of the slaughter included the skinning (cf. Lev. 1:6; 2 Chr.
29:34; 35:11) and - under normal circumstances - cutting the animal into pieces,
depending on its body structure (cf. Lev. l:3ff.; 1 Kgs. 18:23, 33). From 12:9
one gets the impression that the animal was not to be cut up. With the Samaritans
the preparatory acts included dousing the animal with water (under the influence of
Deut. 16:7?) to loosen the wool and to remove its hair (Jeremias*, 86ff., 95).
bnp, see 12:3; the context indicates that it was a domestic event, not a com
munal celebration in which cultic officials do the slaughtering (2 Chr. 30:17; 35:6,
11; Ezra 6:20; differently Deut. 16:2, 6); presumably the family heads, each in
their own home at the same time, are to kill the animal (inN; Qm: DniK [cf.
Sanderson*, 89f.) selected for the family; because all do it at the same time, it
becomes an act of the community. According to Rylaarsdam the writer has the
73 TPsJ notes that it is to be done according to the rules; they are not mentioned however.
74 As in later ritual slaughtering; see e.g. EJ, XIV, 1337ff.; De Vries*, 157ff.
post-exilic situation in mind: the family heads are together in one place for the
slaughtering. From the use of three terms for Israel *?np) the rabbis
concluded that the Passover sacrifices were slaughtered by three groups in
succession (Mek. I, 42; MPes. V, 5f.; bPes. 64a; cf. Rashi).
D 'm un ]'2 (see 7:15), the same time designation in view of the Passover in
Lev. 23:5; Num. 9:3, 5, 11 (not so in Deut. 16:6; Josh. 5:10); D'anu is regarded
both as a genuine dual (KoSynt § 257b; Joiion § 91g) and as an apparent dual
(Ges-K § 88c; Brockelmann § 18b); there is no consensus about the precise
meaning of the expression: (1) ‘between the evenings’ is the time period between
sunset .and the fall of darkness (e.g. Ibn Ezra; Strack; De Vaux*, I, 323), the
period of dusk, which is brief in Palestine; this view is found among Samaritans,
Sadducees and Karaites; (2) meant is the period of time before and after sunset
(e.g. Rashi, Dillmann, Baentsch); (3) Pharisees interpreted the expression as the
time span from 3 o’clock (9th hour) to sunset at 6 o’clock (cf. Josephus, A J , XIV,
65; MPes. V, 1; see also Jub. 49:1, 12); others opting for that interpretation
include Nachmanides (the period from the sixth hour to sunset); Calmet; Gispen
(‘in the afternoon’); (4) The time designation originally went only with the
Passover and means ‘between both settings,’ viz. of sun and moon,75 that is, as
long as the moon is in the sky; at the Passover: at full moon (also in 16:12 in view
of 16:2); presumably later on the expression became a designation for evening in
general (29:39, 41).76
What was to be done with the blood from the slaughter is described in 12:7,
while 12:8, 9 relate how the skinned body was to be prepared and what other food
was to be eaten with it.
12:7 'They are to take o f the blood and put it on both doorposts and on the lintel,
on the houses in which they will eat it. ’
npb, see Introd. § 3.30. □"!, the blood of the slaughtered animal (see 4:9). ‘to put
on,’ see Introd. § 3.36. ‘both,’ see Introd. § 4.3.1. nj itp (OT 19X),77 ‘post’ of
door or gate (12:7, 22, 23; 21:6). (only in Exod. 12:7, 22, 23), ‘lintel’
(top) of the doorframe. Of the doorframe only the posts and lintel are mentioned
(Vulg. has a pi. in 12:7: in superliminaribus), not the threshold. It seems to be
assumed that the animal was slaughtered in the door opening and that the threshold
is covered with blood [see 12:22; not so Keil, Strack: there must be no blood on
the threshold; no one is to step on the blood]. Therefore the blood need only to be
applied to the other parts of the door-frame. The door is not mentioned. Only
larger and more prominent buildings had an actual door in the opening with which
73 Cf. targums: ‘between the suns,’ viz. sun and moon, and see M.S. Seale, ET 66 (1954-55), 92f.
76 So F.M.Th. Bohl, OLZ 18 (1915), 321-4; this view failed to gain acceptance. See further AuS,
1/2. 617ff., 629; Gray*, 337ff.; Jeremias*, 78ff.
77 Loanword from Akkadian? cf. Ellenbogen*, 99; or to be derived from the Arabic zazal cf. Zo.;
but note TWAT, IV, 802.
176 EXODUS 12:1 - 13:16
to close it off. In smaller, ordinary homes the opening was sometimes closed by a
curtain (e.g. BHHW9 III, 203If.; BRL , 348f.). To understand what is going on
here it is important to realize that in the minds of the ancients the door opening
constituted the boundary between two worlds, the dweller-friendly, protective
atmosphere of the house and the outside world with its threatening evil powers. To
keep those outside, amulets and images of (guardian) deities or monstrous figures
were placed near the door opening and incantations inscribed on the doorposts and
lintel.78 This custom is the background of the instruction in Deut. 6:9; 11:20.
Similarly the custom of orthodox Jews to attach a mezuzah, a small parchment
scroll inscribed with Deut. 6:4-9; 11:13-21, placed in a little container, to the right
doorpost.79 A kind of parallel would be the Christian practice of putting a cruci
fix on or above the door (see further at 21:6). History teaches that apotropaic
powers were attributed to both mezuzah and crucifix. Blood on the doorframe
could serve the same function (cf. also Ezek. 45:19). However, according to 12:13
the blood is no more than a sign.80
□'nan b v 9 Ehrlich: ‘fur die Hauser d.h., zu ihrem Schutze;’ is often translated
(already Vulg.) as ‘of the houses;’ obviously bv in 12:7 always has the same
meaning; ‘on the houses ...’ brings out the scope of the action: if the door opening
is covered with blood and so protected, the whole house and its inhabitants are
protected; in LXX, the first two times is translated with ctu, the third time
with ev (Aq., Symm., Theod.: kou e7i(): ev xoi<; oikok;; is there a link between
this rendering and the rabbinic discussion (on the basis of 12:13) about the
question whether blood was applied to the inside or the outside of the door
opening? (cf. Mek. I, 44, 84); TPsJ translates: ‘on the outside of the houses,’
adding: ‘and where they sleep;’ (cf. Mek. I, 45). ‘eat,’ see Introd. § 3.3.1. inN,
the animal that has in the meantime been slaughtered, ana, fragment from the
Cairo Genizah: Off (cf. app. BHS); see 12:13.
As concerns the application of blood see also 12:13, 22f. A commonly held
notion is that, being an element of the Passover ritual, apotropaic power was
78 See e.g. ERE, IV, 846ff.; G. van der Leeuw, Phanomenologie der Religion, Tubingen 19703,
448ff.; see in OT Isa. 57:8.
79 See e.g. EJ, XI, 1474ff.; J£, VIII, 53If.; De Vries*, 49ff.; mezuzahs are also familiar from the
Qumran community; the Samaritans had the custom of affixing a plate inscribed with Bible passages to
the door; as concerns the texts used, both communities allowed for variation and had a preference for
the Decalogue; the rabbinic prescription about the content is from a later date; see O. Keel, “Zeichen
der Verbundenheit: Zur Vorgeschichte und Bedeutung der Forderungen von Deuteronomium 6, 8f. und
Par.”, in Melanges D. Barthelemy, Fribourg/Gottingen 1981, 159-240 (166ff., 175ff.).
80 For nnTD see further TWAT, IV, 801 ff.; Keel (see above), 183ff.: Deut. 6:9; 11:20 is to be
understood against the background of the custom in the Ancient Near East, particularly in Egypt, to
attach texts with directives for worshipping the deity to the shrine; in Deut. the whole land is sanctuary
and the texts,are attached to the dwellings (in my view, it is likely that inscriptions took the place of
images); C. Schedl, “Die Mezuzah-Texte in den Hohlen von Qumran,” in I. Seybold (ed.), Meqor
Hajjim (Fs G. Molin), Graz 1983, 291-305.
attributed to it.81 Other ideas, including the view that the blood was meant to
strengthen the household gods so that they could resist the plague demon (Beer*,
Pes. , 17), are less popular. According to others, including Calvin, Keil, Heinisch,
it concerns a reconciling act. Laaf*, 112ff., 132ff., differentiates between original
and later significance. Whereas J (12:21-23) still viewed the operation as an
apotropaic act, P (12:1-14) regarded it as a reconciling act, and not just as a sign
for y h w h (12:13) but also as a sign for the people (sign of the covenant). B.N.
Wambacq, Bib 57 (1976), 319ff., understands the application (P) as a purification
rite82 of the homes of the Israelite exiles on the foreign soil of Babel;83 Segal*,
Passover, 157ff., 185, views the rite as a purification rite (belonging to the New
Year festival) of the inhabitants of the house (the marjoram is a ‘lightning rod’ that
protects the user when the holy comes in contact with the unholy). In the current
text, the blood is only called a sign for y h w h (12:13, 23). Finally, in Exod. 12
the action with the blood is performed by lay people. According to 2 Chr. 30:16;
35:11 (cf. also Ezek. 45:19) the task fell to priests and was not done in the home
but in the sanctuary and in a different manner (cf. e.g. Jub. 49:20).
12:8 'They are to eat the meat that night; roasted over the fire , with unleavened
bread and bitter herbs they are to eat it. '
"ifoa (see 4:7), that is, the animal minus skin and blood (cf. 12:9). ‘that night’
(Introd. § 3.23.1), cf. 12:6: ‘evening;’ during the slaughtering it became night,
nrn does not refer to the night of the current day but to the night of the actual
(12:6) day (cf. e.g. Ges-K § 136b); after ‘that night’ TPsJ adds: ‘from the
fifteenth of Nisan (cf. 12:18) to the middle of the night;’ the last harks back to a
rabbinic instruction (see Mek. I, 46; bBer. 9a; cf. Jub. 49:12 and see Gray*, 340).
^ cstr. state of the adjective 'by (12:8, 9; Isa. 44:16), derivative of ‘to
roast’ (1 Sam. 2:15; Isa. 44:16, 19): ‘what is roasted;’ Delitzsch*, 63f., regards
vocalization as qal pass, partic. preferable: see 3:2; for the construct
chain see Ges-K § 128x. Meant is meat roasted on a skewer above the fire.
According to Justin (Dial. c. Trypho, 40) a skewer of wood was thrust lengthwise
through the carcass of the animal (cf. MPes. VII, If.) and a cross-beam through
the shoulders, so that it hung as it were on a cross. Rabbinic teaching stipulated
that the stake was to be of pomegranate wood; Samaritan stipulations specified that
the wood had to be oak. The Samaritans roast the lamb in a covered pit, with
walls of unhewn stones (Exod. 20:24). The duration of the roasting depended on
81 See e.g. Gray*, 355ff., and the overview with critical annotations by Henninger*, 13iff.; the use
of blood for apotropaic purposes as one entered the house is also known from Mesopotamia; see R.
Gelio, “II sangue nei rituali analogic e individualita’ tra Mondo Biblico e Anatolico-Mesopotamico” and
“II rito del sangue e l’identificazione del negeph fmashit, ” in F. Vattioni (ed.), Sangue e Anthropologia
Biblica, II, Roma 1981, 425-51, 467-76.
82 So already Josephus (AJ, II, 213).
83 See also J. Van Seters, ZAW 95 (1983), 180f.; F. Lindstrom, God and the Origin o f Evil. Lund
1983, 65ff.
178 EXODUS 12:1 - 13:16
how it was done. With the Samaritans it took three hours (Jeremias*, 92ff.).
mao pi. of (OT ca. 55 X; Exod. 16x ; sing, only in Lev. 2:5; 8:26; Num.
6:19; a term borrowed from the Greek? cf. TWAT, IV, 1075; Beer*, Pes., 21f.),
‘unleavened bread/cake,’ not risen flat and round cake or bread (further described
e.g. in 12:39; 29:2 [3x]), component of a meal unexpectedly prepared in haste
(there was no time to wait for the dough to rise) (Gen. 19:3; Exod. 12:39; 1 Sam.
28:24; cf. also Gen. 18:6; Judg. 6:19ff.);84 aside from Gen. 19:3; Exod. 12:39;
1 Sam. 28:24, unleavened bread is only mentioned in connection with the cult and
cultic prescriptions;85 leaven (see 12:15) is formed through fermentation,
putrefaction, and therefore is impure, unclean; therefore whatever has been in
contact with it must be kept far away from the holy God (cf. Exod. 23:18; Lev.
2:11); during holy seasons also people can be asked to keep themselves from
leaven and to eat unleavened bread (cf. also 1 Cor. 5:6ff.; Gal. 5:9).
The 1 before m so is a waw concomitantiae (KoSynt § 375n; Ges-K § 154a n.)\
with meat as the main dish, bread is only a dessert; the same is true of the ‘bitter
herbs’ (Introd. § 10.6.1); the general term is rendered in TPsJ with two kinds of
plants (cf. bPes. 39a); in MPes. II, 6, five different kinds are mentioned, besides a
sauce of crushed nuts, fruits and vinegar (haroseth); cf. MPes. X, 3ff. For i v see
e.g. BDB , s.v. II, 4c; Dillmann; Strack; Williams § 293. G. Beer, ZAW 31
(1911), 152ff., thinks that originally the eating of bitter herbs had an apotropaic
purpose: to keep demons from getting into the mouth (cf. Segal*, Passover,
169ff.). Note, though, that it is not specifically stated why unleavened bread with
bitter herbs was to be eaten. Beer*, Pes., 19, also wants to reckon with the
possibility that originally the herbs served as a laxative in connection with fasting
for the festival. For an explanation of the use of unleavened bread see 12:34, 39.
In Deut. 16:3 it is called the ‘bread of affliction,’ suggesting that in Egypt Israel
was compelled to eat such bread;86 according to Jewish exegesis such was indeed
the case (see e.g. the Passover Haggadah).
12:9 O f it eat nothing raw or cooked, boiled in water; but roasted over the fire,
complete with its head, its shanks and inner organs (you are to eat from it).’
13DD, the suff. can go with ‘meat’ (12:8a), but also with ‘the animal from the
flock;’ cf. 12:9b. n; (only here in OT; to be distinguished from particle NJ; see
3:3), adjective from root (cf. Arabic na*a)\ two interpretations are given:
(1) ‘raw’ (cf. ‘•n, ‘alive,’ in TO, TPsJ; cf. Mek. I, 48; bPes. 41a), that is, not
boiled or roasted (cf. 1 Sam. 2:15); (2) ‘half-cooked,’ ‘not fully done’ (cf. 3n3«iD
84 But note TWAT, IV, 1076: possibly back of what is said in Gen. 18:6; 19:3; 1 Sam. 28:24 may
lie the idea that unleavened bread is food of the gods.
85 In E\odus and elsewhere often as object of (12:8, 15, 18, 20; 13:6, 7; 23:5; 34:18); further
in the construct chain ni^Dm n (23:15; 34:18; Lev. 23:6; Deut. 16:16 et al.; cf. Exod. 12:17); see
further also 29:23.
86 But note Beer*, Pes., 36: ‘Elendsbrot’ = ‘Fastenspeise.’
in FTV and see e.g. Ges-B, HAL and Van der Palm; cf. Vredenburg: ‘halfgebra-
den’ [‘half-done’]); the meat must not be done only on the outside, but be well-
done; apparently to prevent the consumption of even the smallest amount of blood
(Lev. 7:26; 1 Sam. 14:32ff.). As to the interpretation ‘raw,’ it is contended that
way back there used to be such a custom. Reference is made to a report by Nilus
Sinaiticus (died ca. 430) of a sacrificial ceremony among Arabs in which, in haste
before sunrise (cf. 12:10f.), the meat of a camel was eaten raw, that is alive, even
the entire animal, skin, bones and all (see beside it 12:46), in order, so the
interpretation goes, to share in the life of the animal or even the godhead (Gray*,
368ff.; Robertson Smith*, 338f., 345; Wellhausen*, Reste , 119). Beer*, Pes.y
15f., emphasizes that the whole animal was to be consumed. That was possible,
because in accordance with the original custom it was still only eight days old
(22:29). For i see 12:5.
i t i } (12:9; Num. 6:19), adjective of ^03, ‘to boil.’ part. pu. of b03 (OT
ca. 30x); pi.: ‘to boil/cook’ (16:23 [2x]; 23:19; 29:31; 34:26) of meat (cf.
29:31; Lev. 8:31; 1 Sam. 2:13; 1 Kgs. 19:21). ^ 0 33^03 (paronomasia), to be
understood as reinforcement (Ehrlich): ‘fully cooked’ (NV) or as ‘op welke wijze
ook gekookt’ (Vredenburg [‘boiled in whatever way’]). TPsJ continues the first
‘boiled’ with: ‘in wine or oil or other liquids’ (cf. Mek. I, 49; JPes. II, 29c).
‘water,’ see Introd. § 3.33. Boiling meat for cultic use was common practice
(Judg. 6:19; 1 Sam. 2:13, 15; Num. 6:19; Zech. 14:21; Ezek. 46:20, 24; see also
above). Deut. 16:7 mentions cooking at the Passover (cf. also 2 Chr. 35:13);
Segal*, Passover, 205, questions the discrepancy. DK '•3, see Introd. § 3.25.2; the
sentence is elliptic; after OK follow two noun clauses containing the conditions the
animal must meet: ‘only when it is roasted over the fire, its head ... is attached;’
mentally there should be added: ‘may/must you eat of it.’ 0*n, see 6:14. For i v
see 12:8.
D 'jnp (OT 9 x ), dual, ‘the shanks,’ only used in connection with animals for
the following body parts: the shank with flesh of the front legs, the splint bone
with flesh of the hind legs.87 Here and elsewhere the head, the shanks and the
inner parts (in the abdomen, intestines etc.) (3ip, see 3:20; Bohl translates
‘romp;’ cf. CV) are mentioned together (29:17; Lev. l:8f., 12f.; 4:11; 8:20f.;
9:13f.; in Lev. 4:11 the order is the same as in Exod. 12:9). Of the inner organs
and the shanks it is said in 29:17; Lev. 1:9, 13; 8:21; 9:14 that they were washed
with water before they were sacrificed. This was necessary because they had
become unclean, the inner parts through food rests and excrement and the shanks
through contact with the filth and dirt of the ground. In 12:9 the washing of the
intestines etc. is not specifically mentioned. Possibly because it could be assumed
that it was to be done. In that case one must assume that following the cleansing
those parts were put back into the animal (cf. bPes. 74a; Rashi). Besides the
burning of 12:10, Jews and Samaritans also had the custom of a burning of inner
87 Vredenburg: ‘kniestukken,’ ‘poten,’ ‘legs’ (LV, UV, CV, WV, GNB,) is too broad.
180 EXODUS 12:1 - 13:16
parts and fat after the slaughter. The Samaritans salt meat and innards (Jeremias*,
94f., lOOff.). According to Haran (Introd. to exegesis under a), 98, 112, 114f.,
burning of the fat before the meal was also part of the ritual of the OT. He points
to 23:18.

Why could the meat not be boiled? Why are head and other parts specifically
mentioned? How was the animal roasted? Head etc. are explicitly mentioned,
because it is hard to roast them and as a rule they were not roasted. If used as
sacrifices they were placed on the altar (Lev. l:8f. etc.). Owing to the absence of
an altar that cannot now be done.8889Evidently the head etc. were not to be roasted
separately. The animal was to be roasted whole (cf. 12:46; Num. 9:12), with head
attached and its inner organs in place (Dillmann, Strack, Baentsch et al.), not cut
up (as was required for the burnt offering; 29:17 etc.; see above). The view,
found already in the rabbis, that the animal was to be roasted in parts (Ehrlich) is
quite improbable. Boiling requires the animal to be cut in pieces, which rules out
that manner of preparing it.
But why did the animal have to remain in one piece? Wellhausen’s* suggestion,
Prol.y 66f., that the stipulation reflects the practice of a later time when ‘roasting’
had been replaced by boiling is unlikely; in fact the stipulation strikes one as
archaic. The notion has been defended that the not divided animal signifies
community: ‘Durch den gemeinsamen Genuss von einem ungeteilten Tier sollte die
ungeteilte, intensive Gemeinschaft der Glieder der Sacralgemeinschaft sowohl unter
sich wie mit der Gottheit, die nach der urspriinglichen Intention des Ritus als am
Mahle beteiligt zu deuten ist, hergestellt und ausserlich zum ausdruck gebracht
werden.,89
Also proposed is a link with 12:11: roasting is a quicker and easier way of
preparing the animal, one that fits the tense atmosphere.90 Another view is that
by not cutting up the animal the meat will not become contaminated by other
substances. In that respect one should think especially of the fat, which was not to
be eaten (Lev. 3:17; 7:23, 25 and cf. e.g. Lev. 3:3f.) and which, during the
roasting on a stake, drips into the fire and is burned up (Dillmann; cf. e.g. Henton
Davies, Honeycutt). This view is the most appealing. The objective is ritual purity
(cf. Segal*, Passover, 166f.).
In view of 12:10, it is obvious that the head and other parts had to be roasted as
well. The animal was consecrated. Throwing out the head and some other parts
88 Since head and internal organs are mentioned along with the shanks, the suggestion made by
Robertson Smith*, 406 n. 1, that head and inner organs, as parts in which the life was especially
centered, had to be eaten, is improbable.
89 So Baentsch; others also emphasize the correlation between the unbrokenness of the animal and of
the communion of the participants, e.g. Dillmann, Strack.
90 See e.g. Heinisch; cf. also Strack; Keil wrongly holds that boiling requires no more time than
roasting.
would be sacrilege. Furthermore, the emphasis on the fact that the size of the
animal had to correspond to the number of participants (12:4) suggests that the
idea of total communion was paramount. Those eating the meal constitute a
complete unity by completely consuming the in-one-piece animal, and through the
body of the animal they share as well in his blood that was smeared on the house.
So they share in the protective power that issues from it. The eating of the one and
undivided animal means a sharing together in unbroken, protective power.
12:10 ‘And you are to leave nothing o f it until the morning. I f something is left
until the morning you are to bum it with fire . '
Before talking about how the meal is to be eaten (12:11), an instruction is given
about the time length of the meal (12:10a) and how to deal with possible leftovers
(12:10b). Cf. 34:25; Num. 9:12; Deut. 16:4. Note the partial parallel between
12:10a and 12:10b. For "in" hiph. and niph. see 10:5 (inter alia LXXB: ‘Nothing of
it must remain ...;’ other witnesses agree with MT). For "ipa (see 7:15) without
article (unlike e.g. in 16:23f.) see KoSynt § 294e. LXX after the first ip a
continues: ‘and no bone of it shall be broken’ (cf. 12:46). Adversative waw starts
the second half of the verse. The object is placed first (cf. KoSynt § 339m).
isnipn imperf. qal of *)")& (OT ca. 115x; qal ca. 100x), ‘to bum’ (often + 0*0
[see 3:2], similarly in 12:10; 29:14, 34; 32:20), that is, give over to total destruc
tion (cf. TWAT , VII, 822ff.).
Profanation, the use of the meat for an ordinary meal or by dogs, is to be
excluded (cf. 23:18; 29:34; 34:25; Lev. 7:15, 17; 8:31f.; 22:29f.; Deut. 16:4; cf.
e.g. Robertson Smith*, 388). The stipulation of 12:4 is intended to make sure that
the entire animal can be consumed; the stipulation in 12:10b is given just in case
something would remain of the meat. It is not specifically said what was to be
done with the bones and other inedible parts. Were they also burned or were they
buried (cf. 12:46)? According to rabbinic and Samaritan interpretation, the
leftovers of the meal were to be burned with the inedible parts (Jeremias*, 100ff.).
TPsJ contains the observation that what is left over is to be burned in the daylight
of the sixteenth (that is, of the next morning), and the reason for it is said to be
that it is not possible to do it on a feast day (on which no work might be done; see
12:16); the interpretation is based on the recurring ‘until the morning’ (see Mek. I,
50f.; bShab. 24b; bPes. 83b; Rashi). However, what seems to be meant in 12:10
is that the rests are to be destroyed before sunrise.91 Why not in the night? Not in
order to prevent the use of spoiled meat (cf. Lev. 7:17; 22:29f.), but because the
holy power resident in the meat is evidently tied to a 24-hour period of time and is
not to be carried over to the new day. De Vaux*, Sacrifice, 12, seems to connect
it with the custom of nomads to break camp at dawn without leaving anything
behind. The place of burning is not indicated. Perhaps it was the court or the roof
91 Cf. ‘until the morning’ in Lev. 7:15; 22:29f.; see also Jub. 49:10: meal until two o ’clock; after
that burning; cf. Robertson Smith*, 345; Wellhausen*, Reste, 43, 119.
182 EXODUS 12:1 - 13:16
of the house (MPes. VII, 8).

According to the portrayal in 12:10 the exodus did not take place before the
morning; cf. 12:22; Num. 33:3.
12:11 ‘Thus you are to eat it: your waist girded , your sandals on your feet and
your staff in your hand , yes, you are to eat it in nervous haste. It is the meal o f the
passing over in honour o f y h w h . ’
np? (OT ca. 35x), adverb (KoHkL, II, 253; KoSynt § 318b; Ges-K § lOOi;
Jotion § 102h), ‘thus,’ pointing ahead (‘in the following manner’) (12:11; 1 Kgs.
1:48; Jer. 19:11), but usually pointing to what lies behind (29:35; Num. 8:26;
11:15 et al.); cf. Ehrlich: a slip of the pen for nh. In three circumstantial noun
clauses, it is stated how the meal is to be eaten; in each instance a particular aspect
of travel-readiness is mentioned, and it is always assumed that the people are
standing.
cnno, see 1:5. Dn.jq part. pass, qal of "ian (OT ca. 45 x), ‘to gird oneself,’ ‘to
put on’ (in 29:9; Lev. 8:13 + double accus.: gird someone with something); the
partic. refers to D^riO; the expression is succinct; meant is: having the robe around
your waist and tied with a belt; so as not to be bothered with the wide undergar
ment while traveling or working, it was pulled up and tucked in with a belt (12:11;
1 Kgs. 18:46; 20:32; 2 Kgs. 4:29; 9:1; Isa. 5:27; Dan. 10:5; cf. Prov. 3L17).92
FT offers a symbolic interpretation: ‘girded with the ordinances of the torah’ (cf.
TNf on 13:18). (LXX, Pesh., Vulg.: + copulative) and Q 'bn, see 3:5 and
TWAT , V, 497ff. DDT*3 DDbpfci (Sam. Pent.: plur; cf. LXX, Pesh., Vulg.), see
Introd. § 3.21.10 and TWAT, IV, 1129ff. Ibn Ezra: stick for prodding beasts of
burden. Likely all that is meant is that one must be ready for the journey. Segal*,
Passover, 146f., 173, reads the clothing instructions in the context of his thesis of
the Passover as New Year’s festival: the clothing is to protect the wearer against
the evil that is lurking at the beginning of the New Year.
yipn (12:11; Deut. 16:3; Isa. 52:12), derivative of TDn, ‘to be driven/hurried
away,’ ‘to be tense, nervous, afraid’ (e.g. qal in Deut. 20:3; 2 Sam. 4:4 et al.).
yiTDro is usually rendered as ‘met grote haast’ (UV, CV; ‘in urgent haste’ [NEB]),
‘overhaast’ (NV), ‘haastig’ (WV, GNB; ‘hurriedly’ [NRSV]);93 LV’s rendering
‘in angstige haast’ (‘in anxious haste’) does more justice to the term; meant is: in a
nervous, tense atmosphere, awaiting the coming events;94 cf. 12:33ff.; in TPsJ
‘the tense busyness’ is related to the Shekinah (cf. the discussion in Mek. I, 52). It
is not impossible that there is a deliberate pun of liTDna (TDn) with noD (cf.
Holzinger).
92 See e.g. BHHW, I, 615; II, 962; IDB, I, 870; Honig*, 75ff. For ->an see D. Sperling, JANES 3
(1970-71), 121-8; Palache*, 12f.
93 Cf. LXX: pexa 07iou6f|c; Symm.: ev in tifr i (see beside it Aq.: ev 0apPo>, ‘in amazement,
fright;’ cf. Luke 4:36; 5:9; Acts 3:9); Vulg. festinantes.
94 Segal*, 174f: ‘a mimetic action to speed the transition from an old to a new epoch.’
riQ£ (OT ca. 50 x ) is used to designate both the meal, the Passover feast (12:11,
27, 43, 48; 34:25; Lev. 23:5; Num. 28:16; 33:3 et al.), and the animal that forms
the main course of the meal (12:21; Deut. 16:2; 2 Chr. 35:1, 6ff. et al.). The
term nos is given a popular etymological/literary etymological explanation in
12:13, 27 (cf. 12:23) with the use of the verb nOB -I- bv. The context brings out
what is meant: y h w h spares the Israelites in the marked houses (cf. also Isa.
31:5). The precise meaning of the verb nos (OT 7 x ) is not entirely clear. In
ancient translations and commentaries three interpretations can be distinguished:93*95
(1) nos means ‘to hop,’ ‘to leap,’96 that is, to pass over something without
touching it, to spare something; (2) nOB means ‘to pass by,’ that is, ‘spare’ (cf.
12V + bv in Amos 7:8; 8:2); (3) nos means ‘to protect,’ ‘to save,’ ‘to spare’ (cf.
12:27; Isa. 31:5). There seems to be no reason to assume two homonym verbs
nos (see e.g. SS, BDB , Zo.). Likely in Exod. 12 is meant: to go around at a fast
pace (cf. KoW), with big steps jumping or racing from the one house to the next
(cf. nos piel + i v in 1 Kgs. 18:26; ‘around the altar;’ from the one side to the
other).97
m rrb Kin nos is not meant, as I see it, to offer a motive for the words that
precede in 12:11; therefore the final words are not to be introduced by ‘for’ (e.g.
CV, WV) or a colon (e.g. LV) (cf. KoSynt § 375d; Williams § 494); there is no
more than a loose connection between noB etc. and the prior words; the ending
serves as a caption for 12:3-11 (cf. Dillmann; Laaf*, 13). The sacral meal written
about in the preceding story receives a name (cf. Lev. 23:5). In 12:12f. that name
is elucidated, m rr^ (cf. 12:14, 27; 20:10; 32:5) is variously translated: ‘of
y h w h , ’ that is, Passover = y h w h ’s sparing (e.g. Lange) or ‘prescribed by y h w h ’
(e.g. Strack); ‘for y h w h , ’ ‘in honour of y h w h ’ (32:5).
It is not said when the meal was to be held. In view of the time when the animal
was to be slaughtered (12:6), the time needed to prepare it for roasting (an hour to
an hour and a half) and the actual roasting, one may assume that it was about
midnight when the meal began. With the Samaritans the meal took less than a half
hour.
12:12 T o r that night I will pass through the land o f Egypt and strike down all
firstborn , both humans and animals, and all gods o f Egypt l will punish. / am
yh w h. '
Alongside 12:12-13 see 11:4f.; 12:23, 29. ' ^ 2 9 } (with waw introducing a causal
93 See W. Riedel, TAW 20 (1900), 319-29; S.P. Brock in Interpreting the Hebrew Bible (Fs E.I.J.
Rosenthal), Cambridge et al. 1982, 27-34.
96 Also ‘to limp,’ ‘to be crippled;’ cf. 1 Kgs. 18:21, 26; 2 Sam. 4:4 and nQ9, ‘lame’ (2 Sam. 5:6 et
al.).
97 As to the etymology of nos, very different views have been argued; see Laaf*, 142ff.; Segal*,
Passover, 95ff.; for the ongoing discussion see G. Gerleman, TAW 88 (1976), 409ff.; M. Gorg, B N 43
(1988), 7-11; H. Hirschberg, TRG 26 (1974), 355f.; O. Keel, Z4W84 (1972), 428ff.; B.N. Wambacq,
Bib 62 (1981), 509ff.
184 EXODUS 12:1 - 13:16
clause; cf. Ges-K § 158a; Jotion § 170c) perf. qal of "DU (OT ca. 550 x ; qal
465x ; hiph. 80x; Exod. 15x), ‘to cross’ (Gen. 31:21 et al.), ‘to pass through’
(12:12; 32:27 [ + 2 ]; 12:23; cf. 36:6 hiph. [Introd. § 3.51.2]), ‘to pass by’ (15:16
[2x] and 34:5; 33:19 hiph. [4- iv]; 33:22 [2x]),98 ‘to go on ahead’ ( + ')Sb)
(17:5; Gen. 32:17, 22 et al.); hiph.: ‘to set apart to’ ‘surrender to,’ ‘consecrate to’
(13:12; Lev. 18:21; Jer. 32:35; Ezek. 16:21 et al.).99 In TPsJ and TO, the
anthropomorphic word usage is replaced by ‘to reveal oneself (cf. also 12:23);
according to TPsJ, the Shekinah will be accompanied by ninety thousand myriads
of destroying angels (cf. Ps. 78:49, and see also Ginzberg*, II, 366).
‘that night,’ cf. 12:8. riDJ hiph., see 2:11. "HDD, see 4:22; for the question
whether also non-Egyptians in Egypt and Egyptians outside Egypt were struck, see
Mek. I, 53ff.; Rashi. From the ending of 12:30 is has even been inferred that in
case there was no firstborn boy, the oldest girl was struck, and in case there was
no girl either, someone else was the victim (in Calmet). dikq (Sam.
Pent, without copulative), see 4:11 and Introd. §9.1.2. ‘gods of Egypt,’ see
Introd. §7.2.1,2. new, see Introd. §3.41.1. see 2:14; cf. Num. 33:4.
Apparently the idea is that the death of the firstborn manifests that y h w h exercises
dominion over Egypt and that its gods are powerless, unable to protect Egypt;
y h w h punishes them by utterly disgracing them. In any case, not a word is said
about special punitive measures against the gods. For judgment against the gods of
Egypt see Isa. 19:1; Jer. 43:13; 46:25; Ezek. 30:13. TPsJ contains an expansion;
there are four judgments: the idols of metal will melt away; those of stone fall
apart; those of clay be smashed; those of wood be turned into dust ‘in order that
the Egyptians acknowledge that I am y h w h ’ (cf. 1 Sam. 5:3f., and see also Mek.
I, 55; ExR. XV, 15; MidrTanh. Exod. Ill, 19; Rashi; Ibn Ezra; Ginzberg*, II,
367). According to Jub. 48:5, God burned the idols with fire. Other interpretations
have been put forward as well: the Israelites took the statues of the gods with them
(in Calmet); the death of Pharaoh’s firstborn and the death of the firstborn of the
animals that were worshipped as gods was a judgment upon the gods (e.g.
Murphy, Keil).
‘I am y h w h , ’ see Introd. § 7.3.7. Certainly after the ‘y h w h ’ at the end of
12:11, the ‘I’ of y h w h in 12:12, 13 and the ‘I am y h w h ’ strikes one as somewhat
strange; but note 6:6; for the reverse: ‘y h w h ’ and the ‘I’ of Moses in a divine
oracle, see ll:7f.
12:13 *The blood, however, will mark the houses in which you are. When I see
the blood, I will pass you by. So the destroyer will not wreak havoc among you
when I bring blows upon the land o f Egypt.9
TPsJ contains an expansion on the blood, a mixture of the blood of the Passover
and of the circumcision (cf. 12:6). rrn + see Introd. § 3.13.2; DDb (Beer: read
*HCf. 30:13, 14; 38:26: to file past for counting (cf. 2 Sam. 2:15; Jer. 33:13; Lev. 27:32).
w For derivative -»3JJ see 25:37. See THAT, II, 200ff.; TWAT, V, 1015ff.
'b, ‘for me’), obviously the blood is not a sign (niN, see 3:12) for the Israelites
but for yhwh; adequately translating the Hebrew requires a ‘free’ rendering.
According to Jewish exegesis, the sign is for the Israelites ( Mek. I, 56; Rashi: it is
found on the inside; see at 12:7); it is considered inconceivable that God would
need a sign;100 with the sign on the outside the Israelites show that they have
broken with idol worship (see at 12:21); see Leibowitz*, 197ff. ‘the houses ...,’
cf. 12:7; TPsJ, TNf: ‘the houses where you are going to live* (cf. Mek. I, 56).
□tf, see KoSynt § 245f n. 'm in i (Introd. §3.46.1) with 1 to introduce a
conditional protasis, while also the apodosis, starting with TinODi (see 12:11), is
introduced by i (Ges-K § 112kk, 159g; Joiion § 167b). HJJ, see 7:27. rrntfD1?, see
8:20; the meaning found there is commonly accepted: the catastrophe is one that
produces destruction; O. Keel, ZAW 84 (1972), 422, argues that it may be a
circumlocution for the superlative; in my view, one might consider whether
perhaps b is employed to express a genitival relation (Ges-K § 129; Joiion § 130)
and irneto might have the same meaning as in 12:23: ‘the catastrophe brought
about by the destroyer’ (cf. Noth: “‘Verderber”-Streich;’ Michaeli). See also
TPsJ: ‘and the messenger of death (NIYIB IN^D) to whom power is given to destroy
shall not rule over you’ (cf. TNf margin; but see TO, TNf: ‘destroying death’).
Lindstrom (see 12:7), 59ff., argues for the meaning of ‘destruction’ in 12:13 and
12:23, dismissing the presence of the personal element, roa is used in 12:12 with
accus; here with 3, with the possible meaning of ‘to deal a blow’ (cf. Num. 11:33;
22:6 et al.; 3 in 033 can be taken to mean ‘against’); it is also possible that the
firstborn are the tacit object and that 3 indicates the place (see LXX); cf. 2 Sam.
23:10, 24; that is how I understand 3 in both instances.
12:13 assumes that the Israelites and Egyptians live in integrated communities
(cf. Introd. § 8.6.3). According to Mek. I, 57f., the Egyptian in the house of the
Israelite will be struck and the Israelite in the house of the Egyptian be spared (cf.
Rashi).
12:14 "That day you are to remember in perpetuity. You are to celebrate it as a
festive day in honour o f y h w h . Throughout the generations the obligation remains
upon you to celebrate it . '
12:14 reads like a concluding sentence. The sequel teaches that the ending is only
provisional (cf. 12:17). ‘that day’ (for nrn see 12:8, 12), see Introd. § 3.23.1; it
would seem that the day is the day of the exodus, the 15th of Nisan (12:17); that
raises the question how 12:14 relates to the previous account. There an ordinance
is given concerning the ritual that is to take place in the night of the 14th to the
15th. It is furthermore related how in that night yhwh will protect Israel from the
catastrophe that will come upon Egypt. So it would seem that ‘that day’ cannot
relate to that happening (e.g. Dillmann, Baentsch). Still, it seems that that is what
l"° TPsJ: God sees the merits of the blood, notes that the Israelite has fulfilled his duty; cf. Mek. I,
56; see further Rashi and also Gispen.
186 EXODUS 12:1 - 13:16
is meant, and so ‘that day’ must be understood as being the night with the next day
(cf. 12:18). It would seem that 12:14 is an ordinance to annually perform the ritual
with the small animal in order to reflect on y h w h ’s protection of Israel and, as is
apparent from the sequel, on his bringing Israel out of Egypt. The verse consti
tutes the conclusion of the first part of the message which Moses is to com
municate.101 The lack of clarity in ‘that day’ is possibly due to the combination
of heterogeneous material.
The nocturnal event must be reenacted on a yearly basis, ‘are to celebrate,’ see
Introd. § 3.13.2; 3.18.3. u n , see 5:1. mr r ^ , see 12 :11. m , see 1:6; L X X : ‘all
your generations.’ nj?n (OT ca. 105x ; Exod. 7 x ; cf. pn; see 5:14, also for
Bibl.) belongs to the category of nouns with both a masculine and a feminine form
(cf. M. Ben-Asher, Semitics 6 [1978], 1-14); as concerns pn and npn, there is no
difference in meaning: ‘ordinance,’ ‘stipulation,’ ‘rule,’ ‘obligation;’ (in Exodus
npn occurs 5 x in the combination D$ny npn (12:14, 17; 27:21; 28:43; 29:9) in a
concluding formula; see further 12:43 (cf. Num. 9:12, 14); 13:10; in the eyes of
others, an obligation could be tantamount to a ‘privilege’ (so possibly in 29:9); cf.
P. Victor, VT 16 (1966), 358-61. D*w, see 3:15.
12:15 T o r seven days you are to eat unleavened bread; but already on the first
day you are to remove the yeast from your houses, fo r if someone eats fermented
bread that person is to be exterminated from Israel; from the first day to the
seventh day (you are to do so).’
Though 12:14 speaks of one memorial day, 12:15 talks about a celebration lasting
seven days, with a special accent on the first and seventh day (12:16). ‘seven,’ see
Introd. §4.8.1; cf. 13:6; 23:15; 34:18; Deut. 16:3, 8. ‘six’ in Deut. 16:8 was
considered problematic by the rabbis (see Mek. I, 62f.; bPes. 120a; Rashi). man,
see 12:8. "[K, see 10:17. DV3, 3 with the meaning ‘from,’ see LXX, Pesh.102
fiewi, cf. 12:2. n h i p h . , see 5:5;103 Strack: ‘den Sauerteig ... aufhoren las-
sen,’ with the annotation: ‘das aufhoren beginnt mit dem Nichtmehrvorhanden-
sein,’ that is, the removal must already be finished on the preceding day (for
comparison he points to Gen. 2:2; see also e.g. Ibn Ezra, Dillmann). It is an old
notion. TPsJ offers a precise time designation: ‘but from the middle of the day
which precedes the feast (= 14th Nisan), you must ...’ (cf. Mek. I, 64; MPes. I, 4;
bPes. 4b, 5a; Rashi). In my view, the idea is that each day the house must be
searched afresh for the presence of yeast. Where bread is made it can easily
happen that a piece of dough starts fermenting. Possibly the stipulation to eat
unleavened bread presupposes that the entire house and the baking area must be
101 In GNB, 12:14 forms the end of a pericope; see also the division made, e.g., by Te Stroete.
Hyatt, on the other hand, takes 12:14 with what follows.
102 Cf. e.g. Gen. 2:4 and see W. Chomsky, JQR 61 (1970-71), 87-9; N.M. Sama, JBL 78 (1959),
310-6.
103 LXX: a4>avieixe, ‘you must destroy’ (cf. Frankel*, 89); see beside Aq.: SiaAeukete; Symm.:
Ttauoexe.
cleansed before the feast, so that the stipulation refers specifically to the cleaned
baking area: right from the start, from the very first day, despite the fact that the
utensils for baking had been thoroughly cleaned, one must take care that no
fermentation is taking place.
"1Kb (for dages see Ges-K 20g; cf. app. BHS) (12:15, 19; 13:7; Lev. 2:11;
Deut. 16:4), ‘zuurdeeg’ (e.g. NV, WV), ‘zuurdesem’ (CV), ‘gist’ (LV, GNB),
‘leaven’ (NEB, NRSV), ‘yeast’ (NIV, TEV), sour dough produced by fermen
tation, used for rising dough for baking new bread (cf. AuS, IV, 53f.; BHHW , III,
1676f.; IDB , III, 104f.). nrnaai ... has conditional force (Ges-K
§ 112mm, 116w).
f&n (OT 11 x , derivative of fDn, ‘to sour,’ ‘to become leavened’ (qal 12:34,
39; Hos. 7:4; hithp. Ps. 73:21): ‘something fermented or leavened,’ ‘fer-
mented/leavened food/bread’ (12:15; 13:3, 7; 23:18; 34:25). in 12:19, 20
is regarded either as part. fern. hiph. of fDn, ‘something that sours’ (Ges-B; KBL\
HAL) or ‘something in the process of fermenting (KoW; cf. Vredenburg: ‘iets
zurends’ [something that sours]), or as a feminine noun: ‘anything leavened’
(BDB , Zo.). b2Vrb2 and Ninn b a n (Introd. § 3.35.1) refer to the same person;
the variation highlights the subject; for the construction see KoSynt § 412q, 367P;
Joiion § 156f, 1; Brockelmann § 123c. m 3 , see 4:25; usually taken to mean
expulsion from the civic and cultic community.104 For article before Jlbin and
(Introd. § 4.8.1) as attribute with a noun without article, see KoSynt § 334o;
Ges-K § 126w; Joiion § 138b.
The ending of the verse, from DVD on, is usually regarded as a time specific
ation with b2H (not so e.g. Van der Palm, LV). Ehrlich surmises that
*?iner/3 ... 'D is an insertion and relates the ending to the first part of the verse. In
my view, the ending refers in particular to the removal of the leaven (cf. Cassuto).
It is emphatically stated that the purity must be maintained all seven days. The
importance attached to it is shown by the severe sanctions on negligence.
12:16 ‘You are to come together fo r a solemn assembly on the first day and fo r
a solemn assembly on the seventh day. On those days no work at all may be done.
But only that which each one eats may be prepared by you. ’
‘solemn assembly,’ see Introd. § 3.45.2; 3.44.2; LXX: ‘and the first day will be
called holy and the seventh day will be a holy calling for you;’ cf. Vulg.: dies
prima erit sancta atque sollemnis et dies septima eadem festivitate venerabilis;
Rashi interprets N"ip» as ‘calling out,* viz., to ‘be holy,’ that is, the day must be
holy in regard to eating, drinking, clothing (cf. Mek. I, 68); meant is, however, a
convocation in honour of y h w h in the holy place (Laaf*, 137: in the temple; B.N.
Wambacq, Bib 61 [1980], 48: in the synagogue); Ehrlich rightly dismisses the
interpretation of enp as sanctuary (Baentsch). xb ... see Introd. § 3.26.
Among others, Baentsch; Beer; Te Stroete; P. Grelot, VT 6 (1956), 175f.; on excommunication

see also W. Horbury, VT35 (1985), 13-38.
188 EXODUS 12:1 - 13:16
(OT ca. 165x ; almost always sing.; Exod. 33 x), derivative of "|Kb, ‘to
send’ (cf. ixbQ, see 3:2), ‘labour,’ ‘work’ (to be distinguished from m a i;
[Introd. § 3.37.4], servile labour); in 12:16; 20:9, 10; 31:14, 15 (2x); 35:2 (2x)
used with new for everyday activities; in Exodus it is often used for the construc
tion of the tent shrine: ‘the construction project’ that is to be carried out
(n e w ),105 ‘technical skills,’ ‘techniques’ (31:3, 5; 35:31, 35 [2x]), the things the
people made for the construction (36:6, 7a; cf. 35:20ff.); cf. riDNbD, ‘property,’
‘possessions’ (goods gained by labour?) in 22:7, 10 (cf. Gen. 33:14; 1 Sam. 15:9;
2 Chr. 7:13). For m a u n nDNbD see Introd. §3.37.4. See further TWATy IV,
905ff., and for LXX F. Luciani, Rivista Biblica 32 (1984), 425-9.
n e w ' (Introd. § 3.41.1), as regards gender and number related to bD (cf. KoSynt
§ 349b; Ges-K § 146c; Joiion § 150o). For the question broached by the rabbis as
to the permissibility of having work done by non-Israelites, see Mek. I, 70ff.;
Rashi; Nachmanides. "[N, see 10:17. bDK' is rendered in LXX as if it read ne?N';
cf. also TPsJ: ‘what one must do in order that everyone can eat;’ TNf: ‘what
everyone must do for the necessities of life.’ tfsrbDb (Introd. § 3.35.1), for b,
‘by,’ with passive (see also Dab at end of the verse) see KoSynt § 103; Ges-K
§ 121f, Joiion § 132f. The rabbis raised the question whether also relates to
animals and non-Israelites; see the discussion in Mek. I, 73, and Rashi, Ibn Ezra,
Nachmanides, Ehrlich. Kin refers back to the sentence with ")DK (cf. KoSynt
§ 340a).
mab, na, ‘separation,’ derivative of nna, ‘to separate,’ ‘to isolate’ (TWAT, I,
512ff.), always occurs, leaving out 30:34 (2x; ‘part;’ cf. 1 Qs IV, 16, 25), with
preposition b (26:9 [2x] = 36:16 [2x]) and often with suff. (12:16; 18:4, 18;
22:19, 26; 24:2) with adverbial force (Joiion § 102d): ‘in a state of isolation,’
‘separately,’ ‘by oneself,’ ‘alone;’ with following ]D used as a preposition (Ges-K
§ 119c; Brockelmann § 116i); see 12:37: ‘besides,’ ‘not counting;’ ‘alone,’ can
have a negative sound (18:14, 18); solitude is apt for revelation (24:2; cf. TWAT ,
I, 515). See further THAT , I, 107, and for homonyms Introd. § 10.1.9; 10.3.11.
The first and seventh day of the seven-day period are days of rest (cf. Lev.
23:6ff.; Num. 28:16ff.). There must be an atmosphere of holy rest. Ordinary
work may not be done. Only the necessary food may be prepared, followed of
course by the required cleaning (12:15) (see beside it 16:23; 31:14f.; 35:2f.; Lev.
23:3, 24ff., 28ff.; Num. 29:Iff.)- Ibn Ezra, followed by others (see Calmet), links
the first day with the exodus out of Egypt and the seventh day with the crossing of
the sea and Pharaoh’s defeat (see also Introduction to exegesis of 13:17-15:21
under t).
12:16 conjures up the picture of a cultic community living in the vicinity of the
sanctuary: the Passover is celebrated at home; one can go about one’s domestic
duties (12:16b) and nevertheless frequent the sanctuary. Does the ordinance refer
105 See 35:21, 29, 33; 36:2, 4, 5, 7b, 8; 38:24 (2x); 39:43; 40:33 (in 36:4 for the work on a
detailed part of the project).
to the community around the tent shrine (Exod. 25-40) or does it reflect the
situation in the first period of the second temple? Does it presuppose the existence
of numerous local sanctuaries or even synagogues?
12:17 ‘You are to observe the feast o f the unleavened bread , fo r precisely on
that day I led your tribes out o f the land o f Egypt. Therefore you are to observe
that day. Throughout the generations it remains an obligation fo r you in per
petuity. ’
As in 12:14, 12:17 reads like a concluding sentence. The sequel teaches that
12:17, like 12:14, is a provisional conclusion. Next to 12:17 see 12:51. see
10:28. m m n, here in the sense of ‘feast of the unleavened bread’ (cf. 12:8); Sam.
Pent.: m m i, ‘the ordinance’ (cf. e.g. Beer); LXX: xf)v evxoAqv xauxr|v (based
on the reading nNTn nispn? cf. Frankel*, 106, and see NEB; in that case one
would have expected xa<; evxoAa<; xauxac;); from Mek. I, 74, it is evident that the
vocalization rrispn was familiar; see also TNf margin: n i n e s ! nmiSD, ‘the
ordinances of the unleavened bread;’ see beside it TPsJ: 'TJDEn Nner, ‘the
kneading of the unleavened bread’ (cf. Mek. I, 73).
□Si? (OT ca. 125x), ‘bone/bones’ of man (Gen. 2:23; Num. 19:16, 18; Ezek.
37:7; Job 19:20 et al.) and animal (12:46; Num. 9:12 et al.); pi. fern, in 13:19
(2x): ‘bones’, ‘mortal remains’ (cf. Gen. 50:25; Josh. 24:32; 2 Sam. 21:12ff. et
al.); D227, as metaphor for ‘essence,’ can express the idea of ‘precisely,’
‘exactly’106 and ‘self (24:10).107
‘that day,’ cf. 12:14. TiNSin (Introd. § 3.24.2), subject is YHWH (mentioned as
object in 12:14); for similar transition to the ‘I’ of YHWH see 12:12. Remarkable is
the use of the past tense in the speaking about the exodus. Questionable is the
rendering: ‘zal Ik hebben uitgeleid’ (cf. SV) or ‘I will bring out* (LXX, Vulg.), ‘I
bring out’ (cf. UV, CV). The exodus is talked about as a past event. Strictly
speaking, therefore, the statement is less fitting in the current context. Bear in
mind, however, that in the Israelites of the exodus later generations are being
addressed. Here, in fact, the focus seems to be exclusively on them; see also end
12:19, 20. According to Keil (cf. Gispen), the words ‘I brought out’ are an
indication that the instructions in 12:15-20 were not given till after the exodus
from Egypt. Dillmann believes that originally they stood elsewhere. N3S, see
6:26. Sam. Pent.: DJT&in am D Eh; LXX: ttoirjoexe, is not repetition of D m & 0 but
a rendering of Drrfou.
Matzoth is to be celebrated as a memorial (cf. 12:14) to keep alive the memory
of the exodus out of Egypt. It is not specifically stated why the commemoration
106 So for strengthening nrn ovn 0a r a (12:17, 41, 51; Gen. 7:13; 17:26; Lev. 23:14, 21, 28, 30 et
al.); wrong is ‘on the same day.’
101 But see also Houtman*, Himmel, 231ff., and e.g. Vredenburg: ‘de stof des hemels;’ WV: ‘het
hemelgewelf.’ See further KoSynt § 30. 40; Ges-K § 139g; Joiion § 143k, 147a; THAT, I. 714; L.
Delekat, VT 14 (1964), 49ff.; Dhorme*. 9f.; Johnson*. 67ff.
190 exodus 12:1 - 13:16
requires the eating of unleavened bread. Different explanations for it are given in
12:34, 39 and Deut. 16:3 (cf. 12:8). Possibly the clause from 'D to o n s o is
intended as explanation (cf. 12:12f. relative to 12:11?) of niSD (note the al
literation and assonance; 5 x 3): bread, eaten at the bringing out of the tribes (cf.
Beer). Through the repetition of ‘to observe* and ‘that day’ and the ending of the
verse (cf. 12:14), the necessity of reenacting y h w h ’s bringing out of Egypt
receives further highlighting. From 12:17 one gets (cf. 13:3) the impression that
the feast did not last seven days but one day.
12:18 'In the first month, from the evening o f the fourteenth day o f the month up
to and including the evening o f the twenty-first day o f the month , you are to eat
unleavened bread.
12:19 For seven days no yeast may be found in your houses, fo r if someone eats
anything fermented , that person must be exterminated from the community o f
Israel; it makes no difference whether he is an alien or a citizen o f the land.
12:20 You may eat no fermented bread at all. You are, wherever you live, to eat
unleavened bread. *
In 12:18-20, 12:15 is repeated in different terms, in such a way that several
elements in 12:15 are more precisely defined. Besides, through the repetition the
ordinance is even more underscored. LXX offers a free rendition of 12:18:
‘Starting on the fourteenth day of the first month you are from the evening
litfm a (cf. 12:12), mentally the word ‘month* is to be added (cf. Gen. 8:13).
‘fourteenth,* cf. 12:6. enn*?, cf. 12:3. 31IJ3, cf. 12:6; in the determination of the
holy period, based on reckoning with a day that runs from evening to evening (cf.
23:32) - possibly on the basis of an old division of the day - the evening of the
fourteenth (the regular day that ends with he night; cf. 12:6) is added to the next
day (here 15th Nisan).108 But note TPsJ: ‘on the fourteenth day of the month you
shall slaughter the Passover and on the evening of the fifteenth ... and on the
evening of the twenty-second you may eat leavened bread again;’ Passover and
Matzoth together cover eight days from evening to evening; cf. also Josephus (AJy
II, 317; but note also III, 249 et al). ‘twenty-first,*109 see Introd. § 4.11.3.
KXD, see 5:11 (cf. 13:7; Deut. 16:4); in other words, it must be removed (cf.
12:15); ‘houses’ (12:19) - ‘territory* (13:7) sparked discussion among the rabbis
(see Mek. I, 77, 148; Rashi, Nachmanides). nsoriB, see 12:15. m u , see 12:3. "U
and m m , see 2:22 (cf. 12:48f.); for 3 see Gen. 7:21; Lev. 17:15 (cf. KoSynt
§ 279a; Ges-K § 119i; Williams § 250). At the end of 12:19 ‘that person’ is
further defined, ‘the land’ is, of course, a reference to Canaan. Again (cf. 12:17)
the focus is only on the later Israel (cf. 12:20). Along with a later dating, it is
,0* Cf. U. Cassuto, Genesis, I, Jerusalem 1961, 28ff.; for the question of the beginning of the day
see H.R. Stroes, VT 16 (1966), 460-75.
109 In genitival combination (Ges-K § 134o) with article only once (KoSynt, p. 283 n. 1); in Sam.
Pent, article is absent.
sometimes held that a concrete situation is envisioned: the aliens are Jews in the
diaspora (P. Grelot, VT 6 [1956], 177f.); they are prominent groups in Samaria,
which were affected by strong Persian influence, and through Ezra, at the instiga
tion of the Persian rulers, were to be fused into one community (J.G. Vink, OTS
15 [1969], 47f. et al.). Clear is that the alien is a non-Israelite, who was incor
porated into Israel’s cultic community and participates in the festivals (cf. 12:48f.
and also 2 Chr. 30:25).
In 12:20 the regulation is underscored once more. Its scope is pointed out as
well: it holds for all Israelites in the land, regardless of where they live. nsDnD,
TPsJ: ‘something constituted with what is leavened’ (cf. Mek. I, 79; MPes. Ill, 1;
bPes. 43a; Rashi, again disputed by Nachmanides). DehD, see 2:15; meant are the
dwellings, settlements in Canaan (see end 12:19); cf. 35:3; Lev. 3:17; 7:26; 23:3
et al. The regulation does not refer to the holy place but to the entire land.
Israelites outside Canaan seem not to be included. Differently B.N. Wambacq, Bib
61 (1980), 48: is the diaspora presupposed? cf. P. Grelot, VT 6 (1956), 178f.; Te
Stroete.
12:21 Thereupon Moses called together all the elders o f Israel and ordered
them: *Go and pick animals from the flock , each one o f you fo r his family , and
slaughter it fo r the meal o f the passing over. ’
Beside 12:21 see 12:3-6. ‘to call together,’ see Introd. § 3.45.1. pT, see 3:16; it
is assumed that in the elders of Israel (LXX: ‘of the sons of Israel’) all Israelites
are being addressed (cf. 12:3, 27, 28); for the fluid transition between the people
and its representatives see 4:30; cf. also 19:7f. This is the first time after 6:9 that
contact between Moses and the people is mentioned again, ‘to order,’ see Introd.
§ 3.5.1.
(Ges-K § 46d; Meyer § 68.2e), imper. of "[BD (OT ca. 35 X ; see TWAT ,
V, 59ff.), ‘to draw/pull,’ transitive (e.g. Gen. 37:28; Jer. 38:13) as well as
intransitive: ‘to go’ (12:21; cf. e.g. Judg. 4:6; 20:37), ‘to sound’ (19:13);110 in
12:21 is used in similar fashion as "|^n (Introd. § 3.14.1)111 to introduce the
main verb n p i (Introd. § 3.30);112 in 12:21 has also been regarded as
transitive; so e.g. in SV: ‘leest uit;’ LuthV, Van der Palm: ‘Kiest uit;’ see further
Baentsch, Buber - Rosenzweig et al.;113 Vredenburg: ‘Haalt of koopt u ...* (Get
or buy for yourself ...), apparently under the influence of rabbinic exegesis (Mek.
I, 82; cf. Rashi). With a reference to Middle Hebrew, "|0» in 12:21 has been said
1.0 Cf. KoW; in 19:13 the transitive meaning is also possible (cf. Josh. 6:5): to sound the horn
(accus.); cf. Zo.
1.1 Ehrlich, Beer: read also here 13*?.
1.2 Cf. LXX, Vulg., TO, and see Dillmann: everyone has to go to his dwelling and his people (as
part of the preparation for the exodus); cf. Nachmanides: the livestock is far away in Goshen; they
have to get it.
1.3 Drawing from the flock = to select; see annot. SV; Van der Palm proposes that by lot the
animals were assigned to the families.
192 EXODUS 12:1 - 13:16
to mean ‘to acquire;’ see F. Perles, JQR 18 (1905), 385; cf. Zo.
In TPsJ,114 ’0 0 0 is taken to mean: you keep your hands off the idols of the
Egyptians (cf. Mek. I, 82: ... and take hold of the ordinances; cf. I, 39). The
Israelites are asked with an overt gesture to break with their idolatrous environ
ment. The slaying of the animals - regarded as gods by the Egyptians - mani
fests the break (ExR . XVI, 2); the notion that the killing of the animals was an
abomination to the Egyptians (cf. 8:22), is worked out in different ways by the
rabbis (cf. already TPsJ on 12:6); see Ginzberg*, II, 363; V, 432f.; it is a
challenge thrown at the Egyptians; it demonstrates the powerlessness of their gods
(cf. 12:12) etc.; see also Rashi on 12:6; Nachmanides on 12:3, and in Leibowitz,
197ff., 200ff.
inpi 1000 (Sam. Pent, without copulative), Pesh.: b ‘gl sbw , ‘take hastily’ (cf.
rendering Bohl). DD4?, dativus commodi (Ges-K § 119s; Jotion § 133d). ‘Animals
from the flock,’ see Introd. §9.1.4. nnotfo, see 6:14 and TWAT , V, 86ff.;
Baentsch believes that it embodies a larger community than in 12:3 (cf. 1 Sam.
20:29); b with distributive force (Ges-K § 134q; Joiion § 142p; Williams § 281).
cantf, see 12:6. nosn, see 12:11; the use of the name, in fact with the article, is
striking, because - if the text is taken literally - only Moses and Aaron know of
the Passover. Moses’ order is so formulated as if the elders had listened in along
with Moses and Aaron. Evidently in his formulation the writer was thinking more
of the readers (who already know of 12:1-13) than of the historical situation he
seeks to depict.
12:22 ‘Next you are to take a bunch o f marjoram and dip it in the blood on the
doorstep; the lintel and both doorposts you are to smear with blood taken from the
doorstep. After that, no one o f you, yes, absolutely no one, may go outside through
the door opening o f his house until the morning.9
Unlike in 12:7-11, nothing is said about how the meal is to be eaten. In greater
detail than in 12:7, the matter of applying the blood is dealt with. It is specifically
stated that no one is to leave the house before dawn, □nnp1?,i, Cairo Genizah
fragment (see app. BHS): + DO4? (cf. 12:21). ‘marjoram,’ see Introd. § 10.6.2.
(12:22; 2 Sam. 2:25; Isa. 58:6; Amos 9:6), here stems bunched to
gether.115 Dn^3p-i perf. qal of ^00 (OT 16x), ‘to dip/immerse something
(accus.; not specifically mentioned in 12:22; cf. 2 Kgs. 8:15) in (3)’ (Gen. 37:31;
Lev. 4:6, 17; Num. 19:18 et al.). ‘blood,’ cf. 12:7, 13.
*)03nzm, Pesh.: d fm r9, ‘(in the blood) of the small animal;’ the second *10 is
rendered as ‘bowl.’ *)0, the Hebrew has two such words; the one meaning ‘bowl,’
‘basin’ (2 Sam. 17:28; 1 Kgs. 7:50; 2 Kgs. 12:14; Jer. 52:19; Zech. 12:2; cf.
BHHW , III, 1683f.; IDB, III, 850); the other ‘doorstep,’ ‘threshold’ (OT ca. 25 X ;
Judg. 19:27; 1 Kgs. 14:17 et al.; cf. BHHW , III, 1749f.; IDB, IV, 636; TWAT,
1.4 Cf. TNf margin; TNf bases its rendering on '30 hithp. ‘to designate.'
1.5 See Houtman*, Himmel, 233ff.; Palache*, 2; G. Rinaldi, BeO 26 (1984), 243-6.
V, 898ff.; W. Zwickel, BN 70 [1993], 25-7). A common perception is that in

12:22 *10 means ‘basin/bowl’ (e.g. SS, Ges-B, BDBy KoW, Zo., HAL). Supposed
ly as the animal was killed the blood was caught in a bowl. LV prefers ‘drempel’
(threshold) (see also note in NEB; but note REB!). It is an old interpretation; see
LXX (Tiapa tfjv Oupav); Vulg. (in limine); rabbinic exegesis sees both renderings
as possibilities (Mek. I, 44, 84; JPes IX, 5; cf. Z. Frankel, MGWJ 15 [1866], 299-
301); TO, TNf, TPsJ favour the interpretation ‘bowl,’ ‘basin’ (TPsJ: + ‘of
earthenware’). Presumably, according to some, the rendering in LXX and Vulg.
assumes the presence of a basin with blood on the threshold (cf. Calmet). In my
judgment, ‘threshold’ should be given the nod.116 The animal was slaughtered on
the threshold (see 12:7). Running all over the threshold, the blood was possibly
collected in a hollow place. That blood is also to be used to cover the other parts
of the door opening (doorposts and top) with blood. When that is done, the entire
door opening is covered with blood.
VM hiph., see 4:25 and TWAT, V, 219ff. ‘lintel’ and ‘both doorposts,’ here and
in 12:23 occurring in different order than in 12:7. Instead of 2 x Sam. Pent,
(cf. 12:7, 23) has 2 x 5v. DDK, subject is given emphasis (Ges-K § 135a; Joiion
§ 146a). Sam. Pent.: instead of r 5. ‘go,’ see Introd. § 3.24.1. see Introd.
§ 3.2.2. npg (OT ca. 165 x ; Exod. 22x), derivative of nna, ‘to open’ (see 2:6):
‘door opening,’ ‘entrance,’ among others of a house (12:22, 23), a tent (33:8, 10),
the tent sanctuary (26:36; 29:4, 11, 32, 42; 33:9, 10; 35:15 [2x]; 36:37; 38:8, 30
et al. [18 x]), repeatedly as accus. loci (Ges-K § 118g; Joiion § 126h; Meyer
§ 106.2a). i p n u , cf. 12:10. The protective power of the blood is restricted to
the house. Anyone venturing outside before sunrise is defenseless before the power
of destruction. Israel may not witness y h w h ’s going around (cf. Gen. 19:17, 26).
12:23 'For y h w h will go around to inflict a catastrophe on the Egyptians. When

he sees the blood on the lintel and on both doorposts, y h w h will pass over that
door opening and not allow the destroyer to enter your houses to inflict a catastro
phe. '
Cf. 12:12, 13. In 12:23 it is not stated in so many words that the catastrophe
consisted of the death of the firstborn. According to 12:23, y h w h was accom
panied by the destroying angel, y h w h himself does not enter the houses to kill. He
remains outside and lets the angel do his work. He only restrains the destroyer if
he tries to enter a house marked with blood. It is possible, though not certain, that
the mention of the destroying angel stems from a reluctance to portray the killing
of the firstborn as done by y h w h ’s own hands.117 The destroyer, though, acts
1,6 Cf. H. Oort, IT 42 (1908), 489f.; Curtiss*, 264; Auerbach*, 61; A.M. Honeyman, JThS 37
(1936), 56-9; G.R. Driver, TAW 80 (1968), 181; Rylaarsdam; Honeycutt; for the holiness of the
threshold see H. Donner, JSS 15 (1970), 42-55; H.E. Davidson (ed.), Boundaries and Thresholds,
Stroud, Glos. 1993.
117 Philo (Quaest. et Solut. in Exod., I, 23): not the king himself, but his servants; in Jub. 49:2,
Mastema (Satan) is introduced along with his armies; cf. 4:24.
194 EXODUS 12:1 - 13:16
with y h w h ’s approval, and so, though less directly, the death of the firstborn is
still his work (cf. 11:4; 12:12, 27, 29). For the relationship of y h w h to evil see
Introd. § 3.19.2 and also Lindstrom (see 12:7), who minimalizes the ‘demonic’ in
y h w h . *133, see 7:27; nns ... nos, alliteration; TNf: ‘the door opening of the
fathers of the Israelites.’ in3, see Introd. § 3.36. rrntfan (in TPsJ specifically
designated as ‘messenger;’ cf. 12:13) is subject of the object clause (cf. KoSynt
§ 414g), see 8:20; with article (Ges-K, 425 n. 1), because the term has already
been mentioned before (12:13).
An alternative interpretation has been defended: y h w h enters the marked houses
through the door opening to share in the meal; from the inside he prevents the
destroyer from doing his work.118 Adoption of this interpretation entails the
assumption that 12:23 presents a different picture than 12:13.
12:24 ‘You are to observe this ordinance. It is a rule you yourself\ but also your
sons, are always to abide by.
12:25 Therefore, when you come into the land which y h w h , in accordance with
his promise , will give you as your possession , you are to observe this custom.
12:26 Therefore, when your sons ask you: “What do you mean by this custom?”
12:27 you are to answer: “This is the ritual o f the meal o f the passing over in
honour o f y h w h . For in Egypt he passed over the houses o f the Israelites; at that
time he inflicted a catastrophe on the Egyptians; however, our households he
delivered ”. ' Thereupon the people bowed down in great reverence.
Beside 12:24 see 12:14, 17. As in 12:17, in 12:24, 25 DmOKh is used 2 x . ‘this
ordinance’ (Introd. § 3.12.2), viz. to celebrate the Passover. "|*rpn1? (see 5:14),
absolute state followed by maqqep (Joiion § 13d); cf. for dual use of i 12:2; for
change in number see e.g. 23:25; Lev. 19:9; 23:22; 25:14, 17 and Strack; TNf
has pi. ‘sons’ (TPsJ: + qualification ‘male;’ cf. Mek. I, 89), see Introd. § 3.10.1;
meant are the descendants in untold generations to come.
In 12:24 it is stated by whom and for how long the Passover ordinance is to be
observed; in 12:25 the venue of the celebration is mentioned, m m (Introd.
§ 3.13.4), with consecutive waw. 'D, see Introd. § 3.25.2; ‘when you come
cf. Lev. 14:34; 19:23; 23:10 et al. ‘to give as your possession,’ see Introd.
§ 3.36. see Introd. § 3 . 1 2 . 1 . ‘custom’ (Introd. § 3 . 3 7 . 4 ) , viz. of the
Passover celebration. Sam. Pent.: + ‘in this month’ (cf. 12:2, 3, 6) at the end of
12:25. Is Israel being commanded to introduce the custom as soon as the people
are settled in the promised land? (so already explicitly TPsJ; cf. Mek. I, 89; Rashi;
Ibn Ezra and e.g. Baentsch). Given the current context, the more plausible
meaning is: not only now and in the days to come (cf. Num. 9: Iff.), but also
when you are settled in Canaan, the custom is to be a perpetual institution. But
note 13:5, 11.
1,8 See W.G. Trumbell, The Threshold Covenant, Edinburgh 1896, 203ff.; cf. Henton Davies,
Honeycutt.
Celebrating the Passover on a permanent basis demands that it be more than an

outward ritual (12:24). The meaning of the feast, the reason for celebrating it,
must be kept in mind (12:26, 27). "a rrm , see 12:25. ‘ask* - ‘answer,’ see Introd.
§3.5.1. On the question, see Introduction to exegesis under f. noSTQT, see
10:25; 12:11. m n ^ , see 12:11. has causal force (Introd. § 3.7.2); meant is:
‘(we maintain the ritual) because he ....’ On y h w h ’s passing by see 12:13, 23.
The inf. cstr. 1SJ33 (cf. Ges-K § 61a) is continued by a verbal clause (cf. Ges-K
§ 114r). In the first q t q , ‘houses,’ the meaning ‘dwellings’ is dominant; in the
second the meaning ‘the people who together constitute the household’ (cf. 12:3).
bx: hiph., see 2:19. For the end of 12:27 see 4:31; for the relationship to the
elders see 12:21. Sam. Pent.: n p ,i (pi.). Ehrlich proposes to read lnnen (sing.);
but note pi. in 12:28.
The people respond entirely differently than in 6:9. They accept the command as
an ordinance of y h w h (thereby laying the obligation to celebrate the Passover on
the shoulders of future generations). To the people, the ordinance also amounts to
an announcement of events to come. The last word, ‘liberate,’ sounds like music.
Rendering homage to y h w h is the only right and adequate response.
12:28 And the Israelites went and did so. Just as yh w h had ordered Moses and
Aaron they did.
For the more or less stereotype formulation see Introd. §3.41.1; 3.43.2; cf.
12:50. ‘Moses and Aaron,’ the conclusion correlates with the beginning (12:1);
LXXBA: ‘Aaron’ is lacking (cf. 12:21).
The people do more than just prostrating themselves before y h w h (12:27). The
act of adoration presupposes the readiness to carry out the command to celebrate
the Passover. The Israelites get going and act completely in accordance with
y h w h ’s ordinance.119 Now that the people are apprised of the coming events and
know what they have to do, history can go on. The story gets moving again
(12:29-42).
12:29 At midnight it happened: then y h w h struck down all the firstborn in the
land o f Egypt, from the firstborn o f Pharaoh who was to sit on his throne to the
firstborn o f the prisoner who was in the dungeon. Also all firstborn o f the cattle.
Beside 12:29 see 11:4, 5; the current text suggests the night from 14th to 15th
Nisan (cf. 12:12f., 22f.); TPsJ explicitly: ‘the night of the fifteenth.’ v ri, see
Introd. § 3.13.3. HD3, cf. 12:12 and Isa. 37:36; here perf.; due to the change in
the tense (imperf. cons, v rl is continued with opî in 12:30) and putting the
subject first, all the emphasis falls on the event; there is no reason, with Dillmann
and Strack, to render the perf. as a pluperfect, since the hour of midnight is first
of all the moment of y h w h ’s intervention and only secondly the hour Pharaoh
119 TPsJ: they do so in a hurry; from the recurrent ‘they did’ it has been concluded that also Moses
and Aaron acted like that; cf. Mek. I, 96; Rashi.
196 EXODUS 12:1 - 13:16
arises, n in e h m , for the view that ‘the firstborn, Pharaoh* is himself here
depicted as firstborn besides his son, the successor to the throne, which would
mean that Pharaoh was the only firstborn who was spared (only to perish in the
sea) see Mek. I, 97f.; Rashi.120 Not clear is the precise extent of ‘firstborn’ (see
11:5). Are they unmarried boys living at home, or are also fathers, grandfathers
and women included? (see at 12:12, 30).
IV , Sam. Pent.: nm; cf. MSS LXX and see 11:5. For ending of 12:29 in LXX
see 11:5. Dtfvi, LXX and Vulg. in 11:5: ‘who sits on the throne;’ here: ‘who sat
on the throne;’ cf. e.g. CV.
*•3# (Baentsch: vocalize ^ [cf. feminine n ; s # in Isa. 52:2]; OT ca. 45x),
derivative of natf (OT ca. 45 x as verb; see 22:9 niph.; cf. Jer. 13:17), ‘to take
captive/carry away into captivity or exile,’ is used for the activity (Jer. 15:2 et
al.), the situation it results in, viz. captivity (Jer. 13:10 et al.), and as designation
of those who are the object of the activity (collective): the people/animals carried
off as captives (Num. 31:12, 19, 26 et al.), the individual captive (12:29; cf. Isa.
52:2), who in 12:29 represents all captives (see further TWAT, VII, 950ff.). LXX,
evidently under the influence of 11:5, has: t) aixpaAomc;, ‘the captive slave
woman;’ Vulg.: captiva , ‘captive woman.’ TPsJ has firstborn (pi.), king’s sons
who are imprisoned as hostages of Pharaoh. Their fate is said to be due to the fact
that they rejoiced over the slavery of the Israelites.121 Ehrlich reads nnatf (see
11:5).
"inn m a, see Introd. § 3.9.1; n n (OT ca. 65x), ‘cistern,* ‘pit’ (21:33 [2x],
34; Deut. 6:1 et al.; see Reymond*, 133f.), was used as a prison (Gen. 40:15;
41:14; Isa. 24:22; Jer. 38:6ff.; Zech. 9:11) and also denotes the grave, the realm
of the dead (Isa. 38:18; Ezek. 26:20 et al.). The term itself already reveals how
miserable the fate of prisoners in the Ancient Near East really was. Their treat
ment was designed to humiliate and exploit them as much as possible through hard
labour, in particular through grinding of grain; see K. van der Toom, VT 36
(1986), 248-53. In TPsJ it is said of the animals that they ‘are worshipped by the
Egyptians;’ cf. Mek. I, 99; MidrTanh. Exod. Ill, 18: animals are struck, lest the
Egyptians would be able to attribute the cause of death to their gods.
12:30 In the night Pharaoh got up, he and all his courtiers and all Egyptians,
and there was a loud wailing in Egypt, fo r there was not a house without someone
dead.
Dip, see 1:8; the waking up and getting up are occasioned by the death of the
firstborn; Pharaoh is the first to be mentioned; in the horrible situation all are the
same; under the circumstances status and position do not mean a thing (cf. Mek. I,
99; Rashi). ‘in the night,’ see Introd. § 3.23.1. Kin, not translated in LXX, Vulg.
120 For ‘Pharaoh, who sits on the throne’ as apposition with ‘firstborn’ see Calmet.
121 Cf. Mek. I, 98f. (besides: they were not allowed to say: ‘our god caused the catastrophe’); ExR.
XVIII, 10; MidrTanh. Exod. Ill, 18; Ginzberg*, II, 367.
‘courtiers,’ see Introd. § 3.37.2. ‘Egyptians’ (actually: all the other Egyptians),
see Introd. § 8.19. The triad Pharaoh-courtiers-people occurs more often (7:28f.;
8:4f. etc.); but note also 10:6. TPsJ graphically: ‘all the others courtiers’ and ‘all
the other Egyptians.’ nbnj n p rs Mm, cf. 11:6. LXX: ‘in the whole land of
Egypt;’ Pesh.: ‘in the land of Egypt;’ cf. 11:6. V’K, see 2:12; Vulg.: iaceret, ‘lay.’
‘someone dead*, see Introd. § 3.32; TPsJ: ‘a firstborn dead.’
The last words of 12:30, in a powerful and absolute statement, bring out the
seriousness of the situation (cf. e.g. 7:21; 9:6, 25). It should not be weakened by
calling it a ‘generalizing’ statement (Dillmann, Strack) nor be explained by saying
that owing to God’s providence there was a firstborn in every house (Augustine,
QEt XLIV). In rabbinic literature, on account of the questions evoked by 12:30,
the catastrophe is depicted in vivid colours: Egyptians who had found refuge in
Israelite homes die nevertheless; it turns out there are many more firstborn;
women, it appears, had committed adultery so that all their sons are firstborn
etc.122 Nachmanides, however, notes that only the firstborn of the mother died
(cf. 13:2).
12:31 In the night he summoned Moses and Aaron and said: ‘Hurry up, go away
from my people, not only you, also the Israelites. Go ahead, worship y h w h as is
your wish . '
‘to summon’ (LXX, Pesh., Vulg.: subject ‘Pharaoh’), see Introd. § 3.45.1.
Pharaoh directs himself to Moses and Aaron and so reveals that he regards their
God as the bringer of the catastrophe (cf. ll:4f.), though they had not ordered it
up (cf. IV, V), For a possible discrepancy between 12:31 and 10:29 see at 10:29;
for the relationship of 12:31 to 11:8 see 11:8. TPsJ contains an expansion: to p is
taken to mean ‘to call’ (i.e. ‘to cry’); notwithstanding the distance between
Pharaoh in the capital and Moses and Aaron in Goshen, his voice could be heard.
Moses and Aaron and the Israelites did not answer, however (so TPsJ in 12:33),
until Pharao, the courtiers and the Egyptians came and put pressure on them (cf.
11:8). In rabbinic literature, Pharaoh has lost all dignity: he goes through the
streets and shouts to find Moses; the Israelites mock him and make a fool of him
(Mek. I, 100; MidrTanh. Exod. Ill, 19; Rashi; Ginzberg*, II, 368). It is also
related that God caused Pharaoh’s permission to leave to be audible throughout
Egypt (Ginzberg*, II, 370). Moses’ voice is said to have the same capability. So
the Israelites could assemble in Rameses (Mek. I, 107; Ginzberg*, II, 374). For
the third time (cf. 12:29, 30) the word ‘night’ occurs; it stamps the situation as
being exceptional; the segment of the 24 hours which used to be peaceful and quiet
and in which people rarely venture outside the safety of their homes, is now a
tumultuous scene of frantic activity, at least as concerns the Egyptians; the matter
is of such urgency that, while death is going around, Pharaoh calls for Moses and
122 See among others Mek. I, 99ff., 103; ExR. XVIII, 2, 3; MidrTanh. Exod. Ill, 19; Rashi;
Ginzberg*, II, 365ff.; see also at 12:12.
198 EXODUS 12:1 - 13:16
Aaron; he cannot wait till morning.

‘and said,’ LXX, Pesh.: ‘to them.’ lDip is used as a jussive particle (cf. Gen.
19:15; 21:18; Exod. 32:1 et al.; Ges-K § llOh; Brockelmann § 133a); perhaps
there is a play on words with Dip in 12:30; Pharaoh too wants the Israelites, like
the Egyptians, ‘to get up’, but so that they will leave. INS (Introd. § 3.24.1), for
dages forte in 2 see Ges-K § 20g; Meyer § 14.2b. The imperatives are asyn-
detically juxtaposed; Pharaoh is so excited that he shouts; not until he has blurted
out the first words does he calm down and speak in a more normal tone of voice.
"pnD, see 2:5. ‘people,’ see Introd. § 3.40.1. QJ ... DJ, see Introd. § 3.11.2. ‘Go
ahead ... y h w h , ’ see Introd. § 3.14.2; 3.37.1; LXX: ‘the Lord, your God’ (cf.
10:7, 8, 26). Sam. Pent.: DDnaiD (correctly, so Ehrlich). "0 “i, see Introd.
§3.12.1; ‘wish’ is an allusion to 3:18; 5:1, 3; 7:16 etc. (Introd. §3.37.1).
Nocturnal departure is irreconcilable with 12:22 end (cf. Num. 33:3; Deut. 16:1);
rabbinic exegesis reckons with it (Mek . I, 100; Ginzberg*, II, 368f.; Nachmanides
[also on 12:42, 51]).
12:32 Take also your flocks and your herds as is your desire and leave, but do
ask fo r a blessing fo r me . '
‘flocks’ (small livestock) and ‘herds’ (large livestock), see Introd. § 9.1.4; 9.1.11;
TPsJ: + ‘of what belongs to me’ (cf. 10:25). ‘to take,’ see Introd. § 3.30.
D m 3! 1DND (rendering is absent in LXX MSS) is a varied repetition of DD"0“iD
at end of 12:31; here ‘desire’ is an allusion to 10:9, 26.
□ppTQ i perf. cons, (as continuation of imperative; Ges-K § 112r; Joiion § 1191)
piel of "l"Q (OT ca. 325x ; qal ca. 70x; piel ca. 235x), a much discussed
Hebrew root often thought to have the basic meaning of ‘to possess (salvific)
power.’ The power is concentrated in y h w h . The formula mrp " jm (part. pass,
qal) is particularly appropriate in reference to him (18:10; Gen. 14:20; 24:27;
1 Sam. 25:32, 39 etc.); the observation is made that y h w h is full of blessing
power; the motivation for it is expressed in a sentence introduced by ")0N about
y h w h s saving acts; the formula exudes gratitude and acknowledgement (‘praise be
to y h w h ’), which in 18:10; Dan. 3:28; 2 Chr. 2:11 is voiced by non-Israelites. In
20:24 y h w h is subject and his people are object of y ia piel: y h w h gives what
people in the Ancient Near East perceive as a blessing: vitality, prosperity,
fertility, protection, deliverance from enemies etc. (cf. Lev. 26:3ff.; Deut.
28:3ff.); see further Gen. 12:2; 26:12; 48:16; 49:25; Deut. 1:11; 7:13 etc. In
20:24 the holy place is the source of blessing (cf. Ps. 128:5; 134:3). In 23:25
bread and water are object: y h w h gives them life-enhancing power (cf. Gen.
27:27; Deut. 7:13; 26:15; 33:11; Ps. 65:11; 132:15 et al.). In 20:11 (cf. Gen.
2:3) the sabbath is object: y h w h endues the sabbath with power to be a blessing to
those who keep it. In 32:29 npna (OT ca. 70 x) denotes the YHWH-created powers
that bring happiness and prosperity to those touched by them (cf. Deut. 11:26f.;
30:1, 19; Isa. 44:3; Joel 2:14; Ps. 21:4; 24:5; 133:3 etc.). In 12:32; 39:43 people
are subject and object of "pn piel. In 12:32 is meant: entreating for vigour and
similar blessings for Pharaoh in a supplication addressed to y h w h (cf. Gen. 47:7,
10; Deut. 24:13; 2 Sam. 14:22; 1 Kgs. 8:66; Ps. 72:15 et al.). In 39:43 (cf. Lev.
9:22f.) is meant that Moses, imploring y h w h , utters the wish that he reward the
Israelites with happiness and prosperity for the work they had done (cf. Num.
6:23ff.; Josh. 14:13; 1 Sam. 2:20; 2 Sam. 6:18; 19:40; Ps. 118:26; 2 Chr. 30:27
et al.); ‘to bless’ is here an expression of thankfulness and appreciation; Moses
praises them and wishes them God’s blessings. Generally speaking, true is that
people are inspired to implore y h w h on behalf of someone out of gratitude for
what that person has done. For that reason 12:32 is to be understood like this:
Pharaoh asks Moses and Aaron to put in a good word for him with y h w h since he
let Israel go, so as to move y h w h to reward him for it by sending blessing instead
of calamity.123
In TO, TPsJ, TNf ‘to bless’ is understood as ‘to pray’ (cf. e.g. 10:17f.; TPsJ:
+ ‘that I do not die;’ cf. Mek. I, 102). Ehrlich wrongly believes that QJ refers to
the verb. In view of the nature of the plague (cf. V), a prayer for averting it
makes no sense (note also 10:17). Pharaoh comes with a different kind of request.
He asks Israel, when it brings sacrifices to y h w h (including the animals he made
available?; cf. 10:25), to also remember him in the prayers for blessing and
turning away of catastrophes (cf. 5:3). So he affirms to be completely dependent
on y h w h . This interpretation is more plausible than that Pharaoh asks Israel to ask
for a blessing before it departs (Murphy) or that "pa must be understood as
‘departing with a benediction’ (e.g. Keil, Cole; cf. Introd. § 3.11.1).
Already earlier, Pharaoh had given all Israelites permission to leave (10:24
beside 12:31b), but added the condition that the animals remain behind (10:24).
Now he removes that obstruction as well. Has the antagonist of y h w h ’s promises
at last met his defeat? Is he prepared to release Israel for good? (e.g. Keil). That
does not seem to be the case. Twice he says ‘as is your wish’ (12:31, 32). It is his
way of wording the permission.124 He grants permission for a three-day journey
into the desert for worshipping y h w h . He counts on Israel’s return. In truth, this
time he requests nothing in the way of pledges that Israel will return. But he has
not abandoned his claims on Israel. He gives permission and takes action when he
notices that the people do not plan to return (14:5). Even in the greatest need
Pharaoh does not deny his true nature.
12:33 The Egyptians pressured the people to leave the land as fast as they could,
fo r , they thought, otherwise we will all die.
Repeatedly the people of Egypt are mentioned along with Pharaoh and the
courtiers in the description of the plagues. This is the first time the reader is
123 See THAT, I, 354ff.; TWAT, I, 808ff.; P. Joiion, Bib 4 (1923), 381ff.; R.J. Ledogar, Bib 48
(1967), 52ff.; C.W. Mitchell, The Meaning o f BRK To Bless’ in the Old Testament, Atlanta 1987; C.
Toll, ZAW 94 (1982), 111-23.
124 Not so Greflmann*, 99: he (Pharaoh) points out that he has complied with all demands; if that
would be the meaning, one might say that Pharaoh presumably reinforces the order to leave.
200 EXODUS 12:1 - 13:16
informed how they felt about Israel’s presence in Egypt, ‘to pressure,’ see Introd.
§3.19.1. o n s o , term for the population, but nevertheless feminine (KoSynt
§ 248d; Ges-K § 122i; Joiion § 134g). "ino1?, see 2:18. n n b v i (Introd. § 3.49.2),
suff. in pi. (see also 12:34, 36) refers to ‘the people’ (e.g. KoSynt § 346p).
According to Josephus (AJ, II, 313), the Egyptians urged Pharaoh to let the
Israelites go. Philo (VM, I, 138f.) describes the reaction toward Pharaoh as well as
toward Israel. 'D, see Introd. § 3.25.2. ‘to think,’ see Introd. § 3.5.1. 13^D
(Introd. § 3.26), see Ges-K § 91f. ‘die,’ see Introd. § 3.32. In TPsJ, TNf, FT ‘we
(TPsJ, FT: ‘the Egyptians’)125 will die’ is preceded by: ‘if they/the Israelites
remain here one more hour’ (cf. Philo, VM, I, 139).
12:34 Therefore the people took their dough with them - before it had fe r
mented - in their kneading troughs, wrapped in their clothing, on their shoulders.
12:34 depicts Israel’s hurried departure (cf. 12:39). The portrayal is different than
in 12:8, 11. Nfc?3, see 6:8. p2*3, ‘dough,’ mixture of flour (or meal) and water (or
olive oil) made by kneading (2 Sam. 13:8; Jer. 7:18; Hos. 7:4), which swells due
to fermentation (cf. use of qal in Deut. 8:4; Neh. 9:21), is used in 12:34, 39
for unfermented dough. See AuSy IV, 52; BHHW , III, 1939; IDBy I, 462, 866.
TPsJ: the dough was carried ‘on their heads.’ D"iD, see 1:9. fDn, see 12:15.
mNDQ, see 7:28; TPsJ: ‘what they had left of the unleavened bread and the bitter
herbs’ (cf. FTV; TNf margin; Mek. I, 104; Rashi); the term is explained with the
use of iKtf (see 8:5); the same is done in TO, but there the interpretation ‘knead
ing troughs’ is retained as well: ‘what was left in their kneading troughs.’ rrn?f
part, qal fern. pi. of "ns I (OT ca. 35x ; for TI3S II see 23:22); here used
transitively: ‘to wrap up,’ ‘to bind up/tie together’ (e.g. Prov. 30:4; Job 26:8).
nbQfr, see 3:22. The sentence here is a circumstantial noun clause (Ges-K § 156c):
‘while their kneading troughs were wrapped in their clothing;’ it is assumed that
the troughs are filled with dough; the Israelites wrap the bowls, dough and all, put
them on their shoulders and embark on the journey. Dp?; (OT 20 x), the neck with
the shoulders/shoulder blades, the top of the back (Gen. 21:14; 24:15, 45; 49:15;
Josh. 4:5 etc.). See Dhorme*, 93f., 96; Schwarzenbach*, 22f.
Why on the shoulders? To express their love of the commandments (Mek. I,
104; Rashi); because their beasts of burden (12:38) were loaded with spoils
(12:36) (Ibn Ezra). Or was the intent to let the covered dough - a cover prevents
collapse of rising dough - rise through their body heat? This brings up the
question of the relationship of 12:34 to 12:39. Did the Israelites, as they had to
leave in a hurry, bring along dough mixed with leaven which had not yet risen, in
the expectation that it would rise on the way so that, as they were traveling, they
would be able to bake leavened bread? Does 12:39 intimate that their attempt to
provide leavened bread for themselves somehow ended in failure? Or was their
departure so sudden that, as they were preparing the dough, they had to leave
125 Cf. M.L. Klein, JSS 39 (1988), 84f.

without having had time to prepare leaven? Or does p2S3 here (cf. 2 Sam. 13:8)
means ‘flour’ rather than ‘dough?’ (Calmet). According to Fuss*, 284, in an
earlier version Israel deliberately brought along unleavened dough; it is suitable for
the journey because it takes less space and spoils less easily.
12:35 At that time the Israelites did as Moses had instructed: they asked the
Egyptians fo r silver and gold jewelry and fo r clothing.
12:36 And y h w h caused the Egyptians to he favourably disposed toward the
people, so that they went along with their request. So they plundered the Egyp
tians.
For 12:35, 36 see 3:21f.; ll:2f. ‘the Israelites’ (Introd. § 8.13.1), cf. 12:37, 40,
42; see beside it ‘the people’ in 12:33, 34, 36; cf. e.g. 3:7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13. iff#
(Introd. § 3.41.1), with the use of the perf. (cf. m n in 12:29) the use of he
imperfect consecutives is interrupted. For a moment the writer slows down. He
wishes to draw attention to something very important that happened as the people
were leaving. In the translations the change in tense is regularly ignored. Among
others, Vredenburg, Dasberg, have resorted to the pluperfect to express it. ‘to
instruct,’ see Introd. §3.12.2; cf. 11:2; Moses’ instruction is not mentioned as
such. TPsJ, TNf at end of 12:36: + ‘of their possessions.’ Given the context, the
comment that yhwh ‘caused to be favourably disposed’ causes surprise. One
would have expected that panic would have driven the Egyptians to surrender their
belongings (cf. 12:33). Apparently 12:35f. does not belong to the same tradition
stream as the context.
12:37 The Israelites set out from Rameses on the way to Succoth, about six
hundred thousand persons on foot, men that is; not counting children, women and
elderly.
12:38 Also a large group o f people o f mixed descent left with them, and flocks
and herds - an enormous herd o f livestock!
The thread of the story, interrupted in 12:35, 36, is resumed in 12:37.
imperf. cons, qal of #02 (OT ca. 145 x; qal ca. 135 x , verb of movement: ‘to
break up’ (a tent), ‘to move on,’ ‘to set out’ (12:37; 13:20; 14:10, 15, 19 [2x];
16:1; 17:1; 19:2; 40:36, 37; hiph. in 15:22). See TWAT , V, 494ff. Here for the
first time in Exodus ‘to set out’ is used; the term will occur many more times (ca.
90 x in Num.), before Israel has arrived in Canaan. The large trek has begun.
‘Rameses,’ see Introd. § 8.31 and also 12:31. ‘Succoth,’ see Introd. § 8.24; Aq.:
ei<; aKr|v&<;, ‘toward tents;’ cf. Origen (Horn, in Exod ., V); Ishodad (he also points
to explanation: ‘Victory’); according to rabbinic exegesis (cf. Isa. 4:5f.) mao must
be understood as ‘clouds’ (Mek. I, 108; MidrTanh. Exod. IV, 15; PWB , IV, 15ff.;
Ginzberg*, II, 374ff.); the explanation is worked into the account in TPsJ: in
Succoth the Israelites were covered with seven clouds of glory, four on their four
sides, one above them, so that rain and hail would not fall on them and they would
not be burned by the heat of the sun; one under them, so that the thorns would not
harm them nor the snakes and the scorpions; one went ahead of them to level the
202 EXODUS 12:1 - 13:16
valleys and to lower the mountains (cf. Isa. 40:3), to prepare for them a place for
encampment (cf. Introd. § 12.7.1; 12.7.9; 13.6). ‘six hundred thousand,’ see
Introd. § 4.13.2; 4.14. TPsJ: ‘a hundred thirty thousand,’ but a little later also ‘six
hundred thousand.’ see 3:5 (TPsJ: + ‘and not riding on horseback’); perhaps
it is assumed that women, children and elderly travelled on riding-animals (cf.
Gen. 31:17; 46:5; Exod. 4:20). ")33, see 10:11. "Q*?, see 12:16. see 10:10;
TPsj: five children per man.
In 12:38 the writer again interrupts the story for an aside remark (cf. 12:35,
36). D31, see Introd. §3.11.2. 21V, TO, TPsJ: p m a u , ‘strangers;’ TNf: p m ,
‘strangers,’ or ‘proselytes?’ (cf. 12:48f. and below); FTV, TNf margin: p a n a n y ,
‘mixed multitude;’ cf. LXX, Vulg. 2'lV, derivative of 21V, ‘to mix,’ ‘to inter
mingle’ (cf. Introd. § 9.2.6), denotes those people who do not belong to the
autochthonous population of a country (Jer. 25:20; 50:37; Ezek. 30:5); here: non-
Israelites (cf. Neh. 13:3); the vocalization, and so the meaning of the term, has
been a matter of some dispute; see in particular Zo. The term denotes descent, not
specifically social status;126 the two notions really go together. Beside 12:38 see
Lev. 24:10; Num. 11:4; Deut. 29:10; Josh. 8:35. Ehrlich proposes to read i'V 2
or 1V2, ‘beasts of burden’ (Introd. § 9.1.3). a"), see 1:9. TPsJ: the number was
greater than that of the Israelites; 240 myriads; Mek. I, 109, also mentions 360
myriads. About the composition Philo (VM, I, 147) says: children from marriages
of Egyptian women with Hebrews; persons who had joined the Hebrews, impress
ed by their devoutness; persons converted, affected as they were by the mounting
catastrophes; according to ExR. XVIII, 10, such devout Egyptians joined in the
Passover celebration, ‘to leave,’ see Introd. § 3.39.2; cf. 1:10. ‘flocks and herds’
(small and large livestock), cf. 12:32. ‘livestock’ (Introd. §9.1.1) is apposition
and does not denote a new category; but note the use of copulatives in LXX,
Pesh., TPsJ, Vulg. (et animantia diversi generis, ‘and all sorts of animals’) and
e.g. LuthV. 122, see 4:10. TND, see 1:7.
Pharaoh had given permission to take the animals (12:32). Earlier, nothing was
said about non-Israelites joining the fugitive Israelites. According to GreBmann*,
99, the notice is from a later time when there were scruples against blaming Israel
for the accusations Moses and y h w h hurled at Israel in the desert.
12:39 With the dough they had brought from Egypt they baked unleavened cakes
o f bread. For it had not fermented , since they had been driven out o f Egypt. So
they had not been able to wait (for it to be leavened) and they had not even been
able to prepare food fo r themselves fo r the journey.
Following the interruption of 12:38, the writer resumes the thread of the story. He
explains why at the exodus (and later at its commemoration) unleavened bread was
eaten (cf. 12:34). Note that it is not eaten prior to (12:8) but after the departure
(cf. 12:15, 18). 1DN* 1 (Ges-K § 68b) imperf. cons, qal of HDN (OT ca. 25 x), ‘to
126 Van der Palm in annot.: it was especially slaves; cf. e.g. Hyatt; NV; NRSV: ‘mixed crowd.’
bake’ (of bread) (12:39; 16:23 [2x]; Gen. 19:3; Lev. 26:26 et al.; in 12:39 +
accus. of material; cf. Lev. 24:5; 1 Sam. 28:24); see further 2:20; 7:28. For riDN
with double accus. see KoSynt § 327f.; Ges-K § 117ii; Jotion § 125w. ‘to bring
(along),’ see Introd. § 3.24.2.
(OT 7 x ), bread in the shape of a flat, round cake (Gen. 18:6; Num. 11:8;
1 Kgs. 19:6 et al.). See AuSy VI, 139; IDB, I, 462; Benzinger*, 64. LXX:
eytcputtuai; Vulg.: sub cinericii panes , ‘under hot ashes baked bread.’ niSD (here
apposition; cf. KoSynt § 333s, t), see 12:8. TPsJ: the dough atop the heads
(12:34) was baked by the heat of the sun. The first clause with 'D explains what
the bread was like. fDn, see 12:15 and cf. 12:34. The second clause with '2
explains why the dough had not fermented. enJ, see 2:17; fragment from 2 Q
(DJD , III, 51); Sam. Pent.: Dnxo DiBhJ, ‘the Egyptians had driven them off;* cf.
LXX, Pesh., Vulg. and e.g. LV; but note e.g. Frankel*, 106.
The end of the verse is formed by two consecutive clauses introduced by waw.
see 2:3. inf. cstr. hithpalpel of nnD (OT 8 x ; only hithpalpel; BL,
283f.), ‘to tarry,’ ‘to wait’ (here: till the dough had risen); cf. Gen. 19:16; 43:10;
Judg. 3:26 etc. See TWAT, IV, 709ff. oa, see Introd. § 3.11.1.
r n s or rn 'S (OT 10x), ‘food for the journey’ (LXX explicitly: ei<; xf|v 66ov;
cf. Gen. 42:25; 45:21), see 12:39; Josh. 1:11 et al. (cf. T 3 in Josh. 9:5, 14).
□n1?, with reflexive sense (Ges-K § 135i). LV: ‘voor den tocht’ (‘for the jour
ney’), rests on reading T"nb (cf. Gen. 42:25; 45:21). Not mentioned is where the
baking is done: on the way or at the rest stop Succoth (12:37)? (cf. Nachmanides).
It is not mentioned how long unleavened bread was eaten either: on the day of the
exodus or seven days, the length of matzoth? See beside it TPsJ: the food was
enough to last till the 15th day of the month Iyyar, that is, for thirty days; then the
manna came (Exod. 16); cf. Mek. I, 110; Josephus (AJ , II, 316).
12:40 The duration o f the stay o f the Israelites in Egypt is four hundred thirty
years.
12:41 At the end o f the four hundred thirty years, precisely on that day , all the
tribes o f
y h w h left the land o f Egypt.
aehfc and 2ti" (cognate construction, paronomasia), see 2:15. Sam. Pent.: ‘the
Israelites and their fathers’ (cf. MSS LXX) and ‘in the land of Canaan and in the
land of Egypt’ (cf. LXX). natf, see 12:2. ‘four hundred thirty,’ see Introd.
§ 4.12.2; for the duration of the stay see Introd. § 11.4 and Vol. I, 512f. Rabbinic
interpretation has this to say about it; TPsJ: the length of Israel’s stay was 210
years; the exodus took place 430 years after y h w h had spoken to Abraham on 15th
Nisan; 400 years after the birth of Isaac (Gen. 15:13 is applied to that).127
In 12:41, in two clauses introduced by ’TH (cf. Jotion § 176b n. 2), the time of
departure is indicated. YP (OT 67x), derivative of ysp, ‘to cut off,’ ‘to cut
127 Cf. among others Pseudo-Philo IX, 3; Mek. I, lllf f.; ExR. XVIII, 11; PWB, X, 20ff.; Rashi
(differently Nachmanides) and e.g. Le Deaut*, Nuit, 149ff.; Ginzberg*, V, 420; Rosmarin*, 59.
204 EXODUS 12:1 - 13:16
asunder’ (OT 14x ; piel 39:3): ‘end;’ here with (OT 22x): ‘at the end of ...’
(Gen. 8:6; 16:3; 41:1 etc.). From yp is derived the adjective *p2Tp* (BL, 500p)
(26:4, 10 = 36:11, 17). fap has a cognate form nap, with derivatives including
nap (only sing.; OT ca. 90x), ‘end,’ ‘border,’ ‘edge’ (13:20; 16:35; 19:12; 26:5,
28 [2x ]; 36:12, 33 [2x]); njsp (also pi.; OT ca. 30x; Exod. 19x), ‘end,’
‘border,’ ‘edge’ (25:18, 19 [2x]; 26:4; 27:4; 28:7, 23-26 etc.; cf. also 37:8;
39:4Q [Introd. § 2.2]; K is a form of the Aramaic loan word n}Sp; see also 38:5).
See THAT, II, 659ff.; TWAT, VII, 84ff.
‘precisely on that day,’ see 12:17 and also 12:14. What is meant? In LXX the
words are left untranslated. Likely because the words are rather vague and seem to
have no connection with what precedes. Often they are rendered as follows: on the
day after 430 years had elapsed between Israel’s arrival and departure (e.g. TEV,
NRSV, REB, and e.g. Baentsch). I do not think that is to the point. I fail to see
that there is a specific relationship between both time designations. Rather, in the
concluding verses, containing random remarks about the length of the stay and the
moment of the exodus, the story picks up elements from 12:1-28. That would
seem to make it obvious that with ‘that day’ is meant the 15th Nisan, the ‘day’ of
12:14, 17. to a , see 6:26; 12:17, 51 talks about y h w h ’s ‘bringing out’ of the
tribes; here of the ‘leaving’ of y h w h ’s tribes. Possibly the genitive ‘y h w h ’s ’
conveys the notion: ‘who were protected by y h w h from the catastrophe that struck
Egypt.’
12:42 It was a vigil in honour o f y h w h , because he would lead them out o f the
land o f Egypt. That night all Israelites have to keep vigil in honour o f y h w h ,
throughout the generations.
12:42 is a loose remark with respect to the observance of the Passover. ‘r 4?
(Introd. § 3.23.1), the night from 14th to 15th Nisan (cf. 12:6ff., 18). Dnotf, see
10:28; LXX: 7ipoo<t>uAaKfj, ‘vigil,’ ‘nightwatch.’ "in, see 1:6; cf. 12:14, 17. TNf,
FTV contain a lengthy expansion (cf. also FTP on 15:18); TPsJ a briefer one; the
special place of the night is underlined by typifying it as the third in a series of
fundamentally significant nights in world history: the night of creation, of the
revelation to Abraham, of the exodus, of the future liberation.128
The interpretation of 12:42 is moot.129 Generally speaking, the following views
can be distinguished: (1) In 12:42a, niiT4? (cf. 12:11, 14, 27) denotes y h w h ’s
activity on behalf of Israel: he kept watch with the intent of bringing out Israel;
12:42b is about Israel’s keeping watch in honour of y h w h to preserve the memory
of y h w h ’s deeds; see e.g. Baentsch, Ehrlich, Cassuto; (2) 12:42b is a powerful
repetition of 12:42a; m rrb means in 12:42a and 12:42b ‘in honour of y h w h ; ’ b in
□ train4? gives the reason (not the purpose; cf. e.g. BDB s.v. i 5g; HAL s.v. i
128 Cf. Mek. I, 115ff.; see Le Deaut*, Nuit\ Ginzberg*, II, 372f.; B.D. Chilton, Bib 61 (1980), 78-
88.
129 S. Talmon, VT 4 (1954), 206, surmises textual corruption.
23); cf. Vulg. and see e.g. Dillmann, Strack. I believe it is advisable to always
take n in ^ in the same sense. However, in my view, 12:42b is not a repetition of
12:42a. Likely 12:42a refers to the night in Egypt, the night of the exodus; the
meaning is: for the Israelites in Egypt (the suffix of DN'Sin^, which has no clear
antecedent, refers to them) it was a night of keeping vigil in honour of y h w h ; so
12:42a gives the reason for the stipulation in 12:42b, which applies to the time
after the exodus. 12:42a is about then and elucidates why the custom is to be
maintained now and in the future.
12:42 stands by itself (cf. Eerdmans*, 38). In Sam. Pent, the first word of 12:42
(in Sam. Pent.: n ^ b ) is taken as the last word of 12:41; cf. LXX and see Deut.
16:1. The interpretation ‘in the night’ establishes a link between 12:41 and 12:42.
12:42 is to be regarded as an addition, designed to give prominence to the keeping
vigil (cf. 12:11, 22) as an essential part of the Passover celebration. In the
foregoing context (see 12:14) this does not fully come out. The tenor of 12:42 is
similar to 12:14, 17, 24f.: the memory of y h w h ’s deliverance is to be preserved.
12:43 Thereupon y h w h said to Moses and Aaron: ‘These are the obligations with
respect to the meal o f the passing over: not a single foreigner may participate in
it. ’
12:43-49 contains some regulations with respect to the Passover meal; about how
it is to be done (12:46), and particularly about the question who may/must
participate in it and on what condition. Celebration of the meal is incumbent upon
all who belong to Israel’s cultic community (12:47). Over the shoulders of the
Israel of the exodus the later Israel is being addressed. Foreigners, who are not
interested in integration into the Israelite community, are excluded from it (12:43b;
cf. 12:45). Not so aliens who wish to be part of Israel and foreign slaves. On
condition of circumcision, incorporation in the cultic community (see Vol. I, 449),
they, too, may celebrate the Passover (12:44, 48). In the case of the alien slave,
sharing in the celebration (and so in circumcision) is even obligated (12:44). As
concerns the free stranger, he and his family may eat the meal like Israelite
families if he himself and the (male) members of his family are circumcised
(12:48). All emphasis is on the fact that circumcision is the condition for preparing
the meal and taking part in it (12:48 end). Similar treatment in that regard of the
Israelite and non-Israelite entails similar rights and duties with respect to the
observance (12:48, 49).
According to Cassuto, 12:43-48 contains seven stipulations in all, all ending in
the masculine pronominal suffix of the third person sing.: 12:43, 44, 45, 48 are
concluded with n 12:46 with 13-natfn; 12:47 with inN WIT; 12:48 divides
into two stipulations, the first of which ends in lnfew^. For myself, I doubt that
12:48 can be split in two. In any case: all regulations bearing on the stranger share
the same stereotype ending (12:43, 44, 45, 48). 12:49 seems to be intended to
close the regulations.
8 Q 3 (DJD, III, 154): -o t i (cf. Introd. § 3.12.1). Some MSS, Sam. Pent.; cf.
Pesh., TO, TPsJ, TNf: p n irtK i (cf. 12:1). Here ‘in Egypt’ is absent (cf. 12:1).
206 EXODUS 12:1 - 13:16
Is the idea behind it that the revelation happened at Succoth (12:37)? Were the
regulations concerning the admission of strangers put here because of the reference
to foreign elements among Israel in 12:38? (cf. Keil, Dillmann, Childs). Or is
there a loose connection with what precedes and is it said that also these ordinan
ces were given and practiced in Egypt (12:50)? (cf. Rashi, Nachmanides). npn,
see 12:14. Hi ... i 2 , cf. 12:16. nos, see 12:11. " G rp , see 2:22 and TWAT, V,
454ff. TO has as subject: ‘every Israelite who has turned apostate’ (cf. Nach
manides); TPsJ has dual subject: ‘... or the Israelite ... and has not repented;’ cf.
among others Mek. I, 118; bPes 96a; Rashi and see M. Ohana, VT 23 (1973),
390f. i2H (Introd. § 3.3.1) + 3, see KoSynt § 84; Ges-K § 119m; Joiion § 133c.
Participation of the foreigner, an uncircumcised person not incorporated into the
cultic community, defiles the meal, violates the community and nullifies the effect
of the meal. A. Socin relates in a travel report from 1869 how he witnessed the
Passover of the Samaritans. Not only was every effort made to make sure that the
sacrificial meat remained out of reach of the strangers who were present, they
were not allowed to come too close to it either, ‘da Unglaubige das Opfer durch
ihre Atem entweihen konnten’ (see ZDPV 59 [1936], 1-132 [33]).
12:44 'Any bought slave may not participate in it until you have circumcised
him . '
Cf. Lev. 22:11. ‘slave’ (Introd. § 3.37.2), meant is a foreigner. ti'H, see Introd.
§3.2.1. Sam. Pent.: 1S03 (cf. Gen. 17:23). *]ODTUpo (also in Gen. 17:12, 13,
23, 27), construct chain of *]03 (Introd. § 3.28) and n;po (OT 15 x), ‘purchase,’
derivative of mp (OT ca. 85 x ; qal ca. 80x), ‘to buy,’ ‘acquire* (among others of
a slave; 21:2; Lev. 22:11; 25:44f.; Eccl. 2:7); moot is whether nap can mean ‘to
create’ and one must reckon with two homonymous roots; in 15:16 (God is
subject) one might consider the meaning ‘to call into being’ (cf. Deut. 32:6; Ps.
74:2; 139:13; Prov. 8:22).130 The purchased slave must be distinguished from
the slave bom in the house. It is assumed that the latter was circumcised after he
was bom (cf. Gen. 17:12, 27). LXX (oiKexqv f| apyupcovriTov) mentions both
types. nn^Di, with plene written ending (cf. nm a in Gen. 21:26); Sam. Pent.:
nÊi; see 4:26; for the construction (consecutive waw after casus pendens)
see KoSynt § 3676; Ges-K § 143d; every head of a clan, a household, is personal
ly addressed (cf. 12:46ff.). TPsJ contains one more condition: ‘and you must have
him take a (ritual) bath;’ cf. Mek. I, 127; bYeb 47b. TN, see 4:10. According to a
rabbinic explanation, the master is subject of i 2 '\ he has no access to the meal, if
he does not circumcise the slave {Mek. I, 119; Rashi).
The slave belonged to the household. Also in cultic matters he had to conform
himself to the customs of the family he served. 12:44 is therefore the regulation to
have the bought slave share in the Passover following circumcision. In distinction
from the circumcised free alien (12:48), he is not allowed to prepare a Passover
130 Sec HAL, THAT, II, 650ff.; TWAT, VII, 63ff.; Houtman, Himmel, 89ff.
meal.
12:45 ‘The resident alien hired worker may not participate in it . '
Cf. 12:43 and Lev. 22:10. Tafen atiin, see 2:9, 15. Usually it is thought that two
kinds of strangers are in view.131 According to me, there is only one category,
that of the uncircumcised foreign hired servant. Between him and the family there
does not exist, as in the case of a slave, a permanent tie. He is not property and
cannot be forced to submit to circumcision. It is to be noted, though, that 12:45
does not embody an absolute ordinance. On condition of circumcision, the hired
worker, like any alien, can hold the meal (12:48). Mek. I, 122, also excludes the
circumcised person who has not turned away from idolatry, like the Arabian and
the Gibeonite (cf. Rashi); not so NachmanidCS: in 12:45 is meant the proselyte
who has not undergone the ritual bath (cf. bYeb 71a).
12:46 7/i one and the same house it must be eaten. From the meat nothing may
be taken outside the house, and the bones o f it you may not break.'
Beside 12:46 see 12:3f., 9f. and Num. 9:12. JV3 in TO, TPsJ, TNf (in accordance
with later practice; see 12:4) is understood as ‘gathering,’ ‘group of people’ (cf.
Mek. I, 122f.; Rashi). In TPsJ 12:47, it is specifically stated that the Passover can
be celebrated by a highly diverse group of people (not necessarily members of one
family) (cf. Mek. I, 125). "inx, see Introd. § 4.2.1. (Introd. § 3.3.1), subject
is nosn of 12:43; in LV there is added (for clarification?) the subject ‘the lamb.’
ITSin (Introd. § 3.24.2); X Q 1; Sam. Pent.: pi.; cf. LXX, Vulg., TO, TPsJ, TNf
and see end 12:46. "ifca, see 4:7; cf. 12:8; the meat = the animal.
f in (OT ca. 165x; Exod. lOx) is a substantive indicating space outside the
house: ‘street’ (e.g. Isa. 51:23; Jer. 37:21), ‘the open field* (e.g. Ps. 144:13), that
is often used adverbially and as a preposition (Ges-K § 119c); among others with
n-locale: ‘to the outside’ (12:46); + 2: ‘outside (the house)’ (21:19); + ‘from
outside’ (25:11; 37:2; cf. Introd. § 3.9.3); + and following b: ‘outside,’ ‘on
the outside o f (26:35; 27:21; 29:14; 33:7 [2x]; 40:22). Sam. Pent, hoc loco:
nainn. D2*y, see 12:17. natf, see 9:25. TPsJ: + ‘to eat what is on the inside (of
the bones)’ (cf. Mek. I, 124; bPes. 83a).
Why the ordinance? Older exegetes: due to the haste (12:11), breaking the bones
for eating the marrow inside was forbidden (BBy 150; Calmet). Rylaarsdam: the
provision is directed against the use of bits of the meat and marrow as magic
means to insure fertility in field and flock or to insure against calamity.132 Hen-
131 Explicitly typified as ‘stranger* in TPsJ; cf. also TNf. FT: ‘someone’s guest and the hired
worker, if he is a heathen.’
132 For various ideas see M. Delcor, “L*interdiction de briser les os de la victime pascale d ’apres la
tradition Juive,” in L ’animal, I ’homme, le dieu dans le Proche-Orient Ancien, Leuven 1985, 71-81; J.
Henninger, “Zum Verbot des Knochenzerbrechens bei den Semiten,” in Studi Orientalistici (Fs G.L.
della Vida), I, Roma 1956, 448-58; idem*, Printemps, 147ff.; F.J. Stendebach, “Das Verbot des
Knochenzerbrechens bei den Semiten,” BZ 17 (1973), 29-38.
208 EXODUS 12:1 - 13:16
ninger considers the report of Nilus (see 12:9) unreliable and the interpretation
based on it (the ordinance is against the practice of eating bones) untenable. His
own view of the original sense he describes like this: the animal must be given to
the god with an unbroken skeleton, so that he can give new life to it and continue
to add new animals to the flock. The practice is intended to increase the fertility of
the flock. Henninger connects it with John 19:36: Jesus is destined to live again.
Cf. also Ps. 34:21. Also Stendebach and A. Scheiber, VT 13 (1963), 95ff., believe
that the notion of coming back to life lies behind the prohibition. Segal*, Passover,
171, holds that the regulation was designed to prevent the dispersion of the bones
and the pollution which this might entail. He also considers it possible that the
regulation was designed to preserve the wholeness represented by the animal, and
so to secure the well-being of the community during the ensuing year. In the
current context, an interpretation based on the link between wholeness of the
animal = wholeness of the community is the most acceptable: breaking of the
bones would be tantamount to breaking the wholeness of the community and
constitute an assault on the protective power surrounding it (cf. 12:9). For an early
interpretation in this spirit see Jub. 49:13. If the ordinance is associated with the
notion of ‘coming to life again,’ (‘Wiederbelebung’) one must assume that the
bones were saved. Scheiber points to the discovery of buried jars containing
animal bones at Qumran. On another explanation the possibility exists that the
bones were burned after the meal (cf. 12:10).
12:47 'The entire community o f Israel must celebrate it (the meal).

12:48 And if an alien resides with you and would like to celebrate the meal o f
the passing over in honour o f y h w h , he may not be admitted to the celebration
until he has circumcised every male member. Then he is equal to the citizen o f the
land. Everyone who is not circumcised may not participate in it.
12:49 These ordinances apply equally to the citizen and the alien who resides in
your midst. '
Beside 12:47 see 12:6; Num. 9:13. inx relates to nosn of 12:43. new (Introd.
§3.41.1) can be rendered as ‘to celebrate’ (e.g. LV, NV, WV, GNB, TEV,
NRSV) or ‘to prepare’ (e.g. CV, Vredenburg, Dasberg). The one assumes the
other.
'D, see Introd. § 3.25.2. TI3 + (cognate construction, paronomasia), see
2:22. In 12:48, 49 the LXX renders 13 with the customary term 7tpooi]Ai)To<; (in
12:19; Isa. 14:1 with an Aramaism). The root TI3 evolved into ‘become
a proselyte,’ ‘to become a convert.’ Thus the beginning of 12:48 in TPsJ must be
translated as: ‘and if a proselyte in your midst becomes a convert;’ similarly the
end of 12:49 (cf. Mek. I, 125f., 128). Presumably the forms of TI3 in TO (12:19,
48, 49) and TNf (12:19, 38, 49) also have this meaning.133 in x , some MSS, 4
Q 136 (DJDy VI, 63), Sam. Pent.: QDnK, ‘with you’ (cf. end 12:47 and 12:49);
133 As concerns TNf see, however, M. Ohana, VT 23 (1973), 393f.; idem, Bib 55 (1974), 317ff.
cf. LXX, Pesh., Vulg., TO, TPsJ, TNf. ntfin, with the nuance of expressing a
future action ‘to will’ (see KoSynt § 174; Ges-K § 112p; Joiion § 119w.).
m n ^ nos, cf. 12:11, 27. bisn (see 4:26), inf. abs. used as finite verb (KoSynt
§ 217a; Ges-K § 113aa, gg; Joiion § 123v); possibly the addressee in 12:48 could
be the one who must perform the circumcision (so explicitly LXX and e.g. LV),
but it is more natural that it is the responsibility of the alien himself as head of the
household (cf. Gen. 17:23; 21:4). In that case, the b in l*? does not denote
possession (Joiion § 130g), but refers to the person doing it (see 12:16); cf. R.
Althann, Bib 62 (1981), 239v. "OT (see 12:5), viz. who is part of his household.
Not mentioned as such, but certainly assumed, is the circumcision of the alien
himself. TNI, cf. 12:44. 2 ip , see 3:5. mtN next to cf. 12:19. i i v , see 6:12;
TPsJ: ‘uncircumcised Israelite’ (cf. Mek. I, 127f.); TNf: ‘heathen.’
What is said in 12:48 is that the alien, provided he and his are circumcised, may
prepare the Passover meal for his family and celebrate it as if he were an in
digenous Israelite. Alien and Israelite are treated alike (12:49). The alien may
celebrate the feast by himself. He does not have to join an Israelite family.134
m in (see 4:12), as subject of the sentence its placement first gives it a certain
emphasis; the reference is obviously to the provisions concerning the mode of the
celebration (12:46) and admission to it; TPsJ: the statement refers to all the laws
of the Torah {Mek. I, 128; Rashi). nna, see Introd. § 4.2.1; cf. Lev. 24:22; Num.
15:29. ; r n \ masculine form with feminine subject (KoSynt § 345d; Ges-K
§ 145u; Joiion § 150k); 4 Q 140 (DJDy VI, 71): rrnn. The ‘alien’ evidently
denotes the circumcised alien (12:48).
12:50 And all the Israelites did so. They did just as y h w h had commanded
Moses and Aaron.
12:51 On precisely that day y h w h led the Israelites out o f the land o f Egypt,
divided into tribes.
Beside 12:50 see 12:28. The picture presented is that also the provisions of 12:43-
49, notwithstanding the fact that they seem to assume the situation in Canaan
(12:48f.), were already carried out in Egypt; but note Keil, Strack: ‘in der
Folgezeit;’ espoused already by Ibn Ezra and also e.g. by Dillmann. If 12:43-50 is
regarded as an integral part of the context, one will have to take the statement
(since Israel had already left) as applying to the time after the exodus. bD is absent
in 4 Q 128 (DJD , VI, 51) and in Genizah fragment (app. BHS); cf. LXX and see
12:28; the Genizah fragment does not have nK either; cf. LXX. MSS LXX after
Aaron: ‘with respect to them.’
Beside 12:51 see 12:17, 41. bv, Pesh.: Ehrlich reads K'Sina and regards
12:51 as time designation with 13:1: ‘precisely on that day, when y h w h ..., y h w h
addressed ....’ Also others, including Beer, Cassuto, without altering the text, take
12:51 with what follows. So already Ibn Ezra. As I see it, 12:51 is a concluding
134 For circumcision and Passover see also Josh. 5:2, 5ff., 10; cf. Vol. I, 446, 449.
210 EXODUS 12:1 - 1 3 :16
formula. Once more the celebration is emphatically linked with the exodus and
thereby validated.
13:1 Thereupon y h w h addressed Moses in the following words:

13:2 'Consecrate all firstborn to me: the firstborn o f every womb among the
Israelites, from humans as well as animals. They belong to m e!’
See 6:10 beside 13:1. There is no mention of either place or time of the revela
tion. Presumably it happened in Egypt, just before the exodus.135 Only Moses
(cf. on the other hand 12:1, 43) is being addressed. In him y h w h speaks to the
family heads or, another possibility, y h w h talks to Moses with the intent that he
will pass on the words. ,1re n p (Introd. §3.44.1), for vocalization see Ges-K
§ 52n; Ehrlich: piel has declarative force: ‘to declare consecrated;’ y h w h himself
consecrates (Num. 3:13). T Q 3 , see 4:22; meant are the firstborn males (cf. 12:13,
15) (so explicitly TPsJ; cf. Deut. 15:19 and see Mek. I, 128f.), and, according to
what follows, of the mother; LXX: TcpwiotoKOv npcoToyeva;, ‘the firstborn, the
first to be delivered;’ Frankel*, 102: one of the terms, likely the last, is a gloss.
Concluding from 13:2 all by itself that at one time all firstborn, without dis
tinction, belonged to y h w h is an overstatement (but see Stade*, 170).
i®p (OT l l x ) , derivative of ")DD: ‘break-through,’ ‘splitting,’ is used in
construct chain with on") (13:2, 12a, 15; 34:19a; Num. 3:12; 18:15; Ezek. 20:26;
cf. also the use of mps in Num. 8:16), but also elliptically (without Dm; both
absolute [13:12b] and in construct chain [13:13; 34:19b, 20]): ‘break-through (of
the womb),’ metonymically used for the first young, the first offspring (in 13:2;
Num. 3:12 apposition with 1)22) of animals (13:12b, 13, 15; 34:19b, 20), but
also for the firstborn of (animals and) humans (13:2, 12a; 34:19a; Num. 3:12;
18:15).
□PH (OT 30X; Exod. 13:2, 12, 15; 34:19), ‘uterus,’ ‘womb;’ cf. use of verb
□m (OT ca. 4 5 x), as a rule piel and often with God as subject (so also in 33:19
[2x]): ‘to have compassion,’ and of adjective Dim (OT 13x ; always in relation
to God [34:6]).136 ‘humans’ and ‘animals’ (cf. 13:12, 15), see 4:11; Introd.
§ 9.1.2; for 2 see 12:19. The belonging to y h w h is emphasized by the double use
of once at the beginning and once at the end of the verse. 13:2 is a general
statement. See further 13:12f.
13:3 Thereupon Moses said to the people: ‘Remember that day on which you came
out o f Egypt’s house o f slavery. For y h w h led you away from here by putting on
heavy pressure. Therefore no fermented bread may be eaten. ’
Having received y h w h ’s instructions, Moses speaks to the people (13:3-16; cf.
12:21: to the elders), initially not about the consecration of the firstborn (13:11-16)
135 See 13:3, 4; not so Keil, Dillmann, Beer, who suggest it happened in Succoth (12:37).
,3<s See 3:21; THAT, II, 761ff.; TWAT, VII, 477ff.; P. Joiion, Bib (1925), 51 f.; G. Rinaldi, BeO 22
(1980), 61; V. Sasson, Z4W97 (1985), 94; S.D. Sperling, JANES 19 (1989), 149-59.
but about the obligation to eat unfermented bread, something about which y h w h
had already given instructions (12:15-20). t d t (Introd. § 3.18.1), absolute
infinitive used as imper. (e.g. KoSynt § 217a; Ges-K § 113bb; Brockelmann § 2);
Sam. Pent.: iidt (imper.). ‘that day,’ cf. 12:41, 51. QnN2T (Introd. § 3.24.1) is
followed by n in 4 Q 136; 140 (DJDy VI, 63, 72); Sam. Pent.; cf. LXX, Pesh.,
Vulg. Though according to 13:4 the people were in process of leaving, here the
exodus is talked about as past tense (Dasberg translates it with the present tense). 4
Q 128; 136; 140; Sam. Pent., LXX, Pesh.: ‘out of the land of Egypt.’ ‘house of
slavery’ (Introd. §3.9.1; 3.37.2), cf. Jotion § 137s. ‘by heavy pressure,’ see
Introd. §3.21.2. K2T hiph., see Introd. §3.24.2; nTB, ‘from here;’ not ‘from
there’ (LV, NV, NRSV). niph., see Introd. §3.3.1. fa n , see 12:15.
Observing the day, periodically celebrating it, is done by not eating leavened
bread. The phrasing is negative; in 13:6, 7 positive. The connection between the
custom and the leading out is not explained; cf. 12:15ff. (but see also at 12:17);
see beside it 12:8, 34, 39; Deut. 16:3. From 13:3 (cf. 12:17) one gets the
impression that on one day unfermented bread was being eaten; see beside it 13:6,
7, and also 13:8.
13:4 Today you are leaving , in the month o f ears. ’

‘Today,’ see Introd. § 3.23.1. In Sam. Pent, o rn is the last word of 13:3; the
next sentence starts with Dnxi; in Pesh. the word translated is DVQ; see also e.g.
CV, 13:4 is made part of 13:3: ‘... on the day ..., in which you departed;’ so the
difficulty inherent in MT, viz. that Moses speaks after the departure, in Succoth
(12:37), as if the departure were still coming, is removed. TPsJ specifically
mentions the date: 15th Nisan. D'lor, part, denotes that the people were busy with
leaving. enn, see 12:2; some, including Ehrlich, maintain that enn in 13:4, 5
refers to the ‘new moon;’ according to an old tradition, at one time the exodus
happened at the new moon in the month of Abib; later the feast was transferred to
the time of the full moon; for this unlikely notion see J.W. McKay, ZAW 84
(1972), 438, 445f.; Segal*, Passover, 132f. U'ZIN, see Introd. § 10.3.6; LXX: ‘of
the new (fruits);’ cf. Vulg.; Rashi: a month suitable for travel (cf. e.g. BBy 160).
13:5 ‘When y h w h has brought you into the land o f the Canaanites, Hittites,
Amorites, Hivites and Jebusites, which he promised to your fathers under oath to
give you, a land flowing with milk and honey, you must observe this custom in this
month . '
Beside 13:5 see 3:8, 17; 6:8. n\m, see Introd. § 3.13.4. Note the change in the
number: 2nd person pi. in 13:3; 2nd person sing, in 13:5ff.; in TNf in 13:5ff. the
pi. is retained, ‘y h w h ’ -I- ‘your God’ in some MSS, 4 Q 140; 145 (.DJDy VI, 72,
77), Sam. Pent., LXX, TPsJ; cf. Introd. §7.2.2. In Sam. Pent., LXX (with
alternating order) the number of people has been augmented to the stereotypical
seven (Introd. § 8.3.2); see also 4 Q 128; 140; 144; 145 (DJDy VI, 51, 72, 76,
77); Pesh. mentions six (+ Perizzites). "itfN, 4 Q 140 (.DJDy VI, 72), fragment
212 EXODUS 12:1 - 1 3 :1 6
from Cairo genizah, Pesh.: 10KD, cf. 13:11; Ehrlich: 10K refers to y h w h and not
to ‘land.’
V2V) perf. niph. of V2ti (OT ca. 185 x ; niph. 154x ; hiph. 31 x), ‘to swear by
(+ 3),’ ‘to promise under oath to (+ *?);’ in Exodus only with yhwh (OT ca.
75x) as subject (13:5, 11; 32:13; 33:1); when yhwh swears an oath, naturally
only he can vouch for the oath (32:13; Gen. 22:16 et al.). It is natural to under
stand ra ti hiph. in 13:19 (2x) as ‘cause to promise under oath* (Gen. 24:3, 9;
50:5f., 25 et al.); in e.g. LV, UV, CV V2ti hiph. is understood in directly causal
sense: ‘to adjure’ = to entreat; it is, however, only sporadically that the hiph. has
this meaning (e.g. 1 Kgs. 22:16).137 nnb, for vocalization see 5:21; Ges-K
§ 29f. ‘observe this custom,’ see Introd. § 3.37.1, 4. nKT points back to the end of
13:3 and forward to 13:6, 7, where the end of 13:3 is further worked out.
13:6 ‘Seven days you are to eat unleavened bread, and on the seventh day there
must be a festival in honour o f y h w h .
13:7 Unleavened bread is to be eaten fo r seven days. Then no fermented bread
may be with you , in fact yeast may not be present with you in all your territory.9
See beside 13:6a the beginning of 12:15. 4 Q 132; 136; 140; 144; 145 (DJDy VI,
57, 63, 72, 76, 77), Sam. Pent., LXX: ‘six days;* cf. Sanderson*, 120, and see
Deut. 16:8;138 ‘seven’ also in 23:15; 34:18; Deut. 16:3. 4 Q 140 (DJDy VI, 72):
i^DNin; cf. LXX: ‘you shall eat’ (cf. 12:15). ‘on the seventh day,’ cf. 12; 16;
here, however, no observance on the first day is mentioned; according to others,
including Keil, Strack, it was a matter of course and therefore is not expressly
stated; sometimes it is assumed that originally the seven days coincided with the
Israelite week (see e.g. E. Kutsch, ZThK 55 [1958], 25ff.); in that case, speaking
of a festival on the seventh day would be redundant, because already the Sabbath
was a special day. m n ^ an, cf. 12:14; there the reference is to the first day (cf.
Lev. 23:6); in Deut. 16:8 another term is used. Probably what is said is that the
bread was eaten at home while the festival happened in the sanctuary. The text is
silent on the venue of the celebration (cf. 12:16). According to Wambacq, Bib 61
(1980), 48, 51, the pre-deuteronomic text assumes the local shrine.
13:7a repeats 13:6a in somewhat different terminology. Beside 13:7b see 12:15,
19 and in particular Deut. 16:4a. niSD is not subject (e.g. Williams § 227), but an
object placed first with the impersonally used passive (cf. 13:3) (KoSynt
§ 109; Ges-K § 121b; Joiion § 128); LXX, Pesh.: ‘you will eat’ (cf. Vulg.), also
in 13:3. Q'DM r\V2ti nK, accus. to determine the time (rarely with rw), see KoSynt
137 For derivative npa? see 22:10. See further THAT, II, 855ff.; TWAT, VII, 974ff.; TRE, IX,
373ff.; G. Giesen, Die Wurzel $b‘ ‘schworen, ' Konigstein/Ts-Bonn 1981.
I3H See the discussion in Mek. I, 144f.; Haran (Introd. to exegesis under a), 106: meant are the six
days one spends at home after the first day in the sanctuary (Deut. 16:5-7); B.N. Wambacq, Bib 57
(1976), 307 n. 50, 310; Bib 60 (1980), 51, assumes the existence of an ancient custom: six days
unleavened bread was eaten; on the seventh day no work was done and there was a religious ceremony
(cf. Deut. 16:8).
SCHOLARLY EXPOSITION 2 13
§ 288n; Ges-K § 118k; Joiion § 126i. some MSS, LXX, Vulg. without
copula; cf. 12:19. ru n niph. (Introd. § 3.46.2); doubtful is whether b should be
regarded as b auctoris (see 12:16, 48) (cf. KoSynt § 103). fDn, cf. 13:3.
“iNfr ... (cf. Deut. 16:4a), varied repetition; absent in Pesh. (cf. also Vulg.);
(see 7:27) makes it clear that the prohibition brooks no exceptions; in
LXX the second nNT is rendered (for variety’s sake?) as eoxai.
13:8 'And on that day you are to give your son the following explanation: “Be
cause o f what y h w h did fo r me, when I left Egypt (I observe that custom).”
13:9 To you it must be like a sign on your hand or a mark on your head, in order
that the instruction concerning y h w h be on your lips. (It serves to remind you) that
y h w h led you out o f Egypt by putting on heavy pressure.
13:10 This obligation you are to observe at the time set fo r it, year after year. ’
“133, see 4:28 (cf. term ‘Haggadah’); the explanation, it appears, is given in
response to a question from the son; cf. 12:26; 13:14 and Introduction to exegesis
under f. ‘that day,’ the day of the exodus (13:3f.) or the seventh day (13:7) or,
wider, in the seven-day period? see Introd. § 3.5.2. T Q U 3 , see 9:14. nt is
used as a relative pronoun (KoSynt § 51, 382g, 385e; Ges-K § 138h); because this
use of nt does not occur in prose, it is sometimes thought that the text is corrupt;
instead of reading ht 113X73 it has been proposed to read n jn “iinon (app. BHK3),
‘this festival’ (cf. Vulg.: hoc est quod fecit Dominus mihi ...); according to
Delitzsch*, 89, part of the text between HT and m\'i2V2 dropped out. The evident
intention is to offer a motive for the custom of 13:6, 7 by making reference to the
exodus (13:3; cf. 13:4f.). Eerdmans*, 39, disagrees: 13:8 is explanation of 12:39;
Cassuto: ‘It is because of this - the fact that we the children of Israel will
dedicate our lives to His service139 - that is, the Lord wrought on my behalf ...’
Altering the text (read: nt m a y s or nKTn m ayji), already Ehrlich opted for that
kind of explanation. ‘Service’ he linked especially with the blood ritual of the
Passover. TPsJ and TNf contain the following interpretation: ‘On account of this
regulation’ (TPsJ); ‘On account of the regulation of unleavened bread’ (TNf); cf.
Mek. I, 74; the ‘doing’ of YHWH consisted according to TPsJ in ‘signs and
wonders;’ TNf expresses it as: ‘yhwh worked successes for us in our confron
tations’ (see also TNf margin). Ibn Ezra and Rashi understood ‘on account of this’
as ‘in order that the regulation (of the Passover etc.) will be observed, yhwh acted
for me;’ see the discussion of the text in Leibowitz*, 21 Off. (did the exodus
happen in order that yhwh’s regulations would be obeyed or are they being
obeyed on account of the exodus?), ‘yhwh,’ LXX: Kupioc 6 Oeoc;.
13:9 is not part of the explanation to the son. rrm ,140 assumed subject is the
139 Apparently a reference to performing the paschal customs.

140 Introd. § 3.13.2; Sam. Pent.: rm ; subject seems to be ‘the days.’
214 exodus 12:1 - 1 3 :1 6
custom of 13:6, 7 .141 niK, see 3:12. ‘your hand* (Introd. § 3.21.1), 4 Q 130;
132; 136; 140; 145 (DJD, VI, 54, 57, 63, 72, 77), X Q 1, Sam. Pent.: pi.; is
there an implied allusion to a custom of wearing signs on both hands? ‘mark’
(Introd. § 3.18.3); l in the sense of ‘or* (see 12:5). ‘on your head,’ see Introd.
§3.38; see also 13:16. irob, see 1:11. mm m in (see 4:12), usually taken as
subjective genitive; here, in my view, objective genitive (cf. Ehrlich); according to
the context, ‘torah’ does not denote the entire body of commands (e.g. Josh. 1:8),
but the narrative of the exodus and the gratitude called for by it and the obligations
flowing from it. n s, see 4:10; cf. Deut. 6:7; 11:19. 'D, see Introd. §3.25.1.
Beside end of 13:9 see 3:3. 4 Q 130 (DJD, VI, 54): t pnna (cf. 13:16).
Object of the celebration of Matzoth is to keep alive the memory of the great
deeds of y h w h and insuring that it is passed on (to the children; in particular the
firstborn son; cf. 13:8).
see 10:28; LXX: pi.; cf. 13:3f. npn, see 12:14; viz. observance of the
custom of 13:6, 7. In TPsJ, 13:9 is associated with the phylacteries, as is ‘this
obligation’ (cf. Mek. I, 150ff., 155ff.). u n o (see 9:15) with b temporis (KoSynt
§ 3310, viz. of 15lh-21lh Abib. ‘year,’ see Introd. § 3.23.2; cf. KoSynt § 86,
266a; always in the month of ears (cf. 13:3f.). FTV, TNf margin: ‘from those days
to those months.’ For the very different version of 13:10 in TPsJ see at 13:16.
13:11 ‘When y h w h has brought you into the land o f the Canaanites as he
promised under oath to you and your fathers, and has given you possession o f it,
13:12 then you are to give over to y h w h every firstborn o f the womb. All
firstborn young, bom from the cattle you possess, belong to y h w h , insofar as they
are o f the male gender.
13:13 However, all firstborn young o f the donkeys you may redeem with an
animal from the flock. I f you do not want to redeem it, you are to break its neck.
All human firstborn o f the boys you must redeem. ’
Beside 13:11 see 13:5. Sam. Pent.: i i r a \ cf. 13:5. ‘y h w h , ’ Sam. Pent., LXX:
+ ‘your God;’ cf. 13:5. ‘Canaanites,’ see Introd. §8.14; Ehrlich: the writer
assumes that the reader will supply the other nations (13:5) himself. 10K3, see
1:12. !*?, the person spoken to is not only bearer of the promise (13:5) in virtue
of the fathers, but is now even portrayed as recipient of the promise. In LXX a
rendering of 1 "jb is missing. For construction end of 13:11 see Ges-K § 112p;
differently KoSynt § 36lg. Jewish exegetes discuss the question whether or not the
firstborn in the wilderness were to be consecrated (e.g. Rashi, Nachmanides).
13:12a contains a general statement (cf. 13:2). 13:12b-13 elaborates on it: all
male firstborn of the livestock (that is, of all the clean animals; cf. 13:15) are for
y h w h (13:12b); for the firstborn of the donkeys and humans special stipulations
141 Not so Cassuto (cf. already Rashi and Nachmanides): subject is the sentence with ,3, ‘namely
that,’ at the end (so also Holzinger); clause with is parenthetical remark (Holzinger: presumably
addition).
obtain; they may not be consecrated to y h w h ; foals of donkeys may be redeemed

(13:13a); firstborn sons must be redeemed (13:13b). Not so e.g. Cassuto: 13:12a
applies to human firstborn; 13:12b to the firstborn of the livestock, the clean
animals (so also Holzinger et al.); a n a tn applies to both categories.
"GU (see 12:12) in the sense of ‘to consecrate’ (13:2)142 and ‘to sacrifice’
(13:15); the verb is also employed for the bringing of child sacrifices (+ tito ; see
Deut. 18:10; 2 Kgs. 16:3; 17:17 et al.) That might suggest surrender by means of
burning; possibly of giving part of it to the priests; Gray*, 33ff.: initially a part of
it was eaten at a sacred meal at the sanctuary (cf. Deut. 15:20), later it went
wholly to the priests (Num. 18:17f.). Open to discussion is the notion that T aun
is based on a deliberate change of T M n , which presumably was a technical term
for child sacrifice.143 Pesh., TNf: + ‘firstborn’ before "ICOD(cf. 13:2).
(13:12; Deut. 7:13; 28:4, 18, 51; also Sir. 40:19), always construct state
(different vocalization in Deut. 7:13 etc.; cf. KoHkl, II, 8: Jouon § 96Ac),
‘offspring;’ see in particular Zo. Cassuto holds that the womb of animals can be
called both Dm and (cf. LXX, Pesh., TO, TPsJ, TNf); but note already
Dillmann. 4 Q 130; 134; 155 (DJD , VI, 55, 60, 84): nonaa. In TPsJ riDna is
understood as the animal cast off by its mother (bom too soon); also the firstborn
that are bom prematurely belong to y h w h ; cf. Mek. I, 130, 160; Rashi (also
‘young’ is possible). Sam. Pent.: r m t iN . "IDT, see 12:5; the provisions apply
only in case the firstfruit is of the male sex.
13:12b lacks a verbal form; LXX: + ayiaoeig (cf. 13:2); Vulg.: + con-
secrabis\ cf. also TO, TPsJ; LV is based on addition of T a rn ; likely mm is
implied; meant is: through sacrifice they must be handed to me. The word order in
LXX differs from MT: ‘then you must surrender every firstling from the womb,
the males to the Lord; every firstling from the herds (ex tow PoukoAioov)144 or
among your cattle, as many as you have, the males you must consecrate (ayia-
oei<;) to the Lord.’ "IDS is rendered in LXX, TPsJ, TNf as Dm ")CDD (cf. 13:2
etc.); in TO as ‘firstborn.’
Being an unclean animal, the donkey could not be used as a sacrificial animal
and its meat was not to be eaten (Introd. § 9.1.16); ‘donkey,’ here and in 34:20;
Lev. 27:27; Num. 18:15 talks about redemption of unclean animals in general
(important source of income for priests): Rashi: redemption only applies to the
donkey; not to other unclean livestock (cf. Mek . I, 162); in Judaism only the
redemption of donkeys was standard practice.145 The question how to deal with
unclean animals is not touched on in Exod. 22:29; Deut. 15:19-23. In Pesh. the
donkey is missing: ‘every male firstborn, the first from the womb of the live
stock.’
142 In TPsJ and TNf "iau is translated as EHS, ‘to set apart;’ cf. Mek. I, 159.
143 See e.g. C. Steuernagel, Lehrbuch der Einleitung in das AT, Tubingen 1912, 82f.
144 Gloss according to Frankel*, 102.
145 For the interpretation of the passages see G. Brin, JQR 68 (1977-78), 1-15.
216 EXODUS 12:1 - 1 3 :1 6
n s M imperf. qal of m a (OT 58X; qal 53 x), ‘to redeem,’ ‘to free;’ in Exodus
only in legal texts: (1) in social regulations; hiph. in 21:8: ‘to cause to be redeem
ed’ (cf. Lev. 19:20); cf. derivative yH9 in 21:30 (cf. Num. 3:49; Ps. 49:9); (2) in
cultic regulations; qal in 13:13 (2x), 15; 34:20 (3x); Lev. 27:27 (cf. Num.
18:15f.): ‘to redeem’ (with 2 of price). In all instances it concerns being freed
from bondage, from belonging to someone (21:8; 13:13 etc.), from dire guilt, by
presenting something in return, something of counter value, a quid pro quo, a
ransom (see THAT , II, 389ff.; TWAT, VI, 514ff.) nfc, see Introd. § 9.1.5. 4 Q
130; 155 (.DJD , VI, 55, 85), Sam. Pent.: m e n . The small animal was ‘set apart
to y h w h ’ (13:12).
imperf. cons, qal + suffix of (OT 6 x ), ‘to break the neck of’ ( +
accus. of the animal) (13:13; 34:20; Deut. 21:4, 6; Isa. 66:3), denominative verb
(so, among others, HALy Zo.; not so KBL) of *1*11; (OT 33 X; Exod. 23:27; 32:9;
33:3, 5; 34:9), ‘neck,’ see 1:14; Introd. §3.36; Dhorme*, 93; Johnson*, 64f.
According to Robertson Smith*, 450, 463ff., the provision is a taboo; Brin (see
above), 12ff., believes that it arose later, because the stipulation to redeem the
donkey with a small animal was not heeded and so — assuming that the lamb
became the property of the priests - hurt the priests (cf. Mek. I, 162f.; bBek.
10b; Rashi). The animal may not be slaughtered and be used for profane purposes.
Breaking of the neck was apparently intended to make sure the animal was not
used for consumption (2 Kgs. 6:25). The blood remains in the animal and there
fore it cannot be eaten. In LXX, is translated with a form of Xuxpouv, ‘to
free (by paying a ransom);’ this verb is also used for translating the following m s
(so more often in LXX), while m a in the first part of the verse (2x) is translated
with forms of ccA&ooeiv , ‘to (ex)change’ (nowhere else in LXX); the requirement
to break the neck is absent; instead, it speaks of ‘redeeming’ (different from the
redeeming of a small animal); Frankel*, 98f., thinks the rendering reflects the
practice in Alexandria (see also 34:20 LXX); Brin, 15, argues that the LXX is not
based on a different text ( m a in , ‘but then you will have to pay its value’), but
embodies a deliberate change to counteract allegations that the Jews sacrificed to
donkeys, is rendered in FTV, TNf with bap, ‘to kill’ (TNf margin: ‘with an
axe;’ cf. Rashi); general terminology (‘to destroy’) is also employed in TO and
TPsJ. d ik , see 4:11. ‘boys,’ see Introd. § 3.10.1. It is not said how and with
what the human firstborn were to be bought free (TPsJ: ‘with money’ [similarly in
13:15]; not with a slave; cf. Mek. I, 163f.); but cf. Num. 18:15ff. (money); Num.
3:1 Iff., 44ff. (Levites and money) and see also Gen. 22:13 (clean animal).

A number of questions remain unanswered. Where and how is the consecration of
the firstborn and the redemption to take place? What are the requirements the
firstborn clean animal must meet? In 22:28f. the eighth day is mentioned as the
day of the setting apart to y h w h of the firstborn of man and animal. There and
elsewhere it is assumed that the consecration takes place at the sanctuary. The
sanctuary is specifically mentioned in Deut. 15:19-23; in that pericope human
firstborn are left out of the picture (see Introduction to exegesis under w) while
about the firstlings of the animals it is stipulated that once per year they are to be
consecrated to yhwh (cf. Deut. 12:6, 17f.; 14:23). Prior to that the animal
concerned is already to be treated as set apart: it may not be worked and whatever
else it produces may not be used. Moreover, no animal may in any way be
defective (cf. 12:5). If it is, it may not be used for the sacrificial meal, but must
be eaten at home. In Deuteronomy nothing more is said about the time and the
occasion of consecration. Should one think of a time following the great festivals
(in Deut. 16) or of spring, the time of Passover/Matzoth? In Exod. 13, Matzoth
(13:3-10) and consecration of the firstborn (13:1-2, 11-16) are mentioned together
(cf. also 34:18-20) and both are specifically associated with the exodus out of
Egypt. The feast is explicitly located in the month of ears (13:3-5). May one
conclude from the linkage between the setting apart of the firstborn and the exodus
out of Egypt that the passages are predicated on the assumption that the con
secration of the firstborn and redemption were to be part of the festivities in
commemoration of the exodus in the month of ears?146 It seems to me that one
should think of a variety of occasions. The point is, all of life must bear the stamp
of the benefits given in the exodus.
13:14 ‘When in the future your son asks you: “What is the meaning o f this ? ” you
are to answer him: “By putting on heavy pressure y h w h brought us out o f Egypt's
house o f slavery.
13:15 Because Pharaoh stiff-necked opposed our leaving and y h w h killed all
firstborn in the land o f Egypt, both human firstborn and firstborn o f the cattle, I
am accustomed to sacrifice to y h w h all firstlings from the womb, insofar as they
are o f the male gender, while 1 redeem all my firstborn boys. ”
13:16 To you it must be like a sign on your hand or an insignia on your head.
(It serves to remind you) that y h w h led us out o f Egypt by putting on heavy
pressure . '
'D n\m, see Introd. § 3.13.4. V, see 3:22. "iriQ, see 8:6; LXX: pera ta u ta (cf.
Frankel*, 73). nxm o, cf. 3:13; nNT, TPsJ: ‘this regulation with respect to the
firstborn.’ On the question see Introduction to exegesis under f. 4 Q 130; 135
(DJD , VI, 55, 62): pitna '2. LXX: ‘out of the land of Egypt,’ On 13:14 see
further 13:3.
'3 v h (Introd. § 3.13.3) + p by, see 5:8; at variance with the usual interpreta
tion, the clause starting with n rm (see 2:14) is also dependent on 'D. ntfp, see
1:14; cf. KoSynt § 399n; in TPsJ ‘the Word of YHWH’ is subject and the heart of
Pharaoh object (cf. Mek. I, 167). nbtf, see Introd. § 3.49.2. ‘yhwh,’ not in LXX.
4 Q 129; 130 (DJD, VI, 53, 55): ’DCOJK. nat (see 3:18), part, expressin
customary behaviour or actions (e.g. Joiion § 12Id); similarly imperf. at end of
the verse (Ges-K § 107g; cf. KoSynt § 413k); LXX: + ‘every firstborn’ (absent,
146 Cf. Laaf*, 124f.; E. Otto, VT76 (1976), 3-27.

218 EXODUS 12:1 - 1 3 :1 6
among others, in LXXA). '12 "HDD, 4 Q 129; 130 (DJD, VI, 53, 55), Sam. Pent.:
'122 DIN "11D3; cf. end 13:13. 13:15b correlates with 13:12-13; the foal of the
donkey is no longer mentioned.
13:16 is not part of the answer to the son and is a slightly variant repetition of
13:9. Subject of mm now is the provision of 13:11-13. 4 Q 129 (DJD, VI, 53):
m b mm; 4 Q 130; 135 (DJD, VI, 55, 62): l b mm; Sam. Pent.: -|b rm (cf.
13:9). m m , with scriptio plena of suff. (cf. 7:29); 4 Q 129 ( DJD , VI, 53):
nmm, Sam. Pent.: TT* (cf. 13:9). Object of ‘to lead out’ in Sam. Pent., LXX,
Pesh. is not ‘us’ (cf. 13:14) but ‘you’ (cf. 13:9). nstditD, see below. The customs
in connection with the firstborn are to insure that y h w h ’s great deeds will be
remembered and that the story will be passed on (to the children, in particular the
firstborn son; cf. 13:14).
The sign on hand and head (13:9,16)

13:9, 16 gives rise to various questions. It is well known that Jews have the
custom at (moming)prayers to attach tefillin - phylacteries (Matt. 23:5) - ,
‘prayer bands,’ with small leather boxes containing four on parchment inscribed
scriptural passages (13:1-10; 13:11-16; Deut. 6:4-9, 11:13-21), to the head and
left arm, based on 13:9, 16; Deut. 6:8; 11:18.147 Do the above discussed texts
indeed demand that one wear signs or is the language metaphorical? Even if the
latter be the case, the question concerning the nature of the signs on hand and head
remains. After all, metaphorical use presupposes the existence of familiarity with
concrete signs on hand and head. Coming up with answers to the question concer
ning the nature of the signs is further complicated by uncertainty about the term
nbpiCD in 13:16. Comparison with 13:9 shows that a sign of remembrance is
intended. But what kind of sign?148
First off I take up the meaning of nDCDiCD (13:16; Deut. 6:8; 11:18; scriptio
defectiva nBCDCD in Deut. 6:8). The Masoretic vocalization as pi. is probably not
original and the term is to be regarded as a sing. nppiCD. Keel and Tigay opt for
the meaning ‘headband,’ among others on the basis of the use in middle-Hebrew.
Tigay points to illustrations of the dress worn by residents of Syro-Palestine,
known from the Ancient Near East, in particular Egypt. Keel draws attention to
heads/figures of women, wearing a headband featuring a circlet, pendant, flower
ornament or head fillet, which have come to light through excavations, and
proposes that, metonymically, nDCDiCD refers also and in particular to that kind of
ornament. There is no question that some of the female figures represent ‘the
woman by the window,’ the (goddess-)hierodule. Keel argues that the band with
147 See e.g. £7, XV, 898ff.; IDB, III, 808ff.; De Vries*, 51 ff.; tefillin texts are familiar from
Qumran; at variance with later rabbinic regulation, the passages on them exhibit variation.
148 More recently the various questions have been dealt with, including providing extensive
documentation, by O. Keel (see 12:7) and J.H. Tigay, JBL 101 (1982), 321-31, with overview of old
translations, notions about etymology etc.; cf. also TWAT, III, 341 ff.; H. Rand, Judaism 42 (1993),
160-3.
circlet may not be regarded as just an ornament, but identified the bearer as a
hierodule (cf. Hos. 2:4; Jer. 3:3). The presence of the Andreas cross X (de
signation for taw) on the frontlet in illustrations of ‘the woman by the window* and
the fact that belonging to the goddess Ishtar/the Syrian mother-goddess is more
often indicated by the X sign, leads Keel to contend that the ornamental plates on
the headband contain the X sign or some other indication of belonging to the deity.
In short, according to Keel nstDitD is a headband featuring a mark. In support, he
points to the clothing of the highpriest; part of the highpriestly turban was a gold
plate fastened with a band, and on it engraved ‘holy to y h w h * (28:36f.; 39:30;
Lev. 8:9);149 furthermore, in Ezek. 9:2ff. those who belong to y h w h receive on
their forehead a in = X that distinguishes them from others and protects them
(nota bene, it concerns an engraved mark). Keel concludes that the mark in Deut.
6:8; 11:18 must be a small plate fastened to the head covering, containing the
cross mark or the text ‘holy to y h w h . ’ Though attractive, due to the paucity of
data from Ancient Israel the hypothesis remains uncertain. It can be argued that
the sign is more than an ornament or a diadem on the head. It may have been a
mark by which the bearer identifies himself as consecrated to a particular god.150
As regards the nature of the sign on the head, a tattoo may be less likely (cf.
Lev. 19:28; 21:5; Deut. 41:1); an inscribed or painted mark (cf. Ezek. 9:2ff.)
might be considered. In light of the meaning of PDtDitD in later Hebrew (sing,
‘headband,* ‘diadem;* pi. the tefillin of the head) and the illustrations discussed by
Keel, it seems best to think of a small plate fastened to a headband, containing a
symbol or a name of y h w h .
What is the nature of the mark on the hand? Which hand is meant? According to
Jewish tradition the left hand. The interpretation rests on the unusual form of rD T
in 13:16, understood as n : T = ‘the hand that is weak’ (nro, ‘to be weak*) =
the left hand.151 The right hand, being the most important hand, would seem
more likely (cf. Rev. 13:16). Considering the nature of the mark on the head, is it
not more likely that it is strictly an ornament? The mark would seem to be the sign
of membership in the cult of a god (Isa. 44:5; Rev. 13:16; 14:9). Also here one
could think of a tattoo or brand (e.g. Noth, Hyatt) or a painted mark (cf. Isa.
44:5; 49:16), possibly also of a ring (e.g. Heinisch; cf. i v in Gen. 41:42; Jer.
22:24; Esth. 3:10 and see e.g. Hag. 2:23). However, if a link between 13:9, 16
and Deut. 6:8; 11:18, is assumed, and in view of the use of "itfp, ‘to bind,* in
Deuteronomy it makes sense to think of an object, tied to hand or arm (cf. Prov.
7:3) (e.g. Dillmann), perhaps a bracelet with a symbol or name of y h w h (e.g.
149 Cf. 2 Chr. 26:19f.; Uzziah was struck with a disease on the forehead; for the remembrance mark
on the head see also Z.W. Falk, VT 11 (1961), 88-91.
150 Cf. 3 Macc. 2:29; Pss.Sol. 15:6, 9; 4 Ezra 6:5f.; Rev. 7:3; 13:16; 14:1, 9; 19:4; 22:4; cf. also
16:2; 19:20; 20:4; see V. Cruz, The Mark o f the Beast, Amsterdam 1973; moot OT texts are Gen.
4:15; 1 Kgs. 20:35ff.; see for the last e.g. J. Lindblom, Prophecy in Ancient Israel, Oxford 1962, 67;
the mark can function as an amulet; so also the tefillin of the Jews; see further ERE, VI, 539f.
151 bMenah. 36b; Rashi; see also TPsJ on 13:9, 16; Mek. I, 151f.
220 EXODUS 12:1 - 1 3 :1 6
Keel, 212ff.).
Exegetes usually hold that 13:9, 16 as well as Deut. 6:8; 11:18 employ meta
phorical language (cf. Prov. 1:9; 3:3; 4:9; 6:21; 7:3; Isa. 62:3; Jer. 17:1; 31:33
et al.). 13:9, 16 can hardly be taken in any other sense than figurative.152 Be
cause Deut. 6:9; 11:20 refer to concrete regulations, there seems to be no reason
to take Deut. 6:8; 11:18 figuratively (cf. Keel, 179ff.).
152 But note Jewish exegetes (except Rashbam), e.g. Cassuto, and further e.g. Van Uchelen, GNB,
TEV; the Karaites defended the figurative interpretation in connection with their rejection of the tefillin;
cf. Leibowitz*, 216ff.
EXODUS 13:17-15:21
PHARAOH’S DESTRUCTION - ISRAEL’S DELIVERANCE
13:17 When Pharaoh let the people go, God did not lead them by way o f the
land o f the Philistines, although that offered a direct route. For God thought: ‘It
must not happen that the people, faced with battle, change their minds and return
to Egypt. *
18 So God made the people take a detour, in the direction o f the wilderness, in
the direction o f Yam Suph. In orderly fashion the Israelites went away from the
land o f Egypt.
19 And Moses took the bones o f Joseph with him. For he had made the sons o f
Israel promise under oath, saying: ‘When God shows his care fo r you, you must
carry my bones with you from here.*
20 They set out from Succoth and camped at Etham on the edge o f the wilder
ness.
21 Always y h w h went before them, by day in a pillar o f cloud to show them the
way, and by night in a pillar o f fire to give them light, so that they could travel by
day and by night.
22 By day the pillar o f cloud never left its post and by night the pillar always
went in front o f the people.
14:1 Thereupon y h w h spoke to Moses, saying:
2 ‘Tell to the Israelites to turn back and pitch their camp before Pi-Hahiroth
between Migdol and the sea; before Baal-Zephon, opposite the place, you must
pitch your camp by the sea.
3 Then Pharaoh will think o f the Israelites: “In the country they have walked
into a trap. The wilderness blocks their way. ”
4 And then I will make Pharaoh obstinate, so that he will pursue them and I
will gain glory fo r myself before Pharaoh and before his whole army. Then the
Israelites will realize that it is I, y h w h . * Thus they did.
5 When the king o f Egypt was informed that the people were on the run, he and
his courtiers changed their minds about the people. They said: ‘What have we done
that we let Israel go, so that they can no longer do forced labour work fo r u s!’
6 He readied his chariots and took his troops with him.
7 He took six hundred o f the best chariots plus all other chariots o f Egypt, with
ranking officers in each o f them.
8 And y h w h made Pharaoh, the king o f Egypt, obstinate, so that he pursued the
Israelites as the Israelites were leaving in high spirits.
9 The Egyptians pursued them and caught up with them, as they (the Israelites)
were encamped by the sea - all Pharaoh*s horses and chariots, his chariot
drivers, yes, his army (caught up with them) by Pi-Hahiroth before Baal-Zephon.
222 EXODUS 1 3 :1 7 - 15:21
10 As Pharaoh approached, the Israelites looked up. Perceiving that the

Egyptians were moving after them, they were terror-stricken and the Israelites cried
to YHWH.
11 To Moses they said: ‘Was it because there were no graves in Egypt that you
brought us with you to die in the wilderness? What have you done to us, bringing
us out o f Egypt?
12 Is not this ju st what we meant when we asked you in Egypt: “Leave us alone.
We want to keep doing forced labour fo r the Egyptians ?n It would sure be better
fo r us to do forced labour fo r the Egyptians than to die in the wilderness. '
13 But Moses answered the people: ‘Do not be afraid. Stand firm. Then you will
witness the deliverance which YHWH will work fo r you this very day: with those
Egyptians, who today are before your very eyes, you will not ever be confronted
again.
14 y h w h will fight f o r y o u a n d y o u c a n k e e p still.'
15 Thereupon y h w h said to Moses: ‘Why do you cry out to me? Tell to the
Israelites to go forward.
16 And you lift up your hand holding the staff and stretch it out over the sea to
divide it, so that the Israelites can go right through the sea on dry ground.
17 Then I will make the Egyptians obstinate so that they will go after them and I
can gain glory fo r myself before Pharaoh and before his whole army, before his
chariots and his chariot drivers.
18 So the Egyptians will realize that it is I, y h w h , when I glorify myself before
Pharaoh and before his chariots and his chariot drivers.'
19 Then the messenger o f God, who always went ahead o f the host o f Israel,
moved and went behind them, or rather the pillar o f cloud moved from before them
and stood behind them.
20 So it came between the host o f Egypt and the host o f Israel. Then (on the one
side) it took the shape o f a dark cloud-bank, but (on the other side) it lit up the
night, so that during the entire night the one host could not come near the other.
21 Moses stretched out his hand over the sea. Then y h w h caused the sea to flow
away by a strong east wind that blew all night. In that way he turned the sea into
dry land and the water was divided.
22 And the Israelites could go right through the sea on dry ground, while to
their right and to their left the water was like a city wall to them.
23 However, the Egyptians followed in pursuit; all Pharaoh's horses, his
chariots and his chariot drivers went after them into the middle o f the sea.
24 Then, in the morning watch, y h w h looked down upon Egypt's host from the
pillar o f fire and cloud. So he terrified Egypt's host.
25 He caused the wheels o f their chariots to run crooked, making it hard fo r
them to keep moving, so that the Egyptians said: ‘Let us flee before Israel, fo r
y h w h fights fo r them against Egypt.'
26 Thereupon YHWH said to Moses: ‘Stretch out your hand over the sea, and then
the water will flo w black, over the Egyptians, over their chariots and over their
TRANSLATION 223
chariot drivers. '

27 Moses stretched out his hand over the sea. Then, at dawn, r/i* sea flowed
back to where it used to be, while the Egyptians cut and ran toward it. So y h w h
shook the Egyptians in the middle o f the sea.
28 The water flowed back and covered the chariots and the chariot drivers, all o f
Pharaoh's army which had gone after them into the sea. Not one o f them re
mained.
29 The Israelites, however, had gone right through the sea on dry ground, while
to their straight and to their left the water was like a city wall to them.
30 So that very same day y h w h delivered Israel from the power o f Egypt. When
Israel saw the Egyptians lying dead on the seashore,
31 Israel sensed that y h w h had dealt Egypt an incredible blow. The people stood
in great awe o f y h w h and put their trust in y h w h and in his servant Moses.
15:1 On that occasion Moses, with the Israelites, sang this song in honour o f
y h w h . They spoke as follows:
a I will sing in honour o f y h w h ,
b For he has manifested himself as the supreme majesty.
c The horses with their charioteers:
d He threw them down in the sea.
2 a My protection and the source o f my hymn o f praise is y h w h .
b My deliverance he accomplished.
c My God is like that. Him will I praise.
d The God o f my father. Him will I exalt.
3 a y h w h is a warrior.
b y h w h is his name.
4 a Pharaoh’s chariots and his army:
b He knocked them over in the sea.
c And the pick o f his ranking officers:
d Engulfed they were in Yam Suph.
5 a Surging waters covered them.
b In whirlpools o f water they sank like stones.
6 a Your powerful deeds, O y h w h , awesome in power,
b Your powerful deeds, O y h w h , shatter the enemy.
7 a And in your majestic exaltation
b You cast down your adversaries.
c You vent your fury:
d It consumes them like straw.
8 a Through the snort o f your nostrils
b The water piled up:
c the raging waves stood like a wall.
d In the depths o f the sea the surging waters turned solid.
9 a The enemy thought:
b 7 am going to pursue, I overtake,
224 EXODUS 1 3 :1 7 - 15:21
c I divide the spoil.

d My lust fo r murder is being sated on them:
e I draw my sword,
f My hand destroys them. *
10 a You blew and you snorted:
b The sea covered them.
c They sank like lead
d In the dreadful water.
1 1 a Who is like you among the gods, O y h w h ?
b Who is like you, awesome in holiness,
c Renowned fo r glorious deeds,
d Worker o f astonishing happenings ?
12 a You acted resolutely:
b The earth swallowed them.
13 a In your steadfast love you led
b The people you delivered.
c Through your show o f strength you made it rest
d On holy ground.
14 a Nations heard o f it: they trembled.
b Pangs o f anguish seized Philistia’s inhabitants.
15 a Yes, gripped with fear
b Were Edom’s chieftains.
c M oab’s princes:
d Trembling seized them.
e Dismayed were all Canaan’s inhabitants.
16 a Upon them fell
b Terror and trembling.
c Through your spectacular intervention
d They were petrified with fear,
e Until your people, O y h w h , had passed by,
f Until the people you called into existence had passed by.
17 a You had brought and planted them
b On the mountain that is your domain,
c The place, which in order to dwell there,
d You, O y h w h , prepared,
e The sanctuary, O Lord,
f Which your hands established.
18 a y h w h is k in g
b At all times and fo r ever!
19 For Pharaoh’s horses with his chariots and his chariot drivers had gone into
the sea, but y h w h caused the water o f the sea to flow back over them; but the
Israelites had gone straight through the sea on dry ground.
20 Thereupon the prophetess Miriam, Aaron *s sister, took the hand drum in her
TRANSLATION 2 25
hand. All the women followed her with hand drums and performed dances.
21 Miriam responded and sang to them:
a Sing in honour o f y h w h ,
Having reported the sermon Moses gave on the day of the exodus (13:4), the
writer resumes the thread of the narrative, or, better stated, he follows the sermon
with an account of the departure from Egypt. He has already covered the departure
(12:37-39) but, backing up, he retells the event to inform the reader of a number
of specifics about the departure not mentioned so far. He informs about the route
Israel took and brings out that from the start the journey was under y h w h ’s
guidance, care and foresight, and that the choice of route was included in y h w h ’s
strategy, y h w h was determined that Israel should reach its destination and not
return to Egypt (13:17-18a). YHWH wants to pull off his plans with Israel! In
different language than in ch. 12, the writer once again stresses the orderly nature
of the exodus (13:18b; cf. 12:41, 51). So he shows once again that Israel is
strong, disciplined and self-assured. In its conduct Israel demonstrates that her God
is completely in charge of the situation. Finally, by mentioning that Moses took
the bones of Joseph with him he sets the departure in the framework of redemptive
history: for Israel and its ancestors the stay in Egypt was only a stage on the way
toward their destination, the promised land (Gen. 50:24).
Having as it were let the reader relive the first leg of the journey to Succoth
(12:37), now in the interest of further particulars he relates the second leg. Now
the exodus has really begun.1 The second stage brings Israel to where the wilder
ness begins (13:20). The moment the writer has dropped the word ‘wilderness’ he
again slows down to once more point out y h w h ’s care for his people: for Israel
the wilderness is no barrier; y h w h himself is there her guide; through a pillar of
cloud and fire he leads his people (13:21, 22).
y h w h not only guides his people. He also directs the unfolding of events. The
writer points this out to the reader by reporting the instruction Moses gives on the
edge of the wilderness (14:1-4): Israel must turn back and encamp in a place
which is like a trap, because the only way out is leaving the same way one
entered; the wilderness, the mountains and the sea block other exits (14:2). The
reader wonders about the instruction. How can y h w h bring his people in such a
dangerous situation? Along with Moses, however, he hears what motivates y h w h :
' V erbs o f m ovem ent are prom inent in 13:17-15:21; *03 (8 x ), "|^n (7 x ), yoa (5x); also the
pursuing Egyptians (H“n , 5 x ; n riK , 7 x ) share in the m ovem ent.
226 EXODUS 1 3 :1 7 - 15:21
also here the route (cf. 13:17f.) is part of y h w h ’s strategy. It belongs to y h w h ’s

stratagem. Pharaoh will think that Israel is trapped; the people are still in his land
and in reach of his power. That knowledge will cause him to take action, impel
him to resume his role of y h w h ’s adversary to prevent Israel from leaving the
country (cf. 1:10). He will think, Israel is an easy prey for me (14:3). But in
reality, Pharaoh will walk into a trap set by y h w h (14:4). y h w h creates a
situation that offers him the opportunity to teach Pharaoh and the Egyptians that all
power and authority belong to him and that he must be obeyed. The reader notes
that the Israelites obediently go along with Moses’ command to change course
(14:4 end). They do not know what hangs over their heads and are oblivious to the
danger. Moses and the reader do know. Pharaoh will go in hot pursuit but y h w h
will head off the seizure of Israel. But how will it happen? Tensely the reader
focuses his attention of what is coming.
After having made the reader accompany Israel and Moses the first, second and
third day after the departure (13:17-14:4), the writer transports him back to Egypt
to witness the ‘exodus’ of the Egyptians (14:5-9). The writer transposes the reader
to the circle of Pharaoh and his courtiers where policy is decided. The reader
learns that they interpret Israel’s leaving as a flight. Israel had only been given
leave for a pilgrimage of three days into the wilderness (cf. 12:3If.). The thought
that Israel is on the run hits Pharaoh and his cronies cold and reminds them of
their erstwhile design: the proliferation of Israel must be curbed and Israel may not
leave the land, or, in other words, the fulfilment of y h w h ’s promises must be
foiled (Vol. I, 240f., 244f., 467f.). No longer are the courtiers divided among
themselves and no longer do they and Pharaoh clash (cf. 9:20; 10:7 and 11:8?).
Here, as the reader is confronted with them for the last time, they again present a
solid front with Pharaoh. Together they deplore Israel’s departure. The reader
senses that Pharaoh still considers himself Israel’s master who has not really
capitulated to y h w h yet.
The scene shifts rapidly. One moment Pharaoh deliberates with his courtiers.
Already the next moment he is taking action: an elite detachment is formed,
consisting of the best chariots, manned with officers (14:6, 7). Recklessly they set
out in pursuit (14:8a). Apprehensively the reader wonders what the outcome will
be. The question is particularly pressing because the writer again offers him a
glimpse of the Israelites. Still in a state of euphoria for having broken free, they
know nothing of the danger closing in on them (14:8b). The reader’s attention,
however, is again drawn to the Egyptians (14:9). In the meantime they have
caught up with the Israelites. The writer passes over their route and trek and only
reports their arrival - the brevity of the narration matches the presumed speed; in
the blink of an eye they are there. Having as it were in passing mentioned the
trek, the writer deals in greater detail with the Egyptian army (14:6, 7, 9): a
mighty and unconquerable army stands eye to eye before an Israel that has no way
where to turn (14:9). Learning of the situation, the reader’s hope falters. No
longer feeling like a beaten person, Pharaoh acts as one who seems sure victory is
within his grasp. Despite all the defeats he has sustained, he seems - how
frightening - unbeatable and over and again capable of resisting y h w h . Have all
y h w h ’s efforts been in vain after all? Leaving Egypt behind seemed like a signal
that the fulfilment of the promise of the land had come close. Now at Egypt’s
border, full freedom in sight, it appears hopes may still be dashed. Is Israel going
to be the victim of y h w h ’s undoubtedly well-intended strategy?
The reader’s anxiety has mounted to the breaking point, an apprehension made
worse because the writer diverts his attention and makes him witness goings-on in
the Israelite camp. He deals at length with it (14:10-22). The moment the Egyp
tians have closed in on the Israelites, the writer as it were momentarily halts the
Egyptians. Not because the Egyptians are tired or because night has fallen (see
exegesis 14:19-20), but because he takes his time to sketch Israel’s reaction in the
face of the approach of Pharaoh. The writer lets the Egyptians move again (14:23)
when ‘the stage’ for their destruction is in place. The reader sees how the people,
unlike Moses ignorant of y h w h ’s strategy (14:3, 4), are in a panic before Pharaoh
and expect they are about to perish (14:10-12). Crying out to y h w h , they turn
sarcastically to Moses and rather openly side with Pharaoh. It perplexes the
reader. The Israelites, who only a short while ago were so self-assured (13:18b;
14:8b), protest to Moses that they prefer Pharaoh’s slavery to y h w h ’s service and
therefore opt for being Pharaoh’s slaves. The writer makes an adept use of direct
speech. Moments ago he employed it to draw a vivid picture of the mood change
that had come over Pharaoh and his courtiers (14:5). Again resorting to direct
speech, this time he present a graphic image of the mood change on the part of the
Israelites. Not just Pharaoh but also they turn against the realization of the promise
of the land (14:11, 12). In their criticism of Moses they actually start questioning
(14:11b) the great redemptive event in Israel’s history, y h w h ’s leading them out
of Egypt, even before they are definitely out of the country. All the great deeds,
only a short while ago performed by y h w h , are forgotten. All trust in y h w h and
his emissary is gone.
Moses’ reaction is impressive. At the critical moment he is the only one who
does not lose his head. As y h w h ’s representative, informed about his strategy
(14:3, 4), he announces that y h w h will once and for all free the Israelites from
the Egyptians (14:13, 14). The confidence with which Moses speaks revives the
reader’s confidence in y h w h . But the apprehension remains, also due to Moses’
rather enigmatic oracle. How will y h w h make all future confrontation with the
Egyptians impossible? The veil over the events to come is in part lifted through
y h w h ’s instruction to Moses in response to his reaction to the people (14:15-18).
So the reader learns that a road will be made through the sea and that also the
Egyptians will foolishly venture on it. How y h w h is going to convince the
Egyptians of his superiority (14:17f.), remains hidden from Moses and the reader
though. The future will tell and it will turn out to be even more astonishing than
the instruction to Moses might suggest.
After prayer (14:10), dialogue (14:11-14), and instruction from YHWH (14:15-
18), the story can get moving again. The reader is shown events that are unparal
leled (14:19-28). Not reported but assumed is that the people, encouraged by
228 EXODUS 1 3 :1 7 - 15:21
Moses (14:13, 14), follow him in the direction of the sea (cf. 14:15). At that
moment the pillar of cloud/fire takes up position at the rear of Israel, so that it
stands between the army of Egypt and the company of Israel. It engulfs the
Egyptians in darkness, immobilizing them, but envelops the Isrealites in the light
of day, enabling them to attend to their daily activities (14:19, 20). Being lined up
behind either Pharaoh or y h w h (cf. Introd. § 3.40.1) involves a different treat
ment. Union with the latter is tantamount to living in the light (cf. 10:21-23).
Union with the former is tantamount to living in darkness. By making a separation
between Israel and Egypt y h w h emphasizes that Israel belongs to him.
Then happens what was announced. Standing by the sea, Moses makes a
conjuring motion with the staff he has in his hand; y h w h causes the east wind to
blow; a path is formed through the sea, a path flanked by towering walls of water
(14:21, 22). The reader is deeply impressed by y h w h ’s miracle working power.
The wind and the water obey him! (cf. Matt. 8:27). But is y h w h ’s mighty power
strong enough to throw back Pharaoh? The writer, who up to this point in the
story has kept the movement of the Egyptians and the Israelites separate, now
brings them together, and this creates a critical situation full of suspense. What
was announced, happens (14:17). The Egyptian army en masse also goes into the
sea. Will they succeed in as yet capturing Israel? The moment success seems
within Egypt’s reach, y h w h intervenes. In the bright light cast by y h w h , the
Egyptians notice where they are and utter panic seizes them. Thrown into a state
of utter confusion, they have lost their capacity to function as a unit. Besides,
mysteriously they no longer appear able to handle their equipment, so that all they
can do is turn tail and flee (14:23-25). Observing how the Egyptians toil with their
beautiful chariots, the reader cannot suppress a feeling of malicious pleasure. The
Egyptians should have learned their lesson and obeyed y h w h . He has rescued
Israel from Pharaoh’s claws, turned the tables on the Egyptians. But that cannot be
the end of this episode - Egyptians on the run remain a potential threat. They
may not escape.
Then Moses - now safely on the other shore - is again told by y h w h to raise
and with a conjuring motion wave his staff, this time to cause the water to flow
back (14:26). That is what happens. The fleeing Egyptian army rushes into the
returning waves. Dragged along by the waters, every last person drowns (14:27-
28). Watching Pharaoh and his army perish, the reader rejoices. Now the danger
is definitely past. The face-off with y h w h has become Pharaoh’s Waterloo, his
watery grave. His role as the antagonist of the fulfilment of the promises is
finished. With his twelfth mighty deed,2 y h w h , in a gruesome manner, has once
and for all shown Pharaoh and the Egyptians that all power and authority are his
(5:2; 7:5 etc.; Introd. § 3.2.2). Before they met their ruin, they were still able to
confess that it was y h w h who fought against them (14:25b), implying that from
2 After the serpent miracle (7:10-12), the ten plagues, the destruction of Pharaoh and his army is
YHWH’s twelfth mighty deed (for ‘twelve’ see Introd. § 4.3.3).
the outset their fate was sealed (cf. Josh. 10:14, 42). Their destruction demon
strated that y h w h is Lord of life and death and demands obedience. So the
ruination of the Egyptians is a call to obedience to y h w h , a call not to resist him
to the end, but to acknowledge him as Lord. The fate of Pharaoh and his people is
particularly meant to teach Israel (cf. 10:2). If the enemy confesses that y h w h
fights for Israel (14:25), certainly Israel herself may not doubt that y h w h wants to
be on the side of his people. The reader realizes that what Moses’ words of
encouragement (14:13) was all about has now come true: the Egyptians have
ceased to be a threat. Not one got out alive (14:28b). It sounds like music in the
ears of the reader. The evil has been eradicated root and branch.
The reader wonders how the Israelites, whose treatment has been so different
from that of the Egyptians (14:22, 29), will react. Also the reaction of the people
puts joy in his heart. At daybreak the Israelites saw the dead bodies of the
Egyptians washed up on the shore,3 and it told them - something the reader had
already learned - that now they are finally done with Pharaoh and the Egyptians
(cf. 14:13). The uncontestable proof has been given that union with Pharaoh,
y h w h ’s adversary, results in death, whereas union with y h w h offers life and
freedom. The corpses are the sign of y h w h ’s victory. Fear for the Egyptians and
their power (14:10) has made way for awe of y h w h and trust in Moses (14:30-
31). The people want to belong to y h w h . Thus far they had been vacillating,
unsure whether to cast their lot with y h w h and Moses or Pharaoh (4:31; 5:21;
6:9; 12:27; 14:10), but now they acknowledge y h w h and accept Moses as his
representative and their leader. In word (14:13f.) and deed (14:21, 27) he, Moses,
had proven to be a true emissary of God. In brief, service of Pharaoh has been
replaced by service of y h w h . The bond between y h w h and Israel fully establish
ed, the trek to the promised land can now begin. There is no more anything that
stands in the way of Israel’s unique relationship with y h w h .
The drowning of Pharaoh and his army in the sea (14:28) was a climax in the
story. Israel’s acknowledgement of y h w h as Lord and the acknowledgement of
Moses as his messenger (14:31; cf. 2 Chr. 20:20), is the culmination and rounding
off of the story. Israel and y h w h are solidly devoted to each other. Exod. 14 as
climax and consummation is sealed by the ode in praise of y h w h (Exod. 15),
whose acts were so amazing that according to Mek. II, Ilf., also babies, unborn
children and angels and, according to Wis. 10:21, even the mute erupted in praise.
It cannot be overlooked that many more times the reader will hear of rebellion
and lack of trust on the part of Israel (15:24 etc.), to which y h w h will respond
with always new mighty deeds. Only here, after the crossing of the sea, is the
response of the people described. That, too, makes Israel’s crossing and Pharaoh’s
final downfall a unique event.
3 The assumption is that Israel, unlike the reader, did not witness the drowning of the Egyptians
(14:23-28) and that YHWH destroyed them while it was dark (cf. 4:24; 2 Kgs. 19:35 and see Meyer*,
IN, 23; Greflmann*, 117, 121).
230 EXODUS 1 3 :1 7 - 15:21
The story of the crossing eloquently underlines the Soli Deo Gloria of Israel’s
deliverance. The credit for the liberation is only his. And though it is true that
Exod. 14 still attributes a role to Moses in the unfolding of events (14:3If., 21,
27), Exod. 15 leaves no doubt that his role in no way diminishes that of y h w h .
The hymn of praise is not to a human being (cf. Mek. II, 7). Moses himself
initiates the Te Deum (15:1) to render all honour to y h w h (cf. also Introd.
§ 12.9.3) He and no one else is King (15:18). He engaged Egypt in battle. Israel
did not have to lift a finger. On the contrary, eye to eye with Egypt’s crack troops
the Israelites dared to rebel against Moses, y h w h ’s messenger (14:11, 12), and so
put at risk the continuance of y h w h ’s history with the people. No human being
can take any credit, however minimal, for having made a contribution to Israel’s
liberation. Pharaoh and the Egyptians not either. They cannot pride themselves on
having been kind enough to let Israel go. Till the very end they tried to retain their
hold on Israel.4
The history of Pharaoh’s undoing and Israel’s deliverance is proof positive that
y h w h is the Lord of the world. He is able to mobilize the cosmic powers, water
and wind, cloud and fire, to set his people free and rout his adversaries. The
sophisticated weaponry the enemies may bring to the battle are no match, are
useless, even grotesque, before the powers he is able to unleash (14:25; Judg.
5:2If.). The outcome of the battle does not depend on the number or prowess of
the combatants or the weapons used,5 but on y h w h ’s initiative (cf. Deut. 20riff.;
Josh. 6:2ff.; Judg. 7:2, 9; 1 Sam. 17:46f.; 2 Sam. 5:22ff.; 2 Chr. 20:15ff. and
see Introd. § 9.1.18; for contrast see Jer. 21:4f.). All y h w h has to do is blow a
little and the enemy melts before him (15:10), rendering other adversaries paralyz
ed with fear (15:14-16; cf. 2 Chr. 20:29). In short, the history of the crossing is a
call to trust God, also to those who did not witness it with their own eyes (cf. John
20:29). Trusting in God is what saves, not one’s own strength (cf. 2 Chr. 20:20;
Isa. 7:4, 9; 30:15f.; 31:1, 3).
Awed by y h w h , fully trusting in him, conscious of having been freed, one’s
mouth cannot remain silent (cf. Ps. 106:12; ExR. XXIII, 2). One must extol him
who has wrought salvation (Exod. 15; cf. Jude 16; Rev. 15:2ff.), tell of his
marvellous deeds. Therefore the writer puts a song of praise on Israel’s lips. The
song is, however, more than a hymn of gratitude to y h w h for having brought
down Pharaoh and his army. The poem breaks through the bounds of time. It puts
the crossing of the sea and the destruction of the Egyptians in historical perspec
tive: they are the foundation of Israel’s election and of Zion as y h w h ’s dwelling
place; they constitute the basis of y h w h ’s kingship. Through her liberation from*3
4 F or the connection between the ‘YHWH alone’ and the YHWH-caused obstinacy o f the Egyptians
(14:4, 8, 17) see Introd. § 3.19.2.
3 In Exod. 14-15 in their fearsome potential described with six terms: ‘r n (5 x ), 010 (5 x ), naaio
(2 x), BHD (7x), ap? (lO x) api (15:1, 12).
Pharaoh, Israel has become y h w h ’s people (15:13, 16). y h w h ’s destruction of

Pharaoh and his army was more than a victory over an enemy. That one act had a
far-reaching effect: the news of y h w h ’s great victory terrified all y h w h ’s ene
mies, paralyzing them with fear (15:14-16; cf. 2 Chr. 20:29). With no more than
his breath (15:8, 10) y h w h gained a great victory and so paved the way to lead
his people effortlessly to Zion and settle there (15:13, 17). So y h w h demonstrated
that he is far greater than other gods (15:11) and that he is King (15:18).
All in all, the poem is also a confession of faith. Israel is professed to be
y h w h ’s people and Zion y h w h ’s royal seat. The credo is put in the mouth of
Israel by the sea. That links these articles of faith inseparably with the central
theme of Israel’s faith, the liberation from Pharaoh’s yoke, and turns them into a
creed of the fathers and an authoritative confession. The writer holds before his
readers the example of the fathers: fearing and trusting y h w h (14:31) is the same
as believing that Israel and y h w h belong together and that y h w h has chosen Zion
to dwell there as king over the world, and knowing that y h w h brought Israel out
of Egypt so that, with Zion as center, she might be a cultic community, con
secrated to his service.
Genuine gratitude to y h w h rules out being unwilling or unable to speak. A truly
thankful person cannot but praise y h w h . For ancient man, only the word that is
sung will not do. The whole body must be used to praise God (15:20). Singing is
accompanied with dancing. The body reinforces the spoken and sung word. All of
a person’s being is involved in the liturgy. Worship, not as a motionless sitting in
narrow, uncomfortable church pews, but as movement in space, bodily expression
of need or joy! Protestants, heirs of John Calvin, may find this hard to grasp; in
his interpretation he surmises that his readers may find beating the tambourine
very strange, and he calls it a folk custom, belonging to the ceremonies of the law
which were abolished in the coming of Christ. Questionable is whether the
simplicity of worship, according to Calvin demanded by the gospel, is pure gain:
‘We have surrendered the parade to organizers of political demonstrations and the
dance to operators of dance halls, and we can hardly visualize what it would be
like to celebrate Simhat torah in church with dancing and song.’6
The history of the crossing offers hope for the future. On the basis of the faith
that y h w h is always the same, in the beginning, now and always and from eternity
(cf. Mek. II, 3If.), y h w h ’s actions against the Egyptians can be interpreted as an
example of how he acts toward those who oppose him, considered the real enemy,
actions capable of being repeated. History is a rich source of comfort and en
couragement. So, e.g. in Mek. I, 242f., the ‘for y h w h fights for them’ (14:25) is
emphatically related to y h w h ’ s struggle against all oppressors of Israel in every
generation. In the explanation of the song in Mekilta , the conclusion is drawn from
6 M.A. Beek, “Geloven met het lichaam,” in Loven en geloven (Fs N.H. Ridderbos), Amsterdam
1975, 201-9 (209).
232 EXODUS 1 3 :1 7 - 15:21
the imperfects that the talk is about the future: the shattering in 15:6 is related to
the future and concretely to Esau = Rome (II, 42); the throwing down etc. in 15:7
is understood as the future annihilation of the enemies (II, 47ff.); the ‘worker of
astonishing happenings’ (15:11) is related to the future (II, 66) etc. (cf. also Mek.
II, 3If. and TPsJ, TNf, FTV on 15:6, 7). The expectation is expressed that also
the future victory will be followed by a song, ‘a new song’ (Isa. 42:10; Ps.
149:1).7 The exodus offers hope that there may be a new exodus and crossing
(Introd. § 12.5.2; 12.6.3). y h w h ’s mobilization of the cosmic powers to help
Israel evokes expectations of a new going forth of y h w h to bring about the final
destruction of the powers of evil (e.g. Ps. 93ff.; Ezek. 38f.; Rev. 20:7ff.). Israel
experienced the crossing of the sea and the destruction of the Egyptians as events
that are constitutive for its existence. Hence it causes no surprise that the crossing
can be described in terms of the creation event, the taming of the powers of chaos,
and opens up the perspective of a new creation.8
It is not only Jews who, rather than restricting the significance of the account of
the crossing to its historical framework in Exodus - Israel’s deliverance from
Pharaoh as a further step on the way toward the realization of the promises to the
patriarchs - have given a wider sense to the story. Christians have done the same
and read the account of the crossing as a paradigmatic story. God’s destruction of
the oppressors gave and keeps giving humiliated and oppressed Christians hope
that the powerful will be brought down (cf. 1 Sam. 2; Luke l:46ff.). For Israel
the crossing was the transition to a new existence. The crossing constituted a
‘renewal of their minds’ (cf. Rom. 12:2). From being ‘people stuck in old ways’
(14:Ilf.) they became ‘new people’ (14:31); delivered from Pharaoh’s grip, they
are now free to dedicate themselves fully to y h w h . Life with y h w h can begin. So
it is not hard to see that in the NT9 and Christian exegesis the crossing became
linked with baptism, the resurrection to a new life (e.g. Rom. 6 :Iff.; Eph.
4:17ff.). The liberation from Egypt is interpreted as the deliverance of the human
race from the bondage to sin, on the basis of the merits of Jesus Christ and guided
by him, of whom Moses is a type. The crossing of the sea typifies the baptism, in
which Satan, evil spirits and desires, symbolized by Pharaoh and his army, are
swallowed up and perish (cf. Mic. 7:15).10
7 See e.g. Mek. II, 6; FTP on 15:18; cf. Rev. 5:9ff.; 14:3; 15:3ff. and see McNamara*, 199ff.
H On the significance of the crossing in the OT see Introd. § 12.6; for the chaos struggle also
T.N.D. Mettinger, “Fighting the Powers of Chaos and Hell - Towards the Biblical Portrait of God,”
StTh 39 (1985), 21-38. J.L. Ska, NRTh 103 (1981), 512-32, on the basis of linguistic study, even
assumes a close relation between the P version of Gen. 1; 6-9; Exod. 14: Gen. 6-9 depicts the renewal
of creation; Exod. 14 pictures a new creation, a new beginning.
9 See 1 Cor. 10:1 f.; for crossing in NT see Introd. § 13.5.1; 13:6-8.
10 See e.g. Origen, Horn, in Exod., V, VI; Gregory of Nyssa (VM, II, 117ff.); Wis. 14:5f. in the
Pesh.; cf. H.J.W. Drijvers, in Scripta Signa Vocis (Fs J.H. Hospers), Groningen 1986, 23ff., and
further Danielou*, 13Iff.; P.P.V. van Moorsel, Rotswonder o f doortocht door de Rode Zee: De rol en
de betekenis van beide in de vroegchristelijke letteren en kunst, ’s-Gravenhage 1965; see also Vol. I,
277; Childs, 234ff. Along with the Flood, Pharaoh’s drowning in the sea is used in baptismal prayers
Christians can identify with Israel’s elation over the death of her enemies. Exter
mination of the evil elements in the world, they know, is ultimately designed to
restore harmony in the world. Israel’s exuberance makes them think of the
abundant joy that will grip the cosmos when God’s judgment over human sin has
done its work and the evil in man has been eradicated.11 Modem Christians,
painfully aware though they may be of the seriousness of evil and of the need to
uproot and remove it, guided by the light of the gospel (e.g. Matt. 5:38ff.; Luke
9:5Iff.; 10:25ff.; 23:34; Rom. 12:9ff.; but note also e.g. Mark 9:34, 48; Rom.
12:19; Rev. 6:10) find no pleasure in the death of the enemies. To the Christian
other statements in the OT about the ‘annihilation’ of y h w h ’s adversaries12
convey a more meaningful message. Even more than the miraculous nature of the
crossing, the question, ‘Are we to think of God as he is described here?’ can
trouble the Christian. The writer of Exodus has no problem portraying the
destruction of human lives as a mighty act of God and sees no need to exonerate
God. In Christian exegesis, allegorical and typological exegesis (see above) and,
e.g., the conception that God’s modus operandi under the old dispensation differed
from that under the new has removed the sting from Exod. 14-15.13

INTRODUCTION TO THE EXEGESIS *
A number of questions with respect to 15:1-21 are taken up in what follows.

a. Marking o ff the material. See already Introduction to exegesis 7:14-11:10 and
12:1-13:16. Along with many others, I regard 13:7-15:21 as a coherent unit. G.W.
Coats14 holds that 13:17-22 is not only the introduction to the narrative of he
crossing of the sea, but also to the larger complex of narratives about the journey
through the wilderness. Coats’ arguments are not convincing. True, it is connected
with what follows. It describes the beginning of the journey that will lead through
in some churches as pointing to baptism; for the exodus out of Egypt as the way of repentance and the
Red Sea as the dividing line between living in sin and being saved, see Da Costa*, 213ff.
11 See Isa. 44:23; 49:12; Jer. 51:48; Ps. 69:35; 96:11; cf. Houtman*, Himmel, 152ff.
12 See 2 Kgs. 6:21ff.; Isa. 2:2, 3; 19:23; 55:5; 66:18, 19; Zech. 8:23; cf. Matt. 28:19; Luke 24:47,
and see also Mek. II, 59f.: also the nations of the world sang the song by the sea and will do so in the
future.
13 For the problem seen P.C. Craigie, The Problem o f War in the OT, Grand Rapids 1978; M.
Gorg, Der un-heile Gott: Die Bibel im Barm der Gewalt, Dusseldorf 1995; R.M. Good, “The Just War
in Ancient Israel,” JBL 104 (1985), 385-400; H. Haag et al., Gewalt und Gewaltlosigkeit im AT,
Freiburg et al. 1983; S. Niditch, War in the Hebrew Bible: A Study o f the Ethics o f Violence, Oxford
1993; R. Tomes, “Exodus 14: The Mighty Acts of God,” SJTh 22 (1969), 455-78; for the problem of
the relationship between God and evil see Introd. § 3.19.2.
14 See VT22 (1972), 288-95; cf. idem, VT 17 (1967), 253ff.; 22 (1972), 138ff.; StTh 29 (1975), 53-
62; JSOT 12 (1979), 2-8; see for the question also Childs, 221ff.; idem VT 20 (1970), 406-18; D.
Patrick, VT26 (1976), 248-9.
234 EXODUS 1 3 :1 7 - 15:21
the wilderness. Here and in the sequel, the material is ‘strung together’ by remarks
about the route.15 Already here, grumbling by the people is noted (14:10ff.),
something that later on is a regular occurrence in the wilderness (15:22ff.; 16;
17:Iff. etc); rebellion on the part of the people was nothing new, though (5:21;
6:9), while, among others through 14:4, 8, 17f., the account of the crossing is
closely linked with the preceding narrative. 13:17-15:21 forms the climax and
denouement of the account of y h w h ’s confrontation with Pharaoh. The preceding
account is the prelude to the decisive event by the sea.
b. Division o f the material. In 13:17-14:31 the writer alternately focuses on
Israel and Moses (13:17-14:4; 14:10-22; 14:29-31) and the Egyptians and Pharaoh
(14:5-9; 14:23-28). The Masoretic paragraphing into petuhot/setumot wherever
possible ties in with the divine oracles (14:1, 15, 26): 13:17-22 (s); 14:1-14 (p),
15-25 (p), 26-31 (p); 15:1-19 (p); 20-21 (p) (cf. Perrot*, 65, 66). In the Masoretic
text tradition, 15:1-21 is rendered stichically in a certain way (‘half bricks
contrasted with whole bricks;’ bMeg 16b; see EJ , XIV, 107If.; Oesch*, 121 f.)
and subdivided into 15:1-19 (p), 20:21 (p); 15:19 is apparently included with the
song (see exegesis); because of this division the conduct of Miriam and the women
comes to stand independently alongside that of Moses and the men (see exegesis
15:20-21).16
c. Composition o f the text. Many exegetes believe that 13:17-14:31 is not a
homogeneous literary unit. Reference is made, among others, to the following: the
use of the divine name Elohim in 13:17-19 is striking; different motives are given
for the chosen route (13:17f.//14:2-4; different reasons are given for Pharaoh’s
pursuit (14:3f.//14:5a//14:5b); 2 x the formation of the army is mentioned
(14:6//14:7); 2 x the pursuit is mentioned (14:8a, 9a, 10a); there is a considerable
difference in the reaction to y h w h (14:10) and that to Moses (14:11); y h w h ’s
response to Moses in 14:5a is without point of contact in the preceding account;
the protection of Israel is variously described (14:19a//14:19b); the deliverance of
Israel is described in two ways: y h w h ’s causes the sea to dry up; with his staff
Moses causes a path in the sea to be made etc. (see below); two different causes
are given for the confusion of the Egyptians (14:24//14:25a).
A look at what literary-critical investigation has come up with makes one aware
that there is an abundance of conceptions about the composition of the text. A
number of exegetes detect in it the work of J, E, P (among others Baentsch, Noth,
Te Stroete, Hyatt); others the work of J, E and L (EiBfeldt*) and N (Fohrer*). No
agreement exists on which elements in the text belong to which layers. A consen
sus does exist, however, on a number of points. All of the above authors are
15 Cf. 12:37; 13:20; 14:2, 9; 15:22f.; 16:1; 17:1; 19:lf. etc.; see G.W. Coats, CBQ 34 (1972),
135-42; G.I. Davies, TynB 25 (1974), 46-81.
16 For attempts to demonstrate the presence of a clearly literary structure in Exod. 14 see Galbiati*,
157ff. (concentric symmetry) and P. Auffret, Estudios Blblicos 41 (1983), 53-82 (Exod. 14 is a
diptych, having as panels 14:1-14 and 14:15-31); see in particular J.L. Ska, Le passage de la mer:
Etude de la construction, du style et de la symbolique d'Ex 14, 1-31, Rome 1986.
agreed that in any case 13:17-19; 14:19a belong to E (but note Rudolph*, 27ff.)
and 13:21-22; 14:13-14, 19b, 21* (middle part), 24, 25b, 2 T (middle part), 30 to
J. Those reckoning with P, attribute in any case 14:1, 2, 4, 8, 9b, 15*, 16*, 17,
18, 21a, c, 22, 23, 26, 27a, 28*, 29 (?) to P. Those dismissing P do at least
attribute certain passages to E: 14:16b, c, 21a, c, 22, 23, 26, 27a, 28*, 29.
The above exegetes hold that at least in broad lines two versions can be recon
structed: (1) J’s version: the pillar of cloud/fire guides Israel and protects the
people against the Egyptians; y h w h saves Israel; by a strong wind he dries up the
sea; he causes panic among the Egyptians, so that they flee into the dried-up sea;
then he causes the waters to flow back so that they drown; Israel sees the washed-
up corpses; it is often assumed that according to J, when Egypt’s army perished,
Israel was already encamped on the other shore; presumably his version lacked a
crossing through the sea;17 (2) E’s or p’s version: with his staff Moses causes the
sea to divide, creating a path in the midst of towering waves; Israel goes through
the sea; the Egyptians follow, but perish because at Moses’ ‘command’ the walls
of water collapse upon them.18
d. It is commonly assumed that Exodus contains different traditions concerning
the manner in which Israel left Egypt. It is thought that alongside the tradition that
Israel left Egypt with Pharaoh’s approval (12:30-32) there is the tradition that
Israel fled.19 McCarthy et al. (see Introduction exegesis I-IX under d) hold that
the tradition of the secret departure goes with the account of the first nine plagues
and that it culminated in the fortunate outcome at the sea; McCarthy considers chs.
17 So Meyer*, IN, 22ff., the first to suggest it; see also e.g. Eerdmans*, 43; Rudolph*, 31;
Auerbach*, 69f.; not so e.g. Greflmann*, 116; Schmid*, 5 If.
18 Eerdmans*, 40ff., though critical of the sources hypothesis, nevertheless distinguishes two
versions which, on key points, agree with the J and P version. For the discussion of the literary
composition of 13:17-14:31 see further, e.g., E. Otto, ZAW 94 (1982), 194ff.; H.C. Schmitt,
“‘Priesterliches’ und ‘Prophetisches’ Geschichtsverstandnis in der MeerwundererzShlung Ex. 13,17-
14,31,” in Textgemdss (Fs E. Wurthwein), Gottingen 1979, 139-55; J.A. Soggin, “Das Wunder am
Meer und in der Wiiste,” in Melanges M.M. Delcor, Neukirchen-Vluyn/Kevelaer 1985, 379-85; the
passage has been analyzed in great detail by P. Weimar, Die Meenvundererzahlung: Eine redak-
tionskritische Analyse von Ex 13,17-14,31, Wiesbaden 1985, and by M. Vervenne, Het zeeverhaal
(Exodus 13,17-14,31), Diss. Leuven 1986 (with detailed overview of the history of interpretation); cf.
idem, “The Question of ‘Deuteronomic’ Elements in Genesis to Numbers,” in F. Garcia Martinez et al.
(eds.), Studies in Deuteronomy (Fs C.J. Labuschagne), leiden 1994, 243-68, and see also Kohata*,
277ff.; U.F.W. Bauer, Kol haddebdrim h d ’illeh. All diese Worte: Impulse zur Schrifiauslegung aus
Amsterdam expliziert an der Schilfmeererzahlung in Exodus 13,17-14,31, Frankfurt am Main et al.
1991; W. Gross, “Die Wolkensaule und die Feuersaule in Ex 13 + 14: Literarkritische, redaktionsges-
chichtliche und quellenkritische Erwagungen,” in G. Braulik et al. (eds.), Biblische Theologie und
gesellschaflicher Wandel (Fs N. Lohfink), Freiburg et al. 1993, 142-65; H. Lamberty-Zielinski, Das
,Schilfmeer,: Herkunft, Bedeutung und Funktion eines alttestamentlichen Exodusbegriffs, Franfurt a. M.
1993; the results vary. For that matter, the text lends itself to being read as a fairly straightforward
narrative. Difficult points will be taken up in the exegesis.
19 See at 14:5 and e.g. L. Boisvert, ScE 27 (1975), 147-59; De Vaux*, HAI, I, 349ff.; see,
however, M. Vervenne, “De uittocht uit Egypte: ‘Verdrijving’ en ‘vlucht’?,” Bijdragen 49 (1988), 402-
9.
236 EXODUS 13:1 7 - 15:21
11-13 with the tenth plague and Pharaoh’s subsequent permission to leave as
belonging to a different tradition block; in his view, the combination of diverse
material presumably jumbled the original cohesion. For myself, I do not believe
there are two lines: ‘flight’ versus ‘leaving with permission.’ According to
12:3If., Pharaoh gave permission for a three-day journey. It is against that
background that Israel’s departure is to be explained as a flight. In view of the
specific scope of Pharaoh’s permission it is not strange that he went after the
people. Therefore the course of events after Israel’s departure is no postlude but
brings matters to a head: Pharaoh does not want to let Israel go. He keeps
resisting y h w h and his promises. The tenth plague was not the definitive blow.
The death blow was the destruction in the sea. Not until Pharaoh is dead and gone
has his role of being y h w h ’s adversary at last run its course.
e. Just a few remarks about the composition of the text put together with
heterogeneous material. As in the account of the plagues, so also in the account of
the crossing, y h w h ’s instruction to Moses (the preceding information) and the
account of the subsequent events are complementary. Together they offer a totality
picture of the situation (see 14:1-4 and 14:5-9; 14:15-18 and 14:19-25; 14:26 and
14:27-28). Again the description of the event turns out to be even more spectacular
than hinted at by the announcement. Besides, 13:17-19 is to be read as comple
ment to 12:37-39, providing a few more incidentals about the first leg of the
exodus. In the interest of supplementary details, the writer as it were once more
goes over the first stage.
f. As stated above, many exegetes are of the opinion that it is possible to at least
distinguish two versions in Exod. 14. The first version, in which the wind is
assigned a prominent place, is often regarded as more ‘natural.’ The other version,
with its towering walls of water, is characterized as extraordinarily strange. It is
often thought that in the history of tradition the miracle was continually embel
lished (e.g. Baentsch, Beer, Rylaarsdam), though it is also acknowledged that the
first version certainly does not give a rationalistic explanation, but also puts all the
emphasis on the miracle of the deliverance (in particular Noth; Fohrer*, 104).
Gunkel*, Marchen , 108, is of the opinion that the first version embodies a
secondary, more rationally acceptable reworking of the second.
With varying outcomes, modern exegetes have attempted to make the miracle
transparent: (1) Hooking into the role of the wind in the narrative, it has been
suggested that a continuously blowing hot, dry wind pushed back the water and
dried up much of the moisture from a bay or morass, and that after the wind died
down the water ran back (e.g. Baentsch; Beegle*, 160f.); see also 14:22; (2) The
drying-up of the sea is also attributed to combined forces of the tides and the
wind;20 already Artapanus, 35, cites the view that Moses was familiar with the
tides in that area and that the Egyptians became the victims of the changing tide;
2,1 See e.g. Holzinger; Th.H. Robinson, ZAW 51 (1933), 170-3; Cassuto; M. Dayan, BetM 23
(1978), 162-76.
this rationalistic explanation was later put forward by the heretic Chiwi al-Balkhi
(9th century);21 also Philo (VAf, I, 176) cites the movement of the tide as a factor
alongside the wind; Calvin specifically disputes the rationalistic explanation; (3) A
connection is assumed to exist between the exodus and a volcanic eruption; on the
presumption that Yam Suph = Gulf of Aqaba and that the Sinai is to be sought
east of it (Introd. § 8.23.4), GreBmann*, 118ff., assumes that a volcanic eruption
on the eastern shore was accompanied by an earthquake; that caused the sea to
suddenly recede; smoke from the volcano, in which the Israelites detected the
presence of their god, threw the Egyptians into confusion; as they were fleeing,
the returning water washed over them. More recently, a connection has been made
between crossing and plagues and the ca. 1400 B.C. eruption of the Santorin
(Thira) in the Aegean Sea region; presumably it caused a tidal wave in the
Mediterranean Sea which wiped out the Egyptian army stationed at Lake Sir-
bonis.22
g. Is the event a miracle? Several interpreters contend that the miracle was in the
timing, the fact that the astonishing natural event happened at precisely the
moment Israel was in distress (e.g. Cassuto; Beegle*, 160f.). The event is
experienced as an act of God (Buber*, 89ff.). The theories mentioned above under
f clash with the worldview of the writer. For him, y h w h is Lord of history and
nature, who has full freedom to use the powers of nature and before whom no
power is strong enough to resist him. His dramatic portrayal - Israel goes through
the sea flanked by soaring walls of water; Pharaoh and his entire army are
swallowed up - aims to impress the readers with y h w h ’s omnipotence and to
inspire them to put their trust in him. In his desire to give as eloquent a picture of
y h w h ’ s work as possible, the writer depicts a scene that appears incredible to
modem western man. To him, the story of the crossing cannot have been literal
history.23 If the story is taken as reporting actual history, it cannot stand up to
rationalistic critique such as voiced by Reimarus (Introd. § 5.45.2), I, 294ff.
Using calculations and references to the natural condition of the region of the
crossing, he seeks to demonstrate the absurdity of the account. If one were to take
the story literally one would have to assume the impossible, namely, that at least
three million people (there were 600,000 valiant men; 12:37), including women
and children, the aged, sick and invalids, carrying their gear, plus many wagons
and thousands of animals, in only a matter of hours were able to cross the sea,
which one should picture as a broad expanse of water since it offered room to a
21 See J. Rosenthal, JQR 38 (1947-48), 334.

22 See A.G. Galanopulos, Das Altertum 10 (1964), 131-7, and the critique of W. Krebs, Das
Altertum 12 (1966), 135-44, followed by the response from the first, ibid. 13 (1967), 19f.
23 Already Josephus had reservations (AJ, II, 347f.); he points to a similar event in the history of
Alexander the Great, but leaves the judgment to the reader; for that and other "parallels' see Gunkel*,
Marchen, 107f.; Gaster*, 237ff. J. Zandee, in Travels in the World o f the OT (Fs M.A. Beek), Assen
1974, 272, cites an Egyptian "parallel:' a magician partly drains a lake to retrieve an amulet (Papyrus
Westcar 6, 8ff.).
238 EXODUS 1 3 :1 7 - 15:21
large Egyptian army. Moreover, the rocky coast and the uneven sea bed with its
numerous reefs, reed and aquatic plants, must have been an impassable barrier,
not just to the Egyptians, but also to the Israelites. According to Reimarus, the
real history looked like this: Moses flees with a handful of slaves; the king of
Egypt orders them to be pursued by some chariots and drivers; the action ends in
failure; on a stretch of sea bed swept dry by the wind, the pursuers are surprised
by the returning waters (I, 328).
The best the interpreter of the history of the crossing can do is look at it as a
dramatized account fo r the sake o f the proclamation , and note that the portrayal
exhibits midrashic features. Elsewhere in the OT and very early interpretations the
miraculous character is exaggerated even more (see Introd. § 12.6 and exegesis).
The nature of the account is such that the historical course of what precisely
happened defies ordinary observation and explanation. For various conceptions
about it see above and Introd. § 11.3.2-3; 11.6.2. For thoughts on the route of the
exodus and the location of the crossing see Introd. § 8.12; 8.34.
h. Exod. 14-15 exhibits a ffin ity w ith th e o p h a n y a c c o u n ts in the narrow sense
( y h w h ’s appearance is accompanied by quaking in the cosmos) and with a c c o u n ts
o f th e h o ly war/YH W H w a r ( y h w h fights for Israel: cf. 14:14, 24f.) and of th e d a y
o f y h w h ( y h w h judges Israel). YHWH’s/Israel’s enemies not only, but also y h w h -
hostile Israel can be punished or overcome by the forces of nature, which are
weapons or tools used by y h w h to execute judgment.24 The account in Exod.
stands by itself. Only y h w h engages the Egyptians in battle. Israel has no part in
it, not even in the pursuit of the enemies.25 All that rests Israel is sing y h w h ’s
praises (Exod. 15; cf. 2 Chr. 20:26ff.). The picture of the deity fighting for his
people, throwing the enemy into panic, demoralizing him and mobilizing the
cosmos to terrify and crush the enemies, the announcement of deliverance,
offering encouragement etc., are also found in texts from Israel’s ‘Umwelt.’26
i. 14:Ilf. contains a theme occurring also elsewhere in Exodus: Israel turns
against Moses (and Aaron) and so against y h w h himself (cf. 1 Sam. 8:7; John
24 See e.g. Gen. 7:10ff.; 19:24; Josh. 10:11; Judg. 5:20f.; 2 Kgs. 1:10, 12, 14; Isa. 28:2, 17; 29:6;
30:30; Ezek. 13:11, 13; 38:22; see Houtman*, Himmel, 138ff.; for discussion of the ‘holy war,’ see
S.-M. Kang, Divine War in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East, Berlin/New York 1989;
A. van der Lingen, Les guerres de Yahve, Paris 1990; M. Weippert, Z4W 84 (1972), 460-93.
25 Cf. 2 Chr. 20:18ff. - where, unlike in Exod. 14, faith in YHWH precedes the rout of the enemies
and the Israelites carry off the booty - ; for Israel’s role in the YHWH war see e.g. Josh. 10:7ff.; Judg.
4:12ff.; 1 Sam. 7:7ff.
26 See Kang (see above); K. van der Toom, “L’oracle de victoire comme expression prophetique au
Proche-Orient Ancien,” RB 94 (1987), 63-97; Weippert (see above); M. Weinfeld, “Divine Intervention
in War in Ancient Israel and in the Ancient Near East,” in H. Tadmor - M. Weinfeld (eds.), History,
Historiography and Interpretation, Jerusalem 1983, 121-47; idem, VT27 (1977), 183f.
12:44ff.).27 Also if one considers the rebellion against Moses a historic fact, it is
generally held that the theme of rebellion is of later origin, stemming from specific
religious questions and social relationships and tensions. For that reason it is
postulated that the stories provide insight into Israel's religious and social history,
and that one encounters in them such questions and situations as: Why does y h w h
keep himself aloof from the people? Because just like its ancestors they rebel
against him (Tunyogi); following the division of the kingdom, the religious leaders
in Jerusalem disputed the belief, espoused by the inhabitants of the northern
kingdom, that the cult of northern Israel constituted the true worship of the God of
the exodus, by arguing out that northern Israel had forfeited the rights to election
because of the rebellion of the fathers in the wilderness (Coats*, 251); by depic
ting the helplessness of the people without a leader, the importance and legitimacy
of good leadership is stressed; by citing the past, claims in the contest for spiritual
leadership among rival groups are highlighted, etc. (Carroll).
A look at the narratives in Exodus shows the quick mood change on the part of
Israel, for apparently only shortly after the people had entrusted themselves to
y h w h and Moses, they seem to have lost all courage and confidence again. In the
light of background of the Hexateuch as the historical context, one must say that
Israel put a big question mark behind the key redemptive event in its history
(14:1 If.; 16:3; 17:3; Num. 14:2, 4, 11; 20:3f.; 21:5; cf. also Josh. 7:7) and
thereby jeopardizes the fulfilment of the promise of the land. Israel’s wavering and
lack of trust contrasts with y h w h ’s magnanimity, mercy and faithfulness. He
presses on, guides, protects and feeds his people and gives them to drink. The fact
that the promises made to the patriarchs were made good is only due to his
persistence and faithfulness, without any input from the side of the people, y h w h
does not punish the people for their rebellion, but remains the generous benefactor,
at least before the encounter at Sinai. After that the situation changes (see Exod.
32; Num. 11; 12; 13-14; see Introd. § 12.7-8). Evidently the time before the
revelation at the Sinai must be seen as the period of y h w h ’s courtship with Israel,
in which y h w h has opportunity to draw the people into covenantal communion
with himself and to teach them the obligations that go with it (15:25f.; 16:40, and
in which Israel can get to know y h w h so that she can become the people of God,
worthy to be his partner and of entering the promised land. Over the heads of the*12
27 See 15:24f.; 16:2f., 7, 12; 17:2f.; cf. already 5:21; 6:9; see outside Exodus: Lev. 10; Num. 11;
12, 13-14; 16-17; 20; 21. Time of origin, ‘Sitz im Leben’ and purport of the theme are items of
discussion; see P. Buis, “Les conflits entre Moise et Israel dans Exode et Nombres,” VT 28 (1978),
257-70; Childs, 255f.; R.P. Carroll, “Rebellion and Dissent in Ancient Israelite Society,” ZAW 89
(1977), 176-204; Coats*, Rebellion; Fohrer*, 103f.; Fritz*, Wustei Noth*, UP, 127ff.; T. Romer,
“Exode et anti-exode: La nostalgie de 1’Egypte dans les traditions du desert,” in idem (ed.), Lectio
difficilior probabilior? (Fs F. Smyth-Florentin), Heidelberg 1991, 155-72; A.C. Tunyogi, “The
Rebellion of Israel,” JBL 81 (1962), 385-90; M. Vervenne, “The Protest Motif in the Sea Narrative
(Ex 14,11-12): Form and Structure of a Pentateuchal Pattern,” EThL 63 (1987), 257-71; S.J. de Vries,
“The Origin of the Murmering Tradition,” JBL 87 (1968), 51-8.
240 EXODUS 1 3 :1 7 - 15:21
generation of the exodus, the writer holds up to later generations the mirror of
y h w h ’s gracious patience and his willingness to maintain the bond with Israel.
Israel's song at the sea (15:1-21)

j. Bibl.: B.W. Anderson, “The Song of Miriam Poetically and Theologically Con
sidered,” in E.R. Follis (ed.), Directions in Biblical Hebrew , Sheffield 1987, 285-
96; A. Bach, “With a Song in Her Heart: Listening to Scholars Listening to
Miriam,” in A. Brenner, A Feminist Companion to Exodus to Deuteronomy,
Sheffield 1994, 243-54; A. Bender, ZAW 23 (1903), 1-48; M.L. Brenner, The
Song o f the Sea: Ex 15:1-21 , Berlin/New York 1991; A.Caquot, “Cantique de la
mer et miracle de la mer,” in E.-M. Laperrousaz (ed.), La protohistoire d'Israel,
Paris 1990, 67-85; G.W. Coats, CBQ 31 (1969), 1-17; F.M. Cross - D.N.
Freedman, JNES 14 (1955), 237-50; F.M. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew
Epic , Cambridge Mass. 1973, 121-44; J. Day, God's Conflict with the Dragon and
the Sea , Cambridge et al. 1985; F. van Dijk-Hemmes, “Some Recent Views on
the Presentation of the Song of Miriam,” in Brenner, 200-6; D.N. Freedman,
“Strophe and Meter in Exodus 15,” in A Light on my Path (Fs J.M. Myers),
Philadelphia 1974, 163-203; S.A. Geller, Parallelism in Early Biblical Poetry ,
Missoula 1979; J. Goldin, The Song at the Sea Being a Commentary on a Com
mentary, New Haven/London 1971; B. Gosse, “Le texte d’Exode 15,1-21 dans la
redaction biblique,” BZ 37 (1993), 264-71; P. Haupt, AJSL 20 (1903-4), 149-72
(still important for text and terminology); A.J. Hauser, “Two Songs of Victory: A
Comparison of Exodus 15 and Judges 5 ,” in Follis, 265-84; M. Howell, “Exodus
15, lb-18: A Poetic Analysis,” EThL 65 (1989), 5-42; C. Kloos, Yhwh's Combat
with the Sea , Amsterdam/Leiden 1986; E. Levine, “Neofiti 1: A Study of Exodus
15,” Bib 54 (1973), 301-30; N. Lohfink, Das Siegeslied am Schilfmeer, Frankfurt
a.M. 19662, 102-28; J. Muilenberg, “A Liturgy on the Triumphs of Yahweh,” in
Studia Biblica et Semitica (Fs Th.C. Vriezen), Wageningen 1966, 233-51; Norin
(Introd. § 12.1), 77ff.; C. Myers, “Miriam the Musician,” in Brenner, 207-30;
N.H. Ridderbos, Die Psalmen: Stilistische Verfahren und Aufbau, Berlin/New
York 1972; M. Rozelaar, VT 2 (1952), 221-8; H. Schmidt, ZAW 49 (1931),
59-66; H. Strauss, ZAW 97 (1985), 103-9; R. Toumay, “Recherches sur la
chronologie des Psaumes,” RB 65 (1958), 321-57; W.G.E. Watson, Classical
Hebrew Poetry, Sheffield 1984; D.W. Watts, VT 1 (1957), 371-80; E. Zenger,
“Tradition und Interpretation in Ex XV 1-21,” in SVT 32 (1981), 452-83.
k. Are there two songs in 15:1-21? It is commonly held that 15:1-19 does not
belong to one of the consecutive strands of the Pentateuch but is an insertion. In
contrast, 15:20-21 is usually regarded as the original continuation of Exod. 14 and
as such assigned to one of the strands.28 Tied in with this conception is the idea
that 15:21 is to be taken as a separate song, by later editors expanded into the
comprehensive song 15:1-18, but originally presumably sung by Miriam and the
women (not by Moses and the men) in response to the exodus. Presumably owing
to the insertion of 15:1-19, Miriam and her group were made into the singers of a
refrain. Supposedly ‘the song of Miriam’ is very old, while ‘the song of Moses’
originated many centuries after. Another view is that 15:1-18 should not to be
regarded as elaboration of 15:21, but that originally verse 21 was an introduc-
tion/antiphony.29 In support of the first view one could point to Judg. 11:34 and
1 Sam. 18:6f. where women come out after a successful battle, singing songs of
victory. It ought to be remembered, though, that the situation in Exod. 14-15
differs from that of a regular battle. Under normal circumstances the fighters
returning from battle may have been met and hailed by the women, but in the
battle against Egypt not only the women but also the men were passive, y h w h
fought for them! Thus the men were in the same position as the women and had
the same role: to raise the song. Therefore, in my opinion, the notion that the
image evoked by the text, that of men and women praising y h w h in antiphonal
song, cannot be original, lacks cogency. It is entirely possible that 15:21 is
antiphon and, like 15:1, introduction to the song, and that supposedly men and
women in turn sing the song of 15:1-18. Men and women alternate as over and
over they repeat the song (see also p). In short, aside from some explanatory
comments in prose (15:1, 19, 20, 21), 15:1-21 is one song, Israel’s song at the
sea.
I. The song itself raises questions with respect to its age. The contents of the
song is not restricted to what fits within the boundaries of the historical horizon.
Not only y h w h ’s destruction of Egypt’s army, but also the conquest and Israel’s
being established on Zion are brought into view (15:11-18). Is it possible that
Moses and Israel as they stood at the sea actually sang about that? Is it likely that
they mentioned ‘them’ (15:17) (not ‘us’) as the ones on whom fell that blessing?30
The questions are usually answered in the negative. What often happens is, if
15:21 is viewed as a separate song, that it is regarded as of high antiquity.
Fohrer*, 111, e.g. considers it possible that 15:21 embodies the first statement
28 See e.g. Eiflfeldt* (L); Fohrer*, 111 (N); Baentsch (E); Hyatt (J); cf. also Noth; Auerbach*, 70ff.,
and Buber*, 92ff.; the beginning of 15:1 and 15:9 is usually attributed to a redactor; sometimes to P
(e.g. Hyatt); sometimes 15:1 and 15:20f. are regarded as parallel versions (J and E) (e.g. H. Schmidt,
60).
29 See e.g. S. Mowinckel, Psalmenstudien, II, 1921 (repr. Amsterdam 1961), 11 If.; yet another
view is defended by Cross - Freedman, 237f.: 15:21 is the title of the song (E?) and assumes familiarity
with the entire song 15:1-18, which in a different tradition stream (J?) was passed on in its entirety.
30 See Mek. II, 76: it is already stated that not the fathers but the children will enter the land; cf.
Rashi.
242 EXODUS 13:17 - 15:21
about the incident, dating back to soon after the actual happening.31 Already way
back translators and exegetes knew of the problem of the ‘anachronisms’ and
offered various solutions. E.g. in LXX and Vulg., 15:16, 17 is formulated as a
wish while the Pesh. uses the future tense. Ishodad characterizes the song as partly
history, prophecy, prayer and praise. From 15:13 on Moses prays, according to
Ishodad, and predicts future events.32 The view that Moses gives a prophetic
vision is also espoused by later exegetes (e.g. Calvin, Keil, Lange, Gispen). It is
not always the same verses that are translated as future;33 Calvin takes 15:13-18
as such; Gispen 15:15-18.34 On the assumption that y h w h ’s guidance started
earlier already (13:17, 21), the use of the past tense in translating 15:13 is
sometimes considered justified (e.g. Nachmanides). For the question of the tenses
in Exod. 15 see o.
It has been proposed that the current text is the product of an expansion of a
Mosaic song, consisting of 15: lb-3 (e.g. Dillmann) or 15:1-11 (+ perhaps 18)
(e.g. Strack, Heinisch). As such editing and expansion need not be ruled out, but
in respect to Exod. 15 this cannot be clearly demonstrated (Hyatt, Michaeli,
Norin, Watts think otherwise). Evidently, however, the author of Exodus had no
qualms letting the Israel by the sea sing a song that (anachronistical^) mentions
the Philistines (15:14) and refers to Zion (15:13, 17), and which therefore, at the
earliest, got its current shape in the time of Solomon. Cross and Freedman have
repeatedly argued that the song in its original form dates from the 12/11th cen
tury.35 However, their exegesis of 15:13, 17 is unsatisfactory (see exegesis). The
contents of the song has led other interpreters to a late(r) dating: the time of
David/Solomon (GreBmann*, 408); the time of David till ca. 700 (Rozelaar, 226);
the time of Josiah (7th century);36 at the earliest the time before the Exile, but
probably the post-exilic era (Fohrer*, 115); ca. 450 (Bender); ca. 350 (Haupt); ca.
200 (?) (Strauss).
31 See also, e.g., Greflmann*, 351; Beer; Noth; over against it see Weimar - Zenger*, 71 ff.: the
‘song of Miriam’ originated at the .time of David on the occasion of his victories over the Philistines,
with the intent of subtly criticizing him (only YHWH deserves all honour); cf. Valentin*, 375ff.
32 For 15:13ff. as prayer see also e.g. PWB, XXX, 12ff.
33 Presumably prophetic perfects are used; the speaker is so sure of the future event that he describes
it as if it had already come to pass (e.g. Ges-K § 106n).
34 See also e.g. SV (15:15-18 future tense); CV (15:13-17 present tense; 15:18 future tense); UV,
NV, GNB (15:17-18 present tense); Vredenburg (15:13-16 present tense; 15:17-18 future tense);
Dasberg (15:13a past tense; 15:13b-18 present tense).
35 See JNES 14 (1955), 240: the current text of the song goes back no further than the 10th century;
Freedman 1974, 171. 201 f.: the current form derives from the cultus in Jerusalem under David and
Solomon; W.F. Albright, Yahweh and the Gods o f Canaan, London 1968, 10f., 40f., goes so far as to
date it in the first part of the 13th century, including it in the category of ‘triumphal songs’ which are
comparable to the poems celebrating the military prowess of Rameses II, Merenptah, and Tukulti-
Ninurti I, all of which date from that same time; see also e.g. Fensham and the criticism of S.
Mowinckel, VT 5 (1955), 13-33 (27f.).
36 See Beer, Hyatt, and in particular Toumay, 335ff. (with extensive scrutiny of the terminology).
The view of Cross and Freedman rests especially on their contention, based on
their study of Ugaritic literature, that the style, meter and orthography suggest that
the song is old. It must be conceded that as regards language and orthography the
song has a character of its own (see o). However, the argument from language
(prior to the discovery of the Ugaritic texts) has also been used to argue for the
late date (Bender, Haupt) and is burdened with so much uncertainty that it cannot
be used in preference to the argument derived from the specific mention of Zion as
y h w h ’s dwelling place. To the above I add that, along with the defense of the
high antiquity of the song, it has been argued that the influence of the Ugaritic
literature reaches further than the language.37
m. In connection with the question of the age of the song, also important is the
relationship o f the song to the prose version o f the destruction o f Pharaoh’s army
(Exod. 14).38 Did the poetic version come first (Cross - Freedman, JNES 14
[1955], 238f.), or does the song presuppose familiarity with the prose version (e.g.
Baentsch), or do both stem from a common tradition (Childs)? As concerns
terminology, there are similarities between Exod. 14 and 15: e.g. nmer (14:13;
15:2), nanbD (15:3; cf. 14:14, 25), HOD (14:28; 15:5, 10), n n (14:21, 15:8, 10),
*|T1 (14:4, 8, 9, 23; 15:9), M l (14:9; 15:9), (14:25; 15:4), <rn (14:4;
15:4), (14:7; 15:4). Only the similarities of Exod. 14 with 15:4 seem to
stand out. Consequently there is no reason to doubt the independence of one of the
two versions. The one verse which in 15:1-10 specifically refers to ‘horse and
rider’ (15:4) - without this verse one would not know which enemy the song
alludes to - seems to be based on Exod. 14. It would seem that the poem was
composed to complete the prose version (see p). To what extent the writer(s) drew
from old tradition(s) cannot be determined. All in all, it can be said that the song
must have originated before the closing of the large body of literature Genesis-
2 Kings, that is, at the very latest in the time of the Exile (Neh. 9:11 assumes
familiarity with the song).
n. A further question related to the relationship between prose/poetic version and
the age of the song is whether prose and poetry offer the same picture o f the
destruction o f Pharaoh's army. Several exegetes believe that such is indeed the
case and that the picture presented in the song is that of the combined JE/P version
(see c).39 Scharbert (Introd. § 12.1), 401ff., not to mention others, believes that
37 Inspired by L.R. Fisher, VT 15 (1965), 313-24, and P C. Craigie, TynB 22 (1971), 19-26; idem,
VT21 (1971), 83-5, Norin, 85ff., has propounded that the structure of the song: conflict-building of the
temple-monarchy, rests on imitation of the Baal-Anath myth; cf. also Gaster*, 240f., and see Cross
1973, 142, who also, this should be noted (131f.), stresses that in the song the sea is no rival power
but tool in the hands of y h w h .
38 Cf. Judg. 5 alongside Judg. 4, and see esp. J.W. Watts, Psalm and Story: Inset Hymns in Hebrew
Narrative, Sheffield 1992.
39 See e.g. Baentsch, Hyatt, Childs; also in connection with that question, a distinction is sometimes
made between 15:21 and 15:2-18; Fohrer*, 111: 15:21 agrees with the N version, not with J and E;
Noth; Hyatt: 15:21 is close to the J account; note however my interpretation of D'a in 15:1, 4, 21.
244 EXODUS 13:17 - 15:21
15:1-18, 21 embodies a poetic reproduction of the J version (see c) (cf. Meyer*,

IN , 48) and hence has no knowledge of Israel’s crossing of the sea. Cross -
Freedman, 238f., believe that the P version rests on a literal interpretation of the
poetry of the song (cf. Meyer*, IN , 23), while the J version, though closer to the
song, does not correspond with it: the song described how a gust of wind capsized
a boat with Egyptians (see further Cross 1973, 13Iff.). It is possible to interpret
15:8 as follows: the sea dries up because the water was pushed back, causing it to
back up and form a wall on one side (cf. Josh. 3:13ff.); a change in the direction
of the wind caused the water to flow back (15:10). It seems certain, however, that
the assumption is that Israel went through the sea (cf. 15:9), while as such 15:8
does not militate against the picture of the passage between walls of water.
o. 15:1-21 has its own place in Exodus, both terminologically and or-
thographically. About 40 terms are used in 15:1-21 which do not occur elsewhere
in Exodus. The terms that are used are found elsewhere in the OT in poetic and
prophetic literature, in particular the Psalms (see especially Bender). Also on
account of other characteristics, such as the absence of the article (cf. e.g. KoSynt
§ 292a; Ges-K § 126h) and the nota a c c u s a t i v i the text, not considering 15:19,
20 and the beginning of 15:1, 21, can be characterized as poetry. Of the or
thographic characteristics I mention here the remarkable use of the suffix 10- (only
with verbal forms; see DiT^tf in 15:16) of the 3rd pers. pi.*41 and the use of IT
(15:13, 16) (see further exegesis). Striking, too, is the use of imperfects alongside
perfects to relate happenings in the past;42 see 15:5, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17.43 Are
these peculiarities indications of the archaic nature of the text and do they demon
strate its age (Cross and Freedman) or is there a deliberate use of archaisms?44
My inclination is to view the phenomena as no more than indications of the poetic
nature of the text.
p. It is not possible here to deal at length with the characteristics of Hebrew
poetry; for that consult e.g. Ridderbos; Watson. Stylistic and phonetic peculiarities
in 15:1-18 will be pointed out in the exegesis. Here I still wish to touch on a few
more general questions.
Assuming that the song at the sea used to be an independent poem that got incor
porated into the prose of Exodus, one can examine it as a distinct unit and inquire
about its literary genre and ‘Sitz im Leben .’ Various suggestions have been made:
the song is an enthronement psalm (cf. 15:18 and see e.g. Ps. 47; 93; 96-99) with
4(1 They are present in the prose of 15:1, 19; cf. KoSynt § 288a; Ges-K § 117b.
41 9 x ; 15:5, 7, 9 (2x), 10, 12, 15, 17 (2x); cf. 1Q0 (15:3), 1D2 (15:5, 8); cf. Ges-K § 911.
42 Cf. KoSynt § 152; Ges-K § 107d; Brockelmann § 42e; Meyer § lOOd; Williams § 177; Cross
1973, 125; Freedman 1974, 186.
43 The imperfects in 15:6, 7 1 regard as general statements and I have rendered them with the
present tense (cf. 15:18).
44 For the question see e.g. Baentsch, 129f.; Beer, 84; Norin, 82ff.
as ‘Sitz im Leben’ the enthronement festival of y h w h ;43*45 it is the thanksgiving

liturgy of the Spring festival,46 the ‘Passahkantate’ of the Passover feast celebra
ted in Jerusalem since the reform of Josiah (621),47 a hymn with elements of the
song of thanksgiving48 and the victory song (Fohrer*, 112f.). As noted, Cross
and Freedman advocate the unity of 15:1, 21 and 15:2-18. They regard it as a
victory hymn. According to Cross 1973, 121, 123, it served a function during the
old New Year festival celebrated in spring.
The song looks like a hymn and thanksgiving song and, since it offers something
of a sketch of salvation history, it somewhat recalls the historical songs (Ps. 78;
105; 106; 135); for that reason, also due to the terminology (see o), stereotypical
expressions and lack of specifics (see 15:2-10 excepting 15:4), the song would not
be out of place in the Psalter. The question presses whether the song might have
been composed with the use of material from Israel’s religious hymnody to
enhance the account of the crossing and mark the annihilation of Pharaoh’s army
as a climax and turning point in Israel’s existence.49 If the proposed suggestion is
correct, it would mean that the song in the form in which it occurs in Exodus was
never an independent song and that it makes no sense to search for the ‘Sitz im
Leben.’ For understanding the song, only the ‘Sitz in der Literatur’ would be
significant: the literary context of the song is the victory festival (15:20), in which
y h w h is given thanks for the victory and praised as a terrific warrior (15:3), king
(15:18), and a worker of wonderful happenings (15:11). The song is not to be
detached either from the end of 14:31: trust in y h w h . In that sense the song is
also a credo which recalls the great salvific events, the breaking free from
Pharaoh, the trek through the wilderness and the invasion of the land (see also
Essentials). In agreement with the situation pertaining at the moment - Israel has
complete trust in y h w h - obviously missing is admonition, so typical of other
historical overviews (Introd. § 12.6.7).
It was already noted that the text evokes images of the victory festival, with men
and women singing in rounds (see k). To that may be added that it is very well
possible that it is assumed that the song was performed by a variety of voices
(choirs).50 The following scenario seems entirely possible: 15:1-3 was performed
by one voice (Moses); the doxologies (15:6-7, 11) and the account of y h w h ’s
43 See S. Mowinckel, Psalmenstudien, II, 56, 11 If., 330; idem, The Psalms in Israel's Worship, I,
Oxford 1962, 126, 140, 154f. et al.; cf. J. Jeremias, Das Konigtum Gottes in den Psalmen, Gottingen
1987.
46 H. Schmidt; cf. Muilenburg; see the critique of Rozelaar, 221 f.
47 Beer; cf. among others Haupt, 152; GreBmann*, 408; Toumay, 327, 340, 357; Rozelaar, 227;
Michaeli; the song, however, does not deal with Passover and exodus; Beer characterizes 15:21 as
‘Siegestanzlied;’ cf. Fohrer*, 111.
48 Noth: 15:21 is a hymn passed on through the cultus.
49 1 Chr. 16:7-36, a song composed from parts of Ps. 105, 96, and 106, has a comparable function;
the composite character is the likely reason for the obscurity of 15:12 in the current text (see exegesis).
50 Cf. e.g. H. Schmidt, 60f,; A. Maecklenburg, BZ 22 (1934), 112ff.; Muilenburg, 236; Rozelaar,
221 i.
246 EXODUS 13:17 - 15:21
actions (15:4-5, 8-10, 12-13, 14-17) by various choirs; the ending (15:18) by all;
15:21 by one voice (Miriam) etc.51 Apparently one should picture it like this: the
song was sung over and over again and the singing kept going for hours, while the
dancers swirled faster and faster and the drums grew louder and louder and the
ecstasy mounted until the participants, with a feeling of satisfaction but physically
exhausted, simply quit. They had given all they had.
q. Metrical structure o f the song. Several exegetes assume that the song is based
on a 2+ 2 meter and - occasionally - the 3+3 meter (according to the Ley-
Sievers system; the accented syllables are counted).52 In my translation I have
reckoned as much as possible with the presumed metrical structure and balance of
the poem.53
Is it possible to discern strophes in the poem? Various suggestions have been put
forward: 15:T, 2-5, 6-10, 11-13, 14-17, 18 (Rozelaar); 15:1-5, 6-12, 13-17, 18
(Watts); 15:T-3, 4-6, 7-8, 9-10, 11-13, 14-16d, 16e-18 (Fohrer*, 113f.); 15:1-2,
3-5, 6, 7-8, 9-10, 11, 12-14, 15-16d, 16e, f, 17-18 (Freedman 1974; 15:6, 11,
16e, f are characterized as refrain; cf. Muilenburg); 15:1-6, 7-11, 12-16, 17-18
(Levine, 327).54 In ‘my judgment, the division proposed e.g. by Dillmann, Strack,
Baentsch best fits the song (15:1, 2-5, 6-10, 11-17, 18). I append a few comments
to that division.
15:1 stands by itself. The first half of the verse provides a situation sketch. The
second half starts the poem with words of self-exhortation from the singer(s) and a
statement of the theme of the song. The lines of the verse return in 15:21, bracket
15:1-21 (inclusio), and can be regarded as introduction and antiphon.
15:2-5 breaks down into (1) 15:2-3: a song in praise of y h w h , followed by
(2) 15:4-5 which offers a motivation for the praise by pointing to y h w h ’s deeds in
history: the annihilation of Pharaoh’s army.
15:6-10 breaks down into (1) 15:6-7: a song in praise of y h w h , followed by
(2 ) 15:8-10 which offers a motivation for the praise by pointing to y h w h ’s deeds
in history: the annihilation of the enemy (Pharaoh, the Egyptians).
Twice in 15:2-10, preceded by a song of praise, the destruction of Pharaoh’s
army is variously depicted. Note the following: in 15:4, in agreement with 15:2-3,
y h w h is referred to in the third person; in 15:8ff., in agreement with 15:6-7, he is
referred to in the second person; in 15:4 the army is specifically mentioned; in
15:9 the ‘enemy’ is referred to in general terms but his intentions are clearly
stated; in 15:8, unlike in 15:4, a concrete picture is given of y h w h ’s intervention;
51 Already rabbinic exegesis discussed how the song was sung and the respective roles of Moses and
the people in it; see Mek. II, 2, 7f.; bSota 30b; Ginzberg*, II, 33f.; see also at 15:21.
52 See e.g. Cross - Freedman 1955; Cross 1973, 126; Fohrer*, 113f.; Muilenburg; Norin, 114f.
(differently e.g. Noth, Cassuto).
33 See further on the question of meter Ridderbos, 10f.; Freedman 1974; H.W.M. van Grol, De
versbouw in het klassiek Hebreeuws I: Metriek, Amsterdam 1986.
34 Older views in Haupt, 150f.; for the disputed question whether strophes are part of Hebrew
poetry, see P. van der Lugt, Strofische structuren in de Bijbels-Hebreeuwse poezie, Kampen 1980.
the description of the perishing in the waters in 15:5 corresponds on some points
with that in 15:10. The repetition enhances the miraculous nature of the event, it is
an unparalleled occurrence, bound to make an impact (15:14-16).
15:11-17, like the preceding section, divides into parts: (1) 15:11: a song of
praise to y h w h , followed by (2) 15:12-17: a motivation for the praises by pointing
to y h w h ’s actions in history; y h w h leads Israel through the desert to Zion. 15:12
refers to the time in the desert; 15:13-17 to the entry and settlement on Zion;
15:13 and 15:17 are correlative and bracket 15:14-16 (inclusio), which details the
reaction of the surrounding nations and the Canaanite people to y h w h ’s mighty
deeds. One can also say that just as Pharaoh’s overthrow is related twice, so also
the entry into Canaan and settlement on Zion, wrought by y h w h , are related 2 x
(15:13, 17) and thereby emphasized.
15:18 can be regarded as a coda, a conclusion and summary of the preceding
verses. The expressions of praise bracket the account of the images from history
and converge in a closing acclamation the tones of which are already heard in the
song: y h w h is king. The grounds for the statement in 15:18 are given in the
preceding verses and so, terminologically, y h w h ’s kingship is already expressed
there as well. For example, in the terms 11*0 and nxa (15:1, 7); majesty goes with
kingship (cf. Ps. 93:1); similarly TU (15:13; cf. Ps. 93:1) and TIN (15:6, 11; cf.
Ps. 93:4). Two aspects of kingship are depicted: the king in his role of warrior
(15:3), battling the enemy and protecting and freeing those who are his (cf. Ps.
74:12), and the king in his role of keeper of his people (15:13).55
r. At many points, TPsJ, TNf and FT offer a more elaborative version of the
song. It is not possible to deal with that at length in the exegesis. For details see
Levine; also for references to rabbinic exegesis. The Shirta tractate from Mekilta ,
which contains the explanation of the song, has been translated and supplied with
comments by Goldin. Here I cite just a few elements from the interpretation of the
rabbis. Like elsewhere (see e.g. at 14:26), also in the exegesis of the song it is
repeatedly pointed out that there is a correlation between the punishment suffered
by the Egyptians and their crimes toward Israel; they were repaid in kind: the
Egyptians drown in the sea because they killed the Israelite boys by drowning
them (1:22); they got mired in the mud because they made the Israelites toil in
brick making (1:14); they sank like a stone (]1X) (15:5), because they had ordered
the children to be killed at the birthing stools (□'•jaN) (1:16) etc. (e.g. Mek. II,
36f., 39, 50f.; PWBy XXVIII, 5ff.). Repetitions are not regarded as typical of
poetic style, but - there is not one word too many in Scripture - offer oppor
tunity to search for the hidden meaning they contain. For example, from the fact
that 3 x the punishment of the Egyptians is mentioned: ‘like stones’ (15:5), ‘like
straw’ (15:7), ‘like lead’ (15:10), it is inferred that not all Egyptians were
punished to the same degree, because not all were equally bad (Mek. II, 39; cf.
33 15:13 evokes the image o f YHWH as shepherd o f his people; ‘shepherd’ is a frequently used
m etaphor for the king, see 3:1.
248 EXODUS 13:17 - 15:21
Rashi).
s. The song has become part of the readings in the Jewish synagogue on the
seventh day of the Passover festival. Its location there is based on Israel’s history:
Israel sang the song on the seventh day of the exodus. The argument runs like this:
on the third day (cf. 3:18 etc.) the Egyptians who followed Israel noticed that the
people did not return; on the fourth day Pharaoh was notified; on the fifth and
sixth day Pharaoh set out in pursuit; on the eve of the seventh day the Egyptians
plunged into the sea; on the morning of the seventh day Israel sang the song.56
Noteworthy is that Origen {Horn, in Exod.y V), linking the crossing with the
baptism and so with the suffering, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ (Rom.
6:3f.), situates the crossing on the third day, the day of the resurrection. Thus it
causes no surprise that in the Roman liturgy the song is part of the worship in the
night before Easter (cf. Lohfink, 105f.).57
Exod. 15 belongs to the nine odes, sung during the Lauds in the Greek Orthodox
Church. In traditional Roman Catholic liturgy, the song is used once a week
during the Lauds. In MSS of the LXX, the Psalms are followed by a collection of
canticles, with Exod. 15:1-19 (or 21)58 being the first. Exod. 15 is also among
the canticles included in Latin Psalters and translations of them, the Middle-Dutch
Psalters.59
t. We are not sure when the custom of reading Exod. 15 on the Jewish Passover
arose.60 As noted above, it is motivated by a chronological scheme imposed upon
the text. Whether the current text of Exodus rests on a presumed chronological
scheme, is unsure. Going by 12:37; 13:20; 14:2, it could be conjectured that Israel
arrived at the sea on the third day of the exodus.61 In that case the crossing must
have taken place during the night (cf. 14:20) from the third to the fourth day.
There seems no possibility to make any sort of connection between the feast of
3:18 etc. (Vol. I, 375ff.) and that of Exod. 15 (where y h w h himself sets the stage
for a feast in his honour).
56 Cf. EJ, XIV, 1071 f.; J. Mann, The Bible as Read and Preached in the Old Synagogue, I,
Cincinnati 1940, 435ff., and see Rashi and Nachmanides on 14:5.
57 For the song of Moses in the NT, see Introd. § 13.8; cf. R. Meynet, “Le cantique de Moi'se et le
cantique de l’Agneau (Ap 15 et Ex 15),” Gregorianum 73 (1992), 19-55.
58 See Swete (Introd. § 1.1), 253f.
59 See e.g. J.G. Heymans (ed.), The Leningrad Psalter, Leiden 1973; idem, Psalters der Modeme
Devotie, Leiden 1978; see also e.g. H. Schneider, uBiblische Oden im syrohexaplarischen Psalter,” Bib
40 (1959), 199-209.
60 The Mishna is still unfamiliar with it; cf. Megillah 30b and see the gemara of Megillah 31a; see
beside it Jub. 49:23 (the seven-day festival is completed on the shore of the sea) and FTP on 15:18
(15:18 is recited by Israel in the Passover night in which the Messiah appears).
61 So Artapanus, 34; did Pharaoh then set out in pursuit (14:5)? Cassuto, 159, 161, offers a different
view.

EXEGESIS
13:17 When Pharaoh let the people go, God did not lead them by way o f the
land o f the Philistines, although that offered a direct route. For God thought: ‘It
must not happen that the people, faced with battle, change their minds and return
to Egypt. ’
13:17-19 describes the route followed by the departing Israelites and provides the
motive for it (13:17-18a); indicated is how the leaving went (13:18b), and
something Moses did is recorded (13:19). v n , see Introd. § 3.13.3. ‘let go,’ see
Introd. § 3.49.2. In rabbinic discussion, the opening words of 13:17 gave rise to
detailed homiletical remarks (e.g. ExR. XX, Iff.; MidrTanh. Exod. IV, Iff.). Did
the initiative for letting the people go come from Pharaoh? In PWB, II, 2 Iff. (cf.
Zohar Exod. 45b) ‘the people’ is identified as the ‘mixed multitude’ (12:38) that
was not part of Israel: they believed that Pharaoh, not God, had made the exodus
possible, and they considered going back in case there would be trouble with
Pharaoh and the Philistines. It is clear, however, that these words refer to what is
related earlier: the demand presented to Pharaoh to let the people go and his
refusal to comply (5:2 etc.). The people owe their exit to y h w h !
‘the people,’ see Introd. § 3.40.1. on; perf. qal (+ pi. suff. relating to collec-
tivum) of nm (OT 39 X ; qal 11 X ; hiph. 28 X ; but note TWAT , V, 336ff.), ‘to
guide,’ ‘to lead;’ in 32:34 with Moses as subject; often with God as subject
(13:17; 15:13); as to meaning, hiph. (13:21) corresponds with qal. See THAT , II,
53ff.; TWAT , V, 334ff. ‘God’ (Introd. §7.2.1) has no specific connotation in
13:17-19; not so Cassuto; see also Eerdmans*, 40f.; Rudolph*, 27); TO, TPsJ,
TNf: ‘yhwh.’ How God leads is indicated in 13:2If., after it is stated in 13:20
that the people arrived at the desert; from that point on a guide is indispensable,
‘by way of ...,’ see Introd. § 8.28 and 3:18; for the accusative Brockelmann § 89.
'3 (Introd. § 3.25.2) is sometimes understood as explicative (e.g. Baentsch) or
causal (e.g. Dillmann). The precise interpretation of 'D was a point of discussion
among mediaeval rabbis; see Leibowitz*, 234ff.; she regards ‘because’ as correct:
God prefers the longer route despite the apparent drawbacks; in reality it is the
better route (see below). 3 n p , see 3:5. ‘to think,’ see Introd. § 3.5.1. ID, see
1: 10.
a n ; ' imperf. niph. of ana (OT ca. 110x ; niph. ca. 50x ; piel 50x); scholars
are not agreed about the nuances peculiar to the verb; in 13:17; 32:12, 14, on]
niph. (often with God as subject; 32:12, 14) means, it would seem to me, ‘to give
up/abandon’ (an earlier point of view), ‘to go back on a decision;’ it involves a
‘change of heart’ (often the verb is rendered ‘to repent/feel sorry’), brought on
e.g. by changing circumstances (13:17), or through intercession (32:12, 14; cf.
Amos 7:3, 6); in 13:17 am is used in the absolute (cf. Jer. 20:16; Ps. 106:45 et
al.); in 32:12, 14 followed by n m rrtu (cf. Jer. 18:6, 8, 10; Joel 2:13; Jonah
3:10; 4:2; + n in rr tx in 2 Sam. 24:16; Jer. 26:3, 13, 19; 42:10); the conse
250 EXODUS 13:17 - 15:21
quence is the adoption of a new standpoint.62 Note the play on words onj - Dnr.
n m , see Introd. § 3.46.1. nBn^D, see 1:10. ueh (see 4:7), with consecutive
waw.

The identity of the enemy Israel may have to fight is not stated. It is suggested that
y h w h wants to head off a confrontation with the Philistines (anachronism) and a
flight back to Egypt; the direct connection makes returning easy (e.g. Dillmann,
Strack, Beer). For that matter, when Israel after a detour arrives at Canaan, it
turns out that getting to know the neighbours is still an argument for going back
(Num. 14:3f.). Modem exegetes have come up with still other reasons, besides the
ones cited, for the detour: on the main route it would not take much to get int
fray with Egyptians; Moses has to lead the people to the Sinai (3:12) (e.g.
Fensham, Honeycutt). The three explanations already occur in some form in
Josephus (AJy II, 322ff.). He attributes the choice of route specifically to Moses.
Likewise also Philo ( VM , I, 163f.). According to him, the two reasons for the
detour are Israel’s fear that the inhabitants of Palestine might offer resistance and
Moses’ plan to test Israel’s faithfulness under difficult circumstances. The text
speaks only in general terms about battle. Nothing is said about possible instiga
tors. According to 14:Iff., the altered route results in Pharaoh’sdestruction.
Ultimately the way leads toward Sinai (19:If.) The text is based on not entir
harmonious traditions.
TPsJ contains an expansion: it is stated that the confrontation with dead,
unburied brothers, two hundred thousand brave men from the tribe of Ephraim,
would instil fear in them and make them turn around; mention is made of an
exodus thirty years before the moment set by God (cf. Gen. 15:13 beside 12:40f.),
which ended in a slaughter by the Philistines (cf. 1 Chr. 7:21-23); their bones are
the bones brought back to life by Ezekiel (Ezek. 37).63 For this interpretation see,
among others, Mek. I, 172L;64 ExR. XX, 1Iff. (with additional other explana
tions such as: God wants to destroy Egypt in the sea).65 Ishodad offers an explana
tion in the spirit of the rabbis. He cites six reasons, including pedagogical: the
wilderness is a training school for the Israelites, whose heart is still with the idols
and impure rituals of the Egyptians etc.
13:18 So God made the people take a detour, in the direction o f the wilderness,
62 See THAT, II, 59ff.; TWAT, V, 366ff.; B. Maarsingh, in Ubersetzung und Deutung (Fs A.R.
Hulst), Nijkerk 1977, 113-25.
M FTP is more detailed at this point: Nebuchadnezzar drinks from vessels made from the bones;
having come back to life, they hit him in the mouth, etc.
64 Another interpretation is mentioned there as well (I, 170ff.), including the following: when the
Israelites after a detour still want to go back (Num. 14:4), then certainly by the direct route; cf. Rashi.
65 Cf. M.J. Mulder, JSJ 6 (1975), 141-66; Ginzberg*, III, 6ff.; H. Sysling, Techiyyat ha-metim,
Zutphen 1991, 232ff.
in the direction o f Yam Suph. In orderly fashion the Israelites went away from the
land o f Egypt.
30-1 (Ges-K § 67y; Jouon § 82i), see 7:24. ian o n y n , see Introd. § 3.31 and
3:18. ‘Yam Suph,’ see Introd. §8.12. Sam. Pent.: 1310 y n , which makes it
possible to translate as ‘the way through the desert of Yam Suph* (cf. TPsJ and
e.g. WV). The popular translation ‘through the desert’ (e.g. Vredenburg, Dasberg)
is wrong, I believe. It wrongly suggests that Israel is already in the desert. 13:20
and 14:3 indicate that such is not the case.
D'tfpri (13:18; Josh. 1:14; 4:12; Judg. 7:11) is usually regarded as a pass. part,
pi. of tfon (e.g. Ges-B, HAL , Zo.; BDB: adjective); the meaning is uncertain
(Heinisch: read O'ltfBn, ‘free men*); in the ancient translations the term is various
ly translated; LXX: 7tep7txT| 5e yevep, ‘in the fifth generation’ (Jacob, Levi,
Kohath, Amram, Moses or Levi ... Gershom, so Calmet);66 Theod.: 7rep7ixal(ov-
xe<;, ‘on the fifth day;’ Aq.: evconAiapevoi, ‘equipped for battle;’ Symm.:
oTiAixai, ‘heavily armed warriors;’ TO: vntD , ‘armed:’67 the rendering ‘armed*
also in Pesh., Vulg.; TPsJ offers a version all its own: y^SB Ntfon or “in ^Di,
‘each with five small children’ (see also TPsJ on 12:37). The above shows that
D'&Dn is taken to mean ‘armed’ or explained with the help of 0Dn, ‘five’ (Introd.
§ 4.6) (cf. also MSS Sam. Pent.; SamTJ: D'KPDn). Additionally, in Mek. I, 174f.,
the interpretation ‘full of zeal* is given. A translation based on ‘five’ has produced
a variety of explanations. In Mek. I, 174f., the number is linked with the rabbinic
explanation of the ninth plague (see 10:22f.): only one out of five, in fact only one
out of five hundred, in fact even fewer Israelites left, for a great many had died in
Egypt (cf. Rashi).68
A favourite interpretation is ‘armed;’ see e.g. Rashi,69 Ibn Ezra,70 Nach-
manides71 etc.; it has also found its way into the lexicons.72 Also much later
explanations based on ‘five* proved popular; see e.g. SV: ‘bij vijven’ (‘by
fives’);73 Van der Palm: ‘in five hosts.’74 In this translation the orderliness of
the departure is stressed. Because order makes one think of military discipline, the
interpretation is close to the explanation ‘equipped for battle.’ In turn, this
explanation is sometimes clarified with the use of BDn, ‘five’/D'BDn, ‘fifty:’ the
66 Cf. Frankel*, 106f.; for the chronological problem see Introd. § 11.4.
67 So also SamTA; cf. TNf, FT: "armed with good deeds;’ the expression is spiritualized; see R. Le
Deaut, in De la Torah au Messie: Melanges H. Cazelles, Paris 1981, 525-33; cf. 2 Cor. 6:7; Eph.
6 : 11.
68 Other rabbinic views are found, e.g., in Zohar Exod. 46a.
69 Already here it is made clear how Israel could take up arms against Amalek (Exod. 17) etc.
70 Israel left Egypt triumphandy and not stealthily as fugitive slaves.
71 They were armed, because despite the altered route they feared the Philistines.
72 See e.g. Ges-B: ‘streitfertig, kampfgeriistet;’ BDB: ‘in batde array;’ HAL: ‘kriegsmassig
gegliedert.’
73 Similarly also e.g. Calmet; Annot. SV: ‘or in five groups or hosts’ (Murphy points to Num. 2);
see also PWB, III, 12ff.
74 In annot.: ‘bij vijftigen’ (‘by fifties’).
252 EXODUS 13:17 - 15:21
Arabic hamfs , ‘army,’ is to be understood as a body consisting of five parts: top,

end, middle, two wings (cf. e.g. Dillmann; KBL)\ D'tiBn and the Arabic hamfs
reflect the organization of the army in detachments of fifty (Meyer*, IN, 501).75
Ehrlich points out that the interpretation ‘armed’ produces a tension between 13:17
and 13:18: if one is fully armed, there is no need to fear and turn around.76 He
reads: •lby^Q’Hpm ‘and they carried with them what was precious to them’
( □ n a n see Isa. 44:9).
An informed choice is not easy to make. I am inclined to downplay the military
aspect. Rather, the text emphasizes the orderliness that marked the exodus and the
self-confidence of the people as they left (cf. 12:41, 51; 13:8 and see 6:26).
Therefore I prefer the rendering ‘In volmaakte orde’ (‘in orderly fashion’) (CV)
over e.g. ‘prepared for battle’ (WV; NRSV; cf. TEV) and ‘well armed* (GNB).
13:19 And Moses took the bones o f Joseph with him. For he had made the sons
o f Israel promise under oath, saying: ‘When God shows his care fo r you, you must
carry my bones with you from here. ’
‘to take,’ see Introd. § 3.30. D2S1J, see 12:17. ‘Joseph,* see Introd. § 5.29.
(for construction see Ges-K § 1131ff.; Joiion § 123dff.), see 13:5; Sam. Pent, and
LXX MSS explicitly mention Joseph as subject, ‘sons of Israel,’ see Introd.
§ 8.13.1. It is assumed that they had made the promise. "IDN*?, see Introd. § 3.5.2.
“ipa, see 3:16; LXX has Kupio<; (yhwh) as subject, ‘to carry with,’ see Introd.
§ 3.39.2.
See also at 1:6; cf. Acts 7:15f.; Mek. I, 182; Rashi; Calvin; Calmet, and see
also Heb. 11:22. TPsJ tells how Moses obtained Joseph’s bones: From the Nile,
Moses brought up the box that held them. The reference is to a tradition related in
Mek. I, 176f.: while the Israelites were collecting valuables (12:36), Moses frets
about the oath. He learns that the Egyptians threw Joseph in a metal box into the
Nile. He throws a golden tablet engraved with the tetragammaton in the water,
calls Joseph and tells him that God’s deliverance has arrived. Then the box drifts
to the surface.77
13:20 They set out from Succoth and encamped at Etham on the edge o f the
wilderness.
The verse describes the second stage of the exodus (cf. 12:37). 1703, see 12:37.
75 Other derivations are found in Dillmann; see also Palache*, 30; for still other views P. Joiion,
Melanges de I ’Universite Saint-Joseph 10 (1925), 11-3; fully armed with five kinds of battle gear:
lance, sword, helmet, armour, shield.
76 The tension is absent in, among others, LXX, TPsJ, TNf (see above). Ezekiel the Tragedian,
210; Demetrius (in Eusebius, PE, IX, xxix, 16; cf. Holladay*, 77), Philo (VM, I, 170, 172), Josephus
CAJ, II, 321, 326) relate that Israel was unarmed; after the crossing they acquired the weapons of the
Egyptians (AJ, II, 349).
77 Cf. bSota 13a; for other stories about Moses’ search for Joseph’s mortal remains see ExR. XX,
19; Zohar Exod. 46a; PWB, III, 16ff.; Ginzberg*, III, 5f.
‘Succoth,’ see Introd. § 8.24; for portrayal in TPsJ see 12:37; cf. Mek. I, 182f.
imperf. cons, qal of run (OT ca. 140x ; Exod. 9 x ; Num. ca. 75x), ‘to
encamp;’ run follows after verbs of movement (e.g. 13:20; 15:27; 19:2) and
indicates it has come to an end; in Exodus it is used in connection with the journey
from Egypt to Sinai (13:20; 14:2 [2x], 9; 15:27; 17:1; 18:5; 19:2 [2x]). Like in
English, the derivative njqD (OT ca. 215x ; Exod. 19x), can mean the actual
camp as well as the persons occupying it; it can denote a military camp/force (e.g.
the army of Egypt; see 14:20, 24 [2x]), but it is not a specifically military term;
in Exodus nano denotes the company of the Israelites (14:19, 20) and Israel’s
camp (16:13 [2x]; 19:16, 17; 29:14; 32:17, 19, 26, 27; 33:7 [3x], 11; 36:6).
See TWAT, III, 4ff.; C. Houtman, VT 28 (1978), 37-44. ‘Etham,’ see Introd.
§ 8.4; Sam. Pent.: + "i&K; cf. among others TO, TPsJ, FTP. nap, see 12:41.
13:21 Always y h w h went before them, by day in a pillar o f cloud to show them
the way, and by night in a pillar o f fire to give them light, so that they could travel
by day and by night.
13:22 By day the pillar o f cloud never left its post and by night the pillar always
went in front o f the people.
The thread of the story is briefly interrupted for information about the manner in
which Israel was led. ‘yhwh,’ LXX: 6 0eo<;; cf. 13:17-19. "J^rt (for part, see e.g.
Ges-K § 116o), see Introd. § 3.14.3; LXX: ‘God led them’ (cf. Frankel*, 86);
TNf, FTP: ‘the Word of yhwh went ...;’ TPsJ: ‘the Glory of the Shekinah of
yhwh went ....’ ‘before,’ see Introd. § 3.42.2. (Ges-K § 53q), hiph. of
nna, see 13:17; FTP: ‘to prepare a camping place for them;’ Sam. Pent.: "pn.
t i k , see 10:15. The ending of 13:21 from ‘to give them . . . ’ on is missing in LXX,
and given a free rendering in Vulg.: ut dux esset itineris utroque tempore, ‘to be a
guide by day and by night;’ after ‘by night’ TPsJ also mentions the in 14:19f.
stated function of the pillar of cloud: it positions itself behind Israel to envelop the
pursuers in darkness, on4?, cf. KoSynt § 289d. nD4?4?, yhwh’s going makes the
going of the people possible.
erp; (Sam. Pent.: enD') is a form of ehD (OT 20 x), ‘to give way/move from
the place’ (Num. 14:44 et al.); sometimes tf'D' (13:22; 33:11) is regarded as a qal
imperf.;78 sometimes tf'D' is considered a hiph. imperf. (e.g. DBD ; KoW; Zo.;
cf. Rashi, Ibn Ezra); in the last case it is possible to regard yhwh as subject: ‘he
removed’ (cf. SV in 13:22 and KJV: ‘He took not away’); usually, however, the
hiph. is given its direct-causative sense and the pillar of cloud regarded as the
subject; in that case, its meaning does not differ from qal: ‘it moved away.’ For
imperf. see Joiion § 113f. Sam. Pent.: and tfN (without article). LXX: ‘all the
people.’ Mentally 13:22b should be read with the verb, including negative, of
13:22a supplied; likewise the designation ‘in front of the people’ of 13:22b should
78 Based on tf-D as a cognate form of BhD; e.g. Ges-B; KBL\ HAL\ TWAT, IV, 761ff.; cf. KoHkl, I,
512f.
254 EXODUS 13:17 - 15:21
be inserted with 13:22a; so the two clauses complement each other through the
addition of one element from each. The compressed text requires an expanded
translation; see already TPsJ, TNf, FT1’. 13:21-21 has a poetic character; die ‘by
day’ and ‘by night’ run parallel in both verses (cf. Buber*, 91).
The pillar o f cloud/fire

I J p i D S ; T in y (OT ca. 110x; Exod. 39x), derivative of mi? (see 3:5),
‘column,’ ‘pillar’ (BRL, 259f.), often (31 x ) occurs in the pi. in Exodus in
connection with the tent shrine (26:32, 37; 27:10 [2 x ], 11 [2x], 12, 14, 15, 16,
17 etc.) and in construct chains py(n) may (13:21, 22; 14:19; 33:9, 10), ‘pillar
of cloud,’ and e?t$(n) may (13:21, 22; 14:24), ‘pillar of fire.’ The nomen rectum
indicates the material the column consists of; cf. lpj? m ay, ‘column of smoke,’ a
column-like cloud of smoke (Judg. 20:40). For 0K see 3:2. 1J|J? (OT ca. 85 X ;
Exod. 2 0x), ‘(bank of) clouds,’ a collective, is to be distinguished from n ;;y ,
‘the single cloud.’79 In Exodus py is always used in connection with the coming
or presence of y h w h .
1. In the pillar of cloud y h w h is the guide of the people by day; in the pillar of
fire by night (13:21, 22; 14:19, 20, 24; Num. 14:14; Neh. 9:12, 19; cf. also
Deut. 1:33; Ps. 78:14 and Introd. § 12.7.1). Presumably it was one pillar or
column, during the day consisting of a bank of clouds, during the night it was a
kind of fire ball (cf. 14:24). The guidance provided by the pillar implies protection
(cf. 14:20). The pillar of cloud is located above the earth. If y h w h desires to get
in touch with people, the column descends.80
2. The conception of y h w h ’s presence in banks of clouds occurs in Exodus also
with only the term py in the context of another range of words (including HOD,
Kba, n to , p tf). In a number of passages there is a close connection between
y h w h ’ s presence in the mm m ap (see 16:10) and the enveloping clouds. That is
how he makes contact with Moses in the wilderness (16:10f.), on the Sinai (24:15-
18), and occupies the tent shrine (40:34, 35; cf. Num. 17:7 and see also Lev.
16:2, 13). Of the bank of clouds that rested on the tent shrine after its erection, it
is stated that its movements determined Israel’s movements: the huge cloud sets
the moment of departure as well as the length of stay at a particular location
(40:36-38). By night the fire within made it visible (40:38; cf. Num. 9:15ff.;
10:Ilf.). That is how y h w h leads Israel (40:38 speaks of a mm py; cf. Num.
10:34; 14:14). Like 13:21f., 40:36-38 expresses the fact that under all circumstan
ces and at every moment81 of its journey Israel enjoyed y h w h ’s guidance and
protection. He alone determines the coming and going of the people. Likely the
79 See M. Ben-Asher, Semitics 6 (1978), 2.

" See 33:9, 10; Num. 12:5; see also Deut. 31:5; Ps. 99:7; in 34:5; Num. 11:25; 12:10
apparently refers to the pillar of cloud; in 33:9; 34:5; Num. 11:25; 12:5 the pillar (of) cloud serves for
coming down (t v ).
81 ‘by day’ and ‘by night* (Introd. § 3.23.1) are each mentioned three times (Introd. § 4.4.1) in
13:2 If.
texts from Exodus mentioned under 1 and 2 belong to different literary traditions
(1 is regarded as part of J/E; 2 of P). Consequence of the blending of traditions is
that they become interwoven and impact each other. Therefore, in my judgment, it
is desirable to render pun in 16:10; 24:15; 34:5 as ‘the cloud’ (= the cloud
already introduced in the story) and not as ‘a cloud* (e.g. NV, WV, GNB in
16:10; 34:5 and GNB in 24:15), though grammatically such seems possible (cf.
Ges-K § 126r; Jouon § 137n, o). The picture presented in 19:9, 16 stands by
itself.
As a term for ‘cloud’, ay (OT 30x) occurs in 19:9 in the genitive construction
I jy n a # ;82 in 20:21 (OT 15 x ) , ‘dark cloud.’83 Through a cloud y h w h
makes it known he is the God who is near. He reveals himself while simultaneous
ly hiding himself. No human being can see God and live (Introd. § 3.42.4).
Presence in the cloud fits y h w h ’s freedom and energy.84
For travel through unfamiliar and dangerous territory a guide is indispensable.
According to OT thinking, y h w h himself (cf. Isa. 52:12; Mic. 2:13) guided his
people through the desert. This thinking is articulated in the OT also in other
ways: y h w h ’s messenger (see 3:2) and face (Introd. § 3.42.4), the Ark (see at
25:10) point the way (cf. also 32:1, 4).
Many exegetes include the role of the pillar of cloud/fire among the miraculous
traits in the story. Unwilling to consider it a product of pure fantasy, they search
for the origin of this imagery. The quest has produced disparate suggestions: it
stems from the practice of guiding caravans and armies with signals, using smoke
signals by day and fire signals by night;85 the image arose from the observation
of the volcanic eruption of the Sinai (Introd. § 8.23.4); with the god of the
mountain, the cloud became detached from the mountain;86 the background of the
picture is in part terrible weather and in part the phenomena accompanying an
active volcano (Fohrer*, 102); the ‘cloud* was originally the dust cloud of the
82 Not to describe the material the cloud consists of (Reymond*, 14), but to denote the superlative
(KoSynt § 309k; Ges-K § 133i; Jouon § 141m).
83 Cf. Deut. 4:11; 5:22 and see J.A. Loader, De fructu oris sui (Fs A. van Seims), Leiden 1971, 99-
107.
84 Cf. Houtman*, Himmel, 324ff. See in NT, Matt. 17:5 par.; Acts 1:9 and further THAT, II,
35Iff.; TWAT, V, 978ff.; VI, 270ff., 397ff.; J. Luzarrago, Las tradiciones de la nube en la Biblia y en
el Judaismo primitivo, Roma 1973, 22ff. etc.; Ohler*, 16ff.; Reymond*, 14, 37f.
85 See e.g. Dillmann, Holzinger; cf. Keil, Cassuto. Beegle*, 149, 151, 159, goes so far as to
suggest that the column refers to a brazier of burning wood which the Israelites carried on a long pole.
Grefimann*, 111 n. 7, doubts there is sufficient solid proof for the custom, noting that by day all that
was needed was a guide. It is surprising that time and again the conservative Beegle opts for rational
explanations; the view that the pillar of cloud/fire was a portable signal for guiding a column is already
mentioned by the English Deist John Toland (1670-1722); see ‘Hodegus,’ in Tetradymus, London 1720;
cf. Reimarus (Introd. § 5.45.2), I, 302. Toland sought to render problematic miracles acceptable by
offering rational explanations, and in consequence in his time elicited strong protests from conservative
exegetes (BB, 170ff.). The messenger of God (14:19), he thought, was the man who was charged with
tending the fire.
86 See e.g. Grefimann*, llff., 242ff.; Auerbach*, 171ff.; cf. Noth, 86.
256 EXODUS 13:17 - 15:21
wilderness in which nomads from time to time detected the coming and guidance
of their god;878the picture derives from the cult: God manifests himself in a cloud
of incense (Lev. 16:2, 13; Isa. 6:4; 1 Kgs. 8:10f.);M the background is the
smoke arising from the altar of burnt offering, or the bronze pillars Boaz and
Jachin in front of Solomon’s temple (1 Kgs. 7:21), fiery cressets, which at
festivals emitted clouds of smoke and flame by day and night (IDB , III, 817); the
imagery derives from Ugaritic mythology, in which ‘cloud’ and ‘fire’ belong to
Baal's military escorts; pillar of cloud/fire belonged to the tradition about the holy
war and are closely associated with the cultic tradition surrounding the Ark;89
‘cloud’ must be understood against the background of the winged solar disk,
familiar from the iconography of the Ancient Near East, and the melammu and
puluhtu/pulhu , a fear inspiring divine nimbus, mentioned in Akkadian texts.90 In
my view, all one can say is that the elements of clouds and fire, characteristic of
theophanies of y h w h 91 can also be used to indicate his permanent presence.
Already way back, the nature and character of the pillar of cloud have fascinated
excgetes. Philo (VM, I, 166) tells that during the day its light was like the sun and
during the night like a flame. Gregory of Nyssa (VM, I, 30) stresses that the
nature of the cloud is beyond human understanding: it is a shield against the sun
and moistens with light dew the hot air, etc. In Zohar Exod. 45a, the presence of
the cloud (with the accompanying heavenly hosts) is credited with a turn-around in
Israel’s mood: they were broken by suffering, but revived and were filled with
joy. Since the cloud offers guidance and protection, it is not surprising that it has
been associated with the Holy Spirit (by church fathers; e.g. Gregory of Nyssa, II,
121), with Christ (e.g. Calvin and BB , 166), and with the Word of God, ‘a lamp
to our feet and a light to our path’ (Da Costa*, 216; Murphy).
14:1 Thereupon y h w h spoke to Moses, saying:

14:2 T ell the Israelites to turn back and pitch their camp before Pi-Hahiroth
between Migdol and the sea; before Baal-Zephon, opposite the place, you must
pitch your camp by the sea. ’
The context suggests that the revelation was given to Moses at Etham (13:20).
y h w h instructs Moses about the third stage of the exodus and he is informed about
Pharaoh’s reaction to it (14:1-4). Beside 14:1 see 6:10; 13:1. ‘Tell ...,’ cf. 6:11.
me; (see 4:7); Ehrlich contends that the meaning here is ‘to halt;’ the view rests on
the assumption that a verb in Hebrew can denote the negative of the opposite
meaning: the opposite of ‘return’ is ‘go forward;* the negative of it is ‘to halt’ (cf.
87 F. Schnutenhaus, ZAW 76 (1964), 13; cf. e.g. Cole: it may have been some kind of desert
whirlwind which can produce rotating columns of fine sand which halt and move over the desert.
88 Beyerlin*, 142, 154, 177f.
89 Th. W. Mann, JBL 90 (1971), 15-30.
90 Mendenhall*, 32ff. Lipinski*, 108ff., associates, among others, the Hebrew m n m n with the
Mesopotamian imagery.
91 Cf. Isa. 4:5 and the smoking fire pot and the flaming torch of Gen. 15:7.
Num. 11:36; Cant. 7:1).92 The conventional meaning makes good sense (see
14:3). TPsJ adds: lirrmnN*?, ‘backward,’ viz. so that Pharaoh would not think that
Israel was fleeing (cf. Mek. I, 189f.). njn, see 1:20. LXX: ‘before them you must
pitch your camp.’ Pi-Hahiroth (Introd. § 8.27) is equated with Pithom in PWB ,
VIII, 1Iff. (cf. Mek. I, 188) and explained as the place where the Israelites
became ‘free people’ (vnin); cf. Rashi. ‘Migdol,’ see Introd. § 8.15. ‘the sea,’
see 10:19 and Introd. § 8.12. ‘Baal-Zephon,’ see Introd. § 8.5.93 It is not impos
sible that the names are more than topographical designations. In the history of
interpretation, ‘etymology’ has been used to discover a deeper meaning in the
names (e.g. Origen, Horn, in Exod.y V). However, there is no way one can trace
what the writer may have had in mind with the names. All that can be said is that
the name Baal is striking: while yhwh’s adversary Baal just watches, not doing a
thing, yhwh’s adversary Pharaoh perishes.
in?} (Ges-K § 93q; Meyer § 52.1a); (OT 25 x) is a substantive used as
preposition: ‘over against,’ ‘before’ (14:2; 26:35; 40:24); see e.g. Brockelmann
§ 116e. Though only a short while ago there was talk of God’s personal guidance
(13:21f.), here the impression is given that Moses is to show the way.
TPsJ has a detailed elaboration after Pi-Hahiroth, ‘Mouths of the square rocks’
(cf. Mek. I, 188ff.): ‘which were created with human forms, male and female,
with opened eyes. That is the place Tanis, between Migdol and the sea, in honour
of the idol Zephon, who was left over of all the idols of Egypt. For the Egyptians
will say: Baal-Zephon is exalted above all idols, because he was left over and not
struck (this happened to mislead the Egyptians; see Mek. I, 190) and so they will
come to worship him and they will find you there, while you will encamp in front
of him on the shore of the sea.94
14:3 ‘Then Pharaoh will think o f the Israelites: “In the country they have walked
into a trap. The wilderness blocks their wayn. ’
The juss. at the end of 14:2 is followed by consecutive perfects in 14:3, 4. ‘think,’
see Introd. § 3.5.1. LXX: Pharaoh will say to his people: ‘The Israelites ....’
According to TPsJ, Pharaoh speaks to ‘Dathan and Abiram, Israelites who had
remained in Egypt’ (cf. TNf margin); on them see Vol. I, 303. b in the
sense of ‘in reference to,’ ‘with regard to* (e.g. KoSynt § 327g; Ges-K § 119u).
Pharaoh’s consideration is poetic in form.95 It consists of two parts, the first
containing his assessment of Israel’s circumstances, the second an elucidation of
the predicament the Israelites find themselves in.
92 See also R. Gordis, JBL 52 (1933), 153-62.

93 Cf. K. Koch, “Hazzi-Safon-Kasion: Die Geschichte eines Berges und seiner Gottheiten,” in B.
Janowski et al. (eds.), Religionsgeschichtliche Beziehungen zwischen Kleinasien, Nordsyrien und dem
Alten Testament, Freiburg/Gottingen 1993, 171-223.
94 For what is special about the place see Mek. I, 190; Ginzberg*, III, 10f.; in PWB, IX, 4ff.,
healing power is attributed to Baal-Zephon.
93 Cf. J.S. Kselman, JBL 97 (1978), 169.
258 EXODUS 13:17 - 15:21
is usually regarded as a niph. pi. part, of "|U (14:3; Joel 1:18; Esth.
3:15) (Jotion § 801; Meyer § 80.4e) and thought to mean: they are in a state of
confusion, have lost their way, wander about disoriented; cf. LXX: 7iAavo>vxai;
TO: ‘they are disoriented* (VâirD); TPsJ: ‘the people of the house of Israel have
lost their way’ (VSitD'D) and see also Pesh. (‘they are strangers’), SamT. In TNf
and FT p u ts is given a free rendering; TNf: ‘they are lost (lÛCD) on the way;’
FT: ‘they are lost (V"U£D) in the wilderness.* C. Rabin, ScrHie 8 (1961), 388,
suggests that the Arabic baka , commonly appealed to for the traditional translation,
gives ground for the meaning: ‘to be scared’ (likely due to the lack of food; cf.
Joel 1:18). Norin (Introd. § 12.1), 34, has contended that D'Daj is a qal pass,
part, of "pj (cf. Job 38:16; 28:1 lcj; Prov. 8:24cj), which he associates with the
Arabic nabk , ‘quicksand:’ the Israelites have ended up in quicksand (of Lake
Sirbonis; see Introd. § 8.12.2). Also Rashi has associated it with "pj, as e.g. in
Job 38:16. He takes it to mean ‘what is sunk,’ ‘the depth:* they are caught and
sunk (for elucidation, Rashi points to the French ‘serrer’). A similar translation
occurs in Vulg.: coartati sunt , ‘they are closed in.* In view of 14:2 and the sequel
of 14:3, an interpretation like that is appealing; the squeeze is not just figurative
(cf. Joel 1:18; Esth. 3:15), but also literal: the Israelites are hemmed in, are in a
tight spot, with no way to go when Pharaoh bears down on them. (Introd.
§ 3.6) does not quite seem to fit (cf. TNf, FT; see above) and is left untranslated,
e.g. in WV, GNB. For myself, I believe it serves an important function: Pharaoh
notes that the Israelites are still in the land; what he always wanted to prevent,
Israel’s leaving the country (1:10), has not yet happened and can still be preven
ted.
perf. (representing a present; Ges-K § 106g; Joiion § 112a) of "130 (OT ca.
90 x), ‘to shut/close;’ see TWAT , V, 753ff.; hoc loco + i v of the person (cf. Job
12:14); the writer wants to say: the wilderness has shut Israel in (cf. Isa. 24:22);
the people have no way to turn: they are ‘surrounded* by the sea, the wilderness
and Pharaoh. That is the conclusion Pharaoh will draw when he learns that Israel
turned around at the edge of the desert (13:20) - that barrier they do not dare to
tackle - and encamped by the sea. Josephus (AJ , II, 324f.) depicts the geography
that enclosed Israel without mentioning names: the people were caught between
inaccessible precipices and the sea. Similarly Philo (VMy I, 170): in back the sea,
in front the enemy, on both sides trackless desert. TNf 14:3b goes in translation
like this: ‘Baal-Zephon, my idol, has closed to them the paths of the wilderness;*
similarly TPsJ, FT. Mek. I, 191: ‘to close off,’ viz. by wild animals (cf. e.g. ExR.
XXI, 5). PWBy IX, 25ff.: Baal-Zephon has rendered them immobile by his power,
with on the one side Pharaoh and on the other sides the wilderness and the sea.
14:4 A nd then I will make Pharaoh obstinate, so that he will pursue them and I
will gain glory fo r myself before Pharaoh and before his whole army. Then the
Israelites will realize that it is /, y h w h . ' Thus they did.
‘to make obstinate,* see Introd. § 3.19; 3.29.1. perf. cons, qal of *)"n (OT
ca. 145 x ; qal ca. 130x), ‘to pursue,’ ‘to chase’ (+ nnK; Introd. § 3.1.1) (14:4,
8, 9, 23; 15:9). See TWAT , VII, 362ff. In Vulg. ‘you’ is object; ditto in 14:17a.
122 niph. (Ges-K § 51p), see 4:10; the following 2 (2x; first time with dageS
lene; Ges-K § 2 Id) is also thought to denote ‘in’ (LXX, LV, Vredenburg),
‘through’ (Dasberg), ‘at the expense o f (WV). Ehrlich: 122 niph. + 2 = to
avenge oneself on account of an insult (cf. Lev. 10:3; Ezek. 28:22; 39:13).
(OT ca. 245x), ‘power,’ ‘strength,* ‘might,’ is often used in reference to
‘military strength’ (e.g. 1 Kgs. 20:1, 25; 2 Kgs. 6 :14f.; Isa. 43:17; Ezra 8:22);
similarly in 14:4, 9, 17, 28; 15:4; Deut. 11:4 for Pharaoh’s army; the army meant
here consisted entirely of chariots and crew, not infantry (14:6, 7, 9, 17, 18, 23,
25, 28; 15:1, 4, 15, 19, 21). The construct chain occurs in 18:21, 25;
erN /'rn 'tiix as a rule denotes a warrior/warriors, ‘fighters’ (Judg. 3:29;
20:44, 46; 2 Sam. 23:20; 24:9 etc.), men in top physical and mental condition.
The organizational structure described in 18:21, 25 recalls the structure of an army
and seems the likely background. The requirements for ‘officers* in a societal
structure coincide to some extent with those of army officers: they must be
energetic men, mentally and emotionally strong, resolute and of sound judgment,
possessing personal authority (cf. Gen. 47:6; 1 Kgs. 1:42; 1 Chr. 26:8). See
TWAT , II, 902ff.; Schafer-Lichtenberger*, 313ff. ‘to realize,’ see Introd. § 3.22;
cf. 7:5. ‘I ....’ see Introd. § 7.3.7. ‘to do,’ see Introd. § 3.41.1. In PWB, X, 8 the
Egyptians are subject: ‘And why did they do that?’
14:5 When the king o f Egypt was informed that the people were on the run, he and
his courtiers changed their minds about the people. They said: ‘What have we done
that we let Israel go , so that they can no longer do forced labour fo r us! ’
According to 12:3If., Pharaoh had only given permission for a sacrificial feast of
a three days journey. 14:5-9 describes the reaction of Pharaoh and his men when it
dawns on them that Israel has no plans to return. "133 hoph., see 4:28 (not so
Ehrlich). According to TPsJ, the report was brought by ‘the (Egyptian) officers
who had left with Israel’ (cf. TNf margin), namely, to determine if Israel would
abide by the agreement of a three-day journey; after three days Israel’s real
intention becomes clear.96 Heinisch: the commander of Etham notified Pharaoh;
Cassuto: police and officers gave the report, ‘king of Egypt,’ see Introd. § 5.66.
m 3 , see 2:15; TO: ‘to go’ (^ tn). Strack (wrongly): m 3 is here (seemingly)
aimless wandering. "JBH niph., see 7:15. ‘their minds,’ see Introd. § 3.29.1.
‘courtiers,’ see Introd. § 3.37.2. Sam. Pent.: instead of i x . nxmiD (Ges-K
§ 37b, c); n«T serves to strengthen no (e.g. Joiion § 143g).97 ‘to let go,’ see
Introd. §3.49.2. LXX: ‘the Israelites.’ "313170 (Introd. §3.37.1), ]0 + inf.
96 Mek. I, 194; cf. I, 189; also Amalekites are mentioned as informants; see also PWB, X, 9ff. (with
still another explanation; cf. Zohar Exod. 46b); Rashi; Ginzberg*, III, 9ff.; Rosmarin*, 96.
97 For no followed by Httto (expresses blaming someone) see M. Ogushi, Der Tadel im AT,
Frankfurt am Main etc. 1978; cf. EMATP, I, 73f.
260 EXODUS 13:17 - 15:21
expresses a negative consequence (KoSynt § 406n; Joiion § 169h).

It is often thought that 14:5a and 14:5b are from different literary traditions:
presumably according to 14:5a Israel fled without the Egyptians (e.g. Grefimann*,
115) or Pharaoh knowing of it (Fohrer*, 107), or reneged on the agreement that
they would only hold a sacrificial feast (e.g. Meyer*, IN, 20f., 35f.; Auerbach*,
68f.); that is a reason for Pharaoh to step in; presumably 14:5b presupposes
consent to leave for good, a permission later regretted. To me, 14:5b can be read
as an expression of regret about granting permission for a three day journey
without securing guarantees for return (12:3If.). The announcement of Israel’s
flight has a sobering effect on Pharaoh and his men and puts an end to their
apathy. According to Artapanus, 35, the fact that the Israelites carried with them
the possessions of the Egyptians provoked the king to action (cf. ExR. XX, 2).
The text talks about the loss of slave labourers. For that matter, in light of the
background of Exodus it is wrong to postulate that Pharaoh and his cronies are
worried about the effects Israel’s leaving may have on Egypt’s economy (e.g.
Strack, Fensham). Rather, they sense that the use of slave labour, to which they
had resorted to nullify the promises, has been knocked out of their hands (see Vol.
I, 240f., 244f.; 467f.).
14:6 He readied his chariots and took his troops with him.
14:7 He took six hundred o f the best chariots plus all other chariots o f Egypt, with
ranking officers in each o f them.
1 0 ^;] (Ges-K § 63e, 0, imperf. cons, qal of ")0K (OT ca. 70x), ‘to bind,’ ‘to
seize,’ ‘to put in prison’ (Gen. 39:20; 40:3, 5; 42:24; Judg. 15:10, 12f. et al.; cf.
Gen. 42:16, 19 niph.), ‘to make ready’ (of a chariot) (14:6; Gen. 46:29; 2 Kgs.
9:21; absolute in 1 Kgs. 18:44; 2 Kgs. 9:21; see also 1 Sam. 6:7, 10; Jer. 46:4
and Gen. 49:11; 2 Kgs. 7:10). LXX explicitly: ‘Pharaoh.’ UDi (Introd. § 9.1.18)
in 14:6, 7 I take as a collective; usually UDi in 14:6 is understood as ‘his
chariot;’ but note LXX: t a appaxa; TNf: ’iDmK, and e.g. Dillmann, Cassuto.
Meant is no doubt that Pharaoh had his chariots made ready (cf. Ibn Ezra with a
reference to 1 Kgs. 6:14). In rabbinic exegesis, the interpretation ‘his chariot’
(e.g. TO, TPsJ, FTP, SamT) is linked with the view that something special is
described: personally Pharaoh (so explicitly TPsJ: mtfD]) got his chariot ready.98
1D1? (Introd. §3.40.1), LXX: ‘all his people;’ cf. Vulg.; TNf follows with:
K 2 i p ' i 2 v , ‘battle-seasoned;’ cf. FTP: manp n a y m-Diai, ‘and his men, ready
for battle;’ TPsJ has an altogether different addition: ‘with lots of
fine talk;’ Pharaoh makes all sorts of fine promises; cf. Mek. I, 200; Rashi.
Though ‘people’ is used here in a narrow sense, implied is also the contrast
‘Pharaoh’s people’ - ‘y h w h ’s people;’ Egypt’s people are again on the side of
Pharaoh (cf. 12:33). Note the ‘play’ with the consonants, ‘to take with,’ cf. 13:19.
14:16 is chiastically structured. The report of the flight impels Pharaoh to regroup;
See Mek. I, 98ff.; haste leads Pharaoh to disregard protocol; see further Leibowitz*, 248ff.
cf. Gen. 31:22f. and also 1 Kgs. 2:29 (Saul reacts differently; see 1 Sam. 23:13;
27:4); on Gen. 31:22, 23, 25 beside Exod. 14:5a, 6, 9a see Fuss*, 301ff.;
Weimar-Zenger*, 5If.
14:7 is, I believe, an amplification (not a doublet) of 14:6; first the reader is
given specifics about the military equipment; next something is said about what
Pharaoh’s troops are like, ‘six hundred,’ see Introd. § 4.12.2. Josephus (A/, II,
324) gives additional figures: 50,000 horsemen; 200,000 footmen; for the impres
sive composition of the army see also Ezekiel the Tragedian, 193ff.; Philo (VM, I,
168).
Tinp qal pass. part, of m 2 (OT ca. 175x), ‘to choose;’ in 17:9; 18:25 of men
(cf. Josh. 8:3; 1 Sam. 13:2; 2 Sam. 10:9Q; 17:1); it is assumed that the troops are
hand-picked; criteria are suitability and quality; so "nnn denotes ‘prime,’ ‘the
best,’ while derivative "irQJ? (OT 12x) means ‘choicest’ (15:4; Jer. 48:15; Ezek.
23:7; 24:5 et al.). m 2 in Exodus has no theological content.99 ‘all other’
(cf. Strack); Ehrlich: read ‘from all’ (cf. Judg. 20:34; 1 Sam. 24:3).
Baentsch regards ‘and all other chariots of Egypt’ a doublet or a redactional
addition, because it is inconceivable that Pharaoh would put his expedition in
jeopardy by fielding so many; others play down 2 (Introd. § 3.26): all he could
hastily get together (Strack; cf. Heinisch); a great quantity (Cassuto). The writer is
not concerned about whether or not it is within the realm of possibility; his
concern is to highlight the sheer hopelessness of Israel’s situation (cf. 14:10);
saying that all of Egypt’s chariots along with Pharaoh himself disappeared in the
sea (14:26-28) is his way of stressing how absolutely marvellous y h w h ’s liberation
was. LXX: ‘and the entire cavalry of the Egyptians.’
After ‘Egyptians’ there follows in TPsJ: ‘of his servants, who feared the Word
of y h w h (cf. 9:20) and who had not been killed, either by the pestilence (cf. 9:6)
or the hail,100 and to each chariot he added a third mule so that the chase would
go faster.’ ‘a third mule’ (Krrrp^n NrrbiD) is an interpretation of the problematic
ntibw (Introd. § 4.4.5), which already way back puzzled translators; LXX:
TpioTocT&i, ‘triumvirates’ (three per chariot; chariot fighters?); Aq.: xai xpiooout;,
‘threefolds;’ Symm.: ava xpeic;, ‘three’ (per chariot); in Vulg. the end of 14:7
reads: duces totius exercitus; TO: r"Q'3, ‘heroes;’ TNf: p a i m , ‘officers;’ TNf
margin: ‘polemarchen;’ FTP: Nr-ra ‘heroes with three
types of arms;’ see further the discussion in Mek. I, 202f. and also 15:4.
14:8 And y h w h made Pharaoh, the king o f Egypt, obstinate, so that he pursued the
Israelites as the Israelites were leaving in high spirits.
Cf. 14:4. LXX: ‘the heart of Pharaoh ... and of his courtiers’ (cf. 14:5). ‘to
99 See THAT, I, 275ff.; TWAT, I, 592ff.; H. Seebass, Z4W90 (1978), 105f.; B.E. Shafer, TAW 89
(1977), 20-42; Vriezen*, Verkiezing, 22ff.; Z. Weismann, VT31 (1981), 441-50.
100 Cf. Mek. I, 201; back of it lies the question from where Pharaoh could get these animals for
pulling the chariots; see PWB, XI, 25ff.; Rashi, and e.g. exegesis fifth plague.
262 EXODUS 13:17 - 15:21
leave,’ see Introd. §3.24.1. ‘in high spirits’ (Introd. §3.21.4); Klostermann*,
165: read: HDl; the people are desperate. The targums contain diverse interpreta
tions; TPsJ: ‘with an uplifted hand, triumphing over the Egyptians;* TO, TNf,
FTP: 'by tfn a , ‘with uncovered head;* a covered head is a sign of subjection (cf.
1 Cor. 11:4ff.; see McNamara*, 176); both interpretations are cited in Mek. I,
203f. and additionally the idea that, while the Egyptians were jeering, Israel sang
y h w h ’s praises (cf. Nachmanides). Ephraem gives this interpretation: ‘with gold
and silver, clothing and livestock and with poise’ (cf. Gen. 15:14). The noun
clause at the end describes an event that happens simultaneously with the principal
action of the sentence (KoSynt § 362p; Ges-K § 14le). Ehrlich attributes conces
sive force to the circumstantial clause: though they had left openly, Pharaoh
pursues them as if they had fled in secret; cf. also CV (‘hand’ is, however,
associated with God); some also start the end ‘but,* on the assumption that there is
a contrast between the end and what precedes (e.g. Strack, NV [God’s hand] and
GNB). In my opinion, meant is that the Israelites left in a triumphant spirit
(14:8b), unaware of Pharaoh’s pursuit (14:8a). When they learn of it, their mood
changes (14:10ff.), even as earlier Pharaoh’s mood had changed (14:5).
14:9 The Egyptians pursued them and caught up with them , as they (the Israelites)
were encamped by the sea - all Pharaoh1s horses and chariots, his chariot
drivers, yest his army (caught up with them) by Pi-Hahiroth before Baal-Zephon.
imperf. cons. hiph. of JfcJ (OT 50x), ‘to overtake,* ‘to reach’ (14:9; 15:9;
Gen. 31:25; 44:4, 6; 47:9; Lev. 26:5; Deut. 19:6 etc.). See TWAT , V, 643ff.
‘horses ... chariot drivers* (Introd. §9.1.18), eha in Exod. 14-15 is variously
rendered in LXX; in 14:19 with 6 i7i7ieu(;, ‘horseman’/ ‘chariot fighter;’ in 14:17,
18 with 6 iTtitot;, ‘horse;’ in 14:23, 26, 28; 15:19 with 6 avapdTr|<;, ‘horse-
man’/ ‘chariot fighter;’ cf. 14:7 LXX. It is possible to understand l'rm as ‘and the
rest (train) of his troops’ (cf. Strack on 14:7). Other passages (cf. 14:17, 23, 28)
render this explanation less likely. Possibly the word order of 14:9 got somewhat
jumbled. I take the waw as an explicative waw. ‘the rest of;’ cf. Strack on 14:7.
For the depiction of the situation see 14:2; before ‘Pi-Hahiroth’ the proposition bv
is used. The designation of location is interrupted by a closer definition of the
subject. I'rm ... is sometimes considered an insertion (e.g. Dillmann,
Baentsch), that should be left out (e.g. LV). In any case, it is stated that the whole
army is present (cf. 14:6f.). After ‘sea’ TPsJ contains an elaboration about the
Israelites: ‘while they collected pearls and gems, which the Pishon had carried
from the garden of Eden in the Gihon and which the Gihon had carried to Yam
Suph and Yam Suph had deposited them on the shore.* Elsewhere mention is made
of the people collecting pearls and gems after the crossing (see 14:30, 31).
Because 14:8 talked about Pharaoh’s pursuit, the beginning of 14:9 might seem
to be a doublet. Note, however, that also in 14:10 first the approach of Pharaoh
and then that of the Egyptians is recounted. The narrative is a bit wordy, recalling
a stylistic feature in poetry. An oft-occurring feature in poetry is that parts of
verses taken together convey a particular picture; in the same way, the statements
here, taken together, express what the writer seeks to convey: Pharaoh and the
Egyptians go after the Israelites.
14:10 As Pharaoh approached, the Israelites looked up. Perceiving that the
Egyptians were moving after them, they were terror-stricken and the Israelites cried
to YHWH.
14:11 To Moses they said: ‘Was it because there were no graves in Egypt that
you brought us with you to die in the wilderness? What have you done to us,
bringing us out o f Egypt?
14:12 Is not this ju st what we meant when we asked you in Egypt: uLeave us
alone. We want to keep doing forced labour fo r the Egyptians ?” It would sure be
better fo r us to do forced labour fo r the Egyptians than to die in the wilderness. ’
14:10-12 describes the reaction of the people, ignorant of y h w h ’s strategy (14:3-
4), to the approach of Pharaoh and his army, a ip hiph. (see 3:5), is read in TPsJ
as meaning ‘to offer:’ Pharaoh saw that the idol Zephon had been spared and
offered him sacrifices;101 Rashi: he forced himself to go ahead, as he had pro
mised (see 14:6); other interpretations in ExR. XXI, 5; PWB , XII, llff,; Zohar
Exod. 47a. ‘to look,’ see Introd. § 3.38; S.C. Reif, 5VT36 (1985), 230-44. Philo
( VM, I, 169): before they saw something, they heard a terrible noise. Sam. Pent.:
4- in t i , ‘and they saw’ (m o with following m \ see 1:17). rum, see Introd.
§ 3.15.2. tfOi (see 12:37) part, sing.; Sam. Pent.: Q'V01\ either is possible with
□ n so as subject (Introd. § 8.19 and see 14:25, 30); the pi. in, among others,
LXX, Pesh. appears to rest on interpretation (Vulg. does not have a translation);
the sing, led the rabbis to present the following exegesis: the detachments went
forward as one man (Mek. I, 206); the genius of Egypt was seen (and perished
with Egypt).102 TND, see 1:7. pys, see 2:3. ‘to YHWH’ as the Lord of the world
enthroned in heaven (Houtman, Himmmel, 328ff.). Old exegetes (e.g. Ephraem)
wonder how Israel could be afraid, seeing they boasted 600,000 valiant men
(12:37). Ibn Ezra points to their slave mentality and their unpreparedness for
battle. Having been slaves for years on end, bondage was still so much in their
bones that they trembled as soon as they saw their masters (cf. Leibowitz*, 244f.).
The language in 14:11-12 is sarcastic. In TPsJ ‘the godless of that generation’
are subject. It removes the ambivalence in the reaction of the Israelites (see 14:10b
beside 14:11), which modem exegetes attribute to the blending of literary strands.
In the words of Nachmanides: Some cried to YHWH; others were blaming Moses.
It is not impossible that such is the intent. The tension can also be removed by
understanding p r s in 14:10 as ‘to accuse* (cf. 5:15 and see Nachmanides).
However, according to old interpretations (e.g. Mek. I, 206f.; PWB , XIII, 19ff.)
101 Mek. I, 205, adds the comment that Pharaoh thought that Baal-Zephon approved of his plan to
destroy the Israelites in the water.
102 ExR. XXI, 5; XXII, 2; cf. Zohar Exod. 50a; PWB. XIII, 17ff.; XXII, 12ff.; Rashi; Ginzberg*.
Ill, 25.
264 EXODUS 13:17 - 15:21
‘praying’ is what is meant.103 '^ 2 (see 8:18) and fN (see 2:12), double negative
for emphasis (KoSynt § 352x; Ges-K § 152y; Williams § 394).
"Q£> (OT ca. 65 x), ‘grave,* is a general term (e.g. Num. 19:16, 18), which can
designate a cave used as a sepulchre (e.g. Gen. 23:4, 6, 9, 20; 25:9; 49:30;
50:13), a dug-out tomb (Gen. 50:5; Isa. 22:6), but also a hole or trench in the
soil, the final resting place of ordinary people (cf. 2 Kgs. 23:6; Jer. 26:23).104
Uncertain is whether there is an implied reference to the numerous grave monu
ments in Egypt, ‘to take with,’ see Introd. § 3.30. ‘to die’ (Introd. § 3.32). TNf:
‘to kill us’ (nâpa4?); FTP: ‘to bury us’ (fcoapD4?); both elements in Philo (VMy I,
171). nNTTiD, cf. 14:5; now it is the turn of the despairing Israelites to ask a
question. U4?, cf. Ges-K § 20f. ’■JiTSin4? (Introd. § 3.24.2); for vocalization see
KoSynt § 226b; Ges-K § 61c.
Ezekiel the Tragedian, 204ff., offers a moving description of the situation: the
Israelites were crowded on the shore of the sea, with their animals and belongings,
looking after their little children, when suddenly they are faced with the pursuers;
Ezekiel mentions their prayer, but passes over their treatment of Moses; Josephus
(A/, II, 326ff.) and Philo (VM, I, 170ff.) do not mention the prayer; the first
relates the lamentation of the women and children, who had nothing but death
before their eyes, and the eagerness of the Israelites to stone Moses (cf. Num.
14:10).
see Introd. § 3.12.1; 3.12.3. b in (see 9:29; KoSynt. § 213c), Sam. Pent.:
+ NJ (see 3:3). ‘to do forced labour’ (contra ‘to worship yhwh’), see introd.
§ 3.37.1; copulative waw in a final clause (Ges-K § 165a; Joiion § 116b; Brockel-
mann § 135c). aiD, see 1:20; for construction see KoSynt § 397a; Ges-K § 133a;
Joiion § 419g. LXX: ‘in the wilderness.’ ‘to die,’ TNf, FTP: ‘to have us killed.’
The Israelites allude to a past request. MT does not mention it.105 The Israelites
present themselves here as ‘savvier’ than they were (cf. 5:21; 6:9). Probably the
words up to 'D are intended as a quote. The clause with 'D highlights the truth of
the previously made remark by pointing to the current situation. According to the
Israelites, of the two evils, Egypt (in 14:11, 12 5 x) and the wilderness (in 14:11,
12 2 x), the first is the lesser.
14:13 But Moses answered the people: ‘Do not be afraid. Stand firm. Then you
will witness the deliverance which y h w h will work fo r you this very day: with those
Egyptians, who today are before your very eyes, you will not ever be confronted
,<n Note, however, Calvin: the ‘crying’ to God was a natural reaction in the distress, but it did not
spring from faith.
,,M See BHHWy I, 605f.; BRL, 122ff.; IDBy II, 471; IV, 663ff.; Barrois*, II, 274ff.; K. Spronk,
Beatific Afterlife in Ancient Israel and in the Ancient Near East, Kevelaer/Neukirchen-Vluyn 1986,
238ff.
103 Sam. Pent, does; see 6:9; for TPsJ here has included, sort of parenthetically, a quotation
from 5:21 (in the version of TNf): ‘May YHWH appear to you and sentence you’ (cf. Mek. I, 209f.);
Noth: perhaps there is here a reference to an E fragment which is no longer preserved.
a g a in .
14:14 y h w h w il l f i g h t f o r y o u a n d y o u c a n k e e p s till. 9
Apprised of y h w h ’s strategy (14:3-4), Moses has no difficulty responding to the
people. However, he - and therewith the reader - does not know how y h w h is
going to bring deliverance. iNTnr^N, see 1:17. 32T, see 2:4; that is, ‘don’t flee.’
n m (3x) (Introd. § 3.46.1) beside NT (see 1:17); cf. 14:30f.; the second imper.
indicates the consequence (Ges-K § llOf). nmer, see 2:17; cf. 14:30. ‘y h w h ’s , ’
among others LXXB: tr|v 7iapa toO Oeou (cf. Frankel*, 86). ‘this very day,’ see
Introd. § 3.23.1. LXX: ‘for us.’ i&N (Introd. § 3.7.1), Cairo genizah fragment,
some MSS and Sam. Pent.: -WKD; Ehrlich et al.: T&N = ")ttfND; cf. LXX, TO,
TPsJ, TNf FTP. "itfND results in the rendering: ‘the Egyptians as you see them
today (‘armed to the teeth;’ cf. Philo, VM, I, 175), you will ...’ (cf. e.g. LV,
UV). DrvN"), perfect with present meaning (Ges-K § 106g; Joiion § 112a); Noth
sees a futurum exactum here (Ges-K 106o). *10% see 1:10; Sam. Pent.: liDOin.
Til?, see 2:3. Dbil?, see 3:15. Note the alliteration at the end of the verse. Beside
14:13 see 14:30. Beside 14:13f. see 1 Sam. 12:16, and in particular 2 Chr. 20:15-
17.
□nb niph., see 1:10. enn hiph. see 4:11, not: stop lamenting (e.g. Ibn Ezra).
Pesh. (in view of 14:15) adds at the end: ‘and Moses called upon y h w h . ’ TPsJ,
TNf, FTVJ (cf. also FTP 15:3) offer their own peculiar version of 14:13-14 with
MT worked into it: threatened, the Israelites broke up into four factions, each
defending its own course of action: throwing oneself into the sea; returning to
Egypt; taking up the battle; creating so much noise that it confuses the Egyptians;
Moses responds to each of the four standpoints; his response is a reworking of
MT. For the haggadah see, among others, also Pseudo-Philo, X, 3; Mek. I, 214f.;
PWB , XIV, lOff. Ginzberg*, III, 14f.; Le Deaut*, Nuit , 343. For another
interpretation see Mek. I, 2 lOff., where Israel’s situation is compared with that of
a dove who, fleeing from a hawk, wants to enter a cleft in the rock where there is
a snake; outside, the dove is in danger of the hawk, inside of the snake. In the
accounts of Josephus (AJ , II, 329ff.) and Philo (VM, I, 173ff.) Moses addresses
the people with admonishing and encouraging words; cf. also Gregory of Nyssa
(VM, I, 29; II, 117ff.).
14:15 Thereupon y h w h said to Moses: ‘Why do you cry out to me? Tell the
Israelites to go forward.
14:16 And you lift up your hand holding the staff and stretch it out over the sea
to divide it, so that the Israelites can go right through the sea on dry ground.
14:17 Then I will make the Egyptians obstinate so that they will go after them
and I can gain glory fo r myself before Pharaoh and before his whole army, before
his chariots and his chariot drivers.
14:18 So the Egyptians will realize that it is I, y h w h , when I glorify myself
before Pharaoh and before his chariots and his chariot drivers. 9
HQ, cf. Joiion § 144e; Williams § 126. ‘to cry,’ cf. 14:10. ‘Tell ...,’ cf. 14:2. l?0l
266 EXODUS 13:17 - 15:21
(see 12:37), obviously (see 14:16): in the direction of the sea; a new stage must
begin, seemingly one that leads to death; the writer makes no mention of how the
people responded to the unheard-of command; Moses’ assurance (14:13f.) should
be enough for them to obey; all fear should be gone (but note the rabbinic exegesis
on 14:22). The likely tenor of y h w h ’s question is: ‘Stop crying’ (for there is no
reason for panic). Addressed to Moses, the words cause surprise, especially after
Moses’ resolute and encouraging words in 14:13-14.106 After all, not Moses but
the people cried to y h w h . Philo (VMy I, 173) says that Moses had quietly inter
ceded on behalf of the people; cf. also Origen (Horn, in Exod.y V); Gregory of
Nyssa (VMy II, 118). Pseudo-Philo, X, 4, and Josephus (AJy II, 334ff.) only
record a prayer by Moses at the sea. TO has no interrogative sentence, but only
the reply: ‘I have heard your prayer.’ In the variant versions of TPsJ and TNf, FT
(hearing of the prayer is explicitly stated), Moses’ prayer is distinguished from that
of the people,107 and y h w h tells Moses that Israel’s prayer had preceded his.
The tenor is: since Israel is in distress, long prayers are irresponsible.108 Did
Moses call upon God (32:32) or bring the cries of the people before God (Num.
21:7) (Keil)? Had he prayed to God in his heart (Lange, Gispen) or taken part in
the prayer of the people? (Cassuto; cf. Nachmanides: Moses needed instructions
from y h w h ). Or is there a flawed combination of several literary strands? (e.g.
Dillmann, Strack, Baentsch). In the current context, y h w h ’s reply can only be
read as y h w h ’s response to the cries of the people, addressed to them in the
person of Moses as their representative (cf. Ibn Ezra).
nn«i, cf. Ges-K § 135a; Jotion § 146a. o n , see 7:20. ‘lift up your hand ...,* see
Introd. § 3.21.9-11. D\ see 10:19; Introd. § 8.12. -inspjn imper. qal + suffix of
Vp2 (OT ca. 55x), ‘to cleave,’ ‘to sever,’ ‘to divide’ (cf. Isa. 63:12; Ps. 78:13;
Neh. 9:11); niph. in 14:21. n o '! (Introd. § 3.8) with consecutive waw. Tina, see
2:5. nti2'2 (see 4:9), in BHS ’ does not have dage$ (typographical error?; cf.
BHK3). In rabbinic exegesis the question is raised, what made Israel deserving of
having the sea split before them. In response, the merits of the fathers (especially
Abraham) are cited and also Israel’s own trust in God (Mek. I, 218, 220, 222;
ExR. XXI, 8; Rashi). Additionally, it is pointed out that the liberation was
threatened by Satan; he told God that the Israelites were workers of iniquity (such
as idolatry), and he asked God how he could do such a great miracle for Israel
(ExR. XXI, 7; PWBy XX, Iff.; Ginzberg*, III, 16ff.).
-JNi in contrast to nnxi (14:16). "JJn, see Introd. § 3.15.1. For 14:17, 18 see
further 14:4, 8, 9. Instead of ‘the heart of Pharaoh’ the text has ‘the heart of the
Egyptians’ (LXX mentions both), y h w h drives them to pursue the Israelites (14:4,
106 According to Calvin, 14:15 is chronologically prior to 14:13-14.

107 According to PWB, XV, 12ff., Moses with Aaron, the elders and the very devout, comprised a
fourth group of suppliants (cf. 14:13-14).
108 Cf. Mek. I, 216, 221, 223, 235; ExR. XXI, 5, 8; Ephraem; Rashi; for disparate interpretations of
the question see Mek. I, 216ff.; ExR. XXI, Iff.; Ginzberg*, III, 15ff.
8) and blinds them to the folly of plunging after them into the sea. Such sheer
madness can only be due to the fact that God drove them out of their mind. INS'I
(in 14:4, 8, 9 *)"n is used), the movement of the Egyptians parallels that of the
Israelites (14:16). ‘chariots ...’ in 14:17 is apposition with ‘army.’ Sam. Pent, has
as subject in 14:18a: ‘all the Egyptians;’ cf. LXX and see 7:5. Sam. Pent, has
added l^ n after n in a a ; cf. 14:4, 17. So the ending of 14:18 is identical to
that of 14:17.
14:19 Then the messenger o f God, who always went ahead o f the host o f Israel,
moved and went behind them, or rather the pillar o f cloud moved from before them
and stood behind them.
14:20 So it came between the host o f Egypt and the host o f Israel. Then (on the
one side) it took the shape o f a dark cloud-bank, but (on the other side) it lit up
the night, so that during the entire night the one host could not come near the
other.
It is a assumed that Moses ordered the Israelites to break camp (JJOJ) (14:15).
When the time has arrived, Israel’s guide gets going (1703).109 From 13:21 one
gets the impression that y h w h himself was always showing the people the way.
The picture in 14:19a suggests that he acts through a messenger (3:2), one with
whom the reader is supposedly familiar.109110 In 14:19b the picture is combined
with that of the pillar of cloud (13:21f.) as the guide. It would seem that the
reader is to think of the pillar of cloud as the site of the presence of the messenger
(but see also 14:24). LXX and Vulg. make a distinction between the two; 14:19b
begins in LXX with: ‘and also (xai);’ in Vulg. with: ‘and simultaneously with
him’ (et cum eo pariter). nano, see 13:20. nnKD, see Introd. § 3.1.1. Note the
alliteration n o m (see 3:5), note the formal similarity with “ilDi;
(paronomasia); among others, LXXB repeats “iBiri in 14:20 after In TPsJ
the pillar is said to be in the rear ‘because of the Egyptians who shot arrows and
stones at Israel, and the cloud intercepted them’ (cf. Mek. I, 227; Rashi). "jtfn and
T IN , see 10:15. ‘night,’ see Introd. § 3.23.1.
In 14:20, v ri up to and including raises problems (MSS Sam. Pent.:
"Itfnn without copula; cf. SamT). A longstanding interpretation has it that the
cloud was darkness to the Egyptians but gave light to Israel; see TO and the more
expansive versions of TPsJ (see also 13:21), TNf, FT and Aq., Symm., Vulg.,
Pesh. and the interpretation of Mek. I, 226; Ephraem. Though in this interpretation
the pillar has a different appearance than the usual one (13:21), it seems to me it is
defensible.111 The pillar adapts itself to the particular situation.112 Rabbinic
109 Ibn Ezra: 14:19-20 details what happened prior to Moses’ orders; for the translation he uses
pluperfects.
1,0 Ibn Ezra, e.g. suggests the messenger is Michael (Dan. 12:1).
111 I regard “jtfnm p m as hendiadys and as predicate of the noun clause, whose assumed subject is
the pillar of cloud.
268 EXODUS 13:17 - 15:21
exegesis, on the basis of the context, has (wrongly) interpreted u r i as ‘and it

caused darkness* (e.g. PWB , XVII, 8). LXX reads: Kai eyevexo okoto<; Kai
yvo(J)o<; (cf. 10:22), Kai 6if|A0ev r\ vu£, ‘and there was gloom and darkness and
the night passed.’ The translation has sparked conjectures. Ehrlich proposes to
read "G in, ‘and passed’ instead of "lid, and through the omission of nx to make
‘the night’ the subject: because of the darkness the night passed without the one
being able to come near the other (cf. e.g. SBJ); Beer reads with, among others,
Greflmann*, 109, T tfnn11213 in the first half of the problematic clause, and n a m
in the second: ‘suddenly the cloud grew dark and they (the Israelites) crossed (the
sea) by night.’ There is, however, no reason to assume that the LXX rests on a
better text (cf. Frankel*, 80). Besides, how could Israel go through the sea in deep
darkness? Wellhausen*, C om position, 77, proposes:
n ^ n na (]wn) niri "|tfn v n , ‘and when it turned dark, the cloud illumined the
night’ (LV; cf. Baentsch); in that case one must assume that the Egyptians were so
impressed by the pillar of fire that they did not dare to attack;114 the sequel of
the story renders that unlikely. Eerdmans*, 43, proposes: n ^ n nx ")*ri \*H;
Rudolph*, 30: n ^ r r t a a n s a ^ rrrm x n instead of etc.: ‘and they kept
the army of Egypt at a distance.’ Still another view is expressed by E.A. Speiser,
JAOS 80 (1980), 198-200: the text is fine, but it does not talk about light (cf. Josh.
24:7), because is to be regarded as hiph. (for that matter qal) of y in , ‘to
curse;’ it alludes to a magical practice: the pillar of cloud/messenger is subject; it
overpowers the night, resulting in an impenetrable darkness that keeps the groups
apart. R. Althann, JNSL 11 (1983), 14f., points to the poetic nature of 14:20f. and
explains i x ’1 by pointing to the Human: ‘and it controlled the night.’
Sip, see 3:5. nt ... nr (KoSynt § 48; Ges-K § 139e n. 4; Brockelmann § 98c)
refers to rtjno. Another interpretation offers Mek. I, 227: no Egyptian could come
near another Egyptian (10:23).115 Josephus (A/, II, 334) is silent about the pillar
of cloud/fire, but recounts that the Egyptians were so tired that they thought it best
to put off fighting till the next day (cf. Heinisch); Ezekiel the Tragedian, 217ff.,
mentions sunset as the reason for the postponement of the battle. He does mention
the pillar. However, it did not prevent the Egyptians from watching the crossing of
the Israelites. Philo ( VMf I,178f.) states that, when the sea had parted, the cloud
moved and took up position behind Israel and the Egyptians started panicking
(14:24). Earlier already, the dense darkness and the boiling sea had put fear into
112 Differently e.g. Rashi: the daily pillar of cloud remained (to cast darkness) also when the pillar
of fire was present (for the presence of two pillars see also Ibn Ezra; Nachmanides; PWB, XVII, 5ff.);
see beside it Ishodad; Calvin: light and darkness come from the same pillar. Cassuto makes a
distinction between the pillar and the cloud; the latter spread darkness over the Egyptians; the pillar of
fire gave light to Israel as usual.
113 See also e.g. Noth; he regards "iN'i as an addition.
1,4 Auerbach*, 69: they were blinded; Beegle*, 159: the light of the flaming brazier (see 13:21) was
to prevent a sneak attack.
113 For the presumed connection with the ninth plague see 10:22.
the pursuers (I, 176). For the elsewhere occurring picture of a protecting fog see
Gaster*, 237.
The movement of the pillar of cloud might create the impression that the
Israelites were to turn around and head toward the Egyptians. Apparently it is
assumed that the Israelites’ point of orientation is Moses, whose face is directed
toward the sea (14:16, 21). All emphasis is on the fact that the event happened at
night: 3 x ‘(all) night’ in 14:20, 21. The cloud not only changes position, its
nightly form (see 13:21) in this situation is also different: it only illumines Israel;
so it prevents the Egyptians army from overpowering Israel while enabling Israel
to cross the sea in safety.
14:21 Moses stretched out his hand over the sea. Then YHWH caused the sea to
flow away by a strong east wind that blew all night. In that way he turned the sea
into dry land and the water was divided.
14:22 And the Israelites could go right through the sea on dry ground , while to
their right and to their left the water was like a city wall to them.
For beginning and end of 14:21 see 14:16. TPsJ offers a detailed description of
the staff; cf. 4:20 and see Introd. § 3.21.11. "|*?n hiph., see Introd. § 3.14.3; cf.
F. Pratorius, ZAW 2 (1882), 310f. ‘strong east wind* (Introd. § 3.47.1), exegetes
have difficulty fitting the east wind into a realistic picture of the situation (e.g.
Dillmann, Holzinger); it is not a problem that bothers the writer; he writes of an
east wind because it brings dryness; according to PWB , XX, 20ff., the wind dried
up the wet and soggy ground, making it passable; in rabbinic exegesis the east
wind is described as the chastising wind (Mek. I, 229f.; Ginzberg*, III, 20f.):
LXX: ‘south wind’ (see 10:13); cf. Philo ( VM, I, 176; north wind at return of the
water); Josephus only mentions the wind in connection with the flowing back of
the waters (AJt II, 343). ‘all night,’ that is, all the while the Egyptian army was
unable to come near Israel (14:20) and Israel was afforded opportunity to go
through the sea. Q'ft, see Introd. § 3.48. ‘water,’ see Introd. § 3.33. n ;n n (OT
8x) , ‘the dry ground,’ in distinction from the water in its various forms (Gen.
7:22; Josh. 3:17; 4:18; 2 Kgs. 2:8; Ezek. 30:12; Hag. 2:6). See TWATt III, 160ff.
lypa'i (see 14:16) is sometimes wrongly (cf. KoSynt § 142a) rendered as a
pluperfect (e.g. CV, GNB).
For 14:22a see 14:16b. npn = npin (OT ca. 135x ; Exod. 14:22, 29), ‘wall,’
usually of a city (Lev. 25:29ff.; Deut. 3:5; 28:52; Josh. 2:15; 6:5, 20 etc.),
constructed from clay bricks set on a foundation of natural stones, to a average
height of 10 to 12 meters and an average thickness of 4 to 6 meters.116 The point
is that the water serves the same function as a city wall (cf. 1 Sam. 25:16; Nah.
3:8); it offers protection from the sea behind it (not against a flank attack by the
Egyptians [Strack, Heinisch]). Water, which as a liquid is never rigid, through
YHWH’s instrumentality has the hardness and thickness of a high wall! LXX: ‘a
1,6 See BHHW, II, 1174ff.; BRL. 209ff.; De Geus (see 1:11), 18ff.; Noth*, WAT, 133ff.
270 EXODUS 13:17 - 15:21
wall to the right and a wall to the left;’ TNf: ‘walls of water’ (TNf margin in
14:29: ‘like FTP: ‘high walls’ (in 14:29: ‘like high TPsJ: ‘and the water
became firm like walls, three hundred miles high, to the right and left of them.’
‘right and left,’ see Introd. § 3.21.7.

According to TPsJ twelve corridors were formed, corresponding to the number of
tribes; cf. TPsJ and TNf on Deut. 1:1; see also e.g. Origen {Horn, in Exod ., V)
and beside it Theodoret (QEy XXV). The event is depicted on the fresco in the
synagogue of Dura Europos.117 Also Islamic tradition offers this picture: Pharaoh
enters the corridor of Moses and the tribe of Levi (Weil*, 167f.). Many exegetes
detect two variant literary strands behind Moses’ conjuring motion resulting in the
splitting of the water and y h w h ’s drying up of the sea by means of the wind.
Apparently according to the writer it was simply a matter of YHWH responding to
Moses’ stretching out his hand over the sea (cf. 10:13).
Jewish exegetes have calculated that 14:19, 20, 21 each have 72 letters, in total
216 letters, from which they have concluded that the verses contain the shem
wayyissa-wayyet, the most powerful name of God, consisting of 72 triads.118
Many exegetes feel that the picture of the wind drying up the sea (14:21) and
that of Israel passing between walls of water (14:22) are incompatible and hence
are from different literary origins (see Introduction to exegesis under c). Conser
vative scholars dispute the irreconcilability, sometimes by stating that the picture
of the walls is a metaphor that is not to be taken literally as if the water became
actual walls.119 Their view is not convincing. As I see it, the writer may have
pictured it like this: the hard wind formed a path and made the water stand like
walls (cf. 15:8); the question how Israel could make the crossing during a heavy
(sand)storm seems not to have troubled the writer.
The supposedly remarkable combination ‘in the middle of the sea’ and ‘on dry
ground’ induced the rabbis to propose, among others, the following explanation:
the sea did not part until the Israelites had stepped into the waters and the water
had come up to their noses (ExR. XXI, 10; PWBy XV, 20ff.); in short, their faith
was put to the test. According to Josephus (AJy II, 329), Moses was the first to go
into the sea. Rabbinic exegesis also deals with the question who was the first to
step into the sea before it had parted; various answers are given; mention is made
of quarrelling, lack of nerve, rivalry among the tribes of Benjamin and Judah,
which even turns into the throwing of stones; according to one explanation,
Nahshon (Introd. § 5.48) was the first who was brave enough to jump into the sea
(Mek. I, 232f., 234f., 237; ExR. XXIV, 1; PWBy XV, 24ff.; Ginzberg*, III,
1.7 See e.g. R. de Vaux, RB 47 (1938), 383-87.

1.8 For the name and its composition see e.g. Zohar Exod. 51b; PWB, XVIII, 25ff.; Ibn Ezra on
14:19; 33:21; T. Schrire, IEJ 22 (1972), 153-5.
,,v See F.J. Botha, NGTT 1/3 (1959-60), 39-42; Beegle*, 160; Cole.
2 If.). According to ExR. XXIV, 1, the Israelites even grumbled during the
miracle; they did not like the dirty water of the sea: ‘In Egypt we had clay, and
now in the sea it is again clay ...’ (cf. Leibowitz*, 256ff.). Gregory of Nyssa
(VM, I, 31): in the middle of the sea their body was dry and the sun shone on it.
Given the size of the caravan (12:37), conservative scholars tend to give serious
attention to the width of the dry part of the sea and the time it took to accomplish
the crossing (so e.g. Murphy, Keil, Lange). See also Introduction to exegesis
under g.
14:23 . However, the Egyptians followed in pursuit; all Pharaoh's horses, his
chariots and his chariot drivers went after them into the middle o f the sea.
For 14:23 see 14:9, 17. The of the Egyptians is again correlative with the
iNS'i of the Israelites (14:22; cf. 14:16f.). The movement of the Egyptians
(nocturnal; 14:24, 27) appears to clash with 14:20 where it is said that they could
not do a thing the whole night. Rylaarsdam considers it possible that originally
14:24 followed upon 14:20: the verse describes a confusion, caused by God, in the
Egyptian camp during the night. In my view, 14:20 (in the current context) is not
to be taken as an absolute statement; it is evidently assumed that when the night
was just about over (14:24, 27) the Egyptians were able to see well enough to get
going. Tin, see 2:5. FTP: ‘till in the middle of the big sea.’
Did Pharaoh himself also enter the sea? Rabbinic exegesis has it that the Holy
One entered the sea with Israel and transformed his Omnipotence, making it look
like a mare. When the horse on which Pharaoh was seated spotted the mare in the
sea, neighing he ran after it. The Egyptians followed Pharaoh (PWB, XXI, 17ff.;
cf., among others, ExR. XXIII, 14; Ginzberg*, VI, 9 n. 44). According to Islamic
tradition, Pharaoh went into the sea on the advice of Haman. When Pharaoh’s
horse balks, Gabriel appears on a magnificent stallion. Pharaoh’s horse goes after
it (Weil*, 167f.). See further 14:28. According to Josephus (AJ , II, 340ff.), at
first the Egyptians did not follow, thinking the Israelites were fools. Seeing that
they crossed unharmed, also the Egyptians entered the sea, trusting that it would
be calm for them also.
14:24 Then, in the morning watch, YHWH looked down upon Egypt's host from
the pillar o f fire and cloud. So he terrified Egypt's host.
14:25 He caused the wheels o f their chariots to run crooked, making it hard fo r
them to keep moving , so that the Egyptians said: *.L et us flee before Israel, fo r
y h w h fights fo r them against Egypt.'
vm, see Introd. § 3.13.3. ‘in the morning watch,’ see 7:15, also for the breaking
of dawn as the critical moment; TPsJ: + ‘at the moment that the hosts on high
raise the song of praise;’ cf. TPsJ Gen. 32:27; Ginzberg*, V, 306. ] imperf.
cons. hiph. of (OT 22X; niph. 10X; hiph. 12x), which in niph. (Judg. 5:28;
2 Sam. 6:16) and hiph. (Gen. 26:8; 2 Kgs. 9:30) is used for looking out (of a
window), occurs in hiph. with y h w h as subject (Deut. 26:15; Ps. 14:2; 102:20;
272 EXODUS 13:17 - 15:21
Lam. 3:50); see TWATy VIII, 458ff.; applied to y h w h , the focus is on him as the
king of the world before whose penetrating eyes nothing remains hidden, and who
so brings to nought the plans of those who turn against him (Houtman*, Himmel,
33If.)- Sam. Pent.: cf. among others LXXB: etu; LXXa: ei<;. TPsJ, TNf,
FT: look down ‘in anger.*
We should imagine the situation as follows: while it was still dark, the Egyptians
followed Israel into the sea; y h w h bends down over them, guided by the light of
the pillar of cloud; the sudden light startles them and they notice where they are;
panic follows, lam BfK nn&a (for 2 y ‘from,* see e.g. HAL s.v. 2 13), possibly
there is a connection between the formulation and the moment in time: at daybreak
the pillar has two components, fire and clouds, but when it gets light the fire
component disappears; in other words, y h w h ’s looking down coincides with the
dawn of the new day, the rays of the rising sun. According to an old interpreta
tion, it was a terrible thunderstorm that startled the Egyptians;120 TNf, FTV (cf.
FTP) do not mention the pillar of cloud/fire and after ‘host of Egypt* have
inserted: ‘and he threw naphtha, fire and hailstones at them.’ See beside it TPsJ:
‘from the pillar of fire to cast burning coals at them, from the pillar of cloud to
cast hailstones at them’ (cf. Mek. I, 245). Ehrlich believes that y h w h ’s bending
down caused a dense darkness and an unbearable heat (for the last point see
already Nachmanides).
□n; i imperf. cons, qal of DDn (with cognate form Din; OT together 18 x ; qal
13 x ) , ‘to confound/create panic;’ often y h w h is subject ( 9 x ) and the verb is used
in a context that describes the YHWH-war (see Introduction to exegesis under h) or
an announcement of it (14:24; 23:27; Deut. 7:23; Josh. 10:10; Judg. 4:15; 1 Sam.
7:10; cf. Sir. 48:21): y h w h makes the enemy deathly afraid, creating a situation
in which they lose all discipline and suffer an ignominious defeat.121 Vulg.:
interfecit, ‘he killed.’
n o (Ges-K § 72aa), see 3:3; Sam. Pent.: "lON'i (cf. 14:6), ‘and he tied;’ cf.
LXX, Pesh. and e.g. LV, Baentsch.122 It is commonly held that ouveSqoev of
LXX is based on l o i n ; 123 Symm.: peTeoTqoe, ‘he removed;’ TO: nUNi, ‘and
he removed;’ TPsJ: 10J1, ‘and he broke;’ TNf, FT: p iai, ‘and he loosened;’
several exegetes prefer lo iri, on the assumption that ‘to come o f does not go
with the following ‘hard to keep moving;’ likely what is meant is that some
chariots lost their wheels, while others, though not totally disabled, were very
much damaged.124
151K (OT 33x), ‘wheel’ (here: with spokes; cf. 1 Kgs. 7:33; Nah. 3:2, and see
BRL , 252, 356 and Bibl. Introd. § 9.1.8) used as collective. VTGDiD (Introd.
120 Introd. § 12.6.1 and e.g. Cassuto (the absence of the definite article is an indication that it is not
the regular pillar-of cloud/fire).
121 See THAT, I. 502ff.; TWAT II, 419ff.; P. Joiion, Bib 6 (1925), 178.
122 Ezekiel the Tragedian, 233: ‘the wheels of our wagons were tied as if with ropes.’
123 Frankel*, 107; differently Ehrlich: 10, 1, ‘and he braked;’ cf. “10, ‘stocks,’ in Job 13:27; 33:11.
124 For the question see also J.H. Stek, JBL 105 (1986), 293f.
§ 9.1.18), with sing, suff., referring to ‘host’ (14:24). lnanri (see 3:1), for suff.
see above; Ehrlich relates it to ]SK. mDD (see 4:10); in rabbinic literature the
moving ‘with difficulty* is looked upon as retribution for Egypt’s evil deeds (13D
in 5:9; 9:34); see Mek. I, 241; Zohar Exod. 50a; Rashi. DnsD, here masc. sing,
(cf. Introd. § 8.19); cf. KoSynt § 249b and see 14:30. Sam. Pent.: nDNU. DU (see
4:3); Ezekiel the Tragedian: fleeing ‘before the hands of the Most High.’ on*?],
niph. part. (Sam. Pent, with article), cf. 14:14; the Egyptians admit that Moses’
announcement has become reality (cf. 14:18). From the fact that their equipment
(mysteriously) broke down the Egyptians infer that y h w h is involved in the battle
(cf. 8:15). No natural cause for the breakdown is mentioned; in light of 14:22,
sogginess of the ground can hardly be the reason.125 Possibly what the Egyptians
were thinking can also be linked to what is narrated in 14:24. It is also possible
that mo means: the wheels ran crooked, there was not way to keep the chariots
moving straight forward.126
TNf and FT have a version which differs sharply from MT and which accen
tuates the miraculous nature of the incident: normally it is donkeys who pull and
guide the wheels and axles of wagons; now the opposite happens; the wheels are
pulling the wagons and the donkeys, throwing them with the Egyptians into the sea
(cf. Mek. I, 241; Ginzberg*, III, 27). In PWB, XXII, 5ff., 14:24 is closely linked
to 14:25: fire causes the water in the sea to boil and the clouds turn the mud in the
sea soft again, so that horses and people sink down to their waist into the mud; the
fire bums the weapons of wood (cf. Mek. I, 240f.; Rashi). Artapanus, 37, cites
fire and water as the means by which the Egyptians were destroyed. In TO the
flight is motivated as follows: ‘for this is the power of y h w h , who fought for
them in Egypt;’ TNf, FT offer a detailed account of motives; in TNf, the Egyp
tians, citing y h w h ’s triumph in Egypt, voice the expectation that y h w h will also
triumph at Yam Suph (cf. Mek. I, 242).
14:26 Thereupon y h w h said to Moses: ‘Stretch out your hand over the sea, and
then the water will flow black, over the Egyptians, over their chariots and over
their chariot drivers. ’
A new instruction to Moses at the moment it looked as if the Egyptians might
escape and keep posing a danger to Israel. For 14:26a see 14:16, 21. The instruc
tion is given on the far side of the sea. Supposedly by now the Israelites have gone
through the sea while the Egyptians are still in it. Ephraem and Ishodad: Moses
had held the staff heavenward, as in the battle against Amalek (17:10-12). lacn,
125 Not so e.g. Cassuto: the water already began to well up from the ground; Gispen: the ground
was possibly drenched by rain or the sea bottom was too wet to support the narrow wheels; Hyatt: the
clause comes too early in the account (the ground is not yet soggy; cf. 14:27) and is an item of
tradition that has not been well integrated with the rest of the narrative; according to e.g. Eerdmans*,
43; Rudolph*, 31, 14:25 is from a version that does not have a crossing; the chariots fell from the road
onto the dried-up sea bed.
126 L lacks the sop pasuq at the end of the verse; similarly in 14:29.
274 EXODUS 1 3 :1 7 - 15:21
juss.; for the construction see 9:22; 10:12. LXX: after ‘flow back’ explicitly ‘to
cover’ (cf. 14:28); cf. LV (loa’i is inserted before by). From way back already it
has been noted that there is a correlation between the death by drowning of the
Egyptians and their intention to drown the infant sons of the Israelites.127
14:27 Moses stretched out his hand over the sea. Then, at dawn, the sea flowed
back to where it used to be, while the Egyptians cut and ran toward it. So y h w h
shook the Egyptians in the middle o f the sea.
14:28 The water flowed back and covered the chariots and the chariot drivers,
all o f Pharaoh’s army which had gone after them into the sea. Not one o f them
remained.
For beginning of 14:27 see 14:21. For the flowing back of the water no natural
cause is mentioned, whether lying down of the wind (14:21), or the wind coming
from the opposite direction (cf. 10:19; see also 15:10). "Ip3 niJDb (cf. KoSynt
§ 401s), see 2:12; 7:15; Sam. Pent.: "ipnn (cf. KoSynt § 294e).
IJVK (cf. Ges-K § 85b) (OT 14x ; see TWAT , V, 316ff.), ‘permanent,’ ‘per
petual,’ ‘enduring,’ is used as adjective (e.g. Deut. 21:4; Amos 5:24) and noun
(e.g. 14:27; Ps. 74:15; Mic. 6:2); in 14:27 one can think of a return to the normal
situation128 or of a return to the regular place;129 because 1JVN is often used in
connection with running water, also used for 14:27 is the interpretation ‘steady
flow,’130 or, on the assumption that it points to the place where the flowing
occurred, ‘bed.’131 According to BDB , KBL, HAL , the basic meaning of llVK is
‘perennially filled with flowing water’ while the term can also be used metaphoric
ally (e.g. Num. 14:21; Jer. 5:15; Job 12:19); according to KBL , HAL such is also
the case in 14:27; that produces the meaning ‘regular/normal level’ (see above).
□'OJ (cf. 14:25); Sam. Pent.: □’•yoJ; cf. 14:10.
in*npb (see 1:10), the Egyptians flee from Israel and head toward the Egyptian
shore of the sea; so they go in precisely the wrong direction, heading toward the
returning water. TPsJ: ‘toward its waves;’ LXX: e<t>i>yov (mo to uSoop, ‘they were
fleeing to under the water’ (the water covers them); cf. the free rendering of the
ending of 14:27 in Vulg: ‘and the waters came toward the fleeing Egyptians and
the Lord overthrew them in the midst of the waves.’
"lyj'i imperf. cons, piel (Ges-K § 64d) of nya (OT 11 x ; piel in 14:27; Ps.
136:15; Neh. 5:13), ‘to shake (off);’ here (+ 2) understood as ‘to plunge into’
(Zo.), ‘to drive into’ (Ges-B), ‘to shake o ff (BDB); I opt for ‘to throw down
into;’ the ‘shaking off’ evokes the following picture: the Egyptians fled pell-mell;
colliding with the onrushing waves, they are knocked over and pulled along, and
127 See Introd. § 12.6.4 and e.g. Mek. I, 243f.; ExR. XXII, 1; Theodoret, QE, XXV; Strack; Beer;
Cassuto.
I2KTO, TPsJ, TNf; FTP: rrspin*?, ‘to her strength;’ cf. KoW, Zo. and LV, Dasberg.
129 Cf. LXX, Vulg., FTV ('UTi;*?), CV, WV, GNB.
130 SS, BDB, cf. Van der Palm: ‘tot haar vollen vloed’ (‘to its full depth’).
131 Cf. SamTJ: npni;*?, ‘to its bed’ (SamTA: nniBp*?); see Ges-B.
later their bodies wash up on shore (14:30). TO, FTP: p'Jen, ‘and he suffocated =
drowned’ (cf. FTV); TNf: paeh, ‘and he left behind;’ TPsJ: D'bm, ‘and he made
strong;* a motive for the translation, which is based on linking the term with the
Hebrew it f J , ‘young man,’ is given at the end of the verse: y h w h gave strength to
the Egyptians ‘so that they would not (right away) die in the middle of the sea and
so would receive the (entire) punishment he had sent them;’ y h w h prolongs their
suffering.132
14:28 relates what happened as a result of the return of the water. HOD piel, see
8:2. with i for describing a genitive (KoSynt § 281a; Ges-K § 129d); in
LXX and Pesh. the rendering is: ‘and the whole army’ (cf. Nachmanides); it
would seem that the genitive is to be understood as an explicative (cf. Rashi: b is
redundant); in any case, the meaning is not that the chariot arsenal was destroyed
and that another part of the army, the foot soldiers, which had stayed on shore,
gets away (cf. 14:17f., 23). *rn, see 14:4. ‘to go after,’ cf. 14:23. "iNtf niph., see
8:5. ana, a for indicating partitive genitive (KoSynt § 279a). nn« (Introd.
§ 4.2.1) strengthened by n v (KoSynt § 341t; Williams § 314).
Did also Pharaoh perish in the sea?

