Exodus 1:8-22

1:8 Then a new king, ¹  who did not know about ²  Joseph, came to power ³  over Egypt. 1:9 He said ⁴  to his people, “Look at ⁵  the Israelite people, more numerous and stronger than we are! 1:10 Come, let’s deal wisely ⁶  with them. Otherwise ⁷  they will continue to multiply, ⁸  and if ⁹  a war breaks out, they will ally themselves with ¹⁰  our enemies and fight against us and leave ¹¹  the country.”

1:11 So they put foremen ¹²  over the Israelites ¹³  to oppress ¹⁴  them with hard labor. As a result ¹⁵  they built Pithom and Rameses ¹⁶  as store cities for Pharaoh. 1:12 But the more the Egyptians ¹⁷  oppressed them, the more they multiplied and spread. ¹⁸  As a result the Egyptians loathed ¹⁹  the Israelites, 1:13 and they ²⁰  made the Israelites serve rigorously. ²¹  1:14 They made their lives bitter ²²  by ²³  hard service with mortar and bricks and by all kinds of service ²⁴  in the fields. Every kind of service the Israelites were required to give was rigorous. ²⁵ 

1:15 The king of Egypt said ²⁶  to the Hebrew midwives, ²⁷  one of whom was named Shiphrah and the other Puah, ²⁸  1:16 ²⁹  “When you assist ³⁰  the Hebrew women in childbirth, observe at the delivery: ³¹  If it is a son, kill him, ³²  but if it is a daughter, she may live.” ³³  1:17 But ³⁴  the midwives feared God and did not do what the king of Egypt had told them; they let the boys live. ³⁵ 

1:18 Then the king of Egypt summoned ³⁶  the midwives and said to them, “Why have you done this and let the boys live?” ³⁷  1:19 The midwives said to Pharaoh, “Because the Hebrew ³⁸  women are not like the Egyptian women – for the Hebrew women ³⁹  are vigorous; they give birth before the midwife gets to them!” ⁴⁰  1:20 So God treated the midwives well, ⁴¹  and the people multiplied and became very strong. 1:21 And because the midwives feared God, he made ⁴²  households ⁴³  for them.

1:22 Then Pharaoh commanded all his people, “All sons ⁴⁴  that are born you must throw ⁴⁵  into the river, but all daughters you may let live.” ⁴⁶ 

[1:8]  ¹ sn It would be difficult to identify who this “new king” might be, since the chronology of ancient Israel and Egypt is continually debated. Scholars who take the numbers in the Bible more or less at face value would place the time of Jacob’s going down to Egypt in about 1876 b.c. This would put Joseph’s experience in the period prior to the Hyksos control of Egypt (1720-1570’s), and everything in the narrative about Joseph points to a native Egyptian setting and not a Hyksos one. Joseph’s death, then, would have been around 1806 b.c., just a few years prior to the end of the 12th Dynasty of Egypt. This marked the end of the mighty Middle Kingdom of Egypt. The relationship between the Hyksos (also Semites) and the Israelites may have been amicable, and the Hyksos then might very well be the enemies that the Egyptians feared in Exodus 1:10. It makes good sense to see the new king who did not know Joseph as either the founder (Amosis, 1570-1546) or an early king of the powerful 18th Dynasty (like Thutmose I). Egypt under this new leadership drove out the Hyksos and reestablished Egyptian sovereignty. The new rulers certainly would have been concerned about an increasing Semite population in their territory (see E. H. Merrill, Kingdom of Priests, 49-55).

[1:8]  ² tn The relative clause comes last in the verse in Hebrew. It simply clarifies that the new king had no knowledge about Joseph. It also introduces a major theme in the early portion of Exodus, as a later Pharaoh will claim not to know who Yahweh is. The Lord, however, will work to make sure that Pharaoh and all Egypt will know that he is the true God.

[1:8]  ³ tn Heb “arose.”

[1:9]  ⁴ tn Heb “and he said.”

[1:9]  ⁵ tn The particle הִנֵּה (hinneh) introduces the foundational clause for the exhortation to follow by drawing the listeners’ attention to the Israelites. In other words, the exhortation that follows is based on this observation. The connection could be rendered “since, because,” or the like.

[1:10]  ⁶ tn The verb is the Hitpael cohortative of חָכַם (khakam, “to be wise”). This verb has the idea of acting shrewdly, dealing wisely. The basic idea in the word group is that of skill. So a skillful decision is required to prevent the Israelites from multiplying any more.

[1:10]  ⁷ tn The word פֶּן (pen) expresses fear or precaution and can also be translated “lest” or “else” (R. J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax, 75-76, §461).

[1:10]  ⁸ tn The verb can be translated simply “will multiply,” but since Pharaoh has already indicated that he is aware they were doing that, the nuance here must mean to multiply all the more, or to continue to multiply. Cf. NIV “will become even more numerous.”

