Exodus 3:3

3:3 So Moses thought, ¹  “I will turn aside to see ²  this amazing ³  sight. Why does the bush not burn up?” ⁴ 

Exodus 3:10

3:10 So now go, and I will send you ⁵  to Pharaoh to bring my people, the Israelites, out of Egypt.”

Exodus 4:26

4:26 So the Lord ⁶  let him alone. (At that time ⁷  she said, “A bridegroom of blood,” referring to ⁸  the circumcision.)

Exodus 12:32

12:32 Also, take your flocks and your herds, just as you have requested, and leave. But bless me also.” ⁹ 

Exodus 24:2

24:2 Moses alone may come ¹⁰  near the Lord, but the others ¹¹  must not come near, ¹²  nor may the people go up with him.”

[3:3]  ¹ tn Heb “And Moses said.” The implication is that Moses said this to himself.

[3:3]  ² tn The construction uses the cohortative אָסֻרָה־נָּא (’asura-nna’) followed by an imperfect with vav (וְאֶרְאֶה, vÿ’er’eh) to express the purpose or result (logical sequence): “I will turn aside in order that I may see.”

[3:3]  ³ tn Heb “great.” The word means something extraordinary here. In using this term Moses revealed his reaction to the strange sight and his anticipation that something special was about to happen. So he turned away from the flock to investigate.

[3:3]  ⁴ tn The verb is an imperfect. Here it has the progressive nuance – the bush is not burning up.

[3:10]  ⁵ tn The verse has a sequence of volitives. The first form is the imperative לְכָה (lÿkha, “go”). Then comes the cohortative/imperfect form with the vav (ו), “and I will send you” or more likely “that I may send you” (וְאֶשְׁלָחֲךָ, vÿ’eshlakhakha), which is followed by the imperative with the vav, “and bring out” or “that you may bring out” (וְהוֹצֵא, vÿhotse’). The series of actions begins with Moses going. When he goes, it will be the Lord who sends him, and if the Lord sends him, it will be with the purpose of leading Israel out of Egypt.

[4:26]  ⁹ tn Heb “he”; the referent (the Lord) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[4:26]  ¹⁰ tn Or “Therefore.” The particle אָז (’az) here is not introducing the next item in a series of events. It points back to the past (“at that time,” see Gen 4:26) or to a logical connection (“therefore, consequently”).

[4:26]  ¹¹ tn The Hebrew simply has לַמּוּלֹת (lammulot, “to the circumcision[s]”). The phrase explains that the saying was in reference to the act of circumcision. Some scholars speculate that there was a ritual prior to marriage from which this event and its meaning derived. But it appears rather that if there was some ancient ritual, it would have had to come from this event. The difficulty is that the son is circumcised, not Moses, making the comparative mythological view untenable. Moses had apparently not circumcised Eliezer. Since Moses was taking his family with him, God had to make sure the sign of the covenant was kept. It may be that here Moses sent them all back to Jethro (18:2) because of the difficulties that lay ahead.

[12:32]  ¹³ tn The form is the Piel perfect with a vav (ו) consecutive (וּבֵרַכְתֶּם, uverakhtem); coming in the sequence of imperatives this perfect tense would be volitional – probably a request rather than a command.

[24:2]  ¹⁷ tn The verb is a perfect tense with a vav (ו) consecutive; it and the preceding perfect tense follow the imperative, and so have either a force of instruction, or, as taken here, are the equivalent of an imperfect tense (of permission).

[24:2]  ¹⁸ tn Heb “they.”

[24:2]  ¹⁹ tn Now the imperfect tense negated is used; here the prohibition would fit (“they will not come near”), or the obligatory (“they must not”) in which the subjects are obliged to act – or not act in this case.