How absolute is ‘not one’ (14:28)? Ezekiel the Tragedian offers a description of
the wipe-out of the Egyptian army in the form of a report by a survivor
(193ff.)-133 The question whether also Pharaoh perished is a point of discussion
in rabbinic literature (cf. also 14:23). The ‘not even Pharaoh’ contrasts with the
‘except Pharaoh himself’ ( Mek. I, 246). The latter idea has led to the picture of
Pharaoh as king of Nineveh at the time of Jonah and as the one who would never
die, but at the gate of the realm of the dead announce the power of God (Ginz-
berg*, III, 29ff.; VI, 10 n. 54; Rosmarin*, 98). Also later exegetes differ on the
issue. Calvin, e.g., argues that he perished. Others defend the opposite:134
Pharaoh had remained on shore with the infantry (Strack); ‘he probably led the
army out a few miles and then turned back’ (Beegle*, 159); Pharaoh was at his
residence (‘Pharaoh’ in 14:10 = Pharaoh’s army) (Heinisch); cf. e.g. Bohl,
Gispen, Cole. In my judgment, the perception that only a part of the army went
after Israel (Strack, Heinisch) is wrong (cf. 14:4). Though, remarkably, Exod. 14
does not talk about Pharaoh’s drowning (see beside it Ps. 136:15; Introd.
§ 12.6.2), 14:17ff., it seems to me, assumes it. Besides, so long as the adversary
of y h w h ’s promises remains alive, there is no real deliverance.
14:29 The Israelites, however, had gone straight through the sea on dry ground,
132 Cf. Mek. I, 246 with still another explanation: they were delivered over to young = cruel angels;
Rashi.
133 For the contrary see Josephus (AJ, II, 344); Philo (VM, I, 179).
134 One argument sometimes used is that the mummy of the ‘Pharaoh of the exodus’ (supposedly)
has been discovered.
276 EXODUS 1 3 :1 7 - 15:21
while to their right and to their left the water was like a city wall to them.
The tense changes. The writer briefly interrupts the story to once more drive home
to the reader the stupendous nature of Israel’s crossing in contrast to the miserable
fate that befell the Egyptians (14:22).135 Since a past event is mentioned, the
perfect in 14:29a is best translated with a pluperfect (cf. e.g. Vredenburg,
Dasberg). In 14:22 KU is used for ‘to go;’ here "l^n. According to Baentsch,
expresses that the ‘going’ was successful and did not remain limited to ‘going in.’
Following up on 14:29, FTP follows with an acrostic whose theme is y h w h ’s
order to Moses to divide the sea, its execution, the reaction of the sea which at
first threatens to flow back and talks back to Moses, etc. (cf. Mek. I, 227f.; ExR.
XXI, 6; PWB , XVII, 13ff.; Ginzberg*, III, 18f.).
14:30 So that very same day y h w h delivered Israel from the power o f Egypt.
When Israel saw the Egyptians lying dead on the seashore,
14:31 Israel sensed that y h w h had dealt Egypt an incredible blow. The people
stood in great awe o f y h w h and put their trust in y h w h and in his servant Moses.
The writer resumes the thread of the story. Starting with a epitomizing comment,
he goes on to describe the reaction of the people when it had become day. vti'
(see 2:17), cf. 14:13. ‘that very same day’ (Introd. § 3.23.1) correlates with ‘this
very day’ in 14:13. ‘from the power of,’ see Introd. § 3.21.2. n>n (2x) (Introd.
§ 3.46.1) beside NT (see 1:17), cf. 14:13. Seeing the dead Egyptians, Israel can
feel secure (cf. Mek. I, 250; PWB , XXIV, 7ff.). It is the proof of the deliverance
wrought by y h w h . According to Islamic tradition, God commanded the waves to
first deposit the corpses on the western shore and next on the eastern shore to
convince both the Israelites and the Egyptians who had remained behind (Weil*,
168f.). ‘dead,’ see Introd. § 3.32; for sing, see 14:25. nato, see 2:3. TPsJ, TNf,
FTP place ‘thrown’ OpNDn) first, so connecting it explicitly to 14:27; in TPsJ the
Egyptians are also described as ‘dead and not yet dead’ (n& is understood as
‘dying’); their suffering continues (cf. Mek. I, 250; Ginzberg*, III, 30f.). ^ ru ,
see 2:10; ‘the power’ of Egypt (14:30) contrasts with the incomparable ‘power’ of
y h w h (14:31). TPsJ, FTP: ‘the strength of the mighty hand (cf. TO: big hand),
with which y h w h had wrought miracles against Egypt (TPsJ; cf. TNf mar-
gin)/with which y h w h had chastised the Egyptians (FTP; cf. FTJ).’ In Mek. I, 251,
‘God’s hand’ is contrasted, as being a more severe visitation, with ‘God’s finger’
(8:15). ‘fear’ of Egypt (14:10), rightly said to be unfounded (14:13), is replaced
by ‘fear’ of y h w h . ] m (see 4:1), cf. J. Komer, ThLZ 104 (1979), 713-20. In
LXX, the second YHWH is rendered as ‘God.’ ‘servant,’ see Introd. § 3.37.2; for
the word order see Brockelmann § 64a. The end of 14:31 reads in TPsJ, TNf,
FTPJ: ‘in the name of the Word of y h w h and in the prophecy of Moses, his
servant;’ cf. TO: ‘in the Word of ....’ Note the 3x ‘Israel-Egypt’ in 14:30, 31.13*
133 Ibn Ezra: while in one part of the sea the Egyptians were drowning, in another part of the sea the
Israelites were moving along on dry ground; two winds were blowing at once.
According to extra-biblical tradition, the Israelites took possession of the

washed-up weapons (see 13:18) and of the silver and gold, the precious stones and
pearls the Egyptians had carried with them.136
15:1 On that occasion Moses, with the Israelites, sang this song in honour o f
yh w h . They spoke as follows:
a I will sing in honour o f y h w h ,
After an introductory remark which connects the song to the story, the song begins
with a personal testimony from the singer, followed by a motive for it and the
theme of the first part of the song.
TN, see 4:10. T 0 ; (for sing, with pi. subject see e.g. 3:18 and Ges-K § 146f)
imperf. qal (also in Num. 21:17) of T 0 (OT 87X; qal 49X; Exod. 15:1 [2x],
21), ‘to sing,’ often of the cultic song (of praise) in honour of YHWH, frequently
with accompaniment of musical instruments (e.g. 15:20f.; Gen. 31:27; Amos
5:23; Ps. 33:2ff.; 57:8f.; 108:2f.; 144:9); often used is the cohortative HTtfK (OT
11 x ; 15:1; Judg. 5:3; Ps. 13:6; 27:6 etc.) while the singing (except in Isa. 5:1) is
(implicitly) in praise of yhwh ; more often used is the exhortation rptf (OT 15 x ;
15:21; Isa. 42:10; Ps. 33:3 etc.) while the singing (except in Ps. 137:3) is in
praise of YHWH/God. The substantive nT # (nomen unitatis ; Meyer § 42.7) (OT
13x) occurs lOx in the expression nNtn rrrtfn (15:1; Num. 21:17; Deut. 31:19
etc.), here and in Num. 21:17 as object of Tttf (cognate construction). See THAT,
II, 895ff. and at 15:20.
m rrb, LXX: rep 0ea>; the meaning ‘concerning yhwh ’ has been defended,
among others, by P.A.H. de Boer, OTS 21 (1981), 55-67; ‘in honour o f implies
‘concerning.’ Sam. Pent.: here and in 15:21 VTtfK (blending of nTtfN and i t ® of
15:21); LXX, Vulg., Pesh., TO, TPsJ, TNf, FT: ‘let us likewise e.g. CV.
“i&Nb after (cf. Jotion § 124o).
nk; inf. abs. + perf. qal (cognate construction) of rma (OT 7 x ), ‘to
be/become high;’ only in 15:1, 21 with YHWH as subject; derivative ]iNji (OT ca.
50x), ‘majesty,’ ‘highness’ (the rising above others) is in 15:7 used in reference
to yhwh (cf. Isa. 2:10, 19, 21; 24:14; Mic. 5:3; Job 37:4; 40:10); whereas in the
case of humans ‘highness’ often amounts to ‘arrogance’ (Ps. 59:13; Prov. 8:13;
16:18 et al.), yhwh is truly excellent (cf. 15:11). See THAT, I, 379ff.; TWAT, I,
878ff. Ehrlich believes that nio here means ‘to triumph’ (cf. Cassuto). The notion
of ‘triumph’ is at least integral to the term. ‘Majesty’ (cf. 15:7) possibly evokes
the image of yhwh as the God who manifests himself in lightning, thunder etc.
(Ps. 18 etc.). Sam. Pent, has here and in 15:21 instead of first n*o.
136 Mek. I, 241, 250; MidrTanh. Exod. IV, 16 (cf. IV, 15); Ginzberg*, III, 27; see also 14:9 and
Introd. § 12.6.4.
278 EXODUS 1 3 :1 7 - 15:21
‘horses ...* (Introd. § 9.1.18); sometimes the preferred vocalization is lap") (cf.
14:9 etc.; 15:19), see e.g. Beer, Grefimann*, 351 n. 2. The suffix of UD"i is left
untranslated in LXX, Vulg.; some, e.g. S. Mowinckel, VT 12 (1962), 284,
therefore read: a 9 3 , ‘chariots;* for interpretation ‘horse and its rider* see Weimar-
Zenger*, 76ff. npn perf. qal of n oi; some lexicographers differentiate nDi I (only
qal): ‘to throw,’ ‘to cast’ (15:1, 21), ‘to shoot’ (arrows) (Jer. 4:29, Ps. 78:9); II
(only piel): ‘to deceive’ etc. (Gen. 29:25 etc.) (e.g. Ges-B; BDB, KBL)\ others
hold there is only one root (e.g. SS; Mandelkem; Zo.). L.S. Hay, JBL 83 (1964),
401, defends the meaning ‘to shoot down’ (cf. Introd. § 11.6.2) for 15:1, 21.
Usually 15:Id is taken to mean: yhwh casts the army into the sea; in my view,
D’3 (see 10:19) pinpoints the location of the army when yhwh intervened. HD"i qal
can be taken to mean ‘to strike down’ (cf. 14:27); since the meaning of n m qal is
far from sure, vocalizing it as piel might be considered: ‘he did not do a thing for
them/pulled a fast one on them.’
15:2a My protection and the source o f my hymn o f praise is y h w h .

b My deliverance he accomplished.
c My God is like that. Him will I praise.
d The God o f my father. Him will I exalt.
Praise (or the announcement of praise) is the vehicle for expressing trust in God
and confessing that he alone and no other is God. Note the alliteration (i-sounds)
in 15:2b. 15:2b is found in the same form in Isa. 12:2; Ps. 118:14, and can be
regarded as a standard utterance. In Pesh., TPsJ, TNf, FT, the text has the first
pers. sing. pi. (MT: first pers. sing.). vu, for vocalization see e.g. Meyer
§ 23.2c; 51.2c.
Ti; (OT ca. 95 x ; Exod. 15:2, 13) is regarded as a derivative of TTI7, ‘to be
strong;’ KBL distinguishes between tb I (from TTU) and ?y II (from nu, see 9:19),
‘refuge,’ ‘protection’ (15:2; Ps. 28:7f.; 29:11 et al.); cf. THAT, II, 222f.; TWAT ,
VII, Iff.; the distinction is moot (cf. THAT , II, 252, 256); in my view, TU in 15:2
is used in the metaphorical sense of ‘fortress,* ‘stronghold;’137 the focus is
yhwh’s protection and his rescue from danger, issuing in deliverance (cf. Ps.
21:2; 140:8); in 15:13 TU refers to yhwh’s display of power: by doing awesome
deeds, by acting forcefully (cf. Ps. 21:14; 66:3; 68:29; 74:13; 77:15; 105:4 et
al.).
rnjpr used to be (SS, Ges-B, BDB, KoW) derived from idt , ‘to make music’
(with voice and instrument) (piel; OT ca. 45 x): instrumental/vocal music (Isa.
51:3; Ps. 81:3; 98:5; Amos 5:23), and also: object and source of the music (15:2;
Isa. 12:2; Ps. 118:14); in 15:2 this resulted in renderings such as ‘lied’ (‘song’)
(SV, LV, AV), ‘lofzang’ (‘hymn of praise’) (LuthV), ‘roem’ (‘praise’) (CV),
‘psalm’ (NV), ‘Saitenspiel’ (Buber-Rosenzweig); mDT in Gen. 43:11 posed
137 Cf. e.g. Jer. 51:53; Amos 3:11; 5:9; Prov. 21:22; see V. Hamp, BZ 16 (1972), 115ff.;
Houtman*, Himmel, 162, 235f.; see also e.g. Ps. 81:2; 140:8.
problems; the current vogue is {KBL\ HAL ; THAT, II, 254, 896; cf. also Zo.) to
distinguish between two homonyms: I ‘music* (Isa. 51:3 etc.); II ‘strength’ (Gen.
43:11; Exod. 15:2; Isa. 12:2; Ps. 118:14); this results in renderings such as
‘kracht’ (‘strength’) (WV, Dasberg, GNB), ‘defence’ (NEB) etc. (in that case
mDTi T17 is unmistakably a hendiadys). As I see it, the meaning ‘strength’ for m&T
is doubtful; Gen. 43:11 remains problematic (strength = the choicest yield of);
mention of song/music is not strange after 15:1 and in view of 15:2c, d (cf.
T tf//“)DT in Judg. 5:3; Ps. 21:14; 27:6 et al. and see Ps. 59:18).138 The form
m o t is problematic (an uncommon feminine ending? cf. Ges-K § 80g; Joiion
§ 89n; differently KoSynt § 38); one would expect to find T P io r; so Sam. Pent,
(which, however, does not have the following rr; cf. LXX) and 1 Qlsa (on
12:12); see further Vulg.; the usual thought is that vnDT is the correct read
ing.139 E.M. Good, VT 20 (1970), 358f., contends that the MT is correct and the
’ of rr also has a function with respect to the preceding term. m, see Introd.
§ 7.3.1. \mi, 2b clarifies the statement of 2a; cf. KoSynt § 369g (differently e.g.
Dillmann, Strack: ‘and in consequence,’ viz. because he is my strength ...). nmer,
cf. 14:13, 30 and see Ps. 118:21. In LXX (cf. Frankel*, 88) 15:2a, b is translated
as one sentence: PoqOog icai oKeTraoify; (based on reading ino instead of "i&T?)
eyeveto poi eig ocoxqpiav, ‘a helper and protector did he become to me for
deliverance.’ LXX has left suffix of t i ; untranslated; also in Pesh. nr is usually
related to y h w h ; Ehrlich connects it to 15:1c: ‘therewith my God drew the
attention.’ nr is also presupposed in 15:2d. 15:2c, d is a case of synonymous
parallelism. see Introd. § 7.1.
•lrn.W imperf. hiph. + suff. (KBL , HAL : probably piel: im j8) of m3, which
probably (see LXX, Vulg. and 15:2d) means ‘to praise,’ ‘to extol;’ m3 also in
Hab. 2:5; also there the meaning is uncertain; the same is true of the question
whether there are two homonyms; TO: enpD m^ ‘and I will build him a
sanctuary’ (cf. SV), is based on the derivation from m3 (cf. 15:13); Rashi
mentions the possibility of derivation from m, ‘splendour;’140 see the discussion
in Mek. II, 25f., and e.g. PWBy XXVI, 20ff. It is proposed to read in3"7N1 or a
similar form (cf. Ps. 118:28) (e.g. Ehrlich).141 ‘the god of my father’ (see 3:6;
TO: ‘my fathers;’ TPsJ, TNf, FT: ‘our fathers’), the God who through the
generations manifests his faithfulness. imDOiNi (see 7:20), with uncontracted suff.
(Ges-K § 58k; Joiion § 61h).
138 See S.E. Loewenstamm, VT 19 (1969), 464-70 ( + Bibl. and other views). S.B. Parker, VT21
(1971), 373ff., takes issue with him and considers ‘protection’ an accurate rendering; cf. A. Bar-Tura,
BetM 28 (1982-83), 330, and see further M. Barre, “‘My Strength and My Song’ in Exodus 15:2,”
CBQ 54 (1992), 623-37.
139 For an explanation of the origin of the current text see Delitzsch*, 11; S. Talmon, VT 4 (1954),
206ff.; S.E. Loewenstamm, 468f.
140 Cf. Dasberg: ‘whom I will serve in beauty;’ or is this rendering based on derivation from HK3?
141 For the term see further P. Haupt, AJSL 20 (1903-4), 159, 170f.; M. Dahood, Bib 59 (1978),
260f.
280 EXODUS 13 :1 7 - 15:21
The experience of deliverance induces the singer to acknowledge y h w h (and no

one else) as God (cf. 15:11). The experience and acknowledgement is shared,
witness the ‘of my father,’ with previous generations. He wants to glorify y h w h
by recounting his marvellous deeds.
15:3a y h w h is a w a r r io r .
b y h w h is h is n a m e .
15:3 is a cultic exclamation, an encomium in the nature of a confession. The word
order of 15:3a, b exhibits the pattern: AB/AC; cf. Deut. 6:4: y h w h is our
God/y h w h is one. n o n ^ D ktn (see 1:10; 14:14, 25; Introd. § 3.2.1), not: ‘warrior
god’ (e.g. Beer), but ‘he who does battle’ (for his people); Sam. Pent.:
nGn^D3 "1133 (cf. Ps. 24:8); cf. GNB: ‘een held in de strijd’ (‘a hero in battle’);
Pesh.: ‘fighter and warrior.’ LXX has blunted the bold expression through its
rendering ouvrpiPojv TtoAepoix;, ‘who causes wars to fail’ (cf. Jdt. 16:2); cf.
Vulg.: quasi vir pugnator ; TO: ‘y h w h is lord of the victories in the battles;’ see
also TPsJ, TNf, FTV, SamT, and the question raised in Mek. II, 33: ‘May one talk
like that?’142 ‘name* (Introd. § 3.50), cf. Isa. 42:8; 48:2; Amos 4:13; 5:8; 9:6,
and see J.L. Crenshaw, ZAW 81 (1969), 156-75. Obviously, 15:3b does not mean
to inform about the name of God. Doubtful, too, is whether the name can be
explained by pointing to the interpretation of the name y h w h in 3:14f. (so e.g.
Cassuto). It is confessed here that there is no other god like y h w h who fights for
his people like y h w h . Only if one does battle in his name (cf. Ps. 20:2, 6; 68:5;
1 Sam. 17:45-47 and see also Isa. 63:16) can one confidently await the outcome.
Vulg. has rendered the second y h w h with omnipotens.
15:4a Pharaoh’s chariots and his army:

b He knocked them over in the sea.
c And the pick o f his ranking officers:
d Engulfed they were in Yam Suph.
15:5a Surging waters covered them.
b In whirlpools o f water they sank like stones.
In 15:4, 5 a motive is given for the statements in 15:2, 3. 15:4a-b, c-d is more or
less marked by synonymous parallelism; c correlates with a: ‘army’ = ‘ranking
officers,’ the crew of the chariots (cf. 14:4, 7) (‘army’ is not: the othertroops); b
correlates with d: knocking over results in drowning. The parallelismin 15:5 is
progressive. In 15:4, 5 four different terms are used for the water, ‘chariots,’ cf.
14:25. ^ n , see 14:4. .i t (Sam. Pent.: NT: TNf: ‘he shot fiery arrows at them;’
FTV: ‘he shot arrows at them’), see 4:12; Hay (see 15:1) holds that ‘to shoot
down’ is meant; in my view, D'3 like in 15:1 does not indicate the direction.
"in3Gi (see 14:7), cf. KoSynt § 309f; Ges-K § 128r. 1 is not translated in LXX,
Vulg. ‘ranking officers (i.e. the pick/elite of his officers),’ cf. 14:7; note the
142 See for the question S. Talmon, ScrHie 8 (1961), 370ff.

deviant form in which the term is translated in 14:7 and here; as concerns 15:4:
LXX: avapdrag Tpiordtag; Vulg.: principes ; TPsJ, FT: 'n a a ‘of his
young heroes;’ TNf: ditto + ‘of Pharaoh;’ TO, here and in 14:7:‘heroes.’ See
also the discordant renderings in modem translations.
•iiptt (for pi. see e.g. KoSynt § 349e) perf. pual of ratD (OT 10x); qal: ‘to
sink (down)’ (Jer. 38:6; Ps. 9:16 et al.); pual (only here): ‘be engulfed/swallowed
up;’ Ehrlich proposes to vocalize as qal; cf. Beer. MSS LXX: ‘he ( y h w h )
drowned (them);’ cf. Pesh., TPsJ, TNf, FT and Mek. II, 35. ‘Yam Suph,’ see
Introd. § 8.12.
nbnp pi. of mnp (OT 36x; sing. 22x), ‘floods,’ ‘the abysses of the sea;’143
as I see it (Houtman*, Himmel, 269), the meaning of the sing, differs from that of
the pi., and the niBinn of the sea (15:5, 8; Jer. 63:13; Ps. 33:7; 106:9; 107:26;
135:6; 148:7) stand for the deepest water layers, the springs that feed the see.
Note the climactic parallelism in Ps. 77:7 (after 2 x there follows monn) and
the fact that in 15:8 a distinction is made between mDnn and □*•; the same
distinction is made in Ps. 107:26: in terrible weather, the seafarers, after having
been lifted to the heavens by the waves (26a), are pulled down by the water to the
mDinn (26b), which apparently is to be distinguished from the cr and D'Di D'D of
vs. 23. As mDinn can denote the springs and underground waters (Deut. 8:7 et
al.), so the term also denotes the inaccessible-to-man springs of the sea, (cf. Job
38:16), which according to the hyperbolic description of Ps. 107 are only being
laid bare in terrible weather and which according to 15:8; Isa. 63:13; Ps. 77:17;
106:9 became visible due to y h w h ’s interference at the exodus. According to
15:8, they stopped flowing to allow passage to Israel.
LXX: 6 tiovtoc;, ‘the high sea’ in 15:5; tcc Kupatoc, ‘the waves,’ in 15:8.
(see 8:2), for the form see Ges-K § 20m, 75dd (' is retained; but note Delitzsch*,
51: scribal error), 58g; Jotion § 61i (for vocalization suff.); D in n is often femi
nine; therefore the masculine form is striking; genizah fragment (app. BHS) has
feminine form. In LXX, y h w h is subject and the water instrument. LXX assumes
the reading 1DP3;*; cf. Sam. Pent.: KoSynt § 249i; 327o wonders whether
feminine D in n might be accus. instrumentalis (but note Baentsch). n b is p pi. of
(OT 12x), commonly derived from cognate form of (TWAT , IV,
1095ff.); various homonyms roots of bbx are distinguished; is explained on
the basis of bbs, ‘to sink’ (15:10): ‘depth,’ ‘abyss,’ ‘maelstrom’ (cf. Ugaritic
mslt , ‘spring’). n b iS B is similar in meaning to n & n n . p x (see 7:19), here without,
in 15:16 with article (cf. KoSynt § 299m; Ges-K § 126o); I render sing, as pi.;
quickly and without surfacing the Egyptians are drowned (cf. Neh. 9:11).
15:6a Your powerful deeds, O y h w h , awesome in power,

b Your powerful deeds, O y h w h , shatter the enemy.
15:7a And in your majestic exaltation
143 See e.g. THAT, II, 1026ff.; Reymond*, 167ff.; N.H. Ridderbos, OTS 12 (1958), 233ff.
282 EXODUS 1 3 :1 7 - 15:21
b You cast down your adversaries.

c You vent your fury:
d It consumes them like straw.
15:6-7 comprises words of praise and the theme is yhwh ’s smashing of his foes.
As so often in the Psalms, 15:7 embodies a stereotypical depiction of the routing
of the enemy. Going by the letter, the imagery employed does not quite fit the
current context. The word order of 15:6a, b has the pattern ABCD/ABEF; CD and
EF are correlative and complement each other; put in prose, the thrust is: with his
tremendous power yhwh shatters the enemy; the repetition AB accentuates
yhwh ’s mighty deed.144 The parallelism of 15:7a-b, c-d is more or less synonym
ous. ‘right hand,* see Introd. § 3.21.7.
part. niph. (with compaginis; cf. Ges-K § 901; KoSynt § 272b, c; BL
525j, 5261) of TiK (OT 3 x ), ‘to be glorious, powerful;’ part. niph. in 15:6, 11.
Hoc loco probably attribute of yhwh (cf. Dillmann, Strack, Ehrlich, and already
Mek. II, 39f.; Ibn Ezra) and not predicate with the feminine I'D' (but note ancient
and modem translations and e.g. Nachmanides, Baentsch); e.g. Beer: read H11K3;
Cross-Freedman, JNES 14 (1955), 245f.: m x : is infin. abs. to denote finite
verb.145 The adjective T i g (OT 17 x), ‘what impresses on account of its
greatness, strength and power,’ occurs in 15:10 (cf. Ps. 93:4 and e.g. Ps. 8:2, 10;
76:5). See THAT, I, 38ff.; TWAT, I, 78ff. Ehrlich: read n riu (cf. Ps. 65:7). m ,
see 9:16.
fV")n imperf. qal of f i n (15:6; Judg. 10:8), ‘to break to pieces/shatter.’146
TIN part, qal of TN (OT ca. 280x), ‘to treat as an enemy,’ which, bar 23:22,
only occurs as part., serving as a substantivum to denote the personal (23:4; Num.
35:23 etc.) and national enemy (Judg. 16:23f.); in the latter meaning in sing, as a
collective (15:6, 9; Deut. 33:27 et al.; LXX: in 15:6 pi.; Pesh.: ‘your enemies’)
or as pi. (23:22, 27; Lev. 26:7f.; Num. 10:9 et al.). Israel’s enemies are YHWH’s
enemies (Num. 10:35; Judg. 5:31; 1 Sam. 30:26; 2 Sam. 21:14 et al.; but note
also Isa. 63:10; Lam. 2:4, 5). See THAT , I, 118ff.; TWAT , I, 228ff.
31, see 1:9. fiNl (see 15:1), by Ehrlich understood here as ‘anger.’ o iq n ,
imperf. qal of Oin (OT 42X; qal 29x), ‘to pull down,’ ‘to overthrow’ (Judg.
6:25; Isa. 14:17; Prov. 14:1 et al.), also of humans (15:7; Isa. 22:19; Jer. 4:26 et
al.; Ps. 28:5); in 19:21, 24 with the meaning ‘to break through/penetrate to’ (by
crossing an established boundary; cf. 19:12, 23); for Oin piel ‘to tear down,’ ‘to
destroy,’ see 23:24 (2x); Isa. 49:17. See TWAT , II, 499ff.
T&p (see 1:8), for meaning of suff. (not translated in LXX) see KoSynt § 23;
Ges-K § 116i. nbti (Introd. § 3.49.2), cf. L. Kopf, VT8 (1958), 207f. in n , often
144 For the pattern see also 15:11a, b and 15:16e, f, and further S.E. Loewenstamm, JSS 14 (1969),
176-96.
145 For still another translation see M. Dahood, Bib 53 (1972), 394f.; see further D. Robertson, VT
19 (1969), 212f.
146 Cf. P. Haupt, AJSL 20 (1903-4), 161; L. Kopf, VT 8 (1958), 205f.
used in combination with *]# (see 15:8), see 4:14. ‘to consume,’ see Introd.
§ 3.3.1. ‘straw,’ see Introd. § 10.3.8.
15:8a Through the snort o f your nostrils

b The water piled up:
c The raging waves stood like a wall.
d In the depths o f the sea the surging waters turned solid.
15:8-10 provides the motives for the statements in 15:6-7. Formally there is
similarity between the beginning of 15:7 and 15:8. In 15:8b, c the use of n-sounds
is striking (onomatopoeia? associated with snorting?). Possibly 15:8c, d are
intended as a climax. In 15:8,147 10 the water is mentioned 6 x (4x in 15:8; 2 x
in 15:10) in 4 different terms; the first (O'D) and the last (D') of 15:8 occur in
15:10 in chiastic arrangement. Beside 15:8 see 14:21f.
‘snort (of nostrils),’ see Introd. § 3.47.1. *)!<, see 4:14; LXX: 8ia Tiveuparoc;
too Oupou, ‘through the breath of your anger’ (cf. Ehrlich here and on 15:10).
Also the targums have weakened the powerful anthropomorphism, replaced it by
something less forceful; e.g. TPsJ: ‘Through the Word that is from before you;’
cf. TO, TNf, FTP. perf. niph. of dijj I (verb only here in OT), ‘to be
heaped/piled up;’ cf. ‘heap’ (Jer. 50:26 et al.). LXX: 5 i 8ott|, ‘stood apart,
separate;’ Aq., Symm., Theod.: eocopeuOri, ‘piled up.’ ‘water,’ see Introd.
§ 3.33. 2Xly see 5:20. n (OT 6 x ), ‘wall,’ ‘heap’ (cf. Josh. 3:13, 16; Ps. 78:13
and Ps. 33:7; see Houtman*, Himmelt 261; Schwarzenbach*, 21f.). In TPsJ, TNf,
FTP *13 is understood as "!N3, ‘water-bag:’ ‘they stood tied up like bags of flowing
water;’ cf. Pesh. and Mek. II, 5 If. But note TO: n tfa, ‘like a wall’ (cf. 14:22);
cf. Rashi, Ibn Ezra. Cross 1973 (Introduction to exegesis under j), 128: ‘The
swells mounted up as a hill.’
D’fyi part. act. pi. qal of *?T3 (OT 18X; qal 17x), ‘to flow,’ ‘to stream;’ part,
pi. 7 x for flowing water (Isa. 44:3; Jer. 18:4; Ps. 78:16, 44; Prov. 5:15; Cant.
4:15); cf. KoSynt § 305d; hoc loco to further describe CTD (cf. Brockelmann
§ 103a) as the running water in the sea, the currents in the sea. Note the contrast:
rapidly flowing water with towering and plunging waves turns into a wall, standing
stock-still. See TWATy V, 326ff.; Reymond*, 55, 70; Schwarzenbach*, 59f. ixpj?
perf. qal of K3p (15:8; Zeph. 1:12; Zech. 14:6; Job 10:10 hiph.), ‘to congeal;’ ‘to
become stiff;’ Cross-Freedman, JNES 14 (1955), 246: ‘to boil;’ Cross 1973,
128f.: ‘to foam.’ In LXX rendered like U2i3 with eTtayri; in Vulg. like 1Q*"IIJ3 with
congregatae sunt. Mek. II, 52: of the waters God formed a kind of arch (under
which Israel passed), n&nn, see 15:5. ‘the depths ...,’ see Introd. § 3.29.2.
15:9a The enemy thought:
147 For a fresh interpretation see L.L. Grabbe, “Comparative Philology and Exodus 15,8: Did the
Egyptians Die in a Storm?” SJOT 7 (1993), 263-9; A. Wolters, “Mot Rescue but Destruction:
Rereading Exodus 15:8,” CBQ 52 (1990), 223-240.
284 EXODUS 1 3 :1 7 - 15:21
b 7 am going to pursue , I overtake,

c / divide the spoil.
d My lust fo r murder is being sated on them;
e I draw my sword ,
f My hand destroys them . '
The enemy (TPsJ, TNf, FT explicitly: ‘Pharaoh;’ cf. Mek. II, 55) is assumed to
be in the sea or at the point of stepping into it (cf. 14:23).148 A graphic picture is
presented of the thoughts racing through the enemy’s mind. Sure of victory, he is
already in a state of euphoria. Having five things in mind, his ultimate intent is to
kill the adversary. The large number of words starting with K is striking (5x after
each other in 15:9a-c; l x in 15:9e) (onomatopoeia? does it express haste and
furore?). The enemy is extremely egocentric: 4 x ‘I;’ 3 x ‘my.’ ‘to think,’ see
Introd. § 3.5.1. ‘enemy,’ see 15:6. *)"n, see 14:4. aba, see 14:9.
pv?n«; imperf. piel of pbn (OT ca. 55x; piel ca. 25x ) ,149 ‘to divide,’ ‘to
distribute;’ hoc loco + (OT ca. 75X; derivative of ‘to plunder,’ ‘to
rob’), ‘plunder,’ ‘booty,’ ‘spoil’ (cf. piel in Gen. 49:27; Judg. 5:30; Isa. 9:2;
53:12; Ps. 68:13; Prov. 16:9; qal in Josh. 22:8 [cf. 1 Sam. 30:24]; pual in Isa.
33:23; Zech. 14:1).150 Spoil could consist of animals, women and children,
jewelry, precious metals, clothing (Num. 31:25ff.; Deut. 2:35; 3:7; 20:14; Josh.
7:21; Judg. 5:30; 8:24ff.; 1 Sam. 14:32; 15:9, 19, 21 et al.). Warfare in the
Ancient Near East involved the rights of plunder. There is an occasional reference
to soldiers being paid wages (2 Chr. 25:6; 1 Macc. 3:28), but it seems that as a
rule they were paid in the form of booty (Ezek. 29:19). The division of spoil was
a joyful occasion (Isa. 9:2; Ps. 119:162). If for some reason soldiers were denied
the right to take* spoil, they could flare up in anger (2 Chr. 25:10, 13; cf. Judg.
5:19). Part of the spoils went to the king or leader, sometimes for collective use
(Judg. 8:24ff.; 1 Sam. 8:9ff.) or was dedicated to the deity or his sanctuary (e.g.
Num. 31:25ff.; 1 Chr. 26:27) etc.151
see 2:16. LXX (without rendering of suff.): epTtAfjoo) ijiuxiv pou; Pesh.:
‘my soul will swallow them’ (cf. 15:12); Vulg.: ‘my soul will satisfy itself’
(without rendering of suff.); Cross-Freedman, JNES 14 (1955), 246: the original
text ended in an enclitic mem. ‘lust for murder’ (Introd. § 3.35.1), desire for
revenge, resulting in murder; according to Cassuto the enemy is saying: ‘my
desire, my lust, will be satisfied by the spoil that I shall take from them’ (see
further below).
P’Hfct imperf. hiph. of p n /p n (OT 19x ; hiph. 17x), ‘to empty,’ ‘to pour out’
(Gen. 42:35; Mai. 3:10 et al.); here + 3"in (see 5:3) in the metaphorical sense of
148 Rashi, Nachmanides: Pharaoh spoke to his people in Egypt in these words; cf. 14:6f.
149 Usually a distinction is made between I and pbn II (HAL also III).
150 See H.J. Stoebe, “Raub und Beute,” in Hebrdische Wortforschung (Fs W. Baumgartner), Leiden
1967, 340-54; THAT, I, 576ff.; TWAT, II, 1015ff.
151 See BHHW, I, 236; DB, IV, 895; IDB, I, 458; IV, 437f.; LA, III, 775; Pedersen*, III-IV, 22ff.,
27ff.; De Vaux*, II, 76ff.
‘drawing the sword’ (Lev. 26:33; Ezek. 5:2, 12 et al.); ‘to empty’ contrasts here
with ‘to fill’ (N*?D); LXX: aveXa) xf| paxaipp pou, ‘I will destroy with my
sword.’ ET hiph., see 6:8. ‘hand,’ see Introd. § 3.21.3. LXX (without rendering
of the suff.): Kupieuoei r\ xeip pou, ‘my hand will exercise dominion.’
In my view, 15:9 presents a stereotypical description of the cruel enemy and has
no direct tie-in with the prose narrative. Therefore it will not do to regard the
plundering as a recovery of the property (12:35, 38) (Strack), and to interpret eh'
hiph. as ‘to take back again,’ by saying that the Egyptians had no plans to
exterminate Israel but sought to return them to slavery152.
The various clauses are linked asyndetically; a pointer to the hurry of the
enemy - his thoughts running amok - and the fact that he thinks he can ac
complish his design in a flash. The asyndeton is continued in 15:10: in a flash
y h w h puts an end to his existence; cf. KoSynt § 357h; Ges-K § 154a note.
15:10a You blew and you snorted:

b The sea covered them.
c They sank like lead
d In the dreadful water.
Cf. 14:27f.; it is assumed that the enemy is in the sea. (cf. tfDJ in 15:9b;
‘play’ with consonants), see Introd. § 3.35.2; TWAT, V, 673ff.; Sam. Pent.: ns 873
(cf. Isa. 40:7 and see Nachmanides). "|nna (cf. 15:8), which I have rendered as a
verb. LXX: &7ieoteiAa<; to Ttveupa oou, ‘you sent your breath’ (related to the
Holy Spirit by, e.g., Augustine, QE, LV); TO: ‘you spoke through your word;’
cf. Frankel*, 88, and see Ehrlich hoc loco who alludes to parallelism in Ps. 33:6.
In TPsJ, TNf, FTP the anthropomorphism has been weakened in another way: ‘you
blew with a wind that was before you.’ In Vulg.: flavit spiritus tuus ‘breath’ is
subject. D03, cf. 15:5. (Ges-K § lOg) perf. qal of h i x , ‘to sink’ (verb only
here in OT); see 15:5. D'TTK D'D (15:6), cf. Ps. 77:20: D':n D'Q; see H. May,
JBL 74 (1955), 9ff. m a im (Ges-K § 35g); (15:10; Num. 31:22; Jer. 6:29;
Ezek. 22:18, 20; 27:12; Zech. 5:7f.; Job 19:24), ‘lead;’ archaeology shows that
lead was used in many ways, e.g. as weights in fishing nets, for plumblines, for
statuettes, and in the building industry.153 t i k , see 15:6. Cf. 15:5 and see for
the depiction Iliad, XXIV, 80.
15:11a Who is like you among the gods, o y h w h ?

b Who is like you, awesome in holiness,
c Renowned fo r glorious deeds,
d Worker o f astonishing happenings ?
15:11 is words of praise, a tribute to YHWH. The word order of the rhetorical
questions of 15:lla-b exhibits the pattern: ABC/ADE (cf. 15:6, 16e, f); BC
132 See e.g. Cassuto, Fensham, Michaeli and the translation of Vredenburg, Dasberg.
133 See BHHW, I, 256; BRL, 84, 94, 115, 219, 221 et al.; IDBy III, 103f.; LAy I, 826f.
286 EXODUS 1 3 :1 7 - 15:21
correlates with DE; put in prose, the tenor is: among the gods there is no one who
equals y h w h in splendour and majesty. The parallelism in 15:11c, d is synonym
ous.
For 15:11a, b see Introd. § 7.1; 7.3.6. For the punctuation see Ges-K § 20e, g.
Sam. Pent.: "JIM (cf. Ges-K § 58g). TiKJ (see 15:6), Sam. Pent.: m i u (cf.
15:6). e n p a (Introd. § 3.44), points to y h w h ’ s being wholly different, his
awesome majesty; my translation is based on the parallelism with 15:6; Ehrlich:
e n p n denotes local: ‘in the sanctuary’ = ‘in heaven,* and is equal to (cf.
Ps. 89:7); cf. LXX: ev avion; (cf. Ps. 89:6; Job 5:1; 15:15 et al.). In Pesh.
nbnn ... t in j is rendered as hdjr bqwdS dbjV wmSbh\ ‘glorious in holiness,
honoured and praised;* cf. Vulg.: terribilis atque laudabilis. xna, see 1:17. nbnp
pi. of n£np (OT ca. 55x ) ,154 ‘glory,’ ‘(song of) praise;’ here referring to the
qualities, deeds etc. of God, which are object and cause of praise (cf. Ps. 9:15;
35:28; 78:4; 79:13 etc.). For the accus. see KoSynt § 328k; 336h; Ges-K § 118m.
ntov (Introd. § 3.41.1), cstr. state (cf. KoSynt § 240e; Ges-K § 116g) + (see
3:20), cf. Ps. 77:15; 78:12; 88:11; Isa. 25:1 and Ps. 72:18; see D. Grimm, Jud
35 (1979), 77-83; Sam. Pent.: nx^D.
15:12a You acted resolutely:

b The earth swallowed them.
15:12-17 offers motives for the statement in 15:11. 15:12a, 13a, 13c start with a
verb whose first letter is a n-sound (cf. also the n-sound in 15:13d) (alliteration),
‘to stretch out,’ see Introd. §3.21.9. ‘right hand,’ cf. 15:6. 1^3, see 7:12.
‘earth,’ see Introd. § 3.6; Sam. Pent.: pixn. Is the annihilation of the Egyptians
recounted once again? (so e.g. Dillmann, Strack, Noth, Te Stroete). The term
‘earth’ would seem to clash with the fact that the army found a watery grave in the
sea. Dillmann’s suggestion that here the earth includes the sea is as unconvincing
as Baentsch’s notion that one should not press poetic language and that there is no
reason to think of the ruin of other adversaries of y h w h . Though one might object
that the antecedent of the suff. of is not specifically mentioned, it seems to
me that the wording here suggests an allusion to the destruction of Korah, Dathan
and Abiram and their families (Num. 16:30ff.); cf. e.g. Holzinger, Ehrlich, Beer,
Heinisch. 15:12 narrates the trek through the desert.
The striking use of ‘earth’ (instead of ‘sea’) is explained in TPsJ, TNf, FT with
a haggadic elaboration: earth and sea argue about the question who should receive
the victims (the Egyptians); earth feared that they would be reclaimed on the day
of judgment; when y h w h swears (the stretching out of the right hand is under
154 Derivative of in piel: ‘to praise,’ ‘to glorify;’ see THAT, I, 493ff.; TWAT, II, 441 ff.;
Ehrlich: read ‘terrifying deeds’ (cf. Ps. 66:5).
stood as a gesture accompanying the oath) that it will not happen, earth receives
them;155 the Egyptians merit a funeral on account of the confession of 9:27
(Mek. II, 67; Rashi). According to Nachmanides the dead bodies were thrown on
the seashore (14:30), where they decomposed and returned to dust (Eccl. 12:7).
15:13a In your steadfast love you led

b The people you delivered.
c Through your show o f strength you made it rest
d On holy ground.
15:13a-b, c-d are marked by progression; a is correlative with c ("ion and TP
complement each other); b is correlative with d (the people and the holy ground
are meant for each other), nm, see 13:17. non (OT ca. 245 x) is a much dis
cussed term.156 In 15:13; 20:6; 34:6 (for nDNi non see 4:1), 7, non is used in
reference to y h w h : ‘steadfast love,* y h w h ’s magnanimous and merciful deeds on
behalf of his people. For non beside TP see Ps. 59:10f., 17f.; 62:12f. ‘people’
(Introd. § 3.40.1), LXX here and in 15:16: ‘your people.’ IT functions as a relative
pronoun.157 (Ges-K § 20e), see 6:6.
(Ges-K § 64d) perf. piel of *.na (OT 10x);158 in 15:13, Isa. 40:11;
49:10; Ps. 23:2; 31:4 YHWH is subject; is usually taken to mean ‘to guide,’ ‘to
lead’ (e.g. HAL , THAT , II, 54f.; in 15:13; Ps. 23:2f.; 31:4 used in conjunction
with nnj); P. Haupt, AJSL 22 (1905-6), 195-206, has shown that the verb means
‘to cause to rest;*159 in 15:13, in view of the use of btf (Haupt reads br), also
the element of movement is present: to lead to the place of rest; MSS Sam. Pent.:
nbnj; cf. TPsJ: ‘you gave them the inheritance of the mountain of your sanctuary,
the place where your holy Shekinah dwells.’ LXX: 7iapeKaAeoa<;. ‘You did
summon’? ‘You did comfort’?; often TiapaKaAeiv is a rendering of Dm (cf. 15:2).
TP (cf. 15:2), Henton Davies: an allusion to the Ark (cf. Ps. 78:61; 132:8).
n i; (OT ca. 4 5 x), ‘pasture,’ abode of flock and shepherd (2 Sam. 7:8; Isa.
65:10; Jer. 23:3 etc.), but also residence/dwelling in general,160 also y h w h ’s
dwelling (2 Sam. 15:25); its use in 15:13 raises the question whether Canaan or
Zion is meant (cf. also 15:17). In the pi. m3 can stand for the land as a whole (Ps.
83:13; Lam. 2:2); in the sing. ni3 can denote the habitation of a people (Isa.
155 Cf. Mek. II, 67, and see also PWB, XXX, 5ff. ( y h w h orders the earth to cover the Egyptians; at
first the earth refuses etc.).
136 See THAT, I, 600ff.; TWAT, III, 48ff.; G.R. Clark, The Word Hesed in the Hebrew Bible,
Sheffield 1993; G. Gerleman, VT 28 (1978), 151-64; S. Romerowski, VT 40 (1990), 89-193; K.D.
Sakenfeld, The Meaning o f Hesed in the Hebrew Bible, Missoula 1978; S.J. De Vries, VT 29 (1979),
359-62; C.F. Whitley, Bib 62 (1981), 519-26.
137 See KoSynt § 51, 385b; Ges-K § 139g; Jouon § 38, 145c; Williams § 129; J.M. Allegro, VT 5
(1955), 309ff.
138 Suff. is absent but is implicit and required in translation; e.g. Vulg.
139 See also TWAT, V, 279f.; cf. KoW (‘to lead’ is not the primary and only meaning of *?n3, but it
is the meaning that fits 15:18), Zo.
160 See e.g. Job 5:24 and 18:15 (// bnK); Prov. 3:33 (// IV3).
288 EXODUS 1 3 :1 7 - 15:21
32:18); the precise scope of m3 is not always clear (e.g. Jer. 10:25; 25:30; 31:23;
Ps. 79:7), but normally it seems to refer to Jerusalem (cf. Isa. 33:20 and Isa.
27:10). Therefore I opt for Zion (cf. 15:17). m3 is to be understood as a place
where one lives safely and securely (cf. Isa. 32:18; 33:20 and also Jer. 25:37).
See further TWAT , V, 293ff. Shepherd terminology is being used (cf. Ps. 23:2f.;
77:21). enp, see Introd. § 3.44.2. For the interpretation: place of the sanctu-
ary/holy place = Zion, see among others Nachmanides, Dillmann, Strack; the
view goes way back; see TPsJ, TNf, FTP and also Mek. II, 70; PWB , XXX, 17.
For the interpretation: holy ground = Canaan (cf. Zech. 2:17), see among others
Keil, Baentsch, Beer, Te Stroete. Ibn Ezra and e.g. Cassuto, Hyatt think of Sinai
(cf. 3:12).
15:14a Nations heard o f it: they trembled.

b Pangs o f anguish seized Philistia’s inhabitants.
Hearing of y h w h ’s deeds, the nations tremble; 7 x (15:4a, b, 15a, d, e, 16b, d)
their fear is variously described (crescendo).161 15:9 depicts the enemy prior to
y h w h ’s deeds; 15:14-16 portrays him after y h w h ’s intervention (contrast). Having
witnessed y h w h ’s mighty deeds, arrogance is replaced by mortal fear.
‘to hear’ (Introd. § 3.51.1), viz. y h w h ’s mighty deeds on behalf of Israel (cf.
e.g. Josh. 2:9f.; 2 Chr. 20:29); Vulg.: ascenderunt, ‘they exalted themselves.’
‘nations’ (Introd. § 3.40.2), T.H. Gaster, ET 48 (1936-7), 45: ‘Aamu , ‘Asiatics,’
from Egyptian texts. VITJT imperf. qal (with paragogic nun; Ges-K § 47m) of m
(OT ca. 4 0 x ; qal ca. 30x), ‘to be stirred,’ ‘to tremble’ (Deut. 2:25; Isa. 14:9
etc.; cf. TWAT , VII, 326ff.). Sam. Pent.: 1T3T1; LXX: (bpylo0r|oav, ‘they became
angry;’ cf. Vulg.; but note Aq. and Symm. b'n (15:14; Jer. 6:24; 22:23; 50:43;
Mic. 4:9; Ps. 48:7), derivative of bm, ‘to writhe,’ ‘to be in labour (of child
birth);’ here in the more general sense as expression of fear (see TWAT, II,
898ff.); BDB sees only one root bin = bm (cf. 15:20). rnx, see 4:4. see
2:15; TPsJ: ‘all the dignitaries among the inhabitants ....’ ‘Philistia’ (Introd.
§8.28), there is no talk here of dread of the Philistines (cf. 13:17).
15:15a Yes, gripped with fear

b Were Edom’s chieftains.
c M oab’s princes:
d Trembling seized them.
e Dismayed were all Canaan *s inhabitants.
The parallelism in 15:15a-b, c-d is chiastic. TN, see 4:10. ibn:^3 perf. niph. of
bn3 (OT ca. 40X; niph. 24x), ‘to be dismayed,’ ‘to be seized with fear’ (Gen.
45:3; Judg. 20:41 etc.). See TWAT , I, 520ff. LXX: eoTteuoav, ‘they are in haste.’
^lbK , is only applied - discounting Zech. 9:7; 12:5, 6 - to the tribal heads,
161 Cf. P. Joiion, Bib 6 (1925), 174-79; N. Waldman, JQR 66 (1975-6), 189-92 (with Akkadian and
Ugaritic documentary evidence).
sheiks of Edom (Gen. 36:15-19, 21, 29ff., 40-43; 1 Chr. 1:51-54).162 ‘Edom,’
see Introd. § 8.1. ‘prince,’163 the ram is a strong animal, walking at the head of
the flock. ‘Moab,’ see Introd. § 8.17. For casus pendens see KoSynt § 341c; TriN,
cf. 15:14.
H n (15:15; Ps. 55:6), derivative of i i n (Ps. 104:32 qal; Dan. 10:11; Ezra
10:9), ‘to quake;’ cf. m i n 4- Tnx in Ps. 48:7. n b ; perf. niph. of HD (OT 17x ;
niph. 6 x ); the root denotes lack of firmness: going back and forth, vacillation,
wavering, being spineless; here: psychologically they are a wreck,164 and
physically they are no better; they are no longer in control of themselves; they are
unable to stay on their feet (cf. Josh. 2:9, 24; 1 Sam. 14:16; Isa. 14:31). See
TWAT, IV, 724ff. bD, a case of enjambment? Cross-Freedman, JNES 14 (1955),
248; Cross 1973, 130: ba is metri causa an adjective: ‘whole.’ UK7\ Cross-
Freedman, 248: due to parallelism here ‘enthroned’ (= princes; see also at 2:15).
‘Canaan’ (Introd. § 8.14); TPsJ: ‘all the dignitaries among the inhabitants.’
15:16a Upon them fell

b Terror and trembling.
c Through your spectacular intervention
d They were petrified with fear,
e Until your people, O y h w h , had passed by,
f Until the people you called into existence had passed by.
The word order of 15:16e, f exhibits the following pattern: ABC/ABD (cf. 15:6,
11a, b). ban imperf. qal feminine165 of bai (OT ca. 435 x ; qal ca. 365 x ; hiph.
ca. 60x), ‘to fall;’ often it denotes something negative: ‘falling’ over against
‘standing up’ (being powerless in contrast to being able to act; cf. 21:18, 33);
‘falling’ can mean that one’s strength is definitely broken (OT ca. 100x): ‘to
perish’ (19:21; 32:28); in 15:16 bai -I- b$ is used metaphorically with ‘fear’ as
subject (cf. Gen. 15:12; Josh. 2:9; 1 Sam. 11:7 et al.); it renders people incapable
of purposeful activity; for possible physical consequences see 1 Sam. 28:20. bai
hiph. in 21:27 means ‘to knock out’ (cf. Ezek. 39:3). See TWAT , V, 521ff.
ombi;, the previously mentioned nations, ripp^, with old accusative ending
(KoSynt § 269a; Ges-K § 90g; Jouon § 93j); Sam. Pent.: na-K. (OT 17x),
‘dread,’ ‘terror’ (cf. 23:27; Josh. 2:9 and e.g. Gen. 15:16 et al.). Here it denotes
the dread sent by yhwh; 23:27 speaks of 'np'K (subjective genitive; differently
e.g. HAL s.v.: ‘the fear of me’), ‘the fear sent by me (yhwh),’ and which to some
extent has become an independent entity; in Egypt similar imagery is associated
162 See J. van de Ploeg, RB 57 (1950), 40-61.

163 See Introd. § 9.1.7; P.D. Miller, UF2 (1970), 177-86.
164 They have lost their courage; in TPsJ and TNf ‘their heart’ is introduced as subject of 00D, ‘to
melt;’ cf. also FTP and Pesh.
163 "ins is a masculine; nn-K a feminine; cf. KoSynt § 349o; R.Ratner, ZAW 102 (1990), 238-51.
290 EXODUS 1 3 :1 7 - 15:21
with the Pharaoh.166

"ins (OT ca. 50x), derived from "ins, ‘to tremble,’ ‘to shudder;’ cf. 1 Sam.
11:7; Jer. 49:5; 2 Chr. 14:13; 17:10; 20:29 etc. See THAT , II, 411ff.; TWAT , VI,
552ff. ‘terror and trembling’ is hendiadys. (see 2:10), adjective as nomen
regens (Ges-K § 132c; Brockelmann § 15a); sometimes regarded as infin. cstr.
(KoSynt § 401k); Ehrlich: is cstr. state of by*. Perhaps the proper vocaliza
tion is (cf. Num. 14:19; Ps. 79:11 and see Delitzsch*, 67).167 ‘interve
ntion,’ see Introd. § 3.21.8.
1QT (Ges-K § 67f) imperf. qal of DDi,168 which here seems to denote ‘to
be/become motionless;’ one is as it were transfixed to the ground, no longer
capable of saying or doing a thing (cf. e.g. Lev. 10:23; Josh. 10:12f.; 1 Sam.
14:9);169 Pesh. (cf. 15:5): ‘they shall sink like stones.’ p * 0 , cf. 15:5 and see
Ges-K § 20e. For imagery see Hab. 2:19. For iff to introduce clause with imperf.
see KoSynt § 136; Ges-K § 107c, 164f; Jouon § 104b, 113k. I2ff (see 12:12), the
reference is likely to detouring the previously mentioned nations, bypassing their
territory; not the crossing of the sea (e.g. Fensham) or the Jordan (e.g. Ehrlich);
in rabbinic exegesis the first and second "QU are applied to different places: the
crossing of Amon and Jabbok (TPsJ; FT1*), of Amon and Jordan (TO; TNf; PWB ,
XXXI, 15ff.), of Jabbok and Jordan (FTV). Mek. II, 75, mentions: the sea, the
Jordan, the Amon (in this sequence). LXX, Vulg.: ‘your people.’ rup (see 12:44),
implies Israel’s election; cf. Vriezen*, Verkiezing, 23.
The portrayal in 15:14-16 of the reaction of the peoples in and around Palestine
to the invasion and presence of Israel is quite different from that in the historical
accounts (Num. 14:39ff.; 20:14ff.; 21:lff., 21ff.; 22:lff.; Josh.; Judg.; 1 Sam.;
but note also Deut. 2:4; Josh. 2:9ff.; 5:1; 9:9). In the depiction of y h w h ’s
greatness and glory there is no room for nuance and realism.
15:17a You had brought and planted them

b On the mountain that is your domain,
c The place, which in order to dwell there,
d You, o YHWH, prepared,
e The sanctuary, O Lord,
f Which your hands established.
The verbs of 15:17a both start with a t-sound (alliteration). Crescendo marks
15:17b, c-d, e-f. As I see it, the imperfects in 15:17a are because of the nu in
15:16; cf. Ehrlich, ‘to bring,’ see Introd. § 3.8.
166 See S. Morenz, “Der Schrecken Pharaos,” in Liber amicorum (Fs C.J. Bleeker), Leiden 1969,
113-25. See further TWAT, I, 235ff.
167 Note also B. Jongeling, RdQ 1 (1958-59), 483-94.
168 M. Dahood, Bib 43 (1962), 248: pass, qal of hoph. of m3 ‘to sway.’
169 See TWAT, II, 277ff. (also for the relationship to cognate roots); D. Ben Raphael HaCohen, BetM
27 (1981-82), 109-14.
1&5PW imperf. qal + suff. of Vtol (OT ca. 55 x), ‘to plant’ (Gen. 9:20; 21:33
etc.); here with y h w h as subject and used metaphorically for ‘to give a fixed
dwelling place to’ (cf. 2 Sam. 7:10; Jer. 24:6; 32:41; 42:10 et al.); ‘to be planted’
implies a cared-for and protected existence (cf. e.g. Ps. 80:9f. and Isa. 5) and
dependence on the caregiver. See TWATy V, 415ff.
‘mountain,’ see Introd. § 3.16.1. n$>qj (OT ca. 220x), ‘inheritance,’ ‘property,’
derived from (OT ca. 60 x ; BDB : denominative verb), in qal: ‘to get/take as a
possession/inheritance;’170 see beside it Ps. 82:8. Disputed is (cf. 15:13) whether
‘mountain of your inheritance’ in 15:17 applies to Canaan or to Zion (the same
question presents itself in Ps. 79:1; cf. Ps. 78:54 and see Deut. 3:25; Isa. 11:9;
14:25); can denote the land as y h w h ’s possession (e.g. Jer. 2:7; 16:8; cf.
Zech. 2:16 and Lev. 25:23). Here, however, Zion seems to be meant. See THAT ,
II, 55ff.; TWAT, V, 342ff.
pap (OT 17x ) derivative of VD (see 8:22), ‘place,’ is used inter alia for the
temple (1 Kgs. 8:13; 2 Chr. 6:2; Dan. 8:11) and Zion (15:17; Isa. 4:5; 18:4). See
Houtman*, Himmel, 347. see 2:15. paa (cf. 1 Kgs. 8:13), LXX:
etoipov KaxoiKqtqpiov oou, ‘your ready dwelling;’ Vulg.: firmissimo habitaculo
tuo , ‘in your firmly established dwelling.’ perf. qal of i v s (OT 57X; with
God as subject 16x), ‘to prepare,’ ‘to do’ (cf. Ps. 7:14; Prov. 16:4 and see Num.
23:23; Deut. 32:27 etc.).171 enpo (cf. Ges-K § 20h; F. Praetorius, ZAW 34
[1914], 233f.), see Introd. §3.44.2; Pesh., Vulg., TPsJ, TNf, FTP: ‘your
sanctuary.’ ’HK (see 4:10), many MSS and Sam. Pent.: mm; to bring to ten the
number of times mrr’ is used in the actual song? In MT mm occurs 12x in 15:1-
21. yo (see 8:22), cf. Ps. 87:If.; Pesh.: ‘you establish it with your hands.’
Though only used before “in, a is also implied before yiDB and enpfc (cf. KoSynt
§ 3191); VDD and enpa are apposition to “in. pan and tfnpa are further modified
by a relative clause (cf. KoSynt § 380c; Ges-K § 155h; Joiion § 158k).

In my view, “in, and enpa are different terms for the same place: Zion, the
place of the sanctuary.172 Differently e.g. Ehrlich, Noth: they are three desig
nations for Canaan; others: it is a case of moving from the general (“in = the
land) to the particular (the holy place) (e.g. Dillmann, Strack, Baentsch); the
particular is as a rule thought to be Zion (differently Dillmann [Shiloh]; Cassuto
[the sanctuary the Israelites intended to build]). Cross and Freedman relate 15:13
170 In 23:30; 32:13 with Israel as subject and the land as object; cf. Josh. 19:49; Isa. 57:13; Ezek.
47:14; in 34:9 with YHWH as subject and Israel as object; cf. the picture of Israel as y h w h ’s hereditary
possession; see Deut. 4:20; 9:26, 29; 1 Sam. 10:1 et al.
171 See THAT, II, 461ff.; L.L. Grabbe, UF 11 (1979), 307-14.
172 Cf. e.g. Keil, Beer, Te Stroete; see also rabbinic exegesis; TO; TPsJ, TNf, FT, Mek. II, 77ff.;
PWB, XXXI, 20ff.
292 EXODUS 1 3 :1 7 - 15:21
to a wilderness sanctuary,173 and by making reference to Ugaritic terminology

(among other things, bqdS bgr nhltj in KTU 1.3, III, 27) contend that by themsel
ves the terms used in 15:17 do not presuppose the existence of the temple on Zion.
Presumably the terms could denote any sanctuary and only later were applied to
Zion. According to Cross 1973, 141ff., originally the sanctuary of Gilgal was
meant; Freedman 1974 (Introduction to exegesis under j), 190f., holds that the
terms by themselves denote the heavenly dwelling, and in 15:17 designate y h w h ’s
earthly dwelling, the promised land.174 Norin (Introd. § 12.1), 85ff., goes so far
as to relate 15:13, 17 to the Zephon on Lake Sirbonis (Introd. §8.5). The
standpoint of Cross and Freedman has found no acceptance. While it is agreed that
the terminology and images are pre-Israelitic, it is also believed that the ter
minology came into vogue in Israel in combination with the designation of Zion as
the holy place at the time of David.175
Farreaching conclusions are drawn by Goldin (Introduction to exegesis under j),
48ff., from the fact that according to 15:17 y h w h was the founder of the sanc
tuary and not, as related in 1 Kgs. 8:13, Solomon: the song reflects the anger with
Solomon on the part of Abiathar and his followers in Anathoth, once respectable
priests of Shiloh, now as a result of Solomon’s measures (1 Kgs. 2:26ff.) stripped
of their dignity. Bear in mind, however, that in poetry y h w h is often subject,
where prose has human protagonists (cf. Introd. § 12.9.3).
It may cause some surprise that in 15:13, 17 only Zion and not the land is
mentioned. It should be remembered, however, that y h w h ’s royal seat constituted
the very heart of the land (even of the world; Ezek. 38:12), and that its establish
ment there implied the possession of the land and existence of the nation and was
the crowning point of its foundation.
15:18a y h w h is k in g
b At all times and fo r evert
15:18 is the conclusion of the song. (see 1:8), frequently in the Psalms y h w h
is being praised as king (5:3; 10:16; 24:7f.; 44:5; 47:3, 7, 8 etc.);176 mm
only here (cf. Ps. 146:10); in Ps. 93:1; 96:10 et al: m rr; cf. Lipinski*, 356,
361 et al. u n D ^ , see 3:15.
The proclamation of y h w h ’s kingship is very brief in the MT. No doubt in
order to stress its importance, TPsJ, TNf, FTV have a much more elaborate text in
which y h w h ’s miracles at the sea and Israel’s proclamation of y h w h ’s kingship
are directly connected. Eschatological overtones resonate in this expansion. Very
173 See JNES 14 (1955), 240, 248; Cross 1973, 125, 141.
174 In BA 40 (1977), 46-8, he argues that in 15:13, 17 Sinai/Horeb is meant; cf. Fensham; already
De Wette*, 216f., called this conception ‘nur eine Nothhiilfe.’
175 See e.g. Clements*, Temple, 50ff.; Von Rad*, ThAT, II, 162ff., 302ff.; H. Schmid, ZAW 67
(1955), 168-97; F. Stolz, Strukturen und Figuren im Kult von Jerusalem, Berlin 1970.
176 Cf. M.Z. Bretder, God is King: Understanding an Israelite Metaphor, Sheffield 1989; B.
Janowski, “Das Konigtum Gottes in den Psalmen,” ZThK 86 (1989), 389-454.
clear in TPsJ: ‘his is the kingship in the world to come ...,’177 and FTP, who
mentions here the midrash of the four nights (see 12:42). In PWB , XXXI, 25ff.,
15:18 is paraphrased as a petition: so I beseech you, o God, that you remain
ruler over Israel and never allow flesh and blood to rule over them.’ See also
Ginzberg*, III, 35.
15:19 For Pharaoh's horses with his chariots and his chariot drivers had gone
into the sea, but y h w h caused the water o f the sea to flow back over them; but the
Israelites had gone straight through the sea on dry ground.
See for 15:19 to 14:23. s e n etc., cf. 14:27, 28; here the water is the object
of y h w h ’s deeds, ’jai etc., see 14:29.
In MSS and editions of the MT, 15:19 is often included with the song. As a
song (Introduction to exegesis under s), Exod. 15 usually ends with 15:19. Also
e.g. Ibn Ezra considers 15:19 as belonging to the song. Nachmanides disagrees
with him. Though conceivably the verse might be taken as poetry - it consists of
three parts ending with ‘sea’ - , in structure and rhythm it differs from 15:1-18
and therefore should be regarded as a separate unit. 15:19 supplements and
explains the song (cf. e.g. Josh. 10:13b-14 with Josh. 10:12b-13a) and is evidently
a later addition; the song is silent about Israel’s fortunes at the time of the
destruction of Pharaoh’s army; following up on Exod. 14 and in contrast to the
miserable fate that befell Pharaoh and his men, Israel’s miraculous deliverance is
highlighted once more. The function of 15:19 as repetition is comparable to that of
12:51 as repetition of 12:41. 15:19 emphatically connects the contents of the song
to the crossing described in Exod. 14. Right when the poem has carried Israel all
the way to Canaan, the reader’s attention is again pulled back to the crossing of
the sea and the song is specifically set in the context of the victory celebration at
the sea (15:20f.). In TPsJ the miracle is enhanced even further through an addition
to 15:19: ‘There arose fresh springs and there were fruit trees, foliage and ripe
fruits in the middle of the sea’ (cf. e.g. Mek. II, 52; ExR. XXI, 10; Introd.
§ 12. 6 . 2).
15:20 Thereupon the prophetess Miriam, Aaron's sister, took the hand drum in
her hand. All the women followed her with hand drums and performed dances.
15:21 Miriam responded and sang to them:
a Sing in honour o f y h w h ,
‘to take,’ see Introd. § 3.30. ‘Miriam,’ see Introd. § 6.3 and 5.f; niraa, see 7:1;
TWAT, V, 140ff. ninK, see 1:6. ‘Aaron’ (Introd. § 5.6; Valentin*, 379ff.) plays
177 Cf. Mek. II, 80: is explicitly not related to the present but to the future; see also Nach
manides; he takes issue with the present tense translation in TO.
294 EXODUS 1 3 :1 7 - 15:21
no role in the crossing, but his name is not left out beside that of Moses (15:1) and
Miriam.
*)h (OT 17x ; pi. 9 x ), ‘hand drum,’ ‘tambourine,* is often used together with
other instruments, inter alia ‘lyre’ (Gen. 31:27; Isa. 24:8; 30:32; Ps. 149:3; Job
21:12) and ‘lyre* and ‘harp* (1 Sam. 10:5; 2 Sam. 6:5; Isa. 5:12; Ps. 81:3; 1 Chr.
13:8). It is used along with song and dance to express joy on festive occasions in
praise of God (1 Sam. 10:5; 2 Sam. 6:5 etc.) and non-cultic feasts (Gen. 31:27;
Isa. 5:12; 24:18; Job 21:12; cf. Luke 15:25), for instance on occasion of a victory
(Judg. 11:34; 1 Sam. 18:6); idem in 15:20, though there it is not human warriors
who are hailed but y h w h ’s triumph (cf. Isa. 30:32), giving a religious character to
the festivities. Archaeological findings show that the hand drum was a small hoop
of wood or metal, over which was stretched a membrane, which was held in the
left hand and played with the right hand by either tapping or beating the mem
brane; it could also be played with both hands, the left hand striking the membrane
near the edge and the right in the center. To the extent that the users are iden
tified, it was (young) women who played it (15:20; Judg. 11:34; 1 Sam. 18:6; Ps.
68:26; cf. Jer. 31:4). Iconographic information confirms that it was a typical
women’s instrument (though men used it too). Evidently it was women who sang
the victory song (but note also 15:1; Judg. 5:1; cf. also 1 Sam. 19:35; Ezra 2:65).
With their drums they provided the rhythm for the dance. Presumably the music
consisted of a frenzied drum-beating that produced a rumbling sound, a terrible
noise, that put the dancers into a trance. According to 32:17ff., the noise of battle
and of a cultic feast are almost indistinguishable (cf. Josh. 6:5, 20; Judg. 7:19ff.;
1 Kgs. 1:40).178
K2P (Introd. § 3.24.1; Ges-K § 471, 146c; Jotion § 150o); in Judg. 11:31, 34;
21:21; 1 Sam. 18:6; Jer. 31:4 N2T refers to leaving the house, the city; that does
not fit here; Baentsch: the women come from the camp; e.g. Gispen and Cassuto:
they came forward out of the crowd. Use of K2T elsewhere suggests that a coming
out of the dwellings, tents, is meant. Sam. Pent.: nJKSm. ‘women,’ see Introd.
§ 3.2.3. nnN, see Introd. § 3.3.1. Miriam sets the example and takes the lead.
The others follow her example. n*?nip pi. of n^np (OT 8 x ; Exod. 15:20; 32:19),
with cognate form *?inp (OT 6 x ), ‘(round)dance,’ derivatives of *?in, ‘to turn,’
178 For music (musical instruments) in the OT see BHHW, II, 1258ff.; BRL, 118, 234ff.; IDBS,
610ff.; IDB, III, 457ff., 469ff. (+ Bibl.); Barrois*, II, 193ff.; B. Bayer, BARev 8.1 (1982), 20-33; P.
Cassetti, “Funktionen der Musik in der Bibel,” Freiburger Zeitschrift fu r Philosophic und Theologie 24
(1977), 366-89; J.H. Eaton, “Music’s Place in Worship,” OTS 23 (1984), 85-107; M. Gorg, BN 14
(1981), 7-10; Keel*, WABAT, 313ff.; W.F. Kiimmel, “Melancholie und die Macht der Musik,”
Medizinhistorisches Journal 4 (1969), 189-209; C.L. Meyers, “Of Drums and Damsels: Women’s
Performance in Ancient Israel”, BA 54 (1991), 16-27; T.C. Mitchell, “The Music in the Old Testament
Reconsidered,” PEQ 124 (1992), 124-43; H. Seidel, Musik in Altisrael, Frankfurt am Main et al. 1989;
A. Sendrey, Music in Ancient Israel, New York 1969; D. Wohlenberg, Kultmusik in Israel, Hamburg
1967; illustrations in most of the literature. Cf. also E. Badali, “La musica presso gli ittiti,” BeO 28
(1986), 55-64; F.J. Dolger, “Klingeln, Tanz und Handeklatschen im Gottesdienst der christlichen
Melitianer in Agypten,” Antike und Christentum 4 (1934), 245-65.
‘to whirl,’ and also ‘to dance’ (Judg. 21:21, 23; Ps. 87:7). Apparently dancing
was inseparably linked with singing (15:20; 32:18f.; 1 Sam. 18:6; 21:12; 29:5)
and the use of the hand drum (15:20; Judg. 11:34; Jer. 31:4), or as the case may
be with others musical instruments (1 Sam. 18:6; Ps. 149:3; 150:4). Dancing
went, for example, with the worship (32:19) in honour of y h w h (Ps. 149:3;
150:4) and with the victory celebration (Judg. 11:24 etc.), and in 15:20 is being
performed in praise of y h w h . T o the extent that the dancers are specifically
identified they are (young) women (15:20; Judg. 11:34; 21:21; 1 Sam. 18:6; cf.
Jer. 31:4; but note also 2 Sam. 6:5; 1 Chr. 13:8). Dance, by means of graceful
movements of the body (Cant. 7:1), is a form by which to express abundant joy
(‘dance’ contrasts with ‘lament’ and ‘mourning;’ see Ps. 30:12; Lam. 5:15).179
Cassuto regards n^nD as musical instruments, apparently following rabbinic
exegesis. It points up the fact that there is some uncertainty as to whether
denotes a musical instrument or ‘dance;’ the latter interpretation in TNf; both
interpretations in TPsJ; cf. also FT and PWBy XXXII, 8 (‘flute’).
n jr, see 4:1. iTtf (see 15:1), a call to Moses and the men? LXX, Vulg., TPsJ,
TNf, FTP: ‘let us ....’ See further 15:1. Dn^, it is possible that the masculine
suff., as happens more often (cf. e.g. KoSynt § 14; Ges-K § 32n, 135o), refers to
women; cf. Aq.: auxau;. For instance, Baentsch favours this interpretation in
conjunction with his view that the account of Moses’ singing with the Israelites and
of Miriam’s with the women derives from the interweaving of diverse literary
material. In my view, on b in the current text likely refers to Moses and the men
(15:1). In reply, the women antiphonally sing to them the counter verse; so e.g.
Dillmann, Strack, Cassuto.180 But for an opposing view note Mek. II, 83: as
Moses led the men in reciting the song, so Miriam led the women. What is said is
that the groups took turns in singing (cf. EJ, XIV, 107If.); at the feast honouring
y h w h everything was done orderly. No occasion was given for things getting out
of hand. Philo (VAf, I, 180) writes that the place of celebration was the shore of
the sea and that the participants were a male and female choir, directed respec
tively by Moses and ‘his sister.*181 Josephus (AJt II, 346), in distinction from
Philo, tells that Moses composed a song (in hexameter verse! cf. AJy IV, 303)
(15:1 only talks of Moses as singer), while he is silent about Miriam and the
women; Josephus does tell when it happened: all night the Hebrews were singing
hymns and making merry.
179 See BHHW, III, 1931v. (+ Bibl.); IDB, I, 760f.; TWAT, II, 799ff. (+ Bibl ); G.A. Anderson, A
Time to Mourn, A Time to Dance: The Expression o f Grief and Joy in Israelite Religion, University
Park, PA 1991; J.H. Eaton, ET 86 (1974), 136-40; M.I. Gmber, Bib 62 (1981), 328-46; W.O.E.
Oesterley, The Sacred Dance, Cambridge 1923, 159ff.
180 And see Introduction to exegesis under k, p, and further J.G. Janzen, “Song of Moses, Song of
Miriam: Who is Seconding Whom?” CBQ 54 (1992), 211-20.
181 Cf. Ephraem; Ishodad also assigns a role to Aaron; Moses gives him and Miriam the words of
the song; they repeat them, respectively, to the men and the women.
EXODUS 1 5 :2 2 -1 7 :7
ISRAEL PUTS THE FULFILLMENT OF THE PROMISES

TO THE PATRIARCHS AT RISK
15:22 Thereupon Moses caused Israel to set out from Yam Suph. They went into
the wilderness o f Shur and journeyed fo r three days through the wilderness without
finding water.
23 They came to Lake Bitterness, but they could not drink the water o f Lake
Bitterness. Because it was so bitter the place was called Lake Bitterness.
24 Then the people raged against Moses and said: ‘There is no way we can
drink that stuff! '
25 He, however, cried out to y h w h and y h w h showed him a small shrub. He
threw it into the water and the water became sweet - there he ( yhwh ) had
announced a binding decree fo r the people and there he had put them to the test -
26 and he (Moses) said: 'If you really listen to y h w h , your God, and do what is
pleasing to y h w h , heed his commandments and observe all his statutes, then I will
not bring upon you any o f the diseases I bring upon the Egyptians. Truly, I y h w h ,
am your Healer . '
27 Next they came to Elim. There were twelve springs o f water there and seventy
palm trees. They encamped there beside the water.
II
16:1 Thereupon the whole community o f the Israelites set out from Elim and came
to the wilderness o f Sin, situated between Elim and Sinai. On the fifteenth day o f
the second month after they departed from the land o f Egypt (it happened).
2 Once they were in the wilderness the whole community o f the Israelites raged
against Moses and against Aaron.
3 The Israelites said to them: *Would we had died in the land o f Egypt from a
disaster brought by y h w h , while we set by the fleshpots and could eat as much
bread as we wanted to, fo r you have brought us into this wilderness to let this
whole assembly starve to death. 9
4 Thereupon y h w h said to Moses: ‘Soon I am going to rain down fo r you bread
from heaven. Then the people are to go out to gather the quantity needed fo r each
day (and no more). In that way I can put them to the test (and learn) whether they
will follow my instructions or not.
5 Also on the sixth day they are to prepare what they brought in. However,
then the quantity o f what they brought in must be double the amount they gather on
TRANSLATION 297
other days. '

6 Thereupon Moses and Aaron said to all the Israelites: ‘By evening you will
recognize that y h w h brought you out o f the land o f Egypt.
7 And when morning dawns you will behold the glory displayed by y h w h ,
because he took notice o f your rage against y h w h . For as concerns us, we play
such an insignificant role that there can be no reason you should rage against us. ’
8 Moses continued: ‘When y h w h gives you meat to eat in the evening and bread
in the morning to the full, because y h w h took notice o f your raging rage against
him, then it will be clear that we play an insignificant role. All in all, you are not
raging against us but against y h w h . '
9 Thereupon Moses said to Aaron: ‘Order the whole community o f the Is
raelites: “Turn to y h w h in prayer, fo r he has taken notice o f your rage”. '
10 As soon as Aaron had communicated the order to the whole community o f the
Israelites, they looked toward the wilderness and they saw how y h w h appeared in
blinding splendour in the cloud.
11 y h w h spoke to Moses in the following words:
12 7 have taken notice o f the rage o f the Israelites. Speak to them in the
following words: “By evening you are going to eat meat and in the morning you
will have your fill o f bread. So you will recognize that it is I, y h w h , your God“. '
13 In the evening quail came and covered the camp. In the morning dew fell
around the camp.
14 When the fo g o f dew lifted, everywhere in the wilderness a fine, flake-like
layer, a fine layer like frost lay everywhere on the ground.
15 The Israelites discovered it and said to each other: ‘What is that?' For they
did not know what it was. Then Moses said to them: ‘It is the bread y h w h gives
you to eat. '
16 Thus y h w h has commanded: ‘You are to gather it, each keeping in mind the
appetite o f the members o f his family; you may pick up from it an omer per person,
taking into account the number o f persons fo r whom you are responsible, each fo r
the persons in his tent. *
17 Thus the Israelites did. They gathered it, the one more, the other less.
18 They measured it with an omer. The one who had taken more did not have
too much. The one who had taken less did not come short. Everyone o f them had
gathered in accordance with the appetite o f the members o f his family.
19 Thereupon Moses commanded them: ‘No one may leave anything o f it until
morning. ’
20 Some, however, had paid no attention to Moses, and when they left some o f it
until morning it was infested with maggots and stank, so that Moses was angry
with them.
21 So every morning they gathered it anew - each in accordance with the
appetite o f the members o f his family - , fo r as soon as the sun grew hot, it
melted.
22 However, when on the sixth day they had gathered double the amount o f
298 EXODUS 15 :2 2 - 17:7
bread, twice an omer fo r each, all the tribal heads o f the community came to
Moses and apprised him o f it.
23 He, however, explained it to them: ' That is what y h w h commanded. For
tomorrow is a sacred day, a day o f total rest to the Lord. Therefore bake or boil it
now as you prefer and put aside whatever is left. Now you may keep it safe until
morning. '
24 They put it aside it until morning, as Moses had commanded them. This time
it did not smell and there were no maggots in it.
25 Then Moses said: ‘Eat it today, fo r today is a day o f rest to y h w h . Today you
will not fin d it in the field.
26 Six days you are to gather it, but the seventh day is a day o f rest. Then it will
not be there. ’
27 Yet on the seventh day some o f the people did go out to gather it, but found
nothing.
28 Then y h w h said to Moses: H ow long will you refuse to observe my statutes
and my ordinances?
29 Bear in mind, because y h w h laid upon you the day o f rest, on the sixth day
he gives you bread fo r two days, fo r on the seventh day everyone is to stay where
he is; then no one may leave his home.
30 After that the people rested on the seventh day.
31 The peopie o f Israel called it manna. It was like coriander seed. It was white
and its taste like that o f a honey cake.
32 Thereupon Moses said: ‘Thus y h w h has commanded: “A fu ll omer o f it you
are to keep through the generations, in order that with their own eyes they may see
the bread I gave you to eat in the wilderness when I brought you out o f the land o f
Egypt”. ’
33 So Moses ordered Aaron: Take a jar, and put a whole omer o f manna in it,
and place it in the sanctuary. There you are to keep it through the generations. '
34 (Aaron did precisely) as y h w h had commanded Moses. Aaron placed it in
front o f (the shrine with) the charter. That is how it was kept.
35 The Israelites ate manna forty years, until they came to settled land. They ate
the manna until they reached the border o f the land o f Canaan.
36 The omer is a tenth o f an ephah.
Ill
17:1 Thereupon the whole community o f the Israelites set out from the wilderness
o f Sin, by stages, according to y h w h 's instruction, and they encamped at Rephi-
dim. However, there was no water fo r the people to drink.
2 So the people quarreled with Moses. They said: ‘Give us water, so that we
may drink. 9Moses replied: 'Why do you quarrel with me? Why do you put y h w h to
the test?9
3 The people thirsted there fo r water. So the people raged against Moses. They
TRANSLATION 299
said: ‘How could you bring us out o f Egypt? To let me, my children and my
livestock die o f thirst?*
4 Moses, however, cried out to y h w h : ‘H o w should I handle these people? Any
moment now they are going to stone me. *
5 y h w h answered Moses: ‘Go on ahead o f the people, take some o f the elders
o f Israel with you, and take with you in your hand your staff with which you struck
the River, and go.
6 As soon as I am available there fo r you on the rock at Horeb, you are to
strike the rock. Then water will come out o f it, and the people shall drink. * This
Moses did in the sight o f the elders o f Israel.
7 He named that place Test and Quarrel, because there the Israelites had
quarreled and tested y h w h with the words: *Is y h w h with us or not?*
In 15:22-18:27 a series of incidents are related that happen in the wilderness, in

the period of time from Israel’s departure from the sea to its arrival at Sinai.
However, it is hardly an regular chronicle of the journey. Though the route
followed by the people is indicated by means of some topographical notes (Introd.
§ 8.34) and some ten times the term ‘desert’ or ‘wilderness’ is used (Introd.
§3.31), no specifics of the area are pointed out. The picture presented of the
desert is how inhabitants of the civilized world visualize such a place. While aware
there are oases (15:27), to them the wilderness is above all the place where death
threatens, and where one is always in danger from thirst, hunger and enemies (cf.
Introd. § 12.7 and see § 11.5.6; 11.6.9). A closer look shows that the stories were
not written for providing a report of Israel’s stay in the desert, but are intended for
instruction of the Israel of the future. The writer relates that history to deliver a
message to that later Israel. That intent colours the way the history is presented.
In 15:22-18:27, the section 15:22-17:7 occupies a place of its own. This section
breaks down into three parts: 15:22-27; 16:1-36; 17:1-7. These pericopes have
somewhat of a tie with the sequel: e.g. the name Rephidim (17:1, 8) links the two
passages 17:1-7 and 17:8-16 in which the staff plays a role (17:5f., 9); ‘hunger’
(Exod. 16) occurs elsewhere in combination with ‘sword,’ which is the theme of
17:8-16 (see below). Together, however, the three parts are so closely connected
that they can be considered a triptych. There are several data that favour regarding
15:22-17:7 as a three-panel strip.
Globally the three parts exhibit a similar structure. It is related that Israel while
it was in the wilderness lacked the most elementary necessities of life: water
(15:22, 23; 17:1, 3), bread (and meat) (16:3), and rebels against Moses (and
Aaron); the people hold him/them responsible for their fate and accuse him/them
300 EXODUS 1 5 :2 2 - 17:7
of bringing them out to meet their doom (16:3; 17:2, 3).1 Moses cries to y h w h
(15:25; 17:4; not explicitly mentioned in Exod. 16); y h w h helps out (in 15:25 and
17:5f. Moses has a ‘magicians’s’ role in it). That makes it possible to see a
triptych here: thirst/water (Exod. 15) - hunger/food (Exod. 16) - thirst/water
(Exod. 17). Hunger and thirst, especially when they go together,2 are among the
worst things that can befall a human being, and it is these that get a suffocating
grip on Israel.3
Each of the parts has its own peculiar traits as well. Moreover, in the current
text the distress-delivery motif is throughout put to the service of a more basic
purpose: to drive home the point that Israel should be faithful to y h w h , obey his
precepts, and trust that he will be an always present help.
It is worthwhile to take a closer look at the similarities and dissimilarities. In
15:22-1:7 it is related how three times (Introd. § 4.4.1) Israel turns against Moses
(and Aaron). The term (see 15:24) used for the rebellion occurs in Exodus for
the first time in 15:24 and for the last time in 17:34 and is among the key words
of the triptych: the Israelites voice their lack of trust in Moses (and Aaron),
y h w h ’s representatives, and so their distrust of y h w h himself; they look at the
bringing-out of Egypt as human work and sarcastically suppose that it was for the
purpose of letting them die in the wilderness (16:2f.; 17:3; Num. 14:2f.). Israel
puts a question mark behind the great redemptive event of its history! Against the
background of the Hexateuch one can say: Israel turns against the fulfillment of
the promises to the patriarchs, jeopardizes its future; the people are homesick for
Egypt (16:3) and want to go back there (cf. Num. 14:3f.); they have greater
confidence in Pharaoh than in y h w h ; they prefer service to Pharaoh over service
to y h w h (cf. Introd. § 3.37.1); so in effect they have taken over Pharaoh’s role as
y h w h ’s adversary.5
Another term that is prominent in each of the panels of the triptych is noa, ‘to
test’ (see 15:25). In the first two scenes y h w h is subject and Israel object, y h w h
tests Israel, sends it misery and pain, so that he might learn if the people are fully
committed to him, willing to be dependent on him, and ready to live according to
his ordinances. Israel fails the test. In the third scene the roles are reversed: Israel
tests y h w h . The people want to know if y h w h is really with them even in the
wilderness, y h w h passes the test with flying colours, and offers tangible proof (as
also in Exod. 15 and 16) of his concern for Israel, also in the wilderness. Israel
1 Not explicitly in Exod. 15; a reply from Moses to the people (16:6-8; 17:2) is also absent in Exod.
15.
2 Deut. 28:48; Isa. 5:13; 29:8; 32:6; 49:10; 65:13; Amos 8:11; Ps. 107:5; 2 Chr. 32:11 et al.; see
KraSovec*, 146.
3 ‘Hunger’ occurs occasionally in the OT in the triad of ‘sword, hunger, pestilence’ (see 5:3); the
‘sword’ as a threat is found in 17:8-16; sickness as calamity is alluded to after Israel’s stay at the Sinai
(Num. 11:1-3; 25:3f., 8f.).
4 In 17:1-7 also 3"") is used for the conflict (see 17:2).
5 For Israel’s rebellion see also Introduction to exegesis 13:17-15:21 sub i.
fails. From the perspective of the Hexateuch one can say that Israel jeopardizes the
effectuation of the promises to the patriarchs, y h w h , however, is merciful and
gracious. He helps nonetheless. He continues with the people. He has his plans
with the trek through the desert (cf. 13:17). On purpose he does not lead the
people straight, without pain and trouble, to the promised land. He uses the stay in
the wilderness as a training school for Israel, so that they may learn to live with
him and know that only with him they are safe. Prior to the Sinai, before the full
disclosure of his will, he is patient with his pupil. After that the situation changes
(Exod. 32; Num. 11 etc.).
y h w h tries Israel’s willingness by testing the people’s readiness to heed his com
mandments. Looking at the sojourn in the desert as being a training school implies
the assumption that from the outset, from the Start of the stay in the desert, Israel
was familiar with y h w h ’s will; that already prior to the giving of the law at Sinai
Israel was under obligation to render full obedience to y h w h (15:25f.) and to keep
the Sabbath (Exod. 16)6. In the text of Exodus as we have it, pre-Sinai knowledge
of other fundamental religious customs is assumed as well: circumcision (4:24f.;
cf. Gen. 17) and the customs associated with the exodus (Exod. 12-13). In the
current text of Exodus, y h w h ’s encounter with Israel at the Sinai constitutes the
confirmation (climax) of an alliance that in a sense was already in place, because
the basic tenets of Israel’s religion - circumcision, observance of Pass-
over/Matzoth, sabbath — had already been issued before that and become an
accepted practice.7
I return to the triptych. All panels bear the stamp of Soli Deo Gloria. Time and
again y h w h impressively demonstrates his ability to enable Israel to live in the
desert solely from the wonders of his hand. He, not Moses, controls Israel’s fate
(cf. 16:6-8; 17:2). It is solely because of him that the promises to the patriarchs
come to fruition.
Finally, does the third panel (Exod. 17) describe a more serious situation than
the first (Exod. 15)? Can one speak of a climax? Mek. II, 130: at least at Bitter
ness there was water; at Rephidim there was none at all (cf. e.g. Cassuto);
Josephus: whereas in the earlier days they had come upon a few springs, now they
found themselves in a region without any water at all (A/, III, 33). My view is
that the narrative points to variation rather than climax. True, at Bitterness there is
water, but there is death in it (see exegesis 15:23), and therefore the presence of
this water is as bad as having no water at all.
6 Cf. Neh. 9:13ff.: at Sinai, first the Sabbath is announced, then bread is given from heaven.
7 Th. Booij, Bib 65 (1984), 1-26, 465-75, defends a ‘Sinaication’ of the traditions: in the seventh
century there arose the notion of a very special relationship between Torah and Sinai, which gradually
became authoritative; in my judgment, Booij slights the prominent place the promulgation of and the
familiarity with the fundamental precepts prior to the Sinai have in Exodus; the last redactor of Exod.
(Dtr.?) diminishes rather than strengthens the importance of what transpired at Sinai; see also Introd.
§ 12.8; 12.9.3.
302 EXODUS 1 5 :2 2 -2 7
I LIFE IS BEING FAITHFUL TO YHWH (15:22-27)
History must go on. The deliverance from Pharaoh is only the beginning of the
implementation of God’s plans with Israel. The reader’s spirits are high. Wasn’t
there complete harmony between y h w h , Moses and Israel (14:30)? But disap
pointments are not long in coming. Already the first words of 15:22 are forebod
ing: ‘Moses caused Israel to set out.’ Did the people recoil from entering the scary
wilderness where they would be utterly helpless and defenseless? Was their trust in
y h w h not strong enough? The events themselves seem to support Israel in its lack
of trust in y h w h . Israel is lost in the wilderness and faced with dying of thirst
(15:22). The rescue from Pharaoh’s tyranny seems to have been pointless.
Moreover, the people seem to be the victim of a cruel game. When the thirst has
become unbearable, water is found. However, that discovery only seems to make
matters worse for the people. The water is undrinkable (15:23). The irony is
palpable. The three-day search for water is ‘crowned’ with finding water that is
like poison. The fourfold use (for ‘four’ see Introd. § 4.5.1) of ‘bitter(ness)’ (3x
as a name) brings out the terrible condition of the water. The repetition of
‘bitter(ness)’ and the comment that the lake was named Bitterness - there is
agreement on the quality of the water; the name harks back to collective
experience - accentuates that the water was absolutely impossible to drink. The
repetition also puts in sharp focus the miracle that is going to take place. That
y h w h is able to make such water sweet and drinkable is a stupendous feat.
At the water of death the sounds of the hymn of praise (Exod. 15) are silenced.
The people rebel against Moses. To Israel, being led to Bitterness is like an
attempt on their life by poisoning. The writer brings the people on stage as they
are in the very act of murmuring, so as to make the reader keenly feel Israel’s
desperation, their blaming of Moses and the sarcasm in their words (15:24).
Implicitly the Israelites reveal that as they see it they were brought out of Egypt to
meet their doom, and the reader can only note that the facts seem to bear out that
contention. However, what happens next puts Israel and the reader to shame.
Moses takes up contact with y h w h . He enables Moses to make the water sweet.
Water of death becomes bearer of life (15:25a). The reader is deeply impressed by
y h w h ’s omnipotent power and senses that however bleak a situation may appear,
it can never be a reason to doubt y h w h ’s ability to save, y h w h wants to care for
his people, keep them alive. There is no room for despair!
Yet a question remains with the reader. Why doesn’t y h w h give Israel, his
people, a carefree existence, and why doesn’t he bring them directly and trouble-
free to the promised land? Why are they brought face to face with death? The
writer provides the answer, y h w h puts Israel to the test. He demands that Israel
be dedicated to him and live according to his ordinances. That is the charter on
which y h w h ’s fellowship with Israel rests. To learn whether Israel is prepared to
live in total dependence on him and in accordance with the charter he gave, y h w h
had led Israel in harm’s way (15:25b). y h w h wants to teach Israel to listen to
him. Israel must learn that it lives solely from the mighty deeds of God.
LIFE IS BEING FAITHFUL TO YHWH 303
y h w h wants the charter obeyed. Of that the writer is wholly convinced.

Therefore he does not continue the account of the miracle (15:25a) by narrating
how the people eagerly lapped up the water and quenched their thirst. Instead, he
has the reader hear the sermon which Moses gave as a follow-up to the transfor
mation of the water (15:26). Israel, having failed the first test, is told that y h w h
desires to be her Healer and will avert all evil - the healing of the water proves
it —, if the people are faithful to his ordinances. Heeding those commands and
prosperity go hand in hand.
All in all, the writer reminds the reader that in the wilderness Israel was from
the very beginning acquainted with the only foundation on which its future could
rest: faithfulness to y h w h ’s word. So implicitly he sends to the Israel of the future
the lesson of Bitterness: if one is ‘in the wilderness’ - to the later Israel this came
across as being in a hopeless situation - those who trust in y h w h and obey his
precepts need not fear. If y h w h was willing to help his unfaithful people in the
wilderness, how much more will he do so for those who fear him. And when
distress comes one’s way, let it a spiritual reality check: ‘how faithful are we to
y h w h ; does he perhaps put us to the test?’ So let trials be a spur to persevere!
With the healing of the water, the harmony between y h w h and Israel has been
restored, the suspense been lifted from the story, and peace returned. Israel failed
the test, but in his mercy y h w h wants to continue with his people and in a place
of delight he makes them taste the blessings of a life that is lived in fidelity and
obedience to him (15:27). Eschatological notes are heard (cf. Ps. 23).
Up to a point 15:22-27 can be characterized as the prologue of the chronicle of
Israel’s sojourn in the wilderness. The account makes it very clear that from the
outset the Israel in the wilderness was under obligation to be obedient and faithful
to y h w h and was acquainted with the blessings such a life would bring. Themes
which later will come up and be worked out, Israel’s rebellion, y h w h ’s testing
and deliverance, are briefly touched on.

INTRODUCTION TO EXEGESIS OF 15:22-27
Bibl.: Bienaime*; R.C. Culley, Studies in the Structure o f Hebrew Narrative ,

Philadelphia/Missoula 1976, 78ff.; B.J. Diebner, “Exodus 15, 22-27 und der
Beginn der Wustenzeit ‘Israels’,” D BAT20 (1984), 122-59; N. Lohfink, “‘Ich bin
Jahwe, dein Artzt* (Ex 15, 26),” in N. Lohfink et al., ‘Ich will euer Gott werden,’
Stuttgart 1981, 11-73; M. Margaliot, “Marah (Exod. 15, 22-27) and its Position
Between the Exodus and the Sinai Covenant,” Shnaton 4 (1980), 129-50; H.
Niehr, “JHWH als Arzt: Herkunft und Geschichte einer alttestamentlichen
Gottespradikation,” BZ 35 (1991), 3-17; C.O. Nordstrom, “The Water Miracles of
Moses in Jewish Legend and Byzantine Art,” in J. Gutman (ed.), No Graven
Images , New York 1971; B.P. Robinson, “Symbolism in Exod. 15:22-27 (Marah
304 EXODUS 1 5 :2 2 -2 7
and Elim),” RB 94 (1987), 376-88; A. Schart, Mose und Israel im Konflikt: Eine
Redaktionsgeschichtliche Studie zu den Wustenerzahlungen , Freiburg/Gottingen
1990; V. Turgman, De Vautorite de Moise Ex 75, 22-27, Eilsbrunn 1987; Wilms*,
247ff.
The Masoretes distinguish between two setumot, 15:22-26 and 15:27-16:3. I
regard 15:22-27 as a twosome. The passage is marked by the term D'ft (15:22, 23,
25 [2x], 27 [2x]; see Introd. § 3.33). Possibly 15:22 contains a ‘play’ with the
consonants Q'D (bringing the total of to seven or even eight; see the con
sonants of ‘days’ in 15:22). Israel goes from □*■&, ‘from the sea,’ the abundance of
water (the term links the pericope with Exod. 14-15, where the threatening but for
Israel saving water is center stage), into the wilderness (2x) and can find no
From Q'D (15:22) Israel eventually again comes to D’Q (15:27) (inclusion). The
entire passage is about water. Even so, it breaks down into two parts, 15:22-26
and 15:27. Both are marked by the gift of water: Israel is given sweet water
through a miracle (15:25) and by coming to an oasis (15:27). Bitterness and Elim
are each other’s counterpart. Elim is a pleasant and delightful place, with plenty of
food and water and lots of shade trees. Bitterness is a place of dead water. The use
of the term y v indicates that there was wood in the area, but the nature of the
water was such that no palm trees could grow there but only scrawny shrubs.
Despite YHWH’s curing of the water, evidently it was not a pleasant place to be.
The writer does not say that Israel encamped there. He does not talk of encamping
until the people come to Elim.
With his story - the endless quest for water, the discovery of bitter water when
the need is greatest etc. - the writer creates suspense. He ‘plays’ with words and
sounds (alliteration); often he uses Dti (15:25 [3x], 27 [2x]) and terms with the
component Dtf (n»tf in 15:3; forms of [2x], "inti and gib; [2 x ] in 15:26).
Historical-critical research has come up with many and greatly varying concep
tions of the literary composition and origin of 15:22-27 (see Fritz*, 7f.; Lohfink,
29ff.). Some of the questions at issue are: are the travel notes 15:22a, 27 from a
different hand (P) than 15:22b-25? Is 15:25b-26 in its entirety an addition or only
15:26? Does 15:26 in unedited form belong to the original account of Marah, in
contrast to 15:25b? Here it must suffice to say that nowadays it is customary to
regard 15:22b-25a as belonging to one of the older layers (usually j) while 15:25b-
26 is labeled ‘(proto) Deuteronomic’ or ‘Deuteronomistic.’8 There is good reason
for holding that the latter section is from a Deuteronomistic editor, seeing it
breathes a Deuteronomistic spirit. The verses contain an interpretation of the
history of Marah, one that lifts it above the level of being just a miracle story
about y h w h ’s care for Israel in the wilderness and turns it into a lesson for the
later Israel (see above and at 15:25, 26). The relative prominence of 15:25b-26 in
the pericope and the fact that the writer passes over the drinking of the water by
the people and the departure from Bitterness show where his interest lies.
KDifferently Turgman: 15:22-27 is the product of various editorial labours.

Some hold that a local tradition, the etiology of Bitterness, helped to shape the
history of Bitterness (not so Fritz*, 40ff.; Childs, 267f.). This is not impossible.
In the Sinai there are still place-names that relate to a particular happening, the
discovery of a spring, a murder incident etc.9 In any case, 15:22-25a contains a
common story motif: death-dealing water/food is transformed into life-bringing
water/food (2 Kgs. 2:19-22; 4:38-41).101 Through the transformation Moses
demonstrates that he is the point man of y h w h , the Lord of life and death.
For more on the subject, see the comments with 15:25, 26.

EXEGESIS OF 15:22-27
15:22 Thereupon Moses caused Israel to set out from Yam Suph. They went into
the wilderness o f Shur and journeyed fo r three days through the wilderness without
finding water.
IJOJ hiph. (see 12:37), unlike in 16:1; 17:1; 19:2 Moses’ initiative is specifically
mentioned (cf. 14:2; see beside it 13:2If.). Some of the points made in rabbinic
literature are: with the oppressors gone, already at this point Israel wanted to
return to Egypt (cf. Num. 14:4); Moses had to use a stick to compel them to go
on {Mek. II, 86; ExR. XXIV, 2). In MidrTanh. Exod. IV, 16 it is stated that the
Israelites were so busy gathering valuables (see 14:9) that Moses had to force them
to keep moving (cf. Rashi; see also Ginzberg*, III, 36ff.). Perhaps the writer
intimates that Israel was reluctant to enter the wilderness.
1N2T1 (Introd. § 3.24.1), Sam. Pent.: inKSvn, ‘and he caused to go;’ cf. LXX
and e.g. LV. ‘wilderness,’ see Introd. § 3.31. ‘Shur’ (Introd. § 8.33; cf. § 8.4),
TO: Hagar; TNf, TPsJ, FT: Halutz; the last name is perhaps a symbolic name;
is a term for the ritual that takes place when levirate marriage is refused
(Deut. 25:5ff.); nsi^n is the woman who is jilted, unwanted as a marriage
partner. Perhaps the name is intended as an allusion to Israel’s unfaithfulness in
the wilderness.11 For discussion of meaning and location of Shur see ExR.
XXIV,4. Shur is, for instance, equated with Chub (Ezek. 30:5), a wilderness
described as holding untold terrors (cf. Deut. 8:15); see Mek. II, 87ff.; MidrTanh.
Exod. IV, 17. ‘to journey,’ see Introd. §3.41.1. ‘three days’ (Introd. §4.4.1);
Num. 33:8: □ 'ir n tiiti "p “i; cf. Pesh. For a supposed connection with 3:18 et al.
see Vol. I, 375ff., and Introd. §8.23.5. Cf. also Num. 10:33. see 5:11.
LXX: after ‘water’ + ‘in order to drink.’
The clause with indicates the circumstances under which the people had to
9 Cf. C. Bailey, “Bedouin Places-Names in Sinai,” PEQ 116 (1984), 42-57.

10 For a transformation wrought by a man of God see also Vol. I, 386f., and the explanation of
plagues I and VI.
11 Cf. E. Levine, Bib 54 (1973), 320.
306 EXODUS 1 5 :2 2 -2 7
travel. No further particulars are given. Josephus (AJ, III, Iff.) relates how they
went in search of water after the water they had brought along was finished.
According to rabbinic exegesis, the water they had with them came from Yam
Suph. For as the Israelites made the crossing, sweet water bubbled up for them in
the sea (e.g. MidrTanh. Exod. IV, 18; cf. Ginzberg*, III, 22; Bienaime, 25ff.).
15:23 They came to Lake Bitterness, but they could not drink the water o f Lake
Bitterness. Because it was so bitter the place was called Lake Bitterness.
‘to come,’ see Introd. §3.8. ‘Bitterness,’ see Introd. §8.20; cf. Jas. 3:1 If.;
Turgman, 50f., thinks that originally the name alluded to m o , ‘to rebel’ (cf.
15:24); presumably the name correlated with Elim (originally an allusion to D^N,
‘to be silent’). see 2:3. nn ti + partitivus, see 7:18; Jotion § 170i: =
‘because of’ (cf. e.g. Baentsch). LXXB lacks ‘water’ before Marah. "in, see 1:14;
in the view of some rabbis, the water was bitter only for a while so as to test
Israel (see Mek. II, 94; PWB , XXXII, 15ff.). Gregory of Nyssa (VAf, I, 33)
qualifies it as ‘sea water and even more bitter than that.’ P"by, see 5:8. P,12
etc.; see Introd. § 3.45.1; LXX, Pesh.: ‘the name of that place;’ cf. e.g. Vulg.
(‘he also gave the place an appropriate name’), and see 17:7. '3 etc. does not
mean that Israel named the place; meant is that way back ‘people’ knew the place
as ‘Bitterness.’
The Israelites find themselves in the same situation as earlier the Egyptians.
There is water, but they just cannot get it through their throat (cf. 7:21, 24). The
water is not just ‘unpalatable’ water (e.g. Lange, who comments that salty water
can be beneficial after exercise). Likely the revulsion the people felt for the water
is tied to the idea, familiar from the Ancient Near East, that ‘bad’ water causes
illness and death (cf. 2 Kgs. 2:19ff. and see Van der Toom*, 69f.). Also note that
in Num. 5 the water which the woman suspected of adultery is forced to drink, the
water that brings the curse and in case of adultery has a harmful effect (miscar
riage or dropping of the uterus and resultant infertility?) (5:21f., 27), is called
□■npn p (‘water of bitterness’).13
15:24 Then the people raged against Moses and said: ‘There is no way we can
drink that stuff! ’
(having as subject the collective Dun [Introd. § 3.40.1]; Sam. Pent.: sing.)
imperf. cons. niph. of 1*6 (Ehrlich on 16:2: ]3b?) (OT 14X; Exod. 15:24; 16:2, 7,
8; 17:3; niph. and hiph.; for K and Q see Introd. § 2.2) with as derivative m-J^n
(pi.) (OT 8 x ; Exod. 16:7, 8 [2x], 9, 12); about the only place where the verb is
12 With indefinite subject; Ges-K § 144d; Joiion § 155e; in LXXB (passive inter alia in A) and Vulg.
Moses seems to be the presumed subject; cf. 17:7.
13 A connection between Exod. 15 and Num. 5 is made in Zohar Exod. V, 124b; on the disputed
terminology and interpretation see e.g. TWAT, V, 17; W. McKane, VT 30 (1980), 474-92; T. Frymer-
Kensky, VT 34 (1984), 11-26; D. Pardee, VT 35 (1985), 112-4. In 1 Sam. 15:32 death is called ‘bitter’
(cf. Eccl. 7:26). For -no see further L. Kutler, UF 16 (1984), 111-8.
used (note also Josh. 9:18; Ps. 59:16 [emended text]) is in Exod. 15-17 and Num.
14-17; the noun occurs only in those passages; in any case, the usual rendering ‘to
grumble,’ ‘to murmur’ (Dasberg) or ‘to complain’ (NEB; cf. TEV, NRSV, REB)
is too weak; the subject of the action, the people, rebel and assume a threatening
posture (cf. 17:4; Num. 14:10; Ps. 59:16) toward ( + i v ) Moses (15:24; 17:3)
and Aaron (16:2, 7) and so toward y h w h (16:7f.). I opt for ‘to rage,’ ‘to rant.’
Cause of the aggressive attitude is the demoralization of the people in the desert as
they fear for their life (16:2f.; 17:3; Num. 14:2), or put differently, their lack of
trust in y h w h and his messengers (cf. Num. 14:3). See THAT, I, 870ff.; TWAT ,
IV, 527ff. (Introd. § 3.5.2), cf. 6:10.
Erroneously the clause with HD is usually regarded as a question: ‘What shall we
drink?’ More likely it is a cry of indignation (cf. Ges-K § 148a; Joiion § 144e)
thrown into Moses’ face. The anger about the quality of the water is vented on the
man who brought them to the lake of evil.
15:25 He, however, cried out to y h w h and y h w h showed him a small shrub. He
threw it into the water and the water became sweet - there he ( y h w h ) had
announced a binding decree fo r the people and there he had put them to the test -
(see 2:23), Sam. Pent., LXX, Pesh., FT: -I- ‘Moses;’ similarly e.g. LV; cf.
17:4. pus is interpreted in the targums as ‘to pray.’ m" hiph. (see 4:12), with
double accusative; the meaning seems to be that y h w h apprised Moses of the use
and effect of the ‘wood’ (cf. Nachmanides; Ehrlich; Greflmann*, 122f.). Sam.
Pent.: inNTi ‘he showed him;’ cf. interpretation in LXX, Pesh., Vulg., TNf,
TPsJ; but see also Aq. (e^wnoev), TO and FTP (‘to instruct’) and Mek. II, 92.
‘small shrub,’ see Introd. § 10.1.2. (see 1:22), implied subject is ‘Moses’
(cf. KoSynt § 325n); differently Greflmann*, 122: y h w h (also in 15:25, 26); the
object is not explicitly stated; it is in LXX. ip n p ’'] imperf. cons, qal of "[no (OT
6 x ), ‘to be/become sweet’ (cf. Prov. 9:17) in contrast to ‘be bitter’ (Isa. 5:20;
Prov. 27:7). See TWAT, V, 112ff. ‘to announce:’ see Introd. § 3.48. pn, see
5:14. CDD&D, see 2:14.
•inp} perf. piel + suffix of no: (OT 36x; Exod. 5 x ), ‘to test;’ in the case of
persons the intent is to reveal someone’s true mettle; with Israel as subject and
YHWH as object (17:2, 7; Num. 14:22; Deut. 6:16; Ps. 78:18, 41, 56; 95:9;
106:14) it is an expression of unbelief, of lack of trust, of skepticism about
y h w h ’s power; with y h w h as subject and Israel as object (15:25; 16:4; 20:20;
Deut. 4:34; 8:2, 16; 13:4 et al.) the object is to test the people’s devotion to and
trust in y h w h . y h w h wants to know whether Israel is completely committed to
him (cf. Deut. 13:3). Trials compel one to inquire about the possible cause. Why
did Israel, though guided by y h w h himself, become so dispirited in the wilder
ness? According to Exod. 16:4, y h w h ’s response to Israel’s depression offered
him the opportunity to try the people’s faithfulness to his ordinances. That seems
to be the purpose too in 15:25 (see below), y h w h brings the people into a
precarious situation so that he may learn if they are completely devoted to him and
ready to obey him (cf. Deut. 8:2f., 5, 16 and in particular also Judg. 2:22; 3:4).
3 08 EXODUS 1 5 :2 2 -2 7
In 20:20 the motive for the awesome theophany o f y h w h is said to be that y h w h

may test Israel and so induce the people to fear y h w h (cf. Gen. 22:1, 12) and
leave off sinning (see THAT, II, 69ff.; TWAT , V, 473ff.); TPsJ, FTV add: ‘with
the tenth trial’ (cf. TNf margin). What is meant is not clear (Bienaime, 44).
15:26 and he (Moses) said: 'If you really listen to y h w h , your God, and do
what is pleasing to y h w h , heed his commandments and observe all his statutes,
then I will not bring upon you any o f the diseases I bring upon the Egyptians.
Truly, / y h w h , am your Healer.9
‘If,’ see Introd. §3.4.1. ‘to listen to’ (Introd. §3.5.1), for construction see
KoSynt § 329t; Ges-K § 113o; Jouon § 123g; Cairo Genizah fragment: bipa.
‘y h w h , your God,’ see Introd. § 7.2.2.
(OT ca. 120x), ‘right,’ ‘just,’ is here used as a noun, in a phrase which
occurs more often, and as object of ‘to do’ (Introd. § 3.41.1) followed by ‘in the
eyes of y h w h ’ (Introd. § 3.38) = ‘do what meets with y h w h ’s approval/what is
pleasing to y h w h ’ (cf. Deut. 6:18; 12:25, 28; 13:19; 21:9; 1 Kgs. 11:38; 14:8 et
al.). See THAT , I, 790ff.; TWAT, III, 1059ff. im hiph., see 10:2. ‘com
mandments,’ see Introd. § 3.43.2. notf, see 10:28. Four times, in different words,
Israel is told to be committed to y h w h . For concrete interpretation of the repeti
tions see e.g. Mek. II, 95f.; cf. Ibn Ezra.
n!?ao (15:26; 23:25; 1 Kgs. 8:37 = 2 Chr. 6:28; cf. Prov. 18:14; 2 Chr.
21:15), derivative of nbn, ‘to be weak/ill’ (THAT, I, 567ff.; TWAT, II, 960ff.;
Struys*, 368ff.), ‘sickness,’ ‘disease.’ Is there an allusion to the plagues in Egypt?
(e.g. McNeile and especially Lohfink, 25ff.). Ibn Ezra regards the miracle as a
‘contrastparallel’ of the first plague: sweet water was made putrid; now: putrid
water is made sweet. Is the idea that Israel should learn from what happened to the
Egyptians: because of their disobedience, they fell victim to terrible calamities,
and that should teach and move Israel to be faithful to y h w h ? N o such allusion to
the plagues seems intended here. Egypt is here (cf. Deut. 7:15; 28:27, 59ff.)
presented as a country whose inhabitants are regularly afflicted by irritating
maladies, skin diseases, eye infections etc. y h w h once brought these upon Egypt
and since then the Egyptians have had to deal with them;14 Israel knows about it
from experience. Israel is given assurance that physical well-being will follow in
the wake of commitment to y h w h (by contrast, cf. 29:21); life with y h w h will be
better than life in Egypt.
NDh part, qal of KD"i (OT ca. 65x), ‘to heal,’ ‘to cure;’ the part, can be used as
a noun, ‘physician,’ ‘doctor’ (Gen. 50:2; Jer. 8:22; Job 13:4; 2 Chr. 16:12), the
man who with spices, ointments (cf. Introd. § 10.6), bandages and scalpel seeks to
14 For the use of the perf. 'not; (Introd. § 3.48) see Ges-K § 106g, k; Jouon § 112e, f.
bring about healing.13*15 Often, with y h w h as subject, the verb refers to the healing
of physical disorders (e.g. Gen. 20:17; Num. 12:13; 2 Kgs. 20:5, 8). Even more
frequently, with y h w h as subject, the verb is used figuratively and in a broader
sense for ‘to restore,’ returning something to a situation which is regarded as
normal, right and good (Isa. 6:10; 19:22; 57:18, 19; Jer. 33:6; Hos. 6:1; 11:3;
Ps. 103:3; 147:3 et al.). KB"i piel in 21:19 (2 x ) is causative: ‘to cause to heal,’
‘to make the medical treatment possible’ (cf. e.g. Ezek. 34:4; Zech. 11:16). See
THAT, II, 803ff.; TWAT , VII, 617ff.; Struys*, 393ff.
What is the specific meaning of ‘Healer’ in 15:26? The context allows for two
possibilities. The word can go with 15:25a: y h w h transforms the water from
being a source of evil to a source of good.16 The word can also go with 15:26:
y h w h is the One who brings illness and gives healing (Deut. 32:39); he plagues
Egypt with diseases; he wants to spare Israel from them. In my judgment, KS") is
to be taken in the broader sense (Lohfink, e.g., restricts the meaning to the healing
of sickness) as One who brings about and preserves wholeness in every respect
(cf. e.g. 23:25f.; Deut. 7:12ff.; 8:1 ff.; 28:Iff. and for contrast Deut. 28:15ff.;
29:18ff.).

Was Moses shown a type of wood that can make foul water drinkable? Keil states
that the wood as such did not have the power to heal, but was only given it
through the word and power of God.17 The penchant to link the transformation of
the water (more) directly with God can already be detected in the targums. After
‘a tree,’ there follows in TNf: ‘and the Word of y h w h took from it a word from
the Torah;’ TPsJ reads: ‘and y h w h taught him a word from the Torah, which is
likened to the tree of life.’ Back of TNf and FTP lies the notion that the tree is the
tree of life = the Torah.18 In respect of TPsJ see Mek. II, 92f.: it is noted that
there was a double miracle: bitter wood makes bitter water sweet!19
There is discussion as well about the kind of wood it was. It is hard to say
whether the question sprang from the desire to come up with a natural explanation
13 See e.g. J. Hempel, “Ich bin der Herr, dein Arzt,” ThLZ 82 (1957), 809-26; W.Th. in der
Smitten, “Patient und Arzt: Die Welt des Kranken im Alten Testament,” Janus 61 (1974), 103-29; Van
der Toom*, 69f. ( + Bibl.). Cf. also B. Kollmann, “Gottliche Offenbamng magisch-pharmakologischer
Heilkunst im Buch Tobit,” ZAW 106 (1994), 289-99.
16 Elsewhere KB") niph. and piel is used for becoming/making wholesome of water (2 Kgs. 2:2If.;
Ezek. 47:8, 9, 11).
17 Calvin: the wood possessed power in itself; however, God also intervenes directly, for the
purification of enough water for so many people would require an awful lot of wood.
18 Cf. TNf on Gen. 3:24 and see Mek. II, 92; MidrTanh. Exod. IV, 18; Zohar Exod. 60b, with a
reference to Prov. 3:18; see also L. Ginzberg, On Jewish Law and Lore, New York 1977, 133; for the
imagery of water made sweet by a branch from the tree of life see Pseudo-Philo, XI, 5; cf. X, 7.
19 Cf. e.g. MidrTanh. Exod. IV, 18; X, 9; PWB, XXXIII, 51 ff.; a Christian interpretation has it that
the miracle was twofold, for God provided wood at a place that had no wood (BB, 196); according to
Ishodad the wood was bitter, lest the miracle would be attributed to the wood or to Moses.
310 EXODUS 1 5 :2 2 -2 7
for the miracle. Josephus (AJ , III, Iff.) offers a rationalistic explanation. He offers
a lengthy and dramatic account: the water was so bad that not even the cattle could
tolerate it; there was no outcry from the Israelites against Moses, but they pleaded
with him, women for their children, men for their wives etc. He tells how Moses
took a stick that lay at his feet, divided it in the middle and threw it in the water,
to persuade the Hebrews that God had hearkened to his prayers and would heal the
water if they would heed his commandments. When through drawing most of the
water has been drained from the well, the remainder was fit to drink. Also Philo
(VM, I, 18Iff.) provides a detailed account. He leaves open the question whether
the wood as such possessed the - up to that point undiscovered - healing power
or whether then and there it was created for the job at hand.20
In connection with the equation ‘wood’ = Torah it is worthy of note that also
the water has been interpreted as Torah. In Mek. II, 89f., this figurative interpreta
tion, based on Isa. 55:1, is mentioned in the exegesis of 15:22 (cf. e.g. Zohar
Exod. 60a); there is no question that this particular interpretation also underlies
TPsJ’s comments on 15:22; after the second ‘wilderness* there follows: ‘deprived
of precepts.’ According to PWB , XXXII, 19ff., the non-Israelites (12:37) asked
Moses for water (15:24), while the Israelites asked him for Torah: ‘Without Torah
and religious laws we cannot live. How come for three days now we have not
studied Torah and religious laws?’ The injunction to read the Torah at least three
times a week is derived from 15:22ff. (cf. Mek. II, 90; Ginzberg*, III, 40;
Bienaime, 16ff.). Also Origen {Horn, in Exod., VII) equates the water with the
Torah, which in his view is the bitter water, the Jewish law (of circumcision,
sabbath, sacrifices etc.), which kills (cf. 2 Cor. 3:6), The bitter water becomes
sweet water through the ‘tree of the wisdom of Christ’ (cf. Prov. 3:18), the
mystery of the cross, the faith in Christ which enables one to grasp the spiritual
significance of the law. Also in other ways Christian exegetes have linked the
‘wood’ with the cross. Theodoret of Cyrus (QE , XXVI) detects in the event an
illustration of salvation (cf. e.g. Ephraem); Gregory of Nyssa (VAf, II, 32) states
that the life of virtue, which is bitter on account of the renouncing of the ‘pleas
ures of Egypt,’ becomes sweet through sharing in the mystery of the resurrection
which derives from the wood, the more so because of the hope of future blessings.
Also the water of baptism has been likened to the water of Bitterness; through the
preaching of the wood of the cross it receives its blessed power (Ambrose, De
Mysteriis , III, 14).21 Da Costa*, 227, considers the bitter water a picture of the
suffering ‘which is made drinkable for us by throwing into it something, not from
the wood of the cross but from Christ’s suffering on the cross. Nothing can do
more to sweeten our suffering than meditation upon and appropriation of the
Lord’s suffering.’
20 See further Ginzberg*, III, 38ff.; VI, 14f.; Bienaime, 29ff.

21 See further Danielou, 147ff.; G.Q. Reijners, The Terminology o f the Holy Cross in Early
Christian Literature, Nijmegen 1965, 42, 88f., 91, 139 et al.
The above interpretation is far removed from the original purport of 15:25a:
yhw h, the Lord of the powers of nature, reveals to his representative the special
property of a certain kind of wood. Moses, the initiate, the man of God, now is
given the use of the powers of nature.
It is not unlikely that 15:25a has something to do with the popular belief or the
experience that a certain kind of wood or shrub (the barberry has been mentioned)
possesses the property to make bitter water sweet (cf. Dillmann, Holzinger,
Beer).22 Just as according to 2 Kgs. 2:19ff. salt23 and according to 2 Kgs.
4:38ff. flour can serve as an antidote, a counterpoison, so here that function is
attributed to a certain kind of wood (for the power thought to reside in vegetative
matter see also Gen. 30:37ff.). Apparently the facts are the following: y h w h
shows Moses a particular shrub; Moses cuts if off (or cuts off a branch; cf. 2 Kgs.
6:6) and throws it in the small body of water, the spring (cf. 2 Kgs. 2:21), as a
consequence of which the water is clean (cf. Sir. 38:4ff.). The text is quite
succinct. It is not clear whether it is implied that the water stayed fresh after that
(cf. 2 Kgs. 2:22) and whether 15:25 might be the etiology of Lake Bitterness,24 a
story told to account for the fact that a lake with an ominous name nevertheless
contained fresh water (and actually, owing to the transformation, deserves a new
name; cf. Gen. 28:19).25 Less likely is the suggestion that the water was poured
into vessels and that Moses made it sweet (Cassuto). Diebner’s suggestion (140f.,
146) that ‘wood* refers to Moses* miracle staff and that "jbtf (15:25a) means ‘to
hit’ is without merit.
15:25, 26 does present a number of questions. What is the relationship between
15:25a and 15:25b, 26? The view that 15:25b, 26 and the preceding verses are not
from the same hand has much to commend itself (see Introduction to exegesis).
That would raise the question why they were combined. What precisely is meant
with CDStfDi pn? Who is the subject of 15:25b, 26? I start with the last question.
Subject of Oft can be either Moses or y h w h . In case of the latter, lb can be
related to Moses (Rudolph*, 32 n. 3; Auerbach*, 80) or to the people. In case of
the former it can only refer to the people. In favour of Moses as subject (e.g.
Nachmanides, Dillmann, Te Stroete) is the use of the phrase in Josh. 24:25 with
Joshua as subject. On the other hand, in03 at the end of the verse argues against it.
Theoretically in 03 permits several interpretations: the people put y h w h to the test
(considered among others by Calvin); y h w h puts Moses to the test (Auerbach,
80ff.); the people try to follow the ordinances (cf. Liedke*, 180ff.); Moses
(Nachmanides et al.) or y h w h puts the people to the test. In view of the context,
22 For examples of purifying water with vegetative matter see Gaster*, 241f.; supposedly Moses
knew of the custom from his father-in-law (e.g. Knight).
23 Cf. Jirku*, Volksreligion, 13ff.; Gaster*, 516f.
24 See in particular Meyer*, IN, lOOff.; Auerbach*, 78ff.
23 Noth*, UP, 128, is of the opinion that originally the story explained the custom, practiced by
travelers, to make the water of Marah drinkable by throwing a certain kind of wood into it; but see also
Noth in his commentary on Exodus (p. 102).
3 12 EXODUS 1 5 :2 2 -2 7
only yhwh or Moses can be considered as subject. Since Moses is never used as
subject of noa, only yhwh can be the subject. Since alternation of subject (e.g.
Meyer*, IN , 61f; Lohfink, 19ff.) is problematic, it is logical that yhwh is also
subject of (Baentsch et al.). For that matter, though, the dilemma Moses-YHWH
is not entirely to the point either, since yhwh speaks through Moses and is
represented by him. As a rule it is assumed that yhwh is the speaker. In my view,
15:26 connects with 15:25a (see below) and Moses is subject. However, in his
words there is a transition to the first person of yhwh. Moses speaks in 15:26 as
if he were yhwh (cf. Deut. 7:4; 11:13-15; 17:3; 28:20; 29:4f., and see also Deut.
1:8).26
What is meant by CDStfDipin? Rabbinic interpretation holds that it stands for
concrete commandments. Views cited in Mek. II, 94 include the following: the
sabbath commandment and the commandment to honour one’s parents or laws
against incest and stipulations concerning robbery, penalties, injustice;27 Rashi
thinks of the stipulations concerning the sabbath, the red heifer (Num. 19:2) and
the laws of justice (+ reverence for the parents; cf. Rashi on 24:3). Nachmanides
takes issue with him: the terms do not refer to the precepts of the Torah; Moses
instructs the Israelites about life in the wilderness, he gives rules for social life
etc.28 Several exegetes hold that the content of pin consists in the re
quirement to obey y h w h ’s commands as formulated in the words spoken to Israel
in 15:26 (Murphy, Lange, Gispen; cf. Calmet). Keil offers a figurative interpreta
tion: what transpired at Marah is to be a pin to Israel, that is, ‘an institution or
law by which God would always guide and govern his people, and a tDDtffc or
right, inasmuch as Israel could always reckon upon the help of God.’ According to
Dillmann, the significance of the concept is: Moses drives home ‘die grossen
Wahrheiten von Jahve als dem Gotte des Volkes sammt den daraus folgenden
Rechten und Pflichten.’ Lohfink, 20f., 57, believes that the author of 15:25b, 26,
who was from a much later era, has in mind the laws of the entire Pentateuch.
Before I set forth my own standpoint, I wish to say something about the
relationship o f 15:25b, 26 to the preceding account. Is there a relationship?
Literary criticism has concluded that 15:25b, 26 and its context are of different
origin; the use of noa in 15:25b has resulted in the supposition that 15:25b
originally was an etiology of Massah (not the same as the one in 17:7).29 For
exegetes who were chiefly interested in the analysis of the texts and who had scant
26 For the oscillation between master and representative see Johnson*, The One, 4ff., 33ff. et al.
27 Cf. TPsJ; MidrTanh. Exod. IV, 19; PWB, XXXIII, 10f.; according to bSanh. 55a, b, additionally
the people were given the seven Noahic commandments.
28 Cf. Calmet: perhaps what is meant is that God provides the basic structure for Israel’s existence
as a nation.
29 See e.g. Meyer*, IN, 61; Holzinger; Baentsch; Grefimann*, 123; Noth; so the passage, also on
the basis of C3BBD (cf. Gen. 14:7), is linked with Kadesh (cf. Introd. § 8.18; 8.23.5); Bohl, moreover,
feels that “|KB"I in 15:26 is an allusion to Rephidim (17:8); but note e.g. Eerdmans*, 44ff.; Rudolph,
32; Lohfink, 40 n. 84.
appreciation for the abilities of the redactors of the Pentateuch, that was as a rule
the end of the discussion of the relationship of 15:25b, 26 to the preceding
account. Eerdmans*, 46, regards 15:25b, 26 as an expansion: a scribe happening
upon n T in 15:25a associated it with m in and added 15:25b, 26. Also others
have supposed a relationship between .TP and the promulgation of ‘statute and
ordinance.’ According to Greflmann*, 123, y h w h instructed Moses in the art of
healing (15:25a), but later writers failed to see that and thought it was about moral
precepts (15:25b).30 Cassuto notes: ‘The realization of the need for instruction
from the Lord (15:25a) prepares the people spiritually for the acceptance of the
yoke of the Torah and precepts’ (15:25b). Lohfink, 25, sees the following
connection: y h w h ’s Torah makes the water whole (15:25a); the keeping of
y h w h ’s Torah safeguards Israel against illness (15:26). According to Diebner,
141ff., 146, 149f., the healing of the water in consequence of y h w h ’s instruction
correlates with y h w h ’s promulgation of ‘statute and ordinance’: like the water, the
Torah is sweet and life-bringing (cf. Ps. 19: lOf.; 119:103).
The moment has come to formulate my own standpoint. Doubtful, it seems to
me, is the possibility of linking nT and CDStf&i pin. I do see a connection between
15:25a and 15:25b, 26: the portrayal of y h w h as Saviour in 15:25a guarantees
that his precepts bring blessings and that he can rightly call himself ‘Healer.’ In
terms of the composition of the Pentateuch, 15:25b, 26 fills a key role. Let us
have another look at the text.
Often the sing, pn and are regarded as collectives and translated as pi.
(already in LXX, Vulg., Pesh., TNf, FT). Probably, however, it is a hendiadys:
‘a binding statute’ (cf. Josh. 24:25; 1 Sam. 30:25). The content is left undefined,
but the sequel (15:26) suggests that it is the requirement to obey y h w h . In short,
the object of 15:25b, 26 is to highlight that from the start Israel knew of y h w h ’s
requirement of obedience. It is the charter, the constitution, fo r y h w h ’s relation
ship with Israel. Before y h w h announces to Israel specific commandments and
stipulations, it is informed of the only foundation on which its future can rest:
faithfulness to YHWH and his commandments (cf. Jer. 7:23). In 15:25b it is
reported that y h w h gave Israel its charter and then proceeded to ‘examine’ Israel
on its compliance. Israel’s being brought to places without water or with undrink
able water is construed as a testing by y h w h to see whether it will abide by a
demand imposed upon the people (cf. 16:4). The text presupposes that prior to the
testing by y h w h there is the establishment of the norm. Therefore it is wrong to
say that y h w h wants to make clear to Israel that it needs divine instruction, for
that reason brings it into the wilderness etc., and follows it up by giving specific
3,1 Rudolph*, 32f., takes also 15:25b as being ‘eine Belehrung iiber die Heilkunst;’ GreBmann and
Rudolph do not regard the comment about the test and the keeping of the commandments as part of the
original text.
314 EXODUS 1 5 :2 2 -2 7
laws.31 The writer’s intention is to portray Israel’s conduct (15:24) as infidelity to

y h w h . There is no reason either to understand n o J as ‘to learn to live with it’32
or as ‘to give a choice’ (Ges-B and see CV) and to read 15:26 as stating the
specifics of the choice. In my view, 15:25b is an elucidation of 15:22-25a by the
writer/redactor. The change in the tense may be an indication of it. Parenthetically
the writer deals with the question of why Israel ended up in arid regions and found
only ‘bitter’ water, even though it was being led by y h w h . The writer believes
that it is because there (in broader sense: in the wilderness?) y h w h had demanded
total commitment and loyalty, and had followed it up by testing the caliber of that
commitment. In short, 15:25b contains interpretation and commentary. Therefore,
as I see it, the imperf. cons, in 15:26 harks back to 15:25a. Israel did not pass the
text. Therefore Moses admonishes the Israelites, after the healing of the water,
that they should obey y h w h . Israel is reminded of the charter and of the conse
quences of faithfulness and unfaithfulness.
Through the words of 15:25b the writer depicts Israel’s reaction at Bitterness as
unfaithfulness to y h w h . The incident is to be a lesson to Israel. By putting this
admonition in Moses’ mouth right after the changing of the water, the writer
stresses the need to be totally dedicated to y h w h . If Israel wants to endure, now
and later, it must be obedient to y h w h and his laws. The bond with y h w h rests
on that posture of faith. From the very outset Israel is to be sure of that.
The concluding words with '3 are a general statement, y h w h announces, now
that Israel is no longer Pharaoh’s slave but has entered into fellowship with him,
that he is Israel’s Saviour. If the people are committed to him, he will keep them
from all evil. The healing of the water is evidence. TPsJ has an expansion before
'3: calamities will follow in the wake of transgression of the Torah, but when
Israel repents y h w h will remove these evils. The expansion aims to provide a
motive for the clause with 'S .33 It is doubtful to understand ‘Healer’ as: who
offers advice — the precepts of the Torah; the Torah as medicine - for the
prevention of diseases (cf. Rashi).
Meyer*, IN , 102f., has suggested that the water of Marah possessed healing
powers and that, during the monarchical period, people from southern Palestine
made pilgrimages to the spring to find healing with y h w h , the god of the spring.
He and also GreBmann*, 122f., emphasize that in the saga y h w h is pictured as a
‘healer God.’ Integral to their view is that 15:26 belongs to the original version of
the saga (cf. Childs, 267). As to the origin of the title ‘Healer,’ likely it was
passed on from the Canaanite god Baal (cf. 2 Kgs. 1:16) to y h w h .34 In any case,
31 See e.g. Cassuto; the conception requires a switching around of the order of 15:25b, as is done in
GNB.
32 So Te Stroete (and WV), with Moses as subject; cf. Beer and Fensham, with y h w h as subject;
see for the proposed interpretation of noi O. Eiflfeldt, VT5 (1955), 235ff.
33 For healing presupposes the existence of illness; cf. Mek. II, 96f.
34 See J.C. de Moor, “Rapi’ uma-Rephaim,” ZAW 88 (1976), 323-45; Spronk (see 14:11), 159ff.,
270ff. et al.; cf. however, Niehr, 16.
as a healer-God y h w h had competition from other deities (2 Kgs. l^ ff.).35

Origen, Horn, in Exod., VII), spiritualizes the words: God safeguards from the
‘Egyptian sickness,’ the love of the world (cf. 1 John 2:15).
According to Pseudo-Philo (XI, 15; cf. X, 7; XX, 8) the water of Marah
traveled with Israel: ‘the water of Marah followed them in the wilderness forty
years and went with them up the mountains and down in the valleys;’ the metaphor
of the spring that followed along is familiar from the targums and rabbinic
literature (cf. also 1 Cor. 10:4), but there is connected with Num. 21:16ff.
(Ginzberg*, III, 52ff.; Bienaime, 44ff., 151ff., 178ff., 276f.).
15:27 Next they came to Elim. There were twelve springs o f water there and
seventy palm trees. They encamped there beside the water.
lKS'i, cf. 15:23. ‘Elim,’ see Introd. § 8.2; Maiberger*, 164ff. DBh (cf. Qm; see
Sanderson*, 84), Sam. Pent.: n'b'X2'\ (cf. TPsJ). ‘twelve,’ see Introd. §4.33.
‘springs,’ see Introd. § 3.38. ‘seventy,* see Introd. § 4.8.3. ‘palms,’ see Introd.
§ 10.2.7. LXX: ‘palm tree trunks.’ nan, see 13:20.
Nomen est omen. Name and significance coincide. Already the name Elim as
such evokes the image of a wonderful place. Elim is described as a place of
delight. That is how, for instance, Philo ( VM, I, 188ff.) and Ezekiel the Tragedian
(243ff.) visualize it. The latter notes that twelve springs flowed there from one
rock (cf. 17:6; Num. 20: l l) .36 An altogether different picture is presented by
Josephus (AJt III, 9ff.). From a distance the place looked attractive enough, but
when the people got there it was not much of a place. For there were no more
than seventy palm trees there, which, due to lack of water, led a languishing
existence. The soil was sandy because the twelve springs yielded little water. The
people rebel against Moses. The low numbers, 12 and 70, low in comparison with
the size of the people mentioned in 12:37, caused the rabbis to speculate that
y h w h performed yet another miracle: 12 springs provided water for a huge crowd
of people (e.g. Mek. II, 98). Gregory of Nyssa (VM, I, 34) remarks that the
palms, though few in number, were a marvel to the people because they were so
stately and tall.
According to rabbinic interpretation, ‘twelve’ corresponds to the number of
Israelite tribes and ‘seventy’ to that of the number of elders (24:1, 9 et al.).37
35 For Egyptian gods as healers see J. Zandee, in Travels in the World o f the OT (Fs M.A. Beek),
Assen 1974, 272. For rabbinic and Jewish interpretations of YHWH’s title see F. Rosner, Medicine in
the Bible and Talmud, New York 1977, 102f., 108ff. In PWB, XXXffl, 1Iff., it is specifically stated
that if the commands are obeyed the body will be healthy and healers and medicine unnecessaiy; the
Karaites inferred from 15:26 that it is wrong to consult a physician; cf. 2 Chr. 16:12 (or is the
reference to ‘spirits of the dead;’ pointing!), but also Sir. 38:1.
36 According to the rabbis, whenever the Israelites encamped, rivers of water flowed from the
accompanying rock to each of the tribes; see Bienaim6, 182ff.; cf. also Koran 7:160.
37 See e.g. Mek. II, 98; TPsJ, TNf; FTVand see also Philo; Rashi and further in Bienaim6, 47ff. Ibn
Ezra and Nachmanides question the interpretation.
316 EXODUS 1 5 :2 2 -2 7
Mek. II, 98, contains the view that stay at the water = study of the words of the
Torah, given at Marah (cf. Ginzberg*, III, 40f.). Christian exegesis has applied
‘twelve’ to Jesus’ disciples and ‘seventy’ to the apostles of Luke 10:1.38 Origen
(Horn, in Exod ., VII) understands 15:22-27 as allegory of the transition from the
OT to the NT, from the water of Marah to the twelve apostolic springs, the
gospel, that was also proclaimed by the seventy of Luke 10:1.39 Of late, Diebner,
15If., has proposed a metaphorical interpretation. Alongside the seventy elders he
mentions the seventy of 1:5: for each tribe a spring, for every representative of
Israel a palm. ‘Spring’ he associates with y h w h as fountain of life (Ps. 36:10a)
and ‘palm’ with the righteous as a palm (Ps. 92:13; also Ps. 1:3 could be men
tioned). So he concludes: ‘In Elim kommt “Israel” sozusagen mit Hilfe der zuvor
empfangenen “Weisung” zu sich selbst: dort findet es seine “Quellgriinde” und
seine “tragenden Saulen’” (p. 152).
In my judgment, there exists the following relationship between 15:27 and the
preceding account: y h w h makes Israel taste the benefits of a life that is lived in
faithfulness to and in reliance on y h w h .
II LIFE IS ACKNOWLEDGING YHWH AS LORD

AND FAITHFULLY OBSERVING THE DAY OF REST
However pleasant life in Elim was, the oasis is not Israel’s destination. The people
must move on. First of all to the Sinai, the place where y h w h will personally
meet with Israel (3:12 and Vol. I, 375ff.). The reader, who expects that Israel has
learned the lesson of Bitterness, is in for disillusion. Barely back in the wilderness,
Israel again has lost all trust in y h w h . This time, not thirst but hunger is the
cause. In rapidly shifting scenes (16:2-3, 4-5, 6-8, 9-10, 11-12), the writer depicts
the unfolding of events. It happens in the wilderness, more specifically in and
around Israel’s camp (16:13, 14). Protagonists in the story are y h w h , Moses and
Aaron, and the people.
The reader witnesses how the Israelites, as it were with the sound of the promise
of 15:26 still ringing in their ears, the taste of the pleasant life in dependence upon
y h w h in Elim still in their mouth (15:27), and in anticipation of the encounter
with y h w h at the Sinai (Exod. 19), are complaining to Moses (16:2). From their
own mouths he hears how they, their memory short, visualize their life in Egypt as
a life of luxury; he has to hear how they, while still willing to associate the name
of y h w h with an agreeable death in Egypt, feel themselves in the wilderness
completely forsaken of God, and how they hold Moses and Aaron personally
responsible for the torturous death they expect to die (16:3). Throwing up his
arms, the reader wonders: will they never learn? Having the audacity to complain
38 Cf. B.M. Metzger, NTS 5 (1958-59), 299-306.

39 Cf. Gregory of Nyssa (VM, II, 133f.) and see Dani61ou*, 149ff., 184f.
LIFE IS ACKNOWLEDGING YHWH AS LORD 317
about y h w h ’s bringing them out of Egypt! How will YHWH react to this unbelief
and lack of trust. But the reader also wonders: don’t the Israelites have good cause
for being so desperate? In the wilderness, without food, what else can one expect
but death? Why does y h w h bring Israel in this impasse? Why doesn’t he, keeping
hardships far from the people, just bring them to the promised land?
While the reader is asking these questions, the writer takes him as it were aside
and informs him of what y h w h says to Moses in reaction to the incident (16:4, 5).
The reader can hardly believe his ears, y h w h ’s promise leaves one dumbfounded.
His words sound incredible. He promises to rain down bread from heaven. He
himself will feed Israel. Israel’s daily food can only come from him and from him
alone. Why? As provider, y h w h has the right to attach rules to the gift of food,
demand that Israel live up to them, and check up on Israel’s compliance. Such
obedience will tell him whether Israel trusts him and feels secure with him. Both
the announcement of bread from heaven and the description of the rules are veiled,
are in the nature of allusions that require clarification. So the reader, delighted
about y h w h ’s promise, but apprehensive as well about events to come, continues
with the story.
The writer again puts the reader in the company of Moses and Aaron and the
people, and makes him witness their reaction to the complaint and accusation of
the people (16:6, 7). Their reply to the grumbling people is superb. They are not
at all put out by the behaviour of the people. They announce that before long the
people will see what is really going on: y h w h will give double proof, in the
morning and in the evening, of his concern for and care for Israel, even in the
wilderness, and thereby demonstrate that it is only up to him, not Moses and
Aaron, what happens to Israel. Moses and Aaron know their position. They are
only y h w h ’s stand-ins (cf. 1 Cor. 3:5). As mysterious as y h w h ’s announcement
of impending events may be (16:4, 5), the words of Moses and Aaron are no less
so. It is as if the writer has sensed that the reader wants clarification. Therefore he
lets Moses continue (16:8): y h w h will give tangible proof that he really cares for
Israel, by giving meat in the evening and bread in the morning; Israel in effect had
turned against y h w h . Meat in the evening, bread in the morning! The message
surprises the reader. It turns out that y h w h had told Moses more than so far the
writer has let on (16:4). The suspense remains and mounts. How will the promise
of meat and bread be made good in the wilderness? The deliverance is predicated
upon the condition that the people drop their rebellion. Therefore Moses orders
Aaron, in his capacity as priest, to call the people to humble themselves before
y h w h to prove that they trust y h w h and in response to his concern for Israel
(16:9). y h w h appears in blinding splendour, from the wilderness (16:10) - also
the wilderness is his domain - and confirms Moses’ announcement of deliverance
06:12). ^
And then the deliverance happens. It is revealed what is meant by< m ^*i^die
evening: quail cover the camp (16:13a). It is disclosed what is m£ant
the morning: with the dew, a fine flaky substance has been deposited
ground (16:13b, 14). The writer makes the reader privy to the a m aze^d i'^ ^ h e^
318 exodus 1 6 :1 -3 6
Israelites. They did not know what it was. Moses, initiated by y h w h (16:4),
enlightens them: it is the bread, promised by y h w h (16:15). The double and
therewith compelling proof of y h w h ’s concern for Israel has been delivered (cf.
16:6b, 7a, 8, 12). To Israel it should now be absolutely clear that y h w h is all
powerful and that he alone deserves the credit for the bringing out of Egypt and
the provisions supplied in the wilderness, y h w h has put the rebellious people to
shame. The reader’s question, what induced y h w h to get the people into such
straits? has been answered. Through the deliverance he sent he aimed to compel
Israel to acknowledge his power and make them aware of their dependence on him
(Introd. § 3.22; Exod. 6:7 et al.; Deut. 29:4f.).
The writer does not talk about how Israel, in the wilderness at that, enjoyed a
sumptuous meal, complete with meat and bread (cf. 16:3). His chief concern is the
lesson of history. Having narrated how in the desert y h w h proved to Israel his
almighty power (cf. 16:12) and thereby created a climate for obedience to him and
his precepts, the writer has arrived at what y h w h had in mind when he gave the
people to eat in the desert: y h w h wants to examine the heeding of his precepts.
Now that the bread has come down from the sky, the writer tells how Moses
informs the Israelites of the rules y h w h gave him pertaining to the gathering of
the food (16:4, 5). Step by step the people are initiated in the use and handling of
the bread. So they can learn by doing.
First off, Moses instructs them about the quantity they are allowed to collect
(16:16; cf. 16:4). Family heads are to reckon with the size and composition of
their family and there is a limit per person as well. The amount y h w h deposits
every night is enough to feed every Israelite, provided the distribution scheme he
prescribed is adhered to. Thanks to y h w h , every member of the community will
have enough to eat. Thanks to y h w h , there are no needy in the wilderness, nor
will having too much be able to disrupt the well-being of the community (cf. Matt.
26:1-16). As provider, YHWH gives rules for a harmonious society (cf. Acts
4:32ff.; 2 Cor. 8:14f., 9:7). He is equally interested in each individual member of
the community.
When Israel has carefully carried out the directions (16:17, 18), Moses gives an
added instruction: nothing may be kept till the next day (16:19). This rule leads to
an incident (cf. Acts 5: Iff.). A handful of Israelites ignores the rule. By keeping a
portion for the next day, they show not to have enough trust in y h w h . They do
not pass the test (16:4).40 The spoiling of the food reveals their disobedience.
Moses gets angry with them (16:20). The incident was a good lesson. Since then
they followed the rule of 16:4 to the letter (16:21). Trusting in y h w h , they lived
by the day (cf. Matt. 6:11, 31-34).
The writer has given a different write-up of the announcement and execution of
the instruction of 16:5 (16:22-30). Instead of the sequence followed in 16:16-21:
report of the instruction, followed by an account of the execution, the writer uses
40 Cf. Matt. 4:Iff.; Luke 4:Iff.: by contrast, Jesus does pass the trial in the wilderness.
LIFE IS ACKNOWLEDGING YHWH AS LORD 319
this order: on the sixth day twice as much bread is collected as on previous days;
not even the tribal heads know what to do with it and, wondering what to do, turn
to Moses (16:22). Then Moses reveals that there are different rules for the sixth
day than for the previous days, because the seventh day is to be a day of rest
(16:23). Now the bread from heaven turns out to be very special food as well. It
can be prepared in lots of different ways and be used for making a variety of
delicious menus (16:23; cf. 16:31).
In a following scene, the writer takes the reader to the morning of the seventh
day. Now (cf. 16:20) the saved food is unspoiled and tasteful (16:24). Amazing!
Moses orders to eat it. Because of the special character of that day, there is to be
no gathering of bread, nor will any be found. However, y h w h does not ask Israel
to fast. His care extends also to the day of rest (16:25, 26).
Also the injunction concerning the sixth and seventh day occasions an incident.
Ignoring the order, some Israelites do go out on the day of rest, thereby failing the
test (16:4). Their violation confirms Moses* words that there would be no bread
on the seventh day (16:27); it also greatly angers YHWH - breaking the command
of the day of rest is a serious offense, y h w h emphatically reiterates the com
mandment of the day of rest (16:28, 29). Also this time the incident proved a good
lesson. From that time on the people made very sure they obeyed the law (16:30).
The concluding remarks in 16:21, 30 buoy the reader. The wilderness as the
training school for the future life with y h w h in Canaan bears fruit. The fear,
aroused by Israel’s rebellion (16:3), that because of Israel’s own fault nothing
might come of the promise of the land, vanishes.
The writer concludes the account with some more or less random remarks about
the name, appearance, taste (16:31), duration of the use (16:35) of the manna, the
measure used for it (16:36), and the instruction to Moses to keep an omer of it in
the sanctuary ‘through the generations’ (16:32-34). Also the generations which
themselves did not experience how y h w h even in the wilderness gave food to his
people must be made aware of their dependence on y h w h . The past must be made
visible (cf. Essentials 12:1-13:16). That history is to remain a living reality. Not
only the Israel that trekked through the desert is to be mindful that y h w h , Israel’s
God, is almighty (16:12). The same is to be true of their descendants. History is
to teach them that y h w h abhors the transgression of his commandments (16:20,
28), and it is to give them the message that faithfulness to his ordinances, in
particular the observance of the command to work six days and to rest on the
seventh day, brings prosperity, even in the wilderness.41 In this way, knowledge
of those difficult days prompts self-examination, makes one ask the question: how
strong is our relationship with y h w h ? Could it be that he tests us? So trials can
renew and strengthen one’s commitment to y h w h .
Knowledge of this history raises the question about the lesson there is in the gift
o f the manna. As regards Exod. 16, the question already came up in the above (cf.
41 According to Mek. II, 119ff., great blessings come from keeping the sabbath.
320 exodus 1 6 :1 -3 6
also Deut. 8:2, 16). In Deut. 8:3 and Wisd. 16:26 it is added: people should know
that in order to live they very much need the Word of God. The apostle Paul, in
1 Cor. 10, draws a quite different lesson from the gift of the manna (Introd.
§ 13.6).
Knowledge of the history inspires hope and expectation. If y h w h was willing to
help unfaithful Israel in the wilderness, how much more will he not those who are
willing to heed his voice! Fidelity to and reliance on y h w h drive out despair.
y h w h ’s great deeds in the past offer hope of a new saving act from his side.
Therefore it causes no surprise that in Jewish and Christian eschatological expec
tation the manna (Rev. 2:17: food that gives the righteous in the world to come
eternal life) plays a role, and that, according to the gospel of John, Jesus speaks of
himself as the bread from heaven (John 6:22ff.), so making it known that in him
the messianic salvation has come. So the stage was set for the patristic view of the
manna as foreshadowing of the table of the Lord (e.g. Theodoret, QE, XXVII,
XXVIII).

16:1-36
INTRODUCTION TO EXEGESIS OF
a. Bibl.: S.E. Balentine, “Prayer in the Wilderness Traditions: In Pursuit of

Divine Justice, ” HAR 9 (1985), 53-74; W. Beuken et al., Brood uit de kernel:
Lijnen van Exodus 16 naar Johannes 6 tegen de achtergrond van de rabbijnse
literatuur, Kampen 1985; P. Borgen, Bread from Heaven: An Exegetical Study o f
the Concept o f Manna in the Gospel o f John and the Writings o f Philo, Leiden
1965; D. Boyarin, “Voices in the Text: Midrash and the Inner Tension of Biblical
Narrative,” RB 93 (1986), 581-97 (on Mek. on Exod. 16:2ff.); B.J. Malina, The
Palestinian Manna Tradition, Leiden 1968; S. McEvenue, “Truth and Literature in
Exodus 16,” Theologie und Philosophic 69 (1994), 493-510; Maiberger (see
Bibliography); E. Ruprecht, “Stellung und Bedeutung der Erzahlung vom Man-
nawunder (Ex 16) im Aufbau der Priesterschrift,” ZAW 86 (1974), 269-307.
b. The Masoretic division: 15:27-16:3 (s); 16:4 (s), 6-10 (s, so BHS; BHK1'2:
14:1-4 [s]; cf. Perrot*, 61, 65), 11-27 (p), 28-36 (s), mainly following upon the
oraclular formula (16:4, 11, 28), has its weaknesses. My own breakdown is as
follows: 16:1, situation sketch; 16:2-12, hunger, threefold promise of deliverance;
16:13-15, the deliverance; 16:16-21, the instruction of 16:4, preparation for 16:22-
30: the instruction of 16:5; 16:31-36, random remarks of diverse nature.
c. The theme is reflected in the oft-used terminology. The rebellion of the people
against Moses and Aaron and so against YHWH (16:8) is depicted in 16:1-12 with
the use of pb (3 x ) and nubn (5 x ) (see 15:24); the cause of the rebellion, the
longing for food, with buN (7x) and derivatives (3x + l x ) (Introd. § 3.3) and
Dnb ‘bread’ (8 x ; see 2:20) and 1B3, ‘meat’ (3 x ; see 4:7); Israel’s obtaining
bread with ttpb (9 x ; see 16:4). As to the terminology, it is noticeable that
whereas on1? is used throughout Exod. 16, the use of itoa remains restricted to
16:3, 8, 12. In these verses it is used together with on4?. In 16:8, the pair ‘meat’
and ‘bread’ is linked with the pair ‘evening’ and ‘morning,’ which likewise occurs
in 16:6/7, 12, 13; in 16:6/7 in a veiled announcement of the coming of ‘meat’ and
‘bread;’ in 16:12 in an overt announcement and in 16:13 in the account of the
coming of it. DIP, ‘evening,’ is used only in combination with ip a (4 x ) (see
7:15). After that ip a still occurs 6 x by itself (16:19, 20, 21, 23, 24). So the
theme of ‘meat and bread’ = complete meal42 remains restricted to 16:3, 6-13.
Israel said that in Egypt they had plenty of meat and bread; in the wilderness
y h w h gives the people plenty of meat and bread. The word pair ‘evening’ -
‘morning’ marks the entire day as being under y h w h ’s gracious care.
According to what follows in the story, there was fresh bread every morning.
That presents a problem. For according to the present text meat and bread, which
are so closely linked in the earlier part of the story, as a combination suddenly
disappear from the account. Could it be that in a certain tradition the coming of
both manna and quails was a daily recurring event.43 Or was the coming of the
quail and that of the bread a one time event in the original tradition, sufficient to
prove y h w h ’s almighty power (16:12) (Auerbach*, 93ff.)? Twice, and hence
convincingly (Introd. § 4.3.1), y h w h demonstrates his care for Israel (for more on
the correlation 16:3 and 16:6-8 see exegesis). The present text suggests that the
quail came only once and the manna every day. The theme ‘bread and meat’
becomes the theme ‘bread’ in 16:14. The subject of 16:13a is not further de
veloped (the quail are not identified as the meat sent by y h w h ), but that of 16:13b
is. In 16:3, 8, 12 the emphasis was on the abundance of food for everyone. In
16:7 the emphasis is on the plentifulness and on the equitable distribution, etc.
In short, after 16:14 the focus shifts. However, the notes that are heard are not
entirely unexpected, anticipated as they are already in 16:4, 5, which has its own
place in 16:1-13. In 16:4, 5, as in 16:14ff, ‘meat’ is absent and only ‘bread’ is
mentioned.44 There are other variations as well between 16:4, 5 and 16:3, 6-13.
According to 16:7, 8, 9, 12, y h w h took notice (Introd. §3.51.1) of Israel’s
complaint; by coming to their aid, he seeks to make Israel aware (16:6, 12;
Introd. § 3.22) that he alone, not Moses and Aaron, is responsible for the bringing
out of Israel and for their care. According to 16:4, 5, y h w h helps so as to
42 As is customary in poetry, the ‘meat and bread,’ which in 16:3 form one meal, are split up in
16:8, 12 and connected to ‘evening’ and ‘morning;’ cf. J.S. Kselman, JBL 97 (1978), 169f.; R.
Althann, JNSL 11 (1983), 16ff.; to discover the meaning the concepts are to be taken together; not so
Beer: after the main meal with meat in the evening, a piece of bread is enough in the morning.
43 According to Nachmanides the quail were a daily occurrence; see also Philo (VMy I, 209), who
mentions the quail after the manna (cf. Num. 11); cf. 1 Kgs. 17:6: Elijah is brought ‘bread and meat’
in the morning and in the evening.
44 The view that or6 in 16:4 stands for food in the wider sense and includes meat (e.g. Cassuto,
Cole), was already questioned by Nachmanides; he thinks that 16:4 presents a shortened form of
y h w h ’s words to Moses.
322 EXODUS 1 6 :1 -3 6
determine if Israel is capable of living up to the sabbath stipulations. That touches

on a theme which later in Exod. 16 takes center stage.45 In short, Exod. 16:1-12
lists tw o d if fe r e n t p e d a g o g i c a l in te n ts o n th e p a r t o f y h w h . 16:4, 5 stands by itself
in 16:1-12. Israel’s complaint (16:3) is followed by 16:4, 5, words of y h w h
addressed to Moses. Moses addresses (now with Aaron) the people (16:6-8), but
the message delivered to Israel is not congruent with the oracle of 16:4, 5, but
corresponds to Israel’s complaint in 16:3, while it is not until 16:16ff. that 16:4, 5
is picked up again.
d. The above and other data in the texts have led scholars to conclude that th e
te x t is c o m p o s ite . Scholarly analysis of the growth of the text has produced diverse
views. For example, beside the view that there are two layers in Exodus (J and P,
and possibly elements from Dtr.), it is held that Exod. 16 is a P-text edited by a
later redactor (Dtr.?).46 Attempts to demonstrate the homogeneity of the chapter
through clever explanations of incongruities in the text (e.g. Cassuto) or through
structural analysis (Galbiati*, 164ff.) are unconvincing. For that matter, without
dismissing the incongruities, it is possible to read Exod. 16, particularly from
16:13b on, pretty much like a fairly straightforward account.
Various textual questions will be dealt with in the exegesis. Here something
about the structure o f 16:6-12. It is striking that the oracle that is correlative with
16:6-8 does not occur until 16:12. For that reason it has been proposed to read
■QTi in 16:11 as a pluperfect (e.g. Calvin; see further Maiberger, 119f.).
Wellhausen*, Composition, 78, thought of 16:6-8 as a redactional addition. Others
have conjectured that originally the order of the verses was different: 16:3, 11, 12,
9, 10, 6, 7 (16:4, 5, 8, being from a different author, are not considered);47
16:3, 9-12, 6, -*7 (Baentsch); 16:3, 11, 12, 4-7 (16:8-10 additions) (Heinisch).
Childs, 278ff., points out that the order in 16:1-12 reflects a traditional sequence
that is found in other passages as well (Num. 14:Iff.; 16:3ff.).48 In any
case - the command in 16:12 to speak to the Israelites remains striking - in the
present context the oracle of 16:12 serves to confirm the trustworthiness of the
message of Moses and Aaron in the hearing of all of Israel. The appearance of
y h w h settles the controversy between Israel and Moses and Aaron. As happens
more often, it is not recorded that Moses went and carried out y h w h ’s order.
After all that has been said, that would have been overdoing it.
e. Not just the literary history of Exod. 16, also its e a r lie r , p r e - lit e r a r y s ta g e s
have been the subject of study. In particular GreBmann*, 126ff., has dealt
extensively with it.49 His conceptions are speculative. For instance, he holds that
45 ‘On the sixth day’ (16:5, 22, 29) connects 16:4, 5 with 16:22-30, which deals with ‘the seventh
day’ (16:26, 27, 29, 30), the day of rest (16:23, 25, 26, 29: cf. also 16:30); 16:16-21 sets the stage for
the passage about the day of rest; in 16:3, 6-12 it plays no role.
46 A detailed overview of the views is given by Maiberger, 33ff.
47 So A. Kuenen, 7T 14 (1880), 281-302; cf. LV.
48 Cf. Maiberger, 208.
49 See also Noth*, UP, 129ff., 162; Auerbach*, 93ff., Coats*, 83ff.; Childs, 280ff.
in Exod. 16 there are two etiologies of the sabbath. Presumably in the one Moses
was the discoverer of the sabbath, according to the other it was y h w h who
prescribed it. Though it is in Exod. 16:23 that the sabbath occurs for the first time
in the OT, little or nothing in Exod. 16 points to the institution or discovery of the
sabbath. The author appears to assume the existence of the day of rest (cf. Gen.
2:1-3).50 His intention is to set forth how Israel learned to divide the week in
accordance with y h w h ’s division of time.51 Sabbath is an integral aspect of the
service and worship of y h w h . In Pharaoh’s employ, the observance of that pattern
of work and rest was impossible. Freed from Pharaoh, Israel is now initiated into
y h w h ’s ordering of time.
Manna and quail are typical phenomena on the Sinaitic peninsula. Hence it
makes sense to search for the origin of the tradition there. The customary view is
that originally the tradition about the giving of the manna and the quails existed
separately and later were combined.52 Both blessings are given in Exod. 16 as
y h w h ’ s response to Israel’s cry for food (16:3).53 Exod. 16 in its present form
is, however, more than a story about y h w h ’s care for Israel in the wilderness. As
noted above (see c), the chief intent of the chapter is pedagogical, to answer the
question of why y h w h lets Israel endure such deprivations.
f. A number of stylistic features and literary peculiarities were already dealt with
earlier (see c). Others can be added to it. By placing the divine oracle of 16:4, 5
immediately after the account of Israel’s rebellion (16:3), the author makes sure
that the theme of 16:4, 5, which will be taken up in 16:16-30, controls the
chapter. The theme of the acknowledgement of y h w h (16:12), touched on in 16:3,
5-12, is informed and elucidated by the context: acknowledgement of y h w h as the
God who brought out Israel and is with her in the wilderness involves the readi
ness to obey his laws. Another effect of the combination of heterogeneous material
is that in different wordings the deliverance is announced three times (16:4-5, 6-8,
12), and so is heavily emphasized.
The theme of Exod. 16 is developed gradually. The divine oracle of 16:4, 5 is
mysterious. Similarly the word of Moses and Aaron in 16:6, 7. Some light on it is
shed in 16:8, 12. It is not until 16:13-15 that the true nature of y h w h ’s gifts
becomes clear. 16:4 is further worked out in 16:16-21; 16:5 in 16:22-30. As is
more often the case, y h w h ’s words and those of Moses are regarded as com
plementing each other.
The scenario of announcement and execution of the stipulation of 16:4 (in 16:16-
21) and of 16:5 (in 16:22-30) varies (see Essentials). The situation created in
50 According to Mek. II, 121, the sabbath commandment was given at Marah; cf. also Ruprecht,
299f.
31 Cf. Philo (VM, I, 205ff.); see also Buber*, 95ff.
52 Note, though, that manna and quails are closely connected in 16:3, 6-15; the arrival of the quail is
not worked out in Exod. 16; elsewhere in the OT it is (Introd. § 12.7.4-5).
53 Here, as elsewhere prior to the Sinai, Israel is not punished for its rebellion; cf. P.W. Ferris,
JETS 17 (1974), 191-9.
324 EXODUS 1 6 :1 -3 6
16:22: the Israelites themselves discover the unique character of the sixth day, has
the effect of giving that day center stage. In connection with the implementation of
the stipulation of 16:4 as well as of 16:5 the writer records an incident (16:20 and
16:27-29). Considering the nature of the reaction, the second offense is more
serious than the first (climax). The account of the incidents highlights the sub
stance of the stipulations and reinforces their importance. Dialogue (16:3, 6-8, 15,
22ff.) and direct speech heighten the vividness of the narrative.
In conclusion I wish to draw attention to some sundry questions.
g. A number of terminological correspondences between Exod. 12 and Exod. 16
catch the eye: crm un ]'2 (16:12; cf. 12:6), "Db (16:16, 18, 21; cf. 12:4),
CDI7D (16:17; cf. 12:4), in" + ip a IV (16:19; cf. 12:10), mD0D (16:23; cf. 12:6);
manna and Passover are to keep the past alive (16:32-34; cf. 12:14, 17). Is it
possible to draw conclusions from the points of contact? Bohl offers the following
explanation: ‘Again y h w h appears in the night of full moon, ... It is one month
ago that the Israelites ate the paschal lambs, ... Again they will be satisfied with
meat and with bread; the meat will recall the Passover lamb and the bread the
unleavened paschal bread.* One can also point to the fact that Num. 9:9ff.
prescribes that, precisely a month after the Passover, the feast is to be ‘repeated’
by those who had no opportunity to observe it.54 The comparison is not without
problems. Passover is celebrated in the night from 14th Nisan to 15th Nisan (12:6,
8); the coming of the quail cannot be connected with the night of 14th/15lh; it can
be, if one insists, with the night of the 15th/16th of the month (16:1). If one wants
to connect it to the preceding account, it is better to link it with 12:39 than with
the Passover: from the start of the exodus Israel ate unleavened bread (see
exegesis 16:3), that is, consecrated bread; when that was finished, y h w h himself
gave Israel meat and bread (16:13-15), which, being gifts from y h w h , are
likewise sacred in nature. The sacred nature of the manna is evident from the fact
that it may not be profaned (16:20) and that it is to be kept in a holy place
(16:33f.). In short, as a sanctified people (cf. 19:6), Israel already from the start
of the departure ate holy food. The feeding of Israel in the wilderness is a sacral
event.
h. As concerns the chronology, on the assumption that P’s calendar is the same
as that of Jubilee it has been proposed that the events of Exod. 16 happened inside
a one-week period (cf. Gen. 1): the fifteenth day of the second month is the sixth
day, Friday (16:1); theophany on sabbath, the seventh day (16:9-12); quails,
toward the end of the sabbath (16:13a) etc.; again sabbath (16:25-30).55 Exod. 16
recounts a number of chronologically serial events; aside from 16:1 and the
54 Cf. Origen {Horn, in Exod., VII); he regards the gift of the manna as the second Passover,
intended for the Christians (cf. 1 Cor. 5:7); they receive Christ, the true bread from heaven (John
6:51).
55 See P. Skehan, CBQ 20 (1958), 194f.; Malina, 18ff. Incidentally, Origen {Horn, in Exod., VII)
believes that the manna came for the first time on Sunday, the first day of the week, and he interprets
the absence of manna on the seventh day as being a disqualification of the Jewish sabbath.
mention of the sixth (16:22, 23) and the seventh day (16:24-30), there are,
however, no fixed points; the text gives no indication as to how many days are in
view in 16:21; another problem with the above theory is that one must assume that
the grumbling of the people continued from the sixth to the seventh day.
i. The fact that so shortly after their departure from Egypt the Israelites feared
death from starvation already surprised Augustine (QEy LXII), since they did
possess animals (12:38; 17:3; 19:13; 34:3; Num. 20:4, 8, 11, 19; 32:1). Reimarus
(§ 5.45.2), I, 333f., makes much of it to deny the historical character of the story:
‘1st est nicht handgreiflich, dafl das Murren iiber Fleisch nichts als eine Ertichtung
ist, um eine natiirliche Begebenheit zum Wunder zu machen? Vorhin liefl der
Geschichtsschreiber das Egyptische Vieh, so oft er wollte, wider aufleben, um es
aufs neue durch ein Wunder zu todten. Nun last er es, so oft ihm beliebt, ver-
schwinden um dem Mangel durch ein Wunder abzuhelffen’ (p. 344). Conservative
scholars have advanced a variety of answers to the presumed problem. Rashi
considers the demand for meat an expression of improper conduct (see 16:7). Keil
thinks that by no means all the animals had been eaten or died of thirst (17:3), but
he adds that the cattle the people had brought with them were not just for meat but
also for wool and milk and that meat cannot substitute for bread (the accent shifts
to the question for bread). Cassuto opines that all complained about the lack of
bread but that the cry for meat came only from those who had no cattle. The
writer seems to have been oblivious to the presumed problem (see also 16:35). His
focus was the portrayal of y h w h ’s care for his people and to teach his readers the
lessons of history.
j. In 16:32-34 (cf. also 16:9f.), there is, to the reader’s surprise, mention of the
existence of the tablets of the law and of the tent shrine whose construction has not
yet been related (cf. Exod. 35ff.). It is proposed that the command described in
16:32-34 was a later event, but was placed here with other details about the manna
(Rashi, Calvin, Keil, Gispen, and others). Another suggestion is that the manna
was first kept in an earlier sanctuary (e.g. De Hummelauer), sometimes identified
with the tent of 33:7 (e.g. Calmet; he also considers it possible that it was kept in
the tent of Moses and Aaron). After the rise of literary criticism, the view arose
that the account of the manna and the sabbath was originally positioned after the
giving of the law at Sinai (cf. Neh. 9:13ff.) (Baentsch, Hyatt et al.; cf. also
Cassuto, 188, 190). Noth, however, thinks that P thought of the future, and Childs
even detects in the anachronism a theological concern: the jar with the tablets of
the law is a sign of divine grace which preceded the giving of the law of Sinai;
manna and the tablets belong together before God; gospel and law cannot be
separated. That is overdoing it. Apparently the writer had no problem running
ahead of the story to the future, as is also evident from 16:35.
k. What is the manna? A natural product or a heavenly food given by God to
Israel? The first view goes way back (Introd. §9.2.14). Josephus, who often
offers rational explanations (also in connection with the quails; AJ, III, 25),
typifies the manna as a phenomenon peculiar to the Sinaitic peninsula (AJ , III, 31).
In the 18th century, Reimarus, I, 340ff., emphasized the natural character of the
326 EXODUS 1 6 :1 -3 6
manna. According to him it is a misconception to think that God created a new

and unusual substance for the Israelites, one which he later again removed from
nature. On the description of the manna in the OT he remarks: ‘daB es jederzeit
die Art des Hebraischen Volks gewesen sey, ...» dafl in ihrer Geschichte alle an
sich natiirliche Dinge und Begebenheiten gottlich gross, tibematurlich und wunder-
bar klingen miissen. Ja, unter ihren Handen wachsen und mehren sich die Wunder
mit dem Verfall der Zeit, wie die rollende Schneeballe und Lavinen’ (p. 347). In
the interest of a natural explanation, in addition to the manna familiar from the
Sinaitic peninsula, also kinds of manna found elsewhere have been cited. So, e.g.,
by the rationalist Hiwi al-Balkhi (9th century).56 The until the 19th century oc
casionally advanced natural explanations to account for the manna were called into
question57 on the basis of what the Bible says about the manna. The differences
with the manna occurring in nature, which only falls during part of the year, does
not melt and spoil, which also falls on the sabbath and cannot be ground and baked
and can only be used as an ingredient in food preparation, is not a staple food and
insufficient to feed a numerous people (cf. 16:20, 21, 23f.; Num. 11:8), led to the
conclusion that the biblical manna could not possibly be the product found in
nature and that it was a unique and miraculous phenomenon. The conception that
the manna was a product of nature continued in the 19th century, though not
without opposition. It was pointed out that the nature product is still called manna
today and that there are similarities between the natural manna and the biblical
manna: they are similar in appearance and taste (16:14, 31; Num. 11:7); it can be
found in the morning (16:13f., 21). The differences, it was said, are due to the
fact that in the biblical tradition the manna acquired miraculous features. Some
times exegetes try to have it both ways. Acknowledging the similarities with the
nature product, they also maintain the miracle: the manna, which normally falls
only at certain times and in certain places, fell throughout the entire year in
Israel’s vicinity and it was of such quality and so plentiful that it could feed all the
people; God used something that is natural to perform a miracle (e.g. Keil, Strack,
Heinisch, Cassuto). That kind of approach can go hand in hand with contrived,
rationalistic explanations. Cole, e.g., suggests that the absence of manna on the
sixth day and the fact that it did not go bad (16:24ff.) might be due to low(er)
temperature.
Additionally, the differences between the manna of the Sinai and the manna
possessing the peculiarities of Exod. 16:23; Num. 11:8, in the 19th and 20th
century led to the view that the manna is to be identified with manna lichen, which
can be milled etc. (see Maiberger, 410ff.).
Relative to Exod. 16 one should bear in mind that Moses’ identification of the
fine substance, lying on the ground in the desert (16:14), as the bread given by
56 See J. Rosenthal, JQR 38 (1947-48), 334 (see further Maiberger, 325ff.).

57 E.g. Ibn Ezra took issue with Hiwi al-Balkhi; see further Calvin, Gispen et al. Da Costa*, 230,
typifies it as a kind of flour.
y h w h , in 16:14 designated as ‘bread from heaven,’ does not mean that the manna
cannot have been a natural product. It should not be forgotten that to the mind of
the ancients all sorts of deposits on plants, of secretions of plants and animals
(such as e.g. also honey), originated in heaven (cf. 16:13f.; Num. 11:9).58 In
short, the manna which a later time identified as a natural, earth-produced
substance, the ancients regarded as a (natural) gift from heaven. The presumed
heavenly origin was the soil that produced and nurtured the tradition in which the
manna, a natural substance in the Sinaitic peninsula, came to be perceived as a
‘supernatural’ phenomenon (for the OT see Introd. § 12.7.3; Maiberger, 223ff.),
to which earlier expositors attributed some highly unusual characteristics. For
instance, it accommodated itself to the likings, taste and age of those who ate it: it
could taste like bread, meat, fish etc., like boiled or baked food, to infants it was
like milk from the breast, to the sick like cereal etc.59
Manna and quail are also mentioned in the Koran (2:57; 7:160; 20:80f.).60
l. Is the manna equated with the Word of God? Maiberger, 215ff., 241, 251,
believes that in Deut. 8:3; Wisd. 16:26 the manna symbolizes the Word of God
and assumes that this interpretation of the manna is already present in Exod.
16:16-20, 32-34.61 As I see it, this conception rests on weak arguments. The
interpretation occurs already in Philo (see e.g. Danielou*, 185ff.; Borgen, 14ff.,
29ff.) and in Origen {Horn, in Exod., VII); the latter, recalling the tradition of the
various tastes the manna could have, points among others to the capability of the
Word of God to comfort the believers, make them happy etc.; the gathering of the
manna Origen applies to human efforts; during the six days (= life) one may not
lay up treasures (= the love of the present world), except on the sixth day: one
may do good works that remain unspoiled until ‘morning’ (= the world to come,
etc.); cf. also Gregory of Nyssa (VAf, II, 144ff.). The association made between
the manna and the Word of God/the Gospel and the manna and the eucharist has
proven a fruitful soil for exaggerated allegorizing (see Maiberger, 25Iff.).
m. The manna plays a role in eschatological thinking ; see e.g. Mek. II, 119:
manna is the food of the world to come; Qoh. Rabbah, I, 9: just as the first
deliverer, also the deliverer to come will let the manna come down; MidrTanh.
Exod. IV, 21: it is food for the righteous in the future world; Zohar Exod. 62a:
qualitatively far better than the first manna.62 In Joseph and Asenath 16:14ff. the
manna is apparently equated with the bread of life that confers immortality. See
58 See Maiberger, 300ff., 325, 391 et al. and e.g. J.C. de Moor, UF1 (1975), 590f.
5VSee e.g. Mek. II, 118, 174; ExR. XXV, 3; MidrTanh. Exod. I, 22; IV, 21, 22; Zohar Exod. 62b;
cf. Wisd. 16:20f.; 19:21 and the exposition of e.g. Ephraem and Ishodad; see Maiberger, 238ff.; for
more general observations on manna in rabbinic exegesis see Ginzberg*, III, 41 ff.
60 On interpretation of the manna by Islamic exegetes see Maiberger, 34Iff.
61 Pancaro (Introd. § 13.1), 454ff.: in John 6 Jesus is not only himself ‘the bread from heaven,’ but
also the one who gives ‘bread’ = instruction; for Deut. 8:3 see L. Perlitt, “Wovon der Mensch lebt
(Dm 8, 3b),” in Die Botschaft und die Boten (Fs H.W. Wolff). Neukirchen-Vluyn 1981, 403-26.
62 See further Ginzberg*, III, 44; Maiberger, 261ff.; cf. also 2 Bar. 29:8; Sib. Or., VII, 149.
3 28 EXODUS 1 6 :1 -3 6
also Rev. 2:17 (see exegesis 16:4).

n. Not only in the passages about Israel’s stay in the wilderness, but also
elsewhere in OT and NT there are accounts of miraculous feedings: 1 Kgs. 17:2-6,
7-16; 19:4-8; 2 Kgs. 4:1-7, 38-41, 42-44;63 Mark 6:34-44 par.; 8:1-9 par.
(beside 8:2ff. see Exod. 15:22; 16:If.); John 6:1-15.64 In various ways the
stories attest that God is the Lord who gives life.

EXEGESIS OF 16:1-36
16:1 Thereupon the whole community o f the Israelites set out from Elim and came
to the wilderness o f Sin , situated between Elim and Sinai. On the fifteenth day o f
the second month after they departed from the land o f Egypt (it happened).
Beside 16:1 see Num. 33:lOf. UOJ, see 12:37. ‘Elim,* cf. 15:27. m il,
see 12:3. For the construction (the subject is preceded by two or more verbal
forms) see e.g. Lev. 1:1; Num. 20:22; Josh. 3:1; 2 Kgs. 19:36. ‘wilderness,’ cf.
15:22. ‘Sin,’ see Introd. § 8.22; Maiberger, 167ff. ‘Sinai,’ see Introd. § 8.23.
‘fifteenth,’ see Introd. § 4.6.1. e n n \ see 12:2, 3; in TPsJ the month is specifical
ly called Iyyar. ‘second,’ see Introd. § 4.3.2. ‘to depart from’ (Introd. § 3.24.1),
for the construction see also 19:1; Num. 9:1; 33:28; 1 Kgs. 6:1 (cf. KoSynt
§ 281d; Ges-K § 129f). It is possible, disregarding the Masoretic pointing, to start
a new sentence at 16:1b which ends in 16:2: ‘On the fifteenth day ..., the entire
community murmured ...* (cf. LXX).
16:2 Once they were in the wilderness the whole community o f the Israelites raged
against Moses and against Aaron.
16:3 The Israelites said to them: ‘Would we had died in the land o f Egypt from a
disaster brought by y h w h , while we set by the fleshpots and could eat as much
bread as we wanted to , fo r you have brought us into this wilderness to let this
whole assembly starve to death. ’
1*6 (see 15:24), cf. Ges-K § 72ee. This time the rebellion is also directed against
Aaron, ‘whole’ (Introd. § 3.26) brings out the seriousness of the situation. On the
ground of the explicit mention of "DID in 16:2 (not in LXX) after the use of the
term in 16:1 it has been argued that the two verses are of different origin (e.g.
Eerdmans*, 51). More likely the repetition is intended for emphasis, ‘wilderness’
is a key term in 16:1, 2, 3. Israel’s arrival ending up there caused its demoraliza-
63 Cf. Gunkel*, 58f.; Gaster*, 498ff., 518f.; Schwarzbaum*, 241ff.; R.C. Culley, Studies in the
Structure o f Hebrew Narrative, Philadelphia/Missoula 1976, 69ff.
64 Cf. A. Heising, “Exegese und Theologie der alt- und neutestamentlichen Speisewunder, ” ZKTh 86
(1964), 80-96.
tion.65
In early Jewish exegesis a connection is made between the use of the left-overs
of the food brought along from Egypt and Israel’s rebellion. About the food there
are two views: Israel had enough food with them for no more than thirty days
(Josephus, A Jy III, 11; cf. Ibn Ezra and e.g. Keil); there is a miracle here; the
dough the people brought with them from Egypt (12:39) turned out to be sufficient
for 61 meals (Mek. II, 99f.; ExR. XXV, 4; Rashi; cf. TPsJ). According to Calvin,
initially the people could avail themselves of the fruits and spices found in the land
they crossed and which they could purchase from the residents (cf. Deut. 2:6f.);
now, however, they arrived in a region that was completely dead. See also at
16:35.
IIYÊ, see Introd. § 3.36. ‘to die,’ see Introd. § 3.22. T 3 , see Introd.
§ 3.21.3. The qualification ‘a natural death’6566 to describe death ‘by the hand of
the Lord’ is inadequate. It is possible that the murmuring people had in mind a
death by some catastrophe (cf. LXX: 7iAqYevTe<; urco Kupiou).67 In any case, a
sudden death is what is meant (e.g. Baentsch, Heinisch). Such a death in good
health (having a full stomach) contrasts with a slow death by starvation, m n n o
occurs also in 2 Sam. 24:14 and there it includes at least the quick death, pes
tilence (24:14), but possibly also lengthy famine (24:13). In Lam. 4:9 death by the
sword is said to be better than death by starvation (cf. Mek . II, 101). 3 0 \ see
2:15.
TO (OT ca. 30x), ‘pot,* with wide mouth and of shallow depth, of earthenware
or metal (27:3; 38:3; Ezek. 24:3ff.; Sir. 13:2), used for, over a fire (Jer. 1:13;
Ps. 58:10; Cant. 7:6), the cooking or boiling in water of vegetables (2 Kgs. 4:38)
and meat (16:3; Ezek. 11:3, 7, 11; Mic. 3:3; Zech. 14:20) (see also at 12:9); the
pi. is used in 27:3; 38:3; 1 Kgs. 7:45; 2 Kgs. 25:14; 2 Chr. 35:13 et al. for cultic
vessels.68 As a rule TO is regarded as a collective and translated as ‘pots’
(already LXX, Vulg., TPsJ, TNf). It should not be overlooked, however, that here
it is family heads who are talking (cf. e.g. 16:16). Everyone of them envisions his
family gathered around the fleshpot. "103, see 4:7.
(OT 8 x ), ‘satiation,’ ‘abundance’ (16:3; Lev. 25:19; 26:5 et al.), is a
derivative of BOO which occurs as a verb (OT ca. 95 x) in qal in the sense of ‘to
be full/satisfied;’ in Exodus in 16:8 (absolute; cf. Deut. 8:10 et al.) and 16:12 ( +
accus. of material [KoSynt § 327f; Joiion § 125d; Brockelmann § 90d]; cf. Jer.
44:17 et al.). BOO follows in 16:3, 8, 12 upon *?OK (cf. Deut. 6:11; 8:10, 12 et
al.). In Exod. 16 to be satisfied contrasts with to be hungry (16:3) and points to
65 Cf. Philo (VM, I, 192ff.); see already Nachmanides; cf. Ehrlich; Rudolph*, 36; Cassuto.
66 See e.g. Strack; Cassuto; Dasberg; Ruprecht, 281 n. 32 (at a high age).
67 Especially older expositors detect an allusion to the plagues (so also Fensham), in particular the
tenth; e.g. Keil and see Maiberger, 151 n. 330. In Mek. II, 100, the ninth plague is explicitly
mentioned.
68 See AuSy VI, 137; VII, 210; BRLy 183; BHHW, III, 2006v.; IDBy I, 679f.; Ill, 850; Franken*,
72f.
330 exodus 1 6 :1 -3 6
being in a state of well-being (see THAT , II, 819ff.; TWAT , VII, 693ff.). is
used in 16:3, 8, 12 only in connection with bread, not with meat. Evidently bread,
which was plentiful, was enough to fill one’s stomachs. In Vulg. the clause with
'D is rendered as an interrogative clause: ‘Why did you ...?’ N2T hiph., see Introd.
§ 3.24.2. ‘to cause to die,* see Introd. § 3.32. *?np, see 12:3. 2 jn (OT ca.
lOOx), derivative of 2 in ‘famine’ (16:3; Gen. 12:10; 26:1; 41:27, 30, 31 etc.).
Cf. Num. 16:13; 20:4; Deut. 9:28, and see TWAT, VII, 555ff.
Unlike in 14:12, the Israelites have an idealized picture of life in Egypt.69 They
contrast Egypt as land of plenty with the wilderness as the place of starvation.
They contrast y h w h , as the God who can bring about a quick and hence merciful
death, with Moses and Aaron as bringers of a slow and hence painful death.
Instead of perceiving the exodus out of Egypt as a deliverance wrought by y h w h ,
they interpret it as a going to their death brought about by Moses and Aaron. The
Israelites are unable to perceive a connection between y h w h ’s acts and the sojourn
in the desert.
16:4 Thereupon y h w h said to Moses: ‘Soon I am going to rain down fo r you bread
from heaven. Then the people are to go out to gather the quantity needed fo r each
day (and no more). In that way I can put them to the test (and learn) whether they
will follow my instructions or not.
16:5 Also on the sixth day they are to prepare what they brought in. However, then
the quantity o f what they brought in must be double the amount they gather on
other days. ’
yhw h responds. The story does not say that Moses had turned to him (15:25;
17:4; cf. 14:25). Josephus (AJ, III, 22) tells of Moses* prayer on a mountain top.
'a n , see Introd. § 3.15.1. ")DD, see 9:18. Malina, 53ff., believes that the use of
nTiD, ‘to send down,’ in TO, TPsJ, TNf, is based on the assumption that ntDD and
are incongruent; but note already Nachmanides. D2^, ‘for you,’ presupposes
Moses’ position as representative of the people (cf. 16:28). on4? Q2*?, alliteration.
D'Dtfn, see 9:8. In TPsJ there follows after ‘bread from heaven:’ ‘that has been
stored for you from the beginning.’70 Dun (Introd. § 3.40), preceded by sing, and
followed by pi. (cf. 1:20). There is a transition from the second person pi. (Q2*?)
to the third sing. Mek. II, 102: 02*?, in view of the merits of the patriarchs.
•iDp£:i perf. cons, qal of tap*? (OT 37 x ; qal 14 x), ‘to gather/collect,’ among
others used for the gleaning of ears (Ruth 2:8; in particular in piel [Ruth 2:3, 7 et
al.]), in Exod. 16 for the ‘gathering’ of manna ( + accus. in 16:4, 5, 21, 22, 26;
+ ID partitivus in 16:16; absolute in 16:17, 18, 27; Num. 11:8). See TWAT , IV,
594f.
69 For the discussion in Jewish exegesis on the question of whether 16:3 offers a true picture, see
among others Mek. II, 101; ExR. XVI, 4, and Leibowitz*, 263ff.
70 See also TPsJ 16:15; cf. e.g. Mek. II, 124f.; it belongs to the ten things that were created in the
twilight of the sabbath (see Malina, 55ff.); cf. Rev. 2:17 (see Malina, 99ff.; Maiberger, 259ff.).
‘the ... day,* see Introd. § 3.23.1. The sequel makes clear (see also 16:16, 19)
that according to the stipulation only the amount needed for each day was to be
gathered. ]rob, see 1:11. HOJ, see 15:25 (for nun energicum see e.g. Ges-K
§ 58i); Greflmann*, 130; Bohl: allusion to Massah (cf. 17:7). ‘whether ... not,’
see Introd. § 3.4.2. ‘to follow,’ see Introd. § 3.14.3; Sam. Pent.: pi. m in (see
4:12; TPsJ, TNf: ‘the rules of my law’ [cf. 16:28]), used in general sense (cf.
15:25b, 26); the testing is done by examining compliance with the stipulations of
16:4, 5 (cf. 16:16ff.). So e.g. Rashi. It is worthy of note, though, that in Jewish
exegesis there is no consensus about the question of the nature of the trial (see
Leibowitz*, 265ff.). Josephus, who locates the event at Elim, has Moses give the
following motive for the predicament to the enraged crowd: God tried them to
bring out their fortitude and to see whether they remembered the wonderful works
he had done for them when he delivered them (AJ, III, 13ff.).
mm, see Introd. §3.13.4. ‘on the sixth day,’ see Introd. §3.23; 4.7.2. pa
hiph. (see 8:22), cf. Gen. 43:16, 25; Josh. 1:11; among others Baentsch: read
I'ra n (hiph. of ‘J’D, ‘to measure*), but note Dillmann. According to Ehrlich pa
here denotes ‘to measure;’ Maiberger, 108ff., points out that VD hiph. can be used
in a variety of contexts for making preparations and here stands for giving each
the exact portion (an omer; cf. 16:16). In his view there is certainly no reference
to the preparation (e.g. Holzinger, Cassuto). Keil believes that it refers both to the
measuring and to the preparing of the food. In my judgement, that seems probable.
Relative to 16:5, the interpretation of 16:23 is important (is the food for the
sabbath to be prepared on the sixth day?). TNf reads: 11BJ2P1, ‘and they will save*
(TO, TPsJ: ‘to prepare*); Calmet suggests as a possible interpretation: to get
vessels ready for saving the manna; Heinisch translates: ‘sollen sie aufbewahren’
(viz. manna, prepared or in original condition).
NU hiph. (Introd. § 3.8), conceivably it is a bringing to the camp, the tent (cf.
16:16ff.). TPsJ cites as purpose of gathering it: ‘in order to consume it on the day
of the sabbath,’ and also cites regulations for the sabbath, which in TPsJ are
elucidated at 16:29 (cf. Mek. II, 103, and see Malina, 51f.). mm (Introd.
§ 3.13.1), subject is the preceding clause with ntfK. njpp (OT ca. 35x), deriv
ative of mtf, ‘to repeat’ (cf. ‘two,’ see Introd. § 4.3), here and in 16:22 ‘double,’
‘twice as much’ (cf. Gen. 43:12; Deut. 15:18; Isa. 61:7; Jer. 16:18; Zech. 9:12);
cf. Joiion § 142q; Brockelmann § 88. ‘on other days,’ see Introd. § 3.23.1.
Is a double miracle announced in 16:5? Will one suddenly on the sixth day
happen to have a double portion? This explanation is obtained by taking iram and
the second mm as perfect consecutives describing a conditional clause (cf. Strack).
Thus Dasberg translates: ‘Then, as on the sixth day they ..., there will turn out to
be twice as much ...* (cf. also the exegesis of e.g. Rashi; Baentsch; Maiberger,
109). According to Dillmann, this interpretation requires a text with I
prefer to regard the clauses introduced with perfect consecutives as coordinate,
going with the clause with the first mm (cf. e.g. Vulg., TPsJ, LV, WV, GNB).
332 exodus 1 6 :1 -3 6
The instruction is to collect a double portion on the sixth day (cf. 16:22, 27).71
In 16:4, 5 there is an allusion to the rhythm of working six days which is typical
of the Israelite week, with the sixth day being preparation for the seventh, the day
of rest (cf. 16:16, 19f., 22ff.). By providing food in the wilderness, y h w h seeks
to ascertain Israel’s ability to abide by the stipulations about the sabbath.
16:6 Thereupon Moses and Aaron said to all the Israelites: *By evening you will
recognize that y h w h brought you out o f the land o f Egypt.
16:7 And when morning dawns you will behold the glory displayed by y h w h ,
because he took notice o f your rage against y h w h . For as concerns us, we play
such an insignificant role that there can be no reason you should rage against us. ’
16:8 Moses continued: *When y h w h gives you meat to eat in the evening and bread
in the morning to the full, because YHWH took notice o f your raging rage against
him, then it will be clear that we play an insignificant role. All in all, you are not
raging against us but against y h w h . '
LXX: ‘the entire community of the Israelites’ (cf. 16:If., 9f.). a i r (see 7:15) in
16:6 functions, like ip a in 16:7, as a temporal clause, followed by an apodosis
introduced by waw (cf. KoSynt § 331c, 341r, 367z; Ges-K § 112oo; Jouon
§ 176g; Brockelmann § 13a, 123f). i n \ see Introd. § 3.22. ‘to bring out,’ see
Introd. § 3.24.2.
ip a , see 7:15. ‘to behold,’ see Introd. § 3.46.1. "hap (OT ca. 200x; Exod.
11 x ) is a derivative of “iaa (see 4:10). In Exodus the term is used in the secular
sense in the expression rr^pn^n map^> (hendiadys) (rrwpn [OT ca. 50 x]) to
denote the majestic splendour which clothing confers on someone to accentuate his
dignity (28:2, 40); in the construct chain mm Tiaa (16:10; 24:16, 17; 40:34, 35;
Lev. 9:23; Num. 14:10; 16:19; 17:7; 20:6) and with pronominal suffix, relating to
y h w h (29:43; 33:18, 22), it denotes an independent manifestation of y h w h
(Vriezen*, 225f., 324) (cf. the alternation with ‘y h w h ’ in Lev. 9:23f.), in the
form of a frightfully bright light and fire (e.g. 24:17 and see TWAT , IV, 28ff.), of
such intensity that, to shield humans, it is enveloped in a cloud (16:10; 24:16;
40:34f.; Num. 17:7; see also at 13:21, 22). Thus generally the mm maa signifies
the terrifying, glorious and powerful, real, personal presence of y h w h . However,
that is not the case in 16:7. There the manifestation of the mm mas must be
connected with the coming of the manna (beside 16:6b, 7a see 16:13). maa may
designate a phenomenon, happening brought on by y h w h .72 The coming of the
71 Cf. the explanation of e.g. Keil, Te Stroete; several translations permit both interpretations; see
e.g. LXX, Pesh., TO, TNf, LV, NV, Vredenburg, REB. Van der Palm renders the clause with the
second rrm with: 'though this will be double ...’ For 16:5 see also W.A.M. Beuken, JSOT 32 (1985),
3ff.
72 See Num. 14:21f.; Isa. 6:3; Ps. 19:2 and also Isa. 35:2; 62:2; 66:18; Ps. 63:3; 97:6 (cf.
Houtman*, Himmel, 164ff., 177f.); 102:16, where HDD, as in 16:7; Num. 14:22, is object of 1K1; see
further 133 niph. in 14:4 et al.
m a n n a is a d e m o n s tr a tio n o f y h w h ’s r e s p e c t - c o m m a n d i n g p o w e r a n d g l o r y . 73
1U303 (Introd. § 3.51.1), as a rule 3 is given a causal sense (cf. Joiion § 170j;
Williams § 247, 535); Eerdmans*, 50, however, renders it conditionally: ‘If y h w h
shall hear’ (according to 16:9 the condition is met). A conditional interpretation is
also favoured by Noth (also in 16:8 2 x ). 2 has also been given concessive
meaning; so CV: ‘though y h w h has ...,’ and e.g. Vredenburg, Dasberg (‘because’
in 16:8). A concessive interpretation may not be impossible (in that case one
would expect the preposition 3; see Williams § 258, 532), but no more than the
conditional interpretation does it seem to have the support of the Hebrew syntax.
y h w h is in any case portrayed as a merciful God. He does not become angry, as
in Num. llff., but helps, n a b n , see 15:24. ‘against y h w h ’ (LXX: ‘God’) is

somewhat remarkable in view of the subject y h w h ; but note e.g. Gen. 19:24; Ps.
50:23; 2 Tim. 1:18. The form urn (pers. pronoun 1st pers. pi.) is rare (Ges-K
§ 19h, 32d; Joiion § 39a; BL § 28h); Sam. Pent, has the customary form unax in
16:7, 8. no as predicate, in 16:7, 8 after the subject (KoSynt § 339e; Ges-K
§ 1411 note; Joiion § 37e). R. Althann, JNSL 11 (1983), 17: .13 does not serve as
interrogative, but as negation (cf. HAL s.v. C). The end of the 16:7 is alliterative.
For the declaration of unworthiness, couched in the form of a rhetorical ques
tion, which I have rendered here and in 16:8 in terms of its drift, see 3:11 ( +
Bibl.). Calvin sees a lesson in the statement: to be accounted a lawful pastor in the
church one must be divinely called, have one’s office authorized by God, and only
do what God has commanded one to do. Rylaarsdam detects here what he calls
‘the growing tendency in later Judaism to make a wide separation between God
and men:’ ‘God is indeed with his people but not in their leaders.’ Rashi, fol
lowing Mek. II, 105, wrongly assumes a contrast between 16:6b and 16:7a: y h w h
gives meat with a frown on his face,74 but bread, which it is right to ask for, he
gives with a smile on his face.
“)3*n, there is a change of subject; in 16:6, 7 Moses with Aaron is the speaker;
now only Moses’ name is mentioned; for the repetition of ")3*n see e.g. 3:5f., 14;
5:4f. ‘to give,’ see Introd. § 3.36. V2vb ... 3ii;3, chiasmus. i;3fc, see 16:3; also
in the wilderness, as in Egypt, one will have plenty to eat; yhwh will make the
unreal, idealized image of the past come true! LXX: ‘against us.’ '3, see
Introd. § 3.25.2. ‘YHWH,’ LXX: ‘God.’ ‘not ... but’ (cf. e.g. Gen. 45:8; 1 Sam.
8:7); emphasis is intended; cf. Th. Booij, ZAW 94 (1982), 396ff. (+ Bibl.); the
meaning is: in reality you are rebelling against yhwh.
The usual assumption is that, as in 16:7, urn starts a new sentence. That would
73 For the much discussed (mrp) n a a see F. Decreus, “Doxa-Kabod: Schematische transpositie of
struktuurgelijkheid?”, Sacris Erudiri 22 (1974-75), 117-85; C. van Leeuwen, “De openbaring van de
K'bod y h w h in Jesaja 40:5,” in De Knecht (Fs J.L. Koole), Kampen 1978, 93-101; U.M. Niebuhr,
“Glory,” BTB 14 (1984), 49-53; B. Stein, Der Begriff ICbod Jahweh, Emsdetten i. Westf. 1939; U.
Struppe, Die Herrlichkeit Jahwes in der Priesterschrift, Klostemeuburgurich 1988.
74 The Israelites ask for it with their stomachs filled (cf. 16:2); moreover, it is improper to ask for
meat (one can do without), certainly when one possesses animals.
334 exodus 1 6 :1 -3 6
mean that Moses’ previous words are an elliptic clause (there are only infinitive
constructs with a prefix). Sometimes the elliptic character is brought out in the
translation (e.g. LXX, TO, TNf, Pesh., NRSV, Vredenburg). Sometimes nrG is
rendered as a finite verb (Vulg. and e.g. WV, GNB); e.g. GNB, TEV: ‘It is the
Lord who will ...’75 Sometimes words are supplied with the text, either before
nrG; so in TPsJ: fu n n V ia (cf. 16:6), ‘then you will know’ (cf. e.g. NEB), and
KJV: ‘This shall be’ (viz. what is stated in 16:6b, 7a; cf. Ehrlich; see also e.g.
Beer), or before UDBG; so e.g. Kalt: ‘Daran, dafl der Herr ..., werdet ihr erken-
nen, daB der Herr ...,’ or CV: ‘then it is’ (viz. what it stated in the clause with
nrG; cf. e.g. SV, Van der Palm). Maiberger, 11 Iff., contends that HD uni! is to
be regarded as the conclusion of a complete sentence that began with infinitive
constructs (see also e.g. Dasberg). I go with this last view, though in the interest
of clarity I have given a ‘free’ translation.
16:8 clarifies what is said in 16:6, 7; cf. R. Peter-Contesse, BiTr 29 (1978),
114-6. In part the same terminology is used. What is still concealed in 16:6, 7,
viz. how y h w h will manifest his concern for Israel, is now made manifest: meat
in the evening, bread in the morning (it removes suspense and the effect of the
concretization of 16:12), though it is not yet disclosed how y h w h will provide it
(cf. 16:13ff.). What is implied in the formulation in 16:7 is now openly stated: not
Moses and Aaron are responsible for Israel’s situation, but y h w h . Rebellion is
therefore rebellion against him.
16:6-8 corresponds with 16:3. As the Israelites saw it, the bringing out of Egypt
(headed for doom) was the work of Moses and Aaron and y h w h could care less
what happened to them in the wilderness. Moses and Aaron declare that the
people’s way of looking at it is altogether wrong. Their own role is only secondary
and insignificant, y h w h is the author of the exodus (16:6b). He will give the
double proof - in the evening and in the morning (16:6b, 7a, 8a) - of his
concern for Israel, also in the wilderness. So he will demonstrate that Israel’s fate
is not in the hands of Moses and Aaron, but only up to him. The exodus is strictly
his doing. Credit as well as blame for it should go to him. And if the people come
with blame, that is an indication that they have serious questions about the great
redemptive event of the liberation from Egyptian bondage and that they are not
sure of y h w h ’s ability to deliver on his promises.
16:9 Thereupon Moses said to Aaron: ‘Order the whole community o f the Is
raelites: “Turn to y h w h in prayer , fo r he has taken notice o f your rage”. ’
16:10 As soon as Aaron had communicated the order to the whole community o f
the Israelites, they looked toward the wilderness and they saw how y h w h appeared
in blinding splendour in the cloud.
16:11 y h w h spoke to Moses in the following words:
75 R. Althann, JNSL 11 (1983), 17: 2 (possibly also before BDtfa) serves as copula with emphatic
meaning.
16:12 7 have taken notice o f the rage o f the Israelites. Speak to them in the
following words: “By evening you are going to eat meat and in the morning you
will have your fill o f bread. So you will recognize that it is I, y h w h , your G od”. '
Not Moses, but Aaron (see also at 16:33) speaks to the Israelites. Why? It seems
that already here Aaron (Introd. § 5.6) is staged in his priestly role; as such it falls
to him to summon the people to a gathering with a cultic character. ‘to order,’ see
Introd. §3.5.1. a ip , see 3:5. mm 'jab (LXX: ‘before God’), see Introd.
§ 3.42.2; one should turn to y h w h (not to Moses and Aaron; cf. 16:2 and 16:7,
8); is the existence of a holy place assumed? (cf. 16:33 and see below); Noth:
perhaps it is a place of assembly, ‘die Statte des kunftigen Heiligtums.’ Earlier
exegetes think of a place of assembly for dealing with matters of religion and those
pertaining to the public order, the tent of 33:7 (e.g. Calmet).
v n , see Introd. § 3.13.3. "0"0 (Introd. § 3.12.1), common is taking it as a
temporal clause (cf. Williams § 262, 505); e.g. NV: ‘Terwijl nu Aaron sprak ...’
(NRSV: ‘And as Aaron spoke ...’; cf. also REB); a better rendering is: ‘As soon
as Aaron had conveyed the request ...’ (cf. CV and see Maiberger, 156ff.). m s ,
see 2:12. "m D rrtN is problematic; Israel is already in the desert (16:1-3);
therefore likely what is meant in 16:10 is that from the camp they were looking
toward the desert; on the supposition that in 16:9 presupposes the existence of
a sanctuary (but note 6:12, 30) and that the history originally was placed after the
establishment of the tent shrine (cf. also 16:33ff.), it has been proposed that the
current text is the product of redactional correction and originally had enpD or
"lino (e.g. Dillmann) or perhaps p tfo (e.g. Baentsch). Strack wonders
whether one should read im o n . The MT is taken to mean: in the direction of the
wilderness from where y h w h comes from the Sinai (e.g. Bohl); in the direction of
the pillar of cloud (13:21f.) (e.g. Murphy, Gispen, Cassuto). Possibly there is a
connection with 16:3: Israel now recognizes y h w h ’s involvement in what happens
in the wilderness; that is precisely where y h w h comes from, so attesting that also
the desert is his domain, m m , see § 3.15. m m 113D, see 16:7. ‘to appear,’ see
Introd. § 3.46.2. ])V, see 13:21.
For 16:11 see Introd. § 3.12.1. D ^ iy n V*3, see 12:6. Cf. 16:8. ‘to recognize,’
cf. 16:6. ‘I ...,’ see Introd. § 7.3.7. Ruprecht, 284f., thinks that 16:9-12 is
connected to 16:6-8 like this: Moses and Aaron state that the bringing out of Israel
was not their work (16:6-8) and they invite the people to a ‘Klagefeier’ to voice
their displeasure to y h w h . They assure that y h w h will hear (vnti to be taken as
future) (16:9), but before the people have uttered their complaint, y h w h appears.
In my view, the connection between 16:3, 6-8 and 16:9-12 is as follows: the
people implicitly denied y h w h ’s presence in the desert (16:3); Moses and Aaron
announce the proofs of y h w h ’s concern for the people in the desert (16:6b, 7a);
Moses orders Aaron to command the people (to stop their grumbling and) to
assume a posture that befits the announced manifestation of y h w h and the
deliverance he gives (16:9). If the people would still be grumbling at y h w h ’s
manifestation, they might bring calamity upon themselves (cf. Num. 16:19ff.;
17:7ff.). It is expected of the people that they be reverent as the expression of
336 exodus 1 6 :1 -3 6
their trust in YHWH (cf. 4:31; 12:27).76 They assume that posture and look in the
direction (also ordered by Aaron) from where y h w h comes. The attitude of the
people creates a climate in which y h w h can be near to Israel to announce help
(16:12), as affirmation and concretization (leaving alone 16:8) of Moses’ announ
cement, and to bring it about (16:13).
16:13 In the evening quail came and covered the camp . In the morning dew fell
around the camp.
2~M2 \"H, LXX: eyevexo 8e eoTtepa, ‘evening fell’ (2 is not translated),
(Introd. § 3.39.1), also at the beginning of 16:4, but with a different meaning,
ibfcn (see Introd. §9.3.2; Maiberger, HOff.),77 like ‘the dew’ in 16:13b with
article; cf. Ges-K § 126q, r; Joiion § 137 m, n; collective and feminine form; see
KoSynt § 346a; Ges-K § 122s; for the form see Introd. § 2.2; Sam. Pent.:
cf. Pesh., TNf. TO in agreement with MT: 1^0; but TPsJ: ‘pheasants;’
LXX: opTuyopfjxpa, ‘Ortygian mother,’ cf. Wisd. 16:2; 19:12; Philo, VM, I,
209), likely referring to a kind of quail. no2 (see 8:2), it is suggested that a lot of
them come down (cf. Num. 11; Ps. 78; see Introd. § 12.7.4). Murphy: the
miracle is that the quail appear at the announced time, at the right location, and in
sufficient number; similarly e.g. Calmet, Heinisch. nano, see 13:20.
16:13a correlates with 16:6b, 8, 12. The meaning of the allusion to meat in the
evening has now become clear. The bringing of meat has demonstrated y h w h ’s
involvement in the exodus (16:16b).
m art, see 7:28; cf. KoSynt § 329f. (OT ca. 30x ; Exod. 16:13, 14), ‘dew;’
the fine drops of water, caused by condensation, were thought to come from
heaven (see Houtman*, Himmel, 185ff., 256). TNf: rPMU, ‘mist of dew’(?);
TPsJ: mnJN, ‘dew fall;’ TPsJ has a more elaborate version: ‘there was a fall
of dew, frozen (read: NKhpnQ), prepared like tables’ (cf. Mek. II, llOff.: the
ground was like a golden table; see Malina, 59f.); also in 16:14a TPsJ has an
expanded text: ‘The clouds went up and dropped the manna on top of the fall of
dew’ (cf. Num. 11:9; first dew, then manna). As I see it, translations like: ‘was er
een dauwlaag’ (NV), ‘there was a layer of dew’ (NRSV, cf. e.g. LV, Dasberg) or
‘there was dew’ (WV, GNB, TEV; ‘dew’ apparently is taken to mean ‘mist;’ cf.
UV, and see e.g. Dillmann, Baentsch) are not entirely adequate, rvn is used here
for verbalization of the noun (Introd. § 3.13.1); the dew is deposited, poured out;
the dew comes down like a fine, mist-like drizzle. 3*30, see 7:20; quails on the
camp, manna around the camp.
16:14 When the fog o f dew lifted, everywhere in the wilderness a fine, flake-like
layer, a fine layer like frost lay everywhere on the ground.
brm , when the sun had risen and the temperature was on the rise, the misty dew
76 Fensham: ‘As sinners the Israelites approach.’

77 He cites other unlikely identifications as well: grasshoppers, flying fish, cranes.
evaporated; at first there are cloud patches through which the blue sky can be
seen; later the whole sky is blue (cf. Hos. 6:4; 13:3). LXX has combined 16:13b
with the beginning of 16:14; the coining of the dew is not reported, only the
clearing in the morning.78 In Vulg., 16:14 begins with the words: cumque operuis-
set superficiem terrae , ‘and when it (= the dew) had covered the surface of the
earth.’ Rabbinic exegesis detects a reversal of the natural order here: dew, which
normally comes down from heaven, rises; bread, an earthly product, comes down
from heaven (cf. 16:4).79 mm, see Introd. §3.15.2. ’JErtu, see Introd.
§ 3.42.3.
p i (OT 13x), adjective, ‘thin,’ ‘fine’ (16:14 [2x]; Lev. 16:12; Isa. 29:5;
40:15 et al.), derivative of ppmi, ‘to pound,’ ‘to crush,’ which as a verb (OT 13 x)
occurs in 32:30 (qal): ‘to be fine’ (cf. Deut. 9:21), and 30:36 (hiph.): ‘to make
fine’ (cf. 2 Kgs. 23:6, 15 et al.). Here it is used as a noun, ‘a fine layer’ (Ehrlich
vocalizes p i , ‘diinner Ueberzug;’ cf. Greftmann*, 125). The part. CDDOna func
tions as adjective, further describing what lay on the ground: ‘a flake-like fine
layer.’ The statement describes what the manna looked like in its totality, not, as is
usually thought, the appearance of the individual grains of manna. What follows
confirms the interpretation: ‘a fine layer like frost.’
oaonD (1 Q Ex.: josonD; see DJD , I, 50) is a hapax legomenon which already
way back presented problems to translators. In LXX, which has left it untrans
lated, 16:14b reads: A e t i t o v cboei Kopiov A e u k o v <1x j e i Tiayoc; e t u t t |<; yf|<;, ‘fine
like white coriander (cf. 16:31 LXX), (fine) like frost on the earth’ or ‘fine like
coriander, white like frost on earth’ (cf. Num. 11:7 LXX: ‘the manna was like
coriander seed and its appearance the appearance of ice’ [ei6o<; KpuoraAAou]).
Aq. and Theod. have translated O D O n D as A e A e t u o p e v o v , ‘peeled off.’ This
translation is derived by way of *)&!"!, ‘to peel,’ ‘to bare;’ cf. also TO (H^pO) and
Pesh. (cf. e.g. Vredenburg: ‘van hulzen bevrijd’ [‘freed from husks’]). The
meaning may be that the manna lay on the ground like slivers; cf. TPsJ:
p'pn, ‘thinly layered.’ Or perhaps: the clearance of the dew layer had
‘bared,’ made visible, the manna. The rendering avaoupopevov suggests that this
is how Symm. must have understood ‘bared.’ Linking Num. 11:9 (first dew, then
manna) and Exod. 16:4 (dew covers the manna), rabbinic exegesis conceived of
the idea that the manna was ‘sandwiched’ or ‘packed’ between two layers of dew
(bYoma 75b and see also Rashi, who associates ODOnD with NO'Dn, ‘bag’). Thus
it is possible that the rendering of Aq. etc. alludes to the removal of the ‘packing’
around the manna. The rendering in TNf and FTP (ODODft) seems to be based on
linking it with 00D, ‘to separate,’ ‘to pull apart:’ the manna consists of small
78 Has part of the text dropped out? cf. Frankel*, 80, 104; KaTa7iauo|ievTi<; tt)<; fipooou, ‘when the
dew stopped,’ is based on derivation of nastf from natf; see J. Barr, SVT 16 (1967), 10.
7V See Mek. II, 102; MidrTanh. Exod. IV, 20; Rashi; cf. also ExR. XXV, 2, 6; XXXVIII, 4, and
also Philo, VM, I, 201f., who points out that also the earth can produce ‘rain’ (the Nile); Gregory of
Nyssa, VM, I, 36.
338 exodus 16:1-36
pieces, f JIND, ‘glittering,’ in SamT seems to reflect the influence of the following
‘frost,’ and et quasi pilo tunsum , ‘and as if it had been crushed in a mortar,’ in
Vulg. is likely based on the preceding p i. The frequent rendering ‘round’ (e.g.
SV, KJV) or ‘granular’ (e.g. LV, UV, CV, WV, GNB, Dasberg) goes back to the
explanation of Sa’adya Gaon (10th century), who related it to the Arabic mudahrag.
Van der Palm’s translation ‘(iets duns), gestolds* (‘something thin, congealed’) is
arrived by means of the Arabic hafafa, ‘to be frozen,’ first proposed by J.D.
Michaelis (18th century). KBL, HAL , with an appeal to the Arabic verb, have
chosen for ‘knistem (gefrohrener Schnee).’ The etymologically best supported
explanation is the one found, among others, in BDBy Ges-B, KoW, and followed,
e.g. in the interpretation ‘schilferachtig’ (‘flake-like’) in NV (cf. NRSV, REB,
TEV). The form ODOnD is unusual. The repetition of the second radical of the
stem non (cf. Ges-K § 55k) is striking. Delitzsch*, 96, regards it as a scribal
error. It is often thought to be an abbreviation of noaono, part. pass, of pe‘al‘al
noaon (e.g. BDBy Ges-B). Differently KoHkl, I, 249f.; KoWB: ease of pronun
ciation caused naono to be changed to ODono. For the interpretation of the term
see further Maiberger, 309ff., 320fff.
"lisp (16:14; Ps. 147:16; Job 38:29), ‘frost,’ like dew, was considered a gift
from heaven (Job 38:29); see Reymond*, 28. Tertium comparationis is primarily
the fineness of the frost rather than its other characteristics such as colour (cf.
16:31) and the fact that it cannot stand heat (cf. 16:21). Maiberger, 317, regards
the second p i and subsequent terms as an explanatory gloss. The comparison with
frost (and ice in Num. 11:7 LXX) has resulted in the (erroneous) notion that in
appearance the manna was a glittering white, like snow (cf. Artapanus, 37) (cf.
also 16:31); another consequence of the comparison was that the melting of the
manna (cf. 16:21), one of its characteristics, sparked diverse notions relating to the
manna (e.g. Wisd. 16:22ff., 27ff.; 19:21). Josephus (AJt III, 26f.) relates that, as
Moses was lifting up his hands in prayer, dew fell down; when Moses noticed that
it stuck to his hands, he realized that this was the food coming from God; the
people, however, thought that it snowed; cf. Philo (VM, I, 200): ‘a strange and
unusual rain, not water, not hail, nor snow, nor ice, ... but of grain, very small
and white ..., which lay in heaps before their tents.* Rabbinic exegesis turned the
daily quantity of manna into huge quantities: 60 cubits high (Mek . II, 113f.; but
note also II, 110), good for 2000 years (MidrTanh. Exod. IV, 21), higher than the
waters of the flood (ExR. XXV, 7) etc.; cf. Ginzberg*, III, 45f. Hence there was
more than enough and over (see at 16:21).
16:15 The Israelites discovered it and said to each other: 'What is that?* For
they did not know what it was. Then Moses said to them: 'It is the bread y h w h
gives you to eat. *
‘to discover,’ see Introd. § 3.46.1; TPsJ: -I- ‘they were surprised.’ ‘to each other,’
see Introd. § 3.2.2. Kin ]D has been variously understood in the history of
interpretation (for a survey see Maiberger, 267ff.); in 16:31 ID occurs as a noun
and name for Israel’s food in the wilderness.80 Also ]D in 16:15 has been regar
ded as a noun; it has prompted interpreting Kin ]D as an interrogative sentence: ‘Is
that manna?’ (in Maiberger, 272f.), and (more often) as a declarative formula: ‘It
is manna’ (cf. e.g. SV, KJV, LuthV, Van der Palm, Vredenburg). The last
interpretation is very old, and was already mentioned in Mek. II, 114, 123, as the
explanation favoured by allegorical exegetes. It was common in 16th and 17th
century Protestant translations and explanations. For instance Calvin, on the
assumption that ‘Man’ means ‘something prepared,’81 offers the following explana
tion: ‘the Israelites confessed that God was gracious to them because he gave them
food though they had not worked for it;’ in the sentence: ‘they knew ...’ Moses (as
writer) chides them and tells them that unbelief had darkened their minds, that they
were still slow; for though they had been informed about the miracle, even so
when they saw it they were surprised as if they had not heard about it before. A
19th century proponent of the declaration formula is Murphy. Familiar with the
view that manna was something found in nature, he holds that the Israelites, not
knowing what lay on the ground of the desert, gave ‘it the name of a com
paratively scanty product of nature, to which it bears a considerable resemblance
in locality, colour, form, and perhaps taste, though it differs in origin, season,
quantity, and other properties’ (cf. also annot. Van der Palm). For that matter, in
the 19th century there was little more than scant support for the interpretation ‘It is
manna.’ More recently it has been dusted off by H. Schult, DBAT 1.(1972), 1-9,
and been hailed by Ruprecht, 286f. The latter offers the following explanation of
the statement and the clause with '2: Indignant, the Israelites note that the stuff on
the ground is the familiar manna (not the promised bread from heaven); they did
not yet know the meaning of the manna and had not yet learned that it was the gift
of y h w h who would give deliverance; that insight Moses had to give them.
The above shows that the reading ‘It is manna’ produces contrived explanations.
The most likely interpretation, current since the 19lh century and supported by the
ancient translations and early exegetes,82 is to take Kin ID as interrogative: ‘What
is it?’ Hebrew grammar as such, though, does not permit to regard ID as an
interrogative pronoun (Aramaic does have an interrogative pronoun l&, ‘who?’; cf.
Symm.: xlc;). The words K ir m D in the clause with "2 make it likely that there is a
play on words and that assonantally (similarity in sound) a connection is made
between ]D and H D : manna is something that evokes the question ‘What’s that?’83
80 See Introd. § 9.2.14; in LXX, in Exod. 16 rendered with pav; elsewhere with pavva; cf. NT; in
Vulg. man is used in Exod. 16:31, 33, 35; Num. 11:6, 7, 9; elsewhere manna.
81 Cf. e.g. annot. SV; ID is derived from the Hebrew mo (Dan. 1:5, 10); the etymology, stemming
from the Jewish tradition, was still advocated by, among others, Rashi, Ibn Ezra, and in the 20th
century by Ehrlich (‘Bescherung’); cf. Maiberger, 280ff.
82 TO and TNf though, depending on the pointing, allow both the interpretation ‘Is this manna?’ and
‘What is it?’
83 On such folk etymology or literary etymology see Introd. § 5.d; for a survey of the etymologies
proposed in the history of interpretation see Maiberger, 280ff.
340 EXODUS 16:1-36
According to this way of looking at it, Israel previously was not acquainted with
the manna, ‘to know,’ see Introd. § 3.22. The manna can be called on4? (see
2:20), because it will be used as bread, food; of course, not in its natural state, but
after a process of preparation (16:23). For TPsJ see 16:4. ‘to give,’ cf. 16:8.
‘food,’ see Introd. § 3.3.2.
16:13b-15 is correlative with 16:4, 7a, 8, 12. Now it is clear what the allusion
bread from heaven/in the morning referred to. With the provision of the bread
y h w h had demonstrated his concern for Israel (16:7a).
16:16 Thus y h w h has commanded: ‘You are to gather it, each keeping in mind
the appetite o f the members o f his family; you may pick up from it an omer per
person, taking into account the number o f persons fo r whom you are responsible,
each fo r the persons in his tent. ’
16:16 reaches back to 16:4. Now Moses reveals the regulation. The ‘quantity
needed for each day* (16:4) is further defined. Like so often, y h w h ’s word and
Moses’ word are to be taken as complementary.
‘keeping ... each,’ see Introd. § 3.2.2 and 4:10. In LXX the formula in 16:16,
18 (e K a o T o g eic t o u t ; K a 0 f)K ovxa< ;), presumably due to the explicit mention of the
measure (an omer), is not applied to the appetite but to the number of people in
the household (cf. Zohar Exod. 63a) (in 16:21, where the omer plays no role, the
LXX does relate the formula to the appetite; cf. 12:4).84 Eerdmans*, 47:
'S 4? does not mean ‘according to his personal need,’ but ‘according to the
quantity of food which daily he needs for the members of his family.’ As I see it,
‘his appetite’ includes both his own appetite and that of the members of his household.
ipi; is a term denoting a measure of capacity (the vessel used for measuring)
(16:18) and the quantity measured with it (16:16, 22, 32, 33, 36) which occurs
only in Exod. 16;85 therefore it causes no surprise that the term in 16:36 is
elucidated by relating its size to that of the np'N (OT ca. 35 x OT),86 a dry
measure denoting the measured quantity (Lev. 5:11 etc.) and the container used
for measuring (Zech. 5:6ff.). It is noted that the omer is a tenth (Introd. § 4.11.2)
of an ephah. In 16:36, LXX, TO, TPsJ, TNf, SamTA have ‘three seahs’ instead of
an ephah.87 To designate a tenth ephah, elsewhere pfew (Introd. §4.11.2) is
used. The rendering of "1DI? as ‘kop’ (‘cup’) in LV rests on interpretation with the
aid of the Arabic (gumar = drinking cup); cf. Maiberger, 195ff. It is hard to say
what the precise capacities of the measures were.88 The quotations given for the
84 Theod. has applied the formula in 16:16, 18 to the appetite and in 16:21 to the number of people;
Aq. and Symm. in all instances to the appetite.
85 Cf. in the sense of ‘sheaf’ or ‘bunch of ears’ (HAL) in Lev. 23:10ff. et al.
86 Loan word from Egyptian; see Ellenbogen*, 26.
87 The seah (cf. HKO in Gen. 18:16; 1 Kgs. 18:32 et al.) supposedly is a third of an ephah; in
connection with LXX: ‘the tenth part of three measures,’ note also Isa. 5:10 LXX; in Gen. 18:6;
2 Kgs. 7:1, 16, 18, to petpov is the rendering of HKO; cf. also SamTJ: nn^DOTiOU.
88 For these measures see HllllW, II, 1164; BRL. 204f.; Barrois*, II, 247ff.; De Vaux*, I, 352ff.
ephah vary from ca. 45 to 20 liters. The corresponding ones for the omer from 4
liters to 2 liters.89 Maiberger, 218f., conjectures that 1DU, rather than being an
old term that had fallen into disuse, is a creation of the writer, a deliberate allusion
to 1DK, ‘Word (of God):’ in 16:16ff. the riches of the Word of God are set forth.
The suggestion is gratuitous. Noteworthy is the similarity between ID # and "ion
( = 1 0 ephahs) (see 8:10). So it is more likely that ")Dn provided the inspiration for
a possible literary creation.
(OT 12x), ‘skull;’ in 16:16; 38:26; Num. 3:47 et al. denoting a person
(synecdoche); see Dhorme*, 20f., 31; Johnson*, 39f. ")D0D (see 9:16), accus. in
dicating measure or number (KoSynt § 330q; Ges-K § 118h; Joiion § 125j; cf. also
§ 125f.). ‘persons,’ see Introd. §3.35.1. "itfN1?, see Introd. §3.7.1; LXX
(wrongly): ouv (‘gather it, each of you with the members of your household’);
TPsJ: ‘according to the number of people (of his tent).’
(OT ca. 345x ; Exod. 62x) unlike rra (Introd. § 3.9.1), a fixed dwelling,
is a movable dwelling, used by nomads, shepherds, and soldiers. It affords
protection from the heat of the sun, rain and storm (Gen. 18:1; Isa. 4:6) etc.;
consequence of the loss of the tent is that the tent dweller is defenseless and
unprotected in the world (Isa. 38:12; Jer. 4:20; 10:20; 49:29). The use of ‘tent’
alongside ‘to set out’ (16:1 et al.) is illustrative of the change that occurred in
Israel’s existence: the people bade farewell to their settled existence in Egypt.
Beyond that, in Exodus ‘phk is used primarily for or in connection with the tent
shrine (26:7, 9, 11, 12, 13 etc.; 58x), in particular in the expression nino
(27:21 etc.; 34x), and only 4 x for the dwelling of Israelites (16:16; 18:7; 33:8,
10). The OT contains no information about the shape of tents. It could be a round
one with vertical sides, in the center supported by a pole, or one rectangular in
shape, today still used by nomads. In addition to poles, pegs and ropes, the black-
cloth covering of woven goat’s hair (Cant. 5:1), sometimes also skins, was the
chief material of the tent.90 ‘to pick up,’ see Introd. § 3.30. LXX: ooAAei;ate
(often rendered with tDpb).
The instruction for gathering ‘the bread from heaven’ is directed to the family
heads who are in charge of and responsible for the care of the community living in
their tent. As they gather the food, they are to go by the size and composition
(children eat less than adults etc.) of that group. There is, however, a set norm: an
omer per member of the community; the norm is intended as an average (e.g.
Dillmann) or, more likely, as a maximum. Apparently, no one, with an appeal to
the insatiable appetite of his family, is allowed to collect so much that others
would be shortchanged. If all abide by the norm, there will be enough for all the
89 Cf. TEV on 16:16: ‘two liters;’ on 16:36: ‘The standard dry measure then in use equalled twenty
liters.’
90 See AuS, VI, 29ff. (with illustrations of nomad tents); BHHW, III, 2230f.; BRL, 363f.; TWAT, I,
128ff.; Barrois*, I, 82ff.; W. Michaelis, EvTh 14 (1954), 36ff. For illustrations of army tents see
ANEP, 170f., 374.
342 exodus 16:1-36
people. In short, in the matter of the quantity that may be gathered the people are
held to a strict rule. The detailed formulation plus further additions91 shows that
the regulation brooks no infractions.
16:17 Thus the Israelites did. They gathered it, the one more , the other less.
16:18 They measured it with an omer. The one who had taken more did not have
too much. The one who had taken less did not come short. Everyone o f them had
gathered in accordance with the appetite o f the members o f his family.
‘Thus...* (Introd. §3.41.1 and 1:12), that is, according to the stipulation of
16:16. How it was done is stated in 16:17b and the beginning of 16:18 (cf. KoSynt
§ 369b). m i , see 1:7. bud, see 12:4. As they gather it, they reckon with the size
and makeup of the family (16:16).
m b ; 3 imperf. cons, qal of T in (OT 52 x ; Ezek. ca. 35 x), ‘to measure (out)’
(cf. Ruth 3:15 and Num. 35:5; Deut. 21:2 etc.); for the derivative rn p (OT 53 X ;
Ezek. 25x ), ‘measure,’ ‘measurement(s),’ see 26:2, 8; 36:9, 15; Lev. 19:35;
1 Kgs. 6:25; 7:37 etc. (see TWAT , IV, 695ff.). Apparently what happened was
that as soon as one had come home with the gathered manna, it was measured to
make sure there was neither too much or not enough. Before it is prepared one has
to know that. So that, if one had collected too much, it could still be shared with
another person. The clause from to ti'X describes the situation following the
careful execution of the stipulation. T iv n perf. hiph. of *1*117; qal (16:23; 26:12
[2x], 13; Lev. 25:27; Num. 3:46, 48f.), ‘to remain over;’ hiph.: ‘to have in
excess.* TQnn perf. hiph. of "ion (OT 23x); qal: ‘to lack,’ ‘to decrease’ (Gen.
8:3, 5; 18:28; Deut. 2:7 etc.); hiph. hoc loco ‘to be/come short.’
The clause starting with erx provides the motive for the situation that is describ
ed. It is a way of once more pointing out that the stipulation of 16:16 had been
followed down to the details.
It has been advocated that 16:17, 18 describes a miracle: no matter how much or
how little one had collected, upon measuring it turned out that the quantity had
adjusted itself to the requirements of the family it was meant for (an omer per
person) (e.g. Rashi, Keil, Baentsch, Noth, Childs). Is zeal being punished and
sloth rewarded?92 It has been suggested that all the manna was to be brought to
one place, following which it was to be distributed (an omer per person) (e.g.
Calvin, Cole). So everybody was active, while at the same time assistance was
given to the slower members of the community (cf. 2 Cor. 8:14; 9:7). According
to Dillmann and McNeile the measuring vessel was used as the manna was being
collected. That is not likely (cf. 16:5). Calmet and Heinisch, e.g., point out that
91 Some see it as the work of different authors; e.g. Maiberger, 99f., 122.
92 Cf. MidrTanh. Exod. IV, 22: the energetic gathered it in the field, those less industrious at the
entrance of their tents; the sluggards stayed in their tents and just held up their hands for the manna; in
Mek. II, 115, tjie one who collected little is equated with a poor person; the rich family collects much;
in the end everyone gets the same amount; Josephus (AJ, II, 29ff.) considers it a social measure to
protect the weak from the strong; cf. also Gregory of Nyssa (VM, I, 37).
16:8 does not describe a new miracle. The miracle was that every night fresh food
was deposited to feed the people another day. It is enough for all, provided it is
equitably distributed. For that reason rationing was instituted. Every member of
the people receives a sizable portion of daily bread by way of gift from yhwh,
provided his ordinances are obeyed. As indicated above, measuring the manna may
have been to prevent its unequal distribution.
The baking of bread was done daily in the Ancient Near East. Portions were
daily given (cf. 2 Kgs. 25:29f.; Jer. 37:21; Dan. 1:5; Ezra 6:9; Matt. 6:11; Acts
6:1; Jas. 2:15); see E.M. Yamauchi, WThJ 28 (1966), 145-56.
16:19 Thereupon Moses commanded them: ‘No one may leave anything o f it
until morning. ’
16:20 Some, however, had paid no attention to Moses, and when they left some
o f it until morning it was infested with maggots and stank, so that Moses was angry
with them.
When the manna has been collected, Moses gives a new rule, ijv hiph., see 10:5.
see 7:15. The clause with contains an added remark to clarify what
follows, ‘some* (Introd. § 3.2.2) or ‘several* (KoSynt § 74; Strack) is to be taken
as subject of (cf. 16:1 and see e.g. NV, REB). In contrast, see e.g. SV,
KJV, NRSV: all addressed in 16:19 are subject. That produces the following
picture: no one had paid attention; most of them had finished all the food; some
however had not; they had saved it. However, the text does not talk about food
that was left over unforeseen, but of a deliberate act. In TPsJ the transgressors are
qualified as sinful people (cf. Mek. II, 116) and identified with Dathan and
Abiram.93
D V ] imperf. qal (Ges-K § 27o, 67o; BL, 438) of DQ1 (only here); these days, a
relationship is assumed between deh and n&") (16:24) (see the lexicons) and
derivation of d t i from o n (e.g. Keil, De Hummelauer) is rejected (but note
already SamTA: DnKi; SamTJ: Q")K1). Uncertainty about the precise
meaning is evident from the ancient translations: the verb is translated in terms of
what seems to fit the context; LXX: xai eê(eoe okwAtikok; (= ‘to boil over,’ ‘to
break out;’ + euAicov, ‘to crawl with worms;’ it could be that the rendering rests
on derivation from o n ; cf. the reading avePpaoev cited by Field); Vulg.: et
scatere coepit vermibus; TPsJ: v m n tfm io (cf. Pesh.), ‘and it crawled with
worms;’ TO: Ntfrn ttfrm, ‘and it was full of worms;’ TNf: m m , ‘and it
produced worms.’ Cf. Maiberger, 104ff.
‘worms’ (Introd. §9.2.11; cf. also §9.2.14: ants), for accus. see KoSynt
§ 338w; Ges-K § 121d n. 3; Joiion § 125d. The worms presumably are the cause
of the spoilage and the smell it produced (tfio, see 5:21). Comparing 16:20 with
16:24 one notes that in 16:24 the stench is related first and then the maggots
93 Cf. among others ExR. XXV, 10; MidrTanh. Exod. IV, 24; VIII, 7 (piles of worms came from
their tents); Rashi; see also Vol. I, 302.
344 EXODUS 16:1-36
(chiasmus). According to rabbinic exegesis, 16:24 relates the natural order:

something spoils and starts smelling and produces worms.94 However, the logical
order is that there are worms which produced the smell. The meaning of the order
in 16:24 is: there was no smell and there were no maggots either, that is, spoilage
and stench were not to be expected either, for the causes of it were not there. In
short, the manna was of excellent quality. Josephus (AJ , III, 29f), citing the
strange spoilage, says that it kept the strong from getting more than their due
share, but he passes over the special situation pertaining on the day of rest; in
contrast, Philo (VM, I, 203ff.) does mention it.
Hip-?3 imperf. cons, qal of (OT 34x), ‘to be/become angry’ (+ i v ) , as
reaction to disobedience and the like; here with a human subject (cf. Gen. 40:2;
41:10; Lev. 10:16; Num. 31:14 et al.); more often with God as subject (Lev.
10:6; Num. 16:22 et al.). See THAT, II, 663ff.; TWAT , I, 376ff. and see at 4:14.
16:19, 20 recalls 12:20: nothing of the lamb may remain. There, however, it is
prescribed how to dispose of the remainder. Not so here.95 The concern here is
not about what to do with something that was left over unforeseen but about
storing it for future use. In light of 16:18 the implication is that the people were
stingier with the manna than necessary, so in effect depriving the members of the
family. More important is that by so doing they again manifested a lack of trust in
y h w h (cf. Mek. II, 103) that each new day he would again provide the daily
bread, and so failed the test (16:4). Moreover, looking ahead (16:22ff.), by this
action they obliterated the distinction between ordinary days and the sixth day as
preparatory to the sabbath, and so upset the rhythm anchored in creation. The
spoilage the next day brings out that evil follows in the wake of disobedience of
y h w h (cf. Deut. 28:15ff.). All in all, bread from heaven is a gift from y h w h and
one may not do with it as one pleases (cf. 1 Cor. ll:27ff.). To leave something
over is desecration.
Israel carefully carried out (16:17, 18) the instruction not to gather more than
the portion needed for one day (16:4). Moses tells them that the instruction
involves that all of the collected quantity is to be consumed the same day. On that
point a number of Israelites are negligent and have to be called to order.
Earlier, brief reference was already made to 16:24: manna, saved from the sixth
to the seventh day, stays good. According to 16:32, 34 it is even possible to keep
the manna for a long time. The contradiction renders the manna all the more
miraculous (see also 16:23) and as such gives no reason for the possibility that the
material may of diverse literary origin (but note e.g. GreBmann, 133ff.).
16:21 So every morning they gathered it anew - each in accordance with the
94 Mek. II, 116; Rashi. Differently ExR. XXV, 10: the stench did not come before the worms lest
one would remove the manna during the night (then God would not have been able to expose the evil
deed); cf. Nachmanides: the sequence in 16:20 shows that it became wormy in a miraculous way.
95 Ibn Ezra: it must be thrown out; others: it is for the livestock (BB, 202).
appetite o f the members o f his family —, fo r as soon as the sun grew hot, it
melted.
Having learned from experience, the people do not stock up on manna. Every day
they go out to gather a fresh supply. inK, the bread mentioned in 16:15.
"ip22 "ipaa, see 7:15. Second npaa up to and including ibaK is absent in LXXB.
BPN etc., cf. 16:16; Sam. Pent, also here has ’D*? (see also appar. BHS). on perf.
qal96 of non (OT ca. 30x), ‘to be/get hot;’ here with tffc# (OT ca. 135x ; Exod.
16:21; 17:12; 22:2, 25; see THAT , II, 987ff.; TWATy VIII, 306ff.), ‘sun,’ as
subject; cf. 1 Sam. 11:9; Neh. 7:3, and see also Job 6:17; Gen. 18:1; 1 Sam.
11:11; 2 Sam. 4:5. op;i perf. niph. of 00D (OT 21x; niph. 19x); niph.: ‘to
melt,’ ‘to dissolve,’ (cf. Ps. 68:3; 97:5 et al.; see TWAT, IV, 1016ff.). Cassuto
proposes an association with the (admittedly moot) 0B3 in 1 Sam. 15:9: a few
hours after sunrise the manna became loathsome on account of the ants that
swarmed on it (he also links the spoilage of 16:20 with the ants).
The end of the verse from am (for the construction see KoSynt § 367h; Ges-K
§ 159g) tells why the harvesting of the manna was to be done in the morning. A
not yet related detail pertaining to the gathering of the manna is mentioned. The
people are not only to go out and collect it every day, but it has to be ac
complished in a specific period of time. The work must be finished before noon,
if - that is one way to interpret the comment - one is to have enough. For
16:17, 18 (cf. also 16:23) seem to suggest that all the manna that was needed (and
no more) fell during the night. Likely, however, that is not the point. More likely,
16:21b is to be explained in the light of 16:20: every day y h w h gives fresh bread;
the manna collected is guaranteed fresh; one does not have to worry that the
collected manna might contain leftovers from the previous day; also the melting of
the manna prevents desecration (cf. 16:20).
According to TPsJ, from the fourth hour the manna turned into rivers which
emptied into the Great Sea; clean animals and other beasts drank from it and were
hunted and eaten by the Israelites. According to Mek. II, 117 (cf. Rashi), the
animals were hunted and eaten by the peoples of the world. So indirectly they
enjoyed the manna. According to MidrTanh. Exod. IV, 21, 22, consumed as found
on the ground, the manna tasted bitter like coriander and wormwood. That same
text also states that the manna that flowed away is destined for the righteous of the
future.
16:22 However, when on the sixth day they had gathered double the amount o f
bread , twice an omer fo r each, all the tribal heads o f the community came to
Moses and apprised him o f it.
‘on the sixth day,’ cf. 16:5. ltDp^ is without the waw of the apodosis (cf. KoSynt
§ 370b; Jouon § 176f). mtfD (see 16:5), after on4? (cf. KoSynt § 333i). ‘double,’
see Introd. § 4.3.1; KoSynt § 314b; Ges-K § 134e; Jouon § 142c note. Delitzsch*:
96 Sam. Pent: non; feminine form because of BDE; but see KoSynt § 345c; Ges-K § 145o.
346 EXODUS 16:1-36
read: m v n rutfo 030 is due to dittography). ‘each,’ see Introd. § 4.2.1.

irip; (OT ca. 130x ; in particular in Num,; Josh.; Ezek.; Exod. 4 x ) is usually
derived from N03 and taken to mean ‘one who is exalted’ or ‘one who exalts
himself (above others).’ The traditional rendering ‘prince’ is not the best, certainly
not in the Hexateuch. The term basically denotes a tribal head, a sheik, one who
exercises authority over the tribe, a clan, or even land (cf. Gen. 17:20; 23:6;
25:16; 34:2; Num. 25:18; Josh. 13:21). In that sense is also used in Exod.
16:22; 22:27; 34:31; 35:27. 16:22 refers to m v n 'H 'ti) (cf. Num. 4:34; 31:13;
Josh. 9:15, 18; 22:30); 34:31 to m w □’•Kfran. Other data in the Pentateuch make
it likely that the sheiks mentioned here are the twelve tribal heads (cf. Num. 1:4,
16, 44; 2:3ff.; 7:2, 10ff.; 17:17, 21; 34:18; Josh. 22:14). Apparently they
constituted a body which represented the twelve tribes and which, together with
Moses and Aaron, later on with Moses and Eleazar, Joshua and Phinehas, acted as
Israel’s official representatives (cf. 34:31; Num. 4:34, 46; 7:2f., 10ff.; 10:4;
27:2; 31:13; 36:1; Josh. 9:15, 18, 21; 17:4; 22:14, 30, 32). For that matter, from
Num. 16:2 (m y 'ir&J) one could get the impression that the sheiks comprised a
sizeable group of men. In any case, more than the twelve had the title ‘sheik’ (e.g.
Num. 13:2; 34:18). Apparently also the heads of the families belonging to a tribe
ent by this designation (Num. 3:24ff.; 25:14). This broader group seems to be in
view in 35:27. Their status apparently also included the possession of personal
wealth (cf. also Lev. 4:22). The sheiks are specifically mentioned in the sections
attributed to P. Noth believes that the picture of the twelve tribal heads in P is not
entirely fictional but has a base in history in the Israel of the period of the judges:
presumably during the time of the amphictyony each of the tribes was represented
by a sheik in a college of tribal heads; presumably one of the duties of the college
was the management of the communal sanctuary; supposedly the members of the
college acted on behalf of the tribes. Noth considers the juxtaposition of K'03 and
DYlbK in 22:27 noteworthy, regarding it as evidence that the sheik performed
sacral duties.97 m u , see 12:3. 133, see 4:28.
16.21 recounts how the Israelites, after the incident of 16:20, carefully day after
day gathered the manna, keeping in mind the size and composition of their family.
It is assumed that every night enough manna came down to feed the people for a
whole day, provided it was equitably distributed (see 16:17, 18). 16:22 presents
the following picture: on the sixth day the Israelites, as usual, collect all the manna
that has fallen; it turns out, however, that on that day so much manna was
gathered that, when it is measured, it is not just the odd Israelite who had picked
up too much (requiring sharing with others), but that all had twice the usual
amount they gathered on other days; the tribal heads, confronted with this inexplic
able situation, don’t know what to make of it - this was something not covered by
97 See further THAT, II, 110, 115; TWAT, V, 647ff. W.J. Dumbrell, VT 25 (1975), 333ff.; De
Geus*, 157f.; M. Noth, Das System der zwolf Stdmme Israels, Stuttgart 1930, 151 ff. (cf. also Noth*,
GI, 95, 98); J. van der Ploeg, RB 57 (1950), 47ff.; Thiel*, 108, 127, 129, 147.
Moses* instructions (16:16, 19)98 - and turn to Moses.99

The miracle consists in the doubling of the quantity of manna that fell on the
sixth day. The contention that the amount collected was miraculously (Rashi and
e.g. Baentsch) doubled misses the point. According to rabbinic exegesis, on that
day also the appearance, smell and taste was (even) more impressive (Ginzberg*,
III, 46).
16:23 He, however, explained it to them: 'That is what y h w h commanded. For

tomorrow is a sacred day, a day o f total rest to the Lord. Therefore bake or boil it
now as you prefer and put aside whatever is left. Now you may keep it safe until
morning . ’
Some MSS, LXX (but in B: Kupiot;), Pesh., TPsJ, TNf explicitly mention Moses
as subject of nano. Kin, cf. KoSynt § 50; Joiion § 176f. What does mm ... Kin
refer to? The usual assumption is that the sequel of 16:23 cites the content of
y h w h ’s word (cf. Lev. 10:3; but there follows); in my view, the words
hark back to 16:22. Moses notices that the Israelites (unawares) acted according to
y h w h ’s instruction (cf. TPsJ and see 16:5). So in the hearing of the tribal heads
he states that the Israelites did the right thing, he explains why a double quantity
was to be gathered on the sixth day, and continues by giving instructions about the
use of the double quantity. The rules for the sixth day are different from those of
the prior five days. Only now that the circumstances require it, does Moses point
it out. 16:23 corresponds with 16:5. Also here Moses’ word and that of y h w h
complement each other, so that in combination they contain the content of y h w h ’s
revelation to Moses.100 In 16:5, in the interest of the suspense in the story, it is
not yet related why on the sixth day the procedure to be followed differs from that
on the days before.
linjttf (OT l l x ) , denominative of njtf (for the form see BL 498c), ‘time of
rest,’ is used in connection with the festival days of the seventh month (Lev.
23:24, 39 [2x]), the sabbatical year (Lev. 25:5) and 6 x in the paronomastic
construct chain lirGtf natf to designate a day/time (cf. Lev. 25:4f.) of complete
cessation of all work, the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16:31; 23:32), the seventh day
of the week (31:15, 35:2; Lev. 23:3), the sabbatical year (Lev. 25:4). In 16:23
]in20 is used in the absolute and followed by natf as apposition (Ehrlich: read
98 ExR. XXV, 10; MidrTanh. Exod. IV, 24: Moses had forgotten to pass it on and therefore was
guilty as well (16:28); cf. Rashi.
99 Calvin: they knew of the instruction to gather double the usual quantity; their astonishment betrays
unbelief and folly; Heinisch: the people knew of the instruction, but now inquire about its significance
and application.
100 Hence it is not necessary to read these words as: ‘That is what y h w h meant* (Ehrlich) and/or to
suppose that Moses, on the basis of the incident related in 16:22, formulates the sabbath commandment
etc. (see Maiberger, 126ff.); consequently, the passage is not about Moses as originator of the sabbath
(e.g. GreBmann*, 127; Ruprecht, 273); possibly one might consider translating: ‘That happened
because YHWH commanded: ...*
348 EXODUS 16:1-36
imper. (i)im tf; cf. Lev. 25:2). njtf (OT ca. 110x ; Exod. 15x ) 101 in the con
struct chain natfn o r (20:8, 11; 31:15; 35:3 et al.) and used in the absolute
(16:25, 26, 29; 20:10; 31:14, 16 [2x] et al.; pi. in 31:13; Lev. 19:3, 30; 23:38 et
al.), ‘day of rest.’ In 16:23 it is further defined with enp (cf. Neh. 9:14 and see
also 31:15; 35:2; Lev, 23:3 and the use of enp piel in 20:8, 11 et al.) (see Introd.
§ 3.44). natf is followed by mm^ (cf. 12:16 et al.) in 16:23, 25; 20:10; 31:15 et
al. For the origin and age of the sabbath and the history of the institution see 20:8-
11.
Baentsch and Maiberger, 129, hold that the picture presented in 16:29 differs
from that in 16:23: the focus of the sabbath is the good of people (D31?; cf. Lev.
16:31; 23:24, 32), and it serves a humanitarian purpose; however, according to
16:23 it is for y h w h (m n^). Since the first in 16:29 likely means ‘to impose
upon’ (cf. Ezek. 20:12), I fail to see there is a discrepancy. "in&, see 8:6. HSR
(Ges-K § 23h, 68b, 76d; BL § 59g), see 12:39. nxi, waw meaning ‘or’ (Joiion
§ 175a). see 12:9. On the idem per idem construction see Introd. § 7.3.2.
‘bake’ and ‘boil,’ the idea is that it may be prepared any way one would like;
there are numerous ways in which it can be done (cf. Num. 11:8); the manna
lends itself for a varied menu. Maiberger, 120f., infers from the fact that iti2 is
used almost exclusively (but note also 2 Sam. 13:8; 2 Kgs. 4:38) in connection
with meat that the manna also took the place of meat. The inference seems
unwarranted. ^117, see 16:18. m3 (Ges-K § 72ee), see 10:14. m»e;», see 10:28.
"ipam y in 16:23, 24, cf. i p y i u in 16:19, 20 (similarly Sam. Pent, in 16:23,
24), and see 12:10; Maiberger, 101ff.; the morning of the day of rest is used with
the article; but note also 18:13f.
Does 16:23b -demand that all the collected manna be prepared on the sixth day
(so that on the sabbath no food needs to be prepared; cf. 35:2f.; 31:15; Lev.
23:3), or does it say that on the sixth day one need only prepare the quantity
required for that day, leaving the rest as is till the next day for preparation then?
In which case, according to Exod. 16, the sabbath is the day on which no manna
may be gathered (16:27, 29) but one may prepare it on that day. On the problem
see W.A.M. Beuken, JSOT 32 (1985), 7ff. He holds the last view. My preference
is the first.102 As I see it, the idem per idem construction does not refer to the
quantity one may prepare,103 but to the manner of preparation; in that respect
one has full freedom; it does not matter how one prepares it (in whatever kind of
dish one eats it on the sabbath). The assumption is, however, that all the collected
101 Etymology and relationship to the verb natf is a matter of dispute (see 5:5); cf. TWAT, VII,
1048f.
102 So explicitly TPsJ: ‘Bake today what you would have to bake tomorrow in Pesh., what is
left is said to be ‘cold;’ Vulg., instead of ‘baking:’ uses the more general ‘to work:’ quodcumque
operandum est, facite, ... ‘whatever work is to be done, do it ...’ (sc. now and not on the sabbath);
LXX, TO, TNf as such permit both interpretations, but likely rest on the first view; it is adopted by
Rashi. Ibn Ezra defends the second view, but Nachmanides takes issue with him.
103 So Beuken, 10; cf. e.g. CV: ‘as much as you want;’ WV: ‘whatever you need.’
manna is made ready. fpyrrtD , ‘whatever is left* (cf. 16:18) assumes that it is
measured: following preparation, the portion for the sixth day is determined, and
the rest (the other half) set aside.
The fact that the manna could not take the heat of the sun (16:21), but could be
baked and boiled (16:23), has been regarded as an incongruity (e.g. Wellhausen*,
Composition , 78). In view of other opposite properties of the manna, described
elsewhere in Exod. 16 (20, 24, 32), one is bound to conclude that the contradic
tion heightens the extraordinary nature of the manna even more. In any case, there
is no need to resort to the comparison with the yoke of an egg, which is liquid at
low temperature and becomes hard when heat is added (in Maiberger, 125f.).
Finally, something about the place of 16:22, 23 in the story. Moses reveals the
ordinance about getting ready for the sabbath at a moment when in part the people
had already heeded it; they had gathered a double quantity, but were at a loss what
to do with it. Even the leaders were unsure. Consequence of putting the episode in
this way is that the spotlight falls on the special character of the sixth day.
16:24 They put it aside until morning, as Moses had commanded them. This time
it did not smell and there were no maggots in it.
inK, cf. 16:21; the reference is to the left-over prepared food, ‘as ...,’ see Introd.
§ 3.43.1. 0K3 hiph., see 5:21; cf. Ges-K § 53e. ‘maggots,’ see Introd. § 9.2.11.
For dages forte in *\2 see Ges-K § 20f. On the seventh day the situation is al
together different than on the previous days. Food from the previous day is still in
excellent condition and edible. See further at 16:20 and 16:27.
16:25 Then Moses said: ‘Eat it today, fo r today is a day o f rest to y h w h . Today
you will not fin d it in the field.
16:26 Six days you are to gather it, but the seventh day is a day o f rest. Then it
will not be there. '
Moses speaks in the early morning of the seventh day, when it has been deter
mined that the ‘bread,’ prepared and set aside the day before, is still in good
condition (16:23, 24), and orders to consume it. He explains the order by once
again (cf. 16:23a) emphatically (‘today’ 3 x ; Introd. §3.23.1) pointing to the
special character of the day. Next, tying everything together (16:26), he tells the
people what their week, structured by the seventh day, is to look like. The absence
of manna on the seventh day (16:25b, 26b) points up that y h w h takes a rest. By
interrupting the manna shower, y h w h himself makes it a special day. Labour and
cessation of it on Israel’s part are to correspond to labour and cessation of it on
y h w h ’ s part (cf. Gen. 2: Iff.). Therefore on the seventh day one may only eat the
food that was previously prepared and set aside (16:23). RXD (Ges-K § 60c), see
5:11. mfc as such does not right away make one think of the wilderness (cf.
‘wilderness’ and ‘ground’ in 16:14), see 1:14. ‘six ..., but the seventh ...,’ see
Introd. § 4.7.1. *12 in 16:26 (cf. 16:24) refers to ‘field’ (16:25).
In TPsJ the end of 16:26 reads: ‘then the manna will not come down’ (cf. 16;4).
From the varied repetition of 16:25b in 16:26b it is deduced in Mek. II, 120, that
350 EXODUS 16:1-36
the prescription also applied to festival days and the Day of Atonement (cf. Rashi).
16:27 Yet on the seventh day some o f the people did go out to gather it, but
found nothing.
16:28 Then y h w h said to Moses: ‘How long will you refuse to observe my
statutes and my ordinances?
16:29 Bear in mind, because y h w h laid upon you the day o f rest, on the sixth
day he gives you bread fo r two days, fo r on the seventh day everyone is to stay
where he is; then no one may leave his home. *
16:30 After that the people rested on the seventh day.
Because 16:25, 26 are situated on the seventh day, the ‘on the seventh day,* with
which 16:27 begins, seems a bit strange. It creates the impression that the com
mandment was given prior to the seventh day (cf. Vulg.: venit septima dies , ‘the
seventh day came*). Moreover, it remains unclear why some people did go out to
gather manna. To test Moses* words (Ibn Ezra) or are they without food because
the sixth day they failed to collect a double portion? (cf. the reaction in 16:29). In
the foregoing account nothing is said about such a neglect. The incongruity is
likely to be attributed to the genesis of the text. The current text evokes the
following picture: a number of Israelites ignores (cf. 16:20) Moses’ words (16:25,
26) and treat the day like other days; they discover, however, that the absence of
manna makes the day different from earlier days. So a dual proof has been given
for the special character of the seventh day: manna from the sixth day is unspoiled
(16:24); on the seventh day there is no manna, v ri etc., for construction see
16:22. ‘to go out,* cf. 16:4. Di;rr|D, for subject see KoSynt § 322c; Joiion
§ 155a; Brockelmann § 34a, 105b, 111a; differently Williams § 324. Already in
LXX, ‘some* is included in the translation. In TPsJ they are called ‘the wicked’
(cf. Mek. II, 120); cf. Num. 11:4.
‘to Moses’ is striking because y h w h ’s words are directed at the Israelites;
presumably y h w h spoke to Israel through Moses, cf. 16:I l f .104 n a i r i B (for
interrogative adverb IK/nJN see THAT, I, 125f., 933) is synonym of 'n i n y (see
8:5) and introduces an accusing outburst (cf. Num. 14:11; Josh. 18:3 et al.; see
KoSynt § 171d; TWAT, V, 112). ]KD, see 4:23; cf. Joiion § 112e. -)DB, see 10:28.
‘statutes and ordinances,’ see Introd. § 3.43.2 and 4:12; 'm in i is translated as a
sing, in LXX, Vulg., TPsJ (cf. 16:4); but note also TO, TNf (margin: ‘the
ordinances of my law’).
This time, the disregard of the ordinances does not infuriate Moses (16:20) but
y h w h himself (climax). Transgression of the sabbath commandment is a terrible
evil! (cf. the judgment in Num. 15:32-36). The outburst is blunt: all of Israel is
pictured as a people which persistently disregards y h w h ’s rules and does what
displeases him, though only a few were in violation of the sabbath commandment
104 See Mek. II, 121; Cassuto; Greflmann*, 129, reads: ‘to the IsraelitesVto them.’ Ehrlich proposes
to drop m n\
(16:27). Besides, going by the letter, the reproach also includes Moses. That
causes Rashi to observe that, as often, the innocent are punished along with the
guilty; in his judgment, also Moses deserves blame because he had failed to warn
the people in time (cf. 16:22). It is also thought that Moses is addressed in his role
as representative of the people.103*105 That seems to be the case (see above). The
comprehensive and blunt wording of the reproach cannot be explained by saying
that the sabbath commandment is more important than all other laws (ExR. XXV,
12), or that transgression of one commandment amounts to transgression of all of
them (Jas. 2:10). To the writer, the breaking of the sabbath commandment is one
in a series. Here again we touch on the idea that from the beginning of its stay in
the wilderness Israel was familiar with y h w h ’s ordinances (cf. 15:25, 26).
‘to bear in mind,’ see Introd. § 3.46.1. ina (Introd. § 3.36) is used twice, but in
a different sense (see 16:23); the perf. denotes a one-time happening, the part, a
repeated happening, rutfri (Sam. Pent, with preceding nK), LXX: ‘that day.’
D'QV, dual, see Introd. § 3.23.1; TNf: ‘double the quantity’ (cf. 16:15); y h w h
gives bread for two days; he takes care that no one suffers on account of the
sabbath law. see 2:15; Van der Palm (with derivation from 3itf): ‘return.’
rn n n , see 10:23 and Brockelmann § 114b; LXX: ei<; x o u g o ik o ix ; , ‘in your
houses.’ TPsJ: + ‘move nothing from one place to another, four yards excepted.’
□ipo, see 3:5 (or ‘habitation* = camp). TPsJ: ‘to walk, 2,000 yards excepted’ (cf.
Mek. II, 122; Rashi). -iratfn, Sam. Pent.: rGtfn. nati, see 5:5; Sam. Pent.: sing.
LXX: eoappdxioev, ‘kept the sabbath’ (cf. Vulg.) (see beside it the rendering of
nntf in e.g. 23:12; 31:17; 34:21). Five terms that start with atf are found in
16:29, 30 (alliteration).
The use of the third person y h w h in 16:29 seems a bit a strange after y h w h ’s
introduction as speaker in 16:28 (cf. 9:3-5; 11:7; 19:21). It seems as if words
from y h w h suddenly segue into words from Moses.106 The words are in reaction
to the breaking of the sabbath commandment. Again the ramifications of the
commandment are set forth: on the sixth day there will be bread for two days (cf.
16:22, 23), so that one can rest the following day (16:25, 26). The varied wor
ding, different from earlier used terminology, in which the issue is brought up,
suggests that for the account the writer drew from different literary traditions. The
repetition serves to inculcate the commandment. Moreover, since in the current
text 16:29 can hardly be anything else than direct speech from y h w h , the or
dinance receives additional emphasis. Moses’ words (16:23, 25, 26) are affirmed
by y h w h himself. The only right response to such repetition and affirmation is
obedience (16:30).
103 Ibn Ezra and e.g. Hertz; also Calvin, who adds that by this general charge, though Moses
himself was not among those who had refused to obey God’s laws, part of the blame is transferred to
him, so as to lay a greater obligation on him to chastise the people.
106 Cf. Deut. 1:8; that Moses speaks as if he were YHWH happens more often; see at 15:26.
352 exodus 16:1-36
16:31 The people o f Israel called it manna. It was like coriander seed. It was
white and its taste like that o f a honey cake.
16:31 answers the question about the name, appearance and taste of the ‘bread
from heaven* (cf. Num. 11:7). bmto’TPa (Introd. § 8.13.1), some MSS:
cf. LXX, Pesh., TNf (see Sanderson*, 138f.). ‘to call,’ see Introd.
§ 3.45.1. lDtf, the suffix goes with on4?, a key term in the preceding context; cf.
16:15a, which contains the origin of the name and an explanation for the use of
the term manna, ‘seed,’ see Introd. § 10.1.4. ‘coriander,’ see Introd. § 10.6.3;
Maiberger, 177ff. The contention that there is a conflict between 16:14 and 16:31
(so e.g. Beer) is without merit; 16:14 describes what the manna-covered ground
looked like, 16:31 a close-up view of the manna itself, (OT 27 x), adjective,
‘white’ (Gen. 30:35, 37; 49:12; Lev. 13:3, 4 etc.); cf. Bibl. on (1:14). n n
(OT 13x), ‘taste’ (cf. Num. 11:8; Jer. 48:11; Job 6:6).
n r rs s is a hapax legomenon, usually derived from n as and, going by Arabic
and Ethiopian terminology and in light of the context, taken to mean ‘flat cake,’
‘wafer’ (e.g. BDB\ Ges-B; KoW; HAL). Cf. LXX: eyicpi*;, ‘cake,’ both in 16:31
and Num. 11:8 ("7tf^); Aq.: apuAiov, ‘cake of fine flour;’ Symm.: apuAoc; ev
peAm, aliter: ax; peAiKfjpiov (cf. also app. Field); Vulg.: similae , ‘flour of
wheat;’ TO: etona fienpoND (cf. Greek eoxapirrig), ‘baked like dough with
honey’ (cf. Rashi); TPsJ: e n a i ‘like cakes from boiled lentils, flavoured
with honey’ (cf. TNf, FTV; SamTA: n tfam 'SnM ; SamTJ: tfa ia 'DIJDD.107
see 3:8. It is thus a delicious food.
16:32 Thereupon Moses said: ‘Thus y h w h has commanded: “A fu ll omer o f it

you are to keep through the generations, in order that with their own eyes they
may see the bread I gave you to eat in the wilderness when I brought you out o f
the land o f Egypt ”. '
16:33 So Moses ordered Aaron: Take a jar, and put a whole omer o f manna in
it, and place it in the sanctuary. There you are to keep it through the generations. ’
16:34 (Aaron did precisely) as y h w h had commanded Moses. Aaron placed it in
front o f (the shrine with) the charter. That is how it was kept.
In the story it is not explicitly stated that y h w h revealed to Moses the command of
16:32. The composition of Exod. 16 suggests that in the opinion of the writer the
instruction was part of y h w h ’s revelation dealt with in 16:4 (cf. 16:16).
‘Thus ...,’ cf. 16:16; also here it is the family heads that are addressed. is a
noun (see 2:16); there is no verb; Sam. Pent.: INÔ, ‘fill,’ cf. LXX and e.g. KJV,
and see Delitzsch*, 28. In Vulg. is rendered as an imper. sing.: imple; cf.
also TNf (n^D; in 16:33 N*?D) and e.g. LuthV, NV, and Joiion § 137m. Conse
quence of interpreting it as imperative is that the omer (see 16:16), which in 16:33
refers to a specific quantity, stands for an object in 16:32. It is possible to take
107 See also the diverse points of view in Mek. II, 124, and further C. Rabin, BetM 11 (1965-66),
15If.; Maiberger, 182ff.
MT as a command in the form of an exclamation (cf. Ges-K § 126m, 147c).

Probably a form of n\n is implied (cf. Introd. § 3.13.2).108 13DD (cf. 16:16, 19,
20), LXX: toG pav (= p o ? cf. Delitzsch*, 19). niDDD, cf. 16:23. i n , see 1:6.
see 1:11. ‘see with one’s own eyes,* see Introd. §3.46.1; TPsJ has as
subject: ‘the rebellious generations;’ cf. Mek. II, 126; Rashi. *?DN hiph. + double
accus. (Ges-K § 117cc); LXX: ‘which you ate’ (cf. Sanderson*, 140). ‘to bring
out,’ cf. 16:16; LXX: ‘when y h w h brought you out.’
The obligation to keep the manna holds for all of Israel. The charge to deposit it
(on behalf of Israel) in the sanctuary is given to Aaron, because only he - the
priest - may enter there (cf. Lev. 16; but see also Num. 17:19, 22). ‘to take,’ see
Introd. § 3.30.
njSJS is a hapax legomenon; two interpretations are given: (1) ‘basket;’
presumably it is supported by the Talmudic N3S and by the Arabic (e.g. SS, KoW,
Strack); (2) ‘jar;’ this is a common interpretation (for Dutch translations see e.g.
WV, annot. SV), also in English translations (cf. KJV: ‘pot;’ NRSV, REB: ‘jar’);
this rendering is backed (cf. e.g. BDB\ Ges-B; HAL) by the ancient translations;
LXX: oxdpvov xpuoouv, ‘a golden jar;’ Vulg.: vas , ‘barrel,’ ‘vase’ etc.; TO,
TNf: ‘bottle;’ TPsJ: i n a i m ir^ s, ‘an earthenware bottle;’ Pesh. reads:
qesta ; cf. Greek £eoxr\<; = Latin sextarius (ca. one half liter). As to the rendering
in LXX (cf. Heb. 9:4) - the jar was of gold, like the ark, the table etc. of the
sanctuary - and TPsJ, it is worth noting that in Mek . II, 125, the question is
asked what the jar was made of (silver, gold, iron, copper, tin, lead). After stating
that it had to be material that keeps the contents cool109 (according to 16:21
manna cannot take heat), it is concluded that it could only be a ceramic vessel.
Rashi feels the same way. Ibn Ezra also leaves open the possibility that the
material was copper.110
n n a , see Introd. §4.2.1; differently KoSynt 291d. ‘to put in,’ see Introd.
§ 3.36. riD D , Sam. Pent.: □ti. ID is apposition (KoSynt § 333f). m3, cf. 16:23f.;
Sam. Pent.: rmm. mN, the gender of the suffix is determined by the preceding
masculine words i d i ; and ]D ; n3S3S is feminine (cf. KoSynt § 350d). m m '3 3 ^ ,
see Introd. § 3.42.2; LXX: ‘before God’ (cf. Sanderson*, 135f.). TNf: +
a m in e ;'? , ‘for testimony’ (or: ‘by the testimony’?; cf. 16:34: a m in e ; D i p ) .
Before i d k d one would have expected a statement to the effect that Aaron carried
out the order; e.g. i n n a p toim (cf. 7:20); perhaps the text is mutilated or
something is understood to go with it; translations are often based on an aug
mented text.111* In LXX, ntfD . . . i tf a D is made to go with 16:33 (so in Num.
108 For the question see Maiberger, 91 ff.; he proposes to replace UDD and to read: UP1D , ‘gives (a
full omer) of manna;’ cf. idem, Z4W95 (1983), 112-8.
109 An association is made between nasasand p s , ‘to be cool;’ cf. SamTJ: rtfSJS; SamTA: mas.
1.0 For etymology and interpretation see further Maiberger, 197ff.
1.1 See e.g. LV, CV, WV, GNB; extensive additions in e.g. Baentsch, Beer; but note also e.g. NV,
Vredenburg, Dasberg and Joiion § 174b; in Ehrlich’s opinion, ‘And the Israelites did’ is purposely
omitted.
354 EXODUS 16:1-36
1:19; cf. also Vulg.). (cf. Num. 15:23; 1 Kgs. 11:10), Sam. Pent.: nN
(customary in the formula; see Introd. § 3.43.1; Sanderson*, 58).
rni; (OT 83x ; sing. 46x ; Exod. 21 x), often rendered as ‘testimony’ (for
derivation see THAT , II, 210), is here abbreviation (compare 27:21 with 30:6a and
30:6b with Num. 7:89, and see also 30:36; Lev. 16:13; 24:3; Num. 17:19, 25; cf.
also 38:21; Num. 1:50 et al.) of nnjJ.l in « (25:22, 26; 26:33, 34; 30:6a, 26;
39:35; 40:3, 5, 21 et al.), the box with the m r (25:16, 21; 40:20; cf. also 31:7),
by which is meant the nil? nn^ mentioned in 31:18; 32:15; 34:29,112 the plates
with the inscribed statutes, the obligations y h w h imposed upon Israel (cf.
34:27f.).113 (LXXB: ‘before God* [cf. 16:33]; Vulg.: in tabemaculo ),
also in 30:36; Num. 17:19, 25; note the similarities in terminology between 16:34
and Num. 17:19, 25 and of the alternation of m r n -JBb with mm ^ (30:33;
Num. 17:22). Heb. 9:4 offers a picture that differs from the one in 16:34; Num.
17:19, 25.
According to 16:20 the manna only stayed good for a day, but now it can be
kept indefinitely; on the question see 16:20, 23.
Command of y h w h (16:32), command of Moses (16:33) and account of the
execution (16:34) complement one another. Remarkable is how the text talks about
the storage place. Initially it is not mentioned (16:32); next the holy place is
pointed out (16:33), followed by a more specific place designation (16:34). Several
terms are used twice; niD&Q*? three times (+ □y m i b 2 x ). All the emphasis is
on the keeping of it. The perpetual presence of a plentiful ration of manna for one
person (an omer) is intended as a perpetual reminder to Israel of y h w h ’s care for
the people in the wilderness (16:32).
The supposition of Baentsch and Ruprecht, 276, that 16:32 and 16:33, 34 are
from different writers is quite unlikely (Maiberger, 95f.). Conspicuous is that the
manna is not on public view (cf. 16:32), but kept hidden in the shrine. Apparently
it was the priest’s duty, not only to deposit it on behalf of the people (16:33, 34),
but also to look at it on their behalf. The reasons the manna was kept in the shrine
are likely the following: it came from God and therefore is holy; equally as
important as its being seen by Israel is its being seen by y h w h ; it reminds him of
his care for Israel; so he can be moved to once again act on behalf of his people.
The supposition of Maiberger, 214ff., that the manna was kept in a holy place
because it was viewed as a symbol of the word of God is unfounded. As a cult
object it passes from view in the OT (cf. e.g. 1 Kgs. 8:6ff.); it is mentioned in the
NT (Heb. 9:4).114
1.2 Cf. the use of m a (see 2:24) in the same phrase in Num. 10:33; Deut. 10:8 et al. and Deut.
9:9, 15.
1.3 See THAT, II, 217f.; TWAT, V, 1125ff.; Haran*, 272; B. Volkwein, BZ 13 (1969), 18-40, and
the exegesis of 25:1 Off.
114 For the growth of legends about the location of the ark and other items in the tent shrine/temple
see e.g. 2 Macc. 2:4ff.; 2 Bar. 6:7ff.; in rabbinic literature the jar with manna is specifically included
in the hidden items (Ginzberg*, III, 48; VI, 19); cf. Maiberger, 260f.
LIFE IS BEING CONFIDENT OF YHWH’S NEARNESS 355
16:35 The Israelites ate manna forty years, until they came to settled land. They
ate the manna until they reached the border o f the land o f Canaan.
36 The omer is a tenth o f an ephah.
16:35, 36 consists of notes about how long the manna was used and the size of the
omer with which it was measured, ‘forty,’ see Introd. § 4.5.3. njtf, see 6:16. ‘to
come,’ see Introd. § 3.8. niph., see 2:15; inhabited land as opposed to the
wilderness (cf. Jer. 6:8). nap, see 12:41. ‘Canaan,’ see Introd. § 8.14.
For the termination of the giving of the manna see Josh. 5:12.115 16:35, as
post-mosaicum , has played a role in the discussion about the formation of the Pen
tateuch (Houtman*, Pent., 54f., 345 et al.). The parallelism adds a poetic touch to
16:35; ‘manna’ and ‘eating* are repeated in chiastic order. It is often contended
that the repetition in different form points to a different literary origin of 16:35a
and 35b. No matter, the term ‘settled land’ of 16:35a, which as such has a span of
meanings, is given a specific meaning in 16:35b. The purport of 16:35 is that
Israel, as long as it wandered in the desert, unable to till the land, each day
received the bread from heaven. In TPsJ the use of the manna is further defined as
‘as long as Moses lived,’ but it is also related that the Israelites continued to eat of
it for another forty days after his death, until they had crossed the Jordan.116 The
question to what extent the Israelites had other food available to them - they had
animals (17:3 et al.) and also flour etc. for bringing sacrifices (Lev. 8:2, 16, 3If.;
Num. 7:13ff. et al.) - lies outside the writer’s purview. Congruent with the tenor
of Exod. 16, Israel’s dependence on y h w h , the story makes it appear as if manna
was the only thing the people had to eat (16:16, 18, 23).117
‘tenth,’ see Introd. § 4.11.2. For 16:36 see 16:16.
Ill LIFE IS BEING CONFIDENT OF YHWH’S NEARNESS
Israel still has not learned to be confident that even in the desert y h w h preserves
his people. Again (cf. 15:22-26) thirst is the cause of the unbelief.
Before the writer, in a rapidly changing scene heavy with dialogue, depicts the
dramatic course of events, he first offers a background sketch: Israel continues to
move through the desert ‘a c c o r d in g to y h w h 's in s tr u c tio n . ’ In the judgment of the
writer, y h w h himself is Israel’s guide. Israel comes to Rephidim. There is no
water there (17:1). Distressed, the reader wonders how that can be squared with
the comment that y h w h is Israel’s guide. Next, the writer confronts the reader
with Israel’s assessment of the situation (17:2, 3). y h w h is not in the picture. The
1.5 Cf. C. Brekelmans, “Joshua V 10-12: Another Approach,” OTS 25 (1989), 89-95.
1.6 Cf. Mek. II, 126f. (with additional viewpoints); for the tradition that after Moses’ death the
manna ceased see also Pseudo-Philo, XX, 8, and further Bienaime*, 95ff., 105ff.; Malina, 62.
1.7 According to Keil ‘forty years’ is not to be taken absolutely: YHWH gave his people food only
when there were no other supplies in the wilderness; cf. Heinisch.
356 EXODUS 17:1-7
focus is strictly human-centered. The reader sees before him the enraged people.
He hears how they call Moses to account and demand of him that he live up to his
responsibility as their leader and supply water. He hears how Moses replies,
turning down the demand by telling the people that by coming to him they are
knocking on the wrong door: in reality not he but y h w h is responsible; resisting
him boils down to lack of trust, putting y h w h to the test (17:2; cf. 16:8b). The
answer does nothing to quench the thirst of the people and it infuriates them even
more. The reader sees the conflict escalate. The people mob Moses and blame him
for bringing them out of Egypt, headed for death in the wilderness (16:3). They
depict him as a failed leader, an unconscionable scoundrel, who does not even stop
at leading innocent children and animals to their doom (17:3). With mounting
anxiety the reader watches the episode unfold. Israel disputes that the exodus is the
work of y h w h (cf. 16:3) and demand that the leader appointed by y h w h answer
for his deeds (cf. e.g. Matt. 23:37; Luke 13:34 and see Introd. § 13.4.1). Will
Israel’s revolt frustrate the fulfillment of the promise of the land? Will the history
of liberation end here in the wilderness with the destruction of the people? Have
all y h w h ’s great deeds been in vain?
In a following scene (17:4-6) the writer first puts the spotlight on Moses. Moses
does what the people should have done: in distress call upon the Lord. Moses’
words once again alert the reader to the seriousness of the situation. Moses
himself, y h w h ’s representative, honestly admits that he has lost his control over
the people and fears that he is about to be lynched (17:4). However, when the
writer next cuts to y h w h and lets the reader hear how he reacts to Moses’ cry of
despair, the reader’s fear slowly fades away. Far from being angry with the
people, y h w h does what Moses was unable to do: he meets the desires of the
people (17:2a) and instructs Moses to do something that will provide drink for the
people. But before the reader’s fears subside, he first still has an anxious moment.
Moses is told to go on ahead, taking with him some of elders and also the staff
with which in Egypt he struck the River (17:5). Why the staff? Will it be used, as
in Egypt, to call up a greater calamity? Then the reader hears from the very mouth
of y h w h that he himself will be present on the rock at Horeb (17:6). Moses is
summoned to the mountain of God, the place where y h w h had revealed himself
before (cf. 3:2ff.). The reader senses that, in view of y h w h ’s presence there, only
some of the elders may accompany Moses (cf. 24:1, 9). However, he still does not
know for what purpose y h w h himself will be there. The reader is delighted when
he learns that Moses’ mission with the staff is to make the rock produce water.
The reader is dumbfounded and deeply impressed: not only will y h w h give water
in the wilderness; when y h w h himself is present, even a solid rock can become a
spring of flowing water! It will be shown that also the wilderness is y h w h ’s
domain and that also there he is near his people. So it will become manifest that
he is all powerful and in charge of the deliverance and care of the people, and that
it is true that Moses is no more than y h w h ’s envoy (cf. 17:2, 3). Moses only
makes a strong impression when y h w h himself is near.
Succinctly (17:6 end), but with explicit mention of the elders as wit
LIFE IS BEING CONFIDENT OF YHWH’S NEARNESS 357
nesses - they can vouch for the truth of the happening - the writer relates that it
happened according to y h w h ’s announcement and instruction. He sees no point in
getting the reader all excited about the miracle. He relates the history as a lesson.
So, skipping the people’s reaction to the deliverance, he comes to the significance
of the incident. He apprises the reader of it by writing about the new name Moses
gave to the place: from now on Rephidim will be known as Test and Quarrel
(17:7). So the very name of the place is a reminder of what happened there. The
name is designed to keep alive the lesson of history (cf. 16:32-34; 17:16, and see
Essentials 12:1-13:16). The name with explanation discloses what lay at the core
of the event:118 Israel quarrelled with Moses; it was more than an ordinary
conflict with the leader about necessary provisions; through their actions the
Israelites revealed their doubts about y h w h ’s love for them and his power to save
even in the darkest hour; they manifested thereby that they were not sure about
y h w h ’s presence, so putting y h w h to the test (17:2, 7). y h w h graciously and
without anger accepted the challenge. He desired that Israel get to know him fully,
and with the help of Moses, the impugned leader (17:2-4), he proved that he is
forever near his people, also in the desert, and that Moses acts on his behalf.
y h w h passed the test gloriously. Israel makes its way through the wilderness, led
by y h w h ! (cf. 17:1).
The name of the place is to memorialize the history for later generations. Them
the writer has in mind. They must be convinced that even in the darkest moments,
when God seems to have abandoned them, they need not and may not doubt
y h w h ’s presence.119 For y h w h , as history teaches over and again, can do
unbelievably great things. One may put one’s hope in him. If y h w h was willing to
help unbelieving Israel in the wilderness, how much more will he help those who
look to him for salvation! (cf. Luke 11:Iff.; 18:1 ff.; Jas. 5:13ff.).

17:1-7
INTRODUCTION TO EXEGESIS OF
Bibl.: see at 15:22-27 and W. Herrmann, “Ex 17.7bp und die Frage nach der
Gegenwart Jahwes in Israel,” in J. Hausmann - H.-J. Zobel (eds.), Alttes-
tamentliche Glaube und Biblische Theologie (Fs H.D. PreuB), Stuttgart et al. 1992,
46-55; J. Koenig, “Sourciers, thaumaturges et scribes,” RHR 164 (1963), 20-38,
165-81; W.H. Propp, Water in the Wilderness: A Biblical M otif and Its Mytholo
gical Background , Atlanta 1987; Schart (see Bibl. 15:22-27).
The division of the material presents no problems. 15:22-27 relates a distinct
1.8 As more often, the name giving is the key to understand a Scriptural passage; cf. e.g. 2:10, 22;
17:15.
1.9 Cf. Matt. 28:20 (see 3:12); it reminds the Christian of the Spirit (John 14:15ff.; 16:5ff.) and the
sacraments (cf. 1 Cor. 10:4); cf. Vischer*, 225ff. (with a reference to Luther and Calvin).
358 EXODUS 17: 1-7
episode. Recurring terms in the pericope include D'D (17:1, 2, 3, 6; Introd.

§ 3.33) and nnti (17:1, 2, 6; see 7:18), which link the pericope to 15:22-27;
furthermore (17:2 [2x], 7) and HOJ (17:2, 7; see 15:25); the last term, along
with fi4? (17:3; see 15:24), connects the pericope to the two previous sections,
15:22-27 and 16:1-36. The complaint of 17:3 echoes a theme earlier heard in
16:3.
Literary-critical analysis has led scholars to believe that 17:1-7 is not of one
piece. Some of the things that are pointed out are: 17:2 and 17:3 (Qtf is remark
able after 17:2) are variants; ‘there’ in 17:6 presupposes a designation of place in
the previous story; Horeb (17:6) as scene of action conflicts with Rephidim (17:1;
cf. 19:2); y h w h ’s presence and Moses’ conduct (17:6) are a doublet; the giving of
the compound name in 17:7 appears to go back to a later combination of two
names. Without going into a lot of details and ignoring minor differences among
exegetes, I offer a brief overview of the various positions. There is a consensus
among advocates of the documentary hypothesis that 17:1 (not including the end,
l'N i etc.) is from P.
Older authors120 were inclined to regard 17:1-7 as a combination of J and E,
and to attribute a major part to E. Baentsch’s position is illustrative of this
approach: 17:3-6 E ;121 17:1 end, 2, 7 J .122 More recent authors go in various
directions. Hyatt defends a combination of two literary strands, J and E, but
attributes Massah to J and Meribah to E. Te Stroete believes that it is impossible to
precisely unravel J and E. Others123 think that the text is chiefly from J. I cite
here Noth’s view (idem*, UPy 32): 17:1 end, 2, 4-7 is from J, except for Massah
in 17:7 and the allusions to the name in 17:2, 7 (Dtr.);124 that leaves 17:3 over
for E .125 Noth seems reluctant in the use of the sigla J and E. That makes it
understandable how Schmid* 1983, 99, while maintaining a Deuteronomistic
redaction in the spirit of Noth, can assume a later amplified ‘Grunderzahlung’
(with 17:3 as addition). Similarly Zenger*, Israel, 58ff., thinks along the lines of
an expanded ‘basic story’ (according to him comprising 17:3-6*). He assumes a
Deuteronomistic editing (17:1 end, 2, 7 [no direct speech]) and an editing by the
‘editors’ of the Pentateuch (17:1, 5*, 6a, 7 end).126 The noted incongruities will
be looked at in the exegesis. Here I note that in the narrative as it lies before us,
120 See e.g. C.H. Comill, ZAW 11 (1891), 20ff.; Holzinger; Meyer*, IN , 55f., 117; GreBmann*,
145ff.
121 With J elements: the elders; YHWH is present (and performs the miracle); according to E Moses
acts with his staff.
122 With E elements: Israel puts YHWH to the test, the name Massah; the name Meribah belongs to J.
123 See e.g. Fritz*, 10ff., 48ff.; Coats*, 53ff.; Schmid*, J a h w is t , 64ff., and also Childs; Michaeli.
124 Not so Auerbach*, 87: also belonging to J; Fritz*, 5Iff.: they are expansions of J.
123 Auerbach*, 87: 17:6a; Fritz*, 11: 17:3 is P fragment; the tradition of the presence of YHWH (and
his performance of the miracle in the sight of the elders) is pre-Jahwistic; J added Moses and the staff
to the story (5Iff.).
126 For thoughts on the composition of the text see further Eerdmans*, 53f.; Rudolph*, 36f.; Fuss*,
345ff.; E. Ruprecht, Z4W86 (1974), 302ff.
Moses* first rhetorical question is not all that meaningful if it is not followed by a
second question (17:2). Consequently, also both names in 17:7 are closely linked.
Furthermore, in the narrative in its present form, the explanation of the name
Massah (17:7) and the prelude to the name in 17:2 are ‘leading’ elements. They
colour the story. They contain an interpretation of the history which lifts it above
the level of being just a story about thirst, quarrelling with the leader and divine
help, and turn it into a trenchant portrayal of Israel’s lack of trust and faith in
y h w h . That that was the concern of the writer is also evident from the fact that he
omits a description of the giving of the water and the reaction of the people, and
that he concludes his narrative with an explanation of the name Massah.
Also the pre-literary history of the pericope has been researched. I offer an
overview of the results. According to GreBmann*, 145ff., J and E made use of
‘Ortssagen,’ which explain the sources of respectively Meribah and Massah on the
basis of episodes from the history of Israel’s sojourn in the wilderness. Also others
(e.g. Noth) assume that at one time there were local traditions associated with
Meribah and Massah. According to Fritz*, 54f., Exod. 17 was at least inspired by
the etiology of Meribah: there the spring flows from a cleft in the rock, which
looks as if produced by a huge blow; about the spring the story goes that at one
time it was made by the deity himself; the story became associated with Israel and
its God, and through J also with Moses. Auerbach*, 86ff., believes that behind
Exod. 17 lies the ‘Quellsage’ of Kadesh (Introd. § 8.23.5), whose theme is the
origin of the main spring (possibly two springs) of the oasis with the double name
Massah and Meribah. The spring as such already existed before Israel arrived
there. Its origin came to be linked with y h w h , Moses and Israel. In the process,
existing names acquired a new meaning.127
The question whether local traditions were used for the history of Massah and
Meribah, and whether existing names were given a new interpretation by means of
folk etymology or literary etymology (Introd. § 5.d), cannot be answered with
certainty. The current text presents the following picture: a certain place, called
Rephidim (17:1), owing to Israel’s ugly behaviour (17:2) acquires a new name
(17:7) (cf. e.g. Gen. 28:19 and see Introd. § 5.e). From now on it keeps alive the
memory of Israel’s misconduct (cf. 17:15f.).
See further the observations in connection with 17:5, 6.
127 Cf. 114ff. and see Meyer*, IN , 55f.; Noth (idem*, U P, 128f.) and Introd. § 8.18; note the
absence of a close relationship between the names and the origination of the spring; in connection with
the naming of springs see Gen. 26:19ff. and e.g. Fuss*, 348 (a conflict between Israel and another
group about the use of the spring lies behind the name Meribah); according to S. Lehming, “Massa und
Meriba,” Z A W 73 (1961), 71-7, the name Massah is not the name of an actual place; a wrong
interpretation of Deut. 33:8 turned Massah into a topographical designation.
360 EXODUS 17: 1-7

EXEGESIS OF 17:1-7
17:1 Thereupon the whole community o f the Israelites set out from the wilderness
o f Sin, by stages, according to y h w h ’s instruction, and they encamped at Rephi-
dim. However, there was no water fo r the people to drink.
Beside 17:1 see 16:1. DiTBODV28 ‘to their decampings’ (for b see KoSynt
§ 332q), is normally thought to mean: the Israelites repeatedly broke camp,
travelled from breaking camp (= station) to breaking camp (= station) (cf. Num.
33:12ff.); cf. Num. 33:1, 2; Gen. 13:3 and also Exod. 40:36, 38 (DiT&orrtaa =
during the whole time they were on the move); possibly the pi. might be related
not to journeying by stages, but to the one-time division into companies of the
Israelites (cf. Num. 10:12, 28 and see also Exod. 12:41, 51); cf. LXX: Kara
TiapepPoAoa;, ‘to their camps’ (only here as translation of VOD). m rr (see
4:10), cf. Num. 9:18, 20, 23; 10:13; (33:2), where the expression is used in
connection with the cloud which signalled the departure; Israel is being led by
y h w h (not, as the people mistakenly thought, by human beings; cf. 16:3); cf.
13:21f. nan, see 13:20.
‘Rephidim,’ see Introd. § 8.32; TPsJ: + ‘the place where their hands neglected
the precepts of the law, so that the springs dried up;’ the amplification is based on
a Haggadic explanation of the name128129 and on the equation water = Torah (see
at 15:25, 26); cf. e.g. Mek. II, 129, 135, and see Bienaime*, 59f., 63ff. Disregard
of the Torah is the cause of thirst. Another explanation of Rephidim is given by
Origen: ‘sound judgment’ (explanation with the help of N£n and in ); y o he
explains as ‘temptation’ (taking his cue from no]). fNi (see 2:12) begins a noun
clause which provides information about the situation in which Israel finds itself
(cf. Job 6:15-20). Dun (see 7:18), cf. KoSynt § 406a; for the construct chain
see Ges-K § 115f. After the ‘according to y h w h ’s instruction,’ the end of the
clause creates a measure of anxiety: though y h w h leads there is no water; the
question seems warranted, ‘Is y h w h with us or not?’ (17:7).
17:2 So the people quarrelled with Moses. They said: ‘Give us water, so that we
may drink.*Moses replied: ‘Why do you quarrel with me? Why do you put y h w h to
the test?*
17:3 The people thirsted there fo r water. So the people raged against Moses. They
said: H ow could you bring us out o f Egypt? To let me, my children and my
livestock die o f thirst?*
128 Cf. Num. 10:6, 12; 33:2; vqq (OT 12 X ; pi. 10X ; cf. Ges-K § 20m; BL § 69z), derivative of
U03 (see 12:37): 'decamping.’
129 Cf. TPsJ Num. 33:14: prPT lio n ‘and because their hands were weakened by the words
of the law (there was no water ...).’
3"i;i imperf. qal of a n (OT 67X; qal 65 x), ‘to quarrel (with),’ ‘find fault with’
(17:2 [2x; + ay; cf. Gen. 26:20; Num. 20:3 et al.]; 21:18); as often happens,
oral threats easily turn into violence of a more physical nature (17:4b; 21:18); for
derivative a n (OT 60x), ‘conflict,’ ‘(legal) dispute,’ see 17:7 (cf. Gen. 13:7;
Deut. 1:12 et al.); 23:2, 3, 6 (cf. Deut. 21:5; 25:1 et al.). See THAT , II
TWAT, VII, 496ff.
□yn, in TPsJ ‘the wicked of the people’ is subject; cf. 16:27 and also 16:20,
and see Num. 11:4 MT and e.g. also annot. SV at 17:2; it weakens the force of
the statement; Ibn Ezra discerns two groups in 17:2: a group without water, who
quarrelled with Moses, and a group which still had water from Alush (Num.
33:14) and tested y h w h . According to Philo (VAf, I, 210) the people were
desperate. According to Wisd. 11:4 there was no wailing: Israel prayed to God for
water, ay, Cairo Genizah fragment has *?y (cf. 17:3).
un (Introd. § 3.36), the pi. is striking; is it assumed that besides Moses also
Aaron is being addressed? (cf. 16:2; Num. 20:2, and e.g. Ibn Ezra, Nach-
manides); many MSS, Qm, Sam. Pent.: run (sing.; cf. Num. 11:13); cf. LXX,
Pesh., Vulg., TPsJ, TNf, MSS TO (see Sanderson*, 79f.) and many modem
translations. A clash between the people and Moses ensues. At issue is his failure
as their leader. The people ask him to be a real leader and to look after the needs
of the people. All Moses can do is clarify the situation. Not his authority but that
of y h w h is at stake. n&, as I see it, does not introduce, as commonly assumed, an
interrogative clause, but an indignant exclamation (cf. 15:24). For paragogic nun
see Introd. § 2.2. n&y, see Ges-K § 103c. no, many MSS, Sam. Pent.: noi (cf.
Sanderson*, 93); cf. LXX, Pesh. n03, see 15:25.
imperf. cons, qal of KDS (OT lOx), ‘to be thirsty’ (Judg. 4:19; 15:18 et
al.); here: + D'Db, ‘panting for water’ (cf. Amos 8:11 and see also Ps. 42:3;
63:2; Brockelmann § 107c); for NpjS, ‘thirst’ (OT 17x; Deut. 28:48; Judg. 15:18
et al.) see end 17:3. □,ob, Vulg.: pro aquae penuria , ‘due to lack of water.’ p 4?,
see 15:24. Sam. Pent.: noN‘*i; LXX: Aeyovxe^. nob (strengthened by nr [not in
Sam. Pent.]; cf. 2:20), see 1:18. ‘to bring out,’ see Introd. § 3.39.2. ‘to (cause to)
die,’ cf. 16:3. 'ntf (Ges-K § 117e) etc.; the sing, causes surprise; the people speak
as an individual (cf. Num. 20:19); the change does not mean that it is from the
hand of another scribe (see Johnson*, One, Ilf.); pi. ‘us’ in LXX, Pesh., Vulg.
(LXX), Vulg.: the livestock), TPsJ, TNf and e.g. UV, CV, GNB. ‘children,’ see
Introd. § 3.10.1. *upD (KoSynt § 254c; Ges-K § 93ss), see Introd. § 9.1.1.
The explicit mention of the livestock and children (cf. 16:3) has drawn attention;
Mek. II, 130: they said: ‘a man’s beast is as his life ..., if ... his beast is not with
him, he suffers’ (cf. ExR. XXVI, 2); Nachmanides: the cattle are mentioned
because they need a lot of water; children, because they could not suffer thirst at
all (cf. Lam. 4:4). In any case, the wording evokes a dramatic and heartbreaking
picture, which drives home the gravity of the situation. The Israelites talk like true
farmers whose livelihood rests on having family and animals.
362 EXODUS 1 7 :1 -7

17:2 (and the end of 17:1) and 17:3 agree in part with each other: the theme of
both verses is the lack of water and the reaction of the people to it. Literary critics
attribute the repetition as due to different sources. In the course of time, the
relationship between 17:2 and 17:3 has been variously explained. Nachmanides:
the events took place in only a few days; at first the Israelites still had water and
put y h w h to the test (17:2); after a few days they thirsted for water (17:3).
Ehrlich: 15:2 describes quarrels with Moses at the stations before Rephidim; 17:3
(ina) the complaint of Israel in Rephidim. Gispen: Moses’ words had a calming
influence on the people for a few hours (17:2); soon afterwards they grumbled
again (17:3). Cassuto: 17:3 gives a detailed account after the general statement in
17:2. Jewish exegetes have tied the question of the relationship between 17:2 and
17:3 to the question of whether the outburst of the people was justified. The rabbis
concluded that there was no (sufficient) reason for it: there was no real lack of
water at Rephidim; the people had enough with them, but worried about the
future; imaginary need was what fueled the insurgence, the desire for security (cf.
16:19, 20), or: there would have been plenty of water if rations had been institu
ted; or: they only claimed to be thirsty to be able to try out God (17:2); the people
were stricken with thirst as punishment for the baseless contention (17:3) (see
Leibowitz*, 273ff.). The last explanation is contrived. There is no reason to doubt
that the lack of water was real. 17:2 and 17:3 can be regarded as variants. Their
combination creates a series of dramatic events culminating in a climax: the people
quarrel with Moses; he protests that rebellion against him is tantamount to
mistrusting y h w h (17:2); his words are of no avail; the thirst and rebellion mount;
Moses is held responsible for bringing the people out of Egypt, toward their death
(17:3); having lost control of the situation, Moses turns to y h w h for help (17:4).
Earlier, we already briefly touched on the question of the significance of putting
to the test. In 17:2 Moses analyses Israel’s grumbling by stating that in effect they
do not attack him but put y h w h to the test. That raises the question, how can
Moses say that by complaining to him, the leader, the people are at the wrong
address? How can a complaint about lack of water be construed as a testing of
y h w h ? Can the complaint be typified as a putting to the test because it is un
founded? (see above). In rabbinic exegesis the putting to the test is understood in
this vein. Israel adds conditions to serving y h w h : ‘If he is Lord over all things,
even as he is Lord over us, we will serve him. If not, then we will not serve
him ... If he provides for all our needs we will serve him, ...* (Mek. II, 134; cf.
ExR. XXVI, 2; MidrTanh. Exod . V, 3, and see Leibowitz*, 284ff.). The context
suggests the following explanation: rebellion against Moses is rebellion against
y h w h (cf. 16:8b); holding Moses responsible for the exodus out of Egypt (cf.
16:3) constitutes a denial of the work of y h w h (cf. 16:6ff.); rebellion against
Moses bespeaks lack of confidence in y h w h ’s ability to bring deliverance in
hopeless situations; in essence it is doubting y h w h ’s involvement in Israel’s fate,
also in the wilderness (cf. 17:7 and see 16:3);130 it is rank unbelief because,
notwithstanding all the great deeds y h w h already has done for Israel, they still are
not sure as to what to think of him (17:7). In distress, the only appropriate
response is turning to y h w h in prayer (Wisd. 11:4 and e.g. Ps. 107:3, 13, 19 et
al.). Moses himself, one could say, gives the people the right example (17:4).
17:4 Moses, however, cried out to y h w h : ‘How should I handle these people? Any
moment now they are going to stone me. 9
For the beginning of 17:4 see 15:25. ")DK*?, see Introd. § 3.5.2. ‘to handle,* see
Introd. § 3.41.1; Moses does not know how to control the people, ‘these people,*
see Introd. § 3.40.2. CDUDni;, see 2:3; 12:4; made even stronger in TPsJ: ‘in a
very short while.* ip o , see 8:22; for perf. cons, see KoSynt § 367p; Ges-K
§ 112x. The text does not go into detail. Not indicated is where Moses is at the
moment. Is it assumed that he fled from the mob? If so, one might consider
translating: ‘They almost stoned me.’ There can be no question that Moses’ cry is
to be taken as a cry for help. He fears that the people’s court will proceed to lynch
him as a failed leader (cf. Num. 14:10) if y h w h does not soon interfere. Mek. II,
130f., in addition to interpreting Moses’ words as a complaint about his fate, there
is also the view that Moses interceded on behalf of the needy people. Ephraem
believes that implicitly the prayer is also a prayer for the people: Moses will be
left alone if the people are given to drink. According to Hertz, Moses asks y h w h
what he should do for the people (to keep them from succumbing to despair and
sin). Josephus’ portrayal of Moses is that of a fearless man. The people’s anger at
Moses and their threat to stone him he locates at Elim, where Moses by his
agreeable presence and persuasive words manages to talk them out of it (AJ, III,
13); in connection with Rephidim, Josephus notes that Moses turned to YHWH in
prayer, beseeching him to give the people to drink (AJ , III, 33ff.).
17:5 y h w h answered Moses: ‘Go on ahead o f the people, take some o f the elders
o f Israel with you, and take with you in your hand your staff with which you struck
the River, and go.
17:6 As soon as I am available there fo r you on the rock at Horeb, you are to
strike the rock. Then water will come out o f it, and the people shall drink.9 This
Moses did in the sight o f the elders o f Israel.
•ny, see 12:12. see Introd. § 3.42.2. ‘to take,’ see Introd. § 3.30. 'jptD (for
ID see 16:27), see 3:16; TNf: ‘from the wise men.’ ‘your staff (Introd. § 3.21.9-
11), LXX: ‘the staff;’ idem in 7:15; Rylaarsdam: the staff from the sanctuary (cf.
Num. 20:9). HD3, see 2:11. U, with dage§ forte (Ges-K § 20f). ‘River,’ see
Introd. § 8.10. The effect of the clause with "IBM (cf. 7:15) is the following: the
reader is reminded of an earlier miracle with the staff and recalls that magnificent
things can be done with it; it creates anticipation; what kind of momentous event is
130 Rashi: Israel puts to the test by saying: ‘Would he be able to give water in an arid land?’
364 EXODUS 1 7 :1 -7
going to take place this time? Second np, Sam. Pent.: npn. ro^m (Introd.
§3.14.1) perf. cons, as continuation of an imperative (Ges-K § 112r; Jotion
§ 1191); TPsJ: + ‘on account of their clamour;’ the expansion likely does not refer
to 17:3, but to the explanation set forth in Mek. II, 13If.: the staff is included in
the three items (incense, the ark, the staff), which the Israelites regarded as tools
to inflict punishment (the staff brought the ten plagues in Egypt as well as the ten
plagues by the sea), but it could also, as they should know, bring blessing (cf. also
ExR. XXVI, 2; Rashi; Nachmanides; and see Bienaime*, 71ff.). The reminder of
the first plague creates anxiety: there is going to be a miracle. Will it be blessing
or, as for the Egyptians, affliction? The sequel shows that the Israelites are treated
altogether differently than the Egyptians (cf. Wisd. 11:1-14).
' J n , see Introd. § 3.15. ’•JD4? i m , see Introd. § 3.42.2 and 3:5. For Tipo t o o oe
in LXX see Frankel*, 87: originally probably Kpotepog oou; y h w h was there
before Moses (there is no encounter). How to understand ^S 4? "iQy, which occurs
only here in the OT with y h w h as subject? In the local sense: will y h w h stand
before (the eyes of) Moses - as commonly thought - or manifest himself? In the
temporal sense: y h w h is there prior to Moses; y h w h expects Moses there (cf.
Ezek. 3:22f.)? (Zenger*, Israel, 58; cf. Ehrlich). The use of ^D4? “IDU with human
beings as subject argues for another meaning. It is used for audiences with
prominent individuals (Gen. 43:15; 1 Kgs. 1:28; 3:16 et al.), in reference to God
(Gen. 18:22; 19:27 et al.), and in the sense of ‘to be in the service of,’ e.g. of a
king (1 Sam. 16:22; 1 Kgs. 1:2 et al.) and of God (1 Kgs. 17:1; 18:15; 2 Kgs.
3:14; 5:16 et al.).131 In my judgment, the expression, however strange its ap
plication to y h w h may seem, here has the last meaning (cf. Keil). Not indicated is
how the presence of y h w h is to be visualized.132 In any case, y h w h ’s presence
is the prerequisite for the giving of the refreshing water. Often y h w h and Moses
are regarded as each other’s ‘competitors’ (see Introduction to exegesis). Here, as
elsewhere (e.g. 10:13), the writer seems to think that Moses could only act as a
magician thanks to y h w h ’s intervention (cf. also e.g. 1 Kgs. 17:24; 2 Kgs. 4:33f.;
the magic act is accompanied by prayer).
T i2$ (OT ca. 70x), ‘rock,’ in 17:6 (2x); 33:21, 22 evidently denotes ‘height,’
‘mountain’ (cf. Num. 23:9; Jer. 18:14; Nah. 1:6; Job 14:18; 18:4; 28:10);133 the
rock, the mountain, is the place where power is concentrated (cf. Introd. § 3.16
and 3:1, 2); as such it belongs to the places that have a special relationship with
the deity, the holy places, places where theophanies happen(ed) (cf. also Judg.
6:21; 13:19). Precisely there y h w h manifests himself. The concentration of power
is at his disposal. For n s r r ti; TPsJ has: Dejn "onm *nnx3, ‘at the place
where you will see the print of a foot (on the rock)’; cf. Mek. II, 133, and see
Bienaime*, 75f.; as with the translation of the LXX (see above), so this rendering
131 See Dhorme*, 63f.; Notscher*, 85ff.; Reindl*, 20, 34.

132 See e.g. Murphy, Cassuto: through the pillar of cloud; Gispen: an invisible, yet real presence.
133 See T H A T , II, 538ff.; T W A T , VI, 973ff.; Schwarzenbach*, 113f.
stems from aversion to the anthropomorphism; cf. TNf: ‘my Word will stand
ready ...’ (but note also Ginzberg*, VI, 20 n. 122). According to ExR. XXVI, 2,
the people were allowed to select the rock. Note, however, that the article is used:
the well-known rock, D im (Introd. § 8.23.2), cf. 4:27; possibly: ‘on the Horeb.’
rPDm (cf. 17:5 and Ges-K § 49k), viz., with the staff; again a miracle is per
formed by striking. In TPsJ TISD is applied to the staff: "ptDin i r o n , ‘with the
stones of your staff;’ the staff was of sapphire (cf. TPsJ on 4:20; Mek. II, 133;
Rashi; see Bienaime*, 74f.). ‘to come out,* see Introd. § 3.24.1; Sam. Pent.:
sing. □"D, TPsJ emphatically: ‘water for drinking’ (cf. 17:1). ID, see 1:12.
see Introd. § 3.38. 'JpT, LXX: tcbv mwv = 'JD (cf. Sanderson*, 63); cf. also
Num. 20:8.

The interpretation of "QiJ is a matter of dispute. Rabbinic literature, taking
into account Moses’ complaint (17:4), offers diverse explanations: pass by the
people, so that whoever feels wrongly treated, can make it known; pass by the
words, the sin of the people, that is, grant forgiveness (Mek. II, 131; ExR. XXVI,
2); according to this explanation, y h w h takes the side of the people; y h w h ’s
encouragement is even understood as a reprimand: Moses’ words were slander
ous.134 Also later exegetes have opted for passing by: to go through the middle
of the people (Van der Palm) to inspect or select the elders (cf. 1 Sam.
16:10);135 to walk away from the crowd to avoid being stoned or in order not to
be a party to the conduct of the people (Fensham). The use of 'jab 12V in other
passages (Gen. 32:17; 33:3, 14; Deut. 3:28; Josh. 4:5 et al.) suggests as likely
meaning ‘to go in front,’ ‘to go on ahead.’136 First off, Moses is told to go on
ahead of the people; next he is given details on how to move on ahead, viz.,
accompanied by elders (cf. Num. 16:25) and with the staff (cf. 4:20). Moses and
the elders are separated from the people. They alone will witness the presence of
y h w h and the miracle (17:6; cf. 24:1, 9). What is meant? That Moses and the
elders walk on ahead, and that the people follow and arrive when the miracle has
taken place and water is available? Or that Moses and the elders walk on ahead
and that the people get there much later (19: If.)? (so Zenger*, Israel, 57f.). The
latter seems unlikely.
The just raised question brings us to the geographical problem in the pericope.
Israel is at Rephidim (17:1), also after the miracle (17:8). Moses has to go ahead.
No indication is given as to in which direction; Strack: in the direction the caravan
had taken; Cassuto: further in the wadi, in the direction indicated by the pillar of
cloud, ‘there’ in 17:6 stands out. It has no antecedent in the preceding story. Is a
134 Rashi; cf. e.g. Z o h a r E xo d . 64a and see Bienaime*, 69f.; Leibowitz*, 278f.
135 Ehrlich: the order of the clauses argues against ‘going in front o f (cf. the free rendering in UV,
CV, WV, GNB); Eerdmans* favours a similar understanding.
136 See LXX, Vulg.; also in M e k . II, 131; see further e.g. Nachmanides, Dillmann, Noth.
366 EXODUS 17:1 -7
place designation at the end of 17:5 missing (e.g. a rock in the vicinity of the
camp) and is the placing of the miracle at Horeb an element from another literary
layer (E) (e.g. Holzinger, Beer) or secondary? (Baentsch; Hyatt; cf. also e.g.
Bohl; Heinisch; Noth and also Eerdmans*, 54). However, there is no question that
the current text distinguishes between the place where the people rebel (17:1-4, 7)
and the place where the miracle happens (17:5, 6). The writer associates that
happening emphatically with Horeb, the place where earlier y h w h had revealed
himself (3:2ff.), a most appropriate location for the miracle.137 Horeb is the
destination of Moses and the elders. Did also the Israelites quench their thirst
there? How far did the people have to travel to get there? The writer is silent on
such questions. Nachmanides surmises that the waters of Horeb flowed to the
camp138 or were brought from there. It seems likely that the writer’s (final
redactor’s) topographical framework has a few loose ends. Rather than assuming
that Horeb denotes a larger area than Sinai (Introd. § 8.23.2) and that the local of
the miracle was not the mountain of God, to me it seems better to suppose that the
topographical problem stems from the evolution of the text, which results in the
following picture: Moses with the elders (and after them the Israelites) had already
been at Horeb (cf. also 18:5), prior to their arrival at the Sinai (19:If.).
In 17:5, 6 y h w h ’s command to Moses is described. At the end of 17:6, the
‘This Moses did’ shows that Moses did with the staff as he had been instructed. It
is emphatically reported that the elders are witnesses. The representatives of the
people, the men who speak with authority, can vouch for the miracle.139 As
stated, the writer omits a description of the coming of the water and of the
reaction of the people (but note Num. 20:11). Josephus (A J , III, 33ff.) does not
ignore it: the people (cf. LXX) witness the miracle performed by Moses and the
coming of an abundance of very clear water; they admire Moses, so highly
honoured by God, and bring grateful sacrifices to God for his care for them.
In my exegesis, y h w h ’s reaction is not a direct response to Moses’ cry for help.
He does not punish the people, as he did after the revelation at Sinai, but accepts
the challenge implied in the rebellion of the people against Moses - ‘Is y h w h
with us or isn’t he?’ - and gives Moses instructions which will provide proof that
y h w h is indeed with Israel (cf. 16:6a, 7b, 12). The proof is given (17:6 end). The
rebellion of the people afforded him the opportunity to demonstrate his power. So
the authority of his representative is restored (cf. Koran 17:92). So y h w h ’s
response is also an answer to Moses’ cry for help. Besides, y h w h ’s intervention
has once again shown that Moses is only y h w h ’s envoy - he sure was defenseless
when the people attacked him (17:2-4)! - and that the deliverance is entirely
137 On the mountain of God as source of healing water see Ezek. 47:If.; Joel 4:18; Zech. 14:8.
138 Cf. also Hertz and already E xR . XXVI, 2; for the image of the travelling spring see at 15:25, 26.
139 According to an old explanation they accompanied Moses, lest the people should say, ‘Perhaps
there were springs there’ (this rationalistic explanation is maintained by Reimarus; see below); see e.g.
M ek. II, 131; E xR . XXVI, 2; Rashi; cf. among others Murphy; Keil.
YHWH’S doing (17:6a).

The source of the water is Horeb, the mountain of God (see above), a rocky
mountain range; that is, the water comes from a dead, dry and arid monolith
which gets terribly hot in the sun, and which is as solid as it is immovable. From
such an unlikely place y h w h is able to cause to flow the cool, refreshing and
healing water!140 Attempts have been made to explain the miracle by pointing to
an observed natural phenomenon: the sudden gushing forth of a stream of water
through the striking and shattering of a (thin) layer of rock, freeing a hidden
reservoir of water behind it.141 Reimarus (Introd. § 5.45.2), I, 354ff., debunks
the miracle by pointing to Moses’ familiarity with the area. Moses was acquainted
with the springs and used them for watering his cattle (cf. also Deut. 9:21).
Hitting upon water without rain in a dry desert was to the Israelites, coming from
Egypt and not familiar with the phenomenon of rain, a miracle. That made it easy
for Moses to prove God’s nearness: he pointed them to a stream gushing from the
mountain. Through the addition of the motion with the staff, the writer, according
to Reimarus, gave the ‘miracle’ an extra push.
For another tradition on the origin of a source of water in the wilderness see
Num. 21:17f. (cf. Gaster*, 302f.; Reymond*, 133ff.).142 Rabbinic exegesis has
attributed to the God-given water the same properties the manna would have had;
it can assume different tastes: the taste of old and new wine, of milk, of honey, of
all sweet drinks in the world (Mek . II, 174).
Paul’s identification of the rock with Christ (1 Cor. 10:4) has been variously
worked out in Christian exegesis, for instance by Origen and Gregory of Nyssa.
According to Origen, after Christ had been scourged and crucified, he produced
the rivers of the NT; if he had not been beaten and water and blood had not
flowed from his side (John 19:34; cf. Bienaime*, 287f.), we would all have
suffered from thirst for the Word of God; not only Moses but also the elders led
the people to the water from the rock, that is, not only Moses but also the
prophets and the patriarchs proclaim Christ (Horn, in Exod.y XI). According to
Gregory of Nyssa, ‘the rock,’ inaccessible and forbidding to unbelievers, is by the
staff of faith turned into thirst-quenching drink which permeates the inner being of
140 Cf. Deut. 32:13; Ps. 81:17; Job 29:6; Sib. Or. V, 282: even from the most worthless parts of the
land can come precious gifts.
141 See e.g. Holzinger; Gispen; Cassuto; Beegle*, 183f.; note already Philo ( V M , I, 211); Ishodad
thinks of a little water, hidden by angels, which increased enormously (cf. 1 Kgs. 17:14ff.; Matt.
14:13ff.; 15:32ff. et al.).
142 For ‘water from the rock’ elsewhere in the OT see Introd. § 12.7.2; 12.7.6-8; Bienaime*, 76ff.
In connection with 17:6 Ishodad cites the view that twelve holes formed in the rock (a stream of water
for each of the tribes; see at 15:27) and also the notion that the Israelites carried the rock with them
from place to place (on the last view see also the discussion of 1 Cor. 10:4 in Calmet); see also 1 Cor.
10:4 (Introd. § 13.6) and Koran 7:160. For religion-historical parallels see Greflmann*, 154; Fritz*, 54
n. 27; Gaster*, 233f.; Koenig, 37f.
368 EXODUS 17 :1 -7
those who are willing to receive it ... (cf. John 14:23) ( VM, II, 135).143
The equation of water and Torah has already been touched on (see 7:17). The
mention of Horeb (= the place of the giving of the law; Exod. 19ff.) in 17:6 has
produced the suggestion that Exod. 17 describes the prelude to the gift of life,
which the people in Exod. 20 receive in the form of the Torah = the life-giving
water from God (cf. Isa. 58:9-11).144 The text does not support this interpreta
tion. The tenor of the pericope is: y h w h is near to his people, preserves their life,
even in the wilderness, the abode of death. The focus of the passage is y h w h ’s
nearness, not the symbolism of the water.145
17:7 He named that place Test and Quarrel, because there the Israelites had
quarrelled and tested y h w h with the words: ‘Is y h w h with us or not?’
17:7 is correlative with 17:2. ‘He named* (Introd. §3.45.1), it would seem
obvious that Moses is subject,146 but it is also possible that the indefinite ‘one* is
meant (cf. 15:23; see e.g. Vredenburg, CV). ‘Test and Quarrel,’ see Introd.
§ 8.18. The names (tying in with 17:2) are elucidated in chiastic order, bv with
causal meaning (e.g. Joiion § 170h; Williams § 291). ‘either ... or,’ see Introd.
§ 3.4.2. see 2:12. z n p , see 3:20. For the conception of y h w h amid his people
see also 33:3, 5; 34:9; Num. 11:20; 14:14; 14:42; for the people to live, YHWH
must be present (cf. also Deut. 1:42; 7:21; Josh. 3:10); but when there is unbelief
and apostasy, his presence brings evil (e.g. 33:5); when evil strikes, on reflection
one may learn from it that y h w h indeed is no longer with his people (Deut.
31:17); the ‘God with/near us’ can instill a false sense of safety and security (Mic.
3:11; cf. Ps. 46:6; Isa. 12:6).
143 Cf. P.P.V. van Moorsel, Rotswonder o f doortocht door de Rode Zee: De rol en betekenis van
beide in de vroegchristelijke letteren en kunst, ’s-Gravenhage 1965.
144 Zenger; idem*, Israel, 74; Schuman*, 61.
143 On the last point see also John 4:5ff.; 7:38ff. and Pancaro (Introd. § 13.1), 473ff.; Bienaime*,
278ff.
146 Cf. also 17:16 and the discussion in Mek. II, 133 (Moses or God).
EXODUS 17:8-16
AMALEK OPPOSES THE FULFILLMENT

17:8 Thereupon Amalek came and attacked Israel at Rephidim.

9 Then Moses ordered Joshua: ‘Pick some men fo r us and go out, do battle
with Amalek, while I - tomorrow - stand on the top o f the hill, with the staff o f
God in my hand. ’
10 Joshua did as Moses had ordered him: he fought with Amalek after Moses,
Aaron and Hur had climbed to the top o f the hill.
11 As long as Moses kept his hand raised, Israel was winning, but as soon as he
dropped his hand Amalek was winning.
12 When M oses’ hands grew tired, they took a stone and put it at the place
where he stood. He sat on it. Aaron and Hur supported his hands. The one on one
side, the other on the other side. Thus his hands remained steady till sunset.
13 So Joshua defeated Amalek by putting his army to the sword.
14 Thereupon y h w h said to Moses: *Write this in a document to remember it,
and impress on Joshua’s mind that I will utterly erase every trace o f Amalek from
under heaven. ’
15 And Moses built an altar. He named it, ‘y h w h is my banner. ’
16 Tor, ’ he said, *It is a uhand” (= memorial) on YH’s uthrone. ” For y h w h ’s
war against Amalek will continue through the generations. ’
Before Israel has had opportunity to move from Rephidim (17:1, 8), more trouble
presents itself. In a brief introductory sentence (17:8) the writer informs the reader
about the coming of Amalek and his attack on Israel. Amalek’s sudden showing-up
catches the reader unprepared; barely recovered from the shock of Israel’s
rebellion, he now learns that there are other people besides the Israelites in the
wilderness, enemies who are after Israel. Suddenly the reader discovers that the
wilderness harbours other perils besides hunger and thirst. The writer’s brief
introductory sentence triggers various questions in the reader’s mind: Did it make
sense for y h w h in grace and mercy to continue with the Israelites, though they
had questioned his bringing them out of Egypt and put at risk the fulfillment of the
promises to the patriarchs? Is it all going to end with their ruination in the
wilderness, not because of the people’s own wrongdoing, but by an assault from
an outside power? Were all the great deeds, thus far performed by y h w h , in vain
after all? It dawns on the reader that Pharaoh, far from being geographically tied
370 EXODUS 17:8-16
to Egypt, has not disappeared from the scene. He may have perished in the sea,
but the threat he stood for persists. The reader realizes that Amalek’s attack is
essentially an attempt to cut short the exodus out of Egypt and to frustrate the
fulfillment of the promises; in other words, Amalek’s attack is tantamount to a
rebirth, outside Egypt, of Pharaoh, y h w h ’s adversary. Again fear grips the
reader. Again it seems that y h w h ’s plans with Israel will not get anywhere.
In a first scene (17:9) the writer gives the reader fresh courage. The Moses who
appears on the scene is the Moses whose conduct inspires confidence and whose
word carries authority. It is the Moses who was rehabilitated by y h w h himself (cf.
17:1-6). His response to the situation is so powerful that it seems as if y h w h
himself is still at his side (cf. 17:6). The reader hears how Moses, far from losing
his composure, orders Joshua to muster an army and to attack Amalek; he also
hears how Moses announces that the next day, while the battle is raging, he will
take up position on the hill with God’s staff in his hand. Moses’ order to Joshua is
one the reader can understand: with weapons Joshua must try to ward off Amal
ek’s attack; it seems as if Moses relinquishes the command. Intriguing to the
reader is Moses’ own intended role. There on the hill, what will he do with the
staff with which so often before he has performed magnificent miracles?
After 17:9 there are no more words, only deeds. In 17:10-13 the writer trans
ports the reader to the next day. First the spotlight is on Joshua. Apparently at the
crack of dawn, Joshua has moved onto the battlefield (17:10a); Israel’s fate seems
to be in his hands. The writer adds that Moses - it turns out with Aaron and Hur
as his aids - was by that time already at the top of the hill (17:10b), and from the
battlefield he directs the reader’s attention to that scene. Then the reader perceives
why Moses, staff in hand, stationed himself on the hill; then it dawns on him that
not Joshua, the strategist, on the battlefield determines the outcome of the battle
and Israel’s fate, but the unarmed Moses, who stands there on the hill, away from
the turmoil of battle. By simultaneously giving the reader a look at two scenes of
action, the battlefield and the top of the hill, the writer intimates that Israel’s
future does not depend on military prowess and skill, or the size of its army,1 but
on what Moses, rising high above the fray, does with his staff. As a magician
Moses guides the combat (17:11). He, in his uplifted hand and staff, holds Israel’s
destiny.
So the focus remains on Moses. The reader watches him intently. Will he
manage to keep his hand lifted up? He notices how Moses grows tired and
struggles to hold up the staff, alternately using the one hand and then the other,
but that even so the effort is too much for the man. Fear seizes the reader. Will
Moses’ fatigue cause Israel to lose the battle? Then he observes how Moses, by
sitting down on a stone and with the support of Aaron and Hur, manages to keep
going. It takes all of three men to keep the conjuring posture effective for a whole
1 Cf. Josephus (AJ, III, 43ff.): in themselves the Israelites were poorly equipped for combat, but
with God as their ally they were fully equipped.
day! (17:12).
In his depiction of what happened on the hill, the writer (cf. 17:11) by implica
tion also talked about the progress on the battlefield. In 17:13, so as to leave no
doubts, he again focuses on Joshua and Amalek (cf. 17:10a; inclusion) and
confirms what the reader already had been able to infer from 17:11, 12: Joshua
has routed Amalek’s army. The reader can heave a sigh of relief. He has wit
nessed a protected, fierce battle, which was decided in Israel’s favour only because
of the miraculous power that emanated from Moses’ staff over the battlefield.
Moses, the man of God, saved the people from destruction and gave Israel a new
lease on life (cf. e.g. Josh. 10:12ff.; 2 Kgs. 3:12ff.; 6:15ff.; 13:16ff.).2 The
reader realizes that through Moses’ action y h w h again demonstrated that he was
with Israel, also in the wilderness (cf. 17:7). He delivers not only from hunger
and thirst, but also from the enemy, y h w h brought the people out of Egypt and
accompanies them through the wilderness (cf. 17:1).3
That y h w h did in fact do battle for Israel (14:14; Deut. 3:22; Josh. 10:14 et al.)
and that all the credit for the favourable outcome goes to him, the writer makes
clear in several ways through his account of the events subsequent to the defeat of
Amalek (17:14-16). y h w h speaks to Moses, and instructs him to transmit the
episode and y h w h ’s assurance that Amalek will be annihilated root and branch to
following generations, both in writing and orally, so that they will not fall into
oblivion, y h w h declares that the battle marked the start of his lasting war against
Amalek (17:14; cf. 17:16b).
Moses erects an altar which he names ‘y h w h is my banner’ (17:15). So he
testifies that in his war against Amalek he relied on y h w h . In the explanation of
the name, he calls the altar a memorial on ‘YH’s throne’ (17:16a), on the mountain
of God, and declares thereby that, while the battle against Amalek was raging and
he acted as a magician, he was in y h w h ’s presence (cf. 17:6). In the altar, Moses’
testimony is preserved in stone. While it maintains the link with the past, its chief
purpose is to point to the present and the future, to y h w h ’s lasting war against
Amalek (17:16b; cf. 17:14).
In 17:14-16, the writer seeks to remind the reader of the permanent significance
of the battle in the wilderness. He writes in an age when Amalek as a people had
already disappeared from the scene and symbolically had become the very
personification of the enemy.4 The writer reminds his readers that in seemingly
2 Jerome, Epistula LX, 18: Moses fought Israel not with the sword but with prayer; cf. also e.g.
Origen, Horn, in Exod., XI.
3 A remarkable contrasting parallel to 17:8-16 is found in Num. 14:39-45: when YHWH is not with
Israel (14:43) Amalek is assured of victory; Amalek (not Moses) is on ‘the top of the mountain’ (14:40,
44); the roles are reversed.
4 Cf. the designation of Haman as ‘the Agagite’ (Esth. 3:1; cf. Num. 24:7; 1 Sam. 15:8 et al.);
Exod. 17:8-16 is read at the Purim festival (MMeg III, 6); with the book of Esther, the pericope has in
common the theme of deliverance from an enemy who sought the death of the people; in rabbinic
literature, Amalek, like his ancestor Esau (Gen. 36:12), are identified with the worship of idols, and his
372 EXODUS 17:8-16
hopeless situations they are never to despair and to doubt y h w h ’s ability to save,
but that like Moses they should look to y h w h and put their trust in him, not in
human strength. His readers may console themselves with the knowledge that
y h w h will annihilate ‘Amalek.’*
5 Let them be assured that he will avenge the evil
done to them, and that already in the past he showed to be stronger than ‘Amalek.’
They must know that he can do great things and that, despite strong opposition, he
is powerful to realize his plans in history, and ultimately will triumph over
‘Amalek’ and be king forever. The past is the source of hope for the future. It
offers perspective on the kingdom of peace (e.g. Isa. 11:1-9); see Essentials
13:17-15:21.
The battle is over. The danger has been averted. The writer suffices with the
note that the Amalekites were slaughtered in huge numbers. A whole day long,
Joshua and his men wield their swords, killing the enemy (17:11-13). But the
writer not say how many were killed. Nor does he enable his readers to gawk at
the bloody and gruesome scenes, or take the opportunity to paint an exuberant
victory celebration.6 All he does, is recount a ‘Te Deum’ by Moses and portray a
lesson for his readers (17:14-16). That does not mean that modem Bible readers
do not find some of what is related here repulsive, in particular the notes about the
annihilation of Amalek by y h w h and about y h w h ’s abiding war with Amalek.
Reimarus (Introd. § 5.45.2), I, 362, formulates the problem as follows: ‘Nach
Mosis Unterweisung, konnen die greulichsten Frevelthaten in religiose Handlungen
verwandelt werden, ...’,7 and states that it is a case of ‘das gottloseste un-
menschlichste Gesetz, welches unversohnliche Feindschafft und ewige Kriege unter
gantzen Volkem bis auf spateste Nachkommen, und das als von Gottes wegen,
stiftete. Da ward denn nun solch Recht der Raubthiere eine Religions-Pflicht bey
den Israeliten: und Samuel missbraucht sie noch nach 400 Jahren, ....’ He alludes
to 1 Sam. 15:2ff. (cf. also Deut. 25:19; 1 Sam. 30). J.A. Montsma comments in
followers with whoever and whatever is an enemy of y h w h , with Rome etc. (e.g. Mek. II, 159; Zohar
Exod. 65b, 66a, 67a; Ginzberg*, VI, 24f.); cf. the use of ‘Babylon’ as signifying godless powers; see
e.g. S. Uhlig, “Die typologische Bedeutung des Begriffs Babylon,” AUSS 12 (1974), 112-25.
5 Eschatological tones resonate; they are articulated in TPsJ on 17:16: annihilation by YHWH refers
to the generation of this world, to that of the Messiah and to that of the world to come; cf. Mek. II,
157ff., 161; Rashi on 17:16; Nachmanides on 17:9; Ginzberg*, III, 62; in Patristic literature Amalek is
symbol for Satan and the evil powers, which are conquered by Jesus (rendering of Joshua in Greek)
and which the Christian is to oppose; see e.g. Origen (Horn, in Exod., XI); Gregory of Nyssa (VM, II,
147ff.); Danielou*, 203ff.
6 Unlike Josephus: they captured a vast quantity of riches (as at the crossing of the sea; see at 14:30,
31); not a single Hebrew was slain, while the slain among the enemy were innumerable; the battle was
followed by a celebration; fear seized the nations (cf. 15:14ff.) (AJ, III, 53ff.). For the fate of Amalek
as a lesson to the nations, see Mek. II, 148; Ephraem. Battle and victory are not glorified in Exod.
17:8-16; but detecting a ‘veiled anti-militaristic point’ (so Zenger) goes too far; to the writer war is a
given.
7 For justification of the ‘just war,’ the war willed by God, with reference to Exod. 17:8-16, see
e.g. Augustine, Contra Faustum, XXII, 5, 74.
connection with, inter alia , 1 Sam. 15: ‘It is much rather to be regarded as a
legitimate expression of faith if one distances oneself sharply from the appeal to
God in the Bible for all kinds of practices and ideologies ...’ and believes ‘that this
is not the way God wants to be regarded - not then, not now and never.’
According to him, in 1 Sam. 15 Israel in respect to Amalek acts like Amalek.8
Note that already way back, exegesis emphasized Amalek’s wickedness (so in
Deut. 25:18; Introd. § 12.7.10).9 Syrian fathers (among others Ephraim and
Ishodad) in their exegesis use the word ‘conversion.’ Ishodad wonders why
Amalek was not totally destroyed in the wilderness: perhaps due to the mercy of
God, who protects every person, in the hope that he may repent, or because
among the Amalekites there were those who did not deserve to die.10 On the
problem see Essentials 13:17-15:21 (end).

a. Bibl.: H. Cazelles, “Deborah (Jud. V 14), Amaleq et Makir,” VT 24 (1974),

235-8; G.W. Coats, “Moses Versus Amalek,” SVT 28 (1975), 29-41; K.A.
Deurloo, ‘Schrijf dit ter gedachtenis in het boek\ Amsterdam 1975; D. Edelman,
“Saul’s Battle Against Amaleq (1 Sam. 15),” JSOT 35 (1986), 71-84; C. Hout-
man, “‘YHWH is My Banner’ - ‘A “Hand” on the “Throne” of YH’: Exodus
XVII 15b, 61a and Their Interpretation,” OTS 25 (1989), 110-20; B.P. Robinson,
“Israel and Amalek: The Context of Exodus 17.8-16,” JSOT 32 (1985), 15-22;
H.-C. Schmitt, “Die Geschichte vom Sieg tiber die Amalekiter Ex 17,8-16 als
theologische Lehrerzahlung,” ZAW 102 (1990), 335-44; P.D. Stem, “ 1 Samuel 15:
Towards an Ancient View of the War-Herem,” UF 21 (1989), 413-20; Valentin*,
141ff.; Zenger*, Israel, 76ff.
b. 17:8-16, through its localization in Rephidim (17:1, 7) and on account of the
function of the staff in the story, (17:5f., 9) is linked with the preceding account.
Also in a more general sense as to the theme, it ties in with earlier stories: the trio
‘thirst-hunger-thirst’ (15:22-17:1-7) is augmented by a fourth calamity: the ‘sword’
(often linked with ‘hunger;’ see 5:3); also 17:8-16 is a story about y h w h ’s care
for his people in the wilderness. There is, however, no particular connection with
the preceding account. As to theme - Israel threatened by enemies - and
otherwise, 17:8-16 has its own place in Exodus (cf. e.g. Coats, 29f.). In the
8 De exterritoriale openbaring, Amsterdam 1985, 11 If., and n. 421.

9 See Josephus (A/, III, 60; IV, 304); Philo (VM, I, 215); Ginzberg*, III, 56f., 63, and e.g.
Nachmanides.
10 Mek. II, 160f. (on 17:16): God swore that the Israelites would never accept someone from the
house of Amalek as a proselyte; see beside it bSanh 99b: the origin of the hostility lies in the refusal to
accept Timna (Gen. 36:12) as a proselyte.
374 EXODUS 17:8-16
Masoretic text, 17:8-16 divides into two petuhdt : 17:8-13 and 17:14-16. This
division has merit. 17:8-13 relates the war against Amalek; 17:14-16 relates
y h w h ’s word and Moses* word and actions in the wake of it.
c. Is the break between 17:13 and 17:14 also the divide between two sections
that are of different literary origin? Some interpreters think such is indeed the
case. Others hold that, literarily speaking, there is no such caesura. Before
offering an overview of the various views, I detail the elements in the text on
which the literary-critical analysis is based (cf. Valentin, 145ff.; Zenger, Israel ,
76ff.; see also Fuss*, 352ff.).
17:9 cites ‘the staff of God;’ after that it no longer plays a role; 17:11 speaks of
Moses* hand (sing.); 17:12 of his hands (pi.) = his arms.
In 17:8-13 y h w h has no role. In 17:14-16 y h w h occupies a key role in the war
against Amalek. y h w h ’s war against Amalek is not restricted to a particular
moment in time, but is a permanent state of affairs.
17:9 recounts Moses* presence on the hill; according to 17:10, 12 he is accom
panied by Aaron and Hur; also Joshua plays an important part; compared to other
narratives, the large number of persons is striking.
17:14, 15 stand alongside each other without any connection as to content.
‘at Rephidim* seems out of place in 17:8; one would expect it after ‘came’ (cf.
Num. 21:23; Josh. 11:15).
a im s '? at the end of 17:13 suggests that Amalek was completely destroyed;
this presentation is difficult to harmonize with, on the one hand tib n, ‘to be/be-
come weak,* at the beginning of 17:13, and on the other hand with the announ
cement of 17:14 that y h w h will destroy Amalek11 and the comment that the fight
against Amalek continues in 17:16b; lBirnw after ‘Amalek* in 17:13 stands out.
The relationship between 17:8 and 17:9 raises questions: Amalek goes on the
attack, but the measures taken by Moses are for the next day.
d. The phenomena noted above have resulted in a variety of hypotheses about
the genesis o f the account. I cite two of them.
Valentin, 142ff., regards 17:14-16 as a secondary expansion of 17:8-13; 17:14
(Dtr.) and 17:15, 16 in his opinion are from a different hand; 17:8-13, apart from
some additions, he regards as ‘basic narrative:’ 17:8 (minus ‘at Rephidim’), 9
(minus ‘with the staff of God in my hand;’ original: ‘and I will stretch out my
hands against Amalek’), 10, 11 (‘hands’ is original), 12, 13 (minus 13b).12
Valentin concludes : 17:8-13? ‘ist eine alte und volkstiimliche Mosesage,’ included
by the Yahwist, or at the latest by the Jehowist and (with the addition of 17:15f.)
in the ‘Kadesch-Sagenkranz’ (197f.).
Zenger, 76ff., reconstructs the following ‘basic narrative:’ 17:8-10a (minus ‘at
Rephidim’), 11, 13a, 15, 16a (Moses and Joshua play a role in a one-time battle
" Which would go better with a defeat; cf. Deut. 25:17f.; see already Auerbach*, 86.
12 Also e.g. Noth, Te Stroete take ‘staff of God’ as addition.
against Amalek; Moses with the staff in his hand).13

e. Some of the questions touched on, I take up here. Others will be dealt with in
the exegesis. It can be noted that an earlier generation of critical interpreters
viewed 17:8-16 as a homogeneous literary unit. For instance, Baentsch and
Eififeldt attributed the passage, not counting 17:14 (Dtr.; cf. Deut. 25:19),
respectively to E and L. Later exegetes felt that J was more likely (e.g. Fritz,
12f.). Baentsch explained ‘staff (17:9), ‘hand* (17:11), ‘hands’ (17:12) in this
way: probably Moses alternately raised both hands (with the staff) (cf. Ehrlich).
GreBmann*, 156 (in 17:11 he reads ‘hands’), rejected this view, but did not think
that ‘staff and ‘hands’ were incompatible: Moses stretches out both arms, while
holding the staff in his right hand. In Valentin, the notion that the staff is secon
dary seems in part to rest on taking note of iconographical material (see exegesis
17:11, 12).
For myself, I doubt that ‘staff of God’ is secondary (cf. Josh. 8:18f., 26). More
often ‘the hand’ (17:11) stands for ‘the hand with the staff (Introd. § 3.21.9). The
use of the plural is likely to be understood along the lines suggested by Baentsch.
A climax is intended: initially Moses tried to hold up the staff by himself, alter
nately raising both hands with the staff; when he gets too tired he receives help,
first on his one side, later on - the staff has to be held high a whole day! - also
on the other side. So, finally, with three men they manage to get the job done!
If it is true that ‘staff of God’ is interpolation or belongs to a particular layer in
the narrative, one must nevertheless, in my judgment, conclude that the present
text, due to the place of the staff at the beginning, evokes the kind of picture
presented above. One may expect of an interpolator or redactor, may one not, that
he aims to offer a consistent picture, and not confusion by giving variant pic
tures.14
f. It must be granted that 17:14-16 has its own place in respect to 17:8-13. In
17:8-13, Moses (5x) and Amalek (5x) are the centerpiece of attention, y h w h is
not mentioned; Joshua three times (also on1? 3 x ; cf. in 17:16); Aaron and
Hur twice. There is no talk of an instruction by y h w h to Moses, as is so often the
case elsewhere. Especially Moses dominates the scene. Thanks to his role as
magician, the evil is averted. That makes it understandable that 17:8-13 is
regarded as a hero saga, a hero legend (cf. Coats, 37; Valentin, 171). It should be
added, though, that the mention of the ‘staff of God’ at the beginning colours the
entire episode. Coming this early, there is an implicit pointer to what is ‘above.’
Owing to the ‘supernatural’ power given to him, Moses is able to direct the event.
13 Also e.g. Buber*, 106f.; Schmid*, 62ff.; Michaeli give primary importance to the staff in the
narrative; according to Mohlenbrink (Introd. § 5.28), there are two interwoven versions here, one
having hand and one having hands; the account is elaborated through the editing of the Pentateuch with
17:8 (‘at Rephidim’), 10b, 12, 13b, 14, 16b (Moses uses both hands; Aaron and Hur make their
appearance in the narrative; the war against Amalek is YHWH’s war and perpetual.
14 For the interpretations associated with ‘the hands' see exegesis 17:11, 12.
376 EXODUS 17:8-16
Not a human hero, but a man of God is at work.15

17:14-16 contains interpretation and actualization of the event. Now the name
y h w h is used repeatedly (3x + y h lx ) . Moses, the key figure in 17:8-13, refers
repeatedly to him as his point of orientation, and by naming the event turns it into
a work of y h w h (17:15a). In the explanation of the name (17:16), Moses declares
that his ‘magician’ role happened in the presence of y h w h and that the battle with
Amalek was an episode in y h w h ’s perpetual war with Amalek (see further
exegesis 17:15, 16).
Whether and how the passage can be dissected into literary strands is difficult to
determine. There is no question that 17:14, 16b have their own slant. The event is
lifted out of and above the historical moment and the historical plane. It is also
lifted out of the framework in which it appears in the Hexateuch (the fulfillment of
the promises to the patriarchs). Eschatological notes are heard. The incident is
turned into a paradigm of the manner in which y h w h fights, and will fight, the
enemy, everywhere and always. In the current text, the subject of distress-
deliverance in the wilderness serves to highlight the primary subject: y h w h is
permanently at war with Amalek (shorthand for the enemy whoever and wherever
he may be). That in particular the reader ought to know. It is to be noted that the
various elements, which may be of diverse provenance, mutually affect each other
(see exegesis 17:15, 16).
As to how 17:14-16 relates to 17:8-13, there is no question that 17:15, 16a is at
least closely related to the preceding account. It is assumed that Moses, when he
talks and acts, is at the same spot as in 17:10b-12. Besides, in view of the
frequency of a number of key terms (Moses 7 x ; ‘hand(s) 7 x ; ’ Amalek 7 x ; cf.
Introd. § 4.8.1), it can be posited that in its present form 17:8-16 is a carefully
worded composition. Like elsewhere (cf. 2:10, 22; 17:7), also here the name
giving with explanation offers the key toward understanding the text in its current
shape (see exegesis 17:15, 16).
g. Also the pre-literary history of 17:8-16 has been scrutinized. Even more so
than the literary genesis, it is beset with uncertainty. I suffice with offering an
impression of the varied results of the investigation.
Eerdmans*, 55, traces the narrative to ‘ein Wortspiel und eine Etymologie des
Namens Refidim’ (cf. Auerbach*, 85; but note Bibl. at 17:8). According to
Greflmann*, 157, 17:8-16 is an etiological saga to explain the presence of the altar
in Rephidim. Noth*, UP, 133 (cf. idem in his commentary [113ff.]), typifies the
narrative as ‘eine mit einer atiologischen Lokaltradition verquickte typische
Wiistentradition aus dem Erfahrungsbereich der siidpalastinischen Stamme’ (who
originally were constantly bothered by the Amalekites; see also below); the
account about the battle with Amalek is associated with, or possibly also stemmed
from (the need to explain) the presence of a conspicuous (throne-shaped) stone13*
13 Cf. 15:25; 17:5f. and see e.g. A. Rofe, “Classes in the Prophetical Stories: Didactic Legenda and
Parable,” SVT 26 (1974), 143-64.
(17:12) or an altar (17:15) (= the stone of 17:12?) on a particular hill (17:9).16

According to Hyatt, the story stemmed from the need to explain the origin of the
altar and the ongoing state of war between Amalek and Israel during the first
period of Israel’s national existence. Edelman, 73, suggests that the pericope stems
from the combination of an old tale about a conflict of Israel with an Amalekite
group in the territory of Ephraim (nr3) never refers to a hill in the wilderness)
with a tale about a skirmish between Moses and Amalek in the south. Also the
attempt to find, in the pre-literary phase, an explanation for the large number of
leading figures and their roles in the story in its present form, has resulted in a
variety of conclusions.17
h. It was noted that 17:8-16 would fit better at the end of the desert journey than
at the beginning (Amalek dwells in the northern part of the Sinai peninsula; Joshua
already functions as Moses’ successor).18 Several interpreters (e.g. GreBmann*,
161; Auerbach*, 82ff.; Valentin, 153; differently Fritz*, 55ff.) regard the
pericope as belonging to the stories originally linked with Israel’s stay at Kadesh
(Introd. § 8.23.5).
The historical value of the stories is a matter of dispute. Some argue that the
historical core is found in the hostility between southern Palestinian tribes and
Amalek, when Israel became an established nation (1 Sam. 15 etc.; Introd.
§ 8.26).19 Some suggest the possibility that already during the trek through the
desert ‘Israel’ clashed with Amalek (e.g. Fritz*, 57; Te Stroete; Childs). It is
pointed out that possibly there were conflicts about pastures and springs (Fen-
sham). These and other reasons (Amalek felt its territory was being threatened, it
was a people given to plundering) are put forward to explain Amalek’s attack, by
interpreters who hold that, as concerns Israel’s sojourn in the wilderness, the story
has genuine historical content.20 The text says nothing about what it was that
drove Amalek (similarly in Deut. 25; Introd. § 12.7.10). In view of the place of
Exodus in the Hexateuch, it would seem that according to the writer it was not
Amalek’s fear of competition or violation of its territory that provoked the attack.
He saw Amalek as the antagonist of the fulfillment of the promises to the
patriarchs. Amalek is Pharaoh redivivus, even more, he is the enemy.
16 Valentin, 183ff.: the stone featured a picture of the victorious Pharaoh with the praying ‘Stifter’
(see exegesis 17:11, 12).
17 See for the question e.g. Fritz*, 58ff.; Valentin, 198ff., 409f., and see also G. Galil, VT 35
(1985), 488-95.
18 See e.g. Holzinger, McNeile, Rylaarsdam, Michaeli. Philo (VM, I, 214) does not mention
Amalek, but locates the event in the vicinity of the inhabited land, the land of the Phoenicians (cf.
Introd. § 8.14).
Iv See e.g. Valentin, 185f., 192; Zenger, Israel, 88f.; but note Auerbach*, 84: the hatred for
Amalek has other and older roots than events in Moses’ time.
20 See e.g. Strack; Buber*, 109; Cassuto; Cole; Beegle*, 186f. Reimarus (Introd. § 5.45.2), I, 360,
has an altogether different perspective: Israel robbed, plundered, murdered; Amalek attempted ‘ein
solch raubrisches Volk das kein Volkerrecht achtete, und sich durch Gewalt einen Wohnsitz suchte, ...,
von seinen Grentzen abzuhalten see also exegesis 17:8.
378 EXODUS 17:8-16
Furthermore, though historically and geographically it may be difficult where to

locate the war with Amalek, theologically its placement prior to the Sinai is quite
meaningful: also this event (cf. 15:22-17:7) contributes to the growth of Israel’s
knowledge of y h w h ; thus when the people arrive at Sinai they know very well
who it is who encounters them there.
i. Under Essentials something has already been said about the structure of the
narrative and the writer’s way of introducing suspense. Here I add that instruction
and announcement (17:9) and description of the event (17:10-13), like more often,
are complementary. For instance, the staff is only mentioned in 17:9, but its
presence is presupposed in the sequel (see e). Aaron and Hur are not mentioned in
17:9, but - to the reader’s astonishment - suddenly appear on the scene (17:10,
12). As more often, y h w h ’s command is recorded (17:14), but it is not said that it
was carried out. It is self-evident.

EXEGESIS
17:8 Thereupon Amalek came and attacked Israel at Rephidim.

‘Amalek,’ see Introd. § 8.26. o n 'ri (onb niph., see 1:10), see Ges-K § 64b; BL
§ 44k. ‘Rephidim,’ cf. 17:1. The now following event happens at the same place
as the previous one. On the suggestion that there is a close relationship between
the name and what is narrated in 17:8-13, see Introd. § 8.32 (cf. GreBmann*, 155;
Valentin, 150f.; Zenger, Israel, 85); Bohl detects in 15:26 also an allusion to
Rephidim.
The connection between 17:8 and 17:9 requires elucidation. Did Moses take
measures for the next day because of Amalek’s attack or for fear of an impending
attack? The second interpretation lies behind rendering o n ^ i as a final in e.g. LV:
‘kwam Amalek ... bestrijden.’21 It requires, however, also the use of the
copulative waw (e.g. Ges-K § 165a).22 Presumably the Masoretes had in mind the
situation described in Deut. 25:18 (cf. 1 Sam. 15:2).23
Robinson, 19, believes that the assault was brutal, because Israel was without
water (cf. 17: Iff.). Zenger, Israel, 86ff., espouses the view that within the context
of a Jehowistic document as he has reconstructed it, 17:8 evokes a number of
associations: Amalek committed a brutal attack, for Israel is in flight and therefore
21 Cf. e.g. Buber-Rosenzweig (‘und wollte ... kampfen’) and see e.g. Bohl, Te Stroete, Michaeli; the
interpretation is also found in Josephus (A/, III, 39ff.); Philo (VM, I, 214ff.); the former talks about the
Amalekites as the instigators of an anti-Israelite league; for the latter see also e.g. Mek. II, 136f.;
Ginzberg*, III, 56.
22 Cf. e.g. Gispen; Moses reacts after Amalek’s retreat.
23 Cf. Buber*, 105, and see Cassuto; from the fact that Dr6 + DU (and not a, see 17:9) is used, he
wrongly concludes (cf. Valentin, 155) that 17:8 is a general statement which alludes to attack and
counter-attack; so 17:8 becomes a kind of heading.
entitled to protection; Israel is on a pilgrimage to the Sinai and deserves respect;

Israel is threatened by a brother nation, also worshipers of y h w h (the text subtly
reflects the struggle for ‘die rechte Jahwe-Beziehung*) etc. Such far-reaching
conclusions are groundless.
What caused the Amalekites to come and attack Israel? The text contains no
explicit answer. Rabbinic exegesis has tried to supply an answer. For example,
Amalek’s arrival has been explained as due to Israel’s ‘weak hands’ (see 17:1),
neglect of the Torah, being untrue to y h w h , and ingratitude toward y h w h (a close
connection is assumed between Israel’s question in 17:7 and the appearance of
Amalek).24 The coming of Amalek is understood as divine punishment. TPsJ
contains after ‘Amalek’ the following expansion: ‘from the land of the south and
made a jump of 1,600 miles; on account of the enmity that existed between Esau
and Jacob, he came and ....’ The cause of Amalek’s coming is thought to lie in the
past. The hostility of the fathers (for Esau and Amalek see Gen. 36:12) continues
through the generations.25 After Rephidim there follows in TPsJ: ‘He seized and
killed men from the house of Dan, for the cloud did not envelop them because of
the sacrifices they had brought’ (cf. Ginzberg*, III, 57; VI, 24). Also here there is
a correlation between sin and punishment: those struck are sinners; cf. Ephraem:
killed were those who always were down on Moses. Also Christian exegetes look
to ancient history for the source of the conflict between Amalek and Israel (Esau-
Jacob) (e.g. Ishodad). Calvin cites that view, but states that God sought to convey
a message in the coming of Amalek, viz., to motivate the people toward greater
obedience. The question does not seem to have concerned the writer. To him, the
gift of water (17:6) signalled the restoration of the broken relationship between
y h w h and Israel. With 17:8-13 he seeks to offer further proof of y h w h ’s nearness
in the wilderness. See further Introduction to exegesis under h.
17:9 Then Moses ordered Joshua: ‘Pick some men fo r us and go out, do battle
with Amalek, while I - tomorrow - stand on the top o f the hill, with the staff o f
God in my hand . '
The writer makes no mention of how the people reacted to Amalek’s threat.
Josephus (AJ, III, 43ff.) includes a encouragement of the Israelites by Moses and
has Moses play an active role in the preparations for the battle, ‘to order,’ see
Introd. § 3.5.1. Moses is the one in charge; he determines the time for battle, etc.;
his position has been compared to that of the kahin (see 2:16) (GreBmann*, 156;
Buber*, 109; Auerbach*, 85). ‘Joshua,’ see Introd. § 5.28; he is to be the field
commander, "ina, see 14:7; Joshua is to put together an army of Israelites skilled
in the use of weapons, ub, LXX, Pesh.: ‘for yourself;’ not translated in Vulg. In*23
24 Among others Mek. II, 129, 135ff.; ExR. XXVI, 2; MidrTanh. Exod. V, 3, 4; Zohar Exod. 65;
Rashi; Ginzberg*, III, 54f.
23 Cf. Ginzberg*, III, 55; VI, 23; see also bSanh 99b: Timna (Gen. 36:12) wanted to become a
proselyte, but was turned down by Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
380 EXODUS 17:8-16
Mek. II, 140f., ‘us’ is springboard for a lesson: Moses treated Joshua as his equal;
a teacher should respect his pupil as he respects himself, etc. ‘men,’ see Introd.
§ 3.2.1; LXX: av6pac; 6 u v <x t o u <; (cf. 18:21, 25) = TNf: ln m ;
TPsJ: ‘strong and mighty in (keeping) the commandments and victorious in battle’
(cf. also Mek. II, 141; ExR. XXVI, 3; Rashi). Extra-biblical tradition has it that
Israel possessed weapons of Egyptian origin (see 14:30). ‘to go out,’ see Introd.
§ 3.24.1; TPsJ: + ‘from under the cloud of the glory’ (cf. Mek. II, 141; Rashi);
Ibn Ezra: out of the camp. For asyndeton see Joiion § 177e; Brockelmann § 133a.
"in&, see 8:6. 32H, niph., see 5:20. see 6:14.
np3$ (OT ca. 60x ; Exod. 17:9, 10), ‘hill,’ is often used together with or
parallel to ‘mountain’ (Introd. §3.16) (Krasovec*, 95), but, different from it,
refers only to a single elevation of the ground, apparently not all that high (see
Schwarzenbach*, 9f.). The text has ‘the hill.’ Is Horeb (17:6; cf. 18:5) meant? So
e.g. Ibn Ezra; Calmet; Hertz; others: the most prominent hill in the area (Dill-
mann); the hill that was easily seen from the battleground (Strack), overlooked the
battlefield (Cassuto). According to H. Cazelles, VT24 (1974), 237, num can only
refer to a mountain in Transjordan (cf. Edelman; see Introduction to exegesis
under g); Fuss, 353f., suggests that the etiology of a cultic high place at Gibeah
(Josh. 15:57), lies behind the text, ‘staff of God,’ see Introd. § 3.21.10, 11; TO,
TPsJ, TNf: ‘the staff with which the miracles (from) before y h w h were per
formed’ (cf. Mek. II, 142). ‘hand,’ see Introd. § 3.21.3. Moses positions himself
at as high a spot as possible, so that the power emanating from the staff may have
the greatest possible reach (cf. Num. 22:41; 23:13; 24:2).
17:9 contains a syntactical problem already cited in Mek. II, 142f.: does
‘morning’ go with 17:9a or with 17:9b? LXX, Pesh., TNf have opted for the first
possibility: Joshua is ordered to engage the enemy in battle the next day (in LXX,
17:9b begins with kcci idoO = mm, cf. Pesh.); also later exegetes have gone along
with this obvious interpretation (e.g. Holzinger, Baentsch, Te Stroete; Ehrlich:
read in n , ‘fast’). The Masoretes, as appears from their pointing, chose the second
possibility: Moses announces that the following day he will stand on the hill;
‘tomorrow’ is applied to Moses. Possibly this choice is based on the assumption
that the following day will be special, in particular as concerns Moses. It is
verbalized in TPsJ (cf. Mek. II, 142): ‘Tomorrow I will be standing and fasting,
equipped with the merits of the fathers, the heads of the people, and with those of
the mothers, which can be compared with the hills’.26
The text points to events that are to run parallel, viz., Joshua’s fight against
26 See for the question T. Jansma, NedThT 12 (1957-58), 161-79. For the ground of the prayer (the
faith, the merits of the fathers etc.), see also TPsJ, TNf, FTP on 17:12; Mek. II, 143, 145; Philo (VM,
I, 216) notes that Moses prepares himself through ritual cleansing. For the ‘fast’ in Josephus’ retelling
of Exod. 17:8-16 (A/, III, 39-61) see A.H. Baumann, “Fasttage in der Darstellung des Josephus,” in
D.-A. Koch - H. Lichtenberger, Begegnungen zwischen Judentum und Christentum in Antike und
Mittelalter (Fs H. Schreckenburg), Gottingen 1993, 41-50.
Amalek and Moses’ manipulating of the staff. Like elsewhere (cf. 8:6), the new
activity starts the new day. Presumably as soon as the new day has started (see at
7:15), the parallel acts will be carried out (17:10), after the selection of the troops
had been finished the day before or during the night (cf. Josephus, AJ, III, 50).
An entire day is available.
17:10 Joshua did as Moses had ordered him: he fought with Amalek after Moses,
Aaron and Hur had climbed to the top o f the hill.
ntfND, see 1:12. n n i n i , inf. cstr. niph. of on4?; evidently the clause is elliptic:
(he went out) to fight Amalek; cf. LXX and see e.g. LV (based on inserting N2n),
CV. ‘Aaron,’ see Introd. § 5.6; many MSS, Sam. Pent.: proo; cf. LXX, Pesh.,
Vulg., TPsJ, TNf. ‘Hur,’ see Introd. § 5.25; cf. M. Bar-Magen, BetM 27 (1981-
82), 262-5. Together with Moses they constitute a trio (cf. Gen. 18:2). ‘to climb,’
see Introd. § 3.39.1. num n accus. of direction (e.g. KoSynt. § 330b; Wil
liams § 54). The clause starting with ntfm talks about a event that took place
before the battle began. The battle cannot start until Moses has assumed his
position (cf. 17:9b).27
17:11 As long as Moses kept his hand raised, Israel was winning, but as soon as
he dropped his hand Amalek was winning.
17:12 When Moses ’ hands grew tired, they took a stone and put it at the place
where he stood. He sat on it. Aaron and Hur supported his hands. The one on one
side, the other on the other side. Thus his hands remained steady till sunset.
nam (Introd. § 3.13.4), here as introductory formula of clauses in which the verbs
denote a recurrent, fluctuating event.28 see 1:12. a n hiph., see 7:20. r r
(2 x ; Introd. § 3.21.9), Sam. Pent.: rm ; cf. LXX, Pesh., Vulg., Targums, and
see pi. in 17:12; cf. w Q in 32:19; Lev. 9:22; 16:21; implicit in the use of the
pi. is the idea that Moses prays;29 Delitzsch*, 26, 41, replaces rm in 17:12 with
the sing, v r and so achieves uniformity, nm, see 10:11; cf. Jotion § 14lg note.
m3 hiph., see 10:14.
From 17:11 it is evident that militarily, due to number or military expertise or
both, Amalek was mightier than Israel, and that it was only because of Moses’
raised hand that Israel could stand and gain the upper hand. In TNf, 17:11 is
expanded with ‘and they (Amalek) fell by the sword* (cf. FT); this robs the
preceding words (Israel is on the losing side) of their force.30
(see 4:10), masculine, though m is feminine (KoSynt § 145n; Jotion
27 According to the translation of WV, Dasberg, the climbing happened when the battle had already
begun; according to the translation of e.g. LV, CV, Joshua’s going out to battle and the climbing
happened simultaneously.
28 Cf. KoSynt § 367e, h; 387k; 415w); see H.G. Mitchel, JBL 33 (1914), 48-55
2V So explicitly in TPsJ, TNf, FT on 17:11, 12 (FTP 17:11 talks of a prayer ‘to his Father in
heaven’).
30 Cf. M.L. Klein, JJS 39 (1988), 85f.
382 EXODUS 17:8-16
§ 148b; Cassuto [archaic grammatical form]); a different picture in TNf, FT: ‘in
prayer lifted up;’ it avoids a negative depiction of Moses; in contrast see TPsJ;
there a cause is offered for Moses’ hands growing weary: Moses had not right
away sprung into action to free Israel, but postponed the battle till the next day (cf.
Mek. II, 145; Rashi). Natural weariness is meant (Ibn Ezra), ‘to take,’ see Introd.
§ 3.30. p « , see 7:19. ‘to put,’ see Introd. § 3.48; the object is not explicitly
stated (cf. Brockelmann § 137). vnnn, cf. 10:23; 16:29. Who are the acting
persons? Valentin, 157, states that syntactically it cannot be Aaron and Hur, and
therefore concludes that anonymous persons were present. It seems obvious,
however, that the reference is to Moses’ companions (17:10); possibly all three on
the hill were involved. a » \ see 2:15. According to rabbinic exegesis, the sitting
on a stone (not on a cushion or pillow) shows Moses’ solidarity with the people
who are in danger (Rashi; Ginzberg*, III, 61).
iD7?p perf. qal of "|Dn (OT 21 x ; qal 20x), often + n: ‘to seize,’ ‘to hold’ (Ps.
17:5; Prov. 28:17 et al.), ‘to support,’ ‘to maintain’ (17:12; Isa. 42:1; Ps. 41:13
et al.); (implied) medium of the action is/are the hand(s) (explicitly in Isa. 33:15;
41:10; Ps. 63:19; Prov. 31:19). ‘the one ... the other,’ see Introd. §4.2.1. vpi
(Ges-K § 145o; Meyer § 94.5c), Qm, Sam. Pent.: rrri; cf. LXX, Pesh. (cf.
Sanderson*, 95f.). miDK (noun; cf. KoSynt § 306r; Ges-K § 141d), see 4:1. Open
to question is31 whether one may conclude from the use of naiDK that Moses’
posture intimated confidence (Zenger, Israel, 107; Schuman*, 64). That kind of
interpretation is already found in the Targums; in TO njiDK is translated as ‘spread
out in prayer;’ cf. TNf, with the comment: ‘calling to remembrance the faith of
the righteous fathers ...’ (cf. FTP; Mek. II, 145f.); in TPsJ ruiDK is rendered as
‘spread out in faith, prayer and fasting’ (the fasting lasts till sunset; cf. Mek. II,
145); see also Rashi and further at 17:9. For the conception that ‘faith’ is to be
connected to either Moses or the Israelites, see Ishodad. n (Introd. § 3.8);
(see 16:21), the sun ‘goes inside’ (cf. Gen. 15:12, 17; Exod. 22:25 et al.); behind
it is the notion of rooms in heaven (cf. Houtman*, Hiptmel, 257f., 302f.).
Likely it is presumed that the battle had started at the beginning of the day.
After initially it had been going back and forth (17:11), Israel is victorious owing
to Moses’ immovable arms, that is, Israel destroys its foes (cf. 17:13). The
annihilation continues until darkness makes the battle impossible. This suggests, on
the one hand, that Amalek fought back fiercely, and on the other hand that it
suffered a large number of casualties. 17:13 gives further details about the victims.
The complete destruction of Amalek will happen in the future (17:14-16). The
heavenly bodies do not have to interrupt their courses for that (cf. Josh.
10:12ff.).32
31 See already LXX, Vulg. and e.g. Nachmanides (with reference to Isa. 22:23; Neh. 10:1; 11:23).
32 Rabbinic exegesis contains the notion that Moses stopped the sun; see Rashi; Ginzberg*, III, 61;
VI, 25, 45.
The gesture with the hands

In my opinion, meant is that Moses alternately held the staff in the one hand and
then in the other (see Introduction to exegesis under e). Moses performs an act of
magic (Introd. § 3.21.4). The flow of the battle is correlative with his movements
(17:11). Some exegetes refuse a mechanical connection between both: the sight of
the praying leader encouraged Israel (Nachmanides, Strack); when Moses raised
the staff, the Israelite warriors took courage, when his hand dropped due to
weariness, also their strength faded away (cf. Ephraem; Buber*, 108f.; Beegle*,
190). Ishodad detects in the episode of 17:11 an intended lesson: in this way Israel
and Amalek could see that victory and defeat worked by Moses were from heaven.
Ancient interpretation has it that Moses lifted up both hands in a gesture of
prayer. For rabbinic interpretation see e.g. Targums (see above and 17:9). In Mek.
II, 143f., attention is given to the correspondence between Moses* gesture and the
course of the battle: when Moses raised his hands toward heaven, the Israelites
looked to him and believed in Him who commanded Moses to do that, and God
performed wonders and mighty deeds for them; faith amounts to victory; cf. Mek.
II, 144: there is a correspondence between (lack of) zeal in living up to the words
of the Torah and (defeat/) victory; Zohar Exod. 66a: also Israel’s prayer is
important; when Israel ceases to pray, Moses is no longer able to keep his hand
lifted and ‘Amalek prevails.*33 Noteworthy is that in Mek. II, 146, the gesture is
not simply explained as a gesture of prayer; instead, a different meaning is seen in
the lifting up of each of the two hands: one hand is held before God to remind him
of the wondrous deeds Moses could perform with it, to move him to again perform
a miracle.34 Josephus and Philo are silent on the staff. The first does not explain
the gesture with the hands (a gesture of encouragement?) (AJy III, 53); the other
relates that Moses prays to God, but describes the movement with the hands as a
strange event — Aaron and Hur play no role; by turns, Moses* hands became
lighter and heavier (cf. Gregory of Nyssa, VM, I, 40); symbolically the rivalry
between above/heaven and below/earth is expressed; at last above is triumphant
(VMy I, 216f.). The difference above-below is worked out in detail in Origen’s
spiritualizing interpretation (Horn, in Exod.y XI); for instance, he applies the
upraising of the hands to the spiritual understanding of the law of Moses (applied
to Christ) and the lowering to the literal (Jewish) understanding of it (cf. Gregory,
II, 149ff.).
In Patristic exegesis the gesture with both hands is especially understood as a
pointer to the cross of Christ that brought the victory.35 Also staff and stone
(17:12) are sometimes related to the cross (Reijners, 40, 42, 11 If., 116).
33 For rabbinic exegesis of 17:11 see also Maneschg (Introd. § 9.2.2), 215ff.
34 So the tension between 17:9, 11 and 17:12 is removed; cf. the explanation of Gispen; Nach
manides: first Moses stretched forth his hand with the rod to bring down upon the Amalekites strokes
of pestilence; then he began to pray and his hands were spread heavenward.
33 See Introd. § 3.21.6. and for further givens Danidlou*, 145ff.; Reijners (see 15:25, 26), passim.
384 EXODUS 17:8-16
Moreover, since Joshua (‘Jesus’ in Greek), who defeated Amalek and subsequently
brought the people into the promised land, was regarded as a type of Christ
(Danielou*, 203ff.), and Amalek was equated with Evil (see Essentials), the
pericope could be used in the proclamation of the meaning of Christ. Down to the
details, Christian exegetes have sometimes applied 17:8-16 to Christ. Let me give
an example or two. Among conceptions espoused by allegorical exegetes, Ishodad
cites the following: Aaron and Hur are the two angels who always accompanied
Jesus, or the two criminals crucified beside him; the hill is Golgotha.36 Theodoret
( QE , XXXIV) notes: as Joshua selected his men, so Jesus recruited his apostles.37
Modem interpreters are of the opinion that the staff was later added to the story
or belongs to one of its literary layers (see Introduction to exegesis under d). In
their judgment, the gesture with both hands was original to the story (Valentin) or
found its way into the story as a result of redactional activity (Zenger). Valentin
regards the gesture with both hands as a magical act; Zenger as ‘Symbol des
solidarischen und vertrauenden Gebetes’ (106), while the presence of Aaron and
Hur refers to the representatives of the people, ‘die stiitzendhelfende Solidarity des
Volkes’ (106f.). Working with ideas advocated by Keel (Introd. § 3.21.4), they
point to Egyptian iconographical materials; according to Keel, the motif of the
hands became part of Exod. 17 through the Israelites’ acquaintance with and faulty
interpretation of certain Egyptian illustrations, in which Pharaoh beats down an
enemy, while the ‘Stifter’ (the person who erected the stele or in whose honour it
was erected), with uplifted hands, stands behind Pharaoh to conjure up his power
for his own benefit. Both Keel and Valentin connect the gesture with both hands to
the Egyptian material; Zenger includes also the hand with the staff from his
‘Grunderzahlung’ (behind Pharaoh stands the deity with crescent-shaped sword in
his hand; Moses has the role of the deity; Joshua that of Pharaoh) (Valentin,
175ff.; Zenger, Israel, 89ff.). For myself, I do not think all that close a relation
ship should be made between Exod. 17 and the Egyptian material.
17:13 So Joshua defeated Amalek by putting his army to the sword .

imperf. cons, qal of tibn (17:13; Isa. 14:12; Job 14:10); the meaning is not
altogether clear; the ancient translations38 appear to rest on interpretation; the
meaning of the verb becomes clearer by having a look at the use of the adjective
as antipode of na-) in Joel, and of the noun ngn^q as antipode of r n n ? in
32:18; tfbn appears to stand for the opposite of 123, ‘to be strong’ (see 17:11): ‘to
be weak;’ in 17:13 the verb has obviously a transitive meaning: ‘to weaken,’ ‘to
36 Cf. Plastaras: John 19:18 is an allusion to Exod. 17:12.

