© 1999 by the United Bible Societies

All Rights Reserved

No part of this book may be translated or reproduced in any form without the written
permission of the United Bible Societies.

The text of the Revised Standard Version used in this publication is copyrighted 1946, 1952
© 1971, by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ
in the U. S. A., and used by permission.

Quotations from Today’s English Version, © 1966, 1971, 1976, 1992 are used by
permission of the copyright owner, the American Bible Society.

The illustration on page 588 is by John Lear, © 1960, American Bible Society. The
illustrations on pages 591, 601, 603, 612, and 634 are by courtesy of the Art Department,
American Bible Society. The illustration on page 619 is from The Bible Translator 42, page 208.
All other illustrations are by Horace Knowles, © The British & Foreign Bible Society, 1954,
1967, 1972; additions and amendments by Louis Bass © The British & Foreign Bible Society
1994. The map on page 11, © American Bible Society, is used by permission.

Books in the series of UBS Helps for Translators may be ordered from a national Bible
Society or from either of the following centers:

United Bible Societies

European Production Fund
P.O. Box 81 03 40
D-70520 Stuttgart
Germany

United Bible Societies

1865 Broadway
New York, NY 10023
U. S. A.

L. C. Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Osborn, Noel D. (Noel Dwight), 1927-

A handbook on Exodus / by Noel D. Osborn and Howard A. Hatton.

p. cm. — (UBS handbook series) (Helps for translators)

Includes bibliographical references and index.

ISBN 0–8267-0101–9

1. Bible. O.T. Exodus—Commentaries. 2. Bible. O.T. Exodus—Translating. I. Hatton,

Howard, 1929- . II. Title. III. Series. IV. Series: Helps for translators.

BS1245.3.O73 1999
 222’.12077—dc21 98–35644

CIP

ABS-Q-1–105920

PREFACE
This Handbook, like others in the series, concentrates on exegetical, linguistic, and cultural
problems related to the translation of a particular book of the Bible. Though the authors only
address issues directly related to translation, many interested Bible readers and church leaders
have found these Handbooks useful and informative, and we hope this volume will be no
exception.

The format of A Handbook on Exodus follows the general pattern of earlier volumes in the
series. The Revised Standard Version (RSV) and Today’s English Version (TEV) texts are
presented in parallel columns, first in larger segments that will make possible an overview of
each section of discourse. They are then displayed in bold print, normally verse by verse,
followed by detailed comments and discussion. However, when lines of poetry appear in either
RSV or TEV, the text in bold print appears across the page rather than in columns, so that the
reader may easily identify the difference between individual lines of poetry, and may see
whether the lines have been printed with a primary or a secondary indentation. RSV serves as
the base upon which the discussion takes place, and quotations from the verse under
discussion are printed in boldface. Quotations from other verses of RSV and from other
versions are printed between quotation marks and in normal typeface. TEV serves as a primary
model of how a translation may take shape; however, many other versions are provided as
well, especially where they offer models that may be more satisfactory than those of TEV.

Some may find it surprising that we do not use the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) as
the base for discussion. The reader should keep in mind that the Handbook attempts to
explain the ancient Hebrew text to translators who have not learned that language. Since NRSV
has succeeded in rendering the message of the ancient text in a form easily understood by
today’s reader, it reveals less correspondence with the form and shape of the ancient text than
does RSV. The authors have therefore found it easier to discuss the ancient text by using RSV as
the base.

A limited Bibliography is included for the benefit of those interested in further study. The
Glossary explains technical terms according to their usage in this volume. The translator may
find it useful to read through the Glossary in order to become aware of the specialized way in
which certain terms are used. An Index gives the location by page number of some of the

RSV Revised Standard Version

TEV Today’s English Version

NRSV New Revised Standard Version

important words and subjects discussed in the Handbook, especially where the Handbook
provides the translator with help in rendering these concepts into the receptor language.

The editor of the ubs Handbook Series continues to seek comments from translators and
others who use these books, so that future volumes may benefit and may better serve the
needs of the readers.

ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THIS VOLUME

General Abbreviations, Bible Texts, Versions, and Other Works Cited

(For details see the Bibliography)

AD Anno Domini (in the Year of Our Lord)

ASV American Standard Version

AT American Translation

BDB Brown, Driver, and Briggs

BHS Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia

CEV Contemporary English Version

FFB Fauna and Flora of the Bible

frcl French common language version

GECL German common language version

HOTTP Hebrew Old Testament Text Project

JB Jerusalem Bible

K-B Koehler-Baumgartner

KJV King James Version

LB Living Bible

LU Luther

LXX Septuagint

Mft Moffatt

MT Masoretic text

NAB New American Bible

NASB New American Standard Bible

NEB New English Bible

NIV New International Version

NJB New Jerusalem Bible

NRSV New Revised Standard Version

REB Revised English Bible

RSV Revised Standard Version

SP Samaritan Pentateuch

SPCL Spanish common language version

TAN TANAKH (New Jewish version)

TEV Today’s English Version

THCL Thai common language version

TOT Translator’s Old Testament

Books of the Bible

Gen Genesis

Exo Exodus

Lev Leviticus

Num Numbers

Deut Deuteronomy

Josh Joshua

1, 2 Sam 1, 2 Samuel

1, 2 Kgs 1, 2 Kings

1, 2 Chr 1, 2 Chronicles

Neh Nehemiah

Est Esther

Psa Psalms
Pro Proverbs

Isa Isaiah

Jer Jeremiah

Ezek Ezekiel

Mal Malachi

Matt Matthew

Eph Ephesians

Heb Hebrews

HEBREW TRANSLITERATION
The English vowels, a, e, i, o, and u, represent the nearest equivalent sounds of the
corresponding Hebrew vowels. Gemination of consonants caused by dagesh forte is normally
represented by doubling of the printed consonant, but may also for simple purposes be
represented by a single consonant, according to the author’s purpose. The presence of dagesh
lene will not be reflected in the representation of gimel, daleth, and kaf, since the resulting
difference in English pronunciation is negligible or nonexistent. If the author finds it necessary
to be more specific in the representation of a given Hebrew expression, further refinement for
that item will be made. Those trained in Hebrew will, of course, refer to that text whenever
they find that precise information is needed.

TRANSLATING EXODUS
The book of Exodus has been called “the Gospel of the Old Testament,” for it records
God’s grace as well as God’s law. It tells the good news of how God miraculously delivered the
descendants of Jacob from slavery in Egypt and set them on a journey to the Promised Land. It
also reports how the people responded to this divine act as they received the Ten
Commandments and were drawn into a covenant relationship with the God of their ancestors.
Here is the story of the historic event on which the very faith of Israel was based. It is a story of
the agony and the ecstasy of a new nation being born, a nation destined to become God’s
chosen people. Through them God’s grace and truth would be made known to the world. The
entire Old Testament was eventually written and preserved in the light of this unique
experience of God’s saving grace.

This Handbook is a verse-by-verse commentary on the book of Exodus and has been
prepared primarily to assist translators of the Bible throughout the world. It is hoped,
however, that all who are interested in understanding and interpreting Exodus will find it
useful. A knowledge of the original Hebrew is not required, but this commentary does provide
a detailed analysis of the Hebrew text in light of the overall message of the book. It also offers
numerous suggestions of how the meaning of each verse may be expressed in contemporary
languages.

The text of the Revised Standard Version (RSV) is followed throughout because it is a
reliable literal translation, but an even more literal rendering of the Hebrew is frequently
provided where it may help to clarify the meaning for translators. The text of Today’s English
Version (TEV), popularly known as the Good News Bible, is frequently cited to bring out the
basic meaning in more natural English idiom. Other translations such as the Contemporary
English Version (CEV) are often quoted to show various ways in which the meaning may be
expressed. Every effort has been made to let the Hebrew text speak for itself without
discussing various doctrinal interpretations that have been drawn from it.

The book of Exodus includes various types of literature of which translators need to be
aware. There is prose and poetry, narrative and genealogy, ritual and law, and even different
forms of law. A number of chapters give detailed specifications for the building of a tabernacle
as well as instructions for the priests. The usual problems of authorship and sources discussed
in other commentaries are not dealt with here except in cases where translators need to
understand why the text has taken the shape that it now has. It is important to understand,
however, that the background history of the text is very complex, with various oral and written
traditions having been brought together through many generations. Many translators have
therefore found it useful to think in terms of a community authorship that covered a period of
several hundred years.

Sources, Traditions, and Seams

Tradition has long referred to the book of Exodus as “The Second Book of Moses.” This is
based upon the early belief that Moses himself wrote the first five books of the Bible. It is
indeed important to see the Exodus as part of this larger literary unit known as the Torah, or
Pentateuch, for there is evidence throughout that several distinctive traditions from ancient
Israel have been combined into one large unit, regardless of whether Moses or someone else
brought them together. These traditions, or sources, have frequently been referred to as “J,”
“E,” “D,” and “P,” using the initial letter of the following designations: the Yahwist source
(German Jahvist), the Elohist source, the Deuteronomic source, and the Priestly source. The
book of Exodus is primarily made up of material from “P” and “JE” (a combined tradition of “J”
and “E”). But there are a number of places where the different literary traditions have been
joined together in an uneven manner so that a literary “seam” has been formed. These
awkward seams are discussed where they occur. (For example, see the discussion of the seam
Exo 6.1 and between 6.2.) Translators must frequently decide whether to cover over the seam
or to let the seam show in the translation.

On the other hand, there are reasons to view the book of Exodus as an independent book
in its own right. It clearly begins with a prologue, and it ends with an epilogue. There is a
definite plot to the book that builds up to a climax, and there is an overall theme that deals

CEV Contemporary English Version

 with how Yahweh, the God on Mount Sinai, came to dwell with his people and prepare them
for their journey through the wilderness.

Structure and Outline

Scholars who have studied the book of Exodus have analyzed its structure in different
ways. Some have divided it rather mechanically, with the Ten Commandments in chapter 20
serving as the halfway mark of the forty-chapter book. Others have analyzed it on the basis of
various units of traditions, such as the plague tradition, the Exodus tradition, and the Sinai
tradition. This Handbook proposes dividing the book according to four underlying
relationships, the sequence of which appears to be theologically as well as historically
significant: 1) the relationship between Moses and Yahweh, 2) the relationship between
Moses and the Pharaoh, 3) the relationship between Moses and the people, and 4) the
relationship between the people and Yahweh.

If these four relationships are identified first, the overall message of the book becomes
crystal clear. We may call it “The Lord’s deliverance and the people’s obligation.” The first two
relationships clearly show “The Lord’s deliverance,” and the third and fourth relationships tell
about “The people’s obligation.” This identifies the crossing of the Red Sea in chapter 15 as the
intended turning point of the story. Before the people reach the Red Sea, they are slaves; after
they cross the Red Sea, they are free! The resulting two “halves,” of course, are not equal in
length, but they reveal a more significant balance of grace and law. The theological significance
of this sequence is that the Lord delivers before the people become obligated. In other words,
grace comes before law. The following abbreviated outline reveals this theological balance.

The Prologue: the people’s slavery (1.1–22)

I. The Lord’s deliverance (2.1–15.21)

A. The Lord and Moses: preparation of a leader (2.1–7.7)

B. Moses and Pharaoh: contest for freedom (7.8–15.21)

II. The people’s obligation (15.22–39.43)

A. Moses and the people: journey to Sinai (15.22–18.27)

B. The Lord and his people: a covenant established (19.1–39.43)

The Epilogue: the Lord’s presence (40.1–38)

It is important for translators to understand the underlying structure of the book of Exodus
before getting involved in translating the various details of its chapters and verses. For this
reason the detailed outline that follows is based on the above analysis. It should also be of
help in finding other parts of the story that must be considered as translators work through
one section after another. From time to time the translator needs to recall the underlying
structure of the entire discourse and translate individual verses and sections with this in mind.
 Alternative Models
At the end of the comments on individual verses, this Handbook often provides alternative
models that suggest other ways to translate the phrases and clauses that have been discussed.
These models are simply guides to clarify further the meaning of the text and should not be
translated literally. Translators should first study all the models provided and then decide what
will be natural style in their own languages.

Borrowed vocabulary

Translators will sometimes have to borrow words from another language, such as the
national or trade language, in order to identify certain animals, insects, plants, and so on. In
such cases one may use the borrowed term, such as “donkey,” and then give a description of
the animal in a footnote or in the glossary. A picture of illustration will also be helpful. On the
first occurrence of the term, the translator may say something like “a work animal called
‘donkey,’ ” or “a swamp creature named ‘frog’ ”; but in further occurrences of the same term,
it will be possible simply to say “donkey,” “frog,” “cow,” and so on.

Special Problems for the Translator

Translations of the Hebrew Scriptures, or the Old Testament, are generally based on the
Hebrew text known as Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS), published by Deutsche
Bibelgesellschaft in Stuttgart, Germany. This published text is also the basis for the
commentary in this Handbook. It represents the ancient text known as the Masoretic text (MT),
which was preserved by Jewish scribes of the seventh and eighth centuries A.D. who were
concerned for its accurate transmission (masorah). Translators need to be aware, however,
that there are occasional textual problems where other ancient manuscripts and versions
suggest a different reading from that found in MT. For example, the ancient Greek translation
of the Hebrew Scriptures, commonly called the Septuagint (literally, “of seventy”) and referred
to as LXX, reflects at times a much earlier Hebrew reading than that preserved by the Jewish
Masoretic scribes.

Textual problems should of course be resolved before translation is under taken. They can
usually be identified by referring to the textual footnotes in RSV and in TEV. These footnotes,
however, only explain how the translators of RSV and TEV resolved the problems; they do not
necessarily tell the translator what to do. The Hebrew Old Testament Text Project (HOTTP), with
reports published by the United Bible Societies, provides help for translators in resolving

BHS BIBLIA HEBRAICA STUTTGARTENSIA

MT MASORETIC TEXT

A.D. ANNO DOMINI (DATE), “IN THE YEAR OF THE LORD”

LXX SEPTUAGINT

HOTTP HEBREW OLD TESTAMENT TEXT PROJECT

problems of this nature. It should be referred to directly by the translator or with the help of a
Translation Consultant. This Handbook discusses problems of this type only where necessary,
with recommendation as to which reading to follow.

Because Exodus is a composite book made up of different traditions and using various
literary types, this Handbook alerts the translator to problems created by this complexity.
Although it is often characteristic of Hebrew narrative to repeat certain details, there are
places where the repetition is unexpected and even extensive. For example, the specifications
given to Moses in chapters 25–32 for the construction of the Tabernacle are repeated again in
chapters 35–39, almost in word-for-word detail. But the differences in the wording of these
details need to be noted carefully by the translator.

There are also places in Exodus where certain things said earlier seem to be either
contradicted or ignored. For example, at the end of chapter 10, Moses agrees never to see the
Pharaoh again. But then in the next chapter Moses seems to be talking with him again. Also, in
chapter 19, the Lord tells Moses to come up the mountain with only Aaron accompanying him.
But then in chapter 24 Nadab and Abihu and seventy of the elders go up the mountain with
them. In chapter 4, verse 18, Moses asks permission of his father-in-law to return to Egypt, and
then in verse 19 the Lord commands him to do just that. So problems of sequence must also
be dealt with in translation.

Probably the most difficult problem for translators will be to decide how the sacred name
for God, revealed to Moses at the burning bush, should be written. For example, in chapter 3 it
is difficult to determine just who it is that appears to Moses—God (’elohim), the Lord (yhwh),
or the angel of the Lord. (See verses 2–4.) Since the name given to Moses in verse 15 is yhwh,
which in Jewish tradition was too holy to be pronounced, the translator must decide whether
to follow Jewish tradition and substitute the title “Lord” (’adonay), to transliterate the
probable pronunciation “Yahweh,” or to translate the possible meaning of the name on the
basis of “I AM WHO I AM” in verse 14. For translators who have already translated other parts
of the Old Testament, this problem may already have been resolved. But there are places in
Exodus where the meaning of the text is not clear unless it is obvious to the reader that the
name itself is being used. This problem is discussed in greater detail at chapter 3, verse 2a.

One further feature of Exodus that is discussed in several places is the way the text at
times interlocks separate blocks of material with one other. For example, chapters 5 and 6
interlock the first relationship of Moses with the Lord and the second relationship with the
Pharaoh, suggesting that Moses was twice called to lead the people out of Egypt. Also, in
chapters 12–14, later instructions for the Israelites in observing the Passover have at different
places been woven into the basic historical narrative of the Passover. Translators, of course,
are not free to rearrange such blocks of material, but they should be aware of the rhetorical
effect this interweaving of material has upon the structure of the entire book.

Outline of Exodus

The Lord’s deliverance and the people’s obligation

The Prologue: the people are oppressed (1.1–22)

 1. The Israelites in Egypt (1.1–7)

2. The beginning of the oppression (1.8–14)

3. The king’s evil plot (1.15–22)

I. The Lord’s deliverance (2.1–15.21)

A. The Lord and Moses: preparation of a leader (2.1–7.7)

1. The man Moses (2.1–25)

a. His birth and adoption (2.1–10)

b. His flight from Egypt (2.11–15a)

c. His exile in Midian (2.15b–25)

(1) Marriage (2.15b–22)

(2) The suffering of Moses’ people (2.23–25)

2. The call of Moses (3.1–4.17)

a. The burning bush (3.1–10)

b. Excuses and promises (3.11–4.17)

(1) The sign (3.11–12)

(2) The Name (3.13–22)

(3) Signs with rod, hand, and water (4.1–9)

(4) The assistance of Aaron (4.10–17)

3. The return to Egypt (4.18–31)

a. Departure from Midian (4.18–23)

b. An incident on the way (4.24–26)

c. Arrival in Egypt (4.27–31)

4. A preview of the contest with Pharaoh (5.1–6.1)

a. The first encounter with Pharaoh (5.1–9)

b. The increased oppression (5.10–14)

c. The plea of the Israelite foremen (4.15–21)

d. Moses’ complaint (5.22–6.1)

 5. The call renewed (6.2–7.7)

a. The same commission (6.2–9)

b. The same excuses (6.10–13)

c. Moses’ and Aaron’s family record (6.14–27)

d. Aaron to be the spokesperson (6.28–7.7)

B. Moses and Pharaoh: contest for freedom (7.8–15.21)

1. The negotiations with Pharaoh (7.8–11.10)

a. The first sign: Aaron’s rod (7.8–13)

b. Additional signs: The ten plagues (7.14–11.10)

(1) Blood (7.14–25)

(2) Frogs (8.1–15) [7.26–8.11]

(3) Gnats (8.16–19) [8.12–15]

(4) Flies (8.20–32) [8.16–28]

(5) Animal disease (9.1–7)

(6) Boils (9.8–12)

(7) Hail (9.13–35)

(8) Locusts (10.1–20)

(9) Darkness (10.21–29)

(10) Death forewarned (11.1–10)

2. The exodus (12.1–13.16)

a. Preparations for the Passover (12.1–28)

(1) The Lord’s instructions to Moses and Aaron (12.1–20)

(a) Concerning the Passover (12.1–14)

(b) Concerning unleavened bread (12.15–20)

(2) Moses’ instructions to the people (12.21–28)

b. The departure from Egypt (12.29–42)

(1) The death of the Egyptian firstborn (12.29–32)

 (2) The despoiling of the Egyptians (12.33–36)

(3) The departure of the Israelites (12.37–39)

(4) The significance of that night (12.40–42)

c. Additional instructions for celebrating the exodus (12.43–13.16)

(1) The Lord speaks to Moses (and Aaron) (12.43–13.2)

(a) Concerning Passover regulations (12.43–51)

(b) Concerning the dedication of the firstborn (13.1–2)

(2) Moses speaks to the people (13.3–16)

(a) Concerning unleavened bread (13.3–10)

(b) Concerning the firstborn (13.11–16)

3. The deliverance at the sea (13.17–15.21)

a. The journey to the sea (13.17–14.4)

(1) From Succoth to Etham (13.17–22)

(2) Turning back toward the sea (14.1–4)

b. The final encounter with Pharaoh (14.5–31)

(1) The pursuit of the Egyptians (14.5–9)

(2) Fear in the Israelite camp (14.10–14)

(3) The divine reassurance (14.15–20)

(4) The miraculous crossing (14.21–25)

(5) The destruction of Pharaoh’s army (14.26–31)

c. The Israelites praise the Lord (15.1–21)

(1) The song of the Sea (15.1–18)

(2) The song of Miriam (15.19–21)

II. The people’s obligation (15.22–39.43)

A. Moses and the people: journey to Sinai (15.22–18.27)

1. Hunger and thirst (15.22–17.7)

a. Bitter water at Marah (15.22–27)

 b. Food provided in the desert (16.1–36)

(1) The murmuring of the people (16.1–12)

(2) The provision of quails and manna (16.13–21)

(3) The institution of the sabbath (16.22–30)

(4) The memorial manna (16.31–36)

c. Water from the rock (17.1–7)

2. Warfare with the Amalekites (17.8–16)

3. A lesson in administration (18.1–27)

a. The visit of Jethro (18.1–12)

b. Jethro’s advice (18.13–23)

c. The appointment of judges (18.24–27)

B. The Lord and his people: a covenant established (19.1–39.43)

1. The covenant and the law (19.1–24.18)

a. The theophany at Sinai (19.1–25)

(1) The covenant invitation (19.1–8)

(2) The preparation of the people (19.9–15)

(3) The appearance on the mountain (19.16–25)

b. The ten commandments (20.1–17)

c. The need for a mediator (20.18–21)

d. The book of the covenant (20.22–23.33)

(1) The construction of altars (20.22–26)

(2) The treatment of Hebrew slaves (21.1–11)

(a) The male slave (21.1–6)

(b) The female slave (21.7–11)

(3) Violent acts against persons (21.12–27)

(a) Capital offenses (21.12–17)

(b) Other offenses (21.18–27)

 (4) Injuries involving animals (21.28–36)

(5) Property rights (22.1–15) [21.37–22.14]

(6) Various moral and religious laws (22.16–31) [22.15–30]

(7) Civil responsibilities (23.1–9)

(8) Special days and seasons (23.10–19)

(a) The seventh year and the seventh day (23.10–13)

(b) The three annual festivals (23.14–19)

(9) Promises and instructions (23.20–33)

e. The sealing of the covenant (24.1–18)

(1) The ceremony with the people (24.1–8)

(2) The ceremony with the elders (24.9–11)

(3) Moses alone with the Lord (24.12–18)

2. The tabernacle and the worship (25.1–39.43)

a. Instructions for the cultus (25.1–31.18)

(1) Materials for the tabernacle (25.1–9)

(2) The tabernacle furnishings (25.10–40)

(a) The ark (25.10–22)

(b) The table (25.23–30)

(c) The lampstand (25.31–40)

(3) The tabernacle itself (26.1–37)

(a) The curtains (26.1–14)

(b) The framework (26.15–30)

(c) The veil and the screen (26.31–37)

(4) The altar (27.1–8)

(5) The court enclosure (27.9–19)

(6) A note about tending the lamp (27.20–21)

(7) The priestly vestments (28.1–43)

 (a) The need for vestments (28.1–5)

(b) The ephod (28.6–14)

(c) The breastpiece (28.15–30)

(d) The robe (28.31–35)

(e) The headpiece and shirt (28.36–39)

(f) Vestments for Aaron’s sons (28.40–43)

(8) The consecration of the priests (29.1–37)

(a) The preparation (29.1–9)

(b) The offering of the bull (29.10–14)

(c) The first ram offering (29.15–18)

(d) The second ram offering (29.19–26)

(e) Additional instructions (29.27–37)

1] The installation of future priests (29.27–30)

2] The sacrificial meal (29.31–34)

3] The seven-day ceremonies (29.35–37)

(9) The daily offerings (29.38–46)

(10) The altar for incense (30.1–10)

(11) The sanctuary tax (30.11–16)

(12) The bronze basin (30.17–21)

(13) Special recipes (30.22–38)

(a) The anointing oil (30.22–33)

(b) The incense (30.34–38)

(14) Special craftsmen (31.1–11)

(15) The sabbath (31.12–18)

b. The covenant broken and restored (32.1–34.35)

(1) The people break the covenant (32.1–35)

(a) The gold bull-calf (32.1–6)

 (b) The first intercessory dialogue (32.7–14)

1] The Lord’s anger (32.7–10)

2] Moses’ first intercession (32.11–14)

(c) The stone tablets broken (32.15–20)

(d) Aaron’s excuse (32.21–24)

(e) The slaughter by the Levites (32.25–29)

(f) The second intercessory dialogue (32.30–35)

(2) The Lord promises to go with them (33.1–23)

(a) The third intercessory dialogue begins (33.1–6)

(b) The tent of meeting (33.7–11)

(c) The reassurance to Moses (33.12–23)

1] The third dialogue continues (33.12–17)

2] Moses asks to see Yahweh’s glory (33.18–23)

(3) The Lord renews the covenant (34.1–35)

(a) New stone tablets are prepared (34.1–4)

(b) The Lord appears to Moses (34.5–9)

(c) Another decalogue (34.10–28)

(d) Moses’ shining face (34.29–35)

c. The implementation of the instructions (35.1–39.43)

(1) Special announcements (35.1–19)

(a) Regulations for the sabbath (35.1–3)

(b) Materials to be donated (35.4–9)

(c) Articles to be made (35.10–19)

(2) The preparation for the construction (35.20–36.7)

(a) The donations begin (35.20–29)

(b) The craftsmen appointed (35.30–36.1)

(c) The donations terminated (36.2–7)

 (3) The construction of the tabernacle (36.8–38)

(a) The curtains (36.8–19)

(b) The framework (36.20–34)

(c) The veil and the screen (36.35–38)

(4) The construction of the furnishings (37.1–38.8)

(a) The ark (37.1–9)

(b) The table (37.10–16)

(c) The lampstand (37.17–24)

(d) The altar for incense (37.25–28)

(e) The oil and the incense (37.29)

(f) The altar for burnt offering (38.1–7)

(g) The bronze basin (38.8)

(5) The construction of the court enclosure (38.9–20)

(6) A tabulation of the metals used (38.21–31)

(7) The making of the priestly garments (39.1–31)

(a) The ephod (39.1–7)

(b) The breastpiece (39.8–21)

(c) The robe (39.22–26)

(d) The additional garments (39.27–29)

(e) The headpiece (39.30–31)

(8) The completion of the work (39.32–43)

The Epilogue: the Lord’s presence (40.1–38)

1. The Lord’s final instructions (40.1–15)

2. The erection and consecration of the tabernacle (40.16–33)

3. The cloud of the Lord’s presence (40.34–38)

THE TITLE OF THE BOOK

10

The Hebrew title for the book of Exodus is the same as the first two words in the Hebrew
text, translated here as These are the names. Tradition has introduced the Latin word Exodus,
which means “a going out,” and most translations follow the Latin rather than the Hebrew for
the title.

THE PROLOGUE:THE PEOPLE ARE OPPRESSED

(1.1–22)
1. The Israelites in Egypt(1.1–7)
The first chapter of Exodus serves as a prologue to the entire book, for it explains how the
Israelites got to Egypt and how they were later enslaved by the Egyptians.

In verses 1–14 there is a twofold transition from the book of Genesis to the stories in
Exodus. The writer assumes that the reader already knows the story of Joseph in Genesis
37–50. So verses 1–7 give a brief survey of the long period from the arrival of the sons of Jacob
in Egypt (verse 1) until the time when their many descendants were a threat to the Egyptians
because “the land was filled with them” (verse 7). The second part of the transition, verses
8–14, then explains how these people lost their freedom when “a new king, who knew nothing
about Joseph,” began to rule. The attempt of the Egyptian king to stop their population
explosion by killing their baby boys is described in verses 15–22. This prepares the reader for
the exciting story of the birth and early life of Moses in chapter 2.

Chapter 1 therefore is a necessary prelude to the rest of the book of Exodus. It shows that
Moses and all the Israelites were descendants of the patriarch Jacob, who was also called
Israel. It explains how they settled in Egypt. It also describes how they were forced to become
slaves in a foreign country after more than four hundred years. In this way it continues the
narrative begun in the book of Genesis and prepares the reader for the specific situation into
which Moses was born.

General Heading and Subheadings: Translators may or may not choose to follow the
Handbook’s outline throughout Exodus. Some chapters will have at least three headings: (a) a
major heading, which in some cases will cover several chapters, (b) a secondary heading
covering a shorter division than the major heading, and (c) one or more section headings.
Often the section divisions will correspond to those of TEV and the Contemporary English
Version (CEV), but in some cases the Handbook’s outline will have shorter divisions, requiring

10Osborn, N. D., & Hatton, H. (1999). A handbook on Exodus. UBS handbook series; Helps for
translators (vii). New York: United Bible Societies.

TEV Today’s English Version

CEV Contemporary English Version

more headings. Translators should carefully study the differences between the Handbook and
TEV or CEV, and judge which system will be the most helpful for their readers. In the case of
chapter 1, the Handbook suggests a general heading, “The Prologue: the people are
oppressed” (1.1–22), and headings for three subsections (these will be discussed in detail
below). If translators follow the Handbook’s outline, the general heading may be alternatively
rendered as “The Israelites are oppressed” or “The Egyptians make the Israelites work hard.”
The first section heading, “The Israelites in Egypt,” may be alternatively rendered as “The
Israelites go to Egypt” or “The descendants of Jacob go to live in Egypt.” If TEV’s heading is
used, one may say “The Israelites are treated cruelly in Egypt.”

1.1

It is not necessary to say These are the names in translating this verse, so long as the
translation clearly introduces the list of names that follow. Thus 1.1 TEV has simply “The sons …
were … .”

Jacob and Israel were the same person. (See Gen 32.27-28.) The Hebrew says sons of
Israel, but 1.1 TEV translates “sons of Jacob” to avoid confusion, and many translators will find
this a helpful model. The expression came to Egypt suggests that the author was in Egypt
when he wrote, but 1.1 TEV translates “went to Egypt,” suggesting that the writer was no
longer there. The New English Bible’s [NEB] rendering, “who entered Egypt,” is closer to the
Hebrew, which does not indicate where the writer was when he wrote this. However, since
translators in many languages must locate the speaker or writer in order to have natural style,
it is better to place the writer with the later Israelite community outside Egypt and translate
“who went to Egypt.” In languages where all directional information depends upon where the
speaker is located, translators should generally place the writer of Exodus in the area of
Canaan or Palestine.

Each with his household means that each of Jacob’s sons took along his own “family.”
Each son was the head of his own family, with the possible exception of Benjamin, who may
not yet have been married. Each “family” included the wives, sons, daughters, and in some
cases grandchildren. In addition each “family” included male and female servants with their
own families, as well as other relatives who lived under the authority of the family head. In
certain languages it will be necessary to translate this verse into two sentences; for example:
“The following people are the sons of Jacob who went to Egypt with him. Each one took his
family with him. 2 These sons were … .”

1.2-4

Jacob had twelve sons, and verses 2, 3, and 4 name eleven of them according to their four
mothers, with Reuben, the eldest, listed first. (See Gen 35.23-26.) The word and is introduced
in the Hebrew for convenience in reading and does not always represent the four groups of
brothers. Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, and Zebulun, were all sons of Jacob’s first
wife Leah. Benjamin and Joseph were sons of Rachel, Jacob’s second wife, but Joseph is not

NEB NEW ENGLISH BIBLE

 listed here because “Joseph was already in Egypt” (verse 5). Dan and Naphtali were sons of
Rachel’s maid, and Gad and Asher were sons of Leah’s maid.

1.5

All the offspring of Jacob in the Hebrew is literally “every person coming from the loins of
Jacob.” The offspring were the male descendants of Jacob; females were not included in the
seventy. This is because the Israelites kept record of their ancestors only through the father,
who was the head of the family. It may be helpful for translators to include this information in
a footnote. In some languages it will be useful to translate offspring as “sons and grand sons,”
as all of these are included in the seventy. Their names are given in Gen 46.8-27.

The footnote in TEV calls attention to “one ancient translation” that has “seventy-five”
instead of “seventy.” The Preliminary and Interim Report on the Hebrew Old Testament Text
Project (HOTTP) recommends that this ancient Greek translation, the Septuagint, be followed
rather than the Hebrew. The reasons for this are not yet widely accepted by biblical scholars,
so it is better to follow the Hebrew wording of “seventy” until there are more who support this
change. However, a footnote similar to the one in 1.5 TEV should be included to show that
there is a textual problem here and that “seventy-five” may have been the number intended.

Joseph was already in Egypt. This does not necessarily exclude him from the seventy, but
it explains why he is not listed with the names of his eleven brothers in verses 2–4.

CEV restructures verses 1–5 in a different way as follows:

• 1–5 When Jacob went to Egypt, his son Joseph was already there. So Jacob took his eleven
other sons and their families. They were: Reuben, Simeon … Altogether, Jacob had seventy
children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren who went with him.

1.6

The word Then is to be understood as “In the course of time” (1.6 TEV) and not as a sudden
or unexpected event. Other ways of expressing this are “In time” (John I. Durham), “As the
years passed,” or even “Eventually.” Since Benjamin, Joseph’s only younger brother, is
included, all his brothers may be expressed idiomatically in a number of languages; for
example, “elders and youngers” or “elder and younger siblings.” All that generation probably
included all adults who lived at the same time as Joseph and his brothers. In many languages
the phrase all that generation will be rendered as “all the people living at that time.”

1.7

The Hebrew literally says “the sons of Israel” as in verse 1, where the twelve sons of Jacob
are meant. Here, however, the reference is to the descendants of those sons, who later
became known as the “Israelites.” Descendants is not an easy concept to express in some
languages. Other ways of rendering But the descendants of Israel are “But their grandchildren

HOTTP HEBREW OLD TESTAMENT TEXT PROJECT

 and great-grandchildren, called the people of Israel …” or “But the people who followed after
them [or, came down from them], the Israelites … .”

Three expressions in this verse say exactly the same thing: they were fruitful, they
increased greatly, and they multiplied. This means simply that they “had many children and
became … numerous.” But they also grew exceedingly strong. The word for strong means
strong in number. It refers to the corporate strength of a large group of people rather than to
the physical strength of an individual. The Israelites were not in a position to form a political
organization that would threaten the Egyptians, but their large population was becoming a
threat to the king (see verse 9). An alternative translation for grew exceedingly strong is “they
grew so large in numbers that they became a threat [or, dangerous] to the Egyptians.”

So that the land was filled with them is an exaggeration. It describes the result of the
increasing population of the Israelites as well the impact of their corporate strength upon the
people of Egypt. The land refers to the territory of Egypt, and filled with them means that they
seemed to be everywhere in the land of Egypt. Thus NEB says that “the country was overrun by
them.”

An alternative translation model for this verse is:

• But the people who followed after them, who were called the Israelites, had many children.
There were so many of them and they grew so large in number that they became a threat [or,
dangerous] to the Egyptians. They were everywhere in the land of Egypt.

2. The Beginning of the Oppression(1.8–14)

Section Heading: other ways to express this Handbook’s heading, “The beginning of the
oppression,” are “The king begins to oppress the Israelites,” or “The king makes the Israelites
work very hard,” or even “The Israelites are forced to do hard labor.” 1.7 CEV suggests the
heading “The People of Israel Become Slaves” for chapter 1, and 1.7 TEV uses the word
“slavery” in verses 13–14. The meaning of “slavery,” however, may be misunderstood in some
cultures. The Israelites were not slaves in the sense that they were owned by the king and had
no independence at all. They were, of course, subject to the king just as all the Egyptians were.
But unlike the Egyptians, they were forced as an ethnic group to do heavy construction work
for the king, similar to corvée labor, with little or no pay. The Hebrew word for “slave” (’eved)
is not used until chapter 21, although other forms of the word are used in verses 13–14 with
the meaning of “serving” and “working.” (See the comment at 1.11a.) Translators are
therefore advised to use one of the more general headings above.

1.8

To say that a new king arose means that he “came to power,” or that he “ascended the
throne” (NEB) or “began to reign.” King in certain languages will be expressed as “high [or,
great] chief” or “the great one.” The new king, which in some languages may be termed
“another king,” is not named. He was not the successor to the king who befriended Joseph.
Several generations had passed, and this verse may refer to Seti I, who ruled Egypt in the late
 fourteenth century B.C. He was the second king of the nineteenth Egyptian dynasty, son of
Rameses I and father of Rameses II. (See verse 11.) In a functional equivalent translation,
therefore, some adjustment is needed to indicate that there was a broad span of time from
verse 7 to verse 8. The first word Now really means “Then,” but a stronger transitional may be
needed, such as “After a while,” “After many years had passed,” or “Many years later” (1.8
CEV).

Who did not know Joseph may be understood as “who knew nothing about Joseph” (1.8
TEV). But at least it implies that this new king, even if he had heard about Joseph, did not feel
any obligation to continue treating the Israelites favorably.

An alternative translation model for this verse is:

• After many years had passed, another king [or, high chief] began to rule over the land of Egypt.
This man knew nothing about Joseph.

1.9

The pronouns he and his refer to the king. His people means the Egyptians rather than the
Israelites. It is not certain whether he spoke publicly to all the Egyptians or secretly to his close
advisors. If a choice must be made in translation, it is better to have him speak to his advisors;
for example: “He discussed this problem with his advisors, saying … .”

Behold is not included in 1.9 TEV because it has become archaic in English. The Hebrew
word, however, carries a meaning that can be expressed naturally in many languages. Some
translations have attempted to catch its meaning in this verse with the word “Look.” (For
example, the Jerusalem Bible [JB], tanakh [the New Jewish Version], and the New International
Version [NIV].) It is understood simply as a command to pay attention to what will be said. In
certain languages this latter meaning will be a helpful model; for example: “Pay attention to
me!” or “Listen to me well!”

The Hebrew may be understood as too many and too mighty for us, or as “more
numerous and powerful than we” (the New Revised Standard Version [1.9 NRSV]). Some
translations such as 1.9 TEV and JB draw from the danger implied in verse 10 and translate “so
numerous and strong that they are a threat to us.” This idea may also be expressed as “so
numerous and strong that we should fear them” or “… that they are dangerous to us.”

1.10

B.C. (DATE) BEFORE CHRIST

JB JERUSALEM BIBLE

NIV NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION

NRSV New Revised Standard Version

 This sentence is complex because the “if” clause is embedded within the “lest” clause, and
both of them are subordinate to the main clause. It can be simplified by making it two
sentences, as TEV has done. Note that TEV also interchanges the clauses, placing the main
clause as the second sentence. It is also possible to put the equivalent of “So” or “Therefore”
here and say “So we must … .” In languages where subordinate clauses must always precede
the main clause, TEV’s model is a good one.

Come in 1.10 RSV reflects a word in the Hebrew that expresses urgency, such as the English
expression “Come on!” It increases the force of let us … , which here means “We must” (1.10
TEV). To deal shrewdly with them means to “find some way” (1.10 TEV), or “devise a plan,” to
prevent the Israelites from having so many children. It includes the idea that the Egyptians
wanted both to “be prudent” (JB) and to “take precautions” (NEB) to prevent this population
increase.

Lest they multiply is quite literal from the Hebrew. 1.10 NRSV has made this a bit clearer:
“or they will increase.” The Translator’s Old Testament (TOT) has “We must act astutely and
prevent their becoming too numerous.” The expression really means “If we don’t outsmart
them, their families will keep growing larger” (1.10 CEV). This clause may be placed at the end
of the verse, as 1.10 TEV has done.

The phrase if war befall us is based on a variant form of the Hebrew text. Literally the
Hebrew says “if war happen,” an awkward combination of a singular subject with a plural verb.
It may be easier to say “if our enemies attack us” or “if those who hate us attack us.” The
meaning is also clearly rendered with “In case of war” (1.10 TEV), or “if war breaks out” (NEB),
or “in the event of war” (TAN). They join our enemies and fight against us may also be
expressed as “they could easily fight on the side of our enemies” (1.10 TEV).

The footnote in TEV points out that the Hebrew can mean either escape from the land or
“take control of the country.” The literal “rise up from the earth” is ambiguous. The idea that
“they will become masters of the country” (NEB) is possible, but most translations understand
it in terms of escape. Since 1.10 RSV and 1.10 TEV both interpret the Hebrew in this way, it is
best to translate “escape from the country” (1.10 TEV) and place a footnote that shows the
other possible meaning.

An alternative translation model for this verse is:

• If our enemies attack us, the Israelites might join with these enemies and fight against us. As a
result they may escape from Egypt. So we must find [or, make] a plan to prevent them from
having so many children.

1.11

RSV Revised Standard Version

TOT TRANSLATOR’S OLD TESTAMENT

TAN TANAKH (NEW JEWISH VERSION)

 The pronoun they is indefinite. It may be understood as referring to “the Egyptians,” but
more specifically it means the king and his officials. It is possible, then, to render the phrase
Therefore they as “Therefore the king and his officials … .” They set taskmasters over them: it
is also possible to say that “taskmasters were set over the Israelites” (New American Bible
[NAB]), without having to identify who did it. But in languages that do not employ the passive
voice, 1.11 RSV or 1.11 TEV’s model will be helpful.

Taskmasters translates a technical term for supervisors of forced labor gangs. These are
the Egyptian “slave drivers” (1.11 TEV) mentioned in Exodus 5 and not the Israelite foremen
whom they later appointed. Although a different Hebrew term is used in 5.6 and 5.14, it is
important to distinguish between these two groups. (See the comment on slavery under the
Section Heading at 1.8.) Taskmasters may be translated as “people who force laborers to do
hard work.” It is better not to use “slaves” or “slave drivers” in this chapter.

The word for afflict also carries the meaning of humiliating someone, or causing one to
feel dependent on another. Hence “to crush their spirits” (1.11 TEV) is a more precise rendering
of the Hebrew. The one word for heavy burdens (literally “their burdens”) refers to the
“forced labor” (NAB, NIV) that was intended to place them completely under the control of the
Egyptians. Other ways to translate to afflict them with heavy burdens are “cause them to
suffer by doing heavy labor,” or idiomatically, “to make them do hard labor [or, work very
hard] until their spirits [or hearts, or liver] were sore [or, broken].”

1.11

Pharaoh is a title rather than a name, although it came to be used as a name. Originally it
was the Egyptian word for “great house,” referring to the palace of the king. Egyptians
gradually began to use it in reference to the king himself. All kings were given this title, but
they also kept their individual names. In the Old Testament, however, this word is never used
with the article (for example, “the Pharaoh”), so it has frequently been understood as a
personal name. In some languages a choice will have to be made to mark it either as a
personal name or as a title. In order to avoid this confusion, 1.11 TEV has chosen to translate it
as “the king” rather than transliterate it, and many translators will find this a good way to solve
the problem. (See the comment on “king” at verse 8.)

The store-cities were special centers built as warehouses for storing grain and other
supplies for the government. If such centers are unknown in the receptor culture, it is possible
to translate this word as “cities in which to store supplies,” or “cities … to serve as supply
centers,” as in 1.11 TEV. In cultures where the only large human settlements are villages
surrounded by fences, translators will need other more descriptive ways to translate store-
cities; for example, “large villages with high walls [or, fences] around them, where supplies are
stored” or “large places with high fences around them, where they store grain and other
things.” Pithom and Raamses should be transliterated as names of cities. The alternate
“Rameses” in 1.11 TEV and 1.11 NRSV represents the more common spelling for the city and for
the king who established the nineteenth Egyptian dynasty (see the comment at verse 8).

NAB NEW AMERICAN BIBLE

 An alternative translation model for verse 11b is:

• The Israelites built Pithom and Rameses for the king. They were special cities [or, villages with
high walls around them] for him to use for storing grain and other things.

1.12

The pronoun they in the first sentence may need to be identified as the Israelites to make
it clear that “the Egyptians oppressed the Israelites” (1.12 TEV), and the Israelites “increased in
number” (1.12 TEV). To spread abroad means that there were so many of them that they were
seen throughout the land of Egypt. The more … the more … the more … means that when the
Egyptians increased the oppression, the Israelites became even more numerous and were seen
even more frequently throughout Egypt. Oppressed may also be expressed as “treated
violently,” “were cruel toward,” or “hurt.” In a number of languages this will be described in a
way similar to “the Egyptians held their necks down.” In some languages it is difficult to
express the comparative “the more this, then the more that.” In such cases it is possible to say,
for example, “But just as the Egyptians were making it difficult for them, just so they became
many and spread out” (Ilokano), or even “The Egyptians treated the Israelites very cruelly. But
the families of the Israelites still continued to grow in number and spread out to places in
Egypt where they had not been before.”

The verb translated as were in dread of is not a common Hebrew word, so its meaning
must be determined by the context in which it is used. 1.12 TEV has “the Egyptians came to
fear the Israelites.” In Num 22.3 it also means to fear or dread, and in Isa 7.6 it means to
terrify. But in Lev 20.23 and Num 21.5 it means to hate or loathe. Most translations choose
either one meaning or the other, either to fear or to hate. However, both meanings seem to be
intended here, in the sense that the Egyptians had strong racial feelings against them as an
ethnic group. In context, then, the Egyptians “came to fear” (1.12 TEV) and “to loathe” (NEB) the
Israelites because they continued to increase in number. Using both of these meanings one
may render the second part of this verse as “The Egyptians began to hate and fear the
Israelites.” This hatred by the Egyptians was the result of the Israelites’ rapid increase in
population. In some languages it will be helpful to begin this final sentence with the equivalent
of “So” or “Therefore” and say “So the Egyptians began to hate … .”

1.13–14 1.14

These two verses are combined and restructured in TEV because the same information is
repeated. Both verses conclude with the same Hebrew word translated as with rigor, meaning
“harshness, severity.” Also the root word meaning “to serve” is used five times, here rendered
as serve … service … work … work … serve. Translators who begin the final sentence of verse
12 with “So” will find 1.14 TEV’s model more helpful than 1.14 RSV’s.

With rigor describes how the Egyptians made the people of Israel serve, not just how the
Israelites served. The Egyptians did this “by forcing them into cruel slavery” (1.14 TEV). That is,
they “worked them ruthlessly” (1.14 NIV). Made their lives bitter means they “made their lives
miserable” (1.14 TEV) because of the hard work. The phrase in mortar and brick refers to the
building projects mentioned in verse 11. Mortar is the moist, mud-like substance used in
building walls and applied between the layers of the bricks in order to bind them together. For
brick see the comment at 5.7. In some languages the first two clauses will need to be
expressed by two separate sentences; for example “And they [the Egyptians] cruelly forced the
Israelites to work hard as slaves. So their lives [or, hearts] became filled with bitterness” or “…
they had no happiness in their lives.”

We know from Exodus 5 that they had to make the bricks for the buildings, which probably
involved digging an irrigation system for carrying water from the Nile River to the building
sites. This should be considered in understanding all kinds of work in the field, which may also
have included farming and other forms of outdoor labor. In cultures where mortar and brick
are not used in building, it will be advisable to follow 1.14 TEV’s model, as the building
materials are not the important focus of this verse. One may translate, for example, “They [the
Egyptians] forced the Israelites to construct buildings and also do all kinds of work in the
fields.” The second occurrence of the phrase with rigor is translated by 1.14 TEV as “had no pity
on them.” Some translators may choose to follow this model.

3. The king’s Evil Plot (1.15–22)

Section Heading: another way to express the section heading is “The king plans to kill all
new-born Hebrew boys.”

1.15

The nationality of the Hebrew midwives is uncertain because the Hebrew phrase may be
read either as “Hebrew midwives” or as “midwives to the Hebrews.” They may have been
Egyptian midwives assigned to serve the Hebrew women. It is better to think of them as
“midwives who helped the Hebrew women.” The term Hebrew should not be changed to
“Israelite,” since it is sometimes used in reference to a larger group of people known as
Semites rather than just the descendants of Jacob. (See the comment on “Hebrews” at 3.18.)
In many languages there will be a technical expression for “midwife.” In fact, in some
languages there may be at least two expressions, one used colloqui ally and the other a more
elegant or polite term. In such cases the translator must decide which is more appropriate. In
yet other languages the meaning of “midwife” will have to be described; for example, “woman
who aids the womb” (Thai common language Bible [THCL]). A possible alternative model is
“Shiphrah and Puah, two women who helped the Hebrew women give birth … .”

Then the king of Egypt said: in many languages, using the equivalent of said (1.15 TEV’s
“spoke”) will not be strong enough. In such cases it will probably be better to say something
like “Then the king of Egypt gave a command to … .” Then the next verse may begin with the
phrase “He said to them … .”

Shiphrah and Puah were the names of two midwives, but there may have been more. One
… and the other … is literally “the first … the second … .” “The two midwives” in 1.15 TEV may
give the wrong meaning. The Hebrew text does not specify that there were only two. So

THCL THAI COMMON LANGUAGE VERSION

 translators should attempt to use language similar to 1.15 RSV’s model, leaving open the
possibility that there were other midwives available to the Hebrews. (See the alternative
model above.)

1.16

The meaning of the Hebrew word translated as birthstool is not certain. In Jer 18.3 it
refers to the potter’s wheel. It suggests the meaning of two stones, so it may indicate a kind of
“delivery stool” (1.16 NIV) consisting of two stones on which Egyptian women sat or knelt while
giving birth. The context is clear enough, however, so it is possible to translate the intended
meaning as in NEB, “watch as the child is delivered.” 1.16 TEV omits the entire phrase, and see
them upon the birthstool, leaving this information implicit.

You shall kill him and she shall live are both commands. Therefore it may be necessary to
translate “you shall not kill her” or “let her live” (NEB). The “it” in 1.16 TEV refers to “the baby,”
whether boy or girl.

In some languages it will be helpful to place “he said to them” (TEV) at the beginning of the
verse, as suggested in the comment at verse 15. An alternative model, then, for the verse is
the following:

• He said to them, “When you help the Hebrew women bear children, if you see that the baby is
a male, kill it. But if the baby is a girl, let it live.”

1.17

Feared God suggests they feared the Israelite God more than they feared the king. In the
Old Testament the expression “to fear God” or “to fear the Lord” is sometimes used to
describe the feeling of reverence or respect in the worship of God, as in Psa 34.11 and Pro 1.7.
Quite often it is used to describe the combined experience of fear and awe in the presence of
God, especially when God reveals himself in an unusual way, as in Exo 14.31. (See also Exo
3.6.)

Therefore the translator must guard against weakening the element of fear unless the
context warrants it. Since no more is known of these midwives than what is found in verses
15–21, it is better to assume the meaning of fear. It may be necessary to specify that “they
feared what God would do to them if they obeyed the king.” In some languages there will be
expressions meaning “to be in awe of,” suggesting both “reverence” and “fear” combined.
Translators should use such an expression in this context.

The clause beginning with and did not do is a result clause based on the midwives’ fear of
God. 1.17 TEV’s “and so” makes this clear. But let the male children live is literally “but they
kept alive the male children.” It means they allowed the boys to live. It is possible to
restructure this verse as follows: “But the two women had great reverence for God. So they let
the boys live, even though the king had ordered them to kill them.”

1.18
 The king … called the midwives simply means that “the king sent for the midwives” (1.18
TEV). In some languages this will be rendered as “had people go and bring the midwives to
him.” The king’s question is asking only one thing, not two. The this in Why have you done this
refers to what follows, namely, “Why have you … let the male children live?” The Hebrew
style suggests the king’s feeling of desperation. If this is not otherwise clear, the question may
be made into two questions as 1.18 TEV does: “Why are you doing this? Why are you letting
the boys live?” Or the second clause may be introduced with a participle: “Why have you acted
thus, allowing the boys to live?” (NAB). However, in certain languages a way to show this
desperation is to combine the two clauses and say, for example, “Why have you let the male
children live like this?” where the words “like this” are equivalent to Why have you done this?
In some languages the question “Why have you let the male children live” may give the
impression that they killed the female children. In such a case one may use the model “Why
have you not killed the male children?”

1.19

The expression they are vigorous, literally “they are alive,” may be translated as “they are
hardy” (JB) or “they are robust” (NAB). But the meaning of the whole clause is clear: “they give
birth easily.”

Before the midwife comes to them suggests the speed in delivery rather than the
slowness of the midwives. Midwife is singular in the Hebrew. The word “either” in 1.19 TEV
assumes that there were only two midwives: “their babies are born before either of us gets
there.” With only two midwives caring for so many Israelite women, their excuse would be
reasonable. It is better to allow for the possibility that there were more than two midwives;
then the excuse given can be understood as flimsy, and the real reason is clear, namely, that
the midwives feared God (verses 17 and 21). (This is Brevard Childs’ interpretation.) In some
languages it will be more natural style to put the clause before the midwife comes to them
first and say “… And before the midwife gets there, they have already given birth [or, delivered
a baby].” CEV’s model will be useful for many translators: “They answered, ‘Hebrew women
have their babies much quicker than Egyptian women. By the time we arrive, the babies are
already born.’ ”

1.20–21

TEV has rearranged these four clauses for a more natural and logical sequence. Hence the
sequence a-b-c-d in RSV becomes c-a-d-b in TEV, and the midwives’ fear of God clearly becomes
the logical basis for the various results. In many languages TEV’s model will be a more natural
one.

God dealt well with the midwives means that “God was kind to the midwives” (JB), or
“God was good to them” (1.21 TEV). In this context it may also be interpreted to mean “God
made the midwives prosper” (NEB). The people multiplied and grew very strong is the same
expression as that used in verse 7, except that in the Hebrew very strong is not quite as
emphatic as the Hebrew for “exceedingly strong” in verse 7. It refers to strength in number
rather than physical strength. (See the similar comment on “strong” at verse 7.) For feared
God see verse 17 and comment.
 He gave them families is literally “and he made for them houses.” But this does not
necessarily mean that they were simply given a place to live. The Hebrew word for house also
means “household” or “family,” so the probable implication is that the midwives had been
childless. Thus the ancient stigma against women who had no children would have been
removed. 1.21 TEV makes this clearer by adding “families of their own.” This may also be
expressed as “enabled them to have children of their own,” or even “… to have children and
grandchildren of their own.”

1.22

All his people here refers to all the Egyptians, for this was an order to murder all newborn
Hebrew boys throughout the country. (See verse 9 for a different context and meaning for
“people.”)

The phrase to the Hebrews is not in the Hebrew text, as the footnote in 1.22 RSV indicates.
Since the context clearly supplies this information, a footnote is not necessary for a functional
equivalent translation.

The Nile was so important to everyone living in Egypt that it is simply referred to in the
Hebrew as “the river.” The context should determine whether to translate it as “the river,” or
as the Nile. For readers unfamiliar with this river in Egypt, it may be necessary to translate “the
river that is called Nile,” or simply “the Nile River.”

PART ONE: THE LORD’S DELIVERANCE (2.1–15.21)

A. The Lord and Moses: preparation of a leader(2.1–7.7)
1. The Man Moses (2.1–25)

A. His Birth and Adoption (2.1–10)

The first chapter of Exodus provides a broad introduction to the entire book. Chapter 2
introduces the first of two major divisions, as indicated in the “Outline of Exodus,” page 5. This
first division, which continues into chapter 15, is concerned primarily with “The Lord’s
deliverance” (2.1–15:21). Chapter 2 also introduces the first of two subdivisions. The first
subdivision may be called the “Preparation of a leader” (2.1–7.7).

In chapter 1 the focus was on all the people of Israel in their slavery. Chapter 2 focuses on
an individual person, Moses, whom God will prepare to be the leader of the Israelites as the
story unfolds. Three episodes tell about Moses’ early life in rapid succession: verses 1–10 tell
us about Moses’ birth as an Israelite and his adoption by an Egyptian princess; verses 11–15a
tell us how he came to identify himself with his own people and why he had to escape from
Egypt; and verses 15b–22 tell us about his exile in the land of Midian and his marriage into the
family of a Midianite priest. In verses 23–25 the story then returns to the situation of the
Israelite people back in Egypt. In this way chapter 2 sets the stage for the call of Moses in
chapter 3.
 Section Headings: 1.22 TEV’s section heading, “The Birth of Moses,” may also be expressed
as “Moses is born.” However, if translators follow the Handbook’s suggested outline, there
should be four headings at this point: a general heading, “The Lord’s deliverance” (2.1–15:21),
which may be alternatively rendered as “The Lord delivers the Israelites,” followed by a
subheading “The Lord and Moses: preparation of a leader” (2.1–7.7), which may also be
expressed as “Yahweh prepares Moses as a leader.” This will be followed by a heading for the
entire chapter, “The man Moses” (2.1–25), which will be easily translated. Finally there should
be a section heading, “His birth and adoption” (2.1–10). Other ways to render this are “The
birth and adoption of Moses,” “Moses is born and adopted,” or “Moses is born and the
princess adopts him.”

2.1

Now translates the common Hebrew conjunction waw, but here it marks the important
transition from chapter 1 to the story of Moses’ birth. It is rendered “During this time” in 2.1
TEV in order to show this transition more clearly. Before these chapter divisions were added to
the text, it was easy for people reading the scripture or listening to it being read in a public
gathering to see this transition. But with these chapter divisions many modern listeners as well
as readers will need some transitional information. So in some languages it will be helpful to
translate something like “While these events were going on, a man …” or “While the Israelites
were laboring for the Egyptians, a man … .”

The house of Levi refers to “the tribe of Levi” in this context, since Levi was a distant
ancestor, one of the twelve sons of Jacob. Both the man and the daughter of Levi are to be
understood as his descendants and therefore members of the same tribe. The expression went
and took to wife simply means “married.” A “tribe” is a group of people who are descended
from the same ancestor. Often, as in the case of the Hebrews, it is further subdivided into
smaller groups called “clans.” In many receptor cultures there will be similar divisions. (See the
comment at 6.14.) But in the case of a culture that does not make such distinctions, a possible
translation of “a man from the tribe of Levi” is “a man who was descended from the ancestor
[or, great-grandfather] Levi.”

The Hebrew has “the daughter” rather than a daughter, but this may be understood as a
reference to 6.20, where the names of both the man and the woman are given. But since this
is the first mention of the woman, most translations use the indefinite article.

An alternative translation model for this verse is:

• During this time, a man who was descended from the ancestor Levi married [or, took as his
wife] a woman who was also a descendant of Levi.

2.2

The woman conceived and bore a son clearly identifies two actions, but of course
conceived is understood when only bore is mentioned. Thus 2.2 TEV omits the first action,
conceived, and connects the clause with “married” in the preceding verse by simply adding
that “she bore him a son.” However, in many languages it will be more natural style to
translate in a way similar to 2.2 RSV. Other details in the story indicate that Moses was not the
firstborn child (2.4) nor even the first son (7.7).

He was a goodly child should be understood as a natural description of a handsome,

healthy baby boy. Hence “she saw what a fine baby he was” (2.2 TEV), or “He was a healthy
child.” She hid him three months does not indicate how or where she hid him, but only that
she kept him secretly for a period of three months. It will be helpful in some languages to say
whom she hid Moses from; for example, “She hid him from the Egyptians for three months.”

2.3

The Hebrew conjunction waw (And) is better translated as “But,” since it introduces a
change from the situation of verse 2. When she could hide him no longer means that she was
not able to keep it a secret that she was protecting her three-month old baby boy. The reason
is not given, but perhaps the child’s behavior and crying was becoming louder.

She took for him a basket means only that the mother “got” a basket (NEB and others). It
does not suggest that she was the one who made or wove the basket.

The basket made of bulrushes was woven from a plant called papyrus. It was one of
several types of reeds or “tall grass” that grew in the shallow water along the brink or “edge”
of the Nile River. In cultures where papyrus is unknown, translators may express reeds as “tall
grass” (see 2.3 TEV). The shape and size of the basket are not indicated, but it was a kind that
could be made to float in water. (The same Hebrew word is used in Gen 6.14 for Noah’s ark.)
Verse 6 indicates that it had a cover and could be closed. Therefore it may have been a
common household item used as a place for storing personal and family things, or even food
or produce. Translators in many languages will have a variety of words for baskets according to
the size and material used, and they should pick a term which describes a basket large enough
to hold a baby.

The bitumen and pitch were two thick, sticky substances used for sealing cracks in vessels
of wood and reed. The distinction between the two is not clear, but the bitumen was probably
a mineral substance, like asphalt, and the pitch probably came from certain plants. If bitumen
and pitch are unknown, they may be combined as “tar” (2.3 TEV), since the scientific
identification is not important here. Their purpose, of course, is important, so 2.3 TEV adds “to
make it watertight.” If tar is unknown, a translator may say, for example “a sticky substance to
keep it from sinking,” or even “fixed the basket so that it would not sink.”

The mother placed it among the reeds at the river’s brink. This suggests that the basket
was actually floating in water, for the reeds grew in the shallow water “at the edge of the
river.” The word for reeds is a general term that includes bulrushes. (See the comment above.)

2.4

His sister was obviously an older sister, the oldest of three children. (See Exo 15.20; Num
26.59.) She was probably Miriam, for Aaron was only three years older than Moses (7.7). Her
age can only be determined on the basis of this verse and verses 7–8, but the difference in
ages will determine the choice of kinship terms required in many languages.
 She stood at a distance in order to watch; hence she “took her stand” (NEB) or “stationed
herself” (NAB). At a distance was not “afar off,” as some translations have it, but “some
distance away.” That means it was close enough to know or “to see what would happen to
him,” but it was also far enough so that she would not be seen.

2.5

The daughter of Pharaoh was of course “the king’s daughter” (2.5 TEV). (“King” occurs at
1.8 and Pharaoh at 1.11b.) She is referred to as “princess” by 2.5 TEV in the following verse.
Her age is not indicated, but the context suggests that she was an adult, though possibly not
yet married. The use of the definite article the in English may indicate one of two things: (1)
this princess was one who was known both to the writer and the readers, and (2) it may imply
that the king had only one daughter. We are not sure of either of these two facts; however,
there are languages that employ numeral classifiers and do not have the equivalent of the
English “the” or “a.” In such languages one may translate in a general way and simply say
“Daughter of king came … .” She came down to bathe at the river. This shows her intention,
but the text does not say explicitly that she actually did bathe before she saw the basket.
Neither does it say that she intended to bathe in the river itself, but many translations
interpret the Hebrew preposition to mean stepping into the water. The river implies a known
river, namely the Nile. (See the comment at 1.22.)

Her maidens were the female “servants” (2.5 TEV) of the princess. The maid or “slave
woman” (2.5 TEV) she sent to get the basket may have been one of these “servants.” The two
terms in Hebrew usually mean the same thing and suggest that they were all young mature
women. They walked beside the river to make sure that the princess had privacy while she
bathed. She saw the basket among the reeds: 2.5 TEV has “Suddenly she noticed … ,” where
“Suddenly” translates the common Hebrew conjunction waw according to the context, but
most translations omit it. The clause she sent her maid to fetch it may also be expressed as
“The princess said to her maid, ‘Bring that basket to me.’ ”

2.6

She saw the child is literally “and she saw him, the child.” This unusual style adds to the
suspense of the narrative. The apparent surprise and pity of the princess is suggested by the
word lo. Although lo is archaic in English, many languages will be able to use an interjection or
an ideophone here quite naturally. By placing a period after “baby boy,” 2.6 TEV preserves
some of this suspense. Most probably the babe was crying from hunger. But we do not know
this for sure. So translators should not indicate why the child was crying, unless this
information is required in a particular receptor language.

She took pity on him means “she felt sorry” for the baby. By connecting this with the
preceding clause, 2.6 TEV also suggests that the baby’s crying only added to her pity. Hence NEB
has “and she was filled with pity for it.” Pity in many languages will be rendered in a figurative
or idiomatic way; for example, “She had a warm heart [or liver, or stomach] toward him,” or
“She felt weakness because of him.”
 This is one of the Hebrews’ children is literally “from the children of the Hebrews this
[one].” The text suggests that the princess had no doubt; she was certain that here was a
Hebrew “baby boy” (2.6 TEV). TAN brings out this certainty with “This must be a Hebrew child”
(similarly 2.6 CEV and REB). The Hebrew for child and children indicates that the baby was a
boy. And if he had already been circumcised, an ancient Hebrew custom, the princess would
have known that he had been born into a Hebrew family.

2.7–8

It must be assumed that his sister joined the princess and her servants in the excitement
of finding the baby, for she did not have to call to her. She simply said or “asked her” (2.8 TEV).
Since the sister was last mentioned in verse 4, it will be helpful in many languages to say “the
baby’s [older] sister.” In certain languages it will also be necessary again to identify Pharaoh’s
daughter, as the Hebrew has done, and translate “Then the baby’s sister said to the king’s
daughter” (see 2.8 RSV). Shall I go may also be expressed as “Do you want me to go … .”

The nurse intended here was a “wet-nurse” (NEB) for the purpose of breast- feeding the
child. This was an immediate need which the princess would have recognized. It should not be
difficult for most translators to find a suitable term for “wet-nurse.” In some languages this
person is referred to as “milk mother.” Hebrew women should not be changed to “Israelite
women” (as noted in the comment on 1.15).

Go in 2.8 RSV should not be understood as a stern command. Rather it was a natural
response of agreement to the girl’s suggestion. It may be rendered as “Please do” (2.8 TEV),
“Yes” The New Jerusalem Bible [NJB], or “Yes, do so” (NAB). The child’s mother refers to the
baby’s own mother, but of course she was also the girl’s mother.

2.9

And Pharaoh’s daughter said to her: the pronoun her refers to the mother and not the
girl. 2.9 TEV makes this clear by translating “the woman.”

Take this child away translates what is literally “Cause this child to go,” so it means more
than simply receiving the child. A different Hebrew verb meaning “to receive” or “to take hold
of” is used in the second sentence for the woman took the child. It is safe to assume,
therefore, that the princess intended for the mother to keep the child until he was weaned.
Nurse him here literally means “suckle him” (NEB), but it also implies by context taking
complete care of the child. Translators should try to find a term in the receptor language that
includes both meanings.

I will give you your wages may suggest that the princess herself would pay the mother, for
the emphatic pronoun “I” is used. For this reason NEB has “I will pay you for it myself,” and NJB
has “I shall pay you myself for doing so.” However, it may simply mean “I will pay you.” Either

REB REVISED ENGLISH BIBLE

NJB NEW JERUSALEM BIBLE

 way, it suggests that this was an arrangement made by the princess herself without informing
her father the king.

2.10

And the child grew should be understood as “when the child was old enough” (2.10 TEV).
The child’s age is not indicated, but the previous verse suggests that he was old enough to be
weaned. Some translations such as NJB and NAB have “When the child grew up,” but this may
suggest that he was now a grown man, which is unlikely. Another translation model is “When
the child had grown sufficiently.” 2.10 TEV begins the verse with “Later” in order to suggest a
much shorter period of time. The pronoun she refers to the child’s mother, who brought him
to Pharaoh’s daughter. That is, she fulfilled the agreement made in 2.9. In languages where
pronouns do not carry information relating to gender, whether the pronoun is masculine or
feminine, it will be helpful to express she as “the child’s mother.” And he became her son
means that the princess “adopted him as her own son” (2.10 TEV). “Adopted” may also be
expressed as “The king’s daughter made him her son” or “… treated him [or, received him] as if
he was her own son.”

She named him Moses, probably an Egyptian name based on the Egyptian mose, meaning
“son of.” But as the 2.10 TEV footnote points out, Moses sounds like the Hebrew for “pull out.”
The Hebrew form of the name is Mosheh, a participle meaning “one who pulls out” rather than
“one who is pulled out,” which would be mashuy. (See the footnotes in 2.10 RSV.) The
significance of Moses’ name, therefore, is difficult to convey in the translation itself. For this
reason most translations place a footnote to explain this similarity of sound and meaning (see
2.10 TEV’s note).

For she said means that the princess said it. But the text does not indicate to whom she
spoke. If it is necessary in translation to identify an addressee, one may follow 2.10 TEV and say
“she said to herself” or “she thought.” The Hebrew often uses the same word for “say” and
“think.” (See, for example, 2.14.) But it is also possible to follow FRCL and say “she declared” or
“she announced,” assuming that she said this to those who were with her.

An alternative translation model for this verse is:

• When the child had grown sufficiently, his mother took him to the daughter of the king, who
made him her own son. She thought, “I pulled him out of the water, so I will name him
Moses.”

B. His Flight from Egypt (2.11–15a)

Section Heading: the heading for 2.10 TEV is intended for 2.11–25 and does not apply
directly to the verses discussed here. The heading suggested above, “His flight from Egypt,” is
intended only for 2.11–15a. Another heading is given for 2.15b–25. Either the longer or shorter
section may be followed, and the translator may even choose a different heading. But care

FRCL FRENCH COMMON LANGUAGE VERSION

should always be given to ensure that each section has a section heading that passes the “sac”
test: It should be Specific, Accurate, and Concise. It is understood, though, that sometimes
receptor languages will need more words for the heading than in the English models. If
translators choose to use 2.10 TEV’s heading, “Moses escapes to Midian,” another way to
express this is “Moses escapes from Egypt and goes to Midian.” If, however, the shorter
section is chosen, one may alternatively express this as “Moses flees from the land of Egypt.”

2.11

One day and when Moses had grown up indicate that many years have passed from the
event in verse 10. The Hebrew word for grown up is the same as the word for “grew” in verse
10, but the context shows that Moses was now a grown man. Later tradition considered Moses
to have been about forty years old at this time. (See Acts 7.23.) The Hebrew is literally “And it
happened in those days.” So 2.11 RSV’s model will be a more natural one in many languages.
2.11 TEV’s model, on the other hand, leaves out the phrase One day. This gives the impression
that, as soon as Moses became an adult, he went out to see his people. In actuality he did this
at some unknown time after he had reached adulthood. So it may be better to translate “Some
time later [or, After many years], when Moses had grown up [or, was an adult], he … .”

He went out to his people suggests that Moses was still enjoying the freedom and security
of the palace. In certain languages it will be necessary to state that he went out of some
specific space. In such cases one may translate “he went out of the palace [or, the palace
grounds] to visit his own people,” or “he went away from the palace … ,” or even “he went
away from the royal city … .” His people were not the Egyptians; they were the Hebrews, as
2.11 TEV makes clear with “his people, the Hebrews.” The Hebrew literally says “his brothers”
and should be understood as “his kinsmen” or “his own people.”

Moses now identified himself with these oppressed people as he looked on their burdens.
The same word is here used for both looked and saw, but the object of looked carries more
meaning than simply looking at their burdens, especially with the preposition on. Hence 2.11
TEV has “he saw how they were forced to do hard labor.” (Compare the Translator’s Old
Testament [TOT]: Moses “observed the heavy work they had to do.”) In languages that do not
use the passive voice, one may translate this sentence as “he saw how the Egyptians were
forcing them [the Hebrews] to do hard work.”

He saw an Egyptian beating a Hebrew describes an actual event. The word for beating
does not identify what kind of instrument may have been used. It could have been a whip, a
stick, or even a fist. Sometimes this word implies “beating to death,” as in verse 12. But other
times it does not, as in verse 13. There is nothing in the context here to support 2.11 TEV’s
interpretation of “kill.” So translators are urged to follow 2.11 RSV’s model. However, in certain
languages where different verbs are used for “beating” or “striking,” depending upon whether
fists are used or a weapon of some kind, translators should use the latter one. The most
probable weapon was a rod or a stick; so one may translate “he saw an Egyptian using a rod to
beat a Hebrew.” We simply do not know whether the Hebrew lived or died. The text clearly
states that he was one of his people (literally “from his brothers”), so it is possible that Moses’
reaction to what he saw was quick enough to save the man’s life.
2.12

He looked this way and that (2.12 TEV “looked all around”) is literally “he faced here and
there,” suggesting that Moses’ violent reaction was intentional. Seeing no one is literally
“there was no one,” but it is unlikely that no other people were nearby. Verse 11 clearly states
that Moses went out to his “brothers” (plural). So 2.12 TEV interprets this to mean that “no one
was watching,” and this is the recommended interpretation.

He killed the Egyptian is clearly implied from the fact that he hid him in the sand. As
mentioned at 2.11, the basic meaning of the Hebrew verb is “to beat or strike.” But the
context here, unlike that of verse 11, supports the meaning of “beat to death.” We may
therefore assume that the Egyptian was dead before Moses “hid his body in the sand” (2.12
TEV). Sand is loose, and the fact that it is mentioned suggests that Moses had to bury the body
in haste, probably using his bare hands. In cultures where sand is uncommon, one may say
something like “and quickly dug a hole to hide the body” or “and quickly hid the corpse in the
dirt [or, ground].”

2.13

He went out the next day: in this context it is possible to say “The next day he returned to
the same place.” For he went out see the comment at verse 11. Behold translates the same
word discussed at 1.9. Although most English translations seem to omit it, the element of
surprise is often indicated by word order or punctuation. NAB, for example, has “and now two
Hebrews were fighting!” (Note the “now” and the “!”) One commentary suggests translating
“to his surprise.” This will be a good place to employ an ideophone as described at 2.6.

The word for struggling together or “fighting” means “to quarrel.” The idea of “fighting” is
indicated by Moses’ question, Why do you strike your fellow? This is the same word discussed
above in verses 11 and 12. The word for fellow sometimes means “friend” or “companion.” It
is clear that the two men were both Hebrews, but it is possible that the man that did the
wrong was a Hebrew foreman who was beating a Hebrew laborer. It is not certain whether
this man was beating him with a rod or stick, or simply punching him. Either interpretation is
possible. Other ways to express this clause are “the man who was hitting [with a rod or stick]
the other one” or “the man who was punching the other one.” (For the distinction between
Hebrew foremen and Egyptian taskmasters, see 5.13-14 and the comment at 1.11a.) But
“fellow Hebrew” or “kinsman” (NJB) is the intended meaning in Moses’ question.

2.14

“Who made you a prince and judge over us?” is a rhetorical question, a question that
does not demand an answer. In some languages it will be worded as a strong statement. Here
it means “You have no right to interfere!” or “We do not recognize you as having authority
over us!” The Hebrew word for prince actually means “ruler” or “officer” (NEB), not “son of a
ruler.” It was probably known that Moses was the adopted son of the princess, and this would
make him a prince in the sense of the English word. But the word means only one who rules or
has authority. The word for judge should be understood simply as one who settles disputes,
and probably refers to an office of lower rank than that of “ruler.” Alternative translation
models are “Who gave you the authority to judge us?” “You have no right to judge us!” or
“You are not a chief to be able to decide whether we are right or wrong.”

“Do you mean to kill me … ?” is also a rhetorical question. It may have been asked in self-
defense, but more likely it was intended as a threat. The word for kill has a very broad
meaning. It does not specify either the means or the intent of killing as do other Hebrew words
used in Exodus. It simply means “cause to die” and may need to be translated in this way, if all
available terms are too specific. Alternative translation models are “You plan to kill me [or,
cause me to die] just as you did that Egyptian, don’t you?” or “I suppose you are going to kill
me just as you killed that Egyptian.”

Then Moses was afraid because the secret was out; he was not afraid of this man who
rejected his authority. Afraid may be rendered figuratively; for example, “Moses’ heart [or,
liver] shivered [or, trembled].” So he thought, or “said to himself.” The Hebrew word means
“said,” but the context suggests that he was only thinking the words that follow.

Surely the thing is known expresses what Moses thought as a direct quotation. Surely
translates a Hebrew word indicating surprise that events have turned out differently from
what was expected. This is difficult to show in English with a single word. In colloquial English
one may say “Oh oh!” and some languages may have an appropriate ideophone. Since the
thing refers to what Moses had done to the Egyptian the preceding day, one may say “Oh oh!
They know what I have done!” 2.14 TEV’s model is a good one:“People have found out what I
have done.”

In some languages it is not natural to speak to oneself or to express one’s thoughts in

direct discourse. So one may translate with indirect discourse. (Compare Moffatt [MFT], “This
made Moses afraid; he reflected that what he had done must be known,” and the Living Bible
[LB], “When Moses realized that his deed was known, he was frightened”). One may also say
“When Moses realized that people knew what he had done, he was afraid.”

2.15

The it that Pharaoh heard of refers to the “thing” or “deed” that Moses had done, namely,
the act of killing the Egyptian. It may be more natural to say “When the king heard about what
had happened” (2.15 TEV) or “When the king heard about what Moses had done, he … .” He
sought to kill Moses is a literal rendering of the Hebrew. Since the king is the one referred to,
it is better to understand it as “he tried to have Moses killed.” The same word for kill is used
here as in verse 14. Although a generic term, it is used here in the sense of execution for a
crime.

C. His Exile in Midian (2.15b–25)

(1) Marriage (2.15b–22)

MFT MOFFATT

LB LIVING BIBLE
 Both RSV and TEV start a new paragraph in the middle of verse 15 in order to mark the
change in setting from Egypt to Midian. But they do not divide the verse at the same place.
This is why the TEV column above begins in the middle of a sentence. It should be remembered
that the chapter and verse divisions used today were introduced many years after the books of
the Bible were written and were not a part of the original text.

Section Heading: some translators will wish to place a separate section heading here as
suggested by the Handbook. If this is done, first there should be a general heading, “His exile in
Midian,” which may also be expressed as “Moses is forced to live in Midian,” or more simply
“Moses lives in the land of Midian.” Then there should be a specific heading for verses
2.15b–22, namely “Marriage,” or “Moses marries Zipporah,” or something similar.

2.15

Moses fled from Pharaoh is literally, “Moses fled from the face of Pharaoh,” but the
meaning is clear without even mentioning Pharaoh. So some translations have simply “Moses
fled.” However, if translators must state where Moses fled from, one may say, for example,
“Moses fled from the land of Egypt and … .”

He stayed in the land of Midian presumes that Moses “went to live in the land of Midian”
(2.15 TEV). It may be necessary to specify that he “went” there before he stayed there; for
example, “and he came to the land of Midian, where he stayed.” The land of Midian probably
refers to the area in northwest Arabia that borders the Gulf of Aqaba. It should be thought of
as a separate country.

At this point TEV concludes a paragraph that began with verse 14. This is possible, since the
clause describes the consequence of Moses’ fear and the king’s anger. RSV, on the other hand,
interprets this sentence (15b) to introduce a new paragraph. This is also possible, since the
scene changes quite suddenly from Egypt to Midian.

And he sat down by a well is included by 2.15 RSV as the conclusion of the sentence
because it follows the Hebrew text quite literally. 2.15 TEV uses this clause more naturally as
the introduction of a new paragraph: “One day, when Moses was sitting by a well, … .” The
well in the ancient Near East was the source of water for a community. It was the natural place
for Moses to go for rest and refreshment, but he would also expect to meet people there. A
well is a deep pit in the ground with water seeping into it from an underground water source.
The water must be drawn up by using some sort of container, in this case a clay jar (see the
comment on drawing water at verse 16). The joining of verse numbers in 2.15 TEV (15–16) is
unnecessary, since there has been no rearrangement of the text. The verse number 16 could
have been placed immediately before the words “seven daughters of Jethro … .”

2.16

The priest of Midian is not named in the Hebrew text until verse 18, but 2.16 TEV identifies
him here as “Jethro,” since he is now mentioned for the first time, and many translators will
wish to do the same. However, it may be that the writer does not give his name here for
reasons of style, or in order to build up suspense. Translators therefore should decide whether
it is better for their readers if they translate according to 2.16 TEV and name the priest here, or
if they should wait until verse 18. (The problem of his name is discussed at verse 18.) The word
for priest has a broad meaning. It is used throughout the Bible for both Israelite and non-
Israelite cultic leaders. The term priest will be difficult to translate in some languages,
especially for translators who have not yet translated the New Testament. A Handbook on the
Book of Leviticus, page 16,has an excellent discussion on the Levitical priests, whose rank and
duties would have been similar to that of Jethro’s, even though he did not necessarily worship
Yahweh:

… priests were representatives of the people, … . The primary duty of the priest was to serve as
an intermediary between the Lord and his people. The means by which this was done was
sacrifice. Thus in some languages this word has been translated “sacrificer,” or “intermediary.”
But care should be taken to avoid negative connotations of a word like “sacrificer” if it evokes
ideas of pagan sacrifices quite different from those of the people of Israel … .

In this context, of course, the sacrifice is being performed by a Midianite, but it appears
that Jethro was sacrificing to God. So a possible alternative translation for priest is “one who
presents people’s gifts to God.”

A Handbook on the Gospel of Mark, page 69, talks about how certain cultures have
translated the term priest; for example, “ ‘one who presents man’s sacrifice to God,’ … ‘one
who takes the name of the sacrifice,’ … ‘one who speaks to God,’ … and ‘spokesman of the
people before God’ … .”

The seven daughters were probably unmarried, for it is unlikely that married women
would have been free to take care of the animals. At least some of them would have been old
enough to marry, and it is even possible that their father had more than one wife.

They came and drew water, and filled the troughs suggests three actions that were
actually carried out: (1) they arrived at the well, (2) they drew water out of the well, using
some sort of container, and (3) they poured the water into the troughs. 2.16 TEV and 2.16 CEV,
however, may suggest that there was only one action, namely that the daughters came with
the intention of drawing water and filling the troughs, but the shepherds stopped them before
they actually drew the water. Note the difference between and drew … and filled (2.16 RSV)
and “to draw … and fill” (2.16 TEV). With the use of and, 2.16 RSV shows the second and third
actions as completed, while in 2.16 TEV they may be understood as intended actions only. NJB is
nonspecific: “They used to come and draw water to fill the troughs.” The Hebrew text is
ambiguous and can be understood in any of these ways. The translator must decide just how
far they got in completing their intended actions before they were interrupted. (See verses 17
and 19 for the fuller narration.)

They drew water by means of lowering a clay jar into the well with a rope. The troughs
were large water containers close to the well, and they were probably constructed from wood
or clay. It was probably a long and difficult task to draw water and fill more than one trough
(note the plural) in order to water a flock. Their father’s flock included both “sheep and
goats,” since the Hebrew word refers to small domesticated animals. If “sheep” and “goats”
are unknown in a receptor culture, one may wish to borrow a foreign name. If this is
necessary, it will be helpful to include a picture of these animals and even a footnote
 describing them. For further information on “sheep” and “goats,” one may consult the United
Bible Societies book, Fauna and Flora of the Bible (FFB); on sheep see pages 75–76, and on
goats see pages 36–38. In certain languages it will be necessary to add the words “for their
sheep and goats to drink” to this final sentence.

2.17

The shepherds were men who took care of animals, including sheep and goats, and even
cattle. The Hebrew word translated as “shepherd” comes from a verb meaning to pasture or
graze animals, and these animals may be small (sheep and goats) or large (cattle). The English
term shepherds (originally “sheepherders”) normally refers to people who tend or look after
sheep. In Moses’ time, however, both sheep and goats were usually kept together in the same
flock. If a receptor language does not have a technical word for an animal herder of this kind, it
is possible to translate shepherds as “men who looked after sheep and goats” or “sheep and
goat tenders.” These men did not want to wait their turn, so they drove them away. It is not
clear whether the them refers to the daughters or to their father’s sheep and goats, but
probably “Jethro’s daughters” are intended, as 2.17 TEV translates. Drove them away means
that the shepherds used force to make the women leave the well. This first sentence may thus
be rendered as “But some men who looked after sheep and goats drove Jethro’s daughters
away from the well.”

Moses stood up suggests that Moses was sitting there watching the daughters until the
shepherds interfered (see verse 15b). But the Hebrew word for “stand” or “rise” does not
always mean the person has been sitting. Sometimes it simply shows that the person began
the action of the verb that follows. Therefore it may also be understood along with the
following verb, and helped them, in the sense, as 2.17 TEV expresses it, “Moses went to their
rescue.” This is recommended as a model for translation.

The manner in which Moses helped them is not indicated in this verse, but it is referred to
when they report to their father in verse 19. It certainly doesn’t mean “helped them escape
from the shepherds.” The probable meaning is “went to their rescue” (2.17 TEV). Another way
to express this is “stopped the shepherds from bothering [or, harassing] them.” Moses
watered their flock as an additional act of assistance. It included drawing water from the well
and filling the troughs. This suggests, then, that maybe the daughters had not yet drawn the
water. (See verse 16.) In many languages watered their flock will be expressed as “gave their
animals water to drink.” However, in some languages it will be necessary to make all of Moses’
actions explicit; for example, “Moses drew water and filled the troughs for their animals to
drink” or “Moses drew water, filled the troughs, and let their animals drink.”

An alternative translation model for this verse is:

• But some men who looked after sheep and goats came and forced Jethro’s daughters to leave
the well. Moses went and helped the women resist the men. He then drew water, filled the
troughs, and let their animals drink.

FFB FAUNA AND FLORA OF THE BIBLE

2.18

They came to their father is better rendered as “When they returned to their father” (2.18
TEV). Since the word for came also suggests entering an enclosure, the German common
language version (GECL) even has “they came home to their father.” Since Jethro’s family would
have lived in tents, one may also express this first sentence as “When they returned to the tent
of their father.”

Reuel is considered by many scholars to be another name for Jethro. 2.18 TEV does not use
the name Reuel but always identifies him as “Jethro” (verse 16) because it is the more familiar
name. (This is one of the features of translation agreed upon by the 2.18 TEV translators, as
explained in the Preface to 2.18 TEV.) Translators are encouraged to follow this same principle
and use “Jethro” here.

How is it translates only one word that means “Why?” The question here suggests that the
daughters watered the flock every day, and on this day they had come home earlier than
usual.

2.19

An Egyptian, of course, refers to Moses, who was evidently still dressed as an Egyptian.
The hand of the shepherds refers to their power, so it is more natural in English to say “An
Egyptian rescued us from the shepherds” (2.19 TEV). Other languages, however, may be able to
keep the expression out of the hand of the shepherds with the same meaning of power. And
even means that Moses did more than just rescue them from the shepherds; he even drew
water for them and watered the flock. The Hebrew word for even gives emphasis to what
follows, indicating that Jethro’s daughters were very impressed with what Moses had done for
them. Another way to say this is “But he was even kind [or, helpful] enough to draw water … .”
This verse should be considered when translating verse 16. But see verse 17 for a comment on
the idea of “rescue” and watered the flock.

2.20

The father’s response reflects the typical hospitality of the ancient Near East. He
reproaches his daughters for not observing their accepted custom. Some translations interpret
the And as “then,” as in TAN, “Where is he then?” In many languages it will be better style to
omit the conjunction, as 2.20 TEV has done. The word said may also be expressed as “asked”
(see 2.20 TEV). In some languages the question Why have you left the man? will be more
clearly expressed as “Why did you leave the man by [or, at] the well?”

Call him implies two actions, “Go and invite him.” That he may eat bread means simply
“to eat with us”; it does not specify the menu. Although bread was commonly eaten, it is often
used figuratively for food in general. Translators should use a general term for “food,” unless
bread is the staple food in their own culture as it was in the Midianite culture.

GECL GERMAN COMMON LANGUAGE VERSION

2.21

The narrative jumps to the result of Reuel’s hospitality without mentioning at least two
events that are clearly implied: Moses was invited to eat with them, and he accepted. Moses
was content to dwell with the man means that Moses took up residence with Reuel (Jethro)
and his household. To dwell with the man may also be rendered as “to live [or, reside] with
Jethro and his family.” It is not so clear just how much he had to be persuaded to dwell there.
The Hebrew for was content may mean either that he “decided to live there” (2.21 TEV
American Edition) or that he “agreed to live there” (2.21 TEV British Edition). It must be
remembered that Moses was a fugitive and needed a place to stay, but the custom would have
required more of an invitation than for one meal. The implication is that he was happy with
the arrangement. Thus “agreed” is the more likely interpretation.

He gave Moses his daughter clearly implies marriage, and some ancient manuscripts even
add the words “for a wife.” This may be made clear by adding the words “in marriage.”
However, in many languages “gave … for a wife” is more natural style. Zipporah is the only
daughter whose name is given. It can only be assumed that she was the oldest of the seven,
for it was the custom to give the oldest daughter in marriage first.

2.22

She bore a son to Moses, so 2.22 TEV makes this clear with “bore him a son,” adding the
pronoun “him.” This addition is not necessary if it is clear in translation that Moses was the
father rather than some other man. In some languages it may be too abrupt to say She bore a
son immediately after “He gave Moses his daughter.” If this is the case, it may be necessary to
say “After a while she became pregnant and bore him a son.” And he called his name
Gershom is significant for two reasons. In Israel’s early history it was usually the mother who
named the child, so it should be made clear in this case that the father gave the name.
Furthermore the name had special meaning for Moses, as the footnotes in 2.22 RSV and 2.22
TEV explain.

Gershom is formed from two Hebrew words, ger and sham, which mean “alien” and
“there.” The meaning of personal names can seldom be brought out in translation, so a
footnote is recommended such as that in 2.22 TEV. The explanation that Moses gives is not
sufficient without this. (But note that the name only “sounds like” the word for “foreigner.”)

For he said does not say to whom Moses spoke. 2.22 TEV suggests that Moses was
speaking “to himself,” as in 2.14, but here the situation is different. It is likely that Moses
would want everyone to know the meaning of the name. TOT has “he explained,” thus avoiding
the need to identify the person spoken to. In some languages this will be expressed as “he
explained [or, said] to them.” In this case “them” would mean Jethro and the extended family.

Sojourner means more than a traveler or “foreigner”; it refers to a resident alien who
enjoyed certain limited social and religious privileges. Moses’ situation in Midian was a perfect
example of the meaning of the word ger. With this in mind one can follow an alternative
translation model such as “For I have been allowed to live [or, reside] in this foreign [or, alien]
land.” In languages that do not have the passive voice, 2.22 TEV’s model will be helpful. One
 may also say, as in FRCL, “I have become a refugee in a foreign country.” In some languages it
may be necessary to show the cause before the effect, so one may need to expand the
quotation as follows: “I name him Gershom because I have been allowed to reside in a foreign
land.”

An alternative translation model for verses 21 and 22 with a footnote model is:

• 21 So Moses agreed to live with Jethro and his family, and Jethro gave him his daughter
Zipporah as his wife. 22 She bore a son, and Moses said to them, “I have been allowed to
reside in this foreign land, and so I name him Gershom.x”

x gershom: This name sounds like the Hebrew for “foreigner.”

(2) The Suffering of Moses’ People (2.23–25)

Section Heading: “The suffering of Moses’ people” may also be expressed as “Moses’
people suffer terribly.” Another possible heading is “God hears the suffering Israelites cry for
help.”

2.23

In the course of those many days simply means “Years later” (2.23 TEV), or “A long time
after that” (TAN). Since we do not know exactly when the king of Egypt died, it should probably
be understood as “During this long period” (NJB). This transitional phrase is necessary to bring
the narrative back to the situation of the Hebrew slaves in Egypt, but also to show that Moses
lived in Midian for a long time. The king of Egypt who died was probably the king who had
wanted Moses killed in 2.15. We cannot be sure which king this was (see the comment at 1.8),
but his death is important for the story. The one who had forced Moses into exile was now
dead.

The people of Israel groaned under their bondage, that is, they made audible sounds of
pain and suffering because of “their slavery” (but see the comment on “slavery” under the
section heading at 1.8) This does not mean that their suffering had become worse. The
description given in 1.13–14 is so emphatic that we may say they “were still groaning” (2.23
TEV). And the people of Israel groaned under their bondage may also be rendered as “the
people of Israel were still groaning as they worked like slaves.” They cried out for help in
despair, to anyone or any god who would help them. Cried out means to raise a cry of wailing,
or to call for help. This may have included prayers to other gods in Egypt as well as to the God
who would soon deliver them. In languages that prefer direct speech, one may then translate
“they called out, ‘Please help us, God.’ ” It was their cry under bondage, or “their appeal for
rescue from their slavery” (NEB), that came up to God rather than their “groaning.” (God hears
their groaning in verse 24.) In languages where the statement, their cry under bondage came
up to God, sounds strange, one may say, for example, “God heard their cry as they toiled like
slaves,” and begin the next verse with the statement “He heard their groaning and … .”

2.24–25
 It is important to identify clearly the four things that God did and the object for each, in
logical sequence:

a) God heard their groaning

b) God remembered his covenant

c) God saw the people

d) God knew their condition .

Verse 23 implies that God heard their “cry,” but here God hears their groaning, suggesting
an even deeper sensitivity. The word used for translating groaning should resemble the same
verb used in verse 23.

Then God remembered his covenant, that is, his promise as part of the agreement he had
made with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob. The word for covenant normally involves
both promise and mutual obligation between two parties, but here the focus is more on God’s
promise. The preposition with is repeated in the Hebrew for each name, perhaps emphasizing
that the one covenant was made and then renewed with each of the three patriarchs. It was
not made with all three patriarchs at one time, as 2.25 TEV’s “with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob”
may suggest. In receptor languages where translators will have difficulty showing this point,
one may translate, for example, “with Abraham, again with Isaac, and again with Jacob.” (This
“patriarchal formula” is discussed again at 6.3.) God remembered his covenant may also be
expr
31

essed as “God remembered that he had promised [or, made a promise to].” Remembered
here denotes recalling information, in this case his covenant, but it does not imply that this
information was forgotten. Other ways to express remembered are “brought to mind,”
“recalled,” and so on.

God saw the people of Israel should not be understood literally. The word for saw
sometimes conveys the added meaning of looking with understanding or sympathy. One may
say “he looked with compassion on Israel” (TOT), or “he saw the slavery of the Israelites” (2.25
TEV), or “he saw that the Israelites were suffering.”

God knew their condition is an expansion of the two Hebrew words that literally mean
“and God knew,” but the text does not indicate what God knew. Some translations have tried

31Osborn, N. D., & Hatton, H. (1999). A handbook on Exodus. UBS handbook series; Helps for
translators (13). New York: United Bible Societies.

TOT TRANSLATOR’S OLD TESTAMENT

TEV Today’s English Version

 to show this difficulty. For example, NAB makes use of ellipsis points and has “He saw the
Israelites and knew … .” NJB has “and took note … .”

The Septuagint has “and he was known to them,” which TEV refers to in the footnote. But
most translations attempt to make sense from the Hebrew as it stands (HOTTP supports the
Hebrew). The context supports the interpretation “He saw the suffering of the Israelites and
was concerned for them.” “Was concerned for them” may be alternatively expressed as
“wanted to help them.”

An alternative translation model for verses 23–25 is:

• 23 A long time after that the king [or, high chief] of Egypt died. The people of Israel were still
groaning as they worked like slaves. They cried out, “Please help us God.” God heard their cry.
24 He heard their groanings and remembered the promise that he had made to Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob. 25 He saw that the Israelites were suffering, and he wanted to help them.

2. The Call of Moses (3.1–4.17)

A. The Burning Bush (3.1–10)

Chapters 3 and 4 of Exodus show how a special relationship developed between the Lord
(Yahweh) and Moses. Before the negotiations with the king of Egypt could begin, Moses had to
be persuaded to return to Egypt, and he had to be prepared to engage in such a task. The
account of his call at Horeb (Sinai) and his reluctance to accept this commission covers more
than four chapters, from Exo 3.1 to 7.7. Following his return to Egypt (chapter 4) and an
unsuccessful encounter with Pharaoh (chapter 5), the divine call had to be renewed in an
Egyptian setting (chapter 6).

The account of the initial call begins with the appearance of Yahweh at the burning bush
(3.1–10), but it extends into a lengthy dialogue. Moses responds with one excuse after
another, and Yahweh counters each excuse with a new assurance of his continued presence
and support (3.11–4.17). The text is easily arranged according to these five excuses and
Yahweh’s response. The liveliness of this divine-human debate should be preserved in
translation by retaining the first and second person. In typical Hebrew style the narrator seems
to resort to the third person only when necessary.

Section Heading: 2.25 TEV’s section heading, “God Calls Moses,” and this Handbook’s
general heading, “The call of Moses” (3.1–4.17), may also be rendered as “God calls Moses to
rescue the Israelites.” If translators wish to follow the Handbook’s outline, there should then
be a specific title for the first section of the chapter (3.1–10), “The burning bush,” which may
also be expressed as “Moses sees a burning bush.”

NAB NEW AMERICAN BIBLE

NJB NEW JERUSALEM BIBLE

HOTTP HEBREW OLD TESTAMENT TEXT PROJECT

3.1

Now Moses is one word in the Hebrew and comes first in the sentence. This sharply
contrasts the quiet life of the shepherd with that of the oppressed Israelites mentioned in
2.24–25. Some transitional marker seems necessary at the beginning of this new chapter, such
as Now, or “One day” (3.1 TEV), or “Mean while” (NAB). Moses was keeping the flock suggests
a continuing activity of “taking care of” (3.1 TEV) the flock. The flock included “sheep and
goats” only. Jethro, the priest of Midian, is clearly identified as Moses’ father-in-law, the same
man who is called “Reuel” in 2.18. (See the comment there.) Most languages will have a
specific term for father-in-law, but if such a term does not exist, one can translate his father-
in-law, Jethro as “his wife’s father, Jethro,” “Jethro, the father of the woman he married,” or
even “Jethro, the father of Zipporah.” (For flock and priest of Midian, see the comment at
2.16.)

He led his flock describes the responsibility of the shepherd in guiding the animals to new
patches of grazing land. The verb does not specify whether Moses led them or “drove” them
(NJB), but most translations favor the former. The Hebrew for the west side of the wilderness
should not be understood geographically. The word translated as west side is really the word
meaning “behind” or “after.” The ancient Hebrews often thought of the east in terms of a
person facing the rising sun, in which case the west would be behind him. Most translations
interpret the word here to refer to the area beyond or “after” the wilderness through which
Moses was leading the flock. Since the precise location of Horeb (“Sinai”) is uncertain, it is
better to interpret this as “the far side of” (NJB), “a distant part of” (TOT), or even “beyond the
wilderness” (3.1 NRSV). 3.1 TEV has “across the desert,” a more neutral translation that does not
indicate any particular direction. This is a good alternative translation.

The wilderness was not a wide, flat area of nothing but sand, as the word “desert” (3.1
TEV) may imply. Rather it was a mostly dry and barren region through which Moses was leading
the flock in search of seasonal pasturage. There would, however, be occasional patches of
moisture and vegetation; but for the most part it was uncultivated. Nomads and their herds
inhabited certain areas of the wilderness. In cultures where a wilderness is unknown, one may
translate the term with a descriptive phrase; for example, “a dry, barren land,” “a rocky
region,” “a place where people don’t settle,” “a place where no house is,” and so on.
Translators may prefer to borrow a term from a national language and explain it in a footnote.

Horeb, the mountain of God may be understood as “Sinai, the holy mountain.” 3.1 TEV
uses the more familiar “Sinai” throughout, but most translations retain the name Horeb. If,
however, translators use the name Horeb, it will be helpful to include a footnote stating that
this mountain was probably the one referred to later as Sinai. The names “Sinai” and Horeb
reflect different traditions of the mountain where God appeared to Moses. “Sinai” is preferred
by the Yahwist and Priestly traditions (“J” and “P”), while Horeb is used by the Elohist and
Deuteronomistic traditions (“E” and “D”). (See the discussion on “Sources and Traditions” in
“Translating Exodus,” page 2.)

NRSV New Revised Standard Version

 The mountain is usually identified with Jebel Musa, which is located in the southern part of
the Sinai peninsula. Other locations have been suggested, but there is insufficient
archaeological evidence to support any of these. This is due largely to the difficulty of locating
most of the places mentioned in the journey of the Israelites through the wilderness. The
phrase the mountain of God, with the definite article, certainly describes this mountain as
“holy” (3.1 TEV), or “sacred” (TOT), but it may also suggest that it is the possession or dwelling
place of God. “Holy” or “sacred” in this context means “dedicated [or, set apart] for God’s
use.” So one may translate “Horeb, the mountain dedicated to God.” In some languages,
however, the idea of positive taboo will be helpful; for example, “Horeb, the [positive] taboo
mountain.”

3.2

This clause should be understood as a kind of preview or superscription to the events

reported in 3.2b–6, which are then described in chronological sequence. This is a rhetorical
device occasionally used in biblical narrative. In some languages it may be necessary to make
this explicit by adding the words “and this is how it happened” at the end of the clause. The
And at the beginning of the verse may be understood as “There” (3.2 TEV), or “In that place.”
The angel of the Lord seems to refer to one specific angel, so the definite article should be
retained. Some translations use an indefinite article (“an angel”), but this is not recommended.
The Hebrew word for angel really means “messenger,” which is an alternative choice. The
word Lord here marks the first occurrence in Exodus of the personal name “Yahweh,” so the
reference is to “Yahweh’s angel,” distinct from any other angel. In some languages it will be
necessary to say something like “In that place the Lord’s special messenger … .” (The problem
of the different participants in verses 2–4—angel, Lord, God—is discussed below at verse 4.)

Lord, with all four letters capitalized, is not to be confused with “Lord,” which translates
the Hebrew ’adon or ’adonay. Most English translations use “Lord” for the sacred name yhwh,
which in early Jewish tradition was considered too holy to be pronounced. The Jews also
feared that by speaking the name aloud they might unintentionally break the commandment
“You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain” (20.7). Therefore, in reading
scripture aloud, they always substituted the title ’adonay (“My Lord”) for the name yhwh, a
practice that continues to this day.

Some translations have tried to retain the sacred name by transliterating it, that is, by
spelling it in their own alphabet as it was originally pronounced. Thus it appears as “Yahweh”
in the Jerusalem Bible (JB) and NJB. Some translations such as the American Standard Version
(ASV) use the term “Jehovah” or a form of “Jehovah,” which is a more recent attempt to
combine the consonants Y, H, W, H (German Y, H, V, H) with the vowels of ’adonay. A few
versions try to translate the meaning of this name, such as “the One who Is,” since it is related
in form to the verb “to be.” This is clear from verse 14. (See the 3.2 TEV footnote there.) Thus

JB JERUSALEM BIBLE

ASV AMERICAN STANDARD VERSION

Moffatt (MFT) uses “the Eternal” for yhwh, following the French tradition of l’Eternel, as in the
French Segond.

There are therefore four options for the translator in deciding how to render this sacred
name:

a) Transliterate the sound of yhwh, which may have been “Yahweh.” But the exact
pronunciation is not certain due to the early taboo against its oral use. Furthermore, some
cultures and religious traditions react negatively to a personal name for deity, as though God
were only one god among many.

b) Translate the meaning of yhwh. But the exact meaning of this name is not certain and is
widely debated. Furthermore, personal names are difficult to translate simply because they
are names.

c) Substitute another personal name from a receptor culture. There are other cultures where it
may be possible to pick a personal name for God. A Handbook on Leviticus, page 10, has some
helpful comments on this issue:

… there may be a personal name for God which is distinct from the generic term for “god”
but quite similar in usage to the biblical term … . In such cases it may be wise to adopt this
name as the equivalent of yhwh. This possibility has often been overlooked in past translations
of the Bible. But even though the commonly used name in the receptor language is not an
exact equivalent of yhwh, it may be wise to use it in translation and give a full explanation of
the biblical name in the Glossary.

Translators considering this option, however, should be sensitive to the connotations

associated with the name of a local deity. If these connotations should contradict or even
distort the biblical concept of God, then one of the other options should be followed.

d) Substitute a title similar to “Lord.” But this makes it difficult to distinguish the name
yhwh from the title “Lord,” especially in public reading. Further more, the full meaning of
certain passages depends on understanding the name as a name.

The solution to this problem requires serious study and research among the leaders of the
special audience for which the translation is intended. Each of the four options is less than
satisfactory. The normal choice, the one recommended as the first solution to try, is option a),
but option d) has often been chosen in languages where the distinction between “Lord” and
“Lord” can easily be shown, at least in printed form.

A further possibility is to combine options a) and d) in order to bring out the full meaning
of each context. In this way one may transliterate the name “Yahweh” (not “Jehovah”) only at
those places where the full meaning of the text is lost unless the name yhwh is clearly
understood as a name rather than a title. For example, NEB uses “Jehovah” in 3.15–16; 6.3;

MFT MOFFATT

NEB NEW ENGLISH BIBLE

 17.15; 33.19; and 34.5–6; elsewhere “Lord” is used. (3.2 KJV uses “Jehovah” in 6.3 and 17.15
only.) There are other passages as well where this is a possibility. (See 5.2 and the discussion
there.)

Appeared to him, literally, “became visible to him,” means “was seen by him” or “revealed
himself to him [Moses].” This means that Moses saw more than just amental image. But the
prepositional phrase in a flame is better understood as “as a flame” (3.2 TEV), for the Hebrew
preposition may also mean “by,” “at,” or “as,” depending on the context. This permits the
interpretation that what Moses saw was only the flame, for the angel appeared “in the shape
of a flame of fire” (JB).

The bush was probably some kind of thorn bush, smaller than a tree but larger than an
ordinary bramble. The Hebrew word seneh is similar in sound to “Sinai,” and some scholars
believe the name of the mountain was derived from the name of the bush. However, its
scientific identification is impossible, since the Hebrew word is found only here and in Deut
33.16. The phrase out of the midst of the bush gives the impression that the flame was in the
center of the bush. 3.2 TEV’s model, “coming from the middle of the bush,” is clearer.

An alternative translation model for the first part of this verse is:

• In that place Moses saw the Lord’s special messenger. He appeared in the shape of a flame of
fire coming from the middle of a bush.

3.2

And he looked, and lo is a typical Hebrew expression to show Moses’ surprise at what he
saw. Something of this surprise is lost in some translations such as 3.2 TEV, “Moses saw that
the bush was on fire, but … .” The word lo, as in 2.6, seems archaic in English, but NAB has
caught the meaning well: “As he looked on, he was surprised to see that … .” In many
languages the 3.2 RSV model will be a natural and vivid way to describe this scene. In certain
languages an ideophone or some other particle may be used; for example, “Moses looked, and
hey, the bush … .” (See the comment on ideophones at 2.6.).

The difference between burning and not consumed may be expressed as “on fire” and
“not being burned up,” or as “all aflame” and “not consumed” (TAN). Literally the Hebrew says
“burning with flame” and “without being eaten.”

3.3

And Moses said may simply mean that “he thought,” since he was probably alone except
for the animals. In many languages it will be better style to place the words “Moses said [or,
thought]” at the beginning of the verse rather than in the middle as 3.3 TEV does. I will turn

KJV KING JAMES VERSION

RSV Revised Standard Version

TAN TANAKH (NEW JEWISH VERSION)

aside is very literal; it means to change one’s direction or, in this context, “I will go closer” (3.3
TEV). The Hebrew uses a particle here that is difficult to translate, but it conveys a sense of
urgency. Some translations try to bring this out with the use of “must,” as in NJB, “I must go
across and see.” This great sight should be understood as “strange” (3.3 TEV), “marvelous”
(TAN), “wonderful” (NEB), or “remarkable” (NAB).

If it is unnatural to retain the direct speech when one is talking to oneself, the third person
may be used. Thus the entire verse may be phrased as follows: “Moses thought it was very
strange that the bush was not burning up, so he decided to go closer to investigate.” However,
translators may find it more natural style to follow RSV’s word order; for example, “Moses
decided to go closer to the bush and investigate, because he thought it was very strange that it
was not burning up.” It is also possible to translate using direct speech: Moses thought, “Hey!
I’m going to go closer to the bush and look. It’s very strange that this bush isn’t burning up!”

3.4

A literal translation of both Lord and God is confusing, for it suggests that the one who
saw was not the one who called. This is a literary seam, where two different traditions have
been joined together, one tradition using the sacred name yhwh (Lord) and the other using the
usual word for deity, ’elohim (God). The confusion is easily avoided by using the pronoun in
place of God, as in 3.4 TEV: “When the Lord saw … he called.” 3.4 TEV transfers the use of “God”
to verse 5, where it fits more naturally in place of the pronoun “he.”

This confusion about the participants is increased with the reference to “the angel” in 3.2a.
As explained above, the clause in 3.2a should be understood as a summary or preview
statement, with the details of how it happened then listed in sequence. Only one participant in
dialogue with Moses is intended throughout the narrative; he is called the Lord, God, and “the
angel,” depending on the perspective of the tradition.

He turned aside to see should be translated to agree with verse 3. NAB renders the entire
clause naturally: “When the Lord saw him coming over to look at it more closely.” 3.4 TEV omits
the words to see, considering the purpose of Moses’ “coming closer” to be clearly implied.

Out of the bush means that the voice of God was heard coming “from the middle of the
bush” (3.4 TEV). One may also express this as “from inside the bush.” Called to him suggests
that Moses was still some distance from the bush, but it does not indicate how loud the voice
was. It was loud enough for Moses to hear his own name spoken, and to warn him not to come
any closer (verse 5).

“Here am I” should be rendered as a natural response of one whose name has suddenly
been called. “Yes, here I am” (3.4 TEV) seems natural in English, but GECL has “Yes, I hear,” and
the French common language version (FRCL) has simply “Yes?” with the question mark.

GECL GERMAN COMMON LANGUAGE VERSION

FRCL FRENCH COMMON LANGUAGE VERSION

3.5

The pronoun in Then he said must be made explicit. Since “God” is the term used in verse
4 to introduce the dialogue, it may be used here, as in 3.5 TEV and the Spanish common
language version (SPCL). But some translations such as GECL and FRCL use “Lord” in order to
avoid confusion over how many participants were involved. (See the comment on verse 4
above.)

Two distinct commands are given to Moses that suggest different degrees of holiness. Do
not come near should be understood as “Do not come any closer” (3.5 TEV), for Moses was
already near. Put off your shoes from off your feet is typical of biblical Hebrew, but it
becomes too wordy in English. “Take off your sandals” (3.5 TEV) is sufficient, for it is obvious
that his shoes would have been on his feet. “Sandals” is more specific than shoes and is
probably more accurate, for the Hebrew term implies footwear tied with straps. However, a
more general term for footwear is possible.

The place on which you are standing refers to the ground affected by the presence of
God. It is holy because it is different from other ground and must be treated with respect. In
this context there is no suggestion of a moral versus immoral quality. Rather a divine power
was thought to be emanating from the bush and was also present in the ground. But the
degree of holiness in the ground, in contrast with that in the bush, was not so intense that it
had positive taboo. Moses was allowed to stay where he was standing if he took off his
sandals. (See the comment on “holy” or “taboo” at 3.1.) Later, in chapter 19, this same ground
becomes taboo, that is, off limits for common people. Some have suggested that the entire
mountain of Sinai had previously been considered “holy” due to earlier appearances of a deity.

3.6

And he said is sometimes left untranslated, for it only marks the continuation of God’s
speech to Moses. 3.6 TEV continues the quotation without interruption. Other translations
retain this phrase to show a brief time for Moses to remove his sandals. (Compare NEB and
GECL, “Then he said.”)

The God of your father probably refers to the God of Amram, the father of Moses (see
6.20). The Masoretic text (MT) has the singular, father, but 3.6 TEV (“the God of your
ancestors”) follows the Samaritan Pentateuch, which has the plural, “fathers.” (Compare NEB,
“the God of your forefathers.”) This formula appears frequently in MT with the plural, but most
scholars accept the singular here as the preferred reading, and translators are urged to use the
singular. In some languages a literal translation of God of your father would indicate that
Moses’ father owned God. In such a case one should translate as “I am the God whom your
father worshiped.”

SPCL SPANISH COMMON LANGUAGE VERSION

MT MASORETIC TEXT
 The God of … the God of … the God of … emphasizes the individual relationship God had
with each of the patriarchs (a similar expression is in 2.24); however, this may seem too wordy
in some translations. In this case nothing except emphasis seems to be lost by condensing the
formula as in 3.6 TEV (“the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob”), but it may place the three
patriarchs in apposition with “ancestors,” thereby forcing the reading of “fathers” instead of
“father.” GECL avoids this by first clarifying the singular father: “I am the God whom your father
worshiped, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.” One may also say “I am the God of your
father and of your ancestors, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.” Other ways of expressing
“ancestors” are “those who lived long ago,” “great fathers of long ago,” “grandfathers in
ancient times,” “big grandfathers,” and so on.

And Moses hid his face should be understood as “covered his face” (3.6 TEV), but there is
no indication whether he used his hands or his robe. However, it is entirely possible that he
held up his arm in such a way that his robe, with full sleeves, was protecting his face. In some
languages translators will need to make this information explicit. In such a case one may
choose between “arm” or “robe.” (See the translation model below.) 3.6 TEV begins more
naturally with “So,” because he was afraid to look at God. He was terrified because of the
belief that no one could see God and live.

An alternative translation model for this verse is:

• “I am the God whom your father worshiped. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob also worshiped me.”
Moses was afraid to look at God, so he covered his face [with his arm (or, robe)].

3.7

Then the Lord said introduces a new paragraph and the basis for Moses’ commission. I
have seen is emphatic in the Hebrew, so NEB and others have “I have indeed seen.” Durham
has “I have seen clearly.” This emphasis is brought out in 3.7 TEV in connection with what
follows: “I have seen how cruelly my people are being treated.” This seems more natural than
finding a noun for affliction, but “misery” or “miserable state” have been used. In languages
that do not use the passive voice, one may say, for example, “I have seen how the Egyptians
are treating my people very cruelly.”

My people who are in Egypt are the Israelites, who are now in Egypt. God had chosen
them from all other people for a special covenant relationship. The relative clause (who …)
seems to mean that all the chosen people were then in Egypt—except Moses, of course. One
may restructure this first sentence as follows: “I have seen how cruelly the Egyptians are
treating my people” (similarly 3.7 TEV, CEV).

Have heard means more than a passive listening, so TAN has “have heeded.” One may also
say “I have paid attention to” or “I am aware of the fact that.” Their cry was a wailing, a cry for
help. The verb form of this word for cry (“cried out”) is used in 2.23, where a synonym is also
used as a noun. Because of their taskmasters identifies the basis for their cry, so 3.7 TEV has “I
have heard them cry out to be rescued from their slave drivers.” Their taskmasters were the

CEV Contemporary English Version

Egyptian “slave drivers” rather than the Israelite foremen, as explained in the comment at 5.6.
But TOT understands them here to be “their oppressors” in general. (For taskmasters see the
comment at 1.11a.) An alternative translation model for have heard their cry because of their
taskmasters is “I am aware of the fact that they cry out for me to rescue them from their
taskmasters [or, from people who force them to do hard work].”

I know their sufferings implies “I am deeply concerned at their anguish” (TOT). The word
for know suggests intimate understanding and concern, so 3.7 TEV has “I know all about their
sufferings.” This clause is joined to what follows in 3.7 RSV and 3.7 TEV, but a number of
translations prefer a full stop here.

3.8

I have come down suggests that God had come to that mountain from a higher level. It
should be understood in contrast with the verb to bring them up. To deliver them out of the
hand of the Egyptians means “to rescue them from the Egyptians” (3.8 TEV). The Hebrew word
for “Egyptians” may also mean the land (“Egypt”) as well as the people. The hand of the
Egyptians is a typical way of referring to “the power of Egypt” (NEB).

To bring them up out of the land is a frequently-repeated formula, where the verb “to
bring up” alternates with the verb “to bring forth” (verse 10). Where the former is used, it
probably suggests from the lowlands of Egypt to the highlands of Canaan, rather than from
south to north. 3.8 TEV’s “to bring them out of Egypt” does not make this distinction. In
languages where the writer of Exodus is considered to be in Canaan, it may be necessary to
show the “up” orientation and say, for example, “to bring them out of Egypt coming up to a
land … .”

A good and broad land means “a fertile and spacious land.” A broad or “spacious land”
(3.8 TEV) means “a big land,” or “a land with plenty of room.” It is also described as a land
flowing with milk and honey, an idealistic picture of the “promised land” in the minds of
desert nomads. Since this is figurative language, a literal translation may be meaningless. The
meaning is “one that is rich and fertile.” 3.8 TEV has omitted “fertile” in the first phrase for
reasons of style. If translators choose to keep the words milk and honey, they should know
that the milk intended was goat’s milk, and the honey may have been a thick, sweet syrup
made from dates, the fruit of the date tree, and not from bees. (But see the comment on
honey at 16.31.)

The place of the Canaanites … is a further description of the land where six other ethnic
groups “now live.” The origin of some of these groups is uncertain, and the form “-ites” does
not distinguish between descendants of a person (such as Canaan) and inhabitants of a place
(such as Jebus). If the translation must specify one or the other, it is best to consider them all
people of a place. In many languages translators may refer to these people as “the people of
Canaan,” “the people of Hit,” “the people of Amor,” and so on. (Gen 10.15-17 lists three of
these groups as descendants of Canaan.)

3.9
 And now, behold, simply emphasizes what follows, so the meaning is “I have indeed heard
the cry of my people” (3.9 TEV). The cry is the same word used in verse 7. The people of Israel
may be understood as “my people” in contrast with the six other groups listed in verse 8. Has
come to me is a bit stronger than “I have heard” in verse 7, suggesting an internal response to
what has been heard. The English words “hearken” (archaic), “heed,” or “take notice of” are
probably closer to the meaning. Some languages will have figurative expressions; for example,
“take heart and put into” (THCL), meaning “take a deep interest in.”

I have seen the oppression is similar to verse 7, with the emphasis expressed differently.
Oppression focuses more on the act of the oppressors, while “affliction” (verse 7) focuses on
the misery of the oppressed. This distinction is made even clearer with the phrase with which
the Egyptians oppress them. This is good Hebrew but unnatural English, so it is better
expressed as “I see how the Egyptians are oppressing them” (3.9 TEV) or “I have seen the
brutality of the Egyptians towards them” (NEB). Another way to express this is “I have seen how
cruelly the Egyptians are treating them.”

3.10

Come is literally “Go,” along with the word “Now,” which 3.10 RSV does not reflect. 3.10
NIV has “So now, go.” But most translations interpret these two opening words as “Come now”
(NEB), in the sense of the idiomatic English expression “Come on!” Since this is now Moses’
commission, I will send you may be understood as “I am sending you” (3.10 TEV). It may also
be expressed as “I will cause you to go.” Pharaoh is “the king of Egypt.”

That you may bring forth my people is a purpose clause based on the Samaritan
Pentateuch and the Greek Septuagint. The Masoretic text, however, uses an imperative form
of the verb that makes this a separate command. So NEB has “you shall bring my people,” and
TAN has “you shall free My people.” TOT is even stronger: “You must lead my people.” (Similarly
GECL and FRCL.) My people, the sons of Israel should be understood as “my people, the
Israelites,” or simply as “my people.” Sons of Israel usually means all the Israelites who were
the descendants of Jacob, both male and female. Bring forth is simply “bring out,” in contrast
with the verb used in verse 8.

B. Excuses and Promises (3.11–4.17)

(1) The Sign (3.11–12)
This is the first of five excuses that Moses makes. (See 3.13; 4.1; 4.10; and 4.13.) Each
excuse is met with a special promise from God. The dialogue continues through 4.17.

Section Heading: translators may wish to include the two headings from the Handbook’s
outline: first the general heading “Excuses and promises” (3.11–4.17), which may be
alternatively rendered as “Moses makes excuses and Yahweh promises,” and secondly the title

THCL THAI COMMON LANGUAGE VERSION

NIV NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION

 for this section (3.11–12), “The sign,” which may also be expressed as “God gives Moses a
sign.”

3.11

Who am I is a rhetorical question. Moses is simply saying “I am nobody” (3.11 TEV), “I have
no importance at all,” or even “I have no qualifications at all.” This implies reluctance as well as
humility. He is trying to disqualify himself from the task at hand. The task is twofold: That I
should go to Pharaoh, and then bring the sons of Israel out of Egypt. The phrase that I should
go may also be expressed as “so it is impossible for me to go” or “so I cannot possibly go.” 3.11
TEV expresses it as a second question: “How can I go … ?” To go to Pharaoh must be
understood as approaching the king himself, the ruler of Egypt! To bring … out of Egypt uses
the same word that is used in verse 10. In languages that use special directional verbs that
depend upon the location of the speaker, one may express this clause as “bring … coming out
of Egypt,” since God and Moses are presently located at Sinai. The sons of Israel means all “the
Israelites” (3.11 TEV), as in verse 10.

An alternative translation model for this verse is:

• But Moses said to God, “I have no qualifications at all. So it is impossible for me to go to the
king of Egypt and bring the Israelites out of Egypt.

3.12

He said of course means “God answered.” But I will be with you is based on the verb “to
be,” which is crucial to understanding verse 14. (See the comment there.) The tense is
indicated only in context, so NEB’s “I am with you” is possible. But this is certainly a promise to
Moses as he undertakes his mission in Egypt. I will be with you may also be expressed as “I will
be by your side,” meaning “I will go along with you and protect you.” (The “you” is singular.)

This shall be the sign for you is ambiguous. The word this may point back to the promise,
“I will be with you,” or forward to the prediction, you shall serve God upon this mountain.
Some scholars believe that this refers to the burning bush, in keeping with the normal
understanding of sign as a supernatural phenomenon that confirms the truth of a divine
revelation or promise. (But see the comment on “wonders” at 3.20.) Others suggest that part
of the text is missing, possibly only a few words following the colon (:), that described some
supernatural sign.

Most translations try to preserve the ambiguity of the sign, or “proof,” but the use of the
colon in 3.12 RSV and others definitely points to the prediction. TAN clearly points back to the
promise by placing a period instead of a colon. JB points to the missing words by using three
ellipsis points. 3.12 TEV rearranges the clauses and changes this to “that,” thus allowing for
either the promise or the prediction, or both, to be interpreted as the sign. This
rearrangement will be a good model for translators. Other ways to express this shall be the
sign are “that will be the proof,” “this [or, that] will show you that … ,” or “this will be the
evidence that I … .”
 That I have sent you (singular) is the fact to which the sign must point as proof of Moses’
divine commission. The use of the emphatic I may also be expressed as NEB and others have
done: “This shall be the proof that it is I who have sent you.” Since the sign, or “proof,” is for
Moses’ benefit, TAN has “this is the sign by which you shall know that I was the one who sent
you,” or one may say “this will show for certain that I was the one who sent you.”

When you have brought forth the people out of Egypt is addressed to Moses in the
singular. The people, of course, are the Israelites. Brought forth is the same word as in verses
10 and 11.

You shall serve God upon this mountain refers to Moses plus the Israelites, for the “you”
is plural. (NEB has “you … all.”) To serve God means to “worship” God, but it implies some ritual
act of worship. Since it is God who is speaking, 3.12 TEV more naturally has “worship me,” but
there may be value in retaining God if “me” sounds too personal. Furthermore, this mountain
was considered a holy place. It was Mount Sinai, the very place where Moses and yhwh were
conversing.

(2) The Name (3.13–22)

Section Heading: the section heading“The Name” may also be expressed as “God reveals
his name,” or “God announces that his name is Yahweh.”

3.13

Then Moses said to God may be rendered “But Moses replied” (3.13 TEV) if no section
heading is used here. Otherwise it is good to identify God as the one being addressed, as in
3.13 RSV.

If I come may be understood as “When I go,” but there is a difference in meaning. The
choice of come or “go” depends on the speaker’s location and point of view. In this context
“go” is more likely, since Egypt was far from where Moses was speaking. (See the comment on
similar directional verbs at 3.11.) The choice of If or “When” (3.13 TEV) depends on how one
interprets the context. The If suggests that Moses has not yet agreed to the task; the “When”
may suggest he is willing to go and is only asking for more clarification. The Hebrew allows for
either, but the wider context suggests that Moses is still reluctant to go and is offering a
second excuse. Other ways of indicating this are “Supposing” or “In case.” The meaning then is
“In case I go to the Israelites and say to them …” (An American Translation [at]), and the entire
question is hypothetical, unlike 3.13 TEV.

The God of your fathers means “The God of your ancestors” (3.13 TEV), or “The God whom
your ancestors worshiped.” Unlike in verse 6, the word fathers is plural in the Hebrew
(similarly verse 15). For the translation of “ancestors” see 3.6. In some languages The God of
your fathers may imply that God is neither “your God” nor “our God,” but only “the God of
your ancestors.” In such cases one must say something like “Our God and the God of our
ancestors.” And they ask me adds another conditional clause that extends the hypothetical
sense of the If clause. 3.13 TEV’s “they will ask me” considers this as the main clause and gives
 the possible meaning “they will certainly ask me” or “they will surely ask me.” It should be
clear that Moses is quite certain the people will ask him.

What is his name? asks for more than just a personal name; it reflects the belief that a
special relationship may be established with a god whose name has been revealed. It also
reflects Moses’ indirect manner of asking for the information for himself. Another way to
phrase this question is “What is the name of this god?” What shall I say to them? is the main
clause for 3.13 RSV, following a series of conditional clauses with two embedded quotations.
3.13 TEV makes it a separate sentence: “So what can I tell them?” Either way the question is
not directly asking for the name of God. However the verse is restructured, this indirect
manner of asking should be preserved.

An alternative translation model for this verse is:

• But Moses answered God, “Supposing I go to the Israelites and say to them, ‘The God of your
ancestors [or, your great-grandfathers long ago] sent me to you.’ They will certainly ask me,
‘What is the name of this god?’ So what shall I tell them?”

3.14

God said shows the narrator’s insistence that it is God who is about to reveal his name.
But I am who I am is not the name; it is an intentional play on the word I am, the word on
which the name yhwh in verse 15 is based. This roundabout reply is not as difficult to translate
as it is to understand. Various attempts have been made to translate the meaning: “I am; that
is who I am” (NEB); “I am who am” (NAB); “I am he who is” (NJB). One translation (TAN) even
transliterates from the Hebrew: “Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh.” Another way to express this is “ ‘I Am’ is
who I am.” In languages that have different verbs for permanent and temporary being, the
permanent one should be used.

The word for I am (’ehyeh) is the verb “to be” in the first person singular; the name yhwh
(probably pronounced “Yahweh”) is an early form of this same verb in the third person
singular. The significance of the name is thus established, but its precise meaning is not clear;
it may be expressed in a variety of ways. (See the footnotes in 3.14 RSV and 3.14 TEV and the
comment at verse 2a.)

And he said may be omitted, as in 3.14 TEV and others, for it is still God who continues to
speak without interruption. Say this to the people of Israel is in answer to Moses’ question,
“What shall I say to them?” It is not the answer to the question “What is his name?” What
Moses is to say to the Israelites, first of all, is “I am has sent me to you.” Such a reply was to
establish Moses’ authority to speak in the name of a God who is far greater than his name.

TEV attempts to make better sense of this reply with “The one who is called I AM has sent
me to you.” But this seems to contradict what is said in verse 15. It would be better to say “The
one who calls himself I am has sent me to you,” in order to avoid confusion with what the
Israelites are to call him. In answer to the question “What is his name?” therefore, it is better
to consider verse 14 as an indirect or vague reply and verse 15 as the direct reply.
3.15

Verse 15 begins a long discourse spoken by God to Moses that continues to the end of the
chapter. Within this discourse are embedded quotes where Moses is told what he is to say to
the Israelites and to the king of Egypt, but in verse 16 he is told what he is to say that God told
him to say. This is a quote within a quote within a quote. Before translating verse 15,
therefore, translators should notice in RSV the alternation of double quotation marks and single
quotation marks, and especially the single quotes in verse 16. In languages that have difficulty
showing a third level of embedded quotes, it may be easier to change to indirect discourse, as
TEV has done both here and in verse 16. (See also.)

God also said to Moses may be omitted (as in verse 14) if it is clear that God is still
speaking. The Lord is the sacred name, yhwh, that is here revealed to Moses. The substitution
of the title “Lord,” with four capital letters, is the usual way in English of handling this four-
letter word that was long considered too holy to pronounce. It translates the oral tradition of
substituting the word ’adonay, “lord,” when reading aloud, rather than pronouncing the name
Yahweh, which was the written text. (See the comment at 3.2a.)

TEV often uses indirect rather than direct speech in order to avoid quotations within
quotations. So here TEV has “Tell the Israelites that I, the Lord, … have sent you to them.” This
unfortunately shifts the focus from the sacred name Yahweh in verse 15 to the basis for the
name, ’ehyeh, in verse 14 (where 3.15 TEV uses the direct speech!). GECL tries to combine the
two terms, ’ehyeh and yhwh, at this point: “The ‘Lord’ (I-am-here) is my name for all time.” But
this also confuses the name itself with the basis for the name. If a translator wishes to use the
name Yahweh at this point, one may say “I, Yahweh, the God … .”

Some translations resort to transliterating the name (either “Yahweh” or “Jehovah”) in the
few instances where the significance of a personal name is crucial to the meaning of the text
and would be lost with the traditional use of Lord. For example, NEB uses jehovah here, in the
following verse, and in 6.3. Whatever option is chosen, a footnote explaining the problem is
strongly recommended.

The God of your fathers means the God of “your ancestors,” as in verse 13. (For the God
of Abraham, … Isaac, … and Jacob, see the comment at 3.6.) This is my name forever refers to
the name yhwh, not to the “I am” on which the name is based. Thus I am to be remembered
only confirms the previous statement. Remembered here means “called to mind,” “kept in
mind,” or “not forgotten.” Throughout all generations refers to all future descendants as the
ones who are to remember this name. 3.15 TEV expresses it well: “this is what all future
generations are to call me.”

3.16

Go and gather should be understood as two actions: go to Egypt, and gather the elders of
Israel. Go may be also rendered as “You must go.” The clause gather the elders of Israel
together may be rendered as “call the leaders of Israel together to meet with you.” The elders
were the senior tribesmen of Israel, who were recognized for both their maturity and their
 ability to be “leaders,” not necessarily for the number of years they had lived. If in a receptor
language the two ideas of leadership and authority that these people had can be combined in
one term, then that term will be a good translation for elders. However, if such a term cannot
be found, 3.16 TEV’s “leaders” is a good model. Say to them (the elders) introduces a quote
within a quote, which in turn has an embedded quote. The alternation of double and single
quotation marks cannot easily be sorted out with successive levels of direct speech, not only
by one who hears this being read, but even by the reader. 3.16 TEV wisely adjusts to indirect
speech: “tell them that I … appeared to you.” However, in languages that always use direct
speech, translators will need to restructure this verse carefully so that both readers and
hearers can understand the message. (See the alternative translation model below.)

‘The Lord …’ begins the exact words Moses is to say to the elders. Therefore the personal
name of God must be retained even in indirect speech. So 3.16 TEV has “I, the Lord.” The
frequent formula The God of your fathers is discussed at 3.6. Since it is inserted between the
subject and its verb, it may be more natural to use a separate sentence: “He is the God of your
fathers, … .” However, one may also say “The Lord [or, Yahweh] who is the God of your
fathers” or “… the God whom your ancestors worshiped.” Has appeared to me becomes
“appeared to you” in indirect speech. (For appeared see the comment at 3.2a.)

Saying introduces a quote within a quote within a quote. A new sentence with indirect
speech may be easier in some languages, as in 3.16 TEV: “Tell them that I have come to them.”
(See the comment on embedded quotes at verse 15.) I have observed you means more than
casual watching. The Hebrew verb is emphatic, suggesting a number of possible renderings: “I
have indeed turned my eyes towards you” (NEB); “[Yahweh] has indeed visited you” (NJB); “I
have watched over you” (3.16 NIV). Another way to express this is “I have been watching
closely.” What has been done to you in Egypt refers to “what the Egyptians are doing to
them” (3.16 TEV). (You becomes “them” in indirect speech.) But one may also translate as
“what the Egyptians are doing to you [plural].”

An alternative translation model for this verse is:

• You must call the leaders of Israel to meet together with you, and tell them, “Yahweh, who is
the God whom your ancestors worshiped, and was also the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,
appeared to me. He said, ‘I have been watching closely what the Egyptians are doing to you
[plural]… .’ ”

3.17

I promise is literally “I say,” but understood in context it may mean “I have decided” (3.17
TEV). NEB has “I am resolved.” I will bring you up is the same word used in 3.8, suggesting
movement either from a lower to a higher level or from south to north. (See the comment
there.)

The affliction of Egypt refers to the affliction of the Israelites in Egypt. It is better
expressed as “your misery in Egypt” (NEB). 3.17 TEV’s adjustment to indirect speech becomes
“out of Egypt, where they are being treated cruelly.” In some languages it will be more natural
to say “from the place where the Egyptians are treating them cruelly.” To the land of the
Canaanites, … repeats the list of the six ethnic groups mentioned in 3.8. (See the suggested
translation of these names in that verse.) A land flowing with milk and honey means “a rich
and fertile land.” (Compare 3.8 and the comment.)

3.18

They will hearken to your voice means that they “will listen to what you say to them”
(3.18 TEV), or simply, they “will listen to you” (NIV, CEV). But this is not passive listening; the
implication is that they will believe what Moses tells them and be ready to follow his
instructions. So one may translate “They will believe and obey you.” The they may be
understood as “My people,” meaning all the Israelites, but the nearest antecedent in verse 16
is “The elders of Israel” (3.18 NIV), mentioned also in the following clause, and this is likely
what is meant.

You and the elders of Israel shall go is literally “you [singular] shall go, you [singular] and
the elders of Israel.” 3.18 TEV’s “you must go with the leaders of Israel” may be misunderstood,
suggesting that Moses would only accompany the elders rather than lead them. A better
model is “You must take the leaders of Israel and go.” (Similarly also TAN.) Many languages will
naturally say “You [plural] and the leaders of Israel shall go.” But if it is necessary to be more
specific, then Moses should be the one whom the elders accompany. And say to him is literally
“and you [plural] shall say to him.”

The Lord, the God of the Hebrews identifies the Hebrews’ God by his personal name,
yhwh. So one may translate as “Yahweh, the God of the Hebrews.” (Compare 3.2a and 15.)
The Hebrews refers to the larger group of Semitic people of which the Israelites were a part.
The origin of the word ‘bri (“Hebrew”) is not certain. Most of the time it is used in reference to
the Israelites, but it may originally have referred to the descendants of Eber, an ancestor of
Abraham and several Semitic groups (Gen 10.24-25). The translator should never substitute
“Israelites” for Hebrews unless the context clearly refers only to the descendants of Jacob and
excludes any other descendants of Abraham. Has met with us is literally “he has happened
himself on us.” In its present context this can mean “has revealed himself to us,” “has come to
meet us” (JB), or “has encountered us” (NJB). It conveys the idea of an unexpected meeting
initiated by the Lord himself. With us may suggest that God was planning to reveal himself to
the elders as well as to Moses, but it is better to understand it here in the sense that Moses
was to be the representative of the people. In languages that distinguish between inclusive
and exclusive pronouns, the pronoun us is exclusive, since it excludes the king.

3.18

And now, we pray you, is a polite way of introducing a request to a king, but the
expression we pray you is somewhat archaic in English. The Hebrew particle that shows
politeness may be more naturally translated as “please,” as in NJB: “So now please allow us … .”
3.18 TEV and other English translations try to reflect this politeness by using more formal
language. Let us go is therefore not a demand but a request, as “allow us to travel” (3.18 TEV)
implies. One may also say “please allow us to travel.” In languages that must state the mode of
travel, one may express this as “please allow us to walk … ,” as the majority of the Israelites
would presumably have traveled by foot.

A three days’ journey into the wilderness should be interpreted as “a distance of three
days” (TAN) or “the distance one walks in three days” rather than a round trip within three
days. 3.18 TEV’s “allow us to travel three days into the desert” is a bit ambiguous. This request
implies a return to Egypt after a week or so, even though they would secretly plan to continue
on to the promised land. The problem of wilderness versus “desert” is discussed at 3.1.

That we may sacrifice to the Lord our God is a sincere request that would not have
surprised the king. While Israel’s form of sacrifice may have been different from that practiced
in Egypt (see 8.26), the word implies a ritual killing of animals without specifying what kind. If
the translation must specify, then large animals like cattle should be understood; for example,
“slaughter cattle to offer to Yahweh, our [exclusive] God.” The idea was “to offer sacrifices to
the Lord,” identifying their God by name.

3.19

I know is emphatic, and some translations try to bring this out: “I know well” (NEB); “Yet I
know” (TAN); “I am well aware” (NJB). Will not let you go is literally “will not permit you [plural]
to go.”

Unless compelled by a mighty hand follows the Septuagint rather than the Hebrew MT, as
the footnote in 3.19 RSV explains. The meaning in Hebrew is ambiguous, “not even with a
mighty hand.” The question hinges on whose hand is referred to. It could mean either human
strength or the power of God. GECL in fact understands it as a “power of the world.” However,
since verse 20 clearly speaks of God’s power (“I will stretch out my hand”), most translations
follow the meaning suggested by the Greek text. This may be expressed positively as in TAN,
“Yet I know that the king of Egypt will let you go only because of a greater might.” Another
way to express this is “I know that the king of Egypt won’t let you go until he discovers [or,
realizes] that I am more powerful than he is.”

3.20

I will stretch out my hand is an idiom meaning “I will use my power” (3.20 TEV). And smite
Egypt may be understood as smiting either the land of Egypt (GECL) or the people of Egypt (NEB)
—the same word means either Egypt or Egyptians. To smite means to “strike” or “punish.” In
languages where the idea of punishment can only occur with living things, a translation such as
“punish the people of Egypt” will be a more natural one. And this will be done by wonders,
that is, by “miracles,” “terrifying things,” “awe-inspiring acts,” “things that will cause people to
be astounded,” “great and powerful acts which will amaze people.”

This is the first reference in Exodus to the wonders that the Lord promises to do in Egypt.
There are several Hebrew words that refer to these “terrifying things” (TEV), each word having
a slightly different meaning. The word used here, nifla’oth, is a plural participle of the verb
meaning to be extraordinary. The noun (pele’) is derived from the same root and denotes
some event or some thing that is unusual or marvelous (15.11). Another Hebrew word,
mofeth, refers primarily to an omen or portent and is usually translated in 3.20 RSV as
 “wonder.” For example, in 7.3 the plural of mofeth is joined with the plural of ’oth (“sign”; see
3.12), and the two terms together are translated in 3.20 RSV as “signs and wonders.” Still
another word, shefatim, is based on the word for judgment and refers to all these wonders as
“acts of judgment” (6.6) or as means of punishment. Translation of these words will vary
because of the different contexts in which they are used. For example, the word usually
translated as “sign” (’oth) is translated in 3.20 TEV as “proof” in 3.12, but as “miracle” in 4.8. In
most cases, however, these terms refer to the miraculous events related to the Israelites’
deliverance from Egypt.

Which I will do in it may be unnecessary, since the idea has already been expressed. 3.20
TEV simply adds the word “there” for in it. But this may also be rendered as “among them”
(REB, TOT) or “in their midst,” if Egypt is understood as “people” instead of “land.” After that is
after all the wonders have been done. He will let you go: in some languages it will be
necessary to say “the king of Egypt will let you go.”

An alternative translation model for this verse is:

• So I will use my power to punish the people of Egypt. I will do this through powerful acts that
will amaze everyone. After I have done these things, the king of Egypt will let you go.

3.21

I will give this people favor refers to something God will give to the Israelites as a group,
including Moses. But it is something that will be recognized in the sight of the Egyptians. So
favor may be understood as “prestige” (JB), or some quality that would command the
“respect” of the Egyptians. It may be easier to think of the Egyptians as the object of God’s
action, as in 3.21 TEV: “I will make the Egyptians respect you.” In some languages the idea of
“face” will be helpful here; for example, “I will lift up your face before the Egyptians,” or “I will
cause you to have face before … .”

The second clause, and when you go … , states the purpose of God’s favor, so it is better
introduced as “so that when you leave” (see 3.21 TEV). Some translations such as NJB relate the
two clauses even more closely: “I shall ensure that the Egyptians are so much impressed with
this people that when you go, you shall not go empty-handed.” You shall not go empty, of
course, refers to the jewelry and clothing of the Egyptians which the Israelites will take with
them. (See verse 22.) If the idea of empty-handed is difficult to translate, another way to
express this final sentence is “they will take many valuable things with them.” The following
verse describes these things.

3.22

Verses 21–22 should be translated with reference to 11.2–3 and 12.35–36, where the
same idea is recorded. Similarities and differences should be noted in these three passages, as
well as a different time setting for each—future, present, and past. The verb to ask is used in
each setting, a word that can also mean to “borrow,” as indeed some translations render it.

REB REVISED ENGLISH BIBLE

(So the King James Version [KJV] and TAN.) If this were the intended meaning, however, the act
of “borrowing” would have to be understood as deceitful, since there was really no intention
to return after worshiping the Lord. Thus it is better to render it as “ask.”

It seems clear that each woman means “Every Israelite woman” (3.22 TEV), and her
neighbor means “her Egyptian” neighbor (3.22 TEV). The next phrase, however, is ambiguous.
A person who sojourns would normally have been a resident alien (as in 2.22), but an Egyptian
temporarily removed from his own village for various reasons could possibly be considered a
sojourner, or “lodger” (TAN). Furthermore, the word for the one who sojourns in this case is
feminine.

Accordingly there are four possible interpretations of her who sojourns in her house: a)
“any Egyptian woman living in [an Egyptian neighbor’s] house”; b) “any [non-Egyptian] woman
living in [an Israelite woman’s] house”; c) “any Egyptian woman living in [an Israelite woman’s]
house”; or d) “any [non- Egyptian] woman living in [an Egyptian neighbor’s] house.”

TEV rules out b) and d) by identifying the first her as an “Egyptian woman.” This is
suggested by the context, since the idea was to despoil the Egyptians. 3.22 TEV also rules out
a) by pluralizing “neighbors,” which could then no longer be the antecedent of the second her,
which is singular. But it is doubtful that an Egyptian “sojourner” would be living in the home of
an Israelite, since the Israelites were the oppressed people. The best choice therefore is a),
“any Egyptian woman living in the Egyptian neighbor’s house.” The translator may choose to
follow this solution or avoid the problem by preserving the ambiguity, but this is not always
possible nor advisable. And yet this is preferable to omitting the phrase entirely, as GECL seems
to have done. An alternative translation model for the first part of this verse is “Each Israelite
woman will go to the Egyptian women living nearby and to any Egyptian woman living in that
house and will ask for … .”

The main point of the verse, of course, is that Israelite women were to secure from
Egyptian women jewelry of silver and gold, and clothing. The word for jewelry, however, is a
general term that can also mean “objects” (TAN) or “articles” (NAB). So one may translate as
“ask for precious [or, special] objects made of silver or gold.” The idea of “jewelry” or
“ornaments” (JB) is suggested by clothing, a word for a mantle or outer garment, perhaps here
referring to “fine clothes” (TOT) or even “festive clothes” (GECL). But the instruction to put them
on may simply mean having the sons and daughters carry them. (NEB has “Load your sons and
daughters with them.”) You shall put them on is addressed to Moses and all the Israelites.
3.22 TEV changes you to “the Israelites” to clarify this. So it is more likely that the phrase put
them on means to actually place the jewelry and clothing on their children, as 3.22 TEV
translates. Durham translates “You shall dress your sons and daughters in them.” Translators
are urged to follow this interpretation. Some languages will use figurative expressions such as
“beautify [or, decorate] the bodies of their children,” meaning “to dress them with the clothes
and ornaments.”

Thus you shall despoil the Egyptians suggests the act of taking spoils from a defeated
army after a battle. Thus NEB (and others) uses “plunder,” and TAN even uses “stripping.” 3.22
TEV tends to neutralize this idea with “carry away the wealth of the Egyptians.” “Confiscate” is
another possible alternative in this context. It should be recognized that the choice of a more
descriptive word describing a sneaky or sly action here may strengthen the implication of a
deceitful maneuver in preparation for a secret escape. (This underlying theme is discussed at
14.5.) An alternative translation model for this final clause is “And in this way they [the
Israelites] will slyly carry away the possessions of the Egyptians.”

(3) Signs with Rod, Hand, and Water (4.1–9)

The conversation between the Lord and Moses continues as Moses offers his third excuse
and the Lord promises him miraculous power through three signs. These nine verses constitute
the third section under the heading “Excuses and promises,” which began with 3.11.

Section Heading: the section heading in 3.22 TEV will pass the “SAC” test for these nine
verses (see the comment on page 37), but there is not another heading in 3.22 TEV until 4.18.
Other ways to render a heading for verses 1–17 are “Moses receives great power from God,”
“Yahweh gives great power to Moses,” or “God causes Moses to do amazing signs.”
Translators may wish to further subdivide this section into two parts, as suggested by this
Handbook. Some languages will need to restructure the section heading for verses 1–9, “Signs
with rod, hand, and water”; for example, “God shows Moses how to perform three miracles.”

4.1

Since this begins a new section, TEV adds the words “the Lord” after Then Moses
answered, to identify the one to whom he is speaking. But behold should suggest the same
reluctance noted in 3.13 with the word “If.” (See the comment there.) This may still be implied
in a declarative statement, as in 4.1 RSV (so also NEB, FRCL, and SPCL), but most translations
express this as an “if” clause in the sense of “What if … ?” 4.1 TEV expresses this well with the
words “But suppose,” and saves the “What if?” for the second sentence.

They will not believe me may be understood either as declarative (“They won’t believe
me”) or hypothetical (“What if they don’t believe me?”). Translators need to decide which is
more natural in the receptor language. Believe carries the meaning of being convinced, or
accepting as true what Moses says. The they may refer either to “the Israelites” in 3.13 or to
“the elders” in 3.18. The former, “the Israelites,” is more likely, since this marks another
excuse, as in 3.11 and 3.13. Or listen to my voice (4.1 TEV’s “listen to what I say”) adds
emphasis to the first statement, for Moses expected that they would even refuse to accept
anything else he would say about the Lord.

For they will say is a new clause that simply expands Moses’ excuse, for he anticipates
what the Israelites will actually say to him. This clause may be rendered either as declarative
(they will) or as hypothetical (“What … if they say”), or even “Supposing they say.” The
addition of “What shall I do” (4.1 TEV) is implied with the idea of “What if?” It is also possible to
express Moses’ apprehension as “They may say.”

The Lord did not appear to you is an embedded quotation and may be changed to an
indirect statement such as “They will say that you did not appear to me.” The Lord is the
personal name yhwh, but there is no suggestion that the Israelites would have already known
this name. (For comments on Lord and appear, see 3.2a.)
4.2

The Lord said to him: 4.2 TEV begins this clause with “So,” indicating that the Lord is
answering another one of Moses’ excuses.

What is that in your hand? is an unexpected question in response to Moses’ question of

“What if?” It suggests that Moses is standing by the burning bush with his rod in his hand. The
word that must therefore be rendered according to this context. In some languages it will be
necessary to retain the word hand as in the Hebrew. An alternative translation model for this
clause, then, is “What is that thing that you are holding in your hand?”

The rod may be rendered as a “walking stick” (4.2 TEV) or a “staff.” The precise meaning of
this word must always be determined by the way it is used. It is often used in reference to a
king’s scepter, but in the hand of a shepherd it refers to a sturdy stick, about four or five feet in
length, that served as a walking stick as well as a staff for nudging the sheep and goats along. It
should not be thought of as a magic wand that suddenly appeared in Moses’ hand. (See the
comment at 4.20.)

4.3

And he said, of course, means “The Lord said” (4.3 TEV). Cast it on the ground is a
command to “Throw it on the ground” (4.3 TEV). The next clause need not repeat the same
words and may even be changed to a temporal clause as in 4.3 TEV: “When Moses threw it
down.”

And it became a serpent means that the rod “was changed into a serpent” (NAB). The word
for serpent is the common generic term for snake and does not indicate what kind of snake. A
less common term is used in 7.9. (See the comment there.) However, since Moses recoiled
from the reptile, this probably indicates that he recognized it as a poisonous kind of snake.
And Moses fled from it should not be taken too literally; even 4.3 TEV’s “he ran away from it”
may be misleading. Better perhaps is “he drew back from it” (JB), or he “recoiled from it” (NJB),
or he “shied away from it” (NAB).

4.4

The conjunction But may also be understood as “Then.” Put out your hand in this case
means “Reach down” (4.4 TEV), since the snake was on the ground. Some languages will retain
the word hand here; for example “Reach your hand down and … .” Take it by the tail really
means catching the snake and holding it firmly; “pick it up by the tail” (4.4 TEV) may wrongly
suggest a careless handling of the snake. So another way to express this is “grab its tail and
hold it firmly.” Experienced snake handlers normally grab a snake right behind its head. So
Yahweh’s command could suggest a further test of Moses’ obedience.

So he put out his hand and caught it is set off with a dash (—) because it begins a
narrative interruption of the Lord’s words, which continue in verse 5. In English it is more
naturally handled with a full stop as in 4.4 TEV. The suggestion is that Moses obeyed the
command in verse 4a before the Lord continued to speak in verse 5. He put out his hand uses
the same words as 4.4a; and caught it uses a different word, but it means the same thing.
 And it became a rod in his hand means that the snake was changed back into the same
rod as before, and this change took place after the snake was in his hand.

An alternative translation model for this verse is:

• Then the Lord said to Moses, “Reach your hand down and grab it firmly by its tail.” So Moses
reached down his hand and grabbed the tail of the snake. It became a walking stick again.

4.5

That they may believe continues the Lord’s speech in 4.4a that was interrupted by the
narrative account in verse 4b. The they probably refers to “the Israelites,” as in 4.1. (But see
4.29–30, where the elders are the ones who witnessed this sign.) It may be necessary to
introduce this clause by identifying the speaker again, as in 4.5 TEV: “The Lord said.” It may also
be necessary to express the independent clause on which this purpose clause seems to be
based. 4.5 TEV has “Do this to prove to the Israelites that … .” NEB has “This is to convince the
people that … .” In some languages it will be helpful to begin this clause with “Do this with
your walking stick to cause the Israelites to understand that … .”

The Lord, the God of their fathers focuses on the personal name yhwh, and in some
languages it will be helpful to say “Yahweh, who is the God of …” (See the discussion at 3.2a.)
Their fathers refers to “their ancestors” (4.5 TEV), as in 3.6. This formula repeats the God of …
the God of … the God of … in reference to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. It may be condensed as
in 4.5 TEV: “the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.” Has appeared to you is the verb phrase
that goes with the Lord, but it is separated by the long formula.

Alternative translation models for this verse are:

• This will convince the Israelites that I have appeared to you, and that I am the Lord, the God of
their ancestors, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

• The Israelites need proof that I am Yahweh, the God whom their ancestors Abraham, Isaac,
and Jacob worshiped. So do this with your walking stick to convince them that I have appeared
to you.

4.6

Again here introduces another episode. It also carries the meaning of “further” (TAN), or
even “Next” (NJB). 4.6 TEV’s “The Lord spoke to Moses again” is a good model. The Lord
continues to speak to him, meaning “to Moses,” without any interruption, but a pause may be
assumed for Moses to reflect on the miracle of the rod. Said here will be rendered as
“ordered” or “commanded” in certain languages.

Put your hand into your bosom refers only to Moses’ hand, not to the entire arm. Into
your bosom means “inside your robe” (4.6 TEV), or “inside the fold of your cloak” (NEB). The
cloak, or “robe” (4.6 TEV), was a long cloth outer garment, or “coat,” that reached to the feet.
Reference to the bosom simply locates the fold of Moses’ cloak above the waistband. In some
languages it will be necessary to state this even more clearly. In such a case one may translate
 “Put your hand into the fold of your robe by your chest” or “Put your hand into the top part of
your robe by your heart.” And he put his hand into his bosom may be condensed to “He
obeyed” (4.6 TEV) or “He did so.”

And when he took it out assumes either that Moses was instructed to remove his hand or
that he did so from curiosity. It may be necessary to identify the it as “his hand” to avoid the
idea of removing his cloak. Behold is a particle that indicates surprise. In some languages it is
natural to bring out the idea of “to his surprise,” or to use an ideophone. (See the comment on
ideophones at 2.6.)

His hand was leprous means that his hand was “diseased” (4.6 TEV). Most translations
today avoid the word leprous because it is scientifically inaccurate. Scholars are convinced that
the Old Testament term is not to be identified as “Hansen’s Disease,” which is usually called
“leprosy.” Rather it was any spot that would appear and spread, like a fungus, on clothing or
on walls of houses, or on the skin of people.

As white as snow is literally, “like snow.” White is not in the Hebrew. Many translations
have understood this to mean that the disease was white in color. However, it is more likely
that it was flaky and scaly, like the disease known today as psoriasis. TAN follows this
interpretation but also retains the word snow: “encrusted with snowy scales.” Durham has
translated it as “peeling and flaking.” The latter will be a good model for many languages.

An alternative translation model for this verse is:

• The Lord gave another command to Moses, “Put your hand inside your robe [or, into your robe
by your heart].” Moses obeyed the Lord’s command. To his surprise, when he took his hand
out, it was covered with a skin disease [or, fungus], flaky and scaly [or, white] like snow.

4.7

Then God said should be “Then the Lord said” (4.7 TEV), for the Hebrew has only “he said,”
and verse 6 identifies the speaker as “the Lord.” Put your hand back into your bosom is
literally “Return your hand to your bosom.” (See verse 6 for bosom.) So he put his hand back
is also literally “He returned his hand.” This repetitive sentence may be condensed to “He did
so” or “He obeyed.”

And when he took it out is exactly the same as in verse 6, but here the Hebrew adds “from
his bosom.” Behold is the same particle indicating surprise as in verse 6. 4.7 TEV expresses this
in part by adding the words “this time” and contrasting this action with that in verse 6. It was
restored means that his hand became “healthy” again, just as before, and the disease was
gone. Like the rest of his flesh compares the “healthy” condition of his hand with “the rest of
his body.”

4.8

RSV supplies God said, for the speaker is not identified. But the context indicates, as 4.8 TEV
translates, that “The Lord” is again speaking. If they will not believe you probably refers to
“the Israelites” as in verse 1 and in 3.13. Believe is the same word as in 4.1.
 Or heed the first sign is literally “or hear the voice of the first sign.” To “hear the voice” of
a sign means to “accept the evidence of” (NEB), or simply “be convinced by.” The first sign
refers to changing the rod into a snake, and it may be clearer to make this explicit, as in GECL,
“If they are not convinced by the wonder with the rod,” or one may say “If the rod’s changing
into a snake doesn’t convince them that I have sent you,” or even “when your rod changes into
a snake, if they are still not convinced, then … .” The same word is used in 3.12, where the
intended meaning is “proof” that the Lord had appeared to Moses; here the reference is to a
“miracle” performed by Moses as proof of divine power. (See the comment on “wonders” at
3.20.)

They may believe the latter sign is literally “and they will believe the sound of that sign.”
The word for “sound” has been translated as “voice” (ASV), “witness” (NASB), “message” (NAB),
or “evidence” {REB), but most translations leave the word untranslated. The meaning is nearly
the same. The latter sign refers to his hand becoming diseased and then being healed. It may
be sufficient to say “this one,” or simply “the second” (NEB). The doubt implied by they may
believe is suggested only by verse 9; here it is clearly “they will believe,” or “this one will
convince them,” or even “they will believe when they see your hand become diseased [or,
flaky].”

Alternative translation models for this verse are:

• The Lord said, “If your walking stick changing into a snake does not convince the Israelites that
I have sent you, then they will believe when they see your hand become diseased [or, flaky].

• When your walking stick changes into a snake, if the Israelites still don’t believe that I have
sent you, then they will believe when … .

4.9

This verse introduces a third option for Moses. The If applies to two possibili ties: they will
not believe and they will not … heed your voice. 4.9 TEV repeats the “if” for clarity: “If … they
still will not believe you, and if they refuse to listen.” Believe here refers to the signs rather
than believing Moses, but it may be understood as in TAN: “if they are not convinced by both
these signs.” These two signs refers to the “miracles” of the rod and the hand (see verse 8).
The even is made more forceful with “If in spite of these two miracles” (4.9 TEV). Or heed your
voice is the same expression as in 4.1.

You shall take some water from the Nile assumes that Moses will be standing near the
Nile River in Egypt. It does not indicate how he is to take it nor how much. However, there will
be a specific term in many languages for “dipping up” liquid with either a ladle or a container
of some kind. Such a term should be used here. But pour it upon the dry ground suggests the
use of an ordinary water jar. The word for dry ground means “dry place” and may be
understood simply as “the ground” in contrast to the water.

NASB NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE

 And the water which you shall take from the Nile is already clear from the context and
may simply be rendered as “it.” Will become blood means “The water will turn into blood”
(4.9 TEV). This does not refer to the entire river but only to what is poured upon the dry
ground. Thus it is not to be confused with the first of the “plagues,” which come later.

(4) The Assistance of Aaron (4.10–17)

Although Moses has been shown how to demonstrate the Lord’s power in three different
ways, he now resorts to this fourth excuse, his inability to speak with eloquence. In context
this seems to be more an excuse than a reference to any speech defect. Verse 13 becomes a
fifth objection but is hardly an excuse. The Lord’s patience is now tested, and Moses’ elder
brother, Aaron, is mentioned for the first time. He will serve as Moses’ assistant and will be
able to speak for him when necessary.

Section Heading: for translators who are following this Handbook’s section headings, “The
assistance of Aaron,” may also be expressed as “Aaron will come to help Moses.”

4.10

This verse uses both the name Lord (yhwh) and the title Lord (’adonay). The personal
name is used by the narrator; the title of respect is used by Moses. Hence 4.10 TEV’s “No, Lord”
is incorrect. The title ’adonay actually includes the personal pronoun, so my Lord is literally
correct. But since this Hebrew form is often used in the third person, most translations omit
the pronoun my. Moses addresses the Lord in a polite manner, as indicated by the Hebrew
particle translated as Oh or as “Please” (TAN). Together with the title it becomes a formula to
open conversation with someone of superior status and need not be translated literally. It is
used again in verse 13. In certain languages translators may use a polite formula similar to
“Lord, please forgive me.” In many languages, in this context Lord will be rendered as “Chief,”
“Elder Brother,” “the One who Rules,” and so on.

I am not eloquent is literally “I am not a man of words.” Either heretofore or since is

emphatic, so it may be expressed as “I have never been a good speaker” (4.10 TEV), “I am not a
good orator,” “I do not speak very well,” or even “I can’t speak so that people want to listen to
me.” Since thou hast spoken to thy servant refers, of course, to the beginning of Moses’
present encounter with the Lord. So he is saying “I have not suddenly become one since you
began to talk to me” (TOT). But I am slow of speech and of tongue means “I am a poor
speaker, slow and hesitant” (4.10 TEV). This does not necessarily indicate a serious speech
impediment as some have suggested. An alternative model similar to 4.10 CEV is:

• Moses replied, “I have never been a good speaker. I wasn’t one before you spoke to me, and
I’m not one now. I am slow of speaking, and I can never think of what to say.”

4.11

The Lord responds to this excuse first of all with rhetorical questions. Who has made
man’s mouth? may be understood as “Who gives man his mouth?” (4.11 TEV), “Who gives man
speech?” (TAN), or “Who made humans [or, people] so that they can talk?” Since man is the
generic term for humankind (’adam), it should be understood as “a person” (NJB).

Who makes him dumb, or deaf is changed to “deaf or dumb” in 4.11 TEV because of the
more natural order in English. (4.11 NIV has “Who makes him deaf or mute?”) But the focus is
primarily on the word dumb, or the inability to speak. It is the Lord who makes a person
speechless as well as able to speak. What follows only adds emphasis: it is the Lord who causes
one to be deaf, or seeing, or blind. It may be easier to handle these four terms in two parallel
questions, as 4.11 TEV continues: “Who gives him sight or makes him blind?” The word for
seeing may be understood as “clear-sighted” (NEB), or “keen-sighted” (TOT). An alternative
translation model for these two questions is “Who causes a person to be deaf or not able to
talk? Who causes a person to be able to see or be blind?”

Is it not I, the Lord? is a negative rhetorical question that demands an affirmative answer.
It may be easier to change it to a declarative statement as in GECL “It is I, the Lord!” or “I, the
Lord am the one who does these things,” or even “I, Yahweh, am the one … .”

4.12

Now therefore go is a command, spoken perhaps with some impatience. One may also
express this idiomatically as “So, get going [or, moving].” I will be with your mouth is literal
and may sound awkward; it means, as 4.12 TEV puts it, “I will help you to speak.” And teach
you what you will speak does not suggest special instruction in advance, but rather “I will tell
you what to say” at the right time.

4.13

Oh, my Lord is identical to verse 10. (See the comment there.) The expression that follows
is difficult to understand apart from the context. Literally it is “please send by the hand of
[whom] you will send.” Some translations may incorrectly suggest that Moses is finally
accepting his new commission. (NEB has “No, Lord, send whom thou wilt.”) This is a final
attempt of Moses to be relieved of such a responsibility. 4.13 TEV has “No, Lord, please send
someone else.” And GECL has “Don’t be offended at me, Lord, but still send someone else!” In
languages that require special honorifics in this context, those should be used here. A way to
do this in English is “Lord, please excuse me! Please send some other person.”

4.14

The anger of the Lord was kindled is literally “the nose of yhwh became hot,” but the
expression simply means “the Lord became angry” (4.14 TEV). Some languages may be able to
retain some of this graphic description with a similar expression: “When he heard Moses’
words the Lord’s heart became hot,” or “The Lord“s heart [or liver, or stomach] burned [or,
pained] against Moses.” A Handbook on the Gospel of Mark, page 106, contains some other
excellent figurative expressions for anger. Examples are “to have a cut heart” or “to have a
swollen heart.” Against Moses goes naturally with kindled, but “with Moses” goes with
“became angry.”
 Is there not Aaron is another negative rhetorical question that calls for the obvious
answer, “There is.” A declarative statement as in TAN may therefore be more natural. Your
brother can mean either son of the same parents or distant relative, so a more general term
can be used in translation. If one has to be specific, then Aaron should be understood as an
elder brother, as indicated in Exo 7.7.

To refer to Aaron as the Levite, however, is strange, since both Moses and Aaron were
from the tribe of Levi. In this verse, therefore, the term should be understood as a title rather
than as a reference to his descent, reflecting the priestly role later assigned to him. As such it
should be transliterated rather than translated. Another way to restructure the first part of this
verse is “Your elder brother Aaron, the Levite! What do you think of [or, about] him?” He can
speak well is emphatic in the Hebrew; it means that Aaron is able to speak readily, fluently,
and with eloquence. Another way to render this is “He’s an orator.”

And behold suggests the idea of “In fact” (4.14 TEV) or “As a matter of fact.” He is coming
out to meet you is present progressive, for the idea is that “he is now coming to meet you,” or
“he is already on his way” (NEB). Where he is coming from is not indicated, but the idea of
coming out anticipates their meeting each other out in the wilderness, even at that very
mountain. (See verse 27.) And when he sees you he will be glad in his heart simply means
that he “will be glad to see you” (4.14 TEV). It is not necessary to mention the heart; it was
thought of as the center of the emotions, so the expression is idiomatic. However, in many
languages glad will be expressed with figurative or idiomatic expressions using the heart, liver,
or viscera; for example, “When he sees you his heart will feel good” (THCL).

4.15

And you shall speak to him is not a command but an explanation of the plan to be
followed. Thus you shall speak may be rendered as “You can speak” (4.15 TEV) or “You are to
speak” (NAB). And put the words in his mouth is literal, so “tell him what to say” (4.15 TEV) or
“tell him the words that he is to say” may express the meaning more clearly. And I will be with
your mouth and with his mouth is also literal, using the same expression as in verse 12. What
is meant is “I will help both of you to speak.”

And I will teach you what you shall do uses the second person plural in both cases. This
can be made clear in English by saying “I will tell you both what to do” (4.15 TEV). The word for
teach, however, may suggest more than just telling them what to do; it implies some
instruction in advance. In certain languages there will be constructions such as “I will inform
you so that you will both know what to do.”

4.16

This verse clarifies even more the plan explained in verse 15. He shall speak to you for the
people means that Aaron is to speak in Moses’ behalf. The people probably refers primarily to
the Israelites and the elders (see 3.13–16 ) but does not exclude the Egyptians and even
Pharaoh himself. Therefore one may express this first sentence as “He will speak for you to the
people in Egypt.”
 And he shall be a mouth for you is rendered as a metaphor in 4.16 RSV, and you shall be to
him as God is a simile. The Hebrew uses the same construction for both clauses. To be a
mouth for Moses is to be his “spokesman” (4.16 TEV) or “mouth piece” (NJB). It may also be
rendered as a simile along with the second clause, such as “he will be like your mouth, and you
will be like his god” or “… like a god to him).” 4.16 NIV expresses both clauses in the same way:
“and it will be as if he were your mouth and as if you were God to him.”

The purpose of all this is made clear in TEV with the addition of “telling him what to say.”
The word God need not be capitalized, since the relationship of Aaron to Moses is to be like
that of a prophet to his god. GECL makes this even clearer: “When Aaron speaks to the people
for you, that will be just like when a prophet passes on the message from his god.”

4.17

And you shall take may be understood as part of the Lord’s instruction (verse 15), so “Take
this” (4.17 TEV) is more natural. Take in your hand means to take along “with you,” not to
receive a different rod from God. This rod may therefore be understood as the same
shepherd’s staff mentioned in verse 2. The distinction in Hebrew between “this” and “that” is
not as sharply defined as in languages where the precise location of the staff must be
specified. Therefore in some languages the this may have to be changed to “that”; for
example, “take that walking stick which you are holding.”

You shall do the signs probably means “you will perform miracles.” Since signs is plural, it
must refer to more than the one “sign” in which Moses used his rod to produce a snake. But it
cannot refer to the other signs in verses 6 and 9, since the rod was not used. The signs may
thus be understood as the “miracles” Moses would later perform before Pharaoh. Another
possible translation model for this final clause
54

is “You will use it to perform miracles.” Signs may be alternatively rendered as “wonderful
[or, powerful] acts,” “marvelous deeds that amaze people,” or even figuratively, “mouth-
opening events [or, actions].” (See more examples and the comment on “wonders” at 3.20.)

3. Moses Returns to Egypt (4.18–31)

The second half of chapter 4 provides a welcome break in the extended dialogue between
Moses and the Lord. Yahweh has had the last word, and it is assumed that Moses has finally
accepted the commission to return to Egypt. In contrast with the abrupt shift from Egypt to
Midian back in Exo 2.15, when Moses had to flee for his life, the account of his return to Egypt
from Midian is spread over fourteen verses.

His “Departure from Midian” (4.18–23) involves securing the blessing of his father-in-law
Jethro, starting out with his wife and sons, and receiving further instructions about how to

54Osborn, N. D., & Hatton, H. (1999). A handbook on Exodus. UBS handbook series; Helps for
translators (50). New York: United Bible Societies.
approach the king of Egypt. There is “An incident on the way” (4.24–26) that preserves an
ancient cultural ritual and presents a very difficult problem for the translator. Moses’ “Arrival
in Egypt” (4.27–31) includes a reunion with his brother Aaron and their first meeting with the
elders of the people of Israel.

The incidents recorded in this section seem to come from various traditions. Their present
arrangement in the text provides a gradual transition from Moses’ initial call to his first
encounter with Pharaoh, but the sequence is not smooth. A number of literary or editorial
seams must be dealt with along the way to make sure that the intended function of this
section in the total discourse is maintained. These problems will be discussed as they are
encountered in the text.

A. Departure from Midian (4.18–23)

Section Heading: the section heading in 4.17 TEV applies to all of verses 18–31 and covers a
larger block of text than the six verses discussed here under the heading “Departure from
Midian.” Verses 18–23 include two paragraphs. The first paragraph records the actual
departure of Moses from Midian (4.18–20), and the second appears to be some of the Lord’s
early instruction to Moses as he sets out on his journey (4.21–23). If translators wish to follow
this Handbook’s outline, there should be a general heading, “The return to Egypt” (4.18–31),
which may also be rendered as “Moses returns to Egypt.” Then verses 18–31 may be divided
into three subsections. The first heading, “Departure from Midian,” is for verses 18–23.
Another way to express it is “Moses leaves Midian.”

4.18

Literally “Moses went and returned to Jether,” but the two verbs probably describe only
one action: Moses went back to Jethro. Since this begins a new episode, a sequential marker
such as “Then” (4.18 TEV) or “After this” (NAB) may improve the narrative style. Jethro is
actually “Jether” in the Hebrew text, but this is only a variation of the name of the father-in-
law. (See 3.1 for comment on father-in-law.)

Let me go back, I pray is a polite request with a particle that may be rendered as “Please”;
for example, “Please allow me to return … .” The request is natural and should not suggest
strong pleading. Go back means to return all the way to Egypt, the distant country from which
he had escaped many years earlier. My kinsmen is literally “my brothers,” but it carries the
more general meaning of “my relatives,” perhaps Moses’ closer relatives. NIV’s “my own
people” may be too broad.

And see whether they are still alive should not appear as deceptive on Moses’ part, even
though there is no record that he told Jethro about his encounter with the Lord. It is an

TEV Today’s English Version

NAB NEW AMERICAN BIBLE

NIV NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION

 idiomatic expression showing concern for their welfare and simply means “and see how they
are faring” (TAN), and this interpretation is the more likely one. Another way of expressing this
is “and see if they are in good health or not.”

And Jethro said introduces a natural response to the request as well as a farewell greeting.
It is clear that “Jethro agreed” (4.18 TEV) to the request, but this is only implied. Go in peace is
a common greeting and should be rendered in a natural way. It implies a sincere wish for
Moses’ well-being, for his shalom, and 4.18 RSV’s rendering will be a natural one in some
languages. To render it as “told him good-bye” (4.18 TEV) seems to miss this implication. NEB’s
“and wished him well” is better.

4.19

This verse does not follow the preceding verse smoothly, for it suggests that Moses was
still undecided. Many scholars see this as a literary seam, for the two verses apparently come
from different sources and have been placed together without sufficient editorial refinement.
A literal translation may simply ignore this seam, but most translations try to deal with it in
some other way for the sake of the reader. (See the discussion on “Sources” in “Translating
Exodus,” page 2.)

And the Lord said to Moses in Midian has been interpreted by 4.19 NIV as pluperfect,
reporting what “the Lord had said” before Moses asked permission from Jethro. This
interpretation is not recommended, however, for it is not supported by the Hebrew verbal
system. By adding the word “still,” 4.19 TEV’s rendering, “While Moses was still in Midian,”
suggests some delay on Moses’ part after Jethro had given permission. Other versions such as
NEB simply introduce a major break between verses 18 and 19 so that the seam is not so
apparent. For a complete removal of the seam, the two verses may be inter changed, so that
Moses’ request to Jethro follows the Lord’s command rather than precedes it. If this is done,
however, some restructuring will be necessary:

• 18–19 Moses returned to Midian, and the Lord said to him, “Return to Egypt, for all those
people who wanted to kill you are dead.” So Moses went to Jethro his father-in-law, and said
to him, “Please allow me to return to my relatives in Egypt to see if they are in good health or
not.” Jethro agreed, saying, “Go in peace.”

The purpose of the translation and the needs of the intended readers should be
considered in determining just how much of the seam should show.

Go back to Egypt should be understood as a command. For all the men who were seeking
your life does not focus on the men but rather on “all those who wanted to kill you” (4.19 TEV).
Dead is a general word and does not specify how they died.

TAN TANAKH (NEW JEWISH VERSION)

RSV Revised Standard Version

NEB NEW ENGLISH BIBLE

4.20

So Moses took and set them on an ass may be understood as one action: “Moses put his
wife and sons on a donkey” (TOT). The ass, or “donkey,” was a domesticated riding animal
similar to a horse, but with longer ears and shorter legs. In this verse it should be understood
as a male donkey. In areas where donkeys are unknown, the translator may have to borrow a
word from a major language. However, it is also possible to use a descriptive phrase such as
“an animal called ‘donkey.’ ” In such cases an illustration of a donkey will also be helpful. His
sons (plural) would have been small enough to ride on a single donkey with their mother.
There is no textual basis for making sons singular, even though verse 25 refers to only one son,
and a second son is not clearly mentioned until chapter 18.

And went back to the land of Egypt may have to be rendered as “and set out with them
for Egypt” (4.20 TEV) or “began his journey to Egypt,” for there are other episodes reported
before they reach their destination, and his wife and his sons were with him. And in his hand
may be rendered as “carrying” (4.20 TEV).

The rod of God is ambiguous, and so most versions have translated literally. To translate
dynamically requires choosing one of several possible meanings: a) the rod owned or given by
God, different from that in 4.2; b) the rod endowed with godly power, which may be either
that of 4.2 or a new one given to Moses in ; or c) “the walking stick that God had told him to
take” (4.20 TEV). This third meaning seems preferable even though it does not resolve the
ambiguity. A fourth possibility is to omit the reference to God entirely, as in GECL (“He took the
rod with him”), but this is a bit deceptive to the reader, especially if no footnote is given to
indicate the form of the Hebrew. In any case a translation other than the literal rod of God
should provide this expression in a footnote.

4.21

And the Lord said to Moses begins a new paragraph, but a more natural transitional word
like “Again” (4.21 TEV) should be used. When you go back to Egypt may be understood in
context as “Now that you are going back to Egypt” (4.21 TEV), since verse 20 indicates that
Moses had already “set out” (4.21 TEV).

See introduces a clause that literally says “See all the wonders that I placed in your hands
and you will do them before Pharaoh.” It is probably to be understood as a command to see
that you do, or “be sure to perform” (4.21 TEV). But some interpret it as a command to “keep
in mind” (NEB) or “be prepared to perform” (JB). NJB renders the clause as an exclamation,
“Think of the wonders I have given you power to perform, once you are back in Egypt!” 4.21

TOT TRANSLATOR’S OLD TESTAMENT

GECL GERMAN COMMON LANGUAGE VERSION

JB JERUSALEM BIBLE

NJB NEW JERUSALEM BIBLE

TEV’s interpre tation is the more likely one. Before Pharaoh may also be rendered as “in the
sight of Pharaoh [or, the king],” or even “before the face of the king.” Other ways to express
see that you do are “set your heart to perform” or “don’t fail to perform.” The word for
miracles (nofethim) is not the same as the word for “signs” (’othoth) in the earlier verses of this
chapter. (See the comment on “wonders” at 3.20.) Which I have put in your power, literally
“in your hands,” means “which I have given you the power to do.”

But I will harden his heart uses an expression found many times in Exodus to describe the
stubbornness of the Pharaoh. Sometimes it is the Lord who hardens the king’s heart;
sometimes he hardens his own heart. The heart was thought to be the center of thinking, of
intelligence, and a hard heart indicated a stubborn attitude. In each instance one of three
different Hebrew words is used to describe his heart as either “difficult,” “strong,” or “heavy,”
but the meaning is always that the king is “stubborn.” In this verse the word meaning “strong”
is used. In many languages there will be similar figurative expressions for “stubbornness,”
using the “heart,” “liver,” or “stomach.”

So that introduces a purpose clause (4.21 RSV), while “and” seems to introduce a result
clause (4.21 TEV). Either interpretation is possible, since the common Hebrew conjunction waw
must often be translated according to the context. The result is still that the king will not let
the people go; it is a matter of interpretation whether this is also the Lord’s purpose in
hardening his heart. People in the phrase not let the people go may also be rendered as “the
people of Israel” or “the Israelites.”

4.22

And you shall say to Pharaoh introduces a quote within the quote that began with verse
21. This in turn introduces another quote, ‘Thus says the Lord … ,’ and within that quote
another is introduced with and I say to you. Changing some levels of direct speech to indirect,
as in 4.22 TEV, will make it easier for the hearer as well as the reader to keep in mind who is
speaking. (See the comment on quotes at 7.16.)

And you shall say is frequently translated as “Then you shall say,” in order to show that
the words for Moses to speak should come after the Pharaoh has persistently refused. This
anticipates the problem of tense in verse 23. Thus 4.22 TEV, in avoiding extensive quotes within
quotes, has “Then you must tell him that I, the Lord, say, ‘Israel … .’ ”

For Pharaoh see the discussion at 1.11b. Thus says the Lord is the ancient “messenger
formula” used ten different times in Exodus and many times throughout the prophetic books.
Since it is intended to introduce the exact words of Yahweh through the mouth of the
messenger, it should be translated consistently and with a ring of authority. (A formula is a
fixed arrangement of words, so it is usually helpful to translate it in the same way each time it
appears. See also 5.1; 7.17; 8.1, 20; 9.1, 13; 10.3; 11.4; and 32.27.) NEB has “these are the
words of the Lord,” and NJB has “This is what Yahweh says.” 4.22 TEV’s “I, the Lord, say” has
changed the third person to first person in order to avoid three levels of embedded quotes.
Translators should find the most forceful way to say this in the receptor language.
 Israel is my firstborn son is a metaphor meaning “The people of Israel are like a firstborn
son to me.” Literally the Hebrew says “Israel is my son, my firstborn,” and this will be a suitable
translation in many languages. The firstborn son means the oldest son. Most languages will
have technical terms designating this child. Israel, the new name given to Jacob in Gen 32.28,
is used collectively for all his descendants, but note that it is possible to express this as “The
people of Israel are like … ,” as suggested above. The firstborn son, of course, enjoyed a
special status in the ancient Israelite family, but the reference here already points to the tenth
plague, in which the firstborn son of the Pharaoh was killed (11.5).

And I say to you is present tense in 4.22 RSV. However, the Hebrew verb may be rendered
either as say or as “said,” so 4.22 TEV has “I told you … .” Most translations use the past tense,
“said.” This assumes that the demand to let the people go has already been made, as in 4.22
TEV, “I told you to let my son go.” Some scholars have suggested that verses 22–23 are out of
place, having originally followed 11.3 as Moses’ warning of the tenth plague. But even in their
present position it is better to use the past tense.

Let my son go that he may serve me is a quote within a quote within a quote. The word
for “let go” also means to release, let loose, or send away. This “demand formula” is the same
formula used repeatedly by Moses during the course of the plagues in Egypt, except that
elsewhere my son is changed to “my people.” (See also 5.1; 7.16; 8.1, 20; 9.1, 13; and 10.3.)
The singular son should be retained here because of the intentional contrast with the
Pharaoh’s firstborn son in 4.23b. That he may serve me is better understood as “so that he
might worship me” (4.22 TEV). The verb “to serve,” in reference to God, implies performing the
proper rites in worship.

Alternative translation models for this verse are:

• 22 Then you must say to the king that the Lord [or, Yahweh] says this: “The people of Israel are
like a firstborn son to me. 23a So I am telling you to release my son, so that he may worship
me.”

Or in languages that require direct speech:

• 22 … 23a I have told you, ‘Release my son, so that he may worship me.’ ”

4.23

If you refuse is literally “and you refused,” but the problem of the tense intended is not
easily resolved. 4.23 RSV and others (NAB, GECL), in using the present tense, are forced to render
the common conjunction waw as if. Behold, along with the separate pronoun I, introduces the
consequences of Pharaoh’s refusal with great emphasis. Most English versions now avoid using
the archaic behold, but other languages may be able to render the word naturally. (See the
comment at 1.9.) If the present tense is followed (if you refuse), this emphasis may be
expressed as in NAB: “I warn you.” If the past tense is preferred (“you refused”), the emphasis
may be expressed with 4.23 TEV’s use of “Now,” or JB’s use of “So be it!” (NJB has “well then!”)
Other possibilities are “All right!” as in “All right! I am going to kill … ,” or “Because you are
stubborn, I am going to … .”
 I will slay your firstborn son uses the participial form of slay, and thus carries the meaning
of “I am going to kill,” or “I intend to kill.” In some languages this will be expressed as “I have
set my heart to kill … .” The same general word for “kill” is used in 2.14. (Ex 2:14See the
comment there.)

Alternative translation models using the present tense (1) and the past tense (2) for this
verse are:

• (1) If you refuse to release him, I warn you that I intend to kill your firstborn son.

• (2) but you refused to release him. All right! I am going to kill your firstborn son.

B. An incident on the Way (4.24–26)

These three verses are among the most difficult to translate in the entire book of Exodus.
They record an ancient tradition about which we know very little. They raise questions that we
cannot easily answer: Why did the Lord try to kill “him“? Who is “him”? Why did Zipporah
suddenly circumcise her son? What is meant by “bridegroom of blood”?

There are no serious textual problems here, and so the translator will be tempted to
translate literally without struggling with the problems of interpre tation. But a more dynamic
translation will require some struggle in choosing from among several possible meanings. And
footnotes will be needed to help the reader.

Section Heading: if translators choose to make a new section here, other possible
headings are “The Lord [or, Yahweh] meets Moses as he is traveling to Egypt,” “The Lord is
angry with Moses,” or even “Yahweh tries to kill Moses.”

4.24

At a lodging place on the way places the incident “on the way to Egypt.” The lodging place
may have been “a camping place” (4.24 TEV) rather than a building or wayside inn. Another
way to express this phrase is “At a place where they [Moses and his family] rested one night on
the way to Egypt.” The Lord met him uses a word that means “encountered” (TAN) or “came
upon” (NAB). Another possibility is to use the word “confronted,” which carries the idea of
hostility. It is not clear who the him refers to, but the preceding verses suggest it was Moses.
And sought to kill him is literally “tried to cause him to die.” It does not say how or why. This
will be the natural way in certain languages to express the final clause. In other languages it
will be more natural style to change the order of the two clauses in this verse; for example,
“The Lord [or, Yahweh] confronted Moses and tried to kill him at a place where he and his
family were resting as they traveled to Egypt.”

