Exodus 3:9

3:9 And now indeed ¹  the cry ²  of the Israelites has come to me, and I have also seen how severely the Egyptians oppress them. ³ 

Exodus 6:12

6:12 But Moses replied to ⁴  the Lord, “If the Israelites did not listen to me, then ⁵  how will Pharaoh listen to me, since ⁶  I speak with difficulty?” ⁷ 

Exodus 18:16

18:16 When they have a dispute, ⁸  it comes to me and I decide ⁹  between a man and his neighbor, and I make known the decrees of God and his laws.” ¹⁰ 

Exodus 19:4

19:4 ‘You yourselves have seen what I did to Egypt and how I lifted you on eagles’ wings ¹¹  and brought you to myself. ¹² 

Exodus 22:23

22:23 If you afflict them ¹³  in any way ¹⁴  and they cry to me, I will surely hear ¹⁵  their cry,

Exodus 32:2

32:2 So Aaron said to them, “Break off the gold earrings that are on the ears of your wives, your sons, and your daughters, and bring them to me.” ¹⁶ 

Exodus 32:26

32:26 So Moses stood at the entrance of the camp and said, “Whoever is for the Lord, come ¹⁷  to me.” ¹⁸  All the Levites gathered around him,

[3:9]  ¹ tn The particle הִנֵּה (hinneh) focuses attention on what is being said as grounds for what follows.

[3:9]  ² tn The word is a technical term for the outcry one might make to a judge. God had seen the oppression and so knew that the complaints were accurate, and so he initiated the proceedings against the oppressors (B. Jacob, Exodus, 59).

[3:9]  ³ tn Heb “seen the oppression with which the Egyptians oppress them.” The word for the oppression is now לַחַץ (lakhats), which has the idea of pressure with the oppression – squeezing, pressuring – which led to its later use in the Semitic languages for torture. The repetition in the Hebrew text of the root in the participle form after this noun serves to stress the idea. This emphasis has been represented in the translation by the expression “seen how severely the Egyptians oppress them.”

[6:12]  ⁴ tn Heb “And Moses spoke before.”

[6:12]  ⁵ sn This analogy is an example of a qal wahomer comparison. It is an argument by inference from the light (qal) to the heavy (homer), from the simple to the more difficult. If the Israelites, who are Yahwists, would not listen to him, it is highly unlikely Pharaoh would.

[6:12]  ⁶ tn The final clause begins with a disjunctive vav (ו), a vav on a nonverb form – here a pronoun. It introduces a circumstantial causal clause.

[6:12]  ⁷ tn Heb “and [since] I am of uncircumcised lips.” The “lips” represent his speech (metonymy of cause). The term “uncircumcised” makes a comparison between his speech and that which Israel perceived as unacceptable, unprepared, foreign, and of no use to God. The heart is described this way when it is impervious to good impressions (Lev 26:41; Jer 9:26) and the ear when it hears imperfectly (Jer 6:10). Moses has here returned to his earlier claim – he does not speak well enough to be doing this.

[18:16]  ⁷ tn Or “thing,” “matter,” “issue.”

[18:16]  ⁸ tn The verb שָׁפַט (shafat) means “to judge”; more specifically, it means to make a decision as an arbiter or umpire. When people brought issues to him, Moses decided between them. In the section of laws in Exodus after the Ten Commandments come the decisions, the מִשְׁפָּטִים (mishppatim).

[18:16]  ⁹ tn The “decrees” or “statutes” were definite rules, stereotyped and permanent; the “laws” were directives or pronouncements given when situations arose. S. R. Driver suggests this is another reason why this event might have taken place after Yahweh had given laws on the mountain (Exodus, 165).

[19:4]  ¹⁰ tn The figure compares the way a bird would teach its young to fly and leave the nest with the way Yahweh brought Israel out of Egypt. The bird referred to could be one of several species of eagles, but more likely is the griffin-vulture. The image is that of power and love.

[19:4]  ¹¹ sn The language here is the language of a bridegroom bringing the bride to the chamber. This may be a deliberate allusion to another metaphor for the covenant relationship.

[22:23]  ¹³ tn The accusative here is the masculine singular pronoun, which leads S. R. Driver to conclude that this line is out of place, even though the masculine singular can be used in places like this (Exodus, 232). U. Cassuto says its use is to refer to certain classes (Exodus, 292).

[22:23]  ¹⁴ tn Here again and with “cry” the infinitive absolute functions with a diminished emphasis (GKC 342-43 §113.o).

[22:23]  ¹⁵ tn Here is the normal use of the infinitive absolute with the imperfect tense to emphasize the verb: “I will surely hear,” implying, “I will surely respond.”

[32:2]  ¹⁶ sn B. Jacob (Exodus, 937-38) argues that Aaron simply did not have the resolution that Moses did, and wanting to keep peace he gave in to the crowd. He also tries to explain that Aaron was wanting to show their folly through the deed. U. Cassuto also says that Aaron’s request for the gold was a form of procrastination, but that the people quickly did it and so he had no alternative but to go through with it (Exodus, 412). These may be right, since Aaron fully understood what was wrong with this, and what the program was all about. The text gives no strong indication to support these ideas, but there are enough hints from the way Aaron does things to warrant such a conclusion.

[32:26]  ¹⁹ tn “come” is not in the text, but has been supplied.

[32:26]  ²⁰ tn S. R. Driver suggests that the command was tersely put: “Who is for Yahweh? To me!” (Exodus, 354).