[1:10]  ⁹ tn The words וְהָיָה כִּי (vÿhayah ki) introduce a conditional clause – “if” (see GKC 335 §112.y).

[1:10]  ¹⁰ tn Heb “and [lest] he [Israel] also be joined to.”

[1:10]  ¹¹ tn Heb “and go up from.” All the verbs coming after the particle פֶּן (pen, “otherwise, lest” in v. 10) have the same force and are therefore parallel. These are the fears of the Egyptians. This explains why a shrewd policy of population control was required. They wanted to keep Israel enslaved; they did not want them to become too numerous and escape.

[1:11]  ¹² tn Heb “princes of work.” The word שָׂרֵי (sare, “princes”) has been translated using words such as “ruler,” “prince,” “leader,” “official,” “chief,” “commander,” and “captain” in different contexts. It appears again in 2:14 and 18:21 and 25. Hebrew מַס (mas) refers to a labor gang organized to provide unpaid labor, or corvée (Deut 20:11; Josh 17:13; 1 Kgs 9:15, 21). The entire phrase has been translated “foremen,” which combines the idea of oversight and labor. Cf. KJV, NAB, NASB, NRSV “taskmasters”; NIV “slave masters”; NLT “slave drivers.”

[1:11]  ¹³ tn Heb “over them”; the referent (the Israelites) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[1:11]  ¹⁴ sn The verb עַנֹּתוֹ (’annoto) is the Piel infinitive construct from עָנָה (’anah, “to oppress”). The word has a wide range of meanings. Here it would include physical abuse, forced subjugation, and humiliation. This king was trying to crush the spirit of Israel by increasing their slave labor. Other terms in the passage that describe this intent include “bitter” and “crushing.”

[1:11]  ¹⁵ tn The form is a preterite with the vav (ו) consecutive, וַיִּבֶן (vayyiven). The sequence expressed in this context includes the idea of result.

[1:11]  ¹⁶ sn Many scholars assume that because this city was named Rameses, the Pharaoh had to be Rameses II, and hence that a late date for the exodus (and a late time for the sojourn in Egypt) is proved. But if the details of the context are taken as seriously as the mention of this name, this cannot be the case. If one grants for the sake of discussion that Rameses II was on the throne and oppressing Israel, it is necessary to note that Moses is not born yet. It would take about twenty or more years to build the city, then eighty more years before Moses appears before Pharaoh (Rameses), and then a couple of years for the plagues – this man would have been Pharaoh for over a hundred years. That is clearly not the case for the historical Rameses II. But even more determining is the fact that whoever the Pharaoh was for whom the Israelites built the treasure cities, he died before Moses began the plagues. The Bible says that when Moses grew up and killed the Egyptian, he fled from Pharaoh (whoever that was) and remained in exile until he heard that that Pharaoh had died. So this verse cannot be used for a date of the exodus in the days of Rameses, unless many other details in the chapters are ignored. If it is argued that Rameses was the Pharaoh of the oppression, then his successor would have been the Pharaoh of the exodus. Rameses reigned from 1304 b.c. until 1236 and then was succeeded by Merneptah. That would put the exodus far too late in time, for the Merneptah stela refers to Israel as a settled nation in their land. One would have to say that the name Rameses in this chapter may either refer to an earlier king, or, more likely, reflect an updating in the narrative to name the city according to its later name (it was called something else when they built it, but later Rameses finished it and named it after himself [see B. Jacob, Exodus, 14]). For further discussion see G. L. Archer, “An 18th Dynasty Ramses,” JETS 17 (1974): 49-50; and C. F. Aling, “The Biblical City of Ramses,” JETS 25 (1982): 129-37. Furthermore, for vv. 11-14, see K. A. Kitchen, “From the Brick Fields of Egypt,” TynBul 27 (1976): 137-47.

[1:12]  ¹⁷ tn Heb “they”; the referent (the Egyptians) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[1:12]  ¹⁸ tn The imperfect tenses in this verse are customary uses, expressing continual action in past time (see GKC 315 §107.e). For other examples of כַּאֲשֶׁר (ka’asher) with כֵּן (ken) expressing a comparison (“just as…so”) see Gen 41:13; Judg 1:7; Isa 31:4.

[1:12]  ¹⁹ tn Heb “they felt a loathing before/because of”; the referent (the Egyptians) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[1:13]  ²⁰ tn Heb “the Egyptians.” For stylistic reasons this has been replaced by the pronoun “they” in the translation.

[1:13]  ²¹ tn Heb “with rigor, oppression.”

[1:14]  ²² sn The verb מָרַר (marar) anticipates the introduction of the theme of bitterness in the instructions for the Passover.

[1:14]  ²³ tn The preposition bet (ב) in this verse has the instrumental use: “by means of” (see GKC 380 §119.o).

[1:14]  ²⁴ tn Heb “and in all service.”