37 On the history of the interpretation see also Childs, 316f.
38 LXX: Kai expe\|;aTo; Vulg.: fugavitque, ‘and he put to flight;’ TO, TPsJ: la m , ‘and he
smashed;’ TNf: lT2PBh, ‘and he destroyed;’ see also the explanations in e.g. Mek. II, 146f.; MidrTanh
Exod. V, 4; Zohar Exod. 66a.
deal a defeat to.’39 Cassuto finds here wordplay on o^tfnan (Deut. 25:18).
iDimxi (Introd. § 3.40), with explicative waw? (cf. Valentin, 143, 161); other
suggestions: with ‘Amalek and his people’ is meant: the king or chiefs with the
troops or the Amalekites with the peoples allied with them (annot. SV); the people
of the Amalekites (Hertz). LXX: ‘all his people.’ 17:13b requires elucidation. Qm
has Q2si instead of 1217 n N i. In Sam. Pent. 1217 is followed by D2,,i, a form of H21
hiph. (see 2:11), which in Deut. 20:13 et al. occurs with n n rra b (see 4:10 and
5:3) (cf. Sanderson*, 99); what is implied in MT is made explicit: the troops are
annihilated (cf. 1 Sam. 15:33).40 The terminology used in MT in 17:13b denotes
a total destruction; cf. Valentin, 159ff.; Zenger, Israel, 80f.; both regard 17:13b
as secondary; in that case the concrete outcome of the battle remains unclear; at
any rate, the loss of its troops has left Amalek powerless, but not for good;
complete extermination is yet to come (cf. 17:14, 16b).
17:14 Thereupon y h w h said to Moses: 'Write this in a document to remember it,

and impress on Joshua*s mind that I will utterly erase every trace o f Amalek from
under heaven. *
2hp imper. qal of 2n2 (OT ca. 220x ; Exod. l l x ) , a verb with the general
meaning of putting something in writing, of recording words etc. (accus. [17:14;
24:4 etc.]; also with ")£Q as accus. [32:32; cf. Deut. 24:1; Job 31:35]) on some
type of material (+ 2 [17:14 etc.; ca. 45x] or bl7 [34:1, 28; 39:30 etc.; ca.
85x]), usually ‘to write,’ but depending on the material also ‘to etch,’ ‘to chisel
in,’ ‘to engrave’ (compare 39:30 with 28:36), ‘to write an inscription.’41 As
subject are mentioned in Exodus: Moses (17:14; 24:4; 34:27, 28; cf. Num. 33:2;
Deut. 31:9, 22, 24), the first person in the OT said to have been writing; y h w h
(24:12; 32:32; 34:1; cf. 31:18; 32:15f.; Deut. 4:13; 5:22; 9:10; 10:2, 4);
Israelites (39:30). Of the derivatives 3f)22 (OT 9 x ) is used in 32:16 (2x); 39:30,
‘writing,’ ‘thing written,’ and the like (in 39:30 object of 2n2 [cognate accus.]).
See TWAT, IV, 385ff.; K.F. Euler, ZAW 55 (1937), 281-91. Because spoken word
is preserved through recording it, the meaning, its power, can be preserved, long
after the moment the words were uttered, particularly so if the text is inscribed on
durable material (24:12 etc.; cf. Jer. 17:1; Job 19:23f.).
nNT can refer to the previous event and to 17:14b 02 etc.); perhaps the one as
well as the other is meant; it is possible to relate nNT to what has happened, which
39 To be vocalized as hiph.? (see Zo.); differently P. Joiion, Bib 9 (1928), 41f.: vocalize as stative
(Job 14:10) and add "pi ‘and Amalek became weak and Joshua struck ...;’ derivation of the verb
from Arabic is defended by A. Guillaume, JThS 14 (1963), 91f. (cf. HAL), but not necessary; cf. J.
Barr, Comparative Philology, Oxford 1968, 276.
40 Cf. TPsJ; after ‘Amalek’ follows: ‘for he cut off the head of the strong men (KTS'a) of his
people, at YHWH’s command, by putting them to the sword’ (cf. Mek. II, 146f.; Rashi); so only the
weak remained.
41 Tablets of stone are the writing material in 24:12; 31:18; 32:15 (2x); 34:1; Deut. 9:10; note the
use of m n in 32:16.
386 EXODUS 17:8-16
is to be written down and inculcated, and to take the clause with "3 as causal; it is
also possible to relate nNT to what has happened and must be written down, and to
take the clause with 'D as what must be inculcated; more likely is that (also)
y h w h ’s announcement must be transmitted in written form as well as orally; in
any case, the keeping alive of the past and y h w h ’s word involve a mandate for
Joshua and Israel (cf. also 17:16b and see Deut. 25:19); the blotting out by y h w h
does not exclude human involvement; the ‘y h w h war’ rests on synergism (e.g.
1 Sam. 15:2f.; 18:17).42
]11D T, see Introd. § 3.18.3; with a double accusative (KoSynt § 327v); LXX: ei<;
pvripooupov = 1113Tb.
1D 0 D (see 9:16); ID O denotes some sort of material containing writing; the
material utilized could be stone, metal, wood, clay tablets, potsherds (ostraca),
leather and parchment, papyrus; the text on it can be a letter, an agreement, a
historical document etc.43 ID O has the article in front of it. Does this mean that
‘the book’ is meant, namely, the book in which Moses made notes about certain
happenings and experiences? Is it assumed that Moses kept a logbook of the
journey? Or should one think of a book like ‘The book of the Wars of y h w h ’
(Num. 21:14),44 ‘The book of the Upright’ (Josh. 10:13; 2 Sam. 1:18), or ‘The
book of the Annals of the Kings of Israel’ (1 Kgs. 14:19 et al.) etc.?45 The use of
1D 0 D in Num. 5:23; 1 Sam. 10:25; Jer. 32:10, 44; Job 19:23; Esth. 9:32 makes it
likely that the article is used idiomatically and in English is to be translated with
the indefinite article (cf. KoSynt § 299d; p. 296 n. 2; Ges-K § 126s; Joiion
§ 137m). Meant is that the words are to be recorded in writing. Probably it is
assumed that the document was to be kept in the sanctuary (cf. 1 Sam. 10:25, and
see also Exod. 4*6:33ff.; 30:16; Num. 31:50, 54). In that case, recording is also
intended as a continual reminder to y h w h of the obligation which he took upon
himself, □“itf, see Introd. § 3.48. 1TN, see 10:2.
n y m nnp infin. absol. + imperf. qal (cf. Ges-K § 113n; Joiion § 123e) of nnD
I (OT ca. 35x; qal ca. 20x), ‘to wipe off/clean,’ ‘to blot out* (2 Kgs. 21:13; Isa.
25:8; Prov. 30:20), also used for a written text (Num. 5:23), a name recorded in
writing (32:32, 33J;46 metaphorically it is used with transgressions and the like as
object (Isa. 43:25 et al.), the ID T (17:14; Deut. 25:19) (Introd. § 3.18.2) or Dtf
(Deut. 9:14; 29:19; 2 Kgs. 14:27) of people47 and for the ‘blotting out’ of the
people themselves etc. (Gen. 6:7; 7:4, 23). See TWATt IV, 804ff. The act of
42 For exegetical conclusions from the difference in the form of the person in 17:14 and Deut.
25:19, see Zohar Exod. 66a and Ginzberg*, III, 62.
43 For writing materials and art of writing in the Ancient Near East see BRL, 289ff.; for systems of
writing and texts, e.g. ABD, VI, 999ff.
44 Ibn Ezra, rejected by Nachmanides (it is the Book of the Law).
43 On Moses as a writer see Houtman*, Pent., 347f.
46 ‘To scrape’ (CV, WV, GNB) is an anachronistic rendering; in Num. 5:23 the wiping off is done
with water (cf. TEV: ‘wash off); ‘wiping o f appears to assume that the writing material was papyrus.
47 Always in connection with Q'Dtfn nnno = ‘wherever on earth;’ see Houtman*, Himmel, 14ff.
‘wiping o ff is the opposite of ‘writing (down)’ (Num. 5:23); both acts pertain to a
derivative of "IDT (cf. Introd. § 3.18.2).
Both in writing and orally, in two ways (Introd. § 4.3.1), (what has happened
and) the word of y h w h is to be transmitted; it must not fall into oblivion; orally
through Joshua, here already in the role of Moses* successor;48 the assumption
seems to be that Joshua will afresh impress it on the minds of a following
generation (cf. 17:16b). The construction of the altar (17:15, 16) provides a third
(Introd. § 4.4.1) mode of transmission.
17:15 And Moses built an altar. He named it, ‘y h w h is my banner . *

17:16 T o r / he said, ‘It is a “hand” (= memorial) on YH 's “throne.” For
y h w h ’s war against Amalek will continue through the generations. *
n a p (OT ca. 400x ; Exod. 59x), derivative of rGT (see 3:18; cf. also 10:25),
indicates the place of slaughter and sacrifice: ‘altar* (also for non-bloody offerings:
‘altar of incense’ [Exod. 30]). n3TD occurs in Exod. 25-31; 32-40 50 x to denote
the altar of burnt offering (ca. 40 x) and the altar of incense of the tent shrine (see
exegesis Exod. 27 and 30). In 17:16 there is mention of the building (ma; see
1:11) of an altar (cf. nfcy in 24:4; 27:1 et al.; ‘tear down’ in 34:13). The material
of which it is made is not specified. Perhaps it was made of earth (riDiN; see 3:5)
and/or stones (see 7:19; cf. 20:24-26). They are used to construct a sort of bank
or table.49
Erection of altars is mentioned more often in the OT. Though 17:15 talks of the
building of an altar, it says nothing about sacrificing on it (in contrast note Gen.
8:20; 22:9; Josh. 8:30ff.; Judg. 6:20ff.; 2 Sam. 24:21, 25; 1 Kgs. 9:25). In that
respect, 17:15 is similar to a number of passages about altar building by the
patriarchs (Gen. 12:8; 26:25 [building of an altar followed by calling on the name
of y h w h ]; 12:7; 13:18; 35:7 [building of an altar, but no calling on y h w h ’s
name]). In Gen. 12:7; 35:7 the building of an altar happened after y h w h had
revealed himself (cf. also Gen. 35:1, 3). As in 17:15, in Gen. 22:9; 35:7; Judg.
6:24 altar building is followed by naming (cf. also Gen. 33:20). The named altar,
through the generations, preserves the memory of what transpired there. Looking
at the givens, the following can be noted: the building of an altar results in the
establishment of a cultic place; in Exod. 17 and elsewhere, the cult as such plays
no role; in Exod. 17 there is no bringing of sacrifices as part of a victory
celebration (cf. 1 Sam. 14:31-35) nor an invoking of the name of y h w h (Gen.
12:8 et al.). In Exod. 17 in the current version, the naming is central. The altar is
not for the purpose of bringing sacrifices (cf. the altar mentioned in Josh. 22; see
22:23, 26ff.); evidently it is to serve as a memorial, to preserve the memory of
44 Cf. Mek. II, 149; Rashi; Ibn Ezra; for that matter, it was not Joshua who later on fought Amalek;
Nachmanides: the condition (rest from the enemies) of Deut. 25:19 had not yet been realized.
49 See ABD, I, 166ff.; BHHW, I, 63ff.; BRL, 5ff.; IDB, I, 96ff.; TWAT, IV, 787ff.; De Vaux*, II,
31 Iff. For shape, function and purpose of the altar see exegesis 20:24-26; 21:14; 24:4-6.
388 EXODUS 17:8-16
the event - in the current context, both the victory as well as y h w h ’s promise
(17:14; cf. 17:16b) - for posterity. LXX: ‘an altar to the Lord.’
‘to name,’ see Introd. § 3.45.1; 5-d.50 Beside 17:16a see 2:10, 22. For more
see below. Qm: "i]im "in i v (cf. Sanderson*, 15If.).
‘y h w h is m y b a n n e r * /‘it is a “hand** o n “th e throne** o f yh*

The interpretation of 17:15b, 16a is extremely difficult. Ancient translations show
that the problems are not of recent date. TO offers an interpretive rendering of
17:15b: ‘and there worshipped y h w h , who had done miracles (1'03) for him;’
similarly TNf: ‘and there prayed in the name of the Word of y h w h , who . . . ; ’ both
elements (worship and prayer) are present in FTJ. In TPsJ, y h w h (‘the Word of
y h w h ’) is evidently regarded as subject of ‘call’ and 03 as ‘miracle;’ y h w h
designates himself as the worker of the miracle.51 In LXX, '03 mm is rendered
as K upioq KaTa<t>DYii pou, ‘the Lord is my refuge;’52 "lON'i in 17:16 is not
translated; 17:16a reads: 6x1 ev xeiP* Kpixjmla, ‘for with a hidden hand.’53 In
Pesh., 17:16 starts with h* = mn, rendering m 00 as kwrsj \ ‘throne;’ cf. Sam.
Pent.: N 03 instead of m 0 0 (is the reference to an oath by y h w h with as content
17:16b?). In Vulg., '03 mm is rendered as Dominus exaltatio mea , ‘the Lord is
my exaltation’ ( ’•03 is derived from N&3) while, according to the rendering quia
manus solii Domini , in 17:16 00 is understood as N00, ‘throne.’
In the targums 17:16a is variously translated (0 0 is taken to mean y h w h ’s
throne), but always related to an oath by y h w h involving the destruction of
Amalek.54 In TNf, FT the oath offers a concrete picture of the future: the first
king, Saul, will engage Amalek in battle, and Mordechai together with Esther will
destroy what is left of him. In FTV, Saul is typified as ‘the first king who was
destined to sit on the throne of the kingship over Israel’ (cf. also FTJ); ‘throne of
YH’ (cf. 1 Chr. 29:23) has thus led to exegesis in which the earthly king has a
place (cf. bSanh 20b and see Nachmanides).
In modem translations and among modem expositors, it is customary to interpret
'03 as ‘my banner.’ Retaining MT, 00 in 17:16a is understood as ‘throne:’ ‘De
hand op de troon des Heren!’ (‘The hand upon the throne of the Lord!’) (NV; cf.
e.g. Vredenburg, Dasberg); a variety of interpretations is given: it concerns an
30 For the interpretation of the name, see below [according to Meyer*, IN , 63 n. 4, an allusion to
Massah (Kadesh) (cf. Bohl); Fensham thinks of a pun on no3, ‘to put to the test’ (cf. 17:7); so already
Ephraem and Ishodad.
51 Cf. Mek. II, 159f., see for the interpretation ‘miracle’ also Rashi.
52 ’03 is likely derived from 013, ‘to flee’ (see 4:3); Philo (VM, I, 219) and Josephus (AJ, III, 60)
mention worship at the altar; according to Josephus, Moses called God ‘Conqueror;’ according to Philo
he named the altar ‘Refuge of/with God’ (0eoO KaTa<t>uyqv).
53 rroD is likely derived from H OD, ‘to cover’ (see 8:2); for another slant see Frankel*, 88f. (with
the hand on the throne, that is, from the throne = unseen YHWH carries on war); A.R. Muller, BN 12
(1980), 20-3.
54 Cf. Mek. II, 160f.; Rashi (with explanation of the abbreviation of 0 3 and JT: when Amalek is
destroyed, the name and the throne will be perfect); Ibn Ezra; Nachmanides.
oath by y h w h (see above); Israel, following Moses* example, with hands uplifted
(in urgent prayer) to y h w h ’s heavenly throne, must fight against Amalek (Keil,
Gispen); Moses swears with hand lifted up to y h w h ’s heavenly throne (cf. Gen.
14:22) (Dillmann); Israel, with the hand on y h w h ’s throne (= the seat of
17:12/the altar) (cf. Schmid*, 63), must take the oath (Beer);55 ‘a hand (Amalek)
was against the throne of y h w h (Israel);’56 the advantage of the last interpretation
over the other is that i v is given a regular interpretation, but beyond that it is
unconvincing. Hand has also been taken to mean the hand of God that will smash
Amalek (Ishodad; cf. annot. SV). It has been objected that interpreting OD as
‘throne’ leaves 17:16a without any coherence with 17:15b, whereas, considering
comparable passages (e.g. 2:10, 22), one would expect in Moses’ words an
allusion to the name given to the altar. Therefore it has been proposed to read 03
in 17:16a: ‘The hand at the banner of Yah’ (LV; cf. e.g. CV). Here follows a
rundown of some of the interpretations based on this conjecture.
Greflmann*, 157f., 354f., makes a connection between 03 and the staff (17:9)
and interprets the naming in this way: the altar is ‘Jahve unter der Form des
Stabes geweiht’ (157); y h w h is the god active in the staff; the staff stands by the
altar and bears the symbol of the serpent (cf. Num. 21:14ff.; 2 Kgs. 18:4 and see
Meyer*, IN, 427); upon the staff one takes the oath, the oath pertaining to the
battle against Amalek (cf. 17:16b); y h w h sees to it that the oath is kept (cf. idem,
SAT, lOOff.).57 Noth conjectures that the altar with the name ‘y h w h is my
banner’ may have been a point of assembly in the time that Southern Israel was at
war with the Amalekites, and that 17:16a was the rallying cry with which the
people were summoned to assemble at the ‘banner of Yahweh’ to battle these
enemies of y h w h .58
R. Gradwohl, VT 12 (1962), 493f., believes that 17:16a points to a votive hand
on the standard of y h w h by the altar, symbol of God’s helping hand and guarantee
of the continuation of the war against Amalek.59
55 Nowhere else in the OT is an altar called ‘throne;’ the reverse, regarding the ark as a throne, does
occur; Bohl: 0 3 , ‘throne,’ refers to the ark; similarly Mohlenbrink (Introd. § 5.28), 57 (Bohl regards it
as a secondary interpretation); F. Stolz, J a h w e s u n d Isra e ls K r ie g e , Zurich 1972, 99: since 03 (17:15b)
can be compared to an altar, it is obvious to think of ‘einen Kasten in der Art der Lade;’ Stolz reads 03
also in 17:16a; the interpretation just cited is dubious.
56 See e.g. Reimarus (Introd. § 5.45.2), I, 361f.; Van der Palm; Hertz; cf. Calmet; Murphy;
Michaeli.
57 Identification of staff and banner also in Buber*, 110; Auerbach*, 85; Schmid*, 63f.; it is,
however, problematic; cf. R. Gradwohl, VT 12 (1962), 492; moreover, the relationship GreBmann
posits between altar and staff is artificial; others, without making the cited identification, regard 17:16a
as a call to take the oath of allegiance or ‘Fahneneid’ (e.g. Baentsch).
58 Cf. also Te Stroete, Childs; like the explanation of Baentsch et al., the drawback of this
interpretation is that it only seems to make a connection between 17:15b and 16a; 03 does not mean the
same thing; doubtful is whether b v can mean ‘at (the banner);’ cf. e.g. Ehrlich.
59 For the symbol ‘hand’ and its function in the Ancient Near East see S. Schroer, U F 15 (1983),
191-9.
390 EXODUS 1 7 :8 -1 6
The problem with interpretations based on the reading 03 is that they are based
on conjecture and find no support in the tradition o f the text and in the ancient
translations.
Still other interpretations could be mentioned.60 I shall leave these alone and
instead present my own explanation.
First I draw attention to the term 03. (OT 21 x ; always sing.). These days the
interpretation ‘banner,’ ‘(rallying) standard,’ ‘ensign,’61 is common. It has been
called into question by B. Couroyer, RB 91 (1984), 5-29: 03 is not a badge for
wearing, but a visible sign, a piece of cloth (Ezek. 27:7) that is put on a pole,
hoisted to a mast ( N 0 3 ) , so that it can be seen from afar. It serves as a signal, it
marks a point of assembly for people, alerts to danger, is a call to arms; 03 can
also denote the pole or mast itself (Num. 21:8f.; Isa. 30:17; 33:23). For the
interpretation of 17:15 the question is not all that important. The use of 03 in the
OT indicates that with the name '03 Moses points to y h w h as his point of orien
tation, as the One who calls him to arms, at whose bidding he gets going (cf. e.g.
Isa. 5:26; 13:2; 18:3; 49:22; Jer. 4:6, 21; 51:27; Ps. 60:6). The use of a term
that belongs to military lingo is fitting in a passage that deals with war. In Moses’
mouth the name ‘y h w h is my banner’ is a confession.62 With his own mouth
Moses declares that his battle against Amalek (17:10-12) was conducted under
y h w h ’s aegis (cf. 1 Sam. 7:12 and see Ps. 20:6, 8). In the altar, Moses’ confes
sion is immortalized in stone. So it keeps its force through the ages and challenges
always new generations to, like Moses, look to y h w h as their divine lodestar (and
looking to Him to fight the war against Amalek).
In view of the use of 03 in 17:15, likely also the following is of importance: the
signal can be positioned on a mountain (Isa. 13:2; 18:3), a hill (Isa. 30:17) or
another high place (Jer. 51:12). In Exod. 17 the likely meaning is that Moses built
the altar at the place where he stood/sat during the battle, that is, on top of the hill
(17:10-12). Just as Moses on the top dominated the area, so also the altar
dominates the area. It is visible from afar. So also the altar itself is a sign (cf.
Num. 26:10) that preserves the memory of the event and focuses the attention on
the consequences of the event for the future (17:14, 16b).
Because of its name and location atop the hill, the altar functions as a sign. That
function may well provide the key to the meaning of T in 17:16: ‘hand’ =
‘monument/memorial.’63 The use of the word probably is also intended to recall
M For that see R. Althann, J N S L 11 (1983), 19ff.; B. Couroyer, R B 88 (1981), 333-9; Zenger,
Is r a e l ,
77, 95ff.
61 See B R L , l i f t (+ illustrations); T W A T , IV, 468ff.; M. Gorg, B N 14 (1981), 11-7: ‘Es ist
Bezeichnung eines Herrschaftsemblems, das den Konig und den von Gott eingesetzten Regenten
reprasentieren kann. Dabei sind vor allem schiitzende und abwehrende Funktionen relevant’ (17).
62 W.H. Brownlee, B A S O R 226 (1977), 40, interprets the name as ‘He creates my standard;’ cf.
Introd. § 7.3.1.
M Cf. e.g. LuthV, Cassuto, and see 1 Sam. 15:12; 2 Sam. 18:18; Isa. 56:5; M. Delcor, J S S 12
(1967), 230-40.
the role of the hand(s) in the battle against Amalek. The word moves of itself from
the sign to the thing signified. The altar serves as monument/memorial ‘on the
throne of y h . ’64 A s stated, it appears that the altar was built ‘atop the hill*
(nuDJn tfKTî;) (17:9). There the monument is located. From that one can
conclude that m ‘on the throne of YH* = ‘atop the hill.’ For a proper
understanding of the designation one must also factor in that ‘throne of y h w h ’ and
similar designations are employed elsewhere to designate Jerusalem/Zion or the
temple there.65 ‘The throne of y h ’ therefore designates the place of y h w h ’s
presence. Looking back at the story one can say: At the time of the battle against
Amalek, Moses found himself ‘on y h w h ’s throne.’ That makes it clear how
Moses could function as a ‘magician.* Owing to his presence in that place, Moses
had unique powers at this disposal. By building the altar there, he marks the place
as a sacred place. Presumably for that he (also) used the stone on which he sat
(17:12) (cf. Gen. 28:18ff.). All in all, one could ask whether the account presumes
that the battle against Amalek, like the rebellion of 17:1-7, happened at Horeb (cf.
17:6 and see 18:5).
The memorial preserves the remembrance of the past, but also points to the
future, to y h w h ’s perpetual war against Amalek (17:14, 16b). Possibly one might
also consider whether there is a particular connection between 17:14 and 17:15,
16a. Assuming that 1S03 3PD means ‘put in writing’ (cf. Job 19:23f.), it would be
entirely possible that the writing, the engraving, was done upon the stones of the
altar (cf. Cassuto, and see Josh. 8:32 and also Exod. 24:4; Josh. 24:25ff.).
64 0 3 , due to the ‘pun’ on 03, shortened form of K 0 3 /H 0 3 (1 Kgs. 10:19; Job 26:9), see 11:5; for rr
65 Jer. 3:17; 14:21; 17:12; Ezek. 43:7; cf. also Ps. 93:2, and see Lipinski*, 117f.; cf. also e.g. Isa.
60:13; Lam. 2:1.
exodus 1 8 :1 -2 7
INITIAL APPRAISAL - MOSES’ POSITION DELINEATED
18:1 When Jethro, the priest o f Midian, Moses' father-in-law, had heard all that
God had done fo r Moses and his people Israel, how YHWH had brought Israel out
o f Egypt,
2 Jethro, Moses' father-in-law, took Zipporah, Moses' wife - after having been
sent away (by him, she stayed with her father) -
3 and her two sons with him; the one was named Gershom, T o r , ' he had said,
7 have become a guest in a foreign land;'
4 the other was named Eliezer, T o r' (he had said) ‘the God o f my father was
my helper by delivering me from the sword o f Pharaoh.'
5 So Jethro, Moses' father-in-law, came with his (Moses’) sons and his wife to
Moses, in the wilderness, where he was encamped at the mountain o f God.
6 He sent word to Moses: 7 am your father-in-law Jethro; I have come to you;
also your wife is there, accompanied by her two sons.'
7 Then Moses went out to meet his father-in-law. He bowed before him and
kissed him. Each asked the other how he was doing and they went into the tent.
8 Moses shared with his father-in-law all that y h w h had done to Pharaoh and
the Egyptians fo r Israel's sake, all the hardships they had endured along the way
and from which y h w h had delivered them.
9 Jethro was excited about all the good things y h w h had done fo r Israel: that
he had delivered them from the power o f the Egyptians.
10 And Jethro said: ‘Praise be to y h w h , who has delivered you from the power
o f the Egyptians and from the power o f Pharaoh, who has delivered the people
from the oppressive power o f the Egyptians.
11 Now I recognize that y h w h is greater than all gods: because they (the
Egyptians) acted insolantly toward them (the Israelites)
12 Jethro, Moses' father-in-law, provided a burnt offering and sacrifices in
honour o f God. Then Aaron came with all the elders o f Israel to eat the sacred
meal together with Moses' father-in-law.
13 The next day Moses sat as judge fo r the people and the people stood around
Moses from early morning till late in the evening.
14 When Moses' father-in-law saw all that he had to do fo r the people, he
asked: ‘What is this you are doing fo r the people? Why do you sit alone as judge,
while all the people stand around you from early morning till late in the evening?'
15 Moses answered his father-in-law: ‘Well, the people come to me to inquire o f
God.
16 When they have a dispute, it is always submitted to me to decide between the
parties and to make known God's rules and his ordinances.'
17 Thereupon Moses* father-in-law said to him: ‘You are not doing it right.
18 You are getting dead-tired, not only you, but also those people with you.
Honestly, this is too much fo r you; you cannot do it all by yourself
19 Therefore listen to me. Let me give you good advice and may God be with
you! You are to represent the people before God, you are to lay the disputes before
God,
20 enjoin upon them the rules and ordinances and tell them how they are to
behave and which duties they are to perform.
21 You are also to search among all the people fo r energetic men with a sense o f
duty, trustworthy and immune to corruption. These you are to appoint over them as
chiefs over groups o f thousand, as chiefs over groups o f hundred, as chiefs over
groups o f fifty, and as chiefs over groups o f ten.
22 They have to be ready at all times to administer justice to the people and are
to operate like this: every major case they are to lay before you, but every minor
case they must adjudicate themselves. So make it easier fo r yourself by letting them
share in your tasks.
23 I f you do it like that - God commands you! - you will be able to handle it,
while in turn all these people will go home satisfied. '
24 Moses listened to his father-in-law and did everything he had proposed.
25 Moses chose energetic men from all o f Israel and appointed them as heads
over the people, as chiefs over groups o f thousand, as chiefs over groups o f
hundred, as chiefs over groups o f fifty, and as chiefs over groups often.
26 They had to be ready at all times to administer justice to the people; a
difficult case they were to lay before Moses, but every minor case they were to
adjudicate themselves.
27 Thereupon Moses said good-bye to his father-in-law. He went on his way to
his own country.
With the defeat of Amalek, quiet has returned to the story. The writer leaves the
decor intact - Israel camped at Rephidim, at the mountain of God (cf. 17:1, 6, 8,
9f.; 18:5) - and uses it as backdrop for again introducing desert dwellers. These
people, however, are not at all like the Amalekites. In a detailed introduction
(18:1-4), the writer tells who the new players are and what drove them to come.
First he calls attention to the man who, alongside Moses, will play the key role,
an old acquaintance, Jethro, the priest of Midian, Moses’ father-in-law. He relates
how Jethro, impressed by the great things y h w h had done for Moses and Israel,
sets out with Moses’ wife Zipporah and her sons to meet Moses; not first of
all - as the sequel shows - to reunite the family, but primarily to hear from
Moses’ own mouth (18:8) that everything that had reached his ears was true.
Going into some detail, the writer introduces Jethro’s companions (18:2-4),
Moses’ wife and oldest son, likewise old acquaintances (cf. 2:21, 22), and Moses’
394 EXODUS 1 8 :1 -2 7
youngest son, a new face. So he refreshes the reader’s memory about some earlier
happenings. Moreover, the explanation of the name Eliezer strikes a note which
will run through the story until 18:12: y h w h saved Moses from the sword of
Pharaoh; his role as deliverer was not just an isolated incident: since then y h w h
manifested himself as Israel’s savior (18:8, 9, 10 [2x]).
In a first scene (18:5-7), the reader sees Jethro’s small group arrive at Moses’
camp. He witnesses a greeting ceremony: when Jethro has announced his arrival to
Moses, Moses comes out of his tent to meet his father-in-law and displays his
respect and affection for him. Following this obligatory ritual, the men withdraw
into Moses’ tent. By that time, Moses’ wife and sons have already stepped aside.
Not just because in the Ancient Near East they were not supposed to be in the
spotlight, but chiefly because the writer’s object is not to write a family history
(cf. also 2:20-22). Therefore it will not do to characterize the narrative in its
current form as a ‘Familien-Idyll’ (Greflmann*, 168; cf. 163f., 177; Auerbach*,
99). The writer talks about Moses’ wife and sons in order to recollect - especially
in the elucidation of the names - some details of earlier history. That is how,
along with principal character Jethro, they found their way into the account.
Already as early as the greeting ceremonial (18:7) they drop from sight. It is left
to the reader to conclude from 18:27 that after the greeting they remained with
Moses. The writer drops them so that the reader can focus all his attention on
Jethro, particularly on what interests him the most: the great deeds of y h w h , the
deliverance of Israel from Egypt’s might and y h w h ’s care for Israel in the
wilderness (cf. 18:1, 8, 9, 10). That is what the writer wants to zero in on. These
matters are the subject of conversation as Moses and his father-in-law talk in the
privacy of the tent (18:8). The detailed report from the mouth of the man who had
experienced everything close-up astonishes Jethro - y h w h ’s great deeds are even
greater than he had imagined on the basis of the reports that had reached him (cf.
1 Kgs. 10:4ff.) - and excites him no end (18:9).
After the writer has briefed the reader about the conversation and Jethro’s
reaction, he raises the (tent) curtain and lets Jethro speak for himself; in a different
setting (18:10-12), for Jethro has left the tent and apparently gone to the holy place
(cf. 18:12). By now the writer has also sidelined Moses; the spotlight he puts
entirely on Jethro, and a little later on Aaron and the elders as well. The reader
sees how Jethro, waxing enthusiastic about y h w h deeds, erupts in praise (18:10),
and how he confesses y h w h ’s incomparable greatness (18:11). He notices, too,
how Jethro, not content with just words, expresses his thankfulness to y h w h and
respect for him through sacrifices and the preparation of a sacrificial meal. Then
the reader observes how Israel’s representatives gather around Jethro (18:12). He
understands that after the praise, confession and sacrifice, they regard him as one
of them, and therefore wish to partake of the meal with him under the watchful
eye of y h w h (cf. 18:5).
Watching Jethro and the Israelites enjoy the meal to y h w h gives the reader
warm feelings. He senses that not all non-Israelites are like Pharaoh and Amalek,
and that there is another way than the ruin of non-Israelites to make people
acknowledge the greatness of y h w h : learning of Israel’s redemptive blessings, the

history of y h w h ’s mighty deeds! All in all, Tilling’ the breathing spell after the
war with Amalek with the description of the peaceful arrival of Jethro, who takes
a great personal interest in Israel’s history, enables the writer to recapitulate
salvation history, while it offers the reader the opportunity to look back and make
an initial appraisal.
By joining Jethro in the meal (18:12), Israel’s representatives reveal how pleased
they are with Jethro’s praise and confession. Also, as they look forward to the
encounter with y h w h at the Sinai (Exod. 19ff.), as early as here they attest by this
conduct that they fully trust y h w h . This tells the reader, as with Jethro he
contemplates this history, that there can be only one fitting response to y h w h ’s
saving acts: to continue to entrust oneself to y h w h . For his saving work is so
plain that just hearing about it prompted also non-Israelites, who were not part of
it themselves, to acknowledge y h w h ’s greatness! If the mouth of outsiders cannot
remain silent at the testimony about y h w h ’s mighty deeds (cf. Gen. 14:18-20;
1 Kgs. 10:4ff.; 2 Chr. 2:12), can Israel’s mouth remain closed? (e.g. 1 Sam. 2;
Ps. 135; 136; 148 and in the NT Matt. 9:8; Luke 7:16; 13:13; 17:15; 23:47; Acts
4:21; 11:18 et al.). Looking back, the reader notes that thus far y h w h has made
good on his promises to the patriarchs and that he can be counted upon to ac
complish all he said he would.
In a following scene (18:13-23), the writer casts both Moses and Jethro in an
entirely new role. In a brief introduction he tells the reader what happens the next
day. He talks about Moses’ role as judge and the burden it is: from early morning
till late at night, Moses, surrounded by the people, is busy settling disputes
(18:13). Next, he again brings Moses’ father-in-law into the story, this time as
adviser. Skillfully using dialogue, he has managed to create a lively and intriguing
story.
Having stated that the father-in-law observed the activities of his son-in-law, the
writer first lets the father-in-law speak. His words bespeak astonishment and
incomprehension (18:14). In his judgment, things have gotten out of hand and
should not be allowed to continue. He tries to tell his son-in-law that he cannot
keep this up. Moses explains what the work is all about (18:15, 16) and so gives
his father-in-law an opening to give fatherly advice: Moses must decentralize the
administration of justice, delegate some or much of the work; keep for himself the
job of representing the community before God, inquiring of God in cases in which
precedent provides no ready answer, and on that basis formulate new rules and
norms; the other matters he should leave for adjudication to carefully selected
judges (18:19-23).
The advice of Moses’ father-in-law, who had acquired an excellent reputation
with the Israelites (18:10-12), carries weight and is put into effect by Moses
(18:24-26). The administrative structure so put in place involves on the one hand a
precise delineation of Moses’ position, and on the other hand a tight organization
of the people. It enables Moses to concentrate on the task of being mediator before
God and lawgiver. Looking ahead, one can say that the writer, by describing the
396 EXODUS 1 8 :1 -2 7
revamping of the system of delivering justice, indicates that just before the
revelation at the Sinai the conditions were created for insuring an effective
communication between y h w h and Israel (see further Introduction to exegesis
under 1).
Now that Jethro has accomplished his task, the writer also has him step back
(18:27): Moses and Israel, and with them the reader, he leaves on the scene to
await new developments.

a. Bibl.: R. Knierim, “Exodus 18 und die Neuordnung der mosaischen Gerichts-

barkeit,” ZAW 73 (1961), 146-71; H. Reviv, “The Traditions Concerning the
Inception of the Legal System in Israel: Significance and Dating,” ZAW 94 (1982),
566-75; B.P. Robinson, “Acknowledging One’s Dependence: The Jethro Story of
Exodus 18,” The New Blackfriars 69 (1988), 139-42; Rose (Introd. § 12.6.6); C.
Schafer-Lichtenberger, “Exodus 18 - zur Begriindung der koniglichen Gerichts-
barkeit in Israel-Juda, ” DBAT 21 (1985), 61-85; J. Van Seters, The Life o f Moses:
The Yahwist as Historian in Exodus-Numbers, Kampen 1994, 208-19.
b. Exod. 18 is linked with the preceding account through the location of the
events at Rephidim (cf. 17:1, 8; 19:2), at the mountain of God (18:5; cf. 17:6,
9f.), by the mention of Aaron (cf. 17:10-12) and the elders (18:12; cf. 17:5) and
the allusions to the hardships in the wilderness (18:8). There is, however, no
specific connection with what follows and comes before. As to theme, Exod. 18
has its own place in Exodus.
In the Masoretic text, Exodus 18 forms a petuha. The content makes the chapter
fall into two parts: 18:1-12 with as theme Jethro’s confession of the greatness of
YHWH, and 18:13-27 with as theme the revamping of the administration of justice
on Jethro’s advice.
c. The break between the two parts is as a rule not regarded as a break between
elements of different literary origin. The recurrent use of certain terms argues
against it. Striking is the use of d m ^ k (13 x ; in 18:1-12 6 x ; in 18:15-23 7 x ) and
of inn, ‘father-in-law’ (13x ) .1 Some terms occur once in each of both parts.2
Some terms are mainly found in the second part,3 others only in the first part. So
‘to deliver’ (5 x ) and the names ‘y h w h ’ ( 6 x ; 18:1, 8 [2x], 9, 10, 11) and
‘Jethro’ (7x). Due to the theme of 18:1-12, it is understandable why the use of
1 ‘Moses’ father-in-law’ 7x : 18:1, 2, 5, 12 (2x), 14, 17; ‘father-in-law’ 6 x: 18:6, 7, 8, 15, 24,
27.
2 n i t i (18:2, 27); Dlbtf (18:7, 23); 310 (18:9, 17); cf. also 1700 (18:1, 19, 24).
3 IDT (11 x ), 18:11 + in 18:24-26 10X; 017, ‘people’ (1 5 x ), 18:1, 10 + in 18:13-26 1 3 x ; n ew in
18:1, 8, 9 (of YHWH) + in 18:14-24 7 x (of Moses 6 x ; not in 18:20).
^2*3 is restricted to that part. The limited use of ‘Jethro’ is striking, and used to
argue the point that 18:1-12 and 18:13-27 have at least a different pre-literary
origin (e.g. Schafer-Lichtenberger, 6Iff.). The name is said to be a subsequent
addition as well (e.g. Noth).
d. The remarkable use of y h w h beside (Introd. § 7.2.4) has led some
expositors to suppose that in 18:1-12, and also in 18:13-27, a J and an E version
are interwoven.4 A common view is that an E version has been expanded with J
elements.5 It has been argued that the alternation of the divine names is functional
and offers no basis for literary analysis: the general name for God is used with a
view to the non-Israelite Jethro; y h w h with a view to Israel.6 As elsewhere (see
e.g. 3:4), also here this interpretation seems farfetched. The presence of Yahwistic
additions seems likely. Exegetically important is that they offer a significant clue
for the interpretation of 18:1-12 in its current form.
Noth believes that 18:13-27 (E) offers ‘a smooth, self-contained narrative
sequence* (117; Eng. Tr., 146). A few expositors before him suggested a com
bination of J and E elements (see above). Later expositors think along the line of
additions to the text (see already Holzinger [18:20] and Baentsch [18:21b, 25,
26]). It is thought that 18:21b, 25b seem out of place and that the current text
encumbers Moses with duties that are hard to combine. Thus Knierim, 154f.,
concludes that besides 18:21b and 25b, in any case also 18:16b, 20 do not belong
‘zum Grundbestand der E vorliegenden Tradition,’ while Schafer-Lichtenberger,
61 ff., limits the ‘Grunderzahlung’ to 18:13apb, 14, 15a, 16a, 17, 18, 19a, 21a,
22-25a, 26 (Moses is just a judge). Schmid*, 78f., suggests that 18:16a and
‘ordinances’ in 18:16b, 20 are secondary (see further e.g. Zenger; Rose, 229ff.).
The problem of the relationship between the various tasks will be dealt with in the
exegesis.
e. Also pre-literary history and historical background of Exod. 18 have been the
focus of research. I offer an impression of the results. Greflmann*, 16Iff. (cf.
idem, SAT, 8Iff.), believes that in the worked-over current text one can detect
two originally separate narratives, having as common theme Jethro as instructor.
Originally the narratives were not connected to the mountain of God (18:5), but to
Kadesh (Introd. § 8.23.5).7 Greflmann has this to say to characterize the accounts:
the first (18:1-12) is an etiological cult saga, which relates the origin of the yhwh
cult at Kadesh; Moses’ ordination as priest and the sacrificial practice of the
Midianite YHWH-priest Jethro marked the start of that worship; the second (18:13-
4 See the diverging analyses of e.g. Greflmann*, 161 ff.; Eiflfeldt*; Auerbach*, 98ff.
5 See e.g. Wellhausen, C o m p o sitio n , 80f.; Baentsch; Noth; Fritz*, 13f.; differently Zenger:
‘Grundbestand’ of JE has been worked over by a Deuteronomistic editor and the redactor of the
Pentateuch.
6 See e.g. Nachmanides, Heinisch, Cassuto, Goldman, Michaeli; differently Eerdmans*, 58; see also
Rudolph*, 37ff.
7 Presumably the text alludes to Massah = nbirno (18:14, 17, 18, 20, 23, 24) = n&d (18:22)
(169ff.); see further e.g. Baentsch, Bohl.
398 EXODUS 1 8 :1 -2 7
27) is likewise an etiological saga; it recounts how Moses, on Jethro’s advice, put
the deliverance of justice on two tracks: priestly oracles to decide difficult cases -
Moses himself being the first priestly judge - and lay judges for simpler matters.
The sagas have a historical background: the Midianites were the teachers of the
Hebrews. Grefimann feels that Exod. 18 may have originated in the time prior to
Solomon.8 As said, Greflmann assumes a historical nucleus. According to him, the
narrators would not talk about Israel’s reliance on the Midianites if they had not
encountered it in the tradition (174; cf. Bohl; Beer; Michaeli; Auerbach*, 104).
Conservative expositors have seized this as an argument in support of the his
toricity of Exod. 18 in its current form (e.g. Heinisch; Gispen; also e.g. Cassuto
reckons with the possibility of derivation).
f. Noth (cf. idem*, UP, 150ff.) argues that 18:1-12 has the following back
ground: some holy spot, a mountain in the wilderness, was a place of pilgrimage
shared by Midianites and southern Palestinian Israelite tribes; there they regularly
met each other at cultic ceremonies in the Midianite sanctuary (cf. 18:12: Jethro
sacrifices); the tradition of the encounter between Israel and the priest of Midian
(the name is secondary) and of Moses’ marriage to a Midianite woman has its
roots in these meetings. Of the sacrificial feast prepared by the priest of Midian
Noth says that it ‘forms the starting point for the whole of the story in the
tradition’ (120; Eng. Tr., 149). The organizational structure described in 18:13-27
derives, in his view, from the ‘organization of the levy’ and the work of the judges
(cf. Judg. 10:1-5; 12:7-15) - they function in Moses’ role - and has as its
background ‘die Friihzeit Israels im Kulturlande’. Also, according to Noth, the
role assigned to the Midianite priest ‘suggests that the present tradition may have
arisen at a very early period, in which there were probably still friendly and
neighborly relations between the southern Israelite tribes and the Midianites’ (121;
Eng. Tr., 150).
g. Knierim, 147f., 152ff., is of the opinion that 18:1-12 in the current text
contains the story of Jethro’s conversion. However, in the text (in particular
18:12) one can detect the unrevised version, a levitical cult etiology: with the
encounter between the priest of Midian and Israel’s first priest, Aaron (supplanted
by Moses in the story), the foundations of the levitical cult were laid.9 Knierim
rejects the view of others who hold that the time of Josiah constitutes the back
ground of 18:13-27 (cf. Deut. 16:18-20; 17:8-13), contending that, as concerns the
nucleus, an old tradition from the time of Jehoshaphat (9th century) was turned into
an etiology of the reform of the judicial system carried out by Jehoshaphat (2 Chr.
19:5-11); the reform of the system was given the required sanction by projecting it
into the past and covering it with Moses’ authority.10 Knierim’s thesis has been
8 For reflections in similar vein, see Auerbach*, 98ff.

v For a conservative variant of this view, see Beegle*, 194; according to e.g. Valentin*, 385ff.,
Aaron is secondary.
10 Cf. G.C. Macholz, Z4W84 (1972), 318ff.; Childs, 324f. (partial agreement).
criticized by Schafer-Lichtenberger. In her judgment, behind the figure of Moses

in 18:13-27 stands the person of king David, and the passage is a ‘Rechtfer-
tigungslegende’ (‘justification legend’), which originated at David’s court, and
which in the first period of David’s rule over Israel and Judah was used to
legitimize the introduction of a new way of dispensing justice. Earlier already,
employing different arguments, Reviv had formulated a similar conception.
h. I like to draw attention to a few more points. 15:21b, 25b are more than once
regarded as additions (see d). Presumably the officials mentioned there do not
belong to Israel in the wilderness, but presuppose the existence of the monarchy
(e.g. 1. Sam. 8:Ilf.; 22:7f.); moreover, supposedly they go with the military
apparatus and are not part of the government (but note also 1 Kgs. 22:26; 2 Kgs.
10: Iff. and Knierim, 169f.). In contrast, Buber*, 118, maintaining that 18:13-27 is
based on ‘historical circumstances,* posits that the division of the people as found
in 8:21, 25 is very suitable to tribes living in the desert and less suitable to people
living in the civilized world; thus the system ‘(hat), abgesehen vom militarischen
Bereich, die Wanderschaft nicht iiberdauert.’ Fensham takes issue with the notion
that 18:13-27 embodies a reform from the monarchical period that was projected
back to the time of Moses, noting that Jehoshaphat’s reform followed an old
pattern and exhibits similarities with the juridical reforms of the Egyptian king
Haremhab (14th century).11 In his view, the establishment of certain offices in the
Mosaic period is historically not improbable.
i. As I see it, it is not impossible that the writer presents an anachronistic picture
of the revamping of the legal system in the wilderness - thus enabling his
addressees to visualize what was going on - , in which Moses is portrayed as a
kind of monarchical chief judge to a people organized along military lines (18:21,
25) and living over a large area (18:23). The assumption that behind the figure of
Moses one should be able to find the real initiator of the reform is, in my view,
overly optimistic. The assumption becomes all the more dubious when one realizes
that the ‘real’ initiator is only recognizable after the knife of literary criticism
(without sufficient ground, see exegesis) has stripped the Moses of Exod. 18 of
certain functions - lawgiver (Knierim); lawgiver and mediator (Schafer-Lichten
berger) (see d). Generally speaking, a search for the ‘real’ history behind the text
lands one on the slippery ice of speculation.12 An exegetically more promising
question is why the writer has put the meeting between Moses and Jethro at this
particular place in Exodus, and why it is here that he brings up an aspect of
Moses’ work not touched on before as well as the new legal system put in place by
Moses at the suggestion of his father-in-law. Before turning to that, another point
should be addressed first.
11 Cf. W.F. Albright, “The Judicial Reform of Jehoshaphat, ” in A le x a n d e r M a rx J u b ile e V o lu m e ,

New York 1950, 61-82.
12 See besides the views cited, also Schmid, 74ff.; for the historical background of 18:10-12, see
exegesis.
400 EXODUS 1 8 :1 -2 7
j. It has been suggested that the account of the visit of Jethro describes an event
that happened after the revelation at the Sinai. The notion occurs already in
rabbinic exegesis,13 and in e.g. Ibn Ezra; it has had advocates in times past (e.g.
Calmet) and is espoused by conservative (e.g. Heinisch, Cassuto) and critical
authors (e.g. Wellhausen*, Composition, 81; Michaeli).14 Of the arguments put
forth I mention here: Israel is already at the mountain of God (18:5), while 19:2
talks about the arrival at the Sinai; ‘rules and ordinances’ (18:16, 20) presuppose
the revelation at the Sinai; the organization presented in 18:13ff. requires a lengthy
stay at one and the same place; according to Deut. 1:9ff., the appointment of
judges follows after the arrival at Horeb (cf. Num. 11:1 Iff. and see Introd.
§ 12.7.11; Rose, 223ff.); according to 24:14 the institute of judges was not yet
known; therefore its establishment must have been after the events related in Exod.
24; Jethro’s departure must have happened after the theophany at Sinai (cf. Num.
10:29-32 and see exegesis 18:27); the conflict about Moses’ wife (Num. 12:1)
assumes that Zipporah had not been on the scene all that long. It is proposed that
the arrival of Jethro must be situated between what is related in Num. 10:10 and
10:11 (e.g. Calmet). The above notion has been criticized; Nachmanides: in
Moses’ conversation with Jethro the giving of the Torah is not mentioned;15
Gispen: Moses’ function as judge (18:13ff.) seems to indicate that the laws of God
had not yet been given.
k. As I see it, there is no reason to assume that Exod. 18 originally had a
different context. Of the traditions of Exod. 18, as of other parts, it is true that
owing to the combination of heterogeneous material they are not in every respect
seamless with the context.16 As in 17:6, the impression is given that Moses and
Israel were already encamped at the mountain of God (18:5), before they arrived
at the Sinai (19:If.).17 The writer seems to have no problem with the use of a
holy place (cf. also 16:32-34) and with the bringing of sacrifices (18:12) before
their official institution. Also earlier there was already talk of the giving of
ordinances and laws prior to the Sinai (15:25f.; 16:4, 28). The impression is given
that from the start of its sojourn in the wilderness Israel was initiated into a life
13 Did the visit take place after the crossing of the sea, the war with Amalek, or after the promul
gation of the Torah? (e.g. M ek. II, 162ff.; bZeb 116a); it should be recalled that according to rabbinic
exegesis Jethro wanted to become a proselyte (see at 18:10-12); that more or less presupposes the
possession of the Torah; cf. M ek. II, 174 (Moses acquaints Jethro with the teachings); according to
Josephus (A/, III, 62ff.), Moses’ father-in-law arrived after the arrival at the Sinai, but prior to the
revelation of God.
14 For the view that Exod. 18 belongs to the Kadesh tradition, see e.
15 Nachmanides considers it possible that the event related in 18:12 happened later, when Jethro
through circumcision, immersion and sprinkling with sacrificial blood had been converted and joined
the community of Israel.
16 Eerdmans*, 59, typifies Exodus as ‘ein Sammelwerk.’
17 For a try at explanation see e.g. Nachmanides on 18:1: Jethro came to the mountain of God
(referring to Jethro, not Moses) and sent a messenger to Moses at Rephidim; Moses went out to meet
him and brought him to Rephidim (18:5ff.).
with y h w h and attendant rules. It should be kept in mind that also after the
theophany at Sinai that initiation did not stop. Further instructions were forthcom
ing after that (Num. 9:8ff. et al.; see exegesis 18:15, 16 and also Josh. 24:25).
Consequently, in the Pentateuch in its current form, Israel’s encounter with y h w h
at the Sinai is ‘only’ culmination and focus of the giving of the Law. That brings
us to the question of the role of Exodus 18 in its context.
l. Remarkable is the contrast between 17:8-16 and ch. 18. Ch. 17 relates the
coming of non-Israelites, who have in mind to wipe out the people and destroy the
work of y h w h . Ch. 18 relates the coming of a non-Israelite, who is deeply
sympathetic with Israel and who praises y h w h for his mighty deeds in history.
The wonders performed by y h w h prompt quite different responses among the
nations.18
With the introduction of Jethro into the account, the writer offers a retrospect on
the mighty deeds of y h w h (18:1-12) and prepares for the acknowledgement of
y h w h as Lord at the Sinai (see Essentials). The depiction of the restructuring of
the administration of justice (18:13-27) results in a sharp delineation of Moses’
position. As the highest judge, he is the mediator between God and man and the
lawgiver (18:15-16, 19-20). In short, Moses is given the role he will occupy in
Exod. 19ff. The new structure legitimizes his position as mediator and lawgiver,
and enables him to devote himself completely to the tasks which, according to
Exod. 19ff., will take up all his time.
The organizational form of the people detailed in 18:21b, 25b also recalls the
portrayal of Israel elsewhere in Exodus, although in different terms (see 6:26 and
13:18), as a populous but well-organized nation. Also here the military aspect is
not dominant (see beside it Num. 31:14, 48, 52, 54), and the terminology is
evidently designed to bring out that in the wilderness Israel was a sojourning
nation. All in all, the Israel which at the Sinai encounters YHWH is, owing to the
centralization of authority, not an amorphous multitude without cohesion, but a
tightly ordered group of people, capable of giving a unanimous response to the
word of y h w h (cf. 19:8; 24:3). Furthermore, prior to the Sinai the structure
through which the law can be effective is in place (beside 18:22 see 19:6).
m. The relationship between 18:1-12 and 18:13-27 requires attention. Each of
the parts has its own theme (see b). The role played by the leading Figures, Moses
and his father-in-law, in the first part augmented by Moses’ wife and sons and
Aaron and the elders, in the second part by the people, is the connecting factor.
Also in another respect there is a connection: Jethro’s acknowledgement of
y h w h ’s greatness and the acceptance of Jethro by the representatives of Israel
IK Already way back the contrast was noted; on the contrast Esau/Amalek (prototype of evil) and
Jethro (see e.g. ExR. XXVII, 1; TzUR); the impression is given as if Jethro was at first an ally of
Amalek, but changed his mind after Amalek’s defeat (see e.g. ExR. XXVII, 6; MidrTanh. Exod. V, 3);
see further e.g. Ibn Ezra and Keil (‘the different attitudes they assumed toward the Israelites foreshad
owed and typified the twofold attitude which the heathen world would assume toward the kingdom of
God’), Lange, Cassuto.
402 EXODUS 1 8 :1 -2 7
(18:10-12) make him a man of authority; so 18:1-12 can be regarded as

preliminary to Moses’ readily going along with Jethro’s advice (18:17ff.)-
n. O f the two key role figures Jethro is unquestionably dominant. Not only does
he stand out, also his role is much greater. He is always the one who takes
initiatives. Moses honours him (18:7). One might describe Moses as his ‘enabler,’
as the man who through his words (18:8, 15f.) and deeds (18:13) enables his
father-in-law to excel (18:10-12, 17-23), come through as a person of such stature
that he could even admonish Moses (18:17f.) and tell him what to do (cf.
18:24ff.). The relationship between the two principal characters has even oc
casioned the observation that Exod. 18 is part of ‘an anti-Moses tradition.’19
However, Exod. 18 is certainly not intended to disqualify Moses; he was and is
the highest authority within Israel. Jethro’s leading role is due to the fact that in
the ancient world the validity of the reform of the judicial system depended on
confirmation by some power. That formal approval of the new system, recognizing
it as having authority, could come from a divine decree or from it having been
introduced by a prominent individual. Remarkable in Exod. 18 is that it is not
divine intervention that does the validating (cf. Num. 11:16ff., 24ff.), but that it
rests on the advice of a non-Israelite. That has occasioned commentary by ex
positors.
Josephus (AJ , III, 74) regards the fact that Moses did not conceal who was
behind the reform and did not claim that he was its originator as one of the proofs
of Moses’ virtuous disposition. The fact that Moses, the great prophet, accepted
advice from the heathen priest Jethro astonished Origen {Horn, in Exod., XI). He
saw a lesson in it: Christians should not right away, proud of their possession of
God’s law, dismiss the words of heathens; they should not consider the person, but
what he has to say (cf. 1 Thess. 5:21); leaders should be humble and take to heart
the valuable advice of persons of lower station.20 According to Calvin, the
pericope 18:13-27 contains yet more worthwhile teaching: leaders, in government
as well as church, must not succumb to the sickness of wanting to do everything
themselves. According to a more recent exegete, Jethro’s counsel remains
relevant: ‘The wise plan devised by Jethro has never become antiquated. The
statesman-like principle of decentralization - the delegation of responsibility - is
as important to-day as in the time of Moses’ (McNeile). That may be true. But
drawing attention to it was not (primarily) what the writer of Exodus had in mind
(see l).21
19 See T.C. Butler, JSOT 12 (1979), 9-15.

20 Cf. also Augustine, QE, LXVIII, and e.g. Calvin; for a similar sentiment see also Zohar Exod.
68, 69a.
21 On the history of the exegesis, see also Childs, 332ff.

EXEGESIS
18:1 When Jethro, the priest o f Midian, Moses' father-in-law, had heard all that
God had done fo r Moses and his people Israel, how y h w h had brought Israel out
o f Egypt,
‘to hear/ see Introd. § 3.51.1. ‘Jethro/ see Introd. § 5.37. see 2:16; also for
targum renderings (cf. Mek. II, 166). ‘Midian/ see Introd. § 8.16. inn, see 3:1.
‘to do fo r/ see Introd. § 3.41.1. ‘G od/ LXX: Ki3pio<;; cf. 18:8, and see Sander
son*, 135f. ‘his people* (Introd. § 3.40.1) = God’s people; improbable: Moses’
people (cf. Ibn Ezra). Unlike in 18:8-10, Moses is here mentioned alongside Israel
(not in LXX; cf. Sanderson*, 104) as object of y h w h ’s ‘doing.’22 This in view
of the relationship between Jethro and Moses. It is intimated that what he had
heard might induce Jethro to re-establish ties with Moses and so enter into a
relationship with Israel and its God. '2, see Introd. § 3.25.1. ‘to bring out,’ see
Introd. § 3.24.2.
Jethro has learned of all that happened to Moses and Israel, of the entire history
since Moses’ departure from Midian (4:18ff.), which can be succinctly sum
marized as: y h w h has brought Israel out of Egypt (the clause with '2 does not
point to a new subject; see insertion of ‘and’ in e.g. UV, CV). The news of
Israel’s deliverance has already spread to the nations (cf. e.g. 15:14ff.; Josh.
2:9ff.). But Jethro’s reaction is different from that of the nations. Like Amalek, he
goes to Israel, but unlike Amalek (17:8-16) for a different purpose (17:8-16). The
sequel indicates that he brought Moses’ wife and her sons to Moses.23 It has been
proposed that Jethro, as leader of Midian and impressed by Amalek’s defeat,
realized the desirability of good relations with Israel (cf. Josh. 9:9ff.) and also for
that reason undertook the journey (e.g. Strack, and see also Fensham). The text is
silent on it. The writer is not interested in political motives of a sheik. With 18:1
he conveys that Jethro was impressed by Israel’s salvation history. Looking
ahead - Jethro acknowledges that y h w h is without equal (18:10, 11) it seems
clear that the writer seeks to depict Jethro as a man so deeply impressed by y h w h
that, drawn by the reports and impressed by the blessing resting upon Israel (cf.
Gen. 12:3), he set out to find out for himself the truth of what he had heard (18:8;
cf. 1 Kgs. 10: Iff.).24 From that perspective, the bringing back of Zipporah and
her sons was a means to take up contact with Moses and Israel rather than the
purpose of the journey.
22 Rashi: Moses and all of Israel were of equal importance (cf. Mek. II, 166); Nachmanides: God
enabled Moses to come before Pharaoh without fear and to inflict the plagues upon him.
23 Nachmanides: ‘Jethro thought that it was now time for Zipporah to follow ‘the king’ wherever he
would go; Keil: Moses probably had stipulated that Jethro was to return Zipporah to him on the arrival
of the Israelites at Horeb.
24 Jewish exegesis has it that he was interested in becoming a proselyte (see at 18:10-12).
404 EXODUS 18:1-27
18:2 Jethro , Moses*father-in-law, took Zipporah, Moses* wife - after having been
sent away (by him, she stayed with her father) -
‘to take,’ see Introd. § 3.30; cf. 4:20. ‘Zipporah,’ see Introd. § 6.5; Pesh.: + ‘his
daughter’ (cf. 2:21). ‘wife,’ see Introd. § 3.2.3. "inN, see Introd. § 3.1.1. Dvribtf
(for pi. see e.g. KoSynt § 261e; Ges-K § 124f; Brockelmann § 19b), see Introd.
§ 3.49.2.
According to 4:20, Moses went to Egypt with wife and children; according to
4:24-26, Zipporah and at least one son accompanied him on the journey; after 4:26
they are not mentioned again until ch. 18. Then, however, they turn up in Jethro’s
company. The words ‘after having been sent away’ have occasioned a variety of
views: Moses had sent back wife and children already before he came to Egypt
(see Vol. I, 427, 438, 442); from Egypt Moses sent back his family (e.g. Buber*,
112); only after Israel had come to the wilderness, had Moses let his wife go to
visit her father (Calvin); according to critical expositors, the words in question are
from an editor and intended to harmonize different traditions (see 4:20); Noth e.g.
thinks that the words suggest that from Egypt Zipporah had been sent back to
Midian. According to Ehrlich (cf. Holzinger), D'mbe; cannot denote a temporary
separation but only a permanent separation (cf. Deut. 24:1, 3;; Mai. 2:16; see
already Mek. II, 167): according to the tradition found in 18:2b, Moses did not
bring wife and children with him to Egypt, but separated from her before he left
Midian. The notion that Moses had divorced Zipporah and taken another wife
(Num. 12:1) is not new.25 The designations ‘Moses’ father-in-law’ and ‘Moses’
wife’ and the warm welcome (18:7) argue against this interpretation. In any case,
the end of 18:2b is intended to clarify why Zipporah was with her father. For a
different view, see Josephus (AJ, III, 63): Moses’ father-in-law comes alone and is
welcomed by Moses, his wife and children (they remained together).
18:3 and her two sons with him; the one was named Gershom, T o r, *he had said ,
7 have become a guest in a foreign land; *
18:4 the other was named Eliezer, Tor* (he had said) 'the God o f my father was
my helper by delivering me from the sword o f Pharaoh. *
‘two,’ see Introd. §4.3.1. ‘sons,’ see Introd. § 3.10.1. Dtf, see Introd. § 3.50.
‘the one ... the other,’ see Introd. §4.2.1; cf. 1 Sam. 14:4. ‘Gershom,’ see
Introd. § 5.19. For '2 and following words see 2:22. TNf: a m n n v a , ‘foreigner
and alien;’ cf. M.L. Klein, Eretz-lsrael 16 (1982), 130*-140*. ‘Eliezer,’ see
Introd. §5.10. After 'D, IDN seems implied (cf. 18:3) (‘double duty verb’),26
explicit in LXX, TPsJ (in Gen. 41:51, 52 both times “1DN is missing); also here it
concerns a statement Moses made at the birth of the sons. ’atf Yibx, see 3:6.
'"irua (with 2 essentiae; KoSynt § 338z; Ges-K § 119i; Joiion § 133c; Williams
25 See e.g. Calmet cites it along with other interpretations: Moses had practiced abstinence after his
call (Exod. 3); “inN means: ‘after he had sent him (Jethro) gifts (dowry).’
2ACf. M. Dahood, Psalms, III, Garden City, New York 1970, 435.
§ 249, 564); 1JI? (OT ca. 20 x) is a derivative of "itr, which as verb (OT ca.
80x) is used with people (e.g. 2 Sam. 18:3) and God (Gen. 49:25; Ps. 37:40 etc.;
in 1 Sam. 7:12 in connection with the explanation of a place name) as subject,
with the meaning of ‘to help;’ often y h w h is the One from whom help is expected
(Ps. 20:3; 121:2; 124:8 et al.); ‘help’ often virtually means ‘helper* (e.g. Gen.
2:18, 20), in particular in reference to y h w h (18:4; Deut. 33:7, 26; Hos. 13:9;
Ps. 70:6; 146:5; cf. Ps. 33:20; 115:9-11); ‘help’ is intended to provide relief,
deliverance; thus as to meaning ‘help’ comes close to ‘to free,’ ‘to deliver/save.’
See THAT , II, 256ff.; TWATy VI, 14ff. *?2S3, see 2:19. Sin, see 5:3; LXX: ‘from
the hand of Pharaoh’ (cf. 18:8-10, and see Sanderson*, 63).
Thus far Moses’ second son has not yet been mentioned by name in Exodus. His
name recalls Moses’ escape from execution by Pharaoh (2:15; cf. 4:19) through
fleeing to Midian and it lauds God for that deliverance. How Moses escaped the
sword Exodus does not say. Mek. II, 171, fills in some details: when Moses is on
the scaffold, the sword in his neck, an angel takes his place (see further e.g. ExR.
I, 31; Rashi). Heinisch, on the assumption that Eliezer was bom after Zipporah
had been sent away (cf. 4:24), suggests that Moses gave the name upon Zipporah’s
return (see also e.g. Goldman) and relates the name to the confrontation with
Pharaoh (in particular 10:28; 14:5ff.). According to Nachmanides, Moses gave
thanks to God for the deliverance of 2:15, for being entrusted with the kingship
over Israel, and for the rescue from the sea (for the last point see also Fensham).
The citing of the names offers the reader a flashback to a little bit of history, the
bit of history from Moses’ life which Jethro had witnessed and which, in
retrospect, can be called the prelude of the events Jethro had heard of (18:1).
18:5 So Jethro, M oses ’ father-in-law , came with his (Moses’) sons and his
(Moses’) wife to Moses, in the wilderness, where he was encamped at the mountain
o f God.
ND'i (LXX: Kai e£f)A0ev, elsewhere [e.g. 18:7] used to translate N2T1), cf. 17:8;
the coming of the non-Israelite Jethro is for an altogether different reason than the
coming of Amalek. intfNi VJ31, chiasm relative to 18:2-4. ‘his sons,’ TPsJ
clarifies: ‘Moses’ sons’ (but note against it Zohar Exod. 69b: Jethro’s sons); cf.
18:3: ‘her sons,’ and see Mek. II, 172: they are Moses’ sons, not children from
another marriage of Zipporah. ‘wilderness,’ see Introd. § 3.31. nan, see 13:20.
□vi^Nn nn (Introd. § 3.16.2), here accus. of place; specification with (cf. Ges-
K § 118g; see also Eerdmans*, 57f.: commentary from a scholar); cf. 17:6, 9, 10;
it would seem that the writer is thinking of Horeb (cf. 3:1); like Moses’ meeting
with Jethro (4:27), Moses’ meeting with Aaron happens under the watchful eye of
y h w h (cf. 18:12). In the targums, d y i ^ n , as in 3:1, is regarded as specification of
the place of y h w h ’s theophany to Moses.
18:6 He sent word to Moses: 7 am your father-in-law Jethro; I have come to you;
also your wife is there accompanied by her two sons. ’
406 EXODUS 18:1-27
(Qm: netob), who is subject? Moses and Jethro are not yet near
each other (18:7), so that there cannot be direct contact between them. It is
suggested that the subject is indefinite: ‘it was told’ (cf. LV); cf. LXX: ccvtiyySAti
6e Mcouoei AeYovxec; ’I6ou ...: ‘Moses was told, saying, look ...;* see also Pesh.
(this interpretation is accompanied by the reading run instead of *UN; see Qm,
Sam. Pent., LXX, Pesh. and cf. Gen. 48:2 MT). More likely Jethro is subject and
indirectly he speaks to Moses (cf. Vulg.: et mandavit Mosi dicens); the situation
envisaged is the following: Jethro and his people have arrived at the camp, that is,
they have come to Moses* tent; the question is whether they may be admitted; it is
up to Moses to decide; Jethro’s identity and the purpose of his journey are
reported to Moses through an Israelite or a messenger from Jethro (cf. Gen.
46:28; Luke 7:3, 6);27 the messenger, as often happens, speaks as if he were the
sender himself (cf. 6:6). etc., Jethro introduces himself (cf. Introd. § 7.3.7).
i"H3, LXX, Vulg.: ‘your sons.’ nou, LXX and Pesh.: ‘with him’ (= Jethro);
Ehrlich: read 'DU, ‘with me.’
18:7 Then Moses went out to meet his father-in-law. He bowed before him and
kissed him. Each asked how the other was doing and they went into the tent.
18:7 describes Moses’ reaction to Jethro’s message. (Introd. § 3.24.1), viz.
from the tent or the camp; Mek. II, 173: Aaron, Nadab and Abihu and the seventy
elders went along with Moses to meet Jethro (cf. 18:12); see also e.g. ExR.
XXVII, 2; Rashi. n*npb, see 1:10. innen (Ges-K § 75kk), see 4:31; Sam. Pent.:
ntfD1? 'inneri, the roles are reversed: not Moses but Jethro is the one who voices
his deep respect for the other (the interpretation is discounted in Mek. II, 173f.; cf.
Rashi). peu, see 4:27; TWAT , V, 676ff. see 3:22. ‘each,’ see Introd.
§ 3.2.2. see 4:18; cf. KoSynt § 327k, 350f. ... LXX: ‘and
they embraced each other.’ (Introd. § 3.8), Sam. Pent.: ‘and he let
him in;’ cf. LXXB and e.g. LV; see also LXXA: ‘he let them (= Jethro, wife and
sons) in,’ and Vulg.: cumque intrasset tabemaculum , ‘and when he had entered the
tent.’ see 16:16; TPsJ: ‘the tent of the school’ (Jethro has become a
proselyte); cf. Mek. II, 174. Some suggest that the tent was the cult tent (33:7-11),
where sacrifices were brought and justice was administered (18:12ff.) (Holzinger;
Meyer*, IN, 135). According to Buber*, 113f., Moses’ tent was the real ‘tent of
meeting,’ where also the sacrificial meal was eaten.
The scene depicted is a typical Ancient Eastern greeting ritual. By leaving his
tent to meet Jethro, bowing before him and embracing him, Moses shows his
respect and affection. After the obligatory ritual the men retire to the tent. There
the actual conversation takes place (18:8-11).
27 Mek. II, 172; ExR. XXVII, 2: a letter or a messenger; cf. e.g. MidrTanh. Exod. V, 6; TzUR: a
letter attached to an arrow was shot to the cloud-shrouded camp (cf. TPsJ on 18:7, and see Ginzberg*,
III, 64); Rashi: a messenger; Ibn Ezra, Nachmanides: a letter (cf. 2 Chr. 2:10).
18:8 Moses shared with his father-in-law all that y h w h had done to Pharaoh and
the Egyptians fo r Israel's sake, all the hardships they had endured along the way
and from which y h w h had delivered them.
IDO, see 9:16. ‘to do,* see Introd. §3.41.1. LXX: ‘all the Egyptians.’
rm x = niix (OT 10x ; only pi.), the usual meaning given to it is ‘cause,’
‘occasion’ (the etymology is uncertain, however; for suggestions see BDB\ Ges-B;
HAL) is always preceded by and fortifies this preposition (Brockelmann
§ 110m); ‘on account of,’ ‘because o f and the like (18:8; Gen. 21:11, 25; 26:32;
Num. 12:1; 13:24 et al.). nx, Cairo genizah fragment, some MSS: nxi, cf. LXX,
Pesh., Vulg. nx'rn, see 7:18. XSD, see 5:11 (cf. Ges-K § 59a). y n , see 3:18.
cf. 18:4; LXX: + ‘from the hand of Pharaoh and from the hand of the
Egyptians’ (cf. 18:9, 10).
Jethro had learned second-hand of the experiences of Moses and Israel (18:1).
Now first-hand, from Moses’ own lips, he receives a complete and detailed
account. To convey this the writer in part uses the same terminology as in 18:1
(18:1 and 18:8 complement each other). General terms are used for the events:
first there is an allusion to the plagues and the doom of Pharaoh and his army;
next to the dangers that threatened Israel, pursuit by the Egyptians, thirst, hunger,
Amalek’s threat;28 y h w h always proved himself Israel’s saviour.
18:9 Jethro was excited about all the good things y h w h had done fo r Israel: that
he had delivered them from the power o f the Egyptians.
im (for the form see Ges-K § 21f, 75r) imperf. cons, qal of m n , ‘to rejoice,’
‘to be excited’ (18:9; Job 3:6; cf. Ps. 21:7 piel); beside m n see nQfc (see 4:14);
LXX: ’ E ^ e o t t i 6e, ‘was astounded’ (is translation based on a form of m n ? cf.
Gen. 27:33; Exod. 19:18; see, however, Sanderson*, 130); the reality was even
more impressive than he had been told (cf. 1 Kgs. 10:6f.); Ehrlich: read "in'*i (of
n n x ) , ‘he listened a long time.’ Rabbinic exegesis, employing a play on words
with v i n n (cuts), relates nmi to Jethro’s grief, viz., about the death of the
Egyptians, with whom, as a former pagan, he felt kinship (bSanh 94a; cf. e.g.
Rashi; TzUR). D ID , see 1:20. n tfx , see Introd. § 3.7. In TPsJ, through an
insertion, ‘the good’ is also related to the gift of manna and the spring (cf. Mek.
II, 174). Rashi also adds the Torah to it. i^ x n , with sing. suff. (cf. 3:8), in LXX,
Pesh. rendered ad sensum with pi. TD (Introd. § 3.21.2), concretely perhaps the
slave labour (1:1 Iff.; 5:4ff.; 6:6f.; cf. TNf on 18:10); LXX: + ‘from the hands
of Pharaoh;’ the deliverance happened by means of the drowning of the Egyptians
in the sea (14:28). The clause introduced with the second n tfx (cf. 'D in 18:1)
does not refer to a second reason for rejoicing (e.g. UV, CV), but sets forth and
sums up y h w h ’s salvation from the power of Egypt (differently KoSynt § 387g).
So again, in varied phraseology, y h w h ’s work is cited (cf. 18:1, 8).
28 Cf. the explanation in TPsJ: ‘at Yam Suph, at Marah and at Rephidim and how Amalek had
fought them;' see also Mek. II, 174; Rashi.
408 EXODUS 18:1-27
18:10 And Jethro said: ‘Praise be to y h w h , who has delivered you from the
power o f the Egyptians and from the power o f Pharaoh, who has delivered the
people from the oppressive power o f the Egyptians.
18:11 Now I recognize that y h w h is greater than all gods: because they (the
Egyptians) acted insolently toward them (the Israelites)
In 18:9 the writer reports Jethro’s excitement. In 18:10, 11 he lets Jethro speak
for himself. What he heard, his sharing in y h w h ’s deeds, inspires joy expressing
itself in praise (cf. Ps. 28:6; 31:22; 68:20; 106:1, 48; 124:6; 2 Chr. 7:3; Ezra
3:11 et al.). Jethro utters (18:10) a short song of praise and continues (18:11) with
a declaration of faith. Jethro’s praise and confession are in the form of poetry; the
clauses introduced with (18:10) comprise a statement with two parallel
members; similarly the clauses introduced with 10K (18:9) and 'D (18:11).
-p s , see 12:32;29 the fact that Jethro (not one of the 600,000 Israelites) sings
the word of praise to y h w h , is interpreted in rabbinic exegesis as a reproof of
Israel (e.g. Mek. II, 175, and see Goldman). DanK, LXXB: ‘them;’ LXXA: ‘his
people.’ Dun, Pesh., Vulg.: ‘his people.’
Jethro’s comprehensive statement, the repetitions in 18:10, in response to 18:8,
9, have the effect of bringing out Jethro’s exuberant joy. Note the following: ix ) ,
‘to save,’ with y h w h as subject (cf. 18:8, 9 and 18:4) is used twice by Jethro;
‘from the power of’ (18:9) 3 x , the last time with emphasis.30 Furthermore,
‘Pharaoh’ - ‘Egyptians’ (18:8) - ‘Egyptians’ (18:9), is followed in 18:10 by:
‘Egyptians’ - ‘Pharaoh’ - ‘Egyptians;’ ‘Israel’ is variously referred to as ‘you’
and ‘the people.’ The repetition and the differentiation of ‘you’ and ‘the people’ is
seen as problematic by Jewish expositors; see e.g. Ibn Ezra: ‘you’ = Moses and
Aaron; Nachmanides: ‘you’ = Moses and the people (cf. 18:1), in distinction
from the people as such. According to both interpreters, there is no repetition here
but a reference to different great deeds of God. The last seven words of 18:10 (not
translated in LXX) are sometimes, wrongly (the repetition brings out something
else; see above), omitted (e.g. LV) or taken with 18:11 (e.g. UV, CV, NV,
NRSV; see below).
nni;, see 3:9. ‘to know,’ see Introd. § 3.22; cf. Gen. 22:12. ^na, see 2:10;
Mek. II, 176: never had a slave been able to flee from Egypt; y h w h brought out
600,000 people (cf. Rashi on 18:9). For the attestation of y h w h ’s incomparability
see Introd. § 7.1. The words used by Jethro lead Calvin to note that Jethro was
not yet free of all error. According to rabbinic exegesis, Jethro’s confession
ranked below that of Naaman (cf. 2 Kgs. 5:15) and Rahab (Josh. 2:11); from ‘all’
it is inferred that Jethro was familiar with all the gods and used to worship them
(Mek. II, 176; cf. Rashi). In TO, the translation ‘and that besides him there is no
God’ presents Jethro as a genuine monotheist. "H&n 1212, see Introd. § 3.12.3.
29 Cf. W. Sibley Towner, CBQ 30 (1968), 388-99.

30 T nnnD, climax; for n n n o , see 6:7; 2 Kgs. 13:5; Isa. 3:6; "P n n n o , TO, TPsJ: ‘from the
domination;’ TNf: ‘from the yoke of slavery;’ cf. Mek. II, 176; Rashi.
•n j (cf. Joiion § 33) perf. qal of n r = tt (OT 10x ; hiph. 8 x ), whose basic
meaning may be ‘to be hot* (cf. hiph. in Gen. 25:29); in qal (18:11 [cf. Neh. 9:10
hiph.]; Jer. 50:29) and hiph. (21:14; Deut. 1:43; 17:13; 18:20 et al.): ‘foolhardy,
to be insolent/act insolently.’ It is obvious that the Egyptians are the implied
subject. The specific reference (forcing to do slave labour; the suppression of
Israel?) remains unclear, however.
The end of the verse is problematic. LXX, Pesh. and Vulg. provide no help for
understanding it. It is sometimes thought that something is missing from the text,
and that the lost part recounted how y h w h inflicted hardship upon the Egyptians
on account of their insolent treatment of Israel (e.g. Strack, Baentsch, McNeile,
Noth).31
Sometimes it is attempted to understand MT as a complete text: ‘daardoor dat zij
zich trotschelijk verheven hebben tot hun eigen ondergang!’ (‘in this that they
acted insolently to their own destruction’) (Van der Palm); ‘want dat wat zij met
moedwil deden, is over henzelf gekomen’ (‘for what they did wantonly came upon
themselves’) (Dasberg);32 this interpretation of MT is usually accompanied by the
above explanation of 18:11.3334 Sometimes 18:11 is augmented by insertion (NV)
or addition at the end (UV, CV) of the last six words of 18:10; see NV: ‘... go-
den; want Hij heeft het volk ..., omdat dezen overmoedig ...,34 Sometimes "D and
following words are left untranslated (e.g. WV, GNB). It has also been proposed
to alter the text; Ehrlich: D.T^y i t "H&x 1212 '2 t ‘indeed, by letting them (the
gods of Egypt; cf. 12:12) feel his power’ (cf. 1 Sam. 6:5); GreBmann*, 162: ‘for
with pestilence ("D ia) (he struck them) ...’ (cf. Auerbach*, 99); R. Althann,
JNSL 11 (1983), 10ff., takes DT^y, assumed to mean ‘their sucklings,’ as the first
word of 18:12 and translates the remaining words with ‘even by the word of the
one (= Moses) they (= the Egyptians) scorned.’
18:12 Jethro , Moses* father-in-law, provided a burnt offering and sacrifices in

honour o f God. Then Aaron came with all the elders o f Israel to eat the sacred
meal together with Moses* father-in-law.
It is not impossible that Jethro’s words of praise and confession (18:10, 11) were
spoken in Moses’ tent. What is described in 18:12 takes place outside. Likely,
31 Already in rabbinic exegesis, 18:11 is related to the watery grave of the Egyptians in the sea as
YHWH’s retribution for the drowning of the Israelite boys (1:22) (e.g. TO; TPsJ; TNf; Mek. II, 176f.;
MidrTanh. Exod. V, 5, and see Rashi; TzUR); the interpretation has been said to be too restrictive:
presumably in view are YHWH’s measures, of whatever kind, against the Egyptians, for the many ways
in which they oppressed the Israelites (e.g. Calvin, Keil, Gispen); yet again differently Bohl: Egypt
turns against YHWH’s firstborn and is struck in its firstborn (cf. 4:22); see also Nachmanides: the
Egyptians, while indeed God’s instruments (Gen. 15:13), acted presumptuously.
32 Yet again differently e.g. SV, Vredenburg.
33 Differently Cassuto: ‘excelling (viz. YHWH) them (viz. the gods of Egypt; cf. 12:12) in the very
things to which they laid claim.’
34 The suggestion about addition is from Dillmann; see further e.g. Beer, Childs.
410 exodus 18:1-27
though, all that Jethro did happened outside, presumably by the holy place.
np'1 (Introd. § 3.30)., with an appeal to Pesh., Vulg., TO, the reading 2 ip ^
(for 3")p see 3:5), ‘and he brought/took,’ has been defended (e.g. Ehrlich;
GreBmann*, 166; Beer); it is assumed that np'1 rests on deliberate alteration of the
text: the offensive portrayal of Jethro appearing in a priestly role has been
removed. Heinisch holds that the use of npî may indicate that the sacrifice
brought did not meet the requirements of the Mosaic law. Such suggestions are
improbable. MT is supported by Sam. Pent., LXX, TPsJ, TNf. The translation ‘he
brought’ in the ancient translations (see above; for modem translations see e.g.
GNB, NRSV, REB) likely rests on interpretation. In the present context np'1
certainly fits (cf. e.g. Gen. 8:20; 15:9f.; Lev. 12:8), but presupposes a subsequent
action which is not mentioned. Not answered is the question who slaughtered the
animal and brought the sacrifice. Jethro himself or Moses or others (cf. 24:5)?35
It cannot have been Aaron (some, e.g. Calmet, have cast him in that role), for he
does not appear on the scene until after the sacrifice. As to Jethro, the writer
brings out his importance by introducing him as ‘priest of Midian,’ while through
the recurrent ‘father-in-law’ at the same time he points out that Jethro was present
among Israel in that role and not as a priest.
DTQnn^y, see 10:25; nbv, ancient (LXX, Pesh., Vulg., TPsJ, TNf) and
modem translations (e.g. GNB, NRSV): ‘burnt offerings* (cf. Sanderson*, 133f.);
in TO, TPsJ the sacrifices are specifically called ‘holy things before y h w h ; ’
similarly in TNf (Jethro is a proselyte!); Valentin, 385ff., regards both ‘sacrifice’
and ‘Aaron’ as additions, 'jpr ^2 2 , the representatives of the people (see
3:16); Sam. Pent.: 'JpTDl, not all, but a part of the elders (cf. 17:5 MT). ‘to eat,’
see Introd. § 3.31.1; again (cf. 2:20) Jethro provides a meal; this time it is a
sacred meal.
□Yi^Nn ’•JD*? (Introd. § 3.42.2), the activity happens at the holy place (18:5; cf.
e.g. 1 Sam. 9:1 Iff.) before the eyes of God.36 Is it assumed that the sacrifice was
brought at the altar mentioned in 17:15? (e.g. Hertz). It is not said of Moses that
he participated in the meal. His presence is presupposed.37 Differently e.g. Beer:
Moses was not among those invited because, unlike the others, through his
marriage he was already a member of the Kenites/Midianites and privy to the
cultic rite in whom the others would now be initiated. In my view, Aaron and the
elders are mentioned in order to make clear that Jethro is being accepted by the
representatives of Israel (see below). Josephus (AJt III, 63ff.) has his own slant:
35 Ephraem: ‘he sacrificed through Moses or he had set aside a place where God wanted that they
should sacrifice to him.’
36 Cassuto: at the entrance to the tent of meeting; Gispen: in the presence of the pillar of cloud and
fire. Among others Goldman: Moses’ tent was the place of the meal (see also 18:7); in rabbinic
exegesis ‘before God’ is interpreted metaphorically: one who welcomes his fellow human being can be
regarded as welcoming the Shekinah (e.g. Mek. II, 178); one who sits at table with learned persons
enjoys as it were the glow of the divine majesty (bBer 64a; Rashi; TzUR).
37 TPsJ: + ‘and Moses stood and served them;’ see also e.g. Mek. II, 177f.; Rashi.
Moses, immensely pleased with the visit of his father-in-law Reuel, offers a
sacrifice and prepares a feast near the bush that was not consumed; the entire
multitude shares in the festive meal; Reuel joins Aaron and those at table with him
and with them sings hymns to God and praises their leader Moses.
Nature o f Jethro's reaction (18:10-12)

What must we think of Jethro’s actions? Was he a worshipper of y h w h (cf.
Introd. § 7.3.3, 4), who now was even more impressed by his god? (e.g. Te
Stroete, Henton Davies, Honeycutt). Or are his words and actions to be regarded
as indicative of his acceptance of y h w h as God?38 Commentators of different
stripe have contended that neither viewpoint is likely, and that what is described in
18:10-12 is the making of a friendship pact between the Midianites and the
Israelites.39 Important OT passages in support are, among others, Gen. 21:22ff.;
26:26ff.; 31:43ff.
The conception is not without problems. Its acceptance is closely tied to adoption
of the thesis that the Kenites, with whom, as is evident from such passages as
1 Sam. 15:6, the Israelites enjoyed a special relationship, were Midianites (cf.
Introd. § 8.16). More importantly, Exod. 18 is silent about a covenant and its
provisions, about taking an oath and calling on witnesses. To make its absence
more plausible it has been proposed that in the tradition process details were
omitted,40 while other details, the mention of the burnt offering, which does not
quite fit the occasion of the making of a covenant, and the name of Aaron,
presumably were added later. Furthermore, the meal ‘before God/YHWH* is not
exclusively reserved for the making of a covenant. The meal at the holy place was
appropriate for a variety of occasions (e.g. Deut. 12:17f.; 14:23; 1 Chr. 29:21f.).
All in all, there is no reason to relate 18:10-12, certainly not in its present form,
to the making of a covenant.
The text suggests the following scenario: y h w h ’s great deeds induce Jethro to
praise and acknowledgement of y h w h as Lord of all (18:10, 11). He expresses his
38 According to traditional Jewish interpretation, Jethro converted to Judaism and came to Moses to
become a proselyte; see e.g. TPsJ on 18:6, 7; Mek. II, 172ff.; ExR. XXVII, 9; MidrTanh. Exod. V, 1,
5; Zohar Exod. 67b-70a: Rashi; TzUR; Ginzberg*, III, 63ff. (another view is that Jethro was already a
convert; see 2:16). Also Christian expositors have adopted the view that Jethro was a proselyte; see
e.g. Ephraem; Ishodad (he is aware of its denial: also pagans can bring sacrifices to the true God; Ezra
6:9f.); Murphy; Cole; Knight and further Gunneweg (Introd. § 5.45.4), 7f.; H. Schult, “Naemans
Ubertritt zum Yahwismus (2 Konige 5 l-19a) und die biblischen Bekehrungsgeschichten,” DBAT 9
(1975), 2-20. That one may infer conversion from the recognition of y h w h ’s greatness is disputed by
Buber*, 114ff.; Cassuto, and others.
39 See Brekelmans (Introd. § 7.3.4); F.C. Fensham, “Did a Treaty Between the Israelites and the
Kenites Exist?” BASOR 175 (1964), 51-4; A. Cody, “Exodus 18, 12: Jethro Accepts a Covenant with
the Israelites,” Bib 49 (1968), 153-66; D.C.T. Sheriffs, “The Phrases ina /G/DW and lipiniy Yhwh in
Treaty and Covenant Contexts,” JNSL 7 (1979), 55-68; Hyatt.
40 Due to the later enmity between Israel and Midian (Cody*, 158) or due to the prohibition of
Exod. 23:32; 34:12ff.; Judg. 2:2 (Hyatt).
412 EXODUS 18:1-27
thankfulness and joy by bringing an offering to God (cf. e.g. Ps. 66), and by
putting on a festive meal to the praise of God he celebrates the deliverance
together with the representatives of Israel. They join him at the table ‘in the
presence of y h w h , ’ thereby acknowledging Jethro, after his praise, confession and
offering, as one of them. The becoming friends happens at the holy place, that is,
with divine approval. In short, 18:10-12 is to be understood as Jethro’s ack
nowledgement of YHWH as Lord (cf. Introd. §7.3.4). 18:10-12 prepares for
18:13-26. The man who advised Moses was held in high esteem by all of Israel.
He had fully endorsed Israel’s credo. The question whether Jethro’s confession is
to be taken as a break with his religious past (cf. 2 Kgs. 5:17f.) and whether after
his departure (18:27) he practiced the y h w h cult lies outside the scope of the text
(cf. 1 Sam. 26:19). In the text it is stated that y h w h ’s saving actions were so
much in evidence that also non-Israelites were deeply impressed and could not
remain silent (cf. Gen. 14:18-20; 1 Kgs. 10:4ff.; 2 Chr. 2:12). See also at 18:1.
18:13 The next day Moses sat as judge fo r the people and the people stood
around Moses from early morning till late in the evening.
mnofc (see 8:6), the day after Jethro’s arrival (cf. TO, TNf); TPsJ: ‘On the day
after the Day of Atonement’ (see also e.g. Mek. II, 179; TzUR); the activity is
assumed to take place after the revelation at the Sinai (see Introduction to exegesis
under j) and, in view of Moses’ role in it - his lengthy stay on the mountain - it
is noted that it was not until the day after he had returned with the tablets of the
law (34:32), the Day of Atonement, that he had opportunity to sit as judge (see
Rashi). 32T (see 2:15), cf. Joel 4:12. CDStf, see 2:14; Moses functions in the role
which, before his calling, had been denied him in Egypt; he looks after the well
being of the community; is it assumed that Moses ' i z i is seated on a holy
place? “IBI7, see 3:5. iff, see BDB s.v. is; 6c. niffrnff i p a r n » , see 7:15; many
MSS, Sam. Pent.: “im, cf. Pesh. (also in 18:14); in rabbinic exegesis understood
metaphorically as an allusion to ‘evening’ and ‘morning’ in Gen. 1: any judge who
gives a rightful decision can be regarded as a co-worker with God in the work of
creation (e.g. Mek. II, 179; Rashi).
The text offers no details about the precise situation: did Moses sit as judge
every day (early in the morning - the usual time for handling matters of judg
ment - , but due to the load of work continuing into the evening) or only now and
then? (cf. in 18:22, 26 for contrast). In any case, meant is that the
sessions were regularly held and that the problem involved the way it was or
ganized rather than an incidental case of overload (disputes about the spoils
captured from the Amalekites). Otherwise the argument of 18:18 is pointless. Why
did all the people stay in Moses’ presence? One who is finished can go away, can
he not, and one who sees that it is busy can return later, can he not? Not everyone
has a matter to present, is it? Must everybody be present to hear God’s directives?
It has been suggested that the text reflects the situation in the later Israel: from far
away people came to the ‘court;’ patiently one had to wait one’s turn (see 18:23).
Clear is that the writer, with the use of absolute statements, seeks to evoke the
imagery of a deplorable and untenable situation (cf. 18:18, 23 and also 18:21, 25:
implicit in the proposed organizational structure is that it concerns a large group of
people!). It should be remembered as well that the situation described in 18:13, 14
(the people are always on the scene) presupposes that the dispensing of justice had
a teaching, admonishing (cf. 18:20) and correcting function (cf. e.g. Josh.
7:16ff.). Evidently it is assumed that the handed down verdicts are public
ly - those present are witnesses and involved in the execution - carried out (see
e.g. Deut. 21:18ff.; 22:13ff.; 1 Kgs. 21:llff.; Jer. 26:10ff.; Ruth 4) and that, in
consequence of the consultation of God, further regulations are announced.41
18:14 When Moses* father-in-law saw all that he had to do fo r the people, he
asked: ‘What is this you are doing fo r the people? Why do you sit alone as judge,
while all the people stand around you from early morning till late in the evening ?'
The text contains no information about the precise moment of the conversation
between Moses and his father-in-law. Is Moses addressed while he was in session
or (cf. ‘till late in the evening’) in the evening, when darkness has fallen, by the
fire? (cf. Greflmann*, 170). I am inclined to adopt the first (see 18:23).
LXX: ‘Jethro’ instead of ‘Moses’ father-in-law’, b -I- nfew, cf. 18:1, 8; TPsJ:
‘how busy he was and toiled for the people.’ ntn see Introd. § 3.12.3.
Ehrlich: second i + ntou = to wrong (someone) (cf. 18:18, 23). l?no, see 1:18.
see 12:16. 32M, see 5:20. ip a - p (Sam. Pent, with article; cf.
18:13), see Ges-K § 102b; Jouon § 137p; Meyer § 87.3a; cf. 16:19f., 23f.
Jethro’s assessment of the situation is even sharper than that of the writer in
18:13; Jethro talks about ‘all the people’ (cf. Introd. § 3.26) and uses (a
stronger term than nor?); he is astounded about what he sees happening. His
challenging analysis of the situation and his questions are not meant as a repri
mand42 nor as a specific request for further information; instead, he tries to get a
conversation with Moses going to make him aware of the necessity of change
(18:17-23).
18:15 Moses answered his father-in-law: ‘Well, the people come to me to inquire
o f God.
18:16 When they have a dispute, it is always submitted to me to decide between
the parties and to make known God's rules and his ordinances.'
'3, see Introd. § 3.25.1. eh “i (OT ca. 165 x) occurs in a variety of contexts and in
a variety of meanings (see THAT , I, 460ff.; TWAT, II, 313ff.; L. Diez Merino,
BeO 24 [1982], 81-96); I restrict myself to citing the passages that are of impor
41 For the administration of justice in the OT, see e.g. De Vaux*, I, 254ff.; G.C. Macholz, Z4W84
(1972), 56-182, 314-40; H. Niehr, Rechtsprechung in Israel, Stuttgart 1987. Cf. idem, “Grundziige der
Forschung zur Gerichtsorganisation Israels,” BZ 31 (1987), 206-27.
42 You are sitting while you let all the people stand (Rashi); but for a contrary view note Ibn Ezra: a
judge is supposed to sit; sitting there alone is Jethro’s point; cf. TzUR: Moses, however, is not aware
of it and answers the question why he sits.
414 EXODUS 18:1-27
tance in understanding 18:15, which, introduced by a verb of movement, speaks of

DM^N 0VT (18:15; 1 Sam. 9:9) or of m rr tfm (Gen. 25:22; 1 Kgs. 14:5; 22:5-8;
2 Kgs. 3:11; 8:8; 22:13, 18; cf. 1 Sam. 28:7; 2 Kgs. 1:2, 6, 16), ‘to inquire of
God/YHWH’ (TO, TPsJ, TNf in 18:15: ‘to ask instruction from/for y h w h ; ’ LXX:
e K C r |T q o a i K p l o i v Tiapa xou 0eoO, ‘to seek judgment from God;* cf. Vulg.); the
situation portrayed is this: when in trouble (e.g. illness, war) one turns personally
or through messengers (with a gift) to a man of God, a prophet (not mentioned in
Gen. 25), in order through his mediation to receive a word from y h w h , which
may be an advice (e.g. on whether or not to start war) or a look into the future
(e.g. about the course of an illness). See Lust (Introd. § 12.1), 33ff.
*•3 at the beginning of 18:16, see Introd. § 3.25.2. "I3"i, see Introd. § 3.12.3;
LXX: avTiA.oyia; Vulg.: disceptatio ; TO, TPsJ: K n , ‘dispute;’ TNf:
i n pou, ‘an issue about which one bickers.* 83 (Qm: 831; cf. Sanderson*,
144f.), either perf. qal with indefinite personal subject ‘one’ (Ges-K § 144d;
Meyer § 95.8a) (cf. Rashi: subject is: ‘he who has the matter’),43 or qal part.
(Ehrlich: read 831) with 131 (cf. 18:22; 22:8 and Isa. 1:23) as subject (e.g.
Cassuto, and see Vredenburg, Dasberg, NV, NRSV); the latter is the most likely.
ViCDDeh, with waw to introduce final clause. 1*3 ... i n , cf. Gen. 16:5; Num.
35:24; Deut. 1:16. in m ... er8, cf. 18:7; rabbinic exegesis concludes from the
terminology that Moses gives two kinds of verdicts: those without compromise and
those based on compromise (e.g. Mek. II, 180). Tiinim (Introd. § 3.22),44 it is
sometimes thought that the two clauses are only loosely connected, the second
clause referring to yet another task of Moses (e.g. Cassuto; cf. Vredenburg, CV,
NV; note also REB); that is not likely; meant is a response from Moses in
consequence of a dispute submitted to him (e.g. LV, UV, WV, Dasberg, NRSV).
pn, see 5:14. m in , see 4:12 (cf. 15:25f.); TNf: ‘decisions of the Torah* (also in
18:20).
The question has been raised about the specific definition of rules and ordinances
(prior to the promulgation of the Torah; see Introduction to exegesis under j); a
variety of answers is given: laws already known, such as the Noahic com
mandments and the commandments given to the patriarchs; temporary rules, for
like any community Israel had self-evident rules, for instance pertaining to theft
and murder, also before the giving of the decalogue (see Goldman).
Nature o f M oses’ activities (18:15-16)

It is necessary to deal further with Moses’ position and the nature of his activities.
The scenario evoked is the following: Moses functions as judge. He administers
justice, probably at a holy place (cf. 33:7-11, and see e.g. 1 Sam. 7:15ff.). From
far away (cf. 18:23 and see e.g. 1 Sam. 15:2) people come to him to hear a
43 Sam. Pent.: 1K3; cf. among others LXX (made part of protasis). Vulg., Pesh., TO, TPsJ, TNf.
44 Sam. Pent.: v n m im , ‘and will notify him;’ LXX, Pesh., TO, TPsJ, TNf: + ‘to them;’ cf.
18 :20 .
judgment not only in complex but in simple matters as well (cf. 18:22, 26). Being
leader of the people, the upholding of justice falls to him (cf. Judg. 4:4f.; 1 Sam.
22:6; 2 Sam. 12; 14; 1 Kgs. 3:16ff.; 2 Kgs. 8:3). 18:15b does not seem to fit in
that kind of setting. The expression ‘to inquire of God* (see above) is elsewhere
connected with consulting God through the prophet to whom one turns in a crisis
situation. It has been suggested that 18:15b is from a later hand (see Introduction
to exegesis under d). In any case, in the current context the expression can only
mean to consult God through the mediation of Moses as mediator o f God (cf. 18:9)
and as upholder of divine justice (cf. Deut. 1:17; 2 Chr. 19:6).45 A ruling from
Moses is tantamount to a ruling from God himself. In 18:16 a further description
of Moses* work is given: Moses acts as judge and lawgiver. Meant is evidently
that he applies the existing laws, and in questions not covered by revealed law or
which present problems, consults God (cf. 18:19 and see Lev. 24:12ff.; Num.
9:8ff.; 15:34ff.; 27:5ff.; 36:5ff.) and so acts as lawgiver. On the basis of rulings
from God on matters for which no directives were yet available, new regulations
are formulated, which are communicated to the people for their instruction.
I have interpreted 18:15, 16 in the light of Jethro’s advice (18:17-23). The task
which in 18:15, 16 falls to one person, Jethro splits up into several tasks: the
application of existing revealed law is entrusted to judges; the inquiring of God
and the subsequent issuing of new regulations remains Moses’ domain. Through
his mediation the body of law grows. The use of ‘inquiring of God* in other
passages makes it unlikely that Moses through mechanical means, like the casting
of the lot (e.g. Num. 27:21; Deut. 33:8; 1 Sam. 14:41 LXX; 23:9; 30:7),
ascertained the will of God (e.g. Baentsch, Beer) (cf. also Num. 5:1 Iff.). More
likely direct revelation is in view (cf. 33:11; Num. 12:8). Because citizens are to
relieve Moses of his task (18:21, 25) and the issues requiring decisions (18:22, 26)
(see below) evidently are not cultic matters, the portrayal of Moses as priestly
judge and deliverer of oracles46 must be rejected.47 For the same reason, it
seems obvious to regard the ‘rules and ordinances’ (18:16, 20) not as typical cultic
regulations, but as directives for social life. As appears from the above, in my
judgment there is no reason to regard 18:16b, 20 as additions (see Introduction to
exegesis under d).
18:17 Thereupon Moses* father-in-law said to him: ‘You are not doing it right.
18:18 You are getting dead-tiredt not only you , but also those people with you.
45 Differently e.g. Nachmanides: Moses was also asked to offer prayers for the sick, to give
information about the whereabouts of lost items, etc.
46 See e.g. GreBmann* (see Introd. to exegesis under e); Hauret (Introd. § 5.45.4); cf. Schmid*,
Gestalt, 67, 76.
47 On consulting God via the priest see e.g. Judg. 18:4ff.; 1 Sam. 22:8, 13; on the priest as the one
who gives torah about (un)cleanness etc. see e.g. Lev. 10:11; Jer. 18:18; Ezek. 7:26; 22:26; Hag.
2:1 Iff.; Mai. 2:6f.; cf. Deut. 33:10; 2 Chr. 17:7ff.); on cult personnel as judge see 1 Chr. 23:4; 26:29
and see also Deut. 17:8ff.; 19:17.
416 EXODUS 18 1-27
:
Honestly, this is too much fo r you; you cannot do it all by yourself ’

3itD, cf. 18:9; ‘not right,’ Jethro uses polite and tactful language, avoiding the term
‘wrong.’
'ran ^33, inf. abs. + imperf. qal (Ges-K § 113n; Joiion § 123e) of baa (OT
19x), ‘to fall off,’ ‘to wither’ (of leaves and the like) also used in connection with
humans: ‘to get dead-tired, worn out’ (18:18; cf. Ps. 18:46),48 Moses because he
is too busy, and the people for having to hang around and also, it would seem,
because decisions were so long in coming. Sometimes it is thought that many
Israelites, because of Moses’ inaccessibility, simply put up with injustice (Nac-
hmanides on 18:23) and that there was the danger that the people might take the
law into their own hand (Keil, Murphy). At any rate, a long wait creates tensions
and causes irritations. Q3 ... D3, see Introd. § 3.11.2. ‘those people,’ see Introd.
§ 3.40.2; LXX: ‘all these people’ (cf. 18:23); TPsJ: ‘Aaron and his sons and the
elders;’ the interpretation is based on the repeated 03 (see Mek. II, 181; Rashi
mentions ‘Hur’ instead of ‘his sons’). “ID3, see 4:10. l&, see KoSynt § 4061; Ges-
K § 133c; Joiion § 141i. b a \ see 2:3. Mfcy, for the form see KoSynt § 229g;
Ges-K § 75u; Sam. Pent.: lmtoJJ; cf. Ehrlich.
18:19 Therefore listen to me. Let me give you good advice and may God be with
you! You are to represent the people before Gody you are to lay the disputes before
God,
18:20 enjoin upon them the rules and ordinances and tell them how they are to
behave and which duties they are to perform.
nni7, see 3:9. ‘to listen,* see Introd. § 3.51.1; Jethro speaks in a fatherly voice.
(Sam. Pent.: 12TBK, from f ir ) imperf. qal + suff. of f i r (OT 80x), ‘to
give advice;’ here with accus. of the person (cf. 2 Sam. 17:15; Jer. 38:15). See
THAT, I, 748ff.; TWAT , III, 718ff. i d * DM^K M r (see 3:12; cf. Ges-K
§ 109f),49 meant is: if the advice is heeded, it will go well with Moses and he will
no longer be burdened by physical and mental pressures (cf. 18:18); Ehrlich: ‘so
wirst du Erfolg haben;’ "|DI7 ... M r has been taken as Jethro’s call to consult
yhwh about the advice (Mek. II, 182; Rashi; cf. 18:23); probably, however, it is
meant as encouragement, rrn (Sam. Pent.: rn ) imper., in 18:19, 20 followed by
three consecutive perfects.
(OT ca. 35 x), noun functioning as preposition, regularly in composites
(26:9; 28:25, 27, 37; 34:3; 39:18, 20); it is often thought that means ‘front’
and as a preposition also means ‘opposite’ (e.g. Brockelmann § 116f); Ehrlich on
18:15 and P. Joiion, Bib 15 (1934), 532-6, argue against it: according to the latter,
biQ, ‘direction,’ used as a preposition means ‘in the direction of,’ ‘on the side of’
(18:5; 34:3; Deut. 1:1; 2:19; 3:29 etc.). DM^Nn LXX: xa Ttpoc; tov 0eov;
48 See TWAT, V, 164ff.; P. Jouon, Bib 5 (1924), 356f. Rashbam associates it with ^ 3 (Gen. 11:7,
9): Moses is getting confused because of the commotion around him (see Goldman).
49 TO, TPsJ employing explanatory language: ‘let the Word of YHWH be your helper.’
Vulg.: in his quae ad Deum pertinent, ‘in matters that concern God;* TO, TPsJ
following up on 18:15: ‘(you are to be for the people) the one who seeks instruc
tion from/for y h w h ; ’ TNf: ‘as the one who Mek. II, 182: you must be ‘a
vessel full of (xbD; cf. biD) words of revelation.* Moses is intermediary (e.g.
Rashi).
□ n a in , cf. 18:16 (LXX: t o i n ; Aoyouq o c u t g w , ‘their words;’ cf. the free
rendering in Vulg.); LXX, Pesh., TPsJ: + possessive pronoun 3rd person pi.;
meant are evidently problematic disputes (18:22, 26).50 Ehrlich: □‘•nbxn has (in
distinction from D'H^N) the meaning ‘judges;’ meant is that the decisions are to be
given into the hands of judges (cf. 18:22), who in turn with difficult problems are
to go to Moses. In part because cannot mean ‘judges’ (see 21:6), this
explanation is improbable. Reimarus (Introd. § 5.45.2), I, 363ff., has related
D'nbKn to Moses: you take the place of God for the people (see also in Dillmann)
and let the matters come to you as to God. Reimarus assumes a contrast between
Exod. 18 and Exod. 19ff.: according to Exod. 18, Moses himself is lawgiver,
while Exod. 19ff. suggests that he received the laws from the hands of God.
npnnini perf. cons. hiph. of inr, ‘to warn,’ ‘to admonish* (2 Kgs. 6:10; Ezek.
3:17ff. et al.); here + double accus. (e.g. Ges-K § 117cc): ‘give as a warning;’51
LXX: Kai 5iapapxupf|, ‘and you shall attest to’ (elsewhere translation of h jj );
Vulg.: ostendasque. Dnnx (Ges-K § 103b), Sam. Pent.: onx; Vulg.: ‘the people.*
Ehrlich relates onnx not, as commonly done, to the people but to the judges (see
above; similarly also Meyer*, IN, 97) and reads nrpum , ‘you must teach them.*
D'pnn, LXX: + ‘of God’ (cf. 18:16); Vulg.: caerimonias; Pesh.: + ‘in order
that they will keep.’ m inn, cf. 18:16; Sam. Pent.: sing.; LXX: xov vopov auxou;
Vulg.: ritum colendi, ‘the mode of worship.* y n n (see 3:18), here feminine (cf.
KoSynt § 380d), some MSS, Qm, Sam. Pent.: 4- "itfx (cf. Sanderson*, 117); for
the construction of the relative clause see e.g. Ges-K § 155d, i; Brockelmann
§ 146; Williams § 540; LXX: ‘the paths.’ "|^n, see Introd. § 3.14.3. ‘duties’ etc.,
see Introd. § 3.41.2. In TPsJ, 18:20b is given a specific content; Moses is to
inquire about prayer in the synagogue, visitation of the sick, burial of the dead,
works of mercy, the requirements of justice, attitude toward the godless (cf. Mek.
II, 182).
18:21 You are also to search among all the people fo r energetic men with a
sense o f duty, trustworthy and immune to corruption. These you are to appoint over
them as chiefs over groups o f thousand, as chiefs over groups o f hundred, as chiefs
over groups o f fifty, and as chiefs over groups o f ten.
50 See e.g. Ibn Ezra; differently Nachmanides: non-legal matters, which Moses as mediator brings
before y h w h ; o n a i n is also applied to y h w h ’s words: Moses brings those D’n ^ K rr^ K = ‘from God’
to the people; see in Goldman.
51 See e.g. Ges-B; HAL; also understood as ‘to enlighten’ = ‘to teach;’ see e.g. SS; KoW and
Palache; according to G.C. Macholz, ZAW 84 (1972), 328 n. 30, ‘to inform,’ ‘to instruct’, is an
adequate rendering.
418 EXODUS 18 1-27
:
18:19, 20 state the tasks which Moses, according to Jethro, is to reserve for
himself; 18:20, 21 contain an overview of the changes in the legal system pro
posed by Jethro; 18:21 describes a one-time task to be performed by Moses, due
to the structure envisaged by Jethro (18:22); again nriN is used (3x in 18:19-21;
cf. Ges-K § 135a; Joiion § 146a).
njnp (Sam. Pent.: + cf. LXX) imperf. cons, qal of run (OT 55x), ‘to
see/behold,’ used in particular to denote the receiving of prophetic revelation, in
which the seeing as such plays only a small role or none at all (Num. 24:4, 16;
Isa. 1:1; Ezek. 12:27 etc.); in 24:11 it is used for ‘seeing God’ (theophany)
outside the context of prophetic experience (cf. Ps. 11:7; 17:15; 27:4; 63:3; Job
19:26f.); here in 18:21 it denotes ‘scrutinizing seeing,’ ‘to fathom* (cf. Isa. 47:13;
Ps. 11:4; 17:2; Job 15:17; Prov. 22:29; 24:32; 29:20); Moses is to examine the
Israelites, looking for those who possess the qualities listed in the sequel of the
text, and to appoint as judge those who do possess such qualities; so nrn also
means ‘to provide’ (cf. n m in Gen. 22:8), ‘to select’ (cf. the use of ID, and see
TPsJ [in n ] and e.g. LV, CV, WV, GNB, NRSV).52
‘rrrtfJN , see Introd. § 3.2.1 and 14:4 (cf. Prov. 12:4; 31:10; Ruth 3:11); Van
der Toom*, 106, holds that *rn indicates wealth (see already Mek. II, 183, and
further e.g. Rashi; Meyer*, IN , 98; GreBmann*, 174); true is that the writer likely
has in mind aristocrats, free men, who, because they have property, can be
impervious to bribery and be impartial in their judging (cf. Isa. 3:7; Prov. 10:6,
20); likely, however, the emphasis is not on the possession of property; meant is:
in all respects ‘strong personalities’ (cf. e.g. Nachmanides). Q'n^N 'NT (see 1:17),
cf. KoSynt § 241i; Ges-K § 116g; Joiion § 1211. n D N , see 4:1. N Jfr, see 1:10.
(OT 23X), ‘(unjustly acquired) profit, gain;* those who place their own
interests and the betterment of their own position first easily succumb to the
temptation of accepting gifts and resorting to extortion, and may be less than
scrupulous about justice; the maintenance of a just society is not in good hands
with them (cf. 1 Sam. 8:3; Isa. 56:11; Jer. 22:17; Hab. 2:9 et al.); justice is in
good hands with those who do not put themselves first and are not greedy for gain
(cf. Isa. 33:15; Ps. 119:36; Prov. 1:19; 15:27; 28:16). LXX: im epT âviccv,
‘arrogance’ (cf. Frankel*, 80; Sanderson*, 63f.); TO: unwilling ‘to accept money’
(11DD); TPsJ: ‘to accept money deceitfully’ ( N i p 't f ]1DD; cf. TNf); meant is
bribery; Mek. II, 183 also contains this interpretation: averse from, not attached to
their own property, and consequently certainly immune to bribes (cf. e.g. Rashi);
Nachmanides: meant is aversion from oppression.
For the four-fold requirement see e.g. Deut. 1:16f.; 16:18ff.; 1 Sam. 12:3ff.;
2 Chr. 19:6. Wisdom is not cited among the requirements (by contrast see Deut.32
32 See THAT, I. 533f.; TWAT, II, 822ff.; H.F. Fuhs, BN 2 (1977), 7-12; idem, Sehen und Schauen,
Wurzburg 1978.
1:13; 1 Kgs. 3:9, 28), evidently because complex matters are to be submitted to
Moses.53
DiT^y presumably is to be related to the people (not to the men mentioned
before) (cf. 18:25; DUrr^y); Vulg.: ex eis, ‘from them.’ "lfr, see 1:11; TWAT,
VII, 855ff. The prophets rebuked the rulers for lacking the qualifications just
mentioned (Isa. 1:23; 3:14; Mic. 3:lff.; 7:3 et al.). n®, Vulg.: tribunos,
‘tribal chiefs’ (cf. Deut. 1:13). Second nfr with waw in many MSS, Qm, Sam.
Pent.; cf. Pesh., Vulg. ‘thousand’ etc., see Introd. §4.13.1; 4.12.1; 4.6.2;
4.11.1. Among others LXXA: + kcci YpappaxoeioaywY^, ‘and officials who
wield the pen’ (also in 18:25). Josephus (AJ, III, 70f.) offers a different division.
The picture conveyed is that of Israel as a large people.54 That makes the
situation depicted in 18:13, 14 all the more untenable and incredible.
18:22 They have to be ready at all times to administer justice to the people and
are to operate like this: every major case they are to lay before you , but every
minor case they must adjudicate themselves. So make it easier fo r yourself by
letting them share in your tasks.
ltaseh (cf. 18:13, 16), with waw to introduce final clause. (see 9:18), the
lengthy wait (18:13, 14) is over; with such a large number of judges grievances
will be heard right away55, mm, see Introd. § 3.13.4. *?l} and lCDp, see 2:10;
LXX: t o CmepoYKov ... xa 6e ppaxea xd>v Kpipaxcov, ‘the major case ... the
minor questions;’ cf. 18:26, where TCDpn "Q irrtm is, however, translated as t i & v
8e qijpa eA.a<t>pov, ‘every simple case.’ iK'm (Sam. Pent, as in 18:26), cf. 18:16,
19.
*?pn imper. hiph. of U p (OT ca. 80 x), ‘to be light* (the opposite of 122, ‘to
be heavy;’ see 18:18 and e.g. 1 Sam. 6:5; 2 Kgs. 12:10); in hiph. + *?y&: to
lighten by removing something (cf. 1 Sam. 6:5; 1 Kgs. 12:10; Jonah 1:5 and see
1 Kgs. 12:4, 9); in piel (+ accus. of the person): ‘to curse,’ ‘to revile’ (the
opposite of 122 piel; see 4:10), that is, by calling someone ‘light*, thereby
undermining that person’s ‘weight,’ his prestige and authority (21:17; 22:27; Gen.
12:3; Lev. 19:14; 24:11, 14f., 23; 2 Sam. 6:5ff. et al.), resulting in his being
despised (cf. hiph. in Isa. 23:9 et al.) instead of being treated with respect (see
THAT, II, 641 ff. ; TWAT, VII, 40ff.). LXX: k o i x Jh o u o i v (cf. LV, based on reading
l^pm); TO: "|ro l^ P 'i, ‘and they will make it easier for you;’ TPsJ: ‘they will
lighten the burden that rests on you;’ Vulg.: leviusque sit tibi, ‘and let it be easier
for you;’ possibly b p i can be regarded as inf. abs. and continuation of the
33 For desired qualifications of leaders of the Christian church see Acts 6:3; 1 Tim. 3:Iff.; Tit.
l:5ff.
54 On the basis of 12:37, already rabbinic writings (see TPsJ on 18:25 and e.g. Mek. II, 183; bSanh
18a) put the number of judges at 78,600; presumably there was one judge for every seven adults;
conservative exegetes take issue with these calculations (Keil, Murphy, Strack); for the interpretation of
Jewish exegetes see Goldman.
33 According to rabbinic exegesis the judges had no other duties (e.g. Mek. II, 184).
420 EXODUS 18 1-27
:
preceding finite verb: ‘and they are to make it easier for you’ (cf. 8:11 and see
Goldman). KfrJ, see 6:8.
Not clear is the relationship between the various chiefs. Is the chief over ten the
lowest ranking judge? In case he fails to give advice, should one go to a higher
placed judge? Cassuto holds that the number of persons involved in a dispute
determines who is being consulted: if the dispute affects a family, it should be
brought before a ruler of ten, etc.56 It would seem that the set-up was hierarchical
at least in this sense that lower ranking officials were accountable to the higher
authorities. All derive their authority from the highest judge Moses. He selected
them (18:21, 25) and they render their judgments guided by and in accordance
with the body of law put together by Moses (18:19f.). It is not said which cases
are the very difficult ones and which are only minor matters. It does not seem
likely that the distinction between ‘minor’ and ‘major’ matters is that between
sacral and civic matters (Greflmann*, 175; Noth; cf. Rylaarsdam; Fensham).
Justice is wholly sacral. The entire social life of the community is to be regulated
by God’s demands. Both kinds of cases apparently deal with civic matters, and not
with typical cultic problems. The distinction concerns difficult matters (cf. Deut.
17:18; 2 Chr. 19:10) and simpler matters. Difficult matters are those in which
hard evidence is lacking (cf. Num. 5:1 Iff.) or the guilt question is in dispute;
simpler matters, in light of the above, on the one hand must have been especially
those problems for which no (specific) regulations existed and which therefore
required divine consultation, and problems that could be decided on the basis of
existing rules and norms (cf. e.g. Calmet, Keil, Cole).
18:23 I f you do it like that - God commands you! - you will be able to handle
it, while in turn all these people will go home satisfied . '
□N, see Introd. §3.4.1. See the first words of 18:17. D\n*?N "jisi (Introd.
§ 3.43.1) is usually regarded as protasis: ‘and if God commands you’ (e.g. UV,
CV, NV); presumably Jethro assumed (in giving advice; cf. Mek. II, 184f.; Rashi)
that Moses, before acting on the advice, would consult y h w h about the reor
ganization and that y h w h would respond positively (cf. 18:19);57 sometimes the
words in question are regarded as apodosis: Katioxuoei oe 6 0eo<;, ‘God will give
you strength’ (LXX); implebis imperium Dei , ‘you will carry out God’s command’
(Vulg.); ‘zal God u handhaven’ (‘God will uphold you;’ LV); ‘God will give you
strength’ (NEB; cf. REB: ‘then God will direct you’); ‘so wirst du bei dem
Auftrag, den Gott dir gibt, bestehen konnen’ (Noth); attractive is the suggestion
made, among others, by Childs that dm ^ k "psi (GreBmann*, 169, calls it a pious
56 G.C. Macholz, ZAW 84 (1972), 328ff., thinks that the high ranking court mentioned in 2 Chr.
19:8ff. was ‘Auskunftsinstanz’ and that the lower court rendered the actual verdict; cf. Ehrlich’s
interpretation of 18:20 (see above).
57 ma is translated in WV with ‘instemmen’ (‘to agree’); in GNB with ‘willen’ (‘to want’); cf.
Dillmann, Strack, Cassuto.
addition) is an aside remark with which Jethro reinforces his recommendation:

‘ — and so God commands you!’ Jethro says in so many words: if you don’t follow
my advice, you go against the will of God.
(cf. Ges-K § 49i; Meyer § 68.2f), cf. 18:18. m y , cf. 18:13; Moses will
stay healthy physically and mentally (cf. 18:18 for contrast). Vulg.: et praecepta
eius poteris sustentare, ‘and you will be able to keep his commands;’ TPsJ
contains (evidently) the following interpretation: freed from the task of judging,
Moses will have opportunity to listen to the ordinances which God gives. DJI, see
Introd. § 3.11.2. ‘all these people,’ TPsJ: ‘Aaron and his sons and all the elders of
this people’ (cf. Mek. II, 185; Rashi and see 18:18). i V y Qm, Sam. Pent.: btf; cf.
34:12, and see Sanderson*, 58f.
□ipD (see 3:5), obviously not ‘Canaan’ (e.g. Calvin, Keil); but note 23:20;
Num. 10:29 and see Schmid*, 77; is the reference concretely to ‘tent’ (cf. 16:29)
(e.g. Strack), or did the writer, though he places the event in the wilderness, by
speaking of Israel as a populous people (18:21) envisage them as living over a
large area? Some surmise that the writer’s words presuppose Israel’s living in
Palestine as a settled people (e.g. Noth, Te Stroete, Hyatt). In TPsJ DipD is
interpreted as ‘place of judgment;’ cf. e.g. Cassuto. In that case (cf. 18:7)
refers to the situation that pertained before the matter, which at first (18:18) used
to be so deplorable, was dealt with; cf. Ehrlich: the clause with Dai means that
everyone can go and obtain justice right where he lives (whereas before they had
to travel a great distance to reach Moses). If DipD is understood as home/place of
residence, refers to the situation after the visit with the judge, which raises
the question of how fitting Dibtfa is. After all, not everyone has the good fortune
that a judicial decision is in his favour. In that case the meaning must be: if the
legal system functions properly, the community will enjoy harmony and well
being. Or is it assumed that Jethro talks to Moses while the people are still waiting
(18:13, 14) - while talking, Jethro points to ‘all those people there?’ Do his
words convey the idea: announce the new set-up, then the people can go home
satisfied — the structural wrong has been corrected? That is how I am inclined to
understand 18:23b.
18:24 Moses listened to his father-in-law and did everything he had proposed.
18:25 Moses chose energetic men from all o f Israel and appointed them as heads
over the people , as chiefs over groups o f thousand , as chiefs over groups o f
hundred, as chiefs over groups o f fifty, and as chiefs over groups o f ten.
26 They had to be ready at all times to administer justice to the people; a
difficult case they were to lay before Moses, but every minor case they were to
adjudicate themselves.
Alongside 18:24 see 18:19. "IDN, LXX, Pesh.: + ‘to them.’ The general statement
of 18:24 is fleshed out in 18:25, 26 (cf. KoSynt § 369b). The words here go back
to 18:21, 22; in part the writer uses different but synonymous terminology. The
account of the giving of advice and its execution complement each other. Thus it is
wrong to infer from the fact that the men of 18:25 are only called ‘able’ that
422 EXODUS 18 1-27
:
Moses could find no men with all the qualifications cited in 18:21 (see Goldman).
Instead of 18:24, Qm and Sam. Pent, contain the partially edited text of Deut. 1:9-
18; see also SamT and Field in loco\ cf. J.H. Tigay, JBL 94 (1975), 331ff.;
Sanderson*, 196f., 214. iri3, see 14:7. ‘to appoint,’ see Introd. § 3.36. emn, see
18:21; not in LXX. iCDDen (Sam. Pent.: loseri), it is assumed that the perf. cons,
is used to indicate a repeated action in the past (e.g. KoSynt § 367h; Ges-K
§ 112g; Joiion § 119v); that interpretation produces the translation: ‘they were
always prepared ...* (also the following imperfects are regarded as frequentatives)
(cf. e.g. CV, NV, WV, NRSV). I prefer a similar interpretation as in 18:16, 22.
■m n, for article see e.g. Ges-K § 125r; Joiion § 137m; possibly "Din can be
taken as a generic term and the sing, be rendered as a pi. ntfp, see 1:14; Sam.
Pent.: (cf. 18:22); cf. LXX (see 18:22); Aq., Symm.: oKArpov, ‘hard;’
Theod.: t o 6uoxepe<;, ‘the troublesome.’ iBiser, for the unusual form see Ges-K
§ 47g; Joiion § 44c; Delitzsch*, 66; Sam. Pent.: ltDSBT (cf. 18:22). The narrative
does not talk about the results of the measures instituted by Moses.
18:27 Thereupon Moses said good-bye to his father-in-law. He went on his way
to his own country.
With 18:27 the account of Jethro’s visit comes to a close, nbtf, see Introd.
§ 3.49.2; cf. 18:2. I1? (see Introd. § 3.14.1), Qm: (cf. LXX);
see Sanderson*, 56f. Beside 18:27 see Num. 10:29ff. (cf. Introd. § 5.37).
‘to his own country,* TPsJ: ‘to make all his countrymen proselytes;’ according
to rabbinic exegesis, Moses wanted Jethro to remain with him.58 Moses, how
ever, gives in to Jethro’s reasoning: also Jethro’s own people must be converted,
be introduced to the Torah, and brought under the wings of the Shekinah.59
Beside it is found the view that Jethro already before the revelation at the Sinai
had departed: Jethro did not share in Israel’s suffering in Egypt and therefore also
not in its joy; an alien may not participate in the Passover (12:43), therefore
certainly not be a witness to the issuing of the entire Torah (e.g. MidrTanh. Exod.
V, 11; Ginzberg*, III, 77). Also modem expositors have detected in 18:27 a
deliberate exclusion of Jethro from the revelation of y h w h .60 However, accor
ding to 18:5, 12 Jethro did spend time in y h w h ’s presence. The more or less
striking point in time of Jethro’s departure in the present text may be due to
combination of heterogenous documents, and therefore should not be used for
drawing far-reaching conclusions from it.389
38 Exod. 18:27 and Num. 10:29-32 are worked into the exegesis; it is supposed that after the
revelation Jethro came to the Sinai (see Introduction to exegesis under j) and that Jethro = Hobab (see
Introd. § 5.37); differently e.g. Nachmanides: Jethro departed (18:27) and later returned again (Num.
10); that view is also espoused by Christian exegetes (e.g. Ishodad); according to another Christian
explanation, Jethro returned to his land because of age; his son Hobab later came along (e.g. Calvin).
39 See e.g. Mek. II, 185f.; MidrTanh. Exod. V, 6; Rashi on 18:13, 27; Ginzberg*, III, 72ff.;
according to Zohar Exod. 69a, the entire world followed Jethro in his conversion.
“ See e.g. Gunneweg (Introd. § 5.45.4), 8.
exo dus 19:1-25
GETTING READY FOR GOD’S WORDS
19:1 In the third month after the Israelites had gone out o f the land o f Egypt - on
that very day! - they came into the wilderness o f Sinai:
2 they set out from Rephidim, entered the wilderness o f Sinai, and camped in
the wilderness; there Israel camped in front o f the mountain.
3 Moses had climbed up to God, and y h w h called to him from the mountain:
‘Thus you shall speak to Jacob's people, tell Israel's sons:
4 “You yourselves have witnessed how I dealt with the Egyptians, and how I
carried you on eagles' wings and brought you to me.
5 Now then, i f you really listen to me and abide by the obligations I imposed,
then out o f all the peoples I will treasure you as a precious possession. Indeed, the
whole earth is mine!
6 You, however, are destined to be consecrated to me as a priestly kingdom
and a holy nation. ” These are the ordinances which you are to make known to the
Israelites ....'
7 Moses came, called the elders o f the people together, and set before them all
the ordinances which y h w h had instructed him to make known.
8 All the people assured as one: ‘All that y h w h has spoken we will d o .' Then
Moses reported the people's answer to y h w h .
9 Then y h w h said to Moses: ‘Soon I am going to come to you in an im
penetrable cloud. So the people can listen in while I am talking with you, and then
they will completely and ever after put their trust in y o u .' So Moses informed y h w h
o f the answer o f the people.
10 Then y h w h said to Moses: ‘Go to the people, today and tomorrow you shall
consecrate them; they must wash their clothes.
11 And by the third day they must be ready, fo r on the third day, in the sight o f
all the people, y h w h will come down on Mount Sinai.
12 You shall set bounds fo r the people all around, saying: “Be careful not to
climb the mountain or even to touch its base. Whoever touches the mountain shall
be put to death violently.
13 No hand may touch him, but without mercy he must be stoned or shot
through; whether animal or human, he may not remain alive. Only when the ram's
horn sounds may they ascend the mountain ".'
14 Then Moses came down from the mountain to the people, he consecrated
them, and they washed their clothes.
15 And he said to the people: ‘Make sure to be ready by the third day and do
not touch a woman.'
16 On the third day, as morning dawned, there was thunder and lightning; a
424 EXODUS 19 1-25
:
threatening cloud moved over the mountain and there was a booming blast o f the
horn, so that all the people who were in the camp trembled.
17 Moses led the people out o f the camp, toward God. At the foot o f the
mountain they took their stand.
18 Now Mount Sinai was wholly wrapped in smoke, because y h w h had come
down upon it in fire; the smoke rose like the smoke o f a kiln, and the whole
mountain shook violently.
19 As long as the sound o f the horn grew louder and louder, Moses was
speaking and God answered him in a loud voice.
20 y h w h came down upon Mount Sinai, to the top o f the mountain; y h w h sum
moned Moses to the top o f the mountain and Moses went up.
21 Then y h w h said to Moses: ‘Go down, order the people not to break through
to y h w h to behold him; otherwise a great number o f them will perish.
22 Even the priests, who maintain the contact with y h w h , must keep distance
from what is holy, to prevent y h w h from breaking out against them. ’
23 Moses replied to y h w h : ‘The people will not be able to climb up to Mount
Sinai; fo r you yourself have forbidden us by saying: uSet bounds around the
mountain and declare it holy territory ”.'
24 Then y h w h said to him: 'Now then, go down; after that you shall climb up
again; only Aaron may accompany you; the priests, however, and the people may
not cross the boundary to climb up to y h w h ; his breaking out against them must be
prevented. ’
25 Moses went down to the people and said to them: ...
In the introductory verses (19:1, 2) the writer recalls, explicitly and implicitly, the
previous history: exodus out of Egypt; journey through the wilderness; the mention
of ‘the mountain’ flashes the reader’s mind farther back in history; it recalls the
encounter between y h w h and Moses (3:Iff.) and focuses the reader’s attention on
y h w h ’s promise of deliverance from the power of Egypt and of escorting the
people to the land flowing with milk and honey (3:7ff.; 6:7f.). The reader notes
that up to this point y h w h has been busy bringing about his promises. Israel has
left Egypt and arrived at the place to which Moses, according to y h w h ’s pro
mise - with the people! - would return (3:12). ‘The mountain,’ the designation
of the place, triggers expectation: will the mountain again be a place of revelation?
Is y h w h here going to enter into a new relationship with Israel (cf. 6:7)? In a
variety of scenes, the writer parades before the reader the events by the mountain.
Already the first scene - y h w h to Moses (19:3-6) — contains a big surprise:
Notwithstanding Israel’s disobedience in the wilderness (15:22-17:7), y h w h shows
himself willing to continue with Israel; he even offers Israel a lasting relationship:
Israel will occupy an exclusive position among the nations, be the only people
granted a personal bond with him, provided it be faithful to him, heeding his
precepts (19:5, 6 ). y h w h himself prompts a favourable answer by reminding Israel

of how he acted as their saviour and guide (19:4).
The second scene - Moses and the people (19:7-8a) - lays the groundwork for
the continuation of the episode: the people respond with a unanimous ‘Yes’ to
y h w h ’s offer. With that the condition for the union has been met. The parties can
prepare themselves for the encounter.
The third scene - y h w h and Moses (19:8b-13) - apprises the reader of the
coming of y h w h and of measures to be taken by Israel in view of it; a
fourth - Moses and the people (19:14, 15) - informs the reader that the measur
es were carried out. Personally approaching y h w h requires rigorous purification
on the part of the people.
The fifth scene - y h w h and Moses/the people (19:16-20a) - depicts how both
parties come as close as possible to each other.
The sixth scene - y h w h and Moses (19:20b-24) - emphasizes the need for
permanent distance of the people, despite rigorous purification.
The seventh scene - Moses and the people (19:25) - moves abruptly to the
speaking of God (20:1).
Why the lengthy introduction to the speaking of God? The nature of the words
spoken at the Sinai (20:1-17) should be crystal clear to everyone (20:1-17).
Without exception, it concerns words that are fully words of God. The unexcelled
and irresistible majesty of his appearance (19:16-19) gives these words a momen
tous weight. No one can ignore them! y h w h ’s presence means that Israel herself
witnessed God’s speaking and clearly heard the words from his own mouth. No
question the words are from him! The holiness required of the people (19:10-16,
21-24) and y h w h ’s veiling himself (19:9, 16, 18) make God’s direct speaking to
Israel possible. On the other hand, the infinitely great and qualitative difference
between God and Israel requires permanent distance (19:23, 24); human unholiness
may not be given opportunity to violate the holiness of God and his words. All in
all, the words spoken at Sinai are fully words of God himself. That may in no way
be called into question (cf. Matt. 5:18). Words of God, these are not just the ten
words (20:1-17) but also the words passed on by Moses (20:22ff.). Also about
that, Exod. 19 wants to leave no room for misunderstanding: y h w h himself, at the
Sinai, in the audience of Israel, confirmed Moses as his only conversational
partner and spokesman (19:9, 19). The precepts mediated through him possess
abiding divine authority.

a. 19:1 starts a new major part, which extends far beyond the book of Exodus, all
the way to Num. 10:10. For good reason it has been called ‘das Herz- und
Kemstiick des Hexateuchs’ (‘the heart and core piece of the Hexateuch’)
(Baentsch). After the deliverance from Egypt and the period of getting to know
426 EXODUS 19 1-25
:
each other in the wilderness, yhwh and Israel enter into an enduring relationship;
the foundations for life in the land of promise are being laid (cf. 6:6-8; 23:20ff.).
History comes to a climax. Presumed backdrop of the events is always the Sinai:
there Israel is encamped (19:1, 2), not to leave until after a stay of over eleven
months (Num. 10:1 Iff.).
In the interest of clarity, the content of Exod. 19-40 is dealt with in smaller
units. Taken up first is 19:1-25, which sets the stage for the proclamation of the
decalogue, determines its character, and should really be read in one breath (in
MT, 19:1 starts a petuha and 20:1-17 consists of several setumot). Exod. 19 can
be further broken down as follows:
19:1, 2 Designation of time and location of the action.
19:3-15 Preparation for the theophany (19:16-20) and the speaking of God
( 20 : 1).
19:3-6 yhwh offers Israel to enter into a unique personal relationship with
him.
19:7, 8 Israel accepts the offer.
19:9-15 yhwh announces his coming; instructions for the upcoming meeting
with YHWH.
19:16-20 The theophany.
19:21-25 Instructions for the meeting with yhwh .
b. Exod. 19-40 contains varied material, both as to genre and as to content.
Apparently in Israel there was a great variety of traditions about the meeting
between yhwh and Israel at the Sinai. Additionally, the ‘Sinai’ likely served as
crystallization point for traditions and precepts. Auerbach*, one of the exegetes
who believe that much of the material in the Pentateuch was originally linked to
Kadesh (cf. Introd. § 8.23.5), even makes the statement: ‘Es ist, als sei der Sinai
der geheimnisvolle Magnetberg, der alles an sich zieht. Je spater desto mehr
sammeln sich die Erzahlungen um den Sinai als ihren Mittelpunkt’ (163).1 In any
case, the present text offers a highly varied palette — miscellaneous material is
‘compressed’ to bring out the uniqueness of the revelation on the Sinai! - or, to
the eyes of the literary critic, a labyrinth (Wellhausen*, Composition, 81), ‘einen
scheinbar unheilbaren Wirrwarr’ (GreBmann*, 181, on the texts with as theme the
revelation of yhwh ); ‘scheinbar,’ unravelling the tangle of strands is not con
sidered impossible! Much attention and energy has especially gone into analysis of
the narrative portions of yhwh ’s revelation (Exod. 19; 20; 24; 32-34).2 Results
1 In connection with presumed *Sinaitization’ see also Essentials 15:22-17:7.

2 See the synoptic survey in Zenger*, Sinaitheophanie, 207ff., who himself goes in new directions
(see also idem, Israel, 130ff.), and further M. Haelvoet, “La theophanie du Sinai: Analyse litteraire des
recits d’Ex., xix-xxiv,” EThL 19 (1953), 374-97; Schmid*, Jahwist, 83ff.; scholars critical about
prevalent analyses include J.J.P. Valeton, “Karakter en literarische opzet van het Sinai'verhaal,”
Verslagen en Mededeelingen Kon. Ak. van Wet., Afd. Let., 4de reeks, IX, 1907, 67-113; Eerdmans*,
59ff.; J. Hofbauer, “Die literarische Komposition von Exodus Kap. 19-24 und 32-34,” ZKTh 56
(1932), 475-529; Heinisch; Rudolph*, 40ff. See further, for recent discussion H. Cazelles, “La
vary. It is often conceded that on various points certainty is unattainable. A recent

author concludes ‘dafi die forschung hier praktisch nicht einmal einen Konsens
liber die Hauptlinien erzielt hat,* calling it a ‘desolate Forschungssituation’
(Zenger*, Israel, 138).
c. Also the part we must focus our attention on first is regarded as composed of
various literary strands. Among the peculiarities pointed out in regard to Exod. 19
(see e.g. Beyerlin*, lOff.) I cite here:
1. At least three times Moses’ ascent of and descent from the mountain is men-
tioned/assumed (19:3-7, 8-14, 20-25).
2. Alternation in the use of the divine names Elohim (3x) and y h w h (18 x); see
19:3a (Elohim), 3b (YHWH); 19:17 (Elohim), 18 (YHWH), 19 (Elohim), 20
(YHWH).
3. Repetitions; double mention of arrival (19:1, 2a) and encampment (19:2a,
2b), of Moses’ activity as reporter (19:8b, 9b), of the prohibition to set foot on the
mountain (19:12-13a, 21-24), of the theophany (19:16, 18).
4. Inconsistences; there is tension between 19:3a and 19:3b (Moses is with God;
even so, y h w h calls from the mountain); similarly between 19:3 and 19:9 ( y h w h
is present and announces his coming); while y h w h has already appeared, the
people must be warned about the holiness of the mountain (19:21-24); on the one
hand, the impression is given that the mountain is the place where God is present
(19:3, 4, 16, 17); on the other hand, it is the place where he arrives (19:9, 11, 18,
20); on the one hand, one gets the impression that the phenomena at the revelation
are volcanic in nature (19:18), on the other hand that heavy weather accompanies
the revelation (19:16, 19); in the present context, 19:13b seems an unintelligible
‘Fremdkorper,’ a passage out of place; 19:17b does not seem right after the offer
of 19:12-13a; the fear of the people (19:16) is hard to reconcile with the fear that
the people may push their way through to y h w h (19:21); in 19:25 one would
expect direct speech from Moses to the people; instead, God is presented as
speaking (20:1).
These peculiarities have led to the conclusion that Exod. 19 consists of a piecing
together of at least three components. P’s hand is detected in 19:1 and often also in
19:2a. J and E are commonly regarded as responsible for the bulk of the chapter.
theophanie au desert: Montagne de Dieu, Sinai, Horeb,” in F. Raurell et al. (eds.), Tradicid i traduccio
de la paraula (Fs G. Camps), Montserrat 1993, 19-32; G.C. Chirichigno, “The Narrative Structure of
Exodus 19-24,” Bib 68 (1987), 457-79; T. Dozeman, God on the Mountain: A Study o f Redaction,
Theology and Canon in Exodus 19-24, Atlanta 1989; idem, “Spatial Form in Exod 19:1 -8a and in the
larger Sinai Narrative,” Semeia 46 (1989), 87-101; W. Johnstone, “Reactivating the Chronicles
Analogy in Pentateuchal Studies, With Special Reference to the Sinai Pericope in Exodus,” ZAW 99
(1987), 16-37; B. Renaud, La theophanie du Sinai Ex 19-24: Exegese et theologie, Paris 1991; R.
Rendtorff, “Der Text in seiner Endgestalt: Uberlegungen zu Exodus,” in D.R. Daniels et al (eds.),
Emten was man sat (Fs K. Koch), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1991, 459-70; J. Van Seters, The Life of Moses:
The Yahwist as Historian in Exodus-Numbers, Kampen 1994, 245-360; J.P. Sonnet, “Le Sinai dans
l’evenement de sa lecture: La dimension pragmatique d’Exode 19-24,” NRTh 111 (1989), 321-44.
428 EXODUS 19:1-25
However, there is no consensus about the exact contribution of each. Particularly

in regards to 19:3b-8 there are sharp differences of opinion. The passage is given
the sigla J and E, and even P (H. Cazelles, DBS , VII, 833), but often is also
considered Deuteronomi(sti)c.3
d. Several of the points touched on will be taken up again in more detail in the
exegesis. Some of the questions I bring up here. At the outset it should be noted
that there can be no question that Exod. 19 is made up of elements of diverse
derivation; ‘how the whole was put together is, however, something that cannot be
reconstructed down to the details; for that, despite the clearly visible seams
between some parts, the final product composed of different strands is too much of
a coherent unity;’4 moreover, in my judgment, one should be less negative about
the redactional activity than is often the case.
1. The picture of Moses repeatedly climbing up and coming down5 is often
regarded as due to a inept combination of different narrative material. Baentsch
notes: ‘... so muss Moses an einem Tage dreimal auf den Sinai hinauf- und ebenso
oft wieder heruntersteigen, ein schweres Stuck Arbeit, das ein Erzahler dem
Moses schwerlich fur einen Tag zugemutet haben wtirde.’ Auerbach* concludes
his summary of inconsistencies with the observation that the promulgation of the
ten commandments happens precisely at the moment that Moses had come down,
and he adds: ‘Dazu das dreimalige Auf- und Absteigen? Das ist unertraglich. So
kann kein einheitlicher Bericht erzahlen’ (163).
Is it really so that the current text produces the picture of an old man having to
scale a high mountain three times in a short span of time? In the first place, it
should be noted that according to the current text the third ascent (19:20) was on
the third day (19:16); the second descent happened two days earlier (19: lOf.,
14f.); there are no chronological notes about the first and second ascent; left open
is the question how long Moses was on the mountain (cf. beside it 24:14-18; 32:1;
34:28). Noteworthy in this connection is that in TPsJ the material of Exod. 19 is
set in a chronological framework: first day of the third month (19:1; see exegesis),
second (19:3, 7), third (19:9), fourth (19:10, 14), sixth day = the day on which
the law was given (19:16) (the fifth day is devoted to preparation; cf. 19:10, 15).6
The point of TPsJ’s chronological framework is to legitimate the celebration of
the proclamation of the law on the sixth day of the third month (see below under
1). It is clear, however, that the text of Exod. 19 does not preclude a spreading of
the events over a longer period of time. Aside from the time of preparation
(19: lOf., 14f.), the writer/redactor does not seem to have worked with a particular
chronology. Rather, by presenting Moses as repeatedly going up and going down,
3 See Zenger’s* synopsis, S in a i-th e o p h a n ie , 207ff.; see also idem*. I s r a e l , 130ff.

4 Th. C. Vriezen, D e lite ra tu u r van O u d -Is ra e l , Wassenaar 19734, 178.
5 Cf. D.C. Arichea, “Note: The Ups and Downs of Moses: Locating Moses in Exodus 19-33,” B iT r
40 (1989), 244-6.
6 Cf. M ek. II, 201, 210, 212, and see e.g. Rashi; Cassuto.
he manages to spread the events. It makes for a lively story in which, step by step,
he leads his readers to the climax of his account: the speaking of God (20:1).
Broadly speaking, it can be said that the expansiveness of the introduction under
scores the weight of the divine speaking. To achieve that effect, the writer, when
it suits him, disregards the logical order of the events (see exegesis 19:21-24).
In this connection I draw attention to the fact that there are scholars who have
defended the view that 20:18-21 was originally the continuation of 19:19 (e.g.
Baentsch; Eerdmans*, 66; McNeile; Noth). That cannot be ruled out. For under
standing the current text it is important to note the effect produced by the present
order of the material: 20:18-21 is reaction to the ten commandments personally
spoken by y h w h ; as a consequence of the people’s reaction they are given a
unique, distinctive status in relation to the divine oracles given through Moses*
mediation (20:22ff.).7
2. The alternation in the use of the divine names does not seem to be for any
particular reason. It would seem to be due to the different derivation of the
material (differently Rudolph*, 42; Cassuto, 235).
3. The observation that the description of y h w h ’s appearance displays features
derived from both heavy weather and a volcanic eruption (cf. Vol. I, 119) is to the
point.8 As such it is not impossible that the images derive from different literary
sources.9 More important, however, is that the writer evidently regarded them as
complementary images. Combining disparate depictions enabled him to bring out
the momentous nature of the theophany, a demonstration of y h w h ’s incomparable
and irresistible majesty. Only disparate images are barely able to approximate the
reality of what the overwhelming presence of YHWH was like! In short, the
writer’s concern is to indicate the real presence of the incomparable God. The fact
that to that end the writer employs diverse images might incline a modem west
erner to conclude that evidently it was not the writer’s concern to offer an eye
witness account of the revelation of y h w h , that he describes y h w h ’s coming and
presence with conventional imagery,10 and that the images are apparently of a
7 Cf. Deut. 4:1 Iff.; 5:4, 23ff.; but see also Deut. 5:5; for the question see e.g. Childs, 351 ff.
8 Lightning and thunder (19:16) have also been interpreted as phenomena attending the eruption of
the volcano; the sounding of the ram’s horn as the subterranean rumble; see Meyer*, IN , 69;
Greflmann*, 193; in that connection, 19:12b, 13a is taken as an allusion to death caused by flying and
falling volcanic stones; see E. Kramer, D B A T 2 0 (1984), 159-68; Cassuto, admitting the possibility that
the observation of volcanic activity may have influenced the ‘literary tradition of theophany descrip
tions,’ believes that the depiction in 19:18 with the use of stock metaphors refers to terrible weather:
the smoke is the mist rising from the mountains; the fire is the lightning; the trembling of the mountain
is due to the force of the crashing thunder (232).
9 But note the piling up of divergent pictures in e.g. Ps. 18:8ff.
10 For theophany descriptions in narrower sense (YHWH’s coming is accompanied by upheavals in
nature) (Deut. 33:2ff.; Judg. 5; Isa. 30:27ff.; Mic. l:3f.; Hab. 3; Ps. 18; 68 etc.) see J. Jeremias,
T h e o p h a n ie , Neukirchen-Vluyn 19772; Lipinski*, R o y a u te , 187ff.; beside Exod. 19 see in particular
1 Kgs. 19:1 Iff.; often the theophany points to YHWH’s coming as saviour and/or agent of judgment; in
Exod. 19 he appears in order to make known his will (cf. Ps. 50); for a general treatment of phe-
430 exodus 19:1-25
symbolic nature. It is doubtful whether such an intellectual approach does justice to

the ‘reality content* the portrayals had for the Israelite man or woman. To them
the disparity in the imagery was no problem, but their coincidence was rather a
reinforcement of the unique nature of the event and of y h w h ’s omnipotence.
At any rate, given the nature of the description, it does not seem right to draw
conclusions from it about the nature of the Sinai (a volcano? see Introd. § 8.23.4)
and the original character of y h w h : a volcanic deity?;*11 a god of thunder and
lightning?12 It would also be wrong to spiritualize the text.13
4. It is necessary to go into more detail about the nature of the description of the
theophany. Remarkable is that not only meteorologic phenomena are cited, but also
trumpet sound (19:16, 19; cf. also 19:13). Should one think of sound coming from
a heavenly trumpet (e.g. Baentsch; Ehrlich; Grefimann*, 196; McNeile; Rylaars-
dam) or does it refer to the howling of the wind blowing among the mountains?
(e.g. Cassuto; cf. Goldman, 572f.). It has been proposed that the theophany
account in Exod. 19 is influenced by the cultic reenactment of the Sinai theophany
inside the context of a postulated covenant renewal ceremony. Supposedly at such
a feast the appearance of y h w h was announced by trumpet sound and his presence
portrayed by means of smoke of incense above the ark (cf. Lev. 16:2, 13).14
Along this line, H.-P. Muller15 has described the burning torches (cf. Exod.
20:18), the breaking jars and the sounding of the trumpets (cf. also Josh. 6) in
Judg. 7:16ff. as elements of the reenactment of y h w h ’s theophany in the y h w h -
war, which supposedly was similar to the ritual representation of the theophany of
the Sinai in the cult of the amphictyony. In this connection it is worth mentioning
that B.D. Eerdmans,16 inside the framework of his thesis that Moses’ relatives by
marriage, the Kenites, were wandering nomads and their god the God of fire and
thunder of the Sinai, has defended the view that the theophany at Sinai was staged
by the Kenites in cooperation with Moses: they lighted big fires that produced a lot
of smoke; they banged on metal plates; they swayed torches in the smoke, and,
when Moses spoke, the answer came in the form of sound of gongs.17 Before
that, Reimarus (Introd. § 5.45.2) had already stated as his opinion that ‘der
nomena that tend to accompany revelation, see F. Dumermuth, “Biblische Offenbarungsphanomene,”

ThZ 21 (1965), 1-21 (with religion-historical parallels and observations at para-psychological research).
11 See e.g. Grefimann*, 192; idem*, Eschatologie, 31ff.; Westphal*, 16 (J); cf. Schmid*, 16;
differently Eerdmans*, Religion, 18ff.: a god of fire.
12 See e.g. Stade*, 41f.; Baentsch; Westphal, 15 (E).
13 So Zenger*, Israel, 160, with respect to 19:18: ‘das Bild zeigt an, was am Sinaiberg von Jahwe
her geschieht. Konkret: der Sinaiberg ist fur Israel wie ein Schmelzofen, an dem es von Jahwe gereinigt
und gelautert sowie auf seinen “Feingehalt” gepriift wird ...’ etc.
14 See in this connection e.g. A. Weiser, “Theophanie in den Psalmen und im Festkult,” Fs A.
Bertholet, Tubingen 1950, 513-31; Beyerlin*, 43f., 153ff. (he disputes the presence of volcanic features
in Exod. 19); Clements*, Temple, 17ff.; cf. also Zenger*, Israel, 120f.
15 “Die kultische Darstellung der Theophanie,” VT 14 (1964), 183-91.
16 The Covenant at Mount Sinai, Viewed in the Light o f Antique Thought, Leiden 1939.
17 Eerdmans disputes the presence of volcanic features in the account; cf. idem*, Religion, 8ff., 15.
Aufzug bey der Gesetzgebung’ was the invention of a later writer (I, 368), and, in
his search for what had really happened, proposed: ‘Man konnte sagen, er (Moses)
hatte auf dem Berge, durch Anziindung der Gepusche, ein Feuer gemacht dabey
einen starken Knall durch eine Art eines Schiesspulvers erregt, und durch ein
Sprachrohr mit seinem getreuen Josua laute gesprochen, dass mans im Lager horen
konnen.’ Yet he adds: ‘Aber, wie sehr hatte er dadurch sein Ansehen auf die
Spitze gestellet? Solchen Deum ex machina kann einer eher in einer verdeckten
Schaubuhne als under freyem Himmel vorstellen’ (I, 369).
The question whether the cultic re-presentation of the theophany of the
Sinai - the picture given above is a reconstruction drawing on a variety of mate
rials - actually happened in Israel need not concern us here. Even if elements of
cultic re-presentation are worked into Exod. 19 and if, historically speaking, it
would be ‘Urbild’ of the theophany of the Sinai, it would not mean that we would
have discovered the kind of image the sounding of the trumpet in Exod. 19 seeks
to evoke. After all, the writer may have regarded the theophany of Exod. 19 as
‘Urbild.’ All in all, it seems obvious that according to him the trumpet sound came
from heaven. That he thought in terms of y h w h himself blowing the trumpet
(Rylaarsdam; Keel*, WABAT , 319), or that the sounding of the trumpet embodies
the speaking of y h w h (Beyerlin*, 43, 155; cf. also Isa. 58:1; Rev. 1:10; 4:1)
does not seem likely. More likely, it is assumed that a heavenly servant blew the
trumpet, and that the imagery is based on conceiving of y h w h , at his coming, as
being accompanied by a heavenly host, which was co-responsible for the tumult in
the cosmos.18
5. Questionable is the opinion19 that Exod. 19 contains two divergent traditions
with respect to y h w h ’s presence: y h w h is present on the Sinai and dwells there
(E); y h w h descends on the Sinai (J).20 No more than one may conclude from 3:2
that the mountain was y h w h ’s only abode (cf. 3:8) may one draw that conclusion
from 19:3, 4. Sinai is undoubtedly a holy place, but there is no tension between
y h w h ’s presence there and his having his throne in heaven. To the ancients, the
fact that he is already on the scene prior to the theophany at Sinai, and in a
conversation with Moses announces that there he would appear (19:9, 11), was not
a problem.21
18 Cf. Deut. 33:2 LXX; Matt. 16:27; 24:31; 25:31; 1 Thess. 4:16; Rev. 8:2, 6, 13; 9:14; according
to rabbinic exegesis, a multitude of angels accompanied the theophany; e.g. Ginzberg*, III, 92, 94.
19 See e.g. Baentsch; Westphal*, llff.; Noth; Zenger*, I s r a e l , 144; cf. Beyerlin*, 117ff., 175,
182f., see also Introd. § 3.16.
20 Schmid*, 55ff., connects the pictures with different mountains.
21 See Houtman*, H im m e l , 319ff.; incidentally, in the targums the (anthropomorphic) ‘coming’
(19:9), ‘coming down’ (19:11, 18, 20) is translated with words like ‘appearing’ (cf. 20:22); see also
M ek. II, 224; Rashi; cf. Goldman, 579; so YHWH’s transcendence remains untouched; see Potin*,
232ff.; Moses’ ascent is spiritualized: preparation for prophetic inspiration (Abravanel); see Goldman,
547ff.; generally speaking, typical of Jewish exegesis is the supposition that there was no direct
encounter between YHWH and Moses (yet note Num. 12:8); see e.g. Cassuto on 19:21, 24; this
conception is also found in Christian exegetes (e.g. Murphy, 192, 196, 197).
432 exodus 19:1-25
e. The account of Israel’s encounter with y h w h at the Sinai has also been the
subject of form-critical and traditio-critical investigation. Here I offer an impres
sion of the findings. By way of introduction I point to an assertion made on the
basis of literary-critical research.
J. Wellhausen* noted that Exod. 19:l-Num. 10:10, the account of Israel’s
sojourn at the Sinai, was actually an intermezzo. The situation described before
and after it is the same. The independent position of the Sinai complex led to him
suggest that the sojourn at the Sinai was not part of the oldest tradition. In that
tradition, according to him, Israel journeyed straight from Egypt to Kadesh
0Composition, 108; Prol. , 341f.). Others have taken over the notion that Kadesh
occupied a central place in Israel’s early history (cf. Introd. § 8.23.5). In the
discussion of 15:22-18:27, we already came across the notion that the events
described there are to be located at Kadesh.
The original independence of the traditions concerning ‘the Sinai’ (theophany,
giving of the law, covenant), which lie at the base of ch. 19-24; 32-34, has been
strongly defended by G. von Rad (Introd. § 12.8.1), and has received approval
from, among others, M. Noth* ( UP, 63ff.). According to them, the Sinai tradition
was originally an independent tradition which did not get tied to the tradition about
the exodus until much later.22 As concerns the Sinai tradition, Von Rad espouses
the conception that originally it was the ‘festival legend’ of the ‘covenant festival’
celebrated once every seven years (Deut. 31: lOff.) by the y h w h amphictyony, and
whose liturgy consisted of the following elements: (1) exhortation (19:4-6) and
historical recital of the events at Sinai (Exod. 19); (2) reading of the law (Deca
logue; Book of the Covenant; Exod. 20-23); (3) promise and blessing (Exod.
23:20-33); (4) sealing of the covenant (Exod. 24).
f. The view that the cult constituted the ‘Sitz im Leben’ of the traditions about
YHWH’s revelation at the Sinai has been taken over by others.23 Further study and
acquaintance with treaty texts from the Ancient Near East24 resulted in a shar
pening of the contours of the liturgy of the festival.25 In view of Exod. 19:3-6,
worth mentioning is the characterization of 19:3-6 as ‘a special covenantal
Gattung ’ (‘A part, to be sure of the larger covenant complex which Von Rad has
described’) by J. Muilenburg;26 in his opinion, the passage in question is ‘in nuce
the forts et origo ’ of the many covenant passages in the OT; he distinguishes the
following elements: ‘oracular opening’ (19:3b); ‘proclamation of the mighty acts’
22 On their not identical standpoint see Houtman*, P e n t., 186ff.

23 Sometimes along with the notion that the Exodus and Sinai traditions were originally linked
together; so e.g. Beyerlin*, 190f., following A. Weiser.
24 For their influence on the interpretation of the OT see e.g. D.J. McCarthy, O ld T e sta m e n t
C o v e n a n t, OxfoiU 1972.
25 See above under d.4 and e.g. C. Barth, “Theophanie, Bundschliessung und neuer Anfang am
dritten Tage,” E vT h 28 (1968), 521-33 (the third day is climax; see Exod. 19:11, 16, 17 and Hos. 6:2;
Amos 4:4, 12).
26 “The Form and Structure of Covenantal Formulations,” VT9 (1959), 347-65 (352).
(19:4); ‘the covenant condition’ (19:5, 6 ) . 2 7

g. The pre-literary genesis of the text is beset with even greater uncertainty than
the literary genesis. The independence of the Sinai tradition has been called into
question28 and disputed. 2 9 The question obviously has consequences for the
picture of Israel’s early history. Thus Noth*, G7, 126, looks at the ‘Sinaivorgang’
as an independent event in which a certain group of ancestors of the later Israel
took part. Though in his view the historical context of the event is beyond
recovery, he does not wish to question its historicity. Zenger*, Israel, 114ff., goes
further. Though admitting that religio-historically y h w h is connected to the Sinai
as territory, he disputes that a one-time, empirically verifiable event took place at
Mount Sinai. The picture of y h w h ’s coming to Mount Sinai he sees as a projec
tion back to the time of the wilderness of the picture of y h w h ’s coming to Zion.
According to Zenger*, ‘es gab historisch keines Bundesschluss am Sinai, es gab
historisch kein Sinaifest ...’ (125). He insists, however, that the link between the
narratives and the history be maintained: ‘die Sinaigeschichten Ex. 19-34 sind
tiefgetrankt von geschichtlichen Erfahrungen Israels, die Israel fiber Jahrhunderte
hinweg — nicht punktuell, sondem permanent - gemacht hat, namlich die
Erfahrungen, daft Jahwe “der Gott aus Sinai” sein Volk immer wieder heimgesucht
hat, verheiflend und fordemd, strafend und vergebend. In den Sinaigeschichten hat
Israel sein historisches Mysterium zu begreifen versucht, dafl und wie es Volk
Jahwes wurde und blieb. Dieses historisch einmalige Mysterium hat sich Israel
erzahlerisch in den Sinaigeschichten so vergegenwartigt, dali es seine normative
Gottesbegegnung als ein einmaliges Geschehen, als ein fu r allemal von Gott her
giiltig bleibendes Geschehen erzahlt hat’ (126).
The nature of the account of the events at the Sinai (see under b-f) makes a
precise reconstruction impossible. What can be said is that y h w h ’s revelation at
the mountain seems firmly anchored in the tradition, and that the suggestion that it
is based on projection backwards is too bold. For our purpose, the exegesis of
Exodus in its present form, it is important that the (pre)history of the exodus and
the history of ‘the Sinai’ in the present text presuppose each other, 3 0 and that
Exod. 15-18 can be taken as a meaningful preparation for the meeting with y h w h
at the Sinai (see exegesis of 15-18, and see also below).
h. There is no question that the tone of 19:3-8 makes one think of preparations
that precede the making of a treaty. 31 Thus it makes sense to look at this passage,
and generally speaking at the chapters about the encounter between y h w h and
27Cf. Beyerlin*, 78ff.: as a component of the liturgical exhortation, 19:3b-8 played an active part in
the ‘Bundeskult’ (back of it lies the ‘Bundesverpflichtungsszene’); see further RSPy II, 187ff.
28See e.g. W.H. Schmidt*, Exodus, Sinai, 7 Iff.
2VSee e.g. Te Stroete, 10ff.; De Vaux*, H A I , I, 376ff. ( + Bibl.); J.M. Schmidt, “Erwagungen zum
Verhaltnis von Auszugs- und Sinaitradition,” Z A W 82 (1970), 1-31; Nicholson (Introd. § 12.8.1); G.
Wallis, T h L Z 101 (1976), 801-16.
30See 3:12, 18 (Vol. I, 375ff.); 6:7; 19:3f.; 20:3.
31 Cf. P. Kalluveettil, Declaration and Covenant, Rome 1982.
434 EXODUS 19:1-25
Israel at the Sinai, in the light of secular covenants described in the OT and the
treaty literature of the Ancient Near East. Particularly the latter has often been
done. It has shown that there are points of contact between that literature and
Exod. 19ff., but also that Exod. 19ff., both as concerns main points and details,
have a character of their own. 3 2 Comparison shows that as concerns Exod. 19fff.,
especially the theophany and Moses’ role as mediator stand out.
Furthermore, whether ancient Israel ever had some sort of covenant renewal
festival is a disputed question. 3 3 In extra-biblical data the celebration of the events
at the Sinai is situated in divergent contexts. According to Philo (De special,
legibus , II, 188ff.) the giving of the law at Sinai was central in ‘the feast of
trumpets’ (cf. Exod. 19:13, 16, 19) on the first of Tishri. 3 4 The book of Jubilees
(1st century before Chr.) mentions a covenant renewal festival, associated with the
15th of the 3rd month. The feast occupied a central place in the liturgical calendar
of the Qumran community, but as to origin is likely non-sectarian. Remarkably, in
Jub. 6:17ff. ‘Pentecost* and Easter are not connected. In rabbinic literature both
festivals are emphatically linked to each other. The earliest witness is from the 2nd
century after Chr. In rabbinic writing, not the making of the covenant but the gift
of the law is given prominence as the central happening at the Sinai. 3 5 In early
Christianity, Easter and Pentecost are closely connected, the latter being the feast
of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2). In this connection it is worthy of
note that in Jewish tradition the Sinai theophany is portrayed as a worldwide
event - God spoke audibly for all nations (e.g. MidrTanh. Exod. I, 22) etc. (see
also under m) - and plays a role in eschatology: a new beginning, the judgment
upon the wicked, the theophany and harmony marking Israel at the Sinai (see
exegesis 19:2, 3, 6 , 8 ) are awaited (for elucidation see Potin*, 229ff., 299ff.).
i. The place o f 19:3b-8 in Exod. 19 deserves special attention. 3 6 I share the
view that 19:3b-8 occupies a place of its own in Exod. 19 (see under c). Also in
light of the wider context, the passage raises questions. in 19:6, 7 cannot
(cf. 19:8 ‘we will do’) refer to YHWH’s words described in 19:3b-6a, but only to
ordinances given by yhwh. Thus it is natural to take D n m n etc. in 19:6 (cf.
21:1) to mean: ‘Here follow the ordinances which ....’ No enumeration is given
however, but, as said, it is presupposed in 19:8. A look at 24:3, 7, verses showing
affinity with 19:7, 8 and which are preceded by regulations (21:If.), strengthens
the likelihood of that assumption. In 24:3-8, the regulations are stipulations of the
covenant. In 19:8 the acceptance of the conditions of the covenant (cf. 24:3) is not
32See McCarthy*, Treaty, 243ff.

33 Cf. e.g. De Vaux*, HAI, I, 380ff. Von Rad links covenant renewal to the spring festival/the feast
of booths.
34In Sept./Oct.; later celebrated as New Year’s Day festival; the tmmpet is sounded.
35 For a discussion of the evolution of the feast of weeks see Potin*, 117ff.
36Cf. J.L. Ska, “Ex 19,3-8 et les pareneses deuteronomiques,” in G. Brauiik et al (eds.), Biblische
Theologie und gesellschaftlicher Wandel (Fs N. Lohfink), Freiburg et al. 1993, 307-14; D.C. van Zyl,
“Exodus 19:3-6 and the Kerygmatic Perspective of the Pentateuch,” OTE 5 (1992), 264-71.
followed by a covenant enactment ceremony but by the announcement of yhwh ’s

theophany (including the announcement o f yhwh ’s ordinances) etc.37
I cite some other points as well. Israel is predestined by yhwh to be ‘a holy
(tfrip) nation’ (19:6). ‘Holy nation’ is a metaphor. 19:10, 14 speaks of ‘purifica
tion’ (enp piel) of the people in non-metaphorical sense. In 19:6, Israel is
metaphorically called ‘priestly nation.’ 19:22, 24 talks of actual priests, in
distinction from the people and their purification (enp hithp.); 19:23 of the
hallowing (enp piel) of the mountain. According to 19:5, obedience to yhwh ’s
precepts is the condition for being ‘holy nation;’ the picture presented in 19:lOff.,
2 1 ff. is that one cannot listen to the proclamation of yhwh ’s precepts (2 0 : Iff.)
until one has heeded the stipulations pertaining to holiness; theme of 19: lOff.,
2 Iff. is holiness as preparation for receiving yhwh and his word.
j. All in all, as viewed through the eyes of a modem western exegete, something
seems to be the matter with the place of 19:3b-8 in its context. That does not mean
that no sense can be made of its position. Evidently, the writer/redactor placed the
passage at the head of the new major division as a kind of preamble to bring out
elements which he regarded as of crucial significance for the encounter of yhwh
and Israel at the Sinai: 3 8 yhwh , the God who freed Israel from Egypt and led
them through the wilderness (19:4), offers Israel a lasting relationship and tells
Israel that if they are faithful to him, they will have a unique position among the
nations (19:5, 6 ). In short, the writer/redactor wants the encounter of yhwh and
Israel at the Sinai to be understood as the historic moment of yhwh ’s disclosure of
his election of Israel, the moment at which he holds before Israel the conditions
for a lasting bond and asks for Israel’s entirely voluntary response. The bond that
links yhwh to Israel is no natural, self-evident bond, but a union based on mutual
promises.
k. The position and function of 19:3b-8 at the beginning of the new major
division is comparable to that of 15:22-27, in particular 15:25b, 26, at the
beginning of Israel’s sojourn in the wilderness (see Essentials 15:22-27 end). The
intent of both parts is ‘to colour in’ what follows. Also on other points comparing
both passages is instructive. In 15:26 as well as in 19:4 Egypt’s fate contrasts with
that of Israel. Both 15:26 and 19:5 talk about obedience to yhwh as condition for
well-being, yet there is also progression: according to 15:26, obedience to yhwh ’s
precepts spells well being for Israel; according to 19:5, 6 it leads to a unique
position of Israel among the nations!
That last point leads me to the following observation: it seems somewhat strange
to read of ‘imposed obligations’ (19:5), ‘ordinances’ (19:6) and of agreeing with
37 In rabbinic exegesis it is assumed that the account is not chronological; 24:4ff. is given a place in
the preparations of 19:10, 11; see Mek. II, 210f., and also Rashi. Consequence of this chronology is
that the making of the covenant comes before theophany and giving of the law, which are thus
prominently set forth (the previously given commandments are the foundation of the covenant); see
further Potin*, 132ff.
38Cf. Valeton (see under b), 77ff.
436 exodus 19:1-25
them, but without the details being spelled out. Without wanting to play down this
unevenness, I do wish to point out that here the (original) reader is not suddenly
being confronted with obligations/ordinances without getting some intimation of
what these entail. As noted earlier, faithfulness to y h w h and his precepts is an
element of the primary theme of previous chapters, and the sojourn in the wilder
ness can be regarded as training school, as preparation for the consummate union
of y h w h and Israel at the Sinai (see Essentials 15:22-17:7). For that reason the
supposition is warranted that the content of ‘obligations,* ‘ordinances’ is in some
sense implicit in what is said in previous chapters. Factoring in these chapters, one
must conclude that the first impression, namely that Israel signs a blank agreement
(19:8), is evidently not what the writer had in mind. In fact, the background of the
composition as put together by the writer, may suggest a good explanation for the
writer’s omission of the details of the precepts. According to 19:8, Israel is willing
to accept y h w h ’s offer. After that (the preparation for) the encounter takes place.
Due to its position, 19:8 serves as a declaration o f intent. As such it serves a
specific purpose, y h w h does not come until he has received assurances that Israel
is willing to enter into a relationship with him. For y h w h is so exalted that his
coming may not be in vain. His words are so holy that they may not be wasted
and only may fall into good soil! Looked at like that, 24:3, 7 are a reinforcement
of a previously given word (altogether it is three times that Israel assumes the
obligation; cf. Introd. § 4.4.1).
1. Time and place o f action?9 Exod. 19 contains some information about the
time of when it happened (19:1, 10f., 15, 16). The rabbis worked the time
designations into a chronological framework (see under d.l), which includes the
celebration of Easter and the Feast of Weeks (cf. Lev. 23:15): the theophany
happens on the fiftieth day after the 15th Nisan, that is, on the sixth day of the
third month, called Siwan; 394 0 a different picture is given in Jubilees: the making of
the covenant happens on the fifteenth day (a Sunday); God appears on the sixteenth
day (cf. 1:1; 44:4f.; see Potin*, 121f., 124ff.).41
Rabbinic exegesis has dealt with the question of why y h w h did not immediately
after the exodus give the Torah. In order to receive the Torah the people had to be
perfect in every way; there had to be harmony among the people (cf. 19:8), but
also the absence of physical defects. For the Torah is without defect. When Israel
39 Cf. R. Rivard, “Pour une relecture d’Ex 19 et 20: Analyse semiotique d ’Ex 19, 1-8,” ScE 33
(1981), 335-56.
40The feast does not fall on a fixed day of the week; there is no unanimity in rabbinic literature on
the question whether the day of the revelation was a Friday or a Saturday (Sabbath); see e.g.
Rosmarin*, 107; Goldman, 547; Potin*, 131, 134. The Sadducees, e.g., had a different way of
calculating the date of the Feast of Weeks (always on a Sunday); the rabbinic chronology has been
adopted in part also by some Christian expositors; e.g. Calmet: arrival on the third day (19:1);
revelation on the sixth day; see also already Ephraem: arrival (19:1) 45 days after exodus (revelation
evidently on the fiftieth day; see e.g. Augustine, QE, LXX).
41 For 19:1 see also exegesis.
left Egypt there were many who were lame, crippled, deaf etc.; arriving at Sinai
they were healed; from ‘in the eyes of all the people* (19:11) it is concluded that
there were no more blind persons among the people (Mek. II, 212; Rashi) etc . 4 2
In the exegesis of 15:22-17:7 it was noted that Israel’s journey through the
wilderness can be characterized as a period in which y h w h and Israel further
came to know each other.
Starting point of the specification of time (19:1) is the exodus out of Egypt (cf.
12: If.). The reference to that particular moment is a flashback to a piece of
history. Israel departed with as destination the promised land (cf. 3:6ff.; 6 :8 ;
13:5). The time designation in 19:1, 2, where ‘wilderness’ is used 3 x , shows that
at the particular moment of 19:1 the destination had not yet been reached. What it
does intimate is that a very important station has been reached. The redundant
depiction of the situation issues in a precise indication of Israel’s position: Israel
encamps opposite the mountain , that is the mountain of y h w h ’s appearance to
Moses (cf. 3:Iff.), the place to which Moses, according to y h w h ’s promise,
would return, with the people (3:12). The mountain, in 19:11 for the first time
called ‘Mount Sinai,’ will henceforth repeatedly be mentioned as central theater of
action (in Exod. 19 16x ; cf. Introd. §3.16.1). Its location is in dispute (see
Introd. § 8.23).
Rabbinic literature talks about quarreling among the mountains about the honour
to be selected as place of revelation (see Ginzberg*, III, 82ff.).
m. Local of action is the mountainous wilderness. The scenes constantly
changing, that it where it all happens. The reader’s interest remains riveted by
Moses’ movements (see under d.l), and in particular by the theophany with its
numerous facets. 4 3 Besides Israel and Moses, no others are present at the moment
of y h w h ’s revelation (cf. 18:27). In rabbinic exegesis the question is raised why
y h w h gave the Torah precisely there, and the answer given is: if the Torah had
been given in Palestine, Israel might have said that it was meant exclusively for
them; the choice of the wilderness, no-man’s land, as place of promulgation brings
out that the Torah is for everyone who wants to accept it (e.g. Mek. II, 198).44
The religio-historical explanation is that the revelation was given precisely there
because y h w h was originally the god of the Sinai (see above under d.3).
42 See for these and other answers, and for speculations about the number ‘three,’ e.g. MidrTanh.
Exod. V, 8, 9, 11, 12, and Ginzberg*, III, 77ff.; Potin*, 210ff.
43 Accentuated even more in rabbinic exegesis: the sun stood still and many arose from the dead;
many Israelites had died from fear and were brought back to life by YHWH (e.g. TzUR on 20:17); the
whole earth shook on its foundations; the end of the world was feared to be near etc. (see Ginzberg*,
III, 90ff.); the shaking in the cosmos is described in vivid colours in Pseudo-Philo, XI, 5; XXIII, 10;
XXXII, 7f. (cf. also 4 Ezra 3:18f.). Josephus (A/, III, 79ff.) depicts the theophany as a happening that
remained restricted to the camp of Israel; a cloud spread over the whole camp; while all the rest of the
air was clear, a mighty tempest burst loose (he does not mention smoke and trumpet sound, only rain
and wind).
44 According to Rabbinic tradition, YHWH, before giving the Torah to Israel, had offered it to other
nations; they refused; see e.g. Ginzberg*, III, 80ff.
438 EXODUS 19:1-25
n. Acting persons , in the order in which they are mentioned in Exod. 19, are
Israel (also represented by the elders; 19:7), Moses and God/YHWH. y h w h and the
mountain are closely related, y h w h wants to come as close to the people as
possible and for that purpose make use of the mountain. It is the place for the
meeting between him and Moses, y h w h can only come to the people thickly veiled
(19:9, 16, 18). The purification of the people (19:10, 14f.) makes it possible for
y h w h and the people to come into each other’s presence without putting the
people in harm’s way, but it cannot remove the infinitely large and qualitative
difference between y h w h and the people - also expressed by the exalted position
on the mountain (cf. 19:20) and the lowly position of the people at the foot of the
mountain (19:17). Also after the purification, y h w h ’s radiance is so blindingly
brilliant that one must keep distance from the mountain (19:12f., 21-24), while the
people, despite the distance separating them from y h w h , are filled with fear
(19:16). All in all, permanent distance marks the relationship YHWH-Israel. Moses
handles the communication. He acts as spokesman on behalf of y h w h and the
people and is the only one able to have direct contact with God (19:3, 6 , 8 , 9, 10,
15, 21, 24, 25). The radiance of y h w h ’s majesty and glory is so great that also
his words, though heard from a safe distance, are so holy and so powerful that the
people fear they are not able to endure them. After an initial key role - their
unanimous declaration of intent is the condition for the continuation of the
events - the people become receiving party. They let themselves be led by Moses
and request him, after y h w h has spoken for the first time, to be y h w h ’s spokes
man (20:19). Moses remains key figure. His conduct is impressive, contrasting
with that of the people. The people shudder at the theophany. Not Moses; 4 5 he
does what no man should ever do: climb the mountain, while the powers of nature
have broken loose (19:20ff.). y h w h legitimates himself in the presence of the
people (19:9, 19). Already through the power and majesty he displays, not
withstanding the fact that he manifests his coming in hiddenness (19:16, 18, 19),
y h w h occupies central stage. Manifest in his deeds (19:4), he cannot and does not
want to be seen (cf. 19:21). Yet he wants to be heard. To that end, he appears in
order that he may powerfully proclaim the precepts that are to form the basis of
his bond with the people, and that are to constitute the face of ‘the holy people’
and ‘the priestly nation.’
Finally, the text aims to break through the boundaries of time, making later
hearers participants, who feel themselves one with the Israel at the Sinai and want
to entrust themselves to y h w h (see also exegesis 19:4). Noteworthy in this
connection is that rabbinic exegesis infers from the fact that 19:1 does not say
Kinn o ra , ‘on that day,’ but run dv*3, ‘on this day,’ that later generations are to
view the Torah as given to them and as always new (e.g. MidrTanh Exod. V, 7,
13; Rashi).
o. For Exod. 19 and the OT see Introd. § 12.8; for Exod. 19 and the NT see
45 Differently Gregory of Nyssa (VM, I, 43): Moses was filled with fear and trembled.
Introd. § 13.8 and above under h. Christian expositors have applied Exod. 19 to
the Christian church. Thus e.g. Origen (Horn, in Exod., XI) declares: purification
of body and soul (baptism) is necessary for hearing the Word of God, for sharing
in the wedding banquet (cf. Matt. 22:12); the prohibition against sexual relations
he understands in the light of Paul’s statements about marriage. Gregory of Nyssa
( VM, I, 42ff.; II, 152ff.) describes the revelation at the Sinai as a ‘mystery’ into
which Moses initiates the people, and he detects in the passage this spiritual
meaning: the spirit is carried to the highest levels of virtue and divine knowledge;
also of details he gives a spiritualizing interpretation: the sound of the horn (19:19)
refers to the revelation of the incarnation, initially only weakly heard in law and
prophets, but at last strongly in the gospel; etc. 46

EXEGESIS
19:1 In the third month after the Israelites had gone out o f the land o f Egypt - on
that very day! — they came into the wilderness o f Sinai:
19:2 they set out from Rephidim, entered the wilderness o f Sinai, and camped in
the wilderness; there Israel camped in front o f the mountain.
19:1 is to be regarded as a kind of superscription (cf. e.g. Gen. 1:1; 12:4; 28:10).
That makes it understandable why the arrival (19:1) is mentioned before the
departure and the arrival is once again mentioned in 19:2. The seemingly illogical
order and the repetition has led earlier exegetes to homiletical digressions; thus
Rashi thinks that in 19:2a Rephidim as well as Sinai are mentioned to indicate that
Israel was in a repentant mood (about the sin of 17:2) when it came to the Sinai
(cf. Mek. II, 195; but note Nachmanides). Literary critics are used to attribute
19:1 and also 19:2a to P (e.g. Baentsch: originally 19:2 came before 19:1).
EiGfeldt*, however, attributes 19:1 to P and 19:2a to L. As I see it, it is not
impossible that the somewhat rough text stems from its complex origin. In any
case, the fact that the new chapter does not, as is customary in Exodus, begin with
a narration, serves to arrest the reader’s attention, making him aware that he is not
just reading the next episode in a series of events, but important new events.
Furthermore, the difference in the tenses in 19:1, 2 should be kept in mind. As I
said, 19:1 is superscription. In 19:2, the writer continues his narrative, building on
previous chapters (17:1 etc.). However, the superscription introduces a break, so
giving the coming events their own spot in the account.
Knn, see 12:2. ‘third,’ see Introd. § 4.4.2. n xxb (Ges-K § 102f; Jouon § 124g),
cf. 16:1. ‘on that very day,’ see Introd. § 3.23.1. ‘wilderness,’ see Introd. § 3.31.
The precise day of arrival is not further indicated (cf. Num. 9:1; 20:1; Zech.
1 : 1 ); the remark ‘on that very day’ suggests a precise date (cf. 16:1); in rabbinic
For the history of the interpretation see also Childs, 378ff.; for 19:6 see exegesis.
440 EXODUS 19:1-25
exegesis, e n n is taken to mean the day of the new moon = the first of the month
(TPsJ; Mek. II, 195; bSab 8 6 b); the interpretation has found favour also with later
expositors (Rashi; Ibn Ezra; Murphy; Ehrlich; Vredenburg; Noth; Cassuto;
Childs); elsewhere this formulation is not used, however, to designate ‘the first of
the month’ (40:2, 17; Gen. 8:5, 13; Lev. 23:24; Num. 1:1, 18 etc.); for that
reason it has been proposed that run DV2 here is a general designation of time
(e.g. Keil). Others reject this way out of the difficulty, supposing that the desig
nation of the day dropped out, or what might be more likely, is consciously
omitted (e.g. Dillmann; Strack; Baentsch; McNeile; Heinisch) . 4 7 Most likely,
‘that very day’ denotes the day of the exodus (cf. 12:14, 17, 41, 51); hence, two
months after the departure from Egypt on the fifteenth of the first month and one
month after entering the Desert of Sin (16:1), Israel arrives at the Sinai on the
fifteenth of the third month (cf. Bohl; Te Stroete).
U03, see 12:37. ‘Rephidim,’ see 17:1,8. run, see 13:20. 133 (see 10:10), taken
to mean on the east side (e.g. Mek. II, 200, and Rashi; but see Ibn Ezra), ‘the
mountain’ (Introd. § 3.16.1), the mountain familiar to the reader. 1 3 m , not
translated in LXX. im , in TNf rendered as 13UD1, ‘and settled’ (cf. FTP J). In
TPsJ ‘encamped’ is followed by im D 2^2, ‘with one accord’ (cf. Acts 1:14;
2:46; 5:12), to explain the transition from pi. to sing. (cf. Mek. II, 200); accor
ding to rabbinic interpretation, a spirit of unity marked the Israel at the Sinai (cf.
19:8).48
The repetition in 19:2 has been taken as reporting two successive acts (in
Goldman) and as reporting acts by two different subjects: the sing, refers to the
tribal heads and the elders in distinction from the people (Ibn Ezra), to Israel in
distinction from the mixed multitude (Nachmanides). It is best not to draw broad
conclusions from the repetition, but to attribute it to the origin and evolution of the
text. Through the repetition the writer offers the reader a good picture of Israel’s
new abode, where they will remain a long time. 49
19:3 Moses had climbed up to God, and YHWH called to him from the mountain:
‘Thus you shall speak to Jacob*s people, tell Israel’s sons:’
n i v (Introd. § 3.39.2); usually the perf. is translated as an imperf. (but note
Vredenburg); evidently it is assumed that y h w h ’s calling from the mountain
47 Baentsch: in later times, the revelation on the Sinai became linked to the Feast of Weeks, to be
celebrated on the sixth of the third month (see Introduction to exegesis under 1); the date of 19:1 did
not jibe with that and was omitted; yet, did the redactor dare to omit one or a few words but not the
date? Besides, the combination Feast of Weeks and revelation at the Sinai is of later date.
48See also e.g. Rashi; TzUR; Ginzberg*, III, 79; Potin*, 203ff.; cf. the picture of the first Christian
church in Acts 2:41-47; 4:32-37; 5:12-16.
49Cf. Num. 10:11; in rabbinic exegesis, 12 months less 10 days (e.g. Mek. II, 200); see also e.g.
Klostermann*, 163ff.
implies that Moses was still on the way. 5 0 The current text is striking. It suggests
that beforehand and uninvited Moses climbed up to God as soon as Israel had
arrived. Does the text mean to say that Moses had gone up to God, that is up the
mountain, to announce Israel’s arrival? (cf. 3:12). y h w h is considered as being
present on the mountain, whereas the sequel talks about his coming down there.
‘God,’ see Introd. §7.2.1; LXX: ‘the mountain of God’ (cf. 18:5; 24:13);51
according to others, e.g. Rudolph*, 42, LXX has the correct reading; more likely,
however, the translator sought to weaken the Hebrew text (cf. Frankel*, 8 6 );
Murphy: ‘God’ = ‘to the pillar of cloud resting on the mountain;’ Buber: to the
place where God had first appeared to him (3:Iff.), ‘to call,’ see Introd. § 3.45.1.
‘yhwh , ’ LXX, Pesh.: ‘God.’ ‘from the mountain,’ LXXB: ‘from heaven’ (cf.
20:20); according to Rudolph*, 42, this reading is due to a scribal error. "IDN*?,
see Introd. §3.5.2. iQKn na (Introd. §3.5.1), Moses is to act as yhwh ’s
spokesperson. a p ir rva, see Introd. § 3.9.2; 5.33. Tam (Ges-K § 53n), see 4:28.
'aab, see Introd. § 8.13.2.
HD and following words have a poetic sound (synonymous parallelism). Each of
the members of the parallelism is given a different meaning in TPsJ: ‘to the
women of the house of Jacob’//‘to the house of Israel; ’ 5 2 Ibn Ezra ‘fills in’ the
parallel members in still another way: (a) the living and future Israelites; (b) the
elders (cf. 19:7, 8 ); so in a variety of ways it is strongly emphasized that all are
addressees; the response to it (19:8) truly comes from every member of the
people!
19:4 'You yourselves have witnessed how I dealt with the Egyptians, and how I
carried you on eagles ' wings and brought you to me. ’
‘have witnessed,’ see Introd. § 3.46.1. Israel did not have it from hearsay, like
Jethro (18:1); cf. 20:22; Deut. 1:29; 3:21; 4:3, 9, 35f.; 6:22; 7:19; 10:21; 11:7;
34:12; Josh. 23:3; 24:7, 17; ‘seeing’ implies the obligation to be faithful to YHWH
and his commandments; also to be kept in mind is that the later Israel is regarded
as feeling itself one with the Israel of the Exodus (cf. Essentials 12:1-13:16). Sam.
Pent.: "ltfN nN (cf. 18:8). ‘to deal with,’ see Introd. §3.41.1. Many MSS:
‘in Egypt.’ FTP v J: ‘how I punished the Egyptians.’ Rabbinic exegesis
has reflected on the nature of y h w h ’s deeds: a deed of love for Israel or a deed of
50 Cf. Ehrlich; see already Nachmanides: Moses did not penetrate the thick darkness on the
mountain; differently Ibn Ezra: y h w h ’s calling (cf. 19:20) is antecedent to Moses’ ascent; possibly the
inconsistency is due to the growth of the text.
51 TPsJ: NTHO BTlb, ‘to the top of the mountain’ (cf. 19:20); but see TO: T □ and TNf, FTP v
J: ‘to inquire from before YHWH.’
52 Cf. TNf margin; Mek. II, 201; ExR. XXVIII, 2; Rashi; TzUR; Ginzberg*, III, 85f.; Potin*,
214ff. (women - coming first, since they are to teach the children - and men must be given the
precepts in a tone and in a way appropriate to each); also other targums offers a from MT deviating
rendering; e.g. FTV: ‘to the men of the house of Jacob’//‘to the congregation of the sons of Israel;’ yet
another (in part) translation in TNf, FTP J.
442 EXODUS 19:1-25
justice toward Egypt? y h w h punishes their many evil deeds now for the sake of
Israel (e.g. Mek. II, 201f.; Rashi, and see Leibowitz*, 290f., 301). K0 J, see 6 :8 .
*];p (OT ca. llO x ), ‘wing;’ in 25:20 (2x); 37:9 (2x) dual, in connection with
cherubs, here in connection with birds (Lev. 1:17; Isa. 10:14; Ps. 68:14; Job
39:13, 26 etc . ) . 5 3 ‘eagles’ (pi.; KoSynt § 267a), see Introd. §9.3.1; there is a
metaphor here (LXX, Pesh., TO: -I- ‘as’), with which various notions are express
ed: Egypt, strangling Israel, is as it were suddenly attacked by y h w h (cf. Isa. 8 :8 ;
Jer. 48:40; 49:22; Ezek. 17:3, 7) and (Israel) under protection (cf. Deut.
32:11)54 is carried away (cf. Zech. 5:9) in a flash (cf. Prov. 23:5) and snatched
from the deadly enemy (cf. Rev. 12:14).55 In the targums (with the exception of
TO) expansion has altered the metaphor: FTP: ‘on fast clouds as if on eagles’
wings’ (cf. TNf margin and TPsJ); FTP: ‘on the clouds of the Glory of my
Shekinah as if on wings of fast eagles’ (cf. TNf, FTJ ) . 5 6 It is not self-evident that
the picture of eagles’ wings referred to the leading by the pillar of cloud (so
Ephraem). In the OT, clouds are mentioned as y h w h ’s vehicle (Deut. 33:26; Isa.
19:1; Hab. 3:8; Ps. 18:11; 68:34 et al. ) . 5 7 Being carried as it were on a vehicle
of clouds was a divine privilege to Israel (cf. 2 Kgs. 2:11; Dan. 7:13; 1 Thess.
4:17; Rev. 11:12). This mode of transportation is in accord with Israel’s status as
described in 19:6a (cf. Dan. 7:14). The mention of the eagle in the metaphor has
given rise to a wide variety of interpretations (see Leibowitz*, 29Iff.); Rashi e.g.
understands NfcJ as the bringing together in a moment of all the Israelites in Egypt
for the Exodus (Mek. II, 202f.) and associates the protection by the eagle with the
sheltering by the pillar of cloud (cf. 14:19f.). In view of 19:4a and 19:5b, the
metaphor can also be regarded as an allusion to y h w h ’s election of Israel (cf. Isa.
63:9). Evidently, the picture refers both to the liberation from Egypt and to
y h w h ’s care for Israel in the wilderness.
'i * K3K1 (KoSynt § 194a n. 1), see Introd. § 3.8. TPsJ, TNf, FTP V J: ‘I have
caused you to come near for instruction in my law’ (allusion is made to the events
to come); differently TO: ‘...to the worship of me’ (unîD*?) (cf. 3:12). The
context makes it obvious that ‘to me’ denotes locality: at the Sinai. But the context
also requires to hear more in it: y h w h loves Israel, wants to be her God (cf. 6 : 7),
and has taken her under his care (cf. Keil, Murphy).
19:5 ' “Now then, if you really listen to me and abide by the obligations I imposed,
then out o f all the peoples I will treasure you as a precious possession. Indeed, the
53 See THAT, I, 833ff.; TWAT, IV, 243ff.; P. Joiion, Bib 16 (1935), 201ff.
54 Cf. H.G.L. Peels, “On the Wings of the Eagle (Dtn 32,11) - An Old Misunderstanding,” ZAW
106 (1994), 300-3.
55Cf. HDA, I, 187.
5fi TPsJ also contains an expansion: from Pelusium, Israel was carried to the place of the temple (in
Jerusalem; cf. Mek. II, 202) for celebrating the Passover and in that same night was returned to
Pelusium (cf. Ginzberg*, II, 365; V, 433).
57 See Houtman*, Himmel, 324f.
whole earth is mine!

19:6 You, however, are destined to be consecrated to me as a priestly kingdom
and a holy nation. ” These are the ordinances which you are to make known to the
Israelites .... ’
nmn, see 3:9. ‘to listen* (Introd. § 3.51), cf. 15:26. iDtf, see 10:28. rvna (see
2:24), is the reference to the ‘covenant* y h w h will make? (cf. 24:7f.) (Ibn Ezra;
Rashi et al.). In that case it would be an ex post facto remark (McNeile), since the
covenant has not yet been mentioned or made; differently e.g. Mek. II, 204: the
ordinances concerning Sabbath, circumcision and idolatry (cf. Mek. II, 21 Of.);
Nachmanides: the covenant made with the patriarchs (Gen. 17:7); in my view, in
line with the story up to this point Israel is pictured as already having been
initiated in the rules for her fellowship with y h w h (see Introduction to exegesis
under k). Drr\m (Ges-K § 63q) + *?, see Introd. § 3.13.2.
n-pjp (OT 8 x ), a through personal effort acquired and hence ‘precious posses
sion,’ ‘treasure’ (1 Chr. 29:3; Eccl. 2:8); metaphor for Israel in relation to y h w h ;
see Mai. 3:17; Ps. 135:4, and in particular Deut. 7:6; 14:2; 26:18, texts which
show much affinity with 19:5, but where nbao, unlike in 19:5, is connected to DV
(cf. nbn: nv in Deut. 4:20) . 5 8
with id separationis (only Israel is y h w h ’s precious possession); taken as
]D comparationis by, among others, Dasberg: ‘of all nations my most precious
possession;’ cf. Vredenburg, GNB; see already TPsJ: ‘you will be loved by me
more than all (*?DD l^n^n) the nations (cf. TO, Pesh.), who are on the face of the
earth;’ differently TNf, FTP J: ‘... a people of loved ones (p a ’ari) , 5 9 as a pre
cious possession (n^JO) among (]D) all nations; ’ 6 0 TO, TPsJ and Pesh. contain
only an interpretation of nâo; in TNf etc. that interpretation is included, but also
the term itself is retained; the deviating translation of the end of the verse ('D etc.)
in TPsJ is based on Deut. 7:6; 14:2. D'DU, see Introd. § 3.40.1.
'D (Introd. § 3.25) is usually regarded as causal: being Lord of the earth (cf.
9:29), y h w h can do with the nations as he pleases; 'D has also been regarded as
concessive (e.g. Vredenburg, Dasberg, WV). Along that line, I regard D as an
affirmation: let there be no misunderstanding, y h w h did not choose Israel because
no or few other choices were available to him; he had plenty to choose from;
nevertheless, his eye fell on Israel (cf. Deut. 7:7ff.); Israel’s election is a great
miracle (cf. Vriezen*, Verkiezing, 34ff.).
(OT ca. 115x), ‘kingship,’ ‘kingdom,’ ‘nation;’ see 1:8 and TWAT , IV,
926ff. ]M , see 2:16. ‘nation,’ see Introd. § 3.40.4. ‘holy,’ see Introd. § 3.44.2.
D,-i r (Introd. §3.12.2); GreBmann*, 181, 192, relates it to the Book of the
58Cf. 19:5 and 23:22 in LXX; Eph. 1:14; Titus 2:14 and also 1 Pet. 2:9 and see Deut. 9:26, 29;
1 Kgs. 8:53; Jer. 10:16; Ps. 33:12. See THAT, I, 142ff.; TWAT, V, 749ff.; M. Dahood, Bib 46
(1965), 313; idem, Bib 50 (1969), 341.
39p jv . .a separate and loved people.’
60On Israel as people loved by YHWH see also 4 Ezra 5:27.
444 EXODUS 19:1-25
Covenant (cf. 24:3); on the question see Introduction to exegesis under i, j, k.

m n , see Introd. § 3.12.1.
lA priestly kingdom and a holy nation9 (19:6)

a. Bibl.: J.B. Bauer, “Konige und Priester, ein heiliges Volk (Ex 19, 6 ),” BZ 2
(1958), 283-6; Beyerlin*, 83ff.; J. Coppens, EThL 63 (1977), 185-7; A. Deissler,
“Das Priestertum im AT,” in Der priesterliche Dienst, I, Freiburg et al. 1970, 9-
80 (67ff.); J.H. Elliott, The Elect and the Holy , Leiden 1966 (on 1 Pet. 2:4-10);
G. Fohrer, “‘Priesterliches Konigtum,’ Ex. 19, 6 ,” ThZ 19 (1963), 359-62;
Jaros*, 59ff.; D.M. Leon, “Un reino de sacerdotes y una nation santa (Ex 19,
6 ),” Estudios Biblicos 31 (1978), 149-212; W. Moran, “A Kingdom of Priests,” in
J.L. McKenzie (ed.), The Bible in Current Catholic Thought, New York 1962, 7-
20; R. Mosis, “Ex 19, 5b.6 a: Syntaktischer Aufbau und lexikalische Semantik,”
BZ 22 (1978), 1-25; R.B.Y. Scott, “A Kingdom of Priests (Exodus xix 6 ),” OTS 8
(1950), 213-9; G. Sevenster, “Het koning- en priesterschap der gelovigen in het
NT,” NedThT 13 (1958-59), 401-17.
b. There are differences of opinion about the interpretation of 19:6a, in par
ticular the expression m m m^BB. Already the ancient translations offer varied
renderings of the phrase.
1. LXX: PaoMeiov iepateupa, ‘a royal priesthood; ’ 61 m m m^BB is evidently
taken as construct chain, in which the nomen regens further defines the nomen
rectum ; the concrete ‘priests’ is translated as an abstract; one might possibly
consider whether Paotteiov could function as a noun and denote ‘kingship’ (see
McNamara*, 229); cf. 2 Macc. 2:17: xai t o PaoiAeiov xat t o iep&Teupa, ‘and
the kingship ancFthe priesthood;’ similarly Philo (see Potin*, 53); see further 3.
2. Vulg.: regnum sacerdotale, ‘a priestly kingdom;’ cf. Aq.: PaoiAeia iepecov,
‘a kingdom of priests;’ m m m^BB is regarded as construct chain in which the
nomen rectum further defines the nomen regens\ see also Jub. 33:20.
3. Pesh.: m lkwt ' w khn\ ‘a kingdom and priests;’ cf. Symm. and Theod.:
PocoiAeia iepeig, and see Rev. 1:6; 5:10 and Jub. 16:18. Both m^BB and m m
have been taken as nouns in the absolute state.
4. TO: pam I'D^B, ‘kings, priests;’ TNf, FT: idem, but with conjunctive
‘and; ’ 62 see Rev. 1:6 and 5:10 (secondary text); 20:6 and cf. 3; in the targums
the abstract m^BB is rendered as a concrete. 63
c. Which interpretation deserves preference? m m m^BB is followed by
tfnp 'lai (combination only here; 'ia is translated in TO and TPsJ with DV; cf.
61 Cf. 1 Pet. 2:9, and see 1 Pet. 2:5: iepaTeupa ayiov (contraction of both elements of Exod.
19:6a).
62 TPsJ has a more elaborate text: ‘kings wrapped around with a crown and priests who render
service.’
63 By the way: D’ana has been wrongly interpreted, e.g. by Buber*, 125, drawing on older
interpretation (e.g. Mek. II, 205; Rashi), as officers/princes (compare 2 Sam. 8:18 with 1 Chr. 18:17).
Deut. 7:6 et al.). and often occur in combination with each other
(1 Kgs. 18:10; Isa. 60:12; Jer. 18:7; 27:8; Ps. 46:7; 79:6; 105:12; 2 Chr. 32:15).
That makes it natural to assume that also here both terms are correlative and that
consequently D^riD and chip are correlative and serve a similar function, ehlp is
an adjective, justifying the conclusion that canD functions as adjective and further
defines the nomen regens (cf. Ges-K § 128o, p, 135n; Joiion § 129f, 141a); see
above 2 ; cf. the customary translation ‘priestly kingdom’ or ‘kingdom of priests.’
d. The relationship of nD^DD to ehlp 'U requires further attention. Is it a
kind of hendiadys and is ‘kingdom of priests’ synonym of ‘holy nation?’ Several
expositors have contended that and 'lii should not be equated with each
other. 64 Pointing to Phoenician epigraphs, they attribute to robon here and
elsewhere (1 Sam. 10:18; 1 Kgs. 5:1; 10:20; Isa. 13:4 et al.; see also HAL s.v.)
the meaning ‘king(ship).’ They describe the difference between and 'lJ as
the difference between ruler and those ruled over. So Moran concludes that 19:6a
is about priestly rule over the holy nation; 65 he connects the statement with the
time of the tribal league. Fohrer thinks that 19:6a reflects the longing for a holy
nation with a priestly king(ship) and reads the statement against the backdrop of
the end of the monarchical period/the exilic era. Apart from the question whether
riD*?BB can mean ‘king’ in Hebrew - doubtful in my view - it should be noted
that the duality ruler(s)-ruled ill fits the subject ‘you,’ and leads to a strained
interpretation. 66 In my opinion, nB^BB and 'U function as synonyms in 19:6.
That brings us to the interpretation.
e. Keeping in mind the context, this much can be said: the special relationship of
Israel to y h w h , in 19:5 typified with the term ‘a precious possession,’ is in 19:6a
elucidated from a different angle; even as in a nation the priests, in virtue of their
office, occupy a privileged position relative to ordinary folk (cf. Isa. 61:6), so
Israel, as a nation among the nations (cf. Deut. 4:6f.), occupies a special position,
because in distinction from the nations and due to y h w h ’s doing, it has a direct
relationship with him (cf. Lev. 20:26, and in particular Deut. 4:19; 29:25);67 as
the priests of a people are a distinct group with rules and obligations of their own,
so among the nations Israel is a holy nation (cf. Isa. 62:12), a people having its
own rules and obligations. In my view, there is a connection between 19:5a and
19:6a: Israel is not a priestly kingdom and a holy nation until it is obedient to
y h w h and lives by the obligations he has imposed. The stated qualifications imply
calling and obligation (cf. Lev. 19:2; 20:26). All in all, ‘priestly kingdom’ and
64See e.g. Beyerlin, 84f.; A. Cody, VT 14 (1964), 3f.; Coppens; Fohrer; Moran.
65 Already Holzinger mentioned as possible interpretation of D'JrD DDiDO: a kingdom ruled over by
priests.
66If there should be a duality in the terms, all emphasis falls on the synthesis (the two terms denote
a totality); cf. S. Talmon, in G. Rendburg et al. (eds.), The Bible World (Fs C.H. Gordon), New York
1980, 241: ‘priestly sanctity is to distinguish the people and the ruler, i.e., the Israelite kingdom;’ it is
unlikely that a specific form of government is meant.
67 See Houtman*, Himmel, 204f.
446 EXODUS 19:1-25
‘holy nation’ contain a register of tones: Israel is the people having a direct
relationship with y h w h , a people ruled by y h w h himself, obligated to carefully
heed his precepts.
f. It is not possible to offer here a complete overview of the interpretations that
have been put forward. To the above I only add that, in my view, both a minimal
and a maximal interpretation of 19:6a should be avoided. Thus, e.g., as I see it,
there is no reason to restrict the qualifications of 19:6a to typifications of Israel as
a people who worship y h w h and no other gods (Scott, 219). Nor is there ground
for Mosis’ contention that they do not indicate ‘ein Amt und eine Aufgabe,
sondem einen Stand und eine Wiirde, die Israel durch Jahwes Wertung und
Schatzung und fur sie empfangen soil’ (25). Also, it is incorrect to conclude from
‘kingdom of priests’ that all Israelites, without distinction, like priests have access
to God (e.g. Bohl). The point is Israel’s unique position as a people in its entirety
(cf. 19:3b, 5), not the position of the individual Israelite. The notion of the
universal priesthood of believers lies outside the horizon of Exod. 19. In the
history of the interpretation of 19:6a, up to the present time, that association has
regularly been made, even by a less than theological exegete like Beer: ‘Die Worte
geben einer jiingeren, hoheren Religionsart Ausdruck und emeuem gleichzeitig
eine urspriingliche. Fur den Umgang des schlichten Laien mit Gott bedarf es
keiner besonderen Priester und anderen Mittler. Das Volk wird religios mtindig
und verantwortlich, so wie einst die Hausvater die Familie vor Gott vertraten. In
6 f. wurzelt die Idee vom allgemeinen Priestertum, die im Urchristentum und in der
Kirchengeschichte gewaltige religiose Umwalzungen hervorgebracht hat und eine

der verjiingenden revolutionierenden Krafte der Religion aller Zeiten geworden
ist. ’
Furthermore, McNeile remarks in connection with 19:6a: ‘A kingdom whose
citizens are all priests ... to bring other nations to the worship of God, and to teach
them His will.’ Like others (e.g. Noth, Rylaarsdam, Clamer, Te Stroete, Cle
ments), he is of the opinion that the notion of Israel as a kingdom of priests
includes the idea that Israel has a service to render to other peoples (cf. e.g. Isa.
42:6; 43:10; 49:6; 61:1). Text and context, however, contain no indications to that
effect. All the emphasis in Exod. 19 is on the unique, privileged position of the
priesthood and the obligation to careful observance of the precepts laid down. The
broader context does, however, permit one to say that in the writer’s view Israel’s
election was also of great importance to the nations (cf. Gen. 12:3b). y h w h ’s
desire is to set apart for his service the Israel he freed from Egypt, from Pharaoh’s
service. Should that consecration be absent, Israel is like any other nation (Amos
9:7; cf. 3:2).
Finally, as was indicated, the focus of 19:6a is Israel’s unique position relative
to the nations; not a specific form of government (priestly rule or royal priesthood)
that would distinguish Israel. Thus the text offers no point of contact for tracing
19:6a to either the early period of the sacred tribal league (e.g. Beyerlin; Moran)
or the late (post)exilic period (e.g. Fohrer; Deissler). The background of 19:6a is
not the desire for a particular form of government or the need to legitimize or to
propagandize a particular form of government, but the faith in Israel’s election (cf.
Vriezen*, Verkiezing, 34ff.).
g. 19:6a has had a rich ‘Wirkungsgeschichte* (history of application). In
2 Macc. 2:17, 19:6a is used to portray the liberation from Egypt as the beginning
of the unique relationship between YHWH and Israel. In Jub. 16:18, 19:6a is cited
in an announcement to Abraham of the unique position the descendants of one of
Isaac’s sons will have among the nations; in Jub. 33:20 to add force to the
condemnation of adultery and the demand for a holy walk of life. In the NT (for
the formulation see b) in 1 Pet. 2:5, 9, 19:6a is applied to the Christian church;
not only Israel’s privileges, but also her calling and obligations have passed to the
church; unlike in 19:6a, 1 Pet. 2:9 also specifically mentions the priestly service
(cf. Rom. 12:If.), proclaiming God’s mighty deeds, also before the world. 68 In
Rev. 1:6; 5:10; 20:6, 19:6a is likewise related to the election of the Christian
church (through the work of Christ); God is explicitly mentioned as object of the
priestly service (of glorifying him) - xq> 0ea> ( 1 :6 ; 5:10); tou Oeou (20:6); cf.
Isa. 61:6 LXX - , while a specific content is given to the royal function: reign on
earth (5:10; 20:6; cf. 20:4; 22:5) . 69
In connection with the rendering of the targums (see b sub 4), I wish to point
out that in rabbinic exegesis royal and priestly dignity are often cited in com
bination (see Vol. I, 260; Potin*, 228). According to rabbinic exegesis, Israel at
the Sinai was a perfect community. All Israelites were priests and entitled to enter
into direct contact with y h w h . The sin with the golden calf put an end to that.
Since then, contact with God was only possible through the mediation of the
levitical priesthood. In the messianic age Israel will regain that lost honour. 7 0
Viewed in that light, the above passages from Revelation should be understood as
proclamations of the arrival of the messianic age.
h. Basing itself particularly on 1 Pet. 2, the Reformation rejected the sharp
distinction between priests and laity as this had developed in the Roman Catholic
Church, and instead proclaimed the general priesthood of believers. Thus Luther
writes: ‘alle Christen sein warhafftig geystlichs stands, und ist unter yhn keyn
unterscheyd’ (all Christians are truly of the spiritual nobility, and there is no
difference among them); through baptism they are all consecrated as priests: ‘Dan
was ausz der tauff krochen ist, das mag sich rumen, das es schon priester,
Bischoff und Bapst geweyhet sey’ (for what is bom from baptism may boast to
have been consecrated as priest, bishop and Pope) . 71 In Roman Catholicism, the
question concerning the precise meaning of the priesthood of the laity on the one
68Likely also 19:6a LXX is to be understood like that; though there applied to (the) Israel (of the
diaspora).
69According to Keil in principle implied in 19:6.
70Cf. Mek. II, 205; bSab 88a, and see Potin*, 218ff.; see beside it Joel 3 :Iff.: in the messianic era
all will be prophets; cf. Num. 11:29; Acts 2:14ff.
71An den christlichen Adel deutscher Nation, Weimarer Ausgabe, VI, 407f.
448 exodus 19:1-25
hand and that of the priests on the other is an ongoing topic discussion.72
19:7 Moses came, called the elders o f the people together, and set before them all
the ordinances which y h w h had instructed him to make known.
19:8 All the people assured as one: ‘All that y h w h has spoken we will do. ’ Then
Moses reported the people's answer to y h w h .
Na'i (Introd. § 3.8), namely, in the camp (Ibn Ezra); after 19:3 one would have
expected t t i (cf. 19:14); but note 24:3. ‘to call together,’ see Introd. § 3.45.1.
1PT, see 3:16; also here (cf. 4:29f.; 12:21, 27) there is a fluid transition between
elders and people (19:8). Dun, Cairo Genizah fragment: (cf. LXXA; TNf
margin; FTV). ‘to set before,’ see Introd. § 3.42.2. ‘to command’ (Introd.
§ 3.43.1; in LXX ‘them’ is object; Vulg. has no object), in my translation I have
added the implied ‘to make known’ (cf. 19:6). ‘y h w h , ’ LXX: ‘God.’ In 19:7 is
meant (cf. 19:8) that the elders/the people make a choice (cf. Deut. 30:15; Josh.
24:15), accept or reject the ordinances (cf. Nachmanides).
Beside 19:8 see 24:3, 7. nay + 1 DK, see 4:1. nrr, ‘oneness,’ ‘union,’ is usually
(OT 44 x) used adverbially; often (OT 94 x) with suff. in the form inn! with the
meaning ‘jointly’ (19:8; Gen. 13:6; 22:19; Deut. 25:5; Isa. 22:3; 31:3 etc.); in
26:24; 36:29 with the meaning ‘likewise’ (cf. Deut. 12:22; 15:22; 1 Sam.
30:24).7273 In TNf the harmony is underscored by adding N3*?3, ‘with a
perfect heart’ (cf. FTV). ‘y h w h , ’ LXX: ‘God’ (also at the end of the verse); cf.
Sanderson*, 135f. LXX: + ‘(do) and observe’ (cf. 24:7). 310 hiph. (see 4:7), cf.
Gen. 37:14; Num. 13:26; 22:8. TNf, FTP v J: ^ Dip 1^2*3, ‘in prayer before
YHWH.’
19:9 Then y h w h said to Moses: 'Soon I am going to come to you in an im

penetrable cloud. So the people can listen in while I am talking with you , and then
they will completely and ever after put their trust in you. ’ So Moses informed y h w h
o f the answer o f the people.
nan, see Introd. § 3.15.1. ]ayn ay, see 13:21; Sam. Pent.: "aya; LXX: ev otuAg)
ve<)>eAr|<;, ‘in a pillar of cloud’ (cf. 13:21 etc.). Owing to the dense thickness of
the cloud concealing him, y h w h can come very close and speak audibly with
Moses in the hearing of the people without being seen. Even so, his presence is
overwhelming to the people (cf. 20:18-21). Not so to Moses. Does the text mean
to say that Moses enters the cloud? (differently e.g. Cassuto); cf. 20:21; Num.
12:8; see also 19:19. m a ya , see 9:14. Da, see Introd. § 3.11.1. p , TNf, FTV: ‘at
your prophecy, Moses, my servant’ (cf. FT1*). 1DN, hiph., see 4:1. Dîyb, see
72 See e.g. K.J. Becker, Der priesterliche Dienst, II, Freiburg et al. 1970; Unite et diversite dans
I’Eglise: Texte officiel de la Commission Biblique Pontificate et travaux personnels des membres, Citta
de Vaticano 1989.
73 See Ges-K § 135r; Jouon § 102d, 146j; S. Talmon, VT 3 (1953), 133-40; J.C. de Moor, VT 1
(1957), 350-5.
3:15.
The words are obviously meant to confirm Moses* status: Moses is clearly and
positively declared to be a prophet (Ibn Ezra) ; 7 4 Moses is greater than any
prophet and his prophecy will never lose its power (Nachmanides; cf. e.g. TzUR).
The context shows that the confirmation pertains not so much to the person (cf.
14:31) as to the ordinances he passes on. The people witness the communication
and therefore know that the ordinances Moses gives are really from God and bear
his authority. This brings up the question of the content of the communication.
Various suggestions have been proposed: the ten commandments (e.g. Ibn Ezra),
according to Deut. 4:10-13 spoken directly to Israel by y h w h (cf. 20:1); the
basics of the making of the covenant (Cassuto); conversation previous to the
revelation (cf. 19:19) (Goldman). In my judgment, considering the place of the
revelation prior to the revelation of y h w h to Israel, the words are of a general
nature: it is announced that the precepts Moses will give to Israel are indisputably
divine decrees; Israel herself has been able to identify them as such at the Sinai;
with that, their authority has been established once and for all ( n i w i ) . Conse
quently not a single change may be made in them (cf. Matt. 5:18). UJ, cf. 19:3.
‘to YHWH,’ FT: ‘in prayer before YHWH’ (cf. 19:8b).
The somewhat varied repetition of 19:8b in 19:9b has posed problems which,
before the advent of literary criticism (19:9b is gloss or doublet), were solved in a
variety of ways; e.g. Rashi: 19:9b is the reply of the people to what is announced
in 19:9a: the people desire to hear from y h w h himself (cf. Mek. II, 209) (simila
rly Cassuto); Ibn Ezra: chronologically 19:9b comes before 19:9a; "in must be
translated with a pluperfect and functions as protasis of 19:10;75 Nachmanides:
Moses comes back to report the words (19:8b); y h w h speaks right away to him
(19:9a);76 Moses then informs him (19:9b).77 In my opinion, it is a case of
‘Wiederaufnahme’ (resumption) (see Vol. I, 522; cf. Eerdmans*, 62).
19:10 Then y h w h said to Moses: ‘Go to the people , today and tomorrow you
shall consecrate them; they must wash their clothes.
19:11 And by the third day they must be ready, fo r on the third day , in the sight
o f all the people , y h w h will come down on Mount Sinai. ’
1 *? (Introd. § 3.14.1), imper., continued by consecutive perfects in 19:10, 11, 12.
LXX: KaTaP&<; Siapapxupai, ‘come down and testify’ (cf. 19:21 and see Sander
son*, 65). enp piel, see Introd. § 3.44.1; TO, TPsJ: ‘and get ready* (iirro tm )
74 oa, this belief also pertains to the prophets who will come after Moses {Mek. II, 208; Rashi).
75 Cf. e.g. CV: ‘Toen Moses het antwoord ... had overgebracht, (19:10) sprak Jahweh ...;’ (when
Moses had delivered the answer, y h w h said ...); see also e.g. SV, Dasberg, GNB; differently
Vredenburg: 19:9 is further explication of 19:8b: (19:9a) ‘Toen namelijk de Eeuwige ... — (19:9b)
daalde Moses ...’ (for when the Eternal ... - Moses descended).
76 Being omniscient, y h w h already knows the reply of the people; according to Rashi, the reporting
of the answer is therefore a question of good manners (cf. Mek. II, 207).
77 For divergent interpretations see further Goldman.
450 EXODUS 19:1-25
(cf. e.g. Rashi; Ehrlich); Moses must prepare Israel for the encounter with the
Holy One (cf. Isa. 6 ); he must see to it that they consecrate themselves (cf. Num.
11:18; Josh. 3:5; 7:13); that is done by removing impurity and staying away from
defilement; both requirements are enlarged upon at one concrete point: the clothes
must be washed; 7 8 sexual intercourse is taboo (19:15; cf. 1 Sam. 21:5f. ) . 7 9
‘today,* see Introd. § 3.23.1. inD, see 8 :6 ; two days are set aside for getting
ready (compare with Num. 11:18; Josh. 3:5; 7:13); the consecration must be
thorough. 1035) (pi. corresponds with sing, ‘the people;* cf. e.g. 12:3) perf.
cons, piel of ODD (OT 51 x ; piel 4 4 x), ‘to wash,’ especially of clothing (by
treading, beating and the like); often used in Leviticus for the removal of all kinds
of impurity (Lev. 11:25, 28, 40; 13:6, 34, 54ff.; 14:8f., 47; 15:5ff., 10f., 13, 17,
21f., 27 et al . ) . 8 0 nbofe, see 3:22.
Important to remember is that in the mind of the ancients there was a relation
ship between clothing and wearer; removal of soiled clothing was tantamount to
removal of personal uncleanness; by changing one’s garments (Gen. 35:2; 2 Sam.
12:20; 2 Kgs. 10:22), putting on clean clothes, one becomes a different, a new
person, 81 the transference of garments constitutes transference of authority (Num.
20:28) etc . 82
VO niph., see 8:22; for partic. see KoSynt § 239b; Ehrlich limits ‘ready’ (cf.
34:2) to sexual abstinence (19:15b); so already Mek. II, 216f.; Rashi. Ibn Ezra
proposes that one had to spend the night awake, so as to prevent sexual arousal;
the likely meaning of ‘ready’ here is ‘totally clean.’ D i o ... o rb , see Williams
§ 268. ‘the third day,’ see Introd. § 4.4.2. i t , see 2:5; cf. 19:9, 16-18. ‘y h w h ’
in direct speech of y h w h (cf. 19:21, 22, 24, and see e.g. 9:3-5; 11:7; 16:29);
y h w h who, as indicated by the context, is on the mountain, announces that y h w h
will come down on the mountain! ‘in the sight of* (Introd. § 3.38), cf. 24:17. For
the transposition of phrases (19:11 end) in LXX see Sanderson*, 132.
78 According to rabbinic exegesis, the requirement that the body be washed is implied as well (e.g.
Lev. 15:13, 16f.; 16:26; 17:15); cf. e.g. Mek. II, 212; TzUR; cf. Ibn Ezra, and e.g. Keil; improbable
is the view of Zenger*, Israel, 181, that it refers to the removal of the ‘uncleanness of Egypt,’ symbol
of the transition to a new life; of that the exodus was the beginning.
79 For interpretation of the taboo, familiar also to other ancient nations, see G.J. Wenham, ZAW 95
(1983), 432-4; here evidently it is pars pro toto of all sources of defilement (Lev. 5:2f.; 11-15; 17:15;
Num. 19:13 et al.) (e.g. IDB, I, 641ff.), including immoral conduct (e.g. Lev. 19; Ps. 15; 24:3ff.).
See further ERE, X, 455ff., 489ff.; Robertson Smith*, 84ff., 446ff.; Van der Toom*, 27ff.; Wellhau-
sen*, Reste, 55, 80, 110, 122ff.
80 See TWAT, IV, 42ff.; Honig*, 123, 143.
81 Symbolized especially by white clothing; see Rev. 3:4f., 18; 7:9, 13f.; white denotes belonging to
God; see e.g. Dan. 7:9; 2 Macc. 11:8; Matt. 17:2; 28:3; John 20:12; Acts 1:10; Rev. 1:14; 14:14 and
Isa. 1:18; Ps. 51:9; but note also Matt. 23:27; Acts 23:3; white, clean clothes are also a sign of joy;
see Eccl. 9:8 and Gilgamesh Epic, X, 3.
82 See e.g. ERE, V, 50ff.; HDA, IV, 1470ff.; A. Jirku, “Zur magischen Bedeutung der Kleidung in
Israel,” Z4W37 (1917-18), 109-25; G.A. Rendsburg, VT34 (1984), 361-6.
19:12 ‘You shall set bounds fo r the people all around, saying: “Be careful not to
climb the mountain or even to touch its base. Whoever touches the mountain shall
be put to death violently.
19:13 No hand may touch him , but without mercy he must be stoned or shot
through; whether animal or human, he may not remain alive. Only when the ram ’s
horn sounds may they ascend the mountain ”. ’
Beside 19:12, 13a see 34:3. The coming of the Holy One heightens the holiness of
the mountain, resulting in death for those who fail to respect it.
^2} hiph., see 7:27. oun, Sam. Pent.: "inn (cf. 19:23 and see Sanderson*,
82f.); cf. among others LV, NEB; see also TPsJ: + ‘and they (the people) must
remain standing around the mountain.’ 2'20 (see 7:24), on all sides (of the
mountain). The Arabs were accustomed to mark holy ground with special signs to
warn those unfamiliar with it (Wellhausen*, Reste , 105f.). Differently Eerdmans*,
63: the meaning is not (as suggested by the later explanation in 19:23) that some
kind of barrier or fence had to be put around the mountain, but that the people had
to be positioned around it like a fence (see 19:17). "IDN4? (Introd. § 3.5.2), Sam.
Pent.: "iDNn Dm cf. Vulg.: et dices ad eos. nntf niph., see 10:28. OD1?,
dativus commodi (KoSynt §35; Ges-K § 119s; Joiion § 133d). inf. cstr.
without preposition (KoSynt § 399u); haplography?; see inf. + ID in Gen. 31:29;
2 Kgs. 6:9; cf. e.g. Ehrlich; Delitzsch*, 6 . (Ges-K § 6 6 b), waw meaning ‘or’
(KoSynt § 375f; Joiion § 175a). lttJ, see 4:25. nsp, see 12:41; LXX: ti autou,
‘something of it.’ niD, see Introd. § 3.22. The mountain is holy ground (see Vol.
I, 35Iff.). Desecration must be rigorously prevented, to avoid catastrophes.
19:13 contains information about the manner of execution of the desecrator, and
shows that the command to keep distance also applies to the animals. A desecrator
may not be hauled away from the holy ground. One must keep one’s hand off him.
A taboo rests on him. Touching the transgressor would bring one in the deadly
sphere of the deity either. For that reason the violator must be stoned or shot
through from outside the holy area. 83 This prevents the violator from returning
and causing harm to the community (e.g. Keil, Ehrlich, Baentsch). In the above
explanation, U is related to ‘whoever touches’ in 19:12. Less likely is that *13
refers to the mountain. 8384 In that case one must think of ‘hand’ as used metaphoric
ally (the least touch must be avoided) and of the clause as an ellipsis (to the clause
with 'D there must be added: ‘Should anyone touch the mountain ...’). ‘hand,’
TNF, FTV emphatically: ‘the hand of the individual;* FTP: ‘the hand of the one
who puts to death.’
N4? + imperf., cf. Ges-K § 107o; Joiion § 113m. Adversative 'D, see Introd.
83 Evidently, trespassing by itself does not automatically result in death; differently Ishodad: ‘no
hand shall touch him,' that is, it is not human intervention that will kill him, but he will be thrown
down (cf. Rashi’s interpretation of .TV), be broken and have broken limbs like one who is stoned by
human hands; cf. Eerdmans* (see below); according to 19:21, 22, 24, God himself intervenes.
84 See e.g. Eerdmans*, 62f. (the trespasser is killed by falling stones or lightning); Cassuto;
Fensham; yet another view is set forth in Mek. II, 214.
452 exodus 19:1-25
§ 3.25.2. bpo, see 8:22; TPsJ: + ‘by hailstones* (cf. Josh. 10:11). H T \ see Ges-
K § 69t; m \ see 4:12; 15:4; Sam. Pent.: HKT XT' (cf. 15:4); for infin. absol. qal
followed by finite verb in niph. see e.g. Ges-K § 113n; Jouon § 123p; LXX (with
interpretation and explication): ‘with an arrow* (P0 AC6 1 ); TPsJ, TNf, FTV: ‘arrows
of fire’ (Ktim TT3); FTP: ‘coals of fire’ (XEPN1 pm u ); according to the inter
pretation of the targums the execution is done by God himself (cf. 19:22, 24; see
above, and also Goldman), ok ... QK, see Introd. § 3.4.2; KoSynt § 215a; Ges-K
§ 162b. n » m , see Introd. § 9.1.2 ; 85 Wellhausen*, Reste, 54f.: animals of Arabs
which wandered onto holy ground became the property of the deity. On the
execution of the domestic animal, see Introd. § 9.5.3. BTN, see Introd. § 3.4.2.
1 0 D, see 1 2 :2 1 .
^ 2 ' (OT 27 x ) is usually assumed to mean ‘ram’ (but note e.g. Klostermann*,
435ff.); here the term looks like an abbreviated reproduction of (cf.
Josh. 6:5) or âr(n ) " 1 9 1 0 (cf. Josh. 6:4, 6, 8, 13), ‘ram*s horn;’ mostly (21 x)
i2 V denotes the Year of Jubilee (heralded by a trumpet blast) (Lev. 25:10 et al.).
See TWAT , III, 554ff. In 19:16, 19, (OT ca. 70x) is used for the horn (cf.
the alternating use in Josh. 6:4ff.). Strictly speaking, the horn is not a musical
instrument. It is used to give a signal. Its sound is like that of a fog horn and
carries far. In the OT the horn is mostly used in connection with warfare (Judg.
3:27; 6:34; 1 Sam. 13:3; 2 Sam. 2:28 etc.); to a lesser extent in connection with
religious ceremonies (Josh. 6:4ff.; Lev. 25:9; 2 Sam. 6:15; Joel 2:1, 15; Ps. 47:6;
81:4; 98:6; 150:3; 2 Chr. 15:14). The horn is the only musical instrument to
survive, even in the synagogues.86 Not stated is who is to give the horn signal.
Moses after ordered by God? (Strack). A signal not given by humans? (Gispen,
Heinisch). According to Cassuto it was Moses* duty to order the signal to be
given.
bavi "|0D3, LXX: ‘when the thunder claps and the horn blasts and the cloud
move away from the mountain;’ Pesh.: wm* dStqt q m \ ‘and when the horn is
silent;’ the interpretation given in LXX and Pesh. is influenced by 19:16, 19: the
sounding of the horn goes with the theophany (and so is really a signal to the
people to keep distance); 19:13 end presupposes that the theophany is over and
consequently also the sounding of the horn. Other views are that the sounding of
the horn announces the theophany and signals the people to come near (19:17) (cf.
Vulg.), and that the sound of the horn marks the conclusion of God’s presence on
the mountain (e.g. Ibn Ezra; Cassuto); Jewish exegesis has a predilection for the
view that the theophanic sounding of the horn ended on a long note which sig
nalled the departure of y h w h (e.g. Mek. II, 214f.; Rashi; TzUR, and see in
Goldman).
non, Sam. Pent.: on; Pesh.: ir* Ikwn, ‘you may (ascend);’ TO, TPsJ: ‘they are
85 Also the wild animals {Mek. II, 214 and e.g. Clements), but not the birds (Ibn Ezra); ‘beast’ =
evil person: neither the righteous nor the sinners (e.g. TzUR).
86 See e.g. De Vries, 78. For the horn, see Bibl. at 15:20 and Y. Qoler, BetM 26 (1981), 175-82.
permitted ...’ (cf. FTV); TNf, FTP: ‘are Moses and Aaron, indeed they ...’ (cf.
19:24); among others Ibn Ezra: presumed subject are Moses with Aaron and his
sons and the seventy elders (cf. 24: l ) ; 8 7 Mcneile, Rylaarsdam: the priests (cf.
19:22). The context favours neither explanation. It is also proposed that nbi; here
means to come closer to the mountain and that there is a connection with 19:17:
when the horn sounds (19:16), the Israelites can approach the mountain without
risking their lives (e.g. Murphy, Strack). This conception is artificial. The same
must be said of the idea that the people turned down the opportunity to ascend (in
the persons of their representatives, the elders) to y h w h after the promulgation of
the Decalogue (20:18-21) and asked Moses to act as their mediator (Keil; cf.
Eerdmans*, 63; Rudolph*, 43). Some exegetes doubt whether 19:13 is in the right
spot. Mcneile, for instance, believes that the verse came originally after 19:24. It
is also suggested that the text is corrupt. 88 In the context the emphatic ‘they’ (in
distinction from Moses who is allowed access at all times) can only refer to the
people (and the animals). The text creates the impression that after consecration
one may enter the holy place when the horn sounds (cf. Ps. 24:3ff.). This concep
tion runs counter to the instructions of 19:21-24. The cause of the difficulty in
19:13b seems due to the combination of heterogeneous material (note also the use
of various terms for ‘horn’ in 19:13, 16, 19).
19:14 Then Moses came down from the mountain to the people, he consecrated
them, and they washed their clothes.
19:15 And he said to the people: 'Make sure to be ready by the third day and do
not touch a woman. '
Beside 19:14 see 19:10. "IT, evidently 19:9-13 was spoken on the mountain;
differently e.g. Cassuto: 19:9 assumes a descent and ascent of Moses.
Beside 19:15 see 19:11a and 19:10. The people are not told why the con
secration is necessary (cf. 19:11b). Consequently, the events to come were
unexpected and all the more impressive to the people (19:16ff.). For that matter,
also the execution of the order of 19:12, 13a is not described. It is implied though.
As more often, description of the order and its execution complement each other.
ntibti (Introd. §4.4.1), unlike in 19:11, the ordinal is used (cf. Ges-K § 134o
note). Sam. Pent.: D'zrn. In LXX: ‘three days,’ b is left untranslated and the time
designation can be taken with either the beginning or the end of the verse; in view
of 19:16 the latter is the most likely: sexual abstinence is required also on the day
of the theophany. In rabbinic exegesis the length of time of the preparation has
been a point of discussion: toward the fourth day (three days) with the revelation
on the seventh day; toward the third day with the revelation on the sixth day (bSab
87 Cf. Greflmann*, 196; Noth; Beyerlin*, 42ff.

88 Klostermann*, NFt 482ff.: meant is that the people and the draught animals who put up the
boundary (19:12) are for that job allowed on the holy precinct; for yet another suggestion see R.
Althann, Bib 51 (1976), 242-6.
454 exodus 19:1-25
8 6b, 87a, and see Rashi).

■ltf-jn imperf. qal of B733 (OT ca. 125 x; qal 6 8 x ; niph. 17 X; hiph. 37 x ; Exod.
13x ) (synonym of 3“ip; see 3:5), whose meaning in qal and niph. (perf. and part,
are represented by forms of the niph.) can be described with: ‘to come in the
immediate vicinity of, come in contact/get in touch with* (often + *?N); in Exodus
used for physical contact of man and woman (euphemism for sexual intercourse)
(19:15; cf. 1733 in Gen. 20:6; Ruth 2:9) , 89 the eye to eye and mouth to mouth
contact of Israel with Moses (34:30 [qal], 32 [niph.]; cf. Num. 32:16) or other
magistrates (24:14; cf. Josh. 14:6; 21:1 et al. and Deut. 25:1; Isa. 41:1), the
contact of the priests with the altar (28:43; 30:20; cf. Lev. 21:21, 23; 2 Chr.
29:31), the (prohibition of) contact of priests (19:22; cf. Ezek. 44:13), of Aaron
cum suis (24:2 qal), of Moses (24:2 niph.; cf. 20:21 and Jer. 30:21) with y h w h ;
in hiph. the meaning is causal: ‘to bring near to’ etc. (2 1 : 6 [2 x]); ‘to present’
(sacrifices) (32:6; Lev. 2:8; 8:14 et al.). Contact with y h w h and what is holy (cf.
also Num. 8:19) is circumscribed with strict rules, for not only physical contact
(e.g. 19:12f.), but also the glance of the eyes (cf. Num. 4:20 and see also Exod.
34:30) or just happening to be in the vicinity, radiation by itself can produce a
collision, a ‘short circuit’ between who/what is unholy and who/what is holy (see
TWAT, V, 232ff.; Milgrom*, 34ff.).
Josephus (AJ , III, 78) relates how Israel not only heeded the purification
injunctions, but also prayed to God to favourably receive Moses as he conversed
with God and give him a gift that would enhance their happiness, and how they
put on festive clothing and ate delicious food. Anticipating God’s gift, Israel is in a
festive mood.
19:16 On the third day, as morning dawned, there was thunder and lightning; a
threatening cloud moved over the mountain and there was a booming blast o f the
horn, so that all the people who were in the camp trembled .
Beside 19:16 see 19:9, lib . Implicitly y h w h ’ s coming is described (cf. 19:18a).
ip a . see 7:15. bp, see Introd. §3.51.2; TPsJ explicitly: ‘voices of thunder’
(O'lnn r^p). pn? (OT 22x), ‘lightning’ (Ps. 18:15; 77:19; 97:4 etc.). Mek. II,
218: all kinds of thunderclaps and bolts of lightning. The word order is striking:
first thunderclaps, only then lightning followed by clouds. 1317, see 13:21. naa, see
4:10; TPsJ: + ‘smoking’ (T C D p ; cf. 19:18). Implicitly it is said that y h w h himself
arrives (cf. 19:9). LXX: ‘on Mount Sinai.’ “)S0 , see 19:13; FTP specifically:
‘ram's horn.’ ‘loud,’ see Introd. § 3.19.1. "1 KD (see 1:7), cf. 19:18, 19; it is a
most impressive happening.
“inn;] imperf. cons, qal of “n n (OT 39x ; qal 23x), ‘to tremble’ (often as
expression of being scared, fear) (Gen. 27:33; 42:28; 1 Sam. 14:15; 16:4; 28:5
etc.); in 19:18 ‘the mountain’ is subject; some MSS and LXX: ‘the people’ (cf.
19:16). See P. Joiion, Bib 6 (1925), 175f. mnD, see 13:20. The people are in the
89 TPsJ, TNf, FT: ‘do not approach to the use of the bed.’
camp, that is, fearfully they have remained at a distance (cf. 19:12). The manifes
tation on the mountain is so overwhelming, however, that even in the camp the
people shudder. Even so, the distance between people and mountain will be
shortened even more (19:17), increasing all the more the dread of the people (cf.
20:18).
19:17 Moses led the people out o f the camp, toward God. At the foot o f the
mountain they took their stand.
‘to lead out’ (Introd. § 3.24.2), in order to meet (nm p^, see 1:10) God (cf. Amos
4:12). TPsJ contains an elaboration: ‘toward the Shekinah of y h w h ,90 and
suddenly the Lord of the world uprooted the mountain, lifting it up in the air, and
it was transparent like glass;* rabbinic explanation: y h w h arrives (from the Sinai;
cf. Deut. 33:2) as a bridegroom goes forth to meet his bride (Mek. II, 218f.;
Rashi). 32T hithp., see 2:4; Mek. II, 219: they were thrown on top of each other
by the convulsion of the cosmos, irn n o fern. sing. (Meyer § 56.1a) of nnnp (OT
29x), ‘(the) lower/lowest’ (adjective and noun) (Gen. 6:16; Isa. 44:23; Ezek.
31:14, 16, 18; Ps. 68:13 etc.). In TPsJ ‘under’ O m n n ) ;91 is taken literally as: the
mountain was plucked up from its place. 92
The above raises the question how it relates to 19:12: is it assumed that the
people remain inside the established bounds (e.g. TzUR; Hertz; Cassuto; Gold
man) or does it mean that now they cross the boundary? (e.g. Ibn Ezra; Murphy;
Dillmann). For the supposed relationship between 19:13b and 19:17 see at 19:13
and also 19:21. In any case, unlike Moses (19:3, 8 , 20), the people do not enter
into direct contact with God (cf. 20:18, 21); while approaching they remain at a
distance.
19:18 Now Mount Sinai was wholly wrapped in smoke, because y h w h had come
down upon it in fire; the smoke rose like the smoke o f a kiln , and the whole
mountain shook violently.
19:18a is a nominal clause, an explanatory observation with further information
(cf. KoSynt § 362m; Jouon § 159f).
Itfy perf. qal of lew (OT 6 x), ‘to smoke’ (cf. Ps. 104:32; 144:5); in 19:18 also
the noun (OT 25 x ) (here with cstr. state lew; see Ges-K § 93dd; Jouon
§ 96Bb), ‘smoke’ (Gen. 15:17; Josh. 8:20f.; Judg. 20:38, 40; Isa. 4:5; 6:4 etc.;
Rev. 15:8) is used twice. The purpose of the smoke is to conceal y h w h . For
smoke at theophanies see Gen. 15:17; Isa. 6:4; Joel 3:3; Ps. 18:9; 104:32; 144:5;
cf. also Ps. 97:5. 'JSD, see Introd. § 3.7.2; 3.42.3; Williams § 376, 534.
90 ‘the Glory of the ...’ (TNf, FTV); ‘toward the Word of YHWH’ (TO, FTP).
91 Differently TNf, FT, TO: ‘at the bottom of;’ cf. TNf, FTP on 19:12.
92 Cf. Mek. II, 219; bSab 88a; Rashi; because of the threatening mountain above them the Israelites
would not hesitate to accept the covenant with YHWH; otherwise the mountain would bury them; see
further Ginzberg*, III, 92; Goldman.
456 exodus 19:1-25
Sam. Pent.: r t » m n \ ‘ y h w h , ’ LXX: ‘God.’ TPsJ: ‘because y h w h had caused

heaven to come down and thereupon revealed himself in the flaming fire . ’ 9 3 ‘in
fire,’ FTP: ‘in the flame of fire;’ FTV: ‘in the flames of fire;’ TPsJ: ‘in the
flaming fire’ (cf. 3:2; Judg. 13:20). ‘to rise’ (Introd. §3.39.1) contrasts with
‘come down.’ 1&3D, see 9:8. in n , some MSS: Dun (cf. 19:16); cf. LXX; see also
FTV, TNf margin: ‘all the people who were in the camp ...;’ the reading ‘the
people’ is adopted by Dillmann, Ehrlich and others. The imagery of trembling
mountains occurs more often (with use of different terminology; see Judg. 5:4;
Isa. 5:25; Nah. 1:5; Hab. 3:10; Ps. 18:8; 46:4; 68:9); Vulg.: eratque mons omnis
terribilis , ‘the whole mountain was terrifying.’
19:19 As long as the sound o f the horn grew louder and louder, Moses was
speaking and God answered him in a loud voice.
"IND p tir (Introd. §3.14.1; 3.19.1), cf. 2 Sam. 3:1 ; 94 interpreted as a
miracle in Mek. II, 223, and by Ibn Ezra and Rashi. nay, cf. 19:8. The imperfects
in 19:19b indicate a repeated action, ‘in a loud voice’ (Introd. § 3.51.2), perhaps
‘by means of a loud voice’ (cf. Deut. 4:12) (Ehrlich); the voice was certainly
clearly audible (cf. 19:9). Note that whereas in 19:9 y h w h is the subject of the
‘speaking,’ here it is Moses; God answers him. TPsJ: ‘and from before y h w h he
(Moses) was answered (idem also the other targums) with a pleasant (cf. FTV) and
melodious voice (n a tfD i D'ya ^ p a ) 95 and pleasant were the words’ (which Moses
relayed to the people; cf. Mek. II, 223); differently TNf: Moses spoke to y h w h
‘with a pleasant voice;’ at the end of the verse only (cf. TO), in agreement
with MT.
19:19 raises questions. Where is Moses when it all happens? At the foot of the
mountain (cf 19:17) (Ibn Ezra), and does God answer him from the mountain (cf.
19:3b), or on the mountain? (Nachmanides). The first seems to be what is meant.
What was the gist of the conversation? The ten commandments? (e.g. Ibn Ezra;
Rashi). It is, however (cf. 20:1), y h w h and Moses who are speaking. 96 The
dialogue recounted in 19:21-24 (e.g. Nachmanides; Hertz; Cassuto), which was
held before the giving of the Torah? In that case one must assume that the
conversation, however loud it was, could not be heard by Israel, for Moses is told
to inform the people of it. The conditions of the covenant? (Heinisch). They were
already known (19:5). Or does the b i p of y h w h refer to a sound that required
interpretation? Schmid*, 58, 60, suggests that *?ip refers to thunder or a sound of
93 Cf. Mek. II, 224; Pseudo-Philo, V, 6; XXIII, 10, and see Ps. 18:10; 144:5; cf. Houtman*,
Himmel, 148f.
94 See Ges-K § 113u; Jouon § 123s; Brockelmann § 93g; J. Briggs Curtis, “On the Hiphil Infinitive
Absolute of hdlakr ZAH 1 (1988), 22-31.
95 Cf. FTP: ‘in a sweet voice and in a pleasant tone’ (K*?p nn'aai D'03 *?pa).
96 Rashi: YHWH spoke only the first two commandments; Moses, whose voice had been strengthened
by YHWH (cf. Mek. II, 223), the other ones.
tectonic origin, which was interpreted by Moses. 9 7 He surmises that already in

the Midianite tradition promulgation of commands and prohibitions was done
through a mediator and that Moses took the place of a Midianite mediator (Jet
hro?). In this connection one could by way of comparison point to John 12:28f. (a
voice from heaven appears to be poly-interpretable); also to Rev. 10:4 (thunders
voice a message that could be recorded in writing). The scene-setting in 19:19,
with Moses speaking and God answering, seems to require one to think of Moses
as consulting with God; 98 God gives an oracle; Moses interprets it. If one opts
for that sort of interpretation, 19:19 is to be regarded as a tradition that is separate
from the promulgation of the Sinaitic injunctions. As to the function of 19:19 in
Exod. 19, I am inclined to take the verse, like 19:9a, as a general statement and to
relate it to the revelation given by y h w h through Moses at Sinai: the injunctions
are indisputably of divine origin (see 19:9); in 19:19 that is underscored once
more. In this connection it is important to note that in 19:19 b ip is used for the
voice of y h w h , in 19:16, 19 for the sounding of the horn, and in 19:16 (pi.)
denotes the thunder. With the b ip of y h w h the writer likely had in mind an
articulate, clear voice (20: Iff.). The employment of the same term inside the space
of only a few verses to denote magnificent and voluminous effusions of sound
(thunder, horn blast) would seem to justify the supposition that in the writer’s
thinking y h w h ’s voice was at least as grand and likely even more awe-inspiring.
Does he mean to say that y h w h ’s voice was loud enough to be heard above the
very loud sounds from the horn? If so, the implication is that the revelation at the
Sinai is the overpowering and irresistible Word of God (cf. 20:18f.).
19:20 y h w h came down upon Mount Sinai, to the top o f the mountain; yh w h
summoned Moses to the top o f the mountain and Moses went up.
(see 6:14), contrasting with rrnnn (19:17). ‘to summon,’ see Introd.
§ 3.45.1. Sam. Pent.: FT: ‘(summoned) from the top of the mountain;’
cf. TNf. After 19:18 ( y h w h has come down) 19:20a comes as something of a
surprise. One would expect 19:20a to come before 19:18; cf. Baentsch: originally
19:18 stood between 19:20a and 19:20b; Rudolph*, 42f.: originally 19:20 came
before 19:19. As in 19:9b, 19:20a evidently is another instance of ‘Wiederau-
fnahme’ (resumption), this time of 19:16.
19:21 Then y h w h said to Moses: *Go down , order the people not to break
through to y h w h to behold him; otherwise a great number o f them will perish.
19:22 Even the priests , who maintain the contact with y h w h , must keep distance
from what is holy , to prevent y h w h from breaking out against them . '
‘y h w h ’ (2x), LXX: ‘God’ (2x). Cassuto’s opinion that y h w h was speaking
when Moses was only half-way up the mountain is unfounded. "JUn *n, asyndeton
97 Cf. Buber*, 130: Moses is answered in thunder and the sounding of the horn.
98 Cf. 18:19, and see Zenger*, Israel, 145, 183.
458 EXODUS 19:1-25
(KoSynt § 357m; Ges-K § llOh; Jouon § 177e). i t , see 2:5. "il?n imper. hiph. of
"nr (OT 44 x ; hiph. 39 x), which is likely to be regarded as denominative verb of
n r, ‘witness’ (see 20:16)" and occurs in a variety of meanings: ‘to order’
(19:21, 23), ‘to point out’ (21:29 hoph.), ‘to warn’ etc. (Gen. 43:3; Deut. 8:19;
32:46 etc.). IS, see 1:10. Oin, see 15:7; LXX: eyviocooiv, ‘to come near;’ but in
19:24: PiaCeoOoxjav, ‘to use force.’ ‘yhwh,’ in direct speech by yhwh; cf.
19:11, 22b, 24; LXX: ‘God’ (also in 19:24); cf. 24:10, 11. ‘to behold,’ see
Introd. § 3.46.1. Is a trespassing of established bounds (19:12) what is meant?
(e.g. Hertz); but note also 19:13b, 17. ^331 (see 15:16), to which should be
supplied: ‘If they do, then . . . ’ (cf. e.g. Ges-K § 112p). 3 1 , see 1:9 (TNf, FT:
‘numerous multitudes;’ TPsJ: ‘many/a leader [3 1 ] in their midst;’ cf. Mek. II,
225).
When an individual commits sacrilege the community can take corrective
measures (19:12, 13). 19:21 evidently envisions a situation of collective sacrilege.
It is assumed that yhwh himself acts on it; cf. 19:22b, 24b and see e.g. Num.
11:1 ff.; 16:27 ff.
□31, see Introd. § 3.11.1. ins, see 2:16; Mek. II, 225f.: D31 shows that also the
elders are included; modem exegetes tend to regard the reference to ‘priests’
previous to Exod. 29 as an anachronism (cf. e.g. 16:34); among others, Rashi, Ibn
Ezra, Cassuto: the firstborn functioned as priests; Mek. II, 225: Aaron’s sons are
meant (cf. Potin*, 219f.); conservative exegetes: those who according to natural
right and custom had hitherto held the priestly office, as a rule the heads of
families (Keil, Strack; cf. Calvin); Vonk: the men of 24:5; Bohl: the priests of the
sanctuary on Horeb. e?33, see 19:15; TO, TPsJ add the clarification: ‘to serve
before yhwh;’ in similar vein TNf, FT. ‘yhwh,’ among others, LXXB: ‘yhwh
God;’ among others, LXXA: ‘God.’
Contact with the holy is predicated on conditions (see 3:4-6). The degree of
holiness is not everywhere the same (cf. Introd. § 3.44.2). Its intensity determines
who may come in contact with the holy and which conditions he has to meet (e.g.
Lev. 16:2ff.; 21; Num. 18:Iff., 22ff.). Priests enjoy a measure of direct access to
yhwh . Other people’s contact with yhwh is through them, enp hithp. (Introd.
§ 3.44.1), usually translated as ‘to consecrate oneself’ (cf. Num. 11:18; Josh. 3:5;
7:13), means here, according to the context, ‘to keep distance’ (cf. Ehrlich; WV);
the manifestation of yhwh is so exceedingly holy that it is even life threatening to
the priests; they are not holy enough to approach yhwh just as they are (e.g. Lev.
10: If.). The comment about the priests underscores the extraordinary nature of
yhwh’s revelation. Unlikely, in light of 19:24, is that the text means to say that
the priests must do more to prepare themselves than at other times, must reach a
greater degree of holiness. y mis, see 1:12; C. Toll, Orientalia Suecana 21 (1972),
73-86; cf. e.g. Lev. 10:If.; Num. 16:35; LXX: anakXd^r]; but in 19:24
aTtoAeori; TO, TPsJ: ‘that yhwh will slaughter (î£Dp\ cf. 19:12) them;’ FT: ‘that*
See THAT, II, 209ff.; TWAT, V, 1107ff.

a (great) anger from y h w h was kindled against them;’ similarly TNf. am , Sam.
Pent.: M (cf. 19:24). ‘Y HW H / LXXA: 7iAf|0og (cf. 19:21).
19:23 Moses replied to y h w h : ‘The people will not be able to climb up to Mount
Sinai; fo r you yourself have forbidden us by saying: uSet bounds around the
mountain and declare it holy territory ”. '
‘y h w h , ’ LXX: ‘God.’ see 2:3. nrnun (Ges-K § 72x), see 19:21; Sam.
Pent.: m urt. 133, it is proposed to read n (the people); cf. e.g. LV. ^33, cf.
19:12. "inn, Isaac Ibn Jasos: read Dun (cf. 19:12); see H.G. von Mutius, BN 12
(1980), 27. enp piel (cf. 19:10), perf. cons, as continuation of imperative (Ges-K
§ 112r; Joiion § 1191).
19:23 harks back to 19:12, 13: the mountain is sealed off as holy territory; to
protect its sacredness, measures against desecration must be taken. Moses’
response is not entirely to the point. After all, in 19:12, 13 the position of the
priests was not dealt with. Hence in his response y h w h comes back to that
(19:24b; cf. 19:22).
19:24 Then y h w h said to him: ‘Now then, go down; after that you shall climb
up again; only Aaron may accompany you; the priests, however, and the people
may not cross the boundary to climb up to y h w h ; his breaking out against them
must be prevented . '
Beside 19:24 see 19:21, 22. "|b, see Introd. § 3.14.2. m , cf. 19:21; in the
command is implied: ‘and do what I ordered you* (cf. 19:21, 22). LV: ‘climb up
yourself with Aaron and the priests* (similarly CV); in that case, the prohibition to
climb up only pertains to the people (see beside it 24:If., 9); this interpretation
(already put forth by Rashi) requires a change in the Masoretic accentuation; its
drawback is that "IDU stands before and not after D^nan; Pesh.: + ‘(Aaron) your
brother. ’
In the sequel it is not stated that Moses did indeed climb up with Aaron as he
had been told (cf. 20:21; 24:1, 9); Cassuto believes that Moses and Aaron
ascended to a place appointed them by y h w h (not to y h w h himself; such was not
even possible for Moses); possibly, in my view, the writer seeks to intimate that
Moses and Aaron were with y h w h at the time of the proclamation. This sup
position seems more likely than the suggestion that Moses, as one of the people, at
the foot of the mountain had to listen to God’s speaking (in Goldman). But see
also 20:19: Moses is with the people. Perhaps there is the implied notion that the
mountain is just as holy as the Holy of Holiest of the sanctuary (26:33f.); also the
priests may not come there; the high priest, Aaron, may (Lev. 16).100
‘y h w h , ’ LXX: ‘God;’ ID etc., LXX: + subject ‘Lord’ (cf. 19:22 and see
Sanderson*, 73); Pesh.: ‘lest he did kill them;’ cf. Vulg. (in LXX, Pesh. and
100 Milgrom*, 44, states: ‘For P, Mount Sinai is the archetype of the Tabernacle, and is similarly
divided into three gradations of holiness.’
460 EXODUS 19:1-25
Vulg. the end of 19:22 and the end of 19:24 have been translated in different
ways; the targums do have consistency in their rendering).

Commentators tend to disparage 19:21-24: the verses are an interruption of the
theophany; hardly on the top of the mountain, Moses is told to go down again; a
subject earlier taken up (19:12, 13a) - now no longer pertinent - is dealt with at
length. It is held that the account of Moses’ behaviour (19:23), who is charac
terized as ‘ein pedantischer Schulmeister’ (Baentsch), and of y h w h ’s , summed up
as ‘capriciousness’ (Mcneile) (Rylaarsdam: absent-mindedness), can only have
come from an incompetent redactor. The tendency exists to regard the passage as a
kind of midrash on 19:12, 13a, set down to answer the question whether the
command in question also applied to the priests.101
In my view, a critical look at the text leads to the observation that it contains
tensions. Thus it is remarkable that in 19:21 the possibility is left open that the
people (not just a few individuals; cf. 19:12, 13a), driven by curiosity, may ascend
the mountain to gaze at y h w h and that a great many will perish, while from
19:16b; 20:18-21 one gets the impression that the people were so terribly afraid
that under no circumstances would they do such a thing. It must be noted that the
writer, on the one hand, seeks to describe the theophany as an overwhelming event
that made Israel shudder, and on the other hand wants to put all the emphasis on
y h w h ’s holiness. To that end, he utilizes images (of diverse origin) which, going
by the letter, do not in all respects fit together, but which are very suitable for
bringing out the various angles of y h w h ’s coming and presence. As regards
19:21-24, the passage is to be regarded as a varied repetition and sharpening of
19:12, 13a and serves a clear purpose.102
The fact that Moses is for the second time (cf. Mek. II, 226; Rashi) ordered to
warn the people to keep their distance from the mountain; that the instruction,
when it is repeated (19:21, 24), is also made to apply to the priests; that Moses
starts a discussion with y h w h about what he has been ordered (19:23, 24), all
these things hammer home to the reader that the event taking place is h o ly b e y o n d
w o r d s . Moses’ protestation that the people are familiar with the prohibition is not
enough. The ordinary rules to preserve holiness are inadequate. Also the priests
are now subject to different norms. So it is intimated that what takes place is a n
e x tr a o r d in a r y m a n ife s ta tio n a n d p r e s e n c e o f y h w h . The sequel teaches that that
impression is true: y h w h himself begins to speak (20:Iff.) and, through Moses
(20:2Iff.), addresses the people. Just before y h w h is introduced as speaking, it is
once more emphasized that his holiness must remain inviolate. That is vitally
important. Presumably even the slightest violation of y h w h ’s integrity jeopardizes
",l See e.g. Eerdmans*, 65; Rudolph*, 41; Beyerlin*, 12; Te Stroete; Hyatt.
102 Also in another respect there is a climax: YHWH talks with Moses on the top of the mountain
(19:20).
the proclamation of his ordinances. Moreover, there may be no human interference

and input whatsoever, so that there can be no uncertainty on whether the words
that are spoken are truly God’s holy words.
Finally, since Moses must again ascend the mountain to resume talking with
God, the story pauses at a crucial point, y h w h ’s self-revelation is interrupted, as it
were put on hold, - first it must be double-checked whether the preparatory
measures have indeed been carried out so the tension in the story builds to a
climax. In short, the writer makes skillful use of a variety of material.
19:25 . Moses went down to the people and said to them: ...
Sam. Pent.: after ‘Moses* + ‘from the mountain’ (cf. 19:14); cf. TPsJ, TNf, FT
and see Sanderson*, 83. "iBN'i presumes passing on what is said (Introd.
§3.5.1). For that reason it is thought that something is missing from the text (cf.
Gen. 4:8).103 The likely meaning is that Moses delivers the warning of 19:21,
22, 24 to the people (e.g. Rashi).104 It is, moreover, assumed that the warning is
taken to heart.
The targums have enlarged upon the text, in line with the sequel; TNf, FT:
‘Come closer! Accept the ten commandments;’ somewhat differently TPsJ: ‘... the
law with the ten commandments;’ other suggestions are made in Mek. II, 227.
Josephus has Moses speak extensively before the promulgation of the Decalogue.
He (AJy III, 75ff.) offers his own perspective: Moses ascends and descends only
once; at Moses’ request, the people had put up their tents at the foot of the
mountain (cf. 19:17) and remained in their tents during the frightening theophany,
discouraged, thinking that Moses had perished under the vengeance of God and
that the same fate awaited them; with Moses’ sudden appearance also the sky
becomes clear; Moses speaks at length to the people, stressing that the com
mandments are from the God who had saved them and guided them, the God of
salvation history.
103 See e.g. Delitzsch*, 89; differently Ehrlich: read: nna,i.

104 Differently e.g. Rudolph*, 44; he has 19:25 follow upon 19:19 and sees a tie with 19:9.
POSTSCRIPT
In this postscript I wish to introduce ‘the writer’ and ‘the reader’ who figure in the
‘Essentials and Perspectives.’ Reviews of volumes I and II have made me aware
that not all users of the commentary are clear on who they are. Thus it has
bothered some reviewers that in the ‘Essentials and perspectives’ the gloating and
glee of ‘the reader’ over the misery of Pharaoh and the Egyptians is regularly
highlighted (see W. Vogels, CBQ 52 [1990], 714-6; M.D. Koster, NedThT 48
[1994],. 325-6), yet without realizing that ‘the reader’ is not the twentieth century
Christian. Modem readers no doubt have mixed feelings about various passages in
the book of Exodus. In the commentary that is not overlooked (see e.g. Vol. II,
233, 372f., and the discussion of Exod. 20:20-33 in the third volume). However,
the exegete may not ignore what the texts mean to say and how they sounded to
the original reader.1 It is not the exegete’s task to rewrite the texts and make them
‘reader-friendly’ by only touching on what is acceptable and interesting to today’s
reader. An example may help to elucidate this last point.
One reviewer (W. Vogels) feels that my exegesis is marked by a tedious and
long-drawn-out interest in all sorts of questions. As an example he points to my
discussion of the question of whether or not also Pharaoh perished in the sea (Vol.
II, 275). In his opinion, I hold that the question must be answered in the affir
mative. The reason such questions are taken up has to do with the stated purpose
of the commentary that also the history of exegesis be given its full due. But not
that only. The discussion of the question broached there is also for the purpose of
finding out, by considering the purport of Exod. 14, what the writer sought to
convey. As I see it, Exod. 14 presupposes Pharaoh’s death by drowning. That is
significant for the interpretation. The reviewer wrongly creates the impression that
I am interested in the question as a historical question.
Also others have detected the presence of ‘historicizing’ exegesis. One such
reviewer (M. Vervenne, EThL 68 [1992], 407-9) detects a contrast between the
critical evaluation of the historical character of the narrative material in Exodus in
the Introduction of Vol. I (pp. 171-90) and the exegesis. By way of example he
cites the discussion of Exod. 4:24 (Vol. I, 433), where, for instance, the following
sentence occurs: ‘In favour of thinking of a place under the open sky in 4:24 and
on the hard ground, where Moses and Zipporah spent the night, is the fact that
Zipporah right away could pick up a stone when she needed it ...’ Here and
elsewhere the exegesis is intended to evoke the picture the writer and his readers
had in mind. All in all, reason enough for introducing ‘writer’ and ‘reader.’
In the writing of the sections ‘Essentials and Perspectives’ I have let myself
especially be guided by the question: Why did the writer - for that matter ‘the
1The recurrent pointing to gloating etc. is in line with the large space the writer gives to the plagues
and grows out of the stereotypical design of his account.
464 POSTSCRIPT
redactor’ (cf. Introd. § 1.2) - shape and order the material the way it lies before
us? Using the intent of the writer/redactor as my point of orientation, I felt it best
to by and large set forth my explanation in the form of an elucidation of the
manner in which the writer presents his story and of the effect that would have on
the reader/hearer, or of the reaction the writer through his depiction aims to elicit
from the reader/hearer. The writer and reader I have introduced are my creations.
That does not mean that they are purely fictitious. On the contrary. Their creation
is based on intensive study of Exodus in light of the current state of knowledge of
biblical narrative and of the culture and religious experience of people in the
ancient Near East, in particular the Israel of the Old Testament. ‘My’ writer and
‘my ‘reader’ are persons from the sixth century before Chr. (cf. Introd. § 1.2).
From this it follows that if I am going to do a good job in translating them to
twentieth century readers, I should especially zero in on the cultural gap, the
differences in experiencing and interpreting the world, including religious matters,
that separates the twentieth century reader from the writer and first readers/hear-
ers, which can be a barrier to ‘being grabbed’ by the story as the writer would
have it. To prevent the writer’s voice from being drowned out by exegesis and his
message from remaining unheard, the focus in ‘Essentials and Perspectives’ is
primarily on ‘writer’ and ‘reader.’ For the data needed to understand them, and
for learning about and discussion of the various questions raised in the history of
exegesis, the reader of the commentary should consult the other sections and the
general introduction in Volume I.
Finally, I took note of the text of 4QpaleoExodm (abbrev. Qm) through J.E.
Sanderson’s m o nographs Exodus Scroll from Qumran, Atlanta 1986. Meanwhile,
the text of the scroll has been published.2
2 P.W. Skehan - E. Ulrich - J.E. Sanderson (eds.), Qumran Ccwe 4. IV: Palaeo-Hebrew and Greek
Biblical Manuscripts, Oxford 1992 (= DJD, IX).
HISTORICAL COMMENTARY ON THE OLD TESTAMENT
PROJECTED VOLUMES AND CONTRIBUTORS
Genesis Erhard Blum, Augsburg, Germany

Exodus Comelis Houtman, Kampen, The Netherlands
Leviticus James W. Watts, Hastings, Nebraska U.S.A.
Numbers John F. Elwolde, Sheffield, England
Deuteronomy Comelis Houtman, Kampen, The Netherlands
Joshua Hartmut Rosel, Haifa, Israel
Judges Johannes C. de Moor, Kampen, The Netherlands
Ruth Marjo C.A. Korpel, Utrecht, The Netherlands
1 Samuel Ake Viberg, Lund, Sweden
2 Samuel Jichan Kim, Seoul, Korea
1 Kings 1-11 Martin J. Mulder, Leiden, The Netherlands
1 Kings 12-22 Jurie le Roux, Pretoria, South Africa
2 Kings
1 Chronicles Peter B. Dirksen, Leiden, The Netherlands
2 Chronicles Isaac Kalimi, Brookline, MA U.S.A.
Ezra 1stvan Karasszon, Budapest, Hungary
Nehemiah Edward Noort, Groningen, The Netherlands
Esther Henk Jagersma, Brussels, Belgium
Job Richard S. Hess, Glasgow, Scotland
Psalms 1-72 Phil.J. Botha & Gert T.M. Prinsloo, Pretoria, South Africa
Psalms 73-150 Willem S. Prinsloo, Pretoria, South Africa
Proverbs James A. Loader, Pretoria, South Africa
Ecclesiastes Anton Schoors, Louvain, Belgium
Song of Songs Wilfred G.E. Watson, New Castle, England
Isaiah 1-12 Hendrik Leene, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Isaiah 13-39 Willem A.M. Beuken, Louvain, Belgium
Isaiah 40-66 Jan L. Koole, Kampen, The Netherlands
Jeremiah Ben J. Oosterhoff, Apeldoom, The Netherlands
Lamentations Johan Renkema, Kampen, The Netherlands
Ezekiel 1-24 Herrie F. van Rooy, Potchefstroom, South Africa
Ezekiel 25-48 Corrine Patton, Tallahassee, Florida, U.S.A.
Daniel Tibor Marjovszki, Budapest, Hungary
Hosea Dwight R. Daniels, Glendale, CA U.S.A.
Joel Willem van der Meer, Kampen, The Netherlands
Amos Meindert Dijkstra, Utrecht, The Netherlands
Obadaiah Johan Renkema, Kampen, The Netherlands
Jonah Johannes H. Potgieter, Pretoria, South Africa
Micah Johannes C. de Moor, Kampen, The Netherlands
466 HISTORICAL COMMENTARY ON THE OT
Nahum Klaas Spronk, Kampen, The Netherlands

Habakuk Gert T.M. Prinsloo, Pretoria, South Africa
Zephaniah Jan Vlaardingerbroek, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Haggai William Th. Koopmans, Orangeville, Ont. Canada
Zechariah A1 Wolters, Ancaster, Ont. Canada
Malachi Raymond C. Van Leeuwen, Grand Rapids, MI U.S.A.
This is th e se c o n d v o lu m e of a new series, th e HISTORICAL
COMMENTARY ON THE OLD TESTAMENT, which d e v o te s explicit
a tte n tio n to th e history of in te rp re ta tio n of biblical trad itio n in all its
stag es, b o th within an d w ithout th e H ebrew canon. As th e term ‘Old
T e s ta m e n t’ in d icates, th e co m m en tary s ta n d s in th e Christian
exegetical trad itio n . T he te a m of c o n trib u to rs co m p rises scholars from
all o v er th e w orld an d from m any d ifferen t ch u rch es an d
d en o m in a tio n s.
T he co m m en tary is in te n d e d not only for O ld T e sta m e n t scholars, b u t
also for m in isters an d o th e r in te re s te d p artie s. T he tre a tm e n t of ev ery
p e ric o p e is p re c e d e d by a new tran slatio n an d a sectio n called
'E ssen tia ls a n d P ersp ectives’ in which th e a u th o r su m m arizes th e re su lts of
th e e x e g esis in no n -tech n ical language. T he p rim ate h e re is assig n e d
to th e final sta g e of th e text. T he sum m ary sh o u ld incite th e u se r to
co n su lt th e m ain b o d y of th e e x e g e sis which is h e a d e d ‘S ch o la rly
E xposition '.
H ere th e a p p ro a c h is th a t of m o d ern critical scholarship.
‘It will b e clea r th a t th e co m m en tary h as a g re a t d e a l to offer b o th

sch o lar an d laym an, an d (...) p ro v id e s th e fu llest m o d e m tre a tm e n t (
of Exodus th a t is a v a ila b le in any lan g u ag e.’ G.I. D avies in VETUS
TESTAMENTUM 43 (1993) 115.
5-
Volume III1
Volume III1
EXODUS
Volume III1
O N THE OLD TESTAMENT
Editorial team:
Cornelis Houtman
Gert T.M. Prinsloo

Wilfred G.E. Watson

(Newcastle, UK)
A1 Wolters
Volume III1
EXODUS
by
Cornelis Houtman
Volume 3
Chapters 20 - 40
Volume III1
Translated from the D utch by Sierd Woudstra
Houtman, C.
Exodus - Vol. 3.
(Historical Commentary on the Old Testament)
Cover design by Dick Prins
NUGI 632
ISBN 90-429-0805-X
D. 2000/0602/10
© 2000 — Peeters, Bondgenotenlaan 153, B-3000 Leuven (Belgium)
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a

retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic,
mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written
permission of the publisher.
Volume III1
CO N TEN TS
Author’s Preface ............................................................................................... xi

Translator’s Preface .................................................................................... xii
Bibliography and Abbreviations................................................................... xiv
20:1-17
EXODUS
GOD’S DIRECT SPEECH
1.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................... 1

1.2 PREAMBLE (20:1, 2 ) ............................................................................. 16
1.3 THE ONLY RIGHT WAY TO WORSHIP YHWH I (2 0:3-6)............ 17
YHWH, a righteous God? (Exod. 20:5b, 6 ) ....................................... 26
1.4 THE USE OF YHWH’s NAME (20:7) ................................................ 34
1.5 THE DAY OF REST (20:8-11)............................................................... 38
1.6 CARE FOR AGED PARENTS (20:12) ................................................ 50
1.7 RESPECT FOR THE FELLOW CITIZEN (20:13-17)........................ 58
No murder (2 0 :1 3 )............................................................................. 59
No adultery (20:14) ........................................................................... 62
No stealing (20:15)............................................................................. 63
No false accusation (2 0 :1 6 )............................................................... 64
No coveting (2 0 :1 7 )........................................................................... 67
EXODUS 20:18-24:2
YHWH SPEAKS THROUGH MOSES
2.1 INTRODUCTION (20:18-21)................................................................. 72

SCHOLARLY EXPOSITION I: ESSENTIALS AND PERSPEC
TIVES / INTRODUCTION TO EXEGESIS .................................... 72
SCHOLARLY EXPOSITION II: EXEGESIS.................................. 74
2.2 THE BOOK OF THE UNION (20:22-23:33) / INTRODUCTION . . 78
2.3 THE ONLY RIGHT WAY TO WORSHIP YHWH II (20:22-26)___ 98
2.4 DEBT SLAVERY: UNEQUAL TREATMENT OF MAN AND
WOMAN (21:1-11)............................................................................... 110
Something on sla v e ry ...................................................................... 112
A look at the position of the w om an....................................... 113
2.5 VIOLATIONS OF ANOTHER’S PHYSICAL WELL-BEING
(21:12-32).............................................................................................. 130
Manslaughter intentional and unintentional (21:12-14) ............... 131
Volume III1
VI CONTENTS
Asylum at the holy p lace................................................................. 139

Asylum practice in ancient Israel ................................................... 141
Misuse of parents and kidnapping (21:15-17)............................... 147
Quarrel resulting in mistreatment (21:18, 1 9 ) ............................... 152
Mistreatment of a male or female slave resulting
in death (21:20, 21) ........................................................................ 156
A pregnant woman as victim of a scuffle (21:22-25)................... 160
Mistreatment of a male or female slave resulting in permanent
injuries (21:26, 2 7 ) ........................................................................... 171
Fatal injury caused by a goring ox (21:28-32) ............................. 172
On ransom and atonem ent............................................................... 176
2.6 CAUSING DAMAGE TO ANOTHER PERSON’S PROPERTY
(21:33-22:16)......................................................................................... 181
Injury to a neighbour’s cattle (21:33-36) ....................................... 182
Theft of cattle (21:37-22:3)............................................................ 185
Damage to a neighbour’s crops (22:4, 5 ) ....................................... 192
Stealing of or damage to property given for safe-keeping, borrowed
and rented (22:6-14)........................................................................ 196
Loss caused by seduction of an unmarried girl (22:15, 1 6 ).......... 206
2.7 CULTIC AND SOCIAL REGULATIONS (22:17-23:12) ................. 210
Abominable, not to be tolerated practices (22:17-19)................... 210
Care for the socially weak (22:20-26)........................................... 216
Widow and o rh p an ........................................................................... 220
Treating YHWH respectfully (22:27-30) ......................................... 230
Fairness and trustworthiness in the legal system I (23:1-3).......... 237
Helpfulness regardless of the relationship to the other (23:4, 5) . 241
Fairness and trustworthiness in the legal system II (23:6-9) . . . . 246
Sabbatical year and sabbath as social institutions (23:10-12) . . . . 251
2.8 REGULATIONS FOR THE WORSHIP OF YHWH
(23:13-19; 34:18-26)............................................................................. 257
2.9 EPILOGUE: A LOOK INTO THE FUTURE(23:20-33)................... 269
2.10 CONCLUSION (24:1, 2 ) ...................................................................... 281
EXODUS 24:3-11
YHW H AND ISRAEL ENTER INTO A COVENANT
3.1 SCHOLARLY EXPOSITION I: ESSENTIALS AND PERSPECTIVES /

INTRODUCTION TO EXEGESIS ..................................................... 284
3.2 SCHOLARLY EXPOSITION II: EX EG ESIS.................................... 288
Volume III1
CONTENTS vii
EXODUS 24:12-31:18; 35-40

YHWH WANTS TO DWELL IN THE MIDST OF ISRAEL
4.1 INTRODUCTION AND CONCLUSION (24:12-18; 3 1 :1 8 )............ 297

4.1.1 SCHOLARLY EXPOSITION I: ESSENTIALS AND PERSPECTI
VES / INTRODUCTION TO EXEGESIS .................................... 297
4.1.2 SCHOLARLY EXPOSITION II: EXEGESIS................................ 299
4.2 GENERAL INTRODUCTION TO EXODUS 25-31; 35-40 ............ 306
4.3 REQUIRED MATERIALS (25:1-9; 31:6b-ll; 35:4-29;39:33-43) . . 335
The needed materials (25:1-7; 3 5 :4 -9 )........................................... 337
Destination of the materials (25:8, 9; 31:6b-l 1; 35:10-19;
39:33-43) ......................................................................................... 342
Presentation of the materials (35:20-29)......................................... 350
4.4 THE ARTISANS AND THEIR TECHNIQUES (31:l-6a; 35:30-36:7) 353
The artisans....................................................................................... 355
Techniques a p p lied ........................................................................... 356
Textile c r a f t....................................................................................... 356
Preparation of hard m aterials.......................................................... 358
Other techniques ............................................................................. 360
4.5 THE SHRINE AND THE PLACE OF ATONEMENT WITH THE
CHERUBIM (25:10-22; 37:1-9) .......................................................... 365
The shrine (25:10-16; 37:1-5) ....................................................... 366
The place of atonement with the cherubim (25:17-22; 37:6-9) . . 379
The place of atonement................................................................... 380
The cherubim .................................................................................. 382
Concluding remarks ........................................................................ 385
4.6 THE COVERED TABLE WITH YHWH’s PRIVATE BREAD
(25:23-30; 37:10-16)............................................................................. 388
4.7 THE LAMPSTAND WITH THE LIGHTS (25:31-40; 37:17-24) . . . 399
4.8 THE DWELLING (26:1-37; 36:8-38) ................................................ 415
Introduction....................................................................................... 415
The actual house (26:1-6; 3 6 :8-13)................................................ 418
The roof with the cover (26:7-14; 36:14-19) ................................ 422
The walls (26:15-30; 36:20-34) ..................................................... 426
Arrangement and furnishings (26:31-37; 36:35-38)...................... 436
4.9 THE ALTAR OF BURNT OFFERING (27:1-8; 38:1-7).................... 441
4.10 THE COURT (27:9-19; 38:9-20).......................................................... 452
4.11 THE OIL FOR THE LAMP (27:20, 21) ........................................... 461
4.12 THE HIGH-PRIESTLY AND PRIESTLY GARMENTS (28:1-43;
39:1-32) ................................................................................................ 465
Introduction and exegesis 28:1-5; 39:1 ......................................... 465
Volume III1
viii CONTENTS
The ephod (28:6-14; 39:2-7) .......................................................... 475

The breastpiece (28:15-30; 39:8-21) .............................................. 490
Urim and Thum mim........................................................................ 493
The precious stones ........................................................................ 497
The robe (28:31-35; 39:22-26) 506
Function of the bells and the pom egranates.................................. 511
The plaque on the tiara (28:36-38; 39:30, 3 1 ) ............................... 512
Other high-priestly garments and the priestly garments
(28:39-43; 39:27-29, 3 2 ) ................................................................. 517
4.13 THE INSTITUTION OF THE PRIESTHOOD (29:1-37)................. 524
Introduction....................................................................................... 524
Preparations for the consecration (29:1-3; Lev. 8:1-5) ................. 528
The investiture (29:4-9; Lev. 8:6-13).............................................. 530
The Purification offering (29:10-14; Lev. 8:14-17) ...................... 533
The burnt offering (29:15-18; Lev. 8:18-21).................................. 537
The sacrifice of assuming office/
the offering of well-being (29:19-28; Lev. 8:22-29)...................... 539
The high-priestly clothing (29:29, 3 0 ) ............................................ 544
The sacrificial meal (29:31-34; Lev.8:31, 3 2 ) ................................. 545
The length of the priestly consecration ritual
and the consecration of the altar (29:35-37; Lev. 8:33-35) .......... 546
4.14 THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE DAILY SACRIFICIAL WORSHIP;
CONCLUSION (29:38-46; Num. 28:3-8)........................................... 549
4.15 THE ALTAR OF PERFUME (30:1-10; 37:25-28)............................. 553
4.16 THE TRIBUTE FOR THE SANCTUARY(30:11-16)....................... 561
4.17 THE BASIN (30:17-21; 38:8) ............................................................ 566
Materials for the basin (3 8 :8 b )....................................................... 569
4.18 THE HOLY ANOINTING OIL (30:22-33; 37:29)............................ 574
4.19 THE HOLY PERFUME (30:34-38; 3 7 :2 9 )......................................... 578
Introduction...................................................................................... 579
The holy perfum e............................................................................. 582
4.20 THE DAY OF REST AND THE WORK AT THE SANCTUARY
(31:12-17; 35:1-3).................................................................................. 587
4.21 CONCLUSION OF THE ACCOUNT OF THE MAKING OF THE
ITEMS AND PARTS OF THE SANCTUARY; LISTING OF THE
MATERIALS USED (38:21-31).......................................................... 591
4.22 ERECTION AND EQUIPPING OF THE TENT SANCTUARY;
ITS CONSECRATION BY YHWH (40:1-38).................................... 595
Volume III1
CONTENTS IX
EXODUS 32-34
THE BOND WITH YHWH BROKEN AND RESTORED
5.1 INTRODUCTION TO EXODUS 32-34 ................................................... 605

5.2. ISRAEL’S ORIGINAL SIN: THE COVENANT WITH YHWH BROKEN
THROUGH IMAGE WORSHIP (32:1-35).............................................. 608
5.2.1 ESSENTIALS AND PERSPECTIVES ................................................ 610
5.2.2 SCHOLARLY EXPOSITION I: INTRODUCTION TO EXEGESIS . . 616
5.2.3 SCHOLARLY EXPOSITION II: EXEGESIS.......................................630
5.3 CREATION OF THE CONDITIONS FOR THE RESTORATION OF THE
BOND WITH YWHH (33:1-34:9)............................................................ 675
5.3.2 SCHOLARLY EXPOSITION I: INTRODUCTION TO EXEGESIS . . 682
5.3.3 SCHOLARLY EXPOSITION II: EXEGESIS.......................................687
5.4 THE BOND WITH YHWH RESTORED (34:10-35).............................. 712
5.4.2 SCHOLARLY EXOSITION I: INTRODUCTION TO EXEGESIS . . . 715
5.4.3 SCHOLARLY EXPOSITION II: EXEGESIS....................................... 718
The transfigured face of Moses.............................................................. 730
POSTSCRIPT ..................................................................................................... 735
Volume III1
Volume III1
A U T H O R ’S PREFACE
The present volume is a translation of \folume III of my commentary on

Exodus, published in 1996 in the Dutch series Commentaar op het Oude
Testament.
For this translation the Dutch text was checked through and the biblio
graphical material brought up to date.
Owing to the nature of the material in Exodus 20-40, the overall plan of
Exodus III differs in some respects from that in \blumes I and II. The tight
set-up I use in this volume is intended to get the very best handle on the fairly
diverse material. Moreover, in the discussion of Exodus 25-40 the order in
which the text is taken up varies from the order in Exodus itself. In Exodus the
account of the instruction for the building of the tent sanctuary (Exod. 25-31)
is followed, after an intermezzo of three chapters (Exod. 32-34), by the account
of the making and erection of the sanctuary (Exod. 35-40). As the two sections
run parallel I have discussed them in tandem and placed them in side by side
columns in the translation, so that at a glance one can spot similarities and
differences between instruction and implementation.
I owe a debt of sincere gratitude to the translator Dr. Sierd Woudstra for the
very pleasant co-operation, to Dr. Willem van der Meer for his ‘technical’
help, and to the Board of Governors of the Theological University Kampen, for
their kind willingness to finance the cost of the translation.
A final word about the use of this \blume: references to ‘Introd.’ relate to
the general introduction in Vblume I; for the Abbreviations and Bibliography
the user is referred to \folume I, and to the supplement in the present \blume;
with the exception of the names of commentators, names of authors whose
work has been included in the Bibliography of \folume I are marked with an
asterisk (*), while those of authors whose work has been included in the
Bibliography of the present \blume are marked with two asterisks (**); Hout-
man*, Pent., however, does not refer to the Dutch Inleiding in de Pentateuch
(1980), but to the revised German edition Der Pentateuch: Die Geschichte
seiner Erforschung neben einer Auswertung, Kampen 1994.
Kampen, March 1999 C. Houtman
Volume III1
TR ANSLATO R’S PREFACE
A few words about this translation of the 3 volumes on Exodus and my own
involvement in it are in order. Back in 1991, due to unfortunate personal
circumstances the original translator Mr. Johan Rebel, felt himself unable to
continue. Only the first 170 pages of \folume 1 are from his hand. At that
point the author, Dr. Comelis Houtman, contacted me with a kind of Macedo
nian call to take care of the translation of the remaining 335 pages.
I accepted. That job completed, he nudged me to keep going and do the
translation of 'Volume 2 as well. Well, you can guess the rest of the story.
When in 1996 the hefty W um e 3 - 700plus pages in the Dutch! - came out,
he coaxed me into handling the English of that massive tome as well. Daunting
though the undertaking appeared, looking back I have no regrets. For especially
two reasons.
First of all, I share the conviction of the editors of this commentary series
that for the proper understanding of the Old Testament one should start with
reading it from within its own historical setting. See the Editorial Preface (\bl.
2, pp. ix-xi). As Houtman also notes in the Postscript to \folume 3, where he
talks about the numerous translations into many different languages, including
the Taigums, of the Hebrew text of Exodus, to translate is to interpret. To that
I add, thinking of the English translation of this commentary, to translate is
also a matter of thinking along with the author, trying to see things from his
perspective. Sharing the basic outlook underlying the commentary, I could sort
of place myself in the author’s shoes and let myself be guided by where he
comes from.
Secondly, the study of Holy Scripture is an ongoing concern. The Christian
church lives from and is moved by these sacred Scriptures, which it accepts as
Word of God. That entails that reflection on the biblical text, including
actualizing it for ever new times, is an ongoing task. To me, the work of
translating this commentary into English was an opportunity to be confronted
with the book and message of Exodus as I had never been before. To say the
least, it was a wonderful refresher course in Old Testament exegesis. I make
bold to say, too, that preachers who use this commentary in preparation for a
sermon on a text from Exodus and who are not afraid to study long and hard,
will discover that it will enrich their understanding of Scripture and add fresh
vitality to their sermons. To me, the most fascinating and stimulating parts in
the commentary were Houtman’s discussion of the plagues that struck Egypt,
the promulgation and meaning of the decalogue, and Israel’s idolatry with the
golden calf and God’s gracious renewal of the covenant with his people. I also
became impressed with the author’s respect for the present Hebrew text and his
obvious reluctance to concoct fanciful reconstructions of it where there are
Volume III1
TRANSLATOR’S PREFACE x iii
obvious literary problems with it. Time and again it struck me that, despite an
uncertain literary history of a particular passage, Houtman was able to come up
with a plausible interpretation of the text ‘as it lies in front of us.’
Something about the translation proper. This is a translation from the Dutch.
It is not superfluous to say this. For one thing, Houtman made his own
translation of the Hebrew text of Exodus. I have done my best to stay reason
ably close to his Dutch rendering, even when I felt it was at the cost of a less
than elegant English. Also, the user of this commentary will be struck by the
almost complete absence of some very familiar English terms, notably: tables
of the testimony, tabernacle, and covenant. For all these terms Houtman gave
his own what he calls ‘somewhat unorthodox’ (Dutch ‘eigenzinnig’) transla
tion. Rather than fall back on the well-worn English terms, I have for the most
part stuck with Houtman’s vocabulary and rendered the words with English
equivalents (respectively ‘constitution,’ ‘tent sanctuary,’ ‘bond’). Finally, to
say no more, in some instances where I felt it might be especially helpful to
the user of the commentary I took the freedom to insert references from
English versions of the Bible, including the King James Version (KJV), New
Revised Standard Version (NRSV), Revised English Bible (REB), Today’s
English \fersion (TEV; also known as ‘Good News for Modem Man’), and
New International Version (NIV).
I would like to express my appreciative thanks to some very fine staff in the
Calvin College and Seminary library There were some books which I regularly
consulted for this translation, and they let me keep them far beyond the
library’s due dates.
Finally, last but not least as they say, I wish to thank Professor Houtman for
the fine way we were able to work together in bringing this project to a
successful end. It was also a great pleasure to get to know him and his wife on
a more personal basis.
Grand Rapids, Michigan Sierd Woudstra

January 1999
Volume III1
BIBLIOGRAPHY AND ABBREVITIONS1
ALU O S A nnual o f Leeds University O riental Society

BThZ Berliner Theologische Zeitschrift
CE Codex Eshunna (see 2.2.1)
CH Codex Hammurabi (see 2.2.1)
CU Codex Umammu (see 2.2.1)
D O TT D. Winton Thomas (ed.), Docum ents from O ld Testament Times, Edin-
burgh/London 1958
Doughty, C.M. Travels in Arabia D eserta, I-II, London 1936s
EB Encyclopaedia Biblica
Eupolemos in Eusebius, PE, IX; see Holladay (Vol. II, 10), 93ff.
Frazer, J.G. Folk-Lore in the O ld Testament, I-III, London 1919
HAR Hebrew Annual Review
Hirsch, S.R. D er Pentateuch, II: Exodus, Frankfurt am Main 19206
HL Hittite Laws
Houtman, C. D as Bundesbuch: Ein Kom m entar, Leiden et al. 1997
Jastrow, M. A Dictionary o f the Targumim, The Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, a n d the
M idrashic Literature, I-II, New York 1903
JB T Jahrbuch fu r Biblische Theologie
Korpel, M.C.A. A R ift in the Clouds: Ugaritic and Hebrew D escriptions o f the D ivine,
MUnster 1990
Krauss, S. Talmudische Archaologie, I-III, Leipzig 1910-1912 (reprinted Hildesheim
1966)
LI Codex Lipit-Ishtar
MAL Middle Assyrian Laws
NBL Neo-Babylonian Laws
N T hT Nieuw Theologisch Tijdschrift
Levy, B. Barry Targum Neophyti I: A Textual Study, I, Lanham et al. 1986
Prijs, L. Judische Tradition in der Septuaginta, Leiden 1948
Qm 4QpaleoExodm (see Sanderson, and postscript)
RTL Revue Theologique de Louvain
Sanderson, J.E. A n Exodus Scroll from Qumran: 4Q paleoExod" and the Sam aritan Tradi
tion, Atlanta 1986
Schroer, S. In Israel gab es Bilder, Freiburg/GOttingen 1987
Speyer, H. D ie biblischen Erzahlungen im Qoran, Gr&fenhainichen 1931
ThStKr Theologische Studien und Kritiken
Weippert, H. Palastina in vorhellenistischer Zeit, MUnchen 1988
Waltke, B.K.,
O’Connor, M. A n Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, Winona Lake 1990
ZABR Zeitschrift fu r Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschichte
1 Supplement to \bl. I, x-xix.
Volume III1
EXODUS 20:1-17
GOD’S DIRECT SPEECH
1.1 INTRODUCTION
1.1.1 Bibl. (a selection, mainly of recent date): TRE, VIII, 408ff.; S. Albeck,
“The Ten Commandments and the Essence of Religious Faith,” in Segal (ed.),
261-89; Y Amir, “The Decalogue according to Philo,” in Segal (ed.), 121-60;
A. van den Branden, “Le decalogue,” BeO 32 (1991), 93-124; M. Breuer,
“Dividing the Decalogue into \ferses and Commandments,” in Segal (ed.), 291-
330; C. Carmichael, The Ten Commandments, Oxford 1983; idem, Law and
Narrative in the Bible: The Evidence o f the Deuteronomic Laws and the
Decalogue, Ithaca/London 1985; R.H. Charles, The Decalogue, Edinburgh
19262; D.J.A. Clines, “The Ten Commandments: Reading from Left to Right,”
in J. Davies et al. (eds.), Words Remembered (Fs J.F.A. Sawyer), Sheffield
1995, 97-112; F. Criisemann, Bewahrung der Freiheit: Das Thema des Deka-
logs in sozialgeschichtlicher Perspektive, Miinchen 1983; D. Flusser, “The Ten
Commandments and the New Testament,” in Segal (ed.), 219-46; A. Graupner,
“Zum Verhaitnis der beiden Dekalogfassungen Ex 20 und Dtn 5: Ein GesprSch
mit Frank-Lothar Hossfeld,” ZAW 99 (1987), 308-29; M. Greenbeig, “The
Decalogue Tradition Critically Examined,” in Segal (ed.), 83-119; F.-L.
Hossfeld, Der Dekalog: Seine spaten Fassungen, die originate tComposition
und seine Vorstufen, Freiburg/Gdttingen 1982 (cited as Hossfeld); idem, “Zum
synoptischen \fergleich der Dekalogfassungen: Eine Fortfiihrung des begonne-
nen Gesprachs,” in Vom Sinai zum Horeb (Fs E. Zenger), Wurzbuig 1989, 73-
117; A. Jepsen, “Beitrage zur Auslegung und Geschichte des Dekalogs,” ZAW
79 (1967), 277-304; W. Johnstone, “The Decalogue and the Redaction of the
Sinai Pericope in Exodus,” ZAW 100 (1988), 361-85; S.A. Kaufman, “The
Second Table of the Decalogue and the Implicit Categories of Ancient Near
Eastern Law,” in J.H. Marks, R.M. Good (eds.), Love and Death in the Ancient
Near East (Fs M.H. Pope), Guildford 1987, 111-6; J.L. Koole, De tien gebo-
den, Baam 1964; R.G. Kratz, “Der Dekalog im Exodusbuch,” VT 44 (1994),
205-38; J.P. Lettinga, “Sprachliche Erwagungen zum Text der Zehn Gebote,”
Fundamentum 1 (1990), 37-53; C. Levin, “Der Dekalog am Sinai,” VT 35
(1985), 165-91; N. Lohfink, “Kennt das Alte Testament einen Unterschied von
‘Gebot’ und ‘Gesetz’?,” JBT 4 (1989), 63-89; E.Z. Melamed, “‘Observe’ and
‘Remember’ Spoken in One Utterance,” in Segal (ed.), 191-217; G. MOller,
“Der Dekalog im Neuen Testament: \brerwSgungen zu einer erledigten Auf-
gabe,” ThZ 38 (1982), 79-97; B. Narkiss, “Illustrations of the Ten Command
Volume III1
2 DECALOGUE
ments in a Thirteenth Century Minute Mahzor,” in Segal (ed.), 419-40; E.

Nielsen, Die Zehn Gebote: Eine traditionsgeschichtliche Skizze, Kopenhagen
1965; E. Otto, “Der Dekalog als Brennspiegel israelitischer Rechtsgeschichte,”
in Alttestamentliche Glaube und Biblische Theologie (Fs H.D. PreuB), Stuttgart
et al. 1992, 59-68; A. Phillips, Ancient Israel’s Criminal Law: A New Ap
proach to the Decalogue, Oxford 1970; B. Reicke, Die Zehn Worte in Ge-
schichte und Gegenwart, Tiibingen 1973; G.B. Sarfatti, “The Tablets of the
Law as a Symbol of Judaism,” in Segal (ed.), 383-418; W.H. Schmidt et al.,
Die zehn Gebote im Rahmen alttestamentlicher Ethik, Darmstadt 1993;
H.Schiingel-Straumann, Der Dekalog - Gottes Gebote?, Stuttgart 1973 (cited as
Schtingel-Straumann); idem, “Uberlegungen zum Jahwe-Namen in den Gottes-
geboten des Dekalogs,” ThZ 38 (1982), 65-78; S. Schreiner, “Der Dekalog in
der jiidischen Tradition und im Koran,” Kairos 23 (1981), 17-30; idem, “Der
Dekalog der Bibel und die Pflichtenkodex filr den Muslim,” Jud 43 (1987),
171-84; K.-D. Schunck, “Luther und der Dekalog,” KuD 32 (1986), 52-68;
B.Z. Segal (ed.), The Ten Commandments in History and Tradition, Jerusalem
1990; A. Shiloah, “Some Comments on the Cantillation of the Ten Command
ments,” in Segal (ed.), 331-42; J.J. Stamm, “Dreifiig Jahre Dekalogforschung,”
ThR 27 (1961), 189-239, 281-305; idem, Der Dekalog im Lichte der neueren
Forschtmg, Bem/Stuttgart 19622; G. Stembeiger, “Der Dekalog im friihen
Judentum,” JBT 4 (1989), 91-203; E.E. Urbach, “The Role of the Ten Com
mandments in Jewish Worship,” in Segal (ed.), 161-89; T. \feijola, “Der
Dekalog bei Luther und in der heutigen Wissenschaft,” in idem (ed.), The Law
in the Bible and in its Environment, Helsinki/Gottingen 1990, 63-90; J.
Vincent, “Neuere Aspekte der Dekalogforschung,” BN 32 (1986), 83-104; M.
Weinfeld, “The Uniqueness of the Decalogue and Its Place in Jewish Tradi
tion,” in Segal (ed.), 1-44 (cf. idem, “The Decalogue: Its Significance, Unique
ness, and Place in Israel’s Tradition,” in E.B. Firmage et al. [eds.], Religion
and Law, Winona Lake 1990, 3-47); M. Weiss, “The Decalogue in Prophetic
Literature,” in Segal (ed.), 67-81.
1.1.2 20:1-17 does not stand by itself but should be read in immediate con
junction with 19:1-25. There the place and time of the action are stated and the
actors mentioned (\bl. II, 436ff.). That passage makes it clear that the speak
ing of God, put in writing in 20:1-17, is to be regarded as the climax of the
encounter between YHWH and Israel at the Sinai.1
20:1-17 is embedded in the literarily highly complex section Exod. 19-40.
The nature of this section was already dealt with in \bl. II, pp. 425ff. Its
1 Cf. also E.W. Nicholson, “The Decalogue and the Direct Address o f God,” VT 27 (1977),
422-33.
Volume III1
INTRODUCTION 3
origin and composition remain items of discussion.2 As will also become

apparent in the discussion of the sub-sections of Exod. 19-40, this part of the
text, however heterogeneous in character is a carefully crafted composition, a
sub-section of a comprehensive treatment of Israels redemptive history.3
1.1.3 yhwh’s direct speech is known as the decalogue, the ten command
ments or words. The term, first used by Clement of Alexandria (2nd century), is
from the OT itself: O'-gTH rrg jr (34:28; Deut. 4:13; 10:4); ni-gTD rntylj in
rabbinic parlance (cf. M. Gruber, BetM 27 [1981], 16-21; Segal [ed.], 9, 191,
301). The decalogue is termed ‘constitution’ (31:18; 32:15; 34:29) and ‘cove
nant’ (Deut. 4:13; 9:9; see 2:24) and further described as ‘the binding rules’
(24:12). It is said to have been inscribed by YHWH himself on both sides
(32:15) of two tablets of stone (24:12; 31:18; 32:15, 16; 34:1, 28; Deut. 4:13;
5:22; 9:9; 10:4). According to biblical tradition, they were deposited in the
shrine (ark) (25:16, 21; 40:20; see 4.5.1.2, 8).
1.1.4 The OT contains the designation ‘ten words,’ but no specifics are given
about the numbering, \brious numbering systems are is use.4 In the commonly
used numerations, 20:7-16 consists of seven commandments. There is no
Unanimity about the division of the other three commandments.
■' The common Jewish view is that the prologue (20:2) is the first command-
Inent. 20:3-6 is regarded as the second commandment. This unusual interpreta
tion of 20:2 has not gone without discussion in Jewish circles.5 Moreover; the
&
See e.g. T.D. Alexander, “The Composition of the Sinai Narrative in Exodus XIX 1-
11,” VT 49 (1999), 1-20; J. Blenkinsopp, “Structure and Meaning in the Sinai-Horeb
*ve (Exodus 19-34),” in E.E. Carpenter (ed.), A Biblical Itinerary (Fs G.W. Coats),
eld 1997, 109-25; G.C. Chirichigno, “The Narrative Structure of Exodus 19-24,” Bib 68
>457-79; C. Dohmen, “Der Sinaibund als neuer Bund nach Ex 19-34,” in E. Zenger (ed.),
%neve Bund im Alten, Freiburg et al. 1993, 51-83; T. Dozeman, God on the Mountain: A Study
^Redaction, Theology and Canon in Exodus 19-24, Atlanta 1989; idem, “Spatial Form in Exod
p -8 a and in the laiger Sinai Narrative,” Semeia 46 (1989), 87-101; W. Johnstone, “Reactivating
1Chronicles Analogy in Pentateuchal Studies, with Special Reference to the Sinai Pericope in
TAW 99 (1987), 16-37; W. Oswald, Israel am Gottesberg: Eine Untersuchung zur
schichte der vorderen Sinaiperikope Ex 19-24 und ihrem historischen Hintergrund,
/Gottingen 1998; B. Renaud, La theophanie du Sinai Ex 19-24: Exegese et theologie,
1^91; J. Van Seters, The Life o f Moses: The Yahwistas Historian in Exodus - Numbers,
1994, 247-89; J.P. Sonnet, “Le Sinai' dans P6v6nement de sa lecture: La dimension
(ique d’Exode 19-24,” NRTh 111 (1989), 321-44.
C. Houtman, “Verkiezing en verbintenis: Eenheid en samenhang in Exodus 19-40,” in
sche perspectieven (Fs H. Baarlink), Kampen 1992, 221-40.
^See Charles, 16ff.; Reicke, 3ff., and also A. MikolaSek, “La numerotation du decalogue & la
de la tradition de 1’Israel de la loi,” in J.-P. Rothschild, G.D. Sixdenier (eds.), Etudes
aines pentateuque et targum, exegese et philologie, chroniques, Louvain/Paris 1988, 85-93.
^C£ M.M. Kellner, “Maimonides, Crescas, and Abravanel on Exod. 20:2: A Medieval Jewish
1 Dispute,” JQR 69 (1978-79), 129-57; Goldman*, 625f.; Leibowitz*, 303ff.
Volume III1
4 DECALOGUE
problem, in particular as concerns the division of 20:2-6 and how, historically

speaking, the statements in 20:2-6 are related, is far more complicated than is
often presumed. Originally there were two different systems of recitation and
punctuation. One system offers a division of the decalogue in verses, the other
a division in commandments (each commandment being regarded as a unity).
Ashkenazic Jews use the latter system in the reading of the decalogue at the
Feast of Weeks and the other at its reading on other occasions. Sephardic Jews
use the second system for every public reading and the first for personal
reading. The interpretation of 20:2-6 is different in both systems. In both, 20:2
is regarded as part of the decalogue. In the second system, 20:2 is the first
commandment - dealing with faith in God (cf. Lev. 19:36) and the foundation
of 20:3-6 or of the entire decalogue (torah) - and 20:3-6 the second command
ment; in the first system, 20:3 goes with 20:2 and conveys the notion that
YHWH is Israel’s God; therefore Israel may have no other gods (cf. Lev. 19:4;
Judg. 6:8-10; Hos. 13:4; Ps. 81:10f.; cf. Greenbeig, 99, and also Jepsen, 286;
Lettinga, 1/1990, 42f.). Additionally there is the Masoretic division (for details
see Breuer, 29Iff.; cf. Greenbeig, 96ff.; Melamed, 214ff.; Shiloah, 330ff.). It
too differs from the ‘traditional’ Jewish one. 20:2-17 and Deut. 5:6-21 consist
in the MT of ten specific units (nine setumot and one petuha [20:8-11] in
Exod. 20 and ten setumot in Deut. 5). 20:2-6/Deut. 5:6-10 form a unity, while
20:17 (not in e.g. the Bombergiana and BHS, see, however, Perrot*, 58;
Reicke, 7, 44f.) and Deut. 5:21 consist of two setumot. Deviating divisions are
found as well in Jewish iconographicy inscriptions. For example, from the Italy
of the first half of the 18th century there are several examples of pictures of the
decalogue in which 20:4-6 is the second commandment (see Sarfatti, 414ff.).
The division found in the Samaritan tradition agrees with the Talmudic
enumeration of the commandments; however, 20:2 is not regarded as precept
but as preamble; the addition, after 20:17, of a commandment concerning the
written fixation of the law and the construction of an altar on Gerizim brings
the number to ten.6
The Roman Catholic Church employs a division that harks back to Clement
of Alexandria and Augustine, in which 20:3-6 is regarded as the first com
mandment and 20:17 is split into two commandments. The Latin numbering
finds support in the Syrian tradition. It does not, however, have a uniform
numbering.7 In Luther’s footsteps, the Lutheran churches stayed with the
6 Cf. Greenberg, 91, 94, 98, and see in particular E Dexinger, “Das Garizimgebot im Dekalog
der Samaritaner,” in Studien zum Pentateuch (Fs W. Komfeld), Wien et al. 1977, 111-33; J.
Margain, “L’AramSen du Targum Samaritain et Exode 20 (Triglotte Barberini),” Semitica 35
(1985), 67-88.
7 See M.D. Koster, “The Numbering of the Ten Commandments in Some Peshitta Manu
scripts,” VT 30 (1980), 468-73.
Volume III1
INTRODUCTION 5
Roman enumeration. Zwingli and Calvin broke with it. They viewed 20:3 and
20:4-6 as two separate prohibitions and 20:17 as one commandment. Their
numbering, which was adopted by Reformed Protestantism and the Anglican
Church, was already defended by Philo of Alexandria and Josephus and is the
customary numbering in the Eastern church. The different traditions about the
division have left their mark on illustrations of the decalogue (cf. Sarfatti,
407ff.). It is even a visible demonstration of the break with the Roman Catho
lic tradition in the time of the Reformation (cf. M. Aston, England’s Icono
clasts, Oxford 1988, 374).
The division one uses can affect the interpretation. Luther in his Large and
Small Catechism followed the mediaeval practice (cf. Charles, 68ff.) when he
left out the part of the first commandment that prohibits images (Reicke, 12ff.).
In Philo and Josephus and in Reformed Protestantism, 20:4-6, regarded as a
separate commandment, strengthened the aversion and opposition to images (cf.
Reicke, 27ff.; Aston, 371ff., 408ff., and see 1.3.10).
Also about the sequence of the commandments there is disagreement in the
tradition. In Philo of Alexandria the commandment of 20:14 comes before that
of 20:13. That same sequence is also found in Deut. 5 LXX (in Exod. 20 LXX
the order is: 20:14,15,13) and in, e.g., the Nash papyrus from the Egypt of the
2nd century B.C. to the first century after Christ (for text and translation see
Charles, xiiiff.; cf. also Jepsen, 277ff.), in Pseudo-Philo, XI, 10f., and in Luke
18:20 (see beside it Matt. 19:18; Mark 10:19); Rom. 13:19.* Evidently Philo
represents a Hellenistic-Jewish tradition (cf. Charles, 15f.; Reicke, 22f.). In
Mark 10:20 and Luke 18:20, 20:12 is mentioned as the last commandment (cf.
also Matt. 19:20). Also in the OT the laws milking up the decalogue, when
they are cited together, are not listed in the sequence of the decalogue (Jer. 7:9,
cf. Exod. 20:15, 13, 14; Hos. 4:2, cf. Exod. 20:13, 15, 14; see Weiss, 69ff.).
In my view, there is no convincing argument to divide 20:3-6 into two com
mandments (see exegesis). The same is true of 20:17. Does this mean that the
decalogue actually consists of nine commandments? (cf. Ehrlich, 340). Or are
the problems encountered with the division due to the transmission o f the
decalogue, so that in its original form it was clearly a deca-logue, ten laws
(e-g. Nielsen, 32, 68)? It may be assumed that the authors of the Pentateuch,
who emphatically present this part of the text as a decalogue (see 1.1.3), had
their own view on how the commandments should be divided. Probably they
included the prologue in the counting or took 20:17 as two stipulations.
According to the biblical tradition, the decalogue was inscribed on two
ets (see 1.1.3). No information is given about the distribution o f the text on
Cf. D. Flusser, Textus 4 (1964), 220-4, and see also Wfeiss, 70f. On the problem o f the
quence see in particular R.A. Freund, “Murder, Adultery and Theft?” SJOT 2 (1989), 72-80.
Volume III1
6 DECALOGUE
the tablets. On the assumption that symmetry and balance are characteristics of
holy objects (cf. Introd. §4.3.1) one might think of five commandments per
tablet. However, in the extant text the first five and the last five of the com
mandments are quantitatively so disproportionate that splitting the decalogue
into two fives results in disharmony. Unsure is what picture the authors of the
Pentateuch had in mind (see on the question 24:12; Greenbeig, 112ff.; Reicke,
passim). According to Roman Catholic tradition, the first tablet contained three
commandments (20:3-11), the second seven (20:12-17). According to other
traditions, the Jewish, the Calvinistic and others, both tablets had each five
commandments (20:2/3-12 and 20:13-17). The quantitative disparity between
the laws attributed to each of the two tablets has taxed the creativity of painters
and other artists as they attempted to give a faithful portrayal of the decalogue
(cf. Sarfatti, 41 Iff.).
The number of laws is ten (Introd. §4.11.1; cf. Nielsen, 13ff., 32). It makes
it possible to use the fingers as a mnemonic aid. Thus there is reason to believe
that the number ten was deliberate, to make memorization easier This dispro
portion prompts the question about the origin of the ten.
1.1.6 The decalogue is not marked by a balanced structure and consistency.
Some commandments are broad in their formulation (e.g. 20:3-6 and 20:8-11).
Others are very brief (e.g. 20:13, 14, 15). In the formulation of the com
mandments, in 20:4-17 regular use is made of N1?, followed by the 2nd person
sing, imperf. (cf. Ges-K §107o). 20:3 starts, however, with N1?, and 20:8
and 20:12 begin with an imperative and are formulated as commands and not
as prohibitions. In 20:2 YHWH is presented in a speaking role, but in 20:7, 10,
11, 12 YHWH is spoken of in the 3rd person, so that, if 20:1-6 were omitted,
Moses could be viewed as the lawgiver (cf. 19:25). Rabbinic exegesis has
deduced from the alternation in the person that at the Sinai only 20:3-6 was
directly uttered by YHWH in words Israel could hear (see e.g. Mek., II, 228;
bMak 24a; cf. Goldman*, 586ff.; Melamed, 191ff.). Perhaps also the notion
that angels played a role in the proclamation of the decalogue (Acts 7:53; Gal.
3:19; Heb. 2:2) can be explained as due to the use of the 3rd person in 20:7ff.
To be sure, ‘YHWH’ is used more often in words spoken directly by YHWH (see
at 19:11 and e.g. 23:18f.; 34:19, 23; Lev. 19:5, 8,1 2, 19), but that kind of use
can hardly be considered ‘normal.’
What conclusions should be drawn from the peculiarities just mentioned? It
is usually assumed that the decalogue in its current form is the product of a
process of transmission and that way back there was an ur-decalogue consisting
of uniformly formulated commandments of approximately equal length.
Presumably this ur-decalogue was drastically altered in the transmisssion. In
some places the text was greatly expanded and in other places abbreviated and
altered. New commandments were inserted as well. Because the number ten
had to be maintained and no commandments were to be dropped, a new
Volume III1
INTRODUCTION 7
division of the commandments was required. On the form, content and history
of transmission, various hypotheses have been put forward. An outline of these
conjectures must suffice here.9
1.1.7 It seems a sure thing that about all one can do is speculate. There is no
question that the decalogue has been transmitted in two versions, one in Exod.
20 and one in Deut. 5 (see 1.1.10). But that is no reason to postulate a long
and complex process of transmission. In my view, one should seriously
consider the possibility that the decalogue is a compilation which was put
together for the purpose of stating succinctly, in a few clear and essential
precepts, the basic rules on which the pact between YHWH and Israel rested.
Israel’s identity as YHWH’s people rested on the observance of the precepts.
To some extent the decalogue is comparable to the two-fold commandment
in the NT (Matt. 22:36-40). From the many laws of the OT Jesus selected and
combined two texts (Deut. 6:5; Lev. 19:18). So Jesus created a succinct
summary of the entire law. Both rules suffuse each other and in combination
become a central and absolute command. As such they constitute the founda
tion of the relationship between God and his human partners. The rules of the
decalogue do not stand by themselves in the OT. Scattered in the laws and
elsewhere in the OT, they are variously worded (see at the exegesis of the
individuals commandments and cf. Weinfeld, Iff.). In the decalogue ten
precepts are put together, creating something new, a kind of constitution fo r
yhwh ’s pact with Israel. The number of cultic and moral rules in the Penta
teuch is large. All express the will of God, but their multiplicity and diversity
obscures the foundations of the relationship between YHWH and Israel, the
essentials of how the relationship is to be sustained. The decalogue provides
the needed clarity. With a variant on Matt. 22:40 one could say: on these ten
commandments hang all the law and the prophets. All in all, anyone who
acknowledges YHWH as his Lord finds in the decalogue a number of clear rules
which are not to be transgressed under any circumstance. They derive their
force not only from being an integral whole, but especially from their being
presented as words directly from YHWH’s mouth.
The view that the decalogue contains in essence all the laws is already found
in Philo of Alexandria (see Amir, 126ff.; cf. also Albeck, 262f.; Greenbeig, 94,
17fF.; Urbach, 173; Sarfatti, 389f.). Matt. 22:36-40 is an example of the
penchant to articulate the essence of the Torah, the will of God, even more
forcefully than is done in the decalogue (cf. also Matt. 7:12; Rom. 13:9f.; Gal.
> Jas. 2:8-11). Examples of the desire for such brief summaries are not
1962S n f“rther. Grecnbei®. Jepsen, 281ff.; Nielsen, 64ff., 75ff.; Stamm 1961, 200ff.; idem
^feinfeld, 6f.; for newer views see Johnstone 1988; Hossfeld 1982 and 1989; Levin,
Volume III1
8 DECALOGUE
only found in the NT but also in early Judaism (see Flusser, 227ff.; cf. Urbach,
174f.). In the OT one can also point to examples outside the Pentateuch (cf.
Ezek. 18:5-9; Mic. 6:8; Pss. 15; 24:3-5). Evidently also Mohammed understood
the decalogue as a summary of the Torah and intended his moral instructions
(Sura 17, 22-39) as a summary of his teaching (see Schreiner 1987).
As was noted, as to form only 20:3-6 is direct speech. However in the extant
text all of 20:3-17 is meant as YHWH’s very own words (cf. Deut. 4:10-13;
5:22 and see exegesis of 20:18-21). It is YHWH himself who, in the basic law
of his pact with Israel, has succinctly and clearly summed up the essence of all
his precepts. There can be no misunderstanding about what YHWH expects of
Israel.
1.1.8 Rather than attribute the noted disproportion and discrepancies in the
decalogue to a presumed history of transmission, I am inclined to think that
they are due to the fact that the decalogue is constructed from various building
blocks.101It would seem that the compilation was not just a mechanical exer
cise. At certain points one can detect the hand of the compilers). Recall in this
connection that according to the proponents of the classical documentary
hypothesis the decalogue is the work of E. Also, it is pointed out that there are
P elements (in 20:11) and especially Deuteronom(ist)ic elements as well."
When was the decalogue put together? The need to formulate the core, the
essence of the will of God, presupposes the existence of collections of laws of
various kinds. That makes it plausible that the decalogue did not originate at
the beginning of Israel’s history, but came into being in the course of that
history and grew out of the need to put into words the ‘credo’ of the YHWH
religion by means of a number of commands and prohibitions.
The OT situates the promulgation of the decalogue at the beginning of
Israel’s history at the Sinai and portrays Moses as the one who gave it to Israel
in the form of inscriptions on tablets (32:15, 16; 34:29). In the 19th century,
historical-critical OT scholars severed all connections between the decalogue
and Moses. In their judgement, the preaching of the great prophets preceded
the origin of the decalogue. The opening up of the world of the Ancient Near
East through excavations and the resulting knowledge of ancient eastern laws
prompted some (admittedly critical) scholars at the beginning of the 20th
century to trace the ur-decalogue to Moses himself (e.g. Charles, xlviii). Since
then the number of scholars who defend the Mosaic authorship of the ur-
10 Cf. G. Fohrer, “Das sogenannte apodiktisch formulierte Recht und der Dekalog,” in Studien
zur alttestamentlichen Theologie und Geschichte (1949-1966), Berlin 1969, 120-48, and see e.g.
CrOsemann, 16ff; Schiingel-Straumann, 29ff., 38; K.-D. Schunck, ZAW 96 (1984), 104-9.
11 Cf. Stamm 1961, 200, 218ff, and see e.g. N. Lohfink, “Die These vom ‘deuteronomischen’
Dekaloganfang - ein fragwilrdiges Ergebnis atomistischer Sprachstatistik,” in Studien zum
Pentateuch (Fs W. Komfeld), Wien et al. 1977, 99-109.
Volume III1
INTRODUCTION 9
decalogue or a substantial part of it (e.g. Nielsen, 107), or who at least ac

knowledge the antiquity of the decalogue, has greatly increased (see Stamm
1961, 226ff.; idem 1962, 14ff.). This trend was only short-lived, however. For
instance, Hossfeld 1982 views the decalogue as a purely literary creation from
the exilic/post-exilic era, while its beginnings go back to an early Deuterono-
m(ist)ic author (pp. 281 f.). Levin, 170, finds the roots of it in prophetic
literature and postulates an exilic ur-decalogue (pp. 181f.). Also Johnstone
1988, 383ff., assigns a late date to the origin of the decalogue.
The truth element in the conception that the decalogue was proclaimed by
Moses is that it contains regulations that certainly date far back. In its present
form, however, the decalogue is from the last period of the existence of ancient
Israel as a nation and reflects the theology of the Deuteronom(ist)ic authors of
Genesis up to and including Kings (see \bl. I, If.). The decalogue originated
after the preaching of the great prophets, but the laws it contains are more than
a distillation of the preaching of the great prophets, but are older (for the
connection see e.g. Greenbeig, 111; Weiss, 67ff.). What is true is that the
selection of the stipulations of the decalogue happened under the influence of
the prophetic preaching and that the decalogue can be called ‘prophetic’ (see
1.1.9).
1.1.9 The decalogue is not the only catalogue of stipulations in the OT.
\ferious passages (e.g. 34:14-26; Lev. 18:6-17; 19:2-18; 20:2-21; Deut. 27:15-
26; Ezek. 18:5-9; Ps. 15:2-5) are thought to contain decalogues.12 In their
present form these passages do not deserve that name, however. Moreover, in
the biblical text only the decalogue of Exod. 20 and Deut. 5 is explicitly called
decalogue (see 1.1.3). That, plus the fact that the decalogue is not embedded in
a larger complex of stipulations but is placed at the beginning of the account of
YHWH’s revelation at the Sinai and occupies a clearly marked off position
relative to the context, makes for the fact that the decalogue has its own unique
place.
The presentation of the decalogue as having come straight from YHWH
himself, along with its salient position in the text, highlights its extraordinary
character relative to the other stipulations in the Pentateuch and enhances its
importance. Standing at the beginning of extensive collections of a great
variety of laws, the decalogue has a ‘governing’ affect. It provides the frame
work for reading and understanding the great variety of laws. In this respect it
is worthy of note that the decalogue contains religious stipulations concerning
the relationship between God and man, but does not, for example, make cultic-*
See in particular E. Auerbach, “Das Zehngebot - allgemeine Gesetz-Form in der Bibel,” VT

*6 (1966), 255-76; cf. Nielsen, 18ff.; SchQngel-Straumann, 14ff.; Stamm 1961, 220ff.; idem 1962,
24ff.; Wsinfeld, 14ff.
Volume III1
10 DECALOGUE
ritual demands. In that respect the decalogue can be called 1prophetic.' It

breathes the spirit of the great prophets (cf. 1 Sam. 15:22; Isa. 1:10-17; Jer.
6:20; 7:2-7; Amos 5:21-25; Mic. 6:6-8; Pss. 40:7-9; 50:13-15; 51:16-19; Prov.
21:3) and reflects the picture of God and the ethos of Deuteronomy. So,
standing prominently at the beginning, the decalogue exerts a relativizing affect
on the many cultic and ritual requirements in the Pentateuch, which is rein
forced in the book of Deuteronomy as the concluding book of the Pentateuch.
1.1.10 The decalogue is transmitted in the OT in two versions, one in Exod.
20 and one in Deut. 5. The differences beween the versions will be pointed out
in the treatment of the separate laws by placing them in parallel columns in the
translation when there is a difference between Exod. 20 and Deut. 5. The
rendering of Exod. 20 and Deut. 5 in the LXX and Sam.Pent. exhibits traces of
harmonization. These are also present in the text of the decalogue of 4Q
Deut".13 Extra-biblical versions of the decalogue in the Nash papyrus (see
1.1.4), in the teflllin and mezuzahs of Qumran14 and in Samaritan inscriptions
contain uniformed versions of the decalogue that are based both on Exod. 20
and Deut. 5 (cf. Greenbeig, 9 Iff.). Here by way of introduction I make a few
general observations about the differences between both versions.
Traditional Jewish exegesis has pointed to the miraculous nature of God’s
speaking to explain the differences: all ten commandments were given by him
at once and in one statement; *1131 at the beginning of 20:8 and at the
beginning of Deut. 5:12 are two announcements heard as one, etc.15 Conserva
tive exegetes suggest the possibility that an originally shorter Mosaic decalogue
was expanded by inspired writers (e.g. Koole, 15). The differences between
both versions are commonly attributed to the transmission process of the
decalogue (see 1.1.6). Defensible is the view that both versions are from the
same author(s) or at least from the same school. Both versions bear a Deutero-
nomic stamp (see 1.1.8), though Deut. 5 more so than Exod. 20. Likely, two
different but complementary versions were deliberately included in the text (cf.
Cassuto, 246). The version of Deut. 5 is often regarded as the latest. This is,
e.g., the standpoint of Stamm (1961, 200; idem 1962, 9f.; cf. also e.g. Green
berg, 94f.). He continues to maintain, however, that P is to be taken as the
youngest layer of the Pentateuch. I do not share his view. As I see it, Deuter
13 Cf. S.A. White, “4QDt": Biblical Manuscript or Excerpted Text?,” in H.W. Attridge et al.
(eds.), O f Scribes and Scrolls (Fs J. Strugnell), Lanham et al. 1990, 13-20; idem, “The All Souls
Deuteronomy and the Decalogue,” JBL 109 (1990), 193-206.
14 See DJD, I, 72ff; VI, 48ff, 58ff., 70ff„ 74f.; cf. \bl. II, 147, 175f. (Bibl.); Stemberger,
95ff.
15 See Melamed, 191ff, and B.J. Schwartz, “‘I Am the Lord’ and ‘You Shall Have No Other
Gods’ Wfere Heard From the Mouth of the Almighty: On the Evolution o f an Interpretation,” in S.
Japhet (ed.), The Bible in the Light o f Its Interpreters, Jerusalem 1994, 170-97 (Hebrew).
Volume III1
INTRODUCTION 11
onomy aims to give a canonical interpretation of the preceding books (see

Houtman [see 1.1.2], 129f.) and Deut. 5 offers in any case the most authorita
tive version. The method followed by the redactors) of the Pentateuch in the
treatment of the Pentateuch is comparable to that used with the book of the
covenant and Deut. 12-26. In Exodus, the redaction contains a Deuterono-
m(ist)ic editing of the book of the covenant. In Deuteronomy, the redaction
offers the novelistic, the authoritative version (see 2.2.8, 13, 16).
An altogether different view on the relationship between the two versions of
the decalogue is espoused by Hossfeld 1982. In his view, Exod. 20 contains the
latest version, one which at a number of points is brought in line with Deut. 5,
coming from the redactor of the Pentateuch (pp. 212f.). Hossfeld’s view, at
least in the matter of the order of the versions, has gained the approval of
Johnstone 1988, 365ff, but has been criticized as well.16 Hossfeld 1989 replies
to the criticism, but sees no need to reconsider his position.
1.1.11 As noted above, in my view the decalogue was put together to
introduce the laige collections of laws in the Pentateuch and, as the basic law,
the constitution, to govern the interpretation of these laws. It came into being
a s a literary creation. For that reason, it seems to me there is no point in asking
the question about the ‘Sitz im Leben’ of the decalogue.17 This matter has
received considerable attention in the 20th century. The promulgation of the
decalogue is situated in the liturgy of a presumed covenant renewal festival
(s e e \bl. II, 430f., 432, 433f.; Greenbeig, 114f.; Stamm 1961, 20ff.; idem
1962, 20ff.; Weinfeld, 2Iff.). As such it is imaginable that worship included
d ie reading of stipulations of YHWH for admonition and instruction, (cf. Deut.
31:10ff.; Pss. 50:16ff.; 81:9f.; Neh. 8). That the decalogue occupied a special
place in the worship of ancient Israel has not been demonstrated, however
1.1.12 The decalogue contains laws that pertain to YHWH’s relationship with
the Israelite (20:3-11) and laws of a social character affecting the behaviour
“ See Graupner, 326ff., and Levin, 165ff., rebutted by C. Dohmen, VT 37 (1987), 81-85; cf.
also idem, “Der Dekaloganfang und sein Ursprung,” Bib 74 (1993), 175-95, and see further
Vincent, 88f.
17 It is proper to inquire about the ‘Sitz im Leben’ of the elements used in the composition of
the decalogue. Laws such as those in 20:12-17, which articulate general rules o f behaviour, may
veiy well have had a different ‘Sitz im Leben’ than the cult (wisdom teachers). Cf. e.g. Schttngel-
Streumann, 18ff. A far-fetched notion of the ‘Sitz im Leben’ and the character o f the decalogue is
espoused by Carmichael: the ‘Sitz im Leben’ is that of the teacher and his pupils who use their
reflection on their notes on the stories they heard to formulate laws (1983, 27); ‘The laws in both
Deuteronomy and the Decalogue arise not as a direct, practical response to the conditions of life
®ttd worship in Israel’s p a s t..., but from a scrutiny of historical records about these conditions.
The link is between law and literary account, not between law and actual life’ (1985, 17). So e.g.,
20:4-6 arose from Exod. 32 and 20:12-17 rests on reflection on the first chapters o f Genesis
(1983, 3ff.; 1985, 316ff.). The stories about Cain led to 20:12, 13 (1983, 4f.; 1985, 329f.) etc.
Volume III1
12 DECALOGUE
toward parents and the treatment of the neighbour (20:12-17). The treatment of
the neighbour is also implied in 20:7, and the focus of the sabbath command
ment in the version of Deut. 5 (see w . 14, 15) specifically includes fellow
human beings. As a consequence of the introduction and preamble, also the
social requirements of 20:13-17, though YHWH’s name is not mentioned there,
are rules invested with YHWH’s authority and hence are religious requirements.
The decalogue - the same holds for all other laws in the following chapters
and the following books of the Pentateuch - wants to be read in the light of
the preamble. The knowledge of having been freed by YHWH from the house of
bondage must determine the Israelite’s relationship to YHWH and the neighbour.
Quantitatively the laws about the Israelite’s direct relationship to YHWH take
up a lot of space in the Pentateuch. That is entirely in agreement with YHWH’s
status as the Lord and it brings out the qualitative difference between God and
man (cf. 20:18, 19). By standing at the head and due to its length, the first
commandment (20:3-6) receives special emphasis; also the sabbath command
ment is conspicuous because of its length.
The stipulations are for the most part cast in the form of prohibitions (on the
form [apodeictic law] see 2.2.5, 6). In the nature of the case, prohibitions,
more so than commandments - though also these imply that certain things are
not to be done (compare 20:10 with 20:8) - are suitable to mark the parame
ters to be observed, so that the relationship of YHWH with Israel will not be
disturbed (cf. von Rad, ThAT, I, 208). Of course, prohibitions as such also
prompt the question about the substance of what is correct behaviour. As
outlining the parameters, the requirements mean to avert chaos and preserve
harmony and order in society. Not only are harmony and order to be preserved,
they need to be established again and again. Besides negatives, positives are
indispensable (cf. 20:8 [infinitive absolute used as imperative];18 20:12). The
decalogue does not mention sanctions to be used against transgressors of the
laws. It is meant as an appeal.19 The underlying assumption seems to be that
YHWH himself will deal with violators. After all, the decalogue contains the
norms for YHWH’s bond with Israel. YHWH offered Israel the covenant with
him, and he is also the One who will call the people to account should they
become unfaithful (cf. 20:5 and see also 20:7b), but who will bless them if
“ Cf. Ges-K §113bb; Jouon §123v; but see J.D.W. Watts, TAW 74 (1962), 141-5, and in
particular J.H. Hospers, in K. Jongeling et al. (eds.), Studies in Hebrew and Aramaic Syntax (Fs J.
Hoftijzer), Leiden et al. 1991, 97-102.
19 See on the problem 2.2.4-8, 16. Cf. e.g. Schiingel-Straumann, 23: ‘Der Dekalog ... geht auf
eine Gesamthaltung aus, er will Ethos, nicht Recht.’ Unfounded and unbelievable is Phillips’
calling the decalogue Israel’s 'criminal law,* the stipulations of the covenant coummunity
established at Sinai, transgression of which is punishable by death, (pp. If., 153f.); cf. idem, JSS
34 (1983), 1-20.
Volume III1
INTRODUCTION 13
they live according to his precepts (cf. 20:6, 12). If Israel refuses to obey the
laws, it denies its identity as YHWH’s people and jeopardizes its own existence
(cf. e.g. Hos. 4:1-3; Lev. 26; Deut. 28).
1.1.13 For whom was the decalogue first o f all meant? (cf. Criisemann,
28ff.). Israel is the addressee, more specifically - the form of address is the
second person sing. - the individual adult Israelite. Narrowing it down even
more, in light of the content of the decalogue, the Israelite male (cf. 20:5, 14,
17), evidently the head of the family (20:10), who puts his stamp on the
household under his authority (see comments on 20:5) and who is entitled to
take part in the cult (20:3-5); he is a full citizen (20:16) and a hereditary land
owner (cf. 20:10, 12, 17). In short, the content of the decalogue makes it clear
that it is not the wife, child, slave or hired hand who is addressed. Though, as
will still be shown, the decalogue itself, because of some additions to 20:5,6
(see exegesis), gives hints that it addresses a broader audience. Thus it is not
impossible that in the judgment of the Deuteronom(ist)ic redaction of the
Pentateuch the decalogue was meant for every adult Israelite (regardless of
gender? cf. Deut. 15:12-18; see exegesis 21:2-11).
The instructions are addressed to the Israelite, but are only in part typically
Israelite. In 20:12-17, general moral precepts are presented as requirements of
y h w h and thereby are marked as ‘special revelation’ (see on the question
2.2.16).
1.1.14 In Judaism the reading of the decalogue constitutes part of the liturgy
of the Feast of Weeks (see \bl. II, 434, 436; Greenbeig, 114; Potin, 282ff.;
Weinfeld, 34ff.). In certain circles the audience was standing during the
reading. In early Judaism the decalogue had a prominent place in worship. In
the liturgy of the second temple the decalogue was recited daily prior to the
Shema (Deut. 6:4-9). At least in certain groups, such as the Qumram commu
nity (see 1.1.10), the decalogue belonged to the tefillin texts. Also in the
liturgy of the Samaritans the decalogue has a fixed place. It is included in the
biblical passages which the Samaritans engraved on tablets and affixed to the
doors of the house (see \bl. II, 175f., and Dexinger [see 1.1.4], 122ff.). In
response to the notion of the Minim that the revelation at the Sinai consisted
exclusively of the decalogue,20 there arose in Judaism, in order to combat
undervaluation of the other commandments, the tendency to relativize the
decalogue with respect to the other commandments and to emphasize that no
part of the Torah is more important than other parts. There have also been
attempts to again secure for the decalogue a prominent place in the liturgy (see
Urbach, 161ff.; cf. also Amir, 125; Greenbeig, 117f.; Sarfatti, 385, 389f.;
^ G- Vermes, “The Decalogue and the Minim,” in Post-Biblical Jewish Studies, Leiden
1975, 169-77.
Volume III1
14 DECALOGUE
Weinfeld, 29ff.).
Actualization, the homiletical interpretation of the decalogue on the basis of
rabbinic exegesis, is done in the targums,21 and in the piyyutim, liturgical
poems for Shavuot, the Feast of Weeks.22 Actualization is also done through
pictures with the piyyutim in the mahzorim, the prayer books for the Sabbath
and the festivals; the commandments are illustrated with some pictorially
presented Bible passages. E.g., the 13th century mahzor from Germany on
20:12, discussed by Narkiss, 424ff., features an illustration of the sacrifice of
Isaac (Gen. 22); that on 20:13 a picture of Benaiah who killed Joab, the
murderer of Abner and Amasa, that on 20:14 one of Joseph and Potiphar’s
wife (Gen. 39), etc.
1.1.15 The general ethical content of 20:12-17, the absence of cultic-ritual
commandments and the presence of the prophetic spirit in the decalogue (see
1.1.9) enabled the church to interpret the decalogue as God’s Word to her. This
despite the fact that the preamble and the context of the promulgation - y h w h ,
Israel’s God, enters into a covenant with Israel - manifests its Israelite charac
ter, and despite the fact that it contains specific Israelite (Jewish) elements,
such as the Sabbath commandment. The NT gave every reason for that.
As in the OT, also in the NT the emphasis is on the doing of the command
ments (cf. Matt. 5:17; 1 Cor. 7:19). In the NT the whole decalogue enjoys
unquestioned authority, not just the moral injunctions.
The term decalogue does not occur in the NT. Nor does the NT contain a
complete summing up of the separate commandments. Quotes are limited to the
last six commandments (Matt. 19:18f.; Mark 10:19; Luke 18:20; Rom. 7:7;
13:9; Jas. 2:11). From that it has been concluded that the first Christians,
seeking to make converts among the pagans, ignored the first commandments
(Urbach, 171), or that the church’s evolving Christology acted like a barrier,
preventing a wholehearted acceptance of the decalogue (Mtlller, 9 Iff.). How
ever, the authority of the not explicitly mentioned commandments is presup
posed and is variously expressed. Jesus alludes to Deut. 6:13 and so to the first
commandment (Matt. 4:10). He warns against the worship of mammon and so
against the worship of idols alongside the worship of YHWH (Matt. 6:24).
Conversion of the gentiles to Christianity implies obedience to the first and
second commandment (Rom. 1:23; 2:22; 1 Cor. 8:4,6; 1 Thess. 1:9; Rev. 9:20;
13:14f.). Also the Sabbath commandment is not rendered inoperative in the
21 See TPsJ, TNf, FT*’, FT*, where the weight of the decalogue is underscored through by
greatly expanding the text; see Potin, 287ff.; L. Diez Merino, “El Decilogo en el Taigum
Palestinense,” EstBib 34 (1975), 23-48; S.A. Kaufman, Y. Maori, “The Tatgumim to Exodus 20:
Reconstructing the Palestinian Targum,” Textus 16 (1991), 13-78; cf. also Ginzberg*, III, 94fT.
12 See de contributions of A. Mirsky, J. Blau, Y. Ratzaby to Segal (ed.), 343-54, 355-61, 363-
81.
Volume III1
INTRODUCTION 15
NT, but as a ritual commandment is made part of the duty to be merciful. The
Sabbath is turned into a day marked by Jesus’ compassion for hurting people
(Matt. 12:Iff., 9ff, par.; Luke 13:10ff; 14:lff; John 5 :lff; 9:13ff). The last
passage is also a striking example of how the injunctions of the decalogue are
not just repeated in the NT but are also actualized, given a new interpretation
(cf. also e.g. Eph. 6:3, ‘on the earth’) and - in Jesus’ mouth - are sharpened
(cf. e.g. Matt. 5:21ff, 27ff, 33ff). On the decalogue in the NT see also the
exegesis of the separate commandments.
The decalogue is also taken over by Mohammed (see Koran 6, 151-154; 17,
22-39) and the Islam. The first commandment (cf. Sura 17, 2, 22f., 39) has a
prominent place in Islam (see Schreiner 1981 en 1987; cf. Speyer**, 305ff,
31 Iff).
1.1.16 With its adoption by the church the decalogue acquired a new context
and became the object of an ongoing actualization process. Only a few in
stances from the history of its takeover by the church can be mentioned here.
In the Middle Ages, the decalogue, along with the creed, the Lord’s Prayer
and the Ave Maria, belonged to the elements of the faith Christians were
expected to be familiar with. Luther, who believed that from way back the
creed, the Lord’s Prayer and the decalogue were part of the essential teachings
of the church, and who himself stood in the mediaeval tradition, explains the
decalogue at great length in his Large and Small Catechism (see TRE, XVII,
714f.). To him the decalogue was special. The prologue he reads as gospel and
the decalogue as expressing the law of nature. That law, already at creation
written on human hearts, Luther sees as recalling the decalogue and coinciding
with the Christian’s twofold commandment to love God and the neighbour (see
Schunck, 55ff; Veijola, passim). Also in other catechisms much space is
devoted to the interpretation of the decalogue (TRE, VIII, 418, 423; XIY
584f.; XVII, 74If.). Through the catechisms it became a standard element in
the teaching and preaching of the church (TRE, XVII, 747ff). In textbooks the
decalogue is frequently used to set forth a Christian ethics (TRE, VIII,
422ff).23
1.1.17 The decalogue has also become a subject in the graphic arts. In icono
graphy the decalogue is frequently depicted as a divine gift: a hand (of God) or
an angel of God or God himself, depicted in human form (only in Christian il
lustrations), reaches from heaven and gives Moses the decalogue. There are
also many pictures of Moses holding the decalogue. The decalogue is variously
depicted: in pictures from Byzantium, under Jewish influence (synagogue of
Dura-Europos) as a scroll; in pictures from Italy, to the 16lh century, as two
rectangular tablets. A familiar picture of the decalogue, attested to already in
11 On the history of interpretation see also Childs, 375ff, 43Iff.

