Exodus 4:4

4:4 But the Lord said to Moses, “Put out your hand and grab it by the tail” – so he put out his hand and caught it, and it became a staff in his hand ¹  –

Exodus 4:7

4:7 He said, “Put your hand back into your robe.” So he put his hand back into his robe, and when he brought it out from his robe – there it was, ²  restored ³  like the rest of his skin! ⁴ 

Exodus 8:6

8:6 So Aaron extended his hand over the waters of Egypt, and frogs ⁵  came up and covered the land of Egypt.

Exodus 10:22

10:22 So Moses extended his hand toward heaven, and there was absolute darkness ⁶  throughout the land of Egypt for three days. ⁷ 

Exodus 21:20

21:20 “If a man strikes his male servant or his female servant with a staff so that he or she ⁸  dies as a result of the blow, ⁹  he will surely be punished. ¹⁰ 

Exodus 22:8

22:8 If the thief is not caught, ¹¹  then the owner of the house will be brought before the judges ¹²  to see ¹³  whether he has laid ¹⁴  his hand on his neighbor’s goods.

Exodus 22:11

22:11 then there will be an oath to the Lord ¹⁵  between the two of them, that he has not laid his hand on his neighbor’s goods, and its owner will accept this, and he will not have to pay.

[4:4]  ¹ sn The signs authenticated Moses’ ministry as the Lord’s emissary. This sign will show that the Lord had control over Egypt and its stability, over life and death. But first Moses has to be convinced that he can turn it into a dead stick again.

[4:7]  ² tn The particle הִנֵּה (hinneh) points out the startling or amazing sight as if the reader were catching first glimpse of it with Moses.

[4:7]  ³ tn Heb “it returned.”

[4:7]  ⁴ tn Heb “like his flesh.”

[8:6]  ³ tn The noun is singular, a collective. B. Jacob notes that this would be the more natural way to refer to the frogs (Exodus, 260).

[10:22]  ⁴ tn The construction is a variation of the superlative genitive: a substantive in the construct state is connected to a noun with the same meaning (see GKC 431 §133.i).

[10:22]  ⁵ sn S. R. Driver says, “The darkness was no doubt occasioned really by a sand-storm, produced by the hot electrical wind…which blows in intermittently…” (Exodus, 82, 83). This is another application of the antisupernatural approach to these texts. The text, however, is probably describing something that was not a seasonal wind, or Pharaoh would not have been intimidated. If it coincided with that season, then what is described here is so different and so powerful that the Egyptians would have known the difference easily. Pharaoh here would have had to have been impressed that this was something very abnormal, and that his god was powerless. Besides, there was light in all the dwellings of the Israelites.

[21:20]  ⁵ tn Heb “so that he”; the words “or she” have been supplied in the translation for stylistic reasons.

[21:20]  ⁶ tn Heb “under his hand.”

[21:20]  ⁷ tn Heb “will be avenged” (how is not specified).

[22:8]  ⁶ tn Heb “found.”

[22:8]  ⁷ tn Here again the word used is “the gods,” meaning the judges who made the assessments and decisions. In addition to other works, see J. R. Vannoy, “The Use of the Word ha’elohim in Exodus 21:6 and 22:7,8,” The Law and the Prophets, 225-41.

[22:8]  ⁸ tn The phrase “to see” has been supplied.

[22:8]  ⁹ tn The line says “if he has not stretched out his hand.” This could be the oath formula, but the construction here would be unusual, or it could be taken as “whether” (see W. C. Kaiser, Jr., “Exodus,” EBC 2:438). U. Cassuto (Exodus, 286) does not think the wording can possibly fit an oath; nevertheless, an oath would be involved before God (as he takes it instead of “judges”) – if the man swore, his word would be accepted, but if he would not swear, he would be guilty.

[22:11]  ⁷ tn The construct relationship שְׁבֻעַת יְהוָה (shÿvu’at yÿhvah, “the oath of Yahweh”) would require a genitive of indirect object, “an oath [to] Yahweh.” U. Cassuto suggests that it means “an oath by Yahweh” (Exodus, 287). The person to whom the animal was entrusted would take a solemn oath to Yahweh that he did not appropriate the animal for himself, and then his word would be accepted.