[1:14]  ²⁵ tn The line could be more literally translated, “All their service in which they served them [was] with rigor.” This takes the referent of בָּהֶם (bahem) to be the Egyptians. The pronoun may also resume the reference to the kinds of service and so not be needed in English: “All their service in which they served [was] with rigor.”

[1:15]  ²⁶ tn Heb “and the king of Egypt said.”

[1:15]  ²⁷ sn The word for “midwife” is simply the Piel participle of the verb יָלַד (yalad, “to give birth”). So these were women who assisted in the childbirth process. It seems probable that given the number of the Israelites in the passage, these two women could not have been the only Hebrew midwives, but they may have been over the midwives (Rashi). Moreover, the LXX and Vulgate do not take “Hebrew” as an adjective, but as a genitive after the construct, yielding “midwives of/over the Hebrews.” This leaves open the possibility that these women were not Hebrews. This would solve the question of how the king ever expected Hebrew midwives to kill Hebrew children. And yet, the two women have Hebrew names.

[1:15]  ²⁸ tn Heb “who the name of the first [was] Shiphrah, and the name of the second [was] Puah.”

[1:16]  ²⁹ tn The verse starts with the verb that began the last verse; to read it again seems redundant. Some versions render it “spoke” in v. 15 and “said” in v. 16. In effect, Pharaoh has been delayed from speaking while the midwives are named.

[1:16]  ³⁰ tn The form is the Piel infinitive construct serving in an adverbial clause of time. This clause lays the foundation for the next verb, the Qal perfect with a vav consecutive: “when you assist…then you will observe.” The latter carries an instructional nuance (= the imperfect of instruction), “you are to observe.”

[1:16]  ³¹ tn Heb “at the birthstool” (cf. ASV, NASB, NRSV), but since this particular item is not especially well known today, the present translation simply states “at the delivery.” Cf. NIV “delivery stool.”

[1:16]  ³² sn The instructions must have been temporary or selective, otherwise the decree from the king would have ended the slave population of Hebrews. It is also possible that the king did not think through this, but simply took steps to limit the population growth. The narrative is not interested in supplying details, only in portraying the king as a wicked fool bent on destroying Israel.

[1:16]  ³³ tn The last form וָחָיָה (vakhaya) in the verse is unusual; rather than behaving as a III-Hey form, it is written as a geminate but without the daghesh forte in pause (GKC 218 §76.i). In the conditional clause, following the parallel instruction (“kill him”), this form should be rendered “she may live” or “let her live.”

[1:17]  ³⁴ tn Heb “and they [fem. pl.] feared”; the referent (the midwives) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[1:17]  ³⁵ tn The verb is the Piel preterite of חָיָה (khaya, “to live”). The Piel often indicates a factitive nuance with stative verbs, showing the cause of the action. Here it means “let live, cause to live.” The verb is the exact opposite of Pharaoh’s command for them to kill the boys.

[1:18]  ³⁶ tn The verb קָרָא (qara’) followed by the lamed (ל) preposition has here the nuance of “summon.” The same construction is used later when Pharaoh summons Moses.

[1:18]  ³⁷ tn The second verb in Pharaoh’s speech is a preterite with a vav (ו) consecutive. It may indicate a simple sequence: “Why have you done…and (so that you) let live?” It could also indicate that this is a second question, “Why have you done …[why] have you let live?”

[1:19]  ³⁸ sn See further N. Lemche, “‘Hebrew’ as a National Name for Israel,” ST 33 (1979): 1-23.

[1:19]  ³⁹ tn Heb “they”; the referent (the Hebrew women) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[1:19]  ⁴⁰ tn Heb “before the midwife comes to them (and) they give birth.” The perfect tense with the vav consecutive serves as the apodosis to the preceding temporal clause; it has the frequentative nuance (see GKC 337-38 §112.oo).

[1:20]  ⁴¹ tn The verb וַיֵּיטֶב (vayyetev) is the Hiphil preterite of יָטַב (yatav). In this stem the word means “to cause good, treat well, treat favorably.” The vav (ו) consecutive shows that this favor from God was a result of their fearing and obeying him.

[1:21]  ⁴² tn The temporal indicator וַיְהִי (vayÿhi) focuses attention on the causal clause and lays the foundation for the main clause, namely, “God made households for them.” This is the second time the text affirms the reason for their defiance, their fear of God.

[1:21]  ⁴³ tn Or “families”; Heb “houses.”

[1:22]  ⁴⁴ tn The substantive כֹּל (kol) followed by the article stresses the entirety – “all sons” or “all daughters” – even though the nouns are singular in Hebrew (see GKC 411 §127.b).

[1:22]  ⁴⁵ tn The form includes a pronominal suffix that reiterates the object of the verb: “every son…you will throw it.”

[1:22]  ⁴⁶ tn The first imperfect has the force of a definite order, but the second, concerning the girls, could also have the nuance of permission, which may fit better. Pharaoh is simply allowing the girls to live.