Volume III1
16 DECALOGUE
12* century France, is that of a diptych, consisting of two rectangular tablets,

rounded at the top. As a diptych the decalogue often crowns the ark (storage
place of the Torah scrolls) in the synagogue. The words of the decalogue are
sometimes also inscribed on the inside of the ark or on both inside and outside.
It is also depicted on other religious objects. The picture of the decalogue is
now a symbol of Judaism, though it was not until the 15* century that it
became part of Judaism. The symbolism as such is of Christian origin. In the
Middle Ages, Christians used the picture of the decalogue as a distinctive mark
for the Jews and imposed it upon them.24
Portrayal of the decalogue has also found its way into Protestant and Angli
can churches. Images being taboo after the Reformation, boards or plates
featuring the text of the decalogue were affixed to walls and the like. Calli
graphically beautiful and ornately decorated, they are often showpieces (cf. e.g.
Aston [see 1.1.4], 36Iff.).
1.2 PREAMBLE (20:1, 2)
After an introductory note from the writer (20:1) God himself is presented as
speaking.
20:1 Then God proclaimed all the following ordinances in these words:
2 7 am YHWH, your God, who brought you out o f the land o f Egypt, out o f
the slaves' house. ’
The backdrop of 20:1 is the situation described in ch. 19: Israel has accepted
YHWH’s offer to enter into a permanent relationship with him. The partners are
ready for meeting each other. Then YHWH begins to speak and announces the
ordinances that are to be the basis for the pact between him and Israel. Before
YHWH formulates the stipulations (20:3ff.), he takes a moment to introduce
himself (20:2). In the words with which he introduces himself the entire history
from Exod. 3 (cf. 19:4) is recalled. The effect is twofold. It qualifies the
ordinances. They derive from the God to whom Israel owes its freedom. Of the
regulations of such a God one may expect that they are rules that promote life.
The self-presentation is at once a powerful invitation to wholeheartedly live
according to the ordinances. One who is deeply aware of how much God did
24 See Sarfatti, 383ff.; on the decalogue in art see also I. Abrahams, “The Decalogue in Art,”
in J. Gutmann (ed.), No Graven Images, New York 1971, 19-35; Narkiss, 419ff.
Volume III1
EXODUS 2 0 :1 ,2 17
be d r iv e n by th a n k f u ln e s s to liv e a life th a t is p le a s in g t o h im .
fo r Is r a e l w ill
YHWH presents himself as the One who delivered Israel from Egypt’s house
of bondage. He put an end to Israel’s service to Pharaoh (cf. Introd. §3.37.1).
But that has not turned Israel into an absolutely free and autonomous people.
Service of Pharaoh is now replaced by service of YHWH. Israel has chosen for
a lasting bond with YHWH and declared itself ready to live according to his will
(19:7, 8). Now YHWH reveals his will.
The context determines the nature of YHWH’s stipulations: they form the
constitution of Israel as YHWH’s people, the code by which Israel as ‘a priestly
kingdom and a holy nation’ (19:6) must live.
20:1, 2 "DTI etc., see Introd. §3.12.1-2. ‘God,’ LXX: Kupiot;; cf. Vulg. and
the use of the tetragrammaton in TO, TNf, TPsJ (cf. FT); so there can be no
misunderstanding about the identity of the speaker (see beside it Acts 7:53;
Gal. 3:19 and especially Heb. 2:2; see also 1.1.6); in Mek., II, 227f. OYibN is
interpreted as ‘God as judge’ (cf. Rashi) and as ‘God of the world’ (Cassuto).
20:2 = Deut. 5:6. According to a common Jewish conception, 20:2 is the first
commandment.251 am Y H W H , ...,’ see Introd. §7.3.7. One can also translate: ‘I,
YHWH, am your God.’ This translation is defended by Ibn Ezra and has found
favour especially with Jewish exegetes (cf. Goldman*, 627f.; Leibowitz*,
306ff.). At first sight it appears an attractive possibility. For according to the
preceding context the people of Israel knew who had encountered them. On
closer scrutiny, the other possibility deserves preference (cf. J.J. Stamm, ThR
27 [1961], 234ff.). Thus far, Israel only indirectly, through mediation of Moses
and from the course of events, had learned of YHWH. Now YHWH directly and
personally takes up contact with Israel. That makes it appropriate that YHWH
first introduces himself.
your God,’ see Introd. §7.2.2. K3’ hiph., see Introd. §3.24.2. ‘house of
bondage,’ see Introd. §3.9.1; LXX, Vulg., TO, TNf, Pesh., SamT: ‘house of
slavery;’ TPsJ: ‘house of the slavery of the slaves’ (cf. the extensive descrip
tion
^ in FT1).
' Mek.,
--------~ II, 237,
' j offers besides
i^vuiwvu the
waaviu viiv ‘literal’
livvi ui interpretation
mvvi pivvut the
o lowing: ‘from the house of the worshipers, for they worshiped idols.’
13 THE ONLY RIGHT WAY TO WORSHIP YHWH I (20:3-6)

Exodus Deuteronomy
20:3 ‘Besides me you may have no 5:7 ‘Besides me you may have no
Volume III1
18 DECALOGUE
other gods. other gods.

20:4 You shall not make yourself 5:8 You may not make yourself an
an image o f any being above in image of whatever being above in
heaven or here below on earth or heaven or here below on earth or
in the waters below the earth. in the waters below the earth.
20:5 You may not bown down to 5:9 You may not bow down to
them and you may not worship them and you may not worship
them. For I, YHWH, your God, am a them. For I, YHWH, your God, am
jealous God. For the iniquity o f the a jealous God. For the iniquity of
forefathers I call to account the the forefathers I call to account the
children, the descendants o f the children, also the descendants of
third and the fourth generation, if the third and the fourth generation,
also they reject me. if also they reject me.
20:6 But I show steadfast love to 5:10 But I show steadfast love to
the descendants to the thousandth the descendants to the thousandth
generation, i f also they are com generation, if also they are commit
mitted to me and keep my stipula ted to me and keep his stipula
tions. ’ tions.’
1.3.1 Bibl. (mainly of recent date): TRE, VI, 515ff.; J. Assmann, “Semiosis
and Interpretation in Ancient Egyptian Ritual,” in S. Biderman, B.A.
Scharfstein, Interpretation in Religion, Leiden 1992, 87-109; W. Barnes Tatum,
“The LXX Version of the Second Commandment (Ex. 20,3-6 = Deut. 5,7-10):
A Polemic Against Idols, Not Images,” JSJ 17 (1986), 177-95; R.P. Carroll,
“The Aniconic God and the Cult of Images,” StTh 31 (1977), 51-64; E.M.
Curtiss, “Images in Mesopotamia and the Bible: A Comparative Study,” in
W.W. Hallo et al. (eds.), The Bible in the Light o f Cuneiform Literature,
Lewiston et al. 1990, 31-56; B.J. Diebner, “Anmerkungen zum sogenannten
‘Bilderverbot’ in der Torah,” DBAT 27 (1991), 46-57 (cf. also pp. 253-70); M.
Dietrich, O. Loretz, 'Jahwe und seine AscheraAnthropom orphisches Kultbild
in Mesopotamien, Ugarit und Israel, Miinster 1992; W. Dietrich, M.A.
Klopfenstein (eds.), Em Gott allein? JHWH- Verehrung und biblischer
Monotheismus im Kontext der israelitischen und altorientalischen Religiortsge-
schichte, Freiburg/Gdttingen 1994; C. Dohmen, Das Bilderverbot: Seine
Entstehung und seine Entwicklung im Alten Testament, Kdnigstein/ Ts./Bonn
1985 (19872); C. Dohmen, Th. Stembeig (eds.), ... kein Bildnis machen: Kunst
und Theologie im Gesprdch, Wiirzbuig 1987; K.R. Gnuse, No Other Gods:
Emergent Monotheism in Israel, Sheffield 1997; A.H.J. Gunneweg,
“Bildlosigkeit Gottes im Alten Testament,” Henoch 6 (1984), 257-70; J-
Gutmann (ed.), No Graven Images: Studies in Art and the Hebrew Bible, New
York 1971; W. Hallo, “Cult Statue and Divine Image: A Preliminary Study,”
in idem et al. (eds.), Scripture in Context II, Winona Lake 1983, 1-17; R-S-
Volume III1
EXODUS 2 0 :3 -6 19
Hendel, “The Social Origins of the Aniconic Traditions,” CBQ 50 (1988), 365-
82; F.L. Hossfeld, “Du sollst dir kein Bild machen,” TThZ 98 (1989), 81-94;
C.A. Kennedy, “The Semantic Field of the Term ‘Idolatry’,” in L.M. Hopfe
(ed.), Uncovering Ancient Stones: Essays in Memory o f H.N. Richardson,
Winona Lake 1994, 193-204; R. Knierim, “Das erste Gebot,” ZAW 77 (1965),
20-39; O. Keel, C. Uehlinger, Gottinnen, Gotter und Gottessymbole: Neue
Erkenntnisse zur Religionsgeschichte Kanacms und Israels aufgrund bislang
unerschlossener ikonographischer Quellen, Freiburg et al. 1992; A. Kruyswijk,
Geen gesneden beeld... ’, Franeker 1962; T.N.D. Mettinger, No Graven Image?
Israelite Aniconism in Its Ancient Near Eastern Context, Stockholm 1995 (cf.
O. Loretz, UF 26 [1994], 209-23); A.R. Millard, “Abraham, Akhenaten, Moses
and Monotheism,” in R.S. Hess et al. (eds.), He Swore an Oath: Biblical
Themes from Genesis 12-50, Carlisle, U.K./Grand Rapids 19942, 119-29; J.C.
de Moor, The Rise o f Yahwism: The Roots o f Israelite Monotheism, Leuven
19972; J. Patrich, The Formation o f Nabataean Art: Prohibition o f a Graven
Image among the Nabataeans, Jerusalem 1990; D. Patrick, “Is the Truth of the
First Commandment Known by Reason?,” CBQ 56 (1994), 423-41; idem, “The
First Commandment in the Structure of the Pentateuch,” VT 45 (1995), 107-18;
W.H. Schmidt, Das erste Gebot: Seine Bedeutung fu r das Alte Testament,
Miinchen 1969; J.H. Tigay, You Shall Have No Other Gods: Israelite Religion
in the Light o f Hebrew Inscriptions, Atlanta 1986; K. van der Toom (ed.), The
Image and the Book: Iconic Cults, Aniconism, and the Rise o f Book Religion in
Israel and the Ancient Near East, Leuven 1997; C. Uehlinger, “Eine
anthropomorphe Kultstatue des Gottes von Dan?,” BN 72 (1994), 85-100.
1.3.2 The so-called first and second commandment are really one command
ment pertaining to the only true worship o f YHWH. The commandment is
formulated in general terms in 20:3: YHWH tolerates no other gods besides him,
that is, in his sanctuary (’J ^ f f , see exegesis and cf. Knierim, 24ff.). By
reserving the sanctuary entirely for him, by focusing the cult entirely on him,
through exclusive commitment to YHWH Israel must demonstrate that it
recognizes only YHWH as God. In that sense the commandment is constitutive
or the relationship between YHWH and Israel. Not just by heading the com
mandments, but also as concerns importance, the commandment comes first
“ • mos* fundamental commandment for the OT as a whole (cf.
ûroidt, 16f., 21, 43 and see also 20:22-26).
w -4' 6 c°ntain an elucidation with and elaboration of 20:3. YHWH does not
^ u t to share the worship of him in his sanctuary with other gods. Concretely
god nipfnS. ’n sanctuary no room may be given to images of other
idols Th *mP^ca^ on 20:3 forbids the fabrication and worship of images of
gods 1 6 °nC ^0WS lo2ically from the other; the prohibition to have other
In 20a^ 8Side YHWH implies the prohibition to make images of other gods.
>5a this is specifically stated.
Volume III1
20 DECALOGUE
In 20:5b-6 the commandment is motivated with a reference to YHWH’s

character y h w h refuses divided allegiance and demands exclusive devotion.
Why? The reason for it is mentioned in the prologue (20:2). Israel owes his
existence as a nation only to him; only with Israel did YHWH establish a
personal bond (cf. Deut. 4:20, 32ff.; see also 1.3.8).
1.3.3 The above interpretation needs clarification on a number of points. In
20:4 the making of images of other gods is forbidden. Does this imply that it is
all right to make an image to represent y h w h ? The decalogue does not deal
with the question. For the writer of the comprehensive historical work encom
passing Genesis to Kings (see \bl. I, If.) it was out of the question that YHWH
could be worshiped in the form of an image. Representation of YHWH in
human or animal form violated YHWH’s uniqueness and incomparableness. It
would place YHWH on a level with other deities and cause him to lose his
uniqueness (see 5.2.2.12 and exegesis of 32:5).
Note in this connection Deut. 4:16-18, 23, 25. There the fabrication of any
kind of image is deemed very objectionable since it conflicts with the mode of
YHWH’s self-revelation: YHWH could be heard but he was not visible to the
human eye (Deut. 4:12, 15). Is the fabrication of YHWH images disallowed
here? One could easily get that impression from the context. Explicitly,
however, it is the making of cultic images in general that is forbidden. The
idea evidently is that the making of images, even if intended to represent
YHWH, constitutes a making of idols, other deities. In short, Deut. 4:16-18, 23,
25 are directed against image worship and so against the worship of other gods
(cf. also Deut. 4:19).
To the writer, the God who speaks in the decalogue is the God who in accor
dance with his uniqueness (cf. Deut. 6:4) wants to live in one place in the
midst of Israel, and who through his ‘Name’ (0$) is present in his sanctuary
(Deut. 12) (on the presence of YHWH in his sanctuary see 4.2.16-19). That God
is opposed to the worship of other gods in his sanctuary (cf. 2 Kgs. 21:7; 23:4;
Ezek. 8:9ff.).
1.3.4 The decalogue requires monolatry of Israel. The existence of other gods
as such is not made an issue (cf. Deut. 4:19; 29:25; see beside it e.g. Isa. 45:6,
14, 21). Nor does the decalogue deal with the disgracing of the images and so
with the unmasking of the idols the images represent (Deut. 4:28; 27:15;
2 Kgs. 19:18; Isa. 2:8; 40:19ff.; 41:7; 44:9ff.; 46:6f.;26 Jer. 10; Hos. 13:2; Hab.
2:18f.; Pss. 115:4ff.; 135:16f.; cf. Wisd. 13-15;27 Jub. 11:4, 16; 22:18; Bel and
the Dragon; Letter of Jeremiah; Acts 17:23ff.; 19:26f., and see also Exod.
“ Cf. L. Ruppert, “Die Kritik an den GOttem im Jesajabuch,” BN 82 (1996), 76-96.

27 Cf. E. Kutsch, ‘“ Du sollst dir kein Gottesbild machen’: Zu Wfeisheit Salomos 14, 15,” in
Alttestamentlicher Glaube und Biblische Theologie (Fs H.D. PreuB), Stuttgart etc. 1992, 279-86.
Volume III1
EXODUS 2 0 :3 -6 21
32:20; Judg. 6:25). E xclusive worship o f YHWH is demanded, because it is only

with Israel that YHWH entered into a personal relationship (cf. Deut. 4:20;
29:24).
The commandment forbids the worship of other gods in the form of images
in YHWH’s sanctuary. From that one may not conclude that worship of other
gods, outside of YHWH’s sanctuary, away from YHWH’s sight, is possible, while
retaining the bond with him. The concern of the command is the right worship
of YHWH and it is addressed to YHWH worshipers. Their visiting the shrine of
another god or in some other way being involved in his cult (cf. e.g. Jer.
19:13; Zeph. 1:5) is not at issue here. One who engages in it has joined the
cultic community of another god.
Only images are explicitly mentioned in 20:4. Obviously that does not mean
that the presence of other gods in YHWH’s sanctuary in the form of a massebah
or other cultic object (cf. 34:13f.; Lev. 26:1; Deut. 16:21f.) or in some other
way is implicitly sanctioned (cf. 2 Kgs. 18:4; Ezek. 8:10-12), no more than the
worship of other gods in the form of heavenly bodies (cf. e.g. Deut. 4:19;
2 Kgs. 21:3, 5; 23:4, 5, 12; Ezek. 8:16).
1.3.5 As noted, as I see it the question whether YHWH may be portrayed is
not at issue in the decalogue.28 The fact that YHWH has no image is assumed.
Not everyone thinks such is the case. Often 20:4-6 is taken as a separate
command forbidding the fashioning of images (e.g. Kruyswijk, 74f.). This is
sometimes argued by pointing to the composite character of the present text:
20:5 originally came immediately after 20:3; that creates the impression that
also 20:4 is directed against other gods (e.g. Childs, 406f.; cf. Kruyswijk,
64ff.).
In my view, the argumentation is less than compelling. The prohibition of
making cultic images is found more often in the Pentateuch (20:22f.; 34:17;
Lev. 26:1; Deut. 4:15ff.; 27:15), always in the sense of rejection of the worship
of other gods. But even on the assumption that originally 20:4 forbade the
making of YHWH images, there can be no question that the verse in the present
text, by being bracketed by 20:3 and 20:5, has become part of the command
not to worship other gods.
1.3.6 A novel view on the prohibition of images is put forward by Dohmen
(c . also Hossfeld, 86ff.). He draws far-reaching conclusions from the presence
o copulative waw before njioirbp in 20:5 and the absence of it in Deut. 5:8
im* believes that this shows that in Deuteronomy the prohibition of
U a®es 's overshadowed by the prohibition to worship other gods (DH1? in
reêrs back to 5:7). By contrast, in Exod. 20 the use of the waw has
e the prohibition of images into an independent prohibition (DD^ in 20:5
Cf. already H.Th. Obbink, “Jahwebilder,” TAW VI (1929), 264-74.

Volume III1
22 DECALOGUE
refers to nj-iajjrtg) bg© in 20:4). In part on the basis of these givens Dohmen
reconstructs the historical development of the commandment. He believes that
the growth of the prohibition in the decalogue went through four stages (pp.
223ff.) and that the version of Deut. 5 is older than that of Exod. 20. Presum
ably, originally the prohibition to fashion images had as its twin a prohibition
to worship other gods, much like the two sides of a coin. In the time of the
exile both prohibitions were combined, and through the addition of Deut. 5:9a
the prohibition of images became an ‘Unter- oder Spezialfall’ of the prohibi
tion to worship other gods (p. 229), one that fitted the situation of that time
when the Jewish exiles knew of other gods mainly through their images. In the
post-exilic era, when Israel faced the challenge of having to define its religion
against other religions and monotheism took clear shape, the prohibition of
images became the chief commandment. This development resulted in the
version of the prohibition of images of Exod. 20, from the hand of the redactor
of the Pentateuch. The prohibition of images became a separate command. It
forbids the use of any kind of picture in worship. Also by its lengthwork, the
second commandment now overshadows the first (cf. also p. 277).
In my view, the copulative waw in 20:4 is not much of a basis for Dohmen’s
far-reaching conclusions (cf. A. Graupner, ZAW 99 [1987], 31 Iff., and see
exegesis) while there is much to be said for regarding Deut. 5 as younger than
Exod. 20 (see 1.1.10).
1.3.7 The decalogue does not require an aniconic YHWH cultus but presup
poses it. That does not mean that one cannot inquire after the origin o f the
aniconic nattire o f YHWH worship. I touch on this point along with a brief
discussion of the question of the origin of the requirement to worship only
YHWH. One’s position on the questions raised here is also (in part) determined
by the value one attaches to the Old Testament picture of Israel’s history and
the role one assigns to Moses in this history (cf. \bl. I, 84fi, 97fi).
Conservative exegetes trace the requirements of Exod. 20:3-5 back to Moses
(e.g. Kruyswijk, 88fi). Also others defend their great antiquity (e.g. De Moor,
166fi, 224, 263f.). It is not uncommon to assume a nomadic origin for the
exclusive and aniconic worship of YHWH, and to blame the prophets for
reshaping it into an intolerant monolatry (e.g. Dohmen, 237ff; see, however,
Mettinger, 135ffi). In my view, without good arguments. The requirement of
imagelessness presupposes image worship. In a world in which worship of
images was common, this requirement is a natural consequence of the demand
to worship a particular deity as the only and supreme god. Illustrative in this
connection is the Egyptian worship of Aton: the demand of monolatry was
made in a sedentary, polytheistic society in which image worship was rife. Its
spiritual father was Amenophis IV/Akhenaten (14lh century B.C.). The rigorous
monotheism, the exclusive and imageless worship of Aton he promoted, is
sometimes adduced as a historical ‘parallel’ of the origin of Israel’s exclusive
Volume III1
EXODUS 2 0 :3 -6 23
and imageless YHWH worship (cf. e.g. De Moor, 41ff., Millard, and see
Assmann, 142ff.). With good reason. Another question is whether Aton-
monotheism in some way influenced the origin of Israel’s monotheism (Sama,
15Iff, argues against it).
Gutmann (Prolegomenon, XXIV-XXX) makes the point that religious reform,
demanding the exclusive worship of a particular deity, should especially be
seen as an instrument of political strategy, aimed at the promotion of national
unity. As concerns Israel, he points to Josiah’s reform (2 Kgs. 22-23), which
he believes was intended to strengthen the monarchy. The OT portrays the
worship of YHWH as the God of Israel as the factor that united the Israelite
tribes ‘since Egypt.’ That beginning lies hidden in the mists of history. As
concerns the later time, the era of the divided kingdom and perhaps also the
time previous to it, in light of the onomasticon of the OT and archaeological
data (cf. Tigay, passim) there is no ground for the notion that Israel’s religion
was polytheistic.29 Nor is there sufficient ground for the idea that worship of
YHWH in the form of an image was legal in ancient Israel and that the first and
second commandment are the product of a historical development that came to
a close in the exilic and post-exilic period.30
The view that there was room for images of YHWH in Israel’s worship is not
new. It also found advocates among Old Testament scholars at the end of the
previous century and the first decades of this century. It appears, however, that
the requirement of exclusive and imageless worship has deep roots in Israel’s
religion. At least, no convincing argument has been put forward for the idea
that it was formulated late (cf. Hallo, 2f.; Keel, Uehlinger, 472f.). Several,
likely old texts forbid the making of images of deities and their erection and
worship alongside YHWH (20:23; 34:14, 17; cf. also 22:19; 23:13; Deut.
16:2If.; Ps. 81:10; see also exegesis of 20:23). The idea that YHWH is the
(national) God of Israel (cf. Judg. 11:24; 1 Sam. 26:19; 2 Kgs. 5:17, and see
also Deut. 4:28; Hos. 9:3-5 en 2 Kgs. 3:27) and that therefore Israel has to be
devoted to him has deep roots. In particular in the later monarchical era YHWH
was at risk, evidently under powerful foreign influence, to have to share his
place in the official cult with other gods (cf. e.g. 2 Kgs. 16:10ff.; 21:2ff.;
On that idea see e.g. S. Ackerman, Under Every Green Tree: Popular Religion in Sixth-
Century Judah, Atlanta 1992; Dietrich, Loretz, 76ff„ 88ff; D.V. Edelman (ed.), The Triumph o f
Elohim: From Yahwism to Judaisms, Kampen 1995; M. Smith, The Early History o f God, San
Francisco 1990, 145ff.; H. Niehr, Der hdchtste Gott, Berlin/New York 1990, 183ff.
50 So e.g. Dietrich, Loretz, 112ff.; cf. pp. 100f., 108, 110; see also O. Loretz, Ugarit und die
Bibel, Darmstadt 1990, 21Off.; C.D. Evans, “Cult Images, Royal Policies and the Origins of
Aniconism,” in S.W. Holloway, L.K. Handy (ed.), The Pitcher is Broken: Memorial Essays fo r
G.W. Ahlstrdm, Sheffield 1995, 192-212; B.B. Schmidt, “The Aniconic Tradition: On Reading
Images and Viewing Texts,” in Edelman (ed.), 75-105.
Volume III1
24 DECALOGUE
23:4ff.). For that matter, the fact that the prohibition occurs in other places and
in various formulations shows that YHWH’s position was more often in
danger31
However much the portrayal of Israel’s religious history may be coloured by
the views of the writer(s) of Genesis-Kings - YHWH, Israel’s God demands
exclusive and imageless worship at a place appointed by him - it does not alter
the fact that it would be wrong to infer from the mention of images in the OT
to represent YHWH (Judg. 17-18; 1 Kgs. 12:28) that in ancient Israel worship of
YHWH in the form of an image was legitimate. The possibility of religious
apostasy may not a priori be excluded (cf. De Moor, 266, 297; Korpel**, 92f.,
128). What is quite possible is that YHWH’s claim to exclusivity initially did
not exclude the worship of household gods (see exegesis 21:6).
1.3.8 In the OT YHWH is pictured anthropomorphically32 and even theriomor-
phically (Hos. 5:14; 11:10; 13:7f.; see Korpel**, 352ff.). Nonetheless, his cult
must be without images. Why?
\hrious answers are given: God is spirit and therefore cannot be depicted;
human beings are the image of God, no other images are necessary; YHWH
does not reveal himself in an image but in history; a cult without images
precludes the use of magic to gain power over God; imagelessness is a remnant
of Israel’s nomadic past; due to its past, Israel has no feeling for art and
culture; it is an expression of opposition to the luxury of the civilized world;
seeing God endangers a person’s life; etc. (see overview in Kruyswijk, 212ff.;
Dohmen, 25ff.). Rather than go into all these views, I limit myself to some
observations.
In religious worship the image is not identical with a particular deity. The
image represents the deity. It makes the holy visible on earth. In the image the
deity comes close to man. Though OT worship is without image, the need for
YHWH’s nearness is not absent in the OT. On the contrary (see 4.2.16-19).
From the OT one can gather that at least in one phase of Israel’s history a
concrete object, the shrine (ark), served the same function as the image in other
religions (see 4.5.1.4, 5, 10, and 4.5.4.1). That conception is abandoned in
favour of other, more spiritual conceptions about the presence of YHWH in the
sanctuary.33 The image remains taboo.
In the OT, only the book of Deuteronomy offers a motive for the aniconic
31 For various views on the history of the Old Testament prohibition o f images see e.g.
Kruyswijk, 9 Iff., et al.; Dohmen, 236ff.
31 Korpel**, 88ff.; Kruyswijk, 164ff., and see S.D. Moore, “Gigantic God: Yahweh’s Body,”
JSOT 70 (1996), 87-115; on the face of yhwh and the sanctuary see Introd. §3.42.4.
33 The ‘Name’ or the ‘Glory’ of yhwh. See e.g. T.N.D. Mettinger, The Dethronement o f
Sabaoth, Lund 1982; U. Struppe, Die Herrlichkeit Jahwes in der Priesterschrift, Klostemeuburg
1988. Cf. Houtman*, Himmel, 366ff.
Volume III1
EXODUS 2 0 :3 -6 25
nature of the YHWH cult. Evidently it represents the position of the writer(s) of
Genesis-Kings. The prohibition against images is motivated with a reference to
the mode of YHWH’s revelation at Sinai/Horeb: audible, but hidden from
human eyes (Deut. 4:12, 15; cf. Exod. 20:22, 23). So indirectly a connection is
made with the being of YHWH and with his name, the tetragrammaton (men
tioned in Exod. 20:1), the name by which he wishes people to call upon him.
This suggests the following answer to the question why the YHWH cult is
devoid of an image: YHWH is an incomparable God; only veiled, hiding
himself, can he reveal himself to his people, (cf. \bl. II, 429f., 437.); also in
his name he makes himself known only in part (cf. \bl. I, 95); he is the
absolute Other (cf. Kruyswijk, 222ff.), the One who is unique; worshiping him
in the form of an image robs him of his uniqueness and turns him into one of
the other gods (see 1.3.3). In its imageless cult Israel must express the special
character of its relation to YHWH, its elect position among the nations (cf. Deut.
4:20, 32ff.; 29:27, and see Exod. 19:5).
1.3.9 Exod. 20:4 forbids the making of cultic images, not the use of the
visual arts in YHWH’s sanctuary. The commandment is certainly not intended to
place restrictions on sculpting and other graphic arts in general. YHWH’s tent
shrine contained pictures of cherubim (25:20; 26:1, 31). The temple built by
Solomon was ornately furnished (1 Kgs. 6:23ff.). The water reservoir of the
temple was supported by images of oxen (1 Kgs. 7:23ff.). The artistic gifts of
Bezalel and the other artisans chaiged with the construction of the tent shrine
are seen as a gift from YHWH himself (31:1-6). The OT contains much that
could be cited to demonstrate that the use of the creations of the graphic arts
was widespread in ancient Israel (see Schroer**, passim). On 20:3-6 in the NT
see 1.1.15.
1.3.10 Application of the prohibition against images in history has been enor
mously varied and to a great extent determined by the historical and societal
context in which the command was heard and applied afresh.34 Thus Philo, and
even more so Josephus, from apologetical motives, interpreted the prohibition
as one that forbade the depicting of living beings in general (cf. Gutmann,
lOff.; Barnes Tatum, 187ff.), while in the LXX the prohibition is interpreted
not as proscribing the making of representations but of idols (cf. Barnes
Tatum, 183ff.). The consequence of disjoining 20:4-6 from 20:3 (see 1.1.4)
and/or heavily accenting 20:4 while ignoring 20:5a (devotion!) is that icono-
clasm and putting rigorous restrictions on the graphic arts are graced with
divine sanction.
Particularly in Islam the prohibition of images coincides with a prohibition of
figurative art, the portrayal of living beings. Islam, it is true, is not entirely
Cf. J. Gutmann, in idem (ed.), 3-16; cf. pp. Xlff.

Volume III1
26 DECALOGUE
devoid of religious portrayals of people. In art, however, though the prohibition

of images is not part of the Koran, the traditional aversion to images has
resulted in putting all the emphasis on non-pictorial calligraphy and ornamenta
tion. As in Islam, also in Judaism the prohibition of images has been a fertile
soil for the rise of forms of abstract art. Next to it also figurative graphic art
has always been important. There are even depictions of the hands of God (e.g.
in the synagogue of Dura Europos [3lh century]). In the Middle Ages, though
not without discussion and struggle, both in the church of the East and of the
West the use of images (icons in the East) and pictures was fully approved.
With the Reformation they disappear from the Protestant churches. They were
not lost to Protestantism, however. Palaces and homes of prominent people
became repositories for depictions of biblical persons, etched into wooden
panels or with brushes immortalized on canvass or painted on utensils.
In short, by and large in Judaism and Christianity the image prohibition has
not been a barrier to the flowering of religious figurative art, the portrayal of
biblical scenes in beautifully illustrated manuscripts, on artistic murals etc.35
In the history of interpretation, 20:3-6 has been taken in the broad sense as a
commandment forbidding to put one’s trust in someone or something besides
or in place of the one true God, and positively as a command to be devoted to
God with all one’s heart and to believe in him as the Saviour and Deliverer (cf.
20:2), and to eschew whatever excludes the worship of the one God or detracts
from it, including mental ‘images,’ ideologies and human conceptions of God.36
1.3.11 YHWH, a righteous God? (Exod. 20:5b, 6)

1.3.11.1 Bibl.: Fishbane*, 335ff.; J.H. Gunning, De goddelijke vergelding
hoofdzakelijk volgens Ex. X X 5,6 en Ez. XVIII 20, Utrecht 1881; P.M. Joyce,
Divine Initiative and Human Response in Ezekiel, Sheffield 1989; J.S.
Kaminsky, Corporate Responsibility in the Hebrew Bible, Sheffield 1995; J.
KraSovec, “Is There a Doctrine of ‘Collective Retribution’ in the Hebrew
Bible?,” HUCA 65 (1994), 35-89; B. Lindars, “Ezekiel and Individual Respon
sibility,” VT 15 (1965), 452-67; A.H.B. Logan, “The Jealousy of God: Exod.
20:5 in Gnostic and Rabbinic Theology,” in E.A. Livingstone (ed.), Studia
35 On the historical impact of the image prohibition see TRE, VI, 521-57; various contributions
to the writings cited under 1.3.1 of Dohmen , Sternberg; Gutmann, and further M. Aston,
England's Iconoclasts: Laws Against Images, Oxford 1988; C.M.N. Eire, War Against the Idols:
The Reformation o f Worship from Erasmus to Calvin, Cambridge 1986; S.I. Hallet, “The Role of
Iconoclasm on Islamic Art and Architecture,” in E.B. Firmage et al. (eds.), Religion and Law:
Biblical - Judaic and Islamic Perspectives, Winona Lake 1990, 301-14; J. Milgrom, “Some
Consequences of the Image Prohibition in Jewish Art,” in Religion and Law, 263-99.
34 See e.g. Lord’s Day 34b and 35 of the Heidelberg Catechism; Calvin; Luther (see Veijola
[see 1.1.1], 72ff.).
Volume III1
EXODUS 2 0 :3 -6 27
Biblica 1978, I, Sheffield 1979, 197-203; G.H. Matties, Ezekiel 18 and the
Rhetoric o f Moral Discourse, Atlanta 1990; H.G. May, “Individual Responsi
bility and Retribution,” HUCA 32 (1961), 107-20; J.R. Porter, “The Legal
Aspects of the Concept of ‘Corporate Personality’ in the Old Testament,” VT
15 (1965), 361-80; J. Scharbert, “Formgeschichte und Exegese von Ex 34,6f
und seiner Parallelen,” Bib 38 (1957), 130-50; M. Weinfeld, “Jeremiah and the
Spiritual Metamorphosis of Israel,” ZAW 88 (1976), 17-56 (esp. pp. 35-39).
1.3.11.2 We need to have a special look at 20:5b, 6. In the usual translation:
«... visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and the
fourth generation of those who hate me’ (so RSV), 20:5b raises tough ques
tions. Are the children presented here with the bill for the misdeeds of their
parents? But in that case, what about the righteousness of God? It is a question
already early exegetes wondered about. Also because Exod. 20:5 was one of
the texts used by Marcion for positing his dualism between the less than
perfect God of the OT, the demiuige, and the God of love and mercy of the
NT proclaimed by Jesus. Also later on the passage remained a focus of
attention. Enough reason for a closer look.
For a good understanding of 20:5b, 6 we first look at two related passages:
Exod. 34:6, 7, an old passage with a liturgical background (cf. also Num.
14:18; Jer. 32:18), and Deut. 7:9, 10, which is of younger date. In particular
we focus on 34:7b and Deut. 7:10. Deut. 7:10 contains a correction on the
picture presented in 34:7b (cf. also Num. 14:18; Jer. 32:18). According to
34:7b, sins are not just individually punished, also the descendents suffer the
consequences. Deut. 7:10 speaks of individual retribution. One may not read
these passages as if there was a shift in Israel’s thinking on retribution. The
book of the covenant (Exod. 21-23) makes it clear that already way back
Israel’s judicial system was based on individual retribution, and this principle
of individual retribution pertained to both social and religious transgressions
(cf. Exod. 22:17, 19 and see e.g. Lev. 24:13-16; Num. 15:32-36). But collec
tive punishment was not unknown either, as can be seen in several narrative
passages. Apparently this kind of punishment was the penalty for violation of a
taboo and for apostasy and rebellion against y h w h (Num. 16; Josh. 7; Judg.
21,10f. [cf. v. 8]; 1 Sam. 21).
1.3.11.3 In the situation described in Num. 16 and Josh. 7, something done
y the head of the family entails repercussions for the members of his family
and even for his property. (Num. 16:31ff.; Josh. 7:24ff.; cf. also Dan. 9:25;
sth. 9:13f.). They become y h w h ’s property and are wiped out along with the
ead the family. Evidently it is presumed that his evil deed had infected the
j*tire community living under his roof and over which he has authority, even
s possessions, so that with some justification one could speak of - but note
• 1:39! - communal guilt and accountability The notion of solidarity in
1 and punishment was not restricted to a particular period of Israel’s
Volume III1
28 DECALOGUE
existence as a nation. The ‘house’ (cf. Introd. §3.9.2), meaning a community of

people, remained a relevant concept all the way to the time of the NT (e.g.
Acts 11:14; 16:31ff.).
Behind this view of collective retribution lies the conviction that the ‘source
of the infection’ must be eradicated to prevent the evil from spreading and
infecting others. It is against this background that 34:7b is to be read. Note that
the retribution remains restricted to the fourth generation, that is to the descen
dants whose birth a family head who lived a normal life span could still
witness. Note that according to other passages divine retribution could destroy
the wicked and his family in just a few generations (e.g. Pss. 17:14; 109:13).
According to yet other passages, divine retribution could remain effective to
distant generations (e.g. 1 Sam. 2:27ff.; 1 Kgs. 2:26f.; 2 Sam. 12:10; cf. also
2 Sam. 3:28f.). In that respect one might even say that 34:7b places limits
upon the retribution. In a situation as described in Josh. 7 it is possible to
speak of solidarity in guilt and punishment. When punishment extends to
distant generations such solidarity is hardly possible, and in that case it may
seem unjust. It appears that collective retribution was also applied in cases of
conspiracy against the king (cf. 1 Sam. 22:13,18f.; 1 Kgs. 21:10,13; 2 Kgs.
9:26).
1.3.11.4 Both 34:7b and Deut. 7:10 refer to the relationship between YHWH
and Israel. It is stated how YHWH responds to backsliding. According to 34:7b,
he punishes the iniquity (idol worship; see Exod. 32 and cf. 20:3-6) collec
tively. However, according to Deut. 7:10, as in regular legal cases, the opera
tive principle when someone turns away from YHWH is that of individual
punishment (but note also Deut. 13:13-19!). The person who turns away from
YHWH must personally bear the consequences, just as ideally the punishment
for conspiracy against the king is strictly limited to the conspirators (2 Kgs.
14:6; cf. Deut. 24:16).
20:5, 6 and Deut. 5:9, 10 articulate the conception on reward and punishment
voiced in Deut. 7:9, 10. Note the use of at the end of 20:5 and of
'OiSO 'en'K1? in 20:6. These terms also occur in Deut. 7:9, 10, but not
in 34:6, 7; Num. 14:18; Jer. 32:18. Their insertion in the decalogue means that
the preceding words are given an individual focus. ’lOtob etc. applies equally to
the children and the parents. It is correct to say that in 34:7b it is assumed that
the children, as members of the family, are of the same mind as the head of
the family and follow his example. No more than 34:7b means to say that the
apostate descendants of devout followers of YHWH automatically experience
y h w h ’s mercy - meant is that y h w h ’s mercy is much greater and much more
abundant than his punishing justice - does 34:7b mean to say that the descen
dants of an apostate are automatically subject to judgment. However, the
decalogue is not based on the presumption of a self-evident solidarity between
the family head and the members of his ‘house.’ What is said is that the
Volume III1
EXODUS 2 0 :3 -6 29
statement of 34:7b only applies to those descendants who actually follow the
example set by the father (cf. Eerdmans, 132f.).
The conception of divine retribution found in the decalogue is thus the same
as that in Deuteronomy (7:10; 24:16; cf. 2 Kgs. 14:16; Jer. 17:10; Prov. 9:12,
and compare Jer. 32:19b with 32:18a) and Ezekiel (3:17-21; 14:12-23; 18;
33:12-20). In Chronicles it is the basis for describing the lives of the kings of
Judah (see e.g. 2 Chr. 16:2f., 7ff., 12 beside 1 Kgs. 15:23, or 2 Chr. 19:2v;
20:35ff- beside 1 Kgs. 22:49, or 2 Chr. 24:17ff. beside 2 Kgs. 12:18f.,21f.
etc.). The presented idea, apostasy from yhwh is indivually punished, is
onesided and apologetically coloured. It serves as a reply to anyone who, like
Ezekiel’s contemporaries (Ezek. 18:2; cf. Jer. 31:29 and see also Num. 16:21;
Job 21:19), doubts the righteousness of YHWH and complains to be suffering
from sins committed by others. That person should know that everyone is
personally accountable, everyone suffers for his or her own sins and receives
the due penalty. The consequence of this outlook is that repentance makes
sense and and that it means choosing life (cf. Ezek. 18:23, 30-32).
1.3.11.5 As apology and correction for the notion that YHWH is unjust and
that posterity suffers for sins they had nothing to do with (Ezek. 18:2), the
emphasis on individual retribution is proper. The human condition is not
determined by fate. However, the idea of individual punishment often clashes
with reality. This is also borne out by the OT. There we find the admission
that suffering can be due to a combination of one’s own guilt and that of
someone else (Lev. 26:39; Jer. 32:18, 19; Ps. 106:6ff.; Lam. 5:7,16f.; cf. also
3:39ff.). Furthermore, we are confronted with situations that seem to run
directly counter to the rule of individual retribution (e.g. 1 Kgs. 14:10ff.;
21:29; 2 Kgs. 20:12-19; cf. also Matt. 23:35; 27:25; John 9:2) and give
credence to the belief that the conduct of an individual or generation entails
drastic consequences, good as well as bad, for posterity (e.g. 2 Kgs. 19:34),
while they are powerless to do anything about it. It is worth our while to go a
little deeper into it.
As we saw, if it concerns only a few generations of families one can to some
extent make a case for solidarity in guilt and punishment, but such cannot be
done with distant generations. It is not easy either to maintain such solidarity
with respect to the relationship between a ruler and his people. The conception
that nations are governed by rulers that match them is valid only up to a point.
Often it is not the case at all that ruler and people are jointly accountable.
Nonetheless, also according to the OT, the entire community bears the conse
quences for things done by the ruler, for good (e.g. Isa. 53:11; Jer. 3:14; Ps.
?2) or bad (2 Sam. 24 [see in particular v. 17]; 1 Kgs. 14:16; 2 Kgs. 17:21ff.;
2l:12ff.; 23:26; Jer. 15:4). More examples could be cited.
The proverb ‘The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are
on edge’ (Ezek. 18:2) and the adage ‘The soul that sins shall die’ (Ezek.
Volume III1
30 DECALOGUE
18:4) are both not quite true and not quite untrue. They are half-truths that are
in tension with each other. In that sense, they complement each other. Indivi
duals and generations have their own responsibility and should be held liable
for their own deeds. What they do and don’t do has consequences for themsel
ves, but also for others. However, it often happens that there seems to be no
evident connection between the suffering some folk have to endure and their
conduct (cf. Luke 13:Iff.; John 9:2f.). Tension and non-transparency are
characteristic of this world with its confused blend of sin and guilt in the
human race. So it is not strange that Jeremiah, talking about individual retribu
tion, sets it in eschatological perspective. According to him, it is a mark of the
time of ‘the new covenant.’ Then no one will suffer on account of someone
else’s sin (Jer. 31:28-30; cf. also 31:33f.). All in all, Exod. 20:5b should be
read in line with Deut. 7:9f. and Ezek. 18 as an exhortation to every Israelite
to remain faithful to YHWH and so to choose life.
20:3 1‘r r r r r , see Introd. §3.13.2. For the sing, with following plural subject
(cf. Gen. 1:14; Ezek. 14:1; Esth. 9:23) see e.g. Ges-K §145o; Brockelmann
§50a. There is no reason, as is done, e g., by Cassuto, to see special significan
ce in it (cf. Leibowitz*, 315f.). D’lriK OVtbK is translated as sing, in the
taigums (TO, TPsJ, TNf, FTP, PTF): ‘an other God;’ also some modem authors
have gone for the sing. (Dillmann; Jotion §148a; Buber-Rosenzweig; cf. Ges-K
§132h), but it is improbable (cf. Deut. 11:16 and see KOSynt §348m), certainly
so if 20:3-6 is regarded as a coherent passage (cf. onb in 20:5). The rendering
of the Taigums seems intended to play down the fact of the existence of other
gods. It is a tendency found more often in Jewish exegesis. Thus Rashi,
following M e t (II, 239) interprets onnK O'flbN as ‘those which others called
gods.’ See further the various interpretations of ‘other gods’ in M e t, II, 239flf.
(In later Hebrew “in# acquired the meaning ‘strange,’ ‘heathen’). That C inK
(Introd. §3.1.2) means ‘nicht ursprOnglich, nachgeahmt, unecht’ (‘Aftergdtter’),
as Ehrlich thinks, cannot be demonstrated. With D, ’ inN D’ n b x are meant the
gods of the nations. The context suggests that the reference is specifically to
die images (cf. Introd. §7.2.1) by which they are represented.
The interpretation of ’JErbu is problematic. In the LXX it is rendered as
TtXf|v epoij, ‘except me’ (cf. ’ 30 na in TO, TNf, FTP, PTF and see Pesh.); but
in Deut. 5:7 with irpd rcpooomou pou; cf. Vulg.: coram me (Exod. 20:3) and in
conspectu meo (Deut. 5:7), and see e.g. Buber-Rosenzweig: ‘mir ins Ange-
sicht.’ bs as well as ’ 3B are poly-interpretable. It is possible that ’ 3B, ‘my
face,’ is used in a more general sense to denote the person (cf. Introd. §3.42.4)
and that D’ 3B strengthens the preposition (Brockelmann §110k). Nforious
explanations are given to bs with this interpretation of ’ 3B; btt is said to have
temporal meaning: ‘in the lifetime of’ (cf. Gen. 11:28; Num. 3:4), in the case
of YHWH: ‘so long as I exist’ (so Rashi following M e t, II, 241); in combina
Volume III1
EXODUS 2 0 :3 -6 31
tion with Ibn Ezra’s local interpretation of YHWH’s face (see also Rashi on
Deut. 5:7) - it is everywhere, for YHWH is everywhere present - in Cassuto
this interpretation produces the following paraphrase of 20:3: it prohibits
associating with any other god (see also already Nachmanides). This interpreta
tion is artificial. More plausible is that bo means ‘above’ (Gen. 48:22; Deut.
21:16; Ps. 16:2) (Te Stroete: ‘at the expense of’ [cf. WV]). Even more plau
sible is the meaning ‘in addition to’ for bs (Gen. 28:9; 31:50; Lev. 18:8; Deut.
19:9) (cf. Williams §292), for YHWH not only wants to be the first but also the
only one. In that case the translation ‘except’ suggests itself. Perhaps bs also
embodies the meaning ‘opposite’ (cf. Waltke-O’Connor §11.2.13f), in which
case it expresses the existence of a hostile relationship (cf. Job 1:11; 6:28).
Possibly there is an allusion to the competition that arises between YHWH and
the other gods with the introduction of a foreign cult. In the interpretation
‘beside,’ ‘except,’ ba is used in the description of YHWH’s relation to the other
gods and is used in a metaphorical sense. One might consider, however,
whether perhaps b» is not really local in meaning (cf. ’3B bs in Gen. 16:12;
25:18; 32:32; Num. 21:11; Josh. 15:8; 1 Sam. 26:1, 3 and see, e.g., Williams
§286). O’JB in combination with the name YHWH can be used to denote a place
that is sacred to YHWH (Introd. §3.42.2). In that case the meaning is: YHWH
does not permit the placing of images of other gods alongside him (cf. ’fl# in
20:23), at the place consecrated to him, in his sanctuary, in order to worship
them (cf. e.g. 2 Kgs. 21:7; 23:4; Ezek. 8:9ff.). Being a jealous God (20:5), he
cannot tolerate that. He claims all honour for himself.
20:4 nbir (Introd. §3.41.1), on the fabrication of images see 32:5. b, dativus
commodi (Ges-K §119s; Joiion §133d). bQB (20:4; Lev. 26:1; Deut. 4:16, 23,
25; 5:8 etc. [OT 3lx]; cognate form b’99* [OT 23x]) is a derivative of bOB
(see 34:1) and is used to denote a cultic image. Repeatedly bpg is used in
combination with rQOD (hendiadys) (see 32:4). Likely boa was in origin a
shortened designation (pars pro toto) for njQOl bQ9, an image of wood or
stone, which was given shape by hewing or cutting (bos) and to which metal
was attached (1 0 3 ) ; thus the form became a general term for cultic image. See
TM T, VI, 688ff.; Dohmen, 41ff. In the LXX it is only in Exod. 20:4; Deut.
5:8 (MS B) that the sing, is translated with the pejorative eldcoAov (cf. the use
of the plur. to translate o-bos in Isa. 30:22; 2 Chr. 33:22; 34:7). ba (Introd.
§3.26), cf. A. Schulz, BZ 23 (1935), 50.
njlOJjl (OTIOx; 20:4; Deut. 4:12, 15,1 6, 23, 25; Num. 12:8; Ps. 17:15; Job
^•16), ‘(visible) form, shape.’ See Dohmen, 216ff. n3ian functions as a further
description of bpo. The translation ‘likeness’ (e.g. KJV) or ‘portrayal’ (WV;
cf. GNB) goes back to the old versions (LXX: opouopa; Vulg.: similitudo).
Dohmen, 222, believes that this does not quite reproduce the meaning of the
term because it also contains the idea of ‘Urbild’-‘Abbild;’ in any case, in
Volume III1
32 DECALOGUE
Deut. 4:16-18 the idea is expressed by the use of (see 25:9).

In Deut. 5:8 ruiDrrba is preceded by bos. It is possible to take naiDrrba as
apposition: ‘an image, of whatever form,’ but bos can also (cf. Deut. 4:16, 23,
25) be taken as nomen regens (KOSynt §277v): ‘an image of whatever form’ or
‘an image of whatever being (as it presents itself).’
In 20:4 bos in absolute state is followed by njiorrbai. Dohmen, 213ff.,
227f., feels that the version of 20:4 is an intentional correction of the formula
tion of Deut. 5:8. According to him, in Exodus the change in the formulation -
n b s is followed by a double object; 20:5 (ortb) now goes well with 20:4 - has
set the image prohibition more apart than is the case in Deut. 5. It is doubtful
that the presence of the waw permits such sweeping conclusions. Likely the
waw is to be taken as an explicative waw (in the sense of: this commandment
pertains to every form that ...). As object, ruion does not quite go with nbff,
unless it is taken to mean ‘depiction of a figure,’ or the following 1$$ is taken
to mean ‘o f anything’ (e.g. KJV, SV, LV Dasbeig). The former is semantically
problematic^). The latter grammatically problematical (but note KOSynt
§380i). Thus one might consider whether the formulation of Deut. 5:8 is meant
as an elucidation.
naiarrbai in 20:4 is best reproduced ad sensum as: ‘indeed of no one
creature.’ All living beings are included in the prohibition. Through lipK and
following words this is underscored once more. The prohibition covers the
entire cosmos. All images, whether of humans or animals, are included (cf.
Deut. 4:16-18, and see Schroer**, 69ff., 161ff.).
With ‘the form in heaven’ are meant the (large) birds (cf. Houtman*,
Himmel, 11), but it does not include the heavenly bodies (cf. LV: ‘aan den
hemel’), as held, e.g., by Kruyswijk, 63; Schroer**, 257ff. It is an old but
unlikely idea, found already in Pseudo-Philo, IX, 6. The heavenly bodies were
worshiped directly (e.g. Deut. 4:19; Jer. 8:2; Ezek. 8:16).
bfiOB; bp0 (OT ca. 140*; Exod. 13*), derivative of nbp (Introd. §3.39),
‘what is above,’ is a noun used exclusively as adverb and as preposition; here
with preceding preposition as adverb ‘(there)above;’ see further the use of
bps® + b with the function of preposition in 28:27; 39:20 (cf. Brockelmann
§120a), the use of n ty e (with n-locale) in 30:14; 38:26; Lev. 27:7; Num. 1:3
etc. (cf. Brockelmann §120b), of n'ppob in 25:20; 37:9 (cf. KOSynt §330i), and
of n^robO in 25:21; 26:14; 36:19; 39:31; 40:19, 20.
On flt<b nnno O’oa, the sees, rivers, springs, whose surface lies below the
earth’s surface, see Houtman*, Himmel, 270. On f i x see Introd. §3.6; on CO
Introd. §3.33.
Dohmen, 198f., 209f., 226, 228, believes that the addition of the waw to
njiorrba has given the prohibition a broader meaning than it has in Deut. 5:8.
Pointing to Lev. 26:1 and Deut. 4:16-18, he posits that 20:4 does not just
prohibit images but depictions in general pertaining to the cult. Dohmen’s point
Volume III1
EXODUS 2 0 :3 -6 33
of view is not convincing. The second commandment, like Deut. 4:16-18,

refers exclusively to the worship of images. From that one may not conclude
that the commandment allows other portrayals (cf. Ezek. 8:10-12 and see
Schroer**, 7 Iff.) or a massebah (cf. Lev. 26:1). Specifically, however, it is
only cultic images that are condemned.
20:5, 6 nntf, see 4:31. onb, viz., the gods mentioned in 20:3, in the cult
represented by means of images (20:4 and 20:5 mutually influence each other).
O15V0 (Introd. §3.37.1), on the form see Ges-K §60b; Joiion §63b; De-
litzsch*, 78; differently Cassuto (vocalization expresses contempt) and C.J.
Labuschagne, Deuteronomium, IB, Nijkerk 1987, 34 (the hoph. form is to be
translated as ‘and you shall not be made to serve them [the gods]’); see further
Goldman*, 646. ’3, see Introd. §3.25.2. ‘YHWH, your God,’ see Introd. §7.2.2.
N}p (OT 6x), adjective from the root KJp (see THAT, II, 647ff.; TfVAT, VII,
5Iff.), is used only in reference to God, usually as adjective with btf (Introd.
§7.1), see 20:5; 34:14; Deut. 4:24; 5:9; 6:15 (cf. the use of the cognate form
Hi3p in Josh. 24:19; Nah. 1:2), in 34:14 also as predicate of YHWH. The term is
usually translated as ‘jealous’ and contains the notions of passion and intoleran
ce (cf. Hos. 2:4ff.; 3:lff.; 4:16f. etc.). It is always used in passages that are
about worhip of foreign gods (34:14; Deut. 6:15; Josh. 24:19; cf. also Deut.
32:16, 21; 1 Kgs. 14:22) or worship of images (Deut. 4:24; cf. Ezek. 8:3, 5;
Ps. 78:58). In 20:4, 5; Deut. 5:8, 9 both themes are closely connected. Natural
ly so, for the worship of foreign gods often, while not exclusively (e.g. Deut.
4:19; Ezek. 8:16), takes the form of worshiping images. The portrayal of God
found here is strongly anthropopathic. It is y h w h ’s will that Israel be solely
devoted to him (cf. Hos. 13:4); unfaithfulness, unrequited love is something he
cannot stand and condone (cf. Deut. 4:24-28; 6:15; Josh. 24:24).37
7pS, see 3:16.3* ‘iniquity,’ see Introd. §3.20.2. 3tt, see 2:16. ‘children,’ see
Introd. §3.10; KdSynt §246d. (Sam.Pent.: O’ttf’be;) 'bo, in Deut. 5:9:
it goes too far to assume, on the basis of the waw, that there is a real
difference - a different method of counting the generations - between 20:5 and
Deut. 5:9 (cf. A. Graupner, ZAW 99 [1987], 314f.). Likewise, it is doubtful
whether there is a real difference between 20:5 and Gen. 50:23; Exod. 34:7, as
held, e.g., by Baentsch; in the LXX and Vulg. ‘generation’ is explicitly
mentioned; similarly in the taigums and Pesh. (as opposed to LXX, Vulg. also
in 20:6); in LXX® is bo translated with cox;, ‘till;’ in LXXA with the usual eirt.
descendants...,’ see Introd. §§4.4.4; 4.5.2; meant are evidently the grandchil
See further THAT, II, 647ff; TWAT, VII, 5 Iff.; C. Dohmen, “Eifersttchtiger ist sein Name,”
ViZ 46 (1990), 289-304.
3S Cf. J.R. Spencer, “PQD, the Levites, and Numbers 1-4,” ZAW 110 (1998), 535-46.
Volume III1
34 DECALOGUE
dren and great-grandchildren (cf. Num. 14:18 en K8Synt §337e).

(on lOto see 1:10), it is often thought that the b is used to describe the
genitive (K8Synt §2801; Ges-K §129e; Joilon §130b). I believe b means ‘in
respect to’ (cf. e.g. Brockelmann §107i; Williams §273), here in the sense of
‘so far as;’ yet again another view is that of J. Scharbert, Bib 38 (1957), 146.
In the taigums the retribution is explicitly restricted to the person who follows
the bad example of the father; thus, for example, the sons are described as
‘rebellious’ and the fathers as ‘wicked’ (not in TO); cf. also M e t, II, 246f.;
Pseudo-Philo, XI, 6. 20:6 is in TPsJ, TNf en FTP explicitly related to the
righteous.
‘to show,’ see Introd. §3.41.1. non, see 15:13. *)bN (Introd. §4.13.1), cf.
Deut. 7:9. ’JOK, part. plur. qal + suffix of 3fiK (OT 195*), ‘love,’ ‘to be
attached to’ (opposite to toft [see 1;10]; cf. Gen. 29:31f.; 37:4; Lev. 19:17f.
etc.), is used with regard to the affection of the subordinate to his master (21:5;
Deut. 15:16; cf. 1 Sam. 16:21; 18:16, 22), also of the affection of Israel, the
servants of YHWH, towards their Lord (20:6; Deut. 5:10; 6:5; 10:12; 11:1, 13,
22 etc.).39 m tf, see 10:28. ‘stipulations,’ see Introd. §3.43.2.
1.4 THE USE OF YHWH’s NAME (20:7)
20:7 ‘You may not use the name o f YWHH, your God, fo r deceptive purposes,
fo r YHWH will not leave unpunished anyone who uses his name fo r deceptive
purposes. ’
1.4.1 Bibl.: M.E. Andrew, “Using God: Exodus XX.7,” ET 74 (1962), 304-7;
E. Jucci, “Es. 20,7: La proibizione di un uso illegittimo del nome di Dio nel
decalogo,” BeO 20 (1978), 245-53; B. Lang, “Das Vferbot des Meineids im
Dekalog,” ThQ 161 (1981), 97-105; A. Meinhold, “Jtidische Stimmen zum
dritten Gebot,” Kirche und Israel 2 (1987), 159-68; L.B. Paton, “The Meaning
of Exodus XX.7.,” JBL 22 (1903), 201-10; A.J. Wagner, “An Interpretation of
Exodus 20:7,” Int 6 (1952), 228-9.
1.4.2 Exod. 20:7 is identical to Deut. 5:11. The use of the 1st person in refer
ence to YHWH in 20:2-6 is dropped in favour of the 3rd pers. (cf. 1.1.6). Ehrlich
is right that it is not entirely clear what is being forbidden, \hrious interpreta
tions are defended.
20:7 is regarded as forbidding perjury, false swearing. The view, defended
by, among others, Jepsen (see 1.1.1), 291f., and with verve by Lang and
” See THAT, I, 60ff.; TWAT, I, 105ff.; F.E. Deist, ‘“To Love God and Your Neighbour’ - A
Sociolinguistic Perspective,” Old Testament Studies 10 (1996), 7-17.
Volume III1
EXODUS 20:7 35
\feijola), goes way back. In TO, TPsJ, FTP, PTF and Pesh., mentioning the
name is explicitly related to taking the oath (TNf en SamT agree closely with
MT). In TO Kl0b is translated with two different terms; the first time with
KJJO1? (cf. TPsJ, TNf: pa i s [2*]), ‘casual,’ ‘to no purpose;’ the second time
with m p ’tf1? (cf. PTF: iptfn [2*]; Pesh.: bdglwt [2*]), ‘false’ (on the variation
see also FT11). Probably the alternation is not purely for stylistic reasons, as in
the Vulg. (in vanum and frustra), but also affects the meaning. In any case, in
Jewish exegesis the prohibition is regarded as a dual prohibition, aimed at
swearing for no reason, taking a senseless oath (affirming under oath some
thing that conflicts with generally known facts or something that is clear to
begin with); cf. Rashi, Nachmanides) and against false swearing (cf. Mek., II,
248; bSheb 20b-21a).
Jewish exegesis40 also contains other, more general interpretations (already
Nachmanides) of the prohibition, applying it to any profanation of the Name.
Cassuto, e.g., relates 20:7 not only to a false oath but also to the use of
YHWH’s name in adjurations, magic, fortune telling and the like. Buber, 156,
and Auerbach, 201, take 20:7 exclusively as a prohibition of magical practices,
sorcery. Not so long also non-Jewish exegetes agreed with that view. Noth
translates totii with ‘zu nichtigen Zweck’ (that is, to effect evil with it) and
posits that what is forbidden here is the use of the divine name to avail oneself
of the divine power present in it, for making incantations and cursings. Also
others regard 20:7 as a prohibition of magical practices (e.g. E. Otto, ZAW 98
[1986], 165f.; Phillips [see 1.1.1], 54). As a rule 20:7 is regarded as a general
prohibition to misuse YWHH’s name. Misuse is said to include black magic,
perjury, unjust putting under a curse, blasphemy (e.g. CrUsemann [see 1.1.1],
50ff.; Hossfeld [see 1.1.1], 246f.; Stamm, ThR 27 [1961], 288ff.).
1.4.3 We shall determine our standpoint on the basis of the terms that are
used. Kirn H i (see 6:8), it would seem, must be taken to mean Kirn
N1?, ‘you may not take upon the lips’ (cf. Ps. 16:4 and also Num. 23:7; 2 Kgs.
9:25; Isa. 14:4; Pss. 15:3; 50:16; 81:3 and see LV, Ehrlich). There is no reason
to follow \feijola, 8, and relate Kirs + 00 (Introd. §3.50) exclusively to swear
ing an oath. Meant is the solemn naming (thus intentional) of YHWH’s name.
Klltf (OT 53x; Exod. 20:7[2*]; 23:1; cf. also Deut. 5:20) is related to
(see 5:9) and denotes ‘deception,’ ‘falsity,’ that which lacks substance, injures,
and is disappointing. Arguable is to what extent both terms overlap in meaning,
are synonymous with each other.41 Furthermore, one could ask whether K10b is
to be related to the manner in which something is done (cf. Brockelmann
See e.g. Albeck (see 1.1.1), 266ff.; Greenberg (see 1.1.1), 101 f.; Leibowitz*, 324ff.;
Meinhold, 161ff.
41 For a discussion of Kife see THAT, II, 882ff.; TWAT, VII, 1104ff.; Klopfenstein (see 5:9),
315ff.; Hossfeld, 77ff.
Volume III1
36 DECALOGUE
§107ia; Williams §274) or to the purpose one seeks to accomplish (cf. Broc-
kelmann §107h; Williams §277). Should Nlttfb be translated as ‘untruthful,’
‘deceptive,’ or as ‘in vain,’ ‘for nothing,’ ‘for no good reason’ (cf. Jer. 2:30;
4:30; 6:29; 46:11) or with, e.g., ‘tot valsheid’ (LV) or ‘zu unlauterem Zweck’
(Auerbach, 198)?. Or does Xlltf also here (cf. e.g. Jer. 18:15) refer to an idol?
(on this last possibility see W.E. Staples, JBL 58 [1939], 325-9).
In the first place it is to be noted that the prohibition deals with misuse of the
name YHWH, use that is harmful to YHWH. Is YHWH being harmed by idle,
frivilous use of his name? No doubt, but it is questionable whether 20:7 refers
to such ‘frivolous’ misuse. 20:7 belongs to the ‘constitution,’ the basic law
underlying the pact between YHWH and Israel. One may expect that it deals
with a matter that is of fundamental significance. For that reason alone it is
unlikely that ‘in vain’ (e.g. K Jy CV, NV, in the tradition of LXX [erti
pataiq); 2*] and Vulg.) is an adequate rendering of Kittfb. Also here (cf. 20:16
beside Deut. 5:20) KlE? can be taken as a synonym of ~)p0 and denotes, as more
often (23:1 [cf. 23:7]; Isa. 59:4; Hos. 10:4; Pss. 139:20; 144:8, 11; Prov. 30:8),
‘deceit’ (Buber-Rosenzweig: ‘das Wahnhafte;’ Fox: ‘delision’), that which
harms. As such, Kltfb relates both to the manner in which something is done
and to the purpose for which it is done: someone, consciously, while invoking
YHWH’s name, makes a statement that is not supported, cannot be supported by
YHWH’s authority. The impression is created that YHWH stands behind what is
affirmed, while in reality such is not the case. So one’s fellow citizens are
misled and harmed, if not directly, at least indirectly. Because, when the truth
is violated and one can no longer depend on fellow citizens, the moral fiber
holding society together unravels.
The prohibition is aimed at all practices that are done in YHWH’s name and
sanctioned with an appeal to him, whereas in reality he has nothing to do with
it. Things such as perjury, the false oath while invoking YHWH (cf. e.g. Deut.
6:13; 10:20; Jer. 12:16) by a witness in a court case, the oath by a deceiver to
clear his name (see e.g. 22:7f. and Lev. 5:20-26; 19:12; Jer. 5:2; 7:9; Zech.
5:3f.; 8:17; Mai. 3:5; Ps. 24:4; cf. Lang, 99ff.; Veijola, 6ff.), as well as the
imprecation with an appeal to YHWH (cf. 2 Kgs. 2:24 and see Judg. 17:2; Prov.
29:24), while there is no good ground for such use (Hos. 4:2 and see Lev. 5:1;
Job 31:29f.). The misuse also includes the use of YHWH’s name by mediators
of revelation, such as prophets, when in their prophesying they invoke YHWH’s
name (cf. Jer. 11:21), declaring ‘Thus says YHWH,’ and pretend to act on
YHWH’s behalf (cf. Deut. 18:19-22; Jer. 28:2, 4, 11, 15 and see also Deut. 13;
18:9ff.), whereas in reality the inspiration for their words comes from their
own heart (cf. Ezek. 13:2-16).
1.4.4 The reason for the deceptive appeal to YHWH is not mentioned in the
text. Someone may do it for personal gain (Mic. 3:5), though such need not
necessarlily be the case. In all cases, however, it is wrong and harmful to the
Volume III1
EXODUS 20 :7 37
fellow citizen, because the authority of the spoken word is only appearance. So
in 20:7 the relationhip to fellow human beings is already clearly in sight (cf.
1.1.12). All the same, in the prohibition that relationship does not take center
stage. Its central concern is the relation of the Israelite to YHWH. The Israelite
is forbidden, for whatever motive, to hitch YHWH to his own wagon, to misuse
the luminance of the name YHWH. Anyone who commits that sin shows thereby
to have no respect for YHWH whatsoever He undermines YHWH’s authority, the
reputation which YHWH as the God of truth and justice enjoys among the
people (cf. Pseudo-Philo, XI, 7, and Ibn Ezra). He makes YHWH look ridicu
lous and is guilty of blasphemy (see at 22:27).
20:7 ties in with the ordinance about the lawful cult (20:2-6). YHWH demands
exclusive worship. That also implies that he does not want his devotees to take
the name of other gods upon their lips (cf. 23:13). What they may do is use his
name for calling upon him and for praising him (cf. 3:15). They must, how
ever, refrain from deceitful use of his name. They may not make wrongful use
of the existing relation ( ‘YHWH, your God;’ see Introd. §7.2.2). Authenticating
one’s own words by making it appear that they are spoken on YHWH’s behalf
( ‘YHWH is my witness,’ or ‘God wants it,’ ‘God requires it’) is something he
emphatically forbids. Wrongful use of his name violates YHWH’s authority and
honour. YHWH cannot let such dishonouring go unpunished.
1.4.5 For the retribution (cf. 1.1.12) the pi. of the verb npJ (OT 44*; 25*
ni.; 18* pi.) is used; pi. with YHWH as subject and negation: ‘not leave un-
punished/let go free’ (20:7; 34:7; Num. 14:18; Deut. 5:11; Jer. 30:11; 46:28;
Nah. 1:3); niph.: ‘remain unpunished,’ ‘go free,’ ‘be free of’ (+ )0) (21:19;
Num. 5:19, 28, 31; Prov. 6:29; 19:5, 9; 28:20 etc.); cf. the use of the adjective
(OT 43x): ‘unpunished’ (21:28); ‘innocent’ (23:7). See THAT, II, 101ff.;
TWAT, V, 59Iff. Also where it concerns the misuse of his name, YHWH shows
himself a top btt (20:5). Is there is a play on words: top - n p r \nbl
The how of the retribution is not concretely stated. In TPsJ, TNf, PTF
YHWH’s punishment is said to happen on the day of the great judgment;42 in
FT11 it is noted that perjury induces YHWH to destroy creation and that, thanks
to the person who does not swear falsely, the world continues to exist; such a
person will prosper in this world and in the world to come. Apparently in
20:7b one should think of (immanent) retribution by YHWH. For it is presumed
that the misuse of YHWH’s name remains hidden from the public and is only
known to y h w h himself. For the person who is driven by a guilty conscience
to confess the perjury, a settlement with the injured party and reconciliation
with YHWH are possible. If someone publicly slanders YHWH, the community
On that see E. Levine, The Aramaic Version o f the Bible, Berlin/New Yoik 1988, 86ff.,
2l9ff.
Volume III1
38 DECALOGUE
through its official representatives can adjudicate the matter (Lev. 24:15). That
is not possible with the person who covertly damages YHWH’s reputation. All
the same, in some way that person will suffer the consequences for what he did
(cf. 1 Kgs. 8:3If.; Isa. 28:17; Zech. 5:3f.; Sir. 23:11-14).
1.4.6 By implication the prohibition of 20:7 comes up in the NT when it
refers to truthfiilly or falsely speaking in the name of God or of Jesus (Matt.
7:21; 28:19; Mark 9:38f.; Luke 6:46f.; 9:49f.; Acts 16:18; 19:13; 2 Tim. 2:19;
cf. 1 Cor. 12:3 en Acts 3:6; 8:5ff).
As noted, the prohibition does not primarily refer to the ‘casual,’ the frivo
lous use of YHWH’s name. It is, however, denounced in the Bible, in connec
tion with haphazard use of the oath (Sir. 23:9-11; Matt. 5:33-37; Jas. 5:12; cf.
also Eccl. 9:2). The assumption that the prohibition of 20:7 is the source of the
Jewish custom of avoiding the divine name (cf. Introd. §7.3.1; see e.g. Calvin;
Heinisch; Fensham; Jucci, 251), is incorrect (cf. Ehrlich).
The prohibition does not refer to the public blaspheming of YHWH. That does
not mean that in the OT blasphemy is not regarded as a serious offense (Lev.
24:16; cf. Matt. 9:3 par.; 26:65 par.; John 5:18; 10:33, 36; Rev. 13:6; 16:9, 11,
21). In the history of interpretation, this prohibition has been applied to a broad
variety of sins (see also already 1.4.2) and linked to every desecration of the
divine name, not only to perjury and undue swearing of an oath, but also to
blasphemy and the thoughtless and random use of swearwords and other types
of profanity. Also irreverent use of the name of Jesus Christ has been included
in the commandment. The extent of the prohibition has not been restricted to
the tongue, but also said to involve the heart; it is not enough to abstain from
the (senseless) use of God’s name in cursing and swearing, one is also called to
oppose and try to prevent such use of the divine name by others. The prohibi
tion has been given a positive purport. It has been taken as a command to
hallow God’s name (cf. Matt. 6:9), in public worship and in all of life. One’s
conception of God and one’s speaking about God must be in agreement with
his exaltedness and glory. Thought, speech and deeds must bear the mark of
total reverence for God (see e.g. Heidelbeig Catechism, Lord’s Day 36;
Calvin). The Reformers stopped short of going as far as the anabaptists who
rejected every kind of oath taking (cf. Matt. 5:33-37). In their view (cf. Rom.
1:9; 2 Cor. 1:23 etc.; see also Matt. 26:72, 74; Mark 14:71), the oath required
by the lawful government was justified (see Heidelbeig Catechism, Lord’s Day
37; for Luther see \feijola [see 1.1.1], 75f.).
1.5 THE DAY OF REST (20:8-11)
Exodus Deuteronomy
20:8 ‘Observe the day o f rest and 5:12 ‘Honour the day of rest and
Volume III1
EXODUS 20:8-11 39
so keep it holy. so keep it holy, as YHWH, your

God, commanded you.
20:9 Six days you may labour and 5:13 Six days you may labour and
do all your work, do all your work,
20:10 but the seventh day shall be 5:14 but the seventh day shall be a
a day o f rest in honour o f YHWH, day of rest in honour of YHWH,
your God. Then you may not do your God. Then you may not do
any work, not you, and not your any work, not you, and not your
son and daughter, nor your male son and daughter, nor you male
slave or female slave, slave or female slave, or your ox
or your livestock or your donkey or any of your li
and the alien who resides in your vestock, and not the alien who resi
towns. des in your towns, in order that
your male slave and your female
slave may rest as well as you.
20:11 Because in six days YHWH 5:15 You shall remember that
made the heaven and the earth, the YHWH, your God, commands you,
sea and all that is in the world, because you were a slave in the
and rested on the seventh day, land of Egypt, and YHWH, your
YHWH made the day o f rest a bles God, brought you out from there
sed and consecrated day.' with heavy pressure and by means
of irresistible power, to observe the
day of rest.’
1.5.1 Bibl. (a selection, mainly of recent date): ABD, V, 849ff.; IDBS, 760ff.;
TWAT, VII, 1047ff.; TWNT, VII, Iff.; N.-E. Andreasen, The Old Testament
Sabbath: A Tradition-Historical Investigation, Missoula 1972; idem, “Recent
Studies of the Old Testament Sabbath: Some Observations,” ZAW 86 (1974),
453-69; J. Briend, “Sabbat,” in DBS, X, 1132-70; F. Hahn, “Schabbat und
Sonntag,” EvTh 46 (1986), 495-507; W.W. Hallo, “New Moons and Sabbaths:
A Case Study in the Contrastive Approach,” HUCA 48 (1977), 1-18; Hehn (see
Ini. §4.4.3); E. Kutsch, “Der Sabbat - ursprilnglich \follmondstag?,” in idem,
Kleine Schriften zum Alten Testament, Berlin/New York 1986, 71-7; N.
Lohfink, “Arbeitswoche und Sabbat in der priesterlichen Geschichtserzahlung,”
Bibel und Kirche 52 (1997), 110-18; H.A. McKay, Sabbath and Synagogue:
The Question o f Sabbath Worship in Ancient Judaism, Leiden et al. 1994; F.
Mathys, “Sabbatruhe und Sabbatfest: Uberlegungen zur Entwicklung und
Bedeutung des Sabbat im Alten Testament,” ThLZ 28 (1972), 241-62; J.H.
Meesters, Op zoek naar de oorsprong van de sabbat, Assen 1964; G. Robin
son, The Origin and Development o f the Old Testament Sabbath, Frankfurt am
Main et al. 1988; H. SchUngel-Straumann, “Das Geschenk des Sabbat im Alten
Testament,” Bibel und Kirche 52 (1997), 119-23; E. Spier, Der Sabbat, Berlin
Volume III1
40 DECALOGUE
1989; K.R. Vfeenhof, “The Old Assyrian HamuStum Period: A Seven-Day

Week,” JEOL 34 (1995-96), 5-26; T. \feijola, “Die Propheten und das Alter
des Sabbatgebots,” in Prophet und Prophetenbuch (Fs O. Kaiser), Berlin/New
York 1989, 246-64; Th.C. Vriezen, “Kalender en Sabbat,” Nieuwe Theologi-
sche Studien 23 (1940), 122-95; H. Weiss, “The Sabbath Among the Samari
tans,” JSJ 25 (1994), 252-73.
1.5.2 The sabbath commandment requires that once a week, on the seventh
day, for a period of time of twenty-four hours, from sunset to sunset (cf. Lev.
23:22; Neh. 13:19), everyday work be interrupted, thereby giving the seventh
day a unique position in the week and consecrating it to YHWH. The law is
positively formulated (cf. also Lev. 19:3; 26:2) and occupies, also due to its
length, a central place in the decalogue (see 1.1.12). The version of Exod. 20
differs from that of Deut. 5 in particular with respect to the motivation of the
commandment (see 20:11 beside Deut. 5:15, and further 1.1.10).
The seventh day is called o r or njttf (see 16:23) in the decalogue. The
relation of the noun natf to the verb natf is a point of dispute. Sometimes it is
thought that the noun is derived from the verb, sometimes that the verb is a
denominative verb, but it happens, too, that either is called into question. It has
also been contended that is to be traced to the Akkadian sab/pattu(m),
‘full moon,’ or that ‘sabbath’ can be explained from the number ‘seven’
(Introd. §4.8).43 Whatever one’s view on the etymology, it should be noted that
in the OT it is possible, at least due to assonance, to link noun and verb (Hos.
2:13). That might be an indication that noun and verb were also regarded as
related in substance, and that when the verb was used the noun rQ#, ‘day of
rest,’ was heard as well (cf. Gen. 2:2f.; Exod. 23:12; 34:21).
1.5.3 With the rise of the religio-historical study of the Old Testament, in
treatises on the sabbath the query concerning the origin o f the sabbath became
paramount. Already for over a hundred years OT students have pored over the
question. I content myself with no more than outlining the positions that have
been defended.44
The opening up of Ancient Mesopotamia through archaeological excavations
in the second half of the 19th century and following years caused many
researchers to conclude that the sabbath is Babylonian in origin. The sabbath
was identified with the Akkadian sab/pattu(m) and linked to ume lemnuti,
taboo days, days on which one abstained from certain types of labour, because,
so it was believed, doom rested on it. That idea was abandoned when it was
43 For the discussion see TWAT, VII, 1048f.; Andreasen 1972, 9ff., 100fF.; Briend, U33ff.;
Hehn, 9 Iff.; Meesters, 6ff.; Robinson, 27f.
44 See further in particular Andreasen 1972, 8ff., 117fT; Briend, 1135fF.; Meesters, 28ff.;
Robinson, 28ff.
Volume III1
EXODUS 20:8-11 41
discovered that sab/pattu(m) was a designation for the full moon and that the
taboo days do not (quite) fit into a scheme of seven days. In the first decades
of the 20* century, the view advanced by J. Meinhold sparked a lot of discus
sion. He postulated that the sabbath in Israel originally was not the seventh day
of the week but the day of the full moon (cf. the Akkadian sab/pattu[m] ).
presumably at the earliest in the exilic period, but probably not until the post-
exilic period, the monthly sabbath was turned into the weekly sabbath. The
view fell into oblivion, but gained new support in the seventies (so Briend,
1141, 1147f., 1157 et al.; \feijola, 263v) and was fervently defended by G.
Robinson, who held that the sabbath of the decalogue was a post-exilic creation
of (pp. 256, 270, 313f.).
In support of this view it is pointed out that ‘New moon’ and ‘sabbath’ are
often mentioned together (Amos 8:4-7; Hos. 2:11-15; Isa. 1:10-14; 2 Kgs.
4:22f.; cf. also Ezek. 45:17). In the above passages and in the passages where
both festival days are mentioned in the order of ‘sabbath’ - ‘new moon’ (Ezek.
46:1, 3, 9; 1 Chr. 23:31; 2 Chr. 2:3; 31:3; cf. Ezra 3:5), it is, however likely
that they are mentioned together not because both are related to the moon, but
because a mark of both is that they are observed at regular times throughout
the year and that on those days no ordinary work is done.
The view that the sabbath was originally the day of the full moon is, in
Briend, Robinson en \feijola, accompied with the notion that, at least as
concerns the pre-exilic time, ‘the seventh day,’ being a day on which ordinary
work ceased, is to be distinguished from the sabbath and to be researched as a
separate institution. His study of it made Robinson conclude that originally also
‘the seventh day’ was not a weekly day off, observed through the whole year,
but as an institution grew out of the custom during harvest, as part of the
festival calendar to cease work on the seventh day, a custom that was later
extended to include the time of plowing (cf. 34:21), and eventually came to be
observed through the whole year (pp. 109ff.).
The aiguments for this thesis are only valid for those who also subscribe to
the premise on which it is based.45 For those who disagree, the common view
that the seventh day and the sabbath are the same and that ‘sabbath’ in the
entire OT is a designation of the seventh day of the week, the day on which
daily work ceased, is still the most plausible (cf. Andreasen 1972, 121, 266).
Starting from that conception, divergent theses about the origin of the sabbath
are defended.
So supporters of the so-called Kenite hypothesis (cf. Introd. §7.3.3) propose
that the sabbath (the day of Saturn [cf. Amos 5:26]) was the taboo day of the
Kenites, on which they, blacksmiths by profession, were not allowed to light
45
For arguments against the thesis see, e.g., Meesters, 33f.; Kutsch.
Volume III1
42 DECALOGUE
the fire in their blacksmith shop (cf. 35:2; Num. 15:32). Others have proposed
that the origin of the sabbath can be traced to the periodic market day, a day
off for most of the populace. I confine myself to presenting the diverse views,
and to noting that the number ‘seven’ is important not only in the OT but also
in the literature of Israel’s Umwelt, also in connection with the patterning of
time (cf. Introd. §4.7.8). However, so far it has not been possible to make a
convincing case for an extra-Israelite origin of the sabbath. That has led some
authors to emphasize the uniquely Israelite character of the sabbath (e.g. Hallo,
15; Meesters, 33f.). As such, however, an origin outside Israel need not be
excluded. If that should be the case, it may be assumed that the sabbath, as
happened with other institutions, bears the stamp of faith in YHWH. According
to die OT, he gave the seventh day its distinctive position (Gen. 2:2, 3; Exod.
20:11; 31:17) and demands that Israel keep the sabbath (16:29f.; 20:8-11;
23:12; 31:15; 34:21; 35:2; Lev. 19:3; 26:2; Deut. 5:12-15).
1.5.4 The sabbath commandment occupies a prominent place in the deca
logue. The sabbath as such is not presented in the decalogue as something new
but rather as an institution Israel was familiar with (20:8). In the OT portrayal
of Israel’s history, it was already prior to YHWH’s revelation at the Sinai that
the people had learned of the sabbath commandment as a pattern for its social
life (Exod. 16:4, 5, 22-30); YHWH himself, already at creation, had given to the
seventh day a very special place in the succession of days (Gen. 2:2, 3; 20:11;
31:17). In the two versions of the decalogue, different motives are given for
the existence of the sabbath and the requirement to observe it. In Exod. 20 the
sabbath and accompanying precepts are based on the fact that YHWH, when he
created the world, also set the division of time, which shows that the reality
YHWH created also includes time and its rhythms. YHWH is Lord over time too.
He set apart the seventh day. Recognition of the special nature of that day by
observing the sabbath is the recognition of YHWH’s Lordship over time and the
admission that the autonomy of humans is only relative. The Israelite is
expected to display that recognition through imitatio dei by reserving the
seventh day as sabbath day. Since the sabbath is anchored in the creative work
of the God of heaven and earth, the admonition to keep the sabbath is truly
worldwide (cf. also Isa. 56:3-8;** 66:23).
In the strongly theocentric motivation of 20:11, the sabbath is the day of the
week that bears the stamp of YHWH as Creator and Sustainer of the world. The
emphasis is on why the seventh day is a hallowed day. In Deut. 5:15 the accent
is on why the day must be observed. There the motivation is soteriological.
The sabbath bears the stamp of YHWH as Deliverei; the God who brought Israel4
44 Cf. M.A. Beek, “De vreemdeling krijgt toegang (Jesaja 56:1-8),” in De Knecht: Studies
mndom Deutero-Jesaja (Fs J.L. Koole), Kampen 1978, 17-22.
Volume III1
EXODUS 20:8-11 43
out of the Egyptian house of slavery. The preamble (20:1,2; Deut. 5:6), which
stamps the decalogue, is here emphatically related to the sabbath. The intention
is that on the sabbath, that is weekly, that main redemptive fact of Israel’s
history be remembered (cf. Deut. 16:3 and see \bl. II, 143f., 149f.). Conse
quently in Deut. 5 the purpose of the sabbath is not, as is often said (e.g.
Greenberg [see 1.1.1], 103; Schmidt [see 1.1.1], 93, 96; cf. Andreasen 1974,
460ff.), primarily social and humanitarian - as is the case in 23:12 - but
religious, directed to the preservation of knowledge of y h w h and his associa
tion with Israel. The social and humanitarian (‘blessing;’ cf. 20:11) character of
the sabbath grows out of the primary purpose of the seventh day.
The day of rest is in honour o f YHWH (20:10; Deut. 5:14), to draw attention
to the fact that he is the Lord of time (20:11) and Israel’s deliverer (Deut.
5:15). Focussing one’s thoughts on God’s way of treating (hallowing) the
seventh day (20:11; 31:17; cf. Gen. 2:3) invites im itatio dei, celebrating the
day of rest with one’s entire household, thereby also making the sabbath a day
with a particular social and humanitarian ambience. Focussing one’s thoughts
on YHWH as deliverer recalls the past life of slavery and is likewise an invita
tion to im itatio dei, to a humanitarian treatment of fellow human beings (cf.
e.g. 22:20; 23:9; Deut. 15:15; 24:18, 22), to celebrating the day of rest with
one’s entire household, thereby also making the sabbath a day with a special
social and humanitarian ambience.
1.5.5 It is worthwhile to have a further look at the character of the sabbath,
and in connection with it consider the question whether it is possible to trace
die main lines of the history of the sabbath as an institution of ancient Israel.
For the latter, knowledge of the dating of the texts that deal with the sabbath is
necessary There is no consensus about it. The standpoints are subject to a lot
of change. Some decades ago, there was the tendency to look at the many
passages - and with it the sabbath institution - as being old. For example,
Vriezen, 191, aigued that the sabbath is as old as Israel’s history.47 Meanwhile,
the tide has turned (cf. also 1.1.8) and it has become the vogue to put the label
‘(very) young’ on many passages (e.g. Robinson, 235 etc.; \feijola, 248, 255,
258, 261). Despite the uncertainty, it is possible to state a few things with a
reasonable measure of certainty.
Typical of the seventh day of the week, already back in ancient Israel, was
die interruption of daily activitity which for six days had governed life (23:12;
34:21; cf. 20:10; Deut. 5:14). Cessation of labour, rest, is throughout history
the essence of the sabbath. In the stereotype formulation ‘six days ...., but the
seventh day, ‘ so typical of the sabbath stipulations (Introd. §4.7.1), all
emphasis lies on the requirement relating to the seventh day. For that day the
47 Cf. further e.g. Andreasen 1972, 87, 92 etc.; idem 1974, 455f., 458, 460f.; Meesters, 162.
Volume III1
44 DECALOGUE
rules have the force of law: without exception, work must cease; YHWH
demands that day for himself. The days preceding it are for man. For those
days, the commands do not have the nature of an imperative but, in accord
with the practice in ancient Israel (cf. Gen. 3:17ff.), state the allowable
maximum length of the work week.
Celebration of the sabbath is a mark of a civilized society. Sabbath and
culture go together. The sabbath is imposed upon the representatives of ordered
society, humans and domestic animals, and as a recurring point of rest in the
flow of time denotes what deserves the name ‘creation.’ The representatives of
the non-world, the chaos, have no binding to the sabbath. For them, all days of
the week are the same (cf. 23:10, 11 [see 2.7.4.4.3]).
It is not possible to determine exactly what was involved in the abstaining
from work in ancient Israel. What seems sure is that from way back the
pressure was great not to drop all professional work (altogether) on the sabbath
(34:21; Amos 8:5; cf. Isa. 58:13, 14; Jer. 17:21-27; Ezek. 20:13, 16, 21, 24;
22:8, 26; 23:38; Neh. 10:32; 13:15-22) and that the sabbath increasingly turned
into a carefully regulated day, also as concerns domestic and social life. Also,
e.g., the preparation of meals was regarded as work (16:23, 24; 35:3; Num.
15:32-36; see also 4.20, and \bl. II, 347f.; note, however, also 12:16). In
particular in the exilic and post-exilic era, strict observance of detailed sabbath
regulations was evidently considered very important. The sabbath became one
of the institutions which defined Jewish identity.4* Keeping it was to the Jews
one of the marks of their bond with YHWH, touchstone of faithfulness to YHWH
(31:13, 17; Isa. 56:1-8; Ezek. 20:12, 20; cf. also e.g. Jud. 8:6; 10:2; 2 Macc.
6:26; 8:26-28). Stories from the history of ancient Israel talk candidly about
traveling on the sabbath (2 Kgs. 4:22ff.) and about a coup d’etat on the sabbath
under the leadership of the highpriest (2 Kgs. 11:4-12), but a likely younger
text (16:29) restricts freedom of movement on the sabath, while in 1 Macc.
2:32-38 it is related that law-abiding Jews even considered it wrong to offer
self-defense on the sabbath.*49*
Observance of the sabbath commandment was regarded as an absolute
condition for happiness and prosperity (Jer. 17:24, 25), transgression as the
cause of misfortune (Jer. 17:27; Ezek. 22:8, 15; Neh. 13:18). The decalogue
4* Cf. K. Grunwaldt, Exit und Identitat: Beschneidung, Passa und Sabbat in der Priesterschrift,
Frankfurt/M 1992.
49 Cf., however, 1 Macc. 2:41; 9:43. The observance of the sabbath was militarily fraught with
danger for the Jews (cf 2 Macc. 8:26; 12:38 and in particular 2 Macc. 3:23; 13:1-5). Presumably,
also in pre-exilic times times it happened repeatedly that an enemy attacked Israel on the day
when they were least prepared to fight back (see ABD, V, 853a, 854b). Recent history also
contains examples of actions against the Jews deliberately undertaken on the sabbath (cf. Spier,
63).
Volume III1
EXODUS 20:8-11 45
mentions no sanctions on transgression (see 1.1.12). Elsewhere the seriousness

of the offense is emphasized by demanding the death penalty for transgressors
(31:14; 35:2; Num. 15:32-36; cf. 2.4-8, 16).
Though in 23:12 and 34:21, texts considered old, it is not explicitly stated
that the seventh day is a sacred day, it would be wrong to conclude that the
sabbath was initially only a social institution (e.g. Mathys, 244ff.; cf. in
particular 23:12). What is specifically stated in the decalogue, viz., that the
sabbath is ‘the day of the Lord,’ the day dedicated to YHWH (20:10; Deut.
5:14; cf. Exod. 16:25; 31:15; 35:2 and Lev. 19:3, 30; 26:2), is assumed in
23:12; 34:21. After all, the sabbath precept is from YHWH. As day of fulness
and completion (Introd. §4.8.1) the seventh day as such was already a special
day in the week, but because YHWH designated it as day of rest, he sets it apart
as a very special day, his day. Its sacred and religious character has been a
mark of the sabbath through the centuries.
The decalogue contains no instructions for the worship service, not about
sabbath observance either. Unquestionably, however, worship of YHWH and
celebration of the sabbath have always been inseparably linked (cf. 2 Kgs.
4:22f.; 16:17f.; Isa. 1:13; Hos. 2:13). Presumably the worship on the sabbath
day (cf. Lev. 23:3; 24:8, 9; Num. 28:9f.; Ezek. 45:17; 46:1-4, 12; Lam. 2:6;
1 Chr. 9:32; 23:31; 2 Chr. 2:4; Neh. 10:34 etc.; cf. also Ps. 92) has undergone
changes as time moved on.
1.5.6 Also in the NT there is talk about the sabbath,50 among others in Jesus’
disputes with the Jews (see 1.1.15). In rabbinic Judaism, in the Qumran com
munity and with the Samaritans, the celebration of the sabbath has the charac
ter of status confessionis and the requirement of strict observance produced
precise rules about what may and may not be done on the sabbath.51
When the church adopted the OT as her own Scripture, she also accepted the
decalogue as God’s Word to her (see 1.1.15). However, the setting aside of the
seventh day as a day specially for the Lord was not taken over by the church.
It is also true, of course, that through the centuries until the present, on the54
54 Cf. e.g. ABD, V, 854ff; TWNT, VII, 20ff.; Robinson, 347ff.; Pancaro (see Introd. §13.1),
7ff., I58ff.
See Spier, 2 Iff. (the author presents a short history of the sabbath in Judaism; on the
observance o f the sabbath in other circles than those mentioned here, such as e.g. the Ethiopian
Falashas, see pp. 77ff); L.H. Schiffman, The Halakhah at Qumran, Leiden 1975, 77ff; R.
I’ommer, “Samaritan Rituals and Customs,” in A.D. Crown (ed.), The Samaritans, Tubingen 1989,
650-90 (pp. 676-8). Cf. also S.B. Hoenig, “The Designated Number o f Kinds o f Labor Prohibited
on the Sabbath,” JQR 68 (1977-78), 193-208. On the practice and customs of the Jewish
observance of the sabbath in synagogue and home through the centuries, see A.P. Bloch, The
Biblical and Historical Background o f Jewish Customs, New York 1980; I. Elbogen, Der jiidische
Cottesdienst in seiner geschichtlichen Entwicklung, Frankfurt a. Main 1931’, 107ff; B.S.
Jacobsen, The Sabbath Service, Tel-Aviv 1981; Spier, 8Iff.
Volume III1
46 DECALOGUE
fringes of Christendom - think of groups such as the Seventh Day Adventists

and the Seventh Day Baptists - there have been groups (Sabbatarians) who
have maintained the sabbath as the God-ordained day of rest (cf. Spier, 109ff.).
In the church, the first day of the week (cf. Mark 16:2 par.; Acts 20:7; 1 Cor.
16:2; Rev. 1:10), the day of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, has taken the
place of the sabbath. Moot is the place of the sabbath in the church of the first
centuries. Unclear is to what extent and with what contents the celebration of
the sabbath at first remained a feature of religious life next to the celebration
of the first day of the week (which was not kept as a day of rest).52 Certain is
that the sabbath, as day of rest at the end of the week, soon no longer played a
role in the church, after Constantine the Great, in the 4th century, made the
Sunday the official day of rest in the Roman empire. In a certain sense,
however the sabbath continued; by taking on marks typical of the sabbath
(worship and abstaining from work), the Sunday had become a sabbath in new
dress.53 The term sabbath received a place in the ominously sounding ‘witches’
sabbath,’ as designation of the carnival of the devil and his devotees (cf. HdA,
III, 1839f., 1845f., 1886f.).
For the reformers, the sabbath commandment was important to the extent that
it reminded the Christian church of the need to single out one day in the week
to come together for divine worship, for the proclamation of Scripture and
celebration of the sacraments, for prayer and the ministry of mercy (cf. also
Heidelbeig Catechism, Lord’s Day 38). In principle they judged all days of the
week to be alike. They did keep the Sunday as day of rest, but not for theolo
gical reasons. In their view, the position of the Sunday as day of rest rested on
the free choice of the church.54
Inside the Reformation, the Puritans in England, after the manner of mediae
val semi-sabbatarianism, held the sabbath commandment in high esteem by
52 Jesus and the apostles observed the sabbath (Mark 1:21, 29; Luke 4:16 etc.; Acts 15:21;
17:1, 2 etc.).
51 On sabbath and Sunday in the early church, see S. Bacchiocchi, From Sabbath to Sunday,
Rome 1977; W. Rordorf, Sunday: The History o f the Day o f Rest and Worship in the Earliest
Centuries o f the Christian Church, Philadelphia 1968; idem, Sabbat und Sonntag in der Alten
Kirche, Zorich 1972 (with text of the available sources); Spier, 114ff., and various contributions
to D.A. Carson (ed.), From Sabbath to L ordi Day, Grand Rapids 1982. In Christian Bible
translations, from the Vulg, and in imitation of the LXX, the Hebrew sabbath is as a rule rendered
in transliterated form. In the exegesis, however, the sabbath is interpreted as a day o f rest and
related to the Sunday. Cf. Hahn, 496, and see e.g. Heidelberg Catechism, Lord’s Day 38.
54 Cf. R.J. Baucldiam, “Sabbath and Sunday in the Protestant Tradition,” in Carson, 311-4L
Spier, 123ff.
Volume III1
EXODUS 20:8-11 47
practicing a very strict Sunday observance.55

1.5.7 As has become evident, there are various aspects to the sabbath. The
sabbath is a day of rest, or rathei; not a day of doing nothing, but a day on
which everyday activity ceases, and so a day of joy (cf. Isa. 58:13f.). Humans,
whether master or slave, and also animals used for carrying or pulling burdens,
are given a day off from doing work. On the sabbath, the hierarchical relation
ships have ceased to exist, and all share equally in the freedom given by God.
So it is not surprising that sabbath and echatology are connected and that the
sabbath can be typified as a foretaste of eternal bliss to come.56
The sabbath is not a day of inactivity, but a day that is altogether different
from the other days, a day given to service to YHWH. By praising him, by
remembering his mighty acts, and by careful observance of the precepts for
‘the day of the Lord,’ believers make it known that they are ‘the people of the
Lord.’ If they are a minority, the cost may be ridicule and persecution (cf.
Spier, 29, 50f., 61ff.).
The sabbath is both a day of freedom and of religious obligations that mark
one’s identity. There is a tension between these two aspects. It can happen that
the religious obligations are so heavily emphasized that the keeping of the
sabbath turns into servile labour, and that the sabbath turns into a taboo day, a
suffocating kind of day, because one fears the judgment for lacking in religious
zeal.57 But the sabbath is not only threatened by legalism.58 The freedom of the
sabbath can also be absolutized to such a degree that the day of rest becomes a
day one can fill in as one pleases. When that happens59 it loses its mark of
being a day set apart to the Lord, and so also its identity-defining character
Similar remarks can be made about the Christian Sunday. It is a day of
freedom and a day for the Lord. It is a day marked by God’s saving work in
Jesus Christ. Like the exodus out of Egypt, that saving work of God ought to
have social consequences (cf. Gal. 3:28; Col. 3:11), and inherent in the day is
the tension in the Christian life of being ‘in the world’ but not ‘of the world.’*S
o,
Cf. D.S. Katz, Sabbath and Sectarianism in Seventeenth-Century England, Leiden 1988;
K-L. Parker, The English Sabbath: A Study o f Doctrine and Discipline from the Reformation to
t e Civil Wars, Cambridge et al. 1988; J.H. Primus, Holy Time: Moderate Puritanism and the
Sabbath, Macon 1989; Spier, 127ff.
Cf. Str-B, IV/2, 989ff; Spier, 105fE For the NT see Heb. 3:7-4:11. On later exegesis, see
Heidelberg Catechism, Lord’s Day 38, and further Andreasen 1974, 468f.
So, e.g., ultra-orthodox Jews find the cause of the intifada in the desecration of the sabbath
m modem Israel.
Also in rabbinic literature the danger of legalism is not overlooked. So M ek, III, 198,
ntains the following interpretation of 31:14: ‘The sabbath is given to you, and you are not
'livened over to the sabbath’ (cf. Mark 2:27).
j . ‘S’’ when the Jewish minority abandons its distinctive traits and gets absorbed in the non-
WtSh majority of a particular community (cf. Spier, 5 Iff).
Volume III1
48 DECALOGUE
Both Sabbath and Sunday observance share in the dangers of legalism and loss
of identity.
In today’s secularized society, many no longer see the Sunday as a divinely
ordained or religious day with a social orientation. Owing to a growing social
awareness, the Sunday has become an established social institution, a day of
freedom and relaxation. As a purely social institution, it is, however, under
attack by big corporations and other financial concerns, which look upon the
weekly interruption of labour as an economic liability and a burden. While as a
rule those at the top have made sure that for themselves they have kept the
freedom to do with the Sunday what suits them best, they also push for a
system of round-the-clock labour, seven days a week, which leaves no room
for a commonly shared one day of rest a week. From the perspective of the
OT, a society in which all days of the week are alike puts its own civilization
at risk. Because there is no longer room for the day of rest, the day marked by
the imitatio dei, there is a kind of relapse from creation back to chaos (cf.
1.5.5).
All in all, the sabbath of the decalogue is the day of rest, the hallmark of a
healthy and just society that reckons with God and his will.
20:8 mar (Introd. §3.18.1; for infinitive see 1.1.12), Sam.Pent: TiDB (cf. Deut.
5:12); cf. also PTFS. naitfn o r (see 16:23), the day of rest; it is assumed that
Israel was familiar with it (cf. Gen. 2:2, 3; Exod. 16:28-30). Itfnpb
([Sam.Pent.: inenpb; cf. end 20:11]; see Introd. §3.44.1) has final meaning; cf.
Vulg. {memento ut diem sabbati sanctifices), where, however, because the
object is placed before the verb, it is no longer brought out that through the
celebration of the sabbath, through the interruption of regular work (20:10), the
seventh day becomes a day that is sacred (to YHWH; 20:10), a day which
relative to the other days (20:9) is very special.60
20:9, 10 ‘six days ...’ (accusative of time; cf. also 20:11 en see Ges-K §118k;
Joiion §126i) ‘but the seventh day,’ see §§4.7.1; 4.8.2 and also §3.23.1. na»,
see Introd. §3.37.1. n»l>, see Introd. §3.4.1. nOKbo, see 12:16.
OVl (accusative of time), Papyrus Nash (see 1.1.4): oval (cf. LXX and see
also e.g. 12:15; 20:11). ‘sabbath,’ in TPsJ, TNf, PTF,S translated with the
doublet ‘sabbath and rest’ (cf. also TNf 20:11). m rrb, the day of rest is a
religious institution; nothing is said here about a cultic celebration (see beside
it 12:16 and see 1.1.5). Such is the case in the version of the regulation in
Pseudo-Philo, XI, 8, where synagogal praise is specifically mentioned as
allowable ‘work’ ‘your God,’ see Introd. §7.2.2.
60 On nefto in Deut. 5:12, 16 see B. Lang, JSOT 77 (1998), 21-5.

Volume III1
EXODUS 2 0 :8 -1 1 49
After ntosn there follows in Papyrus Nash: rta, ‘on that (day)’ (cf. LXX,
Pesh., Vulg.). nntt, the addressed head of the household; the lady of the house
(20:17) is not explicitly mentioned; is she also included as addressee? (so
Jacob), ‘son,’ ‘daughter,’ see Introd. §3.10.1. ‘slave,’ ‘female slave,’ see
Introd. §3.37.2,3. 11217, with copula (cf. Deut. 5:14) in MSS MT (cf. Pesh.,
TO, TPsJ, TNf). On ) with the meaning ‘or’ see e.g. Jotlon §175a; Williams
§433. in n n a i (Sam.Pent.: without copula), see Introd. §9.1.2; the lifestock is
not mentioned in TPsJ; Papyrus Nash contains the more elaborate text of Deut.
5:14 (cf. also Exod. 23:12); cf. also LXX. ‘Lifestock’ in 20:10 refers to
domestic animals, in particular the typical work animals, the ass and the ox;
small lifestock were much less used for doing work.
113 (see 2:22), the stranger who resides with you and for whom you are
responsible. For the interpretation ‘proselyte’ in the LXX and possibly in the
targums (except SamTA), see 12:48f.
lytf (OT ca. 375x; Ezek. ca. 100; Exod. 12*; see TWAT, VII, 358ff.),61
‘gate,’ often used to indicate the entrance or exit of a city; also for the gate(s)
of the royal palace (e.g. Jer. 22:2,4), of the temple (e.g. Jer. 7:2), and for the
entrance to the court of the tent shrine: "ijfnn -iy# (27:16; 35:17; 38:15, 18, 31;
39:40; 40:8, 33; Num. 4:26).
The gate of an Israelite city was the covered opening in the wall, flanked on
both sides by ‘guard rooms,’ chambers in the wall, open to the passage way,
with above it one or more rooms (e.g. 2 Sam. 19:1). The gate was the nerve
center of the city.62 Contact with the outside world was by way of the gate.
One who possessed the gate controlled the city (e.g. Gen. 22:17; 24:60). The
gate was the center of social life. That is where contacts were established (Gen.
19:1; Ps. 69:13 etc.). In front of and behind the gate, buying and selling took
place (e.g. 2 Kgs. 7:1). In the gate - in the guard rooms - justice was admini
stered (Deut. 21:19; 22:15; Amos 5:12, 15 etc.). In view of its fundamental
significance in the life of the inhabitants of a city, it is not surprising that
‘gate,’ as part of the whole, by synecdoche can also stand for the entire city
(e.g. Isa. 14:31; Ps. 87:2). Thus ‘your gates’ can stand for ‘your cities’ (20:10;
frequently in Deuteronomy [5:14; 12:15, 17, 18, 21; 14:21, 27, 28; 16:5, 11,
18; 17:2, 5 etc.]).
In 32:26, 27(2x) ‘the gate’ is mentioned in connection with Israel’s camp in
the wilderness. Apparently the camp resembled a city. Also in the camp,
contact with the outside world was by way of the gate (cf. also the use of N2T
in 15:20; 16:4, 27, 29; 18:7; 33:7). One who controls the gate has the inhabi
61 Cf. E. Otto, “Zivile Funktionen des Stadtores in Palastina und Mesopotamien,” in M. Gdrg
(ed.), Agypten und Altes Testament (Fs H. Donner), Wiesbaden 1995, 188-97.
62 It could be a complex of gates; see BRL, 346ff.; De Geus (see 1:11), 35ff.; Z. Herzog, Das
Stadttor in Israel und in den Nachbarldndern, Mainz 1986.
Volume III1
50 DECALOGUE
tants of the city in his power. Moses’ standing by the gate (32:26) implies that
he was in charge of the whole camp. The evident assumption is that the camp,
like a small city, had only one gate, which makes it unlikely that iffiyO
in 32:27 is to be interpreted as ‘from gate to gate’ (cf. K6Synt §86) as is
customary. Likely the reference is to that one gate. From there, the Levites go
into the camp, and after having finished their task, go back to Moses. Moses
stands by the gate and sees to it that no Israelite escapes.
ID'N is in 20:10 LXX given a free rendering as 6 napouctov ev ooi,
‘who dwells with you;’ Tnutf, ‘your gates,’ is in TO rendered with ‘your
city,’ and in Pesh., TPsJ, TNf with ‘your cities.’
Domestic animals, slaves and foreigners are also mentioned in 23:12. Not,
however, as object of the regulation not to do any work. The purpose clause
expresses the goal, the social motive of the regulation. Also in Deut. 5:14b the
purpose is mentioned; in Exod. 20 only the reason for the regulation (v. 11).
20:11 For ‘YHWH’ (3rd person) see 1.1.6. ‘make,’ TPsJ, TNf: >na, ‘create’ (cf.
Gen. 1:1; 2:3); see also PTFS: ‘created and completed’ (cf. Gen. 2:1, 2). ‘heav
en ...,’ see Houtman*, Himmel, 27, 3 Iff., 70. MSS MT: O’rmtO; cf. among
others LXX, Vulg., Pesh., TNf, PTF: ‘the seas,’ likely due to the plur. Q? in
the sequel, which, however, also relates to heaven and earth (hence the
translation ‘in the world’), m3 (see 10:14), in Gen. 2:2 for the resting of God
natf is used, p*1?^, see 5:8. "■pa, see 12:32. natfn, Papyrus Nash: ’Catfn, ‘the
seventh;’ cf. LXX, Pesh., TPsJ, TNf and see Gen. 2:3. irtfipp’l (cf. 20:8 end),
Papyrus Nash: VBPp’i.
20:11 recalls Gen. 2:2, 3; there are, as noted, differences, also in the use of
the divine name; here ‘YHWH;’ there ‘God.’
FTP contains at the end of 20:11 an amplification, in which the momentous
place and the binding nature of the sabbath as a feast day are emphasized and
its celebration is presented as homage to YHWH; the reward for keeping the
sabbath is said to be inheriting the world to come, the perfect and everlasting
sabbath.
1.6 CARE FOR AGED PARENTS (20:12)
Exodus 20:12 Deuteronomy 5:16

‘Treat your father and your mother ‘Treat your father and your mother
with respect, with respect,
as YHWH, your God, commanded
you,
so that the duration o f your stay so that the duration of your stay
may be long. may be long,
Volume III1
EXODUS 2 0 :1 2 51
and so that it may go well with

you
in the land that y h w h , your God, is in the land that YHWH, your God,
going to give you. ’ is going to give you.’
1.6.1 Bibl.: R. Albertz, “Hinteigrund und Bedeutung des Eltemgebots im Deka-

log,” ZAW 90 (1978), 348-74; G. Blidstein, Honor thy Father and Mother,
New York 1976; R. Bohlen, Die Ehrung der Eltem bei Ben Sira: Studien zur
Motivation und Interpretation eines familienethischen Grundwertes in friihhelle-
nistischer Zeit, Trier 1991; A. de Buck, “Oudertrots, kinderplicht en de klacht
van een kinderloze,” JEOL 11 (1949-50), 7-15; L. Durr, Die Wertung des
Lebens im Alten Testament und im antiken Orient, Miinster in Westf 1926; O.
Eififeldt, “Sohnesplichten im alten Orient,” Syr 43 (1966), 39-47 = Kl. Schr,
IV, 264-70; Th.M. Falkner, J. de Luce (eds.), Old Age in Greek and Latin
Literature, Albanany, New York 1989; M.V. Fox, “Aging and Death in
Qohelet 12,” JSOT 42 (1988), 55-77; J.C. Greenfield, “Adi baltu - Care for the
Elderly and its Rewards,” AfO Beiheft 19 (1982), 309-16; J.F. Healy, “The
pietas of an Ideal Son in Ugarit,” UF 11 (1979), 353-6; O. Kaiser, “‘Und dies
sind die Geschlechter...’: Alt und jung im Alten Testament,” in Zur Aktualitat
des Alten Testaments (Fs G. Sauer), Frankfurt am Main et al. 1992, 29-45; J.
Klein, “The ‘bane’ of Humanity: A Lifespan of One Hundred Twenty Years,”
Acta Sumerologica 12 (1990), 57-70; B. Lang, “Altersversoigung, Begr&bnis
und Eltemgebot,” ZDMG Suppl. 3.1 (1977), 149-56; idem, “Altersversoigung
in der biblischen Welt,” in Wie wird man Prophet in Israel?, Diisseldorf 1980,
90-103; O. Loretz, “Das biblische Eltemgebot und die Sohnespflichten in der
Ugaritischen Aqht-Legende,” BN 8 (1979), 14-7; idem, “Stelen und Sohnes-
pflicht im Totenkult Kanaans und Israels,” UF 21 (1989), 241-6; J. Maier,
“Die Wertung des Alters in der jiidischen Uberlieferung des SpStantike und des
frilhen Mittelalters,” Saeculum 30 (1979), 355-64; A. Malamat, “Longevity:
Biblical Concepts and Some Ancient Near Eastern Parallels,” AfO Beiheft 19
(1982), 215-24; M. Pelling, R.M. Smith (eds.), Life, Death and Elderly,
London 1989; J. Scharbert, “Das Alter und die Alten in der Bibel,” Saeculum
30 (1979), 338-54; idem, “Die Altersbeschwerden in der Sgyptischen, babyloni-
schen und biblischen Weisheit,” in Lingua restituta orientalis (Fs J. Assfalg),
Wiesbaden 1990, 289-98; W. SchottrofF, “Alter als soziales Problem in der
hebr&ischen Bibel,” in Was ist der Mensch ...? Beitrage zur Anthropologie des
Alten Testaments (Fs H.W. Wolff), MOnchen 1992, 61-77; M. Stol, S.P.
Vleeming (eds.), The Care fo r the Elderly in the Ancient Near East, Leiden et
al. 1998.
1.6.2 The command (cf. also Lev. 19:3a) is not about the obligation of
(young) children to submit to parental authority, but is directed to adult
persons, those who in the patriachal society are family heads. They, the (oldest)
Volume III1
52 DECALOGUE
sons, when their parents have relinquished authority and are no longer able to
look after themselves, must provide them with food, clothing and shelter (cf.
Sir. 3:Iff., 12ff.; 7:27; Tob. 4:3f.; 5:18; Jub. 35:lff.; bYeb 65b), and after their
death give them an honourable burial (cf. Gen. 47:29f.; Tob. 4:3f.; 6:15;
14:1 Iff.; see on the contrary Num 6:7; Matt. 8:2If. and also Ezek. 44:25).
Examples from Israels Umwelt about the relationship of children to their
parents make this a plausible interpretation.63
The OT contains some examples of examplary care for parents (and other
family) (Gen. 45:10f.; 47:12; 50:21; Josh. 2:13, 18; 6:23; 1 Sam. 22:3).
Contact with the dead is prohibited in the OT (Lev. 19:31; 20:6, 27; Deut.
18:11). Care of parents that extends beyond death, which was practiced in
Israel’s ‘Umwelt,’64 is therefore not included in the duties the OT requires of
children. That does not mean that care of the dead was never practiced in
ancient Israel.6S
As noted, with the father and the mother are meant the aged parents. Concre
tely it concerns the parents of free Israelites; it is these free Israelites who are
charged with the care for their parents. Ancient Israel cherished high ideals
where it concerned the care for aged parents, ideals that are not only stated in
legal texts but also in other types of literature. The book of Proverbs urges
respectful behaviour toward parents (Prov. 10:1; 15:20; 17:6, 21, 25; 19:26;
Prov. 20:20; 23:22; 28:24; 30:11,17). Also here one can think of respectful
conduct of adults toward the aged parents or aged widowed mother. The
terminology requires a concrete filling-in. So, e.g., nta, ‘not respect,’ in Prov.
15:20 refers to the abandonment of one’s widowed mother; this is also the case
with n a in Prov. 23:22; with bbp pi., ‘treat shamefully,’ in Prov. 20:20 one
can concretely think of chasing away with cursing and strong language. In at
least one passage in prophetic literature, the respectful treatment of the father is
spoken of as self-evident (cf. Isa. 1:2f.). The passage is Mai. 1:6 ( ia a is used;
cf. Exod. 20:12). From the fact that in one breath the passage also mentions
the servant’s honouring of the master, one must conclude that the respectful
treatment also include the giving of care. That also in the time of the NT care
65 For Egypt, see De Buck, for Mesopotamia Greenfield and Lang, and for Ugarit Healy and
Loretz; the Ugaritice Aqhat-text has a list of duties of the son, including giving support with
drunkenness (KTU 1.17:25ff.); KTU 1.114 (cf. C.H. Gordon, JNES 35 [1976], 261f.) tells about
the care for the father in the world of the gods; it concerns the drunk god llu who has fallen into
a coma; cf. Korpel**, 332, 405; according to M. Margalit, The Ugaritic Poem o f Aqhat,
Berlin/New York 1989, 276f., in both cases it concerns legitimate, religious drunkenness.
M See e.g. K. Spronk, Beatific Afterlife in Ancient Israel and in the Ancient Near East,
Kevelaer/ Neukirchen-Vluyn 1986.
is See e.g. L. WSchter, Der Tod im Alien Testament, Stuttgart 1967, 181ff.; B.B. Schmidt,
Israeli Benificent Dead: Ancestor Cult and Necromancy in Ancient Israelite Religion and
Tradition, Ttlbingen 1994.
Volume III1
EXODUS 2 0 :1 2 53
for parents was considered a duty is evident from John 19:27.

1.6.3 The broad attention given to the duty to respect aged parents is an
indication that in practice such respect often left something to be desired (e.g.
Gen. 9:20ff.; 27:18ff.; 35:22; 49:3f.; see also 2.12.1). Already during the life
of the father fighting could erupt about taking his place, when he was sick or
senile (1 Kgs. 1), but also before that, when his authority was waning (2 Sam.
15:2-4; 16:21f.; cf. the Ugaritic Keret-text (KTU 1.16:VI,25ff.). The prototype
of the bad son is Nadin in the Ahiqar-tale, found in an Aramaic version in
Elephantine (transl. in Charlesworth, II, 479-507), but also known in various
other translations (cf. ABD, VI, 929f.; IDB, I, 68f.). Nadin’s disrespectful
behaviour comes out strikingly in the following words put in his mouth:
‘My father Ahikar is grown old, and stands at the door of his grave; and his
intelligence has withdrawn and his understanding is diminished.’ (Syriac
transl. 3:1; see Charles,66 II, 740).
In Mic. 7:6 such disrespect is a sign of chaos, of the disintegration of society

(cf. Matt. 10:21, 34f.; Mark 13:12; Luke 12:53; 1 Hen. 56:7).67 Immoral
behaviour toward parents is further dealt with in 21:1 5,17. The offense is so
serious that it demands the death penalty (cf. 2.2.18).
1.6.4 What were the symptoms of old age and what were the personal cir
cumstances of older folk? A woman was considered elderly when she could no
longer bear children, and a man from about his 60lh year of age. Not many
reached that age. A still higher age (Ps. 90:10) must be regarded as exception
al. Average life expectancy for the more well-to-do appears to have been
around 45 years (cf. Scharbert, 342f.; Wolff, 177ff.). For the socially more
vulnerable and slaves life expectancy must have been considerably lower,
^rious aspects of old age are mentioned in the OT. The negatives are stated in
considerable detail. Aging comes with physical and other infirmities. The hair
turns gray (Gen. 42:38; 44:29, 31; Deut. 32:25 etc.; in Prov. 16:31; 20:39 it is
a badge of honour). Blindness (Gen. 27:1, 2; 48:10; 1 Sam. 4:14f.; Tob. 2:10;
cf. also John 21:18), deafness (Lev. 19:14; see further at 4:11), obesity (1 Sam.
4:18), deterioration of strength and vitality (cf. 1 Kgs. 1:1-4) and other diseases
66 R.H. Charles (ed.), The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha o f the Old Testament in English,
Oxford 1913.
47 In Mic. 7:6 baJ pi. is used with the son as subject and the father as object; is there also in it
the element of refusing to have anything more to do with someone? The break with parents and
family is not always pictured as something negative. It can also be due to total consecration to
YHWH (Deut. 33:9; cf. Exod. 32:25ff.; 1 Kgs. 19:20f.?; Jer. 16:7). See also Matt. 8:21f.; Luke
14:26; cf. Matt. 10:37; the following of Jesus produces new ‘family’-ties and responsibilities
(Mark 3:3Iff. par. and see also Luke 18:28f.).
Volume III1
54 DECALOGUE
(1 Kgs. 15:23; 2 Chr. 16:12) announce their arrival. Loss of sexual virility and
the ability to have children are marks of old age and of the approaching end of
life (Gen. 17:17; 18:llf.; 2 Kgs. 4:14ff.; Ruth 1:12; Luke 1:7, 18; cf. Gen.
19:3Iff.). One becomes less productive and is therefore considered less
valuable (cf. Lev. 27:1-7). Older folk easily do stupid things (1 Kgs. 11:4;
13:Ilf.). The behaviour of his children can greatly bother an older person
(1 Sam. 2:12ff., 22ff.; 8:Iff.; 2 Sam. 11-1 Kgs. 1.). One can become embit
tered (Ruth l:20f.) and burdened with grief (Gen. 37:34f.; 42:38; 44:29, 31;
Sir. 30:24). One can become lonesome (cf. Ps. 71:9, 18; Job 19:13ff.) and, due
to diminished capability easily fall victim to deceit, plots, poverty and oppres
sion (cf. Pss. 69:30, 34; 86:Iff.; Job 24:4ff.). In short, old age can be a great
burden and affliction.
Beside highlighting the ravages of old age, also other aspects, including posi
tives, are mentioned as well. Old age does not necessarily entail loss of
capabilities (Gen. 24:1; Deut. 34:7; Josh. 13:1; 23:lf.). Clarity of mind (Gen.
48:19) and keen discernment of one’s own powers (2 Sam. 19:35-38) can
remain with a person till a high age. Age is often associated with wisdom (e.g.
Job 12:12, 20; 15:10; 32:6, 9; 1 Kgs. 12:6ff. and see also Deut. 32:7; 1 Sam.
28:4; Dan. 7:9, 13; 1 Hen. 46:1, 2; 47:3 etc.) and uprightness (Judg. 19:16f.,
20, 22), and consequently with enjoying esteem (Prov. 16:31; 20:29; Job 29:8).
To that should be added that it was not overlooked that age and wisdom don’t
always go together (1 Kgs. 11:4; 13:1 Iff.; Job 12:12; 32:9; Eccl. 4:13; Sir.
25:2; 42:8; Wisd. 3:17; 4:8f., 16; 8:10; Titus 2:2f.). Evidently, the picture of
the wise old man, who retains his faculties and capabilities as he grows older,
and who, on account of his experience and insight, is everywhere respected,
seems to have been the ideal of the free Israelite citizen about his old age. In
that idealized picture, old age is a sign of being blessed. The picture is part of
what the OT envisions as a blessed and harmonious community. One of its
marks is the presence of elderly people as one of the elements of the populace
(23:26; Isa. 65:20, 22; Zech. 8:4; Jer. 31:13 and see also 1 Hen. 5:9; 10:17;
Jub. 23:27ff.). Absence of aged folk is a sign of judgment (1 Sam. 2:3If.).
Passages such as Deut. 5:33; 8:1; 16:20 etc. posit a link between doing the will
of YHWH and being blessed with a long life; in Prov. 3:2, 16; 4:4, 10, 22;
9:10f.; 13:14 etc. the ‘doing of wisdom’ and being rewarded with a long life
are connected. Critical reflection on the presumed connection is articulated in
such passages as Wisd. 2:17f.; 4:7-11, 16; 5:15; 1 Hen. 102:6ff.
1.6.5 Why are parents to be treated with respect? one might ask. In the OT,
the relationship of children to their parents is a theme in YHWH’s regulations
(20:12; 21:15, 17; Lev. 20:9; Deut. 5:15; 21:18-21; 27:16). One answer would
be: it is God’s will! The promised reward for heeding his will (20:12; Deut.
5:16) is meant to add force to the command for respect; the prescribed penalty
for disrespectful conduct (21:15, 17; Lev. 20:9; Deut. 21:18-21; cf. Deut.
Volume III1
EXODUS 2 0 :1 2 55
27:16) is meant as a brake on those who are guilty of such behaviour In the
relevant passages in Proverbs, God is not specifically mentioned. No immediate
punishment (see e.g. 21:15, 17) is mentioned. The disastrous consequences of
immoral conduct toward parents are a deterrent (Prov. 20:20; 30:17). The
obligation to take care of aged parents is also motivated with the remark that
the father is the begetter (Prov. 23:22; cf. Ahiqar 2:18, 78; see Charles, II, 732,
738) and that the mother bore and gave birth to the child (Sir. 7:27f.; Tob. 4:4;
cf. the Egyptian Wisdom van Ani [ANET, 421a]). The thought behind it is that
one should return some of the care and nourishment provided by the parents.
Love is not mentioned as a motive.6®Evidently, the obligation to render respect
was there regardless of the quality of the relationship. Living up to the obliga
tion was, it would seem, not always done willingly (cf. e.g. Prov. 19:18; Sir.
41:7) and sometimes may have been impossible.
Evidently, there were wealthy people who could afford a nurse for the care
of their feeble parents (cf. 1 Kgs. 1:1-4). But that was the exception. When one
considers that parents sometimes were forced to sell their children (see 2.4.5),
one must seriously reckon with the possibility that sons were barely or not at
all able to look after their aged parents. There must have been situations in
which there was a strong temptation not to bother with the aged father or
mother. Ezek. 5:10 describes an even more grisly situation: driven by hunger,
children eat their fathers (cf. Mic. 3:3).6869 The belief that one of the marks of
high moral conduct included respect for aged parents was something Israel
shared with its surrounding world. Its background is the ideal of a stable
society. In the OT, the requirement to take care of parents is presented as
arising from special (in the laws) and general revelation (in the Wisdom books)
(see 2.2.6-8, 16).
1.6.6 Thus far we talked about the care for parents as being the task of the
sons, as a family concern. Was it also viewed as a social task and as a social
problem? Respect for the elderly was demanded of every Israelite (Lev. 19:32;
cf. 1 Tim. 5:1; Wisdom of Ani [ANET, 420b], Teaching of Amenemope
[ANET, 422a]; Ahiqar 2:80 [Charles, II, 739]). Disrespectful behaviour did
occur though (2 Kgs. 2:23ff.; 1 Bar. 4:15; 3 Macc. 4:5). Such conduct was
viewed as serious and a threat. When a younger person abuses an old and
honoured man (Isa. 3:5) it betokens anarchy and disintegration of the societal
order (cf. Isa. 3:4, 12). Neglect of the aged is an expression of heartlessness
(Deut. 28:50; Isa. 47:6; Lam. 4:16; 5:12). Furthermore, when a family was
68 But note also Tob. 3:10: Sarah's conduct is motivated by her refusal to bring sorrow to her
aged father. Cf. also Pseudo-Philo, XI, 9.
69 Cf. M. Oeming, “‘Ich habe einen Greis gegessen’: Kannibalismus und Autophagie als Topos
der Kriegsnotschilderung in der Kilamuwa-Inschrift. Zeile 5-8, im Alten Orient und im Alten
Testament,” BN 47 (1989), 90-106.
Volume III1
56 DECALOGUE
negligent in the care of aged parents, the consequence was that the aged person
of necessity became a societal concern. Regulations concerning the handicap
ped in society also include the handicapped older person (e.g. Lev. 19:14). The
same is true of regulations that deal with the poor (e.g. 22:24; 23:6, 11; Lev.
19:9f.). To that can be added that when we read of ‘the widow’ the term often
stands for the older woman (see 2.7.2.7). In Wisd. 2:10, the poor man, the
widow and those who are very old are mentioned in one breath. One must
conclude that the care of the aged was not viewed as a special and separate
societal task. The general social regulations also cover them. To that can be
added that something like pension provisions was unknown. What did happen
was that some people, because of unusual merit or for some other reason, by
the king were rewarded with a kind of state pension (2 Sam. 19:3Iff.; 2 Kgs.
25:27ff.; Jer. 40:lff.). Of owners of slaves it was evidently expected that they
took care of them till their death (cf. Exod. 21:6).
1.6.7 In the history of interpretation, 20:12 has been understood as a regula
tion to obey the parents. Both younger and older children were regarded as
addressees. The word naa pi., used in the original, which is usually translated
as ‘honour’ (cf. e.g. Vulg.: honora patrem tuum et matrem tuuni), was given a
wider meaning than just ‘obey,’ showing respect and giving affection; provid
ing care for the parents as their years were advancing - the element heavily
emphasized in the above exegesis - were regarded as aspects of giving honour
(see e.g. BB, Calvin; Calmet; Keil; Gispen; Koole [see 1.1.1], 84ff.). In an
effort to undergird the justice of the regulation it was often argued that the
parents are God’s representatives. Not only was ‘honouring’ giving a broader
meaning, the same was done with the object. The regulation was also applied
to other persons who were deemed to have been invested by God with authori
ty, such as the secular and ecclesiastical rulers, thus on ‘all those in authority
over me’ (Heidelbeig Catechism, Lord’s Day 39; cf. e.g. Calvin; Koole, 90ff.).
Though the requirement to subject oneself to those who bear authority was
emphasized, also when they were not the best rulers, the regulation of Exod.
20:12 was not regarded as an absolute commandment. It was held that there are
limits to the powers of the governing authorities and the obedience that is owed
them, limits stemming from the commandment that God must be obeyed rather
than any human authority (Acts 5:29). Furthermore, as a rule the discussion of
the regulation was not restricted to the duties of children, the obligations
involved in the raising of children were touched on as well. Parents have the
duty to admonish the children (cf. 1 Sam. 3:13) and to instruct them about the
Lord and his service (e.g. Ps. 78:3f.).
20:12 follows right after regulations about the relationship to yhwh. That has
influenced the exegesis. Following in their wake, it has as it were assimilated
the radiation of those regulations and, at least in some traditions, has been
reckoned to the regulations of the first table (see 1.1.5). Also on account of its
Volume III1
EXODUS 2 0 :1 2 57
position in the decalogue, the conclusion has been drawn that in this command
ment the parents are put on one line with God himself — they are the co
creators of their children (see Rashi on Gen. 4:1; Nachmanides; cf. Albeck [see
1.1.1], 274f.) - or at least, being God’s image-bearers, they are called his
representatives (e.g. Keil, Jacob). The respect owed to the Creator must also be
shown to them. Absence of respect for the parents must be punished in the
same way as the failure to honour God (see 21:17 next to Lev. 24:15; cf. Mek.,
Ill, 258).
As noted, 20:12 is primarily a social regulation. The commandment is not
about rendering obedience to those who have been invested with authority,
those placed over us. It is important to keep in mind that the persons addressed
in the decalogue are the adult free Israelites (cf. 1.1.13). That does not change
the fact that in ancient Israel the authority of the parents, in particular of the
father (see e.g. 22:15; Prov. 1:8; 4:1 etc.), and other superiors (22:27; Deut.
17:12; 2 Sam. 16:9; 1 Kgs. 2:8f.; Prov. 24:21; Eccl. 10:20; cf. also Matt.
22:21; Rom. 13:lff.; Col. 3:18ff.; Eph. 6:lff.; 1 Pet. 2:18ff.) was sacred, as
this was also the case elsewhere in the ancient Near East (cf. \hn der Toom*,
13ff.). As to this last point, it is worthy of note that observance of the com
mandment to honour parents has been described as something that in a sense
comes instinctively, as heeding the voice of blood (see e.g. in Albeck, 275f.;
Calvin; the [Roman Catholic] New Catechism [1966], 474f.).
20:12 "Q3 (see 4:10; for imperative see 1.1.12) is translated in the LXX with
up.cc (cf. Matt. 15:4,6; 19:19; Eph. 6:2). 1 Tim. 5:3 (cf. Acts 6:1) shows that it
can have the meaning ‘to provide sustenance for;’ already in Mek., Ill, 257, a
concrete interpretation is given: to provide, food, drink and clean clothing. 3K,
see 2:16. OK, see 2:8. The reference is to the parents, not, as proposed by
Ehrlich, to the ancestral customs and institutions. The father and mother are put
on one line. In Lev. 19:3 the mother is mentioned first. Is the order there
determined by hard reality: the position of the mother as widow (see 2.1.2.1) is
even worse than that of the aged father? Or is it assumed that the bond
between mother and son is closer than that between father and son (polygamy)?
In LXX, Vulg., Pesh., the order is the usual ‘father-mother.’
Deut. 5:16 contains two clauses introduced by 1»ob, which appear in the
LXX in reversed order. In agreement with that, 20:12 LXX has after ‘mother:’
Iva eu ooi yevr|Tai, ‘that it may go well with you’ (cf. also papyrus Nash; see
1.1.10); A. Aejmelaeus, TAW 99 (1987), 85f., suggests that the text is not
based on harmonization but on a different Hebrew ‘\forlage’ than the MT.
Does the purpose clause with (see 1:11) mean that the individual act of
righteousness and mercy is rewarded with a long, that is blessed life? See e.g.
Deut. 6:2; 22:7; 1 Kgs. 3:13f.; Pss. 41:3; 91:16; Sir. 3:16 and see also Exod.
23:26. Does neglect of it have negative consequences? See e.g. Prov. 22:23.
Volume III1
58 DECALOGUE
Does it mean that respect for parents and taking good care of them contributes
to their having a long life? Is it setting a good example to one’s children, so
that they follow in the footsteps of their parents, with the result that the earlier
benefactors also themselves are taken care of in old age and live a long life (cf.
Albeck, 275f.)? Since the land is explicitly mentioned, it is more likely that the
purpose clause refers to Israel as a collective and is to be read in conjunction
with such texts as Deut. 4:26f.; ll:8f.; 30:16-20 (cf. already Ibn Ezra and see
e.g. Diirr, 21ff.; Ehrlich; Jacob). Failure to heed the regulation will lead to the
downfall of the nation, loss of the land and being scattered. The promise is
also related to life in the world to come, eternal bliss (see e.g. FTP and in
Calmet); obedience to the commandment implies respect for God, and so also
the heeding of the other commandments; so one obtains life in the world to
come (cf. Albeck, 276).
imperf. hiph. (with paragogic nun) of yiK (OT ca. 35*), ‘to be
long;’ the hiph. occurs repeatedly with OVD’ (Introd. §3.23.2) as object with the
meaning of ‘to lengthen’ (see 1 Kgs. 3:14 etc.); here and in Deut. 6:2; 25:15
with the intransitive meaning ‘to be long’ (cf. THAT, I, 719; differently
Ehrlich: 1131R’ must be vocalized as qal). rtDlK (see 3:5), the term ‘arable
land’ is a reminder to the Israelite of his close ties with his ancestral property
(cf. 1 Kgs. 21:3 and see e.g. Pss. 25:13; 37:9); the as it were natural bond with
the ancestral soil is conditional, resting on respect for the parents; in Eph. 6:3
‘land’ has become ‘earth’ (cf. also e.g. Matt. 5:5), changing the collective
promise to the nation into an individual promise (of eternal life?; see above
and cf. Reicke [see 1.1.1], 58). The LXX has cm tfjc ayaOtK (the last
word not in Deut. 5:16), ‘in the good land’ (cf. Deut. 3:25; 4:22; 8:7, 10 etc.
and see also Exod. 3:8). Pseudo-Philo, XI, 9, contains a greatly expanded
promise: heaven gives rain, the earth its fruit; there will be no lack of descen
dants. ina, see Introd. §3.36.
1.7 RESPECT FOR THE FELLOW CITIZEN (20:13-17)
1.7.1 Bibl.: A. Alt, “Das Verbot des Diebstahls im Dekalog,” Kl. Schr, I, 332-
40; M.E. Andrew, “Falsehood and Truth: An Amplified Sermon on Exodus
20:16,” Int 12 (1963), 425-38; M.A. Beek, “Het zesde gebod,” in ‘Hier blijven
half alle ogenblikken': Keuze uit het werk van M.A. Beek, Baam 1989, 138-50;
B. Gemser, “The Object of Moral Judgment in the Old Testament,” in Adhuc
loquitur: Collected Essays o f B. Gemser, Leiden 1968, 78-95; R. Gnuse, You
Shall Not Steal: Community and Property in the Biblical Tradition, Maryknoll,
New York 1985; H. Klein, “\ferbot des Menschendiebstahls im Dekalog?
PrOfung einer These Albrecht Alts,” VT 26 (1976), 161-9; B. Lang, ‘“ Du sollst
nicht nach der Frau eines anderen verlangen,’” ZAW 93 (1981), 216-24; A.
Volume III1
EXODUS 20:13 59
RofiS, “The Tenth Commandment in the Light of Four Deuteronomic Laws,” in

Segal (see 1.1.1), 45-65; K.-D. Schunck, “Das 9. und 10. G eb o t- jiingstes
Glied des Dekalogs?,” ZAW 96 (1984), 104-9; H.J. Stroebe, “Das achte Gebot
(Exod. 20 v. 16),” in Geschichte, Schicksal, Schuld und Glaube, Frankfurt am
Main 1989, 27-45; R.I. \hsholz, “You Shall Not Covet Your Neigbor’s Wife,”
WThJ 49 (1987), 397-403; G. Wildeboer, “Het onderscheiden kenmerk tus-
schen moord en doodslag in het Mozaisch recht,” lijdschrift voor Strafrecht 11
(1898), 169-76; D.J. Wiseman, “Murder in Mesopotamia,” Iraq 36 (1974),
249-60.
1.7.2 Respect for the fellow citizen. That is the theme that runs through
20:13-17 and holds it together. Nothing may be done that could harm the
fellow citizen, even if one only does it in one’s ‘heart’ (20:17).
Explicitly the fellow citizen ("jin [see 2:13], ‘your neighbour;’ translated
with ‘anyone else’) is mentioned only in 20:16, 17. Also 20:13-15 aim at his
protection. The fellow-citizen is the free Israelite citizen (cf. 1.1.13). In the
history of interpretation, the concept of ‘neighbour’ has undeigone a change. In
the OT, what pertains to the neighbour (Lev. 19:18) is expanded to include the
stranger (Lev. 19:34). In the NT ‘neighbour’ is applied to the fellow Christian
(Rom. 15:2; Jas. 4:12; cf. 2 Pet. 1:7), but is also given a broader content (Matt.
5:43f., 47; Luke 10:30, 36f.; cf. also Rom. 13:8; Titus 3:4).
20:13-17 contains a series of regulations, all of which begin with ttb
(prohibitions) and are asyndetically connected. In the parallel Deut. 5:17-21 the
regulations are polysyndetically connected by Nbl. The Massoretes, by marking
all clauses introduced by K*?(l) as setuma, have given them independent status
(cf. 1.1.4). On other differences between 20:16, 17 and Deut. 5:20, 21 see the
exegesis.
1.7.3 No m urder (20:13)
20:13 'You shall not murder’
1.7.3.1 In 20:13 the prohibitive of ru n qal is used, one of the verbs for ‘to
kill’ in Hebrew; cf. n n (see 2:14) and mo hiph. (Introd. §3.22). ru n (OT 47*;
40x qal), aside from Prov. 22:13, always stands for the individual (the Israeli
te) as subject and as the (presupposed) object (see TWAT, VII, 652ff.);70 here,
as happens more often, the object is not explicitly mentioned (for the contrary
see TO: + efSJ).
ru n can be used for both premeditated and unpremeditated homicide (in the
70 Cf. H.G. von Mutius, “Das TStungsverbot des Dekalogs bei Samuel ben Meir,” Jud 36
(1980), 99-101.
Volume III1
60 DECALOGUE
texts on giving refuge; see Num. 35; Deut. 4; 19; Josh. 20f.), and even for
avenging of premeditated murder (Num. 35:27, 30). In the decalogue it is
especially premeditated manslaughter that is in view. A prohibition of unpre
meditated homicide obviously would not fit an apodictic statement. One can be
fully in support of a prohibition of murder, but in a fit of anger lose control
and take the life of a fellow human being. What can be done is, drive home the
duty to prevent situations from arising in which people may get killed due to
negligence (cf. 21:29; Deut. 22:8). It is doubtful that the commandment is
aimed at such prevention. In any case, the thrust of the commandment is
against deliberate, violent and unlawful killing; it speaks out against the
individual who, from hatred (Num.35:20f.) or by taking the law into his own
hands, exterminates a defenseless fellow human being or kills in an (armed)
robbery (Hos. 6:9; cf. Judg. 9:25; Jen 41:7; 1 Macc. 9:37ff.; Luke 10:25ff.;
Sib., Ill, 235).
In de targums (TPsJ, TNf, FTP, PTF,CC) the prohibition is explicitly and
elaborately applied to murder. The Israelites are warned not to be murderers or
accomplices in murder, with the result that also posterity would do the same
thing. The sword is mentioned as the means of avengement (cf. Matt. 26:52,
and see for the talionic principle in connection with 20:13 also Pseudo-Philo,
XI, 11; XLIV, 10).
It is entirely possible that the prohibition also pertains to indirect man
slaughter as the result of intrigues or a-social conduct, thus also against the
individual who commits justicial murder (1 Kgs. 21:19) or in some other way
strangles another person (Ps. 94:6; Job 24:14; Sir. 34:25f.; cf. also Deut. 22:26;
Judg. 20:4ff.; Isa. 1:21; Jer. 7:9; Hos. 4:2 en see e.g. Lev. 19:14; 2 Sam.
ll:14ff.). Noteworthy is in this connection that Ibn Ezra applies the verb also
to killing by a venomous tongue, that is, through slander and false witness. The
person addressed in 20:13 is the individual who deliberately seeks to kill a
fellow human being, thereby undermining society. One of the primary condi
tions for a society to flourish is that the physical integrity of the neighbour and
the members of his family be respected.
1.7.3.2 20:13 is an apodictic and absolute rule for the relationship of the free
Israelite to his fellow citizen (and, for that matter, the ‘half citizen;’ cf. Num.
35:15). Being part of the decalogue it is a social prohibition, sanctioned by
YHWH, for the community. Elsewhere manslaughter in general is condemned
with the religious motivation that human beings are made in the image of God
(Gen. 9:6), while from the religious perspective homicide is viewed as the
source of ‘polluting’ the land (e.g. Num. 35:33f.; Deut. 19:10; 21:7ff.). Several
exegetes regard Gen. 9:6 as the background of the prohibition (e.g. Nach-
manides, Calvin, Keil, Ehrlich, Jacob). As noted, that is doubtful.
How to deal with someone who ignores the prohibition of 20:13 is not stated.
Nor is anything said about situations in which someone loses his life, while
Volume III1
EXODUS 2 0 :1 3 61
there is no or at least no clearly demonstrable intent to commit homicide (on

that see 21:12-14, 20f„ 22f.; 22:lf.; cf. also 21:18f.).
The commandment does not forbid capital punishment, the carrying out of a
death penalty imposed by an established and bona fide court of law (cf. e.g.
21:12-17; see in connection with the nature of the required punishment 2.2.11,
18.), nor the killing of an enemy in war (cf. e.g. Deut. 7:2; 20:17; 1 Sam. 15:3;
2 Sam. 8).
Not in view at all are questions about the permissibility of abortion (cf.
21:22), euthanasia and the killing of animals (vegetarianism). Also suicide does
not seem to be included in the prohibition. The focus is manslaughter as
offense against the community. Like elsewhere in the world of antiquity,71
suicide did happen in ancient Israel. A number of instances are described in the
OT, but without passing (explicit) judgment on it. Evidently, the ending of a
life by suicide was regarded as heroic and tragic (Judg. 9:54; 16:23-30; 1 Sam.
31:4; 2 Sam. 17:23; 1 Kgs. 16:18; cf. also Matt. 27:5).72
The idea that direct and indirect manslaughter is a great evil in society is not
typically Israelite (cf. however, Wisd. 14:25), but was something Israel shared
with surrounding nations (cf. e.g. Mm der Toom*, 15f., and see 2.2.6, 8, 16).
1.7.3.3 In the history of interpretation, problems like these, capital punish
ment, concerning war, etc., have always been dealt with by appealing to 20:13.
Here all we can do is note that fact and point out that for the often farreaching
actualization reference was made to the NT. Jesus talks about living in enmity
with a brother or name-calling as being just as bad or worse than murder
(Matt. 5:21 f.). James associates the prohibition of 20:13 with all sorts of forms
of showing mercy toward the poor (see Jas. 2:9, 11 in the licht of 2:5ff., 13).
In 1 John 3:15 anyone who hates his brother is called a murderer. In agreement
with the NT, the prohibition of 20:13 has been expanded to a commandment to
love fellow human beings (cf. Lev. 19:17f.; Matt. 22:39). Calvin, e.g., interpre
ted the manslaughter of 20:13 as any kind of violence toward and every abuse
of fellow humans, including mentally abusing them, every form of torment or
oppression, malevolence and hatred. Moreover, he understands the prohibition
positively as a commandment to protect the life of the neihgbor and to love
him. In Calvin’s view, doing no more than not committing murder, amounts to
ignoring the prohibition. Also Lord’s Day 40 of the Heidelbeig Catechism
offers a comprehensive application, including in it the roots of murder; the
Catechism as well transforms it into a positive commandment, in which God
requires that one must do everything in one’s power to advance the well-being
71 See A.J.L. van Hooff, Zelfdoding in de oudheid, Nijmegen 1992.

72 Cf. V. Lenzen, “SelbsttOtung in der Bibel: Fflr eine Ethik der Liebe zu den Leidenden,”
Bibel und Kirche 47 (1992), 87-93.
Volume III1
62 DECALOGUE
of the neighbour, even if he is an enemy, and not to harm oneself either (cf.
Lev. 19:18). In the discussions of the commandment, the role of the govern
ment is touched on as well (cf. Rom. 13:4).
1.7.4 No adultery (20:14)
20:14 ‘You shall not commit adultery. ’
1.7.4.1 In 20:14 the qal prohibitive of *]KJ (OT 34*; see TWAT, V, 123ff.) is
used. Subject is the free Israelite citizen and the implied object the wife of a
fellow citizen. The concern is adultery. Adultery with the wife of a neighbour
not only shames him, it is as well a serious violation of his position (cf. 2 Sam.
12:11; 16:21f.; 1 Kgs. 20:3), an infringement on his exclusive rights on her;
that trespass on his position is regarded as very undesirable because it can lead
to unclear family relationships, and so disrupts society, based as it is on
homogeneity of the family and the close tie of the family with the land that is
theirs, the hereditary property. Property must be passed on to legal heirs (cf.
also Deut. 25:5ff.). There may be no uncertainty about it (cf. Num. 5:1 Iff.).
Generally speaking, in the OT undesirable associations and immoral relation
ships are regarded as bringing evil (cf. e.g. Gen. 6:2ff.; Jos. 1:21; Jer. 3:1;
Ezek. 16:15; Hos. 1:2). That conviction was also present in Israel’s ‘Umwelt’
(cf. \hn der Toom*, 17f., and see 2.2.6, 8, 16).
The prohibition only pertains to the relation of a man to the wife of another,
not, if he is married, to his relationship to the wife or wives which are his. A
man, it is assumed, is entitled to have more than one wife, but has to keep his
hands off the wife of his fellowman. If he does not and if she does not resist,
both commit adultery with respect to her husband (on the position of the wife
see 2.4.4 and on relations with a girl not yet offficially promised to a man, see
22:15f.). As concerns his own wife, a man has the right to dismiss her (see
21:7-11; Deut. 24:Iff.; Matt. 19:3ff; but see also Mai. 2:14ff. and Matt. 19:9).
In 20:14 no sanctions are mentioned on adultery. In Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:22
the death penalty is imposed on both the man and the woman involved (see in
connection with this rigorous punishment 2.2.11, 18). In an elaborate formula
tion of the prohibition in the taigums, death (TPsJ, PTF), pestilence (TNf) and
punishment (FTP, PT00) are cited as consequences of adultery. In Pseudo-Philo,
X Liy 10, the death of the fruit of the womb of the adulterers is mentioned as
punishment (cf. 2 Sam. 12:13ff.; on 20:14 in Pseudo-Philo see also XI, 10).
1.7.4.2 As pointed out, the regulation was initially aimed at the preservation
of the societal order and the husband was the addressee. In the history of
interpretation it has also been applied to the wife (cf. 1 Cor. 7:10f. and see e.g.
Ezek. 16:15ff.; Hos. 2:7; Prov. 2:16f.). The idea that a child has to know his or
her father to be able to honour him and that adultery robs parenthood of its
Volume III1
EXODUS 2 0:15 63
honour (Nachmanides) was not part of it. Furthermore, the fracturing of

families and as a result the breaking of relationships and trouble because of it,
are phenomena of modem western society. In the history of interpretation, both
Jewish73 and Christian expositors74 have broadened the prohibition to include
all sorts of sexual aberration and unchastity (cf. e.g. Lev. 18; 19:20; 20:10f.;
21:9; Deut. 22:13f.; see further the exegesis of 22:15f., 17, 18) and read it
positively as a commandment to lead holy and chaste lives (cf. Acts 15:20;
Rom. 1:24ff.; 1 Cor. 5:lff.; 6:15f.; 7:lff.; 1 Thess. 4:4f. and see also Matt.
5:27ff.), and to live a matrimonial life that is marked by mutual love and
devotion and serves to glorify God (cf. Gen. 1:27; 2:18-25; 1 Cor. 6:20; Eph.
5:22ff.).
1.7.5 No stealing (20:15)
20:15 ‘You shall not steal. ’
1.7.5.1 In 20:15 the qal prohibitive of 3U (OT 36x; Exod. 20:15; 21:16, 37;
22:6 [pu.]; 22:11 [niph.]), ‘to steal,’ with as derivatives (OT 17x; Exod.
22:1, 6, 7), ‘thief,’ and npja (Exod. 22:2, 3), ‘the stolen thing,’ is used; the
root relates to a stealth act (cf. 2 Sam. 21:12; 2 Kgs. 11:2) and as verb can
apply to humans (e.g. Gen. 40:15; Exod. 21:16), a thing or an animal (21:37;
22:6, 11; see TWAT, II, 41 ff.). Subject again is the free Israelite. The view,
found already in rabbinic literature (e.g. M e t, III, 46f., and see also Rashi,
Nachmanides, differently Ibn Ezra), and strongly defended by Alt, that the
originally intended object was a man, a human, and that 20:15 originally was a
law against kidnapping (see 21:16), though favoured by some, has not gained
widespread acceptance.
Arguments put forward in support of that view include the following: if
20:15 is a general prohibition, then, in view of 20:17, there would be a
doubling of the prohibition;75 in 20:13, 14 the object in view is a human; in
20:12-14 it concerns prohibitions of wrong deeds which, according to else
where given rules, are punishable by death; such is also the case with kidnap
ping (see 21:16), but not with theft of valuable possessions (see 21:37; 22:2f.,
6, 11). The reasoning is not compelling (cf. e.g. Lettinga [see 1.1.1], Funda-
mentum 2/1990, 44ff.). 20:15 is a general prohibition of theft, the unlawful and
secret taking of another person’s property without the owner’s knowledge and
73 E.g. Ibn Ezra; but see on the contrary Rashi, Nachmanides; cf. Greenberg (see 1.1.1), 104f.;
Albeck (see 1.1.1), 280ff.
74 See e.g. Calvin and Lord’s Day 41 of the Heidelberg Catechism.
73 See for the question the comments on 20:17; in Pseudo-Philo, XI and XLIV, 10, there is no
equivalent o f 20:15.
Volume III1
64 DECALOGUE
permission; also stealing of a human was included.

1.7.5.2 Theft is socially undesirable (cf. also Lev. 19:11, 13); it strikes at the
livelihood of the citizen, which rests on respecting another person’s property
and, due to no fault of his own, may impoverish an individual. It is entirely
possible that the prohibition not only aims at concrete theft of the property of
someone else, but also includes deception and dirty tricks that amount to
thievery (cf. e.g. Jer. 7:9; Ezek. 18:7, 12, 16, 18; Hos. 4:2; Mic. 2:lf.; Zech.
5:3f.; Pss. 35:10; 50:18; 62:11; 69:5), like the secret moving of boundary
markers (Deut. 19:14; 27:17; Job 24:2; cf. also Hos. 5:10; Prov. 22:28;
23:10f.), die use of false measures and weights (Deut. 25:5; Prov. 11:1; 20:10;
23:10), the selling of goods of inferior quality (Amos 8:4), obtaining property
by means of a judicial murder (1 Kgs. 21), enriching onseself through charging
interest (see 22:24) and the illegal keeping of a pawned item (see 22:25).
Practices like these are common and also happened in Israel’s neighbouring
nations (cf. \hn der Toom*, 18f.). In the NT see e.g. Mark 10:19; 1 Cor. 6:8;
Gal. 5:14f.
1.7.5.3 In later interpretation (see e.g. Calvin and Lord’s Day 42 of the
Heidelberg Catechism) the commandment has been broadened even more and
read as forbidding all sorts of dishonesty (cf. 1 Thess. 4:4; Titus 2:10 and see
also Matt. 19:18; Rom. 2:21; 13:9), and even as injunction not to hurt oneself
by not using one’s gifts and leading a life of debauchery Positively, 20:15 has
been read as a command to treat the other fairly, as one would want to be
treated oneself (Matt. 7:12), and to lead a productive life, so as to be able to
help those in need (cf. Eph. 4:28).
The commandment refers to wronging the neighbour, enriching oneself at his
expense. It is also possible to take something that belongs to YHWH (e.g. Josh.
7:11, 21). Taking spoils in war was not considered theft (e.g. Deut. 2:35; 3:7;
20:14; cf. also Deut. 21:10-14) or acquiring belongings from hunting (e.g. Lev.
17:13; Deut. 22:6f.) or taking back one’s own property (1 Sam. 25:44; 2 Sam.
3:15f.). The above shows that it is often the wealthy, people who already own
a lot, who are the thieves (cf. Luther’s interpretation; see Veijola [see 1.1.1],
83f.). The fact that stealing can be due to socio-economic circumstances does
not seem to be a concern in the OT (on poverty see 22:20-26). The penalty for
theft was already dealt with above (see further at 21:16, 37; 22:6, 11). In an
detailed formulation of the prohibition in the targums, hunger is cited as a
consequence of the evil of theft (see TPsJ, TNf, FTP, PTF).
1.7.6 No false accusation (20:16)

'You shall not as a false witness ‘You shall not as a deceitful wit
accuse someone else.' ness accuse someone else either.’
Volume III1
EXODUS 2 0 :1 6 65
1.7.6.1 The stipulation transposes us to the administration of justice in ancient

Israel (see on it the literature cited in \fol. II, 413). Witnesses played an
important role in it. True, there were provisions in place in case in a dispute no
witnesses were at hand (see 22:7f., 9f.); when it came to judging manslaughter
and other offenses, external curcumstances, the disposition of the suspect and
possibly other evidence were brought into the picture (see 21:12-14, 29;
22:12). Witnesses, however, were paramount in the judicial process. In connec
tion with this it should be remembered that in the Israelite system of dispensing
justice there is no clear dividing line between the role of witness and accuser
The witness is often the accuser (cf. e.g. Ehrlich loc.). A person who has
learned of sin and injustice may not keep it to himself. They threaten society
and must be eradicated. One who knows of it and does nothing about it, incurs
guilt (cf. Lev. 5:1; Prov. 29:24). One who reports what he knows, contributes
to the fight against evil and so to the preservation of stability and harmony in
society, at least if his words are true (cf. Prov. 14:25). If such is not the case,
the result is the opposite of what the duty to testify is meant to accomplish:
society turns chaotic, a place where might makes right. There are ample
indications in the OT that a society in disarray was not something the Israelite
was unfamiliar with no more than other people in the ancient Near East (cf.
Vhn der Toom*, 19f.), and that he had a good chance to run up against fellow-
citizens who, for payment or other personal benefits (cf. Isa. 1:23; 5:23; Mic.
3:9-11), had no qualms about falsely accusing a fellow-citizen, to rob him of
his honour and good name (cf. Job 19:9), and so destroy him (1 Kgs. 21:10,
13; cf. Matt. 26:59ff. par; Acts 6:13 and see Amos 3:10; 5:10, 12; Mic. 3:1-3;
Ps. 27:12; Prov. 6:19 etc.; 25:18).
1.7.6.2 That false accusation was a great social evil is also evident from its
salience in the stipulations (20:16; 23:lff.; Lev. 19:15f.; Deut. 5:20; 16:19f.;
19:16ff.). It was hard to arm oneself against it. One way to secure protection
against false testimony was the requirement that for the execution of a death
sentence there had to be at least two witnesses who vouched for the truth of
the accusation (Num. 35:30; Deut. 17:6; cf. also Deut. 19:15) and that the
witnesses had to take the lead in the execution of the convicted person (Deut.
17:7). That was not sufficient to stem the evil of false witness. Apparently fear
of the consequences of shedding innocent blood and the threat of capital
punishment for testifying falsely (Deut. 19:19f.) were not enough to rein in the
wickedness of unconscionable villains. Crooks not afraid of perjury (cf. 20:7),
scoundrels who, presumably with the use of God’s name, presented their
accusation (differently Phillips [see 1.1.1], 143), seem not to have been afraid
of bloodguilt nor of a judicial investigation against them. The force with which
the commandment in 20:16 not to give false testimony is presented illustrates
the defenselessness of society against malicious witnesses. An irreproachable
Volume III1
66 DECALOGUE
administration of justice (Deut. 19:16-21) was a paper ideal. One could only
hope that God would not leave the evil unpunished (cf. e.g. Prov. 19:5, 9;
21:28; Pss. 27:12, 14; 35:lff.; 69:2ff.; 94:20ff.).
Sanctions on false witness are not mentioned in 20:16. They are mentioned
in the taigums: because of it there is no rain and drought comes upon the
world (TPsJ; PTF; cf. also FTP on 20:17), people are robbed of their children
by wild animals (TNf), powerful empires overrun the world, sending people
into exile (FTP; cf. TPsJ op 20:17). Pseudo-Philo, XI, 12, cites as consequence
a talionic reprisal: against the false witness guardian angels will give a false
witness.
1.7.6.3 In the history of interpretation the stipulation has been given a
broader scope. It has been understood as a commandment to abstain from lying
and deceit in general, from slander, gossip, backbiting, vilification and rashly
condemning one’s neighbour. Also listening with pleasure to gossip is consid
ered to be forbidden. Positively, the stipulation is interpreted as a command
ment to love the truth, to be honest and faithful, and to guard and advance the
good name of the neighbour.76 The broader interpretation of the stipulation is
in line with the ethics of the OT (Lev. 19:11; Jer. 9:3, 4; Hos. 4:2; Pss. 12:3,
4; 15:2, 3; 50:19, 20; Prov. 6:17; 10:18ff.; 12:6, 13ff.; 13:3; 14:3; 18:6ff., 20f.;
26:20ff. etc.; cf. Matt. 5:11; 7:1; 15:19; John 8:44; Rom. 2:1; Col. 3:9f.; Eph.
4:25; Titus 3:2; 1 Pet. 2:1, 12; Jas. 3:1-12; 4:11). Moreover, the transition from
lying and slander to false witness in the administration of justice is fluid.
Lying, slander, rashly condemning another and gossip, easily create a climate
in which someone’s social position is undermined and, juridically or non-
juridically, may sentence the person so attacked to a social and/or physical
sentence of death. Back then as well as now, the suspicion of guilt keeps
dogging that person until proof of the opposite has been given. That makes the
stipulation all the more pressing (cf. Matt. 7:12). In the framework of the
broader interpretation, the commandment has figured in ethical discussions
about such questions as the white lie (see \bl. I, 257ff.) and truth at the
sickbed.
1.7.6.4 For nil? + a (see 4:1) in the context of meting out justice, see e.g.
Num. 35:30; Deut. 19:16; Mic. 6:3; Prov. 25:18. The LXX , in agreement with
the end of the verse, has opted for the translation i|fei)6ofiapti)pf)OEi<; and
‘falsely’ is heavily emphasized.
iff (OT ca. 70*; for the verb nil? see 19:21), ‘witness,’ in 20:16; 23:1 for the
accusing witness, the plaintiff; in 22:12 for evidence on behalf of the defend
ant; Iff is used in 20:16 in construct chain with ")(?# (see 5:9) to describe the
16 See Heidelberg Catechism, Lord’s Day 43 and Calvin; for Luther see Veijola (see 1.1.1),
86f.
Volume III1
EXODUS 2 0 :1 7 67
adjective (e.g. Ges-K §128p); in Deut. 5:20 with Nit}? (see 20:7). In the LXX
the difference is not brought out in the translation; not in the Vulg. and other
translations either. Interpreters are not agreed on whether or not there is a
difference in meaning between 20:16 and Deut. 5:20. Often it is felt that the
use of Kiel in Deut. 5:20 is intended to give the stipulation a wider scope (cf.
e.g. Stamm [see 1.1.1], ThR 27 [1961], 199) relative to the more concrete
20:16. Hossfeld (see 1.1.1), 75ff., after an overview of the various interpreta
tions and an investigation of the relevant data, concludes that in the juridical
context the terms in question are to be regarded as synonyms (p. 83). His
conclusion is to the point. Doubtful, however, is whether NIC np has priority
over npC IP and whether the use of the last term in 20:16 is meant to weaken
the link between the stipulation of 20:7 and that of 20:16 for the purpose of
highlighting the honour due to YHWH’s name (pp. 85f.). npC IP is the usual
formulation and NIC IS stands by itself (cf. Graupner [see 1.1.1], 319f.). More
plausible is that ">pC 10 takes priority and that NIC np was chosen so as to
establish an explicit link, by means of the catchword NIC, between the prohibi
tions.
With respect to the translation of 10 there are two views. In agreement with
LXX, TO, Pesh., Vulg., some translations have ‘getuigenis’ (e.g. SV, LV, NV).
\foor ‘getuigenis’ (‘testimony’) Hebrew has the term n n p . Can np also have
that meaning? Jewish exegesis has found support for that view in Prov. 25:18
and looked for an explanation of the use of np with the unusual meaning (see
Leibowitz*, 335ff.), however without being convincing. It is more plausible not
to regard np as object, but, following Ibn Ezra, to take it as a description of
the situation in which the addressee finds himself (KOSynt §332k and see e.g.
Vredenbuig, Bohl, Cassuto, Dasbeig).
1.7.7 No coveting (20:17)

‘You shall not put your heart on ‘You shall not put your heart on
someone &else house and hearth; someone else’s wife either.
thus, you shall not put your heart Furthermore, you shall not lust af
on someone elsei wife, nor on his ter someone else’s house, or his
male slave or his female slave, or land, or his male slave, or his fe
on his ox, or his donkey nor on male slave, his ox or his ass, nor
any other property o f someone el on any other property of someone
se.' else.’
1.7.7.1 What particular sin does 20:17 refer to and how are the differences
between 20:17 and Deut. 5:21 to be explained? How does 20:17 relate to the
preceding commandments? Those are the most important questions which in a
Volume III1
68 DECALOGUE
discussion of 20:17 have to be dealt with.77 We deal with these questions by

way of analysis of the terms that are used.
1.7.7.2 In 20:17, twice the qal prohibitive of IBn (OT 21 x; 16x qal) is used
(see THAT, I, 579ff.; TWAT, II, 1020ff.). Traditionally the verb in the decalo
gue is translated with ‘to covet’ (cf. already LXX, Vulg.). That interpretation
has been called into question. The idea has found acceptance that the verb
expresses more than the will, the inclination of the heart, and also refers to the
preparation for and the attempt to carry out wicked plans.78 non has even been
given the concrete meaning ‘to appropriate to one’s own use.’79 Most exegetes
don’t go that far.80 Questionable, however, is also the less sweeping interpreta
tion of l» n . In support of that contention, reference has been made to the use
of non qal in Exod. 34:24 and Ps. 68:17, where IBn means something like
‘stretching out one’s hands toward’ and comes close to ‘taking possession of.’
Its use in these texts occasioned the conclusion that also in the decalogue "ion
should be understood as ‘stretching out one’s hands toward,’ and that the
prohibition in any case also - besides the inclination, insofar as one wants to
reckon with it81 - denounces the observable, concrete act inspired by the evil
mind.
The meaning of iBn played an important role in the discussion about the
relation of 20:17 to the preceding commandments and about the place of the
77 For an extensive discussion see Hossfeld [see 1.1.1], 87ff.

78 So e.g., in line with J. Hermann, “Das zehnte Gebot,” in Beitr&ge zur Religionsgeschichte
und Archdologie Paldstinas (Fs E. Sellin), Leipzig 1927, 69-82; Stamm (see 1.1.1), ThR 27
(1961), 301ff.; idem, Dekalog (see 1.1.1), 56ff.; Jepsen (see 1.1.1), 294; Schtingel-Straumann (see
1.1.1), 56; Klein, 168f.; Criiseman (see 1.1.1), 76f. It would seem that Herrmann came by his
conception independently; however, it is not a recent idea, but occurring already in early
exegetical history (e.g. Mek., II, 266; on its place in Jewish exegesis see Leibowitz*, 344ff.;
Greenberg [see 1.1.1], 106ff.; Rof6, 45ff.; it is also found in Luther (see \feijola [see 1.1.1],
84ff.). Rof6, 54ff., taking his cue from the key word ‘your neighbour,’ reconstructs a concrete
interpretation of the tenth commandment; in his view, Deut 19:14; 23:25, 26; 24:10, 11 together
constituted the oldest interpretation of the stipulation.
79 See B.D. Eerdmans, “Oorsprong en betekenis van de ‘Tien Wxirden’,” TT 37 (1903), 19-35
(pp. 26f.); idem, Religion, 31; presumably the verb referred to the actual taking possession of the
undamaged goods of the other.
80 But note e.g. Nielsen (see 1.1.), 73, 86f., and in particular Lang, who follows Eerdmans’
interpretation of io n (p. 219); he regards the prohibition as a stipulation protecting the husband,
who is often away for a long time and whose wife and property are at risk of being snatched by
another (cf. 34:24); he relates it specifically to the situation pertaining in Judah in the first decades
of the sixth century: many men had been deported; those left behind hoped for their return (pp.
219ff.).
81 Eerdmans, 7T 37 (1903), 25, even denies that the OT was familiar with sins in thought; in
his view, OT ethics does not go so deep that it includes a person’s emotion; it is the act that
constutes the sin, not the motive from which it arises; cf.
for the discussion on it in The Netherlands, Vriezen, 424ff.; Gemser.
Volume III1
EXODUS 2 0 :1 7 69
inclination in the ethics of the OT. After all, if also 20:17 in fact addresses
concrete wrongs, then this verse in any case comes close to the prohibitions
formulated in 20:14, 15; that would mean that the role played by the inclina
tion of the heart in the decalogue - a basic law for the ethics of the OT - if it
is not eliminated, would at least be reduced. All in all, changing the interpreta
tion of non has its consequences. But, so we should ask ourselves, do they rest
on a solid premise?
1.7.7.3 As I see it, the use of non in 34:24 and Ps. 68:17 should not be
given a predominant spot in the determination of the meaning. In other
passages, a difference is made between the concrete act of stealing (Deut. 7:25;
Josh. 7:21; Mic. 2:2) while non stands for what goes on in someone’s mind
before proceeding to concrete acts: the eye fell on something; the desire to
possess it grew and became dominant; desire turns into obsession and spawns
evil plots (cf. 1 Kgs. 21; Mic. 2:1). As such non does not denote the transgres
sion of a particular law and does not refer to committing a punishable offense.
What io n does is, describe a morally totally reprehensible mindset, and the
obsession can be the source of criminal acts. Furthermore, also in 34:24 and
Ps. 68:17 the meaning ‘putting one’s heart on,’ ‘lusting after,’ makes good
sense. In both cases it is assumed that the desire leads/led to the deed. The
traditional interpretation of non deserves rehabilitation.*2
The importance of keeping one’s desires pure is also spelled out in other
places in the OT. In judging people one’s attitude, like in Israel’s ‘Umwelt’
(cf. Gemser, 88ff.; Hyatt), plays an important role. YHWH looks at the heart
(1 Sam. 16:7; cf. further e.g. Gen. 6:5; 20:6; Lev. 19:17; 1 Kgs. 8:61; Isa.
10:7; 29:13; 59:7; Jer. 4:4, 14; 17:10; Ezek. 38:10; Mic. 6:8; Pss. 15:2; 51:8,
12; 94:11; 125:4; Prov. 6:18; 15:26; 21:27; 24:12, 17f.; Job 31:1, 9, 24f., 26f.,
29; cf. e.g. Rom. 7:7; 13:9; Col. 3:5; Jas. l:13ff.; 4:If.). In that respect, the NT
corresponds to the OT (e.g. Matt. 5:8, 27f.; 9:4; 12:34f.; 15:18f.). For the
proper understanding of 20:17 as prohibition that goes to the depths of the
heart, the nature of the decalogue should be kept in mind. The ethical rules are
not articles from a legal code, but instructions that address the conscience (see
2.2.4, 6, 8, 16). The addressee is asked not only to abstain from doing things
that might injure the other (20:13-16), but also to keep his desires and motives
totally pure, to keep far from greed and jealousy and immoral thoughts. In
short, there is no duplication of laws. The decalogue issues in a prohibition that
reveals deep knowledge of what humans are like (cf. Matt. 15:18f.; Mark
7:2lff.).
Cf. e.g. Gemser, 83f.; Lettinga (see 1.1.1), Fundamentum 2/190, 48f.; Phillips (see 1.1.1),
I50ff., who, however, also believes that the use of io n is due to spiritualization of an originally
concrete prohibition to take possession of the home of an elder; Childs, 425ff; for Jewish
exegetes see e.g. Cassuto and Jacob.
Volume III1
70 DECALOGUE
1.7.7.4 Deut. 5:21 differs at some points from 20:17 and can be regarded as
actualization of the stipulation of Exodus.®3 In Deut. 5:21 ‘the wife’ (Introd.
§3.2.3) is highlighted and, as sole object of non, is given a place of her own
(cf. also 20:17 LXX which is identical to Deut. 5:21 LXX). In 20:17 she is the
first of a series, mentioned along with male and female slave, ox and donkey,
as a member of the work force available to the Israelite citizen to help him
with his farming, enabling him to maintain himself economically and so
guaranteeing his position as a free and independent citizen. An assault on it
constituted an undermining of his social position. In Deut. 5 the wife is no
longer mentioned in one breath with slaves (Introd. §3.37.2, 3) and domestic
animals (Introd. §9.1.12, 16), but is listed separately in accord with the place
she has elsewhere in Deuteronomy as a full and equal partner of her husband
(see 2.4.10). In Pseudo-Philo, XI, 13, the wife is not mentioned at all, but only
home, property and land.
1.7.7.5 In Exod. 20 the object of the first nann is not the wife but n’3.
Evidently, ITS in Exod. 20 is used in a comprehensive sense (Introd. §3.9.2),
while the second nonrrttb and what follows is an elaboration of n ’3 lo n n Kb
(cf. Jepsen, 295). The view that the interpretation of n ’3 here defended is
improbable, because in that case one would also, beside wife and slaves, have
expected explicit mention of the children (cf. e.g. Phillips, 149; Hossfeld,
94ff.), is not convincing. Explicitly mentioned are the persons and animals who
are crucial for the successful running of the business. To say the least, that
does not include young children. Besides, the summing up is not limitative, but
through the formula *]mb 1DK b3l (Introd. §3.26)M is indefinite. The prohibi
tion concerns all property. Also persons can be included (cf. Gen. 20:7; 1 Sam.
25:6). By contrast, in Deut. 5 n '3 is followed by m b (see 1:14), not men
tioned in Exod. 20, evidently with the narrow meaning of ‘dwelling’ (Introd.
§3.9.1).
1.7.7.6 Instead of the second “lonm tb, in Deut. 5 n-ltsrpn kb], the hithpael
prohibitive of mtt (see THAT, I, 74ff.; TWAT, I, 145ff.), is used. filK occurs
parallel with non in Gen. 3:6 and is interchangeable with non (see Prov. 6:25
beside Ps. 45:12 and Ps. 68:17 beside Ps. 132:13f.). Does the use of niK imply
a material difference relative to 20:17? That view has been defended. So it has
been contended that mtt, in contrast to ia n , only denotes desire, while there is
spiritualization in Deut. 5:21 (cf. Stamm, ThR 27 [1961], 302; idem, Dekalog,
59, and see also Nielsen, 87). Hossfeld, 96ff., 127ff., on the other hand regards
u Cf. 1.1.4; the view of Hossfeld, 103, 125ff. etc. that Deut. 5:21 contains an older formula-
tion of the prohibition than Exod. 20:17 is not convincing; cf. Graupner (see 1.1.1), 32Iff.; see
further 1.1.10.
M For Deut. 5:21 the reading lb "itfK bai (cf. Vulg.) is attested by Bachja Ibn Pakuda (11th
century); see H.G. von Mutius, VT 30 (1980), 235f.
Volume III1
EXODUS 2 0 :1 7 71
nan and nix as synonyms and believes that both verbs also include the act
needed to achieve the desired goal. In my view, the use is likely due to the
need for stylistic variation. The mention of land in Deut. 5 results from the
interpretation of n’3 as dwelling, and the need to concretely cite a specific part
of the property, one that was greedily eyed by fellow citizens (cf. Isa. 5:8; Mic.
2:2 and see also Deut. 19:14; 27:17; Hos. 5:10; Job 24:2; Prov. 22:28; 23:10f.)
and absolutely necessary for making a living, rather than including it in the
general term i m b iD trbai.85 Furthermore, it is possible to conclude from the
context - the wife is mentioned as object of non beside personnel and domes
tic animals - that the wife in 20:17, unlike in 20:14, is not mentioned as object
of sexual desire, but for her economic value, her position in the household (cf.
Prov. 31), and possibly the capital she represents (cf. Gen. 24:61; 31:14-16;
Josh. 15:16-19; Judg. 1:12-15; 1 Sam. 25:42 and see \&sholz).
1.7.7.7 A sanction is not mentioned in 20:17. But in a detailed formulation of
the prohibition in the targums, consequences of giving in to greed are stated:
the mighty power who seizes people’s possessions, so that die rich become
poor and captivity descends upon the world (TPsJ; cf. PTF and see also TNf;
the same sanction in FTP in connection with 20:16); rains that do not come, so
that the world is afflicted with drought (FTP; the same sanction in TPsJ, PTF in
connection with 20:16).
In Lord’s Day 44 of the Heidelbeig Catechism, 20:17 is interpreted as an
inclusive commandment to stay away from whatever sin in whatever form, and
to be totally pure in one’s thoughts and desires relative to each of the ten com
mandments (cf. also Calvin).
vnn is also mentioned in the Sam.PenL of 20:17 (cf. 1.1.10), but here after ‘the wife;’ the
tendency for completeness is also seen in the LXX in the addition, after ‘ox and donkey,’ o f ‘nor
«ny other animal of his.’ After 20:17, the Sam.Pent. contains an expansion of the text based on
Deut 27:2, 5-7; 11:30.
Volume III1
EXODUS 2 0 :1 8 -2 4 :2
YHWH SPEAKS THROUGH MOSES
2.1 INTRODUCTION (20:18-21)
20:18 A ll the people then witnessed the thunderclaps, the torches, the trumpet
blast, and the mountain, shrouded in smoke. The people were awestruck. They
fe ll back and kept their distance.
19 They said to Moses: ‘You converse with us, so that we can listen. But do
not let God corners with us, lest we die. ’
20 Moses answered the people: ‘Do not be afraid. God has only come to test
you and in order that you may be filled with holy fear before Him, so that you
will not misbehave yourselves. ’
21 As the people remained at a distance, Moses went near the dark cloud in
which God was.
2.1.1 SCHOLARLY EXPOSITION I: ESSENTIALS AND PERSPEC

TIVES / INTRODUCTION TO EXEGESIS
For a good understanding of the passage it is necessary to see how 20:18-21

relates to 20:1-17. 20:18-21 in a sense stands by itself, something already
brought out by the Masoretes (20:18 [p]; 20:22 [p or s]; see Perrot*, 58). The
passage constitutes an intermezzo between two sets of stipulations from YHWH,
the decalogue and the book of the covenant, and determines the nature and the
relationship between both.
The idea that 20:18-21 (or 20:18b-21; e.g. Noth, Hyatt) originally followed
upon 19:19 (see \fol. II, 429) has already been dealt with. Since the postulation
of this view by A. Kuenen*1 it has gained wide acceptance.2Noteworthy is that
the theory rests on things in the text itself, as already pointed out by Nachma-
nides, including the following: 20:18 only talks about thunderclaps etc., not
about the speaking of God; according to 20:19 God has not yet spoken to
Israel; otherwise the text would have read ‘let God no longer speak to us’ (liB,
1 “Bijdragen tot de critiek van Pentateuch en Jozua,” TT 15 (1881), 164-223 (189ff.).

1 Somewhat differently Beyerlin*, 8f., 17f.: 20:18-21 is a variant o f the E version o f Exod. 19;
20:18-21 precedes the decalogue, but is not the continuation of 19:19; already Grefimann*, 197f.,
defended the independence of 20:18-21. See further Houtman**, Bundesbuch, 2 n. 5.
Volume III1
cf. Deut. 5:25, is absent; in TPsJ ain, ‘again,’ is included in the translation).
This leads Nachmanides to conclude that Exod. 19-20 does not describe the
happenings on the day of the theophany in chronological order, but that the
promulgation of the decalogue happened upon what is related in 20:21. Kuenen
and his supporters hold that Nachmanides’ historical sequence was the original
literary sequence of the E segment in the text.3 As they see it, at the inclusion
of the book of the covenant, the decalogue was moved up and 20:18-21
became the introduction to the book of the covenant.
It must be granted that in the present text, 20:19 does not quite fit if the
decalogue does not come first. 20:19 in any case presupposes YHWH’s intention
to speak directly to Israel. A speaking (or intended speaking) of YHWH is
mentioned in the preceding account- aside from 20:1-17 - but is not men
tioned in the present text. Also 20:20 only makes sense if the promulgation of
the decalogue is presupposed (see exegesis). Furthermore, 20:22, which in turn
is closely related to 20:23 (see exegesis), goes back to 20:18, 19. To go along
with Kuenen’s as such not implausible view, one must, it would seem, also
assume that the text has been worked over.
In its present form, the text offers the same picture as given in Deuteronomy:
the decalogue was spoken directly by YHWH to Israel (Deut. 4:1 Iff; 5:4,22ff;
9:10; 10:4). The other stipulations he gave through Mozes (Deut. 5:23ff.). As
direct revelation, the decalogue has a unique status, which is also evident from
the fact that God himself inscribed it on tablets (see 34:28). But also the book
of the covenant is fully Word of God, and so requires Israel’s acknowledge
ment and obedience. After the account of YHWH’s appointment of Moses as his
spokesperson (19:9, 19; cf. also 33:11; 34:29-35), it is now related that Israel
urged Moses to act as YHWH’s spokesperson. Israel has acknowledged Mozes’
special position, and so obligated itself to accept and obey the laws given
through his instrumentality as Word of God. In short, 20:18-21 joins together
the decalogue and the covenant, two collections of stipulations, both of which
are to be esteemed as Word of God. The passage underlines the unique
character of the decaloge; at the same time it also claims divine authority for
the book of the covenant and shows why God did not speak all his words
directly to Israel, but announced a large portion of them through the instrumen
tality of a human being.
The confirmation of Moses as mediator of revelation in 20:18-21 has led to
the supposition that in origin the passage was ‘die Atiologie fiir die Institution
eines kultischen Sprechers’ (Beyerlin**, 160, following G. von Rad); the
3 The passage is commonly attributed to E; see Zenger*, Sinaitheophanie, 212f.; he himself has
* different view (pp. 66ff.); see idem*, Israel, 139ff., 179ff.; the exclusive use o f the divine name
0Vrt(K)fi is not functional (differently e.g. Rudolph*, 46; Gispen; Cassuto); cf. \fol.II, 429.
Volume III1
74 EXODUS 20:18-21
passage serves to explain why, inside the context of the (postulated) cultic
reenactment of the Sinai theophany (see \bl. II, 430), it is not the voice of
God himself that is heard, but a human who addresses the cultic community.
2.1.2 SCHOLARLY EXPOSITION II: EXEGESIS
20:18 All the people then witnessed the thunderclaps, the torches, the trumpet
blast and the mountain, shrouded in smoke. The people were awestruck. They
fe ll back and kept their distance.
The people, mentioned in 19:25, are in 20:18-21 witness of the revelation of
YHWH (20:1-17). Moses is by the people (19:25; 20:19).
20:18 begins with a noun clause, which describes the situation (cf. KdSynt
§410c; Ges-K §116o; Joiion §12If). The terminology in part harks back to
19:16, 18, 19. Recalled is the ‘decor’ of God’s speaking. At the theophany, the
people were filled with fear (cf. 19:16). ‘the people,’ see Introd. §3.40.1.
‘witnessed,’ see Introd. §3.46.1; the four objects, as is customary in Hebrew
(Brockelmann §130a), are polysyndetically connected; the use of n to is
striking as regards the first and the third object (zeugma) (for Haggadic
exegesis see e.g. M ek, II, 266; Potin*, 260f.);4 for that reason the Sam.Pent.
has replaced 0,t n by (cf. also TEV); see further below; ‘all the people
witnessed’ (cf. 19:8, 11); for the conclusion in rabbinic exegesis (e.g. Mek., II,
267f.; Rashi) that among the Israel at the Sinai there were no people with
physical defects, see Vbl. II, 436f.)
*?lp, see Introd. §3.51.2; in the LXX nblp is not, as in 19:16, translated with
a plur. but with a sing. ( tt|v (Jkovtjv); evidently, the voice is the voice of God
(cf. 20:1). At least that is how the rabbis construed it. In TPsJ (cf. Mek., II,
218, 267) there is an illusion to the interpretation, based on the plur. nblp, that
the voice of God divided itself into seven voices, which in turn divided
themselves into seventy languages (ExR., V, 9; XXVIII, 6; MidrTanh. Exod., I,
22; Ginzbeig*, III, 97; VI, 39), so that everyone was able to hear (cf. Acts
2:6ff. and see Potin*, 248ff., 309f.). The plural has also been regarded as an
indication that the people had heard all the ten words of God (in Goldman).
v r t (OT 14x), ‘torch’ (Gen. 15:17; Judg. 7:16,20; 15:4,5 etc.); for the
etymology see S. Segert, ZAW 74 (1962), 323f.; torches were made by soaking
pieces of wood in oil or tar and then wrapping them with rags (BHHW, I,
462f.; BRL, 72). Burning torches produced a lot of smoke (‘smoke’ is men
tioned in connection with the flaming torch in Gen. 15:17; Exod. 20:18).
4 Cf. also R. Neudecker, ‘“Das ganze \b lk sah die Stimmen ...’: Haggadische Auslegung und
Pfingsbericht,” Bib 78 (1997), 329-49.
Volume III1
Usually it is held that ‘torches,’ in 20:18 used beside ‘thunderclaps,’ is a

metaphor for O’p??, ‘flashes of lightning’ (cf. 19:16, and see in particular Nah.
2:5 and also Ezek. 1:3). Eerdmans takes issue with this interpretation and
points to the use of the term ‘torches’ as supporting his view that the theo-
phany was staged with artificial means (cf. the use of torches in Judg. 7:16,
20). As such it is not impossible that elements of the description of the
theophany are worked into the account. Likely, however, the writer seeks to
evoke the picture of YHWH, accompanied by a heavenly host, in possession of
torches = flashes of lightning; both the trumpet (see 19:13) and the torch
belong to an army’s equipment (see for the question \bl. II, 431). YHWH’s
appearance is therefore terribly frightening (for early exegesis see Potin*,
268ff.). Ancient versions have opted for a literal rendering; LXX: A.apna6a<;;
Vulg.: lampades; TNf: m s n b (cf. FTV); TO, TPsJ: K’TUa. In the Sam.Pent
the torches are mentioned after the trumpet and are object of O’tn i, which in
MT stands at the beginning (see also TEV). In TPsJ the trumpet blast is taken
as a signal heralding the resurrection from the dead (cf. 1 Cor. 15:52; 1 Thess.
4:16): all generations were witness of the revelation at the Sinai (ExR,
XXVIII, 6; Ginzbeig*, III, 97; Potin*, 264f.).
(20:18; Isa. 7:4), adjective of the root (see 19:18; TWAT, VI,
438ff.). With NTl the writer continues his account of the events. He describes
the people’s reaction to the theophany (20:18, 19). NT1, Sam.Pent.: INTI, ‘and
they feared;’ also the ancient versions seem to be based on reading a form of
NT (sing, or plur.) (see LXX, Pesh., Vulg., TPsJ). The reading adopted in
modem translations (e.g. LV, CV, WV and see Delitzsch*, 27, 65) fits the
context (see 20:19) (Dillmann: it is too weak; cf. 19:16), but also the Masoretic
vocalization produces a meaningful interpretation (see also 32:5). Subject in the
Sam.Pent. is DJtn (cf. 20:18a); see also LXX, FTP, PTF.
(not translated in LXX; Vulg. ac pavore concussi, ‘and stricken with
fear’) imperf. cons, qal of (OT ca. 40x; 24* qal), ‘to be unstable, be
moving back and forth’ (see TWAT, V, 315ff.). Hoc loco the verb is often
translated with ‘tremble,’ ‘shudder’ (e.g. LV, CV, NV, WV, NRSV, REB,
TEV; cf. Isa. 6:4; 19:1). Meant it would seem is that the Israelites staggered,
unable to remain on their feet (cf. Isa. 24:20; 29:9; Ps. 107:27). The theophany
is so overwhelming that they reel back (cf. Ibn Ezra, Nachmanides, SV, Luthy
Dasbeig, and see Ehrlich, McNeile). The theophany can be compared to an
explosion from which one seeks cover. Evidently, the assumption is that the
people, having come near the mountain (19:17), step back and remain at a safe
distance. 100, see 3:5; TPsJ (also in 20:21): + ‘twelve miles’ (cf. Mek., II,
269, 273; Rashi; TzUR); FTP, PTp: + ‘praying.’ p m s , see 2:4.
20:19 They said to Moses: 'You converse with us, so that we can listen. But do
not let God converse with us, lest we die. ’
Volume III1
76 EXODUS 20:18-21
‘You converse with us’ (Introd. §3.12.1), presupposed is: after YHWH has
spoken to you; Moses is asked to act as YHWH spokesperson (cf. Deut. 5:27).s
unS, in LXX in 20:19a and 19b variously translated (see Frankel*, 87); cf.
20:22; in the taigums the speaking of God is expressed in less direct language;
TO, TPsJ, TNf: ‘don’t let there be any more speaking from before YHWH’ (cf.
19:19 in the taigums); in FTV, PTF ‘the Word of YHWH’ is subject. In 20:22,
where YHWH himself speaks, the MT is followed.
nuntfJl (not translated in LXX) (Introd. §3.51.1), cohortative with waw to
introduce a purpose clause (e.g. Ges-K §108d). In the Sam.Pent. ncOBfJl... ”137
has been replaced by the more elaborate Deuteronomic version of Israel’s
words (Deut. 5:24-27).6 Kbl etc., a wish (Brockelmann §8a). OYtbN (Introd.
§7.2.1), Sam.Pent.: OTlbKn (cf. LXX); Vulg.: Dominus. IS, see 1:10. ‘to die,’
see Introd. §3.32.
YHWH’s radiation is so enormous that not only his face (33:20) but also the
sound of his voice is deadly to humans. Josephus (AJ, III, 93f.) passes over
Israel’s dismay, but shows familiarity with 20:19: the days after the revelation
Israel asks Moses to bring them laws from God.
20:20 Moses answered the people: ‘Do not be afraid. God has only come to
test you and in order that you may be filled with holy fear before Him, so that
you will not misbehave yourselves. ’
Moses gives no direct response to the request of 20:19. 20:21 shows that
Moses did what they had asked of him. In clear language Moses tells the
reason for YHWH’s overwhelming revelation and manifestation.
‘the people,’ LXX: ‘them.’ NT, see 1:17. ’3 (Introd. §3.25.2) does not have
causal (e.g. NY WV), but adversative force; presupposed is: ‘not to let you
die, but to ....’ T 3»3b (double preposition; KoSynt §407g; Jotion §133j;
Delitzsch*, 58), see 9:14.
H03, see 15:25. niOJ is a difficult term. Following Mek., II, 272, Rashi
derives it from 0) (17:15): ‘to make you great’ (see the critique of Nachmani-
des); Klostermann*, NF, 465, proposes the reading ni3fib T3l?3 Kb, ‘not in
order to beat you down;’ GreBmann*, 198, believes that a meaningful interpre
tation is only possible in a reconstructed text. Suggestions like these have little
to commend themselves. Also the use of rtOJ elsewhere does not support the
idea that the verb here must be understood as ‘zu einer Entscheidung provocie-
ren’ (Holzinger; cf. CV: ‘put before the choice’) or as ‘to give experience.’7
The purport of the last interpretation is that YHWH in the theophany gives Israel
9 Differently Wfellhausen*, Composition, 88: Moses is asked to be the leader.

‘ See also SamT; Syro-Hexapla (see Field*); Qm (see Sanderson**, 13, 208, 217).
7 M. Greenberg, “noi in Exodus 20,20 and the purpose of the Sinaitic theophany,” JBL 79
G9601. 273-6: see beside it L. Ruppert, VT 22 (1972), 60f.; H.C. Schmitt, BN 34 (1986), 91ff.
Volume III1
a taste of his greatness (cf. also Te Stroete).

What it is that YHWH wants to test is not stated, but must be discovered
through interpretation. One idea is that of the presence of respect for YHWH on
the part of Israel. By keeping their distance from YHWH (cf. 19:16ff.) Israel
presumably passed the test (Beer, Noth). In this exegesis rtlOi is interpreted in
the light of the rest of the verse. Correctly so, in my view. But in view of the
text in its current text, ‘holy fear’ must also be taken to include ‘holy awe for
YHWH’s rules’ - both are connected with each other (e.g. Deut. 5:29; 6:2, 24;
8:6; 10:12; 13:4; 14:23 etc.) - , all the more because also the last words ‘in
order that you ...’ assume knowledge of YHWH’s regulations. Purpose of the
theophany is to make Israel so deeply conscious of YHWH’s authority that it
will not enter their mind to trifle with it or with the authority of his laws. Evil
conduct and flouting of laws are the same as showing no respect for YHWH.
Read like that, niOJ in the current context should be related to YHWH’s testing
with a view to discover whether Israel is dedicated to him and prepared to take
his stipulations seriously (Deut. 8:2; cf. Dillmann, Strack, Hertz). Moses’
answer is meant to put the people at ease, which shows that the people had
responded as YHWH wanted. They are filled with reverence for JHWH (20:18
end) and desire to maintain the contact with YHWH, though not directly but
through Moses’ mediation (20:19).
‘come,’ LXX: + ‘to you.’ WNT (see 1:17), with suffix to indicate objective
genitive (e.g. KoSynt §37; Ges-K §135m; differently Dillmann: the fear which
he spreads); ‘fear’ is taken to mean, e.g. in M e t, II, 272, as ‘timidity.’ O'JB,
see Introd. §3.42.1, 3; FTV, PTF: ‘so that the fear of YHWH (PTF: the torah of
YHWH) may be continually in your mouth’ (cf. Deut. 30:14). Tibab, see 8:18.
‘to misbehave oneself,’ see Introd. §3.20.1. The sequel to the story (Exod. 32)
shows that the holy awe was soon forgotten.
20:21 As the people remained at a distance, Moses went near the dark cloud in
which God was.
There is now a distance between YHWH and Israel (20:18 end). Moses, re
quested to do so (20:19), now by himself, on behalf of the people, maintains
the contact with YHWH.
bx tfu, see 19:15; LXX: eiof|A.0ev eic, ‘he went inside’ (cf. 24:18); by
contrast, b x is in TO and TPsJ translated respectively as T’ab and ‘in
the direction of.’ bsiff, see 13:21; TWAT, VI, 397ff.; LXX: ei<; tov yv6<t>ov,
‘into the darkness;’ Symm.: eiq t t | v opixAqv, ‘into the mist.’ In M e t, II, 274,
20:21 is interpreted in the light of Deut. 4:11: Moses passes various compart
ments of darkness (cf. Rashi). Sam.Pent. has a very detailed text. Upon 20:21,
the introductory formula ‘And YHWH addressed Moses with these words’ is
followed by the text of Deut. 5:28, 29 (from TiBDtf); 18:18-22; 5:30, 31 (see
also SamT; Syro-Hexapla [see Field*]; Qm [see Sanderson**, 13, 208, 217]).
Volume III1
78 THE BOOK OF THE COVENANT
In Deut. 18 the rise of prophetism in Israel is associated with Israel’s reaction

after it has received the decalogue (cf. Mek., II, 271).
What is the situation presupposed in the text? It is not said that Moses climbs
up to YHWH (e.g. 19:20) or enters the cloud (24:18). Moses is with the people
at a distance from the mountain and apparently heads for the mountain enwrap
ped in the dark cloud, and there, close to the mountain, listens to YHWH (cf.
19:9, 17-19). There he is also ordered by YHWH to climb up (24:1, 2). The
notion that Moses in 20:21 was accompanied by Aaron (e.g. Keil; cf. 19:24) is
without grounds.
2.2 THE BOOK OF THE UNION (20:22-23:33) / INTRODUCTION
2.2.1 Bibl. (A selection, mainly of recent date): ABD, IV 242ff.; TRE, VII,
412ff.; H.-J. Boeckei; Recht tmd Gesetz im Alten Testament und im Alten
Orient, Neukirchen-Vluyn 19842; G. Brin, “The Development of Some Laws in
the Book of the Covenant,” in H.G. Reventlow, Y. Hoffman (eds.), Justice and
Righteousness, Sheffield 1992, 60-70; idem, Studies in Biblical Law. From the
Hebrew Bible to the dead Sea Scrolls, Sheffield 1994; H. Cazelles, Etudes sur
le Code de VAlliance, Paris 1946 (cited as Cazelles); idem, ‘Histoire et institu
tions dans la place et la composition d’Ex 20,22-23,19,” in Prophetie und
geschichtliche Wirklichkeit im alten Israel (Fs S. Herrmann), Stuttgart et al.
1991, 52-9; F. Crusemann, “Das Bundesbuch- historischer Ort und institutio-
neller Hinteigrund,” SVT 40 (1988), 27-41 (cited as Crusemann); idem, Die
Tora: Theologie und Sozialgeschichte des alttestamentlichen Gesetzes, Miin-
chen 1992 (ET: The Torah: Theology and Social History o f Old Testament
Law, Minneapolis/Edinbuigh 1996); F.C. Fensham, “Transgression and Penalty
in the Book of the Covenant,” JNSL 5 (1977), 23-41; J.J. Finkelstein, The Ox
that Gored, Philadelphia 1981; M. Greenberg, “More Reflections on Biblical
Law,” ScrHie 31 (1986), 1-17; J. Halbe, Das Privilegrecht Jahwes Ex 34,
10-26: Gestalt und Wesen, Herkunft tmd Wtrken in vordeuteronomischer Zeit,
Gottingen 1975; P.D. Hanson, “The Theological Significance of Contradiction
within the Book of the Covenant,” in G.W. Coates, B.O. Long (eds.), Canon
and Authority, Philadelphia 1977, 110-31; W.C. Kaiser, Toward Old Testament
Ethics, Grand Rapids 1983; G. Laserre, Synopse des lois du Pentateuque,
Leiden et al. 1994; W.F. Leemans, “Quelques considerations a propos d’une
6tude rdcente du droit du Proche-Orient ancien,” BiOr 48 (1991), 409-37
(discussion of Westbrook, Studies [see below]); B.M. Levinson (ed.), Theory
and Method in Biblical and Cuneiform Law: Revision, Interpretation and
Development, Sheffield 1994; M. Lichtheim, Moral Values in Ancient Egypt,
Freiburg/GOttingen 1997; M. Malul, The Comparative Method in Ancient Near
Eastern and Biblical Legal Studies, Kevelaer/Neukirchen-Vluyn 1990; J.W.
Volume III1
INTRODUCTION 79
Marshall, Israel and the Book o f the Covenant: An Anthropological Approach

to Biblical Law, Atlanta 1993; W.H. McKeating, “Sanctions against Adultery
in Ancient Israelite Society, With Some Reflections on Methodology in the
Study of Old Testament Ethics,” JSOT 11 (1979), 57-72; idem, JSOT 20
(1981), 25f.; E. Otto, Wandel der Rechtsbegrundungen in der Gesellschaftsge-
schichte des antiken Israel: Eine Rechtsgeschichte des “Bundesbuches ” Ex X X
22 - X X III13, Leiden et al. 1988; idem, “Interdependenzen zwischen Geschich-
te und Rechtsgeschichte des antiken Israels,” Rechtshistorisches Journal 7
(1988), 347-68; idem, Rechtsgeschichte der Redaktionen im Kodex ESnrnna
und im ‘Bundesbuch ’: Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche und rechtsveigleichende
Studie zu altbdbylonischen und altisraelitischen Rechtsuberlieferungen, Frei-
burg/G8ttingen 1989; idem, Korperverletzungen in den Keilschriftrechten und
im Alten Testament: Studien zum Rechtstransfer im Alten Orient, Kevelaer/Neu-
kirchen-Vluyn 1991; idem, “Die Bedeutung der altorientalischen Rechtsge
schichte ftir das \ferstMndnis des Alten Testaments,” ZThK 88 (1991), 139-68;
idem, “Auf dem Wege zu einer altorientalischen Rechtsgeschichte,” BiOr 48
(1991), 5-13; idem, “Korperverletzungen in hethitischen und israelitischen
Recht: Rechts- und religionshistorische Aspekte,” in B. Janowski et al. (eds.),
Religionsgeschichtliche Beziehungen zwischen Kleinasien, Nordsyrien und dem
Alten Testament, Freiburg/Gottingen 1993, 391-425; idem, Theologische Ethik
des Alten Testaments, Stuttgart et al. 1994; Y Osumi, Die Kompositionsge-
schichte des Bundesbuches Exodus 20,22b-23,33, Freiburg/GOttingen 1991;
S.M. Paul, Studies in the Book o f the Covenant in the Light o f Cuneiform and
Biblical Law, Leiden 1970; A. Phillips, “Another Look at Adultery,” JSOT 20
(1981), 3-25; idem, JSOT 22 (1982), 142f.; A. Schenker, Versohnung und
Widerstand: Bibeltheologische Untersuchung zum Strafen Gottes und der
Menschen, besonders im Lichte von Exodus 21-22, Stuttgart 1990; L. Schwien-
horst-Schonbeiger, “‘Dies sind die Rechtsvorschriften, die du Ihnen vorlegen
sollst’: Zur Struktur und Entstehung des Bundesbuches,” in F.-L. Hossfeld
(ed.), Vom Sinai zum Horeb, WUrzbuig 1989, 119-43; idem, Das Bundesbuch
(Ex 20,22-23,33), Berlin/New York 1990 (cited as Schwienhorst-Schonbeiger);
U. Sick, Die Totung eines Menschen und ihre Ahndung in den keilschriftlichen
Rechtssammlungen unter Beriicksichtigung rechtsvergleichender Aspekte,
Ostfildem 1984; J.M. Sprinkle, The Book o f the Covenant: A Literary Ap
proach, Sheffield 1994; A. Walther, Das altbabylonische Gerichtswesen,
Leipzig 1917; R.R. Wilson, “Ethics in Conflict: Sociological Aspects of
Ancient Israelite Ethics,” in S. Niditch (ed.), Text and Tradition, Atlanta 1990,
193-205; idem, “The Role of Law in Early Israelite Society,” in B. Halpem,
D.W. Hobson (eds.), Law, Politics and Society in the Ancient Mediterranean
World, Sheffield 1993, 90-9; R. Westbrook, Studies in Biblical and Cuneiform
Law, Paris 1988 (cited as Westbrook); idem, “Cuneiform Law Codes and the
Origins of Legislation,” ZA 79 (1989), 201-22; R. Yaron, “The Evolution of
Volume III1
Biblical Law,” in A. Theodorides et al., La formazione del diritto nel Vicino

oriente Antico, Napoli/Roma 1988, 78-108; idem, The Laws o f Eshimna,
Jerusalem/Leiden 19882 (cited as Yaron).
The following abbreviations are used for the collections of juridical texts
from the ancient Near East, which are consulted in the discussion of the
stipulations of the book of the Union: CU = Codex Umammu (end 3rd millen
nium); LI = Codex Lipit-Ishtar (beginning 2nd millennium); both documents are
written in Sumerian; written in Akkadian are the following collections: CE =
Codex Eshnunna (beginning 2nd millennium); CH = Codex Hammurabi (18th
century); MAL = Middle Assyrian Laws (12th/! 1th century); NBL = Neo-
Babylonian Laws. Furthermore: HL = Hittite Laws (1600-1200).*
2.2.2 The paragraph heading is based on Exod. 24:7. In Exodus in its present
form, 24:3-8 is correlative to 20:22-23:33 and 20:22b-23:33 is to be regarded
as the text of the stipulations which Moses on behalf of YHWH gave to Israel
and wrote down (24:3f., 7). For that reason 20:22-23:33 has been named
n’lgri IfJO, ‘the Book of the Union’ or - as commonly called - ‘Book of the
Covenant.’
The covenant book is not a homogeneous document, but put together from
highly diverse material of different origin. In its entirety it cannot even be
subsumed under the denominator ‘stipulations.’ The ending, 23:20-33, it is
true, also contains stipulations (23:24, 32), but they are not of a general nature.
They apply to the specific situations this part deals with, the coming conquest
of the land. The covenant book is really a long monologue of YHWH to Moses.
For the most part it consists of regulations meant for Israel. At the end of his
monologue YHWH again picks up the thread of history and in something like an
epilogue offers a preview of the future: Israel will be brought to the promised
land. YHWH makes use of the opportunity - his direct contact with Moses - to
provide information, also meant for Israel, about the conquest of the land in an
address full of admonitions and promises.
In the epilogue YHWH opens up the future and so puts the encounter between
him and Moses in historical perspective. So the reader is (again) reminded of
the fact that YHWH is at work to bring to make the promises to the patriarchs
come true (3:8ff. etc.) and that Israel’s stay at the Sinai (19:If.) is no more
than an intermezzo in a history which is still unfinished.
2.2.3 The part of the covenant book containing ordinances consists, aside
from 21:1-22:16 - a collection of ordinances called D’99#9 with its own8
8 For texts and translations see M.T. Roth, Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia
Minor, Atlanta 1995; for translations see ANET and TUATf 1/1 (with citations of text editions and
introductory literature); cf. RLA, III, 243ff.; Boecker, 44ff; W.H.Ph. ROmer, “Einige Bemerkun-
gen zum altmesopotamischen Recht sonderlich nach Quellen in sumerischer Sprache,” ZAW 95
(1983), 319-36.
Volume III1
INTRODUCTION 81
heading (21:1) - of varied material. My choice of division is the following:
- 20:22-26: s tip u la tio n s f o r s e r v in g YHWH.

- 21:1-22:16: mispatim.
- 22:17-23:12: cultic and social stipulations.
-23:13-19: s tip u la tio n s f o r s e r v in g YHWH.
I restrict myself here to the division in major segments. In the discussion, the
text, if necessary is subdivided into paragraphs and, where there is occasion
for it, reasons are given for the division. Presently, considerable attention is
devoted to the composition and structure of the covenant book.9 There is a
tendency to regard the form of the covenant book as the product of careful
composition. We can be reasonably sure that 20:22-26 and 23:13-19, contain
ing ordinances for service of YHWH, were deliberately put at the beginning and
end of the actual covenant book (20:22-23:19). The Book of the Union is the
book of YHWH's union with Israel. That means that all emphasis must fall on
the true worship of YHWH. This is brought out by the composition. The service
of YHWH must be the beginning and end in the life of the Israelite. The
relationship with YHWH comes first, and so determines the relationship with the
neighbour, the main theme of the bracketed section.
2.2.4 As concerns the bracketed segment, it is especially formal aspects that
argue for dividing it into two main parts. 21:1-22:16 (except 21:12-17) contains
exclusively casuistically formulated regulations, whereas 22:17-23:12 contains
numerous apodictically formulated regulations. In 21:1-22:16 precise rules are
given about how to act in a specific situation, what the punishment must be,
how to settle a matter or arrange an agreement between two parties. As in the
decalogue, in 22:17-23:12 in the apodictic stipulations, but (apart from
22:17-19) also in differently stated rules, usually (but note 22:23; cf. 22:26) no
sanctions or other measures are mentioned.10
Interpersonal relationships are the subject of 21:1-22:16. Legal case situations
are described. Several of the stipulations in 22:17-23:12 deal with the relation
ship to God. Others with the relationship to the neighbour. In the latter it
concerns admonitions to a morally upright and compassionate life. These
behavioural rules, if scoffed at, apparently did not result in legal prosecution,
e.g. because while the offender’s conduct might be morally reprehensible,
juridically he was not culpable (e.g. 22:20f.) or could not be called to account
(e.g. 23:1-5), since the law prescribed no punitive measures for the reproach-
’ See the studies o f Halbe, Osumi, Otto, Schwienhorst-Schdnberger, and Crflsemann, Tora,
136ff., 172f.; Sprinkle, 199ff. Cf. Houtman**, Bundesbuch, 9f.
10 Cf. Houtman**, Bundesbuch, 11 n. 5.
Volume III1
able behaviour. Government does not have the power to impose a particular
moral life style; only a person’s own conscience can do that. Religion appeals
to the conscience (22:20b, 21f., 26; 23:9b) in hopes that people will turn from
their evil ways. It sets forth the kind of life that is pleasing to God. The tone in
21:1-22:16, as befits the contents, is sober and matter of fact. 22:17-23:12
contains several detailed humanitarian stipulations. The tone is sometimes
exhortative and admonishing (22:20b; 23:9b).n YHWH himself speaks in the
first person (22:22f., 26, 28-30; 23:7).*12
So there is every reason to divide the bracketed part in two main segments.
Closer investigation shows that thematically the first segment correlates with
the end of the second: the theme of the ‘six year’ - ‘in the seventh year’ (21:2;
23:1 Of.) opens and closes the twofold large center section. It welds together
and joins two sections which highlight humanitarian conduct. So the middle
section is as it were flanked and permeated by the ethos of humanitarianism.
2.2.5 We already briefly touched on the distinction between casuistic and
apodictic law. More needs to be said about it.13 The distinction is associated
with the name of Albrecht Alt. He employed the term ‘casuistic’ for the type
of formulations used in 21:1-22:16 (excepting 21:12-17) (cf. also 23:4f.). A
conditional sentence is used to describe a situation that may happen. That is
followed by an instruction about how to deal with the situation. In the casuistic
passages general rules are formulated, but also regulations for particular
situations that deviate from the main case. Casuistic formulations are not
peculiar to ancient Israelite legal texts, but are also found in juridical texts of
the ancient Near East.
Alt held that apodictic law was Israelite in origin. Research has shown that
conception to be untenable. A variety of clauses Alt reckoned as belonging to
" For the motivation see R. Sonsino, Motive Clauses in Hebrew Law, Chico, California 1980,
65ff. Motivation o f stipulations also is found in extra-biblical legal texts (Sonsino, 153ff.), but
relatively speaking is quite prominent in O.T texts. Motivation is not typical for legal texts but
also occurs, e.g., in Wisdom literature (Prov. 22:22f.; 24:lf.; 25:6f.; cf. Sonsino, 120ff.).
Motivations can be varied and be absent in places where the exegete might wish them (e.g.
23:19). There are those who urge a kind and sympathetic stance toward the needy (22:20; 23:9),
those containing an threat (22:26; 23:7), those indicating a goal (23:12), stating a promise (20:12;
23:23, 31) or providing clarification (20:5f., 7, 25f.; 21:8, 21), which is sometimes of an
etiological nature (20:11; 23:15).
12 Cf. F.C. Fensham, “The R61e of the Lord in the Legal Sections o f the Covenant Code,” VT
26 (1976), 262-74.
15 For that see in particular Boecker, 129ff., 166ff.; Sonsino, 2ff.; idem, ABD, IV, 252ff.; G.J.
Wfenham, 'Legal Forms in the Book of the Covenant,” TynB 22 (1971), 95-102; E.S. Gerstenber-
ger, “‘Apodiktisches’ Recht ‘Todes’ Recht?,” in Gottes Recht als Lebensraum (Fs H.J. Boecker),
Neukirchen-Vluyn 1993, 7-20 (critical with respect to the use of the terminology, also in historical
perspective); Laserre, xixff.
Volume III1
INTRODUCTION 83
apodictic law. For our purposes here two of these are important. It concerns
first of all prohibitions and commands formulated in the 2nd person, as these
occur in the decalogue and in the covenant book in 20:23-26; 22:17,20 etc.
There is a great difference with casuistic formulations. The latter bear the
marks of an expose; deliberately and carefully in the light of an assessment of
the sketched situation, a verdict, a judgment is pronounced. The judgments
formulated as prohibitions lack a description of a concrete situation, the
juridical case to which the judgment applies. No connection exists between the
judgments and the maintenance of justice. They are not being addressed to
someone in a very specific situation, but are given in general. They are,
however, incisive, forceful, and to the point. The force of the ‘you (sing. &
plur.) shall’ rests on the authority of the speaker In the case of the decalogue
and the covenant book, that authority is incomparably strong. The ‘you (sing.
& plur.) ...’ is backed by the ‘I’ of YHWH. Sometimes the force of the address
is enhanced by an accompanying motivation (20:5, 7, 11; 22:20, 22, 26; 23:9).
2.2.6 Despite the differences, the goal of casuistic and apodictic precepts is
ultimately the same: the preservation of a stable and livable society that is
marked by justice. The casuistic law of the covenant book seeks to accomplish
this by means of a legal order that leaves no room for going one’s own way,
and in which through conflict management, the offering of compensation and
finding equitable settlements, harmony is promoted and restored. The Israelite
community is provided a guide for maintaining a livable society.
The apodictic regulations touch the foundations o f society, the legal order.
These can be protected only to a limited extent by means of judicial proce
dures. They do not bear on a dispute between two individuals about a piece of
land or an animal, which requires a solution. At issue is a person’s basic
orientation, one’s attitude toward life; for these, much of the time ‘an offender’
cannot be compelled to answer before a court of law, because, juridically
speaking, he has the law on his side, or because, owing to his powerful
position, no one dares to tangle with him, or because his practices are done in
secret.14 So it does not surprise that types of behaviour denounced in apodictic
regulations only in part fall under ‘criminal’ or ‘civil’ law (see e.g. 20:13
beside 21:12; 20:15 beside 21:37-22:3; 20:12 beside 21:15, 17). A person who
ignores the fundamentals, behaves immorally, flouts the law, lacks all sense of
compassion and has no feeling for the well-being of other folk, undermines the
foundations of society (cf. Ps. 82). The apodictic regulations, which pertain to
the relationship fellow human beings, enjoin the individual Israelite not to
violate the order given and wanted by y h w h , but to keep it intact. The
14 Cf. J. Assmann, “When Justice Fails: Jurisdiction and Imprecation in Ancient Egypt and the
Near East,” JEA 78 (1992), 149-62.
Volume III1
apodictic cultic regulations (22:28f. etc.) aim to preserve the harmony between
YHWH and Israel. Disruption of the relationship with YHWH similarly can have
disastrous consequences (see 4.2.19).
2.2.7 The other clause, relevant in the present discussion, considered by Alt
as belonging to apodictic law, is the participial (3rd person, to indicate the doer)
clause concluded by the n p r ni»-formula (21:12, 15-17; 22:18; cf. also 22:19).
Subsumption of the thus constructed clause under apodictic law has rightly
been called into question (see the discussion in Boeckei; 168ff.; Schwien-
horst-Schdnberger, 213ff.). There is no essential difference with the casuistic
regulations. A particular case instance and the measures to be taken are
described. What is true is that the formulation of 21:12 etc. is freighted with
meaning and direct and therefore cogent and apodictic.
Casuistically formulated, but differently than is done in 21:1-22:16, are also
22:24f.: the portrayal of the situation is introduced by DK (not by ’?); subject is
‘you’ (not ‘someone’); the apodosis is worded as a prohibition. As to type,
22:24f. are apodictic statements.
2.2.8 The diversity of the material in the covenant book raises the question
concerning its genesis. Numerous and diverse are the conceptions. They are
conveniently outlined by Halbe, 393ff., and Schwienhorst-Schdnbeiger, 3ff.,15167
and cannot be dealt with here. I restrict myself to present a sketch of my ideas
on the origin.
For the composition of the covenant book, existing collections of regulations
were used. Among the most extensive of these are the mispatim, the ‘ordi
nances’ (21:1-22:16, with the exception of 21:12-17?).1<s Additionally, smaller
collections (e.g. 21:12-17?) or separate listings, derived from more comprehen
sive compilations (22:17-19), are included. Possibly, it happened too that
stipulations were specifically devised for inclusion in the covenant book. This
may be particularly the case with respect to the social regulations in the second
half of the covenant book. There a morality is articulated that resembles the
social castigations of the prophets'7 and the behavioural code advocated by the
wisdom teachers.1* Think, e.g. of the ethical injunctions pertaining to the
15 Cf. also Otto, Ethik, 19ff.; idem, “Biblische Rechtsgeschichte: Ergebnisse und Perspektiven
der Forschung”, Theologische Revue 91 (1995), 283-92.
16 But bear in mind that variety in form is a mark of the codices of Mesopotamia. See TJ.
Meek, “The Origins of Hebrew Law,” in Hebrew Origins, New York I9603, 72; S. Greengus,
IDBS, 535; R. Vfcstbrook, “What is the Covenant Code?”, in Levinson, 15-36 (S. 28ff.). Cf.
VMsnham (see above), 101.
17 Cf. K. Zobel, Prophetie und Deuteronomium: Die Rezeption prophetischer Theologie durch
das Deuteronomium, Berlin/New York 1992.
'* Cf. H.D. PreuO, Deuteronomium, Darmstadt 1982, 84ff.; J. Blenkinsopp, Wisdom and Law in
the Old Testament: The Ordering o f Life in Israel and Early Judaism, Oxford 1983 (19952).
Volume III1
INTRODUCTION 85
widow and the orphan (see at 22:21-26) and the concern for/critique on the
proper functioning of the legal system (see at 23:1-3). Thus one might ask
whether in the covenant book, the social message of the prophets and chokma-
tic morality was not cast in the form of divine law.19 The morality, which in
wisdom literature has the character of natural revelation from YHWH (cf. Prov.
1:7; 9:10; 15:33) and in the mouth of the prophets is presented as the will of
YHWH, bears in the covenant book specifically the stamp of special revelation
(see 2.2.16). Note in this connection, for example, also the theme of ‘respect
for parents,’ which is so central in wisdom literature, and which in the decalo
gue and in the covenant book belongs to the regulations directly given by
YHWH to Israel (see at 20:12; 21:15, 17).
Acceptance of the thesis that at least part of the regulations in the second part
of the covenant book was written with a view to its composition does away
with the need to regard motivations such as 22:20b; 23:9b as later Deuterono-
mistic additions20 After all, then it is plausible that the Deuteronomistic authors
of Genesis-Kings are responsible for all the stipulations. Furthermore, it is
often contended that the covenant book consisted independently of its context,
originated over time, and is the product of a process of composition (see e.g.
the studies of Osumi and Schwienhorst- Schonberger). In my view, the original
independence of the mispatim is defensible, but the covenant book has never
existed except as part of Genesis-Kings and was put together for the purpose of
including it in that great historical work.
2.2.9 In connection with my conception, some other points deserve mention.
According to Alt, apodictic law has its ‘Sitz im Leben’ in the cult. His thesis
has been contested, but has found supporters as well. Childs, for example,
concludes that the prohibitives of the second half of the covenant book
originally had a place ‘within a covenant context’ (p. 456) (cf. \fol. II, 430,
432). I wish to say no more than that the writer(s) also placed the proclamation
of the casuistic regulations within the framework of the account of the estab
lishment of the covenant at the Sinai (24:31, 7), resulting in the fact that so at
least the casuistic regulations are situated in a context to which, likely, origi
nally they did not belong.21 The ordinances, the mispatim are a kind of juridical
‘handbook,’ a collection of guidelines for the ‘legal authority.’ To clarify this
typification, I have a closer look at the character of the casuistic stipulations.
2.2.10 No more than for the codices known from the ancient Near East (for
19 See further Houtman**, Bundesbuch, 15 n. 18.

20 N. Lohfink, “Gibt es eine deuteronomistische Bearbeitung im Bundesbuch?,” in C.
Brekelmans, J. Lust (eds.), Pentateuchal and Deuteronomistic Studies, Leuven 1990, 91-113,
disputes the existence of a Deuteronomistic final editing of the Book of the Covenant; elements
thought of as Deuteronomic he takes to be proto-Deuteronomistic.
21 See further Houtman**, Bundesbuch, 17.
Volume III1
that see 2.2.1) is the term ‘book of the law’ adequate for the miSpafim. The
codices are not law books in which all conceivable questions are discussed and
regulated. Also the extensive CH has striking lacunae. The codices are dis
courses about a number of legal cases. The same holds for the casuistic section
of the covenant book. Only a limited number of questions are discussed in it.
Economic concerns are not considered (cf. e.g. Lev. 19:35f.; Deut. 25:13; Mic.
6:11; Prov. 20:10,23). The reason for that might be sociological: the ordinances
suppose an agrarian society (see 2.2.13). Even so, also in that kind of society
there is buying and selling. Besides, also for an agrarian society, important
matters such as the purchase of land (cf. Jer. 32:6-12) and inheritance law (cf.
Num. 27:1-11; 36:1-13) are not taken up.
If ‘the rules’ are not a law code in the modem sense of the word, what then
are they? A collection of normative and binding regulations which were
observed and to which one could appeal? An affirmative answer might be
possible if examples from the historical books, prophetic literature and wisdom
literature would give evidence that the legal system embodied in ‘the rules’
was a known entity.22 Evidence is hard to come by. The few examples there
are, are sparse and disputable. Outside the Pentateuch, only one legal case from
the covenant book, the provision to flee to a city of refuge (21:12-14), is
described (1 Kgs. l:50ff.; 2:28ff.). There the practice is quite dissimilar from
the regulation in Exod. 21. Outside the OT, another instance of a matter
touched upon in the covenant book, from everyday life in ancient Israel, is
mentioned. It concerns the taking in pawn of a neighbour’s cloak. It is de
scribed on an ostracon from Yavneh-Yam. However, the appellant makes no
appeal to legal requirements (see exegesis 22:25f.). In this connection, also
rules from Deuteronomy can be mentioned. In Jer. 34:12-14 reference is made
to Deut. 15. The reference probably is secondary however (see 2.4.12). In 2
Kgs. 14:16, in an aside by the writer, reference is made to Deut. 24:16. The
institution of Levirate marriage is known (Gen. 38; Ruth), but is not carried
out in accordance with Deut. 25:5-10. Going by the literature of the OT outside
the Pentateuch, one must conclude that concrete offenses are differently dealt
with than required by the legal texts. A concrete example, the case of adultery,
may serve to clarify this point.
2.2.11 In Lev. 20:10 and Deut. 22:22 it is stated that adultery is punishable
by death (cf. also Lev. 18:20, 29). McKeating points out that nowhere in the
OT there is a case of someone being put to death for adultery. In Wisdom
literature committing adultery is called folly. It results in an unpleasant and
22 See, however, B. Gosse, “Subversion de la legislation du Pentateuque et symbolique

respectives des lign£es de David et de Sattl dans les livres de Samuel et de Ruth/' TAW 110
(1998), 34-49.
Volume III1
INTRODUCTION 87
hard to settle conflict with the woman’s husband and undermines someone’s
reputation (Prov. 6:27ff.; 7:5ff.; 9:13ff.; Eccl. 7:26; Sir. 9:lff.). Concrete
penalties are not mentioned. Penalties are mentioned in the prophetic books.
But it is not the death penalty that is imposed. The woman is publicly held up
to shame (Hos. 2:5; Jer. 13:22, 26f.; Ezek. 16:37-39). The narrative sections
say nothing about imposition of the dealth penalty via a judicial procedure
either What is envisioned, rather - adultery also being an offense against
God - is internal, divine vengeance (Gen. 12:17; 20:17f.; 26:10; Num. 5:1 If.;
2 Sam. 12:10ff.; Job 31:9ff.; Wisd. 3:16ff.; 4:6). McKeating’s conclusion is
that the death penalty was rarely carried out in cases of adultery and that in the
legal texts an ideal is articulated. McKeating’s view has been sharply criticized
by Phillips, yet without disproving the main lines of his argument.
From the OT it can be learned that in ancient Israel adultery and sexual aber
rations (cf. e.g. 22:18) were looked upon as matters that entailed (serious)
consequences for private life, and also, possibly, with farther reaching conse
quences. They might also be a threat to the stability of society as a whole.
Reprehensible as they might be in God’s eyes, they could also, it was believed,
have an adverse effect on man’s physical environment and endanger the
stability of the cosmos (cf. e.g. Lev. 18:24ff.; Hos. 4). Consequently, they are
incompatible with accepted norms of social conduct (cf. Gen. 20:9; 34:7; 39:9;
Judg. 19:23f.; 20:6, 10; 2 Sam. 13:12f.; Jer. 29:23). That adultery was viewed
as a serious offense, a terrible sin, is also clear from the fact that idolatry is
depicted as collective adultery (23:24ff.; 34:15f.; Judg. 2:17 etc.). It was not
punished through judicial prosecution, but more directly personal and by God
himself, sometimes in the form of punishment in a talionic way (2 Sam.
12:1 If. [cf. 2 Sam. 16:2If.]; Job 31:9ff.). Doubtlessly, the awareness that
adultery can have serious consequences for society also underlies the formula
tion of Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:22. The idea behind the rigorous measure would
seem to be that severe punishment will serve as a deterrent to adultery and
avert divine vengeance from society. Similar observations can be made with
respect to other stipulations (see at 21:15, 17 and 2.2.17).
2.2.12 What do the above data tell us? The supposition that ‘the law’
originated after the prophets (J. Wellhausen) is unfounded.23 For that matter, as
concerns the mispatim, the priority with respect to the prophets is not a point at
issue.
For a correct evaluation of the data it should be remembered that ‘law’ forms
a separate tradition stream in the OT. Besides, the fact that e.g. the prophetic25
25 Cf. e.g. Fishbane*, 292ff., who, however, does not take into account that both the prophetic
tradition and ‘legal’ tradition are rooted in common law and morality and apparently are separate
traditions.
Volume III1
books do not deal with all sorts of minor matters from everyday life is not all
that strange. The concern of the prophets is the human attitude, people’s
behaviour in society. Also important is to keep in mind the nature of the legal
texts. Law in ancient Israel was common law (cf. 2 Sam. 13:12; Ruth 4:7),24
possibly in part also royal law (cf. 1 Sam. 30:21-25 and see Isa. 10:1).25 The
mishpatim would seem to be codifications of common law, or, perhaps more
accurately reformulations, corrections of common law. Fixation likely was
done in the interest of preserving common law in changing times, or it came
about as the result of reflection on existing rules in order to amplify and update
them. In the latter case, ‘the rules’ are not law as practiced but law as ideal.
Also in this respect, comparison with the ‘codices’ from Mesopotamia is
feasible.
From extensive documentation about the place of law in Mesopotamia it is
possible to say that in everyday life the ‘codes’ were hardly strictly followed
and that judicial sentences were not specifically based on what was prescribed
in the ‘law books.’ It would be wrong, however, to conclude from it that the
codes only served to enhance the royal splendor26 or that they are scientific
treatises and the result of learned discourses inside the walls of the academy
and intended for instruction and consultation in problematic cases (Westbrook,
2ff.; cf. also Otto, Rechtsgeschichte, 181ff.). In ancient legal procedures it was
not customary to give reasons for verdicts by referring to authoritative law.27
As the codes claim normativity and validity,28 so also the mispafim (cf.
Schwienhorst-Schonbeiger, 276ff., and see also Leemans, 414ff.). They are
formulated for the purpose of being used. Whether that also actually happened
is, as already noted, a different matter (see 2.2.10, 11). At any rate, as belong
ing to YHWH’s revelation (see 2.2.15, 16) they claim validity and normativity.
But let us not run ahead and pause to have a look at ‘the rules’ as separate
collection.
2.2.13 Can something be said about the origin o f the mispdtim? The collec
tion can be thought of as the work of scholars. Whether the entity we today
call ‘school’ existed in Israel is a matter of dispute, but there is warrant for
24 See 2.2.11, and cf. CrUsemann, Torn, 83ff.; E.W. Davies, “Ethics of the Hebrew Bible: The
Problem of Methodology,” Semeia 66 (1994), 43-53.
25 Cf. e.g. CrUsemann, Tora, 30ff.
26 A standpoint like that is defended by J. Bott6ro en J.J. Finkelstein; see Leemans, 414ff.;
Schwienhorst-SchUnberger, 256f.
27 But see Wfestbrook, ZA 79 (1989), 214ff.; cf. e.g. M.P. Maidman, “Some Late Bronze Age
Legal Tablets from the British Museum: Problems of Context and Meaning,” in B. Halpem, D.W.
Hobson (ed.), Law, Politics and Society in the Ancient Mediterranean World, Sheffield 1993, 42-
89 (pp. 45f.); K.R. Veenhof, “‘In Accordance with the Wards of the Stele’: Evidence for Old
Assyrian Legislation,” Chicago Kent Law Review 70 (1995), 1717-1744 (esp. pp. 1742f.).
28 Cf. T. Maeda, “‘King as a Law Giver’ in the Ur III Dynasty,” Orient 21 (1985), 31-45.
Volume III1
INTRODUCTION 89
postulating such an institution.29 Westbrook sees the school in the ancient Near
East as the cradle of the Ancient Eastern legal tradition as he defends it (see
2.2.14). In any case, it is plausible that in Mesopotamia and also in Israel there
were scholars, sages, whom anachronistically we can dub ‘jurists.’ They can be
regarded as the writers of ‘the rules.’ It could even be that they served as
judges and composed ‘the rules’ as a guide for those who on behalf of the
community were responsible for administering justice. For it is striking that in
the covenant book no mention is made of elders (cf. e.g. Deut. 19:12; 21:3, 4,
6 etc.) or other individuals chaiged with administering the law (cf. e.g.
18:21ff.; Deut. 16:18; 17:9; 2 Chr. 19:5ff.).30 Could it be that ‘the rules’ were
originally meant as ‘handbook’ for the judges, as a collection of exemplaric
cases, enabling them to render consistent verdicts in the cases discussed in it as
well as in analogical cases? Are the intended users those who had to determine
the damages mentioned but not specifically spelled out in the ‘handbook’
(21:20, 30), taking into account the circumstances?
It is usually pointed out that ‘the rules’ presuppose a simple, sedentary
agrarian, village community.31*The term ‘city’ does not occur. The stipulations
speak of male and female slaves, domestic animals and lands. This point
deserves a closer look. The dominantly present tf’K (21 x), translated as
‘whoever,’ is the male Israelite, often evidently the head of the family (cf. also
the use of in 21:3 etc. [ 13x]), the same person who in the second half of
the covenant book is the subject of the prohibitives (cf. 1.1.13). As a rule he is
the subject. Sometimes there is differentiation of persons. Mention is made of
male slave and female slave (21:2-11,20 etc.), of father and mother (21:15,17),
of man and woman (21:28), of son and daughter (21:31). However, they are
always object. The mispatim are formulated with an eye to the male Israelite.
They presuppose a society with a patriarchal character Already way back the
question was asked whether B’R as subject could also relate to the woman, a
question that was answered in the affirmative (so in M e t, III, 5If., 64, in view
of 21:18). 21:12 sparked discussion about the question as to what happens if a
woman or a child is object or subject. Cf. M e t, III, 32f.; Rashi and see Lev.
29 Cf. Schwienhorst-Schbnberger, 254ff, 260ff., 279fT, and see A. Lemaire, ABD, II, 308ff.;
idem, VT 38 (1988), 220-230; E.W. Heaton, The School Tradition o f the Old Testament, Oxford
1994; G.I. Davies, “Wfere There Schools in Ancient Israel?,” in J. Day et al. (ed.), Wisdom in
Ancient Israel (Fs J.A. Emerton), Cambridge 1995, 199-211.
30 Cf. F. Criisemann, “Das Gericht im Tor - eine staatliche Rechtsinstanz,” in Alttestamentliche
Glaube und biblische Theologie (Fs H.D. PreuB), Stuttgart et al. 1992, 69-79; H. Niehr, “Grund-
zflge der Forschung zur Gerichtsorganisation Israels,” BZ 31 (1987), 206-27.
31 Cf. Boecker, 122; Schwienhorst-SchOnberger, 268ff.; back of it lies the view of M. Wfeber
on ancient Israel; cf. Schafer-Lichtenberger*, 43, 59. See beside it, however, Crtlsemann, 32: the
miipatim presuppose a developed monetary economy and are to be dated in the 9*/8* century.
Volume III1
24:17, where Qn$ ‘some person,’ is object. May it be assumed that

already the Deuteronom(ist)ic redaction of the Pentateuch entertained a
generalizing interpretation of stipulations like these? (cf. 1.1.13). Furthermore,
religion plays a role in the form of the family religion (21:6; 22:7f.) and on the
local level (22:13f.). Besides managing conflict through the awarding of
damages and reaching of compromise, also the death penalty is mentioned,
intended as deterring example (cf. Deut. 19:20). Imprisonment is not listed as a
sanction. Taking someone’s freedom away as a means of rehabilitation was
unknown.32 Apparently it is presupposed that the maintenance of law and
justice was in the hands of the local community or its representatives.33 The
view of A. Phillips34 that the mispafim also included family law, in which the
community played no role (21:5f.; 22:15f.), lacks sufficient ground.
The content of ‘the rules’ is said to provide indications for their dating (cf.
e.g. Criisemann, 28ff.). A common assumption is that the mispafim are cer
tainly no younger than the early monarchical era.35 An element in the discus
sion on the dating is the fact that at least on a number of points the ordinances
give evidence of familiarity with legal texts from the ancient Near East (see
2.2.14). That has been used as an aigument to place the covenant book in the
time of Moses (see Houtman*, Pent., 173). The notion that Israel via Canaan
had knowledge of the common legal tradition of the ancient Near East has
received greater support. But also the possibility that certain stipulations made
their way into Israel under Assyrian influence in the 8th and 7th century has
serious contenders (e.g. Leemans, 412f., 435f.).
Approximate dating of the covenant book is possible. In any case, it is no
younger than Deuteronomy (see 2.2.16). The aiguments in favour of an early
date for the mispafim are not all that strong. The kind of society encountered in
‘the rules’ does not differ from that encountered in the other collections of
regulations in the Pentateuch. These, too, breathe a village atmosphere and
show no trace of the commercial hustle and bustle of big city life. Israelite
society has always had an agrarian character Solid evidence for dating is not
available. What can be said is that the covenant book, looked at from the goal
12 On the prison see 12:29; it was the place of forced labour (Judg. 16:21; cf. ‘house of
slavery’ [Introd. §3.9.1]); see ABD, V, 468f.; Stol (see 2.4.1), 14f.
53 Cf. CrOsemann, Torn, 103f. See further H. Niehr, Rechtsprechung in Israel: Untersuchungen
zur Geschichte der Gerichtsorganisation im Alien Testament, Stuttgart 1987; CrOsemann, Tora,
80fF.; R.R. Wilson, “The Role of Law in Early Israelite Society,” in B. Halpem, D.W. Hobson,
Law, Politics and Society in the Ancient Mediterranean World, Sheffield 1993, 90-99, and also P.
Bovati, Re-Establishing Justice: Legal Terms, Concepts and Procedures in the Hebrew Bible,
Sheffield 1994.
34 “Some Aspects of Family Law in Pre-Exilic Israel,” VT 23 (1973), 349-61; idem, VT 30
(1980), 240-5.
35 On the problem of the dating see esp. Houtman**, Bundesbuch, 23ff.
Volume III1
INTRODUCTION 91
of the w riters) of Genesis-Kings - all emphasis must fall on Deuteronomy

(see 2.2.16) - is suitable as ‘law book’ of the Sinai. For in some respects it is
less detailed - there are no concrete allusions to e.g. the administrative organi
zation of society - and as book of y h w h ’s union with Israel it occupies a
central but certainly no dominant position in the Pentateuch. Therefore, it is
ready-made for authoritative interpretation by Moses (Deut. 12-26). At the
border of Canaan it recedes into the shadow of Deuteronomy,3 4*36 the real ‘law
book’ for life in the promised land. Permeated with a humanitarian ethos, the
covenant book is a worthy preparation for the culmination, the book of
Deuteronomy.
2.2.14 The covenant book, in particular 21:1-22:16, shows familiarity wit the
legal traditions o f the Ancient Near East. Evidently, in the composition of the
covenant book use was made of these traditions.37 A much discussed case in
point, that of the goring ox (21:28-32, 35f.), appears to betray, as demonstrated
by Malul, direct dependence on Mesopotamian legislative sources. The conclu
sions of Otto (Korperverletzungen; cf. idem, JSOT 57 [1993], 17f., 20ff.),
based on his study of the same case and the exemplaric case of miscarriage due
to inflicted harm (21:22-25), that the Israelite stipulations originated indepen
dently of extra-biblical laws, and that Mesopotamian influence cannot be
shown until the redaction of the bodies of law, are not convincing. The
similarities in the laws are so specific that familiarity on the part of the writers
of the covenant book with the legal traditions of the ancient Near East is
virtually certain. The question whether the Israelite writers ‘possessed’ the legal
texts from the ‘Umwelt’ in the form we know them, or whether they knew the
legal traditions from ‘a common Near Eastern legal tradition and practice’
(Yaron, 294)38 - assuming that these ever existed (but see Leemans) - is here
of lesser importance. Important for us is the question about the implications o f
the dependence.
Does knowledge of the legal traditions of the ancient Near East provide
grounds for holding that in the ancient Near East there existed a common
juridical outlook and a common legislative tradition? This conception has been
strongly defended by Westbrook. In his view, the common legislative tradition
is embodied in the various collections of law, except not totally. Often missing
34 In the TS this is expressed in this way: the words of God are not formulated in the 3"1but in
the 1” person; the proclamation of Deuteronomy has been shifted from the wilderness o f Moab to
the Sinai and has displaced the Book of the Covenant. Cf. M. Wfeinfeld, “God versus Moses in the
Temple Scroll - ‘I do not speak on my own authority but on God’s authority* (Sifrei Deut. Sec.
5; John 12,48f.),” RdQ 15 (1991), 175-80.
37 In the discussion of the regulations, relevant passages will always be cited and, if necessary,
commented upon.
“ For an overview of the discussion see Schwienhorst-Schdnberger, 11Iff., 240ff.
Volume III1
elements are to be mentally supplied. For that, the other collections of law may
be helpful. As Westbrook sees it, the various compilations of laws are comple
mentary. Data from one collection help in understanding the other. Westbrook
concedes that the OT as source is different from the legal texts of the ancient
Near East, but disputes that law in Israel was different from that elsewhere in
the ancient Near East. In his view, law from the ancient Near East is verbalized
in the covenant book, and P and D take a critical stance toward it.39 Here we
hit upon a principial point. Did Israel share in a kind of ‘common law’ that
was held in the ancient Near East, or does Israel’s law have its own unique
character with values of its own, which can be discovered through comparison
of Israel’s regulations with those of its surrounding world? The latter stand
point is that of M. Greenbeig, S.M. Paul, A. Phillips; the first that of B.
Jackson40 and R. Westbrook. As to the main points, I share the view of
Greenbeig and his supporters.41 However, in my view they are inclined to
create forced contrasts. See e.g. Paul’s summary of the ‘unique features of
biblical law’ (pp. 100f.).
2.2.15 The question deserves a closer look. Was the study of law an inter
national concern in the ancient Near East, which also had its practitioners in
Israel? Westbrook’s ‘common law’ thesis has been called into question by Lee-
mans. According to him, it is at odds with the available historical information.
However, let us assume, for the sake of aigument, that there existed a common
juridical outlook in the ancient Near East and that the study of law was inter
national in character also being practiced in Israel. In that case, is it not much
more likely that Israelite law students, taking into consideration their particular
context, laid their own accents and also themselves (re)formulated rules as the
local situation required? In this connection it could, for example, be pointed
out that the covenant book does not differentiate between various kinds of
citizens, as e.g. is done in the CH (cf. Yaron, 132ff.), and presupposes an
agrarian society and not a city culture. More in general it is true that societal
and cultural developments can lead to adaptation and change of regulations.
That demands caution when it comes to taking over laws from various suppos
edly complementary compilations of laws, the more so because the thesis of
” See Wsstbrook, 3ff., 134ff.; cf. e.g. idem, RB 97 [1990], 547ff. For a critical discussion of
Westbrooks views see the diverse contributions to Levinson.
40 “Reflections on Biblical Criminal Law,” JJS 24 (1973), 8-38 = Essays in Jewish and Com
parative Legal History, Leiden 1975, 25-63; cf. also J.W. Wfelch, “Reflections on Postulates:
Power and Ancient Laws - A Response to Moshe Greenberg,” in E.B. Firmage et al. (eds.),
Religion and Law, Winona Lake 1990, 113-19.
41 Cf. Malul, 39f.; see also Greenberg (with Bibl.); idem, “Biblical Attitudes toward Power:
Ideal and Reality in Law and Prophets,” in Firmage, 101-112 (cf also pp. 120-5); A. Phillips,
“Another Look at Murder,” JJS 28 (1977), 105-26 (108ft).
Volume III1
INTRODUCTION 93
complementarity rests on an aigument from silence. In short, knowledge of the

legal texts from Israel’s ‘Umwelt’ can aid in understanding the laws of the
covenant book. However, one has to keep in mind that the covenant book
appears to bear the stamp of the local and societal situation of the writ-
ers/compilers.
Was Weltanschauung included in the factors that coloured the laws? Did
Israel’s faith also affect the formulation of the rules and did this lead to
significant differences in comparison with the laws of the surrounding world?
In the first place it is to be noted that the precepts of the law book in its
present form have a setting, and already for that reason have been given a
specific character They are presented as stipulations from YHWH. True, they
were proclaimed through Moses’s mediation, but Moses is no more than
YHWH’s spokesman (20:22; 24:3, 7). The setting stamps the the covenant book.
The same is true of the Mesopotamian codes, insofar as they have a prologue
(and an epilogue), as e.g. CH, be it that the stamp is different. The setting
stamps the CH as royal law. With the proclamation of the stipulations the ruler
presents himself as shepherd of his people. Through the frame the covenant
book gets marked as divine law. The setting stamps the covenant book as
divine law. With the covenant book YHWH profiles himself as the shepherd of
his people. He wants to fashion a just societal order and asks his people to live
in accordance with the rules of his kingdom.
2.2.16 The setting of the covenant book, like that of the CH, is a frame
which is secondary to the framed stipulations. What is left when the frame is
removed, both from the covenant book and from the CH? Collections of
regulations of the same kind and level, compilations that are the product of
scholarly activity and which, despite local and social differences, are bodies of
secular law and in that respect are essentially the same? Or, in case of the
covenant book, is what is left a collection of regulations marked by the faith in
YHWH? Thus Schwienhorst-SchSnbeiger, 416 etc., believes that the primary
component of the covenant book (21:12-22:16, not including additions) was a
purely profane ‘law book,’ no different from other similar law books.
I am not happy with the epithet ‘profane.’ In the mind of ancient people, law
and world view are closely related. To them, all law, including common law,
was ultimately divine law.42 However, the question whether the world view of
Israelite scholars was a source of emphases of their own or specific regulations
is difficult to answer, because we do not know what the literary products of the
Israelite jurists precisely looked like - their work went through the hands of
YHWH-theologians. Consequently we have no way of knowing whether in their
reflections they were guided by common morality or also by theological41
41 See further Houtman**, Bundesbuch, 32f.

Volume III1
concepts peculiar to the YHWH religion (e.g. 22:20; 23:9). We do know

something. All sorts of regulations, which likely flowed from the pen of
thinkers who pondered and elaborated on common law and common morality
(see 2.2.12), became sacralized by their inclusion in the covenant book, and so
emphatically acquired the character of special revelation.43 In that respect the
covenant book differs, for example, from the CH. The covenant book does not
contain royal law, sanctioned by gods, but divine law proclaimed by a human.
The divine law of the covenant book includes social and cultic stipulations,
but also genuine legal texts. Rules whose observance are enforceable by man
are found in one and the same collection with rules whose transgression often
is not punishable by man, but can only be avenged indirectly by the evil
consequences of certain types of behaviour or by direct divine intervention.
Legal instruction, prophetic social preaching and advisories of wisdom teachers
are integrated in one corpus and together constitute the law YHWH revealed at
the Sinai (see 2.2.4-8).
The idea that immoral behaviour was an abomination in the eyes of the gods
and that care for the needy is included in what they expect, is also found in the
world around Israel. However, in that surrounding world, social ethics, peculiar
to the second half of the covenant book, is not articulated in a ‘law book’ but
in other genres of literature. E.g., the care for the widow and orphan is a topic
of kingly ideology (see at 22:21-23); the divine disapproval of immoral
behaviour is, for example, expressed in the laige Shamash-hymn (ANET, 388b,
389a; RTAT, 127f.), and divine approval of justice in the following words of
the god Haddu of Aleppo to king Zimrilim of Mari (17th century): ‘I want
nothing from you! (But) if someone unjustly treated, man or woman, cries to
you, then act and provide them justice. That is the only thing I ask of you!
(TUAT, II, 87; cf. e.g. Isa. l:16f.; Amos 5:24; Mic. 6:8). Generally speaking,
in the matter of social concerns, Israel’s values were the same as those of its
neighbours, values such as formulated in the second half of the decalogue:
respect for authorities, upholding the value of human life, care for the weak,
the sanctity of marriage, truthfulness (cf. \&n der Toom*, 13ff.). Israel’s views
on the elements of proper social morality and on the foundations of society
were no different from those held elsewhere in the ancient Near East.44 In the
43 See in connection with ‘divinization of human law’ H.H. Cohen, “Secularization of Divine
Law,” in Jewish Law in Ancient and Modern Israel, New York 1971, 1-49, and further Fishbane*,
23 Iff.
44 On the universality of moral principles see J. Barton, “Natural Law and Poetic Justice in the
Old Testament,” JThS 30 (1979), 1-14; M. Bockmuehl, “Natural Law in Second Temple
Judaism,” VT 45 (1995), 17-44; A.W. Musschenga, Sociale moraal: Begrip, funktie en inhoud,
Assen 1979; cf. also J. Barton, “The Basis of Ethics in the Hebrew Bible,” Semeia 66 (1994), 11-
22; E.W. Davies (see above).
Volume III1
INTRODUCTION 95
OT the central values in the social message of the prophets are portrayed as the
will of YHWH, and their transgression is not merely an overstepping of rules of
a law book; rather it is a break in the relationship with YHWH, for which he
calls Israel to account.45 In wisdom literature the values are portrayed as
elements of a morality that proves its wholesomeness in the practice of
everyday life and are to be regarded as revelation from YHWH. In decalogue
and covenant book the central values are emphatically presented as YHWH’s
will, as divine law, on which his alliance with Israel rests. I must restrict
myself here to general observations. In the discussion of the laws of decalogue
and covenant book, the relevant passages from the prophetic books, wisdom
literature, and also the Psalms will be included.
The setting marks the covenant book? To what extent? The framing with
stipulations about the service of YHWH (see 2.2.3; cf. also 2.2.4) and in
particular the opening with the stipulation about the one true way to worship
YHWH stamps the covenant book as a whole. The setting, deriving from the
redaction of the huge Genesis-Kings ‘book,’ has put the ‘YHWH hallmark’ upon
the compilation. That gives credence to the supposition that the stipulations,
including the ‘secular’ mispatim, are meant as bearers of the values typical of
the YHWH religion, which are to shape the ethos of Israel as people of YHWH
(cf. 19:5, 6). In short, in the exegesis of the covenant book in its current form,
also the narrative setting must be taken into account. The covenant book can be
characterized as a program. As such it aims at recognition as the authorative
rule for whole the people of Israel.46
Also the wider context must be part of the discussion. For the covenant book
is not the only collection of stipulations in the Pentateuch. Subjects taken up in
the covenant book often are also touched on in those collections, but more than
once in a different way. In the discussion of the various stipulations the
‘parallels’ are always mentioned and considered. That raises the question
concerning the mutual relationship o f the various legislative parts in de
Pentateuch, of the covenant book to the stipulations of Deut. 12-26 and of
Deut. 12-26 to the P (and H) stipulations. I limit myself to a brief outline of
my own view. In Deuteronomy, which as Moses’s farewell address to Israel -
his final words to the people about to enter Canaan - occupies a highly central
place in Genesis-Kings, chapters 12-26 contain Moses’s canonical and norma
tive interpretation of the regulations (cf. also 2.2.13), which he as YHWH’s
spokesperson had to pass on. Put differently, Deuteronomy is the ‘middle’ of
Genesis-Kings and meant to set the tone for the entire book. Historically and*4
45 Cf. e.g. E.J. Waschke, “Schuld und SchuldbewSltigung nach dem prophetischen Zeugnis des
Alten Testaments,” ThLZ 115 (1990), 1-10.
44 See further, Houtman**, Bundesbuch, 34.
Volume III1
literarily speaking, Deut. 12-26 is a reinterpretation of the covenant book.

Chronologically, the reinterpretation must be placed after P (and H).47
2.2.17 I return to the question of the unique character of Israel’s laws and
again take up the question formulated at the beginning of 2.2.16. The stipula
tions for the service of YHWH, such as the requirement of exclusive worship of
YHWH, are typical for the OT. But, strictly speaking, what about the legal rules
and the religio-ethical and social laws? Have they been annexed for/by YHWH,
without being typical of the YHWH religion, or is it possible to discern elements
and traits of a morality that is typical of the YHWH religion?
As comparison of regulations from the covenant book with ‘parallels’ in
other books of the Pentateuch offers the possibility to trace unique marks of
the various collections, so a comparison of laws from the covenant book with
regulations from the ‘codes’ of the ancient Near East offers the possibility to
search for possible typical Israelite features in the covenant book. I note here
yet that differences in regulations do not automaticaly coincide with differences
in the application of the law (see 2.2.12). To learn about those differences, a
comparison of Israel’s handling of the law with that of the ancient Near East is
necessary Moreover, just noting the differences is not enough. Interpretation
and evaluation are needed.
What conclusion, e.g., may be drawn from the absence of a parallel of Exod.
21:20, 21 in the legislation of the ancient Near East? That Israel showed a
greater concern in the well-being of slaves than other countries? Or is the
absence of a parallel purely accidental, so that one must seriously reckon with
the possibility that through a new discovery of a text the number of ‘unique’
Israelite stipulations must be reduced by one? Does the uniqueness of Israel’s
laws keep shrinking as more and more knowledge of the ‘Umwelt’ becomes
available? May from the absence of certain regulations from the Umwelt in
Israel’s legal texts conclusions be drawn about the existence of an anthropology
peculiar to Israel? Does the absence of certain penalties, such as chopping off
of the hand and cutting off of the nose (e.g. CH §§192-195, 202, 205, 218,
282), imply that human beings were held in high regard, at least by the
composers of the OT corpora? (but see at 21:24, 25; cf. also Deut. 22:18;
25:1-3). And if so, is that high regard rooted in their faith in YHWH? Does the
selection of items point to specifically Israelite traits? Or are they locally,
socially and historically determined? And isn’t it very important, when compar
isons are made, to keep in mind the ‘caliber’ of the regulations? Is there
justifcation for comparing the philanthropic ‘prophetic’ prohibition of charging
interest with commercial, juridical regulations about charging interest from
47 On the question of the relationship of the various corpora to each other see Houtman*, Pent.
(index). For recent discussion see Houtman**, Bundesbuch, 35ff.
Volume III1
INTRODUCTION 97
Israel’s Umwelt (see at 22:24), and subsequently to conclude that Israel’s

legislation, in distinction from those of the neighbouring world, was social in
character? What conclusions may be drawn from differences in punishments
imposed?
Does the fact that in Israelite laws, unlike in laws from the world around
Israel, thievery is never punishable by death (see at 21:37-22:3), whereas by
contrast murder may not be bought off with a ransom payment (Num. 35:31;
cf. Paul, 6 If., 79ff., and see at 21:30), but requires the death penalty (see at
21:12), mean that property and life in Israel were viewed as entirely dissimilar
matters? Does the possibility of arranging a settlement with someone responsi
ble for the death of another, by definition imply an undervaluation of human
life and a misjudgment of the gravity of the act? Can’t there be situations in
which the consequences of requiring a life for a life are so terrible that for
social and economic reasons it may be desirable to opt for a settlement? And is
the possibility of punishing stealing by death an indication of the unusually
high value placed on property, or does it point to a society in which stealing
was such an irradicable evil that the enactment of extreme punishments seemed
the only way to fight it? The degree of punishment says more about the
estimate of the gravity of the offense - it is a great social evil that must be
strongly com batted- than about the value placed on property. There is a
correlation between the stated punishment and how serious a particular offense
is thought to be. From the fact that in texts such as 21:15, 17 and 22:18, which
deal respectively with lack of respect for aged parents and sodomy, the death
penalty is prescribed, the first conclusion to be drawn is that the behaviour in
question was viewed as very harmful, as undermining the social order. More
than anything else, the very strict sentence is intended as a deterrent (cf. Deut.
19:20). It is not known whether it was ever actually applied in ancient Israel
(cf. 2.2.11). The absolute and rigorous demands of laws such as the above is
understandable. But can one agree with them? The question brings us to the
next point.
2.2.18 Comparison of regulations, in many cases point up the existence of
differences, and it may lead an examiner to call an Israelite law as unique.
Phillips is one who does that. He employs the term when he concludes, in
connection with the harsh penalties on adultery in Lev. 20:10 and Deut. 22:22
(see 2.2.11), ‘that the law covering adultery in Israel was unique in the ancient
Near East, adultery being treated as a crime and not as civil offense” (JSOT 20
[1981], 19). It is a value judgment he makes. The laws from the ancient Near
East on adultery are indeed less absolute than the ones in the OT (see at 21:16,
17). They do mention capital punishment (CE §28; CH §129; MAL §15; HL
§§197, 198), but the spouse is also given the option to spare the life of the
adulterous woman (CH §129) or adulterous couple (HL §198) or treat the
adulterous couple in some other way (MAL §§14, 15, 23). Also such laws one
Volume III1
might call unique. It raises the question, which laws should be judged to be the
more appropriate ones? The radical prescriptions of Lev. 20:10 and Deut.
22:22, in which, in agreement with the seriousness of the offense, the severest
penalty is imposed, or the more lenient prescriptions from outside the OT,
which even allow for the possibility of letting the adulterers go free? These
laws are silent on a motive a man may have to let his wife live, and so also her
seducer But if he is willing to stay with her, do outsiders still have the right to
demand punishment? Shouldn’t others stay out of it? For ‘Let whoever of you
is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her’ (John 8:7). In any case, the
way of the fresh start is the way of the gospel. As Jesus said: ‘Go your way,
and from now on do not sin again’ (John 8:11). The severe rules of the OT are
understandable as to their intent, but they are unworkable.
2.2.19 In the last sentences the relationship o f the laws o f the Sinai to the
proclamation o f the NT was brought up (see on that also 1.1.15). In the
discussion of the individual laws, if occasion presents itself more will be said
about it (see e.g. 23:4, 5 on love for the enemy). As concerns a look at the
history of exegesis, brevity is in order.48
2.3 THE ONLY RIGHT WAY TO WORSHIP YHWH II (20:22-26)
20:22 Thereupon YHWH said to Moses: ‘Thus you shall say to the Israelites:
"You have witnessed how from heaven I conversed with you.
23 Therefore you may make nothing in my presence; thus gods o f silver and
gods o f gold you may not makefor yourselves.
24 An altar o f earth you shall make fo r me, to sacrifice on it your burnt
offerings and your offerings o f well-being, your small livestock and your large
livestock; at every place where I reveal myself, come to you to bless you (you
shall do that).
25 If, howevev you want to make fo r me an altar o f stone, you shall not
build it out o f cut stone. By using your chisel on it you would profane it.
" On early interpretation see the commentary in BAE. On the reception of the Mosaic
legislation in Christianity, see Childs, 490-6; P.J. Verdam, Mosaic Law in Practice and Study
Throughout the Ages, Kampen 1959, and further L. Diestel, Geschichte des Allen Testaments in
der christlichen Kirche, Jena 1869, 41ff., 150ff., 314, 508ff., 742fF., and the diverse contributions
to E.R. Bevan, C. Singer (eds.), The Legacy o f Israel, Oxford 1927 (among others: N. Isaac, “The
Influence o f Judaism on Wfestem Law,” 377-406; W.B. Selbie, “The Influence of the Old
Testament on Puritanism,” 407-431); H. Karpp, “Die Funktion der Bibel in der Kirche,” in TRE,
VI, 48-93; idem, Schrift, Geist und Wort Gottes: Geltung und Wirkung der Bibel in der Geschich
te der Kirche - von der Alien Kirche bis zum Ausgang der Reformationszeit, Darmstadt 1992; J.
Amir, G. Klein et al., “Gesetz”, in TRE, XIII, 52-126; Houtman**, Bundesbuch, 44ff.
Volume III1
EXODUS 2 0 :2 2 -2 6 99
26 And you may not go up by steps to my altar, so that your private parts
will not be exposed". ’
2.3.1 Bibl.: M. Anbar, “The Story about the Building of an Altar on Mount
Ebal,” in N. Lohfink (ed.), Das Deuteronomium, Leuven 1985, 304-9; D.
Conrad, Studien zum Altargesetz Exod. 20:24-26, Marburg 1968; N. Lohfink,
“Zur deuteronomischen Zentralisationsformel,” Bib 65 (1984), 297-329; J.P.
Oberholzei; “The Text of Exod. 20,22.23,” JNSL 12 (1984), 101-5; S.M.
Olyan, “Why an Altar of Unfinished Stones? Some Thoughts on Ex 20,25 and
Dtn 27,5-6,” TAW 108 (1996), 161-71; Osumi (see 2.2.1), 54, 80ff., 156,
160f., 175f., 179ff.; M.J. Paul, Het archimedisch punt van de pentateuchkritiek,
’s-Gravenhage 1988; A. Phillips, “A Fresh Look at the Sinai Pericope I,” VT
34 (1984), 39-52; E. Reuter, Kultzentralisation: Entstehxmg und Theologie von
Dtn 12, Frankfurt am Main 1993 (cf. the discussion in N. Lohfink, ZABR 1
[1995], 117-148); E. Robertson, “The Altar of Earth,” JJS 1 (1948), 12-21;
Schwienhorst-Schflnbeiger (see 2.2.1), 287ff.; W. Zwickel, “Die Altarbaunoti-
zen im Alten Testament,” Bib 73 (1992), 533-46.
2.3.2 Like the decalogue, the covenant book opens with a stipulation about
the only true worship of YHWH (cf. 20:3-6). The sanctuary the holy place,
must be reserved exclusively for YHWH. So Israel expresses that it has no God
but YHWH. The commandment to worship only YHWH is the commandment that
is most basic to the OT. So it causes no surprise that also the covenant book
starts with it. YHWH tolerates no other gods beside him in his sanctuary. He
refuses to make room in his sanctuary for the images of other gods (20:23).
20:22-26 is about the same subject matter as 20:3-6. But 20:22-26 also states
what the holy place should look like. The requirements for the place that is
sacred to God are further specified. It has to have an altar of burnt offering. It
is the essential attribute of the sanctuary (see 4.9.1). The requirements for the
altar are described. Additionally, it is also stated that only the place which
YHWH through a theophany marked as a holy place can be a YHWH sanctuary
(cf. Gen. 28:16f.; Exod. 3:2-6 and see Vbl. I, 352f.).
Israel’s holy place is not marked by the presence of images (20:23), but by
an altar and by the blessing presence of YHWH himself (20:24b). On what this
means see 4.2.19.
It is usually assumed that 20:22-26 came into existence over a period of time
and that the relationship between 20:23 and 20:24-26 is not original. Striking is
the change from the 2nd pers. plur. to the 2nd pers. sing. I will leave it alone
and only point out that Conrad, 8ff., regards 20:24aa, 25ap, 26a (with some
changes) as primary component (Grundbestand). Halbe (see 2.2.1), 442f., gives
that qualification to 20:24ao, 26a, while Dohmen (see 1.3.1), 154ff., 169ff.,
regards 20:23b, 24aa (with some changes) as originally a unit. As to that last
point, the present text doubtlessly is intended to posit a contrast between 20:23
Volume III1
and 20:24-26 (see 2.3.2).

2.3.3 The passage, which due to its position at the beginning of the covenant
book, of itself draws attention, has from way back been seen as difficult. The
requirements it states seem to be at variance with other basic stipulations
elsewhere in the OT. I mention a few points:
- Deut. 12 requires worship of YHWH at one particular place, one he chose
himself; also Exod. 20 makes the condition that YHWH can only be worshiped
at a place he has chosen, but it does not restrict such worship to one place.
- The tent shrine has to have a bronze altar, entirely different from the altar
of burnt offering of Exod. 20; according to Exod. 20, the altar may not have
steps. In Ezekiel’s design of the temple, the altar is one with steps (Ezek.
43:17). The altar of 2 Chr. 4:1 in Solomon’s temple, in view of its height must
have had steps. Whether the altar of Exod. 27 had an incline with steps is not
clear (cf. 4.9.5 and see Lev. 9:22). The motive for the prohibition of steps is
that a person’s private parts should remain covered. Evidently it is assumed
that the sacrificer wore a loin cloth, a simple skirt, and that movements of the
legs on a steep incline would expose his privates (cf. 2 Sam. 6:14ff., 20f.). In
28:42 the problem of the exposure of the private parts appears to have been
solved through changes in the clothing (see 4.12.2.7). It seems that the pre
scribed clothing was also suitable for a altar with steps.
- In 20:23-26 the Israelites in general are addressed (cf. 20:22). Also the
comment about the service on the altar (20:26) appears to be addressed to
them. That access to the altar was reserved for Aaron and his descendants (cf.
e.g. Exod. 29), seems to be unknown (cf. 21:13f. en 24:5).
Even those passages which at first sight seem to agree with Exod. 20 and to
describe the implementation of the altar law of Exod. 20, viz. Deut. 27:5f. and
Josh. 8:31, on closer look do not quite fit Exod. 20 (cf. e.g. Anbar, 306).
Exod. 20 requires that the YHWH altar must be made ‘of earth,’ while, addition
ally, it offers the possibility to construct it of uncut stones. But the primary
building material is ‘earth.’ The allied passages Deut. 27 and Josh.8 - contain
ing a new stipulation without reference to Exod. 20 - only permit an altar
constructed of stone (cf. also 1 Macc. 4:47). Construction of an altar is also
mentioned in 24:4. But there the altar is not described (cf. beside it 1 Kgs.
18:30-32).
2.3.4 In Jewish and Christian exegesis it has been tried to smooth out the
inconsistencies. Thus it has been proposed that the altar law of Exod. 20 was
for the desert period and also for the provisional sanctuaries, such as the one at
Shiloh, places designated by God, where the ark was kept (for the history of
interpretation see Paul, passim).
Also explanations for the discrepancies in the subsections have been put
forward. It has been proposed that the hollow altar of burnt offering of Exod.
27 was an altar of earth and stone, because supposedly these were used as
Volume III1
EXODUS 2 0 :2 2 -2 6 101
fillers to make it practicable for use (see Mek., II, 284, and 4.9.3). Also, that in
20:24 not an altar of earth is meant, but an altar that had to be planted in or
attached to the ground (TNf, FTV, PTF and see Mek., II, 284; Rashi). It was
considered self-evident that 20:26 referred to the Aaronic priests, while the
sentence with OKI (20:25), in the light of Deut. 27:5f. could not refer to a free
option, but, like 20:24, had to be taken as a commandment {Mek., II, 287f.; cf.
also Ibn Ezra and Nachmanides).
The harmonizing explanations were unable to withstand the rationalism of
19* century OT critical scholarship. Its proponents took the discrepancies as
indications of an evolutionary development in Israel’s religion. The discrepancy
between Exod. 20 and Deut. 12 (one sanctuary) became one of the basic
components of Julius Wellhausen’s design of Israel’s religion (see Houtman*,
Pent., 108ff., 279fF.). The hypotheses constructed in reaction to Wellhausen’s
model, to prove that there is no conflict between Exod. 20 and Deut. 12, are
unsatisfactory. The contention that Deut. 12 does not require cultic centrality
but cultic purity (see in Houtman*, Pent., 289ff.) and the hypothesis that Deut.
12 refers to the one central sanctuary but Exod. 20 to the similarly legitimate
local sanctuaries (Paul, 242ff.; Sprinkle [see 2.2.1.], 42ff.) are cases in point.
Additionally there have been varying suggestions, also from non-conservative
exegetes, about the significance and function of Exod. 20:24-26. As a rule,
they are quite speculative and contrived. Thus Ehrlich, who does not take
m p a rrto as referring to a plurality of sanctuaries but as qualitative, and reads
T o rn in 20:24, argues that 20:24, 25 intends to legitimize the plainness of the
second temple. Hossfeld (see 1.1.1), 183, believes that the altar law was a
stipulation only for Moses, whose implementation is described in 24:4f. Others
detect in the altar law a polemic, opposition to the drive for centralization of
the cult in Jerusalem (cf. e.g. Conrad, 15; Halbe [see 2.2.1], 377ff., 481f.). E.g.
Lohfink, 318f., sees in it the suggestion that also other sanctuaries besides the
one in Jerusalem may be used for worship of YHWH; an altar may not, like that
in Jerusalem, be constructed of hewn stone. C. Levin49 regards the covenant
book as a ‘Gesetz der auBerpalastinensischen Exulantenschaft,’ arguing that
Exod. 20:24b is an addition, aimed at the centralization law of Deut. 12, which
makes the covenant book suitable for the Jews in the diaspora.50
49 Die Verheifiung des neuen Bundes, Gottingen 1985, 96 n. 94.

50 Cf. also J. Van Seters, “Cultic Laws in the Covenant Code (Exodus 20,22-23,33) and Their
Relationship to Deuteronomy and the Holiness Code,” in M. Vervenne (ed.), Studies in the Book
o f Exodus, Leuven 1996, 319-45: ‘The issue in the exilic period is no longer one of centralization
of worship but of religious survival, ... It (Ex. 20,24) allows for the simple construction o f an
altar in Jerusalem after the temple’s destruction and the continuation o f the cult there. It does not
restrict worship to that place ... (p. 329). For a more traditional view see e.g. Crtlsemann, Tora
Volume III1
THE BOOK OF THE COVENANT
102
I leave aside religion-historical questions. Our concern is particularly the

question why the writer(s) of the extensive Genesis-Kings chronicle placed
these verses first (see already 2.3.2), and whether, from the perspective of the
redaction, a satisfactory explanation of the relationship of Exod. 20 to Deut. 12
can be given.
First off, it can be noted that the altar of Exod. 20 stands in the altar building
tradition of the patriarchs who, following a theophany, constructed altars at a
variety of places (Gen. 12:7f. etc.; other data in \bl. II, 357; cf. also \fc>l. I,
339f., 352f.). So it is not impossible that the redaction espoused the view that
the patriarchal tradition was continued in the desert period and that after the
Sinai the sacrificial cult was part of that tradition. The patriarchal tradition
goes very well with a people on the move. Moreover, to the redactors the
implementation of the one-sanctuary requirement (Deut. 12) had to wait until
the people were firmly established, which was not the case until the time of
David and Solomon (2 Sam. 7:11); as a result, after the settlement in Canaan at
first YHWH remained without a fixed abode (cf. Houtman*, Pent., 298f.). But
did the redaction fail to see the above discrepancies, such as, e.g., the sharp
difference between the altar of Exod. 20 and that of the tent sanctuary?
Elsewhere (see 4.9.3) I point out that the bronze altar of Exod. 27 was filled
with earth and stones. In any case, it is important not to drive a wedge between
the redactors of the texts and early expositors, and it should remembered as
well that, as concerns this literary genre, harmonizing explanations were
available to the redactors for the discrepancies detected by western rationalistic
eyes.
2.3.5 The information given about the altar of Exod. 20 is limited. Only at
one point something is said about the construction and that is done negatively
(20:26). The allowable building material is mentioned. Why just this material
we are not told. The only thing explained is the prohibition for adding steps,
and that explanation is often regarded as having been added later. That raises
questions. Why must the stones be unhewn? Why are steps not allowed?
I take the questions up in reverse order. After a survey of the various
interpretations (pp. 53ff.), Conrad himself (pp. 123ff.) argues that an altar with
steps belonged to the cult of ‘the supreme god’ and that for such an altar there
was no place in Israel’s worship, lest YHWH’s claim to absolute dominion be
diminished. An explanation like this remains uncertain. In view of 20:26b,
another explanation has gained ground. The sacrificer’s private parts must be
prevented from becoming visible. Before whom must they remain concealed?
The participants in the worship ceremony or the deity? In the latter case, it has
been suggested that it is the numen dwelling in the stones from whom the
genitals are to remain hidden (e.g. Baentsch). Apparently the motivation in the
current text is based on the view that everything associated with sexuality must
be taboo because it threatens YHWH’s holiness (cf. 19:10, 15; Lev. 6:3; 15;
Volume III1
EXODUS 2 0 :2 2 -2 6 103
21:7, 9, 13ff., 20; 22:4).

The prohibition to dress the stones has also been taken as an expression of
primitive religion: the numen in the stone may not be frightened, chased off
(e.g. Baentsch). More likely, chiseling was regarded as affecting the holiness,
while uncut material was regarded as ‘natural,’ holy. Not explicitly stated is
what the chisel was made of, but likely one should think of iron (see exegesis),
a metal that was not used for the tent sanctuary nor for Solomon’s temple. It
would seem that its use as a tool and putting it to stone produced unholiness
(cf. 1 Kgs. 6:7 and 5:3If. and see e.g. AuS, VII, 9f.). Conrad, 32ff., who offers
an overview of the various interpretations, regards the hewing as creating
cuplike basins (for sacrificial blood and drink offerings on the top; ‘NapflO-
cher’) of stone altars, and considers also this prohibition as an expression of
opposition to Canaanite cultic practices and the cult of ‘the supreme god’ (pp.
45ff.). In his judgment, an anti-Canaanite thrust underlies the entire altar law.
Others detect in the altar law an attempt to counter the infiltration of culture
and luxury in the cult (e.g. Holzinger; see further Conrad, 21, 42, 123). The
absence of an explanation renders every interpretation speculative. Theodoret
(QE, XL) holds that an altar of stone could easily be demolished, so preventing
the proliferation of structures usable by others for worship of their false gods.
Tying in to that interpretation, one could ask whether at Exod. 20 the writer
did not already have Deut. 12 (worship at one fixed place) in mind and
consciously placed Israel’s worship in the desert period in the tradition of the
patriarchs so as to underscore its temporary and transcient nature. After use,
the nature altar reverts to nature and can never be a competitor of YHWH’s
definite abode.
20:22 Moses is addressed as mediator between YHWH and the people (cf.
20:18, 19).
n o « n ... “intri, Sam.Pent.: nottb ntfo rurr n a T i (on nan instead of
natt see Introd. §3.12.1). n s ttn n a (Introd. §3.5.1), LXX: ‘So you shall speak
to the house of Jacob and tell (the Israelites)’ (cf. 19:3). YHWH’s words are in
part identical to those in 19:3b, 4.
YHWH’s revelation from the clouds in the form of thunderclaps, lightning and
trumpet blasts is here signified as revelation from heaven (see Houtman*,
Himmel, 326f.). According to some (see e.g. Noth, Te Stroete, Hyatt), ‘from
heaven’ suggests the presence in 20:22 of a separate tradition, to be distin
guished from that of E (YHWH is present on the mountain) and J (YHWH comes
down on the mountain; on the question see \bl. II, 431). The relation between
19:20 and 20:22 was already a point of reflection in Mek., II, 275f., and in
Rashi and Ibn Ezra. In my view, in 20:22 the atmospheric heaven is meant,
and the picture it evokes is no different from the one in 19:9, 19; 20:21 (cf.
Deut. 4:1 If., 36; 5:22f. and see e.g. Nachmanides, Calmet). The choice of
Volume III1
104
‘from heaven’ hangs together with the stipulation articulated in 20:23 (cf. Deut.
4:1 If., 15ff.).
As for the relation between 20:22 and 20:23, it is wrong to place a colon
behind 20:22 and then to assume that YHWH now says something to Moses he
had already informed him of earlier Mentally one should add to 20:23:
‘because I have shown you who I am (see 20:22) and you know who I am,
therefore you shall
20:23 The Masoretes through their vocalization ignored the poetic character of
20:23 (chiastic parallellism; cf. W. van Soden, UF 13 [1981], 159f.) and intro
duced a caesura after TIN, turning 20:23a into an ellipse. The assumed object is
explicitly mentioned in 20:23b: statues (Introd. §7.2.1.) of gods of silver and of
gold (Introd. §3.28; cf. KOSynt §306ay). They may not be fashioned (to serve
as object of adoration) and given the place that belongs to YHWH (’PIN). YHWH
does not permit the placing of images in his sanctuary that is, the joint use of
his sanctuary for the worship of other gods. He demands exclusive devotion. In
other words, here the same is asked of Israel as in 20:3-5.
20:22 harks back to Exod. 19, but also points forward to Deut. 4:Ilf., 15,
36; 5:22f. The result is that 20:23 is entirely informed by the motivation of the
prohibition of images in Deut. 4 (see exegesis 20:3-6). This elucidation is
redactional. Has this given the prohibition of 20:23 a new, wider scope? Did
the prohibition originally have a more restricted scope? Did it oppose the
making of ornate images, but not the fabrication of images of wood or stone or
the use of massebahs? Or does YHWH here say that he, represented by an image
(a massebah for that matter or another object, e.g. the shrine [ark]), forbids the
worshiping of images of other gods next to the image which represents him? It
is a possibility one can only speculate about. For an extensive discussion of the
verse see Kruyswijk (see 1.3.1), 75ff., and Dohmen (see 1.3.1), 154ff., 236ff.
yitoi?n, Sam.Pent.: to rn . TIN (cf. e.g. Waltke-O’Connor §11.2.4), in the LXX
‘make’ is followed by: cauxoic (cf. upiv eauxoh; = 03b at the end of the
verse); the Vulg. does not have a translation; TO: ’m p , ‘for me;’ similarly also
TNf, FTV; cf. also TPsJ, where " m p as object is preceded by a long list of
things that are forbidden for worship; Israel may not make images of the sun,
the moon, the stars and the planets, and not of angels who serve ‘before me’
(cf. M e t II, 242f., 276; Rashi).
20:24 nato, see 17:15 and at 4.9. Interesting is that the Samaritans did not
view the earthen altar of 20:24 as a mound of earth but as a pit, a hollow in
the ground (see Jeremias*, 104). n m N (see 3:5), genitive of material (e.g.
Joilon §129f; Walke-O’Connor §9.5.3d), stands here in contrast to ‘stones’
(20:25; both contrast with ‘silver’ and ‘gold’ in 20:23); but that is no reason to
understand (cf. the contrast in Isa. 9:9 and Amos 5:11) nmN as ‘bricks’ (so
Volume III1
EXODUS 2 0 :2 2 -2 6 105
Conrad, 21ff., 40f.). With ‘earth’ one could think of loam (cf. Isa. 45:9). Why
of earth? It has been suggested that back of it lies the notion that this enables
the ground to absorb the blood of the sacrifice (cf. Cazelles [see 2.2.1], 40f.;
Dohmen [see 1.3.1], 174f.; but see also 2.2.5). nfefln, there is a change in
person; the 2nd pers. plur. (20:23) is followed by the 2nd pers. sing.; in LXX
and Vulg. the 2nd pers. plur., is also continued in the possessive pronouns, for
most of 20:24, and the change to the sing, does not occur until the end of the
verse; in TNf, the plural is consistenly employed through the end of 20:26.
n n an (see 3:18), with waw to introduce the final clause (cf. Ges-K §165;
Joiion § 168b). nb», see 10:25.
(OT 87*), aside from Amos 5:22 always in the plur.,51 is regarded as
derivative of D*?# (see 4:18). Often O’O'?# is mentioned in conjunction with
‘burnt offerings’ (see 10:25). In such cases the ‘burnt offerings’ are always
cited first (20:24; 24:5; 32:6; Lev. 6:5; Deut. 27:7; Josh.8:31; Judg. 20:26;
21:4; 1 Sam. 13:9 etc.). According to the alternation in Lev. 7:11-21; 19:5f.;
2 Kgs. 16:13,15, O’O1?# (not) = m t (see 10:25). The ritual of the D’D1?# is
described in Lev. 3; 7:llff., 28ff.; 22:17ff.; part is for God, part for the priest,
and part for the sacrificer who eats it with his family. The meaning of the
term, also familiar from Ugaritic texts, is uncertain and disputed. A look at
English translations is an indication: O’O*?# is (in Exodus) translated as ‘peace
offerings’ (AV, RSV), ‘offerings of well-being’ (NRSV), ‘shared-offerings’
(REB; cf. ‘fellowship offerings,’ NIV), ‘sacrifices for the sacred meal’
(TEV)-52 Likewise uncertain and disputed is the historical evolution of the type
of offering. In this commentary I bypass both difficulties.53 I content myself
with some comments on the texts in Exodus. I translate with ‘offerings
of well-being.’ ‘Well-being’ I relate to God’s relationship with the sacrificer
and his family. Following upon the burnt offering, which in its entirety is for
the deity, the ‘offering of well-being’ is aimed at bringing about/maintaining
the harmonious relationship between deity and sacrifices. In 24:5 □’»*?# serves
as apposition, further qualifier with D’nar (cf. 1 Sam. 11:15 and see also Josh.
22:27; cf. KbSynt §333s,t). Elsewhere the ‘sacrifices’ are more specifically
defined as ‘offerings of well-being,’ through the use of □’»*?# as nomen
51 Plurale tantum or an instance of mimation, wrongly taken as plur.? Cf. e.g. R. Schmid, Das
Bundesopfer in Israel, MOnchen 1964, 42f.
52 For other translations and LXX see e.g. Eisenbeis (see 4:18), 223f.; R. Schmid, 14, 108.
53 See for that THAT, II, 93If.; G.A. Anderson, Sacrifices and Offerings in Ancient Israel,
Atlanta, Georgia 1987, 36ff.; M. Dietrich, O. Loretz, UF 13 (1981), 77-88; Eisenbeis, 222ff.; B.
Janowski, “ErwSgungen zur Vbrgeschichte des israelitischen Slamim-Opfers,” UF 12 (1980),
231-59 (+ Bibl.); D. Gill, Bib 47 (1966), 255-62; J.C. de Moor, “The Peace-Offering in Ugarit
and Israel,” in Schrifi en uitleg (Fs W.H. Gispen), Kampen 1970, 112-7; R. Rendtorff, Leviticus
(BK III/l, 1985), 115ff.; the literature cited at 10:25.
Volume III1
106
rectum in a construct chain with nat in sing, or piur. (29:28; Lev. 3:1 etc.;
17:5; 19:5; 22:21 etc.). The eating of the meal after the bringing of ‘offerings
of well-being’ is explicitly mentioned in 32:6 (cf. 24:11). 24:5 speaks of burnt
offerings and offerings of well-being ‘in honour of YHWH’ in connection with
the making of the covenant. The offerings in 32:6 are intended, at least by
Aaron, as offerings in honour of YHWH (cf. 32:5).
■ppaTiKi i3K2rnK (Introd. §§9.1.4; 9.1.11), apposition in MT (cf. LXX); in
Pesh. preceded by (explicative waw?): w'nk wtwrykr, in Sam.Pent.: 1JKS0 etc.,
preceded by 10-partitive; so also in TO, TPsJ, SamT.
o ip o rrto a (see 3:5), in view of the relationship of Exod. 20:4 to Deut. 12
(see 2.3.3, 4) the interpretation of the terminology used here is of importance.
Is the meaning ‘in all the place’ or ‘at every place?’ The Sam.Pent. has
removed the problem by reading DtpOO (cf. SamT) (the place referred to is the
Gerizim). A favourite view is that the MT represents the interpretation ‘in all
the place’ and amounts to a dogmatic correction (there is no discrepancy with
Deut. 12) of the original reading Dlptrbaa (e.g. Ges-K §127e). Supposedly the
original reading is found in the ancient versions; see e.g. LXX: ev itav u toiwp,
and further Pesh., TO. It is entirely possible, however, that the rendering of the
versions is based on the MT (cf. TPsJ, TNf); MT also permits the interpreta
tion ‘at every plaats’ or ‘in all places’ (cf. e.g. the use of 13!T^3 and n3CT^9
in 1:22); see in particular Conrad, 5ff. (+ Bibl.) and e.g. Joiion §135c. Con
trived is the view of De Groot (see 4.9.4), 36, that the term denotes every
where inside the bounds of the sanctuary (only one sanctuary but more altars
are allowed).
nat hiph. + oef, see Introd. §§3.18.1; 3.50; Sam.Pent.: ’m a t# (perf.; the
place has already been selected); apart from the LXX, most ancient versions
have not associated the verb with the selection of the cultic place by YHWH, but
with the worship of YHWH there; Vulg.: in omni loco in quo memoria fuerit
nominis mei, ‘at every place, where the remembrance of my name will take
place;’ Pesh.: tdkr (= T 3tn , 2nd pers. sing.); cf. TPsJ, where both 1st pers. and
2nd pers. are used: 'O lp nbs natti viJ’atf ’"iitfKi, ‘where I will cause my
Shekinah to dwell (cf. TO) and you will worship me;’ see also TNf, where the
2nd pers. plur. is used: ‘where you will remember my name in prayer’ (cf. FTV:
‘where you will remember my holy name;’ see also PTF and die use of the 2nd
pers. sing, in TNf maigin).
The clause ‘at every place, where ...’ is related to the worship in the syna
gogue; it validates it and declares the blessed presence of the Shekinah there
(cf. Mek., II, 287). Illustrative in this connection is also the manner in which
K13K and following words are rendered in the taigums; see e.g. FTV: ‘(at every
place, where ...), my Word will reveal itself to you and bless you’ (vgl PTF and
see TNf), and TO: ‘... I will send my blessing to you and will bless you’ (cf.
TPsJ). Where Jewish exegesis has stayed with MT, ’08? ...baa is interpreted as
Volume III1
EXODUS 2 0 :2 2 -2 6 107
the place where I (YHWH) allow my (full) name to be mentioned, that is, the
temple (cf. Mek., II, 287; Rashi) and also provisional sanctuaries, like those in
Shiloh (Ibn Ezra). After ’OBf Sam.Pent. has the addition rtotf, ‘thither;’ cf.
LXX: eicei; TO, SamT: p n b ; is the Sam.Pent. based on dittography? Is there
Deuteronomic influence here? Cf. the use of ID# in Deut. 12:11; 14:23 etc.
(9*).
813X (Introd. §3.8; cf. D’nbxn X3 in 20:20), the pointing shows that the
Masoretes took Dipnrrbaa as the beginning of a new sentence; by contrast, in
the LXX (cf. also Vulg.) oiparrbaa is connected with what precedes and
indicates the place where the offerings are brought; besides, in the LXX Kiax
(translated as xai fjCo), like T n a ia i, belongs to the clause introduced by ntfK:
‘place, where ... and I will come to you;’ this choice is plausible; staying with
MT, I reckon K13K (and following words) to the clause with ”PK; the term
further clarifies ’DttfTiK T a m and is not, as commonly thought (see already the
taigums), the verb of the main clause beginning with Olparrbaa; the last
clause, in my view, is an ellipse; ’‘TTpilfl (20:24a) should be mentally sup
plied. For the toned-down translation of K13K (antropomorphism) in the
taigums see above (cf. also SamT: " p ’b 'n ’K). TTiaaai (see 12:32) with waw
to introduce final clause (see above).
20:25 p x , see 7:19. H33 (see 1:11) with double accus. (p rix refers to the
stones), see KbSynt §327x; Ges-K §117kk. ITT} (OT 11 x), ‘to hew,’ is used
both in absolute state (20:25; Isa. 9:9; Amos 5:11 etc.) and in construct chain:
n’H ’338 (1 Kgs. 5:31; Ezek. 40:42; 1 Chr. 22:2), with the meaning ‘quarried,
hewn stone’ (cf. KoSynt §243b); see AuS, VII, 9f.; BRL, 209ff. The stones
could be blocks of natural stone cut out of the rocks or loose stones made
usable by chiseling. An altar of cut stone is known, e.g., from Beersheba (see
4.9.6). ’3, see Introd. §3.25.2. a in (see 5:3), the material of which the tool is
made is not stated. It is done in the related passages Deut. 27:5; Josh.8:31,
where the term a in is not used, but b n a , ‘iron,’ is mentioned (cf.20:25
Pesh.). ‘Iron,’ further defined as ‘iron of which swords are made,’ explicitly
occurs as tool in most taigums (TNf, TPsJ, FT, PTF) on 20:25 (cf. Mek., II,
289f.).
CpSfl (Ges-K §72k; Jotion §80i) perf. hiph. of *113 (OT 34*; 32x hiph.; 5*
Exod.; hoph. in 29:27); here and elsewhere (Deut. 23:26; 27:5; Josh.8:31) bo
T3H denotes the use of a tool for a certain job. Not clear is what particular
motion may lie behind the terminology. The question is also of importance in
connection with the use of *113 hiph. in cultic texts. Traditionally, *l!3n is
regarded as standing for a horizontal motion. In line with that, the derivative
Hpuri (OT 30x; 6X Exod.), very often used as object of *)l3n, is thought to be
a sacrifice which, when presented, was moved back and forth (e.g. Rashi [on
29:24]: in all directions), and as such is to be distinguished from the np n n ,
Volume III1
the sacrifice which, when it was presented, was moved up and down.54 In
recent decades the traditional interpretation has been called into question. Both
G.R. Driver, JSS 1 (1956), lOOff., and L. Kopf, VT 9 (1959), 262ff., have
argued that *113 hiph. and on hiph. (see 7:20) are almost synonyms and that
there is no real difference between noun and nonn (see 25:2).55 Both associ
ate *)13 with the Arabic nafa. Driver, 102, also appealing to Akkadian, gives the
following description: noun = ‘a “special contribution, additional gift” or the
like;’ *)’3n = ‘“set apart, declared (such and such property) an additional
contribution, made a special contribution” to the deity.’56 Kopf holds that
‘hochheben’ is the real meaning of *113 (‘an manchen Stellen vielleicht auf und
ab bewegen’ [p. 264]). Detailed attention to the terminology has been given by
J. Milgrom.57 He takes issue with Driver and Kopf on a number of points,
which I leave alone here. He maintains that *i’3n means ‘to lift up’ and that
nsuri stands for the consecration ritual through which a sacrifice passes from
the owner to God.
In my view, there is warrant for questioning the traditional interpretation
(differently TWAT, V, 318ff.). Some remarks on the terminology in Exodus are
in order. Clear is that *),3fi denotes the consecration of, the setting apart of gifts
for YHWH. In 35:22 naun + *)’3rt is used in that sense; cf. Num. 8:11, 13, 15,
21: the Levites are set apart for YHWH’s service. At least in Num. 8, consider
ing the object (the Levites), the literal meaning ‘to lift up’ does not fit. Is this
a case (and in 35:22) of a verb being used figuratively, which elsewhere is
used concretely? Do *J13 hiph. and hoph. in 29:24, 26, 27 denote a concrete
ritual act?58 29:24a (cf. Lev. 8:27a) contains an concrete scene: Moses places
the offerings in the hands of Aaron and his sons; of those offerings it is said in
29:24b: n irr U?1? op'N $?J!3l; Moses remains subject. That makes it
unlikely that *]'3n is to be taken in the literal sense of ‘lifting up.’ For how
54 See e.g. the following translations of riBir + 'I'JH in 29:24: ‘and shalt wave them fo r a wave
offering’ (AV; cf. RSV); ‘wave them ... as a wave offering (NIV); eene wending maken’ (Vrede-
nburg); ‘een zijdelingse beweging maken’ (Dasberg).
33 See e.g. 35:22 next to 35:24; the LXX does not keep the two terms apart: fiBUn is rendered
with ditapxn in 39:1 (38:24), with a<t>aipepa in 35:23(22); 39:7 (38:29), and with d<t>6pio|ia in
29:24, 26, 27, terms also employed for the rendering of n n n n (see 25:2); voor <x<t>opiopa see,
among others, LXX* on 29:28; for the ancient versions see Driver, 101; also in modem translati
ons the difference is not always preserved; Vredenburg e.g., uses ‘heffing’ (lifting up) in both
35:22 and 24.
54 See among modem translations on 29:24 e.g. WV: ‘als gewijd deel afzonderen;’ TEV:
‘dedicate as a special gift;’ REB: ‘to present as a special gift.’
57 “The Alleged Wave-Offering in Israel and in the Ancient Near East,” IEJ 22 (1972), 33-8 =
Studies in Cultic Theology and Terminology, Leiden 1983, 133-138; idem, “Hatt6nflp4,” in
Studies, 139-58; cf. also Anderson (see 20:24), 133ff.
5* So Milgrom, Studies, 135, 158: meant is presentation by lifting up.
Volume III1
EXODUS 2 0 :2 2 -2 6 109
could Moses by lifting up something in the hands of others hand it over to

YHWH?59 All in all, one gets the impression that JUT ’JBb + nBttn + r)1Jn (Lev.
7:30; 9:21; 10:15; 8:27, 29; 14:12, 24; 23:11,20 etc.) is a standard expression
for ‘consecrating to YHWH,’ which says nothing about the ritual act that
possibly accompanied the transfer to YHWH. * p n , also evident from its use
elsewhere (2 Chr. 5:11; Isa. 10:32; 11:15; 13:2; 19:16; Zech. 2:13; Job 31:21),
refers to no more than the making of a motion in a certain (horizontal?)
direction.
n e i a n denotes what is consecrated to YHWH (29:27; 38:24, 29; Lev. 23:15,
17). A distinction can be made between what is spontaneously, on occasion of
a special event, given to YHWH (38:24, 29) and what by law must be given to
YHWH and was part of the income of the priests, the ntq, in 29:27;
Lev. 7:34; 10:14f.; Num. 6:20 mentioned next to mp-nnn pittf. Besides the
interchangeableness of rtBUn and n o rm (35:22, 24), that too favours regarding
both terms as synonyms or as closely related.60
n 'is , the suffix apparently refers to n’TJ, a feminine noun; cf. TPsJ (stones
are specifically mentioned as object); TO, FTV and see also the use of the plur.
in TNf, FTP, PTF (cf. Deut. 27:5; Josh.8:31); Sam.Pent.: r*?P, i.e. the altar
(natn is masculine); cf. LXX, Vulg. (the suffix is related to the altar).
imperf. cons. pi. + suffix of bbn (OT ca. 135*; ca. 65* pi.), in pi.
‘desecrate;’ in 31:14 used with reference to the profaning of the sabbath (cf.
Isa. 56:2, 6; Ezek. 20:13, 16, 21, 24; 22:8; 23:38; Neh. 13:17, 18);61 the suffix
evidently refers to n’tj; Sam.Pent.; lQExod. (see DJD, I, 51): inbbnni (for
masculine suffix see above).
20:26 Convinced that only priests have access to the altar, in most taigums
20:26 is not, as in 20:23-25, taken as directed to Israel, but explicitly applied
to the priests (TPsJ), further specified as sons of Aaron (TNf, FT, PTF). In
connection with that the 2nd pers. plur. is used, nbljo plur. of (OT 47*;
derivative of r6l>; see Introd. §3.39), ‘step’ (cf. TWAT, VI, 102). TPsJ tells
that access to the altar is possible by means of a slope (cf. also TNf margin;
Mek., II, 290; Rashi). Owing to its offensive character the end of 20:26 is left
untranslated in PTF and TNf margin (cf. M.L. Klein, JJS 39 [1988], 86). 1CK,
see Introd. §3.7.2.
imperf. niph. of n*?J (THAT, I, 418ff.; TWAT, I, 1018ff.); cf. Isa. 47:3;
Ezek. 16:36 and cf. the use of the pi. in e.g. Lev. 18:6ff.; 20:11, 17ff.; Ezek.
16:37. What is improper in inter-human relations is certainly so where it
59 E.g. Rashi: the priest placed his hand tinder the hands of the owner of the gifts and made the
(horizontal) movement.
60 Differently Milgrom, Studies, 141; idem, “The $6q hattfirihnS,” in Studies, 159-70.
61 See THAT, I, 570ff.; TWAT, II, 972ff.; G. Gerleman, ZAW 92 (1980), 405ff.
Volume III1
concerns contact with YHWH. rijn# (OT ca. 55x), ‘nakedness,’ ‘genitals’ (Lev.
18:6ff. etc.), in 28:42 used in construct chain with (see 4:7). See Dhor-
me*, 108. that is, going to or being on (the altar); Sam.Pent.: r^K.
2.4 DEBT SLAVERY: UNEQUAL TREATMENT OF MAN AND WOMAN

( 21 :1- 11)
21:1 Here are the rules you are to set before them:
2 'When you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall work six years, but in the seventh
year he may leave as a free person without having to pay.
3 I f he came single, he shall leave single. I f he had a wife, then his wife shall
leave with him.
4 I f his master gave him a wife and she bore him sons or daughters, then the
woman with her children shall remain the property o f her master and he shall
leave alone.
5 But i f the slave emphatically declares: “I love my master, my wife and my
children. I do not want to leave as a free person, ”
6 then his master shall bring him to the gods, he shall thus bring him to the
door or the doorpost and his master shall pierce his ear with an awl; so he
shall be his slave fo r ever
7 But when someone sells his daughter as a handmaid, then she may not -
as prescribed fo r slaves - leave.
8 If, in the judgment o f her master who had intended her fo r himself, she
does not satisfy, then he shall let her be redeemed; he does not have the right
to sell her to a *foreign people, ” because he broke with her.
9 And i f he designates her fo r his son, then he shall treat her according to
the rights o f a daughter.
10 I f he takes an additional wife, then he may not short-change her in food,
clothing and sexual intercourse.
11 But i f he does not treat her in agreement with these three stipulations,
then she may leave without having to pay, without having to give money. '
2.4,1 Bibl.: K. Baltzei; “Liberation from Debt Slavery after the Exile in
Second Isaiah and Nehemiah,” in RD. Miller et al. (eds.), Ancient Israelite
Religion (Fs F.M. Cross), Philadelphia 1987, 477-84; N. Brockmeyei; Antike
SklavereU Darmstadt 19872; H.A. Brongers, “De betekenis van het substantief
D'nbN in de juridische teksten van het Oude Testament,” NedThT 3 (1948-49),
321-35; I. Cardellini, Die biblischen ‘Sklaven' - Gesetze im Lichte des
keilschriftlichen Sklavenrechts, Konigstein, Ts./Bonn 1981; G.C. Chirichigno,
Debt Slavery in Israel and the Ancient Near East, Sheffield 1993; H.-J. Fabry,
“Deuteronomium 15: Gedanken zur Geschwister-Ethik im Alten Testament,”
Volume III1
EXODUS 21:1-11 111
ZABR 3 (1997), 92-111; Z.W. Falk, “Exodus xxi 6,” VT 9 (1959), 86-8; M.I.
Finley (ed.), Slavery in Classical Antiquity: Views and Controversies, Cam
bridge 1961; idem, “Die Schuldknechtschaft,” in H.G. Kippenberg (ed.), Die
Entstehung der antiken Klassengesellschaft, Frankfurt am Main 1977, 173-204;
P Gamsey, Ideas o f Slavery from Aristotle to Augustine, Cambridge 1996; S.
Greengus, “The Selling of Slaves: Laws Missing from the Hebrew Bible?,”
ZABR 3 (1977), 1-11; M.I. Gruber, “Matrilineal Determination of Jewishness:
Biblical and Near Eastern Roots,” in D.P. Wright et al. (eds.), Pomegranates
and Golden Bells (Fs J. Milgrom), Winona Lake 1995, 437-43; W.H. Hallo,
“Slave Release in the Biblical World in Light of a New Text,” in Z. Zevit et
al. (eds.), Solving Riddles and Untying Knots (Fs J.C. Greenfield), Winona
Lake 1995, 79-93; J.M. Hamilton, Social Justice and Deuteronomy: The Case
o f Deuteronomy 15, Atlanta 1992; P. Heinisch, “Das Sklavenrecht in Israel und
im Alten Orient,” Studio Catholica 11 (1935), 201-18, 276-90; W. Houston,
‘“ You Shall Open Your Hand to Your Needy Brother’: Ideology and Moral
Formation in Deut. 15. 1-18,” in J.W. Rogerson et al. (eds.), The Bible in
Ethics, Sheffield 1995, 296-314; V. Hurowitz, ‘“ His Master Shall Pierce His
Ear with an Awl’ (Exodus 21.6),” Proceedings o f the American Aacademy for
Jewish Research 58 (1992), 47-77; S. Japhet, “The Relationship between the
Legal Corpora in the Pentateuch in Light of Manumissim Laws,” ScrHie 31
(1986), 63-9; S.A. Kaufman, “Deuteronomy 15 and Recent Research on the
Dating of P,” in N. Lohfink (ed.), Das Deuteronomium, Leuven 1985, 273-6;
N.P. Lemche, “The Manumission of Slaves - the Fallow Year - the Sabbatical
Year - the Yobel Year,” VT 26 (1976), 38-59; idem, “The Hebrew and the
Seven Year Cycle,” BN 25 (1984), 65-75; A. Levy-Feldblum, “The Law of the
Hebrew Slave: The Significance of Stylistic Differences,” BetM 31 (1985-86),
348-59 (Hebr.); O. Loretz, “Die Teraphim als ‘Ahnen-G6tter-Figur(in)en’ im
Lichte der Texte aus Nuzi, Emar und Ugarit,” UF 24 (1992), 133-78; VH.
Matthews, “The Anthropology of Slavery in the Covenant Code,” in: Levinson
(see 2.2.1.), 119-35; Osumi (see 2.2.1), 104ff„ 162ff.; I. Mendelsohn, Slavery
in the Ancient Near East, New York 1949; M.J. Oosthuizen, “Deuteronomy
15:1-18 in Socio-Rhetorical Perspective,” ZABR 3 (1997), 64-91; Otto, Wandel
(see 2.2.1), 34ff.; Paul (see 2.2.1), 45ff.; A. Phillips, “The Laws of Slavery:
Exodus 21. 2-11,” JSOT 30 (1984), 51-66; J.P.M. van der Ploeg, “Slavery in
the Old Testament,” SVT 22 (1972), 72-87; H. Rouillard, J. Tropper, “Trpym,
rituels de gu6rison et culte des ancetres d’aprfcs 1 Samuel XIX 11-17 et les
textes parallels d’Assur et de Nuzi,” VT 37 (1987), 340-61; N. Sama, “Zede-
kiah’s Emancipation of Slaves and the Sabbatical Year,” in H.A. Hoffner (ed.),
Orient and Occident (Fs C.H. Gordon), Kevelaer/Neukirchen-Vluyn 1975,
143-9; A. Schenker, “Affranchissement d’une esclave selon Ex 21, 7-11,” Bib
69 (1988), 547-56; idem, “The Biblical Legislation on the Release Slaves: The
Road from Exodus to Leviticus,” JSOT 78 (1998), 23-41; W. Schwendemann,
Volume III1
“Recht-Grundrecht-Menschenwurde: Eine Untersuchung von Ex 21,2-11 im

Rahmen theologischer Anthropologie,” BN 77 (1995), 34-40; J. Vhn Seters,
“The Law of the Hebrew Slave,” ZAW 108 (1996), 534-46; Schwienhorst-
Schonbeiger (see 2.2.1), 303ff.; M. Stol, Een Babylonier maakt schulden,
Amsterdam 1983; M. Tsevat, “The Hebrew Slave According to Deuteronomy
15:12-18,” JBL 113 (1994), 587-595; K. van der Toom, “The Nature of the
Biblical Teraphim in the Light of the Cuneiform Evidence,” CBQ 52 (1990),
203-22; J. Weingreen, From Bible to Mishrta, Manchester 1976, 133-42; D.
van Zijl - D.H. Odendaal, “Teks en konteks - ’n perspektief uit Eksodus
21: 1-6,” NGTT 32 (1991), 19-27.
2.4.2 Back of 21: 2-6 lies the assumption that the Israelite community
consists of free citizens. An Israelite may lose his citizenship only for a limited
time. He is entitled to freedom. He can only waive that right as a matter of
free choice. According to 21:7-11 this is different with the bought/sold Israelite
woman. As “property’ she can change hands from one master to another. Her
right is not primarily a right to freedom but a right to good care.
21:1-11, after 21:1, which is intended as introduction to the stipulation of
Exod. 21-23, falls apart in two by ’9 (Introd. §3.25.2) introduced sections
(21:2, 7). The first part (21:2-6) deals with the relationship of the Hebrew
slave ( 13 P) [21:2, 5, 7], see Introd. §3.37.2; cf. use [21:2, 6], see Introd.
§3.37.1) to his master [21:4, 5, 6], see 4:10), the second part with
the relationship of the Hebrew female slave (mp$, see Introd. §3.37.3) to her
master (21:8). Central is the question whether the male and female slave are
entitled to freedom; cf. the use of NS'' ‘leave’ (Introd. §3.24.1) in 21:2, 3(2*),
4, 5 ,7(2*0, 11- 21:2 and 21:7 contain the general provision about how to treat
the male and female slave. In 21:3-6, 8-11 it is laid out how, through clauses
introduced by DI$(V) (Introd. § 3.4.1), one must act in particular situations.
2.4.3 Something on slavery

Slavery, like elsewhere in the ancient Near East, was an accepted institution in
ancient Israel (cf. I. Mendelsohn, IDB, IV, 383ff.; Van der Ploeg; Thiel*,
156ff.; De \hux*, I, 145ff.). Its existence was an integral part of the world of
that time and not called into question.
Several causes could doom a person to live his life as a slave. He, especially
she (cf. Num. 31:7, 9, 18), could have been captured in war and carried off as
a slave (Deut. 21:10-14; 1 Sam. 30:3; 1 Kgs. 20:39; 2 Kgs. 5:2; 2 Chr.
28:8ff.). Another cause was abduction and being sold as a slave (cf. Gen.
37:28; Exod. 21:16; Deut. 24:7) or being a slave by birth (cf. Gen. 14:14;
17:12 ,23, 27; Exod. 21:4; Lev. 22:11; 25:44-46; Jer. 2:14). Poverty and debt
could drive parents to sell their children or a debtor to sell himself into slavery
(see 2.4.5). So it was not only foreigners who were slaves, but often members
of one’s own people. Slavery reduced a person to a chattel, someone else’s
Volume III1
EXODUS 21:1-11 113
property. Slaves can be mentioned in one breath with cattle and other domestic
animals (Gen. 12:16; 20:14; 24:35; 30:43).
Little is known about the practice of slavery in Israel. It has been suggested
that in general the life of the slave was tolerable, and in any case more
attractive than that of a poor person who, while free, was on his own (cf. De
Vhux*, I, 154f.; Thiel*, 158). Heinisch, 289f., even thinks that the slave in
Israel was better off them the slave in the Umwelt on account of the common
religion and ties of blood. A standpoint like that is only possible if one
overlooks the nature of the provisions (see 2.2.16; 2.2.17) and ignores the
scathing words of the prophets. In any case, it is true that slaves were harshly
treated (cf. 21:20f., 26f.; 1 Sam. 30:13, 15) and, it seems, often tried to escape
(cf. Gen. 16:6; Deut. 23:16, 17; 1 Sam. 25:10; 1 Kgs. 2:39f.; see also Judg.
11:3; 1 Sam. 22:2). Many masters likely had little feeling for the deplorable
life of their slaves. There may not have been all that many masters who, like
Job, considered their slaves as fellow human beings, in principle equal to their
master (Job 31:13, 15; cf. also Prov. 17:5; 22:2; Eccl. 7:21f.; Mai. 2:10).
Job’s conduct shows that he possessed a sense of values relative to the
treatment of slaves. The awareness that the treatment of slaves needs moral
guidelines, that the slave is more than just a chattel, also comes out in the
provisions of the covenant book. The slavery of the (male) slave is restricted as
to its length of time (21:2). Sanctions are put in place against excessive
punishment or mistreatment of slaves (21:20f., 26f.). The aim of these provi
sions is not abolition of slavery but mitigation of its evil effects. According to
the thinking of the OT, distinctions are inherent in the created world. Accord
ing to Job, all distinctions, including that of master and slave, are abolished in
the realm of the dead, the non-world, the counter world of the grave (Job
3:19). Paul did not criticize slavery as such (cf. 1 Cor. 7:21-24; Eph. 6:5; Col.
3:22-25; 4:1; 1 Tim. 6:1; Titus 2:9, 10; see also 1 Pet. 2:18-25).62 According
to him all distinctions, including that of master and slave, have been done away
with in Christ (Gal. 3:26-29; Col. 3:10,11; cf. in the OT Joel 3:If.).
The OT gives rather little information about slavery. More documentation is
available from Israel’s surrounding world in particular Mesopotamia.63
2.4.4 A look at the position o f the woman

Bibl. (a selection): IDBS, 960ff.; TRE, XI, 417ff. (Bibl.); L.J. Archer, Her
62 Idealistic texts from the OT, such as Exod. 21:2-11; 21:26f.; Deut. 15:12-18; 23:15f., do not
play any role in Paul’s pronouncements on slaves. Cf. M. Davies, “Work and Slavery in the New
Testament: Impoverishments of Traditions,” in J.W. Rogerson et al. (eds.), The Bible in Ethics,
Sheffield 1995, 315-47 (pp. 338-347).
63 See e.g. W. Bicksler, Slavery Documents o f Old Babylonia, Ann Arbor 1973; Cardinelli,
passim.
Volume III1
Price is Beyond Rubies. The Jewish Woman in Graeco-Roman Palestine,

Sheffield 1990; G. Beer, Die soziale und religiose Stellung der Frau im
israelitischen Altertum, Tubingen 1919; P.A. Bird, “Israelite Religion and the
Faith of Israel’s Daughters,” in D. Jobling et al. (eds.), The Bible and the
Politics o f Exegesis (Fs N.K. Gottwald), Cleveland 1991, 97-108; G. Braulik,
“Haben in Israel auch Frauen geopfert?,” in S. Kreuzei; K. Liithi (eds.), Zur
Aktualitat des Alten Testaments (Fs G. Sauer), Frankfurt am Main 1992, 19-28
(probably Deuteronomy was the first to give women the right to offer sacri
fices); C.V Camp, “The Wise Women of 2 Samuel: A Role Model for Women
in Early Israel,” CBQ 43 (1981), 14-29; K. Engelken, Frauen im Alten Israel:
Eine begriffsgeschichtliche und sozialrechtliche Studie zur Stellung der Frau im
Alten Testament, Stuttgart 1990; G.I. Emmerson, “Women in Ancient Israel,”
in R.E. Clements (ed.), The World o f Ancient Israel, Cambridge 1989, 371-94
(Bibl.); J.A. Glancy, “The Mistress- Slave Dialectic: Paradoxes of Slavery in
Three LXX Narratives,” JSOT 72 (1996), 71-87; M.I. Gruber, “Women in the
Cult According to the Priestly Code,” in idem, The Motherhood o f God and
Other Studies, Atlanta 1992, 49-68; B.S. Lesko (ed.), Womens Earliest
Records from Ancient Egypt and Western Asia, Atlanta 1989; C. Locher, Die
Ehre einer Frau in Israel: Exegetische und vergleichende Studien zu Deutem-
nomium 22, 13-21, Freiburg/Gottingen 1986; I. MUller, Stellung der Frau im
Recht altorientalischer Kulturen und Altagyptens: Eine Bibliographic, Wein-
heim 1996; E. Otto, “Zur Stellung der Frau in den Sltesten Rechtstexten des
Alten Testamentes (Ex 20, 14; 22, 15 f.),” Zeitschrift fu r Evangelische Ethik 26
(1982), 279-305; idem, “Das Eherecht im mittelassyrischen Kodex und im
Deuteronomium,” in Mesopotamica — Ugaritica - Biblica (Fs K. Bergerhof),
Kevelaer/Neukirchen-Vluyn 1993, 259-81; R. Patai, Sex and Family in the
Bible and the Middle East, Garden City, New York 1959; C. Pressler, The
View o f Women Found in the Deuteronomic Family Laws, Berlin/New York
1993; A. Rofd, “Family and Sex Laws in Deuteronomy and the Book of
Covenant,” Henoch 9 (1987), 131-59; B. Schmitz, U. Steftgen (eds.), Waren
sie nur schon? Frauen im Spiegel der Jahrtausende, Mainz 1989; S. Schroer,
“Weise Frauen und Ratgeberinnen in Israel,” BN 51 (1990), 41-60; E. Seiffert,
Tochter und Voter im Alten Testament: Eine ideologiekritische Untersuchung
zur Verfugungsgewa.lt von Vatem iiber ihre Tochter, Neukirchen-Vluyn 1997;
L. Stulman, “Sex and Familial Crimes in the D Code: A Witness to Mores in
Transition,” JSOT 53 (1992), 47-63; K. van der Toom, Van haar wieg tot haar
graf: De rol van de godsdienst in het leven van de Israelitische en Babylo-
nische vrouw, Baam 1987 (ET: From Her Craddle to Her Grave, Sheffield
1994); H. Utzschneidei; “Patrilinearitat im alten Israel - eine Studie zur
Familie und ihrer Religion,” BN 56 (1991), 60-97; R. Westbrook, “Adultery in
Ancient Near Eastern Law,” RB 97 (1990), 542-80.
The position of the woman already came up in Introd. §6a. Here we add just
Volume III1
EXODUS 21:1-11 115
a few comments, with the focus on Exodus.

Not all women have the same status and position. A free woman’s status and
value differs considerably from that of a slave woman. The social inequality
also shapes the laws about her in the covenant book (see 21:20f., 26f. beside
21:22ff.; cf. e.g. Lev. 19:20-22 beside Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:22). The covenant
book requires that men and women who are not free be treated the same
(21:20, 26, 32), except for the concubine female slave (21:7). In line with the
accent on the equality of man and woman in Deuteronomy (see e.g. 17:2-5),
the dissimilarity of 21:2-11 is absent from Deut. 15.
The status of the daughter of the free Israelite differs from that of his wife.
The father may sell his daughter if he so desires (21:7). He may not do that
with his wife. He alone decides about the marriage of his daughter (21:15f.).
Not much can be inferred from Exodus about the relationship of the free
woman and her husband. The laws deal with the relationship of the Israelite to
the wife of his fellow countryman (20:14, 17), the relationship to his parents
(20:12; 21:15, 17) and to the widow (22:21-23), but there is no behavioural
code with respect to his own wife (for the concubine see 21:8- 11) - only
divorce is regulated (Deut. 24:1; cf. Emmerson, 382 ff). There is also-
understandably so in laws addressed to men - no behavioural code for wives.
Indirectly, though, something is said about it (cf. Num. 5:1 Iff.; Deut.
22:13-27). Like other members of the family, in patriarchal Israelite society the
wife was under the authority of her husband (cf. 21:22). Even so, she could
have an important place beside her husband as his other half, help and support
and stand-in (Gen. 2:18-23; cf. e.g. 1 Sam. 25:14ff.; 1 Kgs. 21:4ff.; Prov.
30:1 Off.).
The priesthood was restricted to the man, but not prophecy (15:20; see at
7:1), nor the possession of hidden powers (22:17; see at 7:11). Apparently it
was the men who were in charge of the official cult (23:17; cf. Deut. 16:16),
but that did not exclude considerable involvement on the part of the women
(35:22, 25, 26, 29; 36:6) and their participation (15:20; Deut. 12:12, 18;
16:10f., 13f.) (on 38:8, see exegesis). Of late, the role of the woman in family
worship in the home (cf. 21:6) is being emphasized (see e.g. Bird; \hn der
Toom, 32ff. etc.).
2.4.5 The stipulations concern fellow countrymen who became slaves, not
slaves of foreign origin. It could happen that an Israelite, unable to pay his
debts, was forced to sell himself (Lev. 25:39; Deut. 15:12; cf. Amos 2:6; 8:6
and see R. Kessler, VT 39 [1989], 13-22). The law also allowed an Israelite to
be sold (22:2). Children, especially girls, could be sold by their parents if need
required (21:7; cf. 2 Kgs. 4:1; Neh. 5:5).
Exod. 21 prescribes a different treatment of male and female slaves concern
ing the length of debt slavery. First I deal with the laws about the slave. The
Volume III1
general rule is that after six years the slave is again a free human being. The
regulation goes into more detail about the position of the slave’s spouse. It is
assumed that the woman is the man’s property (cf. 20:17; 22:15f.). However,
according to 21 :3-6 the man’s property right was only pertinent if he was
married before becoming a slave. In that case, he has first rights to his prop
erty, so that after six years his wife may leave with him (21:3). In case a slave
was given a female slave as a wife by his master, the master has first rights
and the woman and her children remain the master’s property (cf. Gen.
17:12-17, 27; Lev. 22:11; Jer. 2:14). In that case the slave must leave behind
his wife and family (21:4). 21:5, 6 describes what a slave, who finds himself in
that situation and who likes his sheltered life with his master and his wife and
children, should do. He must openly declare that he waives his right to
freedom (21:5). Next, through a ritual, his choice of slavery for life, of
permanently remaining in the house of his master, is to be affirmed and
effected (21 :6).
2.4.6 The ritual deserves a closer look. There are differences of opinion
about the interpretation of the various elements. The person in charge is the
owner. The first thing he must do is take the slave to Q’nbfcn. According to an
interpretation, already occurring in LXX, Pesh., targums and in vogue for a
long time (see e.g. KJV: ‘the judges’) and still favoured by some (e.g. Ehr
lich), O’ifJKn refers to the court, the judges (see also exegesis 22:7f., 27). Can
O’nbN be used in reference to humans? The view has been defended that in a
number of passages, such as Gen. 6:2, 4; Exod. 22:7f.; Pss. 58:2; 82:1, 6;
138:1, OVlbN stands for humans - judges, magistrates, dignitaries. The view is
untenable. Perhaps in a case or two DVtbK denotes an exceptional human being
(Ps. 45:7f.; 1 Sam. 2:25).M Nevertheless, in Gen. 6:2,4 etc., DVlbtt refers to
divine beings or denizens of heaven.
It has been proposed that D'nbNn means ‘God’ and that ‘taking to God’ is
the same as ‘taking to the sanctuary’ (Dillmann); cf. expressions like ‘seeking
God’ (Gen. 25:22; Exod. 18:15; Ps. 77:3) = inquiring of God in the sanctuary,
‘appearing before the face of God’ (e.g. Ps. 42:3) = going to the sanctuary.
The supposition is that in the sanctuary the slave is taken to one or more cultic
officials as God’s representatives (cf. Deut. 19:17 and also Deut. 1:17). The
idea that D’n^ttn functions as a description of the (nearby) sanctuary is
favoured by several expositors (e.g. Bohl, Heinisch, Te Stroete, Fensham,
Childs). Brongers, 323, specifically calls the sanctuary a YHWH-sanctuary.
Supposedly, there the slave had to declare in the presence of the priests that he
prefers to stay in the house of his master.
Another view is that DVtbxn stands for the household deity or deities,64
64 Cf. C. Houtman, ZAW 89 (1977), 412-17.

Volume III1
EXODUS 21:1-11 117
comparable to the Roman lares and penates, the deities to whom the care for
the house and contents was entrusted. The idea that D’nbxn refers to the
household god is espoused, e.g., by F. Schwally, ZAW 11 (1891), 181f. (an
ancestral image, a teraphim), Noth, Michaeli. Eerdmans*, 128; Beer; W.H.
Schmidt, THAT, I, 156, and others aigue for the meaning of household gods.
C.H. Gordon, JBL 54 (1935), 134-41, contends that support for the interpreta
tion of household gods can be found in the Nuzi texts. The ilani mentioned in
them and by whom one swears, he equates with the D’itbN (teraphim) of 21:6;
22:7f. A.E. Draffkom, JBL 76 (1957), 216-24, distinguishes between ilani as
household gods (cf. 21:6) (pp. 219ff.) and ilani as gods of the community;
presumably the latter are referred to in 22:7f. (pp. 217ff.).65 Also the view that
D’nbKH is a description of the sanctuary has been defended on the basis of
extra-biblical texts. From CE §§36, 37 (cf. ANET, 163; TUAT, I, 36f.), F.C.
Fensham, JBL 78 (1959), 160-1, and O. Loretz, Bib 41 (1960), 167-75, have
concluded that the acts described in 21:6 and 22:7 happened at the door of the
sanctuary (cf. Jer. 26:10).66
Sometimes a distinction is made between the original meaning of the
expression and the way in which it was understood in Israel. So Cassuto holds
that ‘taking to God’ is a stereotype expression for taking to the court of justice
(where originally images of idols stood). Hyatt believes that the Canaanites
originally thought of the household gods or the deities of the local sanctuary
but that in Israel D’nbKn was related to yhwh. Also others suggest an original
polytheistic meaning, which presumably faded after incorporation of the
passage into the Sinaitic promulgation of the will of YHWH.67
2.4.7 To arrive at an informed standpoint, first the other components of the
ritual should be looked at. The owner has to take the slave to the door or door
post. The question arises, to which door? The city gate where the judges sat
(Ibn Ezra) is not an option. If one goes for the meaning ‘to God’ = ‘in the
sanctuary’ one can think of the door of the sanctuary (e.g. Te Stroete, Fen
sham, Childs), but also of the door of the house of the master (e.g. Bohl,
Heinisch). In the latter case one must assume that the ritual was in part
performed at the sanctuary and, after leaving the place, continued at the house.
65 Cf. for the Nuzi-texts also Rouillard, Tropper, 35Iff.; Van der Toom, 219f.; Loretz, UF 24
(1992), 133-78.
66 Later Loretz refined (see UF 24 [1992], 158f.), and modified his standpoint; see “Das
‘Ahnen- und GOtterstatuen-Verbot’ im Dekalog und die Einzigkeit Jahwes,” in W. Dietrich, M.A.
Klopfenstein (eds.), Ein Gott allein? JHWH-Verehrung und biblischer Monotheismus im Kontext
der israelitischen und altorientalischen Religionsgeschichte, Freiburg/GOttingen 1994, 491-527
(pp. 501fE, 505: Q'nbN are ‘Ahnenbilder’).
" See e.g. Te Stroete on 22:8; H.W. Jangling, Der Tod der Gdtter, Stuttgart
Paul, 50f.
Volume III1
Which location is the most apt? To answer that question, a closer look at what
was to be done by the door is necessary
An awl is to be thrust by the master through the ear of the slave. To attach a
slave mark to the ear of the slave? (e.g. Hyatt). The custom of marking slaves
is familiar from Israel’s ‘Umwelt,’68 not from the OT. Or only to mark him
with a sign of serfdom? (e.g. Dillmann, Cassuto). Such marks are useful for
slaves who are inclined to run away. Not for a slave who has expressed the
desire to stay. In any case, on this view the door could be the one at the
sanctuary or of the house. These interpretations leave unclear why the act is to
be carried out by the door. Because its wood makes a good base for piercing
the ear (Cassuto)? That kind of interpretation is rather prosaic. Or is the intent
of the piercing not so much to physically mark the slave as slave, but espe
cially symbolic? Does it symbolically mark his serfdom? (e.g. B6hl, Heinisch).
In that case it stands to reason that it would have been done by the house of
the master. After all, the man is indentured to the house, not to the temple.
The ear is pierced on the door or the doorpost. So it is symbolically ex
pressed that from now on the slave with his ear, his willingness to listen and
obey, is bound to the house of the master. So the wish of the slave (21:5) is
fulfilled. He is bound to the house, to the master as head of the house. If the
master dies, the bond remains. The piercing of the ear as symbolic act only
makes sense it is done at the house. Should what happened perhaps be pictured
as follows: in the sanctuary the agreement between master and slave is ratified
before God, after which the slave’s serfdom is once more, symbolically,
expressed at the house? This way of looking at it leaves unclear why the ritual
is to be carried out at the house by the door. If DTibKH is taken to mean
‘household god(s),’ placing the ritual by the door of the house makes sense: the
door is the place where the household deity(ies) is/are. In short, it is most
likely that the entire ritual was performed at the house in the presence of the
household god(s).69 The second clause with ID’jm contains an explanation of
the first.
Performance of the ritual in the presence of the household gods (or god) by
the door means that they are witnesses of the bond effected between the slave
and the house of the master. They are expected to keep a watchful eye on the
observance of the agreement. This has in particular consequences for the
master of the house. He is bound by the contract for the life of the slave, also
when the slave has become old and lost his economic value. If the slave
“ Cf. B.A. Brooks, “The Babylonian Practice of Marking Slaves,” JAOS 42 (1922), 80-90;
Mendelsohn, 42ff.; idem, IDB, IV, 385; Caidellini, 48ff„ 78, 86f., 101, 116 etc.; A. Viberg,
Symbols o f Law, Stockholm 1992, 77ff.
69 Van der Toom, CBQ 52 (1990), 209f., locates the in the "inn, the inner chamber of
the house.
Volume III1
EXODUS 21:1-11 119
reneges on his word and runs away, he moves outside the domain of the
household god(s). If the master breaks the agreement, then, every time he
enters or leaves his house, the domain of the household god(s), he is being
reminded of his wrongful conduct, while his house which used to be protected
space turns into a danger zone (on the door as boundary see \fol. II, 176).
2.4.8 Thusfar we left open the question whether OYibNn refers to one or
more household deities. Is an informed choice possible? In 22:7f. □,n‘?Nn is
used similarly as in 21:6, in 22:8 as subject of a verbal plural. In several
passages in the OT OYtbK occurs as subject of a plural verbal form and one
might consider taking DMbtt there as singular (Gen. 20:13; 31:53; 35:7; Exod.
32:4, 8; 1 Sam. 4:8; 2 Sam. 7:23). That could be an argument for understand
ing the term in 21:6; 22:7f. as designating one deity. The interpretation of these
passages is often problematic however.70 One gets the impression that in these
passages OYibN is no more than a vague and general term for the divine, and
in any case no concrete designation of YHWH or a specific deity. So most likely
OVtbKn is to be taken as ‘deities.’ The interpretation ‘deity’ cannot be ruled
out, however. It is defended, e.g. by Davenport (5.2.2.1), 57ff.
Is it possible to form a concrete mental picture of D’flbNn? D’nbK can
indicate a singular image or statue but also a plurality (e.g. 20:23; 32:31; cf.
TWAT, I, 301). That would also seem to be the case in 21:6; 22:7f. Is it
possible to be even more specific? We already noted that O’nbNfi has been
equated with the teraphim (see 2.4.6). These were thought to be images of
household gods, the lares and penates, and also more specifically images of
ancestors, the manes.71 Identification of the D’Bin with figures of deified
ancestors is emphatically argued by Rouillard, Tropper, 356f.; \hn der Toom,
211, 215, 222. Taking □’Bin as pointing to the same as DTibKn is not impos
sible. In this connection it can be noted that the O’Bin are mentioned in
connection with the request for an oracle (Ezek. 21:26; Zech. 10:2; cf. also
Judg. 18:5; Hos. 4:12). In 22:8 a verdict is expected of O’nbKfi. D’nbK is used
in a few places as designation of D’Bin (cf. Gen. 31:30 beside 31:19, 34f., and
Judg. 18:24 beside 17:5; 18:14, 17, 20). Is the identification plausible?
D’B ^ (Gen. 31:19, 34f.; Judg. 17:5; 18:14ff.; 1 Sam. 15:23; 19:13,16;
2 Kgs. 23:24; Ezek. 21:26; Hos. 3:4; Zech. 10:2) is a much discussed term. A
70 Cf. also R. Rendtorff TAW 106 (1994), 14-21.