4.25–26

TEV combines verses 25–26 in such a way that it is difficult to separate the information in
one verse of RSV from the other. Both verses of RSV have been listed above alongside TEV. RSV,
of course, follows the Hebrew text more closely, but translators may find TEV’s rearrangement
easier to handle. The following discussion treats both verses together.
 Zipporah was Moses’ wife, and 4.26 TEV again makes this information explicit. She took a
flint, that is, “a sharp stone,” or “a flint knife” (4.26 NIV). And cut off her son’s foreskin here
means that she completely removed the loose skin (prepuce) covering the end (glans) of her
son’s penis. Zipporah’s action, as noted in the introduction to this section, was what is termed
“circumcision.” In many cultures a literal translation of the sentence, Then Zipporah took a
flint and cut off her son’s foreskin, would shock the intended audience. In such cases it will be
necessary to soften the translation by using roundabout language (euphe misms). Some
cultures will already have a technical term for circumcision that acts as a euphemism, for
example, “cutting ceremony,” and can translate this sentence as “Zipporah performed the
cutting ceremony on her son and took the skin and … .” However, in other languages there will
be no term like this for circumcision, and in some cultures the practice is unknown. In such
cases it will often be necessary to use a euphemism. And touched Moses’ feet with it is
literally “and she touched [it] to his feet.” It is incorrect to say that she “cast it” or “threw it” at
his feet (KJV, ASV, New American Standard Bible [NASB]); the word never has this meaning in the
Bible.

It is not at all certain that it was Moses’ feet. 4.26 RSV and 4.26 TEV have added Moses to
the text because of the reference to bridegroom later in the verse. (But see the comment on
this below.) Since the pronoun “his” follows the reference to the son, it seems to refer to the
son’s feet, and this interpretation is entirely possible. Some scholars believe the mother
intended to smear some blood from the foreskin onto her son’s feet as a visible sign that the
circumcision was completed. If the interpretation of 4.26 RSV and 4.26 TEV is followed,
however, a footnote should be added to inform the reader that the Hebrew only says “his
feet,” not Moses’ feet.

Some translations (JB, FRCL, Die Bibel: Nach her Übersetzung Martin Luthers [LU]) have
interpreted feet in this verse as a euphemism for the genitals. (See the 4.26 TEV footnote.) This
is certainly possible, for the term seems to be used this way in Isa 6.2 and 7.20. But here, if we
accept it as a euphemism, it would more likely refer to “the genitals of Moses” (JB), for it is the
son’s foreskin that has just been removed. Translating it in this way does not allow for other
interpretations of the story that are just as valid. It is better to translate the word according to
its basic meaning—feet, or “legs” (TAN)—and add a footnote as 4.26 TEV has done.

And said presents another difficulty, for the text does not indicate to whom she is
speaking. The words Surely you could refer to either Moses or the son. 4.26 TEV has added
“she said to Moses” because of the reference to bridegroom, but even that word may be
translated differently. (See the next paragraph.) Surely translates a Hebrew word that is

KJV KING JAMES VERSION

ASV AMERICAN STANDARD VERSION

NASB NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE

FRCL FRENCH COMMON LANGUAGE VERSION

LU LUTHER
sometimes used to emphasize what follows, but 4.26 TEV and others take it only as a marker of
direct speech, like a quotation mark. Other ways to translate Surely are “For certain … ,” or
“You certainly are … .”

You are a bridegroom of blood to me! This expression probably comes from some ancient
ritual or formula now unknown to us. Literally, it means “You are a marriage-relative of
bloodshed to me.” The word chathan, translated as bridegroom or “husband,” is a general
term referring to a person who becomes related to another family through marriage, and so it
is sometimes translated as “son-in-law.” If it is pronounced chothen, it means “one who has a
son-in-law,” or “father-in-law.” In the Arabic language chathan means “to circumcise,” and
chothen means “circumciser.” This is why some scholars believe that here it means “one who is
circumcised.” In this sense the mother is speaking to her son, not her husband, and saying
“You are a blood-circumcised one with regard to me.”

The basic idea seems to be that of a relationship (through marriage) that in some way is
brought about by blood. One may be able to say “Through this bloodshed you are now
marriage-related to me.” If this is not possible or desirable, the translator will have to choose
Moses or the son as the one to whom Zipporah speaks. If we choose the son, we may say
“Through this bloodshed you are now my circumcised child”; but if it is Moses, one may say “I
have shed this blood, so now you [Moses] are related through marriage to me.”

Most translations prefer the second choice, that Zipporah is speaking to Moses. In either
case, a footnote can explain that the term may mean either “a blood-circumcised one” in
reference to the son, or “a bridegroom/husband of blood” in reference to Moses. But since
there is little evidence to suggest that Zipporah was angry or disgusted, the negative
connotation of “bloody husband” (KJV) should be avoided.

So he let him alone is literally “and he desisted from him.” This may be understood as “so
the Lord spared Moses’ life” or “Yahweh let him live” (JB). The pronoun him must refer to the
same person as the “him” mentioned in verse 24. (See the comment there.) So, depending on
how translators interpret the previous verse, one may say either “So Yahweh let Moses live” or
“So Yahweh let the boy live.”

Then it was translates a Hebrew word that also means “At that time” (NAB, NIV). If this is
how it is intended here, it means she spoke the words only once, as they are given in verse 25,
not twice, as 4.26 RSV may suggest. 4.26 TEV combines verses 25 and 26 in order to make this
clear, and uses the phrase “Because of the rite of circumcision” to cover the rest of verse 26,
which is probably an editorial comment explaining why she had spoken, not when.

She said introduces only the difficult words bridegroom of blood that were spoken by
Zipporah in verse 25. The words You are have been added by 4.26 RSV; they are not in the
Hebrew text. Because of the circumcision explains why Zipporah had spoken. If the words are
understood as part of a formula related to an ancient ritual (see the comment above), it is
better to say “Because of the rite of circumcision” (4.26 TEV). Some translations include this
phrase within the quotation (NEB, TAN), but this is possible only if verse 26 reports a second
speech by Zipporah in addition to her speech in verse 25. Because of the circumcision may
 also be rendered as “Because she had circumcised her son” or, following NIV’s model below,
one may translate the whole verse as “So Yahweh [or, the Lord] let him live. (At that time she
called him ‘a bridegroom of blood,’ which referred to the circumcision.)”

As explained above, it is better to interpret all of verse 26 (after the words So he let him
alone) as an explanation of the formula spoken in verse 25. 4.26 NIV has helpfully placed this in
parenthesis: “(At that time she said ‘bridegroom of blood,’ referring to the circumcision.)” NIV’s
model is a good one for translators who do not combine verses 25 and 26.

Alternative translation models for verses 24–26 are:

• 24 The Lord confronted Moses and tried to kill him at a place where he and his family were
resting as they traveled to Egypt. 25 Zipporah, his wife, took a sharp stone, and cut off the skin
at the end of her son’s penis [or, genitals] and touched Moses’ feet with it. She said, “By
shedding this blood you are now related to me by marriage.” 26 So the Lord let him live. (At
that time she called him “a bridegroom of blood” because she had circumcised her son.)

• 24 As they [Moses and his family] were traveling to Egypt, at a place where they spent the
night, the Lord met Moses and tried to kill him. 25 But Zipporah, Moses’ wife, took a knife
made from a sharp stone and circumcised her son. Then she took the piece of skin she had
removed, touched his feet with it, and said, “Through this bloodshed you are now my
circumcised child.” 26 (She pronounced these words because of the ritual.) And so the Lord let
Moses live.

C. Arrival in Egypt (4.27–31)

Section Heading: two incidents are recorded in these verses—the meeting of Moses and
Aaron at the “mountain of God,” and their first meeting with the elders of the Israelites in
Egypt—but they may both be included under the heading “Arrival in Egypt,” or “Moses arrives
in Egypt.” Both 4.26 RSV and 4.26 TEV group all five verses into one paragraph.

4.27

The Lord said to Aaron gives no clue as to when it was that the Lord spoke to Aaron, or
where he was at the time. The Hebrew begins the verse with the common conjunction waw,
so a transitional marker such as “Then” (TOT) may be introduced. Some translations (TEV, NEB)
have even suggested a pluperfect tense, “Meanwhile the Lord had said to Aaron,” but this is
only an attempt to smooth out the literary seam and improve the narrative style. (See the
comment on a similar seam at 4.19.)

Go into the wilderness to meet Moses is a command for Aaron first of all to “go and meet
Moses” (NEB), and the wilderness is added to indicate where he would find him. (On the
problem of wilderness or “desert,” see the comment at 3.1.) The absence of any clue as to
where Aaron had been leads to the logical conclusion that he was still in Egypt. So he went
suggests there was no hesitation.

And he met him at the mountain of God suggests that he chanced upon him, or
encountered him, at the mountain. (The same word for met is used in verse 24.) There is no
indication that Aaron had previously known about this mountain or that the place had been
previously arranged. It was probably the same mountain, Sinai, where Moses had first
encountered the Lord, but neither “Sinai” nor “Horeb” appear in the text. As in 4.27 TEV, it may
be called “the holy mountain.” (See the discussion at 3.1.)

And he kissed him means that Aaron kissed Moses, possibly touching his lips lightly on
Moses’ cheek, but certainly not on his lips. It does not say that Moses kissed Aaron, but this
would have been likely. Kissing was a common gesture of greeting among family members.
(See also 18.7.) To show that it is a greeting, one may say “greeted him with a kiss.” In cultures
where kissing is not a normal greeting between men, translators may need to use an
expression describing the normal way for males to greet each other warmly.

4.28

And Moses told Aaron means that he informed him or reported to him. All the words of
the Lord means, as 4.28 TEV expresses it, “everything that the Lord had said.” But this is
qualified with the relative clause with which he had sent him, which may be understood in
one of two ways: either a) “everything the Lord had said when he commissioned him” (TOT), or
b) “everything … the Lord had sent him to say” (NEB). 4.28 TEV follows the interpretation of a),
rendering the clause as “when he told him to return to Egypt.” This, of course, is a direct
reference to Moses’ commissioning at the burning bush. Translators may choose either of
these two interpretations. If b) is followed, another way to express this is “Moses told Aaron
everything that the Lord had sent him to Egypt to say” or “… had told him to say in Egypt.”

And all the signs refers to the three “miracles” (4.28 TEV) that the Lord had told him to do,
namely, changing his rod into a snake, his hand into a diseased hand, and water from the Nile
river into blood. Here the word for signs (’othoth) is the same as in verses 8–9, but not the
same as that used in verse 21. (See the comment on “wonders” at 3.20.) The word for told him
in this last clause means “ordered him” (4.28 TEV). 4.28 RSV and others add the words to do or
“to perform.”

4.29

A new paragraph is advisable here, even though RSV and TEV do not have one. Then Moses
and Aaron went is literally “And Moses went and Aaron,” with no reference to Moses’ wife
and sons. They seem to disappear from the scene until chapter 18, possibly returning to
Midian after the incident in verses 24–26. But it is clear that both Moses and Aaron “went to
Egypt,” even though the words must be added. Because of the punctuation in the Hebrew,
went and gathered together should be understood as two actions rather than as one, as in
4.29 NIV.

Gathered together all the elders means that Moses and Aaron “assembled” them in some
way, perhaps by invitation to a meeting. There is no indication of either secrecy or force. The
elders of the people of Israel were the “Israelite leaders,” or senior tribesmen, as explained in
the comment at 3.16. The people of Israel is literally “the sons of Israel.” (See the comment on
“descendants of Israel” at 1.7.) In certain languages gathered together will be rendered as
“and gathered the Israelite leaders together to meet with them (Moses and Aaron).”
4.30

And Aaron spoke uses the common word for speaking, which is different from the word
for “told” in verse 28. TAN and NJB reflect this difference by translating “Aaron repeated,” but
most versions simply have “Aaron told.” All the words which the Lord had spoken to Moses
suggests that Aaron was now functioning only as a spokesperson (see verses 15–16), repeating
the exact words of the Lord as reported to him by Moses. But the Lord had spoken uses the
same word as in Aaron spoke. Thus “everything that the Lord had said to Moses” (4.30 TEV)
should probably be limited to those words that were to be repeated to the elders. So one may
say “everything that the Lord had told Moses to say to the elders.”

And did the signs is literally “and he did the signs” (’othoth), without identifying the “he,”
so the immediate context suggests that it was Aaron rather than “Moses” (4.30 TEV) who
“performed all the miracles” (4.30 TEV). (The Hebrew does not have the word “all.”) So 4.30 TEV
(also GECL) understands the pronoun “he” to refer to “Moses” on the basis of the larger context
(verse 17). If the choice is for “Moses,” a footnote is advised indicating that the Hebrew says
“he,” since this is definitely a minority opinion. In the sight of the people is literally “in the
eyes of the people,” meaning simply “in front of the people” or “as the people were
watching.” (For signs see the comment on “wonders” at 3.20.)

4.31

And the people believed means that “they were convinced” (NEB) as a result of the words
and signs in verse 30. The people, here as in verse 30, may not mean all the Israelites; it may
still refer only to the elders, as verse 29 suggests. So one may translate “The leaders were
convinced by what they heard and saw.”

And when they heard is literally “and they heard,” but the and here introduces a temporal
clause. JB and NJB follow a different text here and translate “they rejoiced.” However, when
they heard is the more likely text. That the Lord had visited the people of Israel uses the same
word for visited that 4.31 RSV renders as “observed” in 3.16. 4.31 TEV’s rendering, “had come
to them,” is the same in both places. It is variously expressed as “had taken note of” (TAN) or
“was concerned about” (NAB, NIV).

The people of Israel here identifies them as a distinct people, as “Israelites” (NEB). To refer
to them only as “them” (4.31 TEV) weakens the significance of the Lord being concerned about
the Israelites. And that he had seen their affliction uses the same vocabulary as in 3.7. Their
affliction may be more easily rendered as “how they were being treated cruelly.”

They bowed their heads and worshiped translates two Hebrew verbs often used together.
The expression suggests a posture more extreme than merely lowering the head; it probably
involved either kneeling down or prostrating themselves with their faces to the ground. Hence
some versions have “they bowed to the ground in worship” (NJB), or at least “they bowed low
and worshipped” (TOT). The object of their worship, though not stated, was the Lord. So one
may say “they bowed down and worshiped the Lord” or “They prostrated themselves and
worshiped the Lord.”
 An alternative translation model for verses 29–31 is:

• 29 Later they went to Egypt and brought together the Israelite leaders, 30 and Aaron told
them what the Lord had sent Moses to say. Then Aaron [or, Moses] performed all the miracles
in front of the people, 31 and everyone believed. They bowed down and worshiped the Lord
because they knew that he had seen their suffering and was going to help them.

4. A Preview of the Contest with Pharaoh (5.1–6.1)

A. The First Encounter with Pharaoh (5.1–9)

As the “Outline of Exodus” indicates, the “preparation of a leader” focuses on the
relationship between “The Lord and Moses” and includes five parts (see “Translating Exodus,”
page 5):

1. The man Moses (2.1–25)

2. The call of Moses (3.1–4.17)

3. The return to Egypt (4.18–31)

4. A preview of the contest with Pharaoh (5.1–6.1)

5. The call renewed (6.2–7.7)

It should be noted that parts 4 and 5, which are chapters 5 and 6, interlock in a special
way. This is an important literary device that is repeated several times in the book of Exodus as
we have it. (See the introduction to 12.1–20.) The following diagram suggests how it functions
in the structure of the book.

Chapter 5 should be thought of as a preview of the long negotiations with Pharaoh in

chapters 7 and following. As such it deals more with the relationship of Moses to the Pharaoh
than with his relationship to the Lord. It tells us about the very first encounter between Moses
and the Pharaoh and how it failed, making the oppressive situation of the Israelites much
worse than before.

In a similar way the material in chapter 6 should be thought of as a postscript that is more
closely related to chapter 2–4, showing the relationship between Moses and the Lord, or the
“Preparation of a Leader.” Although it probably preserves a parallel tradition of Moses’ call, in
the final structure of the book it is to be understood as an account of the renewal of that call.
(See the introductory comment to chapter 6.)

As seen in the Outline of Exodus, there are four episodes in chapter 5 that tell the story of
this “Preview of the contest with Pharaoh” and lay the groundwork for chapter 6 and the
renewal of Moses’ call:

a. The first encounter with Pharaoh (5.1–9)

b. The increased oppression (5.10–14)

c. The plea of the Israelite foremen (5.15–21)

d. Moses’ complaint (5.22–6.1)

The actual appearance of “Moses and Aaron before the King of Egypt,” as the section in
TEV has it, is limited to verses 1–5. The rest of the chapter deals with the unfortunate results of
that first encounter, and Moses and Aaron move to the sidelines in defeat until after the
Hebrew foremen fail in their own attempt to negotiate.

Section Headings: 4.31 TEV’s section heading, “Moses and Aaron before the King of Egypt,”
is the heading for most of the chapter. Another alternative following this model is “Moses and
Aaron confront the King of Egypt.” If translators decide to follow this Handbook’s outline,
there should first be a general heading, “A preview of the contest with Pharaoh” (5.1–6.1),
which may also be expressed as “Moses begins to challenge Pharaoh.” The chapter is then
divided into four sections. The heading for the first section is “The first encounter with
Pharaoh” and may be alternatively expressed as “Moses and Aaron meet the King of Egypt for
the first time.”

5.1

Afterward is an important transition marker in the narrative. It introduces a new episode

directly related to the one just told in the sense of “After this” (NEB) or “After that” (NAB); 5.1
TEV’s “Then” is a bit weak. In some languages it will be necessary to say “After Moses and
Aaron met with the leaders of Israel, they went … .” Moses and Aaron went to Pharaoh
suggests that they were granted an audience with “the king of Egypt” in his palace, for went is
literally “went in.” If it is necessary to say where Moses and Aaron went, one may translate
went to Pharaoh as “… went into the palace to meet the king.” (Pharaoh as a title is discussed
at 1.11b.) And said does not suggest that the two men addressed the king in unison;
presumably one of them—Aaron, perhaps—was the speaker, but this is not indicated in the
text. It is clear that they spoke to the king, for the text literally says “and they said to Pharaoh.”

Thus says the Lord is the special messenger formula indicating that the words which follow
are the words of the Lord. (See the discussion at 4.22–23a.) Here the personal name of the
Lord, Yahweh, was announced by two messen gers who were authorized to speak for him.
Yahweh is further introduced as the God of Israel, that is, the God of the people of Israel, the
Israelites, in contrast with the gods of other peoples. Some translators will wish to use the
personal name here; for example, “Yahweh, the God of Israel, says …” or “Yahweh, who is the
God of Israel, says … .”

Let my people go is another formula used eight times in Exodus. (See the discussion at
4.22–23a.) The Lord is speaking, calling the Israelites his people. That they may hold a feast to
me is quite different from “that they may serve me,” found elsewhere with this formula. It
suggests a religious pilgrimage to a place where a “festival” (5.1 TEV) will be observed, so NEB
calls it a “pilgrim-feast.” Some languages will use a noun such as feast, “festival,” “fiesta,” and
so on. In other languages one must employ a verbal expression; for example, “so that they
may feast … to honor me” or “so that they may eat and drink … to honor me.” (See and 23.14.)
It most probably involved animal sacrifice, as in 3.18, but that is not directly stated here. To me
 simply means “to honor me,” or “in my honour” (TOT). In the wilderness may be “in the
desert,” but see the discussion at 3.1. It is possible to reorder the clauses as 5.1 CEV does and
say “Let my people go into the desert, so they can honor me with a celebration there.”

An alternative translation model for this verse is:

• After Moses and Aaron had returned to Egypt, they went [into the palace] to the king and said,
“Yahweh, the God of Israel, says, ‘Free my people so that they can go to eat and drink in the
wilderness to honor me.’ ”

5.2

But Pharaoh said follows the Hebrew word order, but some languages will prefer to
change the order, beginning with part of the direct speech, as in 5.2 TEV, and then identifying
the speaker. The usual Hebrew word for said is used, but 5.2 TEV’s “the king demanded” is
warranted by the context.

Who is the Lord is not a rhetorical question, but one that must be understood in its
historical setting. It was a time when different peoples worshiped various gods, and knowing
the personal names of those gods was necessary in order to call on their power. It should be
assumed that the Pharaoh had not yet heard of a God named “Yahweh,” the personal name
revealed to Moses. But the rest of the verse suggests that Pharaoh, who considered himself
divine, was probably arrogant and spoke these words with contempt. This is one of the places
in Exodus where it may be helpful for translators to introduce the personal name; for example,
“Who is this Yahweh?” where the word “this” shows the king’s contempt and disbelief. (See
the discussion of various options for rendering yhwh at 3.2a.)

That I should heed his voice is introduced by a relative particle referring to the Lord. It
may be rendered more easily as a separate question, “Why should I listen to him?” (5.2 TEV) or
“Why should I pay any attention to what he says?” (TOT). The word for heed may mean to
listen to, or to obey. (The same expression is used in 4.1.) GECL gives the meaning “What right
has he to command me?” And the whole sentence may be expressed as “What right has he to
command me to free the Israelites?” And let Israel go is literally “to let Israel go,” so his voice
may be understood as “his plea to let Israel go” (NAB) or “his order to let Israel go” (MFT). It may
also be treated as a separate question, “Why should I let Israel go?” (TOT).

I do not know the Lord is best understood as “I know nothing of Yahweh” (NJB) or “I do not
acknowledge the Lord” (TOT). GECL has “I know no ‘Lord.’ ” Another way of saying this is “I don’t
know this Yahweh,” where the word “this” would again show the king’s contempt. But the
Pharaoh should not be represented as an atheist. Therefore if Lord is used rather than
“Yahweh,” a footnote should be added informing the reader that the personal name revealed
to Moses in 3.15 is used here in verses 1–2, thereby distinguishing Moses’ God from all the
other gods. There will be several references to this statement of the Pharaoh in the lengthy

CEV Contemporary English Version

MFT MOFFATT
negotiations that follow, indicating that the purpose of the plagues is to show who Yahweh is.
(See 7.5, 17 and others.)

And moreover I will not let Israel go is finally the response to the demand in verse 1. All of
the Pharaoh’s previous words explain the basis for his refusal. Some languages may need to
rearrange the clauses, beginning with this refusal and then adding the reasons. But the
translation should allow for the possible interpretation that he was surprised to hear the name
of a new God. One possible rearrangement is the following: Pharaoh said, “I certainly will not
release the Israelites! Who is this Yahweh anyway? Why should I obey him and let the
Israelites go? I don’t know any Yahweh.” The word for moreover should be understood as
intensifying the negative rather than introducing an afterthought. Thus NEB has “and I tell you I
will not let Israel go,” and GECL gives the sense “and I certainly do not intend to let the
Israelites go.”

5.3

Then they said means, as 5.3 TEV puts it, that “Moses and Aaron replied.” The God of the
Hebrews has met with us is almost identical with the phrase in 3.18 and should probably be
rendered in the same way. In both places the word for met suggests an unexpected meeting
that had not been prearranged. The God of the Hebrews contrasts with “the God of Israel” in
verse 1 and reflects a different tradition. Although the terms Hebrews and “Israelites” are
sometimes used interchangeably, they are not identical. (See the comment at 1.15.)

Let us go, we pray, or “Allow us to travel” (5.3 TEV), is now a polite request in contrast with
the demand in verse 1. One may also say “Please let us walk.” A three days’ journey into the
wilderness means “a distance of three days” (TAN) in one direction, before returning. (See the
discussion at 3.18b.) And sacrifice to the Lord our God is identical with 3.18b.

Lest introduces an alternative to be avoided. As a conjunction it means “or else” (NEB) or

“otherwise” (NAB), but it may introduce a separate sentence: “If we don’t do so” (5.3 TEV). Lest
he fall upon us can mean several things: “attack us” (NEB), “strike us” (NJB), “punish us” (NAB),
or even “kill us” (5.3 TEV). Since the sword is a metaphor in the Hebrew for killing people in
warfare, 5.3 TEV’s translation is probably the more correct one. As with our God, the pronoun
us is exclusive, referring only to the Israelites. With pestilence refers to a contagious and
usually fatal “disease” (5.3 TEV), and the word is always used in Exodus to refer to an act of
divine punishment. Some translations use “plague,” referring possibly to the bubonic plague,
but here it must be distinguished from the various plagues later brought upon the Egyptians.
Or with the sword is literal from the Hebrew and may be understood as a reference to being
killed in “war” (5.3 TEV).

5.4

The king of Egypt, of course, is the Pharaoh of verse 1. Said to them clearly refers to the
two men, Moses and Aaron. The Hebrew word order indicates that the king addressed them
by name, and most translations include the names within the direct speech. But this is
surprising and will seem unnatural in some cultures. Possibly the king was singling them out
from a group of elders (3.18). Or perhaps he recognized Moses as a former Egyptian prince,
and Aaron as his brother. In order to be more natural, 5.4 TEV has replaced to them with “to
Moses and Aaron,” and GECL removes their names entirely. 5.4 TEV’s model will be the more
helpful one for many translators. Where the cultural pattern is not violated, however, it is still
better to include Moses and Aaron within the quotation marks and allow for various
interpretations.

Why do you take the people away from their work? is probably rhetorical, for they had
already explained their mission. The Why may be rendered, as 5.4 TEV expresses it, “What do
you mean by … ,” or even changed to an exclamation, “How dare you … !” (TOT). The people
could refer to a delegation of elders accompanying the two men (3.18), but it probably means
all the Israelites in general. Take the people away means “making the people neglect,” or
“distracting the people” (NEB and others). From their work is literally “from the things they are
doing.” So this sentence may be expressed as “How dare you cause the people to stop
working.”

Get to your burdens is a command probably addressed to Moses and Aaron and all the
Israelites (your is plural). The word for your burdens refers specifically to forced labor, in
contrast with their work. 5.4 TEV’s “Get those slaves back to work!” suggests that the king did
not consider Moses and Aaron to be slaves (unless he was addressing the Egyptian taskmasters
instead). It may be interpreted as a simple order to “Get back to work!” or “All of you, get back
to work!”

5.5

And Pharaoh said is an awkward break into the direct speech, probably caused by a
literary seam. (See the discussion on “Sources” in “Translating Exodus,” page 2.) Since Pharaoh
is still the same king who is speaking, some translations simply omit this break (TEV, NEB, TOT).
TAN has “And Pharaoh continued.” GECL interprets the said to mean “He thought” (see 2.10 and
comment), but the following statement, you make them rest … , seems to clash with that
interpretation. Behold is difficult to translate here, but it functions as a marker to command
attention. Many versions omit it, but 5.5 NIV has “Look.” (See the comment at 1.9.)

The people of the land is an expression that usually refers to people who are free rather
than to people who are slaves. So in this verse it may mean that the Egyptians rather than the
Israelites were now many. But this seems to contradict the meaning of the context. For this
reason 5.5 TEV and others prefer to follow the wording of the Samaritan Pentateuch (SP) rather
than the MT. The addition of one letter in SP gives the meaning “more than the people of the
land.” 5.5 TEV makes this explicit with “You people have become more numerous than the
Egyptians,” and NEB has “Your people already outnumber the native Egyptians.”

SP SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH

MT MASORETIC TEXT
 HOTTP, however, strongly defends the wording of MT with an {A} rating and suggests that
people of the land should here be understood as people “subject to the corvée,” that is, the
oppressed people. Although this is not the usual meaning of the expression, it does agree with
the context. In fact, it gives almost the same meaning as SP, with the exception of the
comparative “more than.” JB follows MT and comes out with “Now that these common folk
have grown to such numbers,” and NJB even has “Now that the people have grown to such
numbers in the country.” If the comparative idea (SP) is followed, then a footnote will be
appropriate, informing the reader what MT really says.

And you make them rest is literally “and you [plural] cause them to stop.” From their
burdens refers specifically to forced labor, as in verse 4. The meaning of the clause may be
expressed either as a rhetorical question (JB “do you want to stop them labouring?”) or as a
sarcastic statement (NEB “yet you would have them stop working!”). 5.5 TEV’s “And now you
want to stop working!” omits the them, but this is probably due to the way the first part of the
verse has been rendered.

Alternative translation models for this verse are:

• The king continued, “The Israelites have greatly increased in number. Now you [Moses and
Aaron] want to make them stop working.

Or, with a footnote giving the MT reading:

• You Israelites [all those Israelites present] are now more numerous than the Egyptians.* And
now you [Moses and Aaron] want to cause them to stop working.

[* Following the Samaritan Pentateuch. The Masoretic text has The people of the land are
now many.]

5.6

The same day marks a change of scene and thus a new paragraph. It suggests that Moses
and Aaron had left the palace, but that the king reacted immediately by issuing a new decree.
Pharaoh commanded may be understood as “Pharaoh gave the order” (NJB). He did not
necessarily talk directly to all the taskmasters of the people and their foremen, although
there is no indication how many there were. Some of them may have been in the palace at the
time. (See the comment on “went out” at verse 10.)

The people, of course, were the Israelite laborers, and their foremen were most likely
“Israelite foremen” (5.6 TEV), as verse 14 suggests. There is ambiguous. It may refer to the
taskmasters, in the sense that the foremen had been appointed by them (verse 14). But it may
also refer to the people in the sense that the foremen were their immediate Israelite
supervisors. Their responsi bility was to keep the laborers working and report to the Egyptian
taskmasters how many bricks were produced each day. NJB translates the word for foremen as
“scribes,” which suggests that they were the ones recording the number of bricks produced.

HOTTP HEBREW OLD TESTAMENT TEXT PROJECT

But they were also the immediate supervisors of the workers. A better way to express
foremen is “Israelites supervising the slaves.” The taskmasters were obviously the “Egyptian
slave drivers” who were directly responsible to “the king.” (They are described at 1.11a.) This
distinction is shown to be correct in verses 14–21.

5.7

These are the words of the king’s command, or decree. You refers to the taskmasters and
the foremen in verse 6. You shall no longer give is literally “You shall not continue to give,”
meaning “Stop giving” (5.7 TEV). Evidently the Egyptians had been supplying the workers with
straw, or at least had supervised the delivery of the straw to the brick-makers. The word give
may therefore be understood as “supply” (NEB) or “provide” (TAN). The people here refers to
the Israelites, particularly those who were required to make the bricks.

The word for straw refers to chopped pieces of the stalks of wheat or barley after the grain
had been harvested. It served a double purpose: as a binder it caused the mud to stick
together in one lump, and as a decaying vegetable sub stance it produced humic acid that
strengthened the dried bricks. The bricks in ancient Egypt were flat rectangular blocks of sun-
dried mud or clay used forcon structing walls and buildings. Although somewhat larger than
the bricks commonly used today, they were placed on top of each other with a layer of mud in
between as mortar. In cultures where bricks are unknown, translators may borrow the English
term or one from some other major language. It will then be helpful to include a Glossary
comment on bricks and even have a picture in the text. In verse 12 the straw is distinguished
from the “stubble.” (See the comment there.) As heretofore is an idiom emphasizing the idea
that the practice of supplying straw for the laborers must stop. It may also be rendered “as
you have been doing until now.”

Let them go is a command; it does not suggest that they may go if they want to. 5.7 TEV’s
“Make them go” is better. Let them go and gather straw suggests two actions: they were to go
out into the harvested fields and gather the straw wherever they could find it. For themselves
should be understood as “they themselves must go and gather the straw.” This became an
added burden to that of making the bricks, since the straw was a necessary ingredient in the
mixture.

5.8

The number of bricks is not specified; it refers to the “same quota” (TAN) as that required
of them when the straw had been provided for them. Evidently they were forced to make a
minimum number of bricks within a certain period of time, possibly by the day or by the week.
Heretofore is the same Hebrew idiom used in verse 7 and may again be rendered as “as they
have been making up to now [or, before today].” You shall lay upon them refers to the
number, not to the bricks. It means: “you shall levy upon them” (NAB), or “you will exact from
them” (NJB), “impose upon them” (TAN), or more naturally, “require them to make the same
number of bricks as before” (5.8 TEV), or even, “You must force them to make … .” Some
receptor languages have pronouns for third person that range from polite to insulting; they
should use one in this context that refers to the Israelites as lowly people. This will help to
show the king’s contempt for the Israelite slaves. You shall by no means lessen it is literally
“you shall not reduce from them,” that is, from the bricks. This clause, along with the word
order in the Hebrew, gives strong emphasis to the command. Hence “not one brick less” (5.8
TEV) is a dynamic way of expressing it in English.

For they are idle is a reason clause that goes either with what has just been said or with
what follows, perhaps both. But the use of the semicolon (;) both before and after (5.8 RSV) is
not recommended. It is better to begin a new sentence and relate this to what follows. The
word idle is sarcastic and should not be understood as “not working” but as “not working
enough.” Hence “They don’t have enough work to do” (5.8 TEV) or “They are lazy” (NAB and
others). It is better to use an equivalent of lazy, for the 5.8 TEV rendering suggests that their
not having enough work to do was the fault of someone else. Other possible English terms are
“indolent,” “shiftless,” or “slothful.” What the Pharaoh is implying is that the Israelites simply
did not want to work hard.

Therefore they cry is a result clause that follows logically from the idea that the Israelite
slaves are “lazy.” The word for cry here means to call out in the sense of “clamouring” (NEB). It
introduces a direct quote in the form of a request or demand from the king himself. It is
persistent and may be understood as “they keep asking me” (5.8 TEV), or “they keep crying out
[or, clamoring], asking me,” or even “… and begging me.” (The same word is used in 2.23 and
3.7 as a desperate cry to God for help.)

Let us go and offer sacrifice may have been a rallying slogan among the people, but as a
strong request it was addressed to the king, and the us is exclusive. It echoes the request made
by Moses and Aaron in 5.3 (though without the polite marker) and probably identifies two
distinct actions: go (“into the wilderness” is understood; so GECL) and offer sacrifice. Offer
sacrifice is one word in the Hebrew, identical with 3.183.18 (See the comment there), where
5.8 RSV has “that we may sacrifice.”3.18 (’ (NAB has “Let us go to offer sacrifices,” since the and
is not in the Hebrew. The plural “sacrifices” in 5.8 TEV, however, is not explicit.)

To our God must also use the exclusive our if the direct quote is retained. Changing to
indirect speech is also possible (“to their God!” as in 5.8 TEV), but it may create another
problem. For example, in some languages a distinction must be made between the word for
God as the one true God (capitalized in English) and a word for the supposed gods of other
cultures. The text does not make such a distinction. Hence NEB’s “to their god” (lower case)
more accurately reflects in English the king’s understanding, but in other languages, to use a
word for a supposed god or idol would be a mistranslation.

5.9

Let heavier work be laid upon the men is a command addressed to no one in particular; it
simply states what must be. Literally the Hebrew says “The work is to be heavy upon the men,”
or “Let the work be heavy upon the men.” In context, however, it is still part of the command
to the taskmasters and the foremen in verse 6. A more natural form in English is “Make these
men work harder” (5.9 TEV). As it is used here, the word for men does not necessarily refer to
males in contrast to females. NJB’s “people” is better. 5.9 NRSV has changed upon the men to
simply “on them.” An alternative translation model, then, is “You must force these people [or,
Israelites] to work harder,” and in some languages it will be necessary to add the words “than
before”; for example, “… work harder than before.”

That they may labor at it is literally “and they will work at it.” This may be understood as
“let them keep at it” (TAN) or even “keep them busy” (5.9 TEV), since this is still part of the
command. An alternative rendering for the first part of this verse is “You must force these
people to work harder than before, and be so busy working that … .” And pay no regard to
lying words is literally “and they will not look at words of deception.” 5.9 TEV brings out the
implied meaning and purpose of the command: “so that they won’t have time to listen to a
pack of lies.” It is not clear what the lying words were. They may be the announcement of
Moses and Aaron in verse 3 that “the God of the Hebrews has met with us”; they may also be
the words of the “cry” of the people in verse 8. TAN has “deceitful promises,” and JB has “glib
speeches.” 5.9 CEV has “Make them work so hard that they won’t have time to listen to these
lies.”

B. The Increased Oppression (5.10–14)

Section Heading: for translators who choose to divide this chapter into three sections as
suggested by this Handbook, the heading “The increased oppression” may also be expressed
as “The Egyptians oppress the Israelites even more,” or “The Egyptians treat the Israelites
more cruelly,” or even “The Israelites must find their own straw.”

5.10

The taskmasters and the foremen of the people literally follows the Hebrew word order.
Verse 6 has “the taskmasters of the people and their foremen.” The different position of the
phrase of the people does not change the meaning significantly, so the phrase may be
translated the same as in verse 6. Here, however, it is no longer necessary to identify the
taskmasters as Egyptians and the foremen as Israelites, since this is old information.

Went out does not necessarily suggest that they had been in the palace; it may also be
understood as simply going out to where the Israelites were working. If the word out is
misleading, one may translate “went to the Israelite laborers.” And said to the people means
that they were now reporting to the Israelites what the Pharaoh had commanded. Thus says
Pharaoh is the same “messenger formula” as in 4.22 and 5.1. It introduces the exact words of
“the king” (5.10 TEV).

I will not give you straw may sound a bit strange, since the king himself would not have
given it in person. So JB has “I will not provide you with straw.” But since this had been done
previously, NJB is better: “I shall not provide you with any more straw.” The problem of
identifying a quote within a quote may be handled by making one of the quotes indirect, as in

NRSV New Revised Standard Version

5.10 TEV: “The king has said that he will not supply you with any more straw.” (For straw see
verse 7 and the comment.)

5.11

Go yourselves is literally “You, you go,” in the sense of “You are the ones who must go.”
These are still the words of the king addressed to the Israelite workers through the mouths of
the taskmasters and foremen (verse 10). Get your straw may be understood as “gather” (NAB)
or “collect” (NJB), as suggested in verse 12, but the word for get means to lay hold of, to
acquire, without indicating where or how. Your straw means “the straw you will need for
making the bricks.” Wherever you can find it does not suggest that it was hidden; it could be
out in the fields, or on the threshing floors, or even where others had collected it.

But your work refers to the results of their labor, that is, to the number or quota of bricks
they were forced to make. NJB has “your output,” and TOT has “the amount you produce.” Will
not be lessened in the least therefore means “you must still make the same number of bricks”
(5.11 TEV). This seems to have been a daily quota. (See verse 14.) This implies that they would
now have to work even harder and longer to meet the daily requirement. Another way of
expressing this is “but you must still make as many bricks as before” (5.11 CEV).

5.12

So the people were scattered abroad should not suggest that they were forcibly
dispersed. It was only the required daily quota of bricks that made it necessary for them to go
abroad, that is, in various directions. 5.12 TEV’s “went all over Egypt” is more natural. The
people here could include not only those who were making the bricks but also all the members
of their families. So this term may be expressed as “The people of Israel.” Throughout the land
of Egypt is probably an exaggerated statement (hyperbole) to emphasize their desperate
situation. 5.12 TEV omits land (“all over Egypt”), and GECL omits Egypt (“over the whole land”).

To gather stubble for straw suggests a difference between straw and stubble. As
explained at 5.7, the straw refers to chopped pieces of grain stalks, but the stubble seems to
refer to what remained of the stalks out in the fields. The Hebrew word for stubble is used
elsewhere as something that burns quickly (Exo 15.7) or that is easily blown by the wind
(“chaff,” Psa 83.13). GECL does not use a different term but refers to it as “straw in the fields.”
5.12 TEV has simply “looking for straw.” In languages where the distinction is not important, a
similar translation will be the more natural rendering.

5.13

The taskmasters were the Egyptian “slave drivers” to whom the Israelite foremen were
responsible. They were urgent, meaning that they “kept pressing them” (5.13 NIV), “kept
driving them on” (NAB), or “kept trying to force them” (5.13 TEV). Saying introduces what they
must have said to the people, but especially to the foremen, as verse 14 suggests. “Kept
saying” is another possible rendering.”

Complete your work, your daily task means to finish or “fulfill” (ASV) what is required of
you (plural) each day. Work is literally “what is [to be] done.” The idiom that follows (literally
 “the matter of a day in its day”) explains that your daily task is precisely “what is to be done.”
Since work and daily task are the same, both may be rendered as “your daily quota” (NJB). The
direct quote here may easily be changed to an indirect statement, as in 5.13 TEV: “The slave
drivers kept trying to force them to make the same number of bricks every day.”

As when there was straw emphasizes that the daily quota remained the same, even
though they were now required to gather the straw themselves (verse 11) in addition to
making the bricks. It does not suggest that they could make the bricks without straw. Some
translations make this clear by adding the words “given to you” or “as when straw was
supplied” (NEB). Straw was still a necessary ingredient, and the quota remained the same as
“when they were given straw.” In some languages as when there was straw may be expressed
as “as you did when we gave [or, supplied] you the straw” or “as you did when they
[unspecified agents] supplied you with the straw.”

An alternative translation model for this verse is:

• The Egyptian slave drivers [or, bosses] kept on pressing [or, urging] the Israelite laborers,
saying, “Each day you must make the same number of bricks as you did when we gave you the
straw.”

5.14

Two things are clear in this verse: The foremen of the people of Israel are here identified
as “Israelite foremen,” especially since they are the ones who were beaten. (See verses 6 and
10.) And Pharaoh’s taskmasters are also the same “Egyptian slave drivers” mentioned earlier.
However, it is not clearly stated that they were the ones who “beat the Israelite foremen,”
since a causative passive form of the verb is used. Neither is it clear just how they were
beaten, for the word that is used simply means to strike or hit. (See 2.11 and comment.)

Probably the taskmasters were the ones who at least caused the foremen to be beaten,
for a chain of command is clearly indicated here. In some languages it is possible to express
this as “The Egyptian slave drivers caused the Israelite foremen to be beaten,” but in languages
that do not use the passive voice, it is probably safer to assume that the slave drivers did the
beating and to translate in a similar way to 5.14 TEV. Whom refers to the foremen and them
refers to the people of Israel. Thus the foremen had been set over the Israelite workers, that
is, they had been appointed or “put in charge of the work” (5.14 TEV) by Pharaoh’s
taskmasters. And Pharaoh’s taskmasters in turn were responsible to the king.

The foremen are the ones who were asked the question, and here again it is probable that
the taskmasters were the ones who asked it. Why have you not done all your task may be
restated as “Why have you not completed your assigned work.” Of making bricks is literally “to
make bricks.”

Today, as hitherto is a simplified rendering of a complex phrase in the Hebrew: “as up to

now, both yesterday and also today.” The phrase “as up to now” (as hitherto) refers to the
time before the new law of verse 7 was imposed, when the quota of bricks was evidently met.
The phrase “both before and also today” compares today with yesterday, both days being
after the law was imposed, when the quota was no longer met. TAN tries to express all this as
“Why did you not complete the prescribed amount of bricks, either yesterday or today, as you
did before?”

Both RSV and TEV, however, seem to interpret “yesterday” as referring to the time before
the law was imposed, and thus contrast only before and after: “Why aren’t you people making
the same number of bricks that you made before?” The question is probably rhetorical, for the
answer was obvious. That is why GECL changes it into an exclamation, “You have again today
produced too few bricks!” The foremen themselves weren’t actually making the bricks but
were forcing other Israelites to do the work. So it is possible to render this question as “Why
aren’t you [the foremen] forcing the workers to make as many bricks yesterday and today as
they did before?”

C. The plea of the Israelite Foremen (5.15–21)

Section Heading: for translators who are following this Handbook’s section divisions, the
heading “The plea of the Israelite foremen” may also be expressed as “The Israelite foremen
complain to the King.”

5.15

Then translates the common Hebrew conjunction waw, but it introduces a new section.
What follows is a result of the beating in verse 14. (NEB has “So.”) The foremen of the people
of Israel are the Israelite foremen just mentioned, so 5.15 TEV mentions only “the foremen.”
But it is good to specify “Israelite” in beginning a new section.

Came and cried to Pharaoh describes two actions. The word for came may suggest
entering the palace (see 5.1). A different perspective is suggested with the English word
“went” (5.15 TEV), but this distinction is not indicated in the Hebrew. However, since the king
has been the center of interest in the previous section, in many languages it will be more
natural to say “Then the Israelite foremen came to the king.” Cried means that they
“appealed,” or “complained.” The same Hebrew word is used in verse 8. Pharaoh is the title
for “the king.”

Why do you deal thus with your servants is literally “Why do you [singular] do this to your
servants.” Your servants is probably a polite reference to the foremen themselves, so 5.15 TEV
has “to us, Your Majesty.” The same phrase is repeated twice in verse 16, where it seems to
refer to the brickmakers as well, so it may include all the Israelites. The “us” here is exclusive,
excluding the Pharaoh and all the Egyptians. In some languages it may be necessary to decide
whether your servants includes all the Israelites or only the foremen. Either is possible.

5.16

No straw is given is literally “Straw there-is-none given,” with one word expressing “there-
is-none.” But there had to be straw for making bricks, as shown in verses 11–12. Given really
means “provided,” and the implied provider would have been people other than the Israelites.
Another way of expressing this clause is “No one gives [or, brings] us any straw.”
 Your servants appears twice in this verse. As explained in the previous verse, it may be a
polite way for the foremen to refer to themselves, so 5.16 TEV has “We are given no straw.”
But probably all the Israelites are included in the “we.” GECL here interprets your servants as
“our people” in the first instance, but as “us” in the second. As in the previous verse, if “us” is
used for your servants, it will exclude the king.

Yet they say to us, ‘Make bricks!’ introduces a quote within a quote. In some languages it
may more easily be handled with indirect speech. One may say, for example, “And still they are
telling us to make more bricks!” 5.16 TEV uses the passive voice, “but we are still ordered to
make bricks!” However, in languages that do not have a passive voice, 5.16 RSV’s model will be
helpful. They seems to be indefinite (NEB has “you”), but this is probably referring to the
Egyptian taskmasters. Us refers to the same group as your servants, probably both the
foremen and the Israelite workers. (GECL uses “they” in reference to “our people”; see above.)
If ‘Make bricks!’ is retained as a direct quote, it should be addressed to the same group
understood as us.

And behold calls attention to what follows. (See the comment at 1.9.) It may be translated
in a number of ways: “And now,” “Thus” (TAN), “Look” (NAB), “Here we are” (NEB). A natural
expression should be chosen to show the emotional distress of the foremen. Your servants
must here refer only to the foremen who are speaking (“we” in 5.16 TEV). Since they are
referring to the beating in verse 14, an exclusive “we” should be employed, excluding the king
and his officers. Are beaten is the same word as in verse 14.

But the fault is in your own people is not clear in the Hebrew. Literally it seems to say
“and your people will be guilty.” But few translations have tried to follow this rather strange
idea. Some even omit these words with a footnote explaining that the Hebrew is obscure (JB,
NJB). 5.16 TEV agrees basically with 5.16 RSV: “It is your people that are at fault.” Another way to
express this is “It is your own people who are to blame.”

5.17

But he said may be made more specific: “The king answered” (5.17 TEV) or “But Pharaoh
replied” (NEB). You are idle, you are idle repeats the same Hebrew word for both emphasis
and disgust. “You are lazy and don’t want to work” (5.17 TEV) uses a more descriptive word
than idle but does not express the disgust and emphasis intended. 5.17 NIV has “Lazy, that’s
what you are—lazy!” and GECL has “You are lazy, just plain lazy!” 5.17 CEV expresses it as “You
are lazy—nothing but lazy!” (See the comment on “lazy” at 5.8).

Therefore you say is addressed to the foremen but seems to include all the Israelites. You
say may be understood as “you keep saying” (NIV, NAB) or “you keep asking.” It introduces a
quote within a quote that repeats the same idea of verse 8. The effect of the new law
regarding the straw and the beating of the foremen seem to be ignored. Let us go and sacrifice
is the same as in verse 8. To the Lord replaces “to our God” and refers to Israel’s God by name.
Some translators will express this phrase as “to Yahweh” (see the comment at 3.2a).

5.18
 The command to the foremen, Go now, and work, is literally “And now go, work.” The
idea of “get back to work” (5.18 TEV) or “get on with your work” (NEB), is implied from the
previous verses. For no straw will be given you is literally “and straw will not be given to you,”
in contrast with the similar expression in verse 16. This may also be expressed as “They will not
provide you with any straw.”

Yet and for (previous clause) translate the same Hebrew conjunction waw. You shall
deliver is literally “you will give,” the same word as in the preceding clause. The same number
of bricks is literally “the [expected] measurement of bricks.” Here again is reference to an
expected “quota of bricks” (TAN, NJB) to be made on a daily basis.

5.19

The foremen of the people of Israel were the Israelite foremen, as in verse 15. Saw may
be rendered as “realized” (5.19 TEV), “found” (TAN), or “knew” (NAB). That they were in evil
plight is literally “[saw] them in evil.” The “them” (they) should probably be understood as the
foremen plus all the laborers under them. (GECL has “the Israelites.”) In evil plight, literally “in
evil,” means “in trouble” (5.19 TEV). Other ways to express evil plight are “were in a dilemma”
or “were caught in a situation with no way out.”

When they said is literally “saying,” without identifying the speaker or speakers. The they
may therefore refer to either the Pharaoh or the taskmasters in verse 11. Or the passive form
may be used, “when they were told” (5.19 TEV). But what is said is presented as a direct quote
and is similar but not identical to that in verse 13. You shall by no means lessen your daily
number of bricks is literally “you shall not reduce from your bricks the matter of a day in its
day.” Another way of saying this is “You must still make the same number of bricks each day as
you did before.” It will be easier in many languages to use indirect speech as in 5.19 TEV and
others.

5.20

TEV begins a new paragraph with this verse, since it marks a change of scene. The three
clauses (a, b, c) may have to be rearranged as TEV has done, to agree with the sequence of
events.

a. They met M and A c. As they were leaving

b. who were waiting a. they met M and A

c. as they came forth b. who were waiting

They refers to the Israelite foremen in verse 19. Met Moses and Aaron uses the same
word for met as in 5.3. It may have been an unexpected meeting. TAN and NAB have “they
came upon.” NEB and 5.20 NIV, however, have “they found,” and 5.20 CEV has “they went to
see.” Either is possible.

At any rate, Moses and Aaron were waiting for them. The Hebrew may be understood
either as “standing to meet them” or “standing opposite them.” TAN has “standing in their
path,” and GECL even has “went to meet them.” This suggests that Moses and Aaron were
eager to learn the result of the foremen’s audience with the king.

As they came forth from Pharaoh is placed first in most English translations. This
rearrangement avoids confusion about the they, which of course refers to the foremen. Came
forth suggests that they had been inside the palace. (See the comment on “came” at 5.15.) But
this is also implied with “As they were leaving” (5.20 TEV). From Pharaoh means “from
Pharaoh’s presence” (NEB and others) without mentioning the palace. Some prefer to say
“When they left Pharaoh” (5.20 NIV and others). Another possible translation is “After they left
the king” (5.20 CEV).

5.21

And they said to them means that the foremen spoke to Moses and Aaron. The Lord look
upon you and judge is usually understood as a kind of curse: “May the Lord … !” 5.21 TEV takes
it as a simple statement of fact and a prediction: “The Lord has seen what you have done and
will punish you.” (The words “what you have done” are only implied.) But the rest of the verse
clearly shows that the foremen were very angry. GECL has therefore effectively placed this
curse at the end of the foremen’s speech: “May the Lord punish you for this!” To show their
anger even more clearly, one may express they said to them as “They scolded Moses and
Aaron, saying, ‘May the Lord [or, Yahweh] punish you for what you have done.’ ”

Look upon you suggests a look of disapproval. And judge means to make a just decision, or
to “punish.” Some translations have combined these two actions into one (as in GECL above),
but the first act, look upon, precedes the second in the sense of taking note of what was done
(so TOT) and then passing judgment. So one may translate “May the Lord notice what you have
done and punish you.”

Because you have made us offensive is literally “[you] who have caused our odor to
stink.” The meaning of this figure of speech is “You have made us hated” (JB), or “loathsome”
(TAN), or even “obnoxious” (so Brevard Childs). Attempts to retain the metaphor have not
always been successful: “You have brought us into bad odor” (NAB); “You have made us a
stench” (5.21 NIV); “ye have made our savour to be abhorred” (5.21 KJV). But NEB is a bit better:
“You have made us stink in the nostrils of Pharaoh and his subjects.”

In the sight of Pharaoh is literally “in the eyes of Pharaoh.” But this is a common
expression for “in the presence of.” And his servants uses the same word as the Israelite
foremen used in reference to themselves in verse 15. But here the meaning is the Egyptian
servants of Pharaoh, perhaps his “officials.” TAN uses the word “courtiers.”

And have put a sword in their hand to kill us changes to a new metaphor. The meaning, of
course, is simply “you have given them an excuse to kill us” (5.21 TEV), or even “Now they even
have an excuse to kill us” (5.21 CEV). The figure of speech may easily be retained as a simile:
“What you have done is like putting a sword in their hand to kill us.”

An alternative translation model for this verse is:

• They scolded Moses and Aaron, saying, “May the Lord notice what you have done and punish
you. You have caused the king and his officials to hate us. What you have done is like putting a
sword in their hand to kill us.”

D. Moses’ Complaint (5.22–6.1)

These next three verses should be treated as a separate episode, as the section heading in
TEV indicates. This is the last of four episodes under the heading “A preview of the contest with
Pharaoh,” which began with 5.1. (See the “Outline of Exodus” in “Translating Exodus,” page 5.)
The story once again focuses on Moses and his relationship with Yahweh, the Lord. But Moses
is no longer the bold and confident leader who dared to make demands in the name of
Yahweh. Here he is discouraged and depressed over the results of that first encounter with the
king. He complains to the Lord because of what had happened and even doubts his calling. In
the total narrative this short section prepares the reader for a second account of Moses’ call. It
explains why the renewal of his commissioning in chapter 6 was necessary.

Section Heading: 5.21 TEV’s heading, “Moses Complains to the Lord,” and the one
suggested by this Handbook, “Moses’ complaint,” are very similar. Either one is possible
depending on whether translators prefer a nominal or verbal heading.

5.22

Then marks the transition of the story to a new episode that followed as a result of the
experience of the Israelite foremen. Moses turned again to the Lord is literally “Moses
returned to Yahweh.” This may suggest a special place where Moses met with the Lord, as NEB
and NJB imply, with “Moses went back to the Lord.” Perhaps it was just a quiet place where
Moses could be alone to express his grievanc
76

es to God. (Note that Aaron is not mentioned.) But to say that “Moses turned to the Lord
again” (5.22 TEV) probably means only that he had to talk again with the God who had sent him
on this unsuccessful mission. However, in some languages it will be helpful to show that Moses
left the foremen and went somewhere to talk to the Lord. So one may say “Moses left them
[the foremen] and went to pray to the Lord. He said, … .”

And said introduces Moses’ complaint in the form of a prayer. O Lord is an error in 5.22
RSV (and 5.22 NRSV); it should be “O Lord,” for Moses does not here pronounce the sacred

76Osborn, N. D., & Hatton, H. (1999). A handbook on Exodus. UBS handbook series; Helps for
translators (89). New York: United Bible Societies.

TEV Today’s English Version

RSV Revised Standard Version

NRSV New Revised Standard Version

name yhwh. But “Lord” is still a title of respect, and the O is still added in some languages as a
vocative marker. (See the comment on “Lord” and “Lord” at 4.10.) In why hast thou done evil
to this people? the word thou is the old form of English used in the King James Version, which
was retained in 5.22 RSV only in prayers addressed to God. To many English speakers it still
suggests a more polite or formal style, but the Hebrew does not make this distinction.

Hast thou done evil is one word in Hebrew which means to “mistreat” (5.22 TEV) or “treat
harshly” (NJB), to “bring harm” (TAN) or “misfortune” (NEB) upon someone. This is not a
rhetorical question but more like a lament. Moses probably does not expect an answer. To this
people refers to all the Israelites, whose suffering had now been increased all the more. 5.22
TEV changes this people to “your people” to be more natural. (The Lord had earlier referred to
them as “my people.” See 3.7.)

Why didst thou ever send me is literally “Why this have you sent me?” The word “this” in
the Hebrew is repeated, so that the question seems to be made even stronger than the first
question. It can mean “Why did you send me here?” (5.22 TEV), or even “Why did you send me
on such a mission?” (NAB). But 5.22 NIV interprets this in a slightly different way: “Is this why
you sent me?” and 5.22 CEV has “Is that why you sent me here?” Either interpretation is
possible.

5.23

For since is literally “And from then,” meaning “From the time when.” I came to Pharaoh
may also be rendered “I went to the king” (5.23 TEV). The distinction in English between came
and “went” is not made in the Hebrew. Rather the distinction is between entering and exiting.
Here the word used is for entering, suggesting entering the palace, or into the presence of the
king. So since Moses is now outside the palace, “went” is more likely in most languages. (See
the comments at 1.1; 5.1, 15.) To speak in thy name refers to 5.1. The name, yhwh, is
important in 5.1, but here the focus is more on Moses’ role, which was to deliver Yahweh’s
message. So 5.23 TEV has “to speak for you.” An alternative translation model is “to tell him
what you told me to say.”

He has done evil uses the same word as in verse 22, but here it refers to the Pharaoh as
the one who “treated them cruelly” (5.23 TEV). This people, or “them,” refers to all the
Israelites, as in verse 22. But since thy people is used at the end of the verse, the personal

NJB NEW JERUSALEM BIBLE

TAN TANAKH (NEW JEWISH VERSION)

NEB NEW ENGLISH BIBLE

NAB NEW AMERICAN BIBLE

NIV NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION

CEV Contemporary English Version

pronoun thy (“your”) may easily be advanced here; for example, “he has treated your people
cruelly.” And thou hast not delivered thy people at all is emphatic in the Hebrew: “and
delivering, you have not delivered your people.” 5.23 RSV adds the at all, while others
rephrase: “And you have done nothing to help them!” (5.23 TEV). The word for delivered
means to pull out, to rescue.

6.1

The present chapter and verse divisions of the Bible were not a part of the original
writings, and although they are indispensable as a system of precise reference, they do not
always coincide with the more natural divisions of the book. So although this verse is in
chapter 6, it really belongs with the previous two verses. The major break comes with verse 2.
(6.2 See the comments there.) But the Lord said to Moses may therefore be understood as
“The Lord replied to Moses” (TOT), or simply “The Lord answered” (NEB).

Now may mean “At the present moment,” or “After what has happened,” or even “Soon.”
So Now you shall see refers to the near future in the sense of “Beginning now, you are going
to see.” TAN has “You shall soon see.” What I will do to Pharaoh refers to what the Lord is
planning to do by means of the various plagues upon Egypt and the king.

With a strong hand appears twice in this verse, but it is not clear whose hand is intended.
Literal translations may leave the problem unsolved, and those that attempt to clarify are
divided. As an idiom, a strong hand refers to someone’s power or might. (See 3.19 and the
comment.) NEB and TOT identify this as the Pharaoh’s power, but others as the Lord’s power,
and translators are encouraged to follow the latter interpretation. Another way to express this
is “I will use my mighty power to force him.” He will send them out, one word in Hebrew, is
the same word used by Moses in 5.1. 6.1 TEV’s “I will force him to let my people go” therefore
follows logically from the previous clause. This seems to be the better choice. An alternative
translation model for the first part of this verse is “Soon you will see what I will do to the king. I
will use my mighty power to force him to let my people go.”

Yea translates the Hebrew conjunction waw. 6.1 TEV has “In fact.” This helps to remove the
awkwardness of the repeated phrase, With a strong hand. But again, a strong hand is
ambiguous. It is not clear just whose hand is intended. NEB and 6.1 CEV identify the “arm” as
Pharaoh’s, but 6.1 TEV, 6.1 NIV, and NAB identify it as the Lord’s. Translators are encouraged to
follow 6.1 TEV and, if footnotes are used, to add a footnote explaining that the Hebrew, “with a
strong hand,” is ambiguous. He will drive them out is stronger than the earlier send them out.
It means that the king will banish the Israelites, that is, he will force them to leave. Of his land
refers to the country of Egypt.

5. The Call Renewed (6.2–7.7)

Chapter 6 of Exodus preserves a tradition quite different from those in the previous
chapters. For more than a hundred years, scholars have noticed in this material significant

TOT TRANSLATOR’S OLD TESTAMENT

differences in style, vocabulary, and theology that reflect a priestly point of view. It is therefore
believed that this tradition at one time included its own account of the call of Moses, and that
the priestly editors inserted it here for an important theological reason. In its present position,
following the account of Moses’ first encounter with the Pharaoh, it shows how the Lord was
able to reassure him by renewing his call.

As noted earlier, chapter 5 begins the account of the difficult relationship between Moses
and the Pharaoh. But chapter 6 is still part of that initial and basic relationship between Moses
and the Lord. This creates an interesting interlocking effect in the structure of the narrative, in
which Part 4 (“A preview of the contest with Pharaoh”) and Part 5 (“The call renewed”)
become inter locked. (See the diagram on page 106.) The “preparation of a leader,” in the case
of Moses, involved an initial test which he failed. But the Lord reaffirmed his earlier call of
Moses, gradually reassuring him that this “contest for freedom” would really have to be a
contest between the Lord and the Pharaoh.

Three episodes are included in part 5, plus a genealogy that has been inserted after the
second episode. To show the similarities of this account with “The call of Moses” in 3.1–4.17,
these four sections may be identified with the following headings:

a. The same commission (6.2–9)

b. The same excuses (6.10–13)

c. Moses’ family record (6.14–27)

d. Aaron to be the spokesperson (6.28–7.7)

The inclusion of “Moses’ family record” at this point seems to be an interruption of the
narrative. But the priestly editors placed great importance on genealogies, and here they
establish the historical setting of Aaron as well as of Moses. This serves as an introduction to
the role of Aaron as spokesperson in the drama that is about to unfold beginning with Exo 7.8.

A. The Same Commission (6.2–9)

Section Headings: if translators follow this Handbook’s outline, there should be a general
heading, “The call renewed” (6.2–7.7), at verse 2. This may also be expressed as “Yahweh
again calls Moses.” The break between verses 1 and 2 is a literary seam that should not be
covered over. It marks the sudden shift from the Yahwist tradition (“J”) to the Priestly tradition
(“P”). (See the discussion on “Sources” in “Translating Exodus,” page 2.) Most literal
translations at least begin a new paragraph with verse 2, but it is even better to begin a new
section. 6.1 TEV’s section heading covers verses 2–13, but it is not specific enough because it is
identical with the heading at 3.1. (See the comment on the “sac test” on page 37.) A better
choice is “God calls Moses again,” or “Moses is commissioned once more” (NJB), or even “God
reassures Moses that he will rescue the Israelites.” The outline of this Handbook names this
section “The same commission,” since it is only one episode in the larger section called “The
call renewed” (6.2–7:7).

6.2
 And is the common Hebrew conjunction waw, but it is often omitted in English at the
beginning of a new section. Some translations translate it as “also” (NIV, NAB), but this tends to
cover up the literary seam mentioned above. The use of God (’elohim) is in striking contrast to
“the Lord” (yhwh) in the previous verse. Since the Hebrew uses the word “spoke” as well as
said, 6.2 TEV shows the break more clearly by translating them both: “God spoke to Moses and
said.”

I am the Lord is literally “I Yahweh.” In English it is necessary to supply the verb am. This is
the formula by which God introduces himself by his personal name. It is found frequently in
Exodus and throughout the Old Testament. (See verses 6, 7, and 8.) As it is used here the
formula does not reveal the new name (see 3.14–15) but only identifies the speaker, who is
already known to Moses. (Full comments on Lord as the personal name yhwh are provided at
3.2a.) Another way to express this formula is “I am the God whose name is Yahweh.”

6.3

I appeared is literally “I was seen,” but it should be understood in a nonphysical sense;

perhaps “I revealed myself to …” is better. (Appeared is discussed at 3.2a.) To Abraham, to
Isaac, and to Jacob is the patriarchal formula used again and again in Exodus to show that the
Lord of the Exodus was the same God of the patriarchs, the forefathers of the Hebrew people.
The preposition to before each name means that God appeared to each one at different times,
not to all three at the same time (2.24 and 3.6 have similar expressions). These three
patriarchs represent three different generations, as explained in the stories of Genesis.

God Almighty is ’el shadday in the Hebrew, here presented as another name for God. (See
Gen 17.1.) Some translations prefer to transliterate this name as “El Shaddai” (NJB, TAN, TOT)
because it is used as a name. Others prefer to translate it (6.3 RSV, 6.3 TEV, 6.3 NRSV), but its
precise meaning is not known. ’El is an ancient word for “god” or “deity” in other languages as
well as Hebrew, but in the Bible it is usually used as part of a name, in combination with other
words that describe the nature and activity of God. ’elohim is the most common word for God
in the Old Testament. It is used as a plural form of ’El or of ’eloah and sometimes means
“gods,” as in Exo 20.3. But it usually has the distinct Hebrew meaning of the one true God, and
its plural form should probably be understood as the “plural of majesty.” The meaning of
shadday may be “Almighty,” but other meanings have been suggested. The translation God
Almighty, or “Almighty God” (6.3 TEV), has been influenced by the ancient Greek and Latin
translations of the name.

If the Lord is transliterated as “Yahweh” or something similar, then God Almighty should
be transliterated as “El Shaddai.” Since this initial statement shows a clear distinction, stating
that God did not use his name Yahweh with these ancestors, it is possible to begin this verse
with “But”; for example, “But when I revealed myself to … I came as El Shaddai, not … .” If
translators choose to translate the name El Shaddai rather than transliterating it, other ways to
express this name are “God Who is All Powerful,” “God Who is the Strongest of All,” or “God
Who is Above All Gods.”
 But by my name is interpreted differently by NJB and NAB, because the preposition by is
not in the Hebrew. Most translations add the preposition to go along with the verb make
myself known, which specifies myself rather than my name as its object. It may therefore be
understood as “by means of my name” or “according to the qualities associated with my
name.” (GECL has “under my name.”) 6.3 TEV adds “by my holy name” in an effort to bring out
the significance of the divine name.

The Lord is the personal name yhwh revealed to Moses in 3.15. The four options for
rendering this name are discussed at 3.2a. The concern here, however, is with the two names,
Yahweh and El Shaddai, and the qualities associated with each. Whichever option is chosen, a
footnote explaining the significance of both of these names is recommended here.

I did not make myself known must be understood along with by my name the Lord. The
reference to Gen 17.1 is obvious; God did indeed make himself known to Abraham, but it was
as “El Shaddai” rather than as “Yahweh.” NEB has “I did not let myself be known,” and TOT has
“they did not know me by my name, the Lord.” To them, of course, means to Abraham, Isaac,
and Jacob.

An alternative translation model for this verse is:

• But when I appeared to [or, revealed myself to] Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, I came as God All-
Powerful [or, El Shaddai] and did not use my name Yahweh.

6.4

I also established my covenant with them is literally “and also I caused to stand up my
covenant with them.” My covenant is sometimes rendered as “a covenant” (NEB, TOT), but the
pronoun my emphasizes the idea that this was God’s initiative and included God’s promise.
However, a covenant was a relationship that involved a binding agreement between two
parties, sealed with an oath, which both were obligated to keep. It was more than just a
promise, but it included a promise. So 6.4 TEV adds the word “promising” to bring this out. (See
the comment on covenant at 19.5.) Established, or “made,” is one of several words used with
covenant throughout the Bible. It should be translated with whatever expression goes
naturally with the word selected for covenant. (LB has “And I entered into a solemn covenant
with them.”) Other ways to express this are “I gave my binding word to them, promising …” or
“I tied myself to them, promising … .” The idea of “promising” in certain languages will require
direct speech; for example, “I also made my covenant with them, saying, ‘I promise to give you
the land of Canaan.’ ” With them means “with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.”

To give them the land of Canaan is what God had promised under the terms of the
covenant. The land of Canaan was the country or territory occupied by the Canaanites (Gen
12.6-7). To give in this sense means “to entrust,” or “to turn over to,” or even “let you own it.”

GECL GERMAN COMMON LANGUAGE VERSION

LB LIVING BIBLE
 The land in which they dwelt as sojourners is literally “the land of their stopover place
which they were foreigners in it.” It is not necessary to repeat the land, so 6.4 NIV has “where
they lived as aliens.” Both dwelt (“stopover place”) and sojourners carry the meaning of
residence in a place away from one’s homeland. Thus 6.4 TEV has “the land in which they lived
as foreigners.” (Further comment on “Sojourner” is found at 2.22.)

6.5

Moreover (literally “And also”) adds a new thought with some emphasis on the I. It may be
understood either as “Furthermore” (NJB) or as “Now” (6.5 TEV), showing the contrast of the
present situation (“Now I have heard”) with the situation at the time of the patriarchs (verses
3–4). If it is understood as “Now,” one may also translate as “At this time I have heard … .” I
have heard should be understood as the English present perfect rather than as the simple past
tense. Thus NAB has “And now that I have heard.” The groaning refers to the desperate cry or
“moaning” (TAN) of the people. (The same word is used in 2.24.) The people of Israel were “the
Israelites,” of course.

Whom the Egyptians hold in bondage is a nonrestrictive clause and should be set off by
commas, as in TEV; it refers to all “the Israelites” and does not suggest that some of them were
not doing hard labor. TAN avoids this possible confusion by translating whom as “because”
(“because the Egyptians are holding them in bondage”). Hold in bondage means that the
Egyptians were the ones forcing the Israelites to work. Thus the Israelites were the ones
“whom the Egyptians have enslaved” (6.5 TEV). (6.5 NIV has “are enslaving.”)

And I have remembered means “I am mindful of” (NAB), or “I have called my covenant to
mind” (NEB). (See 2.24.) My covenant is discussed in verse 4. (GECL has “I will fulfill my
promise.”) Another way to express this is “I will do for them what I promised to do.”

An alternative translation model for this verse is:

• At this time I have heard the Israelites groaning, because the Egyp tians are making them work
hard like slaves. I will keep my promise to them.

6.6

Therefore is an important word meaning “for this reason,” or “So,” referring to what has
just been said. Say is literally “you [singular] say,” or “tell.” The people of Israel were “the
Israelites.” This clause introduces the exact words of God that Moses is to speak. Thus 6.6 TEV
has “So tell the Israelites that I say to them” and introduces a direct quotation. And TOT has
“Therefore you must give the Israelites this message.” 6.6 CEV has a similar model, “Here is my
message for Israel.” One may also expand this and say “Here is the message that I want you to
tell the Israelites.”

I am the Lord is the same self-introductory formula discussed in verse 2, here the first
words of a quote within a quote. Again its function is to identify the speaker. (But note that it
is used again to conclude this embedded quote in verse 8.)
 And I will bring you out is literally “I will cause you [plural] to come out.” It is the first of
three different verbs that are quite similar in meaning (bring … out, deliver, redeem), all to be
spoken in the first person (I will) to the Israelites (you). It means “I will deliver you” (TAN), or “I
will release you” (NEB). From under the burdens of the Egyptians is very literal. The burdens of
the Egyptians means “the burdens which the Egyptians lay on you” (JB), or “the forced labour
of the Egyptians” (NJB). Another way to express this clause is “I will free you from doing hard
labor for the Egyptians.” (See “burdens” and the comment at 1.11a.)

And I will deliver you from their bondage uses different words to say the same thing. I will
deliver you means “I will release you” (JB), and from their bondage means “from their
oppression by the Egyptians.” Since this clause has the same meaning as the preceding clause,
we may combine them: “I will rescue you and set you free from doing hard labor for the
Egyptians.”

And I will redeem you uses a word that often refers to the act of buying back what
belongs to someone, as, for example, buying back family members who had been sold as
slaves. (But see the comment at 15.13, where the context is similar.) Here, as in 15.13, its basic
meaning is almost the same as bring you out and deliver you. 6.6 TEV suggests the possible
theological implication, with “I will save you.”

With an outstretched arm is a figure of speech meaning “with my power,” or even

“through my great might” (GECL). It suggests an arm only waiting to strike. Other ways to
express with an outstretched arm are “with my mighty power” (6.6 CEV) or “I will use my
mighty power.” However, if there are receptor languages that have figurative expressions
similar to the Hebrew and mean the same thing, those expressions should certainly be used
here. The next phrase completes the action: and with great acts of judgment. Acts of
judgment is one word in the Hebrew (literally “judgments”); it implies “punishment,” and with
the adjective great it means “terrible punishment” (6.6 TEV). This probably refers to the
plagues that the Lord will bring upon the Egyptians, so 6.6 TEV adds “upon them.” Another way
to express this final sentence is “I will punish the Egyptians terribly and will save you [the
Israelites].” (See 7.4 and the comment on “wonders” at 3.20.)

An alternative translation model for this verse is:

• Here is the message that I want you to tell the Israelites: I am Yahweh. I will free you from
doing hard labor for the Egyptians. I will use my mighty power and punish the Egyptians
terribly. And I will save you.

6.7

And I will take you for my people means “I will make you my own people.” It may be
understood as “I will adopt you” (NEB), “I will claim you” (TOT), or “I will accept you” (6.7 CEV).
And I will be your God shows the other aspect of the new relationship between God and the
Israelites, but in both aspects it is God who is the actor. (NAB’s “you shall have me as your God”
may suggest incorrectly that it is the people who act.) NEB has “I will become your God.” In

JB JERUSALEM BIBLE
 certain languages where the phrase your God suggests that the Israelites actually own God,
translators may say something like “I will be the God whom you worship.”

And you shall know is addressed to the Israelites (you is plural). Know here means more
than just intellectual knowledge. It means to “know by experience” (Durham). That I am the
Lord your God is literally “that I Yahweh your God.” It is not clear where the am should be
inserted in English. Some translations therefore give it a slightly different meaning: “that I, the
Lord, am your God.” (NEB, TAN, NAB, and others.) JB has “that it is I, Yahweh your God.” In
languages where a similar choice must be made, the interpretation of 6.7 RSV and 6.7 TEV is
recommended. In some languages it will be helpful to begin this sentence with “Then” and say
“Then you will know that I am Yahweh your God.”

Who has brought you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians is almost identical
with the expression in verse 6. However, the relative pronoun who is only implied by just one
word in the Hebrew, a participle that literally means “one-who-causes-to-come-out.” 6.7 TEV’s
“when I set you free” is therefore equally possible. (So also NAB.) In languages where
dependent clauses must precede the main clause, one may translate “When I set you free
from slavery in Egypt, you will know that I am Yahweh, your God.”

6.8

And I will bring you into should be understood as “And I will cause you to enter.” The
Hebrew word translated as into, however, may also mean “to the land” (6.8 TEV) rather than
into the land. This is why some translations seem to suggest only arrival to the land rather
than actual entrance into the land (6.8 TEV and others). But that is not the intended meaning,
and 6.8 RSV should be followed in this case. The land, of course, refers to the “land of Canaan”
mentioned in verse 4.

Which I swore to give is literally “which I lifted my hand to give it.” This is a figure of
speech meaning to promise with an oath. A few translations have tried to preserve this figure
(NEB, 6.8 NIV “with uplifted hand”), but in some cultures the gesture may suggest something
else. 6.8 TEV’s “that I solemnly promised to give” brings out the full meaning. TOT has “which I
vowed I would give.” Other ways to express which I swore to give are “which I made a strong
promise to give” or “which I promised to give using strong words.” To Abraham, to Isaac, and
to Jacob is the patriarchal formula discussed at 6.3.

I will give it to you is still addressed to the Israelites (you is plural). The clause begins with
“and” in the Hebrew. For a possession really means “as your own possession.” NJB’s “as your
heritage” and CEV’s “it will be yours” are also possible. I am the Lord is the same self-
introductory formula with which the embedded quote began. Here it concludes the divine
speech with a note of authority. (See the comment at 6.2.)

An alternative translation model for this verse is:

• I will cause you to enter the land which I promised, using powerful words, to give to Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob. This land will be yours. I am Yahweh.

6.9
 Moses spoke thus picks up the narrative again after the long speech of God which began
in verse 2. Thus refers only to the quote within the quote, verses 6–8. To the people of Israel
means “to the Israelites.” The entire clause is clear in TOT: “Moses told the Israelites what God
had said.” TAN, NAB, and 6.9 CEV render this as a dependent clause: “When Moses told this to
the Israelites, … .” (The clause in Hebrew begins with the usual conjunction waw.) Thus, or
“this,” will be rendered in many languages as “these things” or “these words.”

But they did not listen to Moses means that “the Israelites” refused to accept what Moses
said. The word for listen means “to hear,” but in this case it also means “to heed,” or even “to
believe” (GECL). Their refusal is suggested by “they would not listen to him” (6.9 TEV).

Because of their broken spirit is literally “from shortness of spirit.” This may mean that
“they had become impatient” (NEB), or that “they were too impatient to listen” (TOT). But most
translations understand this expression to mean that they were discouraged (6.9 NIV) and
possibly exhausted (GECL). NJB has “so crushed was their spirit.” In many languages this will be
expressed with figurative or idiomatic expressions; for example, “their hearts [or, livers] were
very low” or “they had heavy hearts.” And their cruel bondage is literally “and from hard
work.” This of course refers to “their cruel slavery” (6.9 TEV), or “their harsh enslavement”
(TOT).

B. The Same Excuses (6.10–13)

Verse 9 tells us that Moses told the Israelites again what God was promising to do for
them, but this time they did not listen to him. In the following verses God tells Moses that he
must go again to the king with the same demand. But Moses uses two of the same excuses he
used before. In verse 12 Moses repeats the same excuse he gave in 4.1, this time in an attitude
of “I told you so.” He also repeats the excuse he gave in 4.10, that he is a poor speaker.
Therefore, if his own people will not listen to him, he is convinced that the king will not listen.

Section Heading: this Handbook’s heading for this subsection, “The same excuses,” may
also be expressed as “Moses makes the same excuses as before.”

6.10–11

And the Lord said to Moses should begin with “Then,” as in 6.11 TEV, for it marks a new
paragraph and a new episode. The common conjunction waw (And) should always be
translated according to the subject matter and the flow of the narrative. Sometimes it may
even be omitted (TAN). The Lord is the personal name yhwh. Said may also be rendered as
“told” (6.11 CEV), or even “commanded.”

Go in is a command to Moses only. The word means “Enter” and may imply entering the
king’s palace, but most translations simply have “Go.” However, see the comment at 5.1 on
“went in.” Tell is also a command that literally means “speak to.” The exact words Moses is to
say are not indicated, but they are suggested in the following phrase. Pharaoh king of Egypt is
found only five times in Exodus, four of which are in chapter 6. (See also 14.8.) 6.11 TEV simply
has “the king of Egypt,” because Pharaoh is a title and not a name.
 To let the people of Israel go is literally “and he will let go the sons of Israel.” It is usually
understood as an indirect statement of what Moses was to tell the king. 6.11 TEV introduces it
with “that he must” in order to express the idea of a demand. GECL and 6.11 CEV even render
tell as “demand.” (For “let go” see 4.23a and the comment.) Out of his land means from his
country or territory, which of course was Egypt.

An alternative translation model for these verses is:

• Then the Lord told Moses to go again to the king of Egypt and demand that he let the Israelites
leave his country.

6.12

But Moses said to the Lord is literally “and Moses spoke in the presence of Yahweh
saying.” This way of introducing Moses’ speech suggests that he “replied” with some emotion.
NJB has “But Moses spoke out in Yahweh’s presence and said.” TOT says that he “protested”;
TAN says he “appealed to the Lord.” Behold is difficult to translate (see 1.9 and 5.5 and
comments), but it indicates Moses’ frustration as in 4.1. 6.12 TEV’s “Even” helps to show this
emotion.

The people of Israel have not listened to me means that “the Israelites” have refused to
believe (GECL) or accept what Moses has told them. (See verse 9 and comment.) How then
shall Pharaoh listen to me is a rhetorical question that does not expect an answer. It may be
changed to a declarative statement, as in TOT: “therefore Pharaoh certainly will not listen.”

Who am a man of uncircumcised lips is a rather crude metaphor that Moses uses to
describe his difficulty in speaking. The same metaphor is used in reference to uncircumcised
ears (Jer 6.10) and uncircumcised hearts (Jer 9.26). It means “I am such a poor speaker,” just as
in 4.10, where this figure of speech is not used. But it also suggests that his mouth is immature
or uninitiated in speaking. It does not necessarily imply that Moses stuttered or had a speech
defect. 6.12 CEV has “I’m not a powerful speaker.” Another way to restructure this verse is to
use a conditional clause in a similar way to CEV: “But Moses replied, ‘Look, I’m not a powerful
speaker. If the Israelites won’t listen to me, why should the king of Egypt?’ ”

6.13

But the Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron introduces Aaron again for the first time since
5.20–21. But may also be understood as “So” (TAN), “then” (TOT), or “Still” (NAB), for the reply
of the Lord is insistent. This is indicated in the following clause with the word charge. 6.13 TEV
expresses this forcefulness with “The Lord commanded Moses and Aaron.”

And gave them a charge is one word in the Hebrew, followed by to the people of Israel
and to Pharaoh. It is therefore not clear just who is being charged, and translations vary in
their interpretation. Childs puts it more clearly: “and gave them their orders regarding the
Israelites and Pharaoh.” 6.13 CEV has “sent Aaron and Moses with a message for the Israelites
and for the king.” The exact words of the charge are only suggested by the final clause, but
6.13 TEV supplies them in a direct quote. This type of adjustment, changing from indirect to
 direct speech, is possible when the words are clearly implied, and may even give the
translation a more natural narrative style.

To the people of Israel is omitted in JB and NJB because it is not in the Septuagint, but since
it is in the Hebrew, it should be included. Both “the Israelites” and Pharaoh king of Egypt
needed to be convinced that Moses and Aaron were under orders from the Lord. To bring the
people of Israel out is literally “in order to cause to exit the people of Israel.” This means that
Moses and Aaron are the ones “to lead the Israelites out of Egypt” (6.13 TEV), but this is only
implied. To make this clearer one may translate:

• The Lord commanded Moses and Aaron, saying, “Tell the Israelites and the king of Egypt,
‘Yahweh has ordered us [Moses and Aaron] to lead the Israelites out of the land of Egypt.’ ”

Bring in English suggests that the speaker is in a different place, but it should be
remembered that the setting of chapter 6 is in Egypt. 6.13 TEV avoids this suggestion by using
“lead,” since the idea of bring is not in the Hebrew. GECL suggests that “he” (the Lord) is the
one who “wants to lead his people out of Egypt.” (Also NAB.) Of the land of Egypt may be
understood as simply “from Egypt.”

C. Moses’ and Aaron’s Family Record (6.14–27)

This section, as we have noted, interrupts the narrative, for it is a genealogy, or family
record, of Moses and Aaron. It could have been omitted without affecting the story. The
editors, however, must have felt that more background information was needed at this point
in order to give Aaron greater importance, for he is about to become Moses’ spokesperson.
Later, of course, he will be appointed as the first high priest for the Israelites.

The genealogy moves in a “father to son” direction, beginning with the sons of Jacob
(whose other name was Israel) and moving down to Aaron and Moses. It even continues
further with two generations of Aaron’s descendants. Surprisingly, Moses’ descendants are not
mentioned, not even his wife. That information is provided elsewhere in the book. But it is
significant that here the focus is on Aaron rather than on Moses. There is special mention of
the descendants of Levi, the third son of Jacob, but Jacob’s first two sons are only briefly
mentioned, and the remaining sons of Jacob are not listed at all. This gives importance to the
Levites, who through Aaron were to become the priests of Israel.

The family record in these verses is not complete, for it shows only four generations from
Jacob’s son Levi to Moses and Aaron (Levi, Kohath, Amram, and Aaron). And this covers a
period of more than four hundred years, according to 12.40. The translator will recognize
many of the names and should spell them as they are normally spelled elsewhere in the Bible.
In translating for cultures where genealogies are important, as they were in Israel, it is
recommended that the list be arranged in the pattern that is normal for that culture.

Section Heading: the headings suggested by 6.13 TEV and this Handbook are almost
identical. Another possibility is “The ancestors of Moses and Aaron.”

6.14
 These appears twice in this verse. In the first case it points to the names that follow. But at
the end of the verse, it points back to the names just mentioned. For this reason the opening
clause may be confusing and unnecessary. 6.14 TEV has simply omitted it, since the final clause
of the verse says the same thing.

The heads is a word meaning “head” or “leader” and sometimes means “beginning.” It is
used only twice in this genealogy, here and in verse 25, where it refers to the ancestors of the
tribe of Levi. In this verse, however, it may refer to the first ancestors of all the Israelite tribes,
that is, to the twelve sons of Israel. (Israel’s original name was “Jacob,” as we learn from Gen
32.28.) But the concern of this genealogy is with Jacob’s grandsons, for only the first three sons
of Jacob are listed: Reuben, Simeon (verse 15), and Levi (verse 16). It is best, therefore, to
understand the heads as the grandsons of “Jacob,” as 6.14 TEV has done.

Their fathers’ houses means the extended families or “clans” (6.14 TEV) of the Israelites,
and the pronoun their refers back to “the people of Israel” in verse 13. NAB renders fathers’
houses as “the ancestral houses” to distinguish them from “the clans of Reuben” at the end of
the verse. TAN renders fathers’ houses as “respective clans” and in this way distinguishes them
from the families of Reuben at the end of the verse. The first clause, if it is to be retained, may
therefore be understood as “These are the heads of the extended families of the Israelites.”
6.14 CEV has “The following men were the heads of their ancestral clans.”

The distinction between “tribe,” “clan,” and “family” is not always clear in the Old
Testament. Traditionally the nation of Israel included twelve tribes, named after the twelve
sons of Jacob. Each tribe included clans, which were groups of extended families, or
“households,” bound together by a common ancestor. The “household” included several
families living together under the authority of one man, who was the father and grandfather of
the younger generations. Since he often had more than one wife, his household included
several families of which he was the father, or the grandfather, or even the great-grandfather.
Also included in the “household” were the servants and their families.

Some cultures will not make distinctions in this way. The following diagram, however, may
help the translator select the best terms. (In Josh 7.16–18, TEV makes a helpful distinction
between tribe, clan, and family.)

The sons of Reuben refers to his four immediate male offspring, namely Hanoch, Pallu,
Hezron, and Carmi. But 6.14 RSV, following the Hebrew word order, identifies Reuben as the
first-born of Israel before naming the four sons. It has to use the colon twice to retain this
word order. 6.14 TEV uses only one colon by rephrasing: “Reuben, Jacob’s first-born, had four
sons: … .” The first-born was the first male child born to an Israelite father, even if a daughter
was born first.

These are the families of Reuben points back to the four names just mentioned. But the
names of these four sons also became the names of the families of their descendants, or
“their respective clans” (TAN). 6.14 TEV expands the clause to make this clear: “they were the
ancestors of the clans that bear their names.” TOT is also helpful: “These are the Reubenite
clans.” Families and fathers’ houses may be understood as referring to the same thing in this
 verse. (See the above comments.) In some languages it will be possible to restructure the verse
in a similar way to 6.14 CEV and say:

• The following men were the heads of their ancestral clans:

The sons of Reuben, Jacob’s oldest son, were … .

6.15

The sons of Simeon were the immediate male offspring of Simeon, who was the second
son of Jacob. The six names, including the phrase the son of a Canaanite woman, are given
here exactly as they are in Gen 46.10. Shaul is spelled “Saul” in NEB and TAN, for the name is
the same in the Hebrew. To identify him as the son of a Canaanite woman distinguishes him
from the King Saul, who lived much later. But the purpose in this genealogy was probably to
identify him as the son whose mother came from one of the non-Israelite tribes living in the
territory called Canaan.

These are the families of Simeon points back to the six names just mentioned, but they
became the names of the “Simeonite clans” (TOT). 6.15 TEV is clear: “they were the ancestors of
the clans that bear their name”; but one may also say something like “they were the great
fathers [or, big grandfathers] of the clans.” (For other ways of expressing “ancestors,” see the
comment at 3.6.)

6.16

These are the names points to what follows. The sons of Levi means the immediate male
offspring of Levi, who was the third son of Jacob and the first ancestor of the Levite tribe. Both
Aaron and Moses were descendants of Levi, so this part of the genealogy is introduced more
extensively.

According to their generations is one word in Hebrew, meaning “to their descendants.”
NEB and TOT have “in order of seniority,” meaning from the eldest to the youngest. NAB has “in
their genealogical order,” which means the same thing. But this is the normal order for listing
names in genealogies. So 6.16 TEV interprets it as just another way of saying what is said in the
previous verses (“these are the families of …”) and translates it as “they were the ancestors of
the clans that bear their names.” However, JB and NJB interpret it differently. They have “with
their descendants,” meaning that the names of the grandsons will also be listed. The
grandsons are indeed listed in the following three verses, concluding in verse 19 with this same
word again. For this reason it seems best to follow what JB and NJB have done. It will be helpful
in some languages, however, to restructure the verse, putting the final sentence at the
beginning (similarly CEV): “Levi lived to be one hundred thirty-seven; his sons were Gershon,
Kohath, and Merari. Their descendants are listed as follows: … .”

Gershon, Kohath, and Merari are Levi’s three sons, always listed in the same order.
Gershon is the correct spelling, even though “Gershom” is used in 1 Chronicles 6 and 21.

The years of Levi being a hundred and thirty-seven years simply means that “Levi lived
137 years.” However, it is important to note that this same formula is repeated for Kohath
(verse 18) and for Amram (verse 20), drawing special attention to the immediate ancestors of
Aaron and Moses.

6.17

The sons of Gershon were the immediate male offspring of Gershon, who was the first son
of Levi. They are listed according to their age, so Libni is the elder. By their families is
ambiguous. It uses the same word for families as in verses 14 and 15, but the preposition by is
confusing. It may be understood either as “with their clans” (NJB), meaning “and their clans”
(JB), or “arranged by clans” (TOT), meaning perhaps “family by family” (NEB). NAB has “as heads
of clans.” Probably “and their clans” is the easiest way to interpret it. 6.17 TEV’s “and they had
many descendants” seems to be without warrant.

6.18

The sons of Kohath were the immediate male offspring of Kohath, the second son of Levi.
Amram, Izhar, Hebron, and Uzziel are listed according to their age, Amram being the eldest.
The years of the life of Kohath being a hundred and thirty-three years simply means that
“Kohath lived 133 years.” (See the comment at verse 16.) It is possible to restructure this
verse: “Kohath lived for one hundred and thirty-three years. His sons were … .”

6.19

The sons of Merari were the immediate male offspring of Merari, the third and youngest
son of Levi. Mahli and Mushi were the first and second sons, respectively. These are the
families of the Levites points back to the three sons and eight grandsons of Levi in verses
16–19, after whom the clans of their descendants were named. 6.19 CEV translates “All of the
above were from the Levi tribe.” Families should be understood as “extended families” or
“clans,” as in verse 14. According to their generations is the same word used in verse 16. (See
the comment there.) In this case “with their descendants” clearly expresses the correct
meaning.

6.20

Amram was Kohath’s eldest son and the father of Aaron and Moses. Took to wife is
literally “took for a wife,” which is the Hebrew way of saying “married,” and this will be a
natural expression in many languages. (The same expression occurs in 2.1.) Jochebed is
mentioned only here and in Num 26.59 as Amram’s wife and the mother of Aaron and Moses
(and Miriam). His father’s sister is of course “his aunt” (JB, NJB, NAB), but the Hebrew is more
specific than the English “aunt.” Such a marriage was later forbidden for Israelites (see Lev
18.12 and 20.19), but it was evidently culturally accepted when Moses’ parents were married.

And she bore him Aaron and Moses means that Jochebed became pregnant by Amram
and gave birth to Aaron and Moses for Amram. (Him is literally “to him,” “by him,” or “for
him.”) In some languages it will be more natural style to translate the clause she bore him
Aaron … as “they [Amram and Jochebed] had two sons … .” Aaron is listed first because he was
older (see 7.7), but also because the purpose of the genealogy is to show the priestly line of
descent through Aaron, as mentioned in the introductory comment to this section.
 The years of the life of Amram being one hundred and thirty-seven years is the third
example of this formula (see verses 16 and 18). It simply means that “Amram lived 137 years.”
6.20 CEV, as in verses 16 and 18, restructures the verse in a way that will be helpful for many
translators:

• Amram lived to be one hundred thirty-seven. He married his father’s sister Jochebed, and they
had two sons, Aaron and Moses.

6.21–22

The sons of means the immediate male offspring of Izhar (verse 21) and Uzziel (verse 22),
the second and third sons of Kohath, respectively. As grandsons of Kohath and first cousins of
Aaron and Moses, the six men probably lived at the same time. Korah is the man who later
rebelled against Moses (Numbers 16); Mishael and Elzaphan appear briefly in Lev 10.4; but the
names of the others are not mentioned again.

6.23

Aaron took to wife Elisheba means “Aaron married Elisheba” (6.23 TEV). (See verse 20.)
The daughter of Amminadab and sister of Nahshon identifies Elisheba as coming from the
tribe of Judah rather than the tribe of Levi (Num 1.7 and Ruth 4.19-20). And she bore him is
the same expression as that in verse 20. Nadab, Abihu, Eleazar, and Ithamar were the four
sons of Aaron who were later consecrated with him as priests. Eleazar succeeded Aaron as
chief priest (Num 20.25-28).

6.24

Assir, Elkanah, and Abiasaph were the immediate male offspring of Korah, listed in the
order of their ages, as in the listing of verse 16. These refers to the names of the three
families, or “divisions,” of the descendants of Korah. But it may also be understood as
referring to the three sons as the “ancestors” of the three families. The Korahites were
understood as “the clan of Korah.”

6.25

Eleazar was the third son of Aaron (verse 23). He is mentioned here because his older
brothers died childless (Num 3.4) even before their father died. He also succeeded his father as
high priest (Deut 10.6). Took to wife means “married” as in verse 20. His wife is not named,
but she was not the only daughter of her father Putiel. (For she bore him see verse 20.) The
genealogy ends with Phinehas, who succeeded his father Eleazar as high priest (Judges 20.28).

These refers back to all the male descendants of Levi listed in verses 16–25. There are six
generations from Levi to Phinehas, but all those named in these verses are considered heads
of the fathers’ houses for all the Levites, that is, for all the descendants of Levi. The Hebrew
does not include the word for houses in this verse, although it is used in verse 14. Most
translations supply it since it is probably understood. But it is also possible to interpret the
Hebrew as referring to “the leading Levitical ancestors,” as TOT has done. Since the words
These are the heads are found only in verses 14 and 25, they should be understood as a
formula that marks the beginning and the end of the entire genealogy.

The distinction between fathers’ houses and families is not clear in the Hebrew, but it is
possible that fathers’ houses is intended as the larger unit. 6.25 TEV combines the two
expressions as “the families and the clans.” It may be easier to say “clans and families,” since a
“clan” normally included several extended “families.” (See the diagram of family structures
and where “clans” fit in, at verse 14.) 6.25 CEV has a good alternative translation model: “This
ends the list of those who were the heads of clans in the Levi tribe.” One may also translate
“All these men who have been listed were the heads of the clans of the Levites, arranged by
families.”

6.26

Verses 26–27 are an editorial conclusion to the genealogy and also a bridge that brings the
reader back into the narrative. These are the Aaron and Moses points back to verse 20, where
Aaron and Moses are listed. This emphasizes the fact that they “were the ones” (6.26 TEV) the
story is talking about. Aaron is listed first because he was older and because the genealogy
focuses more on him. (But note the reverse order, “Moses and Aaron,” at the conclusion of
verse 27.) To whom the Lord said refers back to verse 13, where the narrative had been
interrupted by the genealogy.

Bring out begins a direct quotation of what the Lord commanded Aaron and Moses to do.
(For bring out see verse 13 and comment.) The people of Israel, of course, are the Israelites
who were still in the land of Egypt. By their hosts uses a military term referring to soldiers
ready for battle. Some translations have “armies” (NJB, KJV), but the Israelites were still slaves
and not yet trained for war. Other translations suggest they were simply to be led out “in
battle order” (JB), or “troop by troop” (TAN). 6.26 TEV on the other hand understands hosts as
referring to “the tribes of Israel.” 6.26 CEV has “every family and tribe of Israel.” These are both
helpful translation models. (See also 7.4; 12.17, 41, 51.)

6.27

It was they follows the Hebrew closely, emphasizing again, as in verse 26, that Moses and
Aaron were the same people listed in verse 20. “They were the men” who spoke to Pharaoh.
Again, Pharaoh was the title, not the name, for the king of Egypt. (See the comment at 1.11b.)
Bringing out the people of Israel is easily misunderstood apart from verse 26. This is not a
request for the king to bring them out, but rather a demand that he permit Moses and Aaron
to bring them out. One may translate “They were the men who spoke to Pharaoh, king of
Egypt, and demanded that he let them bring the Israelites out of Egypt.” Or one may follow
6.27 TEV and others (NEB, TAN) and say “They were the men who told the king of Egypt to free
the Israelites.”

This Moses and this Aaron is added for emphasis. But it also has a stylistic function not
seen in 6.27 TEV. It contrasts in several ways with the similar phrase, “These are the Aaron and

KJV KING JAMES VERSION

Moses,” in verse 26. In verse 26 the phrase concludes the genealogy and opens this editorial
comment, while in verse 27 it closes the editorial comment and opens the narrative once
again. The phrase “Aaron and Moses” in verse 26 connects it with the genealogy where Aaron
is the central figure, while the phrase “Moses and Aaron” in verse 27 returns to the narrative,
where Moses is the leading character. This contrast in sequence should be retained in
translation.

D. Aaron to be the Spokesperson (6.28–7.7)

This section picks up the story from verse 13 after the genealogy in verses 14–27. It also
concludes the unit entitled “The call renewed.” (See the general comments at the beginning of
6.2–7.7.) It therefore completes the major unit that describes how the Lord prepared Moses to
be a leader through the special relationship that is now established.

Verses 28–30 of chapter 6 repeat some of the ideas mentioned in verses 10–13. Compare,
for example, the command in verse 29, “tell Pharaoh king of Egypt,” with the same command
in verse 11. Even the question in verse 12, “how then shall Pharaoh listen to me,” is repeated
in verse 30. And Moses refers to his “uncircumcised lips” in both verse 12 and verse 30.

This editorial review (verses 28–30) is intended to bring the reader back to Moses’ struggle
in trying to reject the Lord’s call. But the next few verses (7.1–7) present Aaron as Moses’
spokesperson, not only to the Israelites but also to the king himself. They also introduce for
the second time the problem of the Pharaoh’s hard heart.

Section Heading: this section therefore links the “preparation of a leader” with the
“contest for freedom” that is to follow. Moses is finally convinced, and the difficult challenge
ahead is introduced. 6.27 TEV’s section heading, “The Lord’s Command to Moses and Aaron,”
may also be expressed as “The Lord commands Moses and Aaron to speak to the King” (6.27
CEV), and the Handbook’s heading “Aaron to be the spokesperson” may be alternatively
rendered as “Aaron speaks to the King on behalf of Moses.”

6.28–29

The day when the Lord spoke to Moses refers back to verse 10 and possibly to verse 2.
The setting has not changed. Moses is still in the land of Egypt and the Lord is still speaking to
him. The words “I am the Lord” are the very same words spoken in verse 2. So verses 28–29
should be understood as a summary of what the Lord had already said to Moses in verses
2–12. NJB in fact omits the words I am the Lord as unnecessary. And TAN translates all of verses
28–30 as one sentence, with verses 28–29 subordinate to the main clause in verse 30. But this
makes a rather long and complicated sentence.

In most cases, therefore, these verses are translated as though the Lord spoke these
words a second time. By using the word when, at least the connection with the same time and
setting is made. 6.29 TEV and others use “When” in place of On the day when. And the Lord
said to Moses in verse 29 can be shortened to “he said.”
 Tell Pharaoh king of Egypt is addressed only to Moses. Pharaoh is not a name but a title
meaning king of Egypt. That is why 6.29 TEV omits it. All that I say to you should be understood
in the present tense, including what was already said to Moses as well as what will soon be
said. The Hebrew participle here does not indicate any tense, but sometimes it refers to what
is about to happen. That is why NJB limits the meaning to “everything that I am going to say to
you,” and TAN has “all that I will tell you.” It is better to follow 6.29 TEV, “Tell the king of Egypt
everything I tell you,” or one may say “… everything I say to you” (6.29 CEV).

6.30

But Moses said to the Lord is almost identical with verse 12, where only a different word is
used for said. The meaning is the same. Behold carries the same meaning as in verse 12. I am
of uncircumcised lips means “I am such a poor speaker.” How then shall Pharaoh listen to me
is a rhetorical question that means “Pharaoh certainly will not listen to me” (TOT). (See 6.12
and comments.)

7.1

The chapter division at this point should be printed in a way that will not interrupt the flow
of the conversation between the Lord and Moses. Note how 7.1 RSV makes verse 1 part of the
same continuous paragraph with the previous verse. 7.1 TEV has a new paragraph because of a
change in speaker, but it is printed in a way that shows clearly that all of this is part of one
section. The context shows that this is the Lord’s reply to Moses’ question in 6.30.

It may be more natural to translate “The Lord answered him” (NAB), without repeating
Moses, or simply “The Lord said” (7.1 TEV and CEV).

See is used here as an interjection, in the same way as “Behold,” so 7.1 TEV omits it as
unnatural in English. (So also at 1.9.) But in some languages it may be more natural to translate
it as “Look” (NJB), or “See now” (NEB), or just “See” (7.1 NIV).

I make you as God to Pharaoh repeats almost the same idea of 4.16, where God says that
Moses will be like God to Aaron. (See there for similar translation expressions.) But here the
emphasis is on I make you, which means the Lord is the one creating this special relationship
between Moses and the Pharaoh. The word as, or “like” (7.1 TEV), indicates that this is only a
figure of speech. Moses should think of himself as though he were the Pharaoh’s god who had
a special message for him. TAN brings out this meaning clearly: “I place you in the role of God
to Pharaoh.” Since the tense is not clearly indicated, it may also be translated in the past, as in
NEB (“I have made you like a god for Pharaoh”), or in the future (“I am going to make you like a
god to the king”). God need not be capitalized here.

And Aaron … your prophet also repeats the same idea. In the same way that a prophet
was the spokesperson for his god, Aaron would be the spokesperson for Moses, speaking to
the Pharaoh as Moses would instruct him. Brother in this case is an elder brother. (See verse 7
below.)

CEV’s restructuring of this verse should be noted:

• The Lord said:

I am going to let your brother Aaron speak for you. He will tell your message to the king, just as
a prophet speaks my message to the people.

This will be a helpful model for many translators, even though the reference to God has
been replaced by the words “my message.” The final clause will be more accurately translated
as “just as a prophet speaks the message of his god to the people.”

7.2

This verse explains the purpose of verse 1. The channel of communication will be from God
to the Pharaoh through Moses and Aaron. You shall speak means that Moses is to speak to
Aaron, that is, he will “tell Aaron” what to say. All that I command you means that God will
give specific commands to Moses, and then Moses in turn will “repeat” (TAN) them to Aaron.
And Aaron … shall tell Pharaoh completes the chain of communication.

In the Hebrew to let the people of Israel go is literally “and he will let go the sons of
Israel.” Because of the “and,” a few translations interpret this as the result of the negotiations
with the king, not as what Aaron is to say to him. NEB, for example, has “… he will tell Pharaoh,
and Pharaoh will let the Israelites go … .” Similarly TOT has “Then Pharaoh will let the Israelites
leave his land.” But this interpretation ignores what is said in both the preceding and the
following verses. Most translations therefore interpret it as a summary of all the commands
that will be communicated to the Pharaoh through Moses and Aaron.

Pharaoh is a title for “the king” of Egypt. The people of Israel were “the Israelites,” and go
out of his land means “leave his country,” that is, Egypt.

7.3–4

In verses 3–5 there is a series of six clauses, each beginning with the Hebrew conjunction
waw. In English this may be understood as describing events in the order in which they occur.
In Hebrew, however, the logical relationship of these clauses to one another often has to be
determined by the context, and the waw must be translated in different ways. In some cases it
is advisable to rearrange the clauses, as in 7.4 TEV. These clauses may be identified in 7.4 RSV by
the different ways in which the waw is rendered (as seen in bold type as follows):

3a—But I will harden …

3b—and though I multiply …

4a—(and) Pharaoh will not listen … (“and” appearing in 3b)

4b—then I will lay …

5a—And the Egyptians …

5b—when I stretch forth …

 I will harden Pharaoh’s heart is a figure of speech meaning “I will make the king
stubborn.” The Hebrew word used here literally means “hard” or “difficult,” but a figure of
speech usually cannot be translated literally. This idiom is found nineteen times in Exodus and
is first mentioned in 4.21. (4.21 See the comments there and especially at 7.13.)

And though in 7.4 RSV introduces a subordinate clause that is connected with the first part
of verse 4. The combination and though is not in the Hebrew of verse 3, but 7.4 RSV borrows
the additional waw from verse 4a. As explained above, clauses beginning with the conjunction
waw often have a different logical relationship to each other. For this reason the conjunction
must be translated in different ways, or else the clauses must be rearranged. The following
comparison of three translations shows some of the possibilities. It should be noted that 7.4
TEV interchanges clauses b) and c) for a more natural flow of thought in English. 7.4 CEV does
the same thing, with the rendering “He won’t listen even

7.4 RSV NASB 7.4 TEV

a) But I will a) But I will harden Pharaoh’s a) But I will make the king stubborn,
harden heart.
Pharaoh’s
heart.

b) and though I b) that I may multiply My b) and he will not listen to you,
multiply my signs and My wonders in the
signs and land of Egypt.
wonders in the
land of Egypt,

c) Pharraoh will c) When Pharaoh will not c) no matter how many terrifying thiongs I
not listen to listen to you, [ then … ] do in Egypt.
you;

Signs and wonders translates two words with almost the same meaning. They are
frequently used together and refer to supernatural events or omens. Signs were often given as
proof of a special revelation, while wonders may refer to miracles in general. (See the
comment on wonders at 3.20.) Multiply literally means “to make many.” I will multiply my
signs and wonders therefore means “I will show sign after sign and portent after portent”
(NEB), or “I shall perform many a sign and wonder” (JB, NJB). 7.4 TEV combines them into doing
“many terrifying things,” and 7.4 CEV has “many terrible things.” These two models will be
helpful for many translators. Another way to express this is “even when I do many things that
fill people’s hearts with terror.” This of course refers to the terrible plagues “in Egypt” that are
described in the following chapters.

Will not listen means he “will not pay any attention” (TOT). To you is plural, addressed to
both Moses and Aaron.

NASB NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE

7.4

I will lay my hand upon Egypt is an idiom meaning “I will assert my power in Egypt” (NEB,
TOT) or “I will use my power against Egypt.” The word for Egypt may also mean “the
Egyptians.” My hosts is the same military term used in 6.26. Here it refers to my people, that
is, the sons of Israel, or the Israelites. This may be rendered as “the tribes of my people” (7.4
TEV). (See also the comments on hosts at 6.26.) Bring … forth is literally “cause to go out,”
meaning “lead … out,” as in 6.26. But here the subject of the verb is I (the Lord), not Moses.

The phrase by great acts of judgment is related to the idiom I will lay my hand upon
Egypt. It describes the way the Lord will punish Egypt. Acts of judgment is one word in the
Hebrew (shefatim) and refers to the “signs and wonders” in verse 3. These terms are discussed
at 3.20. The adjective great may also be understood as “severe” (7.4 TEV) or “mighty” (NIV, REB).
TAN has “with extraordinary chastisements.” 7.4 TEV skillfully combines the two phrases into
one: “I will bring severe punishment on Egypt.” In some languages this will be expressed as “I
will severely punish the Egyptians.”

An alternative translation model for verses 3–4 is:

·3–4 But I will make the king so stubborn [or, harden his heart] that he won’t listen to you
[Moses and Aaron]. He won’t listen even though I do many terrifying things in the land of
Egypt. Then I will use my great power against the Egyptians and punish them severely. And I
will lead the tribes of Israel [or, my people] out of Egypt.

7.5

And relates this clause to the five other clauses in verses 3–5, so it should be translated
according to the whole line of thought. Thus it may mean “then” (7.5 TEV). This verse gives the
result of the Lord’s hand upon Egypt, mentioned in the preceding verse as well as in the last
part of this verse. (See also 3.19–20 and comment.) The Egyptians shall know means that the
Egyptians do not yet acknowledge or perceive who the Lord really is, but they will after the
Lord has punished them. This is the first of a series of statements that seem to answer the
Pharaoh’s question in 5.2, “Who is the Lord?” (See 7.17; 8.10, 22; 9.14, 29.) As a result of the
plagues in Egypt, they will “come to know” who he is (JB, NJB). (See also 6.7, where the
Israelites are the ones who will know.)

I am the Lord is the “self-introductory formula” used throughout Exodus. (See the
comment at 6.2.) The Lord, as in 5.2, is the personal name yhwh (Yahweh), which the
Egyptians either did not know or did not acknowledge. The entire clause may also be
understood as in TOT: “the Egyptians will recognize me, the Lord, for what I am.” And GECL has
“then will they recognize who I am, I, the Lord.” (See the comment on Lord at 3.2a and on
know at 5.2.)

REB REVISED ENGLISH BIBLE

 When I stretch forth my hand upon Egypt repeats the same idea as the idiom in verse 4.
7.5 TEV has “against them” instead of upon Egypt, since the word for Egypt may also mean
“Egyptians.” The hand is a symbol of strength or power. Bring out is the same word as “bring
forth” in verse 4. The people of Israel are the Israelites. From among them refers back to the
Egyptians or to “their country.” In some languages it will be better style to restructure this
verse, placing the final clauses at the beginning; for example:

• When I use my power against the Egyptians and bring the Israelites out of Egypt, the Egyptians
will then know that I am Yahweh.

Or one may summarize the final clauses with a short statement, as CEV does:

• When this happens [everything from verse 4 on], the Egyptians will know that I am the Lord.

7.6

Moses and Aaron did so refers back to verse 2, which describes the procedure for
speaking to the king. But they did as the Lord commanded also includes the specific
commands recorded in the following section. This verse therefore functions both as a
conclusion to what has been said and a preview statement of what will soon be described in
detail.

The two clauses say almost the same thing, but the repetition adds emphasis. When they
are combined as in TEV, the emphasis is lacking. NEB brings out the emphasis better: “So Moses
and Aaron did exactly as the Lord had com manded.” The implication is that Moses from now
on obeyed without offering any more excuses.

7.7

Now translates the conjunction waw, which may be omitted. 7.7 TEV connects it with when
they spoke and so begins the verse with “At the time when they spoke.” This verse marks a
turning point in the narrative, for it concludes the first major division of the book and prepares
the reader for the series of encounters with the Pharaoh in the next major division. (See the
Outline in “Translating Exodus,” page 5.) Aaron is here shown to be the older brother by three
years.

B. Moses and Pharaoh: Contest for Freedom(7.8–15.21)

1. The Negotiations with Pharaoh (7.8–11.10)
The second major division of Exodus begins with 7.8 rather than with . This analysis, as
explained in “Translating Exodus,” is based on the four relationships on which the book
focuses: 1) the Lord and Moses, 2) Moses and Pharaoh, 3) Moses and the People, and 4) the
Lord and his People.

The next five chapters describe this encounter and include the ten “plagues” in Egypt, the
first Passover, the actual escape from Egypt, and the crossing of the Red Sea. The main
characters in this story are Moses and the Egyptian king, each of whom acts in behalf of the
divine power he represents—Moses in behalf of Yahweh, and the Pharaoh in behalf of his god.
Similarly each of them is supported by assistants—Moses supported by Aaron, and the king
supported by his Egyptian officials and magicians.

In translating chapters 7–11, one should not lose sight of the implications these various
incidents have for the message of the book. This highly dramatic “contest for freedom” is held
together by several underlying themes, such as Moses’ repeated demands for the release of
the Israelites, the persistent “hard heart” of the Pharaoh, and the awesome “signs” to prove
the superior power of Yahweh. Three distinct stages should also be noted: the negotiations
(7.8–11:10) ultimately lead to the exodus itself (12.1–13:16), which has to be preserved by the
deliverance at the sea (13.17–15.21).

A. The First Sign: Aaron’s Rod (7.8–13)

This section serves as an introduction to the prolonged negotiations of Moses and Aaron
with the king of Egypt, but it is not their first encounter with him (see 5.1). It reports the first
among the many “signs and wonders” (7.3) to be performed in his presence, but it is not yet
one of the “ten plagues” of Egypt. This first one is relatively harmless, but when it fails to bring
the release of the Israelite slaves, the ten signs, more severe, must follow.

Aaron is important in this section, for it is he rather than Moses who performs the miracle.
He also appears to be the one who activates the first three plagues that follow (although there
is a problem discussed in 7.20). His supporting role is balanced by that of the Egyptian
magicians, for the miracle here is the first of four that were attempted by the magicians, three
of which they were actually able to duplicate.

Section Headings: translators who follow the Handbook’s outline should include three
layers of headings here: first, “B. Moses and Pharaoh: contest for freedom” (7.8–15:21), which
may also be rendered as “Moses and Pharaoh: Moses tries to free the Israelites”; second,
“Negotiations with Pharaoh” (7.8–11.10), which may also be expressed as “Moses negotiates
with Pharaoh to free the Israelites”; third, a section heading, “The first sign: Aaron’s rod,”
(verses 8–13). Other possible models are “Aaron’s walking stick turns into a snake,” or more
simply, “A stick turns into a snake” (7.7 CEV).

7.8–9

It is unnatural in English to begin a new section with And, so most translations omit it. The
Lord said to Moses and Aaron picks up from the preview statement in verse 6 and introduces
in verse 9 what the Lord actually commanded them to do.

When Pharaoh says to you is a direct quote of what the Lord said. The you is plural. When
suggests that something is sure to happen, while “If” (7.9 TEV and others) suggests it may not
happen. Either interpretation is possible.

Prove yourselves by working a miracle is a quote within a quote. These are the words of
the Pharaoh to Moses and Aaron. Literally the Hebrew simply says “Give for yourselves a
wonder.” The idea is that they must show convincing evidence that they have been sent by
 their God. In some languages prove may require a different object, so it is possible to say
“Prove that your God has sent you by performing a miracle.” Working a miracle may be
rendered as “performing a miracle,” or “producing” or “displaying” a sign or wonder. (See the
comment on “wonders” at 3.20.)

Then you shall say to Aaron—these are the Lord’s words directed only to Moses. The
sudden shift from you plural to you singular is made clear in NEB: “then you, Moses, must say
to Aaron.” In many languages translators will find it helpful to put “Moses” in this sentence as
NEB does. Take your rod—these are now Moses’ words to Aaron, another quote within a
quote. Your rod is obviously Aaron’s rod, which has not yet been mentioned. It was evidently a
“walking stick” similar to Moses’. The same Hebrew word is used in verse 12 for the rods used
by the king’s magicians. But since the rods of Moses and Aaron were used primarily for
walking, they may have been thicker and sturdier than those used by the magicians. (See the
comment at 4.2.)

Cast it down before Pharaoh means to “throw it down in front of the king.” That it may
become a serpent—these are probably the Lord’s words to Moses (as in 7.9 TEV) rather than
Moses’ words to Aaron (as in 7.9 RSV). That it may become is literally “and it will be.” Thus 7.9
TEV has “and it will turn into.” The word for serpent in this verse often means “sea monster”
(Gen 1.21; Psa 148.7), or the “dragon” that represents the forces of chaos (Isa 27.1; Psa 74.13).
It is not the common word for “snake” used in 4.3. Its use here and in verses 10 and 12
suggests the superior power of Yahweh over the powers of evil. The usual translation,
however, is serpent because it is similar in size and shape to a rod.

An alternative translation model for this verse is:

• The Lord said to Moses and Aaron: “The king will ask you and Aaron to perform a miracle to
prove that your God has sent you. When he does this, you, Moses, must command Aaron to
throw his walking stick down in front of the king. It will turn into a serpent.”

7.10

Went to Pharaoh is literally “they entered toward Pharaoh,” so this second encounter was
probably inside the palace. Did as the Lord had commanded refers to the instructions given in
verse 9. It must be assumed that the king demanded a miracle from them, as verse 9
anticipates. And Aaron cast down his rod probably at Moses’ command. Cast down … before
means “threw … down in front of.”

His servants were probably important men who served as attendants and as advisors to
the king. They should be thought of as “his officers” (7.10 TEV), “his officials” (NIV, NJB), or “his
courtiers” (NEB, TAN). It became a serpent means “it turned into a snake” (using the same word
as in verse 9).

7.11

The wise men and the sorcerers were not present at first, for they had to be summoned,
or “called for.” But they were evidently not far away, for they served as special advisors to the
Pharaoh. The wise men were probably priests who supervised the practice of “magic.” One
may also express this as “the people who had great knowledge about magic,” or even “the
people who had secret powers to perform magic.” The sorcerers were their assistants who
were trained to use herbs and mix potions in order to cast spells and interpret signs.

In ancient Egypt “magic,” or the practice of secret arts, was a respected profession and
became highly specialized. Whether beneficial or harmful, it occurs in most cultures, and there
will be terms for it and the people who perform it. Both the wise men and the sorcerers were
considered magicians. Although three terms are used, only two groups are identified. The first
two terms are specific, the third is generic. In some languages, including English, it is difficult to
find equivalent terms, for their meanings overlap. 7.11 TEV uses only two terms, “wise men and
magicians,” but TOT identifies them as “magicians and sorcerers.” The clause did the same by
their secret arts may also be expressed as “they used their secret powers to do the same
thing.”

7.12

Every man includes only the “wise men” and the “sorcerers.” Each of them evidently had
his own rod, or staff. 7.12 TEV’s “walking stick” may not be the best term in this verse, even
though the Hebrew word is the same. (See the comment at verse 9.) They became serpents
means that the rods of all these magicians “turned into snakes.” (The same term is used as in
verse 9.) Aaron’s rod, of course, was in the form of a serpent when it swallowed up the other
serpents. The delightful picture is that all the rods of the magicians, which they evidently used
in their magic, were completely gone. They had been destroyed by a greater power, the power
of Yahweh, here represented by Aaron’s rod.

7.13

The heart was thought to be the center of thinking and intelligence, and a “hard heart”
indicated a stubborn attitude. (See 4.21 and the comment.) Still is a translation of the
conjunction waw, which here carries the meaning of “In spite of all this,” or simply “However”
(7.13 TEV). Still also describes the continued state of Pharaoh’s heart, which was still …
hardened. The meaning is simply “The king … remained stubborn.”

RSV’s hardened should really be translated “hard,” for this is the first of six references to
Pharaoh’s heart that are “theologically neutral.” That is, there is no indication whether the
Lord caused his heart to be hard or whether he hardened it himself. So one may translate “The
king’s heart, however, still remained hard” or “The king, however, remained stubborn” (7.13
TEV). (Similar are 7.14, 22; 8.19; 9.7, 35.) Unless the context demands otherwise, the translator
should try to preserve the neutrality in these verses. However, ten other references say it was
the Lord who hardened Pharaoh’s heart. (These are 4.21; 7.3; 9.12; 10.1, 20, 27; 11.10; 14.4, 8,
17.) And there are three references clearly stating that the king hardened his own heart.
(These are 8.15, 32; 9.34.)

He would not listen means that “he refused to be persuaded” (TOT). It should be made
clear that to them refers to “Moses and Aaron,” not to the magicians. As the Lord had said
means “as the Lord had foretold” (NEB, NJB, TOT), for it refers back to verse 4, where the Lord
had said “Pharaoh will not listen to you.” In a number of languages it will be better style to
place this clause at the beginning of the verse; for example, “The king, however, behaved just
as the Lord had said. He remained stubborn and would not listen to Moses and Aaron” or “The
king, however, … and stubbornly refused to listen.” In this latter model 7.13 CEV has neatly
combined the idea of “hardened heart” and “the refusal to listen” into one sentence: “The king
… stubbornly refused to listen.”

B. Additional Signs: The Ten Plagues (7.14–11.10)

The first sign performed before the Pharaoh should not be confused with the ten
additional signs that followed. It was a harmless demonstration of divine power that affected
only the pride of a few people. By contrast these additional signs were serious natural
disasters that affected the entire Egyptian kingdom. Various Hebrew terms are used for these
plagues, with different shades of meaning. Sometimes they are called “signs” or “wonders,”
but other times they are called “plagues” or “pestilence.”

In spite of their seriousness the first nine plagues all failed to persuade the king to let the
Israelites go free. Sometimes Moses was the agent who brought on the plague, and sometimes
it was Aaron. But it was always the Lord who caused the disaster in order that “the Egyptians
shall know” who he was (7.5). The tenth and last plague, the death of all firstborn sons of the
Egyptians, finally convinced the Pharaoh and ended the negotiations.

All the plague stories seem to follow the same basic pattern of six parts, even though some
parts are not always present in every story. The translator should be aware of this pattern,
which may be outlined as follows:

a) The Lord informs Moses about the plague.

b) Moses warns Pharaoh.

c) The plague occurs.

d) Pharaoh asks Moses to remove the plague.

e) The plague is removed.

f) Pharaoh’s heart is hardened again.

93

hardened has the basic meaning of “heavy” or “dull.” The expression still means “The king
is very stubborn,” or “Pharaoh’s heart is unyielding” (7.14 NIV). He refuses to let the people go
is the result of his stubbornness. TOT combines both clauses into one: “Pharaoh is determined

93Osborn, N. D., & Hatton, H. (1999). A handbook on Exodus. UBS handbook series; Helps for
translators (126). New York: United Bible Societies.

NIV NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION

TOT TRANSLATOR’S OLD TESTAMENT

not to let the people go.” However, this rendering does not bring out the idea of “very
stubborn.” 7.14 CEV expresses it as “The Egyptian king stubbornly refuses to change his mind
and let the people go.” Let the people go may also be rendered as “set the people free” (NEB).

7.15

Go to Pharaoh is addressed only to Moses (singular), although the context suggests that
Aaron would accompany him (verse 19). In the morning means “Tomorrow morning” (NAB,
NJB), but it does not specify what time of the morning. The next phrase suggests it was shortly
after sunrise. As he is going out to the water may have to be rendered as “before he goes out
to the water” or “when he goes down to the Nile” (7.15 TEV), for the next command is to wait
for him. This suggests that Moses was to “confront him” (NJB) before the king could do
whatever he intended to do. TAN has “station yourself before him.”

The water, as the next clause indicates, was “the Nile” River. By the river’s brink means
“on the riverbank” (7.15 TEV), or “on the bank of the Nile” (NEB), or even “beside the Nile River”
(7.15 CEV). The river always means “the Nile” River when the setting is in Egypt. It may be
assumed that the king’s palace was not far from the river, and that he bathed there regularly,
as his daughter did (see 2.5).

And take in your hand the rod may be rendered simply as “Take with you,” for it is
understood that a rod, or “walking stick,” is carried in the hand. (This word for rod was used at
4.2 and 4.20.) The rod which was turned into a serpent refers to Moses’ rod in 4.2–4, not to
Aaron’s rod in 7.10. In some languages this will be expressed as “the walking stick that became
a snake,” avoiding the passive “was turned into.” The word for serpent here is the common
word for “snake,” not the word used in 7.9–12. (See the comment at 7.9.) For a more logical
sequence, it may be helpful to interchange the last two clauses of this verse, as 7.15 TEV has
done. For example, the four segments in 7.15 RSV—a, b, c, d—are rearranged in 7.15 TEV to a,
b, d, c. It is also possible to restructure the verse in the following way: “Tomorrow morning,
take the stick that turned into a snake. Then as the king goes down to the Nile River, wait for
him on the river bank.”

7.16

CEV Contemporary English Version

NEB NEW ENGLISH BIBLE

NAB NEW AMERICAN BIBLE

NJB NEW JERUSALEM BIBLE

TEV Today’s English Version

TAN TANAKH (NEW JEWISH VERSION)

RSV Revised Standard Version

 And you shall say to him is singular, addressed only to Moses. In a number of languages it
will be helpful to show this by translating “Moses, you must say this to the king.” It introduces
a quote within a quote. Him, of course, is “the king.” The Lord, of course is Yahweh (yhwh),
and some translators may wish to transliterate the name here and in verse 17, since Moses is
speaking to the king, who did not know this God (5.2). (See the various options discussed at
3.2.) The God of the Hebrews is Moses’ usual way of introducing Yahweh to the Pharaoh. (See
3.18; 9.1, 13; 10.3.) It has the same meaning as its alternate form, “the God of Israel,” in 5.1.
He is, of course, the same God, and the same people are intended, but the terms Hebrews and
“Israelites” should not be inter changed, for reasons explained at 1.15 and 3.18.

Sent me to you means the Lord sent me (Moses) to you (the Pharaoh). The identity of the
people to whom the pronouns refer must be kept clear, for this is already a quote within a
quote. And the identity of the speaker must also be clear. Saying introduces yet another
embedded quote to the third level.

Since the Hebrew uses no quotation marks, the different levels of embedded quotes are
indicated only by words like saying and by the personal pronouns. A number of receptor
languages employ similar rhetorical devices instead of quotation marks. In languages where
quotation marks are used, the translator should observe the alternate use of double quotation
marks (“ ”) and single quotation marks (‘ ’) in 7.16 RSV as a helpful guide. In this case the first
level begins in verse 14 and continues to verse 18. The second level begins in verse 16 and
continues to verse 18. There are two separate third level quotes, here in verse 16, and another
in verses 17–18. (It should be noted that 7.16 NRSV more correctly closes the third level quote
in verse 16 after wilderness.) Verse 18 in 7.16 RSV ends with complex punctuation marks (” ’ ”).

Let my people go is what the Lord is saying to the Pharaoh through Moses. This is the
same formula of demand used in 4.23 and 5.1. Literally it says “Send out my people” (so
Durham) and may be an intentional play on the word with sent me. It carries the meaning of
“Release” or “Permit my people, the Israelites, to go.” Since this is a formula similar to the
messenger formula described at 5.1, it should always be translated consistently as a formula.

In some languages the translators will have to change to indirect discourse, especially
when there are quotes within quotes within quotes. Some translations such as TEV make this
change in order to avoid using any third level quotes. But this also means changing pronouns in
order to retain the identity of the persons referred to. Thus TEV changes this third level quote
as follows: “ ‘The Lord … sent me to tell you to let his people go.’ ” CEV avoids the confusion of
three levels of quotation marks by indenting the entire first level quote without any marks,
beginning with verse 14 and continuing through verse 19. But this method can only be shown
by the page layout of the printed text.

That they may serve me means “so that they can worship me.” (See 4.23a and the
comment.) The problem of the wilderness is discussed at 3.1.

NRSV New Revised Standard Version

 And behold is omitted in 7.16 TEV and others because it is an archaic expression. But it may
be rendered in the sense of “But look,” or “And, what is more” (Childs). You have not yet
obeyed indicates this is not the first time the demand has been made. It may express the
impatience of the Lord, or possibly of Moses. The Hebrew for yet is literally “until now.” 7.16
TEV and 7.16 CEV have “But until now.” Have not yet obeyed may also be expressed as “have
not yet paid attention to his [or, my] command.”

An alternative translation model for this verse is:

• “Moses, you must say to the king, ‘Yahweh, the God of the Hebrews, sent me to order you to
free his people, so that they can worship him in the wilderness. But until now you have paid no
attention to him.

7.17

Thus says the Lord is the special messenger formula used repeatedly in the negotiations
with the Pharaoh. This formula here introduces another embedded quote at the third level.
The main quotation begins in verse 14 (first level), with an embedded quote introduced in
verse 16 (second level), and here a quote embedded into that quote (third level). By this refers
to the plague that will soon take place, and so it introduces the warning to the Pharaoh. You
shall know means “you will find out” (7.17 TEV), or “you shall learn” (JB). It refers back to the
question raised by the king in 5.2. I am the Lord is the self-introductory formula discussed at
6.2. Other translation models for this sentence are ‘Yahweh says, “I am going to do something
to show that I am really Yahweh,” ’ or “Yahweh says that he is going to do something that will
show [or, prove to] you that he is really Yahweh.”

Behold is not omitted here by 7.17 TEV, as in verse 16, for it is a command for the king to
“Look” (7.17 TEV). Probably Moses is holding up his rod as he speaks. I will strike the water
presents a problem, for the Hebrew does not clarify whether this is still the third level quote,
where the Lord is speaking, or the second level quote, where Moses is speaking. As the
quotation marks in 7.17 RSV present it, the I refers to the Lord, meaning that the Lord will be
the one to strike the water. (This is also suggested in verse 25.) But this is unlikely, since the
statement goes on to refer to the rod that is in my hand, meaning Moses’ hand (although
verse 19a seems to put the rod in Aaron’s hand). For this reason NEB closes the third level
quote before the word Behold so that the I will refer to Moses (“… the Lord says, ‘By this you
shall know that I am the Lord.’ With this rod that I have in my hand …”). 7.17 TEV avoids the
third level quote entirely, but clearly puts the words in Moses’ mouth: “Look, I am going to
strike … .” This is probably the intended meaning of the text as we have it. Other translations
prefer to preserve the ambiguity.

The rod that is in my hand may be shortened to “the staff I hold” (NAB) or simply “this
stick” (7.17 TEV). (See verse 15.) And it shall be turned to blood refers to the water in the river,
which will be “changed into,” “become,” or “will turn into” blood. This indicates a change in

JB JERUSALEM BIBLE
substance, not just a change in color. The Hebrew term refers to the blood of either man or
animal.

7.18

Fish should be understood as plural and generic, referring to all the different kinds of fresh
water fish and living creatures in the Nile River. They shall die because the water of the river
will be changed into blood. The Nile shall become foul means that “the river will stink” (7.18
TEV), for the word foul refers to a bad odor, not to pollution (as in NAB). The same word is used
of the dead frogs in 8.14 and of the spoiled manna in 16.20. The bad odor of the Nile was
evidently the result of the dead fish rather than the blood. (See also verse 21 below.)

It is not clear from the text just why the Egyptians would loathe to drink the water from
the Nile. Obviously, the blood and the dead fish would make the water “polluted” (NAB), but it
is possible that they would loathe to drink because of the smell. The English word loathe
carries the meaning “will not want to drink” (JB), but the Hebrew word means “to become
tired” and suggests that “the Egyptians will look in vain in the Nile for water fit to drink” (TOT).
In context, however, the meaning seems clear: “the Egyptians will not be able to drink from it”
(7.18 TEV).

7.19

This verse probably comes from the “Priestly” source, for here Aaron becomes the
designated agent rather than Moses. (Scholars believe verses 14–18 probably came from the
“J” or “Yahwist” source. See the discussion on “Sources” in “Translating Exodus,” page 2.)
Verses 16–18 were to be spoken by Moses to the Pharaoh, but now verse 19 is to be spoken to
Aaron. The Lord said to Moses introduces the words spoken to Moses, who in turn is to Say to
Aaron the words of the quote within a quote.

Take your rod is spoken to Aaron, so it is Aaron’s rod that is to be used. (See verse 9.)
Stretch out your hand probably refers to the hand in which Aaron holds the rod. So 7.19 TEV’s
interpretation of this double command is correct: “Tell Aaron to take his stick and hold it out.”
Over the waters of Egypt refers to all bodies of water throughout the land of Egypt. This is to
be, of course, a symbolic gesture which would add drama and suspense. Some translations
omit over the waters of Egypt as redundant, since all the bodies of water are listed after this
statement. 7.19 TEV shows this with the word “all” before the list.

Their rivers may be understood as “its rivers” (NEB, TAN), meaning Egypt’s rivers. The
pronoun there is plural because the Hebrew word for Egypt is plural in form and can mean
either the land (Egypt) or the people (Egyptians). In most languages it will be more natural
style simply to say “the rivers” (7.19 TEV), as it will be understood that the rivers are in Egypt.
The word for rivers refers to a permanent watercourse. The word for canals refers here to
streams or tributaries flowing into the Nile as well as irrigation ditches from the Nile.

Ponds were low, swampy areas that were full of reeds. (JB and NJB translate “marshland.”)
And the word for pools refers to any accumulation of water. 7.19 TEV reduces the four terms to
three, taking pools of water as a general reference to the other three. (TAN has “bodies of
water.”)
 That they may become blood is literally “and they will be [or become] blood.” The clause
may be understood as stating the purpose of Aaron’s dramatic act (“in order that they will
become blood”) or the result (“and then they will become blood”). (See verse 17 and the
comment.) By punctuation 7.19 NIV removes this clause from the words of Moses to Aaron and
considers it to be only the Lord’s words to Moses. This is implied in 7.19 TEV, which uses
indirect discourse for Moses’ words to Aaron and begins a new sentence with this clause.

7.19

RSV and others consider this to be still part of Moses’ words to Aaron, but in NIV, TOT, and
TEV it is better understood as the Lord’s explanation to Moses. (See the comment at 19a, first
paragraph.) And there shall be blood is literally “blood will be.” Throughout all the land of
Egypt includes the entire country.

Vessels of wood and vessels of stone is an interpretation of the Hebrew, which only says
“and in the trees and in the stones.” It is not clear what is meant. Some translations have
avoided adding the idea of vessels, such as TOT (“even on the trees and stones”) and NJB (“even
in sticks and stones”). It is possible that trees with sap and rocks with springs are intended.
Most transla tions, however, supply suitable words as in 7.19 TEV, “even in the wooden tubs
and stone jars,” or in 7.19 CEV, “and even the water in buckets and jars.” Following 7.19 TEV,
therefore, translators need to identify two kinds of water containers, one made of wood and
the other of clay or stone—if these two types are available in the receptor language. If not, it
will be possible to combine the two and translate “even in vessels used for storing water.”

7.20

Moses and Aaron did as the Lord commanded repeats similar phrases in verses 6 and 10.
In the same narrative style, following a detailed account of what the Lord commanded them
to do, it introduces the action. Another way to express this is “Moses and Aaron obeyed the
Lord.” Verses 14–18 explain what commands were given to Moses, and verse 19 gives the
Lord’s command to Aaron through Moses. In the sight of Pharaoh is literally “to the eyes of
Pharaoh,” meaning “in the presence of the king” (7.20 TEV). But it may also be stated more
dynamically, as in NAB, “in full view of Pharaoh.” In the sight of his servants means the same
thing, so the two phrases may be combined, as in TOT, “while Pharaoh and his officials were
watching,” or even “as the king and his officials watched” (7.20 CEV).

He lifted up the rod is ambiguous. The pronoun he is singular and may refer to either
Moses or Aaron. There is no suggestion that both men used their rods. The translator must
choose either to be literal or to be dynamic, either to preserve the ambiguity or to place the
rod in either Moses’ or Aaron’s hand. Most translations have chosen to be literal, but a few
have tried to identify who he was. On the basis of verse 19, 7.20 TEV has “Aaron raised his
stick.” (Similarly NAB, GECL, SPCL, and FRCL.) But on the basis of verse 17, TOT has “Moses raised

GECL GERMAN COMMON LANGUAGE VERSION

SPCL SPANISH COMMON LANGUAGE VERSION

FRCL FRENCH COMMON LANGUAGE VERSION

his staff.” Aaron is probably the better choice, but a footnote should explain that the Hebrew
simply has he.

And struck the water means, of course, that he struck “the surface of the river” (7.20 TEV)
with the rod, bringing it down swiftly after having raised it for everyone to see. (So also verse
17.) All the water that was in the Nile means the entire Nile River. This may be an exaggerated
statement, or hyperbole, intended as a literary device, but the translator should not try to
revise this claim on the basis of verse 22. Turned to blood means that the water was
substantially “changed into blood” (NIV, NEB).

7.21

This verse repeats details already explained in the Lord’s command to Moses in verse 18.
The fish included all species plus other living creatures in the river. They died as a result of the
water changing into blood. The Nile became foul means that the river began to stink because
of the dead fish. So that is simply the conjunction waw in the Hebrew, so the text does not
clearly explain why the Egyptians could not drink. Most translations interpret this as the direct
result of the odor rather than the pollution. (See verse 18 and the comment in the last
paragraph.) Thus 7.21 TEV has “it smelled so bad that the Egyptians could not drink from it.”

There was blood throughout the whole land of Egypt refers back to verse 19, where all
the water in pools and in vessels was to be changed into blood. This is a general statement
that may be understood to say that “everywhere in Egypt” (7.21 TEV) the water became blood.
Similarly 7.21 CEV has “Blood was everywhere in Egypt.”

7.22

The translator should not try to reconcile this verse with verse 21. There is no indication
where the magicians of Egypt found water that was not already blood. Magicians included
both “wise men” and “sorcerers,” according to 7.11. Did the same probably means they
“performed the same trick” (TOT), but there is no clear indication that they used their rods. The
point is that they also changed water into blood by their secret arts, “with their secret
powers,” or “by means of their magic” (7.22 TEV). In a number of languages it will be helpful to
express this first sentence as “But the Egyptian magicians used their magic [or, secret powers]
to do the same thing.”

So Pharaoh’s heart remained hardened is literally “and the heart of Pharaoh was hard.”
The idea of remained is only an interpretation. The word for “hard” in this verse is the word
meaning “strong,” as in 4.21. The idiom “hard heart” means “stubborn,” of course. But the
king’s stubbornness was a result of what the magicians did. Therefore some translations
suggest that Pharaoh’s heart may have softened a bit when he saw what Aaron (Moses?) had
done. This is also possible. As explained in the comment at 7.13, this is one of the places where
the idiom is “theologically neutral.”

And he would not listen to them means that he “rejected the demands” (TOT) of Moses
and Aaron. As the Lord had said again refers back to 7.4, where this had been “foretold” (NEB,
NJB, TOT).
 The second part of this verse, beginning with so Pharaoh’s heart, is identical with verse 13.
Again, in a number of languages it will be helpful to put the clause as the Lord had said at the
beginning of 7.22b and say “The king did just as the Lord had said he would do. He stubbornly
refused to listen to Moses and Aaron.”

7.23

Pharaoh turned means that the king “turned away” from Moses and Aaron, and possibly
from his own magicians as well. He had evidently been standing there beside the river with his
officials while all this was taking place. Went into his house suggests that the palace was close
to the river. But this is not clearly indicated, so 7.23 TEV has “he turned and went back to his
palace.”

He did not lay even this to heart is another idiom meaning “without paying any attention
even to this” (7.23 TEV). The word for heart may also refer to the mind or the inner self. In 9.21
the same idiom, with a different word for lay, is rendered in 7.23 RSV as “did not regard,” and
in 7.23 TEV as “paid no attention to.” Other possible renderings are he “dismissed the matter
from his mind” (NEB), “taking no notice even of this” (NJB), and “paying no regard even to this”
(TAN).

7.24

And all the Egyptians is probably another example of hyperbole, or exaggeration for
literary effect, for not all of the people of Egypt lived near the river, although most of them
undoubtedly did. Most languages and cultures will understand this, so it should not be
modified. More important is the implication that only the Egyptians, not the Israelites, were
affected by this plague.

Dug around the Nile means that they “dug along the bank of the river” (7.24 TEV). By
digging holes in the sand and silt, they probably expected to find “drinking water” (7.24 TEV)
with the odor and impurity filtered out. The text does not say whether they were successful.
They could not drink is literally “they were not able to drink,” as in 7.24 TEV. As in verse 18, it is
not clear whether this was because of the blood or because of the bad smell.

7.25

In some translations this verse begins a new paragraph that extends into chapter 8, as in
RSV. In others it concludes the story of the first plague, as in TEV. Seven days passed is literally
“and seven days were fulfilled” (KJV, ASV). This may mean that the first plague lasted for seven
days (NEB), or it may simply indicate that the second plague began one week later. Placing the
verse either as a conclusion to the first plague or as an introduction to the second will
determine how it is understood. Since it is not otherwise stated when the first plague ended, it

KJV KING JAMES VERSION

ASV AMERICAN STANDARD VERSION

is reasonable to assume that it took seven days for the effects of the blood and the dead fish
to disappear.

After the Lord had struck the Nile refers back to verse 17, where the “I” seems to have
referred to the Lord. (See the comment there.) Had struck may be interpreted either literally
or figuratively, but since there is no mention of a rod, the figurative meaning is probably
intended. With either Aaron or Moses as his agent, it was still the Lord who had brought about
the first plague by changing the water of “the river” into blood. In some languages, therefore,
it may be easier to follow TOT: “after the Lord had turned the Nile into blood.”

(2) Frogs (8.1–15) [7.26–8.11]

References in square brackets [ ] will refer to the chapter and verse numbers in the
Hebrew Bible and in many contemporary translations, which differ from the chapter and verse
system of RSV and many other modern versions. Chapter 8 has the most problems of this kind
in Exodus, and it should be noted that a number of commentaries use the Hebrew verse
numbers. Translators may need to use the chapter and verse system commonly accepted
already in their area, whether it is that of RSV or of another version.

In the account of this second plague (frogs), five parts of the basic six-part pattern can be
seen. (See the pattern of the plagues, page 162.) Verses 1–4 give us the Lord’s words to
Moses, telling him what to do and informing him what will happen—part (a). But the text does
not state explicitly that Moses actually warned the Pharaoh before the frogs were called forth
—part (b). We must simply assume that this took place between verses 4 and 5.

Frogs were very common in Egypt because of the rise and fall of the Nile River and the
many swamplands. Frogs were not common in Canaan, however, where the Israelites later
lived. This may explain why frogs are never mentioned in the Old Testament except in
connection with this plague. (See Psa 78.45 and 105.30.) Frogs are mentioned only once in the
New Testament (Rev 16.13). The Egyptians would not have considered them a threat to life,
even if they covered the land. In fact the frog was considered a sign of fertility and life. This
second plague was therefore probably the least serious of all. But it was a nuisance to
everyone, this time including the king himself.

Some scholars believe it was the pollution of the river, after it had been turned to blood,
that caused the frogs to come up on the land. That is, the first plague caused the second.
While this is a possible interpretation, there is no textual basis to show any connection
between the second plague and the first. But both plagues mention the Nile River, and both
show that the Egyptian magicians were able to do the same thing with their magic. This second
story is simply presented as another demonstration of the power of Yahweh over the forces of
nature.

Section Heading: in cultures where frogs are common, a general term for these
amphibians may be employed as the heading for this subsection. The Hebrew word is a generic
term for all kinds of frog-like creatures that leap, have no tails, and live on both land and
water. However, in cultures where frogs are unknown, translators will need to borrow a term
and say, for example, “a creature named ‘frog,’ ” or even “a swamp creature named ‘frog.’ ”
(See the discussion on “Borrowed vocabulary” in “Translating Exodus,” page 3.) For further
information see Fauna and Flora of the Bible, pages 32–33.

8.1

Then is only the conjunction waw in the Hebrew, but it serves as a connecting link with the
preceding section. This suggests that the instructions of the Lord concerning the second plague
were given to Moses seven days after the beginning of the first plague. 8.1 CEV makes this
quite clear, beginning with verse 25 of chapter 7: 25 Seven days after the Lord had struck the
Nile, 1 he said to Moses … .” Note how 8.1 RSV continues from 7.25 into as part of a single
paragraph.

Go in to Pharaoh uses a verb that means “to enter,” so NEB has “go into Pharaoh’s
presence.” Although most translations do not reflect this, it does suggest that Moses was to
meet with the king inside the palace. (Similar expressions are at 9.1 and 10.1.) One way to
express this is “Go in to the palace and tell the king … .”

And say to him introduces a direct quotation of the words that are to be spoken to the
king. Thus says the Lord is the messenger formula first used in 4.22, and it in turn introduces
the demand formula Let my people go, first used in 5.1. These formulas are discussed at
4.22–23a.

These two formulas are used together six times in Exodus, here and at 5.1; 8.20; 9.1, 13;
and 10.1. In this verse, however, these two formulas are given in a quote within a quote within
a quote. (Note the sets of quotation marks in RSV.) So TEV changes the words “… and say to
him, ‘Thus says the Lord, “…” ’ ” to read “and tell him that the Lord says, ‘…’ ” This makes a
third level quote unnecessary. (See the comment on levels of quotation at 7.16.) If necessary,
one may eliminate even the final single quote in 8.1 TEV by translating “and tell the king of
Egypt that I [Yahweh] order him to let my people go.”

Let my people go is the demand formula, which gives the exact words of Yahweh to
Pharaoh (as at 4.22–23a). The verb is in the imperative mood, second person singular. My
people refers to the Israelites, whom the Lord had chosen to be his people. This formula is
always followed by a reason; here it is that they may serve me. (The reason in 5.1 is slightly
different.) As explained at 4.22–23a, the verb for serve also means “worship” (8.1 NRSV, 8.1
TEV, and CEV), and it implies performing the proper rites in worship.

8.2

But if you refuse is very explicit here (unlike 4.23), so this implies that the Pharaoh is given
an opportunity to agree to the demand and thus avoid the plague. Let them go, of course,
refers to “my people,” the Israelites, in verse 1, so 8.2 TEV omits this. In a number of languages
it will be necessary to repeat the phrase to let them go, as 8.2 RSV and 8.2 NIV do.

Behold is omitted in 8.2 TEV because it is archaic, but it may be rendered as “I warn you”
(NAB). I will plague uses the emphatic pronoun I and the participle of the verb meaning “to
injure,” or “to strike.” (The same root word is used again in 12.13 as a noun.) It does not refer
to a disease, as the English word may suggest. If one is unable to find a suitable word for
 plague, it may be better to follow 8.2 TEV (and others) and translate the contextual meaning as
“punish.”

All your country refers to all the land under the rule of the Pharaoh, the entire land of
Egypt. With frogs goes with I will plague, meaning “I will send a plague of frogs” (NAB). 8.2 TEV
rephrases the whole clause, including all your country: “I will punish your country by covering
it with frogs.” 8.2 CEV has a slightly different rendering: “I will cover his entire country with
frogs.” In languages where translators will find it difficult to translate the embedded
quotations in 7.25–8.2, and where indirect speech will be more natural style, the following is
an alternative translation model:

• 7.25 Seven days after the Lord had changed the Nile River into blood, he said to Moses, “Go
into the palace and tell the king that I [Yahweh] order him to release my people so that they
can worship me. 2 If he refuses to release them, then tell him that I will punish his whole
country by covering it with frogs… .”

8.3

The Nile, literally “the river,” is the Nile River in Egypt. Shall swarm with frogs means it will
be “full of frogs” (8.3 TEV) in countless numbers. Which shall come into your house is literally
“and they will come up and they will enter into your house.” The idea is that the frogs will
come up from the river onto the land and then enter into the king’s “palace.” The bedchamber
was the king’s “bedroom.” The your is singular for house, bedchamber, and bed. Another way
to express this is “they will enter your palace, your bedrooms, and your bed.”

The houses of your servants refers to the living quarters of the king’s royal servants, or
“officials” (8.3 NRSV), (as at 7.10). And of your people is literally “and on your people” (8.3 NIV),
as the footnote in 8.3 RSV indicates. But most translations follow the Septuagint instead of the
Hebrew and understand it as referring to the houses of the people. If the meaning of 8.3 RSV
and 8.3 TEV is followed, a footnote is advisable. In many languages it will be good to begin a
new sentence here and say “Frogs will also enter the houses of your officials.”

Into your ovens probably refers to the clay baking ovens used at the palace, for the your is
singular for both ovens and kneading bowls. A Handbook on Leviticus, page 28, has a helpful
comment on ovens:

… the oven was either a kind of hole dug in the earth or a hollow round object made of baked
clay and placed on the ground. A fire is made under this object, and when it is well heated, the
dough is inserted through the top opening and placed against the inner walls in order to cook
it.

Presumably the Israelite ovens were similar to the Egyptian ones, as the Israelites had
been living in Egypt for many years. Most cultures have ovens of some type, but translators
should avoid loan words, as these often refer to electric or gas ovens. In some languages
descriptive phrases will be necessary; for example, “a hot box made of clay” or “a round object
made of clay for baking bread.”
 The kneading bowls were the containers in which the people, using their hands, mixed the
ingredients for making bread. They were normally made of either clay or wood, but those in
the palace may have been made of bronze. 8.3 TEV’s “baking pans” may be misleading.

8.4

The frogs shall come up comes at the end of the sentence in the Hebrew, in order to give
emphasis to on you and on your people and on all your servants. Come up on really means to
“jump up on” (8.4 TEV). Your is singular in each case. Note the quotation marks in 8.4 RSV,
which indicate the end of a quote within a quote within a quote.

8.5

And the Lord said to Moses is an important break from the preceding verses, for it marks a
transition in the basic pattern of the plague stories from part (a) to part (c). (See the pattern of
the plagues, as listed on page 162.) We may assume, then, that the warning to the Pharaoh
(part b) was delivered by Moses between verses 4 and 5. This is now a command to initiate the
second plague.

Say to Aaron introduces the words from the Lord that Moses is to say to Aaron. Stretch
out your hand refers to Aaron’s hand, and with your rod refers to Aaron’s “staff” (8.5 NRSV), or
“walking stick” (8.5 TEV). This is the same action that was commanded of Aaron in 7.19,
although the wording is slightly different. For rivers, canals, and pools, see the discussion at
7.19a. (Note that the pronoun “their” is not used, and “waters” and “ponds” are not
mentioned.) The Hebrew word for pools in 8.5 is the same word that 8.5 RSV renders as
“ponds” in 7.19.

Cause frogs to come upon the land of Egypt is a command still addressed to Aaron. His
action will activate the plague. 8.5 TEV adds some information here by borrowing from the next
verse: “and cover the land of Egypt.”

8.6

The staff is not mentioned in this verse, but it is understood that Aaron was holding his
staff when he stretched out his hand. The waters of Egypt includes all the bodies of water
mentioned in verse 5. As in 7.19, however, such an act was a symbolic gesture and should not
be understood literally. 8.6 TEV’s “all the water” simply translates the waters of Egypt; the
word “all” is not in the Hebrew. It is possible to simplify So Aaron stretched out his hand over
… by saying “Aaron obeyed Moses, and the frogs … .”

And the frogs came up has the same verb as in verse 5, meaning to come up out of the
water. So 8.6 TEV has “and the frogs came out.” Here the word frogs is singular in form,
followed with the singular verb covered. This emphasizes the idea of a swarm or horde of frogs
so great that it completely “covered over” the land of Egypt. (This collective singular form is
also used for the “flies” in 8.21 and the “locusts” in 10.4.)

8.7
 The magicians are the same “magicians of Egypt” mentioned in 7.11 and 7.22. Here again,
they did the same by their secret arts. (See the translation and comments there.) Brought
frogs is literally “they caused to come up frogs,” as in verse 5. Upon is literally “up upon.” 8.7
TEV adds the word “also,” since they did the same thing, meaning they also caused the frogs to
“come up on the land” from the water.

8.8

Then is the common conjunction waw, which some translations omit. The text does not
indicate how long the Pharaoh waited until he called Moses and Aaron. It is significant that
the magicians were not called; they could bring more frogs with their magic, but evidently they
could not remove them. Called is better understood as “called for” (8.8 TEV), or “summoned”
(NEB and others).

And said introduces the Pharaoh’s words, which are spoken to both Moses and Aaron.
Entreat the Lord means “Pray to the Lord” (8.8 NRSV), or “Plead with the Lord” (TAN). The
Pharaoh is here asking them to intercede for him. Some translations add the words “for me” to
bring this out (Septuagint, GECL), although these words are not in the Hebrew. (They do appear
in 8.28, where he makes a similar request.) To take away the frogs means “to clear away,” “to
get rid of,” or “to remove” (NAB, TAN) the frogs. 8.8 TEV omits the words from me and my
people, possibly because they seem to be understood. But they provide the only textual clue
that the Israelites were not bothered by the frogs.

And I will let the people go is a conditional promise based upon the removal of the frogs,
not upon Moses’ prayer. This promise was part of a bargain that the king wanted to make with
Moses and Aaron, but it implies that he knew the Lord could do it. 8.8 TEV has “your people”
to highlight the distinction between the Israelites and my people, meaning the Egyptians. To
sacrifice to the Lord means “so that they can offer sacrifices to the Lord.” (See 3.18b and the
comment.) It is recommended that translators show the conditional nature of God’s promise
and translate this verse in a way similar to the following:

• The king called for Moses and Aaron and said to them, “If you plead with Yahweh [or, the Lord]
to take these frogs away from me and my people, I will let your people go to sacrifice to him.”

8.9

Moses is the one to reply to Pharaoh, and Aaron does not seem to be involved. Be pleased
to command me is literally “glorify yourself over me” and has been understood in different
ways. (Note the variety in recent translations.) It is best to interpret this as a statement of
respect on Moses’ part, but spoken with a bit of irony. (8.9 NIV “I leave to you the honor of
setting the time.”) This will emphasize even more the superior power of Moses’ God over that
of the Pharaoh and his magicians. For it means that the king, by commanding when Moses
should pray, will indirectly be calling on a God he has so far refused to recognize. 8.9 TEV’s “I
will be glad to pray for you” seems to have missed this irony. 8.9 CEV is better: “All right,”
Moses answered, “You choose the time when … .”
 When I am to entreat probably refers to “the time when I am to pray” (8.9 TEV) rather
than to the time when the frogs are to be destroyed. The meaning seems to be that Moses
will wait until the designated time, and then when he prays the frogs will be destroyed.
However, some translations make a distinction here, suggesting that Moses will pray
immediately, asking the Lord to destroy the frogs at the time chosen by the Pharaoh. (So JB,
TAN, and Childs.) Although this is a possible interpretation, translators are encouraged to follow
8.9 TEV. For you and for your servants and for your people means that Moses is willing to
“intercede” (NEB) for all the Egyptians—the king, his “officers,” and all his “subjects” (NAB, NJB).

When I am to entreat … that the frogs may be destroyed is ambiguous in the Hebrew.
Literally it says “when I will pray for you … to destroy the frogs.” Verse 8 makes it clear, of
course, that Moses will pray to Yahweh. This may mean either that Moses will ask the Lord to
destroy the frogs on behalf of the king and his people, or that he will pray for the king and his
people, and then the Lord will destroy the frogs. 8.9 TEV seems to favor this second meaning,
but the first meaning is to be preferred, along with most translations. In many languages it will
be necessary to make it explicit that Yahweh is the one who will destroy the frogs. TOT
provides a good model: “I will pray to the Lord on your behalf … and ask him to destroy the
frogs.”

From you and your houses uses the singular pronoun, but it may be necessary to translate
you and your into the plural. There is no intention to exclude the servants or the people. And
be left only in the Nile means that not all the frogs will be destroyed; there will still be frogs as
before, but they will stay only in the river. One may express this as “Then you will be rid of the
frogs from all your houses; there will be none left except those in the Nile River.”

8.10

And he said means “The king answered” (8.10 TEV). Tomorrow is in response to Moses’
proposal, “Tell me when I am to pray,” in verse 9. A more complete answer may be given in
translation, as in 8.10 TEV, “Pray for me tomorrow.” Be it as you say, or “I will do as you ask”
(8.10 TEV), is Moses’ response, which probably means that Moses has agreed to wait until the
next day to pray for the king and his people. (But see the comment at verse 9 above.) There is
no indication what hour of the day it will be, but presumably it would be in the morning.

That you may know is literally “in order that you may know.” It introduces a dependent
clause that seems to be related more to the following verse. One possible way to handle this
problem is to combine the clause with the first part of verse 11, as 8.10 NRSV has done: “So
that you may know that there is no one like the Lord our God, 11 the frogs will leave you … .” It
is also possible to interchange the clauses in order to bring out the intended meaning more
clearly: “The frogs shall depart from you … so that you may know … .” The two verses may then
be translated as follows:

• 10–11 … Moses said, “I will do as you ask. The frogs will no longer bother you, your officials or
your people. They will no longer be found anywhere except in the Nile. Then you will know
that there is no god like Yahweh, our [exclusive] God.
 It is also possible to connect the that clause to the preceding phrase, Be it as you say. This
is the interpretation followed by other translations. For example, NEB has “It shall be as you say
… so that you may know … .” (Similar are 8.10 NIV, NAB, and others.) Probably both ideas are
intended. Not only will Moses’ God be able to end the plague of frogs, but he will also do it at
the exact time the king has chosen. This will be double proof that there is no one like the Lord.
8.10 TEV allows for either interpretation: “I will do as you ask, and then you will know … ,” and
translators may wish to follow 8.10 TEV’s model.

The singular pronoun you refers to the king himself. And the purpose for ending the
plague is the same as the purpose for starting it—to prove to the king that there is no one like
the Lord. No one like the Lord refers to the gods that the Egyptians worshiped, especially the
god that the Pharaoh represented. Moses is here not denying the existence of these other
gods; he is simply emphasizing to the king that none of them are as great as Yahweh. One may
therefore translate “that there is no other god as great as the Lord our God,” or “as powerful
as Yahweh, the God whom we worship.” The pronoun our, of course, is exclusive.

This is one of several verses that refer back to the king’s question in 5.2, “Who is the
Lord?” The Lord, of course, is really the personal name “Yahweh” in the Hebrew.

8.11

In NRSV this continues the sentence begun in verse 10. (See the discussion there.) The frogs
shall depart is literally “the frogs will go away.” TAN has “The frogs shall retreat.” This suggests
that the frogs will withdraw on their own power, in contrast with what actually happened
according to verse 13. It is possible that Moses wanted the king to expect that the frogs were
to go away just as they had come, with no mess to clean up. The causative form of the verb is
not used, but it is certainly implied that the Lord would cause them to leave.

From you … and your people is literally a string of four prepositional phrases: “from you
and from your houses and from your servants and from your people.” All the pronouns are
singular. Moses mentions every person and every place that had been disturbed by the frogs,
in order to emphasize that the plague will be completely stopped. 8.11 TEV does not mention
your houses, but this may be implied from the rendering “You, your officials, and your people
will be rid of the frogs.”

They shall be left only in the Nile repeats the same words used in verse 9. This suggests to
the king that everything will return to normal. But see the following verses.

8.12

Went out from Pharaoh suggests that Moses and Aaron had been talking with the king
inside the palace. The verb means “to exit,” the opposite of the verb “to go in” used in 8.1. It is
possible to express this clause as “Then Moses and Aaron left the king and went out of the
palace.”

And Moses cried uses the common conjunction waw, which in English suggests that
Moses prayed to Yahweh as soon as they left the palace. This, however, is not explicit in the
 Hebrew, since the waw must always be translated according to the meaning of the context.
(TOT omits it entirely.) It is possible, therefore, to begin a new sentence here and join this
clause with the following verse, both of which begin with waw: “When Moses cried to the Lord
… 13 then the Lord did … .” 8.12 TEV’s rendering here (“and”) is not consistent with its
rendering in verse 10, where the Pharaoh says “Pray for me tomorrow.” (See the discussion at
verse 10.)

Moses cried to the Lord suggests that it was only Moses who prayed; Aaron is not
included here. But 8.12 TEV’s use of “prayed” does not bring out the force of the Hebrew verb,
which literally means “to cry out,” or “to call for help.” Other translations use words like
“appealed to the Lord” (NEB), “pleaded with Yahweh” (NJB), “implored the Lord” (NAB), and
“begged the Lord” (8.12 CEV). It was probably an earnest and audible prayer.

Concerning the frogs indicates only what it was that Moses prayed about; it does not
indicate what he said in the prayer. In some languages, however, it may be necessary to put
words into Moses’ mouth. Perhaps he said “O Lord, remove the frogs.” One should not be
more specific than that. Verse 13 suggests that Moses may have prayed “O Lord, kill the frogs,”
in contrast to what he had told the king in verse 11. But this may have been the Lord’s decision
rather than Moses’ request.

As he had agreed with Pharaoh is literally “which he put to Pharaoh.” As the footnote in
8.12 RSV indicates, this may also mean “which he had brought upon Pharaoh.” (8.12 NRSV has
now put this in the text.) The problem is first of all to determine whether the pronoun he
refers to Moses or to the Lord. Most translations preserve the ambiguity, including 8.12 TEV.
NAB has “Moses implored the Lord to fulfill the promise he made to Pharaoh about the frogs.”
TAN and NASB have “He,” with a capital “H,” meaning Yahweh, but this is not a solution that
helps the hearer when this is read aloud. It seems best to interpret the he as referring to the
Lord, so the meaning is that Moses prayed “Lord, remove the frogs with which you have
plagued the Pharaoh” (similarly TOT).

An alternative translation model for this verse is:

• Then Moses and Aaron left the king and went out of the palace. Moses pleaded with the Lord,
“O Lord, please take away the frogs with which you have punished the king.”

8.13

The Lord did according to the word of Moses means that “Yahweh granted Moses’
prayer” (JB), or “The Lord heard his prayer” (GECL). The And at the beginning of the verse is only
a connective word that may be omitted, or translated as “Then” or “So.” The following clause
describes how the Lord removed the frogs.

The frogs died out of the houses suggests the frogs were still in the houses when they
died. 8.13 TEV, on the other hand, simply describes which frogs were the ones that died

NASB NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE

without indicating where they were when they died: “the frogs in the houses, the courtyards,
and the fields died” (8.13 TEV). 8.13 CEV has “frogs died everywhere—in houses, yards, and
fields.” Probably the frogs normally living along the Nile River did not die.

Literally the Hebrew says “the frogs died from the houses, from the court yards, and from
the fields.” The preposition here rendered “from” usually means “out of” or “away from,” and
so some traditional translations have suggested that the frogs actually left the houses before
they died (KJV, ASV). One recent translation even emphasizes this idea: “the frogs died away
from the houses, the courtyards, and the fields” (Childs). But the same preposition is repeated
with the courtyards and with the fields. This would limit the places where the frogs could
gather before dying, and verse 14 suggests that many of them actually died in the fields. It is
better therefore to follow 8.13 TEV and leave unanswered the question where the frogs were
when they died.

The courtyards were open spaces within a permanent settlement or village, usually with
walls or buildings around them. Some of them were on private property, such as the open
courtyard of the king’s palace. The fields were the larger areas outside the villages, the open
countryside.

8.14

And they gathered them together in heaps is literally “and they piled them heaps heaps.”
They, of course, refers to “the Egyptians,” and them refers to the frogs. The manner in which
the frogs were gathered together is not specified, but it may have been by sweeping with
brooms (so GECL). The meaning of the literal “heaps heaps” may be understood either as “great
heaps” or “countless heaps” (NEB). Childs has “one heap after another”; Durham has “pile after
pile.”

And the land stank really means that the odor from the dead frogs was everywhere. It
may be better to say “the land reeked of them” (8.14 NIV), or “the stench of them was
everywhere” (TOT), or “they made the whole country stink.”

8.15

But when translates the conjunction waw. This introduces a relative clause that prepares
the reader for the changed attitude of the Pharaoh, which is then described. Pharaoh saw may
be understood literally, in that he “saw that the frogs were dead”; it may also be understood
figuratively, in that he realized that the plague had been stopped. There was a respite means
that “relief had been granted” (JB). Other ways to express this are “When the king realized that
things were back to normal” or “… that the frogs were no longer bothering him.” 8.15 CEV has
“… things were now better.”

He hardened his heart means that the Pharaoh hardened his own heart. 8.15 TEV’s “he
became stubborn again” does not bring this out clearly enough. This is the first of three
references in Exodus that place the blame for his stubbornness on the king himself. The same
expression, using the same verb, is found in 8.32 and 9.34. The basic meaning of the verb is to
make heavy. (But see the further comment at 4.21 and 7.13.)
 And would not listen to them means that “he rejected the demands of Moses and Aaron”
(TOT) and refused to let the people go. As the Lord had said repeats the same phrase found in
7.13 and 8.19.

(3) Gnats (8.16–19) [8.12–15]

The account of this third plague, told in only four verses, is the briefest of all. Only three
parts of the underlying six-part pattern are present: (a) the Lord informs Moses about the
plague, (c) the plague occurs, and (f) Pharaoh’s heart is “hardened” again. (See the plague
pattern, page 162.) It may be noted that the third, sixth, and ninth plague stories are very brief
accounts. This is only one of several features that suggest the traditional view that here are
three cycles of three plagues each, forming a pattern of 3 + 3 + 3 + 1.

There is a problem in identifying the insect in this third plague. The exact meaning of the
Hebrew term is not known. It has been variously translated as gnats, lice, mosquitoes, fleas, or
maggots. Some scholars have even proposed that the account in 8.16–19 is actually a duplicate
account of the plague in -32. Both passages talk about a plague of insects, and each passage
represents a different source tradition. Verses 16–19 are usually assigned to the Priestly
source, while verses 20–32 come from the Yahwist source. (See the discussion on “Sources”
in“Translating Exodus,” page 2.)

Regardless of the translator’s interpretation, however, the present form of the text clearly
identifies two distinct accounts of a third and a fourth plague. Since the term for the insect in
the fourth plague is a more general term, usually translated as “flies,” or simply “insects,” we
must choose a different kind of insect for this third plague. It is probably best to follow most
translations today and conclude that this third account concerns a plague of gnats. (On “gnats”
see FFB, pages 35–36.)

Section Heading: both the Handbook and 8.15 TEV have “Gnats” as the heading for this
subsection. Other possible headings are “Gnats cover the land of Egypt” or “The dust of Egypt
becomes gnats.”

8.16

Then is the usual conjunction waw in the Hebrew, but here it functions as an important
transition marker introducing the third plague account. The text does not indicate how much
time elapsed between the second and third plagues. The Lord said to Moses, “Say to Aaron …
.”: this is a common narrative device that introduces a quote with a quote, with Yahweh (the
Lord) speaking to Moses, who in turn is to speak to Aaron. As usual, 8.16 TEV changes the
second quote to indirect discourse: “Tell Aaron to strike the ground.” Say to Aaron may also be
expressed as “Command Aaron to strike … .”

Stretch out your rod and strike the dust are two commands indicating only one action.
Aaron is simply to “strike the ground with his stick” (8.16 TEV). One should avoid the possible
suggestion that he is to hold out his rod in one hand and hit the ground with the other. Your

FFB FAUNA AND FLORA OF THE BIBLE

rod must be understood as Aaron’s rod. (See the comments on rod at 4.2 and at 7.9.) The dust
of the earth probably refers to the loose soil on the ground as well as the dry, fine particles of
dirt.

That it may become gnats means that “the dust will change into gnats” (8.16 TEV). This is
to be another miracle of transformation (as in 7.10 and 20). The word that interprets the
conjunction waw, for it is clear that the transformation will not occur until the instructions are
carried out. Throughout all the land of Egypt indicates the extent of this plague; there will be
gnats in all parts of the country where there is dust.

The word translated as gnats is found only here and in Psa 105.31, which refers to this
same plague. (Isa 51.6 may use a different form of this word.) Its precise meaning therefore is
uncertain. It probably refers to a tiny flying insect that can sting. (See the introductory
comments to this section.)

8.17

And they did so means that both Moses and Aaron followed the instructions given in verse
16; Moses told Aaron what to do, and Aaron did it. These words are omitted in some ancient
versions, so some translations today do not include them (JB, NJB). 8.17 TEV omits them for
reasons of dynamic equivalence; they are not really needed, since the following words clearly
indicate that the instructions were carried out. Some translators, however, will wish to keep
these words. Other ways to express them are “They obeyed” (8.17 CEV), or even “They did
what the Lord commanded them to do.”

Aaron stretched out his hand with his rod is an expansion of the similar clause in verse 16,
which does not mention his hand. This does not need to be shown in translation, for there is
only one action intended, and struck the dust of the earth. This is why 8.17 TEV combines both
clauses into one, “So Aaron struck the ground with his stick.” The longer description, however,
may add a bit of drama and suspense to the story.

And there came gnats on man and beast is literally “and there were gnats on man and
beast.” It should be clear that the dust was changed to gnats at this time. 8.17 TEV makes this
explicit by combining this clause with the rest of the verse: “and all the dust in Egypt was
turned into gnats.” The translator must be sure the reader will not think that gnats started
attacking people first, and then the dust gradually changed into more gnats. CEV’s rendering
avoids this problem: “gnats started swarming on people and animals. In fact, every speck of
dust in Egypt turned into a gnat.”

All the dust of the earth means wherever there was loose soil in Egypt, and throughout all
the land of Egypt means that no part of the country escaped this plague.

8.18

The magicians are first mentioned in 7.11 and again in 7.22, , and 9.11. According to 7.11
both the wise men of Egypt and the sorcerers were considered magicians and were able to
perform acts of “magic,” or secret arts.
 Tried … to bring forth is an interpretation of the Hebrew, which literally says “they did
thus by their sorcery to bring forth gnats.” The last part of the sentence, of course, tells us they
were not able to produce any more gnats. So the first part may mean several things: 1) that
they imitated Aaron’s gesture and also struck the ground with their rods; 2) that they simply
went through some of their own secret rituals; or 3) that they did both at the same time,
striking the ground with their rods while saying some of their secret words.

Neither RSV nor TEV allow for this third possibility. Instead they seem to identify the word
“thus” with the word for “by their sorcery.” It is quite possible, however, that option 3) is
intended. One may therefore translate “The magicians did the same thing, and tried to make
gnats appear by means of their magic, but they failed.” (So NAB, NJB, and TOT.) For some
readers the meaning of “did the same thing” may be unclear. Therefore one may also translate
“The magicians struck the ground with their rods and used their secret powers to try to make
gnats appear.”

So there were gnats on man and beast describes the extent of the plague, but it does not
indicate whether the gnats flew or crawled on them, or whether they stung them. The
intended meaning, though, is simply to emphasize that “there were gnats everywhere” (8.18
TEV). But 8.18 TEV fails to bring out the idea that “both humans and animals” (8.18 NRSV) were
attacked. 8.18 CEV makes this clear by saying “and gnats stayed on people and animals.”

8.19

And may be rendered as “Then” (NASB, TOT) or “So” (JB, NJB), or it may continue the
sentence from the preceding verse (8.19 TEV). It may also be omitted for stylistic reasons (NEB,
8.19 NIV, CEV). The magicians were probably with the Pharaoh at the time, and it is entirely
possible that Moses and Aaron were also present.

This is the finger of God is a literal translation. The expression finger of God, however, is
usually understood to mean the power of God in the same way that “hand of God” is often
used (for example, 3.20; 7.4; 9.5). This type of figure of speech is known as “synecdoche,”
meaning that a part represents the whole, a finger or hand here representing the full power or
the full person. And so this may be translated dynamically as “This is the power of God,” “This
is an act of God,” “God has done this” (8.19 TEV), or “God has shown his power by doing this.”

There are other possible meanings, however, that the translator should be aware of.
Couroyer has argued that since this is spoken by the Egyptian magicians, the words should be
understood according to their thought patterns in the cultural setting of Egypt. Since this is the
fourth time they have seen what Aaron could do with his rod, they may actually have
compared his rod to the finger of his God.

Other scholars have pointed out that the word ’elohim (God) often means “gods,” since
the Hebrew form is plural, or even “a god.” It should be noted that the magicians do not here
recognize the power of Yahweh (the Lord) but only the power of a deity who is not named. For
this reason Durham insists on translating “This is an act of a god.”
 The expression may either be translated literally, with a footnote explaining the meaning
as “the power of God” or “an act of a god,” or it may be translated dynamically, with a
footnote that gives the literal meaning, “the finger of God” or “the finger of a god.”

But Pharaoh’s heart was hardened means that “the king was stubborn” (8.19 TEV). The
word for hardened here means “strong.” (See the comment at 4.21.) Some translations add
the idea that his heart “remained” hard (NEB, TOT). This is a possible interpretation, for the verb
is neither passive nor reflexive in form. Literally “Pharaoh’s heart was strong,” or “was hard”
(NIV, LB). There is no suggestion that his heart had softened and then became hard again.

And he would not listen to them is the same statement found in 7.13, 22; 8.15. In the
context of this third plague, however, it probably refers to what the magicians had just said
rather than to something Moses and Aaron had said. 8.19 TEV again identifies them as “Moses
and Aaron,” but there is no indication that either of them had said anything to the king this
time. TOT says that he “disregarded what they said,” and Durham translates “he would pay no
attention to them.” One may therefore translate “he paid no attention to what the magicians
said.” However, it is also possible to keep a more neutral rendering: “the king was too
stubborn to listen” (8.19 CEV).

As the Lord had said means “as the Lord had foretold” (NEB, NJB, TOT), for this is what
Yahweh had predicted from the start. (See 7.13 and the comment.)

(4) Flies (8.20–32) [8.16–28]

The fourth plague begins the second of three groups of three plagues each, and we are
given a more extensive account than that of the third plague. Five out of the six basic parts of
the underlying plague pattern are found in these verses, with a sixth part clearly implied.

a) The Lord informs Moses 8.20–23

b) Moses warns Pharaoh (implied in verse 20)

c) The plague occurs 8.24

d) Pharaoh asks relief 8.25–29

e) The plague is removed 8.30–31

f) Pharaoh hardens his heart 8.32

This time, as the Pharaoh begs relief from the flies, we have an interesting example of
clever negotiation on both sides (verses 25–29). The king agrees to let the people go, but
under certain conditions. Moses, however, refuses to compromise from his original demand by
countering each condition. The translator should be sensitive to all these details and realize
that they were intended to delight the Israelite audience as they listened to these stories again
and again in their worship.

LB LIVING BIBLE
 Section Heading: other possible headings are “The Lord sends swarms of flies,” “Swarms
of flies bother the Egyptians,” or “Flies cover Egypt but spare Goshen.”

8.20

Then is the usual conjunction waw, but it introduces a new section and a new plague here.
Again the text does not indicate how much time had passed since the third plague. The Lord
said to Moses does not include Aaron, who only appears again in verse 25. Rise up early in the
morning is more specific than the command in 7.15, but the identical command is found again
in . The word for morning is not specific, but the command to rise up early in order to meet
the Pharaoh suggests that daybreak is intended. In some languages this will be expressed as
“Just after the sun rises tomorrow morning you must go and meet … .”

And wait for Pharaoh is literally “position yourself before Pharaoh.” This suggests that
Moses is to “stand in Pharaoh’s path” (NEB), or “wait for Pharaoh” (JB), as he goes out to the
water. The water refers to the Nile River, which was probably not far from the palace. Why the
king would go to the river early is not known, but we may assume he did this regularly.
Perhaps he went there to bathe as the princess had done in 2.5. (See also 7.15.)

And say to him introduces a quote within a quote. The Lord is now telling Moses what he
must say to the Pharaoh. Thus says the Lord is the beginning of Moses’ words to “the king,”
and this messenger formula introduces a quote within a quote within a quote. 8.20 TEV again
changes to indirect discourse in order to avoid a third level quote: “tell him that the Lord says.”
It is important to remember that the Lord represents the personal name yhwh (Yahweh)
whenever Moses addresses the Pharaoh. In languages that prefer direct speech, one may
render this as “Yahweh commands you, ‘Let my people go.’ ”

Let my people go is the same formula of demand used eight times in Exodus, usually in
connection with the messenger formula. Literally it is “Send out my people.” (See the
discussion at 7.16.) That they may serve me means “so that they may worship me” (8.20
NRSV), that is, worship God. This implies performing the proper ceremonies of worship (as
discussed at 4.22–23a).

8.21

Else introduces a conditional clause that here serves as a warning. This is further
emphasized by the word behold at the end of the clause. 8.21 TEV combines behold with else
and begins “I warn you that if … .” If you will not let my people go repeats the same words as
in verse 20 with the negative. The context is clear enough that this may seem unnecessary or
unnatural in translation in many languages. However, if it is natural style in a receptor
language, translators should keep it. 8.21 TEV condenses to “if you refuse,” and 8.21 CEV has “If
you don’t.”

I will send swarms of flies on you is the official announcement of the fourth plague, but
this is still a part of Yahweh’s words to Moses. The I, of course, is Yahweh, the Lord, and the
you is singular, referring to the Pharaoh. Again there may be an intentional play on the word
send, which is the same word used in let my people go. (See verse 20 and the discussion at
7.16.)

Swarms of flies translates just one word in the Hebrew, which seems to be a generic term
for “insects.” The word is a collective noun that comes from the verb “to mix,” so the idea of
swarms is suggested. Most translations identify the insects as flies because of the early
interpretation of “dog-flies” in the ancient Greek translation, the Septuagint. So JB has
“gadflies” and NJB has “horseflies.” (Durham translates this term as “a mixed swarm of flying
insects.”) They were probably large flies that could leave a painful bite on animals as well as on
humans. Flies should present no problem for translators, as such large biting insects are
common almost everywhere in the world. However, in cases where biting flies are unknown,
one may translate, for example, “a swarm of flying insects that bite.”

On you is singular, meaning on the king himself. And your servants means “your officials”
(8.21 NRSV, 8.21 TEV, CEV), or “your courtiers” (NEB, TAN), or “the members of your court”
(Durham). Your people means the king’s subjects, the Egyptians themselves. And into your
houses would refer to all the buildings in the palace complex, for the your is still singular.

And the houses of the Egyptians begins a new clause, this time including all the Egyptian
houses throughout the country. Shall be filled with swarms of flies is certainly a slight
exaggeration, but the idea is clear; there would be no place where the Egyptians could escape
from these terrible insects. An alternative translation model is to combine the phrase and into
your houses and the clause and the houses of the Egyptians shall be filled, and translate
“Houses all over Egypt will be full … .”

And also the ground probably includes all of the out-of-doors, although the following
phrase is ambiguous. On which they stand is literally “where they [are] upon it.” The word
they may refer either to where their houses are built or to wherever the people may go. The
ambiguity is certainly not intentional, so we should follow either 8.21 TEV, “and the ground will
be covered with them,” or 8.21 NRSV, “so also the land where they live,” or one may say “they
will cover the ground everywhere.”

8.22

But on that day refers to the day when this fourth plague will occur. According to verse 23,
which is still part of the words Moses is to speak to the king, it will occur “tomorrow.” That
means the day following Moses’ actual meeting with him. And according to verse 20 that
meeting is to take place the morning following the Lord’s instructions to Moses. Translated
literally these words suggest some other event far in the future. For this reason 8.22 TEV omits
them entirely, since they are not necessary. But they may be translated as in TOT, “When this
happens,” or even “When the swarms of flies come.”

I will set apart the land of Goshen means that the Lord will “spare the region of Goshen”
(8.22 TEV) from the plague of flies. Goshen was not a different country but was a part of Egypt.
It was the fertile area where Jacob and his sons had first settled (Gen 47.6). Evidently the
Israelites still lived there, for it was where my people dwell, meaning the Lord’s people. Set
apart means literally “to treat differently.” So one may translate “I will treat the land of
Goshen differently” or “I will make an exception of Goshen” (NEB). However, one may
restructure the first part of this verse as “When the swarms of flies come, they will not bother
the Lord’s [or, Yahweh’s] people in the region of Goshen.”

So that no swarms of flies shall be there describes how the Lord will “spare” (8.22 TEV)
that part of Egypt. In other words, the Lord will prevent the flies from invading the area where
his people were living. The purpose for this “distinc tion” (8.22 TEV verse 23) is in order that
you may know. You is singular, referring to the Pharaoh himself. That you may know means
“so that you will find out, or recognize, who I am.” This statement refers back to the initial
question of the Pharaoh in 5.2, “Who is the Lord?” (See 5.2; 7.5, 17, and comments.)

That I am the Lord is the same self-introductory formula used in 6.2. In this context,
however, it does not stand alone. The verb “to be” (am) is not in the Hebrew, so it must be
supplied in translation. This is why some translations preserve the form “I am the Lord” and
simply continue with in the midst of the earth. 8.22 NRSV has now changed to “I the Lord am in
this land.” Either interpretation is possible, although the latter is more likely and is
recommended for translators.

In the midst of the earth is quite literal. 8.22 NRSV now has “in this land,” which is an
improvement. The same Hebrew word may mean earth, ground, country, or land. The
meaning of this entire clause is, as 8.22 TEV puts it, “so that you will know that I, the Lord, am
at work in this land.” TOT expresses it clearly: “This will prove to you that I, the Lord, am here in
Egypt.” 8.22 CEV has “That’s how you will know that the Lord is here in Egypt.”

8.23

Thus translates the conjunction waw. If such a connecting word is needed here (8.23 TEV
and others omit it), one may translate “In this way.” I will make a division follows the
Septuagint rather than the Hebrew. Most translations follow the Greek because it is difficult to
make sense from the Hebrew, which reads “I will place redemption.” By changing just one
letter in the Hebrew word, as the Greek suggests, “redemption” becomes “distinction.” (See
9.4, where this different Hebrew word is used.) Translators following this reading should add a
footnote to show this change, as both 8.23 RSV and 8.23 TEV have done. HOTTP, it should be
noted, defends the Hebrew reading by suggesting a rather awkward translation: “and I shall
posit an act of deliverance between my people and your people.” FRCL seems to follow this
with “I will preserve my people from the misfortune that will strike your country.” (Similarly
GECL, “I will keep my people free from the insects with which your people will be plagued.”)
Transla tors may choose between these two interpretations. See the alternative translation
model below, which follows the interpretation taken by 8.23 RSV and 8.23 TEV.

Between my people and your people means, of course, between the Lord’s people and
the king’s people, or between the Israelites and the Egyptians. These are still the words of the
Lord, which will be announced to the Pharaoh. It is possible to place the first sentence of this
verse after verse 22a and combine the two verses as follows:

HOTTP HEBREW OLD TESTAMENT TEXT PROJECT

• 22–23 When the swarms of flies come, I will make a distinction between your people and my
people; the flies will not bother my people in the region of Goshen, but they will torment your
people. This miracle will happen tomorrow.

