Exodus 5:21

5:21 and they said to them, “May the Lord look on you and judge, ¹  because you have made us stink ²  in the opinion of ³  Pharaoh and his servants, ⁴  so that you have given them an excuse to kill us!” ⁵ 

Exodus 5:1

Opposition to the Plan of God

5:1 ⁶ Afterward Moses and Aaron went to Pharaoh and said, “Thus says the Lord, ⁷  the God of Israel, ‘Release ⁸  my people so that they may hold a pilgrim feast ⁹  to me in the desert.’”

Exodus 13:4

13:4 On this day, ¹⁰  in the month of Abib, ¹¹  you are going out. ¹² 

Exodus 27:12

27:12 The width of the court on the west side is to be seventy-five feet with hangings, with their ten posts and their ten bases.

Exodus 27:1

The Altar

27:1 “You are to make the ¹³  altar of acacia wood, seven feet six inches long, ¹⁴  and seven feet six inches wide; the altar is to be square, ¹⁵  and its height is to be ¹⁶  four feet six inches.

Exodus 19:6

19:6 and you will be to me ¹⁷  a kingdom of priests ¹⁸  and a holy nation.’ ¹⁹  These are the words that you will speak to the Israelites.”

[5:21]  ¹ tn The foremen vented their anger on Moses and Aaron. The two jussives express their desire that the evil these two have caused be dealt with. “May Yahweh look on you and may he judge” could mean only that God should decide if Moses and Aaron are at fault, but given the rest of the comments it is clear the foremen want more. The second jussive could be subordinated to the first – “so that he may judge [you].”

[5:21]  ² tn Heb “you have made our aroma stink.”

[5:21]  ³ tn Heb “in the eyes of.”

[5:21]  ⁴ tn Heb “in the eyes of his servants.” This phrase is not repeated in the translation for stylistic reasons.

[5:21]  ⁵ tn Heb “to put a sword in their hand to kill us.” The infinitive construct with the lamed (לָתֶת, latet) signifies the result (“so that”) of making the people stink. Their reputation is now so bad that Pharaoh might gladly put them to death. The next infinitive could also be understood as expressing result: “put a sword in their hand so that they can kill us.”

[5:1]  ⁶ sn The enthusiasm of the worshipers in the preceding chapter turns sour in this one when Pharaoh refuses to cooperate. The point is clear that when the people of God attempt to devote their full service and allegiance to God, they encounter opposition from the world. Rather than finding instant blessing and peace, they find conflict. This is the theme that will continue through the plague narratives. But what makes chapter 5 especially interesting is how the people reacted to this opposition. The chapter has three sections: first, the confrontation between Moses and Pharaoh (vv. 1-5); then the report of the stern opposition of the king (vv. 6-14); and finally, the sad account of the effect of this opposition on the people (vv. 15-21).

[5:1]  ⁷ tn Heb “Yahweh.”

[5:1]  ⁸ tn The form שַׁלַּח (shallakh), the Piel imperative, has been traditionally translated “let [my people] go.” The Qal would be “send”; so the Piel “send away, release, dismiss, discharge.” B. Jacob observes, “If a person was dismissed through the use of this verb, then he ceased to be within the power or sphere of influence of the individual who had dismissed him. He was completely free and subsequently acted entirely on his own responsibility” (Exodus, 115).

[5:1]  ⁹ tn The verb חָגַג (khagag) means to hold a feast or to go on a pilgrim feast. The Arabic cognate of the noun form is haj, best known for the pilgrim flight of Mohammed, the hajira. The form in the text (וְיָחֹגּוּ, vÿyakhoggu) is subordinated to the imperative and thus shows the purpose of the imperative.

[13:4]  ¹⁰ tn The word הַיּוֹם (hayyom) means literally “the day, today, this day.” In this sentence it functions as an adverbial accusative explaining when the event took place.

[13:4]  ¹¹ sn Abib appears to be an old name for the month, meaning something like “[month of] fresh young ears” (Lev 2:14 [Heb]) (S. R. Driver, Exodus, 106). B. Jacob (Exodus, 364) explains that these names were not precise designations, but general seasons based on the lunar year in the agricultural setting.

[13:4]  ¹² tn The form is the active participle, functioning verbally.

[27:1]  ¹³ tn The article on this word identifies this as the altar, meaning the main high altar on which the sacrifices would be made.

[27:1]  ¹⁴ tn The dimensions are five cubits by five cubits by three cubits high.

[27:1]  ¹⁵ tn Heb “four”; this refers to four sides. S. R. Driver says this is an archaism that means there were four equal sides (Exodus, 291).

[27:1]  ¹⁶ tn Heb “and three cubits its height.”

[19:6]  ¹⁷ tn Or “for me” (NIV, NRSV), or, if the lamed (ל) preposition has a possessive use, “my kingdom” (so NCV).

[19:6]  ¹⁸ tn The construction “a kingdom of priests” means that the kingdom is made up of priests. W. C. Kaiser (“Exodus,” EBC 2:417) offers four possible renderings of the expression: 1) apposition, viz., “kings, that is, priests; 2) as a construct with a genitive of specification, “royal priesthood”; 3) as a construct with the genitive being the attribute, “priestly kingdom”; and 4) reading with an unexpressed “and” – “kings and priests.” He takes the latter view that they were to be kings and priests. (Other references are R. B. Y. Scott, “A Kingdom of Priests (Exodus xix. 6),” OTS 8 [1950]: 213-19; William L. Moran, “A Kingdom of Priests,” The Bible in Current Catholic Thought, 7-20). However, due to the parallelism of the next description which uses an adjective, this is probably a construct relationship. This kingdom of God will be composed of a priestly people. All the Israelites would be living wholly in God’s service and enjoying the right of access to him. And, as priests, they would have the duty of representing God to the nations, following what they perceived to be the duties of priests – proclaiming God’s word, interceding for people, and making provision for people to find God through atonement (see Deut 33:9,10).

[19:6]  ¹⁹ tn They are also to be “a holy nation.” They are to be a nation separate and distinct from the rest of the nations. Here is another aspect of their duty. It was one thing to be God’s special possession, but to be that they had to be priestly and holy. The duties of the covenant will specify what it would mean to be a holy nation. In short, they had to keep themselves free from everything that characterized pagan people (S. R. Driver, Exodus, 171). So it is a bilateral covenant: they received special privileges but they must provide special services by the special discipline. See also H. Kruse, “Exodus 19:5 and the Mission of Israel,” North East Asian Journal of Theology 24/25 (1980): 239-42.