71 See e.g. ERE, I, 445, 449; E Schwally, Das Leben nach dem lode, GieBen 1892, 35ff;
W.O.E. Oesterly, T.H. Robinson, Hebrew Religion, London 19372, 100f.; R. Blinker, The
Influence o f the Sanctuaries in Early Israel, Manchester 1946, 62ff; it is assumed there is a
connection between and Q’B i n .
Volume III1
detailed discussion cannot be attempted here. I touch only on a point or two.72

Is D’B in only a plural as to form, but as to meaning a singular? (cf. Ges-K
§24b, 145i; Joiion §136d and also A. Jirku, Bib 34 [1953], 80). In 1 Sam.
19:13, 16 □'Bin almost certainly designates one object, apparently an image of
a human figure or a bust.73 Though in view of the situation in 1 Sam. 19 the
possibility of a theriomorph image cannot be entirely ruled out (according to
Judg. 18:29ff. the image of Judg. 17-18 is set up at Dan, which at least later on
was the center of the worship of the golden calves; see 1 Kgs. 12:28f.). Also in
Gen. 31 the reference may be to an image. Rachel’s palanquin, portable chair
(Gen. 31:34), certainly offered possibilities for hiding a sizable image. The
O’B in in Gen. 31, however, is often regarded as a genuine plural. A few times
O’B'in is used together with "liB# (see 4.12.2) (Judg. 17-18; Hos. 3:4). Also in
those instances, besides other views, the interpretation ‘images’ (used for
divination) is defended (see e.g. Th.C. Foote, JBL 21 [1902], 27ff.; \hn der
Toom, 213).
2.4.9 In view of 21:6; 22:7f. it is worthy of note that E. Sellin, JPOS 14
(1934), 185-93, believes that D’B-in is a term of ridicule, used by the oppo
nents of idolatry. Also others are of that view. So the term has been associated
with *ph, ‘obscenity,’ and nan, ‘be weak’ (cf. I. Low, MGWJ 73 [1929], 314,
488, and A. Lods, ERE, VII, 1416). Lod’s believes that O’B in can be used to
refer to various kinds of offensive objects. Sellin, however, holds that an
original OYtbK, denoting an image of YHWH, from the time of Hosea and Isaiah
was replaced by the term of ridicule. Presumably in some passages, including
21:6; 22:7f., DVtbN was maintained, because the term was no longer interpreted
as ‘image.’74
The question whether Sellin’s interpretation is plausible I leave alone. To me
it seems doubtful that a YHWH image lies back of O’Bin. More likely is that
D’B in stands for lesser deities who could be called on to mediate between man
and God (cf. Konig*, GAR, 257). But the point in connection with Sellin’s
thesis is the question whether D’n b x n in 22:6; 22:7f. might refer to YHWH,
represented by an image. Judg. 17:3 ff. talks about the fabrication of a YHWH
image for a private shrine, which was also used by others than the owner
(Judg. 18:5f.). The inventory and its priest were ‘taken over’ to be used in a
tribal shrine (Judg. 18:14ff.; see esp. w. 19f., 30). The situation in Exod. 21;
12 See further THAT, II, 1057ff.; Schroer**, 136ff.; and the sub 2.2.1 cited articles of
Rouillard, Tropper and Van der Toom; in connection with household gods see also C. Epstein,
Qadmoniot 13 (1980), 10f.; P. Pack, S. Yeivin, C. Epstein, Qadmoniot 14 (1981), 129f.;
J. Huehnegard, CBQ 47 (1985), 428ff.
73 Otherwise W.E. Barnes, JThSt 30 (1928-29), 177-9, D’B in always stand for images, also in
1 Sam. 19; cf. also S. Smith, JThS 33 (1931-32), 33-6; P.R. Ackroyd, ET 62 (1950-51), 378-80.
74 Later Sellin modified his view on D’B-in; see ZAW 55 (1937), 296, 298.
Volume III1
EXODUS 21:1-11 121
22 is not identical to that of Judg. 17-18. Thus it would seem that in Exod. 21;
22 the reference is not to the national God YHWH, but to the household god(s).
Does the broader context support my viewpoint? The stipulations are part of
the promulgation of the will of YHWH, who, according to 20:3, 23, demands
exclusive devotion of his devotees. It would seem that Exod. 21:6; 22:7f. are to
be regarded as rudiments of folk religion, more specifically of family worship,
which are preserved in the documents of Israel’s official worship. Possibly
Israel’s worship was layered, with the folk religion being a substrate of Israel’s
worship, which in the eyes of its practioners did not conflict with the worship
of YHWH as Israel’s God.75 Recall in this connection that in Roman Catholicism
the veneration of saints is not thought of as diminishing God’s position, and
that veneration of saints also happens in the strictly monotheistic Islam (cf.
TRE, XIV, 64Iff.).
Exod. 21:6 and 22:7f. contain rudiments of folk religion. They were passed
on because in the strictly monotheistic redaction of the Pentateuch O’nbKfi
apparently was no longer interpreted as ‘gods’ but as ‘judges.’
2.4.10 Deut. 15:12-17 contains a reinterpretation of Exod. 21:2-11. I will not
go into an extensive comparison but restrict myself to a description of the most
saliant differences.
(1) Deut. 15 requires equal treatment of a man or woman who were sold into
slavery on account of debt (15:12, 17). That explains why Deut. 15 does not
have a counterpart of Exod. 21:3, 4, 7-11. But questions do arise in connection
with Deut. 15. The passage only talks about Israelite slaves, not foreign slaves-
for-life and children bom from them, so that the question what to do if an
Israelite marries a female slave-for-life is not dealt with. Furthermore, also the
fact that the female slave of 21:7-11 is a concubine plays no role. Evidently,
the master-female slave relationship is regarded as being only a kind of
business contract (see on that e.g. 21:4, 26f.; the female slave mentioned there
is not a concubine), so that the leaving after six years does not imply a divorce.
That a man would buy himself a concubine is apparently considered inappro
priate (cf. Deut. 21:10-14).
(2) Het sacral ritual of Exod. 21:6 is desacralized in Deuteronomy and turned
into a purely secular symbolic act (15:16,17). DTibKH is absent, there is no
place for the household god(s) in Deuteronomy, with its emphasis on the
Cf. R. Albertz, Persdnliche Frommigkeit und offizielle Religion, Stuttgart 1978; idem,
Religionsgeschichte Israels in alttestamentlicher Zeit, I, Gottingen 1992, 143fF.; J. Conrad,
“Wslche Bedeutung hatte die Familie fiir die Religion Altisraels?,” ThLZ 105 (1980), 481-8;
J B. Segal, “Popular Religion in Ancient Israel,” JJS 27 (1976), 1-22; Van der Toom (see 2.4.4),
33ff.; idem, “Ancestors and Anthroponyms: Kinship Terms as Theophoric Elements in Hebrew
Names,” ZAW 108 (1996), 1-11; idem, Family Religion in Babylonia, Syria & Israel, Leiden et al.
1996, 181ff. \forl3nder (Ini. §7.2.2), 169ff.
Volume III1
oneness of God (6:4f.) and the requirement of a single place of worship (ch.
12). Also the njljo the doorpost, is not mentioned. It is mentioned elsewhere,
not as the place where an image is erected, but as the spot on which texts are
to be inscribed (Deut. 6 :8f.; ll:18ff.). The doorpost has been given a new
function (cf. \b l II, 175f.).
(3) Deut. 15 requires a highly humane treatment of the leaving male and
female slave. According to Exod. 21 no payment may be asked of the depart
ing slave (v. 2; cf. v. 11). Deut. 15, recalling Israel’s stay in Egypt, demands a
generous and royal treatment of the male and female slave who leaves. When
they bid good-bye they are to be loaded with presents.
How the countryman sold into slavery due to debt is to be treated is also
dealt with in Lev. 25:39-46, which offers its own view on the subject. Like in
Deut. 15:12, Lev. 25:39 speaks differently about the kinsman to whom this
happened than does Exod. 21:2: he is not the object of a transaction, but a
subject, he sells himself (cf. Japhet, 70ff.). According to Lev. 25 the country
man - the woman is not explicitly mentioned - may not be treated as one
would a regular slave (25:39f., 42); an Israelite may only own and use non-
Israelites as slaves (25:44-46). Like Deut. 15, Lev. 25 demands a humane
treatment, for example, in the reminder of the time Israel spent in Egypt
(25:42f., 46). According to Lev. 25, in the year of jubilee the enslaved person
and his family are entitled to freedom (25:40f.). Consequently, the maximum
length of his debt slavery is fifty years. The desire of the slave to remain with
his master is not brought up. The matter is not relevant, because in the year of
jubilee also the ancestral property is returned to the freed slave.
2.4.11 The picture in Exod. 21 is fairly realistic, that in Deut. 15 and Lev. 25
idealistic. As Exod. 21 cannot be harmonized with Deut. 15, so Deut. 15
cannot be harmonized with Lev. 25. Proposals to smooth out the differences
are unsatisfactory. Here are some examples. Because Lev. 25 forbids the
Israelite to purchase a countryman as slave, ’*159 "133 in Exod. 21:2 has been
interpreted not as ‘any Israelite slave,’ but as an Israelite who committed theft
and was sentenced to be sold (cf. 22:2); so e.g. TPsJ on 21:2; M e t, III, 3;
Rashi. The wife of the offender is in TPsJ 21:3 emphatically identified as an
Israelite. She is to be distinguished from the woman in 21:4. That woman is
regarded as a non-Israelite and therefore not entitled to freedom (Lev.
25:44-46) (cf. Mech, III, 9f.; Rashi). Harmonization can also be detected in
21:7 LXX. not* is translated as oiKctu;, D'H3i?n as ai 6ouA,ai, ‘the female
slaves’ (cf. also Vulg.); by using different terms, a distinction is made between
the Israelite female slave, the oiiceTn;, and the non-Israelite slaves (cf. Fran-
kel*, 91). The underlying idea is that the former, unlike the latter, may not be
treated like a true slave (cf. Lev. 25). The problem is that 21:7 talks about true
slaves who leave. That seems contradictory. According to M e t, III, 23, the
conclusion of 21:7 concerns a special situation: the non-Israelite slaves were
Volume III1
EXODUS 21:1-11 123
mistreated and therefore are entitled to freedom (cf. 21:26, 27). Also TPsJ has
this interpretation and provides additional information about the Israelite female
slave: she must be a young girl (under twelve years of age); she may not
depart like the Canaanite slaves (it is assumed that kinspeople are not to be
mistreated), but she may go in the sabbatical year, at the onset of puberty, in
the year of jubilee, at the death of the master, and on payment of money (cf.
21:8) (cf. M ek, Ill, 18ff., 30f.; Rashi; entirely different Nachmanides).
Finally, I cite a suggestion of more recent date: 21:7 refers to a woman who
is intended not only for work (and therefore not set free after six years), but
who is also concubine (and therefore must stay for good) (see e.g. Keil,
Gispen, but also already Nachmanides).
It is argued that Lev. 25 offers a supplement to Exod. 21 and Deut. 5: also
the slave with the pierced ear regains freedom in the year of jubilee (so already
Josephus, AJ, IV, 273 and e.g. TPsJ on 21:6; Mek., Ill, 17; Rashi).76
2.4.12 Outside the Pentateuch, emancipation of debt slaves is twice men
tioned. Implicitly in Neh. 5. From 5:10-13 it may be inferred that at Nehe-
miah’s instigation Jewish debt slaves were immediately given their freedom
(Neh. 5:5, 8). No reference is made to Pentateuchal stipulations. Deut. 15 is
explicitly cited in Jer. 34:14. Jer. 34:8-11, 14-16 talks about a collective release
of both Hebrew men and women (34:9) from debt slavery.77 The simultaneous
ness of the release is striking. It is commonly thought that in Exod. 21 and
Deut. 15 it is assumed that the release from debt or slavery happened on an
individual basis, six years after one was enslaved, and that there is no connec
tion between release and the seven-year cycle of the sabbatical year (see
23:10f.). Otherwise, it is argued, the stipulation could easily result in abuse:
self-sale into slavery just before the sabbatical year would be an easy way out
of debt; who would want to buy such a slave anyway? (e.g. Heinisch on 21:2).
A stronger argument is that Deut. 15:18 explicitly speaks of serving for six
years. That might mean that the connection with Deut. 15 in Jer. 34 is second
ary, and that Zedekiah’s initiative to release the slaves (Jer. 34:1) was not
prompted by the desire to carry out the Torah of Moses. However, it is not
impossible that according to the redaction of Deuteronomy the release of slaves
had to take place in the sabbatical year (cf. Lev. 25:40: collective release and
year of jubilee). After all, Deut. 15:12-18 follows immediately upon the law
about the sabbatical year. So the possibility exists that there is a connection
between canceling debts and being set free (cf. Deut. 31:1 Of. and see Phillips,
57ff.). If that should be the case, it is aiguable that Deut. 15 is the background
K On the relation Exod. 21/Deut. 15/Lev. 25 see e.g. the sub 2.4.1 cited works of Chirichigno
(pp. 354ff.), Japhet, Kaufman, Wfeingreen.
77 Cf. S. Chavel, “'Let My People Go!’ Emancipation, Revelation, and Scribal Activity in
Jeremiah 34.8-14,” JSOT 76 (1997), 71-95.
Volume III1
of Zedekia’s initiative (Sarna, 146ff.; cf. Cardellini, 312ff.). In Exod. 21,

however, there is no association between the release of the slaves and the
sabbatical year. The release is on an individual basis (cf. Lemche, VT 26
[1976], 45; idem, BN 25 [1984], 70).
For that matter, it is not impossible that the reference to Deut. 15 in Jer. 34
is secondary (cf. Lemche, VT 26 [1976], 5Iff.). At issue is the question
concerning the nature of the stipulations. Are they ‘official laws?’ (on the
question see 2.2.16-18). If not, the fact that the historical and prophetic books
contain no allusions to the stipulations cannot be used for drawing conclusions
about their time of origin.78
2.4.13 Also CH knows of the need for drastic measures to pay debts
(§§117-119) (cf. Cardellini, 78ff.). §117 cites the case of an debtor free citizen
who, instead of paying with his own personal labour, surrenders his wife, son
or daughter for money (ana kaspim) or, by turns, gives them for servitude {ana
kissatim) to the creditor to use their labour in repayment for what he is owed;
it is stipulated that after three years of service, they are to be set free in the
fourth year. §§118, 119 are about the servitude of male and female slave and
the sale of a concubine by a free citizen in case of debts.
The stipulations place us in Mesopotamian society, in which individuals were
handed over to creditors, for rendering personal service for mazzazanum,
servitude to pay for interest and repaying debt, and for kissatim, servitude to
pay off debt, and in which individuals were sold for money. Ammisudaqa (ca.
1650 v. Chr) prides himself on his freeing of debtors and their wives and
children who were in that situation (Edict §20). But slaves, male and female,
who were in similar circumstances he denies the right to freedom (§21).79 It
seems that in the sale of humans third parties were involved who earned their
living from handling debt cases. They paid the creditors and exploited the
debtor-slaves. Apparently CH §§117-119 is directed against their practices.
Buying back a person was possible, at least theoretically (cf. CH §119 in the
case of the concubine). See further Stol, 1Iff.
Sale of a daughter as a concubine of the buyer and as the maidslave of his
wife is known from Mesopotamia (cf. Stol, 15). According to LI §§25, 26; CH
§§170, 171, the difference in status between wife and concubine can have
consequences for the question whether and to what extent the sons of each are
entitled to the inheritance of the father. In any case, the sons of the female
slave may not be forced into servitude by the sons of the wife (cf. Cardellini,
7* As is done e.g. by M. David, “The Manumission of Slaves under Zedekiah,” OTS 5 (1948),
63-79 (cf. also Cardellini, 357ff.).
79 Cf. F.R. Kraus, Ein Edikt des Konigs Ammi-saduqa von Babylon, Leiden 1958, and see
further J.P.Olivier, “Restitution as Economic Redress: The Fine Print o f the Old Babylonian
metarum-Edict of Ammisaduqa,” ZABR 3 (1977), 12-25.
Volume III1
EXODUS 21:1-11 125
88f.).
In connection with 21:7-11, by way of comparison, attention has been drawn
to a type of contract used in Nuzi, called tuppi martuti u kallatuti, which shows
that a father possessed the right to sell his daughter for money to have her
adopted. The adoptive father could marry the girl himself, but also give her to
whomever he wanted. That could be his natural son or an adopted son, but also
a slave. If she was given to a slave, the contract specifies that for the duration
of her life she belongs to the household of her adoptive father. It is thus not a
true parallel.80 Other regulations are taken up in the exegesis.
21:1, 2 nbto (cf. 1:1), Sam.Pent.: nbN, cf. Vulg. bsbJb , see 2:14 ‘set before,’
see Introd. §§3.42.2 and 3.48.
nip, see 12:44. naa, see Introd. §8.25; TO, TPsJ: ‘Israelite;’ Pesh.: ‘Judean’
(cf. Jer. 34:9). ‘six,’ see Introd. §4.7.1. njtf, see 6:16. nair, Sam.Pent.: ■paa1';
cf. LXX, Vulg., Pesh. ‘seventh’ (Introd. § 4.8.2), scil. ‘yeai;’ so explicitly
LXX, TNf. K3\ in LXX^ F and TNf the master is subject: ‘you must send him
away.’
’tfBnb, for b see K6Synt §332m; Brockelmann §107iy; Williams §278;
(OT 17*) is a much discussed term; see TWAT, III, 123ff. (Bibl.);
N.P. Lemche, BN 25 (1984), 72ff.; M. G6rg, BN 45 (1988), 52f.; O. Loretz,
UF 9 (1977), 163-7. Whether ’tfsn originally designated a person of a lower
social class and whether this meaning is still present in Exod. 21 is a point of
discussion; the supposed meaning cannot be derived from the OT; in 21:2 and
also in 21:5, 26, 27, ’tfsn stands in contrast to ‘being slave’ and means ‘one
who has been freed.’ Ban, see 3:21.
21:3 isia (Sam.Pent.: l’SJa), of *)!* (only in Exod. 21:3, 4), an obscure term,
often interpreted as ‘body’ (Dhorme*, 7; see already Mek., Ill, 17; Ibn Ezra),
occurs only in the phrase ‘with only his body,’ that is, ‘without possessions.’
In 21:3b only that item of possession is spelled out, on which there can be na
conflict when a slave leaves. So 1BJ3 means here ‘alone’ (cf. taigums, LXX,
Pesh.); Vulg.: cum quali veste (21:3), cum vestitu sua (21:4), ‘with the (his)
garment’ (cf. Rashi).
bffa (OT 244*) is particularly familiar as name of a deity (OT 76*).81 In that
sense the term is not used in Exodus, except in the place name Baal-Zephon
(Introd. §8.5). In Exodus bpa is further used as a noun designating a human
being (14*; OT 84*), both in sing. (6 *) and plur. ( 8* as plural of intensity or
80 Cf. Paul, 52f.; B.L. Eichler, “Nuzi and the Bible: A Retrospective,” in H. Behrens et al.
(eds.), DUMU-Ee-DUB-BA-A (Fs A.W. Sjdberg), Philadelphia 1989, 107-19 (116ff).
“ See further THAT, I, 327ff; TWAT, I, 706ff M.J. Mulder, Ba'al in het Chide Testament,
’s-Gravenhage 1962, lOff.
Volume III1
majesty to indicate one individual, e.g. KdSynt §263k), to indicate the ‘owner,’
of things and animals (21:28, 34; 22:7 in sing.; 21:29[2*], 34, 36; 22:10, 11,
13, 14 in plur.), and the owner of a woman, ‘the husband’ (21:3, 22; cf. e.g.
Deut. 24:4). Mulder, 13, concludes from a survey of the ‘profane’ use of
that in the OT ‘it indicates a subject-object relation, which expresses the
dominant position of the subject over the object as well as the (intimate)
relation between both.’ So it can also be used for other relations than those
mentioned (cf. KdSynt §306g); e.g. for an individual’s involvement in some
matter; thus in Exod. 24:14 n n } ? indicates a man who has a dispute (cf.
HAL, 137). ntiK, see Introd. §3.2.3. LXX (cf. Frankel*, 74): ‘if his wife has
come with him.’ OK, LXX, Pesh.: OKI, also in 21:4; cf. 21:10 in Sam.Pent.,
LXX, Pesh., Vulg.
21:4 LXX: ‘the master.’ jro, see Introd. §3.36. see 1:15; second ib is
somewhat ambiguous: to her husband or to her master? cf. R. Nogah, BetM 32
(1986-87), 350-4. ‘sons or daughters,’ see Introd. §3.10.1. ‘her children,’ LXX:
‘the children.’ b rrnn (Introd. §3.13.2), sing., subject is especially the wife
(KdSynt §§263i, 349t; Ges-K §146e; Joiion §150p; R. Ratner, ZAW 102
[1990], 242, 246). Sam.Pent: ‘his master,’ cf. LXX, Pesh.
The female slave is apparently a maid slave (cf. 21:26f.), not a concubine
(cf. 21:7-11). Is she a woman of foreign extraction? CE §§34, 35, describe the
palace’s proprietary rights with respect to a son or daughter of a female palace
slave; cf. Yaron (see 2.2. 1), 65, 165ff.; Otto, Rechtsgeschichte {see 2.2.1), 5If.
CH §§175, 176 includes a discussion of the status of sons from a ‘mixed’
marriage of a daughter of a free citizen with a slave of the palace or a
muskenum (a private person); in that case the owner may not lay claim to the
sons (cf. Cardellini, 63f.).
21:5, 6 ‘declare emphatically’ see Introd. §3.5.1 (cf. Ges-K §113o; Joiion
§123g). 'narm (see 20:6), cf. Waltke-O’Connor, p. 489. For partial asyndeton
see Brockelmann §128.
till hiph., see 19:15. What is the relationship between the two clauses
introduced by ittf’jni? LXX: koci to te, ‘and then,’ seems to imply that the next
act does not happen at the court but at the house (cf. Mek., Ill, 14). While the
view that the activity happens at two places is encountered more often, other
views are advocated as well. Is the second clause a variant (Noth) or an
explanatory addition (Beer)? Did the first regulation later get augmented by a
second (cf. Deut. 15:17) (Brongers, 321f.; Schwienhorst-Schonberger, 208) or
is the first regulation of later date? Meyer*, IN, 475 n. 2, holds the latter view:
later on it was no longer considered appropriate that the ritual happened at the
house and by expansion of the text got transferred to the temple. I take the
second clause (with explicative waw) as being a clarification with the first. It is
Volume III1
EXODUS 21:1-11 127
clear that the master is also the subject of the second iB’jni; differently
Konig*, GAR, 244: impersonal ‘one.’
OVtbKiTbK, for artikel see Ges-K §126r; Jotion §137w (cf. O’B in n in 1 Sam.
19:13); LXX: itpo<; t6 Kpirrjpiov tou 0eoO; TO: X’TH m p b ; cf. TPsJ, TNf,
Pesj.; PTA: K r n v a m n b , ‘to the gate of the court’ (see beside it Aq., Symm.:
npdq, tou<; ©eou;; cf. Vulg.); the judges have to give their approval (so
explicitly TPsJ); for the interpretation ‘judges’ see also e.g. Mek., Ill, 14;
Ibn Ezra; Rashi. Nachmanides posits that ‘God’ is used because he is with the
judges when they render the verdict.
n ‘?’7 (OT ca. 85*), ‘door’ (Gen. 19:6, 9, 10; 2 Sam. 13:17 etc.), only here in
Exodus (cf. AuS, VII, 68ff.; BRL, 348f.). IK, not translated in LXX; Vulg.: et;
TO: m b’!, ‘that is to’ (cf. TPsJ); cf. Mek., Ill, 14f., and see Prijs**, 9. rttlTB,
see 12:7. » :n (only here in OT), ‘pierce,’ with as derivative ‘awl’
(Exod. 21:6; Deut. 15:17); cf. AuS, V, 197, 286; Krauss**, I, 177; II, 314; III,
155; for the article used here see e.g. Ges-K §126r; Jotion §137m. ]TK (see
10:2), the lobe of the ear, presumably of the right ear (cf. Lev. 8:23f.; 14:14,
17); so explicitly TPsJ. n a jti, TO, TPsJ: rtba rrb v pi , ‘and he shall be to
him a work slave’ (cf. TNf). ob»b (see 3:15), TPsJ: Kbsm *l» (see 2.4.11).
21:7 1315’ imperf. qal of n30 (OT ca. 80*; 21:7, 8,1 6, 35, 37; 22:l[niph.]),
usually interpreted as ‘selling’ (e.g. THAT, II, 653). E. Lipinski, TWAT, IV,
869ff., stresses that n3D often means ‘to transfer.’ It is not impossible that
sometimes "I3B has that meaning. Thus in 21:7 the reference could be to a
debtor who pays his debt by giving his daughter to the creditor. ETK (Introd.
§3.2.2), cf. KCSynt §341n. ‘daughter,’ see Introd. § 3.10.1. ‘handmaid,’ see
Introd. §3.37.3; it is assumed that the woman in question is given as a concu
bine (cf. e.g. Gen. 20:17; 21:10, 12, 13; 30:3; 31:33). Instead of having to give
a dowry to his daughter, the person in question now is getting money for her!
nKS3 etc., in the translation I have not repeated ‘leaving’ to avoid giving the
impression that the female slave may leave in another way than the slaves.
The rule of 21:2 only pertains to Israelite men, not to women. 21:7 contains
the general rule: the woman is concubine for life. In 21:8-10 three special
situations are presented and it is stated how each case is to be dealt with. The
failure to follow the regulations entitles the woman to freedom (21: 11).
21:8 rrin (Pesh.: sn y’, ‘aversion,’ ‘dislike’), see 5:19; in Sam.Pent. followed
by KYt, explicit mention of the subject, ‘in the judgment of,’ see Introd. §3.38.
Kb (Introd. §2.2), cf. K8Synt §352b.
(Sam.Pent.: m e n ), imperf. qal + suffix of "IIT (OT 29*), ‘to desig
nate’ (21:8f.), sc. as concubine; in hiph. (25:22; 29:42f.; 30:6, 36), ‘to meet;’
cf. THAT, I, 742ff.; TWAT, III, 697ff.; the interpretation of m i ' Kb~itfK is
Volume III1
disputed.82 In any case, what is meant is that the master, because the woman is
unsatisfactory as a lover - does not bear him children or displeases him (cf.
2 Sam. 13:14f.)? - wants to end the relationship.
The status and value of the woman depends on her becoming a mother. CH
§147 allows the master (in case of a naditum-mamage, a marriage to a
prominent priestess) to sell a female slave who does not bear children. In HL
§30 a man is permitted not to go through with a marriage to a (free) girl if he
has not had intercourse with her. In that case he forfeits the dowry that has
already been paid (cf. also CH §159). HL §§31, 32, 32a, 33, ‘33’ refer to
relationships of a free man and a female slave, of a slave and a free woman,
and of a male and female slave. Rules regulating property rights and custody of
children in case of a divorce are set forth.
m s hiph. (cf. Ges-K §75ee), see 13:13. Vulg.: dimittet earn, ‘he must send
her away;’ TPsJ: ‘her father shall redeem her’ (cf. M e t, III, 24). The assumed
subject is no doubt the father or another member of the family. She returns to
the family or becomes the property of a man of her clan, n 3 J Ollb (Introd.
§3.40.2 en 2:22), TO, TPsJ: pniK nsab, ‘to another man;’ TNf:
p o au na l 3 Jb, ‘to a pagan,’ a non-Jew (cf. M e t, III, 25); Rashi (disputed by
Nachmanides): ‘another Israelite;’ the contrast with the foregoing suggests the
meaning: to persons not belonging to her family/clan. It is not impossible,
though, that die editors of the Pentateuch read n a a OP as ‘a foreign people’
(cf. Deut. 15:3; 17:15; 23:21 and see Deut. 7:3). Is there a contrast between
‘foreign’ and ‘Hebrew’ (cf. 21:2)? In that case the subject of the redemption
would be the Israelite in general (cf. Phillips, 59f.). For the selling or giving in
pledge of persons in a foreign country see MA C+G §3.
b&O?, imperf. qal of bltfa (OT ca. 80x), ‘to rule;’ here (+ b) ‘to have the
right to’ (see THAT, I, 930ff., TWAT, V, 69ff.). Who is subject? The father
after he has redeemed his daughter? (Nachmanides; cf. Rashi and also Ehrlich
[based on an altered text]). The context points to the master. inj 53 (cf. Ges-K
§6 lb; Jotion §65b), inf. cstr. + praefix and suffix of 1 J3 (OT ca. 50*), ‘deal
unfairly with’ (+ a; cf. Brockelmann §106h); the issue here is not the attitude
(that he has had enough of the woman; cf. Vulg: si spreverit earn, ‘if he
despises her’), but the matter of justice (the conduct violates the legal rights of
the woman); see THAT, I, 26Iff.; TWAT, I, 507ff. For different rabbinic
interpretations see M e t, III, 25f.
,2 For the ancient versions see Frankel*, 92; Cazelles (see 2.2.1), 48, and for the discussion M.
GOrg, TWAT, III, 699f.; D. Kellermann, BZ 24 (1980), 57-75; R. Althan, JNSL 11 (1983), 21f.;
Schenker, 548ff.; Cazelles argues for the translation: ‘so that he does not many her.’ NEB: ‘If her
master has not intercourse with her’ (that is, if she is still a virgin) rests on the reading n^}’; cf.
already K. Budde, ZAW 11 (1891), 102f., and see also W. Robertson Smith, ZAW 12 (1892), 162:
‘after he has had interccourse with her’ (he omits N*?).
Volume III1
EXODUS 21:1-11 129
21:9-11 21:9 envisages the situation of a family head purchasing a concubine

for his son; 21:9 is not about a woman he initially wanted for himself but who
then became his son’s concubine (so Rashi, Holzinger, Baentsch). That would
be offensive. Left unsaid is what being treated as a daughter precisely involves.
Does 21:7, 8 say something about it? May he, if need be, sell her to another
Israelite, with the possibility that later he has to buy her back? Or is a more
privileged position in view? Is she to be regarded as one of his daughters, a
free woman? Does he have to give her a dowry? (see TzUR). But who is the
subject of nfMP? The son? So Nachmanides, who believes that it is the right of
the daughters that is described in 21:10. The most natural interpretation is that
also here the master is to be regarded as the subject.
m iff 1'1 (Sam.Pent.: naiJT), ‘designates her,’ viz. as concubine, cf. TPsJ:
n n a T S 1?, ‘for the bed of his son;’ Vulg.: despondent earn, ‘he betrothes her
to.’ BSttfO, see 2:14. TO, TPsJ: ‘daughters o f Israel’ (cf. Mek., Ill, 27); Symm.:
twv veaviStbv, ‘of the young women,’ the evident meaning is that she receive
a better treatment than what is prescribed for daughters (cf. 21:7). nfrtf, see
Introd. §3.41.1.
m n n (Introd. §3.1.2), TPsJ: ‘another daughter of Israel;’ a concubine or a
woman in general? (cf. Ibn Ezra), npb, see Introd. §3.30. ib, reflexive (Ges-K
§135i; Joiion § 146k); not ‘for his son’ (so e.g. Dasbeig); see already Vulg.,
which contains a variant interpretation: if the father takes another woman as a
wife for his son, he is obligated to take care of the marriage of the one rejected
and he may not withhold from her clothing and the price (money for the loss)
of her virginity.
(OT 16*), ‘flesh,’ the fleshly parts of the body (cf. Ps. 78:20, 27); here
evidently denoting food in general; cf. TWAT, VII, 93Iff.; Dhorme*, 7, 9;
Johnson"1, Vitality, 37ff.; see also D. Lys, VT 36 (1986), 163-204. Also
possible is that ‘meat’ as such is meant (cf. 1 Sam. 1:5). In any case, the rule
is that in future the woman may not be shortchanged. The suffix ‘her,’ needless
to say, refers to the first woman (Rashi). m o? (see 8:2), TPsJ: ttno’&an (cf.
FTV), TNf: nrvoan (cf. FT*), ‘ornaments,’ ‘jewels.’
nj'r (see 4:1), is a hapax legomenon, usually interpreted as ‘sexual inter
course;’ the interpretation goes back to the LXX (xai xf|v 6p.iA.iav ai)rf)t;) and
is also found in the taigums, TPsJ: TNf: nrmb npSDl nbltDl, cf. FT
and see also Mek., Ill, 27ff; in de Mek., for that matter, also m xtf is inter
preted as ‘sexual intercourse’ and nnJ» as ‘food;’ Nachmanides goes so far as
to relate all three terms to marital intercourse; such is also done by a modem
expositor. R. North, VT 5 (1955), 204-6, takes the verse to mean: ‘he shall not
curtail her physical satisfaction, her honorable standing in the harem, or her
right of parenthood’ (p. 206). The old interpretation of nil? is supported by
modem authors - be it with varying aiguments, see e.g. Ehrlich and A. Deem,
JSS 23 (1978), 28f. - but is also being questioned. S.M. Paul, 57ff. (idem,
Volume III1
JNES 28 [1969], 48-53), points out that the right to sexual intercourse is
nowhere encoded in legal texts of the ancient Near East, and on the basis of
Mesopotamian texts he concludes that it is the entitlement to oil that is pre
scribed.*3 W. van Soden, UF 13 (1981), 159f., contends that one cannot tell a
free man with whom he may associate, and he takes nj» as a derivative of p s
with the meaning ‘shelter’ (see already Rashbam and Cassuto).*4 Important to
remember is that a woman’s status was determined by motherhood and the
number of children she bore (cf. Gen. 30:1; 1 Sam. l:4ff.). In a text which also
in other ways is ‘wife-friendly,’ having the right to sexual intercourse spelled
out is not out of place.
m i, see 5:8. LI §28; CH §148 stipulate that a man, if he takes a second
(free) wife, because of illness of his first wife, he remains obligated to provide
for his first wife.
‘three,’ see Introd. §4.4.1. ptt, see 2:12. ‘money,’ see Introd. §3.28. TPsJ
contains an addition: she must be given a certificate of divorce (Deut. 24:1)
(cf. Mek., Ill, 30). ‘these three’ do not refer to the three obligations mentioned
in 21:10 (food etc.; so e.g. Dillmann, Baentsch, Te Stroete); see already Mek.,
Ill, 29f.: she must become the wife of the master or of the son or be redeemed
(cf. Rashi; Nachmanides). The reference is to the regulations of 21:8-10: in
case he insists on selling her to ‘strange people’ (21:8), if he does not treat her
like a daughter (21:9), if he shortchanges her as to clothing etc. (so explicitly
TPsJ; cf. Mek., Ill, 29f.), she is entitled to go free. There are no term restric
tions on the setting free of the woman, as is the case with a slave (21:2).
2.5 VIOLATIONS OF ANOTHER’S PHYSICAL WELL-BEING (21:12-32)
21:12-32 can in its entirety be dealt with under the rubric ‘violation of an
other’s physical well-being.’ Vtrious forms of violence, committed in a variety
of situations and to a range of individuals, are recited. The very vocabulary
points to the theme. ‘Beat’ (naj hiph. [see 2:11], see 21:12, 15, 18, 19, 26; cf.
also 22:1) and ‘gore’ (m 3, see 21:28, 29, 31[2x], 32; cf. also 21:36; *))3, see
21:22; cf. also 21:35) figure prominently in the section.
A blow or beating can easily come on too hard. So much so that the victim
is seriously wounded or sustains permanent injuries or even dies of it. Thus it
is not surprising that the terms ‘dies’ and ‘put to death’ are used with some
*3 Cf. Hos. 2:7; Eccl. 9:7f. and see already E. Oren, Tarbiz 33 (1964), 317.
M Cf. also J. Paradise, “What Did Laban Demand of Jacob? A New reading o f Genesis 31:50
and Exodus 21:10,” in M. Cogan et al. (eds.), Tehillah le-Moshe (Fs M. Greenberg), Winona Lake
1997, 91-8.
Volume III1
EXODUS 2 1 :1 2 -1 4 131
frequency in this section as an indication of what may be the consequence of

an act of violence toward a human being (21:12, 18[+ negative], 20, 28, 29; cf.
also 22:1 and see the use of n n in 21:14) and to describe the punishment for
the act of violence ( 21:12[2 x], 14, 15[2x], 16[2x], 17[2x], 29). The ultimate
purpose of the regulations is to instill respect for the physical well-being and
the life of the other.
21:12-32 can be subdivided as follows:
(1) 21:12-17: instances of violating another’s bodily well-being, for which
the offender is to be put to death.
(2) 21:18-27: cases for which the death penalty does not apply.
(3) 21:28-32: a case of violation of another’s bodily well-being by another
person’s animal.
In the current section, from 21:18 the general regulations are introduced by
(21:18, 20, 22, 26, 28 [Introd. §3.25.2]; cf. de Masoretic division: s for 21:18
etc.; p for 21:28 [some MSS: s; cf. Perrot*, 66]); the description of special
situations with 0 #()) (21:19, 21, 23, 27, 29, 30, 32 [Introd. §3.4.1]; cf. also the
use of it* in 21:31). In 21:12-17 the general regulations are introduced by a
participial clause (see 2.2.7) and concluded with the nipv nin formula (Introd.
§3.32); see 21:12, 15, 16, 17 (cf. the Masoretic division; s for 21:12, 15, 16,
17); the description of special situations by means of ")#8 l (21:13) and ’51
(21:14).
For the delineation and composition see in particular Osumi (see 2.2.1),
39ff., 47ff., 213ff.; Otto, Wandel (see 2.2.1), 24ff., 61ff.; idem, Rechtsge-
schichte (see 2.2.1), 138ff.; Schwienhorst-Schdnbeiger (see 2.2.1), 39ff., 47ff.,
213ff.
2.5.1 Manslaughter, intentional and unintentional (21:12-14)
21:12 ‘Whoever hits a person so hard that he dies shall be put to death.
13 But in case he (the killer) did not mean to take his life (that of the other)
and his hand slipped, not having him self under control, I (YHWH) appoint fo r
you a holy place. There he may seek refuge.
14 But i f someone attacks another and willfully seeks to murder him, then
(when after his deed he has sought refuge at the holy place) you shall remove
him from my altar to put him to death. '
2.5.1.1 Bibl.: LA, I, 514ff.; TRE, IV, 315ff.; A.G. Auld, “Cities of Refuge in
Israelite Tradition,” JSOT 10 (1978), 26-40; H. Bolkestein, Wohltdtigkeit und
Armenpflege im vorchristlichen Altertum, Utrecht 1939; A. Bulmerincq, Das
Asylrecht in seiner geschichtlichen Entwickelung beurtheilet vom Standpunkte
des Rechts und dessen volkerrechtliche Bedeutung fu r die Auslieferung fliichti-
ger Verbrecher, Dorpat 1853 (reprint Schaan/Liechtenstein 1983); L. Delekat,
Volume III1
Asylie und Schutzorakel am Zionheiligtum: Eine Untersuchung zu den privaten

Feindpsalmen, Leiden 1967; W. Fauth, KP, I, 670f.; M. Greenbeig, “The
Biblical Conception of Asylum,” JBL 78 (1959), 125-32; C. Houtman, Het
altaar als asielplaats: Beschouwingen over en naar aanleiding van Exodus
21:12-14, Kampen 1990 (Bibl.); M. L6hr, “Das Asylwesen im Alten Testa
ment,” in Schriften der Konigsberger Gelehrten Gesellschaft. Geisteswissen-
schaftliche Klasse 7/3 (1930), 177-217; J. Milgrom, “Sancta Contagion and
Altar/City Asylum,” SVT 32 (1981), 278-310; N.M. Nicolsky, “Das Asylrecht
in Israel,” ZAW 48 (1930), 146-75; B. van Oeveren, De vrijsteden in het Oude
Testament, Kampen 1968; A. Rofe, “The History of the Cities of Refuge in
Biblical Law,” ScrHie 31 (1986), 205-39; M. Siebold, Das Asylrecht der
romischen Kirche mit besonderer Beriicksichtigung seiner Entwicklmg a u f
germanischem Boden, Miinster i. Westf. 1930 (Universitas-Archiv 36, Histori-
sche Abteilung 4); R Timbal Duclaux de Martin, Le droit d ’asile, Paris 1939;
J. de \hulx, DBS, IX, 1480-1510; A. Vibeig, Symbols o f Law, Stockholm
1992, 120-126 (‘Grasping the horns of the altar’); P. Welten, “Asyl im Wider-
streit,” BThZ 9 (1992), 217-30; L. Wenger, RAC, I, 836-44; E. Westermarck,
ERE, II, 161-4; G. Wildeboer, “Het asylrecht in de Mozai'sche wetgeving,”
Hjdschrift voor Strafrecht 8 (1894), 197-209; H. Wiflmann, TRE, IV, 315-8; F.
von Woess, Das Asylwesen Agyptens in der Ptolemaerzeit und die spatere
Entwicklung: Eine Einfuhrung in das Rechtsleben Agyptens besonders der
Ptolemaerzeit, Mtinchen 1923.
2.5.1.2 A closer look at Exodus 21:12-14

2.5.1.2.1 The collection of regulations dealing with the violation of a fellow
human being’s bodily well-being begins with a general statement about the
most radical assault on another person’s life, manslaughter (21:12). A m an-
the described offense is typically a male crime (cf. Exod. 2:13; 21:18, 22;
Deut. 25:11; Isa. 58:4) - who delivers such a blow to another that he dies as a
result of it, deserves to die. The men in view here are free Israelites with all
the rights of free citizens (see beside it Num. 35:15). The offense described
occurs in ordinary daily life in which people freely interact with other and in a
variety of situations.85 An example would be a quarrel in which the participants
come to blows with each other - picking up a stone (cf. Exod. 21:19) or a
stick (cf. Exod. 21:20) - and in which the outcome is deadly. Such quarrels are
not uncommon, also not among friends (Zech. 13:6) - ’injn (Exod. 21:14) can
have the meaning ‘his buddy,’ ‘his companion’ (see 2:13) - , when they have
>s The regulation does not deal with violence toward parents (Exod. 21:15), violence (physical
punishment) toward slaves (Exod. 2:11; 5:14, 16; 21:20, 26), violence in self defense against an
intruder (Exod. 22:lf.) and acts of violence in war (2 Sam. 2:22ff.; 21:16f., 21; 23:20f.).
Volume III1
EXODUS 2 1 :1 2 -1 4 133
imbibed too freely (cf. Prov. 23:29ff., 35). In any case, it is assumed that there
is a scuffle in which a quarreler, in order to get the upperhand, may have
seized a stick, stone or whatever as a weapon. The rule in such cases is that the
killer, in accord with the talionic principle, must pay for his deed with his life
(cf. Gen. 9:5f.; Lev. 24:17, 21 and see at 21:23-25).
2.5.1.2.2 The general statement is followed by further stipulations.*6 It is
recognized that not all cases of manslaughter are alike. A distinction is made
between premeditated and accidental manslaughter murder and manslaughter
that is not intentional. Exod. 21:13 deals with the latter type of manslaughter
Allowance is made for the fact that the killer may not have meant to kill, but
that things got out of hand, that he no longer knew what he was doing.
Examples would be manslaughter in a burst of anger, in a fit of rage, or under
the influence of alcohol (see the exegesis).
2.5.1.2.3 In a situation like the above, the killer is allowed to seek safety in a
place of asylum, designated by y h w h , a place marked by an altar a sacred
place. It is assumed that some such place was available in the neighbourhood
of the Israelite addressed in Exod. 21:13, 14 - which implies that there are
more such places of asylum (cf. Exod. 20:24) - and that the asylum seeker in
the presence of the altar, by grasping the altar or the horns of it, is under the
protection of YHWH, and so out of reach of his persecutors.
Emphatically, the right of asylum is only granted to the killer who acted
without premeditation. A person who deliberately in full possession of his
faculties, for example from the desire for personal gain or seeking vengeance,
dispatches his own or someone else’s (political) enemy or rival (cf. e.g. Deut.
27:24f.; 2 Sam. 4:5ff.; 13:28f.; 20:8ff.), is not entitled to asylum. He is not to
be given mercy but to be executed forthwith (Exod. 21:14; cf. 21:12).
2.5.1.3 Questions arising from Exodus 21:12-14

2.5.1.3.1 The passage Exod. 21:12-14 prompts questions. How was it deter
mined whether the asylum seeker was a bona fide candidate and who was in
charge o f tracking down mala fide asylum seekers? On the basis of study of
the Psalms it has been contended that the sanctuary at Mount Zion functioned
as a place of refuge. Data on the practice of asylum in Hellenistic Egypt have
been used to reconstruct the asylum practice in the temple on Mount Zion. It is
believed that there it was the priesthood that determined whether a suspect was
entitled to asylum. Presumably, ordeals, divinations and mantic practices,
observation of altar fire and the use of omens played an important role in
“ For the often defended view that 21:13, 14 are later additions see e.g. F.C. Fensham, “Das
Nicht-Haftbar-Sein im Bundesbuch im Lichte der altorientalischen Rechtstexte,” JNSL 8 (1981),
17-33 (pp. 19, 21) and Schwienhorst-SchOnberger (see 2.2.1), 38ff.
Volume III1
determining the guilt of innocence of the asylum seeker87 It has also been
proposed that the asylum seekei; after declaring his innocence under oath, was
given access to the place of refuge. A person who was guilty of perjury would,
it was thought, be punished by the deity (Gaster**, 491, 797f.).
It is doubtful that this is how the guilt or innocence of the asylum seeker of
Exod. 21 was determined. Ordeals, for example, can be used when someone is
suspected of a crime and there are no witnesses (Exod. 22:6ff.; Num. 5:llff.;
see for the ordeal 2.6.4.2). In the case of the asylum seeker of Exod. 21 it is
clear as daylight that he did kill. Evidently there are witnesses (cf. Num.
35:30). Needed is an evaluation of the suspect’s mental condition at the time of
the offense. Was this done by consulting God or by requiring a statement of
innocence from the suspect? It seems that the evaluation had to be based on an
investigation of the external circumstances under which the crime occurred (cf.
Fensham, JNSL 8 [1981], 21, 33). The content of Exod. 21:13, 14 points in
that direction. This is also supported by the procedure to be followed for
granting the right of asylum to those suspected of homicide, as described in the
Old Testament passages on the so-called cities of refuge (Deut. 4:41-43;
19:1-13; Num. 35:9-34; Josh.20:l-9). In those passages, which are younger
than the covenant book, a right to asylum is promoted which in part is an
application and in part a correction of the right advocated in the covenant
book.88 To arrive at a good understanding of the sequel, I first say something
about a big difference between Exod. 21:12-14 and the other passages.
2.5.1.3.2 The most conspicuous change with regard to the covenant book is
that cities, not holy places, serve as places of shelter for manslayers.89 Accord
ing to the theology of the texts to which these passages belong, Israel’s official
worship permitted only one sanctuary (D/P) and its sacredness is to be pro
tected with the utmost care, so that it remains intact (P). That means that those
who seek refuge on account of homicide - being unclean by the blood on their
hands (cf. e.g. Isa. 1:15; 59:3; Lam. 4:14) - , just as ordinary, non-priestly
*7 Delekat, 44ff., 57ff., 67ff., 264, 266, 312 etc.; but see also pp. 167f.
“ Num. 35 is regarded as part of P. Josh. 20 is viewed as a mixture of P and D elements.
Particularly by Jewish authors, it is chronologically dated as prior to the D document. See for the
latter with respect to the cities of refuge Greenberg; Milgrom, 299ff. (P’s conception of the cities
of refuge is from the time of Solomon; D was no longer familiar with the institution of the altar
o f asylum).
** The view of Delekat, 260f., 294, that the cities of refuge were cities with a sanctuary and
that in practice it was the temple area that functioned as place of asylum - meaning that there is
no discrepancy (cf. e.g. Cole: Dipt; is one of the cities of refuge of Num. 35:6) - is unfounded.
The same is true of Haran’s* suggestion, 121 n. 5, that cities and altar functioned as places of
asylum alongside each other. In his view, D lpn in Exod. 21:13 referred to the one possibily, that
of the city o f asylum, Exod. 21:14 - in ascending order: the altar was regarded as providing better
refuge - to the other possibility.
Volume III1
EXODUS 2 1 :1 2 -1 4 135
individuals are to be kept away from the altar (cf. Num. 18:22).9091Holy places
can no longer serve as places of refuge. Yet that did not mean that the institu
tion of the right to asylum had ceased to exist. Cities of refuge, appointed at
YHWH’s direction (Num. 35:9-11; Deut. 19:2; Josh.20:l), are to replace them.
2.5. 1.3.3 I return to the question of the investigation into the mental condi
tion o f the s l a y e r and focus especially on Deut. 19 and Num. 35. Both
passages mention points that need to be considered in the evaluation of the
mental condition of asylum seekers.
Deut. 19 presents a public case of homicide that differs from Exod. 21. Not
the example of a hothead or drunkard who does not know what he is doing,92
but that of a decent, hardworking individual who, as he lustily swings his axe
chopping wood, suffers the misfortune of the head of the axe flying off the
handle, killing the person it strikes (Deut. 19:4, 5). In a case like that it is not
likely that malice played a role. It must have been an accident. The outward
circumstances support the innocence o f the asylum seeker The circumstances
under which the killing happened are, according Deut. 19, to be the criterion
for forming a judgment. Not only the circumstances during the offense itself,
but also the personal history of the people involved is to be taken into account.
If the victim should be an enemy of the perpetratoi; one may reasonably
suspect foul play. If such is not the case, the manslayer acted without malicious
intent93 and is entitled to asylum (Deut. 19:4, 6, 11; cf. Deut. 4:42; Josh. 20:5).
Also the regulations of Num. 35 require taking note of the outward circum
stances. Whether or not there was hostility is a criterion for answering the
question: homicide without intention or murder? (Num. 35:20, 21, 22, 23). It is
not the only criterion. Also the corpus delicti must be looked at (cf. also Deut.
19:5). If it should be a real murder weapon, the possibility of premeditated
manslaughter is all the more likely (Num. 35:16-23; cf. also Josh. 20:3, 9).
90 Contact with the altar is the exclusive privilege of the priests; see 28:43; 30:20; Lev. 2:8
etc.; cf. also Lev. 21:21, 23 and see Num. 18:lff. That shedding of blood diminishes holiness is
also seen in the fact that the warrior David is not permitted to build the sanctuary (1 Chr. 22:8;
28:3). See also
below 2.5.1.4.1.
91 The intention is not to engage in a detailed comparison of the various passages on the right
to asylum nor to deal extensively with the phenomenon of cities of refuge. For that see Van
Oeveren (Bibl.); Delekat, 290ff.; De Vaulx, 1494ff., 1505f., and further Auld, Milgrom (pp.
299ff.), Rote and R. Schmid, TWAT, IV, 1132-7.
92 The clause with □T'b^n (see exegesis) is absent in Deut. 19 and in Num. 35. Evidently the
formulation was regarded as less than inadequate and being beyond oneself was deemed an
unsound criterion for declaring a person not responsible for his actions.
93 There is no investigation into the state of repair of the tools. Old Testament laws do include
sanctions for negligence with the building of a house (Deut. 22:8) or the handling o f a pit (Exod.
21:33f.).
Volume III1
th e book o f the covenant
136
All in all, there is justification for thinking that also in the case of Exod. 21
investigation will have to show whether there was malicious intent or not.
Explicitly it is said in Exod. 21:14 that the probe must be aimed at the mental
condition of the killer at the time of the offense - was he sound in mind or
not? The criterion is not watertight. In Num. 35 and Deut. 19 other criteria are
mentioned: the mental condition of the perpetrator prior to the offense and, if
necessary the corpus delicti are to be included in the examination.
2.5.1.3.4 Who handled the investigation? From Deut. 19 one gets the
impression that it was the elders of the place of residence of the slayer who
were charged with it (Deut. 19:12). According to Josh. 20:4 the elders (see
\bl. I, 369f.) of the place of asylum were the authorities charged with the task.
In short, these passages suggest that it was the civil government that was
reponsible for the proper functioning of the right of asylum. According to
Num. 35:24, 25 (cf. Num. 35:12; Josh. 20:6) that task was entrusted to the
legal and cultic community, the nnp (see Vbl. II, 168f.) of the place of
residence of the slayer.
In Exod. 21 the holy place is the place of asylum. Does this mean that the
inquiry is performed by one or more cultic officials or temple officers?94 Did
the transfer of the asylum from the altar to the city mean that the clergy was
relieved of this duty? Most likely the person addressed in Exod. 21:13, 14 is
also to be regarded as the one doing the investigation. Cultic functionaries are
not mentioned in the covenant book. The religious customs mentioned in it
were carried out in part at the house and evidently by lay people (Exod. 21:6;
22:7f.). In short, the investigation was in all probability in the hands of the
local community or of its representatives.
2.5.1.3.5 In Deut. 19 (see w. 6, 12) and Num. 35 (see w. 12, 19, 21, 24,
25, 27; cf. Josh. 20:3, 5, 9) the execution of the manslayer who acted deliber
ately is the task of the o^n b tfi. The usual assumption is that also in Exod. 21
he is the executioner95 Because the formula rvpv 0*10 used in Exod. 21:12
(Introd. §3.32) also occurs in Exod. 21:15,1 6, 17, where evidently the refer
ence is to execution by the local community or its representatives, the question
presents itself whether also in Exod. 21:12, 14 one should think of these people
(cf. Deut. 17:7; 21:21).96 In that case the execution was likely by stoning.97
94 Cf. e.g. Wildeboer, 205; Nicolsky, 158; Wfestbrook (see 2.2.1), 78 n. 165.
95 E.g. Pedersen*, I-II, 396; De \bulx, 1503, and in particular (see 2.2.1), 47ff., 78; Schwien-
horst-Schdnberger (see 2.2.1), 224, 230 (cf. the discussion on pp. 222ff.).
96 See LOhr, 211, en e.g. BOhl; Beer; Phillips (see 1.1.1), 100ff.; cf. idem, JJS 28 (1977), lllf.
Also in Num. 35:16, 17, 18 the formula nov mo is used. There the evident assumption is
execution by the Din (see v. 19).
97 See \bl. II, 65; compare with rabbinic exegesis: ‘by the sword’ (TPsJ [also in 21:14]; M et,
III, 34 [or by strangling, stoning or beheading?]).
Volume III1
EXODUS 2 1 :1 2 -1 4 137
2.5.1.3.6 The pursuer of the killer is not mentioned in Exod. 21. He is men
tioned in Num. 35 and Deut. 19, where he is called Olii b#3, often translated
as ‘avenger of blood.’ Back of the translation lies the assumption that the
institution of the avenging of blood was old and widespread and also was
practiced in ancient Israel (e.g. \hn Oeveren, 14f., 89, 158ff., 227ff.). How
ever, ‘avenger of blood’ does not adequately denote the Din bto. It designates
the relative who is responsible for the ‘redemption’ of the blood, the violent
death.98 Looking at his role in Deut. 19 and in particular in Num. 35, the
conclusion must be that it is not aimed at judgment, vengeance, but at atone
ment for the shed blood (Num. 35:33, 34; Deut. 19:13; cf. Deut. 21:1-9).
Blood is source of pollution. If no purification or atonement takes place, the
forces set free by the blood undermine the life of land and people (see \fol. I,
400f.). Thus, by pursuing the manslayei; the Din bttJ acts for the good of his
family and the entire community.
Num. 35 and Deut. 19 contain theological reflection on the threat posed by
shed blood for which no atonement has been made. It defines the position of
the pursuer. In Exod. 21 there is no such reflection. The regulation of Exod. 21
is against vigilante justice 99 and it chaiges the community or its representatives
with the task of enforcing the law. So the importance of justice comes into
clear focus. Preventing people from taking the law into their own hands and
giving focus to the importance of justice is also the aim of Num. 35 and Deut.
19. By pointing out the need for making atonement for shed blood, those
passages also clearly bring into view the well-being of land and people.
2.5.1.3.7 As noted (see 2.5.1.3, 4), investigation determined whether an
asylum seeker was entitled to such protection or not. Was the judgment, if it
happened to be in favour of the killer, accepted by those who had been
victimized? Could the killer simply return to and again become part o f the
community? Deut. 19 does not talk about the length of stay in the city of
refuge. Num. 35 reckons with a lengthy stay of a bona fide asylum seeker in
the city of refuge; he is to remain there until the death of the high priest, and if
he should ever go outside the city he becomes an outlaw (Num. 35:25-29; cf.
Josh. 20:6). Does Exod. 21 also presuppose a lengthy stay in the place of
asylum, which here is the holy place? A prolonged stay of refugees seeking*
* See e.g. Christ (see \bl. I, 401f.), 126ff. Phillips (see 1.1.1), 103ff., and JJS 28 (1977),
lllff., even regards the onn btu as an official prosecutor acting on behalf of the community, and
makes a point of it that his function is closely related to the institution of the cities of refuge (in
Exod. 21 he is not mentioned).
” The use of the term ‘blood vengeance’ is not very adequate. See e.g. Phillips, JJS 28 (1977),
112f.; Wfestbrook (see 2.1.1), 77 n. 157; cf. also Van Oeveren, 14f., 227ff.
Volume III1
asylum is known from Egypte100 and with respect to the sanctuary on the Zion
has been defended by Delekat, Asylie, 194ff., 262ff. In that case one must
assume that the refugee became a temple slave, doing the menial work of a
woodcutter or water carriei; or earning his keep by offering his services as a
keeper of the gate, night watchman or temple singer. In view of the simple
society presupposed by the covenant book it is not likely that the person
seeking protection remained a long time at the altar. Also in light of the later
asylum practice (see Houtman, 65f.), it is more likely that Exod. 21 creates
room for talks between the victimized, the relatives of the victim, and the
asylum seeker with a view to the normalization of relationships. That this was
done by giving some form of material restitution101 is not impossible (cf. Exod.
21:30, 32). That this form of reaching a settlement was used is clear from the
fact that the practice is forbidden in Num.35:32. Cf. also Num. 35:31 and see
Num. 35:26f. From Num. 35:31 it can be inferred that it did happen in cases of
willful homicide that the family of the victim received damages (cf. 2 Sam.
21:4), which closed the matter. It has been argued that opposition to that
custom is typical of P (cf. also Lev. 24:17, 21), and that in ancient Israel, just
as elsewhere in the ancient Near East, the relatives of a murdered person,
whose accusation was accepted as valid - it was a case of premeditated
murder - could choose between insisting on due punishment and receiving
compensatory damages.102 Presumably Exod. 21:12 is not to be taken as
prescribing a absolute rule but leaves open the possibility of another settlement
of the case, so that the translation would be: ‘may be put to death.’
The formulation of Exod. 21:12-14 - extremes are mentioned - does not
commend that interpretation. Exod. 21:12 does not permit a settlement in case
of murder.
According to Num. 35, the stay in the city of refuge is not meant as a
cooling-off period, aimed at restoration of the broken relationship. ‘Blood-
theology’ (see 2.5.1.3.6) governs the verses. The killer must be prevented from
returning to society so long the blood of the victim has not yet been expiated.
Only the blood of the slayer and the death of the high priest can work that
expiation.103
100 See Vfon Woess, 142ff., 237ff.; L. Delekat, Kaloche, Hierodulie und Adoptionsfreilassung,
Miinchen 1964.
101 Possibly, the relatives of the victim might also be asked to declare under oath that they
would abide by the verdict pronounced over the slayer (cf. 1 Kgs. 1:50ff.).
102 See Wfestbrook (see 2.2.1), 47fF., 77ff.; cf. also B.S. Jackson, “Reflections on Biblical
Criminal Law,” in Essays in Jewish and Comparative Legal History, Leiden 1975, 25-63 (pp.
41ff.).
102 See on it e.g. Nicolsky, 168ff.; Van Oeveren, 162ff. On the substitution made by the high
priest see also Exod. 28:38.
Volume III1
EXODUS 2 1 :1 2 -1 4 139
2.5.1.3.8 Now a quick glance back at the relationship of Exod. 21/Num.

35/Deut. 19. In Exod. 21 the place of asylum is a holy place. In Deut. 19 a
city. The granting of asylum has lost its sacral character One could call it
secularization o f the right o f asylum.10* In Num. 35 the city is likewise place of
asylum, but the right of asylum bears nevertheless a sacral character: the city is
a Levitical city (Num. 35:6) and expiation is necessary also for the blood shed
by the slayer who acted without premeditation. If a post-Deut. 19 date is
assumed for Num. 35 one may speak of (re)sacralization o f the right of asylum
(cf. e.g. 2 Chr. 19:5-11: sacralization of the judicial system; see also Deut.
17:8ff.).'05
2.5.1.4 Asylum at the holy place

2.5.1.4.1 According to 21:12-14 asylum is to be sought at the holy place, the
place which uniquely belongs to the deity. The practice of seeking refuge is
grounded in the idea that the deity offers protection. Fear of the holiness of the
place is to keep the pursuers from laying hands on the person pursued. In
connection with the inviolability of the place of asylum, and so of the person
seeking refuge, data on the nature of the holy place, as they are known for
example from pre-Islamic Arabs, have been cited (see Vbl. I, 35If.). The
person who steps onto the holy ground becomes the property of the deity, is
sacrosanct. In that same connection attention has also been asked for the clause
from 29:37: ‘Whichever person touches the altar will be holy’ (cf. 30:29; Lev.
6:11,20) (see Delekat, 52, 208, 210, 259, 307f.).
Apart from the question concerning the interpretation of 29:37, 21:12-14
shows that simply being at the place of asylum does not unconditionally offer
sanctity to the seeker of asylum, automatically entitling him to protection.1150406 If
he turns out to be a murderer, he is to be removed from the altar. The person
who taking care of it does not commit sacrilege, but carries out a divine
regulation. 21:12-14 contains a different view of the sanctuary than P, the body
of texts to which 29:37 belongs. There the institution of the cities of refuge is
regulated while the altar does not function as place of asylum. Ordinary people
may not approach it. Only the ceremonially sacred priests may touch it. In P’s
view, every wrong use of the holiness of the sanctuary jeopardizes a person’s
104 See e.g. Nicolsky, 162f., 172. For another look at the relation of Exod. 21 to Deut. 19 see
e.g. Van Oeveren, 223 (from way back the sacral right of asylum existed alongside a more or less
secularized right of asylum); Phillips (see 1.1.1), 101f., 106 (the institution of cities of asylum is
the work o f king David; motive for it was not the centralization of the cult, but the need for a
better system of asylum); Milgrom, 305ff.
105 Cf. C. Houtman, “Secularisation im Alten Israel?,” ZAW 108 (1996), 408-25.
106 Even as e.g. also the presence of the holy shrine (ark) does not automatically mean the
presence o f y h w h , the Holy One (see 1 Sam. 4:3ff.).
Volume III1
life (28:43; 30:20f.; Lev. 10; 16:2, 13; 22:9; Num. 4:15, 19, 20; 16-17; 17:28;
18:3, 22).107 For that reason the idea that a killer, even if he acted unintention
ally, might be able to find protection at the holy altar, does not hold. The
blood makes him unclean, unfit to enter the sacred area.108 The city of asylum
is his destination. He is to remain there until atonement has been made.
In 21:12-14 the altar is accessible, even for the man who killed another with
murderous intent. That someone with innocent blood on his hands desecrates
the altar is not stated. A murderer is only described as a seeker of asylum who
is not entitled to protection.
2.5.1.4.2 There is no denial that the picture evoked in in Exod. 21:12-14 is
remarkably secular. What might be expected on the basis of other Old Testa-
mant passages, certainly in the case of the murderer who acted purposely - a
clash between holiness and unholiness (e.g. 19:12f., 2 If., 24; Lev 10; Num.
4:15; 16-17; 1 Sam. 6:19; 2 Sam. 6 :6f.; cf. \bl I, 351f.; \bl. II, 451, 458) - is
not forthcoming. Despite contact with the altar, the murderer remains alive. He
is not struck down by the divine judgment, but dragged away from it by
human hands and executed.109
Going by the customary dating of the material of the Pentateuch, it is
obvious that the emphasis on the holiness of the altar is from a later date and
that the oldest part of the text does not have a magic-dynamistic view of
holiness. That idea, often regarded as typical of the oldest phase of the asylum
practice,110 is not (no longer) found in the covenant book.
2.5.1.4.3 Finally, in the evaluation of Exod. 21:12-14 it should be remem
bered that the passage does not describe the asylum practice in ancient Israel,
but, belonging to a collection of regulations, means to establish an asylum
practice that is marked by justice. Familiarity with abuse of the place of
asylum apparently produced the formulation of the regulation. The distinction
made between killers acting with and without intent is an indication that there
were also criminals among the asylum seekers, something that was not be
tolerated.
According to Exod. 21:12-14, the desirable legal procedure looks like this:
only the killer who acted without intent is entitled to protection; the murderer
107 See for graded holiness 4.8.1.

,0* Cf. also Philo, De speciahbus legibus 1.158ff.; 3.120ff.
109 Differently Delekat, 161, 264, 308f.: the contact with what is holy is at the same time a
divine judgment; the guilty asylum seeker is going to die in a few hours, days or weeks; for the
asylum seeker was not given anything to eat or drink until God by a sign had rendered a verdict
over him. If there was no divine reaction, he was left to starve to death. Utterly weakened, but
before he had succumbed - he may not pollute the altar by his death - , he was hauled to a
profane place in order to die there.
110 See Hennsler, 12ff.
Volume III1
EXODUS 2 1 :1 2 -1 4 141
must be executed.
The actual use of the regulation will have led to the following situation: a
killer will weigh the options; if he feels that there is a possibility that he might
be seen as a killer without intent, he will flee to the altar. If he thinks chances
are nil, he will try to elude his pursuers, flee the country and - extradition
treaties among nations111 were unknown in his world - prefer the unenviable
position of "H above execution (so e.g. Moses; see Exod. 2:11-22).
2.5.1.5 Asylum practice in ancient Israel

2.5.1.5.1 As noted, Exod. 21:12-14 likely brings to mind the image of what the
judicial system should be like. It need not necessarily coincide with what
actually happened in everyday life. Also Num. 35 and Deut. 19 describe the
ideal administration of justice. They are utopian in nature. All three passages
refer to fleeing for asylum in case of homicide. That prompts the question
concerning the practice of asylum in ancient Israel. Was asylum also sought in
other cases than homicide? Were there many places of refuge? Did fleeing
there indeed offer the protection that was sought?
Study of the subject of asylum in the Old Testament has resulted in the iden
tification of a series of places as temple places of asylum.112 Study of the
Psalms has led to the supposition that the sanctuary on Mt. Zion served as a
place of asylum.113 For a variety of reasons seekers of sanctuary presumably
fled there for safety. Among them there may have been debtors, for the most
part hirelings without land, who feared becoming a hostage or debt slave, and
independent farmers who had run into problems, striking renters accused of
theft and perjury, and individuals accused of burglary, adultery, false witness,
defrauding their neighbour and other similar offenses.114
111 Hittite treaties from the second millennium contain some provisions about extradition. The
persons to be handed over are evidently political fugitives and persons viewed as socially low-
class individuals. See L8hr, 78ff. Extradition is also mentioned in the Alalakh-texts (see ANET,
53If.). For a prohibition of extradition see Deut. 23:16f.
112 According to Delekat, 260f., 270ff., 322ff., it is more or less certain that the sanctuary on
Mt. Zion (1 Kgs. l:50f.; 2:28ff.; Neh. 6:10; 1 Macc. 10:43), the residence of the prophets(?) at
Ramah (1 Sam. 19:18), the shrines at Beersheba (1 Kgs. 19:3), Bethel (2 Kgs. 2:2ff.; cf. Amos
7:10ff.), Jericho (2 Kgs. 2:4ff.), on Mt. Carmel (2 Kgs. 1:9-15; cf. Amos 9:3) and in Nob (Ps.
52:1; 1 Sam. 21:8) can be regarded as places of asylum, and probably that all shrines in Israel,
while they were in existence, served as a places of asylum. In his view, there were shrines in the
cities of refuge mentioned in Deut. 4; 19; Num. 35; Josh. 20, which, along with the surrounding
territory, served as the actual place of asylum. \bn Rad*, ThAT, II, 35, suggests that the
*35 in the stories about Elisha in 2 Kgs. 2 were asylum seekers living by a sanctuary,
who for economic or religious reasons had gone there. For supporting texts see also Van Oeveren,
128ff.
113 See in particular the study of Delekat; cf. De Vaulx, 1499f.
1,4 See Delekat, 173f., 179ff., 219, 261f. etc.
Volume III1
It is open to question whether the Old Testament passages in question permit

this interpretation."5 Actually, in the Old Testament there are only two unmis
takable passages that detail the functioning of the practice of asylum in ancient
Israel (cf. Houtman, 39ff.). Both relate a flight for asylum after a political
defeat, and both are said to have occurred during Solomon’s kingship. Accord
ing to the story, Adonijah after his failed coup (1 Kgs. l:5ff.) sought protection
by grasping the horns of the altar (1 Kgs. l:50ff.),"6 and Joab, after Adonijah’s
second attempt at a coup (1 Kgs. 2:13ff.), likewise sought refuge at the altar
(1 Kgs. 2:28ff.).
2.5.1.5.2 The two passages indicate that at least in practice the altar could
offer a measure of protection. There seems to have been a great reluctance to
pull a human being away from the altar or to commit a violent act there.
Pursuers are fearful of committing an act of sacrilege. So the asylum seeker is
given a breather That time he can use to negotiate with the pursuing party and
try to reach some kind of agreement. Not always with a successful outcome.
For a variety of reasons - in case of a political struggle, for example, due to
the desire to put a rival party out of the way - a pursuer can surmount his fear
of the holiness of the place of asylum and continue the pursuit all the way to
the altar.
For that matter, in 1 Kgs. 2 Joab’s execution at the place of asylum is not
described as a sacrilegious act, committed to do away with a dangerous enemy,
but carried out as completing unfinished business: Joab’s shedding of innocent
blood (1 Kgs. 2:5f., 31-33). In short, according to 1 Kgs. 2 it was not Joab’s
part in Adonijah’s coup that cost him his life, but his guilty past. As 1 Kgs. 2
presents it, the judgment about the legitimacy of Joab’s running for cover was
not made on the basis of what drove him to the place of asylum, but on the
basis of earlier offenses. So by implication it is brought out here that the place
of asylum is not to be a place of refuge for the murderer who acts with
premeditation. In that respect the motivation in 1 Kgs. 2 for Joab’s execution
agrees with the regulation of Exod. 21. As concerns the place of execution - at
the altar - 1 Kgs. 2 conflicts with Exod. 21 (see v. 14). That and the fact that19
119 Only 1 Macc. 10:43 explicitly mentions (the granting of) asylum rights of (to) the sanctuary
at Jerusalem (cf. Josephus, AJ, XIII, 5). In the intertestamental literature the inviolability of the
sanctuary is emphasized. See e.g. 2 Macc. 3:12; Philo of Alexandrine, Legatio ad Gaium, 346.
2 Macc. 4:33f. relates a flight for asylum to the sacred sanctuary at Daphne near Antioch. For the
interpretation of ‘asylum texts’ from the Psalms, such as e.g. Pss. 23:6; 27:4; 36:8, see e.g. V>n
Rad*, THAT, I, 409, 415f. For critique on the study of Delekat see e.g. R. Toumay, RB 78 (1970),
99f.; T. Penna, Bib 51 (1970), 576-9; W. Beyerlin, Die Rettung der Bedrdngten in den Feindpsal-
men der Einzelnen a u f institutionelle Zusammenhdnge untersucht, Gottingen 1970, 44fT. etc. (see
index).
116 The altar is not further specified. Evidently the altar of ‘the tent o f y h w h ’ is meant (cf.
1 Kgs. 2:28). So explicitly LXX1” .
Volume III1
EXODUS 2 1 :1 2 -1 4 143
the king himself orders the execution argues against regarding the measure
taken by Solomon as an implementation of the regulation of Exod. 2 1.117*See
further 2.2. 10.
2.5.1.5.3 The position of Solomon in 1 Kgs. 1-2 is remarkable. In both
asylum cases, it is he, the king, who decides. While representatives of the
priesthood (Abiathar and Zadok) are mentioned, they are subordinate to him
(1 Kgs. 2:26, 27; 1 Kgs. 2:35). The state controls the place of asylum."®
Specific information on the practice of the flight for asylum to the altar in
ancient Israel is scarce. The fact that the right of asylum is included in various
collections of laws is an indication that flight for asylum in cases of homicide
was a well-known phenomenon. According to 1 Kgs. 1-2, seeking refuge at the
altar also happened after a failed revolt. It is not likely that the emergency
situations in ancient Israel that made people run to the altar were limited to the
kinds specifically listed in the Old Testament.
Seeking refuge at a holy place is an ancient and widespread custom.119 It was
an established practice in the ancient world, in Ancient Greece and the Helle
nistic world.120 Relatively many data about a continuous period have come
from Hellenistic Egypt. But there can be no question that also prior to that the
practice existed.121 There are no data from Ancient Mesopotamia. Flight for
asylum is, however, mentioned in the Ugaritic texts (KTU 1.19.111: 47; cf.
Gaster*, 490f.).
Ancient literature paints a negative picture of the places of asylum in the
Hellenistic world: owing to liberal admission policy, they are congregating
places of debtors and criminals (Houtman, 70ff.). In light of that background,
the fact that the granting of asylum in the OT, which was subject to specific
conditions (Exod. 21:13, 14), has been said to be typical of Israel’s religion,122
in fact even a ‘radical renewal’ compared to the custom that existed in antiq
117 A connection between Exod. 21:14 and 2 Kgs. 2:28ff. is made in NumR. XXX, 13 (cf.
Ginzberg*, IV, 125ff; VI, 278f.) and also by others, including \fcn Oeveren, 131; Childs, 470.
"* Milgrom, 305ff, goes so far as proposing that Solomon abolished the altar as place of
asylum in Israel and replaced it, as a concession - in a time when avenging of blood was rife -
by the institution of cities of asylum.
See E. Vifestermarck, 161-4; idem, The Origin and Development o f The Moral Ideas, II,
London 1908, 628-38; G. van der Leeuw, Phdnomenologie der Religion, 19703, 448; Timbal
Duclaux de Martin, 455ff; Gaster*, 490f.; WiBmann, 315-8.
120 See Bulmerincq, 29ff; Siebold, 22ff; Schlesinger, passim; Bolkestein, 243ff; Wfenger,
836-44; Fauth, 670-1; De Vaulx, 1485ff.
111 See \fon Wfoess, 33ff; Lflddeckens, 514-6.
See e.g. De \foulx, 1504, 1507; cf. also Van Oeveren, 132, 157.
Volume III1
uity.123 That way of looking at it seems to rest on a failure to distinguish

between right (ideal) and practice. In the Greco-Roman world, in practice the
admission policy often was quite generous, especially so in the eyes of the
ruling powers. About its functioning in ancient Israel little information is
available. The OT mainly depicts the ideal of granting asylum.
The NT has no examples of flight for protection to the sanctuary. By
contrast, church history is full of it. For centuries, churches used to be havens
of refuge for fugitives.124 In the Church of the East, it was an important
institution until the fall of Constantinople in 1453. In the Church of the West,
also after the collapse of the Western Roman empire at the end of the 5th
century, the churchly practice of granting refuge continued to persist. There it
fell into disuse from the 14th century. It disappears in the countries that went
with the Reformation. At the end of the 18th century, the French period, it is
everywhere abolished or has fallen into disuse.125 However, according to
current Roman Catholic canonical law, the church still has the right to grant
asylum.126 A description of the altar as place of asylum in the history of the
church and a discussion of the question concerning the origin of eccleasiastical
asylum law lies outside the scope of this commentary (for that see Houtman,
45ff.). Here I suffice with noting that there seem to be no indications that the
asylum law of the Old Testament had a shaping effect on the origin of the
asylum right in the church. As concerns the practice of asylum, it is possible to
extend a line from the Old Testament through the history of the church. Joab
died by the altar. Whether this had happened to others before him, we are not
sure of. We do know that it happened to many others after him (Houtman,
75f.).
21:12 tf’K (Introd. §3.2.2), meant is a free Israelite. In TPsJ ‘an Israelite (man
or woman)’ is object. Cf. Lev. 24:17: is subject and ‘any
human being’ is object, and see the discussion in Mek., Ill, 32f., and in Rashi
on the question what to do if a woman or child are object or subject. There are
also women who commit murder, not by brute force but by cunning (Jael;
Judith; see Judg. 4:17ff; Jdt. 8ff.). ‘to hit’ is in TO and TPsJ emphatically
123 So Milgrom, 309 n. 84. Cf. Wildeboer, 197, 209, and also A. Causse, Du groupe ethnique a
la communaute religieuse, Paris 1937, 139f. Perhaps the institution of the cities of asylum can be
regarded as something radically new. As far as I know, a secular right of asylum did not exist in
the ancient Near East (the examples of Nicolsky, 160ff, seem to be o f later date). Likely in Israel
it existed only on paper.
1,4 On ecclesiastical giving of and right of asylum see Bulmerincq, Bindschedler, Timbal
Duclaux de Martin, Herman.
125 See e.g. Dann, 354ff; Bulmerincq, 104ff.
126 Corpus Juris Canonici (canon 1179); cf. Misserey, 1102f.; Landau, 326f.
Volume III1
EXODUS 2 1 :1 2 -1 4 145
explained as meaning ‘to kill.’
21:13, 14 On "itfk as introduction of a conditional clause see e.g. Ges-K

§159cc; Jotion §167j. rn y kb evidently caused problems to the ancient
translators. See e.g. LXX: 6 6e oi>x eictov, ‘but he did not intend to;’ Vulg.:
qui autem non est insidiatus, ‘but he did not plan an attack,’ and further Aq.
(&<t>fjKev), the targums and the discussion in Rashi. The clause is evidently an
abbreviated expression for npnp1? itfprnk rn y kb (cf. 1 Sam. 24:12). Is
i r t y y Hy in Lam. 4:18 to be understood as: they are after our life, as soon as
we step outside the door? ny is derived from either mx or 11X; see the lexica.
See further the use of n;iy, derivative of mx, in Num. 35:20, 22.
The man did not know what he was doing. In Hebrew this is expressed by
the phrase i l ’b njk D’nbkni, which contrasts with the term in Exod.
21:14 (for Hitt pi. see the iexica; for npiy see TWAT, VI, 387ff.). The last
term means: not impulsively, but deliberately with premeditation, not at a
sudden impulse but with forethought (cf. Prov. 1:4; 8:5, 12). In Mek., Ill, 36f.,
and by Rashi it is emphasized that iJ^rtb has the effect of limiting the state
ment to carefully planned murder. Other carefully considered acts, e.g. treat
ment by a physician, flogging by an officer of the law, disciplining by father
or teachei; even if these should result in death, presumably are excluded.
The use of OYibKH (for the use of the article see e.g. Ges-K §126r; Jotion
§137n) - here used in the mouth of y h w h (cf. e.g. Exod. 31:3; 35:31 and see
\bl. I, 93 f.) - brings out that the slayer had lost all control over himself. A
power, a driving force from outside controlled him and guided his hand.
For the idea that a drunk individual does not know what he is doing and is
possessed by a deity or spirit and not himself responsible for his actions, see
e.g. Westermarck (see 2.5.1.5.3), I (1906), 277ff.; II, 344f. Also insanity,
mental illness, is attributed to a force from outside. Thus 1 Sam. 16:14ff. refers
to a mrr nkP ny? on or a nyn trnbk on (cf. 1 Sam. 19:9), which took
control of Saul. On the use of O'nblt and 010’ to denote the mysterious,
perplexing and frightening nature of certain phenomena, see Houtman*,
Himmel, 275ff.; cf. also \bl. II, 56f. (on Exod. 8:15).
The clause is not to be put under the magnifying glass of theological reflec
tion. No farreaching conclusions should be drawn from it. It has been sug
gested that the text brings out the belief that all events are directly under
YHWH’s control and that the man’s death is a deserved punishment (so Cole);
also that the unintentional slayer is an instrument in God’s hand and that
therefore God will protect him (\hn Oeveren, 70). In LXX (cf. Frankel*, 86),
Vulg. and TO, TPsJ, TNf it is specifically said that the event is the will of
YHWH (as elsewhere in the taigums, the divine name YHWH is used for
D’nbttn). So e.g. de LXX reads: aAAa 6 0ed<; 7iape6(OKev ei<; t&c xeipag
auTou, ‘but God has given (him) into his hands.’ That sort of translation
Volume III1
coincides with Philo’s interpretation (De fuga et inventione, 65, 66; 93; De
specialibus legibus 3.120-122) and with rabbinical exegesis: the victim de
served to die; he is someone who avoided due punishment, for example
because there were no witnesses (Mek., Ill, 35; Rashi; TzUR).
It is sometimes thought that v rb H3N ovrbRn brings out that the manslaugh
ter was the result of unfortunate circumstances (e.g. Gispen; Cassuto).127 That
is a way of reading the passage too much in the light of Deut. 19 while failing
to take into account the contrast with II can also include a hand
holding an object.
MT: (Introd. §3.48); Pesh.: ‘bd (3rd pers. sing.; is God the presumed
subject or perhaps Moses?; cf. Deut. 4:41). For the suggestion (on the basis of
the textual tradition of the Pesh.), that the reading is nnto (Israel is subject; cf.
Deut. 19:2 etc.) see Delekat, 299.
Because of the presence of an altar (21:14), oipip in 21:13 must be a refer
ence to a holy place (differently e.g. \hn Oeveren, 91, 146, 153). In TNf Dipl?
is (harmonizingly; cf. Num. 35) clarified as not’# ’"ip, ‘city of asylum; cf.
Mek., II, 36; Rashi: already in the wilderness the residence of the Levites was a
place of refuge (cf. Num. 35:6), namely, their dwelling-place around the tent
shrine (cf. also e.g. TzUR).
The use of the sing. ( ^ in 21:13 and isrtptf [Introd. §3.30] in 21:14; cf. e.g.
Exod. 20:3, 4 etc.) corresponds to the use of the sing. 0lp». Therefore the
wording does not exclude the existence of more holy places - Bohl translates
‘places’ in 21:13 - which function as places of refuge.128 The altar (U3TP) is an
altar of burnt offering, the essential piece of furniture for the holy place (see
4.9.1). In TPsJ, TNf, FT, the ‘altar’ is not understood as place of refuge, but
‘of the altar’ is taken as an indication that the clause refers to the high priest
(so TNf, FT)/the priest (so TPsJ) as he carries out his duties: the regulation
even pertains to the (high)priest on duty! See also Mek., Ill, 37f.; ExR. XXX,
16; Rashi; TzUR. Perhaps it is assumed in Exod. 21:14 that the seeker of
asylum graps the horns of the altar (cf. 1 Kgs. 1:5If.; 2:28). Contact with the
horns implies contact with the Holy One himself (see 4.9.7).
The LXX specifically identifies the slayer (6 4>ovei5oa<;) as subject of
‘fleeing’ (013; see 4:3). For "lit see 18:10. Ehrlich proposes to read Of; (from
OOf, ‘to devise’). 3"in, see 2:14. The Hebrew text is elliptic. The LXX, after
66A<p (translation of nipip?), adds koi KaTaûyi], ‘and he seeks asylum.’ nio,
see §3.32.
127 Cf. also e.g. Te Stroete: that he was not in control of himself. It is what we call an
accident or bad luck.’ See beside it Bdhl: ‘... the deity (for the devout Israelite attributes nothing
to blind chance) For the contrast ‘sin of the hand’ - ‘sin of the head’ in Hittite laws see Sick
(see 2.2.1), 94ff.
1M Differently e.g. Nicolsky, 148; E. Nielsen, Schechem, Copenhagen 1955, 209f.
Volume III1
EXODUS 21:15-17 147
2.5.2 Misuse of parents and kidnapping (21:15-17)
21:15 ‘A nd whoever strikes his father or his mother shall be put to death.
16 And whoever kidnaps someone, whether he has sold him or still holds him
(the kidnapped person) in his possesson, shall be put to death.
17 And whoever treats his father or his mother shamefully shall be put to
death. ’
2.5.2.1 The law on manslaughter (21:12-14) is followed by three regulations

about less radical, yet such serious assaults on the well-being of the other, that
they are to be punished similarly to manslaughter The regulations stand by
themselves. In the MT they are set off by a setuma (absent at 21:16 in BHS;
cf. Perrot*, 68). As concerns theme, 21:15 and 21:17 are, however, connected.
Both verses deal with disrespectful conduct toward elderly parents. They
include a regulation about kidnapping. The sequence of the verses in the LXX
differs from that of the MT. 21:16 comes third after the thematically linked
verses 21:15 and 21:17. The suggestion that the order in the MT is determined
by the gravity of the crime, in the sense that the most serious case (abuse)
stands first and the least serious (cursing) is mentioned last (cf. Cazelles [see
2.1.1], 52), is hardly convincing. As to gravity, all cases are equally bad. For
practical reasons I take 21:15, 17 together.
2.5.2.2 Abuse o f parents

2.5.2.2.1 In the discussion of 20:12 (see 1.6) we dealt already in detail with the
position of the elderly person in Israel and noted that often it was not a very
enviable position. What could befall them is seen in 21:15, 17. It happened that
elderly parents were thrown out. Such conduct toward parents is so utterly
wrong that anyone who engages in it undermines the foundations of society
and has lost the right to live. (cf. 2.2.16-18).
The immoral conduct toward parents is brought out in two terms, naa hiph.
(see 2:11) in 21:15 and bbp pi. in 21:17. To understand what is going on here,
it is useful to have a look at both terms.
‘Striking’ refers to the use of violence in general. The implied subject is a
mature person - physically he is as strong as his parents - viz., a person (the
oldest son) who batters another, a typical male characteristic (see 21:13). He
manhandles, inflicts physicial injury on the parents who are dependent on
him.129 A passage from the Ugaritic Baal-text (KTU 1.3:20ff.) - the world of
129 In rabbinical exegesis the ‘striking’ is understood in this way: use of the death penalty
requires the presence of a wound (e.g. TPsJ; Mek., Ill, 42f.; bSanh 84b, 85b; Rashi); in the case
of mistreatment of parents punishment by death is also applied when the blow is not fatal (see on
the contrary 21:12).
Volume III1
the gods mirrors the world of humans - shows that violence toward parents
was not unknown in the ancient Near East: the goddess(!) Anath threatens to
give her father Ilu such a whack on the head that his gray hair drips with blood
(cf. Korpel*, 118).
The implied subject of 21:15 is also the subject of 21:17.130 What precisely is
his crime? bbp pi. (see 18:22) here (cf. also Lev. 20:9; Deut. 27:16) is usually
taken to mean ‘to curse’ (cf. LXX: 6 KaKoXoywv; Vulg.: qui maledixerit,
‘whoever maligns,’ ‘whoever curses;’ TO, TPsJ: oV?1’!!, ‘and whoever curses;’
for another rendering note FTV: ’130 Hi, ‘and whoever despises’). Is vilifica
tion sufficient ground for the death penalty?131 bbp pi. contrasts with n aa pi.,
which is used in 20:12.132 That aigues against taking bbp pi. here, as in e.g.
Lev. 19:14, as being no more than uttering a malediction against powerless
individuals who cannot defend themselves against it (cf. Ps. 38:14, 15), and it
is an argument in favour of interpreting bbp pi. as ‘treat disgracefully’ (cf. e.g.
Ehrlich; Cassuto). That meaning also goes well with bbp pi. in Lev. 20:9;
Prov. 20:20; 30:11, with bbp hiph. in Ezek. 22:7, and with nbp hiph. in Deut.
27:16. These texts all concern the conduct of children (sons) toward their
elderly parents. Concretely, it could be abandonment of the parents or even
casting them out. 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).
Alongside the texts cited from the book of Proverbs, likely also other
passages from that book refer to reprehensible behaviour on the part of the
children toward their parents (Prov. 10:1; 15:20; 17:21, 25; 19:26; 23:22;
28:24; 30:17). Immoral behaviour toward elderly parents is also condemned in
the NT (Matt. 15:5; Mark 7:11).
2.5.2.2.2 In 21:15, 17 it is not said who is responsible for calling the
scoundrel son to account and for punishing him (on the question see e.g.
Schwienhorst-Schonbeiger [see 2.2.1], 217ff.). Is it the duty of the community
or its representatives? (cf. 21:12-14). Deut. 21:18-21 describes a situation in
which parents take action against a son, so that his behaviour becomes a public
concern and results in his execution.133 Is that also the meaning in 21:15, 17?
130 In Lev. 20:9 B’X is subject. In Mek., Ill, 47, this raises the question whether the stipulation
also pertains to the woman; in any case, so Rashi, the term excludes a minor as subject.
131 According to rabbinic exegesis this is the case if the cursing is accompanied by invoking
the (e.g. TPsJ; Mek., Ill, 48f.).
132 In Matt. 15:4, 20:12 and 21:17 are combined to form a double commandment. In Deut.
27:16 nbp hiph. is translated in LXX (6 ocnjiaCojv) and Vulg. (qui non honorat) in such a way
that a link is established with 20:12.
133 For the passage see E. Bellefontaine, “Deuteronomy 21:18-21: Reviewing the Case of the
Rebellious Son,” JSOT 13 (1979), 13-31. On the rebellious son as motif in a Hittite tekst see
Th.PJ. van den Hout, BiOr 47 (1990), 425f.
Volume III1
EXODUS 21:15-17 149
We are not sure. In my view, it is possible that Deut. 21:18-21 runs parallel -
not entirely - with 21:15, 17 and describes a case of disrespectful behaviour
toward parents who are along in years.
The son in view evidently is not just a difficult young man who squanders
his parents’ assets (so Albertz [see 1.6.1], 366). The fact that ‘his town’ and
‘his place’ are mentioned (Deut. 21:19f.) is an indication that the son is a
grown man (cf. Luke 15:11-32). The question arises: why do the parents take
action? Because the conduct of their son violated accepted social norms and
undermined the community? Or do they come up for their own interests? Is the
background that by his asocial behaviour the son impoverishes his parents (cf.
Prov. 23:20f.) and so is the cause that they have to spend their old age in
destitute circumstances? (cf. Prov. 28:7; 29:3). How much different from the
reaction of the parents in Deut. 21 is the reaction of the father - after the son
had come to his senses - in the parable of the prodigal son (Luke 15:11-32).
Also Zech. 13:3 (cf. Deut. 13:9; 18:20) mentions parents who (feel they must)
do something about a son. But there it concerns a different issue.
Several regulations in CH pertain to disrespectful behaviour toward (fos-
ter)parents (§§168, 169, 192, 193). Thus, for example, the hand of a son who
hits his father is to be cut off (§195). Disinheritance and being sold into
slavery of a son who breaks with his parents is mentioned is a Sumerian law
(YBC 2177; see ANET, 526a).'34
2.5.2.2.3 Parents deserve protection against their children. About the oppo
site, protection o f children against abuse by their parents, one of the gains of
the modem constitutional state, the OT contains no directions. Such instruc
tions do exist with respect to the defenseless minor, the orphan (see 2.12.1).
That parents look after their children is assumed to be ‘natural’ (e.g. Isa. 49:15;
Ps. 103:13). However, the awareness that unnatural behaviour is not foreign to
humans is certainly there (cf. Ps. 27:10). According to 2 Kgs. 6:28f. it can
happen that, driven by extreme circumstances, people even eat their own
children.*135 The command addressed to parents and children to respect each
other, as this is found in the NT (Eph. 6:Iff.; Col. 3:2If.), is absent from the
OT.
154 See further Paul (see 2.2.1), 64, 66f.; Yaron (see 2.2.1), 155fF.
135 See also Lev. 26:29; 28:56f.; Jer. 19:9; Ezek. 5:10; Lam. 2:20; 4:10; Josephus, BJ, VI,
201ff. Cannibalism in extreme distress as topic is also known from the literature of Israel’s
‘Umwelt;’ see J.C. Greenfield, “Doves’ Dung and the Price of Food: The Topoi of II Kings
6:24-7:2,” in Storia e tradizioni di Israele (Fs J.A. Soggin), Brescia 1991, 121-6; S. Lasine,
“Jehoram and the Cannibal Mothers (2 Kings 6.24-33): Solomon’s Judgement in an Inverted
Vtorld,” JSOT 50 (1991) 27-53; M. Oeming, BN 47 (1989), 90-106. For child sacrifice see V>1.
II, 163ff.
Volume III1
21:15, 17 1DN1, for waw meaning ‘or’ see Joilon §175a; cf. LXX, Vulg. and
also Mek., Ill, 47f. In rabbinic exegesis n av nia in 21:15 is interpreted as
execution by strangling with a strip of cloth (e.g. Mek., Ill, 43f.; bSanh 84b),
in 21:17 as execution by stoning {Mek., Ill, 49; bSanh 66a); cf. Deut. 21:21
and e.g. Josephus, CA, II, 206.
2.5.2.3 Kidnapping
Trade in humans was an accepted practice in the ancient world (cf. 1 Tim.
1:10) and also in ancient Israel. Free citizens could be forced to surrender their
freedom because of insolvency and lose their freedom in war (see 2.4.3, 5).
Neither situation was regarded as an unjust loss of freedom and intolerable. By
contrast, kidnapping, the forcible or traitorous capture of a free citizen with the
intention of selling him abroad as a slave, was condemned as unethical. A
citizen’s freedom was sacrosanct. Enslaving a free man against his will was a
serious social infraction, deserving the severest punishment (cf. 2.2.18).
Also 20:15 has been taken as a law against kidnapping (see 1.7.5). The
subject, in the OT also touched on in Deut. 24:7, also occurs in the laws of
Israel’s neighbouring countries. CH §14 demands the penalty for the ‘kidnap
ping’ by an awilum of the child of an awilum. HL §19 sets a very high
compensation on the abduction of a free man or woman. Also slaves were
stolen (cf. HL §§20, 21).136 The trade in humans (females) continues to persist
even until today.
21:16 3331 (see 20:15), the reference is to an Israelite who ‘steals’ a fellow-
citizen, illegally deprives him (or her) of his freedom, for the purpose of
selling him abroad as a slave (cf. Gen. 37:25ff; 40:15). tf’K (Introd. §3.2.2),
meant is an Israelite citizen; cf. LXX: ‘one of the sons of Israel;’ similarly TO,
TPsJ; the expansion is based on harmonization with Deut. 24:7; according to
A. Aejmelaeus, ZAW 99 (1987), 83ff., the translator of the LXX made use of a
harmonized original text. The LXX also contains, likewise on the basis of
Deut. 24:7, the expansion xai KataSuvaoTeuoac au-cov, ‘and treating him like
a slave.’ In Mek., Ill, 44f., as also in other cases, the question is raised whether
the regulation also holds if the one who does the stealing is a woman and the
kidnapped person is a woman or a child; the answer is in the affirmative (cf.
also Rashi). D3B1 (see 21:7), the clause starts with a participial construction
and is continued with a finite verb (Ges-K §116x; Jotton §119r). NSB31 (see
5:11), it is usually assumed that the abducted man is subject (change of
subject). In Deut. 24:7 the abductor is subject. So one might consider whether
the meaning could be: ‘or is caught’ (cf. 22:1, 6, 7), viz. while he still has him
136 See further Paul (see 2.2.1), 65f.; Wfestbrook (see 2.2.1), 122; Yaron (see 2.2.1), 146fF.
Volume III1
EXODUS 21:15-17 151
(the abducted person) ‘in his possession’ (IT’S) (cf. N iy also NRSV).
IT’S (Introd. §3.21.2), in TPsJ correctly interpreted as ‘in his possession’ (cf.
Mek., Ill, 45). In rabbinic exegesis, in connection with the question when pre
cisely the death penalty is proper, there is discussion about the question to
whom the suffix refers (see Nachmanides and Jacob). To the abducted person
(‘in his hand’ = to his property; the man has not yet been carried away from
his land), or to the buyer (when the man has been sold, there is convincing
proof; so Nachmanides), or to the abductor? (so Rashi). Westbrook (see 2.2.1),
119, has defended the view that the reference is to the buyer. Postulating a
change of subject, he maintains that the death penalty (also) pertains to the
buyer.
Most likely the reference is to the seller. What is true is that 1T3 N3D31, at
least due to its position after 1*1301, is striking. The two sequential waws likely
mean ‘either ... or’ (see Joiion §167b note, 175b; Williams §433). If that
should be the case, two possible situations are set forth, but in a seemingly
illogical sequence. For that reason n o KX011 is regarded as an expansion of
the text, giving the regulation a broader application. The abductor is fully
guilty and subject to prosecution not just when the sale is finalized, thus
proving the crime, but also in case the abductor has not yet been able to carry
out his heinous plan.137 An objection to that would be that in practice such a
sale would have been hard to prove. For it must be assumed that the abducted
person was being transported, so that, far from home, he will become a slave
and never resurface. His vanishing without a trace could be for other reasons
(cf. Gen. 37:20, 3Iff). So it is not surprising that the Vulg. translates
1 T 3 KJtQJI as convictus noxae, ‘convinced of guilt’ (the guilt of the abductor
has been demonstrated). To that should be added that, more than the sale itself,
the holding of an individual against his/her will is conclusive proof of some
one’s evil intentions with a fellow citizen.
All in all, one might consider the possibility of translating 21:16 as: ‘and he
tries to sell him, but he (the abducted person) is still in his possession, then ...’
(cf. Holzinger). In any case, the situation here differs from that of stealing
animals. If the animals are still in the thief’s possession, the punishment is less
severe than if he had already sold or slaughtered them (21:37; 22:3). The
reason is obvious. In the first case, there is room for doubt about the intention
of the ‘holder.’ Having in one’s possession an animal belonging to someone
else does not necessarily mean that one is a thief (see exegesis). One who holds
a free human being against his or her will is clearly a thief. A stolen animal
137 Cf. Fishbane*, 188f., 221, 241f.; Brin, “Development” (see 2.2.1), 6 Iff.; but note also
Schwienhorst-Schdnberger (see 2.2.1), 220ff., 237; B.M. Levinson, “The Case for Revision and
Interpolation within Biblical Legal Corpora,” in idem (see 2.2.1), 37-59 (pp. 44ff.).
Volume III1
cannot testify, but an abducted person can.

In TPsJ the death penalty is interpreted as death by strangling with a strip of
cloth (cf. Mek., Ill, 45f.; Rashi).
2.5.3 Q uarrel resulting in mistreatment (21:18,19)
21:18 ‘But when men quarrel with each other and one hits the other with a
stone or fist so hard that, though he does not die, he is confined to bed (then
he does not have to be put to death).
19 I f he recovers and walks around outside, even i f leaning on his staff, then
he who delivered the blow shall go free. Only he must give compensation fo r
the loss o f his time and create the conditions fo r healing. ’
2.5.3.1 In 21:18 the following scene is portrayed: two or more men start quar
reling, e.g. about the use of pasture or a well (Gen. 13:7; 26:20). As they
exchange words, one of the scufflers, in his excitement, picks up a stone and
hurls it at the other, or with his fist gives the other such a whack that he is
injured, no longer able to do his work and has to be confined to his bed. 21:19
transports the reader to a longer or shorter time after the incident and depicts a
situation which often occurs after a maltreatment: the maltreated person pulled
through and is again able to go about his regular activities; the question is
answered whether and in what sense in such a situation the attacker can be held
responsible for his deed.
21:19 offers a regulation concerning a specific situation that could occur after
the described incident. The question has been raised how to deal with the
attacker if the victim dies at home in his bed or dies of his wounds or is
permanently disabled, no longer or only in part able to do his work. It is
aigued that if the man dies as yet, the regulation of 21:12 is applicable, and
that in case of permanent injury the talionic principle kicks in (21:23-25) (so
already Rashi and see e.g. Schenker [see 2.2.1], 35f.). This view is defended
on the ground of the conjecture that the original order of the text was as
follows: 21:18, 19, 23-25, 22, 20, 21, 26, 27 (e.g. Baentsch). The fact that it
requires reconstruction of the text leaves it open to question (cf. Schwienhorst-
Schdnbeiger [see 2.2.1], 53).
2.5.3.2 According to rabbinic interpretation, npil in 21:19 is to be understood
as follows: the attacker will not be subject to the death penalty (TPsJ), that is,
the man who was held in custody after his brutal act is set free if the victim
pulls through, recovers of his wounds, while he is given the death sentence if
the victim, sick and bed-ridden at home, succumbs to the wounds (cf. M ek,
III, 53f.; Rashi; Nachmanides; Jacob).
Volume III1
EXODUS 2 1 :1 8 , 19 153
This interpretation is taken over by G. Schmitt:13®the perpetrator as soon as

the victim is again able to go about his regular business, goes free, that is, he
is free of blood-guilt. From that moment on the offender can no longer be held
responsible for his act; if the man should subsequently die, he can no longer be
called to account; the violent act and the death may no longer be causally con
nected. In the period of time that the victim remains confined to his home, the
offender is unsure about his fate. As long as the victim lives there is hope for
the attacker but also the threat of execution. Not until it is sure that the
molested person has recovered can the one who struck him be sure of his life.
2.S.3.3 In the interpretation also the relationship of 21:18 to 21:19 plays a
role. Does 21:18, introduced by ’31 (Introd. §3.25.2), have the usual function
of stating the general rule, while 21:19, introduced by DK (Introd. §3.4.1),
describes a concrete incident? (e.g. Holzinger). Schwienhorst-Schdnbeiger,
53f., maintains that here QK is temporal in meaning. As is commonly done, he
regards the clause with npjl as the apodosis of the clause with ,31: ‘but when
..., then he, who ..., is free (of blood guilt and obligations toward the victim),
as soon as he (the victim) ....’ In my view, it is more likely that in the cove
nant book OK is used in the regular sense and that what should be kept in mind
is: after offenses that carry the death penalty (21:12-17), lesser offenses, not
subject to the death penalty, are listed (21:18-27). So the question can be asked
whether 21:18 might be an elliptic clause and whether the implied apodosis
indicates that in the situation that is described the death penalty is not applica
ble, in distinction, e.g., from that of 21:15, 17, in which the victim does not
die either, while nevertheless the death penalty is demanded. It is important to
bear in mind that the general rule refers to the case in which someone survives
the attack (not to the case in which someone succumbs to it, see 21:12). With
respect to that kind of situation 21:19 describes a concrete, apparently often
occurring case. npJi I take as follows: the attacker is released from his obliga
tions, viz., to reimburse the victim for his loss of income and to pay for his
medical care (21:19b). It should be remembered that it ‘takes two to pick a
fight.’ That has consequences for how one views the perpetrator and for
determining adequate punishment. If a victim survives an assault that happened
in the course of a quarrel, there is no room for the death penalty. The victim
was part of the scuffle, not an innocent bystander (cf. 21:22). Both are respon
sible for the quarrel. That makes a fine or punishment based on the talionic
principle inappropriate. It is only fair to the attacker that the circumstances
under which the incident happened be taken into account in the evaluation.
What may be asked of him is that he compensate the victim for the damages13
131 “Ex 21,18f. und das rabbinische Recht,” in W. Dietrich et al. (eds.), Theokratia (Fs K.H.
Rengstorf), Leiden 1973, 7-15; see also Schwienhorst-SchOnberger, 52ff.
Volume III1
he suffers and assume the expenses he incurred.

From 21:19b it can be inferred that the attacker was obligated to pay for the
damages suffered by the victim from the moment of the attack. In 21:19 it is
stated that the obligation ceases the moment the victim has recovered to such
an extent that he is again able to lead a normal life. And what if the victim is a
permanent invalid? Then the attacker is permanently responsible for providing
compensation and care. And what if the victim dies in his sickbed? 21:19b
offers an indication of the kind of settlement that in such cases can be made
between the families involved (cf. 21:30 and see CH §§207, 208; HL §174).
2.S.3.4 Similar laws are known from Israel’s surrounding world. In CH §206
it is stipulated that it is enough if one who wounds another in a fight, after
having declared under oath that he did not strike the other purposely, pays the
medical expenses (cf. Sick [see 2.2.1], 101f., 202ff.).
In case the victim dies of his wounds, the attacker must pay a sum of money,
the amount of which depends on the social status of the victim (CH §§207,
208). HL §10A contains, without mentioning what led to it, also the case of
someone who injured and incapacitated another person: the requirement is laid
down that damages be paid in the form of a person who can do the victim’s
work and pay medical expenses; the compensation is for a limited time, ending
when the injured person has recuperated; then he still receives a sum of money
after which the case is closed. HL §174 prescribes compensation in the form of
a person when someone got killed during a fight.139
21:18 p ' T (see 17:2), cf. p 't f T in 22:8. ‘men’ (Introd. §3.2.1), LXX and
Pesh.: ‘two men,’ as such it is possible, however, that aside from the one
inflicting the hurt and the victim, more men were involved in the melee. It
concerns free Israelites. Sam.Pent.: p m (plur. instead of sing.; cf. LXXB), both
men use violence, ‘one’ - ‘the other,’ see Introd. §3.2.2 and 2:13. pK , see
7:19.
The meaning of (21:18; Isa. 58:4) is uncertain. Common is the transla
tion ‘fist’ (e.g. KoW, HAL, Ges.ls) on the basis of the meaning of the term in
Middle Hebrew and in ancient interpretation (LXX, Aq., Pesh., Vulg., TPsJ,
TNf, FT, PTA, Mek., Ill, 52). TO has NrnTD, understood by Nachmanides as
‘a clod of earth,’ but by others as fist. In connection with TO, also the transla
tion ‘club,’ ‘stick’ has been used (SS). See further Ges-B: ‘clod of earth’
(derivative of *pj); KBL: ‘broom, shovel, rake’ (on the basis of the Arabic). In
favour of the view that the term denotes a tool or object is the absence of the
article or the personal pronoun. In view of the uncertainty about the term, I3
l3’ See further RLA, VI, 173fF.; Otto, Kdrperverletzungen (see 2.2.1); Paul (see 2.2.1), 67f.,
103; Wfestbrook (see 2.2.1), 39.
Volume III1
EXODUS 2 1 :1 8 , 19 155
stay with the traditional meaning. The Sam.Pent. contains no hint about the
instruments of violence, and therefore talks only in general terms. However
instruments by which the violence is committed are mentioned by way of
example. The mention has no restrictive force (cf. the discussion in Mek., Ill,
52).
Is the fact that the object used for the striking is mentioned an indication that
the man purposely (cf. Num. 35:16ff.; Deut. 19:4f.) wanted to inflict severe
injury on the other, even wanted to kill him? Evidently, the issue was not a
feud that had to be fought out (cf. Deut. 19:4, 6, 11; Num. 35:20-23), but a
dispute that got out of hand; the contestants lost control of themselves, grab
bing a stone or other nearby object to rough up the other. No premeditation
was involved. In any case, it would be hard to proof that such was the case.
Schenker (see 2.2.1), 35f., maintains that, if there should be no premeditation,
there is at least purpose, the intent to injure the other. It is doubtful that such is
the case. An enraged person does not know what he is doing.
‘die,’ see Introd. §3.3. *?S3, see 15:16. 338?», see 7:28. TO offers a descrip
tion: ‘and unable to do anything’ cf. TO’s translation of in3© in
21:19); TPsJ: ‘and gets sick;’ TNf: ‘and ends up sick in bed’ (cf. FT).
21:19 Dip, see 1:8. ‘walk about’ (see Introd. §3.14.3), LXX with explicit
subject 6 av6pG)7to<;. fin, see 12:46. ‘staff5 (Introd. §3.21.10), Jacob holds that
the staff was a regular part of every man’s outfit (cf. Gen. 38:18); anyway, the
explicit mention of the staff is an indication that the man is not yet fully back
on his feet, back to his former self. TO gives a description, n "H 3 *?», ‘in
health’ (cf. Mek., Ill, 53; Rashi; differently Nachmanides). npi, see 20:7. p"i,
see 8:5.
roe? (see 2:15), Cazelles (see 2.2.1), 53f., understands in??? as ‘his house’
and proposes, referring to HL §10 (see 2.5.3.4), that originally the meaning
was: ‘for his home he has to provide a person to look after him;’ F.C. Fens-
ham, VT 10 (1960), 333-5, proposes, likewise after the analogy of HL §10, to
understand m3?? as ‘in his place,’ that is, a person must be made available as a
substitute for the victim. ‘To offer compensation,’ see Introd. §3.36; TNf, PTA
concretely: ‘(give) the wages for the period of time of his inactivity;’ TPsJ:
‘(give compensation) for the length of time in which he could not work, for his
suffering, the damages and the loss’ (cf. Mek., Ill, 54).
NBT ttsni (see 15:26 and Rosner [Introd. §3.29.2], 103ff.), TO, concretely:
C 1?©1 tt’OK UNI, ‘and he must pay the wages of the doctor’ (cf. Mek., Ill, 55);
in LXX en Vulg. the verbal clause is translated respectively as xai t a iaxpeia
and et impensas in medicos, ‘the cost of the physicians,’ and become a second
object of in ’; idem in TPsJ, TNf and PTA: ‘and the wages of the doctor’ (TPsJ:
+ ‘until he is recovered;’ TNf, PTA: + ‘who has taken care of him’). See also
Pesh. and cf. Prijs**, 10.
Volume III1
21:19b refers to the period of time the victim was bed-ridden, home-bound.
As soon as the man appears outside again, the attacker is released from his
responsibility to provide compensation and care.
2.5.4 M istreatment of a male or female slave resulting in death (21:20,

21)
21:20 ‘But when someone strikes his male or his female slave with a stick so
that he dies while he is being struck, his death shall certainly be avenged.
21 However if (after the beating) he is back on his feet fo r a day or two (and
then suddenly dies), then his death may not be avenged. After all, it is his own
property. ’
2.5.4.1 Just as 21:2-11, 21:20, 21 is about laws pertaining to slaves. In distinc

tion from 21:2-11, the regulations of 21:20, 21 are both for the male slave
(Introd. §3.37.2) and the female slave (Introd. §3.37.3). 21:20 states the
general rule; 21:21 describes the situation in which the regulation of 21:20 is
not applicable. The passage has been much discussed (see especially Schwien-
horst-Schdnberger [see 2.2.1], 59ff.) and presents the exegete with several
problems.
Does the regulation pertain to Israelite debt slaves, to non-Israelite debt
slaves, or to both? In TPsJ the male and female slave are explicitly identified
as ‘Canaanite’ (cf. also TNf 21:22 margin; Mek., Ill, 57f.; Rashi; Nachmani-
des). Some modem exegetes believe that non-Israelites are meant (cf. Lev.
25:44f.) (e.g. Dillmann, Heinisch). Others think of slaves in general140 or
specifically of Israelite debt slaves.141 In my view, at the least there is no
reason to think exclusively of foreign slaves. That the slaves are not identified
as ‘Hebrew’ (cf. 21:2), does not exclude the possibility that the rule is espe
cially for Israelite slaves. There is no reason to assume that while they were in
debt slavery, they would be regarded as full citizens (and that consequently
21:12, but not 21:20, is applicable to them) and that to them the qualification
‘property’ came across as an insult (21:21).
2.5.4.2 Does 21:20 describe a case of intentional homicide and 21:21 a case
of death without intent? The question is answered affirmatively.142 It is improb
able that a slave owner would purposely disadvantage himself (cf. 21:21b). As
I see it, the question with/without intent does not enter the picture (cf. 21:13,
140 E.g. Holzinger, Baentsch, Noth, H.G.L. Peels, The Vengeance o f God, Leiden 1995, 73f.
141 E.g. Cazelles (see 2.2.1), 54; Cardinelli (see 2.4.1), 258ff.; 265ff.; Schwienhorst-SchOnber-
ger (see 2.2.1), 62ff.; Vfcstbrook (see 2.2.1), 89ff.
141 Among others by Noth; Otto, Rechtsgeschichte (see 2.2.1), 138f.; Peels, 72f.; Cardinelli,
259f„ 268.
Volume III1
EXODUS 2 1 :2 0 , 21 157
14) in 21:20, 21. Nor does the question whether it is allowed to use a stick to
whip a slave. The stipulation is directed at the master who cannot restrain
himself and savagely beats his slave with a stick. Such a brute goes against all
accepted rules for disciplining, which are based on the concept that disciplining
is meant for correction, changing one’s behaviour (cf. Prov. 10:13; 13:24;
19:25; 22:15; 23:13f.; 26:3; 29:17), not for manhandling. He is not allowed to
go free if it is clear that he is obviously guilty. That is the case when a slave
dies under the beating.
For a presumed offender to be punished there should be no doubt about his
guilt. If the slave should die some time after a savage beating, there is the
possibility of doubt and it cannot be conclusively demonstrated that there exists
a causal link between the death and the beating by the master. In that case, the
possibility that the slave died a natural death cannot be excluded. The more so,
because the master by losing a worker has suffered a loss - and so in a sense
was punished in case he should be culpable - , there is no reason to take action
against him (21:21).
21:20 delimits the property right (21:21b) of the master and is designed to
protect slaves. A master must realize that slaves are more than just property,
they are also human beings and fellow countrymen. Therefore there should be
moderation when punishment is inflicted. Purpose of 21:20 is to prevent cruel
treatment of slaves. 21:21, though, restricts the preventive effect of 21:20. The
stipulation protects the master and removes the incentive not to inflict undue
cruelty on the slave (but see also 21:26, 27). His right to inflict harsh admoni
tion remains untouched.
2.S.4.3 What type of punishment is prescribed in 21:20b? What should be the
punishment if criminal behaviour in case of death has been demonstrated? The
interpretation of Dp)? Dp) is a point of dispute. Old is the notion that the guilty
person is to be put to death. The Sam.Pent. has also here (cf. 21:12-17) the
formula mp-v niD and in 21:21 n o r for op’ (cf. also SamT). Vfery explicit is
TPsJ: he must be sentenced to death by the sword (beheading) (cf. Mek., Ill,
60; Rashi; Nachmanides). There are also modem expositors who maintain that
the death penalty is meant. Cassuto believes that here the slave, too, is viewed
as a human being, created in the divine image; when a slave is killed the
punishment should be the same as in the case of the killing of a free individual
(21:12). Yet the slave is not totally equal to a free individual. The master
possesses the right to penalize him, and enjoys protection in case of indirect
manslaughter Paul (see 2.2.1), 69f., talks in the same vein. Both contend that
the law codes of the ancient Near East do not have a high regard for the life of
the slave, such as is presupposed in 21:20.
Noth, Fensham, Cazelles (see 2.2.1), 54, Cardinelli (see 2.4.1), 258f.,
Schenker (see 2.2.1), 58, E. Lipinski, TWAT, V, 605f., take action toward the
offender as a clear instance of ‘blood vengeance.’ Schenker considers it
Volume III1
entirely possible that judges played a role in carrying it out; certainly if the
slave was a foreigner, because his relatives did not have the right to register a
complaint or were not available. In case it concerns a foreign slave, Lipihski
leaves room for the possibility of immanent or divine vengeance. Peels (see
2.5.4.1), 73f., believes that in all cases it was up to the judges to see to it that
justice was served.
TPsJ (see above) is very explicit. Other ancient versions are less so. Clear is
that the translators had in mind an orderly legal procedure; LXX: 8 ikt)
eicdiKTiOrjTG), ‘he must be punished with a conviction;’ Vulg.: criminis reus
erit, ‘he will be guilty of a crime;’ TO for its translation of 0p3 has made use
of the root p i , ‘to judge/convict’ (cf. also Pesh.); FTP renders: O'JpJV KOJpne,
‘he must be fined’ (cf. also PTA, TNf margin and see FTV). Also several
modem exegetes hold that the punishment intended is certainly not the death
penalty. It might be a (light) punishment imposed by the judge (e.g. Keil,
Dillmann, Heinisch, Childs) or a fine to be paid at the sanctuary (e.g. Holzin-
ger, Baentsch).
The fact that the nov niD formula is not used is an argument in favour of
thinking of another punishment than execution. Further, the fact that the slave
is the master’s property (21:21b) - it plays a role in the determination of the
case described in 21:21 - likely also played a role in determining the measure
of punishment in case of criminal homicide. Also according to 21:26f., 32 the
difference in value between a slave and a free person is a factor in setting the
measure of punishment. In 21:20 it is specified that the argument that the
master has money invested in the slave (21:21b) does not give him the freedom
to punish the slave unduly harshly.
2.S.4.4 An entirely new interpretation of Opr Dpi has been set forth by West
brook (see 2.2.1), 89ff. He reads the formula in the light of CH §116, which
demands vicarious punishment if someone who became a debt-slave dies in the
home of the creditor, due to a beating or other harsh treatment; if the victim is
a son, the creditor’s son is to be killed; if it concerns a slave, pecuniary ransom
is sufficient. Westbrook believes that 21:20 is about a free Israelite who has
become a debt-slave and that the creditor/master; if the victim is a girl, must be
punished with the death of a daughter; if the debtor himself is the victim, the
creditor himself must pay for it with his own life, etc. Westbrook, 99f., also
offers a new interpretation of 21:21b: ‘but it (i.e. the revenge) is his money
(i.e. the debt)’ (p. 100). In his view, the master is not entirely exonerated if the
slave dies after a few days, for he then forfeits his claim on the debt for which
the person in question was made a debt slave.
Schwienhorst-Schdnberger, 66f., 70, rejects Westbrook’s interpretation of
21:21 by referring to CH §115, in which it is stipulated that in case of a
natural death, the creditor, whose debt-slave dies a natural death, can lay no
claim to compensation. He understands the end of 21:21 as follows: ‘denn um
Volume III1
EXODUS 2 1 :2 0 , 21 159
sein Geld geht es hierbei,’ that is, now that the debt-slave has died, the creditor
can no longer insist on repayment of the debt (cf. CH §116). He does, how
ever, go along with Westbrook’s view that 21:20 deals with ‘vicarious talio’
(pp. 68ff.). He suggests that this practice is being criticized in Deut. 24:16 (p.
74). Westbrook’s notion may be quite original, but is not convincing enough
(cf. Peels, 75) to be accepted. In the preceding verses the wrongdoer himself
always pays for his offenses. All in all, as I see it, the most plausible view is
that 21:20 deals with being sentenced to some kind of punishment (not capital
punishment) by the judicial authorities.
Rejection of the standpoint of Westbrook and Schwienhorst- Schonberger
implies the admission of the absence of parallels of 20:20, 21 in the codices of
the ancient Near East (cf. Paul [see 2.2.1], 78; Yaron [see 2.2.1], 285 n. 111).
In HL §§3, 4 compensation is prescribed in case someone strikes someone
elseb male or female slave so hard that he or she dies (cf. Cardellini, 127f.).
21:20 H3J hiph., see 2:11. t&’K (Introd. §3.2.2), is here the Israelite owner (cf.
21:21b) of the male or female slave,the master (cf. 21:4, 5, 6, 32).
(Introd. §3.21.10), with article (cf. Ges-K §126r; JoOon §137m), that is, the
staff or stick which usually was part of the slave owner’s gear. The object
referred to elucidates the situation: it was not a murder weapon (cf. 21:18;
Num. 35:16ff.), but the tool used to call slaves to order, BDBfa is absent in
Sam.Pent., turning the verse into a more general statement (cf. also Mek., Ill,
58; Rashi). However, in 21:20 the focus is on a very specific situation, noi, see
Introd. §3.32. IT nnn (Introd. §3.21.1), LXX, Vulg.: ‘under his hands;’ meant
is that the slave dies under the beating, at the place of the incident and not
some time later at a different place (cf. 21:21a).
Dp)’ Dp) inf. abs. qal + imperf. niph. (cf. e.g. JoOon §123p, 176m; Waltke-
O’Connor §35.2.1d) of Dpi (OT 36*), which elsewhere in Exodus occurs only
in 21:21 (hoph.; cf. however Waltke-O’Connor §22.6b). Dpi qal is commonly
thought to mean ‘to avenge,’ ‘to take revenge,’ (see THAT, II, 106ff.; TWAT,
V, 602ff.). The meaning of Dpi in 21:20f. is disputed (see Peels [see 2.5.4.1],
71ff., and 2.5.4.3). Subject of Opr and Dp' in 21:21 is really not the offender
nor the victim (Peels, 71), but the offense = the death of the slave (cf. Holzin-
ger).
21:21 *]K, see 10:17. D’Dl’ IK ov (Introd. §3.23.1), is in TPsJ understood as ‘a

twenty-four period,’ from the moment of the incident (cf. also Mek., Ill, 61;
Rashi; Nachmanides); the master is liable to punishment if the slave dies on the
day of the offense.
7D» (see 3:5) is taken literally by Nachmanides; even if the slave dies on the
second day, but did not stand up at all, it is a case of manslaughter ‘under his
"and.’ Schwienhorst- Schdnbeiger (see 2.2.1), 64f., describes ~IDB as ‘render
Volume III1
service;’ the likely meaning is that apparently the slave was not seriously
injured (cf. 21:25f.) and can go on with his life as before. Vredenbuig and
BOhl have underpreted TDD as ‘stand up’ and the time designation as a
terminus postquem: if the slave has recuperated after a few days (cf. 21:19), no
punishment is given because the slave is property. The interpretation, assuming
it is grammatically feasible (the accusative of time is used), is not very
meaningful. Must the master be punished if for a period of time the slave is
unfit for work? At issue is only the question when a master can be held liable
for the death of his slave and when not. 1B03 (Introd. §3.28), likely to be taken
as subject (cf. Holzinger).
2.5.5 A pregnant woman as victim of a scuffle (21:22-25)
21:22 ‘But i f men get involved in a fight and they strike a -woman who is
expecting so hard that she miscarriages, but she herself is not fatally injured,
then a fine shall be required as high as the husband o f the woman imposes
upon him (the offender). Thus, he must pay fo r the miscarriage.
23 But i f she is fatally injured, then as compensation you are to give life fo r
life;
24 (in other cases) an eye as compensation fo r fo r an eye, a tooth as
compensation fo r a tooth, a hand as compensation fo r a hand, a foot as
compensation fo r a foot,
25 a bum as compensation fo r a bum, an open wound as compensation fo r
an open wound, a bruise as compensation fo r a bruise. ’
2.5.5.1 Bibl.: J. Bastiaens, “‘Oog voor oog, tand voor tand’: Over ver-geld-ing
en verzoening (Mt 5,38-39),” in W. Weren et al. (eds.), Bij de put van Jacob,
Tilburg 1986, 72-97; T. Broer, “Zur Wirkungsgeschichte des Talio-\ferbots in
der Alten Kirche,” BN 66 (1993), 24-31; C. Carmichael, “Biblical Laws of
Talion,” HAR 9 (1985), 107-26; N.L. Collins, “Notes on the Text of Exodus
XXI 22,” VT 43 (1993), 289-301; R.N. Congdon, “Exodus 21:22-25 and the
Abortion Debate,” BS 146 (1989), 132-47; F. Criisemann, ‘“ Auge um Auge ...’
(Exod. 21,24f): Zum sozialgeschichtlichen Sinn des Talionsgesetzes im
Bundesbuch,” EvTh 47 (1987), 411-26; F.J. DOlger, “Das Lebensrecht des
ungeborenen Kindes und die Fruchtabtreibung in der Bewertung der heidni-
schen und christlichen Antike,” Antike und Christentum 4 (1934), 1-61; J.
Ellington, “Miscarriage or Premature Birth?,” BiTr 37 (1986), 334-7; Fishba-
ne*, 92f.; T. Frymer-Kensky, “Tit for Tat: The Principle of Equal Retribution
in Near Eastern and Biblical Law,” BA 43 (1980), 230-4; R. Fuller, “Exodus
21:22-23: The Miscarriage Interpretation and the Personhood of the Fetus,”
JETS 37 (1994), 169-84; H.W. House, “Miscarriage or Premature Birth:
Additional Thoughts on Exodus 21:22-25,” WThJ 41 (1978), 108-23; S. Isser,
Volume III1
EXODUS 2 1 :2 2 -2 5 161
“TVvo Traditions: The Law of Exodus 21:22,23 Revisited,” CBQ 52 (1990),

30-45; B.S. Jackson, “The Problem of Exod. XXI 22-5 (Ius Talionis)," VT 23
(1973), 273-304; H.-W. JOngling, ‘“ Auge flir Auge, Zahn ftir Zahn’:
Bemerkungen zu Sinn und Geltung der alttestamentlichen Talionsformeln,”
Theologie und Philosophic 59 (1984), 1-38; S. Lafont, “Ancient Near Eastern
Laws: Continuity and Pluralism,” in Levinson (see 2.2.1), 91-118 (pp. 11Off.);
J. te Lindert, Over de status van het menselijk embryo in de joodse en christe-
lijke ethiek, Diss. Utrecht 1998; S.E. Loewenstamm, “Exodus XXI 22-25,” VT
27 (1977), 352-60 (critical review of Jackson’s article); B. Maarsingh, “Het ius
talionis en 1 Kgs. 21:19b,” in Vruchten van de Uithof (Fs H.A. Brongers),
Utrecht 1974, 88-99; Ph.J. Nel, “The Talion Principle in Old Testament
Narratives,” JNSL 20 (1994), 21-29; Osumi (see 2.2.1), 113ff.; Otto, Wandel
(see 2.2.1), 24ff.; idem, Rechtsgeschichte (see 2.2.1), 135ff.; idem, Korperver-
letzungen (see 2.2.1), 118ff.; idem, “Die Geschichte der Talion im Alten Orient
und Israel,” in D.R. Daniels et al. (eds.), Emten, was man sat (Fs K. Koch),
Neukirchen-Vluyn 1991, 471-94; idem, “Town and Rural Countryside in
Ancient Israelite Law: Reception and Redaction in Cuneiform and Israelite
Law” JSOT 57 (1993), 3-22; Schenker (see 2.2.1), 41ff.; Schwienhorst-SchOn-
berger (see 2.2.1), 79ff.; Sick (see 2.2.1), 7f., 48, 154f., 159; J.M. Sprinkle,
“The Interpretation of Exodus 21:22-25 (Lex Talionis) and Abortion,” WThJ 55
(1993), 233-53; K.A. T&ngbeig, “The Evaluation of the Unborn Life in Israel
and the Ancient Middle East,” SJOT 1 (1987), 51-65; R. Westbrook, “Lex
Talionis and Exodus 21, 22-25,” RB 93 (1986), 52-69.
2.5.5.2 The situation 21:22 deals with is similar to the one presented in
21:18: a fight ensued after a dispute got out of hand. 21:18, 19 deals with the
question what to do in case one of the men involved in the fight suffered
injury. 21:22, 23 describes a different case: the pushing and punching fighters
touch a pregnant woman - one of the bystanders or passersby, a woman who
tries to intervene (2 Sam. 14:6), or a woman who comes to the aid of her
husband (cf. Deut. 25:11) - , knock her over or trample on her; or also: fighter
A aims a solid blow at his opponent B, who just manages to get out of the
way, so that Mrs. C, who happened to be standing behind B, gets the full brunt
and is knocked to the ground; she miscarriages. The possibility is even taken
into account that she dies as a result of the incurred wounds or is permanently
injured.
For various reasons the case cannot be resolved as in the case of 21:18, 19.
The fetus is dead. Medical attention can do nothing to give her back her
unborn child. Furthermore, the relation between the people involved is not the
same as in 21:18, 19. There it is free men who get into a fight. Here it
concerns a woman, that is a person who suddenly becomes a party in a
situation she had nothing to do with. Particularly the fact that the victim is a
person belonging to someone else is important for the assessment of the case.
Volume III1
By taking up some of the problems the passage presents, I will enfold my

view on the stipulation. I note here that the case presented in the passage is not
hypothetical. Much more so than in our society, pregnant women were a
common street sight. Consequently, the chance of a woman who is not preg
nant receiving serious hurt as a result of a brawl between men was relatively
smaller.
2.5.S.3 First we look at the problematic term D’bb? at the end of 21:22.
O’bb? is the plur. of b’b 9* (21:22; Deut. 32:31; Job 3:11), which occurs only
in the plural and is regarded as a derivative of bbB (see THAT, II, 427ff.;
TWAT, VI, 606ff.). The meaning is uncertain and disputed.143
An old idea, still having adherents (e.g. Keil, Noth, Cassuto, Te Stroete,
Jackson, 277ff.), is that O’b b s means ‘judges/arbiters.’ In TO O’b b B S is
translated with K 'jn ID’DD, ‘in accordance with the verdict of the judges’
(similarly TPsJ and see M e t, III, 66); in TNf with I T '" DIB bs, ‘in accordance
with the decision of the judges’ (similarly PTA); in LXX with p eta
aûopatoc, ‘(judicially) determined;’ in Vulg. with el arbitri iudicarint, ‘and
the judges bring in a verdict;’ similarly also Pesh. It is presumed that it falls to
the judges to assess the fairness of the fine and to prevent the husband from
overchaiging or to supervise the payment of the compensation. Josephus (AJ,
IV, 278) holds that a fine had to be paid to the judges and compensation to the
spouse. K. Budde, ZAW 11 (1891), 106ff., rejects the interpretation ‘judges:’ it
does not agree with the information that the spouse determines the fine; also, in
view of the context, it would seem that the preposition 3 after )nJ can only be
a 3 praetii (Delitzsch*, 110: read 3); he proposes to read D’b9?3 (plur.,
correlative with mb'*): the offender must give compensation fo r the miscar
riage. Budde’s suggestion has gained approval from some commentators,
including Baentsch, Ehrlich, Beer.
Also others have looked for a fitting interpretation of O’b b s . Some144 have
linked bbfi with the Arabic falla (cf. Palache*, 59f.). Though the views of the
latter differ considerably on several points, they agree on O’b b B in 21:22: the
O’b b s are ‘the broken ones’ = the o n b ’ of the woman. D.R. Ap-Thomas, VT
6 (1956), 23If., however, maintains that ‘to break’ is not the primary meaning.
He feels that b b s and bB J are from the same root with the meaning ‘to fall’
and that Budde’s emendation of the text is necessary; D’b b s means ‘miscar
riage.’ E.A. Speiser, JBL 82 (1963), 301-6, believes that the LXX rendering:
‘according to estimate,’ aside from the question whether the translation rests on
141 Cf. K. Heinen, Das Gebet im Allen Testament, Roma 1971, 119, 121f.
144 See among others P.A.H. de Boer, De voorbede in het Oude Testament, Leiden 1943, 127f.,
and M.D. Goldman, “The Root pit and its Connotation with Prayer,” Australian Biblical Review 3
(1953), 1-6.
Volume III1
EXODUS 2 1 :2 2 -2 5 163
conjecture or represents an old tradition, contains a correct interpretation of

O’b’Da. R. Westbrook, RB 93 (1986), 58ff., on the basis of the context, assigns
to Q'bbs the meaning ‘only’ and suggests that the end of 21:22 shows that
only the wrongdoer is liable for the imposed fine. Reacting to his interpreta
tion, A. Berlin, RB 96 (1989), 345-51, has defended the view that bbs has the
basic meaning of ‘accountable, responsible, liable.’ She translates D’bbea as:
‘as the culpable party’ (p. 347). Otto supposes a relation with Akkadian
palilum, ‘watchman’ (‘WSchter’).145
The above survey illustrates the uncertainty with respect to the meaning of
D'bbB. The interpretation ‘judges’ is improbable. The context favours relating
O'bbfi to the miscarried fetus or its estimated. In any case, it stands to reason
that the man who had suffered loss could not just insist on any amount of
damages, but was expected to take into account such factors as the stage of
development of the fetus and whether he already was father of a son or not.
2.5.5.4 \fery important for understanding 21:22, 23 is the interpretation of
the term ]i0$. p0$ (Gen. 42:4, 38; 44:29; Exod. 21:22, 23) denotes a fatal
accident {HAL). Often p0$, apparently in view of 22:24, 25, is taken to have
the general meaning of ‘injury’ (e.g. K6W), incorrectly however (see 2.5.5.9).
In the MT it is not explicitly indicated to whom the clause pOK rPir ttbl
relates. To the fetus or to the woman? In TPsJ, where pOK is rendered with
xniD, ‘dead’ (cf. also TO), in 21:22 as well as in 21:23 the clause is related to
the woman (cf. Mek., Ill, 65, 66); idem in the Vulg.: sed ipsa vixerit, ‘but she
remains alive’ (21:22); sin autem mors eius fuerit subsecuta, ‘if however her
death follows’ (21:23).
By contrast, in the LXX pOK is related to the fetus and translated as (pp)
eêiKoviopevov, ‘(not) formed.’ The translation implies that the developmental
stage of the fetus is determinative for the penalty to which the wrongdoer is
liable. If the fetus is still in the embryonic phase, payment of a fine will
suffice; if the fetus has a recognizable human form, the offender deserves death
(cf. 21:12). Cf. Prijs**, 10f., and see Isser (with an overview of the early
history of the interpretation).
In the LXX it is assumed that the fetusis dead after the miscarriage. The
incident of 21:22 has also been interpreted as a case of premature birth. So
Jackson believes that the ur-version, in his reconstruction, concerned a case of
premature birth and that pOK related to the fetus; presumably, expansion of the
text turned ‘premature birth’ into ‘miscarriage’ and caused pOK to be related to
the woman (pp. 292f., 301). Others espouse the view that the current text
describes an instance of prematurity; in connection with that, the statements
145 See Otto (see 2.2.1), KOrperverletzungen, 120f.; idem (see 2.2.1), “Kttrperverletzung im
hethitischen und israelitischen Recht,” 392.
Volume III1
with ]10K have been applied respectively to a situation in which mother and
child are not injured (the culprit is fined) and to a situation in which they did
sustain injuries (the culprit’s penalty is fixed by the talio principle).
It is a view defended by Keil, Cassuto, Durham and others. And in connec
tion with the discussion of the morality of medically induced abortion (in 21:22
abortion is not punishable by death) it has been defended by House, 123 (cf.
also Ellington, 337; Kaiser [see 2.2.1], 168ff.), with as conclusion that the
passage in no way sanctions abortion. That is correct. The question whether it
is right or wrong is not at all at issue in the passage. But as I see it, the
passage does not deal with premature birth either. In that case there would be
no reason for payment of compensation. If the child is bom alive, the woman’s
husband suffers no loss. The underlying assumption is that the fetus is dead. In
antiquity a premature child was the same as a stillborn child. The required fine
is compensation for the loss of the child in statu nascendi (so explicitly TPsJ;
cf. Mek., Ill, 65).
2.5.5.S The fact that a fine is allowed is an indication that unintentionally
causing a miscarriage, resulting in a stillborn child, was not regarded as man
slaughter. The incident only becomes a case of homicide if the mother fails to
survive the loss of her child. That is what 21:23 deals with. In short, the law
laid down in 21:22 deals with a case in which a woman loses her unborn child
but survives herself; 21:23 with a case in which she also loses her life. Should
it be inferred from 21:22, 23 that unborn life was considered less valuable than
a human being brought into the world? That conclusion is justified. But it
should also be remembered that not all human life outside the womb was
regarded as of the same value: the life of a slave was valued less than that of a
free individual (e.g. 21:28-32 and see Lev. 27:1-8). Here, however, the
pertinent question is when homicide is culpable and when it is not (cf. e.g.
21:28, 29).
From 21:22 one must conclude that causing a miscarriage resulting in the
birth of a stillborn child cannot be called manslaughter There is only man
slaughter if a viable child is killed (cf. M e t, III, 63). The act is regarded as
one in which the woman’s husband incurs damage. He has suffered the loss of
a member of his family. That requires some kind of compensation. If the
woman dies, it is a case of manslaughter and ‘a life for a life’ is to be given
(21:23). Does this mean that in that case the stipulation of 21:12 is to be
applied and the culprit must be executed? That is often thought to be the case
(so explicitly TPsJ; cf. M e t, III, 67; Josephus, AJ, IV, 278). In that case, could
he perhaps offer the excuse that he did not wilfully commit murder? (21:13).
Important to bear in mind is that 21:12-14 talks about homicide of a free
man\ here it concerns the death of a free married woman, that is of a person
who belongs to someone else, her husband. He incurs serious loss through the
loss of his wife. So one might consider whether ‘life for life’ could possibly
Volume III1
EXODUS 2 1 :2 2 -2 5 165
mean that the life of the wife of the offender is to be given in lieu of the life
of the wife of the man who lost her (cf. CH §210). To the culprit is done what
he did to the other, and his family is being diminished like that of the man
whose wife was killed. Is it assumed that, in addition, the offender also has to
give compensation for the loss of the (unborn) child (cf. MAL A §50)?
According to rabbinic exegesis such is not the intent (Mek., Ill, 63, 66). That
exegesis, however, is based on the assumption that the assailant must himself
pay for his deed with his life. Furthermore, the talio principle is applicable in
the case of the woman, but as a rule not in the case of the fetus.
21:22, 23 describes the situation of a pregnant woman who becomes the
victim of a fight. The question can be asked: what is to be done if the victim is
a non-pregnant woman? It has been proposed that in that case, depending on
the nature of the outcome, the stipulations of 21:12 and 21:18, 19 are operative
(Cassuto). The context leads one to believe that it is more likely that in such
cases the talio principle is applicable (cf. 21:24, 25) (see 2.5.5.7). 21:12-14, 18,
19 contain typical, male-focused stipulations, which are applicable when in a
situation like that of 21:22 a man from among the bystanders gets hit. In such
cases the man immediately becomes a participant.
2.5.5.6 The relationship of 21:22, 23 to 21:12-14 and 21:18, 19 deserves
another look. For determining the relation between the passages, use is some
times made of the descriptions ‘intentionally’ and unintentionally,’ with or
without premeditation. So Schwienhorst-Schdnbeiger, 102f., 106, 115f., 121,
maintains that 21:22, 23, in distinction from 21:12, 14 and 21:18, is about
injuring a person without intent (cf. e.g. Jacob, Cassuto). He takes issue with
Paul, who believes that the talio principle is applicable in cases where there is
intent (pp. 67f., 74), contending that 21:22,23 is not to be equated with
regulations from Israel’s ‘Umwelt’ concerning a pregnant woman who is the
victim of an accidental miscarriage (see 2.5.5.11). Presumably these regulations
are about the woman who is the victim of wilful mistreatment.
Schenkei; 41 f., on the other hand, emphasizes that, though the blow did not
land on the person for whom it was intended, it is nevertheless to be character
ized as intentional, and that at least one can speak of ‘teilweiser oder obliquer
Absicht.’ In my judgment, the question with or without intent is not raised in
21:22-25 and not relevant for evaluating the passage; not because in the given
situation it is hard to find out whether intent is involved, but because the focus
is solely on the damage that has been done and on how to make amends. As
indicated, the woman is entirely looked at in terms of her belonging to the
husband.146
2.5.5.7 In 21:23-25 retaliation is demanded in accordance with the lex14
144 See further Houtman**, Bundesbuch, 162.

Volume III1
talionis, the ‘tit for tat’ principle, paying someone back in his own coin. Is ‘life
for life,’ ‘eye for eye’ etc. meant to be taken literally? According to Josephus
(AJ, IV, 278, 280), in case of the death of the woman the one who killed her
had to be put to death, but in case of injuries a financial settlement between the
parties involved was also allowed. According to rabbinic interpretation, ‘eye
for eye’ etc. refers to giving recompense for the value of the eye (cf. TPsJ).
Moot is the question whether ‘life for life’ can also mean that pecuniary
compensation could be given (cf. Mek., Ill, 67; Rashi). Jacob, 657ff., maintains
that only the last interpretation is the original meaning of the passage.
Also several recent interpreters believe that 21:23-25 is not to be taken
literally, but deals with compensation for the value of the life that was lost (cf.
21:30), the eye etc. (see e.g. Jtlngling, 36; Westbrook, RB 93 [1986], 66;
Sama, 185ff.; Schwienhorst-Schdnberger, 100f.). Another view is held by
Criisemann and Schenker, 48ff. They maintain that 21:23 refers to the execu
tion of the offender. Criisemann regards 21:24, 25 as an expansion of the text,
the fruit of social criticism, directed at misuse of casuistic legal stipulations in
the covenant book, and coming from the 8th century. In those days, when
powerful individuals often used their wealth to resolve disputes in their favour
or influence the course of justice, the injunctions in 21:24, 25 served to
promote equality before the law of the wealthy and the prominent and those of
inferior rank. Application of the ‘eye for an eye’ etc. principle meant that the
rich could no longer use their money to force settlements in their favour and it
has a preventive effect (p. 426).
Also in my view, 21:23-25 is to be taken in the literal sense. However it
seems to me that 21:22, 23 and 21:24, 25 are not just loosely connected, as
thought by Criisemann, but 21:23-25 applies specifically to the woman. For
retaliation it is not the life, the eye etc. of the offender that is demanded, but
the life etc. of his wife. The same idealism that governs 21:26,
27 - mistreatment of a slave, male or female, is cause for giving them their
freedom - also governs 21:23-25: extreme caution is required where it con
cerns the life and the corporal well-being of the wife of a fellow countryman.
One who violates that rule is going to feel the consequences in the loss or
maiming of his own wife. So the equilibrium between the parties is restored.
The regulation is especially in the nature of a preventative (cf. Deut. 19:20),
addressing the attack on a man’s most precious possession, the woman, the one
who could give him offspring.
The lex taliomis is also stated in Lev. 24:18-20; Deut. 19:21. To what extent
it was really applied we do not know. Certain is that the talio principle played
a significant role in interpersonal relationships (4:23; 12:29; Judg. l:6f.;
15:10f.; 1 Sam. 15:33; 1 Kgs. 21:19; 2 Kgs. 10:24; Ezek. 16:59; Obad. 15f.;
Volume III1
EXODUS 2 1 :2 2 -2 5 167
Hab. 2:8; Job 2:4)147 and that in a dispute money is/was often used to avoid the
threat of the talio (cf. 1 Kgs. 20:39). In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus sought
to break through the (indeed) just, but also barbarian repayment of evil with
evil (Matt. 5:38, 39; cf. also Koran 5:45).14*
2.S.5.8 21:23-25 presents us with the question concerning the place of the lex
talionis in the unfolding of law.149150The term talio is from Roman law in which
it stood for satisfaction for inflicted permanent injury to the body; that requires
recompense, equal to the inflicted hurt. However, seeking a financial settlement
is also possible. It was held that the lex talionis was designed as an answer to
the practice of unrestrained vengeance: for wounding someone the offender is
not put to death (Gen. 4:23, 24), but repaid ‘in equal coin.’ That, it was
thought, restrained and humanized acts of vengeance. The following step in the
history of the unfolding of the law was the introduction of the possibility to
pay a sum of money to the disadvantaged party.
This construction rests on the assumption that the lex talionis is primitive in
nature. Because the older laws in the ancient Near East (for an overview see
Jilngling, 6ff.) do contain the possibility of repayment in money, but not the
lex talionis, while the lex talionis does occur in the younger CH (see
§§196-201, where it is limited to the awilum, the free citizen), it has been
argued that its introduction is to be regarded as an innovation. Supposedly, ‘an
eye for an eye’ and ‘a tooth for a toot’ was a fairer punishment for inflicted
bodily harm than the always somewhat arbitrary compensation in money.
Moreover, the talio would advance equal justice for all: the rich and powerful
would be deterred from mistreating the weaker members of society, if harming
another person cannot be recompensed with money.
Whether the lex talionis in CH is something really new is open to argument.
Jtingling, 14, considers it a remnant of archaic laws. To what extent the talio,
as described in 21:23-25, was really practiced we cannot say, due to the
scarcity of sufficient data. What is clear is that, aside from wilful homicide
(see 21:12-14) - capital punishment for murder is not talio in the strict sense
of the term (see above) - , the covenant book shows a strong preference for
settling damage by indemnification, often with something resembling talio (see
in particular 21:33-22:16). To that can be added that maiming as a form of
punishment is not prominent in the OT (cf. Deut. 25:12 and see also Prov.
30:17).15° See beside it e.g. CH §§192-195, 218, 226, 253; MAL §§4, 5, 8, 9
147 Cf. N.A. Schuman, Gelijk om gelijk: Verslag en batons van een discussie over goddelijke
vergelding in het Oude Testament, Amsterdam 1993.
148 Cf. G.M. Zerbe, Non-Retaliation in Early Jewish and New Testament Texts, Sheffield 1993.
149 See esp. Jtingling, 10ff., and e.g. Otto, “Geschichte der Talion,” 107ff.; idem (see 2.2.1),
Ethiky S. 73ff.; Paul, 75ff.; Yaron (see 2.2.1), 26ff.
150 Cf. P.E. Wilson, “Deuteronomy XXV 11-12-One for the Books,” VT 41 (1997), 220-35.
Volume III1
and see RLA, VI, 173-8. All in all, there is reason to have a closer look at the
place and function of 21:23-25.
2.5.5.9 yiON denotes (see 2.5.5.4), I believe, a fatal accident. This position is
based on what I perceive to be the relationship of 21:22, 23 to 21:24, 25.
21:23 goes well with 21:22: it deals with the possibility that the woman suc
cumbs to the wounds incurred in the scuffle. Following up on 21:23, 21:24, 25
cites a list of types of injuries, not all of which fit the depicted situation (e.g.
‘bum’). The fact that several wounds are listed, including light ones (‘a tooth’),
has occasioned the rendering ‘further and other injuries’ for 110K (in 21:22:
besides the miscarriage). See e.g. NV; NEB: ‘Wherever hurt is done,...’
110N is a disputed term. R. Westbrook, RB 93 (1986), 56f., even believes that
hurt caused by an unknown perpetrator is meant. This view is rejected by
Osumi, 113f., and Schwienhorst-Schdnbeiger, 89ff., 117f.; the latter believes
that yiott can denote fatal as well as non-fatal injury. Similarly also Schenker
(see 2.2.1), 43. That is not likely in light of the use of the term in Genesis (cf.
E. Otto, JSO T51 [1993], 15).
The view has been defended that 21:23-25 originally came after 21:19 and
that the talio rule really pertained to the struggling men in case they incurred
blows, not to the pregnant woman who became the unwilling victim of a
brawl. However, as a wound, ‘bum’ does not go with a scuffle between men
either. Besides, talio is no adequate punishment if both are to blame, as if often
the case with a fight. 21:23-25 goes with 21:22. 21:23 is connected to 21:22.
21:22, 23 leaves yet another question unanswered: what should be done in
case the woman has suffered injuries? In answer to that question, and following
up on the formula of 21:23b, a existing stereotype series is cited. One might
consider whether 21:23-25 is a later addition, expansion of 21:22, or whether
21:24, 25 is a later addition, expansion of 21:22, 23 (on the problem see
Schwienhorst-Schonberger, 80ff., 116ff.). No matter, it will not do to excise
21:24, 25 from the extant text, linked as it is with 21:26,27. Also there eye and
tooth are example, but not in a talio regulation. As to 21:23-25, I believe one
should keep in mind that in the covenant book the talio rule is not given as a
general rule, but specifically applied to the woman injured in a brawl, that is,
to a person belonging to someone else, her husband.
2.5.5.10 Though the question of the legitimacy of abortion is not at issue in
Exod. 21, in the course of time the passage has regularly been used in judging
abortus provocatus. The rendering in LXX has played a role in the discussion
of the question, in what phase of the gestation period the embryo can be
regarded as a human being. From the OT one cannot say how abortion by a
woman’s own act was viewed. The laws from the ancient Near East, aside
from MAL §53, always deal with miscarriage due to an accident. In antiquity,
generally speaking, abortus provocatus was morally condemned. In the Chris
tian church, abortus provocatus was considered murder, a sin for which one
Volume III1
EXODUS 2 1 :2 2 -2 5 169
goes to hell.151
2.5.5.11 In the laws of Israel neighbouring countries, involuntary miscarriage
due to a blow from another person is repeatedly dealt with. But these laws do
not contain a concrete example, such as in 21:22 (a fight). The question
whether the woman was hit intentionally or unintentionally is not considered.
The only exception is two Sumerian stipulations in which a different compen
sation is prescribed for (unintentional) hitting and (intentional) striking (§§1-2;
ANET, 525b). As a rule, the stipulations prescribe payment of a specifically
mentioned amount (but see MAL A §§50, 52), the size of which depends on
the woman’s societal status (in the covenant book only the pregnant free
woman is mentioned; the female slave is not in the picture). Compensation is
higher for a free woman who suffers a miscarriage than for a woman who is a
slave (see LI III 2’-13;’ CH §§209-214; MAL A §§21, 50-52; HL §§17-18). In
MAL A §21, besides the fine, the additional penalty is cited: fifty lashes (cf.
also §52) and a month of forced labour for the king.
In HL §§17-18, the age of the fetus is the basis for determining the size of
the compensation. Compensation for a full term baby is twice as high as for a
half term fetus. Also the case of a woman who died as a result of the miscar
riage is taken up. CH only exacts ‘life for life’ where it concerns the fife of the
wife of a citizen (§210; cf. §230). For women of lesser status payment of a
sum of money is sufficient (YOS I 28 [§§212, 214]). In §210 not the fife of
the perpetrator is demanded, but that of his daughter (vicarious punishment). LI
III 7’-8,’ by contrast, prescribes the death of the assailant. Such is also the case
in MAL A §50. Additionally, it also prescribes the death of the assailant if the
husband of the woman involved does not have a son. If the fetus turns out to
be a girl, payment for damages is enough. Abortus provocatus comes up in
MAL A §53. The sanctions are severe. The woman, also if she died as a
consequence of the induced abortion, is to be impaled on a stake and she may
not be buried.152
21:22 21:22 is simularly introduced as 21:18. Also here LXX has '‘two men;’
cf. also Pesh. and see Collins, 299f. nsa niph., see 2:13. ®)13 (see 7:27), there is
no reason, as done by Daube*, 108, to think of an intentional attack. ntfK
(Introd. §3.2.3), the reference is to the wife of a free Israelite (see end 21:22).
<*nn, see 2:2.
IKS’I (Introd. §3.24.1), Sam.Pent.: K2T1, sing, with as subject m b l, ‘her
111 For extensive information on the evaluation of abortion in antiquity and the Christian
church, see DOlger and also HDA, I, 121fT.; Stol*, 13fT.; Strieker*, III, 267ff.
152 See further (also for bodily maiming more in general) Otto, Kdrperverletzungen (see 2.2.1),
25ff.; idem, JSOT 57 (1993), 7ff.; Paul, 70fT.; Yaron (see 2.2.1), 286ff.; Vfcstbrook (see 2.2.1),
40, 61ff.
Volume III1
child’ (cf. Collins, 296); also in ancient versions, the striking plural m b ’ (see
1:15) is translated as a sing, (see LXX, Vulg., Pesh., the taigums); in the Pesh.
the men are subject: they cause the miscarriage; in the Vulg. one of the men:
‘and (someone) causes a miscarriage;’ the plur. expresses the vague nature of
the matter (cf. KdSynt §264c; Jotton §136j; Schwienhorst-SchOnbeiger, 96ff.).
Schenker’s view, 43f., that m b ' iNJt’l refers to a miscarriage resulting in
childlessness is unfounded. Fensham suggests that yiOK in 21:21 denotes injury,
as a result of which the woman is no longer able to bear children. The question
whether the woman is still fertile is not at issue. That could only be determined
in the course of time anyway, and absolute certainty would require sophisti
cated medical knowledge. Collins, 294, suggests to read ibl, ‘to him’ (the
fetus), instead of Nbl. Bjy’ Bhjy imperf. abs. qal + inf. niph. (Jotton §176m;
Brockelman §93; Waltke-O’Connor §35.2.1d) of tilS (OT 8x), ‘impose a fine’
(cf. Deut. 22:19; 2 Chr. 36:3). Collins, 297f., proposes to read:
‘a fine on whoever will be punished.’ rrs?, see 7:23. b its (see 21:3), Ehrlich:
the husband is grammatical subject, but not actually; the judge sets the dam
ages, taking into account the man’s societal rank (for a rich person the loss is
greater than for a poor person).
21:23 Ehrlich proposes to read inn (cf. LXX, Pesh., Vulg. and see
21:19, 32); the 2nd pers. sing, occurs more often, however (21:2, 13, 14; 22:17,
20 etc.). Moot is the question, who is the addressed person. In my opinion, it is
the Israelite whose interests are at stake; here that can only be the man who
mortally wounded the woman. If the statement is related to the judges (Jacob,
Cassuto) or the local authorities, one is obligated to understand ina as ‘to
apply’ (viz. of the principle ‘life for life’), or one must accept Westbrook’s
entirely different interpretation: 21:22, 23 refers to the situation that the
perpetrator is unknown and the local authority is obligated to pay for the loss
(RB 93 [1986], 65; cf. Schwienhorst-Schonberger, 87, 99, 107ff., 122ff.).
‘life,’ see Introd. §3.51.1. nnn, see Williams §352; Waltke-O’Connor
§11.2.15b.
21:24 ‘eye,’ see Introd. §3.38. (OT ca. 55x; Exod. 21:24[2x], 27[3x]),
‘tooth;’ see Dhorme*, 87f.; HAL s.v. In 21:27 ‘tooth’ stands for ‘teeth;’ the
teeth are damaged, ‘hand,’ see Introd. §3.21.1. b n see 3:5.
21:25 In 21:25 three different terms are used for wounds, all of which no
doubt are meant as illustrations. Their meaning can only approximately be
determined, n jl? (Sam.Pent.: m ao; cf. Lev. 13:24) is a hapax legomenon:
‘Brandmal’ (SS, KBL, HAL), but possibly also ‘Brandwunde’ (K6W; cf. e.g.
LY CV) or ‘bum’ (WV; cf. Ges-B). JJS5 (OT 8x OT) and rtman (OT 7x)
also occur in Gen. 4:23; Isa. 1:6; Prov. 20:30 in combination with each other.
Volume III1
EXODUS 2 1 :2 6 , 2 7 171
Bjfg denotes a wound caused by striking (cf. 1 Kgs. 20:37; Cant. 5:7); uncer
tain is whether it refers to an open wound (Dasbeig) or a bruise (KBL:
‘Quetschwunde’); nîan is further qualified as ‘stripe’ (cf. Ges-B, K6W, HAL)
and as ‘welt’ (KBL: ‘Quetschwunde, (bunte) Beule’); cf. also SS: ‘Beule,
Strieme.’ Probably all seven terms in 21:24, 25 denote permanent cripplings,
which do not heal over the course of time (cf. Schenker, 48).
2.5.6 Mistreatment of a male or female slave resulting in permanent

injuries (21:26, 27)
21:26 ‘But when someone strikes the eye o f his male or female slave, destroy
ing his eyesight, then he shall let him go free as compensation fo r the eye.
27 Even i f he knocks out the tooth o f his male or female slave, he shall let
him go free as compensation fo r the tooth. ’
Again (cf. 21:2-11, 20, 21) the treatment of slaves is brought up. As in 21:20,
21, the regulation applies to both male and female slaves and the subject is that
of mistreatment. This time ill-treatment resulting in permanent injury. Who are
these slaves? The same ideas as with respect to 21:20, 21 are defended. Also
here male and female slave are in TPsJ specifically characterized as non-
Israelite by the adjective ‘Canaanite’ (cf. Mek., Ill, 170; Rashi and see 2.4.11).
Also here they are regarded, for example by Westbrook (see 2.2.1), 101, and
Schwienhorst-SchOnbeiger (see 2.2.1), 48, 6 Iff., 74ff., as Israelite debtor
slaves. As I see it, here too there is no reason to think exclusively of foreign
slaves.
The underlying assumption is that a master may forcefully discipline his
slaves, but should stay away from brutality (see 2.5.4). If he should turn to
that, he forfeits the property rights to the slave. According to Westbrook, 101,
and Schwienhorst-SchOnbeiger, 75, 78, who believe that the slave here is a
debtor slave residing in the house of the creditor, letting the slave go free
implies that the creditor forfeits his claim on the debt.
21:26, 27 are formulated as a follow-up on 21:23-25. Note the use of nnn
(see 21:23) and of the terms ‘eye’ and ‘tooth.’ Why are these parts of the body
mentioned and no other? Likely because a slave was often punished by hitting
him in the face or across the mouth, which could easily result in eye damage
or the loss of a tooth. Likely though, the blind eye and the knocked-out tooth
are also used as examples of the harm that could be done (cf. Mek., Ill, 70ff.;
Rashi; Ibn Ezra, somewhat differently T. Abusch, HR 26 [1986], 146f.),
denoting respectively permanent grave bodily injury and permanent light bodily
injury. The purport of 21:26, 27 is therefore: in all cases of visible permanent
bodily injury a slave is to be set free.
As an aside: invisible grave injury resulted in death (21:20,21) or was
Volume III1
followed by gradual recuperation. Arms and legs, limbs needed by the slave for
working, would not soon be struck. By hitting those, the master would harm
himself.
Talio (21:23-25) only applies to the free citizen, not to a slave (cf. e.g.
Schenker [see 2.2.1], 59ff., and see CH §§196-203). The slave belongs to the
master who may punish him, but is not allowed to abuse the slave. Even if the
injury stemming from a beating should be relatively light, the master runs the
risk of harming himself, punishing himself, because the price he has to pay is
the setting free of the slave. His assets are diminished to the time of the price
of the slave.
21:26, 27 are without parallel in the codes of the ancient Near East. These do
deal, hoewevei; with compensation that has to be given for visible bodily harm
inflicted on someone else’s (property) slave (CH §199; HL §§8, 12, 14, 16; cf.
Cardinelli [see 2.4.1], 69ff„ 129ff.; Paul [see 2.2.1], 78).
21:26 '31 etc., see 21:20; an object with which to strike is not mentioned;
apparently striking with the bare hand or the fist is what is meant. In the LXX
the terms oiKe-cTjc and Oepaitaiva (domestic slaves) are used to describe the
slaves; in 21:20, on the other hand, the more general terms iraig and rcaifiioKT)
(see also 21:32). ]’», see Introd. §3.38. nnttf (see 8:20), meant is that the blow
causes blindness; so explicitly LXX, TPsJ (cf. Mek., Ill, 70); cf. also Viilg.: et
luscos eos fecerit, ‘and makes him one-eyed;’ but for another view see Pesh.:
wnsrhyh, ‘and he wounds it.’ For blindness see 4:11. 'tfBrtb, see 21:2. unba?’
(Introd. §3.49.2), the suffix, like the suffix of the following U’P, refers back to
the male slave, but also refers to the female slave. In the LXX, here and in
21:27, it is rendered ad sensum respectively with the use of auxoijg and auxov
(cf. also Vulg.).
21:27 OKI (Introd. §3.4.1) is used after '31 to introduce an unusual situation. In
this case not one in which the regulation introduced with '31 is not valid, but a
situation in which it is also to be carried out. hiph., see 15:16. 21:27b is
constructed parallel to 21:26b; 21:27a not entirely parallel to 21:26a; mentally
to be supplied is: ‘if someone hits so hard as to knock out the tooth (out of the
mouth).’
2.5.7 Fatal injury caused by a goring ox (21:28-32)
21:28 ‘A nd when an ox gores a man or a woman to death, the ox must be

stoned. Its flesh may not eaten and the owner o f the ox is not liable.
29 But i f the ox was known to have gored in the past and it had been
brought to its owner’s attention, but he refused to restrain it, in that case, i f it
Volume III1
EXODUS 2 1 :2 8 -3 2 173
kills a man or a woman, that ox myst be stoned and also its owner must be put
to death.
30 I f a ransom is imposed upon him (the owner of the ox), then as ransom
fo r his life he must pay the fu ll fine imposed upon him.
31 I f it gores a boy or a girl, he must likewise be dealt with according to this
same rule.
32 I f that ox gores a male or female slave, then he (the owner of the ox)
shall pay thirty shekels o f silver to his master (of the slave) and the ox shall be
stoned. ’
2.5.7.1 Bibl.: F.C. Fensham, “Liability of Animals in Biblical and Ancient

Near Eastern Law,” JNSL 14 (1988), 85-90; B.S. Jackson, “The Goring Ox,” in
idem, Essays in Jewish and Comparative Legal History, Leiden 1975, 108-52;
Malul (see 2.2.1), 113ff.; Otto, Wandel (see 2.2.1), 25f.; idem, Rechtsgeschich-
te (see 2.1.1), 123ff., 137ff.; idem, Korperverletzungen (see 2.2.1), 147ff.; Paul
(see 2.2.1), 78ff.; Schenker (see 2.2.1), 61ff.; Schwienhorst-Schonbeiger (see
2.2.1), 129ff.; A. van Seims, “The Goring Ox in Babylonian and Biblical
Law,” ArOr 18 (1950), 321-30; Westbrook (see 2.2.1), 40, 60f., 68, 83ff.; R.
Yaron, “The Goring Ox in Near Eastern Laws,” in Jewish Law in Ancient and
Modem Israel, New York 1971, 50-60; idem (see 2.2.1), 29Iff.
2.5.7.2 An indivdual’s physical well-being is not only at risk from assault by
another human being, it can also be endangered by an animal. If it is by a wild
animal, one is powerless and no one can be blamed (Gen. 37:33; 44:28; Jer.
15:3; Hos. 13:8). Matters are different when a domestic animal, an animal
belonging to someone, causes injury. Then the question can be asked whether
the accident could have have been prevented and whether the owner of the
animal is liable or not. Those are the type of questions taken up in 21:28-32,
the case of the goring ox, which wounds a person so severely that he/she dies
from the wounds.
21:28 contains the general rule: when a crazed ox gores to death a free
citizen, a man or a woman, it is a question of circumstances beyond one’s
control. The owner cannot be held responsible. The ox is to be destroyed to
prevent further attacks.
21:29-32 deals more in detail with the case, and also looks at situations in
which the rule of 21:28 is not applicable. That is, for example, the case if the
animal that caused the mortal injury belongs to a careless and negligent owner,
one who knew very well that his ox was a mean-tempered animal, and yet did
not keep it penned up. Such a man is not blameless. He can be chaiged with
criminal negligence (cf. 21:33, 34, 36). The ox must be put to death, but also
the owner deserves death (21:29). His gross negligence has earned for him the
same punishment as is prescribed for the murderer who acted with wilful intent
(cf. 21:12).
Volume III1
But that need not be the end of the matter. The relatives of the victim are
given the opportunity to let mercy take precedence over justice, either because
one feels truly sorry for the guilty owner, or because material compensation is
to their advantage. The relatives of the victim can accept a ransom, something
to indemnify them (21:30). In that case, the owner of the ox suffers a huge
financial loss, but keeps his life.
In 21:28-30 the victim is a free man or a free woman, that is, an adult
person. The question can be raised: what to do if the victim is a child, an
individual belonging to, subject to the authority of the father? And what to do
if the victim is someone who is not free, a person who is the property of
someone else? Answers are given in 21:31, 32. The regulation for adults also
pertains to the children of the free Israelite. However, if the ox of a negligent
owner kills a slave, male or female, it is enough if the ox’s owner pays
financial compensation to the slave’s owner who suffered the loss.
Yet other questions could be asked. The law is about an ox that kills a
person. But what should be done if an ox wounds someone so seriously that
for a while that person is incapacitated, or if a pregnant woman suffers a
miscarriage from being gored by an ox, etc. (cf. 21:18f., 22ff.)? Such questions
are not considered.
2.S.7.3 The pericope poses a number of questions to the exegete. Why must
the ox be killed? Is the animal considered responsible for his act (cf. Gen.
3:14) and treated like a murderer (cf. Gen. 9:5f.)? Does blood-guilt rest on the
animal and is it responsible for causing the land to be polluted (cf. Num.
35:33f.; Deut. 21:Iff.)? See e.g. Holzinger, Baentsch, Beer, Te Stroete, Hyatt.
M. Greenberg emphasizes that the ox kills ‘the image of God’ (Gen. 9:6) and
therefore deserves the death penalty (see Paul, 79).
For myself, I doubt that the animal is seen here as being a responsible
creature against which legal steps can be taken (cf. Introd. §9.5.3). Also
dubious is the notion that the deadly attack is here regarded as bringing
pollution upon the land. The later ‘blood-theology’ does not occur in het
covenant book (see Houtman [see 2.5.1.1], 29f., 32f.). The same holds for the
view that a human being is the image of God. The answer to the above
question is simple: the ox is to be killed because it is a threat to the commu
nity. Further gorings, a repeat of what has happened, are to be prevented.
Why is the animal to be put to death by stoning? The question has sparked
discussion (see Schwienhorst-Schdnbeiger, 132ff.; Westbrook, 83ff.). Learned
answers are given. Thus J.J. Finkelstein argues that the ox ignores the God-
given position humans have in creation (Gen. 1:26, 28), and that stoning is
retaliation for the animal’s revolt against the God-created hierarchical order in
the cosmos (see in Schwienhorst-Schdnbeiger, 133f.; Westbrook, 190). West
brook, 86ff., holds that stoning is the preferred method of execution to prevent
the owner from in any way benefitting from the animal. Slaughter and burning
Volume III1
EXODUS 2 1 :2 8 -3 2 175
are not considered, because in the time prior to the Deuteronomic centralization
of the cult every slaughter was sacrificial in nature; slaughter offered the
possibility of communion with the deity and of enjoying the meat. Burning was
not considered because the animal might be regarded as a burnt offering.
Westbrook combines his contrived religious interpretation with the ‘practical’
notion of Jackson, 112ff. Jackson believes that originally the casting of stones
was not intended as punishment but as a means used by the community to
protect itself against the animal. Presumably, the original aim was not the death
of the animal but to chase it away. Whatever the prohibition to eat the meat
makes it obvious that the current text assumes the death of the animal. It is
important to keep in mind that the case is about an enraged animal that
presents a serious threat to anyone who ventures near it. It concerns an animal
which in our modem society would be shot to death with a gun. In antiquity
such a highly effective weapon did not exist. Back then, in such a situation, a
communal throwing of stones was an efficient way to get rid of the enraged
animal.
Why is the meat not to be eaten? Because blood-guilt rests on the animal,
which could be passed on to the eater (Baentsch), or because it has become
unclean through blood-guilt (Beer)? As said above, the notion of blood-guilt
plays no role in 21:28-32. Likely the meat is taboo because the animal was not
properly slaughtered (cf. 21:32) or for fear that by eating the meat one might
get infected by the vicious nature of the animal. Only the meat is mentioned.
The skin is left out of consideration (cf. 21:35, 36).
There is the possibility of payment of a ransom. Elsewhere in the covenant
book there is no explicit mention of that possibility. Is the guilty owner being
given the opportunity to purchase his freedom since he did not wilfully cause
the death of the other? So e.g. Cassuto; Paul, 82; Schenker, 65. See on the
problem 2.2.17.
2.5.7.4 The case of the goring ox (see also 21:35, 36) is also known from
legal texts from Israel’s Umwelt. CE §§53, 54 mentions the ox of a warned
owner, which killed a free citizen and a slave. In both instances financial
recompense is being asked, the size of which is determined by the status of the
person. §§56, 57 write about the case of a dog of a warned owner who bit to
death a free citizen and a slave. Also in that case monetary restitution is
imposed. §58 cites another case of negligence: a wall collapses on and kills a
fellow countryman; the owner who was aware of the dilapidated condition of
the wall is subject to the death penalty (cf. Deut. 22:8).
Also CH cites the case of the goring ox. The death of a human due to goring
by an ox does not in and by itself entitle one to claim damages (§250). A
claim can only be made if the owner had officially been notified of the nature
of the animal. Then compensation is demanded of him, the size of which
depends on the status of the victim (§§251, 252).
Volume III1
Neither CE nor CH mentions the possibility of the death penalty. There is no

command either to destroy the evil-tempered animal. Westbrook, 86, holds that
the latter is indeed presupposed. No distinction between adults and children is
made either. In the case of the goring ox, CH does not, as in other cases of
negligence, mention the sanction of vicarious talio (§§230, 231). It is argued
that the emphatic expansion of the stipulation of 21:28-30 to include children
(21:31) is aimed against the practice of vicarious talio (e.g. Fishbane*, 211 f.,
247, 336). There is not enough evidence to support that conclusion. It is also
possible that the stipulation contains criticism on the practice of giving very
little compensation for a child, e.g. that paid for a slave (21:32). For varying
estimations of the value of persons see Lev. 27:1-8.
Paul is of the opinion that compared to Mesopotamian parallels, Exod.
21:28-32 is governed by ‘a completely different Weltanschauung' (p. 79). In
his view, settlement or indemnification is excluded, since according to the
Bible (cf. Num. 35:31) ‘homicide is an unpardonable offense’ (p. 82) (cf.
Num. 35:31). Paul’s position is open to argument. He sets up a forced opposi
tion. Extra-biblical texts do not always permit settlement in case of gross
negligence. CE §58 (see above) does not mention that possibility and demands
the death penalty. Exod. 21:30 testifies - the verse can hardly be interpreted
any other way - to Israel’s familiarity with settlement/indemnification as
satisfaction for death caused by gross negligence. One cannot even exclude the
possibility that vicarious talio is found in the covenant book (see 21:23).
2.S.7.5 On ransom and atonement

Bibl.: IDBS, 78ff.; THAT, I, 842ff.; TWAT, IV, 303ff.; D. Kidner, “Sacrifice -
Metaphors and Meaning,” TynB 33 (1982), 119-36; F.-L. Hossfeld, “\fersdh-
nung und Siinde,” Bibel und Kirche 41 (1986), 54-60, and in particular (with
extensive documentation) B. Janowski, Siihne als Heilsgeschehen: Studien zur
Siihnetheologie der Priestschrift und zur Wurzel kpr im Alten Orient und im
Alten Testament, Neukirchen-Vluyn 1982; N. Kiuchi, The Purification Offering
in the Priestly Literature: Its Meaning and Function, Sheffield 1987, 87ff.; A.
Medebielle, “La vie donnee en ranôn (Me 10,45; Mt 20,28),” Bib 4 (1923),
3-40.
(OT 13x), ‘ransom.’ The following situation is envisioned in 21:29f.: a
thus far neutral or good relationship between two parties is seriously disrupted
by an unfortunate incident; an ox known to be dangerous attacks and mortally
wounds somebody. The owner is liable. The relationship between him and the
survivors of the victim is disrupted. Under normal circumstances a return to
normality is brought about by paying for the debt with the life of the person
who is responsible (cf. 21:12; Num. 35:31ff.), and the debt is not settled by
giving material restitution (cf. Num. 35:3If.; 2 Sam. 21:3f.) or in some other
way (cf. Deut. 21 riff.).
Volume III1
EXODUS 2 1 :2 8 -3 2 177
21:30 envisions a unique situation: the victim’s relatives go along with

sparing of the life of the delinquent by accepting material restitution instead. It
takes the place of the life that should have been given. So "IB'B, from the
perspective of the one who gives it, is the ransom, the price to be paid (SV,
\fon der Palm, CV Vredenbuig, NRSV) for the life he forfeited by his
negligence. From the perspective of the receiving party, 1^3 is indemnifica
tion, payment of damages, aimed at healing the damaged relationship (Ly NV,
Dasbeig: ‘zoengeld;’ WV: ‘afkoopsom;’ TEV: ‘fine’), can also be used to
denote a material gift as ‘ransom’ (LV, CV, GNB), ‘zoengeld’ (NV, Dasbeig),
‘losgeld’ (\hn der Palm, Vredenbuig, WV), ‘money payment’ (REB) to
compensate for the life declared forefeited by YHWH (30:12).153
More often than the noun one encounters the verb "IBB (OT ca. 100*;
8* Exod.; 49* Lev.; 15* Num.), especially in pi. (92*); in 29:36, 37;
30:10(2*); 30:15, 16, as is more often the case + by for the person or matter
on whose behalf the act is performed or who/what is behind it; in 32:30 + “ip?.
The question whether 1B3 pi. is a denominative verb of *1B3, ‘ransom,’ or
whether ‘ransom’ is a derivative of IBB pi., and the question of the etymology
I leave alone.154 The verb is used in the following context: (a) the relationship
among people and/or between a human (humans) and God is disrupted due to
negligence, sin, guilt (e.g. Gen. 32:31; Exod. 32:30; Lev. 4:26; 5:6, 10, 18 etc.;
Num. 15:28; 35:33; Deut. 21:8; 1 Sam. 3:14; 2 Sam. 21:1, 3; Isa. 22:14 etc.);
(b) the relationship between humans and God is disrupted by various types of
impurity (Lev. 14:19; 15:15, 30; Num. 6:11) (cf. Vhn der Toom*, 27ff.); (c)
stain, uncleanness attaches to the sanctuary, the temple, the altar (29:36, 37;
30:10; Lev. 8:15; 16:16ff., 20, 33; Ezek. 43:20; 45:20), a home (Lev. 14:53),
the land (Num. 35:33). Not stated is how sanctuary and altar become
polluted.155
Sin, guilt, uncleanness and the like are like dynamite. Unless rendered
harmless, neutralized, they ‘blow up’ human society. They undo YHWH’s
blessed presence. IBB denotes the efforts put forth to restore the relationship
153 For ‘ransom’ (1 Sam. 12:3; Isa. 43:3; Amos 5:12; Ps. 49:8; Job 33:24; 36:18; Prov. 6:35;
13:8; 21:18; Matt. 20:28; Mark 10:45) see further B. Janowski, “Ausldsung des verwirkten
Lebens,” ZThK 79 (1982), 25-59, and (with different accents) A. Schenker, “koper et expiation,”
Bib 63 (1982), 32-46.
154 Does IBS derive from the Arabic kaffara, ‘to cover,’ or from the Akkadian kuppuru, ‘to
blot out’ and ‘to make cultically clean’? J. Milgrom, IDBS, 78: there is no dilemma, since the root
contains both the idea of ‘rubbing o f f and of ‘rubbing on.’
153 According to J. Milgrom, magnet-like they attract the unrighteousness of the people and it
piles up on them; purification is necessary to prevent, by reason of the accumulation of sin, to
prevent the deity from leaving the sanctuary, terminating the fellowship with the people; see his
“Israel’s Sanctuary: The Priestly ‘Picture of Dorian Gray,”’ RB 83 (1976), 390-99 = Studies in
Cultic Theology and Terminology, Leiden 1983, 75-84; idem, IDBS, 78f.
Volume III1
among people and between man and God. These acts or means are designed to
bring the parties together again, or, where it concerns physical objects, to
remove the stain, the uncleanness that attaches to them .1
1*4556
There are various ways by which the tension, the guilt, the stain can be re
moved, neutralized.
(1) In case of blood-guilt, through the blood of the murderer (Num. 15:33),
or - in case he is unknown - through redemption (Deut. 21);157 in other instan
ces - emphatically excluded in 2 Sam. 21:3f. - through making material
restitution.15*
(2) Through ritual acts with respect to relations among people: insofar as the
disrupted relations (also) concern the relation between God and man (Lev. 4; 5
etc.; see also 29:33: "IBS aims at consecration, sanctification, and further Num.
17:1 Iff.), and with respect to the sanctuary the temple and the altar (1B3 aims
at ‘cleansing’ [29:36, 37; 30:10; Lev. 8:15; 16:16ff„ 20, 33; Ezek. 43:20;
45:20]) and the ‘leprous’ house (Lev. 14:53).
(3) When someone by his own efforts seeks to restore the disrupted relation
ship, release the tension, make restitution for the guilt. That happens when
someone steps forward and by some act redeems the situation (Num. 25:7-13)
or weighs in with mediation or wise counsel (32:30; cf. Job 33:24; 36:18;
Prov. 16:14).159
The above shows that the customary translation ‘make/bring about atone
ment’ often is no adequate rendering of 1S3 pi. The translation ‘to remove
sin,’ ‘to clean,’ ‘to purify’ comes closer to the meaning of the verb. In 32:30,
the translation ‘bring about forgiveness’ is proper (cf. 32:32). Restoration of
the relationship between God and man by God means ‘being forgiven’ (Pss.
78:38; 79:9; Jen 18:23). In 29:36; 30:10, 16 the derivative (OT 8*), a
plurale tantum and abstract noun ( 7* as nomen rectum in the construct chain
[Ges-K §124f; Brockelmann § 19b]) occurs (D, 1^?n *199 [30:16; cf. 30:12]:
‘ransom’). For n^'Bj see 25:17.
21:28 The regulation is about an ox that is an habitual gorer. A naturally

arising question is: what if another animal causes fatal injury, and the wounds
154 For forgiveness as result of "ica see Lev. 4:20, 26, 31, 35; 5:10 etc.; for purity, holiness, as
result see e.g. Lev. 12:7, 8; 14:20, 31, 53; 16:18f., 30; Num. 8:21. Note also that nea pi. is used
along with KBn pi. (Lev. 8:15; Ezek. 43:20; 45:18, 20), tn p pi. (Lev. 8:15), ino pi. (Ezek.
43:26) and nna (Jer. 18:23).
Cf. also Num. 35:25, 32 and for redemption more in general e.g. Num. 3:11 ff.; 8:17ff. (see
\fol II, 163f.).
IM Gen. 32:21; Exod. 30:15, 16 (the debt one would have to pay with one’s life, is paid with
material presents); see further 21:30.
159 For mediation see 32:11-14; besides, 32:30 is preceded by Moses’ intercession (32:20-29,
see in particular 32:28), which amounts to paying the ransom.
Volume III1
EXODUS 2 1 :2 8 -3 2 179
are not the result of goring, but, for instance, caused by trampling or mauling?
The Sam.Pent. has generalized the regulation by adding nona *?a IK (‘or any
animal’) to n tf (Introd. §9.1.12), by replacing llttf in what follows with nona
(see 21:28, 29, 32), and by substituting the specific tflJ with the more general
naa hiph. (see 21:28, 31, 32) (cf. Fishbane*, 170; Sanderson**, 80f.). Also in
e.g. Mek., Ill, 74ff., the regulation is turned into a more general ordinance (cf.
Rashi).
ni? imperf. qal of naa (OT 11*), ‘to thrust’ (in qal only in Exod. 21:28,
31 [2*], 32); for adjective n\j, ‘in the habit of goring,’ see 21:29, 36. Meant is
thrusting with the horns (cf. LXX), attacking or wounding with the horns.
tf’KTlN etc. (Introd. §§3.2.1,3), not specific, but nevertheless preceded by
particle of the accusative (Ges-K §117d; Joiion §125h); the reference is to the
free Israelite man and woman (cf. 21:32). ‘to die,’ see Introd. §3.22. ip o , see
8:22.
âtt niph. (Introd. §3.3.1), impersonal passive with object see 4:7),
see Ges-K § 121 b; Joiion § 128b. A stoned animal has not been ritually slaugh
tered, and already for that reason is unfit for consumption (cf. 22:30). But why
then the explicit mention of something so obvious? Looking for an answer
early Jewish exegetes concluded that the prohibition is specifically included to
make it clear that the animal is not to be eaten either after the sentencing but
before the sentence had been carried out (Mek., Ill, 78; Rashi; cf. also TPsJ).
In rabbinic exegesis it is emphasized that the owner may in no way benefit
from the animal; not even its skin may be used (Mek., III, 79f.). ^P3, see 21:3.
’pi (see 20:7), Sam.Pent.: tfpJ; meant is: then no penalty or compensation
may be demanded; the owner’s loss consist in the loss of the animal. Ehrlich is
wrong in calling the loss a fine. TPsJ: ‘exempt from the death penalty and also
from paying the price of the male or female slave’ (cf. 21:32 and see Mek., Ill,
8 If.).
21:29 Beside 21:29 see 21:36. ‘in the past,’ see Introd. §4.4.4. *71» hoph. (see
19:21), for describing indefinite subject (KdSynt §324a); cf. LXX: subject is
(indefinite) ‘they.’ In TPsJ the number of warnings is three (cf. Mek., Ill, 83;
Rashi).
m e tf’ (see 10:28); LXX: xai p.fj a<jxxvioT) auxov (so also 21:36), ‘and he
did not keep him penned up’ (cf. Vulg.: nec reclusit eum; 21:36: et non
custodivit eum). For the view that the LXX here is based on the reading
13TOt$7’ and represents a halakic interpretation meaning: a goring ox must be
destroyed (cf. Mek., Ill, 84), see Frankel*, 93. Prijs**, 57f. Jackson, 121ff.,
regards UTOBf’ here and in 21:36 as the true reading: the man was warned, but
even so did not destroy the animal. OJ1, see Introd. §3.11.2. jvoni, in TO,
TPsJ, TNf, Pesh., SamT in translating niD, also at the end, *?Op is used.
n o r, sing, with subject in plur. (Brockelmann §50f; JoOon §150f). In TPsJ
Volume III1
the death is defined as one that will be carried out K’OBf p , ‘from heaven;’
unlike in the case of the immediate murderer (cf. Num. 35:21), the guilty party
is punished by God (cf. Mek., Ill, 80f., 85; Rashi; Nachmanides). According to
Frankel*, 93, the JtpoooTioOovevcai of the LXX is informed by the halakic
interpretation. Schwienhorst-Schfinbeiger, 138f., holds that nnv refers to the
execution of the blood vengeance by the relatives of the victim; see however
21:12, 14.
21:30 QK, LXX: eav 6e; cf. Pesh., Vulg. In TO 1S3 (see 2.5.7.5) is rendered
with 1100, ‘money;’ in TPsJ with KJ1Q01 KOJp, ‘pecuniary punishment’ (cf.
TNf; PTA, Pesh.). n’», see 7:23. ‘to pay,’ see Introd. §3.36. i n n , see 13:13.
‘life,’ see Introd. §3.35.1.
Who sets the amount of the ransom? The injured party, the relatives (cf.
21:22)? Early exegesis held that not only the sentencing of ox and owner (cf.
Mek., Ill, 85) was done by the court, but also the fixing of the ransom. In TO
‘to impose’ is 2x used with the plur. (cf. Pesh.). In LXX and TPsJ, at the end
of the verse the plur. is used, in TPsJ the subject is ‘the Sanhedrin of Israel’
(cf. Mek., Ill, 86; Rashi). Also modem expositors see the court, the authorities,
as having a role in the fixing and collection of the ransom (e.g. Cassuto; Hyatt;
Schenker, 65). The text is silent about it.
How is the amount determined? Mek., Ill, 86, contains two interpretations:
on the basis of the value of the killed person or that of the responsible person
(cf. Rashi). 1B3 is (see above) ransom for the forfeited life and so also
payment for damages.
Brin, “Development” (see 2.2.1), 64ff., regards 21:30 as an expansion of the
text.
21:31 lit serves the function of ON (cf. 21:32 and see LXX), see 21:36 and cf.
Brockelmann § 136a; Williams §443. The subject, the ox, is explicitly men
tioned in TO, TPsJ. For vocalization of the first ni? see Ges-K §129i n. 1.
Meant is thrusting so hard that death ensues (cf. 21:28a, 29b). n r is not
repeated in LXX (cf. also Sam.Pent. and Vulg.); cf. 21:32MT. ‘boy or girl’
(Introd. §3.10.1), meant are the children of the free Israelite; TNf: *ia and
napj m a (cf. PTA), ‘a male child,’ ‘a female child;’ in TO, TPsJ the children
are specifically identified as a son o f Israel and a daughter o f Israel (cf. also
TNf). In Mek., Ill, 88, the question is asked whether the rule also applies to
proselytes. BBSP (see 2:14), meant are the rules, formulated in 21:28-30. nlSO
niph. (Introd. §3.14.1), for describing an impersonal subject; cf. LXX: subject
is (indefinite) ‘they’ (cf. end of 21:30). lb, is the reference to the ox or to the
owner? Apparently the latter, but the execution of the sentence is implied.
21:32 For the word order in 21:32a see e.g. JoQon §155o; Brockelmann §122h.
Volume III1
EXODUS 2 1 :3 3 -2 2 :1 6 181
n r , meant is that the victim is hit so hard that he dies (cf. 21:28, 29). In the
LXX, the same terms are used for the male and female slave as in 21:20 (see
at 21:26). ‘thirty (Introd. §4.4.3) shekels’ is apposition with ‘silver’ (Introd.
§3.28); cf. 2 Sam. 24:24.
plur. of bgltf (OT ca. 100*; 14* Exod.), ‘shekel,’ weight, monetary
unit (sing, in 30:13[4x], 15, 24; 38:24[2x], 25[2x], 26[2x], 29). Though there
is no certainty the shekel is said to weigh about 11,5 grams (see literature at
25:39 [‘talent’]). In 30:13, 24; 38:24-26 the particular shekel is further defined
with the formula (with 3-normae; cf. K8Synt §332r; Ges-K §119i;
Williams §252): ‘according to the standard of the sanctuary shekel.’ Whether
an official standard is meant or whether the sanctuary shekel had a different
weight than the ‘ordinary’ shekel is not known. In 30:13; Lev. 27:25; Num.
3:47; 18:16; Ezek. 45:12 the holy shekel is said to be twenty 3^4 (for the term
see Ellenbogen*, 60). In several ancient versions a transcultural translation is
used; LXX: didrachmes; Symm: staters; TO: selas; Pesh.: ’styryn. VJlNb (cf.
21:4), as such the suffix only refers to the male slave, but the female slave is
in view as well (cf. 21:26b, 27b); LXX: 'their master;’ Vulg.: 'the master’
What kind of slaves are they? For the question see 21:20f., 26f. Also here in
TPsJ, through the adjective ‘Canaanite,’ male and female slave are specifically
identified as non-Israelites (cf. Mek., Ill, 89; Rashi). Schwienhorst-SchSnber-
ger, 62, 142, 158, holds that in 21:32, unlike in 21:20f., 26f., it is not the debt
slave that is meant, but the real slave, the slave in the narrow sense of the term
(cf. also Cardellini [see 2.4.1], 265).
In my view, also this time there is no reason to think of foreign (true) slaves
only. From the fact that the male and female slave are here exclusively seen as
property it does not follow that the slave referred to cannot be an Israelite debt
slave. It is important to keep in mind the unique character of the regulation. At
issue is not the master-slave relationship, not the morality of owning slaves -
hence the element ‘the slave is also a human being’ is absent - , but the
relationship of two free citizens, one of whom has caused economic loss to the
other. For that reason the question is purely approached from the point of view
of the economic value of the slave.
As in the case of mistreatment (cf. 21:20f., 26f.), male and female slave are
treated differently than the free citizens. Their societal status - they are proper
ty - determines the regulations concerning them.
2.6 CAUSING DAMAGE TO ANOTHER PERSON’S PROPERTY

(21:33-22:16)
21:33-22:16 can in its entirety be dealt with under the rubric ‘causing damage
to another person’s property.’ Various types of damage caused to the property
Volume III1
of the neighbour are dealt with. Ultimate goal of the regulations is instilling
respect for the property of the other. One who consciously or through negli
gence causes damage must ‘make restitution.’
‘Restitution’ is the key word that welds 21:33-22:16 into a unity. 18* the
root D1?© (see 4:18) is used ( 10* D^©’; 4x D^©’ D^©; outside 21:33-22:14 0 1?©
does not occur as verb in Exodus). The required restitution varies. It depends
on the circumstances under which the damage to the property of the other came
about; whether force majeure played a role (21:35; cf. also 22:9-12, 13), or
whether one can speak of guilt due to carelessness or neglect of duty (21:33,
34, 36; 22:4, 5; cf. also 22:9-12, 13) or of malicious intent (21:37; 22:3, 6, 8).
The use of o'?© might be an aigument in favour of restricting the section
under discussion here to 22:14. Since also 22:15, 16 deals with examples of
causing damage to another person’s property and 22:15, 16 formally (because
of the use of ,5(1) and ON) is closely related to the foregoing, it is taken up in
the discussion of this section. As concerns the delineation, by choosing 21:33
as the divide, two sections, both of which deal with the goring ox (21:28-32
and 21:35, 36), are separated from each other.160 Marking off sections is
necessary yet has its drawbacks.
In the current section, the general stipulations are introduced with 15(l)
(21:33, 35, 37; 22:4, 5, 6, 9, 13, 15 [Introd. §3.25.2]; cf. the Masoretic
division: s with 21:33 etc.; p with 22:13 [BHS; s in BH K '2])-, the description of
special situations with 0K(1) (22:1, 2, 3, 7, 11, 12, 14, 16 [cf. Introd. §3.4.1];
cf. also the use of iK in 21:36).
For delineation and composition see in particular Osumi (see 2.2.2), 119ff.;
Otto, Wandel (see 2.2.1), 12ff.; Schwienhorst-Schonbeiger (see 2.2.1), 47ff.,
142ff.
2.6.1 Injury to a neighbour’s cattle (21:33-36)
21:33 A nd when someone leaves a p it open or when someone digs a p it and

does not cover it, and an ox or a donkey falls into it,
34 then the owner o f the pit shall make restitution, with money he must pay
the owner (of the animal) fo r the loss. However the dead animal goes to him
(the owner of the pit).
35 And i f somone’s ox injures another personi ox so severely that it dies,
then they shall sell the live ox and share the proceeds. They must also share
the dead animal.
36 I f from past experience the ox was known to gore and its owner neverthe
less was not willing to keep it under control, then he shall make fu ll restitution,140
140 Sprinkle (see 2.2.1), 104fF., maintains the view that 21:28-36 is a structural unit.
Volume III1
EXODUS 2 1 :3 3 -3 6 183
an ox fo r the (dead) ox. However, the dead animal goes to him (the owner of
the goring ox).’
In 21:33-36 two (cf. the Masoretic division) instances of damage to cattle of

another are described. The first case (21:33, 34) concerns the following
situation: someone’s ox or donkey, evidently in a fairly accessible area, falls
into an uncovered cistern or pit used for storage of grain, while no one kept an
eye on it. The owner of the pit can be charged with criminal negligence (cf.
Deut. 22:8). An unsupervised pit ought to be covered. The owner of the pit is
therefore obligated to pay the owner of the cattle for the loss he sustained.
The second case (21:35, 36) concerns a vicious ox, which this time does not
attack a human (cf. 21:28-32), but a neighbour’s ox, mortally wounding it. In
that case the owner cannot be blamed for negligence, unless prior to the
incident the ox had been capricious. In that case the owner is guilty, because
he should not have let the animal run loose, and he must pay the owner of the
dead animal for the loss (21:36). But if prior to that said ox was not aggres
sive, its owner is not liable and the owners of the animals are to share the loss
(21:35).
A situation as described in 21:33f. does not occur in the legal texts known
from Israel’s neighbouring countries. For a case of full reparation for damage
to another person’s property in case of negligence, see CH §125 (cf. Paul [see
2.2.1], 84); cf. also CH §§42-43; 53-55; 235-237. 21:35 does have a parallel,
however, described by Yaron (see 2.2.1), 292, as ‘probably the closest parallel,
known so far, between a rule in an ancient Near Eastern legal text and a
biblical provision.’ It concerns CE §53 (the owners share the price of the live
animal and the meat of the carcass). For that matter, the regulations are not
entirely identical. In 21:35 it is stipulated that the proceeds after the sale are to
be divided. In CE §53 the evident intent is that the owner of the live ox may
keep the animal, but has to pay the other person half of the agreed-upon price
(cf. Schwienhorst- Schdnbeiger [see 2.2. 1], 15If.).
21:33 n n s (see 2 :6), the pit that is left open could also be one that had been
filled in but then dug again, ‘someone’ (Introd. §3.2.2), meant is the owner
mentioned in 21:34 or, for that matter, a member of his family, a son or
daughter or a slave, male or female, for whom he is responsible. TQ (see
12:29), a cistern or storage place for grain, r n ? ’ imperf. qal of m a I (OT
15*), ‘to dig,’ ‘to cut out’ (Gen. 26:25; Num. 21:18 etc.; cf. TWAT, IV,
3l8ff.). In TPsJ ‘pit’ is followed by: Kplltfa, ‘in the street’ (cf. Rashi: also one
who excavates a pit in a public thoroughfare is liable), noa (see 8:2), cf. Gen.
29:2f. bBJ (see 15:16), meant is: a fall that proves fatal (cf. 21:34). The
outcome is not always that bad (cf. Matt. 12:11; Luke 14:5). An open pit can
also be dangerous to humans (cf. Matt. 15:14; Luke 6:39; 14:5). natf, Sam.
Volume III1
Pent.: OB?, ‘ox’ (Introd. §9.1.12), in the LXX 21:33 is translated with pooxoc
(cf. 21:37 etc.), in 21:35, 36, as in 21:28, 29, 32, with taupoc. ‘donkey’
(Introd. §9.1.16), Sam.Pent.: + nona *?2 IN (cf. 21:28 etc.). Ox and donkey,
the most valuable animals, stand here for cattle in general.
21:34 *?32, see 21:3. obti, see 4:18. *199 (Introd. §3.28), ‘in hard cash’
(Ehrlich) the damage must be made good, perhaps because reparation in the
form of another animal might raise the question whether the replacement
animal is equal to the dead one (Holzinger); Rashi: required is restitution in the
form of something that has monetary value. There is no reason to follow
Baentsch and read 1B02 (cf 21:35). 219 hiph., see 4:7. vbpab, LXX: tw
Kupvcp auTtov, ‘to their owner,’ that is, the owner of the animals; the Vulg.
lacks a translation of vbff2 and has aimed for greater clarity through the
translation reddet pretium iumentorum, ‘he must pay the price of the animals;’
in TPsJ ‘to his owner’ is followed by: ‘as price for his ox and his donkey.’
‘the dead animal’ (Introd. §3.32), TPsJ: Nnb ’231, ‘the carcass’ (cf. Vulg.).
b + nvt, see Introd. §3.13.2. lb, to whom is the reference? According to Mek.,
Ill, 93f. (cf. Rashi; Nachmanides) the reference is to the owner of the animal,
and the value of the carcass is deducted from the amount that is owed by the
owner of the pit. More likely, the owner of the pit gets the carcass. The skin
and also the meat, at least of the ox (cf. Lev. 17:15; 22:8; Deut. 14:21 and see
also Exod. 21:28 en 22:30), were worth something (the donkey was considered
unclean; cf. Introd. §9.1.16) and gave the owner of the pit some compensation
for his loss.
21:35 *)33 (see 7:27), apparently it concerns the infliction of wounds, regardless
of how it was done (cf. Mek., Ill, 94; Rashi). In the LXX *)3 ? is translated in
the same way as m? in 21:28 etc. (icepatioT). In Sam.Pent. ETN and inm (see
2:13) are followed by: iniaro bs IN; for the generalization see 21:28, 33. 720,
see 21:7; subject are the owners involved. Sam.Pent., due to the generalization,
only has Tin nN as object (see 1:14).
•lSfll perf. cons, qal of nsn (OT 15*), ‘divide/share)’ (Gen. 32:8; Num.
31:27, 42 etc.; cf. Introd. §4.1). laps, the proceeds of the live animal (cf. Ges-
K §135m); cf. TPsJ: rP B T D31, see Introd. §3.11.2. Also the dead animal
(LXX: ‘the dead bull;’ Vulg.: ‘the carcass of the dead [animal]’) shall be
divided. It would seem that after the skin and meat have been sold the proceeds
(explicitly stated in TO, TPsJ, TNf, FT) are to be shared.
The regulation says nothing about the possibility that the value of the animals
involved may not be equal. In that case, the loss of the one owner will be
greater than that of the other when the proceeds are divided. It could even
happen that one of the two will come out ahead (cf. the discussion in Mek., Ill,
95f., and see Rashi).
Volume III1
EXODUS 2 1 :3 7 -2 2 :3 185
21:36 The account of a unique situation is here not introduced by ON, but by
IK (cf. KbSynt §371; Ges-K §159cc; JoUon §167g); cf. LXX: edv 6e. S T
niph., see Introd. §3.22. n^j TB (see 21:29), Sam.Pent.: noonona, cf. 21:28;
also in 21:36b Sam.Pent. has nona instead of TO. OB1?#‘JIM?!? (Introd.
§4.4.4), note the formal similarities with abB’ obB and non in the sequel of
the verse. After OBbB there follows in the LXX that the owner had been
warned (cf. 21:29); the observation is juridically important: the owner has been
told of the vicious nature of his ox, and therefore has no defense. *1DB, see
10:28.
obB, see 4:18. Holzinger believes that the reparation is made by having the
person who is held liable handing his ox over to the other; presumably the
reparation is considered adequate because the live animal had proved to be the
stronger. Explicitly, however, compensation for the loss is only asked in the
form of a live animal, obviously one that matches the dead ox. Nothing more
is said about the goring animal (cf. 21:28, 29, 32). ‘the dead animal,’ TPsJ
concretely: ‘the carcass and the skin;’ TNf: Nivm nivjm, ‘the money re
ceived for the dead animal’ (cf. TNf 21:34b, 35b; FT 21:35b).
For a detailed discussion of 21:35, 36 as it relates to 21:28, 29 see Schwien-
horst-Schonberger (see 2.2.1), 147ff. It might be noted yet that the thrusting ox
is further to be left alone. Apparently, as long as it is not a threat to people it
may be left alive (differently Sprinkle [see 2.2.1.], 125f.).
2.6.2 Theft of cattle (21:37-22:3)
21:37 ‘When someone steals an ox or a sheep, and slaughters or sells it, he

shall give five beasts as restitution fo r the ox and four sheep fo r the sheep.
22:1 I f the thief is caught breaking in and given such a beating that he dies, it
is not a matter o f bloodguilt.
2 I f something like that happens in broad daylight, then it is a matter o f
bloodguilt. He (the thief) must certainly give restitution. I f he has no property,
he shall be sold as conpensation fo r what was stolen.
3 I f the stolen goods, whether an ox or a donkey or a sheep, are found alive
in his (the th ief’s) possession, he shall give double restitution. ’
2.6.2.1 Bibl.: B.S. Jackson, Theft in Early Jewish Law, Oxford 1972; A. Marx,
“Sacrifice de reparation et rites de levee de sanction,” ZAW 100 (1988), 183-
98; Otto, Rechtsgeschichte (see 2.2.1), 68ff.; idem, Wandel (see 2.2.1), 19ff.;
Paul (see 2.2.1), 85ff, 110; Schenker (see 2.2.1), 36ff.; J. Schoneveld, “Le
sang du cambrioleur- Ex. 22:1-2,” in M.A. Beek et al. (eds.), Symbolae
Biblicae et Mesopotamicae (Fs F.M.Th. de Liagre B6hl), Leiden 1973, 335-40;
Schwienhorst-Schonberger (see 2.2. 1), 162ff.; Westbrook (see 2.2.1), lllff.
2.6.2.2 Subject of 21:37-22:3 is ‘cattle-theft.’ Of the problems the exegete of
Volume III1
1S6 THE BOOK OF THE COVENANT
the passage faces, the following two are the most important:
(1) For the same delict different penalties are prescribed in 21:37 en 22:3.
How to explain that? Is the fact that the thief did not slaughter the animal or
not yet had an opportunity to sell it (cf. 21:37) ‘rewarded’ with a lesser
punishment?
(2) At issue in 21:37; 22:2b, 3 is the question of the degree of punishment;
in 22:1, 2a the question is, when, if a thief is killed in the act of housebreak
ing, is it a matter of bloodguilt and when not? What is the relationship between
the two passages?
I start with the last question: it is generally assumed that 22: 1, 2a is an inter
polation and that 21:2b represents the original and natural connection to 21:37.
In line with this view, in some translations 22:1, 2a is placed after 22:3 (see
e.g. NEB). It is assumed that in reality 22:1,2a is not about animal theft but
about breaking into a home (e.g. Paul, 86f., and already Rashi). This is
doubtful. Though rn n n ©3 and in 22:1 respectively can be translated as
‘in a burglary’ and ‘a thief’ (cf. e.g. NV, WV) (cf. Ges-K §126q,r; JoQon
§137m,n), it is more likely that the break-in by the thief (of 21:37) is thought
to be happening in the house (cf. 2 Sam. 12:3) or the pen where the animals
are kept. 22:1 is not about a separate case (in which case it would have been
introduced by ’5 ), but about an incident - ON is used - , that could happen in
the situation described (21:37). The conclusion that 22:1, 2a stands by itself is
not well founded. 21:37; 22:1, 2 is a coherent passage. Can the same also be
said of 21:37-22:3? That brings me to the first question which already exer
cised early expositors (cf. Leibowitz*, 363ff).
2.6.23 Jackson, 40ff., 130ff., 154ff., believes, following D. Daube, that
21:37-22:2a was expanded, first with 22:2b, later with 22:3 (cf. also Fishbane*,
24Iff.). Presumably over time the punishment became less severe. Otto,
Wandel, 19ff., adopts an opposite standpoint; he holds that 21:37-22:3 may
have evolved in four literary phases. He contends that there is a development
in the determination of the penalty that underlies the passage, though a devel
opment that does not run parallel with the literary growth of the passage: at
first the penalty for animal theft was the same as for theft in general (cf. 22:6,
8); however, the penalty for cattle-theft is made more severe; only when the
theft is solved, by cultic means or if the animals are recovered alive, is double
payment still be enough (22:3).
Westbrook, 113fF., has defended the coherence of 21:37-22:3 as one unit, on
the basis of a new interpretation inspired by ancient Near Eastern laws. He
believes that 21:37-22:3 contains three different regulations. 21:37 is about the
compensation to be paid by the caught animal thief. 22:3 does not relate to
payment by the animal thief. Subject of 22:3 is the man who bought an animal
from a thief: the buyer is obligated to give restitution, but in turn can claim the
price from the thief. 22: 1, 2 is about a burglary attempt.
Volume III1
EXODUS 2 1 :3 7 -2 2 :3 187
Westbrook’s approach is correctly disputed by Schwienhorst-Schdnbeiger

(pp. 167, 182ff.). Also the structure of the passage - stipulation with ’3,
followed by two stipulations with OK - argue against it. He himself offers two
possible interpretations (pp. 168ff., 184ff.): (1) originally 21:37; 22:3 formed a
unit; 22:1,2 is a redactional interpolation; (2) 21:37-22:3 is from one hand and
in the form of an inclusion. For the difference in the degree of punishment
between 21:37 and 22:3 he provides three arguments: (1) if the thief decided
not to slaughter or sell the animal, the theft may be more easily solved, and the
punishment can be more lenient; (2) it should be remembered that in case of
sale or slaughter, it is no longer possible to determine the exact value of the
stolen animal; the owner should not lose out; (3) a case like that of 21:37 will
have occurred more often; that explains the severe sanctions.
In any case,161 it is conceivable that in determining the degree of punishment,
what the thief has done with the animal is taken into account. If he sold or
slaughtered it (cf. HL §73), he is unquestionably a thief. One who possesses
animals belonging to another person and removed the marks of ownership (cf.
HL §60, 61, 62; MAL F §1), that person, if not a thief, is at least a fraudulent
finder. The fact that someone’s animal happens to be among someone else’s
herd is no sure proof that it is stolen. It could have gotten there accidentally It
would not be right to accuse the owner of that herd of theft (cf. HL §66). After
all, animals can break free or wander off, and when found by another than the
owner (cf. HL §71) be retained by the finder. A person who keeps what he
found for himself should not be equated with someone who is a cattle rustler.
Though the possibility that over time the stipulations concerning animal-theft
were expanded is not to be excluded, there is no question that 21:37-22:3 as
such cannot be read as a coherent passage. Also Lev. 5:20-26 contains stipula
tions concerning embezzlement. For a comparison with 21:37-22:3, 6-12 see
Marx, 186ff.
2.6.2.4 Regulations similar to those in 22:6-14 are known from the ancient
Near East (cf. also Leemans [see 2.2.1], 429ff.).
In CE §§12-13, as in 22:1, 2, for passing judgment on an attempt at stealing
the time it happened is taken into account. §12 deals with theft of a sheaf of
grain from the field (cf. LI §9); §13 about breaking into a home. In both cases,
if caught in the daytime, the thief must pay a fine; if caught by night, the
punishment is death (cf. Sick [see 2.2.1], 55, nn. 275, 478; Yaron [see 2.2.1],
273f. ). In 22:1, 2a, unlike in CE §§12-13, the question of the degree of
punishment is not at issue. The question is, when is an appeal to self-defense
justified. If it should result in the death of the thief it is not considered his
punishment, but rather the consequence of the thief’s confrontation with the
161 For a discussion see also Levinson (see 2.2.1), 48fF., and cf. Sprinkle (see 2.2.1), 139.
Volume III1
owner of the home or bam. He is not guilty when by night he kills. He is,
however, under no obligation to kill.
CE §13 is not an isolated law. CH §21 stipulates that a burglar is to be killed
and hanged in front of the hole through which he tried to enter a home (cf.
Sick, 144; Westbrook, 122, 125 n. 53); CH §25 that someone who tried to steal
while aiding in putting out the blaze of an house on fire is to be thrown into
the fire (cf. Westbrook, 55 n. 72). Also the robber is to pay for his deed with
his life; if he is not caught, the local authorities are responsible for making
restitution for the loss (CH §§22-24; cf. Sick, 116f. ; Walther [see 2.2.1], 108f.
; Westbrook, 2 3 f., 71).
Also HL §§93-95 talks about (an attempt at) breaking into a house. A fine is
prescribed. The amount of the fine depends in part on the situation - did the
burglary succeed or not - and on the identity of the wrongdoer - was he a free
person or a slave (cf. also §§96-97). Besides, a bondperson is also punished
with bodily maiming: nose and ears are cut off (§95).
Theft of animals is specifically mentioned in CH §8: the thief must repay the
cattle stolen from temple or palace thirty times, the cattle of a private person
ten times; if he has nothing to offer, he is to be killed. A different penalty is
imposed for theft of dead stock from the temple or the palace; it earns the
death penalty (§6). In the last case the theft can be proven. With having cattle
of another person among one’s own, it is more difficult (cf. Westbrook, 121f.).
In MAL C+G §8 and MAL F §1 the punishment for animal theft is fines,
beatings and compulsory labor for the king.
HL prescribe fifteenfold (earlier thirty-fold) payment for certain stolen cattle
(§§57-59), for others - the value plays a role - tenfold (earlier fifteenfold)
(§§63-65), sixfold (earlier twelvefold) (§§67-69), or a fine (§§81-85, 120).
§70, however, speaks of double restitution (cf. 22:3) for a stolen ox, horse,
mule or donkey, which is recognized by the owner as being his. The same
restitution is to be given by the person in whose field another person’s ox was
killed (§72). Is only double restitution required because the thief did not
change the property markers? (not so Westbrook, 117f.). At any rate, a
dishonest finder, one who moves the property marks, is to give sevenfold
restitution (§§60-62). On the other hand, the honest finder, the man who
reports the find to the authorities, may keep the found animal until the rightful
owner shows up (§71). For theft see also introduction 22:6-14.
The punishment demanded in the covenant book is mild in comparison with
what is prescribed in e.g. CH and HL (but see also Gen. 31:32; 44:9f. ,16f. ).
Absent is the death penalty and there is no demand for exorbitantly high
restitutions (cf. Yaron, 269). Otto, Wandel, 2If., offers a historical and
sociological explanation. Paul, 86, detects in it a typical characteristic of the
biblical regulations. In any case, there would seem to be a connection between
prescribing severe penalties and the fact that in practice one was often power
Volume III1
EXODUS 2 1 :3 7 -2 2 :3 189
less against professional thieves, and could think of no better weapon than
precribing hard punishments.
21:37 '3 (Introd. §3.25.2), Sam.Pent.: "31; cf. LXX, Pesh. 33)'’ (cf. Ges-K
§47f), imperf. of 333 (see 20:15). ‘someone,’ see Introd. §3.2.2. ‘ox,’ see
Introd. §9.1.12. ‘sheep,’ see Introd. §9.1.5. ‘illjtpi perf. cons. (cf. KflSynt
§368e) of 130 (OT 11*; cf. 13T, see 3:18), ‘to slaughter’ (see TWAT, III,
302ff.). 130, see 21:7. ‘five,’ see Introd. §4.6.1. ‘cattle,’ see Introd. §9.1.11.
nnn, cf. 21:26,27. ‘four’ (see Introd. §4.5.1), cf. 2 Sam. 12:6. ‘sheep,’ see
Introd. §9.1.4.
How much exactly did the owner gain? It is commonly thought that the res
toration increased his possessions respectively with four cattle or three sheep
(cf. Jackson, 130f. ). For the difference in restitution two reasons are given in
TPsJ: the thief had to carry the sheep (which is degrading); the ox is used for
work, so that the loss sustained is greater (cf. also Mek., Ill, 99; Rashi; for
other Jewish exegesis see Leibowitz*, 366ffi). Obviously, the size of the
restitution is determined by the value of the animal. For sevenfold restitution
see Prov. 6:31; 2 Sam. 12:6LXX. Cf. also Gen. 31:39.
22:1 22:1, 2a is a model of balance (cf. 21:20f. ). Not only the victim of the
break-in (22:1), but also the intruder is protected. The victim may defend
himself; no murder chaiges may be brought for self-defense (22:1). But
unbridled revenge is not allowed. The victim who gives vent to his desire to
get back at the intruder is called to account.
rnpno (22:1; Jer. 2:34), ‘the breaking in’ (derivative of in n ; cf. Ezek. 8:8;
12:5, 7, 12), viz. in the sheepfold, the place where the animals are kept (cf.
John 10:1). TPsJ (very concretely): Kbni31K3113, ‘in the opening of a wall;’
cf. LXX: ev t<*> 6iopuypati. 22:1 and also 22:2 are not about animal theft but
about breaking into a house (see also e.g. Rashi). This is also very clear in the
Vulg.: si ejfringens fu r dotman sive suffodiens, ‘If a thief as he breaks into or
digs under a house.’
M3t0 niph., see 5:11. H33 hoph., see 2:11; Sam.Pent.: 11311, subject is the
owner, the keeper of the cattle; object, the intruder, ‘dies,’ see Introd. §3.22.
I’N, see 2:12. D’OI (Sam.Pent.: sing. 01, also in 22:2 [see also Num. 35:27];
cf. also TO, TPsJ, TNf, SamT), see 4:9 (cf. KOSynt §259c, Ges-K §124n).
To whom does ib in 22:1b and 22:2a (cf. also I'btf in 22:2a) refer? To the
one who does the beating (the owner or shepherd of the cattle) or to the thief?
Usually lb is taken as referring to the first mentioned person. Already in
ancient versions that choice is found. See the end of 22:1 in LXX: ouk eotiv
oc6 t <p (J)6vo <; ‘he is not guilty of murder;’ Vulg.: percussor non erit reus
sanguinis, ‘the killer will incur no bloodguilt;’ TPsJ and TNf state explicitly
that the person who did the hitting is not guilty of the shedding of innocent
Volume III1
blood. By contrast, in PTA lb is applied to the intruder: OIK man nb, ‘for him
there is an avenger’ Also Rashi applies it to the thief; he understands 22:1b as
follows: it is as though the thief is a person without blood (no vitality), has
been dead from the beginning, because, since he came with the intention of
killing, he lost the right to protection by the community (cf. Leibowitz*, 373).
Of late the ‘traditional’ view that 22:1b; 22:2a means: ‘there is (no)
blood(guilt) upon/for him,’ that is, he has (not) committed murder, has been
called into question, lb is applied to the thief. Ehrlich, maintaining that if the
keeper is the person that is meant, the preposition b y should have been used
(cf. Deut. 19:10), gives this interpretation: ‘he has (not) been murdered.’
Schoneveld, 330, 339f., likewise relates lb to the thief: the killed thief has (no)
blood that calls for vengeance, that is the thief is (not) responsible for his
death. Whether lb is related to the thief or to the killer does not affect the
meaning. As such, the traditional interpretation seems to have the most going
for it. I have chosen for a translation ad sensum. See further at 22:2a.
22:2 (Sam.Pent.: m t, [see 16:21] is regarded as a masculine [cf.

Gen. 19:23]), perf. of m r (OT 18*) with tfetf as subject (OT 11*), ‘to rise’
(see THAT, II, 993; TWAT, II, 66 Iff.).
l'b», in my view, refers to the keeper/owner of the cattle, not to the event
(Brockelmann §164bp) or the thief(theft) (e.g. Baentsch). The first words of
22:2 state the time and situation when it happened: an incident as described in
22:1b happens after sunrise. These details show that 22:1b deals with the
killing of a nightly intruder and that killing of an intruder by day is regarded
as murder. Why? The evident assumption is that one who happens upon a thief
at night is entitled to fight back, because under those circumstances his own
life is at risk (cf. Job 24:14, 16b; Matt. 24:43). By day such is not the case,
because the person whose house is being broken into is less vulnerable (he can
call for help etc.), whereas the intruder is more vulnerable (he is recognizable
and it is harder for him to get away).
This interpretation does present a question: also during the day self-defense
which might leave the intruder dead can can be necessary can it not? Killing
an intruder by day cannot be considered murder in all situations, can it? And
killing someone at night is not always justifiable self-defense, is it? Or could it
be that 22:2a does not refer to break-in by day, but to the fact that during the
day the owner runs into the man who broke into his house by night?162
Noteworthy is that in TPsJ and TO 22:2a is not taken as a time designation.
The result is that in TPsJ and TO 22:1 is not a case of a nighly break-in but of
162 Cf. Schwienhorst-SchOnberger, 177, and see Jer. 2:34; Fishbane*, 3 12ff., believes that in
Jer. 2:26, 34 use is made of Exod. 22:1, 2a.
Volume III1
EXODUS 2 1 :3 7 -2 2 :3 191
burglary more in general. In TPsJ, 22:2a is interpreted figuratively: ‘if the

matter is crystal clear;’ the comment is followed by a clarification: the thief did
not force entry in order to kill, but the other killed him nevertheless (then
innocent blood has been shed). Meant is that the killer may only go free in
case of evident self-defense (cf. also Mek., Ill, lOlff.; bSanh 72a; Rashi). TO
22:2a reads in translation: ‘If the eye of witnesses fell on him.’ The idea is
that, with witnesses on the scene, the thief would not be inclined to kill. In any
case, also TO deals with a situation in which no appeal to self-defense can be
made (cf. the divergent interpretations of Rashi and Nachmanides, and see
Leibowitz*, 374ff.).
While in LXX and Vulg. 22:2a is taken as a time designation (cf. also TNf,
Pesh. and e.g. Nachmanides), in another respect they offer an interpretation that
differs from the MT. nb©’ obtf is joined to 22:2a. In the LXX the apodosis
reads: evo%6<; eouv, avxairoOaveVcai ‘then he is guilty, his punishment is
death’ (cf. Frankel*, 81); Vulg.: homicidium perpetravit et ipse morietur, ‘then
he has committed murder and must die.’ Subject of ob#? obtf is the thief, not
the owner (cf. Jackson, 155). In TPsJ a smooth transition between 22:2a and
22:2b is effected by the insertion: ‘And if he (the thief) manages to escape
from his hand, ....’ Is that really the meaning? Is the man who attempted a
forceful entry and had the good fortune not to get killed, to be sentenced to
pay a fine for his wicked deed (cf. CE §§12, 13; HL §§94-95), equal to the
value of what he wanted to steal? It is more likely that the passage connects
with 21:37, and the restitution mentioned there is the implicit object (cf.
Schwienhorst-Schonberger, 178ff.). It is possible that 1*? in the fragmentary
2QExodb (see DJD, III, 53f. ) was followed by o'?Bib; cf. TPsJ: Db»nn no;
Vulg.: quod pro furto reddat, ‘something with which he can make up for the
theft.’
with 3 pretii (e.g. Williams §246); cf. Jackson, 139ff.; Schwienhorst-
Schonberger, 179f. If the thief is not able to pay the imposed compensation,
then debt slavery awaits him, either with the owner of the stolen cattle or with
another (see 2.4.5). In TPsJ it is explicitly connected with Exod. 21 through
the addition: ‘and till the sabbatical year’ (cf. Mek., Ill, 103). Josephus (AJ,
XVI, 3) adds that sale to foreigners was prohibited.
22:3 ttspp KJfpn, see Ges-K §5 lk, 113o; Jotion §123g,p; Brockelmann §93b.
TPsJ: + ‘while there are witnesses.’ LXX: eav 6e KaxaA.r|p.<t>0ij Kaa eupeOf),
‘If he (the thief) is caught in the act (cf. 22:1) and the (stolen item) is there’
(cf. Prijs**, 5f.). ‘ox,’ not in LXX. ‘donkey’ (Introd. §9.1.16), is not men
tioned in 21:37; Schwienhorst-SchOnbeiger, 172ff., does not think that is
reason to attribute 22:3, in whole or in part, to another hand. He notes that the
donkey, being an unclean animal, is not a fitting object with slaughter (21:37).
Sam.Pent.: after sheep + n a rta ba nit.
Volume III1
0,!l0 (see 1:14), the Masoretic punctuation makes it go with the preceding; in
M e t, III, 104 (cf. Rashi) ‘live’ is connected with what follows: restitution is to
be done in the form of live animals (cf. also LXXA; see Frankel*, 94). M e t,
III, 104, also mentions the interpretation ‘wild animals.’ O'Jtf (Introd. §4.3.1),
in Sam.Pent. preceded by nn«; cf. TO, TPsJ, Pesh., SamT (cf. 22:6, 8); see
beside it PTA: (also in 22:6,8) = 6iirX6<;.
As in 22:6, it is a case of theft in which the stolen item(s) is recovered. In
22:6 it concerns valuable objects, here live domestic animals. In both cases
double restitution is to be made. That is the thief’s punishment. Unclear
remains how ‘double’ is to be understood. Does this mean that when the stolen
animal is returned, one or two are to be added? The common interpretation
favours the former (Jackson, 13If. ; cf. however also Paul, 186 n. 2). The thief
loses what he tried to take from another (cf. Leibowitz*, 362).
2.6.3 Damage to a neighbour’s crops (22:4, 5)
22:4 ‘When someone causes a field or a vineyard to be grazed over by letting

his livestoct loose in it and they graze in another person’s field, then he shall
give restitution in accordance with the yield o f the best part o f his field and in
accordance with the yield o f the best part o f his vineyard.
5 When a fire breaks and spreads out to thorn bushes and bums a shoct o f
grain or the field with the standing grain, then he who started the fire shall
make fu ll restitution. ’
2.6.3.1 In 22:4, 5 two cases of damage to crops of a another person are

described. In both cases negligence, carelessness and inattentiveness are the
cause of the damage. The portrayed situations recall everyday life in an
agrarian society. Someone lets his animals graze in his own field, but, failing
to keep an eye on them, they also eat what belongs to someone else. Someone
is careless with lighting a fire, so that it spreads to the cut or still unharvested
grain of a neighbour, ruining everything. In both cases the one who caused the
damage must make good the neighbour’s loss. That is all that is required,
because no malicious intent (cf. Judg. 15:5: 2 Sam. 14:30; Matt. 13:25) is
involved.
2.6.3.2 Remarkable in 22:4, 5 is the use of terms that are formed with the
consonants "123 (in that order). Generally, the terms are traced to three roots,
two of which presumably occur in 22:4, namely, "123 II, ‘to graze/feed’ (see
3:2) and ")23 III, ‘to be stupid/like animals’ (for "P23 see Introd. §9.1.3) and
the third 123 I, ‘to bum’ (see 3:2) in 22:5. In line with said interpretations of
123, ‘feeding on a neighbour’s crops’ and ‘fire in a neighbour’s crops’ are
regarded as respectively the subject of 22:4 and 22:5. It is an old interpretation,
already articulated in LXX, Pesh., Vulg., TO, TPsJ (cf. also Mek., Ill, 108) and
Volume III1
EXODUS 2 2 :4 , 5 193
SamT. If this way of reading is correct, the passage displays a fine play with
identical consonants (alliteration).
On the other hand, in TNf and PTA the various forms of 122 are all associ
ated with 122 , ‘burning,’ and also 22:4 is interpreted as a case of causing
damage to a neighbour’s property, due to careless handling of fire.163 Also
some modem authors have opted for that interpretation (e.g. Baentsch, Ehrlich,
McNeile, Scharbert; see also e.g. NEB). Baentsch, e.g., aigues that 22:4 is
about a case of a person who is burning off stubble or weeds and so causes
damage to another person’s property. Punishment for his carelessness is having
to give the best of the yield of his own field. By contrast, 22:5 supposedly is
about someone who accidently set a fire, for instance because a fire got out of
control due to a strong gust of wind. That person would have to do no more
than make good the loss sustained by the other. Other modem exegetes (e.g.
Beer, Noth, Te Stroete, Childs) retain the traditional interpretation.
One could point out that there are separate stipulations, both introduced by
’2 . Baentsch notes that it unlikely that cattle were allowed in a vineyard (Isa.
5:5), but that it is even more unlikely that vineyards and gardens were burned
off (cf. Holzinger). Cazelles (see 2.2.1), 65f., resolves the difficulty much too
facilely by simply regarding ‘vineyard’ as an interpolation. As B.S. Jackson,
JJS 27 (1976), 139, rightly points out, the ancient vineyard was not only used
for producing wine, and the situation described here is not at all unusual (cf.
also HL §107).
All things considered, the situation envisioned seems to be one in which
someone lets his animals graze in his own fields, for example, after having
reaped the crops, while his neighbour has not yet harvested his field (cf. Te
Stroete). Additionally, one might also think of allowing animals in a neglected
vineyard (Isa. 5:6) or on barren land (23:11). Besides, 22:4, 5 seem to describe
similar situations (someone is negligent). 22:5 can hardly be regarded as a case
of an unavoidable accident. One who lights a fire must reckon with the wind.
If the stipulation pertains to a unique situation, that should have been specifi
cally mentioned. For the view that the restitution in 22:4 differs from that in
22:5, see exegesis 22:4.
2.6.3.3 Similar regulations are known from Israel’s neighbouring countries.
CH§§ 57, 58 deal with pasturing cattle in another field without the owner’s
consent. Restitution in goods is prescribed. Damage to crops in the field,
caused by cattle or fire, is dealt with - in the order fire-cattle - in HL §§105-
107. Damage to a plantation is to be made good by giving money. In case of
fire, the offender must provide for re-planting. In case of damage to a field, the
“ 3 Cf. J. Heinemann, JJS 25 (1974), 117ff; G. Schelbert, VT 8 (1958), 253-63; A. Toeg,

Tarbiz 39 (1970), 223-31.
Volume III1
offender must make a good field available to the one who sustained loss, as yet
giving him a harvest. For water damage to a field due to negligence see NBL
§3.
22:4 Sam.Pent.: '31, cf. LXX, Pesh. -i¥3!, cf. Ges-K §53n, 109h; KoSynt
§192d,e. ‘someone’ (Introd. §3.2.2), an Israelite farmer, or a member of his
household under his care. rn p , see 1:14. □”©, see Introd. §10.2.1. nbfifl
(Introd. §3.49.2) with explicative waw; Rashi relates it concretely to treading
on a neighbour’s field; for Rabbinic interpretation see in particular B.S.
Jackson, JJS 25 (1974), 123-36. m ’3, for K and Q see Introd. §2.2. m& 3 ,
with 3-partitivum (Ges-K §119m; Williams §251). i n s (Introd. §3.1.2), for
‘the other,’ elsewhere (e.g. 21:35) iniD is used; B.S. Jackson, JJS 27 (1976),
140, proposes to read 10$ rnpp, ‘in another field.’
3©'Q bound form of ap'O* (derivative of 3D’, see 1:20), ‘the best (part)’
(Gen. 47:6, 11; 1 Sam. 15:9, 15); cf. KoSynt §309f; B.S. Jackson, JJS 27
(1976), 141, contends that here 33'D means no more than ‘yield.’ The context
suggests that, to say no more, 3D’» cannot mean ‘the best part’ of the field,
but must refer to the yield of it; Pesh.: mn tb ’ (2*), ‘of the good.’ Dbtf, see
4:18.
The ending of 22:4 is not immediately cleat To whom does the suffix of
im p and 1D”)3 apply? To the one who caused the damage or to the victimized
person? (cf. already M e t, III, 110). A further question to ask is, why the
offender has to give the best part as payment. Because in 22:4 negligence is
involved and in 22:5 it was beyond one’s control? (Baentsch). Or because in
22:4 it was done on purpose and in 22:5 it was an accident? (Paul [see 2.2.1],
88, cf. also Otto, Wcmdel [see 2.2. 1], 22). Probably 22:4 and 22:5 describe
different cases of equal seriousness (see above and cf. Schwienhorst-Schonber-
ger [see 2.2.1.], 189). The Sam.Pent. has a more detailed and easier to under
stand text; after "imt follows: ru?3' rnt&rt b s oni nnN isns imDn nbD' obttf,
‘then from his field he must make good according to its yield; and if he lets
the whole field be grazed over, ...’ The LXX of 22:4 is based on the text
tradition embodied in the Sam.Pent. (cf. Frankel*, 108f.), as apparently also
Qm (see Sanderson**, 76f.). Sanderson suggests that m?3 ' in the Sam.Pent. is
corrupt and that originally it read ”iff3\ In her view, the omission of the words
in the MT is due to homoioteleuton, darting of the eye from “intt to U?3\
Several exegetes believe that Sam.Pent. and LXX reflect the original text
(e.g. Strack, Beer, Childs). It has been adopted in some modem translations
(e.g. LY NEB). For that matter, also with respect to Sam.Pent. and LXX there
is the question concerning the object of the suffix. It could be the field of the
person held liable: whatever of the field of the other was ruined by grazing, he
must pay back from the yield of his own land. It can also refer to die field of
the person who suffered the loss: the expected yield of the field that was
Volume III1
EXODUS 2 2 :4 , 5 195
stripped bare by grazing is to be estimated and recompensed, whether in goods

or money. In any case, the interpretation of the MT is defensible, if the suffix
is applied to the injured party: determination of the restitution is to be done on
the basis of the expected yield of the best part of his field or vineyard (cf.
Dasbeig). It assures that the harmed party, despite having received restitution,
will not end up the loser. For that matter, also if the suffix is applied to the
reponsible individual, the MT can make good sense if it is assumed that the
restitution implies an estimate of the damage (explicitly in Vulg.: pro damni
aestimatione): the extent of the damage is estimated; restitution is to be made
from the choicest part of the yield of the land of the person who is held
responsible, lest the victimized party should suffer (cf. Rashi). All things
considered, there is insufficient evidence for saying that LXX and Sam.Pent.
represent the original text.164
22:5 ‘to spread,’ see Introd. §3.42.1. For nan (of n s ’) as underlying text, see
S. Talmon in Melanges D. Barthelemy, Fribourg/Gottingen 1981, 519. to# (see
3:2), fire, set by someone (see end of verse), evidently to use it for something.
It could be burning off of stubble or weeds. Other suggestions, including fire
made by a traveler (Heinisch), are less likely. KSO, see 5:11. ‘thorn bushes,’
see Introd. §10.4.1. ‘to bum,’ see Introd. §3.3.1. ‘sheaves’ and ‘standing
grain,’ see Introd. §10.3.1. In Mek., Ill, 111, the terms are used in a broad
sense; nap also includes the trees.
The use of the general term niton is striking after the preceding specific
terms. Attempts have been made to see special meaning in it by rendering it as
a qualification: ‘the entire field’ (LV, CV, NV) or ‘the field itself’ (Dasbeig),
including (cf. Dillmann, Baentsch) also other crops and trees (cf. 9:25; 10:5;
Lev. 26:4). In that case one would, however, have expected a concrete indica
tion. See in particular Judg. 15:5, which concludes with the climax: and the
vineyards and the olive groves. Rashi notes: the fire turned the freshly plowed
soil hard, so that it had to be plowed again. Paul, 88, thinks of the field as the
sprouting grain (cf. Cazelles [see 2.2.1], 66). Schwienhorst-Schdnbeiger (see
2.2.1), 192, surmises that mtort i« is an addition. These explanations and
exegesis show that the exegetes are at a loss what to do with the term. Perhaps
niton IKnopn IKis to be taken as a kind of hendiadys: the field with the still
standing grain; cf. Vulg.: stantes segetes in agris. In the LXX the triad which
constitutes the subject of the clause is translated with aA.a)va f| ot&xuc; f|
itefiiov, ‘a threshing floor or cut grain or a field (the still standing grain).’
164 Cf. J.J. Rabinowitz, VT 9 (1959), 40-6; for MT and LXX as witnesses o f a different
development of an old law, see L. Malusa, BeO 111-112 (1977), 163-5; cf. also A. Aejmelaeus,
ZAW 99 (1987), 82f.
Volume III1
mffarmK nsaan, cf. KOSynt §329c; Ges-K §117q.
2.6.4 Stealing of or damage to property given for safe-keeping, bor

rowed and rented (22:6-14)
22:6 ‘When someone gives to a neighbour silver or jewelry fo r safekeeping,

and it is stolen from that m an’s house, then the thief, i f he is caught, shall pay
back double.
7 I f the thief is not caught, then the owner o f the house shall turn to the
gods, so that it may become clear that he did not misappropriate that neigh
bour’s property.
8 As to any kind o f embezzlement o f property, whether involving an ox, a
donkey a sheep, clothing, or whatever else may be missing, o f which one
claims, ’There it is!, ‘ the dispute between said parties shall be brought before
the gods. The person declared guilty by the gods shall pay double to the other.
9 When someone gives to a neighbour a donkey or an ox or a sheep, or any
other beast fo r safekeeping, and it dies or is seriously injured or is stolen,
while no one witnessed it,
10 then (in the dispute) between the two parties, the oath shall be taken
before YHWH, so that it may become clear that the one (the keeper) did not
misappropriate the other persons property. The owner o f it shall accept (the
oath) and he (the keeper) does not have to make restitution.
11 But i f it was simply stolen while he had it, then he shall make restitution
to its owner
12 I f it is certain that it was tom to pieces by a wild animal, then he shall
bring it as evidence. He does not have to make restitution fo r the tom animal.
13 But when someone has borrowed a neighbour s beast and, while the
owner was not present, it gets seriously injured or dies, then he (the borrower)
shall make fu ll restitution.
14 I f its owner was present, then he does not have to make restitution. I f it
was hired, the risk was included in the hiring cost. ’
2.6.4.1 Bibl.: H. Seebass, “Noch einmal zum Depositenrecht Ex 22, 6-14,” in

Gottes Recht als Lebensraum (Fs H J. Boecker), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1993, 21-
31; R. Westbrook, “The Deposit Law of Exodus 22,6-12,” ZAW 106 (1994),
390-403.
22:6-14 contains a series of stipulations intended to protect an Israelite’s
property against loss caused by a neighbour’s deceitful conduct or neglect (6X
wpn, in 22:6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13) in case of safekeeping, (22:6-12), usufruct
(22:13, 14a) or renting out (22:14b). Said property can consist of valuables
(22:6, 8) or livestock (22:8-14). It is spelled out when the harmed owner is
entitled to compensation and when not (obttf pi. in 22:6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13[2x],
Volume III1
EXODUS 2 2 :6 -1 4 197
14).
22:6-14, in line with the Masoretic division, can be divided into three
sections:
22:6-8; 22:6, 7 is about delivering money and valuables into the keeping of a
neighbour; in 22:8 the regulations are expanded to include taking care of
livestock.
22:9-12 is about entrusting livestock to a neighbour.
22:13-14 is about borrowing/hiring of a work animal.
As in 21:6 (see 2.4.6, 8-9), in 22:7f. the interpretation of D’nb ttn is in dispute.
The term is given the same explanations as in 21:6.
(1) DVtbttn refers to judges. Also in light of the context, this interpretation is
improbable. It concerns cases where it is the word of the one party against that
of the other and no other evidence is available. An appeal to God/gods is the
only way to resolve the complex situation.
(2) DTibun, ‘God,’ denotes the (local) shrine. Many expositors hold this
view. If correct, 22:8 must refer to the judgment of God as delivered by a
representative of God, a priest or smother cultic official.
(3) With D’n b itn are meant the household deities, or for that matter a
household deity (e.g. Eerdmans*, 128; Beer).
Also with respect to O'nbttrt in 22:7f. it is sometimes noted that a distinction
should be made between the original, polytheistic meaning and its use in Israel.
See e.g. Baentsch and Te Stroete (‘God’ = the sanctuary), Cassuto (judges).
Remarkable is that in 22:7f. several expositors opt for a different interpretation
than in 21:6. See e.g. Baentsch, Noth, Michaeli (household god[s], 21:6; sanc
tuary, 22:7f.), Childs (sanctuary 21:6; judge, 22:7f.), Ehrlich (judges, 21:6;
sanctuary, 22:7f.).
Also with respect to 22:7f. it is to be noted that the third explanation makes
good sense. The household gods are uniquely qualified to pass judgment on
what happens in and around the house. They are familiar with what happens
there (22:7) and know what belongs to the house and what not (22:8). Tliere-
fore, a master of the house who acts deceitfully invites doom upon himself. He
can no longer feel secure in his own home. Also here we encounter a rudiment
of folk religion, household religion (see 2.4.9). In particular the use of the plur.
19’#?! in 22:8 is an aigument in favour. The plural form aigues against taking
OVtbN as referring to YHWH (see 2.4.8). The view of O. Loretz, Bib 41 (1960),
170, that in reality YHWH is meant is groundless (see exegesis 22:8).
2.6.4.2 How to get a ruling on the question raised in 22:7f.? There are
divergent views on that.
(1) In both 22:7 and 22:8 the following situation is envisaged: the suspect is
asked, through an oath, to clear his name, declaring that he did not take what
belonged to another (e.g. Dillmann, Hyatt).
(2) In both 22:7 and 22:8 there is an allusion to obtaining a divine judg-
Volume III1
ment/ruling from God (e.g. Beer, Heinisch, Durham). It could be an oracle

mediated by a cultic official (cf. 18:19), if the sanctuary is the place where the
action happens, or a divine ruling gained through other means. The latter
possibility (Urim en Thummim) is already considered in Mek., Ill, 116, but
rejected.
(3) 22:7 is about taking an oath clearing one’s name, 22:8 about the request
for a judicial investigation and official ruling (e.g. Gispen, Cassuto, Childs) or
a divine judgment/oracle (e.g. Noth, Fensham, Michaeli).
Viewpoints 1 and 3 fit each of the three above mentioned interpretations of
0’n*?Kn. Viewpoint 2 only the interpretation ‘God’ (sanctuary) or ‘household
god(s).’
When an oath is made, this is what would have happened: the suspect has to
take an oath clearing his name (cf. also 22:10); it is assumed that he does so
while affirming his innocence or while calling upon God/gods - may he/they
curse him if he speaks falsehood (cf. 1 Kgs. 8:31) - and that, if he should be
guilty, he would not dare to take the oath, fearing repercussions from God/the
gods; if he refuses, he is condemned (22:8 end). If he takes the oath, he goes
free (cf. 22:10), and if there should be a judgment it is up to God/the gods (cf.
1 Kgs. 8:32, and see Giesen [see 13:5], 118ff.).
When it comes to the mechanical means used for obtaining a divine oracle,
all we can do is guess. Perhaps it involved casting the lot (cf. Josh. 7:14ff.;
1 Sam. 14:40ff.; 28:26 LXX; Acts. l:23ff.), ingesting some internally working
substance (cf. Num. 5:1 Iff.), pointing out of the guilty through divination
(‘Winkorakel;’ cf. G. Hoffmann, H. GreBmann, ZAW 40 [1922], 11Off.). In
this connection I note that in the case of (see 2.4.8) divination is
involved (Ezek. 21:26; Zech. 10:2; cf. also Judg. 18:5).165 To me it is appeal
ing, with 22:7 as well 22:8, to think of the oracle as the means to resolve
juridical questions (beside 22:7 see 1 Sam. 14:36).
2.6.4.3 Remarkably, in 22:10, a passage similar to 22:7f., the divine name
YHWH is used. Eerdmans*, 127f., sees this as support for his view that ancient
Israel was polytheistic and that initially YHWH was one of Israel’s gods ,166
165 See further for the divine ordeal R. PreB, “Das Ordal im alten Israel. I,” ZAW 51 (1933),
121-40; K. van der Toom, “Ordeal Procedures in the Psalms and the Passover Meal,” VT 38
(1988), 427-445; T. Frymer-Kensky, “The Strange Case of the Suspected Sotah (Numbers V 11-
31),” VT 34 (1984), 11-26. For the divine ordeal more in general see ERE, IX, 507ff.; HDA, III,
994ff.; TRE, XIV, lOOff. In the absence of evidence and/or witnesses, as a means of last result to
get at the truth, e.g in case of theft and false witness, it was also used in Christian Europe up until
the 13“ century, at which time it was replaced by torture. See R. Bartlett, Trial by Fire and
Water: The M edieval Judicial Ordeal, Oxford 1990. Also the penalty described in 32:20 has been
interpreted as an ordeal (see loco). For Urim and Thummim, often interpreted as oracle stones, see
4.12.3.2. Besides, it is to be noted that torture was not used as a means to get at the truth.
On his standpoint see e.g. Eerdmans*, Religion, 22ft., 38, 85ff., 110f., 135, 286ff.
Volume III1
EXODUS 2 2 :6 -1 4 199
Eerdmans interprets the connection between 22:7f. and 22:10 as follows: the
first case concerns a dispute about property to be put in storage in a house; the
household gods are able to pass judgment on that since the house is their
territory; in the second case it concerns an event that happened in the open
field, outside the jurisdiction of the household gods. A ruling on that can only
be given by yhwh, ‘der Gott des offentlichen Lebens, der beansprucht, der
Israeliten hdchster Gott zu sein, aber nicht ihr einziger’ (p. 127). It should be
noted, however, that also in 22:8 the property entrusted to a neighbour includes
domestic animals, which can roam outside the immediate vicinity of the house.
That makes it more plausible to regard 22:6-8 and 22:9-12 as more or less
parallel passages, or better yet, to see 22:9-12 as elaboration of 22:8. Accord
ing to the first, the archaic passage, the conflict is to be resolved by means of a
divine oracle from inside the household cult; according to the second, the
Yahwistic passage, by means of an oath of innocence by calling upon YHWH,
thereby placing the judgment in his hands (see 2.6.4.2). Possibly 22:10 is to be
taken as interpretation of 22:7f.: the conflict must be resolved through the oath
taken before YHWH (made in the sanctuary? [e.g. Baentsch, Hyatt]; before the
judges?). From the religio-historical perspective, this interpretation amounts to
a re-interpretation (cf. Paul [see 2.2.1], 93 n. 1; Schwienhorst-Schdnbeiger [see
2.2.1], 201, 205).
As to origin and editing of this section, I just note that 22:8 appears to have
been formulated to permit a broader application of 22:6, 7 (cf. Fishbane*,
172ff., 248).167 Beside 22:6-14 see Lev. 5:20-26 (cf. Fishbane*, 255).
2.6.4.4 Similar regulations as in 22:6-14 are known from codes from the
ancient Near East. CH §§120, 121 are about storage of barley in the house of a
neighbour. It entails a chaige, to be paid in goods (barley) (§121). If the barley
should be lost or misappropriated, the owner of the barley must prove his
rights of ownership before the deity (mahar ilim). The custodian of the barley
must pay double for the barley, because fraudulently he sought to enrich
himself. That is also clear from other provisions. CH §122 prescribes that in
case of deposit of silver or gold or whatever the deposit is to be shown to
witnesses and a contract written up. Should the custodian deny that assets were
entrusted to his care, he must pay double (CH §124). If the assets were given
for safe-keeping without witnesses or contract, the owner can make no claim
(CH §123). Double restitution is also to be given when someone alleges that
his district (babtum) caused the loss of his assets, and the district, before the
deity (mahar ilim), proves that he still possesses said goods (CH §126; cf.
167 For divergent viewpoints on the origin of 22:6-14 see Osumi (see 2.2.1), 13If. ; Otto,
Rechtsgeschichte (see 2.2.1), 83ff.; idem, Wandel (see 2.2.1), 14ff.; Schwienhorst-SchOnberger
(see 2.2.1), 49f. , 193ff„ 237.
Volume III1
Malul [see 2.2.1], 434f. ). Single restitution is sufficient in case the goods were
lost due to robbery. Restitution is necessary because the safe-keeper was
negligent. He is also obligated to try to find the robber and retrieve the
property (CH §125).
CH §§9-11 describe a complicated property conflict: an individual recognizes
property being held by someone else as really being his, and he has witnesses
who attest that he is the rightful owner, the other claims to have bought the
disputed property in the presence of witnesses; the witnesses of both parties
affirm their witness before the deity (mahar ilim); consequently the seller is a
thief and must be put to death; the owner gets his property back; the buyer
receives compensation from the assets of the seller (§9). In case the buyer is
unable to call together the seller and witnesses of the sale while the owner does
have witnesses, then ‘the buyer’ is a thief and must be put to death (§10); but
if the owner is unable to call on witnesses, then he is a liar and slanderer and
must be put to death.
Deposit law is also dealt with in CE: if the deposit should be lost and no
proof of break-in (removal of doorpost or window) can be given, then the safe-
keeper must make good the deposit (§36). If there was a burglary, and the
deposit along with items from the homeowner is gone, then the latter must
swear before the god, in the temple/the gate of Tishpak (ina blt/bab TiSpak nis
ilim), that he speaks no falsehood or commits deceit, and the owner can make
no claim (§37).
Where it concerns asking someone to look after cattle, the CH distinguishes a
variety of situations. Thievish shepherds who alter marks or sell of the cattle,
must be condemned (§§264, 265). If the herdsman is negligent, then he is must
answer for it. A lost animal must be made good (§263). A shepherd who lets
the flock contract scabies, must pay for the damage (§267), but in case he
could not prevent it he goes free. If an epidemic, a sickness brought on by a
god (lipit ilim), or a lion harms the flock, the shepherd must make an oath of
innocence (mafrar ilim) and the owner has to bear the loss (§266). For (ani-
mal)theft in law codes of Israel’s neighbouring countries see 2.6.2.4.
Hiring of animals (ox and donkey) is mentioned in CH §§242-249: the renter
is responsible for the rented animal, and, if the animal should die, e.g. because
it was beaten, or becomes useless because it broke a leg, must make full
restitution for the loss (§§245, 246; for lesser wounds partial compensation is
enough, §§247, 248; cf. LI §§34-37). In circumstances beyond one’s control,
when the animal is killed in the field by a lion (§244) or dies a mysterious
death brought on by a god (§249), the owner bears the loss. In the last case
only if the renter, in the presence of the god (mafjar ilim), has taken the oath.
According to HL §74, one who uses another person’s ox and the horn or the
foot of the animal should break, he must give the owner a good animal in
return while he may keep the injured animal for himself, unless the other
Volume III1
EXODUS 2 2 :6 -1 4 201
should want his own animal back. In the last case he must pay as compensation
two shekels of silver. If someone’s ox is killed in the held of another the
owner of the held must give double restitution (HL §72).
22:6 The following situation is envisaged: someone, to protect his assets, e.g.
because he has to go on a journey, entrusted his valuables to someone else.
Said goods get stolen. There is no problem, however. The thief is apprehended
and punished. The owner gets back what belongs to him when he comes to
pick it up, and likely even more than that.
’3 (Introd. §3.25.2), Sam.Pent.: ’31; cf. LXX, Pesh. ‘someone,’ see Introd.
§3.2.2. in , see 2:13. ‘silver,’ see Introd. §3.28. ‘jewelry,’ see Introd. §3.27.
100, see 10:28. TPsJ adds: ‘without getting paid for the safe-keeping’ (cf. e.g.
Mek., Ill, 113 and see TPsJ 22:9,11). 3J$) (see 20:15), Sam.Pent.: 3J3J1 niph.;
cf. Qm. ‘house,’ see Introd. §3.9.1. K2ta niph. (see 5:11), it is assumed that the
thief has the stolen property in his possession, removing all doubts that he stole
it. ‘double’ (Introd. §4.3.1 and at 22:3), Sam.Pent.: O’30 inK, ‘for one two’
(cf. 22:3 and see also TO, TPsJ, SamT, Pesh.). Not stated is who gets the
money or goods the thief has to pay as punishment. The owner or the master
of the house? Both?
22:7 The following situation is envisaged: the items given for safe-keeping
have disappeared; the thief has not been caught and there are no (independent)
witnesses (cf. 22:9b); the keeper is suspected of having misappropiated the
goods; the dispute between owner and keeper is submitted to God/gods for a
ruling (see 2.6.4.2, 3).
OK, see Introd. §3.4.1. 3ip niph., see 3:5. *?173, see 21:3. DMbxrrtN, as in
21:6 D’H^Kn is in 22:7f. in the targums and the Pesh. interpreted as ‘judges;’
cf. also e.g. Mek., Ill, 116, 119. The LXX reads in 22:7, 8a: 6vd>7tiov tou
0eou; sing, also in 22:8b (see below); also here, however, the translator has in
mind the judges (cf. Frankel*, 95f. ; Prijs**, 6).
K*7*DN (Introd. §3.4.2), in LXX preceded by xai opeixai, ‘and he shall
swear’ (so also explicitly TPsJ, Vulg., and see e.g. Mek., Ill, 116; cf. Prijs**,
2). Aside from the question whether the action by the OYtbK consists of taking
an oath, in any case it is unlikely that before K*rDK ‘in order to swear (that)’ is
to be supplied. With taking an oath has the sense of ‘certainly’ (cf. Ges-
K §149a and see Ehrlich, Cassuto).
‘to appropriate to one’s own use,’ see Introd. §§3.21.9 and 3.49.1. nsKÔ
(see 12:16; cf. A.G. Auld, Henoch 8 [1986], 273-80), the bulk of the versions
give a rendering ad sensum; LXX emphatically: nothing of the deposit (so also
in 22:10).
22:8 22:8 talks more generally about cases in which someone betrays another
Volume III1
person’s trust. Evidently the focus is not on making off with found property
(so Holzinger; cf. Lev. 5:22), but, like in the foregoing, on stealing possessions
given for safe-keeping. Included in the possessions here are animate (cf. 22:9-
12), as well as non-animate possesions (cf. 22:6, 7; 22:8 is ‘the bridge’
between 22:6, 7 and 22:9-12). At first sight, 22:8 might seem to be a very
general stipulation dealing with a variety of conflicts about property, lost or
stolen goods etc., detected among another person’s possessions; the context
makes such unlikely. 22:8 assumes the following situation: the one who
received the property contends that it got stolen; the victimized owner suspects
him of having stolen the items, even thinks he recognizes the goods among the
bailee’s property. God/the gods are asked to rule on the case (cf. 22:7).
see Williams §289. ‘embezzlement of property,’ see Introd. §3.20.2;
differently L. KOhler, ZAW 46 (1928), 213-8: ‘Eigentumsanfechtung.’ ‘ox’ etc.,
see Introd. §§9.1.12; 9.1.16; 9.1.5; polysyndetic summary in LXX, Pesh. nobis
(see 3:22), Sam.Pent.: nbato. m a x (see 10:7), Sam.Pent.: m attn . "itfK etc.,
LXX: ‘about which some allegation has been made whatever it might be’ (cf.
Prijs**, 3f.). Who is the subject of “IOK? ‘A witness’ (Rashi, Ibn Ezra) or ‘the
guardian’ who says, this is all that was deposited with me (Nachmanides), or
‘the owner?’ '3 , see Introd. §3.25.1.
nt Kin is usually considered as referring to the identification of the property
by the owner; so Jackson (see 2.6.2.1), 239f., relates the formula (‘that’s the
person’) to the identification of the alleged suspect and takes it as a formula in
which the accusation is articulated. D’nbKn, Sam.Pent.: m n \ Kia, see Introd.
§3.8. nan, see Introd. §3.12.3. ‘two’ (Introd. §4.3.1), according to the interpre
tation given in TPsJ, the two persons involved are the master of the house,
who under oath declares that something in the possession of someone else
really belongs to him, and the thief, ‘the person,’ see Introd. §3.7.1. Sam.Pent.:
O'Jtf nriK, cf. 22:6. The restitution is the same as with theft.
l^’tfn: 3rd pers. plur. inf. hiph. (Waltke-O’Connor §27.2e) of fffen (see 2:13);
for scriptio defectiva and paragogic nun see Ges-K §47m; Jotion §44e. Sam.
Pent, reads ljjt'tfT (3rd pers. sing, imperf. hiph. + suffix 3rd pers. sing, masc.),
followed by D’nbKrt, that is, the subject is ‘God’ = yhwh (cf. 22:10 and see
LXX: xai 6 aAouc 6ia tou 0eoO, ‘he that is convicted by God;’ but note
Vulg.: et si illi iudicaverint, with as subject the earlier mentioned dei; see also
Aq., Symm., Theod.). O. Loretz, Bib 41 (1960), 170, aigues that OVtbK can be
no other than YHWH (cf. also Brockelmann §50f.). In view of the form l^’T! as
a clear plur. in 21:18, there is no reason not to regard p ’tfv in 22:8 as a
genuine plur. The Sam.Pent. is based on harmonization; the retention of the
plur. in the MT rests on the interpretation of DVlbKn as judges. The use in the
OT of DYibNrt as subject of a plural verbal form makes it cleai; however that
O-nbKH, used like that, is not interchangeable with YHWH (see 2.4.8). Dillmann
suggests that the plur. is used because the deity is here represented by people.
Volume III1
EXODUS 2 2 :6 -1 4 203
22:9 22:9 deals with the following situation: someone entrust a beast to another
person to look after, but it gets lost due to some kind of calamity the shepherd
could do nothing about. Beside 22:9 see 22:6a, 8a. TPsJ has also here the
addition ‘without payment for the keeping’ (cf. Mek., Ill, 121). According to
Rashi, Ibn Ezra and Nachmanides, 22:9-12, unlike in 22:6-8, refers to some
thing deposited for safe-keeping for a remuneration (cf. also Cassuto). Presum
ably, the herdsman into whose hands the animals were delivered gets paid for
the services.
'31 in Sam.Pent.; cf. LXX, Pesh. bai, Sam.Pent.: baiR; cf. LXX, Pesh. Fish-
bane*, 170f., hold that bai indicates a later expansion; cf. however H. Avalos,
JBL 109 (1990), 116f. ‘beast,’ see Introd. §9.1.2. ‘to die’ (Introd. §3.32), a
natural death, e.g. from illness; for use of perf. see KdSynt §134. natf niph.
(see 9:25), so that it dies or at least loses all economic value (cf. Osumi [see
2.2.1], 172 n. 126); TPsJ: ‘or is tom apart by a wild animal’ (cf. 22:12 and see
Mek., Ill, 121).
niph. (see 12:29; cf. Jer. 13:17; Job 1:15, 17; 1 Chr. 5:21; 2 Chr.
14:15). Theft by a gang of robbers is to be distinguished from theft by a single
individual (see 22:11). The suggestion that naefa in is a gloss or a case of
dittography (natfj and rotfJ, assonance) (e.g. Hyatt) is improbable. On word
worder in LXX see 22:13 (cf. Prijs**, 6). n m (see 2:12 and Introd.
§3.46.1), asyndetic circumstantial clause (Joflon § 159b; Williams §494); TPsJ
emphatically: without an eyewitness who can testify (cf. Mek., Ill, 122); LXX:
xai pr|6eic yv<p; on the interchangeableness of ‘see’ and ‘know’ see S.
Talmon, ScrHie 8 (1961), 340ff.
22:10 The assumption is that the shepherd of the livestock is accused of grave
negligence (cf. Ezek. 34:4, 16; Zech. 11:16). Witnessses being absent, all he
can do by way of defense against the allegaton is swear by yhwh that he did
not abuse the animal so that it died, that he did not neglect it and so caused its
death, or that he stole it. The oath must guard his good name and protect him
against claims for restitution. From the purely formal point of view, the oath
only fits stealing (cf. Schwienhorst-Schdnbeiger [see 2.2.1], 199f.).
mm nrntf (KOSynt §336t; Giesen [see 13:5], 15, 28f. , 32), cf. 22:7f. LXX:
5pico<; tou 0cou, to avoid all misunderstanding (in 21:7, 13, 14 Kupioc denotes
the owner); in Vulg. m rr is left untranslated, m rr occurs sporadically in the
oldest part of the covenant book (cf. also 22:19). That need not be a reason to
assume that the original reading here was OYibN (e.g. Hyatt). See 2.6.4.3.
omjtf, cf. 22:8. N'rox etc., cf. 22:7b; TPsJ also here: ‘he shall swear.’ npb
(see Introd. §3.30), sing, with plur. subject (KdSynt §348e); the object is not
explicitly mentioned; TO, TPsJ explicitly: ‘his oath’ (cf. M e t, III; 124, Rashi);
differently Holzinger, Ehrlich, Cassuto: the dead or maimed animal; cf. Hyatt:
if nothing else, the hide of the animal would have some value (this view does
Volume III1
not fit the case of the stealing of an animal); Beer: the loss incurred.
22:11 Animal theft can be prevented by taking good care of the animals.
Therefore, in cases of theft in which the thief is not apprehended (cf. 22:6f.),
the herdsman does not go free, as in cases beyond one’s control, natural death
of a beast, snatching by a wild animal or an attack by bandits (cf. 22:9,12 and
see Rashi).
Why is no restitution required in case an animal is stolen from the house
(22:7) but such is required in the case of 22:11? Two views are defended: (1)
In the first case no remuneration was given for the performed service, in the
second there was. (2) It involves a different situation: something that is stored
away in a house is relatively safe; in case of theft one cannot be accused of
negligence; animals are in the open field; if they are stolen, the shepherd can
be accused of dereliction of duty (cf. Paul [see 2.2.1], 93).
33J, see 20:15. For inf. abs. + finite verb see Ges-K §113o; JoUon §123p.
1090, TPsJ: ‘with him who received wages for the keeping’ (cf. 22:6, 9).
Sam.Pent.: obeh.
22:12 If an animal fell prey to a wild animal and the shepherd can prove that
he did his duty (cf. 1 Sam. 17:34f.), he cannot be held responsible for the loss
of the animal entrusted to him. Apparently in practice things were handled
differently (Gen. 31:39).
*170? *110 inf. abs. qal followed by 3rd pers. sing. niph. of *po (OT 25*), ‘to
tear apart’ (by a wild animal; so explicitly TPsJ); cf. e.g. Gen. 37:33; 44:28;
49:27; in 22:12, 30 the derivative (OT 9*), ‘the mauled (animal),’ is
found (see TWAT, III, 375ff. ).
in to ’ (Introd. §3.8), the suffix refers to the beast; Sam.Pent.: K’3 \ that is, he
must bring along a witness; LXX: ‘then he must take him (the owner) to the
mauled beast (so providing the necessary evidence); Vulg.: ‘then he must bring
to him what was killed;’16®TO: ‘then he must raise up witnesses’ (‘witnesses,’
plur. also in TNf; cf. Deut. 19:15 and see e.g. Rashi); TPsJ contains both the
interpretation of the LXX and that of TO; cf. also M e t, III, 125f.; also there
the view that the hide is submitted as evidence is mentioned (cf. Amos 3:12).*169
The obvious meaning is that the dead animal or parts of it are to provide the
evidence (cf. Gen. 37:31-33). Cassuto believes that there is a play on words
with I# and IV, ‘prey’ (Gen. 49:27). «*?, Sam.Pent.: Nbl.
If the herdsman is unable to deliver the evidence, and in case he is not
l# (see 20:16) is understood as Itf; F.C. Fensham, VT 12 (1962), 337-9, opts for this
inteipretation; the owner gets the mauled animal as compensation.
169Cf. also FT, PT1^ and see Ibn Ezra and Ehrlich (with altering of text). See further Prijs**,
6ff; R. le Deaut, VT 22 (1972), 164-75.
Volume III1
EXODUS 2 2 :6 -1 4 205
guilty, his recourse is swearing an oath by YHWH (22:10).
22:13, 14 The following situation is assumed in 22:13, 14a: someone borrows

a beast to work for him on the land, to carry a burden, or to use it to ride on;
the animal gets wounded or dies. Absent the owner, the user, regardless of the
circumstances under which the animal collapsed - whether he gave it good or
bad treatment, whether it died a natural death or perished as a result of
negligence or an accident - must make good the loss. The borrower does not
render a service to another (cf. 22:9), but for free makes use of another
person’s property. Therefore he is completely responsible, and in all cases has
an obligation to the owner; he is not allowed, swearing by YHWH (22:10), that
he could do nothing about it. This regulation applies when the accident
happens in the absence of the owner. If the accident happened in his presence,
the user cannot be faulted for negligence. In that case the owner should have
prevented the animal from being overburdened or badly used.
bxti, see 3:22. The object is not explicitly mentioned. TPsJ: Dtno, ‘some
thing;’ Vulg.: quidquam horum, ‘something of it.’ The context shows that an
animal is meant (cf. 22:9, and see Pesh.). On the verbal forms see 22:9; in
view of the sequence, one might perhaps think of a hendiadys: the animal died
from his wounds; so e.g. LXXB: + ‘or it is snatched away’ (cf. 22:9). The
subject is not explicitly mentioned; TPsJ: ‘and broke a leg or the animal died.’
iap p s, asyndetic circumstantial clause (cf. 22:9).
Evidently, 22:14b describes a different case: the beast used for work was not
borrowed but hired. In that case the question whether the owner was present or
not when an accident occurred is irrelevant and compensation need not be
given either. A possible accident is calculated into the price. "Dto, see 2:9.
The subject of S3 is not explicitly stated; implied is ’the loss’ (cf. TPsJ). The
evident meaning is that the loss of a hired animal is covered by the paid rent
(cf. also FT, PTt's, Vulg. and e.g. Rashi, Keil, Dillmann, Cassuto). Differently
LXX: ‘But if it concerns a hired labourer (who was paid for looking after the
animal), then he (the owner in case of loss) shall receive compensation from
his wages.’170 For that matter, the exegesis of 22:14b is debatable. Also other
interpretations are defended: in case of hire, also when it involved an accident,
the price for the entire hire period must be paid (Ehrlich); the T3(p is the day
labourer to whom an owner entrusted an animal for performing work; in case it
dies or there is an accident with it, the loss is recouped from the wages of the
labourer (that is, he does not get paid) (e.g. Baentsch, Beer, Noth, and Crflse-
mann, Tora [see 2.2.1], 194). As for these explanations, the question arises: is
the rent or are the wages of the labourer enough to offset the incurred loss?
1,0 For a different explanation of the LXX see Prijs**, 8f.

Volume III1
Likely not. The owner bears a considerable risk. Is that fair? In M e t, III,
128f., it is concluded that also in case of hire, when there were circumstances
beyond one’s control, no restitution need to be given, but that such did have to
be done if it was a case of negligence on the part of the hirer (cf. 22:9-12).
The problem has sparked various suggestions: the rent is to be increased with
the amount of the damages (Te Stroete); 22:14b stipulates that a day labourer
who handles a borrowed animal is to be paid by the borrower (Hyatt).
2.6.5 Loss caused by seduction of an unmarried girl (22:15,16)
22:15 ‘A nd when someone seduces a girl who has not yet been promised to
someone in marriage, and sleeps with her, he shall make her his wife by
paying the fu ll bride-price.
16 I f her father positively refuses to give her to him in marriage, he shall
still weigh an amount o f silver equal to the bride-price fo r girls. ’
2.6.5.1 The assets of a free Israelite also included his daughters. When this
property of his is damaged he is entitled to compensation.
22:15, 16 concludes a series of regulations characterized by the use of obei
pi., but does not itself contain this key-word. As for content, like the previous
regulations 22:15, 16 deals with an offense about property, not about family
law (e.g. Heinisch). The view of Otto, Wandel (see 2.2.1), 9ff., 43, 62, based
on structural analysis, that 22:15, 16 falls under the theme ‘\ferletzung der
kdrperlichen Integritat,’171 is correctly questioned by Osumi (see 2.2.1), 88ff.,
103, 132f., 139f., and Schwienhorst-Schdnberger (see 2.2.1), 32f. , 50, 211fF.
The latter regards 22:15, 16 as a typical addition (p. 50).
In 22:15,16 the following situation is portrayed: a girl not yet officially
promised to a man is unable to resist the advances of a man and is so taken in
with him that she allows him to make love to her, at least does not resist (for
Bibl. see 2.2.4). The incident entails consequences: the man is obligated to
marry the girl, but not without also paying the customary bride-price. Consen
sual intercourse does not automatically involve the right to marry her, to make
her his ’property.’ Also in the described situation that right is obtained only by
following prescribed procedure, payment of the bride-price to the father. The
position of the father to whom the girl belongs may not be violated. This is
also evident from 22:16. A marriage cannot be effected without his consent. A
man cannot force a marriage against the wishes of the father by being intimate
1,1 See in detail idem, “Kdrperverletzung Oder Verletzung von Besitzrechten? Zur Redaktion
von Ex 22,15f. im Bundesbuch und §§ 55; 56 im Mittelassyrischen Kodex der Tafel A,” ZAW 105
(1993), 153-65.
Volume III1
EXODUS 2 2 :1 5 , 16 207
with his daughter. If, for example, the father considers the suitor unlit for his
daughter, he may refuse the marriage. Even so, in that case the father is owed
damages in the amount of the bride-price.
Would such compensation not encourage the father to withhold his approval
and afterward give her in marriage to another man? Apparently it concerns a
girl for whom no bride-price was ever paid yet, and it is assumed that the
affair spoiled her reputation (cf. Deut. 22:29). After all, the father runs the risk
of never being able to marry off his daughter and so never to get the custom
ary bride-price. It is against that loss that the stipulation of 22:16b protects
him. Whether eventually she marries or not, the fattier may not suffer material
loss. Childs, 476f., interprets 22:15f. altogether a-historically when he con
cludes: ‘That the seduction of an unengaged maiden was no longer simply
viewed as property damage is evident from the stipulation that the seducer
must marry the girl. In the Old Testament - in distinction from the New
Testament - the laws regulating sexual relationship focus, not so much on
condemning pre-marital intercourse as such, but on requiring full responsibility
from the male as a consequence of his act. Promiscuity is condemned for its
failure to stand by the exploited person which is required in marriage.’ The
relation of the man to the girl plays no role. The focus of 22:15, 16 is the
upset relationship between the man involved and the father, and the compensa
tion owed the father is central (cf. also CE §27).
2.6.5.2 Beside 22:15, 16 see Deut. 22:28, 29.172 In the case cited there, the
possibility that the father refuses the marriage is not mentioned, and the man is
unconditionally obligated to take the girl to wife and to keep her for as long as
he lives. For that matter, though in Deut. 22:28 the man is not portrayed as a
true rapist (cf. Deut. 22:25 and see A. Phillips, JSOT 20 [1981], 13; A. Rofe,
Henoch 9 [1987], 134), he does come through there as a man who forced the
woman to have intercourse with him (cf. Gen. 34:2ff; 2 Sam. 13:4), and not,
as in Exod. 22:15, as a seducer It would seem that in both cases the girl was
no longer an attractive marriage prospect.
The text is silent on the wishes of the girl. In the case of 22:15 one may
guess that she was interested in the marriage. The father’s refusal could mean
that for the rest of her life she would remain unmarried, staying in her father’s
house. But how about Deut. 22:28, 29? Could it be that life as a woman
married to the man who forced her to have intercourse with him was more
attractive to her than living in her father’s house as an unpaid worker? (see on
the one hand Gen. 34:3, 8, on the other 2 Sam. 13:15ff., 20). Is it so that in
Deut. 22 the interests of the woman come first? That is apparently the case.
172 Cf. also R.J.V. Hiebert, “Deuteronomy 22:28-29 and its Premishnaic Interpretation,” CBQ
56 (1994), 203-20; Pressler (s. 2.4.4), 35ff.
Volume III1
Evidently in Israelite society, where a woman’s destiny was motherhood and

her status was determined by the number of children she bore (cf. Gen. 30:1;
Isa. 4:1; Prov. 30:23), remaining unmarried was a more tragic fate than an
involuntary marriage.
And as concerns the man: neither in Exod. 22, nor in Deut. 22 is he offered
the possibility by means of a settlement to be released from the obligation to
marry the woman. Supposedly he acted on impulse, should he still be com
pelled to taken the woman to wife? Such questions, which are culturally
conditioned, are not touched on in Exod. 22 and Deut. 22, but have been
brought up in the history of interpretation. For example, TPsJ 22:16 explicitly
mentions the possibility that the man refuses to marry the girl, and it is
stipulated that also in that case he must pay compensation. Also Nachmanides
holds that the man could choose between marriage and payment of compensa
tion. In his view, a possible refusal of marriage is something between both
father and daughter, and in case there is no marriage, payment of a penalty is
sufficient, since also the girl sinned in the matter
22:15, 16 is restricted to one particular case. The only question dealt with is
that of intercourse between an unengaged girl and a man. Not dealt with is the
question what to do in the case of intercourse with a girl engaged to be married
(cf. Deut. 22:23-27). For that matter, the covenant book has nothing further to
say about matters of divorce and immorality (cf. Lev. 18; 19:20; 20:10ff.; 21:9;
Deut. 22:13-30).
2.6.5.3 MAL §§55,56 contain similar regulations as in Exod. 22:15, 16 and
Deut. 22:28, 29. There a distinction is made between a situation in which
someone forcibly violates a girl living in her father’s house, and a situation in
which a young woman takes the initiative to intercourse. In the first case, the
father may take the wife of the offending man and have intercourse with her
(talio) and he may keep the woman. The father may also give his daughter to
the man in marriage. If the man has no wife, he must pay the father three
times the value of a young woman. The father may refuse to give his daughter
in marriage and give her to whomever he wants; also in that case the man must
pay three times the value of a young woman. In the last situation, the wife of
the offending man may not be touched, and all he needs to do is pay three
times the value; the father may deal with his daughter as he pleases.173
22:15 nn©’ imperf. pi. of n n s (see THAT, II, 495ff.; TWAT, VI, 820fT.),
traditionally in 22:15 translated with ‘to seduce;’ meant is that the man so
1,3 Cf. Paul (see 2.2.1), 96ff, and in particular J.J. Finkelstein, “Sex Offenses in Sumarian
Laws,” JAOS 86 (1966), 355-72 (also for laws about intercourse with a woman belonging to
another, adultery; e.g. CE §§26, 28, 31; CH §§129-132; MAL §§14, 15, 23; HL §§197, 198); see
also Otto, Rechtsgeschichte (see 2.2.1), 36f.; Yaron (see 2.2.1), 200, 278fF.
Volume III1
EXODUS 2 2 :1 5 , 16 209
charms the girl that her defenses break down and she is no longer able to resist
his advances (cf. TO and Rashi; differently Nachmanides). Cf. TS, LXVI, 8b-
10a. ®’K (Introd. §3.2.1), a free Israelite man.
n^-in? (OT ca. 50*), ‘girl’ (in her puberty or early post-puberty); according
to M. Tsevat, TWAT, I, 875ff., in three passages flbira undeniably stands for
‘virgin’ (Lev. 21:13f.; Deut. 22:19; Ezek. 44:22). In his view, from 22:15f. one
cannot infer whether the woman was a virgin or not. It seems to me that her
virginity is presupposed in 22:15.174 She is a girl for whom no bride-price has
been paid yet, not a widow or a girl whose ’fiance’ has died, or a divorced
woman (cf. the discussion in M et., III, 130). In that case the father suffers no
loss because he already got the bride-price. Needless to say, it concerns the
daughter of a free Israelite and (also) not that of a slave (differently Childs,
476).
nipn'K 3rd pers. fern. perf. pu. of iznK (OT llx ), which in pi. stands for
acquiring the right to marry a woman by paying the bride-price (2 Sam. 3:14);
the pu. (22:15; Deut. 22:23, 25, 27, 28) functions as passive of the pi. and the
subject is the woman in question. Unlike with modem western betrothals, the
relationship is legally binding (cf. Deut. 22:23f.). It is to be distinguished from
the marriage as such (npb, see Introd. §3.30), which, as with coitus (cf. Deut.
28:30) is however the logical sequel to payment of the bride-price (Deut. 20:7;
21:11; 22:29). Cf. THAT, I, 240ff; D.H. Weiss, JBL 81 (1962), 67-9.
[n]6ntt [ttb ] n®K, note the ‘play’ with the consonants. 23®, see 7:28.
njnnp’ T ip inf. abs. qal followed by 3rd pers. sing, qal of "inn (only in Exod.
22:15), denominative verb of T ib (Gen. 34:12; Exod. 22:16; 1 Sam. 18:25),
‘bride-price,’ ’marriage price.’ The bride-price is to be paid to the father of the
girl. Giving a girl in marriage belonged to the patria potestas. The bride-price,
the amount of which depended on the status of the family (cf. also Gen.
34:12), is not to be seen as purchase price; instead it was compensation for the
girl’s family for losing a worker and a member able to bear children (see W.
Plautz, ZAW 76 [1964], 298-318; Thiel*, 43). TO translates: Pirb’p’ KD’p, ‘he
must keep her (as wife);’ cf. Pesh.: msb nsbyh\ the element of the payment of
the bride-price is absent {M et, III, 129f. ); see also Nachmanides: if the
seducer marries the woman, he pays no penalty; T O refers to the sending of
gifts and items needed for the wedding. n®K, see Introd. §3.2.3.
2 2 :1 6 OKI in Sam.Pent.; cf. LXX, Pesh. 1KO, see 4:23. 3K, see 2:16. The
choice of bridegroom is the prerogative of the father. He has the say over her
(cf. 21:7). He does not have to reckon with the wishes of the daughter, also not
in a case as described here, when apparently the girl was very much in love
174 Cf. also Engelken (see 2.4.4), 6ff; Locher (see 2.4.4), 176ff.
Volume III1
with a man. ruin'? (Introd. §3.36), in LXX translated as an independent clause:

‘and if he is unwilling to give her as wife.' ‘silver,’ see Introd. §3.28.
bpt?? imperf. qal of *?ptti (OT 22*), ‘to weigh’ (i.e. silver = to pay; cf.
1 Kgs. 20:39; Isa. 55:2 etc.). The amount of the payment to be made is not
stated; TPsJ, in line with Deut. 22:29, says it is fifty shekels (cf. M e t, III,
133; Rashi) and interprets the amount as penalty, punishment. According to
Osumi (see 2.2.1), 139f., that interpretation fits Deut. 22:29, but not Exod.
22:16 (damages). In the LXX ‘?ptf’ is translated with anoxetoei = 0*?#’ (see
21:34 etc.); it is explicitly stated that the compensation is paid ‘to the father’
For the rabbinic discussion on the question whether the father or the daughter
should get the money, see D.H. Weiss, JBL 31 (1962), 68f.
2.7 CULTIC AND SOCIAL REGULATIONS (22:17-23:12)
2.7.1 Abominable, not to be tolerated practices (22:17-19)
22:17 A woman who seduces to immorality you shall not allow to live.
18 Whoever has sexual relations with a beast must be put to death.
19 Whoever sacrifices to the gods must be destroyed. No one but YHWH (may
be worshiped).’
In 22:17-19 three abominable practices are described: fornication, sodomy and

idol worship. The three regulations are at least formally quite similar. Each
starts with a participle. Qua construction, 22:18, 19 are similar to 21:12,15-17;
22:18 also as concerns the content of the apodosis (cf. 2.2.7). In 22:17 the
participle does not refer to the subject but to the object, the sentence is
apodictically formulated with the object being placed first (cf. 22:20 and see
2.2.5).
In BHS a ceasura(s) is placed before 22:17, before 22:18 (not in BHK1'2; cf.
Perrot*, 65), and before 22:19-23. Neither formally nor materially a combina
tion of 22:19 with 22:20-23 is obvious. Among modem expositors it is a
question whether 22:17-19 still belongs to the foregoing (so Osumi [see 2.2.1],
24ff., 48, 133, 144f. ; Otto, Wandel [see 2.2.1], 9ff., 3If. , 34, 42f. ) or is
better regarded as the beginning of the next chapter (cf. e.g. Schwienhorst-
Schonberger [see 2.2.1], 10, 25f., 27f., and see 2.2.3). Like more often, the
division is rather arbitrary. One could aigue that thematically there is a
connection between 22:17, 18 and 22:15f. Sexuality plays a role in 22:15f.,
also in 22:18, and probably also in 22:17 (see exegesis). But there is no
connection between 22:19 and 22:15f. Also not between 22:19 and 22:17, 18?
22:19 is aimed at idolatry. Is this essentially also so in 22:17, 18? Is 22:17,
18 about practices with a religious character? The question is often answered
Volume III1
EXODUS 2 2 :1 7 -1 9 211
affirmatively. Schwienhorst-SchOnberger, 318ff., even espouses the view that

thematically and compositionally there is a connection between 22:17-19 and
Deut. 13; three forms of idolatry, apostasy from YHWH, are described. His
explanation is not persuasive. I do not think it can be shown that 22:17, 18 is
related to idol worship (see exegesis).
Each of the three offenses is a capital offense (cf. 2.2.17, 18). In every case
the punishment is formulated differently. In 22:17 euphemistically But how
the death sentence is to be carried out is not clear (see exegesis). As for the
punishment, is there a movement toward a climax in 22:17-19, culminating in
utter destruction (22:19)? (cf. Schwienhorst-Schonbeiger, 318). In that case
22:17 would point to a less gruesome form of capital punishment. But which?
22:17 It is generally held that 22:17 condemns the practices of the sorceress,
the woman who deals in black magic. This view is open to question. A close
look at the key word of that explanation suggests a different interpretation.
(see 7:11; cf. Ges-K §94d), is usually rendered as ’sorceress’ in
modem translations (Luther took it as a collective). The use of the feminine
form is striking and evokes the question: is a man allowed to practice black
magic? Deut. 18:1 Of. leaves no doubt that such is not the case. The regulation
covers both men and women. That is why the LXX opted for the translation
<t>appaKOu<; (cf. 7:11), ‘magicians’ (so also Vulg.), TPsJ for the general object
‘whoever practices magic,’ and TNf, PTA for the double object ‘no male and
no female magician;’ cf. bSanh 67a; Mek., II, 133: women are explicitly
mentioned, because they in particular deal in magic, but as such it is a general
prohibition (cf. Prijs**, 12). Also among modem expositors there are who
contend that the feminine form is used because it was mainly women who were
involved; magic is a typical female activity (e.g. Dillmann, Baentsch, Cassuto,
and see in particular \fcn der Toom [see 2.4.4], 107ff.). That raises the
question, what kind of ’magic’ may be in view here.
According to 7:11 etc. magic was the ’trade’ of an established guild, which
consisted of men. 1 Sam. 28:7 is evidence that necromancy175 could be prac
ticed by a woman, but according to Lev. 19:31; 20:6, 27 consulting the dead
was not exclusively a typical female activity. That raises the question whether
‘magician’ in 22:17 really refers to someone whose ‘trade’ is that of sorceress.
Already Ehrlich voiced his doubt about that interpretation. Pointing to 2 Kgs.
9:22; Isa. 47:9; Nah. 3:4, where a ’910? is used alongside ‘whoredoms,’ Ehrlich
concludes that the term in part denotes ‘Buhlerkiinste und Koketterien’ in part
175 Cf. Th.J. Lewis, Cults o f the D ead in Ancient Israel an d Ugarit, Atlanta 1989; J. Tropper,
Nekromantie: lotenbefragung im Alien Orient und im Alten Testament, Kevelaer/Neukirchen-
Vluyn 1989.
Volume III1
‘politische Intrigen und diplomatische Kniffe,’ and that natfan can be de
scribed as an evil woman who seduces men; cf. Mai. 3:5, where ‘magicians’
and ’adulterers’ are mentioned together; that means ‘magicians’ = charmers.
Less fortunate is his opinion that rrnn Nb forbids the Israelite father to teach
his daughter to be a temptress (cf. Lev. 19:29). As for the interpretation of
rtBtfaa, Ehrlich has shown the right direction: the woman is no sorceress, but a
woman who seeks to seduce a man or men, tries to get them under her spell,
and who - here my interpretation touches the traditional explanation - was said
to possess hidden powers on account of the irresistible pull she had on others;
she is ’the strange woman,’ the adulterous woman the wisdom teachers warn
against, because she destroys men (Prov. 5; 6:20ff.).
rrnn Kb (see 1:14), TPsJ, TNf: subject is ‘you’ (plural). What is meant?
The same as with nipr niQ in 22:18? Execution by stoning (cf. Lev. 20:27)
after sentencing? (see TPsJ; M e t, III, 133f. ; bSanh 67a; Rashi). Or does it
refer to devoting to utter destruction, as in 22:19? See Deut. 20:16; Num.
31:15; 1 Sam. 27:9-11 (cf. also Gen. 31:32; Exod. 19:13 and see M e t, III,
133; Jacob; Childs). Does 22:17 imply an outlawing of the woman? So e.g.
Holzinger, Heinisch. Is it the solemn duty of every Israelite to put her out of
the way, without getting the legal system involved? Or is the woman to be cast
out and to be deprived of all means of support, so sending her to a death from
misery and starvation? Or - seeing the formulation is general - is any kind of
execution permitted?
22:17 can in a sense be regarded as a pendant of Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:22
(see 2.2.11). However, in 22:17 the sanction remains restricted to the woman.
As in 22:18 the focus is only on the man - sodomy as a typical male offense -
so in 22:17 it is only the woman who is in view. Seducing someone to immo
rality seemed to have been perceived as a typical female sin (see beside it Mai.
3:5). But see also 22:15f. That passage is not about immorality though.
In the history of the church 22:17 has been used to sanction witch hunts and
their execution.176
22:18 In 22:18 the penalty for sodomy is death. (see 7:28), the masculine
participle is used. Sodomy is also forbidden in Lev. 18:23; 20:15f.; Deut.
27:21; in Lev. 18:23; 20:15f. the prohibition is explicitly also applied to the
woman. The use of bp gives the statement a comprehensive scope. In Lev.
18:23; 20:16; Deut. 27:21 bp is also used, but in connection with nans
(Introd. §9.1.2): no sexual relations are allowed with any beast.
176 See HDA, III, 1827ff.; TRE, XV, 297ff.; cf. G. Harvey, “The Suffering of Witches and
Children. Uses of Witchcraft Passages in the Bible,” in J. Davies et al. (eds.), Words Remembered,
Texts Renewed (Fs J.F.A. Sawyer), Sheffield 1995, 113-34.
Volume III1
EXODUS 2 2 :1 7 -1 9 213
nov mo (Introd. §3.32), by stoning (so e.g. M e t, III, 134); LXX: 0avaT<j)
anoKteveue auxofig, the subject (‘you’ [plur.]) of the act is concretely
indicated; the use of the plural object (not in LXXA) evidences harmonization
with Lev. 20:15f.; the offender and the animal involved are to be executed.
Doubtful is that this warrants the conclusion that also the animal was held
responsible (cf. Introd. §9.5.3).
Among expositors there is the tendency to see a link between the practices
described in 22:17, 18 and idol worship. It is assumed that 22:17-19 in its
entirety is directed against idolatry and its usages in Israel’s neighbouring
countries (see e.g. Cassuto). On the assumption that 22:17 relates to magic, it is
held that magic presupposes contact with mysterious divine powers (e.g.
Baentsch, Noth, Childs). If the traditional interpretation is abandoned, there is
no reason to associate 22:17 with idolatry, not either in the manner suggested
by Schwienhorst-SchSnbeiger, 320ff., 329f. He holds that 22:17, 19 embodies
a re-interpretation of 34:15, 16, while 22:17 refers to immorality at sacrificial
meals. At most the abominable conduct of the immoral woman assumes
knowledge of the occult, of the ability ‘to cast a spell’ over a man, but it does
not imply that the woman played a role in the worship of idols.
It is customary to understood sodomy against the background of the animal
and fertility cult as practiced in Israel’s neighbour countries.177 Thus it is
believed that sodomy was often linked with magic, aimed at obtaining and
enhancing fertility, the victory of life over death. Schwienhorst-Schonbeiger,
325, suggests that if there should exist a relation with the cult, sodomy was
practiced in secret as part of private worship. In my view, the link between
sodomy and idol worship cannot be demonstrated. The penalty prescribed for
sodomy shows that it was viewed as an abominable sexual aberration. It was
said to have been practiced by the pre-Israelite inhabitants of Canaan (Lev.
18:24ff.). Yet nowhere in Lev. 18; 20 and Deut. 27 is it intimated that it had
something to do with worship. Its rejection is rooted in the anthropology of
OT, which is informed by the particular conception of God (cf. Introd. §9.5.3).
The animal is not a suitable partner for man (cf. Gen. 2:18-24). Sodomy
implies dehumanization, violation of the holiness of human beings (cf. 22:30).
Both the notion that gods can turn themselves into theriomorphic beings and
so have sexual relations, and the idea that they do cohabit with animals, is
known from the ancient Near East and classical antiquity (see IDBS, 96f.; for
Ugarit see Korpel**, 214, 524ff.). From that and the presence of sodomite
fantasies in a neo-Assyrian incantation text (TUAT, II, 273f.) no conclusions
can be drawn in respect to (a presumed) social acceptance of sodomy. Little is
177 See W. Krebs, “Zur kultischen Kohabitation mit Tieren im Alten Orient,” FuF 37 (1963),
19-21, and further Schwienhorst-Schflnberger, 322ff.
Volume III1
known about the actual practice. Herodotus, Hist., II, 46, cites an instance.
That sodomy did happen seems undeniable.
In HL the subject is fairly prominent. Whereas in the OT intercourse with
any kind of animal was considered a perversion, the HL make a distinction
between bestiality that can be tolerated and that which cannot. The latter
category includes sex with a cow, sheep, pig and dog (§§187, 188, 199). These
are heinous deeds, deserving capital punishment. The king, however, may spare
the offender. A person’s life was also spared if one was driven to it by the
animal in heat (cow, pig) (§199). What was tolerated was intercourse with
horse or mule (§200 A-B). Nevertheless, both tolerable and non-tolerable
sodomy soil the doer. It is regularly noted that the delinquent whose life was
spared by the king, or the man who engages in intercourse with horse or mule,
is denied access to the king. §200 A-B forbids such a one to become priest.
Probably §200 A-B reckons with people who were away from home for a
longer or shorter period and lacked opportunity for normal sexual relations.178
22:19 In 22:19179 a heavy penalty is prescribed for apostasy from YHWH (cf.
34:15f.; Deut. 13; 17:2-5). Exclusive worship of YHWH is commanded (cf.
20:3; 23:24; 34:14 and see e.g. 1 Sam. 7:3f.). Idolatry breaks the bond with
YHWH and those who engage in it put their own life at risk.
nat (see 3:18) evidently covers any kind of worship (cf. 131?, see Introd.
§3.37.1); differently Mek., Ill, 135f.; Rashi, Nachmanides (a distinction is
made between the kind of worship of idols that deserves the death penalty and
acts of handling idols that do not not). The assumed subject is of course the
Israelite. Ibn Ezra (disputed by Nachmanides) thinks of non-Israelites (cf.
22:20). Their stay in Israel is subject to specific conditions. In any case, in the
land of YHWH complete extermination awaits the worshipers of other gods (cf.
23:23). D’nbNb, in Sam. Pent, explicitly called D’lnN OYtbN (see e.g. 20:3 and
Introd. §3.1.2); cf. among others LXXA, SamT, and see TO, TPsJ:
tt’OOl? nines'?, ‘to the (idol)gods of the nations,’ cf. Pesh.; TNf:
P’nnN lim e Dip, ‘for other (idol)gods’ (sic!); TNf maigin: ’mine “?D, ‘(for)
whatever idols;’ on the identification of the idols see further e.g. Mek. Ill,
178 See further H.A. Hoffher, “Incest, Sodomy and Bestiality in the Ancient Near East,” in
idem (ed.), Orient an d Occident, Kevelaer/Neukirchen-Vluyn 1973, 81-90; J.C. Moyer, “Hittite
and Israelite Cultic Practices: A Selected Comparison,” in H.W. Hallo et al. (eds.), Scripture in
Context II, Winona Lake 1983, 19-38 (pp. 25ff.), and also S.M. Maul, Zukunftsbewetltigung: Eine
Untersuchung altorientalischen Denkens anhand der babylonisch-assyrischen Loserituale
(Namburbi), Mainz am Rhein 1994, 415-20.
179 See beside 22:19 especially 2 Kgs. 5:17.
Volume III1
EXODUS 2 2 :1 7 - 1 9 215
135f.; Rashi. Nachmanides applies DVtbK to the angels.180

imperf. hoph. of Din (48* hiph.; 22:19; Lev. 27:29; Ezra 10:8 hoph.),
hiph.: ‘to devote to destruction;’ Din is a much discussed term (see THAT, I,
635ff.; TWAT, III, 192ff.); it denotes ‘setting aside,’ ‘devote to,’ in 22:19 as a
religious measure: to be put to death (cf. Lev. 27:29). Left unsaid is by whom
and how the destruction is to be carried out, and whether it also had to include
the subject’s family and possessions (cf. Josh. 7:15, 25). Deut. 17:5 mentions
stoning as punishment for an individual incident of idolatry. The same punish
ment is reserved for the person who causes others to practice idolatry (Deut.
13:lOf. ). According to Deut. 13:16ff., being devoted to total destruction is the
judgment upon a city that turned away from YHWH (cf. Fishbane*, 204f.;
Schwienhorst-Schonberger [see 2.2.1], 318ff.). Devoting someone/something to
total destruction was a means to get rid of evil root and branch.
0*in\ MT is specific; cf. TNf: KS’ntf1, LXX: eijoAeGpeuOfjoeTai, ‘he must
be exterminated;’ TO has a more general translation: b’taprv, ‘he must be put
to death;’ cf. Pesh.: n'bd, ‘he will perish;’ Vulg.: occidetur; TPsJ contains a
further elucidation: ‘he must be killed with the sword (cf. TPsJ on 32:27) and
his possessions must be destroyed.’ It is suggested (e.g. by Noth, Hyatt) that
D in' is due to corruption of the text and rests on an original D’ln x (cf. already
Holzinger), which presumably was followed by 001’ nia (cf. 22:18). More
likely, the sanction stated in 22:19 is climactic. Tibs (see 8:18) introduces an
elliptic clause: besides YHWH (no god may be worshiped), m n ’b, TO, TPsJ:
*m KOtfb, ‘to the name of YHWH;’ TNf: m p , ‘before YHWH.’ n a b , see
12:16.
‘The gods’ in 22:19a raises the question: not to YHWH either? After all, also
YHWH is God. The adjective O'1"WIN in the Sam.Pent. provides an answer. The
gods do not include YHWH. Rashi believes that this answer is indicated by the
vocalization O’iibfc^ (and not D’nbNb, cf. also Ps. 86:8).181 If OVtbK is
understood as other gods, it is implicitly said that worship of YHWH is permit
ted (cf. 20:24; 23:18), really rendering 22:19b redundant (it is absent in the
Sam.Pent. and SamT); 22:19b then repeats what implicitly is already said in
22:19a. Could OYibK mean something else than ‘other gods’? Eerdmans*, 128,
appeals also to 22:19 for his thesis that YHWH was one of the D’n b N (see
2.6.4.3): only to YHWH, the most important deity, may costly animal sacrifices
1,0 For D-n^K as a designation for a n n a O’n'jK (see 20:3; 23:13; Deut. 6:14; 8:19 etc.) see Y.
Zakovitch, “Ancient Variants and Interpretations of Some Laws of the Book of the Covenant as
Reflected in Early Prophets’ Narratives,” The Jewish Law Annual 11 (1994), 57-62.
181 Cf. U. Cassuto, From Adam to Noah, I, Jerusalem, 1961, 167.
Volume III1
be brought; other gods, such as the household gods,182 can lay no claim to such
sacrifices, though of course they do belong to the cult. Eerdmans’ interpreta
tion is speculative. Even so, also he takes as denoting ‘other
Given the context of the covenant book as part of YHWH’s revelation at the
Sinai, dvi^K (also without o n n x ) can only mean ‘other gods.’ In 22:19b this
is emphasized yet again. It is hypothesized that 22:19b is a later expansion of
the text (e.g. Baentsch, Noth, and see Fishbane*, 70f.). There are no persuasive
arguments favouring this notion.183
2.7.2 Care for the socially weak (22:20-26)
22:20 ‘A alien you may not mistreat; you may not make his life miserable. You
were aliens in the land o f Egypt, werent you?
21 No widow or orphan you may oppress.
22 But if you do oppress them, then all they need to do is cry to me fo r help
to fin d a listening ear fo r their cry fo r help.
23 Then my anger will be aroused and I will kill you with the sword, so that
your wives will become widows and your children orphans.
24 I f you lend money to my people, to the poor among you, you may not act
to them like a real money-lender You may charge him no interest.
25 I f you take someone s cloak in pledge, you shall return it to him at sunset.
26 For he has nothing else to cover him self with. It is the garment fo r his
bare body. What else does he have to sleep in? All he needs to do is cry to me,
and he will be heard. For I am very compassionate. '
2.7.2.1 Bibl.: M.L. Chaney, “Debt Easement in Israelite History and Tradition,”
in D. Jobling et al. (eds.), The Bible and the Politics o f Exegesis (Fs N.K.
Gottwald), Cleveland 1991, 127-39; H. Gamoran, “The Biblical Law against
Loans on Interest,” JNES 30 (1971), 127-34; idem, “Talmudic Controls on the
Purchase of Futures,” HUCA 64 (1973-74), 48-66; R. Kessler, “Das hebraische
182 According to O. Loretz, “Das ‘Ahnen- und Gfltterstatuen-Verbot’ im Dekalog und die
Einzigkeit Jahwes,” in W. Dietrich, M.A. Klopfenstein (eds.), Ein G ott allein? JHWH- Verehrung
und biblischer Monotheismus im Kontext der israelitischen und altorientalischen Religionsge-
schichte, Freiburg/GOttingen 1994, 491-527 (pp. 498ff., 504ff.), ‘gods’ = the ‘Ahnenfigur(in)en.’
183 See for a (detailed) discussion of 22:19, C. Brekelmans, De herem in het Oude Testament,
Nijmegen 1959, 54ff.; Osumi (see 2.2.1), 26, 48; Otto, Wandel (see 2.2.1), 9, 32; Schwienhorst-
SchOnberger (see 2.2.1), 12ff., 26ff., 34, 284, 286, 316ff.; and for ‘devoting to utter destruction’
more in general, W. Dietrich, “The ‘Ban’ in the Age of the Early Kings,” in V. Fritz, P.R. Davies
(eds.), The Origins o f the Ancient Israelite States , Sheffield 1996, 196-210; W. Horbory,
“Extirpation and Excommunication,” VT 35 (1985), 13-28; J.P.U. Lilley, “Understanding the
Herem,” TynB 44 (1993), 169-77; P.D. Stem, The Biblical Herem: A Window on Is ra e li
Religious Experience , Atlanta 1991.
Volume III1
EXODUS 2 2 :2 0 -2 6 217
Schuldenwesen: Terminologie und Metaphorik,” Wort und Dienst 20 (1989),

181-95; E. Klingenbeig, Das israelitische Zinsverbot in Torah, Misnah und
Talmud, Wiesbaden 1977; N. Lohfink, “Poverty in the Laws of the Ancient
Near East and the Bible,” Theological Studies 25 (1991), 34-50; R.P. Maloney,
“Usury and Restrictions on Interest-Taking in the Ancient Near East,” CBQ 36
(1974), 1-20; E. Neufeld, “The Prohibitions against Loans at Interest in
Ancient Hebrew Laws,” HUCA 26 (1955), 355-412; E. Otto, ZAW 98 (1986),
169-74; R.K. Sikkema, De lening in het Oude Testament, ’s Gravenhage 1957;
S. Stein, “The Laws on Interest in the Old Testament,” JThS 4 (1953), 161-70;
idem, “Interest Taken by Jews from Gentiles,” JSS 1 (1956), 141-64; Stol (see
2.4.1); H. Strauss, “‘Armut’ und ‘Reichtum’ im Horizont biblischer, vor allem
alttestamentlicher Aussagen,” in F. Criisemann et al. (eds.), Was ist der Mensch
...? (Fs H.W. Wolff), Miinchen 1992, 179-93. J.-L. \fesco, “Les lois sociales
du Livre de 1’Alliance,” Revue Thomiste 68 (1968), 241-64; R. Yaron, “Social
Problems and Policies in the Ancient Near East,” in B. Halpem, D.W. Hobson
(eds.), Law, Politics and Society in the Ancient Mediterranean World, Sheffield
1993, 19-41.
2J.2.2 22:20-26 contains regulations on how to treat the weaker members of
society, people without social status, who as a result are alone and do not enjoy
the respect of others (cf. Prov. 14:20; 18:23; 19:4). The Israelites addressed
(see 2.2.13) are told to practice self-restraint, no matter how much they, as the
socially prominent and powerful, may be tempted to abuse their privileged
position. They are told to heed the lofty norms of justice and mercy, also
where it concerns people who are defenseless and have no one else to fend for
them. A socio-ethical code of conduct is set before them.
The solution to the social problem of the presence of needy people in society
is not sought in structural measures, but in an appeal to the conscience (e.g.
Deut. 15:7f., 11) of the more affluent Israelite. Also the implementation of the
institutional forms of mercy (e.g. 23:11) rests on their willingness to do their
part, and to what extent they, as they are reminded of their own past
(22:20b)184 or of the injunction ‘God, the protector of the needy (cf. 22:26b),
wills it’ (see further below), feel themselves personally addressed.
The socially vulnerable are identified with various terms: ‘alien’ (22:20),
‘widow and orphan’ (22:21, 23), and with the more general terms ‘poor’
(22:24) and ‘fellow human being’ (22:25). The alien, the widow and the
orphan are the typical representatives of the needy in society. What is said
1,4 See C. de Groot-van Houten, “Remember That You Wfere Aliens: A Traditio-Historical
Study,” in E. Elrich et al. (eds.), Priests, Prophets and Scribes (Fs J. Sheffield
1992, 224-40; J. Pons, “La reference au s6jour en Egypte et &la sortie d’ ^ ^ t e d*U)S.]^.viS£>des
de loi de l’Ancien Testament,” Etudes Theologiques et Religieuses 63 (^ 8 8 ), f($-82. , 'V
Volume III1
about them, applies to the poor in general. In 22:20-23 general statements are
made on how to treat them. In 22:24-26 two specific admonitions are given to
illustrate how ethical behavior toward the socially vulnerable is to take practi
cal shape.
2.7.2.3 The Masoretes adopted the following division: 22:19-23(s), 24-26 (p;
so BHS; BHK1'2: s). The remarkable division appears to based on the supposi
tion that the ‘alien’ (22:20) was a proselyte who had turned away from idol
worship (22:19) (cf. Leibowitz*, 380ff., 387ff.; see also exegesis 22:20a).
The nature of the regulations and their formulation have already been dealt
with (see 2.2.4-6, 16-18). Commonly, 22:22-26 is not regarded as a literary
unit. In particular the fluctuation between the singular and plural (2nd pers.
sing, and 2nd pers. plur.) has drawn attention, and led to reconstruction of the
growth of the passage (cf. e.g. Osumi [see 2.2.1], 3Iff., 50ff., 183ff., 195ff.,
209ff. etc.; Schwienhorst-Schdnbeiger [see 2.2.1], 33Iff.)- I just note that the
text is the work of Deuteronomistic authors.
2.7.2.4 The lending mentioned in 22:24 is the so-called consumption loan,
not the commercial loan to build up commercial capital. The borrower is not a
businessperson, but ‘the poor among you.’ It might be someone whose cup
boards are bare because all the food is gone (cf. Neh. 5:1 Of.), while the new
harvest is still some time away. To bridge the gap until the harvest, such a
person is forced to borrow and incur debt.
In 22:24 it is stipulated that the needy neighbour may not be charged interest
for borrowing money (cf. also Lev. 25:35ff.; Deut. 23:20f. ). Commercial loans
to fellow-Israelites are not dealt with in the legal texts. Deut. 23:21 speaks of
making a loan to a foreigner (’I?)). Foreigners may be charged interest.
Evidently, it concerns a commercial loan. Exod. 22:24 only talks of money in
connection with the prohibition of interest. In Lev. 25:37 also food falls under
it, while in Deut. 23:20 the prohibition is given a comprehensive scope.
To be so wealthy as to be able to lend to others was a sign of being blessed
(cf. Deut. 28:44). By letting others share in one’s wealth, by providing ‘charity
loans’ (without interest), the Israelite exhibited examplary conduct, gave
evidence of being a virtuous person, a person after God’s own heart (cf. Ezek.
18:7f., 17; Pss. 15:5; 37:26; 112:5; Prov. 19:17; see also Prov. 28:8; Matt.
5:42; Luke 6:34). While the ideal was indeed lofty, in practice there was often
no consideration for the fate of the poor. Borrowing often made them beholden
to the money-lender (Prov. 22:7), who as a rule was no noble philantropist, but
an extortioner, a person only willing to give a loan if he could chaige interest,
and who squeezed the poor for all they were worth (cf. Jer. 15:10; Ezek.
22:17; Hab. 2:7; Ps. 109:11; Neh. 5:7, 10f.); he also failed to return what he
took in pledge (Ezek. 18:7, 12), and was out for himself (Isa. 3:14f.; Amos
5:llf.; 8:4; Mic. 2:lf.; 3:lff. etc.). In consequence, the poor became ever more
destitute, even reaching the point at which they saw no way out except going
Volume III1
EXODUS 2 2 :2 0 -2 6 219
into debt slavery for their family or themselves (see 2.4.3, 5), or they simply
took off (1 Sam. 22:2; for seeking asylum on account of debts see 2.5.1.5.1,3).
It is not only among money-lenders that there are immoral and unconsciona
ble types. There are borrowers, too, who are like that, unscrupulous people
who do not repay loans (Ps. 37:21). All in all, the conduct of die creditor as
well that of the borrower, or both, could result in a lot of friction and discon
tent (cf. Jer. 15:10).
2.7.2.5 A lender runs the risk of not having the loan returned. There are
ways to limit the risk, for example, by requiring a pledge as security (22:25).
Honestly requiring a pledge was considered proper (22:25; Deut. 24:10f.; Prov.
20:16; 27:13; cf. Job 22:6), and not asking for a pledge was considered a noble
gesture (Ezek. 18:16). Items used as a pledge could include domestic animals
(Job 24:3) and clothing (22:25f.; Deut. 24:12f., 17; Amos 2:8; Prov. 20:16;
27:13; Job 22:6; 24:9f.).
In 22:25; Deut. 24:6, 12f. restrictions are placed on taking pledges. The
pledge-taker may not take from the poor the barest essentials needed for living,
as exemplified in the millstones (Deut. 24:6) and the garment (22:25f.; Deut.
24:12f., 17). The pledge-giver may not be reduced to substandard living.
Millstones to prepare decent food and the garment to protect against the cold at
night (cf. Job 24:7, 10) are to remain that person’s possession. Being unclothed
is a sign of disgrace, of being deprived of human dignity (cf. Gen. 9:22f.;
Ezek. 16:7, 22, 39; 23:29; Hab. 2:15; 2 Cor. 5:3; Rev. 16:15; 17:16). Giving
clothes to someone is the same as enabling that person to lead a normal human
life (cf. Isa. 58:7; Ezek. 16:8; 18:7, 16; 2 Chr. 28:15; Matt. 25:36, 38, 43f.).185
Lending at interest was widely practiced in Mesopotamia, as evident from
contracts and codes uncovered through archaeological digs (see Maloney; Stol;
Yaron [see 2.2.1], 235ff.). They attest to protective stipulations, and also to the
giving of ’charity loans’ and loans on favourable terms.
2.7.2.6 As already noted, the rich were admonished not to ask interest from
the poor, but in practice ignored the moral appeal made to them. The NT
speaks openly about increasing one’s possessions by depositing money at the
1,1 An example of seizing a garment is the subject of a letter on an ostrakon from Yavneh Yam
(end 7* century B.C.). The writer questions the justice of the seizure. Text among others in KA1
200; transl. in TUAT, I, 249f.; literature on the ostrakon includes M. Kleer, M. KrOger, “Das
gepf&ndete Gewand: Untersuchungen zum sozialen und rechtlichen Kontext des im Ostrakon von
Mesad Haschavjahu dargesteliten Konfliktfalles,” BN 61 (1992), 38-50; cf. also Th. Booij, BiOr
43 (1986), 642-7; Th. KrOger, BN 62 (1992), 32-7; J. Hoftijzer, in Tradition a n d Re-Interpretation
in Jewish an d Early Christian Literature (Fs J.C.H. Lebram), Leiden 1986, 1-6, and see also
\bgelzang, Van Bekkum (see 4.12.1.3); J.H. Tigay, “A Talmudic Parallel to the Petition from
Yavneh-Yam,” in M. Brettler, M. Fishbane (eds.), Minhah le-Nahum (Fs N.M. Sama), Sheffield
1993, 328-33.
Volume III1
bank (Matt. 25:27; Luke 19:23). The laws in the Koran include the prohibition
of interest (2, 275ff.; 3, 130; 4, 161 [in reaction to the Jewish doctrine and
practice]; 30, 39). The stipulation not to ask interest from the poor, which in
the OT comes as an urgent appeal, has in Judaism assumed the force of law:
lending at interest to a member of one’s own people is not allowed, regardless
of his or her financial situation; only the non-Jew may be chaiged interest (cf.
Deut. 23:20f.). Enormous inventiveness has gone into attempts to interpret the
law in such a way that it can be maintained without harming economic life.1®6
Also in church history the question of asking interest has played a big role.
In the early church, opposition to charging interest was fueled by opposition to
luxury and greed and the experience that borrowing at interest often brought
people to ruin. The clergy were forbidden to lend money at interest. In the 12th
century the church issued a ban on interest for Christians, appealing among
others to Luke 6:35 Vulg. As a consequence, the Jews became prominent as
bankers, in part also because they were barred from other occupations. Periods
of resistance on the part of the church against their money-lending activities
alternated with periods of toleration as dictated by the hard realities of eco
nomic life. The Jew’s role as money-lender was instrumental in creating the
hostile image of the Jew - the Jew as usurer - and it was the source of anti-
Semitism. Both in Christian and in Jewish circles, Deut. 23:20f. played an
important role in the discussion on interest. Questions such as these were
asked: may a Jew chaige interest from a Christian, or is he even obligated to
do so? Or should he completely decline to ask interest? Who is the ’133 in
Deut. 23:21? Does the term include Christians, or do they fall under the rubric
of ’brother’ (Deut. 23:20)?1S7 The correct application of Exod. 22:24; Deut.
23:20f. - it is not a general prohibition of interest but a law to help the poor -
received a big boost from Calvin. Gradually also in Judaism the prohibition of
interest has lost its tie to economic matters and been placed in its true context:
benevolence and philanthropy.
We return to Exod. 22:20-26 and the persons mentioned there. Elsewhere
others were already dealt with, ’the alien’ (see 2:22) and ‘the poor’ (see 1:11).
Here we look at the ‘widow and orphan.’
2.7.2.7 Widow and orhpan

2.7.2.7.1 Bibl.: EJ, XII, 1478f. (widow); XVI, 487ff. (widow); LA, VI, 1142f.
(widow), 1279ff. (widow); THAT, I, 169ff.; TWAT, I, 308ff. (widow); III,
1075ff. (widow); TWNT, V, 486ff. (6p<t>cevo<;); IX, 428ff. (xhpa); B. Bowman
See EJ, XVI, 27ff.; JE, XII, 388ff.; H. Gamoran, HUCA 64 (1974), 48-66; Klingenberg,
57ff.
1,7 See S. Stein, JSS 1 (1956), 141-64.
Volume III1
EXODUS 2 2 :2 0 -2 6 221
Thurston, The Widows: A Women’s Ministry in the Early Church, Minneapolis

1989; L. Epsztein, La justice sociale dans le Proche - Orient Ancien et le
people de la Bible, Paris 1983, 20ff., 185ff. etc.; C.F. Fensham, “Widow,
Orphan, and the Poor in Ancient Near Eastern Legal and Wisdom Literature,”
JNES 21 (1962), 129-39; D.E. Gowan, “Wealth and Poverty in the Old
Testament: The Case of the Widow, the Orphan, and the Sojourner,” Int 41
(1987), 341-53; P. Hiebert, ‘“ Whence Shall Help Come to Me?’ The Biblical
Widow,” in P.L. Day (ed.), Gender and Difference in Ancient Israel, Minnea
polis 1989, 125-41; T. Krapf, “Traditionsgeschichtliches zum deuteronomischen
Fremdling-Waise-Witwe-Gebot,” VT 34 (1984), 87-91; M.T. Roth, “The Neo-
Babylonian Widow,” JCS 43-45 (1991-93), 1-26; F. Scott Spencei; “Neglected
Widows in Acts 6:1-7,” CBQ 56 (1994), 715-33; K. van der Toom, “Tom
Between Vice and Virtue: Stereotypes of the Widow in Israel and Mesopota
mia,” in R. Kloppenboig, W.J. Hanegraaff (eds.), Female Stereotypes in
Religious Traditions, Leiden et al. 1995, 1-13; I. Weiler, “Zum Schicksal der
Witwen und Waisen bei den V6lkem der alten Welt,” Saeculum 31 (1980),
157-93; H.-J. Zobel, “Das Recht der Witwen und Waisen,” in Gottes Recht als
Lebensraum (Fs H.J. Boecker), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1993, 33-8.
2.7.2.7.2 n } # * / plur. n ta tf # (OT 55*; see THAT, I, 169ff.; TWAT, I,
308ff.), ‘widow,’ occurs frequently (OT ca. 35*) in combination with Din’ /
plur. D’Oin’ (OT 42x) [see TWAT III, 1075ff.], ‘orphan.’ Sometimes ‘widow’
is mentioned first (22:21, 23; Isa. 10:2; Zech. 7:10; Mai. 3:5; Ps. 94:6; Job
22:9; 31:16, 21), more often ‘orphan’ (Deut. 10:18; 14:29 etc. + 7*; Isa. 1:17,
23; 9:16; Jer. 7:6 etc.; cf. KraSovec*, 79, 111). In enumerations ‘widow’ and
‘orphan’ are mentioned alongside ’jy, bn, ii’5$ (see 1:11; \b l I, 242f.), 1}.
(see 2:22; \bl I, 316) and similar terms. Din’ also occurs next to or parallel
with one or more terms of ‘poor’ and ‘needy,’ without explicit mention of the
‘widow’ (Jer. 5:28; Pss. 10:18; 82:3, 4; Job 24:4, 9). In that case the widow is
undoubtedly included in the general term. Much of what is said about the ’)y
etc. applies mutatis mutandis also to widow and orphan.188 The way ‘widow’
and ‘orphan’ are used shows that the terms are not neutral designations (cf. L.
KOhler, ZAW 40 [1922], 34), but have a negative connotation: though they are
free citizens, they belong to the needy or the weaker members of society.
That ‘orphan’ and ‘widow’ are mentioned together is not strange. They
belong together. For D in’ does not refer to the child who has lost both
parents,189 but to the fatherless child (so in any case in 22:23; Ps. 109:9; Job
24:9; Lam. 5:3 and see also 1 Kgs. 7:14; 11:26; 17:17ff.; for the complete
1U On poverty as specter see H. Bruppacher, Die Beurteilung der Armut im Allen Testament,
Gotha/Stuttgart 1924.
1,9 Differently, but without valid arguments, J. Renkema, VT 45 (1995), 119-22.
Volume III1
orphan see Esth. 2:7), evidently a male (D in’ is a masculine, cf. K6Synt
§247f).
2.7.2.7.3 A widowed woman faced a hard life (Ruth l:20f.; cf. Isa. 47:8f.;
54:4; Jer. 51:5; Lam. 1:1; 5:3, and see also Ps. 78:64; Job 27:15; Rev.
18:17).190 Her clothing revealed her social position (Gen. 38:14, 19; Jdt. 8:5;
10:3; cf. 2 Sam. 14:2; see AuS, V, 305, 307f., and 4.12.1.2). If, in case of a
young widow, returning to the parental home (Gen. 38:11; Lev. 22:13; cf.
Ezek. 44:22 and see also Ruth 1:8, 11) or (Levirate) marriage191 is not possible,
or if - in case of the older widow - there is no son (cf. 2 Sam. 14:5; 1 Kgs.
17:9,10; Ruth l:llff.; Luke 7:12), her future looked bleak, because her chances
of having someone to take care of her (in old age) were very slim (cf. Ruth
4:17: Obed = ‘servant,’ ’care-giver;’ see also 4:15).
The plight of the orphan was equally unfortunate (cf. John 14:18). With the
passing of the pater familias and his authority, wife and children were left
unprotected in the world. They were not necessarily without means of support
- Abigail (1 Sam. 25) was a wealthy woman, and there is no reason, with
Pedersen*, I-II, 45, to restrict ’orphan’ to the son of a poor man or a hetaera - ,
but they were defenseless and therefore an easy prey for greedy, less scrupu
lous members of the family (cf. 2 Sam. 14:7) and neighbours. They could be
robbed of their property (Job 24:3; Prov. 23:10; cf. Prov. 15:25) or be forced
into debt slavery (cf. Job 6:27; 24:9 and see 2 Kgs. 4:Iff.; cf. 2.4.3, 5). There
is reason to believe that it was not uncommon, at the death of the father; for
the sons - specially so if they were from different mothers - to start fighting
about the inheritance.192 Already during the life of the pater familias inheri
tance questions could stir the family (Gen. 21:10). The OT contains no
provisions about the position of the widow(s) relative to the property of the
pater familias. That does not mean that there were no provisions. They are
found among Israel’s neighbours (see e.g. CH §§150, 170, 171, 177 and
Weiler, 150). So it is entirely possible that, while not entitled to part of their
late husband’s property, widows did possess the right to control the family
property so long the son or sons were still under age. In Job 24:3; Prov. 15:25
it is assumed that the widow owns property (cf. also 1 Kgs. 17:17ff). When
the son or sons had grown up they were to care for their mother. Likely,
observance of the laws left much to be desired. Particularly when a deceased
man had several wives, the position of the widow and her child(ren) was
190 Suicide by the woman or widow burning are not known from the ancient Near East; cf.
HDA, IX, 668ff.
1.1 Cf. Gen. 38:6ff.; Deut. 25:5ff.; Ruth 3:9; 4:lff., and see D.A. Leggett, The Levirate and
Goel Institutions in the Old Testament, Cherry Hill, NJ 1974.
1.2 Cf. Judg. 11:2 and see Luke 12:13; for laws governing inheritance see Pedersen*, I-II,
89ff.; De Vaux*, I, 104ff.
Volume III1
EXODUS 2 2 :2 0 -2 6 223
uncertain.
The prominence of the plight of widow and orphan in the OT is an indica
tion that the presence of widows and orphans in the polygamous society of
ancient Israel, particularly in times of war when their number grew excessively
(cf. 22:23; Jer. 15:8; 18:21), was a serious social problem. The OT also
contains plenty of indications of concern for their lot. There is a keen aware
ness throughout the OT that their suffering is a mark of social disorder and
does not belong in a stable and harmonious community. It goes against the will
Of YHWH.
2.1.2.1 A YHWH considers it his honour and task to protect the widow and
orphan (Deut. 10:18; Pss. 68:6; 146:9; Prov. 15:25; 23:11; cf. also Isa. 9:16,
and see Sir. 35:17f.; cf. also Gen. 16:7ff.; 21:17ff.). In his laws he demands
that they be treated fairly (22:21) and humanely (Deut. 14:29; 16:17; 24:20,
21; 26:13; cf. also 2 Macc. 8:28, and see Acts 6:1; 9:39, 41; 1 Tim. 5:3ff.),
and gives them a full place in the cult (Deut. 16:11, 14). The man who scoffs
at YHWH’s ordinance by depriving widow and orphan of justice YHWH will be
cursed by having his own wife and children become widow(s) and orphans
(talio) (22:23; cf. also Ps. 109:9, 12; Deut. 27:19). Through the mouths of the
prophets YHWH condemned the mistreatment of widow and orphan by aristo
crats and officials (Isa. 1:23; 10:2; Ezek. 22:7; Mai. 3:5; cf. also Ps. 94:6, and
see Matt. 23:14 par.; Luke 18:3, 5) and demanded that they be treated justly
and humanely (Isa. 1:17; Jer. 7:6; 22:3; Zech. 7:10).
In Wisdom literature, a lack of respect for and inhumane behaviour toward
widow and orphan is denounced as socially objectionable and ethically
unacceptable (Job 6:27; 22:9; 24:3, 9, 21). It is a mark of the upright that they
defend widow and orphan and protect them (Job 29:12,13; 31:16,21; cf. Prov.
14:31; 19:17; 22:9,22 and see Jam. 1:27).
Widow and orphan know that they can look to YHWH (22:22). They belong
to the righteous (cf. 1 Kgs. 17:9f.; Jdt. 8:31; Luke 2:36ff.; Mark 12:42f.; Tob.
1:8). Widows sometimes completely devote themselves to his service (cf. also
1 Tim. 5:3ff.), and for that reason were thought to have a special relationship
with YHWH.193 The service of YHWH gave them fulfillment in life. Owing to
their bond with YHWH, it seems likely that they enjoyed special care and
attention (cf. Acts. 6:1; 9:39).
The above shows that social ethics as it pertains to widow and orphan had a
religious underpinning in the OT. The ethic was grounded in special revelation
(22:21-23 etc.) and in general revelation (Wisdom literature; cf. Prov. 1:7;
9:10; 15:33). The ethics is idealistic and utopian in nature. It sets forth an
1,1 Cf. Jdt. 8:31 (intercession); Luke 2:36 (prophetess); in other literature the orphan’s fitness
for intercession and their gift for magic is cited; see HDA IX, 54.
Volume III1
ideal, whose practical realization often left much to be desired, because it could
not be enforced with harsh sanctions.194
2.7.2.7.5 The position of widow and orphan in ancient Israel was no different
from that elsewhere in the ancient Near East and the world of antiquity in
general (see Weiler). The statements made concerning them in the literature of
the ancient Near East are similar in nature to those in the OT (see Fensham).
They can count on divine protection.195 Compassion for widow and orphan is a
motif in kingly ideology.196 A king who ignores the plight of widow and
orphan is weak and incompetent.197 In Wisdom texts kings and officials are
admonished to defend widows and orphans.198*
22:20 Beside 22:20 see 23:9. It is proposed that 22:20-23:9 constitutes a

coherent section and that the repetition is an inclu sio n In any case, 23:9 is
more than a superfluous redactional duplication (Baentsch). Because 23:9 does
not conclude the section on the ‘alien’ (see end 23:12), it is better not to take
23:9 as a conclusion, but as transition to 23:10-12, where the discussion of the
socially vulnerable is illumined from yet another perspective (also the ‘needy’
is mentioned again [23:6,11]).
"0 (see 2:22), the resident alien. The contention of C. Bultmann200 that 1) is
the uprooted Israelite (p. 212), is unlikely in view of the second half of 22:20
and 23:9.201 The emphasis is unquestionably on the fact that the U is a alien,
someone who is an outsider (not a member of the clan, community etc.). Yet
the term also denotes a alien in the ethnic sense.
njin 2nd pers. sing, imperf. hiph. of n r (OT 18x), ‘to oppress’ (see TWAT,
III, 663ff.); Sam.Pent.: lain (2nd pers. plur.); cf. LXX, Pesh., taigums, and see
Lev. 19:33, where the same clause also occurs in plur. (for the same motivation
1.4 Cf. H.A. Brongers, “Rijkdom en annoede in Israel,” N ed lh T 29 (1975), 20-35.

1.5 See e.g. de Amon-hymn (RTAT.\ 67) and the Shamash-hymn (RTAT, 127).
1.6 See e.g. the prologue of the code of Umammu, 162-168 (ANET, 524a); the epilogue of the
code o f Hammurabi, XLVI1, 59ff. (ANET, 178a; T U A T l, 76); the Tale of Aqhat, KTU 1.17.V.8
(about king Dan’il) (ANET, 150a; ARTU, 233); cf. Ps. 82:3, 4 (addressed to the patrons and the
princes who represent them); widow and orphan are not explicitly mentioned in Israelite
monarchical texts (but note Pss. 72:2, 4, 12-14; Prov. 29:14).
m See the Keret epos, KTU 1.16.VI,45ff. (ANET, 149a; RTAT, 242; ARTU, 222).
1,8 See the lament of the eloquent fanner, B 1,1,62 (ANET, 408b); the Instruction for King
Merikare, 46f. (ANET, 415b; RTAT, 71); the Instruction for King Amenemhet I, 5f. (ANET,
418b); the Instruction of Amenemope, VII, 15 (ANET, 422b).
IW See C. van Houten, The Alien in Israelite Law, Sheffield 1991, 45, 55, following N.
Lohfink; cf. also Schwienhorst-SchOnberger (see 2.2.1), 23, 29, 373.
D er Fremde im antiken Juda, Gottingen 1992.
201 Bultmann believes that 22:20 and 23:9 are from a Deuteronomistic author and were
composed over time (pp. 166ff.); the motivations he considers expansions. An altogether different
point of view is that of Van Houten (pp. 13, 52ff., 62, 167, 175).
Volume III1
EXODUS 2 2 :2 0 -2 6 225
see Lev. 19:34b). Also for u sn b n (see 3:9) the Sam.Pent. has a plur.: isrtbn;
cf. LXX, Pesh., targums. The reason behind it is the desire to harmonize
22:20a with 22:20b, 21.
22:20a consists of two parallel members (synonymous parallellism); it
strengthens the regulation. In rabbinic exegesis the *)J in 22:20a (in contrast to
the 13 of 22:20b) is interpreted as ‘proselyte’ (see at 12:48), and each of the
two statements is given its own weight. The proselyte may not be hurt with
words (that are offensive, because they remind him of his pagan descent) and
not be oppressed by taking away his possessions (TPsJ; Mek., Ill, 137; Rashi).
’3 presupposes a previous exhortation (cf. TPsJ): ‘Do not forget th a t...’ (cf.
also 23:9). Jewish exegetes (cf. Leibowitz*, 370ff.) have looked closely at the
interpretation of the motivation and the relation to the motivation in 23:9 (is
the same meant in both instances?). Among the questions at issue is whether
the recollection of past oppression keeps people from treating others wrongly.
Experience teaches that such is not the case. For that reason the motivation is
more than an incentive toward humane behaviour (cf. Lev. 19:34), it is also a
warning: in case of insult, the vexed alien can point out to the Israelite that
he/she has the same fault (descent from aliens) (Rashi; cf. Mek., Ill, 138) - or,
don’t criticize another for a fault which is also in you - , and as a threat: the
potential oppressor ought to be aware of Israel’s situation in Egypt; the people
might seem to be without helper; actually the Helper was very much on the
side of the oppressed (Nachmanides). The last two explanations lack good
grounds. 22:20b is no more than an enjoinder to a humane treatment of the
alien by pointing to the lesson of one’s own past; possibly in 23:9 the specific
focus is fair treatment of the alien in the courts of law (cf. Holzinger; Strack;
Heinisch; Vhn Houten, 55, 97).
22:21, 22 22:21-23 is bracketed by the use of the terms ‘widow’ and ‘orphan.’
ba seems also to include ‘the orphan’ (‘double-duty’); the focus is especially
on the socially weak (but see Nachmanides: also on the affluent widow; cf.
also KdSynt §352s). H3S), see 1:11.
OK (Introd. §3.4.1), Sam.Pent.: OK ’3. rt3»n H3U, inf. abs. + finite verb; Sam.
Pent.: 13»n plur., cf. LXX, Pesh., Vulg., TNf, PTA and see 22:21 and 22:23
(03nK etc.); modem expositors usually explain the alternation between plur.
(22:21, 23) - sing. (22:22) as due to the literary evolution of the text (cf. e.g.
Schwienhorst-Schdnbeiger, 332ff.). It is contended that in its original form
22:20-23 only referred to the alien (formulation in the 2nd pers. sing.; inK in
22:22 originally designated the alien). Ibn Ezra sees special significance in the
fluctuation: also the person who witnesses oppression and does nothing about it
is an oppressor; in consequence, a community in which there is oppression is
collectively guilty; the judgment is upon the entire community.
Three times in 22:22 the inf. abs. followed by the finite verb is used; what is
Volume III1
the significance? (cf. Ges-K §§1131ff.; Joiion §§123dff.).202 In the last instance
the meaning is clear: YHWH will certainly hear. But what is meant in the first
instance: a situation of harsh, recurrent oppression (there is no doubt that it is
not just an incidental mistake on the part of the oppressor) or a minor incident,
a small incident of abuse of power? (cf. Mek., Ill, 14If. ).
inN has distributive force, relating to both widow and orphan; for translation
purposes the use of the plural personal pronoun is unavoidable (cf. LXX,
Pesh., Vulg., TNf, PTA). OK ’3 (Introd. §3.25.2), Rashi believes that the
apodosis of the previous clause is absent (ellipsis), and that before '0 one
should supply: ‘in the end you will get your deserts;’ in his view, ’0 is causal
in meaning (‘because’). Nachmanides takes issue with him and understands ’3
as conditional, contending that ’if’ is repeated to emphasize the gravity of the
matter. It is better to regard ’0 as an emphatic particle, and regard the two
clauses introduced by OK as two sequential protases that are followed by one
apodosis which qualifies both clauses. I have chosen for a smooth translation.
pUS’ pUS (see 2:23 and cf. Deut. 15:9; 24:15), subject is the object of the
previous clause (inK), the widow or the orphan; LXX, Pesh., Vulg. translate ad
sensum, with ’they’ as subject. Clarity requires it. Unlikely is that the subject
in view is especially the child (cf. Gen. 21:17 and see Ibn Ezra), or that the
statement is to be taken as restrictive (God’s response is conditional on being
asked for help; cf. 2:23-25). Is the underlying idea that the greater the number
of people (producing a louder cry) who cry to YHWH, the sooner he will be
inclined to respond? (cf. Mek., Ill, 143)? More likely is that the widow or
orphans only need open their mouth and he ...
'^ 8 shows that the crying here is to be taken as a prayer (so explicitly in
TPsJ, TNf, PTA, with the remark that the prayer is directed against the oppres
sor [‘you,’ sing./plur.’]). ‘to hear,’ see Introd. §3.51.1. inp»X, suffix sing, is
translated as plur. in LXX, Pesh., Vulg.; TPsJ contains an expansion: ’hear his
prayer and avenge him;’ the avenging here refers to avenging as described in
Deut. 11:17 (cf. Mek., Ill, 141). In TNf, PTA 22:22 is concluded with )jn onK
HJK l» m i, ‘for I am merciful and compassionate’ (in PTA followed by ‘says
the Memra of YHWH’); 22:26 is similarly concluded (cf. Pss. 111:4; 112:4;
145:8).
22:23 In the form of a talionic announcement of doom YHWH’s response to the

cry for help is described. The wives and children of the oppressors will become
society’s outcasts. That picture of what awaits them should make them think,
change their behaviour, m n + *]K, see 4:14. n n , see 2:14. a m (see 5:3), on
202 See R. Yaron, “Stylistics Conceits II. The Absolute Infinitive in Biblical Law,” in D.P.
Wright et al. (eds.), Pomegranates and Golden Bells (Fs J. Milgrom), Winona Lake 1995, 449-60.
Volume III1
EXODUS 2 2 :2 0 -2 6 227
use of article see e.g. Ges-K §§126q,r; Joilon §§137m,n.

Rabbinic exegesis answers the question why something as obvious as that the
women will become widows etc. is specifically stated: the oppressors will die
in war, without proof of death, so that their wives will always be widows (they
are not permitted to remarry) and their children unable to claim the inheritance
(M e t, III, 144; Rashi). In this interpretation the punishment exceeds talio.
22:24 DM, in Jewish exegesis the meaning of the term is a point of discussion.
Because compassion toward the fellow-Israelite is a duty (Deut. 15:7f. ), the
question is whether DM could be conditional. In M e t, III, 147, it is said that
22:24 is one of three instances (see also 20:25) where OK does not have that
meaning (cf. also Rashi). Others have interpreted the condition in this way: one
is not free to implement or not to implement the stipulation, but heeding it is
dependent on the situation; one must be well-to-do and the borrower must be
reliable; the stipulation is a duty, but carrying it out should be freely and from
the heart (Deut. 15:10) (cf. Leibowitz*, 402ff.). It is not likely that in 22:24 DM
has a different meaning than in 22:25, where interpreting it as a duty does not
fit. ‘money,’ see Introd. §3.28.
rnbfl 2nd pers. sing, imperf. hiph. of mb (see TWAT, IV, 492f. ), in qal ‘to
borrow from’ (e.g. Deut. 28:12; OT 5x), in hiph. ‘to lend to’ (OT 9*); object
in 22:24 is (Introd. §3.40.1), in TO, Pesh. with 3 instead of nM, in
TPsJ with b. The general ‘my people’ hardly fits (but see Isa. 3:15) and is
restricted by the apposition ■'jpnviM (see 1:11). In the LXX the translation
of ’DirnM seems to be something of a guess (but see also Lev. 24:35f.; Deut.
23:20f. ) with the renderings of xtb a6eA.<J)q), ‘the brother.’ This translation has
led to the proposal to alter the text to (see e.g. LV); in the Vulg. the
entire object is translated as populo meo pauperi qui habitat tecum, ‘to the
poor of my people who live among you.’ Modem translations have chosen for
the hardly defensible rendering of ’DPTIM with ‘someone from my people’ (e.g.
WV, Dasbeig) or some such translation (e.g. NEB). It is suggested that the
LXX rendering is not an educated guess. Presumably, Hebrew has a term ’DP,
‘fellow citizen,’ ‘relative.’203 In any case, altering of the text is not supported
by the Sam.Pent. (*JDP ’JP nM) and Qm (cf. Sanderson**, 122, 139). If the text
should be corrupt, it must be very old. Instead of ’DP, was the original reading
^n’Jpp (Baentsch)? Or is ’DP a scribal error for ’}p and should the apposition
be vocalized as sjpp ’jpiTTiM (cf. 23:11)? Is the apposition intended as restric
tion: ‘the poor, viz. the poor of your people’? In rabbinic exegesis the three
elements (1) ’DPTiM (2) ’JPrrnM (3) 1QP are taken as designating who should
203 See G. Jeshurun, “On the Meaning of the Silent Yod in a Certain Group o f Passages in the
M.T.,” JSOR 16 (1932), 108-12.
Volume III1
be first in line for receiving a loan when there is more than one applicant: the
Jew comes before the non-Jew (l),204 the poor before the rich (2), the poor of
one’s own town before the poor inhabitant of another town (3).205 It is also
emphasized that the poor may not be treated with scorn (he belongs to ‘my
people’), and that the money-lender should put himself (‘among you’) in the
shoes of the poor (Rashi).
(Sam.Pent.: KtfJ; cf. BL §59c), part, qal perf rt®3 / K03 (OT 15*; see
TWAT, Y 658ff.), ‘to loan,’ ‘to be creditor, money-lender’ (Deut. 24:11;
1 Sam. 22:2; 2 Kgs. 4:1 etc.). TNf, FTV, PTA: ‘a creditor who uses extortion’
(cf. also Vulg.). Jewish exegetes stress that the money-lender should be kind,
not constantly insisting on being paid back, not demanding that the money be
paid back if the borrower has no money, etc. {Mek., Ill, 148; Rashi; Ibn Ezra;
Nachmanides).
Second ttb , among others Pesh., TNf, PTA: K bl. yiD’i&n (Introd. §3.48; plur.),
Sam.Pent.: UD’ton (sing. + suffix); LXX, Pesh., Vulg.: sing. (cf. 22:24a, 25-
29). TPsJ contains an expansion: the borrower may not be compelled to
provide guarantors and witnesses; the meaning appears to be: for obtainig a
loan, whereby the obligation to pay interest is put in writing (cf. Mek., Ill,
149f.). From the use of the plur. in 22:24b it has been concluded that witnesses
etc. are present (cf. Ibn Ezra).
^l#J(OT llx; see TWAT, V, 665ff.; Klingenbeig, 38ff.; S.E. Loewenstamm,
JBL 88 [1969], 78-80), ‘interest;’ TPsJ, TNf, FTV, PTA: ‘no interest and no
usury;’ SamT: blB3, ‘doubling.’ also means ‘bite;’ which has resulted in
likening it to the bite of a snake; at first the wound is not felt, then all at once
it causes the whole body to swell; so it is with interest; suddenly it has mount
ed so much that one is buried beneath it (ExR., XXX, 6; Rashi).
22:24b is often regarded as an addition on account of the numerus change, in
which - 22:24a as such does not exclude the payment of reasonable interest -
asking interest from the pooor is entirely forbidden (cf. e.g. Baentsch, Hei-
nisch). Schwienhorst-Schdnbeiger (see 2.2.1), 357f., argues that 22:24a is not
about interest at all, but about the creditor who wants to foreclose on the loan.
He is forbidden to enslave the debtor as a means to reclaim the debt (cf. also
Osumi [see 2.2.1], 54f., 198f.). He regards ’OS in 22:24a and 22:24b as
Deuteronomistic additions to bring the text in line with Deut. 23:20f. Presum
ably, the additions turned 22:24 into a prohibition of interest. Restricting
myself to 22:24b (for ’DO see above), I note that 22:24b can be regarded as an
expansion, for that matter a sharpening expansion (Klingenbeig, 29), of the
104 Cf. MidrTanh. Exod., VI, 5, 8.

M5 See Mek., Ill, 148; MidrTanh. Exod., VI, 8; Rashi; cf. Leibowitz*, 408ff, and see also Gal.
6 :10.
Volume III1
EXODUS 2 2 :2 0 -2 6 229
text. 22:25 concretizes the conduct of the money-lender (cf. also Fishbane*,
174ff.).
22:25 baofl ba^ *nf- abs. + 2nd pers. sing, imperf. qal of ban (see TWAT, II,
334ff.), ‘to take in pledge’ (Deut. 24:6,17 etc.). For the meaning of the
construction see Ehrlich: ‘wenn du ilberhaupt abpfandest’ (better don’t do it),
nobb (see 3:22), SamPent.: nbnb (cf. 22:26); the reading of SamPent. rests
on harmonization and is not supported by Qm (cf. Sanderson**, 60f.). 1® (cf.
Brockelmann §115a) means ‘toward,’ ‘at,’ ‘about;’ cf. L. Luciani, Rivista
Biblica 34 (1986), 391-5, and see 2 Sam. 17:22. K3, see Introd. §3.8. babn,
see 16:21. ua’bn (see 4:7), cf. Ges-K §135o; Sam.Pent.: rua’bn (suffix refers
to the feminine nobb/nbab).
Jewish exegesis recognizes the right to take a pledge (e.g. Mek., III, 150). A
point of discussion is the kind of garment and the nature of the pledge. Does it
make sense to possess a pledge as this is described in 22:25? From the repeti
tion of the ordinance in Deut. 24:12f. it has been concluded that by night the
garment used by day and by day the garment used by night had to be given as
pledge (Mek., Ill, 150; Rashi); it must be prevented that the garment would be
given as pledge for yet another loan (Ibn Ezra; cf. Leibowitz*, 414ff.).
22:26 Kin (2x), Sam.Pent., Qm: ton (referring to the feminine nabb; cf.
Sanderson**, 119). nnioa (see 8:2), a instance of Q/K (Introd. §2.2), Sam.
Pent.: imoa (= Q); Delitzsch*, 43, 45: read n-ioa. mab (see 12:16), Ehrlich:
read V^jab, ‘for his members’ (cf. Job 18:13). Delitzsch*, 135: inbabRW is a
gloss.
n» (OT ca. 100x; 17x Exod.), ‘skin,’ ‘hide,’ human (22:26; 34:29, 30, 35) as
well as animal (25:5; 26:14; 29:14, 35:7 etc.), "U? is a masculine term with a
feminine ending in the plural (nib, 25:5 etc.); see KOSynt §§252e, 349a.
Meant here is ’the bare body;’ cf. TNf, PTA: ‘the garment for the skin of his
body.’ LXX reads: (to ipatiov) aoxTHioouvry;, ‘(the garment) for the private
parts.’ In rabbinic exegesis each of the three statements (the clauses with Kin
and the clause with nna) is related to a different garment: cloak, shirt, and
mattrass (see TPsJ; Mek., Ill, 151; Rashi).
aab, see 7:28. ’a rpm, see Introd. §3.13.4. a1 etc., cf. 22:22b; in TPsJ,
TNf, PTA also here explicitly taken as prayer, ’naabl, TO: n’nb’ap b'ap’Kl, ‘I
will surely be receptive’ (= end 22:22). pan, see 3:21; for TNf, PTA see 22:22;
TPsJ: ‘a beneficent God.’ ’JR, SamPent.: ’aJK.
The hearing of YHWH means that he will call the harsh money-lender to
account (Ibn Ezra). Nachmanides observes that God also responds if the
pledge-giver is not a righteous person. The money-lender should not think that
he can treat a person who is not righteous with impunity.
Volume III1
2.7.3 Treating YHWH respectfully (22:27-30)
22:27 ‘You shall not despise God and a leader among your people you shall
not treat shamefully.
28 The very best o f the harvest you shall not hold back. The firstborn o f your
sons you shall give to me.
29 You shall deal likewise with your ox and your small livestock. Seven days
it (the firstborn young) may remain with his mother; on the eighth day you
shall give it to me.
30 Indeed, you shall conduct yourselves as people consecrated to me.
Therefore you may not eat the flesh o f an animal tom in the field. You shall
throw it to the dogs.'
Following the Masoretes, it is customary to regard 22:27-30 as a small unit.

The pericope is a kind of intermezzo amid social regulations (22:20-26; 23:1-
9). The central theme is not how to treat fellow human beings, but how one is
to behave toward YHWH. The theme is elucidated by means of a number of
apodictic regulations (see 2.2.5), which, except for 22:30, are formulated in the
2nd pers. sing. The use of the 2nd pers. plur. in 22:30 has been used to argue
that 22:30 is a later addition (cf. Osumi [see 2.2.1], 200ff., 210f. etc.; Schwien-
horst-Schdnberger [see 2.2.1], 360ff., 368ff.). In any case, 22:30a colors the
passage, links it to other pericopes (cf. 19:6; Lev. 19:2, 20:7; 20:26, Deut.
14:21 etc.), and turns the diverse religious regulations, which are collected in
22:27-30, into ways to express total consecration to YHWH. In a number of
examples Israel, a nation that is bonded to the Lord, is told what conduct is
unbecoming (22:27, 28a, 30b) and what is becoming (22:28b, 29) people who
belong to ‘a priestly kingdom and a holy nation’ (19:6): undermining of God’s
authority is wrong (22:27); as Lord of the people and the land in which they
live, they are to give to him the full tribute to which he is entitled (22:28, 29);
as subjects of the Holy One they are to be pure in body and spirit (22:30).
22:27 In TPsJ and TNf, 22:27 opens with the address: ‘my people, children of
Israel.’ So 22:27 is set off as the beginning of a new division (cf. e.g. 22:17).
O’D'JN, in words indirectly spoken by YHWH to Israel (20:22; 21:1); cf. e.g.
23:18f.; 34:19, 23 and see at 19:11. bbp pi. (see 18:22), here used parallel with
TIN qal (see THAT, I, 235ff.; TWAT, I, 437ff.); both terms denote activities
that undermine authority; though here often translated respectively with ’curse’
and ’revile,’ it is more likely that the warning is sounded against a particular
kind of reprehensible behaviour. Positively, in 22:27a the requirement is laid
down to honour God (133 pi., see 4:10). Elsewhere 133 pi. with God as
object is contrasted with 1T3, ‘to despise’ (1 Sam. 2:30) and *pn, ‘to insult’
(Prov. 14:31). Despising and insulting God implies having no respect for him
Volume III1
EXODUS 22:27-30 231
and being guilty of practices that displease him and detract from his authority.
Apparently that is also the connotation of bbp as the opposite of 133. "HK
contrasts with "p3 pi. (Gen. 9:25f.; 12:3 etc.; see at 12:32). Positively the
requirement is laid down in 22:27b ’to bless’ the leader that is, to honour him,
be loyal to him (cf. Paul [see 2.2.1], 44ff.).
The LXX has chosen for the rendering ou KaKoXoyfjoeu; (v. 27a) and ou
kcckclx; epeu; (v. 27b; cf. Vulg.: non maledices). The verse is taken as a
warning against slander. See next to it Aq.: ou Katapaor), ‘you shall not curse’
(v. 27a); Symm.: ouk atipaoei?, ‘you shall not treat disrespectfully’ (v. 27a;
cf. Vulg.: detrahes); in my view, the rendering of Symm. is correct.
K’&J (see 16:22), it is difficult to determine what kind of functionary is
precisely meant, a tribal head or the king (cf. 1 Kgs. 11:34); the interpretation
is also affected by the dating of the verse (cf. Schwienhorst-Schdnberger,
361ff.). (see Introd. §3.40.2), TNf: ‘your (plur.) people.’ No indication of
the punishment is given; stoning is required in Lev. 24:14, 16, 23; cf. 1 Kgs.
21:10, 13, and see also 1 Kgs. 2:8f.
The interpretation of 22:27 causes brain racking.206 First we address D’nbK.
An old interpretation has it that D’nbtt stands for ‘judge(s)’ (cf. 2.4.6 en
2.6.4.1) . It is a view found in the taigums; see TO: ‘judge’ (cf. Pesh.);
TPsJ, TNf: i w i , ‘your judges’ (cf. Mek., Ill, 151f.). 22:27a and 22:27b are
taken as more or less synonymous statements: to fen is translated in TO with
K3*l, ‘leader’ ‘ruler’ (cf. TNf; Pesh.), in TPsJ with ‘the rulers (l'J3”i), who are
appointed as leaders (among your people).’ This interpretation won favour
among mediaeval Jewish exegetes (Rashi relates D’iibK to God as well as the
judge; cf. Mek., Ill, 151). Nachmanides e.g. takes 22:27a as follows: if a judge
should find you guilty in a lawsuit, you are not to curse him. Christian exposi
tors have related the verse to both ecclesiastical and governmental authorities;
see e.g. Calmet and also already Theodoret, QE, LI, and further e.g. KJV (‘the
gods’), SV (‘de goden;’ cf. NV); Luther (‘Getter’).
The view that DVtbN stands for humans is not much held by modem exe
getes, but is not entirely abandoned. Buber-Rosenzweig translate: ‘Gottrichter;’
Cazelles (see 2.2.1), 81f., equates the K’6?3 with the O’ltp of 18:21f., who are
chaiged with handling legal matters, and believes that DYlbN and K’6?3 refer to
the same people. Dillmann understanding OYlbN as ‘God,’ comes close to the
classical interpretation: ‘God’ is the court seated in the sanctuary (cf. 2.4.6;
2.6.4.1) ; despising that court, one despises God. A similar explanation is given
by Honeycutt. In his view, though 22:27 cites two activities, is actually only
206 For early interpretation see P.W. van der Horst, “‘Gij zult van de goden geen kwaad
spreken’: De Septuaginta-vertaling van Exodus 22:27(28), haar achtergrond en invloed,” N e d lh T
46 (1992), 192-8. Cf. also M.J. Bernstein, “nV?p 'l^n '3 q y i^ x (Deut. 21:23): A Study in Early
Jewish Exegesis,” JQR 74 (1983-84), 21-45.
Volume III1
about the rejection of God’s representative, and so of God himself. For that
matter, it is to be noted that N’toJ is further defined by 1033; with O’fibtt such
is not the case. That aigues against equating QYtbN with K’toJ or closely
relating the two terms.
In the LXX D’n*?K is translated with 0eou<; (plur.) (cf. Vulg.) and 1033 N’feJl
with Kai apxovta? tou Aaou oou, ‘the leaders of your people.’ Unsure is how
the rendering of the LXX is to be understood. Certain is that in the Hellenistic
milieu ‘gods’ was applied to the gods of the pagans, and that the text was
quoted to support the view that the lawgiver of die Jews, out of respect for the
term ’God,’ forbade talking disparagingly or insultingly about those whom
others acknowledged as god.207 Pagan foes of monotheism used 22:27a as
evidence of the presence of polytheism in the Holy Scriptures of Jews and
Christians.208 Paul in Acts. 23:5 quotes Exod. 22:27b with reference to the high
priest, apxovta tou A,aou oou, ‘a leader of your people’ (sing.; cf. LXXA and
Vulg.). Josephus contends that disobedience toward him is the same as disobe
dience toward God (CA, II, 194). As concerns Acts. 23:5, also in later exegesis
N’toJ has been applied to the political as well as the spiritual leader (e.g. by
Nachmanides).
Common nowadays is the interpretation of DVtbN as ‘God.’209 For a com
parison of the parallelism N’toV/OYiblt one can point to the use of OYtbN in
combination with in 1 Kgs. 21:10 and Isa. 8:21 (cf. also 2 Sam. 16:9; Job
2:9). OYtbN indicates the divine authority; K’toVlbn the human authority. In
this interpretation 22:27 refers to the undermining of any kind of spiritual and
political authority. Positively, what is asked is respect for God and civil
authority (cf. Prov. 24:21; 1 Pet. 2:17) and what is pursued is social stability
(cf. the meaning given to 20:12 in the history of interpretation; see 1.6.7).
Where God is despised and/or the leader shamefully treated, the stage is set for
revolution (cf. Judg. 9:26ff.; 1 Kgs. 12:12ff.,25ff.; 2 Kgs. 9:4ff.; 10:18ff.) (cf.
Schwienhorst-Schonberger [see 2.2.1], 364ff.).
Is it significant that in 22:27a OYtbK is used and not m rr? In this connection
I again draw attention to the view of Eerdmans (see 2.6.4.3). He cites also
22:27 for his thesis that one should distinguish between O’fibK as lower divine
beings and YHWH. For support he points to Lev. 24:15, 16: blaspheming of the
personal god (rnbtt, ‘his god’) is a private matter, which is punished by the
personal god with sickness and the like; blaspheming YHWH is a public matter
which is punished with execution (Eerdmans*, Religion, 38, 85f.). The inter
pretation of Lev. 24:15, 16 is controversial. It is entirely possible that vnbK
” 7 See Josephus, AJ, IV, 207; idem, CA, II, 237; Philo, VM, II, 205; idem, QE, II, 5, 6.
” See J. Rosenthal, JQR 38 (1947-48), 335.
m See e.g. Baentsch, Noth, Hyatt, Cassuto; O. Calderini, “Note su Es. 22,27,” BeO 22 (1980),
111- 8.
Volume III1
EXODUS 22:27-30 233
refers to the god(s) of the non-Israelite.210 Who knows, perhaps also (cf. 22:6;
22:7f.) in the case of 22:27 one should distinguish between 22:27 as evidence
of archaic religion (D’il^K denotes divine beings) and 22:27 as element of
YHWH’s revelation at Sinai (DYtbK = God = YHWH). In a Yahwistic context, an
ancient commandment has been given a new content. The fragmentary charac
ter of the text urges caution in the interpretation.
In my view, 22:27 first and foremost refers to ’God,’ and the passage is a
warning against any form of undermining of spiritual and secular authority. HL
§173, a law about opposition to a legal pronouncement by the king or other
high official, cited by Hyatt in connection with 22:27, cannot be regarded as a
parallel. There are widely different views on the dating of the text (see Paul
[see 2.2.1], 44f.; Schwienhorst-Schonberger, 366f.).
22:28 The meaning of (see respectively 12:16 [cf. Fishbane*,

61] and Introd. §10.2.1) is unsure. Commonly 22:28a is interpreted in the light
of 22:28b. Ancient translators have shown the way in that respect. In the LXX
these words are translated with anapxat; aXcovoc; kocv Ar|voij oou, ‘the first-
fruits of your threshing floor and your press’ (cf. LXX Deut. 16:13 and Num
18:27); in TPsJ with "[HBJ non m a a i I T ’S m a a , ‘the firstfruits of your fruits
and the firstfruits of the wine from your press;’ the interpretation firstfruits is
also found in TO, Pesh., and see M e t, III, 153 (cf. Prijs**, 13). TNf has
chosen for the translation ,pai?D"n yiam&BD, ‘your tenth and dema;’ the Vulg.
for decimas tuas et primitias, ‘your tenths and your firstfruits.’
In particular the term is problematic. In rabbinic exegesis it is taken as
{mother word for njpnp (see 25:2); see also Rashi. Strack has pointed out that
in Samaritan and the Hebrew of the Mishnah is the same as aÔ, ‘the
best,’ and that the Mishnah contains a verb s m , ‘to make something n o n n .’
Strack translates IB M with ‘deine Hebe.’ Many modem translations and
exegetes have followed the trend set by the LXX; next to it, there are also
those who favour the view that nK*?D and refer respectively to wine and
oil (already Ibn Ezra, and see Heinisch, Noth, Fensham); Cazelles (see 2.2.1),
82, relates the terms respectively to fresh grapes and new wine; for Jewish
exegesis see Jacob. Curious is Ehrlich’s explanation: ‘deine Fillle Oder dein
Trdpflein, das heisst, wie viel es immer ist, eine Menge oder ein Winziges;’
lacking sufficient ground is Fox’s translation: ‘Your full fruit of your trickling-
grapes.’ In light of 22:28b, 29 it is likely that 22:28a is about the yield of
cultivated fields and in particular about the first and best part of it. Perhaps
1B011 intt'JO is to be taken as a hendiadys: ‘the very best of the harvest.’ The
2,0 Cf. Fishbane*, 101; but see also J. Wfeingreen, VT 22 (1972), 118-23; J.B. Gabel, C.B.
Wheeler, VT 30 (1980), 227-9.
Volume III1
size o f the part that is for YHWH is not indicated (for the firstfruits see further
2.8.5,6).
‘to hold back’ (see Introd. §3.1.2), often, following LXX (oi> KoOvoTepfj-
oew;) and Vulg. (non tardabis), understood as ‘to delay;’ the likely meaning is
that procrastination produces (indefinite) postponement: ‘keep for yourself;’ it
belongs to YHWH and should be given to him; evidently it is assumed that
yhwh ’s part is given to him in his sanctuary (cf. TPsJ); Rashi understands
-in«n Mb as a commandment to heed the prescribed sequence of the various
offerings (cf. also TPsJ and Mek., Ill, 153). Cazelles, 82f., interprets iriMfl Mb
as ‘you shall not sacrifice to strange gods.’ 1132 (see 4:22), LXX: plur.; cf.
TPsJ, TNf; in TNf the firstborn are explicitly said to be ’male.’ ‘of your sons,’
see Introd. §3.10.1. ‘give’ (Introd. §3.36), TO, TPsJ: ‘set aside (ehs) for me’
(Mm p); likewise at the end of 22:29; the translation is more explicit and less
anthropomorphic; cf. also TNf: ‘consecrate to my name’ (22:28) and ‘set aside
for my name’ (22:29).
22:29 p , see 1:12. nfrff, see Introd. §3.41.1. ‘ox’ (see Introd. §9.1.12), meant
is the firstborn calf of the cow (and small livestock); so explicitly TPsJ (cf.
Mek., Ill, 154). 13M3b (Introd. §9.1.4), Sam.Pent.: "pMSbl; cf. e.g. LXX: + koci
to unoCuYlov oou, iar|d of your donkey’ (cf. 34:19,20, and see also 22:8).
‘seven days ... on the eighth day,’ see Introd. §§4.8.1; 4.9.2. 1DM*OI? (see 2:8),
LXX: into tt)v pqtepa, ‘under the mother’ (cf. Lev. 22:27), namely to suck
(so explicitly TPsJ; cf. Mech, III, 155). DVD (Jotion §176h), Sam.Pent.: DV21;
cf. LXX. linn, see Ges-K §60d.
On the consecration of the firstborn see \bl. II, 162ff., 210, 214ff.; Fish-
bane*, 18Iff. For the firstfruits of the yield of the land see 23:19.
22:30 22:30a reads like a concluding formula. The prescriptions laid down are
examples. What YHWH is asking is a life consecrated to him.
(Introd. §§3.2.1; 3.44.2, 3), TNf: p o n p Din (cf. Deut. 14:21); see
19:6. TPsJ contains an explanation: the commandment addresses people who
eat clean food.
In 22:30b the general regulation is augmented by a special stipulation, high
lighting an important aspect of the required holiness. A person consecrated to
YHWH must be holy in body and spirit, and therefore is only allowed clean
foods (cf. Nachmanides).
"ltoa, see 4:7. mto, see 1:14. nsno (see 22:12) is apposition (KdSynt §333s;
Ges-K §13 lk); the taigums offer a further description; TO, TPsJ: ‘(flesh) tom
from a living animal’ (cf. Gen. 9:4); TNf: ‘(flesh) tom from an animal killed
(in the field)’ (cf. also FTV); see also LXX: Kpecu; 0T|pidAcoTov, ‘flesh taken
by wild animals,’ and Vulg.: carnem quae a bestiis fuerat praegustata, ‘the
flesh of which before wild beasts had eaten.’
Volume III1
EXODUS 22:27-30 235
nano mfra ntoai is regarded as a problematic clause; because mtoa is absent

in the LXX, Pesh., Vulg., TO, TPsJ (it is found in TNf, FTV, SamT), it has
been argued that mtoa is a gloss or is due to dittography, and that the original
text had npnotn) niyai (see e.g. Holzinger, Baentsch, Ehrlich). It is, however;
possible that the omission of m&a in the ancient versions is due to intentional
generalization (cf. also Deut. 14:21); the commandment may not be read as if
it would be alright to consume an animal killed in the city or a house (cf.
Mek., Ill, 157, and see Prijs**, 12).
‘to eat,’ see Introd. §3.3.1. abab (Introd. §9.1.19), Sam.Pent.: "ibon; so in
the Sam.Pent. * ] b ( s e e 1:22) has the general meaning of ‘throw away’ (or
‘dispose of;’ cf. Deut. 14:21?). TPsJ adds to 22:30 the observation nntoioa,
‘as reward for him (the dog),’ because it did not bark at the Israelites in the
night of the Passover (11:7) (cf. Mek., Ill, 159; Rashi). In an expansion at the
end of 22:30 in TNf and FT ‘the dog’ is interpreted as ’the pagan,’ the non-
Israelite’ (cf. Matt. 15:26 and see Deut. 14:21). Rashi accepts the explanation;
Ibn Ezra rejects it; the meat of a tom animal is unhealthy. Are we to think of
the dogs as shepherd dogs (Job 30:1)? Or is it assumed that the dead animal
was taken along to the city? In any case, it was not left behind to be devoured
by vultures and jackals. The ‘for the dogs’ implies that the meat was entirely
unfit for human consumption.
The situation envisioned in 22:30b is apparently the following: in the field a
wild animal attacks a goat or a sheep from the flock (cf. 22:13). The victim is
so seriously bitten or mauled that afterward it dies, but owing to the interven
tion of the shepherd the wild animal does not have the chance to devour the
prey. The meat of the mangled animal is considered unclean. Apparently for
meat to be suitable for human consumption it has be from a ritually slaugh
tered animal (cf. Lev. 7:26f.; 17:10ff.; 19:26; Deut. 12:15f.). Human consump
tion o f fa t (not of meat) of an animal found dead or tom by wild animals is
forbidden in Lev. 7:24; Leviticus reckons with the possibility of consumption
of unclean meat, and a regulation is given concerning the resultant uncleanness
(ll:39f.; 17:15f.). The laws are binding for both the Israelite and the alien
(Lev. 17:15f.). Emphatically, only the priests are forbidden to eat meat that is
not from a ritually slaughtered animal (22:8; cf. Ezek. 44:31). In Deut. 14:21
the ordinance holds for all Israelites - it is a mark of holiness, of being
consecrated to yhwh (cf. Exod. 19:6) - but not for the alien. Deut. 14:21 does
not have the distinction made in Leviticus between animals that died a natural
death and animals that were mauled. All cadaver meat is taboo for the Israelite.
Unlike in Exod. 22:30, one may not simply throw it away. It is not dog food,
but is to be given to the alien or to be sold to a foreigner.
In relation to other passages in the covenant book and the Pentateuch, 22:30b
raises questions. From 21:34f. one gets the impression that the meat of an
animal that died in a accident was used for human consumption (cf. also Lev.
Volume III1
ll:39f.; 17:15f.). Furthermore, it appears that 22:30b - contrary to what one

would expect - is more far-reaching as concerns the destiny of the meat than
Deut. 14:21.
First of all, it is to be noted that the dead animal in 21:34f. is not a n ^tp , a
tom animal. Generally speaking it may be said to be a ‘cadavei;’a n^3). All
this raises the question whether as regards 22:30b one should distinguish
between a later meaning (a prohibition of eating not ritually slaughtered meat)
and an earlier meaning: a taboo rests upon a tom animal; one fears that the
wild animal has infected its prey with its evil nature, so that the person who
eats the meat of the tom animal is in danger of getting infected as well (cf.
21:28). Infected by a representative of the ‘non-world’ (the wild animal), the
cow or sheep is only good for another representative of the ‘non-world’ (the
dog); there is to be no mingling of chaos and cosmos. The ordinance which
originally was only about the prey of a wild animal, has, in Leviticus and
Deuteronomy, become part of a general prohibition against eating not ritually
slaughtered meat. It received its strictest formulation in Deut. 14:21: under no
circumstance may an Israelite eat such meat. Schwienhorst-Schdnbeiger (see
2.2.1), 375ff., argues that 22:30bp is intended as a correction of Deut. 14:21a:
the unclean meat may not be given to humans or be sold; it is only good for
the dogs. It is, however, also possible that the author of Deut. 14:21 was not
familiar with the old taboo and wanted to leave or make room for the recog
nized value (cf. Lev. ll:39f.; 17:15f.) of the meat of the perished animals.2"
2.7.4 Sundry social stipulations (23:1-12)
23:1-12 contain a variety of social stipulations as well as some cultic laws with
a strong humanitarian interest (23:10-12). Often 23:1-9 is treated as a coherent
unit (e.g. Heinisch, Hyatt, Cassuto, Childs). I believe it is better to include
23:10-12 with 23:1-9 rather than with 23:13-19, which consists entirely of
stipulations that have to do with the YHWH cult. After all, in 23:10-12 the
social laws regarding the 11 (23:9, 12) and the needy (23:6, 11) are continued.
As for the structure, the following is important to notice:
-2 3 :1 , 2a, 2b, 3 contain four apodictically formulated («*? + imperf.) stipula
tions (see 2.2.5, 6), with in 23:1b a motivating clause with bg + imperf. (cf.
23:7b).
- 23:4, 5 consist of two casuistically formulated (see 2.2.5, 6) and similarly
constructed stipulations.21
211 For 22:30 see also M. Malul, JSO T 46 (1990), 101-6, and for the dietary laws more in
general, e.g. M. Douglas, “The Forbidden Animals in Leviticus,” JSO T 59 (1993), 3-23; E.
Firmage, “The Biblical Dietary Laws and the Concept of Holiness,” SVT 41 (1990), 177-208; W.
Houston, Purity and Monotheism: Clean and Unclean Animals in Biblical Law, Sheffield 1993.
Volume III1
EXODUS 23:1-3 237
- 23:6-9 contain four apodictically formulated (Kb + imperf. in 23:6, 8, 9)

stipulations, which in 23:7-9 are followed by variously formulated motivation
clauses (in 23:7, 9 successively by a clause introduced by waw and ’3; in 23:8
by a clause introduced by '3 and waw).
- 23:10-12 contain two positively formulated stipulations, successively relative
to the sabbatical year (23:10, 11) and the sabbath (23:12). They are like dual
commandments and are similarly constructed. Each consists of two ‘parallel’
time designations that are followed by one or two imperfects, each ending in a
final clause (in 23:11 with waw; in 23:12 with iffDb [see 1:11]) for motivation
of the commandments.
Formally but also materially 23:1-3 and 23:6-9 are quite similar. Theme of
both is the need for maintaining high standards of trustworthiness and fairness
in the legal system. 23:4, 5 and 23:10-12 urge a humane treatment of the
neighbour, even if that neighbour should be socially weak (23:10-12) or be a
person one dislikes.
23:4, 5 interrupt 23:1-3 and 23:6-9 not only formally but also as regards
content. Already Wellhausen regarded 23:4, 5 as an interpolation.212
In the extant text the related sections 23:1-3 and 23:6-9 serve a bracketing
function relative to 23:4, 5 (inclusio). Not sure is whether this construction is
deliberate. In any case, so far attempts to show a specific relationship of 23:4,
5 with the context have been unsuccessful.213*215For myself, I interpret 23:4, 5 as
an independent passage. For the character of 23:1-12 (no penalties are pre
scribed) see 2.2.4.
2.7.4.1 Fairness and trustworthiness in the legal system I (23:1-3)

23:1 ‘You shall not make lying statements. Thus you shall not make common
cause with a villain by making a wicked accusation.
2 You shall not imitate the evil practices o f the crowd. For example, in your
judgment on a certain matter you shall not side with the crowd - lest you find
yourself on a slippery slope.
3 You shall not favour a poor person when he has a dispute (with another
person).’
212 Wfellhausen*, Composition, 92. For the various views on the origin of 23:1-9 see Schwien-
horst-Schdnberger (see 2.2.1), 378ff. Cf. also C.M. Carmichael, “A Singular Method of Codifica
tion of Law in the Mishpatim," ZAW 84 (1972), 19-25. See on 23:1-9 also S. Herrmann,
“AAfeisheit im Bundesbuch: Eine Miszelle zu Ex 23,1-9.,” in J. Hausmann, H.J. Zobel (eds.),
Alttestamentlicher Glaube und Biblische Theologie (Fs H.D. PreuB), Stuttgart et al. 1992, 56-8.
215 Cf. Leibowitz*, 425ff. For a recent attempt see J. Magonet, “Ownership and Autonomy:
Elements of Composition in the ‘Book of the Covenant’,” in D. Cohn-Sherbok (ed.), A Traditio
nal Quest (Fs L. Jacobs), Sheffield 1991, 154-67.
Volume III1
The description of 23:1-3, 6-8(9) as ‘Richterspiegel’214 is not adequate. The

admonitions are not addressed to the (professional) judge, but to the free
Israelite who might be called on to testify in court as accuser or witness or
even have to act as judge. There is no reason, e.g. with Cassuto, to regard
23:1-3 as admonition to the witnesses and 23:6-8 as admonition to the judges.
23:1 23:1a and 23:1b are closely related. 23:1a is not a general prohibition of
slandei; as suggested by the translation ‘spread a false rumor’ (NY cf. LY
NEB, NRSV, NIV). In view of the sequel (23:lb-3, 6-9), which is about the
ethics in court procedures, this is not likely. The point at issue is slander that
leads to a court case (cf. Lev. 19:16; Deut. 22:13-19). Remember that in
Israelite society, one who had knowledge of wrongdoing of a neighbour was
obligated to press chaiges and act as a witness against such a person (cf. 20:16
and see 1.7.6.1). Consequently, slander is never ‘innocent.’ 23:1b lies in the
line of 23:1a. Thus it is obvious that 23:1a refers to the individual who is
prodded to discredit another person by slandering him or her, to the conniver
who serves an evil cause by giving false testimony (cf. 1 Kgs. 21). That 23:1a
and 23:1b are not two independent stipulations is also clear from the words that
are used. 23:1b does not, as in 23:1a, use ttb + imperf. (compare with 23:2a
and 23:2b: 2* Kb + imperf.), but btt + imperf. (cf. 23:7b, where the clause
with likewise functions as an explication). Materially 23:1 is therefore
related to 23:7, be it that 23:7 can have a broader neaning, is not necessarily
restricted to making a false accusation, giving false witness.
KtoJ (cf. 20:7 and see 6:8); here ‘to state’ (so e.g. Ibn Ezra, Cassuto); less
correct is ‘to spread’ (e.g. LV, NY NEB, NIV); LXX: ov> n ap aS e^ , ‘you
shall not accept/listen to’ (cf. also TO, TPsJ, TNf, SamTJ, Vulg. and see Mek.,
Ill, 160 and e.g. Vredenbuig, Dasbeig, Fox). In that case the stipulation would
be for the judge (cf. Rashi). K1I0 V0&, see Introd. §3.51.1 and 20:7. TNf has as
object ‘false witnesses;’ TPsJ: ‘deceptive words of the man who slanders his
neighbour with you’ (cf. Mek., Ill, 160). TV (Ges-K 48f; Joiion §81e),
see 7:23 and Introd. §3.21.2. cf. 23:7 and see 2:13. Striking is the use of
the large number of s-sounds (alliteration), rvrib (cf. Introd. §3.13.1) + “tv (see
20:16), interpreted as a case of ‘verbalization’ of the noun.
“tv is here and in Deut. 19:16; Ps. 35:11 used in a construct chain with Oipn
(OT 60*)215, which in Deut. 19 occurs parallel with (see Deut. 19:16,18),214*
214 So A. Alt, Kl. Schr., I, 361 n. 3; cf. e.g. J.W. McKay, “Exodus XXIII 1-3, 6-8: A
Decalogue for the Administration of Justice in the City Gate,” VT 21 (1971), 311-25. For the
form of administration of justice implied in 23:1-9 see e.g. F. Criisemann, “Das Gericht im Tor -
eine staatliche Rechtsinstanz,” in Fs Preufl (see above), 69-79.
2,5 See THAT\ I, 583ff.; 7WAT, II, 1050ff.; I. Swart, “In Search of the Meaning of hamas,”
JSem 3 (1991), 156-66.
Volume III1
EXODUS 23:1-3 239
marking the witness as a false witness who aims at wrong, the death of an
innocent person (cf. 23:7 and see TWAT, II, 1058; Phillips [see 1.1.1], 144f.;
Stoebe [see 1.7.1], 39ff.). In the LXX there is a play on words, with both fftfl
and 0»n rendered as 66ikoc : one must not throw one’s lot with 'the unjust’ (=
wicked people) to be ‘an unjust (wicked) witness.’ It is commonly held that
ODn must be related to the subject of the verse; he must not let himself be
moved to testify on behalf of a villain (so explicitly TO, TNf, Pesh., SamT and
see M ek., Ill, 160f.; Rashi). It is less probable that the Stfl and the HD are the
same person and that the stipulation enjoins the judge not to offer the evildoer
an opportunity to be an evil witness, (cf. TPsJ).
23:2 23:2a opposes wrongful behaviour in general (in the legal system; cf. e.g.
23:1, 3, 6, 7), making common cause with evildoers. The temptation to go
along with others must have been considerable in Israelite society, seeing it
was much less individualistic than modem western society. Breaking with the
majority, adopting a minority position, requires courage and a strong sense of
values, and it can easily happen that the witness who dares to take an unpopu
lar stand may have to pay dearly for it (cf. e.g. 1 Kgs. 19:10; Jer. 11:19).
O’STHCIS (Introd. §3.1.1 [+ run, see 2 Sam. 2:10; 1 Kgs. 16:21] and 1:9) is
translated both times in the LXX with p eta 7iAciova)v, ‘with the majority.’ The
context shows that the reference is not to a ‘moral majority.’ The likely
meaning of 0'a~) is ‘leading citizens’ of a city or clan. Though an is also used
with the meaning ‘mighty’ (Job 35:9; 2 Chr. 14:10), this is its meaning here
(cf. Childs).
nm*? (cf. KoSynt §245a and see 5:19), for b see e.g. Williams §273. TPsJ,
TNf, FT: + but in the doing of good (cf. M ek., Ill, 161). The second clause
with Kb contains an example (cf. Strack) of reprehensible behaviour in a legal
case which can have drastic consequences: from laziness (not prepared to form
an independent judgment) or from fear (having to defend a minority position)
one sides (as witness or as judge) with popular opinion, which results in a
dubious conviction.
The MT raises problems and is obscure (cf. Baentsch, Ehrlich, Childs, 450).
It is proposed to vocalize bs as b's, ‘injustice’ (‘to spread the injustice of a
suit’) and to understand nenb as ‘to rest’ (‘to recline with the great’); see R.
Althann, JNSL 11 (1983), 22f. 3"i b v nJltrrNbl (for H3J? see 4:1 and cf. Job
9:3, 14f.; 13:18-22; for bo e.g. Williams §289) is translated in the LXX with
ou itpooTeOfjofl p eta TtAfjOouq, ‘you shall not join yourself to the crowd’
(among others LXXB: 7tpoo0T|OT|, ‘you shall [not] choose for’); the LXX is
Volume III1
based on vocalizaton of 31 as a i 216 or 31 (MT: 31, scriptio defectiva [cf. Job

29:16] for a n [cf. 23:3, 6]). Prijs**, 13, believes that the LXX represents a
Talmudic tradition according to which the judge must always be impartial. TO,
TPsJ, TNf, FT offer a version that deviates from 23:2b (K*?1 till end), one that
boils down to an admonition to make up one’s own mind about a person or
issue and to voice that view; also the positive sides of the neighbour are to be
brought out; there must be a keen awareness that the judgment of the majority
is not necessarily right.217
Both nBJ1? (Ges-K §114o) and non1? (of HB3 qal [cf. Judg. 9:3; 1 Kgs. 2:28
and also 1 Sam. 8:3; 14:7] and hiph., see Introd. §3.21.9 and 23:6) are trans
lated in the LXX with eKtcACvai, in the second case with icpioiv = BBBD as
object (cf. 23:6). Sometimes, on the basis of the LXX, OBltfO(n) is added to the
MT (e.g. Baentsch; Beer). In the Vulg. ‘truth’ is inserted as object: ut a vem
devies, ‘so that you deviate from the truth.’ non1? I take as a consecutive
clause (cf. LXX, Vulg. and see KoSynt §§402z, 407a); Bohl renders it as
conditional: ‘if it conflicts with the law.’ The use of r-sounds (alliteration) in
the verse is striking.
23:3 In 23:3 the participants (witnesses or judges) in a court case are asked to
be impartial (cf. Deut. 1:17 and see Deut. 10:17f.; Acts 10:34f.).
11<7$ 2nd pers. imperf. of n n (see TWAT, II, 363), denominative verb of
HO* ‘splendor,’ ‘glory’ (see TWAT, II, 357ff.). In Lev. 19:32 n n qal + ’3$ is
used for ‘splendor,’ ‘give honour to’ (cf. Prov. 25:6 hithp.; Lam. 5:12 niph. [+
’ 3B]), in Lev. 19:15 in a similar context as Exod. 23:3 with the meaning ‘to
favour,’ ‘be partial to,’ in the sense of being overly positive about, painting too
rosy a picture of someone. Apparently "nn qal (without ’SB) also has this
meaning in 23:3. Object is bn (see 1:11). This has caused surprise, because
elsewhere in the OT the poor person is mainly the one who needs protection
(cf. 22:21-26; 23:6 and see e.g. Amos 2:7; 4:1; 5:11; 8:6; Pss. 72:13; 82:4;
113:7; Prov. 14:31; Job 31:16; often parallel with see 23:6); in those
passages it is not the favouring of the poor that constitutes the greatest threat to
impartial justice, but rather that of going by the social standing of the litigants,
the favouring of the powerful over the poor. For that reason it has been
proposed to read b'l) instead of bn) (e.g. Holzinger, Baentsch, B8hl, Heinisch).
Because Lev. 19:15 demands that people be treated without respect of persons,
both the poor (*?1) and the influential (bins), and the ancient versions support
the MT, the proposed emendation is unlikely. Even so, the onesidedness of the
stipulation (only the favouring of the poor is mentioned) remains striking,
216 In Talmudic exegesis 3^ is applied to the chief judge, and the clause is understood as
saying that the youngest judge should be the first to express his opinion and the chief judge come
last, so that also the younger judges can give their free and honest opinion (bSanh 36a; cf. Rashi).
1,7 See further Y. Freund, BetM 26 (1981), 129-36.
Volume III1
EXODUS 2 3 :4 , 5 241
whereas in practice the greatest threat must have been that of a class system of
justice. It has been proposed that a clause fell out (Dillmann, Strack). In line
with that Beer expands the object with bnjl: the poor and the mighty (cf. Lev.
19:15).
Not only with respect to the object, but also that of the prescribed procedure,
23:3 seems onesided. Might not the requirement not to favour the poor person
easily lead to being overly harsh on him or her? It has been aigued that 23:3 is
kept in balance by 23:6, which originally presumably came after 23:3: one
must not be too soft on the poor but not treat him unfairly either (cf. Cazelles
[see 2.2.1], 87). It has also been suggested that the surprise about 23:3 is due
to a wrong interpretation of Tin. Cazelles, 87f., proposes, invoking the Arabic,
that ‘shedding blood with impunity’ is meant: the poor person is molested as a
troublesome witness. In any case, it is possible that Lev. 19:15 is a conscious
correction, clarification of Exod. 23:3. 23:3 remains restricted to the following
situation: if a poor devil has an issue ( la n a [LXX: ev xpioei, ‘in a legal case;’
cf. Vulg.], see 17:2 and cf. 23:6) with another, then the witness or the judge
must be strictly impartial. Feelings of pity toward the poor are not to become
an overriding factor.
In the ancient versions it is explicitly brought out that one should not take
pity (LXX: ouk eAerjoeu;; Vulg.: non misereberis', TO: DPl’i n Kb; cf. also TPsJ
and see Pesh.; compare with Symm.: ou tipijocK; ev 61x13 autou; cf. Sal-
vesen*, 103f.) on a poor person who is guilty, because there is to be no respect
of persons in the court (TPsJ, TNf). In contrast to the modem legal system, a
defendant’s social circumstances are not taken into account, and the question of
whether these are extenuating factors does not enter the picture.
2.7.4.2 Helpfulness regardless o f the relationship to the other (23:4, 5)

23:4 ‘When you come upon an ox or a donkey o f your enemy wandering at
large, you shall forthwith take it back to him.
5 When you see the donkey o f someone with whom you do not get along
lying down under its burden, and you would be unwilling to help him, you
shall nevertheless forthwith give help.'
2.7.4.2.1 Bibl. A. Cooper, “The Plain Sense of Exodus 23:5,” HUCA 59

(1988), 1-22; H.B. Huffmon, “Exodus 23:4-5: A Comparative Study,” in H.N.
Bream et al. (eds.), A Light unto My Path (Fs J.M. Myers), Philadelphia 1974,
271-8; H.G. Williamson, “A Reconsideration of II in Biblical Hebrew;”
ZAW 97 (1985), 74-85.
How are the stipulations of 23:4, 5 to be characterized? As expression of
concern about the animal in need? As exhortations to show neighbourly love,
even to a person who is one’s enemy? The view that help to the domestic
animal in distress is at least an important objective of 23:4, 5 (e.g. Criisemann,
Volume III1
Tora [see 2.2.1], 211, 223, 306) is, I believe, doubtful. At least, not in 23:5
either (see exegesis), it is not said that the animal needs help. 23:4, 5 aim not
(cf. Introd. §9.5.4) at the protection of animals but of protection o f and helping
of the neighbour. Often the term ‘love of enemy’ is used to characterize 23:4,
5 (e.g. Otto, Ethik [see 2.2.1], 100ff.). In the history of interpretation 23:4, 5
have always played an important role in pleas for kindness, the willingness to
forgive, toward the neighbour, also if he should be your enemy (see the
extensive information in Cooper, 4ff.). No more than the characterization ‘love
of enemy’ (Matt. 5:44) is adequate for Prov. 25:2If. (cf. Prov. 24:17) is such
the case with respect to 23:4, 5 (cf. Vriezen*, 432f.). 23:4, 5 aim at protecting
the livelihood of the neighbour.
The reference to ‘enemy’ (23:4) and to ‘someone with whom you do not get
along’ (23:5) are not intended to be restrictive, but are meant to give the ad
monition the broadest scope: one may not even touch the means of support of
one with whom one is at odds, not by (gloating over his misfortune; cf. Job
31:29f.) remaining a passive bystander either. In short, the stipulations seek to
protect the other person’s means of making a living, regardless of how well
one relates to that person. 23:4, 5 aim at securing an apparently small commu
nity as a good place to live in. Background of these rules is not the lofty ideal
of ‘love of the enemy;’ rather they are pragmatic in orientation: solidarity with
every neighbour insofar as it concerns his means of support.218
2.7.4.2.2 23:4, 5 are given a new interpretation in Deut. 22:1-4 (cf. Fish-
bane*, 177f.). Let me cite a few elements of this actualization. Object of aid,
protection, is in Deut. 22 not ‘the enemy,’ but ‘the brother.’ As such this does
not produce a difference with Exod. 23, for the ‘enemy’ mentioned there is the
neighbour (cf. also Num. 35:23). The neighbour is also in view in the stipula
tions of Deut. 22:1-4, no matter, it may be assumed, the quality of the relation
ship. The use of the term ‘brother’ does, however, affect the sound of the
stipulations. The emphasis is less on the scope. The force of the term is
restrictive. Though also 23:4, 5 deal exclusively with the neighbour, the term
‘brother’ limits the stipulations of Deut. 22 emphatically to the neighbour. That
means that they do not apply to ‘the enmies’ (Deut. 20:1, 3, 4, 14; 21:10;
23:10, 14), those not members of one’s own people.
The term ‘brother’ at least creates clarity about the identity of the person
who needs protection. In the history of interpretation the wording ‘enemy’ has
given rise to the question concerning the precise identity of the person in view.
In Jewish exegesis the question has been raised, in light of Lev. 19:17, whether
the reference is really to the neighbour (cf. Leibowitz*, 427ff.). In view of the
218 Cf. B. Lang, “PersOnlicher Gott und Ortsgott: Ober Elementarformen der FrOmmigkeit im
alten Israel,” in M. GOrg (ed.), Fontes atque Pontes (Fs H. Brunner), Wiesbaden 1983, 271-301.
Volume III1
EXODUS 2 3 :4 , 5 243
context, ‘enemy’ has sometimes been restricted to the person with whom one is
(was) involved in a lawsuit, or with whom a lawsuit is imminent (Noth; cf.
also Halbe [see 2.2.1], 431). Meant, however, seems to be the fellow neighbour
with whom one is at loggerheads for a longer or shorter period of time (see
further exegesis 23:4).
Striking in Deut. 22 is also the interest in details and the generalization, the
expansion of the stipulations to other kinds and categories. Deut. 22:4 portrays
the situation of the donkey differently from Exod. 23:5: the animal has not lain
down, but (without burden?) has stumbled and is in distress. On this point
Deut. 22:4 offers a variant interpretation. Cooper’s thesis that Deut. 22:4 is the
beginning of a long history of wrongly interpreting 23:5, that it is not an
admonition to come to the aid of the enemy, but rather to leave his donkey to
his fate,219 is improbable (cf. Crtisemann, Tora, 220).
The HL §§45, 60-62, 71 contain stipulations pertaining to found goods and
animals in their relationship to finder and owner, which to some extent are
comparable to 23:4.
23:4 23:4 presupposes a small-scale, agrarian society; someone’s ox or donkey

has broken lose and is found wandering by another person; the finder must
return the animal to the owner, regardless of whether or not the two get along.
Failing to do so, one incurs the risk of being charged with theft (cf. 22:3 and
CE §50).
ffis (see 5:3 and cf. Amos 5:19) presupposes ‘seeing;’ hence the use of the
participial construction with respect to the object (cf. 23:5; Deut. 22:1, and see
Introd. §3.46.1).
‘ox,’ see Introd. §9.1.12. 3'K (see 15:6), TPsJ contains a further explanation:
‘whom you loathe due to a misdeed only you know about’ (the same charac
terization is found in 23:5; cf. Deut. 19:15; there is only one witness, therefore
the matter cannot be brought to court); cf. the discussion in M e t, III, 163,
about the question concerning the identity of the enemy: a gentile who wor
ships idols? a lapsed proselyte who had gone back to his former life? an
apostate Israelite or an ordinary Israelite? 3 'K is used, as is done more often
(Lev. 26:19; Deut. 30:7; Pss. 18:18; 21:9 etc.), parallel with NJto (23:5; see
1:10). This is a way of saying that the stipulations apply to all forms of
troubled relationships, regardless of nature and intensity. The alternation in
terminology is not brought out in LXX ( 2* cx0po<; oou) and in TO, TPsJ (2*
"JKJO), TNf (2* INJto), Pesh. (2* b'ldbb') (cf. also e.g. NV; see on the
219 For, ‘The recumbent animal affords an excellent opportunity for the exercise of revenge or
malice. At best, there might be a hostile and litigious misunderstanding with the owner of the
animal; at worst, there might be an actual crime against his property, perhaps leading to prosecu
tion for attempted theft. It is unlikely that any good will come of the encounter’ (p. 16).
Volume III1
contrary e.g. Vulg.: inimicus and odiens).