By tomorrow means that the plague “will happen tomorrow,” or “will take place
tomorrow” (8.23 TEV). The king will thus have twenty-four hours to think about this warning,
from the time Moses will speak to him until the Lord sends the “swarms of flies.” Shall this
sign be uses the same word used in 3.12. Here as there it means a special act, or event, or
other demonstration of God’s presence. In this case it refers to the plague of flies as a
“miracle” or supernatural proof of the Lord’s action. (See the comment on “wonders” at 3.20.)

It is important to note that this verse concludes the quote within a quote within a quote.
RSV carefully marks this with double, single, and double quotation marks.

8.24

And the Lord did so refers to what the Lord actually did two days after Moses received his
instructions (verses 20–23). We must assume that Moses actually confronted the king the
following day (verse 20), but this is only implied. In some languages and cultures it may be
necessary to make it explicit. One may expand this phrase and say “The Lord did exactly what
Moses told the king he would do.” Or one may have to add, either here or at the end of verse
23, these words: “Moses warned the king that the Lord would send a plague of flies.”

There came great swarms of flies now describes exactly what happened. The word
translated “great” literally means “heavy.” So various translations have “dense” (NEB, NIV),
“thick” (NAB), “heavy” (TAN), “vast” (TOT), or even “grievous swarms of flies” (ASV). The verb
came may be made more descriptive with words such as “invaded” (TAN), “infested” (NEB), or
“poured into” (8.24 NIV).

In the Hebrew text swarms is the subject of the verb came, but 8.24 TEV has “The Lord sent
great swarms of flies.” A footnote in 8.24 TEV would have been helpful to show that this is
based on a few ancient versions, which have “he brought swarms.” But 8.24 TEV also omits the
opening words, and the Lord did so, which are not needed with this different reading. If the
translation follows the example of 8.24 TEV, however, a footnote should be added. Another
solution is to add the words “as he said he would” and translate “The Lord sent great swarms
of flies as he said he would” or “… as he had promised.”

Into the house of Pharaoh means “into the king’s palace” (8.24 TEV). Into his servants
houses means “into the mansions of the members of his court” (Durham). In all the land of
Egypt may be shortened to “in all of Egypt” (8.24 NRSV), since it is used again in the clause the
land was ruined by reason of the flies. The verb ruined is imperfect in form, so it may be
understood in the sense of incomplete action. NEB has “the land was threatened with ruin,”
and TOT has “the land was being ruined.” But most translations take it as completed action,
“The whole land of Egypt was brought to ruin by the flies” (8.24 TEV). In languages that do not
have the passive voice, one may say, for example, “And the flies devastated [or, ruined] the
whole land of Egypt.”

8.25
 Then is the conjunction waw, which should be understood as placing the time of this verse
during the worst part of the plague, not after the plague was over. Verse 29 indicates that the
flies continued for another day. Pharaoh called Moses and Aaron is literally “he called to,” but
it means “the king called for Moses and Aaron” (8.25 TEV). One may say “he caused to be
brought,” or “he caused his servants [or, them] to bring Moses and Aaron.” And said may need
to be expanded to “and said to them” (NEB, NAB, TOT), for this introduces what the Pharaoh said
to Moses and Aaron.

Go and sacrifice are in the second person plural. Sacrifice to your God may mean either
“offer a sacrifice” (singular) or “offer sacrifices to your God” (8.25 TEV). This word is often used
to describe the act of worship without indicating what kind of animal is killed. If necessary one
may say “sacrifice an animal to your God.” (See 3.18b and comments.) Within the land means
“here in Egypt” (TOT), or “here in this country” (8.25 TEV). The king, of course, was anxious to
prevent the Israelites from leaving Egypt. CEV’s rendering clearly brings out this reluctance: “Go
sacrifice to your God, but stay here in Egypt.”

8.26

But Moses said uses the conjunction waw, which here shows that Moses is bargaining
with the king. It would not be right to do so means it is not legitimate or proper. NJB has “That
would never do,” NEB has “That we cannot do,” and 8.26 CEV has “That’s impossible!” For, or
“because” (8.26 TEV), introduces the reason this would not be right.

We shall sacrifice … abominable to the Egyptians is a difficult sentence. Literally the

Hebrew says “we sacrifice the abomination of the Egyptians.” The word “abomination” means
“something detestable or offensive.” It is not clear whether it was the kind of animal or the act
of sacrificing that was abominable. NEB understands it to be the animal and translates “the
victim we shall sacrifice … is an abomination to the Egyptians.” But since the Egyptians
worshiped bulls and rams, we may assume that “the abomination of the Egyptians” would not
refer to the animals themselves but to the act of sacrificing sacred animals. Abominable to the
Egyptians may also be expressed as “that disgust the Egyptians” or “that the Egyptians hate.”

For this reason TEV suggests it was not the sacrifices but “our sacrificing” that was
abominable. And it was not simply the act of sacrificing, but it was “sacrificing the animals that
we offer” (8.26 TEV). In other words, what was offensive to the Egyptians was the act of
sacrificing a kind of animal they believed should not be sacrificed. TAN has “what we sacrifice …
is untouchable to the Egyp tians.” And JB has “We sacrifice … animals which Egyptians count it
sacrilege to slaughter.” 8.26 TEV uses the subjunctive “would be” rather than “will be,” because
the Israelites had evidently not yet worshiped the Lord in this way. Moses assumes that “the
Egyptians would be offended” because of “the animals that we offer” (8.26 TEV). 8.26 CEV says
“Any sacrifices we offer to the Lord our God would disgust the Egyptians.”

Therefore if we sacrifice introduces a situation that Moses wants to avoid. Before their
eyes suggests that there was no place within Egypt where they could do this without the
people seeing them. This is Moses’ main argument in rejecting the king’s offer to let them
sacrifice within the boundaries of Egypt.
 Offerings abominable to the Egyptians, as explained above, probably refers to animals
that the people of Egypt thought should not be killed in this way. Will they not stone us is
therefore a rhetorical question, and the answer to a rhetorical question must always be
obvious. Stone us here means more than just throwing stones; it was a means of execution. So
the question may be changed to a clear prediction, “they will stone us to death” (8.26 TEV), or
one may say “they will throw stones at us to kill us.”

8.27

We must go is literally “we will go,” but Moses is demanding what must be. Three days’
journey means walking “a distance of three days” (TAN), one-way. Into the wilderness would
have been understood by the king as moving eastward beyond the populated area of Egypt. It
should be noted that these same words appear in 3.18 and 5.3 in the form of a request, but
here they express a demand.

And sacrifice to the Lord means to “offer sacrifices” to Yahweh (as in verse 26). To the
Lord our God, of course, will use the exclusive form of our, for Yahweh was not the Pharaoh’s
God. As he will command us means “just as he is telling us” (Durham). 8.27 NRSV has “as he
commands us.” The tense of the verb, however, is not clearly indicated, although the
command has already been given. 8.27 TEV’s “just as he commanded us” does not allow for
future instruction. TOT does allow for this: “and then offer to the Lord our God whatever
sacrifices he may demand.” It is possible to restructure this verse, putting the final sentence
first: “Yahweh our [exclusive] God has ordered us to walk three days into the wilderness to
sacrifice to him whatever animals he demands. That’s what we must do.”

8.28

So Pharaoh said begins with the usual conjunction waw, which here should show that the
king is willing to negotiate. Moses has made his point. NAB marks this transition within the
reply of the Pharaoh: “Well, then,” said Pharaoh, “I will let you go … .” I will let you go must be
understood as a conditional agreement, for he adds only you shall not go very far away. 8.28
NRSV says it better: “provided you do not go very far away.” The you is plural, referring to all
the Israelites. To sacrifice to the Lord your God repeats the words of verses 25–27.

Only introduces a condition for the Israelites, namely, that they do not go very far away.
Literally the Hebrew says “being far you shall not be far to go.” This is an emphatic way of
saying “you must not go very far” (8.28 NIV). No mention is made of Moses’ demand for a
“three-days’ journey,” which may have been farther than the king intended.

Make entreaty for me is in the “you plural” form but is probably addressed only to Moses
and Aaron, not to all the Israelites. The word for make entreaty carries the meaning of “plead”
or “intercede” (NEB, JB), and such a translation is probably more accurate than “Pray for me”
(8.28 TEV). Another way of expressing this is “Please entreat Yahweh for me.” As the following
verse explains, “the king” is requesting them to ask their God to remove the plague of flies.
NAB treats this as a second condition and connects it also with the word only: “provided that
you do not go too far away and that you pray for me.” In the Hebrew, however, Make entreaty
is imperative in form, so this request should not be understood as a second condition.
8.29

Then Moses said introduces the direct reply of Moses to the Pharaoh’s proposal in verse
28. Behold is omitted by many translations, but its influence may be expressed along with the
words that follow, I am going out from you. The idea intended is “The moment I leave you”
(NJB). So 8.29 NRSV has “As soon as I leave you.” And I will pray to the Lord uses the same word
as verse 28, so Moses agrees to pray to Yahweh.

It should be noted, however, that Moses does not add here the words “for you” as in verse
5. And the subject of the prayer will not be that the Pharaoh will have a change of heart.
Rather Moses will ask Yahweh that the swarms of flies may depart. The word that is really the
conjunction waw, so it is possible to translate as Durham does: “I am going straight out from
your presence to pray to Yahweh, and the swarm of flying insects will leave.” This suggests
that Moses has no doubt that the plague will be removed when he prays to Yahweh.

From Pharaoh seems a bit awkward, since Moses is speaking to the king. We should
assume that this was a polite custom in the court of a king, to address the king in the form of
the third person (as in 2 Sam 14.12). One may translate “from the king,” or simply change to
the pronoun “you” and say “leave you” (8.29 TEV). From his servants, and from his people may
also be changed to second person singular, “your officials, and your people” (8.29 TEV). This of
course refers to the members of the kings’ court and to all the Egyptians.

Tomorrow refers to when “the flies will leave” (8.29 TEV), not to when Moses will pray.
Moses is so confident that Yahweh will hear his prayer that he even sets the time for the
answer to take place. The word for tomorrow does not indicate any special time of day, so
NJB’s “tomorrow morning” may be too specific.

Only is the same word used by the Pharaoh in verse 28. This introduces a condition and a
warning that Moses now gives to the king. NAB uses “however,” and other translations simply
start the sentence with “But.” Let not Pharaoh is still a part of Moses’ reply to the king. The
meaning is “you must not.” Deal falsely again refers to the way the Pharaoh has previously
changed his mind about letting the people go. Literally the Hebrew says “Only let not Pharaoh
add to deceit.” This means “you must not deceive us again.” 8.29 CEV has a good model: “Only
make sure that you’re telling the truth this time.” One may also express this as “… that you are
not lying this time … .”

By not letting the people go means to “prevent the people from going” (8.29 TEV), or
refusing to let them leave Egypt. To sacrifice to the Lord means “to offer sacrifices to the Lord”
(8.29 NIV), as explained in verses 26–28.

8.30

So Moses went out from Pharaoh marks the end of this encounter. The verb went out
suggests that the meeting took place inside the palace. Nothing is said here about Aaron, even
though verse 25 says that he too was called to the palace. There is no textual basis, therefore,
for adding Aaron’s name. 8.30 TEV simply says “Moses left the king.”
114

And prayed to the Lord means, of course, he prayed to Yahweh. What he prayed about is
implied by the surrounding verses. It should not be necessary to add anything more.

8.31

And the Lord did as Moses asked is a “preview” statement that summarizes what follows.
(See the brief discussion on “preview” and “superscription” at 3.2a.) As Moses asked is literally
“as Moses said,” so 8.31 NRSV adds a colon to show what it was that Moses had said in his
prayer: “And the Lord did as Moses asked: he removed … .” It is also possible to say “and the
Lord answered his people” (similarly TAN and NIV). It should be remembered, however, that
punctuation marks are not read aloud. Therefore it may be possible to show this in other ways.
The following clause should not suggest that Yahweh did something else in addition to what
Moses asked.

And removed the swarms of flies may also be read as “The flies left” (TEV, NIV; similarly JB,
NJB). However, since this clause explains what the first clause summarizes, it may be better to
retain the Lord as the subject of the verb he removed in its causative form, which is literally
“he caused to go away the swarms of flies.” (So NEB, NAB, TAN, and others.) This avoids the
possible misunderstanding that “the flies left” of their own free will. So one may translate the
first part of this verse as “and the Lord answered his prayer, and caused the flies to leave the
king … .”

From Pharaoh, … people only repeats the same words used in verse 29. Not one remained
should be understood as “not one fly remained” (8.31 TEV), rather than “not one swarm
remained.” The removal of the plague was complete.

8.32

114Osborn, N. D., & Hatton, H. (1999). A handbook on Exodus. UBS handbook series; Helps for
translators (162). New York: United Bible Societies.

NRSV New Revised Standard Version

TAN TANAKH (NEW JEWISH VERSION)

NIV NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION

TEV Today’s English Version

JB JERUSALEM BIBLE

NJB NEW JERUSALEM BIBLE

NEB NEW ENGLISH BIBLE

NAB NEW AMERICAN BIBLE

 But Pharaoh hardened his heart is literally “he caused his heart to be heavy.” It means
that “the king became stubborn” (8.32 TEV). This time also may be translated as “even this
time” or “once again” (NEB). This is the eighth time in the book that the king’s stubbornness is
described in terms of a hard heart, but it only the second time that he is said to have hardened
his own heart. (Compare verse 15, and see the comment at 4.21.)

And did not let the people go repeats the same words used in previous references to the
Pharaoh’s hard heart. His refusal to let the Israelites go away from Egypt, even for the purpose
of offering sacrifices to Yahweh, is always explained as the result of his hard heart.

(5) Animal Disease (9.1–7)

The account of the plague of animal disease is similar in form to that of the plague of gnats
in 8.16–19. The story is told in only seven verses, and only three parts of the underlying six-
part pattern are present. But they are the same three parts as in the third plague, namely,
parts (a), (c), and (f). (This pattern is discussed on page 162.) Part (b) is implied, and parts (d)
and (e) seem to be unnecessary in this case.

(a) The Lord informs Moses about the (9.1–5)

plague

(b) Moses warns the Pharaoh (Implied)

(c) The plague occurs (9.6)

(d) Pharaoh asks Moses to remove the (Unnecessary)

plague

(e) The plague is removed (Unnecessary)

(f) The Pharaoh’s heart is “hardened” (9.7)

again

We may assume that Moses did warn the Pharaoh about this fifth plague (b), for verse 1
makes it clear that this is what the Lord told him to do. And parts (d) and (e) are unnecessary in
this case, for the plague was over with the death of all the Egyptian livestock. There was
therefore no need for the Pharaoh to ask that the plague be removed. (But the reference to
“all the animals” in verse 6 is probably an exaggeration, as explained below.)

As in the account of the fourth plague, the distinction between the Egyptians and the
Israelites is again emphasized. (See 8.22–23.) The Israelites themselves had been spared from
the plague of flies, and now their animals are spared from the fatal disease. The only new
feature of this plague, therefore, is that the king asked about the livestock of the Israelites.
Even so, he remained stubborn and would not let them go.

Section Heading: 8.32 TEV has the section heading “Death of the animals” while this
Handbook has “Animal disease.” Alternative headings are “The Lord kills all the animals of the
Egyptians,” “All the animals of the Egyptians die,” or “A terrible disease strikes the animals of
the Egyptians.”

9.1

Then represents the conjunction waw. 9.1 TEV omits this, but some transitional marker
may be needed at the beginning of a new section. However, since this is the beginning of a
new chapter, many readers will assume that the narrative has a more important division here
than, for example, between 8.19 and 8.20; this is not true. Therefore it will be helpful to link
this text with the previous chapter; for example, “When the flies had gone, the Lord said, … .”

Go in to Pharaoh uses a verb that means “to enter,” suggesting that the meeting with the
king was to be inside the palace. This same expression is used for the second plague (8.1) and
the eighth plague (10.1), as 9.1 RSV and NEB indicate. Another way of expressing this is “Go into
the palace and tell the king.” In each case the singular imperative form is used, indicating that
the command is spoken only to Moses, with no mention of Aaron. And say to him introduces a
quote (second level) within a quote (first level). Note that 9.1 TEV changes this to indirect
speech, to avoid using more than two embedded quotes. 9.1 CEV eliminates the quote before
Go in to Pharaoh and translates “The Lord sent Moses with this message: … .” According to the
six-part pattern, this adjustment makes part (a) implicit and part (b) explicit, which is just the
reverse of the Hebrew text. Even so, this is another possible model for those translators who
can use indirect speech.

Thus says the Lord is the messenger formula discussed at 4.22. It introduces yet another
quote, Let my people go. This becomes a quote (third level) within a quote (second level)
within a quote (first level). If the direct speech is retained in translation, it must be clear that
these are the exact words of the Lord that Moses is to announce to the Pharaoh. This is the
demand formula discussed at 4.22–23a. (The problem of where this third level quote ends is
discussed below at 9.2–3.)

The God of the Hebrews is an addition to the messenger formula, to emphasize who the
Lord, Yahweh, really is. He is God (’elohim) of the Hebrews. The Yahwist tradition (“J”) uses
the word Hebrews (see also 9.13 and 10.3), while the Elohist tradition (“E”) uses “Israel” (see
5.1 and 32.27). In this case there is no difference in meaning between Hebrews and “Israel,”
for the same God is intended. In languages that do not favor apposition, the Lord, the God …
may be expressed as “Yahweh, who is God … .” That they may serve me gives the reason for
the demand. It means “so that they may worship me” (9.1 TEV). (See the discussion on “serve”
at 4.23a.) This is the usual form of the demand formula, and it is found again in 7.16; 8.1, 20;
9.13; and 10.3.

An alternative translation model for this verse, using a colon instead of quotation marks,
is:

RSV Revised Standard Version

CEV Contemporary English Version

• Then the Lord sent Moses with the following message for the king of Egypt: “Yahweh, who is
the God of the Hebrews, commands you to let his people go so that they can worship him.

9.2–3

These are still the words that Yahweh commands Moses to speak to the Pharaoh. But it is
not clear whether they are still meant to be Yahweh’s direct words to him or simply Moses’
words. Both RSV and TEV show these verses as a continuation of the third level quote, that is, as
the exact words of Yahweh that Moses is to announce to the Pharaoh. Other translations,
however, close the third level quote at the end of verse 1, so that verse 2 returns to the
second level. (So NEB, NIV, and TOT.) Still others are almost as ambiguous as the Hebrew text,
which has no quotation marks at all. It should be noted that TEV still identifies three quote
levels by using indirect speech for the second level. CEV, however, only implies the first level
quote and identifies the second level by format only (without quotation marks); the third level
is shown by indirect speech.

In many languages the use of quotation marks to show embedded quotes will be more
confusing than helpful, and in such cases they should not be used. However, it is still necessary
for the translator first to identify at every quotation level who it is who is speaking and to
whom the words are directed. This is information that should be made clear to the intended
readers, but it should be presented according to what is commonly done in their language.
Before translating verse 2, therefore, translators should study the different models suggested
for verses 1–4 in the discussion at verse 4 below.

If the RSV option is followed, showing verses 1b–4 as Yahweh’s words to Pharaoh (third
level quote), it may sound strange in the translation for Yahweh to refer to himself as the Lord
in direct speech. But this is not unusual in the Hebrew text, as verse 5 indicates. For this reason
9.3 TEV changes the third person to first person (“I will punish” in verse 2, and “I will make a
distinction” in verse 4). Some scholars, however, see this as an indication that verses 2–4 are
intended to be Moses’ words to Pharaoh (second level quote), as dictated by Yahweh. It may
be easier to follow the NEB option, which requires no adjustment, and close the third level
quote at the end of verse 1. If translators decide that it is now Moses who is speaking at the
beginning of verse 2, it will be necessary to signal this clearly in some way, especially for those
people who will be hearing the text read aloud. The following are two examples:

• 1 … so that they may worship me.’ That’s what Yahweh says. 2 I [Moses] tell you, if you refuse
… .”

• 1 … so that they may worship me.’ 2 I, Moses, warn you, if you refuse … .”

For if represents two words in the Hebrew. For means “Because” and serves as a
connective with verse 1. Together the two words form an emphatic “If.” If you refuse to let
them go is literally “For if you refuse to send out.” The pronoun them is only implied, but it
refers to the Israelites. And still hold them is not found in 9.3 TEV, but the word still is
translated as “again.” Another way to express this is “If you keep on refusing to release them.”

TOT TRANSLATOR’S OLD TESTAMENT

 Behold is a word to draw attention to what follows. 9.3 TEV usually omits it, but NAB
translates it here as “I warn you.” The hand of the Lord is figurative language for the power of
Yahweh that will come as another plague. Will fall is literally “it is on,” or “it will be against.”
9.3 NRSV has “will strike,” and 9.3 TEV interprets this as “will punish.” The object of the
preposition upon is your cattle, a term that seems to be preferred in this story and in the story
of the hailstorm (see 9.19–21). It is a broad term that sometimes means “possessions” or
“property,” but it usually refers to “animals.” Here it is defined more specifically as cattle
which are in the field and refers in general to all the domesticated “animals” named in the
following list. Your is singular, referring to the Pharaoh, and is used only with the first word,
cattle, or “livestock” (9.3 NRSV). But all the other “animals” of Egypt are included, as the
following list suggests. 9.3 TEV’s “all your animals” is a helpful model.

With a very severe plague is three words in the Hebrew that are placed at the end of the
verse for emphasis, “plague heavy very!” The word for plague refers to a disease that is usually
fatal. 9.3 KJV translates it here as “murrain” to identify it as a contagious animal disease, but
the same word is used in 5.3 and 9.15 in reference to a human disease, or “pestilence.” 9.3 TEV
and 9.3 CEV simply call it “a terrible disease.”

Horses and asses are different animals. In Egypt the horse was a symbol of power and
wealth and was used mainly in war. The ass, or “donkey,” is smaller than the horse, with
shorter legs and longer ears. It was the beast of burden used for carrying cargo and for
agriculture work. (For “donkey” see also “ass” and the comment at 4.20.) Both the horse and
the ass were used for transportation, but the ass was the common work animal. In cultures
where horses and donkeys are unknown, it will be helpful to include illustrations of these
animals. (See FFB, pages 5–7, 43–45.)

Camels in Egypt and in most biblical references were the Arabian kind with just one hump,
not the long-haired two-humped Bactrian variety found farther north. Again it will be helpful
to include an illustration of a one-humped camel. The herds were the domesticated cattle
used for work, as well as for milk, food, and clothing. They are here distinguished from the
flocks, which included the smaller animals, particularly the “sheep” and the “goats.” In some
languages one will need to translate herds or “cattle” as “the cows and oxen,” while in cultures
where cattle are unknown, one may employ a descriptive phrase such as “large work animals
named ‘cow.’ ” It will also be helpful to include illustrations of these animals. (See the
discussion on “borrowed vocabulary” in “Translating Exodus,” page 3.) In languages where
none of these animals are known, one may say something like “I will punish you by sending a
terrible disease on all the animals that you use for food or to help you work.” (For further
discussion on herds or “cattle,” see FFB, pages 75–76; and for “goats,” see pages 36–38.)

9.4

KJV KING JAMES VERSION

FFB FAUNA AND FLORA OF THE BIBLE

 But is the common conjunction waw, which here introduces a contrasting statement.
Durham has “Yet,” while 9.4 TEV and others omit it entirely. 9.4 TEV changes the third person
(the Lord) to first person (“I”) since it seems that Yahweh is still speaking. (But seee.)

Will make a distinction between is literally “I will cause to be treated differently.” (The
Hebrew uses a different word at 8.23.) NAB has “will distinguish between,” and NJB has “will
discriminate between.” The idea is that Yahweh will treat the cattle of Israel differently from
the cattle of Egypt. The word cattle is a generic word for all domesticated animals and does
not necessarily imply that the Israelites had the same kind of animals as the Egyptians. This
sentence may also be expressed as “I will treat the animals of the Israelites differently from
those of the Egyptians.”

So that nothing translates the Hebrew conjunction waw with the negative marker (“and
not”). 9.4 TEV translates “and no animal.” Nothing shall die, of course, refers to “the animals of
the Israelites,” but it also implies that the Egyptian animals will indeed die from the disease
(verse 3). Of all that belongs simply emphasizes the distinction that will be made. NEB
expresses this emphasis with “not a single one will die.” The people of Israel, literally “the sons
of Israel,” is usually rendered as “the Israelites” (9.4 NRSV, NJB, NIV).

Translation models showing five different ways to handle the embedded quotations are
given below. It should be clear that all of verses 1–4 are Yahweh’s words at the first quote
level. It should also be clear that the messenger formula in verse 1 introduces the third quote
level, meaning that what follows are the exact words that Moses is to repeat to the king, word-
for-word. Verse 5, of course, also contains Yahweh’s words, but it is separated in the Hebrew
from the complexity of verses 1–4. (See the comment at verse 9.5.)

Model (1) shows that the third level quote—that is, the exact words of Yahweh that Moses
is to repeat (word-for-word) to the king—continues from verse 1 through verse 4. This option
is represented by RSV.

Model (2) changes what is the second level (“Thus says the Lord …”) into indirect speech
(“that Yahweh, the God of the Hebrews, says …”). As a result the exact words of Yahweh to the
king (through Moses), which were at level 3, are now placed at level 2. This option is
represented by TEV, which continues these words from verse 1 through verse 5. (See further
comment at verse 9.5.)

Model (3) limits the third quote level to verse 1, while verses 2–4 are at the second level.
This represents what Yahweh wants Moses to say to the king, but not necessarily word-for-
word (that is, within the messenger formula). This option is represented by NEB.

Model (4), represented by TOT, is the same as option 3, except that the second quote level
continues through verse 5. (See further comment at verse 9.5.)

Finally, model (5) assumes that Yahweh had already spoken all these words to Moses, and
that Moses is already repeating them to the king. (This is only implied in the Hebrew text,
which makes explicit what Yahweh first says to Moses.) And by using the colon (:) before the
exact message to the king, and by changing the demand formula at the third quote level to
indirect speech, the second quote level can be shown by using only one set of quotation
marks. This option is suggested by CEV.

(1) 1 The Lord said to Moses, “Go to the palace and tell the king, ‘Yahweh, the God of
the Hebrews says, “Release my people so that they may worship me. 2 If you keep on refusing
to release them, 3 I will bring a terrible disease on all your animals—the horses, donkeys,
camels, cattle, sheep and goats. 4 But I will make a distinction between … .” ’ ”

(2) 1 Then the Lord said to Moses, “Go into the palace and tell the king that Yahweh, the
God of the Hebrews, says, ‘Let my people go so that they may worship me. 2 If you keep on
refusing … . 5 I Yahweh have set tomorrow … .’ ”

(3) 1 The Lord said to Moses, “Go into the palace and tell the king, ‘Yahweh, the God of
the Hebrews, says, “Let my people go so that they may worship me.” That’s what Yahweh says.
2 I [Moses] tell you, if you keep on refusing … .’ ”

(4) 1The Lord said of Moses, “Go into the palace and say to the king, ‘This is what
Yahweh, the God of the Hebrews, says to you: “Let my people go so that they may worship
me.” 2 I, Moses, warn you that if you refuse to let them go … . 5 For Yahweh has decided that
tomorrow … .’ ”

(5) 1 Then the Lord sent Moses into the palace with this message for the king of Egypt:
“Yahweh, the God of the Hebrews, commands you to let his people go, so that they can
worship him. 2 If you keep on refusing to release them, 3 he will bring a terrible disease … .5
He has set tomorrow … .”

9.5

This verse presents a problem that should be resolved before it is translated. There is no
clear indication who it is to whom the Lord is speaking. Some translations (TEV, TOT, CEV) have
understood this clause to be an extension of the direct speech that begins in verse 1. TOT has
made it a part of the second level quote (what Yahweh says to Moses), while 9.5 TEV makes it a
part of the third level quote (what Moses is to say to the Pharaoh).

Since the Hebrew text has no quotation marks, the verse may be interpreted in three
different ways:

1) Yahweh is speaking only to Moses without the Pharaoh knowing; for example, “Moses, I
[Yahweh] have set a time … .”

2) Moses is to report to the Pharaoh what Yahweh is now saying to Moses; for example,
“Yahweh says that he has set a time … .”

3) Yahweh is giving Moses the exact words he is to relate to the Pharaoh (see TEV).

The first interpretation seems unlikely, for both Yahweh and Moses would want the
Pharaoh to know when to expect the plague to strike. TOT has chosen the second
interpretation and presents the entire verse as Yahweh’s words to Moses, who is then to
inform the Pharaoh indirectly what Yahweh had said:
• “ ‘… The Lord has decided the exact time when this will happen; tomorrow the Lord will inflict
this on Egypt.’ ”

CEV is similar: “Tomorrow is the day the Lord has set to do this.” TEV has chosen the third
interpretation, presenting the verse as a continuation of Yahweh’s words to the Pharaoh
through the mouth of Moses. (See the TEV text above.) The two occurrences of the Lord are
thus changed to “I, the Lord.” Translators should choose either the second or the third
interpretation.

And the Lord set a time suggests that this clause should not be included in the quotation
that begins in verse 1. This is especially true because the word saying is normally used to
introduce direct speech. But if the third interpretation is chosen, then this clause simply
becomes a break in the extended quote, and the idea of setting a time may be made a part of
the words of Yahweh, as in 9.5 TEV. Set a time may be understood as “decided the exact time”
(TOT) or simply “designated when.” The exact “hour” (JB) is not indicated, for tomorrow simply
means “the very next day” (LB).

The Lord will do this thing must be understood as part of the direct speech of Yahweh, for
the word saying is used here to introduce exactly what the Lord said. The sacred name yhwh is
used in both clauses, so here is a clear example of Yahweh speaking of himself by name, using
the third person rather than the first person pronoun “I.” But 9.5 TEV’s adjustment is natural if
the third setting mentioned above is selected. This thing refers back to verse 3, where it says
“the hand of the Lord will fall.”

9.6

And (the conjunction waw) is often omitted in translation, but in this context it may also
be understood as “And sure enough” (Durham). On the morrow simply means “the next day”
(9.6 TEV). Literally the word means “from tomorrow,” which can imply that the animal disease
only began the following day as an epidemic and continued for some time. But it is more likely
that this thing that the Lord did was understood to be a supernatural act rather than a natural
disease, causing all the animals to die immediately.

This thing may refer either to the “very severe plague” mentioned in verse 3 or to “the
hand of the Lord will fall” in the same verse. NEB has “The next day the Lord struck,” but 9.6 TEV
simply has “the Lord did as he had said.” (JB has “Yahweh kept his word.”) It is possible to
express the first sentence as “The next day the Lord brought a terrible disease on the animals
of the Egyptians, and all … .” The cattle of the Egyptians includes “all the animals” (9.6 TEV), or
livestock, owned by the Egyptian people. The word all is probably an intentional exaggeration,
for there were still some Egyptian animals that were afflicted by the following two plagues.
(See 9.10 and 9.19, 25.) Even so, all should not be omitted in translation.

LB LIVING BIBLE
 Of the cattle of the people of Israel shows the contrast, or “distinction” (verse 4), with the
Egyptian livestock. The preposition of goes with not one died at the end of the clause,
meaning “not one of the animals of the Israelites died” (9.6 TEV).

9.7

And Pharaoh sent is natural in Hebrew but too literal in English, for it does not indicate
whom he sent. (So also 9.19 and 27.) He obviously “sent men to investigate” (9.7 NIV), so NEB
has “Pharaoh inquired.” The causative form may be more suitable, as in NJB “Pharaoh had
enquiries made.” 9.7 TEV’s “The king asked what had happened” may be misunderstood to
suggest that he had never been warned, which would mean that Moses had not carried out
Yahweh’s instructions in verse 1. Another model is “the king sent people to find out what
happened, and when they told him that … .”

And behold calls attention to what follows, which in this case was the surprising news that
proved that what Moses’ had said was true. 9.7 TEV omits behold as archaic in English, but
many languages can handle it quite naturally. In some languages an ideophone or vocal
expression will be natural here. (JB has “Pharaoh had inquiries made, but it was true.”) Not one
… was dead is said with emphasis, so NJB has “not a single beast had died.” The cattle of the
Israelites refers to all the livestock or “animals of the Israelites.” This probably included
donkeys, cows, oxen, sheep, and goats, but not horses or camels. (See the discussion on cattle
at verse 3.)

But the heart of Pharaoh was hardened is literally “and the heart of Pharaoh was heavy.”
This means, of course, that “he was stubborn.” (But see the comment at 4.21 and 7.13.) And
he did not let the people go is literally “and he did not send the people.” The same verb,
“send,” is used in the first part of the verse. Here it reflects the demand of Moses in verse 1 to
“let my people go.” The people, of course, are the Israelites. One may therefore translate “he
did not release the Israelites.” 9.7 TEV has “would not” in order to show the king’s continuing
stubbornness. 9.7 CEV has “he was still too stubborn to let the people go.”

(6) Boils (9.8–12)

There are only five verses in this account. Of the six parts of the basic pattern, only (a), (c),
and (f) are included here, just as in the third and fifth plagues. There seems to be no advanced
warning given to the Pharaoh (b), no record of his asking for the boils to be removed (d), and
no record that they were removed (e). But we may assume that the boils eventually healed
some time after the “dust” (verse 9) had settled.

This sixth plague completes the second set of three plagues each. As in the third and ninth
plagues, each of which also completes a set, no warning is given. And as in the third plague,
there is no conversation at all between Moses and the Pharaoh. The magicians, however,
mentioned in each of the first three plagues, appear once more. But now it is for the last time,
for by now they are completely defeated and afflicted along with the rest of the people.

Section Heading: both 9.7 TEV and this Handbook suggest “Boils” as a section heading.
Other possible headings, though, are “All the Egyptians had open sores,” or “The Egyptians
were afflicted with ulcers.”
9.8

And is more than a conjunction here. Since it introduces a new episode, it carries more the
meaning of “Then.” There is no indication, however, how soon this plague occurred after the
fifth one. And this is the only time the Lord announces a plague to both Moses and Aaron. (But
see 7.8, where the first “sign” is announced.)

Take handfuls is addressed to both Moses and Aaron, and the dual form for handfuls is
used. This may suggest four handfuls in all, with each one having both hands full of ashes, and
some translations convey this idea. NAB has “a double handful,” and Durham translates “Scoop
up for yourselves double handfuls.” But this may be more specific than the dual form allows.
9.8 TEV’s “Take a few handfuls” is probably what is meant.

Ashes may also be understood as “soot” (so NEB, NJB, 9.8 NIV, 9.8 NRSV and others). The
Hebrew word is found only here in the Old Testament, but it comes from the root word
meaning “to blow or puff.” It obviously refers to the powdery ash that is left after something is
completely burned in a kiln, or “furnace.” The kiln should be changed to “a kiln” since no
specific kiln has been mentioned previously. The word for kiln refers to a “furnace” (9.8 TEV)
for baking pottery or making lime. (See also 19.18.)

Let Moses throw them is literally “Moses will scatter it.” The verb means “to scatter” (NAB)
or “toss” (NEB). The imperative mood is not used here, but it may still be understood as a
command. 9.8 TEV and others, however, bring out the indicative mood, “Moses shall throw
them.” The choice of “it” or them in English depends on whether ashes or “soot” is used. The
Hebrew word is a collective noun (like “soot”). In a number of languages there will be no
problem here as in English, for a more general word for the ash from a fire will be available.
Toward heaven simply means “in the air.” In the sight of Pharaoh suggests that this is to be a
dramatic act, perhaps symbolic, performed “in front of the king” (literally “to the eyes of
Pharaoh”). 9.8 CEV has a separate sentence, “Be sure the king is watching.”

9.9

And it shall become fine dust is literally “and it will be [or, become] to dust.” The
preposition “to” is often used with a noun following the verb “to be or become,” to mark the
result of that change. Fine dust is one word meaning dust in powdery form, like soot, which
could easily be blown by the wind over all the land of Egypt. Soot, of course, comes from
something that is burned (see “ashes” and the comment at verse 8), while fine dust comes
from dry soil. 9.9 TEV’s “They will spread out like fine dust” is a possible interpretation in this
context, but such a distinction in meaning, if intended, would likely have been expressed more
clearly. The Hebrew preposition used here does not normally carry the meaning of “like.” (But
see JB, “It shall spread like fine dust.”) 9.9 CEV has a good model, “The ashes will blow across
the land of Egypt.”

And become boils is literally “and it will become to boils” (similar to the expression
discussed in the preceding paragraph). The word for boils means a hot or inflamed swelling of
the skin. 9.9 TEV’s “will produce boils” is probably the intended meaning rather than suggesting
that the dust would actually turn into boils. One may also express this as “will cause boils [or,
 sores] to break out.” The word for sores is found only here in the Old Testament, and the verb
for breaking out means “to sprout or bloom.” So Breaking out in sores suggests the meaning
of “open sores,” or “festering boils” (NEB). Other possible renderings are “pustules” or
“ulcerated boils,” meaning boils or sores that have pus in them.

On man and beast includes all humans and all animals, both wild and tame. Throughout
all the land of Egypt simply adds emphasis to the extent of the plague. It is an intentional
exaggeration to include all Egyptians, but it apparently did not apply to the Israelites or to their
animals.

An alternative translation model for this verse is:

• The ashes, like fine dust, will blow all over the land of Egypt. They will cause people and
animals everywhere to have ulcerated [or, festering] sores.

9.10

So they took ashes refers to both Moses and Aaron. For ashes see the discussion at verse
8. From the kiln is omitted in 9.10 TEV as unnecessary repetition. The kiln, with the definite
article, does not refer to a specific furnace, so “a kiln” is better (TOT). And stood before
Pharaoh may be rendered as “appeared before Pharaoh” (TAN) or “came into Pharaoh’s
presence” (TOT).

Moses alone threw the ashes, not Aaron, as Yahweh had commanded. Threw them really
means “scattered them” or “tossed them” (NAB, NEB). The plural pronoun them, of course,
refers to the ashes. If a singular noun like “soot” is used, the singular pronoun will be
necessary. (See the comment on the collective noun at verse 8.) The direction was toward
heaven, so one may say that Moses “threw them into the air” (9.10 TEV). This action suggests
that the wind then carried the “fine dust” all over Egypt. For and it became boils … , see verse
9.9.

9.11

The magicians were last mentioned in 8.19. They included the “wise men” and “sorcerers”
in ancient Egypt. (See the discussion at 7.11.) Could not stand before Moses means that “they
were not able to appear” (9.11 TEV). But it may also mean that they were physically unable to
stand up because of the boils. Some translations, however, interpret this to mean only that
they “were no match for Moses” (NEB), or “could not face Moses” (JB), or “could not hold their
ground before Moses” (MFT). This suggests that they no longer had any will to oppose him,
which was probably true.

But the reason is clear: for the boils were upon the magicians. This emphasizes all the
more why they were unable to make an appearance. 9.11 TEV concludes that “they were
covered with boils,” as do JB and NJB. At the very least they were certainly afflicted just “like all
the other Egyptians” (9.11 TEV). Translators are urged to follow 9.11 TEV’s model. 9.11 CEV has

MFT MOFFATT
“The magicians were suffering so much from sores, that they could not even come to Moses,”
but fails to include the final phrase, and upon all the Egyptians. This should not be omitted in
translation.

9.12

But is only the conjunction waw, but in translation the context may demand a stronger
transitional marker such as “In spite of all that.” The Lord is Yahweh, and it is very clear that
Yahweh is the one who hardened the heart of Pharaoh. Literally “Yahweh made strong the
heart of Pharaoh.” (So TAN has, “the Lord stiffened the heart of Pharaoh.”) This means that he
“made the king stubborn” (9.12 TEV), or “obstinate” (NEB, NAB). (See the discussion at 4.21 and
7.13)

And he did not listen to them may be understood as “he refused to listen to them” (JB) or
“he would not heed them” (TAN). This refers back to the demand to “let my people go” in 9.1,
even though the account of this plague does not include it. But it also refers back to 7.3–4,
where Yahweh predicted that he would “harden Pharaoh’s heart” so that he “would not listen
to Moses and Aaron.”

(7) Hail (9.13–35)

The account of the seventh plague is the longest one of all, consisting of twenty-three
verses. For this reason it may be wise to divide it into three subsections with the following
headings:

(a) The warning about the hailstorm (9.13–21)

(b) The hailstorm comes (9.22–26)

(c) The Lord stops the storm (9.27–35)

Five of the six parts of the basic narrative pattern are present, with the second part clearly
implied. (See the discussion on page 162.)

a) The Lord informs Moses about the plague (9.13–19)

b) Moses warns Pharaoh (Implied in 9.20–21)

c) The plague occurs (9.22–26, 31–32)

d) Pharaoh asks Moses to remove the plague (9.27–30)

e) The plague is removed (9.33)

f) Pharaoh’s heart is hardened again (9.34–35)

What the Lord says to Moses is longer than usual because of the general statement in
verses 14–16 about all the plagues, and the special provision in verse 19 for any who would
heed the warning. Since verse 20 shows the positive reaction of some of the king’s officials, we
must assume that Moses delivered the warning to the Pharaoh as instructed.
 Section Heading: both 9.12 TEV and this Handbook have “Hail” as the general heading for
this section (9.13–35), which includes three subsections (see above). Other possible headings
are “Hailstones” (9.12 CEV), “Huge hailstones fall on Egypt,” or “God punishes Egypt with
hailstones.” (See below for a discussion on the translation of hail.) The title for the first
subsection (9.13–21) is “The warning about the hailstones.” This may also be expressed as
“Moses warns the king that hail will fall.”

(a) The Warning About the Hailstorm (9.13–21)

(a) The warning about the hailstorm (9.13–21)

9.13

Then is the common conjunction waw that marks here the beginning of a new episode.
There is no indication as to how much time had passed from the previous plague. The Lord
said to Moses introduces a long quote that extends to the end of verse 19. These are Yahweh’s
words to Moses and are not yet spoken to the Pharaoh. Aaron is not mentioned at all until
verse 27.

Rise up early in the morning represents just two words in the Hebrew that literally mean
“do [something] early” and “at daybreak.” Since these words are followed by and stand before
Pharaoh, it is not necessary to say rise up, for this would be understood. For this reason 9.13
TEV simply has “Early tomorrow morning meet the king.” But “meet the king” may not be clear
enough, for stand before is literally “position yourself,” or “take your stand.” (The same word
is used of Moses’ sister in 2.4.) One may say “present yourself” (similar to NEB, TAN), or even
“confront Pharaoh” (NIV, NJB).

And say to him introduces a quote within a quote, giving the exact words that Moses is to
say to the king. Thus says the Lord is the messenger formula discussed at 4.22. It thus
introduces a quote within a quote within a quote. (See.) The God of the Hebrews is the usual
Yahwist (“J”) addition to the formula. (See the comment at 9.1.) Let my people go is the
demand formula first discussed at 4.23a.) That they may serve me is discussed at 4.23a and
8.1.

9.14

For this time introduces what seems to be a result clause that assumes the Pharaoh’s
continued refusal. The word for For (ki) in Hebrew is frequently used as a conjunction to
introduce a causal clause. And a few translations (JB, 9.14 NIV, GECL, CEV) interpret the ki as
conditional, in the sense of “or else,” or “If you don’t.” This is possible, even though the
conditional sense is usually made clear with two words, ki ‘im, meaning “for if,” as in 9.2. 9.14
TEV and others, however, omit the ki entirely, interpreting it simply as a marker emphasizing

the absolute certainty of what will happen. This is the more probable meaning, and translators

GECL GERMAN COMMON LANGUAGE VERSION

are advised to follow 9.14 TEV. This time means “this occurrence,” or simply “now.” In this
case, therefore, the coming of the plague is certain, and the king’s positive response to the
demand of verse 13 should be the result.

I will send, of course, means Yahweh will send. The same Hebrew verb is used here as in
the demand formula in verse 13 (“Let my people go”). This may be an intentional play on the
word. (See the discussion at 7.16 and 8.21 ) All my plagues is difficult to understand. 9.14 TEV’s
“I will punish” probably fails to convey the full meaning of the plural form. It is possible to
interpret this as a general statement explaining the reason for all the plagues, or all the
remaining plagues, and not just the hailstorm. For example, TOT has “at the present time I am
sending all these plagues on you.” But it is more likely that the plural form is emphatic. NAB has
“I will hurl all my blows upon you,” and 9.14 NIV has “I will send the full force of my plagues
against you.” 9.14 CEV interprets the plural as meaning “worst”: “he [Yahweh] will send his
worst plagues to strike you.” Another possible way of expressing this is “I am going to punish
you more severely than before … .”

Upon your heart is literally “to” or “toward your heart,” referring to the Pharaoh alone.
The word heart is often used figuratively for the entire person, so TAN translates “upon your
person.” In this case, however, your heart may indeed suggest “your mind” (Durham) in the
sense of “your conscience,” but most translations stay with the simple meaning of “against
you” (9.14 NIV), or “you yourself” (9.14 NRSV). Your servants and your people refers to the
king’s “officials” (9.14 TEV) and all the Egyptians.

Note that TEV has changed the sequence of “you,” “your officials,” and “your people” to
read: “not only your officials and your people, but I will punish you as well.” This is a device in
English to bring out the intended emphasis in ascending order rather than the descending
order of the Hebrew.

That you may know is another in a series of statements that explain the purpose of the
plagues and answer the original question of the Pharaoh in 5.2, “Who is the Lord?” You is
singular, referring to the king. There is no one like me is only two words in Hebrew, meaning
“absence” or “nothingness” plus “like me.” In all the earth means “anywhere on earth” (NAB)
or “in the whole world” (NJB).

9.15

For by now is literally, “because now.” The idea of by now is suggested by the
interpretation of the following verb phrase, which literally says “I stretched out my hand.” (The
Hebrew perfect is used.) I could have put forth my hand gives the verb phrase the meaning of
something contrary to fact. So 9.15 TEV has “If I had raised my hand.” Most translations accept
this interpretation, especially since the rest of the verse speaks of what has not yet happened.
9.15 KJV, however, following the Septuagint, translates the verb as future (“For now I will
stretch out my hand”), and a few modern scholars accept this interpretation. Durham, for
example, translates “Indeed, now I will let loose my power.” But the translator should bear in
mind that this represents a minority opinion. If translators follow the majority interpretation,
then verse 14 and the first part of verse 15 may be expressed as follows:
• 14 This time I will punish you more severely than before. I am going to punish not only your
officials and your people, but I will punish you as well … . 15 In fact, I could have already
caused a terrible disease to strike you and your people … .

And struck you and your people continues the sense of could have, using the word that
literally means to strike, hit, or beat. (See 2.12, 14; 7.17, 20; and others.) Here, of course, the
figurative meaning is intended, in the sense of afflicting with pestilence, or “disease.” (See
“will fall … upon” in 9.3.) In a number of languages this will be rendered with a causative
expression such as “caused a terrible disease to strike,” or even “let you [plural] become sick
with a terrible disease.” And you would have been continues the “contrary to fact” meaning,
with the result being cut off from the earth. The Hebrew word here means to be hidden,
destroyed, or effaced. So 9.15 TEV has “you would have been completely destroyed.” Many
languages will have a descriptive phrase like the Hebrew; for example, “wiped from the earth.”

9.16

But is a separate word meaning “on the other hand” or “nevertheless” (TAN). For this
purpose is one word in Hebrew, meaning “on account of this,” and points to the clause that
follows. (In the Hebrew text the same word is repeated for emphasis at the beginning of the
following clause, but this is not reflected in most translations.) Have I let you live is literally “I
have caused you to stand,” here meaning “I have allowed you to remain alive” (TOT). So NAB
and TAN have translated “I have spared you.” You here is singular, referring to the king.

To show you my power is literally “to cause you to see my strength.” This is the main
reason why Yahweh has allowed the Pharaoh to live. But another reason is also given: so that
my name may be declared. This second reason is connected to the first by the coordinate
conjunction waw (“and”), indicating that the second reason is not dependent on the first, as
9.16 RSV and 9.16 TEV suggest. That is, the spreading of Yahweh’s name is not necessarily
dependent on the Pharaoh’s being shown Yahweh’s power. 9.16 NRSV has corrected this idea
by changing so that my name may be declared to “and to make my name resound.” (Similar
also are NEB, NJB, 9.16 NIV, and others.) 9.16 CEV has “to bring honor to himself [Yahweh].” In
many languages it will be necessary to show that the agents for “bringing honor” are people.
Thus one may say “so that people all over the world will praise [or, give honor to] me.”

My name refers not only to the sacred name yhwh but more directly to his reputation or
“fame” (9.16 TEV). May be declared is literally “will be counted” in the sense of “declared
repeatedly.” Various translations have expressed this as “talked of” (NJB), “published” (JB),
“recounted” (Childs), and “resound” (TAN). Throughout all the earth has been interpreted by
NEB to mean “throughout the land,” meaning Egypt, but it more likely means, as 9.16 TEV puts
it, “over the whole world.” In a number of languages it will be more natural style to place the
clause have I let you live at the beginning of the verse and say “But I have kept you [singular]
alive [or, spared your life] just to show you my power and to cause people everywhere in the
world to praise me.”

9.17
 You refers only to the Pharaoh. Still carries the idea of “always,” or “continually.” Exalting
yourself translates a verb that sometimes means “to lift up,” but its exact meaning here is not
clear. It is followed by the prepositional phrase against my people, or “with my people” (JB,
NJB), so it may be under stood to mean “obstruct my people” (NEB), “thwart my people” (TAN),
or even “tyrannizing my people” (Durham). My people, of course, refers to Yahweh’s people,
the Israelites. Since the form of the verb is reflexive, suggesting lifting oneself up, it probably
means “being arrogant,” “behaving haughtily,” or “acting in a proud [or, insolent] manner.”

And will not let them go translates just two words in the Hebrew that literally mean “to
not send them out.” This may be understood as “in order not to send them out,” explaining
the purpose of the king’s arrogance. But it is better understood as “by not sending them out,”
explaining the reason for, or the evidence of, the king’s continued arrogance. 9.17 CEV
combines the two clauses: “You are still determined not to let the Lord’s people go.” But this
loses some of the focus on the king’s arrogant attitude. It is possible to say “You are acting
arrogantly toward my people in that you still refuse to let them go.” and even this is possible:
“You still refuse to let my people go? Such arrogance!” Since the exact relation between the
two clauses is not clear, both 9.17 RSV and 9.17 TEV simply use the connective and. (So also
9.17 NIV, TAN, and others.)

9.18

Behold is omitted in most translations, including 9.18 NRSV, probably because its force is
included with the announcement, tomorrow. However, in many languages the equivalent of
“All right!” or the more colloquial “Okay” will be natural style here. NAB, however, makes this
explicit with the phrase “I warn you, then,” and Durham has “Just watch me.” The Hebrew
word order, which is unnatural for English, is literally “Behold me, making rain, like time
tomorrow, hail heavy very.” About this time is approximate but not precise. I will cause to fall
brings out the causative force of the participle, which is formed from the word for “rain.” In
many languages “cause … to fall” will be quite natural style.

Hail consists of frozen rain drops that are harmful and destructive, especially when they
are big, or very heavy. In some languages a “hailstorm” (9.18 TEV) will be called a “rain of
frozen rocks [or stones, pebbles].” A descriptive phrase may also be used for “hailstones”; for
example, “I will cause large drops of frozen rain to fall.” The following clause makes it clear
that this will be “a heavy hailstorm” (9.18 TEV), with the words such as never has been in
Egypt.

From the day it was founded follows the Hebrew quite literally, for the passive form is
used for the verb meaning “to lay a foundation.” This refers, or course, to Egypt as a nation.
And with the addition of until now, it covers “all its history” (9.18 TEV). Since the force of the
superlative is clearly implied, 9.18 NRSV has “the heaviest hail,” and 9.18 NIV has “the worst
hailstorm.”

9.19

Now therefore is literally “and now,” or “So now” (NJB). Send is addressed to the king only,
but there is no direct object to the verb. It can refer to sending out servants, but it is generally
 understood as sending word (NJB) or giving orders (9.19 TEV). Get … into safe shelter is in the
imperative singular, meaning literally “you cause to take shelter,” or “you bring to refuge.” The
word safe is not in the Hebrew, but it is implied in the word for shelter. Your cattle refers to
the king’s “livestock” (9.19 TEV), meaning all his domesticated animals (see 9.3), and all that
you have in the field refers to “everything else you have” (9.19 TEV), including animals,
servants, and equipment. Even though the you is singular, there seems to be no intention of
excluding the property of all the Egyptians.

For, or “because” (9.19 NIV), is not in the Hebrew, but it is a natural way to introduce the
next clause, which gives the reason why the king should act quickly. Shall come down is
literally “shall descend,” but in reference to hail, it “will fall” (9.19 TEV). Upon every man refers
to all “people,” including women and children. Beast includes both wild and domesticated
animals. That is in the field is literally “which is found” or “which happens to be in the field.”
Field refers to any place “outside” and “unprotected” (9.19 TEV). And is not brought home is
literally “and is not gathered to the house.” It means “not brought in” (NEB), or “not brought
indoors” (NJB), or “not brought to shelter” (NAB).

And they shall die is one word in the Hebrew. This refers to all “people and animals” of the
Egyptians (see verse 26) that are “not brought indoors” (NJB). “They will all die” (9.19 TEV) from
injuries caused by the hail. Note the three sets of quotation marks in 9.19 RSV (” ’ ”), which
conclude the long quotation that began in verse 13. The third level quote, giving the exact
words Moses is to speak to the Pharaoh, was introduced with the formula “Thus says Yahweh”
(verse 13) and should be understood as a divine oracle.

An alternative translation model for verses 13–19 using indirect speech for the first and
third quote levels is:

• 13 The Lord told Moses to go to meet the king early the next morning and say: “Yahweh, the
God of the Hebrews, commands you to let his people go, so that they can worship him. 14 This
time he is going to punish you [plural] more severely than before. He will punish not only your
officials and your people, but also you [singular], so that you may know that there is no one
like him in the world. 15 In fact, he could have already caused a terrible disease to strike you
[singular] and your people that would completely destroy all of you. 16 But he has spared your
[singular] life just to show you his power and to cause people all over the world to praise him.
17 But you still won’t release my people. You are so arrogant towards them! 18 All right!
About this same time tomorrow, Yahweh will cause large pieces of hail to fall. This will be the
worst hailstorm in the history of Egypt. 19 Now give orders … .”

9.20

With this verse we must assume that Moses followed Yahweh’s instructions in verse 13
and actually spoke all of 9.13–19 in the presence of the Pharaoh. This action is not stated in
the text, but it is implied. Then he who feared is a participle in Hebrew, meaning “the fearer
of.” The “fearers” were probably those among the servants of Pharaoh who also heard what
Moses had said. They were not slaves but were “the king’s officials” (9.20 TEV). And as
“Pharaoh’s courtiers” (JB, TAN) they had their own slaves, as explained below.
 The object of their fear is the word of the Lord, which refers to the entire pronouncement
in 9.13–19. It may be natural to change the noun (word) to an event word (“said”), as in 9.20
TEV’s “what the Lord had said.” But a literal rendering here may express more clearly that the
“fearers” were those who recognized the word of the Lord as a divine oracle. The verb “to
fear” sometimes means “to revere,” “to hold in honor,” or “to respect.” So NJB says that they
“respected what Yahweh had said,” and the Dutch common language version says that they
“took the word of the Lord seriously.” But it is also likely that they “were afraid” (9.20 TEV), or
“were frightened by what the Lord had said” (9.20 CEV), or even “were frightened when they
heard the words of the Lord [Yahweh].”

Each of the “officials” who was a “fearer,” then, made his slaves and his cattle flee into
the houses. The word his refers back to he who feared and not to the Pharaoh. This means
that these servants of Pharaoh had slaves and cattle of their own. This can be made clear if he
who feared is rendered as “those who feared,” and the his is changed to “their” (9.20 TEV).
Their slaves were not the Israelites but were people owned by them and forced to work
without pay. (See further comment on slaves at 1.11a.) Cattle in this verse, in contrast to
“beast” in verse 19, refers only to domesticated animals, or “livestock” (NIV, NJB). (See the
comment on cattle at 9.2–3.) Made … flee is one word in Hebrew meaning “to put to flight.” In
this context, however, it clearly means “to bring to safety.” Hence “they brought their slaves
and animals indoors for shelter” (9.20 TEV).

9.21

But he who did not regard refers to those “officials” of the king who were not the
“fearers” described in verse 20. The phrase literally reads “and who did not set his heart unto
the word of Yahweh.” This is the same idiom used in 7.23, where it is said of the Pharaoh, “and
he did not lay his heart even to this.” (Different verbs are used, “set” and “lay,” but the
meaning is the same.) It simply means that “Others, however, paid no attention” (9.21 TEV);
that is, they “disregarded” (JB), “ignored” (9.21 NIV), the word of the Lord. As explained earlier,
this refers to the “warning” of Yahweh in 9.13–19, as it does in verse 20.

Left here means “left alone” in the sense of not even disturbing them. His slaves and his
cattle refers to the slaves and livestock belonging to the officials, not to the king. In the field
means “out in the open” (9.21 TEV), in contrast with verse 20.

(b) The Hailstorm Comes (9.22–26)

(b) The hailstorm comes (9.22–26)

Section Heading: verses 22–26 give the second episode of the seventh plague. As
mentioned earlier, this may be set off as a subsection with the title “The hailstorm comes,” or
“Hail begins to fall.”

9.22

And the Lord said to Moses is better rendered as “Then the Lord said to Moses” (9.22 TEV),
since this begins a new paragraph. Stretch forth your hand is the same expression used in 8.5,
but here it is toward heaven, so one may say “Raise your hand toward the sky” (9.22 TEV).
Verse 23 indicates that Moses did so with his rod in his hand.

That there may be hail is literally “and there will be hail,” so the may be should be
understood as certain, as in 9.22 TEV, and not as “maybe.” 9.22 NRSV has “so that” in place of
that to show more clearly that this is a result clause. Moses, of course, could not cause the hail
to fall, but God will send the hail when Moses raises his hand. With this understanding NEB has
“to bring down hail,” TOT has “in order to bring a hailstorm,” and 9.22 CEV has “so that
hailstones will fall.”

In all the land of Egypt simply means “all over Egypt” (9.22 NIV). This phrase is repeated
several times for emphasis (see verses 24 and 25), but verse 26 tells us that there was no hail
in Goshen. Upon man and beast means “people” and “animals,” as in verse 19. Every plant of
the field included trees as well as all the grains, vegetables, flowers, grass, and weeds (see
verse 25). Throughout the land of Egypt is literally “in the land of Egypt.”

9.23

Then marks the change from Yahweh’s instructions to Moses’ action. Moses stretched
forth his rod means, of course, that he “held out his rod” (TAN), but since it was toward
heaven, it may be easier to say “Moses raised his stick toward the sky” (9.23 TEV). This was
obviously a dramatic action for all people to see. His rod was probably the same “walking
stick” he had used as a shepherd. (See the discussion at 4.2.) 9.23 NRSV and others use the
word “staff.” In a number of languages it will be more natural style to say “Moses pointed his
walking stick toward the sky.”

The Lord sent thunder and hail makes clear that it was Yahweh who caused the storm
when Moses gave the signal. The word for sent has several meanings, such as “give,” “offer,”
or “set.” The English sent works with hail but not so well with thunder (literally “sounds”). JB
and NJB have “Yahweh thundered and rained down hail.” In a number of languages thunder is
described as “the sky roars” or “the sound of the sky roaring.” So the Lord sent thunder and
hail may be rendered as “The Lord caused the sky to roar and hailstones to fall.”

And fire ran down to the earth is literally “and fire came earthward.” Since this is a
graphic description of a severe storm, most translations interpret the fire to mean “lightning”
(9.23 TEV), although the usual Hebrew word is not used here (it occurs in 19.16). NEB has “with
fire flashing down to the ground,” 9.23 TEV has “and lightning struck the ground,” and 9.23 CEV
has “lightning flashed back and forth, striking the ground.”

And the Lord rained hail upon the land of Egypt repeats the same idea as the Lord … sent,
but a different verb is used. In this verse and the next, the same thing is repeated several times
in a monotonous way. For example, hail is mentioned four times in the Hebrew (five times in
9.23 RSV). This is probably because an editor has here combined different traditions, but this
kind of repeated detail is also typical of Hebrew narrative. It is possible, however, to reduce
the sixty- four words in 9.23 RSV to forty-six words in 9.23 TEV without removing any essential
meaning. In reducing the number of words, 9.23 TEV has restructured so that the last sentence
of verse 23 continues into verse 24.
 9.24

There was hail again repeats what is said in verse 23. The word for fire is the same as
verse 23, but here it is described as flashing continually. This is a participle meaning literally
“seizing itself.” So various translations have “lightning flashing back and forth,” “fiery flashes”
(NEB), “flashes of forked lightning” (TOT), and “lightning cracking back and forth” (Durham). In
the midst of the hail may be understood as “through the hail” (NEB, NAB), or even “as the hail
was falling.”

Very heavy hail is simply “very heavy” in the Hebrew, with hail now understood. Such as
had never been (literally “which was not like it”) introduces an English pluperfect because of
the word since (literally “from then”). Since it became a nation refers back to when Egypt
“first became a nation” (JB, NJB), so “It was the worst storm that Egypt had ever known in all its
history” (9.24 TEV). In all the land of Egypt may be understood as “anywhere in Egypt” (NJB). It
will be possible, in languages that do not favor so much repetition as in the Hebrew, to
combine verses 23 and 24 as follows:

• 23–24 So Moses pointed his walking stick toward the sky, and the Lord caused the sky to roar
and hailstones to fall everywhere. Lightning flashed back and forth, striking the ground. This
was the worst storm of its kind in the history of Egypt.

9.25

Struck down is the verb meaning to strike, hit, or beat. It is used twice in this verse, but
some translations (NEB, NJB, NIV) use “beat down” for the second clause. In the first clause
everything that was in the field includes all animal life that was not under shelter. Both man
and beast should be understood as “including all the people and all the animals” (9.25 TEV).
Throughout all the land of Egypt is the same phrase used in verses 22 and 24. In some
languages it will be possible to combine the striking down of humans, animals, and crops into
one sentence and translate “All over Egypt the hail struck down all the humans and animals in
the open and the crops in the fields.”

Every plant of the field includes all plant life except the trees. Thus all crops in the fields,
whether vegetable or cereal, plus all flowers, grass, and weeds, were all struck down by the
hail. A different verb, meaning to smash or shatter, is used for the “trees.” So the hail …
shattered every tree of the field. NAB uses “splintered,” 9.25 NIV uses “stripped,” 9.25 CEV has
“bark was stripped from,” and 9.25 TEV uses “broke.”

9.26

Only in the land of Goshen brings out an important exception that seems to weaken the
emphasis on “all the land of Egypt.” The idea that the people of Israel were not affected by
the plagues has already been suggested in 8.22 and 9.4, since they were living together in
Goshen. It was “the best of the land” (Gen 47.6), where the Pharaoh of Joseph’s time had
placed their ancestors, and was still a part of Egypt in Moses’ time. That was “the only place
where there was no hail” (9.26 TEV). One may also express this as “the only place where hail
didn’t fall.”
(c) The Lord Stops the Storm (9.27–35)
(c) The Lord stops the storm (9.27–35)

Section Heading: in verses 27–35 we have the third episode of the seventh plague, which
gives the aftermath of the hailstorm. This episode may be set off as a subsection with the title
“The Lord stops the storm,” or “The Lord makes the hail stop falling.”

9.27

The word Then is the usual Hebrew conjunction waw, but it functions here as a discourse
marker. TAN uses “Thereupon,” which clearly marks the transition from the second to the third
episode. Then Pharaoh sent does not have a direct object, but it is implied that he sent
someone to call for Moses and Aaron. Thus a rendering such as “Then the king sent people to
fetch Aaron and Moses” will be a natural translation.” However, the two verbs, sent, and
called, describe only one action, which may be translated as “Then Pharaoh summoned Moses
and Aaron” (9.27 NRSV) or “The king sent for Moses and Aaron” (9.27 TEV). In many languages
this will be the most natural rendering.

And said to them indicates that Aaron once again appeared with Moses before the king. I
have sinned this time is the king’s first admission of sin. (See also 10.16–17.) The Hebrew word
for sinned basically means to miss the mark or fail to achieve. (See the comment on chata’ at
20.20.) In light of Moses’ response (verse 30), it is unlikely that Pharaoh is confessing to moral
guilt. But he admits he has made a serious mistake. So a rendering such as “This time, I am
really at fault [or, wrong]” will be possible, or even “This time I admit I have made a terrible
mistake.”

This time refers only to this latest plague; the meaning should not be extended to include
earlier sins, as NAB has done (“I have sinned again”). However, the words I have sinned may be
understood as “I admit my fault” (JB), in which case the entire statement can mean “Now I
admit that I have sinned” (TOT). The Lord is in the right is not a confession that Yahweh is
righteous in the ethical sense, and I and my people are in the wrong should not be understood
as a confession of unrighteousness. The words right and wrong are basically legal terms. At the
very least this statement may simply be an admission that Yahweh is the winner (as in a case
at court), and the king is the loser. At most the king is admitting that what Yahweh has done is
correct, and what he and his people are doing is incorrect. That is, the king’s refusal to release
these people from slavery has been a mistake.

9.28

Entreat the Lord means “Pray to the Lord” (9.28 TEV), or “Plead with Yahweh.” It is
addressed to both Moses and Aaron. The same request is found in 8.8; 8.28; and 10.17. For is
literally “and,” but it introduces the reason why Moses and Aaron are requested to pray. There
has been enough really means “We have had enough” (9.28 TEV), or even “We can’t stand [or,
endure] any more.” (Similarly CEV).
 This thunder is literally “thunder [sounds] of God.” 9.28 NRSV has changed 9.28 RSV to
“God’s thunder,” as in NASB, TAN, NAB, and others. But it should be noted that the word for God
is ’elohim, not Yahweh (the Lord), to whom the king has asked them to pray. This change in the
same sentence may be significant, as Moses’ reply in 9.30 suggests. But both 9.28 RSV and 9.28
TEV conceal this change of terms by translating ’elohim with the demonstrative “this.” (So also

NEB, but 9.28 NIV omits it altogether.) But to do so suggests that the king is now recognizing
Yahweh as God, since he has just asked for prayer to Yahweh, who has sent the storm.

Some translations therefore have interpreted this as an example of the “’elohim

superlative,” where ’elohim is used as an adjective to express something supernatural or
extraordinary, that is “exceedingly great.” (See the passages where ’elohim is used as that kind
of an adjective; for example, Gen 30.8 “mighty wrestlings,” 1 Sam 14.15 “a very great panic,”
Jonah 3.3 “an exceedingly great city,” etc.) This is why 9.28 KJV and ASV have “mighty
thunderings,” and TOT has “terrible thunder.”

The translator therefore must choose from three possible uses of the word ’elohim: (a) as
a possessive (“God’s thunder,” “thunder of God,” or “the roaring of the sky caused by God,” (b)
as an adjective (“mighty thunderings,” “terrible thunder,” or “the sky’s great roaring noise”), or
(c) as a demonstrative (this thunder). Some translators may want to follow (a) in order to
suggest that the king is still making a distinction between ‘elohim, the God of the thunder, and
yhwh, the God of the Israelites. (In verse 20 Moses uses the expression yhwh ’elohim. See the
comment there.) It is probably better to follow (b) in this case, but a footnote giving the literal
meaning is recommended. In some languages it will be more natural style to reorder the first
two sentences and translate, for example, “We can’t stand this terrible thunder or the hail
anymore. So please plead with Yahweh to make them stop.”

I will let … go is one word in the Hebrew, followed by the pronoun you in the plural,
referring to all the Israelites. The form of the verb indicates strong determination on the
Pharaoh’s part, so 9.28 TEV has “I promise” (so also JB and NJB). But the conjunction waw
(“and”), which neither 9.28 RSV nor 9.28 TEV translate, is attached to the verb (literally “and I
will send out”). NAB and TOT in this case translate the waw as “Then.” This suggests that the
king fully intends to release them when the plague is lifted. Therefore his “promise” should not
be thought of as an unconditional vow, as when a person takes an oath. The king obviously
expects that the Lord will stop the thunder and hail when Moses prays.

You shall stay no longer uses an emphatic form of the verb that also suggests the king’s
determination. But this is not a command; rather it is a concession. That is, the king will now
permit them to leave. So 9.28 TEV has “You don’t have to stay in Egypt any longer.”

9.29

NASB NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE

ASV AMERICAN STANDARD VERSION

 Moses said to him introduces the reply of Moses to the king’s request. Aaron is not
mentioned at all, and even Moses seems to ignore him by saying As soon as I have gone out of
the city. The expression As soon as may be understood as “when” (NEB) or “as” (TAN), since it is
simply a preposition attached to the Hebrew verb “I go out,” or “I exit.” NJB’s “The moment I
leave” is suggested only by the context. The city was probably Rameses, mentioned in 1.11b
(see the comment there on “city”) and again in 12.37. In contrast with the surrounding
villages, the city and its temple area would have been protected by walls. Therefore out of the
city would mean outside the walls and the protection of the city.

I will stretch out my hands to the Lord is an idiom meaning to pray, but it also describes
the usual posture for prayer, with the palms of the hands open. Literally the Hebrew says “I
will spread out [or, open] my [two] palms unto Yahweh.” Most translations retain the idiom,
but it is good to add “in prayer,” as in 9.29 TEV “I will lift up my hands in prayer to the Lord.”
The object of stretch out, however, is hands and not necessarily the arms. Durham translates
“I will open my hands in prayer to Yahweh.” However, in a number of languages “hand” is
included in the term for “arm” (by contrast see the comment at 4.6), so one may translate “I
will stretch out [or, lift up] my arms and pray to Yahweh.”

The thunder will cease is literally “the sounds they will stop.” The plural form of the word
“sound” is generally used for thunder in the collective sense. So one may express this as “the
roaring sounds from the sky will stop.” And there will be no more hail is literally “and the hail
will not be again.”

That you may know refers back to verse 14, along with several other verses that answer
the king’s initial question in 5.2. (See the discussion there.) The singular you is used, meaning
the king. That means “so that.” MFT has “to teach you that … ,” and TOT has “This will prove to
you that … .” The earth is the Lord’s is literally “to Yahweh is the earth.” This is the usual way
to show possession, so “the earth belongs to the Lord” (9.29 TEV). (See Psa 24.1.) Another
possible model for the final part of this verse is “So that when the thunder stops and the hail
stops falling, you [singular] will know that the earth belongs to Yahweh.”

9.30

But as for you is simply “and you” (singular) in the Hebrew, but the intended contrast with
verse 29 is better expressed by the English But. This may be understood as a contrast, either
between Yahweh’s power and the king’s stubbornness (as in 9.30 RSV), or between the king
(“that you may know”) and Moses (I know). This second meaning is followed by 9.30 TEV, “But I
know.” (So also TAN and NIV). Your servants refers to the king’s “officials.”

You do not yet fear is plural, including both the king and his “officials.” The word for fear
also carries the meaning of “reverence” (TOT), or “respect” (NJB), but in this verse the idea of
being “afraid of” (MFT) is also present.

The Lord God is literally “from before Yahweh God,” which suggests fear “in the Presence
of Yahweh God” (Durham). Lord God is Yahweh ’elohim in the Hebrew, a combination seldom
used except in Genesis 2–3. This is the only place it is found in Exodus or in any of Moses’
speech. It has been suggested that Moses is saying “Yahweh is God,” in order to correct the
 king’s words in verse 28, where he may be distinguishing between Moses’ God, Yahweh, and
Elohim, the God of the thunder. Although this is not explicit, and should not be translated
explicitly, translators may wish to allow for this interpretation. In some languages one may say
“Yahweh, who is God.”

An alternative translation model for this verse is:

• But I know that you and your officials are not yet really afraid of Yahweh, who is God.

9.31–32

Verses 31 and 32 are an editorial comment intended to show that not all the plants were
destroyed. Otherwise there would have been nothing left for the locusts to eat in the following
plague (see 10.15.) RSV places this in parentheses (as do NEB, NIV, and others), and TAN sets it
off with dashes, but the Hebrew has no marking for parenthetical statements. Since the
parenthesis and the dash are only punctuation marks and are not pronounced, it is good to
introduce these verses with a word that marks them as parenthetical, such as the English
“Now,” which is used by NRSV, TAN, and NAB.

Flax was a fibrous plant grown by the Egyptians as a source of fiber for making linen cloth.
The plant produces beautiful blue blossoms when it is in bud. (See FFB, pages 119–121.) Barley
was one of the grain crops from which bread was made. When it was in the ear, the grains
were “ripe” (9.32 TEV) and ready for harvesting. In Egypt barley was harvested in January, so
this suggests the time of year when the hailstorm occurred. In cultures where barley is
unknown and a general term for “grain” is available, that should be used here; for example,
“grain named ‘barley.’ ” If such a term is not available, one may employ a phrase suggesting a
similarity to grains that are known; for example, “a wheat-like plant named ‘barley,’ ” or “a
rice-like plant … .” In some areas a general word for “fruit” may be employed, even for crops
that have grains and must be threshed; for example, “fruit called ‘barley.’ ” Both the flax and
the barley were ruined, that is, they were “beaten down” by the hail. The passive form of the
verb “to strike or beat” is used.

Wheat was another grain crop from which Egyptians made bread, and spelt was a coarser
variety of the wheat. The word for spelt is used only three times in the entire Old Testament
(see Isa 28.25 and Ezek 4.9), so we cannot be sure of its scientific classification. TAN identifies it
as “emmer,” still another variety of wheat. 9.32 TEV does not translate the word but includes it
with wheat and says “none of the wheat was ruined,” and this will be the more natural model
in many languages. In Egypt these crops ripened about one month after the barley harvest, so
the text says they were late in coming up. That is why they were not ruined (literally “beaten
down”).

In some languages it will be impossible to find corresponding words for these crops. In
such extreme cases one may translate “All the plants that were ripe or budding were ruined,
but the later crops were not damaged.” Scientific accuracy in translation, of course, is not as
important as clarifying the meaning or purpose of these two verses.

9.33
 So Moses went out of the city continues the story from verse 30 and is not connected to
verse 32. Out of the city is mentioned at verse 29. From Pharaoh means he “left the king”
(9.33 TEV). The sequence in 9.33 RSV is awkward, so 9.33 NRSV has improved it: “So Moses left
Pharaoh, went out of the city, and … .” Stretched out his hands to the Lord is literally “opened
his [two] palms unto Yahweh.” (See the discussion at verse 29.)

And the thunder and the hail ceased: see verse 29. Rain is mentioned here for the first
time, but it is assumed that rain and hail fell together. (The verb “to rain” is used of the hail in
verse 23.) No longer is implied; the text literally says “and rain was not poured earthward.”
9.33 TEV condenses the two clauses and makes “earthward” implicit: “The thunder, the hail,
and the rain all stopped.”

9.34

But when Pharaoh saw is literally “And Pharaoh saw,” but most translations introduce
when to emphasize he sinned yet again as the main verb phrase. Had ceased introduces the
English pluperfect along with the relative when clause. The repeated reference to the rain and
the hail and the thunder is natural in Hebrew narrative, but it may be condensed as in 9.34
TEV, “When the king saw what had happened.” 9.34 CEV has “When the king realized that the
storm was over.”

He sinned yet again is literally “and he added to sinning.” And hardened his heart uses the
verb meaning “to make heavy” (see the discussion at 4.21.) Note that here it is the king who
causes his heart to become hard. He and his servants refers to the act of hardening the heart,
not necessarily to the sinning. 9.34 NIV expresses it more naturally: “He and his officials
hardened their hearts.”

9.35

So the heart of Pharaoh was hardened uses the verb meaning “to be strong.” (See the
discussion at 4.21.) Note that this is one of six theologically neutral references in Exodus to the
Pharaoh’s heart, for apart from verse 34 there is no indication as to who caused it to be hard.
(This is discussed further at 7.13.) As in 9.35 NIV, therefore, it is more accurate to translate
“hard” than hardened. The meaning, of course, is that he “remained as stubborn as ever.” 9.35
TEV, 9.35 CEV, and others omit So the heart of Pharaoh was hardened as being repetitious.

And he did not let the people of Israel go repeats the same formula used in 8.32; 9.7; and
11.10. He did not let … go is literally “he did not send.” 9.35 NRSV has changed the did not in
these verses to “would not,” as in 9.35 TEV and others. As the Lord had spoken through Moses
is literally “as Yahweh spoke by the hand of Moses.” 9.35 KJV and ASV translate “by Moses.”
This is not quite the same meaning as in 9.12, where it says “to Moses.” The implication here is
that Moses (or Aaron) had earlier explained this to the Israelites. (See 3.19 and 4.28–30.)

(8) Locusts (10.1–20)

The eighth plague was the large swarm of locusts that swept over the whole land of Egypt
and destroyed all the crops and plants left after the hailstorm (10.15). The locust was a
common insect in the ancient world that was eaten by the people as a delicacy. Even today it
provides a source of protein for people in many cultures around the world. But under certain
conditions locusts are capable of reproducing quite rapidly and migrating over great distances
in huge swarms, eating every living plant in their path. For this reason a plague of locusts was
one of the most dreaded calamities in the ancient world and was usually considered deadly
(10.17).

In this plague account all six parts of the narrative pattern are found, although the first
part is only implied in 10.1 with the words “Go in to Pharaoh.” And in two places new ideas are
added: Verses 1–2 explain that one reason for all these signs is to show to future generations
of the Israelites how the Lord “made fools of the Egyptians” (TEV). Verses 7–11 give the only
account we have of the king calling Moses and Aaron back to negotiate after the warning had
been given and before the plague has occurred. The pattern may be seen as follows:

a) The Lord informes Moses about 10.1

the plague

a’) The reason for the plagues 10.1–2

b) Moses warns Pharaoh 10.3–6

b) Pharaoh wants to negotiate 10.7–11

c) The plague occurs 10.12–15

d) Pharraoh asks Moses to remove 10.16–17

the plague

e) The plague is removed 10.18–19

f) Pharaoh’s heart is “hardened” 10.20

again

Section Heading: both 9.35 TEV and this Handbook have “Locusts” as the heading for this
subsection, and translators are urged to follow this model. See 10.4 below for information on
the translation of locusts.

10.1

The word Then is only transitional and does not indicate how soon this plague followed
the previous one. Some translators may wish to connect this chapter more clearly to the
previous one; for example, “After the great hailstorm had ended, the Lord said to Moses.” Go
in to Pharaoh may suggest that Moses is to meet the king inside the palace, even though most
translations do not reflect this. The Hebrew word means “to enter,” but it can also mean “Go
into Pharaoh’s presence” (NEB). (See the comment at 8.1.)

For I have hardened his heart is literally “because I, I hardened his heart.” The conjunction
for is causal and the pronoun I is emphatic. This clearly shows that Yahweh actually intended
to make the king “stubborn” before sending Moses to him again. Therefore I have hardened
his heart, or “I have made him … stubborn” (10.1 TEV), should be shown in contrast to the idea
in 9.34–35 that the Pharaoh hardened his own heart. The word for hardened here has the
basic meaning of heavy or dull. (See the discussion at 4.21 and 7.13) And the heart of his
servants may need to be pluralized, as in 10.1 NIV (“the hearts of his officials”).

That I may show should be understood as “in order that” (10.1 TEV), for it explains why the
Lord hardened his heart and introduces the first of two stated purposes of the plagues—that I
may show. (The second purpose is stated in verse 2.) These signs includes all the “miracles”
performed in the negotiations with the Pharaoh, not just the seven disastrous plagues that
have already occurred. Signs of mine clearly shows that Yahweh is the one performing them.
Hence 10.1 TEV, “in order that I may perform these miracles.” (For signs and “miracles” see
3.20.) Among them in the Hebrew is literally “before him” (10.1 KJV), but it refers to the king
and his officials. (HOTTP states “The singular is collective.”) One may also express among them
as “in their sight” or “as the king and his officials are watching.”

10.2

This is a continuation of the sentence that begins in verse 1. And that you may tell
introduces the second purpose of the plagues. It is helpful to repeat “in order that,” for
Yahweh is saying in verse 1 “I have hardened his heart … in order that I may show … ,” and
continues with and [in order] that you may tell in this verse. That you may tell is singular in
form, since Yahweh is speaking to Moses. But it is plural in meaning, for this concern for all the
Israelites to instruct their children reflects the Deuteronomistic (“D”) tradition in Israel. (See
13.8, 14 and the discussion on “Sources” in “Translating Exodus,” page 2.)

The Hebrew form of tell suggests “recount” (TAN, NAB) “again and again” (Durham). In the
hearing of is a Hebraism that should probably be omitted, although expressions such as “tell
[or, recount] … to let listen” appear in a number of languages. Your son … your son’s son uses
the singular son in the Hebrew, but the meaning is “sons” (TAN) and does not exclude the
daughters; hence 10.2 TEV, 10.2 NRSV, and 10.2 CEV have “your children and your
grandchildren.” In certain languages one will need to repeat what Moses is to tell, namely,
how I have made sport and what signs.

How I made sport of the Egyptians brings out the reflexive form of the verb “to deal with,”
that is, “to enjoy myself by means of the Egyptians.” Hence 10.2 TEV has “how I made fools of
the Egyptians” (so also 10.2 NRSV and NJB). TAN has “I made a mockery of” (similarly NASB); and
REB has “I toyed with” (so also Childs). A few translations hesitate to bring out this meaning
(NAB, 10.2 NIV, CEV), but see also Num 22.29 (NIV: “You have made a fool of me!”) and 1 Sam
31.4 (NAB: “lest [they] make sport of me”), where the same form is used. Other ways to express
this are “how I made the Egyptians appear to be stupid” or “how I caused the Egyptians to act
as stupid fools.”

And what signs I have done is part of the second purpose of the plagues: “that you may
tell … how I have made fools of the Egyptians and what signs I have done” (10.2 NRSV). Among

HOTTP HEBREW OLD TESTAMENT TEXT PROJECT

REB REVISED ENGLISH BIBLE

 them here is plural in the Hebrew, in contrast with verse 1, but may be rendered in a similar
way.
135

That you may know is an overall statement of the purpose of the plagues and is broader in
meaning than the other two statements (the you is plural). Note the semicolon in 10.2 RSV and
the full stop in 10.2 TEV. (10.2 NRSV uses the dash to set this clause off from all that precedes.)
10.2 CEV has “Then all of you will know that … .” That I am the Lord is the important self-
introductory formula (as in 6.2) used again and again in Exodus in response to the question of
the Pharaoh (5.2), “Who is the Lord?” Here again the focus is on the name Yahweh in contrast
to the many pagan gods known in the ancient world.

An alternative translation model for verses 1 and 2 is:

• 1 After the great hailstorm had stopped, the Lord said to Moses, “Go back into the palace to
the king. I have made him and his officials stubborn so that I may perform these miracles in
front of them. 2 I want you [plural] to tell your children and grandchildren about these
miracles and how I caused the Egyptians to appear stupid. Then you [plural] will know that I
am Yahweh!

10.3

So Moses and Aaron went in is literally “And Moses went in, and Aaron,” with the singular
verb. Aaron may have been an editorial insertion without changing the verb to the plural form.
Went in is the same verb (“to enter”) as in verse 1, suggesting that the Pharaoh was in his
palace. And said to him here has the plural form of the verb. Thus says the Lord is the
important messenger formula used to convey the exact words of Yahweh (as discussed at
4.22). The God of the Hebrews is an extension of the messenger formula also found in 9.1 and
9.13 (discussed at ).

How long will you refuse is literally “Until when will you refuse?” (The you is singular.)
These are the Lord’s words, introduced by the messenger formula and suggesting Yahweh’s
growing impatience with the Pharaoh. To humble yourself before me is literally “to be bent
down from my face,” so 10.3 TEV has “How much longer will you refuse to submit to me?” 10.3
CEV has “How long will you stubbornly refuse to obey?”

135Osborn, N. D., & Hatton, H. (1999). A handbook on Exodus. UBS handbook series; Helps for
translators (200). New York: United Bible Societies.

RSV Revised Standard Version

TEV Today’s English Version

NRSV New Revised Standard Version

CEV Contemporary English Version

 Let my people go, that they may serve me is the demand formula discussed at 4.23a and
8.1. Note that here again the word serve means “worship.”

10.4

The word For connects the warning in this verse with the demand in verse 3. In this
context it means “or else” (10.4 KJV). 10.4 TEV omits the word in order to place more emphasis
on the if clause. If you refuse uses the participle form of the verb, which suggests the meaning
of “If you keep on refusing.” Behold adds even more emphasis to both the demand and the
warning, even though recent English translations tend to omit it as an archaic expression. (See
the discussion at 1.9)

Tomorrow is indefinite as far as the hour is concerned, in contrast to 9.18. I will bring is
the causative participle, meaning literally “I am the one who will cause to enter.” The locusts
were the migratory or desert type of winged, hopping insects that swarm in the air. They were
edible (Lev 11.22) but very destructive to plant life when they moved in large swarms. (For
further information on locusts see FFB, pages 53–54; also see the introductory paragraph to
this chapter.) If locusts are unknown in a receptor culture, one may use a descriptive phrase
for the first occurrence in Exodus—for example, “flying insects called ‘locusts,’ ”—and include
an illustration of locusts for the readers. Into your country, of course, means Egypt.

10.5

They shall cover the face of the land means that “There will be so many that they will
completely cover the ground” (10.5 TEV). (See Joel 1.4 and 2.3–11 for another graphic
description of a swarm of locusts.) So that no one can see the land simply describes further
how dense the swarm of locusts will be. 10.5 TEV omits this second clause as unnecessary, but
it adds emphasis to the warning. A translation model for the first two clauses is “They will
completely cover the country [or, Egypt] so that you [plural] won’t be able to see the ground.”

They shall eat describes exactly what the locusts will do to the plant life. What is left to
you is literally “the remainder of what is left, the leftover things for you [plural].” It refers to all
the crops of the Egyptians that were not destroyed by the hailstorm of the seventh plague (but
see the comment in the next paragraph relating to 9.25). After the hail is literally “from the
hail.” Another way to express and they shall eat … is “The hailstones destroyed most of your
crops, and these locusts will eat what is left.”

Every tree of yours is a general statement that simply emphasizes the extent of the
destruction to come. Which grows in the field uses the participle of the verb “to sprout” with
the article (literally “the sprouting ones”). NAB interprets this to mean “all foliage that has since

KJV KING JAMES VERSION

FFB FAUNA AND FLORA OF THE BIBLE

NAB NEW AMERICAN BIBLE

 sprouted in your fields” (the word “since” is added), and TOT has “all the trees which are
beginning to grow again,” adding the word “again.” Although this softens the apparent
contradiction of the verse with 9.25, most translations take the description of complete ruin in
as hyperbole (exaggeration) intended to make the narrative more emphatic. The translator
should guard against harmonizing separate accounts. In the field is not intended to exclude
any trees that may have been growing in enclosed areas. The destruction by the locusts was to
be complete (see 10.15).

An alternative translation model for this verse is:

• They will completely cover Egypt so that you [plural] won’t be able to see the ground. The
hailstones destroyed most of your crops, and these locusts will eat what is left, even the trees
that are beginning to grow again.

10.6

They will fill your houses (10.6 TEV “palaces”) suggests that the king had more than one
house (your is plural). And the houses of all your servants means “all your officials.” And of all
the Egyptians includes all the people of Egypt, but it may imply that the houses of the
Israelites would be spared.

The word as (or “which”) is a relative pronoun that may refer either to the locusts
themselves (10.6 TEV “They”) or to the destruction the locusts will bring. 10.6 NRSV helpfully
places a dash here, followed with “something that,” so that the following clause refers to the
entire event described in verses 4–6. (So also NJB, TAN, and 10.6 NIV.)

Neither your fathers nor your grandfathers means all the “ancestors” of the Egyptians,
although the pronoun your is singular. (TOT “None of your ancestors saw anything like it.” (On
“ancestors” see the comment at 2.1 and especially at 3.6.) From the day they came on earth
to this day is understood in some translations to refer to when the Egyptians first settled in
that land (NIV, NAB). More likely the expression means exactly what 10.6 RSV has, simply adding
emphasis to the idea of “never.” 10.6 TEV omits the entire phrase, depending perhaps too
much on the word “ever” to convey this emphasis. In a number of languages it will be
necessary to show that the great number of locusts is more than any of the Egyptian ancestors
have seen, and translate “more locusts than have ever been seen in this country” or “more
locusts than your ancestors have ever seen.”

Then he turned is singular, referring only to “Moses.” There is no reference to Aaron here
as there is in verse 3. And went out from Pharaoh uses the verb “to exit,” which complements

TOT TRANSLATOR’S OLD TESTAMENT

NJB NEW JERUSALEM BIBLE

TAN TANAKH (NEW JEWISH VERSION)

NIV NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION

the verb “to enter” in verse 3. Turned will sound strange in some languages. In such a case one
may express this final sentence as “After that Moses left the palace.”

10.7

Most translations start a new paragraph here, so the And should either be omitted or
translated with an appropriate transitional expression. (But note that NJB has “At which …”).
Durham considers it to be a “special waw,” which he translates as “Immediately.” But it
probably means something like “When the king’s officials heard this, they … .” Pharaoh’s
servants were “The king’s officials,” or “courtiers” (REB), who were there with him.

How long, or “Until when,” repeats the same words spoken to him in verse 3, but the
reference is to this man, meaning Moses. This man is very likely derogatory and insulting,
meaning, for example, “this fellow.” Translators need to find a derogatory term in the receptor
language. Be a snare to us means “to give us trouble,” but as a figure of speech it means more.
They seem to suspect that Moses is leading them into a trap by means of the continuing
plagues. So NJB has “How much longer are we to be tricked by this fellow?” And REB, “How long
must we be caught in this man’s toils?” In languages that do not have a passive voice, one may
translate, for example, “How much longer will this fellow trick us?” or “Until when are we
going to let this fellow trick us?”

Let the men go probably refers to the “Israelite men” (10.7 TEV) and not to the women,
with the idea that the men would be sure to return to their families after worshiping Yahweh.
This is implied in the negotiations that follow in verses 8–11. But 10.7 NRSV and others (NIV, NJB,
CEV) use the inclusive “people,” suggesting that keeping the women behind was the king’s idea
rather than that of his advisers, some of whom were supposed to be “wise men” (see 7.11).
This interpretation is the more likely one. That they may worship the Lord their God refers
back to the demand in verse 3.

Do you not yet understand is a rhetorical question that expresses both the fear of the
officials and their impatience with the king. That Egypt is ruined uses the verb meaning “to be
lost” or “to perish.” It is an exaggerated emotional statement that should not be weakened, as
it is in NJB (“on the brink of ruin”) or NAB (“is being destroyed”). In languages that do not use
rhetorical questions and have no passive voice, this sentence may be expressed as “You must
realize by now that this man [Moses] has already ruined Egypt.”

10.8

So is the common conjunction waw, which must always be translated according to the
context. Here it is prefixed to the verb meaning “to return” in the singular causative passive
form, with the literal meaning of “and was caused to return Moses, and Aaron, unto Pharaoh.”
Here again Aaron may be an editorial addition without changing the verb to plural. (See the
comment at verse 3.) In languages that do not have the passive voice, one may express this as
“So the king had them [his servants] bring Moses and Aaron back.”

REB REVISED ENGLISH BIBLE

 And he said to them here uses the plural pronoun, meaning both Moses and Aaron. Go
and serve are both plural in form, but here this includes all the Israelites. There is no “and”
separating these verbs in the Hebrew, and the imperative is used, but these words are more
likely to be understood as granting permission rather than as a command. So 10.8 TEV has “You
may go and worship.” (But TAN has “Go, worship … !”) 10.8 CEV has “All right, you may go.” The
Lord your God, spoken by the Pharaoh, places the name “Yahweh” in focus as the name of a
deity he does not worship and does not recognize as God. For this reason Durham suggests
that here the lower case “god” is more appropriate than God. When the phrase is restructured
as “Yahweh, the god whom you worship,” it is clear that it should be lower case “god”; the
word “the” signals this. Some translators will wish to follow this interpretation but should
translate in a way similar to the example above, so that when the passage is read in public,
those listening will understand this as lower case “god.”

But who are to go? is literally “Who, and who are the ones going?” This Hebrew form is
better represented as “But exactly who will go?” (10.8 TEV). NAB has “But how many of you will
go?” 10.8 CEV has “But first tell me who will be going.”

10.9

Moses’ answer is intended to be explicit and all-inclusive, so it is given in rhyme and

rhythm with three pairs of two terms each. It may not be possible in translation to preserve
this form. Our young and our old, in the Hebrew, refers primarily to young and old men (JB,
NJB, and Durham). But the intention is clearly inclusive, so the young and old women should
not be left out. (FRCL has “young people and old.”) Our sons and daughters appears to omit
older women, but again, this is not the intended meaning. So FRCL has “men and women.”

Our flocks and herds in 10.9 TEV often becomes “our sheep and goats, and our cattle,” for
the Hebrew word for flocks includes both “sheep and goats.” The word for herds refers mainly
to “cattle,” but here it may have included donkeys as well. Since the donkey was not used for
sacrifice but only as a pack animal to carry cargo, there was no reason to keep the donkeys
behind. If translators feel that cows, oxen, and donkeys are included, it will be better to use a
general descriptive phrase; for example, “and our large [domesticated] animals” for herds.
Camels, horses, and mules, of course, were not yet used by the Israelites. While Moses seems
to mean “We will all go” (TAN), the “cattle” were especially important as animals for sacrifice,
which was an important part of their feast to the Lord.

We must hold a feast to the Lord is just two words in the Hebrew, meaning literally “a-
feast-of-Yahweh for-us.” The word for feast, first used in 5.1, is better translated as “festival,”
or “fiesta,” for it implies much more than simply offering a sacrifice. 10.9 NRSV now has “we
have the Lord’s festival to celebrate.” The word has the basic meaning of making a pilgrimage
and suggests feasting and dancing as well. In most cases it refers to one of the three major

JB JERUSALEM BIBLE

FRCL FRENCH COMMON LANGUAGE VERSION

pilgrimage festivals mentioned in 23.15–16. Its use here anticipates the feast of Passover in
12.14 and Unleavened Bread in 13.6.

10.10

And he said to them means “The king said” (10.10 TEV). The Lord be with you is not a
blessing, even though it sounds like one in English. The intended sarcasm is missed in many
translations (especially NEB, which places this as a blessing at the end of the permission to
leave). The if ever in the next phrase marks the difference, for if ever I let you and your little
ones go probably means “I would just as soon wish God’s blessing on you as to let your
children go with you!” (Childs). In other words, “I will never let you take your dependents with
you!”

Various interpretations, however, are suggested in the many contemporary translations.

TEV is forceful: “I swear by the Lord that I will never let you take your women and children!”
but it may be questioned that the Pharaoh would swear by the name of Yahweh, a God he
refused to recognize. NRSV is an improvement over RSV: “The Lord indeed will be with you, if
ever I let your little ones go with you!” The word for your little ones, however, probably here
includes both “women and children” (10.10 TEV). It therefore appears that the king was being
sarcastic. Possible models for this are “I swear by Yahweh that I will never let you take …”; or
“If I ever let you take … then Yahweh is with you.” However, if these do not show the intended
sarcasm, it will be better to use a strong statement such as “I will never let you take your
women and children with you.”

Look is understood by some to mean “beware” (NEB), “Be careful!” (TOT), or “Take heed”
(NASB). Other translations, however, understand it as “Clearly” (TAN), “Plainly” (NJB), or “It is
clear.” Either choice is possible, depending on the interpretation of the following clause. You
have some evil purpose in mind is literally “evil is before your faces.” It may mean “there is
trouble in store for you” (NEB), in which case “Be careful” is appropriate for Look. Most
translations, however, follow the 10.10 RSV interpretation, “Clearly, you are bent on mischief”
(TAN); “Plainly, you are up to no good!” (NJB); and “It is clear that you are plotting to revolt”
(10.10 TEV).

10.11

No! is emphatic (10.11 NRSV “No, never!”), proving the intended sarcasm of verse 10. It will
be helpful in some languages to repeat information from the previous verse; for example, “No,
your [plural] dependents may not go!” or “I will not let you take your dependents with you
[plural].” Go is here qualified by a particle that softens the command. The men among you,
just one word, is different from “men” in verse 7 and focuses more on the strength of men as
over against women. Serve the Lord means “worship the Lord” (10.11 TEV). For that is what
you desire refers back to “go and worship.” The word for may also mean “if.” It is possible to

NEB NEW ENGLISH BIBLE

NASB NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE

place the clause for that is what you desire at the beginning of the verse and translate “You
want to worship Yahweh, don’t you? All right, just take the men and go!”

And they were driven out is literally “And he drove them out,” but the singular pronoun
“he” does not fit well with the following phrase, from Pharaoh’s presence. Most translations
therefore use the passive form without specifying who it was that drove them out. If the agent
must be specified, it is possible to say “And he drove them out from [or, forced them to leave]
his presence” or “And he forced them to leave his palace.”

10.12

Then (waw) introduces a new paragraph and a new setting—outside the palace. Stretch
out your hand may be understood as “Raise your hand,” or “Hold out your arm” (TAN). It is the
same command given in the previous accounts, but here there is no mention of the rod (but
compare verse 13). And the command is given to Moses rather than to Aaron. It should be
noted that, while Aaron seems to be the main activator of the first three plagues, and Yahweh
in the second group of three, Moses is the activator in this third cycle. (See the note at 7.20 on
who held the rod.) Over the land of Egypt suggests a single dramatic waving of the hand, but
the word for over may also mean “against” (Durham), and even “toward”; so 10.12 CEV has
“Stretch your arm toward Egypt.”

For the locusts seems very abrupt, and various proposals have been made to change the
Hebrew text to what some scholars think was better. However, 10.12 TEV simply expands the
phrase to make it clear, “to bring the locusts.” And 10.12 NRSV restructures with the following
phrase: “so that the locusts may come.” That they may come upon is literally “and they will
come up upon,” which may be understood as “swarm over” (NIV, NAB). Another way to express
this is “to cause the locusts to come.”

And eat every plant refers to “all the vegetation” (NAB, REB), or “all the grasses” (TAN). All
that the hail has left means all plant life that was not destroyed by the hailstorm. (See verse 5
and the comment.)

10.13

So Moses stretched forth his rod does not contradict the command in verse 12, but it
reflects a different tradition, in which the rod was important. (See the discussion on “Sources”
in “Translating Exodus,” page 2.) The rod, or “stick” (10.13 NRSV “staff”), is discussed at 4.2.
Stretched forth his rod may also be expressed as “held out his walking stick.” Over the land of
Egypt again suggests a single gesture rather than a prolonged extension of the arm. See the
previous verse, where “against’ or “toward” are possible translations.

And the Lord brought an east wind means “the Lord caused a wind from the east to blow”
(10.13 TEV), and in a number of languages the causative will be more natural style. The root
meaning of the verb is “to drive,” so TAN has “drove an east wind.” REB is more dramatic: “the
Lord sent a wind roaring in from the east.” East in a number of languages will be translated in a
way similar to “from the direction where the sun rises,” or simply “from where the sun rises.”
So brought an east wind may be also expressed as “caused a wind to blow from the direction
 where the sun rises.” Upon the land suggests the whole “land of Egypt” (10.13 NRSV). All that
day and all that night means the rest of that day and throughout the following night. (The
word “tomorrow” in verse 4 is indefinite.)

When it was morning is literally “and the morning was.” The word for morning refers to
dawn or daybreak. Other ways to express when it was morning are “when the sun rose again”
or “After the sun had risen the next day.” The east wind had brought the locusts is pluperfect
in English, meaning that the locusts had been brought in during the night and were already
there by daybreak. This interpretation suggests the prolonged effect of the wind and is based
on the context rather than on the form of the verb. NAB and 10.13 KJV use the simple past
tense, “the east wind brought the locusts.” The verb brought means to lift, raise, or carry. (See
“lifted” and the comment at verse 19.) Another possible way to express this final sentence is
“The next morning the locusts were already there in Egypt,” meaning that the wind had
brought them during the night.

An alternative translation model for this verse is:

• So Moses held out his walking stick, and the Lord caused a wind to blow from the east. It blew
all that day and night. The next day, when the sun had risen, the locusts were already there in
Egypt.

10.14

And the locusts came up uses the same verb as verse 12, suggesting the locusts were also
flying and hopping under their own power. REB says “They invaded the whole land” (TAN, NJB,
and others), and 10.14 TEV has “They came in swarms” (NAB “They swarmed”). And settled on
the whole country of Egypt, literally “settled at every boundary of Egypt,” means “settled in
every area of the country” (10.14 NIV). An alternative model for the first sentence is “They
were swarming everywhere in Egypt.”

A dense swarm of locusts: dense swarm is literally “very heavy,” and such as had never
been before is literally “before it [there] was not such a locust like it.” The Hebrew does not
have a separate word for swarm, but the word for “locust,” though singular in form, is
collective in meaning. In some languages this will be expressed as “the largest group of
locusts.” Nor ever shall be again is simply “and after it will not be such.” So 10.14 TEV has “It
was the largest swarm of locusts that had ever been seen or that ever would be seen again.”
10.14 CEV has “never before had there been so many locusts in Egypt, and never again will
there be so many.” Another way to render the final part of this verse is “This was the largest
swarm of locusts that people in Egypt had ever seen, and they would never see so many
locusts again.”

10.15

For is not necessary; it only represents the usual conjunction waw. The face of the whole
land is really “the eye of the whole land,” so TAN translates “They hid all the land from view.”
But the word for “eye” may also mean “appearance.” 10.15 NRSV has changed face to
“surface,” along with others (NAB, REB, NJB). So that the land was darkened suggests that the
locusts were in the air, blocking out the sunlight. The context, however, suggests they were on
the ground, even though the word really means “dark.” Hence one may say “They covered the
ground until it was black with them” (10.15 TEV), or “They covered the ground so that it looked
black.”

Theyate all the plants in the land uses the same word as in verse 12. The locusts probably
ate all the fruit off the trees and the leaves, new buds, and green sprigs off both the trees and
plants. But they did not eat the larger tree branches. So and theyate all the plants … may be
rendered as “Theyate the greenery off all the plants and trees that the hail had not destroyed,
and also the fruit on the trees.” And all the fruit of the trees is added here for emphasis; it was
not part of the warning given in verse 5. Which the hail had left refers to the trees that had
survived the hailstorm (9.25.) Not a green thing remained refers to any green plant life, such
as new buds or sprigs that may have appeared. One may also express this as “None of the
trees or plants had any greenery [or, green things] left on them.” Tree and plant of the field
repeat the same words used in 9.25. This time the destruction of the plant life was complete.

10.16

Then Pharaoh called Moses and Aaron in haste is literally “And hurried Pharaoh to call for
Moses and for Aaron,” with the verb “to hurry” placed first. 10.16 NRSV has “Pharaoh hurriedly
summoned.” One may also say “At once the king sent for Moses and Aaron” (10.16 CEV).

I have sinned uses the common Hebrew word for sin, which has the root meaning of
failing to achieve, or missing the mark. (See the comment on chata’ at 20.20.) Here, as in most
places throughout the Old Testament, it refers to moral wrong. The same word is used in 9.27,
but in that case the king admits only that he had made a mistake. In this passage he is saying
that he has “done something wrong [morally] against Yahweh.” Against the Lord your God
uses the name “Yahweh,” and the your is plural. And against you is also plural, meaning
Moses and Aaron, but possibly all the Israelites. TAN translates “I stand guilty before the Lord
your God and before you.”

10.17

Now therefore is “And now,” meaning “In the present situation,” or “Since I have done
this,” rather than “At this time.” Forgive my sin seems to be addressed only to Moses, since
the verb is “you” singular, but several ancient versions have pluralized it. Forgive is a difficult
term to translate in many languages. Examples from a variety of languages that may be helpful
to translators are “throw away sin,” “cover over … ,” “forget … .” A Handbook on the Gospel of
Mark, page 13, gives many more excellent examples. The word for sin is the noun form of the
verb used in verse 16. I pray you is a two-letter word used to strengthen a request or soften a
command, in this case probably doing both. Only this once is an expression that literally
means “only a step,” or “only a time.”

And entreat the Lord your God means to “pray” or “plead” (TAN). The pronoun your is
plural. Only to remove this death from me is a metaphor that refers to the plague. It may be
understood as a “deadly pest” (NAB), or a “fatal punishment,” or a “punishment that causes
death.” In languages that do not use indirect speech, the sentence And entreat the Lord your
 God … may be expressed as “Please say to Yahweh, ‘I plead with you to take away … .” The
word only is often difficult to translate, so 10.17 TEV omits it. It should not be understood here
as “only this plague and nothing more,” for the metaphor of death describes it as about the
worst thing possible. 10.17 NRSV translates “pray … that at the least he remove this deadly
thing from me.”

10.18

He went out refers only to Moses, and implies that he not only “left the king” (10.18 TEV),
but that he also “left the palace” (10.18 CEV). And entreated the Lord uses the same word for
“prayed” as verse 17. It may be helpful to note that REB treats this verse as a dependent clause
with the following verse: “When Moses left Pharaoh and interceded with the Lord, the wind
was changed … .” (Similarly also NJB.) Another way to express this is:

• 18 When Moses left the king and pleaded with the Lord to take the locusts away, 19 the Lord
caused the wind from the east to … .”

10.19

And the Lord turned a very strong west wind is quite literal and not very clear in English.
10.19 NRSV is an improvement: “The Lord changed the wind into a very strong west wind” (see
also 10.19 TEV). In other words, the “east wind” of verse 13 was suddenly reversed. West wind
is literally “wind of the sea,” which must be understood from the viewpoint of the Israelites
who later settled in Canaan. For them the west wind blew in from the Mediterranean Sea. In
some other languages west wind will be translated as, for example, “wind from the direction
where the sun sets.”

Which lifted the locusts uses the same word translated as “brought” in verse 13. Drove
them is a word that suggests a sudden thrust, so NAB has “hurled them,” and REB has “swept
them.” 10.19 TEV’s “picked up the locusts and blew them” is another good model. The Red Sea
is literally “Sea of Reeds,” as the 10.19 TEV note for 13.18 explains. The Hebrew Scriptures
regularly use the term “The Sea of Reeds” for all occurrences of the term, while the Septuagint
and the Greek New Testament regularly use the name “The Red Sea.” 10.19 TEV here translates
“the Gulf of Suez,” which is the modern term for the western extension of the Red Sea
separating Egypt from the Sinai peninsula. TAN is correct in its footnote here, which reads:
traditionally, but incorrectly, “Red Sea.” Translations with Red Sea are influenced by the early
Christian tradition and by the New Testament. The translator, however, should follow the
Hebrew (“Sea of Reeds”), or 10.19 TEV (“Gulf of Suez”), unless there is a strong tradition in the
receptor culture for Red Sea. If Red Sea is used, then a footnote similar to that in 10.19 TEV at
13.18 should be added.

Not a single locust was left, or remained, in all the country of Egypt. Country, the same
word used in verse 14, means “boundary,” or “territory.” By repeating the same words used
earlier, the narrator gives emphasis to the complete control of Yahweh over the entire plague.

An alternative translation model for verses 18 and 19 is:

• 18 When Moses left the king and pleaded with the Lord to take the locusts away, 19 the Lord
caused the wind that was coming from the east to blow strongly from the west. It swept the
locusts into the Sea of Reeds; not one locust was left anywhere in Egypt.

10.20

But the Lord hardened Pharaoh’s heart uses a different word from that in verse 1. The
word here, meaning “to make strong,” is used in 12 of the 20 references to the heart of the
Pharaoh. (See the discussions at 4.21 and 7.13.) The meaning of the phrase, however, is still
that Yahweh “made the king stubborn.”

He did not has been changed in 10.20 NRSV to “he would not,” suggesting more clearly the
stubborn refusal of “the king.” As in previous references, let go is literally “he did not send
out.” The children of Israel, of course, refers to “the Israelites.” CEV’s model will be helpful in
many languages: “but the Lord made the king so stubborn that he still refused to let the
Israelites go.”

(9) Darkness (10.21–29)

The account of the ninth plague is given in just nine verses and completes the third cycle of
three plagues each. As pointed out in the introduction to the plague of gnats at 8.16–19, the
account of the third plague in each of the three cycles is short, and there is no record of any
warning being given to the Pharaoh before the plague occurs.

Consequently only two of the six parts of the basic pattern of the plague accounts are
evident here. (See page 162.) It is possible that in the earlier oral tradition of Israel, all six parts
were present. But later on some parts could have been omitted in order to emphasize various
details of the different plagues. By the time the narrator got to the ninth plague, the same
general sequence was likely understood.

It may be implied in verse 21 that Yahweh had earlier informed Moses about the darkness
(part a). But there is no record that the king was given any advanced warning of this (part b).
Neither is there any indication that the king asked for the plague to be removed (part d). In
fact, there is no record that the darkness was ever removed (Part e), but of course this must be
assumed as the story progresses in chapter 11.

Only parts (c) and (e) are clearly present in 10.21–23 and 27, describing the occurrence of
darkness and the hardening of the Pharaoh’s heart. But the other verses, 24–26 and 28–29,
record the final and unsuccessful negotiations between Moses and the Pharaoh, with the end
result that Moses is banned forever from the king’s presence.

Section Heading: both 10.20 TEV and this Handbook have the heading “Darkness” for this
subsection, and this will be a natural heading in many languages. Other models are “Complete
darkness covers Egypt,” or “No sunlight in Egypt for three days,” or “The sun doesn’t shine in
Egypt for three days.”

10.21
 Then, the usual conjunction waw, functions here as a transitional to introduce another
plague. But there is no indication of the length of time between verses 20 and 21. The Lord is
Yahweh, who here speaks only to Moses. Aaron is not mentioned at all in this account. Stretch
out your hand toward the heaven is the same command given in 9.22, meaning “hold out
your arm” (TAN) or “raise your hand toward the sky.” There is no mention of the rod in this
entire section.

That there may be darkness is really “in order that” (10.21 NRSV), suggesting that the
dramatic gesture was to be seen as activating the darkness. Literally the text says “and there
will be,” or “let there be” (similarly NJB). 10.21 NIV has “so that darkness will spread.” Here the
word for darkness is the same as that used in Gen 1.2. In the Old Testament, however,
darkness is not understood as simply the absence of light, but as something created by God
(see Isa 45.7). Other ways to express this sentence are “and everywhere in Egypt will be
covered with darkness” or “it will be completely dark everywhere in Egypt.” Over the land of
Egypt includes the entire country (but see verse 23).

A darkness to be felt (10.21 TEV “a darkness thick enough to be felt”) describes the
intensity of the darkness. To be felt translates the Hebrew verb that means to touch or feel
with the hand. TAN has “a darkness that can be touched.” This is difficult to imagine unless
adjectives such as “intense” (NAB), “dense” (REB), or “thick” (10.21 TEV) are added. (See also the
comment at verse 22.) GECL has “so thick that one can grasp it with the hand.” 10.21 CEV has
“thick enough to touch.” Durham reads the Hebrew literally as “and darkness will cause to
grope,” emphasizing the causative form of the verb. Then he translates “a darkness so thick
people will have to feel their way around.” This is a possible interpretation but one that has
not been generally accepted. However, in receptor languages that cannot talk about darkness
that can be touched, one may use Durham’s model as an alternative.

10.22

So Moses stretched out his hand toward heaven follows exactly the wording of verse 21.
And there was thick darkness is literally “and there was darkness of darkness,” using an
additional word for darkness that may suggest a supernatural or “eerie darkness” (Durham).
Most translations simply intensify it as “deep darkness” (JB), “pitch darkness” (REB), or “total
darkness” (10.22 TEV). Three days implies three continuous twenty-four-hour periods of
abnormal darkness. The translation should not suggest that this period included normal
nighttime darkness.

10.23

They refers to “The Egyptians,” or simply “people.” Did not see one another is literally “a
man did not see his brother.” It uses the simple indicative form of the verb, but the context
suggests that they were not able, or “could not see each other” (10.23 TEV). The word for
“brother” may also be understood as “neighbor” (Durham). So one may translate “The
Egyptians could not even see the person living nearby.” However, in most languages

GECL GERMAN COMMON LANGUAGE VERSION

something like “The Egyptians could not see each other” will be a natural translation. Nor did
any means “and no one” (10.23 TEV). Rise from his place is literally “rise from beneath him.” It
is idiomatic for “get up from where he was” (TAN). 10.23 NRSV (and others) have “could not
move from where they were,” probably referring to their houses. So 10.23 TEV has “and no one
left his house during that time.” 10.23 CEV has “During that time” at the beginning of the verse
and translates as “During that time, the Egyptians could not see each other or leave their
homes.” This will be a good model in a number of languages. For three days corresponds to
the “three days” of “thick darkness” in verse 22. But note that it may be expressed simply as
“during that time” (10.23 TEV).

But all the people of Israel again excludes the Israelites from the effects of the plague
upon the Egyptians (as in 8.22; 9.4, 7; and 9.26). Had light where they dwelt here refers
primarily to daylight, something difficult to imagine unless where they dwelt refers to “the
land of Goshen” (8.22). 10.23 TEV therefore translates “But the Israelites had light where they
were living,” and 10.23 CEV has “but there was light where the Israelites lived.” But the Hebrew
uses the plural form, “dwellings” (TAN), and there is no other clue here suggesting that the
Israelites were living separately from the Egyptians. The very opposite is suggested in 11.2 and
elsewhere. Therefore in translating this verse one should not suggest either that the light for
the Israelites was an artificial light or that the Israelites were living in a separate region.

10.24

Then Pharaoh called Moses should be understood as “called for” or “sum moned” (10.24
NRSV and others). Moses (Aaron is not mentioned) and the king now engage in face-to-face
negotiations. Go, serve the Lord is identical with the king’s words in 10.8, using the second
person plural for all the Israelites.

The next two clauses have been interchanged in RSV, TEV, and others, but NRSV, TAN, and NJB
retain the order of the Hebrew. Your children is the word that often means “dependents”
(REB), so both “women and children” (10.24 TEV) is probably intended, as discussed at 10.10.
Here the king finally gives in to part of the demand of Moses in 10.9, and the word also, or
“even” (10.24 TEV), emphasizes this. May go with you is literally “will go with you [plural].” In
some languages one may say “And take your women and children with you” (similarly CEV).

Only, however, introduces a restriction, showing that the king is still a hard negotiator. Let
your flocks and herds remain behind is not a request but a demand. So 10.24 TEV has “But
your sheep, goats, and cattle must stay here.” The flocks included both “sheep” and “goats,”
but the herds here probably included the donkeys (as discussed at 9.3 and 10.9).

10.25

But is the conjunction waw, here showing that Moses does not accept the king’s offer. You
must also let us have sacrifices is literally “also you [singular] will give in our hand sacrifices.”
This has been interpreted in three different ways, each of which may influence the
interpretation of the following verses. The key word is also.
 a) Some translations interpret the also to mean that Moses is demanding additional
animals from the king (TAN, NJB, REB), especially since verse 26 begins with “And also our
cattle.”

b) TEV interprets also in the sense of “otherwise” or “in that case” and uses the subjunctive
to suggest an alternative the king would probably never accept: “Then [or, In that case] you
would have to provide us with animals.”

c) The most probable meaning, however, is that Moses is simply repeating his demand in
10.9, insisting that their own animals must be used for the sacrifice. In this sense the also
means “in addition to our women and children” in verse 24. So 10.25 CEV simply has “No! …
You must let us offer sacrifices … ,” with the also understood. Translators are urged to follow
this third interpretation. In some languages it may be necessary to be more explicit; for
example, “You must let us take our animals for sacrifices and burnt offerings to offer … .”

Sacrifices and burnt offerings, of course, refers to the “animals” (10.25 TEV) to be used in
their worship. Sacrifices is the noun form of the verb meaning “to slaughter” (as discussed at
3.18). Burnt offerings is one word referring to a whole animal completely burned on an altar.
(REB uses “whole-offering,” and NAB uses “holocausts”.) That we may sacrifice is literally “and
we will make [or, do].” The verb meaning to sacrifice is not used here, although the meaning is
the same. Words like “offer” (10.25 TEV) or “present” (10.25 NIV) may be more appropriate. To
the Lord our God must use the exclusive “our,” since Yahweh, the God of the Israelites, was
not worshiped by the Egyptians. An alternative translation model for the final part of this
verse, making the meaning more explicit, is “You must let us slaughter animals and also burn
whole animals on the altar to offer to Yahweh our [exclusive] God.”

10.26

Our cattle also is literally “and also our cattle.” The first word, “and also,” is interpreted by
some in connection with the “also” of verse 25, meaning “both … and,” that is, both the
animals to be provided by the king and those belonging to the Israelites. This is option (a)
explained in verse 25. However, the more probable meaning of also here, based on option (c),
is in addition to the wives and children in verse 24. 10.26 TEV adds “No” for emphasis. Cattle is
a more generic term for “possessions,” but here it means “animals,” or “livestock” (10.26
NRSV). (See the discussion at 9.3.)

Must go with us is literally “will go with us,” but the idea of must go is suggested by the
context. 10.26 TEV is perhaps just as affirmative: “No, we will take our animals with us.” Not a
hoof will be left behind is literal, but it is a figurative and emphatic way of saying “not one will
be left behind” (10.26 TEV).

For we must take of them places the emphasis on of them (literally “for from it we will
take”). This refers to the animals (singular in the Hebrew) belonging to the Israelites rather
than to any animals the king or his people might provide. 10.26 TEV emphasizes “we ourselves”
at this point, but this is apparently on the basis of option (b) discussed in verse 25 above and
the emphatic we in the following clause. We must is treated as “we may” in REB, NEB, and NJB,
but this is based on option (a) in verse 25. To serve the Lord our God means to worship
Yahweh, the Israelites’ God.

And we do not know is emphatic (“and we, we do not know”). It suggests that “we
ourselves shall not know” (NAB), “so how could you know?” With what we shall serve the Lord
means “what animals to sacrifice to him.” Until we arrive there does not specify the place, but
the there obviously refers to the place referred to in 3.18; 5.3; and 7.16, a place out in the
desert about three day’s journey away.

10.27

But the Lord hardened Pharaoh’s heart—this is identical to the words in 10.20 and 9.12,
using the verb meaning to make strong. The meaning is simply that Yahweh “made the king
stubborn” (10.27 TEV). (See the discussion at 4.21 and 7.13)

And he would not let them go is literally “and he did not agree to let them go.” This is the
first time the word meaning “to consent,” or “to be willing,” has been used in reference to the
Pharaoh. 10.27 NRSV has “he was unwilling.”

10.28

Then Pharaoh said to him is better expressed as “He said to Moses” (10.28 TEV), for the
pronoun him properly refers to Moses in verse 25 and not to the Lord in verse 27. This
awkward use of the pronoun is probably the result of an editorial insertion (“E”) of verse 27
into the Yahwist dialogue (“J”) of verses 24–29.

Get away from me is literally “Go from upon me.” It is a strong command that may be
expressed as “Get out of my sight!” (10.28 TEV), “Be off! Leave me!” (REB), or “Get out and stay
out!” (10.28 CEV). Take heed to yourself is a warning meaning “Be on your guard!” or “Watch
yourself!” Never see my face again is literally “Do not add to see my face.” It may be joined to
the preceding warning to mean “Make sure you do not appear before me again!” (10.28 NIV),
or better, “Don’t let me ever see you again!” (10.28 TEV).

For in the day you see my face you shall die is quite literal from the Hebrew and seems to
place the initiative with the Pharaoh. But the warning actually places the responsibility upon
Moses. Because of this 10.28 TEV reads much better: “On the day I do [meaning “On the day
you let me see you again”] you will die!”

10.29

Moses said introduces a direct response to the Pharaoh’s warning, so “Moses answered”
(10.29 TEV) or “Moses replied” is better. As you say! has been changed to “Just as you say!” in
10.29 NRSV. Literally it is “Thus you say,” or “Thus you have spoken.” It is still not easy to
determine the exact meaning.

Various interpretations have been given to this expression. Earlier editions of TEV had
“Anything you say,” which suggests that Moses is meekly submitting to the king’s command.
On the other hand, Durham translates “Whatever you say,” explaining in a comment that the
response is “tinged with the irony that Pharaoh himself may very well yet ask for him to come
back.”

“You are right” is more likely the meaning intended, suggesting that there will no longer be
the need for an appearance, since the Israelites will be gone. Hence I will not see your face
again; or, following the adjustment in 10.29 TEV, “You will never see me again.” TAN has “You
have spoken rightly. I shall not see your face again!” But see also 10.29 NIV, “Just as you say … I
will never appear before you again.” 10.29 CEV has “Have it your way,” Moses answered, “You
won’t see me again!”

(10) Death Forewarned (11.1–10)

Chapter 11 is the shortest chapter in the book of Exodus, but it plays an important
structural function. It concludes the series of devastating plagues in Egypt, and at the same
time it introduces the account of the marvelous deliverance of the Israelites from Egypt. It
therefore serves as the cement that binds together two important traditions in Israel, that of
the plagues and that of the Exodus.

Problems in this chapter, however, have caused much controversy. The most serious
problem is found in verse 4, where the text does not identify the addressee. So we must ask
whether Moses is speaking to the Israelites or to the Pharaoh. If he is speaking to the
Israelites, then how do we explain verse 8, which is clearly addressed to the king? And if Moses
is speaking to the Pharaoh, then how do we explain the implication in 10.29 that he did not
again appear before the king?

Most scholars suggest that verses 1–3 may have been inserted in the “J” narrative, which
begins with 10.24 and concludes with 11.8. (See also verse 27.) This “solution” does not solve
all the problems of the chapter, but it does support the interpretation of TEV and others that
Moses, in verse 4, is still addressing the king as in 10.29. (So GECL, FRCL, and SPCL.) The more
literal translations are content to leave the problem unresolved.

The six-part narrative pattern underlying the accounts of the nine plagues in 7.14–10.29
(see page 162) does not fit this tenth plague. This is due to several factors. First of all, as stated
above, chapter 11 serves as the “cement” between the two major traditions of the plagues
and the Exodus. In fact, it only introduces the tenth plague. Secondly, this final plague does not
end like the others, for this time the king is finally convinced to let the people go. And thirdly,
the actual account of the plague and its results has been spread out over several chapters and
is now interspersed with detailed instructions for the ritual observance of the Passover.

Section Heading: 10.29 TEV has “Moses Announces the Death of the First-born,” and this
Handbook suggests the heading, “Death forewarned.” Another possibility is “Moses warns the
King that all firstborn males will die.”

11.1

SPCL SPANISH COMMON LANGUAGE VERSION

 The Lord said to Moses omits the conjunction waw with which most sentences in the
Hebrew begin. 11.1 TEV (“Then the Lord said to Moses”) treats it as a transitional at the
beginning of a new episode. Another way to express this transition and relate this verse to the
previous chapter is “While darkness was still covering Egypt, the Lord said to Moses, … .” There
is no textual or linguistic basis for NIV’s use of the pluperfect (“Now the Lord had said to
Moses”), for the simple past tense of the verb is used. The possibility that 11.1–3 is an editorial
insertion into the narrative at this point is discussed in the introductory remarks above.

Yet one plague more is literally “still one plague,” suggesting “one last plague” (REB), or
“only one more punishment” (11.1 TEV). The word used here for plague has the basic meaning
of touch or hurt. It is frequently used in reference to leprosy, but only here in reference to the
plagues of Egypt (JB “disaster”; Fox “blow”; and Durham “stroke of judgment”). In many
languages it will be necessary to change the nominal clause Yet one more plague … into a
verbal one; for example, “I am going to punish [or, hurt] the king of Egypt and his people one
more time” (similarly CEV).

I will bring clearly indicates that Yahweh alone will bring on this final plague. Upon
Pharaoh and upon Egypt singles out “the king of Egypt” (11.1 TEV), but it also includes all of
“his people” (11.1 TEV). Afterwards means after the plague has occurred. One may also render
this as “After I have done this,” or “After I have punished the Egyptians,” or even “When I stop
punishing the Egyptians.” He will let you go hence refers to all the Israelites (you is plural).
Hence is literally “from this [place].” Another way to express this clause is “he will let you
[plural] leave this land.”

The final clause in this verse presents some difficulty. When he lets you go is one word in
the Hebrew that means “regarding his letting go”; but the you is not present. Furthermore, it is
not clear whether the following word (kalah), which means “he completes,” or “it is
complete,” should go with what precedes or what follows. NEB (and REB) assumes that the
Hebrew kalah should really be kallah (“bride”) and translates “as a man dismisses a rejected
bride.” Most interpreters have not seen the need for this change, for the following words, he
will drive you away, literally mean “driving he will drive you from this (place).” The emphatic
form suggests that the word kalah should be understood as completely, or “without
restrictions.” Up to then Pharaoh was willing to permit a partial exodus, without the families or
cattle. But now Yahweh announces an exodus without limitations, which the tenth mighty act
will bring about. 11.1 TEV translates “he will drive all of you out of here.” And TAN has “he will
drive you out of here one and all.”

11.2

Verses 2–3 are the second of three passages where the same idea is mentioned. In
3.21–22 it is in reference to the future; here it refers to the present situation; and 12.35–36
records what had already been done. The similarities and differences in these three passages
should be carefully noted in translation.

Speak now is singular, spoken only to Moses, but the word for now does not mean “at this
moment.” It is an enclitic (a small word added on to another) that softens a command, or
 indicates a request, or suggests urgency. 11.2 TEV’s “Speak now” and CEV’s “Now go and tell”
soften the meaning of now, but many translations omit the now entirely. In the hearing of the
people is literally “in the ears of the people”; this is a Hebraism that is not natural in English.
However, in a number of languages similar expressions will be natural; for example, “in their
hearing,” “as they are listening,” or “to let them hear.” Together with the command Speak
now, the expression simply means “Tell the people” (11.2 NRSV). (NAB) has “Instruct your
people,” and 11.2 CEV has “Now go and tell my people.” Neither “your” nor “my” is in the
Hebrew, but the context clearly indicates that the people refers only to the Israelites and not
to the Egyptians. 11.2 TEV makes this clear by adding “the people of Israel.”

That they may ask uses a word that also means to borrow, as in 11.2 KJV and TAN, but most
translations prefer “ask.” The idea of borrowing may suggest that the Israelites were deceitful,
since they certainly intended to escape for good. (See the discussion on “ask” at 3.22.) Every
man … every woman is the compound subject of ask, expressed in this way to emphasize that
“all of them,” that is, all the Israelites, are to do the asking. His neighbor … her neighbor is the
compound object of the verb ask, which must be understood as “their neighbors” (11.2 TEV), or
“the people living near them,” meaning, of course, their Egyptian neighbors. The meaning of
neighbor is discussed at 3.22. It may be important to specify “both men and women” (TOT), or
“men and women alike” (11.2 NIV).

Jewelry may be too specific, for the word can also mean “objects” (TAN), “articles” (NAB,
NIV), or “ornaments” (JB). But of silver and of gold indicates that these items were of value. So
one may translate jewelry as “precious objects made of silver and gold.” Some have suggested
that may have been the source of precious metal used for the tabernacle (35.22–24) and even
the golden calf (32.2–4). “Clothing” (NAB) is mentioned in 3.22 and 12.35, but the Hebrew text
does not list it here.

An alternative translation model for this verse is:

• Now go and tell my people to ask the Egyptian women and men who live near them to give
them precious objects made of silver and gold.

11.3

And is the conjunction waw, which is usually omitted in translation. The Lord gave the
people favor can mean that “Yahweh gave the people prestige” (JB), but the effect of the
action was in the sight of the Egyptians. In other words, “The Lord made the Egyptians respect
the Israelites” (11.3 TEV). NJB is an improvement over JB: “Yahweh made the Egyptians
impressed with the people.” It may be unnatural to repeat the phrase in the sight of as the
Hebrew does throughout the verse.

TOT introduces the pluperfect (“the Lord had made”) to suggest that Yahweh had
previously “made the Egyptians friendly,” and NIV sets off the entire verse as a parenthesis. But
there is nothing in the text to indicate either when or how the Lord changed the attitude of
the Egyptians. It is therefore recommended that translators follow the interpretation of 11.3
RSV and 11.3 TEV.
 Moreover may be understood as “also” or “even,” so either “Moses himself” (NAB) or
“Moreover, Moses himself” (11.3 NRSV) is possible. The man Moses is quite literal; so the man
Moses was very great is better rendered as “Moses was a very great man” (REB), or “Moses
was a man of great importance” (11.3 NRSV), or “an important leader” (11.3 CEV). In the land of
Egypt may be omitted (see 11.3 TEV), since this is understood by the reference to the
Egyptians.

In the sight of Pharaoh’s servants and in the sight of all the people simply states that “the
officials and all the people considered Moses to be a very great man” (11.3 TEV). 11.3 CEV
includes the king, but the text does not allow for this.

11.4

And Moses said presents a problem, for it does not easily relate to the preceding verses.
(11.4 TEV’s “then” may be misleading.) Neither does it identify the addressee. Obviously he is
not responding to Yahweh, for he is announcing what the Lord had told him to say. But what
follows is quite different from what Moses was told to say to the Israelites in verse 2. On the
basis of verse 8, therefore, it is best to assume that he is now speaking “to the king” (11.4 TEV).
(See the introductory remarks above.)

Thus says the Lord is the messenger formula discussed at 4.22. About midnight is literally
“around the middle of the night,” that is, halfway between sunset and sunrise. I will go forth
means that Yahweh will be the one going forth, since this is a quote within a quote. ” In the
midst of Egypt means “throughout Egypt” (11.4 NIV), or “among the Egyptians” (TAN). It is also
possible to use indirect speech here and say, for example, “Yahweh says that about midnight
he will go through the land of Egypt.”

11.5

All the first-born obviously refers to “every first-born son” (11.5 TEV). (See 4.23, where
“son” is specified.) In the land of Egypt, however, limits the first-born to the Egyptian families.
Unless otherwise specified, the Hebrew term refers to the first-born male of a human father.
In languages that must specify whether it is the first-born of the father or the mother, it may
be necessary to indicate both, since the first-born of the maidservant is also mentioned. One
way to avoid this problem is to say “the firstborn son in every family.” Shall die is the general
word for dying, without indicating the cause. (In 4.23, however, the verb “to slay” is used.)
11.5 CEV has a good translation model: “the first-born son in every family will die.” However, it
will also be helpful to indicate that these are Egyptian families; for example, “and the firstborn
son in every Egyptian family will die.”

From the first-born of Pharaoh begins an inclusive statement, starting within the royal
family and moving down to the oldest son of the lowest maidservant. Who sits upon his
throne is ambiguous. The Hebrew participle may be understood either as “the one sitting”
(that is, the king), or as “the one about to sit” (that is, the “heir”). Either way, it should be clear
that the king’s eldest son will die. It may be easier to follow 11.5 TEV’s “heir to the throne,” but
if the word “heir” implies that the king has already died, one may say “who is due to sit on his
father’s throne” or “who will rule after the king [or, his father] dies.” The ambiguity is not so
 easily resolved, however, in view of 12.29, where the same phrase is used in reference to the
actual death of the king’s son, after it happened rather than before. (See the comment there.)
Therefore it is better to follow 11.5 RSV and others in understanding who sits upon his throne
to refer to the king himself. Durham has “from the firstborn of Pharaoh, the occupant of the
royal throne,” and REB simply says “from the firstborn son of Pharaoh on his throne” (similarly
NAB). 11.5 CEV omits the phrase entirely, with “Your own son will die.”

Who is behind the mill refers to any maidservant, or “slave woman” (11.5 TEV), who had
to sit or kneel and grind out the grain. The mill, or “handmill” (11.5 NRSV), consisted of two
stones, the smaller one held in both hands and used for grinding into flour the grain that was
placed on the larger flat stone. Behind the mill simply refers to the physical position required
of the “servant-girl who grinds with the hand-mill” (Durham). In referring to “the slave
woman,” Moses is showing that the firstborn sons of all slaves, even the ones lowest on the
scale, would die. So one may translate “the son of the lowest slave woman” (11.5 CEV).

And all the first-born of the cattle refers to the male offspring of the domesticated
animals owned by the Egyptians. The word for cattle is a general term, so “livestock” (11.5
NRSV, NJB) is a better choice. Other ways of saying this are “the firstborn males of the Egyptian
cattle will die” or “the firstborn males of the Egyptian domesticated animals will die.”

An alternative translation model for verses 4 and 5 is:

• 4 Moses went to the king and said, “Yahweh says that about midnight he will go through the
land of Egypt. 5 Wherever he goes, the firstborn son in every Egyptian family will die. Your own
son will die, and so will the son of the slave woman who grinds the grain. Even the firstborn
male of all the domesticated animals will die.

11.6

A great cry means “loud crying” (11.6 TEV), used here in a collective sense and suggesting
“loud wailing” (NAB) at the same time. The word for cry means a “cry of anguish” (NEB), the
same word used in 2.23 and 3.7 for the cry of the oppressed Israelites. Throughout all the land
of Egypt suggests that the cry will come from every Egyptian family. An alternative model for
this first clause is “Everywhere in Egypt people will wail loudly.” Such as there has never been
may be understood as either a louder cry or greater anguish than ever before, or perhaps
both. Some translations helpfully add the word “heard” (JB, NEB, REB), but this may be
understood in both ways. (REB has “the like of which has never been heard before.”) Nor ever
shall be again may also need to have the word “heard” added; for example, “and will never be
heard again.”

11.7

But (Hebrew waw) here introduces a description of sharp contrast for the people of Israel.
The word against may be interpreted as “among” or “at” (11.7 TEV), depending on how the dog
is understood. (See below.) Either man or beast does not fit well in reference to the people of
Israel, so the two phrases are better rendered as 11.7 TEV puts it, “the Israelites or their
animals.”
 Not a dog shall growl is literally “a dog will not sharpen [or, point] his tongue.” This is
interpreted in NEB as “not a dog’s tongue shall be so much as scratched,” but REB (and others)
takes it to mean “not even a dog’s bark” will be heard. Although dogs were domesticated and
appreciated by the Egyptians, the Israelites did not like them. So it is unlikely that these dogs
belonged to the Israelites. But they were probably allowed to run loose throughout Egypt.
Therefore the idiom should probably be translated “not even a dog will bark at” or “snarl at”
(TAN), meaning that neither the Israelites nor their animals will be disturbed in the least. 11.7
NRSV has “But not a dog shall growl at any of the Israelites—not at people, not at animals—so
that … .” It is possible to convey this idea of “peace and quiet” by translating “It will be very
quiet where the Israelites live. Not even a dog will bark at them or at their animals.”

That you may know is plural, even though the singular pronoun is used in verse 8. It
should be assumed that the you refers to the Pharaoh and his people. (The problem of
identifying the addressee is discussed in the introduction to this section, 11.1–10, and at verse
4.) It is not clear, however, who is speaking here. 11.7 TEV assumes that Moses is still speaking
Yahweh’s words, which were introduced by the messenger formula in verse 4. But NEB and
11.7 NIV assume that these are now Moses’ words, so that the quotation of Yahweh’s words is
understood to close in 11.7 RSV after a dog shall growl. However, translators are encouraged
to follow 11.7 TEV’s interpretation. Another way to express this is “Then you Egyptians will
know … .”

That the Lord makes a distinction is changed to “that I make a distinction” in 11.7 TEV, to
show that these are still Yahweh’s words. The same word for distinction is used in 9.4 in
reference to the cattle of the Israelites and the cattle of the Egyptians. Between the Egyptians
and Israel may be read as “between Egypt and Israel” (11.7 NRSV), or as “between the
Egyptians and the Israelites” (11.7 TEV). Durham has “that Yahweh has separated Israel from
the Egyptians.” The meaning, of course, is that the Lord will bring anguish only to the
Egyptians and not to the Israelites.

11.8

And all these your servants suggests that Moses is standing before the king and his
“officials.” Your is singular. Shall come down to me indicates that Moses is now speaking his
own words, for the me refers to Moses rather than to Yahweh. 11.8 TEV helpfully marks this
change by closing the quotation at the end of verse 7 and beginning this verse with “Moses
concluded by saying.”

Come down: this verb means “to descend.” It suggests that Moses is speaking from a
lower level than that of the king and his courtiers, who may have been standing with the king
on a raised platform or dais in the palace. Or it may be understood figuratively, suggesting that
Moses is being sarcastic in referring to their higher social standing. Some translations (TEV, CEV)
combine the idea of down with bow down, suggesting the idea of “come humbly.”

And bow down to me does not mean that the Egyptians will worship Yahweh. Me refers
to Moses, and bow down means to bow down to the ground, or to prostrate oneself, here in
the sense of pleading. Some translators may express this sentence as “All your [singular]
officials will come and humbly prostrate themselves before me.” Saying introduces what the
 king and his “officials” will say to Moses. (Note that 11.8 TEV changes the following words to
indirect discourse, “and they will beg me to take all my people.”) Get you out is imperative
singular in the Hebrew, but since the king’s servants, or “officials” (11.8 TEV), will bow down to
Moses, it should be interpreted more as a pleading than as a command. 11.8 NRSV has “Leave
us,” and REB has “Go away.” And all the people who follow you refers to all the Israelites. And
after that I will go out is spoken by Moses. REB has “When that time comes I shall go,” or more
simply “Then I will go.”

And may need to be strengthened here to “Then” (11.8 TEV), “With that” (NAB), or even
“After saying that,” since all the dialogue is completed. He went out from Pharaoh is literally
“he went out from with Pharaoh,” so TAN has “he left Pharaoh’s presence,” and 11.8 TEV has
“Moses left the king.” In hot anger is literally “in the heat of the nose,” so either “hot with
anger” (11.8 NIV) or “burning with anger” (Durham) is possible. It is also possible to place the
phrase in hot anger at the beginning of the sentence and say “Moses was very angry and left
the king” (similarly CEV).

11.9

Then the Lord said to Moses has been changed to “The Lord had said to Moses” in 11.9
TEV (see also TAN and NIV), but there is no indication in the text that the pluperfect is intended.
So translators are not encouraged to follow 11.9 TEV as a model here. Pharaoh will not listen
to you is identical with 7.4, and the you here is also plural, suggesting that Aaron is now
present. 11.9 TEV has “The king will continue to refuse to listen to you,” and this is a possible
rendering even without using the English pluperfect. But NAB puts this more easily in the
present tense, “Pharaoh refuses to listen to you.” So the first part of this verse may be
rendered as “Then the Lord said to Moses, ‘The king of Egypt refuses to listen to you … .’ ” (See
the comment on listen at 6.9.)

That probably means “in order that” (as in 11.9 NRSV and others), although REB and NEB use
“therefore.” This is possible, but it suggests that Yahweh’s action depended on the king’s
reaction. And it does not relate as well to the following verse, which states that it was Yahweh
who made the king stubborn. The purpose is clear: That my wonders may be multiplied in the
land of Egypt. Wonders may be understood as “miracles” (11.9 TEV), “portents” (REB), or
“wondrous deeds” (Durham). (See the comment on “wonders” at 3.20.) Since Yahweh calls
them my wonders, it seems more natural to say, as 11.9 TEV puts it, “in order that I may do
more of my miracles in Egypt.”

An alternative translation model for this verse is:

• Then the Lord said to Moses, “The king refuses to listen to [or, believe] you. This is in order
that I may perform even more of my miracles in Egypt.”

11.10

All these wonders uses the same word as in the previous verse, which identifies them as
Yahweh’s wonders. It may be better to change did to “performed,” as 11.10 NRSV has done.
Before Pharaoh means “in the presence of the king,” “in front of the king,” or “while the king
was watching.” 11.10 CEV restructures this sentence as follows: “So the king of Egypt saw
Moses and Aaron work miracles.”

And has been changed to “but” in 11.10 NRSV to show that it was Yahweh who hardened
Pharaoh’s heart, or “made him stubborn” (11.10 TEV). The word for hardened means to make
strong (as discussed at 4.21). And he did not let the people of Israel go refers to the king, not
to Yahweh. “He would not” (11.10 TEV) may be more appropriate, since he was “stubborn.”
Out of his land means “his country” (11.10 TEV), that is, Egypt.

2. The Exodus (12.1–13.16)

A. Preparations for the Passover (12.1–28)

(1) The Lord’s Instructions to Moses and Aaron (12.1–20)
A new section in the book of Exodus begins with chapter 12. In contrast to chapter 11, the
shortest in the book, this chapter is the longest, with fifty-one verses. The translator should
take careful note how this new material fits into the overall structure of the book, as shown in
the outline, pages 5 and following. Still under the second of the four major divisions, namely,
the relationship between Moses and the Pharaoh, this section marks the beginning of the
account of the Exodus itself. The negotiations with the Pharaoh have been concluded, and
chapter 11 serves as a transition from the account of the plagues to the account of the actual
departure from Egypt.

The traditional chapter division, however, does not reveal the nature of this new material.
In chapters 12–14, for example, the narrative account of the death of the firstborn and the
escape from Egypt has been expanded in two places by the insertion of later instructions for
observing three important rituals—the Feast of Passover, the Feast of Unleavened Bread, and
the Consecration of the Firstborn. From this perspective we can see the following alternating
pattern: 11.1–10 Narrative; 12.1–28 Instruction; 12.29–42 Narrative; 12.43–13:16 Instruction;
and 13.17–14.31 Narrative.

This is another example of the “Interlocking Effect” mentioned earlier concerning chapters
5 and 6. (See the diagram on page 106.) Two blocks of material in chapters 12 and 13 give
detailed instructions for observing these rituals. The following diagram shows how the two
blocks have been inserted into the basic narrative of chapters 11 to 14.

The detailed instructions in 12.1–28 reflect the later observance of the Passover after the
Israelites had settled in the land of Canaan. The first part records Yahweh’s instructions to
Moses and Aaron (12.1–20), and the second part records Moses’ instructions to the people
(12.21–28). This material has been inserted into the narrative at this point to provide the
background for the actual account in 12.29–42 of the tenth plague and the sudden departure
of the Israelites.

General Headings: translators who are using the Handbook’s outline will need to place
three general headings at the beginning of this chapter in their Bibles. The first one is “The
Exodus” (12.1–13.16), which may be also rendered as “The Israelites leave Egypt.” A
subheading is “Preparations for the Passover” (12.1–28), which may also be expressed as “The
Israelites prepare to celebrate the Passover” (see below for suggestions on how to translate
“Passover”). A further heading is “The Lord’s instructions to Moses and Aaron” (12.1–20),
which may also be rendered as “The Lord gives instructions to Moses and Aaron” or “Yahweh
tells Moses and Aaron what to do.”

(a) Instructions Concerning the Passover (12.1–14)

(a) Instructions concerning the Passover (12.1–14)

Section Heading: in some cultures there will already be a well-known name for the
Passover celebration or festival, and that should be used here. However, in many other
languages translators will need to create a suitable title. One way is to transliterate the
Hebrew pesach and give a full explanation in the Glossary; for example, “Pesach” or “The
Pesach Festival.” But this is not the most adequate solution. A better solution is to translate
the meaning. The Hebrew verb pasach used in 12.13 may have meant “to pass,” “to leap,” or
“to limp” (see the discussion at verses 11 and 27). Translators will be able to capture some of
the meaning with the idea of “deliverance” or “passing over”; for example, “The festival of
deliverance [or redemption, or liberation],” “The festival of passing over,” “The festival to
remember the passing over,” or even “The festival celebrating when the angel passed over.” A
Handbook on the Gospel of Matthew, Matt 26.2, warns translators about the danger of
borrowing words for Passover from other languages:

In the past many translators borrowed the English word Passover, but this then has no
meaning for their readers. For French speaking areas this is even worse, since the modern
word for Easter (Paques) sounds the same as the word for Passover (Paque), so that readers
will think only of the modern Christian holiday, not the Jewish one. The situation in Spanish
areas is similar, since pascua can be used for both holidays. So borrowing is not a good
solution at all.

12.1–2

Although the verse begins with the Hebrew conjunction waw, only a few translations try to
retain it (KJV, ASV, NASB). The Lord said to Moses and Aaron introduces instructional material
into the narrative. (See the introductory remarks above.) In the land of Egypt simply means “in
Egypt” (12.2 TEV). Even this may seem unnecessary, but it emphasizes that the following
instructions are to be understood within the Egyptian setting.

This month refers to the time when the events of chapter 12 took place. It became the
first month in the Hebrew calendar, which begins with the new moon appearing during the
second half of March or the first half of April. It is not yet named, so translators should not give
it a name here. But in 13.4 and 23.15 it is called “Abib.” Much later the Babylonian name
“Nisan” was used (see Est 3.7). The Hebrew word for month also means “new moon,” and this

ASV AMERICAN STANDARD VERSION

will be the natural form in many languages. Shall be is not in the Hebrew (literally “this month
for you”), but “is” or “is to be” should be understood here. This is the announcement of a new
calendar for the Israelites. For you is plural. Shall be for you may therefore be expressed as
“You [plural] must reckon as” and placed at the beginning of the sentence. (See the model at
the end of the discussion below.) 12.2 NRSV has “shall mark for you.” The beginning of months
is literally the “head of months.”

It shall be the first month of the year for you repeats almost the same words for
emphasis. 12.2 TEV has combined the two clauses into one, but NAB rewords the verse so that it
does not sound monotonous: “This month shall stand at the head of your calendar; you shall
reckon it the first month of the year.” A simpler model is the following: “You [plural] must
reckon this month [or, new moon] as the first month of the year.” Also possible is “You must
consider this month to be … .”

12.3

Tell is second person plural, meaning “You [plural] must tell.” All the congregation of
Israel uses the word ‘edah, meaning “gathering” or “assembly,” so one may say “the whole
community” (TEV, REB) or “all the people of Israel.” (See the comment at verse 6.) The word for
that literally means “saying,” and it may introduce either direct or indirect speech. 12.3 RSV
uses indirect speech, since the Israelites are referred to in the third person, they. But 12.3 TEV
and others use direct speech, changing to second person plural, since all of the following
verses up to 12.27 are Yahweh’s instructions to be given to the Israelites. So the opening
words in 12.3 TEV are “Give these instructions to the whole community of Israel,” and what
follow are the exact words of Yahweh addressed to the people.

On the tenth day of this month assumes that Yahweh is speaking to Moses and Aaron on
the first day. They shall take every man means “each man is to take” (12.3 NIV). If direct
speech is used, the they will become “you” plural. But since every man refers to the head of
the family, NAB has “every one of your families,” or one may say “the head of each family”
(12.3 CEV). Shall take may be expressed as “must choose” (12.3 TEV) or “must procure” (NAB),
for they were to select a lamb for the sacrifice.

The word for lamb is used for young goats as well as young lambs, so 12.3 TEV has “a lamb
or a young goat.” (So also 12.3REB and 12.3 CEV.) This is made clear in verse 5, so NJB uses the
more generic term “animal.” Others, however, place a footnote here explaining that the
Hebrew word may mean either lamb or young goat (TAN, 12.3 NIV, NASB, and TOT). Making this
clear in the text is preferable to adding a footnote. (See the comment on “sheep” and “goats”
at 2.16.)

According to their fathers’ houses, literally “for a house of fathers,” is better expressed as
“for each family” (12.3 NRSV). A lamb for a household (literally, “for a house”) seems to repeat
the same idea, but it defines more exactly what is meant. There may be more than one family
in one household. 12.3 TEV therefore combines the two, using the more exact clarification “for
his household.” The next verse shows that the animal is for eating. So it is possible to translate
this final clause as “for his household [or, family] to eat.” An alternative translation model for
this final sentence is “that on the tenth day of this month, the head of each family must
choose a lamb or a young goat for his family to eat.”

12.4

This verse presents many difficulties, so the entire verse and the context should be
carefully studied before translating. And if the household is too small for a lamb means “if
there are not enough people in a household to eat a whole lamb.” (See verse 3 for the
meaning of lamb.) Then a man and his neighbor refers to the head of the household and his
Israelite neighbor. The assumption here is that the head of the household would go to his
Israelite neighbor, not his Egyptian neighbor. Shall take is singular in form, but it includes both
family heads. It is understood that what they shall take, or what “they may share,” is the lamb,
or “animal” (12.4 TEV).

His neighbor next to his house is ambiguous. It may be understood geographically as “his
next-door neighbor” (12.4 TEV). But the following phrase, according to the number of persons,
suggests that it can mean “the closest neighbor in the number of persons” (Childs). That is, a
near-by family would be selected on the basis of family size, not simply because they are “next
door.”

The next phrase, according to what each can eat, adds to the difficulty, but it is part of a
separate clause, you shall make your count for the lamb. Literally the entire clause reads “a
man according to his food you will reckon unto the lamb.” (The you is plural.) Although the
problem arises from the number of people in one household being too few, it is not clear
whether the “reckoning” means to count the cost for proper sharing of expenses or to count
the number of people. (The verb occurs only here in the Hebrew Bible.) 12.4 NRSV favors the
latter, “the lamb shall be divided in proportion to the number of people who eat it.” But 12.4
REB favors the former, “They are to share the cost according to the amount each person eats.”

This verse obviously attempts to explain a rather complex regulation. Few of the English
translations are clear because they follow the form of the Hebrew too closely. TEV, however,
seems to be the clearest, for to “share an animal” may refer to the cost as well as the number
of people and the amount each one eats. This is what the context suggests. If, however, a
translator decides to use NRSV’s interpretation above, another way to express this is “the
animal must be large enough for everyone to have some meat” (similarly CEV).

12.5

The unusual Hebrew word order in this sentence emphasizes the importance of these
details: “Lamb, complete, male, son of a year, it shall be for you.” Your is plural, referring to
the people of Israel. For lamb see verse 3. The word is singular since this describes the young
animal to be selected by each family. Shall be without blemish is one word (“whole” or
“complete”) meaning that it must not be marred or deformed in any way. 12.5 TEV has
“without any defects.” One may also express this as “without any physical defects.” A male a
year old is clear enough; “a one-year-old male.”

You shall take it is followed by an alternative between two kinds of animals, so “you may
choose” is better. The word for sheep is plural and distinguishes this animal from the goats.
 Both animals were kept together in the same flock, and so the Israelites had one word for the
young of either animal (as discussed at verse 3).

Alternative translation models combining verses 4 and 5 are:

• 4–5 If his family is too small to eat the whole animal, he must share it with his next-door
neighbor. You [plural] must choose either a sheep or a goat, but it must be a one-year-old
male without any physical defects. And it must be large enough for everyone to have some
meat.

Or:
155

• 4–5 … any physical defects. And the families must share the cost according to the amount of
meat that each person eats.

12.6

And you shall keep it refers to the lamb or kid, which was to be given special care by each
family. 12.6 TEV unfortunately omits this phrase, but the Hebrew literally says “and it shall be
to you [plural] for guarding.” REB expresses it well: “Have it in safe keeping.” 12.6 CEV has “Each
family must take care of its animal.” Until the fourteenth day of this month refers to the 14th
of Abib, the day when future celebrations of the Passover were to begin. (See Lev 23.5.)

The whole assembly of the congregation of Israel seems quite wordy. The Hebrew is
literally “all the qahal of the ‘edah of Israel.” The two terms mean almost the same thing and
are often used interchangeably. 12.6 NRSV also translates both terms with “the whole
assembled community of Israel,” and REB has “all the assembled community of Israel.” It is not
clear, however, whether the killing of all the animals was to be done in one place, or whether
the Israelites were now living together in one community. For this first observance of the
Passover, it is better to assume that the animals were killed at each home, for the blood had to
be placed on the door frames of the houses (verse 7). 12.6 TEV simply has “the whole
community of Israel,” so it is probably best to think in terms of “all the people of Israel” rather
than suggesting there was some kind of meeting or convocation.

Shall kill their lambs is literally “and they shall slaughter it” (so 12.6 NRSV), but obviously
the singular “it” refers to each family’s animal. In the evening is literally “between the two

155Osborn, N. D., & Hatton, H. (1999). A handbook on Exodus. UBS handbook series; Helps for
translators (236). New York: United Bible Societies.

TEV Today’s English Version

REB REVISED ENGLISH BIBLE

CEV Contemporary English Version

NRSV New Revised Standard Version

 evenings,” as the 12.6 RSV footnote explains. Orthodox Jews have interpreted this to mean any
time in the afternoon before sunset. However, for this first observance, the expression
probably meant the time between sunset and darkness, or “twilight” (12.6 NRSV, TAN, NIV). REB
has “between dusk and dark.” 12.6 TEV’s “evening” should be understood in the same way.
Other ways to render this phrase are “at sunset on the fourteenth day” or “as the sun is setting
on the fourteenth day.”

An alternative translation model for this verse is:

• Each family must take care of its animal until sunset on the fourteenth day of this month. Then
all the Israelites will kill their animals.

12.7

Then (waw) here means “After that.” They shall take some of the blood means the blood
of the slaughtered animal. And put it does not specify how the blood was to be applied.
Probably REB is correct in translating “smear.” NAB has “apply.” On the two doorposts refers to
the upright posts on either side of the door opening that supported the lintel, the horizontal
piece at the top. 12.7 TEV has “put it on the door posts and above the doors of the houses”;
12.7 CEV has “must be put on the two doorposts and above the door.” In cultures where
houses do not have constructed framework for the entrance, one may say “take some of the
blood and smear it on the sides of the entrance to the house and above the entrance.” The
blood was to be smeared only on the houses in which they eat them, that is, “the houses in
which the animals are to be eaten” (12.7 TEV).

12.8

They shall eat the flesh, that is, the Israelites are to eat the “meat” of the slaughtered
animal. That night, literally “in that night,” does not specify the hour. Presumably it could be
eaten at any time “during that night” (Durham), although it was to be eaten in haste (verse
11). Roasted is literally “roasted of fire.” This refers to cooking the meat over the fire, not in an
oven. In languages that do not use the passive voice, this first sentence may be rendered as
“That night they shall roast the animals and eat them.”

Unleavened bread (Hebrew matsah) refers to flat, round cakes made without any yeast-
like substance to make it rise. (See the comment on verse 15.) The plural matsoth is used here,
so Durham has “unleavened bread cakes.” In cultures where yeast is unknown, one may say,
for example, “thin bread baked without anything to make it rise,” or “to make it soft and easy
to chew.” And if bread is unknown, translators should borrow a word from a national or trade

RSV Revised Standard Version

TAN TANAKH (NEW JEWISH VERSION)

NIV NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION

NAB NEW AMERICAN BIBLE

 language. The bitter herbs, literally “bitter [things],” are not identified, but Jewish tradition
permitted the use of five different plants: lettuce, chicory, pepperwort, snakeroot, and
dandelion. However, translators should not mention any particular herb or spice by name.
Hyatt suggests that these were originally wild desert plants that were picked to season the
meat.

An alternative translation model for this verse is:

• That night they shall roast the animals and eat them, together with thin bread baked without
yeast [or, anything to make it rise], and bitter herbs.

12.9

Note the change from third person (“They” in verse 8) to the second person plural. Do not
eat any of it raw, that is, the meat must be cooked before eating, but not boiled with water.
12.9 TEV considers “boiled” to be clear enough without adding with water, but the Hebrew
repeats the word boiled for emphasis. So TAN has “or cooked in any way with water,” and
Durham has “or soaked or boiled in water.”

Roasted, as in verse 8, means “roasted over fire” (Durham). It is to be “roasted whole”

(12.9 TEV), as indicated by the following list: its head with its legs and its inner parts. The word
for legs actually refers to the lower legs (REB “shins”; NAB “shanks”; NJB “feet”), but the idea is
to include those parts of the animal often discarded. The word for inner parts refers to the
animal’s “internal organs” (12.9 TEV), or “entrails” (TAN, REB).

An alternative translation model for this verse is:

• You [plural] must not eat any part of the animal that is raw or boiled with water. You must
roast the entire animal with fire before you eat it. This includes the head, the legs, and the
internal organs.

12.10

And you shall let none of it remain suggests that all parts of the roasted animal were to be
eaten during the night. Until the morning means until daybreak. So one may translate “You
should eat all of the meat before day break.” Anything that remains includes the bones and all
other parts of the animal that could not be eaten. Until the morning is repeated, but it is not
clear whether the burning should be before or after daybreak. Durham has “you shall burn
before morning,” but most translations repeat the until, which is ambiguous. 12.10 TEV simply
omits this second use of the phrase: “if any is left over, it must be burnt.” You shall burn is
literally “you shall burn by fire.” Another way to express this final sentence is “When the sun
rises you must burn every part of the animal that is left over.”

An alternative translation model for this verse is:

NJB NEW JERUSALEM BIBLE

• You should eat all of the meat before daybreak. But if any of the animal is left over when the
sun rises, you must burn it.

12.11

In this manner refers to what follows, as the colon in 12.11 RSV indicates. 12.11 TEV omits
this phrase and rearranges the sequence, beginning with “You are to eat it quickly.” (The word
“quickly” is advanced from in haste later in the verse.) You shall eat it is plural. The meaning of
In this manner may also be expressed with the word “When”; for example, “When you [plural]
eat the meal” or “When you eat the animal.” Your loins girded is explicit but too literal to be
easily understood. The loins refers to that part of the body below the waist, including the hips
and abdomen. Girded means to have made ready, or to have put on a belt. So the expression
means “with your cloak tucked into your belt” (12.11 NIV). Since this was what the people at
that time had to do to prepare for action, 12.11 TEV has “You are to be dressed for travel.”
12.11 CEV translates this first sentence as “When you eat the meal, be dressed and ready to
travel.”

Your sandals on your feet uses the same word for “shoes” in 3.5. They were open
footwear tied with straps. Your staff in your hand refers to a “walking stick.” It is a different
word from that used for Moses’ rod, but the meaning is the same. Both staff and hand are
singular, but your is plural, indicating one “walking stick” per person. And you shall eat it in
haste means “quickly” (TEV, CEV), implying that everyone should be ready to leave at a
moment’s notice. But the word in haste also implies fear, so Fox has “you are to eat it in
trepidation,” and TOT has “You must eat it hurriedly, in fear and trembling.” But most
translations simply follow the meaning of “hurriedly” (12.11 NRSV).

It is the Lord’s passover is literally “pesach it to [or, for] Yahweh.” The word may refer
either to the Passover animal or to the Passover observance. 12.11 RSV is ambiguous here, but
in verse 21 the word pesach clearly refers to the animal. TAN removes the ambiguity here by
translating “it is a passover offering to the Lord.” 12.11 TEV, however, has chosen the other
possible meaning with “it is the Passover Festival to honor me, the Lord.” 12.11 CEV is similar:
“This is the Passover Festival in honor of me, your Lord.” The noun pesach is probably derived
from the verb pasach, used in verse 13, which may have meant “to pass,” “to leap,” or “to
limp.” (See the discussion at verse 27, where both the noun and the verb are used in a play on
words. Also see the discussion on Passover under the Section Heading at the beginning of this
chapter.)

12.12

For I will pass through the land of Egypt uses a verb meaning to “go through” a territory,
passing from one side to the other. Here the entire country of Egypt is meant. So one may also
express this as “I will go through the whole land of Egypt.” That night refers to the “same
night” (NAB, CEV) mentioned in verse 8. (See 11.4.) And I will smite is a verb meaning to strike

TOT TRANSLATOR’S OLD TESTAMENT

or hit, not necessarily to kill. (The same word is used three times in 2.11–13.) 12.12 NRSV has
changed smite to “strike down,” along with TAN, 12.12 NIV, NJB, and others. The context,
however, suggests “killing,” so many translations, including 12.12 RSV, 12.12 TEV, and 12.12 CEV,
follow this interpretation. (In 4.23 a different verb clearly means “slay.”)

All the first-born in the land of Egypt should be understood as the first male child of all
Egyptian fathers, as explained at 11.5. Both man and beast includes the first-born of the
Egyptians’ animals as well. Another way to render this is “the firstborn son in every Egyptian
family, along with the firstborn males of all animals.”

And on all the gods of Egypt, which follows a major break in the verse, includes the
Pharaoh, who was also considered divine along with the many gods worshiped by the
Egyptians. But this does not imply that the Pharaoh himself or the Egyptian gods would be
killed. The word on really goes with the following verb, meaning to execute judgments on.

I will execute judgments is literally “I will do judgments.” Judgments is plural and can also
mean “punishments” (TAN). Here it probably means the same as the “great acts of judgment”
in 6.6 (literally “great judgments”), referring to all the plagues brought upon Egypt. Alternative
translation models are “I will punish the gods of Egypt in many ways,” or even “I will severely
punish the gods of Egypt.”

The word for gods is ’elohim, the same word for Israel’s God, so there is no clear indication
here that the gods of Egypt were false gods, or even nonexis tent; but in many languages a
term such as “small gods” must be used (see the discussion below). What is clear is that
Yahweh will “mete out punishments” (TAN) on all the Egyptian gods and prove himself more
powerful. This is emphasized by the self-introductory formula, I am the Lord. A Handbook on
the Books of Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah, page 20, has an excellent discussion on the
translation of “god’ versus “God”:

In English the supreme God is differentiated from lesser gods or deities by the use of a capital
letter. In many other languages this device is not suitable, or the term for God is only used for
the Christian God, so it will seem strange to refer to other gods. There are two possible
solutions. Translators may use a term or terms which refer to supernatural beings which non-
Christians in the culture worship, or they may use the term for the Christian God with an
adjective; for example, “false gods” or even “small gods.” This will show that these are beings
which are thought to be like God but are not really God.

Since this formula has no verb (literally “I Yahweh”), some consider it to be in apposition
with I will smite. So REB has “Thus I shall execute judgement, I the Lord, against all the gods of
Egypt.” (Similar also are TAN, NAB, and NJB.) However, in languages where apposition is not
natural, a simpler rendering will be preferred; for example, “I am Yahweh, and I will severely
punish the gods of the Egyptians” or “… the gods whom the Egyptians worship.”

In a number of languages translators will find TEV’s model unnatural style because of its
one long compound sentence. An alternative model dividing the verse into three sentences is:
• On that same night I will go through the entire land of Egypt. I will kill the firstborn sons in
every Egyptian family, along with the firstborn males of all the animals. I am Yahweh, and I will
severely punish all the gods [or, false gods] whom the Egyptians worship.

12.13

The blood refers to the animal’s “blood on the doorposts” in verse 7. Another way to
express this is “The animal blood that you smear on the doorposts of your houses.” Shall be a
sign is the same word (’oth) used for the “signs and wonders” performed by Moses and Aaron
in 7.3 and the plagues brought on by Yahweh. But here it carries the meaning of a
distinguishing mark. (See the comment on “wonders” at 3.20.) So NAB has “the blood will mark
the houses where you are.” (Similarly also JB.) One may also translate as 12.13 CEV does, “will
show me where you live.” A sign for you may seem strange, for it was to be a distinguishing
mark for Yahweh to see. 12.13 TEV omits for you (as do NAB, JB), but REB uses it to begin the
verse: “As for you, the blood will be a sign.” Durham interprets this to mean “for your benefit”
and translates “The blood is to be for your protection.” It is recommended that translators
follow 12.13 TEV.

Upon the houses where you are may not mean “in which you live,” for verse 4 suggests
that some of the smaller families would be moving in with others to share in the meal, and
verse 7 specifies that the blood is to be smeared on the houses where the people are to eat.
TAN has “the houses where you are staying.” An alternative translation model for the first part
of this verse is “The animal blood that you smear on the doorposts of your houses will show
me where you are staying.”

And when I see the blood is literally “and I will see the blood.” In languages where the
same word is used for “when” and “if,” one should guard against suggesting that Yahweh
might overlook some houses. An alternative model is “I will see the blood and will pass over …
.” I will pass over you uses the verb pasach, which is similar to pesach (“passover”) in verse 11.
The obvious play on words is difficult to bring out in translation, so a footnote may be helpful
to the reader. (For a fuller discussion see verse 27 and the introduction to this section,
12.1–14.)

And no plague uses the word meaning “blow” or “affliction.” It does not indicate the
nature of the blow or the kind of affliction. But the following words, shall fall upon you to
destroy you, suggest a “destructive blow” (NAB). The basic meaning of destroy is to ruin or
wipe out. (see verse 23.) REB translates this as “the mortal blow will not touch you,” while
12.13 TEV simply has “I … will not harm you.” When I smite the land of the Egyptians uses the
same verb as in verse 12, meaning to strike or hit. 12.13 TEV summarizes with “when I punish
the Egyptians.” One may also translate this as “I … will not harm you when I punish the
Egyptians with terrible plagues” or “I … will not harm you when I use terrible plagues to punish
the Egyptians.” Or one may restructure the final part of this verse in a similar way to 12.13 CEV
and say “Then you won’t be bothered by any of the terrible plagues I will bring on Egypt.”

JB JERUSALEM BIBLE
However, in languages that do not use the passive voice, it is possible to express this as “Then I
[Yahweh] will not cause you harm when I severely punish the Egyptians,” or even “I will punish
the Egyptians with terrible plagues, but I won’t harm you.”

12.14

This day would be the 15th of Abib, but it includes the events that would take place on
“that night” (verses 8 and 12). The slaying of the animals was to be on the 14th (see verse 6),
but for the Israelites the next day always began at sunset. (For some translations it will be
helpful to have a footnote here explaining this.) Since the discussion about unleavened bread
does not begin until verse 15, it is better to start a new paragraph with that verse, as in 12.14
TEV, rather than with verse 14. (So also JB and NJB.)

Shall be for you a memorial day, “a day of remembrance for you” (12.14 NRSV), or in a
number of languages, “You must remember this day.” And you shall keep it uses a verb that
means to celebrate a pilgrim festival. (See the comment on “hold a feast” at 10.9.) As a feast
actually uses the noun meaning a procession or festival. To the Lord makes it “a feast in
Yahweh’s honour” (NJB). 12.14 CEV has “a festival in my honor.” Since this is still Yahweh
speaking, it may be more convenient to change the Lord to the first person pronoun. 12.14 TEV
makes this clear: “a religious festival to remind you of what I, the Lord, have done.” In many
languages the idea of “religious” in “religious festival” will be difficult to express. In such cases
“a festival [or, fiesta] to honor me” will be a more appropriate rendering.

Throughout your generations means “generation after generation” (REB) or “throughout

the ages” (TAN). You shall observe it repeats the same word for observing a religious festival.
LB and 12.14 CEV add “each year,” which is probably implied, but it is not explicit. However, it is
much easier to translate than 12.14 TEV’s “for all time to come.” Another way to express this is
“You and all your descendants must celebrate this ritual each year for ever.” As an ordinance
for ever is really a “statute for all time” (REB), or a “decree” (NJB). Durham interprets it as “a
requirement forever,” and TAN calls it “an institution for all time.” See the comment on
“ordinance” at verse 43. The Hebrew word is chuqqah, one of several words for “law.” (See
the discussion of these words in the introduction to 20.22–26.)

(b) Instructions Concerning Unleavened Bread (12.15–20)

(b) Instructions concerning unleavened bread (12.15–20)

As stated above, verse 14 is often considered the beginning of a new para graph. What
follows, however, are instructions regarding a seven-day celebration to begin on the same day
as the Passover. Originally Passover and Unleavened Bread were probably separate religious
festivals, the first one originating among the early nomadic tribes, and the second one an
agricultural ritual celebrating the first grain harvest. Here, however, they are joined together
to celebrate two new historic events, the death of the firstborn among the Egyptians, and the
actual departure of the Israelites from Egypt.

LB LIVING BIBLE
 Section Heading: 12.14 TEV has the heading “The Festival of Unleavened Bread,” and this
Handbook has “Instructions concerning unleavened bread.” Another way to express this is
“The festival of bread with no yeast.”

12.15

Since this begins a new section, and Yahweh is still speaking, TEV adds “The Lord said.”
Seven days means seven continuous days, or “For seven days” (12.15 TEV). You shall eat
unleavened bread is a regulation to be followed, even though the verb is not imperative. So
NAB and NJB change the shall to “must.” 12.15 TEV changes the positive to negative, “you must
not eat any bread made with yeast.” But this is not quite the same as the positive command to
eat unleavened bread; for example, “You must eat bread made without yeast,” or “… thin
round bread without yeast,” or “… bread without anything to make it rise [or, make it soft].”

Unleavened bread was made without any leavening agent, like yeast, to make it rise. The
leaven was a piece of unbaked fermented dough from a previous batch, that was normally
added to the fresh dough to make it rise.

On the first day was the first day of seven days, or the 15th of Abib. In certain languages it
will be necessary to make this explicit and say, for example, “On the first of these seven days.”
You shall put away leaven is literally “you shall cause the leaven to stop.” It really means “You
are to get rid of all the yeast.” Out of your houses means removing it entirely. 12.15 RSV does
not reflect the Hebrew word ’ak, which can mean either “only” or “surely”; that is, it may
either restrict or emphasize what is being said. Here its function is to emphasize the phrase on
the first day, meaning “on the very first day” (TAN, REB, NAB). 12.15 KJV and ASV translate it as
“even” in “even the first day.” In 12.15 TEV it may be reflected later in the clause with the
emphasis on “all” (“all the yeast in your houses”). In cultures where yeast is unknown, one may
express this as “Already on the very first day you must remove from your houses all the stuff
that you use to make bread rise.”

For if any one eats what is leavened: the first word may mean either “for” or the
emphatic “surely.” The full clause is not necessarily an “if” clause. It can be read as “for [or,
surely] any eater of [what is] leavened,” or even more strongly, “anyone who eats bread made
with yeast.” 12.15 NRSV has changed the clause to “for whoever eats leavened bread” (similarly
TAN, REB, 12.15 NIV, and others). From the first day until the seventh day should be understood
to include all seven days, or “during those seven days” (12.15 TEV). That person (12.15 KJV “that
soul”) is emphatic. Shall be cut off from Israel uses a verb that literally means to cut
something off. Other possible terms are “expelled” (REB), “excluded” (Durham), or even
“outlawed” (NJB). 12.15 TEV may be a bit weak: “he shall no longer be considered one of my
people.” In languages that do not use the passive voice, one may translate “You must expel
him from Israel,” or even “You must consider him an outlaw and not an Israelite.”

KJV KING JAMES VERSION

ASV AMERICAN STANDARD VERSION

12.16

On the first day refers to the 15th day of Abib, when the festival began. You shall hold is
literally “there shall be” (so REB). A holy assembly is a technical term for a religious gathering,
or “a solemn assembly” (12.16 NRSV). The basic meaning of assembly is a group of people who
are called together. Note 12.16 TEV, “you are to meet for worship.” In some languages it will be
necessary to have an explicit goal for the verb “worship”; for example, “You must meet
together to worship me [Yahweh].” The seventh day is the last of the seven days of eating
unleavened bread, with five days in between.

No work shall be done is literally “all labor will not be done.” Work is a general term that
includes cooking, for it is specified as an exception in the next clause. This applies only to those
days, that is, the first and the seventh days. In languages that do not use the passive voice,
one may express this as “You must not do any work during these two days,” or even “Don’t do
work of any kind during these two days.”

The word but is the same word ’ak used in verse 15, but here it has a restrictive function.
It means “only” (12.16 NRSV, TAN), or “except” (REB, 12.16 NIV, NAB), and it introduces the one
exception, in terms of what every one must eat. The idea of must is implied by the but (’ak)
and the only that follows. Therefore that only may be prepared by you allows for the
necessary preparation of food, which is the only kind of work permitted on those two days.
12.16 TEV’s “but you may prepare food for everyone” may seem too permissive. One may say
“but you may prepare the necessary food for everyone.” It is possible to restructure the final
part of this verse as follows: “The only work that I allow you to do during these two days is the
preparing of food.”

12.17

And you shall observe means to “keep” (12.17 TEV) or “celebrate” (12.17 NIV). The basic
meaning of the word is to watch or guard. It is used again in verse 24. The feast of unleavened
bread is just one word, matsoth, meaning “unleavened cakes” (see the comment on verse 8),
but here it stands for the seven-day feast or “festival” (12.17 TEV) itself. NEB has “these
commandments,” following the Samaritan Pentateuch (mitsoth), but REB has returned to
matsoth in the Masoretic text. Therefore it is better to translate “You shall celebrate the
Festival of Unleavened Bread,” or “… Festival of Thin Bread” (12.17 CEV), or “… Festival of Bread
without Yeast.” (See the comment under the Section Heading before verse 14.)

For on this very day refers to the “first day” in verse 15, which is also “this day” in verse
14, the 15th of Abib. I brought out—Yahweh is still speaking—is literally “I caused to go out.”
The verb speaks of the action as already completed. Your hosts is a military term referring to a
multitude, or a large number. Some translations try to keep the military aspect: “companies”
(12.17 NRSV), “ranks” (TAN, NAB), and “divisions” (12.17 NIV). But more likely the Israelites were

NEB NEW ENGLISH BIBLE

 organized by “tribes” (TEV, CEV) rather than as “armies” (JB). (REB and NEB have “your tribal
hosts.”) (See the comment on “tribe” at 2.1.)

Therefore is the usual conjunction waw, which may be omitted. You shall observe this day
repeats the same verb as in the first clause, and this day is the same day referred to earlier.
Throughout your generations means “from generation to generation” (REB), or simply “For all
time to come.” (See verse 14.) As an ordinance for ever is also the same expression used in
verse 14.

12.18

In the first month is literally “in the first,” but it refers to the month of Abib (as in verse 2).
On the fourteenth day corresponds to verse 6. At evening really places it on the fifteenth day,
since the next day began at sunset (as discussed at verse 14). You shall eat unleavened bread
corresponds to verse 8, the Passover meal. And so until the twenty-first day simply repeats
the instruction given in verse 15.

At evening may present a problem if it is understood to include the evening of the twenty-
first day, which was already the twenty-second day. That would be a total of eight evenings,
which does not agree with the “seven days” emphasized again in the following verse. The
preposition AT also means “until” (12.18 NRSV), “to the evening,” or “when the sun sets on the
twenty-first day.” NEB and REB insist on “the evening which begins the fourteenth day until the
evening which begins the twenty-first day,” but this does not agree with the eating of the
Passover meal, which was the evening following the slaying of the animal on the fourteenth
day. (See verse 6 and the comment on verse 14). Another model is “From when the sun sets
on the fourteenth day in the first month until it sets on the twenty-first day of that month, you
must not eat … .”

An alternative translation model for this verse is:

• You must refrain from eating bread made with yeast, beginning from the time the sun sets on
the fourteenth day of the first month, until it sets on the twenty-first day of that same month.

12.19–20

Verse 19 repeats much of what is said in verse 15. For seven days has already been
specified. No leaven shall be found, literally “leaven will not be found,” may be expressed as
“no yeast is to be found” (12.20 NIV), “no leaven may be found” (NAB), or “no leaven must be
found” (REB). One may also translate “no yeast is allowed in anyone’s home,” or even “you
must not allow any yeast in anyone’s home.” If any one eats what is leavened is almost
identical with verse 15, the only difference being the form of the noun. (12.20 NRSV tries to
reflect this slight difference, with “what is leavened” for “leavened bread.”) Cut off from the
congregation of Israel adds the word congregation to the phrase in verse 15. (See verse 3.)

Whether he is a sojourner refers to a “resident alien” (NAB, TOT). “Stranger” or “foreigner”

may give the wrong idea here, for the sojourner was often one who had taken up residence
among people not his own (see 2.22 and the comment). Or a native of the land is the
alternative to sojourner. In this case, since these verses reflect the later Israelite community,
the land does not refer to Egypt. (As explained in the introductory remarks to this chapter,
these detailed instructions for ritual observance were inserted into the basic narrative of the
exodus long after the Israelites had settled in the Promised Land.) So native means “native-
born,” “an Israelite by birth” (TOT), or “native Israelites” (12.20 CEV).

Verse 20 also repeats what is said in verse 19. The only new word here is dwellings, which
means the same as “houses.” 12.20 TEV avoids the repetition by combining verses 19 and 20.
This tendency to repeat what has already been said adds emphasis to the instructions, but it
should be avoided if it sounds unnatural in the receptor language.

(2) Moses’ Instructions to the People (12.21–28)

This section now records what Moses said to the Israelites, following the instructions of
Yahweh (see verse 3). It is not identical with the first twenty verses, however, for not all the
details are repeated. And verses 25–27 even add new details not yet mentioned.

Section Heading: the suggested headings in 12.20 TEV and this Handbook for this section
are quite different. 12.20 TEV’s heading, “The First Passover,” focuses only on verse 28. It may
also be expressed as “The Israelites celebrate the Passover for the first time” or “The first
Passover is celebrated.” The Handbook’s heading, which focuses on Moses’ instructions in
verses 21–27, may be simplified; for example, “Moses instructs the people.” Translators are
encouraged to use the Handbook’s heading.

12.21

Then Moses called all the elders means that “Moses called for [or, sum moned] all the
leaders” (see 12.21 TEV). Note that Aaron is not mentioned here, in contrast with verse 1. The
elders of Israel were the senior tribesmen, referred to in 3.16, who in turn evidently informed
the rest of the people (see verse 28). This sentence may also be rendered as “Moses called all
the leaders of Israel together to meet with him.”

Select lambs for yourselves is literally “Go off and take for yourselves flock- animals.” The
Hebrew word used here is the generic term that includes both sheep and goats. The term in
verse 3 refers to either a young sheep (lamb) or a young goat. (See the comment there.) So
12.21 TEV uses both terms here (as in verse 5), “choose a lamb or a young goat.” Since the
Hebrew uses two verbs (“go off” and “take”), 12.21 NRSV translates both of them, “Go, select
lambs for families,” and REB does the same, “Go at once, procure lambs for your families.” The
two verbs, however, may refer to just one action. So 12.21 TEV simply has “choose.” 12.21 CEV
has “pick out a sheep.”

According to your families should be understood as “for your families” (12.21 NRSV and
others). The same word is used in the genealogy in 6.14–25 for the extended family or clan
(“these are the families of”), but here it includes one animal for each household (see verse 3).
Obviously not all Israelites are to pick an animal for the Passover; rather the head of each
family will select one. So it is possible to render the final part of this verse as “Each family is to
pick a lamb or a young goat and kill it.”
 And kill the passover lamb is simply “kill the pesach,” using the same word (“Passover”) as
in verse 11. REB may be too literal, “slaughter the Passover.” NJB has “kill the Passover victim,”
and TAN has “slaughter the passover offering.” TOT brings out the meaning more clearly,
“slaughter them for the Passover,” and 12.21 TEV expands even more, “kill it, so that your
families can celebrate Passover.”

12.22

Take a bunch of hyssop refers to a small plant sometimes called “marjoram” (REB, TOT,
MFT). It has small white flowers in bunches at the end of the stem, so a “sprig” (12.22 TEV) of it
could be used as a brush for daubing. The botanical accuracy, however, is not important,
especially if the plant is not known in the receptor culture. One may say “Take a small, bushy
plant,” or “Take some hyssop grass.” And dip it in the blood refers to the blood of the slain
animal. The basin has not yet been mentioned, but it obviously refers to “the bowl containing
the animal’s blood” (12.22 TEV). Translators should use a term for basin or “bowl” that
describes some common container in the receptor culture that would naturally be used to hold
water or even blood. (12.22 TEV’s footnote shows another possible meaning of the Hebrew
word for basin, but most scholars understand it as “bowl.”)

The lintel and the two doorposts are explained in the comment on verse 7. Touch should
probably be changed to “smear” (REB), “apply” (TAN), or “wipe” in this context, since the blood
was to be clearly seen by the Lord (verse 23).

12.23

For the Lord will pass through uses the same verb as verse 12 but without repeating “the
land of Egypt.” 12.23 TEV adds “Egypt” to make it clear. The word for, the usual conjunction
waw, can also introduce a temporal clause, “When the Lord goes through Egypt” (12.23 TEV).
(Similarly also TAN, 12.23 NIV, and NJB.) CEV’s model helps to place the event on a particular
night, “During that night, the Lord will go through the country of Egypt.” To slay the Egyptians
is the purpose for Yahweh’s passing through, but slay means to injure with a blow or to strike
with a plague (as in 8.2). In this context, however, “to kill” (12.23 TEV) is implied. The word is
used again at the end of this verse. It will be helpful to indicate that the Lord will not slay every
Egyptian. One can do this by repeating the words “firstborn son”; for example, “and kill the
firstborn son in every Egyptian family” (so also CEV).

And when he sees the blood really means “whenever” (MFT), implying that Yahweh will
examine every house in Egypt. On the lintel and on the doorposts is discussed at verse 7. The
Lord will pass over the door uses the verb pasach (see the comment at verse 27). The word for
door means the entrance to the house, so in languages where the idea of “pass over” will not
work, one may say “Yahweh will pass by that doorway” or “… pass by that house,” that is,
without entering. One may also say “will not come into your house.” 12.23 TEV unfortunately
omits this idea here.

