Exodus 7:17

7:17 Thus says the Lord: “By this you will know that I am the Lord: I am going to strike ¹  the water of the Nile with the staff that is in my hand, and it will be turned into blood. ² 

Exodus 8:20

The Fourth Blow: Flies

8:20 ³ The Lord ⁴  said to Moses, “Get up early in the morning and position yourself before Pharaoh as he goes out to the water, and tell him, ‘Thus says the Lord, “Release my people that they may serve me!

Exodus 14:21

14:21 Moses stretched out his hand toward the sea, and the Lord drove the sea apart ⁵  by a strong east wind all that night, and he made the sea into dry land, and the water was divided.

Exodus 15:19

15:19 For the horses of Pharaoh came with his chariots and his footmen into the sea,

and the Lord brought back the waters of the sea on them,

but the Israelites walked on dry land in the middle of the sea.”

Exodus 17:2-3

17:2 So the people contended ⁶  with Moses, and they said, “Give us water to drink!” ⁷  Moses said to them, “Why do you contend ⁸  with me? Why do you test ⁹  the Lord?” 17:3 But the people were very thirsty ¹⁰  there for water, and they murmured against Moses and said, “Why in the world ¹¹  did you bring us up out of Egypt – to kill us and our children and our cattle with thirst?” ¹² 

Exodus 17:6

17:6 I will be standing ¹³  before you there on ¹⁴  the rock in Horeb, and you will strike ¹⁵  the rock, and water will come out of it so that the people may drink.” ¹⁶  And Moses did so in plain view ¹⁷  of the elders of Israel.

Exodus 32:20

32:20 He took the calf they had made and burned it in the fire, ground it ¹⁸  to powder, poured it out on the water, and made the Israelites drink it. ¹⁹ 

Exodus 34:28

34:28 So he was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights; ²⁰  he did not eat bread, and he did not drink water. He wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the ten commandments. ²¹ 

[7:17]  ¹ tn The construction using הִנֵּה (hinneh) before the participle (here the Hiphil participle מַכֶּה, makkeh) introduces a futur instans use of the participle, expressing imminent future, that he is about to do something.

[7:17]  ² sn W. C. Kaiser summarizes a view that has been adopted by many scholars, including a good number of conservatives, that the plagues overlap with natural phenomena in Egypt. Accordingly, the “blood” would not be literal blood, but a reddish contamination in the water. If there was an unusually high inundation of the Nile, the water flowed sluggishly through swamps and was joined with the water from the mountains that washed out the reddish soil. If the flood were high, the water would have a deeper red color. In addition to this discoloration, there is said to be a type of algae which produce a stench and a deadly fluctuation of the oxygen level of the river that is fatal to fish (see W. C. Kaiser, Jr., “Exodus,” EBC 2:350; he cites Greta Hort, “The Plagues of Egypt,” ZAW 69 [1957]: 84-103; same title, ZAW 70 [1958]: 48-59). While most scholars would agree that the water did not actually become blood (any more than the moon will be turned to literal blood [Joel 2:31]), many are not satisfied with this kind of explanation. If the event was a fairly common feature of the Nile, it would not have been any kind of sign to Pharaoh – and it should still be observable. The features that would have to be safeguarded are that it was understood to be done by the staff of God, that it was unexpected and not a mere coincidence, and that the magnitude of the contamination, color, stench, and death, was unparalleled. God does use natural features in miracles, but to be miraculous signs they cannot simply coincide with natural phenomena.

[8:20]  ³ sn The announcement of the fourth plague parallels that of the first plague. Now there will be flies, likely dogflies. Egypt has always suffered from flies, more so in the summer than in the winter. But the flies the plague describes involve something greater than any normal season for flies. The main point that can be stressed in this plague comes by tracing the development of the plagues in their sequence. Now, with the flies, it becomes clear that God can inflict suffering on some people and preserve others – a preview of the coming judgment that will punish Egypt but set Israel free. God is fully able to keep the dog-fly in the land of the Egyptians and save his people from these judgments.

[8:20]  ⁴ tn Heb “And Yahweh said.”

[14:21]  ⁵ tn Or “drove the sea back” (NIV, NCV, NRSV, TEV). The verb is simply the Hiphil of הָלַךְ (halakh, “to walk, go”). The context requires that it be interpreted along the lines of “go back, go apart.”

[17:2]  ⁷ tn The verb וַיָּרֶב (vayyarev) is from the root רִיב (riv); it forms the basis of the name “Meribah.” The word means “strive, quarrel, be in contention” and even “litigation.” A translation “quarrel” does not appear to capture the magnitude of what is being done here. The people have a legal dispute – they are contending with Moses as if bringing a lawsuit.

[17:2]  ⁸ tn The imperfect tense with the vav (ו) follows the imperative, and so it carries the nuance of the logical sequence, showing purpose or result. This may be expressed in English as “give us water so that we may drink,” but more simply with the English infinitive, “give us water to drink.”

[17:2]  ⁹ tn In this case and in the next clause the imperfect tenses are to be taken as progressive imperfects – the action is in progress.

[17:2]  ¹⁰ tn The verb נָסָה (nasah) means “to test, tempt, try, prove.” It can be used of people simply trying to do something that they are not sure of (such as David trying on Saul’s armor), or of God testing people to see if they will obey (as in testing Abraham, Gen 22:1), or of people challenging others (as in the Queen of Sheba coming to test Solomon), and of the people in the desert in rebellion putting God to the test. By doubting that God was truly in their midst, and demanding that he demonstrate his presence, they tested him to see if he would act. There are times when “proving” God is correct and required, but that is done by faith (as with Gideon); when it is done out of unbelief, then it is an act of disloyalty.

[17:3]  ⁹ tn The verbs and the pronouns in this verse are in the singular because “the people” is singular in form.

[17:3]  ¹⁰ tn The demonstrative pronoun is used as the enclitic form for special emphasis in the question; it literally says, “why is this you have brought us up?” (R. J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax, 24, §118).

[17:3]  ¹¹ sn Their words deny God the credit for bringing them out of Egypt, impugn the integrity of Moses and God by accusing them of bringing the people out here to die, and show a lack of faith in God’s ability to provide for them.

[17:6]  ¹¹ tn The construction uses הִנְנִי עֹמֵד (hinni ’omed) to express the futur instans or imminent future of the verb: “I am going to be standing.”

[17:6]  ¹² tn Or “by” (NIV, NLT).

[17:6]  ¹³ tn The form is a Hiphil perfect with the vav (ו) consecutive; it follows the future nuance of the participle and so is equivalent to an imperfect tense nuance of instruction.

[17:6]  ¹⁴ tn These two verbs are also perfect tenses with vav (ו) consecutive: “and [water] will go out…and [the people] will drink.” But the second verb is clearly the intent or the result of the water gushing from the rock, and so it may be subordinated.

[17:6]  ¹⁵ tn Heb “in the eyes of.”

[32:20]  ¹³ tn Here “it” has been supplied.

[32:20]  ¹⁴ tn Here “it” has been supplied.

[34:28]  ¹⁵ tn These too are adverbial in relation to the main clause, telling how long Moses was with Yahweh on the mountain.

[34:28]  ¹⁶ tn Heb “the ten words,” though “commandments” is traditional.