‘donkey’ (Introd. §9.1.16; cf. 1 Sam. 9:3-6, 20), in Sam.Pent.:+inona W,
‘or whatever beast from his livestock;’ for the generalization see also 21:28,
33, 35; 23:12, and cf. Deut. 22:1, 3. As such it is possible that ‘and his
donkey’ is an expansion (cf. Fishbane*, 178).
np'n part, qal of n»n (OT 50*; 27* qal; 21* hiph.), ‘to go astray’ (cf. e.g.
Isa. 53:6; Ps. 119:176; Job 38:41). See THAT, II, 1055ff.; TWAT, VIII, 719ff.
The part. sing. (plur. in LXX, Pesh., Vulg., TNf; cf. also Deut. 22:1 MT)
relates to each of both animals individually (cf. JoOon §148c note). In TPsJ the
participle is only related to the donkey ‘who strayed off the road.’ u a ’Cln atfn
(see 4:7), for the construction, which in the LXX is rendered with two different
verbs (anooxpeilrac a 7to 8<ooei<;, ‘returning (it) you shall give (it) back;’ cf.
Deut. 22:1 LXX), see e.g. Ges-K §113n; Joiion §123e; for suffix sing, (in e.g.
LV, NV, CV rendered as plur.) see above; in LXX and Vulg. it is left untrans
lated.
23:5 pictures the following situation: someone transports a load with his
donkey, but suddenly the animal stops and lies down, thereby disadvantaging
its owner; someone who happens to be in the vicinity must help, regardless of
how well he relates to the owner.
m n (Introd. §3.46.1), for conclusions drawn from the difference in terminol
ogy with 23:4 (‘to come upon’) in Jewish exegesis (the stipulation also holds
for someone who is some distance away), see e.g. Mek., Ill, 165; Leibowitz*,
433. see 23:4.
part, qal of (OT 30*), ‘to lie down’ (often for the resting of
animals), which is repeatedly used parallel with n m (see 2:17) (Isa. 11:7;
14:30; 27:10; Ezek. 34:14f.; Zeph. 2:7; 3:13; Cant. 1:7). See TWAT, VII,
320ff. With the donkey as subject, y s i also occurs in Gen. 49:14 and (+ nnn)
in Exod. 23:5; Num. 22:27. Commonly the following situation is envisaged in
23:5: a donkey succumbs under his load. Likely what is meant is that a
(heavily) loaded donkey stops at an inconvenient moment and lies down at an
inconvenient spot (cf. Num. 22:27), refusing to go on, while the owner by
himself is unable to prod the animal to get up (cf. Huffmon, 274; Williamson,
85; Cooper, 3, 14). f 3 T is in the LXX rendered with nenxtoKo? (cf. Deut. 22:4
LXX): the animal has fallen and cannot get up by himself. KtPD, see 6 :8.
From n b im (see 9:29) 23:5 presents great problems to the interpreter The
most important are: (1) The relation of the clause beginning with n*?im to the
other parts of the verse. Is n b im also dependent on ’3 and the start of a
second protasis or does it introduce the first of two apodoses? (2) The content
of 3T» (see 2:20) is problematic, the more so because the envisioned activity,
at least in the common understanding of 23:5ap (n b im etc.), apparently should
not be performed, while according to 23:5b it should definitely be done.
Volume III1
EXODUS 2 3 :4 , 5 245
Already the ancient versions reflect the wrestling with the text. The LXX
offers a rendering ad sensunr. ou 7iapeA.euofl avid, aAAa ouveyepetc auto
p e t’ autou, ‘then you shall not pass by it (the donkey), but shall help him (the
enemy) to raise it;’ cf. Vulg.: non pertransibus, sed sublevabis cum eo (cf. also
23:5b in SamTA; differently SamTJ). In the taigums a rendering with elucida
tion is given and 3TB is given a different meaning in each of the two clauses.
The first 3TB is translated in TO with bptf: ‘and you would not want to raise it
for him’ (cf. also Pesh., where bptf is also used in the second clause: ‘then
nevertheless you shall help him to raise it’); in TPsJ with 3 lp : ‘and you would
not want to go to him;’ in TNf with plD: ‘and you would not want to unload
(it) with him.’ In TO, TPsJ, TNf the second 3TB is rendered as p3tf, ‘to let
go,’ and the ‘of course you shall let it go’ is given the object ‘whatever in your
heart you have against him’ (TO; in the same spirit TPsJ and TNf), and the
verse concludes with the admonition ‘and then you shall unload (the donkey)
([pna]; see TO, TPsJ, TNf) with him (TO) and reload (it) (IBB) with him’
(TPsJ, TNf). The command to load as well as to reload rests on rabbinic
combination of 23:5 and Deut. 22:4 (cf. Mek., Ill, 166f., and see also Leibo-
witz*, 433ff.).
In the course of time various solutions to the problems in 23:5 haven been
proposed. So Rashi proposes (referring to Deut. 32:36; Neh. 3:8) that STB in
23:5 means ‘helping’ and 23:5ap has a tone of surprise: ‘can you possibly
forbear to help him? You shall surely ...’ (cf. Leibowitz*, 429ff.). Also in e.g.
SV 23:5aP is rendered as an interrogative sentence. There, however, with
retention of the customary meaning of 3TB: ‘would you forbear in leaving what
is yours for him? You shall certainly leave it with him.’ It has also been
argued that STB in 23:5 is used with two meanings; in 23:5aP with the usual
meaning (‘then you shall hold back from leaving him to his fate’) and in 23:5b
with the meaning ‘to help’ (Mandelkem: succumere), ‘to free’ (BDB: ‘to set
free’ [‘aid him to set it free’]), ‘to arrange’ (Cassuto). Sometimes it is thought
that the text in 23:5b is corrupt and that nfyp nity (see 18:4) is the correct
reading (see e.g. Baentsch; Ehrlich [*itbo in 23:5ap]; Beer; KBL; other conjec
tures in Cooper, 21). The last suggestion is unfounded. As concerns the others,
the question arises: can 3TB mean ‘helping’ and the like? Is it reasonable to
assume that in one verse 3TB is used with different meanings?
In the past, several lexicologists have defended the existence of two hom-
onymic roots STB (e.g. Ges-B; BDB; KBL). Sometimes in 23:5 also 3TB was
thought of as belonging to the second root 3TB (e.g. Mandelkem; cf. also Zo.).
In recent decades, with an appeal to Ugaritic, the supposed existence of 3TB II
has received widespread support, and more and more texts with 3TB, including
23:5, are reckoned with 3TB II {THAT, II, 249; HAL); 3TB in 23:5b, following
Cassuto according to whom 23:5 contains a play on words of STB I and 3TB II,
Volume III1
246
was given the meaning ‘arrange.’220 The presence of a play on words in 23:5 is
quite improbable. Also, the existence in Hebrew of two homonymic roots 3TB
has rightly been challenged.221
It is time to wind up this discussion. If 23:5a(3 is interpreted as an interroga
tive sentence, it is possible to assign the same meaning to 3 t8 in 23:5a-b. That
possibility also exists if 23:5ap is regarded as a second protasis dependent on
’3 . That interpretation of 23:5ap is, I believe, correct (cf. Williamson, 82f.) and
is preferable to the customary view that 23:5ap is the first of two apodoses.
Attempts to explain 23:5 with the help of the customary meaning of 3 T1?
produce unsatisfactory results. See e.g. Buber-Rosenzweig: ‘enthalte dich, ihms
zu iiberlassen - herunter, herunterlassen sollst du zusammen mit ihm;’ ‘lassen’
is used in a twofold sense (cf. already Keil: ‘iiberlassen’ and ‘loslassen
[losmachen]’). Consistent use of 3tlt in the customary sense produces an
improbable picture of the intent of 23:5.222 Citing Deut. 32:36; Job 10:1; 20:13,
Williamson has argued that 3TJJ can also mean ‘release’ in the sense of setting
free (pp. 82f.; cf. Cooper, 20). That way one again comes close to the earlier
view (already set forth by Rashi) that the word means ’to help.’ Likely it is
best to assume that 3t S can also have that meaning. The owner of the donkey
must be assisted. Given help, it is easier for him to get the donkey back on its
feet and moving. Whether the help also extends to the unloading and reloading
of the donkey remains unclear
lb and l»» refer to the owner; cf. lb in 23:4 (not so Cooper, 15f.: to the
donkey). It is assumed that he accompanies and drives his donkey.
Jewish exegesis has touched on the question of whether there might be cases
in which one would not have to help one’s enemy (see e.g. Mek., Ill, 166; cf.
Cooper, Ilf.).
2.1A 3 Fairness and trustworthiness in the legal system II (23:6-9)

23:6 ‘You shall not, if a needy person who is dependent on you has a dispute
(with you), pervert justice.
7 You shall keep fa r from a false charge, indeed one who is innocent and in
the right you shall not put to death, fo r I will not acquit the guilty.
8 You shall not take a bribe. For bribes blind those who see and are the
reason that causes o f people who are in the right have a bad outcome.
220 See HAL [Bibl.!]; S. Talmon, W.W. Fields, TAW 101 (1989), 108; cf. also B. Maigalit,
ZAW 99 (1987), 395f.
221 See especially the discussion in Williams; cf. also TWAT, V, 1200f.; M. Dietrich, O. Loretz,
UF 17 (1985), 105-16; Cooper, 20, 22.
222 See Cooper, 20; this also holds for Cooper’s own interpretation; he renders; ‘And you
would refrain from leaving it [the donkey], you must leave the animal alone’ (pp. 15f.); Cooper
denies that 23:5 is about love of the enemy (see 2.7.4.2.2).
Volume III1
EXODUS 2 3 :6 -9 247
9 You shall not make miserable the alien i life. For you know the feelings o f
the alien, because you yourselves were aliens in the land o f Egypt! ’
23:6 23:6 is not, as is commonly thought, directed against the denial of justice
to the poor in general, but deals with the abuse of power in a specific relation
ship. The assumed situation is the following: a person who has fallen on hard
times (cf. e.g. 22:24a) has a dispute with a neighbour, to whom he is now
beholden. That neighbour must resist the temptation to misuse his position of
power by pressuring the defenseless person to relinquish possible claims he
may have on him, or by in some other way violating his rights (cf. e.g.
22:25f.). Also helpless people are entitled to have their rights respected (cf. Job
31:13).
noa hiph. + QQtfn (see Introd. §3.21.9 and 2:14), cf. Deut. 16:19; 24:17;
27:19; 1 Sam. 8:3; Prov. 17:23; 18:5; Lam. 3:35. Ehrlich thinks that the
expression refers to the refusal by the judge to take up a case (cf. Isa. 1:23b;
Luke 18:1-5). In the Vulg. the first three words of 23:6 are rendered ad sensum
with non declinabis, ‘y°u shall not be devious with;’ in the LXX, rtBJ (now
with object) is rendered with another term (8iaoi:pei|;ei<;) than the one used in
23:2.
^ ’3 $ (see 1:11), cf. Deut. 15:11; is with ‘your needy’ meant the needy who
is a member of your people, the needy who lives in your land (cf. 22:24a and
see 23:11a; Ps. 132:15)? Is ‘your’ intended as an appeal to the conscience of
the community, or is ‘your needy’ in a more restricted sense the person who is
specifically dependent on another (see Job 31:13 and cf. Ps. 72:2)? I opt for
the latter interpretation. The somewhat striking suffix (in 23:3 it is absent), left
untranslated already in LXX, Pesh., TPsJ, Vulg. (cf. e.g. LV, CV, WV), has
occasioned the suggestion that *|3 ?K, ‘your enemy,’ is to be read and that there
is a relation with 23:4 (■p’N) and 23:5 ("|NJto), and that 23:6 perhaps originally
came before 23:4 (cf. Holzinger; Bohl). Cassuto considers emendation of the
text unnecessary and proposes that yP3N in 23:6 means ‘adversary,’‘opponent.’
l a n a (cf. 23:3), evidently the lawsuit of the needy with the person to whom
he is beholden. Assuming the correctness of my interpretation of "jraK, it can
be concluded that in Deuteronomy the more specific stipulation of 23:6 has
become a general prohibition to pervert justice (Deut. 16:19a), from which in
practice especially the socially vulnerable would benefit (cf. Deut. 24:17;
27:19). Deut. 16:19a has the first three words in common with Exod. 23:6. But
the words l a n a "jJ’aN are absent in Deut. 16:19. As a plus relative to Exod.
23:6-8, in Deut. 16:19 the rtfcrttb is followed by the general T9P
D’Jp, ‘you shall not be a respecter of persons.’
23:7 23:7a is directed against perversion of justice through deceit. Not entirely
clear is what sort of dishonourable conduct is in view: the giving of false tes
Volume III1
timony (cf. 20:16), the enlisting of false witnesses, or the handing down of an
indictment on the ground of evidently false testimony (cf. Deut. 19:18f.) or
insufficient evidence (cf. \fol.I, 472, and see also Leibowitz*, 441ff.). See also
23:1 and Sus. 53. On the object nptf“ iaiD, which, by being placed first
(KOSynt §339m), is emphasized, see Introd. §3.12.3 and 5:9; LXX: ‘of every
unjust word;’ Vulg.: mendacium (fugies), ‘(you shall avoid) the lie.’ p m , see
2:4.
The waw at the beginning of 23:7b (not translated in LXX, Vulg.) I take as
an explicative waw. In the form of a prohibition, 23:7b concretely shows the
consequences of the behaviour condemned in 23:7a; one becomes guilty of
judicial murder (cf. 1 Kgs. 21, and see 20:13; cf. beside it Prov. 14:25). It is
also possible to take 23:7b as a final clause: ‘to prevent that (so) you would
become a killer,’ or as a causal clause: ‘for you shall... not kill.’
p n s i ’PJ1 (see 20:7 and 9:27),223 hendiadys; cf. TNf: N in a ’a t m p bai,
‘and everyone acquitted by the court.’ Sam.Pent.: K’pJ (cf. Ges-K §23i; BL
§71x). Jin (see 2:14), here for execution after sentencing (cf. Lev. 20:15f.;
Deut. 13:10 and e.g. Exod. 21:12, 14-17; 1 Kgs. 21:13).
The commandment not to put an innocent person to death seems so obvious
that it has been asked whether perhaps something else might be meant. It is an
old question. In TO p n s is applied to the person who was acquitted but later
turns out to be guilty; such a person may not be killed or re-tried; in TPsJ ’pll
is identified as one who was wrongly acquitted and p’nx as the one who was
indicted but later turned out to be innocent (in that case there must be a new
trial; cf. Mek., Ill, 171f.; bSanh 33b, and see Rashi). Cassuto defends a
metaphorical meaning of n rt: ‘cause great harm’ (cf. Durham). The appeal for
that to Prov. 7:26 (metaphor) lacks cogency.
23:7c contains a motivation whose scope need not be restricted to 23:7a, b,
but which can be expanded to include the previous verses and can be taken as
a general warning. God will deal with the perverters of justice, who are beyond
human jurisdiction. He will make sure that justice will be served. Important for
the interpretation of 23:7c is the answer to the question of who is meant by
BEh. In the above interpretation, it is the subject of 23:7a, b, the individual
who is rather careless with the truth. God judges him (cf. e.g. Cassuto). If
23:7a, b is read as an admonition to the judges, Ben can also be read as
applying to the object of 23:7a, b, and 23:7a, b be taken as an appeal to the
judges to be cautious in sentencing someone, and not to be afraid to acquit a
defendant if there should be less than solid evidence for his guilt; they may do
that in the confidence that God will not leave the truly guilty unpunished
233 Cf. H. Gossai, “saddiq in Theological, Forensic and Economic Perspectives,” SEA S3
(1988), 7-13.
Volume III1
EXODUS 2 3 :6 -9 249
(Ehrlich, Jacob).224 Also in TO and TPsJ (see above) 23:7c functions as

motivation with 23:7b: the acquitted person who is guilty nevertheless is not
blameless before God; nor will God hold blameless the person who does not
revise the indictment of one who was unjustly condemned.
It it worthy of note, too, that the alternation of subject in 23:7c is rather
surprising. Sam.Pent. has p’nsn (instead of p’lJtN): one shall not let (the
guilty one) go free. In the LXX ’3 is rendered with kom and the 2nd pers. sing,
retained: ‘and you shall not let the godless (guilty) go free fo r gifts.' The
addition evcicev 6<ipwv anticipates 23:8 (cf. Frankel*, 105; Prijs**, 13f.). Thus
the LXX offers a rendering with two nicely contrasting clauses, so that it
causes no surprise that, with emendation of the MT, the translation ‘and the
person who is guilty you shall not let go free’ is suggested (cf. Prov. 17:15 and
see e.g. Baentsch, Beer; cf. Noth) ( p n s is contrated by Ptfn [cf. 23:1 and see
2:13] in the sense of ‘guilty’ [K3,'n in TO; cf. TPsJ, TNf, Pesh., SamT2]). In
the Vulg. 23:7c is rendered as a motivation without denial, but with negative
import: quia aversor impium, ‘for I turn away from the godless.’
23:8 23:8 is aimed at corruption in the judicial process. Bribery makes a

mockery of lawsuits (cf. 23:7a). Only individuals who abhor corruption (cf.
18:21 and see \fol. II, 417ff.), have a keen sense of right and wrong (cf. 2 Chr.
19:7). Several passages (Mic. 7:3; Prov. 18:16 and see below) show that the
taking of bribes was quite prevalent, destabilizing Israelite society. Warnings
against it are also found in Israel’s ‘Umwelt’ (see LA, I, 765 [cf. ANET, 415b,
424a]; RLA, II, 19). The passage is a favourite in rabbinic literature. It is
stressed that a judge may never accept gifts, also not if he is impartial. He may
not accept the smallest courtesy to avoid even the appearance of partiality (see
Leibowitz*, 448ff.).
in© (OT 23 x), ‘gift,’ always a gift to ingratiate oneself with another (e.g.
1 Kgs. 15:19; 2 Kgs. 16:8; Isa. 45:13) in hopes of getting something from the
other in return, often bribe money to influence the another to look the other
way, do what is wrong (Deut. 10:17; 16:19; 27:25; 1 Sam. 8:3; Isa. 1:23; Ezek.
22:12; Ps. 15:5; Prov. 17:23 etc.). See TfVAT, VII, 1208ff. The object in tf is
made emphatic by being placed first. In the parallel passage Deut. 16:19b the
object follows after the verb.225 Kb, Sam.Pent.: bK. ‘to accept,’ see Introd.
§3.30. initfn, for article see Ges-K §126m; Joiion §137i. ’3 (Introd. §3.25.2)
224 F.C. Fensham, VT 26 (1976), 270, also applies SftSl to the object of the sentencing o f 23:7a,
b and understands 23:7c as saying that y h w h will not let the individual who has been acquitted
by bribed judges go free. This interpretation is less fitting with the foregoing and presupposes in
fact the verson of the LXX (see below).
225 Cf. also TS, LVII, 19-20a, where Deut. 16:19 and Exod. 23:8 have been related to the
righteous king. See D.D. Swanson, The Temple Scroll and the Bible, Leiden et al. 1995, 139f.
Volume III1
introduces two parallel clauses which are reminiscent of Wisdom literature (cf.
Sir. 20:29). pi.226 (see 4:11), for imperf. see Ges-K § 107g; JoOon §113c.
D’npB (see 4:11), in Sam.Pent. preceded by TU, ‘the eyes of;’ cf. LXX,
Pesh., TO, TPsJ, TNf, SamTJ (SamTA: ram ); also occurs in the parallel
Deut. 16:19b, but there is followed by the more traditional nomen rectum
O’Ojn, ‘the wise’ (cf. Sir. 20:29); in TO, Exod. 23:8 is rendered in line with
Deut. 16:19b; cf. also Aq. (oo4>o>v); Pesh. (hkym’ bein', ‘learned in the law’);
Vulg. (prudentes). TNf contains the interpretation ’1303 [,]3,,», ‘the eyes of
those who accept [the gift];’ also TPsJ has this interpretation, but alongside of
it also the interpretation ‘the wise’ (‘[the gift] throws the wise from their
seats’).
imperf. (with copulative waw) pi. of *)bo (OT 7*), which here and in
Deut. 16:19 is often understood as ‘subvert.’ Also the interpretation ‘to
corrupt,’ ‘bring to ruin’ (cf. Prov. 13:6; 21:12; 22:12; Job 12:19) is a possibil
ity. One’s interpretation of the verb is also dependent on one’s interpretation of
o n s n (Introd. §3.12.3) and D’p n s (cf. 23:7): (1) Does it mean ‘words’ and is
the idea behind it that gifts pervert the words of ‘honest people’ (judges or
witness), coax them to distort the truth? (cf. e.g. Buber-Rosenzweig, Fox; WV,
GNB, NEB, NIV, and see already Vulg.: et subvertunt verba instorum).
Already in the LXX O’l S l is understood as ‘words;’ D’p lS is taken as an
adjective (cf. e.g. Ges-K §128w): pripata 6iicaia, ‘righteous words;’ the same
rendering is also found in TO ( p s ’i n pasriB) and presupposes an exegetical
tradition which is explicitly articulated in TPsJ and Mek., Ill, 172: the righ
teous words are the words of the Torah of the Sinai; they are being perverted
because bribed individuals try to use them to do violate justice (cf. Prijs**,
65f., and see Rashi). TPsJ contains yet a second interpretation: (the gift)
confuses the words of the innocent in the hour of judgment. Also in TNf
D’lBT is understood as ‘words:’ (the gift) removes the words of the righteous
judgment in the lawsuit.227 (2) Or does it mean ‘juridical cases,’ and is the idea
behind it that gifts put defendants who have the right on their side at a disad
vantage, because the bribing of witnesses and/or judges causes the truth to be
violated and makes it impossible for the innocent to get a fair hearing? (cf. e.g.
LY NY Dasberg, and see e.g. Beer, Heinisch, Childs, Durham). In line with
my exegesis of 23:7 I opt for the latter interpretation.
23:9 Beside 23:9 see 22:20 and the comments there.

ynbn, 2nd pers. plur. isnbn in Sam.Pent. (so also in 22:20); cf. LXX, Pesh.,
226 Ehrlich reads V i;; (hiph. of n ip ) and believes that OTtpB here denotes slippery persons,
who are lured by the practice of giving bribes and use it to put pressure on the judges.
227 For the discussion about it among Jewish expositors, see Leibowitz*, 453fF.
Volume III1
EXODUS 2 3 :1 0 -1 2 251
TO, TPsJ. onto (change to 2nd pers. plur.), copulative waw introduces a causal
clause (cf. LXX, TNf); see Ges-K §158a; Joiion §170c (differently KOSynt
§360a,e). ‘to know,’ see Introd. §3.22. ‘feelings’ (see Introd. §3.35.1), TPsJ:
BiSJ p’3K, ‘fear of the soul.’ For the clause with ’3 see 22:20.
2.7.4.4 Sabbatical year and sabbath as social institutions (23:10-12)

23:10 ‘A nd fo r six years you may sow your land and harvest its yield.
11 But during the seventh (year) you shall leave it alone and let it lie fallow,
so that the needy o f your people can eat o f it and the wild animals can eat
what they leave. With your vineyard and your olive orchard you shall do the
same.
12 Six days you may do your work, but on the seventh day you shall rest, in
order that your ox may rest as well as your donkey and the homebom slave
may get relief and likewise the alien. ’
2.7.4.4.1 Bibl.: ABD, V, 857ff.; DB, IV, 323ff.; IDB, IV, 142ff.; IDBS, 762f.;
Y Amit, “The Jubilee Law - An Attempt at Instituting Social Justice,” in
Reventlow, Hoffman (see 2.2.1), 47-59; W. Dietrich, ‘“ ... den Armen das
Evangelium zu verkiinden’,” ThZ 41 (1985), 31-43 (pp. 36-41); J.A. Fager,
Land Tenure and the Biblical Jubilee, Sheffield 1993; Hamilton (see 2.4.1); U.
GleBmer, “Der 364-Tage-Kalender und die Sabbatstruktur seiner Schaltungen
in ihrer Bedeutungen fur den Kult,” in D.R. Daniels et al. (eds.), Emten, was
man sat (Fs K. Koch), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1991, 379-98; Phillips (see 1.1.1),
75ff.; G. Robinson, “Das Jobel-Jahr,” in Fs Koch (see above), 471-94;
Schwienhorst-Schonberger (see 2.2.1), 389ff.; De Vtux*, I, 307ff.; M. Wein-
feld, “Sabbatical Year and Jubilee in the Pentateuchal Laws and the Ancient
Near Eastern Background,” in T. Veijola (ed.), The Law in the Bible and its
Environment, Helsinki/Gottingen 1990, 39-62; R. Westbrook, “Jubilee Laws,”
in idem, Property and the Family in Biblical Law, Sheffield 1991, 36-57;
C.J.H. Wright, “What Happened Every Seven Years in Israel? I,” EvQ 56
(1984), 129-38; cf. idem, God’s People in God’s Land, Grand Rapids/Exeter
1990, 142-8.
2.7.4.4.2 23:10, 11 contain stipulations with respect to the sabbatical year
(for the term see Lev. 25:2-7). Every seventh year, for the duration of the
natural season, the customary activities in the fields, vineyards and olive groves
are to cease. Whatever grain, grapes (wine) and olives (oil) they produce by
themselves is for the needy; the remainder is for the wild animals.
The unquestionably social provisions raise several questions. There is, to start
with, the question concerning the feasibility.
Is it economically possible for a whole year to stop farming? It has been
argued that that is not what is demanded. What is required of farmers, it is
said, is to see to it that periodically, each field in turn, at least once every
Volume III1
seven years, their fields, vineyards and olive groves are left untended. Presum
ably the idea of a universally and simultaneously observed sabbatical year is a
later invention and articulated in Lev. 25 and Deut. 15.221 On the adoption of
this view, another problem would be solved as well, that of the restricted scope
of 23:10, 11 as social provision. Getting ‘social assistance’ once every years is
of not much help to the needy. On the other hand, if every year they are given
a portion of the land, 23:10, 11 would be a genuinely humanitarian regulation.
It is doubtful that 23:10, 11 permits that interpretation. The parallellism of
23:10, 11 and 23:12 makes it improbable. The sabbath, the day of rest, is an
institution which was to be observed by all at the same time. The same seems
to be true of the sabbatical year (e.g. McNeile, Beer, Heinisch, Noth). If an
individual, field-by-field practice were meant, this should have been indicated
in some way.
The feasibility question remains pressing. Must one assume that Israelite
farmers had to make sure that they had enough supplies to carry them through
the seventh year? (cf. Lev. 25:20-22). And did they manage, because they were
also raising cattle and the income from their flocks was a welcome supplement
to their livelihood? (cf. Heinisch). Also the question of the social effect
remains pressing. Is it not so that the sabbatical year worsens the ‘social
problem?’ The poor are given opportunity to gather a harvest, but the lack of
work in the agricultural sector causes a laige rise in the number of unemployed
day labourers, not all of whom could find work on cattle farms. Or could it be
that 23:11 is meant as a ‘social provision’ for the sabbatical year to feed the
mouths of day labourers and others who were out of work in the seventh year
(cf. Heinisch) and was this provision a welcome supplement to the ‘regular
law’ of Lev.l9:9f.; 23:22; Deut. 23:24f.; 24:19ff.?**229
2.7.4.4.3 That leads to the question of the tenor and intent of the stipulation.
It can be called a social law, but, so one could ask, might the social purport be
secondary, and could that be the reason for the somewhat problematic nature of
23:11 as social regulation?
Several suggestions have been made about the original meaning of the
sabbatical year. ( 1) Originally it was not the sowing but the harvesting that was
forbidden once every seven years (per field; see above); the crop was to go to
2“ See e.g. Wfellhausen*, Prolegomena, 111; Bertholet*, 145f.; Benzinger*, 390; Holzinger,
Baentsch. For comparison reference is made to 21:2f.; the precise moment of the freeing o f the
slave is relative, depending on the time when he became a slave (see 2.4.12). In 23:10, 11 the
terms TS1K, " j m a and ~jn'T are used for agrarian property. Going by the wording o f the text, it
would seem preferable to think of the in turn leaving fallow of individual fields etc., or o f the in
turn closing down of farms.
229 For rabbinic exegesis of these passages see R. Brooks, Support f o r the P oor in the Mishnaic
Law o f Agriculture: Tractate Peah, Chico 1983.
Volume III1
EXODUS 2 3 :1 0 -1 2 253
the community as a whole, in effect to the underprivileged (McNeile; cf.

Wellhausen*, Prolegomena, 111, 113). (2) The stipulation reflects practical
experiences and religious motifs; it prevents depletion of the nutrients in the
soil and conserves its fertility; it guarantees the favour and power of the spirits
ruling the soil (Beer; cf. also J. Moigenstem, IDB, IY 142). (3) It is intended
as a restitutio in integrum, a return of the land to its original state of rest,
undisturbed by human hands (Noth; cf. also Hyatt, Clements).
Before dealing with these suggestions, let me point out that in Lev. 25:4 the
sabbatical year is typified as ‘a sabbath to YHWH’ and that it is emphasized in
Lev. 25:23 that the land belongs to Him. Lev. 25 contains an interpretation of
Exod. 23:10, 11. In respect to the elements mentioned, Lev. 25 makes explicit
what is implicit in 23:10, 11. The book of the covenant contains stipulations of
YHWH. Heeding them is a sign of respect toward Him and the acknowledge
ment that He is the master of Israel’s land. Clear, moreover, is the division of
time into holy cycles controlled by the sacred number seven (cf. also 23:12).
Following up on Noth’s view, I believe it is possible that back of the stipula
tion there lies the idea of a taboo resting on the permanent use of the land;
therefore once every seven years one surrendered the land, so that the land
claimed from the wild (nature) was returned to the wild. On this interpretation
the mention of the wild animals in 23:11 is understandable. They are not
mentioned to bring out that God is also the Creator of the wild animals and
provides for them (Gispen, Cassuto, Cole);230 rather, they function as represen
tatives of the wilderness, the ‘counter world,’ which takes possession of the
cultivated land. The ‘counter world’ also includes the poor, the pariah’s of
society, the representatives of the world as it is not supposed to be (cf. Hout-
man*, Wereld, 37ff.). They, too, go to the land handed back to the wild, which
the representatives of ’the world,’ culture, namely, the owner of the ground and
his household, including his animals (cf. 23:12), may not use for an entire
year.231 In Exod. 23 the ancient taboo can still be detected (in the mention of
the wild animals), but the stipulation has acquired a social function; there all
emphasis is on the needy as object while the wild animals play only a second
ary role. Other suggestions that have been made to explain 23:10, 11 are
unsatisfactory. It is doubtful, for example, that in that distant past it was known
230 Cf. Pss. 36:6; 104:21,27f.; Matt. 6:26,28,30; 10:29-31; Luke 12:24, and see Houtman*,
Wereld, 32ff.
251 Implicitly, 23:11, against the background of 23:12, contains the following contrast: while
the ‘civilized world’ keeps sabbath, is resting, the representatives of the counter world are active.
Normally kept out, they now have free play. According to rabbinic exegesis, they are exempt
from obeying the law of giving the tithes (Mek., III, 176f.; Rashi).
Volume III1
that leaving fields untilled from time to time was good for the land.232 It seems
more likely that one feared that the land, as a result of being left fallow, might
turn into wasteland.
2.7.4.4.4 Lev. 25:1-7, 18-22 contains a new version of Exod. 23:10, 11 (cf.
Fishbane*, 180, 253). For example, in the formulation the vineyard is given an
equal place alongside the field (Lev. 25:3f.). The yield of the land in the
sabbatical year is no longer exclusively for the poor and the wild beasts, but is
especially for the owner and his family, including his animals. The needy are
not even explicitly mentioned anymore (Lev. 25:6, 7).233 The problem of the
collective, similtaneous observance of the stipulation is taken up in Lev. 25:20-
22. 23:10, 11, which used to be primarily a social stipulation, has in Lev. 25
been turned into a stipulation that regulates the consequences of a religious
requirement of YHWH.
A radical reinterpretation of 23:10, 11 is given in Deut. 15:1-11 (cf.
31:10).234 The passage builds on the use of Bfttf in 23:11 (npptp is keyword in
Deut. 15:1, 2, 9). The link with the seasonal year is abolished. The needy is
not the individual who once every seven years may go for food to the ‘resting’
land, but - as a more efficient solution to the social problem - the individual
who after a period of six years may in the seventh year start with a clean slate.
In Deut. 15 the sabbatical year is the year of the cancellation of debts.235
2.7.4.4.5 The OT contains no information about the actual practice of the
sabbatical year. It does address the neglect of it (Lev. 26:34f.; 2 Chr. 36:21)
and the taking on of the obligation to obey the ordinance (Neh. 10:32; based
on Exod. 23:11 and Deut. 15:1, 2; cf. Fishbane*, 135, 251). In later times, its
observance was considered highly important in orthodox circles (e.g. Jub.
50:2f.; cf. 7:37). The practice of the sabbatical year (since the 2nd century B.C.)
is related in 1 Macc. 6:49, 53 and in Josephus (AJ, XI, 343; XII, 378; XIII,
234; XIV, 202, 475; XV 7; BJ, I, 60).236 The information provided shows that
the heeding of the laws could influence the course of events; in periods of
drought and war it made the Jews particularly vulnerable. In Palestine the
institution of the sabbatical year continued to be practiced until the time of the
crusades. Also due to the experiences of the Jewish people it has fallen into
151 See howeverl D.C. Hopkins, “Life on the Land: The Subsistence Struggles o f Early Israel,”
BA 50 (1987), 178-91 (p. 185).
233 Also not the wild animals? Is in Lev. 25:7 to be taken as ‘livestock?’ (cf. Num. 35:3).
234 Cf. e.g. S. Springer, Neuinterpretation im Alien Testament, Stuttgart 1979, 63f.
235 The controversial interpretation of Deut. 15 (cancellation of debts, postponement pay etc.)
we leave out of consideration here. See e.g. Wright, 134ff.; idem, ABD, V, 858f. Is in Deut.
14:28; 26:12 the sabbatical year (after 2x3 years) to be presumed? (cf. IDBS, 762).
234 Cf. J. Jeiemias, “Sabbathjahr und neutestamentliche Chronologie,” ZNW 27 (1928), 98-103;
R. North, “Maccabean Sabbath Years,” Bib 34 (1955), 501-15.
Volume III1
EXODUS 2 3 :1 0 -1 2 255
disuse. After the settlement of the Jews in Palestine at the end of the 19*
century the matter of its observance became a live question again (cf. EJ, XIV,
582ff.; Spier [see 1.5.1], 72ff.). Also classical authors make mention of the
sabbatical year. Tacitus, Historiae, V, 4, 4f., notes that the Jews not only kept
the sabbath, but out of laziness also set aside each seventh year for doing
nothing; he also relates that the sabbatical year was observed in honour of
Saturn. In the Suda (a Byzantine Lexicon, 10* century), under the lemma
Damocritus (author [I s1 century after C.] of De Iudaeis), it is related that every
seventh year the Jews captured and sacrificed a stranger. Perhaps Suetonius’
Tiberius, 32, 2, contains an allusion to sabbath and sabbatical year.
2.7.4.4.6 As far as we know, a stipulation like that of 23:10, 11 did not exist
in Israel’s neighbouring nations. In Mesopotamia, however, there were, royal
rules for ending or putting restrictions on bondage and for the cancellation of
debts. They are comparable to the Old Testament laws on the release of slaves
(see already 2.4.10, 11) and the regulations concerning the year of Jubilee
(Lev. 25:8-28). Characteristic of the OT is that the social measures are linked
to sacral cycles determined by the numeral seven.237
Fore the day of rest (23:12) see 1.5.
23:10, 11 ‘six’ ... ‘seventh,’ see Introd. §§4.7.1; 4.8.2. 8#e#1, copula is not
translated in LXX, Pesh., Vulg. rue#, see 6:16. ‘to sow’ (Introd. §10.1.4), cf.
Gen. 47:23. ‘your land’ (Introd. §3.6), 23:11 shows that owning property is not
absolute. *)OK, see 3:16. ‘yield,’ see §10.1.6. ‘sowing’ and ‘harvesting’ are here
p a rs p ro to to for all work in the field during the various seasons (cf. 34:21).
nB’Bfm, accusative of time (e.g. KoSynt §33la; Ges-K §118k; Jotlon §126i;
differently Cassuto: casus pendens); TNf: explicitly ‘seventh year'
2nd pers. sing, imperf. + suffix of fine; (see TWAT, VII, 198ff.), is
followed by 2nd pers. sing. perf. cons, of BftH (see TWAT, V, 436ff.);
the two verbal forms, which formally are quite similar (they have five conso
nants, in part in chiastic order) and contrast with the sowing and harvesting of
23:10, are here similar in meaning (‘let it rest,’ ‘leave alone,4), so that they can
be called a hendiadys: the land may not be touched at all, it should be left
alone. Crops which grew on unfilled land (cf. AuS, II, 203ff.) apparently were
not considered cultural products, but natural products which were free to
anyone.
‘to eat’ (Introd. §3.3.1), of course after having been harvested and processed.
flJBOttfn is rendered in LXX with a<J>eoiv noiqoeu; (a<J>eoi<; = nppt$#; cf. Deut.
257 See further Robinson, 489ff.; Wfeinfeld, 42ff.; Wfestbrook, 45fF., and also N.P. Lemche,
“Andurarum and MiSarum: Comments on the Problem of Social Edicts and their Application in
the Ancient Near East,” JNES 38 (1979), 11-22.
Volume III1
15:1-3, 9; 31:10) and likely applied to the year of the cancellation of debts (cf.
Deut. 15); TPsJ adds by way of clarification KJrtblSD, ‘without working it’ (cf.
Mek., Ill, 175) and nnttftDil is translated with KilTS npsni, ‘and you must
leave its fruits alone’ (cf. TNf, FTP: in p an i, ‘and you shall give away for
free’ [according to gloss in FTP npa = lp s]).
The suffixes of the verbal forms of 23:11a are related both to ‘the land’
(ancient versions and e.g. Dillmann, Baentsch, Cassuto) and to ‘the produce’
(e.g. Holzinger, McNeile, Durham), and even to both (the first to the land; the
second to the produce [Ehrlich]); ‘land’ is the most obvious. The uncertainty
stems from lack of knowledge concerning the exact meaning of the verbs here.
See in this connection the discussion on the meaning by mediaeval Jewish
exegetes: Rashi and Nachmanides relate BQtf to not tilling of the soil; Ibn Ezra
to the canceling of debts in the sabbatical year (Deut. 15:Iff.); Rashi relates
003 to not eating of the produce of the seventh year23* and to (another view)
abstaining from work, such as manuring and hoeing; Ibn Ezra relates it to not
sowing and Nachmanides to not tilling of the soil; Nachmanides gives a
restrictive interpretation: all activities except plowing and sowing (cf. 34:21)
are allowed. Some modem exegetes take issue with the view that 23:11
requires that the land be left alone. Wellhausen*, Prolegomena, 111, contends
that what is demanded is the surrender of the harvest (DO0), not the forgoing
of sowing. Cazelles (see 2.2.1) defends the view that one? means ‘to mow,’ and
that what is asked is to leave the harvest for the poor (p. 92). In this connec
tion it is worthy of note that it has been argued that untilled land does not
produce any kind of crop (Holzinger; cf. also AuS, II, 203ff.).
‘needy of your people,’ cf. 23:6 and see Introd. §3.40.1. D irr (see 10:5) with
suffix to denote subjective genitive, is translated in the LXX with xa
uitoA.eiTcopeva, viz., of the harvest ( toc Y evnpaxa; see 23:10). ‘wild animals’
(Introd. §9.2.1 en 1:14), in the LXX mtort is rendered as adjective: xa Oqpta
ta aypia (Aq.: xa Cara tf|<; X“ P«<)- nOffrrp (Introd. §3.41.1 and 1:12) harks
back to what precedes in 23:10, 11 and refers to the work in the field. Strictly
speaking, this is really not the same as the work done in vineyard and olive
grove, which raises the question of (cf. Fishbane*, 179f.) what types of work
are not to be engaged in the sabbatical year (pruning and the like?; cf. Lev.
25:3, 5). Likely, the regular annual kinds of work are meant (the verbs in
23:10 are pars pro toto; see above), including that of guarding the property.
‘vineyard’ (Introd. §10.2.1) and ‘olive grove’ (Introd. §10.2.2), which along
with ‘land’ (23:10) denote every type of cultivated soil, are here asyndetically
linked (cf. Judg. 15:5, and see Brockelmann §128); see beside it Sam.Pent.:
23S Not keeping for oneself of the yield one still has in the house (Lev. 25:6f.); if nothing is
standing in the field anymore, it is for everybody (cf. Mek., Ill, 175f.).
Volume III1
EXODUS 2 3 :1 3 -1 9 ; 3 4 :1 8 -2 6 257
(cf. LXX, Pesh., SamT, Vulg.) and see also Deut. 6:11; Neh. 9:25; an
acceptable translation requires the use of a conjunction.
23:12 ‘day(s),’ see Introd. §3.23.1. ‘do your work,’ see Introd. §3.41.2. natf
(see 5:5), in TO, TPsJ, TNf, Pesh. rendered with use of m3 (see 10:14),
resulting, unlike in the MT, in a repetition of the verb (in Pesh. even used
three times); cf. also LXX (2* dcvaitauopai). ‘your ox and your donkey,’ cf.
23:4. ‘to get relief (Introd. §3.35.2), Ehrlich: read (qal). Three verbs, all
meaning ‘to rest,’ form a contrast with ‘doing work’ (the sabbath demands
complete rest; cf. Introd. §4.4.1).
n»*rp (see Introd. §3.37.3 and Holzinger), TPsJ: ‘the uncircumcised son of
your female slave’ (cf. Mek., Ill, 178); TNf: ‘the son of your Jewish female
slave.’ The Sam.Pent. has a deviating text after nil'' to urtl: "jnana bai lia s
“jnato "pap, a generalization (cf. also SamT) derived from 20:10. It is clear
that the enumeration in 23:12 is not meant to be restrictive, but is used as an
example. What should be noted is that ox and donkey are typical work animals,
so that an explicit mention of, for instance, sheep and goats would not make
sense in this context, u n (cf. 23:9), LXX: ‘the proselyte’ (cf. 12:48); Pesh.:
‘the alien in your towns’ (cf. 20:10).
As subject after 3PD1?, first the animals and then humans are mentioned
(chiasm relative to 23:1 lap) in poetically formulated sentences (parallellism).
In Deut. 5:14, in the sentence with IPO1?, only people are mentioned. For that
matter, the enumeration of subjects in the sentence with IPOb is not meant as
restriction (cf. the discussion on the absence of the owner himself in Nachma-
nides and Jacob); the defenseless animals and socially disadvantaged are
mentioned to bring out that even those who are in no position to object should
not be asked to do something on the day of rest.
2.8 REGULATIONS FOR THE WORSHIP OF YHWH (23:13-19; 34:18-26)
23:13 ‘You shall pay attention to everything I have commanded you. Therefore
you shall not use the name o f other gods; it shall not cross your lips.
23:14 Three times a year you shall hold a feast in honour o f me.
23:15 The Feast o f Unleavened 34:18 The feast of Unleavened
Bread you shall observe. For seven Bread you shall observe. For seven
days you shall eat unleavened days you shall eat unleavened
bread, as I have commanded you, bread, as I have commanded you,
at the appointed time in the Month at the appointed time in the Month
o f Ears, fo r in it you went out o f of Ears, for in the Month of Ears
Egypt. you went out of Egypt.
34:19 All first offspring from the
Volume III1
258
Cf. 13:2, 12 and also 22:29. womb belong belong to me, even
of all your livestock, insofar as
they are male; the first offspring of
an ox or a sheep.
34:20 And the firstling of the don
Cf. 13:13 and also 22:28b. keys you may redeem with a lamb.
If you do not wish to redeem it,
then you shall break its neck. All
firstborn of your sons you shall
- none shall appear before me redeem - none shall appear before
empty-handed. me empty-handed.
34:21 Six days you may work, but
Cf. 23:12. on the seventh day you shall rest.
Also during the time of plowing
and reaping you shall keep the day
of rest.
23:16 Likewise also the Feast o f 34:22 The Feast of Weeks, that of
Reaping, that o f the firstfruits o f the firstfruits of the reaping of the
your work o f sowing in the field, wheat you shall observe. Likewise
and the Feast o f Harvest at the end the Feast of Harvest at the turn of
o f the year; when you gather in the the year.
results o f your work in the field.
23:17 Three times a year all your 34:23 Three times a year all your
males shall appear before the Lord males shall appear before the Lord
YHWH. YHWH, Israel’s God.
34:24 When I shall have destroyed
the nations before you and given
you a laige territory, no one will
covet your land when you, three
Cf. 23:14. times a year, travel to appear be
fore your God YHWH.
23:18 When you sacrifice to me, 34:25 When you slaughter for me,
the blood may not touch anything the blood may not touch anything
leavened; the fa t o f my feast may leavened; the sacrifice of the Feast
not be kept until the morning. of Passover may not be kept untill
the morning.
23:19 The first, the firstfruits o f 34:26 The first, the firstfruits of
your soil you shall bring to the your soil you shall bring to the
house o f your God YHWH. A kid house of your God YHWH. A kid
you shall not boil in its mother i you shall not boil in its mother’s
milk. milk.
Volume III1
EXODUS 2 3 :1 3 -1 9 ; 3 4 :1 8 -2 6 259
2.8.1 Like more often, the delineation of the material presents problems. MT
has the pericope begin with 23:6 (s) and end with 23:19 (s or p). Some
exegetes (Jacob, Cassuto, Childs) regard 23:10-19 as a coherent unit. The
problem with that delineation is that it does not go with 23:13a. Illustrative is
that Heinisch takes 23:10-19 as a unit, regarding 23:13a as conclusion of the
covenant book. There is no reason for transposition. Better to regard 23:13a as
conclusion (cf. e.g. Osumi [see 2.2.1], 61, 200, who, it should be noted,
regards 23:13a as secundary and takes 23:10-17 as a structural unit) or as the
beginning of a new subsection. I opt for the latter (see exegesis 23:13).
2.8.2 The core of 23:13-19 consists of a festival calendar (23:14-17). It is
preceded by the prohibition to use the name of other gods (23:13b) and
followed by a kind of appendix with four different regulations (23:18, 19). The
point at issue is the relation of the appendix to the cultic calendar The ques
tion is whether the appendix consists of independent cultic stipulations without
connection with the three annual feasts or of regulations that are linked to the
festivals. The latter view is held, e.g., by C. Labuschagne239. He connects 23:18
with the feast of 23:15; 23:19a with the feast of 23:16a (Feast of Weeks);
23:19b with the feast of 23:16b (Feast of Tabernacles), but in his view 23:19b
also applies to the Feast of Weeks and more in general to the custom of
sacrificing the firstborn (pp. 13-15). If the latter should be correct, one must
conclude that 23:19b = 34:26b, which originally was a regulation applying to a
particular occasion, later (Deut. 14:21b) became a general dietary law (cf. e.g.
Fishbane*, 229f.; Labuschagne, 16f.).
In different form, the festival calendar is repeated in 34:18-23. For ease of
comparison both versions are here discussed side by side.
It is often held that 23:13-19 is the result of a process of growth. Reference
is made, e.g., to the transition from the 2nd pers. plur. to the 2nd pers. sing.
(23:13, 14). I suffice by referring to relevant literature (see Schwienhorst-
SchSnberger [see 2.2.1], 394ff.; Osumi, 6 Iff. etc.).
2.8.3 23:14-17 contains the cultic calendar YHWH prescribed for Israel. YHWH
asks that Israel give expression to her unique bond with him by three times a
year holding a festival in honour of him. The liturgical year is to be marked by
three (see Introd. §4.4.1) high points. The repetition, in different wordings, of
the ordinance in the bracketing verses 23:14 and 23:17 highlights its promi
nence. The three festivals are: the Feast of Unleavened Bread, the Feast of
Reaping after the grain harvest in early summer, and the Feast of Ingathering
in the autumn after the harvesting of the grapes and olives (cf. Deut. 16:16).
Festival calendars are also mentioned elsewhere in the Pentateuch; in the
>»You Shall Not Boil a Kid in Its Mother’s Milk’: A New Proposal for the Origin of the
Prohibition,” SVT 49 (1992), 6-17.
Volume III1
‘repetition’ of the covenant book in ch. 34 (see 34:18-23) and in Lev. 23:4-44;
Num. 28:16-29:39; Deut. 16:1-17 (cf. also Ezek. 45:21-25).240 The different
versions, all with their own slant on the feasts, have played a large role in the
discussion of the development of Israel’s religion. Julius Wellhausen’s conten
tion that Israel’s cult was marked by historicization and ritualization was based
in part on the laws about the feasts.241 A detailed discussion of the available
data and an outline of the evolution of the feasts is not possible here.242 Citing
a number of questions and making some comments on Exod. 23; 34 in the
light of the other festival calendars must suffice.
2.8.4 All three feasts are different in focus. The Feast of Unleavened Bread
(23:15; 34:18) is celebrated in remembrance of the exodus out of Egypte and
has no connection with the seasonal year. In other passages it is closely linked
to the Passover. Not so here. Outside the festival calendar there is an aside
reference to the Passover, explicitly in 34:25 and perhaps implicitly in 23:18
(see for Passover and Matzoth \bl. II, 151-158).
The other two feasts are harvest feasts and tied to the seasons of the year.
Evidently they were celebrated at the conclusion of the harvest. The first feast
is called ’Feast of Weeks’ in 34:22, in agreement with the terminology used el
sewhere in the Pentateuch (cf. Deut. 16:10; Num. 28:26) (later known as Pen
tecost [2 Macc. 12:3 If.; Tob. 2:1]). It was probably celebrated in early sum
mer. However, a specific time for the celebration is not stated (see beside it
Deut. 16:9; Lev. 23:15f.).
Of the second harvest feast, elsewhere called ‘Feast of Tabernacles’ (Deut.
16:13; Lev. 23:34), only a general indication of the time (in the autumn),
without setting an exact time, is given (cf. Deut. 16:13; see beside it Lev.
23:39). About the length of the harvest feast the calendars of Exod. 23; 34
provide no information (see beside it Lev. 23:39-42; Deut. 16:13, 15 and also
Exod. 23:15; 34:18).
Participation in the feasts requires travel, ‘visiting’ YHWH at the place
belonging to him, the holy place (23:15b, 17, 19a; 34:20b, 23, 26). Is this the
local shrine (cf. 21:13f.; 22:28f.) or a favourite shrine farther away (cf. e.g.
Amos 5:5), or the central shrine (cf. Deut. 16:2, 6, 11, 15f.)? Exod. 34:24
assumes in any case that the festivals require a pilgrimage of some length of
240 The TS has a festival calendar with feasts not mentioned in the OT. See e.g. J.C. Reevers,
“The Feast of the First Fruits of Wine and the Ancient Canaanite Calendar,” VT 42 (1992), 350-
61. For the extra-biblical festival calendars see e.g. ABD, I, 817ff.
241 Wfellhausen*, Prolegomena, 80ff.; cf. Houtman*, Pentateuch, 109.
242 See e.g. De Vaux*, II, 409ff.; Haran*, 290ff.; B.R. Goldstein, A. Cooper, “The Festivals of
Israel and Judah and the Literary History of the Pentateuch,” JAOS 110 (1990), 19-31; R.
Rendtorff, “Die Entwicklung des altisraelitischen Festkalenders,” in J. Assmann (ed.), Das Fest
und das Heilige, Gtltersloh 1991, 185-205.
Volume III1
EXODUS 2 3 :1 3 -1 9 ; 3 4 :1 8 -2 6 261
time. It is to be noted that on this point Exod. 34, but also Exod. 23, can be
interpreted in the spirit of Deut. 16.
The obligation of making the pilgrimages is for Israelite men (23:17; 34:23;
cf. Deut. 16:16). That does not mean that the celebration of the feasts was
something that only concerned men (cf. Deut. 16:11, 14; 26:11, and see e.g.
1 Sam. 1: Iff.) (see Emmerson [see 2.4.4], 378ff.).
2.8.5 The feasts are described as harvest festivals, but little is said about
specifics. Concretely, firstfruits243 are mentioned. It seems that they are to be
brought to the sanctuary Nothing is said in 23:16 about the crops to which the
regulation applies; in 34:22 ‘wheat’ is mentioned (cf. Lev. 23:17, 20), but
unclear is whether the term denotes grain in general that is fit for human
consumption (cf. Deut. 26:2), or whether it is used in the exclusive sense of the
term (often the barley harvest which precedes the wheat harvest [9:3If.] is tied
to Matzoth; cf. \bl. II, 154f.). No information is provided about the form of
the firstfruits, whether they are to be products in the natural state (sheaves,
grapes, olives [cf. e.g. Lev. 23:10; Deut. 26:2]) or prepared for use (kernels of
grain, flower, bread, new wine, olive oil [cf. e.g. Lev. 23:17; Num. 15:20f.;
Deut. 18:4]), nor about the required quantity (see beside it Lev. 23:10, 17), at
least not concretely It seems that 23:15b and 34:20b are also meant for the
feasts of 23:16 and 34:22 (cf. Deut. 16:10, 16b, 17), while the determination of
the size of the firstfruits is dependent on the size of the harvest.
Not entirely clear either is whether ‘firstfruits’ refers to the actual first yield
of the harvest or to the products of the harvest which, after the harvest and
ready for use, are brought to the sanctuary so that there, after being dedicated
to God, they are eaten for the first time (cf. Lev. 23:14, and see also 1 Sam.
2:15). It would seem that there was a link between the form of the firstfruits
and their function at the feast. However, no details are given about liturgy,
ritual and form of the feasts (see beside it Lev. 23:15ff., 39ff.; Num. 28:26ff.;
29:12ff.; Deut. 26:1-11), so that all one can do is make guesses. It is obvious
that the firstfruits are meant for YHWH. Were they given to him on the altar?
(cf. Lev. 2:14-16). Or were they income for the priests? (cf. Lev. 2:3,10;
23:20; Num. 18:12f.; Deut. 18:4). If the latter, the firstfruits may have been
processed products. It is also possible that the firstfruits were at least in part
eaten by those who brought them, at a meal in the sanctuary (cf. Deut. 16:11,
14; 26:11). In that case the firstfruits will have consisted of bread, wine and
olive oil.
As already noted, the firstfruits are a gift to YHWH. This description is based
243 See ABD, II, 796f.; DBS, VIII, 446ff.; IDBS, 336f.; O. EiBfeldt, Erstlinge und Zehnten im
Alten Testament, Leipzig 1917; S. Hemer, Vegetabilische Erstlingopfer im Pentateuch , Lund
1918.
Volume III1
262
on the interpretation of the firstfruits as tribute to YHWH as Owner of the land

(cf. \bl. II, 163f.), for that matter as expression of thankfulness to him (cf.
Gen. 4:3f.; Prov. 3:9f. and see Deut. 26:10f.; associated with history; cf. also
Deut. 16:12), to maintain the good relationship and to secure his blessing.
2.8.6 Outside the context of the festival calendar the firstfruits are mentioned
once more in a general regulation (23:19a; 34:26a). In light of the foregoing, it
is natural to think of the firstfruits of the feasts cited in 23:16; 34:22 (in view
of 23:19b; 34:26b, one might also think of a regulation not linked to a specific
point in time; cf. 22:28f.; but see also 2.8.2). The firstfruits are to be brought
to the sanctuary something already implicit in 34:20b; 23:17; 34:23. For that
matter, the subject of the firstfruits did already come up in 22:28a. There the
term ‘firstfruits’ is not used. That has enabled Eissfeldt, 28ff., 155ff., to argue
that the tithes are the theme of the ordinance. His argumentation fails to make
the point (see Hemer, 9ff.).244 Also elsewhere in the Pentateuch the firstfruits
are mentioned and independently regulated. Thus in Lev. 19:23-25 it is
stipulated that in a particular situation, when the fruit trees are four years old,
their entire yield is to be dedicated to YHWH. It seems that historically there
existed a variety of customs with which to conclude the harvest season.
In the festival calendar of Exod. 34, the description of the three festivals is
interrupted by laws on the firstborn and the sabbath (34:19-21). Evidently they
are included in Exod. 34 because of the nature of Exod. 34 as ‘repetition’ of
the covenant book (see 5.4.2.2 and 34:27, 28). The placement of the law about
the firstborn inside the regulations concerning the annual festivals has the effect
of creating the impression that the dedication of the firstborn was done once a
year (see \bl.II, 162-166) (in conformity with Deut. 15:19-23).
Finally, as noted, the festival calendar of Exod. 23 and 34 does not spell out
particulars. That makes it easy to read it in combination with the more detailed
festival calendars.
2.8.7 A much discussed problem is that of the relation of 23:14-19(33) to
34:(ll)18-26. Does the latter go back to the former or is it the other way
around? Do both perhaps go back to a common source? Or are they two next
to each other existing traditions that have influenced each other? There are
detailed accounts of the investigation of the relationship to Exod. 34.245 The
244 For the tithes see H. Jagersma, “The Tithes in the Old Testament,” OTS 21 (1981), 116-28;
M. Herman, Tithe as Gift: The Institution in the Pentateuch and in Light o f Manss’s Prestation
Theory, San Francisco 1991. At least in the book of the covenant the tithes are not explicitly
mentioned.
245 See F.-E. Wilms, Das jahwistische Bundesbuch in Exodus 34, Mdnchen 1973, 16-135;
Halbe (see 2.2.1), 13-55; cf. also Laaf (see \fol.II, 146), 39ff.
Volume III1
EXODUS 2 3 :1 3 -1 9 ; 3 4 :1 8 -2 6 263
since Wellhausen frequently defended notion24*246 that 34:11-26 is older than

Exod. 23, is, I believe, unlikely. 34:11-26 is more specific than Exod. 23 and
is best regarded as interpretation and sharper focusing of the parallel section in
the covenant book (cf. Fishbane*, 194ff. and see already Eerdmans*, 88ff.).247
23:13 23:13 consists of two parts: a general admonition (23:13a) and a twofold
concrete commandment (23:13b). Open to discussion is the question whether
23:13 is to be regarded as the conclusion of the preceding part or as the
beginning of a new passage. Clear is that 23:13 alludes to the previous regula
tions. That makes it possible to regard 23:13a as a concluding clause. However
23:13a does not end with a period, but is followed by a concrete command
ment. If 23:13 is regarded as conclusion, one must assume that the requirement
of exclusive worship of YHWH (23:13b) is of such great weight that the
concrete requirement comes as the capstone after the general admonition. My
preference is to take 23:13 as the beginning of 23:13-19. The general admoni
tion is the reason for citing some more laws, and so forms the hinge between
what precedes and what follows. First (cf. 20:23) there is the commandment to
worship YHWH exclusively; it is made up of two parallel parts, the second of
which makes the first concrete.
YHWH requires Israel’s exclusive worship (see 20:3-6). Israel must be wholly
for him alone. That leaves no room for the use of the names of other gods (cf.
Hos. 2:19; Zech. 13:2; Ps. 16:4), it is apostasy from YHWH. Taking their name
upon one’s lips, for instance by participating in their cult (cf. 23:24; 34:14f.),
is tantamount to an acknowledgement of their divinity. Such forbidden use of
their name can also include the swearing by these gods (cf. Josh. 23:7; Jer. 5:7;
12:16; Amos 8:14; Zeph. 1:5; see beside it Deut. 6:13; 10:20) - in Vulg. (non
iurabitis) that is what the commandment is all about - , the making of a
promise, the pronouncing of a curse or an incantation (see exegesis 20:7).
baai, Sam.Pent.: bai; cf. LXX and Vulg., where the waw is left untranslated
(making for a looser connection with the foregoing), ‘to command’ (Introd.
§3.5.1), the reference is not to the decalogue (Jacob), but to the laws of the
covenant book (or in addition to those of the decalogue). Nachmanides con
tends that 23:13a only has to do with the admonitions in 23:13b. 1010 niph.,
see 10:28. ‘name,’ see Introd. §3.50. ‘other gods,’ see Introd. §3.1.2. nat hiph.
(Introd. §3.18.1), Sam.Pent.: Tain. Kb, Sam.Pent.: Kbl, cf. e.g. LXX, Vulg.,
Pesh., TPsJ, TNf and see Delitzsch*, 2. SQtf niph. (Introd. §3.51.1), Sam.Pent.:
244 Also by e.g. Wilms, 189; Halbe, 440ff. (cf. the critique of E. Blum, Studien zur Kompositi-
on des Pentateuch, Berlin/New York 1990, 69f., 369ff.); Osumi, 69ff, and CrUsemann, Tora (see
2.2.1), 138ff.
247 On the relation of Exod. 23 to Exod. 34 see further, S. Bar-on, “The Festival Calendars in
Exodus XXIII 14-19 and XXXIV 18-26,” IT 48 (1998), 160-95.
Volume III1
I ’B (see 4:10; cf. Ps. 50:16; Eccl. 5:1), plur. (‘your’) in LXX, Vulg., Pesh.,
TO, TPsJ etc.
23:14 Beside 23:14 see 23:17; 34:23, 24. D’b n tibw (JoQon §§125t, 142q;
Brockelmann §§88, 93h), see Introd. §4.4.1 and 3:5. In Mek., Ill, 182f., the
expression occasioned discussion about the question of the rightful participants
in the pilgrimage; ‘they who can go on foot’ (play on words with b n ), ‘not
the blind’ (play on words with n tn , see 23:15), etc.24* Jillji (see 5:1), plur. (cf.
23:13) in LXX, Vulg., Pesh., TPsJ. natf, see 6:16.
23:15; 34:18 In 23:15, 16 and 34:18, 22 the three festivals are mentioned by
name (cf. Deut. 16:16). The first one is the Feast of Unleavened Bread (see
\bl. II, 151-158). Qua formulation, 23:15 and 34:18 are virtually identical.
man, see 12:8. qal (see 10:28), LXX: plur. in 23:15; sing, in 34:18.
‘seven days’ (Introd. §§4.8.1; 3.23.1), accusative of time (e.g. JoQon §126i;
Williams §56). ‘eat’ (Introd. §3.3.1), LXX: plur. in 23:15; sing, in 34:18.
ntfN3 (23:15, SamPent. also in 34:18) / "ittfN (34:18), see Introd. §3.7.2;
KQSynt §388a. ‘command’ (Introd. §3.43.1), see 12:14ff.; 13:3ff. "U71B (see
9:5) with b to denote the moment in time (e.g. Brockelmann §107b; Williams
§268). ‘Month of Ears,’ see Introd. §10.3.6 and 12:2. 13 (23:15, SamPent. also
in 34:18), defined in 34:18: 3’3Kn tfin a. ‘to leave,’ see Introd. §3.24.1. The
end of 23:15 is the end of v. 20 in chapter 34. ’39 IK}! (Introd. §3.42.4;
Holzinger, Ehrlich: 'IB is subject) with indefinite subject (Ges-K §144f; JoQon
§155b); LXX, Vulg.: 2nd pers. sing.; TNf: 2nd pers. plur. (cf. also FT 34:20 +
elaboration). Dp’T (see 3:21), cf. Deut. 16:16b, 17.
Is the conclusion meant to apply to all three festivals? This is the case in
Deut. 16:16. In Exod. 23 as well as in Exod. 34 the injunction stands some
what by itself. That means it covers every appearing before YHWH: one must
always honour him with a gift.
34:19-21 In ch. 34 the mention of the first festival is followed by regulations

concerning the dedication of the firstborn (34:19f.) and the celebration of the
sabbath. For these subjects see already \bl. II, 162-166; the exegesis of 13:2,
12f. and 1.5.
34:19 IJp irb ai (Sam.Pent.: -papa bai) (Introd. §9.1.1), not in LXX (cf.
Hexapla: icai rcavtojv td>v kttivcov aov); see also Vulg., where, however, the
second half of the clause starts with: de cunctis animantibus, ‘from all ani-*
!‘s See S.I. Feigin, “Haggarim, ‘Hie Castrated One’,” HUCA 21 (1948), 355-64.
Volume III1
EXODUS 2 3 :1 3 -1 9 ; 3 4 :1 8 -2 6 265
mals.’ Delitzsch*, 140, feels that the expression belongs at the end of the verse,
npjp, 2nd pers. sing. niph. of "DT (Introd. §3.18.1), does not make sense here.
Attempts to interpret the form as a verbal form are unsatisfactory. The verbal
form has been associated with the adjective “i^j (see 12:5) and thought to mean
‘(who) brings forth a male.’ E.g. Rashi interprets I3tn as 3rd pers. sing,
feminine with as subject the livestock, that is, the mother animal (cf. Fox: ‘that
your herd drops-as-male’). The ancient versions as a rule have attempted an
interpretation on the basis of npj, ‘male;’ LXX: t& apoevuca, ‘the males;’
Vulg.: generis masculini, ‘of the male gender;’ TO: VH3H tf'lpn, ‘you shall
consecrate the males’ (cf. also TPsJ and see 13:12); TNf: r r n a n , ‘(your) male
(animals)’ (cf. also FTV). Pesh. lacks a translation. Common is the view that
the MT rests on a scribal error and that should be read (e.g. Ges-K §51g;
Delitzsch*, 108). See further R. Althann, JNSL 11 (1983), 25f. ‘a sheep (or
goat),’ see Introd. §9.1.5. ‘ox,’ see Introd. §9.1.12.
34:20 For ‘donkey’ see also LXX 22:29. men, Sam.Pent.: man, with explicit
mention of the object; cf. LXX, Vulg., Pesh. m aim ; LXX: tipfjv 6d>oei<;,
‘then you shall pay the price;’ LXX 13:13 and LXX 34:20 do not have the
same rendering, not on this point either; the idea that the neck must be broken
is excluded; compare with Aq: tevovToicoirfjoeK; auxo, ‘you shall cut its
tendons;’ Symm.: xpaxT|A.oKoitfjoeic auto, ‘you shall cut its neck;’ Theod.:
vcoxoKOTtfjoeu; auto, ‘you shall break its back.’ For targums see 13:13; TPsJ
here mentions the ax as the instrument to kill the animal, b3, Sam.Pent.: b3l
(cf. 13:13). "1133, in Sam.Pent. followed by 0"IN (cf. 13:13).
34:21 Bfnna (see 23:16), LXX: tq> oTiopcp; TO: KP1H3, ‘in the time of
sowing’ (cf. Pesh. and TO, TNf, Pesh. on Gen. 45:6); cf. Gen. 8:22; Lev. 25:4.
Plowing and sowing are closely related. They are pars pro toto for all the
activities in the field in preparation of a new harvest.249 TNf, anticipating
34:22, has ‘on the feast of the ingathering and the feast of the reaping.’250
23:16; 34:22 The related but not entirely parallel verses 23:16 and 34:22
contain the regulation concerning the celebration of two harvest feasts. 23:16 is
dependent on “lOtfn in 23:15.
In LXX is 23:16 turned into an independent clause by the addition of
7taifjoei<; (cf. 34:22). In 34:22 the term ntolin (Introd. §3.41.1) is used for the
‘observance’ of the feast, followed by "jb; see beside it LXX: poi, ‘for me;’ it
249 Cf. M. Dahood, Bib 62 (1981), 414f., who translates: ‘from {ba) plowing and from (ba)
harvesting shall you rest.’
150 The suggestion of H. Cazelles, “Exod. XXXIV, 21 Traite-t-il du sabbat?,” CBQ 23 (1961),
that 34:21 refers to the feast of the Unleavened Bread has not found acceptance.
Volume III1
is explicitly said that the feast is held in honour o f YHWH (cf. 23:14).
*vjjj5 (OT ca. 55x), ‘the harvest,’ ‘the harvesting’ (23:16; 34:21f.). See
TWAT, VII, 106ff. I have chosen for the rendering ‘the reaping,’ so as to bring
out the difference between "vspn an and *)Ottn an (for *)0tt see 3:16), ‘harvest
feast,’ in the translation. vatp denotes the harvest of the crops standing in the
field, such as barley (e.g. 2 Sam. 21:9; see Introd. §10.3.5) and wheat (e.g.
34:22; see Introd. §10.3.2). Harvesting and reaping presuppose the prior
activities of plowing and sowing. Repeatedly reaping it used in conjunction
with it, ‘sowing’ (Introd. §10.1.4) in 23:16 and e.g. Gen. 8:22; Lev. 25:11; Isa.
23:3; Jer. 12:13; 50:16; ‘plowing’ in 34:21 (b n * [see TWAT, III, 235f.], also
in Gen. 45:6; 1 Sam. 8:12) and Hos. 10:13; Amos 9:13, Job 4:8; Prov. 20:4.
For plowing and sowing see AuS, II, 64ff., 147ff. etc.; O. Borrowski,
Agriculture in Iron Age Israel, Winona Lake 1987, 47ff. For the activities of
the farmer during the year see the so-called Gezer Calendar (transl. e.g. in
TUAT, I, 247f.).
T 3 p n an in 23:16 has as counterpart in 34:22: n'&pt# an (for p-nt? see Introd.
§4.8.3; TWAT, VII, 1021fF., and HAL s.v.); the term is evidently used to make
clear that the feast of reaping is the same as the feast of Deut. 16:10, 16. In
TNf the feast is further defined with the term Asarta (traditional name for
Pentecost; cf. Josephus, AJ, III, 252).
’I ts ? construct state of 0’TI33 (OT 17*; plurale tantum), ‘firstfruits’ (23:16,
19; 34:22, 26). See TWAT, I, 644f. In the LXX m a a in 34:22 is rendered with
the accusative apxf|v, a designation of time: ‘during the beginning of;’ in TPsJ,
through the placing of iota before ’n a a in 34:22, the verse has become a time
designation: ‘in the time of the firstfruits.’
(Introd. §10.1.7), LXX: ‘your labours;’ TNf: ‘the work of your hands’
(2*). m b (see 1:14), LXX: ‘your field’ (2*). *)0«n am, in LXX 23:16 ren
dered with koci eopxf|v oovTcAxiac, ‘and the feast of completion’ (cf. LXX
Lev. 23:39), in 34:22 met: icai eoptf|v ovvayuyfic, ‘and the feast of ingather
ing;’ cf. the use of ev tt| ouvayoyfi for the rendering of "jBOiO in 23:16.
nabn n ttsa (Introd. §3.24.1; cf. W. Riedel, ZAW 20 [1900], 329-32) in 23:16
has as counterpart in 34:22 njijrn nB-iptji (accusative of time); for nptpfl see
HAL s.v. The taigums, using the same terminology as in 23:16, have the
translation ‘at the end of the year.’ Striking is the rendering of the LXX in
34:22: peoouvxoc tou eviautou, ‘in the middele of the year’ (it is assumed
that the new year starts in the spring).
23:17; 34:23 Beside 23:17 see 23:14. 23:17 is virtually identical to 34:23. DttB,
see 8:28. m at, see 12:5. ’as-bK, Sam.Pent.: ’aBTlN (cf. 34:24 MT). piK n (see
4:10), Sam.Pent., SamT: yntt, ‘ark;’ in the taigums ynNH is translated with the
use of customary titles: TO: K’Dbu p a l, ‘the Lord of the world’ (cf. TPsJ in
23:17; TPsJ 34:23: K ^n b an m , ‘Lord of the ages’); TNf: K’Bbatba ]iai, ‘the
Volume III1
EXODUS 2 3 :1 3 -1 9 ; 3 4 :1 8 -2 6 267
Lord of all ages/the entire universe;’ cf. also Vulg. 34:23: (in conspectu) om-
nipotentis (Domini Dei Israhel). In the LXX, to avoid double use of Kupicx;,
mn’ yrtKn is translated in 34:23 by a single icupioc;; in 23:17 by (evdmiov)
Kupiou toO 0eoO oou (= "pnbtt mrp) ‘(before) YHWH, your God’ (cf. also
Pesh. and see Deut 16:16). ‘YHWH,’ in 34:23 + ‘Israel’s God,’ is here used in
the mouth of YHWH (cf. on the other hand 23:14).
34:24 Once in the land, there will be no excuse not to heed the duty to make
the required pilgrimages. One need not worry about leaving one’s possessions
behind for some length of time, because there will be no enemies (cf. however
also 23:29f.). That an Israelite neighbour might be after one’s property is
apparently out of the question. He, too, is making the pilgrimage.
tfv hiph. (see 6:8), often wrongly interpreted as to chase away (see e.g.
already LXX, TO, TPsJ); see next to it TNf: ’S’ltftt, ‘I shall destroy.’
Q’U (Introd. §3.40.4), MSS: D’bna D’U, ‘great nations;’ Sam.Pent.: D’a i D’U,
‘many nations.’ T3BO, see Introd. §3.42.3. a m hiph., cf. 3:8. biai, see 7:27
and cf. 23:31. in n , see 20:17. ttf’K, TNf is explicit: ‘king or prince.’ ‘travel,’
see Introd. §3.39.2. In the LXX, 34:24a (both protases) stands in virtually the
same form also at the beginning of 23:18.
23:18; 34:25 23:18 and 34:25 contain each two stipulations with in part
identically wordings. 34:25b deals explicitly with the Passover feast (see \fol.
II, 151-158). Likely also 34:25a is about that feast. As concerns the relation of
34:25 to 23:18, there are two possibilities. 34:25 is either a clarification or an
interpretation of 23:18. In the first case, 23:18 originally also contained
regulations concerning the Passover. In the latter case, the stipulations of 23:18
are applied to the Passover, but originally were of a more general nature. In
rabbinic exegesis, both verses are in their entirety applied to the Passover
feast;251 23:18a and 34:25a to the law that the paschal sacrifice may not be
slaughtered while there is still leaven in the house (cf. Exod. 12:15; 13:7);
23:18b and 34:25b to the law that nothing of the paschal sacrifice may remain
till the morning (cf. Exod. 12:10), with the exception of what was on the altar
(cf. Lev. 6:2) (see TO, TPsJ, TNf in margin, FTV on 34:25; M e t, III, 185f.;
Rashi). In my view, most likely 34:25 contains an interpretation of 23:18,
which has two separate cultic regulations. That means that so the festival
calendar was augmented by the Passover (cf. e.g. Deut. 16:1-8).
flat (23:18), see 3:18; one; (34:25; for alternation see S. Talmon, ScrHie 8
[1961], 363), see 12:6, where it is used for the Passover sacrifice, bo, ‘in con
junction with’ (cf. 12:8f.). pan (see 12:15) makes unclean and might not be
251 See also M. Haran, “The Passover Sacrifice,” SV T 23 (1972), 86-116 (96ff.).
Volume III1
sacrificed (29:2, 23; Lev. 2:11; 6:16f.; 7:12 etc.). 01, see 4:19. n jl (see
10:25), Dillmann proposes to read and ’10 in 23:18, which gives the
regulations a universal scope.
I’1?: imperf. of 1’*? (OT 70*), ‘spend the night’ (Gen. 19:21; 24:23 etc.); cf.
use of in 4:24 and see TWAT, IV, 562ff. ’3 0*3^0 (23:18), 3^0 (OT ca.
90*; Exod. 23:18; 29:13[2x], 22[3*]), ‘fat,’ was considered a delicacy and as
part of the sacrificial animal is to be given to YHWH (cf. Lev 13:16f.; 7:22ff.).
See TWAT, II, 95Iff. In 34:25 no*>n 30 03| is subject, mentioned there at the
end of the verse after the time designation (for nos see 12:11). a7n does not
go with the Passover; r a t does (cf. 12:27). lp3~J» (see 7:15) in 23:18 (cf.
12:10, 22); npab in 34:25 (cf. Deut. 16:4). It would seem that in 23:18 the
(original) intent of the ordinance was to prevent spoiling, uncleanness of the
sacrificial meat.
23:19; 34:26 The identical verses 23:19 and 34:26 contain two regulations.
The first deals with YHWH’s claim on the firstfruits of the crops. The law is of
a general nature. There is no reason to relate it to a specific feast.
n’qlKl (OT 51*), derivative of Ctftn (see 6:14), ‘beginning,’ ‘first(fruits),’
‘the best/choicest’ (see THAT, II, 709f.; TWAT, VII, 291ff.); it is not always
clear whether irtffcO is a designation of time or of quality. Also in 23:19;
34:26, where rrtfKT is used in construct chain with 7fl$>78 ’7133 (see 23:16),
multiple interpretations are possible: (a) ‘the first of the first products (the very
first products) of your land;’ (b) ‘the best of the first products ...’ The first
interpretation finds support in LXX 23:19 {xctc, aicapxct< xwv
KpWToyevrmdTCov [34:26: xa itpa)xoYevnp.axa]), where the expression is
applied to the fruits, which are the first to be ripe and harvested. In these
interpretations, the genitive is understood as a partitive genitive. It is also
possible that an epexegetical genitive is meant: (a) ‘the first, the firstfruits ...;’
(b) ‘the best, the firstfruits ....’ To my mind, it is quite well possible that
and O’TDa here are no more than synomyms, and that rvtfm is added
to express that JVBfiO in Deuteronomy (e.g. 18:4; 26:2, 10), where the term
o m a a does not occur, means the same as o n i3 3 in other passages. On the
Masoretic spelling n’tfm (with lower case l) see K. Albrecht, TAW 39 (1921),
167.
HOIK (see 3:5), TPsJ: ‘of the fruits of your land’ (in 34:26 ‘your land;’ cf.
FTP 23:19); TNf 23:19: ‘of the fruits of your harvest’ (cf. FTV 23:19). ‘to
bring,’ see Introd. §3.8. ‘house’ (Introd. §3.9.1), Sam.Pent.: nn’3; TPsJ, TNf,
FT" (23:19), FTV (34:26): ‘the holy temple.’
The second regulation is a dietary rule. The interpretation of it was already
taken up in Introd. §9.5.4. Recently, Labuschagne (see 2.8.2) has taken another
look at the ordinance. He believes that the milk (abrt, see 3:8) here is red
colostrum, and that boiling something in it was forbidden because due to its
Volume III1
EXODUS 2 3 :2 0 -3 3 269
colour it was thought to contain blood (pp. 14f.; for the taboo on use of blood
see 4:9). Adoption of Labuschagne’s view requires assuming a close relation
between 23:19b and the custom of sacrificing firstborns at the Feast of Weeks
and the Feast of Tabernacles. Such a relation is, I believe, open to question.
Because, in my view, there is no close tie between 23:18 and preceding verses,
I am inclined to take 23:19b as an independent dietary prohibition, which
originally only applied to the sacrificial meal and did not serve as a general
dietary prohibition (Deut. 14:21).
btfa pi., see 12:9. ‘kid’ (Introd. §9.1.6), LXX: apva, ‘a lamb’ (due to use of
apt|v in 12:5?). See beside it Symm.: ou oKeuaoeu; cpu|>ov 6ia y«^« kto<;
piycp6<; autoO, ‘you hall not prepare a kid in the milk of its mother’ (cf.
Salvesen*, 104). OK, see 2:8.
In the targums 23:19b = 34:26b is translated in agreement with the halacha;
TO: ‘you shall not eat meat in/with milk;’ TPsJ, TNf, FT: ‘... not boil and eat
meat and milk together as one mixture.’ The prohibition is followed in TPsJ,
TNf, FTV by a description of the consequences of ignoring the law; it will
kindle yhwh ’s anger, which will cause the ruination of the harvest (cf. Mek.,
Ill, 187ff.). Also the Sam.Pent. concludes 23:19 with a remark not found in
MT, a motivation: a p ir ton main me# nata n«t nfcw ’a, ‘for one who
does that, it is like a natf-sacrifice that provokes the wrath of the God of
Jacob;’ the Samaritan tradition is also found in MSS of the LXX (cf. Frankel*,
109; E. Nestle, ZAW 33 [1913], 75f.).
2.9 EPILOGUE: A LOOK INTO THE FUTURE (23:20-33)
23:20 ‘Soon I will send a messenger ahead o f you to guard you on the way
and to bring you to the place which I have prepared.
21 Show respect fo r him by listening to him and by not going against him.
For he cannot forgive your offenses, even though he is my representative.
22 However i f you listen to him and do all that I command you, then I will
be the enemy o f your enemies and the adversary o f your adversaries.
23 My messenger goes ahead o f you to bring you to the Amorites, the
Hittites, the Perizzites, the Canaanites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites, and I will
annihilate them.
24 Before their gods you shall not bow down, you shall not let yourselves be
tempted to worship them, you shall not go along with them (the inhabitants of
the land). On the contrary, you shall tear them (the images) down and smash
to bits their massebahs.
25 I f you worship your God YHWH, he will bless your bread and water
Indeed, I will keep sickness from you.
26 In your land no woman will miscarry or be barren. I will give you a
Volume III1
complete life span.

27 The terror that issues from me I will send ahead o f you, in fa ct all nations
among whom you will come I will throw into confusion. All your enemies I will
cause to flee before you.
28 For I will send hornets before you and they will drive out before you the
Hivites, the Canaanites and the Hittites.
29 I will not drive them out before you in one yeai; lest the land turn into a
wilderness and the wild animals would get the upperhand over you.
30 Gradually I will drive them out before you, until you have increased so
much that you can take possession o f the land.
31 Your territory I will set as follows: from Yam Suph to the Sea o f the
Philistines and from the wilderness to the River (\X will stretch out). In fact, I
will deliver the inhabitants o f the land into your hands, so that you can drive
them out before you.
32 With them and with their gods you shall make no covenant.
33 They are not allowed to remain in your land, lest they cause you to sin
against me. For i f you would start worshiping their gods, it will be a snare to
you. ’
2.9.1 YHWH’s epilogue stands by itself, is not closely related to the preceding
regulations. The admonitions are not about what YHWH has said but about what
he is yet going to announce (23:20-22; see beside it Lev. 26:3ff.; Deut.
26:16ff.). In the epilogue, YHWH also in another way points to the future (see
2.2.2). The injunctions of 20:22-23:19 themselves are the occasion. They
presuppose life in the land of civilization (see 2.2.13), and so automatically
focus one’s thoughts on the future, prompting the question of how Israel is
going to get to that land, the land of promise (3:8; 13:5, 11), and how it will
get possession of it. These questions are answered in the epilogue. So in effect
the passage anticipates Israel’s acceptance of the covenant with YHWH (24:3, 7;
on 19:8 as declaration of intention see \bl. II, 435f.). The evident meaning is
that the words which Moses on behalf of YHWH gave to Israel (24:3) also
include those of 23:20-33. Thus when Israel accepted the covenant it also had a
good idea of what the future would be like and what their lifestyle in the land
should be (23:24f., 32f.).
2.9.2 ‘Land’ (yiK, see Introd. §3.6), the element from the promises to the
patriarchs which was still future has a prominent place in the epilogue (5x;
23:26, 29, 30f., 33; cf. also 23:20, 23). YHWH discloses its enormous size
(23:31). He also tells how Israel is going to get there: a messenger from YHWH
will go ahead of Israel as guide and guardian; the messenger represents
Volume III1
EXODUS 2 3 :2 0 -3 3 271
YHWH;252 once the people are in Canaan, the messenger will take on the form
of a terror that brings panic to the inhabitants (23:27), of swarms of hornets
that drive away the peoples (23:28).253
YHWH makes it known that the land he has in mind for his people is a
peopled land (23:20, 23). He will make it inhabitable for Israel by chasing
away (23:28-30) and destroying (23:23) the original residents. Why are the
natives to be destroyed? Was the land not spacious enough to accommodate
both them and Israel (cf. Gen. 34:21)? A clear answer to these questions is
given in 23:33. The Canaanites are a danger to Israel, not because of the threat
of overpopulation (cf. 23:29) or because they might seek to kill the Israelites.
They are a threat to the purity of Israel’s worship. Their presence might lead
Israel to enter into relationships with them, might lead to marriages between
them and the Israelites (23:32); the consequence of that would be that the
Israelites would tolerate the worship of the Canaanites, perhaps even engage in
it themselves (23:24a). That must be avoided at all costs. Idol worshipers and
their cultic objects must be destroyed (23:24b). For idolatry carries disasters in
its wake (e.g. Deut. 28:15-66; 2 Kgs. 17:7-23); in contrast, pure YHWH worship
is the guarantee of a blessed existence (23:25f.; Deut. 7:12-15; 28:2-14; cf. also
15:26).
2.9.3 But if the inhabitants of Canaan constitute such a big threat to Israel
(cf. Judg. 2:1-5), why, one could ask, did YHWH not completely wipe them out
in a short time? (see Josh. 13:1-7). The answer is: YHWH tolerates the inhabit
ants of the land because he needs them; he wants to prevent the land from
becoming unlivable as long as Israel is not numerous enough (different from
12:37) to protect (23:29f.; Deut. 7:22) the civilized land against the always
threatening desert (cf. 2 Kgs. 17:25f.; Isa. 34:13ff.; Jer. 50:39; 51:37).254 That
means that Israel must be on its guard in its association with the inhabitants of
the land, and in the interest of the purity of the YHWH worship (23:24, 25a,
32f.)255 must choose for remaining on its own, eschewing close connections
with them. Only so can Israel be the holy nation YHWH wants her to be (19:6).
In more specific language than Exod. 23:20-33, Deut. 7 details what being
YHWH’s people involves relative to Israel’s relation to the Canaanites. Avoiding
all contact with them (23:32; Deut. 7:2) means concretely that intermarriage is
252 On the close relationship between y h w h and his messenger see 23:21f. and at 3:2, and for
other ideas concerning y h w h ’s accompaniment of Israel see V>1. II, 253-256, and 5.3.2.4.
253 Frequently occurring terms are nbB (Introd. §3.49.1), see 23:20, 27f.; “J'JDb (Introd.
§3.42.2), see 23:20, 23, 27f.; eni pi. (see 2:17), see 23:28-31; ’)B» (Introd. §3.42.3), see 23:21,
28f., 30f.; D’JD is frequently used in chapters 32-34; see 5.1.3.
254 Cf. Houtman*, Wereld, 27ff., 50ff.; for other explanations of y h w h ’s patience with the
inhabitants o f Canaan see Judg. 13:1-4; Wisd. 12:3-10.
255 Cf. also 34:11-17; on the relation of 34:11-17 to Exod. 23 see 2.8.
Volume III1
forbidden (Deut. 7:3f.; cf. Josh. 23:12f.; Mai. 2:llff.; Ezra 9-10; Neh. 10:31;
13:23-27). Furthermore, in Exod. 23 YHWH asks Israel to be actively involved
in the destruction of the cultic objects used in the pagan cult (23:24b; Deut.
7:5, 25). The expulsion of the Canaanites (23:27-30) and their annihilation
(23:23b) YHWH depicts as being in the main his work. There is only an aside
reference to Israel’s role in that regard (23:31b). In contrast, in Deut. 7 Israel is
assigned an active role in the extermination of the native population (Deut. 7:2,
16, 22, 24; cf. also e.g. Num. 33:52, 55), while YHWH is the One who by his
presence and support enables Israel to destroy the peoples (Deut. 7:17-24). All
in all, according to Deut. 7 the task of the ‘ethnic cleansing’ of Canaan falls to
the Israelites themselves. The carrying out is described in Joshua (Josh. 6:21;
8:21ff.; 10:23ff., 28ff., 40f.; ll:14f., 16ff.).254*256 The goal, the preservation of
Israel’s identity as holy nation, justifies, as is especially clear from Deuteron
omy, the most rigorous measures against the danger of becoming infected by
idolatry, whether from the outside (e.g. Num. 25:1-18) or from within (Deut.
13:5,8f.,12-17; cf. e.g. Exod. 32:25-29; 1 Kgs. 18:40; 2 Kgs. 9:22-24,30-33;
10:7-28).
2.9.4 In view of the barbarian nature of the order to Israel to exterminate the
Canaanites (cf. also Deut. 9:4f.; 18:12; 20:16-18), it is not surprising that Deut.
7 has occasioned sharp criticism of Israel’s conception of God and of the
ethical level of the OT, and has even given rise to feelings of anti-Semiti-
cism.257 In any case, it should be noted that Exod. 23:20-33 and Deut. 7, as
well as other OT passages, are rooted in a world full of violence and death; in
such a world, killing and extermination where regarded as an effective if not
unavoidable means to fight evil, and the point of the sword was an effectual
means to preserve the purity of the cult. Many Bible readers will have diffi
culty with it. Exod. 23:20-33; 34:11-17; Deut. 7 are governed by the concern
to protect Israel’s identity as people of YHWH. The people of Canaan are only
portrayed as the great tempters. That is not all that can be said about them.
Genesis presents quite a different picture of these nations: the patriarchs co
exist peacefully with them; they are portrayed as real human beings of flesh
and blood, in many respects an example to Israel’s ancestors. In short, as
concerns Israel’s relation to the inhabitants of Canaan, the voice of Deut. 7 has
a dominant position in the OT. It cannot, however, lay claim to exclusivity.258
254 On the topic see G. Schmitt, Du sollst keinen Frieden schliefien mit den Bewohnern des
Landes, Stuttgart et al. 1970.
251 See for the last point e.g. F. Delitzsch, Die grofie Tduschung, Stuttgart/Berlin 1920; cf. K.
Johanning, Der Bibel-Babel-Streit, Frankfurt am Main et al. 1988, 76-81.
2S* For a discussion of Exod. 23:20-33 and Deut. 7 see G. Braulik, “Die Vdlkervemichtung und
die Rtlckkehr Israels ins VerheiBungsland: Hermeneutische Bemerkungen zum Buch Deuteronomi-
um,” in M. Vervenne, F. Lust (eds.), Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic Literature (Fs C.H.W.
Volume III1
EXODUS 2 3 :2 0 -3 3 273
2.9.5 Exod. 23:20-33 is governed by the belief that Israel’s future hinges on
obedience to the will of YHWH (23:2If.) and on radical consecration to him
alone (23:24f., 32f.). Also when these conditions are not stated along with the
promises of YHWH (e.g. 23:27-31), they are nevertheless presupposed. As
earlier there was mention of the announcement of the will of YHWH previous to
the theophany at Sinai (15:25b; see \bl.II, 313), so here there is mention of
the announcement of the will of YHWH subsequent to the stay at Sinai
(23:2If.). The idea that the disclosure of YHWH’s will was not restricted to the
Sinai, is also found elsewhere (see e.g. 34:34f.).
With its admonitions and promises and its hortatory style, 23:20-33 betrays
affinity with Deuteronomy and Deuteronom(ist)ic literature. The relationship
with Deut. 7 came up earlier already. The alternation of the 2nd pers. sing, and
the 2nd pers. plur. found in Deuteronomy can also be seen in 23:20-33 (2nd
pers. plur. in 23:21b, 25a, 31b). That is one reason why it is widely held that
the passage is the result of a process of development.259
23:20-33 can be regarded as a unit. Particulars about it will be given in the
exegesis. In at least one textual tradition a caesura (?) is introduced before
23:26 (see Perrot*, 58; not in BHS). Why just there is not cleat
23:20 ‘Soon I will send a messenger ahead o f you to guard you on the way
and to bring you to the place which I have prepared.'
’aJK nan, see Introd. §3.15.1. Sam.Pent.: ’3Kbn (cf. 23:23 MT); cf. LXX
(also 33:2), Vulg. “pjEib, Symm.: ttpodyovTa oe; Vulg.: qui praecedat te, ‘who
goes before you.’ 1087, see 10:28. yna, see 3:18. R13 hiph. (Introd. §3.8), cf.
Deut. 7:1. The twofold task of guarding and guiding are really two sides of one
inandate: while protected, bringing to ... (cf. LXX). mport (see 3:5), LXX: tqv
yqv (cf. Pesh.). Nachmanides thinks of ‘the place’ as the sanctuary in Jerusa
lem (cf. Rashi: the place opposite to where the heavenly sanctuary is located);
Brekelmans), Leuven 1997, 3-38; N.K. Gottwald, “Theological Education as a Theory-Praxis

Loop: Situating the Book of Joshua in a Cultural, Social Ethical, and Theological Matrix,” in J.W.
Rogerson et al. (eds.), The Bible in Ethics, Sheffield 1995, 107-118; C. Houtman, “Zwei
Sichtweisen von Israel als Minderheit inmitten der Bewohner Kanaans,” in Deuteronomy and
Deuteronomic Literature, 213-231; N. Lohfink, “The Destruction of the Seven Nations in
Deuteronomy and the Mimetic Theory,” Contagion: Journal o f Violence, M imesis and Culture 2
(1995), 103-117; M. Vtfeinfeld, “The Ban on the Canaanites in the Biblical Codes and Its
Historical Development,” in A. Lemaire, B. Otzen (eds.), H istory and Tradition o f Early Israel
(Fs E. Nielsen), Leiden 1993, 142-60. Cf. also H. Ausloos, “The Septuagint \fersion of Exod
23:20-33: A ‘Deuteronomist’ at W>rk?,” JNSL 22 (1996), 89-106.
For the discussion see e.g. Schwienhorst-SchOnberger (see 2.2.1), 407ff.; cf. e.g. Osumi (see
2.2.1), 212ff. et al.
Volume III1
see recently also Criisemann, Tora (see 2.2.1), 21 Of.260 note however e.g.
Deut. 26:9. 113 hiph. (see 8:22), LXX: + ‘for you.’ Meant is the land promised
to the patriarchs (6:8; 13:5, 11).
23:21 ‘Show respect fo r him by listening to him and by not going against him.
For he cannot forgive your offenses, even though he is my representative. ’
In 23:21, 22 die proper attitude to be observed toward the messenger is set
forth along with the consequences of being remiss in this regard.
nn®n (10:28; cf. Ges-K §51n), to introduce final clauses (KoSynt §364a); in
LXX (npooexe ocauxq), ‘take heed to yourself;’ cf. 34:12) VJBB is not
translated, ‘listen to’ (Introd. §3.51.1), meant is to the injunctions he gives, of
course of behalf of YHWH (cf. e.g. 15:26).
(Sam.Pent.: n o n bx; so also SamT) prohibitive hiph. sing, of "HD
(see 1:14), ‘do not exasperate’ (see Symm.: pq itapanlicpaive; cf. e.g. SV,
Dasbeig, and see Salvesen*, 104f.). Common nowadays (Ges-K §67y) is the
view that the vocalization must be "ipil (hiph. of m a ); see already LXX:
arceiOei; Aq.: Ttpooepioqc; Pesh.: tthr ’, and e.g. TO: rrb ap b 3"non X^l, ‘and
refuse not to listen to him’ (cf. Pesh. TPsJ, TNf [in TPsJ and TNf with as
object ‘his words’]); Vulg.: nec contemnendum putes, ‘and do not think to
despise him.’ m o (OT ca. 45*), ‘to go against,’ ‘be rebellious,’ often used for
the relationship between YHWH and Israel, including that during the sojourn in
the desert (e.g. Deut. 9:7,23f.; 31:27; Isa. 63:10; Pss. 78:8, 17; 106:7, 33, 43),
and means the same as ‘not listening to’ (e.g. Deut. 9:23), ‘act arrogantly’
(Deut. 1:43) etc. (see THAT, I, 928ff.; TWAT, V, 6ff.). ‘Rebellion’ here has a
nomistic flavour; it is disregard of the injunctions. '3, see Introd. §3.25.1.
b K®3 with as object B®B (see Introd. §3.20), LXX: prj UTtooteiAqtai a t, ‘he
will not be restrained toward you;’ meant presumably is that he will practice no
restraint in punishing disobedience; cf. Vulg.: non dimittet cum peccaveritis,
‘he will not let you get away with it when you sin.’ In the conviction that only
God can forgive sins, even the idea that the messenger might be able to do that
is ruled out; cf. MSS TPsJ: p13®N xb, ‘I (YHWH) will not forgive.’ D®, see
Introd. §3.50. m p 3 (see 3:20), LXX: in ' aired), ‘on him’ (cf. Pesh.: ‘lwhy)\
the Hebrew text has been weakened (cf. Frankel*, 87); cf. also TO: r m a 'a
’B®3 ’“in, ‘for his Memrah is in my name’ (so also TPsJ), that is, ‘he speaks in
my name;’ TNf: v b s ’“ip nx KGMp ’B® a n x , ‘for my holy name will have
been proclaimed upon him’ (in maigin: n p ,,B n a 'a D® n^ffB^l, ‘the name of
my Memrah has been proclaimed upon him’).160
160 Cf, however, H. Ausloos, “Deuteronomi(sti)c Elements in Exod 23,20-33?,” in M. Vervenne

(ed.), Studies in the Book o f Exodus, Leuven 1996, 481-500 (pp. 490ff.).
Volume III1
EXODUS 2 3 :2 0 -3 3 275
The conclusion of 23:21 is puzzling.261 Should 'a be taken as causal of as

concessive (Introd. §3.25.2)? Is the messenger unable to forgive because he
represents yhwh , who takes sin so seriously that he refuses to acquit (cf.
32:32-34), or is he unable because forgiving is solely YHWH’s prerogative? (cf.
34:9 and see 33:3, 5). The latter seems to be the case. There is an antipatory
allusion here to the idolatrous worship of the golden calf (Exod. 32). In spite
of the warning, Israel is disobedient. Yet YHWH is exceeedingly merciful. For
even though Israel was fully aware of the consequences of idolatry - forgive
ness is impossible - he was nonetheless willing to make a new start with Israel
(34:10-35).
23:22 ‘Howevet; i f you listen to him and do all that I command you, then I
will be the enemy o f your enemies and the adversary o f your adversaries. ’
In the LXX, 23:22 starts with a duplication of 19:5, 6, followed by an expan
sion (after the first clause of 19:5) ‘and if you do everything that I shall
command you.’ DK ’3, see Introd. §3.25.2. POtfnsntf (Introd. §3.51.1), see
Ges-K §113o; Jotlon §123g; Sam.Pent.: 2nd pers. plur.; so also LXXB. 1*?p3,
Sam.Pent.: ‘my voice;’ cf. LXX, TNf and the use of the 1st pers. sing, in the
sequel. Obedience to the messenger is the same as obedience to yhwh . rPt?m
(Introd. §3.41.1), Sam.Pent.: 2nd pers. plur. More than obedience to the
messenger is asked here. Faithfulness to all of YHWH’s laws is the prerequisite
for a blessed existence.
‘to command’ (Introd. §3.12.1), LXX, Pesh.: + ‘you.’ 3’N, see 15:6. ’p i j l
perf. qal of n s (related to m s II [OT 27*]), ‘to be hostile,’ here with as
object the qal participle used as a noun (OT 17x). See THAT, II, 582f.; TWAT,
VI, 1122ff.
23:22b has a poetic character ‘enemies’ and ‘adversaries’ are synonyms and
are used more often in combination (Isa. 1:24; 59:18; Nah. 1:2; Pss. 69:19, 20;
143:12). For YHWH and his adversaries see e.g. Deut. 32:41, 43. 23:22 talks in
general about Israel’s enemies (cf. also 23:27). In 23:23, 28 they are cited by
name.
23:23 'My messenger goes ahead o f you to bring you to the Amorites, the
Hittites, the Perizzites, the Canaanites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites, and / will
annihilate them. ’
23:23, after some aside comments (23:21, 22), harks back to 23:20 (cf. 3:8,
where Dlpo [23:20] is linked with ‘Amorites’ etc.). ’3 makes the clause
emphatic (Introd. §3.25.1), in any case it does not have causal or temporal
significance (Introd. §3.25.2); for the last point see e.g. Dasbeig, who connects
Cf. also H.-D. Neef, ‘“ Ich selber bin in ihm’ (Ex 23,21),” BZ 39 (1995), 54-75.
Volume III1
23:23 with 23:24: ‘When my messenger ... (23:23), then you shall not bow
down ... (23:24)’ (the link with 23:22 is that what YHWH promises will be very
useful, because Israel’s destination is a land full of enemies; see also Ehrlich).
‘to go,’ see Introd. §3.41.1. "pafib, in LXX rendered with qyoupevoc oou
(cf. 23:27), ‘leading you.’ ‘Amorites’ etc., Sam.Pent. and LXX have here, like
elsewhere (e.g. 3:8 and see also 33:2), a series of seven members (see Introd.
§8.3.2). vrnnani (ina hiph., see 9:15), already in the ancient versions the
sing, suffix (each nation individually is object [Strack] or the entire group
[Cassuto]) is rendered as plur. The end of 23:23 corresponds to 23:22b; object
is the peoples, the enemies. The conclusion is further worked out in 23:27-30
(cf. also 23:33a).
23:24 'Before their gods you shall not bow down, you shall not let yourselves
be tempted to worship them, you shall not go along with them (the inhabitants
of the land). On the contrary, you shall tear them (the images) down and
smash to bits their massebahs. ’
Implied at the beginning of 23:24 is: when you have come to the land of the
Amorites etc. 23:24 shows - what is concretely stated in the sequel (23:29f.) -
that for a considerable period of time the peoples are going to share the land
with Israel (cf. also 23:32f.) and that their extermination by YHWH (23:23 end)
is going to take time.
For 23:24a see 20:5 and also 34:14, 16b; Deut. 7:4; 11:16. For the destruc
tion of idolatrous cultic objects see 32:20. Beside 23:24b see 34:13; Deut. 7:5;
12:3.
ninnon, see 4:31. ‘gods’ (= images), see Introd. §7.2.1. m a u n (Ges-K
§60b; Joiion §63b), see Introd. §3.37.1. orvtouo (Introd. §3.41.2; cf. Lev.
18:3), meant it seems are the cultic practices (cf. 34:15; Deut. 12:30f.). The
suffix can refer to the nations, but also to the gods (acts of worshiping them).
a n 'b sa can also refer to objects (temples, altars, images etc.). Ehrlich relates
the suffix to the gods and maintains that it is the fashioning of images as
purely works of art that is forbidden, cnn pi., see 15:7. In TPsJ p m u o n ’a,
‘their idol temples,’ is object, natf, see 9:25. DOTOS®, Sam.Pent.: onaso (cf.
34:13 MT [differently Sam.Pent.] and see Joiion §94g). In TPsJ finob’S nop,
‘their erected images,’ is object.
n?80 (OT ca. 35x), derivative of 3JH (see 5:20), denotes an erected stone.261262
261 See for the massebah BRL, 206ff.; TWAT, IV, 1064ff. (+ Bibl.); U. Avner, “Ancient
Agricultural Settlement and Religion in the Uvda Valley in Southern Israel,” BA 53 (1990), 125-
41; J. de Groot, Palestijnse masse ben, Groningen 1913; M. Hutter, “Kultstellen und Baity loi,” in
B. Janowski et al. (eds.), Religionsgeschichtliche Beziehungen zwischen Kleinasien, Nordsyrien
und dem Alten Testament, Freiburg/GOttingen 1993, 86-108; JaroS*, 147fF.; T.N.D. Mettinger, No
Graven Image? Israelite Aniconism in Its A ncient Near Eastern Context, Stockholm 1995, 140fF.;
Volume III1
EXODUS 2 3 :2 0 -3 3 277
Form and function of the massebah are not described in the OT. Their function
must be determined through interpretation. In the ancient Near East there
existed crude and unsculpted as well as chiseled raised stones of various forms
and sizes. Inscriptions and pictures could be carved into them. However from
Palestine virtually the only massebahs that are known are ones without text and
illustrations. A raised stone draws attention. Consisting of durable material, it
can keep alive the memory of persons and happenings (Gen. 35:20; 1 Sam.
7:12; 2 Sam. 18:18), represent the numinous, the deity (e.g. Gen. 28:18; see
Houtman, VT 27 [1977], 342f.), and serve as witness to a covenant (Josh.
24:25ff.; cf. also Gen. 31:45ff., 5If.). As plur. n aso is repeatedly mentioned in
conjunction with asherim (see 34:13) (e.g. 1 Kgs. 14:23; 2 Kgs. 17:10; 18:4;
23:14) and altars (34:13; Deut. 7:5; 12:3). They were the stage property of the
Canaanite cultic place (so also in 23:24; cf. Deut. 16:22). Likely, at the holy
place the massebah served as representative of the deity (cf. e.g. 2 Kgs. 3:2;
10:27; Mic. 5:12).
The precise significance of the massebahs in 24:4 is a matter of conjecture.
Deut. 27:1-8 talks about large stones on which YHWH’s instructions are
inscribed (cf. also Josh. 8:30-32). However, in Exod. 24 the recording precedes
the raising of the stones. Possibly the massebahs might be memorials for the
twelve tribes (cf. Josh. 4:4ff., 20ff.). It is also possible to think of them as
representatives of the twelve tribes and the altar as representative of YHWH. In
that case one would expect, however, that not only the altar (24:6) but also the
massebahs - not the people (24:8) - would be sprinkled with blood. Or is ‘on
the people’ the same as ‘on the massebahs?’ (cf. Cassuto). In all probability the
massebahs in 24:4 functioned (originally) as witnesses to the covenant -one for
each tribe (cf. Josh. 24:25ff.).
23:25 'If you worship your God YHWH, he will bless your bread and water.
Indeed, I will keep sickness from you. ’
Like 23:24, 23:25, 26 imagines the situation after arrival in Canaan. Obedience
to YHWH will ensure, be rewarded with a blessed and long and satisfying life
(cf. e.g. Deut. 7:12-15; 28:1-14).
D m a r n , there is a transition from the 2nd pers. sing, to the 2nd pers. plur.; see
also '‘y our (plur.) God’ (Introd. §7.2.2); in the sequel of the verse the sing,
returns; LXX maintains sing, also in 23:25a. ‘YHWH’ in the mouth of YHWH, as
more often; see e.g. 19:11. "p a (see 12:32), LXX, Vulg.: 1“ pers. sing., like at
the end of the verse, on1?, see 2:20. Pesh.: ‘your (plur.) bread etc...’ ‘water,’
see Introd. §3.33. In TO the more general terms ‘food’ and ‘drink’ (cf. TPsJ)
J.C. de Moor, “Standing Stones and Ancestor Worship,” UF 27 (1995), 1-20; K. van der Toom,
“Worshipping Stones: On the Deification of Cult Symbols,” JNSL 23 (1997), 1-14.
Volume III1
are used. In the LXX ‘your water’ is preceded by ‘your wine’ (cf. Deut 7:13).
vnoni (mo hiph., see 3:3), Pesh., TNf: 3rd pers. sing., as in the foregoing,
nbrtn, see 15:26; TO: ‘terrible illnesses;’ TPsJ: the plague of jaundice (KnTno
nnD). "jmpO (see 3:20), LXX: a<|)’ upwv (plur.), evidently to make the point:
from anyone of you; Pesh.: ‘from your homes.’
In 23:25 (end) and 23:26 the results of YHWH’s blessing of Israel’s food and
drink are described. Having good food and drink promotes health and a long
life. On water that brings sickness and death, see 15:23; on y h w h as healer see
15:26.
23:26 ‘In your land no woman will miscarry or be barren. I will give you a
complete life span. ’
part. fern. pi. (Ges-K §94d) of bottf (OT 23*), ‘become childless;’ pi.
here: ‘to miscarry’ (cf. 2 Kgs. 2:19, 21). Cf. Stol*, 9ff. LXX: ayovoc, ‘bar
ren,’ ‘childless’ (cf. Aq.: areicvoc), which is a synonym of oteipa (cf. Vulg.:
infecunda and sterilis), which is used as translation of feminine of the
adjective T?y (OT llx), ‘barren’ (see TWAT, VI, 343ff.). Cf. Stol*, 17f. For 1
with meaning of ‘or’ see JoUon §175a. 1BOD, see 9:16. T ° \ see Introd.
§3.23.2. (K*?n pi., see 2:16), in TNf with you as subject: ‘in peace you
will complete...’
The OT, which in this respect is rooted in the literature of the ancient Near
East, shows that the Israelite, despite the cares and difficulties accompanying
old age (see 1.6.4), valued life (cf. Diirr [see 1.6.1]). The ideal was, after a
satisfying and long life, surrounded by children and grandchildren (e.g. Gen.
15:15; 25:8; 35:29; Judg. 8:32; Job 42:17; 1 Chr. 29:28), to die peacefully the
death of the upright (Num. 23:10), in the assurance that one’s ‘name’ would be
perpetuated on earth (cf. Deut. 25:5ff.). Dying prematurely in the prime of
life, before having made something of one’s life, is a curse, a deplorable fate
(e.g. Isa. 38:10; Jer. 17:11; Ps. 102:24, 25).263 Only in desperate situations,
when life is totally shattered and all hope is gone, could death be regarded as a
welcome deliverance (e.g. Jer. 8:3; Job 3:21ff.; 6:9f.; 7:15 etc.; Sir. 30:17;
41:2). The absence of aged folk, in particular of men, is a sign of judgment, of
being under a curse (1 Sam. 2:31f.). Living to a ripe old age (e.g. Gen. 50:22,
26; Deut. 34:7; Josh. 24:29; Judg. 2:8; cf. Josh. 13:1; 23:2), while remaining
vigorous and strong (Deut. 34:7; Josh. 14:10, 11; Ps. 92:15), and the presence
of large numbers of aged men, is a sign of blessing, a mark of God’s new age
(cf. Isa. 65:20, 22; Jer. 31:13; Zech. 8:4; see also 1 Hen. 5:9; 10:17; Jub.
263 For the numerous laments on the frailty of human life, see B. v a n ’t \feld, De klacht over
de vergankelijkheid van het m enselijk leven in het Oude Testament, Harderwijk 1985.
Volume III1
EXODUS 2 3 :2 0 -3 3 279
23
There is something of a link between 23:26a and 23:26b. Owing to the
presence of children, old age can be a time without cares and of joy (cf.
20:12). For the correlation between doing the will of YHWH and enjoying
blessings, long life, see e.g. Deut. 5:33; 8:1; 16:20 etc. Compare the correlation
between the doing of ‘wisdom’ and blessing, long life (Rrov. 3:2, 16; 4:4, 10,
22; 9:10f.; 13:14 etc.; see also Prov. 16:31).
Reality is often otherwise. For critical reflection see e.g. Wisd. 2:17f.; 4:7-
11, 16; 5:15; 1 Hen. 102:6ff.2 64265
23:27 ‘The terror that issues from me I will send ahead o f you, in fa ct all
nations among whom you will come I will throw into confusion. All your
enemies I will cause to flee before you. ’
23:27-31 ties in with the end of 23:23 and explains how YHWH in Canaan
creates room for Israel (cf. 34:11b).
nip’#, see 15:16; LXX: tov <|>6Pov (without possessive pronoun); Aq.,
Symm.: tf|v teatout A.i)Civ ôu; 1’Jsb, for LXX see 23:23. The terror is
personified. Is it (he) the same as the messenger (23:23), the representative of
YHWH (cf. 14:19, 24), or does he come in the form of an army of hornets?
(23:28). Dan (see 14:24), TO: lanKI, ‘and I shall crush;’ TNf in margin:
’S’ltftO, ‘and I shall wipe out;’ Pesh.: w'hrwb, ‘and I shall destroy;’ SamT:
b o p K I, ‘and I shall kill.’ Panic is one of the marks of the YHWH war (see \fol.
II, 238); cf. Deut. 7:23; 11:25. OPrrba (see Introd. §§3.26; 3.40.2), LXX,
Pesh.: plur. Both in TO and in TPsJ, war with the nations is mentioned as goal
of Israel’s coming, o m , suffix plur. refers to DP (cf. K6Synt §346g). The
enemies (cf. 23:22) are the inhabitants of Canaan (see 23:23, 28). ini + *pp,
see Introd. §3.36 (cf. also KOSynt §328h; Ges-K § 117ii note; Brockelmann
§94c). In TNf is explained by saying that YHWH gives the enemies ‘with
broken neck’ (*?np ’T a n ) to Israel.
23:28 ‘For I will send hornets before you and they will drive out before you
the Hivites, the Canaanites and the Hittites. ’
How YHWH causes the enemies to flee (23:27) becomes clear in 23:28. n m s n
264 See H. Gross, Die Idee des ewigen und allgem einen Weltfriedens im A lien O rient und im
Alien Testament, Trier 1956, 166ff.; A. Malamat, “Longevity: Biblical Concepts and Some
Ancient Near Eastern Parallels,” AJO Beiheft 19 (1982), 215-24; J. Klein, “The ‘Bane’ of
Humanity: A Lifespan of One Hundred Twenty Years,” A SJ (Acta Sumerologica) 12 (1990), 57-
70 (Gen. 6:3 speaks of the ideal age, the maximum life span).
“ 5 The promise of a long life as reward for righteousness is also known from Israel’s
surrounding world; see DOrr (see 1.6.1); Malamat and e.g. Shamash inscription (ii, 43f.; see
ANET, 388b).
Volume III1
(for article see Ges-K §126t), see Introd. §9.2.10. Ehrlich, following Ibn Ezra,
regards nmsn as a synonym of nmsn, ‘leprosy’ (see 4:6). ntfui, LXXA,
Pesh.: 7 shall drive out;’ LXXB: ‘you sh all...’
As representatives of the inhabitants of Canaan three peoples are mentioned,
in LXX four (the Amorites first), in Sam.Pent. all seven (cf. 23:23), and in
Pesh. only two (Canaanites and Hittites).
23:29 7 will not drive them out before you in one year, lest the land turn into
a wilderness and the wild animals would get the upperhand over you.
23:30 Gradually I will drive them out before you, until you have increased so
much that you can take possession o f the land. ’
In 23:29, 30 further particulars are given about the driving out of the inhabit
ants of Canaan (cf. Deut. 7:22).
UtfUK (also in 23:20), already in the ancient versions the sing, suffix is
translated as a plural (cf. 23:23 end). Subject is YHWH; he uses the hornets
(23:28) as his army. In LXX "pjDD 23:29 is left untranslated, fttltf, see 6:16.
‘one,’ see Introd. §4.2.1. p , see 1:10. (OT 56*), ‘wilderness’ (e.g. Lev.
26:33). See THAT, II, 970ff.; TWAT, VIII, 241ff. 331, see 1:7. bp, see
Brockelmann § 110b. ‘wild animals,’ see Introd. §9.2.1. In an elaboration TPsJ
gives the reason for the coming of the wild animals: they devour the corpses of
the inhabitants of Canaan and will also harm the Israelites. BPS, see 12:4. m s ,
see 1:7. bna, see 15:17.
23:31 ‘Your territory I will set as follows: from Yam Suph to the Sea o f the
Philistines and from the wilderness to the River (it will stretch out). In fact, I
will deliver the inhabitants o f the land into your hands, so that you can drive
them out before you.
23:32 With them and with their gods you shall make no covenant.
23:33 They are not allowed to remain in your land, lest they cause you to sin
against me. For i f you would start worshiping their gods, it will be a snare to
you ’
After noting that Israel will be able to take possession of the land (23:30b),
YHWH reveals the extent of Israel’s future territory (23:31a).
'ntfl (from nP, see 7:23), Qm, probably: ’nD[en (from OP); cf. Sander
son**, 88. bsa, see 7:27. ‘Yam Suph,’ see Introd. §8.12. ‘Sea of the Philis
tines’ (without article, see KOSynt §295f), see Introd. §8.28. ‘Wilderness,’ see
Introd. §3.31. ‘River’ (see Introd. §8.21), LXX: ‘the great river Euphrates’ (cf.
Gen. 15:19; Deut. 1:7; Josh. 1:4); TNf: ‘the great river;’ TO, TPsJ: ‘the
Euphrates.’
23:3lb-33 contains concluding observations which expand on the earlier
ones. It is explicitly stated how Israel is to behave toward the inhabitants of
Canaan and why they are not allowed to remain in the land.
Volume III1
EXODUS 2 4 :1 , 2 281
In 23:31b yh w h declares once again that the Canaanites will be expelled and
that Israel will take their land. Up to this point, he talked about their expulsion
as his work (23:29, 30). Now he (also) assigns that task to Israel.
For the paseq after '3 (Introd. §3.25.1) see e.g. Joilon §15m; Meyer §16.3.
‘give into the hands of,’ see Introd. §§3.21.2; 3.36; cf. Deut. 7:2. ’atf’ (see
2:15), TNf, TPsJ: ‘all the inhabitants.’ le n tfin (with suffix sing.; cf. Ges-K
§58g, and see 23:23, 29, 30), Sam.Pent.: ontfUl, ‘and I will drive them out;’
cf. LXX, Viilg., TNf and see 23:30.
Beside 23:32f. see 34:12, 15, 16; Deut. 7:2, 4, 16. m a m a , see 2:24 and
4:25. ‘their gods,’ cf. 23:24. DfrnbKbl Dnb is something of a hendiadys; meant
is ‘with them as worshipers of other gods;’ the prohibition assumes that the
Canaanites want to hang on to their identity as worshipers- of other gods;
therefore they constitute a threat to Israel and are not allowed to remain in the
land. The book of Joshua mentions individual autochthonous inhabitants who
acquired a place in Israel (Josh. 2:9-14; 6:22-25) and a group of Canaanites
who used deceit to enter into an alliance with Israel (Josh. 9). In both cases
there is a loss of identity (Josh. 9:21, 23, 27), so that these non-Israelites were
no longer a threat to Israel’s identity as being YHWH’s people (cf. also 2 Sam.
21).
In TPsJ the 2nd pers. sing, is subject of 23:33a: ‘you shall leave them no
dwelling places.’ Kort hiph., see Introd. §3.20.1. Beside 23:33b see 23:24a. The
first '3 introduces a conditional clause (Introd. §3.25.2); the second '3 accentu
ates the apodosis; cf. LXX, Vulg. rrrp, Sam.Pent.: v rr (subject is the inhabit
ants of the land); cf. LXX, Pesh., TO, TPsJ, TNf. In MT the action of the
preceding clause (idol worship) or the presence of the peoples in the land is the
implied subject, tfpin, see 10:7.
2.10 CONCLUSION (24:1, 2)
24:1 A t that time he (YHWH) had also said to Moses: ‘Climb u p to YHWH, you
along with Aaron, Nadab and Abihu and seventy o f the elders o f Israel. At a
distance you shall bow down.
2 Moses is the only one who may get in contact with YHWH. The others may
not have contact. The people may not even climb up with him. ’
In a kind of appendix, 24:1, 2 mentions yet another instruction which YHWH

gave to Moses during the monologue, the beginning of which is described in
20:22. The instruction is for Moses personally. The preceding words were
addressed to him as Israel’s representative (cf. Keil, McNeile, Childs). 24:1, 2
correlates with 24:9-11 (see 3.1.2), the description of the execution of the
instruction.
Volume III1
24:1 A t that time he (YHWH) had also said to Moses: 'Climb up to YHWH, you
along with Aaron, Nadab and Abihu and seventy o f the elders o f Israel. A t a
distance you shall bow down.
In the extant text it is assumed that Moses is near the mountain (20:21)
(differently e.g. Baentsch: Moses is on the mountain). Thus the command to
climb up does not imply an earlier descent. There is, however, the implication
of a prior return to the people who are at a distance (24:3).
‘to climb up (Introd. §3.39.2) to YHWH,’ that is, the Sinai where YHWH
resides (cf. 19:3, 24; 32:30). Beer et al.: read ‘to me;’ for ‘YHWH’ (presup
posed subject of ION) in direct speech of YHWH see 19:11. In TPsJ, ‘Michael,
the prince of wisdom’ is the subject of ION266 and the event is situated on the
seventh day of the month (cf. bShab 88a). TNf mentions as goal of the ascent
the quest for instruction from YHWH.
‘Aaron etc.,’ see Introd. §§5.2; 5.6; 5.46; Sam.Pent. and Qm: + Eleazar and
Ithamar (so also in 24:9); cf. Lev. 10:1, 6, 12; see also SamT (cf. Sanderson**,
212ff.). ‘seventy,’ see Introd. §4.8.3. p t, see 3:16. TNf has here and elsewhere
‘wise men’ instead of ‘elders.’ nnttf, see 4:31; TNf: pbani, ‘and you shall
worship.’ There is a change in subject. Because of its use of the 3rd pers. plur.,
the LXX has excluded Moses (cf. 24:2). p im o (see 2:4), from the place where
YHWH is; the prostration is of course for YHWH; the act assumes that he
possesses royal dignity (cf 24:10 and see RSP, II, 421f); c f LXX: + ‘before
YHWH.’
Striking is that Moses is only one of a large group of select people and not
even primus inter pares (not so in 24:2). Elsewhere it is not the ascent of the
mountain (19:24; 24:13; 32:17) but the encounter with YHWH that is exclu
sively his privilege. It is often assumed that 24:1, 9-11 contains old material
and that originally only the (not: seventy) dignitaries of Israel were mentioned
in the story, while the individuals mentioned by name only later got into the
text (see \hlentin*, 394ff.).
The role of the elders is cleat They represent the people. Why Aaron along
with Nadab and Abihu, who here are not explicitly identified as Aaron’s sons
(cf 28:1), are mentioned is less cleat Are they included in the group that
meets YHWH because they are future priests? (e.g. Keil, Gispen). But why then
are not also Eleazar en Ithamar mentioned?
24:2 'Moses is the only one who may get in contact with YHWH. The others
may not have contact. The people may not even climb up with him. ’
In 24:2, despite the use of direct speech (the perfect consecutives continue the
266 Cf. bSanh 38b; Nachmanides has a different view: the angel (Metatron) is not the subject,
but the one to whom Moses has to ascend, even into the cloud (24:18).
Volume III1
EXODUS 2 4 :1 , 2 283
imperative of 24:1), the 3rd person is used for Moses as well as for his travel
companions. It is argued that the change in person is not unusual in Hebrew
(Ibn Ezra; cf. also Nachmanides). In my view, it shows that 24:2 is a clarifying
remark.
t f u niph., see 19:15. n a b , see 12:16. ‘YHWH,’ LXX: ‘God’ (cf. 20:21). on,
all the individuals mentioned, Moses excepted. 100, LXX: ‘with them.’
Not everyone has equal access to YHWH. In the matter of access to YHWH
some are more privileged than others. In 20:18-21 it is related that the people
leave the contact with YHWH up to Moses and prefer distance. 24:1, 2 presents
a more nuanced picture of the relationship between YHWH and Israel. It is
assumed that the holiness surrounding YHWH increases as one gets closer to
him (cf. 3:4-6 and see Introd. §3.44.2). There are as it were three zones.267 The
outer zone, the area around the mountain, is for the common people. The
middle circle, the area partway up the mountain, is where Aaron and his sons
and the dignitaries may come. The center of the circle, the top of the mountain,
is only open to Moses, the mediator of the theophany (see also 19:22-24 for
yet another slightly different picture).
24:2 is a clarification on 24:1. The nature of the relationship of Aaron,
Nadab, Abihu and the elders to YHWH is further defined by YHWH’s relation
ship to Moses and the people. In my view, it is wrong to say that 24:2 is an
editorial comment intended to suggest that Moses, after having partway gone
up the mountain with the elders (24:9-11), has to go up to YHWH alone (24:12)
(Baentsch). For that matter, also defenders of the unity of the text (including
Nachmanides, Hertz, Gispen) defend some such interpretation. In that case one
must assume that Joshua (24:13) and Hur (24:14) belonged to the elders, and
that the elders, with the exception of Joshua, returned to the camp to take care
of judicial matters (24:14). As I see it, 24:11 presupposes the return of Moses
and companions. 24:12 is the start of a new section. What can be said is that
24:2 leads up to and validates the ascent of Moses described in 24:12ff.
Cf. the three precincts of the sanctuary (see 4.8, 10) and see Milgrom*, 44ff.; A.M.
Rodriguez, “Sanctuary Theology in the Book of Exodus,” AUSS 24 (1986), 127-45 (pp. 13Iff).
Volume III1
EXODUS 24:3-11
YHWH AND ISRAEL ENTER INTO A COVENANT
24:3 Moses came and told the people all the ordinances o f YHWH, all the rules.
All the people responded with one voice, ‘A ll the ordinances which YHWH has
imposed we will do. ’
4 Moses then wrote down all the ordinances o f YHWH. He rose early in the
morning and built an altar at the foot o f the mountain, with twelve massebahs
with it, corresponding to the twelve tribes o f Israel.
5 He had the nobles o f the Israelites bring burnt offerings and slaughter
offerings o f well-being to YHWH; bulls (they offered).
6 Moses took h a lf o f the blood and put it in basins. The other h a lf o f the
blood he sprinkled on the altar.
7 Next he took the book o f the covenant and read it aloud to the people.
They said, ‘A ll that YHWH has commanded, we will do. Yes, we will obey it. ’
8 Finally, Moses took the blood and sprinkled it on the people, saying, ‘This
is the blood o f the covenant which YHWH makes with you on the basis o f all
these ordinances. ’
9 Then Moses climbed up, along with Aaron, Nadab and Abihu and seventy
o f the elders o f Israel.
10 They saw the God o f Israel: under his feet there was what looked like a
lapis lazuli tile and it sparkled like heaven itself
11 He did not then destroy the notables o f Israel. They saw God and yet ate
and drank.
3.1 SCHOLARLY EXPOSITION I: ESSENTIALS AND PERSPECTIVES /

INTRODUCTION TO EXEGESIS
3.1.1 Bibl.: D. Dore, “Un repas ‘d’alliance’? Ex 24,1-2.9-11,” in A. \fcnel

(ed.), I ’A ncien Testament approches et lectures, Paris 1977, 147-71; H. Haag,
“Das ‘Buch des Bundes’ (Ex 24,7),” in Das Buch des Bundes, DOsseldorf
1980, 226-33; R.S. Hendel, “Sacrifice as a Cultural System: The Ritual
Symbolism of Exodus 24,3-8,” ZAW 101 (1989), 366-90; J. L’Hour, ‘TAllian
ce de Sichem,” RB 69 (1962), 350-68; McCarthy, 264ff.; J.B. Lloyd, “The
Banquet Theme in Ugaritic Narrative,” UF 22 (1990), 169-93; E.W. Nicholson,
“The Interpretation of Exodus xxiv 9-11,” VT 24 (1974), 77-97; idem, “The
Antiquity of the Tradition in Exodus xxiv 9-11,” VT 25 (1975), 69-79; idem,
“The Origin of the Tradition in Exodus xxiv 9-11,” VT 26 (1976), 148-60;
Volume III1
idem, “The Covenant Ritual in Exodus xxiv 3-8,” VT 32 (1982), 74-86; idem,
“Covenant in a Century of Study Since Wellhausen,” OTS 24 (1986), 54-69;
idem, God and His People: Covenant and Theology in the Old Testament,
Oxford 1986; E. Ruprecht, “Exodus 24,9-11 als Beispiel lebendiger Erzdhltra-
dition aus der Zeit des babylonischen Exils,” in Werden und Wirken des Alten
Testaments (Fs C. Westermann), GOttingen/Neukirchen-Vluyn 1980, 138-73; A.
Schenkei; “Les sacrifices d’alliance, Ex XXIV, 3-8, dans leur portde narrative
et religieuse: Contribution a l’etude de la berit dans l’Ancien Testament,” RB
101 (1994), 481-94; Schmid*, 69ff.; Schmidt*, Exodus, Sinai und Mose, 82ff.;
J.L. Ska, “Le repas de Ex 24,11,” Bib 74 (1993), 305-27; De \&ux*, HAI, I,
414ff.; Th.C. Vriezen, “The Exegesis of Exodus xxiv 9-11,” OTS 17 (1972),
100-33; R Welten, “Die \femichtung des Todes und die Kdnigsherrschaft
Gottes: Eine traditionsgeschichtliche Studie zu Isa. 25,6-8; 24,21-23 und Ex
24,9-11,” ThZ 38 (1982), 129-46.
3.1.2 For exegetes it is not unusual to discuss Exod. 24 in its entirety (e.g.
Childs) or in two separate parts (24:1-11, 12-18) (e.g. Baentsch). That ap
proach finds support in MT (24:1 [p], 12 [y]; 25:1 [p]), but in my judgment
fails to do justice to the text in its current form. 24:1, 2 really goes with 20:18-
23:33 and belongs to the words YHWH spoke to Moses (20:22ff.). 24:3-11 are
about events after Moses’ return (24:3-8, 9-11). Moses performs the tasks set
before him:
(1) He announces the regulations given by YHWH (20:22-23:33), using them
as basis for YHWH’s covenant with Israel (24:3-8).
(2) He carries out the instruction (24:1, 2) to climb up with Aaron et al.
(24:9-11); 20:22-23:33 (a) and 24:1,2 (b) correspond in parallel fashion with
24:3-8 (a) and 24:9-11 (b).
Between 24:3-11 and preceding passages there is the following connection:
YHWH offers Israel a permanent relationship (19:3-6); Israel accepts the offer
(19:7, 8a); preparations are made for the meeting between YHWH and Israel and
the meeting takes place (19:8b-25); YHWH announces his will, directly (20:1-
17) and through Moses (20:22-23:33). With that the foundation has been laid
for the covenant and it can be implemented. The decalogue plays no role in the
making of the covenant. 24:12, which starts a new division, contains an
allusion to it.
3.1.3 24:3-11 has been the subject of intensive literary-critical and tradition-
critical investigation. It is impossible here to offer a succinct yet detailed
survey of these studies. All I will do is draw attention to the main problems
and state my standpoint on them, insofar as this is important for the exegesis.
Many have accepted the view that originally there was no literary relation
Volume III1
286 EXODUS 24:3-11
between 24:1, 2, 9-11 and 24:3-8.' In view of the diverse character of the
passages (see e.g. Vriezen, 118f.), this is likely. Whether 24:1,9-11 belongs to
one of the literary strands of the Pentateuch - and if so, at which point in the
preceding passage the ‘loose end’ 24:1, 9-11 is to be connected (e.g. at 19:24
or at 19:13b?; cf. Eerdmans*, 67) - or is to be regarded as an independent
tradition, is a question on which there is plenty of disagreement.1
2
Owing to the unique and archaic character of the passage there is fairly
general agreement that the tradition is very old, though there are also those
who defend a young date (see e.g. Schmid*, Jahwist, 11 If., and Ruprecht).
Ruprecht, citing similarities with the theophany account in Ezekiel (l:26f.;
10:1), and on the assumption that the Mesopotamian temple tower with atop
the sanctuary made of sapphire tile, the dwelling of the deity, constitutes the
background of the Sinai account (cf. however Welten, 139f.), detects the
following thrust in the passage: Israel in exile, at once tormented and im
pressed by the Marduk cult, is told that the splendor of Israel’s first cult at the
Sinai far exceeded that of the Marduk cult (pp. 150, 172).
There is no consensus either about the homogeneity and the literary identity
of 24:3-8.3 The passage contains no discrepancies. Older exegetes used to
regard it as a unity or as a slightly edited passage (‘all the rules’ in 24:3, and
24:4a, 7a [or 7] were attributed to R). Recent writers, in conjunction with the
revived notion that the making of the covenant of YHWH with Israel at Sinai is
of recent date,4 are inclined to regard the passage as Deuteronomistic. Old
elements are detected in 24:4 (from ‘He rose early...’), 5(,6).5
Important for the exegesis is that at certain points there is clear affinity
between 24:3-8 and 19:3b-8 (see \b l II, 434f.). Both passages correlate with
each other and affect the understanding of the material in between (see 3. 1.2).
They belong to those elements in the text with which the writer (final redactor)
creates the story line in the varied material he uses.
3.1.4 How do 24:3-8 and 24:9-11 relate to each other? Not uncommon is
the notion that both 24:3-8 and 24:9-11 represent an independent tradition
about the making of the covenant between YHWH and Israel. In that view the
‘eating and drinking’ in 24:11 are regarded as evidence for the covenant meal
1 Often 24:1b, 2 is viewed as secundary; according to Nicholson, VT 25 (1975), 78, also 24:1a
is not the original introduction to 24:9-11; in my view, 24:1 in its entirety fits in with 24:9-11
(see exegesis 24:10).
2 See in addition to the literature in 3.1.1 the synopsis of Zenger*, Sinaitheophanie, 215ff.;
Valentin*, 394fF.; cf. also Eerdmans*, 66 ff.
3 See the synopsis of Zenger*, Sinaitheophanie, 216; cf. Eerdmans*, 68 f.; Childs, 499ff.
4 See Nicholson, OTS 24 (1968), 54-69; idem, God and His People; more recent advocates of
the antiquity of the ritual described in 24:3-8 are Beyerlin*, 44ff.; L’Hour; Te Stroete.
5 See Nicholson, VT 82 (1982), 74fF.; cf. Zenger*, Israel, 134, 140, 147, 153.
Volume III1
(e.g. Vriezen). Sometimes 24:9-11 is tied to 24:3-8 and the covenant meal
regarded as part of the ritual of 24:3-8 (e.g. Buber*, 131). The idea that ‘eating
and drinking’ point to the use of a covenant meal has been challenged (e.g.
Nicholson, VT 24 [1974], 84ff.). Rightly so. As I see it, also the idea that the
meal on the mountain was a sacred meal (cf. 18:12) (e.g. Dord; Welten), is
unlikely.6 Theme of 24:9-11 is the visio Dei.
In the present context, 24:9-11 functions as a seal placed on the covenant just
made, as affirmation of the bond established by the God o f Israel - that ter
minology in 24:10 is predicated on the existence of the covenant. He receives
in audience the representatives of Israel. They are allowed a glimpse of God.
They may know who has entered into a bond with them. The greatest possible
blessing, the visio Dei, is given to them. After the enactment of the covenant
(24:3-8) there is complete harmony between God and Israel.
3.1.5 The theophany account of 24:9-11 is the counterpart of that of Exod.
19. There YHWH displays his awesome majesty through eruptions of cosmic
violence and remains the hidden One. Here he displays his awesome majesty in
serene quiet through blinding glory and steps out of his hiddenness. 24:9-11 is
a excellent fit after the ratification of the covenant: now that Israel has entered
into communion with YHWH, he enables Israel to meet him in person. In short,
with 24:9-11 the history reaches a climax.
The arrangement o f the diverse materials shows careful design and purpose.
YHWH, who at first - before the covenant - demanded that Israel keep distance
from him (19:12, 13) and did not want Israel to see him (19:21), now permits
the representatives of Israel to be in his presence. The Israelites, for whom
YHWH’s nearness was at first unbearable (20:19, 21), now meet with God. The
covenant has made them priests, a holy nation (19:6). As such, they have
access to YHWH.
3.1.6 The passage says nothing about the time o f the action (see beside it
19:16; 24:16, 18; \bl. II, 436, and 5.1.3). Place o f the action in 24:3-8 is ‘at
the foot of the mountain;’ in 24:9-11 ‘on the mountain’ (cf. 24:12-14: ‘at the
foot of the mountain;’ 24:15-31:18: ‘on the mountain;’ see further Exod. 32-
34). Acting figures in 24:3-8 are: the people, the nobles (24:5) and Moses.
Moses, the mediator of the theophany, dominates the scene. After the people
have indicated their willingness to enter into a covenant with YHWH (24:3),
Moses makes preparations for ratification and carries them out. The blood
ceremony comprises two elements (24:6, 8), which bracket the reading of the
6 See exegesis; on the sacral meal see L. Zielhuis, Het offermaal in het heidendom en in de
Heilige Schrift, Franeker 1961; C.J. Bleeker, “Le repas sacr6,” in The Sacred Bridge, Leiden 1963,
225-35; F. Ndtscher, “Sakrale Mahlzeiten vor Qumran,” in Lex tua veritas (Fs H. Junker), Trier
1961, 145-74 = idem, Vom Alien zum Neuen Testament, Bonn 1962, 83-111.
Volume III1
288 EXODUS 24:3-11
conditions of the covenant (24:7) (Rudolph*, 47, places 24:7 after 24:8). So
these conditions are as it were ritually integrated into the Israelite community
and their acceptance ritually affirmed. The measure in which the conditions are
heeded determines the intensity of the covenant-making power of the blood (cf.
24:8b).
In 24:9-11 Moses steps aside. He is one of Israel’s notables. God is mani
festly present, but not in an acting role. The events happen in complete silence.
3.1.7 In Christian exegesis (see e.g. Ephraem, Ishodad and more recently Da
Costa*, 232ff.) the blood ritual has been interpreted as symbolic of the death of
Jesus Christ on the cross, the only mediator - Moses is a type of him (cf. 24:2)
- whose death wrought atonement and established the new covenant (cf. Heb.
9:1 Iff.; see Childs, 509ff.).7*Along with that new covenant, new rules are now
in force (e.g. John 13:34; 15:12, 17; Eph. 4:17ff.; Phil. 2:lff.; Col. 3:5ff.).
3.2 SCHOLARLY EXPOSITION II: EXEGESIS
24:3 Moses came and told the people all the ordinances o f YHWH, all the rules.
All the people responded with one voice, ‘A ll the ordinances which YHWH has
imposed we will do. ’
Beside 24:3 see 19:7, 8. Moses returns to the people after, at the request of the
people, having listened to YHWH (cf. 20:18-21). What he has heard (20:22-
23:33), he makes known - possibly through the elders (cf. 19:7) - to the
people.
1B0, see 9:16. ‘(ordinances) of YHWH’, LXX: ‘of God.’ D’ BBtf nrrba nKl (see
2:14), with explicative waw, looks like an insertion to make it very clear that
21:lff. are part of Moses’s ‘report.’ Sam.Pent.: Uiri. inK bip (Introd. §3.51.2),
for the accusative see K6Synt §3291; Ges-K §118q; JoOon §§125s, 126d. LXX:
‘(we shall do) and we shall obey’ (cf. 24:7).
What are the ordinances passed on by Moses? Rashi, who places 24:1-12
chronologically before the theophany (see \bl. II, 434f.), thinks of the regula
tions of 19:1 Off. and of earlier given commandments, such as the Noahic (see
also 15:25; cf. the objection of Nachmanides). Modem expositors, believing
that the covenant code is a later insertion and that originally 20:18-21 consti
tuted the introduction to the decalogue, think that a n a l is a reference to those
laws (e.g. Holzinger, Te Stroete, Hyatt; differently e.g. Baentsch). Sama, 159,
on the other hand, maintains that o n a n refers to 22:17-23:19 and O’DBltfB to
22:1-22:16. In the present text the reference can only be to the words YHWH
7 Cf. Matt. 26:28; Mark 24:24; Luke 22:20; 1 Cor. 11:25; Da Costa*, 236, for example, has
interpreted 24:9-11 as foreshadowing the Lord’s Supper.
Volume III1
spoke through Moses (20:22-23:33).*
24:4 Moses then wrote down all the ordinances o f YHWH. He rose early in the
morning and built an altar at the fo o t o f the mountain, with twelve massebahs
with it, corresponding to the twelve tribes o f Israel.
a n a (see 17:14), cf. 34:27; place and tools of inscribing are not mentioned.91 0
But note 24:7. Contents of the recording was 20:22-23:33.'° npaa 030, see
7:15. nato m a, see 17:15. "inn nnn (cf. 19:17; 32:19), see Williams §349.
Fragment 4Q (DJD, V, 2): O’Jtf n s o o b . ‘twelve,’ see Introd. §4.3.3. M SB (see
23:24) is also object of p ’l (zeugma; cf. also 1 Kgs. 14:23). For the sing, see
e.g. Ges-K §134f (Holzinger: is ‘twelve secondary? cf. e.g. Schmid*, 69; Te
Stroete); Sam.Pent.: O’Jatt; LXX: XiOoug (cf. Deut. 27:1-8; Josh. 8:32; 24:26);
it seems that ‘massebah’ was considered offensive; Ehrlich: read
‘Standort’ (cf. 1 Sam. 14:12). 030, see Introd. §3.21.10. On b, ‘corresponding
to,’ not ‘for’ (e.g. LV), see e.g. Williams §274.
24:5 He had the nobles o f the Israelites bring burnt offerings and slaughter
offerings o f well-being to YHWH; bulls (they offered).
‘He had,’ see Introd. §3.49.1; cf. K8Synt §3691. Should n03 be translated as
determinate (e.g. SV, NY NEB) or indeterminate (e.g. LY CY WY GNB,
NRSV)? The latter is possible, because ’lUi is followed by a determinate
genitive (cf. Strack). I opt for the first possibility, because as I see it a specific
group is meant, "ipj is a problematic term (Introd. §3.34). Noteworthy is that
according to bSota, VI, 4, one of the three Torah manuscripts on which the
current standard text is based, has ’ BIBST instead of nj73. The Aramaic term is
usually taken to mean Ciyrrycaf, ‘pupils of the scribes,’ but Klostermann*, 18f.,
regards it as a scribal error for JOB1T, ‘young men,’ (see further Holzinger).
nb» + nb», see 10:25. Fragment 4Q (DJD, V, 2): naran nbian nt< b in ,
‘and he (Moses) brought the burnt offering on the altar.’ DTiat + nar, see
3:18; 10:25; D’abB, see 20:24; MSS Sam.Pent.: D’nbB Tiat; LXX: sing, (‘to
God’); TO, TPsJ, TNf: pBnp noa3, ‘holy sacrifices’ (used for making atone
ment, they are not eaten; cf. 24:11b). ‘bulls’ (Introd. §9.1.3; Sam.Pent.: + npa
'33; see also SamT) appears to be a gloss.
The sequel only talks about the blood from the slaughter of the animals. The
meal that accompanies the well-being sacrifices is not explicitly mentioned (see
* See also 24:7, and further Houtman**, Bundesbuch, 8 n. 1.

’ See beside it Deut. 27:1-8; Josh. 8:32; 24:26; J. L’Hour, RB 69 (1962), 358: the massebah
(sing.) was being inscribed.
10 Differently Rashi: Genesis up to (but not including) the giving of the Torah (cf. TzUR);
Calmet, J. Hofbauer, ZKTh 56 (1932), 500, and Fensham: 20:1-17; 20:22-23:33; cf. Houtman*,
Pent., 347.
Volume III1
290 EXODUS 24:3-11
also 24:11). This is the first mention in Exodus of sacrifices brought by

Israelites (cf. 3:12, 18; see \fol. I, 375ff.). For sacrifices accompanying
covenant making see Ps. 50:5.
Already way back exegetes offered explanations for the performance of
priestly functions by non-priests. In TO, TPsJ D’UtJ is interpreted as ‘the
firstborn’ (cf. 13:2; 22:28; Num. 3:12; 8:16). In TPsJ their action is clarified:
when the tent sanctuary had not yet been erected and the priesthood not yet
given to Aaron, the firstborn were in chatge of the cultic duties." Also other
solutions have been given; Ephraem: meant are the not yet consecrated sons of
Aaron; Strack: the young men do not function as priests, but assist Moses as
helpers.
The interpretation ‘young men’ raises the question of why they are chaiged
with the task of bringing the sacrifices. Nachmanides believes that they, being
youth, had not tasted of sin and had never come near a woman.1 12 This interpre
tation is more plausible than the prosaic notion that strong men were needed
for the strenuous task of tying up the strong sacrificial animals (e.g. Cole).
24:6 Moses took half o f the blood and put it in basins. The other h a lf o f the
blood he sprinkled on the altar.
np’1 (Introd. §3.30), also at the beginning of 24:7, 8. ‘half,’ see Introd. §4.1.
on, see 4:9. The slaying of the sacrificial animals had been done by order of
Moses. The handling of the blood, including the ritual of sprinkling it on the
altar, is an official act that had to be done by Moses himself, ‘to put,’ see
Introd. §3.48.
(for article see e.g. Ges-K §126r; JoQon §137m); (24:6; Isa.
22:24; Cant. 7:3; loan word from Akkadian [Ellenbogen*, 8]), ‘basins;’ see
BHHW, II, 1683f.; IDB, IV, 783. Meant is a deep bowl of stone, metal (cf.
27:3) or ceramic, p it, see 9:8. Especially Jewish exegetes (e.g. Vredenbuig,
Hertz, Cassuto, Dasbeig; but see also BQhl, Childs) translate bv in 24:6 as
‘against’ and in 24:8 as ‘on.’ I belief a consistent rendering is the better one.
But see however already LXX: jrpooexeev icpoc to Oboiaorrjpiov (24:6) next
to KateoKeSaoev tou A.006 (24:8); the last mentioned verb is not further used
in the LXX.
What happens precisely? Doesn’t the taking of half of the blood imply that
all the blood had already been collected in bowls or basins, before half of it
11 See also e.g. Rashi, Cassuto; cf. Potin*, 151, 218ff.; on ‘priests’ prior to the institution o f
the priesthood see 19:22.
11 C f 1 Sam. 21:5f. and see e.g. TzUR, Holzinger, Baentsch; Heinisch by way o f example
points to acolytes who assist in the celebration of mass.
Volume III1
can be put into basins?13 That was necessary was it not, for determining the
exact half?14 Furthermore, it must be assumed that the sprinkling on the altar
was done by means of bowls or basins. Clear is that half of the blood was kept
for later use (cf. 24:8).
From 24:5 Jewish rabbis inferred that becoming a Jew was done by means of
three rites: circumcision, immersion and spimkling (bKer 9a; cf. Rashi, TzUR,
and see also \fol. II, 206).
24:7 Next he took the book o f the covenant and read it aloud to the people.
They said, ‘A ll that YHWH has commanded, we will do. Yes, we will obey it. ’
nnan 1B0 (see 2:24; 17:14),15 the collection of ordinances written down by
Moses (24:4). Differently e.g. McNeile: originally a small collection; Cassuto:
the content of Exod. 19; 20:1-17; 20:22-23:33 or - more likely - a written
declaration that the people undertook to be faithful to the covenant (19:5). The
idea that also 20:1-17 belonged to the book of the covenant (e.g. Hertz,
Childs), or in any case also constituted the basis of the covenant (Heinisch), is
unlikely. The decalogue, inscribed on two tablets (24:12), has a unique status
(see also exegesis 34:27, 28). ‘read aloud,’ see Introd. §3.45.1. ’JUta, see 10:2.
‘obey,’ see Introd. §3.51.1.
Again (cf. 24:3) the people testify that they will keep YHWH’s regulations,
for the third time (cf. 19:7) and this time with two verbs (climax). Sam.Pent.
and Pesh. have the more logical sequence of ‘obey’ - ‘do’ (cf. also TEV).
Ehrlich infers from the sequence that aotfJl cannot refer to the regulations and
relates it to what is announced in 23:28, 29.
24:8 Finally, Moses took the blood and sprinkled it on the people, saying,
“This is the blood o f the covenant which YHWH makes with you on the basis o f
all these ordinances. ’
‘the blood,’ viz. the half poured into basins (so explicitly TPsJ). Sam.Pent.:
i n p m (cf. Brockelmann §137). TO, TPsJ present a slightly different picture:
also this blood Moses sprinkled ‘on the altar to make atonement for the
people.’16 Also some modem exegetes hold that the notion of cleansing is
present (e.g. Keil, Gispen). It is possible, but cannot be shown. E.W. Nichol
son, VT 32 (1982), 83, even maintains that the manipulation of the blood was
13 Cf. Nachmanides; he distinguishes between two kinds of basins, taking issue with Ibn Ezra
who held there was only one kind of vessel, which served for storing both halves of the blood.
14 According to rabbinic exegesis the dividing happened miraculously (LevR, VI, 5); cf. Rashi,
TzUR and Ehrlich; according to Rashi half of the blood of the burnt offering and of the well
being offering was put in a separate basin.
15 Similar terminology in 2 Kgs. 23:2, 21; see Houtman*, Pent., 316f.
16 On the atoning, purifying power of the blood see Matt. 26:28; Heb. 9:19ff. and Potin*, 151f.
Volume III1
292 EXODUS 24:3-11
exclusively meant for the cleansing of Israel. Other passages about blood
sprinkling (29:16, 20; Lev. 1:5, 11 etc.) differ from 24:8 therein that in 24:8
emphatically two halves of blood play a role. Why would the altar (YHWH)
have to be purified? All emphasis is on the uniting power of the blood (see 4:9
and e.g. Wellhausen*, Reste, 125, 128).
run, see Introd. §3.15.1 and 1:1. Moses orally explains the meaning of the
ritual, m a n etc., cf. 34:27. o a o r, LXX: Jtpoc updc; the force of MT is
softened (cf. Frankel*, 87). bo, see e.g. Williams §290.
24:9 Then Moses climbed up, along with Aaron, Nadab and Abihu and seventy
o f the elders o f Israel.
24:10 They saw the God o f Israel: under his feet there was what looked like a
lapis lazuli tile and it sparkled like heaven itself
The order described in 24:1 is carried out. ‘the God of Israel,’ see Introd.
§7.2.2. On ’seeing God’ see Introd. §3.42.4. The blunt MT is translated in
LXX with: ‘and they saw the place where the God of Israel stood’ (cf. 24:11).
The meaning seems to be that YHWH, when Aaron and companions arrived, had
already left the place (cf. 17:16 LXX).17 Symm.: ‘In a vision (opapcm) they
saw the God of Israel’ (cf. e.g. Ishodad, Ibn Ezra, Nachmanides, with a
reference to Amos 9:1). Hertz believes that the Israelites were in a trance.
Cassuto notes: ‘they saw a Divine vision.’ With such interpretations there is no
discrepancy with 33:20. Also according to the targums the Israelites did not see
God himself: they saw ‘the Glory of the God of Israel’ (TO)/‘the Glory of the
Shekinah of YHWH’ (TNf; same or similar translation in 24:11; see also FT1).
The underlying assumption is that gazing at the ‘Glory’ is possible for humans.
TPsJ presents its own slant: subject of the seeing of the ‘Glory of the God of
Israel’ are Nadab and Abihu; 24:11a is interpreted to mean: YHWH does not
now punish Nadab and Abihu, but postponed punishment until the 10th day of
their consecration (Lev. 10) (cf. Potin*, 153f.). Rashi links 24:10 also with the
future death of the elders (in line with the rabbinic exegesis of Num. 11:1).
b n , see 3:5. Meant is likely that God is seated as king on his throne (cf. Isa.
6:1, 5; Ezek. 1:26). Only what is under his feet is described. Blunter is the
rendering in the taigums: ‘under the footstool of his feet’ (TNf, FT); ‘under the
throne of his Glory’ (TO); ‘under the footstool of his feet, which was placed
under his throne’ (TPsJ). ntoon, see Introd. §3.41.2. naab (not ‘the brilliance,’
as e.g. Keil; cf. KOSynt §306e), see 1:14.
V$Q (OT 11*; 24:10; 28:18; 39:11), a term derived from Sanskrit (Ellen-
17 See Frankel*, 84ff.; A.T. Hanson, “The Treatment in the LXX of the Theme of Seeing
God,” in G.J. Brooke, B. Lindars (eds.), Septuagint, Scrolls and Cognate Writings, Atlanta 1992,
557-68.
Volume III1
bogen*, 125),'® formerly identified with sapphire (so still WV, NRSV, NEB,
TEV), currently with lapis lazuli. The semiprecious stone came from northeast
Afghanistan and along caravan routes was brought to the ancient Near East. It
is an opaque stone whose colours run from light blue to sky-blue to indigo
(dark blue), sometimes even having a greenish hue. Often it contains larger or
smaller white (calcium) spots or veins and spangles of iron pyrites. It was used
for jewelry, amulettes and inlays, and was prized much like silver and gold.*19
In TPsJ rua*? is an occasion for haggadic elaboration: ‘as a make of sapphire
stone’ is interpreted as a reminder of the bondage in Egypt, in particular of
what happened to a pregnant woman as she was making bricks: working the
clay, she lost the fruit in her womb; from the fruit that had fallen on the clay
Gabriel made a brick and designated it as a step under YHWH’s footstool.20
Also other older exegesis has found a deeper meaning in the terminology.
Ephraem and Ishodad: ‘tile’ recalls the oppression in Egypt; ‘sapphire’ the sea
that parted; the colour of the heaven shows that one should keep far from
wanton, shameless harlotry (idolatry).
D’Qtfn D3V2, see 12:17; LXX: cooTtep el6oc oxeped>paxo<; xou oupavou;
oxepecopa is elsewhere translation for p’pn (Houtman*, Himmel, 222ff.);
Pesh.: ‘like the colour of heaven.’ Meant is the cloudless sky.
m b 1?, see KQSynt §330r; Ges-K §119u; Brockelmann §107i; Sam.Pent.:
Tints1?; Vulg.: cum serenum est, ‘when it is clear’ In TPsJ, TNf, FT the
clearness of the heaven (sky) is explicitly equated with cloudlessness.
mb (24:10; Lev. 12:4, 6), derivative of mo, ‘to be/to become clean’ (OT
ca. 95 x as verb; with as contrast KDtS, ‘to be/to become unclean’). The adjec
tive Tinp (OT ca. 95*) occurs 28* in Exodus. In the use of mts and deriva
tives kindred meanings can be heard as well: sparkle, (cultic, moral) purity and
holiness. Thus “lints as adjective with aiij (Introd. §3.28) (25:11, 17, 24, 29,
31, 36, 38, 39; 28:14, 22, 36; 30:3; 24*) evidently points to the purity of the
gold, its being unalloyed with foreign elements (cf. the use of “lints in connec
tion with incense in 30:35; 37:29), as well as to the sparkle resulting from it.
In Exod. 25-40 gold is not always linked with the adjective ‘pure’ (25:11, 12,
13 etc.). Were there two types of gold, different in quality, that were used for
the erection of the tent shrine? (cf. 7WAT, III, 310). Was pure gold thought to
possess a higher degree of holiness? (cf. Jenson [see 4.2.1], 101 ff., and also
Haran, 158, 163f.) Not likely. For it would mean that the most holy place
(25:11b, 12, 13, 18) would contain objects less holy than the holy place itself
'* But sec S. Powels, “Indische LehnwOrter in der Bibel,” ZAH 5 (1992), 186-200.
19 See RLA, VI, 488ff.; O. Keel, Jahwe—Hsionen und Siegelkunsl, Stuttgart 1977, 255fT., and
Bibl. cited under 4.12.3.3.1.
10 For the midrash see Potin*, 155ff.; he thinks it constitutes the background o f Rev. 12.
Volume III1
294 EXODUS 24:3-11
(25:24, 29, 31, 36, 38, 39) (cf. also Jacob*, Pent., 160, 198). However,
probably there is intentional emphasis on the purity of the material used for the
fabrication of certain objects. For instance, in the case of the plate with the
inscription ‘holy to YHWH’ (28:36; 39:30) and the lampstand (25:31-39; 37:17-
24). The lampstand is ‘pure,’ glitters and sparkles (see the use of rn'ntjn
in 31:8; 39:37; Lev. 24:4), and is already because of the metal itself a bearer of
light, and therefore uniquely suited to be a source of light. Purity and brilliance
are characteristic of the presence of YHWH (see also 34:29-35). That same thing
is also emphasized in 24:10. See further THAT, I, 646ff.; TfVAT, III, 306ff.;
\fcn der Toom*, 27ff.
In two comparisons the place under the feet of God is described. No descrip
tion of God himself is given (cf. Isa. 6:1). The spot under God’s feet, the
humblest spot of his abode, is so thoroughly pure and sparkling, that it goes
without saying that the rest of the entourage and God himself are indescribably
pure and exalted. The writer restricts himself to a portrayal of what is under
the feet of God, because human images to describe what is above it are
inadequate, and also because he aims at giving a description from the perspec
tive of those who saw God: they lay prostrate on the earth (cf. 24:1); so their
view remained restricted to what was under God’s feet. Of course, it is
assumed that God himself is seated on his royal throne. Therefore it can safely
be assumed that the delegation of Israel has arrived in the heavenly palace. The
wording used in the comparisons also points in that direction, in particular the
terms lapis lazuli and heaven. Lapis lazuli was a favourite material for decorat
ing temples and palaces. True, lapis lazuli and heaven are used in comparisons,
but here the comparison is intended to bring out that the description does not
measure up to reality. The thought conveyed is that the mountain, which gives
access to heaven, is the place where heaven and earth flow together (cf. Gen.
28:17 and see C. Houtman, VT 27 [1977], 337-51; for the exegesis of 24:10
see also Houtman*, Himmel, 23 Iff.).
The meeting of YHWH and the delegation of Israel does not result in a
dialogue or monologue (cf. Isa. 6:1-8; Ezek. 1-2). The event happens in total
silence.
24:11 He did not then destroy the notables o f Israel. They saw God and yet ate
and drank.
24:11 contains additional information about the circumstances and conse
quences of the seeing of God.
plur. cstr. of usually understood as ‘notable’ (e.g. LV), ‘disti
nguished’ (e.g. NV). Meaning and derivation are unsure, \hrious views are
defended:
(1) b'XK, ‘remote part’ (Isa. 41:9), even as nj$, ‘comer(stone),’ is used
figuratively (see niag in Judg. 20:2; 1 Sam. 14:38; Zech. 10:4) for a person
Volume III1
who has a leading role in society (so Dillmann following H. Ewald).

(2) b’XN both in Isa. 41:9 and Exod. 24:11 is a derivative of bsN, ‘to put
aside,’ ‘to take away’ (Gen. 27:36 etc.); it denotes what is far away (Isa. 41:9)
and the select (cf. 24:9) = distinguished (24:11) (e.g. SS; Zo.; Ehrlich).21
(3) In Isa. 41:9 and Exod. 24:11 homonyms are used; on the basis of the
Arabic, b’XK in 24:11 could be ‘distinguished’ (e.g. Ges-B; K8W; HAL).
Already the ancient translators struggled with the correct translation of ‘J’SK.
In Pesh. it is translated ‘elders’ (cf. 24:9); in TO: ’a n a l, ‘the princes of;’ in
TNf, FTP: yirrn’blB, ‘the young men’ (cf. 24:5 in TNf); in TPsJ: K’TBBl
K’O’blP, ‘the handsome young men’ (apposition with Nadab and Abihu); in
SamT: •noo’ (A) and nfflOK (J), ‘the officers o f’ (?). For LXX and Vulg. see
above.
‘to destroy,’ see Introd. §3.49.1; the motion with the hand has a negative
connotation, explicitly brought out in FTP: + ‘to destroy;’ TO avoids anthropo
morphism (also TPsJ) and has replaced YHWH by an impersonal subject: ‘... did
not suffer harm.’ Ephraem takes the expression in a positive sense: ‘stretch out
the hand = give prophetic inspiration’ (cf. Ezek. 1:3; 3:14, 22); not at this time,
but at a later time God gave it (Num. 11:25). More recently it has been argued
that already Exod. 24:9-11 describes the calling of the elders as charismatic
leaders. Fuhs (see 18:21), 270f., thinks that the beholding of God must be
understood as affirmation of their official status as leaders (‘Fiihrungsamt’).
nm, see 18:21; NEB: ‘they stayed;’22 D. Orr, BetM 30 (1984-85), 257f.:
‘they made a pact (with God)’ (cf. Isa. 28:15); R. Gelio, Ephemerides Liturgi-
cae 100 (1986), 73-95: ‘they rejoiced (in God)’ (nrn is a cognate form of
m n ). MSS Sam.Pent.: irm ri, ‘they grasped’ (cf. SamTA: ttrtbx rv* n r tti;
SamTJ: D’nbttn DP nim i); it is difficult to find a good meaning for it. In the
LXX, as in 24:10, 11a, the language of MT is softened: ‘and they appeared in
the place of God.’
‘eat and drink’, see Introd. §3.3.1; Beer: read ‘and they bowed
down’ (cf. 24:1); TO, TPsJ, TNf have a more elaborate version: ‘and they
rejoiced in their offerings which had been (kindly; so TPsJ) accepted, as if they
ate and drank.’ ‘Eat and drink’ has become a metaphor for well-being (cf. also
FT1). Apparently the translators could not conceive of the possibility that the
(sacred) meal was eaten in the presence of YHWH; ‘as if’ is used in Gen. 18:8
(TPsJ, TNf); 19:3 (TPsJ, FT) for the meal eaten by the messengers of YHWH.
21 Does a derivation of b’JMt from lie behind LXX: icat t£>v emAeiccwv toG ' IopatjA 06
6i£<t><ivr)oev oi>5e etc, ‘and of the chosen men of Israel not even one was lacking/not even one
perished' (cf. SV: ‘afgezonderden;’ CV: ‘uitverkorenen’), and Vulg.: nec super eos qui procul
recesserant de filiis Isra el..., ‘and on those who had gone ahead far from the sons of Israel ...’
(procul also in 24:1)?
22 On the basis of the Arabic; cf. E.W. Nicholson, VT 24 (1974), 8 Iff.
Volume III1
296 EXODUS 24:3-11
24:11 underscores the extraordinary nature of the experience recounted in

24:10. Israel’s representatives saw God and did not die as a result (cf. 33:20).
Notwithstanding their having seen God, they are in excellent health. ‘Eating
and drinking’ it seems to me, does not point to a covenant meal (cf. Gen.
26:30; 31:46, 54 and see Dillmann, Baentsch, Te Stroete, Hyatt) at the foot of
(Keil, Dillmann) or on the mountain (Baentsch, Hertz), nor to the sacred meal
(cf. 24:5) at the foot of the mountain (Nachmanides, Cassuto), eaten by all the
people (Strack). There is no meal here with God or in the presence of God, as
it were a onesided covenant meal (Holzinger). Here in positive language the
same is said as was said in negative language at the beginning of the verse:
Israel’s notables remained alive.
Not eating and drinking is a sign of being in poor health, mentally and/or
physically, and points to the absence of vitality (1 Sam. 1:7, 8; 2 Sam. 12:17,
and see in particular 1 Sam. 30:11, 12). In concrete terms it is brought out that
the notables, despite the encounter with God, remained people of flesh and
blood and very much alive (see beside it 34:28: Moses’s being was transformed
into something heavenly). They went on living as if nothing had happened.23
The parallelism in 24:10, 11 supports this interpretation: beholding of God (a)
(with extensive elaboration) - not being destroyed (b) - beholding of God
(a) - radiant health (b). With the end of 24:11 a climax is reached: the
beholding of God as the greatest possible blessing!24
24:12 starts a new episode. The reader is expected to be able to guess that
Moses and companions have come down from the mountain after the theo-
phany.
23 Cf. Gen. 37:25; 2 Kgs. 9:34 and see Ehrlich; cf. already Ishodad, and see also E.W.
Nicholson, VT 26 (1976), 148ff.
24 Cf. Matt. 5:8, and see TO, TPsJ, TNf; in bBer 17a, 24:11 is related to the position o f the
righteous in the world to come. See also J.-M. Vincent, “Aspekte der Begegnung mit Gott im
Alten Testament,” RB 103 (1996), 5-39.
Volume III1
EXODUS 24:12-31:18; 35-40
YHWH WANTS TO DWELL IN THE MIDST OF ISRAEL
4.1 INTRODUCTION AND CONCLUSION (24:12-18; 3L18)1
24:12 YHWH said to Moses: ‘Climb up to me on the mountain, and stay there.
For I will give you the tablets o f stone containing the binding rules, which I
have written down to show them the way. '
13 Moses set out with his servant Joshua. Moses climbed up the mountain o f
God.
14 The elders he had ordered: ' Wait here fo r us, until we return to you. For
Aaron and Hur remain with you. Anyone with a dispute is to go to them .9
15 Thus Moses climbed up the mountain and the cloud covered the mountain.
16 In dazzling glory YHWH abode on mount Sinai. The cloud covered it fo r
six days. On the seventh day he summoned Moses from within the cloud.
17 The dazzling glory with which YHWH on the top o f the mountain mani
fested him self to the Israelites was like a consuming fire.
18 Moses went inside the cloud. Thus he climbed up the mountain and he,
Moses, stayed forty days and forty nights on the mountain.
-2 5 :1 -3 1 :1 7 -
31:18 After having finished speaking with him (Moses) on Mount Sinai, he
(YHWH) gave Moses the two tablets with the constitution, the tablets o f stone,
written by divine hand.
4.1.1 SCHOLARLY EXPOSITION I: ESSENTIALS AND PERSPEC

TIVES / INTRODUCTION TO EXEGESIS
With 24:3-11 a provisional climax was reached: YHWH and Israel have entered
into a covenant. 24:12 begins a new and laige section, which comprises the rest
of the book of Exodus and ends with an absolute climax: YHWH takes up
dwelling in the midst of Israel (40:34, 35).
24:12-18 is the introduction to Exod. 25-40, which relates YHWH’s instruc
tions about the building of the tent shrine (Exod. 25-31) and its execution
24:12-40:38 is a coherent unit. For convenience it is discussed in sections.
Volume III1
298 EXODUS 24:12-18; 31:18
(Exod. 35-40), interrupted by Exod. 32-34, the story of Israel’s apostasy from
yhwh and of the restoration of the bond with him. The parts about the tent
shrine can easily be lifted out of the text, without detracting from the story as a
whole.2 There are some elements that tie the story together - ‘the (tablets with
the) constitution’ (see 31:18; 32:15; 34:29 beside 25:16, 21 etc.) forms a link
between the parts about the sanctuary and their context (cf. Deut. 10:1-5); on
the fringes of Exod. 35-40, 40:34, 35 harks back to 24:15-17 —, but they are
not firmly anchored. Remarkable, for instance, is that Moses, prior to the
ascent of the mountain, receives orders from YHWH to accept the tablets
(24:12), while YHWH does not say a word about the instructions for the
building of the sanctuary which next are spelled out in great detail. Connecting
elements are present in 24:12-14, 18; 31:18; 32-34, passages which forge the
link with the preceding chapters in Exodus (see 5.1.3). In brief, the parts which
are usually attributed to P are incorporated in the story about Moses’s ascent of
the Sinai to receive the tablets containing the YHWH’s laws. So Moses’s ascent
had acquired a dual purpose:
(1) Taking possession of the tablets (24:12; 31:18).
(2) Receiving information about the construction of the tent shrine and
furniture.
In Exodus in its present form, both happen right after the enactment of the
covenant between YHWH and Israel (24:3-8) and the meeting of yhwh with
Israel’s representatives (24:9-11), that is, in a situation of complete harmony
between YHWH and Israel. It can be called the basis and condition for the gift
of the tablets and the erection of the tent shrine. As for the latter, YHWH’s
dwelling in the midst of Israel (25:8; 29:43, 45, 46) presupposes the existence
of the bond of yhwh with Israel.
24:12-18, together with 31:18, functions as a frame of reference around
YHWH’s instructions for the building of the sanctuary. The frame places the
words of YHWH in a concrete context. The indication of the place and the
length of YHWH’s meeting with Moses and the circumstances under which it
took place, put in relief the lengthy monologue of YHWH.
Striking in 24:12-18 is the repeated mention that Moses went up (24:13, 15,
18). It is commonly assumed that the passage is a literary composite. 24:15b-
18a (of 24:16-18a; so e.g. Rudolph*, 48) is said to be from P; the remainder
from one or two of the other sources.3 31:18a is said to be from P; 31:18b
(‘the tablets of stone...’) from an older source.
2 About origin and composition see Bibl. under 1.1.2 and B. Renaud, “La formation de Ex 19-
40: Quelques points de repdre,” in P. Haudebert (ed.), Le Pentateuque: Debats et recherches, Paris
1992, 101-33.
3 See synopsis by Zenger*, Sinaitheophanie, 217f., and e.g. the analysis of Beyerlin*, 19ff.;
differently Schmid*, Jahwist, 109ff; Valentin*, 403ff; Zenger*, Israel, 135, 141 et al.
Volume III1
24:12-18 exhibits the marks of a repeatedly expanded text (see exegesis). By

means of 31:18 the theme of the tablets is linked with the construction of the
tent shrine (cf. the use of nan [25:1] and rnj? [25:16, 21]).
4.1.2 SCHOLARLY EXPOSITION II: EXEGESIS
24:12 YHWH said to Moses: ‘Climb up to me on the mountain, and stay there.
For I will give you the tablets o f stone containing the binding rules, which I
have written down to show them the way. ’
Moses is assumed to be with the people at the foot of the mountain. See also at
24:2, 11. The persons mentioned in 24:12-18 are in part not the same as those
in 24:3-11 (see 24:13, 14).
‘to climb up,’ see Introd. §3.39.2. ‘the mountain,’ see Introd. §3.16.1. iTfll
(Introd. §3.13.1), see Ges-K §63q; for the length of the stay see 24:18. runKl
(Introd. §3.36), denoting purpose (KOSynt §364n).
n 'n b , plur. of the masculine (cf. KQSynt §252e) nib (OT 43*; 37x plur.; 17*
Exod.; 16* Deut.; lx dual. [Ezek. 27:5]), ‘tablet,’ ‘plank’ (of wood, metal of
stone), denotes a surface for writing on (Isa. 30:8; Hab. 2:2; cf. Jer. 17:1; Prov.
3:3; 7:3), in particular for the two* stones stablets, tablets456 with the basic law,
the constitution,7*and also wooden planks used as construction material for a
variety of projects (27:8; 38:7; Ezek. 27:5; Cant. 8:9).*
The tablets are made of stone, durable material. Nothing is said about what
kind of stone it was;9 nor about the type of script recorded on it (B6hl: not
cuneiform, but alphabetic script). What is specifically stated is that the inscrib
ing was done by God (31:18).10 Making public announcements by means of
texts on durable material is known from the OT (Deut. 27:1-3; Josh. 8:32; cf.
4 31:18; 32:15; 34:1, 4(2x), 29; see Introd. §4.3.1.

5 lW (b) nnl? (24:12; 31:18), construct chain (Ges-K §128o; Jotlon §129f); nh^ (34:1,
4), o’latt (see 7:19) is apposition (Ges-K §127h; Jotlon §131d; Brockelmann §62a), possibly
nomen rectum (Ges-K §124q; KOSynt §267a); Keil on 34:1: the wording used shows that at least
the tablets o f stone in Exod. 34 were hewn from two stones.
6 32:15, 16(2x), 19; 34:l(2x), 28.
7 n ir ri nn^> (31:18; 32:15; 34:29), see 16:34 en Jacob*, Pent., 1691T.; B. Couroyer, RB 95
(1988), 321-31.
* See BRL, 289ff.; TWAT, IV, 495ff.; E. StrCmberg Krantz, Des Schiffes Weg mitten im Meer,
Lund 1982, 75f., 84ff.
’ BOhl op 32:16: limestone, not baked clay; Korpel**, 471ff., distinguishes an older (clay) and
a younger tradition (stone); for rabbinic exegesis see 34:1. See further A.R. Millard, “Re-Creating
the Tablets o f the Law,” BRev 10.1 (1994), 48-53.
10 Grefimann*, 189: script that had fallen into disuse was seen as strange and regarded as ‘Go-
ttesschrift.’
Volume III1
300 EXODUS 24:12-18; 31:18
also 1 Macc. 8:22; 11:37; 14:18, 26, 48) and the ancient world (e.g. codex
Hammurabi) (cf. McCarthy*, 102f., 196). According to the OT the tablets
inscribed by YHWH were, however, kept in the ark of the covenant (25:16 etc.).
Sam.Pent.: C J a t t n . nutom m in m (see 4:12 and Introd. §3.43.2), hendiadys;
the first waw (not in Sam.Pent.; cf. LXX) must be understood as an explicative
waw (Ges-K §154a note lb); the real meaning is ‘thereon’ (cf. KOSynt §375n;
Ehrlich).11 In LXX m nan is translated as plur. ana (see 17:14), cf. 34:28.
a n n n b (see 4:12), the suffix has no antecedent; ‘them’ refers to the people;
Vulg.: ut doceas eos, ‘so that you may teach them’ (cf. Deut. 5:31 and see e.g.
Nachmanides). More likely, YHWH himself is the assumed subject, at least if, as
I believe, the decalogue is the implied object. That view has been challenged.
It has been argued that m s o m m i n m is not a fitting designation of the
decalogue (Dillmann) and that the waw is a copulative, m s o m m i n m is then
regarded as a second object of ‘to give’ and placed after ’nans Along
with the tablets, Moses is said to have been given instructions (‘Privatbeleh-
rung’) for teaching them to Israel at a later time. Simply taking receipt of the
tablets would not require a lengthy stay at the mountain (24:18) (e.g. Baentsch;
cf. Strack). This view has against it that it requires changing the order of the
words and that the current text does not talk about instructions, which Moses
on behalf of YHWH had to deliver to Israel.12 After all, by now they are all
known (24:3, 7). The text, it is true, does talk about instructions from YHWH
about the construction of the sanctuary (25: Iff.), but m s o m m i n m is not an
adequate designation of these instructions, m s o m m i n m is a kind of interpola
tion.13 It highlights the significance of the decalogue.
What was inscribed on the tablets? Assuming that the Pentateuch is the
context, it must be the decalogue (Deut. 4:13; 5:22; 10:4; see also exegesis
34:28), even though the versions of Exod. 20 and Deut. 5 are not entirely
identical. Other views are unsatisfactory. For instance, that the tablets contain
the text of the decalogue and of the covenant book (e.g. J. Hofbauer, ZKTh 56
[1932], 521ff.; Fensham). To explain the double recording (cf. 24:4) Fensham
notes the custom of giving both partners a copy of the text of the covenant.
Eerdmans*, 71, infers from 32:15 - both sides are inscribed - that it must be a
larger text than just the decalogue. He thinks of a text comprising 21:1-23:19, a
text which in any case included the prohibition of making graven images. Also
Beer maintains the tablets must have contained numerous commandments.
" Cf. TPsJ: ‘on which are inscribed the rest of the words of the Torah and the 613 command
ments;’ c f bMak 23b; bShab 87a, and see Rashi (all 613 commandments are implicitly contained
in the decalogue and may therefore be regarded as having been written on the tablets).
12 According to Baentsch the original text contained such instructions.
13 C f Holzinger: in view of Deut. 5:31; 6:1 or Exod. 25:lff.?; differently GreBmann*, 186:
‘the tablets’ and ‘which I have inscribed’ are additions.
Volume III1
Others, including E. Otto,1415*have identified the content of the tablets with the
cultic dialogue. E. Zenger,s contends that the tablets are in origin ‘eine Art
himmlischer Biirgerlisten,’ which offered the guarantee that YHWH regarded
Israel as his people (p. 100) (cf. 32:32). Could it be that the text of the tablets
went through different versions? Baentsch, for example, contends that origi
nally they contained 20:22-26, 27-29; 23:10-16, and that ‘the ten ordinances’ in
34:28 are an interpretive redactional note. Others suggest that according to P
(24:12; 32:15) the tablets contained the regulations of Exod. 25-31.,6 That is
highly unlikely. The very term rn # (31:18; 32:15) argues against it.17
On the question of how the text of the decalogue was divided over the (two
sides of the) tablets - did each of the tablets contain part of the ten ordinances
or each the complete text18 - the OT is silent. Exegetes have not left the
question alone.19
The qualities of the tablets have been interpreted symbolically. I limit myself
to citing something from Ishodad’s exegesis: two tablets, signifying soul and
body; inscribed on both sides, the instruction is for both parts of the body
(knowing and doing), that is, one must not only know the commandments, but
also do them (cf. Jas. 2:20); the commandments are understood ‘in a physical
sense’ (by Jews) and ‘in a spiritual sense’ (by Christians) (cf. 2 Cor. 3:4-18),
etc.
On other questions such as the size of the tablets, see exegesis of 32:15, 16.
On the tablets in graphic art, see 1.1.17 and Hahn, 55.
24:13 Moses set out with his servant Joshua. Moses climbed up the mountain
o f God.
Dip, see 1:8. ‘Joshua’ (Introd. §5.28), see 32:17 on the mention of him. The
text is silent on his task; Cassuto: possibly he set up a tent and ministered to
Moses. Earlier exegetes are interested in Joshua’s well-being: the manna fell
also on the mountain (Ishodad; cf. BB).
14 Das M azzotfest in Gilgal, Stuttgart 1975, 349; cf. the criticism of O. Loretz, UF 9 (1977),
159-61.
15 “Psalm 87,6 und die Tafeln vom Sinai,” in Wort, Lied und Gottesspruch (Fs J. Ziegler),
Wtlrzburg 1972, 97-103.
“ See e.g. BOhl on 24:12; S. Lehming, VT 10 (1960), 34, 36; P.J. Kearney, ZAW 89 (1977),
382.
17 Cf. Eerdmans*, 71f.; on the problem see further Dohmen (see 1.3.1), 132ff; idem, “Was
stand auf den Tafeln vom Sinai und was auf denen vom Horeb?,” in Vom Sinai zum Horeb (Fs E.
Zenger), Wtirzburg 1989, 9-50; Hossfeld (see 1.1.1), 145ff; Utzschneider (see 4.2.1), 112ff.
'* See e.g. M.G. Kline, “The Two Tables of the Covenant,” WThJ 22 (1959-60), 133-46
19 E.g. Josephus (AJ, III, 101, 138): five on each tablet, two and a half on each side; ExR.,
XLVII, 6: five on the one and five on the other, but also: ten on each plate; see further Hahn (see
Introd. §12.8.4), 50f.
Volume III1
302 EXODUS 24:12-18; 31:18
irnttfp, apposition (Brockelmann §64a); niiÔ part. pi. of n i0 (OT 97*; 10*
Exod.), ‘to serve;’ the part, is used in 24:13; 33:11; Num. 11:28; Josh. 1:1 for
Joshua; unlike the npp (Introd. §3.37.2), the ‘servant’ is always a free individ
ual (e.g. 1 Kgs. 19:21; 2 Kgs. 4:43; 6:15), who stands in a personal relation to
his master; therefore he often occupies an honourable position. The verb is
further used in Exodus for the work done by cultic officials; 8* rn p 1? inf. cstr.
pi., always used in the absolute (28:35; 30:20; 39:26), 5* followed by 0 lp 3
(28:43; 29:30; 35:19; 39:1,41).20
,10a LXX: avePt|oav, ‘they climbed up.’ According to Rashi the
relation between 24:13a and 13b is that Joshua accompanied Moses to where
the bounds of the mountain were marked off (cf. 19:12, 23); there he pitched
his tent, while Moses went on ( b s i) . This is not likely. The verb bfl’l includes
the servant, ‘the mountain of God’ (Introd. §3.16.2), in TO, TPsJ, TNf
interpreted as the place where YHWH appeared (cf. 3:1; 18:5).
24:14 The elders he had ordered: ‘Wait here fo r us, until we return to you.
For Aaron and Hur remain with you. Anyone with a dispute is to go to them. ’
24:14 offers background information. The imperf. cons, has been dropped in
favour of the perf. (often wrongly rendered as narrativus; correctly interpreted
by \hn der Palm, Vredenbuig, and in LV). The reader learns that Moses, prior
to his departure, has taken measures to insure the continuity of basic official
tasks during his absence. The information is important in view of what follows
(Exod. 32). It intimates that Moses will be gone for quite a while (24:18).
O’jptn (see 3:16; Baentsch: originally 0»n), representatives of the people =
the people (e.g. 4:30); not just TNf (cf. 24:1,9), also TPsJ has ‘wise men.’ ‘to
order,’ see Introd. §3.5.1. 30’ (see 2:15), in the sense of ‘(keep) waiting’ (cf.
TPsJ, TNf); lib, not translated in LXX, Vulg.; TNf: ’b, ‘for me;’ 13^130 is
also interpreted as ’sit in our place,’ (Nachmanides, Vhn der Palm; cf. also
Rashi, Hertz). rtT3, adverbium loci (e.g. Brockelmann §23e), that is, at the foot
of the mountain (cf. 24:2), in the camp.
10K 13, see Introd. §3.7.2. 310, see 4:7; 310J...130, alliteration, 1311 (Introd.
§3.15) implies the unexpressed reassurance, ‘Our absence need not cause you
anxiety.’ 24:1, 9 lists Aaron (Introd. §5.6), Nadab and Abihu and seventy of
the elders. The passage here mentions the elders and Aaron, Hur (Introd. §5.25;
cf. G. Galil, VT 25 [1985], 488-95) and Joshua (24:13). ,0, introducing a
relative clause, used as indefinite pronoun (Ges-K §137c; Joiion §144f,g;
Brockelmann §154); meant is ‘every Israelite who.’ bl)3, see 21:3. 0'131, see
Introd. §3.12.3. LXX has a free rendering: cav tivi oupPi) xpiau;, ‘if a case
20 See THAT, II, I019ff.; TWAT, VIII, 595ff; A. Caquot, “Le service des anges,” M Q 13
(1988), 421-9.
Volume III1
for judgment happens to someone;’ Vulg. lacks a subject: si quid natum fuerit
quaestionis, ‘if some kind of dispute arises’ (among the Israelites or among the
elders?); TO: ‘whoever has a dispute’ ( K n ) ;’ TPsJ: ‘a juridical problem’
(K H pO’O); TNf: ‘a juridical dispute’ Cpbm p i pOB). ttfaa, see 19:15; LXX:
plur.; it would seem that the reference is to the quarreling persons; Vulg.:
referetis ad eos, ‘you shall bring them before them’ (the translation seems to
have been influenced by 18:22, 26); TPsJ: ‘to you’ (pani^) (the elders act as
deputies). There appears to be no familiarity with the legal system instituted in
Exod. 18.
24:15 Thus Moses climbed up the mountain and the cloud covered the moun
tain.
Vulg.: cumque ascendisset Moses, ‘And when Moses had gone up’ (cf.
e.g. SV). The translation is at variance with the original text. 24:15a continues
24:13b. After the interruption (24:14), the story line is continued (‘resumption’
[‘Wiederaufnahme’]; see \bl. I, 522; II, 449). *?in, in LXXB, Joshua is added
as subject with Moses, noa, see 8:2. p an, see 13:21,22. 24:15b-17 contains a
theophany account.
24:16 In dazzling glory YHWH abode on mount Sinai. The cloud covered it fo r
six days. On the seventh day he summoned Moses from within the cloud..
ptf»] imperf. cons, qal of ptf (OT ca. 130*; ca. 110* qal), ‘to reside,’ ‘to
dwell,’ in 25:8; 29:45, 46 used to indicate YHWH’s dwelling among Israel (+
■pna; cf. Num. 5:3; 35:34); in 24:16 and 40:35 to indicate respectively the
presence of ’the glory of yhwh’ and of ‘the cloud.’ In the latter case pel
follows upon noa and pel indicates the motionless presence of the cloud (cf.
24:15f.; 40:34; Num. 9:15ff.). See THAT, II, 904ff.; TfVAT, VII, 1337ff. LXX:
Keel KatepT|, ‘and came down’ (unusual translation of pePl).
m m i a a , see 16:7; LXX: ‘of God.’ ‘Sinai,’ see Introd. §8.23. In the Vulg.
gloria Domini is also subject of lnoa’I, tegens ilium nube, ‘covering him with
the cloud’ (cf. Ibn Ezra: the cloud covered Moses); the translation is influenced
by 24:17, 18: Israel saw the manifestation of YHWH; Moses was in the cloud,
‘six days ... on the seventh day,’ see Introd. §§4.7.1; 4.8.1.
Before yhwh admits Moses in his presence, Moses has to prepare himself for
the meeting (cf. 19:11, 16 and see Mark 9:2). Differently Strack: six days,
starting from the appearance of yhwh (19:16ff.). That is not likely. In the
present text, 24:15ff. contains the account of a new theophany. Yet another
view is that of Ehrlich: the six days YHWH spent working on the design of the
sanctuary (cf. the creation in six days), ‘to summon’ (Introd. §3.45.1), namely,
to the summit of the mountain (cf. 19:20, and see 24:17); LXX and Pesh.
explicitly mention the subject: ‘YHWH.’ pun -pna (see 2:5), Vulg.: de medio
caliginis, ‘from the midst of the darkness’ (cf. 20:21).
Volume III1
304 EXODUS 24:12-18; 31:18
24:17 The dazzling glory with which YHWH on the top o f the mountain mani
fested him self to the Israelites was like a consuming fire.
The continuance of the narrative is briefly interrupted. The writer pauses
briefly to focus the reader’s attention on the awe-inspiring nature of the
appearance of YHWH. Even so, the theophany account in 19:16ff.; 20:18 is
much more colourful.
n tn o , see Introd. §3.46.2. nb:)N (see Introd. §3.3.1 and 3:2), intensified
in TNf: ‘a consuming fire, a devouring fire,’ and TPsJ: ‘a blazing fire with
sparks of fire which consume fire’ (= unquenchable fire; cf. TNf and TPsJ on
Gen. 38:25). BftO, see 6:14.
How could the Israelites see the glory when there were such thick clouds
(24:16, 18)? Presumably the light was so intensely bright that it shone through
the clouds. TPsJ relates the reaction of the Israelites: they were perplexed.
24:18 Moses went inside the cloud. Thus he climbed up the mountain and he,
Moses, stayed forty days and forty nights on the mountain.
After the portrayal of the theophany in 24:17, what is said about Moses in
24:18 is all the more impressive. Moses, far from pulling back from the
overwhelming glory of YHWH (cf. 21:18ff.), is not afraid to take YHWH up on
his invitation (24:16b) and to approach into y h w h ’s immediate presence. The
contact between him and YHWH is now more direct than in 20:21 (cf. 33:11;
34:29-35; Num. 12:8). Moses plays a unique role.
"inrrbN blTI causes surprise after the first words of 24:18: sifter the account
of Moses’s ascent of the mountain (24:13, 15), Moses’s entrance into the cloud
can only be regarded as the final phase of his journey. Several solutions have
been proposed: b iri is rendered as a pluperfect (e.g. SV, LuthV); it is said that
refers to the next leg of Moses’s ascent to the summit of the mountain;21
in CV the second member of 24:18a is placed before the first: ‘When Moses
ascended the mountain, he came....’ None of these explanations fits the Hebrew
text. Likely it is another instance of ‘resumption’ (cf. 24:15a). 24:18 from b iri
correlates with 24:12a (in the LXX the ‘there’ of 24:12 is repeated in 24:18)
and serves as a concluding comment (Moses has completed the command and
stays on the mountain).
The length of the stay is indicated. Why and what does it mean? TPsJ states
as goal of Moses’s stay: ‘learning the words of the Torah from the mouth of
the Holy One.’22 Also according to the clarification offered in Jubilees, on the
21 E.g. Win der Palm, WV, GNB, and see e.g. Cassuto; Eerdmans*, 69, proposes to read
inn tnn bin.
22 Cf. Ginzberg*, III, 114, 116; the authority of rules is determined by the Sinaitic origin; see
e.g. L. Landman, “Some Aspects of Traditions Received from Moses at Sinai,” JQR 67 (1976-77),
111-28; for rabbinic exegesis see also 34:28.
Volume III1
mountain Moses became privy to detailed revelation. He was to put it down in

writing (1:7, 26; 2:1).23 In 24:12 only the receipt of the tablets is mentioned as
goal of Moses’s stay. Modem expositors, believing that 24:15b-18a; 25-31 (P)
were only later connected to 24:12- 15a, 18b, hold that for such a simple act a
period of forty days and forty nights is an unlikely long period of time, and
that the passage means to say that Moses was initiated into many of YHWH’s
laws.24 That kind of explanation of the length of the stay is overly prosaic. Its
duration (Introd. §4.5.3), variously understood as symbolic,25 highlights the
existence of a uniquely intimate relationship between YHWH and Moses and
that there is no mediator of revelation like Moses. Furthermore, in the present
text the notion that Moses was instructed in the Torah does not fit. All laws are
already mentioned in the preceding passages(s). What is a fact is that ordi
nances are made known when Moses for the second time was on the mountain
for forty days and forty nights (34:12-18). In the present text, the first time
around on the mountain, Moses receives instructions from YHWH pertaining to
the erection of the tent shrine (Exod. 25-31).
Do the six days of 24:16 belong to the forty days? (for that question see e.g.
Rashi). It has been argued that such is the case and that the six days are to be
regarded as work days of God (cf. Gen. 1): the sanctuary was such an intricate
structure that YHWH needed six days to come up with the design; on the
sabbath he revealed it to Moses; Moses needed thirty-four days to absorb the
information (see Ehrlich, following rabbinic exegesis; cf. B6hl). Also in other
ways the six days have been tied to those of Gen. 1; e.g. by Ishodad: Moses
was shown God’s creative handiwork (recounted by him in Gen. 1). For
myself, I see the six days as a period of preparation, which preceded the forty
days. For the chronology see 5.1.3.
According to rabbinic exegesis, Moses could not effortlessly go to YHWH.
Angels tried to keep him from climbing up to heaven - YHWH does not leave
heaven - and from getting the Torah.26 Also at Moses’s descent (32:15) angels
opposed him (Ginzbeig*, III, 124; VI, 53). In early exegesis angels more often
play a role in Moses’s task as mediator of revelation (e.g. Acts 7:53; Gal. 3:19;
Heb. 2:2; see also Acts 7:38; Introd. §13.4.2). According to a tradition current
among Jews and Samaritans, in heaven Moses was given divine and royal dig
“ Cf. also J.T.A.G.M. van Ruiten, “The Rewriting of Exodus 24:12-18 in Jubilees 1:1-4,” BN
79 (1995), 25-9.
24 See e.g. Baentsch, Beer and the exegesis of 24:12; GreBmann*, 186ff, believes that
according to the original tradition the Torah was orally delivered to Moses; the notion of its
inscripturation is supposedly of a later date.
25 E.g. Philo (QE, 49); Ishodad
26 See Ginzberg*, III, 109ff; J.P. Schultz, “Angelic Opposition to the Ascension o f Moses and
the Revelation of the Law,” JQR 61 (1970-71), 282-307.
Volume III1
306 EXODUS 2 5 -3 1 ; 35 -4 0
nity.27 In sharp contrast with it is GreBmann’s* suggestion: according to an

ancient saga, Moses had ascended to steal the tablets of the law (p. 231).
31:18 After having finished speaking with him (Moses) on Mount Sinai, he
(YHWH) gave Moses the two tablets with the constitution, the tablets o f stone,
writen by divine hand.
Finally YHWH proceeds to do that for which he had explicitly summoned
Moses (24:12) to Mount Sinai (24:16). He delivers the tablets into Moses’s
hands. That YHWH used Moses’s stay on the mountain to talk at great length
(see 25:1-31:17) with him - He had not said so when the invitation was first
given - is expressed through the subordinate clause beginning with 10^33 (see
5:13; Brockelmann §109b). 173HN, see 8:5. OVibK, see Introd. §7.2.3. For the
tablets see further 24:12; 32:15, 16.
4.2 GENERAL INTRODUCTION TO EXODUS 25-31; 35-40
4.2.1 Bibl.: Y Aharoni, “The Solomonic Temple, the Tabernacle and the Arad
Sanctuary,” in Orient and Occident (Fs C.H. Gordon), Kevelaer/Neukirchen-
Vluyn 1973, 1-8; C.W.F. BShr, Symbolik des mosaischen Cultus, I, Heidelberg
18742; I. Benzinger, EB, IV, 4861-75; A. Biran (ed.), Temples and High Places
in Biblical Times, Jerusalem 1981; E. Blum, Studien zur Komposition des Pen
tateuch, Berlin/New York 1990; Th.A. Busink, Der Tempel von Jerusalem von
Salomo bis Herodes, Leiden 1970, 1980; R.J. Clifford, “The Tent of El and the
Israelite Tent of Meeting,” CBQ 33 (1971), 221-7; F.M. Cross, “The Taberna
cle: A Study from an Archaeological and Historical Approach,” BA 10 (1947),
45-68; idem, “The Priestly Tabernacle in the Light of Recent Research,” in
Biran, 169-80; G. Henton Davies, IDB, IV, 498-506; B.J. Diebner, “Gottes
Welt, Moses Zelt und das salomonische Heiligtum,” in Th. R6mer (ed.), Lectio
difficilior probabilior? (Fs F. Smyth-Florentin), Heidelberg 1991, 127-54; J.
Dus, “The Dreros Bilingual and the Tabernacle of the Ancient Israelites,” JSS
10 (1965), 54-7; O. EiBfeldt, “Kultzelt und Tempel,” in Wort und Geschichte
(Fs K. Elliger), Kevelaer/Neukirchen-Vluyn 1973, 51-5; M.V. Fox (ed.),
Temple in Society, Winona Lake 1988; T.E. Fretheim, “The Priestly Document:
Anti-Temple?,” VT 18 (1968), 313-29; R.E. Friedman, “The Tabernacle in the
Temple,” BA 43 (1980), 241-8; V. Fritz, Tempel und Zelt, Neukirchen-Vluyn
27 See W.A. Meeks (\fol. I, 525); P.W. van der Horst, “De joodse toneelschrijver Ezechifil,”
NedThT 33 (1982), 97-112 (cf. Ezekiel the Tragedien, 68ff.); idem, “Moses* Throne Vision in
Ezekiel the Dramatist,” JJS 34 (1983), 21-9; for a modem variant o f this interpretation see N.
Wyatt, “The Hollow Crown: Ambivalent Elements in Wfest Semitic Royal Ideology,” UF 18
(1986), 421-36.
Volume III1
GENERAL INTRODUCTION 307
1977; M. Gorg, Das Zelt der Begegnung, Bonn 1967; D.W. Gooding, The
Account o f the Tabernacle: Translation and Textual Problems o f the Greek
Exodus, Cambridge 1959; R. Hartmann, “Zelt und Lade,” ZAW 43 (1917-18),
209-44; V. Hurowitz, “The Priestly Account of Building the Tabernacle,”
JAOS 105 (1985), 21-30; idem, I Have Built You an Exalted House: Temple
Building in the Bible in Light o f Mesopotamian and Norhtwest Semitic Writ
ings, Sheffield 1992; VA. Hurowitz, “Solomon’s Golden Vfessels (1 Kings
7:48-50) and the Cult of the First Temple,” in D.P. Wright et al. (eds.),
Pomegranates and Golden Bells (Fs J. Milgrom), Winona Lake 1995, 151-64;
B. Janowski, ‘“ Ich will in eurer Mitte wohnen’: Struktur und Genese der
exilischen Schekina-Theologie,” Jahrbuch fu r biblische Theologie 1986, 165-
93; P.P. Jenson, Graded Holiness: A Key to the Priestly Conception o f the
World, Sheffield 1992; A.S. Kapelrud, “Temple Building: A Task for Gods and
Kings,” Or 32 (1963), 56-62; P.J. Kearny, “Creation and Liturgy: The P
Redaction of Ex 25-40,” ZAW 89 (1977), 375-87; A.R.S. Kennedy, DB, IV,
653-68; C.R. Koester, The Dwelling o f God: The Tabernacle in the Old
Testament, Intertestamental Jewish Literature, and the New Testament, Wash
ington, DC 1989; A. Kuschke, “Die Lagervorstellung der priesterschriftlichen
ErzShlung,” ZAW 63 (1951), 74-105; B.A. Levine, “The Descriptive Taberna
cle Texts of the Pentateuch,” JAOS 85 (1965), 307-18; idem, “On the Presence
of God in Biblical Religion,” in Religions in Antiquity: Essays in Memory o f
E.R. Goodenough, Leiden 1968, 71-87; C.I. Meyers, “The Elusive Temple,”
BA 45 (1982), 33-41; S. Owczarek, Die Vorstelhmg vom Wohnen Gottes
inmitten seines Volkes in der Priesterschrifi: Zur Heiligtumstheologie der
priesterschriftlichen Grundschrift, Frankfurt am Main et al. 1998; B. Pelzl,
“Das Zeltheiligtum von Ex 25ff.: Die Frage nach der Mdglichkeit seiner
Errichtung,” UF 7 (1975), 379-87; idem, “Thesen zur Entstehung des Zeltbau-
berichtes von Ex 25ff und seiner Geschichte,” UF 8 (1976), 323-6; J. Popper,
Der biblische Bericht iiber die Stiftshutte: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der
Composition und Diaskeue des Pentateuch, Leipzig 1862; G. von Rad, Die
Priesterschrifi im Hexateuch, Stuttgart/Berlin 1934; A.M. Rodriguez, “Sanctu
ary Theology in the Book of Exodus,” AUSS 24 (1986), 127-45; K. Rupprecht,
Der Tempel von Jerusalem: Griindung Salomos oder jebusitisches Erbe?,
Berlin/New York 1977; L. Schouten, De tabernakel, Gods heiligdom bij Israel,
Utrecht 1887; E. Sellin, “Das Zelt Jahwes,” in Alttestamentliche Studien (Fs R.
Kittel), Leipzig 1913, 168-92; G. Steins, “‘Sie sollen mir ein Heiligtum
machen’: Zur struktur und Entstehung von Ex 24,12-31,18,” in Vom Sinai zum
Horeb (Fs E. Zenger), Wurzbuig 1989, 145-67; S. Terrien, The Elusive
Presence, New York et al. 1978; H. Utzschneidet Das Heiligtum und das
Gesetz: Studien zta Bedeutung der sinaitischen Heiligtumstexte (Ex 25-40; Lev
8-9), Freiburg/GOttingen 1988; P. Weimar, “Sinai und Schdpfimg: Komposition
und Theologie der priesterschriftlichen Sinaigeschichte,” RB 95 (1988), 337-85;
Volume III1
308 EXODUS 2 5 -3 1 ; 3 5 -4 0
M. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deutemnomic School, Oxford 1972; idem,

“Sabbath, Temple and the Enthronement of the Lord - The Problem of the Sitz
im Leben of Genesis l:l-2:3,” in Melanges bibliques et orientaux en I ’honneur
de H. Cazelles, Kevelaer/Neukirchen-Vluyn 1981, 501-12.
See also various titles listed under 4.5.1.1 (in particular the monograph of R.
Schmitt on the history of interpretation) and 4.12.1. Older literature is exten
sively mentioned by BShr.
4.2.2 Due to their close connection, two sections that are separated in the text
of Exodus by three chapters are taken up together in the following paragraphs.
The first section describes YHWH’s command to construct a sanctuary (Exod.
25-31; further noted as A); the second the execution of the command (Exod.
35-40; further noted as B), in close connection with the first section. So as to
bring out the similarity - and the differences - between both sections as clearly
as possible, the translation is presented in two parallel columns. The drawback
of this scheme is that it neutralizes the dramatism inherent in the ordening of
the material in Exodus. After all, the very fact that the sanctuary could be built
after Israel’s worship of the bull calf (Exod. 32) is nothing short of a miracle
(see 5.2.1; 5.3.1; 5.4.1). All in all, to properly understand Exodus it is impor
tant to keep in mind the arrangement of the material. In Jewish exegesis there
is found the notion that the command to construct the sanctuary came chrono
logically after the sin with the bull calf.28 This interpretation does not do justice
to the intent of the writer of Exodus. Already on purely formal considerations
it makes sense to combine the discussion of A and B and to deviate from the
actual sequence in the text.
Place o f action of A is Mount Sinai. There on top of the mountain YHWH
takes up contact with Moses (cf. 24:18). He addresses him extensively. Place of
action of B - after the dramatic intermezzo of Exod. 32-34 - is the camp of
Israel, at the foot of the mountain. Alongside Moses, characters in B include
the people and the craftsmen (see 4.3; 4.4), while YHWH speaks again in the
final chapter (40:1).
For the time o f action see 24:18 and the exegesis of 40:17 (cf. also 5.1.3).
4.2.3 A comprises YHWH’s instructions to Moses concerning the building and
the furnishing of the tent shrine. The execution of it is described in B. Striking
is that the arrangement o f the material in B does not agree with that in A.29
The survey below, which is an introduction to the content of A and B and also
shows the order in which the various parts are dealt with, shows this clearly.
21 See Rashi on 31:18; 33:11, and further Leibowitz*, 459ff.; Calvin (at 23:2) on the other
hand deems it possible that (among other things on the basis of 33:11) that the tent shrine was
already in existence before the apostasy with the bull calf.
” For the problem see Levine 1965 and Hurowitz 1985; the various summaries in Exod. 30;
31; 35; 39; 40 agree with the description of 36:8-39:31; see 3.2.
Volume III1
- 4.3 25:1-9; 31:6b-11; 35:4-29; 39:33-43, the required materials.

- 4.4 31:l-6a; 35:30-36:7, the craftsmen and their techniques.
- 4.5 25:10-22; 37:1-9, the shrine and the place of atonement with the cher
ubim.
- 4.6 25:23-30; 37:10-16, the prepared table.
- 4.7 26:1-37; 36:8-38, the tabernacle.
- 4.9 27:1-8; 38:1-7, the altar of burnt offering.
- 4.10 27:9-19; 38:9-20, the court.
-4 .11 27:20,21, the oil for the lamp.
-4 .1 2 28:1-43; 39:1-32, the highpriestly and priestly garments.
- 4.13 29:1-37, the institution of the priesthood.
- 4.14 29:38-46, the institution of the daily offerings; conclusion.
-4 .1 5 30:1-10; 37:25-28, the altar of perfume.
-4 .1 6 30:11-16, the tax for the support of the sanctuary.
-4 .1 7 30:17-21; 38:8, the basin.
-4 .1 8 30:22-33; 37:29, the holy anointing oil.
- 4.19 30:34-38; 37:29, the holy perfume.
- 4.20 31:12-17; 35:1-3, the day of rest and the work at the sanctuary.
- 4.21 38:21-31, conclusion of the description of the fabrication etc.
- 4.22 40:1-38, the construction and furnishing of the tent shrine; its dedica
tio n b y YHWH.
The sequence of the account of the execution of the work in B is in logical
order. Already early Jewish exegesis focused attention on it: Bezalel advised
Moses that the execution of the work in the sequence of A (shrine, other fur
nishings, dwelling) was not the best (cf. Leibowitz*, 706). In B, after the
collection of the materials and the appointment of the craftsmen, it is first the
components of the tent shrine proper that are made. Then the furnishings, the
shrine, the table, the lampstand and the altar of perfume. Next, the items that
are to be placed in the court, the altar of bumtoffering and the basin, and the
court proper. Finally the garments of the highpriest and the priests.
In A, after the instruction to collect the materials and the command to erect
the sanctuary, first the making of the shrine, the table and the lampstand are
described. Next the sanctuary itself, then the altar of bumtoffering and the
court, followed by the (high)priestly garments and the institution of the
priesthood. After the description in 29:45, 46 (cf. 25:8) seems to have been
wrapped up, there follows in Exod. 30 the description of the altar of perfume
and the basin. By itself, the arrangement of the material in Exod. 25-29 makes
sense. First the most important object of the sanctuary is described, the shrine
with the place of atonement (cf. Nachmanides op 25:1), then the other furnish
ings etc. In Exod. chapters 30-31, which contain material which is fully
Volume III1
310 EXODUS 2 5 -3 1 ; 3 5 -4 0
integrated in B, read like appendices in relation to Exod. 25-29.30 That warrants

the conclusion that A and B are not a uniform composition.
4.2.4 There is widespread consensus that A and B are priestly compositions
(P). There is no such consensus about the boundaries of the various strands in
P and about the formation process.31 For purposes of this commentary the
question is not of great importance. True, the account contains some inconsis
tencies - for example, with respect to the question of whether, in addition to
the highpriest, also the priests are to be consecrated with oil (see 28:41 and
4.13.3) and with respect to the origin of the precious metal for the sanctuary
(see 4.21 and 38:8b) - but by and large the account is of one piece. As I see it,
the account does not lend itself for drawing disparate pictures about the shape
or the significance of the sanctuary from it (see 4.2.16, 17).
4.2.5 In this connection there is one point I wish to touch on. In imitation of
Wellhausen* (Composition, 137ff.; Prolegomena, 65f.), on the assumption that
30:1-10 is an insertion,32 it has been argued that the altar of perfume did not
come into vogue in Israel until the late monarchical period and that therefore
this altar is absent from the original design of the sanctuary (Exod. 25-29). On
the basis of archaeological and religio-historical data (cf. also Isa. 6:4), this
conception must be rejected.33
The fact that the altar of perfume is mentioned in an appendix is remarkable.
Already Nachmanides (on 30:1) pointed it out. It is wise, however, not to draw
farreaching conclusions from it. Also the basin is absent in Exod. 25-29. Even
as purification is an indispendable element of the worship in the sanctuary so
is the burning of perfume. It stands to reason that provision would also be
made for this element. The assumption that the writer of Exod. 25-29 refuses
to make room for the offering of perfume (Noth, 192) is therefore implausible.
At the most one might assume that in the writer’s view perfume was burnt in
censers (cf. Lev. 10:1; Num. 16:6, 17ff.; 17:1; but see Isa. 6:6).
4.2.6 The relation of A to B deserves a closer look. A contains the instruc
tions for the building of the sanctuary; B the account of the execution of the
instructions. Comparison shows that B is very similar to A, but also that there
are differences as well. In the translation I have tried to show this, among other
50 After 25:1, the first time the oracular formula is used again is in 30:11, followed by 30:17,
22, 34; 31:1, 12 (7* in chap. 25-31, of which lx TDK'l [30:34]), and then again in 40:1.
31 For a survey of the history of the investigation see Utzschneider, 19ff.; for recent contributi
ons see Blum, 287ff.; Steins, 159ff.; Wsimar, 340ff., 359ff. et al.
33 For the deviating place in Sam.Pent. and Qm (na 26:35) see Sanderson**, lllff.
33 See the sub 4.15.1 cited publications of Eberharter, Langhe, LOhr and Nielsen (pp. 100ff.);
on the question see also e.g. Busink, 288ff.; B.D. Eerdmans, Alttestamentliche Studien, IV, Giefien
1912, 28ff.; Jacob*, Pent., 269ff.; Haran*, 228f.
Volume III1
things by placing the text of A and B next to each other in parallel columns.34
One of the things one notices right away is that B (36:8-39:32) talks only
about the making of items for the sanctuary and its furnishings - the work of
the craftsmen - but that other comments in A, particularly about the erection
and arrangement of the sanctuary, are without counterpart in the description of
the activities of the artisans (see 25:16, 21, 30a, 40; 26:9b, lib , 12, 13, 30, 33-
35; 27:8b; 28:30a, 41; 30:6, 18b, 23, 24, 26-33, 34, 36-38). It appears that that
work is strictly the province of Moses (cf. Exod. 40). B does not talk about the
function and maintenance of the sanctuary and equipment either (25: 15, 22,
30b, 37b; 28:12b, 29, 30b, 35, 38, 43; 30:7-10, 19-21). Cf. also the absence of
ijtf}4? (27:3) in 38:3 and of (28:15) in 39:8.
Additionally, there are differences that stem from the difference in character
between A (instruction) and B (execution), such as the change in person, from
‘you’ (A) to ‘he’ (B), the omission of the definite article in A (‘a’) and the
presence of it in B (‘the’) (e.g. 25:10/37:1), and the differences that are due to
the fact that B reckons with the information provided in A (e.g. 26:1/36:8;
27:1/38:1), including the appointment of Bazalel as supervisor of the project
(31:1-6); he is 3rd person sing, in B (37:1, 6 etc.). Furthermore, there are small
differences, including the orthography, such as the employment of the scriptio
plena in A (26:16, 17, 29; 28:20, 21, 25, 26, 27), but not in B, or vice versa
(37:3; 36:19; 38:11, 12, 14), the use of the particle of the accusative, as is done
more often in B (37:16, 17; 38:3), designation of the object with the particle of
the accusative with suffix (A) alongside the use of the suffix attached to the
verb to denote the object (B) (see 25:11/37:2; 28:27/39:20) or the choice of
another suffix for the object (26:29/36:34).
4.2.7 More important for the relation of A and B are the following differ
ences that show up when 25:10-28:43 is compared with the parallel parts in B.
- Wherever A is redundant and complex, B as a rule is plainer and simpler
(see 25:11/37:2; 25:14/37:5; 25:19/37:8; 25:28/37:15; 27:6/38:6; 27:9/38:9;
27:7/38:7; 27:12, 13/38:12, 13; 28:9-12/39:6, 7; 28:37/39:3; 28:13, 14 is
worked into 39:16).
- Repeatedly the sequence of B differs from that of A (see 26:8/36:15;
26:10/36:17; 27:13, 14/38:14, 15; 28:7, 8/39:4, 5; 28:37/39:31); at times there
is a drastic rearrangement of the text, one that amounts to a rewriting (see
26:28/36:33; 27:4, 5/38:4, 5; 27:16-19/38:16-20; 28:31-34/39:22-26; 28:39, 40,
42/37:27-29).
- In B uncommon constructions in A are replaced by more common ones
34 For a presentation in columns of the text see A. Bendavid, Parallels in the Bible, Jerusalem
1972, 172fF.; for a not entirely adequate parallel reproduction of the Hebrew text see EMATP, I,
84ff.
Volume III1
312 EXODUS 2 5 -3 1 ; 3 5 -4 0
(see 25:18/37:7 pad]; 25:27/37:14 [without b]; 26:18-20/36:23-25 [O'Bhp];

27:9/38:9 28:21/39:14 [D’Jtf]; 28:17/39:10 [” 110]).
- In B the 3rd pers. sing, is used, also there where in A other verbal forms
than those with die 2nd pers. sing, are employed (see 25:19/37:8; 26:3/36:10;
26:24/36:29; 26:28/36:33; 26:32/36:36; 27:7/38:7).
- In B regularly other prepositions are chosen than in A (see 25:11 [bp]/37:2
[b]; 25:19 [b»]/37:8 [-0]; 26:24 [b»]/36:29 [bit]; 27:13 [b]/38:14 [bit]; 28:7
[bx]/39:4 [bit]; 28:24 [bit]/39:17 [bit]).
- B contains several textual differences relative to A, which can be regarded
as corrections (see 25:39/37:24 [nitl]; 25:33/37:19 [in it naps]; 26:4/36:11 [p ];
26:8/36:23 [313]; 26:26/36:31 p m a ] ; 26:26/36:31 [nnttn]; 27:3/38:3 [bs];
27:10, 11/38:10, 11 [o.*thd »]).
- The text of B is more harmonious than that of A (see e.g. 25:35/37:22
[mao]; 27:1/38:1; 28:6/39:2 [nitbini]; 28:22/39:15 [m ehtf] and see 38:12b
beside 38:11).
- In B sometimes other wordings are used (see e.g. 26:3 etc./36:10 etc.
[nm rblt nnit]; 26:4 etc./36:ll etc. [preference for nnsna]; cf. also 25:26
/37:13).
- Wherever B is more detailed or concrete than A, this is likely due to the
desire for greater clarity (see 25:29/37:16 [cf. 27:3/38:3]; 26:20/36:25; 27:4
/38:4; 27:15/38:15; 28:16/39:9; 28:20, 21/39:13, 14; 28:36/39:30).
- A few times B presents a portrayal and interpretation that differs from A
(see 26:32/36:36; 26:37/36:38; cf. also 37:16; 38:19, 28), and sometimes
contains entirely new information (38:8b; 39:3).
- Occasionally the text of B is less fitting (39:6; ‘to make’) or too brief and
unclear; which makes one wonder whether perhaps one or more words from A
are missing (see 37:3 [zeugma; leaving out something?; cf. 37:13]; 36:17, 30,
32; 38:11).
Thus far the results of the comparison. Here bear in mind that this is only an
outline, not intended to be an exhaustive summary, and that it is not always
possible to determine precisely the boundaries between the various categories.
4.2.8 Still on the same subject, I make a few more comments about the use
o f the tempora in A and B.35 A contains direct speech and consists of a series
of instructions. B has the character of a narrative; it relates the execution of the
instructions. To describe the instructions, in A often the w*-perf., e.g.
CTipyi (25:11, 13, 17, 18 etc.), and the imperf., e.g. ntpjp (25:18; 26:1, 4, 5, 7
etc.), are used. As a rule, in B these forms correlate respectively to the wa-
35 For the syntax of A and B see further F.I. Andersen, The Sentence in Biblical Hebrew, The
Hague/Paris 1974, 7 Iff.; A. Niccacci, The Syntax o f the Verb in Classical Hebrew Prose,
Sheffield 1990, 82ff; Utzschneider, 190ff.
Volume III1
imperf., e.g. toff!;] (37:2, 4, 6, 7 etc.) and the perf., e.g. ntpy (37:7; 36:8, 11,
12, 14 etc.). Noun clauses (without rrn) which describe certain details are the
same in A and B (e.g. 25:32-35/37:18-21). These rules do not always hold (see
e.g. 25:28/37:15; 26:1/36:8; 26:3/36:10; 26:32/36:36 and also 26:24/36:29).
Deviations can, as a rule, be attributed to the propensity of the author of B to
offer a flowing text (see 4.2.9).
4.2.9 What conclusions can be drawn from the results? As such, repetition is
no reason, as Popper believed, to think that there was more than one author
(cf. Cassuto, 453). In Ugaritic texts more than once there are parallel passages
of the type A-B (instruction - execution) with various differences,36 while there
is no reason to think of there being more than one author. The differences
between A and B are, however, to some extent comparable to those between
parallel passages in Samuel/Kings and Chronicles; that would make it likely
that B is not from the same writer(s) as A, but the work of an author, who on
the basis of A and probably reliance on a (concise) report of the execution of
the instructions in an A-version, sought to present a detailed account of the
execution of YHWH’s instructions to Moses. As he did so, he did not slavishly
follow A, but strove to offer a lucid, flowing and more understandable text.
The idea that B is from another hand than A was already defended by
Popper. He believes that B was not written ‘in one go’ and as a harmonious
whole, but in phases (pp. 104, 151, 184ff.).371 won’t go into more detail here,
noting only that also Exod. 30-31 apparently are from the author(s) of B.
Belonging to B, for instance, is the conception that Bezalel and the craftmen
were in chaige of the work (see 4.4). In my opinion, there is no reason to
follow Popper in his view that B, in definitive shape, is very young (cf.
Dillmann, 354ff.).
Through Kuenen, Popper also had an impact on the study of the Old Testa
ment (cf. Houtman*, Pent., 102f.). There were counter voices as well. Kloster-
mann* refused to take Popper seriously (NF, 55). He believes that A and B are
from one writer, who for his work employed various sources (pp. 4 Iff.). Sharp
critique on Popper’s work has come from Jacob*, Pent., 138ff., 15Iff. At
length he defends the proposition that A and B are a carefully constructed
composition, a unity, the work of an author who counted his sentences and
words and can be likened to a poet.*3* The work of Klostermann and Jacob,
despite the many valuable observations it contains, has fallen into oblivion.
36 See e.g. F. Rosenthal, “Die Parallelstellen in den Texten von Ugarit,” Or 8 (1939), 213-37;
M. Lichtenstein, “A Note on the Text of I Keret,” JANES 2 (1970), 94-100.
31 Cf. R. Polzin, Late Biblical Hebrew, Missoula 1976, 88f., 101f.: P* represents a later form of
the Hebrew than P*.
3* E.g. pp. 149f., 329, 341f.; cf. the criticism of E. KOnig, ThStKr 79 (1906), 133fT, with
reaction from Jacob and reply from KOnig (pp. 48Iff.).
Volume III1
314 EXODUS 2 5 -3 1 ; 35 -4 0
4.2.10 In the discussion about the relationship of A and B, also the transla
tion o f the LXX plays a role. The rendering of B in the LXX is quite different
from the MT. There is a difference in the manner in which the material is
presented, not only in respect to the order of the various parts, but also in
respect to the contents of the sections. Furthermore, the LXX contains addi
tions, but also lacks certain parts. Technical terms are not consistently trans
lated with the same words and different Hebrew terms are reproduced with one
and the same word in Greek.39
The overview below offers an impression of the deviating order of the LXX.
The arabic numbers in brackets refer to the order of the sections in the LXX.
For an overview that starts from the LXX see BAE, 69.
MT LXX
36:8b, 9 tent curtains (4.8.2) 37:1, 2 (2)
36:10-34 roof, walls (4.8.3, 4)
[36:34, 36, 13, 18, 36, 38] [38:18-20] (9)
36:35-38 tapestry, curtain (4.8.5) 37:3-6 (3)
37:1-9 shrine (4.5) 38:1-8 (6)
37:10-16 table (4.6) 38:9-12 (7)
37:17-24 lampstand (4.7) 38:13-17 (8)
37:25-28 altar of perfume (4.15) (cf. 40:5, 24)
37:29 anointing oil, perfume (4.18; 4.19) 38:25 (11)
38:1-7 altar of burnt offering (4.9) 38:22-24 (10)
38:8 basin (4.17) 38:26 (12)
38:9-20 court (4.10) 37:7-18 (4)
38:21-23 conclusion (4.21) 37:19-21 (5)
38:24-31 materials used (4.21) 39:1-10(14)
39:1 39:13 (17)
39:1-31 (high)priestly garments (4.12) 36:8-40 (1)
39:32 39:11(15)
19 For details see the introductions to the following paragraphs and the exegesis; further, the
notes in BAE; Gooding, passim; Wfevers*, Notes; idem*, Text H istory, 9ff., 117ff. For the
question see also the contributions of A. Aejmelaeus (“Septuagintal Translation Techniques - A
Solution to the Problem of the Tabernacle Account” [381-402]), G.J. Brooke (“The Temple Scroll
and LXX Exodus 35-40” [81-106]) to G.J. Brooke, B. Lindars (eds.), Septuagint, Scrolls and
Cognate W ritings, Atlanta 1992; D. Fraenkel, “Die Quellen der asterisierten Zusdtze im zweiten
Tabemakelbericht Exod 35-40,” in D. Fraenkel et al. (eds.), Studien zur Septuaginta (Fs R.
Hanhart), Gottingen 1990, 140-86. Cf. also P.M. Bogaert, “L’importance de la Septante et du
‘Monacensis’ de la Vetus Latina pour l’ex6g£se du livre de l’Exode (chap. 35-40),” in M. Verven-
ne (ed.), Studies in the Book o f Exodus, Leuven 1996, 399-428; J. Cook, “Exodus 38 and
Proverbs 31: A Case of Different Order of Verses and Chapters in the Septuagint,” in Studies in
the Book o f Exodus, 537-49.
Volume III1
39:12 (16)
39:33-43 things produced (4.3) 39:14-23 (18)
40:1-16 instruction for erection (4.22) 40:1-14 (19)
40:7, 11 basin
40:17-33 erection (4.22) 40:15-27 (20)
40:28, 29b
40:30-32 basin (cf. 38:27) (13)
40:34-38 40:28-32 (21)
Striking is that according to the LXX version the craftsmen do not start with
the manufacture of the Dwelling, but with the making of the (high)priestly
clothing. 36:8 LXX is a combination of 36:8a and 39:1b. That is followed by a
detailing of the other items made from fabric, to be used for the Dwelling and
court. That in turn by an account of the items made of metal and wood of the
furnishings etc. The altar of perfume is not listed among the produced items,
but its making is presupposed in ch. 40. The basin is not mentioned in ch. 40,
but it is listed among the manufactured items. The making of basic components
of the Dwelling is not mentioned (cf. Gooding, 59, 66ff., 69ff., 72ff.)
4.2.11 Popper, 124ff., 140ff., cites the striking differences between MT and
LXX to back his thesis that A and B cannot be from the same writers) and
from the same time. He maintains that the LXX supports his contention that B
originated in phases: the LXX version of B came into existence when B had
not yet acquired its definitive shape; the LXX represents an earlier phase of B.
The view that B-LXX is not from the same translators) as A-LXX and that B-
LXX rests on another Hebrew text than MT is also espoused by other interpret
ers (e.g. Swete [see Introd. §1], 235f.; McNeile).
Before Popper, Frankel*, 11Off. (cf. Popper, 134ff., 172ff.), had occupied
himself with the problem of the relationship of A-LXX to B-LXX. The
‘constante Verschiedenheit’ (‘constant variation,’ p. I ll) between A and B also
made him reckon with multiple translators, but without assuming a different
‘\forlage’ for B-LXX. Frankel* conjectures that the translator of A-LXX left
the text from 36:8 on - where the repetition of the A-section begins - untrans
lated, except for perhaps an occasional verse. Gradually, however, B from 36:8
on was as yet translated by later users of the text, ‘und so liegt uns denn in
diesen letzten Kapiteln eine andere, aus Glossemen zusammengeflossene
Uebersetzung vor’ (p. 113).
Subsequent to Klostermann’s* argumentation (NF, 49ff.) that B-LXX is
secondary relative to MT, Popper’s view was sharply attacked by Gooding.40
40 For a summary of his argumentation see S. Jellicoe, The Septuagint and Modem Study,
Oxford 1968, 272ff.
Volume III1
316 EXODUS 2 5 -3 1 ; 35 -4 0
He believes that B-LXX is not based on another Hebrew text than MT. Aside
from Exod. 38 LXX, which in its current form has no relation with A and is
entirely out of tune with B (pp. 40ff., 52ff.), Gooding maintains that both A-
LXX and B-LXX are the work of the same translator. To back his view he
points to the following: also within A-LXX one can find inconsistency
carelessness, abbreviation and errors (pp. 19ff.); the difference between A and
B, relative to these phenomena, lies in the quantity; when the translator had
come to B and again was confronted with hard to translate technical terms, he
had enough of it; so he gave in even more than he had done in A to his
penchant for shortening, paraphrasing and being content with slovenly transla
tions (cf. pp. 76f.). The inconsistency with respect to the translation of techni
cal terms is not limited to A,B-LXX, but also occurs elsewhere in the Penta
teuch (pp. 8ff); the variation is purposely done and is typical of the style of
the translation. Besides differences, there are also notable similarities between
A,B-LXX (pp. 37ff). The present order of B-LXX is the work of a later editor
of the text (pp. 78ff, 100f.).
A more positive sound about the translation of the LXX comes from Le
Boulluec and Sandevoir in the introduction to BAE. They are inclined to
attribute A and B to different translators; with this understanding that on the
part of the translator of B (except for 38:13-27 LXX) they presume familiarity
with A-LXX, and further that they want to be serious about the possibility that
B may be based on a Hebrew text that deviates from the MT (pp. 66f.).41
It is not possible to decide the question here. It demands a deeper analysis
than can be done in a commentary. Therefore I limit myself to just a comment
or two. The ‘constant variation’ (Frankel*) between A and B is undeniably so
great as to make it doubtful that most of B-LXX can be attributed to the
translator of A-LXX. In the light of Gooding’s study it is doubtful whether on
the basis of B-LXX one can postulate the existence of a version of Exod. 35-
40 that differs from the MT. Conceivably, 39:1-31 MT was given prominence
in the LXX, because its place in the MT - way in the back - was seen as
improper. In B-LXX the tendency can be detected to ‘improve on’ the coher
ence in the text (cf. also Utzschneidei; 202ff). Maybe also Frankel’s vision on
the origin of B-LXX merits serious consideration (see now also Aejmelaeus
and Brooke [see 4.2.10]).
4.2.12 The broad scope o f the account is striking. Not only are detailed
instructions followed by a detailed account of the execution, but also the
furnishings and utensils of the tent shrine are enumerated more than once
(30:26ff; 31:7ff; 35:1 Iff.; 39:33ff; 40:lff, 17ff). Especially Jewish exegetes
have raised the question of the meaning and significance of the redundance
41 Cf. also Wsvers*, Text History, 143ff.

Volume III1
(Leibowitz*, 644ff.). Old Testament scholarship has often disparaged the broad
scope of the account. Holzinger writes about the B part: ‘Was hier geleistet
wird, geht liber das Mass von Genauigkeit und Pedanterie bei P® hinaus’ (p.
148). One must assume, however, that there is good reason for the detailed and
wordy account, which may strike the modem reader as dry and monotonous;
that style of writing is used to create an impression on the (original) reader (cf.
e.g. Num. 7:12-84). The repetition is also meant to leave no doubt in the mind
of these readers that YHWH’s instructions are precisely carried out; YHWH wants
his house to be built exactly as he has instructed (see 4.2.18); the importance
of a matter and the attention devoted to it are directly proportional.
4.2.13 Something more about the style. Due to the stereotype formulations
and repetitions and the attention to the details, P’s style is often said to be dry
(cf. Houtman*, Pent., 366f., 395). Lack of interest in the contents may be one
reason for this evaluation. After an earlier not very successful attempt by S.E.
McEvenue,42 more recently M. Paran43 has produced arguments for the rehabili
tation of P. Of the peculiarities of the style of Exod. 25-31; 35-40 I cite a
few.44
The formulations often are chosen for the purpose of producing a kind of
equilibrium, symmetry, reminiscent of poetic texts. For instance, in two
successive clauses, of which the second expands on the first, often the verb ‘to
make’ is used. As a rule, but not always (e.g. 25:19; 26:1), the first clause
starts with fl’lpy), while in the second clause, preceded by one or more terms,
nyyfl is used. So a kind of inclusio is produced. See 25:18, 29, 31; 26:4, 5,
7,1 8-19, 31; 27:3, 6, 8; 28:13-14, 15, 39, 40; 30:1 etc. Symmetry, equilibrium,
is also produced in other ways, through clauses such as ‘both inside and
outside’ (25:11), ‘on one side of it’/‘on the other side’ (25:12), ‘at one end’/‘at
the other end’ (25:19) etc. Form and contents are related. The harmony and
symmetry that is a mark of the sanctuary are reflected in the texts (cf. Introd.
§§4.3.1; 4.4.1 etc.). Also, general statements are as a rule followed by elabora
tion, explanation or commentary (25:10b, 12b, 14b, 15, 17b, 18b, 19b, 20b,
23b etc.); in the repetitions variant wordings are used (see e.g. 25:15a beside
25:15b).
The structure of 24:12-31:18 has been analyzed by Steins, 147ff.; the
structure of 24:12-31:18 and chapters 35-40 by Waring (see 5.1.1), 45ff. The
results are debatable. Waring, for example, detects the following chiastic
structure: A (24:12-18) - B (25:10-40) - C (26:1-37) - D (31:1-11) - E
(31:12-17)/E (35:1-3) - D (35:30-36:7) - C (36:8-38) - B (37:1-24) - A
The N arrative Style o f the Priestly Writer, Rome 1971 (the style of P m ayhe soroewhaft lik^
to those of children’s stories, fairy tales). ' v,
43 Forms o f the Priestly Style in the Pentateuch, Jerusalem 1989. - ' ", v
44 Cf. also S.E. McEvenue, “The Style of a Building Instruction,” Sem itics A (1974),1-9V/ 5-
Volume III1
318 EXODUS 2 5 -3 1 ; 35 -4 0
(39:32-40:38); as can be seen, part of the text is left out of the consideration.
4.2.14 Two terms are used for the tent shrine: pt?0, ‘dwelling’ (see 4.8.1)
and nj?ia bn'K (OT 133*),45 ‘Tent of Meeting,’ which in Exodus (34*) is first
used in 27:21 and further in 28:43; 29:4, 10, 11, 30, 32, 42, 44; 30:16, 18, 20,
26; 31:7 etc. ‘meeting’ refers to the contact between YHWH and Israel through
the person of the mediator (Moses).46 In the description of the tent shrine "tfflD
brtK and ptfD are used as synonymous expressions, as is evident from the
alternation in 40:34, 35 and the use of the construct chain im o brtN p q p (cf.
Joiion §125h) in 39:32; 40:2, 6, 29, in which lin o is something like
apposition. In the LXX in to is linked with nil? (see 19:21) and 1210 bilN
translated with oienvij tou paptupiou; in line with that the Vulg. has tabem a-
culum testimonii, ‘tent of the testimony.’ Because papxupiov and testimonium
are also employed for translating n n # (see 16:34) and because also p tf a is
translated with oKqvfj / tabemaculum, the lingual variation in the original text
has been erased - rnpn pipp in 38:21 is translated with oktivt) tou paptupiou
and tabemaculum testimonii - sometimes making simplification of the original
text unavoidable (e.g. 40:2, 6, 29).
Each of both designations sheds light on a particular function of the sanctu
ary. In 29:43-46 these functions are mentioned next to each other. The sanctu
ary is to serve as YHWH’s dwelling (29:45, 46; cf. 25:8) and as the place where
YHWH wants to meet Moses and through him reveal his will to Israel (29:42b,
43; cf. 25:22; 30:6, 36, and see also 34:34, 35). The dwelling is thus also place
of revelation, and so similar in function to Mount Sinai (cf. 40:34,35 and see
24:15-31:18; 34:4-28).
4.2.15 The designation ItfiD bn'K requires further consideration. It is also
used for a tent of revelation which cannot be the same as the p tjp in Exod.
25-31; 35-40. This particular tent is for the first time mentioned in 33:7. It is
also mentioned in Num. ll:16f., 24ff.; 12:4ff.; Deut. 31:14f. It is not located
inside (cf. Num. 1:50, 53; 2:17; 3:23, 29, 35) but outside the camp. It is not a
dwelling place of YHWH. YHWH reveals himself there to Moses not in the
sanctuary (25:22; 29:42; 30:6, 36; Num. 7:89), but by speaking to him in the
pillar of cloud (33:9f.; Num. 11:17, 25; 12:5, 10; Deut. 31:15). From 33:7b it
can be inferred that the tent was the place where Israel went to inquire about
God’s will. No further information is available about this tent, its furnishings*4
45 See TfVAT, I, 134ff.; IV, 750; for in n see 16:16; for im o see 9:5. Cf. R.E. Hendrix,
“M iikart and ‘Ohel Moed: Etymology, Lexical Definitions and Extra-Biblical Usage,” AUSS 29
(1991), 213-23; idem, “The Use of MiSkan and Ohel Moed in Exodus 25-40,” AUSS 30 (1992),
3-13; N.D. Osborn, “Tent or Tabernacle? Translating Two Traditions,” BiTr 41 (1990), 214-21.
44 For other interpretations see DB, IV, 655; TWAT, IV, 750 (‘Zelt der Vfersammlung zum
Fest’); according to Clifford, 226, the expresssion is of Caanaanite origin: ‘the tent of meeting (of
the divine assembly under the presidency of El)’ (cf. p. 225).
Volume III1
and function. The notion that it housed the shrine (ark) is unfounded (cf. Fritz,
100fF.; Haran*, 260ff.).
The above texts show the existence of a tradition according to which the
Israelites, during their sojourn in the desert, possessed a tent for inquiring
about God’s will, which was outside the camp and called ‘Tent of Meeting.’ In
33:7-11 a functional use is made of that tradition (see exegesis and 5.3.2.5).
The name TIED bilK for the tent shrine apparently derives from that tradition.
The images associated with it have undergone change, at least in part. The
older and newer conceptions have in common the notion that the Tent of
Meeting is the place where YHWH and Moses have contact with each other (cf.
also 34:34, 35).
4.2.16 Do the designations pip/? and bn'K reflect different and compet
ing images concerning the nature o f the sanctuary? Diverse but affirmative
answers have been given to that question (see also TWAT, V, 66f.). K. Galling
(in his article in Beer’s commentary, 133ff., 178f.), holds that each of the two
layers in P, which he, with \bn Rad detects there, offer their own conception
of the desert sanctuary: the sanctuary is a tent, the lltfl? brtK (PA); it is a p e P ,
a building, a copy of the temple of Solomon (P6). Kuschke, 8Iff., believes that
the conception of the tent as H I P bfiK, as place of revelation, is intended as
corrective of the conception of the tent as p e p , the sanctuary as dwelling of
the deity. Fritz, 147ff, 157ff, contends that P did not think of the sanctuary as
a dwelling: it is the place of the theophany. He senses spiritualization of the
sanctuary in P, but also notes that in later expansion of the text the conception
of the p e p , the sanctuary as dwelling, slipped back in: in a later time the
image of the tent shrine was updated to bear resemblance to the temple of
Solomon; the sanctuary is not place of theophany, but dwelling place.
The distinction between sanctuary as dwelling place and as place of revela
tion is found more often, also without specifically linking the first conception
with the term pel)?. Illustrative is \fon Rad’s view, 180ff. He espouses the
view, already defended by Hartmann, that originally there was no connection
between ‘the Tent of Meeting’ and the shrine (ark). The HUD brtK he regards
as a sacred tent from the wilderness period, the place of YHWH’s theophany
(33:7-11), the shrine as a cultic object derived from the Canaanites, the throne
of the deity (see 4.5.1.3, 5). That was tied to the conception of the sanctuary as
dwelling place of the deity. By adopting the ‘tent tradition,’ P, according to
\fon Rad, sought to correct the idea of the sanctuary as dwelling: it is the place
where YHWH manifests himself if he so desires (see ThAT, I, 247ff).
4.2.17 What to think of it? In the later tradition, Tent of Meeting and shrine
are evidently linked to each other. The idea that the tent of 33:7-11 contained
the shrine (e.g. EiBfeldt, 52; Gorg, 151ff., 164f.; De Vhux*, HAI, I, 437) is un
founded (cf. Haran*, 260ff., 269ff). Nowhere, however, in the OT is the
shrine a throne. It is clearly an object that represents YHWH. It has a place in
Volume III1
320 EXODUS 2 5 -3 1 ; 35 -4 0
the temple of Solomon (1 Kgs. 8:6ff.) and hence (see 4.2.29, 31) also in the
tent shrine. There it is the repository of the tables with the constitution and
carrier of the most sacred object, the place of atonement, the center of the
sanctuary (see 4.5.1; 4.5.2). In the sanctuary heaven and earth become inter
mingled (cf. e.g. Gen. 28:17; Isa. 6:1-13). The dilemma dwelling place or place
of revelation is artificial.47 Also the passages that talk about the manifestation
of the m rp l i a ? in connection with the sanctuary (Lev. 9:23 etc.; see 16:7)
cannot be used as proof for the conception of the sanctuary as the place where
YHWH manifests himself. From time to time the occupant of the sanctuary
manifests his powerful and glorious presence (cf. Mettinger [Introd. §3.50],
80ff.). Also the elsewhere (Deut. 12:5, 11, 21; 14:23, 24 etc.) occurring
portrayal of the sanctuary as the place where the □#, the ‘name,’ of YHWH is
present, expresses the idea of the real and personal presence of YHWH in the
sanctuary.48 The sanctuary is the place where YHWH can be met as the God
whose majesty and power bursts through the narrow walls of the building and
whose greatness extends far beyond such narrow confines. The argument, used
for example by Mettinger, 47ff., based on 1 Kgs. 8:12, 13 in relation to 1 Kgs.
8:27, 29, 30, 39, 43, 49, that the wording with 00 stresses YHWH’s transcen
dence - YHWH is enthroned in heaven; in the sanctuary only the ‘name,’ not
the Lord himself is present - is, I believe, inadequate. The conceptions of
YHWH as both dwelling in heaven and in the midst of his people are not
mutually exclusive, but complementary (cf. Houtman*, Himmel, 366ff.).
4.2.18 A sanctuary is primarily the dwelling o f the deity.*9 This was also true
of the tent shrine. It is YHWH’s private domain.50 In all sorts of way it is
brought out that the dwelling is a royal house, whose splendour is totally in
keeping with the status of its occupant. It is a palace.51
YHWH himself drew up the blueprint for his house and furnishings (Exod. 25-
31). His readiness to occupy the dwelling depends on the precise execution of
his instructions. That made it of paramount importance that it was built entirely
in accordance with the design (cf. 25:9, 40; 26:30). Therefore it is also
specifically stated that the work was done entirely according to the
47 Cf. G.W. AhlstrOm, “Heaven on Earth - at Hazor and Arad,” in B.A. Pearson (ed.),
Religious Syncretism in Antiquity, Missoula 1975, 67-83; C. Houtman, VT 27 (1977), 344; B.
Otzen, “Heavenly Visions in Early Judaism: Origin and Function,” in In the Shelter o f Elyon (Fs
G.W. AhlstrOm, Sheffield 1984, 199-215.
48 For an overview of the various formulas with o$ and the discussion on what they mean, see
Mettinger, 38ff
44 C f the use of niTP n’3 as designation of the sanctuary (Introd. §3.9.1); however not in
Exod. 25-31; 35-40.
90 For further exposition of the points touched on here, see below paragraphs (4.3 etc.).
51 Cf. the use o f to describe sanctuary (1 Sam. 1:9) as well as palace (2 Kgs. 20:18).
Volume III1
instructions.52 Also the repetition of Exod. 25-31 in Exod. 35-40 is meant to

emphasize the agreement between instruction and execution. The house must be
built in such a way that YHWH will be eager to take occupancy of it. The care
given to YHWH must be such that he likes it in his house and is pleased to live
there. Therefore his servants, the priests, are to comply with the regulations he
has laid down, be properly clothed, and take pains to meet his every need, as is
owed to a king.
Back of the description of the tent shrine lies an anthropomorphic conception
of God. The portrayal of the sanctuary as an inhabited palace brings out the
reality of YHWH’s presence in the midst of Israel. YHWH j s enthroned among
his people.
4.2.19 The sanctuary also functions as a structure dedicated to the commu
nion between God and his people. It is the place where God reveals his will to
his representative (25:22; Num. 7:89 etc.), also in response to questions
submitted to him (see in particular the exegesis of 34:34, 35). Through the
priestly service, YHWH remains focussed on his involvement in Israel (28:12,
29). Through the priestly service of reconciliation, the ever present threat of
the disruption of the good relationship with YHWH is neutralized (see the
exposition on *1S3 at the exegesis of 21:30 and e.g. 28:38; 30:16). Through the
priestly ministry, the divine blessing at the sanctuary is passed on to the people
(Lev. 9:22; Num. 6:22-27). The sanctuary is the center of cultic worship,
where the sacrifices are brought (Lev. 1:3, 5 etc.) and religious rituals per
formed (Num. 5:17; 6:18).53
For Israel’s well-being YHWH’s presence is an indispensable requirement.
Nothing may be done that might lead him to abandon his residence in the sanc
tuary. That threat becomes very real if he should not be given the respect due
to him as Israel’s king and the atmosphere around the sanctuary be allowed to
become defiled (cf. e.g. 15:31; 20:3; Num. 5:3; 19:20). Cultic worship that is
correct down to the smallest details must insure YHWH’s continued presence.
Also the way in which the sanctuary is situated in the midst of Israel helps
protect the sphere of holiness around YHWH. The members of the tribe of Levi
are encamped around it like a protective belt (Num. l:50ff.; 3:8). Inside are the
various zones with increasing degrees of holiness, the court, the holy place, the
Most Holy Place (see 4.8.1; 4.10), progressively restricting accessibility The
Most Holy Place is only accessible to the high priest once a year (Lev. 16).54 It
underscores the unique, incomparable and exalted nature of YHWH.
52 39:43; cf. also the use of the formula ‘as y h w h had commanded Moses’ in 39:1 etc. (7*)
and 40:19 etc. (7*); see further Introd. §3.43.1.
51 On the meaning and function of the sanctuary more in general, see Keel, WABAT, 99ff,
157ff.
54 For particulars see Haran*, 181ff; Jenson, 89ff; Kuschke, 78ff, 90fF.
Volume III1
322 EXODUS 2 5 -3 1 ; 35 -4 0
More in general it can also be said that the Israelites were not unaware that
God’s presence in their midst could also spell evil (e.g. Lev. 10:2; Num. 11:1,
3; 16:35; Isa. 6:5; 33:14). Dominant, however, was the conviction that in order
to live life to the full - enjoying good health, safety, happiness and gladness -
God’s presence is absolutely necessary His presence among Israel is the
fountain of life, blessing and gladness (e.g. Isa. 12:6; Pss. 27; 36:8ff.; 63; 65;
138).55 When God hides himself, shows no signs of his presence, the powers of
death, destruction and injustice seize their chance (e.g. Pss. 18:4ff.; 30:2ff.; 38;
71:20; 86:13f.; 88:4ff.; 142; 143).56. God’s presence among Israel is not
automatic and unconditional (e.g. Jer. 3:1 If.; Ezek. 8:12; 10:18fF.; Mic. 3 :llf.
and also 1 Sam. 4:3ff.).
YHWH’s intent to dwell in the midst of Israel (25:8; 29:45, 46; cf. Lev. 26:9,
Ilf.; Num. 5:3; 16:3; 35:34; 1 Kgs. 6:13; Ezek. 37:26-28; 43:7, 9; Zech.
2:10f.; Rev. 21:3 and also 7:15ff.) grows out of the bond he has entered into
with Israel. Israel has testified that it acknowledges YHWH as Lord (24:3-8). By
taking up his abode in the midst of Israel YHWH makes it known that he is
Israel’s king. The presence of his house in the midst of Israel is a visible sign
that Israel is a theocracy (cf. 19:5, 6). YHWH’s lordship over Israel has as its
concomitant that the Israelites make his laws the guide for their life. It must
become visible that they are YHWH’s subjects (cf. 31:13; Lev. 20:8; 21:8;
22:32).
4.2.20 A sanctuary is never put up just anywhere. For a place to be used as a
holy place, it must have been the scene of a theophany (e.g. Gen 28:10-22;
Exod. 3:2ff., and in particular 20:24). In any case, construction of a house of
God does not happen without prior consultation of God (2 Sam. 7:Iff.). The
construction of the tent shrine is entirely at YHWH’s initiative (cf. Ezek. 40:Iff.;
Hag. 1:8). In a personal encounter with Moses he gives him detailed instruc
tions about his wishes (25:8, 9). In Ezek. 40:Iff. God employs the visionary
state of the prophet to reveal the ‘blueprint’ of the temple he has in mind.
The prophetic vision is sometimes also regarded as the medium through
which God revealed the design of the tent shrine to Moses. Cassuto, 321,
believes that the earthly sanctuary is simular to the heavenly one which Moses
saw in a vision.57. The notion that the earthly sanctuary is a copy of the*347
55 See e.g. IDBS, 680ff.; C. Barth, Die Erreitung vom Tode in den individuellen Klage- und
Dankliedern des Allen Testamentes, Zollikon 1947, 36ff.; Levine 1968, 71-87; H. Spieckermann,
Heilsgegenwart: Eine Theologie der Psalmen, Gottingen 1989; Terrien, 161ff., 278ff.
34 See e.g. S.E. Balentine, The H idden God: The H iding o f the Face o f God in the O ld
Testament, Oxford 1983; B.J. Oosterhoff, De afw ezigheid Gods in het Oude Testament, Kampen
1971; L. Perlitt, “Die Verborgenheit Gottes,” in Probleme biblischer Theologie (Fs G. von Rad),
MOnchen 1971, 367-82
37 Cf. Vbn Rad, 181; Childs, 335, and see already Klostermann*, NF, 112
Volume III1
heavenly is defended more often. It is even held that Moses had to make the
tent shrine in accordance with a pattern supposedly found on Mount Sinai and
seen there by Moses during his stay on the mountain (Clifford, 226). D.N.
Freedman maintains that it is that sanctuary that is meant in 15:13, 17, 18.58
The suggestion that Moses received the information in a vision is without
support. YHWH tells Moses orally (25:1; 30:11 etc.). What YHWH shows to
Moses is not the heavenly ‘Urbild’ of the sanctuary, but the design for the
construction of the earthly sanctuary (see discussion of in 25:9). As the
architect, the principal builder, YHWH himself determines the materials that are
to be used and how and by whom the work is to be done (see 4.3; 4.4).
4.2.21 At various points, texts from Israel’s ‘Umwelt’ on construction and
dedication of temples exhibit similarities with OT passages on the same subject
(see also 1 Kgs. 5-8). I cite a few points.59 Construction of the temples is done
by kings. In the Gudea cylinders (A and B) the god Ningirsu announced to
Gudea, ensi of Lagash (ca. 2130 B.C.), in a dream that Gudea should build a
temple for him; in the dream Gudea is also given information about the
construction.60 Also in other instances of (re)building a temple the initiative
proceeds from a deity. The appointment and equipping of the artisans for the
construction can be portrayed as an act of the deity.61
In extra-biblical texts, temple building is not only a human activity. Also
gods add their contribution, enhancing the importance of the occasion by
erecting a temple, a palace, for the greatest deity among them. In the Babylo
nian creation epic Enuma Elish a sanctuary is built for the god Marduk, after
his victory over the enemies and the creation of the cosmos, as a sign of his
kingship (VI, 47ff.; transl. ANET, 68f.). In the Ugaritic Baal myth a palace is
built for the conqueror Baal (KTU 1.1 and 44; transl. e.g. ARTU, 20ff., 35ff.,
43ff„ 53ff.).
4.2.22 Against the background of the Enuma Elish and the Baal myth,
Weinfeld 1981, 50Iff., postulates the presence in Exod. 25-40 of the idea,
among other things on the basis of terminological similarities between 39:43
and Gen. 1:31, 39:32 and Gen. 2:1, 40:33 and Gen. 2:2, 39:43 and Gen. 2:3,*401
51 See his “Temple Without Hands,” in Biran, 21-30 (p. 26).

59 For additional data see Kapelrud, 57ff.; Hurowitz 1985, 25ff.; Wsinfeld 1972, 35ff„ 247ff.;
R.D. Barnett, “Bringing the Gods into the Temple,” in Biran, 10-20; S.W. Holloway, “What Ship
Goes There: The Flood Narratives in the Gilgamesh Epic and Genesis Considered in Light of
Ancient Near Eastern Temple Ideology,” 2AW 103 (1991), 328-55, and in particular S. Lacken-
bacher, Le roi bbtisseur: Les recits de construction assyriens des origines a Teglatphalasar III,
Paris 1982.
40 For translation see A. Falkenstein, W. von Soden, Sumerische und akkadische Hymnen und
G ebete, Zorich 1953, 137ff.; THAT, II, 23ff.
41 See e.g. R. Borger, Die Inschriften Asarhaddons Kdnigs von Assyrien, Graz 1956, 82f.
Volume III1
324 EXODUS 2 5 -3 1 ; 3 5 -4 0
and between 40:9 and Gen. 2:3, that creation and victory over the enemies are
correlative with accession to the throne and building of the temple. In view of
the position of Exod. 25-40 in the Pentateuch - the building of the temple
comes after the enactment of the covenant at Mount Sinai - that suggestion
lacks strong enough support. In the OT the establishment of the sacred period
of time, the sabbath, is linked to the creation (Gen. 2:1-3). The construction of
the sanctuary happens when YHWH and Israel have entered into a covenant and
YHWH is acknowledged as Lord and King over Israel (cf. Lev. 26:9,1 If.; Ezek.
37:26-28). For that matter, already in rabbinic literature creation and desert
shrine are linked: its erection marked the completion of the creation of the
world.62
The points of contact between the creation story and the account of the
construction of the tent sanctuary are also given other interpretations. Leibo-
witz*, 477ff., 696ff., contends that in the construction of the sanctuary man
must copy God, be creative like God, so that the building will minor the
perfection of God’s creative handiwork, the world. Sweeping is Kearny’s
interpretation. He proposes that the seven parts of Exod. 25-31 (25:1; 30:11,
17, 22, 34; 31:1, 12), introduced by oracular formulas, the seventh of which
introduces the sabbath commandment, correspond to the seven days of Gen. 1.
In Exod. 25-40 he detects the following structure: creation (Exod. 25-31) - fall
(Exod. 32-34) - restoration.
Still more comprehensive is Weimar’s63 interpretation. He argues that the
resting of God as completion of the creation as part of the events at Mount
Sinai corresponds to the erection of the tent shrine as completion of the event
of the exodus. In line with his interpretation of the seventh day as ‘ein Prinzip’
‘das auf eine Steigerung menschlicher Lebensmoglichkeiten hinzielt’ (p. 368),
he understands the sanctuary as ‘der Ort, von dem neue Freiheit eroffnende
Lebensmoglichkeiten ausgehen’ (p. 369), and draws the conclusion that P
wants to say ‘dafl mit der Errichtung der Wohnung Jahwes nicht nur die bis
dahin noch nicht abgeschlossene SchSpfung definitiv zur \bllendung kommt,
sondem daB damit zugleich auch ein ProzeB eingeleitet wird, der auf eine
Vferwandlung der ganzen Welt, die als solche zu einem Raum der Freiheit
Gottes soil, hinzielt’ (p. 369). In his view, the links within P8 are not limited to
the creation stories and the building of the tent shrine. He also sees a correla
tive connection between the ark of Noah and the Sinai sanctuary. In view of
the function of the ark, he considers ‘das Moment der Errettung’ (p. 352) also
constitutive for the dwelling of YHWH (pp. 352f., 384). From the correspon
62 See P. Schafer, “Tempel und SchOpfung,” Kairos 16 (1974), 122-33 (131ff.).

63 In part in line with E. Zenger, Gottes Bogen in den Wolken, Stuttgart 1983, 170ff. (the
erection of the sanctuary is the completion of creation).
Volume III1
dence between the date of the drying up of the earth after the flood (Gen. 8:13)
and the date of the erection of the sanctuary - both events happen on the first
day of the first month, on the first day of the new year - he infers that the
erection of the sanctuary not only signified the completion of creation, but also
signified the ‘new creation’ (p. 371).
4.2.23 Also the portrayal of human beings as created in the image of God
(Gen. l:26f.) has been linked with the sanctuary, as constructed after the
heavenly ‘Urbild’ (Exod. 25:9), though the terminology provides no reason for
doing so. On the basis of the presumed parallellism Weimar54 concludes that
the sanctuary is the medium of revelation, the instrument by which God is
present in the world.
Blum, 306ff., expresses himself less forcefully in respect of the subject of
‘creation and construction of the sanctuary.’ He stresses that the construction
happens in the world ‘nach dem Einbruch der Gewalttat,’ in which God and
man can only approach each other in a protected space, the sanctuary. That
leads him to characterize the sanctuary as a kind of new creation; Israel was
charged with the task of bringing about that new creation, so that there might
be a new beginning within humanity - ‘Wie uberhaupt der ganze geschichliche
ProzeB der Konstituierung des Gottesvolkes die Zflge einer “Schdpfung in der
Schopfung” tragt’ (p. 311).
The above correspondences have also prompted discussions on sabbath and
sanctuary, sacred time and sacred place. It is suggested that by his terminology
P sought to forge a link between the institution of a holy time and a holy
place.*656In Jewish exegesis both are tied to each other, among others through
the use of spacial images derived from the sanctuary to describe the sabbath.55
As I see it, the presumed points of contacts are not specific enough to posit a
material connection between the creation story and the story of the construction
of the sanctuary.
4.2.24 Since the 19,h century several scholars have argued that the account of
the tent shrine cannot be historical, and that the description of the tent shrine is
an invention of the priestly writers, who placed the Solomonic temple already
44 Picking up on T.N.D. Mettinger, “Abbild oder Urbild? ‘Imago Dei’ in traditionsge-

schichlicher Sicht,” ZAW 86 (1974), 403-24.
65 See J. Levenson, Sinai and Zion, New York 1985, 142ff.; J. Blenkinsopp, Prophecy and
Canon, Notre Dame 1977, 56ff.
66 See e.g. A. Green, “Sabbath as Temple: Some Thoughts on Space and Time in Judaism,” in
God and Study (Fs A. Jospe), Washington, DC 1980, 287-305. For additional discussions about
the relation between tent shrine and creation (and other presumed connections) see also Diebner,
135ff.; E.E. Elnes, “Creation and Tabernacle: The Priestly Writer’s ‘Environmentalism,’” HBT 16
(1994), 144-55; B. Janowski, “Tempel und SchOpfung: SchOpfungstheologische Aspekte der
priesterschriftlichen Heiligtumskonzeption,” JBT 5 (1990), 37-69.
Volume III1
326 EXODUS 2 5 -3 1 ; 3 5 -4 0
in the desert period. With that they broke with the traditional conception that
the temple of Solomon was constructed after the pattern of Moses’s tent
shrine.67 Others, while unwilling to regard the tent shrine as described in
Exodus as historical reality, held that it could not be dismissed as pure fiction,
and conjectured that as literature the story of the tent shrine preceded the
(account of the) building of Solomons’s temple. Thus Klostermann*, NF,
123ff., argued that the account of the tent shrine was written in the time of
David and Solomon, and that the design of the wilderness tent shrine was the
pattern for the arrangement and symbolism of the temple (p. 152). Jacob*,
Pent., 342ff., maintained that the writer was familiar with the temple of
Solomon, but was not dependent on it for the writing of his story. In fact, the
opposite is the case. The description of the sanctuary of Solomon is dependent
on that of the desert sanctuary. The construction of the temple of Solomon
provided the inspiration for the writer of Exod. 25-40 for the design of the tent
shrine, ‘zur Rettung der alten Kultuserinnerungen und Prinzipien’ (p. 345).
These proposals failed to gain acceptance. Dominant became the standpoint of,
among others, De Wette* (I, 258ff.; II, 259ff.) and Wellhausen* (Prolegomena,
34ff.): historically speaking, the tent shrine was not the ‘Urbild’ of the Jerusa
lem temple but the copy of it.
4.2.25 How did this conception arise? Under the influence of 18th century
Enlightment rationalists, including \foltaire, the account of Exod. 25-40 was
deemed entirely untrustworthy. The view that the Israel in the desert possessed
or could acquire all the costly materials as well as craftsmen, capable of putting
together an ornate temple that could readily be assembled and disassembled,
one half the size of the temple of Jerusalem - the work of mainly Phoenician
craftsmen - and that these Israelites would have been able to transport such a
temple, is dismissed as a fairy tale.6* It is not considered possible either that the
Israelites in the wilderness could have shaped the elaborate sacrifical cult,
particularly not as prescribed in Leviticus. After all, in the narrative parts of
the account it is said that on their journey through the desert the Israelites
lacked even the most basis necessities of life (15:22-17:8; Num. 11 etc.).
Advocates of this view are willing to grant that in the desert the Israelites may
have possessed a simple tent which served as a shrine (cf. 33:7-11), a center
where the people gathered together for religious ceremonies or which served as
storage container for the ark. They go on to contend that that tent and P’s
sanctuary had little or nothing more in common than the name ip ia brt'K.69 On
67 See e.g. C.F. Keil, Handbuch der biblischen Archdologie, Frankfurt A/M, 18752, 135.
6* De Wfette*, I, 259, talks of ‘the later sacred fairy tales.’
M De Wfette*, I, 260f.; II, 266, 268; Wellhausen*, Prolegomena, 39; for an extensive
enumeration of arguments against the historical character of the account of the tent shrine see e.g.
McNeile, Ixxixff.
Volume III1
the other hand, they also maintain that there are all sorts of similarities between
P’s sanctuary and the temple of Solomon, which apparently justifies the
assumption that P’s sanctuary is a projection of that temple.
4.2.26 The above view has garnered widespread acceptance. Arguments
against it, such as that the Israelites left Egypt laden with treasures (3:12f.;
ll:2f.; 12:35f.), which presumably they made available for the construction of
the sanctuary70 usually are dismissed out of hand. The same is true about
suggestions such as that the use of acacia wood and hides of sea cows presup
poses that the Israelites were in the Sinai desert, and that various materials
could have been purchased from caravans that passed through the area.71
Greater historical value is attached to the tradition that the Israelites as they
trekked through the wilderness possessed a notable portable shrine and/or that
P availed himself of old traditions about such a sanctuary. Sellin maintains that
already in the desert Israel was in possession of an elaborately furnished
sanctuary, one which included an ark, as cultic center in the midst of the camp;
presumably until the building of Solomon’s temple this sanctuary played an
important role as one of Israel’s prominent sanctuaries. EiBfeldt defends the
view that Israel already prior to the Sinai possessed a tent shrine. As a religious
relic it was later placed in the sanctuary at Shiloh, as was later done with the
tent shrine from the time of Solomon (1 Kgs. 1:39; 2:28f.), which was placed
in the temple after it had been built (1 Kgs. 8:4).
According to De \feux*, HAI, I, 435ff., P’s inspiration came only from the
temple in Jerusalem. He considers it beyond dispute, howevei; that the Israel
ites possessed a ‘Tent of Meeting’ as they journeyed through the desert. The
'otfe of the modem Arabs and the qubbe of the pre-Islamic Arabs, cultic
palanquins or small portable tent shrines, can be regarded as analogies.72
Haran*, 189ff., contends that the portrayal of the tent shrine is laigely fictional
and modeled after the temple of Solomon. The account, however, he believes,
dates back to an old tradition, the sanctuary legend of the temple at Shiloh, a
tent shrine which, as tradition has it, was set up by order of God at the Sinai
and brought to Shiloh (Josh. 18:1). Presumably P used the legend, and uncon
sciously altered the picture of the sanctuary to resemble that of the temple in
Jerusalem (p. 203).
4.2.27 The idea that the temple of Solomon served as prototype of the tent
70 Cf. M>1.I, 384; II, 277; for the difficulty see already TPsJ on 35:27,28; Rashi on 25:5.
71 E.g. Cassuto, 327, 370; on the argument see Houtman*, Pent., 354, 362; see in connection
with the discussion also Diltmann, 269ff.; Z. Zevit, “Timber for the Tabernacle: Text, Tradition
and R e a lia in E. Stem, T. Levi (eds.), Avraham Biran Volume, Jerusalem 1992, 136*-43*.
71 Cf. Hartmann, 216ff., and see the illustration on a relief from Palmyra; reproduction in Syria
15 (1934), ill. XIX; J. Morgenstem believes that ephod and ark are the equivalents o f ‘otfe and
qubbe-, see 2.12.2.4.
Volume III1
328 EXODUS 2 5 -3 1 ; 3 5 -4 0
shrine has been challenged by Cross, who comes with a new idea. He regards
the tent shrine of David (2 Sam. 6:17) as prototype.73 That shrine, according to
him, was a careful imitation of earlier Israelite sanctuaries, which contained an
ark and a cherubim-throne; supposedly back of these lies a Canaanite tradition,
ultimately the tent of El familiar from Ugaritic documents. Presumably also the
temple of Solomon stood in that tradition.74
Also others, invoking data from the ancient Near East, have rejected the view
that the tent shrine is a design from a late time. Gordon has argued that it
belongs in the second millennium. Bezalel (31:1) he describes as ‘a reflex of
the same Eastern Mediterranean tradition that produced Daedalus.’75 More or
less following his lead, Dus has argued that the tent shrine arose shortly after
1200 on Canaanite soil. Different yet again is the standpoint of Aharoni, 4ff.
He believes that back of the description of the tent shrine lies the picture of the
traditional Israelite temple type, represented by the temple at Arad
(‘Breitraum’-type), and that the origin of the description dates back at least to
the era of the judges. In the tradition it was altered to agree with the design of
the temple of Solomon (‘Langhaus’-type). What to make of all this?
4.2.28 As was noted, many expositors cannot accept the idea that in the
wilderness the Israelites possessed a moveable sanctuary of the size and luxury
of the tent shrine of Exodus. On good grounds, however, one may assume that
the picture the writer seeks to evoke is less at variance with reality than is
suggested (see also 4.9.3). It would seem that the account did not raise doubts
in the minds of the first readers/listeners. Ancient authors write about the
enormous size and luxury of the Persian royal tents and the tents that were
patterned after them. The Persian royal tents were moveable palaces with
bathrooms, women’s quarters and horse stables, exquisitely beautiful, with
multi-coloured tapestries, with silver and gold tables with expensive plates and
dishes, and with couches (Herodotus, IX, 70, 80, 82; Plutarch, Alex., XX, 7;
Athenaeus, V, 196c). A tent set up by Alexander the Great featured 20 cubit
high columns; the fore-court where the king sat on his throne was four stadia
in size (Athenaeus, XII, 538b-d; Aelianus, Var. Hist., IX, 3). The Odeion in
Athens, measuring 62,40 x 68,60 meters, was constructed with nine times ten
rows of columns and, as is commonly held, was built by Pericles after the
pattern of the royal tent of Xerxes, which the Greeks had captured (Plutarch,
75 See also V.W. Rabe, JNES 25 (1966), 132-4; already De Wfette*, I, 260, made a similar
suggestion.
74 Cf. Clifford (Introd. §3.16.1), 123ff.: ‘... it is probable that the Tabemacle/Tent of Meeting
is a copy of the Tent of El* (p. 131).
75 JSS 8 (1963), 78; cf. also idem, SPT 9 (1963), 28; idem, JSS 10 (1965), 57f.
Volume III1
Pericl., XIII).76 The information about the royal tent is from the S* century and
later. There can be no doubt, however, that the tent making of the Persian
kings was not an innovation, but continuation of a tradition (cf. Xenophon,
Cyropaedie, V,v,2). It may be assumed that also in earlier times kings carried
’palaces’ with them on their military campaigns. These data warrant the as
sumption that the readers/listeners of Exodus had no difficulty imagining the
tent shrine as described in Exodus. They do not, however, demonstrate the
historicity of the tent shrine.
4.2.29 R.K. Harrison77 has tried to prove the historical reality by pointing to
a variety of minor data, including tent-like structures from ancient Egypt (see
also e.g. Sama, 196ff.). However, the question at issue is not whether there
was a real tent shrine or not. Ancient Israel did have such a structure (2 Sam.
6:17; 7:lff. etc.)78 and they also existed in Israel’s ‘Umwelt,’ though not in
large numbers.79 At issue is the question of the likelihood of the possibility that
the Israelites in the wilderness possessed a moveable sanctuary as described in
Exod. 25-31; 35-40. \ferification is impossible. Adoption of a standpoint in the
matter rests on various presuppositions by which one is guided. As I see it, the
most likely case is that the writer talks about the past from the perspective of
his own time. Only by ‘colouring in’ the past with images and information his
readers are familiar with, can they know what he is talking about. That makes
it likely that for his description he availed himself of a temple type the
readers/hearers were familiar with. The temple he had in mind for that would
16 See H. von Gall, “Das persische KOnigszelt und die Hallenarchitektur in Iran und Griechen-
land,” in U. HOckmann, A. Krug (eds.), Fs F. Bromer, Mainz 1977, 119-32; idem, “Das Zelt des
Xerxes und seine Rolle als persischer Raumtyp in Griechenland,” Gymnasium 86 (1979), 444-62;
H. Sancisi-Weerdenburg, “De Orient: Bedreiging of bekoring?,” in RW. de Neeve, H. Sancisi-
W:erdenburg (eds.), Kaleidoskoop van de oudheid, Groningen 1989, 64-74.
77 Introduction to the O ld Testament, Grand Rapids 1969, 404f. See now also K.A. Kitchen,
“The Tabemacle-A Bronze Age Artifact,” Erls 24 (1993), 119»-29*.
71 Cf. Fritz, 94ff.; G6rg, 75ff., 124ff.; the historicity of the tent shrine of David is denied by
Rupprecht, 41ff. (cf. 2 Sam. 12:20).
79 Besides the sub 4.2.26 cited data, reference is often made to Diodorus Siculus, Bibliotheca
H istorica, XX, 65: there was a tent shrine in the camp of the Carthaginian army; B. Rothenberg,
on the basis of his excavations at Timnah, has concluded that at the end o f the 12* century a
Midianite tent shrine stood at a place previously consecrated to the Egyptian goddess Hathor; see
Tmna: Valley o f the B iblical Copper M ines, London 1972, 150ff., 184; cf. BARev 1.1 (1975), 16;
I. 2 (1975), 11; S. Singer, BARev 4.2 (1978), 20f.; see further Dillmann, 265; Fritz, 109ff.; a tent
played a role in the ancient cult of the Egyptian god Min; see LA, VI, 1373; 1. Munro, Das Zelt-
Heiligtum des M in, MQnchen/Berlin 1983; Philo Byblius (PE I, 10, 12) notes that the Phoenicians
had an animal-drawn sanctuary (vadv (uyo<|>opo6|ievov) in honour of a god called ‘hero of the
field’ or ‘country man’ (see H.W. Attridge, R.A. Oden, Philo o f Byblos: The Phoenician H istory,
lAfashington, DC 1981, 44, 85); cf. Lucianus, Dea Syria, XXXIII; none o f these instances is a
genuine parallel of the tent shrine of Exod. 25-40.
Volume III1
330 EXODUS 2 5 -3 1 ; 3 5 -4 0
naturally be the temple in Jerusalem. Though the description of the tent shrine
and temple do not completely overlap, the correspondences between both are
so numerous (cf. Haran*, 189ff.) that it does not seem to be a far-fetched
conclusion. Important in this connection, too, is that both belong to the same
temple type of Canaanite origin, the ‘Langhaustempel’ (see BRL, 333ff.; Fritz,
13ff., 29ff., 69f.; Weippert**, 237ff., 277ff., 461ff.). The placement of the
temple in the wilderness period required the portrayal of the temple as a
moveable tent. Whether and to what extent the writer also made use of a
tradition about a holy tent from Israel’s early history is something we have no
way of knowing. In any case, he did go back to the tradition about the exis
tence of the no further described ip in bo'N of Exod. 33:7-11, which was in
existence when Israel sojourned through the desert.
4.2.30 Not until the end of the 19lh century did doubt arise about the histori
cal reality of the tent shrine. Previously, its existence before Israel’s entrance
into Canaan was by and large generally accepted; OT archaeological studies
focused particularly on the form and construction of the sanctuary (see 4.8.1).
Before the rise of the historical interest in the OT, the sanctuary was a favour
ite object in the graphic arts; it was used as illustration in mediaeval manu
scripts80 and in early editions of the Bible.81 As the idea took hold that such a
structure never existed, interest in the structural details of the depiction of the
sanctuary waned and became almost the exclusive domain of biblicistic circles.
Due to that interest, older studies are being reprinted.82 Outside those circles,
interest in the construction of the tent shrine is not entirely a thing of the past.
In two fairly recent studies it is argued that Exod. 25ff. talks about the design
of a sanctuary that could actually be built. Pelzl, UF 7 (1975), 386, concludes
‘daB die Anweisungen zur Errichtung des Zeltheiligtums von Ex 25ff bautech-
nisch einwandffei erstellt worden sind, und daB die MSglichkeit einer Errich
tung durchaus gegeben ist: In diesem Zeltbaubericht ist jedenfalls ein gut
durchdachter Plan fiir ein abbrechbares, transportabeles Heiligtum entworfen
worden, der ebenso eine Meisterleistung darstellt, wie die bekannten Bauwerke
aus Stein dieser groBen Geschichtsepoche.’ Pelzl believes that the design is
from the the exilic period, made after the pattern of the temple in Jerusalem,
which had replaced an actual historical tent shrine (cf. Sellin). The intention
was to build it, so that in the captivity it could take the place of the temple
(UF 8 [1976], 325). By contrast, Friedman maintains that the design of Exod.
25ff. goes back to a historical tent shrine from the time of Solomon (cf.
*° See e.g. the essays of C.O. Nordstrom and J.W. Williams in J. Gutmann (ed.), No Graven
Images: Studies in A rt and the Hebrew Bible , New York 1971, 39-81, 385-415.
81 See e.g. the Luther Bible of 1545 (edition Darmstadt 1972); W.C. Poortman, B ijbel en prent,
I, ’s-Gravenhage 1983, 86, 125.
82 Such as The Tabernacle o f Israel from 1888 by J. Strong (reprint Grand Rapids 1987).
Volume III1
Cross); he suggests that that shrine was given a place in the temple of Solomon
(cf. 1 Kgs. 8:4), where it remained until the destruction of the temple.**3 I will
say no more than that the reconstructions of Pelzl and Friedman are widely
disparate.
As noted above, the writer is not as divorced from reality as is sometimes
suggested (see 4.2.28); the first readers/hearers could relate to his story about
the sanctuary and its construction. Problems modem readers run into as they
try to get a mental picture of the sanctuary do not stem from the fact, as Th.
Boman*4 thinks, that the Israelite was not interested in the ‘photographic’ look
of things, but was only interested in the question of how they were made. The
interest in the fabrication of the tent shrine hangs together with the nature of
the text: it gives a kind of blueprint, instructions for the erection of a building,
followed by their execution. The problems of the modem reader are due to
uncertainty about the precise meaning of various terms and the lack of infor
mation with respect to numerous details. In the text it is assumed that Moses
was well-informed on these things (25:9, 40; 27:8) and that the craftsmen were
knowledgeable about them (see 4.4). There is no ‘pedantic precision’ (Boman,
61) in the description. The addressees the writer had in mind evidently pos
sessed a frame of reference - the temple in Jerusalem - which enabled them to
form a clear mental picture of the sanctuary.
4.2.31 What was the purpose o f the writer(s) o f Exod. 25-40? To offer a plan
for a sanctuary that could replace the Solomonic temple which was destroyed
in 587? Is the design in that sense comparable to the design of Ezek. 40-48? Is
the sanctuary portrayed as a tent, only in view of the ‘local situation,’ the
wilderness period, or is the particular shaping of the sanctuary part of the
‘message’ of the writer(s)?
To start with the last point, it seems to me it is wrong to conclude from the
description that the writer(s) hoped that a portable shrine could be put up in the
captivity (so Pelzl 1976). Likewise wrong is the idea that the priestly writers
were opposed to the building of the second temple (cf. Weimar; 384) and
espoused the view that the sanctuary of the post-exilic community should be a
portable sanctuary (Fretheim). Fretheim maintains that the writers stood in the
tradition of factions who were opposed to the building of the first temple (cf.
2 Sam. 7:4ff.).*5 In my view, the depiction of the sanctuary as a tent hangs
inseparably together with its placement in Israel’s early history, and therefore
no special significance needs to be seen in it.
The idea that Exod. 25-31; 35-40 offer the design for a new temple rests on
*3 Cf. also idem, Who Wrote the Bible?, New Yoik 1987, 174ff.
** Das hebrdische Denken im Vergleich m il dem griechischen, Gottingen 19685, 60f.
" See V.W. Rabe, “Israelite Opposition to the Temple,” CBQ 29 (1967), 228-33.
Volume III1
332 EXODUS 2 5 -3 1 ; 3 5 -4 0
the dating of the P sections - adopted by many since the end of the previous
century - in the exilic or post-exilic period (cf. Utzschneidei; 55ff.). That
dating is questionable (see Houtman*, Pent., 432ff.). In this connection I note
that the pre-Wellhausian pre-exilic dating of P as prior to Deuteronomy (622)
still has its adherents, in particular among Jewish authors, such as Y Kauf-
mann, M. Weinfeld, M. Haran.*6 As such, dating these sections in the time
when the temple of Solomon was still standing remains entirely possible.
4.2.32 The motivation behind Exod. 25-31; 35-40 is the ideal of the theoc
racy (see 4.2.18, 19). The desire to build a house for the deity, even as the
initiative to give the deity a house (2 Sam. 7:Iff.), is motivated by the desire to
acquire and maintain a harmonious relationship with the deity. That ideal is
projected back to the time in the wilderness (cf. Jer. 2:2; Hos. 2:16f.; see
Introd. §12.7.12): then YHWH dwelt as Lord among his people. The ideal is
program for the future. The way things were, they must become again (cf. Rev.
21:3). The envisioned ideal is the presence of YHWH himself as Lord of his
people. The sanctuary and its furnishings and the daily worship cult are to
create the conditions for that. In that light the design of Exod. 25-31; 35-40
can be read as a program fo r the purification and rearrangement o f the temple
o f Solomon - e.g. the rn ’B? (see 4.5.2) is absent from the description of the
temple of Solomon - drawn up by a group of advocates of the pure YHWH
religion, who with distress had witnessed the desecration of the sanctuary by
the introduction of foreign elements, and who no longer thought of the temple
of Solomon as y h w h ’s dwelling place (cf. Ezek. 10:18ff.). The existence of
such a group is entirely imaginable in the days of Ahaz (2 Kgs. 16:1 Off.) and
Manasseh (2 Kgs. 21:4f.).
McNeile, a supporter of the usual dating of P after Ezekiel, concludes his
description of the place of the tent shrine in the history of Israel’s religion by
noting: ‘And so the splendours of Solomon’s temple, and of Ezekiel’s vision,
and probably some of the actual arrangements of Zerubabel’s temple, were
projected into the p ast...’ (p. lxxxiv). Insofar as there is occasion for it, the
description of the temple of Solomon (1 Kgs. 6-8), Ezekiel’s design (Ezek. 40-
48) and the shaping and arrangement of the second temple are taken up in the
following paragraphs. A detailed comparison lies outside the scope of a
commentary on Exodus. Here all I note on this is that the scarcity of informa
tion about the architectural history of Solomon’s temple - through the centuries
it was renovated both inside and outside (cf. Meyers) - makes it difficult to
make an adequate comparison. Furthermore, in my view there are insufficient
“ See Houtman*, Pent., 168ff., 312f., and Haran*, 8ff., 144ff. et al.; A. Hurvitz, A Linguistic
Study o f the Relationship Between the P riestly Source and the Book o f Ezekiel, Paris 1982; for
this standpoint as held by older authors, see Houtman, 91 n. 79, 100 n. 8, 106 n. 22, 162 n. 101.
Volume III1
arguments for the supposition that the design of Ezekiel influenced the descrip
tion of the tent shrine. For the design of Ezekiel, for the shape given to the
second temple, and for the depiction of the temple in the Mishnah tract
Middoth, written after the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 with an eye on
the future, in the expectation of the rebuilding of the temple, see \fol. II of
Busink’s study on the temple of Jerusalem.
4.2.33 To the above can be added that Eupolemus (ca. 150 BC) {PE, IX, 34,
4ff.) gives a description of the temple of Solomon, which on many points
differs from that of the OT and at some points evidently was influenced by the
description of the tent shrine. It also contains elements of the temple of his
time. It is possible that he projects his ideal picture of the temple back to the
time of Solomon. The suggestion that Eupolemus’ work shows familiarity with
the temple scroll of Qumran (TS) is unfounded. The scroll must be dated after
Eupolemus.87
The TS (second half 2nd century B.C.) contains instructions for the building
of a temple and the establishment of the cult there. According to the scroll,
YHWH gave the instructions to Moses on Mount Sinai, to be put into practice
after the entrance into the promised land. The temple in the scroll is a huge
complex. Neither the temple of Solomon nor the second temple satisfy the
demands formulated at Sinai. Therefore the ideal temple desired by YHWH still
awaits realization. As in Exodus, the actual construction of the sanctuary in
accordance with the will of YHWH is prerequisite for the theocracy88
4.2.34 The Tent of Meeting is also mentioned outside the Pentateuch. The
picture that emerges from these passages is as follows: the sanctuary made at
Mount Sinai was, after Israel’s conquest of Canaan, the central, legitimate
sanctuary until the building of the temple of Solomon (cf. 1 Kgs. 8:4; 2 Chr.
5:3 and see 2 Sam. 7:6; 1 Chr. 17:5); first it stood at Shiloh (Josh. 18:1; 19:51;
1 Sam. 2:22; Jer. 7:12ff.; Ps. 78:66), later (see also 1 Sam. 21), according to
Chronicles, at Gibeon (1 Chr. 16:39; 21:29; 2 Chr. 1:3, 6, 13; cf. 1 Chr. 6:32;
9:21; 23:32); in the course of history, shrine (ark) and Tent of Meeting became
separated (1 Sam. 7:1; 2 Sam. 6:3,17; 1 Chr. 15:1; 16:1, 37, 39).
The common assumption is that this picture - after a troubled history, the
tent sanctuary with the ark finally winds up in the temple of Solomon - does
not square with the history of Israel’s religion, but is part of a theological*
*7 See M. Delcor, “La description du temple de Salomon selon Eupolemos et le probleme de

ses sources,” RdQ 13 (1988), 251-71.
n On the temple of the scroll see the annotations of Y. Yadin with the editio princeps',
Koester, 26ff.; M.O. Wise, A C ritical Study o f the Temple Scroll from Qumran Cave II, Chicago
1990, 14f., 61ff. (+ Bibl.), and further E. Qimron, The Temple Scroll: A C ritical Edition with
Extensive Reconstructions. Bibliography by F.Garcia M artinez, Beer Sheva/Jerusalem 1996.
Volume III1
334 EXODUS 2 5 -3 1 ; 3 5 -4 0
concept.8990That seems indeed to be the case. A bridge is built between the tent
sanctuary and the temple of Solomon. The tent sanctuary — constructed
according to y h w h ’s own wishes - blends as it were with the temple of
Solomon (1 Kgs. 8:4), and so turns the temple in Jerusalem into the sanctuary
of the Sinai. Noteworthy in this connection is that according to Samaritan
tradition the sanctuary at the Gerizim was built by Joshua and that the Tent of
Meeting, with furnishings, curtain and altar, were placed in it. The implied
meaning is that the sanctuary goes back to Moses and is the legitimate sanctu-
ary. 90
Later tradition (including in 2 Macc. 2:4f.) has it that the tent sanctuary with
other sacred objects, at the destruction of the temple in 586, was safely put
away by the prophet Jeremiah (see 4.5.1.10).
The effect of die ordering of the material in the OT - at the first mention of
YHWH’s sanctuary the ordering is outlined in great detail (Exod. 25-31; 35-40)
- is that this is the picture that comes to the reader’s mind when later in the
story YHWH’s sanctuary is mentioned. By its position as the ‘lead-off of the
story, the sanctuary desired by YHWH at the beginning of Israel’s history
becomes the pattern and norm for all subsequent temple building.
4.2.35 The NT contains a few references to the tent sanctuary or God’s
dwelling in the midst of Israel during the wilderness period. In John 1:14 (cf.
Sir. 24:8; Odes of Solomon 12:12; Col. 1:19), in an allusion to the tent shrine
(cf. also Exod. 34:6; 40:34), Jesus is portrayed as the tent sanctuary in which
God’s glory manifested itself. In Acts 7:44ff. the tent shrine, the dwelling place
of God, made according to the pattern God had given, is contrasted with the
temple made at human initiative and by human hands; true worship is con
trasted with false worship to teach that the choice for Christ is the true choice;
like the cult at the tent sanctuary, it is in accordance with the will of God as
expressed in the law and by the prophets. 2 Cor. 6:16 contains an allusion to
God’s dwelling in a tent during the time in the wilderness. In Heb. 8:5 the
heavenly sanctuary is distinguished from the earthly tent sanctuary, which was
no more than an illustration and shadow of the heavenly (see exegesis 25:9). In
the epistle to the Hebrews the tent sanctuary and the worship at it, are inter
preted christologically and used to illustrate the significance of Jesus’ life and
death, especially by contrasting the old and the new age - the old santuary and
its worship were inadequate and have had their time (Heb. 8-9; cf. 6:19f.;
10:19f.; 13:9ff.). In the book of Revelation ‘tent’ is used as designation for the
*’ Cf. De Vaux*, II, 149ff; Wfestphal, 98ff; for Shiloh in the OT and in the history of
interpretation see D.G. Schley, Shiloh: A Biblical City in Tradition and H istory , Sheffield 1989.
90 See J. MacDonald (ed.), The Sam aritan Chronicle No. II, Berlin 1969, 93 (cf. p. 22). Cf.
also J.D. Purvis, “The Tabernacle in Samaritan Iconography and Thought,” in L.M. Hopfe (ed.),
Uncovering A ncient Stones: Essays in M emory o f H.N. Richardson, Winona Lake 1994, 223-36.
Volume III1
REQUIRED MATERIALS 335
heavenly sanctuary (13:6; 15:5), and the new Jerusalem is presented as the tent
sanctuary, the dwelling of God with humankind (Rev. 21:2,3); as such it has
the characteristics of the sanctuary (cf. Rev. 21:9ff.); the city/the sanctuary is
the Christian community of the new age (see further Koester, 76ff., lOOff.,
116ff., 152ff.).
4.2.36 Several terms, which in Exod. 25-31; 35-40 are employed for the
description of the interior of the sanctuary and the highpriestly garments, such
as hosen, sis, rimmdnim, meil, ’aron, paroket, kapporet, ner, tamid, have been
put to use to describe the furnishings of the synagogue.91
4.2.37 Throughout history, the tent sanctuary has been a favourite subject of
symbolic and devotional interpretation. In his meticulous study of the subject
Bahr offers the exegete a spectrum of interpretations: cosmological, christologi-
cal, pedagogical etc., but instead of dismissing such exegesis he concludes with
a plea for symbolic exegesis that is bound by strict rules. An impression of the
symbolic and spiritualizing exegesis is given in the next paragraphs, as a rule
in the introductory comments.92 The question of whether and to what extent
symbolic interpretation is legitimate is a recurring question. In the Middle Ages
it was used e.g. by Abarbanel (see Leibowitz*, 472ff., 497ff.), and in our time
e.g. by Childs (pp. 538ff.). I have chosen for a ‘simple’ exegesis as described
above (see 4.2.18,19). What is true is that several aspects in the description
contain something like a ‘deeper dimension.’ Thus there is a ‘deeper dimen
sion’ to the materials used for the sanctuary - the precious metals and expen
sive materials embody the notions of ‘glory’ and ‘beauty’ - but that deeper
sense does not attach to the description of the sanctuary. The same can be said
of the numbers and measures that are used (Introd. §4), which are in great
detail discussed by Bahr, 185ff. (cf. also \fonk, 402ff.), and also given plenty
of space by Jacob*, Pent., 329ff. Jacob counts also the words, the sentences
and the number of activities in the description, concluding from it that the text
is a carefully constructed composition, based on the numerals 7, 12, 30 (p.
342).
4.3 REQUIRED MATERIALS (25:1-9; 31:6b-ll; 35:4-29; 39:33-43)
YHWH makes it known that he desires to live among Israel. To that end a
dwelling, a sanctuary is to be built and furnished (25:8). The materials required
for the construction as well as the equipment that are to make y h w h ’s resi
91 See J. Gutman, The Jewish Sanctuary, Leiden 1983.

92 For examples see also Childs, 538, 547ff.; Schouten, IHff.; \fonk, 374ff.; for the patres see
especially also the annotations in BAE.
Volume III1
336 EXODUS 2 5 :1 -9 ; 3 1 :6 b -11; 3 5 :4 -2 9 ; 3 9 :3 3 -4 3
dence in the dwelling a pleasant experience (25:6; 35:8), are to come from
those who are consecrated to YHWH, acknowledge him as Lord. For the
construction no tribute is being imposed. The Israelites are asked to contribute
spontaneously and of their own free will (cf. 1 Chr. 29:3, 5, 9; 2 Cor. 8:12;
9:17) according to ability (25:2-8; 35:4-9). By their positive response they can
show their thankfulness to and enthusiasm about YHWH’s intention to dwell
among Israel.93
All Israelites respond enthusiastically (35:20-29). They give according to
ability and very generously (cf. 36:3-7; 38:21-31). The affluent bring gold or
other treasures. Those less well off bring articles as they are able (35:24),
while those who possess none of the needed materials - women (35:25, 26)
and artisans (35:10 and see 4.4.1) - offer their labour for free as ‘devotional
offering.’ No need for conscripting labourers (1 Kgs. 5:13ff.).
YHWH himself specifies which materials are to be used for the sanctuary
(25:3-8; 35:5-9). He decides on the furniture (25:9). He determines where and
how the materials are to be used (31:6b-11; 35:10-19; 39:33-43). After all, the
dwelling must be in accord with his status. It must be a royal dwelling,
befitting his position as Israel’s Lord and King. In every respect he must feel at
home in it. Therefore it must be built entirely in accordance with his desires
and directions. Deviation from it, the use of other measures or other materials,
could be very dangerous; YHWH might refuse to move in, or worse, bring
disaster upon Israel (cf. 28:35, 43; 30:20f.; Lev. 16:2, 13 etc.).
The following parts are taken up in this paragraph.
(1) 25:1-9 YHWH instructs Moses to order the Israelites to collect the materi
als needed for the building of a sanctuary for him.
(2) 31:6b-11 YHWH instructs Moses about the destination of the materials to
be collected.
(3) 35:4-9 Moses carries out the sub 1 mentioned instruction.
(4) 35:10-19 Moses informs Israel about the destination of the materials they
were asked to bring.
(5) 35:20-29 Israel brings the materials to Moses.
(6) 39:33-43 Israel brings the finished pieces of work to Moses.
The following headings are used in the discussion:
(1) The needed materials
(2) Destination of the materials
(3) Presentation of the materials
To bring out the connection between the passages, at a few points (25:1-9;
93 For the spontaneous collection of materials for the furnishing of a holy place see 32:2fF. and
S.3.2.5; elsewhere the king takes care of the needed materials (1 Kgs. 5-6; 12:28; 1 Chr. 22; but
note also 1 Chr. 29:6ff.); cf. K. Galling, “Kttnigliche und nichtkdnigliche Stifter beim Tempel von
Jerusalem,” ZDPV 68 (1946-51), 134-42.
Volume III1
31:1-11) we deviate from the (as such meaningful) Masoretic division of the
text.94
4.3.1 The needed materials (25:1-7; 35:4-9)
25:1 Then YHWH addressed Moses 35:4 Then Moses said to the com
in the following words: munity of the Israelites:
2 'Order the Israelites to gather ‘This what YHWH has commanded:
fo r me offerings. 5 “Gather together from what
you have offerings to YHWH.”
From everyone who is spontane Therefore let everyone be spon
ously ready to give, you (plural) taneous and ready
shall accept the offerings fo r me.
3 The following offerings you to b r in g th e m , th e o f f e r in g s to
shall accept from them: gold, silver YHWH: g o ld , s ilv e r a n d c o p p e r ;
and copper;
4 blue and red purple, crimson 6 blue and red purple, crimson
and linen, goats ’ hair; and linen, goats’ hair;
5 red dyed rams ’ skins and hides 7 red dyed rams’ skins and hides
o f the sea cow, acacia wood; of the sea cow, acacia wood;
6 oil fo r the lamp, aromatic sub 8 and oil for the lamp, aromatic
stances fo r the anointing oil and substances for the anointing oil and
fo r the fragrant perfume; for the fragrant perfume;
7 beryl stones and other precious 9 and beryl stones and other pre
stones to be set in the ephod and cious stones to be set in the ephod
the breastpiece. ’ and the breast piece.’
In the overview below the Arabic numerals (4.5 etc.) refer to the paragraphs in
which the destination of the materials is discussed.
Already in the prescribed materials the splendour of the envisioned structure

becomes visible.
(1) Metals: gold (see 4.5; 4.6; 4.7; 4.8; 4.12; 4.15), silver (see 4.8; 4.10),
copper (see 4.8; 4.9; 4.10; 4.15).95 The distance to the Holy of Holies where
YHWH resides determines whether the most valuable metal, gold, is being used,
or the less valuable metals, silver and copper (cf. Haran*, 158f.; Jenson [see
4.2.1], lOlff.). Gold is eminently useful to bring out the aura of the deity (cf.*91
94 On Exod. 25:1-9 see R.P. Knierim, “Conceptual Aspects in Exodus 25:1-9,” in D.R Wright
et al. (eds.), Pomegranates and Golden Bells (Fs J. Milgrom), Winona Lake 1995, 113-23.
91 See Introd. §3.28; R. Kessler, “Silber und Gold, Gold und Silber: Zur Wsrtschatzung der
Edelmetalle im Alten Israel,” BN 31 (1986), 57-69.
Volume III1
338 EXODUS 2 5 :1 -9 ; 3 1 :6 B - 11; 3 5 :4 -2 9 ; 3 9 :3 3 -4 3
32:2, 3 and see 5.4.4). Besides ‘gold’ also ‘pure gold’ is mentioned (see
24:10).
(2) Blue and red purple, crimson, linen (see 4.8; 4.10; 4.12).96 For the
notions associated with these materials see also 4.12.1.
(3) Goats’ hair, rams’ skins and hides of sea cows (see 4.8).97*9The rh'fl,
‘the rams’ skins’ (for nil?, see 22:26), are further described with part,
plur. pu. (Ges-K §52q; Jotlon §56a) of D IN , which as verb occurs 10* in the
OT (qal [Lam. 4:7]; hiph. [Isa. 1:18]; hithp. [Prov. 23:31]) with the meaning
‘be red’ (Gradwohl*, 9ff.). In Exodus the participle is used 6* as adjective
with 0 ^ 8 nil? (25:5; 26:14; 35:7,23; 36:19; 39:34 [+ article]) and evidently
means ‘red dyed’ (cf. Nah. 2:4).9S It is suggested that the leather was treated
with dye to waterproof it (J.J. Hess, TAW 35 [1915], 121). Or did it have to be
dyed so as to match the other colours used for the sanctuary?
(4) Acacia wood (see 4.5; 4.6; 4.7; 4.9; 4.15); see Introd. §10.2.5; 10.1.2.
Too speculative is Jacob’s* conjecture {Pent., 159) that a kind of cedar wood
is meant, and that it was used so that the sanctuary ‘ein Nachbild des Paradie-
ses, der urweltlichen ersten Gotteswohnung auf Erden, sein soli.’
(5) Oil; see 4.9.
(6) Spices; see 4.18; 4.19.
(7) Precious stones; see 4.12.3.
It is clear that the sanctuary is constructed from expensive, high quality and
durable materials - in the LXX ’acacia wood’ is translated with & ka aoqnxa,
‘wood that does not rot’ - , including colourful materials and precious stones.
Do the colours have a symbolic significance?" Up till the present time, the
question has been answered affirmatively. \bnk, 414, 417ff., 42Iff., for
instance, thinks of the dark blue colour as marking the sanctuary as the
dwelling of God whose throne is in heaven, of dark red as symbolizing royal
dignity, of light red as the colour of deliverance and life, and of white as the
96 See Introd. §§9.2.13; 9.2.12; 10.3.10. Are they listed in order of preciousness? (Haran*,
160). For see now also I. Zidermann, “First Identification of Authentic tikelet," BASOR 265
(1987), 25-33, and the discussion in connection with this article in BASOR 269 (1988), 81-90. On
colours see also K. Massey-Gillespie, “A New Approach to Basic Hebrew Colour Terms,” JNSL
20 (1994), 1-11.
97 See Introd. §§9.1.9; 9.1.7; 9.4.2. For O'W see now also W AT, V, 1193ff.
” Differently Pesh.: ’espaimqa" = black?; cf. R.P. Gordon, IT 35 (1985), 498f.; Holzinger, Te
Stroete: ‘gelooid’ (cf. WV); NEB: ‘tanned;’ see for this interpretation Brenner*, llOff.
99 For the symbolism and the function of colours see e.g. LA, II, 115ff.; HDA, II, 1189ff.;
RAC, VII, 358ff.; TRE, XI, 25ff.; BUhr (see 4.2.1.), 337ff„ 434ff.; J.G. Griffiths, “The Symbolism
of Red in Egyptian Religion,” in Ex Orbe Religionum (Fs G. Widengren), I, Leiden 1972, 81-90;
Gradwohl*, 71 et al.
Volume III1
colour of holiness and righteousness.100 Such explanations are tantamount to

speculation.
The most that can be said is that the colours signify glory and splendour: the
sanctuary is truly a royal dwelling! Is black also a fitting colour? It is some
times said that black was regarded as a God-opposing, demonic colour, and
therefore not to be used in the cult.101 Though the colour of the goats’ hair is
not stated, it was likely black (cf. Cant. 1:5) and used for making dark tapes
tries (cf. AuS, VI, 29ff.). The conjecture that the curtains of the sanctuary were
something special and made of white goats’ hair (e.g. \fonk, 415f.; but see
Gispen) is unwarranted. Something special would have required special
mention.
25:1 It is assumed that YHWH speaks while Moses is with him on the mountain
(24:18; 31:18). ma«‘?+ nan, see Introd. §3.12.1.
25:2, 3/35:4, 5 rip*?, see Introd. §3.30.; ,bnnp1l, final clause introduced by
copulative waw (cf. 11:2); LXX: xai A.cc(tete, ‘and takes.’ iripn, 2nd pers. plur.;
meant are Moses and the craftsmen (not: Israel as a whole [Gispen]), who
carry out the work (36:3ff.; cf. 28:5 and see 25:8). Because the use of the
plural is rather strange, some translations, e.g. WY GNB, have chosen for the
2nd pers. sing.; CV, NV for the ambiguous translation ‘you shall;’ in LV the 3rd
pers. plur. is the subject.
njpnp (OT 76*; 17x Exod.) is in the lexica presented as a derivative of o n
(see 7:20).102 Traditionally n m n n is explained with the aid of Din hiph.: noinn
is that which is lifted up from a larger quantity, separated from it (for a sacred
end); see e.g. DB, III, 588; cf. the rendering in LXX 29:27, 28; 35:5, 21, 24;
36:3 with &<J>capepa (see also Aq. on 25:2), and in the taigums with KmttfnBR;
see among the modem translations e.g. NEB (‘to set aside a contribution’) on
25:2; the LXX also employs the rendering anapxA sing. (25:3) and plur. (25:2;
35:5; 36:6): ‘firstfruit(s);’ see also the use of primitiae (25:2; 35:5, 21) and
primitiva et initia (29:28) in the Vulg. (beside it donaria, ‘[devotional] gifts’ in
36:3); ‘firstfruits’ evidently must be taken to mean ‘the best,’ ‘the choicest;’
the LXX in 30:13, 14, 15 has chosen for eio<|>opd, ‘poll tax’ (cf. CV); in
100 In part differently, e.g. Gispen on 25:1-7; on symbolic interpretation see also 4.12.1, 3
(precious stones); in rabbinic exegesis a symbolic significance is attributed to each of the
materials; e.g. Ginzberg* III, 153.
101 E.g. Bdcher*, 102; presumably blue and red warded off the demons; see e.g. A. Jirku, Die
Damonen und ihre Abwehr im Alien Testament, Leipzig 1912, 86f.
102 See e.g. Ges-B, BDB, K8W, KBL. See further TTVAT, VIII, 758ff; Th. Seidl, “frum d - die
‘Pnesterhebe’? Ein angeblicher Kultterminus — syntaktisch und semantisch untersucht,” BN 79
(1995), 30-6.
Volume III1
340 EXODUS 2 5 :1 -9 ; 3 1 :6 8 -1 1 ; 3 5 :4 -2 9 ; 3 9 :3 3 -4 3
(older) modem translations the rendering often reflects the derivation; see e.g.
the translation of 25:2: ‘hefoffer (heave offering) nemen’ (SV), ‘gave heffen’
(LV), ‘heffing inzamelen’ (NV); in more recent translations this is no longer
done: ‘to bring/accept gifts’ (CV), ‘to hand over/accept a contribution’ (WV;
cf. also GNB).
It has also been suggested that n o n n originally designated a sacred transfer
of gifts: by lifting up part of the offering in front of the altar, it was symboli
cally handed over to YHWH, not for burning but a s sustenance for the priests
(cf. THAT, II, 758). More recently Akkadian has been used as basis for the
etymology,103 but without sufficient evidence (cf. Anderson [see 20:24],
133ff.).
rtnnn occurs in non-sacred texts (Prov. 29:4). Mainly, however, in cultic
texts. As for the use in Exodus, a distinction can be made between n o n n as
designation for voluntary gifts and those given in compliance with stipulations.
The first kind comprises devotional offerings, given on occasion of a one-time
special event, the building of the sanctuary (BJ}pO n o n p [cf. Ezek. 45:6f. etc.],
see 36:6; cf. Ezra 8:25), spontaneously given to YHWH (mn,‘? n o n n [35:5];
m rr n o n n [objective genitive; e.g. Ges-K §135m; 35:5, 21, 24]; see also
25:2b) (n o n n , object of npb [Introd. §3.30], see 25:2, 3; 35:5; 36:3, of K13
hiph. [Introd. §3.8], see 35:5, 21, 24; 36:3, and of On hiph. [see 7:20]).
As for the second kind, a distinction can be made between a tax for YHWH
(m rrb n o n n and m rr n o n n [30:13-15]) = temple tax, designated for the
erection or the maintenance of the sanctuary and the worship service (30:16; cf.
Neh. 10:33), and a ‘tax’ for YHWH, consisting of part of the meat of the
sacrifice, for use by the priests (29:27, 28; Lev. 7:34; 10:14, 15; Num. 6:20).
See further at np-lJJji (20:25).
As noted, n o n n is used as object of KU hiph. K13 hiph. is used 9* in 35:21-
29, always in connection with the bringing of materials for the sanctuary. The
detailed and vivid depiction in 35:21-29 evokes the picture of a long line of
people carrying a wide variety of items. The bringing of the n o n n seems to
have been done in a procession, and the transfer of the articles to YHWH was a
sacred act, at once a paying of homage and expression of gratitude and
submission.104 tf’trb s, see Introd. §3.2.2.
•133T imperf. qal of 313 (OT 17*; 14* hithp.; 3* qal); the root contains the
idea of ‘voluntarily’ (see TWAT, V, 237ff.; R Jouon, Bib 16 [1935], 422ff.); so
313 qal is used, with as subject 3*? (Introd. §3.29.2) (25:2; 35:9) or OH
103 See W. von Soden, UF 2 (1970), 271; J. Milgrom, Studies in Cultic Theology (see 20:25),
171f.
104 For illustrations from the ancient Near East of the bringing of tribute, see ANEP, ill. 11, 47,
48, 52, 350, 352-357.
Volume III1
(Introd. §3.47.2) (35:21) and accus. of the individual105 to express the volun
tary, spontaneous and generous giving of materials for the building of the
sanctuary and the cult (cf. the use of the root in 2 Chr. 35:8; Ezra 1:4,6; 2:68;
7:15f.; 8:28). The same ideas are expressed in 35:5, 22 (cf. 1 Chr. 28:21;
2 Chr. 29:31) by the noun a'l} (OT 26*) (used in construct chain with ab),
which elsewhere often stands for a member of the aristocracy;106 also by the
noun rg n ) (OT 26*; Exod. 35:29; 36:3), which elsewhere often stands for a
non-mandatory offering, a thank-offering given to y h w h (Lev. 7:16; 22:18, 21
etc.). It is the kind of giving that can also be called ’good works’ (cf. Amos
4:4f.).
m», see 12:3. ‘This is what YHWH has commanded’ (Introd. §3.12.2), the
formula is not followed by a word from YHWH in direct speech - or does he
talk about himself in the third person? (cf. e.g. 19:11) - , but by a command
from Moses (35:5a). rtâ’ (35:5) (Sam.Pent. does not have the suffix), for the
use of the object see e.g. KoSynt §340m; Ges-K §131m; Joiion §146e (cf. also
Ehrlich). *)03, in Sam.Pent. without copula.
2 5 : 4 ,5 /3 5 : 6 ,7 n b a n , without copula in Sam.Pent. 001, LXX 25:4: koi

P<3ooov KeKA(i)o|iivr|v = "UO/3 001 (Introd. §10.3.10); see for this kind of
elaboration with adjective also e.g. TNf on 35:23.
25:6, 7/35:8, 9 in contrast to those mentioned in 25:3-5; 35:5-7, of the named

articles it is stated what they are for: not for the construction of the sanctuary
or the making of its fixtures, like the earlier mentioned supplies, but for the
cult and the official highpriestly garments (cf. 35:21). Also because 25:6; 35:8
is omitted in the LXX (cf. J. Gottsberger, BZ 10 [1912], 12), it has been
suggested that these verses are a later addition (e.g. Holzinger, Baentsch);
wrongly so (cf. 35:14, 19, 28 in the LXX). That the in 25:6; 35:8 mentioned
articles (in 27:20 the bringing of oil is once more commanded) are on hand is
assumed in the sequel (30:22-38; 37:29; 39:37f.; 40:9ff.). Only one kind of
precious stone is mentioned by name. The rest are lumped together in the
general term O'Kbp ’jp# (see 2:16; cf. K6Synt §261e; Ges-K §124f). Was the
onitf particularly precious and exclusive? In the Sam.Pent. the text of 25:6, 7
has been brought into conformity with that of 35:8, 9 through addition of 3*
copulative waw (cf. 25:6 in TPsJ).
105 31? + Hm in 35:21, 26; 36:2; see L. Kopf, VT 8 (1958), 172.

The voluntary philanthropist (Job 31:16ff„ 31f.); see G. Gerleman, VT 24 (1974), 156ff.;
Van der Toom*, 104f.
Volume III1
342 EXODUS 2 5 :1 -9 ; 31:6B -11; 3 5 :4 -2 9 ; 3 9 :3 3 -4 3
4.3.2 Destination of the materials (25:8, 9; 31:6b-ll; 35:10-19; 39:33-43)
25:8 ‘(Then order 35:10 ‘And let all

them) to make a the craftsmen among
sanctuary fo r Me you come to make
that I may dwell all that YHWH has
among them. commanded:
9 Carefully fo l
lowing all the direc
tions which I am
now going to give
you, the plan o f the
Dwelling and the
plan o f all its imple
ments, so you shall
make it. ’
For 31:l-6a see
4.4.
31:6b ‘A ll that I
have commanded
you they shall make:
7 The Tent o f 11 The Dwelling 39:33 Then they
Meeting; with its roof, cover, brought the Dwell
clasps, posts, cross ing to Moses, the
bars, pillars and roof and all its
sockets. implements, its
clasps, posts, cross
bars, pillars and
sockets.
Cf. 35:11. 34 The cover of
red dyed rams’ skins
and the cover of the
hides of the sea
Cf. 35:12. cow; the tapestry
that screens.
the shrine fo r the 12 The shrine with 35 The shrine with
constitution; the its poles; the place the constitution with
place o f atonement of atonement and the its poles and the
that is upon it, and tapestry that screens place of atonement.
all the implements o f it.
the tent.
8 The table with 13 The table with 36 The table with
Volume III1
its implements; its poles and all its all its implements
implememts, and the and the private
private bread. bread.
the bright lampstcmd 14 The lampstand, 37 The bright
with all its imple the lamp with its lampstand with its
ments; implements and lights, the lights that
lights, were to be set on it
in a row, and all its
and the oil for the implements and the
lamp. oil for the lamp.
the altar o f perfume. 15 The altar of 38 The golden
perfume with its altar;
Cf. 31:11. poles; the anointing the anointing oil and
oil and the fragrant the fragrant per
perfume; the curtain fume; the curtain for
that is to screen off the door opening of
the door opening of the tent.
the Dwelling.
9 The altar o f 16 The altar of 39 The copper
burnt offering burnt offering and altar and its copper
its copper grating, grating
with its poles, and with its poles and all
with all its imple all its implements; its implements; the
ments; the basin the basin with its basin with its stand.
with its stand. stand.
17 The hangings 40 The hangings
of the court, its of the court, its
posts and sockets postss and sockets,
and the curtain of and the curtain for
the gate of the court. the gate of the court,
18 The pegs of the its ropes and pegs;
Dwelling and the all the implements
pegs of the court needed for the con
with their ropes. struction of the
Dwelling, of the
Tent of Meeting.
10 The ceremonial 19 The ceremonial 41 The ceremonial
robes, robes for the service robes for the service
in the sanctuary, the in the sanctuary the
the sacred garments sacred garments for sacred garments for
fo r the priest Aaron the priest Aaron and the priest Aaron and
and the garments fo r the garments for his the garments for his
Volume III1
344 EXODUS 2 5 :1 -9 ; 3 1 :6 b -11; 3 5 :4 -2 9 ; 3 9 :3 3 -4 3
his sons, so that they sons, so that they sons, so that they
can serve as priests. can minister as can minister as
priests.’ priests.
11 The anointing Cf. 35:15.
oil and the fragrant
perfume fo r the
sanctuary.
Completely in accor Cf. 39:32. 42 Completely in
dance with my com accordance with
mand to you they YHWH’s command to
shall make it. ’ Moses, exactly so
the Israelites had
done all the work.
43 Moses in
spected all the pieces
and noted that they
had made them com
pletely in accordance
with YHWH’s com
mand. With the pro
nouncement of a
benediction he prais
ed them.
The destination of the materials is described three times by means of a listing

(31:7-11; 35:11-19; 39:33-42); once as part of YHWH’s instructions to Moses
concerning the orders Moses has to give to the craftsmen (31:1-11); once as
part of the instructions of Moses to the people with respect to the ingathering
of devotional offerings for the sanctuary (35:4-19), and once in the account of
the finished work (39:33-43).
The fabrication of the sanctuary its furnishings and the things needed for the
cult will be dealt with at length in the appropriate paragraphs. Here I just refer
to them.
31:7; 35:1; 39:33, 34 see 4.8.
31:7; 35:12; 39:35 see 4.5.
31:8; 35:13; 39:36 see 4.6.
31:8; 35:14; 39:37 see 4.7; 4.9.
31:8; 35:15; 39:38 see 4.15; 4.18; 4.19; 4.8.
31:9; 35:16; 39:39 see 4.9; 4.17.
35:17, 18; 39:40 see 4.10.
31:10; 35:19; 39:41 see 4.12.
The sequence in the listings corresponds to the sequence used in the account of
Volume III1
the execution of the work (36:8-39:31). For similar listings see also 30:26ff.;
40: Iff., 17ff.
25:8/35:10 in 25:8 is dependent on 1ST in 25:2. The LXX has the 2nd
pers. sing. (cf. 25:10 in LXX, Sam.Pent., and see e.g. U y CV in 25:8 and Ly
UV, C y WV, GNB in 25:10); assumed subject is not the Israelites in general,
but (cf. 25:2) the skilled workmen who represent Israel ( 3 ^ 0 3 ^ 9 [35:10; cf.
31:1-7; 35:30-35], see Introd. §3.29.2; 1:10), though in ch. 25 they have not
yet as such been introduced (cf. 39:1 and 28:3, 4, 6). For the skilled workmen
see 4.4. Binpa, see Introd. §3.44.2.
oaina ’nastf! (see 24:16; 2:5), LXX: koci o<J)0fioo(iai ev upiv, ‘and I shall
appear among them’ (cf. Frankel*, 85). 35:10: Sam.Pent.: ntooi K ia\ cf. LXX,
Vulg.
35:10 is not about the ‘construction of a sanctuary’ (25:8) in general, but (see
35:11-19) separately lists all the elements which together make up the sanctu
ary and the items necessary for the cult. Moses does not explicitly states
YHWH’s purpose for the construction (cf. 25:8b). That does not become clear to
Israel until after it has been built (40:34ff.).
25:9 In the LXX 25:9 (cf. 25:8) starts with: ‘and you shall make for Me.’ run,
see Introd. §3.46.2; for the noun clause see e.g. Ges-K §116p. *jniN,
Sam.Pent.: + i m (cf. LXX and see 25:40; 26:30; 27:8).
(OT ca. 20*) is a derivative of nja (see 1:11). The term is used in a
variety of contexts. In Deut. 4:16-18; Isa. 44:13; Ezek. 8:10 it refers to a
replica; a particular pattern or model is presupposed. It is often held that m a n
in 25:9 (2*), 40, means ‘model’ (LV, CV, NV, WV, Dasbeig) (e.g. SS, Ges-B,
BDB, Zo.), that is, refers to the examplar used in the execution of the work (cf.
Hurowitz 1992 [see 4.2.1], 168ff.). The sequel shows that this meaning does
not quite fit here. Moses is not shown something like a mock-up. He is
introduced to the construction, the shape and the architectural style (cf. the use
of m a n in Josh. 22:28; Ps. 144:12) of the sanctuary. In Exod. 25:9, 40 and
elsewhere, where n ’jan is used in an account of the preparations for a build
ing, ’construction plan’ (cf. NEB: ‘design;’ TEV: ‘plan’) conveys the meaning
(cf. 2 Kgs. 16:10; 1 Chr. 28:11, 12, 18, 19). In light of the sequel, ’master
plan’ would be a fitting term, that is, a precise description of the work,
including details about construction and execution, building materials to be
used, logistics of the work etc. In any case, it is incorrect to understand m a n
in 25:9, 40 as ‘Urbild’ (KBL, HAL), and to assume that the heavenly sanctuary
Volume III1
346 EXODUS 2 5 :1 -9 ; 31:6B -11; 3 5 :4 -2 9 ; 3 9 :3 3 -4 3
is the example after which Moses had to erect the earthly as ‘Abbild.’107 All
that is meant is that the design and the specifications for the sanctuary are from
YHWH himself (cf. 1 Chr. 28:19). The conception of the heavenly ‘Urbild’ does
occur in rabbinic literature10* and in the NT. See Acts 7:44 and in particular
Heb. 8:5 (cf. 9:11, 24, and see Rev. 11:19), where Exod. 25:40 LXX is
quoted.109 There tuho? is used to translate m a n (see L. Goppelt, 7WNT, VIII,
257ff.). Elsewhere in the LXX other terms are used to translate m a n ; in 25:9
7tap&6eiY|ia (cf. pvpqpa in Wisd. 9:8). According to Pseudo-Philo, XI, 15,
God showed Moses the picture (similitude) of the objects to be made, so that
he would make them after that example (exemplar).
p tfa , see Exod. 26. With v 'p y 'p (Introd. §3.27), neither here nor in 40:9,
the reference is to the furniture of the sanctuary but to p tfa n nn'31}
tools and other things that are used for its construction and maintenance.
p i (see 1:12), see K6Synt §37In; de waw is not translated in LXX, Pesh.
Pun, cf. 25:2, 8; Sam.Pent.: ntoun, cf. LXX; LV, CV, NV, WV have the
misleading, ambiguous subject ‘gij’ ([you]; not so SV: ‘gijlieden;’ Dasbeig:
‘jullie’).
31:7-11/35:11-19/39:33-43 Comparison of the MT with the Sam.Pent. shows

that the two text traditions differ especially in regards to the presence (nKl) and
absence (nit) of copulative waw for the particle of the accusative with the
various items in the lists. I refrain from citing particulars.
The LXX differs considerably from the MT. I single out some particulars. In
31:8 the mention of the table is preceded by: xai xa Ouoiaoxripva, ‘and the
altars,’ while in 31:8b, 9a the altars are not further mentioned. In 35:11-19 and
39:33-43 the text is often shorter and all sorts of important elements are not
mentioned. For instance, in both Exod. 35 and 39 the altar of perfume is not
mentioned. Furthermore, the various elements are listed in different order.
LXX MT LXX MT
35:10-19 = 35:11-19 39:14-23 = 39:33-43
35:10 = 35:11 39:14 = 39:33
35:11 = 35:12 39:15a = 39:35
107 For that conception see e.g. T.N.D. Mettinger, ZAW 86 (1974), 7ff.; cf. idem, STK 1975,
49-55, and see also Houtman*, Himmel, 349.
,0* See B. Ego, Im Himmel wie a u f Erden, Tubingen 1989, 27ff.
109 Cf. H. LOhr, ‘“ UmriB* und ‘Schatten’: Bemerkungen zur Zitierung von Ex 25,40 in Hebr
8,” ZNW 84 (1993), 218-32; M. Wilcox, “‘According to the Pattern (tbnyt) ...’: Exodus 25,40 in
the New Testament and Early Jewish Thought,” RdQ 13 (1988), 647-56.
1,0 See 39:40 (Introd. §3.37.4; the paraphrase there needs correction); cf. 27:19 and see 31:7;
39:33.
Volume III1
35:12 = 35:17 39:15b, 16a = 39:38a

35:13 (Kai tow; X10ou<; touc tfjc 39:16b,17 = 39:37
o|iopaY8ou); not in MT 35:14 39:18 = 39:36
(perfume and anointing oil); 39:19 = 39:41
cf. MT 35:15 and also LXX 39:20 = 39:40,38b
35:19 (cf. MT 31:10,11) 39:21 = 39:33,34
35:15 = 35:13 39:22 = 39:42
35:16 = 35:14 39:23 = 39:43
35:17 = 35:16
35:18, 19a = 35:19
35:19b = 35:15 (anointing oil
and perfume)
35:18 MT absent in LXX
31:7/35:11, 12/39:33-35 Subject of lK’S’l (39:33) are the Israelites (see 39:32).
In the LXX the first object is ta c otoA.a<;, ‘the garments,’ and there is no
translation of ptfon (cf Popper [see 4.2.1.], 163; Gooding [see 4.2.1.], 89f.).
lbnR (35:11) is in TO, TPsJ, TNf translated with n(’)OnS), ‘its curtain’ (FTV
and TNf margin follow MT). inoan (35:11), sing, (cf 40:19), see beside it
26:14; 39:34; is the sing, to be understood as collective? (Baentsch); some
rabbinic exegetes think that there was one cover made of two kinds of skins
(see Rashi on 26:14, and Jacob*, Pent., 187); Cassuto, 354, thinks that at the
erection of the tabernacle only the cover of rams’ skins was placed over it.
(35:11; 39:33), alliteration.
i n n a (35:11; 39:33), Sam.Pent.: v m a ; so Q (Introd. §2.2). m o a , in LXX
35:11, not in LXX 39:15. -ba (31:7; 39:33), see at 25:9. In TPsJ 39:33 the
place, where Moses was, is mentioned: Moses was seated in his school (bet
midras), where also Aaron and his sons were seated, and where Moses an
swered questions pertaining to the priestly service; also the elders were seated
there. n*no (39:33), Sam.Pent.: D m iN l. m J/b (31:7), see KdSynt §2811
note 1.
31:8/35:13-15/39:36-38 vâ-nKi (31:8), Sam.Pent.: v*?a ba ntO; cf. LXX,

Pesh. The mention of ‘the bread of the Presence’ in 35:13; 39:36 (not in LXX
35:15; it is in LXX 39:18) is somewhat remarkable, because the ingredients for
it are not mentioned in 25:3ff; 35:5ff (for the difficulty see 4.6.5). m o (31:8;
39:37), see 24:10. TiNOn m an, TiRDrt is here usually regarded as a noun
denoting action (KOSynt §233d): ‘Leuchter des Leuchtens’ (Baentsch); cf.
LXX: tf)v A.uxviav toO 4><i>to<;, and see e.g. TO, TPsJ, TNf. See beside it
Vulg.: candelabrum ad luminaria sustentanda, ‘the lampstand for holding the
lights.’ I take UKOn m an as a genitive of attribute (cf. Ges-K §128q). PTD on
39:37 (under influence of 35:14): ‘the bright lampstand for lighting.’ m3
Volume III1
348 EXODUS 2 5 :1 -9 ; 31:6B -11; 3 5 :4 -2 9 ; 3 9 :3 3 -4 3
nannort (39:37), see 27:21; LXX: Auxvovx; xf|<; Kauoeox;, ‘lights for burning;’
TNf: Knnnjm rtT Sis, ‘lights for the lighting’ (cf. TNf 35:14: nmao
nmnjm, ‘the lampstand for the lighting’); in Vulg. these words are left
untranslated, rrâ-mo, Sam.Pent.: nâ ba mti; cf. LXX. nvnmK) (35:14)
absent in Sam.Pent.; cf. LXX; the oil for the lamp is not mentioned there either
(it is in LXX 39:17).
31:9/35:16-18/39:39-40 (35:16; 39:39), see K6Synt §282d; Ges-K

§129h. VlOI? (35:17), masculine suffix (Sam.Pent.: m iO tf, cf. 39:40), refer
ring to feminine noun ("ISO), followed by a noun with feminine suffix
(m itrn K l); for a similar gender alternation with respect to " is n see also 39:40:
n’tnn'i vniraviK (Sam.Pent.: n n n ’O), and Ehrlich on Gen. 32:9. "ifl’O*
(35:18; 39:40), see Introd. §10.3.12; TWAT, III, 1080; the term is not men
tioned in the instructions for the construction of the sanctuary and the court
(see 4.8; 4.10). o r r in ’O (35:18), masculine suffix for feminine noun (Ges-K
§135o). n 'tn n 'i (39:40), Sam.Pent.: n w nKi. is better taken as
apposition (KoSynt §280e) than as genitive (e.g. Strack). In the Vulg., 39:40
from ,baJ?a n«1 (see at 25:9) is translated: nihil ex vasis defuit quae in
ministerium tabemaculi et in tectum foederis iussa sunt fieri, ‘nothing was
missing of all the appurtenances that had been prescribed for the needs of the
tent sanctuary and the house of the covenant.’
31:10/35:19/39:41 The meaning of m b , which only occurs in the construct

chain "i^bB ’3)3 (31:10; 35:19; 39:1, 41) (for u a see 28:2), is unsure. It is
usually taken to mean official clothing (e.g. SV, LV, CV, NY WV). It is an
old interpretation. It is based on equation of "l}b with n ib " 1 and determined
by the context; in 35:19; 39:1, 41 follows: nil#'?. Rashi understands
“n o n ’U S as the coverings for the furnishings of the sanctuary (Num. 4:6ff.).
Because in 39:1 ‘linen’ is not mentioned, he does not think the reference can
be to priestly garments. In light of the context, his interpretation, accepted by,
among others, Ehrlich and Vredenbuig, is not likely (but see Ehrlich on 35:19)
and already disputed by Nachmanides. He believes that ‘the garments of
uniqueness,’ garments of royalty, are meant.112 Rashi understands m b as a
kind of fabric of which the tapistry was made: with holes, made with the
needle, ‘mesh-work,’ and for that points to the Aramaic Nmp.
Many expositors have gone long with the idea that m b denotes the kind of
111 In LXX TIB in 31:10; 39:1 (not translated in 39:41 = LXX 39:19) and tBIB) in Num. 4:12;
2 Chr. 24:14 are translated as XeixoupyiKOt;; see further Pesh., Vulg., TO, TPsJ, TNf, SamT and
MSS Sam.Pent. on 31:10.
1,2 is derived from Tito, ‘to survive;’ the highpriest is the only one of his generation who
may exercise the highpriestly function.
Volume III1
fabric.113 In that connection (cf. 39:1) they think of a mottled, many-coloured

fabric (cf. AuS, V, 125, 127, 162). It seems to me this is open to question.
From 31:10; 35:19; 39:41 one gets the impression that niton ’naa refers to
both Aaron’s clothing as well as that of his sons, that is, a general identifica
tion, which then is made more specific. The notion that the phrase n)3*n$(l)
tonpn only applies to mton nia (Nachmanides) or is to be taken to mean ‘and
the other holy garments’ (cf. Lev. 16:4) (Dillmann, Strack) does not seem
justified (cf. KOSynt §94). Aside from 39:1, there is no real reason to think of
the fabric of the clothing as being many-coloured. The fact that in 39:1
yam/multi-coloured material is mentioned in connection with mton ’naa is due
to the fact that from 39:1 one might get the impression that mton ’133 pertains
exclusively to the highpriestly clothing.
Recently it has been suggested that mto refers to linen from Kolchis, which
according to Herodotus (Hist., II, 105) was called Sapdcovucov by the Greeks
(see O. Margalith, ZAW 95 [1983], 430f.). In 39:1 this interpretation is entirely
out of place. Elsewhere, since in Exodus the basic materials are emphatically
mentioned, it is unlikely.
All in all, it is impossible to made a carefully considered choice (see also
Haran*, 172f.). From the account in Exod. 28; 39 it is clear that Aaron and his
sons wore splendid attire that set them apart. In 28:2, 40 this is brought out by
the phrase nn$?n‘?!i"liapb. Therefore for mton ’naa I choose for an interpre
tation ad sensunv. ‘ceremonial robes.’
In some MT MSS the text of 31:10 is brought into harmony with that of
35:19; 39:41 and mtonnia is followed by: ton'ps (see 24:13).
tonpn naa*n«i (31:10) is not translated in the LXX; so also pan (31:10;
39:19). pan, apposition (e.g. KSSynt §333w; Joiion §13lk). pab (see 2:16),
LXX in 31:10: + poi (= ’b; see also Pesh.; cf. 28:1, 3, 4 etc.).
31:11/39:42 In TNf ‘you’ is subject of 31:11b. In 39:42 Vulg. it is not the

verb ‘to make’ that is used, but ‘to bring’ (obtulermt filii Israhel) (cf. 39:33).
The role of the Israelites remains a limited one; cf. 36:8ff.; but see also 39:31
Vulg. (= MT 39:32): feceruntquefilii Israhel.
39:43 n to (see Introd. §3.46.1), Moses knew the master plan; YHWH had
revealed it to him. That makes him the right person to perform the final
inspection to see whether everything had been done in accordance with YHWH’s
purpose, nan, see Introd. §3.15.2. *pa, see 12:32; cf. also Ehrlich op 39:43:
113 E.g. Dillmann; K0W; HOnig*, 140; cf. BDB, KBL, and see Dasberg: ‘the knitted garments;’
NEB: ‘the stitched vestments;’ Cassuto conjectures that possibly they were ‘garments worn by the
priests under their tunics in winter ... as a protection against the cold’ (403).
Volume III1
350 EXODUS 2 5 :1 -9 ; 3 1 :6B-11; 3 5 :4 -2 9 ; 3 9 :3 3 -4 3
y ia = ‘to thank.’ Beside 39:43 see Gen. 1:31 and Gen. 1:22, 28; 2:3 and
4.2.22. In TPsJ and TNf a benediction is placed on the lips of Moses: ‘May the
Shekinah (of YHWH) dwell in the work(s) of your hands;’ cf. also TNf margin
and see e.g. Rashi (invoking Ps. 90:17); in connection with ‘work(s) of your
hands’ see Acts 7:48 (cf. R. le D6aut, RSR 52 [1964], 85-7) and also Heb.
9:11, 24.
4.3.3 Presentation of the materials (35:20-29)
35:20 Then the whole community of the Israelites left Moses’ presence.
21 Everyone who spontaneously wanted to show generosity, who spontane
ously was willing to give, then brought the offerings to YHWH to be used for
the construction of the Tent of Meeting and accompanying cult and sacred
garments.
22 Men came accompanied by women. Everyone brought spontaneously and
generously brooches, earrings and noserings, signet rings and pendants, all
kinds of gold objects, everyone who had things of gold that could be given to
YHWH.
23 But everyone who owned blue and red purple, crimson and linen, goats’
hair and red dyed rams’ skins and hides of the sea cow, brought those.
24 And everyone who could contribute things of silver or copper brought
those as offerings to YHWH. Everyone who owned acacia wood, suitable for
any of the work to be done with the building or construction, brought that.
25 Every woman who was good at using her hands had used them to make
yam and brought yam: the red and the blue purple, the crimson and the linen.
26 In fact, all the women who spontaneously wanted to show their generosity
by means of their skills had spun yam from the goats’ hair.
27 The tribal heads brought the beryl stones and other stones to be set in the
ephod and the breastpiece,
28 the spices and the oil, for the lamp, for the anointing oil, for the fragrant
perfume.
29 Every man or woman, who spontaneously and generously wanted to bring
something for whole the structure which YHWH through Moses had commanded
to make - the Israelites brought that spontaneously to show their generosity
toward YHWH.
For the origin of the materials see also 4.16; 4.17 (38:8b) and Num. 17:3-5 (cf.
Exod. 38:22 LXX; see exegesis 38:2).
35:20-24 KS' (Introd. §3.24.1), after the gathering (35:1) the Israelites disperse
again to carry out Mozes’s order (35:4-9); see 35:21ff. They are - unlike in
Exod. 32 - now completely dedicated to YHWH. 1K3’1 (35:21) (plur. with as
Volume III1
subject afw ba; cf. e.g. KdSynt §3461); Sam.Pent.: IK'3’1 (hiph.), cf. LXX,
Pesh., Vulg.; so also in 35:22. Is the idea that they came in the morning? (cf.
36:3). bai, Sam.Pent.: tf’K bat (cf. Pesh.). In 35:21 the subject is stated in
twice, in varied ways to bring out the enthusiasm that marked the Israelites."4
na«ba, see 12:16. mas, see Introd. §3.37.4. tfnpn naa, see 28:2.
‘men,’ ‘women’ (alliteration; cf. iKtoJ in 35:22), see Introd. §§3.2.1; 3.2.3.
*?», cf. 12:8; LXX: ‘and the men brought from the women’ (napa td>v
yuvaiK w v). The men presented the offerings; the presence of the women shows
that they voluntarily parted with them (cf. 32:2, 3). w a n , Sam.Pent.: toan.
no (OT 9x), ‘hook’ (2 Kgs. 19:28; Isa. 37:29; Ezek. 19:4, 9; 29:4; 38:4;
2 Chr. 33:11), only in Exod. 35:22 it denotes a piece of jewelry, likely a
brooch, shaped something like our safety pin, a piece of jewelry for tying
clothing (BRL, 82f.)."5 ON, see 32:2. n»ao (see 25:12), without copula in
Sam.Pent.; Sam.Pent.: + b’JS (cf. Num. 31:50); cf. LXX: Kai ep.nA.6iaa Kai
irepi6e£ia.
The meaning of tpto (Exod. 35:22 [usually regarded as a collective]; Num.
31:50) is not certain. In the LXX, Num. 31:50 is rendered as epuA-OKiov ‘hair
pin;’ in Exod. 35:22 the enumeration is five-fold, concluding with
Kai epitAoKta Kai nepide^va, ‘and hair pins and bracelets;’ obviously that
rendering gave the impetus for the Vulg. rendering dextralia (cf. Vredenbuig,
Dasbeig: ‘bracelet;’ in Num. 31:50 however: ‘necklace,’ ‘pendant’). In TO and
TPsJ use is made of lin o , ‘obscenity;’ an ornament worn on a woman’s
breasts or an ornament featuring a female breast or pudenda?114516 In TNf u m r ,
‘smaragd’ is used. Pointing to Arabic, several lexicographers describe TQia as
‘small ball’ (Ges-B; K6W; Zo.). This etymology seems to lie behind taking
TD13 as a necklace, consisting of small metal balls (cf. BHHW, III, 1706; BRL,
286f.). It has found its way into many modem translations, causing TOIO to be
rendered as ‘halssieraad’ [‘ornamental necklace’] (LV, NV, WV [Num. 31:50])
or ‘halsketen’ [‘collar’] (CV and WV in 35:22) or some such term (GNB; in
35:22 ‘small balls;’ cf. CV; in Num. 31:50 ‘beads’). \kn der Palm translates it
as ‘boat’ (= middle piece of a necklace), ’bo-'ro, see Introd. §§3.26; 3.27 (cf.
1:14).
114 Differently Nachmanides: two groups are meant, the craftsmen who did the work and those
who brought the donations; see also Jacob*, Pent., 240.
115 Cf. WV and see GNB (’sluitspeld’ [‘buckle’]); LV, CV (‘clasp’); the interpretation is not
without dispute; cf. e.g. NV (‘nose ring’); Vredenburg, Dasberg (‘ear ring’); also the ancient
versions offer varied renderings; LXX: o^payiSEi;, ‘seals;’ Vulg.: armillae, ‘bracelets’ (cf. Rashi);
TO, TPsJ: 1'V ‘chains;’ TNf: I’Ôp, ‘chains.’
116 Cf. bShab 64a and Rashi on 35:22; Num. 31:50; AuS V, 349; see also KBL: ‘Brustplatten?’,
and already KJV: ‘tablets’, SV: ‘spanselen’, in Num. 31:50: ‘afhangende gordel’ (see also
annotation on Exod. 35:22; this interpretaton already in Saadya; see AuS, V, 349).
Volume III1
352 EXODUS 2 5 :1 -9 ; 31:6B -11; 3 5 :4 -2 9 ; 3 9 :3 3 -4 3
The clause starting with itfK tf’trb a i (Sam.Pent.: bai) (35:22b) is

intended to restrict the scope of the preceding words and to introduce the
verses 35:23, 24. The initial impression one gets from 35:22 is that everyone
brings gold. But 35:23, 24 shows that not everyone brings the same items, but
those valuables they have in their possession. The end of 35:22 makes clear
that not everyone was able to donate something very expensive. nBUn *),Jn, see
20:25.
The list in 35:23 LXX does not include the first three articles and the goats’
hair. niph., see 5:11. ba (35:24), Sam.Pent.: bai (cf. 35:23, 25). *J03
ntfrtJl (35:24), for ) with the meaning ‘or’ see e.g. Joiion §175a; cf. also 35:29.
nsN bir'jab, Sam.Pent.: ’»*?.
35:25, 26 35:25, 26 look back to the beginning of 35:22. There the women are
already mentioned as accompanying the men. After it has been related that the
men - they are owner - have donated all kinds of materials for the construc
tion (35:22-24), the writer looks at the role of the women and what they bring:
the raw materials donated (by the men) for the making of fabrics, they have
already turned into useful materials; they now offer these, ready for use as
basic materials for making other articles, a b n a a n , cf. 35:10.
np (Sam.Pent.: rt1£5 [sing.]; cf. the preceding rp T>a [sing.]; Sam.Pent.: m ’a)
perf. qal of mta (only in Exod. 35:25, 26; cf. the Akkadian tamu, see Cohen
[see 9:9], 36), ‘to spin,’ with as derivative n]tp& (only in Exod. 35:25), ‘that
which is spun,’ ‘yam.’ The OT contains no information about the spinning
technique. Ancient literature and archaeological finds enable us to get some
thing of a idea. The spinning wheel was unknown. Spinning was done by
means of spindle and swivel. The work was done, in standing or sitting
position, especially by women. The technique was highly developed.117 For the
spinning, both hands were continually used. So it is not strange that in 35:25
they are explicitly mentioned (cf. also Prov. 31:13, 19). The term ‘eigenhan-
dig’ [‘with one’s own hands’]’ (CV, NV, Dasbeig; cf. also LV, Vredenbuig)
introduces a misleading nuance in the translation. 35:25 talks about the treating
of vegetable fibers, 35:26 about that of animal fibers. nubirrnK, Sam.Pent.:
nffbinnm o. njp'N (35:26), see Ges-K §103b; Sam.Pent.: priK.
What appears to be said in 35:25, 26 is that not all women make the same
kind(s) of yam; depending on their ability and experience, they made the kind
they were adept at. Though women are the subject in 35:25, 26, masculine
verbs are used (cf. Ges-K §145t). As a rule the perf. lip in 35:25, 26 is
117 See further, also for the preparatory activities, the readying o f the raw materials, AuS, V,
42ff.; BRL, 311ff.; Krauss**, I, 148; Forbes*, IV, 151ff.; G.M. \bgelsang-Eastwood, “A Note on
the So-Called ‘Spinning Bowls’,” JEOL 30 (1987-88), 78-88.
Volume III1
THE ARTISANS AND THEIR TECHNIQUES 353
translated as an imperfect and likewise the imperf. cons. in 35:25.