MFT MOFFATT
 And will not allow the destroyer uses the same word for “destroy” as verse 13. Here,
however, it is used as a noun, with the definite article, referring possibly to an “Angel of
Death” (12.23 TEV) or to some impersonal destructive force. If translators use the idea of
“Angel of Death,” another way to express this is “his [Yahweh’s] angel [or, helper] who causes
death.” The context suggests that the destroyer would accompany Yahweh and be ready to
enter the houses whenever instructed to do so. Your houses refers to the houses of the
Israelites. To slay you is simply “to slay,” with you implied. This is the same word used earlier
in this verse. Again, it is possible to say “and not kill your firstborn sons.”

An alternative translation model for this verse is:

• During that night the Lord will go through the land of Egypt and kill the firstborn son in every
Egyptian family. He will see the blood on the top and sides of your doors and will not allow his
angel [or, helper] who causes death to enter your houses and kill your firstborn sons.

12.24

You shall observe means to watch or guard (see verse 17). The You is plural. This rite uses
the word davar, meaning “word” or “event.” So 12.24 TEV has “You must obey these rules.”
(Durham has “this command,” and 12.24 NIV “these instructions.”) As an ordinance occurs in
verse 14 and means “a statute” (REB) or “an institu tion” (TAN). For you and your sons
(surprisingly, the you is singular) refers to all the Israelites and their “children.” Grammatically
for ever goes with observe rather than ordinance (but see 12.24 NRSV, “a perpetual
ordinance”) and extends the meaning of your sons to “your descendants” (NAB). It is also
possible to express this verse as “You and your children must continue to celebrate this
Passover festival each year forever.”

12.25

And when you come is literally “And it shall be that you will enter.” Another way to
express this is “After you [plural] have entered.” The land which the Lord will give you refers
to the land promised by Yahweh in 3.8. As he has promised is literally “just as he said.” You
shall keep is the same word as “observe” in verse 24. This service uses the same word that
described the “bondage” of the Israelites in 2.23. It means work, or even forced labor, but it is
also used in reference to worship as a cultic obligation. Various translations are “observance”
(12.25 NRSV), “ceremony” (12.25 NIV), and “ritual.”

It is possible to combine verses 24 and 25 as follows:

• 24–25 After you [plural] have entered the land that the Lord has promised to give you, you and
your children must obey these rules and celebrate the Passover festival each year forever.

12.26

And when your children say to you has the same form as verse 25, literally “And it shall be
that your sons will say to you [plural].” Since a question follows, 12.26 TEV has “When your
children ask you.” What do you mean by this service is literally “What is this service to you
[plural].” The same word for service is used in verse 25.
 Alternative translation models for this verse are:

• Your children will say to you, “What does this festival mean?”

• … “Why are you celebrating like this?”

12.27

You shall say (literally “and you shall say”) introduces the answer, so “you will answer” is
better (TEV, CEV), or “then tell them” (12.27 NIV). It is the sacrifice of the Lord’s passover is
similar to verse 11, but here the word sacrifice is joined to passover in a rhythmic form:
“zevach-pesach it to Yahweh.” The Hebrew may be understood either as “sacrifice of
Passover” or “passover sacrifice” (12.27 NRSV), but “to Yahweh” clearly means “to honor the
Lord” (12.27 TEV), not “of the Lord” (NAB). REB and NEB unfortunately translate it the same as in
verse 11. Alternative models for this sentence are “We are killing this Passover animal to honor
the Lord [or, Yahweh],” or “We are celebrating the festival of the Passover and are killing this
animal to honor the Lord.”

For he passed over brings out the play on the words pesach (passover) and pasach
(passed over). (See the comment at verse 13.) It is unlikely that this play on words can be
carried over in translation, so a footnote here will be helpful to the reader. Note that here it is
the houses that are passed over rather than the “door” in verse 23. The people of Israel,
literally “the sons of Israel,” is better understood as “the Israelites.” In Egypt is necessary here,
for these are words of instruction for future generations, who will be living elsewhere. In a
number of languages it will be helpful to start a new sentence here; for example, “We do these
things because we remember when Yahweh passed over the houses of the Israelites in Egypt.”

When he slew the Egyptians uses the same verb as verse 23, but the he refers to Yahweh,
not to “the destroyer.” But spared our houses uses a verb meaning to pull out or rescue, and
houses may also refer to “households” (TOT). (Note 12.27 TEV’s “but spared us.”) These words
were to be used in all future observances of the Passover, so that all Israelites might
experience the Lord’s deliverance. (They are still a part of the Jewish liturgy.) Therefore the
pronoun our should be understood as inclusive rather than exclusive. (See also the discussion
at 13.14.) Another possible model for this sentence is “He killed the firstborn sons of the
Egyptians but spared our [inclusive] families.”

And the people may refer either to “the Israelites” or to “all the elders” in verse 21.
However, “the elders” is the more likely interpretation, since Moses’ instructions continue
without a break from verse 21 to this verse. Bowed their heads is just one word, meaning to
bow or to kneel. 12.27 TEV has “knelt down,” but most translations have either “bowed down”
or “bowed low.” And worshiped is a word meaning to do homage or obeisance, so most
translations have “bowed down in worship” (12.27 NRSV). NEB’s “and prostrated themselves” is
probably not intended in addition to “bowed down.” In many languages it will be necessary to
show the implicit goal of “bowed down”; for example, “The elders [or, leaders] of Israel bowed
their heads and worshiped the Lord.”

12.28
 This verse begins a new paragraph in some translations, but it actually concludes the
section. Then the people of Israel is changed to “Then they” in 12.28 TEV and 12.28 CEV,
referring to “the people” in verse 27. But if “the people” in verse 27 is understood to refer to
“all the elders” in verse 21, which is more likely, then here it means “the Israelites” as in 12.28
NRSV. Went and did so refers to one action instead of two. So 12.28 NIV has “The Israelites did
just as the Lord commanded … ,” and TOT has “… did exactly as the Lord had commanded … .”
(But see NJB, “went away and did,” and Durham, “dispersed and did.”) The word so is not
necessary if the two clauses are combined.

The following clause concludes with the words so they did, which only emphasizes the
clause as the Lord had commanded. This emphasis may be expressed in a single clause by
adding “exactly as” (REB) or “just as the Lord had commanded” (12.28 NRSV). Aaron has not
been mentioned since verse 1, so Moses and Aaron is probably an editorial conclusion to the
instructional material of 12.1–28. (See the introductory remarks at the beginning of the
chapter.)

B. The Departure from Egypt (12.29–42)

(1) The Death of the Egyptian Firstborn (12.29–32)
This section now returns to the narrative account of the tenth plague announced in
chapter 11. The verses in between (12.1–28) are basically instructional material that was
inserted into the narrative. (Note that this new section says nothing about the blood or the
Passover.)

Three themes or episodes should be noted here. Verses 29–30 describe the actual death of
the firstborn in the Egyptian families. Verses 31–32 report the king’s unconditional change of
heart in telling the Israelites to leave. Verses 33–36 tell about the response of the Egyptian
people and how the Israelites plundered them as they left.

The chapter then continues with the actual departure of the Israelites, verses 37–39.
Verses 40–42 provide a kind of summary that shows the significance of that night.

Section Headings: translators who are using the Handbook’s outline will need a general
title here, “The departure from Egypt” (12.29–42), which may be alternatively rendered as
“The Israelites leave Egypt.” 12.28 TEV and this Handbook have similar headings for this section
(12.29–32). Alternative models} are “The firstborn sons of the Egyptians are killed” or “The
Lord kills the firstborn sons of the Egyptians.”

12.29

At midnight is more precise than “about midnight” in 11.4. The Lord smote says that
Yahweh “struck down” (12.29 NRSV), using the same verb as verse 12. All the first-born in the
land of Egypt is identical with 11.5. From the first-born of Pharaoh means the eldest son of
the king. Who sat on his throne is identical with 11.5, where 12.29 RSV has “who sits on his
throne.” (See the comment there.) The phrase is still ambiguous. Does it refer to the Pharaoh
himself or to his firstborn son, who was “heir to the throne” (12.29 TEV)? 12.29 RSV changes
 from “sits” to sat because the entire verse refers to an event that has now taken place. But
since the king was still “the occupant of the royal throne” (Durham), it seems best to
understand the phrase here, as in 11.5, to refer to the Pharaoh himself rather than to the son.
This is further suggested by reference to the first-born of the captive who was in the
dungeon. So one may say “from the firstborn son of Pharaoh on his throne” (REB), or simply
“from the firstborn son of Pharaoh,” and omit the ambiguous phrase entirely.

To the first-born of the captive refers to the “prisoner” rather than the “maidservant” in
11.5. Who was in the dungeon is literally “who is in the house of the cistern” (or “pit”), which
suggests an underground “jail” (Durham). Other ways to express this are “to the son of every
prisoner” or “to the son of every person who was in prison.” In many languages “prisoner” will
be expressed in a way similar to “a person in prison [or, jail].” But in cultures where there are
no prisons, and criminals are turned over to their families or relatives to watch over, one may
translate this clause as “even the firstborn sons of people who have committed crimes” or “…
who have been bound by the authorities for crimes they have committed.” As in 11.5, where
the slave girl at the mill is mentioned, the listing of prisoners here shows that all sectors of the
Egyptian society will be affected by Yahweh’s punishment—even the prisoners in the pits. And
all the first-born of the cattle is identical with 11.5. As explained there, better terms are
“livestock” (12.29 NRSV) or “domesticated animals.” (12.29 TEV’s “animals” here is rather vague;
in 11.6 it has “cattle”.)

12.30

And Pharaoh rose up simply means that he “got up” (12.30 NIV). In the night can also
mean “during the night” (12.30 NIV), or even “before night was over” (REB). 12.30 TEV suggests
that all of them “were awakened,” but not necessarily by the great cry. Such an interpretation
is possible only if the conjunction and (waw) in the second clause is understood as “because”
(TAN), but this has little basis. No doubt some of them “were awakened” by the cry, but more
likely the great cry arose after they got up and discovered what had happened. Rose up in
some languages will be expressed as “awoke,” or even “awoke from sleep.”

He … all his servants … all the Egyptians includes everyone except the Israelites, namely,
“the king, his officials, and all the other Egyptians” (12.30 TEV). And there was a great cry in
Egypt is identical with 11.6, except that the “will be” becomes was. So one may translate “and
all the Egyptians started wailing loudly, because … .” For clearly has the sense of “because”
(NEB). The final two clauses, There was not a house and where one was not dead, make a
double negative, which may be stated positively, “In every house there was a dead person.”

An alternative translation model for this verse is:

• During that night the king, his officials, and everyone else in Egypt woke up. They all began to
wail loudly, because in every house someone had died.

12.31

And he summoned Moses and Aaron is literally “And he called to [or, for].” It suggests
that the king sent messengers to call Moses and Aaron. 12.31 CEV has “the king sent for Moses
and Aaron.” One may also express this as “the king sent people to call Moses and Aaron.” By
night means “That same night,” or “while it was still night” (REB). And said introduces the
king’s words, which could have been spoken for him by the messengers he sent. The text does
not say that Moses and Aaron actually appeared before him. (See 10.29 and 11.8.) An
alternative translation model for this first sentence is “During that same night the king sent
messengers to tell Moses and Aaron, ‘…’ ”

Rise up is the first of six imperatives, all of which are second person plural— go forth, go,
serve, Take, and be gone are the other five. The first command may be understood as a
separate action (“get up from sleeping”), but it may also be the common Hebrew idiom for
beginning or starting the next action mentioned, go forth. NAB combines the first two into one,
“Leave at once.” (Note 12.31 TEV’s “Get out,” and CEV’s “Get your people out.”) All of these
emphasize the desperation of the king.

Go forth from among my people may mean simply “get away from my people” (JB), the
Egyptians, but 12.31 TEV has “Leave my country.” Both you does not mean “both of you” or
“you both,” for the word both (gam) here is the first of a series of five uses of gam continuing
into verse 32. (See further comment there.) In this context it emphasizes in each case what
follows next, like the English “not only,” or “even.” Thus it may be expressed, for example, as
“Go … not only you [two], but also the people of Israel.” You is plural, but since this message is
for Moses and Aaron, some languages will prefer to use a dual form, indicating that just two
people are being addressed. The people of Israel has no possessive pronoun, but 12.31 TEV
adds one for emphasis: “you and your Israelites!” “You and all your people” is also possible.

And go begins a new clause. Serve the Lord means to “worship” Yahweh. As you have said
is one word, with the plural you. In context it may be more natural to say “as you asked”
(12.31 TEV), or even “in accord with your demand” (Durham).

12.32

Take your flock begins with the little word gam (“also”), which is the third of five emphatic
uses of this word (see verse 31). Here it may be understood as “And also take your flocks,” or
“Take even your flocks.” Flocks includes both “sheep” and “goats” (12.32 TEV). (See the
comment on flocks at 9.2–3.) And your herds is “gam your cattle.” The same word for herds is
used in 10.9. The repeated use of gam suggests that the donkeys were included as well. (See
the discussion at 10.9.) As you have said repeats the same phrase in verse 31, but here two
words are used instead of one; literally “just as you said.” NAB has “as you demanded.” 12.32
TEV omits this phrase as unnecessary (similarly REB), but it may be well to retain it, since the
repetition suggests that the king is finally agreeing to all that Moses had demanded.

And be gone is the sixth use of the imperative, repeating the same word as the third
command, “go,” in verse 31. And bless me also is literally “and you [plural] will bless also
[gam] me.” This is a request, not a command, suggesting that the Pharaoh is finally recognizing
the power of Yahweh. For one person to bless another really means to ask God to bless that
person. So 12.32 TEV has “Also pray for a blessing on me.” REB has “and ask God’s blessing on
 me also,” and TAN “And may you bring a blessing on me also!” (NAB’s interpretation, “and you
will be doing me a favor,” is doubtful.) In many languages “blessing” will be expressed as
“kindness” or “mercy”; for example, “Please ask Yahweh to be merciful [or, kind] to me.”

(2) The Despoiling of the Egyptians (12.33–36)

Section Heading: this Handbook suggests a separate heading at this point, “The despoiling
of the Egyptians.” Other ways to render this are “The Israelites plunder the Egyptians,” “The
Israelites take the gold, silver, and clothing of the Egyptians,” or “The Israelites carry away the
valuable belongings of the Egyptians.”

12.33

And the Egyptians refers to the people in general, not just the king’s officials. Were urgent
with the people is literally “they were strong over the people.” The same word is used to
describe the king’s “hard” heart (4.21), but here it means to “put pressure on” (Childs). So
most translations say they “urged the people,” meaning the Israelites, and in some languages
it will be helpful to make this explicit; for example, “The Egyptians urged the Israelites,” or “…
the people of Israel.” To send them out of the land in haste translates the word “to let go,”
used in Moses’ earlier demands to the king. Here the meaning is simply “to hurry and leave the
country” (12.33 TEV), “to hasten their departure” (NAB), or “to leave their country quickly.”

For they said means the Egyptian people. We are all dead men is better in 12.33 NRSV,
“We shall all be dead,” meaning “We will all be dead if you don’t leave” (12.33 TEV). REB adds
“or else,” and NJB adds “Otherwise.”

An alternative translation model for this verse is:

• The Egyptians urged the Israelites to leave their country quickly. They said, “If you don’t leave,
we will all die.”

12.34

There are four actions described in this verse, so it is important to understand them in the
correct order. The Israelites took their dough, placed it in their kneading bowls, wrapped or
bound them in their mantles, and carried them on their shoulders. The first two actions may
be combined, since the people probably had already mixed the dough in the kneading bowls.

The dough was a thick mixture of either wheat or barley flour with just enough water to
make it stiff. A small amount of fermented dough (leaven) from an earlier batch was normally
added to the dough to make it rise. But now they took the dough before it was leavened, that
is, before the leaven had been added to it. It may be helpful to have a separate sentence for
the idea of “unleavened” and express the first part of the verse as follows: “So the Israelites
took bread dough and put it in bread bowls. But they did not mix any yeast in the dough to
make it rise.” (For “yeast” see the comment at verse 15.) The kneading bowls were probably
not like the modern “baking pans” but may have been clay or wooden bowls or “troughs” (NIV,
REB) in which they kneaded the dough, or worked it with their hands. (See also the comment at
8.3.)
 The bowls containing the dough were then bound up or “wrapped” in their mantles, that
is, their cloaks or outer clothing. This was done in such a way that they could carry them on
their shoulders.

An alternative translation model for this verse is:

• So the Israelites took bread dough and put it in bread bowls. But they did not add any yeast in
the dough to make it rise. They wrapped the pans in their outer garments and carried them on
their shoulders.

12.35

This is now the third time this same incident is mentioned in Exodus. (See also 3.21–22 and
11.2–3.) On the basis of 11.2, RSV and TEV assume that the Israelites had already asked for
jewelry and clothing from the Egyptians and were already prepared to leave. The Hebrew verb
form, however, does not indicate the pluperfect (“had done” and “had asked” in 12.35 TEV),
which can only be interpreted from the context. (A similar pluperfect was noted in the
comment at 11.1.) However, since 11.2 is still part of Yahweh’s instructions to Moses, the
reference here may also be understood as the actual carrying out of that command by the
people. So 12.35 NIV is correct in using the simple past tense: “The Israelites did as Moses
instructed and asked … .” Also is not in the Hebrew, so it is best to remove it, as 12.35 NRSV has
done.

As Moses told them refers to 11.2 and may also be expressed as “what Moses had told
them to do.” The Hebrew word for asked can also mean “borrowed” (TAN, KJV), but if they had
only “borrowed,” they would have been deceitful, as explained at 3.21. So asked is the
preferred rendering. The jewelry may have been “ornaments” (JB), “objects” (TAN), or “articles”
(NAB). (See the comment on jewelry at 3.22.) Clothing is also mentioned in 3.22 but not in .
The same word is translated “mantles” in verse 34, but it is a general word for “clothing.”

12.36

And the Lord had given is an assumed pluperfect, as in verse 35. Had given the people
favor, as in 3.21 and 11.3, suggests that Yahweh gave something to the Israelites. Durham calls
it “credibility.” But since it was in the sight of the Egyptians, it may be better to say, “The Lord
made the Egyptians respect the people” (12.36 TEV), or even “The Lord had given his people
face before the Egyp tians.”

So that is the usual conjunction waw, which here may even have the meaning of “so much
so, that …” (so NJB). REB translates it as “because.” “And as a result” is also possible. They let
them have what they asked is just one word in Hebrew. It is not the usual word for “give” but
rather a causative form of the word for “ask.” The meaning, however, is simply “they gave
them what they asked for” (12.36 NIV).

Thus they despoiled the Egyptians again begins with the conjunction waw, but the word
despoiled makes this a summary statement. Thus does not indicate “why” but “how,” so 12.36
TEV’s “In this way” is what is meant. The word for despoiled, as in 3.22, means to plunder or
take the spoil from a defeated army. (See 2 Chr 20.25.) 12.36 TEV has “In this way the Israelites
carried away the wealth of the Egyptians.”

(3) The Departure of the Israelites (12.37–39)

Section Heading: 12.36 TEV’s section heading uses a complete sentence, “The Israelites
Leave Egypt”; this will be natural and easy to translate in most languages.

12.37

Most translations omit the And. The people of Israel is literally “the sons of Israel,” but
this includes all the “Israelites.” Journeyed is the word for “pulling up stakes” and means to
break camp and move on. 12.37 TEV advances the phrase on foot and applies it to the entire
multitude. So 12.37 TEV has “The Israelites set out on foot.” (12.37 CEV has “walked.”) Women
and children probably rode on donkeys (see 4.20). However, translators should not supply this
information in the text. It may, of course, be put in a footnote if desired. Rameses is the same
“Raamses” mentioned in 1.11, although the spelling is slightly different. In some languages
translators will need to supply a word like “city” before Rameses. (See the comment on “store-
cities” at 1.11b.) The location of Succoth is uncertain, but see the map on page 11. Since the
name means “huts” or “booths,” it is more likely that Succoth was not a large city but rather a
small town or even a camping place. So it may be necessary to say something like “from the
city [or, store-city] Rameses to the town [or, place] Succoth.”

About six hundred thousand men on foot means approximately 600,000 “able-bodied
men” (Durham). Men on foot is literally “strong footmen,” but probably all males are intended
here. Besides women and children may mean “not counting their families” (NJB), but the
Hebrew word, which sometimes means just “children” (TAN), can also mean “dependents”
(NEB). So most translations have “women and children.” (See 10.10, 24.)

12.38

A mixed multitude is literally “a large mixture,” but the exact meaning of “mixture” is
uncertain. The word is used in Neh 13.3 (12.38 RSV “those of foreign descent”), and in Jer 25.20
(“foreign folk”) and 25.24 (“mixed tribes”). NAB has “a crowd of mixed ancestry,” and Durham
“a large and motley group.” At least the word also indicates that the “other people” (12.38
TEV) were not considered Israelites. This first sentence may then be expressed as “A large
number of people who were not Israelites also went with them.” Went up is literally “to
ascend,” which probably means from a lower to a higher elevation, but most translations do
not show this. (See the discussion at 3.8.) 12.38 TEV simply has “went with them.” 12.38 CEV
has “Many other people went with them as well.”

And very many cattle uses the broad term that means “livestock” (12.38 NRSV). This
included smaller animals, that is, the flocks, both “sheep” and “goats,” as well as larger
animals, the herds, both cattle and donkeys. (See the comment at 10.9.)

An alternative translation model for this verse is:

• A large number of people who were not Israelites also went with them. There were also many
sheep, goats, and cattle.

12.39

And may be omitted, but it should be clear that the people were now on their journey.
Durham translates the and as “At their first stop,” which is suggested by the context. This
would produce the following translation of the first sentence: “At their first stop they baked
unleavened cakes … .” They baked is a general word for baking, but the word for unleavened
cakes indicates that they baked them either in ashes or on hot stones. These unleavened
cakes were round and flat, not like ordinary loaves of bread. Of the dough is literally “with the
dough,” or “from the dough.” Which they had brought out of Egypt refers back to verse 34,
which suggests the English pluperfect, had brought.

For it was not leavened refers to the dough and explains why these cakes were round and
flat. NJB has “because the dough had not risen.” NAB places this phrase at the beginning of the
verse: “Since the dough they had brought out of Egypt was not leavened, they baked it into
unleavened loaves.” (See the comment on “yeast” at verse 15.)

Because they were thrust out of Egypt explains why there was no leaven in the dough.
Thrust out is the passive form of the verb “to banish,” so 12.39 TEV has “for they had been
driven out.” And could not tarry is literally “and they were not able to linger.” This implies that
they normallyate leavened bread, but because they had to leave quickly, “they did not have
time … to prepare leavened dough” (12.39 TEV). Neither had they prepared is literally “and
also they did not make.” Provisions is a general word for food prepared for a journey.

In many languages it will be helpful to place the final clause at the beginning of the verse
as follows:

• The Egyptians made the Israelites leave Egypt in a great hurry. As a result they did not have
time to prepare any food except some bread dough made without yeast. So they baked it and
made round flat bread.

(4) The Significance of that Night (12.40–42)

These three verses are a summary statement inserted into the narrative of the actual
departure from Egypt. They are intended to explain how Yahweh kept his promise to Abraham
(see Gen 15.13), and how the Israelites should remember the significance of that night.

Section Heading: some translators will wish to include the extra heading suggested by this
Handbook for this short subsection: “The significance of that night.” Another way to express
this is “That night had a special meaning.”

12.40

The time here refers to “the length of time” (TAN, NIV). The people of Israel, literally “the
sons of Israel,” refers to all the Israelites, including the earlier generations from the time of
Jacob, who was named “Israel.” Dwelt in Egypt means “had lived in Egypt.” Four hundred and
thirty years is clear enough in the text, although this does not agree with the “four hundred
 years” mentioned in Gen 15.13. There should not be any attempt in translation to harmonize
these two figures.

12.41

And at the end of is literally “And it was [or, happened] at the end of.” On that very day is
emphatic, to show that the actual day of the exodus was also “the day the 430 years ended.”
TAN has “At the end of the four hundred and thirtieth year, to the very day.”

All the hosts of the Lord refers to “all the tribes of the Lord’s people,” or “all the
companies of the Lord” (12.41 NRSV). NJB has “all Yahweh’s armies,” but see the comment at
verse 17 on the meaning of hosts. Went out from the land of Egypt simply means they “left
Egypt” (12.41 TEV).

It is possible to combine verses 40 and 41 as follows:

• 40–41 All the tribes of the Lord’s people left Egypt exactly four hundred thirty years after they
had arrived there.

12.42

It was a night of watching is literally “A night of watchings that.” The Hebrew uses a
collective plural noun form of the verb meaning both “to watch or guard” and “to observe.”
12.42 KJV, ASV, and NASB have taken it to mean “to observe,” that is, to be observed by the
people. However, “kept watch,” or “guarded,” is the more probable rendering. NAB and NEB
have “This was a night of vigil.”

By the Lord is literally “to [or, for] Yahweh,” but the preposition often shows possession,
so that it can mean “Yahweh’s night of vigil.” This is the interpre tation followed by most
translations. 12.42 NRSV has “That was for the Lord a night of vigil”; and REB has “This was the
night when the Lord kept vigil,” which is similar to “a night when the Lord kept watch” (12.42
TEV), or “On that night the Lord kept watch for them” (12.42 CEV). To bring them out from the
land of Egypt should be understood as “in order for Yahweh to cause the Israelites to go out of
Egypt.” The renderings night of watching by the Lord or “the Lord kept watch for them” will be
difficult to understand in some languages. An alternative model for this first sentence is “On
that night the Lord guarded them as he led them out of Egypt.”

So this same night begins an independent clause that can be considered a new sentence,
as in 12.42 NRSV. A night of watching to the Lord uses the same word as the first clause, but
here it plays on the other meaning, “to observe.” The word kept has been added here to bring
out this meaning (12.42 NRSV “a vigil to be kept”). To the Lord is identical in the Hebrew to by
the Lord in the first clause, but here the preposition clearly means “for the Lord” (12.42 NRSV)
or “dedicated to the Lord.” TAN interprets it as possessive, “that same night is the Lord’s.” So
one may translate “will always dedicate that night to the Lord.”

NASB NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE

 Kept … by all the people of Israel, literally “all the sons of Israel,” means of course “all the
Israelites” (12.42 NRSV). Throughout their generations means “for all time to come.”

Alternative translation models for this verse are:

• On that night the Lord kept watch for [or, guarded] them as he led them out of Egypt. And on
that same night each year forever the Israelites will always keep watch in order to honor the
Lord.

• … And so each year forever the Israelites will dedicate that night to the Lord.

C. Additional Instructions for Celebrating the Exodus

(12.43–13.16)
(1) The Lord Speaks to Moses (and Aaron) (12.43–13.2)

(a) Concerning Passover Regulations (12.43–51)

(a) Concerning Passover regulations (12.43–51)

The first section of this larger division, “Instructions concerning Passover regulations,”
deals with the question of whether non-Israelites may participate in the observance of the
Passover. It reflects the later situation of the Israelite community after they settled in Canaan.

Headings: Translators who are following this Handbook’s outline should have three layers
of headings at this point: First a general title, “Additional instructions for celebrating the
Exodus,” which may be rendered more simply as “The Lord gives more instructions before the
Israelites leave Egypt.” This should be followed by the subheading “The Lord speaks to Moses,”
which should present no difficulties for translation. Finally there should be a heading for the
section 12.43–51. 12.42 TEV has “Regulations about Passover,” while this Handbook suggests
“Concerning Passover regulations.” These are very similar in meaning. Another way to express
this is “The Lord gives more instructions concerning the Passover.”

12.43

The Hebrew text shows a major break here, but as usual the verse begins with And. As
explained elsewhere, this conjunction must always be translated according to the context, and
at times it should be omitted entirely. Most translations omit it here since this new section has
no direct connection with the preceding verses. The Lord said to Moses and Aaron introduces
a long quotation that continues through verse 49.

This is the ordinance of the passover refers to what follows, so 12.43 RSV and 12.43 TEV
use the colon. Ordinance (chuqqah) is one of several words for “law,” “regula tion,” or “rule.”
(See the introduction to 20.22–26.) Other translations use a variety of terms, such as “law”
(TAN), “ritual” (NJB), “statute” (REB), “requirement” (Durham). Since there are many details that
are discussed under this ordinance, it may be better to use a plural form such as “regulations”
or “rules.” 12.43 CEV combines the initial two clauses in a way that will be helpful for many
translators: “The Lord gave Moses and Aaron the following instructions for celebrating
Passover.”

The passover is the word pesach, which may refer to either the meal or the lamb or young
goat to be killed and eaten. (See the discussion at verse 27.). Here it probably refers to the
annual observance of the special meal, although TAN has “passover offering.” “Special meal” is
more what is intended, as the following verses talk about eating this meal.

No foreigner shall eat of it is literally “every son of a foreign land shall not eat of it.”
Foreigner therefore includes any non-Israelite, or “anyone outside the covenant community”
(Durham). The it, of course, refers to the “passover” (pesach), which may be understood either
as “the Passover meal” (12.43 TEV) or as the passover animal. Shall eat of it probably has the
broader meaning of “may take part in it” (JB), since the observance involved more than just
eating. However, it is probably better to translate as “eat the Passover meal” (see verse 44).

12.44

Slave in Hebrew is a word that often refers to a servant rather than a slave, so in Hebrew it
is necessary to specify bought for money, or “purchased” (12.44 NRSV). (See the comment on
“slave” at 1.11a.) Each slave is literally “each [male] slave of a man,” or “every man’s slave”
(NASB). Such a privately-owned slave belonged to the household and served mostly as a
domestic helper. The Israelites themselves sometimes became slaves (see 21.2), so it may be
assumed that the slave referred to here was not an Israelite. This is because every Israelite
male would have been circumcised shortly after birth. The Israelites did not practice female
circumcision. However, this information on “circumcision” may be placed in a footnote. (See
the discussion at 4.25-26.)

May eat of it is simply “and he will eat in it,” probably meaning the Passover meal in verse
43. After you have circumcised him is literally “and you [singular] circumcised him.” One may
say “after he has been circumcised” (12.44 NRSV), or “if you circumcise him first” (12.44 TEV).

12.45

Literally this verse reads “A foreigner and hired [person] will not eat in it.” The it refers to
the “passover” (pesach) in verse 43, which may mean either the meal or the animal. The word
for sojourner is more correctly translated as “temporary resident” or “transient alien” (NAB),
referring to someone who would not have been as much a part of the culture as the
“sojourner” in verse 19. 12.45 NRSV has “bound servant,” possibly following TAN’s “bound
laborer.” This interprets the word for sojourner here as a temporary laborer who was
obligated to work for a period of time without pay. The hired servant, one word in Hebrew,
was a day laborer who was paid for his work. These “hired servants” were of course different
from the “slaves” (verse 44), who had been bought from someone.

12.46

In one house should be understood as one house for each passover animal or “meal” (see
verse 7.) As explained in verse 43, The it may refer either to the meal or to the animal itself.
12.46 TEV is to be preferred: “The whole meal must be eaten in the house in which it was
prepared.” In languages that do not use the passive voice, one may express this as “You must
eat the whole meal [or, all the food] in the house where you prepare it.” You shall not carry
forth is literally “you [singular] will not cause to go out,” meaning outside the house.

Any of the flesh is literally “from the flesh,” meaning “any of the meat” (NJB, TOT), or “any
of the animal” (12.46 NRSV). 12.46 TEV’s “it must not be taken outside” seems to refer to the
“meal” rather than just the animal. If this interpretation is followed, it will be more accurate to
say “no part of the meal must [or, may] be taken outside,” or “you may not take any of the
food outside.” Most translations retain the ambiguity, but REB here takes the it to refer to the
“Passover victim,” meaning the animal.

And you shall not break a bone of it is literally “and a bone you [plural] will not break in
it.” Here the it clearly refers to the passover animal, so it may be necessary to make this clear.
12.46 TEV does this: “And do not break any of the animal’s bones.”

12.47

All the congregation of Israel is identical to verse 3, referring to all the Israelites, or “The
whole community of Israel.” Shall keep it, literally “they will do it,” refers to “this festival,” or
“this feast” (REB), and not to the animal. 12.47 NRSV’s “shall celebrate it” is an improvement.

12.48

And when can be “If,” but the situation described should not be thought of as unlikely.
12.48 CEV does use an “if” clause in a helpful way: “If anyone who isn’t an Israelite wants to
celebrate … .” A stranger shall sojourn uses two words with the same root meaning, like “a
sojourner will sojourn.” The noun stranger should be understood as a resident alien. The same
word is used in verse 19, where 12.48 RSV uses “sojourner.” (See the discussion there and also
at 2.22.) 12.48 NRSV corrects the idea of stranger by translating “an alien who resides with
you.” 12.48 TEV is similar: “If a foreigner has settled among you.” With you is singular, but this
is intended for the head of every family.

And would keep the passover is literally “and he makes passover [pesach].” The idea of
would is suggested by the context, which is the same as “and wants to celebrate Passover”
(12.48 TEV). Passover to the Lord may mean either “Passover to honor the Lord” or “the Lord’s
Passover” (12.48 NIV), since the Hebrew form “to Yahweh” may also show possession.
However, in some languages it will be possible to express this as “celebrate the festival that
the Lord has instituted.”

Let all his males be circumcised, literally “be circumcised to him every male,” is a form
indicating a command. All his males refers to all the men and boys in the family of the resident
alien, as well as all his male servants. 12.48 CEV reflects this: “every man and boy in that
family.” 12.48 TEV changes the passive voice to active and introduces “you” as the one [or,
ones] who will perform the circumcision. The text, however, does not indicate who the agent
should be, so it is better to retain the passive if possible, or else say “they shall circumcise,”
with “they” being an unknown agent. However, in some languages that do not have the
 passive voice, one may use a word meaning “receive,” and say “they shall receive
circumcision.” One may also use a term like “suffer” or “undergo” and translate, for example,
“they shall undergo the cutting of the circumcision ceremony.” (See the comments on
“circumcision” at 4.25–26.)

Then he refers only to the “resident alien,” who presumably was head of a household. The
text does not indicate whether all his males were also permitted to participate, but the rite of
circumcision would make this possible. He may come near means that he may participate, “be
admitted” (TAN), or “join in” (TEV, CEV). And keep it, of course, refers to observing the Passover,
or “the festival” (12.48 TEV). He shall be as a native of the land means “he is to be treated as a
native- born Israelite,” or “You are to consider him as … .” As in verse 19, a native of the land
does not refer to Egypt or to an Egyptian, but reflects the later settled Israelite community in
Canaan.

But no uncircumcised person shall eat of it is added for emphasis. Eat of it refers to
participating in the Passover meal. Note that 12.48 TEV places this clause at the beginning of
the verse, connecting it with verse 47. This rearrangement is certainly possible and may
suggest a more natural flow of thought. 12.48 NRSV, on the other hand, joins this clause with
the following verse.

An alternative translation model for languages that do not use the passive voice is the
following:

• If any foreigner [or, nonnative Israelite] wants to celebrate the Passover festival to honor the
Lord, you must first circumcise every man and boy in his family. When this is done you can
consider him as a native-born Israelite, and he may eat the meal. No man or boy who has not
received circumcision may eat this meal.

12.49

There shall be one law, literally “one torah will be,” refers to the various “regulations”
(12.49 TEV) for the Passover just listed. This means that “the same regulations apply” (12.49
TEV) to both. (See the comment on torah at 13.9.) The native, or “citizen” (TAN), refers to the
“Israelite by birth” (TOT), and the stranger who sojourns among you refers to the “resident
alien” or “foreigner” mentioned in verse 48. Among you, literally “in your midst,” is plural.
Note that this verse concludes Yahweh’s words to Moses and Aaron that began in verse 43.

12.50

Thus is added by 12.50 RSV in order to show the form of the Hebrew and mark the division
of two clauses with the semicolon. This is unnecessary and sounds unnatural in English. The
Hebrew for they did is the same word in both clauses, but 12.50 TEV changes the first one to
“obeyed” and combines the two clauses into one. 12.50 NRSV also combines both clauses quite
naturally without repeating the main verb: “All the Israelites did just as the Lord had
commanded Moses and Aaron.”

As is emphatic, meaning “exactly as” (REB). The Lord commanded may be expressed more
naturally with the pluperfect, “the Lord had commanded” (12.50 TEV). It must be assumed that
Moses and Aaron first repeated these instructions (verses 43–49) to the people, and then the
people “obeyed.” 12.50 CEV has “The Israelites obeyed everything the Lord had commanded
Moses and Aaron to tell them.”

12.51

And on that very day is identical with verse 41 and refers to the same day of the exodus.
The Lord brought out is literally “Yahweh caused to go out.” The people of Israel, as
elsewhere, is literally “the sons of Israel,” meaning “the Israelites.” From the land of Egypt
may be shortened to “out of Egypt.” By their hosts is better understood as “by their divisions”
(12.51 NIV), or “troop by troop” (TAN). 12.51 TEV simply uses only “tribes,” and 12.51 CEV has
“families and tribes,” but the word hosts is a military term. (See the comment at verse 17.)
They were probably not organized into “armies” (JB, NJB), and REB’s “mustered in their tribal
hosts” seems a bit too wordy. TOT has “as a disciplined group.” A possible rendering taking into
account the idea of “organization” is the following: “On that same day the Lord caused the
Israelites to go out of Egypt in an orderly way, tribe by tribe.”

(B) Concerning the Dedication of the Firstborn (13.1–2)

(b) Concerning the dedication of the firstborn (13.1–2)
173

The first two verses of chapter 13 continue the words of Yahweh to Moses, even though a
major break is indicated in the Hebrew text. Our Handbook outline, however, shows that this is
the second theme discussed in the “Addi tional instructions for celebrating the exodus,”
beginning with 12.43. We propose a major break after 13.2, where the scene is changed and
Moses speaks to the people.

Section Heading: in some languages the nominal phrase “Dedication of the firstborn” will
need to be expressed with a verbal phrase, even if this means adding some more words; for
example, “The Lord tells the Israelites to dedicate all their firstborn males to him.”

13.1–2

The Lord said to Moses introduces again the words of Yahweh to Moses, since 12.50–51 is
a narrative summary inserted within this instructional material. It is significant that Aaron is
not included this time.

Consecrate to me is the verb “to be holy,” but it is used here as an imperative with the
meaning “you [singular] designate or set apart as holy.” Although this is addressed only to
Moses, it is intended for all Israelites. “Dedicate” has the same meaning. To me means to
Yahweh. Durham has “set apart for me.” Another way to express this is “Set apart as belonging

173Osborn, N. D., & Hatton, H. (1999). A handbook on Exodus. UBS handbook series; Helps for
translators (272). New York: United Bible Societies.
 to me.” All the first-born probably refers just to “the first-born males” (13.2 TEV). (See verses
12 and 15, and the comment at 11.5.)

Whatever is the first to open the womb is a technical expression that means the same as
first-born. It should be noted, however, that this Hebrew expression does not specify the
gender, whether male or female, so TOT’s “first child” is perhaps more accurate. (See also
verses 12–13 and 34.19–20.) 13.2 TEV simply repeats “Every first-born male Israelite,” and 13.2
CEV has “the first-born son of every family”; but in some languages it may be necessary here to
specify the firstborn of the mother. REB has “the first birth of every womb,” and TOT has “the
first child born to every Israelite woman.” Among the people of Israel, literally “sons of Israel,”
means “Israelites” in general (13.2 NRSV).

Both of men and beast uses the generic term for both “human beings” and “animals”
(13.2 NRSV). On the basis of verses 12 and 15, 13.2 TEV indicates that “male” is intended in both
cases. Is mine is literally “to me that,” meaning “belongs to me” (13.2 TEV). In some languages
it will be helpful to have a separate sentence for this clause; for example, “These belong to
me.”

An alternative translation model for this verse is:

• The Lord said to Moses, “You [plural] must set apart as belonging to me all the firstborn sons
of every Israelite family and the firstborn males of your animals. These belong to me.

(2) Moses Speaks to the People (13.3–16)

(a) Concerning Unleavened Bread (13.3–10)

(a) Concerning unleavened bread (13.3–10)

Chapter 13 continues the instructions for the future celebration of the exodus. In
12.43–13:2 they were presented as the words of the Lord to Moses (and Aaron), while in
13.2–16 they represent the words of Moses to the people. Some of the material seems to be
repeated, especially the instructions about the Feast of Unleavened Bread. Many scholars
believe this is because two different traditions have been combined, with 12.43–13.2 coming
from the priestly source (P) and 13.3–16 from the Deuteronomistic source (D). (See the
discussion on “Sources” in “Translating Exodus,” page 2.)

TEV Today’s English Version

TOT TRANSLATOR’S OLD TESTAMENT

CEV Contemporary English Version

REB REVISED ENGLISH BIBLE

NRSV New Revised Standard Version

 As mentioned in the introduction to chapter 12, these instructions were inserted into the
basic narrative account in order to emphasize the importance of remembering the day when
the Lord delivered the Israelites from slavery. They reflect the later situation of the Israelite
community after they had settled in the promised land.

Headings: translators who are following the Handbook’s outline should have the general
heading “Moses speaks to the people” (see below). This also may be rendered as “Moses
speaks to the Israelites.” There should also be a title for the section (13.3–16). See the
comment under the section heading for 12.15 on alternative ways to express the headings
“Concerning unleavened bread” (Handbook) or “The Festival of Unleavened Bread” (TEV).

13.3

And Moses said to the people introduces the quotation that continues through verse 16.
Since this begins a new section, the And should be dropped, although some translate it as
“Then.” Remember in this context means “Keep in mind,” or even “Do not forget.” Remember
this day is a command, but the form of the verb (an emphatic imperative) does not specify
singular or plural. The plural is suggested by the following clause, in which you came out from
Egypt, or “the day on which you left Egypt.”

The plural pronoun you normally excludes the speaker, who is Moses in this verse. Since
Moses was included with those who came out from Egypt, the you may need to be changed to
“we.” However, translators will need to consider the wider context and remember that Moses
did not enter the promised land. Also, beginning with verse 4, his words are instructions for his
people and for future generations. Therefore the you should probably be retained in the rest
of his speech.

Out of the house of bondage is a figure of speech describing Egypt in an insulting way. TEV
loses this with “the place where you were slaves.” Some of the negative tone is retained with
“the land of slavery” (NIV, REB) or “the place of slave-labour” (NJB). TOT has “that slave-camp,”
and MFT has “that slave-pen.”

For by strength of hand is another figure of speech for Yahweh’s “great power.” (Compare
the similar expression in 3.19.) The Lord brought you out, literally “caused you to go out,” uses
the plural you. From this place is just one word that can be omitted if it is clear that it refers to
Egypt. NRSV changes it to “from there.” Another way to express this sentence is “This is the day
when the Lord used his great power to bring you out from there [Egypt].”

The Hebrew verb meaning “to exit” is not as specific as the English came out and brought
out, which suggest that the speaker is no longer in Egypt. In a different context the same verb
may mean “went out” and “took out.” The basic narrative suggests that the people were still at

NIV NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION

NJB NEW JERUSALEM BIBLE

MFT MOFFATT
 Succoth (12.37) and still within the boundaries of Egypt. However, these are instructions for
the people to remember in the future after they are outside Egypt’s borders. Therefore, in
languages that must indicate the position of the speaker, translators of this verse should place
the speaker outside Egypt.

No leavened bread shall be eaten is literally “and will not be eaten [anything]
leavened.” This regulation applies to this day, but it is not mentioned again until verse 6. (On
leavened see 12.8 and the comment.) The waw (“and”) at the beginning of this command in
the Hebrew is not reflected in most translations, and yet the connection with the previous
clauses suggests two possibilities: 1) that this clause is really the intended object of the
command to Remember (TAN’s “Remember . . : no unleavened bread shall be eaten” uses the
colon to identify what the people were to remember); or 2) that it could be translated as “so,”
in the sense of “for this reason.” As elsewhere, the conjunction waw, if translated at all, must
be translated according to the context.

An alternative translation model for this verse is:

• Moses said to the people, “Do not forget this day. It is the day in which you [plural] left Egypt,
that land of slavery. This is the day the Lord used his great power to bring you out from there.
So you must not eat bread with yeast in it.

13.4

This day is the same day referred to in 12.14, 16, and 41, the actual day of departure and
the first day of unleavened bread. You are to go forth uses the emphatic plural you with the
plural participle, “you [are] the-ones-going-out.” This means “you are going out” (NRSV), or
“you are leaving” (NIV), or even “Today … is the day of your exodus” (REB).

In the month of Abib is literally “in the New-Moon of the Ripe-Grain,” and Fox translates it
this way. It is the same month as in 12.2. Abib was the early name given to the month of the
spring equinox, when the sun crosses the equator going north. It became the first month in the
Hebrew calendar, but the name was later changed to Nisan. Even though Abib means “ripe
grain,” it should be transliterated here rather than translated, unless in a particular culture the
equivalent spring month or new moon has a similar name.

13.5

This verse is a long, complex sentence. The main verb is in the final clause—you shall keep
… . TEV helpfully breaks this into two sentences, placing the which clause first.

And when the Lord brings you is literally “And it shall be that Yahweh will cause you to
enter.” (The you is singular but understood collectively.) Into the land of refers to one large
territory, later known as Palestine. But it was the land that was occupied by several non-
Israelite tribes.

TAN TANAKH (NEW JEWISH VERSION)

 The five ethnic groups listed are all named as “-ites.” (A sixth group, the Perizzites, are
mentioned in 3.8. See the discussion there.) In languages where this form is not possible, they
may have to be referred to as “the people of a place.” The Canaanites will then be “the people
of Canaan,” and the Hittites will be “the people of Hatti.” Similarly the Amorites will be “the
people of Amurru,” the Hivites “the people of Hor,” and the Jebusites “the people of Jebus.”

Which refers back to the land, and he swore means that Yahweh “promised by oath”
(Durham), or “solemnly promised” (TEV). The Hebrew word “to swear” (shava‘) comes from the
word for the number “seven” (sheva‘), suggesting the idea of completeness. It meant to take
an oath, which involved calling upon the name of a god to make it binding. So Yahweh had to
swear by his own self, and in so doing he bound himself to the ancestors Abraham, Isaac, and
Jacob. In this context a rendering such as “he made a strong promise,” or even “he promised
using his name,” will be helpful. (See also the comment at 32.13.) To your fathers refers back
to the patriarchs, so “ancestors” or “forefathers” (REB, NIV) is better. (See “ancestors” and the
comment at 3.6.) To give you refers to the descendants of the patriarchs, that is, the Israelites
to whom Moses is speaking (see Gen 13.15). (The you and your are still singular but
understood collectively.) A land flowing with milk and honey is figurative language for “that
rich and fertile land,” as in 3.8 and 17. TEV and CEV place the information in this clause at the
beginning of the verse. Many translators will wish to follow this restructuring.

You shall keep this service is literally “you [singular] will work this work,” or “serve this
service.” It means “you shall keep this observance” (NRSV), “observe this rite” (REB), “celebrate
this festival” (TEV), or “celebrate these events” (CEV). This service refers to the seven-day
observance described in the following verses, so some translations place a colon at the end of
the verse (TAN, NIV, REB). In this month means Abib (verse 4), and this implies annually. So TEV
has “in the first month of every year.” One may also say “Each year in the month of Abib,
celebrate this festival in the following way: …”

13.6

Seven days you shall eat unleavened bread is identical with 12.15. And on the seventh
day is similar to 12.16. There shall be a feast to the Lord is just two words in the Hebrew, “a
[pilgrim] feast to Yahweh,” meaning “a festival to honor the Lord” (TEV). Feast is discussed at
10.9.

13.7

The first clause repeats what is said in , but here the passive voice is used. (See the
discussion at that verse.) No leavened bread shall be seen with you is literally “and will not be
seen to you [anything] leavened.” With you means “in your possession” (NRSV). And no leaven
uses a different word from leavened bread, referring to the leavening agent, the sourdough
itself. (This term is discussed at 12.15.) Shall be seen with you repeats the same words in the
second clause, but here the with you takes on a broader meaning, like “among you” (NRSV).
This is because In all your territory means “anywhere within your borders” (Durham).
 The second and third clauses are negative, and they put emphasis on the complete
removal of anything leavened as well as the leaven itself. Several translations combine them;
for example, TEV has “there must be no yeast or leavened bread anywhere in your land.”

13.8

And you shall tell your son uses a word that means more than just tell. It means to report
or announce something, or in this case, to “explain” (TEV, CEV). The you is singular, but your son
includes “your sons” as well (TEV). NRSV even includes the daughters, with “your child.” So it is
also possible to say “your children” (CEV). On that day is ambiguous. It may refer to “the
seventh day” in verse 6, as CEV interprets it, or it may refer back to “this day” in verse 3, the
day “When the festival begins,” as TEV interprets it. The parallel references in 12.26 and 13.14
suggest that this same instruction is to be given whenever the children ask. Since the Hebrew
is not explicit, it may be best to preserve the ambiguity, as in TOT: “at that time.” LB has “During
those celebration days each year.”

It is because of is literally “on account of,” with the it is added for completeness. These are
words to be spoken by the father to his children during the family observance of the festival,
so NIV has “I do this because of.” What the Lord did for me makes it a personal testimony. TEV
has “for you,” but this is because the direct quote has been changed to indirect speech. In
many languages, however, direct speech will be preferred. Either way, the me or the “you”
refers to the father who is to speak these words. When I came out of Egypt is literally “in my
coming out of Egypt.” An alternative model for the final part of this verse is “I am celebrating
like this because of the things that the Lord did for me when I came out of Egypt,” or even
“The Lord helped me to escape from Egypt; so I am celebrating like this.”

13.9

And it shall be to you is literal, probably referring to “This observance” (13.9 TEV), or “This
celebration” (13.9 CEV). REB and NEB interpret this to mean “You must have,” adding the words,
“the record of it,” that is, the record of “what the Lord did” (verse 8). The problem is whether
to understand the sign on your hand literally or figuratively. (See the next paragraph.) Most
translations take it figuratively, and translators are urged to follow this interpretation. In
certain languages it will be necessary to provide an explicit goal for the event word “remind”;
for example, one may say “When you celebrate this festival it will remind you of what the Lord
did for you when you came out of Egypt. It will be like wearing … .” An alternative model is
“When you celebrate this festival it will be like wearing … because it will remind you … .”

As a sign, literally “for a sign,” is the word ’oth used in 3.12, where it means “proof,” and in
4.8, where it means “miracle.” Here, however, it means “a reminder,” a synonym for a
memorial. (See the comment on ’oth and “wonders” at 3.20.) On your hand and between
your eyes have been interpreted literally by some Jews, who actually wear small leather
pouches (“phylacteries”) strapped to their left arm and their forehead, and which contain

LB LIVING BIBLE

NEB NEW ENGLISH BIBLE

words of scripture written on parchment. So TEV has “like something tied on your hand or on
your forehead.” CEV has “This celebration will be like wearing a sign on your hand or on your
forehead.” (See Deut 6.8 and 11.18.) Note that the and may be translated as or, as in verse 16.
(So NJB and TOT.)

That the law of the Lord refers to the torah of Yahweh, which is better understood in this
context as the “instruction” (Durham) or “teaching of the Lord” (NRSV, TAN, CEV). This is the
basic meaning of the Hebrew word, which is also one of several words for law. It later came to
refer to the first five books of the Hebrew Bible as the authoritative collection of laws and
stories for teaching the faith and history of Israel. May be in your mouth is literal and a bit
ambiguous. It is clearer in NRSV (and others) to say “may be on your lips,” for this suggests
speaking or reciting the law. TEV interprets this to mean “to continue to recite and study the
Law of the Lord,” and this will be much clearer in many languages. However, it can also mean
that the recitation is passing along the torah or teachings to others, in which case one may
translate “to remind you to pass on the teachings of the Lord to your children” or “to remind
you to recite the teachings of the Lord for others to hear.”

For with a strong hand refers to Yahweh’s “great power,” as in verse 3. (See also 3.19.)
The Lord has brought you out is literally “Yahweh caused you [singular] to go out from Egypt.”

13.10

You is still singular in the Hebrew, although the Septuagint uses the plural here and in
verse 7. Therefore is not in the Hebrew, but the verse begins with the conjunction waw, which
allows for this. You shall keep is the word meaning to watch, guard, or “observe” (NJB). This
ordinance uses the word chuqqah, which means “law” (NJB), “statute” (REB), “institution” (TAN),
or “requirement” (Durham). TEV and CEV interpret it contextually as “Celebrate this festival,”
and this will be a good model in many languages. (See the introduction to 20.22–26.)

At its appointed time refers to the “proper time” (NRSV) or “scheduled time” (Durham) for
observing the ordinance of unleavened bread, which has been specified in 12.18. (CEV has “at
the same time.”) The possessive pronoun its refers to the ordinance, or possibly to the festival
itself, but it may be more natural to change its to “the,” since this is understood. From year to
year means “each year,” or “year after year” (NIV).

(b) Concerning the Firstborn (13.11–16)

(b) Concerning the firstborn (13.11–16)

Section Heading: other ways to express the heading for this subsection are “Teaching
regarding firstborn males,” “Firstborn males must be set apart for the Lord,” or “You must
dedicate your firstborn males to the Lord.”

13.11

This is a new section, so the And may be dropped. But the words of Moses to the people
continue. And when the Lord brings you is literally “and it will happen that Yahweh will cause
 you to enter”; the word when is not in the Hebrew but is added in RSV to show the time
relationship between this verse and the next verse. TEV inserts this time marker in the last
clause only, which is a good alternative choice. Thus it may be translated as a separate
sentence: “The Lord will bring you into …” (TEV). The land of the Canaanites is discussed in
verse 5.

As he swore to you is the same as verse 5, but here to you (singular) is included with to
your fathers, or better, “your ancestors.” (See the comment there on swearing.) And shall give
it to you is still part of the relative clause in RSV and others, but TEV starts a new sentence here
that continues into the following verse, “When he gives it to you … ,” referring to the land.

13.12

You shall set apart is literally “you will cause to pass through.” This suggests the idea of
causing something to pass through fire, or to sacrifice, as in 2 Kgs 16.3. So 13.12 TEV has “you
must offer.” To the Lord, however, probably gives it the meaning of “offer,” or “surrender” (JB,
TOT), or “set apart” (TAN), or just “give” (CEV). (Fox has “transfer.”) All that first opens the
womb is discussed at verse 2.

All the firstlings is literally “all firstborn, offspring.” Of your cattle that are males is literally
“animals that will be to you males.” TEV simply has “Every first-born male of your animals.” The
word used here includes all animals, domesticated and wild, but “your animals” includes only
domesticated animals, or “livestock” (NRSV). Shall be the Lord’s is just one word, “to [or, for]
Yahweh,” meaning “belongs to the Lord.” In languages that must clearly distinguish between
the firstborn human males and those of domesticated animals, this verse may be rendered as
follows:

• You [plural] must offer [or, give] every firstborn son to the Lord, and also every firstborn male
from your domesticated animals. All these belong to the Lord.

13.13

Every firstling of an ass means “every first-born male donkey” (13.13 TEV). “Male” is
implied from verse 12. (“Donkey” was described at 4.20.) You shall redeem uses a word
meaning to “buy back” (TEV) by paying a ransom. In languages where there are specific terms
describing the “buying back” or “ransoming” of a slave, they will probably be appropriate here.
The law for buying back firstborn animals reflects Yahweh’s deliverance of (or, setting free) the
Israelites from slavery. In the context of this verse, a lamb is used for buying back the donkey.
(A different word with the same meaning is used in 6.6.) You is singular. Here the ransom is a
lamb, which really means “a lamb or a kid,” as NJB, NEB, REB, and TOT make clear (so also at
12.3). By implication this is done “by offering a lamb in its place” (TEV). CEV makes this more
explicit with “sacrificing a lamb.” This may also be expressed as “by slaughtering a lamb and
offering it … .”

RSV Revised Standard Version

JB JERUSALEM BIBLE
 Or if you will not redeem it refers to the ass and gives an alternative, so TEV has “If you do
not want to buy back the donkey.” You shall break its neck means the neck of the donkey.
Every first-born of man distinguishes human beings from the animals. (The Hebrew ’adam
[man] is generic, meaning humankind.) Your sons simply refers to every “male child of yours”
(TEV) You shall redeem uses the same word again, but the text does not say how this is to be
done. However, in some languages it will be necessary to make it explicit that the son is
bought back from the Lord; for example, “buy back every firstborn son from the Lord.”

13.14

And when is literally “and it will happen that,” so the idea of “if” (NAB) should be avoided.
In time to come is the word for “tomorrow,” but here it means “In the future” (TEV, CEV). Your
son asks you probably includes the daughter as well, so NRSV has “When … your child asks
you.” “Your children” (CEV) is also possible. The you is singular. What does this mean? refers to
“this observance.” One may also say “Why are you doing this?” You shall say to him
introduces the exact words to be spoken by the father to the child.

By strength of hand refers to Yahweh’s power, as in verse 9.

The Lord brought us out of Egypt includes the parents but may exclude the children (see
verse 8). The Hebrew language, however, did not distinguish between inclusive and exclusive
plural. Therefore, in cultures where the exclusive form of us is used only when the addressee is
intentionally excluded, the inclusive form should be used. These words were to be spoken for
generations to come, so that through this ritual all Israelites will be able to feel themselves
included in the deliverance from Egypt and come to understand Yahweh’s deliverance anew.
(See also the discussion at 12.27.)

From the house of bondage is the same as verse 3. See the discussion there.

13.15

These are still words to be spoken by the father to the children. For when Pharaoh
stubbornly refused to let us go is literally “And it was that Pharaoh made hard to let us go.”
The word used for “hard” is the same as in 7.3, but the heart is not mentioned here, although
in certain languages it will still be possible to use figurative expressions or idioms employing
the heart (or, liver) and so on; for example, “When the king of Egypt set his heart and refused”
or “The king of Egypt made his heart [liver] hard and refused.” Various attempts have been
made to reflect the Hebrew. For example, Fox has “when Pharaoh hardened [his heart] against
sending us free.” And Durham has “when Pharaoh was stubborn-minded about sending us
forth.” TEV is clear: “When the king of Egypt was stubborn and refused to let us go.” CEV has
“The king stubbornly refused to set us free.” The us should be inclusive, as in verse 14.

The Lord slew uses a different word from that in 12.23 and 27. Here it clearly means to kill,
as in 2.14 (2.14see the comment there)2.14 (. All the first-born in the land of Egypt means the
firstborn son in every Egyptian family. Both the first-born of man is the same as verse 13,

NAB NEW AMERICAN BIBLE

 distinguishing the humans (’adam) from the animals. And the first-born of cattle also means
“firstborn male.” The word for cattle means “animals” (NRSV), including more than just the
domesticated animals. The word is the same as in verse 12.

Therefore means “That is why” (TEV), and I sacrifice to the Lord may be understood as “we
sacrifice” (inclusive). The participle is used for sacrifice, suggesting continuous action. So
Durham has “For that reason, I am sacrificing to Yahweh.” (“Sacrifice” is discussed at 3.18b.)
All the males that first open the womb is literally “all firstborn of the womb, males.” NAB has
“everything of the male sex that opens the womb.” This refers, of course, only to the animals,
as the next clause makes clear. But in many languages it will be helpful to make this explicit
and say, for example, “every firstborn male of every animal.”

But all the first-born of my sons should be understood as singular if spoken by one father,
as in TOT (“my first-born son”), for each father would have only one firstborn son. NRSV’s “every
firstborn of my sons” is equally confusing because the Hebrew includes the word for all (or,
“every”). But this should be understood as an instruction to all fathers; it does not mean that
the grandfather was responsible for the firstborn of each of his sons. No Israelite father was
exempt from this requirement to redeem his own firstborn son. TEV avoids this
misunderstanding by changing the I to “we,” and the my to “our”: “our first-born sons.” I
redeem, as explained in verse 13, means to “buy back.”

An alternative translation model for this verse is:

• The king of Egypt made his heart hard and refused to free us [inclusive]. So the Lord [or,
Yahweh] killed the firstborn male of every animal, and the firstborn son of every Egyptian
family. That is why we [inclusive] slaughter every firstborn male of every animal and offer it to
the Lord, and we buy back our firstborn sons.

13.16

It is not clear whether this verse is also intended to be part of the father’s reply to his
children. TEV includes it along with verses 14–15, as do NEB, REB, and at. It seems more likely,
however, that the father’s reply stops with verse 15, and that this verse simply concludes
Moses’ instructions to the people as in verse 9. This is the interpretation of TAN, NIV, CEV, and
others. So it is recommended that translators follow this interpretation and end verse 15 with
single quotes as in RSV and NRSV. Verse 16 therefore returns to the first-level quote and
concludes Moses’ words to the people.

It shall be is ambiguous, but the It probably refers to “This observance” (TEV), or “This
ceremony” (CEV), or even “this custom,” meaning the custom of sacrificing the firstborn. As a
mark is literally “for a sign,” using the same word as in verse 9. On your hand is second person
singular. Or is the prefix waw, which NRSV has now changed to “and,” as in verse 9.

The meaning of frontlets is uncertain, but it probably refers either to the common
“headband” (NJB) or to certain objects attached to the headband. REB and NEB have
“phylactery” (NASB “phylacteries”) on the basis of later Jewish interpretation (see the comment

NASB NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE

at verse 13.9), but it is better to translate the word as a “symbol” (TAN, NIV, TOT), “emblem”
(NRSV), or “sign” (CEV). (NAB has “pendant.”) Some translators will wish to follow TEV’s more
general model: “like something tied on our hands or our foreheads.” In languages that do not
use the passive voice, one may say “like something which you [or, we] tie on your [or, our]
hands or foreheads.”

For by a strong hand repeats the idea in verses 9 and 14. The Lord brought us out of
Egypt, or “caused us to go out,” is identical with verse 14, but verse 9 has “brought you.” As in
verse 14, the us should be inclusive.

3. The Deliverance at the Sea (13.17–15.21)

With verse 17 we return to the narrative once again and move to the third and final part of
the contest between Moses and the Pharaoh. This part describes “the deliverance at the sea”
and includes three major sections: the journey to the sea (13.17–14.4), the actual crossing of
the sea (14.5–31), and the song of praise to Yahweh on the other side of the sea (15.1–21).

a. The Journey to the Sea (13.17–14.4)

(1) From Succoth to Etham (13.17–22)
Heading: translators who are following the Handbook’s outline of general headings and
subheadings will need three layers of headings here: First a general heading, “The deliverance
at the sea” (13.17–15:21), which may also be rendered as “Yahweh saves the Israelites from
the Egyptians at the Red Sea.” This should be followed by another general heading, “The
journey to the sea” (13.17–14.4). This may also be expressed as “The Israelites journey to the
Red Sea.” Finally, there should be a heading for the section “From Succoth to Etham”
(13.17–22). TEV has “The pillar of cloud and the pillar of fire” as a model, but this heading
concentrates on verses 21–22; if translators wish to use it, other ways to express this are “A
column of cloud by day and a column of fire by night” or “A column of cloud led the people by
day, a column of fire lighted the way at night.” If translators follow this Handbook’s model for
verses 17–22, “From Succoth to Etham,” one may also render this as “The Israelites travel from
Succoth to Etham.”

13.17

When Pharaoh let the people go is literally “And it was, in Pharaoh’s letting go the people,
that … .” The verb means to release or let loose, the same word used in the repeated demands
of Moses to Pharaoh. (See 5.1 and the comment at 4.23.) God is the word ’elohim rather than
the name Yahweh. Did not lead them means “did not guide them” (REB), or “did not take
them” (TEV). (NJB has “did not let them take.”) By way of the land of the Philistines refers to
“the road that goes up the coast to Philistia.” TEV has added the words “up the coast,” since
that was the coastal road connecting Egypt with Palestine. (See the map, page 15.) “Coast” in
many languages will be expressed as “the edge of the sea” or “land alongside the sea.”
Another way to express by way of the land of the Philistines is “along the road that goes
beside the sea and leads to the country of the Philistines.”
 Although that was near refers to the way rather than to the land. The word near really
should be “shorter” in this context (so NIV), for their destination was not Philistia but the land
of Canaan. So NIV has “the road through the Philistine country.” In fact, this was “the shortest
way” (TEV, CEV) between Egypt and Palestine.

For God said may be understood as “God thought” (TEV; see 3.3 on “Moses said”), but it is
possible to assume that “God had said” this to Moses (CEV). Lest the people repent is not a
complete sentence, and the word for repent really means to regret or “have a change of
heart” (TAN). So it is better to say “the people may change their minds” (REB, NRSV). When they
see war means “if they face war” (NIV), or “when they see that they are going to have to fight”
(TEV), or even “when they see that their enemies are going to attack them.” That coastal road
was also a regular military route, so it was likely that they would have to fight along the way.
And return to Egypt would be the result of changing their minds.

An alternative translation model for this verse is:

• When the king of Egypt freed the Israelites, God did not take them along the road by the sea,
which led to the land of the Philistines. That was the shortest way. God had said, “If their
enemies attack them, they will change their minds and return to Egypt.”

13.18

But God is literally “And ’elohim.” Led the people round is literally “caused the people to
go around,” a different word from “led” in verse 17. By way of the wilderness may be
understood as “the desert road” (NIV, NAB) or a way “through the desert.” TEV and NRSV connect
this phrase with the verb, to read “in a roundabout way through” or “by the roundabout way
of the wilderness.” One may also express led the people around … as “caused the people to go
a longer way [as against the ‘shortest way’ in verse 17] through the wilderness.” (See the
discussion on wilderness at 3.1.)

Toward the Red Sea is understood by TAN as “at the Sea of Reeds,” and by NJB as “of the
Sea of Reeds.” There is no preposition in the Hebrew, but most translations use toward. The
Red Sea follows the Septuagint and not the Hebrew, which says “Sea of Reeds.” (See the TEV
footnote.) Another way to express “Sea of Reeds” is “The Sea where Reeds Grow.” (See the
discussion on Red Sea at 10.19.) The translator should follow the Hebrew, unless there is
already a strong tradition in the churches of the area. If Red Sea is used, then a footnote
similar to that in TEV should be added.

The Israelites went up is literally “the sons of Israel ascended,” but the verb “to go up” is
often used for going out of the land of Egypt. (See 3.8, 17; and others.) It may suggest moving
to the higher elevation of the mountains of Palestine, but some translations simply have
“departed from Egypt” (REB), “marched out of Egypt” (NAB), or “left Egypt” (CEV).

Equipped for battle is one word that has been interpreted in various ways. The basic
meaning is “five,” or “fifty” when pluralized, so NEB and REB have “the fifth generation,”
following the Septuagint instead of the Hebrew. HOTTP recommends following the Hebrew,
which literally means “to be fiftied,” or arranged in companies of fifty. Most translations
understand this to refer to being organized as an army, so any of the following are possible:
“armed” (TAN), “ready for battle” (TOT), “in battle array” (NAB), or “armed for battle (TEV),” or
even “carrying weapons and ready to fight their enemies.”

13.19

The bones of Joseph may actually have been the embalmed corpse, or the “body” (13.19
TEV), on the basis of Gen 50.26. But the word is clear and should probably be translated as
bones. And Moses took does not indicate how these bones were carried. So in many
languages this will be expressed as “Moses had them take along the bones of Joseph” (CEV).

For Joseph had sworn the people of Israel means that the Israelites swore, not Joseph.
NAB is clear: “Joseph had made the Israelites swear solemnly.” It does not make sense in
English “to swear somebody,” but in Hebrew it does. It must be clear that “Joseph had made
the Israelites solemnly promise” (TEV). NRSV says that Joseph “had required a solemn oath of
the Israelites.” The Hebrew form is emphatic, so “oath” in English is better than “promise.”
However, in a number of languages “make an oath” or “solemnly swear” will be expressed, for
example, as “make a strong promise.” The pluperfect “had made” (TEV) is clear from the
context, since Joseph had died two or three hundred years earlier.

Saying introduces the direct quotation of Joseph’s words. God will visit you is also
emphatic, so NRSV has “God will surely take notice of you.” The word for visit means to attend
to, or take care of, so TEV interprets this to mean “When God rescues you” (TEV). This will be a
natural translation in many languages. God is ’elohim, and you is plural. Then you must carry is
literally “and you will cause to go up,” referring to my bones without specifying how they will
be carried.

13.20

And they moved on from Succoth uses the same verb as in 12.37, meaning to pull up
stakes or to break camp. And encamped at Etham uses the verb to set up camp. Another way
to express this is “set up their tents at a place called Etham.” Neither Etham nor Succoth (see
12.37) can be located with certainty, but the context suggests that the Israelites were moving
in a southeasterly direction. (See the map on page 11.) On the edge of the wilderness means
near the border or “on the outskirts of the desert” (Durham). The problem of wilderness, or
“desert” (TEV), is discussed at 3.1.

13.21

And the Lord went before them is literally “And Yahweh [was] the one going to their
faces,” or “before them.” The participle suggests continued or repeated action, so Childs has
“used to go.” By day means “in the daytime” (NAB), in contrast with by night or “during the
night” (TEV). In a pillar of cloud is difficult, since pillar suggests something solid in contrast with

HOTTP HEBREW OLD TESTAMENT TEXT PROJECT

 cloud. NAB has “a column of cloud,” which may be easier to visualize. One may also say “in a
cloud in the form of a column.” Pillar of fire may be handled in the same way.

To lead them along the way may be understood as “to show them the way.” To give them
light is literally “to shine to [or, for] them.” That they might travel by day or by night is literally
“to go or walk day and night.” TEV changes this to “night and day,” which is the more natural
order in English.

13.22

Did not depart from before the people means “did not withdraw, give way, or fail to be
present.” REB has “never left its place in front of the people,” but this should not suggest that
the pillar never moved. (See verse 21.) This may be said positively, “was always in front of the
people” (TEV).

CEV combines verses 21 and 22, summarizing the content of verse 22 with the phrase “at
all times”:

• 21–22 During the day the Lord went ahead of his people in a thick cloud, and during the night
he went ahead of them in a flaming fire. That way the Lord could lead them at all times,
whether day or night.

(2) Turning Back Toward the Sea (14.1–4)

The first four verses of chapter 14 are really the second part of “The journey to the sea,”
moving on from Etham in 13.20. “The final encounter with Pharaoh” is a new and larger
section that begins with verse 5. TEV includes all of chapter 14 under one section heading, but
it is helpful to divide these 31 verses into smaller units, as shown in the Handbook outline for
Exodus.

Section Heading: 13.22 TEV’s section heading, “Crossing the Red Sea,” covers the whole of
chapter 14. Other ways to express this are “The Israelites [or, They] cross the Red Sea,” or “The
Israelites walk across the Sea of Reeds.” (See 13.18 for a discussion on “the Red Sea” versus
“the Sea of Reeds.”) The Handbook divides this chapter up into several smaller units as shown
in the outline. The subheading for verses 1–4, “Turning back toward the sea,” may be also
expressed as “They turn back toward the Red Sea [or, Sea of Reeds].”

14.1–2

Then is the usual conjunction waw, but it marks the next event after the people arrived in
Etham (see 13.20). Since this is the first verse of a new chapter, it will be helpful to connect it
to the previous one. To do this, one may say, for example, “At the place called Etham the Lord
…” or “While the Israelites were camped outside the place called Etham, the Lord … .” Then
the Lord said to Moses is literally “And Yahweh spoke [diber] to Moses, saying [’amar].” This
longer form in the Hebrew, identical with 13.1 and 6.10, is understood by some to be a
discourse marker introducing a larger unit. However, it means the same as the shorter form,
“And Yahweh said [’amar] to Moses,” in 12.43 and 14.15.
 Tell the people of Israel is literally “you [singular] speak to the sons of Israel.” To turn
back, literally “and they will turn back,” is not a direct quote. However, in a number of
languages this will become direct speech and will be in quotes; for example, “Tell the people of
Israel, ‘You must turn back … .’ ” The basic meaning of the word is to return, but here it means
to change direction, or “turn about” (NAB), in order probably to move toward the north. (See
the map on page 11.) And encamp is the same word as in 13.20. In front of Pihahiroth refers
to a town that cannot easily be located today. It is two words in the Hebrew. The word Pi
means “mouth,” and the town is called Hahiroth in Num 33.8. Here, however, it is best to treat
the two words as another name for the same town. Another way to express this sentence is
“You must turn around and go and set up your tents in front of the town of Pi Hahiroth.”

Between Migdol and the sea gives us more information, but the location of Migdol is also
uncertain. The context suggests somewhere in northeastern Egypt. The sea may refer either to
the Red Sea or to a shallow body of water farther north. Since this is uncertain, it is better to
translate simply the sea. In front of Baalzephon probably identifies another town near Migdol.
It also is written in two words in the Hebrew, possibly meaning “Baal of the North.” You shall
encamp over against it is still spoken to Moses, but the you plural includes the Israelites as
well. The it refers to Baalzephon. By the sea simply repeats the same words and may be
omitted.

An alternative translation model for this verse is:

• At the place called Etham the Lord said to Moses, “Say to the Israelites, ‘You must turn around
and go and set up your tents in front of the town of Pi Hahiroth near the town of Baal Zephon.
This is between the town of Migdol and the sea.

14.3

These are still Yahweh’s words to Moses, explaining why he wants the people to change
their direction. For Pharaoh will say introduces the words of the king, but no addressee is
mentioned. So we may assume that the direct quote is what “The king will think” (TEV, CEV).
(Similarly 3.3 and 13.17.) Of the people of Israel is literally “to the sons of Israel,” but the
preposition here means “in regard to,” or “concerning.” This phrase identifies who the They
are, so NAB, 14.3 NIV, and NJB include it as part of the direct quote. 14.3 TEV changes to indirect
speech (so also CEV).

They are entangled in the land uses a word found in only two other places (translated
“perplexed” in Est 3.15 and Joel 1.18). Here it probably means to confuse or to agitate, so a
variety of interpretations are possible: “finding themselves in difficult country” (REB),
“wandering to and fro in the countryside” (NJB), “wandering around in the land in confusion”
(14.3 NIV), “wandering aimlessly in the land” (14.3 NRSV), or simply “wandering around” (14.3
CEV).

The wilderness has shut them in may be expressed as “hemmed in by the wilderness”
(REB) or “the wilderness has blocked their exodus” (Durham). Wilderness may be understood
as “desert” (14.3 TEV), but see the discussion at 3.1. It may be necessary in some languages to
say something like “the wilderness prevents them from going to the east.”
 14.4

And I will harden Pharaoh’s heart uses the word meaning to make hard. (See the
discussion at 4.21.) This starts a chain reaction that reveals Yahweh’s plan and why he will
make the king “stubborn” (14.4 TEV). And he will pursue them is the first result, so NAB has
“Thus will I make Pharaoh so obstinate that he will pursue them.” 14.4 TEV changes the them
to “you” in order to include Moses with the people. 14.4 CEV has “and he will try to catch you.”
One may also express this as “he will chase after you [plural] and try to catch you.”

And I will get glory over Pharaoh is the second result. Glory is the word meaning to be
heavy, the same word used in reference to the king’s hard heart (see 7.14). Here, however, it
means “I will be recognized as having honor by means of the Pharaoh,” or “my victory over the
king … will bring me honor” (14.4 TEV). REB has “so that I may win glory for myself at the
expense of Pharaoh.” In many languages this will be expressed as “People will praise [or,
honor] me because I was victorious over the king.” And all his host refers to “all his army.” The
basic meaning of the word is power or property, so Durham has “all his force.” (A different
word is used in 12.17 and 41.) All his host may also be expressed as “all his soldiers” or “all his
fighting men.”

And the Egyptians shall know that I am the Lord is identical with 7.5. (See the discussion
there.) I am the Lord is literally “I Yahweh.” This is the self- introductory formula discussed at
6.2.

And they did so is no longer part of Yahweh’s words to Moses. It simply indicates that “the
Israelites did as they were told” (14.4 TEV), that is, they changed their direction and moved
north to the place mentioned in verse 2. 14.4 CEV has “The Israelites obeyed the Lord and
camped where he told them.”

An alternative translation model for this verse is:

• I will make the king stubborn again, and he will chase after you [plural] and try to catch you.
But because of what I will do to him and his soldiers, people will honor me. Then the Egyptians
will know that I am Yahweh.” The Israelites obeyed the Lord and set up their tents where he
told them.

b. The Final Encounter with Pharaoh (14.5–31)

(1) The Pursuit of the Egyptians (14.5–9)
Headings: translators should have two levels of headings here: The first will be the general
heading, “The final encounter with Pharaoh” (14.5–31), which may be also expressed as “The
Israelites meet the Egyptians for the last time.” Then there should be a title for this section,
“The pursuit of the Egyptians.” This may be more simply rendered as “The Egyptians chase
after the Israelites.”

14.5
 When the king of Egypt was told is literally “and it was reported to the king of Egypt,” but
the conjunction waw is often used to introduce a temporal (“when”) clause (14.5 RSV, 14.5 TEV,
CEV). The Hebrew does not use Pharaoh in the first clause, but it appears in the main clause. (JB
and NJB have “Pharaoh king of Egypt.”) Was told simply means that he was informed. It does
not suggest that he had not known about this. However, he was informed that they had left,
not when. One may also express this as “When people [or, they] informed the king of Egypt
that … .” In fact, that the people had fled does suggest that the Israelites had left in secret. So
14.5 TEV has “that the people had escaped.” (NEB has “had slipped away,” and JB “had made
their escape.”)

The mind of Pharaoh and his servants was changed may come from another tradition,
possibly the Yahwist (“J”) source. (See the discussion on “Sources” in “Translating Exodus,”
page 2.) Obviously the king of Egypt and Pharaoh were the same, so it is more natural to say
“he and his officials changed their minds” (14.5 TEV). The Hebrew word for mind is literally
“heart,” so REB and TAN have “had a change of heart.” NJB has “changed their attitude.” Toward
the people obviously refers to the Israelites, and some translations omit it, leaving it implied
rather than explicit.

And they said introduces the words that Pharaoh and his servants spoke to each other.
One way to show that there was a discussion is to translate, for example, “they said to each
other” or “they consulted with each other saying ‘… .’ ” What is this we have done is a
rhetorical question that may be expressed as “Look what we have done!” (14.5 CEV) or “We
have done a stupid thing,” or even “We have acted stupidly.” The we should be inclusive. That
we have let Israel go uses the same verb used in the demand formula of 5.1. (Seea.) It means
to release, or to free, so TAN has “releasing Israel,” and NJB has “allowing Israel to leave our
service.” REB has “We have let our Israelite slaves go free!” 14.5 TEV retains the idea of escape,
with “We have let the Israelites escape.” From serving us may sound too polite, so 14.5 TEV has
“and we have lost them as our slaves.” 14.5 CEV has “they will no longer be our slaves.”

14.6–7

So he made ready his chariot means that the Pharaoh “hooked up his chariot” (Durham),
or “put horses to his chariot” (NEB). Since he was king, it is likely he had it done for him, so REB
has “Pharaoh had his chariot yoked.” Another way to render this is “The king had them hook
horses up to his chariot.” The word for chariot is sometimes used collectively, so the plural
may be intended, as in NAB: “So Pharaoh made his chariots ready.” The Egyptian “war chariot”
(14.7 TEV) had two wheels and was pulled by two horses. In many languages translators will
need to use a descriptive phrase for chariot; for example, “horse- drawn war cart [or, wagon]”
or “war cart pulled by two horses.” (For “horses” see 9.2–3.)

And took his army with him uses the word for “people” (ASV), but it is clear from the
context that these were his “men” (TAN), or his “soldiers” (NAB). NJB and REB have “troops.” 14.7
TEV simply has “The king got his war chariot and his army ready.” This is because the sentence
continues, and the took may be saved for the next verse. In a number of languages, however,

ASV AMERICAN STANDARD VERSION

 there will be one set of words for getting a chariot ready and another set of words for getting
an army ready. In such cases the following model will be helpful: “He had them hook up horses
to his war chariot and commanded that they get all his soldiers ready to chase after the
Israelites.”

The six hundred picked chariots are distinguished from all the other chariots of Egypt
because they were picked, or “the best” (NIV, NJB). NAB has “first-class chariots.” All the other
chariots of Egypt suggests that none were left behind. With officers over all of them uses a
word that means “a third man,” or “commander” (REB), so it may be assumed that each of
these chariots had three riders—the driver, the warrior, and the “third man,” who was over it
as commander.

TEV’s model for verse 7 will be helpful for many translators. However, for some translators
the long and complicated sentence will be difficult to reproduce. An alternative model is:

• He took all his chariots with him. Six hundred of these were his best chariots. Each chariot had
an officer [or, commander] in charge of it.

14.8

And the Lord hardened the heart is literally “And Yahweh made strong the heart,” which
means that he “made the king stubborn” (14.8 TEV). (This is the term discussed at 4.21.)
Pharaoh king of Egypt is emphatic, showing that this was to be the last time, and that the
great ruler of Egypt would be destroyed by Yahweh. A few translations have introduced the
pluperfect to show that the heart of Pharaoh had already been made hard before verse 6. So
NAB has “So obstinate had the Lord made Pharaoh that he pursued the Israelites.” (Similarly
also REB.) One may also render this as “The Lord had made the king so obstinate that he … .”

And he pursued the people of Israel means “he chased after the Israelites” (Durham). The
word used to translate pursued should fit the context both of Israel being on the move as well
as standing still. As they went forth defiantly is literally “and the sons of Israel were going out
with a high hand.” This expression is found only here and in Num 15.30 (“with a high hand”)
and 33.3 (“triumphantly”). It does not necessarily mean “high-handed,” which in English means
overbearing or arbitrary. REB uses defiantly, but 14.8 NRSV has changed defiantly to “boldly.”
As the 14.8 TEV footnote suggests, this expression can also mean “under the protection of the
Lord.” It is recommended that translators use the word “boldly” in the text, but include a
footnote like 14.8 TEV’s.

14.9

The Egyptians pursued them uses the same verb but now includes all who gave chase in
addition to the king. Four terms are used to identify them— horses, chariots, horsemen, and
army. It is not clear whether one, two, or three groups are intended. 14.9 TEV considers “all the
horses, chariots, and drivers” to be “the Egyptian army.” Others consider the army to be
separate from the “cavalry,” which included the other three terms. Possibly even the
horsemen were different from the horses and chariots. It seems best to think of three groups,
keeping the army separate from the cavalry, and allowing for the horsemen to be separate
from the horses and chariots. This would mean: 1) war chariots drawn by horses, 2) soldiers
riding horses, and 3) foot soldiers. 14.9 CEV has “the king’s horses and chariots and soldiers.”
One may also translate “the king’s horse soldiers, war chariots, and foot soldiers caught up
with the Israelites.”

And overtook them means that they “caught up with them” (14.9 TEV), not that they
passed them by. Encamped by the sea means that the Israelites had temporarily set up camp
beside the sea. 14.9 TEV considers this to be “the Red Sea,” but see the comment at verse 2.
For Pihahiroth and Baalzephon see verse 2.

(2) Fear in the Israelite Camp (14.10–14)

Section Heading: this Handbook’s heading, “Fear in the Israelite camp,” may also be
rendered as “The Israelites are afraid of the Egyptian army” or “The Israelites are terrified and
ask God to help them.”

14.10

When Pharaoh drew near, literally “and Pharaoh approached,” should not suggest that
the king was approaching them alone. Some languages can identify Pharaoh as a plural,
meaning that he and his group were drawing near. 14.10 TEV has “the king and his army
marching against them,” and 14.10 CEV has “the king coming with his army.” The people of
Israel lifted up their eyes should not be translated literally unless this is natural style in a
particular receptor language. It means that the Israelites “looked up” (REB), “looked back”
(14.10 NRSV), or “caught sight of” (TAN).

And behold is intended to create suspense. 14.10 NRSV and others try to catch this
suspense with “and there were the Egyptians.” JB and NJB even add a dash: “—and there were
the Egyptians in pursuit of them!” (See the suggestion on the use of ideophones at 3.2b and
elsewhere.) The Egyptians refers to the whole company with the Pharaoh. Marching after
them means “advancing on them” (14.10 NRSV), or “bearing down on them” (Durham), that is,
on the Israelites. The word for marching is the same word used for breaking camp in 12.37
(“journeyed”) and 13.20 (“moved on”); it does not mean that the Egyptians were marching as
in a parade, but rather that they were marching toward them in military formation.

And they were in great fear means that “they were terrified” (14.10 TEV). Fear in many
languages will be rendered in descriptive phrases or idioms; for example, “their hearts [or,
livers] trembled,” “their livers shivered,” “their hearts fell,” or even “their hearts came
outside.” The people of Israel need not be repeated if the pronoun “they” is clear enough.
Cried out to the Lord uses the same word as in 2.23, where they cried out in agony. Here they
cry out in great fear, and they cry out to Yahweh, not to just any god. It means to cry out “for
help” (14.10 TEV), or even “they cried out, ‘Yahweh, please save us!’ ”

14.11

And they said to Moses introduces what they said when they “complained to Moses” (NAB,
CEV), not what they cried out to Yahweh in verse 10. In many languages it will be helpful to use
a word such as “complained” (14.11 CEV) rather than said as in 14.11 RSV and 14.11 TEV. What
they may have said to Yahweh is not recorded. The direct quotation includes four sarcastic
complaints, two in this verse and two in the following verse. They should be considered
together. Three are rhetorical questions, and the fourth is a statement. They may need to be
rearranged for greater impact. Note that 14.11 TEV breaks the first question into two and
changes the second question into an exclamation.

Is it because there are no graves in Egypt is literally a double negative, “Without no graves
in Egypt?” Is it because is implied by an initial question marker. In English a double negative
(“without no graves”) makes a positive, but in Hebrew it intensifies the negative. The word for
graves simply means a burial place; it does not indicate a specific kind of burial. That you have
taken us away is literally “you [singular] took us.” Away is implied, but it may be more natural
to say “out here” (14.11 TEV). To die in the wilderness uses the general term for dying—it can
be a natural death. For wilderness or “desert” (14.11 TEV) see 3.1. It may be more natural to
interchange these two clauses: “Have you taken us away to die in the wilderness because
there are no graves in Egypt?” But using two questions instead of one is easier, and 14.11 CEV
is a helpful model: “Wasn’t there enough room in Egypt to bury us? Is that why you brought us
out here to die in the desert?”

What have you done to us is literally “what this you did to us?” (Compare this with verse
5, “What have we done?”) In bringing us out of Egypt is literally “to cause us to go out from
Egypt.” NAB changes this into two questions: “Why did you do this to us? Why did you bring us
out of Egypt?” And 14.11 TEV changes this to an exclamation: “Look what you have done by
bringing us out of Egypt!” 14.11 CEV simply has “Why did you bring us out of Egypt anyway?”

14.12

Is this not what we said to you is literally “[Is] not this the davar which we spoke to you?”
It is a negative question that means “This is exactly what we said to you in Egypt.” The word
davar can mean word, or event, or thing. It is not clear what this davar refers to, but it is best
to understand it as “this happen ing” (see 14.12 TEV), that is, this development, this present
situation. (KJV, ASV, and NASB understand it as “this word.”) TAN has “Is not this the very thing
we told you in Egypt?” and Childs has “Is not this what we told you in Egypt would happen?”

What the people said back in Egypt is now given as a quote within a quote: Let us alone is
literally “you [singular] stop from us.” TOT has “Do not interfere,” and Durham has “Stop
bothering us.” And let us serve the Egyptians uses the word that means “to be a slave” as well
as to serve, so 14.12 TEV has “let us go on being slaves.” (See the comment on “slaves” at
1.11a.)

For it would have been better for us to serve the Egyptians is literally “for good for us to
serve the Egyptians.” The idea of would have been is based on the interpretation that this is
no longer part of what they said back in Egypt. (Note the single quotation marks in 14.12 RSV.)
A few translations extend this embedded quote to the end of the verse (TAN, TOT, Durham), but
it is better to understand these words as spoken now to Moses for the first time. (See.) The

KJV KING JAMES VERSION

 tense is not indicated in the Hebrew, so one may say “It would be better” (14.12 TEV), or simply
“it is better” (Childs). 14.12 CEV has “We had rather be slaves in Egypt than die in this desert.”

The Hebrew has “good,” but the comparative form, better, is needed because of the
phrase than to die in the wilderness, which is literally “than our dying in the wilderness.” (See
verse 11.)

14.13

And Moses said to the people may be shortened to “Moses answered” (TEV, CEV). Fear not
is the first of three short commands to calm the people. It means simply “Don’t be afraid!”
(14.13 TEV), or “Have no fear” (REB). (See the comment on fear at verse 10.) The basic meaning
of the word for Stand firm is to take one’s position (as in 2.4), so 14.13 TEV has “Stand your
ground.” 14.13 CEV interprets it to mean “Be brave,” but this should not suggest that they were
to resist the Egyptians. TOT simply has “Wait.” And see is also imperative in form, but some
translations change it to a prediction, “and you will see” (14.13 TEV). LB has “Just stand where
you are and watch.”

The salvation of the Lord is what they are commanded to see, but in some languages it
may sound strange to “see” salvation. One may say “see how Yahweh will save you,” or
“deliver you.” Which he will work for you today simply describes the salvation in the sense
that “Yahweh will work salvation for you today.” So 14.13 TEV has “see what the Lord will do to
save you today.” (TOT sounds too theological: “Today you will experience the Lord’s saving
power.”) In languages that need a goal for the event word “save,” one may say, for example,
“see what Yahweh will do today to save you from the Egyptians.”

For the Egyptians whom you see today refers to the approaching Egyptian army that they
were looking at in fear. You shall never see again is very emphatic in the Hebrew, which is
literally “you [plural] will not add to see them again until forever.” (See KJV: “ye shall see them
again no more forever.”) REB shows some of this emphasis: “for as sure as you see the
Egyptians now, you will never see them again.”

14.14

The Lord will fight for you reflects the ancient Israelite concept of “holy war,” in which
Yahweh is the divine warrior who defeats Israel’s enemies with supernatural power. (See 15.3.)
NJB says it well: “Yahweh will do the fighting for you.”

And you have only to be still is ambiguous. The verb may be understood either as being
silent or as doing nothing. 14.14 TEV chooses the former, “and all you have to do is keep still,”
but 14.14 CEV chooses the latter, “and you won’t have to do a thing.” (The problem is discussed
in verse 15.) NEB has “so hold your peace,” but REB has changed it to “so say no more.” In
keeping with the holy war concept, however, it is better to follow the idea of the people doing
nothing and simply letting Yahweh do the fighting for them.

Alternative translation models for this verse are:

• Yahweh will fight your enemies for you. So all you have to do is keep quiet.
• Yahweh will fight your enemies for you. So you will not have to do anything.

(3) The Divine Reassurance (14.15–20)

Section Heading: for those translators who are following this Handbook’s section divisions,
the heading for this section, “The divine reassurance,” may also be rendered as “Yahweh
reassures the Israelites,” or “Yahweh tells the Israelites that he will save them.”

14.15

A new paragraph begins here, and we must assume that Moses had cried out to Yahweh in
behalf of the people. The Lord said to Moses introduces what Yahweh said in response to the
cry of Moses, not to the cry of the people in verse 10. This is because Why do you cry to me?
uses the singular you, even though there is no record of Moses’ crying out to Yahweh. Cry is
the same word used in verse 10. 14.15 TEV omits to me and simply has “Why are you crying out
for help?” but this is not recommended. CEV’s rendering is a better one: “Why do you keep
calling out to me for help?” A similar rendering is “Why do you keep begging me to help you?”

Tell the people of Israel to go forward is literally “Speak to the sons of Israel and they will
move on.” This is the same word used for breaking camp, or “pulling up stakes,” in 12.37 and
13.20. REB has “Tell the Israelites to strike camp.” One may also say “Tell the Israelites to take
down their tents and move forward.” This seems to contradict the command of Moses to do
nothing in verse 14, but scholars see this as the result of an awkward literary seam that joins
together two different traditions. (Verse 14 comes from the Yahwist tradition, while verse 15 is
from the Priestly tradition.) Most translations just let the seam show, while others try to
smooth it out.

If Moses’ command to “be still” in verse 14 is understood as doing nothing, then we must
assume that Yahweh’s command in verse 15 is a correction to what Moses had said. But if
Moses’ command is understood as keeping silent (TEV, NRSV), then the seam is covered over.
Since it is obvious that Moses had cried out to Yahweh for help—Why do you cry out to me?—
we may assume that he said something like “Lord, we can’t just stand here and do nothing?”
This, of course, is not in the text and should not be added. It is better in this case to let the
seam show. However, the choice of words in translating verse 14 should be based on one or
the other interpretation (see the alternative translation models above).

14.16

Lift up your rod is literally “and you [singular], you raise your staff.” Since the your is
emphasized, REB has “and you are to raise high your staff,” and NJB has “Your part is to raise
your staff.” (See also 9.23.) And stretch out your hand over the sea seems a bit wordy, but it
refers to the same hand that holds the rod. It is better to say “Lift up your walking stick and
hold it out over the sea” (14.16 TEV). And divide it translates the Hebrew word used for
splitting wood, but here it describes splitting the sea. The imperative form is used as a
command for Moses to be the one to divide the sea, but 14.16 TEV finds it more natural to say
“The water will divide.” 14.16 CEV has “The water will open up.”
 That the people of Israel may go is literally “and the sons of Israel will enter.” The idea of
that (“in order that”) and may go is suggested by the context. On dry ground assumes that the
bottom of the sea will become dry when the water is split. Through the sea is literally “in the
middle of the sea.” TAN has “march into the sea.” The idea of “walking through the sea” is
interpreted from the context. CEV’s model will be helpful for many translators: “make a road
where they can walk through on dry ground.” In some languages, though, the use of the word
sea will indicate a place filled with water. In such cases one may say, for example, “walked on
dry land between the walls of water on each side.” It should be understood that they are in the
place where the sea used to be.

An alternative translation model for this verse is:

• Lift up your walking stick and hold it out over the sea. The water will divide and provide a path
for the Israelites to walk on dry ground between the walls of water on each side.

14.17

And I will harden the hearts of the Egyptians is literally “and I, behold me, the hardener of
the heart of the Egyptians.” The emphasis on I and “behold me” should be seen in contrast
with the emphasis on “you” in verse 16. NJB shows this contrast with “Your part is to raise your
staff … while I, for my part, shall make the Egyptians so stubborn.”

So that they will go in after them is literally “and they will enter after them.” As in verse
16, the idea of so that is suggested by the context. REB changes them to “you” (plural).
Otherwise it is not clear whether Moses is to stay behind or to cross with the Israelites. It is
recommended that translators follow REB’s model. 14.17 CEV agrees with this interpretation:
“they will go after you.”

And I will get glory over Pharaoh and all his host is exactly the same as in verse 4. His
chariots and his horsemen are the same words used in verse 9.

14.18

And the Egyptians shall know that I am the Lord is identical with the same phrase in verse
4. When I have gotten glory is literally “in my being honored.” Over Pharaoh, his chariots, and
his horsemen repeats what is in verse 17, except for “all his host.” In some languages this
repetition will sound unnatural, but in Hebrew it adds to the impact of the story. 14.18 TEV
summarizes all these words rather than repeat them: “When I defeat them.”

14.19–20

These verses speak of two protectors, the angel of God and the pillar of cloud, in almost
the same way. They each do the same thing in moving from the front to the rear, but they are
not identical, so it is necessary to speak of them separately. This is due to two different
traditions that have been brought together. The Elohist tradition (“E”) speaks of the angel of
God, while the Yahwist tradition (“J”) speaks of the pillar of cloud.

The angel of God has not been mentioned before, but it is identified by the relative clause
who went … . (In 3.2 it is “the angel of Yahweh.”) The word for angel also means messenger
and should not be thought of as the winged creature of later Christian art. In some languages
the angel of God will be rendered something like “God’s heavenly helper.” Who went before
the host of Israel is literally “the one going,” using the participle to show continuous action. So
14.20 NRSV has “who was going before the Israelite army.” Others use the pluperfect to show
that this was action in the past, so “who had been in the front” (14.20 TEV). 14.20 CEV has “All
this time God’s angel had gone ahead of Israel’s army, but now … .” 14.20 NIV has “who had
been traveling in front.” The host of Israel, or “the army of Israel” (14.20 TEV), may also be
expressed as “Israel’s soldiers [or, fighting men].” Moved is the same word as in verse 15. Here
it takes on the meaning of “changed station” (NJB). And went behind them is literally “and
went after them.” Other ways to express this are “moved behind them” or “went to their
rear.”

And the pillar of cloud is discussed at 13.21. Moved is the same word used for the angel.
From before them is literally “from their faces.” And stood behind them may also mean “took
its stand,” but this is a different word from “stand firm” in verse 13. Some translations add the
word “also” to relate the second clause more naturally to the first clause (NIV, NAB, 14.20 TEV).
14.20 TEV even joins this second clause with the following verse: “The pillar of cloud also
moved until it was between … .” (For pillar of cloud see the comment at 13.21.)

Coming between is literally “and it came between.” The host of Egypt and the host of
Israel speaks of both groups in the same way, but the word for host is different from what it
used in 12.17 and 41, and it is still different from 14.4. Here it really means “camp” (NAB), in
the sense of a place where an army, or else ordinary travelers, set up tents or huts. 14.20 NRSV
has “army.” Since women and children were included with the Israelites, it may be better just
to say “between the Egyptians and the Israelites” (14.20 TEV).

14.20

The Hebrew text for this verse is difficult to understand, so different proposals have been
made to change the text. Some change the noun darkness into a verb, with the meaning “the
cloud became dark.” Others change the verb “and it lit up” to another verb that means to
curse. And still others change both words. As a result there are many different translations of
this verse.

And there was the cloud and the darkness is literally “and the cloud was, and the
darkness.” NAB changes the word darkness so as to read “But the cloud now became dark.” But
this first clause cannot be interpreted apart from the second clause (see the discussion below).

And the night passed is not what the Hebrew says. 14.20 RSV is following the Septuagint
(see the 14.20 RSV footnote). Literally the Hebrew says “and it lit up the night.” This is now
followed by 14.20 NRSV and others. TAN has followed a different meaning for the Hebrew word:
“and it cast a spell upon the night.” And TOT adds one Hebrew letter to read “which prolonged
the night.” (Similarly also NEB and REB.) However, few translations have accepted these
interpretations, and HOTTP still favors the Hebrew MT.

MT MASORETIC TEXT
 The translator should follow NRSV, taking the Hebrew as it stands: “And so the cloud was
there with the darkness, and it lit up the night.” TEV gives more meaning to this interpretation:
“The cloud made it dark for the Egyptians, but gave light to the people of Israel” (similarly CEV).
NIV is also clear: “the cloud brought darkness to the one side and light to the other side.” This
interpretation suggests that the cloud was dark on the Egyptian side, but was like the pillar of
fire on the Israelite side.

Without one coming near the other all night is literally “and did not approach this unto
that all the night.” This means that the Egyptians and the Israelites “could not come near each
other all night” (14.20 TEV).

(4) The Miraculous Crossing (14.21–25)

Section Heading: this Handbook’s heading, “The miraculous crossing,” may also be
expressed as “The Israelites cross the sea on dry ground.”

14.21

Then is the usual conjunction waw, but here as in verse 19 it clearly indicates the next
event in sequence. Moses stretched out his hand uses the same verb as in 16. We may
assume that his staff was in that hand. Over the sea is the same as verse 16. Moses’ action was
only the signal for Yahweh to take over.

And the Lord drove the sea back is literally “and Yahweh caused the sea to go.” The idea
of back is implied in the following verses. REB has “drove the sea away,” and NAB has “swept
the sea.” By a strong east wind means “with, or by means of, a strong wind blowing from the
east.” (See 10.13.) All night means “throughout the night” (NAB). This refers only to the wind,
not to Moses holding out his hand. In many languages translators will need to restructure the
first part of this verse; for example, “The Lord caused a wind to blow strongly from the east. It
blew all night.”

And made the sea dry land uses a word that means to put or place, or to make. 14.21 NRSV
has “turned the sea into dry land,” but this is not the word used in 7.17 and 20 for turning the
water into blood. It was not the water that was transformed, but rather the “seabed.” The
water was blown away and Yahweh “turned the seabed into dry land” (REB). Other ways to
express this are “It blew the water back so that dry land appeared” or “that blew all night until
there was dry land where the water had been” (14.21 CEV). And the waters were divided uses
the same word, “to split,” as in verse 16, but here the plural waters is used. This may be
changed to the singular, as in TOT, “The water was split apart.” 14.21 CEV has “the sea opened
up.” Note that TOT, 14.21 TEV, 14.21 CEV, and others connect this clause with the following
verse.

14.22

And the people of Israel went … on dry ground is identical with verse 16 (see the
comment there); the only difference indicated is the tense. The waters being a wall to them is
literally “and the waters for them a wall.” 14.22 NRSV has “the waters forming a wall for them.”
14.22 TEV changes waters to “water” and a wall to “walls,” and speaks of “walls of water.”
 14.22 CEV has “with a wall of water on each side.” The word for wall is the word for the city
walls, which were solid and firm. It may be necessary to change the metaphor to a simile, as in
TOT, “with the water like walls on both sides of them.” On their right hand and on their left
simply means “on both sides” (14.22 TEV).

An alternative translation model for verses 21 and 22 is:

• 21 Moses held out his hand [or, arm] over the sea, and the Lord caused a strong wind to blow
from the east. It blew all night and made the water back up so that dry land appeared. The
water opened up, 22 and the Israelites walked on dry land between walls of water on each
side.
193

14.23

The Egyptians refers to all those who were chasing after the Israelites. Pursued is the
same word as verse 8. And went in after them is literally “and they entered after them.” What
they entered, of course, was the seabed and not the water, for the water had been driven back
(verse 21). Into the midst of the sea means the middle of the sea area. However, in languages
that will have a problem translating this phrase, especially when the term for sea indicates an
area always filled with water, it is possible to simply say “went after them,” with the implicit
assumption that the Egyptians pursued the Israelites along the path between the walls of
water. So 14.23 CEV has “The Egyptian chariots and cavalry went after them.”

All Pharaoh’s horses, his chariots, and his horsemen are the same terms used in verses 9
and 18.

An alternative translation model for this verse is:

• All the Egyptian chariots and the cavalry [or, soldiers riding horses] chased after the Israelites.

14.24

And in the morning watch is literally “in the night watch of the morning.” This was the
third of three “watches” during the night, the period of time just before dawn. So 14.24 NIV has
“During the last watch of the night,” and NAB has “In the night watch just before dawn.” But
14.24 TEV provides a good model, “Just before dawn.” In some languages this will be expressed

193Osborn, N. D., & Hatton, H. (1999). A handbook on Exodus. UBS handbook series; Helps for
translators (309). New York: United Bible Societies.

CEV Contemporary English Version

NIV NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION

NAB NEW AMERICAN BIBLE

TEV Today’s English Version

as “Just before the sun rose.” The Lord, of course, is Yahweh, who looked down upon,
meaning that Yahweh was at a higher level. The host of the Egyptians uses the same word as
verse 19, which is better translated as “the Egyptian army” (TEV, CEV), or even “the Egyptian
soldiers.”

In the pillar of fire and cloud speaks of just one pillar, suggesting that it was a combination
of the pillar of cloud and the pillar of fire in 13.21–22. NAB calls it “the column of the fiery
cloud.” The Hebrew, however, has “a pillar,” as in TAN, not “the pillar”; yet most translations
interpret it as “the.” The word for in is a preposition that can also mean “from” or “through”
(KJV, REB, NAB). It is not clear whether Yahweh is thought to be in the fiery cloud or above it. It is
probably best to place Yahweh in it, but looking down from it. So one may also say “Yahweh
looked down at the Egyptian soldiers from the fiery cloud [or, the cloud that was burning].”

And discomfited is a word that means to cause confusion or “panic” (14.24 TEV). Here it is
suggested that Yahweh’s glance actually “threw them into a panic.” We are not told in this
verse how the Lord did this, but the following verse gives a clue. “Panic” suggests sudden fear,
or the desire to run away because of being terrified. So one may translate in this context “and
caused them [the Egyptians] to become afraid and want to escape.”

14.25

Clogging their chariot wheels is based on the Septuagint and other early translations, for
the Hebrew says “removing their chariot wheels.” (Note the 14.25 RSV footnote.) (See the
comment on chariot at 14.9.) 14.25 KJV and NASB have “he took off their chariot wheels,” but
the rest of the verse indicates that the chariots could still move. Most translations have a
footnote to explain that the ancient Greek version is being followed here. The context suggests
that “He made the wheels of their chariots get stuck” (14.25 TEV). This is the reading
recommended by HOTTP.

So that they drove heavily, literally “and he made them go in heaviness,” means that the
chariots “moved with great difficulty” (14.25 TEV), or “it was hard for them to move” (14.25
CEV). They refers to the chariots, not to the drivers. REB has “and made them drag along
heavily.”

And the Egyptians said is literally “and Egypt said” (the verb is singular). This introduces
what they said to one another, and in a number of languages it will be more natural to say

TAN TANAKH (NEW JEWISH VERSION)

KJV KING JAMES VERSION

REB REVISED ENGLISH BIBLE

RSV Revised Standard Version

NASB NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE

HOTTP HEBREW OLD TESTAMENT TEXT PROJECT

something like “said to one another.” Let us flee from before Israel is too literal. NIV’s “Let’s
get away from the Israelites!” is much better. 14.25 TEV’s “Let’s get out of here!” is quite
dynamic in English but will be a difficult model for many other languages. NIV’s model is
simpler. (The word for flee is different from that used in verse 5 but the same as in verse 27.)
For the Lord fights for them against the Egyptians uses the same verb as verse 14, but here
the participle means that Yahweh is “the fighting one,” or “is fighting for the Israelites” (14.25
TEV) and against Egypt. Since the Egyptians are the ones speaking, it is better to say “against
us” (inclusive).

(5) The Destruction of Pharaoh’s Army (14.26–31)

Section Heading: the Handbook’s heading, “The destruction of Pharaoh’s army,” may be
rendered in many languages as “The Lord destroys all of the Egyptian soldiers.”

14.26

Then the Lord said to Moses is identical with verse 15. Stretch out your hand over the sea
is identical with the same phrase in verse 16. That the water may come back is literally “and
the waters will return.” Upon the Egyptians uses the preposition that means “on” or “over,”
suggesting covering them. So 14.26 CEV translates “the water will cover the Egyptians.” The
same preposition is used for their chariots and their horsemen. (See the discussion at verse 9.)

14.27

So Moses stretched forth his hand over the sea is identical with 21. And the sea returned
to its wonted flow uses a word that means “ever-flowing,” but here the meaning is “to its
normal position,” or “its normal level” (14.27 TEV), or “its normal depth” (NAB). 14.27 NIV has
“the sea went back to its place,” and NJB has “and the sea returned to its bed.” When the
morning appeared is literally “to turning of morning” and means “at daybreak” or “as the sun
was rising.”

And the Egyptians fled into it uses the same verb as verse 25. It means to escape, but into
it is literally “to its coming.” So 14.27 NRSV has “fled before it,” and REB has “fled before its
advance.” But they did not “escape,” as the rest of the verse indicates, so 14.27 TEV has “The
Egyptians tried to escape from the water.”

And the Lord routed the Egyptians uses a word that means “to shake off,” as a person
shakes off something from a cloth. (See the 14.27 RSV footnote.) 14.27 NRSV has changed
routed to “tossed,” and REB has “swept them into the sea.” Other possibilities are “hurled”
(TAN), “flung” (TOT), or “threw” (14.27 TEV). In the midst of the sea is literally “in the middle of
the sea.” It may be understood as referring to the depths of the sea, but 14.27 TEV and others
omit in the midst as unnecessary.

NJB NEW JERUSALEM BIBLE

NRSV New Revised Standard Version

TOT TRANSLATOR’S OLD TESTAMENT

 14.28

The waters returned seems to repeat “the sea returned” in verse 27, but it adds emphasis
to the story. NAB has “As the water flowed back,” and REB has “As the water came back.” And
covered the chariots and the horsemen uses a word that means to cover over or conceal, so
14.28 TEV has “the water returned and covered … .” NJB has “washed right over.”

The chariots and the horsemen are clear enough, but there is a problem with and all the
host of Pharaoh. This is following the Septuagint, as the 14.28 RSV footnote indicates, but the
Hebrew says “to all the army of Pharaoh.” Host is better translated as “army” (see verse 9). So
the problem is whether this is speaking of the “army” as separate from the cavalry, or whether
the “army” includes the cavalry. Even though 14.28 TEV agrees with 14.28 RSV, it is better to
follow the Hebrew here, as 14.28 NRSV has done: “the chariots and the chariot drivers, the
entire army of Pharaoh.” NJB has “the chariots and horsemen of Pharaoh’s entire army,” and
TAN is even more explicit: “the chariots and the horsemen—Pharaoh’s entire army.” (So also
14.28 NIV.) In a number of languages this will be expressed as “the chariots, the soldiers riding
on horses—all of the king’s soldiers,” or even “and covered all of the king’s soldiers, whether in
the chariots or riding horses.”

That had followed them into the sea, literally “the ones who entered after them into the
sea,” is a bit ambiguous. Were there some of the “army” who did not go in? The rest of the
verse suggests that all the forces of the Pharaoh, and the Pharaoh himself, are included. Not so
much as one of them remained means that all the Egyptians were drowned. NEB has “not one
man was left alive,” and 14.28 NIV has “Not one of them survived.”

14.29

This verse repeats what is said in verse 22 and should be understood as contrasting the
deliverance of the Israelites with the death of Egyptians. It does not mean that the Israelites
walked through the sea a second time. The only difference is that verse 22 uses the word for
“went into” rather than the word for walked. To repeat the same thing again is not unusual in
Hebrew narrative, and here it should be understood simply as a summary statement. The
waters being a wall to them, the Israelites, suggests that the same waters that destroyed the
Egyptians actually protected the Israelites. But the repetition of what is said in verse 22 does
not necessarily suggest that the Israelites were still walking on dry ground even after the sea
had covered over the Egyptians.

CEV’s model for this verse is a good one:

• But the sea had made a wall of water on each side of the Israelites; so they walked through on
dry land.

14.30

NEB NEW ENGLISH BIBLE

 Thus is the usual conjunction waw, understood here as introducing another summary
statement. The Lord saved Israel uses the same word root (saved) as in the noun in verse 13
(“salvation”). Israel here is used collectively, referring to the nation as well as “the people of
Israel” (14.30 TEV). If a particular receptor language can say “the whole nation of Israel” or
something similar, that term should be used here. But translators in most languages will have
to use 14.30 TEV’s model. That day refers to the day they crossed the Red Sea, not to the day
when they left Egypt (12.41). From the hand of the Egyptians, of course, means “from the
power of the Egyptians” (NAB), but NJB has “from the clutches of the Egyptians.” 14.30 TEV and
others simply say “from the Egyptians.”

And Israel saw the Egyptians again speaks of Israel collectively, but the emphasis is on
saw, which is repeated in the following verse. The word for dead has a broad meaning,
without indicating how they died. It may be more natural to say “lying dead” (14.30 TEV), or as
14.30 CEV puts it, “the Israelites saw the bodies [corpses] of the Egyptians washed up on the
shore.” On the seashore is literally “on the lip of the sea,” meaning along the edge of the sea.

14.31

And Israel saw repeats the word saw for emphasis and again uses Israel collectively. But
what they saw in this verse was the great work which the Lord did, literally “the great hand
which Yahweh made.” This refers to Yahweh’s power. Against the Egyptians identifies the
object of his power, so 14.31 TEV has “the great power with which the Lord had defeated the
Egyptians,” or one may say “the great power that the Lord had used to defeat the Egyptians.”

And the people feared the Lord is really the result of their having seen Yahweh’s power,
so 14.31 TEV and others begin the previous clause with “When.” Then they make this the main
clause, “[then] they stood in awe of the Lord” (14.31 TEV). 14.31 NRSV simply has “So the people
feared the Lord.” Feared is the same word as in verse 13, but when the Lord is the direct
object, the meaning is more the feeling of “awe.” This is made clear in the following clause. A
possible rendering, then, is “they had great respect for the Lord.”

And they believed in the Lord, literally “and they believed him,” may be expressed as
“they had faith in the Lord” (14.31 TEV) or they “put their trust in him” (14.31 NIV). The word
“Amen” comes from this word. And in his servant Moses means that they trusted Moses as
well. The word for servant is the same word used for “slave,” but here it becomes a title of
respect, recognizing Moses as the one appointed by God to be their leader.

c. The Israelites Praise the Lord (15.1–21)

The Handbook outline (pages 5 and following) shows how the first major division of the
book of Exodus concludes. The prolonged “contest for freedom” is finally won, and the
encounter with the king of Egypt is brought to an end with the miraculous “deliverance at the
sea.” The two songs of praise in 15.1–21 serve as a fitting climax to the period of Israel’s
oppression in Egypt, and they introduce a change of direction and a new beginning for Israel as
a nation.
 Translating Hebrew poetry is difficult, for it is usually impossible to preserve the impact of
the poetic form and still be faithful to the intended meaning. Every language has its own poetic
forms that cannot be carried over into another language without some change or complete
loss of their original function. It is often necessary to compensate for this loss by introducing
poetic features of the receptor language that will produce the same or similar impact on the
intended readers.

Before translators can make a decision about how to translate the poetry in this chapter,
they must first of all investigate whether the receptor language makes use of poetry in
whatever form. If poetry does exist, then it is necessary to determine whether songs of victory
and words of praise appear as poetry in that language. Translators should then consult with
people in the community who are known to be competent poets, and determine whether
songs of victory and words of praise appear in poetic form in that language. If, after research, a
translator and the translation committee decide to translate chapter 15.1–18 as poetry, it
must be decided who will do this translation. For poetry to be translated successfully, it must
be done by a skilled poet. Such a person should be sought out.

The poem in the receptor language must contain all the ideas and the purpose of the
original; but often it cannot carry over all the rhetorical devices used in the original poetic
structure. The structural devices that often appear in Hebrew poetry are various forms of
semantic parallelism, where the second of two lines is related semantically to the first; that is,
the second line somehow supports the first line, adds emphasis, makes it more specific, or
gives just a bit more information. (Translators are urged to read the discussion on semantic
parallelism in A Handbook on the Book of Psalms, pages 3–9.)

Examples of parallelism that are evident in this chapter of Exodus are:

1. Parallelism where the second line means practically the same thing. An example may
be found in the third and fourth lines of verse 2:

this is my God, and I will praise him

my father’s God, and I will exalt him.

2. Parallelism where the second line heightens the effect of the previous line. An
example is in verse 5:

The floods cover them;

they went down into the depths like a stone.

3. Parallelism where one line has a general statement, and the following line is more
specific. Verse 14 has a good example:

The peoples have heard, they tremble;

pangs have seized on the inhabitants of Philistia.

 In this final example, the word people is general and inhabitants of Philistia is specific.
And this feature continues for the next three lines (verse 15) with specific mention of Edom,
Moab, and Canaan.

If semantic parallelism such as this is unnatural style for poetry in the receptor language, it
will be necessary to combine the parallel lines in some way. In verse 3, for example, CEV has
rearranged the necessary components of meaning and avoided the repetition of Lord as
follows:

The Lord is his name,

and he is a warrior!

In translating this “Song at the Sea” into poetry, however, the poet translator must be
cautious in using English translations as models. RSV, of course, reveals more clearly the
Hebrew poetic form, but this form cannot easily be transferred into another language without
losing much of the original emotive impact. Even though TEV and CEV attempt to be functional,
or dynamic, translations in English, they do not represent true English poetic form. Most
English translations have simply used indented lines of varying length, often beginning with
capital letters. But this device can only remind the reader that the original Hebrew is in poetic
form. The use of indentation and measured lines will not necessarily produce natural poetic
style in the receptor language.

To sum up, the translated song should have the same meaning as the original song, and it
should convey as much as possible the same feeling and emphasis conveyed in the original.
However, the words, the word pictures, and other rhetorical devices used in the Hebrew will
often have to be quite different in the receptor language.

We recommend that the poet translator, first of all, make a simple translation of the ideas
of the biblical text in meaningful prose, without concern for its poetic form. This first step is
necessary in order to insure that the meaning of the original, rather than its form, is preserved.
Then one who is skilled in composing poetry in the receptor language should be asked to
restructure this prose translation into a poetic form that makes full use of feelings and rhythms
that are natural for that language. Finally the poet translator should then be able to rework the
translation with a sensitivity both to the meaning of the original text and to the natural poetic
form in the receptor language.

(1) The Song at the Sea (15.1–18)

“The song at the sea” is one of the finest examples of ancient Hebrew poetry in the Bible.
It uses words and phrases that are powerful and descriptive, some of them reflecting ancient
concepts about the creation of an orderly world out of chaos and confusion. The basic theme
is the celebration of Yahweh’s victory over Israel’s greatest enemy, and the founding of a new
nation of his chosen people. The brief references to crossing the sea and moving to a new land
are interspersed with outbursts of praise and thanksgiving to Yahweh.

Scholars generally believe that this victory hymn was used regularly in public worship.
There are a number of features such as rhyme, rhythm, and repetition that give it a liturgical
quality. The brief measured lines parallel one another and create an emotional flavor that is
meaningful in worship. The ambiguity of tense, whether past, present, or future, gives the
song a timeless quality that enables all generations to relive this dramatic experience of
deliverance.

It is difficult to divide the poem into strophes, for there are various features that allow for
different possibilities. For example, the sacred name Lord, which appears ten times
throughout the song, is used five times as a vocative (O Lord). And these five occurrences of O
Lord seem to conclude three different descriptions of what Yahweh has done and will still do.
Many interpreters point out the shift of theme in verse 13 from the deliverance at the sea to
the wilderness wandering and the eventual entrance into the promised land. But the repeated
outbursts of praise to Yahweh (O Lord) in verses 6, 11, and 16b–17 seem to function as
refrains to the brief accounts of what Yahweh did, and still does, in controlling the history of
his chosen people.

Translators may be helped by the rhetorical analysis of James Muilenburg, who treats the
song as a liturgy. He divides it into three parts, each of which has a confession of faith, a
narrative account, and a response of praise. The following pattern has been adapted from
Muilenburg’s article, “A Liturgy on the Triumphs of Yahweh”:

Introit (call to worship) 15.1b

I. Yahweh has defeated the Egyptians. 15.2–6

Confession 15.2–3

Narrative 15.4–5

Response 15.6

II. Yahewh is greater than all the gods. 15.7–11

Confession 15.7–8

Narrative 15.9–10

Response 15.11

III. Yahweh will establish his people. 15.12–17

Confession 15.12–14

Narrative 15.15–16a

Response 15.16b–17

Closing statement of praise 15.18

 Headings: translators who are following this Handbook’s outline should have two levels of
headings here. The first is a general heading, “The Israelites praise the Lord,” which may be
also rendered as “The Israelites tell Yahweh how great he is.” This will be followed by the
section heading. The headings suggested by TEV and this Handbook are very similar, and
translators may choose between them. It should be noted, however, that TEV uses the same
heading for Deuteronomy 32, which is an entirely different song. So translators are urged to
follow this Handbook’s heading, “The song at the sea.” Other ways to express it are “Moses
sings about victory in the sea,” “Moses and the Israelites sing about the Lord’s victory over the
Egyptians in the sea,” or even “Moses and the Israelites sing about how the Lord defeated the
Egyptians.”

15.1

The first part of the verse, of course, is the narrative introduction to the song, which begins
at the second line. Then is not the usual prefix waw but is a separate word that marks the next
event to occur. Moses and the people of Israel, literally “sons of Israel,” are identified as the
ones who sang the following song. Sang this song to the Lord is literally “sang this to Yahweh
and they said.” An additional word, saying, functions like a quotation mark, introducing the
words of the song. Since this is the first verse of a new chapter, it will be helpful to connect it
with the content of the previous chapter; for example, “After the Lord destroyed the Egyptians
in the Sea, Moses and the Israelites sang … .”

The first two lines of the song are like a call to worship, or introit. The same words are
repeated in the Song of Miriam in verse 21. I will sing to the Lord uses a form that suggests
determination. One may also say “Let me sing to Yahweh.” For he has triumphed gloriously is
literally “being high he is high,” or “he is very high.” This may be understood either as “he is
highly exalted” (NASB, TOT) or as “he has risen up in triumph” (REB). Most translations prefer the
second meaning, as in TEV “he has won a glorious victory,” or in CEV “for his great victory.” In
some languages this will be expressed as “because he completely destroyed the Egyptians.”
However, in a number of languages “victory” will be translated as “defeating enemies.” In such
cases one may express for he has triumphed gloriously as “for he has completely defeated his
enemies [or, those that hate him].”

The horse and his rider uses the singular to represent all “the horses and their riders”
(TEV). Rider is the participle of the verb “to ride,” but some read it as “chariot” (NAB, Durham)
by changing just one vowel. (See the RSV footnote.) However, it is better to follow TEV and say
“horses and riders.” He has thrown into the sea uses a verb that is found only here and in Jer
4.29, where it refers to an “archer” as one who “shoots” an arrow. So several translations use
the more descriptive word “hurled” (TAN, REB, NIV). Translators may therefore say something
like “He hurled the horses and the men riding on them into the sea.”

15.2

Verses 2–3 are like a confession of faith. The first line, The Lord is my strength and my
song, has no verb in the Hebrew. There are just three words that mean literally “my strength
and my song Yah.” Yah is a shortened form of the name Yahweh. My strength has been
understood by some as “my fortress” or “my refuge” (REB), but the same word is used in verse
13, where “refuge” does not work. In some languages it may be easier to say “The Lord gives
me strength,” “makes me strong,” or “causes me to be strong.”

The meaning of the word for my song is not certain. Some understand it to mean
protection or defense. So TEV has “The Lord is my strong defender,” and NRSV has “The Lord is
my strength and my might.” However, the footnote in NRSV explains that the word may also
mean my song. Translators are encouraged to interpret the word as song and say “The Lord is
the theme of my song” or “the reason for my song” (CEV). It is also possible to say “The Lord is
the reason I am singing this song,” or simply, “I will sing about the Lord.”

And he has become my salvation is literally “and he is to me for help.” In the setting of the
Red Sea, this means “he is the one who has saved me” (TEV). In some languages one must say
something like “he is the one who has saved me from my enemies.” This is my God uses the
word ’el, a common word for “God” or “god” in several ancient cultures. My God will be
expressed in a number of languages as “the God whom I worship.” And I will praise him is a
word found only here, possibly meaning “to beautify.” The Septuagint has “I will glorify him,”
but most translations follow the idea of “praise.”

My father’s God is literally “God [’elohim] of my father.” The meaning is “the God whom
my father worshiped.” There is no textual basis here for interpreting the singular “father” to
mean “ancestors” (CEV). (See the comment at 3.6.) And I will exalt him is literally “and I will
make him high,” which may be understood to mean “and I will sing about his greatness” (TEV).
For translators who will not translate this as poetry, and who do not wish to maintain the
semantic parallelism here (see the introduction to this chapter), it is possible to restructure the
final part of this verse; for example, “I praise and give honor to the Lord. He is my God and the
God of my father.”

An alternative translation model for this verse is:

· The Lord causes me to be strong,

he is the reason I am singing this song.

He rescued me from my enemies.

I praise and give honor to the Lord,

he is my God and the God whom my father worshiped.

15.3

The Lord is a man of war is literally “Yahweh a man of combat”—there is no verb. 15.3 TEV
has “The Lord is a warrior.” It may be difficult to speak of Yahweh as a man, so one may
change the metaphor to simile, “Yahweh is like a man of war” or “The Lord is like a warrior.”

The Lord is his name is just two words, “Yahweh his-name.” The problem here is that the
English word Lord is a title and not a name. It is better to use “Yahweh” here, or at least have a
footnote explaining that Yahweh is what is written, but in the oral tradition ’adonay (“Lord”) is
what is read aloud. (See the comment at 3.14-15.) One may also change the order of the two
lines; for example,

Yahweh is his name,

and he is like a warrior.

15.4

His host refers to Pharaoh’s “army” (NRSV), as explained at 14.4. He cast into the sea
means that Yahweh “threw Egypt’s army … into the sea” (TEV). A different word is used in verse
1, but the meaning is the same. His picked officers is similar to the phrase in 14.7. It means
“the best of his officers” (TEV). The word for officers is the same word meaning “third man,” so
this refers specifically to the chariot commanders. The idea is that even the best were
drowned, including all the others as well. The word for drowned really means to be sunk,
whether it be in water or in mud (see Jer 38.6). However, it is probably better to think of
Yahweh as the agent of the sinking or drowning; for example, “and he drowned the best of the
king’s officers” or “he caused the best of the king’s officers to drown.” The Red Sea is literally
“the Sea of Reeds.” (See the comment at 13.18.)

15.5

The floods is a term used for the primeval waters, the watery chaos, “the deep” in Gen
1.2. (RSV translates this same word as “the deeps” in verse 8.) Here the plural is used, so “deep
waters” (NIV) or “deep sea” (TEV) is better. Cover them is present tense, but others have
“covered.” The tense is not indicated in the Hebrew verb form, so one must interpret the
context.

They went down is the usual word for descend, but here “they sank” (TEV) seems
appropriate. Into the depths is another word for the deep sea, so it is possible to say “they
sank to the bottom.” Like a stone is a simile that is repeated in different form in verses 10 and
16. In each case it is a discourse marker that signals the end of the “narrative” and the
beginning of the “response” in each of the three parts of the song. (See Muilenburg’s pattern
above.) CEV eliminates the semantic parallelism, which would be unnatural style in modern
English:

They sank to the bottom

just like stones.

15.6

This verse is the first of three responses. (See the threefold pattern above.) Thy right hand
is the word meaning the right side rather than the left. Here in brief poetic form it refers to
Yahweh’s right hand, or “arm,” as a symbol of his authority and power. O Lord is the first of
several vocative uses of Lord where the poet addresses Yahweh by name. (See also verses 11,
16, and 16b–17.) TEV omits the O as archaic, but other languages have common ways of
indicating the vocative. Glorious in power refers to the right hand as great or majestic in
strength. NAB has “magnificent,” TEV has “awesome,” and CEV has “With the tremendous force
of your right arm.”

It is important to note the repetition of Thy right hand, O Lord. This poetic feature is
characteristic of each of the three responses in the song. Shatters the enemy uses a verb
found only here and in Judges 10.8, where RSV and CEV give it the meaning of “crush.” TEV has a
similar idea: “it breaks the enemy in pieces.” Here again the tense of the verb is not indicated,
so the translator must interpret the context. NRSV and others have “shattered,” but the present
tense gives a timeless quality to the poem. (See the comment below at verse 13.) Enemy may
be understood as singular (the Pharaoh) or as collective (the Egyptians).

An alternative translation model for this verse is:

You used your right hand [or, arm], Lord,

and crushed [or, shattered] your enemy

with tremendous power.

15.7

Verses 7–11 are the second part of the song, which is addressed to Yahweh and speaks of
his power in more general terms. In the greatness of thy majesty is literally “In the abundance
of your height [or, loftiness].” Various terms may be used here, but TEV is easier to understand:
“In majestic triumph.” It is possible, though, to express this sentence as “You gloriously
defeated your enemies and destroyed them,” or even “You have gained great honor by
defeating your enemies and destroying them.” (See the comment on “triumphed gloriously” at
verse 1.) Thou overthrowest thy adversaries uses a verb meaning to break down or destroy.
Adversaries is derived from a verb that means to stand up or rise. Here the participle means
“those who rise against you” (Durham). Other ways to express thy adversaries are “your
enemies,” “those who hate you,” or “those who oppose you.”

Thou sendest forth thy fury uses the verb “to let go,” the same word used in the demand
to “let my people go.” It means to release or give free play to something. Here it is Yahweh’s
fury, or “anger” (TEV), which comes from the word “to burn or become hot.” (See 4.14 and
32.19.) It is therefore related to what follows, it consumes them like stubble, referring back to
the adversaries in the first line. So NIV has “You unleashed your burning anger; it consumed
them like stubble.” Consumes is the word “to eat,” but here it gives the picture of fire that
“devours” the stubble (JB). See the comment on stubble at 5.12.) TEV has “your anger blazes
out and burns them up like straw,” and CEV has “Your fiery anger wiped them out, as though
they were straw.” If it is impossible in a receptor language for the translator to talk about
“fiery anger,” it may be possible to use similes and say, for example, “You get very angry just
like a hot fire, and you burn up your enemies as if they were straw.”

15.8

JB JERUSALEM BIBLE
 Note that this verse has three lines in parallel: the waters piled up—the floods stood up—
the deeps congealed. At the blast of thy nostrils is literally “by the wind of your nostrils.” This
figure of speech is what is called an anthropomorphism, meaning that God is described as
though he were a human. So this suggests the vivid picture of Yahweh blowing through his
nose to divide the waters (see 14.21); so TEV translates “You blew on the sea.” The waters is
simply the plural form of “water.” Piled up is a word used only here, but it suggests the
meaning of being heaped or dammed up. So TEV has “piled up high,” and CEV has “piled up like
a wall.”

The floods comes from the word “to flow.” Here it is parallel with waters and deeps, so
one can say “flowing waters” (NASB) or “surging waves” (TOT). TEV weakens the parallel pattern
by simply using the pronoun “it,” referring to the singular “water” in the first line. Stood up in
a heap is literally “they stood just like a ned,” but the meaning of ned is not certain. So
translations vary: “wall” (TAN, NIV), “bank” (REB), “dyke” (NJB), “mound” (NAB), “stack” (Durham),
and “hill” (Childs). Any of these are possible. CEV combines the parallelism of the first two lines
and translates “that the sea piled up like a wall.”

The deeps is the same word translated as “floods” in verse 5. (See the comment there.)
Congealed means to thicken or become solid. TAN has “The deeps froze,” but this should not
be understood literally; it is only a description of a supernatural event. Some languages may
need to say “they became like frozen … ,” changing the metaphor to simile. In the heart of the
sea is literally what the Hebrew says, meaning “in the midst of the sea” (NAB). TEV combines the
terms in this line: “the deepest part of the sea became solid.” This does not refer to the sea
bed but to the “deepest part” of the water. In using a simile, however, the translator needs to
use a comparison that is natural in the receptor language.

15.9

This verse also has three lines in parallel, although each line has two clauses, each one
showing successive actions. In rapid staccato style they suggest the overconfident plans in the
mind of the enemy. Lines 2 and 3 may need to be interchanged for logical sequence. The
enemy is the same word as in verse 6. Said is singular and introduces the words spoken by
either the Pharaoh or the Egyptians collectively. It is possible to use a word like “boasted”
here, as in NAB and NIV. I will pursue is the same word used in 14.9 and 23. There is no direct
object to the verb pursue, so many translators will need to supply one. TEV, for example, adds
“them,” meaning the Israelites, even though they are not mentioned in the poem until verse
13. I will overtake is the same word used in 14.9.

I will divide the spoil refers to any goods, animals, or people taken captive by a
conquering army and shared with all the men. TOT has “I will share out the plunder.” TEV adds
the possessive pronoun, “I will divide their wealth.” In a number of languages this clause will
be expressed as “I will divide up their possessions.” My desire is the Hebrew word nefesh,
which KJV often mistranslates as “soul.” Here, however, KJV more correctly has “my lust.” The
basic meaning of the word is “desire” (NRSV) or “appetite” (REB). Shall have its fill of them is
literally “she will fill [herself with] them.” Since nefesh frequently represents the first person
pronoun, the clause becomes “I will … take all I want” (TEV), with some poetic loss; but this loss
may be necessary in order to bring out the meaning more clearly.
 I will draw my sword means to “unsheath” (TOT) or “bare” (TAN) a bladed weapon. To
“unsheath” a sword means to remove the weapon from its carrying case and hold it in hand,
ready for use. The sword in this case was probably a long dagger with a straight double-edged
blade about 18 inches long. In cultures where swords are unknown but other kinds of knives
are used, there are a variety of ways to express this; for example, “a large long knife,” “a large
knife like a machete,” “a weapon called a ‘sword,’ ” and so on.

My hand shall destroy them uses a verb that means to dispossess, or to separate
someone from his property. So NAB has “My hand shall despoil them,” and REB has “I shall rid
myself of them.” This is the basis for TEV’s “I will … take all they have,” which parallels “I will …
take all I want.” However, it can also mean “to kill” (CEV).

In certain languages it will be better style to employ indirect speech here, and it will also
be possible to use the first person plural inclusive pronoun (referring to Moses and the
Israelites) as the object of the various verbs. CEV accomplishes this with the following model:

Your enemies boasted

that they would

pursue and capture us,

divide up our possessions,

treat us as they wished,

then take out their swords

and kill us right there.

15.10

Thou didst blow with thy wind repeats the idea in verse 8, suggesting that Yahweh blew
on the sea. The word for wind also means “breath,” which may be intended here. TEV suggests
that it took only “one breath” to cause the divided waters to return. TAN removes the
anthropomorphism with “You made your wind blow” (similarly TOT). Translators will need to
decide whether to employ the anthropomorphism here or not. If it will sound unnatural or
strange in a receptor language, then a translation like TAN’s will be possible. Another way to
express this is to combine the idea of “anger” and “wind” by saying “You were furious and
caused your wind to blow.” TEV adds “Lord” for better style, but it is not in the Hebrew. The
sea covered them uses the same verb as in verse 5. The word them, of course, refers to the
Egyptians.

They sank as lead uses a verb found only here, but its meaning is suggested by lead, the
heavy metal used even today for weights. If lead is unknown, one may say, for example, “sank
like a rock.” In the mighty waters may be thought of as “terrible waters” (NJB) or “swelling
waves” (REB). Waters is simply the plural of “water” as in verse 8, but with the adjective
mighty, the unruly primeval ocean is meant as in verse 5. CEV combines the clause the sea
covered them and the phrase the mighty waters as “swallowed by ocean waves.”
15.11

This verse is the second response of praise addressed to Yahweh, and it concludes the
second part of the song. (See verses 6 and 16b–17.) Who is like thee is a rhetorical question,
meaning “No other god is like you, Lord” (TOT). O Lord is vocative as in verse 6. Among the
gods refers to other deities as though they existed. The word for gods is the plural form of ’el,
used in verse 2 for “my God.” The form is ’elim, not ’elohim. Translators may combine the
clause Who is like thee and the phrase among the gods as in CEV, “no other gods compare
with you” or “Who among the gods is like you?” (TEV).

Who is like thee in the second line repeats the same words for poetic effect. Majestic is
the same word used in verse 6 for “glorious,” meaning “magnificent,” “awesome,” or even
“causing fear.” The word for holiness normally has the basic meaning of being separate from
what is common or profane. (See the comment at 3.5.) In reference to God it is normally that
quality that makes God different from humans. In this context, however, it seems to be
comparing the Lord, Yahweh, with all the other gods, as in the first line of the verse. In other
words, Yahweh is more majestic in holiness than the other gods. The Septuagint supports this
interpretation by reading “feared among the holy ones” instead of “majestic in holiness,”
meaning that Yahweh is even feared by the other gods. Although this would bring the second
line more into parallel relation with the first line, it is not what the Hebrew text really says.

Holiness is difficult to translate because it is used in so many different contexts in the Old
Testament. Here the emphasis is not so much on “taboo” or lack of sinfulness, but on God’s
separateness from humans and, in this verse, from all other gods. So majestic in holiness may
be understood as “wonderful in your power” or “awesome in what you can do.” In bringing
out the comparison with the gods in line one, it is even possible to translate this second line as
“Who is like you? You are more powerful than they are.” Translators should avoid any term
suggesting “taboo,” or even “clean,” “pure,” or “white.”

Terrible in glorious deeds is still part of the second question. Terrible is a participle
meaning “one who is feared.” In glorious deeds is one word meaning “in praiseworthy
[things].” So REB has “worthy of awe and praise.” One may also express this as “You will be
feared and praised” or “They [unknown agents] will fear [or, be in awe of] you and praise you.”
Doing wonders, literally “doer of [something] extraordinary,” may be translated as “worker of
wonders” (NAB, NJB, REB), “you perform miracles” (TOT), or “You perform marvelous acts.” (The
word pele’ is discussed at 3.20.) TEV makes this third line into a third rhetorical question: “Who
can work miracles and mighty acts like yours?”

Alternative translation models for this verse are:

· Who among the gods are like you, O Lord?

None of them can compare with you,

for you are so powerful and far above them all.

All people will be afraid of you and will praise you,

 for you perform such marvelous acts.

· O Lord, no other gods can compare with you.

You are more powerful than them all!

They are in awe of you and will praise you,

for you perform marvelous acts!

15.12

Most translations connect this verse with the preceding verses because it still speaks about
the deliverance at the sea. But Muilenburg connects it with the two lines of verse 13 because
of the Hebrew style. For one thing, the response in verse 11 concludes the second of the three
parts of the song. (See the pattern outlined above.) Furthermore the first word, Thou didst
stretch out, is parallel with the first words in the two lines of verse 13, “Thou didst lead” and
“Thou didst guide.” There is also a noticeable rhyme in the Hebrew: natitha … nachitha …
nehalta.

Thou didst stretch out thy right hand again speaks of Yahweh as having a hand, which
represents his power, as in 3.20. Right hand refers back to verse 6. In some languages this first
clause may be rendered as “When you stretched out your right hand [or, arm] … .”

The earth swallowed them is a bit surprising, for earth is used rather than “sea.” Some
scholars understand earth here to represent the “underworld” (so Fox and TOT), which would
refer to the land beneath the sea, as in Jonah 2.6. But even with this interpretation there is no
need to change earth to “underworld.” The word for swallowed literally means to gulp down,
suggesting swift action and sudden death. This vividly describes how the forces of nature are
completely under Yahweh’s power. Them is translated by TEV and CEV as “enemies,” but one
may also say “the Egyptians.”

An alternative translation model for this verse is:

• When you stretched out your right hand [or, arm], the earth swallowed up your enemies.

15.13

Thou hast led … thy people is past tense in English, but this is not clearly indicated in the
Hebrew. In fact the tense of most of the verbs in verses 13–17 must be handled according to
the translator’s choice of setting. (See the discussion on tense at verse 14.) 15.13 NIV, for
example, uses the future tense, “you will lead the people.” This limits the song to its original
setting, when the Israelites were just beginning their journey of faith. TAN, on the other hand,
uses the present tense, “You lead the people.” This allows for a meaningful expression of faith
for future generations. Most translations (including 15.13 TEV and CEV), however, place this in
the past tense, and translators are encouraged to do so also. (See also the comment at verse
17.)

In thy steadfast love uses the word chesed, which means “faithful love” (TOT), “constant
love” (REB), or “unfailing love” (NIV), or even “unchanging love”; these all bring out the meaning
of both love and “faithfulness.” TEV expresses this as “Faithful to your promise.” (See the
comment on chesed at 20.6.) The people whom thou hast redeemed refers to the Israelites
whom Yahweh has “rescued” (TEV) from the king of Egypt. The word for redeemed is different
from that used in 13.13, where it refers to “buying back” the firstborn. The word used here
refers more to “buying back” an inheritance, or a family member who had been sold as a slave.
(See 21.2, 7.) Translators in certain languages will need to state from whom the Israelites were
redeemed, so one may translate, for example, “the people whom you rescued from their
enemies.”

Thou hast guided them (NIV “you will guide them”) is a word often used for leading or
helping along a person or an animal that is handicapped. By thy strength is the same word
used in verse 2. To thy holy abode refers to Yahweh’s place of residence, but it is not clear
whether this refers to the promised “land” (TEV), or to the “mountain” or “sanctuary”
mentioned in verse 17. Others have “habitation” (NASB) or “dwelling-place” (REB). It is holy, or
set apart, because of Yahweh’s holiness. (See verse 11.) This should not be translated as “your
tabooed place” but rather “the place that you own,” or simply “the place where you live.”

15.14

Verses 14–16a give the third narrative account, which most translations place in either the
present or the past. The problem of determining the intended time frame becomes especially
difficult with Hebrew poetry. This is because the Hebrew verb forms show action only as
completed or incomplete; they do not show whether the action is in the past, present, or
future. That is something that has to be determined by the syntax or the total context. And in
Hebrew poetry, which tends to use fewer words in a brevity of style, the syntax is less
structured, and a time context for the verbs is less definitive.

In these verses, for example, NIV uses the future tense throughout in order to preserve the
supposed original setting at the Red Sea. These verses then become a prediction, or statement
of assurance, about the journey to the promised land still to take place. RSV and TEV, however,
use the present tense, suggesting that other nations have already heard about what has
happened and are presently in a state of fear. NRSV and REB place everything in the past,
suggesting that this hymn fits the setting of the later Israelite community as they recall the
entire exodus event. (But see also the comment on tense at verse 17.)

The peoples have heard refers to groups of people, or “nations” (TEV), four of which are
mentioned by name. It is not stated what they have heard, but it obviously refers to the way
Yahweh has delivered the Israelites. So one may translate “the nations have heard about this.”
(NIV’s “will hear” suggests that the news has not yet reached these nations.) They tremble
means to shake in fear, so TEV adds “they tremble with fear.” NRSV has changed this to past
tense, “they trembled,” and translators are encouraged to do so also. It is possible to express
this as “they were so afraid that they trembled all over,” and in some languages this will be
rendered idiomatically; for example, “their hearts [or, livers] have fallen and they are
trembling.”

Pangs is the word for the labor pains of a woman giving birth. A related meaning is
“anguish” (NAB) or “agony” (TAN), but TEV takes this a bit further with “terror.” Have seized is a
descriptive word meaning “laid hold of,” or “gripped” (NAB and others). On the inhabitants of
Philistia refers, of course, to the Philistines, who lived along the coastal plain in southwest
Palestine. (See the map on page 11.) Inhabitants is literally sitters, or “dwellers” (NAB, REB,
TAN). In some languages there may not be two suitable synonyms for fear and terror. In such
cases one may say something like “The people of Philistia are so afraid that they are in pain.”

15.15

Now in Hebrew is a word that either points to a particular time or gives emphasis to what
follows. Some translations using the past tense have “Then” (NEB, NAB, 15.15 NRSV), while
others omit it entirely. Childs translates it as “Indeed.” The chiefs of Edom refers to tribal
“leaders,” or “princes” (NAB), of a nation to the southeast of Palestine. The word is similar to
the word for “clans” (TAN). However, in most languages a term like “chief” or “leader” will be a
more natural rendering. Are dismayed is a word that really means to be “terrified” (TEV).
Following NRSV with the past tense, it becomes “were dismayed.”

The leaders of Moab uses a word that literally means “rams,” but here it carries the
meaning of men of power. TEV has “Moab’s mighty men,” using alliteration to compensate
somewhat for the lost metaphor. The word is a poetic synonym for chiefs in the first line. In
some languages it will be helpful to combine the first two lines and say “The chiefs [or, leaders]
of the countries of Edom and Moab are terrified.” Moab was a nation southeast of Palestine,
across the Jordan River. Trembling is a less common word than the one used in verse 14.
Seizes them is the same word as verse 14. Past tense, of course, is “seized them.”

All the inhabitants of Canaan refers to the “dwellers” (NAB) of central Palestine. (See the
map, page 11.) The same word is used in verse 14. Have melted away is a word that also
means to waver back and forth, so here it carries the meaning of being disheartened. TEV has
“lose their courage.” In a number of languages expressions such as “hearts fainted” or even
“fainted away” will be possible. (Note that TEV uses the present tense in verses 13–16 in order
to make the song meaningful for all generations.) Translators are encouraged, however, to use
the past tense in these verses, with the exception of verse 17 (see the comments there).

An alternative translation model for this verse is:

· The chiefs [or, leaders] of the countries of Edom and Moab were terrified.

The people of the land of Canaan fainted with fear.

15.16

Terror and dread are synonyms in the Hebrew, but the second word also carries the
meaning of trembling. Fall upon them is a word that suggests falling unintentionally, or
unexpectedly. Them refers to all the nations mentioned in verses 14 and 15. Another way to
render this, using the past tense, is “Suddenly their hearts were gripped with fear and they
trembled.”

Because of the greatness of thy arm is literally “by your great arm.” This is an idiom for
power or “strength” (TEV) in the same way that “hand” and “right hand” are used in verses 6
and 12. TEV takes the vocative “Lord” from the third line and places it here, since this is
addressed to Yahweh: “They see your strength, O Lord.” In many languages it will be possible
to keep the word picture of arm and translate “Lord, they saw your powerful arm … .” They
are as still as a stone is the result of their seeing Yahweh’s great arm in action. They refers to
the nations already mentioned. Still means to be silent or dumb, not necessarily motionless.
But as a stone also suggests the idea of not moving, so both ideas may be implied. TEV’s “stand
helpless with fear” tries to express both. But in many languages the idea of a motionless stone
or “rock” will be a natural translation; for example, “Lord, when they saw your powerful arm,
they became still as a stone” or “Our Lord, your powerful arm kept them still as a rock” (CEV).

Till thy people … pass by refers to the Israelites passing through the territory of the four
nations mentioned, to settle in Canaan. Pass by (NRSV “passed by”) may also be expressed as
“marched past” (TEV), signifying their walking in a military-like formation. The vocative O Lord
marks the third response of praise, which here extends into verse 17. This phrase is repeated
for poetic effect with the addition of the people whom thou hast purchased. The word
purchased here means to buy or acquire, so TAN has “whom You have ransomed.” (Verse 13
uses a different word for “redeemed.”) Another possible meaning of this word, however, is to
produce (Gen 4.1) or create (Gen 14.19, 22), so Durham has “this people you have created.”
(See also GECL, “chosen”.) But the most probable interpretation is “rescued,” “set free,” or
“redeemed” from slavery.

15.17

This verse is where the question of tense is crucial. (See the comment on tense at verse
14.) Thou wilt bring them in is literally “you will cause them to enter.” Most translations shift
to the future tense with this verse, as though the people have not yet entered the promised
land. A few, however, retain the past tense (“You brought them in”; NEB, NAB, NRSV), placing the
song in the future, after the people had already settled in Canaan. TEV uses the present tense,
“You bring them in,” in order to make this song meaningful for all time. In this way the
worshiping community can celebrate both the deliverance from slavery and the hope for the
future. Translators are here encouraged to follow TEV’s interpretation.

And plant them uses the term for planting a garden, meaning that Yahweh will “establish
them” (Durham) in their new location. “Settle them” or “let them live” are other possibilities.
Them may also be expressed as “your people.” On thy own mountain is literally “on the
mountain of your heritage” (meaning an inherited possession). This mountain probably refers
to Mount Zion in Jerusalem, which was later recognized as the place of Yahweh’s abode. (See
verse 13.) The place refers back to the mountain. This phrase will be expressed in some
languages as the equivalent of “where,” as in “where you, O Lord, have … .” Which thou hast
made for thy abode is literally “a place for you to sit [which] you made.” NAB has “the place
where you made your seat,” but the word “to sit” is also the word “to dwell.” TEV is more
natural: “the place that you, Lord, have chosen for your home.” One may also say “where you,
O Lord, have chosen to live.”

GECL GERMAN COMMON LANGUAGE VERSION

 The sanctuary is literally “a holy place.” After the time of Solomon, of course, this referred
to the Temple in Jerusalem. O Lord appears twice in this verse as a vocative; that is, it is
addressed to Yahweh. This second instance, however, should really be “O Lord” (lower case),
since the Hebrew MT uses ’adonay instead of Yahweh. Most translations follow the Septuagint
and other ancient Hebrew texts, which read it as Yahweh. Surprisingly only a few follow the MT
(TAN, NIV, Durham). Which thy hands have established uses a verb meaning to prepare or
make firm. So TEV has “the temple that you yourself have built.” One may also express this as
“that is, the temple … .” Other ways to express the sanctuary (or, temple) are “your home”
(TEV), “your house,” “your important house,” or even “the place where people worship you.”

An alternative translation model for this verse is:

· You, O Lord, bring your people in and let them live on your mountain,

where you have chosen to live—

that is, the temple which you, Lord, have built.

15.18

This is the “closing statement of praise” of the song. Note that The Lord is now referred to
in the third person as a king who will reign for ever and ever. The verb literally means to rule
as king, or to “be king” (TEV). (See the comment on “king” at 1.8.) For ever and ever is literally
“for all time and continuing,” so Durham has “Yahweh reigns forever and without
interruption.”

(2) The Song of Miriam (15.19–21)

This short section returns to the narrative and gives the historical setting for “The song of
Miriam,” which is limited only to verse 21. It is almost identical with the opening lines of “The
song at the sea” in verse 1. Many scholars believe that verses 1–18 are a later expansion of this
shorter and earlier song in verse 21. In the present context, however, Miriam and the women
are shown to be repeating the opening lines of the longer song.

Section Heading: this section heading, “The song of Miriam,” is the same in both TEV and
the Handbook and will provide no translation problems. However, another way to say this is
“Miriam sings a song.”

15.19

This verse may be an editorial addition to explain once more why the Song at the Sea was
sung. For is a word that may mean “because” or when. RSV uses both For and when for the
same word, but it is better to choose either For or “when.” The horses of Pharaoh … went into
the sea repeats the idea of 14.23 and uses the same words.

MT MASORETIC TEXT
 The Lord brought back is literally “Yahweh caused to return.” The waters of the sea is
literal, but either “waters” (REB) or “sea” is enough. Upon them refers to all the Egyptian forces
mentioned in verse 19.

But the people of Israel is literally “and the sons of Israel.” This clause is identical with
14.29. Note that TEV restructures the verse, placing this clause first. This helps to clarify that
“the Israelites walked through” first, before Yahweh “brought the water back.”

15.20

Then Miriam refers to Moses’ older sister (see 2.4). She is called the prophetess, which in
Hebrew is the feminine form of the word for “prophet.” TEV and others omit this feminine form
in translation as unnecessary and possibly misleading. There should be no suggestion that
female prophets had any different religious function from that of male prophets, and the
context makes it clear that Miriam was a woman. In some languages, however, it may be quite
natural and even necessary to indicate a feminine form of the word. “Prophet” in this context
refers to a “spokesperson” for Yahweh (see the comment at 7.1).

Miriam is identified as the sister of Aaron rather than of Moses. This may be because
Aaron was older than Moses and, as the eldest son, was recognized as head of the family.
Assuming that she is the unnamed sister in 2.4, and recalling that Aaron was only three years
older than Moses (see 7.7), we may conclude that she was a few years older than Aaron as
well. Alternative translation models for this first sentence are “Miriam, the elder sister of
Aaron, was a spokesperson for Yahweh,” or “Miriam, … , spoke Yahweh’s words to the
people.”

Took a timbrel in her hand refers to a small hand drum used mostly by women during
joyous celebrations. Many translations call it a “tambourine,” which was a later form of a small
hand drum with metal disks at the rim that rattle when the drum is shaken or struck by the
other hand. At the time of this story, the drum did not have the metal disks. If a receptor
language does not have a specific word for a similar type of drum, without the metal disks, one
may employ a generic term for drum and say, for example, “a small drum.” It is also possible to
use a term for a percussion instrument that is well known in the receptor culture, one that
women may use to express joy in times of celebration, such as rattles or shakers. And all the
women went out after her means that the other Israelite women joined with her, or “followed
her” (TEV), in celebrating. Another way to express this is “she led all the other women out … .”
Evidently they had their own timbrels, playing them along with their dancing. The Hebrew
term suggests a kind of circle dance or a whirling movement. (See the comment at 32.19.)

15.21

And Miriam sang to them is literally “and Miriam answered to [or, for] them.” This
suggests that Miriam may have “led them in the refrain” (JB), or “took up from them the
refrain” (NJB). 15.21 TEV has “sang for them,” but this would not have been a solo, since the
first word of the song is a command to sing. Sing to the Lord is therefore not the same as verse
1, for here the imperative form is used as an invitation, “You [plural] sing.” The rest of the
verse, however, is identical with verse 1.
 PART TWO: THE PEOPLE’S OBLIGATION
(15.22–39.43)
A. Moses and the People: Journey to Sinai (15.22–18.27)
1. Hunger and Thirst (15.22–17.7)
The book of Exodus divides quite naturally at 15.22, after Miriam’s song at the Red Sea.
This is not the midpoint of the forty chapters, but it marks a major change of theme in the
book from “The Lord’s deliverance” to “The people’s obligation.” As explained in “Translating
Exodus,” this is the theological center of the book, as our outline reveals. From this point until
chapter 19, the third major relationship is in focus, namely, the relationship between “Moses
and the people,” and this takes place during their “Journey to Sinai” from the Red Sea.

Some of the stories in these chapters are also found in the book of Numbers, which tells
about the long journey of the Israelites after they left Mount Sinai. We would expect the
people to meet various problems during a journey of forty years, such as the need for food and
water, the presence of hostile desert tribes, and the difficulty of handling so many people
under one leader. It is significant, therefore, that in these few chapters in Exodus, which cover
only a few weeks of travel from the Red Sea (see 19.1), we find these three kinds of problems
reported. This gives a balance to the book and provides a summary of problems that could not
be resolved in a short time.

a. Bitter Water at Marah (15.22–27)

This section is the first of three sections dealing with the problem of food and water in the
wilderness. In all three episodes there is a pattern of the people complaining, then Moses
praying to Yahweh, and Yahweh miraculously providing what the people need.

Headings: translators who are following the Handbook’s outline will need the three
general headings here: (1) “The people’s obligation” (15.22–39:43), which may also be
expressed as “The duties of the Israelites toward Yahweh”; (2) “Moses and the people journey
to Sinai” (15.22–18:27); (3) “Hunger and thirst” (15.22–17.7), which may also be expressed as
“The Israelites become hungry and thirsty.” There should also be a heading for the subsection,
verses 22–27. TEV has “Bitter Water,” and the Handbook’s heading, “Bitter water at Marah,” is
very similar. Other alternatives are “The spring at Marah has bitter water,” “Unpleasant-
tasting water at Marah,” or even “Springs at Marah and Elim.” (For comments on the
translation of bitter and springs, see below.)

15.22

Then Moses led Israel onward uses the causative form of the verb meaning to pull up
stakes or break camp (see 12.37). Moses led does not reflect this causative aspect. NRSV is
better: “Then Moses ordered Israel to set out.” TAN has “Then Moses caused Israel to set out.”
From the Red Sea, literally “from the Sea of Reeds,” means from the point of their crossing.
 (See the comment on “Red Sea” at 10.19.) Another way to show this causative aspect is to
rearrange the phrases; for example, “After Moses had the Israelites leave the Sea of Reeds, he
led them.”

And they went into the wilderness of Shur indicates that they probably moved away from
Egypt toward the southeast. (See the map, page 11.) The word for wilderness describes a dry,
desolate area where people did not settle. This was true of most of the area between Egypt
and Palestine. It was not entirely “desert,” for there were a few natural springs here and there
with some vegetation and pasture land. (See the comment on “wilderness” at 3.1.) Shur was
the name of the large area to the northwest of the Sinai peninsula. The meaning of the name is
uncertain. Wilderness of Shur may also be expressed as “wilderness named Shur,” or “the
Shur wilderness.”

They went three days means that they walked for three days. In the wilderness may be
understood here as “through the wilderness.” And found no water means that there were no
springs or oases along the way.

15.23

When they came to Marah is literally “And they entered Marah.” Marah was neither a city
nor a village but only a place where there was water and some vegetation. So TEV has “they
came to a place named Marah.” They could not drink the water of Marah is literally “they
were not able to drink waters from Marah.” Because it was bitter describes the unpleasant
taste of the water in a general sense. It was possibly caustic, with a sharp, biting taste, but was
not necessarily sour as opposed to “sweet” in verse 25. And it was not poisonous. Most
languages will have suitable vocabulary to describe liquid or food that has an unpleasant or
bitter taste.

Therefore it was named Marah refers to the place, not to the water. The text does not
indicate whether it already had that name or whether the Israelites gave it that name. A
footnote here, explaining that Marah means “bitterness,” is helpful to the reader. The Hebrew
mentions Marah three times, but TEV mentions it only twice in order to avoid unnecessary
repetition.

An alternative translation model rearranging the clauses in this verse is:

• They found water at a place named Marah but couldn’t drink it because of its unpleasant taste.
That is how the place got its name Marah.

15.24

And the people murmured against Moses uses a word repeated several times in these
chapters and in the book of Numbers. It describes the complaining of the people throughout
their wilderness wandering. Most English translations use either “complained” or “grumbled.”
This “murmuring motif,” as it has been called, shows how much difficulty Moses had in
building a relationship with the people.
 Saying introduces what the people said. Since it is a question, TEV has “and asked.” What
shall we drink? may be either inclusive or exclusive. In languages that require one or the
other, the exclusive form of we may be preferable, since it sets the people apart from Moses
and agrees more with the “murmuring motif.” This question is not a request for information
but almost a statement of despair. This may be stated as “We don’t have anything to drink
now!” If the question form is kept in translation, one may also say “What are we to drink
now?” or “What can we drink now?”

15.25a

And he cried to the Lord means that “Moses prayed earnestly” (15.25 TEV) to Yahweh. This
clause may also be expressed as “Moses pleaded with the Lord to help him” or “Moses
pleaded with Yahweh, ‘Please help me.’ ” The same word is used in 14.10, where the people
“cried out to the Lord.” And the Lord showed him a tree is literally “and Yahweh caused him
to see a tree.” Tree is better understood as “a piece of wood” (TEV, CEV).

And he threw it into the water means that Moses threw the tree, “a piece of it” (TOT), or
the “piece of wood” into the bitter water. It is obvious that Moses must have thrown the wood
at Yahweh’s command. One may also express this as “Yahweh showed Moses a piece of wood
and said, ‘Throw it into the water.’ When he did this, the water … .” And the water became
sweet means that it became potable, or drinkable (TEV “fit to drink”). The word for sweet may
also mean pleasant. NAB has “fresh.”

15.25

Most translations begin a new paragraph with this second part of the verse. There the
Lord made for them is literally “There he put for him,” but the present context clearly suggests
that the “he” refers to Yahweh and the “him” refers to the people. (“People” in verse 24 is
singular in form but refers to all the Israelites.) There may also be expressed as “at Marah.” A
statute (choq) means a task, obligation, or law. A
211

n ordinance (mishpat) means a legal decision or judgment. Although these terms are often
used interchangeably, RSV usually tries to be concordant in translation, that is, always using the
same English word for a particular Hebrew word. TAN considers the two words to be a
hendiadys, or one idea expressed by two words, namely “a fixed rule.” TEV treats both words
as “laws to live by.” (See the introduction to 20.22–26.) It seems best to have a general
translation like TEV’s. If, however, a receptor language has many synonyms for laws or

211Osborn, N. D., & Hatton, H. (1999). A handbook on Exodus. UBS handbook series; Helps for
translators (345). New York: United Bible Societies.

RSV Revised Standard Version

TAN TANAKH (NEW JEWISH VERSION)

TEV Today’s English Version

regulations, one may say, for example, “some rules and directions [or, instructions] on how to
live their lives.”

And there he proved them uses a word meaning to train or put to the test, so TEV has
“there he also tested them.” There refers to Marah, the place where they were. In a number of
languages it will be necessary to specify the content of the testing. In such cases one may say,
for example, “and there he tested them to see if they would obey him” or “he tried to find out
if they would obey him.”

15.26

Saying introduces what Yahweh said to the people at Marah. The long sentence that
follows includes four conditions and then a promise. The If introduces all four conditions,
which are here identified as a), b), c), and d).

a) If you will diligently hearken is literally “if listening you listen,” and the you is singular
but means that he is speaking to the people collectively. This is an emphatic form meaning “if
you listen carefully” (NJB), or “if you will really pay attention” (Childs), or “If you will obey …
completely” (TEV). To the voice of the Lord your God is another example of Yahweh referring
to himself in the third person. (See also 12.14.) TEV changes to the first person but drops the
Lord your God completely. It is possible to say “If you will really listen to what I, Yahweh your
God, have to say.” Your God may be rendered as “the God whom you worship.”

b) And do that which is right in his eyes is literally “and the straight [thing] in his eyes you
do.” It is more natural to say “and do what he considers right” or “by doing what I consider
right” (TEV).

c) And give heed to his commandments, literally “and you listen to his commands,” means
to “pay attention to his commandments” (NJB). This is similar to the fourth condition. One may
also say “pay attention to what I command.” The word for commandments (mitswah) is
discussed in the introduction to 20.22–26.

d) And keep all his statutes is literally “and you guard all his statutes,” using the same
word for “statute” (chuqqah) as in verse 25. It may be more natural to combine c) and d), as
TEV has done: “and by keeping my commands.” CEV has “by following my laws and teachings.”
In some languages the idea of keeping a commandment or obeying a law may be translated in
the form of a verb phrase; for example, “Pay attention to what I teach you and tell you to do.”

The promise is now stated in negative terms. I will put none of the diseases upon you
which I put upon the Egyptians is literally “all the sickness which I put on the Egyptians I will
not put upon you.” Diseases is a noun that comes from the verb meaning to become weak or
ill. Here it obviously refers to the plagues that Yahweh inflicted on the Egyptians, so it may be

NJB NEW JERUSALEM BIBLE

CEV Contemporary English Version

 understood in the broader sense of “sufferings” (REB). Therefore one may say “I will not make
you suffer as I did the Egyptians.” However, since Yahweh speaks about healing the diseases of
the Israelites, disease is probably in focus here. Perhaps one may say “I will not hurt you by
causing you to become sick as I did the Egyptians.”

But diseases also points to the final self-introductory formula, I am the Lord, your healer,
which is literally “I Yahweh your healer.” Your healer is a participle meaning “the one who
heals you.” (A verse similar to this one is Deut 7.15.)

It is possible to put the final sentence at the beginning of the verse as follows:

• Then he said, “I am Yahweh your God, and I heal your diseases. If you obey me by doing the
things I consider to be right [or, good], and follow all my laws, I won’t hurt you with the
diseases that I caused the Egyptians to suffer.”

15.27

Then they came to Elim implies that they had moved on from Marah, although this is not
stated. In some languages it may be necessary to add this information; for example, “They left
Marah and came to Elim.” Then they came is literally “And they entered.” Elim was evidently
another oasis, but there is no evidence that it was a town or village. The name Elim means
“gods,” so it may have been considered a sacred place. Twelve springs of water may be
shortened to “twelve springs,” since the water is understood. In dry areas or on small islands
in the ocean where springs do not exist, translators will need to use a descriptive phrase; for
example, “a place where water flows out of the ground.” So twelve springs of water may be
expressed as “there were twelve places where water flowed out of the ground.” The seventy
palm trees were date palms, so there may have been some fruit for the people to eat.
Translators will find helpful information on date palms in FFB, pages 160–162. For cultures
where date palms are unknown, one may say, for example, “fruit trees named ‘palm’ [or,
‘date’]”; but see the discussion on “Borrowed vocabulary” in “Translating Exodus,” page 3.

And they encamped there uses the same word for setting up camp as in 14.9. By the
water refers to the springs.

b. Food Provided in the Desert (16.1–36)

(1) The Murmuring of the People (16.1–12)
Chapter 16 of Exodus tells how Yahweh provided food for the Israelites in the wilderness
and how the sabbath was instituted. The entire chapter is a complete story in itself, but it is
surprisingly similar to the story told in Numbers 11. Some scholars believe, therefore, that
Exodus 16 really records what happened after the Israelites left Mount Sinai, for there are
possible references to the tabernacle and the ark of the covenant, which were not constructed

REB REVISED ENGLISH BIBLE

FFB FAUNA AND FLORA OF THE BIBLE

until after the people had received the instructions at Mount Sinai. (See verses 9–10 and
33–34)

There are also some problems of sequence within this chapter. Verses 6–8, for example,
seem to be out of place, for they record some of the things Moses and Aaron said to the
people before Yahweh had even told this to Moses in verses 11–12.

The translator’s task, of course, is to translate the text as we have it. We must therefore
assume that there is a reason for the present form and arrangement of the text. For one thing,
scholars are not in agreement as to how such problems may be resolved. Furthermore, the
inclusion of the miraculous provision of manna and quails even before Mount Sinai gives a
theological balance to the theme of the book. A working relationship between Moses and the
people had to be established before he could bring them into a covenant relationship with
Yahweh.

Headings: 15.27 TEV has only one heading for the entire chapter, “The Manna and the
Quails.” Other translations do this too; for example,“Manna and Quail” (15.27 NIV), or “The
Lord sends food from heaven” (15.27 CEV). However, this Handbook divides the chapter into
four subsections. Therefore translators following this outline will first need a heading for the
entire chapter, such as “Food provided in the desert.” This may also be expressed as “The Lord
sends manna and quails for the people to eat.” Then the section heading for verses 1–12, “The
murmuring of the people,” may be stated as “The people murmur against Moses,” or “The
people complained about the lack of food.” For the translation of manna and quails, see the
comments at verses 15.13 and 14 below.

16.1

They set out from Elim is literally “And they pulled up stakes from Elim.” (See the
comment on “journeyed” at 12.37.) All the congregation of the people of Israel simply refers
to “The whole Israelite community” (16.1 TEV). This expression is repeated in verses 2, 9, and
10. The word for congregation (‘edah) means an assembly or gathering. (See 12.3, 6 and
comments.) People of Israel, as usual, is literally “sons of Israel.” This may also be expressed as
“the Israelites” or “all the Israelites.”

Came to the wilderness of Sin is literally “and they entered … .” This seems to trace the
route of the Israelites southward. The wilderness of Sin was another large area probably along
the west coast of the Sinai peninsula. (See the map on page 11.) The meaning of wilderness
(16.1 TEV “desert”) is discussed at 3.1. (See also 15.22.) Sin has no relation to the English word
“sin.” It is simply the name of a place and possibly has some connection with the word “Sinai.”
Wilderness of Sin may also be expressed as “the wilderness named Sin” or “the Sin
Wilderness.” Which is between Elim and Sinai indicates that they were moving toward Sinai;
however, the exact location of the ancient Mount Sinai is uncertain today. (See the comment
on “Horeb” at 3.1.)

NIV NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION

 On the fifteenth day of the second month should be translated as it is. This means that it
was a little over one month from the time they left Egypt, which had been on the tenth day of
the first month (12.2–3). After they had departed from the land of Egypt may be shortened to
“after they had left Egypt” (16.1 TEV).

16.2

The whole congregation of the people of Israel is discussed at verse 1. It is better here to
use the pronoun “they” than repeat the same expression (TEV, CEV). Murmured is the same
word discussed at 15.24. Against Moses and Aaron here includes Aaron, but in verse 7 it is
“against the Lord.” In the wilderness here refers to the wilderness of Sin, but in the wider
context it is also a general statement about the continual murmuring of the people throughout
their wilderness wandering. (See 15.24.) 16.2 TEV has “There in the desert they all complained
to Moses and Aaron,” and 16.2 CEV has “There in the desert they started complaining to Moses
and Aaron.” These will be helpful models in many languages.

16.3

And said to them continues the sentence from verse 2, with the subject understood. But
the Hebrew repeats the subject, “and the sons of Israel said to them.” In many languages this
will be unnatural style and may be shortened as in 16.3 RSV and 16.3 TEV, or even omitted (16.3
CEV). Would that we had died is archaic English for “If only we had died” (16.3 NRSV). Literally
the Hebrew says “Who will give [or, grant] us to die by the hand of Yahweh.” It expresses the
idea of a strong wish. By the hand of the Lord suggests that Yahweh would cause their death.
So 16.3 TEV and 16.3 CEV combine the two, “We wish that the Lord had killed us,” or one may
say “… that the Lord had caused us to die.” In the land of Egypt may be reduced to “in Egypt”
(16.3 TEV).

When we sat by the fleshpots, literally “in our sitting by a pot of the flesh,” simply refers
to a pot for cooking meat. It is a figurative way of saying, as 16.3 TEV does, “There we could at
least sit down and eat meat.” 16.3 CEV has “When we lived there, we could at least sit down
and eat … .” Andate bread to the full is literally “in our eating bread to be full.” The word for
bread sometimes refers to “other food” (16.3 TEV) as well, but probably here it is more
specific.

For is the word ki, which takes on various meanings depending on the context. Here it may
be understood either as “because,” giving the reason for the people’s wish to be back in Egypt,
or as “But” (16.3 TEV), showing by contrast their actual situation. (NJB has “As it is.”) You have
brought us out is literally “you have caused us to come out.” Here the you is plural, since they
are complaining to both Moses and Aaron (verse 2). The us, of course, is exclusive. Into this
wilderness refers to the “wilderness of Sin” (verse 1).

To kill is the infinitive form of the verb, with this whole assembly as the direct object. The
word for assembly (qahal) is different from the word for “congregation” in verses 1 and 2, but

NRSV New Revised Standard Version

the meaning is practically the same (see the comment at 12.6.). Durham has “this whole
crowd,” which seems to fit the context here. Since the Israelites are referring to themselves,
16.3 TEV does not translate qahal but simply repeats the pronoun “us” instead. With hunger
(NAB “famine”) describes the method by which the people say Moses and Aaron intend to kill
them. So 16.3 TEV has “to starve us all to death.”

16.4

Then the Lord said to Moses assumes that Yahweh already heard the complaints of the
people, but this is not stated until verse 12. Some scholars suggest that verses 11–12 should
come before verse 4, but it is best to follow the text as we have it. (See also the comment at
verse 6.) Behold is usually a word to get attention, but most translations combine it with I will
rain, which is a participle. Literally it says “Behold me one who causes to rain.” NJB has “Look,”
and 16.4 TEV has “Now.”

Bread from heaven refers to the manna mentioned in verse 15 but not named until verse
31. Some have interpreted bread to mean “food,” in order to include the quails that will come,
but verse 13 says that the “quails came up,” not down from heaven. Since “food” in English is a
general term including bread, meat, fruit, and vegetables, translators should try to find a
general word for “food” that does not include meat or quails. This will help to distinguish what
is later called “manna,” which “came down,” from the quails, which “came up.” Using the word
“manna” in this verse is not recommended, since the narrative intends for the reader and
hearer to share the surprise of the Israelites in verse 15 at the discovery of a kind of “food”
they had not known before. If no suitable term is found, one may say “a new kind of food from
heaven.” This is what Yahweh is going to rain from “the sky” (16.4 TEV). Some languages
cannot use rain as a verb, so one may say “I will send bread down from heaven like rain” (16.4
CEV) or “I will cause bread to fall from the sky in the same way that rain falls.”

And the people shall go out means to go out from the camp. 16.4 TEV’s “must go out” may
sound too much like a command, but it should be understood in the sense of “if they want to
eat, they will have to go outside the campsite.” 16.4 CEV has “the people can go out,” and TOT
has “When the people go out.” And gather a day’s portion every day is literally “and they will
gather the matter of a day in its day.” The same expression is used in 5.13 for “daily task.”
Here it means “every day … enough for that day” (16.4 TEV). (Similarly CEV).

That I may prove them means “so that I can put them to the test” (REB). 16.4 TEV starts a
new sentence: “In that way I can test them.” (Similarly 16.4 NRSV.) Whether they will walk in
my law or not is literal. It means, as 16.4 TEV translates, “to find out if they will follow my
instructions.” Or not may not be necessary. The word for law is torah, which 16.4 TEV
translates here as “instructions” (16.4 NRSV “instruction”). (See also the comment at 13.9.) It is
also possible to express this final sentence as “That’s how I will know if they will obey my
commands or not.”

NAB NEW AMERICAN BIBLE

TOT TRANSLATOR’S OLD TESTAMENT

 An alternative translation model for this verse is:

• The Lord said to Moses, “I will cause a new kind of food to fall from the sky like rain [as rain
falls]. The people must go outside the camp every day and gather only enough food for that
day. That’s how I will know if they will obey my commands or not.

16.5

This verse may be understood either as a miracle or as a command, so it should be

examined carefully. On the sixth day anticipates the seventh day, or sabbath. In some
languages it will be good to say “the sixth day of each week” (16.5 CEV). When they prepare is
literally “and it will be that they will make ready.” What they bring in refers to the manna they
will gather. It will be twice as much means it will be [or, become] double. As they gather daily
is literally “over what they will gather day by day.” One may also express this as “what they
gather on ordinary days,” or even “what they normally [or, usually] gather.”

The text is ambiguous, and most translations follow it quite literally. But what does it
mean? Does it mean that the usual amount they gather will suddenly become twice as much,
or does it mean that there will be enough manna out on the ground for them to gather twice
as much? Verse 22 suggests the latter, so GECL has “they should gather as much as they find.
When they prepare it they will discover that it is twice as much as they have usually gathered.”
TEV makes it a command: “they are to bring in twice as much as usual and prepare it.” CEV is
similar: “they must gather and cook twice and much.” Since the ambiguity seems to be
unintentional, this second meaning should be followed.

16.6

Many scholars believe that verses 6–8 fit more naturally after verse 12, and MFT actually
rearranges the text in this way. This allows for Yahweh to explain to Moses about the quails
and manna before it is announced to the people. However, such a rearrangement of text is
recommended only when a more natural flow of information is achieved and no new problems
are created. In this case the problem would arise that the people would be told they would see
the “glory of the Lord” (verse 7) after they had already seen it (verse 10). So it is recommended
that translators keep verses 6 and 7 in their present place.

So Moses and Aaron said does not mean that they spoke in unison. They may have spoken
to various groups rather than “to all the Israelites” (16.6 TEV) at once. At evening probably
means “This evening” (16.6 TEV), although some may under stand it to refer to each evening
when the quails come (verses 8 and 12). This may also be expressed as “At sundown today” or
“When the sun falls today.” You shall know means “you will be convinced” (TOT) or “know by
experience” (Durham). (See the same expression in 6.7.) That it was the Lord who brought
you out can mean “the Lord has brought you out” (ASV), but since the focus is on Yahweh, it is

GECL GERMAN COMMON LANGUAGE VERSION

MFT MOFFATT

ASV AMERICAN STANDARD VERSION

better to say “it was the Lord who brought you out of Egypt” (16.6 TEV) or “that the Lord was
the one who rescued you from Egypt” (16.6 CEV).

16.7

And in the morning probably means “tomorrow morning” (TOT), or “when the sun rises
tomorrow,” rather than each morning. (But see the comment on “evening” at verse 6.) You
shall see the glory of the Lord should be understood here to mean seeing, with the eyes, the
kavod of Yahweh. The word literally means weight or burden, but in reference to God it refers
to his splendor or magnificence. Glory is the usual translation of kavod, but even this is a
quality that cannot be seen with the eyes. TAN translates it as “you shall behold the Presence of
the Lord.” TOT has “a display of the Lord’s power,” and 16.7 TEV has “the dazzling light of the
Lord’s presence.” What they actually saw in verse 10 remains a mystery, and it should not be
thought of as the manna in verse 8. So translators may say either “You will see God display his
power” or “You will see the dazzling light showing that the Lord is here.” A translation like
“dazzling light” or “a very bright light” is more likely because of the reference to it in verse 12.

Because he has heard your murmurings refers to the murmurings against Moses and
Aaron in verse 2. Yahweh has considered them as directed “against him” (16.7 TEV).
Murmurings may also be expressed as “grumblings” or “complaints”; for example, “He has
heard you complaining against him.” Against the Lord is more naturally translated as “against
him” (TEV, CEV). For what are we is a rhetorical question that refers to Moses and Aaron. The
obvious answer is “We are nothing” (NEB). Changing the what to “who” is more natural in
English. (So TAN, 16.7 NIV, REB, and others.) That you murmur against us is still part of the
rhetorical question, meaning “Why complain against us?” or “Your complaints against us are
really against Yahweh.” 16.7 TEV removes the question but may add too much implied
information: “we are only carrying out his instructions.” 16.7 CEV has “Why should you grumble
to us? Who are we?” One may also say “Why are you complaining to us? We have no
importance at all!”

16.8

And Moses said now introduces what Moses alone said. Aaron is no longer speaking (see
verse 6). But one may also say “Moses continued” (TAN). When the Lord gives you is literally
“in Yahweh’s giving.” This introduces a dependent clause in a sentence that is incomplete.
Note the dash in 16.8 RSV. Translations change this into a complete sentence in various ways.
REB adds the words “You will know this” (when the Lord gives you). 16.8 CEV has “You will know
it is the Lord when he gives … .” (16.8 NIV and TOT add the same words.) TAN begins with “Since
it is the Lord … who will give you,” and concludes with “what is our part?” 16.8 TEV probably
has the easiest solution, without having to add anything: “It is the Lord who will give … .”

In the evening flesh to eat means “meat to eat in the evening” (TEV, and similarly CEV). And
in the morning bread to the full is literally “and bread in the morning to be full.” This means

NEB NEW ENGLISH BIBLE

 “as much bread as you want in the morning” (16.8 TEV), or “more than enough bread each
morning” (16.8 CEV).

Because the Lord has heard is another dependent clause. Literally it says “in Yahweh’s
hearing,” which parallels “in Yahweh’s giving.” Because is implied in the structure of the
sentence. The murmurings which you murmur against him may be reduced to “your
grumblings against him” (16.8 NIV) or “how much you have complained against him” (16.8 TEV).
What are we? is identical with verse 7. Your murmurings are not against us but against the
Lord simply states directly what is implied in verse 7. 16.8 CEV has a good model, placing the
clause Because the Lord has heard at the end of the verse: “He is really the one you are
complaining about, not us—we are nobodies—but the Lord has heard your complaints.”

An alternative translation model for this verse, similar to CEV, is:

• Then Moses continued, “It is the Lord who will give you meat each evening, and more than
enough bread each morning. He is really the one you are complaining about, not us—we are
not important. But the Lord has heard how much you have complained against him.”

16.9

And Moses said to Aaron starts a new paragraph, so 16.9 NRSV has changed And to
“Then.” Say introduces the words that Aaron is to speak. The whole congregation of the
people of Israel is the same expression used in verses 1 and 2. It may be shortened to “the
whole community” or “all the people,” since it is understood that they are all Israelites.

Come near before the Lord is literally “You [plural] approach to the face of Yahweh,” or
“Approach Yahweh’s presence” (TAN). 16.9 TEV changes this embedded quote to indirect
speech in order to avoid a quote within a quote: “Tell the whole community to come.” REB, on
the other hand, changes the first quote to indirect speech for the same reason: “Moses told
Aaron to say … , ‘Come into the presence of the Lord … .’ ” Come near is a word often used for
worship, in the sense of drawing near to God, but here the command is intended literally. So
16.9 TEV adds “Come and stand before the Lord.”

Before the Lord presents a problem, for it is not clear where this would be. According to
chapters 25 and 26, neither the ark of the covenant nor the tabernacle had as yet been built.
(See the introduction to this chapter and the similar problem at verse 34.) TOT has “Assemble
in the presence of the Lord,” which may be easier to translate. However, if a place must be
identified, then one may say “Come near to where Yahweh is” or “Assemble at this place
where we worship the Lord.” A footnote should then be added explaining that the Hebrew
simply says Come near before the Lord.

For he has heard your murmurings is addressed to the people. He, of course, refers to
Yahweh.

16.10

And as Aaron spoke, literally “And it happened as Aaron spoke,” may mean either “While
Aaron was addressing” (REB) or “As soon as Aaron said this” (TOT). (The preposition k- after
“And it happened” often means “when.”) The whole congregation of the people of Israel is
repeated here for the fourth time. It may be shortened to “all the people.” They looked
toward the wilderness is literally “and they turned unto the wilderness.” This suggests that
there was a sudden interruption. Another model is “While Aaron was speaking to all the
people, they looked out into the wilderness … .”

And behold is the same word translated “and lo” in 3.2b. Here it also indicates surprise
over something suddenly appearing. 16.10 TEV has “and suddenly.” An ideophone indicating an
audible sound of surprise is also possible here. The glory of the Lord is discussed at verse 7.

Appeared in the cloud is literally “was seen,” or “became visible.” It is also possible to say
“and suddenly they saw the dazzling light of Yahweh shining from a cloud.” The cloud has the
definite article, suggesting that this cloud has been mentioned before, such as “the pillar of
cloud” in 13.21. Most scholars, however, relate this cloud to the one mentioned in 40.34 in
connection with the tabernacle, which comes from the Priestly tradition (“P”). This “P cloud”
represented the glory or presence of Yahweh, while the “J cloud” in 13.21 (from the Yahwist
tradition) was a guiding cloud. Since this “P cloud” has not yet been mentioned, 16.10 TEV has
“a cloud.” (So also TAN, JB, Durham, and 16.10 CEV.) Translators are advised to follow this
interpretation. For glory or “dazzling light” see verse 7.

16.11–12

And the Lord said to Moses does not easily follow from verse 10, for Yahweh is here
speaking only to Moses, even though he seems to be appearing to all the people. Since
Yahweh is here telling Moses what to say to them, some scholars believe these verses should
come before verse 4 (See the comment there). But rearranging the verses often creates other
problems. It is better just to drop the And and begin a new paragraph here. (So 16.12 NIV, TAN,
and TOT.)

I have heard the murmurings of the people of Israel is information that Aaron has already
announced to the Israelites in verse 9. Say to them introduces what Moses is to say to the
people. At twilight is literally “between the two evenings,” as in 12.6. The Hebrew does not
clarify whether this refers to the coming evening, as is probable in verse 6, or to every evening.
Either interpretation is possible, and translators may wish to retain the ambiguity. However, it
is more likely in this verse that “each evening” (16.12 CEV) is intended. You shall eat flesh
means “meat” (16.12 TEV) and refers to the quails in verse 13. In the morning may be
understood as “tomorrow morning” (TOT), but it is better to follow 16.12 CEV and say “each
morning,” unless once chooses to retain the ambiguity. You shall be filled with bread refers to
the manna that came. (See verse 8.)

Then you shall know is discussed at verse 7. That I am the Lord your God is Yahweh’s self-
introductory formula. Since it does not have any verb, it may also be translated as “I, the Lord,
am your God” (16.12 TEV).

(2) The Provision of the Quails and Manna (16.13–21)

JB JERUSALEM BIBLE
 Section Heading: another way to express this section heading is “God gave them quails
and manna to eat.”

16.13

In the evening, or “that evening” (REB), uses the usual term for evening, meaning after
sunset. Quails were the same small plump birds known today. They are light brown in color,
with black and pale streaks. In cultures where quails are unknown, translators may
transliterate the term; for example, “birds named ‘quail.’ ” (See the discussion on “Borrowed
vocabulary” in “Translating Exodus,” page 3.) Another option is to use the name of a medium-
sized wild bird resembling the quail, one that is edible and locally known. An explanatory note
in the Glossary should also be provided. (See FFB, pages 66–67, for further information.) Came
up, literally “it [the quail] ascended,” describes the sudden arrival of the quails (the singular
noun is used in a collective sense). They probably “flew up” (Durham) with the help of the
wind. (See Num 11.31.) 16.13 TEV says “flew in,” meaning into the camp. 16.13 CEV has “came
and landed.” And covered the camp means that “they settled in the camp in large numbers”
(TOT), or they “settled over the whole camp” (REB). 16.13 CEV translates the first sentence as
“That evening a lot of quails came and landed everywhere in the camp.”

And in the morning means “the next morning” (NJB), or “when the sun rose again.” Dew
lay around the camp is literally “there was a layer of dew around the camp.” Dew is the
moisture from the air that condenses on the cool ground during the night, forming droplets of
water. The word sometimes means a light rain. In at least one language this is called “water
that clings [or, remains]” (Thai).

16.14

And when the dew had gone up is literally “and the layer of dew went up,” but this simply
means “when the dew evaporated” (16.14 TEV), “dried up” (TOT), or simply “had gone” (16.14
CEV). There was on the face of the wilderness is somewhat literal, but the Hebrew also says
more exactly “And behold upon the face of the wilderness.” Most translations omit “behold”
here, but there is an element of surprise indicated. (See verse 10 for a similar surprise.) TAN has
“there, over the surface of the wilderness.” This is a more poetic way of saying on the ground.

A fine, flake-like thing is describing something for which there was no name. (The name is
finally given in verse 31.) Literally the Hebrew says “thin flaky.” The word for “flaky” is found
only here, so the meaning is not certain. JB has “powdery,” and NJB has “granular.” REB has
“fine flakes” for the two words (similarly CEV), and 16.14 NRSV has “a fine flaky substance.”
16.14 TEV has “something thin and flaky.” Translators should seek a term that describes a
paper-thin substance of some kind.

Fine as hoarfrost uses the word “thin” again, with the usual word for “frost.” Frost is the
condensed moisture, or dew, after it freezes and turns white in color. 16.14 TEV translates this
description as “as delicate as frost.” In areas where “frost” is not known, it may be necessary
to use a familiar expression like “as delicate as powder.” On the ground refers to the same
thing as on the face of the wilderness.

An alternative translation model for this verse is:

• After the dew had gone [or, evaporated], the desert was covered with a thin flaky substance
that looked like frost.

16.15

When the people of Israel saw it is literally “And the sons of Israel saw.” They said to one
another is literally “and they said, a man to his brother.” What is it? is man hu’ in the Hebrew,
but the word man is not a Hebrew word. In Arabic and Aramaic it means “who,” but the
context suggests What. It is also possible to translate “What is this?” or “What is this stuff?”
This is reported as the reason for the name “manna” in verse 31. For they did not know what
it was uses the usual word for what. 16.15 CEV moves the final clause to the beginning of the
verse and translates “The people had never seen anything like this, and they started asking
each other, ‘What is it?’ ” This is a helpful alternative model.

And Moses said to them may be rendered as “So Moses told them” or “Then Moses
explained to them.” It is the bread is literally “That [is] the bread.” The word for bread
sometimes means “food” in general, but here it is better to think of it as different from the
“meat” of the quails and to follow 16.15 RSV as a model. (See the comment at verse 4.)
Translators are discouraged from using a word like “rice,” even when it is the generic word for
food in a receptor language. Which the Lord has given you to eat says three things: 1) it is a
gift, 2) it is given by Yahweh, and 3) it is edible.

16.16

Moses is still speaking. The word for This sometimes points backward as well as forward.
MFT has “That is what the Eternal orders each of you to gather,” referring to the manna in
verse 15, and NAB seems to interpret the This as referring to what has already been said, “Now,
this is what the Lord has commanded. So gather it … .” But since the words that follow are in
fact what the Lord has commanded, it is better to follow 16.16 RSV and others in
understanding This as pointing to what follows. 16.16 TEV’s rendering, using indirect speech,
solves this problem: “The Lord has commanded that … .” However, in languages that must use
direct speech, one may say, for example, “The Lord commands, ‘You must gather …’ ” or even
“The Lord said to me, ‘Tell the people, “Each of you must gather … .” ’ ” It may be easier to put
this clause at the end of the verse and say “This is what the Lord told me to tell you.” What the
Lord has commanded, literally “the word [davar] which Yahweh commanded,” now
introduces the words of Yahweh. Gather of it is literally “you [plural] gather [or, collect] from
it.” Every man of you means “each of you” (16.16 TEV). 16.16 CEV has “for each person,” which
includes the women. As much as he can eat is literally “to the mouth of his eating,” or
“according to his eating” (16.16 KJV). It really means “as much as he should eat” or “as much of
it as he needs” (16.16 TEV).

You shall take an omer apiece is literally “an omer for a skull [or, head],” which would
have been about “two quarts” (2.3 liters) per person. Many languages will have suitable terms
for amounts collected in baskets, pots, jars, coconut shells, or other containers that equal

KJV KING JAMES VERSION

 approximately two quarts of manna; for example, “two coconut shells full of manna.”
According to the number of persons whom each of you has in his tent is literally “from the
number of your throats, a man [or, each] for whom in his tent.” This should not be translated
literally, but the meaning is simply “for every person in his tent” (REB), “for each member of his
household” (16.16 TEV), or “for each person in your family” (16.16 CEV).

An alternative translation model for this verse is:

• Moses said, “Each of you must gather as much of it as he needs; that is, two quarts for each
member of his family. This is what Yahweh told me to command you.”

16.17

And the people of Israel did so means that “the Israelites did as they were told,” or “did as
Yahweh commanded them to do.” They gathered, some more, some less is literally “they
collected, the one making many and the one making less.” It means “Some collected a large
amount, some collected a small amount” (TOT). Evidently each person had to estimate how
much would be needed for that person’s household.

16.18

But when they measured it with an omer suggests that they did not measure the manna
until after they had gathered it. He that gathered much had nothing left over is literally “and
did not cause a surplus the one making many.” He that gathered little had no lack is literally
“and the one making less did not cause a shortage,” or “those who gathered less did not have
too little.”

This should not be understood as a miraculous equalizing of manna, for some households
were larger than others and required more manna. TOT is helpful here: “But when they
measured it out in omers, they discovered that those who had collected a large amount did
not have too much, and those who had collected a small amount did not have too little.”

Each gathered according to what he could eat is the same as verse 16, literally “according
to his eating” (16.18 KJV). But it probably means “as much as he should eat” (NASB), not what
he could eat. 16.18 NRSV now has “as much as each of them needed,” and 16.18 CEV has
“according to their needs.”

16.19

And Moses said to them is the same form as elsewhere. Translators should feel free to
change this from time to time for variety in style and according to the flow of the narrative. For
example, NJB has “Moses then said,” and NAB has “Moses also said.” One may also say “Moses
told them.”

Let no man leave any of it till the morning is literally “A man will not cause to be left from
it until morning.” This is a negative command. Of course, man here means both men and

NASB NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE

women; for example, “No person is to keep.” 16.19 TEV has “No one is to keep any of it for
tomorrow.”

16.20

But they did not listen to Moses is quite literal, but it means “they paid no attention to
Moses” (TAN), or “Some of them disobeyed” (16.20 CEV). Some left part of it till the morning is
literally “and men caused to remain from it.” This may mean either they “left part of it” or they
“saved part of it” (16.20 TEV). 16.20 NIV and others have “they kept part of it.” The context
suggests that they were afraid there would not be any more manna the next morning. 16.20
CEV restructures in a helpful way: “Some of them disobeyed, but the next morning what they
kept was … .”

And it bred worms is literally “and worms rose up.” The word also refers to insect larvae,
so 16.20 NIV has “it was full of maggots” (so also REB). And became foul means that “it stank”
(TOT). 16.20 NIV has “it began to smell,” and 16.20 TEV says that it “smelled rotten.”

And Moses was angry with them uses a word that simply means to become angry. Of
course, in a number of languages this will be expressed idiomatically as “Moses’ heart grew
hot.” This is different from the expression in 11.8, where Moses left Pharaoh “with a burning
nose.”

16.21

Morning by morning means “every morning,” or “every day when the sun rose.” They
gathered it means they collected the manna from the ground. Each as much as he could eat,
or better, “as much as he needed” (16.21 TEV). (See the comment at verse 16.)

But when the sun grew hot means, of course, “when the sun heated it” (Durham), for
although the sun is always hot, its rays do not hit the ground directly until well after sunrise.
Only when the sun had risen fairly high in the sky would the rays have hit the manna directly
and melted it. So one may translate “when the sun rose high in the sky, it melted . .” It melted
refers to “what was left on the ground” (16.21 TEV), for what was collected would have been
protected from the sun.

(3) The Institution of the Sabbath (16.22–30)

This section is probably the earliest account we have of the observance of the Sabbath.
Although it comes before the giving of the law at Mount Sinai, it indicates that the Sabbath
was a very ancient institution in the history of Israel.

Section Heading: the Handbook’s heading for this section, “The institution of the
Sabbath,” may also be expressed as “Yahweh institutes the Sabbath” or “Yahweh tells the
people to rest on the seventh day.”

16.22

On the sixth day would be the sixth morning from the first appearance of the manna. This
corresponds to our Friday, since the next day was designated as the Sabbath (verse 23), but
translators should not introduce the word “Friday” into the text. Even CEV’s “sixth day of the
week” is misleading, since this story gives the origin of the tradition of counting seven days as
a week. They gathered twice as much bread is literally “they gathered bread double.” This was
double the amount mentioned in verse 5. Although this refers to the manna, it is still called
bread, as in verse 4. “Food” (16.22 TEV) is not recommended here, since the manna should be
distinguished from the quails. (See the comment at verse 4 and at verse 15.) If bread will not
work in translation and no other term is possible, then it may be necessary to use the word for
“manna” that is used in verse 31. What was double was two omers apiece, that is, two for
each family member. (Compare similar terms in verse 16.) An alternative model for the first
part of this verse is “However, on the sixth day they gathered enough bread [or, manna] for
everyone to have four quarts instead of two.”

And when all the leaders of the congregation came is literally “and entered all the chiefs
of the congregation.” This is usually treated as a temporal clause leading into the following
verse; for example, 16.22 CEV has “When the leaders reported this to Moses.” 16.22 TEV has a
more neutral model: “All the leaders of the community came and told Moses about it, 23a and
he said, ‘… .’ ” But 16.22 NIV and NJB treat it as an independent clause, with a full stop at the
end of the verse. Any of these interpretations are possible.

The leaders were the tribal heads, or “leaders of the Israelites.” 16.22 TEV has “the leaders
of the community.” Came and told Moses means that they “told Moses what had happened”
(TOT), or “reported this to Moses” (16.22 NIV). The word told is neutral, without indicating why
it was that the leaders reported this. Possibly they were reporting how the people had obeyed
what may have been told them earlier (see verse 5). Or they may have been afraid that the
people were disobeying what was told them in verse 16. Or perhaps they were simply
surprised that there was twice as much manna to be gathered.

16.23

He said to them means that Moses spoke to the leaders. This is what the Lord has
commanded is ambiguous. Literally it says “That [or, This] is what Yahweh spoke [or,
commanded].” To what does This refer? Does it point backward to what Yahweh had told
Moses in verse 5, or to the double supply of manna in verse 22? The word hu’, here translated
as this, usually points back to something already mentioned. It is not the same word used in
verse 16 (zeh), which usually points forward. TOT has “This is what the Lord said would
happen,” and NAB has “That is what the Lord prescribed.” In this verse, however, it is more
likely that the word This points forward to the words that follow.

Most translations use a colon after commanded, even though punctuation marks are not
heard when the text is read orally. The colon can substitute for the embedded quotes,
although 16.23 RSV uses single quote marks here. 16.23 CEV has a slightly different model: “he
told them that the Lord had said, ‘Tomorrow … .’ ” The word for commanded (diber) may also
be translated as “said” (REB, NJB), and TAN even has “meant.” Furthermore, the words that
follow may be understood as Yahweh’s words, or as Moses’ words, or as both. (See verse 24).
16.23 RSV, 16.23 NRSV, and 16.23 NIV consider them to be Yahweh’s words, as is seen by the
single quotes within double quotes. 16.23 TEV’s use of indirect speech suggests that Yahweh’s
 words include only the first clause, and that the command in 23b to “bake” and “boil” are
Moses’ words. 16.23 CEV considers the rest of the verse to be Yahweh’s words, as in 16.23 RSV
and TAN.

Tomorrow refers to the seventh day. A day of solemn rest is a special form of the word for
sabbath (shabbathon), meaning “sabbath observance” or “sabbatical.” Both words are derived
from the verb meaning to stop or cease, in this case, to stop working. (A footnote explaining
sabbath is possible, but see the comment at verse 25.) NJB has “a day of complete rest.”
Another way to express this is “Tomorrow you must rest completely” or “Tomorrow you may
not work at all.”

A holy sabbath uses the usual form for sabbath (shabbath) along with the word for holy,
or “sacred” (NAB, NJB). Holy here means “set apart for” or “belonging to.” Another possible
model is “Tomorrow is a day when you must rest completely. It is set apart [or, dedicated] to
honor Yahweh.” However, some translators will wish to transliterate the word Sabbath and
say “Tomorrow is the Sabbath. It is a day dedicated in honor of me.” To the Lord means to or
for Yahweh, so the idea is “dedicated to the Lord” (TOT), “dedicated to him” (16.23 TEV), or “in
honor of me” (16.23 CEV).

The following are translation models showing the various options discussed above:

• Moses said to them, “This is what the Lord said, ‘Tomorrow is the Sabbath. It is set apart to
honor me, so you must rest completely.’… .”

• Moses said to them, “The Lord has commanded that you must do no work at all tomorrow. It is
the Sabbath, a day dedicated to honor him.”

• Moses told them that Yahweh had said, “Tomorrow is a day when you must rest completely. It
is set apart to honor me.”

16.23

Bake what you will bake is literally “what you [plural] will bake, bake,” and boil what you
will boil is literally “what you will boil, boil.” This should be understood as a command that
allows two options, either bake or boil. The difference between the two is the same as is
understood in English. The manna could evidently be cooked with dry heat or with water.
16.23 TEV’s “Bake today what you want to bake” may weaken the idea of a command. TOT is
clear: “Cook the food today, either baking it or boiling it.” “Today” is not in the text, but it is
clearly implied, since they were not to work at preparing food on the Sabbath.

All that is left over refers to “all that remains uneaten” (TOT), not to what is not cooked.
The implication is that all of the manna collected on the sixth day was to be cooked so that it
would not spoil and would be ready to eat the next day. Lay by is literally “you [plural] cause to
wait,” meaning “put aside” (16.23 TEV), or “make sure you save enough” (16.23 CEV). To be
kept for tomorrow is literally “for storing until morning.” The word implies that they were to
“keep it safe” (NEB).
 As indicated at verse 23a, it is possible to take this verse as a continuation of Yahweh’s
words, or one may close the quotes at the end of 23a and begin Moses’ words here. In certain
languages it will be helpful to state this clearly, as follows:

• 23a Moses said to them, “This is what the Lord has said, ‘Tomorrow is the Sabbath … .’ ” 23b
And Moses continued, “Gather all you want to bake or boil … .”

16.24

So they laid it by till the morning uses the same words as verse 23. As Moses bade them
is literally “just as Moses commanded.” (This suggests that at least part of verse 23 should be
understood as Moses’ words.) And it did not become foul uses the same words as verse 20.
And there were no worms in it uses a word for worms that refers more specifically to
“maggots,” but it should probably be translated the same as in verse 20.

An alternative translation model for this verse is:

• The people obeyed Moses and kept what was left of the food until the next day. It did not
smell or have maggots in it.

16.25

Moses said introduces Moses’ words on the following day. Eat it today refers to the
manna that was cooked and kept. It may be necessary to make clear that today, which is used
three times, is the seventh day, the “tomorrow” of verse 23. So one may say, for example, “On
the seventh [or, next] day Moses said, ‘… .’ ”

For today is a sabbath uses the word shabbath as in verse 23. 16.25 TEV renders this word
twice in order to bring out the meaning of the word: “the Sabbath, a day of rest.” Normally a
double translation like this is not recommended, but it is important for the reader to
understand that sabbath means “a day of rest” rather than “seventh.” (See the following
verse.) Some translators may prefer not to add “a day of rest” here, since it is not in the
Hebrew, in which case a footnote may be added that says “ ‘Sabbath’ comes from the Hebrew
word meaning ‘to rest,’ or ‘to stop working.’ ” To the Lord means “dedicated to the Lord”
(TOT), or “in honour of Yahweh” (JB). You will not find it in the field means that there was no
manna on the ground “outside the camp” (16.25 TEV) on the seventh day.

16.26

Six days you shall gather it is now a general command for the future, meaning the first six
days of every week. But is the usual conjunction waw, used here to contrast the two clauses.
On the seventh day, which is a sabbath brings together the words sheba‘ (“seven”) and
shabbath (“sabbath”), which clearly are not the same, as is sometimes assumed. There will be
none, literally “there will not be in it,” refers to a fresh covering of manna on the ground. So
TOT has “there will be no food for you to collect on that day,” and Durham has “there will not
be any to pick up.”
16.27

On the seventh day is a bit surprising, for it is still the same day as the day described in
verses 25–26. Many translations begin a new paragraph here, since the instructions have
ended and the reaction of some of the people begins. This verse also marks a literary seam, for
verses 27–30 probably come from a different tradition. (See the discussion on “Sources” in
“Translating Exodus,” page 2.) Some translations use a word like “Nevertheless” (16.27 NIV),
“Still” (NAB), or “Yet” (TAN), to make a smoother transition. One may even say “However, on
that same day.”

Some of the people went out is literally “they went out from the people,” but it means
“[some] from the people went out.” 16.27 CEV interprets this to mean “A few of the Israelites
did go out … .” To gather is the same word used in the previous verses. And they found none
is literally “and they did not find.”

16.28

And the Lord said to Moses means that Yahweh spoke only to Moses, but we may assume
that Moses in turn spoke these words to the people, as the following verse suggests. (See the
comment there.) A way to avoid this problem is to say “And the Lord had Moses tell the
people … .” Do you refuse uses the plural you. (How long is literally “Until when.”) It should be
made clear in translation that Yahweh is not accusing Moses of disobeying, but rather that the
people under his command were disobeying. In many languages the plural form of you will be
clear enough. 16.28 NIV has a footnote indicating that you is plural, but this is not adequate for
oral reading. LB has “these people,” but this is not what the text says. It is better to follow REB
(“you Israelites”) or 16.28 TEV and 16.28 CEV (“you people”).

Refuse to keep my commandments uses the word to watch or guard (see 12.17), but here
it means to observe or “obey.” Commandments and laws are similar terms, so 16.28 TEV
combines them into “commands.” But laws is better translated as “instructions” (16.28 NRSV).
16.28 CEV has “how long will you people keep disobeying my laws and teachings.” One may
also say “How long will you refuse to pay attention to what I teach you and tell you to do?”
The terms mitswah (“commandment”) and torah (“law”) are discussed in the introduction to
20.22–26.

16.29

This verse seems to be directed to the people, so Moses is evidently telling them what
Yahweh has told him. The Hebrew for See is literally “you [plural] see” in the imperative form,
so it has the meaning of “Look” (NJB), “Listen” (JB), “Take note” (NAB), “Mark” (TAN), and
“Remember” (TEV, CEV). The Lord has given you the sabbath uses the verb that may mean
either to give or to place. So JB has “Yahweh has laid down the sabbath for you.” The idea is
that the sabbath is a gift from Yahweh. Note that 16.29 TEV changes the third person verb to
first person, “Remember that I, the Lord, have given.” 16.29 CEV has no reference to the Lord

LB LIVING BIBLE
or Yahweh, because it is clear from the previous context who is speaking: “Remember that I
was the one who gave you the Sabbath.”

If it is too difficult to retain the shift to third person speech (the Lord has given you) from
the first person pronoun in verse 28 (“my commandments and my laws”), the translator has
two options: a) change to the first person in verse 29 as 16.29 TEV has done, or b) make it
explicit that Moses repeated these words to the people. If option b) is followed, one may begin
this verse with “Moses told this to the people and continued, ‘See! The Lord has given you … .’
”

Therefore, literally “over thus that,” means “for that reason,” or “that is why” (16.29 TEV).
On the sixth day he gives you bread still uses the word for bread rather than “food” (see the
comment at verse 4). For two days is literally “days,” but the dual form is used, meaning two.
16.29 CEV translates “That’s why on the sixth day I provide enough bread for two days.”

Remain means to dwell, sit, or stay put. Every man of you in his place is literally “a man
underneath him.” 16.29 NRSV has improved over 16.29 RSV: “each of you stay where you are.”
Let no man go out of his place, literally “a man shall not go out from his place,” is a strong
prohibition. This applies only to the seventh day. So 16.29 TEV has “Everyone is to stay where
he is on the seventh day and not leave his home.” 16.29 CEV has “Everyone is to stay home and
rest on the Sabbath.” One may also say “Everyone is to stay home and do no work on the
Sabbath.”

16.30

The word for rested is shavath, from which the word “sabbath” is derived. It means to
cease, to stop working. It does not mean to take a rest because of being tired, as the verb in
20.11 implies. (See the comment there.) So TAN has “So the people remained inactive on the
seventh day,” and 16.30 TEV has “So the people did no work on the seventh day.” This verse
shows that the sabbath (shabbath) is related to the seventh day (shabi‘iy), not because it is
the same word, but because “sabbath” really means “day of no work.”

(4) The Memorial Manna (16.31–36)

Section Heading: the subheading, “The memorial manna,” will be difficult to translate in
many languages. Another possible headings is “Aaron dedicates some manna to the Lord.”

16.31

Now is the usual conjunction waw, and it is dropped in most translations. The house of
Israel is an unusual expression, but it still means “the people of Israel” (16.31 TEV), or “the
Israelites.” Called its name manna means that they “called the food manna” (16.31 TEV), or
they named it “manna.” The Hebrew is simply man, and so is the Greek in the Septuagint, but
in Num 11.6-7 of the Septuagint it is manna. This is the first use of the term, which sounds like
the question man hu’ (“What is it?”) in verse 15. (See the discussion there.)
 It was like coriander seed describes the size and shape of the manna, but not the color or
taste. Coriander was a small herbal plant that produced small brown seeds. White describes
the color of the manna. In areas where the coriander plant is unknown, one may express this
as 16.31 TEV does: “it was like a small white seed.” And the taste of it refers to the manna, not
the seed. Like wafers made with honey refers to flat biscuits or “thin cakes” (16.31 TEV)
sweetened with honey, or “honey-cakes” (TOT).

Honey may here refer to the sweet product of wild bees, but the Hebrew word devash
usually refers to a thick, sweet syrup made from dates or grapes, as in 3.8. In only a few places
does the word explicitly refer to the sweet food made by wild bees (Deut 32.13; Judges 14.8-9;
1 Sam 14.25; and Psa 81.16). In cultures where dates are unknown, but wild bees’ honey is
known, the term for this may be used. In certain languages this will be referred to as “bee
excretion,” “bee water,” or even “the sweet juice made by insects named ‘bee.’ ” However, in
cultures where date trees are common, there may be a term for this sweet syrup known to
Arabs as dibs, and this would be a preferable translation. The important idea to bring out here,
however, is that the honey was a thick, sweet syrup with which the people were familiar.

16.32

And Moses said introduces a quote that contains an embedded quote. We may assume
that he is speaking to the people. This (zeh) points forward to what follows. What the Lord has
commanded is literally “the word that Yahweh commanded.” Let an omer of it be kept is now
the words of Yahweh, but 16.32 TEV avoids an embedded quote by using indirect speech at the
second quote level. 16.32 CEV also avoids the embedded quote, but at the first level:

• Moses told the people that the Lord had said, “Store up … .”

Literally the Hebrew reads “fullness of the omer from it to be preserved.” The Septuagint
has “you [plural] fill” rather than the noun “fullness.” HOTTP argues for the Hebrew, but most
translations follow the Greek, since the meaning is obviously the same: “Fill an omer with it”
(JB), or “Store up two quarts of this manna” (CEV). For omer see the discussion at verse 16.

Throughout your generations, literally “for [or, to] your [plural] generations,” is the same
as in 12.14. This refers to all the “generations to come” (16.32 NIV), that is, “your descendants”
(NAB). TAN has “throughout the ages,” but it is better to retain the your, since it refers to all the
future Israelite descendants.

That they may see the bread refers to the future descendants, so TOT begins a new
sentence here: “Your descendants will then be able to see the food.” (See the comment on
“bread” at verse 4.) Which I fed you in the wilderness means “which I gave you to eat in the
wilderness” (TOT). (For wilderness see the discussion at 15.22.) When I brought you out of the
land of Egypt is literally “in my causing you [plural] to go out from the land of Egypt.”

16.33

HOTTP HEBREW OLD TESTAMENT TEXT PROJECT

 And Moses said to Aaron introduces instructions that Yahweh had evidently given to
Moses (see verse 34). It is possible to translate this as “Then Moses said to Aaron.” Take a jar,
literally “You [singular] take one container,” uses a word that is found only here, so it is not
certain what kind of container is meant. The Septuagint calls it a “golden vessel,” which was a
later tradition (see Heb 9.4), but most translations simply call it a “jar.” In some languages this
will be expressed with a generic term for “a container,” without having to state what kind of
container was used.

And put an omer of manna in it is literally “and place there a fullness of the omer of
manna.” JB has “put in it a full omer of manna,” and REB has “fill it with an omer of manna.”
(See the comment on omer at 16.16.) And place it before the Lord, literally “and cause it to
settle to the faces of Yahweh,” means to lay it aside, or “store it in Yahweh’s presence” (NJB).
The plural “faces” is the usual way of referring to “the Lord’s presence.” In a number of
languages this will be rendered as “before the face of Yahweh.” It is also possible that Before
the Lord may here mean “before the testimony” (verse 34), which seems to refer to the ark of
the covenant. However, this is not the preferred interpretation. (But see the comment on
“testimony” at verse 34.) To be kept throughout your generations is identical with the
expression in verse 32.

16.34

As the Lord commanded Moses indicates that Yahweh had earlier given this instruction to
Moses (verse 33). However, in some languages one may say “Aaron obeyed what the Lord had
commanded Moses, and … .” So Aaron placed it, literally “and Aaron caused it to settle,”
suggests that he “stored it” for safe keeping. The pronoun it refers to the jar or container in
verse 33.

Before the testimony is literally “before the reminder.” The word for testimony generally
refers to something spoken or written that serves as a witness or reminder of what God has
done or what God requires. In this verse and throughout Exodus, it refers to one of several
objects that were intended to be both a reminder and a witness to the terms of the covenant
established at Mount Sinai. The word is usually used along with two other terms, either “the
ark of the testimony” (25.22) or “the tables of the testimony” (31.18). (In 38.21 we even find
“the tabernacle of the testimony.”) When it appears alone the context must determine which
object it refers to. The use of testimony here, however, presents an additional problem.
According to chapters 25 and 26, neither the stone tablets nor the ark had as yet been made.
LB attempts to cover up the problem (“and eventually it was kept in the Ark in the
Tabernacle”), but this is not a faithful translation, because “eventually” is not in the text. 16.34
NRSV has changed testimony to “covenant,” but this is not any easier to translate. The context
makes it clear that testimony refers to some object, which was probably the “Covenant Box”
(16.34 TEV), “sacred chest” (16.34 CEV), or “the box that represents Yahweh’s agreement with
Israel.” A footnote may be added here explaining that the Hebrew word for testimony refers
to the ark of the covenant, which is described in 25.10–12.

To be kept repeats the word used in verses 32 and 33, but the word for “throughout your
generations” is omitted. REB, NAB and 16.34 CEV have “for safekeep ing,” and 16.34 TEV has “so
that it could be kept.”
16.35

This verse summarizes the tradition of the manna from the viewpoint of the Israelites after
they had settled in the promised land. It explains how Yahweh continued to provide the
manna throughout their wilderness wandering. The people of Israel is literally “the sons of
Israel.” Ate the manna forty years implies that this was the only food on which they survived.
The tradition of the quails, mentioned only in verse 13 and later in Num 11.31-34, suggests
that the quails came only occasionally, certainly not every day.

Till they came to a habitable land is literally “until they entered unto a land being dwelt
in.” Habitable land has also been translated as “a settled land” (TAN), “a cultivated land” (MFT),
and “a land where they could settle” (REB). 16.35 TEV has interpreted this to mean the land
“where they settled,” but the text allows for the possibility of a change of diet in any habitable
land they may have passed through before they finally settled in Canaan.

Theyate the manna simply repeats the first line, so 16.35 TEV has condensed the two lines
into one: “The Israelitesate manna for the next forty years.” Till they came to the border of
the land of Canaan is similar, if not parallel, to the first line and emphasizes the fact that it was
the manna that kept them alive.

16.36

This verse is an editorial comment intended to explain what an omer was, but it assumes
that the Hebrew reader (or hearer) knows what an ephah was. The word ‘omer occurs only in
this chapter in the Bible, which indicates that it was not widely known. 16.36 TEV avoids the
use of either term: “The standard dry measure then in use equaled twenty quarts.” (The British
edition of 16.36 TEV has “twenty litres.”) But even this is not much help to the reader. It is
better to say “An omer is one tenth of an ephah” (NAB) and then add a footnote explaining that
the ephah was the standard dry measure that equaled approximately twenty quarts. Placing
this verse in parentheses may help the reader to understand this as an editorial comment.
However, many translators will not have transliterated omer throughout this chapter, but will
have translated the meaning of the term; for example, “two quarts”; in that case one may
express this verse as “Two quarts is the tenth part of an ephah” and have a footnote explaining
what an ephah is. Another way to state verse 36 is to transliterate both terms as follows: “An
omer (two quarts) is one tenth of an ephah (twenty quarts).” 16.36 CEV actually removes this
verse from the text and places it in a footnote that states:

The Hebrew text adds: “An omer is one tenth of an ephah.”

But there is no textual support for removing this verse from the text, so this is not a
recommended option.

c. Water from the Rock (17.1–7)

There is another story in Num 20.1-13 that tells about Moses striking a rock to get water
for the people. Some scholars believe they actually record two different events, but others
suspect that these are simply two different traditions of one event. It is important to note the
similarities and differences in the two stories without allowing the interpretation of one to
influence the translation of the other. In translation they should be treated as two separate
accounts.

Section Heading: both 16.36 TEV and this Handbook have the heading “Water from the
rock.” 16.36 CEV has “The Lord gives water from a rock.” Another possible heading is “The Lord
causes water to flow from the rock.”

17.1

All the congregation of the people of Israel is the same expression used in 16.1 (see the
discussion there). Moved on, literally “they pulled up stakes,” means they broke camp and “set
out” (REB). (See 12.37.) For wilderness of Sin see the comment at 16.1. By stages is literally “to
[or, according to] their setting out.” This refers to the various places where they stopped along
their journey, so 17.1 TEV has “moving from one place to another,” and 17.1 NIV has “traveling
from place to place.” (The same word is used in Num 33.1-2.)

According to the commandment of the Lord is literally “upon the mouth of Yahweh.”
Other ways to express this are “at the command of the Lord,” or even “each time the Lord
ordered them to” (17.1 CEV). And camped at Rephidim identifies the place where this episode
took place. They had, of course, camped at other places along the way, since they had moved
by stages. Rephidim cannot be located with certainty, but 19.1 places it not far from Mount
Sinai.(See the map, page 11.) It was probably a wilderness oasis or stopping place where water
was usually found. Another way to translate this clause is “Finally they came to [a place called]
Rephidim.” But there was no water for the people to drink explains why the people again
complained, but there is no indication as to why there was no water. Since the text adds for
them to drink, we should allow for the possibility that there may indeed have been water
there, but that the Israelites were denied access to it for some reason not mentioned. It may
have been controlled at that time by the Amalekites, who fought with them there (verse 8).

17.2

Therefore is the usual conjunction waw. The people found fault with Moses uses the term
riv, which means to dispute, to quarrel with, or to conduct a lawsuit. The name “Meribah” in
verse 7 is based on this word riv. It is stronger than the word for “murmur” in 15.24, even
though 17.2 TEV uses “complained” for both. REB has “a dispute arose between them and
Moses.” 17.2 NIV has “So they quarreled with Moses.” And said introduces the demand of the
people in the course of their dispute. REB starts a new sentence here: “When they said …
Moses said.”

Give us water to drink is literally “You [plural] give to us water and we will drink.” A
number of ancient versions have the singular “you,” but HOTTP supports the MT with a {B}
rating, suggesting that the people were addressing either Moses and Yahweh, or Moses and

MT MASORETIC TEXT
Aaron. So in languages that need to use a pronoun here, the plural “you” should be employed;
for example, “You [Moses and Aaron] give us some water to drink.”

And Moses said to them introduces two questions that reveal Moses’ displeasure. In many
languages this clause will be rendered as “Moses answered” (17.2 TEV). Why do you find fault
with me has the same word (riv) used in the people’s demand. 17.2 TEV simply has “Why are
you complaining?” But the words with me indicate that the people were blaming Moses as
well as Yahweh. In the first question Moses rebukes them for arguing with him, and so this
question may be expressed as “Why are you arguing with me?” But in the second question he
rebukes them for “putting the Lord to the test” (17.2 TEV).

Why do you put the Lord to the proof is literally “Why do you test Yahweh?” The word
used here is nissah, which is the basis for the name “Massah” in verse 7. REB interprets this to
mean “Why do you challenge the Lord?” and TOT has “Why are you doubting the Lord’s
power?” Durham has “Why are you putting Yahweh on trial?” The same word is used in Deut
6.16, which was the basis for Jesus’ rebuke of the devil in Matt 4.7. Perhaps one may say
“Don’t try to make Yahweh prove himself by showing his power.”

17.3

But the people thirsted there for water seems to repeat what has already been said, and
some scholars believe this verse comes from a different tradition. But the present context
suggests that it is repeated for emphasis, so 17.3 TEV has “very thirsty.” REB has “The people
became so thirsty there that … ,” and NJB has “But tormented by thirst, the people
complained.” And the people murmured against Moses now uses the same Hebrew word for
“murmuring” as in 15.24. 17.3 NIV has “and they grumbled,” without repeating the people.
17.3 TEV combines the two clauses: “But the people were very thirsty and continued to
complain to Moses.”

And said introduces a rhetorical question similar to the questions in 14.11–12 and the
complaint in 16.3. Why, literally “For what this,” is an emphatic why, meaning “why indeed,”
but Durham translates it as “What is this?” Did you bring us up out of Egypt is literally “you
caused us to go up from Egypt.” The verb means to ascend from a lower level to a higher level,
as explained at 3.8. Most translations do not reflect this.

To kill us is literally “to cause me to die.” The singular pronoun is also used with “my
children” and “my cattle.” JB has followed the Hebrew closely: “Was it so that I should die,”
and so on. HOTTP supports this reading with an {A} rating, even though many ancient versions
have the plural us. Most translations, however, have used the plural for the sake of the
context. Our children is literally “my sons,” and our cattle is literally “my livestock.” (For cattle
see 9.3 and the comment.) 17.3 CEV has a helpful model for the final part of this verse: “Moses,
did you bring us out of Egypt just to let us and our families and our animals die of thirst?”

17.4

So Moses cried to the Lord means that he “prayed earnestly to the Lord” (17.4 TEV),
perhaps audibly. (See the same expression in 14.10.) Durham has “Moses then called out to
Yahweh for help,” and TOT has “Moses cried out in prayer.” The Hebrew also has “to say” (17.4
TEV “and said”), which 17.4 RSV omits. What shall I do with this people uses the singular this
because people is singular in form, but in some languages it is necessary to say “these people”
(17.4 TEV). This is a cry of despair, which NJB expresses as “How am I to deal with these
people?”

They are almost ready to stone me is literally “Yet a little and they will stone me.” Stoning
was a common means of execution, where the accusers threw stones at the accused until the
person died. So Durham has “A little more, and they will be stoning me to death!” One may
also say “They are about to throw stones at me to kill me.”

17.5

And the Lord said to Moses means that “The Lord answered” (REB, CEV), and it introduces
the following quote. Pass on before the people is literally “Go through [from one side to the
other] to the faces of the people.” It means “Go on ahead of the people” (17.5 TEV). Taking
with you some of the elders of Israel means “have some of the leaders accompany you
[singular].” Some of the elders of Israel is literally “from the elders of Israel.” They were the
senior tribesmen who were recognized as leaders by the people. (See also 18.12.) It will be
helpful in many languages to place the clause, taking with you some of the elders of Israel, at
the beginning of Yahweh’s answer; for example, “Take some of the leaders with you and go
ahead of the rest of the people” (17.5 CEV).

And take in your hand the rod may be stated as 17.5 TEV has done, “Take along the stick,”
since in your hand is understood. This was the rod or “staff” (17.5 NRSV) that Moses had used
since 4.2. It could have been a shepherd’s staff or simply a walking stick. With which you
struck the Nile is literally “which you struck by it the river,” meaning “which you used to strike
the Nile River.” The you is singular, suggesting a slight contradiction with 7.20, where Aaron
seems to have been the one. (See the comment there.) And go is literally “and you [singular]
will go.” In many languages it will be unnatural style to have the word go at this point. So it
may be placed more naturally in the previous sentence, “go ahead of the people,” as 17.5 TEV
and 17.5 CEV have done.

17.6

Behold, I will stand before you there is literally “Behold me standing to your face there.”
Behold is used here to strengthen what follows, so 17.6 NRSV has “I will be standing there in
front of you.” On the rock at Horeb may refer to a single boulder or to a large rocky area, but
here a specific rock is suggested by the definite article the, which 17.6 TEV changes to the
indefinite article “a,” as in “a rock.” Translators should try to keep the definite article if at all
possible, by using either the equivalent of the or a demonstrative such as “that”; for example,
“When you get to the [or, that] rock at Sinai, I will be standing on it.” 17.6 TEV and 17.6 CEV
change Horeb to “Mount Sinai,” since that is the more familiar name. (See 3.1 and comments.)
But 19.1–2 indicates that they had not yet reached Mount Sinai. This is a problem that cannot
be resolved in translation.
 And you shall strike the rock does not use the imperative mood in the Hebrew, but it may
be understood as an instruction, “Strike the rock” (17.6 TEV). JB has “You must strike the rock.”
One may also say “When you strike the rock” (so MFT). It is implied that Moses was to strike it
with his rod (see verse 5). In some languages it will be necessary to say “Strike the rock with
your stick,” or even “Use your stick to strike the rock.” And water will come out of it may be
expressed as “water will flow from it” (NAB). That the people may drink is literally “and the
people will drink,” but the idea is “in order that” or “for the people to drink” (TEV, CEV).

And Moses did so means that he followed all these instructions. In the sight of the elders
of Israel, literally “for the eyes of the elders of Israel,” means as 17.6 TEV translates, “in the
presence of the leaders of Israel.” One may also say “Moses did this while the leaders
watched” (17.6 CEV).

17.7

And he called the name of the place is the literal way of saying “He named the place”
(REB). 17.7 TEV and others use the passive voice (“The place was named”), but the text clearly
identifies Moses as the one who gave the names. So one may say “Moses named that place …
.” Massah and Meribah are two different names for the same place, probably coming from
two different traditions. (See the comments on these names at verse 2.) Since Massah means
“proof” (17.7 RSV) or “testing” (17.7 TEV), and Meribah means “contention” (17.7 RSV) or
“complaining” (17.7 TEV), it may be more natural to interchange the two names Meribah and
Massah in order to relate them in the same sequence to only one “because” clause, and say
“because the Israelites complained and put the Lord to the test.”

Because of the faultfinding brings out the meaning of Meribah, and because they put the
Lord to the proof brings out the meaning of Massah. It is possible to connect each clause to
the name of the place as follows: “He named the place Meribah because the Israelites
quarreled. He also named it Massah because they put Yahweh to the test by saying … .”

Is the Lord among us or not uses two words that mean “existence” (“is”) and
“nonexistence” (“is not”). The Lord, of course, is the sacred name yhwh, which suggests the
meaning “He who is” (see the comment at 3.2a), but this cannot easily be brought out in
translation. Among us is literally “in our midst” (REB). So one may say “Is Yahweh existent in
our midst or is he nonexistent?” This, of course, is a question that challenges Yahweh to prove
that he is with them.

It is possible to reorder the clauses in this verse as CEV has done:

• The people had complained and tested the Lord by asking, “Is the Lord really with us?” So
Moses named that place Massah, which means “testing” and Meribah, which means
“complaining.”

2. Warfare with the Amalekites (17.8–16)

After the three episodes that tell about the problem of “hunger and thirst” in the
wilderness, two other kinds of problems are mentioned, namely, warfare with a hostile desert
tribe and the increasing difficulty of organizing the Israelites for self-government. As
mentioned earlier, it is significant that all three kinds of problems are included in the story of
the “journey to Sinai.” They show the importance of establishing this new relationship
between Moses and the people before arriving at Mount Sinai.

The story of Israel’s battle with the Amalekites preserves an ancient tradition of enmity
between the descendants of Jacob and the descendants of Esau. Gen 36.15-16 identifies
Amalek as Esau’s grandson. The importance of this story is that it reveals another kind of
problem in the wilderness, namely, the constant threat of nomadic tribes. It represents the
problems threatening the Israelites from the outside in contrast to the internal problems of
finding food and water and becoming organized as a nation. Its place in the book of Exodus
also shows how the relationship between Moses and his people had to be worked out. The
people had to learn by experience that Yahweh would take care of his people, and that Moses
was the man whom he had chosen to lead them.

Section Heading: both 17.7 TEV and this Handbook have “Warfare with the Amalekites” as
the suggested heading. Other possible models are “The Amalekites are defeated” or “The
Israelites defeat the Amalekites.”

17.8

Then is the usual conjunction waw, but here it begins a new episode. Amalek was the
name of the ancestor of the Amalekites, used here to represent the entire tribe. (See the
introductory statement above.) In many languages this will be expressed as “people of
Amalek.” And fought with Israel is understood by 17.8 TEV, 17.8 CEV, and others to mean that
they “attacked the Israelites.” In languages that favor the passive voice, one may say “The
Israelites were attacked by the people of Amalek.” The decisive battle comes in the following
verses. There is no indication as to why they attacked them, but it is possible they fought over
access to the source of water. (See the comment at verse 1.) At Rephidim suggests that the
Amalekites may have been far from their original territory, which Gen 14.7 identifies as
Kadesh, in the northeast part of the Sinai peninsula. (See the map, page 11.)

17.9

And Moses said to Joshua shows Moses’ reaction to the attack, so NAB has “Moses,
therefore, said to Joshua.” One may also say “So Moses told Joshua” (17.9 CEV). This is the first
mention of Joshua, who was evidently the military leader under Moses’ command. Choose for
us men is literally “You [singular] select for us men.” Us of course includes Moses, Joshua, and
all the Israelites, and is therefore inclusive. JB has “Pick out men for yourself,” following the
Septuagint rather than the Hebrew text, but HOTTP favors the Hebrew reading with an {A}
rating. The idea is that they will “fight for us” (NEB). NJB omits for us altogether. (So also 17.9
TEV, 17.9 CEV and NAB.)

And go out is “you [singular] go out.” In some languages “go out” will be natural style.
However, in many other languages the equivalent of “go” will be sufficient. Fight with Amalek
uses the same verb as verse 8. Amalek really means “the Amalekites” (17.9 TEV) or “the people
of Amalek.” Tomorrow can refer either to the clause that precedes or the clause that follows,
 and 17.9 TEV has chosen the former: “fight the Amalekites tomorrow.” (So also 17.9 CEV, NAB,
NJB, and REB.) This allows Joshua some time to select his men. But the punctuation in the
Hebrew favors the other interpretation: tomorrow I will stand. (So also 17.9 NRSV, TAN, and
17.9 NIV.) This may suggest that Joshua was to start fighting immediately, and Moses would
wait until the next day to go out. However, given the order of events in verse 10, it seems that
Joshua and his men attacked the Amalekites while Moses, Aaron, and Hur were ascending the
hill on the following day (see verse 10 and the discussion). It is probably best to follow 17.9
TEV, with the understanding that Moses is saying “Pick out some men” now, and then “go and
fight” tomorrow.
233

I will stand on top of the hill uses the emphatic I, so NJB has “I, for my part, shall take my
stand on the hilltop.” I will stand may also mean “I will station myself” (TAN). (See 2.4 for the
same verb.) The hill, with the definite article, suggests a definite hill overlooking the valley
where the fighting would take place. With the rod of God in my hand uses the same
expression as 4.20. 17.9 TEV expresses it as “the stick that God told me to carry.” 17.9 CEV
chooses another option and says “holding this walking stick that has the power of God.” (See
the comment on the problem of the rod of God at 4.20.)

Alternative translation models for this verse are:

• So Moses ordered Joshua, “Pick out some men for us [inclusive] to attack the people of Amalek
tomorrow. I will stand on top of the hill, holding in my hand the stick that God told me to
carry.”

• So Moses told Joshua, “Pick some men to go out and attack the Amale kites. Tomorrow I will
stand on top of the hill, holding the stick that has the power of God.”

17.10

So Joshua did as Moses told him may be understood as “as Moses com manded him”
(17.10 TEV). NEB has “Joshua carried out his orders.” And fought with Amalek is literally “to
fight with Amalek,” so it is still not clear by this whether Joshua started fighting the Amalekites
as soon as he selected the men or whether he waited until “tomorrow” (verse 9). The infinitive
“to fight” may also be understood as and fought, so 17.10 TEV adds “and he went out to fight”

233Osborn, N. D., & Hatton, H. (1999). A handbook on Exodus. UBS handbook series; Helps for
translators (380). New York: United Bible Societies.

NJB NEW JERUSALEM BIBLE

TAN TANAKH (NEW JEWISH VERSION)

TEV Today’s English Version

CEV Contemporary English Version

NEB NEW ENGLISH BIBLE

 (as in the Septuagint) in order to make clear that Joshua was also following Moses’ orders
concerning when to start the attack. The rest of the verse seems to confirm that the orders
were to wait until the next day to begin the fighting.

And Moses, Aaron, and Hur went up introduces Hur for the first time, as though he was
well known. He was evidently another assistant to Moses. (See 24.14.) 17.10 TEV and 17.10 CEV
are probably correct in interpreting the and to mean “while,” suggesting that Joshua and the
fighting men did not go out until Moses went up. NAB even has “after Moses had climbed the
hill,” but this is not clearly implied. It is safe to assume, though, that the fighting did not start
until the following day (“tomorrow” in verse 9), and that Moses and his companions went up
the hill at the same time that Joshua and his men went out to fight.

A suggested model for this verse is the following:

• Joshua did exactly what Moses told him to do. The next day he and the men he had chosen
went out to fight the Amalekites. At the same time Moses, Aaron, and Hur went up to the top
of the hill.

17.11

Whenever Moses held up his hand may be understood as “As long as Moses held up his
arms” (17.11 TEV). The word for hand may also mean “forearm,” but probably Moses raised his
entire “arms” (17.11 TEV) in order to be seen by the Israelites in the valley below. Hand,
however, is singular in the Hebrew, but the following verse uses the plural. Most translations
now use the plural here as well.

Israel prevailed means that “the Israelites won” (17.11 TEV), or better, “were winning”
(17.11 NIV). The word means to excel or to accomplish something. REB has “Israel had the
advantage,” and 17.11 CEV has “The Israelites out-fought the Amalekites as long as Moses held
up his arms.” Whenever he lowered his hand uses a verb that means to settle or take a rest.
Amalek prevailed means that “the Amalekites started winning” (17.11 TEV), or “were winning”
(17.11 NIV). Here again, REB has “the advantage passed to Amalek.”

It should be noted that Moses’ upraised arms do not indicate an attitude of prayer, as
suggested by later Jewish and Christian interpreters. Rather, the upraised hand indicated
power, so this posture was a sign of Yahweh’s power being channeled through Moses to the
Israelites as they fought. The translation should therefore not suggest that Moses was praying.

17.12

But Moses’ hands grew weary is literally “And the hands of Moses [were] heavy,” which
means, as 17.12 TEV translates, that “Moses’ arms grew tired.” So they took a stone refers to

NAB NEW AMERICAN BIBLE

NIV NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION

REB REVISED ENGLISH BIBLE

Aaron and Hur, and these names should be advanced from their present position in the verse.
The stone here is smaller than the large rock or boulder mentioned in verse 6, but it was large
enough to sit on. And put it under him suggests that they moved it to where Moses had been
standing. And he sat upon it indicates that the stone was the proper size for sitting. These
three short clauses may be combined: “Aaron and Hur brought a stone for him to sit on”
(17.12 TEV).

And Aaron and Hur should be changed to “they” if these names are advanced to they took
a stone. Held up his hands is literally “they took hold of his hands.” This really means “they
supported his hands” (TAN, NAB), or better “his arms” (17.12 TEV). One on one side, and the
other on the other side is literally “one from this and one from that.” TOT makes it quite clear:
“Then, standing on either side of him, they each held up one of his hands.”

So his hands were steady, literally “and it was [that] his hands were firmness,” means
“holding them steady” (17.12 TEV), or “supported his arms in the same position” (17.12 CEV).
TOT has “In this way his hands remained firmly raised.” Until the going down of the sun is quite
literal. It is more natural to say “until the sun went down” (17.12 TEV), or “until the sun set”
(17.12 NRSV).

17.13

And Joshua mowed down Amalek translates a word that means to cause to become weak
or even prostrate, that is, lying flat on the ground. NAB also has “mowed down,” and JB has “cut
down,” since the sword is also mentioned. TAN uses “overwhelmed,” but others simply use
“defeated” (17.13 NRSV, 17.13 NIV, REB). 17.13 TEV strengthens it a bit with “totally defeated.”
This should not be understood as complete annihilation, for some of them evidently survived.

Amalek and his people again simply means “the Amalekites,” or “people of Amalek,” since
Amalek was the ancestor of this tribe. With the edge of the sword, literally “to the mouth of
the sword,” is intended to be descriptive and emphatic. The people normally fought with
swords, so it is not necessary to retain the expression. TOT has “killing them mercilessly,” but
this may be assuming too much. The idea is that it was a total victory for the Israelites: “In this
way Joshua totally defeated the Amalekites” (17.13 TEV).

17.14

And the Lord said to Moses introduces what Yahweh instructed Moses to do after the
battle. “Then” (17.14 TEV) is a better way to begin the paragraph. It is also possible to say
“Afterwards,” (17.14 CEV) or even “After the battle.” Write this (“you” is singular) does not
clearly indicate whether this points to what precedes or to what follows. Does it refer to “an
account of this victory,” as 17.14 TEV expresses it, or to what Yahweh promises to do in the

TOT TRANSLATOR’S OLD TESTAMENT

NRSV New Revised Standard Version

JB JERUSALEM BIBLE
 future? Or does it refer to both? Most translations, including now 17.14 NRSV, interpret it as
pointing to what follows, and place a colon after Joshua to introduce Yahweh’s words as a
direct quotation. It should be remembered, however, that punctuation marks such as the
colon are not read aloud. Probably the instruction to write this refers both to “an account of
this victory” (17.14 TEV) and to a record of what Yahweh promises to do to the Amalekites, and
so translators are urged to make this explicit.

As a memorial is just one word, meaning an official record or “a reminder” (17.14 NRSV).
17.14 TEV translates “so that it will be remembered,” and TOT has “so that they [these words]
will not be forgotten.” In a book is the word for any writing, document, or scroll. In many
languages something like “Write down what I am going to do” will be a possible rendering.
And recite it in the ears of Joshua is literally “and you [singular] place [or, fix] in the ears of
Joshua.” The it is missing but clearly implied. TAN has “read it aloud to Joshua.” This is better
than simply “tell Joshua” (17.14 TEV). In some languages this will be expressed as “Read it for
Joshua to hear.”

The word for that may mean “because” or “for” (NJB), but it often introduces a direct
quotation, indicated by the colon in many translations. I will utterly blot out, literally “wiping I
will wipe [out],” is very emphatic. So NAB and 17.14 NIV have “I will completely blot out.” In a
number of languages this will be rendered as “wipe from the earth.” The remembrance of
Amalek uses a word that suggests remembering the Amalekites by name. (The same word is
used for remembering the name Yahweh in 3.15.) From under heaven simply adds to the
emphatic statement. TOT puts this all together in a dynamic way: “I will destroy the Amalekites
so completely that nobody on earth will ever remember them.”

An alternative translation model for this verse is:

• Afterward the Lord said to Moses, “Write an account of this victory and include this promise,
that I will destroy the people of Amalek so completely that nobody on earth will ever
remember them. Then read it aloud for Joshua to hear.”

17.15

And Moses built an altar means that he constructed a place for offering an animal
sacrifice. The altar here was probably made of stone, although in 20.24 it was to be made of
earth, and in 27.1 it was to be constructed of wood. Many cultures today have similar elevated
structures for sacrificing animals or for offering gifts to a deity. Sometimes this is a stone or
wood platform or table. Such terms may be used here if it is clear that this altar is dedicated to
God. However, some translators in cultures where altars are unknown will express this as “A
place [or, platform] for sacrificing animals.”

And called the name of it simply means “and named it” (17.15 TEV). The Lord is my banner
in the Hebrew is yahweh nissiy, which some translations have simply transliterated as
“Yahweh-nissi” (NAB, NJB, TOT). (TAN has “Adonai-nissi.”) If this form is used, then a footnote
should explain that it means “The Lord is my banner.” The word for banner refers to
something that is elevated, lifted high, so people can see it or see what it holds up. Thus it may
be the “pole” holding up the bronze serpent (Num 21.8), or it may be some kind of symbol,
 sign, or flag around which soldiers will gather and prepare for battle (as in Jer 51.12, 27). 17.15
CEV does not translate banner but replaces it with what the banner represents, namely
“Victory”; thus the whole verse in 17.15 CEV reads “Moses built an altar and named it ‘The Lord
Gives Me Victory.’ ”

17.16

Saying introduces what Moses said. A hand upon the banner of the Lord is not clear in the
Hebrew, as the 17.16 RSV and 17.16 TEV footnotes indicate. The problem is a two-letter word
that appears to mean “throne” rather than banner, so some translations have “throne of the
Lord” (TAN, NIV). (The word for Lord here is yah, a shortened form of yhwh, as in 15.2.) But
17.16 RSV and 17.16 TEV, along with many others, assume that the word for banner has been
misspelled. If this reading is followed, then the meaning is probably a call to arms, as 17.16 TEV
expresses it: “Hold high the banner of the Lord.” NJB has “Lay hold of Yahweh’s banner!” But
NAB has “The Lord takes in hand his banner.”

With a rating of {B} HOTTP prefers reading the Hebrew as “throne” and recommends
translating the clause as “for a hand has been raised against the throne of the Lord.” This
suggests that Amalek’s hand had been raised in challenge against Yahweh’s throne. NIV’s
rendering, “For hands were lifted up to the throne of the Lord,” suggests that it was Moses’
hands that were lifted up to the Lord in prayer. Despite HOTTP’s preference, however, it is
better to follow RSV and TEV and read the word as banner, since this relates the verse more
smoothly to verse 15.

NEB and REB give this text a different meaning, which may be derived from either reading:
“My oath upon it.” The word “it” may refer either to the “altar” (verse 15) or to the banner.
Then the following words are considered to be the actual words of the oath. TOT follow this
interpretation by having Moses say “I swear that the Lord … .” Regardless of which
interpretation is followed in translation, a brief footnote is recommended explaining that the
Hebrew is not clear. If translators follow this interpretation, a possible model is:

• He said, “I swear [or, strongly promise] that the Lord will continue to fight … .”

The Lord will have war with Amalek from generation to generation is literally “war for
Yahweh against Amalek from generation [to] generation.” 17.16 TEV is more dynamic: “The
Lord will continue to fight against the Amalekites forever!”

3. A lesson in Administration (18.1–27)

a. The visit of Jethro (18.1–12)

RSV Revised Standard Version

HOTTP HEBREW OLD TESTAMENT TEXT PROJECT

 The third kind of problem the Israelites faced as they made their way to Mount Sinai was
the need for social organization and administration. As a huge crowd of former slaves, they
were held together only by the fact that they had been freed from slavery by their own God,
Yahweh, and they were now at the mercy of one man, Moses, whom they were not sure they
could trust.

This was even more of a problem for Moses, who was almost overwhelmed by the
responsibility of turning this motley crowd into a community of people who could live together
in peace and harmony. Of course they had to learn to trust Moses as Yahweh’s servant. But
Moses also had to learn that he could not handle everything by himself. He needed to trust the
people and turn over to them some of the responsibility.

Chapter 18 tells the story of how Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law, gave Moses some fatherly
advice on how to delegate responsibility in leadership, and how it came just at the right time.
In some respects it seems out of place here, for it already places the people at the “mountain
of God” (18.5), even though, according to 19.1–2, they had not yet reached Sinai. Furthermore,
it suggests that Moses had already received the laws and statutes from Yahweh and was trying
to settle the people’s disputes with one another on that basis.

Even with these technical problems, however, the chapter serves a special function in the
structure of the book. First of all, it shows how a working relationship between Moses and the
people had to be reached before an effective relationship between the people and Yahweh
could be achieved. Secondly, it shows how Moses was reunited with his family before having
to give full attention to the establishment of law and order.

Finally, it shows how two lines of descendants from Abraham, through the Israelites and
the Midianites, were reunited before the special revelation of Yahweh on the mountain. The
Israelites were Abraham’s descendants through his first wife, Sarah, and the Midianites were
his descendants through his second wife, Keturah. (See Gen 25.1-2.) And Moses’ wife,
Zipporah, was a descendant of Keturah. This reunion is sealed with the special covenant
described in verse 12.

General Heading: translators who are following the Handbook’s outline will need the
general heading “A lesson in administration” (18.1–27), which may also be rendered as“Jethro
shows Moses how to administer justice” or “… how to judge the people properly.”

Section Heading: 17.16 TEV’s heading, “Jethro Visits Moses,” may be easier to follow than
“The visit of Jethro.” However, some translators may need to show that Jethro was Moses’
father-in-law. In that case one may say “Moses’ Father- in-law Jethro visits Moses” or “Jethro,
Moses’ father-in-law, visits him.”

18.1

Jethro, first mentioned in 3.1, is the same man as Reuel, mentioned in . The priest of
Midian identifies him as a religious leader of the Midianites. (See 2.16.) Moses’ father-in-law
identifies him as the one whom Moses would have to respect through family ties. Father-in-
law is a term related to the word for “circumcise,” as explained at 4.25. It is used eleven times
in this chapter, which seems unnatural even in the Hebrew. We cannot be certain why it is
 used repeatedly, but it need not be repeated after this first instance in translation, if it seems
unnatural to do so. (But see the comment at verse 12.)

Heard of all that God had done does not indicate just how Jethro learned of this. God is
the word ’elohim, which is used twelve times in this chapter. This term should be carefully
distinguished from the name Yahweh (Lord), which is used here only six times. Had done is
simply “did” in the Hebrew, meaning to make, produce, or perform. This refers to all the
plagues as well as to the miraculous crossing at the Red Sea. For Moses and for Israel, his
people refers to the Israelites as Yahweh’s people, and translators should make this explicit.

How the Lord now switches from ’elohim to Yahweh, but this should not suggest that
Jethro is speaking of two different deities. 18.1 TEV omits Lord in favor of God in order to avoid
such a misunderstanding. 18.1 CEV combines the two terms as follows: “And he heard what the
Lord God had done for Moses and his people, after rescuing them from Egypt.” If translators
choose to follow CEV’s model, “the Lord God” may also be rendered as “the Lord who is God,”
or even “Yahweh who is God.” Had brought Israel out of Egypt is literally “that Yahweh [was]
the one who caused to go out the Israelites from Egypt.”

18.2

Verses 2–4 give background information about Moses’ family in order to fill in the gap
from the last mention of them in 4.26. (TOT places all three verses in parentheses.) They have
usually been understood as a flashback, which is an account of events that had taken place
earlier. But the main verb, had taken, is literally “and he took,” and it may be understood in
two different ways:

RSV interprets “and he took” as a pluperfect. This means that Jethro, her father, “had received
her” (REB), or “had taken her back into his home” (TOT) after Moses had sent her away. See
also 18.2 NRSV (“took her back”), 18.2 NIV (“received her”).

TEV, however, interprets “and he took” as a simple past, meaning that Jethro was now
“bringing” her to see Moses. See also JB (“brought”), Childs (“took”), and NAB (“took along”).
The verse is then easily rendered as “So he came to Moses, bringing with him Moses’ wife”
(18.2 TEV). But note that 18.2 TEV has borrowed the verb “he came” from verse 5, and still uses
parentheses for verses 3b and 4. NAB simply has “So his father-in-law Jethro took along
Zipporah.”

After he had sent her away is literally “after her dismissal.” JB has “after she had been
dismissed.” This needs to be expressed in the English pluperfect, for it indicates that Moses
had evidently sent Zipporah and their sons back home after their experience at the lodging
place in 4.24–26. He may have done this out of concern for their safety, or in order to be freed
from family responsibilities.

Alternative translation models for this verse are:

(a) with parentheses:

• (Moses had sent his wife Zipporah to stay with Jethro, who welcomed [or, received] her … .)
 (b) without parentheses:

• So Jethro came to Moses bringing with him Moses’ wife Zipporah, whom Moses had left
behind.

18.3

And her two sons agrees with the plural “sons” in 4.20. Note that the text uses her instead
of “his,” but this should not suggest they were not Moses’ sons. (see verse 5.) Of whom the
name of the one was Gershom is awkward to handle in one sentence along with the name of
the other son. It is better to place a full stop after her two sons and then explain their names
along with the meaning. Gershom was the older of the two. (See 2.22.) In some languages it
will be helpful to begin a new sentence here; for example, “He also brought Gershom and
Eliezer … .”

For he said is placed in parenthesis in 18.3 RSV, since it introduces a flashback within a
flashback. He refers to Moses, who had named him Gershom, literally “an alien there.” (See
the discussion at 2.22.) Note that 18.3 TEV restructures verses 3 and 4 in order to combine the
explanation of the two names in one parenthetical statement.

18.4

And the name of the other refers to the younger son, Eliezer. Literally the name means
“My God is help,” but the explanation is expanded. For he said again refers to Moses, who had
evidently named the second son as well. He said is not repeated in the Hebrew. The God of my
father is Moses speaking. Note that father is singular. (See 3.6 and comment.) Was my help,
literally “as my help,” may be rendered as “is my helper” (NAB). This allows for Moses to have
given the name before he returned to Egypt. 18.4 TEV has “The God of my father helped me.”
The God of my father may also be rendered as “the God whom my father worshiped.”

And delivered me, literally “and he caused me to be rescued,” continues what Moses said
when he named the second son. From the sword of Pharaoh is simply a descriptive way of
saying “from being killed by the king of Egypt” (18.4 TEV). An alternative model is “who saved
me from the king of Egypt, who intended to kill me.” This is the end of the flashback that
began with verse 2.

By interpreting verses 2–4 as a flashback (see comment at verse 2), it is possible to

restructure them with or without parentheses, in a way similar to that of CEV, as follows:

• 2–4 In the meantime Moses had sent his wife Zipporah and her two sons to stay with Jethro,
who welcomed them. Moses was still a foreigner in Midian when his first son was born, and so
Moses said, “I will name him Gershom.” When his second son was born, Moses said, “I will
name him Eliezer, because the God my father worshiped has saved me from the King of Egypt,
who planned to kill me.

18.5

And Jethro brings the story back to the present after the background information in verses
2–4. Moses’ father-in-law need not be repeated in translation if it seems unnatural (see verse
 1 and comment on father-in-law). Came with his sons refers to Moses’ sons, not Jethro’s.
Note that the pronoun is his rather than “her,” as in verses 3 and 6. In languages using one
pronoun for both masculine and feminine, however, this distinction need not be made explicit
if it sounds unnatural and distracts from the flow of the story. And his wife refers to Moses’
wife, Zipporah. Note that 18.5 TEV places his wife before his sons for more natural English
style. (So also JB and NAB.)

Came … to Moses in the wilderness is literally “and he entered … unto the wilderness.”
(See the discussion on wilderness at 15.22.) Where he was encamped means “where his camp
was” (JB), including of course all the Israelites. It is also possible to say “where he was staying,”
since the place of habitation rather than the tent is in focus. At the mountain of God is literally
“the mountain of ’elohim,” which is identified in 3.1 as Horeb. The Hebrew has no preposition
here, so AT must be supplied. This may suggest that the Israelites were already at Mount Sinai,
although they did not even reach “the wilderness of Sinai” until 19.1–2. NAB and 18.5 NIV have
“near the mountain of God,” and 18.5 CEV has “near Mount Sinai,” but this suggests more than
the text allows. This is another case of two different traditions being joined together without
smoothing out the seam. Translators, of course, will have to choose either AT or “near.” 18.5
TEV translates “at the holy mountain.” (See the comment on mountain of God at 3.1.)

18.6

And when one told Moses is literally “And he said unto Moses,” meaning Jethro said. But
this is awkward, for Moses and Jethro do not see each other until verse 7. This problem is
related to the following word, Lo, which is really I in the Hebrew. (See the footnote in 18.6
RSV.) So the Hebrew has Jethro speaking directly to Moses and saying “I am coming” even
before they meet. 18.6 RSV therefore follows the Septuagint, which has “It was reported to
Moses, ‘Lo, your father-in- law is coming.’ ”

If one follows the Hebrew and interprets “And he said” to mean “And he sent word,” then
no footnote is needed. So NRSV now has “He sent word to Moses, ‘I, your father-in-law Jethro,
am coming to you.’ ” CEV has “Jethro sent Moses this message, “I am coming to visit you, … .”
TEV avoids this problem entirely by condensing the verse and using the pluperfect: “He had
sent word to Moses that they were coming.”

Lo, your father-in-law Jethro is coming to you should therefore be read as in 18.6 NRSV,
changing Lo to “I,” and changing is to “am.” (Similar also are TAN, NAB, and 18.6 NIV.) With your
wife and her two sons with her presents no problem, but the pronoun her should be noted, as
in verse 3. (See “his sons” and the comment at verse 5.)

It is possible to combine verses 5 and 6 as follows:

• 5–6 While Moses was staying in the wilderness at [or, by] the holy mountain [or, God’s
mountain], Jethro sent someone to him with this message: “I am coming to visit you, and I am
bringing your wife and her two sons.” When they arrived, 7 …

18.7
 Moses went out to meet his father-in-law uses a verb meaning to come to someone,
often used in the context of war. TOT has “to welcome,” and NJB has “to greet.” In certain
languages this will be expressed as “Moses went out to say ‘Welcome’ to him.” And he did
obeisance means that Moses knelt down and probably touched his face to the ground. This
was a common form of greeting that showed respect for and elder or a superior. And kissed
him means that Moses probably touched Jethro’s cheek with his lips. See the comment on
kissing at 4.27.) Moses probably prostrated himself before Jethro first of all and then have got
back on his feet in order to kiss him. In languages where this must be made explicit, one may
say, for example, “He prostrated himself before Jethro and then rose to his feet [or, stood up]
and kissed him.”

And they asked each other of their welfare is literally “and they asked a man to his fellow
concerning well-being.” The word for welfare is shalom, which is often translated as “peace,”
but its basic meaning is wholeness or health. It was used as a greeting in meeting or parting
from someone. (See also 4.18.) The context here suggests that this was more than simply
exchanging greetings, as sometimes understood (TOT, NAB, REB). It was more likely as 18.7 TEV
expresses it, “They asked about each other’s health.” NJB has “when each had asked how the
other was.” In certain languages this will be in direct speech; for example, “They asked each
other, ‘How is your health?’ ” or “… ‘Are you well?’ ”

And went into the tent uses the definite article, but without a possessive pronoun. This
may be understood as “Moses’ tent” (18.7 TEV), since each family had their own tents. This
should not be understood as the “tent of meeting” in 33.7.

18.8

Then Moses told uses a verb that means to count, or to report in detail, so TAN has
“recounted.” His father-in-law is used without the name, but it may be more natural just to
say “Jethro” (18.8 CEV simply uses the pronoun “he”). All that the Lord had done refers to
Yahweh by name, rather than to ’elohim (God). The response of Jethro in verse 10 shows that
the God named Yahweh is singled out from all other gods. To Pharaoh and to the Egyptians
means, as 18.8 TEV renders it, “to the king and the people of Egypt.” For Israel’s sake is literally
“on account of Israel.” 18.8 CEV has “to protect Israel,” and 18.8 TEV says, “in order to rescue
the Israelites.”

All the hardships that had come upon them in the way is literally “all the trouble that they
happened to meet in the way.” 18.8 TEV has “the hardships the people had faced on the way,”
and NAB has “all the hardships they had had to endure on their journey.” And how the Lord
had delivered them is literally “and Yahweh rescued them.” Here again the name Yahweh is in
focus. 18.8 CEV reorders the clauses and translates “He also told him how the Lord had helped
them in all of their troubles.”

18.9

And Jethro rejoiced means that “he was happy” (18.9 TEV), or “delighted” (NJB). For all the
good, literally “over all the good,” means goodness, or good things, or good deeds. Which the
Lord had done to Israel, literally “which Yahweh did for Israel,” refers to the events Moses had
mentioned in verse 8. Again, the name Yahweh is in focus. In that he had delivered them uses
the same word as verse 8. Out of the hand of the Egyptians means “from the power of the
Egyptians” (Durham). NJB has “from the clutches of the Egyptians.”

TEV has reduced this verse to just eight words, but nothing seems to have been left out
from the context. CEV’s model is slightly longer, including the phrase all the good, which is
translated as “good news”: “Jethro was so pleased to hear this good news about what the Lord
had done.” The translator will have to determine whether the repeated words and phrases in
the Hebrew seem natural or unnatural in the receptor language.

18.10

And Jethro said introduces a direct quote that continues through verse 11. It is addressed
to Moses, but in the second person plural. Blessed be the Lord is literally “Yahweh is blessed,”
but when people “bless” God, it is in terms of praise. So 18.10 NIV has “Praise be to the Lord.”
18.10 TEV and CEV’s “Praise the Lord” is identical with the contemporary Christian expression
and misses the signifi cance that Jethro is praising Yahweh. There are a variety of ways that
this formula may be rendered; for example, “Yahweh should receive praise,” “I will praise
Yahweh,” “It is only right that I should praise Yahweh,” or “I want to say that Yahweh is great
[or, wonderful].”

Who has delivered you uses the same word as verses 8 and 9. The you is plural, indicating
that Moses and all the Israelites are included. Out of the hand of the Egyptians means “from
the power of Egypt” (REB), or simply “from … the people of Egypt” (18.10 TEV). And out of the
hand of Pharaoh means “from the power of the Pharaoh,” or “from the king … of Egypt”
(18.10 TEV). In some languages it will be helpful to start a new sentence here: “He rescued you
and the Israelites from … .”

Note that some translations (NIV, TAN, and others) have an additional clause in verse 10,
which is actually in the Hebrew. TAN renders it as “and who delivered the people from under
the hand of the Egyptians.” This repeats what is said in the first part of the verse. The
Septuagint omits this final clause, and HOTTP supports the Greek over the Hebrew. RSV and
NRSV, however, transfer it to verse 11. (So also NAB, REB, and others.) But TEV seems to retain it
with a repeated “Praise the Lord,” followed by “who saved his people from slavery.” This
problem is discussed with the next verse.

18.11

Now I know means “At the present moment I know.” It may also be expressed as “Now I
am convinced that” or “At last I am convinced that.” That the Lord is greater than all gods
assumes that other gods exist. The translator should avoid using a term that means false gods,
for Yahweh is here recognized as greater or more powerful than all the various gods that were
believed to exist in the ancient world. This weakens the confession to the point of comparing
the true God to harmless idols. To avoid this problem one may translate “Now I know [or, am
convinced] that Yahweh is greater than all those gods that people worship.”

Because he delivered the people is really taken from the end of verse 10 in the Hebrew
text, as the 18.11 RSV footnote indicates. It is inserted here for two reasons: a) it seems
 redundant in verse 10, since it repeats the earlier clause in the same verse, changing only the
plural “you” to the people; and b) it helps to resolve a problem of syntax here in verse 11.
From under the hand of the Egyptians is the rest of the clause transferred from verse 10. As
mentioned in verse 10, the hand of the Egyptians means “the power of the Egyptians.”
Translators are at liberty to follow 18.11 RSV or to place this clause at the end of verse 10, as in
18.11 TEV. See the alternative translation models below.

When they dealt arrogantly with them is literally “because [or, when] in the thing [davar]
which they were arrogant against them.” It is difficult to understand the intended meaning
here, especially since they, without the inserted clause from verse 10, would refer to the gods
in the opening clause. But with the inserted clause, they clearly refers to the Egyptians. Every
translation has made some adjustment in order to make sense out of this final clause.
Arrogant describes someone who is “haughty,” “contemptuous” toward other people, or
“looks down on” them.

TEV does not really transfer the clause from verse 10, but adds the words “because he did
this,” and then changes they to “the Egyptians” and them to “the Israelites.” The clause then
reads “because he did this when the Egyptians treated the Israelites with such contempt.” This
gives the verse the same meaning as 18.11 RSV. So the translator is safe in following either
model. However, one may expand 18.11 TEV’s translation slightly and say “because he rescued
the Israelites when the Egyptians treated them with such contempt.” And the whole verse may
be translated as follows: “Now I know that Yahweh is greater than all those other gods,
because he rescued the Israelites from their arrogant Egyptian enemies.”

Alternative translation models for verses 10 and 11 are:

• 10 Then he said, “I want to say that Yahweh is great! He rescued you and the Israelites from
the Egyptians and their king. He saved you from the power of the Egyptians. 11 Now I know
that Yahweh is greater than all those gods that people worship, because he saved his people
when the Egyptians treated them with such contempt.

• 10 Then he said, “I want to tell Yahweh how wonderful he is! He rescued you and the Israelites
from the Egyptians and their king. 11 At last I am convinced that Yahweh is greater than all
other gods, because he rescued the Israelites from the power of their arrogant Egyptian
enemies.

18.12

And Jethro may be understood as “Then Jethro” (18.12 TEV), since his action follows
naturally from his confession in verses 10–11. Moses’ father-in-law is omitted by 18.12 TEV as
unnecessary, but here it is good to include it once again (see the comment at verse 1). This is
because verse 12 not only describes a union of families in worshiping God, but also suggests a
kind of reunion of tribes, since the Midianites and Israelites were all descended from one
ancestor, Abraham (see Gen 25.1-2). Offered is the word used in some ancient versions, but
this is not what the Hebrew says. (See the 18.12 RSV footnote.) The Hebrew word is “took,”
which allows for the interpretation that Jethro may only have provided the animal, which
Moses then offered as a burnt offering. (HOTTP gives the Hebrew an {A} rating.) 18.12 TEV and
others have interpreted “took” as “brought.” So it is better to follow 18.12 TEV and 18.12 NRSV.
The text therefore does not indicate who actually offered the sacrifice, and it still could have
been Jethro himself.

The burnt offering was an animal completely burned on an altar. In some languages one
will need to say “Then Jethro brought an animal to have it burned whole on the altar” or “… to
have them burn it whole on the altar.” (Leviticus 1 describes such offerings.) Since Jethro had
sheep and goats (according to 2.16 and 3.1), it may have been either. The sacrifices were
probably other animals partly burned on the altar and partly eaten by the worshipers. The text
says that they were offered to God (’elohim), and this is how it should be translated.

And Aaron came with all the elders of Israel indicates that these men were representing
all the Israelites in the ceremony. (See the comment on elders of Israel at 17.5.) To eat bread
refers to the entire “sacred meal” (18.12 TEV) that would have included the meat from the
sacrifices. With Moses’ father-in-law means, of course, that they “shared the meal with
Jethro” (REB).

Moses is not mentioned as a participant, but we should assume that he was included. It is
possible that this meal was the ritual celebration of the reunion of the Israelites with the
Midianites. (See the introduction to this chapter.) Before God is literally “to the face of
’elohim,” a clear indication that this was indeed a sacred meal. In some languages this will be
expressed as “before the face of God.”

b. Jethro’s Advice (18.13–23)

This section has a parallel account in Deut 1.9-18, where Moses reminds the people of this
event before they cross the Jordan River into the promised land. Surprisingly Jethro is not
mentioned at all in that passage and is therefore given no credit for his helpful advice in this
chapter. There are other differences as well as some similarities that the translator should
note, but there should be no attempt to harmonize the two accounts.

Section Heading: 18.12 TEV has the heading “The Appointment of Judges” for verse 13–27,
and this may also be expressed as “Moses appoints judges” or “Moses appoints people to
decide disputes.” This Handbook’s heading, “Jethro’s advice,” covers only verses 13–23. Other
ways to express this are “Jethro advises Moses” or “Jethro advises Moses to appoint judges.”
Translators may choose between 18.12 TEV’s longer section or the Handbook’s shorter one.

18.13

On the morrow, literally “From the following day,” means the day after the sacred meal in
verse 12. Some translators may wish to connect this section more clearly with the preceding
one, so one may say, for example, “The day after Jethro arrived … .” Moses sat does not mean
that he simply sat down, but rather that he “took his seat” (REB) in an official position as a
leader. 18.13 CEV has “sat down at the place where he decided legal cases … .” 18.13 TEV
removes any reference to his sitting down, since that is not the most important thing. To judge
the people means only that he was “settling disputes among the people” (18.13 TEV). It does
not refer to a present-day courtroom situation. In many cultures today this is similar to people
coming to a chief to settle disputes among themselves.

And the people stood suggests that there were many who had to wait their turn. About
Moses may mean “around him” (18.13 NRSV), or “before” him (Fox). REB says “he was
surrounded.” (But see verse 14 and the comment there.) From morning till evening suggests
the entire daytime. 18.13 TEV says “he was kept busy from morning till night,” but it omits any
reference to the people standing around. An alternative model, then, is the following: “the
people kept him busy deciding disputes from morning till the sun went down.”

18.14

When is the conjunction waw in the Hebrew. Moses’ father-in-law may be changed to “his
father-in-law” (18.14 NIV), or simply “Jethro” for a more natural flow. Saw all that he was
doing means that Jethro was observing “everything that Moses had to do” (18.14 TEV). For the
people refers to the Israelites in general. He said introduces the question that Jethro asked.

What is this that you are doing for the people, literally “What is this davar [deed, thing]
you are doing,” is a rhetorical question, for Jethro knew what Moses was doing. NJB changes it
to “Why do you do this for the people?” Why do you sit alone does not mean “Why are you
sitting alone” but “Why are you doing this all alone” (18.14 TEV). TOT has “Why are you the only
one who sits as judge,” and 18.14 CEV has “Why are you the only judge?”

And all the people stand about you means “while all the people stand around you” (18.14
NRSV). The word for stand, however, means to station oneself, as in 17.9. It is a different word
from the one used in verse 13. Durham has “standing in line before you.” From morning till
evening repeats the words of verse 13. 18.14 CEV has “Why do you let these people crowd
around you from morning till evening?”

18.15

And Moses said to his father-in-law may be reduced to “Moses answered” (18.15 TEV).
Because the people come to me is not a complete sentence in English, but the Hebrew word
for Because sometimes simply marks the beginning of a direct quote. The implied meaning is
brought out by 18.15 TEV: “I must do this because the people come to me.” To inquire of God
is a technical term meaning to ask ’elohim for an answer to a specific problem through a priest
or prophet. Verse 16, however, suggests that Moses was simply settling disputes according to
what he understood to be “God’s will” (18.15 TEV). REB has “The people come to me to seek
God’s guidance.” 18.15 CEV has “Because they come here to find out what God wants them to
do.”

18.16

Moses’ answer continues. When they have a dispute is literally “if [or, when] there is to
them a davar [word, deed, or thing].” Most translations use the word “dispute” (see 18.16
TEV), but NAB has “a disagreement,” NJB has “a problem,” and 18.16 CEV has “their complaints.”
They come to me, literally “he [or, it] comes to me,” may refer either to “the people” in verse
15, which in Hebrew is singular in form, or to the dispute. TAN has “it comes before me,”
meaning the dispute. 18.16 NIV has “it is brought to me,” but in some languages this will have
to be in the active voice; for example, “the people bring their complaints [or, disputes] to me.”

In many languages it will be difficult to talk about a “dispute” coming before someone. In
such cases it will be better to follow TEV’s model, “When two people have a dispute, they come
to me.” This is based on a man and his neighbor later in the verse. And I decide means to
settle a case or act as a judge, or even “make a decision.” Between a man and his neighbor,
literally “between a man and between his companion,” may be rendered as “between one
party and the other” (REB). If the idea of a dispute is followed, then 18.16 TEV seems to be
clear: “I decide which of them is right.”

And I make them know is literally “I cause to be known”; them has been added. 18.16 NIV
has “[I] inform them,” and 18.16 TEV has “I tell them.” The statutes of God and his decisions is
literally “the statutes [chuqqah] of ’elohim and his decisions [torah].” These terms are
discussed in the introduction to 20.22–26. They are quite close in meaning and have been
translated in various ways: “the statutes and instructions of God” (18.16 NRSV), “the laws and
teachings of God” (TAN), “God’s decisions and regulations” (NAB), and “God’s decrees and laws”
(18.16 NIV).

18.17

Moses’ father-in-law said to him is again repeating more than is necessary, so 18.17 TEV
simply has “Then Jethro said.” What you are doing is not good is literally “not good the davar
[thing, deed] that you are doing.” Durham translates “It is not good, the procedure you are
following.” The word for good has a broad meaning that needs to be narrowed by the context.
So 18.17 TEV has “You are not doing this right.” REB has “This is not the best way to do it,” TOT
has “You are not acting wisely,” and 18.17 CEV has “That isn’t the best way to do it.”

18.18

You and the people with you is literally “both you and these people who [are] with you.”
This refers to Moses and the people coming to him for advice. So 18.18 CEV has “You and the
people who come to you.” Will wear themselves out is emphatic, literally “withering, you
[singular] will wither.” This form emphasizes the basic meaning of the verb, so 18.18 NRSV has
“You will surely wear yourself out, both you and these people with you.”

For the thing is too heavy for you is literally “for heavy from you the davar [thing, deed].”
Some translations have “task” for davar (REB, NAB, TAN), while others have “work” (NIV, NJB).
You are not able to perform it alone is literally “you [singular] are not able to make it by
yourself.” TAN and others have “You cannot do it alone.” 18.18 TEV combines the two clauses
into one: “This is too much for you to do alone.” One may also say “You cannot judge all these
cases alone.”

18.19
 Listen now to my voice is too literal, so 18.19 NRSV has improved it: “Now listen to me.” I
will give you counsel is literally “I will advise you [singular].” 18.19 TEV combines these two
clauses into one: “Now let me give you some good advice.” And God be with you! in English is
a wish or a blessing. 18.19 NIV has “and may God be with you.” The Hebrew form, however,
may also be understood as an assurance or promise, “and God will be with you” (18.19 TEV), or
it may express purpose, “that God may be with you” (NAB). However, the idea of an assurance
seems to be closer to what Jethro would intend. It is possible to reorder the clauses as follows:
“If you follow my advice, God will be with you.”

You shall represent the people before God is a command, “You [singular], you be for the
people in front of God.” 18.19 NRSV has “You should represent the people before God,” and
18.19 NIV has “You must be the people’s representative before God.” Since this is what Moses
was already trying to do, 18.19 TEV has “It is right for you to represent the people before God,”
and TOT has “You must continue to be the people’s representative before God.” It is also
possible to say “You should be the one to speak to God for the people” (18.19 CEV).

And bring their cases to God is literally “and you will cause the disputes [davar is plural] to
come unto God.” (see verse 16 and the comment.) The pronoun there is not in the Hebrew,
but the context implies it. NAB interprets davar here to mean “words” rather than cases or
“disputes”: “bringing to him whatever they have to say.” This is possible, but the repeated use
of this word suggests the meaning of “disputes” (see 18.19 TEV).

An alternative translation model for this verse is:

• If you follow my advice, God will be with you. You should be the person who speaks to God for
the people, telling him what they are disputing [or, arguing] about.

18.20

And you shall teach them uses a word that means to warn, to “enlighten” (NAB), or to
“enjoin” (TAN). One may also say “You must help them to know.” The statutes and the
decisions uses the same words as verse 16, but here the idea that they are “God’s commands”
(18.20 TEV) is only implied. And make them know the way in which they must walk is literally
“and you will cause them to know the way they will walk in it.” This is an expression that
means “how they should behave” (TOT), or “how they should live” (18.20 TEV). In many
languages the metaphor of “walking” will be appropriate; for example, “You must explain to
them how they should walk their lives” (THCL). And what they must do is literally “and the
work that they will make,” or “the doing that they will do.” 18.20 NRSV has “the things they are
to do.”

18.21

Moreover choose is literally “And you, you look carefully.” The “you” is singular and
emphatic, as in verse 19, and the word for choose has the basic meaning of seeing or

THCL THAI COMMON LANGUAGE VERSION

perceiving. (A different word is used in 17.9.) In this context the effect is that of observing
people carefully so that the right man can be placed over the people. The idea of Moreover,
or “But in addition” (18.21 TEV), is drawn from the context. From all the people is omitted in
18.21 TEV, but it means “from the people at large” (NJB). Another way to express this is “You
will also need to appoint [or, choose].”

Able men is literally “men of power,” or “men of ability.” It means “capable men” (18.21
TEV) or “competent men.” This is the first of four qualifications listed in succession. Such as
fear God is literally “fearers of God.” This is translated variously as “God-fearing men” (18.21
TEV) or “men who have reverence for God” (Durham). It may also be expressed as “men who
obey and serve God.” Fear here does not mean simply being afraid of God, but also having
reverence toward God. Men who are trustworthy is literally “men of reliability.” It may also be
expressed as “men whom people trust.” And who hate a bribe is literally “haters of [illegal]
profit.” Other ways to render this clause are “who cannot be bribed” (18.21 TEV), “men who
are honest and will not accept bribes.” Fox has tried to preserve the form along with the
meaning: “men of calibre, fearing God, men of truth, hating gain.” However, this pattern is not
easily preserved in translation, and the meaning should have priority over the form. 18.21 TEV
places these qualifications at the end of the verse. 18.21 CEV keeps them at the beginning, as in
the Hebrew, and translates “You will need to appoint some competent leaders who respect
God and are trustworthy and honest.”

And place such men over the people is literally “and you will place over them,” that is,
over the people. The word for rulers can mean “chiefs” (TAN), “officers” (18.21 NRSV), or
“leaders.” The Hebrew repeats rulers of for each group of thousands, hundreds, fifties, and
tens, but most translations simplify it as in 18.21 TEV, “leaders of thousands, hundreds, fifties,
and tens.”

18.22

And let them judge the people, literally “And they will judge the people,” is not
necessarily a command, so TOT has “They will settle the disputes,” and REB has “They can act as
judges for the people.” At all times means: “on a permanent basis” (18.22 TEV) or “on a
continuing basis” (Durham).

Every great matter is literally “every great davar,” which means “every serious dispute”
(TOT) or “every important case” (18.22 NRSV). (See the comment on davar at verse 16.) They
shall bring to you refers to the “able men” of verse 21. But any small matter is “every small
[or trivial] davar.” They shall decide themselves is literally “they will judge themselves.”

So it will be easier for you, literally “and you cause to be light from upon you,” is really a
command (in the imperative mood), so TAN has “Make it easier for yourself.” But since this is
fatherly advice, most translations soften the command as in 18.22 TEV, “that will make it easier
for you.” And they will bear the burden with you is literally “and they will lift with you.” 18.22
CEV has a good model, “Having them to share the load will make your work easier.” A similar
model is “If you let them help you, you won’t have to work so hard.”
18.23

If you do this is really “If you do this davar” (see verse 16.). And God so commands you is
literally “and God commands you.” The so is added to give the meaning that God (’elohim) is
indeed commanding Moses to select judges. But other meanings are possible: REB “If you do
this, then God will direct you”; NJB “If you do this—and may God so command you—”; MFT “If
you do this, supposing that God so orders you”; Fox “If you do [this in] this matter when God
commands you [further].” The meaning followed by 18.23 RSV, 18.23 TEV, 18.23 NRSV, and
others represents the majority opinion and should be followed in translation. Another way to
express this is “God commands this, so if you do it …” or “This is the way God wants you to do
it. If you follow his command, you will … .”

Then you will be able to endure is literally “and you will be able to take your stand.” The
verb is the same as in verse 13, but the context here suggests “you will be able to stand the
strain” (NIV, NAB, NJB) or, as 18.23 TEV renders it, “you will not wear yourself out.”

And all this people reflects the singular form of people, but 18.23 NRSV has improved the
English: “and all these people” (see also 18.23 TEV). Also is in the Hebrew, giving the meaning
of “not only you, but also these people.” 18.23 TEV, 18.23 NRSV, and others omit also as
unnecessary. Will go to their place in peace means that “they will go home satisfied” (NAB,
NJB). Peace (shalom), however, often carries the meaning of harmony and well-being within

the community, so NEB has “will here and now regain peace and harmony.” REB has even over-
extended the meaning of their place to the promised land: “this whole people will arrive at its
destination in harmony.” The safest interpretation is 18.23 TEV’s, “all these people can go
home with their disputes settled.” However, if translators want to keep the idea of shalom or
“well-being,” one may translate “all these people can go home with peaceful hearts, because
their disputes have been settled.” In languages that do not use the passive voice, one may say
“… because the others have helped you to settle their disputes.”

c. The appointment of Judges (18.24–27)

Section Heading: see the introduction to verses 13–23 for alternative ways to render this
heading.

18.24

So Moses gave heed is literally “and Moses listened,” but the word also implies obedience.
To the voice of his father-in-law refers to what Jethro said rather than the sound of his voice.
And did all that he said suggests that he “did exactly as he had suggested” (TOT). 18.24 TEV may
appear to have reduced the verse too much: “Moses took Jethro’s advice.” But of course the
following verse explains in detail what he did, so no meaning is lost.

18.25

MFT MOFFATT
 Moses chose able men uses a different word for “choose” from that in verse 21. (It is used
in 17.9.) It simply means that he selected capable men, or “men of ability” (Durham). Out of all
Israel means “from among all the Israelites” (18.25 TEV). And made them heads over the
people means “he appointed them as leaders” (18.25 TEV). NAB has “he put them in charge of
the people.”

Rulers of thousands, … repeats the same words as verse 21, including the four
occurrences of rulers of. (For rulers see the comment at verse 21.)

18.26

And they judged the people at all times is identical to verse 22, but here the tense of the
verb must be changed. Hard cases means “the difficult cases” (18.26 TEV). Hard is not the same
word as “great” in verse 22, but davar is still used for cases. (see verse 16.) But any small
matter they decided themselves is the same as verse 22.

18.27

Then Moses let his father-in-law depart is literally “And Moses let go his father-in-law.”
The same verb was used in the demand to the Pharaoh to “let my people go” (5.1), but the
context here is quite different. There is no suggestion in the Hebrew that “Jethro” was not free
to go until Moses gave him permission. TAN and others have “Then Moses bade his father-in-
law farewell,” which may mean more than simply “said good-bye to Jethro,” as 18.27 TEV
expresses it. 18.27 NIV has “Then Moses sent his father-in-law on his way.” (See a similar
context in 4.18.)

B. The Lord and his People: a covenant

established(19.1–39.43)
1. The Covenant and the Law (19.1–24.18)

a. The theophany at Sinai (19.1–25)

(1) The Covenant Invitation (19.1–8)
The fourth and final relationship described in the book of Exodus begins with chapter 19
and continues to the end of the book. This is the relationship toward which the other three
have been pointing, namely, the relationship between Yahweh and his people. First of all
Yahweh had to prepare a leader who could lead the Israelites out of the country that had
enslaved them. This involved a prolonged contest with the king before freedom was finally
achieved. Then the people and Moses had to learn to work together for survival in the
wilderness. Finally they came to the holy mountain where Yahweh had first appeared to
Moses.

The encampment at Mount Sinai provides the geographical setting for more than half the
book of Exodus, and for one third of the entire Pentateuch. This is because the people remain
at this mountain throughout the book of Leviticus and the first ten chapters of Numbers. These
remaining chapters in Exodus, however, explain how this fourth relationship was worked out
in terms of a covenant that was established, then broken, and then renewed. The people had
to learn what their obligation was to this God who had delivered them and had given them a
future.

Chapters 19–24 are often referred to as the Sinai Pericope, for they describe in narrative
form how the covenant was first established. But two important law codes have been inserted
into this narrative background, namely the Ten Commandments (20.1–17) and the Book of the
Covenant (20.22–23.33). So we have here another example of legal and instructional material
woven into the basic narrative. (See the introduction to chapter 12.)

Chapter 19 presents a number of problems for the translator, for there are inner tensions
that cannot be completely resolved. For example, Moses seems to be moving up and down the
mountain between the people and Yahweh, but the sequence is not complete. The people are
terrified by what is happening on the mountain, but they still have be warned to keep their
distance. Yahweh at times seems to be dwelling on the mountain, and at other times he
descends temporarily to the mountain. And the scene is described as a volcano with fire and
smoke, but also as a rainstorm with thunder and lightning.

Scholars believe the account in chapter 19 was so important to the Israelites that it was
continually reworked from one generation to another in both oral and written form. The final
text, therefore, has many rough spots, and the story does not always flow smoothly.
Nevertheless this is the most dramatic chapter of the book, and it is important that every
translation should convey this excitement and drama to today’s readers.

Headings: 18.27 TEV has only one heading for the entire chapter, “The Israelites at Mount
Sinai.” 18.27 CEV and 18.27 NIV shorten this to “At Mount Sinai.” Another way to render this is
“The Israelites camp near Mount Sinai.” Translators who follow this Handbook’s outline should
include three levels of general headings here: (1) the major heading “The Lord and his people:
a covenant established” (19.1–39:43), which may also be expressed as “Yahweh and his
people: He makes a covenant with them”; (2) “The covenant and the law” (19.1–24.18); (3)
“The theophany at Sinai” (19.1–25), which may also be rendered as “Yahweh reveals himself to
Moses and the people at Mount Sinai.” There are also three subsections, each with its own
heading. The heading for the first section, verses 1–8, is “The covenant invitation.” This may
also be expressed as “Yahweh and the Israelites make a promise to each other” or “The
Israelites promise to serve and obey Yahweh.”

19.1–2

On the third new moon may be ambiguous, for the word for new moon also means
“month.” (See 12.2, where 19.2 RSV translates new moon as “month.”) The Hebrew calendar
was based on a lunar month that began with every new moon. New moon is certainly
intended here to mean the first day of the month, since the phrase on that day would not
refer to a “month.” TOT is quite explicit, “On the day of the third new moon,” and 19.2 TEV
combines the two, “on the first day of the third month.” REB prefers “In the third month” but
then omits on that day entirely. JB and MFT assume that the exact date had somehow fallen
 out of the text, so they add three dots (…) to indicate that something is missing. NJB has revised
this to “Three months to the day.” However, the more likely interpre tation is that it was the
first day of the third month. There are therefore a number of ways in which this phrase may be
expressed: “the first day of the third month,” “the first day of the first new moon,” “the day
when the third new moon began,” or even “exactly two months after … .”

After the people of Israel had gone forth means exactly two months “after they had left
Egypt” (19.2 TEV). 19.2 CEV has “Then two months after leaving Egypt.” However, in many
languages a translation similar to 19.2 TEV’s model will be more appropriate; for example, “On
the first day of the third month [or, new moon] after the Israelites had left Egypt, they arrived
at the wilderness of Sinai.” The English pluperfect (with had) is implied by the context. On that
day refers back to “the day of the third new moon,” or “the first day of the third month.” They
came into the wilderness of Sinai refers to the wide, desolate area surrounding Mount Sinai.
(See the comment on wilderness at 3.1 and 15.22.) An alternative translation model for came
into the wilderness of Sinai is “they came into the wilderness near Mount Sinai.”

And when they set out from Rephidim seems out of place and should probably come at
the beginning of verse 1 for smoother reading. The people certainly left Rephidim before they
arrived at the Wilderness of Sinai. 19.2 NRSV uses the pluperfect again, “They had journeyed
from Rephidim.” (Similarly also TOT, Childs, and TAN.) 19.2 TEV combines verses 1 and 2 in order
to place this phrase before verse 1: “The people of Israel left Rephidim, and on the first day of
the third month … .” For set out see the comment on “journeyed” at 12.37.

And came into the wilderness of Sinai is still part of the temporal clause beginning with
And when, so 19.2 NRSV includes it as part of the pluperfect clause “They had journeyed from
Rephidim, entered the wilderness of Sinai, and … .” They encamped in the wilderness is
repeated in the very next clause, and there Israel encamped before the mountain. It is
probably best to combine the two as 19.2 TEV has done: “There they set up camp at the foot of
Mount Sinai.” The mountain, of course, refers to “Mount Sinai.” REB repeats the two clauses
but changes the terms: “they encamped there, pitching their tents in front of the mountain.”

Alternative translation models for verses 1 and 2 are:

• 1–2 The Israelites left Rephidim and, exactly two months after leaving Egypt, they arrived at
the wilderness near Mount Sinai. They set up their tents near the foot of [or, in front of] the
mountain.

• 1–2 The Israelites left Rephidim and came to the wilderness near Mount Sinai, and set up their
tents near the foot of the mountain. They arrived there exactly two months after leaving
Egypt.

19.3

And Moses went up to God is literally “And Moses ascended unto ’elohim.” This means, of
course, as 19.3 TEV expresses it, that “Moses went up the mountain to meet with God.” The
Hebrew does not include “the mountain,” as HOTTP points out. But a footnote is not necessary,
since this is clearly implied. (See NEB, NAB, and TOT.)
 And the Lord called to him suddenly shifts from ’elohim to Yahweh, but this is probably
due to a literary seam. (The comment at 3.4 discusses this kind of shift.) There is no suggestion
that Yahweh was not God. 19.3 TEV resolves this problem by starting a new paragraph here.
19.3 CEV combines the name and title, as in 18.1, “Moses went up the mountain to meet with
the Lord God.” Out of the mountain is literally “from the mountain” (19.3 TEV), meaning from
the top of the mountain. Saying simply introduces what Yahweh said to Moses.

Thus you shall say to the house of Jacob introduces a quote within a quote, which begins
in verse 4. House of Jacob means the same as the people of Israel in the next clause, since
“the Israelites” were “Jacob’s descendants” (19.3 TEV). Repeating the same idea in different
words adds a poetic effect to verses 3–6, which scholars believe reflect a special style used in
worship. Translators should try to do this if it is natural style. In many languages the direct
speech in the Hebrew will be kept; for example:

• Yahweh called to him from the top of the mountain, saying, “You must tell the Israelites, the
descendants of Jacob, the following words, ‘… .’ ”

However, in languages where apposition is not used, one may simply employ one term to
include both phrases, since Israel was simply another name for Jacob.

19.4

These are Yahweh’s words that Moses is to speak to the Israelites. You have seen, literally
“You [plural], you saw,” is emphatic, so REB has “You yourselves have seen” (so also NAB, NJB,
and TOT). What I did to the Egyptians means “What I, the Lord did” (19.4 TEV). In some
languages the appositional construction, “I, the Lord,” will be unnatural style. In such cases
one may say, for example, “What [or, The things that] I who am Yahweh did.” And how I bore
you on eagle’s wings is literally “and I lifted you up on wings of eagles.” This is a metaphor that
19.4 TEV changes to a simile, “and how I carried you as an eagle carries her young on her
wings.”

The word for eagle includes several varieties of large birds of prey, known for their
powerful wings and swift flight. This figure of speech is based on a poetic picture of how the
eagle teaches its offspring to fly, namely, that it will catch them on its wings when they fall.
Such an activity has never been seen in real life, and so it is best to deal with this as a poetic
figure created in order to picture God’s care for his people. (See Deut 32.11 for a more
complete description of this metaphor.) In areas where eagles are not known, one may
substitute another large bird of prey; but it should be one that can be pictured as catching its
babies on its wings. If such a bird is not available, one may say something like “as a huge bird
named ‘eagle’ carries … .” It will also be helpful to include an illustration of an eagle and a note
in the Glossary. For further information on eagles see FFB, pages 82–85. And brought you to
myself suggests that Yahweh means, as 19.4 TEV and 19.4 CEV express it, “how I brought you
here to me,” that is, to this mountain.

FFB FAUNA AND FLORA OF THE BIBLE

19.5

The word for Now therefore should here be understood as introducing a new thought
rather than “At this moment.” If you will obey my voice is literally “if hearing you will hear my
voice.” The if indicates that there is an obligation for Israel to fulfill if Yahweh is to fulfill his
promise. The word for “hearing” also means to obey. This is a form in Hebrew that simply
emphasizes the meaning of the verb, so TAN has “if you will obey me faithfully,” and NJB has “if
you are really prepared to obey me.”

And keep my covenant uses the verb that means to watch, or guard, or observe. And
covenant is the word that refers to an agreement between two parties that recognize a
relationship binding them together. It includes both promise to honor and commitment to
obey the terms agreed upon. (See the comment at 6.4.) The covenant with God, however,
placed more emphasis upon God’s faithfulness to his promise and upon the Israelites’
obedience to the terms God had established. In many languages a literal translation of keep
my covenant in this verse will simply hide the real meaning of the phrase. What is referred to
here is the agreement between Yahweh and his people that is sealed in 24.3–11. They agree to
obey all his commandments, and Yahweh on his part promises to look after them as his own
people. So one may say “obey all my commandments” or “honor everything that you have
agreed upon with me.”

You shall be my own possession is literally “and you will be to me personal property.” 19.5
TEV simply has “You will be my own people.” However, other translations have “my special
possession” (REB, NAB), “my treasured possession” (TAN, NIV), and “my own prized possession
(MFT).” All of these are possible renderings. Among all peoples, literally “from all the peoples,”
has been expanded by NAB: “dearer to me than all other people.” This is implied from the word
for my own possession. TOT has “more precious to me than all other nations.” An alternative
model, then, is the following: “you will be my own people, more precious to me than all other
people.”

For all the earth is mine begins a new clause (note the semicolon in 19.5 RSV), but it is
better to begin a new sentence. The problem is the English word for, which suggests that “you
will be mine because all the earth is mine.” This weakens the idea of the Israelites having a
special position. TOT tries to catch this meaning with the word “though”: “though the whole
earth belongs to me,” meaning “even though all the earth is mine.” 19.5 NRSV brings out the
intended meaning more clearly by leading into the next verse: “Indeed, the whole earth is
mine, but you shall be … .” 19.5 TEV does the same thing: “The whole earth is mine, but you will
be … .” The idea is this: “Even though the whole earth belongs to me, you will be a special
possession.”

19.6

And you shall be to me, literally “and you [plural], you will be to me,” may be more
correctly translated as “but you shall be for me” (19.6 NRSV). (The same emphatic form is used
in verse 4.) The conjunction waw can mean either “and” or “but,” as well as other things,
depending on the context. In this case the meaning of “but” seems more logical. To me may
 indicate possession—“my kingdom of priests” (NEB)—or it may indicate service—“For me you
shall be a kingdom of priests” (NJB).

A kingdom of priests is difficult to translate; this is partly due to the fact that the phrase
does not occur elsewhere in the Old Testament. The idea of God’s people being priests,
however, does appear several times in the New Testament. (See 1 Pet 2.5, 9; Rev 1.6; 5.10;
and 20.6.) There are different interpretations of what it means. 19.6 TEV and 19.6 CEV interpret
it to mean “serve me as priests.” This says nothing about a kingdom, but it is probably correct
in suggesting that Israel is to serve Yahweh by fulfilling a priestly mission in the world. TOT has
“You shall belong to me as a priestly kingdom.” But the concept of kingdom will be difficult to
express in many languages. In such cases the word for “people” or “nation” will do.

If possible it is better to translate this phrase literally in order to allow for various possible
interpretations. However, this will not be possible in languages where both priests and
kingdom will be verbal phrases. The probable meaning is that Yahweh’s chosen or holy people
will be a nation that serves him as an intermediary (or “go-between”), revealing his power and
his will to “all peoples” (verse 5). A possible model therefore is “and you [plural] will serve me
as my intermediary [or, “go-between”] to all the nations.” (For further discussion on priests,
see 2.16.)

And a holy nation means a nation that is set apart from other nations because of a special
covenant relation with Yahweh. So 19.6 TEV has “a people dedicated to me alone.” These are
the words you shall speak refers to what has just been said beginning with verse 4. This
sentence therefore marks the close of the embedded quotation. To the children of Israel is
identical with “the people of Israel” in verse 3. 19.6 TEV has omitted this entire sentence, since
it repeats what is said there. 19.6 CEV starts a new paragraph with this sentence, showing that
Yahweh is addressing these words to Moses, “Moses, that is what you must tell the Israelites.”

Alternative translation models for this verse are:

• You [plural] will be a nation dedicated to me and will serve me as priests do. Moses, that is
what you [singular] must tell the Israelites.

• You [plural] will be a nation dedicated to me, a nation that will serve me as my intermediary
[or “go-between”] to all other nations.” These words, Moses, are what you [singular] are to say
to the Israelites.

19.7

So Moses came, literally “and Moses entered,” should here be translated in context. He
was up on the mountain for verses 3–6, but now he is with the people down at the foot of the
mountain. So 19.7 TEV has “So Moses went down,” and in some languages it will be necessary
to say “So Moses went down the mountain.” And called the elders of the people uses the
same word for called as in verse 3, where Yahweh “called to” Moses. There it was to one
person, but here Moses is calling a group of people, so 19.7 TEV says he “called the leaders of
the people together.” 19.7 NRSV and others say that he “summoned the elders.” (Elders are
discussed at 3.16.)
 And set before them, literally “and he placed to their faces,” may need to be changed, for
what he “placed” were all these words. 19.7 TEV has “and told them everything.” All these
words uses the demonstrative pronoun these, and so in this context it refers to verses 4–6a.
Some translations (TAN, Childs) have changed these to “the,” which may suggest that there
were other words from Yahweh in addition to those just mentioned. It is better to retain
these.

Words is the plural of davar (see 18.16), which may also mean “commands” (REB), but
verses 4–6a are more like promises than “commands.” Which the Lord had commanded him
refers to verse 3, where Yahweh commanded Moses to “tell the people.”

19.8

And all the people refers to all the Israelites, not just to the elders in verse 7. We may
either assume that the elders had relayed Yahweh’s words in verses 4–6a to their own
respective tribes, or that the elders are responding as representatives of all the people.
Answered together does not necessarily mean that they all “responded in unison” (LB). TAN has
“answered as one,” and NJB has “replied with one accord.” The Hebrew word for together may
also suggest simply that they were all in agreement with what Moses told them, and together
they promised to obey the Lord So one may say “All the people agreed to this [or, to what
Moses told them] and answered, ‘… .’ ”

All that the Lord has spoken we will do are probably the exact words of a formula that
was used in making treaties. They are repeated again in 24.7, and with some variation in 24.3.
The problem here is that no specific commands have as yet been given, so the formula appears
to be out of place. Possibly these words at one time followed some of the laws given in
chapters 20–23.

Most translations do not deal with this problem. Even TEV has “We will do everything that
the Lord has said.” REB makes some adjustment here by changing “everything” to “Whatever”:
“Whatever the Lord has said we shall do.” This suggests that the people were agreeing to any
additional commands that Moses may not yet have reported to them. But at has “Whatever
the Lord says we will do,” changing has said to the present tense, which in English can apply to
future commands of Yahweh. This retains the basic form of the formula and fits the present
context of chapter 19. Such a change is certainly possible, since the Hebrew verb does not
designate tense. So one may say “We will do whatever the Lord [or, Yahweh] commands us to
do.” (See the similar comments on tense at 15.14.)

And Moses reported the words is literally “and Moses caused the words to return.” The
words of the people refers to what they have just said. To the Lord implies, of course, that
Moses had to climb the mountain again to speak to Yahweh. TAN has “And Moses brought back
the people’s words to the Lord.” (Similarly also NAB and 19.8 NIV.) Another way to express this
is “Moses returned and told the Lord what the people had said.” REB even connects this
sentence with the following verse: “When Moses brought this answer back to the Lord, the

LB LIVING BIBLE
Lord said to him … .” This, however, prevents a paragraph break at this point, but see the
comment on the next section.

(2) The Preparation of the People (19.9–15)

TEV begins a new paragraph here, as do NAB, NIV, NJB, and Durham. The reason for this is
that Yahweh now announces what he will do next, and this leads into the instructions for “The
preparation of the people.”

Section Heading: for translators who are dividing this chapter into three sections as
suggested by the Handbook, the heading “The preparation of the people” may also be
expressed as “Moses prepares the Israelites to meet Yahweh.”

19.9

And the Lord said to Moses introduces a new section, so the And should either be
dropped (TEV, NIV), or changed to “Then” (Durham, NJB). Lo is the word sometimes translated
as “Behold,” which is discussed at 1.9. Most translations omit it, but NJB has “Look,” and
Durham has “Pay attention!”

I am coming to you uses the participle, which often suggests something that is about to
happen. So 19.9 TEV has “I will come to you,” and 19.9 NRSV has “I am going to come to you.”
(The you is singular.) In a thick cloud is literally “in a cloud of cloud,” using two different words
meaning cloud. The first word, however, is related to the word meaning “thick,” so what is
intended is “in a thickness of cloud” or “a dense cloud” (NAB). The same word is used in verse
16 with a different adjective. An alternative translation model for this sentence is “I will come
to you with a dense cloud covering me.”

That the people may hear is expressed more clearly by 19.9 TEV, “so that the people may
hear me.” This is the purpose of Yahweh’s coming down to the mountain. When I speak with
you, literally “in my speaking with you [singu lar],” suggests that Yahweh will speak only to
Moses, not to the people. (But see 20.1, where the context suggests that Yahweh spoke the
Ten Commandments to all the people as well as to Moses.) And may also believe you for ever
is literally “and indeed in you they will put their trust forever.” This may be translated in
several ways: “and so trust you ever after” (19.9 NRSV), “so their faith in you may never fail”
(REB), “so that they will have confidence in you from now on” (Durham), or “Then they will
always trust you” (19.9 CEV). This will prove that Moses is to be respected as Yahweh’s
appointed leader.

19.10

Here in the middle of verse 9 it is best to begin a new paragraph. The reason for this is that
Moses is again reporting to Yahweh what the people said, as in verse 8b. But there is no record
of what they said this time, so it seems likely that between 9a and 9b Moses has gone down to
the people and back up again to Yahweh for the third time. (See verses 3 and 8.)

Then Moses told the words of the people to the Lord uses a word meaning to announce
or report. A few translations omit this line entirely (MFT, LB), assuming that it only duplicates
 the last line of verse 8, but this is not recommended. Some translations connect this line with
verse 10, either as a temporal clause or as an independent clause. 19.10 NRSV has “When
Moses told … the Lord said … .” (Similarly also REB and NAB.) 19.10 TEV has Moses told the Lord
… and the Lord said.” (Similarly also NEB and TOT.) This seems to solve the problem.

And the Lord said to Moses introduces the third speech of Yahweh to Moses. (See verses
3 and 9a.) Go to the people is a command to Moses. Since the people are at the foot of the
mountain, and Yahweh is at the top, Moses keeps moving up and down between the two. It is
therefore appropriate to say “Go down to the people” (TOT), or even “Go back down to the
people.”

And consecrate them is a second command that literally means “you [singular] cause
them to be holy.” “Holy” here means “ritually pure” and thus belonging to Yahweh. It is not
clear just how Moses was to do this, although the fact that the people were to wash their
clothes and abstain from sexual intercourse seems to be closely related to their consecration
(verses 14–15). Today and tomorrow indicates that consecrating the people would take two
days. Some translations interpret consecrate them to mean “have them sanctify themselves”
(NAB, NJB), but the Hebrew verb clearly specifies Moses as the actor. (See also verse 14.) Other
translations have Moses acting merely as a supervisor: “warn them to stay pure” (TAN), and
“order them to spend today and tomorrow purifying themselves” (TOT). (See also 19.10 TEV.)
NEB and REB have “hallow them today and tomorrow,” but this is as unclear as 19.10 RSV. 19.10
CEV has “that today and tomorrow they must get themselves ready to meet me.”

We should assume, therefore, that Moses had a special responsibility beyond simply giving
orders. There may have been a ceremony or ritual act on his part, as Durham suggests: “set
them apart for holiness today and tomorrow.” Of course the people had to do things
themselves. A possible way to show Moses’ part in consecrating the people is to translate “and
help them today and tomorrow to purify themselves to worship me” or “cause them today and
tomorrow to get themselves ready to be my people.” Let them wash their garments is literally
“and they will wash their mantles [outer garments].” (See 12.34 where the same word is used.)
This is an indirect command to the Israelites through Moses: “They must wash their clothes”
(19.10 TEV). The word for wash suggests the act of beating, kneading, or trampling the clothes,
since soa
251

p was not available in ancient times. A different word is used for bathing. (See 29.4 and the
comment.)

An alternative translation model for verses 9b and 10 is:

• 9b Again Moses told the people what the Lord had said to him. 10 Then once more the Lord
spoke to him. He said, “Go back down, and today and tomorrow get the people ready to be my
people. They must wash their outer garments … .”

251Osborn, N. D., & Hatton, H. (1999). A handbook on Exodus. UBS handbook series; Helps for
translators (419). New York: United Bible Societies.
19.11

And be ready by the third day is literally “and they to be standing firm for the third day.”
This, of course, was “the day after tomorrow” (19.11 TEV), counting the day this statement was
spoken as the first day. For on the third day may be changed to “On that day” (19.11 TEV) to
avoid repeating the same words. For here means “because” (19.11 NRSV). The Lord will come
down upon Mount Sinai, literally “will descend upon,” implies that Yahweh is speaking from a
place above the mountain. These are Yahweh’s words, so the pronoun may be changed as in
19.11 TEV, “I will come down.” 19.11 CEV combines the two clauses as follows: “and be ready by
the day after tomorrow, when I will come down to Mount Sinai.” Note that the use of “from
Mount Sinai” will not be accurate, and it is not supported by the context (see verse 18); upon
or “on” is the more probable meaning of the preposition in this instance.

In the sight of all the people is literally “to the eyes of all the people.” 19.11 TEV’s “where
all the people can see me” suggests that they will not see Yahweh while he is descending, but
only after he will come down. Such an interpretation is possible, but most translations suggest
that Yahweh will descend “while all the people are watching” (TOT).

19.12

And you shall set bounds for the people is literally “And you [singular] will delimit the
people,” while the Septuagint says “And you will delimit the mountain.” The word really means
to “mark a boundary” (19.12 TEV), but round about does not specify either the people or the
mountain. “Mountain” is not in the text at all, but the context clarifies the intended meaning.
Some translations have added “the mountain”: “Set limits for the people all around the
mountain” (NAB). (Similarly also 19.12 NIV.) 19.12 TEV expands even more: “Mark a boundary
around the mountain that the people must not cross.”

Saying introduces what Moses is to say to the people. This is a quote within a quote. Since
what follows is a warning, Durham changes saying to “warning.” Take heed, literally “you be
on guard for yourselves,” is a command to the people. 19.12 NIV has “Be careful,” TAN has
“Beware,” and 19.12 CEV has “Warn the people.” 19.12 TEV changes to indirect speech.

That you do not go up into the mountain is literally “to go up on [or, in] the mountain.”
The negative is not explicit but is implied by the command to take heed. TAN has “Beware of

TEV Today’s English Version

NRSV New Revised Standard Version

CEV Contemporary English Version

TOT TRANSLATOR’S OLD TESTAMENT

NAB NEW AMERICAN BIBLE

NIV NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION

TAN TANAKH (NEW JEWISH VERSION)

going up the mountain.” 19.12 TEV has “and tell them not to go up the mountain.” Another
way to say this is “Forbid the people to go up the mountain.” However, in languages that must
use direct speech, one may say, for example, “Be careful that you do not go up the mountain,”
or even “I forbid you to go up … .” Or touch the border of it is literally “and to touch on its
edge.” 19.12 NIV has “or touch the foot of it,” and REB has “or even to touch its base.” The
manner of touching is not indicated, nor whether it is with the hand or the foot. This border
was probably determined by Moses, who was told to mark the boundaries of the mountain.
19.12 TEV’s “even get near it” is a possible model. Another one is “warn the people not to go
up the mountain or even touch any part of it.”

Whoever touches the mountain is literally “any toucher on the mountain.” 19.12 TEV turns
this into conditional clause: “If anyone sets foot on it.” Shall be put to death, literally “dying he
shall be caused to die,” is an emphatic statement of the consequence of touching the
mountain. 19.12 NIV has “shall surely be put to death,” and Durham has “will certainly be
executed.” Other ways to express this are “must suffer death” or “people [or, they] must kill
him.” The idea is that the mountain is taboo, in the sense that it is untouchable, because it is
God’s mountain, where God dwells. Therefore anyone who touches the mountain also
becomes taboo. Consequently they have to be killed so that they will not spread the taboo to
anyone else. This was not so much a form of punishment as the unfortunate consequence of
violating the holiness, or taboo, of the mountain. (The same form of the verb phrase is used
repeatedly in 21.12–17 for capital punishment.)

19.13

No hand shall touch him is a strong prohibition meaning that no one is permitted to touch
anyone who has touched the mountain. This is because that person has becomes taboo, or
untouchable, as a result of touching the mountain. Therefore he shall be stoned or shot is the
same emphatic form as in verse 12. Literally the Hebrew says “stoning he shall be stoned, or
shooting he shall be shot.” This means that he must be killed, but it must be done in such a
way that no one touches him in the process, either before or after he dies. To be stoned
means that stones were thrown at the victim until he died. To be shot means to be shot with
arrows. In languages that do not use the passive voice, one may say “people must either throw
stones at him until he dies or shoot him with arrows. No one can touch him.” It is also possible
to say “No one may touch him. They must kill him either by throwing stones at him or shooting
him with arrows.”

Whether beast or man includes animals as well. The word for beast means any animal in
general. Man does not mean only male, so 19.13 NRSV has “whether animal or human being.”
19.13 TEV interchanges the terms for a more natural order, “both people and animals.” He
shall not live is the same prohibitive form as that used in the Ten Commandments.

When the trumpet sounds a long blast is literally “in extending the ram’s horn.” This was a
horn made from the horn of an animal, usually a ram. (See FFB, page 75.) This kind of horn

REB REVISED ENGLISH BIBLE

FFB FAUNA AND FLORA OF THE BIBLE

 produced a loud blast when blown. (A different word for the noun is used in verse 16, but the
meaning is the same.) It was not a musi cal instrument but was used for calling people to war
or for announcing special events. In cultures that use horns of animals for this purpose, one
may use the local word. However, in cultures where such instruments are unknown, one may
need to transliterate the word trumpet. A picture of a ram’s horn trumpet should be provided,
along with a note in the Glossary. It is not certain who was blowing the trumpet, so in
languages that must make the agent of the blowing explicit, one may say, for example, “When
someone blows the trumpet.” In other languages it is also possible to say “When the people
hear the sound of the trumpet.”

They shall come up to the mountain is literally “they will ascend on [or, in] the mountain.”
It is not clear to whom they refers. If it refers to the people, then it seems to conflict with the
warning in verses 12–13. If it refers to the privileged group of people mentioned in 24.9, then
this verse may be out of place, for this group has not yet been mentioned. Some interpret
“ascend on the mountain” to mean “then the people are to go up to the mountain” (19.13
TEV). (Similar are NAB, 19.13 NIV, Childs, and Durham.) Others suggest that the taboo is lifted
when the trumpet sounds, so 19.13 NRSV has changed to “they may go up on the mountain.”
(So also TAN, REB, NJB, and others.) What is probably intended is that the people could move up
to the boundary line that would be set (verse 12), so translators are encouraged to follow
19.13 TEV.

The difference between come up to and “go up to” in English may be significant in some
languages where the location of the speaker must be indicated. Since Yahweh is pictured here
as either above or on the top of the mountain, then come should be used rather than “go.”
This concludes Yahweh’s third speech.

The order of the final two clauses may be changed as follows: “You may come up to the
mountain only after you have heard the trumpet blown.”

An alternative translation model for this verse is:

• No one may touch this person. But they must kill him either by throwing stones at him until he
dies or shooting him with arrows. This applies to both humans and animals. They must be
killed. But when you hear the sound of the trumpet, you may come up to the mountain.

19.14

So Moses went down from the mountain to the people marks the third descent of Moses
from the mountain. (See the comment on verses 9b–10.) Since went down suggests that the
narrator is located on top of the mountain, it is better to locate the narrator at the bottom and
say, as 19.14 TEV translates, “Moses came down the mountain … .” And consecrated the
people uses the same words as verse 10. And they washed their garments is also the same as
in verse 10. (19.10See the comment there.)

19.15

NJB NEW JERUSALEM BIBLE

 And he said to the people does not necessarily suggest that Moses waited until the people
had washed their clothes before he told them to get ready. But some translations have “Then”
instead of “And.” (Durham even has “Next.”) Note that 19.15 TEV avoids this problem in verse
14 by translating “consecrated the people” as “told the people to get ready.” (But see the
comment at verse 10.)

Be ready on the third day is almost identical with verse 11. The Hebrew makes no
distinction here between on and “by” (19.15 TEV). Do not go near a woman is a euphemism,
that is, it speaks about “sexual intercourse” (19.15 TEV) in a more polite and indirect way. It
does not mean that the men were to separate themselves entirely from the women.
Translators should find an appropriate euphemism in their own languages, if speaking explicitly
about sexual intercourse is inappropriate. 19.15 TEV adds “in the meantime,” since this is
implied; it is a command only for these days of consecration.

(3) The Appearance on the Mountain (19.16–25)

This section is the third part of “the theophany at Sinai.” (See the outline beginning on
page 5.) The “covenant invitation” has been given, and the “preparation of the people” has
been completed. Now the actual “appearance on the mountain” is described in dramatic
detail. “Theophany” is the term generally used for a special appearance of God. It comes from
two Greek words meaning “God” and “appearance.” There are many different theophanies
recorded in the Old Testament, but the one at Mount Sinai, witnessed by all the people of
Israel, has been called “the theophany par excellence,” meaning that it is beyond comparison.

Here again there are problems in the text due to the mixture of different traditions about
the same event. Translators should not try to resolve all these problems nor remove all the
literary seams. Being faithful to the text involves, among other things, preserving enough of
these inner tensions to reveal the account as it really is, a composite record of the greatest
theophany in the Old Testament. It was this appearance of Yahweh at Mount Sinai and its
aftermath that brought Israel as a nation into being.

Section Heading: this Handbook suggests the heading “The appearance on the mountain”
for this section. Other ways to express this are “Yahweh appears on Mount Sinai” or “Yahweh
reveals himself on Mount Sinai.”

19.16

On the morning of the third day is literally “And it was on the third day in its being the
morning.” This wordy introduction sets the mood as well as the time for the dramatic events
that will follow. TAN has “On the third day, as morning dawned,” and NJB has “Now at
daybreak, two days later.” One may also say “As the sun rose on the third day.” There were
thunders and lightnings reflects the plural in the Hebrew, but the singular is more natural in
English, so 19.16 TEV has “there was thunder and lightning.” REB, however, brings out the
plural: “there were peals of thunder and flashes of lightning.” (Similarly NJB and NAB.) The
picture here is that of a violent thunderstorm. (But see the picture of a volcanic eruption in
verse 18; also see the comment on “thunder” and “fire” at 9.23.) An alternate way to render
this first sentence is “As the sun rose on the third day, the sky roared and lightning flashed
through the sky.”

A thick cloud is literally “a heavy cloud,” using the same word for cloud as verse 9, but a
different adjective. It may also be translated as “a dense cloud.” Upon the mountain refers to
the cloud, not to the thunder and lightning. NAB and 19.16 NIV have “over the mountain.” The
idea is that the cloud covered the top of the mountain. 19.16 CEV follows this interpretation,
with “a thick cloud covered the mountain.”

And a very loud trumpet blast is literally “and a sound of ram’s horn very strong.” The
“ram’s horn” is described at verse 13, where a less common term is used. There is no clue as to
who blew the horn, but it could not have been Moses, or any Israelite, or even Yahweh
himself. It may be necessary to say “someone blew a very loud blast on a horn.” Note that
19.16 TEV has “a very loud trumpet blast was heard.” It is also possible to say “they heard a
very loud trumpet blast.”

So that all the people … trembled, literally “and all the people trembled,” means that they
“trembled with fear” (19.16 TEV); this may also be rendered as “they were so afraid that their
bodies trembled.” This was because of the thunder and lightning as well as the trumpet blast.
Who were in the camp refers to all the Israelites, and they were not yet at the foot of the
mountain (see the next verse).

19.17

Then Moses brought the people out indicates that Moses was now with them and not up
on the mountain. Some translations have “led the people out” (TAN). This is possible, since the
Hebrew literally says “he caused the people to go out,” and in a number of languages this will
be a natural way to express this clause. Out of the camp, literally “from the camp,” refers to
the entire settlement of the Israelites that was beside Mount Sinai (see verse 2). In some
languages this will be expressed as “out of the place where they had set up their tents.”

To meet God is literally “to encounter the ’elohim.” 19.17 NIV has “to meet with God,” but
“with” is not in the Hebrew. TAN has “toward God,” but this does not bring out the idea of an
encounter. Another way to express to meet God is “to come face-to-face with God.” Moses’
role as mediator, or “go-between,” now be comes more than just passing messages from one
party to the other. And they took their stand at the foot of the mountain means “they
stationed themselves” (NAB), or “they took a position at the bottom of the mountain”
(Durham), or simply “they stood at the foot of the mountain.”

19.18

And Mount Sinai was wrapped in smoke gives a different picture from that of the
thunderstorm in verse 16. The smoke and fire and the quaking are descriptive of an active
volcano. Literally the Hebrew says “And Mount Sinai smoked all of it,” so TOT has “The whole of
Mount Sinai was pouring out smoke.” TAN has “was all in smoke,” and both 19.18 CEV and
19.18 TEV have “was covered with smoke.” One may also express it as “Smoke completely
covered Mount Sinai.”
 Because the Lord descended upon it in fire suggests that Yahweh had been somewhere
above the mountain. Some translations add the English pluperfect, “had come down upon it,”
which means that the smoke was the result of Yahweh’s presence in the fire. (Similarly also
REB, NJB, and TAN.) It is also possible to restructure this sentence as follows: “Because Yahweh,
surrounded by fire, descended upon it.”

And the smoke of it is literally “and its smoke,” meaning of course the smoke of the
mountain. But since this is obvious, the pronoun “its” (of it) is omitted by 19.18 NRSV and
others. However, in a number of languages it will be good style to say something like “smoked
poured out of the mountain.” Went up like the smoke of a kiln describes the manner in which
the smoke rose straight up into the air, as though the mountain were a huge kiln. The word for
kiln refers to a “furnace” (TEV, CEV) for baking pottery or making lime. (See 9.8.) An alternative
model for this sentence is “Smoke poured out of the mountain just like smoke coming out of a
furnace.”

And the whole mountain quaked greatly is what the Hebrew says, but 19.18 TEV follows
the Septuagint “and all the people trembled violently.” (Similarly also REB, NEB, and MFT.) 19.18
TEV should have included a footnote here explaining that “people” is the alternative reading.
However, HOTTP supports the Hebrew with a {B} rating, so the translator is encouraged to
follow 19.18 RSV, 19.18 NRSV, 19.18 CEV, and most other translations.

An alternative translation model for this verse is:

• Smoke completely covered Mount Sinai, because Yahweh, surrounded by fire, had descended
on it. Smoke poured out of the mountain just like smoke comes out of a furnace, and the
whole mountain shook.

19.19

And as the sound of the trumpet grew louder and louder is literally “and the sound of the
ram’s horn was the one going and very strong.” The participle (“the one going”) indicates that
the sound “became louder and louder” (19.19 TEV), or “sounded louder and louder.” This may
suggest an increase in volume at the source. However, Durham argues that the participle
should be translated literally, meaning that the sound itself was actually coming down with
Yahweh to the mountain. So Durham has “The sound of the ram’s horn meanwhile was
moving, and growing very strong.” This interpretation should be helpful in languages that must
distinguish between sound at the source and sound at the receiving end. Another way to
express this, then, is “The sound of the trumpet [or, ram’s horn] was coming down [meaning
toward Moses] and getting louder and louder.”

NEB NEW ENGLISH BIBLE

MFT MOFFATT

HOTTP HEBREW OLD TESTAMENT TEXT PROJECT

RSV Revised Standard Version

 Moses spoke is so brief that there is no indication of what he said or to whom he spoke.
We may assume that he spoke to Yahweh, for it says that God answered him in thunder. But
the Hebrew is ambiguous. The word for thunder (qoloth) is usually plural in form, as in verse
16. Here, however, the singular form qol is used, which usually means “a voice” (KJV, ASV,
Childs). But qol is also used for sound in the first part of the verse. Since “sound” is the more
basic meaning of qol, it is better to follow TOT, “Each time Moses spoke God answered him
audibly.” Translators are urged to follow this interpretation. Another way to express it is “Each
time Moses spoke, God answered him with a loud voice like thunder.”

The two verbs, spoke and answered, suggest that this was repeated action rather than
one time only. So REB has “Whenever Moses spoke, God answered him.” Childs has “Moses
was speaking and God was answering him.” 19.19 NRSV has “Moses would speak and God
would answer him.” It should be noted that, in the present context, Moses is still at the foot of
the mountain. He does not go up again until the next verse.

19.20

And the Lord came down means that Yahweh actually descended from a higher place. The
And should probably not be translated as “Then,” since that would suggest that Yahweh was
speaking with Moses before he descended to the mountain. Upon Mount Sinai, to the top of
the mountain seems repetitive, so 19.20 TEV has “The Lord came down on the top of Mount
Sinai.” (Similarly also 19.20 NIV.) Some translations treat this as a temporal clause (19.20 NRSV,
NAB), beginning with “When the Lord descended … .” This will be a natural translation in many
languages.

And the Lord called Moses to the top of the mountain is also wordy, repeating both the
Lord and Moses. Again 19.20 TEV combines the two clauses into one, “and called Moses to the
top of the mountain.” 19.20 CEV has “and told Moses to meet him there.” In certain languages
this will be direct speech; for example, “The Lord called to Moses, ‘Come up here.’ ” The sharp
contrast between down and up in these verses should be retained because of its symbolic and
theological meaning.

Alternative translation models for this verse are:

• The Lord [or, Yahweh] came down to the top of Mount Sinai and told Moses to meet him
there. Moses went up.

• … and called to Moses, “Come up here.” Moses went to the top of the mountain to meet with
Yahweh.

19.21

KJV KING JAMES VERSION

ASV AMERICAN STANDARD VERSION

 And is the usual conjunction waw, but here it marks the next event in sequence. So 19.21
NRSV and others begin with “Then.” 19.21 TEV connects this with the last part of verse 20 in
order to avoid repeating Moses: “and the Lord said to him.” 19.21 CEV deals with this problem
by placing Moses’ name at the beginning of the quote: “Then he said, ‘Moses, … .’ ”

Go down is a command to Moses that emphasizes again the vertical movement in this
chapter (see verse 20). Warn the people means to “caution” the Israelites (Durham). REB adds
emphasis to the meaning: “warn the people solemnly.” Other ways to express this are “and
strictly warn the people,” “give the people a stern warning that,” or even “Moses, go down
and say to the people, ‘I solemnly warn you … .’ ” Lest they break through is literally “so that
they will not destroy.” They are not to destroy, or break down, the boundary line that Moses
was told to mark off in verse 12. So the meaning as expressed by 19.21 TEV and 19.21 CEV is
“Warn the people not to cross the boundary.” REB has “that they must not force their way
through.” To the Lord refers to the area inside the boundary that is made holy or taboo
because Yahweh is there.

To gaze means “in order to see,” or “look at.” Here it refers to looking at the Lord, or
Yahweh, which would be the purpose of their crossing the “boundary.” Since Yahweh is the
one speaking, 19.21 TEV and 19.21 CEV have “to come and look at me.” And many of them
perish gives the consequence or punishment if the warning is not obeyed. at has “or else they
will fall,” since perish literally means “to fall.” But here the idea is similar to falling in battle, so
19.21 TEV has “many of them will die.” 19.21 CEV has “They must not cross it [the boundary] to
come and look at me, because if they do, many of them will die.”

An alternative translation model for this verse, using direct speech through out, is the
following:

• Then the Lord [or, Yahweh] said, “Moses, go and strictly warn the people, saying, ‘Do not cross
the boundary at the foot of the mountain to go and look at Yahweh. If you [plural] do, many of
you will die.’ ”

19.22

And also connects this verse with the command in verse 21. In English the word also does
not seem natural here, since this is a continuation of the warning. So 19.22 TEV has “Even the
priests,” meaning that the warning must be given to the priests as well as to the people. Since
the priests were not yet appointed (see 28.1), this reference may seem out of place. But in the
total context of the book, this refers to Aaron and his sons.

Let the priests … consecrate themselves is literally “the priests … will make themselves
holy.” This is made stronger in 19.22 NRSV (and others): “Even the priests … must consecrate
themselves.” Some (including 19.22 TEV) have “must purify themselves.” REB has “must hallow
themselves,” and NAB has “must sanctify themselves.” (For consecrate see also verse 10.) Who
come near to the Lord is literally “the ones stepping up unto Yahweh.” This refers to “priests
who are accustomed to approach the Lord” (TOT), or “who do have access to Yahweh” (NJB).
Since Yahweh is still speaking, 19.22 TEV has “who come near me.” Another way to express this
is “the priests who come near me must make themselves ritually pure … .” However, 19.22 CEV
 has “Only the priests may come near me.” The thought is evidently that it has already been
stated in verse 21 that the people are not allowed to approach Yahweh. But as for the priests,
if they purify themselves, they may come near.

Lest has the meaning of “or else,” as in verse 21. The Lord break out upon them means
that he will punish them in some way. TOT has “if they do not, he will attack them,” and NAB
has “else he will vent his anger upon them.” 19.22 TEV simply has “or I will punish them.”

An alternative translation model for this verse is:

• Only the priests may come near me, but they must first make themselves ritually pure. If they
don’t, I will punish them.

19.23

And may be changed to “But,” as in TAN, since Moses is now responding to what Yahweh
has said. One may say “But Moses answered.” The people cannot come up to Mount Sinai is
literally “The people are not able to ascend unto Mount Sinai.” 19.23 NRSV has “The people are
not permitted to come up.” Since Mount Sinai is already understood, 19.23 TEV omits it as
unnecessary.

For thou thyself didst charge us refers back to verse 12. The word for charge is the same
word for “warn” in verse 21, so 19.23 NRSV and others have “you yourself warned us.” 19.23
TEV has “you commanded us.” Saying introduces the words of Yahweh as a quote within a
quote.

Set bounds about the mountain is literally “you [singular] delimit the mountain,” which in
verse 12 was “you will delimit the people.” (See the comment there.) And consecrate it is
literally “and you will make it holy,” or “consider it holy,” or “keep it holy.” It is not clear
whether the mountain was made holy by means of setting the boundary, or whether the
boundary simply marked it off as already holy. 19.23 NRSV seems to favor the latter: “Set limits
around the mountain and keep it holy.” 19.23 TEV interchanges the two clauses in order to give
it the same meaning: “to consider the mountain sacred and to mark a boundary around it.”
(Note that 19.23 TEV changes the embedded quote to an indirect statement.) Translators may
use the idea of “taboo” in this context; for example, “Consider the mountain taboo.” (See the
comment on “taboo” at verse 12.)

19.24

And the Lord said to him may be reduced to “The Lord replied” (19.24 TEV). Go down is
literally “You [singular] go, you descend.” NJB has “Away with you! Go down!” But most
translations simply have “Go down.” And come up, literally “and you [singular] will ascend,”
again emphasizes the up and down movement. (See the comment at verse 20.) Bringing Aaron
with you is literally “you [singular] and Aaron with you.” The “you” is repeated.

But do not let the priests and the people break through uses the same verb as verse 21.
(See the comment there.) Literally the Hebrew says “and they must not break through,” which
may be understood as a negative command, “let them not break through.” To come up to the
Lord means “in order to come up to me” (see 19.24 TEV). Lest he break out against them is
almost identical with verse 22. For the second half of this verse, 19.24 CEV has a helpful model:
“But the priests and people must not try to push their way through.”

19.25

So Moses went down to the people completes the third round trip up and down the
mountain in this chapter. (A fourth round trip may be implied in verse 9. See the comments at
9b.) So is the usual conjunction waw.

And told them is literally “and said to them.” In Hebrew this is an incomplete sentence, for
what Moses said to the people is missing. Most scholars believe that the rest of the sentence
has either been lost or intentionally dropped in order to lead into chapter 20. Most
translations cover this up as in 19.25 RSV and 19.25 NRSV, and TAN has “and spoke to them.”
MFT, however, translates more literally in order to show an incomplete sentence: “So Moses
went down and said to them …” The three dots, or ellipsis points, are in the translation.
(Similarly also JB, NJB, and Durham.) 19.25 TEV completes the sentence with what the context
implies: “and told them what the Lord had said” (so also CEV). Translators are urged to do this
too.

b. The Ten Commandments (20.1–17)

The Ten Commandments, in their present form in Exodus 20, reveal signs of later
development and expansion from an earlier form. It is likely that the original form was very
brief and much easier to memorize. Some believe that all of the commands were negative at
first, even though two of them now are expressed in the positive. (See verses 8 and 12.) This
Decalogue, as it is called, has been inserted into the narrative at this point in order to prove its
divine authority and its connection with Moses. In this way these commandments become a
summary of “the people’s obligation” in the covenant that was established at Mount Sinai.

There is a close parallel account of the Decalogue in Deut 5.6-21, and the translator should
be aware of the similarities and differences. Both accounts have the same form of law that is
quite different from the laws listed in “The Book of the Covenant” (20.22–23.33). Here the
laws are expressed as demands with no punishment listed. This form of law is known as
categorical, or apodictic. In the Book of the Covenant, however, the laws are almost entirely in
the form known as case law, or casuistic law. The usual pattern is “If … then … ,” with the
situation given in the “if” clause and the punishment described in the “then” clause.

Another feature of the Ten Commandments is that they are all given in the second person
singular—“You [singular] shall not.” And yet, in their present position, they are presented as
God’s demands spoken to all the people. This gives them greater personal impact, even though
each individual is simply one member of a community. Translators should feel free to change
to the second person plural if that carries greater force in the receptor language.

JB JERUSALEM BIBLE
 These laws are not identified as “commandments” in the text. In fact they are called “ten
words” in 34.28. Also in 24.3 they are referred to as “words,” while the laws in 20.22–23.33
(“the Book of the Covenant”) are referred to as “ordinances.” The expression “You shall not,”
with the word “not” coming first, actually occurs twelve times, and it is not found in verse 12
at all. As a result there are different traditions as to how the ten demands should be counted.

Jewish tradition has always counted verse 2 as the first commandment, since it is really the
first “word.” Protestants usually count verse 3 as the first commandment, and verse 4 as the
second. The Roman Catholic tradition, however, considers verses 3 and 4 to be the first
commandment, and then divides verse 17 into two for the ninth and tenth. (The Lutheran and
Anglican traditions also share this interpretation.) For this reason, in an intercon fessional
translation especially, it is better not to number them from one to ten.

Section Heading: both 19.25 TEV and this Handbook have “The Ten Commandments” as
the heading for this section. For most languages this will be easy to translate.

20.1–2

And is the usual conjunction waw, but the context here suggests “Then.” God spoke all
these words introduces all that follows through verse 17. Note that God is ’elohim, who
immediately identifies himself as the Lord, Yahweh. Saying serves only as the marker for
opening the quotation.

I am the Lord is the self-introductory formula first used in 6.2. (See the comment there.)
This is the first “word” of the Ten Commandments, although it is not a commandment itself. It
is the necessary basis for the commandments that follow. In fact, at has “Since I, the Lord, am
your God, … you must have no other gods beside me.” Your God is literally “your [singular]
’elohim.” It may be advisable to change to the plural in this verse, for the setting suggests that
Yahweh is speaking to all the people, not just to Moses. (But see the introduction above.) One
also may express this sentence as “I am Yahweh, your [plural] God” or “I am Yahweh, the God
whom you worship.”

Who brought you out of the land of Egypt also uses the singular you, but translators may
render it as plural if that is more natural style. Brought you out is literally “I caused you to go
out.” Out of the house of bondage is discussed at 13.3.

20.3

This first commandment has the same form as all the negative commandments that
follow. In the Hebrew it is not a negative imperative that is used, but rather an even stronger
prohibition that simply describes what is demanded and expected of every individual in Israel.
Literally the Hebrew says, “Not shall there be for you gods before my face.” The negative
marker is placed first for emphasis. The you is singular, but as stated above it may be
translated as plural. The word for gods is the same word for “your God” in verse 2. ’elohim is
plural in form, so the context must determine whether it refers to gods in general, or to the
one true God. (See the comment on gods at 12.12.)
 Before me may be understood as “besides me” (NAB, TAN) or “in my presence” (Durham).
NJB has “You shall have no other gods to rival me,” and TOT has “You must not defy me by
acknowledging other gods.” 20.3 TEV is clear and accurate, “Worship no god but me,” and 20.3
CEV has “Do not worship any god except me.” Whatever form a translator chooses for this
negative command, that should be used throughout the Ten Commandments when the
negative form occurs in the Hebrew.

20.4

You shall not make for yourself is literally “Not you shall make for you,” with the not
coming first in the sentence. (See the discussion of this form in the introduction above and at
verse 3.) The word for graven image comes from the verb “to carve,” so a three-dimensional
image is implied. It refers to something made or carved into the shape of an animal, human, or
some other object, from stone, clay, wood, or metal, and was made for the purpose of
worship. TAN has “a sculptured image,” NJB and REB have “a carved image,” and NAB has “You
shall not carve idols for yourselves.” In languages where there is no specific term for graven
image or “idol,” it will be necessary to translate the underlying meaning; for example, “You
shall not carve out the likeness of anything living in … ,” where “likeness” means “the image
of.”

Or any likeness of anything is literally “and any form.” The words of anything are added to
complete the thought. The conjunction waw is translated three times as or; here it suggests
that any likeness is in addition to the graven image, so many translations use or (as in 20.4
RSV). But 20.4 NRSV and Durham take the series of three or’s to mean “whether … or … or.” In
this case, the likeness would not be in addition to the graven image, but would mean the
same thing. So NAB has “idols … in the shape of anything,” and 20.4 NIV has “an idol in the form
of anything.” 20.4 TEV follows this interpretation: “images of anything in heaven … ,” and 20.4
CEV has “Do not make idols that look like anything.” As noted in the preceding paragraph, the
underlying meaning of graven image will be translated in some languages as “in the likeness
of,” and in that case the following phrase, likeness of anything, will be redundant. So
translators are encouraged to follow either 20.4 TEV or 20.4 NRSV, interpreting the first or in the
sense of “whether.”

That is in the heaven above is literally “which [is] in the heavens from above.” NAB, TOT,
and 20.4 CEV have “sky,” and that will be a suitable translation in many languages. Or that is in
the earth beneath is literally “and which [is] in the earth from below.” In some languages this
may be expressed as “or on the earth below the sky” or simply “on earth” (TEV, CEV). Or that is
in the water under the earth is literally “and which [is] in the waters from below the earth.”
The words above and beneath may be omitted, since they are understood. But the phrase
under the earth should not be omitted (as in NIV), since this reflects the ancient concept of a
three-level universe (see Genesis 1).

20.5

You shall not bow down to them, literally “not you [singular] will kneel to them,” is the
third of the twelve uses of the “you shall not” form. (See the introduction above and the
comment at verse 3.) The word for bow down often means to do obeisance or “pay homage”
(TOT). (See 18.7, where the same word is used for Moses when he greets his father-in-law by
prostrating himself before him.) To them is plural, so it seems to refer back to the “other gods”
in verse 3 rather than to the “graven image” in verse 4. In this way it combines verses 3–6
grammatically; for this reason certain traditions have considered these verses to be one
commandment rather than two. (20.5 TEV and 20.5 CEV are not precise here.) However, one
may include both the gods and the “graven images” by saying “Do not bow down to any
likeness [or, image] of these gods.” Or serve them is literally “and not you will serve them.”
Serve means to “worship” (TEV, CEV).

For I the Lord your God am is the same as verse 2, which may be translated “because I am
the Lord your God” (20.5 TEV). The am is not in the Hebrew and may be inserted at either
place. (See the comment at 6.2.) A jealous God uses a word meaning to be envious of or
zealous for someone. The root meaning of “red” may suggest the color of one’s face produced
by deep emotion. It is a human emotion, to be sure, but it is used here to describe the intense
reaction of a holy God who demands unqualified loyalty from his chosen people. Jealous in
modern English usually carries negative overtones that may seem inappropriate in reference
to God. However, the emphasis here is on Yahweh’s righteous anger in response to any who
violate their pledge not to bow down or serve any other god. (See also 34.14.) TAN prefers to
say “an impassioned God,” and 20.5 TEV avoids using any adjective, “I tolerate no rivals.” If 20.5
TEV is followed it will be necessary in some languages to make the meaning of “rivals” explicit
by saying, for example, “I will not tolerate your worshiping [or, serving] other gods.” The word
for God here is ’El.

Visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children is quite literal from the Hebrew and
difficult to understand. The iniquity of the fathers is literally “the evil activity of the fathers,”
which in this context refers to breaking the terms of the covenant by making “graven images”
and worshiping other gods (verses 3–4). Visiting the iniquity is literally “attending to [or,
searching out] the evil.” In this context, therefore, it means punishing because of the iniquity.
But here punishment is placed not upon the fathers, but rather upon the children. (The same
word for “visit” is used in 13.19, but not in the sense of punishment.) Fathers in this case is not
intended to exclude mothers, so 20.5 NRSV brings out the meaning quite clearly: “punishing
children for the iniquity of parents.”

To the third and fourth generation means that the punishment is also extended to “the
grandchildren, and the great-grandchildren” (NJB). Of those who hate me refers back to the
fathers, not to the future generations. 20.5 TEV combines fathers and those who hate me to
read “I bring punishment on those who hate me and on their descendants down to the third
and fourth generation.” (See the comment on descendants at 1.7.) In rendering hate the
translator should keep the following verse in mind, for the word is used in direct contrast to
“love” (see the comment there). Just as loving Yahweh means keeping his commandments, so
hating Yahweh is understood as rejecting them, or more directly, rejecting Yahweh himself. So
20.5 NRSV has “of those who reject me.” 20.5 CEV puts this clause at the beginning of the
sentence, making it conditional: “If you reject me, I will punish … .” TOT reflects the Hebrew
more accurately: “I bring the consequences of the sin of those who hate me upon their sons,
grandsons and great-grandsons.”
 20.6

But showing steadfast love is literally “and doing chesed,” using a word that means more
than just “love.” It has been translated as “mercy” (20.6 KJV), “lovingkindness” (ASV), “kindness”
(TAN), “faithful love” (TOT), and “unchanging love” (Durham). 20.6 NRSV retains the steadfast
love of 20.6 RSV, which brings out the meaning of both love and faithfulness. Throughout the
Old Testament it usually refers to Yahweh’s “covenant love” for Israel.

To thousands of those who love me is literally “to thousands, to lovers of me,” using the
participial form “lovers.” The word for love in this second instance is the more common ’ahav,
which in its Hebrew use often goes beyond mere emotional attachment to include
faithfulness. Thus it fits well in this context of the covenant relationship found in the word
chesed. The Hebrew punctuation shows a pause after thousands. Therefore it is not certain
what thousands refers to. In 20.6 RSV it means “thousands of lovers,” but 20.6 TEV has
“thousands of generations of those who love me,” and this is more likely the intended
meaning. 20.6 CEV echoes 20.6 TEV with “I will be kind to your families for thousands of
generations.” 20.6 NRSV, following TAN and NAB, has “to the thousandth generation of those
who love me.” TOT has “through countless generations.” And keep my commandments also
uses the participle, meaning “and to keepers of my commands,” or “who observe my laws.”
The word for keep is the same word for “observe” in 12.17. For commandments (mitswah) see
the introduction to 20.22–26.

An alternative model for verses 5 and 6 is:

• 5 Do not bow down to any likenesses of these gods and worship them. I am Yahweh, the God
whom you serve. I will not tolerate your worshiping other gods. If you hate me, I will punish
you for that sin. Not only you, but I will also punish your children, grandchildren, and great-
grandchildren. 6 But if you love me and keep my commandments, I will steadfastly [or,
faithfully] love you and your descendants for thousands of generations.

20.7

You shall not take the name of the Lord is literally “Not you [singular] will lift the name of
Yahweh.” To “lift” a name means to utter or pronounce it, and since it is the name of your
God, it may mean to “invoke” a deity by calling out that deity’s name. In vain is literally “to
emptiness,” or “to empty purpose” (Durham). Since the name of any deity was considered
sacred, any careless use of that name was to “misuse” it (NJB, CEV), or “abuse” it (Childs). 20.7
TEV interprets it to mean “for evil purposes,” and 20.7 NRSV has “make wrongful use of.” TAN
gives it an even narrower meaning, in the sense of invoking the name in an oath: “you shall
not swear falsely by the name.” It is better, however, to give it the broader meaning of
“abuse” or “misuse.”

For the Lord will not hold him guiltless is literally “Yahweh will not leave unpunished.” In
many languages this will be stated positively in the active voice; for example, “I, Yahweh your
God, will punish anyone” (so also 20.7 TEV and CEV). The object of the verb is literally “the lifter
of the name to emptiness,” so 20.7 RSV has him … who takes his name in vain. But 20.7 NRSV
now has “for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name.” Note that in this verse
Yahweh refers to himself in the third person. So 20.7 TEV changes to first person: “my name”
and “I, the Lord your God.”

20.8–9

This is the first of the two positive commands in the decalogue. (The other one, the
command to honor parents, is in verse 12.) Remember is a very strong positive command
suggesting that the Israelites had already been observing the sabbath. The idea is “See that
you remember to observe.” 20.9 TEV simply has “Observe.” The sabbath day is literally “the
day of the sabbath.” (See the comment on “sabbath” at 16.23a.) To keep it holy means to
consecrate it, or to set it apart as holy. So it may be expressed as “dedicated to me” or
“belonging to me” (similarly CEV). The way to do this is then explained in the following verses.
Another way to express the first part of this verse is “Keep on observing the day of rest and
dedicate it to me.”

Six days you shall labor, literally “you [singular] will work,” is more a statement than a
command. So NAB has “Six days you may labor,” REB has “You have six days to labour,” and 20.9
CEV has “You have six days when you can do your work.” (See also 20.9 TEV.) And do all your
work, literally “and you will do all your work,” is also a statement. The word for work refers to
work by which one makes a living or earns one’s food, such as daily business or occupation.
Durham has “customary labor.” (The same word is used in 12.16.)

20.10

This verse brings together again the words for seventh and sabbath. For their meaning and
distinction, see the comment at 16.23a and 16.26. The seventh day does not specify our
Saturday but is the day following the six working days. 20.10 CEV has “the seventh day of each
week.” A sabbath to the Lord is the same as in 16.23a (but without the word “holy”). It may
mean “a sabbath of the Lord” (TAN, NAB) or “a sabbath for Yahweh” (NJB). TOT even has
“belongs to the Lord” (so also CEV). 20.10 TEV uses the first person, since Yahweh is speaking: “a
day of rest dedicated to me.” The Lord your God is “Yahweh your [singular] ’elohim.” 20.10 TEV
omits the phrase, and 20.10 CEV simplifies it to “belongs to me, your God.” (see verse 2.)

In it is not in the Hebrew, but most translations have words to that effect, since it is clear
that the prohibition against work refers only to “on that day” (20.10 TEV). Even 20.10 KJV and
ASV have in it, using italics to indicate they been added. 20.10 NRSV has now followed TAN in
omitting them. You shall not do any work is the same prohibitive form (“you shall not”) used
throughout these verses. The singular you is used, and then repeated again in the expressions
you, or your son, or your daughter, and so on.

The text is specific in listing seven to whom the command applies, including your cattle.
The word for cattle means “animals” in general (20.10 TEV), or “livestock” (20.10 NRSV). (See
the comment on cattle at 9.2–3.) The Hebrew has separate words for all of these, but in
languages where they can be grouped together, one may follow 20.10 TEV: “your children,”
and “your slaves.” The intention is to include all the people and animals for whom each
Israelite is responsible. (The wife is noticeably not listed.)
 The sojourner who is within your gates is literally “your foreigner who [is] in your gates.”
(For sojourner see the comment at 2.22 and 12.19.) The word for gates refers basically to the
city gates, but the meaning here may be extended to “your town” (TOT), “your settlements”
(TAN), “your community” (at), or “your country” (20.10 TEV). NJB simply has “living with you”
(similarly also REB and NAB).

20.11

For in six days introduces the reason for this commandment, so the for carries the
meaning of “because.” The Lord made heaven and earth is literally “Yahweh made the
heavens and the earth.” In many languages it will be better style to render the Lord as “I, the
Lord” (20.11 TEV) or simply omit “Yahweh” and say “I made … ,” since Yahweh is mentioned as
the speaker in the previous verse. There is no “and” for the sea, so the more literal
translations reflect this. But it is good to add it here, for these three areas represent the whole
universe as it was understood in the ancient world. Note that 20.11 TEV places “the earth” first
and changes the sea to “the seas” to make it sound more natural. However, it will be quite
natural style in many languages to keep the Hebrew order; for example, “In six days I made the
sky, the earth, the seas [or, oceans] … .”

And all that is in them refers to all created things—plants, animals, and humans—in “the
earth, the skies, the sea” (20.11 TEV). And rested the seventh day means to relax or take a rest.
It is a different word from shabath, which is the word used in 16.30, in , and in Gen 2.2-3. The
word used here refers to resting after becoming tired. Therefore means “for that reason,” or
“That is why” (20.11 TEV). The Lord blessed the sabbath day means that Yahweh gave special
significance to it. And hallowed it means he “made it holy” (20.11 TEV), “declared it holy” (REB),
or “set it apart for holiness” (Durham). 20.11 CEV has a helpful model: “but on the seventh day
I rested. That’s why I made the Sabbath a special day that belongs to me.”

20.12

Honor your father and mother means more than simply to obey your parents. This
commandment was addressed primarily to adults, and the word for honor means “to give
weight or dignity to,” in the sense of “Respect” (20.12 TEV). It is significant that both father and
mother are listed here, for the Israelite culture was male oriented. Since this gives equal
importance to the mother, one should not translate “parents.”

That means “so that,” or “in order that.” This introduces a promise rather than a reason,
as in the preceding commandment. (See Eph 6.2–3.) That your days may be long is literally “so
that your [singular] days will lengthen.” This means “so that you may live a long time” (20.12
TEV) or “may live a long life” (NAB). This expression is used repeatedly in Deuteronomy in the
sense of enjoying

prosperity as well as long life, so REB has “so that you may enjoy long life.”

In the land which the Lord your God gives you refers to the “promised land” (Durham).
The word for land refers to the ground or soil (as in Gen 2.7), suggesting a prosperous
agricultural life. The Lord your God is “Yahweh your [singular] ’elohim.” Gives you is better
understood as “is giving you” (NAB, NJB), for the participle suggests ongoing action. TAN has “is
assigning you.”

20.13

This commandment uses a word that means to kill someone, but it refers to unlawful
killing, not the kind of killing demanded by other laws that the Israelites understood to be
Yahweh’s laws. It does not refer to capital punishment, for this is prescribed in 21.12–17,
where a different word is used. It does not refer to killing in warfare, for this is prescribed in
the case of a “holy war” (see Deut 20.10-18). It does not always imply intentional or
premeditated “murder,” for the same word is used in Deut 4.41-42 for unintentional killing.

Originally the word probably referred to killing out of blood revenge, but later it was used
in reference to other acts of killing out of hatred or malice. For this reason “murder” is an
acceptable translation in English, and several translations have used this term. (So NRSV, TAN,
NIV, REB, and others.) But in languages where various terms for killing are not so clearly defined,
it may be better to use the more general term, kill, or to say something like “kill from anger” or
“kill from one’s own volition.” Translators should find a term that excludes killing accidentally,
but it should be one that means socially unsanctioned killing.

20.14

The Hebrew word for adultery was more restricted in meaning than the English word. If a
married woman had intercourse with a man other than her husband, it was always considered
adultery, for she sinned against her husband. If a man had intercourse with a woman other
than his wife, it was not considered adultery unless the woman was married. Then the man
sinned, not against the woman but against the woman’s husband. If a married man had
intercourse with an unmarried woman, it was not considered adultery.

Therefore this commandment does not apply to premarital sex, where neither the man
nor the woman is married. And it does not apply to extramarital sex on the part of a married
man if the other woman is not married. The basis for this commandment seems to have been
the concern for ensuring that any children born to a married woman would be her husband’s
children. If an equivalent term cannot be found in some languages today, it may be necessary
to say “You shall not violate a marriage relationship” (GECL), “You shall not sleep with someone
else’s wife,” or “Do not solicit another person’s spouse.” Care must be taken not to use a term
that is considered vulgar; euphemisms or polite ways of referring to sexual intercourse can be
readily found in most languages.

20.15

The Hebrew word for steal refers to taking something that belongs to someone else
without permission. It implies that such an act is done secretly or deceptively. In 22.1 the word
is used for stealing an animal that belongs to someone else, and in 21.16 it is even used for

GECL GERMAN COMMON LANGUAGE VERSION

kidnapping, or stealing a man. But since no direct object is stated here, the broader meaning is
suggested.

20.16

Literally this commandment says “You shall not answer in [the case of] your neighbor a
testimony of falsehood.” The words that are used here reflect the ancient legal system that
depended upon the witness of at least two people in order to convict a person of a crime. This
is not a commandment against telling a lie in general, but refers to “false evidence” (NJB, REB)
that hurts the reputation of someone else. (CEV’s “Do not tell lies about others” is not exactly
accurate.) However, one may express this as “Do not tell lies about someone when you are
giving evidence” or “Do not tell lies that hurt another person’s reputation.”

The word for neighbor refers to a companion, friend, or “fellow-Israelite” (TOT), so this is
another commandment that reflects the need to maintain good interpersonal relationships
within the Israelite community. This, of course, is true of all the commandments beginning
with verse 12. But since this has implications for any society, 20.16 TEV summarizes: “Do not
accuse anyone falsely.”

20.17

You shall not covet uses a word that means to crave something that belongs to someone
else. It is a strong word suggesting an attitude or emotion that often leads to an attempt to
acquire what is coveted. (The same word is used in Deut 5.21 in reference to the neighbor’s
wife, but a different word, meaning simply to desire, is used there in reference to the other
things owned by one’s neighbor.) The various objects of coveting are listed, beginning with
your neighbor’s house. This refers to another man’s “household” (REB), or all of his
possessions.

It is not clear why you shall not covet is repeated in this verse, but what follows the
second statement lists in detail what is probably implied in the word house. Roman Catholics,
Anglicans, and Lutherans, however, understand this to be a separate commandment. (See the
introduction above.) Wife is literally “woman.” Manservant and maidservant are two separate
words that distinguish between a male and a female slave. 20.17 TEV combines them into
“slaves,” which is possible if it is clear that both sexes are included.

The word for ox means a full-grown bull or steer, but here it would certainly include the
female as well, so 20.17 TEV has “cattle.” The ass was the same as the “donkey.” (See the
comment at 9.3.) Or anything that is your neighbor’s is literally “and all that is to your
neighbor.” This makes clear that the prohibition includes “anything else” that belongs to him.

c. The Need for a Mediator (20.18–21)

Verse 18 returns to the narrative where it left off at 19.25. Some scholars believe these
verses originally followed 19.19 or a, in which case this section would have come before the
Ten Commandments. The present arrangement of the text, however, shows the people’s
reaction to hearing Yahweh speak directly to them, as well as witnessing his spectacular
appearance on the mountain.

This brief narrative segment also serves as an introduction to the long list of laws that
follow, from 20.22 through , usually referred to as “the Book of the Covenant.”

Section Heading: 20.17 TEV’s heading, “The People’s Fear,” may also be expressed as “The
people are afraid” (20.17 CEV) or “The people are afraid to approach God.” Some translators
may wish to use the Handbook’s heading, “The need for a mediator.” Another way to express
this is “Moses mediates between Yahweh and the people.”

20.18

Now when all the people perceived is literally “And all the people were seeing.” The
participle here expresses progressive or continuous action, so Childs has “Now as all the
people were perceiving,” and Durham has “And all the people were experiencing.” What they
perceived included sounds (thunderings and the sound of the trumpet) as well as sights
(lightnings and the mountain smoking). These four terms are discussed at 19.16, 18. 20.18
NRSV now has “When all the people witnessed the thunder” (similarly also TAN and NAB). 20.18
TEV separates the sounds from the sights and uses an appropriate verb for each: “When the
people heard the thunder and the trumpet blast and saw the lightning and the smoking
mountain” (similarly TOT and CEV). Many translators will find this a helpful model.

The people were afraid is following the Septuagint rather than the Hebrew, which says
“the people saw.” Other translations also follow the Greek, such as 20.18 NRSV, NAB, NJB, and
REB, but only 20.18 NRSV and NJB have included a footnote to this effect. This is because the
Hebrew word for “see” is very similar to the word for “fear,” with only a slight difference in the
vowels. And trembled means to shake “with fear.” The Hebrew term may be used when a
foundation is weakened or lost. This is a different word from the one used in 19.16, 18, which
emphasizes the physical shaking. It is possible to place the clause, the people were afraid and
trembled, at the beginning of the verse and say “The people were afraid and trembled when
they heard the thunder and the trumpet blowing, and saw the lightning flashing and smoke
pouring out of the mountain.”

And they stood afar off may mean that they “kept their distance” (NJB), or it may mean
“they took up a position much farther away” (NAB). The word for afar off must always be
translated from the context, for it is the same word used in 2.4, where its relative meaning is
discussed. 20.18 TEV “a long way off” (also CEV) may suggest too great a distance. At least they
were close enough to speak to Moses in the next verse. Another way to express this is “they
would not stand near to the mountain.”

20.19

And said to Moses continues the sentence from verse 18, so it is the people who are going
to speak. You speak to us uses an emphatic You (singular), so NJB has “Speak to us yourself”
(also REB, 20.19 NIV, TOT). But it is also possible to have a conditional construction as in 20.19
TEV and 20.19 CEV, “If you speak to us … .” And we will hear may be understood as “we will
listen,” but the word also implies “we will obey” (TAN, NJB). However, in some languages it will
be necessary to state whom the people will obey or listen to. In this case it is probably Moses.
So one may translate “If you speak to us, we will obey what you tell us to do.”

But let not God speak to us is literally “and God will not speak to us,” but it uses the
negative marker for a command or a request. Therefore the people are requesting Moses to
do something that will discourage God from speaking to them directly. It does not suggest that
Moses had the power to prevent God from speaking to them. 20.19 CEV has “But don’t let God
speak to us.” Lest we die expresses what the people fear will happen if God does continue
speaking to them. As mere humans they will not be able to survive such an overwhelming
experience of having a deity speak to them. The entire statement may be understood as in
20.19 TEV, “If God speaks to us, we will die,” or as 20.19 CEV says, “But don’t let God speak to
us, or we will die!”

20.20

And Moses said may be changed to “But Moses replied” (Durham). Do not fear is exactly
what he said to them in 14.13 (“Fear not”), when they were at the Red Sea. It is more natural
to say “Do not be afraid” (20.20 NRSV) or “Don’t be afraid” (20.20 TEV). For God has come to
prove you is literally “for on account of testing you [plural] God came,” so 20.20 TEV has “God
has only come to test you” (so also CEV). The idea is that the people needed to be tested to see
how they would respond to God’s powerful presence. The word to prove may also mean to
train, in the sense of gaining practical experience. So Durham has “for it is with the purpose of
giving you the experience that God has come.” An alternative model is “God has come in order
to let you experience his powerful presence” or “in order to see how you respond to his
presence.” This clause, of course, must be joined to the following clause.

And that the fear of him may be before your eyes is literally “and in order that his fear
will be on your faces.” This explains further the reason why God has come. TAN has “and in
order that the fear of Him may be ever before you,” and 20.20 NRSV has “and to put the fear of
him upon you.” Moses seems to contradict himself, for he has just said Do not fear. But the
word for fear also means reverence and awe. So TOT interprets this as “to fill your mind with
reverence for him,” and Durham has “so that reverence for him might grip you.” 20.20 TEV’s
“and make you keep on obeying him” brings out the meaning but loses the play on the word
fear.

That you may not sin, literally “lest you [plural] miss the mark,” gives the real reason why
God has come. The Hebrew word for sin (chata’) appears frequently in the Old Testament
both as a verb and as a noun. As explained at 10.16, it most often refers to moral wrongdoing.
Its root meaning of “missing the mark” thus gives the idea of missing the goal or standard set
by divine law, or failure to observe what God requires. The Israelites must experience enough
fear of God that they will “not go astray” (TAN). 20.20 NIV has “to keep you from sinning,” TOT
has “This will prevent you from sinning,” and 20.20 TEV has “so that you will not sin.”

20.21

And the people stood afar off repeats the words in verse 18. (See the comment there.)
While Moses drew near is literally “and Moses approached.” To the thick darkness is literally
“unto the cloud,” referring to a very dense cloud. So 20.21 TEV and others have “the dark
cloud.” (Similarly NJB, REB, and TOT.) But the word also means darkness or gloom, and 20.21
NRSV retains this meaning. (Similarly also 20.21 NIV, ASV, and MFT.) Where God was is literally

“where there [was] the ’elohim.” This means that God was concealing himself from the people
by means of “the dark cloud.” It is possible to put this final sentence first and say “But when
Moses went near the dark cloud where God was, the people stayed at a distance.”

d. The Book of the Covenant (20.22–23.33)

(1) The Construction of Altars (20.22–26)
The traditional chapter division in the book of Exodus is at times misleading. The closing
verses of chapter 20 are really a part of the collection of laws found in chapters 21–23. So a
new block of legal or instructional material is introduced with verse 22 of chapter 20, and the
narrative does not pick up again until chapter 24.

As the outlined section headings show, all the material from 20.22 to is called “The Book of
the Covenant.” This title is found in 24.7, where it refers to the “ordinances,” or mishpatim,
mentioned in 21.1 and 24.3. These chapters include a variety of laws concerning situations that
developed later within the Israelite community, after they had already settled in the land of
Canaan. There is no clear pattern that holds this collection together, and it is difficult to
outline. But its placement here in the setting of Mount Sinai is significant for two reasons. It
shows that the people of Israel understood all these laws to be Yahweh’s laws. It also shows
how they tried to live in covenant relationship with Yahweh.

The various kinds of laws can sometimes, but not always, be identified by several different
Hebrew words, since each word has a slightly different primary meaning. The word mishpat
(plural mishpatim) is derived from the verb that means to decide, or to settle a dispute (see
18.13). Although mishpat is often translated as “judgment,” 20.21 RSV usually renders it as
“ordinance” when it has to be distinguished from other words for law.

Another word is chuqqah, which has also been rendered in 20.21 RSV as “ordinance” in the
earlier chapters of Exodus. (See, for example, 12.14, 43; 15.25.) This word, however, carries
the basic idea of something that is engraved or inscribed in stone, so it takes on the meaning
of a decree or a statute. It is used in 15.25b along with mishpat, where 20.21 RSV translates the
two terms together as “a statute [chuqqah] and an ordinance [mishpat].”

The word mitswah comes from a verb meaning to order or to command, and so it is
usually translated as “commandment.” In 15.26 it appears as Yahweh’s “commandments”
along with “all his statutes” (chuqqoth). And in 16.28 it is used along with the word torah,
where 20.21 RSV translates the two terms together as “my commandments [mitswah] and my
laws [torah].”

The word davar (plural devarim), as explained at 20.1, is used to distinguish the Ten
Commandments from the other laws in the Book of the Covenant, since they are categorical in
meaning as well as in form. (See also the comment at 24.3.) The basic meaning of this word,
however, is “word,” “event,” or “thing,” as explained throughout this Handbook.
 The word most commonly translated as “law” is torah, as explained briefly at 13.9. But this
word comes from the verb meaning to teach or to instruct, so it really carries the more basic
meaning of “teaching” or “instruction.” Thus in many places it is better to bring out this
meaning in translation.

Headings: translators who are following the Handbook’s outline should place a general
heading here, “The Book of the Covenant” (20.22–23.33). This may also be expressed as “The
book concerning the Israelites’ relationship with Yahweh.” Possible headings for this first
section are “The construction of altars” (Handbook), “Laws about altars” (20.21 TEV), “Idols and
altars” (20.21 CEV), “Laws about idols and altars,” or “How to construct altars.”

20.22

And the Lord said to Moses begins with the usual conjunction waw, which should
probably be dropped or else changed to “Then” (20.22 NIV), since it opens a new section. Note
that Yahweh’s words to Moses begin with this verse and continue without interruption until
23.33. Thus you shall say to the people of Israel now introduces a quote within a quote. This
embedded quote continues to verse 26 and is addressed to the “sons of Israel.” Ways to
express this are “The Lord commanded Moses to tell the Israelites” (20.22 TEV), “The Lord told
Moses to say to the people of Israel” (20.22 CEV), or in languages that favor direct speech, one
may say “The Lord said to Moses, “Tell the people of Israel, “You have … .” ’ ”

You have seen for yourselves is identical with the opening words of 19.4. That I have
talked with you from heaven refers, of course, to the Ten Commandments, but with you (not
“to you”) suggests a friendly dialogue rather than a declaration of laws to be obeyed. This was
something they heard rather than saw. So you have seen has been changed to “you know
now” in REB. From heaven, literally “from the heavens,” refers to the sky, of course. But here it
is thought of as the place where Yahweh lives. The descent to the mountain was only
temporary.

20.23

You shall not make uses the same form as the Ten Commandments, but here the you is
plural and more emphatic. Durham has “You must not make.” Gods of silver to be with me is
literally “with me; gods [’elohim] of silver.” This reveals a problem in the text, in that the
Hebrew actually places to be with me after the verb and then marks it as a complete clause,
literally “You [plural] shall not make with me.” This is difficult to understand, for it does not
indicate what should not be made. The probable meaning is “You shall not make anything to
rank with me” (so NAB) or “to be alongside me” (20.23 NIV). ASV and NASB add the words “other
gods,” using italics to show they are added. Durham has “You must not make rivals with me.”

This means that gods of silver really goes with gods of gold in the second clause, which
has its own verb. 20.23 NRSV follows 20.23 RSV in advancing gods of silver to the first clause:
“You shall not make gods of silver alongside me.” TAN and NJB also retain two clauses and

NASB NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE

advance gods of silver to the first clause. But 20.23 TEV combines the two clauses by
considering gods of silver and gods of gold to be the intended objects of both verbs: “Do not
make for yourselves gods of silver and gold in addition to me.” 20.23 CEV has “So you must
never make idols of silver or gold to worship in place of me.” (See the comment on gods at
12.12.)

Nor shall you make for yourselves gods of gold is literally “and gods of gold you shall not
make for yourselves.” It should be noted, however, that silver and gold usually go together as
an idiom, and the Hebrew punctuation keeps gods of silver … and gods of gold as one clause.
In some languages this verse will be rendered in a way similar to the following: “You must not
make likenesses [or, images] of gods out of silver or gold to worship in place of me.”

20.24

An altar of earth means an elevated place made out of soil for offering sacrifices, and this
is how it will be expressed in a number of languages; for example, “Build up an elevated place
with earth.” (See the comments at 17.15 and 27.1.) You shall make for me may be understood
as “to me,” or better, “for worshiping me.” You now switches back to singular. 20.24 NRSV
brings out the idea that Yahweh will be satisfied with a simple altar: “You need make for me
only an altar of earth.” This is suggested by the alternative mentioned in verse 25.

And sacrifice on it is literally “and you [singular] will slaughter upon it,” or “Offer on it
animals which you have slaughtered.” Your burnt offerings refers to the offering of animals
that were burned completely on the altar, with the exception of the hide, which went to the
priest (Lev 7.8). And your peace offerings refers to the offering of animals that were not
burned. The meat was divided among the priests and the worshipers. The purpose of this
offering was to restore shalom or fellowship with someone else. So one may translate “and
your offerings to restore fellowship with other people.” (This offering is described in Leviticus
3.) 20.24 TEV has “your fellowship offerings,” and 20.24 NRSV calls them “offerings of well-
being.” (See.)

The animals used for these offerings were sheep and oxen. But the Hebrew word for
sheep is a general term that included both “sheep and goats” (20.24 NIV). Oxen means
“cattle,” both male and female. (See the comment at 9.2-3.) In every place where I cause my
name to be remembered is a literal translation. It means, as 20.24 TEV expresses it, “in every
place that I set aside for you to worship me,” “Wherever I choose to be worshiped” (20.24
CEV), or “wherever I direct you to invoke my name” (TOT). Childs has “in every place where I
reveal my name.” However, “worship” (20.24 TEV) seems to be the most likely meaning here. I
will come to you and bless you uses the singular you. Come probably means “come down.”
The word for bless implies that Yahweh will give power for fertility, prosperity, and success.
Bless has many meanings depending upon the context. Since here it refers to conferring
prosperity upon the people, one may express it as “I will come down to you and cause you to
be prosperous” or “and make you prosper.”

20.25
 And if you make me an altar of stone provides an alternative to the “altar of earth” in
verse 24. You is singular and stone is plural. You shall not build it uses a different word from
make. The word for build means to erect or construct. Of hewn stones means stones that
have been cut or shaped with a tool. 20.25 NIV and NJB call them “dressed stones.” 20.25 TEV
has “cut stones.” 20.25 CEV combines the phrase hewn stones with the following clause and
says “do not use any tools to chisel the stones.”

For if is one word that has several meanings—for, if, because, when, or indeed. It must be
translated according to the context. “Because” is probably the best rendering (so 20.25 TEV and
CEV). The rest of the sentence is literally “your chisel you move back and forth upon it and you
will profane it.” “Chisel” (20.25 TEV) is probably a better term, since it refers to the tool used by
stone cutters. Wield suggests the continuous movement of the tool on the stone, but “use”
(TEV, CEV) may be a more natural term. You profane means that you “defile” (20.25 NIV) or
“desecrate” (NAB) the stone. 20.25 TEV clarifies what this means: “you make them unfit for my
use.” One may also say “You make the altar unfit for worshiping me.”

An alternative translation model for this verse is:

• If you use stones to build an altar, do not use any tools to chisel [or, cut] the stones. If you do
that the altar will be unfit for worshiping me.

20.26

And you shall not is the same prohibitive form used in the Ten Commandments. Go up is
the general word for ascend. By steps is a word derived from the word for go up. It refers to a
way or a means of ascending, such as steps. To my altar may refer to either the “altar of
earth” in verse 24 or the “altar of stone” in verse 25. Yahweh considers either one to be his
altar. Other ways to render this are “Do not build an altar to worship me that has steps” or
“When you build an altar to worship me, don’t make any steps leading up to it.”

That your nakedness be not exposed on it is literally “where you [singular] shall not
uncover your genital area upon it.” This suggests two things: that the priests wore loose
clothing that exposed their private parts to the ground, and that they were never supposed to
stand at such a level that would expose this nakedness to any part of the altar. The
background for this law may have been an early prohibition against high altars used for
worshiping a “high god.” But this is only one of several theories, so the translator should not
force the text to say more than it clearly implies. In languages that must avoid explicit mention
of the genitals, one may use a euphemism; for example, “you will expose yourselves” (TEV, and
similarly CEV), or “your private [or, hidden] parts will be seen.”

(2) The Treatment of Slaves (21.1–11)

(a) The Male Slave (21.1–6)

(a) The male slave (21.1–6)

Slavery was accepted throughout the ancient Near East as a part of society, and the
Israelites did not question it. In one sense they had not actually been slaves in Egypt, since
they did not belong to any master as personal property, as had been the case with Joseph
under Potiphar. Rather, they had been a people forced to do hard labor by an oppressive
government. This was quite different from being personal slaves who functioned as domestic
helpers. The fact that they formulated these early laws for the proper treatment of slaves
indicates that the Israelites still considered them to be human beings.

The Hebrew words for male and female slaves indicate that they were considered the
property of their master, and they may refer to either temporary or permanent slaves. There
are other terms for “servants,” such as the hired servant mentioned in 12.45, and Moses’
servant Joshua mentioned in 24.13. But the following laws refer to people who became
someone’s property as slaves for various reasons, usually in order to pay off some form of
indebtedness.

Section Headings: both 20.26 TEV and this Handbook have the general heading,
“Treatment of slaves” (21.1–11). 20.26 CEV has “Hebrew slaves,” and 20.26 NIV has “Hebrew
servants.” “Slaves” is the preferred rendering, for these people were owned by their masters
and had few rights. They were not servants who received money for their work. Alternative
headings are “Laws concerning Hebrew slaves” or “How Hebrew masters should treat their
slaves.” (See the comment on “slave” at 1.11a.) Translators who are following the Handbook’s
outline should include the subheading “The male slave” for this section (21.1–6).

21.1

Now translates the conjunction waw, which often occurs with the phrase these are to
introduce a list or a new section. Most translations do not translate the waw in this context,
since paragraph indentation has a similar function. The verse serves as an introduction to the
ordinances (mishpatim) that follow. (These were referred to in the introductory comments
before 20.22.) 21.1 RSV and 21.1 NRSV are usually consistent in translating this Hebrew word as
ordinances, but others simply have “laws” (21.1 TEV) or “rules” (TAN). In this context, however,
the word seems to identify the casuistic form of law that first describes the situation or “case”
and then states the way it should be dealt with. (See the introductory comment before 20.1.)

Now these are the ordinances therefore refers to all the laws that follow, particularly
those from 21.1 to . Which you shall set before them is addressed by Yahweh (20.22) to
Moses. Set before them means to place or “establish in their presence” (Durham). These
“laws” are to be established for the Israelites, not simply given to them (see 21.1 TEV). Since
this is the initial verse of a new chapter, starting it with a quote will be too abrupt in many
languages. In such a case it will be helpful to use one of the following models: “The Lord told
Moses to set down firmly [or, establish] the following laws for his people,” or “The Lord said to
Moses, “You must set down firmly the following laws for my people,” or even “This is what the
Israelites must do in the following situations.”

21.2

When translated the Hebrew word ki, which may also be rendered as “If” (TEV, 21.2 CEV,
and others). In the casuistic form of law, this word usually introduces the main clause that
 describes the situation, or “case,” and the weaker term ’im, which also means “if” or “when,”
introduces the subordinate clauses or the various situations that are possible under the same
law. 21.2 RSV and 21.2 NRSV usually translate ki as When, and ’im as “If.” (See verses 3, 4, and
5, which begin with ’im.) For some translators 21.2 RSV’s model will be more natural style, but
others will follow 21.2 TEV and 21.2 CEV, where “if” is used for both situations.

Some cultures may have their own linguistic form for stating this type of case law, and
translators are encouraged to follow the form that is most natural in their language for all of
these laws that follow. The important thing, of course, is first of all to understand clearly the
exact situation, or “case,” that each law describes and the exact penalty or punishment that is
then prescribed.