Possibly the perf. could be rendered as a pluperfect (cf. Ges-K § 106c; Jotion
§118d). In the text it is presupposed that the women, after having made the
yams at home, now come to present it, accompanied by the men (35:22). In
35:26 the bringing is not explicity mentioned, but it is implied.
Note the alliteration of D’ltfan and NfefJ in 35:26, followed by DKfefJn in 35:27.
TPsJ 35:26 contains an expansion: the women spun the goats’ hair while it was
still on the bodies of the goats, and shaved them while they were still alive (cf.
Ginzbeig*, III, 174; VI, 70).
35:27-29 N’tol, see 16:22; TWAT, V, 647ff. The tribal heads, evidently the
most affluent persons, contribute the most expensive items. With their arrival,
the procession reaches its climax and concludes it as well. Jewish exegesis (e.g.
Hirsch; Leibowitz*, 700f.) holds them blameworthy because of their late arrival
(but see against it Num. 7).
Sam.Pent. (35:28): O’Otoan and TiN»n IOC#. TPsJ 35:27, 28 contains expan
sions; it is stated where the articles came from: clouds brought the precious
stones from the Pishon (Gen. 2:1If .)."8
35:29 wraps up the story. What was already brought out in the foregoing
account (35:21-28) is confirmed, namely, that the Israelites, regardless of their
gender, male or female, regardless of their social position, are enthusiastic and
according to ability want to contribute to the construction of the sanctuary for
YHWH. Sam.Pent.: b a i and D ab o n tt (inversion). rt»D "P 3, see Introd. §3.21.3
(cf. 25:8, 9). Apparently because subject and principal verb are so far apart, the
subject, in varied form (bmttf'^Ja), is mentioned again. For exegetical conclu
sions on the basis of the construction see Leibowitz*, 668ff.
4.4 THE ARTISANS AND THEIR TECHNIQUES (31:l-6a; 35:30-36:7)
Two sections are discussed in this parapgraph:

(1) 31:1-6a YHWH makes known to Moses who are to do the work for the
construction of the sanctuary and motivates the choice.
(2) 35:30-36:7 Moses makes known to the people who the artisans are which
YHWH wants and motivates the choice; next he appoints the artisans. The abun
dance of raw materials at hand - and therewith the enthusiasm and dedication
of the people - are emphasized (cf. 35:20-29).
“* See also exegesis 14:9; ExR. XXXIII, 8: the clouds rained them down along with the manna
(the interpretation is based on the double meaning of O’KiffJ, ‘tribal heads’ and ‘clouds’) and
selected spices, olive oil and pure balm from the garden of Eden.
Volume III1
354 EXODUS 31:1-6A ; 3 5 :3 0 -3 6 :7
Both passages contain information about the techniques in which the artisans
are adept. As a sequel to the translation and as introduction to the exegesis, we
take a closer look at the artisans and their skills.
31:1 Then YHWH spoke to Moses in 35:30 Then Moses spoke to the
the following words: Israelites:
2 ‘Well then, I have made an ‘Well then, YHWH has made an
exceptional individual o f Bezalel, exceptional individual of Bazalel,
the son o f Uri, the son o f Hur o f the son of Uri, the son of Hur of
the tribe o f Judah. the the tribe of Judah.
3 For I have gifted him with ex 31 For he has gifted him with
traordinary competence; so he pos extraordinary competence; so he
sesses gifts o f expertise, ingenuity, possesses gifts of expertise, in
inventiveness and all sorts o f tech genuity, inventiveness and all sorts
nical abilities, of technical abilities,
4 to come up with designs, and 32 to come up with designs, and
make them in gold, silver or cop make them in gold, silver or cop
per. per.
5 He also knows how to cut pre 33 He also knows how to cut
cious stones fo r setting and to precious stones for setting and to
carve wood fo r use in all sorts o f carve wood for use in all sorts of
work. special work.
6a Moreover I m yself have given 34 He also has given him the
him as a partner Oholiab, the son ability to pass on knowledge, to
o f Ahisamack, o f the tribe o f Dan, him and to Oholiab, the son of
and given skill to all who are skill- Ahisamack, of the tribe of Dan.
fid .’ 35 He has gifted him with skill
fulness to apply all sorts of tech
For 3 1:6b-11 see 4.3.2. niques, that of specialists in treat
ing solid materials, that of embroi
derers and that of textile artists,
skillful in working with blue and
red purple, crimson and linen, and
also that of weavers; in short, they
are skillful in the application of all
sorts of techniques and in coming
up with designs.
36:1 Therefore Bazalel must make
it with Oholiab and all other skill
ful men, whom YHWH has endowed
with skillfulness and ingenuity for
inventively making all kinds of
Volume III1
a r tif a c ts f o r th e c o n s tr u c tio n o f th e
s a n c tu a ry ; e n tir e ly in k e e p in g w ith
YHWH’s c o m m a n d(they shall make
uy
36:2 Then Moses summoned Bezalel and Oholiab and all the other skilful men
whom YHWH had endowed with skill, yes, everyone of them, insofar as he
spontaneously wanted to come to make the edifice.
3 They received from Moses all the offerings which the Israelites had
brought for all sorts of work for the construction of the sanctuary and went to
work. But when, spontaneously and generously, they kept bringing them {the
offerings) anew to him (Moses) every morning,
4 all the skilful men, who were busy with all sorts of work for the sanctuary
one after the other left the work they were busy with.
5 They said to Moses: ‘The people are bringing much more than is needed
for doing the work YHWH has commanded.’
6 Then Moses had them go through the camp with the message: ‘Command
of Moses: “Men and women are not to prepare any more materials to present
them as offerings for the sanctuary”.’ So the people were dissuaded from
bringing still more.
7 There were thus enough materials for them (the craftsmen) to create all the
artifacts. In fact, there was more than enough.
4.4.1 The artisans
31:1-11 follows up on 25:8. After YHWH has given extensive information about
the master plan of the sanctuary and furnishings he desires (25:10-30:38), the
moment has arrived to inform Moses about the identity and qualifications of
the men who are to do the work, the artisans who have to take the collected
materials (25:1-7), turning them into a sanctuary and its equipment.
35:30-36:7 follows up on 35:10. After the materials for the sanctuary have
been collected (35:20-29), the moment has arrived for Moses to get the work
underway and appoint artisans to carry out YHWH’s instructions.
Not only does the plan originate with YHWH, he also appoints the artisans. In
fact, indirectly he does the work himself. After all, the artisans owe their
expertise to him. He has predestined them. Also the preparations for the work
were made by YHWH himself.
Moses explains the choice of the craftsmen to the people (35:30-36:1) and
then puts them to work (36:2-7). The organization of the work is hierarchically
structured. Coordination and supervision are in the hands of Bezalel, an all
round craftsman (31:2-5; 35:30-33). He is assisted by Oholiab (31:6; 35:34).
Volume III1
356 EXODUS 31:1 -6A ; 3 5 :3 0 -3 6 :7
The first-named is from the tribe of Judah; the other from the tribe of Dan.119
Under them are other craftsmen (cf. 31:6; 35:34; 36:1-6). Together they offer
their talents as offerings to YHWH (cf. 36:2).120
Though little is said about the craftsmen as the work progresses (see 28:3;
36:8 and also 25:8, 10, and further at 39:1), and also Bezalel (37:1; 38:22) and
Oholiab (38:23) are mentioned only a few times by name, it is assumed that
the work is being done and completed under Bezalel’s supervision.
4.4.2. Techniques applied
The artisans chosen by YHWH possess several technical skills. Taking our cue
from the terms used to describe them, three specialties can be distinguished.
4.4.2.1 Textile craft

A variety of terms is used for the textile part of the work for the sanctuary and
its equipment: Dtf'rt nfrffO (26:1), Dpi n&JJIU (26:36) and JIN nfcjjo (28:32).
Obviously, a#’n, Dpi and JIN refer to textile artisans who have specialized in
some aspect of the textile craft.1211
2Their precise specialty cannot be determined.
2IX, part, qal used as a noun (4x Exod.; 35:35 and 3X as nomen rectum after
n&»D [28:32; 39:22, 27]) of 31K (OT 14x), ‘to weave.”22 The 31N is the
professional weaver According to 28:32 he possesses great technical skills.
atf'rt, part, qal used as noun (OT 10x; 35:35; 38:23 and 8X as nomen rectum
of n&PD [26:1, 31; 28:6, 15; 36:8, 35; 39:3, 8]) of atfn (OT ca. 110x), which
in 31:4; 35:32, 35 is used with the plur. of na#C!0 (OT 56x; 4 x Exod.; also in
35:33) (cognate construction, paronomasia) for thinking up designs (cf. Amos
6:5; 2 Chr. 2:13; 26:15). See THAT, I, 641ff.; TWAT, III, 243ff. It has been
suggested that the basic meaning of atfn is that of ’weaving’ {HAL s.v.; THAT,
I, 643; but see TWAT, III, 246, and also Palache*, 35). More likely the agf'rt
refers to the person who makes (and executes) designs, specifically the textile
artisan who designs patterns and illustrations and puts them on cloth. It is often
thought that the a#n is the artist who produces very fine weaving (e.g. Ges-B;
The tribes who in Canaan represent the extremities of Israel (cf. Judg. 20:1; 1 Sam. 3:20
etc.); cf. also Num. 2:3, 25; 10:14, 25; do Bezalel and Oholiab stand for the extremities and so for
all of Israel? (cf. also 25:8, 9; 39:32, 42).
120 For the position of craftsmen in the ancient Near East see C. Zaccagnini, “Patterns of
Mobility Among Ancient Near Eastern Craftsmen,” JNES 42 (1983), 245-64, and especially (also
for the OT) A. Berlejung, “Der Handwerker als Theologe: Zur Mental itats- und Traditionsge-
schichte eines altorientalischen und alttestamentlichen Berufstands,” VT 46 (1996), 145-68.
121 For decorations applied to woven materials in the OT see Schroer**, 393ff.; in the OT only
cherubs are explicitly mentioned as depicted images (see 4.5.2).
122 For the art of weaving see AuS, V, passim; BRL, 360f.; RLA, VI, 18fF.; Forbes*, IV, 175ff.;
H6nig*, 132ff.
Volume III1
BDB; KoW; Zo. and LV, NV, GNB, Vredenbuig, Dasbeig). Likely, however,
the embroiderer is meant, the person who with a needle makes figures on
fabric (AuS, V, 116, 125f.; G.R. Driver, WO 2 [1954-59], 255ff.; cf. WV).
Dpi, part, qal used as noun123 of Dp"), which outside Exodus occurs as verb
(pu.) only in Ps. 139:15. Sometimes the Dpi is described as the ‘Buntwirker
[’weaver in colours’]’ (Ges-B; cf. BDB; K 6W; KBL), the individual who
produces woven articles made of threads/strips of various colours (AuS, V, 125;
cf. LV, NV); sometimes he is also regarded as one who makes embroidery.124
We are not sure of his particular specialty (cf. H6nig*, 139). It has been
suggested that there is a difference in quality between the work of the 30n, the
Dpi and the Supposedly the workmanship of the first was of the highest
quality, that of the other two, in descending order, not quite as good. Presum
ably that implied that, relatively speaking, their products were less holy (see
Haran*, 160ff.; Jenson [see 4.2.1.], 104f.). The data are scarce and the proposal
lacks cogent evidence (see e.g. 26:36 beside 27:16 and 28:32 beside 28:39).
In the LXX and Vulg. the difference between atff'n and Dpi has not been
maintained in the translation. In the LXX aipn is rendered by TtoiKiAtqq,
‘embroiderer’ [28:15 (Aq., Symm.: texvaCopevot;, ‘artist’)], and by i)<t>avTfj<;,
‘weaver’ (26:1,31; 37:3 [36:35]) and utJxrvToc, ‘woven’ (26:31; 36:10, 15
[39:3, 8]; 37:3 [36:35]), or by two terms (28:6: epyov ixjmvtdv hoikiA.tou; cf.
also 36:15 [39:8], and see Frankel*, 103). Dpi is translated by uoiKiArfjc
(26:36; 28:35[39]; 36:37 [39:39]; 37:16 [38:18]) and by ixfravtot; (37:5
[36:37]) - see also the translation of 35:35; 37:21 (38:23), where Dtfn and Dpi
occur together - , but also by pa<Jn6eurn<;, the person who works with needle
and thread, a stitcher or sewer (27:16), and pa<j>i6euto<; (37:21 [38:23]). Also
in the LXX 31'N is translated by u<J)&vTq<; (28:28[32]) and i><f>avT6<; (36:30, 35
[39:22, 27]).
In the Vulg. atf'n is translated by plumarius, ’embroiderer’/‘embroidered’
(26:1,31), and by polymitarius, ‘(maker) of multi-coloured fabric’ (35:35;
36:35; 38:23), and polymitus, ‘multi-coloured embroidered’ (28:6 etc.).
Also Dpi is translated by plumarius; in contrast, n'X by texere, ‘to weave’
(35:35), and textilis, ‘woven.’
In TO, TPsJ and TNf, ]D1K which is ususally rendered as ‘artist,’ is the
translation of Dtf’n. Dpi is translated by -p, 2J, ‘embroiderer’ (all targums in
35:35; 38:23; TNf also in 27:16 etc.), but also by 1VS, ‘embroidery,’ (TO
[MSS: ‘embroiderer’]; TPsJ [in 26:36; 27:16; 38:18: NDnDIVS, ‘needle work;’
123 Only in Exodus (8*), with exception of 35:35; 38:23 always as nomen rectum after ntoPD
(26:36; 27:16; 28:39; 36:37; 38:18; 39:20).
124 See Zo.; cf. SV, GNB, Van der Palm, Vredenburg, Dasberg; see also CV, WV in e.g.
26:39, but otherwise in e.g. 35:35; 38:23.
Volume III1
358 EXODUS 31:1 - 6 a ; 3 5 :3 0 -3 6 :7
TNf [in 26:36; 38:18]). In TO 1HK is translated by 'n o , in TPsJ, TNf by H U .

Commonly both terms are translated by ‘weaver’ or ‘sewer’ However, also the
interpretation of the terms used in the taigums is not certain.
Finally, by describing the work as JHN nBpo it is said that it is of first-rate
quality: work of top-notch weavers!
4.4.2.2 Preparation o f hard materials

Only one term is used for the person who works with hard materials. Special
ization in this area is expressed by adding qualifiers to the term.
Bin (OT ca. 35*), derivative of Bin, a root that has caused discussion,125 to
be distinguished from Bin, ‘to be silent’ (see 4:11). Bh$ is a general term for
’craftsman’/‘technician,’ the worker skilled in metal (*?TH3 B”iri, Isa. 44:12;
2 Chr. 24:12; cf. Deut. 27:15; Jer. 10:9 etc.), in wood (pp/O’SP BHIl, 2 Sam.
5:11; 2 Kgs. 12:12; Isa. 44:13; 1 Chr. 14:1; 22:15), in (precious) stones
( 13^ B hij, 28:11; 2 Sam. 5:11). In 31:5; 35:33 the noun nisho (BL §608g) is
used as nomen regens in construct chain with successively 19$ and fp , for
artistic working on gems and wood. The unbound form Bin is found in 35:35;
38:23. According to 35:32, 33 the reference is to the expert in metal working
in distinction from the textile artists.126
In the Vulg. Bun in 35:35 is translated with abietarius, ‘woodworker;’ in
38:23 with artifex lignorum egregius, ‘outstanding craftsman in wood’ (cf. use
of carpentarius in 35:33b). Also in TO, TPsJ, TNf, the rendering HJJ, ‘wood
worker’ (cf. 31:5b; 35:33b) has narrowed the meaning of Bnn. Apparently the
LXX has left the Bnn in 35:35; 38:23 untranslated. In TO, TPsJ, TNf, Bîih in
28:11 is rendered as )01K, ‘artist’ (cf. niJDltta in TO, TNf on 31:5a; 35:33a),
which elsewhere in the taigums is the rendering of aBn (see 4.4.2.1). In SamT,
Bun is consistently translated by 10K (cf. also 31:5; 35:33).
Tasks of the metal worker included the making of cast objects. For that the
verb p s ’ qal + accusative is used (25:12; 26:37; 36:36; 37:3, 13; 38:5, 27). p s 1
(OT 53x; 8* Exod.) is used for the pouring of liquids, for example, anointing
oil (+ *?p) (29:7; Lev. 8:12; 1 Sam. 10:1; 2 Kgs. 9:3). See TWAT, III, 826ff. In
25:12 etc. ‘casting’ refers to the making of metal objects by pouring molten
metal in molds (cf. BHHW, I, 570f.; II, 1207; BRL, 22If.; IDB, III, 366f.).
Also belonging to the task of the metal workers was that of overlaying
wooden objects with a metal coating. For attaching, by means of nails, the
metal flattened into thin plates (see 39:3) to the wood, the verb n s s II (OT ca.
See PSP, II, 49f.; TWAT.\ III, 234ff.; H. HOpfl, Bib 4 (1923), 45.
126 For wood carving see Bibl. Introd. §10.1.2; for metal (precious) working see Bibl. Introd.
§3.28; Forbes*, VIII, 44ff.; IX, Iff.; P.M. McNutt, The Forging o f Israel: Iron Technology,
Symbolism, and Tradition in Ancient Society, Sheffield 1990 (and also the exegesis of 32:4); for
cutting and polishing of gems see 4.12.3.
Volume III1
45*; 26* Exod.) is used. rtS2t II, to be distinguished from fiBS I, ‘to spy’ (see
77VAT, VI, 1087ff.), is mainly used in pi. (26:32 pu.) (with double acc.;
KOSynt §327o; Ges-K §117ee; JoOon §125u) (25:11 [2*], 13, 24, 28;
26:29[2*], 32, 37; 27:2, 6; 30:3, 4 etc.; 1 Kgs. 6:20 etc.). In 38:17, 19; Num.
17:3, 4; Isa. 30:22 the derivative ’-is?, ‘overlaying,’ ‘coating,’ is used. See
TWAT, VI, 1093.
In connection with metal working, the term (25:18, 31, 36; 37:7, 17,
22; Num. 10:2; Jer. 10:5? [cf. Zo.]) should not go unmentioned. Usually it is
said to mean ‘hammered/beaten work,’ objects produced by working metal with
a hammer or other tool. The interpretation is based on the assumption that the
root nttfp (see \bl. I, 248) also can mean ‘to twist/tum(into each other/
tight)’,127 making it possible to construe ntfpo as meaning ‘gedrehte, getriebene
Arbeit’ (K6W etc.). This interpretation produces in Isa. 3:24 (nttfpo) the
meaning ‘elegantly coiled hair’[NEB].’128 That meaning is not sure, however
(cf. BDB; Zo.; THAT, II, 690), and obviously the result of following ancient
versions. Thus ntfpo is translated by Symm. (in 25:31, 36) and Theod. (in
25:31) with the part. perf. passive of eiccopveuG), ‘to work with lathe or
chisel.’ Also other terms are used to link ntfpo with metal working. Aq. in
25:18, 31 uses the part. perf. passive of kotitco, ‘to flatten(with the hammer).’
In the LXX, in 25:17, 30, 35 (18, 31, 36), topeutoc, ‘hammered’ (cf. LXXB in
25:17: xpvooTopeutor;), is used, in Num. 10:2 ikatoq, ‘beaten’ (cf. Aq. in
37:17 and see Sir. 50:16, and also the use in Vulg. of productilis in 25:18 and
of ductilis in 25:31 etc.). In LXX 38:14, 16 (37:17, 22) the rendering oxepeoc,
‘firm,’ is used. The translation seems to be based on derivation from ntfp, ‘to
be hard.’ In TO, TPsJ, TNf, rtpttfn is rendered with TJJ, which usually is taken
to mean ‘hammered.’ However, the participle can also be taken in the custom
ary sense of ‘extensive,’ ‘spread out,’ which produces the reading: the cheru
bim are stretched out from the extremities of the rn'BS, that is, they form one
whole with it.129 Can (pro)ductilis in the Vulg. also be taken in that sense? That
ntfpD means ‘form one continuous whole with it,’ ‘of one piece,’ is defended
by G. Gerleman, ZAW 92 (1980), 412f., without appealing to ancient versions.
In my view, the idea of ‘making one whole with it’ - which is not the same as
’of one piece’ - is brought out by the preposition p (cf. also 25:19). For now,
I go along with the usual interpretation. See further also 4.7.1.
127 E.g. Dillmann on 25:18; Ges-B; KCW; in BDB and HAL a second root ntfp is conjectured.
Cf. AuS, V, 337; in any case, in view of the contrast (baldness) fashionably done hair is
meant.
129 Rashi on 25:18,19 gives the following interpretation: the cherubim may not be made
separately and then joined to the mD2, but m e a and cherubim must be made from one piece of
metal.
Volume III1
360 EXODUS 31:1-6A ; 3 5 :3 0 -3 6 :7
4.4.2.3 Art o f engraving

The task of the gem-cutter is not limited to polishing stones, but also includes
engraving. A few times mention is made of engraving of gems and precious
metal, which is called o p ( l ) n ’CURB, engraved as on a seal (28:11, 21, 36;
39:6, 14, 30). o p 'i n (OT 15*), ‘seal’ (Gen. 38:18, 25; 1 Kgs. 21:8 etc.), a loan
word from Egyptian (Th.O. Lambdin, JAOS 73 [1953], 151; Ellenbogen*, 74)
is used in construct chain with the plur. (cf. K6Synt §26 le; Ges-K §124f) of
010$ (OT llx ), ‘engraving,’ ‘carving’ (1 Kgs. 6:29; Ps. 74:6 etc.), in 28:11,
36; 39:6 in combination with (cognate construction, paronomasia) verbal forms
of nns, ‘to engrave’ (+ bp = ‘on,’ see 28:9, 36).130 In gems of a layered
structure, when engraved or carved, two or more colours become visible, which
enhances their beauty.131
4.4.2.4 Other techniques

The above gives an indication of the techniques available to the craftsmen.
How precisely they went about their work as a rule - an exception is 39:3 - is
not stated.
The craftsmen possessed the skills to measure things}*2 Taking the measure
ments of the furnishings of the sanctuary and the parts from which it was com
posed was done by using the nips, ‘cubit’, a measure of length (OT ca. 245x;
59x Exod. 25-40 [25:10 etc.]); dual. D?fl|p8 (25:10 etc.); plur. niBS (26:16 etc.)
or n'BS (36:21); for n/psp (26:1 etc.) see Ges-K §134w; JoUon §142w;
Brockelmann §21c6, 106e. The cubit is a little less than half a meter 133
For determining the sizes of various objects the cubit was used. ip'N (OT ca.
95x; 24x Exod.), derivative of " p s (for verb see 20:12), ‘length,’ is in Exod.
25-40, except for 26:13; 27:19, always followed by ‘width’ ( a m [OT ca.
100x; 22x Exod.], derivative of a m [see 34:24]) and ‘height’ (niplp [OT 45x;
10x Exod.], derivative of Dip [see 1:8]), see 25:10, 23; 27:1, 18; 30:2; 37:1,
10, 25; 38:1, 18 ( 10x), or only by ‘width,’ see 25:17; 26:2, 8, 16; 27:11-13;
28:16; 36:9, 15, 21; 37:6; 39:9 ( 12x). 6x in the context the term ‘square’ is
used (Introd. §4.5.2). The thickness is never stated. For ’handbreadth’ and
‘span’ see 25:25.
See 2:6; W AT, VI, 833, 842f.; cf. Zech. 3:9; 2 Chr. 2:6,13, and see use o f an a in 39:30.
On the literacy skills of the craftsmen see I.M. Young, VT 48 (1998), 408, 419.
131 For seals see BHHW, III, 1786ff.; BRL, 299ff. (+ illustrations); IDB, IV, 254ff. (cf. II,
102f.); S. Moscati, “II sigilli nell’Antico Testamento,” Bib 30 (1949), 314-38; Schroer**, 404ff.
(also for the technique of engraving). For (seal/signet)ring see 25:12.
132 For the proficiency of Israelite architects in the monarchical era see e.g. B.S.J. Isserlin, VT
34 (1984), 169-78.
133 See BRL, 204; Barrois*, II, 244ff.; De \fcux*, I, 348ff.; A.S. Kaufman, “Determining the
Length of the Medium Cubit,” PEQ 116 (1984), 120-32.
Volume III1
The description is marked by soberness. The reader is left in the dark about
all kinds of details and special shapes. The author, it seems, did not deem it
important for the reader to know the details of the techniques and measuring
systems that were used. He does intimate that the information was available,
for a master plan given by YHWH was on hand. Moses had experts who were
thoroughly competent in their craft. Moreover the author counted on readers
who were able to imagine what the sanctuary was like.
The artisans utilize materials which had in part already been worked on (see
4.3.1). O f the preparations, spinning is mentioned (see 35:25ff.). Other prepara
tions, like the tanning and treatment of leather (e.g. AuS, V, 185ff.; BRL,
203f.; RLA, VI, 527ff.) and the dyeing of fabrics (see bibl. Introd. §9.2.13 and
BRL, 72ff.), are not explicitly mentioned.
Finally, frequently in connection with the making of the sanctuary and its
equipment the general verbs (Introd. §3.36), ntfftf (Introd. §3.41.1) and O’fe
(Introd. §3.48) are used.
31:2/35:30 In 35:30 it is evidently assumed that the Israelites, after having

departed from Moses (35:20), are again in his presence, now with all their
offerings (35:21-29). Moses now concretizes something he said earlier (35:10).
’ja^N (35:30), Sam.Pent.: ’33*?. ru n , see Introd. §3.46.1. OBP + Nip, see
Introd. §3.45.1. Taking the perfect as a present (e.g. Cassuto) is, I believe,
wrong. The meaning is not that YHWH now picks Bezalel and gives him special
capabilities. Meant is that Bezalel was a highly talented individual to begin
with, was that already before he was chosen, owing to the gifts YHWH had
endowed him with ffom/at birth. Bezalel was predestined for his task.134 In TNf
it is emphasized that Bezalel occupies a position of honour: YHWH gave him
the title p i , ‘teacher’ (cf. TNf 33:12, with reference to Moses). Rabbinic
exegesis has it that Bezalel’s knowledge - he was only twelve at the time (e.g.
TzUR) - went beyond craftsmanship. He was also held to be familiar with the
Torah, Halakah and Talmud (e.g. ExR. XLVIII,4), and have knowledge of the
composition of the letters with which God created heaven and earth (e.g.
Ginzbeig*, III, 154ff.).
Jacob*, Pent., 229, suggests that the name Bezalel (Introd. §5.17), having in
it the element ‘shadow,’ and that the name Oholiab (Introd. §5.5), having in it
the element ‘tent,’ hints at what they created, namely, the sanctuary; presum
ably the name of Oholiab’s father (see 31:6) characterized the relation of
Oholiab to Bezalel, namely that of gving support. ‘Uri’ (MSS Sam.Pent.: I i n ,
also in 38:22), see Introd. §5.7; cf. §5f. ‘Hur,’ see Introd. §5.25. HCSOb (Introd.
134 Cf. Nachmanides: because Israel in Egypt had been crushed under the work o f making
bricks, it was a wonder that such an all-round craftsman was found among them.
Volume III1
362 EXODUS 31:1 - 6 A; 3 5 :3 0 -3 6 :7
§3.21.10), see KOSynt §280i,k; cf. §2811 note 2. ‘Judah,’ see Introd. §5.27.
31:3-5/35:31-33 31:3-5; 35:31-33 are elaboration on 31:2; 35:30. It is con

cretely stated what made him different from other people, what set him apart
from others.
Kba pi., see 2:16. DVibN n n , see Introd. §§3.47.3; 7.2.3; TPsJ 31:3:
n m p p Nttfnip n n , ‘a spirit of holiness from before yhwh’ (cf. TNf 35:31);
TPsJ 35:31: Tt m p p rtKlSJ n n , ‘a spirit of prophecy from before YHWH’
(both translations in TNf 31:3; for the text see Levy**, 420); for the terminol
ogy see P. Schafer, VT 20 (1970), 304-14. n a a n s (see 1:10) etc. is not
dependent on Nbattl (e.g. SV, LV, CV, NV, WV); both naan and following
terms with preposition a denote the qualities in which the possession of ‘the
spirit of God’ manifests itself (cf. KoSynt §332r).
n jian a’i (without copula in 35:31; Sam.Pent. also there with copula; cf. LXX,
Pesh., Vulg., TO, SamT); njiaiji (OT 42*), ‘insight,’ is a derivative of p a and
is found more often in combination with naan and n m (Introd. §3.22). See
THAT, I, 305ff.; TWAT, I, 622ff. Beside 31:3; 35:31; 36:1 see 1 Kgs. 7:14;
Prov. 3:19f.; cf. Leibowitz*, 672ff.
n aK b a^ aai (see 12:16), in LXX (31:3: ev itav u epyw ; 35:31: itavttov) and
Vulg. (31:3: in omni opere; but see 35:31: et omni doctrina) the copula is left
untranslated, leaving the number of qualities, resulting from possession of ‘the
spirit of God,’ limited to three (see also LV). nattfrta atfnb (Ges-K §61 i; in
35:32 preceded by copula; similarly Sam.Pent. in 31:4), see 4.4.2.1; in LXX
31:4 is translated with SiavoeloOai lcai apxixeKtovfioai, ‘to invent and to
construct;’ in 35:32 with apxiteKtoveiv Kata Jtavta t a epya trie apxiteK-
toviaq, ‘to construct in accordance with all the works of the master builder;’ in
TO 31:4; 35:32 is translated by pjBlK KSbttb, ‘to instruct the artists;’ see also
TPsJ 35:32; TNf 31:4; 35:32 (cf. 35:34). The fact that Bezalel was a skillful
designer does not imply that he was predestined to create designs for the
sanctuary; that task YHWH has reserved for himself. The comment is intended
to evoke the picture of an all-round artisan.
a n n etc. (cf. KoSynt §212g), for article see e.g. KdSynt §297a; Ges-K
§126n; Jouon §137m. LXX contains in 31:4 a more detailed enumeration: ‘and
in blue and red purple and in spun crimson.’ nehnai (see 4.4.2.2) is dependent
on ni&Jfb in 31:4; 35:32.
31:5 and 35:33 are variously rendered in the LXX; in both cases nttbab
(Ges-K §74h; see 2:16) is not translated. In connection with that, mtoab etc. in
31:5b; 35:33b is interpreted as a concluding, summarizing comment; LXX
31:5: epy&CeoOai Kata rcavta t a epya, ‘to carry out all sorts of work;’ LXX
35:33: Kai itoieiv ev uavxl epyep oo<t>ia<;, ‘and to carry out every work
requiring artistic skill.’ Cf. also Vulg.: 35:33: setdpendisque lapidibus et opere
carpentario quicquid fabre adinveniri potest, ‘and by cutting stone and carving
Volume III1
wood; everything that can be artistically imagined.’ Sharply different from MT

is Vulg. 31:5: marmore et gemmis et diversitate lignorum, ‘in marble and gems
and a variety of wood.’
That mtoob etc. is a summarizing observation is the customary interpretation
(e.g. Strack, Baentsch and e.g. LV, CV, NV). In that case it is assumed that
m&D1? of 31:4; 35:32 is ‘reiterated.’ As I see it, it is worth considering whether
the mtollb in 31:5; 35:33 might stand in a similar relation to fS as nttbob to
pK. natfrto (35:33; not in 31:5; present in Qm?; Qm 31:5: ]rO K ^ 0 ^3 3 [; see
Sanderson**, 87f.), Sam.Pent.: matfno (abs. st. plur.); cf. 31:4; 35:32.
31:6/35:34 nan, see Introd. §3.15.1. Tina (2*) (Introd. §3.36), for the perf. see
31:2. YHWH’s words are not to be taken as promise (KOSynt §131; 367a). It is
assumed that Oholiab was already the assistent, Bezalel’s co-worker. YHWH
makes it known that he has established the existing co-worker relationship
between both - which now can prove its helpfulness - and that all other
available craftsmen, like Bezalel, owe their skills to him. YHWH makes it clear
that also the necessary preparations for the work have already been made. The
work can start right away. Training of the craftsmen is not necessary Fully
trained craftsmen are available. YHWH had seen to that.
n« in« (31:6), LXX: o u t o v kcci t o v = nio intt, that is, ‘I have given him
(Bezalel) and Oholiab ... (their special position).’ ‘Oholiab’, see Introd. §5.5;
G.A. Rendsburg, VT 40 (1990), 204-6. ‘Ahisamack’, see Introd. §5.8. ‘Dan’,
see Introd. §5.21. ab, see Introd. §3.29.2. oan, see 1:10 (cf. 28:3).
35:34 gives a somewhat different picture than 31:6. Indirectly the craftsmen
owe their expertise to YHWH. For he also gifted Bezalel and Oholiab with
teaching abilities. They have the ability to pass the secrets of the trade on to
others.
min'?! (see 4:12), implied object are the other craftsmen (explicitly men
tioned in TPsJ). From their absence in the MT Kostermann*, NF, 67, con
cludes that the end of 35:34 ab ’Dan bai, ‘and all craftsmen who,’ must
have dropped out. He believes that the beginning of 35:34 should read:
‘la 1? ? p i , ‘and he (YHWH) had given him a colleague, entirely like himself
(namely, Oholiab)’ (cf. de criticism of Jacob*, Pent., 230ff.). tort, see e.g.
KdSynt §19; Ges-K §135f. In the Vulg. rm nbl is not translated and 35:34
forms one clause with 35:33b (see above): dedit in corde eius ..., ‘(all th a t...)
he put into his heart...’
35:35; 36:1 DnN, who are meant? Bezalel and Oholiab135 or the craftsmen
implicitly mentioned in 35:34? (including Oholiab; see above Klostermann).
135 So explicitly Vulg. (cf. 35:34): ambos erudivit sapientia, ‘both he taught expertise.’
Volume III1
364 EXODUS 31:1-6A ; 3 5 :3 0 -3 6 :7
Likely the other craftsmen are included in Dntt (cf. 36:1). For the various skills
see the introduction.
Sam.Pent.: nitbinai. LXX has a more extensive text in 35:35 (beside 35:35a
see 35:31a), which in part deviates from the order in MT (cf. Frankel*, 105);
no mention is made of ‘blue and red purple.’
36:1, the closing sentence of Moses’s speech contains the conclusion based
on the arguments adduced in 35:30-35. rttsin is rendered in LXX (kcci euovoe)
and Vulg. {fecit ergo) as if there were an imperf. cons, (see also Pesh., TPsJ):
‘Thus he made ...’ (cf. SV, LuthV). The chapter division is based on this
wrong interpretation. The assumed object of n©171 is mentioned by name in the
second half of 36:1: ‘all kinds of work ...’ mn\..n»K, LXX: q> e660q. For the
qualities of the craftsmen see 31:3; 35:31. n m b , cf. KoSynt §332q; Williams
§274. nona (Sam.Pent.: ana, before naan), further only in 30:4; Hab. 1:16
(Ges-K §103g). tfnpn m ai? n attb irb a (see Introd. §3.37.4 and 12:16), see the
enumeration in 35:10-19. bab, see e.g. Ges-K §143e; Williams §273.
36:2 Now that Moses has explained the choice of the individuals who are
chaiged with the construction of the sanctuary - YHWH himself has designated
them by giving them special talents - the moment has arrived to call them
together and to put them to work.
to p , see Introd. §3.45.1. *?a, LXX: kcci navxag = *?31 (a new category is
introduced). For the second see 35:22. XtoJ + a 1?, see at 25:2. Only the
craftsmen who are willing to work pro deo, donating their talents as ‘offer
ings,’ are welcome, n aip b (Ges-K §45d; see 3:5), Sam.Pent.: a"lpb.
naipb...ba is in Vulg. translated with et qui sponte sua obtulerunt se, ‘and
those who had offered their services freely’ (before Moses had called them
they had already let it be known they were available).
36:3-5 npb, see Introd. §3.30. It is assumed that the craftsmen have come to
Moses and are prepared to take on the job. From Moses they receive the
collected materials to build the sanctuary and equipment with them, n o n n , see
25:2. DH, the Israelites. 1117, see 2:3. rta u , see 25:2. Ip a, see 7:15.
The offerings just keep coming to Moses. It is assumed that he always turns
them over to the craftsmen or invites them to come to him and pick them up.
Differentlty LXX: the artisans get the offerings from those who bring them in
the morning (cf. also Vulg.).
tf'Krtf’N, see Introd. §3.2.2. non, Sam.Pent.: OH. nattbo-ba (36:4), in LXX
ba is not translated. In Vulg., 36:4 is given a free translation: unde artifices
venire compulsi, ‘Therefore the craftsmen were compelled to come.’
n a to i, Sam.Pent.: n a i ’l (Introd. §3.12.1); LXXB: kcci eutev, ‘and he said’
(every craftsman?); LXXA: kcci citcccv. nan hiph., see 1:7; cf. K6Synt §399m;
Ges-K §114n; Joiion §141h. cstr. st. (Ges-K §93aa) of n (OT ca. 40*),
Volume III1
THE SHRINE AND THE PLACE OF ATONEMENT 365
‘sufficiency,’ which occurs mainly in construct state or with suffix (see 36:7);
here used with IP comparativus (e.g. KflSynt §308b; Ges-K §133a,b). Also in
6:5, Vulg. offers a simple version: dixerm t Mosi plus offert populus quam
necessarium est.
36:6, 7 ntfa lS’1, what Moses commanded is not mentioned (cf. KdSynt
§369k); it must be inferred from what follows. It could be the command to the
Israelites mentioned in the second half of the verse; it could also be an order to
the craftsmen to go through the camp, proclaiming the message for the
Israelites found in the second part of the verse, blp 1T31T1 (see 12:12; Introd.
§3.51.2), is the subject perhaps indefinite? (e.g. Joiion §155b). Could it be that
not further identified criers went through the camp? Or are the craftsmen the
subject? The last suggestion, I believe, deserves serious consideration. LXX:
Kai etcfjpuêv, ‘and he (Moses) made known.’ In Vulg. *i»Kb...ls,l is translated
with: iussit ergo Moses praeconis voce cantari, ‘Therefore Moses commanded
to announce with herald voice.’
runo, see 13:20. ntfNl tf’K, cf. 35:22-26. 1&»\ Sam.Pent.: ntffJ?**.
(Sam.Pent.: b3’l, of [see 5:13]), imperf. cons. niph. (cf. Gen. 8:2; Ezek.
31:15) of (OT 16x), ‘to restrain.’ See TWAT, IV, 153ff. The enthusiasm
and readiness to give were so tremendous that the leadership had to do some
thing to stop the flow of donations. For that an official prohibition was needed.
D’t (see 36:5), the suffix refers to the craftsmen, or possibly to the work at
hand. *?3 is not translated in LXX. m in i (see 10:5), infinitive absolute as con
tinuation of the finite verb nrvn (KoSynt §§218a, 402f; Ges-K §113z; Joiion
§123r). Sam.Pent.: ITTiim, ‘in fact, they had left over from it’ (cf. LXX,
SamT). Also 36:7 is given a free rendering in the Vulg.: eo quod oblata suf-
ficerent et superabundarent, ‘because what had been contributed was enough
and more than enough.’
4.5 THE SHRINE AND THE PLACE OF ATONEMENT WITH THE

CHERUBIM (25:10-22; 37:1-9)
25:10-22; 37:1-9 does not describe a single object consisting of two parts - the
impression given by the Masoretic division of the text. Rather it describes two
separate objects, each with its own function, which are only related in the sense
that the first serves as carrier for the second. The second object is the most
important. The description of the first comes first, because it is to form ‘the
base’ for the second, the most important object, the most sacred spot on earth,
the center of the sanctuary.
Volume III1
366 EXODUS 2 5 :1 0 -2 2 ; 3 7 :1 -9
4.5.1 The shrine (25:10-16; 37:1-5)
25:10 ‘(Then command them) to 37:1 Bezalel made the shrine, of

make a shrine o f acacia wood. Its accacia wood. Its length was two
length must be two and a h alf cu and a half cubit, its width a cubit
bits, the width a cubit and a half, and a half, and the height also a
and the height also a cubit and a cubit and a half.
half
11 You shall overlay it with pure 2 He overlaid it with pure gold,
gold, inside and outside you shall inside and outside. In addition, he
overlay it. In addition, you shall made an ornamental frame of gold
make an ornamental frame o f gold around it.
around it.
12 Four gold rings you shall cast 3 Four gold rings he cast for it,
fo r it. You shall attach them to its (for attaching) to the four feet, that
four feet, that is, two rings on its is, two rings on its one side and
one side and two rings on its other two rings on its other side.
side.
13 You shall also make (carry 4 He also made (carrying) poles
ing) poles o f accacia wood and of accacia wood and overlaid them
overlay them with gold. with gold.
14 The poles you shall put in the 5 The poles he put in the rings
rings on the sides o f the shrine in on the sides of the shrine in such a
such a way that they make it possi way that the shrine could be car
ble fo r the shrine to be carried. ried.
15 Therefore the poles must sit
firm ly in the rings o f the shrine.
They may not become detached
from it.
16 In the shrine you shall place
the constitution which I will give
you. ’
4.5.1.1 Bibl. (for the most part of recent date): TfVAT, I, 391ff. (literature cited
there is only cited here if reference is made to it in the discussion below);
G.W. AhlstrOm, “The Travels of the Ark: A Religio-Political Composition,”
JNES 43 (1984), 141-9; W.R. Arnold, Ephod and Ark, Cambridge, Mas. 1917;
J.P Brown, “The Ark of the Covenant and the Temple of Janus: The Magico-
Military Numen of the State in Jerusalem and Rome,” BZ 30 (1986), 20-35; K.
Budde, “Wfcr die Lade Jahwes ein leerer Thron?,” ThStKr 79 (1906), 489-507;
Busink (see 4.2.1), 276ff.; G.W. Coats, “The Ark of the Covenant in Joshua: A
Probe into the History of a Tradition,” HAR 9 (1985), 137-57; P.R. Davies,
Volume III1
“The History of the Ark in the Books of Samuel,” JNSL 5 (1977), 9-18; M.
Dibelius, Die Lade Jahves: Eine religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung, Gottin
gen 1906; J. Dus, “Zur bewegten Geschichte der israelitischen Lade,” Annali
41 (1981), 351-83; M. G6rg, “Die Lade als Thronsockel,” BN 1 (1976), 29-30;
idem, “Zur ‘Lade des Zeugnisses’,” BN 2 (1977), 13-5; H. GreBmann, Die
Lade Jahves und das Allerheiligste des salomonischen Tempels, Berlin 1920;
O. Heinemann, “Die ‘Lade’ aus Akazienholz- Sgyptische Wurzeln eines
israelitischen Kultobjekts?,” BN 80 (1995), 32-40; C. Houtman, K. van der
Toom, “David and the Ark,” JBL 113 (1994), 209-31; J.J. Jackson, “The Ark
and its Making,” HBT 17 (1995), 117-22; J. Jeremias, “Lade und Zion: Zur
Entstehung der Ziontradition,” in Probleme biblischer Theologie (Fs G. von
Rad), Mttnchen 1971, 183-98; J. Maier, Das altisraelitische Ladeheiligtum,
Berlin 1965; Mettinger (see \fol. I, 59), 19ff.; Otto, Mazzotfest (\fol. II, 146),
199ff., 344ff.; G. von Rad, “Zelt und Lade,” in Ges. Studien zum AT, Mttnchen
1961, 109-29; R. Schmitt, Zelt und Lade als Thema alttestamentlicher Wissen-
schaft, Gtttersloh 1972 (with extensive information on the history of interpreta
tion); C.L. Seow, Myth, Drama and the Politic’s o f Davidb Dance, Atlanta
1989; K.A.D.Smelik, “The Ark Narrative Reconsidered,” OTS 25 (1989), US-
44; R. de Vhux, “Les ch6rubins et l’arche d’alliance, les sphinx gardiens et les
trones divins dans l’Ancien Orient,” in Bible et Orient, Paris 1967, 231-59;
M.H. Woudstra, The Ark o f the Covenant from Conquest to Kingship, Philadel
phia 1965.
4.5.1.2 As a sacred object the shrine is repeatedly mentioned in the OT. In
view of the central position of the shrine among the furnishings of the tent
shrine, below I offer a succinct overview of the data on the shrine outside
Exodus and the passages - usually attributed to P - related to Exodus (Lev.
16:2; Num. 3:31; 4:5; 7:89). My immediate concern is not to present a history
of the shrine, but to give an impression of the form, function and character of
the shrine and concepts associated with it.
First a look at the terms that are used for the shrine. in $ (OT ca. 220*; 26x
Exod.; ca. 30* Josh.; ca. 40* 1 Sam.; ca. 20* 2 Sam.; ca. 35* 1 Chr.), which
in the OT is predominantly used as a term for a cultic object, denotes a chest, a
shrine.136 This is evident from the few passages in which it stands for a secular
object (Gen. 50:26; 2 Kgs. 12:10, 11; 2 Chr. 24:8, 10, 11) and from the
sporadic passages that are about the making of the ynx (Exod. 25:10ff.;
37:Iff.; Deut. 10:1, 3).
In English ‘ark’ is the customary rendering of the Herbrew ynK. The word
‘ark’ is also used to translate npB in Gen. 6:14 etc., the term used for Noah’s
136 Cf. D. Marcus, “The Term ‘Coffin’ in the Semitic Languages,” JANES 7 (1975), 85-94.
Volume III1
368 EXODUS 2 5 :1 0 -2 2 ; 3 7 :1 -9
boat. The use of ‘ark’ for two different objects goes back to the Vulg.137 and
ultimately to the LXX.138 The Pesh. uses the term qbwt’ for the shrine. The
taigums and SamT have retained the Hebrew terminology, with the exception
of Gen. 50:26 in TPsJ and FT (ttnpOI^J = yA-ooGooKopov).
As nomen regens ynx is found in a variety of construct chains.
(1) D’nbBO?) li -18 (OT ca. 40*) (1 Sam. 3:3; 4:4, 11, 13, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22;
5:1, 2, 10[2*]; 2 Sam. 6:2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 12[2*] etc.).
(2) l l ^ 1*116? (1 Sam. 5:7, 8[2*], 10, 11; 6:3).
(3) m.T 1VH} (ca. 35*) (Josh. 3:13; 4:5, 11; 6:6, 7, 11, 12,13(2*); 7:6;
1 Sam. 4:6; 5:3, 4; 6:1, 2, 8, 11, 15, 18, 19, 21; 7:1[2*]; 2 Sam. 6:9, 10, 11,
13, 15, 16, 17 etc.).
(4) n ’i s n 1*116! (Josh. 3:6[2*], 8, 11; 4:9; 6:6).
(5) m f i T n ? 1*116! (ca. 30*) (Num. 10:33; 14:14; Deut. 10:8; 31:9, 25, 26;
Josh. 3:3; 4:7, 18; 6:8; 8:33; 1 Sam. 4:3, 4, 5 etc.).
(6) Q’nbKri m i? 1*I16| (Judg. 20:27; 2 Sam. 15:24; 1 Chr. 16:6).
With m a n yiiN and mm m ia in tt are meant the shrine which contained the
tablets inscribed with the duties YHWH had imposed on Israel, namely the deca
logue (cf. Deut. 10:1-5), the words which YHWH himself had spoken to Israel
and written with his own finger (Deut. 10:2).139
(7) nil?!? lilfi see 16:34.
4.5.1.3 The above overview shows that the various terms are used randomly.
For example, in Josh. 3-4 ynN, mm m a n iiin and m n 'T in a in n are used;
in Josh. 6 mm in « , n n a n jiik and mm n n a in « ; in 1 Sam. 4-6
o m ^ r t ) in x , mb# in « , mm in « and m r r m ia in « , and in 2 Sam. 6
D’nbttOl) 1HK en mrp lin t. Is the random use due to editing of the text? It is
not impossible. Illustrative in this connection is a comparison of 2 Sam. 6:12-
17 with the parallel 1 Chr. 15:25-16:1: DMbttn 111K (2 Sam. 6:12) and mm
1HN (2 Sam. 6:13, 15, 16, 17) are in 1 Chr. 15:25, 26, 28, 29; 16:1 replaced
by m n’- n n a in x .140
Remarkable is the addition of the element n n a to the designation in 1 Chr.
15. May one assume that also in e.g. Josh. 3-4; 6 and 1 Sam. 4-6, m i3 got
area in Gen. 6:14 etc.; Exod. 25:10 etc.; in Gen. 50:26 however loculus, in 2 Kgs. 12:10,
11 gazophylacium, but in the parallel 2 Chr. 24:8, 10, 11 area.
138 KiPurot; in Gen. 6:14 etc.; Exod. 25:10 etc.; in Gen 50:26 however t; oopo<; and in
2 Chr. 24:8, 10, 11 to yAiocooKopov (cf. 2 Sam. 6:11 in LXXA); the last term in Aq. in Gen.
50:26; Exod. 25:10 etc.; r\ kiPcotoc; in Aq. in Gen. 6:16; Exod. 2:3 (nan); Josh. 4:5; 1 Sam.
14:18.
139 For nna (see 2:24) as designation of the decalogue see Deut. 4:13; 5:2, 3, 5-21; for nna
as designation of nnan n'mb (Deut. 9:9, 11, 15) see 1 Kgs. 8:21; cf. the use of nnc for
n i» nnb, see 16:34.
140 See beside it the use of m n' in x in 1 Chr. 15:3 (cf. 15:12, 14) and o f c n b a n ;n x in
1 Chr. 15:1, 2[2*], 15, 24.
Volume III1
into the text as a result of editing? Was the expansion of the term by adding
n n a intended as a reinterpretation of the meaning and function of the shrine?
It has been argued that the shrine in Deuteronomy has been demythologized
and become no more them a repository of the tablets with the decalogue (Deut.
10).141 Presumably due to editing of existing traditions about the shrine, the
Deuteronomic conception also gained acceptance elsewhere and obscured the
older conception of the shrine.
In short, we face the question whether, historically speaking, a distinction
should be made between mnVo’nbxn put on the one hand and
n’ta n /m m v n p"ix on the other. If the answer should be affirmative, a
related question is that concerning the pre-Deuteronomic meaning and function
of the shrine. In this connection I note that it is also held that, historically
speaking, also O’nbxn yntt and m m put should be distinguished. Presumably
D’nbttn p ix would be the oldest term (for O’nbxn see Introd. §7.2.3) and
designate an originally Canaanite cultic object which, after adoption into
Israel’s cult, could also be called m n’ p ix (e.g. Westphal*, 85ff.; \fon Rad,
120ff.).
4.5.1.4 These questions about the meaning and function of the shrine compel
us to take a closer look at the passages in which the shrine figures prominently.
First off, it can be noted that in these passages there is often a close connection
between the presence of the shrine and the presence of y h w h himself (see
Josh. 3-4; 6; 1 Sam. 3-6; 2 Sam. 6). Eye-catching is also the following: a
prayer can be uttered in front of the shrine (e.g. Josh. 7:6); various forms of
worship happen before the shrine (e.g. Josh. 8:3Iff.; 2 Sam. 6:13ff.; 1 Kgs.
3:15; 8:5; 1 Chr. 16:1). In passages in which the shrine plays a role,
mn’ ’jab is the same as m n’ pnx ’jab (e.g. Judg. 20:26, 27; Josh. 6:6, 8;
1 Sam. 6:14f.; 2 Sam. 6:4f., 13f., 17; 1 Chr. 16:1, 4, 6, 37). Worship before
the shrine is the same as worshiping YHWH (1 Chr. 15:2; 16:37; cf. Deut.
10:8). Presence of ‘the living God among you’ (Josh. 3:10) is equivalent to the
presence of ‘the shrine of the covenant of the Lord of all the earth’ (Josh. 3:11;
cf. also Num. 14:42-44). All in all, the shrine is pretty much the equivalent of
the image in other religions (see 1.3.8). In 1 Sam. 5:2-4 the shrine is placed
beside the statue of Dagon.142
Was there an identification of the shrine and YHWH? Such is not the case, as
141 E.g. Dibelius, 29f.; \fon Rad, 112; the latter also speaks o f ‘rationalization’ and ‘demytholo
gization,’ ThAT, I, 251 (YHWH dwells in heaven and in only with his ‘name’ present in the
sanctuary).
142 For the use of standards and images to represent the deity on military campaigns and in
processions in Israel’s ‘Umwelt,’ see T.W. Mann, Divine Presence and Guidance in Israelite
Traditions: The Typology o f Exaltation, Baltimore and London 1977, 74ff., 95f.; also O. EiBfeldt,
“Lade und Stierbild,” ZAW 58 (1940-41), 190-215 (208ff.).
Volume III1
370 EXODUS 2 5 :1 0 -2 2 ; 3 7 :1 -9
a closer look at the texts will show. I single out a few points. A number of
passages give the impression that the shrine was a powerful object, a fetish
(because of its contents? see 4.5.1.8), the source of destructive and blessing
power. Thus in Josh. 3-4 the shrine has a similar function as Mozes’s rod in
Exod. 14 and Elijah’s mantle in 2 Kgs. 2 (cf. Introd. §§12.6.6; 3.21.11). The
writers of the OT make it cleai; however that it is a mistake to think that the
presence of the shrine automatically guarantees the presence of God’s divine
power. The one moment it can be a powerless object (1 Sam. 4:3ff.), and only
a short time later a veritable powerhouse (1 Sam. 5-6). Whether it exudes
power or not is entirely up to YHWH.
YHWH is not tied to the shrine, as is evident from e.g. 1 Sam. 3. Unquestion
ably there is a connection between the presence of the shrine (v. 3) and
YHWH’s appearance to Samuel. But it is also a fact that YHWH’s appearance in
person is not dependent on the presence of the shrine (w. 10, 21). All in all,
the shrine and YHWH are not the same. It is ‘the incarnation of Yahweh’s
sovereign power and will’ (Pedersen*, III-IV, 233), an ‘“extension” of Yah
weh’s extraordinarily powerful Personality’ (Johnson*, One, 19). The shrine
represents YHWH.
4.5.1.5 The fact that the shrine symbolizes YHWH’s presence, without being
identified with him, has led to the theory that the shrine was the portable
throne o f the invisible God. YHWH could sit down on it as it pleased him. The
thesis has gained acceptance especially through Dibelius (1906). Already before
him it had been suggested that the shrine might be a divine throne. However,
in the mind of not a few, he was so successful in combining the available
religio-historical data (Dibelius, 59ff.) with the interpretation of the OT that a
large number of exegetes came to accept the thesis, with or without modifica
tions.143
The theory is open to serious question; already in 1906 it was sharply
criticized by K. Budde (see further e.g. Maier, 54ff.). Some points deserve a
closer look.
Dibelius (pp. 20ff., 72ff.) believes that cherubim were attached to the shrine
and that they constituted the seat of YHWH. For that he appeals to 1 Sam. 4:4;
2 Sam. 6:2. However, the fact that the epithet 0,3^?n agf’ , commonly taken to
mean ‘he who is enthroned upon the cherubim’ (see also 2 Kgs. 19:15; Ps.
80:2), is used with respect to YHWH, offers no basis for drawing the conclusion
E.g. GreBmann*, Mose, 230, 245, 352ff„ 449f., 459; \fon Rad (see 4.5.1.1), 113ff.; idem*,
ThAT, 249ff.; H.-J. Kraus, Theologie der Psalmen, Neukirchen-Vluyn 1979, 89f., 92, 109f.; Dus
(see 4.5.1.1); see also 4.5.1.7. Also the images of the bull calves of Jeroboam have been said to
be bearers of the invisible God. Presumably, as such they were counterparts of the shrine (see
5.2.2.6). On the basis of other comparative religio-historical materials also quite different
interpretations of the shrine have been defended; see in Schmitt, 8Iff.
Volume III1
that the cherubim were ‘an der Lade’ (cf. e.g. Woudstra, 64ff.) - the shrine
represents the deity who has the epithet 0 ’3 " D n a t f ’ a fortiori not because in
other passages where the cherubim are mentioned in connection with the
shrine, they are not the seat of YHWH (see 4.5.2).
Also Num. 10:35f. shows that it is better to take the shrine as an object that
represents YHWH instead of as his seat. The ‘arise’ (v. 35) and the ‘return’ (v.
36) are hard to reconcile with the conception of the shrine as a throne. For it is
quite unlikely that Moses would ask YHWH to arise from his throne whenever
the throne was taken up and carried forward etc. If Moses’s words are regarded
as ‘sacramental’ words which accompany a ‘sacramental’ act, the passage
becomes meaningful: gesture and word are intended to move God, represented
by the shrine, to action (cf. Ps. 132:8; 2 Chr. 6:41; see also 2 Kgs. 19:15; Ps.
80:2).144 As indicated (see 4.5.1.4), the ‘sacrament’ does not work ex opere
operato (cf. 1 Sam. 4).
4.5.1.6 Can Jer. 3:16f. be quoted as a witness in support of Dibelius’s
conception (pp. 27f.)? True, there the shrine is not explicitly called ‘throne of
YHWH.’ But on the assumption that a contrast is intended one could argue that
it is now no longer y h w h ’s shrine, but Jerusalem that functions as YHWH’s
throne.145 In Jer. 3:17 ‘throne of YHWH’ is a metaphor. As metaphor, ‘throne’
occurs more often for Jerusalem/Zion or the sanctuary there (Jer. 14:21; 17:12;
Ezek. 43:7; cf. also Ps. 93:2; Isa. 66:1, and see Exod. 17:16a). The expression
was a more or less familiar metaphor for the place of YHWH’s presence. As a
term for the shrine, literally or as metaphor, it is not known in the OT. These
considerations argue against the presence of such a contrast in Jer. 3:16f.
What is true is that in the OT the shrine is called the footstool of God
(1 Chr. 28:2). The same expression is used in Lam. 2:1 in reference to the
sanctuary/Zion, and in Isa. 66:1 in reference to the earth (not the sanctuary but
the earth is y h w h ’s footstool). As to Pss. 99:5 and 132:7, it is debatable
whether the expression there refers to the sanctuary (cf. Ps. 99:9) or to the
shrine. In all instances it is a metaphor for expressing the presence of YHWH
(cf. 1 Kgs. 8:27 and see Houtman*, Himmel, 367f.). The expression does not
support the proposition that the shrine is a throne. It is the fruit of theological
reflection on the question concerning the nature of the presence of YHWH in the
sanctuary. In 1 Chr. 28:2 the shrine is symbol of the presence of YHWH, but
not the representative of YHWH. YHWH transcends the sanctuary.
4.5.1.7 The thesis that the shrine is a throne is particularly doubtful on
account of the use of the term Dibelius and others have no argument
144 But see Meyer*, IN, 215; Auerbach*, 134f.

145 See e.g. M. Wsinfeld, “Jeremiah and the Spiritual Metamorphosis o f Israel,” ZAW 88
(1976), 17-56 (pp. 19fF.).
Volume III1
372 EXODUS 2 5 :1 0 -2 2 ; 3 7 :1 -9
against the objection that it offers no good explanation for the use of the term
‘chest’ as a name for the ‘throne’ (Dibelius, 94ff.: the throne is a ‘Kasten-
throne’). By contrast, the term fits the use of the shrine as repository of the
tablets (Exod. 25:16, 21; Deut. 10:2, 5). However, according to Dibelius et al.
that conception is a later development (see 4.5.1.3). \bn Rad’s suggestion (see
4.5.1.1), 118, 124 (cf. idem*, ThAT, I, 250 n. 15, 251) that the name ‘chest’
points to the use of the shrine as container before it came to be looked upon as
a throne (cf. already Meyer*, IN, 214) - in Deut. 10 the old conception is
revived - is contrived.
It has been attempted to remove the terminological difficulty by combining
the conception of the shrine as repository with that of it being a throne: the
shrine is both repository and footstool; the cherubim are the seat.146 It combines
into one conception what in Dibelius et al. are two successive phases in a
historical development: the shrine is throne, the shrine is repository.
As an aside, I note that Otto has contended that qua origin these conceptions
are parallel conceptions: the sanctuary at Gilgal housed the m a n 1T>R, the
storage container of two tablets on which were inscribed the text of the cultic
decalogue (see however O. Loretz, UF 9 [1977], 159-61); the sanctuary at
Shiloh housed the shrine with which were associated the epithets niR}? nin’
and D’anan a t f v This shrine was regarded as throne of y h w h . At the time of
David and Solomon the two conceptions became blended into one.147
Also when it comes to the conception that the shrine with the cherubim was
both repository and throne, the terminological objection retains its cogency.
Besides, in the narrative parts of the OT the shrine is a holy chest, an object
representing YHWH, not the throne of an invisible God. There are no indica
tions that cherubim were attached to the shrine. According to Exod. 25:17ff.
they were installed on the n")S3, which as a holy object must, however, is to
be distinguished from the shrine (see 4.5.2).
4.5.1.8 The name ‘chest’ implies that the shrine was meant as storage
144 See the conceptions (not identical) of e.g. Pedersen*, II1-IV, 244ff., 691f.; Buber*, 178,
186ff.; Auerbach*, 129ff.; De Vaux (see 4.5.1.1); idem*, II, 140ff; Mettinger, 19ff.
147 For the idea that there were more shrines, see further Schmitt, 168ff., and 4.5.1.9; in an
effort to harmonize the textual data, already previously it was suggested that there were two
shrines. In older exegesis the discrepancy between Num. 10:21 and Num. 10:33 (see 4.5.1.10)
produced the supposition that there were two shrines (e.g. in Wmdstra, 91); for two shrines, one
with the broken (32:19) and one with the new tablets (34:4), in rabbinic exegesis see M. Petit,
“Le contenu de l’arche d’alliance,” in Hellenica et Judaica (Hommage & V. Nikiprowetzky),
Leuven 1986, 335-46; the discrepancy between Deut. 10:1-5 (shrine and tablets are produced at
the same time) and Exod. 34; 37 (the shrine is made after the plates were ready) has led to the
view that the shrine of Deut. 10 is not identical with the one in Exod. 25; 37 - p u t in the SV is
in Deut. translated with ‘kist’ (’chest’) and in Exod. 25; 37 with ‘ark’ - , but a provisional
receptacle (e.g. in Woudstra, 96f.).
Volume III1
containec According to the information provided in the OT, the shrine con
tained the stone tablets with the decalogue.148 How realistic is this story?
Wouldn’t one expect the tablets with regulations to be on public display instead
of being stored away out of sight? Is the OT conception based on reinterpreta
tion? Did the shrine originally contain other objects?149
These questions have been answered in the affirmative. With respect to the
original contents of the shrine there are divergent views. Stade* (pp. 43ffi, 73,
116ff., 351): YHWH was present in the shrine in stones (fetishes); H. Hack-
mann:150 one or more stones from the holy mountain, which represented the
mountain(god), were carried in the shrine; that way the disaster-averting power
of the mountain could also elsewhere do its work; Bertholet* (p. 99): in the
shrine there were two meteorites; GreBmann {Lade, 22ff., 44, 64f., 88): in the
shrine there was an image of YHWH (a statue of a bull; a Baal image) and his
consort (Astarte or another goddess); Holzinger (p. 123): the shrine contained
stones for casting the lot (see 4.5.1.9); Benzinger* (pp. 312 n. 1, 314): it
contained ‘Schicksalstafeln’ (for critique see Konig*, GAR, 245f., 259f.); R.H.
Kennett (ERE, I, 792ffi): the copper serpent (Num. 21:8, 9; 2 Kgs. 18:4) -
originally even a live snake - was in it; Davenport (see 5.2.2.1), 122ff.: the
shrine contained a bull statue of gold.151
As is evident, there is no way to get beyond speculation. What can be es
tablished is that the term in x presupposes that there was something inside the
shrine and that it is not likely that YHWH was represented by an empty chest.
The narratives in which the shrine occupies a central place (Josh. 3-4 etc.)
are silent on its form and contents. The terms that are employed (‘shrine of the
covenant’ etc.) show that for the writers of the text in its current form the
shrine was the repository of the tablets. The description of the shrine as ‘shrine
of the covenant’ leaves the function of the shrine, representation of YHWH,
untouched. There is no question of demythologization (see 4.5.1.3). Therefore
it is doubtful whether the shrine in Deut. 10 ‘was just a chest.’ More likely, to
the writer of Deuteronomy, though he does not mention the shrine as symbol
of YHWH’s presence,152 it was nonetheless an extremely sacred object. The very
148 See Exod. 25:16, 21; Deut. 10:2, 5; 1 Kgs. 8:9, 21; differently Heb. 9:4; cf. Exod. 16:33f.;
Num. 17:10; according to rabbinnic view (e.g. TPsJ op 40:20) the shrine contained both the new
and the broken tablets; according tot Pseudo-Philo, XXVI, 4, 13, 15, the shrine contained the
same stones as were attached to the breastpiece (28:15-21); see Petit (see above).
149 On the use of the shrine as repositoiy of holy objects (cf. the Roman Catholic relic cases) in
antiquity see e.g. Dibelius, 87ff.; LA, V, 709ff.; for the synagogal Torah shrine see e.g. BRL,
327ff.; E.R. Goodenough, Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period, IV, New York 1954, 99ff.
150 “Der Inhalt der Lade Jahve’s,” NThT 22 (1933), 23-35.
151 For yet other conceptions see Schmitt, 98ff.
152 See e.g. beside each other Num. 14:42-44 and Deut. 1:42, 43, and Num. 10:33 and Deut.
1:33; cf. also Lev. 26:Ilf. beside Deut. 23:15.
Volume III1
374 EXODUS 2 5 :1 0 -2 2 ; 3 7 :1 -9
fact that the tablets were inside the shrine thus highlights and assures the divine
character of the laws (cf. also Deut. 31:26). It is known that in the ancient
Near East there existed the practice of placing documents in the sanctuary in
the care of - sometimes it is said ‘under the feet of’ - the deity. Hence the
practice described in Deuteronomy is no anomaly. See e.g. De \hux (see
4.5.1.1), 255ff. The ‘under the feet of’ he takes as an argument in support of
the thesis that the shrine was a footstool (see 4.5.1.7).
4.5.1.9 Was the shrine also used for consulting YHWH? Earlier already
reference was made to the point of view that originally the shrine contained
stones for casting lots (see 4.5.1.8). In support of a divining function of the
shrine one could point to Judg. 20:27 and 1 Sam. 14:18f. 1 Sam. 14:18 is a
disputed text. Often the MT is regarded as corrupt, with the LXX reading
‘ephod’ being substituted for ‘shrine of God’ (similarly in 1 Kgs. 2:26 without
support from the LXX). Arnold, however, has argued that ‘shrine’ is the
original text in 1 Sam. 14:18, and that in all other passages that speak of the
so-called ‘solid ephod‘ (see 4.12.2) the original reading was ‘shrine.’ He
contends that the picture presented in the OT - Israel had one special shrine -
is wrong. In ancient Israel every sanctuary with a consecrated priesthood had a
shrine, a box with stones for casting lots, to be carried by one priest. Also
others favour ‘shrine’ over ‘ephod’ in 1 Sam. 14:18.153 Davies believes that as
a result of harmonization of disparate traditions - the shrine is stationed in
Kiriath-jearim (1 Sam. 7:1; 2 Sam. 6) and therefore could not be in Shiloh
(1 Sam. 14:3) or elsewhere - the shrine in the books of Samuel has been
replaced by the (solid) ephod.154
As I see it, the MT of 1 Sam. 14:18 is indeed to be preferred over the LXX
(harmonization). Favouring the MT implies that one must assume that piK can
also refer to a sacred chest, which was used for obtaining oracles and whose
shape and dimensions were such that it could be carried by one person (cf.
1 Kgs. 2:26). In light of the affinity between 1 Sam. 14:18; 1 Kgs. 2:26 on the
one side and 1 Sam. 2:28; 14:3; 21:10; 23:6,9; 30:7 on the other, it is obvious
that in 1 Sam. 2:28 etc. one should read ‘shrine’ or that the ‘solid ephod’
served a similar purpose as the shrine of 1 Sam. 14:18 (see further 4.12.2.9).
4.5.1.10 Some details of the shrine deserve further attention. The OT does
not say much about its size and the materials of which it was made. Exod.
25:10-15/37:1-5 gives the most details. Only there the measurements are given.
Additionally, the kind of wood used for it is mentioned (also in Deut. 10:1, 3);
also, there the shrine is described as an object that was constructed in such a
153 E.g. P.R. Davies, “Ark or Ephod in I Sam. XIV. 18?,” JThS 26 (1975), 82-7; A. Bartal,
BetM 26 (1981), 305-8.
154 Cf. idem, JNSL 5 (1977), 14ff; Ahlstrftm, 145.
Volume III1
way that it could be carried (also in 1 Kgs. 8:7f.). That the shrine was overlaid
with gold is only mentioned in Exod. 25/37.155 That it was a portable object is
evident form a number of things. It was carried by cultic officials,156157 and
evidently that was the only safe way to move it (cf. 2 Sam. 6:3ff.; see however
also 1 Sam. 6:7ff.). In line with that, in Exod. 25:1 Off.; 1 Kgs. 8:7f.; 1 Chr.
15:15 the shrine is described as an object that was meant to be portable.
According to Num. 4:5f. it was not allowed to move the shrine without a
covering, but only when it was properly wrapped and protected. Nowhere else
is anything said about a cover for the shrine. From Num. 4 one gets the
impression that the shrine could only be moved when the tent shrine was taken
down, and that as long as the tent shrine stands it has to remain inside.
Elsewhere it is suggested that under certain circumstances (e.g. in moments of
crisis) the shrine could be taken from it (e.g. 1 Sam. 4:3ff.; 2 Sam. 15:24ff.).
The shrine of 1 Sam. 4 etc. is portable so that it could represent YHWH at
different places (see also e.g. Num. 10:33ff.; 14:42ff.). The shrine of the
sanctuary of Exod. 25-40 is portable because it is part o f the furnishings o f a
moveable sanctuary. According to Num. 10:21 it was not carried at the head
(Num. 10:33) of the traveling caravan, but with the other sacred objects
somewhere in the middle. Not the shrine but the cloud gives the signal for
leaving (40:36f.).
Of the shrine it is related in 1 Kgs. 8:6ff. that it was placed in Solomon’s
temple. On its fate after that the books of Kings are silent (for suggestions see
e.g. DB, I, 150; IDB, I, 224; TWAT, I, 403f.). In the books of Chronicles the
shrine is mentioned in connection with Josiah. However, the passage in
question (2 Chr. 35:3) is hard to understand. In Jer. 3:16 the shrine is men
tioned, but that does not mean that in the time of Jeremiah it was still part of
the furnishings of the temple. Haran*, 277ff., believes that Manasseh placed an
image of Asherah in the shrine and that at the time of Josiah the shrine no
longer existed (2 Kgs. 21:7; 23:6). Later tradition (including 2 Macc. 2:4f.) has
it that the shrine, along with other holy objects, at the destruction of the temple
in 586 was put in safety by the prophet Jeremiah.151 According to Josephus
155 Precious metal was also used for the making of the ephod (=shrine?) o f Judg. 8:27; 17-18;
see 2.12.2.
156 See Deut. 10:8; 31:9, 25; Josh. 3-4 (3:3, 6 etc.); 6:6, 12 etc.; 1 Sam. 4:4; 2 Sam. 6:13;
15:24-29; 1 Kgs. 2:26; 1 Chr. 15:llfT.; 2 Chr. 35:3; according to 1 Sam. 14:18; 1 Kgs. 2:26 it
was carried by one cultic official (see 4.5.1.9).
157 See at 16:33 and F. Bdhl, “Die Legende vom \ferbergen der Lade,” FJB 4 (1976), 63-80;
M. Petit, “La cachette de Farche d’alliance; & partir de la Vie de J6remie 9-15 dans les Vitae
Prophetarum,” in La Literature intertestamentaire, Paris 1985, 119-131; Koester (see 4.2.1.),
48ff, 112ff., 175fF. Cf. also I. Kalimi, J.D. Purvis, “King Jehoiachin and the \fessels of the
Lord’s House in Biblical Literature,” CBQ 56 (1994), 449-57, and “The Hiding of the Temple
Vessels in Jewish and Samaritan Literature,” CBQ 56 (1994), 679-85. The Falashas cherish the
Volume III1
376 EXODUS 2 5 :1 0 -2 2 ; 3 7 :1 -9
(BJ, y 219) the Holy of Holies in the second temple was empty (cf. Busink,
1174ff.). In Rev. 11:19 the shrine is mentioned as part of the furnishings of the
heavenly sanctuary.
For final conclusions see 4.5.4.
25:10/37:1 For item see 25:8. For rabbinic exegesis of the plur. see e.g. ExR.,
XXXIV,2; Nachmanides; TzUR; Leibowitz*, 488f. In 37:1 Bezalel is men
tioned by name. Because the shrine is especially his work? (cf. Rashi). More
likely, because the final responsibility rested with him (see 4.4.1 and also 39:1;
cf. also Deut. 10:3 [Moses]). In 25:10 ling (cstr. st.) is used; in 37:1 I'aîa
(abs. st.); cf. 26:26; 36:31; 27:6; 38:6. In translations this minor difference is
usually ignored. LXX: kiPcdtov papruptov = rn # liltj (cf. 25:22 etc.). LXX
38(37):l-9 offers a short version.
The thickness of the wood to be used is not mentioned. In the wooden shrine
stone tablets are placed (25:16, 21). The contrast does not seem to be inten
tional, as is aigued by Jacob*, Pent., 159 (cf. Deut. 10:1).
25:11/37:2 fin a l jvao (Introd. §3.9.3; 12:46), also on the inside; naturally so,
on account of the contents (25:16, 21). For the rabbinic view that there were
three chests, two of gold and in between one of wood, see e.g. Rashi; Ginz-
beig*, III, 157.
*1! occurs in the OT only in (25:11, 24, 25; 30:3, 4 etc. [10x]), 8* followed
by the adjective a$J; the term is regarded as a derivative of ait (e.g. Ges-B;
BDB) or aat (e.g. KoW; KBL) and taken to mean ‘wreath,’ ‘frame.’ Cf.
already Vulg.: corona; TO: n ’t; TPsJ: V I; TNf, FTV: cf. Pesh. In LXX
25:10(11) 301 *l! is translated with Kupcma oTpeirca xpuoa, ‘golden woven
garland,’158 in 30:3 with oTpeirtfiv oie<|>avT)v xpuofjv, ‘woven golden wreath’
(cf. 30:4); for oTe<t>avT| as rendering of at see Symm. (37:2).
In LXX 25:24(25), 25(27) oteâvTi is used as translation of naa. Q0 (so also
Theod. 37:12, 14). The random use of labium, ‘rim,’ and corona in Vulg.
25:24f., 27; 37:1 If., 14, shows that earlier translators regarded at and najoo as
affinitive terms.159 naaoa (OT 17x), which usually is derived from aao I (e.g.
BDB; K8W; but see HAL), occurs in 25:25(2x), 27; 37:12(2x), 14 and 1 Kgs.
7:28ff. (see M.J. Mulder [HCOT 1998]) with the meaning ‘rim,’ ‘moulding.’
najOD is only used in connection with the table; at also in connection with the
tradition that the ark is in Ethiopia. See EJ, VI, 1151; E. Ullendorff, Ethiopia and the Bible,
London 1968, 26, 83.
158 Cf. LXX 25:23(24), 24(25); for Kupdxiov as rendering of IT see LXX 38(37):2 and Theod.
(37:11, 12); in CV "it is translated as ‘loofwerk’ (‘made of foliage’).
159 The use of the adjective interrasilis, ‘embossed,’ with corona in 25:25; 37:12 seems based
on the use of oxpenxoQ in the LXX.
Volume III1
shrine and altar of perfume. These have sides to which the IT, the ornamental
moulding, can be attached. Not the table. Therefore first an edge is to be made
around the table. Evidently it is to be made of wood. Both the edge and the
ornamental moulding add to the stability of the object. No information is given
about the thickness and width of the “it. In 25:25 the width of the m aoa is
stated. The use of the same ornamental moulding for different objects makes
for uniformity in style and a matching interior.
vbl? (25:11), some MSS, Sam.Pent.: lb (cf. 37:2 and see 25:24, 25); cf.
LXX, Pesh. Not clear is whether vbl? means on/at the upper edge (see Vulg.,
LuthV, Dasbeig) or (in the middle) on the sides (cf. 27:5). In the first case, it
it likely assumed that the edge prevented the n}B3 from sliding off the shrine
when it was being transported (cf. 25:21). Jacob*, Pent., 164f., believes that
the moulding was at the foot of the shrine and that the rings (25:12) were
attached to the moulding. This construction prevented direct touching of the
shrine. Downside of Jacob’s suggestion is the order of the description.
25:12/37:3 n»3B, plur. cstr. of nff3B (OT 48 x; 40x Exod.), a loan word from
the Egyptian (Ellenbogen*, 75; Th.O. Lambdin, JA O S73 [1953], 151). Outside
Exodus it is used for the (signet)ring, as a sign of power and as decoration
(Gen. 41:42; Num. 31:50; Isa. 3:21; Esth. 3:10 etc.); in Exodus, except for
35:22, it denotes a circular object which was attached for a variety of purposes:
for transporting the shrine and other pieces of the furniture of the sanctuary
(25:12 etc., 26f.; 27:4, 7; 30:4), for the construction of the sanctuary (26:24,
29), for attaching the breastpiece (28:23 etc.). No information is given about
the shape and the size. n»3B is translated in the LXX with 6 ocktuA.io <;; in the
Vulg. alternately with annulus (e.g. 27:4; 37:3, 5, 27; 38:5) and cinculus (e.g.
27:7; 37:13; 38:7).
nous, see 8:28; TWAT, VI, 704. the interpretation ‘comers’ (KJV, LuthV,
\hn der Palm, Vredenburg), which goes back to Vulg., Pesh., targums, has
been dropped (see already Ibn Ezra, disputed by Nachmanides). It seems to rest
on equating n»»B with nk£ (25:26). In the LXX DVB, like is translated
with the use of kAvtoi;, ‘side.’ That there were feet is apparently self-evident.
That they were made is neither ordered or mentioned.
The waw of the first TIBI is an explicative waw (cf. KoSynt §375c, and see
already Rashi; Ehrlich thinks of dittography); differently Ibn Ezra (disputed by
Nachmanides): the shrine had eight rings; two on the upper comers and two
below on each side (the rings in 25:12b are not the same as in 25:12a).
suffix form of (OT ca. 40x; 19x Exod.), a problematic (see
TWAT, VI, 1059ff.), whose meaning in Exod. 25-40 (among others cstr. st.
cstr. st. plur. ni?b$) is clear: ‘side’ (25:12[2x], 14; 26:20, 26, 27[2x],
35[2x]; 27:7; 30:4 etc.).
Were the rings placed along the breadth or the length of the shrine? Often
Volume III1
378 EXODUS 25:10-22; 37:1-9
the latter is said to be the case.160 In that case one must assume that the persons
carrying it were on the outside of the poles because inside the poles there
would not be enough room for two persons walking abreast. It is also believed
that the rings were attached to the short sides of the shrine. This is the view of
Rashi, who believes that the rings were placed on the upper comers (Nachma-
nides disagrees with him), and also by Jacob*, Pent., 165, and McNeile. In that
case it was possible for the carriers to walk inside the poles. In any case what
seems to be meant is that the rings were placed at the foot of the shrine, and
that when it was carried it was lifted high above the heads of the carriers.
25:13-16/37:4, 5 ‘(carrying)poles’ (Introd. §10.1.9), further information is not

available; they must have been fairly long, so that the carriers were in no
danger of hitting the shrine, toa hiph. (Introd. §3.8), cf. 26:11; 27:7; 38:7. Kt93,
see 6:8. When the shrine is carried (cf. Num. 7:9; 10:21), it rises high above
the carriers on account of the location of the rings (25:12).
ona (25:14), not in 37:5, it is Sam.Pent. (cf. LXX). n o , see 3:3 (cf. KSSynt
§97). 1300 (cf. K8Synt §§11; 349h; Ges-K §135o note), the suffix refers to the
shrine; one would expect a plur. (out of the rings). Beside 25:16 see 24:12;
31:18; 34:29. nn3l, Moses sees to it that the instructions given in 25:11-14 are
carried out (see 28:1, 3); the instruction given in 25:16 he carries out himself
(see 40:20). tns, see 16:34 and also 24:12.
It is commonly assumed that it is said in 25:14, 15 that the poles must be
permanently attached to the shrine. It is assumed that the instruction pertains
only to the shrine, not to the other objects with (carrying)poles, the table and
the altars. Presumably the instruction was meant to prevent humans from
touching the holy shrine (differently e.g. Cassuto).
In favour of the view that the poles are not to be removed from the shrine is
what is said in 1 Kgs. 8:8. Strong arguments against are found in the Penta
teuch (see Ehrlich). According to 40:20 Moses supplied the shrine with poles.
As yet, they were not yet attached to it (37:5). The official unveiling of the
shrine is a sacred action, not to be done by the layman Bezalel. Moreover,
Num. 4:6 (cf. 4:8, 11) shows that when the sanctuary was taken down, the
poles were put in place on the shrine. That was done by cultic oficials.161
The conclusion can only be that K13 hiph. in 25:14; 37:5 is about the making
of the poles. They must be of the right length, and neither too thick nor too
thin. It is a craftman’s job (37:5).
25:15 elucidates what is said in 25:14 (for similar notes see 28:28, 32). Both
160 So already Josephus (AJ, III, 135), and see e.g. Schouten (see 4.2.1.), 309ff, ill. next to p.
296 and p. 348; he believes that the rings were on the top side.
161 Attempts to bring Num. 4:6 in agreement with the view that the poles were attached to the
shrine (e.g. Calmet; Jacob*, Pent., 166; W.H.Gispen [COT 1959] on Num. 4:6) are unsatisfactory.
Volume III1
positively (25:15a) and with a negative (25:15b) it is said that the poles must
fit firmly in the rings. There must be no chance that the shrine might start
sliding along the poles or even slip off (this interpretation removes the need for
taking HO in the unusual passive sense). The contents may sustain no damage
whatever (cf. 32:19).
The interpretation offered here is in accord with the translation of the LXX.
In 25:14(15) no* K*? is translated as ockivtitoi; the poles must sit immov
ably in the rings. In 38:4 (37:5) it is said about the rings: eupeig ioi<;
6ic*)OTf|poiv gkjtc aipeiv ai>xf|v ev auxoic;, ‘wide enough for the poles for
carrying it (the shrine) with them.’
4.5.2 The place of atonement with the cherubim (25:17-22; 37:6-9)
25:17 'O fpure gold you shall 37:6 Of pure gold he made a place
make a place o f atonement. Its of atonement. Its length was two
length must be two and a half cu and a half cubits, the width a cubit
bits, the width a cubit and a half and a half.
18 O f gold you shall make two 7 Of gold he made two cheru
cherubim o f hammered work you bim, of hammered work he made
shall make them, fo r the two ends them, for the two ends of the place
o f the place o f atonement. of atonement,
19 Make one cherub fo r the one 8 one cherub for the one end and
end and one cherub fo r the other one cherub for the other end. He
end. You (plur.) shall make the made the cherubim in such a way
cherubim in such a way that at that they were of one piece with
both ends they are o f one piece the place of atonement, of one
with the place o f atonement. piece with its two ends.
20 The cherubim shall have their 9 The cherubim had their two
two wings spread out upwards in wings spread out upwards in such a
such a way that with their wings way that with their wings they
they shield the place o f atonement, shielded the place of atonement
and their faces shall be turned to and their faces were turned toward
each other. The faces o f the cheru each other. The faces of the cheru
bim shall be turned toward the bim were turned toward the place
place o f atonement. of atonement.
21 The place o f atonement you
shall place on the shrine, on top o f
it, and in the shrine you shall place
the constitution which I will give
you.
22 Then I will meet with you
there, and from above the place o f
Volume III1
380 EXODUS 2 5 :1 0 -2 2 ; 3 7 :1 -9
atonement, from between the two

cherubim above the shrine with the
constitution, while I am talking
with you, tell you what I will com
mand you with respect to the Isra
elites. '
The place of atonement
4.5.2.1 Bibl.: TWAT, IV, 304, 312-4; G. Gerleman, Studien zur alttestamentli-
chen Theologie, Heidelbeig 1980, 11-23; M. G8rg, ZAW 89 (1977), 115-8;
idem, BN 5 (1978), 12; Janowski (see 21:30), 105, 185, 271ff„ 277ff.; K.
Koch, “Some Considerations on the Translation of kapporet in the Septuagint,”
in D.P. Wright et al. (eds.), Pomegranates and Golden Bells (Fs J. Milgrom),
Winona Lake 1995, 65-75; J.M. de Tarragon, “La kapporet est-elle une fiction
ou un 616ment du culte tardif?,” RB 88 (1981), 5-12.
The term rn'BS (OT 27x), with the exception of 1 Chr. 28:11, is found only
in the parts attributed to P, always as part of the furnishings of the tent shrine
(18* Exod.; Lev. 16:2[2*], 13, 14, 15[2*]; Num. 7:89). In Dutch versions the
following translations are used: ‘verzoendekseP (e.g. SV, CV, NV, \hn der
Palm), ‘deksel’ (e.g. LV, UV, GNB [differently in 1 Chr. 28:11], Vredenbuig,
Dasberg) or ‘dekplaat’ (WV). English versions have the following: ‘mercy
seat’ (KJV, NRSV [footnote: ‘a cover’], NASB, NIV), ‘cover’ (NEB), ‘lid’
(TEV), ‘throne of mercy’ (Jerusalem Bible). They are based on the etymology
and presumed function of the m B2.
The interpretation ‘cover’ or ‘lid’ stems from the belief that the root "IBS
(see 21:30) means ‘to cover,’ and the fact that the m s a is placed on top of the
shrine (25:21). Presumed derivation from n sa pi. (see 21:30), the function of
the m B 3 in Lev. 16:13fT., and the place of the m B 3 on the shrine (25:21) are
the basis of the rendering ‘mercy seat’ (‘verzoendeksel’).162
There are also recent authors who maintain that m B 3 may have been derived
from “IB3. Janowski defends the interpretation ‘Siihnmal,’ ‘Stihneort,’ on the
basis of derivation from n s a pi. Gerleman understands IBS as meaning ‘to
polish,’ ‘to stroke,’ and thinks that m a a stands for a polished plate, a metal
142 Cf. LXX: to iAaotipiov; in Exod. 25:17: iXaoTfjpiov eiuOrpa a double translation (cf.
Frankel*, 102), or does iAaoxijpiov function as adjective? Or does iAaotijpiov refer to an object
that is to be distinguished from the cover? (Strack). Both terms also occur in Philo, VM, II, 95-97;
Josephus, AJ, III, 135, only uses taiOepa, ‘cover;’ LXX 1 Chr. 28:11 has the rendering
e£iAaop6<;. The customary Vulg. rendering is propitiatorium, but n"lB3 is also translated as,
explained with oraculum, ‘(place of) the oracle’ (25:18, 20; 37:6 etc.). See further Pesh.: hwsy'\
Luther: ‘Gnadenstuhl;’ KJV: ‘mercy seat.’
Volume III1
mirror, which, when revelation is given (cf. Lev. 16:2; Exod. 25:22; Num.
7:89), YHWH’s U9 ~ interpreted by Gerleman, for example in Lev. 16:2, as
‘shadow image,’ ‘silhouette’- can be seen. Others question derivation from
"IBS pi. (e.g. F. Maass, THAT, I, 844), contending that there is a distinct
difference between later interpretation and original meaning. Thus G6rg
explains the term with the help of Egyptian: m B 3 = ‘FuBflSche,’ the place on
which the feet rest (YHWH’s, seated on his throne).
4.5.2.2 Before dealing further with the significance of m B3, first a look at
its place and function in the sanctuary
It should be emphasized that the mSB did not function as a cover and is not
part of the shrine (cf. Janowski; Tarragon).163 in # as such does refer to a
complete object, a chest with cover. Also the m a a is a separate object. After
the description of the shrine has been wrapped up (25:10-16), a separate
section is devoted to the m s a (25:17-20). The m s a is placed above(upon) the
shrine (in^rrbff [25:21; 26:34; 40:20]), but in the account of its position its
independence relative to the shine is brought out. We hear of
iBfN r n s a n (Lev. 16:2) and of rriffo*'?!? ntfK m s a n (30:6; Lev.
16:13; cf. Exod. 31:7).
The preposition by can mean both ‘above’ and ‘on top.’ Auerbach*, 13If.,
has aigued that ‘above’ is meant and that between shrine and mBD, which he
takes as YHWH’s throne chariot, there was some space, making it possible to
open the cover of the shrine. The data in the text do little to support that view.
The idea seems to be that the shrine, after the tablets have been deposited in it,
is to remain closed and that the m B 3 can be placed upon it (cf. 40:20).
Shrine and m S 3 are thus separate objects, each having its own function.
The notion that the m B 3 with the cherubim serves as throne of YHWH and that
the shrine is the footstool (see 4.5.1.5,7) is without basis. The m B 3 is the
place o f revelation. YHWH appears m s a rrtff (Lev. 16:2) (not above the
cherubim) and speaks iri^n y-ifcfby "i©K O’anan ’30 p ao m s a n by® (25:22;
cf. Num. 7:89), ‘from above mBD, (more specifically) from between the two
cherubim above the shrine with the constitution.’ The space, enclosed by the
cherubim (see below) and the n")B3, is the place where YHWH appears. The
srhine, which elsewhere denotes YHWH’s powerful presence (see 4.5.1.4,5), is
just like in Deut. 10 the depository of the tablets (25:16, 22; 40:20).164 In
Deuteronomy YHWH’s presence and appearance is not associated with a specific
163 A different conception is already found in Josephus (AJ, III, 135, 137). As he describes it,
the cover (eiri0e|ia) was attached with golden hinges to the chest, while the cherubim - Moses
*nade them after the picture of them on God’s throne - were attached to the cover.
164 For that matter, the picture of the shrine as the object which represents y h w h , is still
reflected in the language that is used; see the alternation of mm and mun in 16:33, 34;
Num. 17:19, 22, 25.
Volume III1
382 EXODUS 2 5 :1 0 -2 2 ; 3 7 :1 -9
object. For that kind of appearance the term 0$ is used (see 20:24). By
contrast, in Exod. 25-40 the presence and appearance of YHWH is associated
with a concrete object. In the space marked off by the cherubim and m a a
heaven and earth flow into each other in a very specific sense. The cherubim
represent ‘heaven’ on earth (see below). So, to some extent, the space marked
off by the cherubim and the mS3, fulfills the function which the shrine has in
other passages (cf. 4.5.1.4). To be sure, while the msa with the cherubim is
no ‘extension’ of YHWH, it is the medium that makes his presence possible.
4.5.2.3 Why was the m a a placed upon the shrine? Likely to emphasize the
authority of the tablets. Through his desire to appear above the shrine YHWH
implicitly assures the divine nature of the tablets. Also the need to insure the
unique sacredness of the m a a (cf. Maier [see 4.5.1.1], 82f.) may have played
a role. Its placement upon the shrine made it unnecessary to touch it when it
was being transported.
Aside from 1 Chr. 28:11, the maa is only cited as belonging to the furnish
ings of the tent shrine. In the description of Solomon’s temple in 1 Kgs. 6-8 no
mention is made of it. If it did play a significant role in the history of Israel’s
religion, we are unable to trace it.
In view of the function of the maa, as described in Lev. 16:14ff. - the
maa is the place where atonement and purification is brought about - , it is
obvious to derive maa from naa pi. and to render it as ‘place of atonement’
(‘instrument for purification’).
The place of atonement served a central place in the sanctuary. There heaven
and earth merge, become as one, in the interest of maintaining and restoring
the good relationship between God and Israel.
4.5.3 The cherubim
4.5.3.1 Bibl.: BRL, 224ff; DBS, V, 161ff. (+ Bibl.); TWAT, IV, 322ff. (also
for etymology and Bibl.); M. Alexandre, “L’6p6e de flamme (Gen. 3,24):
Textes Chretiens et traditions Juives,” in Hellenica et Judaica (Hommage k V
Nikiprowetzky), Leuven 1986, 403-41; Busink (see 4.2.1), 267ff; R. Gilboa,
“Cherubim: An Inquiry into an Enigma,” BN 82 (1996), 59-75; B. Janowski,
“Keruben und Zion: Thesen zur Entstehung der Ziontradition,” in D.R. Daniels
et al. (eds.), Emten, was man sat (Fs K. Koch), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1991, 231-
64; O. Keel, Jahwe- Msionen und Siegelkunst, Stuttgart 1977, 15ff, 152ff,
180ff. et al.; W.H. Kosters, “De cherubim,” TT 13 (1879), 445-76 (who also
cites older conceptions; he rejects identification of cherubim with clouds and
defends identification with winds); Metzger (see 11:5); M.J. Mulder, 1 Kings
1/1, Leuven 1998 (HCOT), 265ff; Schroer**, 121ff.; J. Strange, “The Idea of
Afterlife in Ancient Israel: Some Remarks on the Iconography in Solomon’s
Temple,” PEQ 117 (1986), 35-40; E. \bgt, “Die vier ‘Gesichter’ (panim) der
Volume III1
Keruben in Ez,” Bib 60 (1979), 327-47, and the lit. cited under 4.5.1.1.
The term a n ? (OT ca. 90*; 17* Exod.) is usually left untranslated and
simply transliterated as ‘cherub.’ It is a much discussed term. Currently popular
is the view that the cherub was a hybrid being, one whose body is a composite
of parts of animal bodies, possibly even of humans. Iconographical data from
the ancient Near East furnish a rich tapestry of a great variety of hybrid
beings.165 Apart from the description of the cherubim in the difficult chapter
Ezek. 10 (cf. Ezek. l:4ff.), the OT says little about the appearance of the
cherub. Only wings are often mentioned as body parts that are typical of
cherubim (25:20; 37:9; 1 Kgs. 6:24, 27; 8:6f.; Ezek. 10:8, 12, 16, 19, 21;
11:22; cf. Ezek. 1:6, 8f., 11, 23ff.; 3:13; Isa. 6:2).
Of some prominence is the view that the cherub of the OT is to be identified
with the sphinx, a creature with the body of a lion, having wings, and with the
head of a human (e.g. De \hux [see 4.5.1.1], 235ff.; Keel, 15ff. et al.;
Schroer**, 125ff.). It is, however, quite possible that ‘cherub’ does not denote
a specific hybrid being, but is a more general term. Thus it remains unclear
whether one should visualize the cherubim of Exod. 25:18-22; 26:1, 31; 36:8,
35; 37:7-9 as having two or four legs (as a huge bird, the griffin, as a winged
human creature, or as e.g. a winged lion or bull), in standing or prone position,
with the head of a human or beast (e.g. of an eagle, lion or bull); cf. Ezek.
10:8, 14, 21; l:5ff.; 41:18f.166
4.5.3.2 Also the Junction o f the cherub is sometimes unclear due to the lack
of concrete information. In those cases, the OT does, however, offer enough
points of contact for making concrete suggestions about the function of the
cherubim. Several passages contain more or less detailed information on that
point. Thus in Ps. 18:11 = 2 Sam. 22:11 (cf. also Ezek. 9:3; 10:4) the cherub is
mentioned as YHWH’s means of transport, which enables him to fly through the
heavens (cf. Houtman*, Himmel, 325). With his powerful wings the cherub is
uniquely suited to swiftly transport the deity to the place of destination. A
whole host of cherubim carry YHWH’s throne, using it as a chariot to transport
him.167 Cherubim also serve as sentinels (Gen. 3:24; Ezek. 28:14, 16).
The account of the construction of Solomon’s temple contains no information
about the function of the two huge, dominant cherubim in the Holy of Holies
in the temple (1 Kgs. 6:23-28). On the basis of ancient Near East iconographi
cal material, which indicates that images of hybrid beings could be used as
supports of both sides of a seat, and because in the OT YHWH bears the epithet
For illustrations see Keel; Metzger, II; BRL, 35, 225-7, 301, and ANEP, index s.v.
demon(s), eagle, lion, sphinx etc.
166 The word Q’ODused in Exod. 25:20 (Introd. §3.42) can also be used for the face of animals
(Gen. 30:40; Job 41:6; 1 Chr. 12:8).
167Ezek. 1; 10; cf. also 1 Chr. 28:18, where two interpretations of the cherubim are given.
Volume III1
384 EXODUS 2 5 :1 0 -2 2 ; 3 7 :1 -9
it has been suggested that the cherubim in Solomon’s temple

formed YHWH’s throne.168 Consequence of this interpretation is that one is
compelled to regard the picture presented in 1 Kgs. 8:6f. - the cherubim guard
the shrine - as secundary.169
4.5.3.3 In my view, the possibility that the cherubim of 1 Kgs. 6 and 8 were
protectors of the shrine - originally the cultic object that represented YHWH (cf.
also 1 Kgs. 8:12f.) - and so of YHWH himself, cannot from the outset be
excluded. Remarkable is that in 1 Kgs. 8 the cherubim are separate from the
shrine. They are not connected to it.170 This is also the case in Exod. 25. The
cherubim are connected to ‘the place of atonement,’ serving as guardian and
protector, not of the object which represents YHWH - that is not the function of
the shrine in Exod. 25 (see 4.5.2.2) - , but of the space above the m B 3, where
YHWH manifests himself (25:22; Lev. 16:2; Num. 7:89; the changed conception
of the shrine has also been worked into 1 Kgs. 8 [w. 9-11]).
As hybrid beings, who possess the impressive characteristics of a variety of
awesome creatures, such as strength, swiftness and cunning, the cherubim are
uniquely qualified to be guardians and protectors.
4.5.3.4 But is the use of the epithet D,5'n?n a # ’ (1 Sam. 4:4; 2 Sam. 6:2;
2 Kgs. 19:15; Pss. 80:2; 99:1) not an argument in favour of the throne con
cept? Normally the epithet is translated with ‘who is enthroned upon the
cherubim.’ It should be borne in mind, however, that there is no preposition
with ’cherubim’ and that other interpretations are not excluded.171 To me, it
seems entirely possible that the epithet is intended to evoke the picture of
YHWH, surrounded by cherubim, seated upon his throne (cf. 1 Kgs. 22:19; Isa.
6: If.).
Illustrative in particular is Isa. 6: ‘seraphim,’ hybrid beings with the
168 See already 4.5.1.5, and further e.g. Keel, 23ff.; Janowski (see 21:30), 281ff.; the latter,
following Metzger, I, 309fF., chooses for a variant, one likewise based on iconographical material:
the cherubim cany (the platform on which sits) the invisible throne of y h w h (cf. Ezek. 1).
169 See e.g. Dibelius, 39, 73 (from being bearers the cherubim have become guardian
creatures), and \fon Rad (see 4.5.1.1), 113ff. (who associates the throne concept with that of the
shrine with the cherubim), and Keel, 28f.; according to Keel, the throne concept is associated with
the cherubim (and Zion) and originally there was no relation between the shrine and the cherubim;
as epitheton the ‘who is enthroned upon the cherubim’ was connected to Zion and not to the
shrine.
170 Implausible is the view of, for example, Dibelius, 33, that there were two kinds of
cherubim; attached to the shrine and above it.
171Cf. Woudstra, 68ff.; for the accusative see e.g. Ges-K §§117bb, 118g; Jotton §126h. For the
epithet see also M. Metzger,“ Jahwe, der Kerubenthroner, die von Keruben flankierte Palmette und
Sphingenthrone aus dem Libanon,” in I. Kottsieper et al. (eds.), ‘Wer ist wie du, Herr, unter den
G 6 ttem ? ' (Fs O. Kaiser), Gottingen 1994, 75-90.
Volume III1
body of a serpent,172 surround yhwh, are his body guard. As to appearance, the
seraphim are different from the cherubim, two or four-legged hybrid beings,
but as to tasks there seems to be no difference between them. For that reason
one might consider translating O’anan atf’ as ‘who is enthroned amidst the
cherubim’ and to think of cherubim as YHWH’s guard, a host of fearsome
monsters who surround him and with whom, if need be, he can set out to do
battle.173
Noteworthy is that the epithet is in particular employed in texts that describe
or presume a crisis situation. It is hoped that YHWH will powerfully intervene.
Therefore it is not unlikely that back of the epithet there lies at least the picture
of the deity as commander of a band of ruthless monsters (cf. also e.g. Hab.
3:5). To what extent the original conception remained alive in the use of the
epithet is difficult to say. According to Isa. 6 the seraphim were the conductors
of the heavenly liturgy (cf. Rev. 4:6ff.; 5:6ff.; 6:lff.; 7:llff.; 14:3; 15:7; 19:4).
Did the cherubim too undergo transformation which turned them into heavenly
liturgists and cultic servants? They do not function in that capacity in the OT.
What is significant is that in Ps. 22:4 YHWH is being praised as atfv
b in # ', ‘who is enthroned amidst the praises of Israel.’ Could it be that the
cherubim even became depersonalized?
4.5.3.S Where is YHWH enthroned amidst the cherubim? In heaven. Since the
sanctuary is the place where heaven and earth intermingle, flow into each
other, where heaven touches earth, the cherubim are also there present as
guardians of the shrine (1 Kgs. 8:6f.) and as guardians of the place of YHWH’s
appearance (Exod. 25:22). Incorporation of the cherubim in the decorations of
the sanctuary (Exod. 26:1, 31; 36:8, 35; 1 Kgs. 6:29, 32, 35; 7:29, 36; 2 Chr.
3:14; Ezek. 41:18, 20, 35) is a way of saying that the sanctuary is a heavenly
enclave. The cherubim depicted on the curtain (26:31; 36:35) are to be re
garded as guardians of the threshold (2 Chr. 3:13, 14).
4.5.4 Concluding remarks
On the basis of the discussions under 4.5.1 and 4.5.2 some things can be es
tablished.
4.5.4.1 The shrine was a box-like, holy object, which, as opposed to an
image or massebah, was never considered offensive in the yhwh religion. In
the course of time, a variety of conceptions were associated with the shrine.
Apparently it was reinterpreted again and again. In the OT the shrine served as
172See Keel, 70ff.; M. GOrg, BN 5 (1978), 28-39; J. Day, VT 29 (1979), 143-51.

173In 1 Sam. 4:4; 2 Sam. 6:2 the epitheton follows upon the nnas mrr; cf. also Ps. 80:5, 8,
15, 20; for the designation see 7WAT, VI, 876ff.
Volume III1
386 EXODUS 2 5 :1 0 -2 2 ; 3 7 :1 -9
representative of YHWH (see 4.5.1.4, 5), but was also repository of the tablets
with the constitution (see 4.5.1.8). The latter is its function in Exod. 25. There
the shrine is a piece of furniture in the tent shrine (see 4.5.1.10). It is not
impossible that in Israel’s history denoted a variety of box-like objects,
the chest which represented YHWH and the (smaller) chest with the oracle
stones (see 4.5.1.9). In any case, it is not unlikely that the shrine was a cultic
object of which there was more than one (cf. 4.5.1.7).
4.5.4.2 The rn'SS, the place of atonement, is not part of the shrine, but a
separate object with a function of its own. The cherubim are no ornaments of
the shrine and have a independent function in relation to the shrine (1 Kgs. 8)
or the m s a (Exod. 25; 37).
4.5.4.3 There is no question that this is the picture the OT in its current form
aims to convey: the shrine made in the wilderness, after a turbulent history
finds at last a place in Solomon’s tempel (1 Kgs. 8). The effect of the arrange
ment of the material - at the first mention of the shrine a detailed picture is
given of it - is that whenever the term shrine is heard the reader automatically
thinks of the picture of the shrine presented in Exod. 25; 37. Careful reading,
howevei; shows that that picture is at odds with the rich diversity of data in the
OT (see 4.5.1). That raises the following questions: where did the shrine
originate (at the Sinai, in Canaan, in Egypt, in the milieu of desert dwellers?);
what was its place in Israel’s religion? The questions have often and at length
been discussed. The answers that have been given are far from unanimous (see
Schmitt, 52ff.). I leave these questions further alone, only noting something
that is essential for the exegesis: the shrine - that is what the writer of Exodus
wants to convey - is a sacred object whose design was given by YHWH himself
at Mount Sinai.
4.5.4.4 Shrine and place of atonement have been the subject of widely
different allegorical and figurative interpretations; see e.g. Philo, VM, II, 95ff.;
idem, QE, II, 53ff.; Gregory of Nyssa, VM, II, 180; Schouten (see 4.2.1),
323ff.; Leibowitz*, 490ff. For the shrine in the NT see Heb. 9:4f.; Rev.
11:19.174
25:17-19/37:6-8 Subject of 25:17 is Moses; subject of 37:6 is Bezalel (cf.

37:1). The thickness of the m £D is not stated (TPsJ: the thickness of a hand
[cf. bSuk 5a]). Sam.Pent. (25:17; 37:6): n iN and u m (cf. 37:1), though m B 3
is a feminine (see however suffix at the end of 25:19; 37:8).
O’Jtf (25:18), in 37:7: '30. ‘of gold’ (25:18; 37:7), TPsJ: ‘of pure gold.’ nsp,
see 12:41; the plur. is here used as masculine (cf. 25:19; 28:7, 23, 26); else
where also as feminine (27:4; 28:25; 39:18).
Cf. S. Alblas, De ark van het verbond in het laatste bijbelboek, Groningen 1993.
Volume III1
The preposition 10, in 25:18, 19; 37:7, 8 used in connection with the ‘ends,’
expresses that the cherubim are to be made in such a way that they make a
continuous whole with the m s o (cf. 25:31, 35; 27:2; 28:8; 30:2) (KdSynt
§213c). This is stressed in an expansion in TPsJ 37:8. In the Vulg. it is not
said that the cherubim form a continuous whole with the m o o . Emphatically
m o o and cherubim are presented as separate objects in Vulg. 37:7, 8. The
LXX translation xai emOrjoeu;, ‘and you shall place,’ of nbun in 25:18, shows
that also in the LXX it is assumed that m s o and cherubim were not made of
one sheet of gold (so Rashi and e.g. Schouten [see 4.2.1], 315f.). How the
cherubim and the m s o were to be made into one piece is not said. By nailing
or welding them together? It is usually thought that the cherubim were separate
(hollow) figures. Heinisch defends the view that they were relief figures. No
information is given about the format of the cherubim (rabbinic exegesis does
provide it; see Ginzbeig*, III, 158). The common assumption is that the ‘ends’
are the short sides.
n&m (25:19; also in 25:40; 28:42), Sam.Pent.:174175 ‘they shall be made’
(cf. LXX); Ehrlich proposes to vocalize as infin. absol. nto (2*), see 17:12;
KdSynt §86b. lb»n (25:19; cf. 25:9), Sam.Pent.: n&sn.'76 ’38f t s (25:19), in
37:8: ’3tfD. lniisp (37:8) (see Introd. §2.2; Delitzsch*, 60), with masculine
suffix, referring to a feminine.
That the fashioning of the m s o with the cherubim was the work of a master
artist is emphasized in TPsJ through an elaboration: Bezalel carried out the job
‘with the wisdom of the spirit of the prophecy.’
25:20-22/37:9 r m (37:9), Sam.Pent.: I’m. ’tons, part. plur. (+ rpn, see e.g.
KdSynt §239b) in cstr. st. (Joiion §121m) of 6ns, see Introd. §3.21.6. *)JO, see
19:4. nlBDb (see 20:4) is not brought out in the Vulg.
D’59'0 part, qal of 130,177 which is used more often in connection with the
cherubim (25:20; 37:9; 1 Kgs. 8:7; 1 Chr. 28:18; Ezek. 28:14, 16) and then
means ‘to screen,’ ‘to protect,’ ‘to shelter;’17® in 25:20; 37:9; 1 Kgs. 8:7;
1 Chr. 28:18 the preposition bff precedes the object (cf. the use of the cognate
form 10b in 33:22); in 25:20; 37:9 the preposition ^ is used with the instru
ment of the action (wings). In 40:3 (cf. 40:21; causative hiph. of qal?; cf.
KdSynt §191f) 100 is also used with bp, but an accusative is used to indicate
17925:18, 19 go together; ’3E?Qin 25:18 starts a new sentence.

174 Cf. LXX, Pesh., MSS TO and TPsJ, and see e.g. LV, WV, Dasberg; for equivocal
rendering ‘gij’ (you) see NV, Vredenburg; in the Vulg. (see 25:20a) the cherubim have been made
the subject.
177For the question whether there are one, two or three roots 1 3 0 see TWAT, V, 838ff.
I7* Cf. e.g. Pss. 5:12; 91:4; 140:8; Lam. 3:43, 44; the translation ‘bedekken’[‘to cover’] (e.g.
NV) or ‘overhuiven’ [‘to spread over’] (WV) is too weak.
Volume III1
388 EXODUS 2 5 :2 3 -3 0 ; 3 7 :1 0 -1 6
the instrument; by here does not mean ‘above,’ but ‘by’ (the curtain rises
above the shrine; cf. e.g. Gen. 18:2, 8, and see BDB s.v. by 6.c).
D’JB, see Introd. §3.42.1. vntrbtt BPK (Introd. §3.2.2), Qm (25:20),
Sam.Pent. (25:20; 37:9): i n x btt n n « (cf. 25:19; 37:8); was the use of B’K and
nx for the cherubim considered improper (too personal?; c f Sanderson**, 94f.,
and see also S. Talmon, ScrHie 8 [1961], 368f.; see however 26:3). The
cherubim do not look at each other, but keep their faces directed toward the
m s o . Why? Do they turn away their faces out of reverence (cf Isa. 6:2) for
YHWH who is enthroned above them? (Cassuto). Is their posture a kind of
prayer posture? (Baentsch). As I see it, in their role as guardians they are
expected to keep their eyes trained on the m s o .
With its measurements (25:17; c f 25:10) the m s o fits precisely upon the
shrine (25:21). The instructions described in 25:21 (cf 25:16; 26:34) do not
apply to the construction and therefore are not carried out by the craftsmen, but
by Moses himself (40:20). The acts described in 25:21 are not in logical order.
For that reason 25:21b is sometimes rendered as a temporal subordinate clause
with pluperfect and introduced by ‘after’ (e.g. SV, Vredenburg, Dasbeig; GNB
has adopted the sequence 25:21b, 21a). In the Vulg. the tension has been
removed by placing 25:21a as a subordinate clause at the end of 25:20:
... propitiatorium quo operienda est area, ‘... the mercy seat with which the ark
shall be covered.’ In my view, in the context the most important instruction
comes first (25:21a), while 25:21b by way of repetition (cf. 25:16) is added to
it, because in the execution both actions have to be done jointly (cf. 40:20).
The end of 25:21, from ItfN, is lacking in Sam.Pent.
vnmjl (niph. of "UT, see 21:8), in LXX deliberately (cf. Frankel*, 85)
rendered as if it said Tiiniil (of in\ see Introd. §3.22) (cf. translation of
29:42; 30:6, 36); cf. Vulg.: inde praecipiam, ‘from there I will give com
mands’ (cf. Vulg. 29:43 and LXX 29:43). Also in the taigums the anthropo
morphism has been avoided; see TO: l»n "|b n o ’Q potto, ‘and there I give my
Word opportunity to meet with you’ (idem TPsJ, TNf). bo ntt (MSS: nto),
LXX: kocv K ata Ttavta, ‘namely concerning everything.’
For the meeting between Moses and YHWH in the sanctuary see also 34:34,
35. See beside it 33:9-11; Lev. 1:1.
4.6 THE COVERED TABLE WITH YHWH’s PRIVATE BREAD (25:23-30;

37:10-16)
25:23 You shall also make a table 37:10 He made the table of acacia
o f acacia wood. Its length must be wood. Its length was two cubits,
two cubits, the width one cubit and the width one cubit and the height
the height a cubit and a half. a cubit and a half.
Volume III1
THE SET TABLE 389
24 You shall overlay it with pure 11 He overlaid it with pure gold.

gold. In addition, you shall make In addition, he made an ornamental
an ornamental frame o f gold frame of gold around it.
around it.
25 Indeed, around it you shall 12 Indeed, around it he made a
make a rim o f a handbreadth wide rim of a handbreadth wide, and
and around that rim you shall around that rim he made an or
make an ornamental frame o f gold. namental frame of gold.
26 Four gold rings you shall 13 Four gold rings he cast for it.
make fo r it. The rings you shall The rings he attached to the four
attach to the four comers o f its comers of its four legs.
four legs.
27 Very close to the rim the rings 14 Very close to the rim the
shall be placed, so that they can rings were placed. So they could
serve as holders fo r the (carrying) be holders for the (carrying) poles,
poles and the table can be carried. and the table could be carried.
28 The poles you shall make o f 15 The (carrying) poles he made
acacia wood and overlay them with of acacia wood and he overlaid
gold. With these the table can be them with gold. So the table could
carried. be carried.
29 Next you shall make the ac 16 Next he made the articles for
companying dishes and saucers the table, the accompanying dishes
and the flagons and bowls fo r and saucers and the bowls and
bringing drink offerings. O fpure flagons for bringing drink offer
gold you shall make them. ings. They were of pure gold.
30 Finally you shall place upon
the table the private bread. It must
be perpetually there fo r Me. ’
4.6.1 Bibl.: AuS, IV, 122ff.; DB, IV, 495ff„ 622f.; ERE, XI, 452f.; TWAT, IV,
543ff.; D. Barag, “The Table for Shewbread and the Facade of the Temple on
the Bar Kochba Coins,” Qadmoniot 20 (1987), 22-5 (Hebr.); P.A.H. de Boer,
“An Aspect of Sacrifice,” in Studies in the Religion o f Ancient Israel, SVT 23
(1972), 27-47; Busink (see 4.2.1), 288ff., 1172; R. Gane, “‘Bread of the
Presense’ and Creator-In-Residence,” VT 42 (1992), 179-203; Haran*, 209f.;
A. Pelletier, “Une particularite du rituel des ‘pains d’oblation’ conservee par la
Septante (Lev. xxiv 8 & Exod. xxv 30),” VT 17 (1967), 364-7.
For the table the term is used, inbtf (OT ca. 70x; 18x Exod.) fre
quently indicates a dining table, the table used in the homes of the affluent for
eating the meal (1 Sam. 20:29; 1 Kgs. 13:20; 18:19; Isa. 21:5; Pss. 23:5; 78:19
etc.). Also the irtbttf in the sanctuary serves as a dining table, the table at which
the food is set and from which it is served (25:23-40 [4x]; 26:35 [3x]; 30:27;
Volume III1
390 EXODUS 2 5 :2 3 -3 0 ; 3 7 :1 0 -1 6
31:18; 35:13; 37:10-16 [5*]; 39:36; 40:4, 22, 24; Lev. 24:6; Num. 3:31; 4:7,
and see also 1 Kgs. 7:48; 1 Chr. 28:16; 2 Chr. 4:19; 29:18). In Ezek. 40:39-43
sacral tables are mentioned which were used for slaughtering. Elsewhere (Ezek.
41:22; 44:16; Mai. 1:7, 22) ‘table’ is an equivalent of ‘altar’ Often the altar of
wood of 1 Kgs. 6:20, 22 (cf. 1 Kgs. 7:48) (see e.g. M.J. Mulder [HCOT
1998]) and altar/table of wood of Ezek. 41:22 (see e.g. W. Zimmerli [BK
1969]) are thought to be the table for the bread.179*
The information given in Exod. 25; 37 about the shape and the appearance of
the table is brief and not very clean For example, nothing is said about the
thickness of the table top, where the legs were to be attached, or whether gold
was also to be applied to the underside of the table top (cf. 25:11). Josephus
(AJ, III, 139ff.) makes no mention of the, in part divergent, details related in
Exodus (see further the exegesis).
As a standard item of the furniture the table was also included in Solomon’s
temple and likely also in Ezekiel’s blueprint of the new temple (see above).
The table was among the items which, according to some tradition, presum
ably were put in safety by the prophet Jeremiah at the destruction of the temple
in 586 (see 4.5.1.10).
According to 1 Macc. 1:22; 4:49-51, the table was also part of the furniture
of the post-exilic temple. The Arch of Titus above the Roman Forum pictures,
in addition to an illustration of the lampstand, also a table on which stands a
goblet, carried on a litter.1*0 The picture appears to be that of the table for the
bread.1*1
Pseudo-Hecataeus (in Josephus, CA, I, 199), in his description of Jerusalem,
mentions in one breath a gold altar (Pcopog) (table for the bread?) and a gold
lampstand in the temple. The letter of Aristeas (52-72) contains a detailed
description of the table made of gold and jewels, which Ptolemaeus Philadel-
phus presumably gave to the temple. For the table see also TS, III, 10; VIII, 5
(fragmentary).
The table as the place on which in the sanctuary the food for the deity was
placed is also known from Israel’s neighbours (see Busink, 288 n. 466, 291 f.;
ANEP, ill. 350, 451, 623-6, 630-3, 635-7, 859, 869; WABAT, 131, 176f., 204,
214f„ 251, 307f.).
4.6.2 According to 25:30, onb, ‘bread’ (see 2:20), which through a construct
179 Sometimes it is also considered to be used as altar of perfume; see e.g. Busink, 290f.; cf.
however e.g. Mulder, 299ff. See further AuS, VII, 213f„ 218ff.; BRL, 230f.; BHHW, III, 1191ff.;
IDB, IV, 506ff.; Krauss**, I, 58ff. As for the ancient Near East see L. Speleers, Le mobilier de
I'Asie amerieure ancienne, Wfettem 1921; A. Salonen, Die M6bel des alien Mesopotamien,
Helsinki 1963.
1.0 For a reproduction see e.g. AOB, ill. 509; IDB, I, 464; WABAT, 320; Benzinger*, 335.
1.1 Cf. Josephus, BJ, VII, 148; for the table of gold see also AJ, XTV, 72; BJ, I, 152; V, 216.
Volume III1
THE SET TABLE 391
chain is further defined by the term 0’)$ (Introd. §3.42), was to be put on the
table. After 25:30 the bread is called O’lpB o n b (35:13; 39:36; see also 1 Sam.
21:7; 1 Kgs. 7:48; 2 Chr. 4:19, and the designation O’J^n 1 0 ^ in Num. 4:7).
Outside Exodus also other terms are used for the bread set aside for YHWH
[Num. 4:7; see also 2 Chr. 2:3 and the ending of Exod. 25:30]; on*?,
‘stacked bread’ [Neh. 10:34; 1 Chr. 9:32; 23:29; cf. also 2 Chr. 2:3; 13:11];
see also the designation njnpon [2 Chr. 29:18; cf. 1 Chr. 28:16] and the
use of "pi? [see 27:21] in 40:4, 23).
The interpretation of O’lB in combination with o n b is problematic. The
English rendering in KJV ‘shewbread’ (or ‘shewbreads;’ cf. Luther: ‘Schau-
brot’) derives from the Vulg.: panes propositionis (also in 40:23; Neh. 10:34;
1 Chr. 9:32; 23:29) and ultimately from the LXX. See e.g. the use of apxoi
try; TtpoOeoewq in 39:18(36) (LXXA; LXXB: apxoi Ttpotcetpevoi); 40:21(23);
1 Chr. 9:32; 23:29; 2 Chr. 4:19.182 The translation in the LXX is not uniform.
It also has renderings that stay close to the Hebrew: apxoi evoottioi
(25:29[30J), apxoi xou npooamoo (35:15[13]; among others LXXF; 1 Sam.
21:6[7]; Neh. 10:33[34]; cf. Aq. on 25:30). The taigums have by and laige
stayed with the Hebrew idiom. See e.g. TO: K’BN O’n b (cf. Pesj.). However in
TPsJ 25:30 (see also 40:4) the translation n iO ll K Dnb, ‘the bread of inside,’ has
been adopted.1*3 See further SamTJ: n n i m o n b ; SamTA: n n i m o n b (in 25:30:
n n i m ) lta ) . For the ancient versions see also DB, IV, 495; De Boer, 33.
In modem exegesis the interpretation ‘shewbread’ has been dislodged by
other explanations. O’JB o n b , in light o f ’ 19b (cf. m n ’ ’JBbO in 2 1 :7 ) which
follow s in 2 5 :3 0 , has been taken to mean ‘bread o f the face/of the presence,’
that is, set before the face o f YHWH/at the place where YHWH is present.184 O’lB
o n b has also been taken as the bread at which YHWH gazes and which he
graciously accepts (H einisch) and as the ‘bread o f the personal presence’ (viz.
o f YHWH), in the sense o f yhwh ’s personal bread.185 It has even been proposed
that ‘bread o f the face’ should be taken to mean as bread containing an imprint
o f the face o f the godhead.186 The most plausible interpretation is ‘personal’
(cf. THAT, II, 4 6 0 ). Hence ‘private bread.’
4.6.3 Nothing more is said about the bread in Exodus. More information is
"2 Cf. Symm. on 25:30, and see Matt. 12:4 par.; Heb. 9:2; in 40:4,23; Lev. 24:8 "ps? (see
27:21) is translated with npotiOevai.
1,3 Cf. Jacob*, Pent., 256ff.; O’JBonb he interprets ‘das Brot des inneren Raumes’ (261).
184 See e.g. NEB, Fox: ‘the Bread of the Presence’, and the explanation of e.g. McNeile and
Cassuto; cf. Dasberg: ‘bread that should always be there.’
1.5 See A.R. Johnson, “Aspects of the Use of the Term pdnim in the Old Testament,” in Fs O.
EiBfeldt, Halle 1947, 155-9; Hyatt.
1.6 De Boer, 35f., with reference to Jer. 7:18; 44:19, passages which do not talk about bread
with figures, at least not explicitly.
Volume III1
392 EXODUS 2 5 :2 3 -3 0 ; 3 7 :1 0 -1 6
given in Lev. 24:5-9. There instructions for its preparation are given and we
also learn that on1? is to be taken as a collective: the bread consists of twelve
n'l ‘pn - round loaves with an opening in the center (so L. Koehler, ThZ 4
[1948], 154f.) or thick loaves in which holes were pricked with the fingers
before baking? (cf. AuS, IV, 114, 119) - which laid out in two piles or rows of
six loaves (cf. 40:4, 23) were placed on the table. The prescribed quantity of
flour shows that they were sizeable loaves. The preparation and handling of the
loaves was done by cultic officials (cf. Num. 4:7; 1 Chr. 9:3If.; cf. 1 Sam.
21:5). From Lev. 24:8 we learn that on the sabbath it was put on the table by
the high priest. Being consecrated bread (cf. 1 Sam. 21:5, 7) it was likely
unleavened bread.1*7 In Lev. 24:7 it is stipulated that perfume was to be put
with each row (LXX: in addition to salt; Philo [VM, II, 104] only mentions the
salt).
No explanation is given about the number of loaves (Lev. 24:6). Normally
‘twelve’ is related to the number of the sons of Israel (cf. e.g. 28:9-12, 17-21).
So already TPsJ. According to Benzinger*, 330, the number symbolized ‘das
Jahr mit seinen 12 Monaten, den Tierkreis mit seinen 12 Bildem; natUrlich
dann auch die 12 Stamme’ (cf. also DB, IV, 497, and see already Josephus, BJ,
V, 217). It seems to me that the cosmic interpretation is secondary at best.
In Lev. 24:8 it is stipulated that once every seven days, on the sabbath, fresh
bread is to be set out. The regulation seems strange, because in the ancient
Near East fresh bread was baked at least once a day, and because after seven
days bread had become stale, unfit for human consumption.1** Since according
to 1 Sam. 21 there is no question that in ancient Israel there existed the custom
of placing fresh bread before YHWH in the sanctuary it is held that it was
customary to put fresh bread before YHWH on a daily basis (cf. Bel and the
Dragon; Vulg. Dan. 14:3), and that the regulation in Lev. 24:8 was never
observed, but was one inspired by the sabbath ideal (cf. De Boer, 29f.).
According to Lev. 24:9 the bread, after having stood before YHWH, was eaten
by the priests in a holy place. From 1 Sam. 21:5f. one gets the impression that
at least at one time in Israel’s history also lay folk, if clean - condition for
contact with the holy (see \bl. II, 448f., 451) - were allowed to eat from it
(not so in Matt. 12:4 par.).
4.6.4 What was the function o f the bread in the sanctuary? It is generally
held that the bread was not intended as food for YHWH. Sometimes it is
thought that the regulation of 25:30 may have been inspired by the custom of 187
187Cf. Lev. 2:11, and see e.g. Josephus (AJ, III, 142); for the relation between consecrated and
unleavened see see at 12:8, 15.
188 See the description of the quality of bread that is from one to seven days old in the
Gilgamesh Epic XI, 6 (ANET, 96); for the proposed solution to the problem in rabbinic exegesis
see exegesis of 25:29.
Volume III1
THE SET TABLE 393
offering food to the deity (e.g. DB, IV, 497; Noth; Hyatt; Clements). In that
case it is assumed that the custom was given a new meaning.
Often the bread is regarded as a gift from the Israelites (cf. Lev. 24:8) (see
e.g. TEV: ‘food offering’). Strack (on Lev. 24:5-9) sees multiple meaning in
the bread: it symbolizes Israel constant devotion to God and also admonishes
the people to devote themselves to the service of YHWH, but the bread that is
always there before YHWH also reminds them that they owe their daily bread to
YHWH. Functioning as a reminder to the Israelites that it is YHWH who sustains
them, is what several interpreters see as the (central) purpose of the bread (e.g.
Calvijn, Heinisch, Gispen, Rylaarsdam, Cole, Clements).
The contention that the bread had this instructional purpose for Israel lacks
all grounds. The bread is first of all intended for YHWH (cf. in 25:30). It
lies in the sanctuary. Not as a symbol of YHWH’s presence (Durham), but for
the benefit of YHWH (e.g. Noth). In what sense?
Striking is that the private bread is presented as one of the standard articles
in the sanctuary (cf. 35:13; 39:36; 40:4, 23). It exists already before the official
dedication of the sanctuary and YHWH’s entrance into it (Exod. 40; Num. 7),
before the consecration of Aaron and his sons (Lev. 8) has taken place, and
before regulations have been put in place on how and by whom it is to be
prepared (cf. Lev. 24:5ff.). Among the devotional gifts there are no ingredients
for the making of the loaves (cf. 25:3ff.; 35:5ff.). Is it assumed that the baking
of the first private bread was done by the people?189 When the table was being
moved, the bread was to remain on it along with the vessels (Num. 4:7).
All in all, the private bread is presented not so much as food as such, but as
a standard and indispensable piece of the equipment. The bread is no different
from the vessels, which were not used for bringing a drink offering but just
stood there (see exegesis 25:29).
4.6.5 What was the function of bread and vessels as part of the inventory of
the sanctuary? A set table is a mark of affluence and status. The sanctuary is
arranged and furnished in keeping with YHWH’s royal dignity. He, the Lord of
the world, should feel completely at home on earth. As elsewhere, the concep
tion of God behind it is anthropomorphic. YHWH requires a house which in
every respect meets his needs. He must enjoy dwelling among the Israelites
(see 4.2.18, 19). A blunt anthropomorphic conception of God - as if the deity
were actually eating and drinking in the sanctuary - is, however, excluded by
the description. Bread and table service are strictly ornamental. Notwithstand
ing the anthropomorphic conception of the deity here - see especially also the
use of ‘food of God’ (Lev. 3:11; 21:6, 8, 17, 21, 22, 25) as designation for the
1,9 Cf. Jer. 7:18; 44:19, and see Dillmann on 35:13; Ehrlich, referring to the LXX, takes
35:13b as an insertion; 39:36 argues against it.
Volume III1
394 EXODUS 2 5 :2 3 -3 0 ; 3 7 :1 0 -1 6
offering - the notion that God lives from what humans offer him is absent (cf.
Hos. 6:6; Ps. 50:13ff.; Prov. 21:3; Acts 17:25). Though possibly it might be
the background of the stipulation to place a set table in YHWH’s house.190
Does the bread also serve a function relative to people? According to Lev.
24:9 it was eaten by the priests. Does this mean that they were thought to be
uniquely equipped and strengthened for their task by the holy bread which had
stood an entire week before YHWH and was now suffused with YHWH’s
radiance (cf. mrr ’jp1? in 28:30)? Was the bread of the sanctuary originally
consumed by the participants in the cult (cf. 1 Sam. 21:5f.), giving them a
particularly close relationship with the deity? (cf. De Boer, 32, 36)? Did the
priests eat the twelve loaves as representatives of Israel, thereby symbolizing
YHWH’s communion with Israel? (cf. Murphy)? The OT is silent on it. It is not
unlikely, however, that special power was attributed to the ‘divine bread.’
Rabbinic exegesis has it that the bread protected the priests from their natural
inclination to evil (Zahar Exod. 154b), and a morsel of the bread as small as a
lentil could satisfy a priest, so that it could provide a meal for many priests
(TzUR).m
4.6.6 Table and bread have also been allegorized and spiritualized. See e.g.
Philo, VM, II, 104; idem, QE, II, 70f.; Schouten (see 4.2.1), 27Iff. The last
named regards the table with the bread as a picture of Jesus Christ, the true
food and drink unto life.
25:23-25/37:10-12 Beside 25:23-25/37:10-12 see 25:10, 11/37:1, 2. Subject of

25:23 is Moses; of 37:10 Bezalel (cf. 37:1). In LXXB 25:22(23) is tpaneCav
Xpuofjv xpuoiou KaOapou (LXXA does not have xpuofjv), ‘a gold table of pure
gold,’ the object to be made, while a translation of 25:24a MT is absent. Also
the brief description of the execution of the work in LXX 38:9-12 (37:10-16) -
among other items the measurements and the frames are not cited - contains
the idea that the table, called t t | v tpaneCav rf|v tcpoKeipevnv (also in Num.
4:7) (the table is for the bread), is made of gold (cf. Sanderson**, 130ff). For
this idea see Lev. 24:6 and also 1 Kgs. 7:48 (beside it 1 Kgs. 6:20, 22).
Josephus says that the table of the second temple was of gold (see 4.6.1).
For ->! and rriiQO see 25:11. nsb (25:25; 37:12; Ezek. 40:5, 43; 43:13) or
npp (1 Kgs. 7:26; 2 Chr. 4:5), ‘hand breadth,’ is a measure of length (cf. also
1 Kgs. 7:9; Ps. 39:6?), slightly longer than 7 cm. In the Vulg. rise in 25:25
and 37:12 is respectively translated as quatuor digitis and quatuor digitorum,
‘four fingers;’ in 1 Kgs. 7:26 with trium mciarum, ‘three thumbs,’ in 2 Chr.*189
1.0 Cf. Isa. 65:11; for offerings as food for god(s) see e.g. Robertson Smith*, 225ff; for the
view that dwellers of heaven consume food and drink see e.g. Gaster*, 29ff.; Houtman*, Himmel,
189.
1.1 Cf. the ideas associated with ‘the bread of heaven;’ see \bl. II, 327.
Volume III1
THE SET TABLE 395
4:5 however with mensuri palmi, and in Ezek. 40:5, 43; 43:13 with palmus. In
the Vulg. mensuri palmi (Exod. 28:16; 39:9) and palmus (1 Sam. 17:4; Isa.
40:12; Ezek. 43:13) are, however, also used to translate n il (see Dhorme*,
144; Th.O. Lambdin, JAOS 73 [1953], 149f.), ‘span,’ the distance between the
extended thumb and the little finger, spread out as far as possible, representing
the instrument of measurement (Isa. 40:12) and also the unit that is measured
(28:16[2*]; 39:9[2*]; 1 Sam. 17:4; Ezek. 43:13); its length is a little over 20
cm. (see e.g. BHHW, II, 1159f.; IDB, IV, 837; Barrois*, II, 244ff.; De Vrnx*,
I, 348ff.). Also in TNf the difference between ‘handbreadth’ and ‘span’ is not
carefully observed: “jefB, ‘handbreadth’ (cf. KSttflS in TO, TPsJ) is used in
25:25; 37:12, but also in 28:16 (TO, TPsJ: ttm t), not however in 39:9 (m t; in
margin T ’tfB; cf. also FTP on 39:9 and FTV on 28:16; 39:9). The Vulg.
translation has influenced modem translations; see e.g. LuthV: both in 25:25
and in 28:16 ‘a handbreadth.’ ‘handbreadth’ in TO, TPsJ is preceded and
further defined by rvon: a handbreadth high (cf. Pesh., and see Vulg.: altam;
not in 37:12).
The description raises a number of questions. Where are frame and rim to be
attached (25:25; 37:12)? To the blade of the table?192 Directly under the blade
of the table, so that the blade rests on it and in such a way that the rim is at
the ends of the blade, or more inward so that the edge of the blade extends
over it? Or was it to be attached halfway down the legs or under the legs, just
above the ground? In the last two instances the frame made the table a lot
sturdier. Did the table have two frames (25:24, 25; 37:11, 12) (see LXX, Vulg.
and e.g. Keil, Dillmann, Cassuto) or only one? (e.g. Rashi). Was a rim attached
to the edge of the table to keep objects from falling off? Probably 25:25 is
elucidation of what is said in 25:24, so that there was only one moulding (see
Jacob*, Pent., 173f.).
25:26-28/37:13-15 Beside 25:26-28/37:13-15 see 25:12-15/37:3-5. rr&m, in

25:12: npS’l (cf. 37:13); see also 27:4/38:5. LXX 25:25(26) and Vulg. lack a
translation of lb; in Sam.Pent. 37:13 lb is absent (cf. Vulg.).
n'K© plur. of n$9 (OT 84x; 15x Exod.), ‘edge’ (Lev. 19:9, 27; 23:22 etc.),
‘side,’ (27:9),193 is usually thought, in 25:26; 37:13, to indicate a ’comer’ (on
top of a leg?). The meaning is not at all certain, however (cf. Holzinger). The
context shows that a particular spot along the side of the leg, either on the
length or the width of the table, is meant. See TWAT, VI, 49Iff.; P. JoQon, Bib
15 (1934), 406-10. In the LXX HKB in 25:25(26) is translated with to (icpoc,
1,2 So Schouten (see 4.2.1.), 264; he believes that the blade of the table and the frame were of
the same thickness.
193 In Exodus mostly (12x) in cstr. st. with as nomen rectum the name of a zone of the
compass (26:18, 20; 27:9, 11 etc.), to indicate a certain wall, partition.
Volume III1
396 EXODUS 2 5 :2 3 -3 0 ; 3 7 :1 0 -1 6
in 26:18; 27:9, 11; 37:9, 10, 11 (38:11, 12, 13); 38:10 (37:13) with 6 kAitoc;
elsewhere both terms are the translation of (see 25:12) and nsp (see
12:41).
b n , see 3:5; no description is given. Were the legs square or (in part) round?
According to Josephus {AJ, III, 139f.) the top half was square and the bottom
half round. It has been aigued that the legs had this shape to keep vermin from
climbing them. It has also been suggested that the feet resembled animal claws
(Beer-Galling).
no^b, cstr. st. of nijjr* (OT ca. 30x; usually regarded as a derivative of 0»»
with the meaning ‘connection’), which, barring Eccl. 5:15, always preceded by
b functions as a preposition (e.g. Ges-K § 101 a; Brockelmann §116g): ‘nearby,’
‘beside’ (25:27; 28:27; 37:14; 39:20), ‘just as,’ ‘corresponding to’ (38:18;
Ezek. 3:8 etc.).
Because the location of the frame is uncertain, the location of the rings is
likewise uncertain. With the shrine they were on the underside. It is often
thought that with the table the rings were on top (see already Josephus [AJ, III,
140f.] and e.g. Strack). Jacob*, Pent., 173f., maintains that the rings were
affixed to the ornamental frame (cf. LV: ‘on the frame’) and were located
under the feet (174f.). As with the shrine, the question arises whether the rings
were attached to the width or the length.
In the LXX the first two words of 25:27 are the concluding words of 25:26.
They are translated with imo tf|v oTe<j>avT)v, ‘under the wreath’ (cf. Vulg.:
subter coronam; but in 37:14 with contra coronam). pvin, with defective
ending (cf. 1:17). O’rQb (Introd. §3.9.3), in Sam.Pent. 25:27 without b (cf.
MT 37:14), is followed by Q’13 (alliteration). In the ancient versions the
context provides the meaning of OVD, yielding the rendering Orpcai, ‘recepta
cles’ (LXX), XtllK, ‘place’ (sing, in TO, TPsJ; cf. Pesh.; plur. in TNf, SamT);
cf. Vulg. 25:27: ut mittantur vectes per eos, ‘so that the carrying poles can be
put through them;’ 37:14: misitque in eos vectes, ‘and he p u t...’ (cf. Vulg.
37:5).
According to LXX 25:27(28) the poles were to be covered with pure gold.
According to Josephus {AJ, III, 140) they could not be removed (cf. 25:15).
K&31 (25:28),194 perf. niph. of tt&J (see 6:8), for passive with object see 10:8;
cf. 37:15: nKfeb, and see also 27:7/38:7 (see beside it 25:14/37:5; 25:27/37:14).
In the Vulg. the ending of 25:28 and of 37:15, as repetition of respectively the
end of 25:27 and 37:14, is left untranslated. 03 (25:28), Sam.Pent.: OHS (cf.
25:29).
As with the shrine, one can only speculate how the table was to be carried.
m Sam.Pent.: iKtoJi; cf. TO, TPsJ, Pesh. (TNf: l»BDb = nttiv'y, see 25:27).
Volume III1
THE SET TABLE 397
Appealing is the notion that, like the shrine, it rose high above the carriers.195
Note that both shrine and table were a cubit and a half high. That warrants the
assumption that in transit (cf. Num. 4:8) they were also at the same height.
25:29, 30/37:16 in 37:16 has no counterpart in 25:29, D’^3 (37:16),

see Introd. §3.27. v m s p (25:29), for dageSh see Ges-K §20f; Sam.Pent.: nK
precedes (cf. 37:16).
For the table a variety of golden vessels were to be made. Successively rn y p
(sing. OT 17*; 25:29; 37:16; Num. 4:7; 7:13-85 [14*]), ‘plates,’’
‘dishes,’ commonly thought to be for the shewbreads (25:30) (not so Jacob*,
Pent., 175: for flower); n'B3 (Introd. §3.21.6), ‘saucers,’ commonly thought to
be for perfume (cf. Lev. 24:7); nifpj?,196 ‘jugs,’ ‘flagons,’ and nvpjp,197
‘bowls.’ Presumably the last two (e.g. Dillmann, Baentsch, Cassuto) were used
for drink offerings of wine. The text contains no information about the shape
and size of the vessels.198
The four types of vessels are also mentioned in Num. 4:7. There and in
37:16 (niipjpn for rpiiffj? in 25:29) the last two are cited in reverse order
(similarly in Sam.Pent. 25:29). Is there in this sequence an implicit interpreta
tion of ni’pjn as ‘jugs’ and of mtop as ‘bowls’? After all, that is the logical
sequence of the enumeration.
The notion that there is a variety of vessels is already found in LXX and
Vulg. The terms in question, in the sequence in which they are cited in 25:29,
are translated in the LXX with to tpupAiov, ‘dish,’ f) 0uiokt|, ‘censei;’ to
onovfieiov, ‘bowl,’ and 6 KuaOog, ‘cup’ (spoon for scooping up the wine) (cf.
37:16; Num. 4:7), in the Vulg. with acetabulum, ‘cup,’ phiala, ‘bowl (for
drinking)’, turibidum, ‘censei;’ cyathus, ‘small cup’ (for scooping up the wine),
cf. 37:16; differently Num. 4:7: thuribula et mortariola et crateras ad liba
fimdenda. As can be seen, the identification in LXX and Vulg. is not entirely
the same, nor consistent in the Vulg.
Vredenbuig’s translation of 25:29: ‘the accompanying bowls, spoons,
supports and pipes for cleaning, with which (the bread) is set (cf. also e.g.
Dasbeig), is based on Rashi’s interpretation who follows bMen 94a, 96a, 97a
(see also NumR, IV, 14). The ‘plates’ are forms for the bread, made according
to the shape of the bread; the (two) spoons could each hold a handful of *47
Cf. AOB, ill. 336; ANEP, ill. 538, see also Metzger (see 11:5), II, ill. 266, 271, 271A, and
the illustration on the Arch of Titus (see 4.6.1); but see also ANEP, ill. 350.
Only in plur.; 25:29; 37:16; Num. 4:7; 1 Chr. 28:17; for r -in p i in 25:29 see KOHkl, II,
47 If.
1,7 Only in plur.; 25:29; 37:16; Num. 4:7; Jer. 52:19
C f AuS, VII, 225f., 229, 298; BHHW, III, 1684; 1DB, IV, 783; see for rn y p also
Krauss**, I, 72, 123; II, 295; III, 54.
Volume III1
398 EXODUS 2 5 :2 3 -3 0 ; 3 7 :1 0 -1 6
perfume; the ‘supports’ are vertical bars to support the bread and are connected
to the ‘cleaning pipes,’ horizontal rods between the stacked loaves of bread;
they make ventilation possible, preventing mold. Rashi cites the discussion
about the meaning of nitop and nvpja, whether, respectively they refer to the
supports and the pipes or to the reverse. He himself (unlike Vredenbuig)
prefers the latter on the basis of the translation of vn’pJDl in TO with
n,nb13 0 l. Nachmanides disagrees with Rashi, but also applies the term to the
bread: they are the forms for the dough.
Rashi derives in 25:29 and in Num. 4:7 from the root “[20 (see
25:20; cf. TWAT, V, 841): the pipes function as a kind of cover over the bread
(cf. Sam.Pent.: 120’ and see also TPsJ on 37:16: V’S nat). Usually ^0’ is
regarded as a 3rd pers. imperf. hoph. with indefinite subject (Ges-K §144k;
Jotton §128b) of "J031 (OT ca. 25*), ‘to pour out (libations),’ which in Exodus
also occurs in 30:9 (qal) with as object (cognate construction). ^03 (29:40;
30:9; Ezek. 45:17)/"?I93 (ca. OT 65*) denotes a ‘drink offering’ (29:40, 41;
Gen. 35:14; Lev. 23:13, 18, 37 etc.). See TWAT, V, 488ff. and also at 32:4
(H200).
The notion that on the table there were also vessels for drink offerings is
problematic (cf. Haran*, 216). Such offerings, whenever they are mentioned,
were made outside the house by the alter (29:40, 41 etc.), and it is not likely
that vessels from the sanctuary were used for it, as is, e.g., held by Cassuto.
The material used, pure gold, suggests that the vessels were used for something
done inside the sanctuary. Were drink offerings (libations) also brought there?
(Noth). Or was wine placed on the table beside the bread, without being
poured? Was the wine after a week replaced by fresh wine? Was the old wine,
insofar it had not evaporated, poured into the fire of the altar of burnt
offerings'", or was the wine, like the bread (Lev. 24:9), consumed by the
priests? (cf. Haran*, 216f.). Or were the vessels on the table empty (e.g.
Cassuto), as a remnant of the custom to set a complete meal before the deity?
(cf. Ehrlich). Or does the customary translation rest on a wrong interpretation?
The rendering of TNf shows that also the rabbinic interpreters had problems
with 10’; the term is translated with slantf’ (the vessels are for use),200 while in
between the lines in 25:19 and in the maigin at 37:16 it is noted: ntfaiv (the
vessels are for anointing).
It seems to me that in all likelihood dinner service for a meal is meant. A
royal house requires a table set with fine dinner ware (see above).
p 2 (Sam.Pent.: ana), at the end of the verse ontt (with masculine suffix; cf.10
m So \fonk, 440f.: for the priests were not allowed to use wine (Lev. 10:9).
100 Cf. the double translation in TPsJ 25:29: prirw DonB’, it is to be used for bringing drink
Volume III1
THE LAMPSTAND 399
KdSynt §§14; 345e).

The instruction related in 25:30 is not about the making of the equipment,
and therefore is not performed by the artisans but by Moses himself (40:23).
’SB1?, TNf: ’im p , ‘for him.’ TOO (OT ca. 105*; 8* Exod.), ‘duration,’
adverbially used noun, meaning ‘continually,’ ‘without interruption’ (25:30;
27:20; 28:29, 30, 38; 29:38), and as nomen rectum in construct chains (cf.
K6Synt §318d; Brockelmann §71c) functions as adjective with the same
meaning; see e.g. TB$ (29:42; Num. 28:6, 10, 15, 31 etc.) and
rn'tsp (30:8). In 25:30, in my opinion, T o n is to be taken as a nominal
clause: ‘it must be there continually’ (cf. T p p n op1? in Num. 4:7; see also
2Chr. 2:3).
4.7 THE LAMPSTAND WITH THE LIGHTS (25:31-40; 37:17-24)
25:31 ‘Furthermore you shall make 37:17 Furthermore he made the

a lampstand o f pure gold. The lampstand, of pure gold. He made
lampstand shall be made o f ham the lampstand of hammered work,
mered work, its trunk with its stalk; its trunk with its stalk; its cups, its
its cups, its calyxes with petals, are calyxes with petals, formed one
to form one whole with it. whole with it.
32 From its sides six stalks are 18 From its sides sprouted six
to sprout, three stalks as lampbear- stalks, three stalks as lampbearers
ers on its one side and three stalks on its one side and three stalks as
on its other side. lampbearers on its other side.
33 Three cups in the shape o f 19 Three cups in the shape of
almond blossoms are to be on the almond blossoms were on the first
first stalk, calyx with petals, and stalk, calyx with petals, and three
three cups in the shape o f almond cups in the shape of almond blos
blossoms are to be on the second soms were on die second stalk,
stalk, calyx with petals, and so calyx with petals, and so forth on
forth on all six stalks which sprout all six stalks which sprouted from
from the lampstand. the lampstand.
34 But on the lampstand itself 20 But on the lampstand itself
there are to be four cups in the were four cups in the shape of al
shape o f almond blossoms, its ca mond blossoms, its calyxes with
lyxes with petals. petals.
35 And under each pair o f stalks 21 And under each pair of stalks
that protrude from it shall be a that protruded from it was a knot,
knot, under the first pair o f stalks under the first pair of stalks that
that protrude from it there is to be protruded from it was a knot, and
a knot, and under the second and under the second and third pair of
Volume III1
400 EXODUS 2 5 :3 1 -4 0 ; 3 7 :1 7 -2 4
third pair o f stalks that protrude stalks that protruded from it was a
from it is to be a knot, in fact, at knot, in fact, at all six stalks that
all six stalks that sprout from the sprouted from it.
lampstand.
36 The knots by which they are 22 The knots by which they were
attached are to form one whole attached formed one whole with it.
with it. It is to become one piece, It was of one piece, entirely con
entirely consisting o f hammered sisting of hammered work and of
work and o f pure gold. pure gold.
37 The accompanying lights you 23 He made the accompanying
shall make, seven in number Those lights, seven in number,
lights he must lit in such a way
that he causes the light to shine in
front o f it, in the space before it.
38 Even the accompanying
tongues and trays (you shall make) and the accompanying tongues and
o f pure gold. trays of pure gold.
39 O f one talent o f pure gold he 24 Of one talent of pure gold he
must make it and all the imple made it and all its implements.
ments that are mentioned.
40 See to it that you make them
according to the plan shown you
on the mountain.
In the description of the lampstand and accessories five themes/elements can be

discerned:
(1) The lampstand (25:31-36; 37:17-22); 25:36b; 37:22b are concluding
notes, which chiastically - see the use of nift?)? and "rinp anj - hark back to
25:31a; 37:17a (inclusio).
(2) The lights (25:37; 37:23a).
(3) Tools (25:38; 37:23b).
(4) The material (25:39; 37:24).
(5) Concluding remark (25:40).
4.7.1 Bibl.: TWAT, IV, 98Iff.; Y 616ff.; C.J. Bleekei; “Some Remarks on the
Religious Significance of Light,” JANES 5 (1973), 23-34; P. Bloch, “Sieben-
armige Leuchter in christlichen Kirchen,” Wallraf-Richartz-Jahrbuch 23
(1961), 55-190; Busink (see 4.2.1), 293ff., 1157ff.; W. Eltester, “Der sieben-
armige Leuchter und der Titusbogen,” in Judentum, Urchristentum, Kirche (Fs
J.J. Jeremias), Berlin 1960, 62-76; Forbes*, VI, 122ff.; K. Galling, “Die
Beleuchtungsgerdte im israelitisch-jiidischen Kulturgebiet,” ZDPV 46 (1923), 1-
50; C.H.J. de Geus, “Signum ignis signum vitae: Lamps in Ancient Israelite
Volume III1
THE LAMPSTAND 401
Tombs,” in Scripta signa vocis (Fs J.H. Hospers), Groningen 1986, 65-75; M.
Gorg, “Zur Dekoration des Leuchters,” BN 15 (1981), 21-9; A.M. Goldbeig,
“Der siebenarmige Leuchtei; zur Entstehung eines jildischen Bekenntnissym-
bols,” ZDMG 117 (1967), 232-46; E.R. Goodenough, Jewish Symbols in the
Greco-Roman Period, New York, III, 1953, IV, 1954; C.L. Meyers, The
Tabernacle Menorah: A Synthetic Study o f a Symbol from the Biblical Cult,
Missoula, Montana 1976; D. Sperber, “The History of the Menorah,” JJS 16
(1965), 135-59; J.E. Taylor, “The Asherah, The Menorah and The Sacred
Tree,” JSOT 66 (1995), 29-54; J. \foss, Die Menora: Gestalt und Funktion des
Leuchters im Tempel zu Jerusalem, Fribourg/GOttingen 1993; W. Wirgin, “The
Menorah as Symbol of After-Life,” IEJ 14 (1964), 102-4; cf. idem, IEJ 11
(1961), 151-3; 12 (1962), 140-2; L. Yarden, “Aaron, Bethel, and the Priestly
Menorah,” JJS 26 (1975), 39-47; J. Zwarts, De zevenarmige kandelaar in de
Romeinse diaspora, Utrecht 1935.
‘Lampstand’ in the above translation is the rendering of the Hebrew
(OT 41*; 20* Exod.; 25:31-35 [7*]; 26:35; 30:27; 31:8; 35:14; 37:17-20 [6x];
37:20; 39:37; 40:4,24; Lev. 24:4; Num. 3:31; 4:9; 8:2, 3, 4), a derivative of the
root 113. The KJV uses the rendering ‘candlestick1 (cf. the Dutch ‘kandelaar’).
This translation goes back to the Vulg.: candelabrum. In the LXX, f| A.uxvio,
‘the lampstand,’ is the usual rendering (see in NT e.g. Heb. 9:2). ‘Candlestick’
is hardly an adequate translation because the source of light consists of one or
more candles, of which it is the bearer The menorah, however, is bearer of
one or more oil lamps (cf. 25:37). Lamps and lampstand belong together and
are more often cited together (1 Kgs. 7:49; 1 Chr. 28:15; 2 Chr. 4:20f. etc.). It
is possible that the lampstand is pars pro toto for the lampstand with lamps
(2 Kgs. 4:10).
4.7.2 For the lamps the term n'lj is used, the plur. of "ij (OT 44x; llx
Exod.), which, like m30, is a derivative of the root 113. In Exodus, except
27:20 (cf. Lev. 24:2), l j is always used in the plur. as designation of the
‘lights’ of the lampstand (25:37[2x]; 30:8; 35:14; 37:23; 39:37[2x]; 40:4, 25).
The lamp was a shallow bowl (for the oil), sometimes with the rims bent
inward and with one or more (cf. Zech. 4:2) notches - the rim pinched
outward, creating a spout - for one or more wicks (of flax) (cf. Isa. 42:3;
43:17). It is known that from the end of the 7* century in Palestine there was
in use a closed lamp with two openings, a spout for the wick and a rounding
for pouring in the poil. Sometimes the lamps had a small base and normally
were of pottery, but lamps made of stone and metal were in use as well.201
Because in 25:37; 37:23 it is not explicitly stated that the lights are to be of
201 For a description and illustrations see AuS, IV, 269ff, 415f.; VII, 230fF.; BRL, 198IF.;
Barrois*, I, 45 Iff.; Galling; see also De Geus; Krauss**, I, 68ff.
Volume III1
402 EXODUS 2 5 :3 1 -4 0 ; 3 7 :1 7 -2 4
gold (note also 25:38; 37:23), it is sometimes assumed that, as usual, they were
of ceramic (e.g. Meyers, 57). Bear in mind, however, that metal lamps were
luxury items. Because YHWH’s house is furnished like the house of a prince, it
is natural to think of lights of gold (cf. 1 Kgs. 7:49; 1 Chr. 28:15; 2 Chr.
4:20f.). So explicitly LXX 38:17.
4.7.3 In 25:38; 37:23 the utensils fo r servicing the lamps are mentioned. First
mention is made of O’Op'pp (dual. [KoSynt 257a] and derivative of npb
[Introd. §3.30]); in Isa. 6:6 it denotes a pair of tongs. Elsewhere (25:38; 37:23;
Num. 4:9; 1 Kgs. 7:49; 2 Chr. 4:21) the term presumably stands for a tool for
servicing the wicks of the lamps, such as trimming the wicks, removing the old
wicks and putting in new ones (e.g. Rashi, Dillmann, Cassuto).202 In Dutch
translations, on the assumption that there was more than one pair of tongs, one
finds the rendering ‘snuiters’ (‘snuffers’).203 However, there is no complete
certainty about the meaning of D’npbo. Possibly it could also refer to pliers to
remove the hot lamps from the stand (cf. Holzinger).
4.7.4 Secondly there is mention of ninflQ; n$no (OT 22*), derivative of
nnn, which, as shown by the context, refers to an object for carrying some
thing hot: a bowl, censer (Lev. 10:1; 16:12 etc.); one of the utensils with the
altar of burnt offering (27:3; 38:3), evidently used to remove hot ashes or coal.
Rashi (on Num 4:14) describes the nnno as a pan-shaped scoop or shovel
(with three sides and open in the front); the ninna of the lampstand he
describes as small bowls for cleaning out the ashes of the wicks that had
burned all night from the lamps. Nachmanides on 25:39 thinks of receptacles
under each lamp to catch the sparks of fire which might fall from them. The
usual view is that they were receptacles for the wicks and/or for the burnt
wicks for carrying them outside (cf. Dillmann, Strack, Baentsch, Cassuto).204
They may also have been saucers in which the lamps were put away.205
202 Differently Nachmanides on 25:39: meant are lids for covering the lamps so that no dirt
would fall into the oil.
203 Cf. Vulg.: emunctoria; in Num. 4:9 (ninno is translated with emunctoria); 1 Kgs. 7:49;
2 Chr. 4:21; Isa. 6:6 however fotveps/foKipes, ‘tongs;’ in LXX 38:17 (37:23); Num. 4:9; 2 Chr.
4:21; Isa. 6:6 is translated with Aaflfc;, ‘snuffers,’ in 25:37(38) however with Enapuo-cfjp, ‘funnel’
(for pouring the oil into the lamp); cf. the use of eicapuacpic in 1 Kgs. 7:49; the same term is
used for the translation of npno in 38:17 (37:23); Num. 4:9.
204 Cf. Vulg. 37:23: vasa ubi quae emuncta sunt extinguantur, ‘trays for snuffing out the burnt
wicks’ (similarly 25:38; differently Num. 4:9); cf. KJV, LuthV: ‘bluschvaten;’ Vulg. 27:4; 38:3:
igniurn receptacula, ‘fire-pans;’ in the LXX npno in 27:3; 38:23(3) (?); Lev. 10:1 etc. is
translated with nupeiov, ‘fire-pan;’ cf. Aq., Symm. in 25:37; LXX 25:37 (38) has: unoOfpect®
(trays for catching oil or dirt with the cleaning?); for the LXX in 38:17 (37:23); Num. 4:9 see
above; in 1 Kgs. 7:50 nnna is translated with Ouioicr), ‘censer;’ cf. the translation of *)3 in 25:28
(29).
205 Cf. Holzinger; yet another view is that of Noth: bowls for the oil (see however Num. 4:9).
Volume III1
THE LAMPSTAND 403
Considering the function of the ninno they obviously had a handle.

Naturally, for servicing the lights more tools were required than are men
tioned in 25:38; 37:23. Such things as containers and funnels for the oil (cf.
Num. 4:9). For the oil see 4.11. If the lampstand was of some height (see
4.7.9), the equipment will also have included some sort of ladder.
4.7.5 Though the description of the lampstand in Exod. 25; 37 is fairly
detailled, the difficulty in establishing the precise meaning of the terms makes
it impossible to obtain a complete picture. In part by raising questions, I shall
try to offer a rough picture of the lampstand.
It is to be made of pure gold (25:31; 37:17; cf. 1 Kgs. 7:49; 1 Chr. 28:15;
2 Chr. 4:7, 20; 13:11). On account of the material that is used it can also be
called ‘the glittering lampstand’ (31:8; 39:37). Was it made completely o f gold?
Meyers, 31fF., on the basis of an analysis of the term (25:31,36; 37:17),
concludes that both lampstand and cherubim were constructed by covering a
wooden model with a layer of gold. The traditional view is that the entire thing
was of gold. Already Josephus (AJ, III, 144) describes it as a hollow object of
cast gold. Sometimes it is even inferred from the use of nt&po (see 4.4.2.2 and
25:19) that the lampstand was made from one sheet of metal. Is that really
possible with a sizeable (see 4.7.9), polymorphic object, and one replete with
ornaments? Schouten (see 4.2.1.), 244, 248, 250f., 255, thinks it does, and
emphasizes that the stand could be made without soldering and the use of
screws, thanks to superhuman skills.
The unique character of the lampstand is emphasized in a variety of ways in
rabbinic exegesis: Moses had more difficulties with its construction than with
the fabrication of other objects; the Holy One showed him the lampstand with
his own fingers; from the striking niphal form in 25:31 it is inferred that the
stand shaped itself when Moses threw the gold in the oven or hammered it (it
is the work of God; see the use of ‘he’ - not Moses - at the end of Num. 8:4);
Moses had a hard time remembering how he had to make the lampstand;
Bezalel (= ‘in the shadow of God,’ that is, he had access to God) managed
right away. The rabbinic interpretation is also an explanation for the comment
in 25:40; Num. 8:4 (see NumR., XV, 4, 10; Rashi; TzUR\ Ginzbeig*, III, 160,
219; VI, 79f.).
Likely the stand was be put together in parts, placing the ornaments at the
spots where the parts were joined.
4.7.6 Did the stand have a base? Generally the question is answered affir
matively. According to rabbinic exegesis the stand rested on a three-legged
base (e.g. Rashi). Illustrations from the first millennium after Chr. depict the
lampstand, the menorah, with a base - often three-legged, but also as concave
(cf. Zwarts, 80f.). The menorah on the Arch of Titus has a double, octagonal
base (see 4.7.10).
Excavations have provided pictures of what stands from the ancient Near
Volume III1
404 EXODUS 2 5 :3 1 -4 0 ; 3 7 :1 7 -2 4
East looked like. They were made of wood, clay, stone or metal. Not always
clear is what their function was. For holding a censei; offerings, or one or
more lamps? That they were used to hold lamps is certain, however. Stands
came in a great variety: there were stands on legs; stands with a wide, round
shaft, thicker at the bottom than at the top; stands with a small, downward
thickening shaft that turns into a base; stands with a shaft gradually widening
toward the bottom.206 In all instances it concerns stands without arms, leaving it
uncertain whether they can be used for purposes of comparison. G6rg has
drawn attention to an alabaster lamp (27 cm. high) from the tomb of Tutankha
men. The lamp is made from one block of stone, out of which extend a head
and two side branches, each bearing a cup in the shape of a lotus flower. G6rg
detects Egyptian influence in the description of the milD and believes that the
picture of the seven-branched stand is due to later editing of the text. Presum
ably the original stand was without arms (cf. 25:34 and see 4.7.7).
Is a base concretely mentioned in the text? "TV (see 1:5) in 25:31; 37:17 is
often said to mean ‘base.’207 By contrast, in KJV and LuthV "|T is translated
with ‘shaft’ (so also in CV, NV, WV, GNB in Num. 8:4). That is the meaning
given in CV, NV, WV, GNB in 25:31; 37:17 to njj?. The interpretation *1T =
‘shaft’ comes from the LXX (6 kccuA.6<;; see 25:30 [31]; 38:14 [37:17]; Num.
8:4) and Vulg. (hostile [25:31], vectis [37:17, 20], stipes [Num. 8:4]) and is
commonly combined with the interpretation of nip in 25:31; 37:17 as referring
to the arms (plur.) of the stand (e.g. LXX, Vulg., SV, LuthV; see the exegesis).
In my view, i n ’ stands for the ‘lower end,’ the part of the stand that is thick
and heavy, and so offers stability to the whole. The vocabulary derived from
the plant kingdom makes it appropriate to call this particular part of the stand
‘the stem, ‘the trunk.’
Was the stem so wide and round that its lowest part sufficed as a base? Or
was the presence of a base - the legs under the body - so obvious that no
separate mention of it was deemed necessary? (e.g. Schouten [see 4.2.1], 245).
Meyers, 20ff., on the basis of the above material from the ancient Near East,
suggests that rupl "JT is a hendiadys, a term for a cylindrical shaft which is
wider at the base than at the top. In my view, nip in 25:31; 37:17 means the
same as it does elsewhere in the account.
4.7.7 Was the central njp (25:31; 37:17) (Introd. §10.5.3) the lightbearer and
were the D’jp on the sides (25:32f., 35f.; 37:18f., 21f.) without lights? Meyers,
26, 72, 8Iff., considers it likely and therewith chooses for an interpretation that
differs from the one generally accepted. On the basis of 27:20; Lev. 24:2 (U
206 For illustrations see e.g. ANEP, ill. 519-20, 624-8, 657-8; WABAT, ill. 91, 198, 257; cf.
BRL, 189f., and see Meyers, 205ff. (cf. pp. 67ff).
207 E.g. in LV, CV, NV, WV, GNB; see already TPsJ, TNf: HTH 0-03; cf. Pesh.: 0n02 =
pdaic (cf. Josephus, AJ III, 145; cf. BJ, VII, 149); differently TO: m-W.
Volume III1
THE LAMPSTAND 405
sing.) she assumes the existence of a tradition which maintains that there was
only one lamp in the tent shrine. She also situates the seven lights on the
central nap. She bases her understanding especially on the above archaeological
data - the armless stand carries the lights on the saucer-like top — and with
others espouses the view that also in Zech. 4:2 such a stand is meant. For
myself I do not believe that the MT supports this explanation.
In 25:32; 37:18 the c a p are described as rna/J ’jp. The construct chain,
which at first sight seems redundant - and consequently often is given an
abbreviated translation (e.g. LV, CV, WV; see already Vulg.) - is likely
intended to bring out that the branches support the main shaft as being the
lampstand proper and also themselves carry lights (cf. LXX 38:16, 17; Jose
phus, AJ, III, 146).
As is cleai; man is used in 25:32; 37:18 in a narrow sense as term for the
‘trunk’and the ‘stalk’ arising from it (cf. 25:31b, 33-35). Elsewhere man is
used in a broader sense for the entire object, with stalks and all (cf. 25:31a;
37:17a; 26:35; 30:27; 31:8 etc.). Apparently the entire object is also in view in
25:37-39; 37:23, 24.
Usually the lampstand is pictured as follows: the O’Jp curving upward,
protrude two by side, from either side of the main stem; all end at the same
height, that of the nap in the center so that the seven lights are horizontally
level.208 It seems likely, in view of the terminology for the menorah, that the
envisioned shape of the stand was that of a stylized tree, which makes one
wonder whether a stand resembling a pine tree is meant (cf. Zwarts, 35, 75):
from the stem, on either side, protrude straight stalks, which two by two end at
different heights; the center stalk sticks out above and forms the top.209
Nowhere else in the OT, except in Zech. 4:2, one finds a description of the
lampstand in the sanctuary. According to 1 Kgs. 7:49 there were ten lamp-
stands in Solomon’s tempel (cf. 1 Chr. 28:15; 2 Chr. 4:7,20; Jer. 52:19). In
2 Chr. 13:11, in agreement with the situation described in Exod. 25; 37 and
that prevailing in the second temple, there is only one lampstand. Were the
stands in Solomon’s temple without arms, shaped like the menorah in Zecha-
riah’s vision? That is, e.g. what Busink, 297ff, believes (cf. WABAT, ill. 226).
Certain, in any case, is that the description of the lampstand in Exod. 25; 37
has more in common with the menorah on later depictions than with the
reconstructed picture based on Zech. 4:2.
4.7.8 Where precisely were the decorations affixed? Several ornaments are
208 See e.g. the illustration of the menorah on the Arch of Titus and many later illustrations;
see 4.7.10.
209 Cf. the illustration of the menorah from the synagogue of Dura Europos, depicted, e.g., in
Goodenough, III, ill. 603, and Busink, 295, and see depictions of the tree of life on seals from
Mesopotamia (see 4.7.14).
Volume III1
406 EXODUS 2 5 :3 1 -4 0 ; 3 7 :1 7 -2 4
mentioned. (Introd. §10.1.10), (Introd. §10.1.11) and rn $ (Introd.

§10.1.8). The last term is interpreted as ‘lily’ in the ancient versions (LXX:
Kpivov; Vulg.: liliunr, TO, TPsJ, TNf: .Utfltf; cf. Pesh.; see also Josephus, AJ,
III, 145: Kptva ovv poioKoic, ‘lilies with pomegranates’). Likely m s i ~)inS3
(25:31; 37:17 etc.) is a hendiadys: ‘calyx with petals.’ Coming right after JT3J,
the hendiadys serves as apposition, further description. But note e.g. LXX
25:30 (31): m n s a is translated with kcci oi oâipcoxfjpei; (cf. Vulg., and see
e.g. Keil).
In 25:33, 34; 37:19, 20 the cups are further defined with the term
(Introd. §10.2.6). The customary interpretation appears to go back to the LXX:
eKxeTU7i6pevov KopuioKouc, ‘in the shape of nuts (almonds?);’ cf. Vulg.:
(quasi) in nucis modum or instar nucis, ‘(as) in the shape of a nut;’210 the
almond is explicitly mentioned by Aq.: (oku<|)oi) ef;T|pv)Y6aA.ujpev<H, ‘(cups)
fashioned in the shape of almonds,’ and Symm.: evtetopveupevoi dpuySaXa,
‘with almonds engraved on it;’ differently TO: I'TSD, ‘provided with figures;’
TPsJ: y in n r r a prpitfD, ‘with their decorations engraved on it’ (cf. TNf:
prptfa); Pesh. 25:33; 37:19, 20: qby'yn, ‘fastened;’ evidently in 25:34 it is
translated with nhwn, ‘will be.’ As is evident, the meaning is uncertain. G6rg,
25fi, argues for derivation from the Egyptian.
Each of the six branches has three cups (25:33; 37:19). Probably the lower
two of these were wrapped around the stalk - the stalk runs throug the cup -
and the top one is at the end and has space for a lamp.2" The central stalk has
four such cups (25:34; 37:20) - also the decorations highlight its central
position - , the lowest of which was likely at the point where the stem became
the central stalk.
The DnnBD mentioned in 25:34; 37:20 should be distinguished from those
mentioned in 25:35; 37:21. In the latter, O’ln s a is not used as part of the hen
diadys. n in es here is not term for the calyx from which the petal arises, but
apparently the thick part, the knot in the stem from which the stalks protrude.
4.7.9 No measurements o f the lampstand are given. According to rabbinic
exegesis it was 18 handbreadths = three cubits high and the distance between
the two lamps at the ends was two cubits.212 In any case, the stand must have
210 Cf. LXX 38:16: Kapuuxot;, ‘in the shape of a nut,’ ‘decorated with nuts,’ is applied to the
lights o f the aims; according to this version, which sharply deviates from the MT, identical, young
shoots (PAaoTot; term used by Aq. to translate ovno; see also e.g. LXX Num. 17:8) sprouted
from the arms, three on every side; see LXX 38:15.
2,1 LXX 38:16 speaks of sockets (£v6e|iia) for the lamps; of the seventh sock, on the top of
the lampstand, it is said that it was entirely of solid gold; is a special place given to the center
socket?
212 bMen 28b; Rashi; for details see Jacob*, Pent., 177ff.; for other interpretations see
Schouten (see 4.2.1), 247f.
Volume III1
THE LAMPSTAND 407
been higher than the table (25:23; cf. Num. 8:2 Vulg.).
A few more details concerning the lampstand are important to note. Due to
its shape, it is unsuitable, unlike shrine, table and altars, to be transported by
means of poles. Instead, it is transported on a carrying frame (Num. 4:10; cf.
4:12).
The care fo r the lights was, according to 30:7, 8; Lev. 24:3 (cf. also Num.
8:2f.), entrusted to Aaron, the highpriest. In 27:21 that task is also assigned to
his sons, the priests (cf. 2 Chr. 13:10f.).
Were the priests obligated to keep a permanent light burning on the lamp-
stand? In 27:20; Lev. 24:2 mention is made of Tlpp ”)J, ‘light without interrup
tion,’ in the sanctuary (for T o n see 25:30). However, from 27:21; 30:7, 8;
Lev. 24:3 one gets the impression that the light burned only at night, from
evening till morning (cf. 1 Sam. 3:3; 2 Chr. 3:11).
It has been proposed that continuous burning was necessary because light
from the outside could not reach the inner sanctuary (e.g. Strack on 27:20). It
is further contended that in ancient Israel there was the custom to have a lamp
burning in the house day and night (e.g. DB, I, 348; Benzinger*, 107). If that
were the case, the existence of an analogous practice in the sanctuary would be
quite plausible. It is doubtful whether such a custom of letting a lamp bum
continually really existed (see Galling, 33ff.). What is possible is that people
liked to have a lamp burning all night. Particularly the well-to-do could afford
that (Prov. 31:18).
For the sanctuary it was an ordinance to have the lamp burning through the
whole night. The true meaning of 27:20 seems to be that there must always be
enough oil, so that without interruption, each night anew, the light can bum
again. Negligence brings on the wrath of YHWH (cf. 2 Chr. 29:7). It must be
assumed that, as with regular homes, the sanctuary was naturally light enough
by day (cf. also 1 Kgs. 8:12).
According to later tradition, also during the day a light was burning in the
sanctuary. Josephus (AJ, III, 199) tells that three of the seven lamps remained
lit. Rabbinic tradition mentions only one lamp that was kept burning and used
to lit the other lamps at night (Tamid, III, 10; VI, l).213 Complete quenching of
the lamp was regarded as ominous (bJoma 39b).214 It would seem that the later
practice was influenced by the tradition about the tent shrine. The existence of
a permanently burning light in the second temple is explicitly mentioned by
Pseudo-Hecataeus (in Josephus, CA, I, 199). Also the synagogue had one or
two permanent lamps (De Vries*, 34f.).
211 According to a certain interpretation the rabbinic tradition agrees with Josephus’s
information; see £ /, XI, 1360, 1363.
214 On the correlation of light and fate see e.g. HDA, V, 1250ff., 1471ff., and in het OT
2 Sam. 21:17 etc.
Volume III1
408 EXODUS 2 5 :3 1 -4 0 ; 3 7 :1 7 -2 4
4.7.10 As already mentioned, there were ten lampstands in Solomon’s temple

(1 Kgs. 7:49). According to Eupolemus {PE, IX, 34, If.), they were made after
the model which Moses had placed in the tent shrine, with each having seven
lamps. According to rabbinic exegesis, also the menorah of the tent shrine was
placed in that temple (bMen 98b; Ginzbeig*, III, 161) and it was among the
sacred objects which, at the destruction of the temple by Nebuchadnezzar was
hid by God himself, destined for a place in the new sanctuary to be built by
God (see Ginzbeig*, III, 161; IV, 321, en see 4.5.1.10). In his blueprint of the
new temple, Ezekiel (chs. 40-48) does not mention the lampstand(s), nor the
lamp(s). That does not change the fact that the lamp is to be regarded as an
essential part of the furniture of the sanctuary. Josephus mentions it specifically
in his description of the temple of Onias in Leontopolis. Though it did not
contain a lampstand, but a lamp of gold suspended from a golden chain (BJ,
VII, 428f.).
In agreement with the stipulation of Exod. 25, the lampstand belonged to the
sacred objects of the post-exilic temple (1 Macc. 1:21; 4:49; cf. 2 Macc. 10:3
and Josephus, AJ, XII, 250, 318). Jesus Sirach alludes to it (26:17) and
Pseudo-Hecataeus mentions it explicitly (see 4.7.9). It is pictured on a coin
which bears the name of Mattathias Antigonus (40-37 B.C.) (picture in EJ, XI,
1357) and, on a carrying frame, on the Arch of Titus.215
The double, octagonal base of the menorah on the Arch of Titus (see 4.6.1)
has received a lot of attention, because it differs from the base on (later)
depictions of the menorah and because the visible panels contain images of
animals, of eagles and (sea)monsters, loathsome images (cf. Ezek. 8:10), such
as one would not expect to find in the temple. Is the picture on the triumphal
arch not a faithful reproduction? Eltester, 74ff., for one, thinks it is (cf.
Goodenough, 72; for other views see EJ, XI, 1365f.).
After the destruction of the second temple, from the beginning of the second
century, the seven-branched candelabrum, the menorah, is frequently found in
synagogues, on sarcophaguses, on amulets etc.216 As the cross is the symbol of
Christians, so the menorah is that of the Jews. A matter of dispute is whether
the menorah originally belonged to the furniture of the synagogue, and whether
the synagogal menorah or the menorah of the second temple is the ‘Urbild’ of
the depictions. Eltester, 64ff., and Goodenough, 74ff., contend that, despite a
rabbinic prohibition to make a seven-branched lampstand (e.g. in bMen 28b)217
2,5 See 4.6.1; cf. Josephus’s description in BJ, VII, 148; also elsewhere Josephus mentions it;
see BJ, I, 152; V, 216; cf. BJ, VI, 388; for the tradition on what else happened to it see EJ, XI,
1367.
216 Many depictions in vol. Ill of Goodenough’s Jewish Symbols; see further e.g. EJ, XI, 1355-
66.
1,7 Cf,however, J. Gutmann, ZNW 60 (1969), 289-91.
Volume III1
THE LAMPSTAND 409
- the lampstand of the Hanukkah feast has eight arms - originally the furniture
of the synagogue, and possibly that of the homes as well, included a seven-
branched menorah, and that such a menorah, not die one of the temple and
depicted on the triumphal Arch of Titus, provided the inspiration for the
portrayals. Others, including Goldbeig, 237ff., disagree.
The menorah, as depicted on the triumphal Arch of Titus, is the symbol of
the modem state of Israel.
Among eastern Jews there exists the custom to reproduce Ps. 67 in the form
of the menorah (see EJ, XI, 1368; Zwarts, 87f.). Some modem expositors think
that in some passages they can detect a composition model, consisting of seven
parts, which they call the menorah model.21*
4.7.11 What was the junction o f the lampstand in the sanctuary? In ancient
Israel the lampstand was only found in the houses of the wealthy (cf. 2 Kgs.
4:10 and see also Dan. 9:5). It made for better light inside (cf. Matt. 5:15 par.).
Placing of more than one lamp on the stand increased the intensity of the light
and its spread even more (cf. Zech. 4:2, 11 burning wicks!). How the lights
were placed affected how far and where their light would shine (cf. 25:37;
Num. 8:2f.). The lampstand of the sanctuary was to be placed in such a way
that the light fell on the table (so explicitly in Vulg. Num. 8:2).
The precious and beautiful lampstand is exactly the right thing for the
sanctuary which is furnished in keeping with YHWH’s royal status (see 4.6.5).
Its radiant light is a symbol of happiness and prosperity (cf. Jer. 25:10; Ps.
18:29; Prov. 13:9; 20:20; 24:20; Rev. 2:5; 18:23, and see in particular 4 Esdras
10:22), and so offers a fitting environment to him who is all brightness and
glory (cf. Isa. 60:Iff.; Hab. 3:4,11; Pss. 50:2; 104:1, 2 and e.g. 1 Tim. 6:16;
1 John 1:5).
The presence of lamps in the sanctuary so that also through the night the
deity would have a pleasant and safe abode, betrays a strongly anthropomor
phic notion of God (cf. 4.6.5) - apotropaic power is attributed to light.219 It
prompts the question: does God, the Creator of light, need lamps? (e.g. bMen
86b; ExR., XXXVI, 2,3; NumR., XV, 5-8; Ginzberg*, III, 149, 217f.). Is it
appropriate to lit a light for him? The letter of Jeremiah = 1 Baruch 6:18,
ridicules the burning of lamps in temples for gods who cannot see even a one
of them.220
4.7.12 Apparently it was such questions that prompted the notion that the19
119 Sec e.g. C.J. Labuschagne, “On the Structural Use of Numbers as a Composition Techni
que,” JNSL 12 (1984), 87-99 (on Ps. 79); idem, Deuteronomium, la, Nijkerk 1987, 30ff.
See e.g. HDA, V, 1240ff.; according to some Jewish explanation, the lamp is lit on the
evening of the sabbath as a protection against Satan; see TzlIR on Exod. 25:31, 32.
In the first centuries of the church protests were raised against the burning o f lamps (for the
Creator o f the light!); see ERE, III, 188f.
Volume III1
410 EXODUS 2 5 :3 1 -4 0 ; 3 7 :1 7 -2 4
lampstand was not first of all for giving light but had a deeper meaning. Thus
Josephus (AJ, III, 145f.) and Philo (VM, II, 102f.) gave a cosmic interpretation
to the menorah. The seven arms refer to the seven planets (differently Jose
phus, BJ, VII, 149). The same is done in TPsJ 39:37; 40:4 (cf. Ginzberg*, III,
151; McNamara*, 192ff.). Josephus does the same with the ornaments of the
menorah which, as he believes, were seventy in number.221
In rabbinic literature it is emphasized that the menorah is not meant for God
but for Israel. It symbolizes the benefits that are reaped from the study of the
Torah (cf. e.g. Ps. 119:105). Lighting of the lamp symbolizes the doing of a
good work, from which both doer and recipient benefit. Israel is given opportu
nity to serve YHWH and will reap a reward from doing his will. Because there
is a menorah in het sanctuary, in the messianic age Israel will get a prince who
will be like the light and like a seven-ighted menorah, etc.222 Of an entirely
different nature is the interpretation of Jacob*, Pent., 263ff. Having argued that
the table is symbol of Aaron and his family, who receive their holy food from
God through the people, he goes on to describe the menorah as symboling
Aaron as the priest who offers sacrifices.
In the book of Revelation, the lampstand is metaphor for the Christian church
(l:12f., 20; 2:1, 5) and important prophetic figures from Israel’s history (11:4;
cf. also John 5:35 and 2 Pet. 1:19). See TWNT, IV, 325ff.; McNamara*, 192ff.
In Christian exegesis the lampstand is interpreted as foreshadowing Jesus
Christ (cf. Rev. 21:23 and see John 8:12; 1 John 1:5), the oil as symbol of the
Holy Spirit, given to him in sevenfold measure (cf. Rev. 4:5), etc. (e.g.
Schouten [see 4.2.1], 256ff.; \fonk, 442f.). The radiant light is also taken as
admonition to the people to carefully heed the light of the heavenly teaching,
etc. (Calvin), and to let YHWH’s light shine in the darkness of the world (Keil).
4.7.13 Undoubtedly due to the meaning attributed to it, the menorah has
become a favourite emblem in Judaism (see 4.7.10). The specific meanings
attached to it vary considerably Goodenough, 77ff., discusses the modem
views, looks at the interpretation of the menorah in the writings of Josephus
and Philo, in rabbinic and cabbalistic literature, and concludes that the menorah
is symbol of God himself (Eltester, 66: ideogram for the power of God). It
seems certain that the menorah was the badge of Jewishness, symbol of the
wonderful Word of God and of trust in him (also beyond death), and that it
was also thought to possess apotropaic power.
221 AJ, II, 145, 182; according to rabbinic interpretation there were 42 (bMen 28b); see Jacob*,
Pent., 177ff.; in rabbinic exegesis the number seventy is associated with the 10 x 7 lamps -
corresponding to the seventy nations of the world - in Salomon’s temple (cf. Eupolemus’s de
scription; see 4.7.10); see Ginzberg*, III, 161.
222 E.g. ExR., XXXVI, 2, 3; LevR., XXXI, 7, 8; NumR., XV, 5, 6, 7; MidrTanh. Exod., VIII,
4, 5, 6; TzUR; for the allegorical, spiritualizing interpretation see also Leibowitz*, 497ff., 508ff.
Volume III1
THE LAMPSTAND 411
4.7.14 In any case, such meanings are secondary and of no consequence for
the interpretation of Exod. 25; 37. They do, however, occasion the question
whether, in addition to the function the lampstand has in Exod. 25; 37, it may
also have had a symbolic meaning. Was the stand with the lights more than
just a source o f light?
Important to notice is that the standard is described with terms derived from
the plant kingdom. The picture evoked is that of a stylized tree (see 4.7.7). The
stylized tree, sometimes with seven branches and of the ‘spruce type,’ occurs
frequently on iconographic material from the ancient Near East223 and is
regarded as a depiction of the tree of life, a symbol of fertility and life,
associated with many deities.224 Meyers, 133ff., 165ff., 181ff., concludes that as
to its shape, the lampstand was based on the iconographically attested tree of
life. In her view, based on her philological, archaeological and art-historical
analysis of the menorah of the tent shrine, the lampstand dates from the end of
the late bronze era or shortly after, so that it fits inside the Mosaic period. In
her opinion, the menorah was primarily a ‘tree’ and secondarily a light holder,
symbol of y h w h ’s approachability and powerful presence in the aniconic
sanctuary.
I do not find Meyers’ interpretation convincing. In the tent shrine the
presence of YHWH is closely linked with ‘the place of atonement’ (see 4.5.2).
As I see it, it is more likely that the lampstand, also by its shape, had to make
it attractive to YHWH to reside in the sanctuary. Its beautiful form must make
him favourably inclined toward his people.
But why pick the shape o f the tree? Because the presence of the tree of life
turns the sanctuary into a kind of paradise and also conveys the idea that the
resident is the owner of the tree of life (Gen. 2:9; 3:24)? It could be. Likely of
more weight, however, is that, as noted earlier (\bl. I, 340.), the tree was
uniquely the place where theophanies happened. That suggests the possibility
that the form of a tree was chosen as an invitation to YHWH to manifest himself
right there, in the sanctuary (cf. Gen. 21:33). Besides, the symbolism associ
ated with the tree makes it fitting that the lampstand, whose primary function is
to spread light, should be in the form of a tree. After all, the life it symbolizes
manifests itself in the light. The oil is its sap and the lights are flowers and
fruits. Light and life (vegetation)225 are closely related and can appear in one
figure, that of the tree of light.226
See the illustrations in H. Bergenia, De boom des levens in Schrifi en historie, Hilversum
1938, ill. 30ff.; Meyers, 216ff., and e.g. ANEP, ill. 858-9; WABAT, ill. 181.
Cf. G. Widengren, The King and the Tree o f Life in Ancient Near Eastern Religion, Uppsala
1951, 62ff..
225 See Houtman*, Himmel, 145; D. Grossberg, Bib 67 (1986), 547-54.
224 See Zwarts, 8f., and in particular Betgema, 261, 265, 269f., 272, 280 etc. (index s.v.).
Volume III1
412 EXODUS 2 5 :3 1 -4 0 ; 3 7 :1 7 -2 4
Finally, was the almond blossom on the menorah (see 4.7.8) more than an
ornament? (see Introd. §10.2.6). If it had special significance, it is hard to
trace. Striking is that another object in the sanctuary the staff of Aaron, had
the same ornaments (Num. 17:22ff.; Heb. 9:4).227
25:31/37:17 Subject of 25:31 is Moses; of 37:17 Bezalel (cf. 37:1). For mJD
(cstr. st.) in 25:31 and m » n (abs. st.) in 37:17 see 25:10; 37:1. rtyyp
(BHK1'2: cf. Ges-K §63h and Delitzsch*, 34); many MSS: cf.
Sam. Pent., LXX, Pesh., TO; for exegetical conclusions from the use of the
niphal see 4.7.5.
nipi rD T, Sam.Pent.: plur.;228 in LXX (25:30) and Vulg. nip is translated as
plur. (see also 4.7.6). I have interpreted JDpl rD T as apposition (cf. e.g. KJV,
NV). Sometimes both terms are also regarded as the first subject of the clause
ending with l’fp (cf. e.g. LV, CV, Dasbeig). nano, see 25:18, 19 and 4.7.5;
Holzinger: ‘gleichsam daraus herauswachsend’ (cf. already Vulg.).
25:32, 33/37:18, 19 ‘six,’ see Introd. §4.7.1. (Introd. §3.24.1), cf. 1 Kgs.
5:13; Isa. 11:1; Job 8:16; 14:2; 31:40. n,rlS0 (cf. Ges-K §93aa; typographical
error in BHS 37:18), of 13 (OT ca. 35*; 9x Exod.), ‘side,’ (25:32[3x]; 26:13;
30:4 etc.). See Dhorme*, 104. ‘three,’ see Introd. §4.4.1.
In 25:33; 37:19 the fact that all the stalks mentioned in 25:32; 37:18 have the
same decorations is expressed in a rather belabored manner, through repetition
with distributive sense (cf. KoSynt §85; Ges-K §123d). In LXX 25:32(33) the
sentence with m s i ... nttfbe? is translated only once (in 25:31 [32] the repetition
did get translated). Similarly also in TNf. m s i nnSD, sing. (cf. plur. in 25:31,
34), is to be taken in a distributive sense: each of the three cups consists of
these elements (otherwise Jacob*, Pent., 177f.). Second napa (25:33), in 37:19:
njp?; second irtKn (25:32), in 37:19: nntt (Sam.Pent.: inxn). p (25:33) is
followed in Sam.Pent. by ntosn.
25:34-36/37:20-22 ‘four,’ see Introd. §4.5.1. In 25:34; 37:20 the verse divider
(’athnah) is inserted under D’iJSJ. In translations the following Dnptfa is
usually closely linked with c u a j . For the question see T. Jansma, NedThT 12
(1957-58), 172ff., and also Jacob*, Pent., 180. r r m s i n n n s a , LXX
25:33(34): ev to) evi KaA-apioKcp o<j)aipcoTf|pe(; xai t a Kpiva autqc> ‘on each
branch knops and its lilies’ (cf. 25:32[33]).
Often n n s a in 25:35; 37:21 and m B i n i n s a in 25:34; 37:20 are linked
227 See K. van der Toom, “Did Jeremiah See Aaron’s Staff?,” JSOT 43 (1989), 83-94.
228 Cf. Noth: is a base in the form of a three- or four-legged stand what is meant? Cassuto: "p ’
is a collective term for the legs with the base; njp is a collective term for all the arms.
Volume III1
THE LAMPSTAND 413
together (e.g. Dillmann, Strack, Baentsch). Wrongly, I believe (see 4.7.8). For
the construction of 25:35; 37:21 see 25:33; 37:19. Like there, I have tried to do
justice to the redundance of the original text. In the LXX (25:33[34]) i n s a
etc. is repeated once (similarly in TNf); in the repetition the numeral ‘four’ is
used. Vulg. has an even more simplified rendering. HJDO (25:35; 37:21), the
suffix refers to m a» (25:34; 37:20). In the LXX the end of 25:35 is introduced
with ouxcoc; (= p , see 25:33). njaa (at the end of 37:21), some MSS: rnJDfrp
(25:35), cf. Pesh. In LXX 25:34(35) the end of the verse 25:33a(34a) is
repeated.
onipi orrnnED (25:36; 37:22), the suffix refers to the side stalks mentioned
in 25:35; 37:21; the o n n s a are the ones mentioned there. onJp presents
problems, in part because of the suffix.229 Often this fern. plur. is given the
same meaning as the masc. plur. 0’3p (25:32, 33, 35). In that case, in view of
the use of the suffix, one is almost compelled to regard n p as referring to
parts of the side branches (Baentsch). In the translation the problem is often
avoided by leaving the suffixes untranslated.230 Cassuto distinguishes njp from
njp, taking the last term to mean ‘joint.’ In my view, nip is not be identified
with D’Jp. Perhaps D n n sa, the term to which njp is closely linked here, sheds
light on the meaning of rop. Their particular function points in the direction of
the meaning Cassuto gives to njp. onipi o m n a o can be taken as a hendiadys
or the waw as an explicative waw. nriN, Sam.Pent.: in x , both in 25:36 and in
37:22.
25:37, 38/37:23 The suffixes used in 25:37, 38; 37:23 refer to the lampstand
described in the preceding verses, npatf (Introd. §4.8.1), due to its unusual
position (predicate; double acc.), receives emphasis (see KoSynt. §§327w;
334u; Joiion §125v). For the lights see 4.7.2.
nbsni (Introd. §3.39.1), the 3rd pers. sing, interrupts the rhythm of the use of
the 2nd pers. sing.; Sam.Pent.: rp'jpn; the 2nd pers. sing, is adopted in ancient
(LXX, Pesh., Vulg., TO, TNf) and modem translations (e.g. LV, CV, WV, and
see e.g. Delitzsch*, 108; Baentsch). For this choice appeal can be made to
40:4, 25. If the MT is retained, the impersonal ‘one’ is used to denote the
subject (e.g. SV, NV, and see Strack, Cassuto; cf. Joiion §155d) or ‘he’
(Dasbeig). In that case it must be assumed that the reference is to the priests
(so explicitly TPsJ; cf. 27:21), in particular Aaron, the highpriest (30:7, 8)
(differently Noth: the craftsman who makes the lampstand). Cassuto believes
that n*?»m introduces a general instruction, not specifically related to the order
229 Noth proposes to read the suffixes of the first terms as singular; for more drastic changes
see Beer-Galling.
230 E.g. LV, CV, NV, WV, GNB; see already LXX, Vulg.; beside it, however, e.g. Dasberg:
‘hun aftakkingen’ (‘their branches;’ to be distinguished from the ‘armen’ [‘branches’]).
Volume III1
414 EXODUS 2 5 :3 1 -4 0 ; 3 7 :1 7 -2 4
of the sanctuary service; cf. the rendering of Vredenbuig: ‘when lighting its
lamps, one shall
For the place of the lights on the stand see 4.7.7. VKiil, Sam.Pent.: ivttm ,
the lights are subject (cf. Num. 8:2); see also LXX, Vulg., TO, TPsJ, TNf and
e.g. LV; Delitzsch*, 27; Dillmann; Strack; Baentsch. In the MT the subject of
nbltm is also the subject of VKHl (see 10:15).
(OT ca. 90*; Exod. 25:37; 28:26; 32:15; 39:19), ‘(opposite) side.’ See
THAT, II, 201, 203; TWAT, V, 1031; P. JoOon, Bib 17 (1936), 345ff. O’JB, see
Introd. §3.42.1.
The lights are to be positioned in such a way that the wicks point in the
direction of the space in front of the lamp, away from the wall where the stand
is placed (cf. 26:35; Num. 8:2,3 and see e.g. Jacob*, Pent., 181). The rabbinic
notion that the three lamps on the right and left cast their light on the stem in
the center (bMen 98b and Rashi) is without ground.
The instruction described in 25:37b is not about the fabrication and therefore
is not done by the craftsmen (cf. 27:21; 30:7, 8; 40:4, 25).
For the tonges and trays see 4.7.3, 4. 25:38 is an ellipsis. The implicit ntosn
is explicitly stated in the LXX (noifjoeu;); cf. IS P ' in TNf: ‘he/one must make
them’ (cf. 25:39). rmnnoi, Sam.Pent.: rvrvnnDi.
25:39, 40/37:24 -193231 is a derivative of Via (cf. 2 Sam. 6:14, 16) - for the
form *133 see KdHkL, II, 465f. - and indicates something round, a disk-like
object. So ”193 (OT ca. 60*) is used, for example, for a round-shaped loaf of
bread232 and frequently as a term for ‘talent’ as a weight and monetary unit
(originally round in form) (25:39; 37:24; 38:24, 25, 27[3x], 29). According to
38:24f. one talent equals 3000 shekels (see 21:32). Due to the absence of a
general standard in the ancient world, the precise weight, in modem equiva
lents, of the talent remains unsure. A rough estimate it that it was about 35 to
40 kilograms.233
Before ^33 there is no explicit mention of a numeral (cf. Joiion §137u note).
nfe?P\ some MSS, Sam.Pent.: ntPPn; cf. Pesh. (also LXX and Vulg. deviate
from MT); this is the reading followed in, e.g., LV CV, WV If the MT is
maintained, translations often opt for the impersonal subject ‘one’ (cf. 25:37)
(e.g. SV, NY Vredenbuig, Dasbeig). It could be, howevei; that the passage
already anticipates the work of Bezalel (cf. 26:31). nnx, meant is the lamp-
231 So BHS; see against it BHK1'2: 1 3 ? (cstr. st.), also in 37:24; cf. e.g. '19 3 1113 3 in 38:27; cf.
KOSynt §333c,g,h.
232 In the construct chain on^ 1 3 9 (29:23; 1 Sam. 2:36; Jer. 37:21 etc.); for Bibl. see \bl. I,
313.
233 See BHHW, II, 1166f.; Ill, 1928; BRL, 93f.; IDB, IV, 830ff.; Benzinger*, 195ff.; De
Vaux*, I, 360ff.
Volume III1
THE DWELLING 415
stand. nK (25:39), some MSS, Sam.Pent.: nttl (so 37:24); cf. Pesh. Is the
asyndeton an indication that only the menorah is to be made from the talent,
but not the other objects? Nachmanides discusses the question at great length.
According to the interpretation in LXX 25:39, the accompanying fixtures were
to be made from the one talent. In the Vulg., 25:39; 37:24 is interpreted as a
statement about the weight of the completed lampstand and its fixtures. Ehrlich
suggests that nt< is a preposition and that it means ‘including.’
n to i, see Introd. §3.46.1. rt&Bl (cf. 25:19), imperative (after imperative) with
final meaning (e.g. KdSynt §364k). orvaana (see 25:9), with a-normae
(Williams §252), some MSS: ? instead of ? (cf. 26:30). HNIO nntOttfK (Pesh.:
same text as in 25:9), for the construction see Ges-K §121c; Joilon §128c.
HN-iO part, hoph., see Introd. §3.46.2. Unsure is the tense to be employed for
the translation of the participle. Moreover, the ‘on the mountain’ is somewhat
unusual, because that is where YHWH is (cf. 24:18). Normally the participle is
translated as a perfect. Does it mean, the plan shown here to you, on the
mountain? Or does it say: when you are going to make them, then make them
...? A translation using the present tense is found in Jewish authors: ‘which is
being shown you on the mountain’ (Vredenbuig; cf. e.g. Rashi, Cassuto). This
kind of translation is based on rabbinic interpretation: when Moses is unsuc
cessful in making the menorah, YHWH shows one to him (bMen 29a; see also
4.7.5). Cassuto believes that YHWH showed Moses details that were omitted in
the description of the articles.
Notwithstanding the complexity of the construction of the menorah, no
deviation from the pattern is allowed. Nothing may be done that might anger
YHWH (see introduction to 4.3).
Remarkable is that the comment made in 25:40 is not found with that of the
description of the shrine and the table. According to Kostermann*, NF, 11Of.,
originally the clause also applied to these and to the altar of perfume.
4.8 THE DWELLING (26:1-37; 36:8-38)
4.8.1 Introduction
YHWH has announced that he wants to dwell in the midst of Israel (25:8). That
requires a fitting house. In Exod. 26 YHWH informs Moses of the instructions
concerning its construction, arrangement and furnishings. In Exod. 36 the
fabrication of the various components of the house is described. In agreement
with the situation in which Israel finds itself - in the desert, on the way to the
promised land - the house must be a tent shrine which is so constructed that it
can be taken apart (cf. Num. l:48ff.; 3:25f., 31f., 36f.; 4:5ff., 25ff., 31ff.;
7:2ff.) for reassembly elsewhere. In view of the status of the resident, the
Volume III1
416 EXODUS 2 6 :1 -3 7 ; 3 6 :8 -3 8
house must also have the features of a building. It is to be marked by durabil

ity, stability and straight lines. ‘House,’ ‘Dwelling’ is the reproduction of the
Hebrew p i^ 9, with which 26:1 begins.
P 99 (OT ca. 140*; 58x Exod.) is a derivative of p tf (see 24:16). See
TWAT, V, 62ff. p 9 9 is used as a term for a human residence, whether a
movable tent house (Isa. 54:2; Ezek. 25:4; Ps. 78:28; Cant. 1:8 etc.) or a fixed
abode (Isa. 22:16; 32:18; Pss. 49:12; 87:2 etc.), and also as a term for the
house of God, the temple in Jerusalem (Pss. 26:8; 46:5; 74:7) as well as the
movable desert shrine.
In Exodus p 9 e is used exclusively for the tent shrine (25:9; 26 [16*]; 27:9,
19; 35:11, 15, 18; 36 [12x]; 38:20, 21[2X], 31; 39:32, 33,40; 40 [17x]).
ptfD, term for the tent shrine, is translated in KJV and subsequently in other
English versions (NRSV, NEB, NIV) and Dutch versions (LY CY NV) with
‘tabernacle’ (differently e.g. Vredenbuig: ‘abode;’ WV: ‘dwelling’ [cf. Das-
berg]; TEV: ‘Tent’). The KJV is based on the tabemaculum of the Vuig.,
which in turn is based on the translation oKqvfj, ‘tent’, of the LXX. Because in
LXX and Vulg. also bn'K (see 16:16; for p tfa in relation to brut see 4.2.14-
17) is respectively translated with oKqvfj and tabemaculum, the terminological
variation in the original text is wiped out.
As concerns content, Exod. 26 and 36 can be divided as follows:
(1) 26:1-6; 36:8-13 the actual house, dwelling.
(2) 26:7-14; 36:14-20 the roof with the cover.
(3) 26:15-30; 36:20-34 the walls.
(4) 26:31-37; 36:35-38 arrangement and furnishings.
This division resembles that of the Masoretes.234
Instruction (Exod. 26) and execution (Exod. 36) are not entirely congruous.
Some verses in ch. 26 (9b, 12, 13, 30-35) are without counterpart in ch. 36.
The description in Exod. 36 remains strictly limited to the making of the
various parts of the Dwelling by the craftsmen. The cited verses from Exod. 26
are about the construction and arrangement of the house. Those tasks are not
delegated but are reserved for Moses (cf. 40:lff., 17ff.).
At first sight there is something strange about the composition of Exod. 26;
36. The description of the house starts with a sketch of the required tent
curtains, while only later the fixed parts are mentioned. On closer look, there is
good reason for this composition. The curtains described in 26:1-6; 36:8-12,
meant to form a screened-off area, are in fact the p 9 a , the actual dwelling.
The other objects mentioned, cover, curtains, posts etc., are ancillary with
respect to the p 9 » . They protect it and keep it upright. The sacred space must
234 It is to be noted, though, that in the textual tradition it is only in a few MSS that 26:7 and
36:35 are marked as being the start of a new division; see Perrot*, 58, 61, 65.
Volume III1
THE DWELLING 417
remain inviolate! That means that the other objects belong to its accessories
(cf. 35:Ilf.; 39:33f.). That the p tf a is actually the ‘inner tent’ is clear from
40:18f. For that matter, p tfo as the actual house often stands for the entire
structure.
Due to the vocabulary used in the story and the paucity of information, it is
impossible to know the precise details of how the house was made and looked
like. In particular among earlier generations there have been expositors who
have gone to great lengths to offer a reconstruction of the sanctuary. The
pictures that have been presented differ widely.235 1 will not go into great detail
in my discussion of Exod. 26; 36. For modem reconstructions see 4.2.30.
In the discussion that follows I assume that the tent shrine discussed in Exod.
26; 36 is a house whose inside measurements were 30*10*10 cubits, consisting
of two rooms, one with a floor area of 10*10 cubits (the Holy of Holies) and
one with a floor area of 20*10 cubits (the Holy Place). See further 4.8.4. As to
holiness, there is a difference in holiness between the two rooms. This is
brought out by the two names, the Most Holy Place (Holy of Holies) and the
Holy Place (Introd. §3.44.2). It is also brought out by other data (see Haran*,
158ff, 175ff; Jenson [see 4.2.1], 89ff).
The Holy of Holies was a perfect cube (cf. Rev. 21:16). Access to the
sanctuary is carefully regulated. The Holy of Holies may be entered only once
a year and then exclusively by the high priest.236 The Holy Place is daily open
to high priest and priests (27:21; 30:7, 8), but is off limits to lower ranking
cultic staff (e.g. Num. 18:3). When the house is collapsed, the Holy of Holies
and the Holy Place and furnishings remain under the care of high priest and
priests (Num. 4:5ff.). Any wrongful contact with it is life threatening (Num.
4:15,20).
Is the difference in degree of holiness between the Holy of Holies and the
Holy Place also evident from the materials that were used? The sockets of the
pillars at the entrance are of copper (26:37; 36:38), not of silver like all other
sockets of the Dwelling (see 4.8.4). The clasps of the cover are likewise of
copper (26:11; 36:18), not of gold like those of the inner tent. At the outer
ends of the Dwelling, where it borders on the courtyard, fine materials,
characteristic of the courtyard, are used (see 4.9; 4.10; 4.17). As for the house
itself, gold predominates in both the Holy of Holies and the Holy Place (see
4.5; 4.6; 4.7; 4.15). In both rooms ceiling and walls are decorated with
cherubim (see 4.8.2). The tapestry in front of the Holy of Holies differs from
235 See e.g. the illustrations in Schouten (see 4.2.1); Heinisch (ap p en d ^ 661
(taken over by McNeile, on p. lxxiv); BHHW, III, 1873f. Schouten,v4d4f£, givesîpfpntiaôn
about a maquette of the tent shrine known to him (1887); his own maquette | can -be tbuiid hrthe
Biblical Museum in Amsterdam. ; ’• ' j V ^ \
236 Lev. 16; but see also 25:22; Num. 7:89; apparently the restrictions do hot apply to Mp§es|
Volume III1
418 EXODUS 2 6 :1 -3 7 ; 3 6 :8 -3 8
the curtain in front of the Holy Place. The curtain is not decorated with
cherubim. It is, however, made from the same materials as the tapestry. It is
also suspended from golden clasps, attached to gold-overlaid pillars (see 4.8.5).
The absence of the cherubim marks the curtain as a boundary. The cherubim
belong to the world of God and are not to be exposed to the eyes of unautho
rized individuals.
Is the absence of decorations and the use of another technique for making the
curtain an indication that the curtain was less holy than the tapestry? As
concerns the difference in holiness between the Holy of Holies and the Holy
Place, one gets the impression that the degree in holiness was not so much
dependent on the materials from which they were made - in that respect both
rooms are equally holy - as it was on their function and the character and
function o f the objects in them. The presence of the shrine and the place of
atonement (see 4.5) are what make the Holy of Holies the Most Holy Place,
the point of contact between heaven and earth. For the sanctuary see further
4.2.18, 19.
The LXX does not have a translation of 36:10-34; but see however LXX
38:18 (cf. 36:34, 36), 19 (cf. 36:13, 18), 20 (cf. 36:36, 38). For 36:8, 9 see
LXX 37:1, 2; for 36:35-38 see LXX 37:3-6.
4.8.2 The actual house (26:1-6; 36:8-13)
26:1 ‘The Dwelling you shall make 36:8 All the skilful men among
o f ten tent curtains; o f twined lin them, who did the work, made the
en, o f blue and red purple and o f Dwelling of ten tent curtains; of
crimson you shall make them, with twined linen, of blue and red pur
cherubim o f first-class embroidery ple and of crimson he made them,
on them. with cherubim of first-class em
broidery on them.
2 The length o f each tent curtain 9 The length of each tent curtain
shall be twenty-eight cubits, four was twenty-eight cubits, four cubits
cubits the width o f each curtain. the width of each tent curtain. All
All tent curtains are to be o f the tent curtains were of the same size.
same size.
3 The tent curtains are to be 10 He joined the tent curtains
joined together, always five to together always five tent curtains
gether; that is how they are to be together; that is how he joined the
joined together tent curtains together.
4 Next you shall make loops o f 11 Next he made loops of blue
blue purple, along the edge o f the purple, along the edge of the tent
tent curtain at the end (of the one curtain at the end (o f the one set),
set), where it is to connect with the where it was to connect with the
Volume III1
THE DWELLING 419
other curtain. And the same you other curtain. The same he did at
shall do at the edge o f the last tent the edge of the last tent curtain (o f
curtain (of the other set), where it the other set), where it was to con
is to connect with the other curtain. nect with the other curtain.
5 Fifty loops you shall make on 12 Fifty loops he made on the
the one curtain and fifty loops you one tent curtain and fifty loops he
shall make on the tent curtain at made on the tent curtain at the
the other end, at the spot where it other end, at the spot where it was
is to connect with the other curtain, to connect with the other curtain,
and in such a way that the sets o f and in such a way that the sets of
loops match each other. loops matched each other.
6 Finally you shall make fifty 13 Finally he made fifty gold
gold clasps, and with those clasps clasps, and with those clasps he
you are to join the tent curtains in joined the tent curtains together in
such a way that the house form s a such a way that the house formed a
single whole. ’ single whole.
The actual house, the Dwelling, consists of ten tent curtains of very expensive
material, for which the term niT I’ is used.
ny’T (plur.: riP’T ) (OT 54x; 44* Exod.; 26:1-13 [24x]; 36:8-17 [20x];
Num. 4:25), ‘tent curtain,’ ‘tent’,237 is respectively translated in 26:1-6 in the
LXX and Vulg. with auAccia ‘curtain,’ ‘tapestry,’ and cortina, ‘tapestry’
(tentorium in 26:2); in 26:7-13 however with respectively 6eppi<;, ‘leather
covering’ (so Aq. in 26:1; Aq., Symm. in 26:7: Kodu7tTqp), and sagum,
‘cloak.’
Because twice five tent curtains are to be joined together (by sewing them
together?), two large tent curtains are made, measuring 28x20 cubits. Because
in turn also those are to be joined together, one large tent curtain is made (cf.
26:6; 36:13), measuring 28x40 cubits. The two large curtains are connected by
means of loops and clasps, perhaps for ease of handling, perhaps also to give
expression to the fact that the sanctuary consisted of two parts. For ‘loops’ and
‘clasps’ respectively the following terms are used:
n'K ^ (cf. K6HkL, II, 119; Ges-K §93x), ‘nooses,’ ‘loops,’ occurs only in
the plur. and only in Exodus (13x) (26:4, 5[3x], 10[2x], 11; 36:11, 12[3x],
17[2x]); cf. LXX: ayKuA.ai (also translation of O’l); see 8.4.5); Vulg.: ansae
and ansulae.
CTQî?, ‘clasps’ (cf. D ip , ‘to stoop’ [Isa. 46:lf.]), is used in the OT only in
the description of the tent shrine (26:6[2x], ll [ 2x], 33; 35:11; 36:13[2x], 18;
39:33); is in LXX translated with Kpixoc, ‘ring;’23* corresponding to that137
137 For literature see V>1. II, 341 and Houtman*, Himmel, 210f.
Volume III1
420 EXODUS 2 6 :1 -3 7 ; 3 6 :8 -3 8
in the Vulg. with circulus (26:6, 33; 36:13) and annulus, ‘ring’ (35:11; 39:33).
However, also the rendering fibula, ‘pin’, ‘clasp,’ is found (26:11; 36:18). See
also Symm., Theod. (35:11; cf. Theod. 39:33[14]): nepovac, ‘pins.’ According
to Heinisch, 206, O’Oip refers to ‘SpannSgel,’ meant for putting in the loop,
which was pulled through the corresponding loop.
It is often thought that the large tent curtain was to be draped over the
wooden sides (see 4.8.4) in such a way that it hang down on the outside of the
walls (cf. 26:12, 13).239 More likely it hang down along the inside, doing
double duty as ceiling and and as wall(covering) (e.g. Holzingei; Heinisch). It
is improbable that inside the Dwelling the embroidered cherubim were visible
only on the ceiling and on the tapestry (see 4.8.5) and for the rest were hidden
behind the posts.240 Their visibility - presence - was of essential importance
(see 4.5.3.5). From the fact that the clasps of the two halves of the large
curtain were at the divide of the Holy Place and Holy of Holies (26:33), it
follows that the tent curtain with the cherubim covered the entire wooden rear
wall as well as the wooden side walls, reaching down all the way to one cubit
above the ground. The absence of information about how the curtain was to be
attached to the inside - in particular how it was to be fastened in the comers
without creating creases and folds - is hardly an argument against this interpre
tation. Not much is said either about how the other parts were to be put in
place.
26:1, 2/36:8, 9 36:8 starts a large section which is concluded in 39:32 (see
there).
Subject of 26:1 is Moses. In 36:8 the craftsmen (cf. 28:3) are said to be the
ones who did the work. However, in 36:8b and in the sequel the 3rd pers. sing,
is used. Often this is regarded as an impersonal subject and translated with
‘one’ or ‘they’ (e.g. NV, WV, GNB, Vredenbuig, Dasberg, NRSV). The
translation ‘he’ is also used, however (e.g. SV, LY CV [from 36:13!]). Likely
the reference is to Bezalel (37:1), the supervisor (see further, exgesis 39:1).
Dan (36:8; cf. KoSynt §346i), Sam.Pent.: ’Dan (cf. MT 28:3); natt^D (36:8),
see 12:16. p tfo n (26:1), with article (see on the other hand 25:10, 23, 31),
meant is the house, the place where the in 25:10-40 described furniture is to be
put. pitfon (36:8), Sam.Pent.: + itou. nbani, Sam.Pent.: without copulative.
D’ana is in the Vulg. not translated with ‘cherubim,’ as in 25:18, but taken as
‘ornaments’ in general (26:1: variatas [cortinas]\ 36:8: opere vario; along the
“ * Cf. Aq. 35:11; also used in 38:19 and as translation of 1)* (see 8.4.5) in 27:10, 11; 37:6
(36:38).
2” So already Josephus (AJ, III, 130): one cubit on the inside of the walls while the back wall
remained open.
240 But note e.g. EB, IV, 4865f.; Schouten (see 4.2.1), 215ff.; Jacob*, Pent., 185, 194.
Volume III1
THE DWELLING 421
same line 26:31; 36:35); this is also the case in TNf 26:1, 31; 36:8, 35.
Schouten (see 4.2.1), 219f., thinks that, besides cherubim, there were also
foliage and flower decorations. In connection with the rendering in the Vulg. it
is worthy of note that Josephus (AJ, III, 130) makes no mention of the decora
tions on the inner tent while telling of the tapestry (26:31; 36:35) that it was
embroidered with all sorts of flowers and other beautiful decorations, except
forms of animals (III, 126; cf. also III, 113). Josephus wants to give no ground
to the suspicion that the Jews might be worshipping animals. Also Philo (VM,
11, 84ff.; QE, II, 85, 85, 91) does not mention the cherubim.
aem ntoUD (see 4.4.2) likely refers to the cherubim, not to the tent curtains in
general (Vredenbuig). The meaning seems to be that the cherubim are
embroidered on fine twined linen by means of blue purple etc. onK, the
masculine suffix refers to the feminine niT T (e.g. KoSynt § 14). LXX 37:1
describes in brief the contents of 36:8.
mo, see 16:18.
26:3, 4/36:10, 11 For the repetition with distributive force (26:3; 36:10) see
25:33. don (26:3), Sam.Pent.: onm. V"nn, for ending see 1:17.
n'*pn part. plur. fem. qal (26:3[2*J; 28:7; 39:4) of nan (OT ca. 25*; 14*
Exod.), in qal: ‘be united, connected, fastened (to, *?K);’ pi. (26:6, 9, 11;
36:10[2*], 13, 16, 18; cf. pu. in 28:7; 39:4): ‘be joined (with, ^K).’ The
derivatives n ^ n (26:4, 10[2x]; 36:17) and nnanO (26:4, 5; 28:27; 36:ll[2x],
12, 17; 39:20) indicate the place where two objects are/being joined, ‘the
connection’ (e.g. SS; Ges-B; K6W). In KBL both terms (except for 28:27;
39:20) are given the meaning (joined) series, drapery (of curtain pieces).241
Meant is that the curtains are lengthwise sewn together. nnntr^N nttfN (26:3),
Sam.Pent.: nn« bit nn«; so MT 36:10; for the same variation (and harmoniza
tion in Sam.Pent.) see 26:5, 6, 17; 36:12, 13, 22; see also 25:20; cf. KOSynt
§32. Second nil’T , without article (cf. KdSynt, p. 283 note 1); Sam.Pent.: +
article; similarly in 26:8 and 36:15 end.
nab, see 2:3. nspa (see 12:41), Sam.Pent.: nxpa. mana (26:4), Sam.Pent.:
manna; similarly MT 36:11. p i (see 1: 12), similarly Sam.Pent.: 36:11; MT
36:11: p . p r p , see 12:41.
A look at the translations shows that the precise interpretation of nntt, nxp,
pX’p and n ’Jtf in 26:4, 5; 36:11, 12 presents problems (e.g. C y NV, WV,
Vredenbuig, Dasbeig). In these translations man and mana are understood as
‘s e t’ In that case nU’T n is thought of as the first/the last tent curtain of a set
of five curtains sewn to each other (26:3; 36:10). See also the explanation of
241 Cf. also BDB; HAL, and see the translation ‘stel’ (‘set’) in e.g. CV, NV; differently e.g.
Van der Palm, LV, Baentsch. See further 7WAT, II, 721flf.
Volume III1
422 EXODUS 2 6 :1 -3 7 ; 3 6 :8 -3 8
Dillmann, Strack, Cassuto. Another interpretation is given by Vhn der Palm:

n o n ’ in 26:4, 5; 36:11, 12 denotes a large tent canvas, made by joining five
tent canvasses together. Joining them produced two identical, large canvasses.
To these the loops had to be attached. This way of looking at it evidently is
also behind the translation in the Vulg. (cf. also 26:10; 36:17). More likely
PUTT in 26:4, 5; 36:11, 12 refers to one strip of the two large sheets. Appar
ently the loops were attached to the lengths of the cloth, on the left side of the
one sheet (on the first strip) and on the right side of the other (on the last
strip). That made it possible to join them together into one large curtain (26:6;
36:13).
Due to the complicated nature of the text a somewhat paraphrasing transla
tion is unavoidable.
26:5, 6/36:12, 13 nb’SpD part. plur. fern. hiph. of bap (OT 13*; 11* pi.; see
7WAT, VI, 1140ff.); the hiph. (+ bN) is usually interpreted as ‘to stand over
against’ (e.g. Ges-B; cf. CV, NY WV, Dasberg), but is better translated as ‘to
correspond with,’ ‘to match’ (see BDB; K8W; cf. HAL), nb’apa introduces a
circumstantial clause (KdSynt §362e; Ges-K §156c).
4.8.3 The roof with the cover (26:7-14; 36:14-19)
26:7 ‘A fter that you shall make tent 36:14 After that he made tent cur
curtains o f goats ’ hair fo r a roof tains of goats’ hair for a roof over
over the Dwelling; eleven tent cur the Dwelling; eleven tent curtains
tains you shall make o f them. he made of them.
8 The length o f each tent curtain 15 The length of each tent cur
shall be thirty cubits, four cubits tain was thirty cubits, four cubits
the width o f each tent curtain. The the width of each tent curtain. The
eleven tent curtains are to be o f the eleven tent curtains were of the
same measurements. same measurements.
9 By joining them together, o f 16 By joining them together, of
five tent curtains you shall make five tent curtains he made one cur
one curtain; likewise o f the other tain; likewise of the other tent cur
tent curtains you shall make one tains he made one curtain.
curtain. The sixth tent curtain you
shall fo ld double at the front o f the
roof.
10 Next you shall make fifty 17 Next he made fifty loops,
loops, along the edge o f the last along the edge of the last tent cur
tent curtain (of the one set), where tain {of the one set), where it is to
it is to connect with the other cur connect with the other tent curtain;
tain, and fifty loops along the edge he also made fifty loops along the
Volume III1
THE DWELLING 423
o f the tent curtain (of the other edge of the tent curtain (o f the
set), which is to connect with the other set), which is to connect with
other curtain. the other curtain.
11 Finally, you shall make fifty 18 Finally he made fifty clasps
clasps o f copper By putting those of copper
clasps in the loops you shall join
the roof together in such a way to join the roof together, so that it
that it forms one whole. would form one whole.
12 As fo r the remainder o f the
tent curtains o f the roof the part
that hangs down, h alf o f the re
mainder o f the tent curtain is to
hang down at the back o f the
Dwelling.
13 The cubit which remains on
the one side and the cubit which
remains on the other side along the
length o f the tent curtains o f the
roof, is to hang down along the
side o f the Dwelling, on the one
side and on the other side, to cover
it.
14 For the roofyou shall make a 19 For the roof he made a cover
cover o f red dyed rams ’ skins and of red dyed rams’ skins and a
a cover o f hides o f the sea cow cover of hides of the sea cow over
over it. ’ it.
For a cover and to protect the actual dwelling, a roof of tent curtains (for the
terminology see 4.8.2) of goats’ hair is to be made. Like the inside tent, it
consists of two large tent curtains (26:11; 36:18) fastened together by two
loops and clasps (see 4.8.2). The format is different, however. The one curtain
measures 30x20 cubits, the other 30x24 cubits, so that the combined roof
measured 30x44 cubits. Because the sixth tent curtain, the first curtain as
measured from the front, was to be folded double (26:9), the entire curtain was
really 42 cubits.
As was noted under 4.8.2, in my view the inner tent was on the inside of the
wooden walls (4.8.4). This means that the roof was to be placed over the
outside. That does not alter the fact that in the account the position of the roof
is determined by its relation to the inner tent. Posts not yet having been
mentioned, this causes no surprise.
Opinions differ on how the roof was to be attached to the inner tent. On the
assumption that also the inner tent was draped over the outside of the side
Volume III1
424 EXODUS 2 6 :1 -3 7 ; 3 6 :8 -3 8
walls and the back wall, there are a variety of views.

Schouten (see 4.2.1), 22If., thinks that the sixth curtain was folded in such a
way (26:9) that it completely lay over the fifth. The resulting curtain of 40
cubits covered lengthwise exactly the inner tent of 40 cubits. This interpretation
does not square with 26:12.
Others contend that the sixth curtain was folded double (26:9) and thus was
two cubits wide. They assume that that part was hanging down and that the
other ten strips (40 cubits) were precisely above the ten strips of the inner tent.
In this interpretation 26:12, 13 is regarded as a gloss (e.g. Holzinger; Kennedy,
DB, i y 662). Both explanations assume that the roof was attached to the side
walls and the rear wall (see 4.8.4), covering it from top to bottom (cf. Jose
phus, Ant, III, 131), while the clasps of both large curtains were at the border
of the Holy Place and the Most Holy Place (26:33).
Others believe that the seams of the strips of the roof and the inner tent and
the clasps and loops were not precisely placed above each other, but that the
curtains were placed in such a way that the connecting seams of the strips of
the roof were above the center of the strips of the inner tent. In that way the
roof would offer an even better protection of the inner tent (against the
weather). This is the reasoning: the roof is 44 cubits long and in the back and
front two cubits longer than the inner tent (cf. 26:12). Since the sixth strip is
folded double (26:9), making it half as wide (two cubits), at the front the
beginning of the roof coincides with the beginning of the inner tent. In that
case, in the back, even factoring in the thickness of the back wall (see 4.8.4),
the curtain is in any case a cubit longer than the height of the wall. That means
that one must assume that the curtain at some distance from the wooden wall
was fastened to the ground with pins (see 27:19) (e.g. Baentsch). For the part
of the roof that was hanging over the side walls, this assumption is not
absolutely necessary Even if one assumes that it was not very thick, the roof
extends no farther than the ground (cf. 26:13). Some maintain that also on the
sides the roof was fastened with ropes and pins (e.g. Benzingei; EB, IV, 4867).
Heinisch, 207, thinks that the ‘hanging down’ (26:12, 13) means that on the
sides the lines were attached one cubit on the underside of the roof and on the
back two cubits above it. That would mean that on the back one cubit of
material was hanging down as a kind of flap and on the sides two cubits of
material. According to Heinisch, the space between the walls and the roof was
used for storing tools and utensils.
As I see it, it is plausible that for determining the position of the roof one
should start with a curtain whose sixth strip was already folded double (26:9),
so that it was 42 cubits long and 30 cubits wide. That means that on all sides
the roof was one cubit wider than the inner tent (cf. 26:12, 13). If the assump*
tion that the walls were one cubit thick (see 4.8.4) is correct, at the back the
roof reaches exactly to the ground, while on the side walls it hangs down to
Volume III1
THE DWELLING 425
one cubit above the ground. That would mean that on the outside the roof ends
precisely at the point where on the inside the inner tent ends. In short, the roof
completely encloses the inner tent.
In each of the above interpretations, the extent to which the roof hangs over
on the front differs.
Schouten, 222, thinks that the sixth curtain (4 cubits) was folded upward in
bad weather and with ropes or sticks was made into an overhang to protect the
curtain at the entrance. According to Kennedy, DB, IV, 662, the part that was
hanging down (2 cubits) served to keep out the day light. Baentsch suggests
that the part that was folded double (1 cubit) marked the entrance (cf. Jose
phus, AJ, III, 131), while others hold that it was folded double as protection
against the wind (e.g. Benzingei; EB, IV, 4866f.).
In my interpretation, the folded-double strip sticks out one cubit at the front,
that is, it reaches over/alongside the pillars (26:37; 36:38). It is not said how
thick the pillars were. In any case, the tops were covered entirely with the part
of the roof that was hanging down and which, for sturdiness, was likely folded
double.
It is not stated how the roof was to be attached. It goes without saying that it
was fastened to the wooden wall.
Evidently to prevent any kind of possible damage to the inner tent, two more
canvasses were to be put over the roof (26:14; 36:19). The text is silent about
their dimensions. Some think that they were as large or larger than the roof
(e.g. Schouten, 223; Holzinger; Baentsch). It seems likely that they were larger
than the top of the covering. On the sides, the posts afforded extra protection
to the Dwelling. On the top, the canvasses served as such. Probably the
canvasses were fastened with ropes and pins (see 4.10). It is suggested that the
canvasses were only put over it in inclement weather
26:7-11/36:14-18 bfiN, see 16:16. n o to »3H< a m i (26:8), Sam.Pent.: a m

niON W iki (cf. MT 36:15). nit’T’ (ending), Sam.Pent.: + article (see 26:3).
In TPsJ ‘five’ and ‘six’ are associated with the division of the Torah and
Mishnah. (26:9), perf. cons, qal of b aa (4* Exod.; Ezek. 21:19 niph.),
to double;’ in 28:16; 39:9 (2*) the pass, part., ‘double folded,’ is used.
3 ^ a*so 26:12, 13 have no counterpart in ch. 36 (cf. also 26:11 beside
•18). The verses are not about the construction but about the erection of the
sanctuary (cf. 40:18, 19).
O’tfQn (beginning 26:10), inversion in Sam.Pent. and Qm; see also
-g ’ c^' Sanderson**, 115. The material of the loops is not mentioned (cf.
% 36:11); was it goat’s hair? HJS’pn (26:10), geniza fragment: n ilS ’nn, ‘the
u rmost;’ LXX: Tfj<; ava peoov (cf. Frankel*, 74). m a n a (26:10),
nbbb»)t : n "ian 0a; cf- M T 36:1 7- Sam Pent- (26:10): + ntorn (before second
Volume III1
426 EXODUS 2 6 :1 -3 7 ; 3 6 :8 -3 8
K13 hiph. (26:11), cf. 25:14. In 36:13 the fastening of the two sets belongs to
the duties of the artisans. In 36:18 it seems that the fastening was done by
Moses at the erection of the sanctuary (cf. 40:17-19). bntt in 26:11; 36:18
refers to the two parts that are to form the roof. Cf. LXX: bnttn is translated
with t&<; Seppeu;, ‘the skins.’
26:12-14/36:19 For the construction of 26:12 see K6Synt §341a; Ges-K §143c.
rno, ‘the overhanging,’ derivative of mo, ‘to overhang;’242 nmiy in 26:13
(cf. Ezek. 23:15; Amos 6:4, 7) is regarded as part. pass. (SS, BDB, Zo.) or as
adjective (Ges-B, K8W, HAL). 'p itn (see 16:18), see KSSynt §41Id.
mon, 3rd pers. sing, feminine (cf. KoSynt §349a; Joiion §150n), sometimes
interpreted as 2nd pers. sing, masculine (e.g. Cassuto; cf. CY W y GNB);
Moses is then the assumed subject: ‘you shall let hang down.’ In that case the
qal is regarded as causative. This interpretations is found already in LXX and
Vulg. LXX 26:12 begins with icai uTtoOrjoen; (MT: mQI) and continues in
26:12b with u7C0KaAui|reic, ‘you shall cover’ (so LXXB; there are several
variants with an expanded text; cf. Frankel*, 102). In the Vulg. mon is
translated with operies, ‘you shall cover,’ while moi appears to have been left
untranslated, bs, Sam.Pent.: btt. nriK, see Introd. §3.1.2; for the plur. see Ges-
K §124b; Joiion §136c.
ntn ( 2 x), see 25:19. *p»a, for a see K6Synt §279a; Williams §251; LXX: +
twv 6eppeo>v, ‘of the skins.’ bs, Sam.Pent.: bit. ns, see 25:32. noa, see 8:2.
noao, see 8:2. nb»»b», see 20:4.
4.8.4 The walls (26:15-30; 36:20-34)
26:15 ‘You shall also make the 36:20 He also made the posts for
posts fo r the Dwelling; they are to the Dwelling; they were boards of
be boards o f acacia wood. acacia wood.
16 The length o f a post is to be 21 The length of a post was ten
ten cubits, a cubit and a half the cubits, a cubit and a half the width
width o f each post. of each post.
17 Each post shall have two ten 22 Each post had two tenons
ons which are connected to each which were connected to each
other. The same you shall do with other. The same he did with all the
all the posts o f the Dwelling. posts of the Dwelling.
18 That is the kind o f posts you 23 That was the kind of posts he
shall make fo r the Dwelling: twenty241 made for the Dwelling: twenty
241 See qal in 26:12; cf. Ezek. 17:6; see also m o niph. (of a homonymous root? So Zo., HAL
in Jer. 49:7.
Volume III1
THE DWELLING 427
posts fo r the southern wall. posts for the southern wall.

19 (For putting) under these 24 (For putting) under these
twenty posts you shall make forty twenty posts he made forty sockets
silver sockets, two sockets fo r the of silver, two sockets for the two
two tenons under the first post and tenons under the first post and two
two sockets fo r the two tenons un sockets for the two tenons under
der each next post. each next post.
20 And fo r the other side o f the 25 And for the other side of the
Dwelling, fo r the northern wall: Dwelling, for the northern wall he
twenty posts, made twenty posts,
21 with the forty accompanying 26 with the forty accompanying
sockets o f silver, two sockets (for sockets of silver, two sockets (for
putting) under the first post and putting) under the first post and
two sockets fo r under each next two sockets for under each next
post. post.
22 For the rear, the western wall 27 For the rear, the western wall
o f the Dwelling, you shall make six of the Dwelling he made six posts.
posts.
23 Two posts you shall make to 28 Two posts he made to serve
serve as com er posts at the rear as comer posts at the rear wall of
wall o f the Dwelling. the Dwelling.
24 A t the bottom they are to be 29 At the bottom they were each
each other’s mirror image and other’s mirror image and likewise
likewise at the top they are to be at the top they were each other’s
each other’s mirror image, up to mirror image, up to the first ring.
the first ring. Two o f the posts are Two of the posts he had given that
to have that particular shape so as particular shape to serve as comer
to serve as comer posts. posts.
25 There are to be eight posts 30 There were eight posts with
with the accompanying sockets o f accompanying sockets of silver,
silver sixteen sockets, two sockets sixteen sockets, two sockets for
for under the first post and two under each
sockets fo r under each next post. post.
26 Furthermore you shall make 31 Furthermore he made cross
cross-bars o f acacia wood: five fo r bars of acacia wood: five for the
the posts o f the one side o f the posts of the one side of the Dwel
Dwelling, ling,
27 five cross bars fo r the posts o f 32 five cross-bars for the posts of
the other side o f the Dwelling and the other side of the Dwelling and
five cross-bars fo r the posts o f the five cross-bars for the posts of the
third side, the rear, the western rear, the western wall of the Dwel
Wall o f the Dwelling, ling.
Volume III1
428 EXODUS 2 6 :1 -3 7 ; 3 6 :8 -3 8
28 in such a way that the center 33 He also made the center

cross-bar fo r the midst o f the posts cross-bar in such a way that it
connects them from the one end to could connect the posts in the
the other. midst, from the one end to the
other end.
29 The posts you shall overlay 34 The posts he had overlaid
with gold; the accompanying rings, with gold; the accompanying rings,
to be used as holders fo r the cross to be used as holders of the cross
bars, you shall make o f gold. Also bars, he had made of gold. He also
the cross-bars you shall overlay overlaid the cross-bars with gold.
with gold.
30 And after that you shall set up
the Dwelling in accordance with
the instructions shown you on the
mountain. ’
4.8.4.1 The inner tent and the roof are made of cloth. Shaping the cloth,
turning it into a suitable home with a roof, requires the use of poles. For an
ordinary tent, just a few poles spaced apart, will do. However, for the tent
shrine three connected panels of wood are used. Apparently to assure that the
shape of the sanctuary remains firm, and also to create rectangular spaces
marked by balance and harmony. The tent shrine must be a true temple! The
walls consist of panels. For these the term epp is used.
Epp (OT 5lx; 48x Exod.) is used both in sing, and plur., especially in
26:15-29 (23x) and 36:20-34 (22x), and further in 35:11; 39:33; 40:18; Num.
3:36; 4:31; Ezek. 27:6.243 The meaning ‘plank,’ ‘board,’ ‘post,’ is generally
accepted. Cf. TO: KBl; TPsJ: Kmb (cf. TNf; SamT); Vulg.: tabula', LXX:
otu Aoc; this term is also used to translate meg (see 13:22); Josephus (AJ, III,
116) and Philo ( VM, II, 77): Kitov, ‘pillar;’ Aq., Symm., Theod.: oavic,
‘plank;’ in 40:18, where both ehp and u n it are used, EPp (or pK ; cf. Goo
ding [see 4.2.1], 44ff., 62) is translated with f) Ke<J>aA.i<; (cf. also Num. 3:36;
4:31), the translation elsewhere used for 1)* (see 4.8.5).
The height and width of the posts are stated: 10x 1,5 cubits. The left and
right walls consist of 30 such posts and therefore measure, on the inside, 10
cubits in height and 30 cubits in length. The rear wall consists of six such
posts and of two specially shaped comer posts (26:23, 24; 36:28, 29). The
dimensions of the latter are not explicitly mentioned. Because the height of the
Holy of Holies and the length of its side walls (cf. 26:33) are 10 cubits, the245
245 For etymology and further givens see HAL, and in particular Seow (see 4.5.1.1), 34; H.
Hatton, BiTr 42 (1991), 205-9; E. StrOmberg Krantz (see 8:2), 78ff.
Volume III1
THE DWELLING 429
rear wall on the inside must have been 10 cubits wide and the inside of the
Holy of Holies must have been cube-shaped. Assuming that the comer posts
had the same shape as the other posts, it follows from 26:25; 36:30 that the
rear wall on the outside was 12 cubits wide. That would mean that the posts
were one cubit thick (see e.g. Baentsch; Jacob*, Pent., 188, 194) and the side
walls were 31 cubits in length. This conclusion has been challenged.
It has also been argued that enp does not refer to a solid wooden post but to
an open frame much lighter for transportation, and which from the inside
offered a view on the inner tent which on the outside was draped over the open
frames. That way the cherubim embroidered on it in the Holy of Holies would
also have been visible on the side walls (see 4.8.1).244 Nothing in the text
points to this interpretation. The words that are used argue against it (cf.
Haran*, 159f.). The walls were purposely made in such a way that they
provided a solid and stable frame for the inner tent and the roof. The dimen
sions that are listed fit the construction. As noted earliei; the one cubit thick
ness agrees very well with the way in which the inner tent and the roof are
fastened to the inner walls and the outer walls (see 4.8.3).
4.8.4.2 To make sure that the posts remain in place, all of them have two
tenons at the bottom, each for insertion into a socket. ‘Tenons’ is the transla
tion of n iT (Introd. §3.21.1; Ges-K §87o). The interpretation goes back to
Josephus. He uses the term oxp6(J)iYYe<; (AJ, III, 117). Clear is that n iT refers
to some sort of connecting piece. Also due to uncertainty about the meaning of
in 26:17; 36:22, it is not quite clear how to picture it. In modem
exegesis the prevailing view is that the tenons of 26:17; 36:22 were at the
bottom of the post (cf. 26:19; 36:24). Was a piece to be cut away from the
middle of the bottom of each post and were the pieces that were sticking out to
the right and left to be turned into tenons? (Rashi and e.g. Schouten [see
4.2.1], 212). Or were two tenons to be attached to each post? (e.g. Heinisch:
metal pins). Kennedy, DB, iy 660, thinks of the n r r as the upright arms
which formed two sides of each d^j? = frame and of the n a ^ a as its (three)
cross-bars, one each at the top, the bottom, and the middle. According to
Kennedy the frame was supplied with two rectangular legs. Does nabdD
contain additional information about the tenons?
n'3^1? part. plur. feminine pu. of bad, which as verb occurs nowhere else in
See Kennedy, DB, IV, 659f., and e.g. McNeile; Hyatt; Childs; R.E. Friedman, BA 43
(1980), 242ff.; Kennedy, 660f., thinks of the 30x10x10 dimensions as being those of the outside
(cf. Holzinger; but see Benzinger, EB, IV, 4863), though in his view they are practically the same
those on the inside: ‘a frame has strictly speaking, no thickness’ (660); Friedman thinks that
frames’ were positioned in such a way that in part they overlapped; he holds that the total
Measurements of the sanctuary were 20x8x10 cubits.
Volume III1
430 EXODUS 2 6 :1 -3 7 ; 3 6 :8 -3 8
the OT,245 is now usually taken to mean ‘to be joined/fastened.’ With some
imagination, this meaning makes sense of the text; see e.g. Baentsch: ‘die
durch Querleisten mit einander verbunden sind;’ it would strengthen the
structure (cf. Strack). In older exegesis nabtfo is understood as ‘ladder rungs’
(see Rashi and e.g. SV, \hn der Palm), an interpretation that has remained in
favour with Jewish authors (e.g. Vredenbuig, Dasbeig, Cassuto).
is usually taken to mean that the tenons were to be set
identically and parallel to each other. \fcn der Palm translates: ‘each in its
hole,’ ‘hole’ being the mortise in the base in which the tenon fits. In light of
the Hebrew text (cf. e.g. ending 26:3) both interpretations are open to question.
LXX and Vulg. do not have the same interpretation of n w in 26:17, 19.
Vulg. 26:17; 36:22 speaks of duae/binae incastraturae, ‘two grooves,’ by
which the posts could be joined. It seems that each post had to have a groove
on one side and an interlocking raised piece on the other, so that the posts
could be put together. This interpretation seems based on LXX 26:17:
6uo otYKcovioKoug (Aq.: xeipa? ‘hands;’ Symm.: Katoxeig, ‘bolts’) tg) otuAg)
tg> evi, avTV7tV7ttovtag etepov tg) exepG), ‘two connecting points (?) on the
one post, so that they interlocked.’ Also in TO, TPsJ and TNf 26:17; 36:22 is
understood as a comment about the interlocking of the posts (see also Nachma-
nides). In the LXX n i l ' in 26:19 is translated with pipr| (the undersides of a
post) (cf. also LXX 26:21, 25), in the Vulg. with anguli (the comers of a post);
n iT is interpreted as stating the location of the sockets (in Vulg. 36:24 also the
interpretation ’grooves’ is incorporated in the text. For two reasons the inter
pretation of LXX and Vulg. is questionable: nnnK btt ttf’K in 26:17, in view of
the gender, refers to the n iT and not to the posts; the n i l ’ of 26:19 seems to
refer to those of 26:17.
The upshot is that the obscure text makes a fully satisfactory interpretation
impossible. My translation is based on the assumption that the two vertical pins
are connected by a cross-bar.
4.8.4.3 The posts with the tenons are to be set on bases, the sockets. These
are called
D’3^8 (OT 57*; sing, only in 38:27 [V38> pause]; 51x Exod.) serve as sup
ports, bases (cf. Job 38:6; Cant. 5:15) for the posts (two per post) and the
pillars of the sanctuary (26:19-37 [12x]; 27:10-18 [8x]; 35:11, 17; 36:24-38
[12x]; 38:10-31 [14x]; 39:33, 40; 40:18; Num. 3:36, 37; 4:31, 32). They were
made of metal (cf. Cant. 5:15).246
The text contains no information about the form of the socket nor about how
245 Cf. the problematic O’a t y in 1 Kgs. 7:18, 29; see MJ.Mulder (HCOT 1998).
246 See B. Pelzl, BZ 19 (1975), 41-9 (of wood with a metal cover?); M. Gdrg, VT 33 (1983),
334-8 (loanword?).
Volume III1
THE DWELLING 431
they were to be put in place. All kinds of questions can be raised. Was there
space between the sockets (e.g. Holzinger: wide strips with feet) or were they a
closed row? Were they square and sitting on the ground or wedge-shaped so
that they could be hammered into the ground? Or were they anchored in the
ground? Is silver suitable socket material and was one talent (see 25:39) per
base (cf. 38:27) enough for making a socket, good for forming a solid founda
tion? Or were the sockets primarily intended as ornaments and were the posts
anchored by fastening the tenons to the ground? (see for such questions e.g.
Benzingei; EB, IV, 4864). Finally, were the sockets of the pillars of a different
shape than those of the posts? (see 4.8.5).
4.8.4.4 So that the posts could form a straight wall, cross-bars had to be
attached. ‘Cross-bar’ is the translation of cm?.
nm ? (OT ca. 40x; 15* Exod.), ‘bar’247 (Deut. 3:5; 1 Sam. 23:7; 1 Kgs. 4:13
etc.), is used in the description of the tent shrine (26:26-29 [6*]; 35:11; 36:31-
34 [6x]; 39:33; 40:18; Num. 3:36; 4:31; except in 26:28; 36:33 plur.) as term
for the ‘fastening,’ the ‘(horizontal) bars,’ by which the vertical posts are held
together (cf. TWAT, I, 780ff.). In 26:28 (hiph.; Ehrlich: read rn a [qal]; cf.
K6W) and 36:33 (qal) this function is expressed through forms of the verb
m a , apparently a denominative verb of cm ? (so e.g. K6W), to be distin
guished from m a , ‘to flee’ (\fol. I, 289). But see also Ges-B; BDB; HAL;
Ges'a.
Nothing specific is said about the shape of the cross-bars. The spot where
they were to be affixed is only in part indicated. According to 26:29; 36:34
they were to be put through rings. According to 26:28; 36:33 one of the five
cross-bars of each wall had to be placed horizontally in the middle so as to
keep all the posts of the wall, from one end to the other, in place.24®
This information suggests that the other four cross-bars were shorter. Not
stated is how precisely they were placed relative to each other. Nor is anything
said about the number of rings and the spot where they were to be attached. It
is usually assumed that the cross-bars were on the outside walls. Did they form
three ledges along the three sides, one at the top and one at the foot - each
consisting of two sections - and one in the middle? (e.g. Schouten [see 4.2.1],
213f.; Kennedy, DB, IV, 660; Benzingei; EB, IV, 4864f.). Improbable in any
case is the notion that through openings they were placed in the thick posts. As
such it is possible that they were placed on the inside (e.g. Cassuto) or on both
insides and outsides. In my interpretation (see 4.8.3) they are, insofar as they
are not at the bottom of the sides, covered by either the inner tent or the roof.*14
747 See AuS, VH, 70f.; BRL, 149, 347, 349; Krauss**, I, 40f..
144 The view that in 26:28; 36:33 the ridge-pole, used for holding up the roof, is meant (so
Fensham), is unlikely.
Volume III1
432 EXODUS 2 6 :1 -3 7 ; 3 6 :8 -3 8
Though for the most parts invisible when the sanctuary is set up, like the posts
they are to be plated with gold and held by rings of gold (26:29; 36:34).
The view that the bars were on the outside is already espoused by Josephus
(AJ, III, 120f.). He maintains that there was one bar on the back wall and a bar
on each of the sides, consisting of joined segments of five cubits long. At the
back wall the ends of the three bars were connected to each other. So not only
did each separate wall remain in place, but it also gave firmness to the struc
ture as a whole. The idea that Exod. 26; 36 implies that the three center cross
bars were connected to each other is also found e.g. in Schouten, 214.
26:15-17/36:20-22 O’Bhpn (26:15), the use of the article (not in 25:10, 17, 23,
31) is striking (e.g. MidrTanh. Exod., VII,9; Rashi; Cassuto); cf. e.g. Ges-K
§126q,r; Jodon §137m,n. 0,"1DP (see 3:5), not translated in LXX (perhaps due
to the use of otuA.o<; as translation of tfnp). In Jewish exegesis the term is
related to the manner in which the wood was to be worked and used, namely,
the way it grows, that is vertically, not horizontally (TPsJ; bSuk 45b and e.g.
Rashi; Cassuto). This explanation seems to be behind the customary interpreta
tion ‘upright.’ Ehrlich is right in questioning it. He defends the meaning
‘durable,’ that is, thick and strong. Without going along with his reasoning, I
too think it is likely that O’lOl? is a further description of the posts (cf.
Baentsch: ‘zum Stehen eingerichtet’): massive, wide, thick boards that are to
form a wall. Some maintain that the wide boards were made by connecting
smaller ones (e.g. Strack, Heinisch).
nottl, Sam.Pent.: without copula. In LXX, 26:16 is not translated as a
nominal clause (cf. 26:2, 8) but as a verbal clause: noiqoeu; (cf. 26:15). First
B7pn (26:5), in Sam.Pent.: + in « n (also in 36:21), cf. LXX, Pesh.
nnntrbx ne?N (26:17), see 26:3. The clause with p (26:17b) actually
presupposes a preceding clause with ‘you’ as subject in 26:17a.
26:18-21/36:23-26 Bhp (26:18), Sam.Pent.: plur.; so also MT 36:23; for the

same variation (and harmonization in Sam.Pent.) see 26:19, 20; 36:24, 25.
rpJJ (26:18; 3 ^ in 36:23), 3JJ + n-locale (also in 40:24); 33J (OT ca. 110x;
5x Exod.) is, except for 40:24, in Exodus always used as nomen rectum in
construct chain (cf. KoSynt §294a, 336v) with n$9 (see 25:26) and followed
by n p ’pi (= p ’fl + n-locale) (26:18; 27:9; 36:23; 38:9). Both 333 and P ’P
(OT ca. 25x; 5x Exod.) in these passages denote a direction, the ‘south’ (see
Stadelmann*, 102, 105f., 133). English has no synonymous equivalent transla
tion for the pleonasm, the use of two synonyms (see 26:35 beside 40:24), - the
work of a glossator? (cf. Strack; not so Baentsch) - , but Latin e.g. does (see
Vulg.). 333 (36:23), Sam.Pent.: H333 (cf. MT 26:18). In the LXX, 26:18 is
translated with npo<; poppav, as if the Hebrew read n3isx, ‘toward the north’
(cf. 26:35). The south wall is mentioned in LXX 26:20.
Volume III1
THE DWELLING 433
For the repetition with distributive sense in 26:19, 21; 36:24, 26 see 26:3.
nnn, meant is that the sockets are to be used as support for the posts (cf. the
use of the dative in LXX and Vulg. 26:19). See also LXX 26:21, 25.
ffbs, see 25:12. 26:20 is an ellipsis; rttoffn (26:19) is implied; explicitly in
Sam.Pent. liB$f (OT ca. 150*; 6x Exod.) is, except for 26:35 and 40:22 (+ rt-
locale) in Exodus (26:20; 27:11; 36:25; 38:11) always used as nomen rectum in
construct chain with (see 25:26). p sx refers to the ’north’ (see Introd.
§8.5; TWAT, VI, 1093ff.; Houtman*, Himmel, 213ff.). Sam.Pent.: rtilBS; also
in 26:35.
*)03 (26:21; 36:26), apposition (cf. K6Synt §3331). The tenons (cf. 26:19) are
not mentioned in 26:21; 36:26 (cf. 26:25; 36:30), but are implied, nnn, see
26:19. LXX 26:21, after m a n enpn (2 x): ei<; oqjujmrepa t a pepr| auToO, ‘on
both its sides’ (cf. LXX 26:19, 25).
26:22-25/36:27-30 D’CgT (OT ca. 30*), dual of rQT* (HAL) (cf. TV; see
1:5), stands in 26:22, 23, 27; 36:27, 28, 32; 1 Kgs. 6:16; Ezek. 46:19 for the
‘rear wall;’ see M.J. Mulder (HCOT 1998) on 1 Kgs. 6:16. D\ see 10:19.
Vulg. has in 36:27, 32 (not in 26:22,27) a double translation (translation with
clarification). The terms used here and in preceding verses for the direction
take Palestine as place of orientation (see already Nachmanides).
O’Bhp (26:23), fragment from Cairo geniza: O’JIK. n'USpI? is usually
regarded as a fem. plur. part, of ffsp II (cf. Ezek. 46:22 hoph.), which func
tions as a substantive: ‘comers’ (e.g. Ges-B; KoW; Zo.; HAL). Dillmann
explains the form as a plur. cstr. st. of n»3pp (see 26:24) (cf. BDB). Often it
is assumed that the punctuation is wrong and that the correct reading is n ssp p ,
plur. cstr. st. of S'Spip (26:24; 36:29; Ezek. 41:22; 46:21, 22 etc.), ‘comer’
(e.g. Baentsch).
TVI (26:24), Sam.Pent.: vm. vni (36:29), see KQSynt §370q; Ges-K §112ss;
H.-J. Stipp, in W. Gross et al. (eds.), Text, Methode und Grammatik (Fs W.
Richter), St. Ottilien 1991, 521-47.
O’OKn (26:34; MSS: OBfcfn), optfin (36:39) is regarded either as a qal masc.
plur. part, of ONn (denominative verb; hiph. in Cant. 4:2; 6 :6), ‘to be double’
(e.g. SS; BDB; Zo.), or as a substantive (cf. Gen. 25:24; 38:27; Cant. 4:5; 7:4),
‘twin’ (here for an object) (e.g. Ges-B; K6W; KBL); cf. the name Thomas =
Didymus (John 11:16).
O’Br (cf. MjI.II, 172) is taken to mean ‘vollstandig,’ e.g. by Strack (cf.
K8W, 545). Another view is that the vocalization is wrong (Delitzsch*, 52, 68)
and that the reading should be O'p'n (= Sam.Pent.: D’BNn; cf. LXX 26:24) (see
above). Strack, however, maintains that in both cases one should read O’BB. In
the targums both terms are translated identically. Also with retention of the
MT, the alliterative terms are often regarded as having the same meaning.
The interpretation is moot, however. Apparently, already translators way back
Volume III1
434 EXODUS 2 6 :1 -3 7 ; 3 6 :8 -3 8
had problems with it. In the LXX (26:24) ‘twins’ seems to have been under
stood in the sense of ‘identical;’ the similarity of the comer posts is empha
sized. The Vulg. seems to intimate that the combined eight boards are to form
one wall (cf. Rashi’s explanation: subject of VTPl are all the boards together;
they must be coupled together, without spaces between them, keeping them
apart). The meaning of TO, TPsJ and TNf is not entirely clear The taigums
could be read as saying that the comer posts also serve to connect the side
walls. That interpretation has gained acceptance in modem exegesis. On the
details the interpretations differ, however. An impression of the various
suggestions follows.
Dillmann discusses the view that D’Ottn refers to two posts, which together
form a rectangle. In that case, according to him, since it is unlikely that the
length of the sides was increased by the comer posts, one must assume that on
the outside the side walls were enclosed by the comer posts. If one opts for
this idea, it must also be assumed, in light of the text, that the enclosing was
only at the bottom and at the top, so that the cross-bars could be attached
without interference from the protruding comer posts. That picture he considers
artificial. That leads him to understand D’DNn as ‘fllr beide Seiten geltend,
doppelte Function habend.’ The comer posts he sees as regular posts, which
also closed the side walls. He suggests that the rear wall was connected to the
side walls, because the cross-bars of the side walls were stuck through those
rings on the comer posts that were the first rings of the side walls.
Baentsch thinks that ‘twins’ were the posts that were connected to the two
adjoining posts, one of the rear wall and one of the side wall, because in one
way or another they interlocked. Cassuto thinks of boards that were connected
to the last post of the side wall, at the top and at the lower end, by projections
in one board that fit into apertures in the other board.
For myself, I wonder whether ‘twin’ could refer to posts that are each other’s
counterpart or, better, each other’s mirror image. Possibly the comer posts
were extra strong pillar-like posts, decorated at the top and at the bottom with
ornaments. One could think of corbel-like decorations. Because the comer
posts are placed left and right on the back wall and the ornaments could not be
affixed at the junction of the comer posts and the the side walls, the comer
posts were not identical but mirror images of each other.
npo*?D; npo (OT 19*; regarded as derivative of noa), ‘place of bowing
down,’ functions as adverb: ‘down(wards),’ ‘below’ (cf. KoHkL, II, 268; Ges-
K §100b; Jouon §102d), repeatedly preceded by b (Deut. 28:13 etc.), in 26:34
= 36:29 (opposite It&NTbP, ‘from above;’ see 6:14); 27:5 = 38:4; 28:27 =
39:20 with double preposition, n m (see 19:8), Sam.Pent.: without copula. ITT
(36:29), so L (sub rasura); cf. K 6Synt §368k; many MSS, Sam.Pent.: V7l; cf.
ancient versions. b» (26:24), Sam.Pent.: bn; cf. MT 36:29. ltfto (see 6:14), the
suffix sing, (translated with a plur. in TO, TPsJ) refers to pefo or in
Volume III1
THE DWELLING 435
26:23.
nrwn nines rrttt (see 25:12), Cassuto translates ‘into the one ring’ and
believes that the two joined posts (see above) were clamped together by a ring
which encompassed both of them. More likely, the reference is to one of the
rings of 26:29, namely, the first ring from the top of the post. The ornament is
on top of it. Below the ornament both posts are identical to the base. This is
necessary for adding the cross-bars, m v p (26:24), in LXX translated as if it
read n®»n p (cf. 26:4, 17).
Beside 26:25; 36:30 see 26:21; 36:26. The first inttn enpn nnn (26:25) is
absent in Sam.Pent.; cf. MT 36:30; after the first inttn tfipn there follows in
LXX 26:25: eu; ocp<t>OTepa ta pept| autou (cf. LXX 26:19, 21). The waw
before ’P i (26:25) is absent in Sam.Pent.; cf. MT 36:30. Second »lpn nnn
(26:25), Sam.Pent.: Dip1?.
26:26-30/36:31-34 toiri (36:31), Sam.Pent.: P i n (cf. 36:8 and Sam.Pent.

26:31). onna, 26:26 (unbound form), ’nna, 36:31 (bound form; so also
Sam.Pent. and Qm in 26:26; cf. Sanderson**, 118); cf. 25:10; 37:1. Pip1? is
translated in LXX 26:26,27 with a sing.: to) cvt otuAg) (26:26), t o otuAo
(26:27; 2x). inttn (26:26), 36:31 more correct ( s i 2t is feminine): nnttn (cf.
KOSynt §252b, 349a); Sam.Pent. (36:31): inttn.
In Sam.Pent. 36:32 the second P i p 1? (cf. 26:27) is followed by flba; so also
in many MSS MT 36:32.
26:28 is dependent on n P m in 26:26. p ’fl (OT 12*; cf. T p [see 2:5] and
see Ges-K §27w; JoOon §29h), adjective, ‘the middle’ (Judg. 7:19; 1 Kgs. 6 :6,
8 etc.), nsp is translated in LXX 26:28 with kAit o c , with which in 26:20, 27
U*?S is rendered. The picture presented in the Vulg. is that the cross-bars run in
the center over the posts (26:28); there is yet a sixth cross-bar that runs from
end to end over the center of the posts (36:33). In an expansion in TPsJ the
unique nature of the center cross-bar is emphasized: it is made from the tree
which Abraham planted at Beersheba and 70 cubits long; it encompasses the
entire Dwelling by encircling it like a snake; when it is taken down it changes
into a long pole (cf. Ginzbeig*, III, 164; VI, 67).
Apparently the posts were to be overlaid not only on the inside (e.g. Schou-
ten [see 4.2.1], 208), but also on the outside (cf. Josephus, AJ, III, 117).
According to LXX 38:18, the posts were overlaid with silver. DiTTUtao (see
25:12), 26:29 (so also Sam.Pent. 36:34); onmts, 36:34. trn a , see Introd.
§3.9.3. In the Vulg. (36:34) also the casting of the sockets is reported.
nopni (26:30; Ges-K §72i; Jotion §80m), see 1:8. tSEPO (see 2:14), in LXX:
e i5 <K- In Pesh. ‘I’ (YHWH) is subject. Beside 26:30 see 25:40 and also 25:9.
Meant is that Moses knew more about details of the construction than is
indicated in the text.
Volume III1
436 EXODUS 2 6 :1 -3 7 ; 3 6 :8 -3 8
4.8.5 Arrangement and furnishings (26:31-37; 36:35-38)
26:31 'O f blue and red purple, o f 36:35 Of blue and red purple, of
crimson and twined linen you shall crimson and twined linen he made
make a tapestry. With cherubim on the tapestry. With cherubim on it
it o f first-class embroidery he must of first-class embroidery he made
make it. it.
32 You shall attach it to four 36 He made four pillars of acacia
pillars o f acacia, which are over for it, overlaid them with gold and
laid with gold and have hooks o f supplied them with hooks of gold.
gold. They must rest on four sock He cast four sockets of silver for
ets o f silver. them.
33 Yes, you shall attach that tap
estry under the clasps (of the over
head canvas) and then you shall
bring the shrine with the constitu
tion in there, behind the tapestry.
The tapestry shall fo r you be the
separation between the Holy Place
and the Most Holy Place.
34 Next you shall put the place
o f atonement upon the shrine with
the constitution: in the Most Holy
Place.
35 The table you shall set out
side, in front o f the tapestry and
the lampstand, across from the ta
ble on the southside o f the Dwell
ing. You shall thus place the table
on the northside.
36 Finally, o f blue and red pur 37 Finally, of blue and red pur
ple, o f crimson and twined linen ple, of crimson and twined linen he
you shall make a curtain fo r the made a curtain for the door
door opening o f the tent. It must be opening of the tent. It was a first-
a first-class product o f the textile class product of the textile
artist. artist.
37 For that curtain you shall 38 And {he made) the accom
make five pillars o f acacia. These panying five pillars and hooks of
you shall overlay with gold and gold for them. With gold he over
supply with hooks o f gold. Five laid their heads and clamps. The
sockets o f copper you shall cast fo r five accompanying sockets were of
them. ’ copper.
Volume III1
THE DWELLING 437
4.8.5.1 Thus far the narrative was about the ceiling, the roof and the walls of
the tent shrine. When they have been made and put in place, the Dwelling as
such is finished (cf. 26:30), ready to be furnished and prepared for living in it.
The inside work includes partitioning the space of 30x10x10 cubits created
by side walls and rear wall, inner tent and roof. By hanging a tapestry at the
divide of the two halves of the inner tent, a cube-shaped room of 10x 10x 10
cubits is created behind the tapestry, the Most Holy Place. ‘Tapestry’ is the
translation of n 5 "i^.
(OT 25x; 15x Exod.) is used almost exclusively (see 2 Chr. 3:14) as
term for the tapestry separating the Holy Place from the Most Holy Place
(26:31-35 [5x]; 27:21; 30:6; 35:12; 36:35 etc.; in 35:12; 39:34; 40:21; Num.
4:5 in the construct chain Tjpipn rQ'l^, ‘the tapestry that screens’). See TWAT,
VI, 755ff. In the LXX n an s is translated as Kaxaitexaopa, ‘curtain,’ (in
40:19[21]: KataxccAuppa), which is also used as rendering of Tjpip (see below).
In the Vulg. n a n s is translated with velum. According to R.E. Friedman, BA
43 (1980), 244, the nans was a canopy, a roof above the shrine (cf. 40:3),
which was upheld by four poles.
The tapestry is to be hung on four pillars that are overlaid with gold (for
TIOi; see 13:21), sitting on sockets of silver (see 4.8.4) and having hooks of
gold. ‘Tenons’ (26:17; 36:22) are not mentioned in connection with the pillars.
Each pillar is given one base. Does this mean that the sockets of the pillars
(26:32, 37; 36:36, 38) were of a different shape than those of the posts? (see
also 4.9). ‘Hooks’ is the translation of O’ll.
4 .8 .5 .2 D’l) (38:28) occurs only in plur.249 and exclusively in Exodus (13x)
(cstr.: n j [27:10, 11; 38:10, 11, 12, 17]; with suffix: o n \l) [26:32, 37; 27:17;
36:36, 38; 38:19]) and is usually interpreted as ‘nail,’ ‘hook,’ ‘clasp.’250 In the
Vulg. D’ll is consistently translated with capita, ‘capitals.’ The translation harks
back to the LXX, where D’ll in 26:32, 37; 27:17; 37:4, 6 (36:36, 38) is trans
lated with the plur. of ice<{)aAv<;.251 The O’ll have been taken as the antipodes of
the ‘sockets.’ In the LXX, trim in 26:24; 37:6 (36:38); 37:15, 17 (38:17, 19) is
translated with Ke<t>aAi<; (for Ke<]>aAtc; in the LXX see Gooding [see 4.2.1],
43ff.). The interpretation of 11* as capital causes problems in texts where also
#**"> is used (36:38; 38:17, 19, 28). There in the Vulg. BK1 is left untranslated.
By contrast, in the LXX 11* (among others, beside trim) is also translated with
Cf. H. Tur-Sinai, JQR 41 (1950-51), 170ff.; W.H. Hallo, JBL 77 (1958), 336f.
250 Differently Jacob*, Pent., 209f.: meant are tapered, pointed pins that were affixed to the
ends of the pillars and placed in the sockets.
251 Cf. Philo ( VM, II, 77); see also Aq. in 38:10, 28; Symm. 38:28; Theod. has: oi Koopoi;
Ke<J>oXtc is in 1 Kgs. 7:30, 31 in LXX* the rendering of rn p ’3, ‘capital;’ for ice<t>aA.i<; as
translation o f p ip see 4.8.4; for Ke<|>aA.i<; in the LXX see also 38:20 (36:36); 39:4f. (38:27).
Volume III1
438 EXODUS 2 6 :1 -3 7 ; 3 6 :8 -3 8
other terms: with 6 KpiKoq (see 4.8.1)252 and with t| ayKCAr] (see 4.8.1;
nfc^ );253 that is how the problem is ‘resolved’ in the LXX. D’ll occurs usually
in combination with D’plÔ (see 4.10).
The hanging of the tapestry creates an appropriate space for the shrine with
the constitution and the place of atonement (see 4.5). Behind the r p l ? is the
n-|'S3 (same consonants and sounds).
The tapestry turns the Dwelling into a two-room house. The room in front of
the tapestry, the Holy Place, measuring 20><1Ox 10 cubits, is for the other pieces
of furniture, insofar as their fabrication was ordered in Exod. 25, namely, the
table and the lampstand (see 4.6; 4.7). The altar of perfume has not yet come
up and nothing is said about it here (for the question see 4.2.5). The lampstand
is to be placed by the left wall; the table by the right wall (26:35). The Holy
Place is closed off by a curtain which is to be hung on five gold-overlaid
pillars, resting on sockets of copper and having hooks of gold. ‘Curtain,’ is the
translation of ^ 99.
4.8.5.3 TJ99 (OT 21 x; 16x Exod.), derivative of *po (see 25:20), is in Exod.
25-40 used for a cloth, a curtain or screen, which closes the opening of a door
or gate (26:36, 37; 27:16; 35:12, 15, 17 etc.; Num. 3:25, 31; cf. 2 Sam. 17:19;
Isa. 22:8; Ps. 105:39). In the LXX 10 D is only 26:36 translated with
eitioitaoTpov,254 term for a draw curtain which is closed and opened by means
of cords;255 elsewhere with KaTanexaopa (26:37; 37:5 [36:37] etc.; see also
Mark 15:38 par.; Heb. 6:19; 9:3; 10:20; cf. TWNT, III, 630ff.) and with
(Kaxa)KaA.uppa (27:16; 40:5 and LXXA 37:16 [38:18]), a general term which
is also used as translation of H999 (e.g. 26:14). In the Vulg. tentorium is used
throughout.
The tapestry of the Most Holy Place was, like the inside tent (see 4.8.2),
decorated with cherubim (see 4.5.3.5). Not so the curtain of the Holy Place.
The Holy of Holies is uniquely y h w h ’s private chamber
4.8.5.4 Also with repect to the arrangement of the sanctuary there remain
unanswered questions. No information is given about the pillars. Presumably
they were ten cubits high (not so Haran*, 154 n. 10: five cubits), but how thick
they were (Philo, VM, II, 83: 1,5 cubits wide) and whether they were round or
square remains unclear256 According to the interpretation of LXX and Vulg.
they featured capitals (see above D’ll). Nor is it clear how they were placed.
252 Cf. CV: D’ll is consistently translated with ‘rings.’

255 37:15, 17 (38:17, 19); 38:20 (36:36); 39:6 (38:28); see also 38:18 (36:34).
254 See also Symm. 35:17; Theod. 40:28; see beside it Aq. 26:36: napaxavuo|i6<; Aq., Symm.
27:16: 7iapaxavi>oiia.
235 See A. Pelletier, Revue des Etudes Grecques, 77 (1964), 70-5.
256 Heinisch, 208f.: the middle pillar at the front was higher; a rope strung from this pillar to a
stick at the rear wall made the ceiling into a pointed roof, capable of handling rain.
Volume III1
THE DWELLING 439
The suggestion conveyed is that they were freestanding. The general assump
tion is that of the four pillars of the Most Holy Place one stood against the left
wall and one against the right wall. Whether the two end pillars of the Holy
Place were similarly positioned or whether they stood in front of the first post
of the left and right wall, so that the five pillars at the front did not stand
inside but right in front of the sanctuary, is unclear
Unknown is whether the pillars stood equidistant from each other or not.
There is good reason for taking up the question: how could the shrine of
2,5* 1,5*0,5 cubits (25:10; 37:1), supplied with poles, be placed in the Holy of
Holies if four pillars in front of it blocked access to it. \hrious answers are
given. Schouten (see 4.2.1), 226f., 230f., believes that neither the pillars of the
Holy of Holies nor those of the Holy Place stood equidistant from each other.
Cassuto thinks that the pillars of the most Holy Place were placed after the
shrine had been brought in (cf. Nachmanides, and see 40:3). Jacob*, Pent.,
196, calculates that if the pillars were at equal distances from each other there
was enough room to bring in the shrine.
Going by the other measurements, it can be calculated that the dimensions of
both the tapestry and the curtain were 10*10 cubits. How precisely they were
put up is not clean Apparently they were to be hung behind the pillars (in
ward).257 Sometimes it is thought that rods were used (see discussion of O’pltf 0
in 4.10).
According to Josephus {AJ, III, 127f.), the curtain was hanging at the
entrance, covering the pillars halfway from the top down. That made it possible
for the priests to crawl under it, and also afforded the people a view inside on
holy days. There was, furthermore, a veil of linen that could be unrolled and
rolled up. It was unrolled for protecting the ‘veil of divers colours,’ especially
in bad weather According to Josephus, a similar ‘veil’ also hang in front of
the entrance to the temple.
The shrine apparently stood in the middle of the Most Holy Place. Table and
lampstand likely had to be placed near the tapestry (cf. Rashi). The entrance to
the sanctuary was on the east side (26:26f., 36; cf. Num. 2:3; 3:38), the side of
the rising sun (as noted by Josephus, AJ, III, 115). Also the temples of Arad
(see Fritz [see 4.2.1], 68), of Solomon (cf. 1 Kgs. 7:39) and of Ezekiel (cf.
43:Iff.) faced the east, the sacred direction. Possibly, the worship of the sun
lies back of this particular construction.2587
32
237 But see Vulg. 26:37: (columnas) ante quas, ‘(the pillars) in front of which (the curtain will
hang).’
25s It is a controversial question, however; see e.g. Busink (see 4.2.1), 252ff., 65Iff.; B.
Diebner, “Die Orientierung des Jerusalemer Tempels und die ‘Sacred Direction’ der fhihchrist-
lichen Kirchen,” ZDPV 87 (1971), 153-66; B.L. Gordon, “Sacred Directions, Orientation, and the
Top of the Map,” HR 10 (1971), 211-27; M.S. Smith, “The Near Eastern Background of Solar
Volume III1
440 EXODUS 2 6 :1 -3 7 ; 3 6 :8 -3 8
4.8.5.S The text does not talk about the making of a floor or the laying of
floor covering. Illustrations of the sanctuary often include a floor. Schouten,
51, e,g, assumes the existence of a wooden floor. According to 1 Kgs. 6:15,
30, Solomon’s temple had a floor of wood overlaid with gold. However, Num.
5:17 gives the impression that the bare ground was the floor of the tent shrine
see also 1 Kgs. 6:15f., 30; 7:7, and further Amos 9:3).
According to the description of 1 Kgs. 6, in the temple of Solomon a door
separated the Holy of Holies from the Holy Place (6:3Iff.; cf. 1 Kgs. 7:50).
Doors - not curtains - are mentioned as partition in Ezekiel’s plan of the
temple (Ezek. 41:23ff.). Josephus (AJ, VIII, 7If., 74f.) does mention curtains
in his description of Salomon’s temple (cf. 2 Chr. 3:14). They were in front of
the doors. He (BJ, V, 212) also mentions a curtain for the outside doors of the
second temple (cf. also Letter of Aristeas, 86) and of a curtain before the Holy
of Holies (V, 219; cf. Sir. 50:5; Mark 15:38 par.; 2 Baruch 6:7; Testament of
Benjamin IX, 4; Testament of Levi X, 3). See also 1 Macc. 1:22; 4:51. Some
rabbis assumed a double curtain, with a space in between of one cubit, in front
of the Most Holy Place (cf. the fragmentary TS, VII, 13).259
26:31, 32/36:35, 36 rD lsrrnK (36:35), in Sam.Pent. without particle of the

accusative and article (cf. MT 26:31). rtblT (26:31), some MSS: ntOOn (cf.
26:1); cf. LXX, Pesh. The assumed subject is not the impersonal ‘one’ (e.g.
SV, Vredenbuig), but the craftsman (Bezalel). Here it becomes clear that
Moses was expected to delegate much of the work (cf. 28:3 and 39:1). See also
25:39. Sam.Pent.: 1®1T; subject is the craftsmen (cf. 36:8 and Sam.Pent. 36:31).
nnK (36:35), many MSS: Dn« (cf. 26:1; 36:8). In LXX 37:3-6 (36:35-38) the
subject ‘they’ is used (cf. MT 36:8). For Vulg. and Josephus see 26:1; 36:8.
bv (26:32), in Vulg. translated with ante, ‘before.’ D’ttttf, used for D’Bttf ’Sit,
see Introd. §10.2.5. In the LXX, 26:32b, from o m i, is translated with two
clauses introduced by xai. 36:36 does not in every respect correlate with 26:32
(a fairly close correlation is present in LXX 37:4). 26:32 presupposes that an
instruction to make pillars and accessories has been given, formulated in the
manner of 26:37. That kind of instruction may be said to be lying behind
36:36. 26:32 is an instruction for the furnishing of the sanctuary. That is
Moses’s task (cf. 40:3, 21). Not that of the craftsmen. As such, 26:32 goes
with 26:33-35.
26:33-35 26:33-35 are without counterpart in ch. 36. The verses are not about*25
Language for Yahweh,” JBL 109 (1990), 29-39.

25’ See H.E. Faber van der Meulen, “One or Two Veils in Front of the Holy of Holies?,”
Theologica Evangelica 18/1 (1985), 22-7, and esp. S. Llgasse, “Les voiles du temple de
Jerusalem: Essai de parcours historique,” RB 87 (1980), 560-89.
Volume III1
THE ALTAR OF BURNT OFFERING 441
the making of the Dwelling (cf. 25:16, 21, 30, 37), but about furnishing it.
That task does not fall to the craftsmen, but to Moses (cf. 40:3, 4, 20-25).
nnn, LXX: eni. D’onpn (fragment Cairo geniza: O'Bhpn, ‘the posts;’ cf.
LXX), meant are the clasps mentioned in 26:6. Vulg.: inseretur autem velum
per circulos, ‘by means of (the) rings the curtain will be fastened.’ b {V3D, see
Introd. §3.9.3.
n^’^ r n (cf. Ges-K §§49h, 53r; Joiion §33), perf. hiph. of b t a (ca. 40x
OT); here followed by y>31... p a (cf. e.g. Gen. 1:4, 7): ‘to separate (from each
other).’ Dab (cf. 29:42; 30:36, 37; 31:14), who are meant? The Israelites or
Aaron and his sons (cf. 27:21)? ttfnp, see Introd. §3.44.2.
mean (26:34), in LXX (wrongly) translated as if it read: naiSH; so also in
TNf. TPsJ: + ‘with the cherubim of hammered work and forming one piece
with it.’
b p n o , see 12:46. nai, see 14:2. obs, Sam.Pent.: "|T (cf. Num. 3:29 and
also Exod. 40:24; Num. 3:35 in MT); see S. Talmon, ScrHie 8 (1961), 365f. In
the Sam.Pent. and Qm, 30:1-10 is placed after 26:35 (cf. 30:6; 40:5, 26). See
for the question 4.2.5. inborn (at ending), Sam.Pent.: inbon nxi.
26:36, 37/36:37, 38 nne, see 12:22. bnxn rtnab, not in LXXA. According to
LXX 37:5 (36:37), cherubim were also (cf. 26:31; 36:35) embroidered on the
curtain in front of the entrance to the sanctuary.
First ant (26:37), Sam.Pent.: nine ant. ant omi is a nominal clause; so
translated in LXX. niO (beginning 36:38), Sam.Pent.: n«. ntfon (36:38),
without article; cf. KOSynt §334u. nBSI, for tense see 36:29. OKI (36:38), see
6:14. O’ptfn (36:38), see 4.10; not translated in Vulg.
36:38 does not entirely correlate with 26:37. As to contents, the verses do not
entirely correspond: when the work is carried out only the tops of the pillars
are overlaid (cf. 38:19, 28). In Vulg., 36:38 coincides with 26:37.
4.9 THE ALTAR OF BURNT OFFERING (27:1-8; 38:1-7)
27:1 ‘The altar you shall make o f 38:1 He made the altar of burnt
acacia wood. The length must be offering of acacia wood. Its length
five cubits, also the width is to be was five cubits, also its width five
five cubits — the altar must thus be cubits - thus it was square - and
square - and its height three cu its height three cubits.
bits.
2 The horns fo r it you shall make 2 The horns for it he made on its
on its four comers. These horns four comers. These horns were of
are to be o f one piece with it. With one piece with it. With copper he
copper you shall overlay it. overlaid them.
Volume III1
442 EXODUS 2 7 :1 -8 ; 3 8 :1 -7
3 You shall also make its pots, 3 He also made the implements
fo r removing the ashes o f the of for the altar, the pots and the shov
fering, and its shovels, sprinkling els, the sprinkling bowls, the forks
bowls, forks and trays. All its and the trays. All its implements he
implements you shall make o f cop made of copper.
per.
4 You shall make a grating fo r it, 4 For the altar he made a grating,
a network o f copper, and on the a network of copper,
network you shall make four rings Cf. 38:5.
o f copper, on its four comers.
5 You shall attach it under the (and attached it) under its ledge,
ledge o f the altar, below it. The below it, halfway down.
network is to extend halfway down
the altar.
Cf. 27:4. 5 He cast four rings (and put
them) on the four ends of the cop
per grating as holders for the poles.
6 Furthermore, you shall make 6 Furthermore, he made the (car
(carrying) poles fo r the altar, poles rying) poles of acacia wood. With
o f acacia wood. You shall overlay copper he overlaid them.
them with copper
7 These poles shall be put in the 7 He put the poles in the rings
rings in such a way that they are on the sides of the altar, so that it
on either side o f the altar when it could be carried with them.
is carried.
8 You shall make it like a hollow He made it like a hollow box, from
box, from planks. They are to make planks.
it ju st as He showed it you on the
mountain. ’
4.9.1 A sanctuary is no sanctuary without an altar. The altar is an essential

attribute of the temple (cf. Busink [see 4.2.1], 32If.). The altar, that is, the
place where the animal sacrifices are to be brought at the tent sanctuary, is
described in 27:1-8; 38:1-7. In 27:1 and elsewhere (28:43; 29:12, 16, 18;
30:18, 20 etc.) it is simply called D3T5D (see 17:15), in 38:1 n^'rn rt3 TP, ‘the
altar of burnt offering’ (cf. 30:28; 31:9; 35:16 etc.), to distinguish it from
n")bj?n nato, ‘the altar of perfume’ (see 4.15). It is also called ntf'rtjo naio,
‘the copper altar’ (38:30; 39:39), to distinguish it from anjn n a p ‘the gold
altar’ = the altar of perfume (39:38; 40:5,6).
The altar is for the tent sanctuary. That given determines how it was to be
made and of which materials. Just as the furnishings of the Dwelling, the
shrine, the table, the lampstand and the altar of perfume (see 4.5; 4.6; 4 .7;
Volume III1
4.15), the altar is to be constructed in a way that makes it movable (cf. Num.
4:13f.). Therefore it cannot be made of heavy material, like stone and earth. It
must be shaped like a square box, made of planks of acacia wood, measure
5x5x3 cubits, and be portable. It is evidently assumed that the box is open at
both top and bottom (not so Cassuto, 363: apparently for reinforcement of the
structure it had a bottom made of planks).
The altar is to placed in the courtyard (cf. 40:29). Consistent with the level
of holiness of the place (see 4.10), it must be an altar that is overlaid with
copper.
The description provides a rough picture of what the altar looked like. Also
due to uncertainty about the meaning of certain terms, views vary on its precise
shape. To obtain a clearer picture, first a close look at some of the terms.
4.9.2 The altar had a grating, a network, and also a ledge. ‘Grating’ is the
rendering of 1333 . ‘Network’ is the translation of ntfl, and ‘ledge’ that of
occurs in the OT only in the description of the altar of the tent

sanctuary (27:4; 35:16; 38:4, 5, 30; 39:39). In 27:4; 38:4 the term is clarified
with n#7 rtfrfiO, while ntfl in 27:4, 5 apparently also serves as synonym of
*1330.
n #7 (OT 22*; 4* Exod.; see TWAT, VII, 690ff.), often derived from ah ’
(differently Ehrlich), elsewhere means ‘net’ (Pss. 10:9; 25:15 etc.), so that the
interpretation ‘network’ is warranted and 1333 should be given a similar
meaning; cf. T 33 (cstr. st.) in 1 Sam. 19:13, 16; 11733 in Amos 9:9, and 1333
in 2 Kgs. 8:15.
In the LXX, "1330 in 27:4, 5 is translated with eoxapa, which elsewhere in
the LXX is used to translate 3J (Exod. 30:3), 0157770 (Lev. 7:9) and n s (Jer.
43[36]:22ff), and then stands for a plate, a basin on/in which fire can be
placed. Also nttfl in 27:4b, 5 is translated with eoxapa (in 27:4a; 38:24[4]
with 6 ik -cug) t6<;, ‘net-like;’ cf. Aq., Symm., Theod. 27:5: to S vktuov). The
same is the case with 3373 in 27:5. In 38:24 (38:4, 5); 39:10 (38:30) 1330 is
translated with napaOepa (LXXA in 38:24: nepiOepa, the rendering in Num.
16:38, 39 [17:3, 4] of ISJt, ‘coating’). 1330 is in TPsJ, TNf, FTV translated
with bpip = kiykAvc, ‘grating’ (cf. FTP 27:5: xbpip as translation of 3313);
differently TO: Rlio.
3’3 73 (only in Exod. 27:5; 38:4; for the form see K6HkL, II, p. 465), ‘rim,’
‘ledge;’ in LXX 27:5 translated with eoxapa (see above); in LXX 38:24 (38:4)
13310 nnn is translated with KattoOev tou uupeiou, ‘under the fire plate.’
As was noted, in LXX 27:4, 5 three Hebrew terms are translated with
eoxapa; in de LXX the making of the fire plate of the altar is the subject of
27:4, 5 (cf. also Josephus, AJ, III, 149). Not entirely clear is LXX 38:24 (38:4,
5). Possibly rcapaOepa (see above) denotes a kind of trestle - the rings for the
carrying poles are attached to it - above which is found the fire plate.
Volume III1
444 EXODUS 2 7 :1 -8 ; 3 8 :1 -7
Not quite clear is what kind of picture lies behind the Vulg. The terms that
are used are not free of ambiguity and there is some difference between 27:4, 5
and 38:4. In 27:4, 5 mention is made of a craticula (translation of Sana)
subter arulam (translation of 3313) altaris; 27:5 concludes with: eritque
craticula usque ad altaris medium, ‘and the craticula will reach to the middle
of the altar;’ the craticula is under the arula. 38:4 relates the making of the
craticula and continues with et subter earn in altaris medio arulam, ‘and (he
made) under it, in the middle on the altar the arula;’ the craticula is thus
above the arula. It would seem that the craticula is to be regarded as the grate
or grill in the altar. From ch. 27 one gets the impression that arula refers to the
fire or a pan with fire. That interpretation is also possible in ch. 38 (the flames
rise up through the grate). Arula is also taken to mean the tray for the ashes
(see Calmet).
Evidently both LXX and Vulg. are based on the assumption that the altar in
the Dwelling had a grill. That notion is also found in later expositors. Simon
Patrick, for example, thinks of it as a sieve through which the ashes fell to the
bottom of the altar. There, on the east side (cf. Lev. 1:16), it was removed
through a door (see BB, 310). Calmet believes that the grate hang in the altar,
suspended from chains which at the bottom were attached to the rings on the
altar and at the top to the horns (see also Schouten [see 4.2.1], 170f.).
4.9.3 Recently, the notion that 3310 and nen refer to a grate in the altar has
still been proposed by Durham. However, it is not backed by the Hebrew text
and is anachronistic. As for the last point, it is worthy of note that it has been
propounded that the altar as portrayed in Exod. 27; 38 is unreal. It is pointed
out that an altar of wood, overlaid with copper, cannot take the heat of a
perpetual fire (Lev. 6:13; see however also Lev. 1:7; Num. 4:13f.).260
Current knowledge of altars from the ancient Near East makes it improbable,
however, that Exod. 27; 38 aim to evoke the picture of a wooden chest in
which fire was placed. More likely, the box was to serve as a tabletop for
offerings. How? By filling it with earth and stones. This conception goes far
back, and is found already in TPsJ 27:8; 38:7 (cf. bZeb 54a and e.g. Rashi).
On the assumption that there is no discrepancy between Exod. 20:24-26 and
Exod. 27; 38, conservative expositors have embraced it (e.g. Schouten [see
260 See e.g. Holzinger; McNeile; Beer-Galling. Rabbinic exegesis already noted the problem
and suggested as solution that by divine intervention the regular natural laws were suspended; see
Ginzberg*, III, 161ff. N.H. Gadegaard, “On the So-Called Burnt Offering Altar in the Old
Testament,” PEQ 110 (1978), 35-45, argues that also a massive bronze or copper altar (1 Kgs.
8:64) is unsuitable for burnt offerings, and suggests that the altar of Exod. 27; 38, as that of
1 Kgs. 8:64, was intended for exhibiting offerings and probably for blood sacrifices. From
experiments, H. Nowack, “Untersuchungen Uber die materialtechnischen Aspekte des Altars Ex
27,” BN 63 (1992), 62-71, disputes that the altar as described is unreal.
Volume III1
4.2.1], 170ff.; Heinisch; Gispen; Cassuto). Also a number of non-conservative

exegetes have adopted it (e.g. Dillmann; Bohl).
The altar of the tent sanctuary is comparable to altars of burnt offering that
have become known through excavations in Arad and Beersheba (see 4.9.6).261
These were altars belonging to local shrines. Such altars could be built with
stones and earth. Those materials are unsuitable for a movable altar Therefore
such an altar was made with a wooden frame. When it is filled to the brim
with earth, one can kindle fire on it (cf. Ezek. 43:15) and use it as an offering
tabletop. When the sanctuary is taken down for travel, also the altar, after
removal of the earth from it, can be transported. An unreal picture? At any
rate, the picture the writer seeks to convey is less strange than is often sug
gested.
In sum, the altar is one without a grate, a a io /n e h must be sought on the
outside. Where precisely? 27:5; 38:4 have been taken to mean that die grating
was attached to the upper half, under the ledge at the top of the altar,262 but the
prevailing view is that the ledge was halfway down the altar, with the grating
under it.
4.9.4 Opinions vary on how and where the grating was attached to the altar.
Next to the belief that it was directly fastened to the wall of the altar, there is
the view that the altar had a wide edge that was supported by the grating.
Presumably, the grating was separate, with a circumference laiger than that of
the altar, and the ledge served as a landing or walkway around it. Standing on
it, the priests would have performed their duties.263 It is sometimes thought that
the landing was made by filling up the space between the grating and the altar
with earth and stones (e.g. Heinisch; Gispen).
These last remarks bring up the question of what the ledge and the grating
were really for. The answers that are given also hinge on one’s conception of
the function of the grating. In my view, the most obvious explanation is that
according to 27:5; 38:4 the grating was directly attached to the wooden frame
and that ‘under the ledge’ carefully states the place on the box. The box is
encased in a copper network. But why was it attached to the box? As ornamen
tation?264 For protection? For preventing desecration of what lay on the altar?
According to TPsJ 27:5; 38:4, the network was for catching a bone or coal that
fell from the altar, so that it would not fall on the ground; the priest could pick
261V. Fritz, “‘Bis an die HOmer des Altars’: ErwSgungen zur Praxis des Brandopfers in Israel,”
in Gottes Recht als Lebensraum (Fs H.J. Boecker), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1993, 61-70, denies that
these altars were altars of burnt offering.
262 See Calmet and Bahr (see 4.2.1), 581; Durham considers this view.
263 For this view see e.g. Bahr, 580f.; Keil; Kennedy, DB, IV, 658; McNeile.
264E.g. Schouten, 169 (possibly also for hanging up utensils); Strack.
Volume III1
446 EXODUS 2 7 :1 -8 ; 38 :1 -7
it up and put it back on the altar.263*265 For preventing desecration, touching of the
altar by the priest with the feet or legs? (e.g. Baentsch; cf. BUhr [see 4.2.1],
581). For letting in air for the fire on the altar? (Cassuto; he believes that the
altar was filled with stones). So that the blood shed at the base of the altar
(Exod. 29:12; Lev. 4:7) could get to the inside of the altar?266
In any case, the altar, without lid or bottom, will have kept its shape thanks
to the metal frame. Besides, at the four comers of the network there were the
rings, holders for the carrying poles (27:4; 38:5). So the grating, the network,
also served as undercarriage.267
4.9.5 It is not indicated at what height the rings were attached. If they were
attached to the top of the grating, the top of the altar, when it is carried, would
be at the same height as the top of shrine and table, that is, the altar would rise
one and a half cubits above the shoulders of the bearers (see at 25:26-28). If
the rings were attached to the base of the grating, the grating would be at the
same height as shrine and table (cf. Jacob*, Pent., 201).
Could die ledge be a kind of landing around the altar? Considering the height
of the altar (3 cubits) it is not likely that the priests ministered at the altar from
ground level (but see Holzinger). That makes it understandable that has
been interpreted as ‘landing,’ especially because Lev. 9:22 talks about ‘coming
down’ (sc. from the altar). Proponents of the ledge as landing sometimes
attribute yet another function to it: it kept ashes and other dirt from falling on
the blood at the base of the altar and polluting it (Kennedy, DB, IV, 658).
It is also possible to attribute another function to the ledge. It may have
served as ornamentation268 and to enhance the stability (like n and rn?. 90, see
25:11). I am inclined to go along with that (cf. Holzinger). Just as it is not
stated that for use the altar had to be filled with earth, so likely it is not
mentioned either - since it is obvious - that an ascent of earth and stones to
the altar (without steps?; cf. 20:26; but see 28:43) was constructed.269*
Those who favour the idea that the altar had a ’surround’ sometimes also
hold that it had a ramp, some kind of stairway (e.g. Rashi). Heinisch believes
that a large stone was used for that.
263Evidently it is presumed that around the altar there was a horizontal network that served as
a net.
266E.g. Holzinger; Jacob*, Pent., 201; see also advocates of the view that the grating supported
the landing; e.g. Kennedy, DB, IV, 6S8. According to V>nk, 509 n. 46, the grating stopped off
insects and prevented profanation of the blood.
267Cf. J. de Groot, D ie A ttire des Salomonischen Tempelhofes, Stuttgart/Leipzig 1924, 25f.
262 E.g. Casssuto; see already Rashi (beside it there was a ‘surround’ two cubits in width for
the priests to walk on at the top of the altar).
269 Cf. Schouten, 174f.; Rashi; Dillmann; Strack; it is less probable that the altar was in part
dug into the ground (Calmet).
Volume III1
4.9.6 O f the characteristics of the altar, so far the horns have not been men
tioned. They are to be put at the four comers. ‘Homs’ is the translation of
ni?p.
n in p is the plur. of (OT 89*; 75* Hebr.; 14* Aram.), ‘horn’ (of an
animal). The term is often used metaphorically (see TWAT, VII, 181ff.;
Dhorme*, 34ff.). In Exodus only the plur. is used (10*), except in 29:12
( n n p ) always with suffix ( r n n p ) , to denote the horns of the altar of burnt
offering (27:2[2x]; 29:12; 38:2[2*]) and the altar of perfume (30:2, 3, 10;
37:25, 26) of the tent sanctuary (cf. Lev. 4:25, 30, 34; 8:15; 9:9; 16:18; Jer.
17:1; Amos 3:14; Ezek. 43:15, 20; Ps. 118:27). Evidently, the horns refer to
projections (so explicitly TPsJ and TNf) at the comers (see Ezek. 41:22 beside
Ezek. 43:15, 20) at the top of the altar. Similar projections, pointed ornaments
on the outside that resemble horns, but more massive and wider than real
horns, have been found on altars of perfume uncovered in archaeological
excavations in Palestine and on the altar of burnt offering discovered at
Beersheba (see BRL, 9f., 192, 318 [illustrations on p. 8]; Weippert**, 448,
623f.).
The altar at Beersheba, reconstructed from fragments (see IDBS, 93ff.),
probably had a height of 3 cubits (cf. 27:1); length and width cannot be deter
mined with certainty but each were minimally 3 cubits.270 Another altar of
burnt offering (see BA 31 [1968], 18ff.) earlier excavated by Aharoni at Arad
(see IDBS, 38f.), does not have horns. According to Aharoni its measurements
were the same as of the altar of Exod. 27; 38. Did it belong to a type without
horns? Is it comparable to the altar of 20:24-26?271 In the description of it no
horns are mentioned. Or are they presupposed in 20:24-26? Were the horns of
the altar of Arad perhaps made of clay and became lost? In any case, the
contention of, for example, Baentsch, that the Israelite altar (Exod. 20:24-26)
had no horns and that horns are of Canaanite origin, is unfounded. The horns
of the altar at Beersheba are of stone. Those of the altar of Exod. 27; 38
evidently were of wood overlaid with copper (cf. 30:3; not so Schouten, 176:
of massive copper).
Excavations have shown that it is unlikely that the homed altars of the OT
should be compared to the altars known from Syria and Palestine which feature
bull heads and horns.272
4.9.7 What Junction and meaning should be attributed to the horns? What is
Sec Y. Aharoni, BA 37 (1974), 2-6; A. Schoors, Berseba - De opgraving van een bijbelse
stad, Kampen 1986, 63ff.
1Cf. Z. Herzog et al., “Arad - An Ancient Fortress With a Temple to Yahweh,” BARev 13.2
(1987), 16-35.
272 Cf. M.L. Stlring, AUSS 22 (1984), 328; for illustrations see K. Galling, Der Altar in den
Kulturen des alien Orients , Berlin 1925.
Volume III1
448 EXODUS 2 7 :1 -8 ; 38 :1 -7
the origin o f the ornamentation? The suggestion that comer decorations

evolved from the custom of hanging the hides of sacrificial animals on the
stones that served as altar and placing the homed head on them is speculation
(Robertson Smith*, 436), as is the supposition that the background is to be
sought in the moon cult and bull worship (Benzinger*, 320) or that the horns
are in origin phallic symbols (Ehrlich, 371).273 In short, the origin of horns on
the altar is unknown.
As for their function, there is a range of suggestions: the horns were purely
decorative, they were for affixing the grate inside the altar (see above), for
tying sacrificial animals to them (based on a wrong interpretation of Ps.
118:27) or for hanging the utensils on them (see Calmet). Such conceptions,
especially advanced by exegetes from previous centuries, are unconvincing.
The horns served a function in the law of asylum (1 Kgs. 1:5If.; 2:28; see
further 21:14) and in the cult (29:12; 30:10 etc.). They were the most sacred
part of the altar, the point of contact with the holy, the Holy One. When the
horns are cut off from the alter it is desecrated, robbed of its power, no longer
capable to perform its function (Amos 3:14). When something is written on the
horns it means that the Holy One will always remember it (Jer. 17:1). It has
been proposed that the horns were also for fending off demons (e.g. B6hl,
Heinisch) and that in Israel they were a symbol of YHWH’s power and might
(Heinisch, Te Stroete). By contrast, following C. van Gelderen, Gispen holds
that the horns represent the sacrificial animal and symbolized the atoning
power of altar and sacrifice. Suggestions like that remain speculative. What is
true in any case is that the horn is a symbol of strength. For that reason an
ornament resembling a horn is a fitting shape for a place that is the embodi
ment of holy power. Contact with the horn implies contact with the Holy One
himself.
4.9.8 1 Kgs. 8:64 tells of the presence of a copper altar in the temple of
Solomon (cf. 2 Kgs. 16:14f.), which according to the description in 2 Chr. 4:1
measured 20*20x10 cubits.274 Ezek. 43:13ff. describes Ezekiel’s concept of the
altar of burnt offering of the new temple.275 Repeatedly the altar of burnt of
fering is mentioned in the temple scroll (TS, III, 14ff.; [XII, 8ff.]; XXIII, 8ff.;
275 For other conceptions see BHHW, II, 479; DB, IV, 658; EB, I, 124f.; ERE, VI, 794; TWAT,
IV, 799f.; De Groot (see 4.9.4), 8Iff.; A. Eberharter, “Das Horn im Kult des Alten Testaments,”
ZKTh 51 (1927), 394-9; H.Th. Obbink, “The Homs of the Altar in the Semitic Wbrld, Especially
in Jahwism,” JBL 56 (1937), 43-9 (he disputes the view of, among others, H. GreBmann and K.
Galling that originality the horns were massebahs); Obbink, 47, states: ‘the altar was the symbol
of the god; since the god was homed, therefore the altar too had to be homed.’
214The measurements of the altar of Exod. 27; 38 agree with that of the copper of 2 Chr.
6:13; see further Busink [see 4.2.1], 321ff.
275Cf. M. Dijkstra, “The Altar of Ezekiel: Fact or Fiction?,” VT 42 (1992), 22-36.
Volume III1
XXVI, 8; XXXII, 6). Josephus (AJ, III, 149f.) in his account of the altar in the
tent sanctuary makes no mention of the horns. His account of the utensils of
the altar also differs from that in the MT. He does mention hornlike protuber
ances in his description of the (stone; cf. 1 Macc. 4:44ff.) altar of the second
temple (BJ, V, 225; for a somewhat deviating description see MMiddot, III,
Iff.).
MT 38:1-7 correlates with LXX 38:22-24. The version of the LXX is shorter
and differs from the MT. See also the exegesis.
27:1-3/38:1-3 Subject of 27:1 is Moses; subject of 38:1 is Bezalel (cf. 37:1).

natarrm t (27:1), viz. the altar that naturally goes with the Dwelling (cf.
Ehrlich); Sam.Pent.: rtaiD (cf. LXX), without article, perhaps because yet
another altar is mentioned (30:1); but see also e.g. 25:10 (yilR). nbsn natomR
(38:1), ‘the altar of burnt offering' (for rtbv see 10:25), in distinction from the
altar of perfume (37:25). 131R (38:1), Sam.Pent.: *pR; cf. MT 27:1. la m
(38:1), Sam.Pent.: a m ; cf. MT 27:1. m a t (Introd. §4.5.2), not found in some
MSS MT 38:1 and Sam.Pent. 38:1, and in 38:1 only functioning as noun
clause (in 27:1 as predicate of the noun clause).
vpj? fern. plur. + suffix of (OT 30*), ‘comer,’ with ‘four’ used in 27:2;
38:2; 1 Kgs. 7:34; Ezek. 43:20; Job 1:19. See TWAT, VI, 626ff.
13DD, see 25:19. p 'n n (27:2), for scriptio defectiva (plena in Sam.Pent.) see
1:17. inR, viz. the altar; LXX: plur., viz. the horns. In LXX 38:22 the making
of the altar is described in these words: ‘He made the copper altar of the
copper firepans, which belong to the men who revolted with the group of
Korah’ (cf. Num. 16:1-3; 17:3, 4). In this way, in the LXX, MT 38:2 is
harmonized with Num. 17:3-5, a passage which contains a different tradition
concerning the origin of the copper overlay and attributes a different function
to it.
In 38:3 the enumeration of the utensils starts with the general term ’ba
(Introd. §3.27); then the details follow (cf. 37:16). nto, in Sam.Pent. 38:3 also
for ni3*?Tnn; so also many MSS MT and e.g. Pesh. TO, see 16:3.
1301*? (27:3) inf. cstr. pi. + prefix of j0 l. As a rule 101 pi. in 27:3 and Num.
4:13 is regarded as a denominative verb of 107, ‘fat’ (Judg. 9:9 etc.), and
‘ashes from the fat’ (of animal sacrifices) (Lev. 1:16 etc.), and the pi. is given
the meaning: ‘remove the ashes’ (e.g. Ges-B; BDB\ K6W; So.; differently
KBL; HAL); Ehrlich: read 1307*?, ‘fiir seine Fettasche.’ 1301*? VTiTO, LXX:
OTe<j>dvr)v to) OuoiaoTipvw, ‘a wreath (rim) for the altar’ (elsewhere oxe<t>&vTi
is translation of H and niJOO; see 25:11). 1301*?, Pesh.: ItSmSth, ‘for the use
of.’
D’? ’ (OT 9x; 27:3; 38:3; Num. 4:14 etc.), derivative of (Isa. 28:17), ‘to
sweep away’ (cf. TO, TPsJ, TNf: RTBITO; differently FTV [VJTI]). See AuS,
VII, 207f.; M.J. Mulder (HCOT 1998), 355 (on 1 Kgs. 7:40). Remarkable is
Volume III1
450 EXODUS 2 7 :1 -8 ; 3 8 :1 -7
the translation in LXX 27:3; Num. 4:14 (elsewhere otherwise): KaA.imrrjp,

‘cover;’276 see beside it Vulg. 27:3; 38:3: forcipes, ‘tongues’ (elsewhere other
wise). In any case, it must have been a tool for cleansing the altar.
npniO plur. of p^D (OT ca. 30*; 27:3; 38:3; Num. 4:14; 7:13 etc.), deriva
tive of p it (see 9:8), ‘sprinkling bowl,’ ‘basin for libation.’ Evidently it
concerns bowls for the blood of the sacrifices (cf. 24:6, 8) (differently Jacob*,
Pent., 200). Vulg. 27:3 lacks a translation; similarly Vulg. 38:3, but there
(fuscinulas uncinos) it seems a double translation for na^fO (alliteration!) is
given.
ni^TO only in plur. (27:3; 38:3; Num. 4:14; 1 Chr. 28:17; 2 Chr. 4:16),
denotes the accessory tools for the altar; apparently multi-pronged meat forks,
fleshhooks; cf. ibl© (1 Sam. 2:13, 14), and see AuS, VII, 212; BRL, 85;
Krauss**, I, 114; II, 577. They were apparently used to turn over the meat on
the altar and position it properly.
nnno, see 4.7.4. According to Rashi and others they were used for carrying
hot coals from the altar of burnt offering to the altar of perfume (see also e.g.
Jacob*, Pent., 199f.). bab, see KdSynt §27la; Ges-K §143e; Brockelmann
§3la (otherwise Dillmann; cf. e.g. Ges-K §119t); TPsJ, TNf: ba; LXX:
Koi n avT a; cf. Pesh.
The enumeration of the utensils (cf. 1 Kgs. 7:45; 2 Kgs. 25:14) in LXX
38:23 (38:3) differs from that of MT and of LXX 27:3. Moreover, it does not
consist of five but of four items: (1) xo nupeiov, ‘firepan (fireplate)’ ([5] in
LXX 27:3; see 4.7.4.); (2) xf|v Paotv (elsewhere in connection with the altar
no base is mentioned); (3) and (4) toc <l>iaA.a<; Kai ta<; xpeaypac;, ‘the bowls
and the fleshhooks’ (= [3] and [4] in LXX 27:3).
27:4, 5/38:4, 5 lb (27:4), 38:4: natob. Beside 27:4b see 38:5. The second
n ’totn (27:4) is correlative with pS’l (38:5), a term which evidently also
includes the attachment of the grating. First bSt (27:4), LXX: t« (dative).
n»30, see 25:12. In 38:5 no indication is given of the kind of metal the rings
were made of; unlike in 27:4b, it is emphatically said of the grating that it was
‘of copper.’ Second bff (27:4), LXX: imd, ‘under.’ nsp, see 12:41. m spn
(38:5), see Ges-K §95n. vnisp Pantt bs (27:4), the suffix refers to the altar or
to naao; so explicitly 38:5: naaob m spn p an to ; the term used for the grating
in 27:4b is ntfn and not, as in 38:5, naao. D’na (38:5), see Introd. §3.9.3. na,
see Introd. §10.1.9.
Beside 27:5 see 38:4b. nntt (27:5), Sam.Pent.: inK (naao is a masculine
276 Differently Frankel*, 96f.: KaAimxfjp is the translation of Utflb; rabbinic exegesis lies
behind the translation; the cover was used to keep the fire burning during transport (cf. Lev. 6:6);
see e.g. NumR. IV, 17.
Volume III1
word); LXX: plur., viz. the rings; cf. Vulg. The instruction concerning the
attachment (27:5a) has no explicit counterpart in the account of the execution
(38:4b). For the rest, the formulation of 38:4b is shorter than that of 27:5.
nonba, see 26:24. ’sn, see Introd. §4.1.
27:6-8/38:6, 7 38:6 contains a briefer description than 27:6. 'S9 n a (27:6),

next to ’Sir D’nan in 38:6; cf. 25:10/37:1. In the LXX either 0H 3 (so in
LXX8), or ’na (so LXXA) is left untranslated.
Also 38:7 is shorter and a little different from 27:7. Naim (27:7), hoph. of
«13 (hiph. in 38:7), Sam.Pent.: m o m (see 25:14); cf. LXX, Pesh., Vulg., TO,
TNf and e.g. LV On the meaning of Ria here see 25:14. On the use of the
accusative with the passive see 10:8. H 3 (27:7), Sam.Pent.: QHan (cf. 38:7).
’ntf (27:7), not translated LXX®. ubs, see 25:12. naroo (27:7 in BHS),
typographical error: read naton. W R ntttoa (27:7), ana imt nRtob in 38:7; cf.
25:14, 27f.; 30:4. In the Vulg. the translation of these words (ad portandum;
same translation in 27:7) has found a place at the end of 38:5.
27:8a/38:7b is something of a summary. 313} cstr. st. of 313J (see Jer. 52:21;
Job 11:12), part. pass, qal of 331, ‘to be hollow’ (so e.g. Ges-B; BDB; K8W).
In 27:8; 38:7 313! is used as a noun: a hollow object (cf. KOSynt §336n). nib,
see 24:12. nnb 3133, Vulg. 27:8: non solidum sed inane et cavum intrinsecus,
‘not of one piece, but empty and hollow inside;’ cf. 38:7b: ipstan autem altare
non erat solidum sed cavum ex tabulis et intus vacuum, ‘the altar itself was not
of one piece, but hollow, of boards and empty inside.’
p...ntf«3 (27:8), see Introd. §3.43.1 and 1:12. n m n (Introd. §3.46.2), the
use of the 3rd pers. sing. hiph. in direct speech of YHWH is striking; Pesj., TO,
TPsJ: 1“ pers. sing. (cf. 25:9). It is often thought that the presumed subject is
the impersonal ‘one’ (see e.g. Strack, Baentsch, Cassuto; cf. e.g. Ges-K §144d;
Jotlon §155d) and that in the translation the passive can be used (e.g. CY WV;
see already LXX: Kara to napa5eix0ev, and Vulg.). It should be borne in
mind, though, that elsewhere YHWH repeatedly speaks of himself in the third
person, using ‘YHWH’ (e.g. 19:11, 21, 22, 24).
l&»\ it has been suggested, on the basis of the LXX (cf. Vulg.), to read
ntoun (e.g. Baentsch, and see e.g. CV, WV). Also the reading fityy’ (passive)
has been proposed (e.g. LV); but note, however, the use of the 3rd pers. plur. in
e.g. 25:8, 10, and of the 2nd pers. plur. in e.g. 25:9, 19, and see further the
comments with 39:1. Implied subject is the craftsmen.
On several questions that can be raised with respect to 27:8b see already
25:9, 40; 26:30.
Volume III1
452 EXODUS 2 7 :9 -1 9 ; 3 8 :9 -2 0
4.10 THE COURT (27:9-19; 38:9-20)
27:9 '77ten you shall make the 38:9 Then he made the court (by
court o f the Dwelling (by making making the following pieces): for
the following pieces): fo r the parti the partition on the south side,
tion on the south side, hangings to hangings for the court of twined
form the court, o f twined linen, linen, a hundred cubits;
with a length o f a hundred cubits
fo r ju st that partition;
10 furthermore, the twenty pillars 10 furthermore, its twenty pillars
fo r it with their sockets o f copper with their twenty sockets of copper
and the pillar hooks and their and the pillar hooks and their
clamps o f silver clamps of silver.
11 Likewise fo r the partition on 11 And for the partition on the
the north side, lengthwise, north side (hangings with a length
hangings with a length o f a hun of) a hundred cubits; furthermore,
dred (cubits); furthermore, the their twenty pillars with their twen
twenty pillars fo r it with their sock ty sockets of copper and the pillar
ets o f copper and the pillar hooks hooks and their clamps of silver.
and their clamps o f silver
12 For the one width o f the 12 For the partition on the west
court, the partition on the west, side, hangings of fifty cubits, the
hangings o f fifty cubits, their ten ten pillars for it with their ten
pillars with their ten sockets. sockets and the pillar hooks and
their clamps of silver.
13 For the other width, on the 13 For the partition on the east
east side o f the court, a partition o f side likewise fifty cubits,
likewise fifty cubits,
14 namely, fifteen cubits o f 14 fifteen cubits of hangings for
hangings fo r the (one) side piece, the (one) side piece, the three pil
the three pillars fo r it with their lars for it with their three sockets;
three sockets;
15 and fo r the other side piece 15 and for the other side piece,
thus for both to the left as well as
to the right of the gate of the court,
likewise fifteen (cubits) o f hang likewise fifteen cubits of hangings,
ings, their three pillars with their their three pillars with their three
three sockets; sockets;
16 and fo r the gate o f the court a 18 The curtain of the gate was a
curtain o f twenty cubits, o f blue first-class product of the textile
and red purple and o f crimson and artist, of blue and red purple and of
o f twined linen, a first-class prod- crimson and of twined linen. The
Volume III1
THE COURT 453
uct o f the textile artist, length was twenty cubits, and the
height, in accordance with the
width, five cubits, just as with the
hangings of the court.
19 Their pillars were four in
their four pillars with their four number and their sockets were of
sockets. copper.
Their hooks of silver; the overlay
Cf. 27:17. ing of their heads and their clamps
likewise of silver.
17 All the pillars around the 17 The sockets for the pillars
court are to be supplied with were of copper. The pillar hooks
clamps o f silver Also their hooks and their clamps of silver. Also the
shall be o f silver; but the sockets overlaying of their heads was of
(are to be) o f copper silver, and themselves they were,
all the pillars of the court, supplied
with clamps of silver.
18 The length o f the court must 16 All the hangings around the
be a hundred cubits, the width fifty court were
(in front) and fifty (in back) and
the height five cubits. It must be o f
twined linen and the sockets fo r of twined linen.
them (of the pillars) o f copper
19 As fo r all the implements that
are neededfo r all sorts o f work on
the Dwelling, as fo r all their pegs 20 And all the pegs of the Dwel
and all the pegs o f the court, they ling and those for the court around
are to be o f copper' it were of copper.
4.10.1 The Dwelling, the tent shrine (see 4.8), is a royal house and hence
surrounded by a fenced in area, the ‘the court’ (see \bl. II, 51). Its
surface area is 100*50 cubits. The instruction for the construction is described
in 27:9-19. The making of the pieces required for the construction is related in
38:9-20.
In line with the nature of the Dwelling - it is collapsible - also the court
must be made in such a way that it can be taken apart for reassembly else
where (cf. 4.8.1). Therefore hangings are used for the fence. They in particular
determine what the court looked like. ‘Hangings’ is the translation of
‘curtains,’ ‘hangings,’ occurs in OT (almost?; see 1 Kgs. 6:34) exclu
sively as term for the canvasses that separated the court from the tent shrine
(27:9-15 [5*]; 35:17; 38:9-18 [6*]; 39:40; Num. 3:26; 4:26). Rashi, for one,
thinks of plaited work, full of holes. Schouten (see 4.2.1), 157, dismisses the
Volume III1
454 EXODUS 2 7 :9 -1 9 ; 3 8 :9 -2 0
idea that it was possible to look in from the outside and observe the bringing
of sacrifices on the altar. In the LXX O'Vbp is translated with io tia; however,
in 37:10, 13, 14 (38:12, 15, 16) with auXaiai, a term elsewhere used for
translating n»’T (see 4.8.2). In the Vulg. D’»bp is translated with tentoria
(tentorium is also the rendering of qpip; see 4.8.5), in 35:17 with cortinae (see
4.8.2).
Attached as they are to D’qiDjl, ‘pillars’ (see 13:21), the hangings can be
used as partition. The pillars rest on O’jqs, ‘sockets’ (see 4.8.4), and appar
ently are kept in place by means of D 'lq’D*, ‘ropes,’ used as guylines (Introd.
§10.3.12; see also 35:18) - not explicitly mentioned - and pegs.277 ‘Pegs’ is
the translation of niHV.
nnq? (38:20), plur. of no; (OT 24x; 8* Exod.), ‘(tent)peg’ (Judg. 4:21, 22
etc.), which in Exodus occurs only in the plur. (usually cstr. st. or with suffix)
(27:19; 35:18; 38:20, 31; 39:40). See AuS, VI, 31f.; cf. VI, lOOf. The pegs are
driven in with a hammer (cf. Judg. 4:21).
The hangings are fastened to the pillars with O’l), ‘hooks’ (see 4.8.5) and
clamps. ‘Clamps’ is the translation of O’pl^q*.
4.10.2 oq’P^q (27:10, 11; 36:38; 38:10, 'l l , 19) or Dq’pitfq (38:12, 17) is
found only in this form and only in Exodus (cf. the difficult O’pl^n in 1 Kgs.
7:33), aside from 36:38; 38:19 always in the clause: Dq’pttfq D’l'pjjq ’]). The
meaning of O’pein is not entirely certain. See the lexicons. There are two major
interpretations: (1) O’ptfrt are rods (\hn der Palm, TEV) between the pillars
for hanging the hangings; (2) O’ptfn are bands or clamps (e.g. SV, LV, CV,
KJV, NRSV) around the pillars for decoration.278 If the latter, they were
presumably a wreath under the capital/the top.
In 38:28 ptfn pi. is used; in 27:17; 38:17 pert pu. Elsewhere in the OT only
pern qal occurs (Gen. 34:8 etc.). Sometimes qal and pi./pu. are regarded as
different forms of the same root and pi. is taken to mean ‘to join together’
(e.g. Ges-B; HAL). Perhaps it is better to think of pen pi., pu. as a denomina
tive verb (e.g. BDB\ Zo.). In line with the interpretation of the noun, the verb
is understood as: (1) ‘supply with rods;’ (2) ‘make bands around it.’
Ancient versions offer little help in ascertaining the meaning. In the LXX
D’ptfn in 27:10, 11 and in LXXA 37:6 (36:38) is translated with i|raA.v6e<; (see
also Theod. 38:10). In that case they may have been the bands, the moldings
under the capital of a pillar (e.g. Dillmann). Since the term comes after icpiKoi,
‘rings’ (translation of D’l); see 4.8.4), it would be more natural to think of
277Differently Schouten (see 4.2.1.), 159: not ropes, but rods are being used.
27> See already Rashi: encircled with silver threads (cf. Vredenburg: ‘windingen’), and in
particular Dillmann. Heinisch holds that the bands kept the wood from splitting. An entirely
different conception is that of Jacob*, Pent., 210: □,p®n are the roundings (the pillars have a
round form); therefore the pillars of the court are overlaid with silver.
Volume III1
THE COURT 455
hooks or clamps (cf. the use of t|raAi6e<; in 30:4 for ‘holders’). Also Aq.
interpreted the o p e n as things to fasten (the hangings): TrpooKoAAfjpata
(27:10), auYKoAAfjpaTa (38:10, 17; see also Symm., Theod. 38:17). That is
also the likely meaning of itfia’O plur. in TO, TPsJ, TNf (in TNf 27:11 etc. in
margin: mp’O plur.). See beside it SamT: plur. of ehab, ‘coverings.’
ptfn pu. is in LXX 27:17; 37:15 (38:17) translated, respectively with
KccTapYupouv and nepiapYupouv, ‘(overlay the pillars/capitals) with silver;’
pon pi. is in LXX 39:6 (38:28) translated with KatocKOopeiv, ‘to decorate’ (by
overlaying).
In the Vulg. O’ptfn is understood as caelaturae, ‘hammered work,’ namely,
of the capitals (O’ll; see 4.8.4). O’p^np in 27:12 is translated with vestitae
erunt argenteis laminis, ‘supplied with silver plates’ (cf. the translation in
38:17, 28 which deviates sharply from the original).
Because O’ll and O’pem are always used in combination, it seems best to
regard them as paired items on the pillars which were used for attaching the
hangings. For that matter, there is no way of knowing how precisely both at
top and base, they were attached.
Three sides of the court consist entirely of hangings, the fourth, the side on
the east, only in part. In the center of the side on the east is the 1Stf, ‘the gate’
(see 20:10) - the tent sanctuary is a real temple! - , which gives entrance to
the court, with as ‘door’ a a ‘curtain’ (see 4.8.5).
4.10.3 Also the description of the court raises questions. In part these were
already taken up in 4.8, in particular in connection with the terminology. From
among them I mention the following.
No indication is given of what material the pillars are to be made. It is
suggested that they were of copper,279 or that not only the heads (38:17, 19)
but also the pillars themselves were completely overlaid with silver.280 More
likely, they were of bare acacia wood (e.g. Haran*, 164). It is impossible to
tell whether on each side the hangings formed one long strip (were they sewn
together into one long strip?), were attached on the inside (were from inside
the court only the heads visible?) or on the outside of the pillars, or whether
the partition was made by loose hangings with which the space between the
pillars was filled up. In the last case, there would have been sixty-five hang
ings. Their size was 5x5 cubits (see below).
Much attention had been given to the question of the exact distance between
the pillars. In the description the following dimensions are given: lengthwise,
279 So already Josephus (AJ, III, 109; as he describes it, the four pillars of the gate, two on
each side, were of silver; see III, 11 If.); Vulg. 38:10, 12 (overlaid with silver; see Vulg. 27:17;
38:17). See further, e.g. Schouten, 158f.
280 See already LXX 27:17; 37:15, 18a (38:17, 19b); Vulg. 27:17; 38:17; Philo, VM, II, 90
(pillars of cedar overlaid with silver), and e.g. BShr (see 4.2.1), 121; see also Jacob (see above).
Volume III1
456 EXODUS 2 7 :9 -1 9 ; 3 8 :9 -2 0
the partitions to the south and the north were each 100 cubits; widthwise, the
partitions on the west and east were each 50 cubits (27:12, 13, 18; 38:12, 13);
the height of each side was 5 cubits (27:18; 38:18) - the Dwelling with a
height of 10 cubits thus rose above the court. The division of the pillars was as
follows: 20 cubits for each of the length sides (27:10, 11; 38:10, 11) and 10
for each of the width sides (27:12, 14-16; 38:12, 14, 15, 19a).
The size of the court is determined by the dimensions of the hangings. That
is determinative for the number of pillars. Dimensions and numbers are marked
by symmetry. Going by that, it can be said that against each pillar there stood a
piece of canvass or curtain of 5x5><5 cubits; the meaning seems to be that the
distance between two pillars was five cubits. To this calculation it has been
objected that, if the distance between the pillars were five cubits, the number of
pillars would have to be sixty-six (21 + 21 + 11 + 13; 13 for the side to the
east with the entrance). Did the writer miscalculate and by mistake made the
distance between the pillars (60x5 cubits) the same as the number of pillars?
(so Baentsch; Beer-Galling; Noth). Most expositors do not wish to go that far.
Schouten, 155f., for example, dismisses the assumption that the number of
pillars was actually only 56 (the pillars on the comers were counted twice) and
that the curtain of the gate would have hung on five pillars. He insists that the
number was 60: at the comers there stood two pillars next to each other, one
on the length side and one on the width side; the length sides consisted of 19
panels of just over 5 cubits wide; the rear side of 9 panels; the side to the front
of 7 panels, 2 panels per side piece, 3 panels serve as gate (the left and the
right pillar of the curtain stand next to the third pillar of the side pieces, as
viewed from the length sides). It is obvious that in Schouten’s reconstruction
there is little of symmetry. Others have tried to leave more room for it.
It is argued that the number of 60 pillars (2x20; 2x10) agrees with the
distance of 5 cubits between the pillars, provided it is assumed that the first
and the last of 20 or 10 pillars of a side did not stand on the comers of the
side, but at a distance of 2,5 cubits from it (recently yet set forth by Haran*,
152, 154). Particularly prominent has become the conception that the picture of
length sides with 20 panels of 5 cubits and width sides of 10 panels of 5 cubits
is consistent with a number of 60 pillars, if the first or the last pillar of a side
be included with the adjacent side; for example, the twenty-first pillar of the
south side (reckoned from the front, the east side) should be regarded as the
first of the west side and the eleventh of that side should be regarded as the
first of the north side (reckoned from the rear), etc. On this interpretation the
curtain of the gate is supported by five pillars. One pillar, which in the
Volume III1
THE COURT 457
description is included in the side pieces, functions as fifth pillar.2*1

4.10.4 On the position of the Dwelling in the court the text contains no infor
mation. An old interpretation (Philo, VM, II, 9 If.; bErubin 23b, and see e.g.
Rashi) has it that the distance from the Dwelling to the fence of the court on
the north, west and south side was 20 cubits, and on the east side, the front, 50
cubits. Several modem expositors have adopted this picture. In their view, the
court of 100x50 cubits consisted of two squares of 50x50 cubits. The front of
the Dwelling stands at the divide of both squares. It is assumed that the point
at which the imaginary diagonals of the square intersect with the Dwelling,
constitutes the center of the most Holy Place, the site at which the shrine and
the place of atonement stand, while presumably the center of the other square
was the place where the altar of burnt offering (see 4.9) stood (see e.g.
Holzinger; Kennedy, DB, IV, 657).
The court is a defined space, a holy zone around the Dwelling, to protect its
holiness (cf. Philo, VM, II, 90). Additional protection is given by the members
of the tribe of Levi, who according to the account of Num. 2; 3:23ff.; 10:13ff.,
whenever Israel is encamped, stand like an ‘isolation belt’ (\fonk, 457)
between the Dwelling and the other Israelites. As concerns holiness, there is a
difference in degree between the Dwelling and the court (cf. Haran*, 18Iff.;
Jenson [see 4.2.1], 9Iff.). This is evident, for example, from the materials that
are used. For the hangings of the fence less expensive fabric is used than for
the inner tent of the Dwelling (see 4.8.2). The pillars of the Dwelling are
overlaid with gold and its sockets are of silver (see 4.8.4, 5), while the pillars
of the court are of bare wood and rest on sockets of copper. The hooks of the
Dwelling are of gold (see 4.8.5); the hooks and clamps of the court are of
silver. Only priests are allowed behind the curtain of the Dwelling (see 4.8.1).
The court is the place where the priests perform their tasks, but also the
Levites are allowed there, as are lay people, when they participate in the cult
(e.g. Lev. 1-7).
In one instance the material used for the Dwelling and the court is the same:
the curtain of the door opening of the Dwelling (26:36; 36:37) and the curtain
of the gate of the court (27:16; 38:18) are of the same material and quality. So
the entrance to the court contrasts sharply with the side pieces. So that it might
more easily be recognized? Or is the level of holiness of the gate of the court
the same as that of the entrance to the Dwelling? Is the way into the Dwelling
extra holy? (see also Num. 3:38 beside Num. 3:23ff.). Is the idea behind it that
the deity enters the sanctuary from the east? (cf. Haran*, 164, and see 4.8.5.4).
In both 27:9-19 and 38:9-20 only one verbal form is used. In my interpreta
1,1 See already Rashi, and e.g. Bahr, 122; Holzinger; Kennedy, DB, IV, 657; Jacob, 204f.;
Cassuto.
Volume III1
458 EXODUS 2 7 :9 -1 9 ; 3 8 :9 -2 0
tion 27:9-16 hangs entirely on n’toPI (27:9) and 38:9-15 entirely on tom
(38:9). 27:17-19 and 38:16-20 consist of noun clauses in which earlier men
tioned information is emphasized and fresh information is added. In the interest
of intelligibility, a freer translation, one that brings out its meaning, is some
times given of the Hebrew text.
The account of the execution (38:9-20) varies in details from that of the
instruction (27:9-19) (see exegesis). In some places it is more extensive
(38:12b, 15, 17, 18, 19) and at the end of the passage (27:16-19; 38:16-20) the
parallelism is abandoned (for an attempted explanation see Jacob*, Pent.,
21 Of.).
The end of ch. 26 (w. 31-37) contains instructions pertaining to the furnish
ing of the Dwelling. No instructions about the furnishing of the court are given
in ch. 27 (cf. 40:6ff.).
The court is an essential part of the sanctuary. The temple of Solomon
originally had one court (1 Kgs. 8:64), in a later time two or more courts
(2 Kgs. 21:5; 23:12; Isa. 1:12; 62:9; 2 Chr. 4:9; 20:5 etc.). Two courts are
cited in Ezekiel’s plan of the new temple (40:17, 19 etc.). The second temple
had several courts (1 Macc. 4:38,48 etc.; see also Matt. 21:12; Acts 21:27ff.).
In ch. 36ff. of the temple scroll (TS) three courts are mentioned (see further
Busink [see 4.2.1], 143ff.).
MT 38:9-20 is correlative with LXX 37:7-18. Certain particulars are left out
in LXX 37:8-10. For details see the exegesis.
27:9-12/38:9-12 Subject of 27:9 is Moses; subject of 38:9 Bezalel (cf. 37:1).

LXX 37:7: Kai ercoiqoav, ‘and they made’ (cf. 39:1). LXX 36:10-37:7
consistently has ‘they made.’
p tfo n nsn (27:9), 38:9: is n n ; LXX 27:9: ‘a court.’ HNS, see 25:26. For the
compass directions see 26:18, 20, 22. In Sam.Pent. 27:9-13; 38:9-13 n-locale is
used consistently for all the directions; thus naJJ etc. (cf. Sanderson**, 122f.).
In LXX 27:9-13, as shown by the use of dnrqA.icjxT)C, ‘east(wind),’ in 27:11
and of votoc;, ‘south wind,’ in 27:13, the vantage point from which the
directions are stated is Egypt (cf. LXX 10:13); A.vi|i in 27:9, therefore, stands
for the ‘west (wind)’ and to Kara OaAaaaav in 27:12 means ’toward the
north.’ In Exod. 26 and in 37:7-11 (38:9-13), in the LXX, Palestine is the
vantage point for denoting the directions. On the questions see also Gooding
(see 4.2.1), 23f.; Popper (see 4.2.1), 174ff.
nan*? O’tobp (27:9), 38:9: nann ’Pbp. -p a etc. (27:9), not in 38:9. n o to
nxn (38:9), LXX 37:7: ckcctov c<J>’ ekcctov, ‘a hundred and a hundred’ (=
n«03 n«a); so also LXX 37:9 (38:ll)(2x); cf. 27:18.
V lO d (27:10), suffix sing. (LXX: plur.) refers to the court; 38:10: o m ioto,
suffix plur. refers to the hangings.
In Vulg. 38:10 (see also 38:12): columnae aeneae viginti cum basibus suis,
Volume III1
THE COURT 459
‘twenty pillars of copper with their sockets,’ ‘copper’ is used as an adjective

with pillars.
O’i n r n 'll (27:10), in LXX, Pesh. with preceding copula (so also in 27:17);
Sam.Pent.: o m i (also in 27:11); cf. LXX. nwnj (38:10), is omitted in
Sam.Pent.
p i (27:11), 38:11: ). O’flbp i n t o (27:11), not in 38:11; i n t o (with 3-
normae; KoSynt §332r), not in LXX. On the omission of the specification of
measure after nto (27:11; cf. 27:15) see Ges-K §134n; Jotlon §142n. "pR
(27:11), Sam.Pent.: nnto (cf. MT 38:11; nnto not in Sam.Pent. 38:11); cf.
LXX: icnxdw pfiKoc (cf. "pR HOtO in 27:9); TNf: "PR ptJR, ‘(a hundred)
cubits long.’
main (27:11), scriptio defectiva (cf. plena at the beginning of 27:10); for
suffix sing, see 27:10; Sam.Pent.: o m io m (cf. MT 38:11); cf. LXX, TPsJ.
*]03 (27:11), LXX: icav ai Paoeti; autuv nepiripYupwpevai apyupcp, ‘and
their sockets overlaid with silver;’ just before that it was stated that the sockets
were of copper
mtfffl (end 27:12), Sam.Pent.: + ntfna (so also at the end of 27:14, 15, 16);
38:12 MT: + ’ll etc. H0R3 (38:12), some MSS, Sam.Pent.: HOR (cf. MT
27:12).
27:13-15/38:13-15 nsnn a m i (27:13), 38:13: 1. rpnp (OT ca. 25*; Exod.

27:13; 38:13) = Dip* + n-locale, ‘toward the east’ (cf. TWAT, VI, 1166f.), is
used as nomen rectum in construct chain with (cf. 26:18).
r p p (OT ca. 70*), derivative m t (see 22:2), denotes the place from where
the sun - the assumed subject - arises,2*2 ‘the east.’ See Stadelmann*, 64, 133.
In Dutch - as in English - the pleonasm, the use of two synonyms (cf. 26:18),
cannot be reproduced with synonyms (cf. SV, KJV).
Q’BPn, in the LXX, 27:13b, as in 27:12b, is translated: ‘hangings of fifty
cubits, the ten ...’
(27:14), with explicative waw, not in Sam.Pent. and in 38:14. In LXX
27:14, 15, 16 the cited figures are not related to the length of the hangings and
the curtain, but to the height ( to ityoq = nppi). In 27:18 the height of the
court, in conformity with the MT, is put at five cubits. The interpretation in
LXX 27:14, 15, 16 is also found in the Talmud (bErub 2b; bZeb 59b).283
Notable in this connection is that some rabbinic exegetes hold that the altar was
10 cubits high (see Rashi on 27:1, 5).
O’Obp, fourth word in 27:14; first word in 38:14; see also the position of
Cf. the use of rnTP in Num. 21:11; Deut. 4:47 etc.

1,3 See D.W. Gooding, in J. Schreiner (ed.), Wort, Lied und Gottesspruch (Fs J. Ziegler), I,
WOtzburg 1972, 39-41.
Volume III1
460 EXODUS 2 7 :9 -1 9 ; 3 8 :9 -2 0
D’ubp in 27:15; 38:15 (cf. KdSynt §§314c; 333d,h; Brockelmann §62d). *)na^
(27:14), *)narrt>N in 38:14. LXX 27:14: explicitly ‘for the one side’ (=
-inttn nnab); cf. J. Blau, JNSL 10 (1982), 5f.
»)09 (OT ca. 65x; 13* Exod.), ‘shoulder’ (with upper arm and shoulder
blade; 28:12b), is used metaphorically in Exodus with the meaning ‘side,’
‘flank,’ ‘wing’ (of a building; 27:14, 15; 38:14, 15; cf. 1 Kgs. 6:8; 7:39;
2 Kgs. 11:11; Ezek. 40:18, 40, 41 etc.), and (plur.) ‘shoulder pieces’ (28:7,
12a, 25, 27; 39:4, 7, 18, 20).284 In the LXX, *|CQ in 27:14, 15 is translated
with kAitoc, ‘side,’285 but in 37:12, 13 (38:14, 15) with vwxov, ‘backside;’ in
28:12 etc. with d>po<;, ‘shoulder,’286 but in 28:7; 36:11 (39:14) (plur.) with
eitG>iu6e<; (eTtcopvc is the usual translation of the highpriestly ephod). In the
Vulg., *]09 in 27:14, 15 is translated with latus, ‘side;’ so also in 28:12a, 25,
27; however, in 28:12b with humerus, ‘shoulder,’ and in 28:7 with ora,
‘border.’
*inabl (27:15), Sam.Pent.: nKBbl. Bon (27:15), so L (see BHS); many MSS:
ttfOD (cf. 38:15). (27:15), Sam.Pent.: + HON (so also MT 38:15); cf.
LXX, and see 27:11. ~)3nn noefb mm mo (38:15), clarifying comment, not in
27:15. mm mo, see 25:19.
27:16/38:18, 19 OiVIOfl (27:16; 38:19), as the passage is about the curtain, the
use of the plural suffix is conspicuous. Is the masculine suffix to be related to
the feminine ‘twenty cubits?’ (cf. Cassuto). Is the underlying idea that the
curtain consisted of multiple sections? (cf. Baentsch). Most likely, under the
influence of previous verses (27:12, 14, 15; 38:10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17), OfTHQ»
was used by mistake (cf. also the problematic use in 27:19).
TIN (38:18), ‘length,’ we would have used ‘width’ here, a m a (38:18) (LXX
37:16: xai to eipoc, ‘and the width’), the meaning is not entirely clear;
probably what is said is that the height of the hung curtain is the width side of
the curtain; that means that the curtain has been hung on a length side. 38:18
says more about the dimensions of the curtain than 27:16, as there is also a
reference to the hangings of the court (cf. 27:18).
noit^, see 25:27. ’-IBS (38:19b), see 4.4.2.2. In ch. 38, unlike in ch. 27, it is
also stated what the heads of the pillars looked like (38:17,19; cf. also 36:38).
tftO, see 6:14. ’1BS1 to ending of the verse (38:19b), LXX 37:18a: ‘and they
themselves (the pillars) were overlaid with silver;’ see also LXX 37:15.
27:17, 18, 19/38:17, 16, 20 ‘All the pillars’ (27:17), thus not just the ones*2
2M See TWAT, IV, 402ff.; Dhorme*, 93ff.; Schwarzenbach*, 18f.; R.D. Haak, “The ‘Shoulder’
of the Temple,” VT 33 (1983), 271-8.
2,5 Thus like n#9 in 27:9 etc.; cf. Sam.Pent. 27:15, and see TNf 27:14, 15; 38:14, 15.
2“ Cf. Aq., Symm., Theod. 27:14, 15: upia, which, e.g. in 1 Kgs. 6:8, is rendered with *)fD.
Volume III1
THE OIL FOR THE LAMP 461
along the length sides (27:10, 11), but also those on the back (cf. 38:12) and
the front (cf. 38:19). a ’ao, see 7:24. Drrpitfni...,ft (38:17), Sam.Pent.: Ofril.
ba (38:17), Sam.Pent.: bab. The b in 38:17, 20 can also be regarded as an b
that indicates a genitive (cf. e.g. Ges-K §129; Jotion §130).
’ 1BS1 to end of the verse (38:17), LXX 37:15: ‘and the pillars were overlaid
with silver, all the pillars of the court’ (cf LXX 38:18a); see also LXX 37:18a
and Vulg. 27:17; 38:17.
no«a HRO (27:18), LXX: eKcctdv e<j>’ etca-cov, ‘a hundred and a hundred’ =
nttoa nxa; c f ctfona open. nPona (27:18), Sam.Pent.: notta; see KSSynt
§316c. D’tfana 0Pan, TPsJ: ‘fifty in the west and fifty in the east.’
nttfrua r m (ending 27:18), identical to ending 27:17; ‘mistaken repetition’
(Baentsch)?
bab (27:19), see 27:3; Sam.Pent.: ba nt< rvtom. ptfan...bab, LXX: Kai
naaa f) KaxaoKeuf|, ‘and all the equipment,’ evidently that of the court. In the
LXX, 27:19 is not, unlike in the MT, about both Dwelling and court. A
translation of imrv^bai is missing. Also in LXX 37:18b (38:20), the conclud
ing observation remains restricted to the court (pttfab is not translated); cf.
LXX 38:21.
im a»...,ba (27:19), see 25:9; in de Vulg.: cuncta vasa tabemaculi in omnes
usus et caerimonias, m at? is given a broad sense (including the cultic mean
ing).
ima» baa (27:19) (KoSynt §332r; differently Ehrlich), LXX: Kai rcavca xa
epyaAcia, ‘and all the instruments.’ First bai, Sam.Pent.: baai.
mrrn (38:20), Sam.Pent.: nnn\ a’30 (38:20), in TPsJ: lltn inn (also in
27:19). Sam.Pent. contains after 27:19 an observation about the making of the
priestly garments: ‘and you shall make clothing of blue and red purple for
when you serve in the sanctuary.’ Apparently also Qm contained this note,
which here is quite out of place (cf. Sanderson**, 209ff.).
4.11 THE OIL FOR THE LAMP (27:20, 21)
Exodus Leviticus
24:1 yhw h spoke to Moses in the
following words:
27:20 ‘You shall personally com 2 ‘Command the Israelites to
mand the Israelites to bring you, bring you, for the lamp, pure beat
for the lamp, pure beaten olive oil, en olive oil, so that without inter
so that without interruption a sour ruption a source of light can be lit.
ce o f light can be lit.
21 (Its place is) in the Tent o f 3 (Its place is) on the outside of
Meeting on the outside o f the the tapestry in front of (the shrine
Volume III1
462 EXODUS 2 7 :2 0 , 21
tapestry that hangs in front o f (the with) the constitution in the tent of
shrine with) the constitution. Aaron meeting. Aaron must see to it (that
and his sons must see to it (that it) it) from the evening till the next
from the evening till the next mom- morning for the benefit of YHWH
ing fo r the benefit o f YHWH (keeps (ikeeps burning).
burning). Throughout the genera Continually, throughout the genera
tions it remains a perpetual obliga tions, this obligation will unchan
tion fo r the Israelites to heed. ’ geably rest upon you.
4 On the shining lampstand
(stand) the lamps he must look
after, (in order that they) for the
benefit of YHWH without interrup
tion (remain burning).'
The brief passage 27:20, 21 stands by itself. It has no counterpart in chs. 35-
40. It does occui; however, in almost identical words in Lev. 24:2, 3. It
contains no instruction relative to the making, the furnishing and the dedication
of the sanctuary - hence there is no counterpart in chs. 35-40 (besides, the oil
needs no further treatment) - but is an ordinance for keeping the worship in
the sanctuary going. Heeding of the instruction is therefore only meaningful
after the sanctuary has been completed. Then the Israelites are to see to it that
in there will always be top quality oil in the sanctuary - pollution of the
sanctuary, violation of the holiness of YHWH must be prevented! - so that,
without interruption, night after night, the light can be kept burning in the
sanctuary.
Earlier already (25:6) the oil was mentioned as a gift. There it concerned a
voluntary, one-time offering. Here it is required of Israel to bring oil continu
ally (for the difference, see exegesis of 25:2, 3).287
27:20, 21 also stands by itself in this sense that the description of the lighting
differs from that in 25:31-40. The term IINip (27:20) is not used in 25:31-40,
while in 27:20, 21 the term is absent. The term “ij is used in 27:20 in the
sing, and not, as in 25:31-40, in the plur. (see 4.7.2).
Remarkable, too, is that a cultic task is assigned to Aaron and his sons
(27:21) even before their consecration is mentioned (28:1).
It is generally thought that the picture in 27:20, 21 relative to the source of
light in the sanctuary does not differ from that in 25:31-40. 13 is regarded as a
2,7 For yearly festive offering of oil see TS 21, 12ff.; cf. Jub. 7:36; for a yearly monetary
offering for the maintenance of the temple worship, see Neh. 10:32f. Neh. 10:35 mentions the
bringing of wood for the sanctuary; see on that also TS 23-24; cf. Jub. 21:12ff; Testament of
Levi 9,12; Josephus, BJ, II, 425; see further M. Delcor, “Reflexions sur la fete de la xylophone
dans le Rouleau du Temple et les textes paralieies,” RdQ 12 (1987), 561-9.
Volume III1
THE OIL FOR THE LAMP 463
collective (e.g. Strack, Baentsch, Cassuto). It is a meaning already found in

TO, TPsJ, TNf, Pesh., SamT.288 Hyatt goes so far as to regard HKD as an
abbreviation of liRlpB rnip (35:14; Num. 4:9).
Next to harmonizing interpretations there is also the thinking that 27:20, 21
embodies an old tradition, according to which originally there stood just one
lamp in the sanctuary (cf. 1 Sam. 3:3; see Holzinger and 4.7.7). This view
merits consideration. Lev. 24:4 is evidently a note aimed at aligning that
tradition with that of the menorah with the seven lights (cf. also the construct
chain Titton m ao in 35:14).
In summary, 27:20, 21 is apparently an addition. Likely it was inserted in the
text because 25:31-40 says nothing about the care for the lamps in the sanctu
ary (in contrast see 25:30; cf. Lev. 24:8). The permanent maintenance (cf. 3*
■P1J9 in Lev. 24:2, 3) of the cultic worship (cf. also 29:38-42; 30:7-10) is of
such great importance that it will not do to say nothing about it in the account
of the construction and fiimishing of the sanctuary. No less important than the
construction of the sanctuary is the maintenance of the worship in it. The bond
between YHWH and the sanctuary must remain intact.289
27:20 Aside from the first two words, 27:20 is identical to Lev. 24:2.
nriRl (not in Lev. 24:2), see 28:1; Leibowitz*, 510f.; cf. Jacob*, Pent., 268f.
man (Introd. §3.43.1), Lev. 24:2: is; Vulg. has also in 27:20 the imperative
praecipe; for that matter, the rendering of 27:20, 21; Lev. 24:2, 3 in the Vulg.
is far from uniform, inp’l (Introd. §3.30), cf. 25:2, also for the construction.
T^N, ‘to you,’ does not quite fit 27:2lend: the statute is for all time; evidently
‘to you’ must mean ‘for the sanctuary;’ surprisingly, however, ’b, ‘for Me’ (cf.
25:2) is not used. For rabbinic discussion about “p^K, see Leibowitz*, 511ff.
‘pure ... olive oil,’ see Introd. §10.2.2, 3. "|T is twice translated in the LXX:
(eA.aiov...) atpuyov (LXXA: aTpuyqTov) xaOapov; in Lev. 24:2 only ica6a-
poc (cf. Lev. 24:7) is used; cf. Frankel*, 102. The Vulg. offers a double
translation in Lev. 24:2: (oleum ...) purissimum ac lucidum, ‘(oil ...) very pure
and cleat’ For JVrD see L.E. Stager, JSS 28 (1983), 241-5.
"liHllp (OT 19x; 7* Exod.), derivative of HR (see 10:15), is, aside from
35:14a (cf. Num. 4:9), in Exodus always used in combination with (Introd.
§10.2.3); see -fcp* ipqf in 25:6; 27:20; 35:8 (35:28: -rtK# p tfn ; cf. KOSynt
§233d) and HRpn 109 in 35:14b; 39:37. As is cleat; e.g. from Gen. 1:14-16,
HRO must mean ‘source of light,’ ‘bearer of light.’ Therefore it is open to
m See beside it e.g. Nachmanides; picking up on rabbinic exegesis, he relates the sing, to ‘the
western light’ of the candelabrum, which presumably was burning perpetually (see also Hertz, and
farther 4.7.9).
2M For discussion of the position of the passage precisely here, see Jacob*, Pent., 212, 268.
Volume III1
464 EXODUS 27 :2 0 , 21
question whether IIND can also denote the light that is cast.290 see Introd.
§3.39.1. T » n , see 25:30.
27:21 27:21 agrees to a large extent with Lev. 24:3. The formulation of 27:21
is concise and elliptic. In the translation, in the interest of clarity, it is neces
sary to augment the verse. On ‘the Tent of Meeting’ see 4.2.14-17.
In the LXX the first words of 27:21 (to prtD or to p B ’) constitute the con
tinuation of the sentence begun in 27:20 (cf. also Lev. 24:2, 3 in LXX''3); in
the Vulg., 27:21 up to and including m i?n constitutes the continuation of the
sentence begun in 27:20 (cf. also Lev. 24:2, 3). With p B ’ a new sentence
begins, introduced by the conjunction et (cf. LuthV). So a flowing text text is
created.
The sequence of the words at the beginning of 27:21 differs from that in
Lev. 24:3. p n a , see 12:46. n an sb , see 4.8.5. bB, the tapestry screens off (cf.
30:6). r m n , see 16:34. Lev. 24:3: rnprt r Q 'p 1?; cf. 26:34f.
P B 2 (sing, with composite subject; see e.g. 3:18) imperf. cons, qal of p a
(OT ca. 75x; 3* Exod.), ‘to set/keep in order,’ ‘look after/take care of,’ in
40:4, 23 used with P B (OT ca. 30*) as object (cognate construction) with the
meaning ‘to make stacks of (bread)’ (cf. Lev. 24:6f.).291 Cf. the use of
npB Stf DO1? (see 4.6). In 39:37 the derivative npB O (OT 17*) occurs. See
TWAT; VI, 380ff. (differently Ehrlich on Gen. 22:9).
inK refers to 13 (for that matter to UNO). Gispen relates it to pe?, the oil
( p B he takes to mean ‘to keep ready’); see already LXX, in which ill? (and
also n*?B hiph. in 27:20, even twice; cf. Frankel*, 102) is translated as kcuciv,
‘to bum.’ In Lev. 24:3 only Aaron is mentioned as subject (Sam.Pent.: + V331;
cf. LXX); see 4.7.9.
lp a a n s a (see 7:15), see 4.7.9. It is not likely that Aaron and the other
priests had to do night duty. There can be little question that the time designa
tion does not refer to the care for the lamps, but to the time that the lamps are
to be burning. Care must be taken that the light does not go out. That requires
proper care and plenty of oil.
m rr ’3Bb, see Introd. §3.42.2. 27:21 end differs somewhat from Lev. 24:3
end. DblB npn (see 12:14) introduces a concluding observation, which harks
back to 27:20. o m i b (see 1:6), Sam.Pent.: o a’r m b (so Lev. 24:3); cf. LXX,
Pesh. ‘their generations’ denotes the generations of Israel, not, as held by
Cassuto, the descendants of Aaron and his sons. The concluding remark relates
290 See the ambiguous translations ‘light’ (NRSV, N1V) and ‘illumination’ (’verlichting,’ WV);
differently e.g. LV: ‘candelabrum’ (27:20 etc.; in 25:6: ‘lamp’). Note also REB: ’for the regular
mounting o f the lamp.’
2,1 Elsewhere is used in combination with in?l? (see 4.6) to indicate the setting of the
table for the meal (Isa. 21:5; 65:11; Ezek. 23:41 etc.).
Volume III1
(HIGH-)PRIESTLY GARMENTS 465
to Israel’s duty to make the priestly ministry possible. HNO, cf. e.g. 29:28; Lev.
7:34; 24:8; Deut. 18:3.
4.12 THE HIGH-PRIESTLY AND PRIESTLY GARMENTS (28:1-43; 39:1-

32)
4.12.1 Introduction and exegesis 28:1-5; 39:1
4.12.1.1 Bibl.: TWAT, IV, 472ff.; W.F. Albright, “Are the Ephod and the
Teraphim Mentioned in the Ras Shamra Texts?,” BASOR 83 (1941), 39-42;
W.R. Arnold, Ephod and Ark, Cambridge, Mas. 1917; C. van Dam, The Urim
and Thummim: A Study o f an Old Testament Means o f Revelation, Kampen
1986 (new edition: Winona Lake 1997); H.J. Elhorst, “Das Ephod,” ZAW 30
(1910), 259-76; K. Elliger, “Ephod und Choschen,” VT 8 (1958), 19-35; Th.C.
Foote, “The Ephod,” JBL 21 (1902), 1-47; I. Friedrich, Ephod und Choschen
im Lichte des Alten Orients, Wien 1968; J. Gabriel, Untersuchungen uber das
alttestamentliche Hohepriestertum, Wien 1933; M. Haran, “The Ephod Accord
ing to Biblical Sources,” Tarbiz 24 (1954-55), 380-91; G. Hoffmann, H.
GreBmann, “Teraphim: Masken und Winkorakel in Agypten und \forderasien,”
ZAW 40 (1922), 75-137; A. Maes, “Le costume phenicien des steles d’Umm
el-‘Amed,” in E. Lipinski (ed.), Phoenicia and the Bible, Leuven 1991, 209-
30; J. Maier, “Urim und Tummim,” Kairos 11 (1969), 22-38; H.G. May,
“Ephod und Ariel,” AJSL 56 (1939), 44-69; J. Morgenstem, “The Ark, the
Ephod, and the Tent of Meeting,” HUCA 17 (1942-43), 153-265; 18 (1943-44),
1-52 (also published as monograph: Cincinnati 1945); A. Phillips, “David’s
Linen Ephod,” VT 19 (1969), 485-7; S. Schemel, Die Kleidung der Juden im
Zeitalter der Mischnah nebst einem Anhange: Die Priesterkleidung, Berlin
1912; E. Sellin, “Das israelitische Ephod,” in Fs Th. Noldeke, II, GieBen 1906,
699-717; idem, “Efod und Terafim,” JPOS 14 (1934), 185-93; idem, “Noch
einmal der alttestamentliche Efod,” JPOS 17 (1937), 236-51; idem, “Zu Efod
und Terafim,” ZAW 55 (1937), 296-8; H. Thiersch, Ependytes und Ephod,
Stuttgart 1936; N.L. Tidwell, “The Linen Ephod: 1 Sam. ii 18 and 2 Sam. vi
14,” VT 24 (1974), 505-7.
4.12.1.2 When the sanctuary is ready, the time has come to appoint the
people who are to serve in it. Aaron and his sons are the men to whom falls
that role. Aaron will be the high priest, his sons the priests. The term ‘high
priest’ is not used in Exodus.292 As it is a standard term we will use it, how
ever. What is said about the priesthood shows that Aaron would be high priest
292
For the way in which the OT speaks about the first among the priests see e.g. Gabriel, Iff.
Volume III1
466 EXODUS 2 8 :1 -4 3 ; 3 9 :1 -3 2
and his sons priests. The statements made about them do not only apply to
them, but also extend to their descendants (cf. e.g. 28:43); they are thus
statements about the high priesthood and the priesthood. They legitimize the
(high)-priestly office, the practices associated with it, and the ceremonies that
belong to it. Exodus knows only of two groups of cultic officials. The third,
the lower group, the Levites, is not mentioned (see Num. 3-4; 8).
In order for these cultic officials to officiate in the sanctuary they need to be
appointed by YHWH himself, that is, they need to be ‘ordained,’ consecrated.
The consecration ritual is described in Exod. 29; Lev. 8. Included in this ritual
is clothing them with the official garments and anointing them with oil. The
official costumes and the qualifications for these are described in Exod. 28.
The making of them in Exod. 39.
The major part of the description is devoted to the high-priestly clothing
(28:4-39). Only little attention is paid to the clothing of the priests (28:40-43).
That already brings out the difference in status between high priest and
ordinary priests. The nature of the garments - eight (Introd. §4.9.1) for the
high priest (28:4, 36, 42) and four (Introd. §4.5.1) for the priests (28:40, 42) -
confirms the difference in position. Footwear is not included in the clothing.
High priest and priests went about their task barefoot (see \fol. I, 35Iff.).
For a proper understanding of the detailed attention given to the clothing as
part of the consecration (29:5ff.) it should be borne in mind that according to
ancient thinking ‘the clothes make the man’ (e.g. Gen. 37:3; 2 Sam. 13:18; Isa.
61:10; Dan. 5:16; Zech. 3:3, 5; Pss. 45:14; 104:1; Esth. 8:15). Wearing of the
official costume transforms the wearei; turns him into an office bearer293 The
kind of clothing determines the status of the wearer Therefore the choice of
clothing and the material used for it is of great importance. In this connection,
it is also good to recall that ancient Israel was well aware that the wearing of
the right official clothing was no guarantee that the wearer would therefore
also do a good job in the office (cf. Isa. 28:7f.; Jer. 23:11; Hos. 4:5f.; Mic.
3:11). The ancient Israelites knew that for that more than official robes was
required (cf. Ps. 132:9, and note next to it Isa. 11:5; 61:10 as well as Rom.
13:14; Gal. 3:27; Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:12ff.).
4.12.1.3 As to the requirements for the materials from which the garments
for the cultic officials were to be made, it was of paramount importance that
J” E.g. Gen. 41:40ff.; Num. 20:26, 28; 1 Kgs. 19:19; 2 Kgs. 2:13f.; Isa. 22:21ff.; see C.
Houtman, NedThT 33 (1979), 187ff.; cf. also Acts 23:3ff. In TS, XV, 3ff., the anointing is not
included in the (high)priestly consecration; the consecration to the office is only done by means of
being dressed with the official robes; see also Jub. 32:3; 2 Henoch 68:7; 69:6, 14; 70:18, and
further M. Delcor, “Reflexions sur l’investiture sacerdotale sans onction & la fete du nouvel an
d’apr&s le Rouleau du Temple de Qumran (XIV, 15-17),” in Hellenica et Judaica (Hommage k V.
Nikiprowetzky), Leuven 1986, 155-64.
Volume III1
(MGH-)PRIESTLY GARMENTS 467
nothing be done that might violate YHWH’s holiness. Therefore white linen was
used, material that symbolizes purity and causes the least amount of perspira
tion (see 28:39, 42), and also purple, material whose colour does not fade and
produces no smudging. Also for that reason tearing of the clothing (28:32)
must be prevented and the hair on the head be covered (28:37, 40). Appearing
in public with tom clothing and uncovered head is a sign of mourning (cf. Lev.
10:6; 13:45; 21:10, and see exegesis of 33:4; see also, as contrast, Matt. 26:65;
Mark 14:63). That makes it important how the clothing is worn. Note in this
regard the detailed instructions concerning the attachment of the breastpiece to
the ephod (28:13, 14, 22-28). Dressing and grooming of the cultic functionary
must be impeccable, in conformity with YHWH’s regulations, lest the relation
ship between him and Israel, the cultic community, be disrupted. That threat
must be warded off. Hence the severe sanctions on breaching the clothing
ordinances. The penalty for it is death.294
The material that is used determines the status. The choice of very costly
materials for the high priest’s clothing signifies his unique position (28:6).
These materials are the same as those used for YHWH’s dwelling (25:10-26:36).
It brings out the unique relation between the sanctuary and the high priest - in
the sanctuary the high priest is not out of place; he is at home there; there is
harmony between him and the sanctuary - and between YHWH and the high
priest. The same royal splendour that is peculiar to his dwelling, YHWH imparts
to the high priest. So he elevates him, places him on a level that makes it
possible for die high priest to be in YHWH’s immediate presence, without being
a disturbance to him. In fact, the high priest’s royal appearance will put YHWH
in a favourable mood. After all, the ultimate goal of die splendid garb of the
high priest was to enable him to function as Israel’s ambassador before YHWH.
In that capacity it belongs to his task to keep YHWH reminding of the circum
stances of his people and to maintain the harmony between YHWH and Israel
(see exegesis 28:12, 29, 35, 38). In view of the high priest’s mediatorial
function between God and man it causes no surprise that in Christian exegesis
Cf. 28:35, 43 and TS, XXXV, 6, and further the exegesis of 19:10 (\bl. O, 450), also for
Bibl.; see also Gaster*, 512f.; E. Haulotte, Symbolique du vetemenl selon la Bible, Lyon 1966; K.
Horn, “Das Kleid als Ausdruck der Persdnlichkeit: Ein Beitrag zum Identithtsproblem im
V>lksmSrchen,” Fabula 18 (1977), 75-104; O. Horn Prouser, “Suited to the Throne: The
Symbolic Use of Clothing in the David and Saul Narratives,” JSO T 71 (1996), 27-37; V.H
Matthews, “The Anthropology of Clothing in the Joseph Narrative,” JSO T 65 (1995), 25-36; Th.
Podella, D as Lichtkleid JHWHs: Untersuchungen zu r Gestalthafiigkeit G ottes im Allen Testament
und seiner altorientalischen Umwelt, Tubingen 1996, 4 Iff; G. Vjgelsang-Eastwood, Pharaonic
Egyptian Clothing, Leiden et al. 1993; M.E. V>gelzang, W.J. van Bekkum, “Meaning and
Symbolism o f Clothing in Ancient Near Eastern Texts,” in Scripta signa vocis (Fs J.H. Hospers),
Groningen 1986, 265-84.
Volume III1
468 EXODUS 2 8 :1 -4 3 ; 3 9 :1 -3 2
he is often considered a type of Christ.295 1 cite a few more points.