When you buy a Hebrew slave describes the situation of either purchasing a slave by
paying money (NAB, NJB, REB), or acquiring one as payment of a debt. (See the introductory
comments above.) You is singular, referring to any Israelite who may own a slave. The word
for slave refers to a male, and in this context it is necessary to retain the male identity. In
languages where pronouns do not indicate the sex of an individual, and there is no specific
word for “male slave,” one may translate the first sentence as “When [or, If] you buy a Hebrew
male slave.” The term Hebrew slave should not be changed to “Israelite slave,” since the word
Hebrew sometimes referred to a larger group than just the descendants of Jacob (see the
comment at 3.18). It was also a term by which non-Israelites often referred to a lower class of
people.

He shall serve six years means that he will be bound to his owner for only six years. The
word for serve is the same word from which slave is derived, and in some languages He shall
serve will be expressed as “He shall serve [or, work] as a slave.” And in the seventh year is
literally “and in the seventh”; year is understood. This probably means at the beginning of the
seventh year, and it will be helpful to make this explicit and say “But at the beginning of the
seventh year you shall … .” He shall go out free means that he will leave the household and
authority of his master. 21.2 TEV has “he is to be set free,” and 21.2 CEV has “you must set him
free,” Free, for nothing means “freed without compensation.” 21.2 NRSV understands this to
mean “a free person, without debt,” but others, including 21.2 TEV, keep the broader meaning,
“without having to pay anything.” Durham adds “without payment to you,” and TOT adds
“without paying for his freedom.” Another way to express this final sentence is “you are to set
him free, and he doesn’t have to pay anything to you.”

An alternative translation model for this verse is:

• When you buy a Hebrew male slave, he shall work for you as a slave for six years. At the
beginning of the seventh year, you must set him free, and he will not have to pay anything to
you.

21.3

If is the word ’im, which usually introduces one of several possible situations to which the
law applies. (See the comment at verse 2.) If he comes in single means, as 21.3 TEV translates,
“If he was unmarried when he became your slave.” One may also say “If he does not yet have
a wife when he becomes your slave.” Comes in is literally “he enters,” meaning “when he
became your slave” (21.3 TEV). Go out is literally “he exits.” So he shall go out single means
“he is not to take a wife with him when he leaves” (21.3 TEV).

If he comes in married uses the word ’im again. Literally the Hebrew says “if he is an
owner [or, husband] of a woman.” This means that if he brought a wife with him, then his wife
shall go out with him, or “he may take his wife with him” (21.3 TEV) when he leaves. TOT has
“his wife shall be released with him.” 21.3 CEV has “both he and his wife must be given their
freedom.” One may also express this as “you must free both him and his wife.”

21.4

If is the third use of the word ’im, mentioned at verse 2. His master means “his owner,” or
“lord” (’adon). Gives him a wife, literally “gives to him a woman,” refers to a situation where
the master assigns one of his slave girls to marry the unmarried slave. Some languages will
express this as “gives him a woman slave for him to take as his wife.” And she bears him sons
or daughters means that children are born to the slave by that wife. The text specifies both
sons and daughters.
271

The wife and her children (TEV: “the woman and her children”) uses the feminine her,
relating the children to the mother rather than to the father. Shall be her master’s is literally
“she will be to her master [’adon],” but it means that “the woman and her children belong to
the master” (21.4 TEV). NAB has “shall remain the master’s property.” TOT adds “shall still
belong to her master.” And he shall go out alone refers to the male slave, the father of the
children. Under this law, therefore, the father who became a freed slave had no claim to either
his wife or his children if their mother was already a slave of the master. The final sentence
may be also expressed as “Only the man himself has the right to be freed.”

21.5

But if, literally “and if,” now uses the word ’im for the fifth time for an alternative to verse
4. Plainly says is literally “saying he says,” a Hebrew form that strengthens the force of the
verb. So 21.5 TEV and others have “if the slave declares.” Durham has “says earnestly.” I love
my master uses the common word for love that can apply to wife and children, and so 21.5

271Osborn, N. D., & Hatton, H. (1999). A handbook on Exodus. UBS handbook series; Helps for
translators (457). New York: United Bible Societies.

TEV Today’s English Version

NAB NEW AMERICAN BIBLE

TOT TRANSLATOR’S OLD TESTAMENT

 CEV has “But suppose the slave loves his wife and children so much.” REB and NAB prefer to use
“I am devoted to.” If a language has a number of words for love, the idea of “devotion” or
“attachment” should be used in this context.

I will not go out free is not a demand but a choice. Since he has no claim over his wife and
children, it may be better to say “I do not wish to go free” (NIV, REB, TAN) or “I do not wish to be
released” (TOT). This is still an incomplete sentence that continues with the next verse.

An alternative translation model is the following:

• But if the slave declares, “I am devoted to you, my wife [or, woman], and my children. I don’t
want you to set me free,” …

21.6

Then translates the usual conjunction waw, and here it introduces the main clause of a
conditional sentence. The usual form of these casuistic laws is “If … and if … then … .” His
master shall bring him is literally “his master shall cause him to step up, or approach.”

To God is “to the ’elohim,” which 21.6 NIV translates as “before the judges.” (So also 21.6
KJV and NASB.) 21.6 NRSV now has a footnote here showing that “to the judges” is a possible
translation. As explained earlier (see at 20.3), the Hebrew word for God is plural in form, so
the context must sometimes determine whether the intended meaning is God, gods, angels, or
judges. (See also the discussion at 22.8-9.) Most translations still have God, allowing for the
interpretation of 21.6 TEV, “the place of worship.” One may also translate “the local sanctuary”
(MFT) or “the place to worship God.”

And he shall bring him to the door or doorpost repeats the same verb, but it is not clear
whether it is the door of the sanctuary or of the owner’s house. Most translations preserve the
ambiguity, but 21.6 TEV interprets it to mean the sanctuary: “There he shall make him stand
against the door or the doorpost”; 21.6 CEV has “Then he must stand beside either the door or
the doorpost at the place of worship.” This is also made clear in NAB, NJB, and Durham. For

CEV Contemporary English Version

REB REVISED ENGLISH BIBLE

NIV NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION

TAN TANAKH (NEW JEWISH VERSION)

KJV KING JAMES VERSION

NASB NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE

NRSV New Revised Standard Version

MFT MOFFATT

NJB NEW JERUSALEM BIBLE

 doorpost, see the comment at 12.7. The door was the movable covering of the doorway,
usually set in sockets to swing open and closed.

And his master shall bore his ear through simply means he “shall pierce his ear” (21.6
NRSV), or “put a hole through his ear” (21.6 TEV). The verb is used only here in the Old
Testament, but the context clarifies the meaning. With an awl means a tool for making a hole.
The word for awl is derived from the same word for piercing, or making a hole. It is used in the
parallel verse in Deut 15.17, where the awl is to go through the ear and “into the door.” The
text here, however, does not mention this. It appears that his standing against the door or the
doorpost of the place of worship was to provide a flat hard area for his owner to place the
slave’s ear against. In this way the owner could punch a clear hole through the ear as in the
Deuteronomy passage. 21.6 CEV provides a good model describing how an awl “punches a
small hole through one of his ears with a sharp metal rod.” And he shall serve him for life
means that “he will be his slave” (21.6 TEV) for the rest of his life. It is likely that a ring or tag of
some kind was inserted in the ear as a sign that he was now a permanent slave.

An alternative translation model for this verse is:

• … then his owner shall take him to the place to worship God. There he will make him stand
against [or, beside] either the door or the doorpost, while he punches a hole through one of
the slave’s ears with an awl [or, a sharp piece of metal].

(b) The Female Slave (21.7–11)

(b) The female slave (21.7–11)

Section Heading: translators who are following the Handbook’s outline should include the
section heading “The female slave” at this point, following the same pattern for the section
heading at verse 1, “The male slave.”

21.7

When is literally “And if,” using the word ki to introduce a new law. (See the discussion at
verse 2 and verse 6.) A man sells his daughter as a slave describes a situation, or “case,” in
which a girl becomes a female slave. (The Hebrew uses a different word for male slaves). This
is a straightforward statement, and the rightness or wrongness of the father’s action is not in
question. Sometimes an Israelite father had no other way to pay off a debt.

She shall not go out means “she shall not be released” (TOT), or “she is not to be set free”
(21.7 TEV). As the male slaves do refers back to verse 2, where a male slave is to be released
after six years. Another way to express this final sentence is “she [or, the daughter] may not go
free [or, receive her freedom] in the same way as a male slave,” or “the conditions for her
being freed [or, for the master freeing her] will be different from those for a male slave.”

21.8

This is the first of four possible situations, or “cases,” in which the slave girl of verse 7 may
find herself. They are introduced with the conjunction ’im (If) in contrast to the ki in verse 7. If
 she does not please her master is literally “If evil [or, displeasing] in the eyes of her lord.” This
does not indicate why she might be displeasing. Durham has “If she is unsatisfactory.”

Who has designated her for himself, literally “who for him assigned her,” means “who has
selected her for himself” (21.8 NIV). 21.8 CEV has “who bought her to be his wife”; but TOT’s use
of “concubine” instead of “wife” is more correct. In ancient Israel it was quite acceptable for a
married man to take a concubine, especially if his wife was unable to bear him a son. But she
was always considered to be of lower status than the first wife, even though she was
sometimes referred to as a second “wife.” (see verse 10.) In a number of languages this will be
expressed as “minor [or, small] wife.” For himself is one word in the Hebrew that may also be
read as “not,” as the 21.8 RSV footnote indicates. NEB’s attempt to follow that reading has been
rejected by REB, and most scholars prefer to read for himself. Another model for these first
two clauses is “If the man who bought her to be his concubine [or, minor wife] is not pleased
with her.”

Then he shall let her be redeemed is literally “and he will cause her to be ransomed.” This
means that “he must let her be bought back” (NJB), and 21.8 TEV interprets it as “then she is to
be sold back to her father.” In languages that do not use the passive voice, this clause may be
expressed as “then he must let her father buy her back.” He shall have no right to sell her to a
foreign people is literally “he will not rule [or, be empowered] to sell her to a strange people.”
21.8 TEV puts it simply: “her master cannot sell her to foreigners.” Foreign people or
“strangers” (NEB) here certainly refers to non-Israelites, but it may also refer to other people
outside the biological families of both the woman and her master. However, “foreigners” is the
more likely interpretation.

Since he has dealt faithlessly with her is literally “in his treating her faithlessly.” 21.8 NRSV
has improved over 21.8 RSV: “since he has dealt unfairly with her,” meaning that it is unfair of
him to change his mind about her. 21.8 NIV has “because he has broken faith with her,” and
21.8 TEV has “because he has treated her unfairly.” 21.8 CEV has “this would break the contract
he made with her,” but such a contract would probably have been made with her father.

An alternative translation model for this verse is:

• If the man who has bought her to be his concubine is not pleased with her, then he must let
her father buy her back. He must not sell her to foreigners. This would break the contract he
made when she became his concubine [or, when he bought her].

21.9

If he designates her for his son is the second possible situation involving “a female slave”
(21.9 TEV) (see verses 7–8). 21.9 TEV replaces the pronouns he and her with the nouns to which
they refer in verse 7. Designates is the same word used in verse 8, so 21.9 NIV has “If he selects

RSV Revised Standard Version

NEB NEW ENGLISH BIBLE

her for his son,” and 21.9 CEV has “If he selects her as a wife for his son.” This means, as TOT
puts it, that “he intends to make her his son’s concubine.”

He shall deal with her as with a daughter is literally “according to justice of the daughters
he will do to her.” The word for “justice” is mishpat, one of several Hebrew words for “law”
discussed in the introduction to 20.22–26. Here it means that which is legally determined, so
the text implies that there were accepted standards by which a father was to treat his
daughter. NJB has “he must treat her as custom requires daughters to be treated,” and REB has
“he must allow her the rights of a daughter.” The word for daughter sometimes refers to a
young woman in general, so TAN has “he shall deal with her as is the practice with free
maidens.” But most translations favor the interpretation of daughter here, and translators are
urged to do the same.

21.10

This third possible situation is an alternative to the first two (verses 8 and 9). The
implication therefore is that the female slave in verse 7 has become the concubine, or wife, of
her master. If he takes another wife to himself is literally “if another he takes for him.” Wife is
not in the text, so another means “another woman” (21.10 NIV), probably another female
slave. The distinction between wife and “concubine” is not always clear, for a female slave
who became a concubine was often considered a secondary wife. (See the comment on
“concubine” at verse 8.)

He shall not diminish her food is literally “he will not reduce her flesh [or, meat].” He is
the “master” in verse 8, and her is the female slave in verse 7, whom he has already taken as a
concubine, or wife. The word for diminish is used in 5.8, 19 in reference to the number of
bricks that was not “lessened” or reduced. So 21.10 TEV has “he must continue to give his first
wife the same amount of food.”

This also applies to her clothing, literally “her covering,” and her marital rights. The word
for marital rights is not used elsewhere in the Old Testament, so its meaning must be
determined largely from the context. Most scholars agree that it refers to “conjugal rights”
(TAN and others), which include “her right to intercourse” (Durham), or her right to bear her
master’s children. 21.10 TEV prefers to be less definite: “and the same rights that she had
before.” 21.10 CEV also has a less definite translation: “treat her as a wife.” Such a broad
interpretation, however, is not recommended, since the first two terms, “food and clothing,”
are quite specific. Also, verse 11 refers to “these three things,” suggesting that the third one is
as specific as the other two. In certain languages explicit mention of “sexual intercourse” will
be tolerated, but in many other languages an expression such as “right to bear her master’s
children,” will be more natural.

21.11

And if introduces the fourth possible situation of the female slave of verse 7. It gives an
alternative to the situation in verse 10. These three things refers to the three “rights”
mentioned there. The idea is that if the man “does not fulfill these duties to her,” then “he
must set her free” (21.11 TEV). 21.11 CEV has “If he fails to do any of these things.” For nothing
is discussed at verse 2. Durham has “she shall go out a free woman,” and NAB has “she shall be
given her freedom absolutely.”

Without payment of money, literally “absence of silver,” emphasizes the idea of for
nothing. This means that there is no need for her to “be redeemed” as in verse 8. It also
probably means that any family debt that may have caused her to be sold as a slave (verse 7) is
to be canceled. As 21.11 TEV puts it, the man “must set her free and not receive any payment.”
21.11 CEV has “she must be given her freedom without cost.”

(3) Violent Acts Against Persons (21.12–27)

(a) Capital Offenses (21.12–17)

(a) Capital offenses (21.12–17)

This section includes four laws that are different in form from the usual casuistic or “case”
laws, since in Hebrew the subject is a participial phrase. In verse 12, for example, “one striking
a man so that he dies” is the participial subject of “shall be put to death.” In most English
translations the indefinite “one” is replaced by an expression such as “Whoever” or Anyone
who” (NJB, NIV), and the verb is rendered in the present tense; for example, “Whoever strikes a
man so that he dies” (RSV).

These participial laws are similar to the Ten Commandments in that they are categorical
and usually do not provide for various situations or exceptions. (The one exception is the first
law in verses 12–14.) But they are different from the Ten Commandments in that the penalty is
clearly stated. This same form is found again in 22.19–20, where death is also prescribed as the
penalty.

Headings: translators who are following the Handbook’s outline should include the general
heading “Violent acts against persons” (21.12–27) at this point. This may also be expressed as
“Laws against hurting other people.” 21.11 TEV has “Laws about Violent Acts,” and 21.11 CEV
has “Murder and other violent crimes.” Translators should also include the section heading
“Capital offenses” for verses 12–17. Another way to say this is “Crimes punishable by death.”

21.12

Whoever strikes a man is literally “a striker of a man,” using a participle that means both
Whoever and strikes. The same verb is used in 2.11, where 21.12 RSV has “beating” and 21.12
TEV has “kill.” Here 21.12 TEV correctly has “Whoever hits a man and kills him,” since the law is
very specific: so that he dies. This law therefore does not apply to someone who strikes a man
if the victim does not die.

Shall be put to death, literally “dying he shall be caused to die,” is a very emphatic form.
21.12 NIV has “shall surely be put to death,” and others have “must be put to death” (NAB, NJB,
REB). The same form is used for the other three laws in this series—verses 15, 16, and 17. In
languages that do not have a passive voice, one may express this as “they shall execute [or,
kill] him.
 21.13

This verse gives an exception to verse 12. But if he did not lie in wait for him has been
changed in 21.13 NRSV to “If it was not premeditated.” 21.13 TEV interprets this to mean “if …
he did not mean to kill him,” and 21.13 NIV has “if he does not do it intentionally.” But God let
him fall into his hand is literally “and God let happen to his hand,” but TAN puts it more clearly:
“But if … it came about as an act of God.” (Similarly also NAB and REB.) 21.13 NIV has “but God
lets it happen,” and 21.13 CEV has “and I, the Lord, let it happen anyway.”

Then I will appoint for you is a change from third person to first and second person
singular, for here God is speaking either to Moses or to Israel as an individual. This means that
God will be the one to show where that special place will be. The word for appoint is variously
translated as “choose” (21.13 TEV), “establish” (Durham), “assign” (TAN), “set apart” (NAB),
“provide” (TOT), or “designate” (21.13 NIV).

A place to which he may flee is literally “a place where he will escape there.” This place is
not identified, but the following verse suggests that it was wherever Yahweh’s altar would be.
(For an example of this provision, see 1 Kgs 1.50-53.) However, “cities of refuge” were later set
up by Moses where a person could flee until it could be determined whether his act of
violence was inten tional or not. (See Deut 4.41-43.) A possible alternative model is “he may
run for safety to a place that I have set aside for you.”

21.14

This verse returns to the categorical law of verse 12 to make sure that intentional killing, or
murder, is punished by death. But if a man wilfully attacks another is literally “And when a
man becomes heated against his fellow,” using an idiom for “gets angry” (21.14 TEV). To kill
him treacherously uses a common word for kill that is different from 20.13. It has the broad
meaning described in the comments at 2.14. Treacherously is literally “in shrewdness,” or “by
crafty plotting” (Durham). 21.14 TEV has “deliberately,” and 21.14 CEV has “If you plan in
advance to murder someone.”

You shall take him from my altar is still addressed either to Moses or to Israel as an
individual. This assumes that the killer has fled for safety to the “place” mentioned in verse 13,
and that he has been found guilty of murder. 21.14 TEV clarifies this: “even if he has run to my
altar for safety.” From my altar is literally “from with my altar,” meaning from beside, not on,
any altar dedicated to Yahweh. 21.14 CEV interprets take in take him from my altar as “You will
be dragged off [from the altar],” as the action would have been a forcible one. That he may
die is literally “to die,” but the meaning is “for execution” (21.14 NRSV), or “to be put to death”
(TAN, NJB, REB).

Alternative translation models for this verse are:

• If a person plans in advance to murder someone, and then runs to my altar for safety, you are
to drag him away from the altar and kill [or, execute] him.

• If you plan in advance to murder someone, and then run to my altar for safety, you will be
dragged away and executed.
21.15

This is the second participial law. Literally the Hebrew says “And the striker of his father
and [or] his mother dying he shall die.” The word for “striker” is identical with verse 12. The
context clearly indicates that or is the intended meaning rather than “and.” Shall be put to
death is the emphatic form explained at verse 12.

21.16

Whoever steals a man, literally “And the stealer of a man,” is the third participial law. The
word for steals is the same word used in 20.15. Since this refers to stealing a person, most
translations have “whoever kidnaps a man.” Using inclusive language 21.16 TEV now has
“Whoever kidnaps someone,” meaning that this also applies if women are kidnaped. The
Hebrew term, however, does not necessarily suggest the idea of kidnaping for a ransom, so
another possible way of saying this is “Whoever forcibly takes someone away from his [or, her]
home.”

Whether … or is literally “and … or,” but the meaning is, as 21.16 TEV puts it, “either … or”
since two different possibilities are mentioned. The word for sells may refer to people, land, or
things. It is used in verse 7. Is found in possession of him is literally “he is found in his hand.”
21.16 TEV has “to keep him as a slave,” but this may be too narrow an interpretation, since the
kidnapper may be caught before he has a chance to sell his victim. TAN is better: “whether he
has sold him or is still holding him.” 21.16 CEV has “If you sell the person you kidnapped, or if
you are caught with that person.” Shall be put to death is the emphatic form explained at
verse 12.

21.17

Whoever curses his father or his mother is the same form as the previous participial laws.
The participle here, however, literally means “one who makes small, or humiliates.” This is why
TAN uses “insults” and REB uses “reviles.” The same word is used in 22.28, where 21.17 RSV uses
“revile” in a law against reviling God. The law in this verse therefore covers a wider field than
just speaking curses against one’s parents. And the penalty here is also death, expressed
emphatically. (see verse 12.)

(b) Other Offenses (21.18–27)

(b) Other offenses (21.18–27)

Section Heading: translators who are following the Handbook’s outline should include the
subheading “Other offenses” at this point. This may also be rendered as “Laws against other
crimes.”

21.18–19

Verses 18 and 19 are one sentence. Here the Hebrew style of connecting clauses by the
conjunction waw is strained, since the various possible situations, or “cases,” are all connected
with waw without clearly marking the main clauses and the subordinate clauses. Translators
should note how 21.19 TEV has combined these verses in order to break the long sentence into
two shorter sentences for easier understanding. The casuistic form of “When … if … then” is
followed throughout. (See the discussion on this form at verse 2.)

When men quarrel uses the word for finding fault in 17.2. Although the word often refers
to a legal case or lawsuit, it clearly refers here to physical violence. So 21.19 TEV has “If there is
a fight.” One may also say “If two men are quarreling.” Using inclusive language 21.19 NRSV
now has “When individuals quarrel and one strikes the other.” And one strikes the other,
literally “and a man beats his fellow,” uses the general word for hitting without specifying how
the hitting is done. 21.19 TEV has “and someone hits someone else.”

With a stone and with his fist, however, are specific. Some languages will have to use two
different verbs here to be more natural. The word for stone does not indicate any specific size.
With his fist is literally “by fist,” with the pronoun added in translation. The meaning of the
word translated fist is uncertain, since it occurs only twice in the Old Testament (see Isa 58.4).
The meaning is drawn only from the context. That is why NEB has “a spade,” and Durham has
“a tool.” However, translators are advised to use fist in this context. Other ways to express this
sentence are “and one of you uses either a stone or your fist to hit the other,” or even “and
one of you injures the other by hitting him with either a rock or your fist.”

And the man does not die may be expressed as “but does not kill him” (21.19 TEV), or “but
the injury to him is not fatal.” (The man in this case is the one who has been struck.) This may
be easier than having to identify him as “the injured party” (21.19 NRSV, NJB). Note, however,
that 21.19 TEV advances the main clause, “he is not to be punished,” from verse 19 in order to
complete the shorter sentence. But keeps his bed is literally “and he falls to bed.” This means
“he has to stay in bed” (21.19 TEV), or “is confined to bed” (21.19 NRSV, 21.19 NIV, NJB), or even
“If the victim has to stay in bed” (21.19 CEV). One may also express this as “However, if the
injured person has to stay in bed.”

Then if is only the word “if” (’im), so this does not introduce the main clause. (See the
comment at verse 2.) 21.19 TEV interprets it as “but later.” If the man rises again, literally “if he
rises,” is a specific situation or “case,” following the casuistic form (again is added). And walks
abroad with his staff is literally “and he walks back and forth outside upon his support.” The
form of the word for walks suggests wandering, or walking around for exercise, especially with
the word outside. The assumption is that the injured man is recuperating and is not
permanently crippled. With his staff means, as 21.19 TEV puts it, “with the help of a cane.” This
is not the shepherd’s “rod” or “walking stick” but rather the “stick” (21.19 CEV) used for
support by the lame or the elderly when walking. (See Zech 8.4.)

He that struck him shall be clear is the main clause of this long sentence. Literally the text
says “and the striker will be free,” meaning free from guilt or punishment. The “and” here is
the Hebrew we- (waw), which introduces the main clause and is usually translated as “then.”
This means that “the assailant shall go unpunished” (TAN), or “shall be acquitted” (NAB), or “will
have no liability” (NJB). 21.19 CEV puts this at the end of the verse and combines it with only:
“That’s your only responsibility.” This means that there will be no other punishment or fine,
except for paying for the loss of time and also caring for the other man until he is healed.
 Only introduces one of two exceptions to the “liability” of the “striker.” It means “except
that” (TAN) or “other than” (NJB). He shall pay for the loss of his time is literally “he shall give
[or, offer] his idleness.” This means that he must “compensate the injured party for his
enforced inactivity” (NJB). This may refer to “the time when he could not work” (TOT),
suggesting that the man was a hired worker. 21.19 TEV is better: “the one who hit him is to pay
for his lost time.”

And shall have him thoroughly healed is literally “and healing he shall heal.” This is the
same emphatic form as “dying he shall die” in verses 12–17. However, it does not mean that
the assailant must become a physician, but only that he must “see that he is completely
healed” (21.19 NIV), or that “his recovery is complete” (REB). FRCL has “pay the costs of his
healing.”

Alternative translation models for verse 18 and 19 are:

• 18 If two people are quarreling, and one uses either a rock or his fist to hit the other, but does
not kill him, and if the one who is hit must stay in bed, 19 but later is able to get up and walk
outside with the help of a walking stick, then the one who hit him must pay for his loss of time,
and he must also take care of him until he gets well. Other than that he is not responsible.

• 18–19 Suppose two of you are quarreling, and you injure the other person by hitting him with
a rock or your fist, but you do not kill him. They are not to punish you. However, if the injured
person has to stay in bed but later is able to walk outside using a walking stick, you must pay
for his loss of time. You must also look after him until the injury is healed.

21.20

Verses 20 and 21 deal with a single act of violence against slaves. When is literally “And if
[ki]” as in verse 18. When a man strikes … with a rod refers to “a slaveowner” (21.20 NRSV)
who “beats … with a stick.” This is the same verb used in verses 12, 15, and 18. The word for
rod may mean a stick, a staff, or a club, depending on the context. Verse 19 uses a different
word, but both words are translated the same way by 21.20 RSV in Psa 23.4. Moses’ “rod” in
4.2 is yet another Hebrew word.

His slave, male or female is literally “his male slave or his female slave,” using the same
words that are used in verses 1 and 7. (See the comment there.) And the slave dies is literally
“and he dies.” Under his hand is quite literal and probably means, as 21.20 TEV expresses it
idiomatically, “on the spot,” or “there and then” (TAN), or “immediately” (21.20 NRSV). But NIV’s
“as a direct result” is also possible. It must be clear, however, that “the slave dies from the
beating” (Durham).

He shall be punished is literally “punished he shall be punished,” using the same emphatic
form as “dying he shall die” in verse 12. The basic meaning of the verb is to take revenge, so
TOT has “the death shall be avenged.” But the kind of punishment is not indicated, and it does
not say “dying he shall die.” Most scholars conclude, therefore, that it probably refers to a less

FRCL FRENCH COMMON LANGUAGE VERSION

serious punishment to be determined by a judge. In languages that do not use the passive
voice, one may say, for example, “he will receive punishment” or “they must punish him.”

21.21

But if, literally “However if,” uses the weaker if (’im) instead of the stronger “when” (ki).
(See the discussion verse 2.) The word for But is not the usual conjunction waw but a particle
showing contrast.

If the slave survives a day or two is literally “if he will stand a day or days [dual].” 21.21 NIV
interprets this as “if the slave gets up after a day or two,” but most translations take the word
“stand” to mean “stay alive.” The implication is that, even if he dies after two days, he (the one
who struck him) is not to be punished. So 21.21 TEV has “if the slave does not die for a day or
two,” TOT has “the slave’s death shall not be avenged,” and one may also say “But if the slave
lives for a few days after the owner beats him.”

For the slave is his money means that the value of the slave is measured in terms of
money (literally “silver”), or simply as “property” (21.21 NRSV). The previous clause implies that
the slave (man or woman) eventually dies, so 21.21 TEV is correct in saying “the loss of his
property is punishment enough.” The slave therefore is entitled to certain rights, but not the
rights of a free man. A possible alternative is “After all, he has already lost the services of that
slave who was his property.”

21.22

Verses 22–25 deal with one law regarding unintentional harm done to a pregnant woman.
When men strive together, literally “And when [ki] men quarrel,” is similar to verse 18 but
uses a different word meaning the same thing. (The word here is used in 2.13.) And hurt a
woman with child means that they “hurt a pregnant woman” (21.22 TEV). The word for hurt
may also simply mean “hit” (21.22 NIV) or “strike” (TOT). TAN has “pushes,” and REB has “knocks
against.” Other ways to express this are “and injure a pregnant woman” or “cause a pregnant
woman to suffer injury.”

So that there is a miscarriage is literally “and her children go out.” The Hebrew is not clear
whether a miscarriage is really intended or a “premature birth” (Durham). In the case of a
miscarriage, the fetus would not survive, so “she loses her child.” But in case “she gives birth
prematurely” (21.22 NIV), then it is possible that the child (or children) would live. Most
scholars understand it to be a miscarriage. Translators are advised to follow this
interpretation.

And yet no harm follows, literally “and there is no harm,” is also unclear. Since the woman
has already been hurt, the meaning seems to be “and yet no further harm follows” (21.22
NRSV). But the word for harm is indefinite. The only other place this word is used is in the story
of Joseph, where Jacob is concerned that no “harm” come to Benjamin. (See Gen 42.4, 38;
44.29.) 21.22 TEV interprets this to mean “but she is not injured in any other way.” 21.22 CEV
has “If she isn’t badly hurt.”
 The one who hurt her shall be fined is literally “fining he shall be fined,” using the same
emphatic form as “dying he shall die” in verse 12. The “he” clearly refers to “the offender”
(REB), or “the one who struck the blow” (TAN). The word for fined implies a payment either in
cash or in kind. According as the woman’s husband shall lay upon him simply means, as 21.22
TEV translates, “whatever amount the woman’s husband demands.” The word for husband
also means owner or lord. (The same word is used in verse 3.)

And he shall pay as the judges determine is literally “and he gives by the judges.” Since
this qualifies the previous clause, 21.22 TEV has “subject to the approval of the judges.” The
word for judges has been understood by some to mean a “reckoning” (TAN) or an
“assessment” (REB), but the meaning is just about the same. 21.22 CEV has “and the judges
approve.”

21.23–25

If (’im) introduces the alternative situation, or case, to which the law of verse 22 applies.
(See the discussion at verse 2.) If any harm follows, literally “And if there is harm,” uses the
same word as in verse 22. This refers to additional harm to the pregnant woman other than
the loss of her child. 21.25 TEV makes this clear: “But if the woman herself is injured.” 21.25 CEV
has “But if she is seriously injured,” indicating more serious injuries than merely lacerations or
bruises in the stomach area.

Then (Hebrew we-) introduces the main clause, which continues to the end of verse 25.
You shall give life for life means that if the woman dies another life must be taken. In this case
it implies that the man who inflicted the injury would have to be killed. The you is singular,
addressed either to Moses or to Israel as an individual. The word for give also means to offer
or surrender. 21.25 TEV has “the punishment shall be life for life,” and 21.25 CEV has “the
payment will be life for life.” Both renderings are similar in meaning. In some languages one
must say “If she dies, the man must pay [or, exchange] his life for her life” or “must give up [or,
surrender] his own life in exchange for her life.”

Eye for eye means that if either of the woman’s eyes were injured or destroyed, the same
injury shall be inflicted on the person who caused the injury. Tooth for tooth means that for
every tooth that may have been knocked out, a tooth shall be removed from the one who
caused the injury. Hand for hand evidently means that any injury to the woman’s hand shall be
inflicted on the hand of the one who caused the injury. Foot for foot means the same thing.

Burn for burn uses a word that may also mean “scar,” or perhaps “burnt-scar” (Fox). It is
not clear how a woman could have been burned in the situation stated in verse 22, but the list
is simply describing various kinds of injuries. Wound for wound uses a word that may also
mean “bruise.” Stripe for stripe describes a wound or bruise made by a rod or a whip, so
Durham has “wale for wale,” and NJB has “stroke for stroke.” 21.25 TEV and 21.25 CEV have
“bruise for bruise.”

21.26
 Verses 26 and 27 give an additional law concerning bodily harm to a slave. (See verses
20–21.) When a man strikes is identical with the opening words of verse 20. The man here
refers to “a slaveowner” (21.26 NRSV). The eye of his slave, male or female is literally “the eye
of his [male] slave or the eye of his [female] slave.” The Hebrew has a specific word for each.
(see verse 20.) And destroys it is more specific, for the word here means to spoil or ruin the
eye. It does not necessarily mean “puts it out” (21.26 TEV) but rather “destroys the use of it”
(NAB, NJB).

He shall let the slave go free is literally “to be freed he shall send him [or, let him go].” For
the eye’s sake is simply “for his eye.” 21.26 NRSV now has “to compensate for the eye.”

21.27

If, literally “And if [’im],” indicates that this is an alternative to verse 26. (See the
discussion at verse 2.) He knocks out the tooth is literally “he causes a tooth to fall.” His slave,
male or female is literally “his [male] slave or his [female] slave,” as in verse 26. He shall let
the slave go free for the tooth’s sake. 21.27 TEV uses exactly the same wording as in verse 26.

(4) Injuries Involving Animals (21.28–36)

This section includes laws about a man’s responsibility to look after his own animals,
particularly the bull. The first law, verses 28–32, explains the owner’s liability if his bull should
kill any person. The second law, verses 33–34, shows the need to be concerned for another
person’s animals. The third law, verses 35–36, describes what must be done when one man’s
bull kills another man’s bull.

Section Heading: 21.27 TEV’s heading, “The Responsibilities of Owners,” may also be
expressed as “The responsibility of animal owners.” The Handbook’s heading may be
alternatively rendered as “Laws about animals that injure humans or other animals.”

21.28

When, literally “And if [ki],” introduces the situation, or case, and verses 29–32 describe
four different ways to deal with the problem, depending on the circumstances. (See the
discussion at verse 2.) The Hebrew word translated as ox (shor) refers to a fully-grown bovine,
or head of cattle. It is a generic term that can also mean “bull” (21.28 TEV) or even “cow”
(female), depending on the context. Translators are advised to use a similar generic term.
When an ox gores refers to such an animal that injures a person, a man or a woman, with its
horns. (See also FFB, pages 62–63, for a description of cattle.) Both 21.28 TEV and 21.28 CEV
translate man or a woman as “someone.” It is also possible to say “a person” rather than
indicating both genders. To death is added to show that this law applies only when that person
is killed by the injury. In certain languages it will be more natural style to translate this first
sentence as “If a bull kills someone with its horns” or “If a bull uses its horns to kill someone,”
or even “If a cow hits a person with its horns and kills him.”

FFB FAUNA AND FLORA OF THE BIBLE

 The ox shall be stoned, literally “stoned he shall be stoned,” means that the animal must
be killed by throwing stones at it. So one may translate “people must throw stones at it until it
dies.” (See the comment at 19.13.) And its flesh shall not be eaten implies that the animal has
now become taboo, or ritually unfit for eating. This is why it has to be stoned to death, with no
one touching it. It also makes certain that the loss of the animal to its owner will be a complete
loss. But the owner of the ox shall be clear means that the owner “shall not be liable” (21.28
NRSV), “is not to be punished” (21.28 TEV), or “isn’t responsible for the death” (21.28 CEV). The
complete loss of the animal is considered sufficient punishment.

21.29

But if uses the secondary “if” (’im) to introduce an exception to verse 28. (see verse 2.) If
the ox has been accustomed to gore in the past is literally “And if the bull is a gorer before
three days ago.” This means “if the bull has been in the habit of attacking people” (21.29 TEV)
or “is habitually belligerent” (Durham).

And its owner has been warned is the first of three more “and” clauses that continue the
idea of “if” from the opening clause. These clauses specify the exact conditions to which the
penalty will apply. The text does not specify by whom “its owner had been warned” (21.29
TEV), but one may say “and people have warned the owner.” But has not kept it in is literally
“and he did not watch it.” In this context, of course, it means that the owner “has not
restrained it” (21.29 NRSV), “did not keep it penned up” (21.29 TEV), or “refused to keep it
fenced in” (21.29 CEV). And it kills a man or a woman uses the verb “to die” in the sense of
“causing to die.”

The ox shall be stoned is the main clause, meaning that the “bull” must be killed by
stoning. But the main clause continues: and its owner shall also be put to death. Literally it
says “and also its owner shall die,” without indicating how he is to be killed.

21.30

If a ransom is laid on him is a literal translation that means “If a ransom is imposed on the
owner” (21.30 NRSV). Since this is an exception to the death penalty in verse 29, it is helpful to
begin with “However” (TEV, CEV). The ransom here means “an indemnity” (Durham), “a money
payment” (REB), or “a fine” (21.30 TEV). To be laid on him means “is demanded of him” (21.30
NIV).

Then he shall give means that “he must pay” (TAN). For the redemption of his life is
literally “ransom [money] of his life,” but it may be easier to translate the noun as a verb, “in
order to redeem [21.30 TEV ‘save’] his life.” Whatever is laid upon him is literally “all that is
laid upon him.” This means “whatever is demanded” (21.30 NIV), “the full amount required”
(21.30 TEV), or “by paying whatever fine is de manded” (21.30 CEV). In languages that do not
have the passive voice, one may say “the owner must pay whatever fine they demand,” where
“they” refers to the arbitrators or judges.

21.31
 If it gores a man’s son or daughter is not an exception but a further provision of the law. If
it gores here means, as 21.31 TEV expresses it, “If the bull kills.” (See the comment on “gores”
at verse 28.) And a man’s son or daughter (CEV’s “some one’s son or daughter”) may also be
translated as “a boy or a girl” (21.31 TEV). The point here is that the law applies even when
children have been killed. TAN has “a minor, male or female.” However, the more general “a
boy or girl” or “children” is the more likely interpretation.

He shall be dealt with according to this same rule is literally “this judgment [or decision]
shall be done to him.” The word for rule is mishpat, the same word translated “justice” in
verse 9. (See the introduction to 20.22–26.) 21.31 TEV translates the meaning in a simpler way:
“the same rule applies.” This final clause may be placed at the beginning of the verse as in CEV:
“This same law applies if the bull gores someone’s son or daughter.”

21.32

In contrast to verse 31, this verse gives an exception. If the ox gores a slave does not say
that the slave dies, but this is clearly implied. So 21.32 TEV has “If the bull kills.” As in verse 20,
slave, male or female is literally “male-slave or female-slave”; but in some languages one may
simply say “a slave.” The owner shall give is literally “he shall give,” but the context makes
clear that the “he” refers to the owner of the “bull,” and that give really means “pay” (21.32
TEV). To their master means, as 21.32 TEV expresses it, “to the owner of the slave,” or the
“slave owner” (21.32 NRSV).

Thirty shekels of silver specifies the definite amount of money for the fine. The shekel was
a weight measure that averaged about 11.4 grams, or ounces. The total amount, thirty shekels,
would be about 12 ounces, or 342 grams. This should not be given the same value as silver
today, however. In ancient Israel one shekel could purchase ten pounds (three kilograms) of
the best wheat or twenty pounds (six kilograms) of barley. (See 2 Kgs 7.16 in 21.32 TEV.)
Shekels of silver is specified, since shekels were sometimes measured in gold, bronze, and
even iron. Since silver was much more common than gold, the word later came to be used for
“money” (see verses 11 and 21). Both 21.32 TEV and 21.32 CEV translate this as “thirty pieces of
silver.”

And the ox shall be stoned means, of course, that “the bull shall be stoned to death”
(21.32 TEV). (See the comment on stoning at verse 28.)

21.33

When, literally “And if [ki],” introduces the first of two possible situations that are
connected by the word or. When a man leaves a pit open is literally “if a man opens a cistern.”
The word for pit refers to a man-made hole in rocky soil for the purpose of collecting and
storing rain water. It is not a well. This first situation, therefore, is “when a man removes the
cover of a cistern” (REB). A “cistern” may also be rendered as “a hollowed place in the rock for
storing water” or “a place dug [or, hewn] in the rock for storing water.”

The second situation is when a man digs a pit and does not cover it. The words or when,
with ki, give this clause equal standing with the first clause. The word for digs, meaning to
excavate, is also used for digging a well. But the word for pit does not refer to a well, so the
purpose for the digging is to make a “cistern” (NAB). And does not cover it implies that any
man who digs a pit (“cistern”) has a responsibility to place a cover over it. The purpose of
covering it was not to conceal it, but rather to prevent any person or animal from falling into it.

And an ox or an ass falls into it gives the possible consequence of either of the two when
clauses. As in verses 28–32, the ox is a “bull,” or a steer. The ass is a “donkey,” as explained at
4.20. Both animals were extremely valuable to their owners. The following verse continues the
sentence and assumes that the animal is killed from the fall.

21.34

This is the main clause of the sentence beginning in verse 33. It is clear that the owner of
the pit is the one who is responsible, whether or not he was the one who uncovered it. 21.34
TEV’s use of “he” suggests incorrectly that whoever uncovers a cistern is the one responsible,
whether he is the owner or not. TAN has “the one responsible for the pit,” which means the
owner of the cistern. Shall make it good uses a word meaning to pay or to make amends.
21.34 NRSV has “shall make restitution,” and TOT has “shall compensate.”

He shall give money to its owner means that the owner of the pit shall “pay the money”
(21.34 TEV) to the owner of the dead animal. Give money is literally “he shall cause silver
[money] to return.” REB is clear: “he must pay the owner the price of the animal.” And the
dead beast shall be his means that the owner of the pit “shall take possession of the dead
animal” (TOT).

21.35

When is “And if,” using the word ki (see verse 2). When one man’s ox hurts another’s is
literally “And if a bull of a man injures the bull of his fellow.” The word for hurts is the same
word used in verse 22 for hurting a pregnant woman. Here, of course, it refers to serious
injury. So that it dies means that the bull is killed by the injury. 21.35 TEV simply has “If one
man’s bull kills another man’s bull.”

Then they shall sell the live ox refers to the two owners, even though the “live bull” (21.35
TEV) had belonged to only one man. The owner of the dead bull must also participate in the
sale of the live animal. And divide the price of it is literally “and they will divide its silver,”
meaning “the money” received from the sale of the “live bull.” So 21.35 TEV has “and divide
the money.” And the dead beast also they shall divide is literally “and also the dead they will
divide.” This means, of course, that they will “divide up the meat from the dead animal” (21.35
TEV). The word for divide does not necessarily mean to divide into two equal parts, but here
the context suggests just that. So NAB and 21.35 CEV add the word “equally” since this is a safe
assumption.

21.36

Or if it is known is literally “Or it is known”; the if is not used here as in verse 33, but it is
understood. This verse, however, is an alternative to the situation in verse 35, so most
translations, including 21.36 TEV, have either “But if it was known” or “If, however, it is known”
 (TAN). It is known does not indicate who has known this, but the context suggests that “it is
well-known” (TOT), “common knowledge” (NJB). That the ox has been accustomed to gore in
the past is the same as in verse 29. (See the comment there.) And its owner has not kept it in
is also the same as in verse 29.

He shall pay ox for ox is literally “paying he shall pay bull for the bull.” The emphatic form,
“paying he shall pay,” is the same as “dying he shall die” in verses 12–17. As in verse 34, the
word for pay means to make amends, or “give compensation” (Durham). Here, however, the
payment is not in money but with another “bull.” So 21.36 TEV has “he must make good the
loss by giving the other man a live bull.” And the dead beast shall be his is literally “and the
dead will be for him.” This may be understood in two ways: he “shall take possession of the
dead animal” (TOT) or “he may keep the dead animal.” Either way the he refers to the owner of
the “bull” that did the killing.

An alternative translation model for this verse is:

• But if people knew that the bull was in the habit of using his horns to attack others, and its
owner did not keep it inside a fence, he must give a live bull to the man in repayment, but he
may keep the dead animal.

(5) Property Rights (22.1–15) [21.37–22.14]

Translators should note that the verse numbers in chapter 22, as in chapter 8, are different
from the Hebrew text. Most English translations follow a different tradition, so that 22.1 in RSV,
NRSV, and TEV is really 21.37 in the Hebrew text. And 22.2 is really in the Hebrew. Some
translations, however, such as TAN, NAB, and NJB, follow the verse numbers of the Hebrew, so
there can be some confusion in comparing English translations. RSV always calls attention to
this difference in a footnote. This Handbook displays the Hebrew chapter and verse within
square brackets.

Section Heading: other possible headings are “Protection of property” (21.36 NIV),
“Property laws” (21.36 CEV), or “Laws about property.”

22.1

If is the word ki, which 22.1 RSV usually translates “When,” and this is what 22.1 NRSV now
has. (See the discussion at 21.2). If a man steals an ox or a sheep uses the same word for
steals as in the Ten Commandments (20.15). The word for ox is the same as in 21.28 (See the
comment there). “Cow” usually refers to the female, but 22.1 TEV uses it here in a general
sense for both male and female. The word for sheep is really the word for the small “flock-
animal” (Durham), which may be either “a sheep or a goat” (TOT).

And kills it translates the word for “slaughter” (22.1 NRSV) or “butcher” (Durham). This
implies that the man kills it either for food or for sacrifice. Or sells it suggests that it would not
be possible to return the animal to its rightful owner after it is sold.

He shall pay five oxen for an ox refers to the man who has stolen the animal. The Hebrew
word translated here as oxen (bagar) is an even more inclusive term than the word for ox
 (shor). (See the comment on shor at 21.28.) 22.1 TEV here renders both terms as “cow,” but
22.1 NIV makes a distinction: “He must pay back five head of cattle for the ox.” The word for
pay means to make amends, to “repay” (REB), or “pay back” (NJB). Four sheep also uses a
different word from the earlier word for a sheep, but they both refer to either a sheep or a
goat. We may restructure the verse as follows:

• If a person steals an ox and slaughters or sells it, he must replace it with five oxen; if he steals a
sheep and slaughters it or sells it, he must replace it with four sheep.

He shall make restitution is really the second half of verse 3 in the Hebrew text. (See the
22.1 RSV footnote.) Verse 4 is also placed before verse 2, since these verses still deal with the
law in verse 1. This rearrangement is followed by 22.1 NRSV, 22.1 TEV, 22.1 CEV, and others,
because verses 2 and 3 deal with a different law before completing the discussion of the first
law. Therefore the sequence of verses that is followed is: 1, 3b–4, 2–3a, 5. 22.1 NIV, TAN, NAB,
and NJB all follow the Hebrew text, but the rearrangement given above is preferable, and
translators are urged to follow it. Note that 22.1 TEV and 22.1 CEV simply mark the verse
numbers as “2–4” and avoid the need for a footnote. With this rearrangement, therefore, the
pronoun he clearly refers as it should to the thief in verse 1.

He shall make restitution, literally “repaying he shall repay,” uses the same emphatic form
as in 21.12 (“dying he shall die”). This may be expressed as “He must make restitution” (TAN),
“He must make full restitution” (NAB), or “He is certainly to give compensation” (Durham).

If he has nothing is literally “if [’im] there is nothing to him.” 22.1 NRSV has changed this to
“but if unable to do so,” meaning that the thief in verse 1 is unable to repay five animals for
the one stolen. TAN has “if he lacks the means,” and TOT has “If he cannot pay.” Then he shall
be sold for his theft is literally “and he will be sold in his theft.” It means that the man will be
“sold as a slave” (22.1 TEV), “sold into slavery” (TOT), or even “they will sell him as a slave” in
order “to pay for what he has stolen” (22.1 TEV). We may combine the first two clauses and
translate “But if he cannot afford to replace the animals, he must be sold as a slave to pay for
what he has stolen.” (See the comment on “slave” at 21.2.)

22.4

As explained above, RSV also places verse 4 before verse 2. If translates the word ’im,
which probably indicates that this is part of the law stated in verse 1. (See the discussion at
21.2.) If the stolen beast is found is literally “If being found what was stolen is found,” which
places emphasis on is found. This is not easily translated, but Durham has “If the stolen animal
is actually found.” The word beast is not in the Hebrew, but the following clause clearly
indicates that what was stolen is an “animal” (22.4 TEV).

Alive shows the alternative to verse 1, where the animal may have been killed. In his
possession, literally “in his hand,” refers to the thief of verse 1. Whether it is an ox or an ass
or a sheep refers to a bull (22.4 TEV “cow”), a “donkey” (22.4 TEV), and “a flock-animal”
(Durham), in that order. The “flock-animal” may be either a sheep or a goat. (See the comment
at verse 1.)
 He shall pay double is literally “two he shall repay.” This means that the thief “shall
restore two animals for each one stolen” (NAB), or “two for one” (22.4 TEV). It also means that
the owner will receive two additional animals plus the one that was stolen. This is a lesser
penalty than the “five oxen for an ox” in verse 1, since in this case the animal is still alive.

22.2–3

As the RSV footnote indicates, this is verse 1 in the Hebrew and in some translations. (See
the above introduction to this section.) Surprisingly, the word for If is the Hebrew ’im rather
than the usual ki that we would expect at the beginning of a different law. Since the situation
here is not the same as that described in verse 1, it should still be translated as a different law.
It may be that this verse was originally part of a longer casuistic law that has been lost from
the text.

If a thief is found breaking in is literally “If in trespassing the thief is found.” Found means
“caught” (22.3 TEV) in this situation. Durham has “discovered,” and TAN has “seized.” Breaking
in is a word that means to dig through something, so TAN has “while tunneling,” explaining in a
footnote that this means digging “under a wall for housebreaking.” This was a common way
for thieves to enter a house, especially since many houses in Palestine were built with sun-
dried bricks. However, translators may find it better to use an expression common in their own
language. So 22.3 TEV has “breaking into a house.” REB changes thief to “burglar” and then
simply adds “is caught in the act.” Both 22.3 TEV and 22.3 CEV indicate that the breaking in is
done at night.

And is struck so that he dies means that he is “beaten to death” (22.3 NRSV, TAN, NAB). (The
same word is used for “strike” in 21.18.) 22.3 TEV has simply: “and is killed,” but this does not
necessarily suggest that he was struck. Translators should therefore make this explicit.
Another way to translate the first part of this verse is “If you strike a burglar who breaks into
your house at night and kill him.” There shall be no bloodguilt for him is literally “there is not
for him bloods.” The English word bloodguilt means guilt resulting from bloodshed, so 22.3 TEV
renders this sentence as “the one who killed him is not guilty of murder.” The text does not
indicate who the killer is, but it may be assumed that it is the owner of the house, since the
following clause implies that it was “at night” (22.3 TEV).

Verse 3 is a new sentence in the Hebrew. It begins with ’im as in verses 2 and 4 (see
above). But if the sun has risen upon him means “if it happens after sunrise” (22.3 NRSV) or
“during the day” (TEV, CEV). There shall be bloodguilt for him is just one word, “bloods,”
meaning, as 22.3 TEV expresses it, “the one who killed him” is “guilty of murder.” NJB interprets
bloodguilt as “his blood may be avenged.” (See the comment at 21.14.)

An alternative translation model for verse 1–4 is:

• 1 If a person steals a bull [or, cow] and slaughters it or sells it, he must replace it with five cows
[or, cattle]; if he steals a sheep or a goat, and slaughters it or sells it, he must replace it with
four sheep or goats. 2–4 He must repay what he stole. If, however, he cannot replace the
animal, his family must sell him as a slave to pay for what he has stolen. If a person steals an
ox, donkey, or sheep, and people find it in his possession alive, he must pay the owner two
animals for the one.

If anyone catches a thief breaking into a house at night and strikes him so that he dies, that
person is not guilty of murder. But if he kills someone who breaks into his house during the
day, he is guilty of murder.

22.5

When is the word ki, which means that a new law is now being given. (See the discussion
at 21.2.) The word for causes … to be grazed over also means to burn, or consume by burning,
so some interpret this verse as referring to burning off land in order to get rid of weeds and
stubble. (So NAB, REB, and MFT.) Most translations, however, understand it to mean “grazing,”
as in 22.5 RSV, since destruction by burning is dealt with in the next verse.

TEV and others move beast from the second to the first clause to make it clearer: “If
someone lets his animals graze.” Field here refers to a plot of cultivated ground. Vineyard
refers to a piece of land set aside for growing grapes. In cultures where grapes are unknown,
one may borrow a term for “grapes” from the prestige language in the area or some other
major language. In some languages vineyard will be rendered something like “field of grapes.”
So it may be necessary to translate a field or vineyard as “a field for growing grain or a field for
growing grapes.”

Or lets his beast loose is literally “and gives free play to [or, releases] his animal[s].” 22.5
NIV has “and lets them stray.” The word for beast is a collective noun, so it refers to “his
animals” (22.5 TEV) or “his livestock” (NIV, TAN). And it feeds in another man’s field is literally
“and it grazes [or consumes] in a field of another.” The verb used in the first clause is repeated
here. 22.5 TEV expands this to bring out the meaning: “and they stray away and eat up the
crops in another man’s field.”

He shall make restitution from is literally “he will pay back.” This means that “he must
make good the loss,” or “he is to give compensation” (Durham). The best in his own field and
in his own vineyard is literally “the best of his field and the best of his vineyard.” The word for
best implies “the best part” (REB) or “the best produce” (NAB). 22.5 TEV misses the idea of the
best.

Some translations (NJB, REB) include two additional clauses in this verse that are found in
the Septuagint, but most translations follow the Hebrew text.

22.6

When translates the word ki, which introduces a new law. When fire breaks out is literally
“If fire comes out,” but it does not mean that the fire starts by itself. He that kindled the fire is
mentioned later in the main clause. It may be clearer to move this to the beginning of the
verse, as 22.6 TEV has done: “If a man starts a fire in his field.” And it catches in thorns is
literally “and it meets [by chance] thorn bushes.” The more natural way to say this in English is
 “and it spreads through the weeds” (22.6 TEV). The word for thorns is one of several Hebrew
words referring to various “weeds” that had little use other than for burning.

So that … is consumed is literally “and it is eaten,” one word in the Hebrew. The passive
form, is consumed, may easily be changed to active since it is the fire that “eats,” or “burns
up” (22.6 TEV) the grain. Two different words are used for grain, with the basic meaning of
“what is stacked” and “what is standing.” Since the kind of grain is not indicated, it evidently
includes all kinds of crops such as those mentioned in 9.31–32. The stacked grain is what has
been “cut and stacked” (22.6 TEV) or “shocked” (NAB) for drying. REB refers to this as “sheaves.”
The standing grain is what is still “growing” (22.6 TEV) and not yet cut. The field refers to the
entire field of grain, or “the entire crop” (Durham). These three words are connected by or,
which gives the sense of “either one or the other,” so even a partial damage is subject to the
penalty.

He that kindled the fire indicates that it did not start by itself. Literally the text says “the
burner of the fire,” which means “the one who started the fire” (22.6 NIV). But the implication
is that this person did not intend to destroy any of the grain. It is possible that his own field is
destroyed, but since compensation is to be paid, 22.6 TEV assumes that the man started the
fire “in his field and it spreads … to another man’s field.” However, “in his field” and “another
man’s field” are only implied.

Shall make full restitution is literally “paying back he shall pay back,” meaning that he
must pay in full for all the “damage” (22.6 TEV). This is the same emphatic form used in 21.12
for “dying he shall die.” ASV has “shall surely make restitution,” and Durham has “is certainly to
give compensation.” One may also say “he must pay the owner for any crops destroyed by the
fire.”

An alternative translation model for this verse is:

• Suppose a person starts a fire in his own field and lets it spread through the weeds to someone
else’s field or fruit garden. If it burns either the crops that are growing there or that have been
cut and stacked, he must pay the owner for any crops that the fire destroys.

22.7

If a man delivers is literally “If [ki] a man gives.” 22.7 NRSV has “When someone delivers”
(see the discussion at 21.2). What he gives is either money or goods, literally “silver or
articles.” The word for goods is the same word used for “jewelry” in 3.22; 11.2; and 12.35. The
implication is that they are “other valuables” (TEV, CEV) of various kinds. To his neighbor is
literally “to his fellow” or “friend.” TOT has “fellow-Israelite,” but the word here may simply
mean “to another” (TAN, NAB, REB). We may restructure this as “Suppose a person asks his
neighbor to keep some silver or other valuables.”

To keep indicates the purpose for giving these items. The word here means “to watch” or
“to guard,” so these are not gifts. Rather they are entrusted to another person “for

ASV AMERICAN STANDARD VERSION

safekeeping” (22.7 NIV). Therefore it is implied, as 22.7 TEV expresses it, that the other person
“agrees to keep” these items and accepts the responsibility for them. And they are stolen
from the neighbor’s house is literally “and it is stolen from the house of the man.”

Then, if the thief is found is literally “if [’im] is found the thief.” This means not only that
he is “found,” but also that he “is caught” (TAN), or “apprehended” (REB). He shall pay double is
literally “he shall repay two,” meaning “he shall restore twofold” (REB). (see verse 4.) It is
important in translation to make it clear that the he refers to the thief and not to the
neighbor. So 22.7 TEV and 22.7 CEV make this explicit. 22.7 TEV has “the thief, if he is found,
shall repay double,” and 22.7 CEV has “If the thief is caught, the thief must repay double.”

22.8

If the thief is not found uses ’im again for If, meaning that this is still a part of the law of
verse 7. The owner of the house is exactly what the text says, but this refers to “the man who
was keeping the valuables” (22.8 TEV) of verse 7. The implication is that they were stolen from
his house.

Shall come near to God is literally “and he will be brought near to the ’elohim.” The “and”
(we-) marks the main clause of this casuistic law. The translation of haha’elohimrs;elohim (“the
’elohim”) here presents a problem, for the word itself has a plural form. This can mean that he
“must appear before the judges,” as some translations interpret it (KJV, NASB, 22.8 NIV, CEV), and
this seems more likely in the light of verse 9. (See the comment there.) 22.8 NRSV still translates
“before God” but acknowledges in a footnote that it can also be translated “before the
judges.” 22.8 TEV’s “the place of worship” is also possible. (See the comment at 21.6.)
Durham’s “the Presence of God” suggests a similar interpretation.

To show whether or not is literally “if not,” with the idea of to show added. Some
translate “to determine” (22.8 NRSV, NIV), “to declare” (NJB), or “for it to be ascertained” (REB).
He has put his hand to his neighbor’s goods means, as 22.8 TEV puts it, that he has “stolen the
other one’s property.” The word here for goods is different from the word used in verse 7, but
it means the same thing.

It is not clear just how the person’s guilt or innocence was to be determined, but TEV
interprets this as “there he must take an oath.” NAB also has “to swear.” This probably means
that the person had to swear before God, in the presence of God’s representatives (judges),
that he was innocent. In some languages this may be expressed as “make a strong statement
before God [or, with God as a witness] that … .” (see verse 11 on “an oath by the Lord.”) Some
scholars believe, however, that the expression, “drawing near to God,” has cultic implications
that the people expected God himself to determine whether the person was guilty or not. This
may have been made known through the priests or even the judges in some form of ritual or
by drawing lots. CEV’s translation of haha’elohim as “some judges” suggests that judges were
involved: “some judges will decide if you are the guilty one.”

Alternative translation models for this verse are:

• But if they do not find the thief, they must bring the person who was keeping the valuables to
the place of worship. There he must make a strong statement, with God as his witness, that he
has not stolen his neighbor’s valuables.

• But if they do not catch the thief, they must take the person who was keeping the valuables
before the judges, and the judges will decide whether he stole his neighbor’s valuables or not.

22.9

This verse is probably an extension of the law in verses 7 and 8, even though RSV and TEV
set it off as a new paragraph. It does not follow the usual casuistic form of “If … then.” For
every breach of trust therefore may be understood to refer back to the situation in verse 7,
where someone entrusts some of his possessions to another for safekeeping. Literally the text
says “upon every matter (davar) of revolt,” which ASV translates as “For every matter of
trespass.” In this context, however, it means “a dispute about property” (22.9 TEV). One may
also express this as “In every case where two people claim to own the same property.”

Whether it is for ox, for ass, for … begins a list of different kinds of “property,” each item
connected by the preposition for, meaning “over” or “concerning.” For ox and ass see the
comment at 21.33. Sheep translates the word for a “flock-animal” (Durham), meaning either a
sheep or a goat. Clothing refers to a mantle or a garment. This same word is used in 22.26. Or
for any kind of lost thing is literally “over any lost [thing],” with the word thing understood.
22.9 NRSV has “or any other loss,” and 22.9 TEV has “or any other lost object.”

Of which one says, ‘This is it’ is literally “which he will say indeed it [is] this.” 22.9 NRSV
now has “of which one party says, ‘This is mine.’ ” NAB has “where another claims that the
thing is his,” and TOT, “which each of them claims to be his.” The situation seems to be that the
owner mentioned in verse 7 has returned to claim what he had entrusted to his neighbor, but
the neighbor now insists that it is his own “property” (22.9 TEV).

The case of both parties, literally “the matter [davar] of the two of them,” is the subject of
the verb phrase, shall come before God. Since a case, in some languages, cannot come by
itself, it may be changed to the passive: “the dispute shall be brought to God” (TOT). NAB avoids
the passive, “both parties shall present their case before God,” and 22.9 NIV has “both parties
are to bring their cases before the judges.” (See the comment on the previous verse.)

He whom God shall condemn has the Hebrew verb for “declare” in the plural. This is
unusual even though the word ’elohim is plural in form. In most cases where ’elohim clearly
refers to God, the verb is singular. So 22.9 NIV and 22.9 CEV have “the judges” deciding the case
(so also 22.9 KJV, nas). NJB has “the party whom God pronounces guilty,” and REB has “the one
whom God declares to be in the wrong.” In languages that must use direct speech with a
declarative verb, one may say, for example, “The person to whom God says, ‘You are guilty,’
must pay … .” Shall pay double to his neighbor means that he “must make twofold restitution
to the other” (NAB).

Alternative translation models for this verse are:

• In every case where two people claim to own the same ox, donkey, sheep, or clothing, or any
other lost object, they shall take the two claimants to the place where people worship God.
There the one whom God declares to be guilty shall pay double to the other one.

• … Then the judges must decide the case, and whomever they declare guilty must pay double to
the other person.

22.10

If (ki) introduces a new law that continues through verse 13, but it deals with the same
idea of entrusting one’s animals to another person (22.10 NRSV now has “when”). If a man
delivers to his neighbor is identical with verse 7. An ass or an ox refers to a “donkey” (22.10
TEV) and a “bull” (Durham) or “cow” (22.10 TEV). The word for sheep means either “a sheep or
a goat” (TOT). Any other beast to keep means “any other animal for safekeeping” (22.10 NRSV).

And it dies or is hurt implies that this happens while the animal is being kept by the
neighbor. The word for hurt literally means “it is broken,” so NJB has “or breaks a limb.” But
the broader meaning of “injured” (22.10 TEV) is probably intended. Or is driven away is literally
“or is taken captive,” so 22.10 TEV has “is carried off in a raid.” However, in many languages a
rendering such as “someone steals it while no one is looking” will be a more natural one.
Without any one seeing it is literally “there is no seer.” One may say “with no witness about”
(TAN) or “while no one is looking” (22.10 NIV). The sentence continues into the next verse.

22.11

An oath by the Lord, literally “an oath of Yahweh,” means to swear in the name of
Yahweh, or “by Yahweh” (NJB). Shall be between them both is quite literal. It does not
necessarily mean that both men shall take the oath. More likely “the man in custody of it [the
animal] shall swear an oath” (TOT). NAB has “the custodian shall swear by the Lord.” 22.11 TEV
misses the point of swearing in the personal name of Yahweh. A possible rendering (see verse
8) is “make a strong statement with God as his witness.”

To see whether he has not put his hand to his neighbor’s property is identical to the same
phrase in verse 8. And the owner shall accept the oath is literally “and its owner shall take,”
without stating what he is to take. This may mean either that “the owner shall accept the loss”
(22.11 TEV) or that “the owner must accept the oath” (NAB). TAN has “the owner must
acquiesce.” NJB has “the owner will take what remains,” but this meaning is unlikely. And he
shall not make restitution is literally “and he will not pay back.” The he, of course, refers not
to the owner but to “the other man” (22.11 TEV), or “the man who had custody” (TOT) of the
animal.

An alternative translation model in languages that must use direct speech is:

• If you swear [or, make a strong statement] with me [Yahweh] as your witness, saying, “I did
not steal the other man’s animal,” the owner must accept your statement, and you do not
have to replace the animal.

22.12
 But if, literally “And if [’im],” continues the law of verse 7. If it is stolen from him is literally
“And if stolen it is stolen from him.” The emphatic form of the verb is used here as in 21.12.
The it refers to “the animal” (TEV, CEV), but him is ambiguous. NAB assumes it refers to the
owner: “But if the custodian is really guilty of theft.” 22.12 TEV, by omitting from him, suggests
the same thing from the context. But it is more likely that the him refers to the custodian, not
the owner. 22.12 NIV is clear: “But if the animal was stolen from the neighbor” (see verse 10).
And TOT has “If the animal is stolen while it is in custody.”

He shall make restitution to its owner means that the man who was keeping the animal
“must repay the owner” (22.12 TEV). Since he was the custodian, he was responsible for the
animal. Therefore, even if someone else had stolen the animal from him, the custodian would
have to “repay the owner.”

22.13

If it is torn by beasts is literally “If [’im] being torn it is torn.” The double verb makes it
emphatic (see 21.12), but by beasts has been added in the translation. The meaning of torn
already suggests, as 22.13 TEV renders it, that “it was killed by wild animals.” ASV simply has “If
it be torn in pieces.”

Let him bring it as evidence means that “the man is to bring the remains as evidence”
(22.13 TEV). He shall not make restitution means that the custodian will not have to “pay
back,” or “give compensation” (Durham) to the owner. For what has been torn is literally “the
torn [thing].” 22.13 TEV makes this clear: “he need not pay for what has been killed by wild
animals.” Another model is “If wild animals attacked the animal you were looking after, and
you can show pieces of the dead animal to the owner, you do not have to replace it.”

22.14

If a man borrows anything of his neighbor is literally “And if [ki] a man will borrow from
his fellow.” 22.14 NRSV has “when,” to show that this is a new law. The text does not have the
word anything, but most translations supply “an animal (22.14 TEV),” since the context makes
this clear. The word for neighbor can mean “comrade,” “friend,” “fellow-Israelite” (TOT), or
simply “another man” (22.14 TEV). And it is hurt or dies uses the same words as verse 10 but in
reverse order. 22.14 CEV has “and it gets injured or dies.”

The owner not being with it is literally “there is not its owner with it.” This simply means
that “its owner is not present” (22.14 TEV) at the time. He shall make full restitution uses the
emphatic form again as in 21.12, which is literally “paying back he shall pay back.” (see verse
6.)

22.15

If the owner was with it, literally “If [’im] its owner with it,” is clearer in 22.15 TEV: “But if
that happens when the owner was present.” He shall not make restitution means “the man
need not repay” (22.15 TEV). NJB has “he will not have to make good the loss.”
 If it was hired is literally “if [’im] a hired that,” using a noun rather than a verb. So this can
refer either to a hired man or to a hired animal. The context, however, clearly suggests that “it
is a rented animal” (22.15 TEV). It came for its hire is too literal to make sense, so 22.15 NRSV
now has “only the hiring fee is due.” This means that the borrower need not pay anything
more.

(6) Various Moral and Religious Laws (22.16–31) [22.15–30]

The laws in this section deal with various situations, so our outline suggests “Various moral
and religious laws” as a section heading. There is also a variety of forms in the way the laws are
stated. For example, the law in verses 16–17 is casuistic in form, the laws in verses 18–20 are
participial, and the remaining laws are a mixture of apodictic and casuistic forms. (See the
discussion of these forms in the introduction to chapter 20, and again at 21.2 and 21.12.)

The first law, verses 16–17, has traditionally been included with the laws on “property
rights,” and many commentaries still follow that principle. This is because the woman in the
ancient world was considered to be the property of her father until she was married, and then
she became the property of her husband. For today’s readers, however, it seems more
appropriate to move this law to the present section.

Section Heading: 22.15 TEV and this Handbook have nearly identical headings. 22.15 NIV
has “Social Responsibility” and 22.15 CEV has “Laws for everyday life.” Other possibili ties are
“Laws for living,” or in some languages “Laws on how to walk one’s life.”

22.16

If, literally “And if [ki],” introduces a new situation, or case, which is the basis for verse 17
as well. The Hebrew word for seduces has the basic meaning of deceiving someone who is
naive or inexperienced. In this context it means to persuade a virgin to have sexual intercourse
by deceiving her and taking advantage of her inexperience. 22.16 CEV has “talks her into having
sex.”

In cultures that are similar to that of the ancient Hebrews, the term used for virgin will
mean a “woman” or “girl” of marriageable age who is sexually pure. In many other cultures,
however, expressions such as “a young woman who has not been with a man,” “a young
woman who has not slept with a man,” or simply “a young unmarried woman,” will be suitable
here. In languages where “woman” always means a married female, it will be necessary to
refer to a “girl” of marriageable age who has not had sexual relations. Seduces would not be a
case of rape, for the word suggests a willingness on the part of the virgin. (A different Hebrew
word is used in Deut 22.28.) Most languages will have a suitable term for this kind of behavior
by a man. Another model for this first sentence is “If a man talks a young unmarried woman
into sleeping [or, going to bed] with him.”

Who is not betrothed means that the girl “is not engaged to be married” (22.16 NRSV). But
being betrothed meant that a contract for marriage is already made, and this involved a “bride
price” (22.16 TEV) paid by the groom to the wife’s family. So TAN has “If a man seduces a virgin
for whom the bride-price has not been paid.” One may also express this as “If a man seduces a
 young woman for whom no one has paid the bride-price.” And lies with her makes it clear that
the seduction has actually led to sexual intercourse. 22.16 TEV omits this phrase, assuming that
the word “seduces” will be understood by the reader in that way. In some languages, however,
it will be necessary to be as specific as the Hebrew.

He shall give the marriage present for her uses the emphatic form of the verb, which
literally means to acquire a wife by paying the bridal money that is given to the bride’s family.
22.16 NRSV has changed marriage present to “bride-price,” since it was neither a gift nor a
dowry. Neither was it thought of as a purchase price. Rather it was considered to be
compensation to the family for the loss of their daughter. And make her his wife is literally “to
him for a wife.” The one Hebrew verb, which literally means “to bride price,” therefore means
both to “pay” and to “marry” the woman.

An alternative translation model for this verse is:

• Suppose a young woman has never had a husband, and no man has yet paid the bride price for
her. If a man seduces her [or, talks her into having sex], he must pay the bride price to her
family and marry her.

22.17

If her father utterly refuses, literally “If [’im] refusing her father refuses,” uses the
emphatic form of the verb. 22.17 NIV and NJB have “If her father absolutely refuses.” To give
her to him is literal, so 22.17 TEV changes it to “to let him marry her,” and 22.17 CEV has
“refuses to let her marry the man.” One may also express this as “refuses to let him take her as
his wife” or “refuses to give her to the man as his wife.”

He shall pay money is literally “he will weigh out silver,” but silver was also the term used
for money. The amount of money is not specified, other than equivalent to the marriage
present for virgins. (See the comment at verse 16.) “The bride price for a virgin” (22.17 TEV)
was evidently well known. It was probably less than the “fifty shekels of silver” mentioned in
Deut 22.29, for that was the amount required in cases of rape. And this situation implies the
willingness on the part of the virgin. (See verse 16.)

22.18

This law is categorical (apodictic) and uses the participial form. Literally the text says “A
[female] practicer of sorcery you [singular] shall not keep alive.” REB calls her “a witch,” but TEV
has “any woman who practices magic.” The word refers to one who performs supernatural
deeds or discovers hidden knowledge by calling on the power of evil spirits. The implication is
that, once a woman is discovered to hav
289

289Osborn, N. D., & Hatton, H. (1999). A handbook on Exodus. UBS handbook series; Helps for
translators (493). New York: United Bible Societies.
 e this ability, she is to be killed. Other ways to say this are “a woman who practices black
magic against others” or “a woman who causes [or, calls down] curses to come upon people.”
Some receptor languages will have very specific terms for such women; for example, “women
who mutter curses,” and so on.

22.19

Literally the text says “any lie-er with an animal, dying he shall die.” NIV has “Anyone who
has sexual relations with an animal must be put to death.” TOT calls it “sexual intercourse.” The
emphatic “dying he shall die” is the same as in 21.12. (See the comment there.)

22.20

Whoever sacrifices to any god is literally “a sacrificer to the gods [’elohim].” As mentioned
earlier, the word ’elohim is plural in form and is the usual term for the one true God. But the
context must always determine the meaning of this word, which here refers to all other gods.
In 20.3 the word “other” is added, but the text does not have it here. In some languages,
however, it may be necessary to add it in order to distinguish the false or small gods from the
true God. (See the comment on “god” at 12.12.) Sacrifices in this context means “kills an
animal to offer to … .”

Save to the Lord only is literally “except to Yahweh alone.” This phrase clarifies the
possible confusion over ’elohim in the first part, and it identifies Yahweh as Israel’s ’elohim.
Some scholars believe this phrase was not in the original text, and HOTTP recommends that it
not be included. Most translations, however, include it for clarity.

Shall be utterly destroyed is literally “he will be devoted.” It is one word in the Hebrew
(cherem) that refers to a “solemn ban” (REB) under which a person or thing was placed. To be
placed under or “devoted” to this cherem required being set apart either for sacred use or for
total destruction. (See Lev 27.28-29.) In this context, of course, it means that the person must
be “put under the curse of destruction” (NJB). TOT has “shall be committed to total
destruction.” 22.20 CEV has “Death is the punishment for offering sacrifices to any god except
me.” 22.20 TEV changes the passive to active.

NIV NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION

TOT TRANSLATOR’S OLD TESTAMENT

HOTTP HEBREW OLD TESTAMENT TEXT PROJECT

REB REVISED ENGLISH BIBLE

NJB NEW JERUSALEM BIBLE

CEV Contemporary English Version

TEV Today’s English Version

22.21

This law has the categorical or apodictic form of the Ten Commandments, with two strong
prohibitives and then a reason. You shall not wrong a stranger or oppress him is literally “An
alien you [singular] shall not mistreat and you shall not oppress him.” The two verbs mean
about the same thing, but the first one implies violating a person’s rights, and the second one
implies actual affliction. For stranger see the comment at 2.22. 22.21 NRSV has changed this to
“resident alien.”

For you were strangers in the land of Egypt changes the singular you to plural, referring to
all the Israelites. Some translations give this more emphasis, “you yourselves” (NJB, REB, TOT).
22.21 TEV restructures: “Remember that you were foreigners in Egypt.”

22.22

Literally the text says “Any widow and orphan you [plural] shall not humiliate.” The basic
meaning of the verb is to be bent down, or to be pitiful. It therefore has a similar meaning to
the verbs in verse 21. Various translations are possible: “abuse” (NRSV), “ill-treat” (TAN), “take
advantage of” (NIV), and “mistreat” (TEV, CEV).

The widow, of course, was a woman whose husband had died. In the Israelite society she
had no right to own property and was often dependent on public charity. The orphan was
really a “fatherless child” (REB), not necessarily a child who had lost both parents. So the word
meant “a child without a father.” In many languages, however, the term for orphan refers to a
child who has lost both parents. In such a case it is better to refer in this context to a
“fatherless child.”

22.23–24

These verses add a penalty to the law in verse 22. If you do afflict them is literally “If [’im]
humiliating you will humiliate him.” The same verb as in verse 22 is doubled here in the
emphatic form, which NASB renders as “If you afflict him at all.” Surprisingly the plural you is
here changed to singular, and the singular “him” is used instead of them. In English it is more
natural to say them, and translators should follow what is natural in their languages. Both
22.24 TEV and 22.24 CEV do not repeat the phrase afflict them. However, in many languages it
will be helpful to follow 22.24 RSV.

And they cry out to me is literally “for if [ki ’im] crying he will cry out to me,” using the
emphatic form again and the singular “he.” The two words “for if” are probably used here to

NRSV New Revised Standard Version

TAN TANAKH (NEW JEWISH VERSION)

NASB NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE

RSV Revised Standard Version

emphasize the ’im in the first line, so 22.24 TEV has “when they cry out to me” (so also 22.24
NRSV). The translation should not suggest that God will not act if they do not cry out, for the
idea is that they will cry out “for help” (22.24 TEV). So “when” is better than “if” in this second
instance. I will surely hear their cry, literally “hearing I will hear his cry,” again uses the double
verb for emphasis. 22.24 TEV brings this out by changing hear to “answer.” However, CEV’s “I
will come to their rescue” is also possible. Another possibility is “I will hear their cry and help
them.”

And my wrath will burn is literally “and my nose will become hot,” which is an idiom for
intense anger. TAN has “My anger shall blaze forth,” and NAB has “My wrath will flare up.” (See
the comment at 4.14.) And I will kill you with the sword uses a general word for kill (see 2.14),
and you is plural. With the sword may be understood in an indirect way as in TAN (“I will put
you to the sword”), or in a figurative way as in TOT (“I will cause you to die a violent death”).
22.24 TEV interprets this indirectly, “kill you in war.” 22.24 CEV is very emphatic, “In fact, I will
get so angry that I will kill your men,” interpreting you to mean “men,” as the wives would be
without husbands (widows) and the children would be fatherless (orphans).

And your wives shall become widows uses the plural form of your. Widows is the same
word used in verse 22. And your children fatherless is literally “and your sons orphans,” using
the same word as in verse 22. Here 22.24 TEV changes to “fatherless,” but 22.24 NRSV has
changed 22.24 RSV to “orphans.” (See the comment at verse 22.) TOT effectively adds “own” to
“your own wives” and “your own children.” (Similarly also REB).

22.25

Verses 25–27 are concerned with the proper treatment of poor Israelites (my people). But
they deal with the same concern of verses 21–24, since strangers, widows, and orphans were
also disadvantaged. Furthermore, this verse begins with the word ’im (If) rather than ki, which
suggests a connection with the preceding laws.

If you lend money is literally “If silver you [singular] cause to borrow,” and in many
languages the more natural rendering will be “If you let any of my people … borrow money
from you.” “Silver,” of course, was used as money. (See the comment at 21.32.) Any of my
people with you who is poor is simply “my people, the poor with you [singular].” Any of is
understood. 22.25 RSV has who is poor because the poor is singular, but 22.25 TEV’s “any …
who are poor” is better English. 22.25 NRSV avoids the problem, with “to my people, to the
poor among you.” The word for poor means to be overwhelmed by want, and it is related to
the verb “afflict” in verse 22. 22.25 CEV has “people who are in need.” In some cultures where
only certain people own material things, the poor will be termed “people who have nothing”
or “people who are like those who live far from the chief’s compound.”

You shall not be to him as a creditor means, as 22.25 TEV translates, that you should not
“act like a moneylender.” Creditor literally means “lender,” with the implied meaning of
“usurer” (NJB), or one who collects interest. This is made clear in the next clause: and you shall

NAB NEW AMERICAN BIBLE

not exact interest from him. In many languages it will be helpful to say something like “When
you lend money to any of my people who are in need, you shall not act like other money
lenders, who require the borrower to pay interest” or “… you shall not act like other money
lenders, who take back more money than they loaned.” The and is not in the Hebrew, so some
translations place a semicolon after creditor (22.25 NRSV, 22.25 NIV, TAN).

(Deut 23.19-20 allows for charging interest from a foreigner, but not from a fellow
Israelite.)

22.26–27

If you ever take is literally “If [’im] taking you [singular] will take-in-pledge.” This is the
emphatic form used in 21.12, but it is not easy to express it. 22.27 RSV adds ever, but this has
been omitted in 22.27 NRSV. Durham has “If you actually take as collateral.” “Take-in-pledge” is
one word in the Hebrew. It means to take possession of something owned by the borrower
which will be returned to him only when the debt is paid. In this way the lender has some
guarantee that that loan will be repaid. 22.27 NRSV has “take … in pawn,” and TOT translates
“take … as security for a loan.”

Your neighbor’s garment, literally “the wrapper of your fellow,” probably refers to “a
fellow-Israelite’s [outer] cloak.” The same word is used in verse 9. It is helpful to note that the
poor Israelite at that time probably wore only an undergarment and a wide outer garment,
and the outer garment served as both a “cloak” (22.27 NRSV) and a blanket. You shall restore it
to him means, as 22.27 TEV expresses it, “you must give it back to him.” And before the sun
goes down, of course, means “by sunset” (22.27 NIV). 22.27 CEV restructures this as follows:
“Before sunset you must return any coat taken as security for a loan.” Another possible model
is “If you take someone else’s cloak as security when you loan money to him, you must return
it to him before the sun sets.

For that is his only covering uses a word meaning almost the same as the word for
garment, but it has the more general meaning of a covering. It is his mantle for his body uses
what appears to be a third word, mantle (simlah), but it is probably the same word as the one
translated as garment (samlah), with only a slight difference in spelling and pronunciation.

Thus there appear to be three different words in these two verses that mean almost the
same thing: garment, covering, and mantle. It is not necessary to find three different words in
translation. 22.27 NRSV changes the third word to a verb, “to use as a cover,” and TOT has “to
wrap himself in.” 22.27 TEV combines the second and third into one, “covering.” His body is
literally “his skin” (TAN). (Durham has “his bare skin.”) 22.27 TEV brings out the meaning clearly:
“it is the only covering he has to keep him warm.”

In what else shall he sleep? is literally “in what will he lie down?” The idea of else is
understood. 22.27 CEV is even clearer: “because that is the only cover the poor have when they
sleep at night.” And if he cries to me is literally “and it will be when [ki] he will cry out unto
me.” I will hear is the same word used in verse 23, meaning “I will listen” (22.27 NRSV), or “I
 will heed” (TAN, 22.27 TEV, and TOT have “I will answer him.”) For I am compassionate is
literally “because gracious [am] I.” 22.27 TEV uses “merciful.”

An alternative translation model for these two verses is:

• 26 If you take someone’s cloak as security when you loan money to him, you must return it
before the sun sets, 27 because that is the only covering the poor have to keep them warm
when they sleep at night. I am a merciful God, and when the poor call out to me, I will certainly
help them.

22.28

Two different words for “curse” are used in this verse. You shall not revile God is literally
“’elohim you [singular] shall not curse,” but most translations use a milder term than “curse.”
22.28 TEV’s footnote calls attention to the other possible meaning of ’elohim, but this is
generally not accepted for this verse. The same word for revile is used in 21.17 (See the
comment there), where it is translated as “curse’21.17 (’ in relation to one’s parents. However,
here it suggests the idea of humiliating someone. So 22.28 TEV has “Do not speak evil of God,”
and Durham has “You are not to show disrespect for God.” One may also say “Do not speak
disrespectfully about God.”

The word used in the second clause, nor curse a ruler, is a stronger term, meaning to
inflict with a curse in order to destroy or exclude a person from the community. This word is
never used with God as the object. The word for ruler refers to a minor king, a “chief” (REB), or
a “leader” (22.28 TEV). There could be more than one “leader,” so TOT has “you shall not curse
any of your leaders.” A ruler of your people refers, of course, to a leader of the Israelites. REB
has “of your own people.” (Your is singular.) In some languages it will be possible to find terms
that show the difference between these two Hebrew terms: (1) revile, or “speak
disrespectfully about,” and (2) curse, or “pray for evil against.” If this difference in meaning
cannot be maintained in a receptor language, then one may express the verse as “Don’t say
evil words against God or one of the leaders of your people” (similarly CEV).

22.29

This is a difficult half-verse, for the Hebrew has just four words, and two of them are rare.
Literally the Hebrew seems to say “Your fullness and your dripping you [singular] shall not
delay.”

You shall not delay to offer may be expressed as “You shall not withhold” (TOT) or “Do not
hold back” (22.29 NIV), with the idea of “offerings” added for clarity. 22.29 TEV changes this
negative command to a positive one, “Give me the offerings.”

The word for “fullness” probably refers to the fullness of your harvest, but not all scholars
agree. TAN considers this word to be related to the word for “dripping,” with both terms
referring to “the first yield of your vats.” 22.29 TEV interprets this as “your grain,” and Durham
has “your bumper crop.” 22.29 NIV simply has “your granaries.” Translators are urged to follow
22.29 TEV’s interpretation.
 The word for “dripping” suggests juice that is squeezed from the grapes. TEV interprets this
word to refer to both “your wine, and your olive oil.” Durham also has “your vintage wine and
your richest oil.” RSV tries to cover them both with the outflow of your presses, and 22.29 NIV
simply has “vats.” It is better to be more specific, however, since most readers will not know
that the juice of the grape and the oil of the olive were basic to the life of the ancient Israelite.
“Wine” is the product of fermented grape juice and was thus an alcoholic beverage. In some
cultures “palm wine” will be the closest natural equivalent. Where “olive oil” is unknown, one
may use a general term for vegetable oil, or say, for example, “oil from the fruit ‘olive.’ ”

22.30

The first-born of your sons is addressed to the Israelite (your is singular). You shall give it
to me uses the broad word for give, with no suggestion of how the firstborn sons were to be
given. LB interprets this to mean giving the “redemption payment,” thereby rejecting any
suggestion of child sacrifice. This is clearly stated in 13.13, but there is no textual basis for this
interpretation here. CEV’s “Dedicate” doesn’t appear warranted in this context. In certain
languages there will be special terms for giving or offering something to deity, royalty, or a
chief; such terms should be used here.

You shall do likewise, literally “thus you shall do,” begins a new verse, but it refers to what
has just been said about the sons. With your oxen and with your sheep therefore means “The
same rule applies to your oxen, sheep and goats” (TOT). Again 22.30 TEV puts it positively, “Give
me the first-born of your cattle and your sheep.” As in 13.12, the “first-born male” (22.30 TEV)
is intended. The word for sheep really means “flocks” (TAN), or smaller animals, including both
sheep and goats. (See the comment on “cattle” and “flocks” at 9.2–3.)

Seven days it shall be with its dam means that the newly-born animal should not be taken
away from its mother (dam) for seven days. On the eighth day means when the animal is eight
days old. You shall give it to me uses the same word for give, but here it probably means
“offer” in the sense of a sacrifice, either by the family (Deut 15.19-20) or by the priest (Num
18.17-18).

22.31

You shall be men consecrated to me is literally “And men of holiness you shall be to me.”
This may be understood either as “You are to be my holy people” (22.31 NIV) or as “You must
be men set apart for me” (Durham). 22.31 TEV favors the second meaning and condenses it:
“You are my people.” Consecrated or “holy” here means that the Israelites were “set apart”
for God. In other words they were Yahweh’s special possession.

Therefore is the usual conjunction waw, which here introduces a result clause. One may
say “Since you are my people, then you shall not … .” (Similarly at and MFT.) You shall not eat
uses the plural you. Any flesh that is torn by beasts in the field is literally “flesh in the field of

LB LIVING BIBLE

MFT MOFFATT
a torn animal.” This refers to “the meat of any animal that has been killed by wild animals”
(22.31 TEV). The word for in the field is missing in some of the ancient versions, possibly
because it is implied by the word for “torn animal.” You shall cast it to the dogs simply means,
as 22.31 TEV expresses it, “give it to the dogs.”

(7) Civil Responsibilities (23.1–9)

The various laws in this section are concerned with proper and ethical behavior toward
one another, especially in terms of the civil court. Verses 4–5 seem to interrupt the court
setting in verses 1–3, which continues in verses 6–8. But it is possible that the “enemy”
referred to in verse 4 is an opponent in a legal case. At any rate the concern for fair and
impartial treatment of all people, regardless of their social standing, may be seen as a common
theme.

Section Heading: 22.31 TEV has “Justice and Fairness,” this Handbook has “Civil
responsibilities,” 22.31 NIV has “Laws of Justice and Mercy,” and 22.31 CEV has “Equal justice
for all.” Some languages will require verbal expressions; for example, “You must treat
everyone fairly,” or “You must be just and merciful when you judge people,” or even “Yahweh
requires judges to judge people justly and fairly.”

23.1

You shall not utter a false report is literally “You [singular] shall not lift up a report of
emptiness.” It is quite similar to the commandment in 20.7 regarding “lifting up” the name of
Yahweh in “emptiness.” Here, however, it concerns a false report rather than the name. This
means “you shall not repeat” (NAB) or “spread a baseless rumour” (REB). The rest of the verse
seems to place such “rumors” in a lawsuit setting. In some languages an indirect object or goal
will be necessary for the verb phrase utter a false report; for example, “Don’t spread harmful
[or, baseless] rumors about other people” or “Don’t tell stories about other people that are
untrue.”

You shall not join hands with a wicked man is literally “Do not put your hand with a guilty
[person].” The rest of the verse clarifies what this means: to be a malicious witness, literally
“to be a witness of violence.” The idea of “joining hands” means to “assist” (TOT) or “lend
support to” (NJB), so 23.1 TEV makes it clear: “do not help a guilty man by giving false
testimony.” 23.1 CEV has “Don’t … help a criminal by giving false evidence.” Translators are
advised to follow this interpretation. NAB understands this malicious witness to be directed
against a third party, which is possible: “Do not join the wicked in putting your hand, as an
unjust witness, upon anyone.” The words “upon anyone,” however, are not in the text.

23.2–3

Verse 2 is difficult to read in the Hebrew, but scholars generally agree as to the meaning.
You shall not follow a multitude is literally “You [singular] shall not be after many,” and to do
evil is literally “to [or, for] evils.” Some interpret multitude to mean “the crowd” (NIV, TOT,
Durham), but 23.3 TEV, 23.3 NRSV, and others, have “the majority.” TAN has “the mighty” in
contrast to the poor man in verse 3, which is an intriguing possibility, but it is not clear that
such a contrast is intended. So translators are urged to follow the interpretation of 23.3 TEV,
23.3 CEV, and others.

The second clause seems repetitive. Literally it says “and you shall not answer over a
lawsuit to extend after many to cause to extend.” Multitude (“many”) is repeated from the
first clause. The verb “to answer” here means to bear witness, or to “give testimony” (23.3
TEV), and the verb “to extend” seems to mean turning aside in the first instance and pervert in
the second instance. But nearly all translations are forced to add the word justice, which is not
in the text. (But see verse 6.) 23.3 TEV avoids the repetition and simply says “or when they give
testimony that perverts justice.” This is probably the easiest way to handle this difficult verse.
23.3 CEV restructures the first part of this verse in a helpful way: “Always tell the truth in court,
even if everyone else is dishonest and stands in the way of justice.” One may also express this
as “Always tell the truth when they are judging a case in court, even if everyone else … .”

Nor shall you be partial to a poor man, literally “and you shall not favor a powerless
[person],” means “you shall not favor a poor man” (NAB). Some languages will use an idiom
such as “you shall not lift up the face of a poor man.” Poor man will be rendered in a number
of languages as “a person with few possessions.” In his suit is the same word as suit in the first
clause, which 23.3 TEV translates here as “at his trial.” The idea of “just because he is poor”
(similarly CEV) is implicit here. So one may express this as “Don’t favor [or, show impartiality to]
a poor man when you [the judges or chiefs] are judging his case, just because he is poor.” One
may also say “Because a person is poor, don’t show partiality to him when he is being judged.”
(See the comment on “poor” at 22.25.)

23.4

As mentioned above, verses 4–5 seem to change the subject, but they are not concerned
so much with the animals as with the proper treatment of one’s enemy. And some have
suggested that the enemy intended here may be an opponent in a lawsuit. The form of the law
also changes from the categorical (“Thou shalt not”) to the casuistic (“When [ki] … then …”),
and from a negative to a positive statement.

If you meet, literally “if you [singular] encounter,” may be understood as “When you come
upon” (23.4 NRSV) or “If you happen to see” (23.4 TEV). The word for enemy comes from the
verb meaning “to be hostile,” and in a number of languages, “your enemy” will be translated
as “a person who is hostile to you” or “a person who hates you.” (For ox and ass, see the
comment at 20.17 and 9.3.) Going astray means “wandering off” (23.4 NIV) or “running loose”
(23.4 TEV), or even “not penned up.” You shall bring him back to him is literally “returning you
[singular] shall return it to him.” This is the emphatic form used in 21.12, which 23.4 KJV
renders as “thou shalt surely bring it back to him again.” REB expresses this as “you must take it
back to him.” (Similarly also TOT and Durham.)

23.5

KJV KING JAMES VERSION

 If you see the ass uses ki, the stronger word for If, indicating that this law is not
dependent on the preceding law. (See.) Ass means “donkey” as in verse 4. One who hates you
is literally “your hater.” This is a different word from “enemy” in verse 4 (See the comment
there), but both TAN and 23.5 TEV understand it to mean “your enemy,” and 23.5 TEV simply
uses the pronoun “his,” referring back to verse 4. Lying under its burden means that the
“donkey” has evidently “fallen under its load” (23.5 TEV) and is “lying helpless” (REB) on the
ground. The word for lying suggests that the animal is flat on the ground, but not necessarily
lying on its side. 23.5 CEV has “If a donkey is overloaded and falls down.” However, one may
also express this as “If your enemy has put too heavy a load on his donkey, and it falls down
[or, collapses].”

You shall refrain from leaving him with it is not clear in the Hebrew, as the footnote in
23.5 RSV indicates. The Hebrew has the conjunction “and” (“and you refrain from leaving”), but
23.5 RSV interprets this “and” as an implied “then,” which introduces the main clause (meaning
“then you shall refrain …”). 23.5 NRSV, however, translates the conjunction as “and,”
understanding this clause to be an extension of the dependent clause (“When you see … and
you would hold back …”). Either interpretation is possible.

A further problem is that the expression refrain from leaving may be understood either as
leaving the donkey or as leaving the owner of the donkey. 23.5 RSV understand the expression
to mean leaving the owner with the donkey, but 23.5 NRSV understands it to mean “leaving”
the donkey, in the sense of “setting it free.” But the word for leaving may also mean lifting, or
releasing, or setting free. So 23.5 NRSV has “and you would hold back from setting it free.” This
meaning of “setting free,” or “lifting,” is what both 23.5 RSV and 23.5 NRSV give to the same
Hebrew word in the last clause. Note that 23.5 TEV places this clause at the end of the verse in
order to bring out the meaning more clearly: “don’t just walk off.”

You shall help him to lift it up is literally “releasing you shall release with him,” using the
same emphatic form found in 21.12. 23.5 TEV translates the obvious meaning, “help him get
the donkey to its feet again,” but 23.5 NRSV brings out the emphatic form with the word
“must,” “you must help him set it free.” 23.5 CEV simply has “you must do what you can to
help.”

Considering all these problems, it seems best to translate as follows:

• If ever you see a donkey that has fallen under its load, and it belongs to someone who hates
you, you must help him get the animal back on its feet. You should not just walk away.

23.6

Verse 6 returns to the courtroom setting. You shall not pervert the justice uses the same
word for pervert as in verse 2, and here the word for justice is explicit. But the word for
pervert may also mean “turning aside” or “denying.” So 23.6 TEV has “Do not deny justice,”
and TAN has “You shall not subvert the rights.”

Justice due to your poor is literally “justice of your [singular] needy,” with the same word
for justice (mishpat) that is used in 21.9. The word for poor is different from that used in verse
3, but the meaning is the same. (See the discussion there on ways to translate “poor”.) The
idea of due is understood but not explicit in the text. The pronoun your is omitted in 23.6 TEV,
but NAB has “one of your needy fellow men,” and NJB has “the poor among you.” In his suit, as
in verse 3, means “in his lawsuit” (REB), or “in court” (23.6 TEV). 23.6 CEV has “Make sure that
the poor are given equal justice in court.” An alternative model is “when a poor person
appears before the judges, you must make sure that they decide [or, judge] his case fairly.” In
cultures where “chiefs” are the judges, one may translate “Chiefs must decide the cases of
poor people just as fairly as they judge other people.”

23.7

Keep far from a false charge is literally “You [singular] be far from a word [davar] of
falsehood.” This probably refers to “false accusations” (23.7 TEV), but since davar can mean
either “word” or “thing,” NAB has “anything dishonest,” and NJB has “fraud.” TOT even has
“legal corruption,” which is possible but probably too general. The most likely interpretation is
“false charges” or “false accusations.” The speaker of the false charge is not specified, but it is
probably the one who is being addressed. So 23.7 TEV has “Do not make false accusations,” and
translators are advised to follow this interpretation. In some languages it will be necessary to
identify the one who is accused; for example, “Don’t make false accusations against any
person.”

And do not slay the innocent and righteous is literally “and the innocent and the
righteous you [singular] will not kill.” The word for slay is used in 2.14. It is a very general word
for killing and does not suggest how the killing should take place. It may be understood as “do
not put … to death” (23.7 TEV), “do not cause the death” (REB), or even: “Don’t … sentence an
innocent person to death” (23.7 CEV). The word for innocent carries the idea of being free from
guilt. The word for righteous is similar in meaning, but it has the more positive meaning of
“honest” (23.7 NIV), “just” (NAB), and “upright” (NJB). A righteous person was one who lived
according to the standards of the community and in good relations with his neighbors. Both
23.7 TEV and 23.7 CEV consider the phrase innocent and righteous to refer to the same person,
and translate as “innocent person.” However, if translators have suitable terms for innocent
and “upright,” one may say “Don’t sentence an innocent and upright person to death.”

For I will not acquit the wicked, literally “for I will not cause to be righteous the guilty,”
uses the causative form of the word for righteous. The wicked may be understood as anyone
who is “guilty” (23.7 NRSV) or a “wrongdoer” (TAN), but it may also refer back to anyone who
would, as 23.7 TEV expresses it, “put an innocent person to death.” 23.7 TEV renders the final
clause positively: “for I will condemn anyone who does such an evil thing.” A few translations
follow the Septuagint here by changing the I to “you”; for example, NAB has “nor shall you
acquit the guilty” (similarly NJB and TOT). It is better, however, to stay with the Hebrew text.
Another model for this final sentence is “I will not forgive anyone who … .”

An alternative translation model for this verse is:

• When judges [or, chiefs] decide the cases of poor people, you must make sure that they judge
fairly. They must not sentence an innocent and upright person to death. If they do such an evil
thing, I will not forgive them.

23.8

And you shall take no bribe is addressed to you singular. Take should here be understood
as “accept” (23.8 TEV). The word for bribe sometimes means gift, but the context here refers to
a gift in money or in kind, intended to influence a person in deciding a legal case. For a bribe
blinds the officials is literally “for the bribe puts out [the eyes] of the clear-sighted [ones].”
23.8 RSV and 23.8 NRSV have officials because the context seems to point to those who make
legal decisions. Most translations, however, follow the more general idea of people who are
“clear-sighted” (TAN, NAB, NJB), and REB has “the discerning person.” 23.8 TEV may be too
general by simply translating “people.” In some languages a bribe will be expressed
idiomatically; for example, “to close the eyes of a person with money,” “to bite with money,”
or “to oil the machine.” So this first sentence may be rendered, for example, as “Do not let a
person close your eyes with money, for judges [or, chiefs] are blinded so that they cannot
decide what is right.” Another possibility is “… , for you will be blinded so that you cannot
decide what is right [or, cannot judge fairly].”

And subverts the cause of those who are in the right is only three words in Hebrew, “and-
twists words-of righteous [people].” The word for “words” is davar, which may also mean
“pleas” (TAN), or a “case” (TOT, Durham). The word for subverts, or “twists” (23.8 NIV), is
sometimes used in the sense of “overthrow,” so TAN says that bribes “upset the pleas of those
who are in the right,” and Durham says the bribe “turns the case … upside down.” It is perhaps
clear enough to say, as in 23.8 TEV, that a bribe “ruins the cause of those who are innocent,” or
in 23.8 CEV, “justice is twisted by bribes.”

23.9

You shall not oppress a stranger is literally “And an alien you [singular] shall not press.”
Stranger is used three times in this verse. It is better rendered as “resident alien” (23.9 NRSV)
or “foreigner” (23.9 TEV). This is the same word that 23.9 RSV translates as “sojourner” in 2.22
and 12.19. (See the comment there.) The word for oppress has the root meaning of crowding
or pushing someone against his will. It may be understood here as “mistreat” (23.9 TEV).

You know the heart of a stranger is literally “you [plural], you know the soul of the alien.”
The emphatic you is used here in the plural to include all Israelites. 23.9 NIV has “you
yourselves,” which brings out both the emphasis and the plural in English. The word for heart
is nefesh, usually translated as “soul” in 23.9 KJV. TAN here translates it as “feelings,” and
others, including 23.9 TEV, have “you know how it feels.” 23.9 CEV has “you know what it is
like.” (Similarly also NAB, REB, and 23.9 NIV.)

For you were strangers in the land of Egypt, literally “for aliens you [plural] were,” places
the word strangers before the verb for emphasis. If Egypt is clearly understood as a country,
then it is not necessary to retain the land of.
(8) Special Days and Seasons (23.10–19)

(a) The Seventh Year and the Seventh Day (23.10–13)

(a) The seventh year and the seventh day (23.10–13)

Our outline shows that verses 10–19 form a unit dealing with “Special days and seasons.”
It is sometimes referred to as a “cultic calendar,” since it deals with the proper religious
observance of the seventh year, the seventh day, and the three important annual festivals. A
few additional laws regarding worship and sacrifice are included in verses 13, 18, and 19. It is
helpful to identify the two sections in this unit, giving each one a section heading.

Section Headings: translators who follow the Handbook’s outline will have no problem
translating the general heading, “Special days and seasons” (23.20–19). For the section
heading, verses 10–13, 23.9 TEV and this Handbook have an identical heading, “The seventh
year and the seventh day.” 23.9 CEV has “Laws for the sabbath,” and similarly 23.9 NIV has
“Sabbath laws.”

23.10

For six years is literally “And six years.” The idea is for the duration of six years. You shall
sow your land uses the singular you, so your land refers to “the fields” (23.10 NIV), or the
portion of land, for which each Israelite was responsible. Sow your land means to plant seed
and cultivate the soil. And gather its yield means to “harvest the crops,” or whatever that land
“produces” (23.10 TEV).

23.11

But the seventh year, literally “and the seventh,” may be better understood by adding
“But in the seventh year” (23.11 TEV). 23.11 NIV has “during the seventh year.” You shall let it
rest and lie fallow is literally “you [singular] shall let it fall and you shall leave it to itself.” This
means that they were not to cultivate the land or sow any seed, and they were not to “harvest
anything that grows on it” (23.11 TEV). 23.11 CEV has “but let the land rest during the seventh
year.”

That the poor of your people may eat is literally “and the poor [plural] of your [singular]
people will eat.” The conjunction waw takes on the meaning of “so that” (23.11 NRSV). The
purpose is, as 23.11 TEV expresses it, that “the poor may eat what grows there,” or “whatever
grows there shall be food for the poor” (TOT). This shows a genuine concern for the poor. We
may assume, therefore, that the seventh year did not occur at the same time for all the
Israelites, and that the poor would move from one area to another rather than wait for six
years until all the land would lie fallow.

And what they leave the wild beasts may eat is literally “and their remainder the living
thing of the field will eat.” The wild beasts, therefore, were not necessarily fierce or dangerous
animals. You shall do likewise still uses the singular you. The vineyard was a piece of land
reserved for growing grapes (see also 22.5). The orchard was a special place where fruit trees
were planted, so the olive orchard was “a place for growing olive trees.” This will be a suitable
translation in many languages. (For further information on “olive trees,” see FFB, pages
156–158). 23.11 CEV combines “fields” with vineyard and olive orchard and restructures the
verse as follows: “but let the land rest during the seventh year. The poor are to eat what they
want from your fields, vineyards, and olive trees during that year, and when they have all they
want from your fields, leave the rest for wild animals.” This will be a natural reordering of the
clauses for many languages.

23.12

Six days, literally “Six of days,” means for a period of six days. 23.12 CEV is a little more
precise, with “Work the first six days of the week.” You shall do your work is literally “you
[singular] shall do your doing,” or “you shall work your work.” The verb and the noun have the
same root. But on the seventh day you shall rest is literally “and in the seventh day you
[singular] shall stop.” This first word for rest does not really mean to relax and take a rest, as in
the second part of the verse. (See the comment at 16.30.) TAN is more accurate, with “you shall
cease from labor,” and 23.12 TEV has “but do no work on the seventh day.” The purpose of this
law is not so much for the benefit of the Israelite as it is for the benefit of his animals and
slaves.

That your ox and your ass may have rest uses the word meaning to settle, relax, or take a
rest. This is the word used in 20.11. (See the comment there.) For ox and ass see the comment
at 20.17 and 9.3. And the son of your bondmaid is literally “the son of your female slave” (see
21.7). 23.12 NRSV has “your homeborn slave,” and 23.12 NIV has “the slave born in your
household,” but it may be understood as referring to all “your slaves” (23.12 TEV). May be
refreshed is literally “and he will exhale,” meaning that he will “catch his breath,” or “have a
breathing space” (NJB).

And the alien is added at the end of the sentence almost as an afterthought, but the
concern is also for “the foreigners” (23.12 TEV). This is the same word translated as “stranger”
in verse 9. (See the comment there.)

23.13

This verse sounds like the conclusion to a long list of instructions, and MFT places it after
verse 19 for that reason. But we must assume that the editors had some purpose in placing it
here. As in verse 9, the second person singular changes to plural.

Take heed, literally “guard yourselves,” means “be careful,” or “be attentive” (23.13 NRSV).
23.13 CEV has “Make certain you obey everything I have said.” To all that I have said to you
refers to all that Yahweh has said, so 23.13 TEV makes this clear: “Listen to everything that I,
the Lord, have said to you.” And make no mention of the names of other gods is literally “and
the name [singular] of other gods you [plural] will not cause to be remembered.” This probably
means “Do not invoke the names of other gods” (23.13 NIV), and 23.13 TEV and 23.13 CEV have
“Don’t pray to other gods.”

FFB FAUNA AND FLORA OF THE BIBLE

 Nor let such be heard out of your mouth is literally “it shall not be heard upon your
[singular] mouth.” The “it” is singular because names is singular in the Hebrew, but this is not
natural in English. So 23.13 NRSV has “do not let them be heard on your lips.” Note that the
your in your mouth suddenly changes back to singular, but the plural should be used in
translation if it is more natural. 23.13 TEV has “do not even mention their names” (similarly
CEV).

(b) The Three Annual Festivals (23.14–19)

(b) The three annual festivals (23.14–19)

Section Heading: 23.13 TEV has “The Three Great Festivals,” and this Handbook has “The
three annual festivals” (so also 23.13 CEV and NIV). Another possible heading is “You must
celebrate three festivals to Yahweh every year.” Further help on the problem of translating the
names of these celebrations may be found in an article by Daniel Arichea, as listed in the
Bibliography.

23.14

This verse introduces the following three verses, which conclude with a similar statement
in verse 17. They list the three main festivals celebrated by the early Israelites each year. They
were later referred to as Passover (which included Unleavened Bread), Pentecost (Weeks), and
Booths (Shelters). Similar lists are given in 34.18–23 and in Deut 16.1-17. It is significant that all
three feasts were related to the agricultural seasons of the year. (But see the comment on
Passover at the introduction to 12.15–20.)

Literally the verse reads “Three feet [meaning, times] you [singular] will pilgrimage-feast to
me in the year.” You shall keep a feast is one short word in Hebrew, but it means, as 23.14 TEV
renders it, to “celebrate” a festival that involves making a pilgrimage. This means that all three
annual festivals mentioned in verses 15–16 were “pilgrimage festivals” (TOT). The singular you
should be changed to plural if it is more natural in translation. (See the comment on hold a
feast at 5.1.) To me, as in 5.1, means “to honor me.” Verse 17 makes it clear that the people
(males) must travel (or, make a pilgrimage) to honor the Lord. So translators may make the
idea of a “pilgrimage” explicit in this verse; for example, “You must come [or, travel] three
times a year to celebrate a feast to honor me,” or “You must appear before me three times a
year to celebrate a festival in honor of me.” In some languages it may be necessary to name a
place to which they must travel. This is not indicated in the text, but one may say “to [or, at]
the central place for worship.”

23.15

You shall keep is literally “You [singular] shall guard [or observe].” This verb also functions
for the two clauses in verse 16 without being repeated. The feast of unleavened bread uses
the same word as verse 14, so REB has “You are to celebrate the pilgrim-feast of Unleavened
Bread.” It is not necessary to repeat the idea of a pilgrimage every time, if this is made clear in
verse 14. 23.15 TEV, 23.15 CEV, and 23.15 NRSV prefer “festival.” Unleavened bread is discussed
at 12.15. (See the comment there.)
 As I commanded you refers to the instructions given by Yahweh in 12.15–20. The you is
singular, but it refers to the individual Israelite, not just to Moses. It may be made plural if this
is more natural. You shall eat unleavened bread for seven days is almost identical with 12.15,
but there the plural you is used. Again 23.15 TEV changes the positive command to a negative
one, but this also changes the meaning slightly. 23.15 CEV already has the command to eat
unleavened bread in the first sentence. So here it translates “Do this [meaning ‘eat unleavened
bread’] at the proper time … .”

At the appointed time refers to what is mentioned in 12.18, which was from the
fourteenth to the twenty-first day of the month. These details, of course, should not be
repeated here. 23.15 CEV has “at the proper time.” (23.15 TEV seems to have missed this idea.)
If translators follow 23.15 TEV’s restructuring, where this phrase stands at the beginning of the
verse, one should say “At the proper time in the month of Abib.” In the month of Abib, literally
“the New-Moon of Ripe-Grain” (Fox), is mentioned in 13.4. (See the comment there.) It is the
same month referred to in 12.2 and 12.18. This was the time (March-April) for harvesting the
barley that had been planted in the winter. For in it means “in that month” (23.15 NIV). You
came out of Egypt still uses the singular you, which should be changed to plural if it seems
more natural. 23.15 CEV has “because it is the month when you left Egypt.”

None shall appear before me empty-handed is literally “and they shall not be seen
[before] my face empty.” The “they” is indefinite, allowing for the context to make the
meaning clear. So “they shall not” means none shall, or “no one shall” (23.15 NRSV). TOT has
“You shall not come into my presence empty-handed,” and 23.15 TEV interprets this as “Never
come to worship me without bringing an offering.” 23.15 CEV has “And make certain that
everyone brings the proper offerings.” 23.15 NRSV and 23.15 NIV consider this sentence to be a
new paragraph, but it probably refers to the pilgrimage to worship Yahweh on the seventh day
of unleavened bread. (See 13.6; Deut 16.16.)

An alternative translation model for this verse is:

• You must come to celebrate the Festival of Unleavened Bread, just as I have commanded you.
Eat bread without yeast for seven days at the proper time during the month of Abib, because it
is the month when you left Egypt. And make certain that everyone brings the proper offerings
to present to me.

23.16

You shall keep the feast of harvest is simply “and the feast of harvest,” drawing on the
verb You shall keep at the beginning of verse 15. The word for harvest refers to the grain
harvest, in this case the harvest of the wheat, which ripened several weeks later than the
barley. This is called the “feast of weeks” in 34.22. The “Harvest Festival” may be expressed as
“The Festival for Harvesting [or, Reaping] Grain.”

Of the first fruits of your labor is difficult to relate to the feast of harvest, since the first of
is not in the text and can only be assumed. (In 34.22 the word order is different and the of is
not needed.) Is this simply another way of referring to feast of harvest, as in 23.16 KJV and ASV,
“the feast of harvest, the first- fruits of thy labors”? Or is it identifying what the people were to
offer at the feast of harvest? NAB, 23.16 NIV, and REB supply the word “with”: “You shall also
keep the feast of the grain harvest with the first of the crop” (NAB). 23.16 RSV, 23.16 NRSV, and
others add the word of without clarifying which meaning is intended.

TEV interprets first fruits differently: “when you begin to harvest your crops” (similarly CEV).
But this is not really what the text is saying. The word for first fruits refers to what is
harvested, not to when the harvesting begins. This “Harvest Festival” (23.16 TEV) was
associated with the wheat harvest (34.22), and later with Pentecost, which came seven weeks
after the feast of unleavened bread. It will be helpful for many translators to make it explicit
that this festival occurs during the spring. TOT may be the easiest to follow: “You shall celebrate
the festival of Harvest by offering the firstfruits of the crop from the seed you sow in your
fields.” One may alternatively translate “Celebrate the festival for reaping grain in the spring
by offering the first-fruits of the crops [or, harvest] that comes from the seed you sow in your
fields.”

You shall keep the feast of ingathering is simply “and the feast of ingather ing,” with the
verb You shall keep understood from verse 15. Ingathering refers to the final “gathering in” of
all the crops, both grain and fruit. 23.16 TEV calls it “Festival of Shelters,” since “feast of
booths” (Deut 16.13) became the more familiar name. The idea came from the practice of the
farmers living in temporary booths, or huts, out in the vineyards and olive orchards to guard
the fruit as it ripened. In many languages translators will need to translate “Festival of
Shelters” with a sentence; for example, “Festival in which people lived [or, stayed] in shelters”
or “Festival in which people built shelters for themselves.”

At the end of the year means at the end of the agricultural year, which came in
September-October, or “in the autumn” (23.16 TEV), just before the rainy season began. When
you gather in from the field uses the verb from which the noun ingathering is derived. The
fruit of your labor is literally “your doing,” but it refers to “the produce from the fields” (NAB).
23.16 TEV’s “the fruit from your vineyards and orchards” may be too specific, for it does not
allow for the final harvest of grain as well. If one needs to be that specific, then it is possible to
say “… in the autumn when you harvest all your grain and pick the fruit in your vineyards and
orchards.” (See the comment on “vineyards” at 22.5, and on “orchards” at 23.11.)

23.17

This verse concludes the list of the three main festivals, which is introduced by verse 14.
(See also 34.23.) Three times a year repeats the phrase, but it uses a later Hebrew word for
times (literally “beats”). All your males uses the singular your, and males is a collective noun
for “men” in contrast to women. Shall appear is simply “they shall be seen,” or “they shall
make an appearance.” 23.17 TEV makes it explicit that it is imperative that the males come to
the place of worship, with “must come to worship me … .”

ASV AMERICAN STANDARD VERSION

 Before the Lord God is literally “unto the face of the Lord Yahweh.” This means coming
“into the presence of the Lord God.” Note that God is all in capital letters, while Lord is in
lower case letters. This is because the name “Yahweh” is usually represented as “Lord,” and it
would be awkward to say “before the Lord Lord.”

TEV usually translates this combination as “Sovereign Lord” (so also NIV and TAN), but here

we find “the Lord your God.” This is because a shorter form of Lord is used (’adon instead of
’adonay), and because 23.17 TEV follows the Septuagint in adding the pronoun, “your God.”
Note also that 23.17 TEV changes the third person to second, “all your men must come to
worship me, the Lord your God.” If “your God” is normally translated as “the God whom you
worship [or, serve]” in a receptor language, one may then translate “Your men must come to
these three festivals each year and appear before me, Yahweh, the God whom you worship.”

23.18

Verses 18–19 add four more laws that are not directly related to the preceding verses, but
they deal with the proper way to present offerings to God. Yahweh is still speaking. You shall
not offer is the categorical form of law, using the singular you. Offer is from the same word as
sacrifice in the blood of my sacrifice. Its basic meaning is to slaughter, but here it means to
present an animal to the Lord that has been slaughtered. (See the comment on “sacrifice” at
3.18b.)

The blood of my sacrifice is quite literal and unclear. My sacrifice, of course, refers to the
animal that is slaughtered and offered to Yahweh according to the proper ritual. The blood of
the animal was the most important part, and it had to be disposed of properly. (See, for
example, Lev 1.5, 11, 15, and elsewhere.) So 23.18 TEV’s “when you sacrifice an animal to me”
is not recommended, since it makes no mention of the blood. A better model is “when you
sacrifice an animal and offer its blood to me … .”

Leavened bread was bread (or any other food) made with yeast. 23.18 NRSV has “anything
leavened,” and 23.18 NIV has “anything containing yeast.” (See the comment on unleavened
bread at 12.15.) It was permitted for some sacrifices (see Lev 7.13 and 23.17), but it was never
to be burned on the altar. For most sacrifices only unleavened bread was used, possibly
because the leaven represented the vital force of the vegetable world, just as blood
represented the vital force of the animal world. The preposition with may also mean “when”
or “in addition to.” TOT has “together with,” and REB has “at the same time as.” An alternative
model for the first part of this verse is “Do not offer bread made with yeast when you
slaughter an animal and offer its blood to me.”

Or let the fat of my feast remain is literally “and the fat of my feast will not remain.” The
fat was the suet, or hard fat around the kidneys and loins of the animal. It was never eaten but
had to be burned as an offering to God. (See Lev 3.15-17; 7.23–24.) My feast uses the same
word for pilgrim festival as in verses 14–16. It refers to “the animals sacrificed to me during
these festivals” (23.18 TEV). Until the morning means that the fat had to be completely burned
before the following morning. An alternative model is the following: “Make sure that you burn
all the fat of that animal the same day” (similarly CEV).
23.19

The first of the first fruits of your ground is literally “beginning of first-fruits of your
[singular] ground.” The word for first may also mean “best,” so most translations interpret it as
“the choicest of the first fruits” (23.19 NRSV) or as “the best of the firstfruits” (23.19 NIV). First
fruits means “the first grain” (23.19 TEV) or the first produce that is harvested.

You shall bring is literally “you [singular] shall cause to enter.” The house of the Lord your
God may refer either to the tabernacle or to the temple, or perhaps to any shrine set apart for
the worship of Yahweh. Another way to express this is “the place where you worship Yahweh,
your God.” Since this is given as a permanent command, 23.19 TEV adds the idea of “each
year,” although this is not in the text.

You shall not boil a kid in its mother’s milk is also found in 34.26 and in Deut 14.21. It is
given in categorical form without explanation. The kid was a young goat, which was not as
valuable as a lamb but good for eating and for sacrifice. By implication the law also applied to a
lamb or a calf. The word for boil can also mean “cook” (23.19 TEV), or even roast, but here the
law prohibits preparing it with its mother’s milk. Goat’s milk was the most available, so
probably this law applied to any goat’s milk, and even cow’s milk. This became the basis for
the strict Jewish law forbidding eating meat and a dairy product in the same meal.

(9) Promises and Instructions (23.20–33)

This section concludes the Book of the Covenant, even though it makes no reference to
the different laws that have just been mentioned. It provides a significant balance, however,
with the opening verses in 20.22–23, which emphasize the need for complete loyalty to
Yahweh and forbid the worship of any other god. This, of course, is the basic concern of this
“Book,” leading up to the sealing of the covenant in chapter 24. The various laws only describe
the details of how this new relationship between Yahweh and his people is to be expressed.
Promises, both conditional and unconditional, are made, along with new warnings and
instructions.

Section Heading: both 23.19 TEV and this Handbook have “Promises and instructions.”
23.19 CEV has a similar heading, with “A promise and a warning.” Another way to express this is
“Yahweh makes promises to his people and instructs them.” However, 23.19 NIV concentrates
on the promise of the angels’ help and has “God’s Angel to Prepare the Way.” In some
languages this will be rendered as “God’s special messenger will prepare the way for the
Israelites.”

23.20

Behold is not translated by 23.20 TEV or 23.20 NRSV because it has become archaic in
English. Others have either “Look” or “See,” with the idea of commanding the attention of the
one being addressed. (See the comment at 1.9.) In this verse, however, it does not mean that
the Israelites are being called upon to look at the angel. I send an angel before you is literally
“I am the sender of [or, am about to send] an angel to your face.” The context suggests that I
refers to Yahweh, and the singular you refers to Moses as representative of all the Israelites.
 The emphatic form of I is used with the participle of send. Before you may be understood as
“in front of you” (23.20 NRSV) or “ahead of you” (23.20 TEV).

The word for angel is also the word for “messenger” (Durham, Fox), but a supernatural
being seems to be intended here. So “a heavenly messenger” is possible. (See also 14.19;
32.34; 33.2.) To guard you on the way means, as 23.20 TEV expresses it, “to protect you as you
travel.” And to bring you to the place which I have prepared is literally “and to cause you
[singular] to enter unto the location which I have caused to be ready.”

23.21

Give heed to him, literally “You [singular] be guarded from before him,” uses the passive
imperative form of the same word for “guard” in verse 20. It means “pay attention to him”
(23.21 TEV), or “show respect to him” (TOT). NJB has “Revere him.” For and hearken to his
voice, 23.21 NIV has “listen to what he says,” but it carries the stronger meaning that 23.21 TEV
translates as “obey him.” (Similarly also TAN, NJB, and TOT.) 23.21 CEV has “Carefully obey
everything the angel says.” Do not rebel against him is literally “do not cause bitterness in
him.” Others have “do not defy him” (TAN), “you are not to resent him” (Durham), and
“provoke him not” (ASV).

For he will not pardon your transgression uses the plural your with the singular
transgression. REB has “rebelliousness,” and TOT has “he will not forgive you if you rebel.”
23.21 TEV avoids the your, with “he will not pardon such rebellion.” 23.21 CEV says “and he
won’t tolerate rebellion.” Another way to express this is “If you rebel against him he will be
very angry.” For my name is in him is literally “for my name [is] in his inward part.” This of
course refers to the name Yahweh, but it also has the deeper meaning of Yahweh’s power and
“Presence” (Durham). This may also be expressed with the word “authority” (NAB, REB). TOT has
“He has my full authority,” and 23.21 CEV has “I am giving him complete authority.” 23.21 TEV is
a bit weak: “for I have sent him.” Both 23.21 TEV and 23.21 CEV place the clause he will not
pardon your transgression at the end of the verse. Many translators will find this restructuring
helpful.

An alternative translation model for this verse is:

• Carefully obey everything that my messenger says, because I am giving him complete
authority. If you rebel against him, he will be very angry.

23.22

But if you hearken attentively to his voice is literally “But if hearing you [singular] hear to
his voice.” This repetition of the verb is the emphatic form, so attentively or something similar
must be added. 23.22 NIV has “If you listen carefully to what he says,” but the stronger
meaning of “obey” (23.22 TEV) is also suggested, as in verse 21. Childs has “But if you will really
obey him,” and 23.22 CEV has “If you faithfully obey him.”

And do all that I say suddenly shifts from third person (his voice) to first person (I say).
This should not be a problem in translation, if it is clear that the angel represents Yahweh
himself and speaks for him. Otherwise it will be better to say “do all that he says.”
 Then I will be an enemy to your enemies basically means “I will be hostile to those who
are hostile to you [singular],” or “I will hate those who hate you.” (The same word for enemy is
used in verse 4.) And an adversary to your adversaries says the same thing, using a different
word that also means “to be hostile to” or “to be in conflict with.” 23.22 TEV combines the two
into one: “I will fight against all your enemies.” 23.22 CEV has “I will be a fierce enemy of your
enemies.” In certain languages where “enemies” will be rendered as “those who hate you,”
one may say “I will fight fiercely against all those people who hate you.”

23.23

When my angel goes before you, literally “For my messenger will go to your [singular]
face,” uses the word ki, which can mean “For,” “If,” “When,” or “Indeed.” Many translations
omit it entirely. This repeats part of verse 20, but here the pronoun my is clearly in the text.

And brings you to the Amorites is literally “and he will cause you to enter unto the
Amorite.” What is intended, of course, is “will lead you into the land of the Amorites” (23.23
CEV). (23.23 TEV has “take you” instead of “lead you.”) NJB has “the home of the Amorites.” As
indicated in 3.8, this was the “place,” “the good and broad land,” where these six different
ethnic groups lived. Concerning Amorites … Jebusites, see the discussion at 13.5. Note the
different order in listing them.

And I blot them out is literally “and I will cause him to be hidden,” or “I will make him
disappear.” The singular “him” should be understood as “them” (23.23 TEV). The idea is that
Yahweh will “destroy them” (23.23 TEV), or “wipe them out” (CEV, NIV). REB has “I will make an
end to them.” TAN has “I will annihilate them,” and NJB even uses the term “exterminate.” In
some languages this will be rendered as “wipe them from the ground.” (Note that in 23.23 RSV
the sentence continues into the next verse.)

23.24

You shall not bow down to their gods uses the singular you but refers to all the Israelites.
The verb bow down is identical with 20.5. (See the comment there.) Their gods means the
gods of the various groups mentioned in verse 23. (See the comment on “gods” at 12.12.) Nor
serve them is also identical with 20.5. Serve here means to “worship” (23.24 TEV), and so the
pronoun them refers to the gods.

Nor do according to their works is ambiguous. It is not clear whether their refers to the
people’s works or to the gods’ works, nor whether the word for do means to act or to make.
23.24 NRSV has changed 23.24 RSV to “or follow their practices,” interpreting the pronoun their
to refer to the people rather than to the gods. However, Durham has “you are not to do their
will,” understanding their to refer to the gods. And NAB has “nor shall you make anything like
them,” under standing do as “make,” and “them” as the gods. 23.24 TEV’s “do not adopt their
religious practices” is probably what is meant, although Durham’s interpretation means
practically the same. So a possible alternative model will be “do not do the things they think
their gods want them to do.”
 But you shall utterly overthrow them is literally “for [ki] destroying you [singular] shall
destroy them.” 23.24 CEV has “instead” rather than But. (See the comment on ki at verse 23.)
This is the emphatic use of the verb as in 21.12, so utterly has been added. One may also say
“completely destroy.” Here again, however, it is not clear whether them refers to the people
or to their gods. 23.24 NRSV has changed overthrow to “demolish,” interpreting them as the
gods. This is the better choice, so it is good to make it explicit; for example, one may say
“Destroy their gods” (23.24 TEV), or “Tear down all their images” (REB), or even “Destroy their
idols.”

And break their pillars in pieces, literally “breaking you shall break,” refers to breaking
down “their sacred stone pillars” (23.24 TEV). These pillars were large stones placed in a
vertical position. The pagan nations used them as symbols of the male god who gave fertility
to the earth, but the Israelites used them more as a memorial or marker of a special
appearance of God. (See 24.4 and Gen 28.18.) 23.24 NIV has “You must … break their sacred
stones to pieces.” This may also be expressed as “… smash the large stones that stand in the
places where they worship their gods.”

23.25

You shall serve the Lord your God begins with the usual conjunction waw, which 23.25 TEV
interprets as “If.” This is because the second clause may be understood as a conditional
promise. But it is also possible to interpret this as a categorical statement, as in 23.25 RSV and
others. Serve here means to “worship,” as in verse 24 (see also 3.12). The Lord your God is, of
course, “Yahweh your God” (NJB), but 23.25 TEV changes this to “worship me, the Lord your
God,” since it is Yahweh who is speaking. The you and your are plural.

And I will bless is literally “and he will bless,” since the first clause refers to Yahweh in the
third person. (See the 23.25 RSV footnote.) In a functional equivalent translation a footnote is
not necessary. The and carries the meaning of “then” following the condition in the first
clause. (So also NAB and NJB.) Bless your bread and your water is understood by 23.25 TEV as
“bless you with food and water,” which is possible. TOT even has “bless you by giving you
abundance of food and water.” But the ancient belief in the power of blessing and cursing
suggests that the food and the water may also be intended as the recipients of the blessing.
This would be the same idea as when people today ask God to bless the food they are about to
eat. In other words Yahweh will cause the food and water to give the people good health. And
this interpretation relates well to the following clause promising no more sickness. Both
interpretations are possible. So one may also translate “and I will cause your food and water to
bring you good health” or “I will let you have good food and water and will protect you from
sickness.” The you’re here shifts back to singular, but certainly the plural is to be understood.

And I will take sickness away is literally “and I will cause weakness to turn aside.” From
the midst of you is literally “from your [singular] inward part.” Although the you is singular, it
is best to relate it to the community, and the sickness to disease in general. TOT has “I will
banish disease from your community.” An alternative model is “I will cause you [plural] to be
free from disease.”
 Alternative translation models for this verse are:

• If you [plural] worship me, Yahweh, your God, I will be kind to you and cause you to have much
food and water. I will also keep you free from disease.

• You [plural] are to worship me, the Lord your God. And I will let you have good food and water
and will protect you from sickness.

23.26

None will cast her young is literally “and a miscarrier shall not be.” 23.26 RSV retains an
archaic English expression that 23.26 NRSV has now replaced with “No one shall miscarry.” The
root meaning of the verb is to be deprived of children. The feminine participle is used, so we
may assume this means “No woman will have a miscarriage” (23.26 TEV). No distinction is
made between human and animal, and perhaps both were intended. But “No animal shall
drop her young” (MFT) seems to exclude women. However, it seems that “woman” is the focus
here, since the next sentence is definitely referring to humans. Or be barren means to be
“without children” (23.26 TEV), or “sterile” (NJB). In your land uses the singular your.

I will fulfill the number of your days is literal, meaning “I will give you a full life span”
(23.26 NIV), or “I will give you long lives” (23.26 TEV). TAN has “I will let you enjoy the full count
of your days.” One may also say “I will cause you [plural] to live long lives.” The pronoun your
is singular.

23.27

I will send my terror before you really means “Terror of me I will send ahead of you
[singular].” This is the same word used in 15.16, but here Yahweh is calling it my terror. 23.27
TEV says it clearly: “I will make the people who oppose you afraid of me.” 23.27 CEV has “I will
terrify those nations,” with “nations” referring back to all the peoples mentioned in verse 23.
And I will throw into confusion is the same word used in 14.24, where 23.27 RSV translates it
as “discomfit.” It really means to “throw into panic” (TAN, NAB, REB).

All the people against whom you shall come is literally “all the people whom you
[singular] enter among them.” 23.27 TEV interprets this as “people against whom you fight,”
since the words for terror and confusion are terms that suggest the idea of “holy war.” (See
the comment on “holy war” at 14.14.) But this may be too strong a statement, for the
Israelites were not necessarily the ones who started a fight. NJB has “all the peoples you
encounter,” and TOT has “all the people whom you meet.” 23.27 CEV has “and make your
enemies so confused that … .”

And I will make all your enemies turn their backs to you is an idiomatic expression.
Literally it says “and I will give all your [singular] enemies unto you the back of neck.” This does
not mean that the enemies will ignore or snub them, but rather that they will “turn and run
from you” (23.27 TEV). NAB has “turn from you in flight.” TOT suggests that this can mean
“submit” in the sense of bowing low and showing their backs. But this not a widely-held view.
The word for enemies is the same word used in verses 4 and 22.
 An alternative translation model for this verse is:

• I will make those nations terrified of you, and cause those who hate you to become so
confused that they will run away.

23.28

And I will send hornets uses a rare Hebrew word that the Septuagint translated as
“hornet,” or “wasp,” but scholars today are doubtful that this is the meaning. 23.28 NRSV has
changed to “the pestilence,” TAN has “a plague,” and 23.28 TEV has “panic,” each adding a
footnote with the traditional rendering of hornets. The Hebrew lexicon by Koehler-
Baumgartner (K-B) proposes the meaning of “depression,” or “discouragement.” It is quite
likely that the word is similar in meaning to “terror” and “confusion” in verse 27, causing
“panic” so that they flee.

Which shall drive out is literally “and she shall drive out,” referring to the feminine noun
“hornet.” 23.28 TEV has “I will drive out,” following a few ancient versions, and the context
supports this interpretation. In some languages it will be necessary to say “drive them out of
the land.” (see verse 29.) Hivite, Canaanite, and Hittite lists only three of the six ethnic groups
in verse 23. From before you may be understood as in 23.28 NIV, “out of your way,” or as in
23.28 CEV, “as you approach.” The you is singular.

An alternative translation model for this verse is:

• I will make your enemies, the Hivites, Canaanites, and Hittites panic; I will drive them out of
the land as you advance [or, approach].

23.29

I will not drive them out is literally “I will not drive him out,” but English demands the
plural them. From before you is almost identical with verse 28 and need not be repeated. In
one year means “in a single year” (TAN, 23.29 NIV, NJB), “within one year’s time” (23.29 TEV), or
“in the first year” (23.29 CEV). Lest the land become desolate means “or the land would
become desolate” (23.29 NRSV). 23.29 TEV renders it as “If I did, the land would become
deserted.” One may also say “in order that the land will not become a wasteland.”

And wild beasts multiply against you is literally “and the animal of the field will become
numerous over you [singular].” The same expression for wild beasts is used in verse 11. One
may also say “animal of the field” or “jungle [or, forest] animals.” This clause is still influenced
by the word lest, so one may say “and in order that the wild animals will not become too many
for you.” NAB relates the two clauses as cause and effect: “else the land will become so
desolate that the wild beasts will multiply against you.” Multiply against you is usually
understood as “be too many for you” or “wild animals would be everywhere.”

23.30

K-B KOEHLER-BAUMGARTNER
 Little by little, literally “a little a little,” may mean “by and by” (Holladay), but here the
idea seems to be “gradually” (TOT). I will drive them out from before you is identical with
verse 29. Until you are increased is literally “until when you [singular] are fruitful,” or “until
you reproduce and increase in number.” The same word is translated “multiply” in 1.10 and
12. And possess the land means to “occupy the land as your possession” (Durham). 23.30 TEV
makes it clear: “until there are enough of you to take possession of the land.”

23.31

I will set your bounds refers to the “borders” (23.31 TEV), or boundary lines marking the
extent of Israel’s territory. REB has “I will establish your frontiers.” Your is singular. From the
Red Sea, literally “from the Sea of Reeds,” refers to what is now called “the Gulf of Aqaba”
(23.31 TEV), not to the area where the Israelites had crossed in their escape from Egypt. (See
the discussion at 10.19. See also 1 Kgs 9.26.) To the sea of the Philistines is obviously “the
Mediterranean Sea” (23.31 TEV). This marks the distance from the southeast to the northwest.

And from the wilderness refers to the Sinai “desert” to the southwest of Palestine, and to
the Euphrates marks the distance to “the Euphrates River” (23.31 TEV) in the northeast. The
Hebrew simply has “the river,” which in 1.22 refers to the Nile River in Egypt. But after the
Israelites settled in Palestine, reference to “the River” (23.31 NIV and others) meant the great
Euphrates river northeast of Palestine, which flows into the Persian Gulf.

For I will deliver the inhabitants of the land into your hands is literally “for I will give in
your [plural] hand the dwellers of the land.” This, of course, refers to the Canaanites and the
other ethnic groups that occupied the area of Palestine. 23.31 TEV brings out the meaning: “I
will give you power over the inhabit ants.” And you shall drive them out before you shifts
back to the singular you. The occasional shift in the second person from singular to plural, and
from plural to singular, is not always significant in meaning. In such cases it should not be
followed if the translation would sound unnatural. Before you is identical with “from before
you” in verses 29–30. 23.31 TEV has a good model, “you will drive them out as you advance,”
and 23.31 CEV has “and you will force them out of the land.”

23.32

You shall make no covenant with them is literally “You [singular] shall not cut an
agreement to them.” This is the usual way to speak of establishing a treaty or “agreement”
(23.32 TEV) between two parties. (A different verb is used in 6.4.) The expression may have
come from an ancient ritual of cutting up an animal when a covenant was made. (See Genesis
15.) Or with their gods depends upon the one verb make, meaning make no covenant … with
their gods.

23.33

They shall not dwell in your land uses the same word as “dwellers,” translated as
“inhabitants” in verse 31. Since they were already there, TAN has “They shall not remain in
your land.” 23.33 TEV changes the they to “those people” and changes the verb to a command
in the second person, “Do not let those people live in your country.” (Similarly also 23.33 NIV.)
This brings out the idea of a command, which is suggested by the shortened form of the verb
in Hebrew. Your land uses the singular your but refers to all the Israelites.

Lest they make you sin against me is literally “or else they will cause you [singular] to sin
to me.” Lest is used in the same way in verse 29. It can also mean “because” (TOT). 23.33 TEV
has “If you do,” carrying over the change to second person in the first clause. As in 10.16, the
word for sin has the basic meaning of “missing the mark.” (See the comment on chata’ at
20.20.)

For if you serve their gods means, as 23.33 TEV puts it, “If you worship their gods,” as in
verse 24. It will surely be a snare to you is literally “it will be for you [singular] for a trap.” MFT
and at take the word snare to mean “endanger,” but this loses the figure of speech. 23.33 TEV
considers it to be “a fatal trap,” but this may be too strong an expression. The meaning is that
the people would be caught, or trapped, into continuing to worship the gods of these other
nations, thereby sinning against Yahweh.

The four clauses of this verse, a-b-c-d, may be rearranged as a-d-c-b and read something
like this: “Do not let those people live in your land; if you do, they will trap you into worshiping
their gods, and in that way they will cause you to sin against me.” This is similar to what REB
does: “They must not stay in your land, for fear they make you sin against me by ensnaring you
into the worship of their gods” (similarly CEV). Snare may also be expressed in verb form as
“lure” or “entice”; for example, “They will entice you into worshiping their gods.”

e. The sealing of the Covenant (24.1–18)

(1) The Ceremony with the People (24.1–8)
Chapter 24 concludes the narrative begun in chapter 19 about the covenant at Sinai that
Yahweh established with the people of Israel. The various laws and commands included in
chapters 19–23 are now referred to as the terms and conditions of this covenant. Although
often referred to as the Mosaic Covenant, this mutually binding agreement was between
Yahweh and the people, with Moses functioning only as a mediator between the two. It is
important to realize that this covenant was based upon God’s grace and not upon the laws.
The entire event was initiated and controlled by Yahweh himself, with the people serving only
as the fortunate recipients of his grace.

There are three episodes in this chapter with a number of conflicting details. It is a
composite account that preserves two or three different traditions. Verses 3–8 give one
account of the sealing of the covenant at the foot of the mountain, with a ritual of reading the
terms and then sprinkling the blood of the sacrifice on both the altar and the people. Verses
1–2 and 9–11 record a different tradition about the leaders of Israel sharing in a ritual meal
with Yahweh up on the mountain. And verses 12–18 tell about Moses going up on the
mountain alone to receive the laws that Yahweh had written on stone tablets.

Section Headings: the Handbook has a major heading for 24.1–18, “The sealing of the
covenant,” which may also be expressed as “The covenant is sealed” (23.33 TEV) or “Moses
seals the covenant with Yahweh” (see verse 8 for a comment on “seals”). There are also three
subheadings for the chapter. The one for 24.1–8 is “The ceremony with the people.” 23.33
TEV’s heading, “The Covenant is Sealed,” covers 24.1–11, as does CEV’s “The people agree to
obey God” and NIV’s “The Covenant Confirmed.” Translators may choose to have one heading
for 24.1–11, or two headings as this Handbook suggests.

24.1

And he said to Moses is not the best way to begin a new section. It is better to say, as in
24.1 TEV, “The Lord said to Moses” or “Then Yahweh said to Moses.” Since this is the beginning
of a new section of narrative, translators may make the first sentence less abrupt by saying, for
example, “After the Lord gave the laws to the Israelites, he said to Moses.” Come up to the
Lord uses the second person singular, since only Moses is being addressed. And since Yahweh
is the speaker, it is more natural for him to say “Come up the mountain to me” (24.1 TEV). The
word for come up is literally “you ascend” and does not suggest the location of the speaker,
but the context suggests that God is on top of the mountain. So 24.1 CEV has “Come up to me
on this mountain.”

You and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu places Aaron and two of his sons in a special category
with Moses. (See 6.23.) It will be helpful to make it explicit that these are Aaron’s sons: “Bring
along Aaron, as well as his two sons Nadab and Abihu” (24.1 CEV). And seventy of the elders of
Israel is literally “and seventy from the elders of Israel.” This implies that there were other
elders who were not invited. (See the comment on elders at 3.16.)

And worship afar off seems to contradict the first command, but the meaning of afar off is
relative, so 24.1 NRSV now has “at a distance.” Durham has “at a respectful distance.” The same
word is used in 2.6. 24.1 TEV makes it even clearer: “and while you are some distance away,
bow down in worship.” The word for worship literally means to bow down low, even to kneel
with the head touching the ground. The same word is used in 18.7. Many languages will have
an expression for such a posture that shows extreme respect or even fear before someone
with power and authority. In such cases it may be necessary to be more explicit and say, for
example, “and prostrate themselves before me.”

24.2

Moses alone shall come near to the Lord seems to contradict verse 1, but the word for
come near means to “approach,” so this means that “Moses by himself is to come close to
Yahweh” (Durham). Since Yahweh is speaking to Moses, however, it seems more natural to
say, as in 24.2 TEV, “You alone … are to come near me.” But the others shall not come near
refers to those mentioned in verse 1. They are to stay some distance away. 24.2 CEV makes it
even clearer by including part of this information in verse 1: “1 … They must worship me at a
distance, 2 but you are to come near. Don’t let anyone else come up.”

And the people refers to all the rest of the Israelites at the foot of the mountain. Shall not
come up, literally “they shall not ascend,” does not necessarily locate the speaker, Yahweh, on
the top of the mountain. REB has “The people must not go up with him.” With him means
“with Moses” (NAB), but the context suggests adding “at all,” as in “shall not come up at all
 with Moses” (NAB). 24.2 TEV considers with him to be unnecessary: “and the people are not to
come up the mountain.”

An alternative translation model for verses 1 and 2 is:

• 1 After the Lord gave laws to the people, he said to Moses, “Come up to me on this mountain.
Bring with you Aaron and his two sons Nadab and Abihu as well as seventy of the leaders of
Israel. They must worship me from a distance, 2 but you are to come near. However, none of
the others are to come near. The people are not even to come up the mountain.”

24.3
308

Verses 3–8 are not clearly related to verses 1–2 and follow more naturally after 23.33.
Moses came is literally “Moses entered,” for the Hebrew does not distinguish between came
and “went” (TEV, TAN, 24.3 NIV, REB). (See.) The people, of course, were at the foot of the
mountain, but the context does not clearly indicate where Moses was. One may say “Moses
approached the people and told them.” However, in languages that require directional verbs,
one may say, for example, “Moses went [going away] and approached the people.” The word
for told literally means “to count,” or “to check off.” So Fox and Durham have “Moses came
and recounted … .” REB has “Moses went and repeated … .”

All the words of the Lord does not refer to what Yahweh had said in verses 1–2. More
specifically all the words refers to the Ten Commandments in 20.1–17, and all the ordinances
refers to the laws in the Book of the Covenant, 20.22–23.33. The word for words (devarim) is
used in 34.28 for “the ten commandments,” and the word for ordinances (mishpatim) is used
in 21.1 to introduce the “Book of the Covenant.” 24.3 TEV translates them as “commands” and
“ordinances,” while TAN calls them “commands” and “rules.” 24.3 CEV does not make any
distinction between these two terms: “gave the Lord’s instructions to the people.” (See the
introduction to 20.22–26.)

And all the people answered with one voice does not mean necessarily that they all spoke
the same words in unison, although this may be what is implied. The important thing is that
they all responded at the same time. With one voice is literally “one sound.” (See the

308Osborn, N. D., & Hatton, H. (1999). A handbook on Exodus. UBS handbook series; Helps for
translators (531). New York: United Bible Societies.

TEV Today’s English Version

TAN TANAKH (NEW JEWISH VERSION)

NIV NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION

REB REVISED ENGLISH BIBLE

CEV Contemporary English Version

discussion on “sound” and “thunder” at 19.19.) And said introduces the words that the people
spoke. All the words which the Lord has spoken we will do is similar to 19.8 and suggests a
kind of formula, or a prepared response. (See also verse 7.) Here, however, all the words
(devarim) includes “everything that the Lord has said” (24.3 TEV). 24.3 CEV has “We will do
everything the Lord has commanded.”

24.4

And Moses wrote all the words of the Lord means that he “wrote down everything the
Lord had said” (24.4 NIV). The words were probably “all the Lord’s commands” (24.4 TEV) that
Moses had just recounted for the people, both “words” and “ordinances.” (See the comment
at verse 3.) There is no clue as to what writing material he may have used.

And he rose early in the morning probably means “Early the next morning” (24.4 TEV). And
built an altar uses the general word to build, and the word for altar literally means “place of
sacrifice.” It was probably a crude altar made of earth and stone, and in some languages it will
be necessary to indicate the building materials. TAN has “he set up an altar.” At the foot of the
mountain is literally “under the mountain,” but this refers to the “base” (Durham), or the place
where the mountain begins to rise.

And twelve pillars depends on the one verb built, but it is more accurate to say that he
“set up twelve stones” (24.4 TEV). The word for pillars, which is also used in 23.24, refers to
large stones that were made to stand in a vertical position. NJB calls them “standing-stones,”
and REB has “sacred pillars.” But they did not represent any gods, as they did for other nations.
Instead they represented the people in the covenant ceremony. According to the twelve
tribes of Israel means, as 24.4 TEV expresses it, that there was “one for each of the twelve
tribes.” (See the comment on “tribes” at 2.1.)

24.5

And he sent young men sounds as though Moses sent them some distance away. This is
the same word used in Moses’ demand to “let my people go” (see 5.1). It is possible that the
altar was some distance away from the people, and that Moses sent these young men over to
where the altar was. More likely he sent them to where the animals were kept, to select the
ones to be slaughtered for the sacrifice. TAN translates “he designated some young men,”
which avoids the question of where he sent them.

Young men is one word that means an unmarried young man, who may also be a servant
or an apprentice. Young men of the people of Israel simply means “young Israelite men” (24.5
NIV), but since all the people there were Israelites, 24.5 TEV simply has “young men.” (Similarly
also TOT and 24.5 CEV.) Who offered burnt offerings is literally “and they caused to go up what
goes up.” The word for burnt offerings and the word for offered come from the same root
that means to go up, as smoke from the sacrifice goes up.

NJB NEW JERUSALEM BIBLE

TOT TRANSLATOR’S OLD TESTAMENT

 And sacrificed peace offerings of oxen to the Lord is literally “and they sacrificed sacrifices
of peace [or, well-being] to Yahweh, young bulls.” The word for oxen comes at the end of the
sentence and may be understood to apply to the burnt offerings as well as to the peace
offerings. So TOT has “to sacrifice bulls to the Lord as whole-offerings and shared-offerings.”
But most translations relate the oxen only to the peace offering. (See and 20.24.)

An alternative translation model for this verse is:

• Then he sent young Israelite men to slaughter some animals and burn them completely on the
altar. They also sacrificed some cattle as an offering to restore fellowship.

24.6

And Moses took half of the blood refers to the blood of the animals that the young men
slaughtered. And put it in basins refers to large metal “bowls” (24.6 TEV) used for mixing food
or wine. They were sometimes as large as sixteen inches in diameter, about eight inches deep,
and had handles. How many of these basins were needed to hold half of the blood would
depend, of course, on how many animals were slaughtered.

And half of the blood in the second clause refers to “the other half” (24.6 TEV), which
probably was measured out as each animal was killed. Instead of half and half, TAN has “one
part” and “the other part.” He threw against the altar is literally “he sprinkled upon the altar,”
but the verb may be interpreted as “dashed” (24.6 NRSV), “splashed” (NAB), or “flung” (REB).
Probably the blood was sprinkled on top of the altar and “dashed” (24.6 NRSV) against its sides.
(See 29.16 in 24.6 TEV.)

24.7

Then he took the book of the covenant refers to the book in which the terms of this
agreement between Yahweh and the people were written. 24.7 TEV adds the phrase “in which
the Lord’s commands were written,” in order to make this clear, although these words are not
in the Hebrew. And even with this addition, it is not clear who had written this, nor when it
was written. The present context suggests that this is what Moses wrote in verse 4, the earliest
written form of the laws in 20.22–23.33. In languages where all of this needs to be made
explicit, one may say, for example, “Then he [Moses] took the Book of the Covenant in which
he had written the Lord’s commands.”

Book of the covenant may also be rendered as “Book of God’s Agreement with his
People.” (See the comment on covenant at 19.5.) The word for book is a general term for a
written document, which in this case probably was either a papyrus scroll or a large piece of
leather. In some languages it may be better to translate “Then Moses read aloud the Lord’s
commandments that he had written down.” 24.7 CEV has a similar model: “Then he read aloud
the Lord’s commands and promises.” What he read, the book of the covenant, probably refers

NRSV New Revised Standard Version

NAB NEW AMERICAN BIBLE

to the mishpatim, which is better translated as “commandments.” (See the introductory
comments before 20.22.)

And read it in the hearing of the people is literally “and he called [it] in the ears of the
people.” 24.7 TEV puts it more naturally: “and read it aloud to the people.” And they said
introduces the same formula, or ritual response, All that the Lord has spoken we will do. This
is identical with 19.8 and similar to the one in verse 3. (See the comments there.) And we will
be obedient, literally “and we will hear,” is an addition to the response in 19.8 and verse 3. It
may be more natural to interchange we will do and we will be obedient, as several
translations have done: “we will heed and do” (NAB), “we shall obey, and do” (REB), and “we
will obey the Lord and do” (24.7 TEV).

24.8

And Moses took the blood refers to the blood that had been collected in the basins in
verse 6. And threw it upon the people uses the same word for throw as verse 6. The same
preposition is also used, but here upon seems more appropriate than “against.” REB has “and
flung it over the people.” It is significant that half of the blood had first been thrown on the
altar, which represents Yahweh’s part in the agreement, and the other half on the people, who
were the other party in the agreement.

And said (24.8 TEV “He said”) introduces Moses’ words, which are probably to be
understood as a ritual formula. Behold is an archaic word in English, so 24.8 NRSV has changed
it to “See.” As a ritual formula, however, it may be more natural to say “This is the blood” (24.8
TEV). The blood of the covenant means the blood that is used in sealing the covenant. 24.8 TEV
makes this clear: “This is the blood that seals the covenant.” Another possible model is “This
blood confirms that you are now covenant-partners with the Lord.”

Which the Lord has made with you is literally “which Yahweh cut with you [plural].” On
“cutting a covenant” see the comment at 23.32. The tense of the verb is not indicated here, so
TAN has “that the Lord now makes with you.” This suggests that the covenant became binding
with the completion of the ceremony. In accordance with all these words is literally “upon all
these words.” This means that “all that the Lord has spoken” (verse 7) is to be understood as
the “stipulations” (NJB), or “terms” (REB), of the covenant. 24.8 TEV has “when he gave all these
commands,” referring to the laws in the “book of the covenant” in verse 7.

(2) The Ceremony with the Elders (24.9–11)

This section continues the episode introduced in verses 1–2. As mentioned above, verses
3–8 have been inserted for the purpose of reporting the sealing of the covenant with the
people before completing the account of the ceremony with the elders. The focus in this
tradition is on the appearance of God (’elohim) to the leaders of Israel on the mountain,
followed by the covenant meal. As in 18.12, the present context suggests that the food for the
meal came from the sacrifices offered in verse 5.

Section Heading: this Handbook has a separate heading for this short subsection, “The
ceremony with the elders.” Another model is “The seventy leaders meet with God.”
 24.9–10

Then Moses and Aaron … went up simply repeats what is said in verse 1. There is no
indication as to how far up the mountain they went, but the following section, as well as
verses 1–2, suggest that they did not reach the top. And they saw the God of Israel is exactly
what the Hebrew says. Durham places an exclamation point here to emphasize this statement.
It is significant that ’elohim (God) is used here rather than “Yahweh.” God of Israel may also be
expressed as “the God whom the Israelites worshiped.” (see verse 2.) 24.10 CEV has a helpful
model for 9–10a: “9 Moses and Aaron, together with Nadab and Abihu and the seventy elders,
went up the mountain 10a and saw the God of Israel.”

24.10

And there was under his feet is literally “and under his feet.” The verb there was must be
supplied. As it were is one word, literally “like something made of,” “something like” (24.10
NRSV), or “something that looked like” (24.10 CEV). It intentionally marks as indefinite and
inadequate the description that follows.

A pavement of sapphire stone describes an area covered or paved with a layer of precious
stones called sapphire. The word sapphire actually comes from the Hebrew sappir, but it may
refer to what is known today as “lapis lazuli,” a semiprecious stone that is azure blue in color,
like the sky. NAB has “sapphire tilework,” and Durham has “a mosaic pavement of lapis lazuli.”
If either “sapphires” or “lapis lazuli” are unknown in a receptor language culture, the best thing
to do is identify the stone by its color; for example, “and looked like a pavement made with a
blue precious stone” or “… a blue precious stone called ‘sapphire.’ ” The translator should
consult the illustrations of precious stones in Bible dictionaries such as The Interpreter’s
Dictionary of the Bible, Volume 3, facing page 472.

Like the very heaven for clearness is literally “and like bones of the heavens for purity.”
The word for “bones,” however, is sometimes used to describe the essential identity of
something or someone. The word for clearness comes from the verb to be clean or pure. 24.10
NIV focuses on the clearness, “clear as the sky itself.” 24.10 CEV has “as bright as the sky,” and
24.10 TEV focuses on the color, “as blue as the sky.” This description suggests the idea of the
firmament, or dome of the sky, as the floor of the throne room of God the creator. (See Gen
1.7-8 and Ezek 1.26.)

An alternative translation model for this verse is:

• Under his feet was something that looked like a pavement made out of blue precious stones
called “sapphire.” This pavement was as blue as the sky.

24.11

And he did not lay his hand refers to God (’elohim) in verse 10. Literally it says “he did not
stretch out his hand.” (See 3.20.) This is an expression that means to “smite” (NAB) or “harm”
(24.11 TEV). On the chief men of the people of Israel uses an adjective that means “eminent”
or “prominent.” This refers to the seventy-four men of verse 9, including Moses of course, as
“the leading men of Israel” (24.11 TEV), “the Israelite notables” (NJB), or “these leaders of
Israel” (24.11 CEV). It also records an exception to the belief that no one could see God and live
(see 33.20).

They beheld God uses a word used less frequently than the word for “saw” in verse 10,
although it often means the same thing. Here it suggests seeing or perceiving with greater
intensity. Andate and drank is generally understood to refer to a covenant meal, similar to the
meal shared by Jethro and the elders of Israel following a sacrifice to God. (See 18.12.) 24.11
TEV brings out the communal aspect, “And then theyate and drank together.” There is no
indication that God shared in the meal, but it seems clear that it was in God’s presence. It is
also possible to reorder the clauses of this verse as follows: “Even though these leaders of
Israel actually saw God, he did not harm them. So theyate and drank together.”

(3) Moses Alone with the Lord (24.12–18)

The third episode in this chapter may represent still a third tradition, although there is a
connection with the earlier command in verse 2 for Moses to approach Yahweh alone. In the
present context we may assume that the elders, along with Aaron and his two sons, waited
some distance up the mountain while Moses and Joshua climbed higher. Then Joshua must
have waited at a higher level while Moses continued to the top.

The context of the entire chapter therefore suggests a gradual movement from all the
people at the foot of the mountain to a representative group of the leaders of Israel part way
up on the mountain, and then finally to the one man, Moses, who was to serve as the
mediator between Yahweh and the people.

Section Heading: 24.11 TEV and 24.11 CEV have “Moses on Mount Sinai.” This Handbook
has “Moses alone with the Lord.” Another possibility is “Moses meets with the Lord alone on
Mount Sinai.”

24.12

The Lord said to Moses, literally “And Yahweh said unto Moses,” begins with the usual
conjunction waw, which most translations omit. A few, however, begin with “Then” for a
smoother transition into this new episode. Come up to me on the mountain is literally “You
[singular] ascend to me the mountain.” The preposition on is supplied by 24.12 RSV and others,
but 24.12 TEV has “Come up the mountain to me.” And wait there is simply “and be there.”
The Hebrew word usually means there, but in this case it sounds as though Yahweh is not at
the place where he commands Moses to come. So 24.12 TEV changes there to “here.” (So also
24.12 NIV.) 24.12 TEV also combines the clause and wait there with the following one, “and
while you are here, I will give you … .” This will be a good model to follow.

And I will give you the tables of stone translates a word meaning either a stone slab or a
wooden board. Here, of course, it is specified as “slabs of stone.” Tables is an archaic word for
“tablets” (24.12 TEV), generally understood as having a smooth, flat surface for writing. 24.12

RSV Revised Standard Version

TEV has “two stone tablets” on the basis of 32.15, but the text here does not indicate that
there were “two.” 24.12 CEV has “two flat stones,” indicating the number as 24.12 TEV does.

With the law and the commandment is literally “and the law (torah) and the
commandment (mitswah).” Since this begins with “and” instead of with, it suggests that the
law and the commandment were not written on the “stone tablets” but were given in
addition to whatever was written there. The Septuagint omits the first “and,” which allows for
the possibility that the law and the commandment were to be written on the stone tables,
but most translations assume that the “and” carries the meaning of with, or “which contain”
(24.12 TEV). Note that 24.12 TEV combines the law and the commandment into one, “all the
laws” (24.12 CEV “the laws”).

Which I have written refers to the tables of stone as well as to the law and the
commandment. TOT makes this clearer, “on which I have written the law and the commands,”
and 24.12 TEV has “which contain all the laws that I have written.” For their instruction is
literally “to teach them,” referring to the Israelites. The verb “to teach” is the same word from
which the word torah (law, or “instruction”) is derived. (See the introduction to 20.22–26.) In
some languages it may be necessary to specify who is to do the teaching. Since this is spoken
to Moses, the implication is that he was to be the one. (Note that 24.12 KJV and ASV have “that
thou mayest teach them.”)

24.13

So Moses rose with his servant Joshua is literally “And Moses rose and Joshua his server.”
(The word for “server” is discussed at 33.11.) The singular form of the verb rose is used, but
the implication is that Joshua also stood up. It is not clear, however, whether Joshua did
anything more than that. 24.13 NRSV interprets this to mean that “Moses set out with his
assistant Joshua” (similarly 24.13 NIV and NAB), and 24.13 TEV has “Moses and his helper Joshua
got ready” (similarly CEV). This latter interpretation is more likely the intended meaning, in light
of the following clause.

And Moses went up into the mountain of God has the singular form of the verb went up,
but the Septuagint has the plural form and omits Moses. This reading is followed by NJB and
REB, but the Hebrew specifies that it was only Moses who “ascended,” or “climbed up higher”
(Durham). (See the 24.13 TEV footnote here.) 24.13 TEV’s “began to go up” is based on the
following verse, where it is clear that Moses gave instructions to the elders before he actually
went up. Into the mountain of God, literally “unto,” is identical with 3.1, where 24.13 TEV also
has “the holy mountain.” Since “holy” here means that this is the mountain where God stays
or resides, in many languages it will be helpful to express this as “Then Moses began to go up
the mountain to meet God” (similarly CEV).

24.14

KJV KING JAMES VERSION

ASV AMERICAN STANDARD VERSION

 And he said to the elders may present a problem in sequence, for verse 13 says that
Moses had already gone up higher on the mountain. 24.14 NRSV and others add the pluperfect,
“To the elders he had said,” which is suggested only by the context. (See the comment on the
pluperfect at 12.35.) In languages where the pluperfect is not easily expressed, one may say
“Before he went up, he said to the elders.” 24.14 TEV makes this adjustment in verse 13 by
saying “Moses began to go up” rather than simply “Moses went up.”

Tarry here for us is literally “Sit down for us in this [place],” which suggests that Joshua
went part way with Moses. 24.14 TEV has “Wait here in the camp for us,” but “in the camp” is
not in the Hebrew. This is an interpretation based on the reference to Hur, who was not
included in the list of 24.1 and 9. (But see 17.10.) There is no suggestion that they all returned
to the foot of the mountain after verse 11. So translators are urged to simply say “wait here
until … .” Until we come to you again is literally “until when we [Moses and Joshua] will return
unto you [plural].”

And, behold is omitted in most translations, but Durham has “Look.” Aaron and Hur are
with you suggests that Hur held an important position as a judge along with Aaron. (See 17.10
and 18.25–26.) Whoever has a cause is literally “who [is] an owner of words,” which is an
idiom for “anyone who has a legal dispute” (TOT), or “anyone involved in a dispute” (24.14 NIV).
Let him go to them is literally “he will approach them.” The idea here is that Aaron and Hur
are authorized to settle major disputes in Moses’ absence. 24.14 CEV has “they can settle any
arguments while we are away.”

24.15

Then Moses went up on the mountain is literally “And Moses ascended unto the
mountain.” Durham has “So Moses climbed up higher on the mountain,” assuming from verse
9 that they were already part way up the mountain, and that he did not actually go to the top
until seven days later. (See the following verses.)

And the cloud covered the mountain (literally “a cloud”) does not indicate whether this
happened “after Moses had gone up” (NAB) or before. MFT has “which was covered with the
cloud.” Either interpretation is possible, since the text does not say that the cloud of 19.16 had
ever lifted.

24.16

The glory of the Lord settled on Mount Sinai refers to “the kavod of Yahweh,” which is
discussed at 16.7. 24.16 TEV calls it “the dazzling light of the Lord’s presence,” and TAN calls it
“the Presence of the Lord.” As usual the verse begins with the conjunction waw, so some
translations make this a part of the preceding sentence (NIV, TOT). Settled means that it “came
down” (24.16 TEV), or “rested,” on the mountain. And the cloud covered it six days means that
it covered the mountain, not the kavod of Yahweh.

MFT MOFFATT
 And on the seventh day he called to Moses means that the Lord called. The Septuagint
has “the Lord called,” which is the obvious meaning of the pronoun he. Out of the midst of the
cloud is literally “from the middle of the cloud.” This clearly locates Yahweh in the cloud.

Note that TEV joins verses 16–17 together and inserts verse 17 between the two sentences
of verse 16. This makes it clear that the Israelites actually saw this “dazzling light” during the
six days. (The complete text of these verses in TEV is printed on page 574.)

24.17

Now the appearance of the glory of the Lord refers to “the kavod of Yahweh,” as
mentioned in verse 16. The word for appearance comes from the verb “to see,” so this verse
describes what the people of Israel actually saw. Like a devouring fire is literally “like a fire
eating.” TAN and others have “a consuming fire.” 24.17 TEV interprets this simply as “a fire
burning.” On top of the mountain refers to the “peak,” literally the “head,” of the mountain.

In the sight of the people of Israel, literally “in the eyes of the sons of Israel,” explains
further that this was what the glory of the Lord looked like “to the Israelites” (24.17 TEV) This
verse supports 24.17 TEV’s usual rendering of the glory of the Lord as “the dazzling light of the
Lord’s presence.”

24.18

And Moses entered the cloud is literally “And Moses entered in the middle of the cloud.”
And went up on the mountain seems to repeat what has been said in verses 13 and 15, but
Durham has “climbing up higher on the mountain.” This suggests, in keeping with the context,
that Moses was climbing only so far at a time, advancing from one level to a higher level.

And Moses was on the mountain may seem like unnecessary repetition, so 24.18 TEV has
“There he stayed.” (Similar also REB, NAB, and 24.18 NIV.) Forty days and forty nights may be
reduced to “forty days and nights” (24.18 TEV). This period covers the setting for the next seven
chapters of Exodus. Moses does not come down from the mountain until 32.15.

2. The Tabernacle and the Worship (25.1–39.43)

a. Instructions for the Cultus (25.1–31.18)

(1) Materials for the Tabernacle (25.1–9)
Beginning with chapter 25, the rest of the book of Exodus is concerned primarily with the
details of building a suitable place for the worship of Yahweh. There is so much monotonous
detail that many readers feel like the Israelites wandering through the desert in search of an
oasis. The only exception to this “desert of detail” is the brief “oasis” in chapters 32–34 that
tells how that covenant was broken and then restored. Before this story of the golden calf,
seven chapters give Yahweh’s instructions to Moses for building the tabernacle. After that
story five chapters describe in detail how those instructions were carried out. The term used
for this “tabernacle” (mishkan) literally means “dwelling,” a place where Yahweh could now
dwell with the people with whom he has made a covenant.

Most commentaries have very little to say about these chapters, partly because the details
speak for themselves, and partly because few people see much relevance in them for today.
The fact that they have been preserved, however, and that they occupy more than one-third
(35%) of the entire book, certainly indicates that the Israelites considered the tabernacle, with
all its furnishings, to be very important in their worship of Yahweh. The translator therefore
will need to analyze these details carefully in order to translate accurately.

The narrative setting for chapters 25–31, which Fox has called the “blueprint chapters,” is
with Moses on top of the mountain; the setting for chapters 35–39, the “construction
chapters” (Fox), is with Moses and the people at the foot of the mountain. Much of the
material in the “blueprint chapters” is repeated again in the “construction chapters,” but there
are also some interesting differences. Both the similarities and the differences should be
reflected in any translation. In fact, all identical phrases should be translated in the same way,
and all differences should be translated differently. These identities and differences will be
pointed out in the comments that follow.

Section Headings: the major heading here is “The tabernacle and the worship,” which may
be translated as “The tent where Yahweh [or, the Lord] will dwell and the people will worship.”
Translators who follow the Handbook’s outline will also need to include the heading
“Instructions for the cultus” (25.1–31.18) here. Another way to express this is “Instructions on
how to worship Yahweh.” There should also be a section heading for verses 1–9. 24.18 TEV has
“Offerings for the Sacred Tent,” and this Handbook has a similar heading, “Materials for the
tabernacle.” An alternative model is “The Lord asks the people to contribute materials to build
the sacred tent.” For comment on how to translate “sacred tent” or “tabernacle,” see verses
8–9 below.

25.1–2

The Lord said to Moses is literally “And Yahweh spoke to Moses saying.” This introduces
the words of Yahweh that continue uninterrupted all the way to chapter 30 verse 10. The word
meaning “to say” (’amar) is the usual term to introduce the exact words that someone says,
whereas the word meaning “to speak” (dibber) comes from the Hebrew davar (“word” or
“event”) and does not always introduce a direct quotation. This longer formula is used again in
30.11, 17, 22; 31.1. It may be helpful to connect this section of discourse to the previous one
with something like “While Moses was on Mount Sinai, the Lord said to him, … .” Speak to the
people of Israel does not introduce the exact words for Moses to speak, so it is better to say
“Tell the Israelites” (25.2 TEV) as an introduction to indirect speech. That they take for me an
offering is literally “and they will take for me a contribution.” But the people are the ones to
give, so it is better to say “Tell the Israelites to make an offering to me” (25.2 TEV) or “set aside
a contribution for me” (REB, NJB). TAN has “Tell the Israelite people to bring me gifts.” However,
in languages that must use direct speech, one may say, for example, “Tell the Israelites, ‘Any of
you who are willing to give an offering … .’ ” The word for offering has the basic meaning of
something that is lifted up, or dedicated, but in many languages it will be expressed as “gifts
for me.”

From every man does not intend to exclude women, so 25.2 NRSV has changed this to
“from all.” See also NJB “from everyone,” and TAN “from every person.” Whose heart makes
him willing is literally “who his heart urges him.” This may be expressed as “whose heart so
moves him” (TAN) or “whose heart prompts him to give.” 25.2 TEV has “whatever offerings
anyone wishes to give.” You shall receive the offering for me is literally “you [singular] shall
take my offering.” 25.2 CEV restructures the clauses in verse 2 as follows: “Tell everyone in
Israel who wants to give gifts that they must bring them to you.” One may also express this as
“Tell all the Israelites, ‘Any of you who want to give gifts to Yahweh must bring them to me.’ ”

25.3–4

And this points to the long list that follows. The offering which you shall receive from
them repeats what is said in verse 2, so 25.4 TEV simply says “These offerings are to be: … .”
25.4 CEV has “Here is a list of what you are to collect: … .” Gold, silver, and bronze are metals
known in just about every culture. The word for bronze may also refer to copper, since bronze
is an alloy, or mixture, of copper and tin. A few translations prefer to use “copper” (TAN, REB),
but “bronze” was more useful and decorative, and the people would more likely have brought
along tools and objects of bronze from Egypt. If cultures do not have these metals, they are so
important throughout the Bible that translators should use descriptive terms such as “metals
named ‘gold’ ” and so on, and also have descriptions of these metals in the Glossary. (See the
Glossary in 25.4 TEV as an example.)

Blue and purple and scarlet stuff describes three different colors of material, which was
probably yarn made from wool. But the Hebrew only names the colors, and stuff has been
added in translation. 25.4 NRSV adds “yarns” instead of stuff, and 25.4 TEV has “wool.” In some
languages this will be termed “sheep’s hair.” The word for purple also refers to the wool that is
dyed a purple color. NJB simply uses “materials.”

It may be difficult to distinguish between the three colors, for they are all various shades of
a mixture of red and blue. The difference between the words for blue and purple seems to be
that the first has more blue and the second has more red. But both colors were purple. NJB
translates these two terms as “violet- purple” and “red-purple.” Both colors came from dyes
made from the secretion of certain mollusks, or shellfish, along the Mediterranean Sea.
Materials dyed in the “red-purple” color were the most valued and were worn by kings, but
both colors were signs of wealth.

A Handbook on the Gospel of Mark, page 482, has excellent suggestions of ways for
translating the color purple. In brief, translators are urged to: (1) select an indigenous term
which is approximately the color of purple or red-blue; (2) find an approximation of the color,
employing other terms that identify colors that are reasonably close; for example, “dark red,”
“burnt red,” and so on; (3) identify the color through the color of some bird or flower; for
example, “sheep’s wool dyed with the color of … .”; or (4) use a phrase identifying the process
of dying cloth; for example, “sheep’s hair like that dyed in … .” Then introduce the proper plant
in the culture that is used for dying cloth or other materials with a purple color.
 The third color, scarlet, came from the larvae of an insect found on the oak trees of that
area. The Hebrew uses two words to describe this color, literally “worm-scarlet.” This should
be considered a deep, rich red, like “crimson,” which 25.4 NRSV now uses instead of scarlet.

And fine twined linen is just one word in the Hebrew, but it refers to a high quality of
linen, a cloth made from the long fiber of the Egyptian flax plant. For a description of the flax
plant from which linen is made, the translator should consult a Bible dictionary or FFB, pages
119–121. In cultures where linen is unknown, however, one may say, for example, “a good
white cloth from the flax plant,” and include a note in the Glossary. (25.4 NRSV has removed
the word twined, since this is not specified here as it is in 26.1.) This should be distinguished
from the more common linen referred to in 28.42. Goats’ hair is also one word in the Hebrew
for the female goat, but here it refers to the “cloth made of goats’ hair” (25.4 TEV).

25.5–625.7

The process of tanning the skins of animals to make leather resulted in giving them a
reddish color. In some languages translators may follow TEV’s rendering, “ram’s skin dyed red.”
However, in cultures where the process of TANning is not known, one may say, for example,
“ram [or, male sheep] skins that are made red” or “… that they have made red.” Goatskins is
literally “skins of tacha shim,” but the meaning of the Hebrew tachashim is not known. TOT has
“porpoise” and TAN has “dolphin,” but more likely it was a sea animal similar to the “sea cow”
(25.7 NIV), or dugong, which is similar to the manatee. It is doubtful that it was a goat. 25.7
NRSV has followed 25.7 TEV, NJB, and 25.7 CEV in translating “fine leather.” One may also say
“fine TANned animal skins,” or simply “soft animal skins.” Acacia wood refers to wood of the
shittah tree, a variety of acacia that is hard and durable. Where the acacia tree is unknown,
one may say, for example, “wood from the tree called ‘acacia.’ ” It will also be helpful to
include a note in the Glossary describing an acacia tree.

Oil for the lamps is literally “oil for the luminary [or, source of light].” The oil was made
from olives, the fruit of the olive tree, and was used in the ordi nary clay lamps. These were
probably small bowl- shaped objects, filled with olive oil, with a wick floating in them. One end
of the wick extended onto a lip of the bowl, where the oil in the wick burned and provided
light. In many languages it will be sufficient to say “oil” here without identifying the oil. But in
cultures that must differentiate between machine and vegetable oil, it will be necessary to
state that this is “oil from the fruit ‘olive.’ ” (See the comment on “olives” at 23.11.)

Spices for the anointing oil refers to the various spices listed in 30.23–24 that were used
to make the special oil for anointing the priests as well as the different parts of the tabernacle.
The Hebrew word for “anoint” means to pour, sprinkle, or rub the oil on a person or on an
object. This indicated that the person was appointed for special service, or that the object was
designated as holy and set apart for special use. (See 29.7 and 30.25–26.) In some languages
these spices will be called “sweet-smelling spices,” while in others “fragrant [or, sweet-
smelling] plants [or, grasses].” The entire phrase, spices for the anointing oil, may be

FFB FAUNA AND FLORA OF THE BIBLE

expressed as “fragrant things to mix with the oil for anointing the sacred tent and the priests.”
The fragrant incense, described in 30.34–35, required a different list of spices. The Israelites
valued spices for their aroma rather than for food seasoning and used them in perfume,
cosmetics, and embalming oils. In a number of languages fragrant incense will be expressed as
“fragrant spices for burning.” An alternative model for spices … the fragrant incense is
“fragrant plants to mix with the oil for anointing the sacred tent and the priests,” or “grasses
that smell good when burned.”

Onyx stones, literally “stones of onyx,” refers to precious stones from a type of dark quartz
with milky white bands. 25.7 TEV has “carnelians,” which is a reddish quartz, and TAN has “lapis
lazuli,” which is a bluish quartz. The precise identity of the stone is not known. If these stones
are not known, one may say “precious [or, expensive] stones called onyx” or “precious stones
called carnelian.” Two of these stones were to be fastened to the shoulder straps of the ephod
(28.12), and another was to be one of the twelve stones fastened to the breastpiece for the
high priest (28.20).

Other stones for setting refers to the other precious stones or “jewels” (25.7 TEV) listed in
28.17–20. The word for setting comes from a word that means to fill. It refers to the frame or
bed into which a jewel is mounted.

The ephod was an apron-like garment worn by the high priest. It is described in 28.6–14.
Many trans lations have transliterated the term. How ever, it will be more meaningful to say
something like “the priestly apron.” It will also be helpful to in clude a Glossary note describing
this object. The breastpiece was a special pouch or pocket that was fastened to the ephod. It
was about 9 inches square and held the Urim and Thummim, with which the high priest was
able to determine the will of God. The twelve precious stones were mounted on it. It is
described in 28.15–30. In some languages a descriptive phrase will be needed; for example,
“the sacred pouch over the chest of the high priest” or “the pocket [or, pouch] over the heart
… .”

25.8–9

And let them make me a sanctuary is literally “And they will make for me a holy place.”
25.9 NRSV has changed this to “And have them make me,” and 25.9 TEV has “The people must
make a sacred Tent for me.” However, since “sacred” means that it is Yahweh’s dwelling place,
CEV’s translation is better and will be a good model for many translators: “I also want them to
build a special place where I can live among my people.” REB and NJB follow the Septuagint with
the second person singular, “[You] make me a sanctuary,” but the Hebrew has the third person
plural. There are a variety of ways to translate tabernacle or “sacred Tent”: “The portable
house where I will live,” “the temporary shelter where I, Yahweh, will be,” “the tent where the
people of Israel will worship me, the Lord,” and so on. That I may dwell in their midst is
literally “and I will settle [or, live] in their midst.” The “and” may be read either as “so that”
(25.9 TEV) or as “and then.” (Similarly REB and 25.9 NIV.)

According to all that I show you is literally “Like all that I [am] causing you [singular] to
see.” The participle, “causing to see,” gives the meaning “I am about to show you,” so one may
say “I will show you” (TEV, CEV) or “I shall now show you” (NJB).
 Concerning the pattern of the tabernacle is literally “the form [or, shape] of the dwelling.”
(Concerning is not in the Hebrew.) This is really the direct object of the verb show, in the sense
that “I will show the form to you.” The word for pattern also means “plan” (25.9 TEV), or
“design” (REB, NJB). As mentioned before, the word for tabernacle (mishkan) really means
“dwelling.” This was translated as tabernaculum in the Latin Vulgate. (See the discussion in the
introduction to 26.1–14..)

And of all its furniture is another direct object of the verb show: “I will show [to you] the
form of the tabernacle and the form of all its furniture.” The word for furniture, literally
“objects,” refers to all the “furnishings” (25.9 TEV) and “equipment” (Durham) that will be used
in the tabernacle. So shall you make it is literally “thus you [plural] will make.” Since this is the
main clause of the sentence, it may be easier to place this at the beginning of the verse. (So
25.9 TEV, 25.9 CEV, 25.9 NIV, REB and others.)

(2) The Tabernacle Furnishings (25.10–40)

(a) The Ark (25.10–22)

(a) The ark (25.10–22)

Section Headings: translators who follow the Handbook’s outline should include the major
heading “The tabernacle’s furnishings.” This may also be rendered “Furniture for the sacred
tent.” There should also be a subheading for the section (25.10–22). 25.9 TEV has “The
Covenant Box,” while this Handbook has “The ark.” CEV’s “The Sacred Chest” is an alternative
heading. One may also say “The chest that represents God’s covenant with Israel” or “The
chest containing the ten commandments.”

25.10

They shall make is identical with verse 8, but 25.10 TEV follows the Septuagint here with
the second person singular, “(You) Make.” This is advisable since all the other instructions in
this section use the second person singular, addressed only to Moses. This does not mean that
Moses is to do all the work himself, but that he is to see that it is done. Since this is the first
sentence of a new section, it may be helpful to indicate that Yahweh is still speaking, and say
“The Lord said, ‘Tell the people to make … .’ ” (Similarly CEV).

The ark was a wooden box or chest, quite different from Noah’s “ark,” which uses a
different Hebrew word. The word here means “coffin” in Gen 50.26, and it refers to a money
chest in 2 Kgs 12.10. This “box” or “chest” is later referred to as “the ark of the covenant,”
which 25.10 TEV calls “the Covenant Box” (verse 30). Acacia wood is discussed at verse 5.

Please note: in this Handbook all measurements given in inches, feet, or miles come from
the American version of TEV, while those that are given according to the metric system follow
the British version of TEV.

Two cubits and a half equals about “45 inches,” or “110 centimeters.” The cubit (literally
“forearm”) was the distance from a man’s elbow to the tip of his middle finger, approximately
17.5 to 18 inches, or 44 centimeters. So a cubit and a half would be about “27 inches” (“66
centimeters”). Thus the length, the breadth, and the height are the measurements of the box.

Readers should note that the metric measurements in this Handbook follow those in the
British edition of TEV, while other measurements follow those in the American edition, unless
another version is being quoted.

25.11

And you shall overlay it with pure gold is literally “you [singular] shall lay pure gold over
it.” TOT has “You shall plate it,” but 25.11 TEV simply has “Cover it.” In certain languages this
will be expressed as “You shall take gold and stick it to the surface of the box, both inside and
out.” The thickness of the gold is not indicated, but it was probably more than simply gold leaf.
Within and without means “inside and out.”

And you shall make upon it a molding of gold refers to a “gold border” (25.11 TEV), or
“band,” that was to be added to the outside of the box. It was evidently a decorative “rim”
(Fox) around the sides of the box. The lid or cover with two cherubs on it was to be made
separately (see verse 17). Round about means “all around it,” as 25.11 TEV renders it, since the
Hebrew word has the basic meaning of encircling. NAB has “around the top of it,” but it may
have been placed somewhat lower than at the top edge. CEV’s “put a gold edging around the
lid” seems to miss the point,” since the edging was around the chest itself.

25.12

And you shall cast uses a word that means to pour, so this suggests melting the gold and
pouring it into a ring-shaped mold. In cultures where the casting process is unknown, it is
better to say “Make four rings from gold for carrying the box” (see TEV; 25.12 CEV has simply
“Make four gold rings”), without indicating the method used. Four rings of gold uses the same
word that is used for finger rings (see 35.22). The size of the rings is not indicated, but they
were large enough to allow the long carrying poles to be inserted through them—possibly
from six to eight inches in diameter.

And put them on its four feet suggests that there were to be projections at the bottom of
the box, probably at each corner, to serve as feet or “legs” (25.12 TEV). Although the size and
shape is not indicated, each “foot” would have been large enough for one of the four rings to
be fastened to it. Durham takes the word to mean “corners” (so also 25.12 KJV, FRCL), but most
translations have either feet or “supports” (NAB, NJB).

Two rings on the one side … on the other side simply means that the rings extended
outward from the sides of the box rather than from the ends. And they would have been
aligned so that the poles could be inserted through them.

25.13–1425.15

FRCL FRENCH COMMON LANGUAGE VERSION

 You shall make poles uses the singular You. The poles were long rounded shafts of acacia
wood (see verse 10) that may have been eight or nine feet in length. Only two poles were
needed, and 25.15 CEV specifies this with “Make two poles of acacia wood.” Overlay them
with gold is literally “you [singular] shall lay gold over them.” (see verse 11.)

And you shall put the poles into the rings means that one pole was to be inserted through
the two rings on each side of the ark. To carry the ark by them is literally “to lift the box by
them.” We may assume that the poles extended two to three feet beyond each end of the ark.
25.15 TEV omits this phrase but refers to the poles in verse 13 as “carrying poles.”

The poles shall remain in the rings of the ark is literally “in the rings of the box shall be the
poles.” They shall not be taken from it is literally “they shall not go away from it.” This may be
more clearly expressed in the passive voice, “must not be taken out” (25.15 TEV). Or one may
say “You shall not remove them,” or even “Don’t ever remove the poles from the rings” (25.15
CEV).

25.16

And you shall put into the ark is literally “And you [singular] shall give unto the box.” The
word for “give” here means to “put” (TEV, CEV), “place” (Durham), or “deposit” (TAN). The
testimony refers to the reminders or terms of the covenant, in this case probably “the two
stone tablets … on which the commandments are written” (25.16 TEV). (See the comment on
“testimony” at 16.34.) TOT has “the covenant symbols” and NAB simply has “the
commandments.” TAN uses square brackets to show that some English words are added in
transla tion—“[the tablets of] the Pact”—but this is not recommended.

Which I shall give you is literally “which I give unto you [singular].” The tense of the verb is
not indicated, but the wider context suggests the future tense (see 31.18). Durham, however,
has “which I am giving you,” and NJB has “which I am about to give you.” 25.16 CEV reorders the
clauses as follows: “When I give you the Ten Commandments written on two flat stones, put
them inside the chest.”

25.17

Then represents the conjunction waw (“and”), but it may be omitted. You shall make a
mercy seat is literally “you [singular] shall make a kapporeth.” The word probably comes from
the verb kipper, which means “to cover over” in the sense of covering over, or atoning for,
sins. So it really has the double meaning of “cover” (TAN) and “atonement.” (See the comment
on “atonement” at 29.33.) 25.17 NIV calls it “an atonement cover,” and Fox uses the term
“purgation-cover.” Others prefer to call it a “propitiatory,” meaning a place for making
atonement. In verse 22 (see also Lev 16.2) we are told that the space just above the kapporeth
and between the cherubim is where the Lord will appear to Moses or to the high priest. Here,
however, it is probably best to translate it simply as the “cover,” or “lid,” for the “Covenant
Box,” but a footnote explaining this double meaning may be helpful to the reader. (Mercy
seat, the traditional English rendering, probably originated from Martin Luther’s German
translation of kapporeth as Gnadenstuhl.)
 Of pure gold suggests not only that was it “clean” but also that it was heavy. Two cubits
and a half shall be its length means that it was “45 inches long” (25.17 TEV), or “110
centimeters.” And a cubit and a half its breadth means that it was “27 inches wide,” or “66
centimeters.” Note that this is the exact size of the “Covenant Box.” The thickness of the cover,
however, is not indicated.

25.18

And you shall make two cherubim of gold still refers to part of the cover for the ark. (See
verse 19.) Cherubim, the plural form of “cherub,” is a Hebrew word that is used frequently in
the Bible and refers to mysterious winged creatures described in various ways. They may have
been part animal and part human. Fox translates “winged-sphinxes.” Traditionally translations
have transliterated the term cherubim. However, this is the Hebrew plural form for “cherub.”
Even “cherub” may not be an adequate term, because it is often understood to refer to a
chubby, rosy-faced child with wings, like those shown in the religious art of the West. Various
terms may be used: “winged creatures” (25.18 TEV), “winged animals,” or “winged beings.” LB’s
“images of angels” is not recommended. Whether a translator chooses to transliterate the
term “cherub” or use a descriptive phrase, it may be necessary to include a Glossary note and
even an illustration showing the reader what the cherubim may have looked like. (See the
25.18 TEV “Word List” under “Winged Creatures.”)

Of hammered work shall you make them uses a word that has the root meaning of hard,
or severe. It refers to any metal that is beaten or hammered into a desired form or shape. So
the cherubim were neither carved nor cast, but rather shaped by pounding the gold with a
hammer. On the two ends of the mercy seat means that the two cherubim were to be at the
opposite ends of the cover, but as verse 19 seems to suggest, they were not to be made
separately and then attached to the lid. (But See the comment there.) Note that 25.18 TEV
omits this part, since it is repeated in the following verse. An alternative model for this verse is
“Take a hammer and pound out the two ends of the pure gold lid into the shape of two
cherubs [or, winged creatures].”

25.19

The first half of this verse simply repeats in different words what is said in verse 18. Here
the imperative form of the verb is used: “You [singular] make one cherub from this end and
one cherub from that end.” TEV continues from the previous verse: “one for each end of the
lid.”

Of one piece with the mercy seat is literally “from the kapporeth” (see verse 17). This may
mean that the cherubim and the cover (verse 17) are to be formed from the same piece of
gold. So TOT has “make from one piece of gold the cover and the cherubim.” 25.19 CEV
interprets this phrase differently, “and fasten them to the lid at the ends of the chest,”

LB LIVING BIBLE
 suggesting that they were to be made separately and then attached to the kapporeth. JB
interprets this in the same way, “and fasten them to the two ends … so that they make one
piece with it.” NJB, however, has now revised this to read “you will model the winged creatures
of a piece with the mercy-seat at either end.” 25.19 TEV allows for either interpreta tion:
“Make them so that they form one piece with the lid.”

You shall make surprisingly shifts to the plural form of you, which English translations do
not reflect. This may easily be shown in many other languages, but the singular form should be
retained if the translation will sound unnatural.

Verses 18 and 19 may be combined as follows:

• Then take a hammer and pound out the two ends of the lid into the shape of two cherubs [or,
winged beings], so that they are made out of the same piece of pure gold as the lid.

25.20

The cherubim shall spread out their wings above is literally “the cherubs will be outspread
[two-)]wings to above.” The dual form is used for wings, meaning that each cherub would have
just two wings (unlike the “seraphim” in Isaiah 6). The meaning of above in this clause is not
clear, but “to above” may suggest “pointing upwards” (REB) or simply “uplifted” (Durham).
However, both 25.20 TEV and 25.20 CEV suggest that the wings of one cherub reached across
the lid toward the wings of the other one, so that the wings of both cherubs covered the
covenant chest. 25.20 TEV has “and their outspread wings are to cover it,” and 25.20 CEV has
“with their wings spread over the chest.” One may also say “The cherubs [or, winged
creatures] must face each other across the lid of the chest, and their wings must spread out
and cover it.”

Overshadowing the mercy seat with their wings means that the wings of the two
cherubim are to cover the “lid” in a protective way. But they would not be touching it since
they are to be “spread upward” (25.20 NIV). Their faces one to another is literally “and their
faces each unto the other.” This does not mean that they are to be looking at each other, for
toward the mercy seat suggests that they are to be looking down at the “lid” rather than
across to each other. Literally the text says “unto the kapporeth shall be the faces of the
cherubim.” 25.20 TEV unfortunately does not bring this out.

Alternative translation models for this verse are:

• The cherubs shall have their wings stretching out toward each other and covering the lid of the
chest. They should face each other with their faces looking down toward the lid of the chest.

• The cherubs must face each other across the top of the box, with their faces looking down at
the lid. The wings of one cherub must stretch across the top of the box toward the wings of
the other cherub, covering the box.

JB JERUSALEM BIBLE
25.21

And you shall put the mercy seat uses the singular you and tells what to do with the
completed kapporeth (see verse 17). On top of the ark is literally “upon the box down from
above [it].” It should be clear that the ark has no other lid except this kapporeth.

And in the ark you shall put the testimony presents a possible problem in sequence, for
the testimony should be placed inside the ark before the cover is placed on it. Note that 25.21
TEV and 25.21 CEV interchange the clauses to resolve this problem. The testimony, as explained
at verse 16, refers to “the two stone tablets” (25.21 TEV).

That I shall give you is identical with the phrase in verse 16 and does not need to be
repeated. (See the comment there.)

25.22

There I will meet with you really means “I will keep an appointment with you there,” for
the word used has the idea of a prearranged meeting. (The word used in 5.3 is different.)
Durham has “I will meet you there by appointment.” And from above the mercy seat is
literally “from over the kapporeth” (see verse 17). From between the two cherubim refers to
the two “cherubs,” or “winged creatures” (25.22 TEV), discussed at verse 18. It is important to
note that from above and from between places the there in midair above the ark, neither on
it nor in it.

That are upon the ark of the testimony means that they are part of the lid of the ark. Here
the “Covenant Box” is called the ark of the testimony for the first time. (See the comment on
testimony at 16.34.) 25.22 NRSV has changed to the more popular “ark of the covenant,” and
25.22 TEV omits it entirely, since it is understood by reference to “the lid.” Others have “Ark of
the Pact” (TAN), “ark of the commandments” (NAB), and “the chest containing the covenant
symbols” (TOT). (See the discussion at verses 10 and 16.)

I will speak with you may also be read as “I will tell you” (NAB, TOT). Others have “I will give
you” (25.22 TEV), “I will impart to you” (TAN), and “I shall deliver to you” (REB). Of all that I will
give you in commandment is literally “all that I will command you [singular].” This may be
understood as “all my laws” (25.22 TEV), “all my commands” (25.22 NRSV), or “all my orders”
(NJB). For the people of Israel, literally “unto the sons of Israel,” means that Yahweh will give
to Moses all the commandments intended for the Israelites.

(b) The Table (25.23–30)

(b) The table (25.23–30)

Section Heading: this will not be a difficult heading to translate. Three models are the
following: “The table” (Handbook), “The Table for the Bread Offered to God” (25.22 TEV), or
“The Table for the Sacred Bread” (25.22 CEV).

25.23
 And you shall make a table of acacia wood again uses the singular you. The word for table
comes from the verb “to send, to stretch out,” and sometimes means an animal skin spread
out on the ground, on which to place food, as in Psa 23.5. In this case, however, the table
resembles the kind of table commonly in use everywhere. For acacia wood see the comment
at verse 10.

Two cubits equals about “36 inches,” or “88 centimeters.” (See the discussion at verse 10.)
So this is to be its length. A cubit its breadth equals about “18 inches” (“44 centimeters”). A
cubit and a half its height equals about “27 inches” (“66 centimeters”).

25.24–25

You shall overlay it with pure gold is identical with verse 11. And make a molding of gold
around it is almost identical with verse 11. See the discussion there on molding.

And you shall make around it a frame is literally “and you [singular] shall make for it a rim
encircling.” The word for frame means something that encloses, like a “border” (Durham, Fox),
but it is to be a handbreadth wide. This would be approximately “3 inches wide,” or “75
millimeters.” TOT interprets this as “a strip of wood” that goes around the table, and NJB
pictures it as “struts,” or braces to make the legs sturdy. It may be thought of as a structural
support connecting the legs about half-way down and extending all around the table.

And a molding of gold around the frame uses the same word as verse 11. This molding
was probably just a decorative “gold border” (25.25 TEV) that was added to the three-inch
frame, or “rim” (25.25 TEV). So one may say, for example, “Make a strip [or, frame] of wood 3
inches wide to go around the table and fasten it to the legs. Then place a gold border around
the strip.”

25.26–27

And you shall make for it four rings of gold is almost the same as verse 12. The you is
singular, but the word for make is different from the word for “cast.” It is likely, however, that
these rings were also made by casting the gold, but the more general term, make, should be
used here. And fasten the rings to the four corners is literally “and you shall place the rings
upon the four edges,” which in this case means corners. At its four legs means, as 25.27 TEV
expresses it, “where its legs are.” NAB has “one at each leg.” The word for legs is different from
the word for “feet” in verse 12. CEV’s model is a helpful one: “Make four gold rings and attach
one to each of the legs.”

Close to the frame the rings shall lie is literally “close to the rim shall be the rings.” These
are the same rings as in verse 26, so it is better to say “The rings … are to be placed near the
rim” (25.27 TEV) or “Place the rings near to the wooden frame.” As holders for the poles is
literally “for houses for the poles.” To carry the table uses the same word for carry as verse 14.
These poles are described in the following verse.

25.28
 You shall make the poles of acacia wood is almost identical with verse 13. And overlay
them with gold is identical with the same phrase in verse 13.

And the table shall be carried with these is literally “and will be lifted by them the table.”
25.28 TEV omits this clause, since it repeats what is said in verse 27. Durham calls the poles
“carrying-poles.”

Alternative translation models for verses 24–28 are:

• 24 Cover the table with pure gold and put a gold border around it. 25 Make a wooden frame 3
inches wide to go around the table, and fasten it to the legs. Then place a gold border around
the frame. 26 Make four gold rings and attach one to each of the legs, 27 near the frame. Place
the poles for carrying the table through these rings. 28 Make these poles out of acacia wood
and cover them with gold.

Or a model reversing the order of verses 27 and 28:

• 24 … 27–28 Make two poles out of acacia wood for carrying the table, and cover them with
gold. Then place these poles through the rings.

25.29

And you shall make uses the singular you. The four vessels mentioned are difficult to
identify with accuracy. The word for plates is a general term for a dish which was probably
deeper than the flat plates used in many places today. REB has “dishes,” and TAN and 25.29 CEV
have “bowls.” The Hebrew word for dishes is the same word for the palm of the hand. Others
translate “cups” (25.29 TEV), “saucers” (REB), “spoons” (ASV), “ladles” (TAN), or “pans” (TOT).
Translators should select similar shaped objects used in the receptor culture: the first, a
shallow dish or bowl of some kind; and the second, a deeper cup-like object. The words for
incense have been added by 25.29 RSV and 25.29 NRSV, but they are not in the Hebrew.
References such as Num 7.86 suggest that these dishes were sometimes used for incense, but
it is best to omit this here (so 25.29 TEV and CEV).

The flagons were “pitchers” (25.29 NIV) that were used mainly for pouring wine. Others
have “jars” (TEV, CEV), or “jugs” (TOT). The bowls were similar to the “basins” in 24.6 but may
have been smaller. (A different word is used there.) Both the flagons and the bowls were used
to pour libations, or “drink offerings” (25.29 NRSV). (See the comment on “libations” at 29.40.)
Literally the text says “and its bowls which it was poured out in them.” This means that the
flagons were used to pour out the “wine offerings” into the bowls. 25.29 TEV and 25.29 CEV
incorrectly suggest that all four objects were used for the wine offerings, but this does not
apply to the plates and the dishes. 25.29 NIV helpfully keeps the first two separate: “And make
its plates and dishes of pure gold, as well as its pitchers and bowls for the pouring out of
offerings.” (Similarly also NAB and REB.)

Of pure gold you shall make them means that none of the four types of vessels for the
table were to be common pottery, but rather they were to be made from “clean gold.”

Alternative translation models for this verse are:

• Make plates and cups, and also make the jars and bowls to be used for wine offerings. Make all
of these out of pure gold.

• All plates and cups, along with the jars and bowls to be used for wine offerings, must be made
out of pure gold.

25.30

And you shall set is literally “And you [singular] shall place.” The bread of the Presence
has traditionally been translated as “shewbread” (25.30 KJV) or “showbread” (ASV, NAB). This
interpretation may have originated with Jerome’s Latin panes propositionis (“bread of the
exhibition”) and Luther’s German Schaubrot (“display bread”). The Hebrew word translated as
Presence, however, literally means “face” and is frequently used to represent the actual
person of Yahweh himself (see 33.14 and the comment there). Some interpreters have
therefore suggested that this expression means “the bread of God, or “the bread dedicated to
God.” Others have “bread of display” (TAN), “Holy Bread” (TOT), or “sacred loaves of bread”
(25.30 CEV). The common word for bread is used, and it was probably made without yeast, but
this does not need to be specified in translation. (See the comment on unleavened bread at
12.15.) Lev 24.5-9 explains more about this “sacred bread” (25.30 TEV).

On the table before me refers to the same table described in the preceding verses. Before
me, literally “to my face,” means “in my presence” (NJB, TOT), or “where I am present.”
Yahweh, of course, is the speaker, and his presence is identified with the area above the ark of
the covenant (see verse 22). So 25.30 TEV interprets before me to mean “in front of the
Covenant Box.” However, the verse is concerned with the placement of the bread rather than
the placement of the table, which is not indicated until 26.35. 25.30 CEV has a more general
rendering, “in the holy place,” but this also refers to the table rather than to the bread. Always
modifies the verb you shall set in the sense of continually replacing the bread. 25.30 CEV has
“must always be put on it.” 25.30 NIV has “at all times,” and Durham has “continuously.”

In order to avoid using the word Presence twice, one may speak of either “the bread of the
Presence before me,” “the sacred bread in my presence,” or even “the bread [or, loaves]
offered to me.” The latter is preferable.

An alternative translation model for this verse is:

• You must always place the loaves dedicated [or, offered] to me on this table in my presence.

(c) The Lampstand (25.31–40)

(c) The lampstand (25.31–40)

Section Heading: most translations have the simple heading “Lampstand” or “The
lampstand.” (See the comment below on the translation of lampstand.)

25.31
326

And you shall make uses the singular you. The word for lampstand is menorah, which
today refers to the seven-branched source of light used in Jewish worship. The menorah
described here is not a holder of candles but rather a stand commonly used at that time for
holding seven oil lamps. So “candlestick” (KJV, ASV) is incorrect. (See the comment on “lamps”
at 25.6.) Of pure gold means that it must be “clean,” without any impurities and not mixed
with any other metal. In cultures where “lampstands” are unknown, one may use a descriptive
phrase; for example, “lamp holder,” “thing on which lamps are placed,” or even “pole that has
lamps on top.”

The second sentence reads literally “hammered shall be made the lampstand its base and
its stalk.” Of hammered work means “of hammered gold” (25.31 TEV) and probably refers to
the entire lampstand, not just the base and the stalk. (See the comment on “hammered” at
verse 18.) The base refers to the bottom part that supports the shaft, which is the trunk, or
“central stem” (TOT), rising like a tree from the base. REB and NAB follow a different text that
gives the two words in the plural, but it is better to think of one base that supports a single
shaft. An alternative translation model is “Take a hammer and pound the gold to make its base
and shaft.”

Its cups refers to the holders for the lamps, which were probably placed at the end of each
of the branches as well as at the top of the shaft. The word is used elsewhere for a drinking
cup, but here the shape was to resemble an almond blossom (verse 34). In some languages it
will be helpful to mention this here, “its cups in the shape of almond flowers.” Its capitals is
translated in 25.31 NRSV as “its calyxes.” The calyx is the green, leafy base of a flower, or the
bud which has opened up into a blossom. NAB has “knobs.” Its flowers refers to the “blossoms”
(25.31 NIV) or “petals” (25.31 TEV). Both the capitals and the flowers should be thought of as
part of the cups, so 25.31 TEV has “its decorative flowers, including buds and petals.” The word
“decorative” is not in the text.

326Osborn, N. D., & Hatton, H. (1999). A handbook on Exodus. UBS handbook series; Helps for
translators (567). New York: United Bible Societies.

KJV KING JAMES VERSION

ASV AMERICAN STANDARD VERSION

TEV Today’s English Version

TOT TRANSLATOR’S OLD TESTAMENT

REB REVISED ENGLISH BIBLE

NAB NEW AMERICAN BIBLE

NRSV New Revised Standard Version

NIV NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION

 Shall be of one piece with it, literally “from it they shall be,” means that all of this
decorative work is to be hammered out of one piece of gold. Such a work of art, of one piece,
seems almost impossible to make, but 35.30–33 points out that Bezalel, the head craftsman,
was given the ability to do this by Yahweh.

25.32

And there shall be six branches going out of its sides is literally “and six branches going
out from its sides.” There shall be has been added. Going out is a participle that may be
translated as “(there shall be) going out,” or as “(they) shall go out.” The idea is that “Six
branches shall extend from its sides” (25.32 TEV). The word for branches is the plural form of
the word for “shaft” in verse 31. It has the basic meaning of a large reed or stalk but here is
used to describe branches going out from the central shaft, like branches growing out from the
trunk of a tree.

Out of one side of it and out of the other side of it means that the lampstand is thought
of as having just two sides, with three branches extending in one direction, and the other
three branches extending in the opposite direction. 25.32 TEV has shown that all of this may be
said in fewer words: “Six branches shall extend from its sides, three from each side.” It is not
indicated whether they were straight or whether they curved upward. Probably all six of them
extended upward to support the seven lamps in a straight line. 25.32 CEV is even shorter: “with
three branches on each of its two sides.” In some languages it will be necessary to make the
upward orientation of the branches explicit; for example, “Six branches shall extend upwards
from the two sides, three from each side.”

25.33

The long sentence continues. Three cups made like almonds is literally “three cups
almond-blossom-shaped.” The word refers to “almond blossoms” (25.33 TEV) and not to the
small edible kernel of the fruit. Each with capital and flower refers to the “calyx” and the
“petals” (25.33 NRSV) that made up each cup (see verse 31).

On one branch means that each branch was to have three cups, but it is not clear where
these cups were to be placed, nor whether they were to be three-dimensional or simply
embossed along the surface. Possibly they were three-dimensional cups, with two of them
producing new segments of the branch, and the third one serving as a lamp holder at the top
of each branch. To call them “decorative flowers” (25.33 TEV) suggests that they had no
function other than to decorate. The word “decorative” is not in the text and should probably
be omitted. An alternative translation model is “Each of the six branches is to have three
flowers shaped like almond blossoms, with buds and petals.”

On the other branch is better translated as “on the next branch” (TAN, REB, NIV), since the
other suggests incorrectly that there were only two. This is made clear with the final phrase:

CEV Contemporary English Version

TAN TANAKH (NEW JEWISH VERSION)

 so for the six branches going out of the lampstand. This means that on the six branches alone
there were to be 18 of these cups, each with its capital and flower.

An alternative translation model for this verse is:

• Form three flowers shaped like almond blossoms along with their buds and petals on each of
the six branches.

25.34–35

And on the lampstand itself refers to the “central stem” (TOT), or “shaft” (25.35 TEV), of
verse 31, although the word menorah is used here. Four cups made like almonds is literally
“four cups almond-blossom-shaped” (see verse 33). With their capitals and flowers refers to
the “calyxes and petals” (25.35 NRSV), as explained at verse 31. The pronoun there is really the
singular “its,” meaning that each the four cups was to have its own capitals and flowers, or
“buds and petals” (25.35 TEV). Another way of expressing this is “Make four flowers shaped like
almond blossoms along with their buds and petals on the shaft [or, stem] of the lamp stand.”

And a capital of one piece with it means that “there shall be a calyx” (25.35 NRSV) formed
as part of the “shaft,” or central stem of the lampstand. Under each pair of the six branches
condenses three identical phrases into one. Literally the phrase “and a calyx under two of the
branches from it” is repeated three times. This means that, just below the joint where each of
the three pairs of branches go out from the “shaft,” there is to be a cup that is a part of the
“shaft.” (See the illustration, page 601, 601.) The fourth cup evidently was to be at the top end
of the central stem as the seventh lamp-holder. (see verse 33.)

Going out from the lampstand is literally “for six of the branches going out from the
menorah.” But since 25.35 RSV condenses the three repeated phrases into one, it is already
clear that “There is to be one bud below each of the three pairs of branches” (25.35 TEV). Since
25.35 NRSV translates the three identical phrases literally, the final phrase is also quite literal:
“so for the six branches that go out of the lampstand.” 25.35 CEV has a good model: “There
must also be a blossom where each pair of branches comes out from the stem.”

25.36

This verse simply repeats for emphasis what has already been said. Their petals and their
branches refers to the three pairs, each with a calyx or bud on the central stem, and each with
two branches. Shall be of one piece with it means that these capitals and branches are to be
formed from the same piece of gold. They are not to be formed separately and then attached
to the lampstand. (See the similar comment on the cherubim at verse 19.)

The whole of it refers to the entire menorah, or lampstand. One piece of hammered work
of pure gold is literally “hammered-work one of pure gold.” (These terms are discussed at
verse 31.) 25.36 CEV has “The lampstand, including its branches and decorative flowers, must

RSV Revised Standard Version

be made from a single piece of hammered pure gold.” One may also say “Hammer the whole
lampstand out of pure gold. This includes its branches and flowers.”

25.37

And you shall make the seven lamps for it is literally “And you [singular] shall make its
lamps, seven.” These were probably small bowl-shaped lamps made to hold the olive oil, with
one part of the rim pinched to hold the wick. Scholars generally assume that they were not a
part of the lampstand, and some even suggest that they were made of clay rather than of gold.
Since the text does not indicate what material was used for the lamps, it is better to assume
that these lamps were made of gold, if this must be made clear in the translation. (For a
further discussion see 37.23–24.)

And the lamps shall be set up is literally “and he shall cause its lamps to go up.” Some
ancient manuscripts have “and you [singular] shall cause its lamps to go up,” but the Hebrew
may be read as in 25.37 RSV, or as “and one shall set up its lamps.” 25.37 TEV interprets this as
“[you] set them up.” Others have “and [you] so set up the lamps” (NAB), “and [you] mount
them” (REB), or “and [you] set them up on it” (25.37 NIV). TAN has “the lamps shall be so
mounted,” and Durham has “these lamps are to be elevated.” 25.37 CEV makes it explicit that
one of the lamps will be at the top of the lampstand: “The lamp on the top and those at the
end of each of its six branches must be … .” One may also express this as “make seven lamps
for the lampstand: one for the top and the others for the ends of its six branches. Set these up
so that they shine toward the front of the lampstand.”

So as to give light upon the space in front of it is literally “and he [or, it] shall cause light
[or, shine] upon the side of its face.” This means that the lampstand, with its seven lighted
lamps, is to give light to the area in front of it, or the lamps themselves will give the light.
25.37 TEV is clear: “so that they shine toward the front.” This suggests that the lamps were to
be mounted so that their wicks would point toward the front.

25.38

Snuffers refers to a pair of “tongs” (TEV, CEV), a tool similar to pliers or tweezers, which was
used to remove the burned wick. NAB interprets the word to mean “trimming shears,” and
25.38 NIV has “trimmers.” However, an instrument like “tweezers” or “tongs” is more likely.
Trays refers to the small pans or receptacles where the burned wicks were placed. REB has
“firepans,” and TOT has “snuff-trays.” Their trays means “the snuffers’ trays,” but the Hebrew
has “its trays,” meaning the lampstand’s trays. How many “tongs” and “trays” were to be
made is not indicated.

There is no verb in this verse, but the verb “make” in verse 37 is understood. So TEV has
“Make its tongs and trays of pure gold.” For pure gold see the comment at verse 31. 25.38 CEV
adds “for taking care of the lamps.” This will be a helpful addition for many translators,
showing the function of the “tongs and trays.”

25.39
 Of a talent of pure gold shall it be made refers to the lampstand, and with all these
utensils refers to the snuffers and trays. If the lamps were made of gold, then they would be
included in “all this equipment” (25.39 TEV). (But see the comment at verse 37.) The talent, a
unit of weight, was approximately “seventy-five pounds” (25.39 TEV), or “thirty-five kilograms.”

25.40

And see that you make them is literally “And you see and you make,” using the singular
imperative. The pronoun them is not in the text but is implied from the following phrase. TOT
has “Be careful to make it,” referring to the lampstand (“it”) in verse 39. After the pattern for
them is literally “in their pattern.” In languages where it is difficult to translate pattern in this
context, one may say, for example, “Be careful to make them in the way I am showing you on
this mountain.”

Which is being shown you is literally “which you [singular] are being caused to see.” The
participle is used, so the tense is not clearly indicated. NJB uses the past tense, “which was
shown you,” and 25.40 TEV has “according to the plan I showed you.” This is possible, but the
context suggests the present progressive, as in 25.40 RSV. On the mountain may be rendered
as “on this mountain” or “here on the mountain,” since the wider context places Moses on
Mount Sinai. (See 24.18.)

(3) The Tabernacle Itself (26.1–37)

(a) The Curtains (26.1–14)

(a) The curtains (26.1–14)

Chapter 26 gives the details for building the tabernacle itself. The word “tabernacle”
comes from the Latin tabernaculum (“tent”), used in the Latin Vulgate to translate the Hebrew
mishkan (“tent-dwelling”). The Hebrew word sometimes refers to the entire structure,
including the larger area enclosed by curtains, as in 25.9, and sometimes it refers to the
smaller tent inside the larger area, as in 26.1. Which one is intended is usually clarified by the
context.

Other Hebrew terms besides mishkan are sometimes used for the tabernacle. RSV usually
translates miqdash as “sanctuary,” as in 25.8. The word ’ohel means “tent” (26.36), and ’ohel
mo‘ed means “tent of meeting.” There is an important difference, however, between the
“tabernacle” and the “tent of meeting,” which is discussed at 33.7. What is described here is
the elaborate tent-shrine that Moses was commanded to build “according to the plan” shown
to him on the mountain (26.30). These specifications of the mishkan come from the priestly
tradition (“P”), discussed in “Translating Exodus” under “Sources,” page 2.

As the Handbook outline indicates, there are three sections in chapter 26 that describe the
curtains, the framework, and the veil and curtain. These are all parts of the smaller mishkan, or
tabernacle itself, that was to be placed inside a court area surrounded by the enclosure

NJB NEW JERUSALEM BIBLE

described in 27.9–18. Although the instructions seem to be quite detailed, some of the terms
used are difficult to understand, and the actual appearance of the tabernacle is not entirely
clear. Proposed drawings of this tent-shrine may be found in other commentaries and Bible
Dictionaries.

Section Headings: the section heading in TEV refers to the entire chapter, but it is better to
divide these 37 verses into subsections. Verses 1–14 describe the four different layers of
curtains that are to be made from different materials. The inner layer, made of “fine twined
linen,” is described in verses 1–6. A second layer, made from goats’ hair, is described in verses
7–13. Two additional layers are described in verse 14. If translators choose to have one section
heading for the whole chapter, TEV’s “The Tent of the Lord’s Presence” and the Handbook’s
“The tabernacle itself” are possible models (see ways to translate tabernacle 25.9). However, if
a translator decides to make at 26.1–14 a subsection, there are a number of possible headings:
“The curtains” (Handbook), “Curtains and Coverings for the Sacred Tent” (CEV), or one may say,
for example, “The ten pieces of cloth for the sacred tent.”

26.1

Moreover is simply a translation of the common conjunction waw, but the word order
indicates a change in focus: “And the tabernacle you [singular] shall make [with] ten curtains.”
Since this is the first verse in a new section of discourse, it may be helpful to indicate who is
speaking; for example, “The Lord said, ‘Make the … .’ ” The with is added, but TEV’s “out of”
may be clearer. With this verse, however, TEV introduces a new term, “the Tent of my
presence,” in addition to “the sacred Tent,” both of which are used to translate the word
mishkan. This kind of duplication, or double translation, is unnecessary and is not
recommended. (See the introductory remarks at the beginning of this section.) This later
becomes confusing in TEV when the distinction between mishkan, ’ohel, and ’ohel mo‘ed needs
to be made. All three terms are often rendered in TEV as “the Tent of the Lord’s presence.”
(See the discussion at 33.7 and in the introduction to 33.7–11.) Various ways to render
tabernacle are discussed at 25.8–9. TEV adds the word “interior” to make clear that the
curtains described in verses 1–6 will form the inner layer of the tabernacle, over which three
other layers will be placed.

Ten curtains may be understood as “ten pieces” (TEV) or “ten sheets” (NAB, NJB). TAN has
“ten strips of cloth.” The Hebrew word always refers to tent fabric, or material used in making
tents. Tents were usually made from goats’ hair (see verse 7), but this first layer of the
tabernacle is to be made of fine twined linen. (See the discussion at 25.4.) NRSV has “fine
twisted linen,” since the word for twined refers to twisting the thread in spinning.

And blue and purple and scarlet stuff is identical with 25.4. (See the discussion there).
Here again the word stuff is not in the Hebrew, so NRSV has “blue, purple, and crimson yarns.”
TEV and CEV’s use of “wool” introduces a different kind of fabric, and it is confusing to think of
“fine linen woven with blue, purple, and red wool.” It is possible that woolen thread of the
different colors was used for the embroidery, but this is not clear in the text. (The mixing of
linen and wool is actually forbidden in Deut 22.11, but there it refers to clothing. See also Lev
19.19.) There are thus two possible alternative models:
• Make [or, Have them make] the sacred tent out of ten pieces of the finest linen. Weave these
out of blue, purple, and crimson thread. Also have them embroider … .

• Make the sacred tent [or, tent where I live] out of ten pieces of the finest linen cloth. Have
them take blue, purple, and crimson wool thread and embroider … .

With cherubim skillfully worked you shall make them refers to the “winged creatures”
(TEV, CEV) discussed at 25.18. Skillfully worked is literally “work of reflection,” or “something
done by a thinker.” This may refer either to a specialized form of weaving or to the work of a
“skilled craftsman” (NIV). The text, however, seems to focus on the material rather than on the
craftsman. So TEV has “Embroider them with figures of winged creatures,” but NJB is better,
“You will have them embroidered.” This allows for Moses to have the work done by skilled
craftsmen rather than doing it himself (as described in 36.8). One may also say “You must have
people embroider them.” “Embroider” may also be expressed as “use a needle to sew” or
“make … with a needle.”

Alternative translation models for this verse are:

• Make [or, Have them make] the sacred tent [or, tent where I live] out of ten pieces of the
finest linen cloth. Weave these out of blue, purple, and crimson thread. Also have them take
needles and sew [or, embroider] figures of cherubs into the cloth.

• … Also have them make [or, spin] blue, purple, and crimson thread out of wool and use it to
embroider figures of cherubs into the linen cloth.

26.2

Each curtain refers to each of the ten pieces of linen cloth in verse 1, which was to be
twenty-eight cubits long and four cubits wide. All the curtains shall have one measure simply
emphasizes that each curtain was to be “the same size” (TEV). This means that each piece was
to be about “14 yards” by “2 yards” (TEV), or “twelve metres” by “two metres.” CEV has “Make
each piece fourteen yards long and two yards wide.”

26.3

Five curtains shall be coupled to one another is literally “Five pieces will be joined a
woman unto her sister.” “Woman” and “her sister” are used as pronouns referring to the
curtains, which in Hebrew is a feminine noun. It simply means “Five of the cloths shall be
joined to one another” (TAN). TEV continues the idea of a command, “Sew five of them together
in one set.” One may also say “Have them sew five pieces together as one set.”

And the other five curtains … repeats the same words, except that the other is added in
translation. The sewing, or joining, was to be along the length of each piece (twenty-eight
cubits) rather than the width. In this way the five widths of four cubits each totaled twenty
cubits. So the size of each set of five was twenty cubits by twenty-eight cubits, or about ten by
fourteen yards.

26.4
 And you shall make loops of blue uses the singular you. The word for blue is the same as
in verse 1. (But see.) The material from which the loops are to be made is not specified, but
the word for blue at times means “blue wool” (TAN). NAB has “yarn.” To be safe, TEV and CEV
have “blue cloth,” and TOT has “blue material.” The word for loops suggests a “U-shaped”
doubling of the blue yarn with both ends of the “U” sewn to the edge of the linen curtain,
leaving an opening just large enough for the gold clasps (verse 6) to pass through. In some
languages it will be necessary to make the action of “sewing” explicit and say, for example,
“Make loops out of blue cloth and sew them to the outside piece in each set,” or “Use blue
cloth and make loops … .” In some languages “loops” will be rendered as the equivalent of
“ears” or some similar object.

On the edge of the outmost curtain of the first set means that these loops were sewn
along the 28-cubit length of one of the two pieces made according to verse 3. The word for set
is derived from the word meaning “to be coupled” (“joined”) in verse 3. It means “what has
been joined.”

And likewise … repeats the same instructions for the other piece. TEV says it all in fewer
words: “Make loops of blue cloth on the edge of the outside piece in each set.” This was to
prepare the two large pieces of linen cloth to be joined together along their looped edges.
Each set was twenty by twenty-eight cubits, and they were to be joined to make one large
piece twenty-eight by forty cubits.

26.5

This verse repeats the instructions of verse 4. The only new idea is that there should be
fifty loops along the edge of each set, and that they should be placed opposite one another.
This means that each of the loops on one set will be aligned with a corresponding loop on the
other set.

26.6

And you shall make fifty clasps of gold still uses the singular you. The word for clasps can
also mean “hooks” (TEV, CEV) or “fasteners” (REB). It is derived from the verb meaning “to bend
over.” They were possibly S-shaped. And couple the curtains is literally “and you shall join the
tent-fabric,” meaning the two linen sets. One to another is identical with verse 3. With the
clasps means that one clasp is intended to join a loop on one set with its corresponding loop
on the other set.

That the tabernacle may be one whole is literally “and the mishkan shall be one”
(repeating the term used at verse 1). This suggests that the large piece of linen material is now
identified as the tabernacle itself. Durham has “thus the Tabernacle will be in one piece.” It is
possible to combine verses 4–6 in the following way:

• 4–6 Sew fifty loops made out of blue cloth onto the outside piece of each set of linen cloth.
Then take fifty gold hooks and fasten the two sets together. In this way the tabernacle will be
one piece.

26.7
 Verses 7–13 describe the second layer for the tabernacle, which was probably intended to
protect the inner layer. You shall also make is literally “And you [singular] shall make.”
Curtains of goats’ hair is literally “tent-fabrics of goats.” (See the comment on goats’ hair at
25.4.) In certain languages it will be more natural style to say “Use goat hair to weave a cover.”

For a tent over the tabernacle is literally “for an ’ohel over the mishkan.” (See the
introductory remarks above for this chapter.) This means that this covering of goats’ hair, this
tent (’ohel), was to be laid over the covering of linen, identified here as the tabernacle
(mishkan). TEV’s “Make a cover for the Tent” is confusing, for the word ’ohel means “tent,” and
TEV translates the word mishkan as “Tent.” It would be clearer to say “Make a cover for the
tabernacle.” (See the comment on tabernacle at 25.8–9.)

Eleven curtains shall you make means, as TEV translates, that “eleven pieces of cloth” are
to be made out of the goats’ hair.

26.8

This verse is almost identical with verse 2, but here the length of each curtain is to be
thirty cubits instead of twenty-eight. The width, or breadth, is the same, namely four cubits.
This means that each piece of goats’ hair material is “15 yards long and 2 yards wide” (TEV), or
“thirteen metres” by “two metres.” Here again they are to be “all the same size,” but for this
second layer there are to be eleven pieces instead of ten. It is possible to combine verses 7
and 8 as follows:

• Have them use goat hair to weave eleven sections of cloth, each of them fifteen yards by two
yards. These will be a cover for the sacred tent.

26.9

And you shall couple five curtains by themselves is literally “And you [singular] shall join
five tent-fabrics alone.” This means, as 26.9 TEV renders it, “Sew five of them together in one
set.” And six curtains by themselves means to sew “the other six in another set” (TEV). As
explained at verse 3, these pieces were to be sewn together along the sides, not at the ends.
Again five widths of four cubits each become twenty cubits, so the size of the first set will be
twenty cubits by thirty cubits, or about ten by fifteen yards. And six widths of four cubits each
become twenty-four cubits, so the size of the second set is twenty-four cubits by thirty cubits,
or about twelve by fifteen yards. CEV has a helpful model: “Sew five of the sections together to
make one panel. Then sew the other six together to make a second panel.”

And the sixth curtain, or piece of cloth, refers to the additional piece of material in the
second set. You shall double over means to “fold” it back over itself, so that it covers only two
cubits of space. At the front of the tent means that this folded portion is to be placed at the
entrance into the tabernacle when it is finally set up. TEV has “Fold the sixth piece double over
the front of the Tent”; CEV has “and fold the sixth section double over the front of the tent.”

26.10
 This verse repeats the instructions given in verses 4 and 5. In this case, however, since the
strips of goats’ hair material are longer, the fifty loops were to be sewn along the 30-cubit
edge of each set. It is understood that the loops on one set will match those on the second
set.

26.11

And you shall make fifty clasps of bronze is almost identical with verse 6, but here the
clasps are to be made of bronze, not gold. Some translations use “copper” instead of bronze
(TAN, Durham), but see the discussion at 25.3.

And put the clasps into the loops means that one clasp is to be used to join a loop on one
set with its corresponding loop on the other set. And couple the tent together that it may be
one whole is literally “and you [singular] shall join the ’ohel and it will be one.” The size of the
one piece formed with these “two sets” (TEV) was then thirty by forty-four cubits, or fifteen by
twenty-two yards. Here, as in verse 7, this layer made of goats’ hair is identified as the tent
(’ohel), in contrast with the linen layer, which in verse 6 is identified as the “tabernacle”
(mishkan). TEV’s use of “cover” for ’ohel is helpful: “to join the two sets so as to form one
cover.”

26.12

In order to understand the following verses, it is important to check first the total
dimensions of the framework of the tabernacle described in verses 15–25. (See the
introduction to that section.) When finally erected the framework was to be rectangular in
shape, measuring thirty cubits in length, ten cubits in width, and ten cubits in height. These
dimensions are approximately equal to fifteen by five by five yards, or 13.7 meters. (See the
illustration, page 612.)

And the part that remains of the curtains of the tent refers to the extra two cubits of the
goats’ hair material, or half curtain, that will extend beyond the total length of the linen
material. As explained at verse 4, the total length of the linen material will be forty cubits, and
the total length of the goats’ hair material will be forty-four cubits. Verse 9 mentions that the
extra strip of goats’ hair material was to be folded over itself, thus reducing the total length to
forty-two cubits. This means that the total length of this second layer was to extend twelve
cubits beyond the length of the framework, which was thirty cubits.

The half curtain that remains is a further description of the first phrase, the part that
remains … , again referring to the extra two cubits, or one half of the four-cubit width of the
eleventh strip. These two cubits, plus the ten cubits beyond the thirty-cubit length of the
framework, are what shall hang over the back of the tabernacle. This means that two cubits,
or one yard, of the goats’ hair material will actually trail on the ground at the far end of the
tabernacle, opposite the entrance. The entrance to the tent was not to be covered by either
the inner layer of linen or the second layer of goats’ hair; a special “screen” (verse 36) was to
be made to hang there.

Since the framework supporting all these curtains was to be thirty cubits long, both layers
would hang down to the ground at the far end of the tabernacle. The inner layer, which was
 forty cubits long, would just reach the ground at the back, while the second layer of goats’
hair, which was to be forty-two cubits long after the fold-over at the front, would still extend
two cubits more on the ground at the rear. (See the illustration.) TEV is a bit misleading,
suggesting that it is only the “extra half piece” that will hang at the back. The Hebrew evidently
assumes that the ten additional cubits of the goats’-hair covering are already understood to be
hanging at the far end.

The Hebrew is not sufficiently clear unless the entire picture is visualized. TAN renders the
word for hang over as “overlap,” and this makes it a bit clearer: “As for the overlapping excess
of the cloths of the tent, the extra half-cloth shall overlap the back of the Tabernacle.” TOT has
“The loose part of the curtains of the tent which remains, shall hang over the back of the
Shrine.” REB is even clearer: “The additional length of the tent hanging is to fall over the back of
the Tabernacle.” An alternative model for translating this verse is:

• The additional curtain material, including the extra half curtain, shall hang down at the rear of
the Tabernacle.

26.13

And the cubit on the one side … the other side refers to the two extra cubits in the length
of each strip of goats’ hair material compared with the strips of the linen material. The strips of
linen material were to be twenty-eight cubits long (verse 2), thus making the total first layer
twenty-eight cubits wide when all the strips were joined together. This means that it would
hang down on either side of the framework by only nine cubits, leaving a space of one cubit
uncovered on either side. But that is the space to be covered by the second layer, which was
to be thirty cubits wide (verse 8). This second layer, then, was to be placed on top of the linen
fabric so that one cubit extended on either side. It was to hang over the sides of the
tabernacle after it was set up. This means that the goats’ hair covering would hang down on
the two sides by ten cubits, the exact height of the framework (see verse 16). In other words, it
would just touch the ground, and in that way it would cover the tabernacle.

What remains in the length of the curtains refers to the two extra cubits of the goats’ hair
curtains (verse 8) that will extend beyond the length of the linen curtains (verse 2), that is,
thirty cubits less 28. Therefore, when all eleven of the curtains are joined together, this length
actually becomes the width of the total layer. CEV has unfortunately joined verses 12 and 13,
suggesting that an extra cubit was to be folded on the sides as well as at the back.

NIV is easier to understand than either RSV or TEV: “The tent curtains will be a cubit longer
on both sides; what is left will hang over the sides of the tabernacle to cover it.” TEV’s “on each
side of the length” is confusing unless it is understood to mean the length of each strip of
thirty cubits. TOT is clearer: “The extra cubit in the length of the curtains on each side shall
hang down to cover the Shrine on both sides.” Another possible model is:

• The extra cubit [or, half-yard] in the width of this layer will hang down on both sides of the
tent and will cover the tabernacle completely [or, to the ground].

26.14
 This verse mentions two more layers for the tabernacle, not just one. (RSV is a
mistranslation; see below.) And you shall make for the tent is literally “And you [singular] shall
make a covering for the ’ohel.” This third layer is to be a covering for the second layer, which is
called a “tent” in verses 11–13. For tanned rams’ skins, see the comment at 25.5.

RSV suggests there is only one covering mentioned in this verse, made from tanned rams’
skins and goatskins. However, the word covering is repeated for goatskins as well. The second
phrase is literally “and a covering of skins of techashim down from above.” NRSV has now
corrected the translation: “You shall make for the tent a covering of TANned rams’ skins and
an outer covering of fine leather.” As explained at 25.5, the meaning of tachashim is not
certain, but it was probably not a goat. (See the description there.) CEV, NJB, and NRSV follow TEV
in translating “fine leather.” Translators are urged to follow these translations and use the
equivalent of “fine leather.” CEV’s model is clearer than TEV’s: “Make two more coverings—one
with ram skins dyed red and the other with fine leather.”

(b) The Framework (26.15–30)

(b) The framework (26.15–30)

This section describes the framework of the tabernacle, which was needed to support the
four layers of tent material described in verses 1–14. Again some of the terms used are difficult
to understand, so various interpretations appear in the different translations.

In several places the instructions given presuppose a geographical orientation toward the
east. The tabernacle, which was rectangular in shape, was always set up with the entrance
toward the east. The far end was therefore always toward the west (verse 22), and the two
sides are referred to as the south side (verse 18) and the north side (verse 20). (See illustration
of the tabernacle, page 897.)

Section Heading: the Handbook’s heading for this subsection (26.15–30) is “The
framework.” CEV has “The Framework for the Sacred Tent.” Another possible model is “Make
wooden frames for the sacred tent.”

26.15–16

And you shall continues to use the singular you. Upright frames is literally “the planks
standing up.” The Hebrew word, however, may refer to frames rather than to “planks” (TAN) or
“boards” (NAB), and most translations seem to prefer this view. Solid boards would prevent the
beautiful linen cloth from being seen at all except at the ceiling, and they would be much
heavier to move from place to place. Durham translates “standing supports.”

For the tabernacle uses the word mishkan, which is explained in the introductory remarks
to 26.1–14. For acacia wood see the comment at 25.5.

Ten cubits shall be the length of a frame means, as TEV expresses it, that “each frame is to
be 15 feet long” (or “four metres”). A cubit and a half the breadth of each frame means that it
was to be “27 inches wide” (TEV) (or “66 centimetres”). The thickness of the frames is not
indicated.
 26.17

There shall be two tenons in each frame is literally “two hands for one frame.” The
Hebrew word is the common word for “hand,” but as a technical term it may mean “pegs”
(26.17 NRSV), “arms” (NAB), or “projections” (26.17 NIV). These wooden tenons were evidently
placed at the bottom end of each frame, to be inserted into the silver bases mentioned in
verse 19. For fitting together is literally “joined a woman unto her sister.” (See the comment
for this expression at verse 3.) The word translated as fitting, or “joined,” was used in later
Hebrew for rungs of a ladder, so TEV has “matching projections,” and TAN and NIV have “parallel
to each other.”

However, it is more likely that these frames had as their main elements two upright
“arms” (NAB) which were about fifteen feet high, and possibly not more than a few inches
wide, something like modern two-by-fours. Each arm was joined to the other by cross-pieces
or rungs and had a tenon-like projection at the bottom which was mortised or sunk into a
silver base (see the illustration). There are therefore two possible interpretations for verse 17:
(1) The frames were huge planks secured into silver bases at the bottom by two tenons or
projections. This view is suggested by TAN, NAB, and others. (2) The frames were lighter wooden
frames composed of two arms connected by cross-pieces, with a tenon at the bottom of each
arm to fit into a silver base. Translators are encouraged to follow this second view. (For further
discussion of this possibility, see Hatton, 1991.)

So shall you do for all the frames of the tabernacle is quite literal. NIV has “Make all the
frames of the tabernacle in this way,” and TEV has “All the frames are to have these
projections.” Given the two interpretations above, alternative translation models for verses
15–17 are the following:

• 15 Build upright frames for the sacred tent out of acacia wood. 16 Each frame is to be fifteen
feet high and twenty-seven inches wide. 17 Make two wooden pegs for the bottom of each
frame.

• 15 Build upright frames for the sacred tent out of acacia wood. 16 Each frame is to be fifteen
feet high and twenty-seven inches wide, 17 with two matching arms that are joined together
by cross-pieces. All the frames will have these cross-pieces.

26.18–19

You shall make the frames for the tabernacle seems to be an unnecessary repetition, but
it introduces the details mentioned in verses 18–22. 26.19 RSV uses the colon to indicate this,
but this is a punctuation mark that is not read aloud. NAB makes this understood: “Set up the
boards of the Dwelling as follows: … .” 26.19 TEV leaves implicit the information that the
frames are for the Tabernacle.

Twenty frames for the south side indicates that the length of the tabernacle was to be
twenty times the width of each frame (1.5 cubits), or thirty cubits in all (about forty-five feet,
or 13.7 metres). Two words are used for south, literally “for the side of the Negeb toward the
right.” The basic orientation was facing the east, so south was on the right, and the Negeb was
the name for the desert area south of Palestine. (See the introductory comment above.)
 And forty bases of silver you shall make uses another word whose meaning is not clear.
Bases is translated as “pedestals” in NAB and Durham, and as “sockets” in TAN, REB, and others.
The context is clear, however, that these were to be the silver pieces or “stands” (CEV) into
which the tenons at the bottom of each frame were to be inserted. You shall make does not
indicate how these bases were to be made, but 38.27 tells us they were made by “casting,” or
by pouring melted silver into a mold. The fact that there were forty bases means that there
was one base for each tenon, or two bases under one frame for its two tenons. The repeated
phrase, and two bases under another frame … simply means, as TEV expresses it, that there
were to be “two bases under each frame.”

26.20–21

And for the second side of the tabernacle uses a different word for side, but it means the
same as in verse 18. On the north side repeats the same thing in different words. Here the
word for side is the word used in verse 18. The word for north, tsafon, probably referred
originally to a mountain in Syria (Mount Zaphon), to the north of Palestine. Twenty frames
means the same as in verse 18.

And their forty bases of silver means that “forty silver bases” (TEV) were to be made for
the twenty frames on the north side. Two bases under one frame is identical with verse 19, as
well as the phrase, and two bases under another frame.

An alternative translation model combining verses 18–21 is the following:

• 18–21 [You (singular) shall] make silver stands [or, bases] with sockets [or, holes] in them for
the arms [or, tenons] to fit into. Place two of these stands under each frame. In this way the
frames will be joined together. Place twenty of these frames along the south side and twenty
more along the north.

26.22

And for the rear of the tabernacle is literally “and for the thighs of the mishkan.” “Thighs”
were often used figuratively to refer to the extremities, in this case the far end, or “back”
(26.22 TEV). Westward is literally “toward the sea,” meaning the Mediterranean Sea, which is
west of Palestine. You shall make six frames suggests that the width of the tabernacle were
six times the width of each frame (1.5 cubits), or nine cubits. But the corner frames (verses
23–24) probably added one half cubit at each corner, thus making the total width ten cubits
(about fifteen feet, or 4.6 metres). Another possible model is “Place six frames along the back
wall on the west side.”

26.23–24

And you shall make uses the singular you. Two frames uses the same word for frames
(see verse 15). For corners of the tabernacle in the rear refers to “the southwest and
northwest corners” (CEV) of the tent, the mishkan. This should be understood as one frame for
each corner. The same word for rear is used in verse 22.
 Verse 24 is difficult to understand because of the two words translated as separate and
joined. The Hebrew words are close in spelling, and some ancient manuscripts indicate that
the same word was originally used in both places. They shall be separate beneath is literally
“they shall be double [or, twins] from down below.” It is not clear whether the idea of
“double” means separate or “joined” (TEV). But joined at the top is literally “and together they
shall be complete [or, whole] on its head [or, top].” The conjunction but is the usual waw,
which may also mean “and,” as TEV has it. Scholars are divided on the actual meaning
intended. RSV and NRSV understand the two words to have opposite meanings, so the waw is
translated as but. Other scholars, however, understand them to mean the same thing, and so
the waw is usually translated as “and.” TEV has “joined … and connected.” NIV has “double from
the bottom all the way to the top.” CEV has “joined from top to bottom.” (Similarly also REB,
NJB, and NAB.)

At the first ring is literally “unto the one [or, first] ring.” It may also be understood as “a
single ring,” as NIV, REB, and Durham have it. (TAN has “inside one ring.”) Nothing has been
mentioned so far about rings for the framework, but verse 29 mentions gold rings that are
evidently to be placed along the individual frames for holding the crossbars. The first ring may
therefore be the one at “the top.” TEV and CEV, for some reason, omit any reference to the
ring. This may be because the function of the ring is unclear. However, if these are the “rings”
for the crossbars (see verses 26 and 29), one may translate “and [or, but] joined at the top
near the first gold ring for holding a crossbar.”

Thus it shall be with both of those means that both corner frames are to be “made in this
way” (TEV). They shall form the two corners again refers to the two frames. The final sentence
is repetitive, and some translators will choose to omit it (see TEV).

Alternative translation models for verses 23 and 24 are:

(following TEV, CEV, and others)

• 23 with two more [frames] at the southwest and northwest corners. 24 Make certain that
these corner frames are joined at the bottom and also at the top near to the first gold ring for
holding a crossbar. This is the way that you are to make these two frames.

(following RSV, NRSV, and TOT)

• 23 with one additional frame at each of the corners at the rear. 24 Place each corner frame at
an angle so that it is separate from the main framework at the bottom, but joined to it at the
top, where the highest ring shall be for holding the crossbar.

26.25

And there shall be eight frames refers to the six regular frames in verse 22 plus the two
corner frames in verse 23. With their bases of silver is literally “and their bases of silver.”
These bases are like those mentioned in verse 19. Sixteen bases is the number needed for
eight frames, with two bases per frame. Two bases under one frame … under another frame
simply means, as TEV puts it, “two under each frame.” CEV has a good model: “Altogether, this
back wall will have eight frames with two silver stands under each one.”
26.26–27

And you shall make: you is singular. Bars of acacia wood uses the word for “crossbars”
(TEV) used on doors and gates. Their purpose here was to hold the framework together. They
were obviously long horizontal bars, much larger than the poles made for carrying the ark and
the table.

Five for the frames of the one side … : this means that the north and south sides of the
tabernacle (mishkan) each had five bars, and the side … at the rear westward, that is, the far
side at the rear, also had five bars. The same words are used for the far end in verse 22,
literally “for the thighs seaward.” (See the comment at verse 22.)

26.28

The middle bar, or “center crossbar” (26.28 CEV), refers to the third of five crossbars at
each of the three sides. Halfway up the frame is literally “in the midst of the frames.” Shall
pass through from end to end is literally “sliding from the end unto the end.” It was evidently
one long bar that extended the full length of each side. That means that the north and south
sides each had a middle bar thirty cubits long, and the west end had a middle bar ten cubits
long. The length of the other four crossbars for each side is not indicated.

Shall pass through means that this middle bar is to be inserted through the gold rings
mentioned in the next verse. It may be necessary in some languages to advance this
information from verse 29 and say “shall pass through the rings of the frames from one end to
the other.” TEV avoids this by saying that the “crossbar … is to extend from one end of the Tent
to the other.” CEV has “with the center crossbar running the full length of the wall.”

26.29

You shall overlay the frames with gold uses the same word for overlay in 25.11. (See the
comment there.) And shall make their rings of gold is literally “and their rings you [singular]
shall make gold.” For holders for the bars is literally “houses for the bars.” (The same
expression is used in 25.27.) There may have been five rings on each frame to hold the five
bars for each of the two sides and the far end.

And you shall overlay the bars with gold uses the same words as in the first clause. An
alternative model reordering the clauses is the following: “Cover the frames and the crossbars
with gold and attach gold rings to the frames to hold the crossbars.”

26.30

And you shall erect the tabernacle is literally “And you [singular] shall cause to stand up
the mishkan.” According to the plan for it is literally “as its specifications.” This is a different
word from that used in 25.9 and 40, where RSV uses “pattern,” but the meaning is the same.
The word here, mishpat, is used elsewhere for “legal decision” or “justice.” The focus here
seems to be on the details, or “specifications” (Durham), rather than on the overall pattern.
 Which was shown you on the mountain is literally “which you [singular] were shown on
the mountain.” The verb is the same as 25.40, where the participle is used. But the passive
form, “you were shown,” is used here. Another way to express this verse is “Set up [or, erect]
the sacred tent in the way that I have now shown you on this mountain.”

(c) The Veil and the Screen (26.31–37)

(c) The veil and the screen (26.31–37)

Section Heading: the Handbook’s heading for this subsection will not be difficult to
translate (see the comment on veil and screen below).

26.31

The veil (Hebrew paroketh) was the special “curtain” (TEV) that shut off the “most holy
place” from the “holy place” (verse 34). It may be helpful to include the information here. (See
the alternative translation model at the end of verse 34.) It is good to distinguish this veil from
the masak, a more general term used for the curtain at the “door” of the tabernacle (verse 36)
as well as for the curtain at the outer “gate” for entering the court (27.16). The term paroketh,
which is used only for this veil, had the basic meaning of marking off an area and barring
entrance to it. Masak, on the other hand, carries the more general meaning of a curtain or
covering used for shielding or hiding something from view. Some translations make no
distinction between these terms (TEV, CEV, NIV), but others translate paroketh and masak as
“curtain” and “screen” (NRSV, TAN, NJB, REB), as “veil” and “curtain” (NAB), as “screen” and
“covering” (TOT), and as “Veil” and “Screen” (Durham).

Of blue and purple and scarlet stuff and fine twined linen indicates that this veil was to
be made of the same material as the inner layer of the tabernacle, described in verse 1. (See
the discussion there and at 25.4.) It will be helpful to express stuff as “thread” in order to
avoid the misunderstanding that linen was woven out of “wool” rather than “flax.” (See the
model below.) The only difference is that the fine twined linen is listed last, but the basic
fabric was linen.

In skilled work shall it be made is almost identical with the similar phrase in verse 1,
except that it shall be made is literally “he [or, one] shall make” rather than “you shall make.”
The difference is minor, but translators should be aware of it. TEV makes no distinction: “[You]
Embroider it.” In skilled work is discussed at verse 1 and probably refers to embroidery work.
With cherubim is also discussed at verse 1, referring to “figures of winged creatures” (TEV).

An alternative translation model for this verse is:

• Have them weave a curtain out of the finest linen, with blue, purple, and red thread. Then
have a skilled person embroider it with figures of cherubs.

26.32

And you shall hang it is literally “and you [singular] shall place it.” Upon four pillars of
acacia uses the same word for pillars as the expression “pillar of cloud” in 13.21. Here, of
course, the pillars are made of acacia, so TEV’s “four posts of acacia wood” may be more
appropriate. NJB has “poles,” and NAB has “columns.” The placement of these pillars is not
indicated, but they were probably evenly spaced from the north side to the south side, exactly
ten cubits from the west end of the tabernacle. Overlaid with gold is discussed at 25.11.

With hooks of gold is literally “and their hooks gold.” The word for hooks can mean “nails”
(Holladay), “pins,” or “pegs” (BDB). (See the comment on “clasps” at 26.6.) The pronoun “their”
indicates that the hooks were attached to the pillars. So TEV has “posts … fitted with hooks.”
CEV has “fasten gold hooks to the posts.” Some scholars believe that the shape of the letter
waw, used in this Hebrew word as it appeared in the ancient script, described the shape of the
hooks, possibly a two-pronged fork. Upon four bases of silver uses the same word as in verse
19, but these bases may have had a different shape to fit the pillars.

26.33

And you shall hang the veil from the clasps is literally “And you [singular] shall place the
veil under the clasps.” This refers to the gold clasps mentioned in verse 6, which held together
the two large pieces of the inner linen layer of the tabernacle. When this layer would be placed
over the framework according to the instructions, the row of clasps would be exactly ten
cubits from the west end. NAB and NIV suggest with RSV that the veil was to be suspended from
these clasps, but NRSV has corrected this to “under the clasps.” This means, as TEV renders it,
“under the row of hooks in the roof of the Tent.”

And bring the ark of the testimony in thither is literally “and you [singular] shall cause to
enter there the box of the reminder,” which refers to “the Covenant Box” (TEV). (See the
comment at 25.10 and 16.) This means that the ark was to be placed “behind” the veil, inside
the small room created by the veil. TEV has “and put behind the curtain the Covenant Box
containing the two stone tablets.” CEV, however, puts this clause in verse 34, keeping all the
information about the box in one place.

And the veil shall separate for you means that the veil is to mark the division between
two rooms in the small mishkan, or tabernacle. The holy place refers to the larger room
outside the veil, 10 by 20 cubits in size. The most holy place was the smaller room on the
other side of the veil, which was 10 by 10 cubits. These two rooms are literally “the holy” and
“holy of the holy things.” Traditionally these have been referred to as the “Holy Place” and the
“Holy of Holies.” The most holy place may also be expressed with a descriptive phrase; for
example, “the room which had been dedicated to God more than any other room.” However,
a descriptive phrase will be very cumbersome, as this term is repeated many times in Exodus.
It is thus better to use a shorter term and have a detailed Glossary item on both holy place and
most holy place.

26.34

You shall put the mercy seat upon the ark of the testimony is similar to the instruction
given in 25.21, except the word meaning “down from above it” is not used here, and ark of the
testimony is the same as in verse 33. In the most holy place is literally “in holy of the holies.”

BDB BROWN, DRIVER, AND BRIGGS

 This verse shows that the “lid” of the “Covenant Box” was distinguished from the box
itself. (See the discussion on mercy seat at 25.17, and on ark at 25.10.) The sequence of
hanging the veil and placing the ark is reversed in the instructions given in 40.3, where the ark
is to be placed first, and then the veil is to be hung. TEV is unusually brief here, assuming that
the additional information in RSV is already understood. Translators must decide how much to
include here.

An alternative translation model, restructuring verses 31–34, is the following:

• 31–34 Have them make a curtain of fine linen to separate the holy place from the most holy
place. They must use blue, purple, and red thread, and they must embroider it with figures of
cherubs. Make five acacia posts and cover them with gold. Set each of these on a silver stand.
Then fasten gold hooks to the post and hang the curtain on them. Place the curtain under the
row of hooks in the roof of the sacred tent. Inside the most holy place, behind the curtain,
place the sacred box containing the stone tablets. Place the lid on the box.

26.35

And you shall set the table uses a different word for set, but it means “to place,” the same
as in verse 34. The table is described in 25.23. It will be helpful to make it explicit that this
table was for the sacred bread; for example, “Put the table for the bread dedicated to the Lord
outside the Most Holy Place.” Outside the veil means “outside the Most Holy Place” (TEV) but
within the larger room called the Holy Place (see verse 33). However, it is possible to give the
precise location by saying “outside the curtain” (so also CEV).

The lampstand is described in 25.31. The south side of the tabernacle refers to the inside
wall on the right, as one faces east. (For the geographical orientation, see the remarks before
verse 26.15.) Opposite the table means directly across from the table. And you shall put the
table here uses the other word meaning “to place.” On the north side refers to the left side of
the tabernacle as one faces the east.

In some cultures it is more natural to think in terms of right and left from the perspective
of one standing at the entrance to the tabernacle and looking in, that is, toward the west. In
this case the placement of the lampstand will be on the left (south side), and the table will be
on the right (north side). CEV follows this orientation. The distinction between north and south,
however, will be readily understood in many cultures.

An alternative translation model for this verse is:

• Put the table for the sacred bread outside the inner curtain but inside the north wall of the
tabernacle on the right. Put the lampstand across from the table and against the south wall on
the left.

26.36
340

And you shall make a screen still uses the singular you. The screen (masak) was also a
curtain, but a different word is used to distinguish this from the veil (paroketh). Again one may
say “a large piece of linen cloth.” (See the comment at verse 31.) For the door of the tent is
literally “for the opening of the ’ohel.” Here the word ’ohel (“tent”) is used in reference to the
mishkan. (See the introductory remarks to chapter 26.) The opening, or door, was the
“entrance” (TEV) at the east end of the tabernacle itself, the small tent inside the larger
enclosure.

Of blue and purple and scarlet stuff and fine twined linen is identical to verse 31. (For the
materials, see the comment at verse 26.1; for the colors, see the comment at 25.4.)
Embroidered with needlework is literally “something done by an embroiderer.” The word
refers to a weaver of colored fabric, or an embroiderer, but here the focus is on the work itself
rather than on the worker. This screen was the same kind of material as the inner layer and
the veil, described in verses 1 and 31, but it did not have the cherubim. Also, a different word,
“embroiderer,” is used here, while verses 1 and 31 speak of a “thinker.”

26.37

And you shall make for the screen uses the singular you. Five pillars of acacia uses the
same word for pillars as verse 32. Here again they may be referred to as “posts” (TEV), “poles”
(NJB), or “columns” (NAB). And overlay them with gold uses the singular “you.” (For overlay see
the comment at 25.11.)

Their hooks shall be of gold refers to the same kind of hooks as in verse 32, which here
are to be attached to five pillars instead of four. The five bases for these pillars were to be
different from those in verse 32. They were to be bases of bronze rather than of silver. (See
the comment at 25.12.) They were also to be cast, meaning that the bronze was to be melted
and poured into a mold. (See the comment at verse 11.) Since the screen was to be farther
away from the ark and the Holy of Holies, a less expensive metal was to be used. (See the
introductory comments to chapter 27.)

(4) The Altar (27.1–8)

The altar described in this section is the altar to be used for burnt offerings. It was to be
placed outside the tabernacle but inside the open area of the larger enclosure described in the
next section. This altar must be distinguished from the altar for burning incense, which is
described in 30.1–10.

340Osborn, N. D., & Hatton, H. (1999). A handbook on Exodus. UBS handbook series; Helps for
translators (601). New York: United Bible Societies.

TEV Today’s English Version

NJB NEW JERUSALEM BIBLE

NAB NEW AMERICAN BIBLE

 The details for this bronze altar are confusing. It is clearly described as a portable altar,
which was necessary if the Israelites were to carry it with them when they moved on from
Mount Sinai. There are other details, however, that are far from clear. Commentaries discuss
these problems and offer a variety of solutions, but none of them are really adequate.
Translators must therefore simply follow the text closely and allow some of this confusion to
remain. Some of these problems are pointed out in the comments on the individual verses.

Section Heading: both 26.37 TEV and this Handbook have the heading “The altar.” 26.37
CEV has “The Altar for Offering Sacrifices.” Translators should check the comment at verse 1 on
ways to translate “altar.”

27.1

You shall make the altar uses the singular You, for Yahweh is instructing Moses. But one
may also say “You must have them make,” because Moses would not be constructing the altar
himself. Since this is the first verse of a new section, it may be helpful to begin with something
like “The Lord said to Moses, … .” The use of the definite article, the, is surprising, since no
mention of this altar has been made previously. Some translations have “an altar” (27.1 TEV),
since this is new information, but any shrine in the ancient world was expected to have an
altar. The word for altar is derived from the verb “to slaughter,” so it refers to a place for
sacrificing an animal. A number of modern cultures have similar elevated structures for
sacrificing animals or for offering gifts to a deity. Sometimes this will be a stone or wood
platform or table. Such terms may be used here if it is clear that this altar is dedicated to God.
For acacia wood see the comment at 25.5. It is surprising that a place for burning a sacrifice
would be made of wood, even though it was to be overlaid with bronze (verse 2), but at least
it would be portable.

Five cubits long and five cubits broad means that it was to be “7½ feet” by “7½ feet” (27.1
TEV) (or “2.2 metres” by “2.2 metres”). This of course made it square. And its height shall be
three cubits means “4½ feet high” (27.1 TEV) (“1.3 metres”). The cubit is discussed at 25.10.

27.2

And you shall make horns for it is literally “And you [singular] shall make its horns.” The
word for horns refers primarily to an animal’s horns, but here it means “projections” (27.2 TEV)
of some kind that were to be on its four corners. They may or may not have been shaped like
the horns of an animal, but they were obviously vertical extensions “at the top of the four
corners” (27.2 TEV), even though this is not stated in the text. (See 30.10.) Other references to
these horns, however, suggest that they were indeed at the upper corners.

Its horns shall be of one piece with it means that these horns were not to be made
separately and then attached to the altar. Rather they were to be carved from the same piece
of wood as the altar. 27.2 CEV brings out this point clearly: “and make each of the four top
corners stick up like the horn of a bull.” And you shall overlay it with bronze refers to the
entire altar. See the comment on overlay at 25.11, and the comment on bronze at 25.3.

CEV Contemporary English Version

 27.3

You shall make pots for it is literally “And you [singular] shall make its pots.” The word for
pots may also mean “pans” (TEV, CEV) or “pails” (TAN). It refers to a large container with a wide
mouth. To receive its ashes translates one word that means “to clean fatty ashes from it.” The
noun form of the word refers to fat, so the ashes refers to the “greasy ashes” (27.3 TEV), or
“hot ashes” (27.3 CEV) that were left after the animal sacrifice was burned.

The shovels were “scrapers” (TAN) used for cleaning the altar. The basins were “bowls”
(27.3 TEV) similar to those mentioned in 24.6, but the word here is related to the act of tossing
or sprinkling. They were evidently used for splashing liquid, so NJB has “sprinkling basins,” REB
“tossing-bowls,” and 27.3 NIV, 27.3 CEV “sprinkling bowls.”

The forks were large “pronged-forks” (Durham) or “flesh hooks” (TAN) that were used in
turning the flesh of the animal as it was being burned on the altar. They probably had three
prongs, as indicated in 1 Sam 2.13. In some languages this instrument may be described as
“large metal forks [or, instruments] with three sharp points [or, prongs].” The firepans were
buckets or trays for carrying burning coals or hot ashes. The same word is used in 25.38 for
“trays” for the lampstand. One may also express these as “containers for carrying away the hot
ashes.”

All its utensils refers to all the tools and “equipment” (27.3 TEV) for the altar. You shall
make of bronze makes clear that none of the items mentioned were to be made from pottery,
but rather from bronze. Note that bronze is the metal for the altar outside the tabernacle,
while gold is specified for the incense altar that was to be placed inside the tabernacle. It is
possible to restructure this verse as follows:

• Have them make all the equipment for the altar out of bronze: the pans for holding the hot
ashes, the scrapers for cleaning the altar, the bowls for sprinkling [liquid], the three-pronged
forks, and the pans for carrying away hot ashes.

27.4

You shall also make is literally “And you [singular] shall make.” This may also be rendered
as “You [Moses] have them make.” For it means for the altar. A grating, a network of bronze is
literally “a grating a work of net [of] bronze.” This really means “a bronze grating, a network
[or, meshwork].” It was probably a kind of latticework with narrow strips of bronze woven
together in an open crisscross pattern. The word for grating is related to the word for “sieve,”
as in Amos 9.9. Its purpose is not explained, but it was probably intended to hold the burning
coals and allow the ashes and grease to fall through to the ground, as well as to allow for a
draft of air to pass through from underneath. Both were necessary for a hot fire.

TAN TANAKH (NEW JEWISH VERSION)

REB REVISED ENGLISH BIBLE

NIV NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION

 And upon the net refers to the bronze grating. You shall make is identical with the first
part of the verse. Four bronze rings uses the same word for rings as in 25.12, 26 and 26.29. At
its four corners suggests that the grating may have been flat and square-shaped. Some
scholars suggest, however, that it was made like a basket or collar, to fit under or around the
outside of the altar. It is more likely that it was placed inside the altar, where it held the
burning coals and allowed the air to pass through. The rings were the “carrying rings” (27.4
TEV) intended to hold the poles (verse 7), but they were to be attached to the net, that is, to
the network of bronze. So we may imagine that this grid had special extensions at its four
corners that penetrated through the wooden sides of the altar. This would make it possible for
the four bronze rings to be on the outside and still be attached to these extensions of the grid
on the inside.

27.5

And you shall set it means “you [sin gular] shall place the net.” Under the ledge of the
altar is literally “under the karkov of the altar below.” The word karkov is found only here and
in 38.4, so its meaning is unclear. Some think of it as a kind of “rim” (27.5 TEV) around the altar
that could also support the weight of the altar when lifted by the rings on the grating (verse 4).
Others imagine that it may have been a ledge wide enough for the officiating priests to stand
on, but this is unlikely, since the altar itself was to be only 4½ feet high.

It is not clear whether this karkov was at the top, the middle, or the bottom of the altar.
Neither is it clear whether it was on the inside or the outside. NAB translates it simply as
“around,” since its root meaning may have been to surround or encircle: “Put it down around
the altar, on the ground.”

Note that the Hebrew phrase uses both the words “under” and “below,” possibly for
emphasis or clarity. TAN has “Set the mesh below, under the ledge of the altar,” and NJB has
“You will put it below the ledge of the altar, under neath.” Since there is so much uncertainty
about the meaning of these terms, one must choose either the idea of a ledge or a “rim.” We
may assume that it was a structural rim located probably around the top of the altar, but on
the inside.

So that the net shall extend halfway down the altar is literally “and the net will be until
half of the altar.” This does not indicate whether it means halfway down or “halfway up the
altar” (27.5 TEV). Most translations have “halfway up,” suggesting that the grating was placed
in some way at the lower half of the altar. But 27.5 RSV and 27.5 NRSV suggest that this ledge
was near the top. It is probably better for translators to follow this interpretation.

A possible translation model for verses 4–5 is:

RSV Revised Standard Version

NRSV New Revised Standard Version

• 4 Make a bronze grating, like a strainer, and attach a bronze ring at each of its four corners. 5
Then place the grating under the rim that goes around the altar, so that it extends halfway
down inside the altar.

27.6–7

And you shall make poles for the altar again uses the singular you. The word for poles is
the same as in 25.13. Acacia wood is discussed at 25.10. For overlay see the comment at
25.11, and for bronze see 25.3.

And the poles shall be put through the rings is literally “and its poles will be caused to
enter into the rings.” Another way to express this is “and you shall cause the poles to be put
through the rings,” or even “and you shall have them put the poles through the rings.” So that
the poles shall be upon the two sides is literally “and the poles will be upon the two sides.”
These two clauses may be combined as in 27.7 TEV, “and put them in the rings on each side.”
When it is carried is literally “to lift it.” It does not indicate whether the poles were to remain
in the rings or to be inserted only when the altar was moved. We may assume the latter, since
they would extend on opposite sides of the altar and prevent easy movement of the priests
around it. So 27.7 TEV suggests they were to be placed “in the rings” only “when it is carried.”

Alternative translation models for verses 6 and 7 are:

• 6–7 Make two acacia wood poles for carrying the altar. Cover them with bronze and put them
through the rings on each side.

• 6 Have them make two acacia wood poles and cover them with bronze. 7 Then put them
through the rings on each side of the altar when it is carried.

27.8

You shall make it hollow, with boards is literally “Hollow of boards [or, planks] you
[singular] shall make it.” This may be stated in different ways: “Make the altar out of boards,
and leave it hollow” (27.8 TEV); “The altar shall be a hollow wooden box” (TOT); or “Construct
the altar in the shape of an open box” (27.8 CEV).

As it has been shown you on the mountain is literally “like what he [or, one] has shown
you on the mountain.” (See also 25.40 and 26.30.) This is usually translated in the passive voice
(“you were shown”), but 27.8 TEV adds “according to the plan” and changes the “he” to first
person, “that I showed you.” One may also say “that I have now shown you on the mountain.”

So shall it be made is literally “thus they will make [it].” Durham is correct in translating
“so they are to make it.” (Similarly also 27.8 KJV, ASV, and NASB.) The shift in the pronoun is a bit

TOT TRANSLATOR’S OLD TESTAMENT

KJV KING JAMES VERSION

ASV AMERICAN STANDARD VERSION

NASB NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE

surprising, but it probably refers to the craftsmen who were actually to do the work. In many
languages this will be a natural translation.

(5) The Court Enclosure (27.9–19)

The tabernacle itself (mishkan) was the tent described in chapter 26, approximately forty-
five feet long, fifteen feet wide, and fifteen feet high (thirty by ten by ten cubits). Now the
details are given for a courtyard (chatser) that is to surround this tabernacle. It was to be
sacred space open to the sky but closed off from the outside by a wall of curtains 450 feet long
and 7½ feet high. It was to cover a rectangular area approximately 150 feet long and 75 feet
wide (one hundred by fifty cubits). The materials used for this enclosure were not to be as
elaborate nor as expensive as the materials for the mishkan, since the distance from the Holy
of Holies would be greater. But the details are just as specific.

Section Heading: 27.8 TEV has “The Enclosure of the Tent of the Lord’s Presence,” this
Handbook has “The court enclosure,” and 27.8 CEV has “The Courtyard around the Sacred
Tent.” CEV’s model will be easier to translate in many languages. However, another model is
the following: “The flat enclosed space around the sacred tent.”

27.9

You shall make is again addressed to Moses with the singular You, and again this will be
translated in some languages as “You shall have them make.” The court of the tabernacle is
“the chatser of the mishkan.” But the word chatser refers to the open space around the
mishkan that will be marked off by the “enclosure” (27.9 TEV), or wall of hangings. Therefore it
is the “enclosure,” that is, the hangings and their supports, that the people are to make, rather
than the open space. So one may translate “Have them make the curtains that surround the
open space around the sacred tent” or “Surround the sacred tent with a courtyard enclosed by
curtains.”

On the south side is literally “for the side of the south [negev] toward the right,” as in
26.18. It refers to the 75-foot-long wall on the right as one faces the east. (See the comment
on orientation before 26.15.) The court shall have hangings is literally “curtains for the
courtyard [chatser].” The word for hangings is different from the word for “curtains” in 26.1
and may suggest a different kind of weaving. Many English translations have hangings, but
Durham has “draperies,” and both 27.9 TEV and 27.9 CEV have “curtains.” In many languages
this will be expressed as “large pieces of linen cloth.”

Of fine twined linen is identical with 26.1. (See the comment there.) A hundred cubits
long is approximately “50 yards long” (27.9 TEV) or “44 metres.” For one side refers to one of
the two sides, south and north, that are to be the same length.

27.10

Their pillars shall be twenty is literally “and its pillars twenty.” The pronoun their follows
the Septuagint and refers to the “hangings” in verse 9. 27.10 NRSV has changed the pronoun to
“its,” which refers to “the court.” The word for pillars is the same as in 26.32. The material for
the pillars is not indicated, but probably they were also made from acacia wood. And their
bases twenty refers to the bases of the pillars. The word for bases is the same word used in
26.19 and 32.

Of bronze seems to be dangling, and it is not clear whether this refers to the pillars as well
as the bases. A number of translations follow the word order of the Hebrew and retain its
ambiguity. 27.10 NIV and REB identify only the bases as being made of bronze. But 27.10 TEV
includes the pillars: “supported by twenty bronze posts in twenty bronze bases.” (Similarly
also 27.10 NRSV, TOT, and 27.10 CEV.) They were probably acacia “posts” overlaid with bronze,
since the posts inside the tabernacle were acacia overlaid with gold (26.32).

But the hooks of the pillars uses the same word for hooks as 26.32. They were evidently
attached to the pillars. And their fillets refers to some kind of narrow “bands” (27.10 NRSV) or
“rods” (27.10 TEV) that were attached to the pillars. The idea of “bands” suggests that each of
the pillars had its own band, or fillet, that encircled it at the top; the idea of “rods” suggests
that the pillars were connected together by these rods, or fillets. (See also verse 17 and the
suggested models there.) The pronoun their probably refers to the pillars rather than to the
hooks, but this is not clear. The word for fillets seems to have the root meaning of “attached
to.” Shall be of silver refers to both the hooks and the fillets. According to 38.19, however, the
fillets may have been made out of a stronger metal and then overlaid with silver.

27.11

And likewise for its length on the north side is literally “And thus for the north side in the
length.” The pronoun its is not in the Hebrew, and neither are the words there shall be.
Hangings a hundred cubits long is literally “hangings a hundred long,” but cubits is
understood. Their pillars twenty and their bases twenty is again following the Septuagint, as
in verse 10, for the Hebrew again has “its pillars,” meaning the pillars of the courtyard. Of
bronze is dangling as in verse 10, but it evidently refers to both the pillars and the bases. But
the hooks … is identical to the same phrase in verse 10.

This verse repeats so much that TEV has been able to shorten it to one short line: “Do the
same on the north side of the enclosure.”

27.12–13

And for the breadth of the court refers to the width of the rectangular courtyard. On the
west side is literally “for the side of the sea,” meaning, of course, the Mediterranean Sea. (See
the comment at 26.22.) There shall be is not in the Hebrew but is added for clarity. Hangings
for fifty cubits means that the “curtains” (27.13 TEV) must be approximately “25 yards long”
(27.13 TEV) or “22 metres,” in order to cover the width of the court at the back. With ten
pillars and ten bases is literally “their pillars ten and their bases ten.”

The breadth of the court on the front refers to the width of the courtyard “on the east
side” (27.13 TEV). To the east is literally “toward sunrise.” Shall be fifty cubits is simply “fifty
cubits,” with the words shall be added for clarity.
 27.14–15

The hangings for the one side of the gate is literally “hangings for the shoulder [or, side].”
Of the gate is not in the Hebrew, but the text is referring to one side of the “entrance” (TEV,
CEV) into the courtyard, which was on the east side. The word translated as gate does not
appear until verse 16. Fifteen cubits is approximately “7½ yards” (27.15 TEV), or “6.6 metres.”
With three pillars and three bases is literally “their pillars three and their bases three.” The
pronoun “their” refers to the hangings, or “curtains” (27.15 TEV).

On the other side is literally “and for the second side.” The rest of this verse repeats what
is said in verse 14. Again 27.15 TEV is able to shorten these two verses into one sentence, “On
each side of the entrance there are to be 7½ yards of curtains with three posts and three
bases.”

It is possible to combine verses 9–15 in the following way:

• 9–15 Put a courtyard around the sacred tent, one hundred fifty feet long on the south and
north and seventy-five feet wide on the east and west. Make bronze-covered posts and bronze
stands to place around the courtyard, twenty on the south and north and ten for the west.
Make silver hooks and bands [or, rods] for the posts and use them to hang curtains made of
fine linen on the posts along each of the three sides.

Put three posts on each side of the entrance to the courtyard at the east, and hang a
curtain seven and a half yards wide on each set of posts.

27.16

For the gate of the court refers to “the entrance itself” (27.16 TEV) into the courtyard. It
was to be in the center of the eastern side, with about 7½ yards between the one edge of it
and the northeast corner, and 7½ yards between the other edge of it and the southeast
corner. (See verses 14–15.) There shall be a screen is simply “a screen,” the same word
(masak) used in 26.36 for the screen at the eastern end of the tabernacle. (See the comment
there.) Twenty cubits long is about “10 yards long” (27.16 TEV), or “9 metres.”

Of blue and purple and scarlet stuff and fine twined linen is identical to the description in
26.31 and 36. (See the comment at 26.1 for the materials, and at 25.4 for the colors.)
Embroidered with needlework is identical with 26.36.

It shall have four pillars and with them four bases is literally “their pillars four and their
bases four.” The plural pronoun in “their bases” refers to the four pillars, but the same
pronoun in “their pillars” seems to have no antecedent. NJB changes this to the singular, “with
its four poles and their four sockets.” 27.16 TEV avoids this grammatical problem: “It is to be
supported by four posts in four bases.” (Similarly also 27.16 NIV, NAB, REB, and others.)

27.17

All the pillars around the court refers to the sixty pillars mentioned in verses 9–16 that
support the curtained wall, or the “enclosure” around the open courtyard. Shall be filleted
 with silver is literally “banded [of] silver.” This is the verb form of the noun used in verse 10,
and it can mean either “banded” or “connected” (27.17 TEV). If the idea of “banded” (27.17
NRSV, TAN) is followed, one may say “All the posts around the courtyard shall have silver bands
at the top.” But if the idea of “rods” is followed, one may say “All the posts around the
courtyard shall be connected with silver rods.” (See the comment on “fillets” at verse 10.)

If the interpretation of TEV (and NJB) is followed, then the connecting “rods” would give
support to the “posts,” and the curtains could have been hung from these “rods.” The veil and
the screen of the tabernacle, however, were evidently hung from the posts, which had their
own hooks. (See 26.32 and 37.) Most translations therefore follow the other interpretation
and consider these “fillets” to be “silver bands” (NIV, TOT) at the top of each of the pillars.

Their hooks shall be made of silver is literally “and their hooks silver.” The word for hooks
is the same as in 26.32, and the word for bases is the same as in 26.19. (See the comments
there.) For bronze see the comment at 25.3.

Alternative translation models for this verse are:

• You must put silver bands at the top of all the posts around the courtyard. Make the hooks on
the posts for holding the curtains out of silver, and the bases for the posts out of bronze.

• You must connect all the posts around the courtyard with silver rods. Also make the hooks for
holding the curtains … .

27.18

The length of the court refers to the distance of the open area, or courtyard, from the
entrance at the east end to the far end at the west. A hundred cubits makes it about “50 yards
long” (27.18 TEV), or “44 metres.” The breadth fifty is literally “fifty on fifty,” which means that
it was to be fifty cubits at each end from the north side to the south side. This makes it about
“25 yards wide” (27.18 TEV) or “22 metres.” And the height five cubits means that the
curtained “enclosure” surrounding the courtyard was to be “2½ yards high” (27.18 TEV) or “2.2
metres.”

With hangings of fine twined linen is literally “fine linen twisted.” The words with
hangings of are not in the Hebrew but are added for clarity, referring to the hangings, or
“curtains,” mentioned in verse 9. In languages that do not use the passive voice, one may say
“Make the curtains out of fine linen” or “Use fine linen thread to weave the curtains.”

And bases of bronze refers to the bases for the posts in verse 17. Since it is repetitive,
some translations omit it. 27.18 TEV’s model gives the wrong impression that the bronze bases
are for the curtains. Depending on what is natural style in a receptor languages, translators
may keep this phrase or omit it.

27.19

All the utensils of the tabernacle for every use refers to “all the equipment” (27.19 TEV),
“tools” (Durham), “accessories” (NJB), and “fittings” (NAB) that must be made for the
tabernacle (mishkan). Here the word mishkan seems to refer not only to the tent but also to
the curtained enclosure. 27.19 TEV makes this explicit, with “and for the enclosure.” The word
for utensils is a very broad term. 27.19 RSV translates it as “furniture” in 25.9. (See also the
comment at 3.22.) Here, of course, it refers to everything except those accessories that were
to be made of gold (25.29, 38; 26.5; and others). So 27.19 CEV has “The rest of the equipment.”

And all its pegs and all the pegs of the court introduces a new word, for nothing so far has
been said about the pegs. These were the large “tent pegs” (NAB, NIV), or “anchor-pegs”
(Durham), that were needed to support the “Tent” (27.19 TEV) as well as the curtained
enclosure. They were evidently driven into the ground, and the supporting ropes or “cords”
were tied to them. (See the comment at 35.18.) They were all “to be made of bronze” (27.19
TEV). (See the comment on bronze at 25.3.) One may also say “the pegs for anchoring the
sacred tent.”

(6) A Note About Tending the Lamp (27.20–21)

Section Heading: 27.19 TEV has “Taking Care of the Lamp,” and this Handbook has “A note
about tending the lamp.” One may also say “Instructions for taking care of the lamp.” 27.19
CEV has a different heading, “The Oil for the Lamp in the Holy Place.”

27.20

And you shall command the people of Israel is literally “And you, you shall command the
sons of Israel.” Since this is the first verse of a new section, one may translate “The Lord said to
Moses, ‘Command … .’ ” The emphatic you, which is singular, introduces a new topic. Yahweh
here commands Moses to give a command to the Israelites. That they bring to you is literally
“and they will bring unto you.”

Pure beaten olive oil for the light refers to the best kind of fuel for the oil lamps. It was to
be from the fruit of the olive tree, and the olives were to be beaten or pounded by hand, not
squeezed in an oil press. The oil was to be pure, meaning that all the sediment was to be
removed so that it would not smoke and would give the best light. 27.20 TEV simply has “the
best olive oil for the lamp.” (For “olive oil” see the comment at 25.6.) The word for light refers
in general to a “luminary,” or “source of light.” As such it is synonymous with the specific word
for lamp that follows.

That the lamp may be set up is literally “to cause a lamp to go up.” (See the comment on
lamp at 25.37.) The singular form of lamp probably refers collectively to all the “lamps” (TAN)
of the lampstand. (See Lev 24.4.) To burn continually is just one word that can mean either
continually (as in 27.20 RSV, NJB, and NIV) or “regularly” (as in 27.20 NRSV, TAN, and NAB). 27.20
TEV takes this second meaning, “so that it can be lit each evening.” 27.20 CEV has “Do this so
the lamp will keep burning.”

27.21

In the tent of meeting uses the term ’ohel mo‘ed, which is explained in the introductory
comments to chapter 26. Here it obviously refers to the elaborate tent that is described in
chapter 26, where it is consistently called the mishkan (27.21 RSV “tabernacle”). In this verse,
however, the later editors of Exodus are now calling it the ’ohel mo‘ed, which in an earlier
tradition referred only to the simple “tent of meeting” that Moses used when he talked with
Yahweh. (See 33.7–11 and the introductory comment there.) These two terms are now used
interchangeably in the remaining chapters of Exodus for the “tabernacle” described in chapter
26 and finally constructed in chapter 36. Since it is helpful to distinguish between these two
tents, translators have several options. One ,may translate the Hebrew literally, as in 27.21 RSV
(tent of meeting), even when it refers to the mishkan described in chapter 26, but adding a
footnote to explain that it refers to the same tent described there. Or one may choose to use
the same term selected in chapter 26 for translating mishkan (“tabernacle”) and add a
footnote explaining that the Hebrew here uses the term “tent of meeting” to refer to the same
tent. Again, if the context is sufficiently clear, one may simply translate “the tent” and expect
the reader to understand that it refers to that elaborate tent. However, it is possible to avoid
this problem by identifying the area more precisely; for example, “in front of the curtain that
separates the holy place from the most holy place.”

Outside the veil means on the other side of the “curtain” (27.21 TEV) from the Holy of
Holies, where the ark of the covenant was kept. This was inside the Holy Place. The veil was
the curtain that separated the Holy of Holies from the Holy Place (26.33). Which is before the
testimony simply means, as 27.21 TEV puts it, “which is in front of the Covenant Box,” that is,
the ark of the covenant. The word testimony, when used alone, may refer either to the stone
tablets on which the terms of the covenant were written, or to the “Box” into which they were
to be placed. (See the comments at 25.21 and 25.22.)

Aaron and his sons shall tend it refers to the lamp in verse 20, which probably means the
lampstand (see 26.35). Shall tend it is literally “he shall arrange [or, prepare] it.” 27.21 TEV has
“set up the lamp,” but it also probably means that Aaron “must keep the lamp in trim” (REB) or
“keep the lamps burning” (27.21 NIV). A translation will be quite accurate if it implies regular
care for the lamps as well as setting them up every evening. The verb “he shall arrange” is
singular in form, and some scholars believe that the words and his sons were added later. (See
Lev 24.4 and Exo 30.7

From evening till morning suggests that the lamps were to be burned only at night. 27.21
CEV has “keeping the lamp burning every night.” Before the Lord is literally “to the face of
Yahweh.” This means “in the Lord’s presence” (TOT). Since Yahweh is speaking, 27.21 TEV
changes this to “in my presence.”

It shall be a statute for ever is literally “an ordinance of long time.” The same expression is
used in 12.14. 27.21 NRSV has “It shall be a perpetual ordinance.” To be observed throughout
their generations by the people of Israel is literally “for their generations from the sons of
Israel.” To be observed is understood from the word statute (choq). Their generations refers
to the descendants of the Israelites. So 27.21 TEV says it clearly: “This command is to be kept
by the Israelites and their descendants.”

An alternative translation model for this verse is:

• Aaron and his sons are to set up the lamp outside the curtain [veil] that separates the holy
place from the most holy place where the sacred chest is kept.

They are responsible for keeping the lamps burning every night. The Israelites must always
obey this command.

(7) The Priestly Vestments (28.1–43)

(a) The Need for Vestments (28.1–5)

(a) The need for vestments (28.1–5)

The instructions given to Moses on Mount Sinai included more than just the building of a
tabernacle. There had to be priests who could look after this portable shrine and see that the
worship was conducted properly. The first verse of chapter 28 indicates that Aaron and his
sons were to be set apart for this work, but the rest of the chapter describes the kind of
vestments that were to be made for Aaron, who would serve as the high priest. Only a few
verses at the end describe the vestments that Aaron’s sons were to wear.

There are eight different items of clothing mentioned in this chapter. For Aaron there are
six items: the ephod, the breastpiece, the robe, the turban with the special “rosette” (an
ornament in the shape of a rose), the tunic (RSV “coat”), and the sash (RSV “girdle”). For Aaron’s
sons only three are mentioned: tunics, sashes, and headdresses (RSV “caps”). And for all of
them linen “breeches” (underwear) were required. No footwear is described, since the priests
performed their official duties in their bare feet.

Section Headings: the Handbook has a general heading, “The priestly vestments,” that
covers the entire chapter. This may also be expressed as “Things that priests must wear.” The
27.21 TEV heading, “Garments for the Priests,” covers verses 1–14. This will be easily translated
into most languages. Another possible model is “Special clothes for the priests.” The Handbook
divides 28.1–14 into two separate sections: the first one (verses 1–5) is entitled “The need for
clothes.” Other possible models are “The need for priestly clothes” or “Clothes must be made
for the priests.”

28.1

Then bring near to you Aaron your brother is literally “And you [singular], you cause to
come near unto you Aaron your brother.” 28.1 TEV omits the Then (waw), which can be
misleading, since this new section does not necessarily follow in sequence from chapter 27.
Again it may be helpful at the beginning of a new section of discourse to begin the sentence
with, for example, “The Lord said to Moses, …” or “The Lord commanded Moses, … .” The verb
bring near may mean simply “Have Aaron your brother brought to you” (28.1 NIV), but the
context may suggest the more formal setting of a public ceremony. Bring near may also be
expressed as “Have them bring … here.” The phrase from among the people of Israel, literally
“from the midst of the sons of Israel,” suggests the act of selection and separation, even
induction. So 28.1 CEV has “They are the ones I have chosen from Israel.”
 This first verse serves as a “preview” or “superscription” to chapters 28 and 29. (See the
comment at 3.2a.) It refers to the entire act of establishing a priesthood, including the
consecration of the priests after the tabernacle is set up. As mentioned above, RSV’s use of
Then is misleading, for the command does not mean to call for Aaron … and his sons in order
to measure them for their vestments. 28.1 TEV uses two verbs for bring near in order to bring
out this fuller meaning: “Summon” and “Separate them from the people.” (Similarly also TOT.)

Aaron your brother may have to be translated as “your older brother” in some languages.
(See 7.7.) And his sons with them refers to the four who are named: Nadab and Abihu,
Eleazar and Ithamar. They are listed in the same order as in the genealogy (see 6.23), which
represents the order of their birth. To serve me as priests is literally “for him to priest to [or,
for] me,” where a verb form of “priest” is used. Durham has “to give priestly ministry to me,”
and ASV has “that he may minister unto me in the priest’s office.” 28.1 CEV stresses God’s
choosing by adding “my priests.” (See the comment on priest at 2.16.)

A possible alternative translation model for this verse is:

• The Lord commanded Moses, “Have them bring your older brother Aaron and his sons Nadab,
Abihu, Eleazar, and Ithamar here. They are the ones I have chosen from the people of Israel to
serve me as my priests.

28.2

And you shall make uses the singular you, but again it may be expressed as “Have them
make” or “Cause them to make.” Holy garments is literally “clothes of holiness.” This refers to
“sacred vestments” (28.2 NRSV), or in this case, “priestly garments” (28.2 TEV). Aaron your
brother is discussed at verse 1. He was to be the high priest, that is, the leader or chief of all
the other priests. For glory and for beauty uses two words that have a similar meaning. The
word for glory (kavod) has the basic meaning of “heavy,” but here it is used in the sense of
honor, or “dignity” (28.2 TEV). (See the comment at 14.4 and 16.7.) The word for beauty carries
the meaning of “grandeur” (REB) or “splendour” (TOT). 28.2 NRSV has “for the glorious
adornment of your brother Aaron.” It is possible to understand beauty as referring to the
garments, and glory referring to the “dignity” (28.2 TEV) of the high priest. 28.2 CEV thus
renders the verse as “Make Aaron some beautiful clothes that are worthy of a high priest.”

28.3

And you shall speak uses the emphatic you as in verse 1. This must be understood along
with the words that they make, which give the meaning of “tell them to make” (28.3 TEV). To
all who have ability is literally “unto all [who are] wise of heart.” The heart was considered to
be the seat of intelligence and skill. This probably refers to “skilled men” (28.3 NIV), or “expert
workmen” (NAB). The Hebrew, however, does not specify men to the exclusion of women. So
28.3 TEV’s revised edition has “all the skilled workers” in place of the original “all the
craftsmen.” Whom I have endowed with an able mind is literally “whom I have filled with a
spirit of wisdom.” This means, of course, “to whom I have given ability” (28.3 TEV), “whom I
have endowed with skill” (28.3 NRSV), or “persons who possess skills that I have given them”
(28.3 CEV).
 That they may make Aaron’s garments, literally “and they will make the clothes of Aaron,”
uses the same word for garments as verse 2. To consecrate him for my priesthood is literally
“to make him holy for him to priest to [or, for] me.” This is the same verb form of the word for
“priest” used in verse 1. (See the comment there.) The word for consecrate also means “to set
apart” or “dedicate.” (See the comment on consecrate at 13.1–2.) It seems that Moses was the
one to dedicate Aaron. So in some languages one may say “so that you may dedicate him as
high priest” or “so that they may set him apart to me as high priest.”

28.4

These are the garments points forward to the list that follows, though the order is not the
same throughout the chapter. Breast piece is a techni cal term for the square pouch worn over
the breast of the high priest, in which the Urim and Thummim were placed (see verse 30). Or
one may say, for exam ple, “the sacred pouch” (MFT) or “the sacred pouches [or, pock ets] over
the chest.” The breast piece is described in verses 15–30.

Ephod is a transliteration of the Hebrew word. There is no English equivalent, but it was
most likely a kind of “apron” (MFT, at) with shoulder straps. It is described in verses 6–14. (GECL
uses Amtsschurz [“apron of office,” or “of position”] for the breastpiece and Brusttasche
[“breast pocket”] for the ephod.)

The robe is described in verses 31–35. It evidently had holes for the arms as well as the
head, but it had no sleeves. It was worn over the coat or “tunic” described below, but under
the breastpiece and ephod. Other ways to express robe are “long cloth outer garment” or
“long coat.”

The coat of checker work is mentioned again in verse 39, but it is not otherwise described.
The word for coat is better rendered as “tunic,” for it was a common piece of clothing worn by
both men and women. It was usually ankle- length and was worn next to the skin, so 28.4 TEV’s
and CEV’s “embroidered shirt” is misleading. It probably had sleeves that provided the only
covering for the arms. The meaning of checker work is not certain. TAN has “fringed,” 28.4 NIV
has “woven,” NAB has “brocaded,” and 28.4 TEV has “embroidered.” If it was “a chequered
tunic” (REB, 28.4 NRSV), then it may have had a checked design formed either by different
colored threads or by a raised honeycomb weave. In any case many translators will say
something like “a tunic on which they have used different colored threads to sew an intricate
[or, beautiful] design.”

The word for turban comes from the verb meaning “to wrap or wind around.” It was the
headdress for the high priest and is described briefly in verse 39. Aaron’s sons were to wear a
different kind of headdress. (See the comment at verse 40.) Some languages may have a
general term for anything worn around the head. Others will have a specific term for turban. It
is also possible to use a descriptive phrase; for example, “a piece of cloth wrapped around the
head as a covering.”

MFT MOFFATT

GECL GERMAN COMMON LANGUAGE VERSION

 The girdle is better translated as “sash” (28.4 TEV). It is described in verse 39 only as
“embroidered,” but it was probably a long piece of cloth that was wrapped around the waist
several times over the tunic. In some languages it may be described as “a cloth belt” or
“waistband.”

They shall make holy garments is identical with verse 2, except that they is used instead
of “you.” To serve me as priests is identical with verse 1. (See the comment there on the
Hebrew verb form.)

28.5

They shall receive refers to “the craftsmen” mentioned in verse 3. Receive may mean that
they are to receive the materials directly from the people, but the word basically means “to
take.” Here it probably means “use,” as 28.5 TEV, 28.5 NRSV, 28.5 CEV, and others translate it.
Gold probably refers to “gold thread” (28.5 TEV). (See 39.3.) Blue and purple and scarlet stuff
refers to the same material used in the tabernacle fabric (26.1). These colors are discussed at
25.4, along with the improbability of making linen out of wool. Stuff is added since it is not in
the text. 28.5 NRSV has changed it to “yarns,” and 28.5 TEV has “wool,” but see the discussion at
25.4. Fine twined linen in this verse is just one word in the Hebrew, so it should be translated
simply as “fine linen” as in 25.4. However, the word “twisted” should be added in verse 6, as in
28.5 NRSV.

A possible alternative translation model for this verse is:

• The craftsmen must use only gold thread, along with blue, purple, and scarlet thread to weave
fine linen cloth.

(b) The Ephod (28.6–14)

(b) The ephod (28.6–14)

Section Heading: translators who follow this Handbook’s outline may either transliterate
the word “ephod” or translate its meaning; for example, “The priestly apron.”

28.6

And they shall make refers back to verse 5. Ephod transliterates the Hebrew word itself. It
is related to the verb meaning “to put on,” or “to gird tightly.” The ephod, with the definite
article, suggests that it was something well known. Most translations, however, prefer to use
the Hebrew word, since other references to ephod in the Bible seem to confuse rather than
clarify its meaning. The word is used in various passages with different meanings such as a
pagan idol, or an object that stands by itself, or simply a loin cloth. (See, for example, Judges
8.27; 17.5; 1 Sam 21.9; 2 Sam 6.14.) But in Exodus it is clearly described as something to be
worn by the high priest.

Of gold, of blue and purple and scarlet stuff repeats what is said in verse 5. And of fine
twined linen here uses the additional word for twined, or “twisted” (28.6 NRSV), but it is not
used in the Hebrew in verse 5. Here twined probably refers to the weaving process. Skillfully
worked is the same expression used in 26.1. (See the comment there.) Other possibilities are
 “decorated with embroidery” (28.6 TEV), “worked into designs” (TAN), and “artistically
designed” (TOT). 28.6 CEV suggests that the blue and purple and scarlet stuff was used to
weave the linen of the ephod, and the gold thread was used to embroider or “decorate” it.
This is a possible interpretation and may be helpful in languages where the distinction
between weave and embroider must be made.

A possible alternative translation model for this verse is:

• They are to make the ephod out of fine linen that they have skillfully woven with blue, purple,
and red thread, and embroidered with gold.

28.7

It shall have two shoulder-pieces attached is literally “two shoulders joined there shall be
to it.” From the description that follows, 28.7 TEV’s “shoulder straps” seems to be a better
translation.

To its two edges, that it may be joined together is rather difficult to understand. Literally
the Hebrew says “unto two of its ends and it is joined.” HOTTP recommends a different reading,
“on its two ends it shall be joined.” But this does not help to clarify just what the ephod looked
like.

It is necessary first to decide whether it was worn above or below the waist, and whether
it was worn in front or in back. Then one must decide whether its two edges refers to “the
sides,” (28.7 TEV), “its two upper ends” (NAB), “its corners” (28.7 NIV), or “at the front and at the
back” (TOT). Probably it was a kind of apron that covered both front and back from the waist
down, and the “shoulder straps” were like suspenders, attached either “to the sides” (28.7
TEV) or “at the front and at the back” (TOT).

28.8

And the skilfully woven band upon it is literally “and a waistband which [is] upon it.” The
word for “waistband” is related to the word translated as skilfully in describing the
embroidered cherubim woven into the tabernacle fabric. (See the comment at 26.1.) So it was
not to be just an ordinary band, but a “decorated band” (28.8 NRSV), an “embroidered belt”
(NAB), or “a finely woven belt” (28.8 TEV). To gird it on is the verb form of the word for ephod,
which means “to put on tightly.” (See the comment at verse 6.)

Shall be of the same workmanship and materials is literally “it shall be like its work from
it.” This means that the “belt” is to be “made in the same way” as the ephod, and it may also
mean that it is to be, as 28.8 TEV expresses it, “made of the same materials.” One may make
this more explicit by saying “made of the same materials as the ephod.” 28.8 RSV and 28.8 NRSV
choose both meanings, but others take the words “from it” to mean “so as to form one piece
with it” (28.8 TEV). (Similarly also TAN, NJB, and 28.8 NIV.) This means that the “belt” was to be

HOTTP HEBREW OLD TESTAMENT TEXT PROJECT

 permanently “attached to the ephod” (28.8 TEV), possibly like the waistband of an apron that is
tied around the waist.

Of gold, blue and purple and scarlet stuff is identical with the same phrase in verse 6. (But
see the comment at 25.4 for the colors, and at 26.1 for the materials.) And fine twined linen is
literally “and fine linen twisted,” as in verse 6. Since this repeats what is already said of the
material for the ephod, 28.8 TEV simply omits it.

An alternative translation model for verses 6–8 is:

• 6 You must have them make the ephod out of fine linen that they have skillfully woven with
blue, purple, and red thread, and decorated with gold. 7 Have them make two shoulder straps
to hold the ephod up. They shall attach these to the sides [or, at the front and back] of the
ephod. 8 They must skillfully weave a belt [or, sash] out of the same materials and attach it to
the front of the ephod so as to form one piece with it.

28.9–10

And you shall take, with singular you, uses the same word as verse 5 (“they shall receive”).
Two onyx stones refers to two cut stones, polished as gems, from onyx, a valuable kind of
quartz with milky-white bands alternating with black or another color. So one may translate “a
precious stone named ‘onyx,’ ” or possibly “a precious stone of many colors named ‘onyx.’ ”
(See the comment on onyx at verses 19–20.) And engrave on them means to write or inscribe
on the polished stones by cutting into them with a sharp object. So one may also translate the
first part of this verse as “have a skilled workman take two precious stones called ‘onyx,’ and
use a sharp instrument to write [or, cut] … .” The names of the sons of Israel refers to “the
twelve sons of Jacob” (28.10 TEV). (They are listed at Gen 35.23-26.)

Six of their names on the one stone would be the names of the six oldest sons. And the
names of the remaining six is literally “and the names of the six left over ones.” On the other
stone is literally “on the second stone.” This may be condensed, as 28.10 TEV has done,
without losing any meaning: “with six on one stone and six on the other.” In the order of their
birth, literally “as their generations,” means “following the order in which they were born”
(Durham).

28.11

As a jeweler engraves signets is literally “work of a craftsman of stone, engravings of a

seal.” So this kind of “jeweler” would be “a gem-cutter” (28.11 NRSV). TAN uses the more
technical term “lapidary.” Signets are specially cut seals or symbols often set in signet rings.
The phrase “engravings of a seal” may be read with what follows, shall you engrave the two
stones. (The word so is supplied.) This gives the meaning “On the two stones you shall make
seal engravings—the work of a lapidary” (TAN). But the difference in meaning is not significant.
28.11 TEV simply says “Have a skillful jeweler engrave on the two stones,” or one may say
“Have a skilled worker take a sharp instrument and write [or, cut] the names.”

With the names of the sons of Israel repeats what is said in verse 9. You shall enclose
them in settings of gold filigree is literally “encircled [in] settings of gold you [singular] shall
 make them.” The idea of filigree comes from the root meaning of settings, which is “to weave
in patterns.” They were ornamental frames made with fine gold wires, possibly in the form of
“rosettes” (REB), that is, in the shape of roses. Since this is not explicit, some translations have
just “gold settings” (28.11 TEV). 28.11 CEV has “Put … in gold settings.” However, “put them into
gold frames” is another possible rendering. (Similarly also TAN, NJB, and REB.)

28.12

And you shall set the two stones uses the singular you. The word for set means to put or
place, but here it probably means “fasten” (NIV, REB) or “attach” (TAN). Upon the shoulder-
pieces of the ephod refers to the “shoulder straps” (28.12 TEV) mentioned in verse 7.

As stones of remembrance for the sons of Israel is literally “stones of a reminder to [or,
for] the sons of Israel.” But the meaning is not clear. Stones of remembrance may be
understood as “memorial stones” (NIV, NAB), “reminders” (REB), “stones to call to mind”
(Durham), or even “to represent” (28.12 TEV). The sons of Israel may mean either “the Israelite
people” (TAN) or “the twelve tribes of Israel” (28.12 TEV). And it is not clear who is to be
reminded, whether it is Aaron, or the Israelites, or “the Lord” (28.12 TEV). The rest of the verse
must be considered before translating.

And Aaron shall bear their names before the Lord is literally “and Aaron shall lift [or,
raise] their names to the face of Yahweh.” Upon his two shoulders is the same word used for
shoulder-pieces, but here it refers to Aaron’s shoulders. So the meaning of bear or “carry”
(TEV, CEV) is clear. For remembrance is literally “for a reminder.” Most translations preserve the
ambiguity of who is to be reminded, but 28.12 TEV makes a choice: “so that I, the Lord, will
always remember my people.” TOT has “to remind the Lord of them.” Although this seems to
be the meaning, the ambiguity may be intentional and may be preserved if a translator so
wishes.

It is possible to restructure and combine verses 9–12 as follows:

• 9–12 Have them take two onyx stones and place them in gold frames. Then attach these to the
shoulder straps of the ephod. On one of these stones have a skilled workman engrave the
names of Israel’s first six sons in the order of their birth. And have him also engrave the names
of Israel’s other six sons on the second stone. In this way Aaron will always carry the names of
the twelve tribes of Israel on his shoulder, so that I, the Lord, will never forget my people.

28.13–14

And you shall make settings of gold filigree probably refers to two additional settings to
which the two chains of pure gold were to be fastened. 28.14 TEV and 28.14 CEV make this
clear—“two gold settings”—even though “two” is not in the text. The words are identical with
verse 11. (Filigree is discussed there.) Two chains of pure gold were probably not to be link
chains, since they were to be twisted like cords. This is literally “cords you [singular] shall
make them [of] twisted work.” The word for twisted may also mean “braided” (28.14 NIV). TAN
has “Braid these like corded work.”
 And you shall attach the corded chains to the settings is literally “and you [singular] shall
put the twisted cords upon the settings.” The word for attach usually means to give, or to put
or place, but the context suggests the meaning of “fasten” or “fix.” The settings, of course,
would have to be fastened to the shoulder straps, as verse 25 seems to make clear. (See the
comment there.) The Hebrew text does not make this explicit, but the Septuagint does.
Translators may also wish to make this clear.

An alternative translation model for verses 13 and 14 is:

• Have them make two more gold settings and attach them to the shoulder straps, one to each
strap.

Then have them make two gold cords that they have braided [or, twisted] like rope, and
fasten the cords to the gold settings.

(c) The Breastpiece (28.15–30)

(c) The breastpiece (28.15–30)

Section Heading: both 28.14 TEV and the Handbook have “The breastpiece,” but CEV’s
heading adds information that will be helpful for many translators, “The Breastpiece for the
High Priest.” (See the comment on “breastpiece” below.)

28.15

And you shall make uses the singular you, and again it may be helpful for many translators
to begin a new section as follows: “The Lord said to Moses, “Have them make … .’ ” A
breastpiece of judgment should not be understood as a “breastplate” (28.15 KJV) or piece of
armor. The meaning of the word for breastpiece is uncertain. It was a kind of covering for the
chest, which was worn by the high priest (verses 4, 29). It was made from a piece of square
cloth and formed into a pouch in which were kept “the Urim and the Thummim” (verse 30).
The word for judgment (mishpat) here refers to its use “in determining God’s will” (28.15 TEV).
(See the comment on mishpat in the introduction to 20.22–26). Other possible translations are
“pouch of judgment” (TOT), “judicial pouch” (MFT), “breastpiece of decision” (TAN, NAB), and
“breastpiece for making decisions” (28.15 NIV). 28.15 CEV has “breastpiece for the high priest to
use in learning what I want my people to do.”

In skilled work is identical with “skilfully worked” in verse 6 and 26.1. (See the comment
there.) Like the work of the ephod you shall make it (literally “an ephod,” without the definite
article), may refer either to the workmanship or to the material of the ephod. Probably both
meanings are intended. 28.15 NRSV has “in the style of the ephod”; 28.15 TEV has “of the same
materials as the ephod”; and 28.15 CEV has “From the same costly material.” (See the
comment at verse 8.)

Of gold, blue and purple and scarlet stuff is identical with the phrase in verse 6. The word
stuff is not in the Hebrew. And fine twined linen is also identical with verse 6, literally “and
fine linen twisted.” (See the comment on the colors at 25.4, and on the materials at 26.1.) You
shall make it simply repeats the first part of the verse.
 28.16

It shall be square and double is literal, but the word for double also means “folded
double” (TEV, CEV). It is not clear here whether it was to be square and then “folded double”
(28.16 NIV), or whether it was to be “square when folded double” (REB). Most probably it was
“folded double to make a square bag” (TOT). This is made a bit clearer in 39.9. (See the
comment there.)

A span its length and a span its breadth is about “9 inches long and 9 inches wide” (28.16
TEV), or “nine inches square” (28.16 CEV), or “22 centimetres square.” The span represents the
distance from the tip of the thumb to the tip of the little finger when the fingers are stretched
wide.

A possible alternative translation model for this verse is:

• They shall fold it double and make it nine inches square.

28.17–18

And you shall set it in four rows of stones is literally “And you [singular] shall fill in it a
filling of stones, four rows of stones.” The word for “fill” here means to set, to “mount” (28.18
TEV), or to “arrange” (REB). It is not necessary to repeat the words as ASV has done, “And thou
shalt set in it settings of stones, four rows of stones.” 28.18 TEV is clearer: “Mount four rows of
precious stones on it.” The word for rows suggests they were to be arranged horizontally,
three stones to a row, as shown in the illustration.

Twelve different kinds of “precious stones” are listed in verses 17–20. It is impossible to
identify them with cer tainty. The chart on page 660 shows the variety of interpretations in ten
leading English translations, listed according to the year of their copyright. Care should be
taken to follow the general consensus of scholarship. In some cases the choice may have to be
made on the basis of what stones are known in the transla tor’s culture. In other cases it may
be necessary to transliterate a well-known term in either English or a national language. One
may say “a stone called sardius,” or “a stone called topaz.” (Translators will be helped by the
article on “Jewels” in The International Dictio nary of the Bible, volume 2, pages 898–905, and
especially the chart on page 902.

Sardius (sard, or sardin) is a transpar ent reddish stone, a bit darker than carnelian. The
Hebrew word suggests the meaning of “redness.” The “ruby” (28.18 TEV), though well known
today, was probably not known in the ancient Near East, for no samples have been found in
any of the excavated sites.

Topaz is a translucent stone, usually yellow or brownish yellow. Some scholars equate it
with chrysolite, which usually is olive greenish in color. The Hebrew word does not suggest any
color, but the Septuagint translates it as topazion.

Carbuncle is an archaic word for any one of several red precious stones. “Garnet” (28.18
TEV) is a translucent dark reddish brown stone. But the Septuagint identifies it as green beryl,
possibly emerald.
 Emerald is a rich green stone, a superior quality of beryl. Some scholars have suggested
the Hebrew word refers to malachite, which is green, or turquoise, and usually a bluish green.
The Hebrew word gives no indication as to color.

Sapphire is the only one of the twelve stones on which there is general agreement in the
eight translations listed. But it is an extremely hard stone, making it difficult for engraving.
Some have suggested it could have been lapis lazuli. The color, however, was probably an
azure blue. (See the comment at 24.10.)

The word for diamond has the root meaning to strike or hammer, suggesting hardness.
The Septuagint suggests jasper, a stone widely used for engraving in the ancient world. Many
scholars believe this is what is intended here, but then this conflicts with the last stone in the
fourth row. The color may have been clear.

28.19–20

Jacinth is a reddish-orange stone, quite different from the bluish-green “turquoise” in

28.20 TEV, REB, and TOT. The hyacinth (NJB) is similar in color but not as bright as the jacinth. The
Hebrew word, found only here and in 39.12, offers no help.

The agate is a translucent quartz with white and brown concentric bands. There is general
agreement that this is the meaning of the Hebrew word, but this word also is found only here
and in 39.12.

The amethyst is a deep purple quartz frequently used in beads in ancient Egypt and
Palestine. Some believe the Hebrew word, found only here and in 39.12, is related to the
Egyptian word for red or brown jasper.

Beryl is usually sea-green or bluish-green in color, but it may also be yellow or pink. The
emerald is a superior kind of beryl. The word used in the Septuagint suggests that it was a
yellow stone, possibly yellow jasper or yellow topaz, like chrysolite.

Onyx is the same stone mentioned in verse 9, two of which were to be attached to the
shoulder straps of the ephod. (See also 25.7.) Onyx is the traditional translation of the Hebrew
word, but scholars today are divided as to whether it refers to the onyx or the “carnelian”
(28.20 TEV), which is a red stone. TAN identifies this as lapis lazuli.

Jasper is usually a greenish-colored stone.

They shall be set in gold filigree is literally “they shall be woven [in] gold in their settings.”
The word for “woven” is the basis for filigree, as explained at verse 11, and the word for
“settings” comes from a word meaning “to fill.” It refers to the frame or bed into which a jewel
is mounted. (The same word is used in 25.7.)

PRECIOUS STONES FOR THE BREASTPIECE OF THE HIGH PRIEST

Row 1 ‘odem pitedah bareqeth

(verse 17)
28.20 RSV sardius topaz carbuncle

NAB carnelian topaz emerald

NEB sardin chrysolite green feldspar

28.20 TEV ruby topaz garnet

28.20 NIV ruby topaz beryl

TAN carnelian chrysolite emerald

NJB sard topaz emerald

REB sardin chrysolite green feldspar

28.20 carnelian chrysolite emerald

NRSV

28.20 CEV carnelian chrysolite emerald

Row 2 nofek sappir yahalom

(verse 18)

28.20 RSV emerald sapphire diamond

NAB garnet sapphire beryl

NEB purple garnet lapis lazuli jade

28.20 TEV emerald sapphire diamond

28.20 NIV turquoise sapphire emerald

TAN turquoise sapphire amethyst

NJB garnet sapphire diamond

REB purple garnet sapphire jade

28.20 turquoise sapphire moonstone

NRSV

28.20 CEV turquoise sapphire diamond

Row 3 leshem shevo ‘achelamah

(verse 19)

NEB NEW ENGLISH BIBLE

28.20 RSV jacinth agate amethyst

NAB jacinth agate amethyst

NEB turquoise agate jasper

28.20 TEV turquoise agate amethyst

28.20 NIV jacinth agate amethyst

358

TAN jacinth agate crystal

NJB hyacinth ruby amethyst

REB turquoise agate jasper

28.20 NRSV jacinth agate amethyst

28.20 CEV jacinth agate amethyst

Row 4 tarshis shoham yashefeh

(verse20)

28.20 RSV beryl onyx jasper

NAB chrysolite onyx jasper

NEB topaz carnelian green jasper

358Osborn, N. D., & Hatton, H. (1999). A handbook on Exodus. UBS handbook series; Helps for
translators (629). New York: United Bible Societies.

TAN TANAKH (NEW JEWISH VERSION)

NJB NEW JERUSALEM BIBLE

REB REVISED ENGLISH BIBLE

NRSV New Revised Standard Version

CEV Contemporary English Version

RSV Revised Standard Version

NAB NEW AMERICAN BIBLE

NEB NEW ENGLISH BIBLE

 28.20 TEV beryl carnelian jasper

28.20 NIV chrysolite onyx jasper

TAN beryl lazpis lazuli jasper

NJB beryl carnelian jasper

REB topaz carnelian jgreen asper

28.20 NRSV beryl onyx jasper

28.20 CEV beryl onyx jasper

28.21

The word order of the first clause is different in the Hebrew. Literally it says “And the
stones shall be according to the names of the sons of Israel, twelve, according to their names.”
The focus is on twelve stones, one for each of the names of the sons of Israel. The sons of
Israel often refers to all the Israelites. So 28.21 TEV has “sons of Jacob,” to be more precise.

They shall be like signets is literally “they shall be engravings of a seal.” The same
expression is used in verse 11. (See the comment there.) The word like is understood. The
meaning is that each stone “is to have engraved on it the name of one of the sons of Jacob”
(28.21 TEV). For the twelve tribes means “to represent the tribes of Israel” (28.21 TEV). This, of
course, does not account for the fact that the usual listing of the twelve tribes included
Ephraim and Manasseh, the two sons of Joseph, in place of Joseph and Levi. 28.21 CEV has “on
each of them the name of one of the twelve tribes of Israel,” omitting the phrase of the sons
of Israel. In languages that do not have the passive voice, one may express this verse as “Have
them engrave on these twelve stones the name of one of the sons of Jacob [or, one of the
tribes of Israel], a different name for each stone.”

28.22–23

And you shall make still has the singular you. For the breastpiece is literally “on the
breastpiece” (TAN). Twisted chains like cords is literally “chains of twisting, work of a cord.”
This description is almost identical with the “chains” of the ephod in verse 14, and some
scholars believe that this verse is simply referring to the same “two chains.” (see verse 25.)
This certainly makes the most sense in translation. (See also the illustration on page 658.) Of
pure gold is also like verse 14 but should probably be advanced in the sentence: “chains of
pure gold, twisted like cords” (28.23 TEV) or “braided chains of pure gold, like a rope” (28.23
NIV).

TEV Today’s English Version

NIV NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION

 And you shall make for the breastpiece is exactly like verse 22. Two rings of gold uses the
same word for rings as for the carrying poles of the ark (25.23) and the table (25.26), but they
would have been much smaller for the breast piece. And put the two rings uses the same
word for put as the word for “attach” in verse 14. The word for edges is the same word used in
verse 7, so it is not clear whether this means edges, or “ends” (TAN), or “corners” (28.23 NIV).
Probably it refers to “the two upper corners of the breastpiece” (28.23 TEV) or “the upper front
corners of the breastpiece” (28.23 CEV), since the rings will be used to fasten it to the shoulder
straps of the ephod (verse 25). Verse 27 speaks about two more rings that will be attached to
the lower corners.

28.24–25

And you shall put is the same word as in verse 23. It is not clear whether it means to put …
in or to “fasten … to” (28.25 TEV), whether the cords are to be slipped through the rings or tied
to them in some way. The two cords of gold refers to “the two gold cords” (28.25 TEV) of verse
22, which may be the same “two chains” of verse 14. The two rings at the edges of the
breastpiece are described in verse 23. In the two rings is literally “on the two rings”; it does
not indicate how the cords are to be attached. Translators should probably keep this
information implicit.

The two ends of the two cords uses the same word for end that is used for the edges of
the breastpiece. (See also verse 24.) Since each of the two cords had two ends, it is not clear
whether this refers to the four ends of both cords or whether it means “the other two ends”
(28.25 TEV). This depends on whether the cords are to be tied to the two rings or simply
passed through them. 28.25 RSV and 28.25 NRSV allow for the latter interpretation, but most
translations favor the former.

You shall attach to the two settings of filigree is literally “you [singular] will put upon the
two settings.” Of filigree is only implied from the word for settings, as explained at verse 11.
Here 28.25 RSV understandably translates “put” as attach, even though it has put for the two
rings in verse 24.

The two settings refers to those mentioned in verse 13, which were already attached to
the shoulder-pieces of the ephod.

And so attach it in front to the shoulder-pieces of the ephod is literally “and you [singular]
shall put [it? them?] upon the shoulders of the ephod unto the front of its face.” This suggests
that the settings (verse 13) were already fastened to the “shoulder straps” (28.25 TEV) at the
front. The it is not specified in the Hebrew, so it can refer either to the breastpiece or to the
two ends of the two cords. 28.25 TEV has “attach them,” which is the interpretation of most
translations. REB has “thus binding the breastpiece to the shoulder-pieces.”

If translators feel that the two braided gold chains are the same ones as in verse 14, and
this is very likely, it is possible to reorder the clauses in 22–25 and restructure as follows:

• 22–25 Have them make two gold rings and attach them to the upper front edges [or, corners]
of the breastpiece and fasten them with two braided gold chains to the gold settings on the
shoulder straps of the ephod.
 28.26–27

And you shall make two rings of gold is identical with verse 23. And put them at the two
ends of the breastpiece is similar to verse 23, but the word for put is the same word
translated as “set” in verse 12. Here, as there, it means to “attach” (28.27 TEV), or “fasten”
(TOT). The same word for ends is used as in verse 7, where 28.27 RSV translates “edges.” In
verse 23 it evidently refers to the “upper corners of the breastpiece” (28.27 TEV), so here it
obviously refers to “the lower corners … on the inside edge” (28.27 TEV).

On its inside edge next to the ephod is literally “upon its lip which [is] unto the side of the
ephod interior.” The word for edge (“lip”) was used for the edge of the tabernacle fabric in
26.4. The word for “side” means one of two sides, so here it means the inside edge. 28.27 CEV
has “lower inside corners next to the vest.”

And you shall make two rings of gold is identical with verse 26, but since these are two
additional rings, 28.27 TEV has “Make two more gold rings.” And attach them in front is
literally “and you [singular] shall give them from beneath.” The same word for attach is
explained at verse 14. To the lower part, literally “from the front of its face,” refers to the two
shoulder-pieces of the ephod. When we put this all together, it means “attach them to the
lower part of the front of the two shoulder straps of the ephod” (28.27 TEV), or “near the
bottom of the shoulder straps” (28.27 CEV).

At its joining, literally “close to its joining,” is not clear. It may refer to “the seam” (28.27
TEV) of the ephod, but more likely it refers to where the “shoulder straps” were to be joined to
the ephod. NAB has “next to where they join the ephod.” (Similarly also TOT.) This was probably
where the ephod had a “seam” (28.27 TEV). Above the skilfully woven band of the ephod
therefore means that these two rings were to be fastened to the “shoulder straps” at a point
just above “the finely woven belt” (verse 8), which is at the upper edge, or “seam,” of the
ephod, where the straps were to be fastened to it.

An alternative translation model combining verses 26 and 27 is:

• 26–27 Have them make four more gold rings and attach two of them to the lower inside
corners of the breastpiece next to the ephod. Then attach the other two near the bottom of
the shoulder straps near the place where the ephod is joined to the skillfully woven sash.

28.28

And they shall bind the breastpiece is changed in 28.28 TEV to second person singular,
“[You] Tie” (28.28 TEV). Other translations change to the passive voice, “The breastpiece shall
be bound” (28.28 NRSV). However, in languages that do not have the passive voice, it will be
more natural style to say, for example, “You shall tie …” or “Have them tie … .” By its rings is
literally “from its rings,” so to the rings of the ephod therefore means, as in 28.28 TEV, that
“the rings of the breastpiece” and “the rings of the ephod” are to be tied together.

TOT TRANSLATOR’S OLD TESTAMENT

 With a lace of blue is literally “by a cord of purple.” The word for lace is derived from the
verb meaning to twist, so it has been variously translated as “thread” (TOT), “braid” (REB), and
“ribbons” (NAB). The word for blue is more accurately translated as “violet-purple” in NJB. (See
the comment at 25.4.) The material is not mentioned, but if necessary in translation, it may be
thought of as wool yarn, as in 25.4. Durham has “a twisted cord of violet yarn,” and 28.28 CEV
has “a blue cord.”

That it may lie upon the skillfully woven band of the ephod is literally “to be upon [or,
above] the waistband of the ephod.” If it is clear to the reader that this is the band mentioned
in verse 27, then it is not necessary to repeat skillfully woven again. (See the comment at
verse 8.) 28.28 TEV simply has “so that the breast piece rests above the belt.”

And that the breastpiece shall not come loose from the ephod uses a verb meaning “to
come loose” or “to get out of place.” Durham has “not fall forward from the Ephod,” and 28.28
NIV has “will not swing out from the ephod.” 28.28 TEV simply has “does not come loose,”
without repeating the ephod. 28.28 CEV has “This will keep the breastpiece in place.”

28.29

So Aaron shall bear is literally “and Aaron will carry [or, lift].” The names of the sons of
Israel is exactly what the Hebrew says. This refers to the names to be inscribed on the twelve
stones mounted on the breastpiece of judgment. (See the comment at verse 15.) Verse 21
allows for either the names of the sons of Israel (Jacob) or the names of the “tribes” (28.29
TEV), which were not necessarily the same. (See the comment there.) 28.29 TEV and 28.29 CEV
interpret this as “the names of the tribes of Israel,” and ASV as “the children of Israel.”

A symbolic meaning is intended here, for these names will actually be worn upon his
heart, that is, over the heart of Aaron, who is to represent “the tribes of Israel” as high priest
in Yahweh’s presence. This phrase is repeated two more times in verse 30 in reference to the
Urim and the Thummim, but 28.29 TEV unfortunately omits it entirely, evidently interpreting
the heart as referring only to the mind, for remembering. Translators are urged to keep this
symbolic meaning here. In a number of languages it will be necessary to have two sentences:
“So whenever Aaron enters the holy place, he will wear the breastpiece on which they have
engraved the names of the twelve tribes of Israel. It will be over his heart.”

When he goes into the holy place is literally “in his entering unto the holy [place].” The
participle “in his entering” suggests repeated action, so “Whenever Aaron enters” is better. It
does not suggest, however, that the breastpiece is to be worn only when he enters “the Holy
Place” (28.29 TEV). (For keeping the identity of the holy place clear, see the comment at 26.33.)
To bring them to continual remembrance before the Lord is literally “for a reminder to the
face of Yahweh continually.” Since Yahweh is speaking, 28.29 TEV has “so that I, the Lord, will
always remember my people,” or “and I will never forget my people” (28.29 CEV). (See the
comment at verse 12.)

28.30

ASV AMERICAN STANDARD VERSION

 And in the breastpiece of judgment you shall put is literally “And you [singular] shall give
unto the breastpiece of judgment.” The same word, meaning to give, is used in verse 14 for
“attach,” and in verses 23–24 for “put.” NJB has “you will add,” but the idea is probably to
insert, since the breastpiece was probably to be made like a pouch (verse 16).

The Urim and the Thummim is a transliteration of the Hebrew, with the plural form -im.
The exact meaning of these terms is not known. They were probably objects of some sort used
by the priest to determine God’s will. MFT has “the sacred lots” (similarly GECL), but most
translations retain the Hebrew words. If they are retained, a footnote similar to that in 28.30
TEV should be included explaining their probable meaning.

And they shall be refers to the Urim and the Thummim, each term probably understood
as plural. Upon Aaron’s heart is discussed at verse 29. 28.30 TEV changes this to “so that Aaron
will carry them.” When he goes in before the Lord is identical with verse 29.

Thus Aaron shall bear the judgment of the Israelites is literally “and Aaron will carry the
judgment of the sons of Israel.” The same word for bear is used in verse 29. Since
“breastpiece” (28.30 TEV) is not mentioned here, the judgment (mishpat) seems to refer to the
Urim and the Thummim. So TAN has “Thus Aaron shall carry the instrument of decision for the
Israelites,” and 28.30 NIV has “Thus Aaron will always bear the means of making decisions for
the Israelites.” 28.30 CEV has “He must also wear on his breastpiece the two small objects that
he uses to receive answers from me.” Upon his heart and before the Lord continually are
identical with verse 29.

A possible alternative translation model for this verse is:

• Have them put the Urim and Thummim in the breastpiece [or, sacred pouch], so that Aaron
will always carry them over his heart when he comes in before me. He will use these to
determine my will for the people of Israel.

(d) The Robe (28.31–35)

(d) The robe (28.31–35)

Section Heading: 28.30 TEV has the heading “The Other Priestly Garments” for 28.31–39,
and 28.30 CEV has a similar heading, “The Other High-Priestly Clothes.” The Handbook’s
heading, “The robe,” is for the subsection 28.31–35. One may expand this with “The robe for
the high priest.”

28.31–32

And you shall make continues to use you singular, and again the translator may expand
this opening sentence as follows: “The Lord said to Moses, “Have them make …’ ” or “The Lord

MFT MOFFATT

GECL GERMAN COMMON LANGUAGE VERSION

 commanded Moses, … .” The robe of the ephod is what the Hebrew says, but the context
indicates that the robe was a separate piece of clothing, so 28.32 TEV is correct with “The robe
that goes under the ephod.” 28.32 CEV similarly has “Under his vest Aaron must wear a robe …
.” The word for robe refers to a coat or mantle without sleeves. (See the comment at 28.4.) All
of blue uses the word meaning “violet-purple” (NJB). (See.) The kind of material is not
indicated, but 28.32 TEV has “blue wool,” Durham has “violet yarn,” and REB has “violet stuff.”
NIV’s “blue cloth” may be the easiest solution.

It shall have in it an opening for the head is literally “and a mouth of its head shall be in its
midst.” The “mouth,” of course, refers to an opening, or “a hole” (28.32 TEV), and “its head” is
better rendered as the head, meaning the head of whoever wears the robe, in this case Aaron.
So one may translate “his head” (28.32 CEV). 28.32 NRSV has now added “in the middle of it,” a
phrase that 28.32 RSV and 28.32 TEV either missed or considered unnecessary. 28.32 CEV
correctly has “with an opening in the center for his head.”

With a woven binding around the opening is literally “a lip shall be around its mouth,
work of a weaver.” As in verse 26, the “lip” means the “edge” (28.32 NIV) or binding of the
opening, and “work of a weaver” means “woven work” (TAN). This means a “woven
reinforcement” (Durham), or “woven binding” (28.32 TEV). NAB has “selvage,” NJB has “border,”
and REB has “hem.”

Like the opening in a garment, literally “it shall be like the mouth of a tachratachra’rs;,”
uses a rare word that may have referred to the leather edge of a “coat of mail” (28.32 NRSV,
TAN, NJB). (See the 28.32 RSV footnote.) TOT and MFT translate it as “a linen corselet,” and REB
has “an oversewn edge.” Note that 28.32 TEV omits this phrase entirely without actually losing
any significant meaning. This may be the easiest solution, since the meaning of
tachratachra’rs; is not known. That it may not be torn, literally “it will not be torn,” explains
that the purpose of the tachratachra’rs; was to reinforce the “hole for the head” (28.32 TEV).
Nothing is said about holes for the arms, so this may either be assumed, or the robe may have
had no arm holes, as is true of a Mexican pancho.

An alternative translation model for verses 31–32 is:

• 31 The Lord commanded Moses, “Have them make a robe [or, long coat] for Aaron to wear
under the ephod. They shall make it entirely out of blue wool [or, sheep’s hair dyed
violet-purple]. 32 It must have an opening in the center for his head. They must sew a special
edging around the opening to keep the cloth from tearing.

28.33–34

On its skirts refers to the “lower hem” (28.34 TEV) of the robe, using the plural form to
suggest a flowing skirt. You shall make is the same as in previous verses, but here it refers to
special needle work. So one may say “Have them sew pictures [or, likenesses] of
pomegranates.” Pomegranates are the fruit of a small tree of the same name found in west
Asia and north Africa. They are red and shiny and juicy, about the size of a small apple. In the
 ancient Near East the tree was symbolic of fertility and long life. The description in FFB, with an
illustration, is on pages 168–170. In cultures where pomegranates are unknown, one may
borrow the term from English or use a locally known fruit with many seeds and similar in size,
shape, and color to the pomegranate. It will also be helpful to have a note in the Glossary
describing pomegranates.

Of blue and purple and scarlet stuff describes the colors to be used in forming the
pomegranates, but it does not indicate the material. (The colors are discussed at 25.4 and the
possible materials at 26.1.) Stuff is not in the Hebrew. 28.34 TEV has “wool,” and other
translations have “yarn” (NAB, 28.34 NIV, 28.34 NRSV). Some follow the Septuagint (NJB, NAB) and
add the phrase “and fine twisted linen,” but this is not in the MT. Around its skirts emphasizes
that these pomegranates are to be “all around its lower hem” (28.34 TEV).

With bells of gold between them is literally “and [small] bells of gold in their midst
around.” Unlike the pomegranates, they were to be real bells of gold so that they would be
heard when Aaron would move (verse 35). A golden bell and a pomegranate is repeated, to
suggest that they were to be placed alternately, round about on the skirts of the robe. 28.34
TEV has condensed all of verses 33–34 into one short sentence, “All around its lower hem put
pomegranates of blue, purple, and red wool, alternating with gold bells.” However, 28.34 TEV
doesn’t make it clear that the pomegranates were woven or sewn into the hem while the gold
bells were attached in some other way. CEV’s rendering is also unclear. To make this point clear
one may express the two verses as follows:

• 33–34 Along the lower hem of the robe have them weave [or, sew] pomegranates, using blue,
purple, and red thread. Also have them attach a gold bell between each pomegranate.

28.35

And it shall be upon Aaron means, as 28.35 TEV has it, that “Aaron is to wear this robe.”
When he ministers is literally “to serve.” The word always refers to a high form of service and
is often used for the official services of a priest. (see verse 43.) Here it refers to the prescribed
duties of the high priest inside the tabernacle. And its sound shall be heard refers to “the
sound of the bells.” When he goes into the holy place is literally “in his entering unto the holy
[place].” (See the comment at 26.33.) Before the Lord is literally “to the face of Yahweh.” Since
Yahweh is the speaker, 28.35 TEV changes to “when he comes into my presence.” And when he
comes out is literally “and in his exiting.”

Lest he die, literally “and he will not die,” probably means “so that he will not die” (28.35
NIV). Some scholars suggest that the “sound of the bells” (28.35 TEV) was necessary to frighten
away demons, while others say it was to signal to the priests and the people outside that the
high priest was actually performing the sacred rituals. It is also possible that the phrase, lest he
die, refers not only to the “sound of the bells,” but also to the need for wearing the robe
“when he serves as priest” (28.35 TEV and similarly CEV).

FFB FAUNA AND FLORA OF THE BIBLE

MT MASORETIC TEXT
(e) The Turban and Tunic (28.36–39)
(e) The turban and tunic (28.36–39)

Section Heading: for translators who are following the Handbook’s subdivisions of this
chapter, the heading “The turban and tunic” will not be difficult to translate. Another model is
“Aaron’s turban and tunic.”

28.36

And you shall make is the same as in previous verses. A plate of pure gold is literally “a
flower of pure gold.” It is not clear what the shape of this “flower” was, so there have been
various proposals: “ornament” (28.36 TEV), “rosette” (28.36 NRSV), “medallion” (REB), “frontlet”
(TAN), and “shining tablet” (TOT). It may have been identical with what is called “the holy
crown” in 29.6, but more likely it was made separately and then attached to the “crown” as a
part of it. One Jewish tradition has described this plate as a gold band two finger-breadths in
width that extended around the “turban” (verse 37) from one ear to the other. So 28.36 CEV
has “a narrow strip of pure gold.” One may also say “a thin piece of pure gold.” (See 39.30,
where the text speaks of “the plate of the holy crown.”)

And engrave on it, literally “and you [singular] shall engrave on it,” is the same word used
in 28.9. Like the engraving of a signet is literally “engravings of a seal,” identical with verse 11.
(See the comment there.) The word like is added to clarify that this describes how the
engraving is to be done, not what is to be engraved. “Holy to the Lord” is what is to be
inscribed on the plate. Note the quotation marks. The Hebrew is qodesh laYahweh, which may
also mean “Set apart for Yahweh” (Durham), “Consecrated to Yahweh” (NJB), or “Dedicated to
the Lord” (TEV, CEV).

28.37–38

And you shall fasten it uses the word meaning “to place,” as in verse 12. It may also mean
“Tie it” (28.38 TEV), or “Suspend it” (TAN). It is quite likely that you here means that Moses
himself is to do the fastening. On the turban is literally “it shall be on the turban.” This
headdress is mentioned in verse 4, but it is not described until verse 39. (See the comment at
both verses.) By a lace of blue is literally “on a violet-purple cord” (NJB), so TAN has “Suspend it
on a cord of blue,” and 28.38 TEV and 28.38 CEV have “with a blue cord.” “With a lace of blue”
is mentioned in verse 28. (See the comment there.)

It shall be on the front of the turban is literally “and it shall be on the turban, unto the
front of the face of the turban it shall be.” The repetition is unnecessary in translation. 28.38
TEV condenses it further, “Tie it to the front of the turban with a blue cord,” and 28.38 CEV has
“Fasten it to the front of Aaron’s turban with a blue cord.” In some languages this will be
expressed as “and take a blue cord and fasten it [the gold plate] to the front of Aaron’s
turban.”

It shall be upon Aaron’s forehead means that “Aaron is to wear it on his forehead” or “so
he can wear it on his forehead” (28.38 CEV). One may also take the word always later in the
verse and put it here; for example, “so he can always wear it.” And Aaron shall take upon
 himself is literally “and Aaron shall carry,” using the same word as verse 29. What he is to
“bear” (REB) is any guilt incurred in the holy offering. Literally the Hebrew says “the guilt of
the holy things.” The idea of any comes from the later phrase, “for all of their holy things.” This
refers to “any faults in the sacred offerings” (TOT), or “some error in offering them” (28.38 TEV),
that may be committed accidentally, either by “the people” (28.38 TEV) or by Aaron himself,
when making these offerings. The guilt incurred, then, refers to the condemnation by Yahweh
as a result of such errors. In some languages this will be referred to as “carry the weight of,” or
even “take responsibility for.” REB has “he has to bear the blame for defects in the rites with
which the Israelites offer their sacred gifts.”

Which the people of Israel hallow is literally “which the sons of Israel consecrate [or,
make holy].” The which refers to the holy offering, not to the guilt. As their holy gifts is
literally “for all gifts of their holy things.” The idea of “all gifts” is expressed in 28.38 RSV by the
earlier phrase, any guilt incurred.

It shall always be upon his forehead repeats what is said at the beginning of the verse,
with the addition of always. 28.38 TEV omits the always as unnecessary, evidently on the
assumption that Aaron would wear this turban with the gold ornament only when serving as
priest. The emphasis in the Hebrew, however, seems to be intentional, so the idea of always
should be carried over in the translation.

That they may be accepted before the Lord is literally “for favor to them to the face of
Yahweh.” 28.38 NRSV has “in order that they may find favor before the Lord.” The they refers
to the holy gifts, not to the people. 28.38 TEV makes this clear by changing they to “all the
offerings.” And since Yahweh is speaking, 28.38 TEV also changes the third person to first
person, “so that I, the Lord, will accept all the offerings that the Israelites dedicate to me.”

A possible alternative translation model for verses 37 and 38 is:

• 37 You shall take a blue cord and fasten this gold band [or plate, or ornament] to the front of
Aaron’s turban, 38 so that he may always wear it on his forehead. This will show that he
accepts the guilt [or blame, or responsibility] of any sins that the people of Israel commit when
they offer gifts to me, and I will accept their gifts.

28.39

And you shall weave the coat in checker work of fine linen is literally “And you [singular]
shall weave the tunic [of] fine linen.” Again this may be rendered as “Have them weave.” The
word for weave suggests the idea of weaving in patterns, so 28.39 RSV adds in checker work.
TAN interprets the word to refer to what is “fringed,” and NAB has “brocaded.” Since the precise
meaning of the term is not clear, 28.39 TEV uses only the word “weave.” The word for coat
should be translated as “tunic” (28.39 NRSV). 28.39 TEV’s “shirt” is misleading. Another way to
translate the first part of this verse is “Have them use fine linen [or, fine white cloth] to weave
Aaron’s tunic and turban.” (See the discussion at verse 4.)
 And you shall make is the same as in previous verses. Turban, or “headdress” (TAN), is
discussed at verse 4. 28.39 KJV and ASV have “mitre,” and NAB surprisingly has “miter,” but this
suggests something different from the turban of fine linen. (See the comment on fine linen at
25.4.)

Girdle is better translated as “sash.” This is discussed at verse 4. Embroi dered with
needlework is literally “something done by an embroiderer.” This is identical to 26.36. (See the
comment there.) TOT’s “embroidered sash” is clear.

(f) Clothes for Aaron’s Sons (28.40–43)

(f) Clothes for Aaron’s sons (28.40–43)

Section Heading: both the Handbook and 28.39 CEV have a chapter subdivision here with a
new heading. The Handbook has “Clothes for Aaron’s sons,” while 28.39 CEV has “The Clothes
for the Other Priests.” Either heading is possible.

28.40

And for Aaron’s sons refers to the four sons mentioned in verse 1. You shall make is the
same as in previous verses. If translators start a new section here, it may be helpful to begin
this sentence with “The Lord also said to Moses, …” or something similar. Coats is the plural of
the same word used in verse 39. No further description is given, so these “tunics” were
evidently the same as the one for Aaron. (See 39.27.) Girdles is the same word in verse 39, so
the “sashes” (28.40 TEV) for the sons were probably the same.

Caps is a different word from that used for Aaron’s turban. This headdress is not
described, but the Hebrew word suggests it may have been high and cone- shaped. According
to 29.9, however, these caps were to be bound onto their heads. Therefore we should assume
that they were also made of fine linen and were wound around the head like a turban. But
they would have been smaller and less elaborate than that of the high priest. So if a translator
has used a term for “turban” in verse 39, the same word should be used here.

For glory and beauty is identical with the phrase in verse 2, where it describes Aaron’s
vestments. (See the comment there.) This means “to provide them with dignity and beauty.”
Others have “for their glorious adornment” (28.40 NRSV), “to give them dignity and grandeur”
(REB), and “to give them dignity and honor” (28.40 NIV). One may also translate this in a similar
way to that suggested in verse 2, namely, that glory refers to the “dignity” of the priest and
beauty refers to the clothes. So one may translate this verse as:

• Have them make beautiful tunics, sashes, and turbans for Aaron’s sons. These will give dignity
to them.

28.41

KJV KING JAMES VERSION

 And you shall put them upon Aaron your brother is literally “And you [singular] shall
cause Aaron your [older] brother to be clothed.” The verb means to dress or put on clothes,
but the causative form suggests that Moses was supposed to dress Aaron in all the priestly
vestments. This was evidently to be part of the ceremony of consecration. (See 29.1, 5–6.) And
upon his sons with him indicates that Aaron’s four sons (verse 1) were to be included in the
same ceremony. 28.41 TEV has a helpful model: “Put these clothes on your brother Aaron and
his sons.”

And shall anoint them and ordain them and consecrate them lists three more ceremonial
acts. (But see below.) The word for anoint literally means to spread liquid. Here it means to
pour or apply the special anointing oil (30.22–25) on their heads and on their priestly garments
(29.21). Aaron was also to have this oil poured on his head (29.7). The oil was most likely
“olive oil.” (See the comment on “olive” at 25.6). In some languages one may express this
sentence as “Then take olive oil and apply [or, pour] it on their heads.”

Ordain them is literally “and you [singular] will fill their hand.” This is an idiom that may
originally have referred to the act of placing some object in the hand of the person being
installed into office. This does not mean that Moses was to lay his hand upon them. Possibly
some token of their new authority was actually to be placed in their hands. REB uses the word
“install,” which may be more accurate.

Consecrate them is literally “and you [singular] will make them holy.” 28.41 TEV has
“dedicate them,” and Durham has “set them apart.” It is unlikely that this was a separate ritual
act. Probably the command to consecrate them summarizes the effect of two ritual acts:
anoint and ordain. So NAB has “Anoint and ordain them, consecrating them as my priests.”

TEV, however, suggests that “anointing” was the only ritual act intended: “Ordain them and
dedicate them by anointing them.” This means that they were considered “ordained” and
“dedicated” by the one act of “anointing.” This interpretation is possible, but it really has no
textual support. All three verbs have the same form and are connected with “and.” (See the
discussion at 29.9b.)

That they may serve me as priests is literally “and they will function to [or, for] me (as
priests).” As in verse 1, a verb form of “priest” is used in the sense of “priesting.” ASV has “that
they may minister unto me in the priest’s office.”

An alternative translation model for this verse is:

• After that, pour [or, apply] olive oil on their heads, and ordain them. In this way you will set
them apart to serve me as priests.

28.42

And you shall make for them again uses the singular you. The Hebrew uses the imperative
form of the verb rather than the usual imperfect, but there is no significant difference in
meaning. Linen breeches refers to the “undergarments” (28.42 NRSV) the priests were to wear.
The dual form of the noun suggests that there were two apron-like pieces for the front and the
back, not quite the same as “drawers” (NAB) or “shorts” (TEV, CEV), but joined between the legs.
However, in most languages the idea of “shorts” or “under-pants” will be easier to translate.
The word for linen refers to the more common linen cloth, not to the “fine linen” of the
priestly vestments. (But see the description at 39.28.)

To cover their nakedness is literally “for a covering of the flesh of the genitals.” Most
translations use an appropriate euphemism, but Durham has “to clothe naked genital areas,”
and REB has “to cover their private parts.” 28.42 TEV says it differently, “so that they will not
expose themselves” (so also CEV), drawing from the earlier command in 20.26. (See the
comment there.) Another way to express this euphemistically is “so that they will not appear
shameful [or, obscene].” From the loins to the thighs they shall reach indicates the size of the
breeches, which were to cover the area from below the waist to the upper leg. This is usually
rendered as “from the waist to the thighs” (28.42 TEV), but TAN has “from the hips to the
thighs.”

28.43

And they shall be upon Aaron, and upon his sons simply means “Aaron and his sons shall
wear them” (NAB). This refers primarily to the “breeches” mentioned in verse 42, but it may
also refer to all the vestments mentioned. TOT has “Aaron and his sons must wear these
breeches,” and 28.43 TEV has “Aaron and his sons shall always wear them.”

When they go into the tent of meeting is literally “in their entering unto the ’ohel mo‘ed,”
which in this context obviously refers to the tabernacle. (But see the comment at 27.21 and at
the introduction to 33.7–11.) Or when they come near the altar is literally “or in their
approaching the altar.” (Use the same term used for altar at 27.1.) To minister in the holy
place uses the verb meaning to serve in a cultic way, as in verse 35.

Lest they bring guilt upon themselves and die is literally “and they will not carry guilt and
die.” The word for “carry” is translated as “bear” in verses 12 and 29–30, and “take upon
himself” in verse 38. Here 28.43 RSV adds the words upon themselves. The word for guilt is the
same as in verse 38. And die means “and in consequence die” (Durham), for death will be the
result of the guilt they would incur. That is, Yahweh will condemn them for not obeying these
rules, and their punishment will be death. 28.43 NIV has “so that they will not incur guilt and
die.” TAN has “so that they do not incur punishment and die.”

TEV interprets this in a more specific way: “so that they will not be killed for exposing
themselves.” This may be what is intended, but it limits the warning to wearing the “breeches”
rather than all the vestments. The idea of death as punishment for exposing oneself to the
ground was probably based on the mysterious holiness of the altar and the holy place. It was
not a matter of modesty, for the normal dress at that time did not include a special covering
for the genital area. (See the comment at 20.26.)

This shall be a perpetual statute is literally “an obligation of long time.” This shall be is
added to make the sentence complete. 28.43 TEV calls it “a permanent rule,” and TAN has “a
law for all time.” (See the comment on statute, choq, in the introduction to 20.22–26) For him
and for his descendants after him refers to Aaron and to all his descendants (literally “his
seed”), who are to be the official priests of Israel. 28.43 CEV has “This same rule applies to any
of their descendants who serve as priests.” (See descendants and the comment at 1.1.)

(8) The Consecration of the Priests (29.1–37)

(a) The Preparation (29.1–9)

(a) The preparation (29.1–9)

Chapter 29 of Exodus, with the exception of verses 38–46, tells how Moses was to
consecrate Aaron and his sons as priests. The seven-day ceremony is variously referred to as
the consecration, the ordination, the installation, or the investiture of the priests. The detailed
instructions show how important it was for Israel to have a special priesthood set apart to take
charge of the tabernacle and the worship. The record of how these instructions were actually
carried out is not given until Leviticus 8. Translators should refer to that chapter as they
translate this chapter.

Verses 1–37 may be set off in five sections, as the Handbook outline indicates. Verses 1–9
show that even the preparation for the ceremony was to be done in a prescribed manner. This
included the selection of the proper animals and the baking of special unleavened bread for
the sacrificial offerings. And Moses himself was to put the priestly vestments on Aaron and his
sons and anoint Aaron as high priest.

Verses 10–14 describe the way the bull was to be sacrificed as a sin offering. Verses 15–18
explain that the first of two rams is to be offered as a whole burnt offering. Verses 19–26 deal
with the sacrifice of the second ram and the special bread, including the anointing of Aaron’s
sons. Verses 27–37 give additional instructions on how the second ram is to be divided up, and
how a bull is to be offered as a sin offering each day for seven days in order to purify the altar.

The last section of the chapter, verses 38–46, give the instructions for the morning and
evening sacrifices that are to offered every day for all time to come. The chapter concludes
with a beautiful summary of the whole purpose of the tabernacle and the worship, namely, to
provide for Yahweh to actually dwell with the people of Israel and to be their God.

Section Headings: 28.43 TEV has “Instructions for Ordaining Aaron and his sons,” and 28.43
CEV has “Instructions for Ordaining Priests.” One may also express this as “Yahweh tells Moses
to ordain Aaron and his sons as priests,” or more simply, “Moses ordains [or, installs] Aaron
and his sons.” The Handbook has a general heading for 29.1–37, “The consecration of the
priests,” but includes a subsection for verses 1–9 with the heading “The preparation.” Another
way to express this is “Moses prepares to ordain [or, install] Aaron and his sons as priests.” For
the meaning of “ordain” and “consecrate,” see the comment at 28.41.

29.1

Now this is what you shall do to them is literally “And this is the thing [davar] that you
[singular] shall do to them.” Translators may begin this new section by saying “The Lord said to
Moses, … .” Now this refers to all the instructions that follow, up to verse 38, where Now this
is repeated again for the daily offerings. The word davar may mean “word,” “event,” or
“thing.” NAB has “rite,” TOT has “ritual,” and Fox has “ceremony.” One may also express this as
“Now these are the things that you are to do to … .” Them refers to Aaron and his sons. To
consecrate them is literally “to make them holy.” This may mean “to dedicate them” (29.1
TEV), or “to set them apart” (Durham). (See the comment at 28.41.) That they may serve me as
priests is identical with 28.41. (See also the comment at 28.1.) An alternative translation
model for the first part of this verse is “The Lord said to Moses, “When you ordain [or, install]
Aaron and his sons as my priests, you shall … .’ ”

Take one young bull is literally “you [singular] take one young bull, son of a cow.” The
words “son of a cow” seem to be unnecessary, for a young bull is, of course, a “son of a cow.”
But TAN has “a young bull of the herd,” and Fox has “a steer, a young-one of the herd.” The
word for young bull (par) is not the same as that used for “ox” (shor), which is a more generic
Hebrew term for a fully grown bovine, or head of cattle (see 21.28.) The par, though young,
was already a mature animal. And two rams means two mature male sheep. (See the
comment on “sheep” at 2.16.) Without blemish is one word meaning “whole,” or “complete.”
This means “without any defects” (29.1 TEV),” or “have nothing wrong with them” (29.1 CEV).
This refers to the bull as well as to the rams.

29.2

Three different kinds of bread are described. Unleavened bread, literally “and bread
matsoth,” uses the plural of matsah, so the meaning is “unleavened breads,” or bread made
without “yeast” (29.2 TEV). (See the comment on matsoth at 12.8 and 15.) The size and shape
of the pieces is not indicated, but see verse 23.

Unleavened cakes, literally “and cakes matsoth,” uses the term challah for cakes,
suggesting a rich, unleavened bread that may have been perforated, braided, or twisted. Since
the exact meaning in this case is uncertain, many English translations simply have “unleavened
cakes” (see also TAN, NEB, TOT). These cakes were at least distinguished from the bread by their
richness from the olive oil that was to be kneaded into the dough. Mixed with oil means that
the dough is first mixed and kneaded with “olive oil” (29.2 TEV) and then baked.

And unleavened wafers, literally “and wafers matsoth,” describes this third kind of matsah
as thin and flat. Spread with oil, literally “anointed in oil,” means that the “olive oil” (29.2 TEV)
is to be spread or “smeared” (REB) on these wafers after they are baked.

You shall make them of fine wheat flour refers to all three kinds of unleavened bread.
You is singular, but this does not mean that Moses is to do all the baking himself. Fine wheat
flour means “finely ground flour from wheat.” This was “the best wheat flour” (29.2 TEV), since
only the inner kernel of the wheat was ground, rather than the whole grain. (See the comment
on “wheat” at 9.31–32.) The word fine therefore has the double meaning of “finely ground”
and “choicest” (29.2 NRSV).

An alternative translation model for this verse is:

• Take some of your best [or, finest] wheat flour and make three batches of dough without
yeast. Make some of it into bread without olive oil, some into flat cakes mixed with olive oil,
and the rest into thin wafers smeared with oil.

29.3

And you shall put them in one basket uses the most common Hebrew word for basket,
which is always used as a container for foodstuffs. It was woven from cane or reeds, but the
shape and size is not indicated. (A different word is used in 2.3.) Them refers to the bread in
verse 2, and one basket suggests a limited amount of bread to be baked. 29.3 CEV is more
specific: “Put all of this bread in a basket.”

And bring them, literally “and you [singular] will cause them to come near,” means to
“offer” (29.3 TEV) or “present” (NIV, TAN) the different kinds of bread. The word is used for
approaching God or the place of worship. Verse 4 indicates that they were to be brought to
the door of the tabernacle, and verse 23 implies that they were to be placed “before the Lord.”
Since Yahweh is the speaker, 29.3 TEV has “offer them to me.” In the basket, of course, is
understood and does not have to be repeated. And bring the bull and the two rams is literally
“and the young bull and the two rams.” (see verse 1.) Bring is not repeated as in 29.3 RSV, but
the same idea of “offer” clearly applies to the animals. TAN has “along with the bull and the
two rams.”

29.4

You shall bring Aaron and his sons uses the same verb as in verse 3. To the door of the
tent of meeting is literally “unto the opening of the ’ohel mo‘ed.” As explained at 33.7, “tent of
meeting” reflects a different tradition, but the term is often used in reference to the mishkan,
or tabernacle. The context is clear that this is the “entrance” of the tabernacle (29.4 TEV),
which was to be covered by a “screen,” not by a door. (See 26.36.)

And wash them with water is literally “and you [singular] will wash them in water.” This
means that Moses was to wash Aaron and his sons. The word for wash suggests pouring, in
contrast with the word for washing clothes. (See 19.10 and the comment there). The extent of
this ritual washing is not indicated, but it probably included the entire body, since this was
different from the later ceremonial washing performed by the priests themselves (as described
in 30.17–21). 29.4 TEV’s “have them take a ceremonial bath” may be misleading, as it suggests
that they did the washing rather than Moses. 29.4 CEV even has “have them wash themselves,”
but translators should not follow this as a model.

29.5

And you shall take the garments is quite literal, using the singular you. This action is
related to the second verb, and put on, which is literally “and you [singular] will cause to put
on,” or “and you will clothe.” Two separate actions are not intended, so 29.5 TEV translates
only one, “Then dress Aaron …” (similarly also CEV). The garments is the same word used in
28.2 and 4. These are “the priestly garments” (29.5 TEV), or “vestments,” that are described in
chapter 28. Aaron is to be dressed first.
 The coat is the tunic mentioned in 28.39. 29.5 TEV has “shirt,” but this was the common
ankle-length undergarment with long sleeves. The robe of the ephod is the “the robe that
goes under the ephod” (29.5 TEV). It had no sleeves and went over the tunic. It is described in
28.31–34. The ephod was the apron-like skirt with shoulder straps. It is described in 28.6–13.
The breastpiece was the small square-shaped pouch worn over the breast and fastened to the
ephod. It is described in 28.15–28.

And gird him uses the verb form of ephod, meaning “to put on tightly” (as described in the
comment at 28.6). It is used in reference to tying on the ephod by means of the skillfully
woven band of the ephod. This band is described in 28.8. It was a part of the ephod. 29.5 TEV
calls it a “belt” and mistakenly lists it as a separate garment. But it should not be confused with
the sash, or “girdle,” mentioned in verse 9. (The “girdle” is described in 28.39.) 29.5 NIV is
much easier to understand: “Fasten the ephod on him by its skillfully woven waistband.”

29.6

And you shall set uses the word meaning to put or place. The turban is described in 28.39.
(See also the comment at 28.4.) It was a linen cloth wrapped around the top of the head. In
some cultures a different word may be appropriate for putting on a turban, such as tying,
winding, or fastening.

And put the holy crown upon the turban refers in some way to the “plate of pure gold”
mentioned in 28.36. (See the comment there.) And put is a different verb from that used at
the beginning of the verse. Here it means “attach to” (REB, NIV), or “tie on” (29.6 TEV). The word
for crown (nezer) has the basic meaning of dedication or consecration. The engraved “plate”
was probably a part of this crown, or “diadem” (29.6 NRSV). (See 39.30, which speaks of “the
plate of the holy crown.”) 29.6 TEV speaks of it as “the sacred sign of dedication engraved
‘Dedicated to the Lord.’ ” This clearly identifies it with the “plate” in 28.36, but the words
beginning with “engraved” are not in the Hebrew. 29.6 CEV has simply “its narrow strip of
engraved gold.” A suggested model for this is “and then tie to the turban the gold band that
has the engraved plate.”

29.7

And you shall take is identical with verse 5. (See the comment there.) It is probably
intended as part of the act of pouring, although 29.7 TEV here translates it as a separate act. It
is possible simply to say “Then pour the anointing oil on his head … .” The anointing oil,
literally “the oil of the anointing,” refers to the special recipe or mixture described in 30.23–25.
CEV’s “olive oil” is incorrect. Another way to express anointing oil is “special oil for ordaining
[or, installing] priests.” (See the comment on “anoint” at 28.41.) And pour it is clear; a
different word is used for “sprinkle” in verse 21. On his head means Aaron’s head. This was
evidently to be poured over the turban as well.

And anoint him translates the third verb in this verse, and it is not clear whether this
refers to a separate action, such as spreading the oil after pouring it. Probably the pouring is
the only action intended in this verse. 29.7 NIV has “anoint him by pouring it on his head,” and
 NJB has “pour it on his head and so anoint him.” 29.7 CEV has “and then ordain him by pouring
… .” One may also say “set him apart for God by pouring it [the oil] on his head.”

29.8–9

Then you shall bring his sons, literally “cause his sons to come near [me],” is the same
verb as in verse 4. In some languages one must repeat the information from verse 4 and say
“Bring Aaron’s sons to the entrance of the sacred tent.” And put coats on them refers to the
tunics mentioned in 28.40. They were evidently similar to Aaron’s tunic but less elaborate.
29.9 TEV’s “shirts” is misleading.

And you shall gird them with girdles is literally “and you [singular] shall gird them [with] a
sash.” Them refers to the sons, of course, but the Hebrew adds the words “Aaron and his
sons.” (See the 29.9 RSV footnote.) 29.9 RSV, 29.9 NRSV, and 29.9 TEV do not translate these
words since they are not found in the Septuagint and probably were not in the earlier Hebrew
text. HOTTP, in fact, recommends omitting these words, preferring the Septuagint to the
Hebrew text, with a {B} rating. (NAB, NJB, and REB also omit them.) But TAN includes them: “And
gird both Aaron and his sons with sashes.” (Similarly also 29.9 NIV, TOT, and others.)

The textual problem is not an easy one. If the additional words are included, they suggest
that a “cap” was placed on top of Aaron’s turban, for the phrase and bind caps on them would
have to include Aaron as well as his sons. If the words are omitted, then there is no reference
at all to a “sash” being put on Aaron. The “sash” is not included with the vestments in verses
5–6, but 28.39 refers to the “girdle embroidered with needlework” that was to be made
especially for Aaron.

TAN resolves the problem by interchanging the clauses and placing the reference to the
sashes after the reference to the caps. NIV makes the same adjustment. It is better, however,
to follow the textual decision of HOTTP and omit the words, as RSV and TEV have done. For
translations using footnotes it is possible to add a footnote here and say, for example, “The
Hebrew Masoretic text repeats the words ‘Aaron and his sons,’ but the earlier Greek text [or,
the Septuagint] omits them.”

And bind caps on them refers to the “headdresses” (29.9 NRSV) mentioned in 28.40 for
Aaron’s sons. (See the comment there.) The word for bind suggests the act of tying a turban
around the head, but the word for caps is different from the word for Aaron’s turban.

An alternative translation model for verses 8–9a is:

• 8 Next, bring Aaron’s sons to the entrance of the sacred tent and put tunics [or, shirts] on
them. 9 Then fasten sashes around their waists and tie caps [or, turbans] on their heads.

29.9

And the priesthood shall be theirs is literally “and it shall be to them a priesthood.” By a
perpetual statute is literally “for an obligation [choq] of long time.” The same expression is

HOTTP HEBREW OLD TESTAMENT TEXT PROJECT

 used in 28.43. (See the discussion on choq in the introduction to 20.22–26.) The meaning is
clear in 29.9 TEV: “They and their descendants are to serve me as priests forever” (similarly
CEV).

Thus you shall ordain Aaron and his sons uses the same idiom as that explained at 28.41.
It is not clear from the Hebrew whether the “ordination” is now completed or whether it is still
to follow. 29.9 RSV interprets this sentence as a summary of what has just been said, and so
“and” is translated as Thus. But 29.9 NRSV and 29.9 CEV translate the “and” as “then,”
interpreting it either as a separate act or as a summary of what follows.

Both interpretations are possible, and translations are divided rather evenly. TEV follows
RSV, making it even more explicit: “That is how you are to ordain Aaron and his sons.” But this
is based on the interpretation in 28.41 that both the ordination and the dedication would be
included in the act of anointing. (So also NAB and NIV.)

TAN, however, takes the other position and even starts a new paragraph at this point. (So
also REB, Childs, and Durham.) This interpretation is supported by verse 35, which indicates
that the “ordination” was to continue for seven days. (See the comment there.) In either case
the special sacrifices described in the following verses must be understood as part of the entire
consecration ceremony.

Alternative translation models following the above interpretations are:

• In this way you will ordain Aaron and his sons. And they and their descendants will always be
priests.

Or, as in CEV:

• … then ordain them, because they and their descendants will always be priests.

(b) The Offering of the Bull (29.10–14)

(b) The offering of the bull (29.10–14)

Section Heading: the Handbook’s heading for this subsection (29.10–14) is “The offering of
the bull.” Other ways to express this are “Moses must sacrifice a bull,” or even “Moses must
sacrifice a bull for the sins of the priests.”

29.10

Then you shall bring the bull, as in verse 3, means “you shall cause the bull to come near.”
The word for bull implies a young bull, or “bullock” (ASV). (See the comment at verse 1.) Before
the tent of meeting is literally “to the face of ’ohel mo‘ed.” As in verse 4, tent of meeting
really refers to the tabernacle (mishkan). “To the face of” is idiomatic for “in front of” (29.10
NRSV), or “to the front of” (29.10 TEV). This would be the place where Aaron and his sons are
already standing.
 Shall lay their hands upon is literally “shall support their hands upon.” Whether they were
to place both hands on the head of the bull or just one hand is not indicated. In languages
where this must be specified, both hands is more likely.

29.11

And you shall kill the bull uses the verb that means to “slaughter” for sacrificial purposes,
which was probably done by slitting the throat. The singular you is used, but no doubt Moses
would have some assistance. Before the Lord, literally “to the face of Yahweh,” means that
this must be done in Yahweh’s presence, so 29.11 TEV has “in my presence.” One may also
express this as “While Yahweh is watching.” 29.11 CEV has “near my altar,” which is also
possible. At the door of the tent of meeting means “at the entrance of the Tent” (29.11 TEV),
which is really the tabernacle. (see verse 4 and the comment there.)

29.12

And shall take part of the blood of the bull is literally “and you [singular] shall take from
the blood of the young bull.” The horns of the altar are discussed at 27.2. CEV’s translation will
be a helpful model for many languages: “Use a finger to smear some of its blood on each of
the four corners of the altar.”

And the rest of the blood is literally “and all of the blood,” but “all the rest of the blood”
(29.12 NRSV) is what is meant. You shall pour out is a different verb from verse 7 and suggests
more the idea of spilling it. At the base of the altar is literally “unto the foundation of the
altar.” This implies that at least some of the blood was to touch the altar. Fox has “you are to
throw against the foundation of the altar.” If this is correct, both 29.12 TEV and 29.12 CEV seem
to give the wrong picture. Another way to express this is “then take the rest of the blood and
throw it down against the bottom of the altar.”

29.13

And you shall take is the same as verse 12. The And here and throughout these
instructions suggests the order or sequence in which these things are to be done. 29.13 TEV has
“Next,” and 29.13 CEV has “Then.” All the fat that covers the entrails is literally “all the fat of
the covering of the inward part.” This means, as 29.13 TEV expresses it, “all the fat which
covers the internal organs,” although it was probably referring to the intestines, as the other
organs are mentioned separately.

And the appendage of the liver, literally “the redundance over the liver,” probably refers
to the extra lobe of the liver found in cattle, sheep, and goats, but not in humans. So 29.13 CEV
has “lower part of the liver.” Some, however, have understood this to mean “the fatty mass
over the liver” (NJB), traditionally translated as the “caul” (KJV, ASV). Since this part of the liver is
singled out for burning on the altar, 29.13 TEV calls it “the best part of the liver.” Another way
to express this is “the choicest part of the liver.” And the two kidneys with the fat that is on
them is clear enough. NJB has “the two kidneys with their covering fat.” In some languages it
will be better to say “both kidneys,” for it is usually common knowledge that animals have two
of these organs.
 And burn them upon the altar is literally “and you [singular] will cause to go up in smoke
[on] the altar.” This means, of course, “burn them on the altar,” but the verb used is associated
with sacrificial worship. 29.13 TEV even adds “as an offering to me,” which is also implied from
the fact that these parts were to be selected for burning on a holy place rather than outside
the camp (verse 14). TAN has “and turn them into smoke upon the altar.” 29.13 CEV has “send
them up in smoke on the altar.” However, in some languages it will be better to say “and burn
them on the altar so that their smoke ascends to me.”

29.14

But the flesh of the bull refers to the meat, in contrast to its skin, or “hide” (TAN, NIV). And
its dung refers to the contents of the stomach and intestines, and all the waste of the animal.
NAB, NJB, and REB use the term “offal.” 29.14 TEV just uses “intestines.” 29.14 CEV has “the food
still in the bull’s stomach.” However, a wider phrase may also be used; for example, “all the
food in its stomach and any other waste.” You shall burn with fire outside the camp is quite
literal. With fire is obvious and may not be necessary in translation.

It is a sin offering: literally “a sin that,” or “that is a sin.” This expression uses a form of the
common Hebrew word for sin, chata’;, that is discussed at 20.20. When used alone, it means a
sin offering, which is more correctly translated as a “purification offering” (REB). 29.14 TEV calls
it “an offering to take away the sins of the priests.” But in some languages it will be necessary
to say “to ask me to forgive the sins of the priests.” The pronoun it (“that”) refers to the entire
ceremony, including the blood and what was burned on the altar, not just the parts burned
outside the camp.

An alternative translation model for this verse is:

• You must take the bull’s meat and skin, and the food in its stomach and intestines, together
with any other waste, and burn it all outside the camp as an offering to ask me to forgive the
sins of the priests.

(c) The First Ram Offering (29.15–18)

(c) The first ram offering (29.15–18)

Section Heading: this Handbook’s heading, “The first ram offering,” may also be expressed
as “Offer the first male sheep up to God” or “Take the first male sheep and sacrifice it.”

29.15

Then you shall take one of the rams is literally “And the one ram you [singular] shall take.”
This refers to one of the two rams (male sheep) mentioned in verse 1, and it will be helpful to
say “one of the two rams,” to refer readers back to that verse. And Aaron and his sons … is
almost identical with verse 10, only here it is the head of the ram that they are to lay their
hands upon.

29.16
 And you shall slaughter the ram uses the same verb as in verse 11, although 29.16 RSV has
translated it differently. And shall take its blood here means all of the blood. And throw it
against the altar is literally “and you shall scatter upon the altar.” This is a different verb from
the word for “pour” in verse 12. The translations vary: “dash it” (29.16 NRSV), “splash it” (NAB),
“fling it” (REB), “sprinkle it” (29.16 NIV), and “splatter” (29.16 CEV). Round about is one word
meaning “all around.” Since the altar had four sides, 29.16 TEV and 29.16 CEV have “against all
four sides of the altar.”

29.17

other pieces. Then you shall cut the ram into pieces uses a word that means to cut
meat. Literally “And the ram you [singular] shall cut to its cuts,” or “you shall piece to its
pieces.” And wash its entrails uses the same verb as in verse 4 for washing Aaron and his sons.
The same word for entrails is used in verse 13. And its legs translates a word that refers
specifically to the fibula bone and always appears in the dual form. For this reason it may refer
only to “its shins” (REB) or to “its hind legs” (29.17 TEV). In this case, however, probably all four
legs are intended (so CEV). The same word is used in 12.9.

And put them with its pieces and its head is literally “and you shall put [them] upon its
pieces and upon its head.” Put is the same word used in verse 12. Them is not in the Hebrew
but is understood. It refers to the entrails and the legs. With is more accurately translated as
“on” (NJB, Durham), so 29.17 TEV has “on top of the head and the other pieces.”

29.18

And burn the whole ram upon the altar uses the same words as verse 13, with the literal
meaning “and you shall cause to go up in smoke all of the ram [on] the altar.” It is a burnt
offering to the Lord is literally “an ‘olah that for Yahweh.” The word ‘olah is usually translated
as burnt offering, or “whole- offering” (REB), but it literally means “what is caused to go up,”
like smoke. It refers to any offering that is completely burned on the altar, except for the skin.
(See Lev 7.8.) It is described in Leviticus 1.

It is a pleasing odor, literally “an odor of soothing,” reflects the ancient idea of the gods
smelling the sacrifice and being satisfied with it. Since Yahweh is speaking, 29.18 TEV has “The
odor of this offering pleases me,” connecting this with the final words, to the Lord. 29.18 CEV
has “goes up in smoke with a smell that pleases me.” One may also say “I will smell these
offerings in the smoke that ascends to me and be pleased.”

An offering by fire to the Lord is literally “a fire-gift to Yahweh that.” The word for “fire-
gift” is believed by some scholars to refer to the ancient practice of offering food to the gods.
So 29.18 TEV has “a food offering,” as do NJB and REB. But this idea is confusing, in that it
introduces an additional kind of offering that has no other textual basis. Most scholars believe
the term is derived from the word for fire, so it is better to interpret it as a synonym for burnt
offering, such as “an offering made by fire” (ASV, NIV), “a gift by fire” (Durham), or simply an
“oblation” (NAB).

An alternative translation model for this verse is:

• Burn the whole male sheep on the altar as an offering made by fire. The smell will please me.

(d) The Second Ram Offered (29.19–26)

(d) The second ram offered (29.19–26)

Section Heading: the Handbook’s heading for this subsection (29.19–26) is “The second
ram offered.” This may also be expressed as “Offer the second ram [or, male sheep] to God” or
“You must sacrifice the second ram.”

29.19–20

You shall take the other ram, literally “And you [singular] shall take the second ram,”
describes the next step in the ceremony. TAN begins with “Then,” and NJB and TOT have “Next.”
29.20 TEV inserts a phrase here taken from verse 22, “the ram used for dedication.” It may fit
better here than in verse 22, where it seems to be an afterthought. (But see the comment
there.) And Aaron and his sons … repeats what is said in verse 15. (See also the comment at
verse 10.)

And you shall kill the ram is identical with verse 16. As in verse 11, it is better to use the
word “slaughter” (29.20 NRSV). And take part of its blood is literally “and you shall take from
its blood.” And put it upon the tip of the right ear of Aaron uses the same verb for put it as in
verse 12, where the blood is to be put on the horns of the altar. The word for the tip probably
refers to the lobe of the ear, but it could also refer to the “the ridge” (TAN) or cartilage.
However, the lobe of the ear is the most likely interpretation and is recommended for
translators. And upon the tips of the right ears of his sons may be combined with the
reference to Aaron to avoid repetition. (See 29.20 TEV.)

And upon the thumbs of their right hands, literally “and upon the thumb of their hand,
the right [one],” uses the singular form to mean one hand of Aaron and each of his sons. And
upon the great toes of their right feet, literally “and upon the thumb of their foot, the right
[one],” also uses the singular form. The same Hebrew word is used for both thumbs and great
toes.

CEV has a different restructuring that will be helpful for many translators:

• 19 Bring the other ram to Aaron and his sons and have them lay their hands on its head. 20 Kill
the ram and place some of its blood on Aaron’s right ear lobe, his right thumb, and the big toe
of his right foot. Do the same for each of his sons … .

And throw the rest of the blood, literally “and you [singular] shall throw the blood,” adds
the idea of the rest of from the context. The same verb for throw is used in verse 16. Against
the altar round about is identical with verse 16.

29.21

Then you shall take part of the blood is almost identical with the clause in verse 20. Part
of the blood is literally “from the blood.” The blood that is on the altar probably refers to the
blood of the second ram that has just been thrown on the altar. And of the anointing oil is
literally “and from the oil of the anointing,” as in verse 7. This refers to the special oil
described in 30.23–25. And sprinkle it refers to the mixture of blood and anointing oil,
although the pronoun it is only implied. It will be helpful for translators to make this
information explicit by saying, for example, “then take some of the blood from the altar and
mix it with the oil used for ordaining the priests … .” The word for sprinkle, used only here in
Exodus, is in the causative form, meaning “to cause to be spattered.” However, in many
languages a word similar to “sprinkle” will give the meaning clearly.

Upon Aaron and his garments suggests that this was to be done to Aaron first, as well as
to his clothes, that is, his “vestments” (29.21 NRSV). And upon his sons and his sons’ garments
with him is quite literal and may sound like repetition. But the text suggests that this was done
to his sons after it had been done to Aaron. This is supported by what follows: And he and his
garments shall be holy. This refers just to Aaron first of all. And his sons and his sons’
garments with him are then included as becoming holy, that is, “set apart” (Durham), or
“consecrated” (NJB, NIV). So 29.21 TEV says “He, his sons, and their clothes will then be
dedicated to me.” Since Yahweh is speaking, 29.21 TEV has “dedicated to me.” In languages
that do not use the passive voice, one may say “In this way you will dedicate Aaron, his sons,
and their clothes to me.”

29.22

You shall also take the fat of the ram is literally “And you [singular] shall take from the
ram the fat.” The word for fat is the same as in verse 13. TAN interprets this first mention of fat
to include what follows, and translates “the fat parts,” followed with a dash introducing the list
of “the broad tail” and the other parts. NJB has “the fatty parts of the ram” and then uses a
colon before the list of the parts. (Similarly also NAB.) Probably all the fat is intended, in
addition to what is then listed. So one may translate “Cut away all the fat from the ram.”

And the fat tail, with the word and, suggests the tail is not necessarily included with the
broad reference to fat. The Palestinian sheep even today have broad, heavy tails that are
eaten as a delicacy, so this is specified as a part to be burned. TAN has “the broad tail,” and NJB
has only “the tail.” And the fat that covers the entrails is the same as verse 13. And the
appendage of the liver, as well as the two kidneys … , also repeats what is in verse 13.

And the right thigh refers to the upper part of the right hind leg, between the upper joint
and the hip. In other sacrifices of this type, the right thigh was normally given to the priests,
but here it seems clear that it was to be burned along with the other parts of the ram. (see
verse 27 and Lev 7.32.) The final clause, in parentheses, (for it is a ram of ordination), uses the
word that means “a filling of the hands.” (See the comment on “ordain” at 28.41.) The
parenthesis is not indicated in the Hebrew, but it helps to show this as an explanation of why,
for this special consecration ceremony, the right thigh was to be burned. This sacrifice was
related to the priests personally and not to the people, so the priests were not to eat the part
normally saved for them. 29.22 TEV does not include this here but has placed it in verse 19,
where it seems to fit better. (See the comment there.) It is also possible to place it at the
beginning of the verse and say “Since this is the ram that you must use when you dedicate the
priests to me, cut away all the fat … .”
 29.23

And one loaf of bread is literally “and one disk of bread.” The word for loaf describes a
disk-shaped, round, thin piece of bread. (see verse 2.) And one cake of bread with oil refers to
the “unleavened cakes mixed with oil” in verse 2. And one wafer means one of the “wafers
spread with oil” in verse 2. If it is more natural in the receptor language, translators may
summarize the lists of breads as 29.23 CEV has done, “Take one loaf of each kind of bread.”

Out of the basket of unleavened bread refers to the basket mentioned in verse 3. That is
before the Lord, literally “which is to the face of Yahweh,” means “that is in Yahweh’s
presence” (Durham). This implies that the basket had been placed somewhere near the
entrance to the tabernacle. NAB has “that you have set before the Lord.” 29.23 TEV changes to
first person, since Yahweh is the speaker: “which has been offered to me.” However, in order
to relate this verse to verse 3, one may say, for example, “from the basket that you placed in
front of the sacred tent.”