4.12.1.4 It has been argued that bedecking the high priest like a king, dressed
in purple, complete with breastpiece and crown, is reminiscent of the post-
exilic era: the Jewish people are without a king; royal insignia and decorations
have been passed on to the high priest.296 This conception is open to question.
The wearing of such dress was not exclusively a kingly prerogative and does
not preclude that there was also a secular ruler.297 What is meant in Exod. 28 is
that YHWH, who is King (15:18), lets the high priest share in his splendour,
thereby making it manifest that he had chosen the high priest. The high priest
is not only Israel’s ambassador, but also YHWH’s envoy (see especially 28:30).
4.12.1.5 Exod. 28 lists in detail the items included in the (high)-priestly
wardrobe and also describes how the ephod and the breastpiece are to be
connected. In 29:5ff.; Lev. 8:7ff. it is shown in what order the parts of the
clothing were to be put on and how they relate to each other. As will become
evident in the exegesis, the information that is given is not always clear and
complete, so that it is not possible to obtain a full-dress picture of the (high)-
priestly attire. It has been suggested that the text itself is to blame. A close
look at the text, it is contended, shows that it does not present a coherent
picture, but instead consists of a number of layers with divergent pictures, from
which the historical development of the clothing can be traced (see e.g. TWAT,
III, 278f.; Elliger; Friedrich, 57ff.). Friedrich, for one, using literary-historical
criticism - he notes, among other things, the presence of doublets: twice
precious stones with identical function are mentioned (28:12, 29); the breast
piece serves a double purpose (28:29, 30) - believes he can detect three layers
in Exod. 28, which coincide with stages in the development of the ephod and
the breastpiece. Later phases, in his judgment, can be detected in Exod. 39 and
the translation of the LXX. Friedrich gets mired in speculation.
As for Exod. 39, which Friedrich, 62, 64, cites as a witness to a later phase
in the development of the clothing, in support of his conjecture he argues that
the breastpiece in Exod. 39 is not called an oracular breastpiece (39:8; cf.
28:15) and that Exod. 39 is silent on the Urim and the Thummim (28:30).
From that he concludes that in the time of the writer of Exod. 39 the breast
piece was no longer an oracular instrument, but simply a pocket or pouch
containing the precious stones (cf. e.g. Noth, Hyatt).
It should be kept in mind, however, that the Urim and Thummim did not
have to be made and that their existence is understood. The instruction to put
2.5 Cf. Heb. 5:4; 9:24; see also e.g. Calvin and Gispen on 28:36-38, and in particular RAC,
Sup., 1-11.
2.6 E.g. Noth, Te Stroete, Hyatt, and in particular Goldmann (see 28:36), 261, 290ff.; cf. Utz-
schneider (see 4.2.1), 175f.
2.7 See M. Reinhold, History o f Purple as a Status Symbol in Antiquity, Brussel 1970.
Volume III1
them in the breastpiece is carried out by Moses at the consecration of Aaron

(Lev. 8:8). That task is not for the craftsmen. The focus of Exod. 39 is the
making of the garments - done by Bezalel and the other craftsmen not the
function of the clothing. That makes it rather remarkable that its function is
nevertheless touched on in two instances (39:7, 26; cf. 28:12, 26). It would not
have been strange if that had not been done (there is no counterpart to 28:29f.,
38, 43).
As for the LXX, it is undeniable that every translation or interpretation is
affected by the cognitive horizon of the translator or interpreter Josephus’
description of the clothing (AJ, III, 151ff.; BJ, V, 23Iff.) is a case in point; it
seems a reasonable assumption that the picture he presents is based on his
knowledge of the (high)-priestly wardrobe of his time.298 Is the same true of
the translators of the LXX? Or should their description of the clothing be taken
as based on the interpretation of the Hebrew text in the context of their
knowledge of cultic attire in general? I am inclined to assume the latter. The
translation betrays the struggle of the translators to come up with a satisfactory
portrayal.
4.12.1.6 The interest of interpreters has not been restricted to the shape and
function of the clothing. They have also tried to discover the symbolism in it.
Already Josephus (AJ, III, 184ff.) and Philo299 dealt with it at length. They are
impressed with what they believe is the cosmic symbolism in it (cf. also Wisd.
18:24). Even in our time there are those who follow this line.300 Friedrich, for
example, maintains that through his clothing the high priest, in his prayers and
officiating at the bringing of sacrifices, represents not only the people but the
whole world, and that he is the mediator of the whole world before God (p.
70). Whether and in what sense the clothing had symbolic significance is hard
to determine.301
Exod. 28:1-5 has the character of an introduction. It itemizes the various high
” * For an early Jewish description of the high priestly clothing see also Sir. 45:7ff.; Philo ( VM,
II, 109ff.); L etter o f Aristeas, 96ff.
2MVM, II, 109ff.; De Spec. Leg., I, 85ff.; QE, II, 107fT.; cf. E.R. Goodenough, By Light,
Light: The M ystic G ospel o f Hellenistic Judaism, New Haven, Conn. 1935, 95ff.
300 E.g. Gabriel, 80, 89f.; Friedrich, 70; B.H. Strieker, De geboorte van Horus, IV, Leiden
1982, 477f.
301 For other symbolic interpretations see e.g. Thiersch, 179ff.; for examples of spiritualizing
interpretation see e.g. Gregory of Nyssa (VM, II, 189ff.); Schouten (see 4.2.1), 99ff. Older
exegesis can only be touched on here; for information on it see e.g. BB; Calmet. Prior to the
acquaintance with the clothing of the ancient Near East as it has become possible through
excavations of iconographical material, intensive study of Exod. 28 often produced illustrations
featuring an unhistorical reconstruction of the high priestly dress; for such illustrations see e.g.
Schouten, facing page of p. 114; Thiersch, 206, Taf. LI, LII.
Volume III1
470 EXODUS 2 8 :1 -4 3 ; 3 9 :1 -3 2
priestly garments; cf. the Masoretic division: 28:1(5), 6(p), 13(5), 15(5), 31(5),
36(5); 29:1(5); 38:24(5); 39:2(p), 8(p), 27(5), 30(5), 32(5), 33(p); so L (see
BHS); other MSS have also added a caesura (p or s; see Perrot*, 58, 67f.)
before 39:6 and (p or 5; see Perrot*, 66, 68) before 39:22.
(Cf. 28:5) 39:1 Of the blue and the red purple

and of the crimson they made the
ceremonial attire for the ministry in
the sanctuary.
28:1 'A fter that you shall person
ally from among the Israelites let
your brother Aaron, along with his
sons, come to you. They are set
apart to minister as my priests, to
wit, Aaron and Aarons sons
Nadab en Abihu, Eleazar and Itha-
mar.
2 For your brother Aaron you
shall make sacred clothing, which
will give him a princely appear
ance.
3 Personally you shall speak to
all the skilful men, who have been
gifted by me with skilled craftsman
ship, and order them to make the
clothing fo r Aaron, so that he can
be consecrated and minister as my
priest
4 The following garments they
shall make: a breastpiece, an
ephod, a robe, a tight-fitting tunic,
a tiara, a sash. (Order them) to
make the sacred clothing fo r your They made the sacred clothing for
brother Aaron and his sons, so that Aaron,
they can minister as my priests.
as YHWH had commanded Moses.
5 They shall use the gold, the
blue and the red purple, the crim Cf. 39:1a.
son and the linen. '
39:1 39:1 can be regarded as the end of 38:21-31 (cf. the Masoretic division
and LXX 39:13): just as it was related what was made from the silver and
Volume III1
bronze, so now it is reported what use was made of the collected bright fabrics
(e.g. Strack, Cassuto). At the same time 39:1 also is introduction to what
follows. The verse is like a hinge. After the information (39:1a) that ceremo
nial garments, that is, high-priestly and priestly clothing (see 31:10), were
made from the costly materials,302 the making of Aaron’s clothing is related
(39:1b). It is related in detail (39:2ff.). Only later does Exod. 39 talk about the
garments of the ordinary priests (39:27ff.). It is incorrect to take 39:1 in its
entirety as referring exclusively to the making of Aaron’s clothing (so already
LXX and Vulg., and see LuthV) and 39:1b to the rest of his clothing (e.g.
Strack), or to insert ‘also’ in the translation of 39:1b (e.g. SV, NV; cf. NIV).
‘blue purple,’ LXX: if|v KataA.euJ)0eioav v>&k i v 0 o v , ‘left over,’ namely, of
the in 36:8-19, 35-38 related activities; for LXX 39:13 see Popper (see 4.2.1),
160ff.; Gooding (4.2.1), 85ff. 133, see 28:1. n to , see 31:10. From 39:1 (7*;
cf. 40:17-33; Lev. 8-10), the formula ‘as y h w h had commanded Moses’ is a
regular occurrence, see Introd. §3.43.1.
Implied subject of itol? are Bezalel, Oholiab and the other skilled workers
(35:30ff.; 36:lff.; 38:22f.; cf. 28:3), representatives of Israel as a whole (39:32,
42). They are also the assumed subject of the frequently occurring verbs in the
plural in the sequel (39:3a, 4, 6, 9, 10, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 24, 25, 27,
30, 31). The subject ‘he’ - meant is Bezalel as builder and supervisor - has
surrendered its almost exclusive place - after 36:8a only the 3rd pers. sing, is
used - to the 3rd pers. plur. As the 3rd pers. plur. in Exod. 28:3-6 is used, the
frequent use of the 3rd pers. plur. in Exod. 39 is not all that strange. ‘He’ only
occurs in 39:2,3b,7,8,22. As concerns the use of the personal form, Sam.Pent.
and the ancient versions deviate several times from the MT. In 39:2 (cf. Pesh.),
3b (cf. Pesh., TO, TPsJ, TNf, and see e.g. SV, LV, CV, \&n der Palm), 7 (cf.
Pesh.), 8 (cf. LXX, Pesh.), 22 (cf. LXX, Pesh., Vulg.), the Sam.Pent. has the
3rd pers. plur., whereas in 39:4,9 the Sam.Pent. has the 3rd pers. sing. The LXX
in 39:30 (= LXX 36:39) has the 3rd pers. sing.; in 39:3,10 = 36:10,17 passives
are used. The Vulg. in 39:1-14 consistently uses the 3rd pers. sing.; after that
the 3rd pers. plur. In modem translations the 3rd pers. sing, is sometimes
reproduced by the impersonal subject ‘one.’303 Grammatically this can be done
(Ges-K §144d; Joiion §155e), but in view of the chapters before - Bezalel does
the work - it is not desirable. Sometimes the difference between the 3rd pers.
sing, and the 3rd pers. plur. is entirely erased. Dasbeig uses ’one’ for both; the
WV uses ’one’ (39:1, 3, 4, 6 etc.), ‘he’ (39:2), ‘an artist’ (39:8), and passives
(39:7, 10, 22 etc.) (cf. GNB).
2 For p see Ehrlich on Gen. 2:19; ‘linen’ (cf. 28:5; 38:23) is missing; omitted by mistake?
(cf. Strack, Cassuto).
303 E.g. Van der Palm (only in 39:2); Vredenburg (‘one’ also in 39:10, 24, 25).
Volume III1
472 EXODUS 2 8 :1 -4 3 ; 3 9 :1 -3 2
28:1 nnto, ‘and you;’ the spotlight on the subject is remarkable (cf. 27:20;
28:3; 30:23; 31:13) (cf. Zohar Exod. 179b; Leibowitz*, 525f.). Cassuto
believes that the significance is that Moses is to act at YHWH’s behest. My view
is that the emphasis may be intended to differentiate between this particular
order and the with rPtom (e.g. 28:2) introduced instructions (cf. Nachmanides
on 27:20). The latter are instructions which Moses is to have carried out
through the skilled workmen (28:3; cf. 35:30ff.; 36:lff.). The orders introduced
by nn«l he must perform himself. Though not all the instructions that are his
personal responsibility are introduced with rtnKl (e.g. 28:41), this is the most
obvious interpretation. Consecration of the priests is such an important matter
that Moses must do it himself as YHWH’s representative. That task cannot be
delegated. It must be totally clear that YHWH himself ordained the priesthood.
By contrast, the priestly garments may be made by others (28:3).
2 ")p hiph. (see 3:5), namely, to consecrate them as priests. Before that can be
done, first the conditions needed for it must be created. These include official
vestments (cf. 28:41, 43; 29:29; 40:14; Lev. 8:6ff., 13), which are fabricated
entirely in accordance with YHWH’s personal instructions. ‘Aaron,’ see Introd.
§5.6. nK, see 1:6. ‘his sons,’ see Introd. §3.10.1. lnx, not translated in LXX,
Vulg. (it is in 28:41). lin o , see 2:5. iaqj1? (see 2:16), also in 28:3, 4; the
suffix sing, i is striking;304 meant apparently is Aaron; in him, the most
important person, his sons are included (e.g. KoSynt §233a; Dillmann).305
‘Nadab’ etc., see Introd. §§5.46; 5.2; 5.12; 5.9. ‘Aaron, N adab...,’ in a
(secondary?; cf. KoSynt §333e) appendix the persons qualified to serve as
priests are named. There may be no uncertainty whatever about the candidates.
Earlier already there was talk of priests in Israel (19:22; cf. 24:5). Only now
preparations are being made for their consecration. For the motive for the
setting aside of the tribe of Levi to the service of YHWH see \fol. II, 163, and
also 32:26-29. According to Num. 8:18f. a difference must be made between
the setting aside of Aaron and his sons and that of the Levites.
In the following chapters and in Leviticus and Numbers, the assignments of
the high priest and the priests are outlined; see e.g. De \hux*, II, 217fF.;
Vriezen*, 255ff. etc.
28:2 ’i p , cstr. st. plur. of 7J3 (OT ca. 215*; 23* Exod.; derivative of 133?
[Palache*, 10]; for verb see 21:10), ‘(piece) of clothing,’ a very general term
(see AuS, V, 209ff.; Honig*, lOffi); in Exodus only the plur. is used, always as
term for the (high)-priestly garments (28:2, 3, 4[2*]; 29:5, 21 [4*], 29;
304 Sam.Pent, does not have the suffix, also not in 28:3, 4; cf. LXX, Pesh., Vulg.
305 Differently Ehrlich: read in 28:1, 4 wcpj (cf. 28:41); Cassuto: 1 is an old ending; cf.
irpn in Gen. 1:24.
Volume III1
31:10[3x]; 35:19[3x], 21; 39:l[2x], 41[3x]; 40:13). In the LXX 133 is as a

rule translated as ipaxiov (e.g. Lev. 11:25, 28, 32, 40; 13:6 etc.). However, for
113 as term for (high)-priestly clothing, aside from Lev. 10:6 (ipaxiov), oxoA/n
is always used (see also Lev. 6:14 = LXX 6:11; 8:2, 30; 16:23, 24, 32; Ezek.
44:17, 19). oxoA.fi is only sporadically (Gen. 27:15; 41:42 etc.; 9x) translation
of 133 as a nonsacred garment. The use of otoAfj (sing, in 28:2, 3; plur. in
28:4) marks the priestly garments as prestigious vestments, an attire of honor
(cf. CV, WV in 28:2 etc.: ‘robes’).
enp, see Introd. §3.44.2; official robes are meant, robes for the service in the
sanctuary, or better put: robes which empower for ministry in the sanctuary.
They transform the wearer, make him a cultic official. They determine his
status: high priest or priest (see 4.12.1.2, 3; differently Rashi: ‘garments of the
holy thing’ = the heave-offering). niNBnbl 1133b (see 16:7; TWAT, VI,
494ff.), only so Aaron is allowed to enter YHWH’s dwelling.
28:3 in to (see 28:1), Moses does not make the clothing himself, but orders it
to be made. That, plus the divine inspiration of the craftsmen, guarantees that
the clothing will satisfy YHWH’s requirements, (see Introd. §3.29.2;
1:10), cf. KdSynt §336h.
rriNbo (see 2:16), the suffix 1 after the plur. (Sam.Pent.: sing. 03n; cf. 31:6
etc.) refers to b3 (e.g. Dillmann, Strack; Ehrlich proposes to leave it out); in
the LXX it is translated with a plur. n il, see Introd. §3.47.3. For the skilled
workers see 31:lff.; 35:30ff. iByi is dependent on 1 3 i n , see Introd. §3.12.1.
Blip pi., see Introd. §3.44.1. 28:3b reads in LXX: ttiv oxoAf)v xf|v ayiav (cf.
28:2, and see Sanderson**, 71f.) ’Aapd>v ei<; xo Ayiov (Blip is understood as
noun), ev f) iepaxeuoei poi, ‘the consecrated garment for the sanctuary, in
which (namely, the garment) he ministers as priest before me.’
28:3 has no equivalent in Exod. 39 MT; it does in the LXX (36:8): ‘and
every craftsman among the workmen made the clothing for the sacred service,
intended for the priest Aaron." The verse concludes with ‘as YHWH had
commanded Moses’ (cf. 39:1).
28:4 In 28:6ff. instructions are given for the garments cited here, in the order
in which they occur here, except for the first two: first the ephod is dealt with,
then the breastpiece. The breastpiece is the most important garment. It is
closely associated with the ephod. To understand the significance of the
breastpiece, the ephod needs to be described first.
In the LXX the first three garments are preceded by the article. nb«1, cf. 1:1.
1BJ71 (cf. 28:3) is, in my opinion, dependent on I 3 i n in 28:3. For the text of
28:4-7 see 7QExod. gr (see DJD, III, 142f.).
P3B0 (doubtful form? see Ehrlich) needs a close look. A hapax legomenon,
derived form the root P 3 B , in 28:39 it is used as verb (pi.) with as object
Volume III1
474 EXODUS 2 8 :1 -4 3 ; 3 9 :1 -3 2
‘tunic.’ It is generally held, in particular in light of the Syriac $*bas, ‘to mix,’
that the verb denotes something like weaving, braiding (see the lexicons and
e.g. Dillmann). Dalman, AuS, V, 126, 166, 217, thinks of paon as a woven
fabric of thinner, weaker and stronger threads: ‘ein Waffelstoff;’ Galling, BRL\
431, regards ‘das wUrfelfSrmige Muster’ (checkered pattern) as characteristic of
patfn, while Hdnig*, 34, 139, thinks paef refers to the use of ‘Buntwirktech-
nik.’ In English translations (see 28:4, 39) the presumed etymology is brought
out in ways such as: ‘a broidered coat’ (KJV), ‘a checkered tunic’ (NRSV,
REB), ‘a woven tunic’ (NIV), ‘an embroidered shirt’ (TEV), ‘a tunic of
checkered work’ (New American Standard Bible).
An altogether different interpretation is offered by LXX and Vulg. LXX
28:4: /itc iv a KOoupPtotdv, ‘tunic with fringe, hem;’ 28:35(39): oi
Koouppcoxoi tcov xrccovwv (so LXXB; LXXA: oi KooupPoi), ‘the hems of the
tunic (shall be of linen).’ Vulg. 28:4: (lineam) strictam, ‘a fitting (linen tunic)’
(see already Aq., Symm.: xixibva ouo <Jhyktov ); 28:39: stringesque, ‘and you
shall make close-fitting’ (see already Aq.: xai ouo<|)iY$ei<;). In Pesh. pattfn is
translated with dbws ’, ‘of linen’ (cf. 28:39). The Vulg. seems to be based on
the idea that pattf connotes ‘to contract,’ ‘to clasp.’ Evidence for it can perhaps
be seen in the Vulg. rendering of the disputed p ^ n in 2 Sam. 1:9 with
angustiae, ‘strains)’ (closeness?);306 also here the explanation assumes that patf
= ‘to braid;’ e.g. K6W: ‘\ferflechtung,’ ‘Starrkrampf.’ In light of the Vulg.
rendering it is noteworthy that in TNf the forms of patf (see also below) are
always translated with words derived from the root de wortel irtK, ‘to join,’
‘to close.’ In TO, TPsJ the root p m is used. The picture the translators had in
mind is not entirely cleat in TO, TPsJ on 28:4 (cf. paooaPaCavric in
Josephus, AJ, III, 156) is understood by Dalman as a weaving of fine and thick
threads (see above). The meaning of pan is, however, just as uncertain as that
of patf.
Also other forms of patf than the ones mentioned are found in Exodus. In
28:20 the part. plur. pu.; in 28:11, 13f., 25; 39:6, 13, 16, 18 (see also Ps.
45:14) the noun n0)3a#O (only in plur.). The reference concerns the mounting
(28:20) of precious stones and the (gold) settings (28:11 etc.).307 The use of the
same root here and in 28:4, 39 is thought possible on the assumption that the
frames consisted of gold filigree. LXX 28:20 contains a double translation (cf.
Frankel*, 103): nepixeKaXuppeva xpuovw ouvdeSepeva ev xpuoiq), ‘set round
306 Cf. Aq.: o<t>iyKTfip, ‘band,’ ‘cord;’ differently LXX: okotoc Seivdv, ‘a terrible darkness;’
dizziness? Cf. G.R. Driver, WO 2 (1954-59), 262f.
307 SV: ‘kastjes;’ LV: ‘rozetten;’ CV, WV: ‘zettingen;’ NV, GNB: ‘kassen;’ NRSV, NIV, TEV:
‘settings;’ REB: ‘set them’ (in gold rosettes).
Volume III1
(fflGH-)PRIESTLY GARMENTS 475
with gold, bound together with gold.’30* In LXX 36:13 (39:6) the rendering is:
Kai itepioeoiaA.G)pevouc xpuoup, ‘and set in gold.’ In the Vulg. the part. pu. in
28:20 is translated with inclusi, ‘set (in gold); a n t n i3 3 !tfn m o o in 28:11;
39:6, 13 successively with inclusos auro atque circumdatos, ‘set all around in
gold,’ adstrictos et inclusos auro, ‘mounted in gold,’ circumdati et inclusi
auro. As can be seen, n i x a tf o in 39:6, 13 (+ Vulg. 28:11) is translated as a
verb. In 28:13, 14, 25; 39:16 (LXX 36:23), 26 (LXX 39:18), n is a tf D is
respectively rendered with aoniStoKai, ‘buds’ or ‘small shields,’ and uncini,
‘hooks.’ Aq. en Symm. translate with (ou)o<t>iyKTfip, ‘setting.’
Time to wrap up the discussion. The common perception that fat# pi. in
28:39 denotes a particular kind of weaving is, I believe, incorrect. No order is
given to make raw materials, but to make the tunic from the materials at hand
(double acc.). Possibly the root f aitf contains the idea of ‘to pull together,’ ‘to
clasp’ (see above), and the sense is that the tunic is to be shaped by sewing, it
is to have folds or creases, so that it will fit tightly around the body. In any
case, the presumed basic meaning goes well with nisaeio, ‘setting,’ ‘mount.’
(Introd. §3.30), ‘to take’ (TPsJ: + y irm o n p , ‘of their treasures’),

2 8 :5 rip 1?
namely, of the collected raw materials (25:3f.), or perhaps also: ‘to receive,’
namely, from you (= Moses) and from the people (cf. 36:3f., and see Rashi,
Nachmanides).
4.12.2 The ephod (28:6-14; 39:2-7)
28:6 ‘(Order them) to make the 39:2 He made the ephod of gold,
ephod o f gold, o f blue and red pur of blue and red purple and of -
ple, o f crimson and o f twined linen. crimson and of twined linen.
3 They hammered gold into
leaves, and he cut them into
threads to work into the blue and
into the red purple and into the
crimson and into the twined linen.
It must be first-class embroidery! It became first-class embroidery!
7 It must have two joined shoul 4 Shoulder pieces they made for
der pieces, to its two ends, so that it, which joined at their two ends.
it will fit tightly. The fit was perfect.
8 The strap on it, fo r putting it 5 The strap on it, for putting it
“ * Does the reading ant nisatto naoo lie behind it?; cf. Sam.Pent, and see LXX 36:20
(39:13): nepiKeKVKA.co|ieva xpuot<i> ouvScScpeva (LXXA: ev) xpucnu, ‘surrounded with gold
and envelopped with gold.’
Volume III1
476 EXODUS 2 8 :1 -4 3 ; 3 9 :1 -3 2
on, shall be made in the same way on, was of one piece with it and
and be o f one piece with it; o f was made in the same way, of
gold, o f blue and red purple and o f gold, blue and red purple and of
crimson and o f twined linen (it crimson and twined linen,
m u st be m ad e). as YHWH had commanded Moses.
9 You shall take two beryl stones. 6 The beryl stones they made,
On them you shall engrave the
names o f the sons o f Israel
10 The names o f six o f them on
the one stone, the other six on the
other stone, in the order o f their
birth.
11 It must be a first-class prod
uct o f gem cutting: through appli mounted in gold settings. Through
cation o f the seal engraving tech application of the seal engraving
nique you shall engrave the two technique they were engraved in
stones in such a way that the such a way that the names of the
names o f the sons o f Israel will be sons of Israel were on them.
on them. Mounted in gold settings
you shall make them.
12 The two precious stones you 7 He put them on the shoulder
shall put on the shoulder pieces o f pieces of the ephod. The stones
the ephod. The stones are to focus were to focus the attention (o f
the attention ( o f YHWH) on the Is YHWH) on the Israelites,
raelites. In that way Aaron, when
ever YHWH sees him, can wear their
names on his two shoulders to fo
cus his (YHW H’s ) attention on
them.
13 O f gold you shall make set
tings.
14 O f pure gold two strings, o f
equal length you shall make them.
It shall be braided work. The
braided cords you shall fasten to
the settings. '
4.12.2.1 "ris# (OT 47*; 29* Exod.) is a much discussed term. The etymology
is a matter of dispute (see Gabriel, 56ff.; Friedrich, 27ff; \kn Dam, 58, 156f.,
160f., 167, 169f.). mDK never occurs with a suffix or in the cstr. state, in
contrast with the feminine rn£&* herein, which is found only with suffix
Volume III1
(28:8; 39:5) or in the cstr. state (Isa. 30:22). m a x is regarded as a feminine

equivalent of TIBK (e.g. BDB), or as infinitive (of TSN [denominative verb of
HBK], ‘to put on the ephod’ [29:5; Lev. 8:7]), with the meaning ‘Anlegen des
Efod’ (Meyer §65.la; Ges.1*). In Isa. 30:22 m a tt is usually interpreted as a
covering of precious metal on the wooden or metal core of an idol. Commenta
tors on niBK often have a different view.309
TlBK is used in a variety of contexts (see below). It has been tried to find a
common denominator in this varied use by postulating a basic meaning: ephod
denotes something that covers or encloses tightly (e.g. S.R. Driver, DB, I, 727;
Morgenstem, 130; Phillips, 487); ephod is an oracular instrument (Elhorst), a
garment in which one approaches the deity (Sellin 1906, 715).
4.12.2.2 In LXX and Vulg. the term is translated in more than one way.
Looking ahead to the grouping under 4.12.2.3, it can be noted that the texts in
category 3 are translated differently from those in category 1 and 2. In the
texts of category 3, ephod in LXX and Vulg. is as a rule translated with,
respectively eTKopn; and superhumerale, ‘shoulder garment.’ In the texts of
category 1 and 2, in the LXX ephod is often rendered with e<J>oi)6, in the Vulg.
always with ephod.3'0 It seems that already the translators of the LXX were
unsure what to do with the term. In TO, TPsJ, TNf, also in Exod. 25-40 ephod
is left untranslated (cf. Pesh.: p d f’).
An investigation into the translation of ephod in the major Dutch translations
produces the following overview. In this overview we look ahead to the
grouping given under 4.12.2.3.
I ephod bad II ‘solid ephod’ III ephod

SV linnen lijfrok1 efod efod
LuthV linnen lijfrok lijfrok lijfrok
LV linnen schouderkleed efod2 schouderkleed3
CV linnen borstkleed efod2 borstkleed3
NV linnen lijfrok efod efod
WV linnen efod efod efod
Dasbeig efod4
GNB linnen rok5 orakeltas6 priesterschort
1. \hn der Palm: ‘linnen offerkleed’ (1 Sam. 2:18)/‘priesterkleed’ (1 Sam.

22:18; 2 Sam. 6:14).
2. Except in 1 Sam. 2:28; CV has in Hos. 3:4 the rendering ‘oracle.’
Foote, 16f.: a band (cf. Sellin 1906, 706f.); Elhorst, 276: ‘Orakelausstattung des goldenen
GuBbildes;’ Sellin 1934, 188, 192: robe of golden image; Morgenstem, 129f.: the tent sanctuary
of the golden image.
3,0 For further particulars see Foote, 8ff.; Friedrich, 28f.
Volume III1
478 EXODUS 2 8 :1 -4 3 ; 3 9 :1 -3 2
3. Also in 1 Sam. 2:28.

4. In the translation clarified as ‘shoulder coat.’
5. In 1 Sam. 22:18 ‘linnen priesterschort’ (linen priestly skirt).
6. In Judg. 8:27 ‘image/idoF (cf. also Judg. 17-18); in Hos. 3:4 ‘divine oracle.’
4.12.2.3 A quick look shows that the texts with ephod can be divided into three
categories.
(1) Texts that speak of 13 (1 Sam. 2:18; 22:18; 2 Sam. 6:14; 1 Chr.
15:27). The ephod bad is evidently a garment for cultic use.
(2) Texts that speak of the so-called solid ephod (Judg. 8:27; 17:5; 18:14, 17,
18, 20; 1 Sam. 2:28; 14:3; 21:10; 23:6, 9; 30:7; Hos. 3:4; cf. also 1 Sam.
14:18cj.; 22:18cj.; 1 Kgs. 2:26cj.). The context3" makes it unlikely that the
ephod is a kind of garment. Ephod is apparently an object.
(3) Texts in which ephod is a garment to be worn by Aaron, part of the
high-priestly vestments (25:7; 28[12x]; 29:5[3*]; 35:9, 27; 39[llx]; Lev. 8:7;
Sir. 45:8).
Is there an explanation for this highly varied use of the ephod? Is it possible
to ascertain how the three categories are related? Is there a unifying factor that
makes it possible to reduce the number of categories to two, perhaps even one?
With much creativity and inventiveness expositors have sought for an answer,
without reaching a consensus. I offer an impression of the results of the
investigations. As a preliminary remark I point out that, as so often, one’s
conception of the growth of the OT affects the results of the investigation.
As concerns the ephod note the following: before the rise of the historical-
critical study of the OT, the prevailing view was that the ephod in all passages
was a garment worn by humans.31312 The conception rests on the assumption that
Exod. 25-40 comes historically before to what is recounted in 1 and 2 Samuel.
Up to the present, conservative expositors hold to that presupposition. On that
basis, C.J. Goslinga for one ([COT 1968], on 1 Sam. 2:18; 22:18; and [COT
1962] on 2 Sam. 6:14), feels that the passages of category 2 and 3 refer to the
same garment and that this ephod, the high-priestly dress, should be distin
guished from the ephod bad - in his opionion a ‘linen tunic’ - , which presum
ably was no official garment (see also Kruyswijk [see 1.3.1], 105ff.). If it is
assumed that 1 and 2 Samuel have priority there is no need to assume a
principial difference between the texts of category 1 and 3, which opens up the
possibility of positing that the ephod bad, a cultic garment, evolved into the
311 Just to mention this: ephod is object of Kto: (1 Sam. 2:28; 14:3; 22:18) or of 0U hiph.
(1 Sam. 23:9; 30:7), verbs which are used for carrying objects, but not for the wearing of clothing
on the body.
3,2 See G.F. Moore (ICC 1895) on Judg. 17:5; Foote, If.
Volume III1
high-priestly garment.313
In neither position it is questioned that the ephod of category 1 and 3 is some
kind of garment. Problematic are especially the texts of category 2 and the
question of how they are related to die other passages in which the ephod is
mentioned. The question has received a lot of attention.
In general two standpoints can be distinguished:
4.12.2.4 The first is: Ephod does not always denote a garment. In Israel’s
religious history the ephod denoted a variety of things. In many different forms
this idea has been advocated.
It is argued that ephod can be both a term for a YHWH statue (cat. 2) and for
priestly clothing (cat. 1 and 3). Sometimes the two meanings are linked by
assuming that ephod used to denote the metal covering of an image (n in
Isa. 30:22), the ‘coat’ of the idol, and so became a name for the idol itself (see
S.R. Driver, DB, I, 726; see further Foote, 2ff.).
Elhorst: ephod is an ‘Orakeleinrichtung;’ the insignia (the oracle pouch) on
an idol, which qualifies the deity as oracle giver, and so also stood for the
image itself (Judg. 8:27; 17-18; 1 Sam. 14:18cj.) (pp. 271ff.), as well as the
oracle pouch itself, carried by the priest, which could be called ephod, but also
ephod bad, to distinguish it from the ephod as idol. It was worn by the priests
at the various sanctuaries (1 Sam. 2:28 etc.) and, perhaps already before the
exile, only by the high priest. In post-exilic times the ephod was no longer
designation of the entire priestly ‘Orakeleinrichtung,’ but only of the specific
garment to which the bag with the stones (for casting the lot) was attached
(cat. 3). Unmistakably, however, the high-priestly ephod with ‘Orakeleinrich
tung’ is the continuation of the old ephod bad.
Grefimann 1922: the ephod of category 2 is the girdle with which the image
of the deity was carried in processions and in battle, and consequently also
name for the idol itself. An oracle pouch hung on the idol. With the disappear
ance of the image, the girdle came to be worn by the priest (p. 107).
Bdhl: two kinds of ephod are to be distinguished; the priestly shoulder
garment (1 Sam. 2:18; 2 Sam. 6:14), which together with the ‘breastpiece’
Ol#n) containing the sacred oracle stones formed a portable oracle box, and the
solid ephod, the chest in which the stones were kept (p. 174; at exegesis
28:10ff.).
Gabriel: the illegitimate ephod of Judg. 8:27; 17-18 is a ‘Losume’ (container
holding the lot); in the other texts of category 2 the high-priestly ephod is
meant, which was not in the first place a garment, but the holder of the oracle
bag Oem) (p. 66; cf. pp. 5If., 70, 79).
Morgenstem: the solid ephod is a small, portable tent shrine, comparable to
See e.g. S.R. Driver, DB, I, 725; Grefimann 1922, 107; Arnold, 7f., 13If.
Volume III1
480 EXODUS 2 8 :1 -4 3 ; 3 9 :1 -3 2
the qubbe known from pre-Islamic Arabs (pp. 55ff.), a tent-like structure,
carried by a camel, which in sanitized form has remained in use among Islamic
Bedouin tribes (the ‘otfe [pp. 5ff.] and the mahmal [pp. 4 Iff.]). The qubbe
contained one or more betyles or images. Equivalents of these are the Old
Testament teraphim (in Judg. 17-18; Hos. 3:4 mentioned along with ephod).
They were used for divination. Ephod is a generic term. The shrine (IH^)
belongs to the ephod type (pp. 115ff.).
Friedrich: the solid ephod was originally a ‘kastenffcrmiges GerSt,’ made of
leather and holding two stones, clan deities, which was called ]i~)$ and used for
obtaining oracles. Next to it there was the ephod bad, a simple apron. The two
ephods evolved into the high-priestly ephod with lB?n. The old piK evolved on
the one hand into shrine of the covenant (later also called vnx) and on the
other hand into oracle pouch (the solid ephod), which was carried by the priest,
at first by hand, later with the aid of neck straps (the high-priestly ephod with
Itfn). In a later time, when only one form of divination, die high-priestly ephod
with itfn, was still known, VHN as name for the oracle bag was no longer
understood and came to be replaced by ephod (pp. 53ff.).
For Friedrich the ephod was thus basically a garment. By citing his concep
tion, we have in effect made the transition to the next conception.
4.12.2.5 Ephod always refers to a garment. This idea too has been advocated
in a great variety of ways. These can be reduced to two main views.
(1) In the texts of category 2 ephod is not original. A term deemed unaccept
able, a word referring to an offensive object, has been replaced by ephod, a
garment.
It is argued that D’nbK = idol (image of YHWH) was replaced by ephod, the
priestly garment with oracular instrument (see Arnold, 10ff.; Budde, 2, 4ff.).
Budde, 36ff., thinks that ephod was substituted for T 5$, ‘bull(image).’ Sellin
1934 favours OVibK; along with others he believes that D’Sîn was an epithet,
substituted in the text which used to read DYtbK = image of YHWH; in Judg.
17-18; Hos. 3:4 ephod is the garment, complete with oracular bag, draped over
the idol (teraphim). In de other texts of category 2 ephod stands for the fully
outfitted idol; in those texts the original reading was likely OYtbN; after idol
worship was prohibited (8th century), the ephod metamorphosed from divine
clothing to priestly clothing.
Arnold: in the passages with the solid ephod the original term was ynx,
name of a small box with stones for casting lots, which was carried by a priest,
likely by a strap around the neck (see 4.5.1.9).
(2) Also the so-called solid ephod is a garment. This is the classical concep
tion, which remains in favour among conservative expositors (see 4.12.2.3). In
their view, the ephod of category 2, ignoring Judg. 8:27; 17-18; Hos. 3:4,
which are about false worship, was always the high-priestly garment of Exod.
28; 39. In new forms, the classical conception also has supporters among
Volume III1
critical expositors.
Foote: ephod = ephod bad is a small, sack-shaped apron, a pouch, container
of sacred lots. It covered the wearer’s nakedness, but was also used for
consulting God. The high-priestly ephod cannot be regarded as a garment that
developed from the ephod bad, but is rather ‘a reconstruction based upon a
tradition which embodied the chief characteristics of the antique ephod’ (p. 39;
cf. pp. 36ff.).
Sellin 1906: the ephod is basically a kind of ‘loin cloth;’ the ephod bad a
simple loin cloth, the workaday priestly dress. The ‘solid ephod’ was also a
loin cloth; it is ‘solid,’ because a holder with lots was attached to it, which
with shoulder straps was tied to the ephod and formed one piece with it. From
this ephod the high-priestly ephod evolved; the holder with lots is the forerun
ner of the iBin.
Thiersch: the ephod is an ependutes, a sleaveless, sacklike garment, of knee-
length, which fitted tightly around the body and was worn over the tunic.
Especially on the front adornments were made on it. The ependutes, known
from countries around the Mediterranean Sea, was used for draping over idols
- normally made of gold and studded with precious stones - and was also the
dress of important people, such as priests and kings. The ependutes worn by
humans was made of cloth, ornamented with gold and purple and sometimes
with gems. In Judg. 8:27; 17-18; Hos. 3:4 the ephod is a divine ependutes =
idol; in the other passages of category 2 the ornate attire of the high priest
(Exod. 28; 39) (pp. 116ff.) is meant.
Swayed by Thiersch’s study, Sellin (JPOS 1937) modified his understanding
of 1934: in the texts of category 2, ephod = ependutes refers to the entire idol
(image + ependutes; synecdoche, pars pro toto). Sellin also changed his under
standing of teraphim.314 On the notion that ephod = mantle of the idol and also
(pars pro toto) the idol itself, see also e.g. Hoffmann, 104.
4.12.2.6 An evaluation of the various standpoints would require scrutiny of
the arguments used by the proponents as well as detailed exegesis of the
pertinent texts. That would carry us too far afield here. The most that can be
done is note that, in my judgment, the division of the ephod passages into three
categories is to the point. In connection with that I make two observations:
The first: Ephod has to be distinguished from ephod bad. The ephod bad is a
simple skirt or apron, a loincloth, only meant for use in the cult.315 Apparently
314 In ZAW 1937: teraphim was originally not the core of the image, but ‘der leuchtende
OberkOrperschmuck des goldenen Gottesbildiiberzuges’ (= ephod) (cf. Judg. 17-18; Hos. 3:4) and
also stood for the image itself (synecdoche).
315 See e.g. Sellin 1906, 703ff., following Foote, 7, llff., 22, 26f., 41f. (without buying his
view that the skirt was also oracle pouch and without equating ephod and ephod bad); Mor-
genstem, 116, 130; otherwise e.g. Elhorst, 260ff., 265ff.; Gabriel, 60f.; Thiersch, 114.
Volume III1
482 EXODUS 2 8 :1 -4 3 ; 3 9 :1 -3 2
the skirt was worn by cultic officials and those who acted in that capacity (2
Sam. 6:13f.) to hide the sex organs from view (cf. 20:26).
The ephod bad is not mentioned in Exodus. What is mentioned is the
IJ-'OWP as part of the priestly dress (28:42; 39:28; Lev. 6:3; 16:4; Ezek.
44:18; Sir. 45:3). Is this garment the same as or related to the ephod bad?
Foote: ephod bad, the girdle with the pouch with lots, is to be distinguished
from the miknese bad, the loincloth (p. 42).
Sellin 1934: ‘Die Schurz (= ephod bad) lebte in den spSteren miknese bad
weiter’ (p. 238; cf. Tidwell, 507).
Gabriel: ephod bad, to be distinguished from the high-priestly ephod, and
miknese bad denote the same garment (cf. Friedrich, 22); it always covered the
private parts, irrespective of the wearer’s particular movements.
As will become clear, both ephod bad and the high-priestly ephod refer to a
loincloth (see 4.12.2.10). To what extent the high-priestly ephod came from the
ephod bad (see 4.12.2.3) is hard to ascertain. Certain is that ephod bad and
high-priestly ephod did not have the same function. As concerns function, the
ephod bad is similar to the (high)priestly miknese bad. To get a better grip on
the relation between both I take a close look at n s ’033/3.
4.12.2.7 Neither in ephod bad nor in miknese bad does na mean ‘linen’
(Introd. §10.3.11). ’ 033)3 (only this form occurs in the OT) is usually regard as
a dual, cstr., but can also be understood as plur. cstr. The derivation is uncer
tain. Often the term is related to 033 (see in particular Isa. 28:20). Already
Josephus (AJ, III, 152) did so. To explain paxavaory; he used the term
ovvaKrnp, ‘something that encloses.’ For the description of the garment he
used the word 6ia(wpa, ‘loincloth,’ and ava£upi6e<; ‘pants.’ A matter of
dispute is whether 0 ’033I3 denotes pants or a skirt/apron,316 a kind of kilt. LXX
and Vulg. have opted, respectively for the rendering rtepioKeAfj and feminalia,
‘bands/clothing around the thigh;’ TO and TNf 0 ’ 0330) have retained the
Hebrew term; TNf margin has l’0p~i3N (cf. FTV on Exod. 28:42; Lev. 6:3; FTP
on Lev. 6:3) = ppaxai = bracae, ‘wide pants;’ TPsJ has 1’pOHlK, ‘pants;’
Pesh. has przw m ’ = neptCtopa, ‘girdle,’ ‘skirt,’ ‘apron.’ Dutch translations
have chosen for ‘onderbroek(en)’ (underpants) (SV), ‘heupkleed(eren)’ (hip
garments) (LV; cf. CV [‘lendenkleren,’ loincloths, in Ezek. 44:18]), ‘broek
(en)’ (pants) (NV; GNB [‘lendendoek,’ loincloth in Lev. 6:3; 16:14]), ‘lenden-
schorten’ (loin skirts) (WV; in Lev. 6:3; 16:14: ‘lendendoek’ (loincloth); in
Ezek. 44:18: ‘the skirt around their waist’). Descriptions and pictures317 from
the ancient Near East favour, in my view, the translation ‘apron’ or ‘skirt.’*61
1.6 BRL1, 257: ‘einen doppelten Schurz;’ cf. also B R L\ 431, and see AuS, V, 223f.; HOnig*,
61.
3.7 See ANEP, ill. 1-62 etc.; many illustrations in Keel, WABAT.
Volume III1
Likely what is meant is a garment around the waist covering the abdomen, the
behind and the thighs, extending down to the knees.318
Apparently the ephod bad was a simpler garment, a girdle with apron, which
left die thighs and buttocks bare and only covered the genitals so long as the
wearer did not move too much (cf. 2 Sam. 6:14, 16, 20ff.)319 Unlikely is that
ephod bad is to be taken as ‘linen tunic’ (see 4.12.2.2, 3), that is, as a long,
slip-on garment. In that case ephod is equated with the chiton (= njn^, see
4.12.6.1). See e.g. Thiersch, 114. He believes that the ephod bad was above the
loincloth.
4.12.2.8 To get at the meaning of ephod 1 take a further look at ephod bad.
The question arises whether the ephod as cultic garment was worn in combina
tion with other garments.
In 1 Sam. 2:18, 19 (cf. also 1 Chr. 15:27), next to the ephod bad the b'VQ is
mentioned. The me‘il is also listed among the high-priestly garments, among
others in the construct chain b’pp (28:31; 29:5; 39:22). Was Samuel
(1 Sam. 2:18, 19) wearing the me‘il whenever he officiated in the sanctuary
(e.g. Elhorst, 261f.; H6nig*, 65), or is the me‘il of 1 Sam. 2 not a cultic
garment? Did he put it on whenever he was off duty? (e.g. Tidwell, 506). Was
it then worn in place of the ephod bad or was the ephod bad wom under of
over the me‘il? (cf. Sellin 1906, 705). It would seem that the ephod bad
belonged to the sanctuary whereas the me‘il was an ordinary garment. Sam
uel’s mother took it to him.
Important passages for the question are 2 Sam. 6:14 and 1 Chr. 15:27. Did
David wear as cultic dress both the ephod and the me‘il? Conservative exposi
tors think such is the case. They espouse the view that 1 Chr. 15:27 supple
ments what is related in 2 Sam. 6:14 (e.g. C.J.Goslinga [COT 1962]; Gabriel,
60). In their judgment, however, ephod bad and me‘il are not specifically
priestly garments. On the other hand, Elhorst, 260ff., 265ff., maintains that
they are and that in 2 Sam. 6:14 ephod bad is pars pro toto for the priestly
attire, the me‘il with on it the oracle pouch, the forerunner of the later high-
priestly dress.
For myself I believe that both standpoints are untenable. 1 Chr. 15:27
contains an interpretation of 2 Sam. 6:14.320 According to 2 Sam. 6:14 David
wore only a skirt, no me‘il. But what is a me‘il? For that see 4.12.4. The
evidence presented there shows that in the Pentateuch me‘il was the tunic wom
by the high priest. The ephod is wom over it. Outside the Pentateuch me‘il
does not refer to a cultic garment. Obviously the ephod bad was wom under
Differently H.F. Lutz, JAOS 42 (1922), 209: miknese bad is a girdle with skirt
319 Cf. G.W. AhlstrOm, VT 28 (1978), lOlf.
320 Was the nakedness offensive, causing the introduction of the me‘il? (e.g. Foote, Ilf.; Sellin
1906, 704); otherwise e.g. Elhorst, 262 n. 3; W. Rudolph (HAT 1955) in loco.
Volume III1
484 EXODUS 2 8 :1 -4 3 ; 3 9 :1 -3 2
the me‘il.
4.12.2.9 My second observation is: Neither the ephod bad nor the ephod o f
category 3 is an oracular instrument. By contrast, the ‘solid efod’ is often
mentioned in connection with consulting God (see also e.g. 1 Sam. 14:36;
22:10, 13, 15; 23:2, 4, 10). The context in which the ‘solid ephod’ is men
tioned does not make it likely that it was a garment or oracular pouch. Opting
for the view that the ephod denotes an image and combining it with seeing the
deity as oracle giver, can only be done if one assumes that the ephod (= the
image) was outfitted with an oracle pouch (so that the image is also oracular
instrument), or that consultation of the deity happened in front of the image.
The simplest interpretation is that the ‘solid ephod’ itself was the oracular
instrument and was shaped like a box. Arnold’s suggestion that the texts of
category 2 originally had 111$ is worth considering (see 4.5.1.9). In any case it
is plausible that the ‘solid ephod’ and the shrine belonged to the same genre of
cultic objects.321 Acceptance of this conception implies that in Israel’s religious
history the shrine was not a unique cultic object. In the extant OT the term
ephod is reserved for an oracular instrument, and the term ynK - aside from
Judg. 20:27; 1 Sam. 14:18f. - for the shrine with the plates, the - according to
the picture in the OT - unique shrine of the Sinai.
Ephod is mentioned a few times in combination with the term teraphim
(Judg. 17:5; 18:14, 17, 18, 20; Hos. 3:4). In some passages, though ephod is
not mentioned there, it is used in the context of divination (Ezek. 21:26; Zech.
10:2). It has been argued that ephod stands for the object, bag, pouch or box,
containing the oracular stones and that teraphim is the name of the stones
themselves (e.g. Foote, 27ff.), which according to some were shaped like an
image322 and, as some hold, also were called Urim and Thummim323 or later
acquired that name (Foote, 21ff.; Friedrich, 53ff.). The interpretation of
teraphim is disputed. That they were used for casting lots is doubtful.324 The
relation between ephod and teraphim is difficult to determine, due to the
complex character of the story in Judg. 17-18; see e.g. the seesaw interpreta
tions of Sellin (see 4.12.2.5).
4.12.2.10 The solid ephod is an oracular instrument. The high-priestly ephod
is not. In Exod. 28; 39 the oracular instrument is called l?fn. If one wishes to
assume a connection between the ephod of category 2 and 3, one will also have
321 Cf. the under 4.12.2.4 cited views of BOhl, Friedrich, Moigenstem; cf. already notes in LV
on Judg. 8:27 and Elhorst, 275.
322 E.g. K. Marti (KHC 1904) on Hos. 3:4; differently Hoffinann, 104: teraphim are the small
images, attached to the seam of the ephod, the mantle of the idol.
123 Morgenstem, 125ff.: Urim and Thummim belong to the genre of teraphim, the betules,
sacred stones or images, in the ephod = the portable tent shrine.
324 For a recent discussion see Schroer**, 136ff.
Volume III1
to assume the ephod in the passages of category 2 is actually the ion.325 That
seems unnatural.
Going by the description of the ephod in Exod. 28, one is bound to conclude
that the ephod, as part of the high-priestly attire, was a loincloth, a kind of
apron, which unlike the ephod bad was not worn on the bare body, but as an
ornamental skirt over other garments. The ornamental skirt is fastened with
shoulder-straps. It is made in such a way that it makes it possible to carry Ittfn,
the breastpiece (see the explanation of 28:7, 8). Similar types of dress are
known from the ancient Near East.326
Conclusion: ephod always denotes a garment, a loinskirt; the so-called solid
ephod is wrongly called ephod.
28:6/39:2 itoPl is, in my view, dependent on l a i n in 28:3 (cf. 28:4b); cf. 28:2,
13, 15 etc.: n’toPl. &P’l (39:2), for sing, see 39:1.
39:3 iPpTl imperf. cons. pi. of Ppn; in pi. the ‘hammering’ of metal into a
thin leaf by the goldsmith (see Houtman*, Himmel, 222ff.). ’09 cstr. st. of
*n9, which in 39:3; Num. 17:3 occurs as plur. with the meaning of ‘plates;’
ns is thought to be a loanword from the Egyptian (Ellenbogen*, 130) and
usually distinguished from the presumably homonymous ns, ‘trap-net’ (e.g.
Ges-B; BDB; HAL; see however K6W; TWAT, VI, 548). The meaning is not
that golden plates are being hammered - as the usual interpretation has it - ,
but that the gold, which does not yet have the shape of leaves, is hammered
into gold leaf. pspl (see 12:41); perf. cons., functioning as frequentative? (cf.
Strack; see however KoSynt §3701); for sing, see 39:1. Differently Ehrlich:
read p»p) (inf. abs.; cf. Gen. 41:43). b’ns, see 28:28. Vulg. contains the
following picture of the operation (the hammering is not mentioned): inciditque
bratteas aureas et extenuavit in fila, ‘and he cut thin gold leaves and stretched
them into threads;’ LXX (36:10) mentions only one activity: ‘cutting.’ “pna,
see 2:5. Sam.Pent.: npbinn. 39:3 clarifies the use of the gold (28:6; 39:2).
Baentsch, for one, regards the verse as a gloss.
28:7/39:4 *jna, see 27:14. nart, see 26:3; cf. Friedrich, 57f.; ‘attached,’ to
what? each other? (cf. LXX and see e.g. Holzinger, Baentsch). Are they
connected on the back with each other? That seems to be the purpose. ibTPrr
(Introd. §3.13.2), masc. sing, with as subject a feminine plur. (see 12:49 and
KoSynt §348k; Joiion §1501); cf. 28:32. LXX: + ere pa xf)v etepav, ‘to each
other.’ bK, MS Cairo Geniza, Sam.Pent.: bp (cf. 39:4); Baentsch, for one,
So e.g. Sellin 1906, Elhorst, Gabriel, Friedrich; see 4.12.2.4, 5.

326 See in particular ANEP, ill. 210, 640, and Friedrich, 36ff.; Van Dam, 167f.
Volume III1
486 EXODUS 2 8 :1 -4 3 ; 3 9 :1 -3 2
follows this reading. "38? (Introd. §4.3.1), masculine, used in reference to the
feminine (cf. 25:18). nap, see 12:41; with ‘ends’ are meant the left and right
side of the front; the use of the term in 28:23-26 aigues against thinking of the
ends as the front and back (e.g. Noth, Durham); according to 28:27, 28, ephod
and shoulder-pieces were joined just above the waist, “iani; Sam.Pent.: narr
(cf. LXX), is followed by, among others, Delitzsch*, 104; Baentsch; as I see it,
the perf. cons, introduces a purpose clause and should not, as is often done, be
connected with ‘to its two ends.’
Already a glance at the translations shows that the narrative is hard to under
stand. I understand the shoulder-pieces as straps over the shoulder that are
joined behind the neck on the back. Think of a kind of stole or collar. What
the backside looked like is not indicated however. On the front, the straps run
left and right of the breast to the middle (cf. 28:27). There they are joined to
the ephod. How the shoulder-pieces are connected to each other on the back
and to the front of the ephod is not indicated. With rings and/or bows (cf.
28:28, 37), with a pin (Fensham), or was everything sewn together? In any
case, they and the ephod were not made of one piece of woven fabric (cf.
28:8). The garments of the high priest are heirlooms (cf. 29:29). They are to be
made in such a way that they can be worn by persons of different build.
Therefore the shoulder-pieces are not of one piece with the ephod. As the
ephod is fastened, it can be fitted in accordance with the size of the high
priest’s chest, even as by means of the strap of the ephod (28:8) the ephod can
be fitted to the size of the waist. The construction assures that the ephod stays
in place and makes it possible to carry the breastpiece on the chest (28:22-28).
bi? (39:4), cf. in 28:7, for the alternation see e.g. Brockelmann §108c; cf.
Williams §§286, 308. vnnxp, see Introd. §2.2. Ehrlich rightly questions the
masoretic accenting in 39:4 (the ’afnah dividing the verse); with several MSS
he reads 13m (cf. 28:7). I don’t think that is necessary
28:8/39:5 3#n (28:8, 27, 28; 29:5; 39:5, 20, 21; Lev. 8:7), which is only used
as bound form in construct chain with m a x (28:8; 39:5) and 11BK, is usually
translated with ‘strap’ (LY CY GNB) or ‘girdle’ (NV, WV; Vredenbuig,
Dasbeig: ‘girdle strap’). The etymology is disputed. Sometimes the term is
derived from the root atfrt and explained by pointing to atfn qal, ‘to devise’
(see 4.4.2.1). In that case 3#n is described as ‘Kunstgewirk’ (Ges-B; cf. K6W;
Zo.) or ‘ingenious work’ {BDB). G.R. Driver, WO 2 (1954-59), 258f., how
ever thinks that ‘drew, put together’ is the primary meaning of the root. So he
arrives as the meaning ‘band.’ Sometimes it is surmised that the form 30n is
due to metathesis and that the term is a derivative of Bfan (see 29:9) (e.g. HAL;
cf. THAT, I, 642; TWAT, III, 244, 246).
In the LXX attfn (cf. the rendering of atf'n; see 4.4.2.1) is translated with
owixjrfj (36:28 [39:20]) and 6<f>ccopa (28:8; 36:17 [39:20], 29 [39:21]; cf.
Volume III1
Frankel*, 80), ‘fabric;’ cf. Vulg.: textura in 28:8. In 29:5; 39:5, 21, Vulg.
however has balteus, ‘girdle;’ cf. Aq. (in 28:27): 6iaC<*>opa, and TO, TPsJ,
TNf: V’On. Differently yet again Symm. (in 28:27): KaxaoKeuaopa, ‘artful
work.’ For the term see also Friedrich, 26. m a tt, see 4.12.2.1. p + rrn, see
25:19.
According to 28:7f., 27 the ephod was not a garment worn on the upper
body, but a garment around the waist, which on the left and right was strapped
to the upper body. With a strap, the ephod is worn around the waist (cf. Lev.
8:7 and see 1 Sam. 2:18). In die LXX (36:12) the making of the strap of the
ephod is not mentioned. The making of the shoulder-pieces mentioned in MT
39:4 is related.
28:9, 10, 11/39:6 ‘to take,’ of the collected precious stones (25:7). For the
precious stones see 4.12.3.3. After ntt one would expect to find ondn (cf. 39:6
and see Sam.Pent.), see Ges-K §117d; KOSynt §288h; Ehrlich. LXX: ‘two
stones, stones of.’ rtns, see 2:6; Qm (erroneously): fins’ (cf. Sanderson**, 90,
158). orv^JJ (Sam.Pent.: p ’blt), with masculine suffix that refers back to the
feminine ‘stones’ (cf. KQSynt §§15; 252k; Ges-K §135o, and see 39:7).
‘names’ (Introd. §3.50), in Sam.Pent. preceded by ntt. ‘the sons of Israel,’ see
Introd. §8.13.1.
‘their names,’ LXX: ‘names.’ nddn mod, construct chain (but see Baentsch).
onnun (see 10:5), for plur. see KdSynt §312b. ombiro, see 1:15; thus not
considering the mother (see bij l:2ff.). According to Josephus (AJ, III, 166) the
names of the six elder sons were on the right shoulder. In agreement with
rabbinic exegesis (bSota 36a), Rashi maintains that each stone held 25 letters;
on the one stone (the right) the names of Rueben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Dan,
Naphtali; on the other Gad, Asher, Issachai; Zebulon, Joseph and Benjamin (cf.
Gen. 29:31-30:24). In Jewish exegesis there is no unanimity though about the
order. For instance, some favour the order of Exod. 1:2-4 (cf. Gen. 35:23-26)
(see in Jacob*, Pent., 314). That view also has its adherents among Christian
expositors (e.g. \fcnk, 489).
fine is used in 28:9 with in 28:11 and 39:6 with acc. nOd"^d, is inter
preted as ‘auf Grundlage, nach der Norm der Namen’ (Strack; cf. Dillmann,
Baentsch, and see e.g. Williams §290); Ehrlich on the other hand: ‘Auf die
Namen gravieren ist so gravieren, dass die Namen herauskommen.’ 330 hoph.,
see 7:24. niX3dD (see 28:4), can be taken as acc. or as nomen rectum in
construct chain (cf. K6Synt §336g; Ges-K §116k). onx, with masculine suffix
(see above). LXXB in 28:12 lacks a translation of the text from nod up to and
including O’JSRn (due to shifting of the eye); LXX lacks a translation of the
end of 28:12 from n300 (LXX 36:13 [39:6], cf. Sanderson**, 127f., does have
a translation).
Volume III1
488 EXODUS 2 8 :1 -4 3 ; 3 9 :1 -3 2
28:12/39:7 par, see Introd. §3.18.3;327 the names of the patriarchs remind
YHWH of the people that came from them (cf. 28:29; Zech. 6:14); Cassuto: ‘a
memorial and symbol that the priest ministers in the name of the tribes of
Israel.’ In Sam.Pent. ynat is followed by the word mn, ‘they ( a r e ) ( c f .
LXX). NtoJ, see 6:8. ‘their names,’ LXX, TPsJ: ‘the names of the sons of
Israel’ (cf. 28:11). mrv ’jab, see Introd. §3.42.2. rana (see 27:14), dual., is
nevertheless preceded by a numeral (cf. KoSynt §257d); Sam.Pent.: vnana.
p a th , LXX: pvT||i6ouvov rcepi aiiTtov, ‘a memorial concerning them.’ Beside
28:12 see 28:29.
Implied subject of p a t is both times YHWH (cf. 28:29), not the Israelites (cf.
Sir. 45:9). See for the latter e.g. Hertz: to remind the Israelites of their com
mon ancestry and common worship of the God of Holiness (was YHWH as
subject an offensive anthropomorphism?); see over against it Jacob*, Pent.,
315: the stones on Aaron’s shoulder are ‘sein Gebet an Gott filr die Israeliten,
daB Gott ihnen gebe, was sie bediirfen.’
28:13, 14 28:13, 14 are introduction to the description of the breastpiece. The

passage details that durable materials are to be made to connect ephod and
breastpiece (cf. 28:25).
The nxatfn (see 28:4) have to be distinguished from the settings of 28:11;
according to 28:25 it concerns two items; LXX: ‘of pure goud.’
rhnfya (28:14[2*]; 39:15; 1 Kgs. 7:17; 2 Chr. 3:5, 16)328 occurs only as
feminine plur. (despite the masculine suffix of onK; see e.g. KoSynt §14; Ges-
K §135o) and is usually taken to mean ‘chains,’ ‘chainlets’ (see de lexicons;
SS: ‘Schniire’). In 28:14 mfiP® is genitivally related to nnaffn, plur. (Jotion
§90e) of n'ajf (OT ca. 25x), ‘(woven/twisted) rope, cord, string,’ which in
28:14, 22; 39:15 is used in the construct chain naff nfcffO and beyond that
occurs in the absolute as plur. (28:24, 25; 39:17, 18). It is obvious that the
combination nnaffn m ehe; in 28:14 further describes the chainlets/cords. They
are generally thought to be braided chainlets, chains composed of several
strands, that is, very strong chains.
Also in ancient versions m a p # and nnaff are understood as chains or cords.
For instance, in the LXX nnaffn mePttf is translated with xa Kpoaocota td
neirAeypeva, ‘the braided cords’ (28:14; cf. 28:22, 24; 36:22 [39:15]) and naff
ntoffO with epyov TtAoKfjc (28:14) and epyov epTiAoKiou (36:22 [39:15]),
‘braided work’ (cf. 36:25 [39:17, 18]), but also with epyov dAuoiSwrov
(28:22; cf. 28:24 LXX), ‘chain(like) work;’ cf. the rendering of menttf with
327 TPsJ: Kmat p a in , ‘recalling the merits (of the fathers).’

321 See also nitPtf in 28:22, shortened form of scribal error (KdHkL , II, 497: dissimilation; De-
litzsch*, 860); cf. Sam.Pent.: mafMtf.
Volume III1
aAvoeu; by Aq., Symm. (according to another tradition: ouo<J>iyktoc; Theod.:

XaA,aoTa) and of nai? ntoCO with cpyov Ppoxtotov, ‘circlet-shaped.’ In de
Vulg. in 28:14; 39:15 is rendered with catenulae, in 28:22 with
catenae, a rendering also used for nnai? in 28:24, 25. In TO, mttflttf is
translated with fa v i, in TPsJ, TNf with iberttf. Both terms are translated with
‘chains.’ For final? TO and TPsJ, TNf have respectively ib’m and IS’bp,
‘cords.’
In 28:14 m s h tf is rendered with the term nb^W, in 28:22; 39:15 with
n b a i. Do these terms shed light on m en tf? Until recently modem lexicogra-
hers used to derive the terms from a root bai, ‘to twist,’ ‘to braid’ (e.g. Ges-B;
BDB; K6W; Zo.); hence nbaao (Ehrlich: read nb^jp part, pu.) = ‘cords;’ nbai
ntfna? (perhaps to be vocalized as nbpa, part. pass, qal; see e.g. KBL) =
‘corded chains’ (NRSV). Cf. LXX in 28:22 = 36:22 (39:15): Kptoooou<;
oujiTcenAcYpevou?, ‘plaited cords;’ nbaa is rendered the same as elsewhere
nna» (see above); instead of nbaao LXX has: Ka-capepiypeva ev avOeoiv
‘intermixed with flowers’ (perhaps because of a presumed connection with
bl?aa; see Introd. §10.3.9).
An old conception has it that there is a connection with baa in the sense of
‘mark the boundaries’ (see 7:27); see e.g. 28:14 in SV: ‘gelijk-eindigende’
(KJV: ‘at the ends’), that is, of equal size and length,329 and in Vredenbuig:
‘voorzien met eindknopen’ (provide with knobs at the end [cf. Dasbeig]).
Rashi understands nbaao as the end of the Ittfn.330 Recently G.R. Driver, WO 2
(1954-59), 254f., with an appeal to the Syriac, has argued that baa denotes the
‘welding(together)’ by the goldsmith, and that nbaao and nbaa are to be
vocalized respectively as part. pu. and part. pass. qal. The interpretation is
accepted in HAL (cf. also Ges.18). As Driver sees it, na» nt!?l?D and
nnai? nnttfuz? mean respectively ‘work of links’ and ‘chains of links.’ At least
one difficulty in Driver’s view, to say no more, is taking naa? as meaning
‘link.’
Coming up with a well-founded interpretation is impossible, m en© I
translate with ‘strings;’ nnai? with ‘cords;’ nbaa(O) with ‘of equal length.’
lino, see 24:10. onK, not translated in the LXX. In de LXX nxatfOH is
followed with: Kata taq Ttapcjpi6a<; autwv etc tcov epnpooOivov, ‘to the
shoulder-straps on the front.’
Fastening of the strings is to be done, it seems, by pulling them through the
opening of the settings and then with a knot tying them to it or behind it.
329 Cf. LuthV: ‘evenlang’ (of equal length), and see already Vulg.: sibi invicem cohaerentes.
330 Cf. the rendering with p n n o (of onn, ‘mark the boundary’) in TO, TPsJ, TNf, which on
insufficient grounds is sometimes translated with ‘cords.*
Volume III1
490 EXODUS 2 8 :1 -4 3 ; 3 9 :1 -3 2
4.12.3 The breastpiece (28:15-30; 39:8-21)
28:15 'You shall make an oracle 39:8 He made the breastpiece.

breastpiece. First-class embroidery First-class embroidery it was,
it must be. You shall make it ju st made just like the ephod was made,
like you made the ephod. O f gold, of gold,
o f blue and red purple and o f crim of blue and red purple and of crim
son and twined linen you shall son and twined linen.
make it.
16 Square it must be, o f fabric 9 Square it was. Of fabric folded
folded double, double they made the breastpiece, a
a span long and a span wide. span long and a span wide, of fab
ric folded double.
17 You shall cover it with mount 10 They covered it
ed precious stones, with four rows with four rows of precious stones,
o f precious stones, with a row con with a row consisting of a came-
sisting o f a cornelian, a topaz and lian, a topaz and an emerald - the
an emerald - the first row. first row.
18 The second row shall consist 11 The second row consisted of a
o f a garnet, a sapphire and garnet, a sapphire and
a chrysoprase. a chrysoprase.
19 The third row o f a jacinth, an 12 The third row of a jacinth, an
agate, and a amethyst. agate and an amethyst.
20 The fourth row o f a turquois 13 The fourth row of a turquois,
and a beryl and a jasper. They a beryl and a jasper Mounted in
must be set in gold filigree. gold settings they were set.
21 The number o f precious stones 14 The number of precious
shall, corresponding to the names stones, corresponding to the names
o f the sons o f Israel, be twelve, in of the sons of Israel, was twelve, in
correspondence with their names. correspondence with their names.
Through application o f the seal Through application of the seal
engraving technique there shall be engraving technique there was on
on each o f them the name o f one o f each of them the name of one of
the twelve tribes. the twelve tribes.
22 On the breastpiece you shall 15 On the breastpiece they made
make strings o f equal length. strings of equal length. It was
Braiding it shall be o f pure gold. braiding of pure gold.
23 For on the breastpiece you 16 For they made two gold set
shall make two gold rings and tings and two gold rings and they
the two rings you shall attach to attached the two rings to the two
the two ends o f the breastpiece. ends of the breastpiece.
24 Next you shall attach the two 17 Next they attached the two
Volume III1
gold cords to the the two rings at gold cords to the two rings at the
the ends o f the breastpiece. ends of the breastpiece.
25 The two (other) ends o f the 18 The two (other) ends of the
two cords you shall attach to the two cords they attached to the two
two settings and after that to the settings. After that these they at
shoulder-pieces on the tached to the shoulder-pieces on
front o f the ephod. the front of the ephod.
26 You shall make two more gold 19 They made two more gold
rings and you shall put these on rings. They put (these) on the two
the two (other) ends o f the breast- (other) ends of the breastpiece, on
piece, on its edge, on the inside, on its edge, on the inside, on the side
the side facing the ephod. facing the ephod.
27 Next you shall make two more 20 Next they made two more
gold rings, but these you shall at gold rings, but these they attached
tach to the two shoulder-pieces o f to the two shoulder-pieces of the
the ephod, underneath, on the ephod, underneath, on the front,
front, right there where they and right where they and the ephod
the ephod connect, above the strap connect, above the strap of the
o f the ephod. ephod.
28 By pulling a blue purple cord 21 By pulling a blue purple cord
through its rings they shall fasten through its rings they fastened the
the breastpiece to the rings o f the breastpiece to the rings of the
ephod, to make sure that it will be ephod. So they made sure that it
above the strap o f the ephod and was above the strap of the ephod
the breastpiece will not get dis and that the breastpiece could not
lodged from its place above the get dislodged from its place above
ephod.2930 the ephod,
29 So it shall be possible fo r
Aaron, when he enters the sanctu
ary, to bear the names o f the sons
o f Israel on the oracle breastpiece
on his chest, so as to without inter
ruption focus YHWH's attention on
it.
30 In the oracle breastpiece you Cf. Lev. 8:8.
shall put the Urim and the Thum-
mim. So they shall sit on Aaron’s
chest whenever he comes before
YHWH. S o it shall be possible fo r
Aaron to bear without interruption
the oracle o f the Israelites on his
Volume III1
492 EXODUS 2 8 :1 -4 3 ; 3 9 :1 -3 2
chest, w henever he fa c e s YHWH. ’
4.123.1 The etymology of the word translated as ‘breastpiece,’ l#n (OT 25*),
which in the OT is only used as a name for a part of die high-priestly dress
(25:7; 28 [llx ]; 35:9, 27; 39 [8x]; Lev. 8:8 [2x]; cf. Sir. 45:10), is
uncertain.331 In TO, TPsJ, TNf, SamT the Hebrew is taken over in untranslated
form. The Pesh. offers little help in explaining it (see Friedrich 35). In the
LXX, in 25:6(7); 35:9, the term nofiTjpric , ‘reaching to the feet,’ occurs, which
elsewhere is used as translation of b’pij (28:4; 29:5) and liB# (28:27[31]). In
28:4 lem is rendered as ncpioTfjOiov ‘breast-plate.’ Elsewhere, however, in
view of the function of Itfn - it is 09^ 51( 0) 1#rt (28:15, 29, 30) - the LXX has
koyeiov/koyiov, ‘place for speaking,’ ‘oracle(instrument).’ Also Aq., Symm.,
Theod. have the translation Xoyiov. In Lev. 8:8, however, Symm. has 6oxevov,
‘storage place/holdet’ Rationale in the Vulg. seems to mean ‘that which gives
a definite answer’ and is based on Aoyiov as interpretation of ia#n (cf. e.g.
Calmet on 25:7).
Modem translations, taking into account the description of the appearance
and function of the Itfn in 28:15-30, have such translations as ‘borstlap’
(breast-cloth, SV), ‘borst-sieraad’ (breast ornament, \hn der Palm), ‘borsttas’
(breast-bag, LV, CV), ‘borstschild’ (breast-shield, Vredenbuig, NV, Dasbeig),
‘orakeltas’ (oracle bag, WV, GNB), ’breast-plate’ (KJV).
The ltfn is made of the same material as the ephod and is of the same quality
(28:15). It is square in shape and over 20 centimeters long and wide - its size
is such that it covers the chest - and made of material folded double (28:16).
For sturdiness, for mounting precious stones on it (e.g. Thiersch, 12Iff.,
132ff.), or for use as holder of Urim and Thummim? The latter is the most
likely. in 28:30 (dependent on ini), despite the reading in the Sam.Pent.
and the translation eitt in the LXX (cf. Vulg.), should be understood as ‘in’
(cf. 25:16, 21) (see Gabriel, 7 Iff.; Friedrich, 23, 26f., and in particular \hn
Dam, 65ff.). The notion that the fabric was folded double for the sake of
strength is accompanied by the idea that Urim and Thummim were on the
outside of the l»n (see below).
In the account in Exod. 28 the Itfn is called BBItfO(n) Itfn (28:15, 29, 30).
BBtfB (see 2:14; TfVAT, y 93ff.) is an allusion to Urim and Thummim
(28:30a, b). Consequently, BBtfB(n) l®n is the oracle pouch, the holder of
Urim and Thummim. Thus as such the BBBB(n) ]tfn, not the high-priestly
ephod, is comparable to the ‘solid ephod’ (see 4.12.2.3). The l#n also serves
as foundation garment for attaching the 4 times 3 precious stones (28:17-20).
331 See TWAT, III, 278; Friedrich, 34f.; Van Dam, 65; for presumed Egyptian origin see M.
Gdrg, BN 15 (1981), 32-4.
Volume III1
As such, it functions as breastpiece, chest adornment. In support of both

functions, religio-historical comparison material can be cited.33132
No parallel is known of the richly ornamented breastpiece that serves as
oracle pouch. It was already noted that there is the view that while it is true
that in the story the ion of Exod. 28 has both functions at once, historically
speaking one should differentiate between the as oracle pouch and as
breast-plate (see 4.1.2.4, 5). Important, I believe, is how one thinks of the
writer/redactor Was he a person who simply collected all sorts of materials,
without bothering about the question whether this might lead to an unrealistic
picture? My own thinking is that he should be given more credit and that he
could be trusted to convey a picture his readers could identify with and
understand (see also 4.12.3.2.5 under 2).
4.12.3.2 Urim and Thummim

4.12.3.2.1 The terms D’HN and D'/jp occur in combination a few times in the
OT (28:30; Lev. 8:8; Ezra 2:63; Neh. 7:65; in Deut. 33:8 D’on comes first [not
in LXX]). D’TIN by itself - obviously to be taken as pars pro toto - is found in
Num. 27:21; 1 Sam. 28:6.333 The explanation of the terms is difficult.334 In
English translations, as in other modem translations, they are as a rule left
untranslated and only transliterated. An exception is the Dutch LuthV, which
stands in the tradition of the Luther translation (cf. \&n Dam, 23f.), which has
‘Licht en Recht’ (Light and Right) (cf. Buber - Rosenzweig: ‘die Lichtenden
und die Schlichtenden’). Already TO, TPsJ, TNf have stayed with the Hebrew
terminology. Other ancient versions do have a translation of the terms.
In the LXX D’TIN is translated with 6fjAcooi<; (28:30; Lev. 8:8) / 6qA.oi
(Num. 27:21; 1 Sam. 28:6; 14:41; cf. Deut. 33:8), ‘revelation(s),’ ‘instruc
tion^),’ and with <|>&mCovTe<; (Ezra 2:63)/<J>Gm£<i)v (Neh. 7:65), ‘giving light;’
D’nn is translated with aA.fj6eia (28:30; Lev. 8:8; cf. Deut. 33:8), ‘truth,’ with
ooiottk (1 Sam. 14:41), ‘holiness,’ and with teXeioi (Ezra 2:63), ‘perfec
tions.’ Clear is that the renderings of <j><«m{eiv and teAeio<; are based on
interpretation of D'llK and D’on as respectively forms of the Hebrew nN/liN,
331 For oracular instrument see e.g. Foote, 22ff., 34fF.; Friedrich, 49f.; Van Dam, 170f.; for
breastpiece as royal (cf. Ezek. 28:13?) and priestly attire see Friedrich, 50f.; Van Dam, 157f.,
164ff.; for the breast adornment as dress of ecclesiastical dignitaries see Thiersch, 183ff.
(illustrations on Taf. XLI, XLIVf., XLVII); O. Nussbaum, Das Brustkreuz des Bischofs, Mainz
1964, 7ff.
333 For the terms see also 1 Sam. 14:41 LXX; 1 Ezra 5:40; Sir. 33:3; 45:10; 4QpIsa'1 54,11; TS
58,18ff.
334 See e.g. BHHW, III, 2066f.; DB, IV, 838ff.; 1DB, IV, 739f.; W AT, I, 995fT.; Gabriel,
91ff.; De Vaux*, II, 227ff.; Van Dam, passim; W. Horowitz, V. Horowitz, “Urim and Thummim
in Light o f a Psephomancy Ritual from Assur (LKA 137),” JANES 21 (1992), 95-115; A.M. Kitz,
“The Plural Form of ’urim and tummim,” JBL 116 (1997), 401-10.
Volume III1
494 EXODUS 2 8 :1 -4 3 ; 3 9 :1 -3 2
‘light of a fire’/’light,’ and D'n, ‘perfection.’ That interpretation also shows up

in other translations. See e.g. 28:30 in the translation of Aq., Symm., Theod.:
Toi><; <t>(oxiop.ooc âi xac TeA,ei6xr|Ta<;, and of SamT: rPObc? n’l rP’VBJ n \ 335 It
is generally held that the renderingss 6TjA<ixnc/8TjA.oi and aAfjOeia likewise rest
on identification of Urim and Thummim as forms of respectively the roots UK
and Don and are to be taken as ‘free’ translations (\hn Dam, 4f., 76ff). In my
view, this is unlikely (cf. Frankel*, 100f.). More likely, D’nK was taken as a
form of rrv hiph., ‘to teach’336 and D’On as a form of 1DK. As concerns the
latter: aAqOeia is in the LXX frequently the rendering of np^/njlOg.337*With
the translations doctrina and veritas, ‘instruction’ and ‘truth’ (Vulg. 28:30;
Lev. 8:8; cf. Deut. 33:8: perfectio and doctrina), Jerome apparently took over
the LXX’s translation of the Pentateuch.
4.12.3.2.2 Until the second half of the 19th century it was held that the terms
"riK/TW and ori provided the key for understanding Q’TIN and D’On. The key
did not disclose everything, however. It left unanswered the question of the
precise nature of the Urim and Thummim and how they functioned. On that
there was a range of ideas. A favoured view used to be that Urim and Thum
mim were part of the breastpiece, located on the outside of it (for eiti in the
LXX see above), and were identical with the twelve precious stones on the
breastpiece or, possibly in the form of characters, had their place next to them.
Thus e.g. Josephus (AJ, III, 215ff.) thinks, though he does not mention Urim
and Thummim by name, that God revealed his will33* by means of the lighting-
up of the twelve stones on the breastpiece and the shoulder-pieces. According
to a tradition first attested in TPsJ, the great and holy name of God was
engraved on the Urim and Thummim. Revelation happened when the letters on
the breastpiece lit up (cf. Ginzberg*, III, 172f.). Also Rashi and Nachmanides
hold this view. According to them, the Urim and Thummim inscribed with the
names of God were inside the 18/n and they were instrumental in disclosing the
will of God through the stones on the outside. Also in modem times, the
existence of a relation between Urim and Thummim and the precious stones
has been defended, among others by Thiersch, 122ff. He believes that Urim
and Thummim may not be identified with the precious stones and should not
335 In Pesh. the same interpretations are found as in LXX; usually Urim and Thummim are
translated with ‘lightTfire’ and ‘perfection;’ in Lev. 8:8, however, with ‘revelation’ and ‘truth;’
for the ancient versions see Gabriel, 97 ff.; Mm Dam, 4, lOf.
336 Cf. Deut. 33:10; 1 Kgs. 8:36; 2 Chr. 6:27 in LXX; see also Symm.’s rendering of O’HK in
Deut. 33:8 with 6i6oxn; cf. Van Dam, 19f., 73, 188 n. 9, 233 n. 33.
337 The translation of O’an in Deut. 32:4 with aA.r|9iva and of p m in Prov. 28:6 with ev
&>.ti0ei<x also goes back, I believe, to erroneous derivation from the root p x .
331 This conception is also attested among the Samaritans; see J. MacDonald, ALUOS 5 (1963-
65), 60ff.
Volume III1
be considered either as the power behind the stones. He thinks of the Urim and
Thummim as standing for the invisible, spiritual goods and gifts of grace, of
which the precious stones are the visible bearers. These would be there so long
Israel would be faithful to y h w h .339
4.12.3.2.3 In the second half of the 19th century, the previously sporadically
defended view that the Urim and Thummim were lots really began to catch on.
It even made its way into translations (e.g. in the GNB: ‘oracular stones;’ see
28:30). The traditional etymology was dismissed. Etymologies that were more
in agreement with the new understanding of Urim and Thummim were de
fended, but failed to gain wide support (\hn Dam, 38, 73ff.). It also proved
impossible, owing to the paucity of data and the fact that they could be
interpreted in more than one way, to reach a consensus on other points. The
question of what material the lots were made, their shape, their number and
how they showed the will of God, was variously answered. Some salient points
from the discussion now follow.
As to form □’TIN and D’Dn are plurals. Are they to be taken as genuine
plurals? Are they plurals of intensity (e.g. Ges-K §124; Joiion §90f) or were
they later vocalized as plurals,340 so that each of the terms denotes only one
object? Or is ‘Urim and Thummim’ a hendiadys (cf. \&n Dam, 79f.), designa
tion of just one object? Were Urim and Thummim made of wood, metal or
precious stones? Were they shaped liked arrows, small sticks, or were they
stones? Were the lots cast or drawn? Did one lot indicate the negative answer,
the other the positive, or did the way the lots would fall determine the answer?
Or were there a great many lots with letters on them, by means of which a
message could be composed?
\hn Dam disputes that Urim and Thummim were lots. From the fact that in
passages that talk of consulting YHWH/God (Judg. 1:1; 20:18, 23, 27; 1 Sam.
10:22; 14:36f.; 22:9f., 13, 15; 23:2, 4; 30:8; 2 Sam. 2:1; 5:19, 23) - he
believes that Urim and Thummim were used for that purpose (cf. Num. 27:21)
~, the divine answer contains more information than just ‘yes’ or ‘no,’ he
concludes that the priest gave the answer on the basis of divine inspiration and
that Urim and Thummim served to verify the divine source of the words. Urim
and Thummim miraculously light up, a sign that the priest had received
inspiration from on high. Absent the inspiration, there was no light either (pp.
89ff., 109ff„ 118ff., 128ff.).
4.12.3.2.4 I note a number of things:
(1) There is no way to recover the meaning of the words Urim and Thum
mim.
339 For an overview of the history of the exegesis see Van Dam, 7ff.
340 Cf. KOSynt §262g; A. Jirku, Bib 34 (1953), 78-80.
Volume III1
496 EXODUS 2 8 :1 -4 3 ; 3 9 :1 -3 2
(2) Urim and Thummim are to be distinguished from the precious stones on
the breastpiece. They are in the breast-pouch (see above).
(3) Urim and Thummim are a priestly oracular instrument (28:30; Num.
27:21; cf. 1 Sam. 28:6). The use of Urim and Thummim is in any case alluded
to in Judg. 20:27, 28; 1 Sam. 14:36f.; 22:9f., 13, 15; 23:9ff.; 30:7f. According
to these passages, the oracular instrument was inside the shrine.341
(4) \hn Dam argues cogently that Urim and Thummim were not stones for
casting lots. The key witness for that interpretation, 1 Sam. 14:41 LXX, does
not carry enough weight.342 Agreement with \kn Dam’s challenge need not
imply agreement with his standpoint. There is not enough basis for it. For
myself I wonder whether Urim and Thummim - taken as intensive plurals and
hendiadys34334- might not stand for an object through which God’s will is made
known to the priest, either in words directly from a heavenly messenger; or in
pictures that disclose the future. One might think, for example, of a huge
gem. 344
4.12.3.2.5 Some concluding observations:
(1) Urim and Thummim (with definite article) are introduced in Exod. 28 as
existing objects. No order is given to make them.345346It has been proposed that
Urim and Thummim were a gift from God.34< That the oracular instrument was
regarded as a medium of divine origin is plausible.
(2) The question arises: why did Aaron, whenever he was in the sanctuary
always have to carry Urim and Thummim upon his breast (28:30)? It has been
argued that 28:30 betrays what appears to be a pre-exilic re-interpretation of
the breastpiece. It is no longer oracular pouch. Urim and thummim are no
longer pulled out to learn the will of God, but remain permanently in the
breastpiece, from which in a later phase of re-interpretation (28:29) they
disappear altogether (Elliger, 30). Presumably in the first re-interpretation,
symbolic significance was attributed to the wearing of Urim and Thummim in
the sanctuary. W. Dommershausen, following J. Maier (p. 31), sees in it ‘die
Tendenz, das Rechtswissen ganz an die hohepriesterliche Entscheidungsgewalt
341 See 4.5.1.9; according to Friedrich, 54, from the betules in the ark the later, smaller Urim
and Thummim developed.
342 See J. Lindblom, VT 12 (1962), 176ff.; he remains convinced that Urim and Thummim are
lots (171ff.); Van Dam, 105ff.
343 In 28:30b Urim and Thummim are subsumed under the one denominator = oracle(in-
strument).
344 At least in later times crystal, but also other stones such as beryl, play an important role in
divination (see HdA, V, 576ff.).
345 Such an order is given in Sam.Pent, with an account of its execution in 39:21; similarly
SamT.
346 E.g. Nachmanides and annot. SV on Lev. 8:8; on these and other suggestions see \bn Dam,
27, 29, 32, 8If.
Volume III1
zu binden’ (TWAT, III, 279). These are far-reaching conclusions from just one
text.
Num. 27:21 (P) shows that the writer was familiar with the custom of
learning the will of y h w h with the help of the Urim. Considering the composi
tion of the passages, it is more likely that 28:30 purports to make clear how
Urim and Thummim could function as medium of divine revelation: the high
priest always carried the oracular instrument with him in the sanctuary. That
means that it was brought inside the sphere of the Holy One and so was always
anew ‘charged’ with divine power.
But why was it to the worn ‘on the heart’ = ‘on the chest’ (Introd. §3.29.1)?
Is no more than place designation? Baentsch and \hn Dam, 7 If., for
some, believe such is not the case. The first claims that Urim and Thummim
are here not just oracular instruments, but also ‘Symbole der gottlichen
Entscheidung und Gesetzesoffenbarung’ and that Aaron wears them on his
heart to express ‘dass er die Erforschung des gOttlichen Widens und die
Beobachtung desselben sowohl fiir seine Person wie filr die von ihm reprSsen-
tierte Gemeinde sich allezeit als heilige Pflicht und Gewissenssache will
angelegen sein lassen.’
In my view, the meaning of 28:29 (the names of Israel are on the heart of
Aaron) may be that the high priest ‘body and soul' must be Israel’s representa
tive, while in 28:30 (the oracular instrument is on his heart), the underlying
assumption is that the radiancy of Urim and Thummim must penetrate all the
way to the heart, the high priest’s spiritual center so that he will be able ‘to
read’ Urim and Thummim, learn YHWH’s will from it.
(3) For examples of allegorizing and spiritualizing interpretation of Urim and
Thummim see Vhn Dam, 7, 17, 21, 25, 31, 34.
4.12.3.3 The precious stones

4.12.3.3.1 Bibl.: BHHW, I, 362ff.; BRL, 64ff.; DB, IV, 619ff.; IDB, II, 898ff.;
LA, II, 932f.; HdA, II, 552ff.; RLA, II, 266ff.; TRE, IX, 266ff.; W. Bachei;
“Ancienne liste des noms grecs des pierres pr^cieuses,” REJ 29 (1894), 79-90
(see next to it S. Lieberman, Greek in Jewish Palestine, New York 19652,
56ff.); J. Bolman, De edelstenen uit den Bijbel, Amsterdam 1938 (his sugges
tions are followed in the NV); Gabriel (see 4.12.1.1), 80ff.; J.S. Harris, “An
Introduction to the Study of Personal Ornaments etc.,” ALUOS 4 (1962-63),
49-83; idem, “The Stones of the High Priest’s Breastplate,” ALUOS 5 (1963-
65), 40-62; M.L. Heitzmann Perez, “La turquesa, octava piedra del pectoral del
sumo sacerdote,” Anuario 6 (1980), 149-58; J.A. Loewen, “A Suggestion for
Translating the Names of Precious Stones,” BiTr 35 (1984), 229-34; H.
Quiring, “Die Edelsteine im Amtsschild des jiidischen Hohenpriesters und die
Herkunft ihrer Namen,” Sudhoffs Archiv fiir Geschichte der Medizin und
Naturwissenschaft 38 (1954), 198-213.
Volume III1
498 EXODUS 2 8 :1 -4 3 ; 3 9 :1 -3 2
4.12.3.3.2 For the high-priestly clothing precious stones - for 13$ see 7:19 -
are used. They are put on the shoulder pieces (28:9ff.; 39:6ff.) and on the
breastpiece (28:17ff.; 39:10ff.). Twelve different stones are put on the breast-
piece. For several reasons identification of these stones presents problems. In
antiquity there was no one fixed nomenclature. A particular term did not
always refer to the same thing. Classification of precious stones was not done
on the basis of sophisticated scientific analysis, but more on the basis of things
like colour and other externals such as translucency hardness and weight.
Consequently also non-minerals such as pearls and amber could be included
among the ‘precious stones’ or ‘gems.’ For that reason, a better term for the
things under discussion here might be ‘valuables.’
The uncertainty with respect to the identification is reflected in the transla
tions (see below). Also the oldest translation, the LXX, is an unsuitable guide.
It is doubtful that the translators were able to make precise identifications.
Besides, one must reckon with the possibility of ‘updating,’ namely, that the
translators introduced stones that were known and regarded as gems in their
time. Noteworthy is that the terminology used in the LXX is also found in two
places in the oeuvre of Josephus (BJ, V, 234; AJ, III, 166ff.), however in a
sequence that only in part agrees with that in the LXX. Also, it happens that in
both works Josephus sometimes lists the stones of the third and fourth series in
a variant order.347 In Ezek. 28:13 nine of the precious stones occurring in
Exod. 28:17-20 are mentioned, but in a different order. In the LXX version of
Ezek. 28 all twelve stones of Exod. 28 are listed, in the sequence of Exod. 28,
after the first six interrupted by ‘silver’ and ‘gold.’ Also in Rev. 21:19-20
twelve jewels (with names on them, Rev. 21:14) are mentioned, seven of which
also occur in the LXX version of Exod. 28 and Ezek. 28, be it in a different
order (see the tables in IDB, II, 903).
In view of the uncertainties in regards to identification, it is understandable
that some are content with transliteration of the Hebrew words (e.g. Vreden-
burg, Dasbeig; see already SamTJ; differently SamTA). Translation of the terms
- the difficulties notwithstanding - is preferable however. For that terms will
have to be used, which, in the spirit of the original text, will bring out that
stones of great purity and brilliance were affixed to the high-priestly attire. It
goes without saying that the terms may not be a-historical. They must be
stones that were known as jewels in the ancient Near East and could be cut and
polished with ancient methods.
4.12.3.3.3 Now first an overview of the terms in the order in which they are
mentioned in 28:17-20 along with an impression of the proposed identifica
tions.
547 For a Greek translation that sharply differs from the LXX see Bacher and Lieberman.
Volume III1
(1) on'K (28:17; 39:10; Ezek. 28:13), on the assumption that Dn'R is a
derivative of D*1K, ‘to be red’ (cf. Gradwohl*, 15), the term can be regarded as
a name for a red jewel (cf. TO, TPsJ, TNf, FTV); LXX: oap6iov (cf. Rev.
21:20; also translation of OtfB, see 11); Vulg.: sardius (cf. e.g. SV); LV:
‘cameooT (= camelian, a reddish, semi-translucent quartz stone); CV, WV:
‘ruby’ (red, translucent precious stone); NV, GNB (in Ezek. 28:13 ‘topaz’):
‘red jasper’ (opaque quartz stone with little brilliance). OIK is also identified as
blood-stone (Harris, ALUOS 5, 46) and spinel, a very hard, iridescent gem.34®
(2) nqp? (28:17; 39:10; Ezek. 28:13; Job 28:19), on the assumption that the
term comes from Sanskrit (Ellenbogen*, 133), it can be regarded as referring
to a yellowish gem (cf. TO, TPsJ, TNf); LXX: tonaCiov (cf. Rev. 21:20);
Vulg.: topazius; SV, LV CV WV, GNB (in Ezek. 28:13 ‘red jasper’): ‘topaz’
(a honey-yellow; opaque semi-precious stone); NV: ‘chrysolite’ (an olive-
green, opaque mineral).349
(3) (28:17; 39:10; cf. Ezek. 28:13)350 is translated in the LXX with
opopaySoi;;351 Vulg.: smaragdus; KJV: ‘carbuncle’ (a deep-red garnet or ruby;
in Ezek. 28:13 ‘smaragd’); LV CV, WV, GNB: ‘smaragd;’ NV: ‘malachite’ (a
dark-green carbonate of copper). In KBL, HAL, Ges.'s ‘smaragd’ is further
described as ‘dark-green beryl’ (a mineral). Harris, ALUOS 5, 49, thinks of
green fieldspar.
(4) (28:18; 39:11; Ezek. 27:16; 28:13) is translated in the LXX with
avOpai;,352 to be taken as ruby or garnet (cf. LuthV: ‘ruby;’ in Ezek. 28:13
‘amethyst’); in line with that, Vulg.: carbunculus {gemma in Ezek. 27:16); cf.
LV, CV WV: ‘carbuncle;’ differently TO (y n n a m ), TPsJ ("ninrK): ‘sma
ragd’ (cf. SV; in Ezek. 28:13 ‘ruby’); TNf ( n n a i 3 ; cf. FTV): ‘chalcedony’
(cf. Rev. 21:19); NV: ‘hematite’ (= blood-stone; so GNB). It is also conceiv
able that qsa is a loan word from the Egyptian,353 referring to ‘malachite,’ or
that it denotes turquoise (KBL; HAL) or pearl-grey fieldspar (Harris, ALUOS 5,
52).
(5) TB0, see 24:10.
(6) obq: (so L, also in 39:11; many MSS in 39:11: obq:) (28:18; 39:11;
Ezek. 28:13) is translated in the LXX with laoitu; (cf. Ezek. 28:13 LXX and
Rev. 4:3; 21:11, 18, 19); Vulg.: jaspis; so also LV, WV; GNB: ‘green jasper;’
differently TO: Dibnao (?); TPsJ: p i n n a , ‘chalcedony;’ TNf: n b a r p it (so
For the various identifications see Quiling, 195f.

™ Cf. L. Kohler, TAW 55 (1937), 168f.; Bolman, 29ff.
Loan word, via Akkadian, from Sanskrit (see the lexicons); but note Quiring, 197.
1 Cf. Rev. 21:19; Ezek. 28:13 LXX, also translation of □ntf, see 11; in the targums the term
*s transliterated; Symm.: Kepauviot (cf pn?, ‘lightning’).
352 Cf. Ezek. 28:13 LXX; in Ezek. 10:9 LXX translation of B'0-ip, see 10.
353 Th.O. Lambdin, JAOS 73 (1953), 152.
Volume III1
500 EXODUS 2 8 :1 -4 3 ; 3 9 :1 -3 2
also FTV), ‘calfs eye’ (diamond?); Pesh.: ‘sardonyx’ (so also CV); KJV:
‘diamond;’ NV: ‘prasem’ (green variety of chalcedony); Harris, ALUOS 5, 53:
‘rock crystal.’
(7) o t^ (28:19; 39:12)35435is translated in the LXX with Xiyupiov (see also
Ezek. 28:13 LXX), in the Vulg. with ligurius; probably the term is a variant of
Aovyoupiov, a kind of amber (a yellowish to brownish translucent fossil resin);
cf. LuthV, NV, GNB: ‘bamsteen’ (amber); differently TO: ’TSJp (KcyxpT));
TPsJ: lim aap (Keyxpivov, a kind of diamond; cf. TNf: ptlt □tfb; FTV: put);
SV, CV, WV: ‘hyacinth’ (cf. i>aiciv0o<; in Rev. 21:20; see also Rev. 9:17); LV:
‘opal’ (cf. KoW); identification with camelian has also been proposed (cf.
HAL).
(8) iatf (28:19; 39:12), usually regarded as a loan word from the Akkadian,
355 is translated in the LXX with axaxiy; (see also Ezek. 28:13 LXX), in the
Vulg. with achates; cf. SV, LuthV, LV, CV, NV WV, GNB: ‘agate’ (a hard
gravel or quartz stone); differently TO: K’p io , and TPsJ: f p i o = avOpatciov
(carbuncle, ruby, garnet?) or turquoise?; TNf: p b n s (so also FTV), ‘beryl;’
Pesh.: ‘camelian;’ Quiring, 204f.: ‘onyx.’
(9) nij^ns (28:19; 39:12), often regarded as a loan word from the
Egyptian,356 is translated in the LXX with apeOuoTOi; (see also Ezek. 28:13
LXX; Rev. 21:20), in the Vulg. with amethystus; cf. SV, LuthV, LV, CV, NV,
WV GNB: ‘amethyst’ (a bluish violet-coloured, translucent quartz); differently
TO, TPsJ: b l'S p», ‘calfs eye’ (cf. 6); TNf, FTV: p m o i , ‘smaragd’ (cf. 4);
also identification with ‘agate’ (Ges-B; KoW), reddish or brownish jasper
(KBL; HAL) and red garnet (Harris, ALUOS 5, 55) has been proposed.
(10) tf’r w (28:20; 39:13; Ezek. 1:16; 10:9; 28:13; Dan. 10:6; Cant. 5:14);
does the gem owe its name to the (Spanish?) trade city with the same name
(Isa. 2:16; 23:1, 14; 60:9 etc.), as Quiring, 206ff., thinks? tf’tznn is translated
in the LXX in 28:20; 39:13 with xpuooAi0o<;, ‘gold-coloured stone,’ (cf. Ezek.
28:13 LXX; Rev. 21:20), elsewhere transliterated (Ezek. 1:16; Dan. 10:6; Cant.
5:14) or rendered with av0pa£ (cf. 4); in the Vulg.357*with chrysolithus; cf.
LV, CV (Cant. 5:14: ‘Tarshish;’ Dan. 10:6: ‘smaragd’), WV (Dan. 10:6:
‘topaz’): ‘chrysolite;’ differently TO, TPsJ, TNF, FTV: KO’ o n a , ‘gem sea-
green in colour’ (cf. Vulg. Ezek. 1:16: quasi visio maris, ‘as the appearance of
the sea’);35® Symm.: i><mv0o<;; SV, LuthV NV GNB (Ezek. 10:9: ‘precious
stones’): ‘turquoise;’ also identification with ‘vermillion crystal’ (P. Haupt; see
Loan word from the Egyptian and name for the whitish-blue fieldspar? See Th.O. Lambdin,
JAOS 73 (1953), 152; Ellenbogen*, 97.
355 Ellenbogen*, 155; Cohen (see 9:9), 128; differently KOW.
356 Th.O. Lambdin, JAOS 73 (1953), 147; Ellenbogen*, 22; differently Quiring, 205f.
357 Excepting Ezek. 1:16 (see below) and Cant. 5:14: ‘hyacinth.’
See also S.B. Hoenig, JQR 69 (1978-79), 181f.
Volume III1
K6W), with Spanish gold topaz (Quiring, 207f.) and with beryl (IDB, I, 387)
has been proposed.
(11) on# (= Akkadian samtul [Quiring, 208] or the name of a place?
[K5W]; 7x Exod.; Gen. 2:12; Ezek. 28:13; Job 28:16; 1 Chr. 29:2) is used in
25:7; 28:9; 35:9, 27; 39:6 in the construct chain in 28:20; 39:13
in the absolute; in the LXX, DDE? in 25:7; 35:9 is translated with oapdiov (cf.
1), in 28:9; 35:27; 39:6 with opapocySot; (cf. 3) and in 28:20; 39:13 with
PqpuAAiov, ‘beryl’ (cf. Ezek. 28:13 LXX; Rev. 21:20; elsewhere in the LXX
the translation differs yet again); in the Vulg. with onychinus (Job 28:16:
sardonychus);359 cf. KJV: ‘sardius’ (not so in Job 28:16); LV, CV (in Gen.
2:12: ‘rubies’), GNB: ‘onyx.’ Ofitf is rendered in TO with R^TD, ‘beryl;’ in
TPsJ with ‘beryl’ (25:7; 28:9; 35:9) or ‘chrysoberyl’ (Nbn niV?TQ); by
contrast, TNf in 25:7 etc. talks of ’precious stones,’ while 28:20; 39:13 talks of
(cf. FTV), ‘bdellium’ (in Gen. 2:12 mentioned in combination with
one#). Dntf is further identified with the chrysoprase (cf. Rev. 21:20)360 and the
camelian.361
(12) (28:20; 39:13; many MSS in 28:20: nstj;), a loan word from the
Akkadian (Ellenbogen*, 81), is translated in the LXX with ovuxiov (cf. Ezek.
28:13 LXX);362 in the Vulg. with beryllus; in TO with ’Trias, ‘multihued
stone;’ in TNf with nn’bam (cf. papyapirnO, ‘pearl/gem’ (both renderings in
TPsJ: n’TBaSR m a m ) ; in LV with ‘sardonyx;’ in NV, GNB with ‘nephrite’
(cf. Bolman, 68ff.; KBL: ‘nephrite’ or ‘jade’). However, the most obvious
identification is regarding nSD’ as ‘jasper.’363
4.12.3.3.4 The uncertainty in identifying the precious stones makes it
impossible to get a good idea of the colour spectrum on the breastpiece and of
the relation between translucent and opaque, iridescent and less iridescent, and
precious and very precious stones. Since there is no certainty about the order in
which the names of the sons of Israel (cf. \bl. I, 227) were engraved on the
stones, there is no way either to determine whether for each of the sons - in
light of the symbolism - a specific gem was selected.
1,9 Cf. Aq., Symm., Theod. (39:6): 6vu?, and see the use of ovu£, in Job 28:16 LXX translati
on of onitf, and oapSovug (cf Rev. 21:20) in Josephus for the precious stones on the shoulder
pieces of 28:9 (BJ, V, 233; AJ, III, 165) and the first stone on the breastpiece (28:17) (AJ, III,
168; in BJ, V, 234: oapfiiov).
*# Bolman, 62ffi, 74ff, 116ff; c f NRSV.
341 KBL, Quiring, 208; cf. WV: ‘cornelian’ (Gen. 2:12: ‘precious stones;’ 1 Chr. 29:2: ‘onyx’).
361 Diminutive of ovu5; see 11 and the use of ovuf by Josephus for the tenth (BJ, V, 234) and
the eleventh stone (AJ III, 168); cf. WV: ‘onyx.’
363 Cf. the Greek iacntu;; see 6 and J. Pairman Brown, JSS 13 (1968), 188ff; it has been
suggested that the LXX is based on a Hebrew text with nCB' as the sixth gem and Dbrr as the
twelfth; see DB, IV, 620; presumably notf' was also in the LXX translated with taomc; see also
e-g. Pesh., SV, LuthV, CV.
Volume III1
502 EXODUS 2 8 :1 -4 3 ; 3 9 :1 -3 2
Also on other points there are no real answers. Did each of the stones have a
different colour? What did the gem-studded breastpiece look like, a motley
array of colours or of harmoniously blending colours? Did each of the rows
have a specific colour? How big were the stones? In views of the size of the
breastpiece (28:16), they cannot have been bigger than 3,5 to 6 cm. Uncertain
is whether they were of the same size or of different sizes. The latter is not
impossible.
The text is silent on the order of the names on the stones (cf. Rev. 21:14). It
is commonly thought that the unexpressed sequence in 28:10 is also assumed
here. However, as was noted, there is no consensus on the arrangement that is
in view in 28:10. There is no agreement either with respect to 28:21. The order
accepted by Rashi for 28:10 is found in TPsJ. As concerns the first row, TNf
and FTVagree with TPsJ - from left to right: Reuben, Simeon, Levi - , but not
with respect to the other. The order is virtually that of Gen. 35:23-26, the only
difference being that Joseph and Benjamin come last.364 A standpoint all his
own is that taken by Jacob*, Pent., 320f. From the absence of in
28:21 he infers that the order of the names cannot be the same as that in 28:10
and that they cannot have been the same names. Levi is not mentioned, while
Joseph is replaced by Manasseh and Ephraim.
It is usually thought that on the breastpiece there were four above each other,
horizontal rows. Jacob, however, believes: ‘Der Choschen ist ein Abbild des
israelitischen Lagers um das Heiligtum mit der Edut’ (p. 320); the stones are
attached in an order that reflects the way the tribes were encamped relative to
the sanctuary (Num. 2:12ff.).
4.12.3.3.5 The text is silent on possible symbolism in the stones. In the
history of interpretation the colour and distinctive features of each of the stones
have been interpreted as characteristics of the person whose names was
engraved on the stone.365
What was the function of the precious stones on the high-priestly attire?
Precious stones were an expensive import article (e.g. 1 Kgs. 10:11; Ezek.
27:22) and on account of their beauty were treasured ornaments (e.g. Isa.
3:20). Thinking of beauty, one should not think of the sparkle which is
produced by diamond, sapphire and ruby thanks to modem cutting and polish
ing techniques, but of the mysterious brilliance and depth. Precious stones are
364 The same order in ExR. XXXVIII, 8,9; Pseudo-Philo, XXVI, 9-11; according to ExR
XXXVIII, 9, the first stone also contained the names of the three patriarchs; in view of its
function as Urim and Thummim (see 4.12.3.2) the breastpiece had to contain all the letters of the
alphabet.
343 For rabbinic interpretation see Ginzberg*, III, 169ff.; for an example of Christian interpreta
tion see \bnk, 313 n. 80; a cosmic interpretation of the precious stones is given by Philo (VM, II,
123F, 133) and Josephus (AJ, III, 186).
Volume III1
indicative of possessing power and dignity (e.g. Gen. 41:42; 2 Sam. 12:30; Jer.
22:24; Ezek. 28:13; Esth. 3:10). They symbolize beauty and perfection (e.g.
Prov. 31:10; Cant. 5:14; Lam. 4:1). According to ancient thought, they were
also bearers of special powers and effective in warding off evil (cf. Wisd.
18:23ff.) and giving physical and material prosperity. They are representative
of celestial and paradisical purity, glory and luster (e.g. Gen. 2:12; Isa. 54:12;
Ezek. 1:16, 22, 26; 10:1, 9; 28:13f., 16; Dan. 10:6; Rev. 4:3; 21:18ff.). This is
the background against which the appearance of the precious stones on the
high-priestly clothing should be understood. They are not first of all intended
to emphasize the authority and dignity of the high priest as YHWH’s representa
tive. Rather, they have a function relative to the text engraved on them: pure,
heavenly light surrounds the breast and shoulders of the high priest. For what
purpose? Purity, holiness and heavenly light are needed for drawing YHWH’s
attention and for rivetting his eyes on the names of the sons of Israel, so that
these names cannot fail to have their impact on him (28:12, 29; 39:7).366 The
very appearance of the high priest is a constant reminder to y h w h that he has a
bond with the twelve tribes of Israel and that the twelve tribes are represented
by the high priest. Engraving of the names on impure material would have
been detrimental to the communication with YHWH.
28:15/39:8 llBK, Sam.Pent.: niBNn (39:8: nBKn; cf. LXX). 39:8: t?m , for
sing, see 39:1.
28:16/39:9 see Introd. §4.5.2. blBB, see 26:9. mt, see 25:25. piN and
am, see 25:10. 39:9 lacks blB3 at the end.
28:17/39:10 Kbn, see 2:16; in the LXX (28:17) understood as ‘to weave.’ For
■MB (OT 26x; Exod. 28:17[3*], 18, 19, 20; 39:10[3x], 11, 12, 13; llx in
1 Kgs. 6-7), ‘row,’ see M. G6rg, BN 27 (1985), 11-7. pK D’HB, pK (not in
Sam.Pent.) is apposition (KQSynt §333n; Ges-K §131d; differently Ehrlich); cf.
39:17; differently 39:10: pK niD (TPsJ in both 28:17 and 39:10: + ‘corre
sponding to the four parts of the world’). In LXX the list is introduced with
otiXoc Ai0&>v eoxai, ‘there shall be a row of stones’ (rendering of TB pK?)
(cf. also 36:17 LXX). TIB, Pesh.: sdr’ qdmy’, ‘the first row;’ cf. TO, TPsJ,
TNf, FTV.
28:20/39:13 Sam.Pent. 28:20: ontf (without copula; cf. 39:13 MT). O’satfB
(see 28:4), 39:13: nisatfn naoio (cf. 28:11); so also Sam.Pent. in 28:20. am,
acc. (K6Synt §§112, 327q; Ges-K §117y). Dntobaa, LXX: Kata orlxov
366 Cf. the use of gold as material for the diadem with inscription (28:36-38; 39:30).
Volume III1
504 EXODUS 2 8 :1 -4 3 ; 3 9 :1 -3 2
ai)TO)v (= 07109), ‘according to their row’ (not in 36:20 LXX); cf. Vulg.: per
ordines suos (also in 39:13).
28:21/39:14 bs of norm (e.g. Williams §290); differently Ehrlich: bs = ‘ftlr.’

39:14: + nan (after btn®’), cf. Ges-K §141g. The number of precious stones is
stated and the number twelve is motivated (2 Baruch 6:7 mentions 48 [= 4x12]
precious stones in connection with the priestly dress). Next an instruction is
given for applying an inscription (cf. 28:9, 11). For onD®"b® LXXA has the
insertion: K ata taq yeveoeu; autcov (cf. 28:10 end, and see Josephus \AJ, III,
169]); other MSS have this reading in place of onn®*b®. ®’N (Introd. §3.2.2),
cf. Ges-K §139c; Joiion §147d. ’l®b, Sam.Pent.: B’aB/b; so also 39:14 MT; cf.
KdSynt §294f note 1. 03®, see Introd. §3.21.10.
28:22/39:15 See 28:14. ‘On the breastpiece,’ namely, by attaching them to the
rings (28:23f.). Because in 28:22 the instruction of 28:14 is repeated, the verse
is sometimes regarded as a remnant of another version (e.g. Dillmann) or as
the result of editing (e.g. Baentsch). My thinking is that the repetition is in the
interest of a good understanding of 28:23f. 28:22 is followed in the LXX by
28:29, which is followed with a brief account (28:24, 25 LXX) of the things
needed to connect ephod and breastpiece (28:23-28). When it relates the
execution, the LXX does have the longer version (36:23-29 LXX).
28:23/39:16 rv&an, with explicative waw (KoSynt §360d). »3B, see 25:12.
mup ’a®*b» (see 12:41), that is, left and right above. Sam.Pent. lacks the
numerals in 28:23b. 39:16: + 1 3Ht nS3®D Yl® (cf. 28:13), so also Sam.Pent. in
28:23.
28:24/39:17 nn3», see 28:14. ‘gold,’ in 28:14, 22: ‘pure gold.’ ni2tp*bK, in
39:17: nisp-br; so also Sam.Pent. in 28:24. 39:17: nns&n, with article (cf.
KoSynt §303a); the following 3HT is regarded as apposition (cf. 28:17 and see
Joiion §13Id; Williams §68); Sam.Pent.: nns® (nomen regens).
28:25/39:18 See 28:13, 14. For the shoulder pieces see 28:7. Sam.Pent.:
nispn. I’JBblD-bK, see Introd. §3.42.1 and 18:19. Dim in 39:18, object
(masculine suffix for feminine noun; cf. Ges-K §60h, and see also 39:20), in
distinction from 28:25 explicitly mentioned.
In the Vulg., which on many points in ch. 39 contains a simplified version,
39:18-21 is rendered in compressed and highly interpretive form; see 39:18,19:
ephod and breastpiece together form a garment of one piece that covers the
entire upper body.
28:26, 27/39:19, 20 DfiN, cf. 28:11, 27. ‘the two ends,’ meant is, left and right
Volume III1
below. rtB®, see 2:3. na» (see 25:37), in Sam.Pent. 28:26 with b s. nn’3, see
Introd. §3.9.3.
LXX offers a different picture in 39:19 (= 36:27 LXX): ‘They put (them) on
the two projections on the top of the breastpiece and on the backside of the
ephod on the inside.’ See also 36:28, 29 LXX: the breastpiece and the ephod
are only on the top connected to each other. Cf. 28:24, 25 LXX; rings are not
mentioned there.
ntpoVp (see 26:24), BHS: npo'pa in 39:20 (see however BHt? 2). 1’3B blDD,
see Introd. §3.42.1 and 18:19. nBJ?1?, see 25:27. m a n a , see 26:3. b b v m , see
20:4.
28:28/39:21 10?T1 imperf. (with copulative waw) of 031 (only in Exod.

28:28; 39:21), ‘to bind on’ (+ bi<); subject are the craftsmen mentioned in
28:3. ‘his rings,’ that is, those mentioned in 28:26.
b’n? (OT llx ; 28:28, 37; 39:3, 21, 31), ‘cord,’ ‘strap,’ ‘thread’ (AuS, V, 67,
69, 278, 280, 283). For fastening the upper side sturdy straps of gold are used,
attached to frames (28:22-25). They are needed because they are to hold the
full weight of the breastpiece. For fastening the lower side the connection need
not be as firm. That connection is especially for keeping the breastpiece in
place. Probably the rings of the ephod and the rings on the underside of the
breastpiece were at the same height, with the thread being invisible. In any
case, the thread was not very noticeable, because it was of the same material as
the robe (28:31). The inf. nivtb is continued by a finite verb (e.g. Ges-K
§114r).
n r imperf. niph. of nm (only in Exod. 28:28; 39:21; HAL: of m t; see also
Nachmanides: imperf. qal of m3, cognate form of n03), ‘to push away/slide
off.’ b»o, is the meaning that the breastpiece is on the ephod and may not
slide off - the regular view - or is it above the ephod, that is, higher than the
ephod? For myself I go with the latter (see 28:7, 8).
The fairly big breastpiece (28:16), weighed down by the precious stones
affixed to it, is fastened on four ends (cf. 28:22-28) so that it will not get
loose. The four ends are left and right above the shoulder-pieces, evidently just
under the shoulder, and left and right under the shoulder-pieces, that is, just
above the waist. Fastening it keeps the breastpiece in place, on the chest
(28:29, 30), no matter the movement made by the wearer
28:29, 30 Cf. 28:12. ‘sanctuary’ see Introd. §3.44.2. m an (niet in LXX), see
25:30.
From two sides, that is, emphatically (Introd. §4.3.1), from above (on the
shoulders [28:12]) and from the front (on the chest), YHWH is made aware of
the names of Israel’s sons. He cannot miss them. That the stones on the chest
are also meant for remembrance by Israel (Cassuto) is not said, ito a in 28:30,
Volume III1
506 EXODUS 2 8 :1 -4 3 ; 3 9 :1 -3 2
LXX: + ei<; to &yiov (cf. 28:29).
4.12.4 The robe (28:31-35; 39:22-26)
28:31 "The robe o f the ephod you 39:22 He made the ephod of the
shall make robe. It was first-class weaver’s
entirely o f purplish-blue work, entirely of purplish-blue ma
material. terial.
32 In the middle o f it there shall 23 The opening of the robe was
be an opening fo r the neck and in the middle of it, an opening just
around the opening a collar o f like the one in a coat of mail, and
first-class weaver’s work; an open around the opening a collar,
ing ju st like the one in a coat o f
mail it shall have, so that it will
not tear. so that it could not tear.
33 On the hems o f it you shall 24 On the hems of the robe they
make pomegranates o f blue and made pomegranates of blue and red
red purple and o f crimson, thus on purple and of twined crimson.
the hems, all around, and between
them bells o f gold, all around,345 25 They made the bells of pure
gold and attached the bells between
the pomegranates on the hems of
the robe, all around, thus between
the pomegranates,
34 in such a way that a golden 26 in such a way that a bell was
bell will always be followed by a always followed by a pomegranate,
pomegranate, thus on the hems o f on the hems of the robe,
the robe, all around. all around,
35 Aaron shall wear it when he so that the ministerial duty (in the
ministers. Then its sound shall be sanctuary) could be performed,
heard when he enters the sanctuary
and faces YHWH, and when he goes
outside again, and he shall not
die. ’
4.12.4.1 The etymology of b'oa (OT 27x; 9* Exod.) is disputed. The term has
been linked to the idea of ‘covering,’ through derivation from the root T\bo (cf.
bffO, ‘above;’ e.g. Ges-B; HAL) and through derivation from the root boa (e.g.
Volume III1
Palache*, 10f.). Also other etymologies are defended.367 In the Pentateuch b'Bto
is a high-priestly garment (28:4, 31, 34; 29:5; 39:22-26; Lev. 8:7). Outside of
the Pentateuch it is (almost) exclusively the designation of a civil garment,
worn by persons of prominence.
According to the rendering of b’UO in LXX and Vulg., already back then
there was uncertainty about the type of garment that is in view. In the LXX
b’ffD is translated with 7ro6fjpTv;, ‘robe reaching down to the feet’ (28:4; 29:5;
cf. LXX 25:6[7]; 28:27[31]; 35:9), with imodutiic, ‘undergarment’ (LXX
28:27[31], 30[34]; 36:30-34 [39:22-26]; Lev. 8:7 LXXB; cf. also Exod.
28:29[33]), with enevSuriTC, ‘outer garment’ (Lev. 8:7 LXXA; 1 Sam. 18:4; 2
Sam. 13:18), with 6virA.ov<;, ‘double mantle’ (1 Sam. 2:19; 15:27; 24:5 [cf. v.
6], 12; 28:14; Job 29:14; Ps. 108[109]:29), with xittov, ‘tunic/under-garment’
(Isa. 61:10), with o t o At), ‘robe’ (1 Chr. 15:27),368 with ipcttiov, ‘outer cloak’
(1 Sam. 24:12 LXXA; Job 1:20).
\hriation in translation is also typical of the Vulg.: tunica, ‘under garment’
(28:4, 31; 29:5; 39:22, 25; Lev. 8:7; 1 Sam. 2:19; 18:14; 2 Sam. 13:18; Ezra
9:3, 5; also in Vulg. 28:33); pallium, ‘outer garment’ (1 Sam. 15:27; 28:14;
Isa. 59:17); chlamys, ‘outer garment’ (1 Sam. 24:5, 12); vestimentum/ta, ‘gar-
ment/garments’ (Job 1:20; 2:12; 29:14); stola, ‘robe’ (1 Chr. 15:27); diplois,
‘double mantle’ (Ps. 108[109]:29); exuviae, ‘clothes’ (Ezek. 26:16); indumen
tum, ‘garment’ (Isa. 61:10). In the taigums and SamT on Exodus the Hebrew
term is retained. Noteworthy is that in TPsJ on 28:31, 34 etc. Kb’PO is pre
ceded by the term 1B30 (‘double translation’). “1030 = Latin clavus (purple bar
on the tunica) = tunica, offers an interpretation of b’PO. Pesh. has the render
ing przwm
In English translations b 'sn is as a rule translated with ‘cloak.’ In some
Dutch translations, b’UO as a high-priestly garment is given a specific render
ing: ‘schoudermantel’ (shoulder mantle, CV); ‘opperkleed’ (upper garment,
NV); ‘lang bovenkleed’ (long upper garment, GNB; in Lev. 8:7 ‘bovenkleed,’
upper garment).
There is no certainty about the shape of the me‘il. Unclear is its length,
whether or not it was outfitted with sleeves, and whether me‘fi always referred
to the same garment. If it is assumed that the last is correct, one is bound to
conclude that the notion that the me‘il was a mantle or cloak (e.g. DB, I, 624f.)
is open to question. After all, according to 28:32 = 39:23 it had a neck
opening. According to Josephus (AJ, III, 159ff.) the me‘il was sleeveless,
E.g. Zo.; M. Gtirg, “Zum sogenannten priesterlichen Obergewand,” BZ 20 (1976), 242-6.

,6! Also ephod in 1 Chr. 15:27, as in 2 Sam. 6:14, is translated with oToA.fi; David wears fine
clothing; that is how in later times one got around the hard to imagine idea o f David wearing the
ephod; cf. J. Rosenthal, JQR 39 (1948-49), 90.
Volume III1
508 EXODUS 2 8 :1 -4 3 ; 3 9 :1 -3 2
woven in one piece (cf. John 19:23) and extended down to the feet (7to6fjpT|<;;
cf. LXX). Going by the OT data, all that can be said is that the high-priestly
me‘!l must have been a sack-like undershirt, a kind of pullover, or a kind of
poncho. In the last case, it was a garment that was open on the sides. That one
could catch hold of a person by the me‘il or could cut off a piece of it (1 Sam.
15:27; 24:5, 12) suggests that is was a poncho-like garment, and it is also an
indication that the me‘il cannot have been all that short (e.g. Elhorst, 261 n. 2:
down to the knees). Going by 28:33f., it likely did not rest on the feet.369 The
ephod is put on by pulling it over the me‘il (29:5; Lev. 8:7) (not so Noth,
184). For the me‘Tl see also 4.12.2.8.
28:31/39:22 niBKfl b’flO, LXX: utco66tiiv 7to6fjpri, in 39:22 (36:30):

tov imo6uTT|v imo tf|v eTC(opt6a.
(OT 15x; Exod. 28:31; 39:22), cstr. st. of b’bp, derivative of bba, ‘to
complete,’ is used as adjective and as noun: ‘complete,’ ‘perfect,’ ‘totality.’
See THAT, I, 829; TWAT, iy 193ff. The long held view, going way back, that
nban b’ba (also in Num. 4:6) means ‘completely of purple-blue fabric’ (cf.
Judg. 20:40: T U rrt’ba), has been challenged by G.R. Driver, WO 2 (1954-59),
259: = ‘woven of one piece’ (cf. Josephus, AJ, III, 161, and John 19:23);
cf. NEB: ‘a single piece of violet stuff.’ Perhaps that is what is meant (cf.
39:22), but it is not specifically stated. In contrast to the ephod and the
breastpiece, the robe must be made of one kind of material. No gold is used
for it (cf. 28:6, 8, 15). The smooth and unadorned robe brings out all the more
the many colours of the ephod and breastpiece.
b i n (39:22), for sing, see 39:1. ns*tn b’PO (39:22), Sam.Pent.: b’UOn; so
also TPsJ. ‘first-class weaver’s work,’ see 39:22 and 28:32; not in 39:23. This
detail may also imply that the robe was of one piece. The many-coloured
ephod and the breastpiece are the product of embroidery (cf. 28:6).
28:32/39:23 ns, see 4:10. tfftn (see 6:14), obviously the head of Aaron, the
user, is meant; sometimes OKI is taken to mean ‘topside.’370 Tin, see 2:5; the
rendering of 13W3 with ‘turned in towards the inside’ (Vredenbuig; cf.
Dasbeig) is based on Rashi’s interpretation who follows TO (rvub b’BS; cf.
also TPsJ on 39:23). n\T , masculine form with feminine subject (Ges-K
§145u; Joiion §150k); cf. 28:7. a ’ao, see 7:24.
The meaning of Knnfl (only in 28:32; 39:23) is uncertain. LXX and Vulg.
offer a paraphrasing translation; Vulg. has in 28:32: sicut fieri solet in extremis
vestium partibus, ‘(a hem), such as is usually made on the border of garments’
See further AuS, V, 228ff.; BRL, 187; Benzinger*, 78f.; HOnig*, 60ff.
370 E.g. Vredenburg, following Rashi: the opening at the top = the neck opening.
Volume III1
(has R"inn been explained with the help of nnp?);371 for modem translations
see NEB: ‘with an oversewn edge’ (cf. already Pesh.). The derivation from the
Egyptian (e.g. KBL: ‘Lederzeug;’ cf. Ges-B; K8W), proposed by modem
lexicographers has been questioned by Th.O. Lambdin, JAOS 73 (1953), 155.
In TO Kinn is translated with pnttf (cf. TPsJ: R’T'tf; TNf: rtVO; FTV: RTO),
which is usually translated as ‘coat of mail.’ In line with that, modem transla
tions have gone with ‘pantser‘ (armor-plate, NV, GNB), ‘wapenrok’ (‘tunic,’
LV, CV, WV) and the like. Here think of the AivoOeopag (cf. Dillmann), the
cuirass of thick, impenetrable linen.372
y ip 1 imperf. niph. of yip (OT ca. 65*), ‘to tear (to pieces’) (Gen. 37:29, 34
etc.); niph. with intransitive meaning: ‘to tear(off)’ (28:32; 39:23; 1 Sam.
15:27; 1 Kgs. 13:3, 5). See TWAT, VII, 189ff. y ip ’ Kb, asyndetic consecutive
clause with negation (KoSynt §364d; cf. Ges-K §165a); differently Cassuto:
m p ’ Kb functions as relative clause: ‘which cannot be tom.’ See also Jacob*,
Pent., 220; he believes that Xinn ’S3 means the opening should be plenty wide
for Aaron’s head, so that also high priests with a larger head coming after him
can wear it; in line with rabbinic exegesis he takes yip"1Kb to mean: the neck
opening may not be enlaiged.
28:33/39:24, 25 suffixed form of b-IBf* (OT 11 *), which only occurs in

the plur.,373 for that matter, in the dual., in the cstr. st. or with suffix. The term
indicates the underside, the hanging-down part of a garment. In 28:33(2*), 34;
39:24, 25, 26 the preferred rendering is ‘hems’ (SV, NV GNB, KJV), ‘hem’
(WV), ‘onderrand’ (bottom edge, LV, CV), ‘benedenrand’ (lower edge,
Vredenbuig, Dasbeig).374 There is also the translation ‘slips.’375 If the high-
priestly me‘tl was a poncho-like robe (see 4.12.4.2), then also in Exodus the
meaning ‘slips,’ the hanging-down flaps in front and back, would be suitable,
in which case Q’bltf* can be regarded as a dual.
371 Cf. also the translation of tonn ’EE by Aq. with npoonAoicrj and by Syirnn. and Theod.
with oeipuxoc;.
372 For tnnn see J.M. Cohen, “A Samaritan Authentication of the Rabbinic Interpretation of
kephi ta h ra ’T VT 24 (1974), 361-6.
373 Plur. of extension? (cf. KflSynt §260; Ges-K §124b; JoOon §136c). On the term see L.
Eslinger, “The Infinite in a Finite Organical Perception (Isaiah VI 1-5),” VT 46 (1995), 145-173
(esp. pp. 146ff., 170ff.).
374 Cf. LXX, where is translated with (mo (cni) to Aupa (xou Acopaxot;) too
(moSuxou Kdx<*)0cv, ‘under (on) the fringe of the robe below;’ cf. Vulg.
375 So e.g. consistently in LV, NV in Jer. 13:22, 26; Nah. 3:5; in Isa. 6:1, however, ‘hems,’
and in Lam. 1:9 ‘hem.’
Volume III1
510 EXODUS 2 8 :1 -4 3 ; 3 9 :1 -3 2
‘pomegranates,’ see Introd. §10.2.4;3 74*376 meant is pomegranate-shaped or

naments.377 It could be embroidery (Noth), but it is more likely that ball-shaped
ornaments were to be attached (Rashi: they have the form of a hen’s egg [they
were hollow]). Sam.Pent. (28:33): after ‘crimson’ + "lt»D tfttfl, ‘and of twined
linen;’ cf. LXX, and see some MSS, Sam.Pent., LXX, Pesh., Vulg., PTD on
39:24, where MT has the reading unto nubim. Probably in 39:24 a small
part of text is missing and the reading should be iTtfo beh nubim.
Sam.Pent. 28:33 is based on harmonization.
The text is silent on the number of the bells. According to TPsJ the number
(and with it also the number of pomegranates) was 71 (on 28:34) or 70 (on
39:26); elsewhere in the rabbinic tradition the figure 72 is mentioned (bZeb
88b); in the course of history also other figures have been suggested: 12, 24,
50, 72, 360.378 The undershirt is smooth. Below its flaps, however, there is the
same variegation that marks the ephod and the breastpiece (cf. 26:6, 8, 15).
Also gold is not absent.
’jbjlB cstr. st. plur. of ibfi© (for the form see KOHkl, 413; only in 28:33,
34[2xj; 39:25[2x], 26[2*]; cf. nib;!/? in Zech. 14:20), ‘bells;’ the derivation
from 0»B, ‘to thrust’ (Ges-B; BDB), is disputed {HAL-, TWAT, VI, 704, 707).
According to Nachmanides the bells were inside the pomegranates (cf. Tina in
28:33; 39:25, understood as ‘in’). That is not likely (cf. Jacob*, Pent., 222).
Rashi surmises that there were clappers in the bells. The bells may also have
been without clappers. The bells produced a clinking sound as they hit each
other when the high priest was walking.379 In 39:25 ‘pure gold’ is mentioned as
material. LXX: to cono ei5o<; poioxoix; xpocrout; koi kcjSgjvoci;, ‘golden
pomegranates of the same shape and bells.’ See also 28:34 in LXX (28:30):
besides a golden pomegranate next to each bell, the hem had a floral decora
tion.380
28:34, 35/39:26 The repetition of (28:34; 39:26) has a distributive sense (e.g.
Ges-K §123c,d; Brockelmann §129a). In 39:26 the qualification ‘golden’ with
pomegranate is absent; it is present in Sam.Pent. (cf. LXX, Pesh., Vulg.).
374 Cf. Schroer**, 62ff.; M. Artzy, “Pomegranate Scepters and Incense Stand with Pomegrana
tes Found in Priest’s Grave,” BARev 16.1 (1990), 48-51; H. Shanks etc., “Pomegranate Scepter
Head - From the Temple of the Lord or from a Temple of Asherah?,” BARev 18.3 (1992), 42-5.
377 LXX: <ooei e£av0oOoTK p6a<; poioKouc, ‘as it were pomegranates of a flowering pome
granate tree;’ cf. Vulg.: quasi mala punica.
371 See e.g. Calmet; E. Nestle, ZAW 25 (1905), 205f.; idem, Z A W il (1912), 74; Gabriel, 31f.
(36 of each).
379Cf. BRL, 236; IDB, III, 470, and see Bibl. V>1. II, 294.
3“ The description of the execution in the LXX (36:25, 26) agrees with the picture of it given
in the MT.
Volume III1
‘i s + rvrt, also in 28:43. m tf, see 24:13; Ehrlich disagrees: the undershirt is
subject, Aaron is object, me? = ‘to protect.’ blp + vast, see Introd. §3.51.2.
The suffix of blp can refer to the undershirt and to Aaron. Both the clause
with UOtfJl as well as the clause with ttbl at the end indicate the results of the
wearing of the robe. K2P + toa (Introd. §3.24.1), meant is that the bells tinkle
during Aaron’s entire presence in the sanctuary. niO’ Nbl (Introd. §3.32),
consecutive clause (cf. 28:32), for that matter: final clause (Ges-K § 165a;
Joilon §160q), with negation; likely death due to direct intervention by YHWH
(cf. Lev. 10:2); TPsJ: + ‘in/through the burning fire’ (so also in 28:43). The
succinct me#1? in 39:26 requires an expanded translation; see e.g. Vulg.
(39:24): quibus omatus incedebat pontifex quando ministerio fimgebatur,
‘dressed with it the high priest did his work, when he performed his task.’
4.12.4.2 Function o f the bells and the pomegranates

What was the function of the bells?311 A function in relation to the people wait
ing outside, so that in thought they could be with the high priest and support
him with their prayers? (see Keil). A function in relation to the high priest?
Are the pomegranates symbolic of the Word of God (cf. Prov. 25:11) and the
bells of its sound (Keil), and do both serve to remind the high priest and the
people (cf. Num. 15:37ff.) of the task of the tribe of Levi, to give instruction
in the Torah of YHWH (Deut. 33:10)?m Are the bells for reminding the high
priest that he must always be dressed as directed?3*3 Is the sound of the bells a
warning to the high priest to be meticulous in observing the sin offering ritual
(Lev. 4)? (Jacob*, Pent., 322f.). Or do the bells have a function in relation to
the residents) of the sanctuary?
According to rabbinic exgesis, the sound announces the coming and the
leaving of the high priest, so that he will not be at risk of being hindered by
the angels (e.g. Nachmanides; TzUR). There are also modem expositors who
think of the tingling as ‘eine An- und Abmeldung bei Gott.’**384 The downside
of this view is that NS’ + toa are to be taken as expression per merismum:
during the entire stay of the high priest in the sanctuary the bells tingle, not
just when he is coming and going.
Bohl thinks that the priestly garment is symbolic of the (nocturnal) sky and
that the pomegranates refer to the stars, while the bells express ’the harmony of
the spheres.’
3.1 For the question see Gabriel, 32ff.

3.2 \fonk, 485ff.; Gispen attributes that function only to the pomegranates.
3.3 So Gispen; ‘death’ as punishment pertains to the entire dress code (so already Rashi; see
however Nachmanides).
3.4 And as a means to draw the attention of the people outside the sanctuary to the things done
by Aaron (e.g. Dillmann; cf. Strack).
Volume III1
512 EXODUS 2 8 :1 -4 3 ; 3 9 :1 -3 2
It is generally held in modem exegesis that the bells have an apotropaic func
tion.385 A difficulty with the idea that the sound offers protection (against de
mons? against the consuming presence of YHWH?) is that only the high priest
(not even always; see Lev. 16) wears the garment with the bells, not the priests
who also are allowed in the sanctuary. That makes it questionable that the
current text envisions a specific relation between the wearing of the bells and
protection against sudden death. Not wearing of the bells is a breach of an
ordinance which infringes on the overall holiness and as such calls forth
judgment (cf. 28:43; 30:20f.; Lev. 16:2, 13; 22:9; Num. 4:15, 19, 20; 17:28;
18:3, 22). The consequence of the absence of the bells is similar to the
consequence of every breach of the prescribed rituals and of every desecration.
Conceivably the apotropaic function is in some way the background of the
ordinance. It is not there in the current text. As the regulation is not given
explicit clarification,386 there is no way to get beyond speculation. Given the
context, the best explanation appears to be that the wearing of the bells has to
do with YHWH. Must his attention be drawn toward Aaron? Is there a connec
tion with 28:12, 29, 36? Is the ultimate goal the drawing of yhwh’s attention
(cf. Num. 10:10) to the names of the sons of Israel (cf. Sir. 45:9) and to the
inscription on the plaque?
Also on the function of the pomegranates the text is silent. Some suggestions
already came up. Others can be added. Calvin, for one, in his exegesis dwells
on the peculiar scent of the pomegranates, while Noth holds that they were
only decoration (for yet another view see e.g. Lange; Jacob*, Pent., 323).
Perhaps the bells as well as the pomegranates were intended to create a
pleasant atmosphere, putting YHWH in a agreeable mood toward the high priest
and so toward Israel (cf. 28:38).
4.12.5 The plaque on the tiara (28:36-38; 39:30, 31)
28:36 ‘A plaque o f pure gold you 39:30 They made the plaque, the
shall make. Through application o f diadem, sign of consecration, of
the seal engraving technique you pure gold. Through application of
shall engrave on it: the seal engraving technique they
made an inscription on it: “con
“consecrated to YHWH." secrated to YHWH.”
37 You shall fasten it to a blue- 31 On it they attached a blue-
purple cord, so that it can be purple cord for attachment to the
3,5 For that see in particular F.J. Ddlger, “Die Gldckchen am Gewande des jUdischen Hohen-
priesters nach der Ausdeutung jtldischer, heidnischer und frUhchristlicher Schriftsteller,” Antike
und Christentum 4 (1934), 233-42, and further Gaster*, 263ff.
386 See on the other hand Num. 15:37ff.; Deut. 6:8; 11:18 (see \bl. II, 218ff.).
Volume III1
placed on the tiara. It is to be on top of the tiara,

the front o f the tiara.
38 So it shall be on the forehead
o f Aaron and Aaron will be able to
remove the iniquity that cleaves to
the sacred gifts the Israelites bring,
in fa ct to all their sacred offerings.
So it shall be on his forehead,
uninterruptedly, so that YHWH may
be gracious toward them. ’
4.12.5.1 Prior to the order to make the high-priestly tiara (28:39), the order to
make the plaque for it is mentioned in Exod. 28. The sequence chosen in
Exod. 39 is the more logical one (see 39:28, 30, 31). Among the items
summed up in 28:4 the plaque is not included. The enumeration only includes
the garments. The plaque is decoration of the tiara. Also the accessories with
the ephod and the breastpiece, cords, rings and mountings, are not mentioned
in 28:4.
‘Plaque’ is my rendering of the Hebrew f ’S (OT 15*). The term is men
tioned in 28:36;387 39:30; Lev. 8:9 as ornament on the forehead of the high
priest. Elsewhere it means ’blossom,’ ‘flower (that is opening up)’ (Num.
17:23; Ps. 103:15; Job 14:2 etc.). In that sense it is also used for the decora
tions in Solomon’s temple (1 Kgs. 6:18, 29, 32, 35). May one infer from it that
the decoration of the high priest was in the shape of a flower?388
Should the flower be regarded as a symbol of life?389 Or is it wrong to sub
sume the use of P’S under the one denominator ‘flower’? Since the verb pis
(OT 9x) can mean ‘to open,’ ‘to blossom’ (Pss. 90:6; 103:15 etc.) and also ‘to
shine’ (Ps. 132:18), does it follow that perhaps ‘to glitter’ may be regarded as
the basic meaning of the root,390 so that p’S can denote both a flower that is87
87Cf. K. Albrecht, ZAW 39 (1921), 164.

JMSee HAL; TWAT, VI, 1030ff.; Schroer**, 49, and e.g. WV (‘flower;’ in Lev. 8:9: ‘plate’),
GNB (‘rosette’); cf. NEB. See in particular Z. Goldmann, “Das Symbol der Lilie: Ursprung und
Bedeutung,” Archiv fu r Kulturgeschichte 57 (1975), 247-99; he believes that the lily is meant, in
the shape of the ‘Dreiblatblflte,’ attested to on two Judean coins from the 4“ century B.C. He
thinks it possible to reconstruct the history of the motif and the insignia. Initially sign of high
priesly spiritual authority, from the time of David it turned into a royal insignia. In the post-exilic
era it was the emblem of the spiritual power of the high priest; but when at the end of the 4lk
century he gained secular power as well, it also began to signify that power.
3” Cf. A. de Buck, “La fleur au front du grand-pr€tre,” OTS 9 (1951), 18-29.
>9° Cf. Ges-B; BDB; K6W, and see W.L. Moran, “Ugaritic sisuma and Hebrew sis," Bib 39
(1958), 69-71.
Volume III1
514 EXODUS 2 8 :1 -4 3 ; 3 9 :1 -3 2
opening up and a glittering object, a shiny metal band, a diadem? Or is ‘to

sparkle,’ ‘to beam’ a meaning derived from ‘to blossom?’ Or did f ’S, ‘blos
som,’ ‘flower,’ change its meaning from decoration on the diadem to being
name of the diadem itself? 391
A common translation of the decoration is ‘plate’ (e.g. SV, LV, CV, NV); cf.
Vredenbuig: ‘voorhoofdsplaat (forehead plate); Dasbeig: ‘voorhoofdsplaquette
(forehead plaque); differently \hn der Palm: ‘diadem.’ It is based on the
interpretation of LXX and Vulg. In the LXX f ’S in 28:36; 39:30; Lev. 8:9
(also in 1 Kgs. 6, but not elsewhere) is translated with netcdov, ‘leaf.’392 In
the Vulg. f '3 is rendered as lamina, ‘plate,’ ‘leaf,’ ‘disk.’393 How the interpre
tation of the LXX arose is hard to trace. Did f ’S evoke associations with
something as thin as the leaf of a flower?
4.12.5.2 In 29:6 the decoration is called 1?,J- In 39:30; Lev. 8:9 this term
occurs as apposition with f ’S.394 ”1T3 (OT ca. 25*)395 occurs with the meaning
‘consecration’ (e.g. Lev. 21:12) and ‘diadem’ (headdress of the king in 2 Sam.
1:10; 2 Kgs. 11:12 etc.). Usually the two meanings are closely being linked:
the diadem marks the wearer as a consecrated person.396
The diadem is a simple or ornamented strip of metal with openings in it for
fastening it (see BHHW, II, 999f.; BRL, 287f.; IDB, I, 745f., 839f.). In 29:6;
39:30; Lev. 8:9 the diadem is sign of the dignity of the high priest (see DB, I,
530, 604; AuS, V, 280).
Do y ’3 and "in refer to the same object?397*In any case, itJ in 39:30; Lev.
8:9 is meant as clarification with p s . In the LXX 1TJ in 29:6 is translated with
netoAov (see above),39* in 36:38 (39:30) with a<j)opiopa, in Lev. 8:9 with to
5.1 Cf. M. Gfirg, BN 3 (1977), 25f.

3.2 Also for a metal leaf, in LXX 36:10 (39:3) used as translation of rte.
3.3 Cf SamT: OB, ‘plate;’ see beside it TO, TPsJ, TNf: KS’S; Pesh.: Idyl’, ‘crown’ (also in
29:6).
3.4 In 39:30 both terms, in line with the masoretic vocalization, are interpreted as a construct
chain; see e.g. SV, LV; cf. Goldmann, 256: ‘BlUten-Krone.’
3.5 See TWAT, V, 329ff.; J.L. Boyd, UF 17 (1986), 61-75.
396 Noth, 184, has a different view: in means ‘consecration,’ not diadem; actually it) is a
flower; he appeals to Ps. 132:8 (the ‘flower’ on the head of the king ‘blooms’) and the use of f ’S
in 28:36 next to that of it) in 29:6. M. Gflrg, BN 3 (1977), 26: it), ‘diadem,’ is likely to be
derived from the Egyptian ntr.t, designation of the serpent goddess; background of it is the
diadem with the uraeus of the Pharaoh; see also idem, BN 4 (1977), 7f.
397 Goldmann, 254ff, takes issue with the view that px, a golden agrafe featuring the
‘Dreiblatbldte,’ and it), the diadem, the ‘BlUten-Krone,’ are identical, contending that a historical
development is reflected in the texts.
”*So also Aq., who however renders px in 28:36 with a<|>6pio|ia, ‘sacred object,’ (so Symm.
in 28:36 and 29:6); also in Vulg. (lam ina ) and in e.g. WV and GNB, px in 28:36 and It) in 29:6
are translated with the same term, respectively ‘flower’ and ‘rosette.’
Volume III1
Ka0TiYiaojievov (ayiov), ‘the consecrated (sacred object).’399 Usually 1T3 in the

places in question is translated with ‘crown’400 or diadem (e.g. LV, CV, NV;
WV in 39:30).
4 .1 2 .5 .3 The idea that the ornament on the head of the high priest was a
crown is found in Philo (VM, II, 114) and Josephus (AJ, III, 172ff.). From it
J.E. Hogg, JThS 26 (1925), 72-5, has wrongly concluded that this conception
also lies behind the LXX. Jesus Sirach (45:12), instead of using the term UJ
for the ornament, has rnptf, ‘diadem,’ ‘wreath,’401* which in the LXX is
rendered with otc<t>avo<;. In Wisd. 18:24, 6ia6fjpa is used for the high-priestly
diadem.
According to Josephus the high-priestly crown was decorated with floral
motifs (apparently on the basis of the use of f ’S). The OT is silent on it.
Unsure is whether the terminology ( f ’X) is an indication that it was embossed
with flowers or not (see above). Explicitly the OT only speaks of an inscrip
tion. According to Philo (VM, II, 114) and Josephus (AJ, III, 178), the inscrip
tion consisted only of the tetragrammaton. Hogg, 74f., considers their informa
tion correct and maintains that nin,<? » n p (28:36; 39:30)4OZ accordingly ought
to be interpreted and translated as ‘The sacred name “Jahve”.’ The suggestive
conception is grammatically hard to defend and archaeologically improbable.403
Noth, 184, believes that, both on account of its form (flower) and its inscrip
tion, the ornament was thought to possess apotropaic power (cf. \bl. II,
218ff.).404
For ‘to engrave’ in 28:36 the verb n n s is used; in 39:30 the verb
2 8 :3 6 /3 9 :3 0
ana with as object anao (see 17:14). enpn h j (39:30), the holy diadem or the
diadem of the consecration.
In 28:37 for ‘to fasten’ the verb D’to is used; in 39:31 ini; in
2 8 :3 7 /3 9 :3 1
28:37 the plaque is fastened to the cord (b’nB, see 28:28); in 39:31 the cord to
the plaque. Not indicated is how the fastening was to be done. It would seem
by tying the cord to the small openings at the ends of the plaque.
3WCf. also the descriptive rendering of Vulg.

400 E.g. SV, Van der Palm; see already in TO, TPsJ, TNf, SamT (m3 in SamTA on
29:6).
441 2 Sam. 12:30; Pss. 21:4 etc.; see in particular the use of nilipl? in Zech. 6:11 in connection
with the high priest Joshua.
442 See Introd. §3.44.2; Vulg.: Sanctum Domino in 28:36; Sanctum Domini in 39:30 (= Vulg.
39:29).
443 Cf R.P. Gordon, VT 42 (1992), 120-3.
444 See further at 28:38. For the diadem as royal insignia see H.W. Ritter, Diadem und
Kdnigsherrschaft, MUnchen 1965; its use was certainly not just the prerogative of the king; see
e.g. ERE, IV, 336ff
Volume III1
516 EXODUS 2 8 :1 -4 3 ; 3 9 :1 -3 2
nBJSOn 'JB ‘jltrtK (28:37), see 18:19; Introd. §3.42.1; see beside it 39:31:
nboaba (see 20:4). Apparently the cord is to be placed on the tiara and
fastened to it in the back (with a knot?), so that the plaque will be on the front
and firmly held in place.
28:38 nso (13* OT), ‘forehead.’ See Dhorme*, 68f. In TPsJ on 28:37 the
location of the plaque is described more closely: ‘above the phylacteries of the
head;’ in 28:38 it is noted that it runs from the one temple to the other.405
Comparison of 28:37 (and 39:31; cf. also 29:6) with 28:38 raises the question
of where precisely the plaque was to be put. On the tiara or on the forehead or
on both? because the tiara also is around the forehead.406 Because in bZeb 19a
it is noted that between the plaque and the tiara the hair of the high priest was
visible (which is where the phylacteries were), the question is all the more
problematic for Rashi and Nachmanides and can only be resolved by means of
a contrived explanation.
li» + K&J, see 6:8; Introd. §3.20.1. lum p’ ntftt O’tfnpn (cf. Introd. §3.44,
and see Lev. 22:2f.; 27:14ff, 22, 26), meant are the offerings; if by mistake
the priests or the offerers, when they bring them, do not quite follow the rules
prescribed by YHWH, iniquity clings to them and that might raise the ire of
yhwh (cf. Num. 18:1, 23). The wearing of the plaque will prevent that.
Ofrtfnp nano, see KoSynt §267c; Ges-K §124q, 135n. nine plur. cstr. of ft)$0
(17* OT), derivative of ina (Introd. §3.36), ‘gift’ (Lev. 23:38; Num. 18:6f., 29
etc.), b sb etc., apposition with O’tfnpn (K6Synt §280e). ‘on his forehead,’
LXX: ‘on Aaron’s forehead.’ T*on (see 25:30), namely, during the service in
the sanctuary (cf. 28:29, 30).
lian (ca. 55* OT), ‘favour,’ ’grace,’ derivative of nan (see THAT, II,
81 Off.; TWAT, VII, 640ff.), is here used with an eye toward YHWH’s favour in
the area of cultic worship (cf. Lev. 1:3; 19:5; 22:19-21, 29; 23:11, and see use
of ru n niph. in Lev. 1:4; 7:18; 19:7; 22:23, 25, 27). Nothing may infringe on
YHWH’s holiness. Only so can one count on YHWH’s favour.
28:38 describes the place and the function of the plaque. The inscription
must refer to Aaron (differently Ehrlich and Jacob*, Pent., 325). It signifies
that the high priest belongs to yhwh . The inscription is directed toward YHWH
and not intended to remind Aaron of his responsibility to be meticulous in the
performance of his duties, so that nothing will stand in the way of YHWH’s
favour (Ehrlich). The inscription is on the plaque of pure gold. Because of its
shininess YHWH cannot miss it. It has a favourable effect on him. When he is
409 Cf. Rashi: a golden plate, two fingers wide, from ear to ear.
406 Cf. Vulg.: super tiaram (28:37), but also imminens fronti pontificis, ‘rising above the
forehead o f the high priest,’ and in fronte (28:38).
Volume III1
offended by irregularities in the cult, seeing the inscription will take away his
irritation, neutralize it. Is power going out from the text, so that the plaque can
be considered an amulet and its effect be called apotropaic? Or is the bearer of
the plaque representative of Israel and is the inscription intended to signify that
in respect of the sacred offerings ‘everything was intended to be holy to the
Lord, and if aught was done irregularly, the intention at least was good’
(Cassuto)?
For myself, I believe that the intention of the persons involved is not in the
picture. The high priest’s consecration to YHWH is substitutionary for that of
Israel (cf. Isa. 53:4 and Lev. 16). Also the intention of the high priest is not in
the picture. Does the inscription work ex opere operator The underlying
assumption may be that the high priest meticulously heeds YHWH’s regulations
and protects his holiness and that for that reason the inscription has a favour
able impact on YHWH.
The second clause introduced with nvn is not about a second purpose for the
plaque.407 The purport of the first clause with rvm is restated with different
wording. Because thanks to Aaron, Israel’s iniquity does not form a barrier
between YHWH and Israel, YHWH is favourably inclined toward Israel.
4.12.6 Other high-priestly garments and the priestly garments (28:39-43;

39:27-29, 32)
28:39 ‘The tunic you shall sew o f Cf. 39:27-29.

linen, so that it fits closely. Like
wise o f linen you shall make a ti
ara. Finally, you shall make a
sash. It must be a first-class prod
uct o f the textile artist.
40 You shall make tunics fo r 39:27 Of linen they made tunics
Aarons sons as well. for Aaron and his sons - it was
first-class weaver’s work.
You shall also make sashes fo r 28 Likewise of linen the tiara, of
them. linen also the beautiful turbans; the
skirts however of twined linen
Finally, you shall make turbans fo r 29 and the sash of twined linen
them. That will give them a prince and of blue and red purple and of
ly appearance. crimson. It was a first-class product
of work of the textile artist,
407 So e.g. Cassuto: ‘the plate will be a perpetual reminder that the people oflsrael, (tr«te«il(_
by the priest, has dedicated itself unto the Lord and has undertaken to bf|Ui661y.jSônT(i(ix.b)A
Volume III1
518 EXODUS 2 8 :1 -4 3 ; 3 9 :1 -3 2
as yhw h had commanded Moses.

41 You shall put them (the gar
ments) on your brother Aaron and
on his sons with him, and you shall
anoint them. So you shall install
them in their office and consecrate
them to minister as my priests.
42 Furthermore, you shall make Cf. 39:28.
skirts fo r them to cover the geni
tals. They are to extend from the
waist down to the thighs.
43 Aaron and his sons shall wear
them when they enter the Tent o f
Meeting or when they come near
the altar to minister in the sanctu
ary, so that not by incurring guilt
they will die. This obligation will
rest perpetually on him and on his
descendants.'
Cf. 31:11. 32 In this way all the work for
the Dwelling, the Tent of Meeting,
was completed. The Israelites made
it. Entirely in conformity with
YHWH’s order to Moses, exactly
like that they had made it.
In 28:39 the rest of the garments that are to be worn by the high priest are
mentioned. Successively they are the following:
4.12.6.1. nj'nî408 (ca. 30x OT; 7X Exod.), ‘hemdartiges Gewand’ (HOnig*,
30), is ‘der hebr. Niederschlag von einem der am weitesten verbreiteten Kultur-
worter in der Welt’ (TWAT, IV, 397).
nana is used in the OT for both profane (everyday) clothing (Gen. 3:21;
37:3, 23 etc.) and for (high)priestly clothing (28:4, 39, 40; 29:5, 8; 39:27;
40:14; Lev. 8:7, 13; 10:15; 16:4; Ezra 2:69; Neh. 7:70, 72). Apart from Isa.
22:21; Ezra 2:69; Neh. 7:70, 72, nana is translated in the LXX with yitobv. In
the Vulg. tunica is the customary rendering (vestis in 2 Sam. 15:32; Ezra 2:69),
also in the description of the priestly clothing (sometimes expanded with
*“ For the form cf. Ges-K §95r; Joiion §97Fd; Meyer §§35.7; 58.22; cstr. st. njn?; cf.
in 28:39; should the article be omitted or should the vocalization be njn^B?; cf. Delitzsch*, 68;
KbSynt §§303a,h; 333m; Ges-K §127g,h; KOW s.v. en BL §619p; cf. also 39:27; Sam.Pent.:
ru n ’s (but see also 28:39; cf. Greek zitiov ).
Volume III1
adjective, tunica linea, see 28:40; 29:8; Lev. 8:13; 10:5). Where the context
has b’pp (translated with tunica; see 4.12.4), another rendering is chosen:
linea, ‘linen (robe)’ (28:4; 29:5), subucula linea, ‘linen tunic’ (Lev. 8:7). A
look at Dutch translations shows that the SV consistently uses ‘rok’ (skirt,
uppergarment of man or woman). In other translations a distinction is often
made between n iro as profane and as cultic garment. In the first case ‘kleed’
(robe) is used (LV, CV, NV, WV), but not consistently.409 In the second case
the choice is ‘undeigarment,’410 ‘undershirt,’411 ‘tunic’ (CV,WV), but, as shown
by the above data, not always consistently.412
The available data are insufficient to arrive at a clear picture of the naro.
Certain is that (for the most part) it refers to an undershirt, worn over the bare
body by both men and women, made of linen - the etymology points in that
direction - or other material, familiar in various forms from illustrations from
the ancient Near East. Unclear remains the shape of the (high)priestly tunic,
whether it was sleeveless or had a longer or shorter sleeve, whether it reached
to the thigh or the knee or was longer. From the fact that the tunic was worn in
combination with the miknese bad (28:42) one should perhaps conclude that
the ‘tunic’ was not all that long.413 Josephus (AJ, III, 153ff.) describes it as a
linen chiton that reaches down to the feet, with long, narrow sleeves.
4.12.6.2. (12* OT) is usually regarded as derivative of *)JS, ‘to wrap’
(Lev. 16:4; Isa. 22:18). Except for Ezek. 21:31 (royal head covering), the term
is used exclusively for the high-priestly headdress (28:4, 37[2x], 39; 29:6[2x];
39:28, 31; Lev. 8:9[2x]; 16:4). Probably it concerns ‘eine gewickelte, um den
Kopf geschlungene, turbanMhnliche Kopftracht’ (Hftnig*, 92). Uncertain,
however, remains the precise , form (a high cap?; BRL, 257) of the head
covering.414 In the LXX nsJXO is translated with icvfiapn; (28:4, 35[39]; Lev.
16:4; Ezek. 21:26[31]) and with p u p a (28:33[37]; 29:6; 36:36 [39:28], 40
[39:31]; Lev. 8:9); in the Vulg. with cidaris (28:4; Lev. 8:9; 16:4; Ezek.
21:31), with tiara (28:37,39; 29:6) and with mitra (39:31 = Vulg. 39:30).
For the head covering of the high priest a different term is used than for that
of the priests. For the latter’s headgear the term n(i)P9))3 (only in plur.) is
used, which in the OT (28:40; 29:9; 39:28; Lev. 8:13) never designates a
profane, an everyday type of headdress. Usually the term is derived from the
409 See e.g. ‘mantel’ (mantle, WV in 2 Sam. 15:32; CV in Isa 22:21), ‘gewaad’ (cloak, LV,
NV in Isa. 22:21; cf. WV).
4,0 LV in 28:4; Lev. 8:7, 13; 16:4; also in Job 30:18; NV, also in Job 30:18; GNB in Lev. 8:7.
411 LV in 28:39, 40; 29:5, 8; 39:27; 40:14; cf. GNB in Exodus: ‘(priestly)undershirt.’
4.2 See also Ezra 2:69; Neh. 7:70, 72: ‘robes’ (LV, CV, WV, GNB); Lev. 8:13; 16:14: ‘priestly
garments’ (GNB); Lev. 10:5: ‘kleederen’ (tunics, LV; cf. GNB).
4.3 See further AuS, V, 214ff; HOnig*, 30ff.
414 Cf. AuS, V, 258f., 332; Benzinger*, 88, 355; M. G«rg, BN 3 (1977), 24.
Volume III1
520 EXODUS 2 8 :1 -4 3 ; 3 9 :1 -3 2
root H3J, from which also , ‘hill’ (see 17:9), is derived (see e.g. BDB;
Zo.). From that it has been concluded that the priestly headdress was round and
cone-shaped. See in particular Honig*, 93, who refers to (Introd.
§10.1.10). M. G6rg, BN 3 (1977), 24 n. 6, defends derivation from the
Egyptian.
From 29:9; Lev. 8:13 it is evident that the high-priestly headpiece must have
been a kind of turban. Whether and in what way the priesty headgear differed
from that of the high priest is impossible to determine. Obviously, it was not as
laige and less impressive (cf. AuS, V, 259; Benzinger*, 354: ‘eine fezartige
Mutze’). LXX and Vulg. have not preserved the terminological distinction in
the original text. PI33JI3* is rendered with KvSapu; (LXX 28:36[40]; 29:9;
36:36 [39:28]; Lev. 8:13) and with tiara (28:40) and mitra (29:9; Lev. 8:13).
For the priestly dress the Vulg. does not have cidaris. In Dutch translations the
high-priestly headdress415 is as a rule 4l6distinguished from that of the priests.417
A detailed picture, but one that differs from that in Exodus, is given by
Josephus (AJ, III, 157f., 172): the high priest’s miter, made of swaths of linen
sewn together, was similar to that of the priests with only one difference;
around the high-priestly cap there was a cloth of purple-blue embroidery.
In 39:28 n'»©?©D is nomen rectum in a construct chain with cstr. st.
plur. of ns© (7* OT), which is used as designation of the profane headgear (a
kind of turban) of men and women (Isa. 3:20; 61:3, 10; Ezek. 24:17, 23) and
of the sacral clothing of priests (39:28; Ezek. 44:18; cf. Isa. 61:10?) (see AuS,
V, 257, 33If.; BRL, 186; Honig*, 93f.). I S ? is regarded as derivative of 1K B
(see 8:5) (e.g. BDB; Zo.) or as a loan word from the Egyptian (e.g. HAL).
Comparison with 28:40 shows that for the writer of Exodus ns© and nnS9P
were related terms. The combination of two synonymous terms in 39:28 is
apparently intended for emphasis (see at 10:22).418 In modem translations this
is usually expressed by means of an adjective; e.g. NV: ‘sierlijke hoofddoeken’
(beautiful headscarfs, cf. NEB: ‘the tall headdresses and their bands’). In the
LXX (36:36) the doubling is not brought out in the translation (not in WV
either); Vulg. reads: mitras cum coronulis, ‘the headdresses with their
415 SV: ‘hoed’(hat); LV:‘mijter’(miter); CV, NV, GNB, Dasberg: ‘tulband’(turban); Vreden-
burg: ‘hoofdwindsel’(headcloth).
416 Not so in WV: in Exodus always ‘hoofddeksel’ (head covering); but see Lev. 8:9; 16:4
(‘tuiband’[turban]) and Lev. 8:13 (‘hoofddoek’[headscarf]).
411 SV, GNB: ‘muts’(cap, bonnet); LV: ‘tulband’(turban); CV, NV: *hoofddoek’(headscarf);
Vredenburg: ‘hooge muts’(high cap); Dasberg: ‘tot mutsen gevouwen hoofddoeken’ (headscarfs
folded into caps, in 28:40).
4I* Differently Jacob*, Pent., 224: ‘die Shawls aus denen die ’JB gewunden wurden.’
Volume III1
wreaths;’419 in TO and TPsJ the plur. nttB is translated with a sing., respec
tively with natf, ‘decoration,’ and yixna, ‘crown;’ see beside TNf: fTPaip
n,b,ba, ‘the crowns, the turbans.’
In the LXX (36:36) first the headgear of the priests and then that of the high
priest is mentioned.420
4.12.6.3. DJ38 (OT 9*), probably a term derived from the Egyptian,421 is
usually translated as ‘girdle’ (e.g. Ges-B; BDB). This interpretation already
occurs in LXX (Cwvri) and Vulg. (balteus).422 Wearers of the B33K are the high
priest (28:4, 39; 39:29; Lev. 8:7; 16:4), the priests (28:40; 29:9; Lev. 8:13), a
civil dignitary (Isa. 22:21). Beautifully ornamented (28:39; 39:39), it is a sign
of the dignity of the wearer The OT is silent as to its form and size. What is
mentioned is the material of which it was made, namely, linen (28:39; 39:29),
material that does not make the wearer perspire (cf. Ezek. 44:18). That argues
in favour of thinking of it as a not too narrow band, a sash,423 which was tied
above the waist around the tunic (cf. 29:8, 9; Lev. 8:7, 13; 16:4). Josephus (AJ,
III, 154ff.) pointedly describes the apavf|0, which according to him was called
epiav (cf. TO, TNf, SamT; see above) by ‘the Babylonians’ - it concerns a
loan word from the Persian - as a very long sash of four fingers wide. Unclear
remains whether the high-priestly and the priestly sash were identical. Lev.
16:4 shows that there were two kinds of sashes (cf. Lev. 16:24 and see also
Lev. 6:3). That might be an indication that the priests wore a simpler sash than
the high priest, so that 39:29, where in distinction from 28:39 the material of
which the sash is made is mentioned, might only refers to the sash of the high
priest. See further AuS, V, 218, 237f.
28:39 yatf pi., see 28:4. m nan, in Sam.Pent. preceded by ntt (cf. Sander
son**, 59, 174, 231).
According to TPsJ, not only the plaque (see also TPsJ on 28:37) but also the
tunic and the tiara had an atoning effect (cf. 28:38). In rabbinic exegesis that
property is attributed to all high-priestly garments (see TzUR on 28:4; Ginz-
beig*, III, 168f.).
The tunic, the tiara and the skirt (28:42), all garments that touch the bare
body, are to made made of linen, material in which causes the wearer is
419 The high-priestly headdress, in 39:31 Vulg. called mitra, is not mentioned in 39:28 = Vulg.
39:26, at least not explicitly.
420 For headgear in the ancient Near East see LA, III, 811ff.; RLA, II, 201ff.; VI, 203ff.
421 See Th.O. Lambdin, JAOS 73 (1953), 146; Ellenbogen*, 2.
422 Beside cingulum (39:29; Isa. 22:21) and zona (Lev. 16:4); cf. TPsJ: TlDp; TO: I’D; TNf:
1"B; SamT: IK'Dtt; Pesj.: hmyn'.
422 C f KBL; HAL; HOnig*, 78ff, and see e.g. Buber - Rosenzweig: ‘SchSrpe;’ NEB: ‘sash,’
and CV, GNB on Isa. 22:21: ‘sjerp’ (sash).
Volume III1
522 EXODUS 2 8 :1 -4 3 ; 3 9 :1 -3 2
sweating the least. Defilement through perspiration must be prevented (cf.

Ezek. 44:17f.).
28:40/39:27, 28, 29 28:40 mentions the garments that are to be worn by the
priests. The various garments came up already. In LXX, Vulg. Drib n ’&ffl is
left untranslated (cf. Sanderson**, 105). 39:27-29 offers a combined descrip
tion of the manufacture of the other high-priestly garments and of the priestly
clothing. The tunics of the high priest and of the priest are identical.424 The
same is true of their skirt (28:42). Therefore there is no need for separate
mention of their manufacture (39:27, 28). In 39:27, unlike in 28:39, 40, the
quality of the tunic is indicated. It may be that 28:39, unlike 28:40; 39:27 - the
interpretation of f pi. is uncertain - contains information about its shape. It
seems that in 39:29 only the making of the high-priestly sash is described and
that the making of the priestly sashes is not in the picture there.425
rn ttsb l m s b (see 28:2), unclear is whether the clause only refers to the
turbans or also to the other priestly garments, in particular the sash.
28:41 28:41a gives a description of the two elements of the priestly consecra
tion (28:41b). When the official clothing is ready it has to be put on the
candidate-priests (cf. 28:1-3). That done, the first requirement for the priest
hood has been met and the first element of the ordination is in place.
(Qm: ontfab[m; cf. Sanderson**, 90, 220) perf. cons. hiph. of tfab
(OT ca. i00x); hiph.: ‘to put (clothes, acc. on someone, acc.) (28:41; 29:5, 8;
40:13, 14); qal: ‘to put on (a garment, acc.)’ (29:30). See THAT, I, 867ff.;
TWAT, IV, 471ff.
When the clothes have been put on, the moment for the second phase of the
consecration, the anointing, has arrived.
perf. cons, qal of ntfn (OT ca. 70*; 65* qal; 5* niph.; 14* Exod.),426
‘to spread(over),’ ‘to put on salve;’ the use of anointing oil, cosmetics, was
part of bodily care (Ruth 3:3; Cant. 1:3 etc.). Application of anointing oil
refreshes a person, restores vitality, and produces a feeling of well-being and
self-confidence (e.g. Amos 6:6; Pss. 45:8; 92:11). In case of sickness, it can re
invigorate him or her and numb pain (Isa. 1:6; Ezek. 16:9; Mark 6:13; Luke
10:34; Jas. 5:14). Therefore one forgoes anointing oneself with oil in time of
mourning (2 Sam. 14:2; cf. also 2 Sam. 12:20; Matt. 6:17). ‘Applying oint
424 Not so e.g. Baentsch, Cassuto; the use of f a e in 28:39 is viewed as an indication that the
weave of the high-priestly tunic was finer than that of the priestly tunics.
423 Differently e.g. Strack, Baentsch: in 39:29 is a collective (B22K is translated in the
LXX as plur.); cf. 29:9; Lev. 8:13; see however Jacob*, Pent., 224f., 327.
426 Included in the number is the inf. cstr. qal (cf. Ges-B; BDB) in 29:29; 40:15 (+
suffix), in KBL, HAL cited as noun.
Volume III1
ment’ has an energizing and cleansing effect (cf. Matt. 26:7, 12; Mark 16:1;
Luke 23:56; John 19:40), and it can revive and renew a person, remake him or
her as it were into another, a new human being.
‘Anointing’ as a secular custom helps to understand its practice as a cultic-
religious rite. In the OT anointing was practiced at the calling and appointment
of prophets (1 Kgs. 19:16; Isa. 61:1), of priests (28:41; 29:7, 29; 30:30; 40:13,
15[3X]; Lev. 6:13; 7:36; 8:12; 16:32; Num. 3:3) and in particular of kings
(1 Sam. 16:3, 12, 13; 1 Kgs. 1:39; 2 Kgs. 11:12 etc.). Through the anointing,
that is, through pouring ‘the (holy) anoining oil’ (Introd. §10.2.3), explicitly
mentioned in e.g. 29:7; 30:25; 40:9, from a horn (1 Kgs. 1:39) or flask
(1 Sam. 10:1; 2 Kgs. 9:1, 3) on someone’s head (e.g. 29:7), power (cf. 1 Sam.
10:1, 6; 16:13) was bestowed on him, he experienced a transformation and
becomes a charismatic, a consecrated individual.427 Moses performs the
anointing of Aaron and his sons as priests in his position as YHWH’s represen
tative, meaning that YHWH himself sets them aside for his service. No details
are given about the priestly anointing. Probably the sacramental action, sign of
YHWH’s enabling and election, was accompanied by the pronouncement of a
sacramental formula (cf. 2 Kgs. 9:3, 6, 12 and see Pss. 2:7ff.; 110:lff.).
Also things can be object of n»D. Spreading oil (cf. Jer. 22:14), rich in
purifying and invigorating power, on them turns cakes into suitable offerings
(29:2; Lev. 2:4; 7:12; Num. 6:15). The purifying working of the anointing oil
(29:21) readies the sanctuary and its furniture, setting it aside for the cult.
Through anointment everything is made holy (29:36; 30:26; 40:9-11; Lev.
8:10, 11; Num. 7:1, 10, 84, 88; cf. also Gen. 28:18; 31:13; 35:14; Dan.
9:24).428
In 28:41; 30:30; 40:15; Lev. 7:36; 10:7; Num. 3:3 the anointing of Aaron
and his sons is mentioned, while in 29:7; Lev. 8:12 the anointing is something
done to Aaron. Critical scholars have aigued that there are two divergent
pictures in the text (Baentsch). More conservative expositors contend that a
distinction should be made between the anointing of the high priest and that of
the ordinary priests (29:21; Lev. 8:30). Presumably, 28:41 is about the anoint
ment of the latter (e.g. Strack). See further 4.13.3.
T + ttba, see Introd. §3.21.5. Bflp pi., see Introd. §3.44.1.*421
ntfn is used inter alia in 28:41; 29:29, 36; 30:30; 40:9-11, 13 in combination with one or
more terms for ‘to sanctify,’ ‘to consecrate/ordain;’ not only the king, but also the priest is in the
OT called O’tfp (OT ca. 40x) (Lev. 4:3, 5, 16; 6:15; Num. 3:3); for pseudepigraphal literature see
M. Wittlieb, BN 50 (1989), 26-33.
421 See DB, 1, 549ff.; DBS, VI, 701ff.; ERE, I, 549ff.; XII, 509ff.; L i, V, 367ff.; THAT, I,
913f.; TWAT, V, 46ff.; TWNT, IX, 482ff.; T.N.D. Mettinger, King and Messiah, Lund 1976,
185ff.; S.E. Thompson, “The Anointing of Officials in Ancient Egypt,” JNES 53 (1994), 15-25.
Volume III]
524 EXODUS 2 9 :1 - 3 7
28:42, 43 28:41 is something of a conclusion. 28:41 is correlative with 28:1

and also anticipates 29:1. That gives 28:42,43 the nature of an appendix, a
supplement which relates the making of a garment not yet mentioned before.
imperative; thus far n’toPI was always used (28:2, 6 etc.; see however
25:19, 40). na^QPIp, see 4.12.2.7; in 39:28 the material that is used is men
tioned (‘twined’ is absent in Vulg.); the skirts are strong and obviously not see-
through. rrn» ntoa, see 20:26, also for the background of the rule. 0,JnD and
D’3 T , see 1:5.
bo + rrn, also in 28:35. Are the skirts (e.g. Nachmanides on 28:35) or the
clothes more in general (Rashi; Calvin) the subject of vm? Grammatically the
first is the most likely. That does not, however, alter the fact that also any
other violation of the dress rules makes one guilty. 031, see 19:15. nans, see
17:15 and 4.9. mtf, see 24:13; in the LXX Bhpa...bK is translated with:
XeiToupyeiv npoq to OuoiaoTTjpiov too ayiou, ‘ministering at the altar of the
sanctuary.’ jiff + KtffJ, see 6:8; Introd. §3.20.1; LXX: + (explicitly) rcpoc
eau-cow;, ‘upon themselves.’ nio, cf. 28:5. obllt npn, see 3:15; 12:14. m t, see
Introd. §10.1.4. ’“irtK, see Introd. §3.1.1. TNf: ‘for them and for their sons
after them.’
39:32 39:32 is a concluding observation (cf. 12:28, 50), the end of 36:8ff., not
the beginning of a new section (e.g. NV, WV, GNB, NRSV).
ban] (see 5:13), see Ges-K §75p. m a » , see Introd. §3.37.4. Sam.Pent.:
pttfOft; see also 40:2, 6, 29. ‘The Israelites m ade...,’ see Introd. §§3.41.1;
3.43.1. For discussion on the presumed object see Leibowitz*, 700ff. "ittfN baa,
Sam.Pent.: ntflta, cf. TPsJ and see 12:28, 50 and e.g. 39:31.
‘Israelites’ (cf. also 39:42) as subject after the foregoing - where Bezalel and
the craftsmen were the acting figures (see 39:1) - is a bit striking. Through
39:32b, Bezalel and his men become Israel’s representatives, persons who on
behalf of the Israelites - who, it is true, collectively took part in the collection
of the materials for the construction (cf. 35:4, 20ff.; 36:3, 5f.) - got the job
done. It can be regarded as a form of inclusio. The section on the activities of
Bezalel and the craftsmen (36:8-39:31) is bracketed by passages about Israel as
a whole.
The LXX (39:11) lacks a translation of 39:32a. Cf. however Gooding (see
4.2.1. ), 92.
4.13 THE INSTITUTION OF THE PRIESTHOOD (29:1-37)
4.13.1 Introduction
4.13.1.1 Bibl.: F.H. Gorman, The Ideology o f Ritual: Space, Time and Status in
Volume III1
THE INSTITUTION OF THE PRIESTHOOD 525
the Priestly Theology, Sheffield 1990, 103ff.; Jenson (see 4.2.1.), 119ff.; B.
Gosse, “Transfert de Ponction et de marques royales au profit du Grand Pretre
en Ex 25ss,” Henoch 18 (1996), 3-8; B.A. Levine, “The Descriptive Tabernacle
Texts of the Pentateuch,” JAOS 85 (1965), 307-18 (pp. 31 Off.); J. Milgrom,
“The Consecration of the Priests: A Literary Comparison of Leviticus 8 and
Exodus 29,” in D.R. Daniels et al. (eds.), Emten, was man sat (Fs K. Koch),
Neukirchen-Vluyn 1991, 273-86; M.S. Moore, “Role Pre-Emption in the
Israelite Priesthood,” VT 46 (1996), 316-29; K.H. Walkenhorst, Der Sinai im
liturgischen Verstandnis der deuteronomistischen und priesterlichen Tradition,
Bonn 1965 (with a detailed comparison of Exod. 29 and Lev. 8-9; cf. already
Popper [see 4.2.1], 94ff., and see also Milgrom).
4.13.1.2 Exod. 29 is closely tied to Exod. 28. YHWH has revealed who are to
be his priests (28:1) and formulated his demands concerning their official dress
(28:2ff.). Now he gives Moses instructions about the consecration itself. It
consists of a series of acts.
(1) Preparatory activities (29:1-3)
(2) The ordination (29:4-9)
(3) The bringing of various sacrifices:
(a) Purification offering (29:10-14)
(b) Burnt offering (29:15-18)
(c) Consecration offering (29:19-28), followed by
(d) A sacrificial meal (29:31-34)
The execution of the instructions is described in Lev. 8. In the translation, the
text of it is placed alongside that of Exod. 29. In the exegesis, however, Lev. 8
is only taken up to the extent that such is necessary for the understanding of
Exod. 29.
The instructions do not only pertain to the consecration of the priests, but
also include the consecration of the altar of burnt offering (29:12, 36, 37),
which plays an important role in the whole of the priestly ministry. According
to the account of Lev. 8, the entire sanctuary is being consecrated (Lev. 8:10,
11; cf. Exod. 40:9-11 and see 29:44). For the worship of YHWH there need be
more than just a consecrated priesthood. Also the place where YHWH wants to
be worshiped, the sanctuary and its furniture and tools, are to be made holy in
the interest of the communication between God and man.
4.13.1.3 For the consecration a variety of offerings are prescribed. They
serve a meaningful function inside the consecration ritual (cf. Num. 8:8-12).
When one realizes that elsewhere Moses is portrayed as the initiator and the
founder of the regular cult - he was the first to bring the regular sacrifices and
perform the regular activities (40:23, 25, 27, 29, 30) - then the question
presents itself whether Moses in 29:10-28 might not be more than just the
officiant at the consecration of the priests. Perhaps he was also the founder of
the non-regular sacrificial worship, of the sin offering, the burnt offering and
Volume III1
526 EXODUS 2 9 :1 -3 7
the offering of well-being (see in particular 29:27, 28). In that case, Aaron was
the first to bring those kinds of offerings after their institution (Lev. 9).
In any case, in Exod. 29 the institution of an important part of the regular
cult is described, the obligation of bringing twice daily a burnt offering and its
attendant food and drink offering (29:38-42).
All in all, Exod. 29 is concerned with more than the consecration of the
priesthood. It is about the institution of the cult (cf. 40:18-33). For that reason,
relative to Exod. 29, it is better to speak of institution of the priesthood than of
consecration to the priesthood. The instructions concern the institution
(establishment) of the hereditary priesthood of Aaron and his sons (cf. 29:9).
4.13.1.4 Are the activities belonging to the institution the ‘Urbild’ and model
for future priestly consecrations? 29:29, 30 contain a note about how a new
high priest is to be consecrated. From that it can be learned that the high-
priestly consecration was to last seven days and that it was to include anointing
and transfer of garments. Nothing is said about bringing offerings429 and other
acts. Nothing either about the manner of the consecration of the new priests. In
all probability the institution ritual, in keeping with the nature of the ritual, is
to be regarded as a one-time event. Owing to the complicated nature of the
ceremony it was not practicable to go through it every time a new member of
the priesthood was installed in office. Or is it assumed that several ‘novices’
took office at the same time? (for annual consecration see TS, XV, XVI).430
According to a certain Jewish exegesis, the anointing was an element in the
establishment of the high-priesthood, but was not part of later ordinations to
the high-priestly office (cf. Num. 20:26, 28; see 4.12.1). Consequence of this
view is that nntflp1? in 29:29 cannot be applied to the anointing of each new
high priest (see exegesis of e.g. Rashi, Nachmanides and also Ehrlich).
As an aside, laying on of hands (see Introd. §3.21.5) plays no role in the
consecration of the (high) priest. Note beside it Num. 8:10 (one-time laying on
of hands); Num. 27:15ff.; Deut. 34:9; Acts 6:6; 13:3 etc. In rabbinic Judaism,
Moses’ installation of Joshua in office is the model for the pupil’s ordination
as a scribe (teacher of the law) by the instructor.431
4.13.1.5 For the establishment of the priesthood, the very first act of con
secration, the terms Kbo pi. + (D’)T' (29:9, 29, 33, 35) (Introd. §3.21.5), Dip
pi. (29:1, 21, 33, 44) (Introd. §3.44.1) and rttfn (29:7) (see 28:41) are used.
The last two terms are also used in reference to objects, respectively in 29:36,
37, 44 (cf. 29:33) and 29:36. In the consecration ritual, blood (29:12, 16, 20,
429 Lev. 6:12-16, a problematic passage, talks about a food offering on the occasion o f the
anointing o f the high priest, which differs from that in Lev. 8:26-28.
430 Cf. L.H. Schiffman, “The Milluim Ceremony in the Temple Scroll,” in G.J. Brooke, EG.
Martinez (eds.), New Qumran lexis and Studies, Leiden/New York 1994, 255-72.
431 See E. Lohse, Die Ordination im Spdtjudentum und im Neuen Testament, Berlin 1951.
Volume III1
21)432 and anointing oil (29:17, 21) (see 4.18) play an important role. \hrious
acts are aimed at bringing about purification and removal of sin.433 Through the
consecration the priests enter upon a new state of life, a state of purity and
holiness. Only so will they be able to meet the Holy One and adequately carry
out their priestly task. Through consecration also the altar and the sanctuary are
given a new status. They are set apart for the Holy One. The consecration
creates a bond between the priesthood and the sanctuary (through the anointing
oil; see 4.18) and between the priesthood and yhwh (through anointing oil and
blood; see 29:20).
4.13.1.6 Among the persons who play a role in the institution rites, Moses
has a unique place. As YHWH’s representative434 he must institute the priesthood
and initiate the cult. Thanks to his unique position, a human like no other
human (cf. e.g. 34:29-35), though no priest himself, he can perform priestly
duties and institute the service of priests and sacrifices. Aaron and his sons,
predestined by y h w h to be high priest and priests, are object of the consecra
tion. After they have gone through the ordination ritual, they assume their
function as officials of the cult (Lev. 9) and are recognized by YHWH as his
servants (Lev. 9:23, 24). According to Lev. 8:3 the Israelite community must
witness the consecration rites. Having seen the solemnities with their own eyes,
they will know for a fact that the priesthood was set aside by and for YHWH.
4.13.1.7 The place where the main ceremony took place - only one act
happened outside the camp (29:14) - is indicated as "ipiD bn'K nog (29:4, 11,
32, 42; cf. also 29:3; for npg see 12:22), which is also indicated with the use
of 010’ ,3gi? (29:11, 23; cf. also 29:24-26, 42, and see Introd. §3.42.2). Cf. e.g.
Lev. 1:3; 14:11,23; 15:14; 16:7. It is the space before the door opening of the
Tent of Meeting, where the altar of burnt offering stood (40:29; Lev. 4:7, 18)
and where the priests had to do much of their work. The bounds of the area in
question are not precisely laid out. Apparently lay people were allowed in the
court (see 4.10; cf. Lev. 8:3), but no farther than the altar of burnt offering.435
In the wording - in particular the use of niH’ ’JBb - it is implied that YHWH
regards the sanctuary as his dwelling place (on that see 40:34, 35) and that the
place is a holy place. For the duration of the entire ordination ritual (for its
432 See 4:9; Gorman, 182ff.; Kiuchi (see 21:30), 119ff.

433 See the use of natpo in 29:14, 36 and of KDn pi. in 29:36, of 1 E3 in 29:33, 36, 37 and of
m i in 29:4.
434 Cf. 29:44, and see the repeated phrase ‘As yhwh had commanded Moses’ in Lev. 8:4, 9,
13, 17, 21, 29, (36).
435 Cf. Haran*, 184f.; Jenson, 91f.; R. Rendtorff, Leviticus (BK III/l, 1985), 29ff., and see
G.A. Klingbeil, “Ritual Space in the Ordination Ritual of Leviticus 8,” JNSL 21 (1995), 59-82;
A.M. Cooper, B.R. Goldstein, “At the Entrance to the Tent: More Cultic Resonances in Biblical
Narrative,” JBL 116 (1997), 201-15.
Volume III1
528 EXODUS 2 9 :1 -3 7
length see 4.13.9) the priests-to-be may not leave the holy place (Lev. 8:35).
They must remain quarantined. This is to ensure that they will not become
defiled (cf. Lev. 21:10-15) and the effect of the consecration should be
nullified.
4.13.1.8 According to the Masoretic division, Exod. 29 consists of two parts:
29:1-37 (s) and 29:38-46 (s; sometimes p; see Perrot*, 67, and e.g. BHK1'2).
The execution of 29:1-37 is related in Lev. 8:1-36. A number of elements from
Exod. 29 are, however, without counterpart in Lev. 8. The most important are:
29:9b, 27-28, 29-30, 33, 36-37. The question of the relation of Exod. 29 to
Lev. 8 I leave alone here.436 For our purposes it is enough to say that in the
current text, Exod. 29 serves as stating the instruction and Lev. 8 as relating
the execution of the instruction. That in Exod. 29 no mention is made of
preparations for the construction of sanctuary and its furnishings is no argu
ment for the view that Exod. 29 is ‘a supplement to P’ (Noth). After all, the
priests are something like ‘parts’ of the furnishings of the sanctuary and
indispensable for its proper functioning. That the execution of the instructions
of Exod. 29 does not come up in Exod. 35-40 is not strange if one realizes that
the establishment of the priesthood (see also the sequence in 29:44) - it must
be done n irp ’is b - is predicated on yhwh ’s acceptation of the sanctuary
(40:34, 35) and on familiarity with the sacrificial system (Lev. 1-7) on the part
of the priests.
4.13.1.9 For Philo’s account of the consecration (with allegorical interpreta
tion) see VM, II, 14Iff. Remarkable is that in his version it is not YHWH (cf.
28:1) but Moses who picked Aaron and his sons as priests (see against it
Josephus, AJ, III, 188ff.). For Josephus’ account see AJ, III, 204ff. For an
example of Christian allegorical interpretation of the garments being put on the
high priest, see Origen, Horn, in Exod., IX.
4.13.2 Preparations for the consecration (29:1-3; Lev. 8:1-5)
Exodus 29 Leviticus 8
8:1 Then YHWH addressed Moses
in the following words:
29:1 This is what you shall do with
them to consecrate them to minister
as my priests: ‘Take 2 ‘Get Aaron along with his
sons, the garments, the anointing
an animal from your cattle, a bull, oil, the bull to be used for the puri
and two rams without blemish. fication sacrifice, and the two rams
436
See on that in particular Milgrom, 276ff.: Lev. 8 is dependent on Exod. 29.
Volume III1
2 And (make) unleavened bread, and the basket with unleavened

both thick unleavened loaves o f bread.
bread made with oil as well as thin
unleavened loaves o f bread coated
with oil. O f wheat grits you shall
make them.
3 You shall put them in a basket
and (take them) in the basket (to
the sanctuary), along with the bull
and the two rams. ’
3 And gather the entire assembly
at the door opening of the tent of
meeting.’
4 Moses did as YHWH had com
manded him. So the assembly gath
ered at the door opening of the tent
of meeting.
5 Moses said to the assembly:
‘This is what YHWH has com
manded to do: ...’
In anticipation of the consecration ritual, the animals needed for the various
sacrifices (see 4.13.4-6) and the bread needed for the consecration sacrifice (see
4.13.6) must be brought to the place where the priests are going to be conse
crated.
29:1 nan, see Introd. §3.12.3. Dnb, b means both ‘for the sake of’ and ‘with;’
the suffix refers to Aaron and his sons (cf. 28:41). ePpb, LXXB: ayiaoetq;
Pesh.: wqds. pa pi., see 2:16. npb (Introd. §3.30), for the form see e.g. Ges-K
§66g; Meyer §76.3b; cf. also Delitzsch*, 12 n. 1. ‘bull,’ see Introd. §9.1.13.
nrm, see Introd. §4.2.1. ‘cattle,’ see Introd. §9.1.12; LXX: ck Powv (cf. Num.
15:24); Vulg.: de armento', TPsJ: pain’ll Kbn ’nin na, ‘bom from non-inter-
bred animals’ (cf. Lev. 19:19). ‘rams,’ see Introd. §9.1.7. ‘two,’ see Introd.
§4.3.1. D’on, see 12:5. It goes without saying that also the bull must be
without defect (cf. Lev. 22:19f.; Deut. 17:1).
29:2 onb, see 2:20. Is Dnb the object of the verb npb mentioned in 29:1? The
use of ntoan at the end of 29:2 favours to take onb as object of an implied
Ci’fpy (cf. 25:29; 26:4, 7 etc.). niSQ, see 12:8.
nbo, plur. of rtô (OT 14*), here used in cstr. st. (Ges-K §124q) in the
clause ptfa nblba n sa nbm (cf. Lev. 2:4; 7:12; Num. 6:15 and see Introd.
§10.2.3), in 29:23 in sing, in the construct chain on^> nbrt] (cf. Lev. 8:26). rtÔ
Volume III1
530 EXODUS 2 9 :1 -3 7
often occurs (7*) in combination with p’p} (OT 8*). In 29:2 the last term is
used in the phrase ptfa D’ntfa nua ’p’p-n (cf. Lev. 2:4; 7:12; Num. 6:15; for
ntfO see 28:41), in 29:23 with numeral: p’p^l (cf. Lev. 8:26). p’pn is a
thin loaf of bread (cf. LXX: Layavov; Vulg.: laganum); n^tj a thick or a
round loaf of bread with a hole in the center (see 4.6.3; AuS, IV, 119 [and
index]; Krauss**, I, 105, and Bibl. at 2:20). In the LXX, nbn and also DO1 ?
nbo, are translated with aproq, the customary rendering of onb. In the Vulg.,
nbn in 29:2 is translated with crustula, in Lev. 8:6 with collyris and in 24:5
with partis, but often there is no explicit translation of the term. It would seem
that the translators were unsure about the precise nature of nbn. Could 2 Sam.
6:19: on1? nbn, next to 1 Chr. 16:3: Dr)^“)59, be an indication that nbn and
naa refer to the same type of bread? Cf. the beginning of 29:33: is the waw
before nbrti to be understood as an explicative waw? Probably the offering did
not consist of three (e.g. Baentsch), but of two kinds of bread. The LXX does
not have a translation of nsa nbm. In view of 29:23 LXX, it cannot be a
homoioteleuton (cf. Frankel*, 81).
ptfa, for the article see e.g. Ges-K §126m; Jouon §137m. For the thick loaf
the olive oil had to be mixed with the dough. With the thin loaf, just putting
oil on it was enough to make it go through the whole loaf, ‘wheat grits,’ see
Introd. §10.3.3. latfa D’nt&B is absent in Sam.Pent. and Qm; cf. 29:23 and see
Sanderson**, 116f.
29:3 ‘put in,’ see Introd. §3.3.6. ba, MSS Sam.Pent.: bx. Perhaps the use of
bn is an indication that the basket was not very deep (cf. Hirsch).
bo (OT 15x; Gen. 40:16-18; Exod. 29:3[2*], 23, 32 etc.), ‘basket,’ See AuS,
III, 204f.; IV, 109, 195, 239, 342; VII, 243; BRL, 188; Krauss** (index s.v.);
for illustrations see ANEP (Index s.v. ‘basket’).
nap hiph. (see 3:5), namely, to the place where they are to be used (cf.
29:23ff., 32); not only the basket, but also the animals for the sacrifice are
object; that makes for a somewhat distorted picture (cf. KoSynt §375b,d). See
beside it TPsJ: the animals are object of Kbotta finaio1, ‘they shall bring
(them) in a wagon (?).’
4.13.3 The investiture (29:4-9; Lev. 8:6-13)
29:4 ‘Then you shall send for 8:6 Then Moses send for Aaron
Aaron and his sons to come to the and his sons
door opening o f the tent o f meeting
and wash them with water. and washed them with water
5 Next you shall take the gar
ments and pu t on Aaron the tunic, 7 He put on him (Aaron) the tu
the robe o f the ephod, the ephod nic and girded him with the sash.
Volume III1
itself He clothed him with the robe and

and the breastpiece, and gird him put on him the ephod. He girded
with the ephod and the strap o f the him with the strap of the ephod
ephod. and fastened it.
8 He placed the breastpiece on
Cf. 28:30. him and put the Urim and the
Thummim in the breastpiece.
6 You shall set the tiara on his 9 He set the tiara on his head and
head and to the tiara set on the tiara, on its front the
attach the holy diadem. golden plaque, the holy diadem,
Cf. 40:9. 10 Then Moses took the anoint
ing oil and anointed the Dwelling
and everything in it. So he conse
crated all these things.
Cf. 40:10. 11 He also sprinkled with it on
the altar, seven times. So he anoin
ted the altar and all its implements
and also the basin and its base, for
the purpose of consecrating them.
7 Then you shall take the anoin 12 Then he poured some of the
ting oil and pour it on his head. So anointing oil on Aaron’s head. So
you shall anoint him. he anointed him to consecrate him.
8 Also his sons you shall send 13 Moses also send for Aaron’s
for. You shall put the tunics on sons. He put on them the tunics,
them.
9 You shall gird them with the girded them with the sash,
sash - both Aaron and his sons -
and bind the turban on him. and tied the turban on them,
For upon them shall rest perpetu
ally the obligation to carry out the
duties o f the priesthood. Therefore
you shall install Aaron as well as
his sons in their office. ’
The investiture consists of three acts, at least as concerns Aaron, the high
priest: (1) the cleansing with water; (2) the investiture proper, dressing him
with the official garments; (3) the anointing. For the function and significance
of the official vestments see 4.12.1; for the function and the meaning of the
anointing see 28:41 and 4.18. Of the garments mentioned in Exod. 28 the skirts
Volume III1
532 EXODUS 2 9 :1 -3 7
(28:42) are omitted. Perhaps it is assumed that the priests-to-be did not
undergo their cleansing (29:4) while completely naked, but with their skirts on.
In respect to Aaron’s sons, the priests, the anointing is not (explicitly) men
tioned. See for the question, 28:41 and 29:21. One gets the impression that
29:4-9 represents a tradition according to which only the high priest was
anointed (cf. also 29:29, 30) and the duties inside the sanctuary were reserved
strictly for him (see 4.7.9; 4.15.3 and also 29:30).
29:4-6 p m , see 2:5; the meaning may be: to give a bath, to wash by immer
sion (cf. Rashi, Hirsch); TNf: enpni, ‘you shall consecrate.’ ‘water,’ see
Introd. §3.33; TPsJ: ‘in forty se ’ah of living water.’
Beside 29:4 see 40:12. The instruction apparently assumes that the basin was
on hand (see 4.17). It is mentioned in connection with the cleaning of hands
and feet (30:19ff.; 40:31ff.). Here probably the cleansing of the whole body is
in view (cf. John 13:10; Heb. 10:22). It is suggested that the washing was done
behind a screen (e.g. Heinisch; W.H. Gispen [COT 1950] on Lev. 8:6).
Schouten (see 4.2.1), 9If., feels that a washing done by Moses would have
been indecent and thinks that Moses poured water over Aaron and his sons and
ordered them to wash themselves. For the need for purity see \bl. II, 449f.,
453. On the requirements for the priests see also Lev. 10:8-11; 21-22.437
u a , see 28:2. Blab, see 28:41. ‘Aaron,’ LXX: + ‘your brother.’ n a n s , see
4.12.6.1. b’Ua, see 4.12.4.1. After nanan Sam.Pent. continues with: ‘and you
shall gird him the sash, put the tunic on him and put on him (the ephod and
the breastpiece...);’ cf. Lev. 8:7 and see 29:9. nsttn b'VO, LXX, Pesh.: only
b’UO; cf. Lev. 8:7. HBK, see 4.12.2. Ittfn, see 4.12.3.1. *tBK (verbum), see
4.12.1.1. a»n, see 28:8; not mentioned in LXX. 29:5 from Itfn.TnKl on is
translated in LXXB with: (ev6uoei<;...) tcai to A,oyiov jrpoc t f|v eiK opida, ‘and
the oracle on the ephod;’ in LXXAwith kocv to A,oyeiov kov ouvai|rei<; auTtp to
A,oyeiov npo? Tt|v encopida (cf. Frankel*, 105f.). In the de Vulg. the ‘strap’ is
related to the breastpiece: et rationali quod constringes balteo, ‘and the
breastplate which you shall fasten with the girdle.’
nB32SD, see 4.12.6.2. HJ, see 4.12.5.2. Beside Lev. 8:9 see Exod. 28:36f.;
39:30f. tfnpn, TPsJ: ‘on which is engraved the holy Name.’
29:7-9 For the anointing oil see 4.18. LXX: ‘(take) of the oil’ = ptfO; cf. Lev.
8:12. p 3 \ see 4.4.2.2. ntfD, see 28:41. The head is a highly representative part
of the body and as pars pro toto evidently stands for the whole person, ‘on his
head’ (see 6:14), before the tiara was put on? (so Ibn Ezra). According to
4,7 For cultic washings in connection with the consecration o f priests see R. Boiger, “Die
Wfeihe eines Enlil-Priesters,” BiOr 30 (1973), 163-76.
Volume III1
Rashi, the anointing oil was put on the forehead in the form of an X (it was
also the form in which the oil was spread on the bread of 29:2); according to
Nachmanides, the tiara was open at the top, making it possible for the high
priest to be anointed while wearing the tiara. Anyway, the picture of anointing
oil getting on the clothes is also familiar from other passages (29:21; Ps.
133:2).438
Beside 29:8 see 40:14. runs, see 4.12.6.1.
Beside 29:9 see 40:15 and Sir. 45:15. nan, see 12:11. toaSK (see 4.12.6.3),
Sam.Pent.: plur. (cf. 28:40). ‘Aaron and his sons,’ not in LXX; could be a
gloss (cf. Denizsc!!*, 136), owing to the absence of ‘sash’ in 29:5, 6 (it is in
Lev. 8:7). Ehrlich concludes from it that originally the sash was not part of the
high-priestly costume.
perf. cons, qal of Ban (OT 33*), ‘to bind on/to wrap around’ (29:9;
Lev. 8:13; Ezek. 24:17 etc.). n»33», see 4.12.6.2. The skirts (28:42) are not
mentioned; according to Nachmanides, because Aaron and the priests had put
them on themselves in privacy, nari3, see 2:16; LXX: + ‘for me’ (cf. 29:1).
obiat npn*?, see 12:14.
29:9b is a kind of conclusion. The reason for the investiture is explained. In
the Vulg. the ending is rendered as a temporal clause and linked with 29:10:
postquam initiaveris manus eorum, ‘After you have consecrated their hands,...’
The priesthood of Aaron and his sons is hereditary. It is to insure the continu
ity of the cult; also, the practice of the cult in conformity with YHWH’s
demands. The danger of a discontinuance of the cult (e.g. Dan. 8:11; 11:31)
and of wrongful practices (e.g. Judg. 17-18) must be prevented.
4.13.4 The Purification offering (29:10-14; Lev. 8:14-17)
29:10 ‘Next you shall bring the 8:14 Next he brought forward the
bull in front o f the Tent o f Meeting bull designated for the purification
and then Aaron and his sons shall offering and Aaron and his sons
lay their hands on the head o f the put their hands on the head of the
bull. bull designated for the purification
offering.
11 Then you shall slaughter the 15 Then
bull at the holy place by the door
opening o f the Tent o f Meeting. Moses slaughtered it.
12 O f the blood o f the bull you He took the blood and with his
shall take some and with your fin- linger put it on the horns around
4M Cf. J.RM. van der Ploeg, “Psalm CXXXIII and Its Main Problems,” in Loven en geloven
(Fs N.H. Ridderbos), Amsterdam 1975, 191-200.
Volume III1
534 EXODUS 2 9 :1 -3 7
gers put it on the horns o f the al the altar. So he purified the altar
tar.
All the other blood you shall pour The rest of the blood he poured out
out at the base o f the altar. at the foot of the altar. So he con
secrated it by cleansing it from sin.
13 All the fa t that covers the in 16 He took all the fat that covers
testines, the appendage o f the liver the intestines, the appendage of the
and both kidneys with the fa t that liver and the two kidneys with their
is on them you shall take and make fat. Moses made them go up in
to go up in smoke on the altar. smoke on the altar.
14 But the fesh o f the bull, its 17 But the bull, its hide and its
hide and its dung you shall bum flesh and its dung he burned with
with fire outside the camp. It is a fire outside the camp,
purification offering.'
as yhwh had commanded Moses.
Bibl.: IDBS, 766ff.; Kiuchi (see 21:30); N. Zohar, “Repentance and Purifica
tion: The Significance and Semantics of nKDn in the Pentateuch,” JBL 107
(1988), 609-18 (with critique of J. Milgrom, JBL 109 [1990], 111-3); A. Marx,
“Sacrifice pour les p£ches ou rite de passage? Quelques reflexions sur la
fonction du hatta't,” RB 96 (1989), 27-48 (with critique of J. Milgrom, RB 98
[1991], 120-4); A. Schenker, “Interpretations recentes et dimensions sp6cifiques
du sacrifice hatta’t,” Bib 75 (1994), 59-70.
29:10-14 tells the fate of the bull mentioned in 29:1, 3. It must be sacrificed
as nKpn (29:14), as a sin offering, a purification offering (Introd. §3.20.2).
The use of the verb Ntart pi. (29:36) and the noun ntton as terms denoting
types of sacrifice has recently drawn a lot of attention. The passages which are
of crucial significance for the interpretation (Lev. 4-5 etc.; ca. 100x in P
sections), are outside the book of Exodus. It lies outside the scope of a
commentary on Exodus to deal in detail with them. A listing of the most recent
literature (see above) and pointing out the meaning of the sacrifice as it bears
on 29:10-14 must suffice here.
To acquire the priestly status, just washing the body (29:4) is not enough.
Complete purity is required. Any taint caused by sin and guilt that may adhere
to the priestly candidate must be removed. For that a purification sacrifice must
be brought. Not only does it bring about the holiness of the future priests, but
also that of the altar of burnt offering (29:12) (see also 4.13.9).
29:10 How do 29:10 and 29:3 precisely relate to each other? Nachmanides
contends that in 29:3 the bull and other animals have been brought to the
entrance of the court. From there the bull is now brought to the entrance of the
sanctuary (cf. 29:4).
Volume III1
nap, cf. 29:3. ’3B1? (cf. Lev. 3:8, 13; 4:14 etc.); Sam.Pent.: n n a n m ’jab;
LXX: ctu tag 6upa<; (tfjc oktivtic...) ( so also in Lev. 3:8, 13 etc.); cf. LXX
29:4 etc. In the LXX, nan at the end of 29:10 is followed by another place
designation: evavti xupiou etc. = m n' ’JBb etc. (end 29:11). 1001 (for sing,
see e.g. Ges-K §146f; see on the other hand 29:15 plur.) + on’T1 (see Introd.
§3.21.5; TWAT, V, 880ff.; Kiuchi, 112ff.); everyone taking part lays his hand
on the right side of the head. The gesture establishes a relationship between the
sacrificial animal and the persons taking part in the ceremony. It involves them
in the sacrificial ritual. Through their offering the relationship with YHWH is
established/maintained.
29:11, 12 ontf, see 12:16. on, with 10-partitivus (KOSynt §81; Ges-K §119w
note 1; Williams §324). p p , see 4.9.6, 7. The altar is the altar of burnt
offering (see 4.9). For the purification of it see 4.13.9. P33K, see 8:15.
The smearing with blood takes place by the horns of the altar of burnt
offering (Lev. 4:25, 30, 34) and not by those of the (so far not yet mentioned)
altar of incense (see 4.15) (cf. Lev. 4:7, 18), perhaps because Aaron and his
sons are still regarded as lay-people so long the consecration remains incom
plete (but note also Lev. 9:9, 15).
onrrtariH l, LXX (ad sensum): to 6 c Aovtiov rcctv o i p o (cf. Frankel*, 74,
103); cf. Vulg. ^Btf, see 4:9. m o \ see 9:18. In connection with the pouring of
blood at the base of the altar, see also 4.9.4, and P.E. Dion, JBL 106 (1987),
487-90. With the other two sacrifices, the (remainder of the) blood (29:16, 20)
must be handled differently than with the purification sacrifice (cf. Lev. 4:7,
18, 25, 30, 34). It would seem that the pouring out of blood is also intended to
purify the altar (cf. Lev. 8:15). By putting blood on the extremities of the altai;
the horns and the base, it is purified from top to bottom.
29:13 It is assumed that the animal has been skinned and laid out in pieces (cf.
29:17). See also 29:22. abn, see 23:18. noa pi., see 8:2. anp, see 3:20.
7aarrb» m rvn, Sam.Pent.: n aan nnnv, cf. Lev. 8:16.
nniv (OT llx ), always paired with nap (see 4:10), denotes the appendage or
the lobe of the liver, the lobus caudatus (29:13, 22; Lev. 3:4, 10 etc.). This
interpretation has the support of the ancient versions (except Vulg.) and early
exegesis. The interpretation ‘caul’ (KJV, LuthV) goes back to the Vulg.
Creticulum) and mediaeval exegetes (Rashi for one).439
See TWAT, III, 1086, and in particular G.F. Moore, in Orientalische Studien (Fs Th.
Nflldeke), Berlin 1906, 761-9. On the liver in the cult see O. Loretz, “Opfer- und Leberschau in
Israel: Philologische und historische Aspekte,” in B. Janowski et al. (eds.), Religionsgeschichtliche
Beziehungen zwischert Kleinasien, Nordsyrien und dem Alten Testament, Freiburg/GOttingen 1993,
509-29 (esp. 52If.).
Volume III1
536 EXODUS 2 9 :1 - 3 7
n’^3 (OT 3 lx; only plur.), ‘kidneys;’ here mentioned as organs of the sacri
ficial animal (29:13, 22; Lev. 3:4, 10, 15 etc.). See TWAT, IV, 185ff., also for
the question why the kidneys were to be sacrificed (were they regarded as
organs of procreation?).
OlOpfl] perf. cons. hiph. of leap (OT ca. 115x; ca. 40* pi.; ca. 70* hi.; 8*
Exod. [only hiph.]), which in pi. and hiph. means ‘to bum,’ ‘to cause to go up
in smoke;’ in the P-corpus only the hiph. is used, with as assumed object a
variety of sacrifices, e.g. (29:18), ny# (29:25; 30:20) and rn'Bf? (30:7f.;
40:27; see Introd. §10.6.5). Often the location is indicated by means of n-
locale; nn3f$n (29:13, 18, 25; Lev 1:9, 13, 15, 17 etc.); cf. K6Synt §330g;
Ges-K §90d; Jotion §93e; see beside it the use of by in Lev 4:10; 9:13, 17 and
e.g. 1 Chr. 6:34; 2 Chr. 26:16; cf. r^ y in 30:7, 8; 40:27 and e.g. 1 Kgs. 13:2.
By being burnt the sacrifice is presented to YHWH. The idea behind it is that he
inhales the smell of it, loves it, and is ‘strengthened’ by it (see 29:1s).440
29:14 1&3, see 4:7; the collective is translated in the LXX with a plur.: ta
icp£a (also in 29:31, 32, 34). Ii7, see 22:26.
(2719 (29:14; Lev. 4:11; 8:17; 16:27; Num. 19:5; Mai. 2:3), following the
rendering in LXX (Konpog) and Vulg. (fimus), has been translated as ‘mest’
(dung, NV) or ‘uitwerpselen’ (excrement, Dasbeig). The term is also inter
preted as ‘darmen’ (intestines, CV), ‘pens’ (offal, Vhn der Palm, LV)441 and
‘intestines’ (WV, GNB, TEV). Conceivably it could refer to the contents of the
stomach, possibly also to non-digested food in it (Ehrlich; cf. Ges-B; Zo.;
HAL).
*11(27 + 227N3, see 12:10. pina, see 12:46. nana, see 13:20. Kin, Sam.Pent.:
KVt. 1
The purification offering, the blood of which was not brought into the
sanctuary, could be eaten by the priests according to Lev. 6:19-23. Here,
however, the flesh and other parts of the purification offering must be de
stroyed outside the camp (cf. Lev. 4:12, 21; 9:11; 16:27; Num. 19:3; Ezek.
43:21; Heb. 13:1 If.), probably because Aaron and his sons are not yet priests.
Besides, they are not permitted to eat the flesh of an animal sacrificed on their
behalf. Moses is no priest in the real sense of the word (cf. 29:26 and 29:27,
28). The sin and guilt adhering to the flesh may not ‘pollute’ the camp.
Therefore it must be totally destroyed. See Kiuchi (see 21:30), 130ff.
440 See TWAT, VII, lOff. (+ Bibl.); M. Cohen, BetM 35 (1989-90), 261-9; D. Edelman, “The
Meaning of q itter,” VT 35 (1985), 395-404; R. Rendtorff, Leviticus (BK III/l, 1985), 60f.
441 Cf. E. Nestle, ZAW 29 (1909), 154f.: in Mai. 2:3 E7*1B means ‘stomach’ (NRSV ‘dung’) as
part of the income of the priests; cf. Deut. 18:3.
Volume III1
4.13.5 The burnt offering (29:15-18; Lev. 8:18-21)
29:15 'Furthermore, you shall take 8:18 Furthermore, he brought for

one o f the rams and then Aaron ward the ram for the burnt offering
and his sons must lay their hands and Aaron and his sons laid their
on the head o f that ram. hands on the head of that ram.
16 Then you shall slaughter the 19 Then Moses slaughtered it and
ram and take its blood to sprinkle sprinkled the blood all around
it all around against the altar. against the altar.
17 The ram you shall cut into 20 When he had cut the ram into
pieces; pieces, Moses made the head, the
pieces and the fat to go up in
smoke.
its intestines and its legs you shall 21 After he had washed the
wash intestines and the legs with watei;
and put on the pieces and its head.
18 You shall make the entire ram Moses made the entire ram go up
go up in smoke on the altar. It is a in smoke on the altar It was a
burnt offering fo r YHWH, which burnt offering,
spreads a delightful smell, a pres to spread a delightful smell for
ent fo r YHWH. ’ YHWH,
In 29:15-18 the destiny of one of the rams mentioned in 29:1, 3 is described. It

must be sacrificed as (29:18), as a burnt offering (see 10:25 and e.g. also
R. Rendtorff, Leviticus [BK III/l, 1985], 26ff.). When the future priests have
been put into a state of holiness through the purification offering, the burnt
offering is sacrificed, so that YHWH will be pleased with them (29:18).
29:15, 16 Beside 29:15 see 29:10,19. Sam.Pent.: 1001; cf. 29:10, 19. For the
location of the ritual see 29:11. ‘the ram,’ LXX: autov, ‘him’ (so also in
29:20). LXX: 'the blood;’ Pesh.: mn dmh (cf. 29:12, 20). pH, see 9:8. For the
sprinkling basins are used (see 27:3). O’OO, see 7:24.
Beside 29:16 see 29:20. The blood of the rams is handled differently than
that of the bull (29:12). Unsure is the reason for the sprinkling of the blood.
Gorman (see 4.13.1), 126f., regards it as ‘the primary of kipper,’ on the
assumption that the burnt offering was meant to avert yhwh’s anger on
account of sin. That interpretation certainly does not fit 29:20. Rendtorff,
Leviticus, 52ff., thinks that the act - the same holds also for those of 29:12b -
was intended to be a ritual withdrawal of the blood from human use (cf. Lev.
3:17; 17:10ff.).
Volume III1
538 EXODUS 2 9 :1 -3 7
29:17 nrun imperf. pi. of nna (OT 9x; only pi.), ‘lay out in/cut into pieces’
(29:17; Lev. 1:6, 12; 8:20; Judg. 19:29 etc.); in 29:17 the verb is used in
combination with the derivative rtflj (OT 12x); cf. Lev. 1:6, 12; 8:20. It is
assumed that the animal has already been skinned (Lev. 1:6). Several pieces are
mentioned by name in 29:13, 14 and 29:22, 26.
p m (cf. 29:4), evidently with water (so explicitly LXX: uS an = D’D3; cf.
Lev. 1:9, 13 etc.) from the basin (see 4.17). O’ln a , see 12:9; also for the
requirement that the washing include the intestines. It is assumed that the
pieces and the head are already on the altar (Lev. 1:8), before the intestines and
other parts are washed and placed on the altar (cf. Lev. 8:20, 21). ’BINTb»,
LXX: ouv tt] Ke4>aAfj, ‘with the head.’
29:18 ~iOp hiph., see 29:13. The function and nature of the sacrifice in question
are expressed by means of two formulas: nirr) run and Kin m rrb n??R (cf.
29:25, 41; Lev. 8:21, 28 etc.), with mrvb in direct speech by JHWH (cf. e.g.
19:11 and see nm ’ ’asb in 29:11 etc.).
Birr) (OT ca. 45x) is a derivative of nu (see 10:14) and occurs in the OT
exclusively as nomen rectum in construct chain with rpn (see 5:21). Meant is
‘smell,’ ‘aroma’ (cf. LXX: oopf| euudtac), which on inhaling produces a kind
of euphoria, a feeling of happiness.442 The smell of the sacrifice is intended to
put YHWH in a favourable mood toward the sacrificer(s) or to preserve the
harmonious relationship, m , some MSS: im b, cf. LXX, Pesh., TO, TNf and
see e.g. 29:25, 41.
n$K (OT ca. 65x, in particular in P; Exod. 29:18, 25, 41; 30:20) traditionally
used to be translated as ‘fire offering,’ on the assumption that the term was
related to Sift, ‘fire’ (see 3:2). This interpretation has been challenged in favour
of the rendering ‘food-offering.’443 Since n&tt apparently does not denote a
particular kind of sacrifice, but gives a closer definition of a particular offering
or part of it - it always concerns edible gifts that are directly intended for
YHWH or given to the priests - the term is best taken to mean ‘gift,’ ‘present’
(for YHWH) (so e.g. WV and GNB in 29:18, 25, 41).444
ntfK in 29:18 LXX3'1 is translated with Oupiapa, ‘incense;’ in LXXA etc.
with Ouoiaopa, ‘offering;’ in 29:25, 41 however with xapmopa (cf. Lev. 2:9,
10, 16 etc.); elsewhere with 0uoia (Lev. 1:9, 13, 17 etc.). Kin n w b ,
Sam.Pent.: nin,‘? Kin; cf. 29:25. Kin (2x), not translated in LXX.
442 For the place of smells in the life of people in the ancient Near East see 4.19.
443Adopted in e.g. NEB; see further e.g. D. Edelman, VT 35 (1985), 396f.
444 For further data see J. Hoftijzer, “Das sogenannte Feueropfer,” in Hebrdische Wortfor-
schung (Fs W. Baumgartner), SVT 16 (1967), 114-34; R. Rendtorff, Leviticus (BK III/l, 1985),
63ff.
Volume III1
4.13.6 The sacrifice of assuming office/the offering of well-being (29:19-

28; Lev. 8:22-29)
29:19 'Next you shall also take the 8:22 Next he also brought
other ram forward the other ram, the the ram
and then of the assumption of office, and
Aaron and his sons must lay their Aaron and his sons laid their hands
hands also on the head o f that also on the head of that ram.
ram.
20 Then you shall slaughter the 23 Then Moses slaughtered it. He
ram and take some o f its blood and took some of its blood and put it
put that on the lobe on the right ear lobe of Aaron, on
o f Aarons ear his right thumb and on his right
big toe.
and on the lobe o f the ear o f his 24 He also had Aaron’s sons
sons, come. Some of the blood he put
on the right ear, and also on their also on their right ear lobe, on their
right thumb and on their right big right thumb and on their right big
toe. The rest o f the blood you shall toe. The rest of the blood he sprin
sprinkle all around against the al kled all around against the altar.
tar.
21 O f the blood on the altar and 30 Of the anointing oil and of
o f the anointing oil you shall take the blood on the altar Moses took
some to sprinkle it on Aaron and some to sprinkle it on Aaron, on
on his clothing and along with him his clothing and along with him
also on his sons and on the cloth also on his sons and on the cloth
ing o f his sons. So he shall be con ing of his sons. So he consecrated
secrated, he and his clothing and Aaron, his clothing and along with
along with him also his sons and him also his sons and the clothing
the clothing o f his sons. of his sons.
22 O f the ram you shall take the 25 He took the fat and the fat
fa t and the fa t tail, the fa t that cov tail, all the fat that is on the intes
ers the intestines and the append- tines and the appendage of the liv
age o f the liver, both kidneys with er, both kidneys with their fat and
the fa t that is on them and the the right shank.
right shank - fo r this is the ram o f
the assumption o f office!
23 Further (you shall take) a 26 After he had taken from the
round loaf, a thick loaf made with basket with unleavened bread an
oil, and a thin one, from the basket unleavened thick loaf of bread, a
with unleavened bread in the holy thick loaf of bread made with oil
place. and a thin loaf, he placed these on
Volume III1
540 EXODUS 2 9 :1 -3 7
the pieces of fat and on the right

shank.
24 All these you shall lay on the 27 All that he placed on the
hands o f Aaron and on the hands hands of Aaron and on the hands
o f his sons and dedicate it to of his sons and dedicated it to
YHWH. YHWH.
25 Then you shall take it from 28 Then Moses took it from their
their hands and make it go up in hands and made it go up in smoke
smoke on the burnt offering on the on the burnt offering on the altar.
altar. So it can spread a delightful In that way, as an offering for the
smell fo r YHWH. assumption of office, it could
It is a present fo r YHWH. spread a delightful smell. It was a
present for YHWH.
26 Next you shall take the breast 29 Next Moses took the breast
o f the ram designated fo r Aaron’s and dedicated it to YHWH. O f the
assumption o f office and dedicate it ram of the assumption of office,
to YHWH. That part is fo r you. that part was for Moses,
27 The breast dedicated as a gift
and the shank offered as a gift you
shall consecrate; it concerns thus
the parts o f the ram dedicated and
presented (to YHWH) that was sac
rificed fo r the assumption o f office
o f Aaron and his sons.
28 To Aaron and his sons they
are to be handed over by the Isra
elites. Perpetualy it must remain
their share. For it is an obligatory
gift. As an obligatory gift it shall
be handed over by the Israelites
from their offerings o f well-being,
as their obligatory gift to YHWH. ’
29:19-28 tells the destiny of one of the rams mentioned in 29:1, 3 and of the
bread mentioned in 29:2, 3. They are to be offered up as sacrifice of the
assumption of office (29:22, 26), as offering of well-being (29:28). As soon as
the priests-to-be are in a state of purity and YHWH looks on them with favour,
the moment has arrived for bringing the sacrifice of the assumption of office.
This intensifies (cf. the use of “IBS pu. in 29:33) and perfects the state of
holiness even more and brings about the communion between YHWH and the
offerers.
Volume III1
29:19, 20 Beside 29:19 see 29:10, 15. For the location of the ceremony see
29:11. Beside 29:20 see 29:16 (cf. also 29:12). This time, too, the blood is to
be applied. Not, however; on an object (29:12), but on people.
■nuiji (29:20; Lev. 8:23f.; 14:14, 17, 25, 28), always in cstr. st., ‘lobe,’ of the
ear; cf. LXX: A.o(Jo<;; Vulg.: extremum. The rendering ‘kraakbeen’ (cartilage,
Vredenbuig; cf. Dasbeig) goes back to Rashi (the cartilage inside the ear); cf.
TPsJ: oinon (the edge of the outer ear); see beside it TO, TNf: on, ‘the top of
the ear.’
V*. see 10:2. LXX explicitly: rou g)to<; ’Aapcov tou 6e£io0, ‘of the right
ear’ (cf. Pesh., Vulg., TO, TPsJ) + ‘on the end of his right hand and on the
end of his right foot’ (cf. Lev. 8:23). In Pesh. the parts of the body after
l u r r t m are in the plural. ’JO’, see Introd. §3.21.7. The right side of the body
was considered the strongest and the best, p a , see Introd. §3.21.1 and 3:5;
Sam.Pent.: lira (cf. Judg. l:6f.). In the LXX the end of 29:20: npnn etc. is
placed at the end of 29:21.
The application of blood on the ear, the right hand and the right foot of
Aaron and his sons is usually taken as signifying that YHWH requires complete
obedience, a walk of life in accordance with his will.445
In the light of Lev. 14:14 where the same is done to someone who was
healed from ‘leprosy,’ this interpretation is improbable. There is, however, no
reason to side with Gorman (see 4.13.1), 13Iff., who suggests that both in
Exod. 29 and in Lev. 14 the blood application is aimed at offering protection
at the crossing of the boundary between ‘death’ and ‘life’ (the ceremonial rite
is a ‘rite of passage’). In both passages the ceremony should be seen as a
consecration rite. The cleansed future priests are now made completely holy.
Sanctified from top to bottom, they are now in a new state of life. Further
more, since the rest of the blood is dashed against the altar, perhaps it also
expresses the effectuation of the communion of the priests with YHWH (cf.
24:6, 8).
29:21 It is usually held that for the sprinkling a mixture of blood and anointing
oil (see 4.18; cf. 29:7) was to be prepared. As such this is not necessary (cf.
29:36; Lev. 8:11, 15; Num. 14:14ff.). In any case, it is true that the combina
tion of two cleansing substances enhances the purifying effect. The effect of
the ceremony of 29:21 is similar to that of 29:20. Thus it can be said that it
brings the priestly state of holiness to perfection.
P’lni perf. cons. hiph. of nti (OT 24x; 20x hiph.), in qal: ‘to splash’ (Lev.
445 So already Philo (VM, II, 150); Holzinger: the application on the ear characterizes the priest
as ‘slave of the deity’ (cf. 21:6); Galling (in Beer): the act is a ‘Kraftiibertragungsritus;’ the priest
is enabled to hear etc.; according to Heinisch the application of blood originally had to protect the
priest on duty against demons (cf. exegesis 28:35).
Volume III1
542 EXODUS 2 9 :1 -3 7
6:20 etc.); in hiph.: ‘to sprinkle,’ (29:21; Lev. 4:6, 17; 5:9 etc.).446 In 29:21 ntJ
hi. + is used in the setting of a consecration ritual (cf. Lev. 8:11, 30; Num.
8:7), which is intended to bring about purification. Not just the persons, but
also their clothing (cf. 29:5, 6, 8, 9) must be consecrated.
tfnp qal, see Introd. §3.44.1. Differently (pi.) in Sam.Pent.:VHja nK iinehpi
HJ3 nto VJ3 nNl. In the Sam.Pent., 29:21 follows upon 29:28 (first the
anointing oil, then the blood is mentioned) and so is linked to 29:29, which is
also about the clothing.
The verse occasions the question, what blood is being used? The ending of
29:20 suggests that all the blood was used up. Nothing is said about blood that
is caught in a basin and set aside (cf. 24:6, 8). In the LXX some such back
ground is suggested through transposition of the end of 29:20 to the end of
29:21. In the current context, it must be the blood that was sprinkled against
the altar or was designated for that purpose (29:20). Through the sprinkling of
the ‘costumed’ persons, a bond is effected between dress and wearer The
sprinkling with blood from the altar brings out the bond between the priests
dressed in their official robes and the altar.
Does 29:21 refer to the anointing of Aaron and his sons? (for the question
see 28:41). It is not certain. The prescribed act is not called an ‘anointing.’
What is true is that the use of anointing oil is prescribed, but in combination
with blood. Moreover, also Aaron must submit to the act, while in 29:7 his
anointing has already been prescribed. Galling (in Beer) considers 29:21
‘typisch fllr einen Theoretiker!;’ after all, the blood and the oil would make the
beautiful clothes terribly dirty. In response, Noth suggests that we need only
think of a few drops of blood and oil. It should be kept in mind, however, that
cultic purity does not necessarily coincide with being clean or dirty in the
modem western sense (cf. Bdhl).
29:22 Beside 29:22 see 29:13. Here more parts are mentioned than in 29:13.
rt’bKm, not in LXX; Sam.Pent.: rpbftn nN; Qm: ]nKl (cf. Sanderson**, 152).
(29:22; Lev. 3:9; 7:3; 8:25; 9:19), ‘fat tail.’ See AuS, V, 1; Krauss**, II,
226f. The LXX lacks a translation. In Lev. 3:9 etc. the rendering is 6o<J>uc,
‘loin;’ see on the other hand Vulg.: cauda. m n \ Qm: ]’n (cf. Sanderson**,
144).
pi® (OT 19*), ‘leg of a person’ (Ps. 147:10; Prov. 26:7 etc.), ‘shank of
sacrificial animal (29:22, 27; Lev. 7:32f., 34; 8:25f. etc.). See Dhorme*, 154.
The translation ‘shoulder,’ e.g. in KJV (29:22, 27 etc.), rests on the translation
Ppaxicov and armus in respectively LXX and Vulg. p a ’ (Introd. §3.21.7), see
See TWAT, V, 322fF.; Kiuchi (see 21:30), 119ff., and esp. Th.C. Vriezen, “The Term hizza :
Lustration and Consecration,” OTS 7 (1950), 201-35.
Volume III1
KOSynt §306a. b’N, not in LXX. (Introd. §3.21.5 and 2:16), plur. inten-
sivus (K8Synt §261 e); TO, TPsJ: K 'jau p , ‘offerings.’
The ending of the verse also explains why the right shank is not for the
priest (see 29:26, 27-28).
29:23 Beside 29:23 see 29:2, 3. naa, see 25:39. nmt ineh...iaai, LXX: koi
optov eva e? eAaiou, ‘and a cake made with oil’ (cf. 29:2). For the difference
between 29:23 and Lev. 8:26 see S. Talmon, ScrHie 8 (1961), 361.
29:24 ‘ran, cf. Brockelmann §78. *)3, see Introd. §3.21.6. *)1J hiph. + nBUn,
see 20:25. omt is as a rule related to ban (collectivum), the offerings men
tioned in 29:22, 23; in LXXA (autouc) to Aaron and his sons as object;447 this
idea is also defended by Ehrlich (Aaron and his sons are dedicated to YHWH)
and Baentsch (Moses lets Aaron and his sons dedicate the gifts to YHWH). See
however the use of Dntt in 29:25.
29:25 Beside 29:25 see 29:18. m opm , Sam.Pent.: + ontt; Pesh.: + hdy‘ mn
dkr’, ‘the breast of the ram.’ MT contains, it seems, the remarkable picture that
the one offering is laid on top of the other, nbarrbu n n a ro n , LXX however:
£ju to OuoiaoTfjpiov tf|<; oAoKautuoeox;, ‘on the altar of the burnt offering’
(Lev. 8:28 LXX agrees with MT); Vulg.: super altare in holocaustum, ‘on the
altar for a burnt offering;’ cf. Lev. 8:28: super altare holocausti, ‘on the burnt
offering altar.’ Rashi relates nbiin b» to the first ram which was offered up as
a burnt offering (29:18). The formulation nburt b» n n a ta n is also found in
Lev. 3:5. According to Ehrlich the meaning is: ‘on the altar designated for the
burnt offering.’ mrp ’jab, not in Sam.Pent.
29:26 njp (OT 13*), ‘breast,’ always of the sacrificial animal (29:26f.; Lev.
7:30f., 34; 8:29 etc.). See Dhorme*, 105; cf. P. Joflon, Bib 5 (1924), 49. b IBfK
(Sam.Pent.: itfND; cf. 29:27), see Introd. §3.7.2. Only Aaron is mentioned; that
his sons are included is implied (cf. 29:19ff. and 29:27) (Ibn Ezra; differently
Nachmanides).
HJ9 (OT 12x), ‘part,’ ‘portion,’ here: of the sacrifice (cf. Lev. 7:33; 8:29
etc.). See TWAT, IV, 979f.
The sacrifice (29:22-26) is quite similar to the ‘offering of well-being’ (see
20:24). Its aim is to bring about and maintain the communion between YHWH
and the offerers. Along with the sacrifice of the assumption of office, also,
aside from the breast (29:26), the parts of the sacrifice (right shank and the
447 So also Aq. en Vulg. (eos ); cf. LXX8: autou;, ‘for them;’ see, however, Symm., Theod.:
auxd.
Volume III1
544 EXODUS 2 9 :1 -3 7
bread; 29:22, 23), which in case of the offering of well-being are for the
priests (Lev. 7:14, 30ff. etc.), are placed on the altar. Aaron and his sons are
not yet priests, but are the ones for whom the sacrifice is brought. Therefore
they are not entitled to part of the sacrifice. Moses performs priestly functions,
but is no priest in the true sense of the word. His share in the sacrifice is
limited to the breast, the part which he in person presents to YHWH (29:26).
Everything that was actually handled by Aaron and his sons is to go on the
altar (29:24, 25).
29:27, 28 n»nn, see 25:2. on hoph., see 7:20. DblJTpn, see 5:14 and 3:15.
n«D, see 27:21. O’D1?®’nat, see 20:24; TO, TPsJ, TNf: yirrehp noajo, ‘their
consecrated sacrifices.’ LXX: + ‘of the sons of Israel.’
To 29:26 a note is appended pertaining to the priestly share in the offering of
well-being. This note shows that 29:19-26 was understood as an order for the
setting-up of the offering of well-being. The fact that Moses in his function as
priest only receives the breast (29:26) and not the shank, as the priests are
entitled to in the offering of well-being, occasioned the addition of a supple
mentary and corrective note (cf. Lev. 7:34-36): the Israelites are perpetually
obligated to give the breast and the shank from their offerings of well-being to
the priest (different from Deut. 18:3).
4.13.7 The high-priestly clothing (29:29, 30)
29:29 ‘The sacred clothing that is

fo r Aaron shall after him be passed
on to his sons. In it they are to be
anointed and in it they are to be
installed in their office.
30 For seven days the one o f his Cf. 29:35, 37; Lev. 8:33.
sons who will succeed him as
priest, who will enter the Tent o f
Meeting to serve in the sanctuary,
shall keep them on. ’
The subject of the high-priestly clothing came up already (29:5, 6, 9; cf. also
29:21). Clothing and office are closely related (4.12.1). The transference of the
clothing is the passing on of the office (cf. Lev. 21:10; Num. 20:26, 28). As
the high-priesthood is hereditary (cf. 29:9), the attire goes from the father to
the eldest son. It is assumed that the vestments are made in such a way that
they can be worn by persons of different physique (see e.g. 28:7, 32). During
the entire period of consecration (29:35) the new high priest is to wear the
garments. Clothing and wearer are as it were to be fused.
Volume III1
All in all, the high-priestly clothing is made for use for all time. The new
high priest is consecrated through being anointed and tranference of the official
vestments (see also 4.13.1; 12.1). The fact that the clothing is subject to wear
and tear and eventually needs replacement is passed over.
29:29, 30 tfnpn ’HJn (Jouon §129f; Brockelmann §76d), see in 28:2.

(Introd. §3.10.1), those (the oldest sons) of the male descendants who are
destined to become high priests. For the infinitives + b see KoSynt §215a
(implied subject is impersonal ‘one’); for the form of nntfD see Ges-K §45d;
see however Delitzsch*, 116 (lees: Qntpp*?). ana, Sam.Pent.: D2 (cf. Ges-K
§103g). Da, not in LXX.
The seven days pertain to the consecration (cf. Lev. 8:33); see 4.13.9.
(Ges-K §60d), he has to put the vestments on and keep them on. m t f , see
24:13. ttfnp, see Introd. §3.44.2.
4.13.8 The sacrificial meal (29:31-34; Lev. 8:31, 32)
29:31 'The meat o f the ram set o f 8:31 Moses said to Aaron and his
the assumption o f office you shall sons: ‘Boil the meat at the door
take and boil in a holy place. opening of the Tent of Meeting.
32 Along with his sons, Aaron You shall also eat it there with the
shall eat the meat o f the ram and bread that was put in the basket of
the bread that was put in the bas the sacrifice of the assumption of
ket at the door opening o f the Tent office, in accordance with the com
o f Meeting.34 mand I gave when I said: “Aaron
and his sons shall eat it.”
33 Only they may eat the food by
which their sin was removed, so
that they could be installed and
consecrated in office, but a lay per
son may not eat o f it. For they are
holy.
34 In case something should re 32 What was left over
main till the morning o f the meat of the meat
o f the sacrifice o f assuming office
and o f the bread, then whatever is and of the bread, you shall bum
left over you shall bum with fire. It with fire.’
is not to be eaten, because it is
h o ly'
29:31-34 ties in with 29:19-26. Part of the ritual of the offering of well-being
is the meal of the offerers (see 20:24). It seals the communion with YHWH.
Volume III1
546 EXODUS 2 9 :1 -3 7
29:31, 32 O’Kben b’N really means O’Kban b’itn -i&3 (cf. 29:31b, 32a, 34a),
except for the breast (29:26) and perhaps the shank (29:27). b®3, see 12:9.
1t53, cf. 29:14. Dips, see 3:5. snp, adjective (Introd. §3.44.2). The location in
view is apparently the door opening (cf. 29:32; Lev. 8:31, and see also Lev.
8:33). Cf. 24:9.
bstt, see Introd. §3.3.1. For the bread see 29:2, 3, 23ff. The collective onb is
translated in the LXX with a plural.; so also in 29:34. The boiling and eating
are to be done at the door opening (cf. Lev. 8:33). For the regular offering of
well-being this was not a requirement (cf. Lev. 7:1 Iff.).
29:33, 34 Sam.Pent.: lb3N\ onN, the meat and the bread (29:32). 7B3 pu., see
21:30. IBS is translated in the LXX (also in 29:36) in an unusual manner with
ayiaCeiv, a translation also used further in the verse for EHp pi. For sing, see
KdSynt §324a. Dn3, Sam.Pent.: D3. Nb»b, Sam.Pent.: 03 (cf. Sanderson**,
83f.). onNt&npb, TPsJ: + ’Dip NtfatPb (cf. 29:1). i t (see 2:22), everyone not
designated by YHWH to be a priest. b3N \ LXX: + an' autou; LXXA: auxov.
on, the meat and the bread.
-in’, see 10:5. For p-partitivus see 29:12. C toban "ito3», LXX (ad sensum):
arco xd)v xpecov xfj<; Ouoiac; xf|<; xeAeuioeax; (cf. Frankel*, 74f.).
Beside 29:34 see 12:10 and also Lev. 7:15-17; 19:6, 7.
4.13.9 The length of the priestly consecration ritual and the consecration
of the altar (29:35-37; Lev. 8:33-35)
29:35 ‘With respect to Aaron and

his sons you shall do precisely as I
have commanded you.
8:33 ‘You shall not go away from
the door opening of the Tent of
Meeting, (not) for seven days, until
the days of your installation in of
fice have come to an end. Your
You shall let their installation in installation in office shall last
office last seven days! seven days!
34 As he (Moses?) did today,
YHWH has commanded to do (seven
days?) to accomplish your cleans
ing from sin.
35 Thus for seven days you shall
remain day and night by the door
opening of the Tent of Meeting and
perform the ritual prescribed by
Volume III1
YHWH. Then you will not die. That

is how I was ordered (to do).’
36 Every day you shall prepare a
bull as a purification offering, fo r
the cleasing from sin. You shall
bring the purification offering on
the altar while performing the sin-
removing ritual. To consecrate it
you shall also anoint it. Cf. Lev. 8:11.
37 For seven days you shall
cleanse the altar from sin and con
secrate it. Then it will be thor
oughly holy. Whoever touches the
altar ought to be holy. ’
The consecration ritual is to last for seven (see Introd. §4.8.1) days (cf.
29:30).448 Aaron and his sons must become thoroughly holy. Their holiness
must be constant. So that there will be no disruption in the purification process
they may not leave the holy place (Lev. 8:35). On the eighth day (Lev. 9:1) the
purification is complete and a further act can be performed (Introd. §4.8.2).
Also the altar is given the same intensive purification (cf. Ezek. 43:18-27).
29:36, 37 ties in with 29:10-14. The purification offering is especially and
explicitly (cf. also Lev. 8:15; implicitly in 29:12) related to the consecration of
the altar of burnt offering. According to Lev. 8:11, 15, the consecration of the
altar took place before the first sacrifice was offered on it (Lev. 8:16).
29:37 shows that the purification offering was to be brought for seven days.
In 29:35-37 it is not explicitly stated that all the elements of the consecration
ritual were to be performed on a daily basis. That is how rabbinic exegesis has
understood the passage (see 4.22).
The altar of burnt offering differs from the sanctuary and other utensils in it
herein that its consecration was not only done with anointing oil (40:9, 11;
Lev. 8:10, 11), but also with blood. The result is a very intensive purification
(cf. 29:21). In view of its central position in the fellowship between YHWH and
Israel, the altar must be thoroughly holy. YHWH’s acceptance of the offerings
may not be jeopardized by impurity that might cling to the altar. See also
4.19.2.
To the above can still be added that the dwelling itself is also consecrated by
YHWH’s glory (29:43b; 40:34, 35).4
44* Cf. G.A. Klingbeil, “Ritual Time in Leviticus 8 with Special Reference to the Seven day
Period in the Old Testament,” ZAW 109 (1997), 500-13.
Volume III1
548 EXODUS 2 9 :1 -3 7
29:35, 36 29:35 is something of a concluding observation. In an added note the

seven-days consecration is also specifically said to include the altar of burnt
offering (cf. 29:12).
n aa, see 12:11. ’rvixntfK baa, see Introd. §3.43.1. narot (Ges-K §103b),
Sam.Pent.: "jnx. SamJPent.: OH’ HX (cf. 29:29, 33).
For the bull as purification offering see 4.13.4. n b S , see Introd. §3.4.1. DVb,
see Introd. §3.23.1. a n s a , see 21:30. D nB arr'rjror1?, LXX: Tipep? tou
KCcOapiopou, ‘for the day of the purification’ (cf. Frankel*, 80). KOn pi. is
here usually taken to mean ‘to cleanse from sin,’ ‘to purify;’ see already LXX,
Vulg., TO ( i s ’am), TPsJ and TNf ( i s ’am); better would be, however: ‘to
bring a purification offering upon (+ is ) ; ' cf. Kiuchi (see 21:30), 95f. 1B3, see
21:30 (for LXX see 29:33). The sin removal rite consists of the application of
blood to the horns etc.; see 29:12.
29:37 m a pi. is translated in the LXX with KaOaptCeiv (in 29:36 used for
Ktsn pi.), ‘thoroughly holy,’‘most holy,’ see Introd. §3.44.2.
The clause flaiM P33CT*?? needs a separate look. A similar statement is
found in 30:29; Lev. 6:11, 20. Is the meaning that whoever/whatever touches
what is holy becomes holy? Reference is made, among other things, to data
from pre-Islamic Arabs about the character of the holy place: whoever or
whatever enters the sacred area becomes the property of the deity, is sacro
sanct.449 However, according to several passages in the OT, contact with the
holy does not result in a state of holiness, but in a ‘collision’ which is deadly
for the person involved.450 That has led to take as meaning ’will become
the property of the sanctuary or the deity;’ presumably what is said is that the
deity can do with the person in question as he pleases, may even give him up
to destruction (e.g. Baentsch).
An entirely different interpretation is proposed by J. Milgrom.451 In his opin
ion, ba does not refer to people - they are struck dead when touching the altar
- but to things. The translation should be: ‘whatever....’ This interpretation is
already found in rabbinic exegesis and is adopted in Jewish translations (e.g.
Vredenbuig and Dasbeig), and is also found in Christian translations.452
In Milgrom’s explanation, 29:37b is a remark that stands by itself, without
much of a tie-in with the context. In my view, conceivably the clause, formu
lated as a general statement of fact without regard to a specific context - see
449 See Wfellhausen*, Reste, 52, 54f., 105ff.; Robertson Smith*, 1 4 8 ff; cf. \b l. I, 351f.
450 Lev. 10; Num. 4:15; 1 Sam. 6:19; 2 Sam. 6:6f.; cf. Exod. 19:12f., 21f., 24, and see Nfol. II,
451, 459.
451 “ Sancta Contagion and Altar/City Asylum ,” SVT 32 (1981), 278-310 (2 8 2 ff).
452 See e.g. SV (cf. KJV, NRSV) and NV (only in Lev. 6:20), WV (only in Lev. 6:11), GNB
(only in Lev. 6:11, 20).
Volume III1
DAILY SACRIFICIAL WORSHIP 549
also the setting in 30:29; Lev. 6:11,20 - is to be taken as pertaining to Aaron

and his sons, to the high priest and the priests, and should be understood as a
warning to them not to approach the altar unless they are in a state of holiness.
Infringement on the holiness of the sanctuary must be prevented (cf. 28:43;
30:20f.; Lev. 10; 16:2, 13 etc.). Worthy of note is that in TPsJ, 29:37 and
30:29 are explicitly related to Aaron and his sons. In this connection, it is
commented that the other members of the people should not touch the holy,
lest they imperil their life.4
4053
4.14 THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE DAILY SACRIFICIAL WORSHIP;

CONCLUSION (29:38-46; Num. 28:3-8)
29:38-42a is found in almost similar wording also in Num. 28:3-8. The relation
of Exod. 29:38-42a to Num. 28:3-8 is different from that of Exod. 29:1-37 to
Lev. 8. Num. 28:3-8 does not offer an account of the carrying out by Moses of
YHWH’s instructions, as in Lev. 8. Num. 28 is not an account of the fact that
Moses did what yhw h had instructed him to do, in casu the instruction to
establish the ritual of the daily sacrifices to be made (Exod. 29:38-42a) - that
fact is related in a few words in 40:29b - but it relates Moses’ instruction to
Israel to perpetually bring the daily offerings.
Exodus Numbers
29:38 ‘The following you shall pre 28:3 You shall order them (the
pare on the altar: Israelites): ‘The following gift you
per day, shall present to YHWH: per day,
without interruption, two sheep a without interruption, as a burnt
year old. offering, two sheep a year old and
without defect.
39 The one sheep you shall pre 4 The one sheep you shall pre
pare early in the morning and the pare early in the morning and the
other sheep you shall prepare to other sheep you shall prepare to
ward nightfall. ward nightfall.
5 As a food offering (you shall
40 One-tenth o f grits, made with prepare) a tenth of an ephah of
a fourth o f a hin o f beaten oil grits made with a fourth of a hin of
and a drink offering o f a fourth o f beaten oil.
a hin o f wine (you shall prepare) Cf. 28:7.
with that one sheep.
453 See further C. Houtman, Het altaar ah asielplaats, Kampen 1990, 33ff.
Volume III1
550 EXODUS 2 9 :3 8 -4 6
41 The other sheep you shall thus 8 The other sheep you shall
prepare toward nightfall. The same thus prepare toward nightfall. The
kind o f food offering along with the same kind of food offering along
same kind o f drink offering as in with the same kind of drink offer
the morning you shall prepare with ing as in the morning you shall
it, to spread a delightful smell as a prepare with it, it is a present
present to YHWH. which spreads a delightful smell
for YHWH.’
42 Such a burnt offering shall Cf. 28:6.
without interruption, throughout
the generations, fo r the benefit o f
YHWH be at the door opening o f the
Tent o f Meeting, there where I
want to meet with you to speak to
you.
Cf. 29:42a. 6 - it concerns the burnt of
fering, which without interruption
must be present and which was
instituted on Mount Sinai to spread
a delightful smell as a present for
Cf. 29:41b. YHWH -
7 and as a drink offering with it
Cf. 29:40b. a fourth of a hin with that one
sheep. In the sanctuary you shall
bring the drink offering of strong
drink, for the benefit of YHWH.
29:43 There I will meet the Israelites. That place will be consecrated by my
blinding glory.
44 I will consecrate the Tent o f Meeting and the altar and I will consecrate
Aaron and his sons to minister as my priests.
45 Then I can dwell in the midst o f the Israelites and be their God.
46 Then they will realize that it is I, YHWH, their God, who brought them out
o f the land o f Egypt so that I might dwell in the midst o f them, I, YHWH, their
God.’
The instruction concerning the consecration of the altar of burnt offering

(29:37) is followed by the order about the most important function of the altar:
twice daily, without exception, sacrifices are to be brought on it, one burnt
offering in the morning and one in the evening (cf. 4.13.5), along with a food
offering (see 29:41) and a drink offering (see 25:29).
The daily ritual (cf. 1 Kgs. 18:29, 36; 2 Kgs. 3:20; 16:15; Ezek. 46:13ff.;
Volume III1
DAILY SACRIFICIAL WORSHIP 551
Ezra 9:4; Neh. 10:34, and see also Lev. 6:2ff.) is in accord with YHWH’s royal
status. It must assure YHWH’s continual favourable attitude toward Israel
(29:42).454 It must induce him to want to live in the midst of Israel (cf. 29:42).
There is a smooth transition from the description of the function of the altar of
burnt offering to that of the function of the sanctuary itself (29:42-46) (see
4.2.18, 19).455
29:38 "VOR nn, cf. KQSynt §383a; Joiion §143a; Williams §486. ntoff, see
Introd. §3.41.1. to33, see Introd. §9.1.8. LXX: + apupoix; = OQ’OJji (Num.
28:3 and see Exod. 29:1); cf. TNf margin, naer’ia (Introd. §3.10.1 and 6:16),
see 12:5. OV’b, see Introd. §3.23.1; LXX: + erci to Ouovaoxfipiov, ‘on the
altar.’ T o n , see 25:30. Sam.Pent.: + T o n nbl? (cf. 29:42); cf. TNf margin;
LXX: + Kapiuopa ev6eA.exiopou = T0£i (cf. 29:18 and see 29:41).
29:39, 40 ")p3, see 7:15. O’SUJrrps, see 12:6. ‘tenth’ (Introd. §4.11.2), of the
epha (see 16:16); cf. Num. 28:5. ‘grits,’ see Introd. §10.3.3. The measure and
what is measured etc. are appositionally related to each other (KQSynt §333d,f;
Ges-K §131d). bl*?3 (Introd. §10.2.3), masculine (pertaining to ptoS). ‘beaten,’
see Introd. §10.2.3. The food offering does not consist of baked bread, as in
29:2, 23. ‘fourth,’ see Introd. §4.5.2; Sam.Pent.: n’ffSI (cf. Num. 28:5).
pnn, for the use of the article see KQSynt §297c, cf. §333f; Ges-K §126m.
I P (OT 22*; Exod. 29:40[2x]; 30:24)456 is a liquid measure; its presumed
capacity varies from about 3,5 liter to 7,5 liters (see e.g. BHHW, II, 1164f.; De
\hux*, I, 354ff.). The term is often left untranslated. But see LV: ‘stoop’
(stoup); GNB: ‘two liters;’ TEV: ‘one quart.’
103, see 25:29. ‘wine,’ see Introd. §10.2.1. According to Sir. 50:15, it was
poured out as a libation at the base of the altar. For rabbinic interpretation, see
Rashi: atop the altar there were two silver bowls with holes.
29:41 n$30 (OT ca. 210*); in the secular sense it refers to a ‘tribute’ (e.g.
Judg. 3:15, 17f.) or ‘present’ (e.g. Gen. 32:14, 19, 21f.); in the sacral sense it
can be used to denote a present for the deity (e.g. Gen. 4:3ff.), whether an
animal offering (e.g. 1 Sam. 2:17; Mai. l:10f.,13) or a vegetable offering (e.g.
Judg. 13:19; Isa. 43:23); in Exodus it is used exclusively in the sense in which
it occurs in the P corpus, namely, ’food offering,’ ‘meal offering’ (cf. Lev. 2);
454 Cf. 29:18; for the anthropom orphism see also 4.19 and 4.6.4,5; cf. A nderson (see 20:24),
1 4 ff; Korpel**, 3 9 9 ff
455 Cf. D.D. Swanson, ‘“ A Covenant Just Like Jacob’s: The C ovenant o f 11QT 29 and
Jerem iah’s N ew Covenant,” in G.J. Brooke, F.G. M artinez (eds.), New Qumran Texts and Studies,
Leiden/New York 1994, 273-86.
454 Loan word from the Egyptian (Ellenbogen*, 68).
Volume III1
552 EXODUS 2 9 :3 8 -4 6
always as auxiliary offering to the burnt offering (29:41; 30:9; 40:29).457

.130331, the suffix refers to rtn3a; Sam.Pent.: 130331, the suffix refers to 033.
lb , does the suffix refer to lî? in 29:42?; Sam.Pent.: lb. Sam.Pent.: I ’l (cf.
29:18). For the ending of 29:41 see 29:18.
29:42 11, see 1:6. ‘at the door opening’ = ‘on the altar at the ...’ nil1^ s b in
the mouth of YHWH (cf. e.g. 19:11). l i t 1, see 21:8; for LXX see 25:22. After
1313 in 29:42a, the forms of liT in 29:42b, 43a function as explanation.45*
03b (the Israelites; cf. 29:43), Sam.Pent.: lb (Moses), cf. LXX, Vulg. In the
Sam.Pent., 29:42b is evidently related to YHWH’s encounter with Moses in the
sanctuary (cf. 25:22; 30:6, 36). The clause ipi^ 03 1? 1J?)N also occurs in Num.
17:19. In that passage ‘there’ refers to ‘in the sanctuary’ (also there Sam.Pent.
has "[b; cf. LXX, Vulg.). Does 29:42b refer to the meeting with the Israelites
in the sanctuary in the person of their representative Moses? (cf. 25:22;
34:34f.; Num. 7:89). Or is the eye on a meeting at the door opening? (33:9,
10; Num. 12:5; cf. Num. 11:25; 16:19). IBB?, see KoSynt §330h; Ges-K §90d.
29:43 138? ’mi?31 (cf. 29:42), Sam.Pent.: 08? TiE?n31, ‘and there I can be ap
proached;’ LXX: xai taôpai exei, ‘and there I will give orders;’ cf. Vulg.;
the anthropomorphism is avoided. B?lp31, the implied subject is not the door
opening but the sanctuary; LXX: xai ayiaaOrioopca, ‘and I (YHWH) shall be
sanctified;’ cf. Pesh.: w ’tqds; so also TO. TPsJ: ’i p 1 P33 III^ B IS t f i p ’NI, ‘and
I will be sanctified in their princes on account of my honour.’459 In the Vulg.,
altare, ‘the altar,’ is subject. McNeile opts for that interpretation. Others think
of Israel as subject (e.g. Keil, Gispen, and see SV, NV). 133, see 16:7.
29:43a contains a varied repetition of 29:42b. 29:43b probably is an allusion
to 40:34, 35, not to Lev. 9:23b.
29:44 Beside 29:44 see 40:9-15, and cf. 29:4ffi, 36fi; Lev. 8-9: Moses is the
one doing the consecration. He acts however - in 29:44 YHWH is subject - by
order of YHWH. 113, see 2:16.
29:45 with 29:44, the condition for YHWH’s taking up residence in the sanctu
ary has been met. pe? + "pro, see 25:8. Ti33B?l, Sam.Pent.: TiBhlSl (cf.
29:43), LXX: xai eTtixAtiOfjoopai, ‘and I will be called upon;’ the anthropo
morphism is avoided, ‘be their God,’ see Introd. §7.2.2.; cf. 6:7.
457 See W AT, IV, 987ff.; Anderson (see 20:24), 27ff.; R. Rendtorff, Leviticus (BK m/2,
1990), 86ff.
4S* Cf. 30:36, w here, moreover, the term m y comes first; for the ‘play ’ w ith the consonants
see also 25:22.
459 For these translations (allusion to Lev. 10:3) see Prijs**, 4 I f f
Volume III1
THE ALTAR OF PERFUME 553
29:46 Cf. 6:7. mm 'IK, see Introd. §7.3.7. etc. (end 29:46), LXX: ‘to be
called upon by them (cf. 29:45) and be their God.’
Not the settlement in Canaan (3:8, 17; 6:8), but YHWH’s residence in the
midst of Israel is here mentioned as the goal of the exodus out of Egypt. When
YHWH dwells in the midst of Israel (29:45) and takes up contact with the
Israelites (29:42b, 43a), then they will understand that the purpose of the
exodus was YHWH’s fellowship with Israel (cf. 19:5 and see Lev. 26:11, 12).
4.15 THE ALTAR OF PERFUME (30:1-10; 37:25-28)
30:1 'You shall make (yet another) 37:25 He made the altar of per
altar, an perfume burner. You shall fume
make it o f acacia wood. of acacia wood.
2 Its length shall be one cubit, Its length was one cubit, the width
the width also one cubit - it must also one cubit - it was thus square
thus be square - but the height - , but the height two cubits. Its
two cubits. Its horns shall be o f horns formed one
one piece with it. piece with it.
3 You shall overlay it with pure 26 He overlaid it with pure gold,
gold, the top o f it, the sides around the top of it, the sides around and
and the horns. Furthermore, you the horns. Furthermore, he made
shall make a ornamental frame o f around it a ornamental frame of
gold around it. gold.
4 Two golden rings you shall 27 He had made two golden
make fo r it. Under its ornamental rings for it, under its ornamental
frame you shall make them on the frame, on the
two sides, thus on opposite sides. two sides, thus on opposite sides,
They shall serve as holders fo r the as holders for the
(carrying) poles, so that with them (carrying) poles, so that with them
it can be carried. it could be carried.
5 The poles you shall make o f 28 The poles he made of acacia
acacia wood and you shall overlay wood and he overlaid them with
them with gold. gold.
6 You shall place it (the altar) in
front o f the tapestry that hangs be
fore the shrine with the constitu
tion, in front o f the place o f atone
ment, on the (shrine with the) con
stitution, where I will meet with
you.
1 On it Aaron shall make fra-
Volume III1
554 EXODUS 3 0 :1 -1 0 ; 3 7 :2 5 -2 8
grant perfume to go up in smoke,

every morning when he trims the
lights he shall make it to go up in
smoke.
8 Also when Aaron toward night
fa ll lights the lamps, he shall make
it to go up in smoke. Throughout
the generations the offering o f per
fume shall without interruption re
main burning fo r the benefit o f
YHWH.
9 You may not bring on it any
other offering o f perfume, nor a
burnt offering or a food offering.
You may not pour out on it a drink
offering either
10 Once a year Aaron shall per- Cf. Lev. 16:18, 19.
form the sin-removing ritual on its
horns. With the blood o f the purifi
cation offering fo r the removal o f
sin he shall cleanse it from sin
once a year, throughout the gener
ations. It is most holy to YHWH.'
4.15. Bibl: E. Cothenet, DBS, VI, 1291-331; A. Eberhartei; “Das Weihrauchop-

fer im Alten Testament,” ZKTh 50 (1926), 89-105; M.D. Fowler, “Excavated
Incense Burners: A Case for Identifying a Site as Sacred?,” PEQ 117 (1985),
25-9; N. Glueck, “Incense Altars,” in H.Th. Frank, W.L. Reed (eds.), Translat
ing and Understanding the Old Testament (Fs H.G. May), Nashville/New York
1970, 325-9; S. Gitin, “Incense Altars from Ekron, Israel and Judah,” in Yigael
Yadin Memorial Volume, Jerusalem 1989, 52*-67*; idem, “New Incense Altars
from Ekron,” in E. Stem, T. Levi (eds.), Avraham Biran Volume, Jerusalem
1992, 43*-9*; R Heger, The Development o f Incense Cult in Israel, Ber-
lin/New York 1997; O. Keel, “Kanaan&ische Suhneriten auf agyptischen
Tempelreliefs,” VT 25 (1975), 411-69 (pp. 424-36: “Die Bedeutung des
RSuchems”); R. de Langhe, Het gouden altaar in de Israelitische eredienst,
Brussel 1952; idem, “L’autel d’or du temple de Jerusalem,” Bib 40 (1959),
476-94; M. Lohr, Das Raucheropfer im Alten Testament, Halle (Saale) 1927;
K. Nielsen, Incense in Ancient Israel, Leiden 1986; W. Zwickel, Raucherkult
und Rauchergerate, Gottingen/Freibuig 1990.
For the remarkable place of the description of the altar of perfume - in an
appendix and not in ch. 25, which deals with the furnishings of the sanctuary -
Volume III1
and the conclusions drawn from it, see 4.2.5.

According to 30:1-10, in total two altars were to be placed in the sanctuary.
In addition to the altar of burnt offering (see 4.9) an altar of perfume: n jjp
n")Oj?n (see Introd. §10.6.5 and Lev. 4:7; 1 Chr. 6:34; 28:18; 2 Chr. 26:16, 19)
which, as it was overlaid with gold (30:3; 37:26), was also called the golden
altar: aîCi narp (39:38; 40:5, 26; Num. 4:11), to distinguish it from the
copper altar, the altar of burnt offering (see 4.9). Considering the meaning
(Introd. §3.28) has elsewhere in Exod. 25-40, De Langhe’s suggestion (Altaar,
16ff.; Bib 40 [1959], 489ff.) that on the basis of the Arabic arttn natP must be
understood as altar of perfume is improbable.
The altar is to be placed in the holy place (30:6, 36; 40:5, 26). In line with
the level of holiness there (see 4.8.1), the altar must be of gold. In view of its
location, directly opposite the shrine with the place of atonement, where YHW H
reveals himself (25:22; 30:6,36), the altar of perfume can also be called
mrr ’jp1? ntptt ttaiPO-440 The less than lucid wording of the text (30:36; 40:5;
cf. also Lev. 16:12) accounts for the notion that the altar of perfume stood in
the Holy of Holies (Heb. 9:4).
4.15.2 The altar is meant for the tent shrine. That particular given is deter
minative for its construction and the materials to be used for it. Like the other
items belonging to the furnishing of the dwelling, the shrine, the table, the
lampstand (see 4.5; 4.6; 4.7), it must be made in such a way that it is portable
(cf. Num. 4:11). Like the altar of burnt offering, it must be in the shape of a
square, wooden box, be it of much smaller dimensions (1x1x2 cubits), and be
made of acacia wood. Carrying poles are to be used for transporting it (cf.
Num. 4:15).
Nothing is said about the bottom of the altar, unlike about its top. No infor
mation is given about how it was to be used. Evidently on the assumption that
wood overlaid with gold is not very practical for burning perfume on it, due to
the danger of fire (cf. e.g. Holzinger), the ‘top’ has been interpreted as the grill
of the altar (see exegesis 30:3). Another proposal has it that the perfume was
not placed directly on the altar, rather was put in a censer (cf. Lev. 10:1; 16:12
etc.; see 4.7.4) and so was to be placed on the altar (cf. 2 Chr. 26:19 and also
Rev. S^).460461 The fire supposedly was taken from the altar of burnt offering (cf.
Lev. 16:12; Num. 17:11). There is no description of the utensils for the altar of
perfume (for opposite see 27:3).
Like on the altar of burnt offering, the altar of perfume was to have horns.
See 4.9.6,7. Excavations in Palestine have uncovered small, homed altars of
460 Lev. 4:18 (cf. 4:7); 16:18; however, in Lev. 16:18 the terminology is often related to the
altar o f burnt offering (cf. Lev. 16:12).
461 See Schouten (see 4.2.1), 2 7 5 ff, and e.g. Calmet, Cassuto, Hyatt.
Volume III1
556 EXODUS 3 0 :1 -1 0 ; 3 7 :2 5 -2 8
perfume (see BRL, 8f.; Weippert**, 448, 623f.). Particularly illustrations from
the ancient Near East have shown the existence of stands, which presumably
were used for the burning of perfume.462 However, their purpose is a matter of
dispute. They are also regarded as lampstands (see 4.7.6). Perfume was an
important item in life in those days. Therefore objects that are identified as
censers need not necessarily have been cultic objects or articles from the
sanctuary (cf. Fowler). They may have been used for secular purposes or as
household altars. That was likely the case with the small, square burners of
earthenware described, for example, by Zwickel (pp. 62ff.). For the function of
the horns see 4.9.7 and the need of purification see 4.19.2.
4.15.3 Who was in charge o f the altar o f perfume? In 30:7, 8 that task is
entrusted to Aaron (cf. Sir. 45:16), the high priest, and he is expected to it
along with the trimming of the lights (see 4.7.9). According to 27:21, that last
job also was included in the tasks of his sons, the priests. So it stands to reason
that they were also allowed to offer the perfume. In any case, elsewhere the
offering of perfume is considered a priestly task (Lev. 10:lff.; Deut. 33:10;
Num. 17:5; 18:7; 1 Chr. 6:34; 23:13; 2 Chr. 13:10ff.; 26:18; Luke 1:9; see
beside it Ezek. 8:10f.). According to 40:26, 27, however, it was Moses who -
for the consecration of Aaron and his sons (Lev. 8) - was the first to offer
perfume on the altar of the sanctuary.
The care of the altar was done in conjunction with taking care of the lamps.
So that the unpleasant odour from the lamps would be neutralized by the
pleasant smell of the perfume? (cf. Cassuto). And at the same time as the
morning and evening sacrifice (29:39, 41). In order that the not always pleasant
smell of the burning flesh, which penetrates into the sanctuary, might be
permeated with the pleasant smell of the perfume, so that the smell of the
sacrifice will be pure delight to Y H W H ? (cf. e.g. Haran*, 230). An argument in
favour of the latter interpretation might be the adding of incense to certain
sacrifices (Lev. 2:1, 2, 15, 16; 6:8).
4.15.4 For the composition and purpose of the perfume offering and the
question of why only perfume specified by YHWH might be offered (30:9) see
4.19.
Haran*, 238ff., believes that one should differentiate between on the one
hand the offering of perfume in censers in the court, which happened indepen
dently of the rest of the sacrificial cult and was performed by the priests, and
on the other hand the offering of perfume at stated times on the altar of
perfume in the sanctuary as part of the daily sacrifices. That task was suppos
edly reserved for the high priest (30:7). Moreover, it is conjectured, for the
442 See e.g. N ielsen, 3ff., 16ff., 28f., 38ff. (also for censers and altars o f perfume in general).
Cf. also Zwickel, II Off., 147ff.
Volume III1
offering on the altar, O’p® nitoj?, whose composition is described in 30:34-38,

was to be used. Thus this perfume was not the same as the ‘ordinary’ m o p .
The contention that there were two kinds of perfume does not hold up (see
Nielsen, 69f.). It seems to have arisen under the influence of L5hr, 34. As part
of his rejection of the Wellhausian thesis that the perfume offering did not
become part of the y h w h cult until the late monarchical era (see 4.2.5), LOhr
contended that from way back the separate perfume offering was included in
the worship of YHWH, but that initially censers were used for the bringing of
the offering (Lev. 10; Num. 16) and that the altar of perfume in the temple of
Solomon (cf. 1 Kgs. 6:20, 22; 7:48) was a later, be it pre-exilic, innovation.
What is described by L6hr as two phases in the evolution of the practice of the
perfume offering (cf. also Zwickel, 301), Haran* presents as the simultaneous
presence of different rituals.
That the Israelite cult, in addition to the regular offerings of perfume, also
contained offerings not associated with the altar, is not impossible. Given the
meager data, neither the view that the altar of perfume was an innovation nor
the view that the perfume used in the sanctuary was different from that used at
the sanctuary, can be proven.
4.15.5 A golden altar is mentioned as included in the furnishings of the
temple of Solomon463 and as an item in the furnishings of the second temple.464
Josephus, in his description of the temple, refers to the altar of perfume by
name (BJ, V, 216ff.). Recounting Pompey’s invasion of the sanctuary one
time he is silent about the altar of perfume - he does cite the presence of huge
quantities of spices (AJ, XIV, 72) - , while the other time he does refer to
golden altars of perfume (BJ, I, 152). He does not list the altar of perfume
among the treasures taken from the temple when it was destroyed (BJ, VII,
148). It is not depicted on the arch of Titus (see 4.6.1). Whether the golden
altar mentioned by Pseudo-Hecataeus (see 4.6.1) was the altar of perfume (e.g.
L5hr, 35) or the table for the bread is uncertain. For the altar of perfume see
also TS, III, 10; VIII, 11. In the NT, the golden altar is included among the
items in the heavenly sanctuary (Rev. 8:3; 9:13).
The altar of perfume from the temple of Solomon was among the things
which, as some tradition has it, were put in safety by the prophet Jeremiah at
the destruction of the temple in 586 (see 4.5.1.10; 4.7.10).
The altar of perfume and the perfume have been the subject of a variety of
allegorical and spiritualizing interpretations. See e.g. Philo, VM, II, 101, 105
443 See 1 Kgs. 7:48 = 2 Chr. 4:19; cf. 1 Kgs. 6:20, 22 (altar of perfume or table for the bread?;
see 4.6.1); for the disputed authenticity see e.g. M.J. Mulder (HCOT 1998), 364ff.; the altar of
wood in Ezek. 41:22 is interpreted as table for the bread, but also as altar of perfume; see for the
last e.g. Calmet; Lehr, 24; R. de Langhe, Bib 40 (1959), 483; cf. Nielsen, 104.
464 See 1 Macc. 1:21; cf. 1 Macc. 4:49: altar of perfume, and also Luke 1:11.
Volume III1
558 EXODUS 3 0 :1 -1 0 ; 3 7 :2 5 -2 8
(cosmological interpretation); Gregory of Nyssa, VM, II, 185 (perfume is

symbol of prayer). The golden altar has been explained as symbol of the soul
in distinction from the copper altar as symbol of the body (Ginzbeig*, III,
163). Altar and perfume, vis-a-vis their function to God, have been understood
as a foreshadowing of Christ and his work, of his mediation and intercession
(Schouten [see 4.2.1], 290ff.), and of the work of the Holy Spirit who teaches
us how to pray aright (\fonk, 445ff.), etc. Bahr (see 4.2.1), 552ff., discusses in
detail the spectrum of views on the nature and function of the altar and the
perfume. Bahr associates the perfume with YHWH, holding that it bears witness
to YHWH and his revelation (pp. 562ff.).
The symbolical interpretation rests on the assumption that YHWH’s greatness
as Lord of heaven and earth makes it inappropriate to think of the perfume as
creating a pleasant atmosphere for him (see e.g. Bahr, 554).
30:1, 2/37:25 Subject of 30:1 is Moses; subject of 37:25 is Bezalel (cf. 37:1).
In the Sam.Pent., 30:1-10 is placed after 26:35. For the question see 4.2.5. The
LXX lacks a translation of 37:25-28 (but note LXX 40:5, 26).
nato (30:1), ‘an altar,’ further defined by the apposition rp'op ")0p& to show
that it is no altar of burnt offering. uppp, a hapax legomenon, is a derivative
of nDp (see 29:13): place, thing upon which something is burned, namely, of
perfume (cf. KoHkL, II, 93); cf. rn{3p& (Ezek. 8:11; 2 Chr. 26:19) and nintppO
(2 Chr. 30:14).
In TO, m o p -Itapo is given an interpretive rendering: miCDp ’mbit XlQpHb,
‘to bum on it perfume’ (similarly TPsJ, and see e.g. Rashi; see on the other
hand TNf: n m o p n o o ); see also e.g. Vulg. In the LXX: OvoiaoxTjpiov
Oupvapaxog, ‘an altar of perfume’ (cf. 30:27), there is no rendering of ICSpD.
For I. Brinktrine, Bib 33 (1952), 91-4, this is a reason to regard ntspo as not
being original (so already Ehrlich). De Langhe, 17, on the other hand, regards
ntDpO as original and thinks of the preceding nat» as a later addition.
m op, see Introd. §10.6.5. niffun is taken in the LXX (xai Ttoirjoeu;) as the
beginning of a new clause which runs to 30:2: ‘and you shall make it a cubit in
length ...’ 13»», see 25:19.
30:3-5/37:26-28 Tints, see 24:10. 3^ (OT ca. 30*), which usually refers to the
(flat) roof of a house or other structure (Deut. 22:8 etc.), in used in 30:3; 37:26
with the meaning of ‘topside,’ ‘upside;’ in the LXX 33 is translated with fj
eoxapa (so LXXB; LXXA: eaxapk) and in the Vulg. with craticvla (see 4.9.2):
the topside is a grill (see also Josephus, AJ, III, 147f.). Rashi, Ibn Ezra: this
altar had a top, as opposed to the altar of burnt offering which was filled in
with earth (see 4.9.3).
V’p T p plur. fern. + suffix of T p (OT ca. 75 *), which usually refers to the
wall of (a part of) a house or some other structure (Lev. 14:37 etc.), is used in
Volume III1
30:3; 37:26; Lev. 1:15; 5:9; Ezek. 41:22 as name for ‘side,’ ‘side piece’ of an
object.
Only the visible part of the altar is given a covering (see beside it 25:11). "IT,
see 25:11. Improbable is Bahr’s contention (see 4.2.1), 500, that the ornamental
frame was to keep coals or perfume from falling to the ground.
n»3B, see 25:12. LXX 30:4: ‘of pure gold’ (cf. 30:3). »bx, see 25:12. nx,
see 25:32. The formulation is redundant (in the Vulg. the repeat is not trans
lated). For Baentsch that is a reason to regard TTUtbx 'ntf bi? as an insertion
(under influence of 25:12), and for Delitzsch*, 133, to call vnx a
variant. Or do the various terms not quite have the same connotation? In the
taigums and Pesh m»bx is interpreted as ‘corners’ (see also Rashi). Dillmann
accepts this explanation. Cassuto understands the repetition as a closer descrip
tion, necessary because it concerns a square object: on the left and the right
side of the person who enters the sanctuary, while Ehrlich understands D’nx as
sides that were opposite each other.
rrm , with plur. fem. as subject (cf. 28:7); Rashi: the subject is the making of
the rings; Jacob*, Pent., 226: sing., because there is one ring on each side;
Sam.Pent.: vm; the translation requires the plural; cf. e.g. LXX, Vulg.
o n a b D’nab (Introd. §§3.9.3; 10.1.9), alliteration, e r a is in the LXX
translated with i|raAi6e<; (see 4.10.2), but in 25:27 with Orjicq plur. (so Symm.,
Theod. in 30:4; cf. Field loco). D na is in LXX 30:4, 5 translated with
O K U taA av, but in 25:13 etc. with dva<t>opeu; (so Aq., Symm., Theod. in 30:4).
nona (30:4), see 36:1; Sam.Pent.: ana; so also MT 37:27.
The shrine, the table and the altar of burnt offering were to be have four
rings (25:12, 26; 27:4). Here the text only speaks of the making of two rings.
Is the meaning: two for each side?465 The way it is stated makes it unlikely.
Because the altar of perfume is much smaller than that of the other objects, it
seems that two rings were sufficient. But can the altar be kept in balance with
only one ring on each side? Ehrlich: the ring was on the top at equal distance
from each of the comers (in that case i t refers to the upper edge); Jacob*,
Pent., 226: the ring was just below the nt, which was a half or a whole cubit
from the bottom, so that it supported the carrying pole. It is also conceivable
that the rings fitted tightly around the poles, and that the ring on the one side
was attached more to the back or at the comer of the backside and on the other
side more to the front or at the comer of the front side.
For the way the altar was carried, see 25:13, 14, 26-28 and 4.9.4. The data
there support the idea that the rings of the altar of perfume were attached at
half a cubit from the bottom.
465 See already Vulg.: sub corona per singula latera, and e.g. BShr (see 4.2.1), 499; Dillmann;
Strack.
Volume III1
560 EXODUS 3 0 :1 -1 0 ; 3 7 :2 5 -2 8
30:6 The instruction does not concern the making of the altar (cf. 25:16, 21,
30; 26:33-35) and therefore is not carried out by Bezalel and his helpers.
Therefore it lacks a pendant in ch. 37. Moses himself must carry out the order
(cf. 40:26).
n ans, see 4.8.5. m a n p tr b a , cf. 27:21. Second ’jab, many MSS have:
’JBbl. The further description is absent in MSS, Sam.Pent. and
LXX (haplography?) and is sometimes regarded as an addition (derived from
25:22) (Beer-Galling). LV is based on the view that the first up to and
including m s a n is an addition. Note yet the following: the first place designa
tion begins with n an sn ’ash, the second with m s a n ’as1? (alliteration,
assonance). S. Talmon, ScrHie 8 (1961), 373f., regards the place designations
as variant readings. The redundant formulation, the precise place designation
drives home a point. The offering of perfume is meant for him whose presence
is closely tied to the m s a (cf. 25:22; 30:36), and the smoke serves as a
protective screen for the m s a (see 4.19.2). The altar must thus be placed at
exactly the right spot.
For 30:6b see 25:22 (also for the ancient versions). The closing clause with
new is translated in the Vulg. with: ubi loquar tibi (cf. 25:22; Num. 7:89).
nod, see 29:42.
30:7, 8 30:7-10 contains regulations for the use of the altar of perfume. After
the consecration of the sanctuary, the rules stated in 30:7-10 are to be fol
lowed. They are unchangeable and binding for all times (OO’n m b , see 30:8,
10). Aaron as high priest is prototype of all his successors.
nop hiph, see 29:13. O’DO mop (see Introd. §10.6.5), LXX: Oupiapa
ouvOetov Aenxov; the term Aeutov (= n£H, see Lev. 16:12 and also Exod.
30:36) emphasizes that it is very fine perfume, -)paa npaa, see 7:15. 310 hiph.,
see 1:20. n iu , see 4.8.2. Sam.Pent.: UTOp\ in 30:8 however like MT:
nj“POp\ In the LXX, the suffix is translated neither in 30:7 nor in 30:8, but it
does indicate the place of burning (era ’ autou = I’ba [cf. 30:9] = on the altar).
nba hiph., see Introd. §3.39.1. 0,aiJ?n pa (see 12:6), so L; many MSS:
D’an?n; cf. E.A. Knauf, BN 19 (1982), 57. T »n, see 25:30. T o n m o p , LXX:
Oupiapa evSeAexiopoG 6ia 7iavt6<; ("P»n is translated twice; a gloss?; cf.
Frankel*, 103). m rr ’isb, see Introd. §3.42.2. tt , see 1:6. LXX: ‘their
generations’ (so also in 30:10).
According to Jub. 16:24, at the Feast of Booths Abraham offered perfume
both in the morning and in the evening.
30:9, 10 iban, ‘You’ (LXX: ‘you’ [sing.]; cf. 30:1-6), in the person of Moses
(cf. 30:1) it is the Israelites who are addressed (cf. 30:36, 37, and see also the
suffix of o a ’r m b in 30:8, 10). It is implied that Moses must communicate the
words (including those of 30:6, 7) to the Israelites (cf. 30:31).
Volume III1
THE TRIBUT FOR THE SANCTUARY 561
nt (see 2:22), ‘(n°) other,’ namely, than as prescribed (30:34ff.). Addition

ally, the altar is only to be used for the regular offerings of perfume, not for
free-will offerings (cf. Rashi); it may not be tended by unauthorized persons
(cf. Ehrlich). Also the use for bringing other offerings than perfume is not
allowed, evidently for fear of contaminating the purity of the offering.
nm», see 29:41. nriJOl nbrn, LXX: Kapncopa, Quoiav, terms that are used as
translation of various kinds of sacrifices; cf. also Vulg.: oblationem et victi-
mam. 101, see 25:29. 'HOJ is rendered with a plural in TO.
")M, see 21:30; for iff see 29:36. LXX: rcepi autou ... erci ta>v lcepatcov
autou, ‘upon it (= the altar)... on its horns.’ In Vulg. "1BB1 etc. is translated
with: et deprecabitur Aaron super cornua eius, ‘and Aaron shall entreat above
its horns’ ("IBS'1 is rendered with et placabit; also in the LXX 1D3 does not
have a consistent translation; the second time with KaOapiCeiv, ‘to purify’).
nnK, see Introd. §4.2.1. PtJtf, see 6:16. In TPsJ, ‘one time’ is explicated as
yom kippur (cf. Lev. 16:18, 19). In LXXB and Vulg. the repetition of ‘once per
year’ is not translated; see also e.g. Beer-Galling (dittography).
D1, see 4:9; p , namely, by taking of the blood (cf. 29:12). DKOn, see Introd.
§3.20.2 and 29:14; cf. Lev. 4:7,18; DnBBn...D1B, LXXB: arco tou aipatoc tou
K a O a p io p o u , ‘with the blood of the purification;’ LXXA: + t<ov apapticov tou
e£iAaopou, ‘of the sins, of the atonement.’ Dn"iBB, see 21:30. tflp, see Introd.
§3.44.2.
De nominal clause at the end gives the motive for the annually repeated rite.
The altar is completely holy, strictly to be used for offerings to YHWH (cf.
26:33; 29:37).
4.16 THE TRIBUTE FOR THE SANCTUARY (30:11-16)
30:11 Then YHWH spoke to Moses, saying:

12 When you calculate the number o f the Israelites, insofar as they are to be
included in the counting, then, when they are counted, each one o f them shall
pay a ransom to YHWH fo r his life. Then, when they are counted, there will be
no catastrophe among them.
13 Everyone who is included in the counting shall pay the following amount:
half a shekel, according to the standard o f the sanctuary shekel - that shekel
equals twenty gerahs - , half a shekel as tribute fo r YHWH.
14 Everyone who is included in the counting, who is twenty years or older,
shall pay the tribute fo r YHWH.
15 The rich shall pay no more and the poor no less than the half shekel as
tribute fo r YHWH, as payment o f the ransom fo r your lives.
16 You shall take receipt o f the ransom money o f the Israelites and designate
it fo r the work at the Tent o f Meeting. So the Israelites can direct YHWHs
Volume III1
562 EXODUS 3 0:11-16
attention to it and pay the ransom fo r your lives ’
4.16.1 Bibl.: C. Armerding, “The Atonement Money,” BS 115 (1958), 334-40;

G. Brin, “The Formula ‘From ... and Onward/Upward’ (nbooi/ntt^ni... 0),”
JBL 99 (1980), 161-71; M. Fishbane, “Census and Intercession in a Priestly
Text (Exodus 30:11-16) and its Midrashic Transformation,” in D.P. Wright et
al. (eds.), Pomegranates and Golden Bells (Fs J. Milgrom), Winona Lake
1995, 103-11; B. Gosse, “L’expiation-ranfon d’Ex 30,11-16,” BN 63 (1992),
26-9; Janowski (see 21:30), 161f.; J. Liver, “The Half-Shekel Offering in
Biblical and Post-Biblical Literature,” HThR 56 (1963), 173-98; E. Neufeld,
“The Sins of the Census,” Judaism 43 (1994), 196-204; E. A. Speiser, “Census
and Ritual Expiation in Mari and Israel,” BASOR 149 (1958), 17-25.
The pericope gives rise to a number of questions, concerning its content and
also its position in the context. The subject broached is the holding of a census,
making a count of the people, yet without stating the purpose of it. Elsewhere
the purpose of it is for military service and/or taxation.466 The taking of
censuses is attested from outside the Bible, from the ancient Near East and the
Roman empire.467
Whether the counting in 30:11-16 was a registration or no more than a
counting is not entirely clear. The first possibility cannot be excluded (see e.g.
Ezra 2; for the recording of names see also 32:32). In the Vulg. this is explic
itly stated.468
4.16.2 Numbering of the people apparently is not without risk (30:12b; cf. 2
Sam. 24:12ff.). The reason for it is not stated. What is stated is the measure to
be taken to protect the persons impacted by the counting (30:12f., 15f.). Back
of it lies the belief that the census was not just a profane act, but an event that
concerned the relationship between God and man. A taboo rests on it.
Counting of the people constitutes an infringement of a divine privilege, that
of knowing the number. Knowledge of the number is tantamount to possessing
the power of the numberer and of having the ability to control the counted per
sons.469 A human who acquires this knowledge usurps a right that belongs to
the deity and so infringes on the deity’s authority over those counted. Hence,
holding a census is an expression of hubris, of unbridled lust for power, which
466 See Num. 1:3, 45; 26:2f.; 2 Sam. 24:9; Luke 2:lfF.: Acts 5:37; for a census with a varied
purpose see also Num. 3:40fF.; 26:lff.; 31:49ff.
447 See BHHW, III, 2115f.; EJ, V, 281ff.; KP, I, 1107f.; RAC, II, 969ff.; Speiser (see above).
461 See 30:13: O’lpBn ‘jb n au rrta is translated as: omnis qui transit ad nomen, ‘everyone who
was placed on the list with names.’
469 Cf. Frazer**, II, 555ff; Gaster*, 483ff.; see also e.g. TzUR: an evil eye rests on what is
counted and measured (cf. Zohar Exod. 187b); therefore the counting is done by counting the
collected half shekels (see also Rashi).
Volume III1
is often accompanied by oppression. So the counting can spark resistance,470

fueled by dislike of official meddling, but also springing from religious
motives (cf. Mark 12:13ff. par.; Luke 23:2).
Holding a counting is a recipe for courting the anger of the deity and inviting
disaster (cf. 2 Sam. 24:1, lOff.; 1 Chr. 21:1, 7ff.). To avoid putting lives in
harm’s way, the counting must therefore be accompanied with an act that can
head off the threatening disruption of the bond with God. In the case of the
counting mentioned in Exod. 30, the payment of a ransom will accomplish the
objective. In return for the ransom, the deity gives up his exclusive ownership
of the persons involved. Payment of the ransom implies the acknowledgement
of God’s authority over them (the people of Israel belong to him; see e.g.
19:5). When the payment is made, their lives are no longer in danger (cf.
30:12, 15f.). According to Josephus (AJ, VII, 318), David (2 Sam. 24; 1 Chr.
21) had disregarded the order of Exod. 30:12f., with fatal consequences. The
same conception is also found in rabbinic exegesis (see Ginzbeig*, VI, 270).
4.16.3 Other explanations for the need to pay a ransom than the one cited
above are unsatisfactory, as is evident from the following examples.
In rabbinic exegesis, which also deals with the question how Moses was able
to count a people as numerous as the sand on the seashore - on the basis of the
numerical value of the first letter of the names of the tribes - , the ransom is
interpreted, among other things, as a means to make atonement for the idolatry
with the bull calf (Exod. 32) (see MidrTanh. Exod., IX, 1,5-8; TzUR and Ginz
beig*, III, 144ff.; VI, 62). Keil believes that in the numbering God’s eye was
on each person individually, ‘so daB er bei der siindigen Beschaffenheit seiner
Natur einer Bedeckung seiner Seele vor dem Zome Gottes bedurfte;’471
McNeile: the counting made the counted holy (cf. 29:37); after that, payment
of a ransom was required; Jacob*, Pent., 286ff.: every soldier who through
counting has enlisted in the army is a potential murderer; the ransom for his
deed he pays in advance (cf. also Hertz). Particularly Knight’s view is far-out:
through conscription you inform the enemy about the strength of your army
and you are unfaithful toward the national God (cf. 2 Sam. 24); Moses throws
out these and other considerations.
4.16.4 Does 30:11-16 cast an advance look ahead to Num. Iff.? Does it
provide a religious framework for the census recounted there? Was the occur
rence of forms of the root ~IE3 in 30:10 the motive for positioning the passage
30:11-16, in which likewise forms of that root are used (30:12, 15f.), after the
description of the altar of perfume? (cf. Klostermann*, NF 99; Cassuto). The
470 Cf. Acts 5:37, and see Josephus (AJ, XVIII, 4ff).
471 See already TzUR: God looks at each individual; so the deeds of the righteous cannot
compensate for the defects of the others.
Volume III1
564 EXODUS 3 0 :1 1 -1 6
narrative of the census in Num. Iff. makes no mention of the instruction in

Exod. 30. The book of Numbers does make mention of the payment of
redemption money to YHWH following upon the numbering of the firstborn
males (3:40ff.; cf. \fol. II, 146ff.) and of the warriors after a battle (Num.
31:49ff.). In the last instance the ransom consists of the spoils of war, captured
articles of gold.
The money to be paid is not only called ransom, but also designated as
‘tribute for YHWH’ (30:13, 14f.). Could this be an indication that the counting,
the registration, is intended as a poll tax for the sanctuary? Does 30:11-16 deal
with the introduction of levying a tax on behalf of the sanctuary? Is every adult
expected to yearly contribute a half shekel for the maintenance of the cult? (cf.
Neh. 10:33f.; Matt. 17:24ff.).472 In that case, iffia man in 30:16 is to be
related to that (see e.g. Dillmann; Strack; Baentsch; Hyatt). Already Josephus
(AJ, III, 194ff.) seems to have understood the levy as a (one-time?) temple tax.
He does not mention the census, though he does state the number of those who
paid and their ages. Elsewhere he shows to be familiar with the assessment for
the temple in Jerusalem (AJ, XVIII, 312; BJ, VII, 218, and see further EJ,
XIV, 1345ff.).
It might be aigued that a passage on a sanctuary tax is appropriate in a
context which regularly speaks about the continuous maintenance of the cult
(cf. 27:21; 29:42; 30:8, 10, 21, 31; 31:13, 16). That raises the question of how
to pay for the costs connected with the sanctuary service. 30:11-16, however
lacks the terminology (amt1? or DD’rmb), that would make it possible to
think of the passage as etiology of the temple tax. The tribute mentioned here,
it seems, was not a mandatory annual contribution, but a one-time or incidental
assessment.
4.16.5 In 38:25-28 the tribute mentioned in 30:11-16 is presented as a
donation for the building of the tent sanctuary. In that case, ”imo brtK m a c in
30:16 is to be linked to the construction of the sanctuary.473 This supposition
does not quite fit the wider context according to which the materials for the
tent shrine were to be given spontaneously (see 4.3.3). It should be noted,
though, that 2 Chr. 24:6, 9 (cf. 2 Kgs. 12:5ff.) shows familiarity with the
tradition that a tax was imposed upon the Israelites for the upkeep of the tent
shrine. The collection of money for the repair of the temple (not for the
maintenance of the cult) is motivated there by calling attention to the practice
in the time of Moses. Furthermore, it seems that 38:25-28 presupposes that
4.2 See e.g. Pedersen*, III-IV, 333, 353, 358; De Vaux*, II, 306f.
4.3 See e.g. Rashi; Keil; Hertz; Cassuto; Liver, 176f., and especially Jacob*, Pent., 283ff.; in
favour of this view is the term in a tb in 30:16; see Klostermann, NF, 98f.
Volume III1
there had already been a counting prior to the completion of the sanctuary*47374
In the Pentateuch the first counting is situated after the erection of the sanctu
ary (cf. Exod. 40:2, 17; Num. 1:1, 18).
All things considered, in my perception it is plausible that 30:11-16 is to be
regarded as a second, parallel tradition that sought to answer the question of
where the funds for defraying the costs involved in the erection of the sanctu
ary were to come from.
30:11, 12 For 30:11 see Introd. §3.12.1. ’3, see Introd. §3.25.2. Kt!?J, see 6:8.
Bho, see 6:14. amps'? (for nps see 3:16), ‘according to the number of those
counted’ (e.g. KoSynt §332q); the object is limited; not every Israelite is
counted; only the males of twenty years and older (see 30:14). linJl (Introd.
§3.36), plur. followed by BfK (sing.); see e.g. K6Synt §75. n sa, see 21:30.
tfSJ, see Introd. §3.15.1. The LXX lacks a translation of the first onKnpBS;
cf. Vulg. *133 (see 7:27), in TO rendered with KniB; cf. TPsJ: KniaiKpT’J;
TNf: bano lniD; the plague is emphatically said to be disastrous, fatal.
30:13, 14 HT functions as a deictic interjection (see the comments on nbK at

1:1). Rabbinic exegesis concluded from the use of m that on the mountain
YHWH had shown Moses the coin by showing him a fiery coin (see TPsJ and
Rashi; Ginzberg*, III, 147; VI, 62). aai? (see 12:12), cf. TWAT, V, 1026,
1032f.
n’sno cstr. st. of n ’SOO (OT 16*; Exod. 30:13[2*], 15, 23; 38:26), ‘a half,’
‘the half,’ ‘(the) middle’ (Neh. 8:3); cf. p q (Introd. §4.1). For bptf and m j
see 21:32. The weight is that of ‘silver’ (see 30:16). ‘twenty,’ see Introd.
§4.11.3. No motive is given for the amount of the ransom. For an explanation
see Jacob*, Pent., 288f. n,2tna...D,-i&», Sam.Pent.: ton m a o-nitfjt ePpn ^ptfi.
In the LXX the shekel is equated with the didrachma;475 the gerah with the
obol (cf. Vulg.). In the targums the shekel is equated with the sela‘ and the
gerah with the ma‘ah. nirrb nann (see 25:2), in Vulg. translated with pretium,
with which also n sa in 30:12 is translated.
p a etc. (cf. KoSynt §376d), the clause states which persons are to be
included in the counting; the counting is restricted to men who are fit to serve
in the military (cf. Num. l:2f., 20, 22 etc.; 14:29; 26:2f.). For the age of the
Levites there are different rules (Num. 4:3; 8:24). For the various phases of life
see e.g. Wolff", 179ff. natf, see 6:16. nbi?B, see 20:4. p \ Sam.Pent.: u n ’; cf.
LXX and see 30:13. Sam.Pent.: n a n n nK; cf. 30:15.
474 Rashi, Nachmanides and Keil, for example, hold there had been a census preceding the one
cited in Num. Iff.; not so Jacob*, Pent., 289f.
473 Cf. Josephus, AJ, III, 195; XVIII, 312; BJ, VII, 218; the half shekel is the same as the
didrachma (cf. Matt. 17:24).
Volume III1
566 EXODUS 3 0 :1 7 -2 1 ; 38:8
30:15, 16 (OT 23*), ‘(the) rich.’ See THAT, II, 348; TWAT, VI, 446ff.
nan hiph., see 1:7. b l, see 1:11. ts»0 hiph., see 12:4.
□ av w arb p nsab, does the phrase state the purpose of the tribute or does it,
grammatically say the same as the preceding clause m n\..nnb? I believe the
latter is the case. The same purpose is stated from two different perspectives.
‘your lives’ (cf. 30:16), through Moses y h w h addresses the Israelites (cf. e.g.
30:9, 36f.). He must convey the words (cf. 30:31). 30:15b is not translated in
the Vulg., evidently on account of its redundance.
30:15 presupposes the existence of a society with people of different levels
of affluence. However, a person’s means are not to be factored in in the deter
mination of the ransom, the tribute. In the eyes of God, the life of every man,
regardless of his social position, is of equal value (cf. 16:18). Every man
contributes in equal measure to ‘the work at the Tent of Meeting’ (30:16). No
one can boast of his part in it. This is different with the giving of the tenths
(Gen. 28:22; Lev. 27:30 etc.).
npb, see Introd. §3.30. onaan *)oa (see Introd. §3.28 and 21:30), LXX: t6
apyupiov Tfjc eio<J>opa<; (eio<J>opa occurs in the LXX only in 30:13f., 15f. and
in 30:13-15 is the translation of nann); Vulg.: pecuniam, quae collata est (a
filiis Israhel), ‘the money that was collected (by the sons of Israel).’
b», Sam.Pent.: btt. m a irb tf (Introd. §3.37.4), LXX: ei<; to K& tepyov;
Symm.: ei<; x a e p y a ; but see against it Aq., Theod.: eiri tt|v SouA etav (for the
worship), i r o t (Introd. §3.18.3), in TPsJ and TNf emphatically: aa p a n .
nirv 'jab , see Introd. §3.42.2. The ending of 30:16 is similar to the ending of
30:15.
Expenditure of the money for the sanctuary is something that will not go
unnoticed by YHWH. Through the fine work, crystallized and visible in the
work on the sanctuary (38:27f.), YHWH is made aware of the ransom money,
and so the atmosphere between YHWH and Israel, clouded as it was by the
counting, will be cleared. So the bond between YHWH and Israel remains intact.
4.17 THE BASIN (30:17-21; 38:8)
30:17 Then YHWH spoke to Moses,

saying:
18 ‘You shall also, fo r the wash 38:8 He also made the copper ba
ings, make a copper basin along sin with its copper stand, from the
with a stand fo r it. mirrors of the women who per
formed tasks in the door opening
of the Tent of Meeting.
You shall place it between the Tent
o f Meeting and the altar and put
Volume III1
THE BASIN 567
water in it.
19 (With water) from it Aaron
and his sons shall wash their hands
and their feet.
20 So that they will not die, they
shall wash them with water when
they enter the Tent o f Meeting or
when they come near the altar to
minister, while they make a present
to YHWH to go up in smoke.
21 They shall thus wash their
hands and their feet, lest they die.
This obligation shall be perpetually
binding fo r him and his descen
dants, throughout the generations. ’
Purity is the conditio sine qua non for the interaction between God and humans
(see \fol. II, 449f., 453). Thus it causes no surprise that a basin with water for
the cultic personnel to wash themselves with is to be placed in the holy place.
‘Basin’ is the translation of the Hebrew “ii"?.
iv ? (OT 23x; 9* Exod.; loan word? Cf. Ellenbogen*, 84), ‘kettle’ (1 Sam.
2:14), ‘basin’ (Zech. 12:6), is used in the OT especially for the basin, the pot
in the sanctuary, filled with water to be used by the priests for washing
themselves (30:18, 28; 31:9; 35:16 etc.; see also 1 Kgs. 7:30, 38, 43 etc.). Cf.
AuS, VI, 57ff. Aside from 40:7, 30, T T 3 is in Exodus always followed by 1331
(30:18) or by i33(")ntjl) (also in Lev. 8:11); for 13, ‘base,’ ‘stand,’ see TWAT,
iy 97f. Other interpretations of 13: ‘covering plate’ (in B&hr [see 4.2.1], 583)
and ‘footstool’ (Jacob*, Pent., 301f.), are improbable. The usual translation
‘foot,’ ‘pedestal,’ goes back to the LXX: Paou;; cf. TO, TPsJ, TNf: 0’03;
Vulg.: basis.
The basin is to be placed in the court, between the actual dwelling and the
altar of burnt offering (30:18; 40:7, 30). In accordance with the level of
holiness of that area (see 4.10), basin and stand are to be of copper. Unclear is
the reason for placing it between the dwelling and the altar of burnt offering.476
Owing to its location, in the Vulg. the basin is only for use by the priests as
they served in the dwelling (see exegesis 30:21). However, according to the
MT, washing oneself is also required for ministering at the altar of burnt
offering (30:20). That would suggest that it stood in between the places for
which it was to be used (cf. Jacob*, Pent., 301). There is a more attractive
476 Josephus (AJ, III, 114): the basin (nepippavxijpiov) stood inside the gates (of the court).
Volume III1
568 EXODUS 3 0 :1 7 -2 1 ; 38:8
explanation, however: it stands in front of the dwelling, because no matter

what the priests should not forget to wash themselves before entering the
sanctuary and because they had to wash themselves again after ministering at
the altar (cf. Holzinger).
The basin and its stand are for the tent sanctuary. Not a word is said about
implications of this for its construction nor about how both pieces were to be
transported. In Num. 4 they are not by name mentioned among the holy
objects. According to Jacob*, Pent., 302f., they belonged to the roqfo
mentioned in Num. 4:12 (cf. also Num. 3:31; 18:3) and were carried in the
same way as the lampstand (cf. Num. 4:9f.). No information is provided about
size and weight of the basin and stand nor about how it was to be filled with
water (cf. 40:18). As with the alter of perfume (see 4.15), there is no mention
of tools for the basin.
One can only guess how it was used. Thus it is conjectured that (see e.g.
BShr [see 4.2.1], 583f.) there were spigots, taps, on the basin. Presumably, the
water was caught in a bowl on the stand - for washing of hands and feet - and
carried off by means of a drain. This last point is emphasized by Schouten [see
4.2.1], 197f., in contradiction to older expositors; owing to the risk of contami
nation, only one person at a time was allowed to use the water This concep
tion of the basin is anachronistic and therefore must be discounted. Probably
the water was scooped from the basin with a big spoon (cf. TPsJ 30:19, 21;
40:31) and poured over hands and feet. The basin functioned as container
Certain is that hands and feet were not washed in the basin (see exegesis
30:19). The basin was likely placed on a stand, so that one did not have to
stoop down, and also to keep the water from getting contaminated by the dust
on the ground. Vessels resting on a stand are featured on illustrations from the
ancient Near East (see ANEP, ill. 370, 624, 625). Excavations in Palestine have
uncovered (very small) stands (see BRL, 193f.; Weippert**, 470f.).
The focus is the function of the basin (4x the root p m [see 2:5] is used).
Washing of hands and feet enables the high priest and the priests to do their
work without imperiling their lives (30:20, 21). The passage has an etiological
character (cf. 30:21b). It lays down a permanent norm for what must be the
priestly habitus when priests go about their work. In addition to appropriate
attire (cf. 28:35, 43 and see 4.12.1), cleanliness of hands and feet is of para
mount significance.
The passage is silent on the use of the water in the basin for other purposes.
Presumably it was also used for ritual washing of the whole body (29:4; 40:12;
Lev. 16:4, 24) and the cleaning of parts of sacrifices (29:17) etc. (Num.
5:17ff.; 1 Sam. 2:13f.; cf. 2 Chr. 4:6).
For the proper worship in the sanctuary, water had to be nearby. The
availability of water, from a spring, in a pond or basin, is attested for various
sanctuaries in the ancient Near East, and is also known from other passages in
Volume III1
THE BASIN 569
the OT (1 Kgs. 7:23ff.; cf. also Sir. 50:3) (see further Busink [see 4.2.1],
326ff.).
Exegetically basin and purification have been spiritualized and treated as
symbols of other realities; see e.g. Ginzbeig*, III, 151 (cosmic symbolism);
Gregory of Nyssa, VM, II, 185 (basin and purification are signs of baptism);
BShr (see 4.2.1), 598f. (the cleansing is the outward sign of an inner moral
cleansing and purity; its absence brings judgment); Schouten (see 4.2.1), 202ff.
(it prefigures the holiness of Christ); Knight, 181 (it points to the dire need for
moral cleansing; cf. Isa. 1:16).
In Rabbinic exegesis the ordinance of Exod. 30:17-21 is given a wider ap
plication. For the required washing of the hands see Krauss**, I, 209ff. (cf.
Mark 7:3ff. par.).
30:17, 18/38:8a For 30:17 see Introd. §3.12.1. Subject of 30:18 is Moses;
subject of 38:8a Bezalel (cf. 37:1). JVtoin, LXX: ttoiqoov ‘make.’ p m , see
2:5; for the form of the inf. see 29:29. inj, see Introd. §3.36. nael, Sam.Pent.:
Ottf (also in 40:30). D’O, see Introd. §3.33.
38:8a is only about the making of the basin (n sm b is absent), work which
Moses can delegate (38:8a). The placing of the basin in the sanctuary and
preparing it for use, he must do himself (cf. 40:7, 30). Hence these acts have
no counterpart in ch. 38.
38:8b n'm03 (Introd. §3.46.2), for abandoned interpretations see BShr (see
4.2.1.), 584f.; meant are mirrors of polished metal.477 3 means ‘of,’ ‘from’
(material, means; cf. 38:30; Lev. 13:52), not as used to be defended, ‘with’
(that is, the basin was provided with mirrors).478 Given the material of which it
was made, the basin must have been a beautiful work of art, resplendent in
every way.
(for K23 see 6:26), meant are the women (cf. 1 Sam. 2:22). fine, see
12:22.
Materials for the basin (38:8b)
Bibl.: M. Gorg, “Der Spiegeldienst der Frauen (Ex 38,8),” BN 23 (1984), 9-13;
D.W. Gooding, “Two Possible Examples of Midrashic Interpretation in the
Septuagint Exodus,” in J. Schreiner (ed.), Wort, Lied und Gottesspruch (Fs J.
477 See e.g. BHHW, III, 1831f.; BRL, 309f.; Barrois*, I, 393f.; cf. ANEP, ill. 71, 76, 78, 216,
631, 632, 854; Winter, ill. 1-10.
47< See in BShr (see 4.2.1), 585f., and further e.g. Calvin; he cites, for example, the interpretati
on that the mirrors made it possible to catch people who engaged in offensive or lewd acts in the
sacred precinct.
Volume III1
570 EXODUS 3 0 :1 7 -2 1 ; 38:8
Ziegler), I, WOrzburg 1972, 39-48; R.A. Henshaw, Female and Male: The
Cultic Personnel. The Bible and the Rest o f the Ancient Near East, Allison
Park, PA 1994; J. Maigain, “Une nouvelle amulette samaritaine portant le texte
d’Exode 38.8,” Syria 59 (1982), 117-20; U. Winter, Frau und Gottin, Frei-
burg/G6ttingen 1983.
In 38:8b the source of the materials from which the basin and stand were
made, is stated. The note likely stems from the fact that the basin goes unmen
tioned in 38:29-31. Presumably, that produced the idea that the basin was not
made from the metal that was gathered during the general collection (see
4.3.3), occasioning the question: where did the copper for the basin and the
stand come from?
Most of the terms in 38:8b give rise to questions: what were the mirrors used
for at the sanctuary? Why the women at the Tent of Meeting? Precisely which
tent is in view?
To start with the last question, the tent was likely the abode mentioned in
33:7 and not - proleptically (e.g. Keil) - the still to be constructed (ch. 40)
tent shrine.
There is a range of suggestions as to the kind of activities the women were
engaged in. Jewish commentators have taken K32t to mean as ‘to get together,’
to come in crowds for the purpose of making a contribution, a special gift for
the construction of the sanctuary.479 Kax is also taken to mean ‘render service’
(e.g. LV, NV, W y GNB, NRSV, NIV), as pointing out the kind of role the
women had at the tent: they devoted themselves to housekeeping duties,
washing and cleaning, baking and the making of materials (cf. 2 Baruch 10:19,
and see 2 Kgs. 23:7), or with sacred dance and song played a role in the
liturgy (cf. 15:20; Judg. 21:21; Ps. 68:26) (see in Dillmann). Another sugges
tion is that the women were at the sanctuary for praying or fasting (cf. Luke
2:37) (e.g. Keil). Their presence has even been linked to sacral prostitution (cf.
1 Sam. 2:22).480
The interpretation of K23 evidently also created problems for translators way
back. The translations they offer are made against the backdrop of the sanctu
ary functions they were familiar with.
In the LXX (38:26), is interpreted as ‘to fast’ (rd)v vr|oteuoaod)v ai
fcvqoxeuoav) and, through expansion of the text, this act is said to have
occurred on the day that Moses had erected the tent (that of 33:7) (ev t|
enr|5ev auxfjv). The translation rests on interpretation of 38:8 in conjunction
with 33:4-7 (see Gooding, 42ff.).
479 E.g. Rashi, Nachmanides, and see Cassuto; Leibowitz*, 698ff.; cf. the translation of
Vredenburg and Dasberg, but also SV, KJV (‘assembling’).
480 Cf. e.g. Pedersen*, III-IV, 471; Eerdmans*, Religion, 48; in connection with sacred
prostitution see M.-Th. W&cker, BN 61 (1992), 51-75.
Volume III1
THE BASIN 571
In TO, the women are described as ‘who come to pray’ (nttab Trim ); cf.
Pesh.; so also in TPsJ, where the women are further described as being
‘chaste,’ ‘virtuous;’481 in TPsJ, in an elaboration, the piety and other qualities
of the women are highlighted. In TNf, the women are described as ‘righteous’
and prayer is mentioned as the reason for their presence at the sanctuary.
The emphasis in the taigums on the chastity and godliness of the women482483
evidently is intended to head off potential questions about the use of mirrors
(see below).
In the Vulg. the women are introduced as quae excubabant in ostio tabema-
culi, ‘who kept watch at the entrance of the tent’ (cf. 1 Sam. 2:22: quae
observabant ad ostium tabernaculi).m
The very giving of the mirrors is remarkable. Already way back the question
was raised: can things that are so closely linked to human comfort and vanity
be suitable for use with a sacred object? According to rabbinic exegesis, Moses
at first was indignant about the offer of the mirrors and refused to accept them,
until God had made it clear to him that through arousing the libido the mirrors
had contributed to Israel’s proliferation in Egypt (see Rashi; TzUR; Ginzbeig*,
III, 175; Leibowitz*, 692ff.).
In various ways a connection has been made between the mirrors and their
purpose:
Ibn Ezra: the gift of the mirrors symbolizes the rejection of the vanity of the
world and therefore is in no way offensive; the women renounced their vanity
and come together at the sanctuary for prayer and to listen to edifying words.
Nachmanides: the women deliberately donated the mirors for the basin, for
one thing because they were of splendid brass, and for another because they
wanted to let it be known - the basin was used for the ordeal, in the case of
the woman suspected of adultery (Num. 5:17ff.) - that they gladly accepted the
law of Num. 5.484
Keil, with a quotation from E.W. Hengstenbeig: they surrendered the mirrors
so that ‘what had hitherto served as a means of procuring applause in the sight
of the world might henceforth be the means of procuring the approbation of
God.’
Ehrlich: even young, attractive and nubile maidens donated their mirrors and
so renounced vanity; the things of the chaste, pure women were used for the
4" The term is used; in FT (cf. also TNf margin) it is used as rendering o f K32I; TPsJ
contains a double interpretation.
482 See also Mek., I, 140; NumR. IX, 14; Philo, VM, II, 137.
483 There are also modem exegetes who consider this interpretation possible; see De Vaux*, II,
139, 276.
484 Cf. Rashi; Ginzberg*, III, 175: the ordinance was intended to restore the good relationship
between man and wife.
Volume III1
572 EXODUS 3 0 :1 7 -2 1 ; 38:8
thing that had to bring about purification.

In the light of religio-historical (iconographical) data from the ancient Near
East it has been aigued that the mirrors were cultic objects, symbols of life-
giving powers, which were used in the worship of the life-giving goddess. In
38:8, P presumably takes issue with this cult which was also practiced in
conjunction with the worship of y h w h . The meaning would be that already in
the time of Moses that cult had been renounced (see Winter, 58ff.; G6rg, 9ff.).
That 38:8 refers to the resolute renunciation by the Israelite women in the
wilderness of the idolatrous (Egyptian) worship is a view held already by Cyril
of Alexandria.485 Among modem exegetes, \bnk, 451, considers that interpre
tation a possibility (cf. Acts 19:19).
A few closing observations. K32t refers to service at the sanctuary that was
done by groups of people. In 38:8b it is implied that at least at one time there
were women who had a special bond with the sanctuary (cf. 1 Sam. 2:22;
2 Kgs. 23:7). The nature of that bond and the kind of service they rendered is
hard to ascertain. Perhaps they had dedicated their life to the deity. There is no
ground to think of them as cultic prostitutes (cf. e.g. Benzinger*, 356; K6nig*,
GAR, 220). The evil described in 1 Sam. 2:22 is all the more offensive if they
had made a vow of chastity. The mirrors likely were part of their outfit. What
they were used for is a matter of conjecture.486 Perhaps they were used in cultic
dances or processions. Probably, 38:8 is based on a similar occurrence as the
one described in Num 16-17. Objects used for idolatrous worship of YHWH
were consecrated to him (cf. Num. 17:3-5; Exod. 38:22 LXX, and see also
Exod. 32:2; 33:4f.).
30:19-21 In 30:19-21 instructions are given for the use of the basin. After the
dedication of the sanctuary, the stated ordinances are to be observed (cf. 40:31,
32). They remain unchangeably binding for all times (cf. 30:21). Aaron and his
sons are prototypes of the high priests and the priests after them.
ismi, Sam.Pent. (see also 40:31): y m i (cf. LXX); for sing, see e.g. 27:21
and 3:18. 1300 (LXX: e£ autoO), obviously: with water from it (so LXX
explicitly at the end of the verse: u6ati); see also TPsJ 30:19, 21: the water is
drawn from it with a bucket or scoop (K<?, 03) (cf. bZeb 22a). Wrong is the
interpretation ‘in it;’ so already Vulg.: in eo (cf. e.g. NV, WV, GNB, and see
Te Stroete). The basin is not for washing in it. The water in it has to stay pure.
"P, see Introd. §3.21.5. bsn, see 3:5.
Beside 30:20, 21 see 28:43. The order of the clauses in 30:20 is somewhat*4
4,5 De adoratione et cultu in spiritu et veritate IX; PG, 68, 629f.; cf. B8hr (see 4.2.1), 60If.
4“ Folk religion, superstition, held that mirrors possessed special powers, powers that brought
evil as well as powers that averted evil and brought blessings; see ERE, VIII, 695ff; HDA, IX
547ff
Volume III1
THE BASIN 573
defective (cf. KoSynt §375b). That order is not followed in the translation.
Dasberg, disregarding the masoretic punctuation, takes 30:21a as apodosis of
30:20b.487 See also WV, in which, moreover, 30:19a, 20a is taken as one
composite sentence; cf. Te Stroete, and see already Vulg.
Kia, see Introd. §3.8. Aaron and his sons enter the sanctuary for trimming
the lamps (27:21), bringing the perfume offering (30:7, 8), replacing the bread
(Lev. 24:8) and other priestly tasks (Lev. 4:5ff.; 16). O’m s n T , the verbal
form can be taken as an intransitive (‘to wash oneself) or, what is also
possible, the object (the hands and feet) is not stated. For D’D, accusative
specifying means, see KoSynt §§330m, 332u; Ges-K §117y note; Brockelmann
§90d. Proposed is the reading D’ laa (cf. 29:4) (e.g. Baentsch).
ni», see Introd. §3.32.; TPsJ: xanbao ttttfto, ‘through the burning fire;’ to
the extent that the cause of the death is contemplated, it is attributed to direct
intervention by God, referring to Lev. 10 (e.g. Schouten [see 4.2.1], 200).
According to rabbinic exegesis, neglect of the washings was one of the sins of
Nadab and Abihu (Ginzbeig*, III, 189). till, see 19:15. rtnaton is the altar of
burnt offering (see 4.9). me?, see 24:13. nop, see 29:13. see 29:18.
In 30:21a the verses 30:19, 21 are summed up. The need for clean hands and
feet in the exercise of the priestly activities is underscored.
In the LXX, in 30:21a as in 30:19, the means by which the washing is done
is stated: u8cm, ‘with water.’ The LXX, after 30:21a, repeats the rendering of
30:20a (D, 0...DK33). As a result, death is explicitly attributed to the entering of
the sanctuary in a state of impurity, it is not the consequence of ministering at
the altar while being unclean. In the Vulg. the lno’ ftbl of 30:20 is not trans
lated and the altar is regarded as the altar of perfume; this is evident from the
rendering at the end of 30:20: ut ojferant in eo thymiama Domino, ‘to offer
perfume on it to the Lord.’ Also in that case, death follows only upon entering
the sanctuary without first having purified oneself.
nnvn, implied subject is ‘the washing’ (nxm, see 30:18; cf. KoSynt §323f;
Ges-K § 122q). D b lirpn (see 3:15; 5:14; 12:14), Sam.Pent.: o b ll? n p n . 1*?, TNf:
Vinb, ‘for them.’ lin t1? (Introd. §10.1.4), TO, TPsJ: ‘for his sons;’ TNf:
p m a jv m T 1?, ‘for the descendants of their sons.’ o m ib (see 1:6), the suffix
refers to the preceding collective (KoSynt §346p; Ges-K §135p); LXX: xai
tau; yeveau; autou per’ autov; lin tb is not translated; p e t’ aut6v =
(see 28:43).
4,7 See already Sam.Pent.: is m ' (at the beginning of 30:21; cf. LXX) in place o f MT ism i.
Volume III1
574 EXODUS 30:22-33; 37:29
4.18 THE HOLY ANOINTING OIL (30:22-33; 37:29)
30:22 YHWH spoke to Moses say

ing:
23 ‘In person you shall do the
following: take aromatic substances
o f the finest quality, five hundred
(shekels of) kernels o f myrrh, half
as much, that is, two hundred fifty
o f fragrant cinnamon and two hun
dred fifty o f fragrant grass,
24 and further five hundred o f
cassia cinnamon, according to the
standard o f the sanctuary shekel,
and a hin o f olive oil
25 O f these you shall make holy 37:29a He made the holy anointing
anointing oil, a carefully prepared oil ...
blend, a first-class product o f the (it was a first-class product of the
perfumer Holy anoining oil it must perfumer).
be!
26 With it you shall anoint the Beside 30:26-30 see 40:9-15.
Tent o f Meeting and the shrine
with the constitution,
27 the table with all its imple
ments, the lampstand with its
implements and the altar o f per
fume,
28 the altar o f burnt offering
with its implements and the basin
with its stand.
29 So you shall consecrate them
and so they shall become most
holy, whoever touches them ought
to be holy.
30 Also Aaron along with his
sons you shall anoint. So you shall
consecrate them to minister as my
priests.
31 But this is what you shall im
press upon the Israelites: “This is
how my holy anointing oil shall be
prepared throughout the genera-
Volume III1
THE HOLY ANOINTING OIL 575
Horn.
32 It may not be rubbed on a
human body and you shall not
make anything else like it in com
position (for another purpose). It is
a holy substance and you shall re
spect its holiness.
33 Whoever copies this blend and
puts o f it on a lay person shall be
cut o ff from his people ’
Bibl.: in addition to the literature cited in Introd. §10.6.9-12, see Krauss**, I,

233fF.; A. Ohry, A. Levy, “Anointing With Oil - An Hygienic Procedure in
the Bible and in the Talmud,” Koroth 33, \fol. 9/1-2, 1985, 173-6 (Proceedings
of the Second International Symposium on Medicine in Bible and Talmud); F.
Steinmetzei; “Das heilige Salbdl des Alten Bundes,” B Z 1 (1909), 17-29.
Heavy emphasis falls on the holiness of the anointing oil (in 30:22-33 tfn'p is
used 8x; ttfnp as verb 3*). Composition and use are carefully detailed (30:23-
25, 31-33). Anointing oil of the prescribed composition, YHWH reserves for
himself. He has exclusive title to it. He insists that ‘his’ anointing oil be strictly
for cultic use and emphatically forbids its use for cosmetic purposes and for
sprinkling on those not authorized for his service (30:32, 33).
The composition of the anointing oil produces its unique fragrance. By
reserving the holy anointing oil for himself, YHWH claims that special fragrance
as his very own. The fragrance manifests his personality. Through anointing,
‘his’ fragrance is imparted to his dwelling and furniture (30:26-29) and to the
priests set apart for his service (30:30). So the dwelling and personnel become
bearers of ‘his’ fragrance, stamped by YHWH’s personality. The aromatic smell
they emit as a result is a tangible sign that they belong exclusively to YHWH.
Because YHWH’s aroma surrounds the priests, the smell of their being YHWH’s
representatives hangs in the air. Persons not so endowed with YHWH’s fra
grance cannot be his servants (cf. Num. 17:5). If they should go ahead and
perform priestly functions, they profane YHWH’s holiness, with fatal conse
quences to themselves (Num. 16; 2 Chr. 26:16ff.).
Because YHWH’s aroma permeates the dwelling and furniture, the very smell
signifies that it is YHWH’s house. Use of the anointing oil for other purposes
than consecration to YHWH must not be allowed, for it would erase the bounds
between the holy and the profane, between God and man (cf. Hos. 11:9), and it
would infringe on YHWH’s uniqueness and his exclusive claims on the sanctu
ary and those serving in it. For smells and their meaning see further 4.19.
30:22-24 For 30:22 see Introd. §3.12.1. nnNi, see 28:1. Is the meaning that
Volume III1
576 EXODUS 30:22-33; 37:29
Mowes himself must be responsible for the correct composition of the anoint
ing oil - something most important (cf. 30:31-33) - and can leave its actual
preparation to the perfumer? (cf. 30:25; 37:29). npb, see Introd. §3.30. "|b,
dativus commodi/ethicus (e.g. Ges-K § 119s; Joiion § 133d; Williams §272), not
translated in LXX (it is in 30:34).
For the in 30:23, 24 mentioned ingredients of the holy anointing oil see
Introd. §§10.6.4; 10.6.9-12; 10.2.3. For the figures on the weight, which is not
mentioned until 30:24 (cf. Ges-K §134n), see Introd. §§4.6.1-2; 4.12.1. The
weight is explicitly stated in the LXX (oikAou;), Vulg. (siclos), TPsJ ( 1’JD,
l’ffb’O), TNf (prbo), cf. also TO. BIO (see 6:14) here serves as description of
the superlative (cf. KOSynt §309g) and is apposition to O’Otoa (e.g. K 6Synt
§333s; Joiion §13 lc); not so A. Schulz, BZ 23 (1935), 50f. In the LXX it is (as
nomen regens) connected with the following T n T “lQ: to avOoq opupvT|c
CKA,eKxf|(;, and only the excellent quality of the myrrh is emphasized (cf. also
Vulg.). rrxno, see 30:13.
onpl in BHS is a typographical error; lees m pl; in LXX translated with
ipv;. bptf, see 21:32. pn, see 29:40; TO, TNf: ‘a full hin;’ TPsJ: KBOp ’bn, ‘a
full qista’ (KDOp = êotq? = Latin sextarius), with the marginal note that a
qista is twelve log, one log (NJlb) for every tribe.
The four (Introd. §4.5.1) ingredients of the anointing oil are to be mixed in a
ratio of 2:1:1:2. The fact that the four (fixed) components with a weight of
1,500 shekels (ca. 17 to 22 kg.) were to be mixed in one hin of olive oil (ca.
3,5-7,5 1) was already a problem to rabbinic exegetes.488 As there is no absolute
certainty about the nature of the ingredients and it is unknown how they were
prepared - were the fixed components given some kind of treatment before
they were stirred through the olive oil? - and there is no certainty either about
how they were used - spraying or rubbing?489 - there is no way of telling
whether the problem is genuine of imaginary.
30:25/37:29a Subject of 30:25 is Moses, of 37:29 Bezalel (cf. 37:1). inK

(30:25) refers to pel (end 30:24). enpvinBO ptf, see Introd. §10.2.3 en 28:41.
np-i, see Introd. §10.6.6. MT 37:29 = LXX 38:25.
30:26-28 For the objects to be anointed see 4.8; 4.5; 4.6; 4.7; 4.15.; 4.9; 4.17.
Successively are mentioned, the object in the Holy of Holies (30:26), the
objects in the Holy Place (30:27), the objects to be placed in the court (30:28).
For listings of parts of the sanctuary see also 4.3.2. For the command to anoint
4n See Rashi and the discussion of the questions and the solutions suggested by e.g. Keil;
Jacob*, Pent., 227f.; Cassuto; Noth.
489 According to Holzinger real salve is meant; according to Bflhl it was a kind of fragrant
Volume III1
THE HOLY ANOINTING OIL 577
the tent sanctuary and furniture see also 40:9-11. The implementation is not
described in Exodus (see Lev. 8:10f.; Num. 7:1).
The making of the anointing oil Moses can delegate to others (37:29). Not
that of the anointing of the sanctuary. Hence there is no counterpart of 30:26ff.
in ch. 37.
iTbSTiNl (30:27), some MSS, Sam.Pent.: rrb s b 3 ntti; cf. LXX. MT in
30:27,28 is marked by polysyndeton. In Sam.Pent. the enumeration is charcter-
ized by asyndeton. LXXA, for instance, has at the end of 30:26: ‘(the shrine)
with all its implements.’ The table and table setting are not mentioned in the
LXX until the end of 30:28, before the basin is mentioned. In LXXB, after the
lampstand in 30:27, (once again) ‘the Tent of the Testimony with all its
implements’ is mentioned. At the end of 30:28, LXXB lacks: ‘and its base.’ . In
the Vulg. the basin is not mentioned at all.
30:29 O't&np EHp, see Introd. §3.44.2; the objects (30:26-28) are most holy,
exclusively designated for the worship of YHWH (cf. 30:10). For 30:29b see
29:37b.
30:30 For 30:30 see 28:41; 40:12-15. The implementation is not described in
Exodus. See further 4.13. Priests are to be anointed with the holy anointing oil.
Also the king? (cf. 1 Kgs. 1:39). Jewish exegetes (e.g. Rashi, Nachmanides,
TzUR) believe such was the case. Also Steinmetzer (see Bibl.) defends that
view. According to Rashi, the mode of the anointing of the priest differed from
that of the king.
30:31-33 131, see Introd. §3.12.1. nettb, see Introd. §3.5.2. aAippa, ‘salve,’
in LXX (30:31) is likely a gloss (cf. 30:25) (Frankel*, 103). 'i , LXX: upiv =
03b (cf. LXX 30:37). n , see 1:6.
According to 30:31, 30:23-25 contains the etiology of the composition and
preparation of the anointing oil of the sanctuary, which was used, among other
things, for the consecration of the priests. Presumably, the preparation of it was
to be done by the priests (cf. 1 Chr. 9:30). The recipe for it was given by
YHWH himself to Moses and was binding throughout history (cf. 12:14, 17, 42;
27:21; 31:16 etc.). Cassuto, 400, has a different view: unlike the perfume, the
anointing oil was made only once. In rabbinic exegesis, 30:31 is interpreted as
a miracle: the oil of anointment remained preserved in its entirety for the time
to come (see Rashi).
1to3, see 4:17. DIN, see 4:11. ‘Human’ does not refer to the ordinary person,
the lay-person, in distinction from the priest (so e.g. Baentsch).490 This means
4,0 See already TNf: OIK is translated as B n a 12 (BVin = ISiuttk).

Volume III1
578 EXODUS 3 0 :3 4 -3 8 ; 3 7:29
that the meaning of DTK is equated with that of i t in 30:33. Meant is that the
anointing oil is not to be applied to the priestly skin either if done for cosmetic
purposes. In sum, the anointing oil is to be used strictly for the consecration -
in priestly clothing! (cf. 29:7, 21, 27) - and not for profane purposes.
19 V is a form of 110 (OT 10x) which denotes profane ‘anointing’ (Ezek.
16:9; Ruth 3:3 etc.). Moot is whether 10’1 is to be taken as an imperf. hoph.
(cf. Sam.Pent.: i o r ; is MT based on scribal error?; so KdHkL, I, 436; De-
litzsch*, 50) or as a imperf. passive qal (cf. Ges-K §73f.); nooriD (see 5:8),
preceded by a-normae (e.g. KoSynt §332r; Williams §252). Sam.Pent.: iruanai
(cf. Ezek. 28:12; 43:10), in 30:27 however like MT. ifccn, LXX: TtoiqOfjoetai
+ upiv eautou;, the anointing oil may not be used for private purposes (cf.
30:37). Second enp, Sam.Pent.: enpi; enp, scil. nin1*? (cf. 28:36 and see
30:37).
The holy anointing oil, the anointing oil prepared in accordance with the
recipe given by YHWH, may be used for no other purpose than the one indi
cated by YHWH. Its unique type and blend must not be tampered with.
np“T is translated in the LXX with noifjoT) = (cf. 30:38). 103 (Introd.
§3.36) + is translated in LXX, Vulg. with ‘to give to;’ however, is to
be taken in the same sense as at the beginning of 30:32. or, see 2:22; the
reference is to someone not authorized to function as a priest (so explicitly
TPsJ: someone who does not belong to the sons of Aaron), m a niph., see
4:25. 0» plur. (Introd. §3.40.2), LXX: sing. (cf. TO, TPsJ, TNf.).
Anyone who contrary to YHWH’s ordinance nevertheless goes ahead and
makes the anointing oil and puts it to profane use, thereby erases the boundary
between the holy and the profane, the divine and the human, and upsets the
order and balance of the world. Misuse of what is holy is therefore punished
by the supreme punishment.
4.19 THE HOLY PERFUME (30:34-38; 37:29)
30:34 YHWH said to Mozes: ‘Take

fragrant substances: styrax, rock
rose resin, ferula resin, in other
words fragrant substances, and
further pure incense, an equal part
o f each.
35 o f these you shall make per 37:29b (He made ...) and the pure,
fume, a blend, a first-class product blended perfume; it was a first-
o f the perfumer, pure, holy aro class product of the perfumer.
matic substance.
36 Part o f it you shall make as
Volume III1
THE HOLY PERFUME 579
fine as powder, indeed part o f it

you shall place in front o f (the
shrine with) the constitution in the
Tent o f Meeting, where I will meet
with you. You (plur.) shall consider
it most holy
37 Perfume o f the same com-
position as that you (sing.) have to
make, you (plur) shall not make fo r
yourselves. You (sing.) shall res
pect it as something that is holy to
YHWH.
38 Whoever copies it to enjoy its
fragrance, shall be cut o ff from his
people. '
4.19.1. Introduction
Bibl.: Additional to the literature cited in §10.6.13-16, see the in 4.15 cited
works and BOcher*, 193ff.; P.A.H. de Boer, “An Aspect of Sacrifice,” SVT 23
(1972), 27-47; Y. Feliks, “The Incense of the Tabernacle,” in D.P. Wright et
al. (eds.), Pomegranates and Golden Bells (Fs J. Milgrom), Winona Lake
1995, 125-49; Forbes*, III, Iff.; Krauss**, I, 237f. J. Milgrom, “The Priestly
Law of Sancta Contamination,” in M. Fishbane, E. Tov (eds.), “Sha'arei
Talmonr Winona Lake 1992, 137-46.
By way of introduction, some general comments about smells, emissions and
vapours and their impact on humans.
We live in a world in which all sorts of smells, such as the stench of
cadavers, feces and sweat, are banned. In our modem world, among the senses
the olfactory sense is less important than the eyes and the ears.491 The OT,
however, is from a culture in which the sense of smell was of equal impor
tance. It is mentioned in conjunction with the eyes and the ears.492 The nose is
very important as a means of orientation in a particular environment. A stench
in the air points to the presence of sickness, decay, decomposition and death
(Exod. 7:18, 21; 8:10; 16:20, 24; Isa. 19:6; 34:3; 50:2; Joel 2:20; Amos 4:10;
Ps. 38:6; Pred. 10:1). The wafting of pleasant scents enriches life, enhances it,
491 See in this connection the study of A. Corbin, Le miasme et la jonquille: L ’odorat et
Vimaginaire social, xviif-xbf siecles, Paris 1982.
492 E.g. in Deut. 4:28; Ps. 115:5f. in a polemic against idols; worthy of note, too, is that yhwh
- the image is highly anthropomorphic - delights in smelling the odour of a sacrifice ov?;
Gen. 8:21; Exod. 29:18 etc.; see 29:18; cf. 1 Sam. 26:19 and see also Lev. 26:31; Amos 5:21).
Volume III1
580 EXODUS 3 0 :3 4 -3 8 ; 3 7:29
and betokens health and vitality.493

Every human to some degree possesses a smell which is uniquely his or hers.
It is a kind of scent signature, heralding our presence (cf. Gen. 27:27). By our
smell we impact others. It makes our presence known to others and makes
them recognize us. It tells who we are and how we are .494 Smells get into
clothes as well (Gen. 27:27; Cant. 4:11). Hence ritual washing includes the
washing or taking off of the clothing (e.g. 19:11; Zech. 3:3, 4 [\fol. II, 449f.,
453]). Bodily uncleanness gets into a person’s clothes.
Several data in the OT make it evident that through touch uncleanness is
passed on from person to person and from a person to objects (e.g. Lev. 15),
and also from objects to a person (e.g. Lev. 14:36, 46f.). Bodily contact or
touching of clothing can also bring about transmission of life-giving power.
For example, when one touches a man of God.495 The putting on of official
dress can accomplish the transfer of divine charisma (e.g. Num. 20:26,28;
2 Kgs. 2:13f.; see further 4.12.1).
For transfer to take place, the contact need not be direct. For example,
through saliva uncleanness can be passed on from one person to another (Lev.
15:8), but if the saliva is from a person who possesses divine power it can
bring healing (Mark 7:32ff.; 8:23ff.; John 9:6).4%
Not just concrete, tangible emanation is medium of transmission. It can also
happen through the look of the eye. The look of the eyes can produce unholi
ness (Num. 4:20; 1 Sam. 6:19; cf. Mark 7:22), but also, e.g., bring healing
(Acts 3:4; cf. 14:9). Even the shadow of a man of God was deemed to have a
healing effect.497
The capacity to effect transmission was also attributed to breath. The breath
of God can impart life-giving power (Gen. 2:7; Ezek. 37:9; Ps. 33:6; Job 30:4;
John 20:22), but it can also be the source of decay.498 The capacity to bring
about transmission was, it appears, also contributed to human breath. Job’s*36
4.3 E.g. Hos. 14:7; Cant. 4:11; note the prominence of fragrant substances in the Song of
Songs; in Sir. 24:15, in an account of the splendour of wisdom, (elements from) Exod. 30:23, 34,
36 are combined and applied to Wisdom; see G.T. Sheppard, Wisdom as a Hermeneutical
Construct, Berlin/New York 1980, 57f.
4.4 E.g. Jer. 48:11; Hos. 14:7; Cant. 7:8; cf. also the metaphorical use of 0X3 hiph., ‘to make
stinking,’ in 5:21 etc. (\bl. I, 48If.).
4.5 E.g. 1 Kgs. 17:21ff.; 2 Kgs. 4:33ff.; Mark l:31par., 41par.; 3:10; 5:25ff.par„ 41ff.par.;
Luke 6:56; 7:1 Iff.; Acts 20:10ff.; cf. Acts 19:llf.; even touching the bones of a man of God
creates life (2 Kgs. 13:21).
m For saliva as means of transference see e.g. HDA, VIII, 149ff.
4,7 See Acts 5:15; cf. e.g. Pss. 91:1; 121:5; Cant. 2:3; Lam. 4:20; Luke 1:35; 9:34; see next to
it the shadow of death in Matt. 4:16; Luke 1:79; cf. e.g. Isa. 30:2, 3; Luke 1:35; 9:34.
4,4 See Hag. 1:9; underlying Isa. 11:4, 15; 30:28, 33; 33:11; 40:24; Job 4:9; 15:30; 2 Thess.
2:8, it would seem, is the idea of breath as medium of destructive power (cf. Rev. 1:16).
Volume III1
THE HOLY PERFUME 581
breath, when he was sick, had a foul smell to it, which was repulsive even to
close members of his family (Job 19:17). They apparently feared being infected
by it. On the other hand, the sweet scent of the breath of the maiden was
enchanting to her lover, creating in him the desire to press his lips against hers
(Cant. 7:8).4" There is a close tie between breath and breather Through one’s
breath one moves outside oneself. The sick person as it were breathes sickness.
On the other hand, the very breath of someone who is in excellent health and
cheerful as it were creates an ambiance of health and cheerfulness.
In the light of the above observations, it is not strange that to the Israelite
smells were not just pleasant or foul, but also carriers of either life or death.*
500
To the Israelite, stench polluted the atmosphere. See e.g. Exod. 7:18, 21; 8:10:
in the first and second plague it was not just first the water and then the land
that became unclean, also the entire atmosphere became polluted; uncleanness
took over, capturing and strangling those trapped in it. Humans are in constant
peril of being infected by the foul air around them. For example, folk who
reside in a home where there is leprosy. The atmosphere itself has become
foul. The ‘fumes’ emitted by ‘sick’ spots gets into their clothing, rendering the
wearers unclean (Lev. 14:46f.). A thorough cleaning is required. One can
protect oneself against the evil air by cleansing the atmosphere with pleasant,
purifying smells that act as an antidote.501 Possibly, the wearing of a nose-ring
(Gen. 24:22, 30, 47 etc.) as amulet (see exegesis 32:2, 3) can accomplish the
same.
Also human smells can defile the atmosphere. Think of the smells of semen
and menstrual blood, of body scents that are sexually arousing, and of the
smells of perspiration. Such odours fill the deity with loathing (cf. \hn der
Toom*, 3If.). They are to be kept far away from the deity. Ritual purification
likely included the washing of the clothes, not first of all because they were
dirty, but because they had picked up smells and become smelly. Washing of
the clothes (19:10) removed sensually arousing scents (cf. 19:15). Clothing
used in the cult had to be made of materials that caused the least amount of
sweat (cf. Ezek. 44:18 and see 4.12.1). The smells just mentioned are carriers
of uncleanness and hamper the encounter with the deity, who is enveloped in
holiness. Absent purification, the encounter with God would result in a clash
4MThe concept of breath as being the bearer of creative and saving power and as medium of a
power bringing doom and death is also known from elsewhere; see e.g. HDA, I, 647, 1354f., and
\bl. II, 206 (breath defiling the Passover meal).
500 Cf. 1 Henoch 25:6; 2 Cor. 2:14ff.; see also 2 Cor. 1:21 (Paul owes his aroma to the
anointing).
501 Cf. Num. 17:llff.; for the properties of sweet-smelling substances see Introd. §10.6.8;
Nielsen (see 4.15.1), 89ff. etc.; for the smoke, formed by the burning of certain organs, as
protection against a threatening power see Tob. 6:7f., I6fi; 8:2f.
Volume III1
582 EXODUS 3 0 :3 4 -3 8 ; 3 7:29
between two atmospheres, the impure and the pure. That is why one must pay
constant heed to the laws of purification, lest the entire atmosphere become
infected with impurity, even taking over the sanctuary. If that should happen,
the whole world would be ruled by impurity and the world would be in the
grip of death (Lev. 15:31). Then no place is left for YHWH where he can live
(cf. Ezek. 10:18ff.).
4.19.2. The holy perfume
Like the anointing oil (see 4.18), the perfume must be holy (4 * in 30:35-
37) and be used exclusively in the cult of YHWH. Composition and use are
carefully described. Perfume of the prescribed composition YHWH reserves for
himself. He demands that ‘his’ perfume not be used for personal purposes
(30:37, 38).
The composition of the perfume is responsible for its unique fragrance. By
saving the blend of the holy perfume for himself, YHWH reserves for himself
its special fragrance and makes it the manifestation of his personality. Through
the daily offerings of perfume (30:7, 8), the smell of YHWH’s personal perfume
permeates the sanctuary. It determines the atmosphere and marks the sanctuary
as YHWH’s private domain.
Human use of YHWH’s perfume (30:37, 38) must be ruled out, because it
would erase the bounds between the holy and the profane, between God and
man (cf. Hos. 11:9). Use of perfume of another blend than the one prescribed,
for the worship of YHWH is not allowed (30:9). For it would do harm to
YHWH’s personal environment. Scent and personality are closely linked (see
4.19.1). If another scent than that of YHWH should permeate the sanctuary it
would lose its distinctiveness as YHWH’s private domain. The presence of
strange scents is akin to expropriation of the sanctuary (cf. Ezek. 8:11) and
must be prevented (cf. Lev. 10).
Furthermore, the distinctive perfume fits the royal character of YHWH’s dwel
ling. In the homes of the wealthy perfume was burned to create a pleasant
atmosphere.502 The purity of the materials used and the exquisite character of
the scent no doubt were indicative of the status of the resident. In the same
way also the perfume of the tent shrine can be called a status symbol. It is
completely pure. There is a distinctive scent to it. It is unique. The require
ments for its quality measure up to YHWH’s position as the Holy One, the only
and unique God, who is without equal (cf. 15:11; see \bl. I, 92f.).
502 For the place of aromatic substances in daily life see Introd. §10.6.8; for use in the
preparation of the dead see 2 Chr. 16:14; Mark 16:1; Luke 23:56; 24:1. Does the ending of 2 Chr.
16:14 relate to the burning of perfume? (cf. Jer. 34:5; 2 Chr. 21:19); was it done in honour of the
departed? Cf. Wfellhausen*, Reste, 177f.; Krauss**, I, 237; II, 60

(Historical Commentary On The Old Testament.) Houtman, C. - Exodus-Kok (1993)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

(Historical Commentary On The Old Testament.) Houtman, C. - Exodus-Kok (1993)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

(Historical Commentary On The Old Testament.) Houtman, C. - Exodus-Kok (1993)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

HISTORICAL COMMENTARY

ON THE OLD TESTAMENT

ON THE OLD TESTAMENT

KOK PUBLISHING HOUSE - KAMPEN

Cataloging-in-Publication Data Royal Library, The Hague

Exodus - Vol. 1 (Historical Commentary

® 1993 Kok Publishing House, Kampen

Essentials and perspectives............................................................................... 220

Essentials and perspectives............................................................................. 266

Essentials and perspectives................................................................................292

Essentials and perspectives................................................................................322

The third sign (4:8,9) ....................................................................................402

Essentials and perspectives............................................................................... 423

Essentials and perspectives............................................................................... 455

Essentials and perspectives............................................................................... 485

The second confrontation with Pharaoh (7:10-13) ................................... 532

APPENDIX: HISTORICAL COMMENTARY ON THE O T .................... 541

The present volume is a translation of volume I of my commentary on Exodus,

Kampen, September 1993 C. Houtman

The following list includes:

Aq. Aquilla; zie Field

BRL Biblisches Reallexikon, Hg. v .K. Galling, Tubingen 19772

Automatic Text Processing,, Amsterdam/Tumhout 1983

2 ET: Exodus, Grand Rapids 1982.

GreBmann, H. Der Messias, Gottingen 1929

* ET: The Symbolism o f the Biblical World, New York 1978.

vertendo usi sunt A. Kuenen, I. Hooykaas, W.H. Kosters, H.Oort,

5 ET: Exodus (OTL), Philadelphia 1962.

Palache, J.L. Semantic Notes on the Hebrew Lexicon, Leiden 1959

Madrid/Barcelona 1968-78; French transl. and notes in R. Le

Weimar-Zenger P. Weimar, E. Zenger, Exodus: Geschichten und Geschichte,

12 ET: Prolegomena to the History o f Israel, Edinburgh 1885.

§ 2 The book of Exodus: text; translation; divisions

4 For the above, see Houtman, InLPent., 243ff.

the author is devote space in a subsequent volume for a consideration of the

Buber-Rozenzweig translation, have been regularly consulted in connection

§ 3 Explanation of several terms used in the book of Exodus

13 Cf. Brockelmann § 145bT); Meyer § 121.3b; Williams § 360.

15 A.D. Crown, VT 24 (1974), 110ff.; B. Couroyer, RB 89 (1982), 48ff.

58 Cf. Ges-K § 116p, q; Joiion § 119n; Meyer § 104.2f.

der Menschheit, Freiburg 1988; Schwarzenbach, 6ff.; N.M. Waldman, JQR 71

convincing the Egyptians of y h w h ’s superiority (7:5,17; 8:6; 9:14,16,29; 10:1;

Leibowitz, 149ff. (including an outline of discussion within the Jewish

15:9,17; 19:13 (cf. Johnson, 50ff.).

28,29,31,33]. It is uncertain what the original action was that is concealed by

89 In the Book of the Covenant, '3 , in distinction to OK (§ 3.4.1), introduces universal

expression per merismum referring to what is most precious (e.g.

92 Cf. KraSovec, 97,113f.

96 See the literature referred to at §8.21 and at 10:19.

(14:11,12), wounds caused by an animal (21:28), encounter with God (20:19),

(uh); 2 Kgs. 4:18,26,34 (iV) alongside of 4:29,30,31,32,35 (u>:), making it

question deserving some consideration. Such an interpretation is impossible in

105 Cf. KoSynt § 414g; Ges-K 5 157b n l.

reduced to slavery or family property which has been mortgaged): y h w h

□may in 32:13 (cf. Deut. 9:27) as a title of honour.111

them) in distinction to certain leading figures; it is thus used with respect to

Meaning of lipni y h w h in the Old Testament,’ ZAW 99 (1987), 384-90;

commandement dans le Pentateuque des LXX et dans le Nouveau Tes­

commandement dans le Pentateuque des LXX et dans le Nouveau Tes

‘Father (=God) is exalted’] only occurs in Exodus—Deuteronomy in connec

Roman Paganism, Nashville/New York 1972; Ginzberg (see Bibl.); J. MacDo

8.11 012 (OT 39 x) ‘Jebusite(s),’ pre- and non-Israelite inhabitants of

Jebel Halal, 40 km west of Kadesh, among other possibilities. Various ar

1958 (+ illustrations); M. de Waal, Medicijn en drogerij in den Bijbel, Amster