29.24

And you shall put all of these, literally “and you [singular] shall place the whole,” refers to
all the parts of the ram in verse 22 as well as to the bread mentioned in verse 23. 29.24 TEV is
helpful: “Put all this food.” But it will also be possible to say “and put this bread, together with
the meat, into the hands …” (29.24 CEV). The word for put is the same as in verse 6. In the
hands of Aaron and in the hands of his sons uses the word for the palms of the hands, which
suggests that Aaron and his sons were to be standing with their open hands out stretched.

And wave them for a wave offering is literally “and you [singular] will cause them to be
elevated for an elevation offering.” The traditional translation of wave offering is now
generally recognized as incorrect, so 29.24 NRSV has “and raise them as an elevation offering.”
This suggests that the “food” (29.24 TEV) was to be raised high and then lowered, possibly
several times, in a symbolic gesture to show that it was dedicated to Yahweh. So 29.24 CEV has
“Then they will lift it all up to show that it is dedicated to me.”

The singular you is used even though the “food” was to be in the hands of Aaron and his
sons. This may be understood as Moses causing Aaron and his sons to raise it, and possibly
even placing his hands under theirs. In any case, the next verse shows that at this moment the
offerings are in the hands of the priests, since Moses is then to “take them from their hands”
(verse 25). Before the Lord is identical with the phrase in verse 23. 29.24 TEV avoids the
problem of describing the wave offering by simply bringing out the meaning: “have them
dedicate it to me as a special gift.”

An alternative translation model for this verse is:

• … and put this bread, together with the meat from the ram, into the hands of Aaron and his
sons. Then they will lift it all up to show that they are dedicating it to me.

29.25
 Then you shall take them from their hands is again directed to Moses, with the singular
you. Them refers to the parts of the ram and the bread mentioned in verses 22–23 that were
to be placed in the hands of Aaron and his sons. Durham makes this more explicit: “You are
then to take these gifts.” 29.25 TEV uses the singular “food” in verse 24, so this becomes “Then
take it from them.” However, 29.25 CEV again makes the meaning of them clearer by
translating “After this, the meat and the bread are to be placed … .”

And burn them on the altar is identical with verse 13, with the literal meaning “turn them
into smoke upon the altar” (TAN). In addition to the burnt offering is literally “upon the burnt
offering,” but the word for “upon” (‘al) may also mean in addition to. (Similarly 29.25 NIV, REB,
TAN, and others.) 29.25 RSV properly interprets the burnt offering, or ‘olah, here to refer back

to the first ram that has already been burned on the altar (verse 18). This second ram was to
be a “ram of ordination” (verse 22) rather than an ‘olah, where the entire animal was always
burned. 29.25 NRSV has now translated ‘al as “on top of” the burnt offering, as in 29.25 TEV and
NJB. This allows for the possibility that the first ram may still be burning, and that the meat and
bread taken from Aaron and his sons are added to it. It is not clear what was to be done with
the additional animal parts not mentioned in verse 22. Verses 26–28 go on to indicate that
certain parts were to be eaten by Moses and the priests, but the remaining parts may have
been added to the burnt offering on the altar or burned outside the camp. (Lev 8.22-36
describes how this ordination ceremony was actually carried out.) As a pleasing odor before
the Lord uses the same expression as verse 18, and it is an offering by fire to the Lord is
almost identical with verse 18. (See the comment there.)

An alternative translation model for this verse is:

• After this, take the meat and bread from Aaron and his sons, place them on the altar on top of
the first ram that was burned, and burn them as another offering to me. The smell of this
offering will also please me.

29.26

This verse begins a new paragraph in some translations, but it seems better to interpret it
as concluding the previous paragraph, since the following verses deal more with future
regulations. And you shall take the breast refers to the brisket or lower chest of the ram. It is
addressed to Moses. The ram of Aaron’s ordination refers to the second ram (verse 19).
Literally it says “from the ram of the filling of hands which [is] for Aaron.” Another way to
express this is “You shall take the breast of the second ram … .”

And wave it for a wave offering is identical with verse 24, except that it refers only to the
breast. And it shall be your portion, literally “and it shall be for you for a share,” means, as
29.26 TEV expresses it, “This part of the animal will be yours.” In this special sacrifice,
therefore, the breast of the second ram, and probably the right thigh (see Lev 8.31), were the
only parts that were not burned on the altar, and it was to be Moses’ share. (See the comment
at verse 27.)

An alternative translation model for this verse is:

• You are to eat the breast from the second ram, but you must first lift it up to show that you are
dedicating this meat to me.

(e) Additional Instructions (29.27–37)

(e) Additional instructions (29.27–37)
377

This section includes additional instructions for the consecration of Aaron and his sons.
Some parts, however, especially the opening verses (27–30), deal more directly with the future
installation of priests. As a result there are several inconsistencies with the instructions already
given, but this is probably because of later additions to the text in order to provide for future
consecration cere monies.

[1] The installation of future priests (29.27–30)

[1] The installation of future priests (29.27–30)

Section Headings: the Handbook has a separate section here with the general heading
“Additional instructions.” Other ways to express this are “Yahweh gives more instructions to
Moses” or “Yahweh tells Moses some more things to do.” There should also be a heading for
the short subsection, verses 27–30, “The installation of future priests,” which may also be
expressed as “Instructions on how to install priests in the future.”

29.27

And you shall consecrate the breast of the wave offering is literally “And you [singular]
shall make holy the breast of the elevation offering.” This refers back to verse 26. (See the
comment at verse 24.) And the thigh of the priests’ portion is literally “and the thigh of the
lifted offering.” 29.27 KJV, ASV, and NASB translate this as “the heave offering” to distinguish it
from “the elevation offering.” 29.27 RSV’s priests’ portion is not in the Hebrew but is based on
verse 28, which specifies that this is to be “a perpetual ordinance” (29.27 NRSV), or “a rule
binding for all time” (TAN). Aaron and his sons are therefore understood to refer to all the

377Osborn, N. D., & Hatton, H. (1999). A handbook on Exodus. UBS handbook series; Helps for
translators (661). New York: United Bible Societies.

KJV KING JAMES VERSION

ASV AMERICAN STANDARD VERSION

NASB NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE

RSV Revised Standard Version

NRSV New Revised Standard Version

TAN TANAKH (NEW JEWISH VERSION)

priests in the future as well. (See also Lev 7.32-35.) Although the text seems to make a
distinction between “the elevation offering” and “the lifted offering,” it does not necessarily
suggest that the breast is only for Aaron and the thigh is for his sons. Most translations
suggest that both breast and thigh are “for the priests” (29.27 TEV).

The difference between the “lifted offering” and the “elevation offering” is difficult to
determine, since the two words seem to mean the same thing. The Hebrew word for “lifted
offering” takes on the meaning of “that which is offered, dedicated, or set apart.” So various
interpretations have been given: “the leg of the contribution” (REB), “the thigh that is set
aside” (NJB), “the thigh that was presented” (NIV), and “the thigh that was offered” (TAN).

Which is waved, and which is offered seem to emphasize the distinction. Literally the text
says “which is moved back and forth and which is raised.” Which is waved refers to the breast,
and which is offered refers to the thigh. So TAN joins these two relative clauses to their
respective offerings, “the breast that was offered as an elevation offering and the thigh that
was offered as a gift offering.” 29.27 NIV simplifies this by omitting direct mention of
“offerings”: “the breast that was waved and the thigh that was presented.” 29.27 TEV
combines them differently: “the breast and the thigh … as a special gift and set aside for the
priests.”

NRSV removes the distinction entirely but retains the form of the Hebrew: “You shall
consecrate the breast that was raised as an elevation offering and the thigh that was raised as
an elevation offering.” But this sounds like double talk. It is better to retain the distinction and
simplify the form. So one may refer to “the breast that was elevated and the thigh that was set
aside” or, in languages that do not use the passive voice, one may translate “the breast that
the priest raises up and the thigh that he sets aside [or, dedicates] to me.”

From the ram of the ordination is identical with verse 26. Since it is for Aaron and for his
sons is literally “from which [is] for Aaron and from which [is] for his sons.” These two phrases
refer to the same ram, but to different parts of the ram. “From which is for Aaron” refers to
the breast, and “from which is for his sons” refers to the thigh. 29.27 RSV would be clearer to
say “since they are for Aaron and for his sons.” 29.27 NIV makes this clear while simplifying the
entire verse: “Consecrate those parts of the ordination ram that belong to Aaron and his sons:
the breast that was waved and the thigh that was presented.”

TEV correctly interprets this verse as referring to the ordination of all future priests as well,
so a temporal clause is added at the beginning of the verse: “When a priest is ordained.” CEV

TEV Today’s English Version

REB REVISED ENGLISH BIBLE

NJB NEW JERUSALEM BIBLE

NIV NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION

CEV Contemporary English Version

 has “In the future, when anyone from Israel offers … .” A footnote showing that these are
additions for the sake of clarity would have been helpful. But TEV then removes the specific
reference to Aaron and his sons, reducing this to “for the priests.” The distinction between the
“wave offering” and the “heave offering” is also removed. (See above.) Therefore a different
basis for translating the entire verse is suggested:

• You shall dedicate two parts of the ram that are offered for the ordination of priests. These are
the breast that has been elevated and the thigh that has been set aside. The breast is for
Aaron and the thigh is for his sons.

29.28

It shall be should probably be translated as “They shall be,” since the reference is to the
breast and thigh of the ram in verse 27. 29.28 NRSV has “These things,” and TAN has “and those
parts.” But one may also say “This portion.” For Aaron and his sons includes future
descendants of Aaron as well as his four sons, so TAN has “to Aaron and his descendants.”

As a perpetual due is literally “for an obligation [choq] of long time.” This frequent
expression should be translated according to each context. (See the discussion on choq in the
introduction to 20.22–26.) It may be understood as “a perpetual ordinance” (29.28 NRSV), “a
statute binding for all time” (REB), “an irrevocable rule,” or “This law will never change” (29.28
CEV). But here the focus is on the obligation of the people of Israel. Note that the text says
from the people of Israel. Durham has “a share in perpetuity.”

For it is the priests’ portion is not in the Hebrew. Literally the Hebrew says “for it is a lifted
offering.” As in verse 27, however, 29.28 RSV interprets this as the priests’ portion because it is
to be a perpetual due (see above). To be offered by the people of Israel is literally “and it shall
be a lifted offering from the sons of Israel.” Note that the word for “lifted offering” is repeated,
giving the sense of present and future—as if to say “this is what it is, and this is what it shall
be.” 29.28 NRSV has “for this is an offering; and it shall be an offering by the Israelites.” TAN is
similar, using “gift” instead of “offering.”

From their peace offerings is literally “from sacrifices of their resolutions [or,
agreements].” The word for “resolution” (shelem) is related to the word shalom, usually
translated as peace, but more accurately rendered as “well-being” (29.28 NRSV, TAN). 29.28 TEV
regularly translates this as “fellowship offerings” (also NIV), but others have “their communion
sacrifices” (NJB), “their shared-offerings” (REB), and “their completion offerings” (Durham). This
type of sacrifice is described in Leviticus 3. (See also the comment at 20.24.)

It is their offering to the Lord, literally “their lifted offering to [or, for] Yahweh,” is the
third time the term “lifted offering” is used in this verse. This makes for a complex verse that
usually should not be translated literally. 29.28 TEV has completely restructured, condensed,
and changed the verse to first person, but the meaning is all there. 29.28 TEV expresses it this
way: “The breast and the thigh of the animal” are “the peoples’ gift to the Lord,” who assigns
them “to the priests.” (Yahweh is speaking.) The perpetual due then becomes “my unchanging
decision” (29.28 TEV).
 It is possible to combine verse 27 and 28 in the following way:

• 27–28 In the future, when any Israelite offers the breast and thigh of a ram to me, either to
ordain a priest or to restore fellowship with other people, the meat is dedicated to me [or,
belongs to me], and the priests are to eat it. This law will never change.

29.29

The holy garments of Aaron, literally “the garments of holiness which are for Aaron,”
refers to the special vestments described in chapter 28. Shall be for his sons after him is quite
literal. It means, as 29.29 TEV puts it, that “they are to be handed on to his sons after his
death.” Since this refers only to Aaron’s vestments, it should be clear that only one descendant
at a time is to be serving as high priest. (see verse 30.) 29.29 CEV has “handed down to each
descendant who succeeds him as high priest.”

To be anointed in them and ordained in them speaks of two distinctive acts. Three acts,
including “consecration,” are listed in 28.41. (See the comment there.) 29.29 TEV combines the
two acts into one: “for them to wear when they are ordained.”

An alternative translation model for this verse is:

• When Aaron dies, you [or, they] shall hand down his priestly clothes to his descendants who
succeed him as high priest. They must wear these clothes during the ordination ceremony.

29.30

The son who is priest in his place is literally “the priest after him from his sons.” 29.30 TEV
makes this more explicit: “The son of Aaron who succeeds him as priest.” This obviously refers
to the position of high priest. Shall wear them seven days is literally “seven days he shall put
them on.” According to Lev 8.33-35, the priests were to remain at the tabernacle day and night
for the entire seven-day period of ordination. 29.30 CEV has “and these clothes must be worn
during the seven-day ceremony of ordination.”

When he comes into the tent of meeting is literally “which he will enter unto the ’ohel
mo‘ed.” This refers to the tabernacle, not to the small tent described in 33.7–11. (See the
introductory comment to chapter 26.) To minister means “to serve” (29.30 TEV), or “to
officiate” (TAN). (See the comment on “ministers” at 28.35.) In the holy place normally refers
to the outer room of the tabernacle (see the distinction described in 26.33), but here it also
applies to the entire area where the high priest was to perform his priestly duties.

[2] The sacrificial meal (29.31–34)

[2] The sacrificial meal (29.31–34)

Section Heading: the Handbook’s heading, “The sacrificial meal,” may also be expressed as
“How to eat the meal that they have offered as a sacrifice to Yahweh.”

29.31
 Verses 31–34 continue the instructions from verse 26, with verses 27–30 understood as an
interruption. You shall take the ram of ordination is directed to Moses, with the singular You.
29.31 TEV calls it “the ram used for dedication.” This refers to the second ram mentioned in
verse 19. But most of this ram had already been burned on the altar (verse 25). So this must be
understood in context to refer only to the breast and the thigh set aside in verses 26–27.

And boil its flesh means to cook the meat of the ram with water. This is distinguished from
roasting in 12.9. In a holy place does not refer to “the holy place,” which was the outer room
of the tabernacle. It is not indicated where this place would be located, but it probably would
be anywhere inside the open area of the tabernacle enclosure. One may say “in a place that
has been set aside for religious purposes only,” or “in a place that you have already
consecrated to me, Yahweh.” (See the comments on holy at 3.1, 5.)

29.32

And Aaron and his sons shall eat, literally “and Aaron shall eat [singular] and his sons,”
makes no provision for Moses. The flesh of the ram refers at least to the thigh of the right hind
leg (verse 22). This does not include the breast, according to verse 26. The rest of the ram was
to have been burned on the altar (verses 22 and 25). And the bread that is in the basket refers
to what was left of the three kinds of unleavened bread described in verse 2. One piece of
each kind was also to have been burned (verses 23 and 25). 29.32 CEV makes this explicit with
“together with the three kinds of bread.”

At the door of the tent of meeting refers to the “entrance” (29.32 TEV), or opening, of the
tabernacle. (see verse 4.)

29.33

They shall eat those things refers to the meat of the ram and the unleavened bread
(verses 31–32). With which atonement was made is literally “which [it] is covered over by
them,” meaning “by which [their sin] was covered over.” The reference to “sin” is implied by
the verb. The English word “atone” is a combination of the words “at one,” with the meaning
of two persons becoming reconciled with one another. In the Old Testament atonement was
understood as the means by which the people could be reconciled to God whenever the terms
of the covenant were broken. Offering animal sacrifices to Yahweh was the most important
way by which this relationship was restored. Since Yahweh was the one who established the
laws of sacrifice, the people understood that he therefore would not punish them as they
deserved. The Hebrew verb translated as atonement was made is a passive verb that implies
the covering over, or the forgiveness, of sins. The meaning therefore is that the ram and the
unleavened bread, offered as sacrifices “in the ritual of forgiveness” (29.33 TEV), will “cover
over,” or atone for, their sins. Aaron and his sons therefore were to “eat what was used”
(29.33 TEV) in these sacrifices. (See the comment on “forgive” at 10.17, where the same verb,
“cover,” is used.)

To ordain and to consecrate them is literally “to fill their hand and to make them holy.”
This refers to the purpose of the sacrifices. (See the comment on both terms at 28.41.)
 But an outsider shall not eat of them is literally “and a strange [person] shall not eat.” The
words of them are added. The word for outsider here refers to an “unauthorized person”
(NJB), or “lay person” (REB). In other words, “Only priests may eat this food” (29.33 TEV), or
“only they have the right to eat it” (29.33 CEV). The reason is clear: because they are holy, that
is, because the meat and the bread are “sacred” (29.33 TEV); they have been set aside from
ordinary use for use in the things relating to Yahweh. Note that the same root word appears in
consecrate as in holy.

An alternative translation model for this verse is:

• They [Aaron and his sons] shall eat this food that you use when you perform the ceremony for
asking me to forgive their sins. It is the food you offer when you ordain them. They are the
only people who have the right to eat this food, because it has been dedicated to me.

29.34

And if any of the flesh for the ordination … remain is literally “And if [it] remains from the
flesh of the ordination.” This refers to the meat of the ram to be sacrificed for the ordination
ceremony. Or of the bread refers to the unleavened bread in the basket (verse 2). Until the
morning means until daybreak, as in 12.10.

Then you shall burn the remainder with fire uses the singular you, suggesting that Moses
was to do the burning rather than the priests. This, of course, does not apply to future
ceremonies, so 29.34 TEV changes to the passive, “it is to be burned.” To avoid the passive and
not have to use “you,” one may translate “they [unknown agent] shall burn it.” It shall not be
eaten uses the strong prohibitive form of the ten commandments. (See the comment at 20.3,
the first paragraph.) Because it is holy is identical with verse 33, except for the singular it. This
means that by morning not even the priests were allowed to eat any leftover food, and for the
same reason.

[3] The seven-day ceremonies (29.35–37)

[3] The seven-day ceremonies (29.35–37)

Section Heading: the Handbook’s heading, “The seven-day ceremonies,” may also be
expressed as “The ordination and purification ceremonies last for seven days.”

29.35

You shall do, with the singular you, comes first in the Hebrew. It is addressed to Moses. To
Aaron and to his sons is quite literal. The preposition to may also mean “for” (29.35 TEV),
“with” (REB), or “in regard to” (NAB). The word for Thus is a strong word that can mean either
“as follows” or “as just stated.” It is followed by according to all that I have commanded you,
which includes all the instructions in chapters 28 and 29. 29.35 TEV brings out the intended
emphasis: “exactly as I have commanded you.”

NAB NEW AMERICAN BIBLE

 Through seven days shall you ordain them is literally “seven days you [singular] shall fill
their hand” (this idiom is discussed at 28.41.) This means that the consecration of Aaron and
his sons was to continue for seven days, and that “the rites of ordination” (29.35 TEV) were to
be repeated each day. Note that the sentence in 29.35 RSV continues into verse 36. 29.35 CEV
restructures the verse as follows:

• Repeat this ordination ceremony for Aaron and his sons seven days in a row just as I have
instructed you.

29.36

And every day, literally “for a day,” means “each day” (29.36 TEV) of the seven-day period.
You shall offer a bull as a sin offering is literally “a young bull a sin offering you [singular] shall
do.” (See the comment on sin offering at verse 14.) For atonement, literally “upon the
coverings-over,” means, as 29.36 TEV translates, that this “sacrifice” is to be offered “so that
sin may be forgiven,” or one may say “… so that I may forgive their sin.”

Also you shall offer a sin offering is just one word, literally “and you [singular] shall sin-
offer.” 29.36 RSV and 29.36 NRSV interpret the “and” here as also, which means that two sin
offerings were to be made each day. Most translations, however, interpret the verse to refer
to just one offering. For the altar means that any impurities in the altar itself needed to be
removed in order for it to be consecrated. 29.36 TEV combines this with the following clause
and has “This will purify the altar.” 29.36 CEV has “as a way of purifying the altar.”

When you make atonement for it, literally “in your covering over upon it,” refers to the
altar. The verb is a different form of the same word for atonement. And shall anoint it also
refers to the altar. 29.36 TEV adds “anoint it with olive oil,” but this was probably the special
anointing oil described in 30.23–25. (See the comment on “oil” at 29.7 and on “anoint” at
28.41.) To consecrate it is literally “to make it holy.”

An alternative translation model for this verse is:

• Each day you must slaughter a bull and offer it to me so that I may forgive their [Aaron’s and
his sons’] sin and purify the altar. In addition you must take the special oil and anoint the altar
to make it holy.

29.37

Seven days you shall make atonement for the altar, and consecrate it is literally “Seven
days you [singular] shall cover over upon the altar and you shall make it holy.” This refers back
to the two acts in verse 36—the sacrifice of the young bull and the anointing of the altar. Since
this repeats what has just been said, 29.37 TEV has “Do this every day for seven days.” And the
altar shall be most holy is literally “and it shall be holy of holy things.” This expression is
identical with “the holy of holies” in 26.33, except that the definite article “the” is not used.

Whatever touches the altar is literally “any toucher on the altar.” The participle does not
distinguish between human, animal, or thing, so 29.37 TEV has “and anyone or anything that
touches it.” Shall become holy, literally “he [or, it] shall be holy,” suggests that “holiness” was
 considered to be contagious. This may be understood as either positive or negative taboo (or,
holiness). NAB has “will become sacred.” But 29.37 TEV takes it as a warning, “will be harmed by
the power of its holiness.” (See 29.37 TEV footnote.) And MFT has “whoever touches the altar is
doomed.” REB takes a neutral position, “must be treated as holy.”

An alternative translation model for this verse is:

• Do this for seven days, and the altar will become so holy [or, taboo] that anyone or anything
that touches it will become holy [or, taboo].

(9) The Daily Offerings (29.38–46)

Verses 38–42 deal with the regular burnt offering that was to be offered twice daily. This
was the most frequent sacrifice for which the altar was used. Verses 43–46 explain the
purpose of the entire sacrificial system of Israel, which was to be the means by which Yahweh
would dwell with his people. Then they would know that he was their God, the God who freed
them from slavery in Egypt and gave them a future.

Section Heading: the Handbook’s heading, “The daily offerings,” is the same as in 29.37
TEV. 29.37 CEV has “Daily Sacrifices,” since the text speaks about sacrificing animals. This may
be a better model for some languages. Other ways to express it are “Sacrifice lambs [young
male sheep] every day” or “Slaughter lambs and offer them to Yahweh every day.”

29.38

Now this is what you shall offer upon the altar is literally “And this is what you [singular]
shall do upon the altar.” In a number of languages this action will be expressed as “you shall
slaughter and offer to me on the altar … .” This line introduces all the instructions that follow,
up to verse 42. Two lambs a year old means two young male sheep just one year old. Day by
day, literally “for a day,” means daily, or “every day” (29.38 TEV). Continually is the same word
used in 25.30 and 27.20. In other contexts it may mean “always” or “continually,” but here
29.38 NRSV has correctly changed continually to “regularly.” The Hebrew term is used in verse
42 to designate the “regular burnt offering” (29.38 NRSV).

29.39

One lamb you shall offer in the morning is literally “The one lamb you [singular] shall do in
the morning.” The word for morning may mean anytime from daybreak to noon. And the
other lamb, literally “and the second lamb,” was to be offered (Hebrew “you shall do”) in the
evening. This is more specific than the word for morning. Here the literal meaning is “between
the [two] evenings.” (See the comment at 12.6.) REB has “between dusk and dark,” Durham
has “between sundown and nightfall,” and TAN has “at twilight.” 29.39 CEV shortens this entire
verse to “one in the morning and one in the evening.” Translators may wish to follow this
model if it is not good style to repeat the phrases one lamb and the other lamb.

29.40

MFT MOFFATT
 And with the first lamb, literally “for the one lamb,” comes at the end of the verse in the
Hebrew (as seen in TAN). A tenth measure of fine flour is just two words, literally “a tenth of
flour.” The word for tenth, used alone in this context, means one-tenth of the standard dry
measure, which was the “ephah” (see 16.36). The ‘omerls;omer, mentioned only in 16.36, was
also one-tenth, but the term was not widely used. The word for fine flour means finely ground
wheat flour. (See the comment at verse 2.) 29.40 TEV has “two pounds of fine wheat flour” (or
“one kilo gramme”).

Mingled with a fourth of a hin of beaten oil is better understood as in 29.40 TEV, “mixed
with one quart of pure olive oil” (or “one litre”). For beaten oil see 27.20 and the comment.
The hin was the standard liquid measure, equal approximatelyto one gallon, or 3.8 liters. So a
fourth of a hin of wine would also be “one quart of wine” (29.40 TEV), “one litre.” The word for
wine refers to fermented grape juice. This was to be used for a libation, or “a drink offering.”
(See the comment on “wine” at 22.29.) The word for libation comes from the verb meaning
“to pour,” so the wine was poured out “as an offering” (29.40 TEV). It is not clear whether it
was poured on the lamb, or on the altar, or at the foot of the altar.

29.41

And the other lamb you shall offer in the evening follows the pattern of verse 39. (See the
comment there.) And shall offer with it is literally “you [singular] shall do to it.” A cereal
offering refers to the same kind of flour offering described in verse 40, but here it is called the
cereal offering, in Hebrew minchah, which literally means “a gift.” TAN calls it a “meal
offering,” and 29.41 NRSV now has “grain offering.” 29.41 TEV calls it “a food offering.” (Further
description of the minchah offering may be found in Leviticus 2.) And its libation refers to the
same kind of “drink offering” as in verse 40.

As in the morning means not only the same kinds of offerings but also the same quantities
that are mentioned in verse 40. So 29.41 TEV has “and offer with it the same amounts of flour,
olive oil, and wine as in the morning.” For a pleasing odor and an offering by fire to the Lord
are the same expressions used in verse 18.

Verses 40 and 41 may be combined in the following way:

• 40–41 With each lamb you must offer grain consisting of two pounds of your finest flour mixed
with a quart of pure olive oil. You must also pour out a quart of wine as an offering. I will smell
these offerings as they go up in smoke, and I will be pleased.

29.42

It shall be a continual burnt offering is literally “a burnt offering of continuance.” The

words it shall be are added. The word for burnt offering, ‘olah, is discussed at verse 18. The
word for continual is better rendered as “regular” (29.42 NRSV), as explained at verse 38.
Throughout your generations means “generation after generation” (REB), or “for the
generations to come” (29.42 NIV). The pronoun your is plural. At the door of the tent of
meeting, literally “entrance of ’ohel mo‘ed,” is discussed at verse 4. Before the Lord, literally
“to the face of Yahweh,” means “in the Lord’s presence” (TOT). An alternative translation
model for this first sentence is “You and your descendants must always offer these sacrifices at
the entrance to the sacred tent in my presence [or, while I am watching].”

Where I will meet with you suggests meeting by appointment. This is the same word used
in “tent of meeting.” The you is plural. To speak there to you uses the singular you. The
sudden shift from the plural you to the singular you is not reflected in most English
translations, but 29.42 TEV takes the first you, which is plural, to mean “my people.” This
suggests that Yahweh will meet with all the Israelites, but will speak only with Moses.
Translators are urged to follow 29.42 TEV’s model. (See the following verse.)

29.43

There I will meet with the people of Israel is literally “And I will meet there with the sons
of Israel.” But where is there? And it shall be sanctified is literally “and it will be made holy.”
But what is it? It is not clear what the words there and it refer to. 29.43 KJV has “the
tabernacle,” and ASV has “the tent,” in place of it. REB has “There, at the altar.” (So also MFT.)
Most translations simply have “the place,” which includes the “tent,” the “altar,” and the
entire “tabernacle.”

By my glory is “by my kavod,” which is discussed at 16.7. TAN has “by My Presence,” and
29.43 TEV has “the dazzling light of my presence will make the place holy.” Sometimes the
kavod is something to be seen with the eyes, as in 16.10, but it is also possible to describe it as
the power of God’s presence. So here one may also say “the power of my presence will make
the place holy.” If this is difficult to translate, other possibilities are “my great power will make
the place holy,” or “I will be with you in all my power, and this will make the tent holy.” This, of
course, comes very close to saying exactly what the following verse says.

29.44

I will consecrate the tent of meeting is literally “I will make holy the ’ohel mo‘ed.” Yahweh
is the speaker. Tent of meeting, as explained at 27.21, refers to the tabernacle. This repeats
the idea in verse 43 but is really more specific, with mention of both the tent of meeting and
the altar. The altar, of course, refers to the altar for burnt offerings, described in 27.1–8. It
was to be placed outside the tabernacle tent.

Aaron also and his sons is literally “and Aaron and his sons.” I will consecrate is literally “I
will make holy.” Yahweh is still speaking. To serve me as priests, literally “to priest to [or, for]
me,” uses a verb form of “priest,” as in 28.1. Durham has “to give priestly ministry to me.”

29.45

And I will dwell among the people of Israel is literally “And I will settle in the midst of the
sons of Israel.” The word for dwell (shakan) is similar to the word for tabernacle (mishkan).

TOT TRANSLATOR’S OLD TESTAMENT

This really means, as 29.45 TEV expresses it, “I will live among the people of Israel.” TAN has
“abide.” And I will be their God is literally “and I will be to them for ’elohim,” using the usual
word for deity. (See the comment at 6.3 for a full discussion of the term.)

29.46

And they shall know means that the Israelites will know from experience. This is more
than just intellectual awareness. (See the comment on know at 6.7.) That I am the Lord their
God is literally “that I Yahweh their God,” for the Hebrew clause does not include the verb “to
be.” It may be understood either as “I am the Lord, their God” (29.46 TEV), or as “I the Lord am
their God.” (See the comment at 6.7, where the same expression occurs.)

Who brought them forth out of the land of Egypt is literally “who caused them to go out
from the land of Egypt.” That I might dwell among them is literally “for me to settle in their
midst.” This use of the infinitive (“for me to settle”) is usually understood as a purpose clause,
in the sense of “in order that.” In other words, the reason Yahweh brought them forth was “so
that I could live among them” (29.46 TEV). It is possible, however, to interpret the infinitive as a
causal clause, in the sense that Yahweh’s dwelling among the people is the basis for them to
know that Yahweh is their God. So REB has “and by my dwelling among them they will know
that I am the Lord their God who brought them out.” TOT has “Then they will know … because I
live among them.” And Durham has “they will know … on account of my dwelling in their
midst.” The interpretation of 29.46 RSV, 29.46 NRSV, and 29.46 TEV, however, is recommended.

(10) The Altar for Incense (30.1–10)

Chapter 30 includes instructions that some scholars consider to be supplementary; that is,
they are not as important as the instructions given earlier. The command to build an altar of
incense, for example, seems to be out of place, especially since it was to be gold-plated and
placed inside the Holy Place. We would expect verses 1–10 to follow chapter 26, where the
table and the lampstand are described.

In the chapters following the episode of the golden calf, however, where we are told how
all these instructions were carried out, the construction of this altar of incense comes
immediately after that of the table and the lampstand, and before the construction of the altar
of burnt offering. We should assume, therefore, that there is good reason for the present
arrangement of the material in chapters 30–31, whether it be historical, theological, or
structural, and we should not attempt to rearrange it. This, of course, is not the translator’s
task [Link] year throughout your generations; it is most holy to the Lord.”

These verses describe a second altar, but this one was to be used only for burning incense.
It is called an “altar,” which is literally “a place of slaughter,” because it was similar to the
larger altar for animal sacrifice (27.1–8). In 39.38 it is called “the golden altar” to distinguish it
from “the bronze altar” (39.39), and in 40.5 it is referred to as “the golden altar for incense.”

Section Heading: this Handbook has the heading,“The altar for incense,” and 29.46 TEV and
29.46 CEV have “The Altar for Burning Incense.” Another way to express this is “Build an altar
for burning incense.”
30.1

You shall make an altar to burn incense upon is literally “And you [singular] shall make an
altar [for] letting incense go up in smoke.” (Incense is mentioned at 25.6 and described at
30.34–35.) The same word for burn is used in 29.13 in a different form. (See also verse 7
below.) Of acacia wood shall you make it simply specifies the kind of wood to be used, the
same as for the larger altar (27.1). (See the comment on acacia wood at 25.10.) 30.1 TEV has
condensed the verse in a more natural way: “Make an altar of acacia wood, for burning
incense.” Since this verse begins a new section, it will be helpful in many languages to translate
“The Lord said to Moses, ‘Have them make [or, build] an altar with acacia wood where you can
burn incense’ ” or “The Lord continued to instruct Moses, saying, ‘Have them take acacia wood
and build an altar for burning incense.’ ”

30.2

A cubit shall be its length … its breadth means that it was to be about “18 inches long and
18 inches wide” (30.2 TEV). That is about “45 centimetres” square. (Cubit is explained at 25.10.)
It shall be square uses the same word as 28.16. 30.2 TEV places this first and then gives the
dimensions. One may also simply say “It shall be eighteen inches square.” And two cubits shall
be its height is literally “and double-cubit its height.” The word for height comes from the
word for “stand up.”

Its horns refers to the horn-like “projections at the four corners” (30.2 TEV). (Horns are
discussed at 27.2.) Shall be of one piece with it means that they were to be carved from the
same piece of wood as the sides (or top) of the altar. As in the case of the altar of burnt
offering, they were not to be made separately and then attached to it. This was also a
requirement for the cherubim on top of the pure gold cover for the Covenant Box (25.19). 30.2
CEV has “make each of its four corners stick up like the horn of a bull.” This is a helpful model,
but the reference to the horns being of one piece with it is not made explicit. So one may say
“The four corners at the top should be carved from the same piece of wood and should stick
up like the horns of a bull.”

30.3

And you shall overlay it with pure gold is identical with 25.11. Its top refers to the flat
surface for the top side of the altar. The Hebrew word is used for the flat roof of a building.
(Fox even translates “roof” here.) The altar for the animal sacrifice evidently did not have this
kind of top but had a grating instead. And its sides round about may be understood as “all four
sides” (30.3 TEV). The horns are discussed at verse 2.

And you shall make for it still uses the singular you. A molding of gold is the same term
used for the Covenant Box (25.11) and the Table (25.24). It was evidently a decorative “gold
border” (30.3 TEV) close to the top and extending around the sides of the altar. Round about is
the same word used in 25.11.

An alternative translation model for this verse is:

• Use pure gold and cover its top, all four sides, and the projections sticking up at the corners
that look like bull’s horns. Also put a gold edging around it.

30.4

And two golden rings you shall make for it uses the same words as 25.26, but here only
two are mentioned instead of four. REB interprets this to mean “pairs of gold rings,” and NAB
has “two on one side and two on the opposite side.” But four rings would not have been
necessary to carry this small altar, and the text is not as specific here as it is for the Covenant
Box (25.12) and for the larger altar (27.4). The word for make is indefinite; it does not indicate
whether these rings were to be cast or carved. (But see 25.12).

Under its molding refers to the gold “border” mentioned in verse 3. On two opposite
sides of it, literally “on its two ribs,” uses the same word for sides as 25.12. Shall you make
them repeats the same word for make, but here it should be understood as “attach them”
(30.4 TEV), or “fasten them” (TOT). This suggests that the two rings were fastened to the sides
of the altar rather than at the corners, one on each of two opposite sides. 30.4 CEV has “Then
below the edging on opposite sides attach two gold rings.” And they shall be holders for
poles, literally “and it will be for houses for poles,” is the same expression used in 25.27.
Another way to express this is “through which you can put the poles for people to carry the
altar.” With which to carry it is literally “to lift it by them.”

30.5

You shall make the poles of acacia wood is clear enough. For acacia wood see 25.10. And
overlay them with gold uses the same word for overlay as verse 3. (Overlay is discussed at
25.11.)

30.6

And you shall put it refers to the incense altar (verse 1). It is to be placed before the veil,
literally “to the face of the paroketh,” or the curtain separating the Holy of Holies from the
Holy Place. In certain languages it will be helpful to make this information explicit, with “Put
this altar just outside the curtain that hangs between the Holy Place and the Most Holy Place.”
(See 26.33.) In this context it is better to say “outside” the veil (30.6 TEV). That is by the ark of
the testimony is literally “which is over [or, upon] the box of the reminder.” (This expression
for the ark is discussed at 25.22.) 30.6 NRSV calls this “the ark of the covenant,” and 30.6 TEV
has “the Covenant Box.”

Before the mercy seat (kapporeth) refers to the gold lid or cover that was to be placed on
top of the “Covenant Box.” (See 25.17.) That is over the testimony may refer either to the
“Box” itself or to the stone tablets that were to be placed inside it. (See 25.21.) 30.6 TEV,
following the Septuagint and some of the Hebrew manuscripts, omits this clause about the
mercy seat. It is, of course, clear enough what is meant. It will be helpful to begin a new
sentence here and say “The sacred chest with the golden lid is kept behind that curtain.”
 Where I will meet with you is ambiguous. The use of commas in 30.6 RSV and 30.6 NRSV to
set off the reference to the mercy seat does not sufficiently clarify what place the where refers
to. Does it refer to the incense altar in the area outside the veil, or does it refer to the mercy
seat inside the veil? By starting a new sentence here, 30.6 TEV seems to suggest that it is
“outside the curtain.” It has already been stated, however, that the Lord will meet with Moses
“above the mercy seat” and “between the two cherubim” (25.22). Therefore it is best to relate
the where to the mercy seat inside the Holy of Holies. 30.6 CEV is much clearer: “The chest
with the place of mercy is kept behind that curtain, and I will talk with you there.”

An alternative translation model for this verse is:

• Put this altar just outside the curtain that hangs between the Holy Place and the Most Holy
Place. The sacred chest with the golden lid is behind that curtain. That is the place where I will
meet [or, talk] with you.

30.7–8

And Aaron shall burn fragrant incense on it is literally “And Aaron shall cause fragrant
incense to smoke.” The words for burn and incense both come from the same root meaning of
“smoke.” The word for fragrant refers to the spices used in incense, so ASV has “incense of
sweet spices.” 30.8 TEV has “sweet- smelling incense,” and TAN has “aromatic incense.” The
formula for making this incense is given in verses 34–35.

Every morning is literally “in the morning in the morning.” When he dresses the lamps is
literally “in his causing the lamps to be good,” or “in his doing good to the lamps.” This refers
to the lamps for the golden lampstand (25.37). To “cause them to be good” means “to take
care of the lamps” (30.8 TEV), to tend them (TAN), or to trim them (REB). This involved cleaning
them, removing the burnt wick and replacing it with new wick, and adding more oil. All this
was necessary after the lamps had been burning during the night; their light was not needed
during the day. The special tools for doing this are mentioned in 25.38. He shall burn it means
“he is to make the incense smoke.”

And when Aaron sets up the lamps in the evening is literally “and in Aaron’s lifting the
lamps between the [two] evenings.” With the coming of the evening, the light from the lamps
was again needed. TOT has “at dusk when he fixes the lamps on the lamp stand,” but this may
be understood, as 30.8 TEV expresses it, “when he lights the lamps in the evening.” (See the
comment on evening at 12.6, “between the two evenings.”) He shall burn it repeats the
phrase in verse 7.

A perpetual incense before the Lord, literally “incense of continuance to the face of
Yahweh,” refers to the “offering of incense” (30.8 TEV) rather than to the incense itself.
Perpetual is better understood as “regular” (30.8 NRSV), since this daily schedule was to
“continue without interruption” (30.8 TEV). Throughout your generations, literally “to your
[plural] generations,” really means “for all time to come” (30.8 TEV). 30.8 CEV gives this
meaning with “From now on, when Aaron tends the lamps each morning and evening, he must
burn sweet-smelling incense to me on the altar.”

30.9
 You shall offer no unholy incense thereon is literally “You [singular] shall not cause to
ascend upon it strange [or, foreign] incense.” This is the strong prohibitive form of the ten
commandments. Unholy is better understood as “forbidden” (30.9 TEV), “unauthorised” (NJB),
or “incense with bad taboo.” It is an incense from the outside that should not come in contact
with a place where Yahweh is present. 30.9 CEV has “Burn only the proper incense.” 30.9 NIV
has “any other incense,” but it is not yet clear that the only authorized incense is that
prescribed in verses 34–35.

Nor burnt offering (‘olah) refers to the animal sacrifices that were to be burned on the
larger altar outside. 30.9 TEV is correct in translating “any animal offering,” since ‘olah would
have a broader meaning here. Nor cereal offering refers to the “grain offering” (30.9 TEV)
described in Leviticus 2. (See 29.41 and the comment there.) And you shall pour no libation
thereon refers to a “drink offering” (30.9 NRSV) of wine. So 30.9 TEV calls it a “wine offering.”
(See 29.40 and the comment there.)

An alternative translation model for this verse is:

• Burn only the proper [or, authorized] incense on the altar. Don’t ever use it for sacrificing
animals or offering grain. And do not pour out any wine offerings on it.

30.10

Aaron shall make atonement is literally “And Aaron shall cover” or “make amends.” The
Hebrew word kipper means “to cover,” but it is frequently used in the sense of covering over
sins. (See the comment on atonement at 29.33.) 30.10 NRSV improves on 30.10 RSV, “Aaron
shall perform the rite of atonement,” but 30.10 TEV is better: “Aaron is to perform the ritual for
purifying the altar.” All this is implied by the reference to its horns. (see verse 2.) Once a year
is literally “once in the year.”

With the blood of the sin offering of atonement is literally “from blood of the sin
[offering] of the coverings-over.” The sin offering refers to “the animal sacrificed for sin”
(30.10 TEV). (See the comment at 29.14.) The act of “covering over” refers to the ritual of
“purifying” (30.10 TEV), which in this case is “purifying the altar.” This evidently involved taking
blood from the larger altar outside and smearing it on the four projections of the smaller
incense altar that was inside the Holy Place. Once in the year is repeated for emphasis. An
alternative translation model for the first part of this verse is “Once a year Aaron must purify
the altar. He will do this by taking blood from an animal that they have sacrificed for sin, and
smearing it on the four horns of the altar” or “Once a year Aaron must take the blood of an
animal that has been sacrificed for sin, and smear it on the four horns [or, projections] of the
altar. In this way he will purify the altar.”

He shall make atonement for it is literally “he shall cover over [or, appease] upon it.” This
repeats the first part of the verse, but the phrase “upon it” refers to the “altar” rather than the
horns. So for it is the better translation. Throughout your generations is identical to verse 8. It
is most holy to the Lord is literally “holy of holies this [is] to Yahweh.” 30.10 TEV handles it
well, “completely holy, dedicated to me, the Lord.” NJB has “It is especially holy for Yahweh.”
30.10 CEV has “The altar is sacred because it is dedicated to me.” The it refers to “the altar,” so
NAB makes it explicit: “This altar is most sacred to the Lord.”

(11) The Sanctuary Tax (30.11–16)

The sanctuary tax, sometimes called the “poll tax,” or the “half-shekel tax,” provided the
silver needed for making the bases for the tabernacle. (See 38.25–28.) In the context of the
book of Exodus, it is presented as a one-time obligation of the people. But this account
became the basis for an annual taxation for the maintenance of the tabernacle and the
worship. Later it became the basis for the Temple tax (Matt 17.24).

A census was considered to be a dangerous undertaking, partly because it was often done
in preparation for war or for taxation. The account of David’s census (2 Samuel 24) suggests
that it could easily arouse God’s anger against the people. So here a provision is made to avert
the outbreak of a plague. This was done through payment of half a shekel by everyone who
was counted. This served as a “ransom” to “atone” for each person’s sins and to appease
God’s anger.

Section Heading: this Handbook has the heading “The sanctuary tax”; 30.10 TEV’s is similar,
with “The Tax for the Tent of the Lord’s Presence.” 30.10 CEV has “The Money for the Sacred
Tent.” One may also say “The tax [or, money] paid for the sacred tent.”

30.11–12

The Lord said to Moses is literally “And Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying.” This is the first
break in the words of Yahweh since 25.1, where the exact expression is used. (See the
comment there.) Here, however, it introduces a short series of Yahweh’s instructions. It may
be a discourse marker, since the exact words appear again at the beginning of a new section in
verses 17, 22, and 31.1. (See also verse 34 and 31.12 for a similar break in the discourse.)

When you take the census of the people of Israel is literally “when you [singular] lift up
the head of the sons of Israel.” Moses would probably not have been expected to do the
counting himself, so one may say “When you have them count … .” This is an idiom meaning to
take a head-count. 30.12 RSV omits a word that follows in the Hebrew, which is literally “for
their being accounted for.” 30.12 NRSV has “When you take a census of the Israelites to register
them.” Others have “to count them” (30.12 NIV), “who are to be registered” (NAB), and
“according to their enrollment” (TAN). In many languages the idea of “count” will be more
natural; for example, “When you count the number of adult [or, grown] men in Israel.”

The same idea, however, is repeated two more times, with the expression “in counting
them.” RSV thus has when you number them at the end of the second clause, and again at the
end of the third clause. 30.12 NRSV gives a slightly different meaning to these two identical
expressions, “at registration” and “for being registered.” This suggests that the ransom has to
be paid at the time of their being counted, in order to avoid a plague as a result of their being
counted. (So also TAN, NAB, and Durham.) This interpretation is possible, but others do not
make this distinction. In fact 30.12 TEV combines all three into one, “while the census is being
taken.”
 Then each shall give a ransom for himself to the Lord is literally “and a man shall give a
ransom of his nefesh to Yahweh.” The word translated as ransom is related to the word for
“atonement” used in verse 10. 30.12 TEV has “a price,” and NAB has “a forfeit,” both of which
are possible. The word nefesh, often mistrans lated as “soul” (KJV, ASV), really means himself, or
“his life” (30.12 TEV). It does not suggest the New Testament idea of the “soul” as distinct from
the body.

That there be no plague among them is literally “and there will not be in them a plague.”
The word for plague means a “blow,” or “affliction.” The same word is used in 8.2; 9.14; and
12.13. In every case the word implies a “disaster” (30.12 TEV) or “danger” (30.12 CEV) brought
on by Yahweh, but the kind of “smiting” (Durham) is not specified. It is possible to combine the
final two sentences as follows: “Require each of the men to pay money to me in order to keep
him safe from danger while you are doing this [counting].”

30.13

Each who is numbered in the census is literally “Every passer-over to the counted ones.”
30.13 NIV is quite literal, “Each one who crosses over to those already counted.” (Similarly also
REB.) But this obviously means “Everyone included in the census” (30.13 TEV) or “each one who
is registered” (30.13 NRSV). TAN has “everyone who is entered in the records.” Shall give this
refers to what follows. It is possible to include information from verse 14 and say “Each man
twenty years old or older, whether rich or poor,” leaving it implicit that these are the ones who
are numbered in the census.

Half a shekel does not refer to a coin but rather to half of the standard weight of silver (or
gold), which may have been about 11.4 grams, or ounces. Half a shekel therefore weighed
about 5.7 grams. It is difficult to estimate what this would equal in today’s currency, so most
translations simply transliterate the Hebrew word shekel. 30.13 TEV avoids this by saying
“Everyone … must pay the required amount of money,” and 30.13 CEV has “must pay me the
same amount of money.” It should be noted, however, that 30.13 CEV changes the focus from
the specified amount to the idea that everyone pays the same amount. In this case, on the
basis of 38.25, it was to be paid in silver.

According to the shekel of the sanctuary may also be translated “by the holy shekel.” This
indicates that there may have been more than one standard. REB has “according to the sacred
standard.” At least this “sanctuary weight” (TAN) of the shekel equaled twenty gerahs. The
gerah was the smallest unit of weight, which was less than 0.6 grams. 30.13 TEV has considered
this as unnecessary information and simply says “weighed according to the official standard.”
(30.13 CEV is almost identical.) But this was probably not the same as the “royal standard”
(30.13 TEV) mentioned in 2 Sam 14.26 (30.13 RSV “the king’s weight”). One may also say
“weighed according to what is considered the correct weight” or “that you weigh according to
what they consider the correct weight.”

Half a shekel as an offering to the Lord uses the same word for offering as 25.2. It has the
basic meaning of something “lifted up” in an act of dedication. This half a shekel is the same as
 the one mentioned earlier, so NJB has “This half-shekel will be set aside for Yahweh,” and 30.13
TEV has “Everyone must pay this as an offering to me.”

30.14

Every one who is numbered in the census repeats the same idiom used in verse 13,
literally “every passer-over to the counted ones.” From twenty years old and upward is
literally “from the son of twenty years and higher.” This can refer to both male and female,
and most translations prefer to remain neutral. But the same expression is used in Num 1.3 for
a census of those old enough for war. So 30.14 TEV makes it explicit: “Everyone … that is, every
man twenty years old or older.”

Shall give the Lord’s offering is literally “he shall give a lifted-up [gift] of Yahweh,” using
the same word for offering as verse 13.

30.15

The rich shall not give more is literally “The rich [one] will not cause to be many.” Rich in a
number of languages will be expressed as “those who have many possessions.” And the poor
shall not give less is literally “and the poor [one] will not cause to be few.” (See the comment
on “poor” at 23.3.) Than the half shekel turns the two expressions into comparative clauses,
“more than” and “less than.” 30.15 TEV omits the half shekel since this is understood from
verse 14.

When you give the Lord’s offering is literally “for giving the lifted-up [gift] of Yahweh.”
(see verse 14.) To make atonement for yourselves is literally “for covering over [or, appeasing]
upon your [plural] souls [plural of nefesh].” (But see the comment on nefesh at verse 11.) 30.15
NRSV has “for your lives,” and 30.15 TEV changes the second person plural to third person, “for
their lives.”

An alternative translation model combining verses 13–15 is the following:

• 13–15 Each man who is twenty years old or older, whether rich or poor, must pay the same
amount of money to protect his life. You must weigh this according to what they consider the
correct [or, standard] amount.

30.16

And you shall take the atonement money is literally “And you [singular] shall take the
silver of the coverings-over.” The word for “silver” is the usual word for money. (See the
comment at 21.32.) The word for “coverings-over” (plural) is the usual word for atonement, or
an act of reconciliation. (See the comment at verse 10.) From the people of Israel is the usual
“sons of Israel.”

And you shall appoint it is literally “and you [singular] shall give (or place) it.” This may be
understood as “designate it” (30.16 NRSV), “apply it” (NJB), “assign it” (TAN), or “spend it” (30.16
TEV). For the service of the tent of meeting is literally “on the labor of the ’ohel mo‘ed.” (For
’ohel mo‘ed, see the comment at 27.21.) The word for service is the same word used for the
forced labor, or “bondage,” in 2.23, but it may also refer to cultic activity or worship. (See the
comment at 12.25.)

This atonement money therefore may have been intended either for the actual
construction of the tabernacle or for the expense of maintaining the worship. 30.16 TEV and
30.16 CEV take it to refer to the “upkeep” of the tabernacle, but in 38.25–28 all of this “silver”
was used to make the bases for the frames and the hooks on the pillars. And this same word
for service clearly means “work” in 39.32. Translators should recognize that this is a provision
not only for the initial construction of the tabernacle but also for the future expense of
maintaining it. It is probably the basis for what later became known as the temple or sanctuary
tax. Since both meanings seem to be implied, one may say “for the building and upkeep of the
sacred tent [or, tabernacle].”

That it may bring the people of Israel to remembrance before the Lord is literally “and it
shall be for the sons of Israel for a reminder to the face of Yahweh.” The expression “to the
face of Yahweh,” of course, means “in the presence of Yahweh.” It is not clear, however,
whether the remembrance, or “reminder,” is for the people of Israel or for the Lord, or both.
30.16 NRSV interprets it one way, “a reminder to the Israelites,” and 30.16 TEV interprets it the
other way, “and I (Yahweh) will remember.” 30.16 CEV has “I will never forget my people.”

It is also unclear what it is that should be remembered. The final clause must also be
considered. So as to make atonement for yourselves is identical with the closing words of
verse 15, but 30.16 NRSV translates it differently here: “of the ransom given for your lives.” This
shows that it is the ransom, or the “tax” (30.16 TEV) that the people are to pay, that is to be
remembered. 30.16 TEV, however, interprets it to be Yahweh’s promise “to protect them”
(changing the pronoun yourselves to “them”). But this seems to strain the Hebrew syntax too
far.

Since this “silver” was actually used in the construction of the tabernacle (see above), it
would have served as a constant reminder to the people that they had paid this “tax” as an
atonement or “ransom” (30.16 NRSV) for their lives. We can imagine that it would serve as a
reminder to Yahweh as well, but the Hebrew does not clearly support this interpretation. It is
best, therefore, to say something like this: “this tax will be a reminder to the Israelites, in
Yahweh’s presence, that they (or, you [plural]) have paid for their lives” or “for his protection.”

(12) The bronze basin (30.17–21)

Section Heading: both the Handbook and 30.16 TEV have “The bronze basin.” CEV’s “The
Large Bronze Bowl” will be easier to translate in many languages.

30.17–18

The Lord said to Moses is identical with verse 11. (See the comment on this longer formula
at 25.1.) You shall also make is literally “And you [singular] shall make,” but this may also be
expressed as “Have them make … .” A laver of bronze uses a word meaning a “basin” for
washing or cooking. The Hebrew word suggests that it was round, but the size is not indicated.
It was evidently large enough, however, to hold enough water for four or five priests to dip in
and “pour” water over their feet and hands. So 30.18 CEV translates “a large bronze bowl.” (see
verse 19.)

The English word “laver” comes from the Latin lavatorium, from which we get also
“lavatory.” The word for bronze is discussed at 25.3. With its base of bronze refers to a stand
or support on which the “basin” (30.18 TEV) was placed. 30.18 CEV has “and a bronze stand for
it.” For washing simply clarifies the purpose, which was for ceremonial washing of hands and
feet. It will be helpful in many languages to put that information here; for example, “Have
them make a large bronze bowl and a bronze stand for it. Then put the bowl between the
sacred tent and the altar for sacrificing animals. Put water in it so the priests can wash their
hands and feet.” (See 29.4 and the comment there.)

And you shall put it uses the word meaning “give” or “place.” Between the tent of
meeting and the altar means between the tabernacle itself and the larger altar for animal
sacrifice. This would be out in the open area but inside the enclosure. And you shall put water
in it uses the same word for put.

30.19–20

The verse begins with the usual conjunction waw. [And] Aaron and his sons shall wash
their hands and their feet uses the same word for wash, which suggests pouring water. With
which comes at the end of the clause in the Hebrew and may also be translated “from it.”

When they go into the tent of meeting is literally “in their entering the ’ohel mo‘ed.” Here
it means, as 30.20 TEV puts it, “before they go into the Tent.” Or when they come near the
altar is literally “or in their approaching (or, stepping up to) the altar.” This refers to the
outside altar for animal sacrifice. To minister means to serve, or to wait on. This is the same
word used in 28.35. (See the comment there.)

To burn an offering is literally “to cause to go up in smoke.” (See 29.13.) By fire to the
Lord, literally “a fire-gift to Yahweh,” is the problematic word discussed at 29.18. They shall
wash with water is literally “they shall pour water.” The same expression is used in 29.4,
where Moses is to “wash” Aaron and his sons in the ritual of consecration. (See the comment
there.) Lest they die is literally “and they will not die.” This suggests the danger of attending to
holy things without first becoming ceremonially clean. 30.20 TEV puts it more strongly: “then
they will not be killed.” One may also say “then the holiness (or, taboo) will not kill them.”

30.21

They shall wash their hands and their feet repeats the same words used in verse 20. Lest
they die is identical with verse 20. This repetition is for emphasis, so 30.21 TEV has “They must
wash their hands and feet … .”

It shall be a statute for ever to them is literally “and it shall be for them an obligation of
long time.” The word for statute, choq, is discussed in the introduction to 20.22–26. Them, of
course, refers to Aaron and his sons. Even to him, literally “to him” (even is added), refers to
Aaron. And to his descendants, literally “and to his seed,” is the same word used in 28.43.
 Throughout their generations, literally “to their generations,” may be understood as “in every
generation” (REB), “throughout the ages” (TAN), or simply “forever” (30.21 TEV).

An alternative translation model combining verses 17–21 is the following:

• 17–21 The Lord said to Moses, “Have them make a large bronze bowl and a bronze stand for it.
Then put the bowl between the sacred tent and the altar for sacrificing animals. Put water in
the bowl so that the priests can wash their hands and feet before they enter the tent or
sacrifice an animal on the altar. They and their descendants must always wash themselves in
this way. Otherwise they will die (or, be killed).

(13) Special Recipes (30.22–38)

(a) The Anointing Oil (30.22–33)

(a) The anointing oil (30.22–33)

The following two sections include recipes, added as an appendix to all the instructions for
building the tabernacle and consecrating the priesthood. Each recipe is introduced with the
repeated reminder that these are Yahweh’s instructions. Verse 22 repeats for the fourth time
the identical formula first used in 25.1, which has not been used again until verses 11 and 17 of
this chapter. Verse 34 is not identical but uses a shorter phrase as a weaker discourse marker.

Section Headings: translators who follow the Handbook’s outline will need the general
heading “Special recipes” at this point. This may be expanded to “Special mixtures (or, blends)
of substances [or, ingredients] used in worship.” Both the Handbook and 30.21 TEV have the
subheading “The anointing oil.” This will be a satisfactory heading for some translators.
However, CEV’s “The Oil for Dedication and Ordination” will be helpful for others.

30.22–2330.24

Moreover, the Lord said to Moses is literally “And Yahweh spoke to Moses saying.” (See
the comment above and at 25.1.)

Take the finest spices: the word translated spices at times refers specifically to the balsam
tree or to the fragrant oily substance it secretes. But here it refers in general to similar
substances from other trees or shrubs as well. The use of the colon in 30.24 RSV and the dash
in 30.24 TEV are attempts to show that the four substances mentioned are all spices. Since the
colon and the dash are only punctuation marks and are not read aloud, it may be better to say
“Take the finest spices as follows: … .” These spices were not edible but were used mainly for
perfumes and cosmetics. (See the comment at 25.6.)

Of liquid myrrh is literally “myrrh of flowing.” This substance came from a plant in
southern Arabia and may have been available in liquid form. The “free- flowing myrrh” (NAB)
would have been “fresh myrrh” (NJB), and probably the best quality. However, it may have
been marketed in the form of “sticks” (REB), or even ground into powder (Durham), since this
substance hardens slowly when exposed to the air. In cultures where myrrh is unknown, one
may say, for example, “a sweet-smelling plant resin (or, sap) named ‘myrrh.’ ” TAN has
 “solidified myrrh.” Five hundred shekels is literally just “five hundred”; shekels is implied from
verse 34. It was evidently to be measured by weight rather than by volume. This would be
about “12 pounds” (30.24 TEV), or “six kilogrammes.” (See the comment on shekels at 21.32.)

And of sweet-smelling cinnamon is literally “and cinnamon (of) balsam,” using the same
word for sweet-smelling (besem) that is earlier used for spices. Cinnamon comes from the
inner bark of a tree found mainly in Ceylon (Sri Lanka), and has a pleasing taste as well as a
pleasing odor. It is often dried or ground into a powder to be used as a spice. Sweet-smelling
makes it more specific, since some kinds of cinnamon are not so fragrant. In cultures where
cinnamon is unknown, one may say, for example, “a sweet-smelling powder named
‘cinnamon.’ ” Half as much is literally “its half,” meaning half of the five hundred shekels. That
is, two hundred and fifty is literally “fifty and two hundred.” That is has been added. This was
about “six pounds” (30.24 TEV), or “three kilogrammes.”

And of aromatic cane is literally “and reeds of balsam.” The same word has been
translated earlier as spices and sweet-smelling. This is generally understood to refer to a
fragrant kind of reed that came from India, although its exact identity is not known. 30.24 KJV
and ASV call it “sweet calamus,” but this is now doubtful. NJB has “scented reed,” and Durham
has “cane spice.” One may also express it as “a sweet-smelling reed (or, cane) named ‘balsam,’
” or more simply, “a sweet-smelling reed (or, cane),” as the name is not certain. Two hundred
and fifty is the same as for the cinnamon.

And of cassia probably refers to the coarse bark of a tree similar to cinnamon, native to
India and Sri Lanka. It is similar to cinnamon but inferior in quality. One may also translate as
“a sweet-smelling substance named ‘cassia.’ ” Five hundred is the same measure as for the
liquid myrrh. According to the shekel of the sanctuary is identical with verse 13. (See the
comment there.) This reference to the shekel evidently applies to the measurement of all four
spices.

And of olive oil a hin is literally “and oil of olive a hiyn.” The Hebrew word is usually
transliterated. It was a unit of liquid measure, approximately equal to “one gallon” (30.24 TEV),
or “four litres.” It will be possible in some languages to place this sentence at the beginning of
the verse, using the idea of blended from the following verse, and translate

• 23–24 Mix a gallon of olive oil with the following sweet-smelling sub stances: twelve pounds of
myrrh, six pounds of cinnamon, six pounds of cane, and twelve pounds of cassia. Measure
these according to the official (or, correct) standard.

Such a restructuring also frees the translator from repeating the words “sweet- smelling”
before each of the listed items.

30.25

And you shall make of these is literally “and you [singular] shall make it.” The “it”
functions as a direct object, along with the anointing oil to which it refers. Of these refers to
the ingredients mentioned in verses 23–24 and sounds better in English. A sacred anointing
oil, literally “oil of anointing of holiness,” means that the oil will be “holy” and will be used
only for anointing. One may also express this as “Make a sacred (or, taboo) oil for anointing …
,” and in languages that must show an object or goal for the verb “anointing,” one may join
this verse to verse 26 and translate: 25 … Make a sacred oil for anointing (or dedicating) 26 the
sacred tent, … .”

Blended as by the perfumer is literally “a mixture of a mixture, work of a mixer.” The same
root word, which has the associated meaning of blending spices, is used in three different
forms. The perfumer therefore would be one who is skilled in the mixing and blending of
spices to make “perfume” (30.25 TEV). TOT has “a blended perfume such as a perfumer would
make,” and NAB has “perfumed ointment expertly prepared.” 30.25 TEV loses some of the
emphasis by reducing the phrase to “mixed like perfume.” A holy anointing oil it shall be
simply repeats the exact words for a sacred anointing oil, with the added emphasis it shall be.

30.26-28

And you shall anoint with it, using the singular you, means “Use it to anoint” (30.28 TEV),
or even “You shall use this oil to smear.” The tent of meeting (’ohel mo‘ed) really refers to the
tabernacle. (See the comment at 27.21.) And the ark of the testimony is the same as the “ark
of the covenant” (30.28 NRSV) and the “Covenant Box.” (See the comment at 25.22.)

And the table and all its utensils refers to “the table and all its equipment” (30.28 TEV)
described in 25.23–30. The word for utensils is a general term referring to any useful object,
but here it refers to the “articles” (30.28 NIV) mentioned in 25.29. And the lampstand and its
utensils refers to the menorah described in 25.31–40. Note that the word all is not used for
the utensils of the lampstand. The same word for utensils describes the “equipment” (30.28
TEV) mentioned in 25.37–38. And the altar of incense refers to the smaller altar described in
verses 1–5.

And the altar of burnt offering is the larger altar that is described in 27.1–8. And all its
utensils refers to the “equipment” (30.28 TEV) mentioned in 27.3. And the laver and its base
refers to “the washbasin with its base” (30.28 TEV) mentioned in verse 17.

30.29

You shall consecrate them is literally “and you [singular] shall make them holy.” 30.29 TEV
has “Dedicate these things in this way,” with the added words “in this way” referring to the
use of the special anointing oil. TAN has “Thus you shall consecrate them,” using the word
“Thus” with similar meaning. NAB has “When you have consecrated them.” That they may be
most holy is literally “and they will be holy of holies.” This may be rendered as “especially
holy” (NJB), or as “completely holy” (30.29 TEV). 30.29 CEV has “By dedicating them in this way,
you will make them so holy that … .” One may also express this as “When you dedicate them
like this you … .”

Whatever touches them is literally “any toucher on them.” This includes “anyone or
anything that touches them” (30.29 TEV). Will become holy is literally “he (or, it) will be holy.”
REB weakens this a bit: “whoever touches them will be treated as holy.” Durham interprets it in
the same way: “anything touching them must similarly be set apart.” But 30.29 TEV again gives
 it the same negative interpretation as in 29.37: “… will be harmed by the power of its
holiness.” (See the 30.29 TEV footnote and the comment at 29.37.) However, as in 29.37,
translators are urged to follow the neutral position and say, for example, “anyone or anything
that touches them must be treated as holy (or, taboo) also.” And the entire verse may be
alternatively expressed as “when you dedicate them in this way, you will make them so holy
that when anyone or anything touches them you must treat them as holy also.” The use of “its
holiness” in 30.29 TEV instead of “their holiness” is surprising. Possibly the “its” could refer to
the anointing oil, but all the things to be anointed will already have become holy.

30.30

And you shall anoint Aaron and his sons refers back to what has already been said in
28.41; 29.7, 21. 30.30 TEV interprets the And as “Then,” to suggest that this act should follow
the anointing of the tabernacle and its furnishings. This is indeed the sequence indicated in
40.9–15. And consecrate them, literally “and you [singular] shall make them holy,” is also
mentioned in 28.41 and 40.13. That they may serve me as priests, literally “to priest to (or,
for) me,” is discussed at 28.1.

30.31

And you shall say to the people of Israel is literally “And unto the sons of Israel you
[singular] shall speak, saying.” This introduces a quote within a quote that continues through
verse 33. What follows are Yahweh’s words that Moses is to speak to the Israelites.

This shall be my holy anointing oil is literally “oil of anointing of holiness this shall be to
me.” (see verse 25.) The pronoun my refers to Yahweh, not to Moses. This may be made
clearer in one of two ways: 1) by introducing the words that Moses is to say, with “The Lord
says”; or 2) by changing my to “the Lord’s holy anointing oil.” (So MFT.) The words “to me” may
also mean “for me,” and 30.31 TEV follows this interpretation, “in my service.” Translators may
wish to express the meaning of the words my and holy as a separate sentence: “It is holy
because it is dedicated to the Lord [or, to me].”

There is also a textual problem here, in that the Septuagint reads “to you [plural]” instead
of “to me.” Only a few translations, however, follow this reading. NJB has “This anointing oil
will be holy for you,” and JB has “You must hold this chrism holy.” Throughout your
generations, literally “to (or, for) your [plural] generations,” is identical with verse 10.

An alternative translation model for this verse is:

• Say to the people of Israel, “You [plural] must always use this oil when you ordain a priest. It is
holy [or, taboo] because you have dedicated it to the Lord [or, to me].”

30.32

It shall not be poured upon the bodies of ordinary men is literally “upon a human body it
will not pour.” The passive form is generally understood, “It must not be poured” (30.32 TEV),

JB JERUSALEM BIBLE
but in languages that do not use the passive voice, one may translate, for example, “You (or,
They) must not pour it.” And “a human body” may be understood either as “ordinary men,” or
as “any ordinary anointing of the body” (30.32 NRSV, NAB). 30.32 CEV has “Don’t ever use it for
everyday purposes.” The following verses support both interpretations. And you shall make no
other like it in composition is literally “and in its measurement you shall not make like it.” The
you is plural here, since this is what Moses is to say to the people. The word for
“measurement” also means “proportion,” so 30.32 TEV has “and you must not use the same
formula to make any mixture like it.” This will be difficult to translate in some languages. In
such a case another way to express it is “Do not mix any of this oil in this way for any other
use.”

It is holy, and it shall be holy to you is literally “holy it (is), holy it shall be to (or for) you
[plural]. The last part may be rendered as “you are to consider it sacred” (30.32 NIV), “to be
held sacred by you” (TAN), or “you must treat it as holy” (30.32 TEV). It is possible to restructure
the verse by placing this final sentence at the beginning, since it naturally follows the final
sentence of verse 31: “So treat it as holy (or, taboo). You must not pour it on other people or
mix it and use it for your own purposes.”

30.33

Whoever compounds any like it is literally “A man who mixes like it.” The same verb is
used in verse 25 with the associated meaning of mixing perfume, so 30.33 NIV has “Whoever
makes perfume like it.” (Similarly also NAB and REB.) The text, however, focuses on its use as
anointing oil, not as a perfume. Or whoever puts any of it on an outsider is literally “and (a
man) who puts from it upon a strange (person).” For outsider see the comment at 29.33. 30.33
NIV has “on anyone other than a priest,” and TAN has “on a layman.”

Shall be cut off from his people is quite literal. The word for cut off is a strong word, with
the meaning of “ostracized” (Durham), or “outlawed” (TOT, NJB). From his people may be
understood as “from his father’s kin (REB), or simply as “from the people” (30.33 NRSV). 30.33
TEV correctly interprets it to refer to the Israelites in general, and changes the pronoun: “will
no longer be considered one of my people,” meaning Yahweh’s people. In languages that do
not use the passive voice, one may say “I [Yahweh] will no longer consider that person one of
my people.”

(b) The Incense (30.34–38)

(b) The incense (30.34–38)

Section Heading: the Handbook and 30.33 TEV have the heading “The incense,” and 30.33
CEV has “The Sweet-Smelling Incense.” Translators may choose between these or use a longer
heading; for example, “Make sweet-smelling incense” or “Make sweet-smelling things for
burning.”

30.34

And the Lord said to Moses, literally “and Yahweh said to Moses,” is not identical with the
expression in verse 22, but it does function as a discourse marker. (See the comment there.)
 Take sweet spices, literally “You [singular] take spices,” uses a different word from that in
verse 23, but it is used in 25.6. It has the associated meaning of a pleasant aroma, so most
translations have “sweet spices” or “fragrant spices” (REB). Here it refers to the four spices that
are listed below. Note the dash in 30.34 TEV and 30.34 NIV. Others use a colon. TAN translates
“herbs,” but this does not apply to the onycha, which probably did not come from a plant. (See
below.)

Stacte refers to the gum resin droplets from a certain tree that cannot be identified with
certainty. Some have suggested the storax tree, others the myrrh, the balsam, or the
persimmon tree. NAB and NJB translate “storax” instead of stacte, and REB and 30.34 NIV have
“gum resin.” The root meaning of the Hebrew word is “to drip,” so Durham translates “resin
droplets.”

Onycha probably refers to a substance taken from the shell of certain sea mollusks or
shellfish found in India and along the Red Sea. It does not have a pleasant odor when burned
alone, but it intensifies the odor of the other ingredients that are mixed with it. Most
translations simply use the traditional word onycha, but REB and TOT have “aromatic shell,” and
Durham has “mollusk scent.”

Galbanum is another kind of gum resin from certain plants of the ferula type growing in
the area of Turkestan and other parts of the Middle East. Like the onycha it has a disagreeable
odor when burned alone, but it enhances the combined odor of the other spices mixed with it,
making it more pleasant and pungent.
393

Sweet spices with pure frankincense is literally “spices and frankincense clear.” The word
for sweet spices is the same word repeated again, possibly as a summary of the three
ingredients just mentioned, and possibly to indicate that the total mixture is to have
frankincense as a base. 30.34 TEV and some others do not repeat it. (But see below.)

Frankincense is another gum resin. It comes from the Boswellia trees that grow in East
Africa and southern Arabia. It was widely used as a perfume as well as an incense because of
its fragrance. When it is pure, or clear, it burns with a very white smoke. The Hebrew word
itself suggests “whiteness.”

Of each there shall be an equal part is literally “piece by piece it shall be.” It is possible to
interpret this as an equal amount of frankincense to the combined amount of the other three
spices, especially since the text repeats sweet spices. It is more likely, however, that all four
ingredients were to be in equal proportions. 30.34 TEV makes it very clear by placing this

393Osborn, N. D., & Hatton, H. (1999). A handbook on Exodus. UBS handbook series; Helps for
translators (697). New York: United Bible Societies.

TEV Today’s English Version

 phrase first and then listing all four ingredients. 30.34 RSV and 30.34 NRSV unnecessarily place
this phrase in parenthe ses.

In some languages translators may restructure the verse as follows:

• Mix together equal amounts of the spices stacte, myrrh, galbanum, and pure frankincense.

Then provide notes in the Glossary describing these spices.

30.35

And make an incense, literally “and you [singular] shall make it an incense,” may start a
new sentence. The “it” may refer either to the frankincense just mentioned, as a base
ingredient, or to the incense that follows. Since all four ingredients are to be used, 30.35 TEV
has “Use them to make incense.” Blended as by the perfumer is literally “a mixture, work of a
mixer.” It is almost identical with the phrase in verse 25. (See the comment there.)

Seasoned with salt, pure and holy is literally “salted, clear, holy.” The word seasoned may
give the wrong idea of improving the taste, but this mixture was certainly not edible. 30.35 CEV
has “then add salt.” The purpose of the salt is therefore not clear, but probably it was intended
to make the incense burn faster and produce more smoke. The word for pure is different from
the word describing the frankincense in verse 34, but it means about the same thing. The word
for holy is the usual word meaning “sacred” or “set apart.” (See the comment at 3.5.)

30.36

And you shall beat some of it very small is literally “and you [singular] shall grind (or,
pound) from it crushingly.” It means simply “Beat part of it into a fine powder” (30.36 TEV). For
some translators the idea of “grind into a fine powder” will be more natural. And put part of it
before the testimony means that part of what is pounded into a powder is to be placed in
front of the ark of the covenant, “the Covenant Box” (30.36 TEV), or “the sacred chest” (30.36
CEV). It is not clear whether this “powder” was to be sprinkled or stored for future use. The
word for put simply means to place. So 30.36 TEV “sprinkle it in front of the Covenant Box”
(similarly CEV) is a questionable interpretation.

In the tent of meeting is obviously a reference to the small tent of the tabernacle, even
though the Hebrew has ’ohel mo‘ed instead of mishkan. As explained at 27.21, there are
several options for the translator. (See the discussion on these two terms there.) Where I shall
meet with you is literally “where I will appear to you [singular] there.” The verb used also
means “to keep an appointment,” as in 25.22. (See the comment there.) It shall be for you
most holy is literally “holy of holies it shall be to you [plural].” 30.36 TEV has “Treat this incense
as completely holy,” which is fine, but it does not show that the pronoun “you” changes from

RSV Revised Standard Version

NRSV New Revised Standard Version

CEV Contemporary English Version

singular to plural. One may say “You must all treat this incense as completely holy” or “Be sure
that all of you treat this incense as something very holy.”

30.37

And the incense which you shall make uses the singular you again, referring to the special
incense that Moses is to make. According to its composition is literally “in its mixture,” using
the same word as verse 32. (See the comment there.) You shall not make for yourselves,
surprisingly, switches again to the plural you in both instances. And then in the final clause, it
shall be for you uses the singular you. Holy to the Lord is simply “holy to (or, for) Yahweh,”
meaning either “set apart” (Durham) or “reserved for Yahweh” (NJB). 30.37 CEV has “It is truly
holy because it is dedicated to me.”

The problem of the pronoun you in this verse is that it alternates from singular to plural,
and then back to singular again. English translations, of course, do not show this, and it is
debatable whether this shifting back and forth is intentional. In both instances of the singular
you, there are textual variants in some of the ancient versions and manuscripts that have the
plural instead. Therefore it may be easier to use the plural pronoun throughout this verse. A
footnote may be added to explain that the Hebrew uses the singular you in the first and last
instance.

30.38

Whoever makes any like it, literally “a man who will make like it,” refers, of course, to the
incense described in verses 34–35. To use as perfume is literally “to smell in it.” TAN has “to
smell of it,” but NAB has “for his own enjoyment of its fragrance.” The intended meaning is “to
enjoy its fragrance” (30.38 NIV), “for his own enjoyment” (REB), or simply “to use as perfume”
(30.38 CEV). Shall be cut off from his people is identical with the expression in verse 33. (See
the comment there.)

(14) Special Craftsmen (31.1–11)

This section is another appendix that gives instructions about organizing the work force
and selecting the craftsmen for the construction of the tabernacle. It also lists in summary
form all the parts of the tabernacle that have already been described in detail. Moses, of
course, was not expected to do all this work himself, since it required special skills which he
evidently did not have. Rather Yahweh had already equipped certain people with the
necessary skills for this work.

NJB NEW JERUSALEM BIBLE

TAN TANAKH (NEW JEWISH VERSION)

NAB NEW AMERICAN BIBLE

NIV NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION

REB REVISED ENGLISH BIBLE

 Section Heading: 30.38 TEV has the heading “Craftsmen for the Tent of the Lord’s
Presence,” and this Handbook has a similar but shorter heading, “Special craftsmen.” CEV’s
heading, “The Lord Chooses Bezalel and Oholiab,” is much simpler.

31.1–2

The Lord said to Moses is literally “And Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying.” (See the
comment on this formula at 25.1.) See is literally what the Hebrew says in the imperative
singular form (“You look!”). It is stronger than the more common “Behold,” but it also is
intended to arouse attention. NJB has “Look,” and REB and Durham have “Take note.”

I have called by name Bezalel should not be understood literally. It means, as 31.2 TEV puts
it, “I have chosen Bezalel,” or “I have singled out Bezalel” (NJB). The meaning of the name
Bezalel is “in the shadow (or protection) of God (’El),” which seems appropriate for the special
work he was called to do. He is further identified as the son of Uri (meaning “my light”), who
was the son of Hur. In many languages this will be expressed as “son of Uri and grandson of
Hur” (31.2 TEV). It is possible that this was a different person from the one mentioned in 17.10
and 24.14, since he is further identified as being of the tribe of Judah, that is, as a descendant
of Judah. MFT has “the clan of Judah,” but see the comment on “clan” in contrast with tribe at
6.14. It will be necessary in some languages to state what this man was chosen to do; for
example, “I have chosen Bezalel … to make the sacred tent and its furnishings.”

31.3

And I have filled him with the Spirit of God refers to Bezalel, whom Yahweh has filled with
ruach ruach ’elohimrs;elohim. This term in Hebrew may mean Spirit of God, “divine spirit”
(31.3 NRSV), or simply “my power” (31.3 TEV). The term ruach may also mean “breath” or
“wind.” It is unlikely that the Holy Spirit, as understood in the New Testament, is intended
here, so “spirit” in 31.3 RSV should not be capitalized. (This is the same term used in Gen 1.2.)
Translators may choose between these two interpretations. If “spirit” is chosen, it should be
translated “my [God’s] spirit.” Other ways of expressing I have filled him with the Spirit of God
are “I have let my spirit (or, power) possess him completely” or “I have let my spirit (or, power)
come into him completely.”

With ability and intelligence, with knowledge uses three terms of similar meaning to
describe Bezalel’s special gifts. The word for ability is the usual word for “wisdom,” but here it
refers more to his technical skill or aptitude. The word for intelligence has a similar meaning,
coming from the verb meaning “to discern.” TOT translates it as “ingenuity.” (Similarly also REB.)
The word for knowledge comes from the common word “to know,” often used in an intimate
sense. And all craftsmanship uses a word meaning “mission” or “occupation.” In the present
context Bezalel’s “mission” was to build and make things. So 31.3 NRSV has “in every kind of
craft,” and 31.3 TEV has “for every kind of artistic work.” The sentence continues into the next

MFT MOFFATT

TOT TRANSLATOR’S OLD TESTAMENT

 verse. Many languages will have adequate synonyms for ability and intelligence, but in some
languages translators will need to use one word and say something similar to CEV: “I have given
him wisdom and made him a skilled craftsman.”

31.4–5

To devise artistic designs is literally “to think thoughts,” “to invent inventions,” or “to
design designs.” The verb and the noun have the same root meaning of thinking, or devising.
Here it refers to “planning skillful designs” (31.5 TEV). The same word is used to describe the
embroidery work for the tabernacle fabric (26.1) and for Aaron’s ephod (28.6) and breastpiece
(28.15). Here, however, it has a broader meaning than “embroidery” (NAB). To work in gold,
silver, and bronze may be interpreted as a separate idea from “designing designs,” as in 31.5
RSV and 31.5 NRSV, but it may also continue that idea, as in 31.5 TEV, “and working them in gold,
silver, and bronze.” (Similarly also 31.5 NIV, TAN, and NJB.)

In cutting stones for setting uses the same words as 28.11. The word translated cutting
can mean “to engrave,” “to carve,” or even “to plow.” For setting is literally “for filling” in the
sense of filling a special holder for “jewels” (31.5 TEV). (The same word is used in 28.17.) And in
carving wood uses the same word for cutting. For work in every craft repeats the same word
translated as “craftsmanship” in verse 3. In receptor languages where the repetition in verses
2–5 will be unnatural style, it is possible to combine these verses in the following way:

• 3–5 I have let my spirit (or, power) possess him, and have given him wisdom (or,
understanding) and caused him to become a skilled craftsman who can design and make
beautiful objects with gold, silver, bronze, stone, and wood.

31.6

And behold, I have appointed, literally “And I, behold, I gave,” uses the emphatic pronoun
I, even before the word behold. 31.6 NRSV and others use “Moreover” for behold, but 31.6 TEV
omits it entirely. (See the comment at 1.9.) I have appointed uses the common word for “give”
or “place.” Here the meaning may also be “selected” (31.6 TEV). With him Oholiab means, as
31.6 TEV puts it, “to work with him,” that is, with Bezalel. 31.6 NIV has “to help him,” and REB
has “to be his assistant.” The name Oholiab means “my father’s tent,” which seems
appropriate for one who will help to build the Tent. (NEB and REB transliterate it as “Aholiab,”
but most translations have Oholiab.) He was the son of Ahisamach, who belonged to the tribe
of Dan. (See the comment at verse 2.)

And I have given to all men ability is literally “and in the heart of every skilled-of-heart I
have given skill.” The word for given is the same word for appointed, and the word for able
and ability is the same word for “ability” in verse 3. 31.6 NRSV has “I have given skill to all the
skillful.” This may be understood as “special skill” (TOT), or “the necessary skill” (NAB), in
addition to the natural ability with which these men were born, but it may also refer simply to
their natural ability. So REB has “I have endowed every skilled craftsman with the skill which he
has.” But the following phrase must also be considered.

NEB NEW ENGLISH BIBLE

 That they may make, literally “and they will make,” is generally understood as “so that
they will be able to make” (TOT). REB makes it a separate sentence, “They are to make.” Either
interpretation is possible, but it should be clear that the ability of these men has been given by
Yahweh. All that I have commanded you uses the singular you. This means, as 31.6 TEV puts it,
“everything I have commanded to be made,” or “make everything exactly as I have
commanded you” (31.6 CEV). Note that the colon or dash is generally used at the end of this
verse to introduce the list that follows in verses 7–9.

31.7–9

The tent of meeting refers to the tabernacle, including the tent and the enclosure around
it. (See the introductory comment to chapter 26.) The ark of the testimony has been changed
to “ark of the covenant” in 31.9 NRSV. (See the comment at 25.10.) The mercy seat that is
thereon, literally “and the kapporeth which is upon it,” refers to the “lid” (31.9 TEV) that
covered the “Covenant Box” (31.9 TEV). (See the comment at 25.17.) All the furnishings of the
tent refers to the those things listed in verse 8. 31.9 NIV helpfully places a dash here to show
this.

The table is described in 25.23–29. (See the comment at 25.23.) Its utensils is the same
Hebrew word translated as the furnishings in verse 7. (See the comment at 30.27.) NJB has
“and all its accessories” in reference to the table, but this does not follow the Hebrew. The
pure lampstand refers to the menorah, which was to be “of pure gold” (31.9 TEV). The word for
“gold” is not in the Hebrew, but it is good to add it. Here the Hebrew says all its utensils. (See
the comment at 25.31.) The altar of incense refers to the golden “altar for burning incense”
(31.9 TEV) that was to be placed inside the Holy Place. It is described in 30.1–4. (See the
comment at 30.1.)

The altar of burnt offering with all its utensils refers to the bronze altar for animal
sacrifice. It was to be placed outside the tent in the court area. It is described in 27.1–8. (For
burnt offering see the comment at 29.18.) The laver and its base refers to the bronze
“washbasin” (31.9 TEV) mentioned in 30.18. (See the comment there.)

31.10–11

And the finely worked garments is literally “and clothes of serad.” These are obviously the
“vestments” (31.11 NRSV) described in chapter 28, but the meaning of serad is uncertain. It is
used only here, in 35.19, and in 39.1 and 41. Some of the ancient versions translated it as
“service vestments” (TAN), but some scholars believe the word has the basic meaning of
“braided” or “woven.” Various possibilities are “liturgical vestments” (NJB), “stitched
vestments” (REB), “embroidered vestments” (TOT), or simply “magnificent priestly garments”
(31.11 TEV). 31.11 CEV has “the beautiful priestly clothes,” which may be translated as “the
beautiful clothes for the priests to wear.”

The holy garments for Aaron the priest begins with waw (“and”) in the Hebrew. This
seems to suggest that these are different from the finely worked garments. However, these
holy garments should be understood as included within the broader term of finely worked
garments, along with the garments of his sons. REB makes this clear by translating the “and” as
“that is”: “that is the sacred vestments for Aaron the priest and the vestments for his sons.”
(See the comment on holy garments at 28.2.) 31.11 TEV combines all three phrases into one,
“the magnificent priestly garments for Aaron and his sons.”

For their service as priests is just one word, literally “to priest.” The same expression is
used in 28.1. (See the comment there.)

The anointing oil is described in 30.23–25. The fragrant incense, first mentioned in 25.6,
uses the same word for fragrant that is translated as “sweet spices” in 30.34. 31.11 TEV has
“sweet-smelling incense.” For the holy place is literally “for the holy.” (See the comment at
26.33.)

According to all that I have commanded you uses the singular you. They shall do uses the
word that also means “make,” so 31.11 NIV has “They are to make them just as I commanded
you,” referring, or course, to all the things mentioned in verses 7–11.

(15) The Sabbath (31.12–18)

This is the final section of the instructions given to Moses on Mount Sinai. It deals
emphatically with the proper observance of the Sabbath. Although it appears to be another
appendix, its importance is seen in the structure of the book. Following the narrative interlude
of chapters 32–34, this law of the sabbath is the very first thing that Moses relates to the
people (35.1–3). It serves as a reminder that in their concern for sacred space (the tabernacle),
they must not overlook Yahweh’s concern for sacred time (the sabbath).

Section Heading: 31.11 TEV has the heading “Sabbath, the Day of Rest”; this Handbook has
“The sabbath”; and 31.11 CEV has “Laws for the Sabbath.” Translators may choose between
these.

31.12–13

And the Lord said to Moses is literally “And Yahweh said to Moses, saying.” This is similar
to the formula used at 30.11, 17, 22; 31.1; but the more common verb said is used here
instead of “spoke.” (See the comment at 25.1.)

Say to the people of Israel is literally “And you [singular], you speak to the sons of Israel,
saying.” This is addressed to Moses, but it introduces the exact words of Yahweh that Moses is
to speak to the Israelites. 31.13 NRSV brings out the intended emphasis: “You yourself are to
speak to the Israelites.” 31.13 TEV avoids a quote within a quote by changing this clause to
indirect speech: “The Lord commanded Moses to tell the people of Israel.” 31.13 CEV combines
verse 12 and the beginning of 13, with “Moses told the Israelites that the Lord had said: … .”
This also eliminates the use of quotes within quotes.

You shall keep my sabbaths is literally “Surely my sabbaths you [plural] will guard.” The
word for keep also means “observe” (TOT), or “celebrate.” (See the comment at 12.17.) The
word for “surely” sometimes takes on a meaning that shows contrast, so TAN has
“Nevertheless, you must keep my sabbaths.” (Similarly also Fox.) Most scholars, however,
understand the word as having its usual emphatic meaning. My sabbaths is rendered in 31.13
TEV as “the Sabbath, my day of rest.” (For the meaning of “Sabbath” see the comment at
16.23a.)

For this is a sign between me and you refers to my sabbaths, which of course is plural. REB
adjusts this grammatically, “you must keep my sabbaths, for the sabbath is a sign.” The word
for sign has a variety of meanings: “proof” (3.12), “miracle” (4.8), “distinguishing mark”
(12.13), and “reminder” (13.9). Here it takes on the meaning of both “reminder” and
“distinguishing mark,” reminding the Israelites of their covenant relation with Yahweh and
distinguishing them as Yahweh’s chosen people. Throughout your generations is identical with
30.8. (See the comment there.)

That you may know, literally “to know,” uses the word that means knowing “by
experience” (Durham), as in 6.7. That I, the Lord, sanctify you is literally “that I Yahweh your
[plural] sanctifier.” The participle of the verb “to make holy” is used, and the tense is not
indicated. So various renderings are possible: “that it is I, Yahweh, who sanctify you” (NJB),
“that I am the Lord who hallows you” (REB), “that I the Lord have consecrated you” (TAN), “that
I, the Lord, have made you my own people” (31.13 TEV), and “that I have chosen you as my
own” (31.13 CEV).

31.14

These are still Yahweh’s words to the people through Moses. You shall keep the Sabbath
uses the plural you, and it begins with the usual conjunction waw. NAB translates waw as
“Therefore,” but most translations omit it. The same word for keep is used in verse 13.
Because it is holy for you is literal and not entirely clear, so 31.14 TEV omits for you as
unnecessary: “because it is sacred.” (Similarly also NAB.) NJB retains for you with a slightly
different meaning, “you will regard it as holy,” and Durham has “because it is set apart for
you.” 31.14 CEV has “Keep the Sabbath holy.”

Every one who profanes it shall be put to death is literally “its profaner dying he shall
die.” This is the form of the so-called “participial laws” in 21.12–17. (See the introductory
comment before 21.12.) It is a strong positive statement against “profaning” or “desecrating”
the sabbath. To “profane” means to abuse it, or to treat it with irreverence. 31.14 CEV
combines this clause with the next one, keeping the sentence positive, with “If you work on
the Sabbath … ,” while 31.14 TEV changes the positive to the negative but retains the positive
for the rest of the verse, “Whoever does not keep it, but works on that day, is to be put to
death.”

Whoever does any work on it, literally “because any doer of work in it,” also uses the
participial form and equates the “doer of work” with the “profaner.” The word for work is the
same as that used in verse 3. It means “mission,” “occupa tion,” or simply “labor,” that is, any
labor by which one earns a living. That soul shall be cut off from among his people is quite
literal. The word for soul (nefesh) simply refers emphatically to whoever, or “that person”
(TAN). This is similar to the statement in 30.33.

31.15
 Six days shall work be done uses the same word for work as verse 14. But the seventh
day is a sabbath of solemn rest brings together the words for seventh (sheba‘) and sabbath
(shabbath), which are similar in sound but different in meaning. (See the comment at 16.23a.)
A sabbath of solemn rest translates a Hebrew phrase using two forms of the same word. The
Hebrew is shabbath shabbathon, which 31.15 TEV translates as “a day of solemn rest.”
(Similarly also NJB.) Holy to the Lord, literally “holy to (or for) Yahweh,” is similar to “holy for
you” in verse 14. Here it carries the meaning of “consecrated to Yahweh” (NJB), or “dedicated
to me” (31.15 TEV) (since Yahweh is the speaker). So it may also be expressed as “the Sabbath
is mine” (31.15 CEV).

Whoever does any work on the sabbath day shall be put to death is almost identical with
the same categorical statement in verse 14.

CEV combines verse 14–15 in a helpful way, and many translators will wish to follow this
model:

• 14–15 Keep the Sabbath holy. You have six days to do your work, but the Sabbath is mine, and
it must remain a day of rest. If you work on the Sabbath, you will no longer be part of my
people, and you will be put to death.

31.16

Therefore the people of Israel shall keep the Sabbath is literally “And the sons of Israel
shall guard the sabbath.” The waw is here translated as Therefore. (See the comment at verse
14.) Observing the sabbath uses the word that often means “to make, or do.” Here it may also
mean “keeping it” (NAB), or “celebrating it” (31.16 NIV). Throughout their generations is the
same word used in 30.8. (See the comment there.) As a perpetual covenant is literally “a
covenant of long time.” It means “a perpetual obligation” (TOT), or “a lasting covenant” (31.16
NIV). (For covenant see the comment at 6.4.) 31.16 TEV omits the idea of throughout your
generations, but this should be retained by translators; for example, “Every generation of the
people of Israel must keep …” or “The people of Israel are to keep the (or, my) sabbath
forever.”

31.17

It is a sign for ever uses the same word for sign as verse 13. (See the comment there.)
31.17 CEV, however, has a good alternative model, “This day will always serve as a reminder,”
or one may also say “When you keep the Sabbath it will always remind you that … .” The word
for for ever is the same word translated as “perpetual” in verse 16. Between me and the
people of Israel (literally “the sons of Israel”) is really the way the verse begins, with it is a sign
for ever coming next.

That in six days the Lord made heaven and earth is literally “because six days Yahweh
made the heavens and the earth.” It is identical with 20.11. And on the seventh day he rested
uses the verb shavath, meaning to cease, or to stop working. A different word for rested is
used in 20.11. And was refreshed is literally “and he breathed,” or “he caught his breath”
(Durham). The verb is derived from nefesh and is also translated “refreshed” in 23.12. NJB has
“and drew breath,” and TOT has “and regained his strength.” In order to avoid the
anthropomorphism, 31.17 TEV translates the two verbs as “I stopped working and rested,” and
31.17 CEV has “then on the seventh day I rested and relaxed.”

Note that this concludes both Yahweh’s words to Moses and Yahweh’s words to the
people through Moses, both of which began in verse 12.

31.18

And he gave to Moses means “Yahweh gave to Moses.” 31.18 NRSV, 31.18 TEV, and 31.18
CEV have “God” instead of “the Lord” (NIV, NAB), which of course can be used interchangeably.
This is probably because of the concluding reference to the finger of God, which is literally “by
the finger of ’elohim.” But since verse 12 identifies “the Lord” (Yahweh) as the speaker, it is
good to be consistent.

When he had made an end of speaking with him is literally “when completing to speak
with him.” This indicates the end of the entire seven chapters, beginning with chapter 25, in
which Yahweh gave to Moses all the detailed instructions about the construction of the
tabernacle. And as indicated in 24.18, this was during the forty days and nights that Moses was
upon Mount Sinai.

The two tables of the testimony, tables of stone refers to “the two stone tablets” (31.18
TEV). These are mentioned earlier in 24.12. (See the comment there.) The meaning of
testimony is explained at 16.34. Written with the finger of God is probably a figure of speech,
as in 8.19, referring to “God himself” (31.18 TEV), or possibly to “God’s own hand” (Durham).
(See the comment on this synecdoche at 8.19.) In Exodus it is always God who is the writer on
the “stone tablets” (31.18 TEV), with the exception of 34.28 (See ).

b. The Covenant Broken and Restored (32.1–34.35)

(1) The People Break the Covenant (32.1–35)

(a) The Gold Bull-calf (32.1–6)

(a) The gold bull-calf (32.1–6)

Chapters 32–34 provide a welcome interruption to all the detailed instructions that
Yahweh gave to Moses in chapters 25–31. These details continue in chapters 35–39, which
record how the instructions were actually carried out in the construction of the tabernacle.
This narrative interlude therefore is something like an oasis in a desert of detail and serves a
very important function in the structure and theology of the entire book.

The Handbook outline reminds us that the fourth and final relationship in the structure of
the book—the relation between the Lord and his people—was not easily achieved. The people
were left at the foot of the mountain in 24.18 when Moses went to the top. And he stayed
there for “forty days and forty nights.” What the people were doing during his long absence
can only be imagined from the opening verses of chapter 32. They may have tried to be
patient, but it was difficult to remain faithful to a God they could not see. So they asked for a
“graven image,” even though they had been warned against making such a thing.

Chapters 32–34 therefore serve as a fulcrum, or balancing point, to balance all the
commands in chapters 25–31 with the necessary obedience to these commands in chapters
35–39. From a theological viewpoint they balance the holiness of God on the top of the
mountain with the sinfulness of the people down below. And this balance is precarious
because of the tension that always exists between the sacred and the profane, the divine and
the human. Perhaps there is no other way to understand such a unique relationship between
Yahweh and his people.

Within this “narrative oasis” are several more trips for Moses up and down the mountain
as a mediator between Yahweh and the people. The following trips are indicated:

32.15—Moses comes down with the stone tablets.

32.31—Moses goes up to intercede for the people.

32.35—Moses returns to the people (implied).

34.4—Moses goes up with new stone tablets.

34.29—Moses comes down with a shining face.

There are also five significant dialogue exchanges between Yahweh and Moses, including
Moses’ prayers for the people, Yahweh’s promise to go with them, Moses’ request for a new
theophany, and Yahweh’s renewal of the “ten words” (34.28). As the Handbook outline
indicates, chapter 33 tells about the new promise of Yahweh to go with them to the Promised
Land, and this “fulcrum” balances the breaking of the covenant (chapter 32) with the renewal
of its terms (chapter 34).

Section Headings: translators who follow the Handbook’s outline should include the main
heading, “The covenant broken and restored” (32.1–34.35). Since this heading covers three
chapters, it may be expressed as “The Israelites break the covenant with Yahweh, but Yahweh
renews it again.” It is also possible to say “The people forget their agreement with the Lord,
but the Lord forgives them.” Another possibility is “The people sin, Moses prays, and the Lord
forgives.” For chapter 32 the Handbook heading is “The people break the covenant” (32.1–35).
This may also be expressed as “The Israelites break their agreement with Yahweh.” There
should also be a heading for the subsection, verses 1–6. 31.18 TEV and this Handbook have
“The Gold Bull-Calf.” CEV’s heading, “The People Make an Idol To Worship,” will be a good
model for some languages. Another possibility is “The people make a golden bull-calf to
worship.” Translators will notice that 31.18 TEV and 31.18 CEV have only one heading for the
entire chapter, whereas the Handbook has six main headings and two subheadings. See the
Introduction above. Some translators will wish to follow the Handbook’s divisions of this
chapter.

32.1
 When the people saw is literally “And the people saw,” but saw here means “realized”
(Durham), or “became aware” (NAB). That Moses delayed to come down from the mountain is
quite literal, and the verb for delayed has the active form rather than the passive (“was
delayed”). This suggests that, in the mind of the people, at least, it was Moses who did the
delaying rather than Yahweh. 32.1 TEV expresses this in an extended clause, “that Moses had
not come down from the mountain but was staying there a long time.” The reference to the
mountain picks up the narrative from 24.18. In some languages these two clauses will be
rendered as “The people saw that Moses had not come down from the mountain but was
staying there for a long time, so … .”

The people gathered themselves together to Aaron is literally “the people assembled on
(or, over) Aaron.” The word for the preposition to may have either a positive meaning (“in
front of”) or a negative meaning (“over against”). 32.1 TEV takes the former, “they gathered
around Aaron” (so 32.1 NRSV and others), but TAN takes the latter, “the people gathered
against Aaron.” It is also possible to take a neutral interpretation and say, for example, “they
went to Aaron and said” (32.1 CEV). It is recommended that translators follow either the
positive interpretation above or this more neutral position. And said to him introduces the
demand of the people.

Up, make us gods is literally “Rise, you [singular] make for us ’elohim.” The word for Up
often means “Stand up,” but here it is only a call to action. 32.1 NRSV and others have “Come,”
but NJB has “Get to work,” and Durham has “Get busy!” 32.1 TEV and 32.1 CEV simply omit it.
Translators should do what is natural in the receptor language. The word ’elohim, which is
plural in form, may be understood either as gods or as “a god” (32.1 TEV and CEV). (See the 32.1
TEV footnote.) Since Aaron made only one gold bull, some translations have the singular, “a
god.” (But see verse 4.) Who shall go before us is literally “who (are) they (who) shall go out to
our faces.” This, of course, means “to lead us.” The plural verb simply agrees with the plural
form of ’elohim, but the singular meaning may still be intended. This is unusual if only one
“god” is intended, but there are other cases where plural forms are used with ’elohim when
the one God is clearly intended. (Gen 20.13 is one example.) 32.1 TEV places this clause at the
end of the verse, “So make us a god to lead us.”

As for this Moses is meant to be disrespectful. Since Moses was still on the mountain, it
may be better to say “for that Moses” (NJB) or “for that man Moses” (TAN), combining it with
the following phrase. The word “that” also conveys disrespect in English. The man who
brought us up out of the land of Egypt is literally “the man who caused us to ascend from the
land of Egypt.” This may imply that the people were now at a higher elevation than they were
in Egypt. 32.1 TEV simply has “who led us out of Egypt.” (See the comment on the similar
expression at 3.8.) We do not know what has become of him is literally “we do not know what
is to him.” This also means “we do not know what has happened to him.” Another way to
express the final part of this verse is “That person (or, man) Moses brought us out of Egypt, but
nobody knows what has happened to him.”

32.2
 And Aaron said to them introduces Aaron’s response to the people’s request, so 32.2 NIV
has “Aaron answered them,” and NAB has “Aaron replied.” Take off the rings of gold uses a
very strong verb that literally means “pull away,” or “tear off.” TOT has “Cut off the gold
earrings,” and NAB has “Strip off the gold rings.” This may suggest Aaron’s impatience with the
people for requesting an image of a god, but most translations soften the verb to “Take off the
gold earrings” (see 32.2 TEV and others).

Which are in the ears indicates that these were indeed “earrings” rather than nose rings
or finger rings. The word for rings has a general meaning, but it is different from the word used
for the rings on the ark (25.12) and on Aaron’s breastpiece (28.23). Of your wives, your sons,
and your daughters indicates that earrings were worn by men as well as women. NEB and REB
omit your sons on the basis of the Septuagint, but the Hebrew clearly specifies both sons and
daughters. And bring them to me is literally “and you [plural] cause them to come unto me,”
meaning the earrings, not the people wearing them.

32.3

So all the people took off the rings of gold uses the same strong verb as verse 2, but it
also suggests that the people removed them from their own ears rather than the husbands
tearing them from the ears of their wives and children. Which were in the ears again specifies
that these were earrings. And brought them to Aaron is literally “and caused them to come
unto Aaron.”

32.4

And he received the gold at their hand is literally “And he took from their hand,” with the
words the gold added. 32.4 TEV has “the earrings,” but 32.4 NIV is less specific, “He took what
they handed him.”

And fashioned it with a graving tool is literally “and he formed it in (or, by) the cheret,”
but the meaning of the word cheret is uncertain. It is used elsewhere only in Isa 8.1, where
32.4 RSV translates it as “characters” (“write … in common characters”). It may refer to a stylus
or a writing tool, but such a tool is not normally used when forming a molten calf, which
suggest that “he cast the metal in a mould” (REB), or “poured the gold into a mold” (32.4 TEV).
And made a molten calf is literally “and he made it a (male) calf of molten metal.” The word
for “molten metal” comes from the verb “to pour.” Most translations therefore take the word
cheret to mean “mold” (32.4 NRSV). 32.4 TEV makes this very explicit: “He took the earrings,
melted them, poured the gold into a mold, and made a gold bull-calf.” In cultures where molds
for shaping melted metal are unknown, it will be better to omit the mention of “mold” and
follow CEV’s model, “then he melted them and made an idol in the shape of a young bull.”
“Bull-calf” is better than either calf or “bull,” since the male bovine was widely recognized as a
symbol of power and fertility, and the Hebrew clearly denotes a young bull. (See the comment
on bull or “ox” at 21.28.) And they said introduces what the people said after the “bull-calf”
had been made.
 These are your gods, O Israel is literally “These your [singular] gods, Israel.” The singular
your is used because the word for Israel is singular, but it refers to all Israelites, so many
translators will want to use the plural form. Gods is the word ’elohim, which is plural in form. It
is not certain, however, whether the singular or plural meaning is intended, so translations are
divided. However, it is recommended that translators use the singular here; for example, “This
is your [plural] god [singular].” 32.4 TEV changes the pronoun from second person to first
person (inclusive), “Israel, this is our god, who led us out of Egypt!” The meaning of brought
you up out of the land of Egypt is the same as “brought you up” in verse 1. (See the comment
there.)

32.5

When Aaron saw this is literally “And Aaron saw.” It is not clear what this refers to. NEB
follows a different text, “Then Aaron was afraid,” but REB has changed it to “Seeing this.” What
it was that Aaron saw could be the bull-calf, or possibly what the people did. It seems strange
to say that he saw the bull- calf, since he had just made it. Durham offers a possible solution,
“When Aaron saw their reaction,” and 32.5 CEV has “When Aaron saw what was happening.”
But 32.5 TEV omits the word saw as unnecessary and connects Aaron directly to the next verb,
“Then Aaron built.”

He built an altar before it is literally “and he built an altar to its face.” This means, as 32.5
TEV puts it, that he “built an altar in front of the gold bull-calf.” (See the comment on altar at
17.15.) And Aaron made proclamation and said is literally “And Aaron called out and he said.”
This means that he made a public announcement, so 32.5 TEV has “and announced.” The words
and said are not necessary in translation if the word for made proclamation implies the same
thing.

Tomorrow shall be a feast to the Lord is literally “a festival to Yahweh tomorrow.” The
word for feast may suggest more than just eating; it implies a “procession,” or even “dancing.”
So 32.5 TEV and 32.5 NRSV have “festival.” 32.5 CEV has “Tomorrow we will celebrate in honor of
the Lord.” The same word is used in Moses’ demand to the Pharaoh (5.1) and again in
reference to the Passover (12.14). (See the comment at 10.9.)

32.6

And they rose up early on the morrow uses a word that means to do something early in
the day. When it is not specified what is done, then it means to rise up early. Since the rest of
the verse tells us what the people did, it is not necessary to say they rose up early. 32.6 TEV
has “Early the next morning they brought some animals,” and TAN has “early next day, the
people offered up burnt offerings.”

And offered burnt offerings is literally “and they caused burnt offerings to ascend.” The
word for burnt offering (‘olah) is explained at 29.18. It is derived from the word ‘alah, which
means “to ascend.” This does not necessarily mean that the people took over the work of the
priest. 32.6 TEV says it less directly, “they brought some animals to burn as sacrifices,” which
allows for Aaron to supervise the ceremony. And brought peace offerings is literally “and they
caused settlement sacrifices to come near.” The word for “settlement sacrifice” (shelem) is
explained at 29.28, but see also the comments at and 24.5.

And the people sat down to eat follows the Hebrew literally. And drink is literally “and
they drank.” It is not stated what they drank, but the implication is that it was an intoxicating
drink, possibly wine. Therefore in languages where this has to be specified, it may be necessary
to say “and they drank intoxicating liquor.” And rose to play, literally “and they stood up to
play,” uses a word that suggests sexual play, especially since it is associated with drinking. (The
word is translated as “fondling” in Gen 26.8.) 32.6 TEV has “an orgy of drinking and sex.” Others
are less explicit: “to indulge in revelry” (32.6 NIV), “and then rose to dance” (TAN). It is also
possible to say “and they rose to dance in a shameful [or, immoral] way.”

(b) The First Intercessory Dialogue (32.7–14)

(b) The first intercessory dialogue (32.7–14)

[1] Yahweh’s anger (32.7–10)

[1] Yahweh’s anger (32.7–10)

Section Headings: for those translators who are following this Handbook’s division and
section headings in this chapter, it will be necessary to have a main heading, “The first
intercessory dialogue” or “Moses pleads with Yahweh not to be angry.” Then there should be a
subheading. The Handbook’s suggested heading, “Yahweh’s anger,” may also be rendered as
“Yahweh shows his anger,” or idiomatically in certain languages; for example, “Yahweh’s heart
gets hot.”

32.7

The scene suddenly shifts to the top of the mountain. And the Lord said to Moses
introduces the first of five dialogues between Yahweh and Moses in chapters 32–35. The
second and fourth are initiated by Moses (32.31; 33.18), and the first, third, and fifth by
Yahweh (32.7; 33.1; 34.5). The use of the verb dibber (“to speak”) in this verse serves as a
discourse marker and is reserved for Yahweh’s speech, except for 34.5, where the word qara’
(“to call out” or “to proclaim”) is used. But all the speeches of Moses are introduced by the
common verb ’amar (“to say”).

Go down, literally “You [singular] go, you descend,” uses two verbs of command to Moses.
Both 32.7 TEV and 32.7 CEV interpret this to mean that the action is done in haste. Thus 32.7 TEV
has “Hurry and go back down,” and 32.7 CEV has “Hurry back down.” In some languages,
however, it will be necessary to say “Hurry back down the mountain.” For your people (with
singular your) already implies Yahweh’s anger in contrast to the usual “my people,” and it
immediately places Moses in an awkward position of responsibility. Whom you brought up
out of the land of Egypt is literally “which you [singular] caused to ascend from the land of
Egypt.”
 Have corrupted themselves is one short word meaning “he has become corrupt.” This
word comes first in the Hebrew clause, “for corrupt [have become] your people … .” 32.7 TEV
interprets this to mean “have sinned and rejected me.” Others have “have committed a
monstrous act” (REB), “have become depraved” (NAB), and “have gone to ruin” (Durham).

32.8

They have turned aside quickly out of the way is literally “they went away hurrying from
the path.” The word for way also has the meaning of “conduct” or “behavior,” so out of the
way which I commanded them may be rendered as “from what I commanded them” (32.8
NIV). TOT simply has “Already disobeyed my commands,” and 32.8 CEV has “They have already
stopped obeying me.” However, it will be possible in some instances to keep the figure by
adding, for example, “the way that I commanded them to follow” (32.8 TEV) or “They have
quickly left the path that I commanded them to follow.”

They have made for themselves a molten calf is literal, and it uses the same expressions
as verse 4. (See the comment there.) 32.8 TEV has “they have made a bull-calf out of melted
gold,” adding the reference to “gold.” This may also be expressed as “They have taken gold
and made a bull-calf.” However, 32.8 NRSV has simply “they have cast for themselves an image
of a calf.” And worshiped it literally means “and they have bowed themselves down to it”
(Durham). And sacrificed to it is literally “and they slaughtered to [or, for] it.” This is the usual
word for “sacrifice.” So one may also say “They have slaughtered animals and offered them to
it [the bull-calf].”

And said, literally “and they said,” introduces the words of the people as a quote within a
quote. These are your gods … the land of Egypt is identical with what the people say in verse
4. (See the comment there.)

32.9

And the Lord said to Moses seems unnecessary, since Yahweh continues to speak. 32.9
TEV omits this phrase entirely, but TAN adds “The Lord further said to Moses.”

I have seen this people uses the same verb as 3.7, but the verb may also be understood in
the present tense, “I see” (NAB, TAN). And in this context “to see” takes on the meaning of “to
know,” so NJB has “I know these people,” meaning “I know what these people are like.” This
people uses the singular this, since the word people is singular in form, but “these people”
(32.9 TEV) sounds better in English. And behold is difficult to translate here, and so it is usually
omitted. Its function is to stress the words that follow.

It is a stiff-necked people is literally “a people hard of neck he [or, this].” The word for
“neck” refers to the back of the neck. This is a figure of speech that means to be stubborn or
obstinate. The word for “hard” or “stiff” is used twice as a verb to describe the stubbornness
of the Pharaoh (see 7.3 [“I will harden”] and 13.15 [“stubbornly refused”]). But this same
expression, a stiff-necked people, is used four times in chapters 32–34 to describe the
Israelites. (See also 33.3, 5; 34.9.) In some languages stiff-necked will be rendered more
naturally by other figurative expressions; for example, “hard-hearted.” If, however, these
figures are not clearly understood in translation, it is better to say, as 32.9 TEV does, “I know
how stubborn these people are.” (Here 32.9 TEV has captured the entire verse.) 32.9 CEV is
similar: “Moses, I have seen how stubborn these people are.”

32.10

Now therefore let me alone is literally “and now you [singular] cause rest for me.” This is a
command that means “let me be” (TAN), “do not interfere with me” (Durham), or “don’t try to
stop me” (32.10 TEV). In contrast, of course, it anticipates that Moses will try to stop Yahweh
by praying for the people. The word now means “in this situation,” or “at this time.”

That my wrath may burn hot against them is literally “and my nose will become hot
against them.” This expression is used in 4.14. (See the comment there.) Some translations try
to retain the figure of speech, as in “that my wrath may blaze against them” (NAB). The idea of
the nose burning is a frequent Hebraic way of describing anger. (See also verse 19.) And I may
consume them is literally “and I will finish them off.” The Hebrew verb means to complete or
finish something, so here it means to “destroy” (32.10 TEV) or “exterminate them.” Both
clauses begin with the conjunction waw, which in this case may mean “so that” (32.10 NRSV),
or it may simply introduce an announcement, “I am angry with them, and I am going to
destroy them” (32.10 TEV). 32.10 CEV rearranges the clauses as follows: “and I’m angry enough
to destroy them, so don’t try to stop me.”

But of you I will make a great nation is literally “and I will make you [singular] to a great
nation.” The contrast between them (the Israelites) and you (Moses) must be emphasized. NJB
adds “I shall make a great nation out of you instead.” 32.10 TEV properly interprets this to
mean “I will make you and your descendants into a great nation.”

[2] Moses’ first intercession (32.11–14)

[2] Moses’ first intercession (32.11–14)

Section Heading: the Handbook’s subheading, “Moses’ first intercession,” may also be
expressed as “Moses pleads with Yahweh to forgive the people.”

32.11

This verse begins Moses’ intercessory prayer for the Israelites. But Moses besought the
Lord his God is literally “And Moses made sweet the face of Yahweh his God.” Fox has “Moshe
soothed the face of yhwh his God.” This means that he “tried to pacify Yahweh his God” (NJB),
or “attempted to calm Yahweh his God” (Durham). Others have “implored” (32.11 NRSV) or
“pleaded with the Lord his God” (32.11 TEV). In some languages his God will be translated
more naturally as “the God whom he served [or, worshiped].” And said, literally “and he said,”
simply introduces Moses’ prayer to Yahweh. An alternative model for this sentence is “Moses
tried to get the Lord his God to change his mind.”

O Lord, why is literally “Why, Yahweh,” using the personal name of God. Why does thy
wrath burn hot against thy people is literally “why does your [singular] nose become hot
against your people?” This is the same expression used in verse 10. It means “why should you
be so angry with your people” (32.11 TEV). Note that Moses emphasizes that they are
 Yahweh’s people, in contrast with verse 7. Whom thou hast brought forth out of the land of
Egypt is similar to verse 7, but a different word for brought forth is used, meaning “to cause to
go out.”

With great power and with a mighty hand is literally “by great strength and by a strong
hand.” This refers, of course, to the hand of Yahweh, which is another figure of speech that
means “with great might and power” (32.11 TEV). (The same expression is used at 3.19; 13.3, 9,
16.). 32.11 CEV rearranges the clauses of the verse in a way that will be helpful for many
translators: “you used your mighty power to bring these people out of Egypt. Now don’t
become angry and destroy them.”

32.12

Why should the Egyptians say is literally “Why will the Egyptians say, saying.” This is a
question addressed to Yahweh that introduces what the Egyptians might conclude if he should
destroy the Israelites. It means “Why give the Egyptians an excuse to say” (Durham). As a
rhetorical question it may be changed to a statement, “The Egyptians should not be able to
say.” TAN has “Let not the Egyptians say,” and 32.12 CEV has “If you do, the Egyptians will say.”
This may be expanded to “If you destroy them, the Egyptians will say.” In any case Moses
appeals to Yahweh’s sensitivity about Yahweh’s reputation.

With evil intent did he bring them forth is literally “In evil he caused them to go out.” The
he refers to Yahweh, and the word for evil carries the idea of “evil intention” (NJB). This is an
imagined statement the Egyptians may make, and it is embedded in the question that Moses
addresses to Yahweh. (Note the single quotation marks.) 32.12 TEV uses the verb “planning”
for evil intent and translates the first part of this verse as “Why should the Egyptians be able
to say that you led your people out of Egypt, planning to kill them … ?” To slay them in the
mountains uses a general word for “kill” that does not indicate any method used. (See the
comment on this word in 2.14.) And to consume them from the face of the earth is literally
“and to finish them off from the face of the ground.” The same word for consume is used in
verse 10. (See the comment there.)

Turn from thy fierce wrath is literally “You [singular] return from the glow [or, heat] of
your nose.” This means “Give up your burning wrath” (NJB), or “Stop being angry” (32.12 TEV).
Moses is still praying to Yahweh, as he began at verse 11. In some languages Moses’ words will
need to be softened somewhat; for example, “Please stop being angry.” And repent is literally
“and you [singular] regret [or, be sorry].” The word means to have a change of heart, so
“change your mind” (32.12 TEV) is better than repent. (So also 32.12 NRSV.) Of this evil against
thy people is literally “over the evil [intent] toward your people.” TAN has “renounce the plan
to punish your people.”

An alternative translation model for this verse is:

• The Egyptians should not be able to say that when you led your people out of Egypt you were
planning to kill them in the mountains and completely destroy them. Please stop being angry
and renounce your plan to punish your people.

32.13
 Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel is still addressed to Yahweh. Literally the Hebrew
says “Remember to [or, for] Abraham … ,” which suggests the meaning “Remember to their
credit.” Remember here does not mean that Yahweh has forgotten his promise to the
patriarchs, but rather that Moses is simply calling it to his attention. 32.13 TEV changes Israel to
“Jacob” in order to focus on the man himself rather than on his descendants. (So also TAN and
NJB.) Thy servants uses the word that also means “slaves,” but here it is used in a positive
sense, showing respect both to Yahweh and to the three patriarchs, and indicating that they
faithfully obeyed God.

To whom thou didst swear by thine own self is literally “whom you swore to them by
yourself.” The Hebrew uses the word shabashaba‘ls;, meaning “to swear.” (See the comment
on this word at 13.5.) 32.13 TEV has “Remember the solemn promise you made to them,”
which brings out the idea of a “promise” but weakens the idea of an oath. Durham has “to
whom you bound yourself by oath,” but the idea of by thine own self is only implied.
Therefore one may say either “Remember the solemn promise you made to them by your own
name” or “to whom you bound yourself by an oath in your own name.”

And didst say to them, literally “and you [singular] spoke to them,” introduces the words
of Yahweh’s promise to the patriarchs. NJB has “and made this promise.” I will multiply your
descendants is literally “I will cause to be many your [plural] seed.” As the stars of heaven is
literally “like the stars of the heavens.” 32.13 NIV has “I will make your descendants as
numerous as the stars in the sky.” 32.13 TEV changes the direct speech to indirect, and so the
pronoun I is changed to “you.”

And all this land I have promised is literally “and all this land which I said.” TAN has “all this
land of which I spoke.” I will give to your descendants uses the same word meaning “your
[plural] seed.” And they shall inherit it for ever uses the word that means to obtain or receive
property, or to take possession of land. So 32.13 TEV has “all that land you promised would be
their possession forever,” and TOT has “they shall occupy it permanently.”

An alternative translation model for this verse is:

• Remember the strong promise you made to your servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. By using
your own name, you promised, “I will cause them to have as many descendants as there are
stars in the sky, and I will give their descendants this land forever.”

32.14

And the Lord repented is literally “And Yahweh regretted [or, was sorry].” The same word
is used in verse 12. 32.14 NRSV now agrees with 32.14 TEV, “So the Lord changed his mind.”
32.14 NIV and others have “the Lord relented.” Of the evil which he thought to do to his
people is literally “over the evil which he spoke to do to his people.” This refers back to what
Yahweh said in verse 10. The word for “he spoke” can be given different meanings in this
context. 32.14 NRSV has “about the disaster he planned to bring on his people.” NJB has “the
punishment he had threatened to inflict on his people.” 32.14 CEV reorders the clauses of the
verse as follows: “So even though the Lord had threatened to destroy the people, he changed
his mind and let them live.”
 (c) The Stone Tablets Broken (32.15–20)
(c) The stone tablets broken (32.15–20)

Section Heading: another way to render the Handbook’s heading, “The stone tablets
broken,” is “Moses breaks the two stone tablets [or, flat stones].”

32.15

And Moses turned suggests that Moses had been facing away from the Israelite camp,
which was at the foot of the mountain, as he was pleading with Yahweh. 32.15 TEV, REB, and
32.15 CEV omit this action, evidently considering it unneces sary to translate, but it does add to
his role as mediator between God and the people. If translators wish to keep the verb turned,
another way to express this first clause is “Moses turned away from Yahweh.” And went down
from the mountain uses the verb meaning “to descend,” which suggests either went down or
“came down” (NAB, NJB). In languages that must make this distinction, it may be better to say
“came down” and thereby place the writer with the Israelite community. (See the comment on
“came” at 1.1.)

With the two tables of the testimony in his hands is literally “and two slabs of the
testimony [were] in his hand.” (Note that “hand” is singular.) 32.15 TEV simply has “carrying the
two stone tablets.” This refers back to the “two stone tablets” (32.15 TEV) mentioned in 31.18.
(See the comment on “tables” at 24.12 and on “testimony” at 16.34.) Tables that were written
on both sides is literally “slabs written from two from their two sides.” This means that each
tablet had writing on both sides, with four surfaces used. This is made even clearer with the
final clause, on the one side and on the other were they written. Literally the Hebrew says
“from this and from that they [were] written.”

32.16

And the tables were the work of God continues to describe the “the tablets” (32.16 TEV).
Were the work of God is literally “a doing of ’elohim they.” The use of ’elohim rather than
Yahweh should not be understood as a different God. In the present context the work of God
contrasts sharply with the gold bull-calf, which was the work of men.

And the writing was the writing of God uses a different form of the same word for
“written” (verse 15), which here may be understood as “inscriptions” (NAB). This is supported
by the final clause, graven upon the tables, which uses a word for graven that is found only
here in the entire Hebrew Bible. The context clarifies that it means “engraved” (32.16 TEV),
“incised” (TAN), or “cut into.” In languages that do not use the passive voice, it will be helpful to
combine verses 15 and 16 and so avoid the passives in verse 15:

• 15–16 Moses came back down the mountain carrying the two stone tablets [or, flat stones] on
which God had written [or, engraved] his laws with his own hand. He had written these on
both sides of the stones.

32.17
 When Joshua heard, literally “And Joshua heard,” may be understood as “Then Joshua
heard” (Durham), “Joshua, hearing” (REB), or simply “Joshua heard” (32.17 TEV). Joshua has not
been mentioned since 24.13, but we may assume that he had accompanied Moses part way to
the top of the mountain and waited there for him. (See the comment at 24.14.) The noise of
the people as they shouted is literally “the sound of the people in its shouting.” (The “its”
refers to the people, which is singular in form.) The word “sound” may be understood as
noise, “uproar” (REB), or “racket” (Durham), but it was evidently the sound of human voices.

He said to Moses indicates that Moses had descended to the place where Joshua was
waiting. There is a noise of war in the camp is literally “a sound of fighting in the camp.” REB
seems more natural, “Listen! There is fighting in the camp,” or one may say “Listen, I hear
people fighting each other in the camp.”

32.18

But he said refers to Moses, so 32.18 TEV has “Moses said,” and NAB has “But Moses
answered.” The rest of the verse has been generally recognized as poetry in the Hebrew, and
32.18 NRSV and others display it as such. There are three lines with four words to a line.
Literally the Hebrew says:

Absence-of sound-of singing-of strength;

and-absence-of sound-of singing-of weakness;

sound-of singing I am-hearing.

The same Hebrew word for singing appears in each line, but the word may also mean
“answering” or “responding.” The form of the word is intensified in the third line, suggesting a
form of cultic singing. JB has “chanting” in this line. Since it is usually impossible to retain such
a play on words, translations show a variety of interpretations.

The words for “strength” and “weakness” are obviously in contrast with each other. One
may say “victory” and “defeat” (TEV), “victors” and “losers” (NRSV), or “prevailing” and “failing”
(Fox). Depending on the choice of these contrasting terms, the rendering of the key word,
singing, may have to be adjusted accordingly: “shout of victory” and “cry of defeat” (32.18
TEV); “heroes exulting” and “losers lamenting” (Durham); or “war cries” and “wailing of the
defeated” (TOT).

Translators, however, should first determine whether poetic form in this case is natural in
the receptor language. (See the introduction to chapter 15 for a discussion on translating
poetry.) The emotional condition of Moses at this point could be one of grave disappointment
over what he suspects the Israelites are doing, or it could already be one of intense anger, as
the following verses suggest. It may therefore be inappropriate in some cultures to give
expression to these moods in poetic form. TEV has chosen not to reveal the poetic form for this
very reason. CEV also avoids poetic form, with “It doesn’t sound like they are shouting because

JB JERUSALEM BIBLE
they have won or lost a battle.” But the sound of singing that I hear may also be expressed as
“Instead, I hear them singing.”

32.19

And as soon as he came near the camp is literally “And it was as he approached unto the
camp.” The he refers to Moses; nothing more is said about Joshua. One may also translate “As
Moses came closer to the camp where the people were staying … .” ASV has “And it came to
pass … .” And saw the calf refers to the “bull-calf” (32.19 TEV) mentioned in verse 4. And the
dancing suggests a type of whirling movement, and many cultures will have dance forms using
this movement. 32.19 TEV adds “to see the people dancing.” The same term is used of Miriam
and the women in 15.20. It is associated with occasions of joy and celebration. 32.19 CEV has
“dancing around.”

Moses’ anger burned hot is literally “and the nose of Moses became hot.” The same
expression is used of Yahweh in verses 10–11. (See the comment at 4.14.) And he threw the
tables out of his hands is literally “and he threw down from his hand the slabs.” (As in verse
15, “hand” is singular.) Since the word for throw already implies the use of the hands, 32.19
TEV simply has “he threw down the tablets he was carrying.” (Similarly also NAB, NJB, and REB.)
However, Moses must have used great force to shatter the stones when he threw them to the
ground. If translators have a word in the receptor language that implies using great force, that
should be used here.

And broke them at the foot of the mountain is literally “and he shattered them under the
mountain.” The word for broke has the intensive form, so 32.19 NIV has “breaking them to
pieces.” Foot of the mountain refers to where the mountain begins to rise. (See the comment
at 24.4.) The final part of the verse may be alternatively rendered as “What he saw [or, This]
made him so angry that he threw the stones down and broke them into pieces at the foot of
the mountain.

32.20

And he took the calf probably means that Moses “seized” the bull-calf, since he was very
angry. Which they had made refers to the people, not just to Aaron. And burnt it with fire is
exactly what the Hebrew says, but since it was made of gold, 32.20 TEV has “melted it.” NAB has
“he fused it.” And ground it to powder is literally “and he ground until [it was] fine.” The word
for ground is used for grinding grain in a mill. The word for powder is used in 16.14 to describe
how fine the manna was, so 32.20 TEV has “fine powder.”

This reference to burning, grinding, and scattering has caused some scholars to believe the
calf was really made of wood and only covered with gold, since gold cannot be burned. Others
say that gold is too soft to be ground into powder. But these terms are meant to describe total
destruction. The expression in fact may have been borrowed from an ancient Canaanite myth
where the goddess Anat destroys the god Mot by burning, grinding, and scattering him.

ASV AMERICAN STANDARD VERSION

 And scattered it upon the water is literally “and he scattered it upon the face of the
waters.” The source of the water is not indicated, but Deut 9.21 suggests it came from a
mountain brook. 32.20 TEV says that he “mixed it with water,” but this changes the picture,
which in the Hebrew is that of scattering the gold powder like sowing seed. And made the
people of Israel drink it probably refers to all the Israelites. This was certainly a form of
punishment, but it was also probably an ancient form of trial, in order to find out who were
the guilty ones. (See Num 5.16-22.) Verse 35 may give the results of this “trial by ordeal.” (See
the comment there.)

(d) Aaron’s Excuse (32.21–24)

(d) Aaron’s excuse (32.21–24)

Section Heading: the Handbook’s heading, “Aaron’s excuse,” may also be expressed as
“Aaron makes an excuse,” or “Aaron blames the people,” or even “Aaron blames the people
for the bull-calf.”

32.21

And Moses said to Aaron changes the scene and suggests that Moses may have been too
angry to speak to Aaron until now. What did this people do to you is better expressed as
“What did these people do to you?” In Hebrew this is singular only because people is singular.

That you have brought a great sin upon them is literally “that you [singular] caused to
come upon them a great sin.” This really means, as 32.21 TEV puts it, “that you have made
them commit such a terrible sin.” 32.21 CEV is similar, with “make them sin in this terrible
way.” But REB is also possible, “that you should have brought such great guilt upon them.” The
word for sin is the usual word meaning “to miss the mark.” (See the comment on
chatachata’rs; at 20.20.) However, in contrast to Pharaoh’s admitting to making a “mistake” in
9.27, sin here involves moral guilt. The people had transgressed Yahweh’s commandments.
Moses is actually blaming Aaron, but he recognizes that the people are the ones who sinned.

32.22

And Aaron said is literally “Aaron answered” (TEV, CEV), which is better. Let not the anger
of my lord burn hot is literally “The nose of my lord should not become hot.” (See the
comment at verse 10.) As a third person imperative it may also be expressed in the second
person, “Don’t be angry with me” (TEV, CEV). My lord, ’adonirs;adoni, is a common term of
respect that means “sir” (TOT). It is a simpler form of ’adonayrs;adonay (“Lord”), the term used
in addressing God. (See the comment at 3.2a.) 32.22 TEV and 32.22 CEV unfortunately omit this
as unnatural, since Aaron is speaking to his younger brother. In languages that normally
require Aaron to maintain his position as “elder” or “elder sibling,” translators may need to use
some other honorific displaying respect for Moses, even though he is younger.

You know the people, that they are set on evil is literally “you [singular], you know the
people because in evil it.” (The pronoun “it” is singular, since people is singular in form.) Set on
evil may also be rendered as “prone … to evil” (NIV, NAB), or “bent on evil” (32.22 NRSV). 32.22
 TEV is clear, “you know how determined these people are to do evil.” One may also translate
“You know as well as I do that they are determined to do evil” (32.22 CEV).

32.23

Aaron is still speaking. For they said to me refers to the people and introduces a quote
within a quote. The rest of the verse is identical with what the people say in verse 1 (except for
the word “Up”).

32.24

Aaron is still speaking to Moses. And I said to them again introduces a quote within a
quote. Let any who have gold is literally “for whoever gold,” meaning “whoever has gold!”
Take it off is literally “they tore off,” which may also mean “they will tear off,” implying a
command. As in 32.24 RSV, most translations interpret it as “they will tear off” and include it as
part of Aaron’s command to the people. Fox, however, reads it as part of Aaron’s words to
Moses, “So I said to them: Who has gold? They broke it off and gave it to me.” One may also
say “So I said to them, ‘Any of you who have gold earrings, take them off and bring them to
me.’ ” 32.24 TEV understands it in the same way but changes everything to indirect speech to
avoid an embedded quote: “and those who had any took them off and gave them to me.”

So they gave it to me is no longer part of the embedded quote but is now a continuation
of Aaron’s words to Moses. The pronoun it refers to the gold. And I threw it into the fire uses
the same word as verse 19, where Moses threw down the stone tablets. And there came out
this calf is literally “and this bull-calf came out.” This implies that the calf had been “self-
produced,” or took shape quite accidentally. We may therefore assume that Aaron is trying to
put all the blame on the people.

An alternative translation model for this verse is:

• Then I said to them, “Any of you that have gold earrings, take them off and bring them to me.”
They took them off and gave them to me. I threw them into a fire, and to my surprise, out
came this bull-calf.

(e) The Slaughter by the Levites (32.25–29)

(e) The slaughter by the Levites (32.25–29)

This section probably comes from a later tradition that contrasted the faithfulness of the
Levites with the failure of Aaron to control the people. The Levites, of course, were from the
same tribe as Moses and Aaron, but later traditions tended to distinguish them from the sons
of Aaron. As part of the present narrative, however, this rather distasteful episode shows how
the people were once again brought under the control of Moses.

Section Heading: the Handbook’s heading for this subsection, “The slaughter by the
Levites,” may also be expressed as “The Levites slaughter [or, kill] many people.”

32.25
 And when Moses saw is simply “And Moses saw,” suggesting an independent clause. This
is the style, or form, followed by 32.25 TEV and 32.25 CEV. But 32.25 RSV and others connect the
entire verse to the following verse as a temporal clause. It is recommended that translators
follow the first form. Moses saw that the people had broken loose is literally “And Moses saw
the people because [or, that] it [or, they] became loose.” The word has the root meaning of
“let go” in the sense of a woman letting her hair hang loose. 32.25 NRSV changes broken loose
to “running wild” (32.25 NIV), while others have “out of control” (TEV, TAN, REB).

For Aaron had let them break loose, literally “because Aaron let [them] loose,” uses a
different form of the same verb. This may be understood as a parenthetical statement, as in
32.25 RSV and 32.25 NRSV, although the Hebrew text does not show parentheses. NJB and TAN
set this clause off with dashes. 32.25 TEV combines this with the first clause, “Moses saw that
Aaron had let the people get out of control.” 32.25 CEV has “Moses knew that the people were
out of control and that it was Aaron’s fault.”

To their shame among their enemies is literally “to [or, for] a whisper in [or, by] the risers
up against them.” The word for their shame clearly means “whisper” in Job 4.12 and 26.14,
but here it takes on the sense of “derision” (32.25 NRSV), or “secret malice” (REB). Durham
translates it as “whispered slander,” NAB calls it “scornful joy,” and 32.25 NIV has
“laughingstock.” Probably 32.25 TEV is close to the intended meaning, “Aaron had let them …
make fools of themselves.” 32.25 CEV is similar, with “And now they had made fools of
themselves in front of their enemies.” The word for their enemies comes from the verb
meaning “to rise up,” so it refers to “any who might oppose them” (TAN), or “those who hate
them.”

32.26

In RSV this verse continues the sentence begun in verse 25. But in many languages it will be
more natural style to begin a new sentence here. Then Moses stood means that “Moses took
his stand,” or “stationed himself.” Both 32.26 TEV and 32.26 CEV show that Moses’ action was
the result of his anger, and say “So Moses stood at the gate … .” In the gate of the camp
simply refers to the main entrance into the campsite, the place where they had pitched their
tents. Another possible model is “So Moses stood at the gate of the place where the people
had set up their tents.” And said should probably be understood as “and shouted” (TEV, CEV),
since Moses was now speaking to all the people.

Who is on the Lord’s side? Come to me. This is just three short words in the Hebrew,
“Who for-Yahweh, to-me.” 32.26 TEV and 32.26 CEV expand this to be more natural, “Everyone
who is on the Lord’s side come over here!” On the Lord’s side means “who serve the Lord” or
“who are loyal to Yahweh.” And all the sons of Levi is quite literal; “all the Levites” is more
accurate, since Levi, one of the sons of Jacob, was their ancestor. One may also say “all the
men of the tribe of Levi” or “all the men who were descendants of Levi.” Gathered themselves
together to him simply means, as 32.26 TEV puts it, that they “gathered around him,” meaning
Moses. Several translations have “rallied to him” (NIV, REB, and others).

32.27
 And he said to them introduces what Moses said to the Levites. Thus says the Lord God of
Israel is identical with the messenger formula used in 5.1. (See the comment there and at
4.22.) This formula introduces the exact word of Yahweh as a quote within a quote. Both 32.27
TEV and 32.27 CEV have “The Lord God of Israel commands … .” Put every man his sword on his
side is literally “You [plural] place a man his sword upon his upper thigh.” The word for sword
probably refers to a long dagger, about eighteen inches in length, with a straight double-edged
metal blade and a wood or bone handle. It was carried in a leather sheath tied to the girdle
and worn at the left side. In certain languages this sentence will be expressed as “tie your
sword to your belt.”

And go to and fro from gate to gate throughout the camp is literally “you [plural] pass
through and you return from gate to gate in the camp.” 32.27 TEV assumes there were two
gates, “from this gate to the other.” Durham assumes there was only one, “from the entrance
and back again.” 32.27 NIV does not use gate but has the intended meaning, “from one end to
the other.” The word for go means to pass th
408

rough from one side to the other.

And slay every man his brother, literally “and you [plural] kill a man his brother,” uses the
common word for “kill” (32.27 TEV), as in verse 12. (See the comment at 2.14.) The word for
brother in this context refers broadly to the fellow tribesman and even the fellow Israelite. It
does not include women, however, and in certain languages it will be necessary to make this
explicit; for example, “kill your male relatives, friends, and neighbors.” His companion includes
friend, fellow, or comrade. His neighbor uses a word for someone very close, in terms of either
space or kinship. So the three terms overlap in meaning. The point is that the Levites were to
spare no one who presumably had been guilty of worshiping the golden calf.

32.28

And the sons of Levi is better understood as “the Levites” (32.28 TEV), or “The men of the
Levi tribe” (32.28 CEV). (See the comment at verse 26.) Did according to the word of Moses is
literal, using the noun davar (“word”). But it may be more natural to say “did as Moses
commanded” (32.28 NRSV), or “followed his orders” (32.28 CEV), or simply “the Levites obeyed”
(32.28 TEV).

408Osborn, N. D., & Hatton, H. (1999). A handbook on Exodus. UBS handbook series; Helps for
translators (734). New York: United Bible Societies.

TEV Today’s English Version

CEV Contemporary English Version

NRSV New Revised Standard Version

 And there fell of the people that day is literally “and he [or, it] fell from the people in that
day.” The word is often used for falling in battle. This, of course, means that they were “killed”
(32.28 TEV). About three thousand men means approximately three thousand males. The word
for men (’ishrs;ish) usually distinguishes them from the women, but this is not explicit here.
Probably some women were among those killed, even though Moses commanded the sons of
Levi to kill their brothers (verse 27). Some translations therefore translate “people” instead of
men (NIV, REB, 32.28 NRSV, and others). In languages that do not use the passive voice, one may
follow 32.28 TEV’s model and say “The Levites obeyed, and killed about three thousand men
that day.”

32.29

And Moses said introduces what Moses said to the Levites. Today you have ordained
yourselves is a translation of the Septuagint rather than the Hebrew. The Greek says “You
[plural] filled your hands today,” which means “Today you have consecrated yourselves.” (So
also NJB.) The Hebrew text is ambiguous. (See the 32.29 TEV footnote.) It can mean either “you
[plural] fill your hand today” or “they filled your [plural] hand today.” (For the meaning of “fill
the hand,” see the comment at 28.41.) Some translations interpret the Hebrew as a command:
“Ordain yourselves” (Durham), “Dedicate yourselves” (TAN), or “Install yourselves” (TOT).
Others take the second meaning: “you have been dedicated” (NAB), “You have been installed”
(REB), or “You have been set apart” (32.29 NIV). If translators, in languages that do not use the
passive voice, choose to follow the second meaning, one may say “Yahweh has set you apart
to serve him.”

For the service of the Lord is just one word, “to [or, for] Yahweh.” 32.29 TEV interprets this
to mean “as priests in the service of the Lord,” which is possible. (Similarly also REB and TOT.)
But since the text does not specify “as priests,” it is better to omit this and allow for other
interpretations.

Each one at the cost of his son and of his brother is literally “because [or, for] a man in
[or, by] his son and in [or, by] his brother.” This refers, of course, to the fact that the Levites
did not spare even those closest to them. The preposition “in” [or, by], however, may have an
even broader meaning, such as “in exchange for.”

NIV NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION

REB REVISED ENGLISH BIBLE

NJB NEW JERUSALEM BIBLE

TAN TANAKH (NEW JEWISH VERSION)

TOT TRANSLATOR’S OLD TESTAMENT

NAB NEW AMERICAN BIBLE

 That he may bestow a blessing upon you this day is literally “and to give upon you [plural]
today a blessing.” This may be interpreted in at least four different ways: a) “in order that
Yahweh will bless you today” (as in 32.29 RSV); b) “and therefore Yahweh will bless you today”
(as in TOT); c) “and therefore Yahweh has already blessed you today” (as in 32.29 TEV and CEV);
or d) “you have brought a blessing upon yourselves today” (as in 32.29 NRSV). In any case it
should be clear that Yahweh is the source of the blessing. Even the fourth option (d) must be
understood in the sense that “today you have given Yahweh a reason for blessing you.”

The nature of the blessing is not indicated, but the context suggests that the Levites, as a
result of what they had done, would now enjoy a special status “in the service of the Lord.” At
the very least the blessing would mean that Yahweh would show them his good favor. Blessing
refers to Yahweh showing his mercy, kindness, and graciousness to people. So one may
translate “So Yahweh showed his kindness to you this day.”

An alternative translation model for this verse is:

• Moses said to the men of the Levi tribe, “Today Yahweh has set you apart to serve him, for
each of you killed his own sons and brothers. In this way Yahweh has shown his kindness to
you.”

(f) The second Intercession (32.30–35)

(f) The second intercession (32.30–35)

Section Heading: another way to express the heading “The second interces sion” is “Moses
pleads again with Yahweh to forgive the Israelites.”

32.30

On the morrow, literally “And it was, from tomorrow,” means “The next day” (TEV, CEV),
following the slaughter by the Levites. Moses said to the people introduces Moses’ words to
all those who survived the slaughter. You have sinned a great sin, literally “You [plural], you
sinned a great sin,” uses the same word for both verb and noun. (See the comment on chata’
at 20.20.)

And now I will go up to the Lord is literally “and now I will ascend unto Yahweh.” 32.30 TEV
adds “I will again go up,” which is more natural in the wider context. Perhaps is a word that
usually expresses hope, but there is also some doubt, since the outcome is not certain. I can
make atonement for your sin is literally “I will cover over for your [plural] sin.” Here the idea
of “covering over” means to appease or make amends. Moses knew, of course, that he could
not forgive their sin, but he would try to persuade Yahweh to forgive them. So 32.30 TEV has
“perhaps I can obtain forgiveness for your sin.” In certain languages this will be expanded to
“Perhaps I can persuade Yahweh to forgive your sins.”

32.31

RSV Revised Standard Version

 So Moses returned to the Lord, literally “And Moses returned to Yahweh,” means that he
went back up the mountain again. The idea of going up, or ascending, is implied from verse 30.
And said introduces Moses’ second intercessory prayer to Yahweh for the people.

Alas in English usually indicates that the speaker is discouraged. However, the Hebrew
term is a word that usually comes before a request. It means “please,” or “I pray.” 32.31 TEV
omits it entirely, but others render it as “Oh” (REB), “Ah” (NAB), or “Please hear my prayer”
(TOT). This people have sinned a great sin uses the same words as verse 30. In verse 30 it is a
strong rebuke; here it takes the form of a confession. They have made for themselves gods of
gold uses ’elohim, which is plural in form. But this may also be understood as singular, since
only one bull-calf was made. (See the comment at verse 4.) 32.31 TEV adds the words “and
worshiped it.”

32.32

But now, if thou wilt forgive their sin is an incomplete thought. 32.32 RSV and others add a
dash to show that Moses does not complete the sentence. NJB adds ellipsis points (…) as in
19.25. Some scholars believe a word has dropped out of the Hebrew manuscript, especially
since other ancient manuscripts add the word “forgive!” So REB has “Now if you will forgive
them, forgive.” And TAN has “Now, if You will forgive their sin [well and good],” with the added
words in brackets to show they have been added. NAB interprets this in a different way: “If you
would only forgive their sin!” The meaning, of course, is clear, so 32.32 TEV has “Please forgive
their sin.” Another possible rendering is “But now I plead with you to forgive their sin.”

And if not is literally “and if nothing,” meaning “but if you won’t” (32.32 TEV). Blot me, I
pray thee is literally “you [singular] wipe me out, please.” This means “erase me” (TAN), “strike
me out” (NAB), or “remove my name.” Out of thy book which thou hast written is literally
“from your scroll [or, document] which you wrote.” Nothing else is said about such a
document, but it can refer to “the book of the living” (Psa 69.28) or “a book of remembrance”
(Mal 3.16). (See also Psa 40.7 and 139.16.) 32.32 TEV’s addition, “from the book in which you
have written the names of your people,” will be helpful in languages where the content of the
writing must be mentioned.

32.33

But the Lord said to Moses begins with the usual conjunction waw, which here means But,
since Yahweh is countering the proposal of Moses. Whoever has sinned against me is literally
“Who which sinned to me,” meaning “He who has sinned against me” (TAN). 32.33 TEV puts it in
the plural, “It is those who have sinned against me.” Him will I blot out of my book is simply “I
will wipe him from my book.” (See the comment at verse 32.) 32.33 CEV reorders the clauses of
the verse as follows: “I will wipe out of my book the name of everyone who has sinned against
me.”

32.34

But now go, literally “and now you [singular] go,” is a command. Lead the people is also in
the imperative mood. Note that Yahweh says neither “your people” nor “my people.” This
neutrality should be preserved here if possible. To the place of which I have spoken to you is
literally “unto where I spoke to you [singular].” The place is added for clarity. It refers to the
land first promised in 3.8.

Behold is a word to get attention. Most translations omit it, but 32.34 NRSV has “See.”
32.34 TEV has “Remember” in place of Behold, which refers back to the first reference of
Yahweh’s angel leading the people in 23.23. My angel shall go before you is literally “my
messenger will go to your face.” The singular you is used, referring to Moses. On angel and
“messenger,” see the comment at 23.23.

Nevertheless is the usual conjunction waw, but the clause that it introduces gives the
meaning of an emphatic “but.” 32.34 NIV has “However,” and Durham has “Yet.” In the day
when I visit is literally “in the day of my visiting.” The word for visit may mean “attend to” in
the sense of “observing” (as in 4.31), or it may mean “call to account” in the sense of
punishment (as in 20.5). Here the meaning is “when the day comes for punishment” (32.34
NRSV). I will visit their sin upon them is quite literal. It means, as 32.34 TEV puts it, “I will punish
these people for their sins.” The word for sin is singular, the same word used in verse 31. (See
the comment on chata’ at 20.20.)

32.35

And the Lord sent a plague upon the people is literally “And Yahweh plagued the people.”
The word for plague means to injure (as in 21.22, “hurt”) or to strike with a disaster (as in 8.2).
32.35 TEV interprets it to mean “the Lord sent a disease upon the people,” and 32.35 CEV has
“So the Lord punished the people of Israel with a terrible disease.” Many scholars believe this
verse originally followed verse 20, suggesting that the “disease” was the result of the people
having to drink the water mixed with the powder from the golden bull-calf. In its present
position, however, the nature of the plague cannot be determined.

Because they made the calf which Aaron made is literally “over which they made the bull-
calf which Aaron made.” This is confusing, for it says that both the people and Aaron made the
calf. Since the word for made also means “do,” 32.35 NIV has “because of what they did with
the calf Aaron had made.” NEB and TOT suggest the meaning of “they worshiped,” but this may
be following a different text. 32.35 TEV interprets the meaning differently: “because they had
caused Aaron to make the gold bull-calf.” 32.35 CEV similarly has “for talking Aaron into making
the gold idol.”

(2) The Lord Promises to Go with Them (33.1–25)

(a) The Third Intercessory Dialogue Begins (33.1–6)

(a) The third intercessory dialogue begins (33.1–6)

[1] The command to leave Sinai (33.1–3)

NEB NEW ENGLISH BIBLE

[1] The command to leave Sinai (33.1–3)

This chapter is crucial to understanding the balance between the people’s breaking of the
covenant in chapter 32 and Yahweh’s renewal of that covenant in chapter 34. As the complete
Handbook outline reveals, the third dialogue between Yahweh and Moses leads to the
reassurance of Moses at the end of this chapter that Yahweh will go with the Israelites as they
move on toward the promised land. This is in sharp contrast with Yahweh’s statement in verse
3 that he will not go with them.

Verses 4–6 give a brief narrative reaction of the people to the “evil tidings” of verse 3. This
brief section functions as a “flash-forward,” pointing out why, later on, the people did not
wear any “ornaments, from Mount HoREB onward” (verse 6).

The section on “The tent of meeting,” verses 7–11, also interrupts the dialogue to suggest
that Yahweh “used to speak to Moses face to face.” This section functions as a “flashback,”
pointing out that Moses was already accustomed to communicating with Yahweh in a small
tent pitched “outside the camp.”

Both the “flash-forward” and the “flashback” are editorial insertions that reflect originally
independent traditions. In the present form of the text, however, they show both the
unworthiness of the people and the special role that Moses had to play as mediator and
intercessor. Their function is to focus attention on the separation between Yahweh and his
people just before Moses succeeds in persuading Yahweh to go with his people.

It is not stated specifically where this third dialogue took place, whether it was on top of
the mountain or at the foot. But the present arrangement of the text suggests that it took
place at the Tent of Meeting just outside the camp. This has certain theological implications. It
emphasizes the delicate tension that always exists between the sacred and the profane. It also
shows that Yahweh’s presence was not limited to the mountain top. Indeed, he was the one
who had led them from Egypt to Sinai.

It is important to note the various clues throughout the chapter that show how Yahweh’s
attitude toward the Israelites gradually changed. This change is presented as the direct result
of Moses’ persistent intercession, and it prepares the way for the renewal of the covenant
relationship in chapter 34.

Section Headings: translators who follow the Handbook’s outline should include the
general heading “The Lord promises to go with them,” followed by the subheading “The third
intercessory dialogue begins,” which may also be rendered as “Moses pleads with Yahweh for
the third time.” There should also be a subsection heading, “The command to leave Sinai.” In a
number of languages translators will need a full sentence for this heading. In such a case
“Yahweh orders [or, tells] Israel to leave Mount Sinai” will be a suitable heading.

33.1

The Lord said to Moses, literally “And Yahweh spoke unto Moses,” is identical with the
opening of the first dialogue in 32.7. Depart, go up hence is literally “you go, you ascend from
this [place].” This is in sharp contrast with 32.7, where Yahweh says “You go, you descend.” In
 both cases the “you” is singular. You and the people, however, now includes the Israelites.
Whom you have brought up out of the land of Egypt is literally “whom you [singular] caused
to ascend from the land of Egypt.” The same expression is used in 32.7. (See the comment on
brought up at 3.8.)

To the land of which I swore, literally “unto the land which I swore,” repeats the words of
Moses in 32.13. (See the comment there on the meaning of swore.) To Abraham, Isaac, and
Jacob again refers to the three patriarchs, but here the name Jacob is used instead of “Israel.”
Saying introduces the exact words of Yahweh to the patriarchs. Yahweh is quoting himself. To
your descendants I will give it is literally “to your [singular] seed I will give it.” The word for
descendants is singular in form, but it is a collective noun, like “offspring” (TAN). 33.1 CEV
reorders the clauses of this verse as follows:

• The Lord said to Moses:

You led the people of Israel out of Egypt. Now get ready to lead them to the land I promised
their ancestors Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

33.2

And I will send an angel before you is literally “And I will send to your [singular] face a
messenger.” The same word is used for angel in 32.34 and 23.23, but here it is an angel, not
“my angel.” It may be that a different “messenger” (Durham) is intended here, for verse 3
suggests that this angel will not represent Yahweh’s presence. 33.2 TEV interprets before you
as “to guide you,” but it may simply mean “in front of you” (TOT, NJB) or “ahead of you” (REB).

And I will drive out uses the same word as in 6.1 and 11.1. It means “to banish” or “force
to leave.” Even though verse 3 says that Yahweh will not go with them, here he says that he
will be the one to drive out the Canaanites … and the Jebusites. But three different agents are
named in 23.28–31 for driving out these nations from the land (“hornets,” “I,” and “you”). The
same six nations, or ethnic groups, are listed in 3.8 in a slightly different order. (See the
comment there.)

33.3

Go up to a land, literally “unto a land,” has no verb; the force of the verb in verse 1 carries
over into this verse. TAN, in fact, uses dashes to set off verse 2 as a parenthetical expression.
33.3 TEV simply has “You are going to a … land,” which is clearly implied from the context.
Flowing with milk and honey is the same expression used in 3.8. (See the comment there.)

But I will not go up among you is literally “for I will not ascend in your midst.” This simply
means “I will not go with you myself” (33.3 TEV), or “I shall not journey in your company” (REB).
The singular form of you is used because of the following reference to people, which is
singular in form.

Lest I consume you in the way is literally “otherwise I will finish you off in the way.”
Consume means “exterminate” (TAN), or “annihilate” (NJB). So 33.3 TEV has “I might destroy
you on the way.” (See the comment at 32.10.) For in the way 33.3 CEV has “before they get
there,” and this will be a possible rendering in some languages. For you are a stiff-necked
people is the same expression used in 32.9. (See the comment there.) The you is singular in
both cases.

[2] The ban on jewelry (33.4–6)

[2] The ban on jewelry (33.4–6)

This subsection is a “flash-forward,” as explained in the introductory comment above. It

interrupts the dialogue between Yahweh and Moses, which is not picked up again until verse
12. As an editorial insertion, however, it describes the reaction of the people when they heard
what Yahweh had said to Moses. It also shows how dependent they were on the intercession
of Moses.

Verses 5–6 are actually a “flashback” within this “flash-forward,” revealing a command
that Yahweh had told Moses to give to the people. This appears to be a contradiction, for verse
4 indicates that the people removed their “ornaments” as a result of their mourning. And
verse 5 indicates that they did this in obedience to Yahweh’s command. Translators should not
try to harmonize these verses. It may be assumed that their reaction was due both to a sense
of mourning and in obedience to Yahweh’s command.

In some languages it may be necessary to avoid all flashbacks and flash- forwards, and to
rearrange the verses to show the various events in their chronological order. If this is
necessary, the following order of events in chapters 33 and 34 is suggested, along with a
rearrangement in the outline given in this Handbook:

b. The covenant broken and restored (32.1–34.35).

(1) The people break the covenant (32.1–35).

(2) The Lord promises to go with them (33.1–3, 5, 7–23).

(a) The tent of meeting (33.7–11).

An explanation of how Moses made use of the tent of meeting. Moses talks with Yahweh
inside the tent of meeting.

(b) The third intercessory dialogue begins (33.1–3, 5).

33.1–3a. Yahweh tells Moses to lead the people to the promised land, and that an angel
will go in front of them.

33.3b. Yahweh tells Moses that he himself will not go with them because they are
stubborn, and since he is angry he might destroy them.

33.5. Yahweh tells Moses to tell the people that they are stubborn.

(c) The reassurance to Moses (33.12–23).

33.12–17. Moses succeeds in persuading Yahweh to go with them.

 33.18. Moses asks to see Yahweh’s glory.

33.19–25. Yahweh promises to show his goodness to Moses.

(3) The Lord renews the covenant (34.1–35; 33.4, 6).

(a) New stone tablets are prepared (34.1–4; 33.4, 6).

34.1–3. Yahweh tells Moses to prepare two new stone slabs and ascend the mountain the
following morning.

33.4a. Moses tells the people that Yahweh said they are stubborn.

33.4b. The people mourn and remove their ornaments.

33.6. The people decide never to wear their ornaments again.

34.4. Moses prepares the stone slabs and ascends the mountain.

(b) The Lord reveals his glory (34.5–9).

Such a readjustment of the text, of course, is not recommended unless the intended
readers are unable to handle flashbacks and flash-forwards. However, if this rearrangement is
followed, the actual verse numbers should be clearly shown, even though they will be out of
order, and a footnote should be added to explain why this has been done.

Although most translators should not rearrange their text according to the above outline,
the listing of events in their chronological order may be helpful. Translators may be able to see
how the events relate to each other, and they will therefore be better prepared to use
connecting adverbs of time, appropriate verb forms, or other devices available in their
language to help the readers and hearers understand the order of events.

Section Heading: the Handbook’s heading for this subsection, “The ban on jewelry,” may
also be expressed as “Yahweh forbids the people to wear jewelry any more.”

33.4

When the people heard these evil tidings is literally “And the people heard this evil
word.” 33.4 NRSV has “these harsh words,” and NAB has “this bad news.” 33.4 TEV simply has
“When the people heard this.” They mourned really means to observe mourning rites for the
dead, but here it shows the extent of their remorse. Durham has “they plunged themselves
into deep mourning,” but this may be too strong. REB has “they went about like mourners,”
which may be closer to the intended meaning. In some languages it will be necessary to say
something like “When the people heard what Yahweh had said, they began to weep, showing
their sorrow.”

And no man put on his ornaments is literally “and they did not put a man his ornament[s]
upon them.” Ornaments comes from the verb meaning “to adorn oneself,” so TAN has “none
put on his finery,” and Durham has “not one of them wore his festive dress.” 33.4 TEV has
“they … did not wear jewelry any more,” but this is not the usual word for “jewelry.” These
ornaments may have included both fancy clothing and the “jewelry” not included in the gold
earrings that were used to make the golden bull-calf. So one may say “they stopped wearing
their beautiful clothes and ornaments.”

33.5

For the Lord had said to Moses is literally “And Yahweh said unto Moses.” 33.5 RSV
interprets this as an English pluperfect (had said), so that Yahweh’s command may be
understood to have been given before the response of the people in verse 4. (Similarly also
33.5 TEV, 33.5 NRSV, 33.5 NIV, and Durham.) As explained at 12.35, the Hebrew does not mark a
pluperfect, so this must be determined by the context. In some cases it becomes a subjective
decision on the part of the translator. In this case, however, it is advisable. (The situation
resembles the problem of source texts and the use of pluperfect discussed in 11.1 and in the
introduction to that section.) In languages where the pluperfect cannot easily be expressed,
verses 4 and 5 may need to be interchanged; for example: “4–5 Even before the Lord said
these words, he told Moses, ‘These people really are rebellious, … So the people started
mourning … .”

Say to the people of Israel is literally “You [singular] say unto the sons of Israel.” This is
addressed to Moses. You are a stiff-necked people is literally “You [plural] a people hard of
neck.” (The singular “you” is used in verse 3.) These are the words Yahweh is commanding
Moses to say to the Israelites. (See the comment on this expression at 32.9.) 33.5 TEV has “You
are a stubborn people.”

If for a single moment is literally “one moment,” or “one instant.” I should go up among
you is literally “I will go up in your [singular] midst.” 33.5 TEV has “If I were to go with you even
for a moment.” I would consume you is literally “and I will finish you off.” (See the comment
on consume at 32.10.) This refers to the people of Israel, not to Moses. The you is singular in
both cases because people is singular in form, but in many languages it will need to be plural.
The if, the should, and the would had to be supplied from the context for the requirements of
English, since the Hebrew does not otherwise mark the subjunctive mood. This statement
explains why Yahweh said he will not go with the people (verse 3). 33.5 CEV places the phrase a
single moment after I would consume you and translates the first part of this verse as “These
people really are rebellious, and I would kill them at once, if I went with them.” This is a
possible restructuring for some translators.

So now put off your ornaments from you is literally “And now you [singular] cause your
ornaments to descend from upon you.” This means “Now take off your jewelry” (33.5 TEV), or
“leave off your finery” (TAN), depending on how the word for ornaments is rendered. (see
verse 4.) That I may know what to do with you is literally “and I will know what I will do to
you.” This suggests that Yahweh is still undecided about punishing them. 33.5 TEV has “and I
will decide what to do with you,” and NJB has “and then I shall decide how to deal with you!”

33.6

Therefore is the conjunction waw, which others translate as “So.” The people of Israel
stripped themselves of their ornaments is literally “the sons of Israel rid themselves of their
ornaments.” This means, of course, that they removed their ornaments, but the verb has a
much stronger meaning. So one may say “the people of Israel no longer wore jewelry” (33.6
TEV), or even “the people of Israel stopped wearing fancy jewelry” (similar to CEV). In 3.22 and
12.36, a different form of the same word is translated as “despoiled.”

From Mount Horeb onward is literally “from Mount Horeb.” Horeb, of course, is another
name for “Sinai” (33.6 TEV). (See the comment at 3.1.) 33.6 NIV interprets this to mean “at
Mount Horeb,” and TOT has “on Mount Horeb.” But the preposition clearly means from in the
sense of “from then on.” 33.6 TEV may be easier, “after they left Mount Sinai,” but it should
include even the time remaining until they left. So one may say “from that time on and after
they left Mount Sinai.”

(b) The Tent of Meeting (33.7–11)

(b) The tent of meeting (33.7–11)

The distinction between the Hebrew terms for “tabernacle” and “tent of meeting”
becomes crucial here. The “tabernacle” (mishkan) refers to the elaborate tent-shrine described
in chapter 26, while the “tent of meeting” (’ohel mo‘ed) refers specifically to the small tent
described in this section. (See the introductory comment at chapter 26 and at 27.21.) Scholars
generally agree that these two terms represent two separate traditions. The ’ohel mo‘ed is
usually identified with the Elohist tradition (“E”), while the mishkan is clearly from the Priestly
tradition (“P”). (See the discussion of “Sources” in “Translating Exodus,” page 2.)

As these traditions were brought together by editors and redactors into the present form
of the book, the older term, “tent of meeting,” was sometimes used in reference to the
“tabernacle.” (But see the comment at 27.21.) Here, however, the earlier tradition has been
carefully preserved. This section has been inserted at this point in order to emphasize the
unique role of Moses as mediator between Yahweh and the Israelites. The tabernacle, of
course, has not yet been constructed, but Moses is already accustomed to using this tent as a
place for meeting with Yahweh.

Practical suggestions for translating these two terms according to the context may be
found in Osborn’s article, “Tent or Tabernacle?”

Section Heading: translators will need to avoid using a term similar to the one that has
been used for the Tabernacle. Possible alternatives are “The tent where Yahweh meets with
Moses” or “Yahweh meets Moses in a tent outside the camp.”

33.7

Now Moses used to take the tent is literally “And Moses was taking the tent.” The article
the suggests that the tent was already known. The imperfect aspect of the verb is used
throughout this section, giving it the sense of repeated or continuing action. Thus 33.7 RSV and
others have used to take. 33.7 TEV sets this “frequentative” tone with the opening word,
“Whenever.” 33.7 CEV shows that it was a separate tent from the Tabernacle by using the
indefinite article, “Moses used to set up a tent far from camp.”
 And pitch it outside the camp is literally “and he stretched [it] out for him from outside
the camp.” This means that he “set it up” (REB), or “put it up” (33.7 TEV) away from the other
tents in the camp. This is emphasized with the next phrase, far off from the camp, or “some
distance away” (REB). And he called it the tent of meeting is literally “and he called to [or, for]
it ’ohel mo‘ed.” This indicates that Moses was the one who named it “tent of meeting.” 33.7
TEV unfortunately uses the term “the Tent of the Lord’s presence” for both the tent of meeting

(’ohel mo‘ed) and the tabernacle (mishkan). The tent described here, of course, is definitely
not the tabernacle. An alternative translation model for the first part of this verse is “Moses
used to set up a tent far from the camp. He called it ‘The tent for meeting Yahweh.’ ”

And everyone who sought the Lord is literally “And it was [that] every seeker of Yahweh.”
This means “anyone who wanted to consult the Lord” (33.7 TEV), or “anyone who wanted to
obtain a decision from the Lord” (TOT), or even “whoever needed some message from the
Lord” (33.7 CEV). Apparently this tent was available to others who wanted to “meet” with
Yahweh, but on an individual basis. Would go out to the tent of meeting is literally “he was
going out [exiting] unto the ’ohel mo‘ed.” The sense of would go out in English reflects the
“frequentative” aspect of the verb. Which was outside the camp merely emphasizes that this
tent of meeting was placed some distance away from the camp.

33.8

Whenever Moses went out to the tent is literally “And it was according to the going out of
Moses to the tent.” This expresses the “frequentative” sense in a different way. All the people
rose up means that they stood up. And every man stood at his tent door is literally “and they
stationed themselves a man [at] opening of his tent.” These two short clauses may be
combined, “the people would stand at the door of their tents” (33.8 TEV). And looked after
Moses, literally “and they gazed after Moses,” simply means that they watched him. Until he
had gone into the tent means “until he entered the tent” (33.8 NIV).

33.9

When Moses entered the tent, literally “And it was according to the entering of Moses the
tent,” has the same form as verse 8, giving it the sense of “when ever” (NJB). The pillar of cloud
is the same as 13.21. (See the comment there.) Would descend and stand is literally “it came
down and took its stand.” As before, the would brings out the sense of repeated action. 33.9
TEV has “would come down and stay.” At the door of the tent refers to the opening, or
entrance, of the tent of meeting.

And the Lord would speak with Moses is literally “and he [or, it] spoke with Moses.” The
Lord is not in the text. However, since the cloud represented the presence of Yahweh, the “he”
obviously refers to Yahweh. 33.9 TEV makes explicit what is probably intended, “and the Lord
would speak to Moses from the cloud.”

33.10

And when all the people saw … all the people would rise up is literally “And all the people
saw … and all the people rose.” But the idea of repeated action continues, so the use of when
 and would expresses this. 33.10 TEV has “As soon as the people saw … they would.” 33.10 NIV
uses “Whenever.” The pillar of cloud standing at the door of the tent uses the same words as
verse 9. The tent means “the tent of meeting.”

All the people would rise up and worship is literally “and all the people rose and bowed
low.” The words for rise up and worship suggest two opposite positions—standing up and
then bowing to the ground. The word for worship, in fact, suggests prostrating oneself on the
ground. (See 4.31 and 18.7.) But this should probably not be understood as two separate
actions, since the people would already be standing (verse 9). 33.10 TEV does not repeat would
rise up but simply has “As soon as the people saw … they would bow down.” And REB has “As
soon as the people saw … they would all prostrate themselves.” Every man at his tent door is
identical with verse 8.

33.11

Thus the Lord used to speak to Moses face to face is literally “And Yahweh was speaking
to Moses face unto face.” This, of course, is figurative language emphasizing the special
relationship Moses had with Yahweh. It does not mean that Moses actually saw the face of
God. (see verse 20.) It means that Yahweh was accustomed to speak with Moses directly, not
through dreams or visions or signs. (See Num 12.6-8, where the same idea is expressed as
“mouth to mouth.”) As a man speaks to his friend means “as one man speaks to another”
(REB, NAB, TAN). The word for friend also means companion or fellow.

When Moses turned again into the camp, literally “And he returned unto the camp,”
continues the idea of repeated action. It is better expressed with the word “would”: “Then
Moses would return to the camp” (33.11 TEV).

His servant Joshua is literally “and his server Joshua.” This word for servant always
suggests a high form of service, including the service of a priest. (See the comment at 28.35.)
But this does not suggest that Joshua performed a priestly function. He was rather Moses’
“assistant” (33.11 CEV). Son of Nun simply identifies Joshua by the name of his father. Nothing
more is known of Nun except that he was from the tribe of Ephraim. A young man is simply
the word for an unmarried male youth who may also be a servant. (See the comment at 24.5.)
Did not depart from the tent is literally “he did not leave from the middle of the tent.” In
other words, “he stayed in the tent.”

It is possible to combine verses 9–11 in a way similar to CEV:

• 9–11 Then they would bow down because a cloud in the form of a column would come down
and stand in front of the tent. The Lord would then speak to Moses face-to-face, just as a
person speaks with a friend. Afterwards Moses would return to the camp, but his young
assistant Joshua, the son of Nun, would stay at the tent.

(c) The Reassurance to Moses (33.12–23)

(c) The reassurance to Moses (33.12–23)

[1] The third dialogue continues (33.12–17)

[1] The third dialogue continues (33.12–17)

The third dialogue between Yahweh and Moses now continues, picking up from verse 3
after the interruption of the “flash-forward” in verses 4–6 and the “flashback” in verses 7–11.
Just where this dialogue exchange ends is debatable. The outline followed here shows the
conclusion at verse 17, with a fourth dialogue beginning at verse 18. Although there is no
narrative interruption, there is a sudden change of subject. Moses has been praying for
Yahweh’s presence to go with the people as they move on, and by verse 17 he is completely
reassured. So he then initiates a fourth dialogue exchange by requesting a personal glimpse of
Yahweh’s “glory,” and this dialogue continues until 34.4.

Section Headings: translators who follow the Handbook’s outline should include a general
heading, “The reassurance to Moses” (33.12–23), which may also be expressed as “Yahweh
promises Moses again that he will go with him.” The Handbook’s heading for the subsection,
verses 12–17, is “The third dialogue continues.” This may also be rendered as “Moses
continues to talk to Yahweh.” 33.11 TEV and 33.11 CEV, however, have a longer section, verses
12–23, with the heading “The Lord Promises to Be with His People.”

33.12

Moses said to the Lord begins with the usual conjunction waw. This introduces Moses’
response to Yahweh’s words in verses 1–3. See is literally “You [singular] see.” Moses uses it to
get Yahweh’s attention, just as Yahweh uses it in 31.2. (See the comment there.) Thou sayest
to me introduces what the Lord had commanded Moses, a quote within a quote. Bring up this
people is literally “you [singular] cause this people to ascend.” The same word for bring up is
used in verse 1. (See the comment at 3.8.) 33.12 TEV avoids the embedded quote, “It is true
that you have told me to lead these people,” and 33.12 CEV has “I know that you have told me
to lead these people.” (Similarly also REB and NAB.)

But thou hast not let me know is literally “and you [singular], you did not cause me to
know.” Moses is speaking to Yahweh. Whom thou wilt send with me is literally “the [one]
whom you will send with me.” Yet thou hast said, literally “and you, you said,” again uses the
emphatic you and introduces another quote within a quote. I know you by name may mean “I
have singled you out by name” (TAN) or “You are my intimate friend” (NAB). The word know
implies intimate knowledge. These are apparently Yahweh’s earlier words to Moses—although
there is no record of this other than verse 17—and Moses is reminding Yahweh of what he had
said.

The quote within the quote continues: And you have also found favor in my sight is
literally “and indeed you [singular] found favor [chen] in my eyes.” (See the comment on chen
at verse 19.) This means that the Lord had earlier told Moses that he was pleased with him.
33.12 TEV puts this into indirect speech: “You have said that you know me well and are pleased
with me.” 33.12 CEV has “You have said that you are my friend and that you are pleased with
me.”

33.13
 Now therefore is simply “and now.” I pray thee translates a small particle showing respect
and marking a humble request. It is sometimes translated as “please.” (See 4.13, 18 in 33.13
TEV.) If I have found favor in thy sight, literally “if I found favor in your eyes,” repeats what is
quoted in verse 12. 33.13 CEV shortens this to “If this is true,” meaning “If I have found favor,”
and 33.13 TEV has “Now if you are.”

Show me now thy ways is literally “you [singular] cause me to know, please, your ways.”
The same particle for I pray thee is here rendered as now. The meaning of thy ways is usually
understood as referring in general to the manner in which God deals with his people. (See, for
example, Psa 103.7.) But 33.13 TEV limits it to the immediate situation, “tell me your plans” (so
also CEV). This refers back to Yahweh’s statement in verse 5, indicating that he still had to
decide what to do with these people. Similarly TOT has “reveal your plans to me.” Translators
are advised to follow this interpretation. So the first part of this verse may be expressed as “If
this is true, please tell me what you plan to do.”

That I may know thee, literally “and I will know you,” seems to refer to Yahweh’s
statement that he knows Moses. Of course Moses already knows Yahweh’s name, but he now
asks for a more intimate knowledge of him, especially in regard to his intentions for his people.
NJB has “so that I understand you.” And find favor in your sight, literally “in order that I will
find favor in your eyes,” repeats the same expression. The intended meaning here is “so that I
may … continue to please you” (33.13 TEV). Durham has “in order that I may keep on finding
favor in your estimation.”

Consider too that this nation is thy people is literally “And you see that your people [are]
this nation.” Consider (“See!”) is in the imperative mood, but it is a request, not a command.
33.13 TEV and 33.13 NIV have “Remember.” Moses here appeals to Yahweh’s earlier reference
to the Israelites as Yahweh’s people, not only Moses’ people (see 32.7). So 33.13 TEV has
“Remember also that you have chosen this nation to be your own,” and 33.13 CEV has “And
don’t forget that you have chosen … .”

33.14

And he said means, of course, that “the Lord said” (33.14 TEV). My presence will go with
you is literally “my face will go.” With you [singular] is implied from the second clause. The
word for “face” is always used in the plural, even when the singular is meant, and so the verb
is also plural. Here, as elsewhere, it represents Yahweh’s presence. This simply means “I will go
with you” (33.14 TEV), but it is probably better to bring out the emphasis suggested by the
context, “I myself shall go with you” (NJB).

And I will give you rest is literally “and I will cause rest to [or, for] you.” It is not entirely
clear what this expression means. The you is singular, so it is best to understand this as a
promise only to Moses. The promise does not yet include the people. (See verses 15–16.)
Therefore REB has “I shall go myself and set your mind at rest,” Durham has “Thus will I dispel
your anxiety,” and TAN has “I … will lighten your burden.” These seem closer to the intended
meaning than 33.14 TEV’s “and I will give you victory.” Most translations are literal here,
leaving it to the reader to decide what is intended. Having said all this, a phrase such as give
you rest or “let you have peace” will probably fit the context.
 33.15

And he said to him introduces Moses’ reply to Yahweh. If thy presence will not go with
me is literally “If there is not your face going.” The words with me are not in the Hebrew, so
33.15 RSV has supplied them, following 33.15 KJV and ASV. But 33.15 TEV, 33.15 CEV, and 33.15
NIV have “with us,” on the basis of the rest of the sentence. This interpretation agrees with
Moses’ insistence that all the people be included in the promise. Do not carry us up from here
is literally “do not you [singular] cause us to go up from here.” This simply means “don’t make
us leave this place” (33.15 TEV). The request will need to be softened in some languages; for
example, “please do not make us leave this place.”

33.16

For how shall it be known is literally “And in what will it be known then.” The word for
“then” is not translated, for it usually goes along with an interrogative pronoun in the sense of
“how then?” As such it tends to emphasize the force of this rhetorical question, which means
“It will not be known [if you do not go with us].” That I have found favor in thy sight is the
same expression used in verse 13. (See the comment there.) I and thy people emphasizes that
Moses includes the Israelites along with himself as having found Yahweh’s favor. 33.16 TEV
may be clearer: “How will anyone know that you are pleased with your people and with me.”

Is it not in thy going with us begins another rhetorical question that continues to the end
of the verse. 33.16 NRSV and others change it to a statement instead. It means “It is in your
going with us.” In other words, Moses is saying “People will not know that you are pleased
with us unless you yourself go with us.” 33.16 CEV has a conditional clause followed by a
statement: “But if you do go with us, everyone will know that you are pleased with your
people and with me.”

So that we are distinct is literally “and we will be treated differently.” The same word is
used in 8.22, where 33.16 RSV has “set apart.” TOT says it clearly: “If you go with us, both I and
your people will be different.” 33.16 TEV has “Your presence with us will distinguish us.” From
all other people is simply “from all the people,” but the addition of other is understood. That
are upon the face of the earth is literal. 33.16 TEV leaves out the face of: “from any other
people on earth.” TOT is even more natural: “from every other nation in the world.”

An alternative translation model for this verse is:

• But if you do go with us, everyone will know that you are pleased with your people and with
me. The fact that you are with us will show that we are different from any other nation in the
world.

33.17

KJV KING JAMES VERSION

ASV AMERICAN STANDARD VERSION

 And the Lord said to Moses introduces Yahweh’s reassurance to Moses, with no further
conditions. As explained in the comment before verse 12, this verse should be understood as
concluding the paragraph rather than starting a new one. This very thing you have spoken I
will do is literally “even this word [davar] which you [singular] spoke [dibber] I will do.” 33.17
NRSV has “I will do the very thing you have asked.” In context this refers to Moses’ request in
the preceding verses, namely, that Yahweh’s presence go with all the people.

For you have found favor in my sight uses the singular you, referring to Moses. It is the
same expression used in verse 12. (See the comment there.) And I know you by name is the
same expression used in verse 12, except for a different form of the same verb. (See the
comment there.)

[2] Moses asks to see Yahweh’s glory (33.18–23)

[2] Moses asks to see Yahweh’s glory (33.18–23)

With this fourth dialogue exchange Moses now changes the subject. Up to this point he
has persisted in his prayer that Yahweh himself go with them rather than some substitute
angel. And through his persuasive arguments he has also insisted that all the people should
enjoy Yahweh’s presence, not just Moses alone. And now, as verse 17 reveals, Moses has won!
He has gained not only Yahweh’s favor but also his full assurance to be with them all the way.
So Moses, perhaps in a state of ecstasy, dares to ask for another theophany.

Section Heading: the Handbook’s heading for this subsection, “Moses asks to see
Yahweh’s glory,” may also be expressed as “Moses asks Yahweh to show [or, reveal] his glory
[or, dazzling light].”

33.18

Moses said is simply “and he said.” Moses continues to pray to Yahweh. I pray thee, show
me thy glory is literally “cause me to see, please, your kavod.” The word for I pray thee may
be understood as “please” (33.18 TEV). It is the same small particle discussed at verse 13. 33.18
TEV again interprets the glory of Yahweh to mean “the dazzling light of your presence.” (See
the comment at 16.7.) TAN has “Oh, let me behold Your Presence!”

33.19

And he said means, as 33.19 TEV says, “The Lord answered.” I will make all my goodness
pass before you is literally “I, I will cause all my goodness [tov] to pass over your face.” This
means, of course, “before you” (33.19 TEV), or “in front of you” (33.19 NIV). It should be noted
that Moses asks to see Yahweh’s “glory” (kavod), but Yahweh now speaks of his goodness
(tov). 33.19 CEV actually translates tov as “glory” in this verse, but the two terms should be
distinguished if possible. The intended meaning of goodness is not clear in this context, since
goodness usually describes behavior rather than appearance. Although the Hebrew word in
this context seems to refer more to the supernatural appearance of Yahweh, the qualities of
kavod and tov may have to be combined. And the word all should not be overlooked. NAB has
“all my beauty,” and 33.19 TEV has “all my splendor.” An alternative way of expressing this is “I
will pass in front of you so that you may see just how good and beautiful I am.” Translators,
however, should avoid using terms that suggest boasting in a negative sense.

And I will proclaim is literally “and I will call,” or “I will invoke.” 33.19 TEV and others have
“I will pronounce.” The Hebrew verb implies more than just speaking the name, for Yahweh is
even now speaking that name to Moses. Since Yahweh is here promising Moses to appear to
him in a special way, it should be implied in translation that the name at that time will be
“called out” or pronounced clearly. (The same verb is used in 34.5–6.) My name ‘The Lord’ is
literally “the name Yahweh.” The pronoun my is not in the Hebrew text, so 33.19 NRSV has
removed it: “the name, ‘The Lord.’ ” 33.19 TEV, however, has “my sacred name” followed by a
full stop. The name Yahweh is then rendered as “I am the Lord,” but the word order in the
Hebrew does not support this interpretation. The problem of translating yhwh is discussed at
3.2a. An alternative rendering is “I will call out the holy name ‘Yahweh.’ ”

And I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, literally “and I will grace whom I will
grace,” uses the verb chanan, from which the word “favor,” chen, is derived (verses 12–13). It
means to “show favor” (Durham), or “show compas sion” (33.19 TEV), especially to someone
who may need it. The form of this statement is the same as the circular form of “I am who I
am” in 3.14. This is probably intentional since it is associated with the “sacred name” (33.19
TEV).

The next statement follows the same form: and I will show mercy on whom I will show
mercy. This is literally “and I will pity whom I will pity.” The word here (racham) is similar in
meaning to gracious, but it is related to the word for “womb” (rechem), suggesting an even
deeper emotion of compassion and love. The meaning of both these statements is brought out
in 33.19 TEV, “I show compassion and pity on those I choose.” This does not mean everyone,
for here Yahweh reserves the right to “choose” those whom he will favor. 33.19 CEV is simpler,
“and I show mercy and kindness to anyone I choose.”

33.20

“But,” he said, literally “And he said,” simply means that Yahweh continued to speak.
Yahweh actually speaks three times in response to Moses’ request in verse 18, each time
introduced by the words “And he said.” This suggests some editorial reworking of earlier
traditions. In the present context, however, these introductions may be omitted, as in 33.20
TEV.

You cannot see my face is literally “you [singular] are not able to see my face.” This
suggests that Moses would simply be unable to endure looking at the face of God. TOT has
“You must not look at my face,” and Durham has “You cannot stand to see my Presence.”
33.20 TEV interprets you cannot see as “I will not let you see.” This will be a good alternative
translation model for many translators.

For man shall not see me and live is literally “for the man shall not see me and live.” This
is a prohibitive statement following the form of the ten commandments, which may be
understood either as “I will not permit it” or as “one look will kill you.” 33.20 TEV rearranges
these ideas in a more natural order, “I will not let you see my face, because no one can see me
and stay alive,” and 33.20 CEV similarly has “anyone who sees my face will die.”

33.21–22

And the Lord said, literally “And Yahweh said,” may be omitted, since Yahweh continues to
speak. Behold is a word that calls attention to what is going to be said. It has become archaic
in English, but other languages are able to retain it naturally. (See the comment at 1.9.) 33.22
NRSV has “See,” and Durham has “Look,” but some omit it entirely or combine it with what
follows.

There is a place by me is literally “a place with me.” There is is supplied in addition to the
Behold, but 33.22 TEV has “here is a place beside me.” This suggests that Moses is already up
on the mountain with Yahweh. Others seem to interpret it in the same way. Such an
interpretation is possible if the Behold is understood as “Look” or “See.” The wider context,
however, suggests that Moses was still down at the foot of the mountain, possibly in the tent
of meeting. (See 34.4 and the introductory comments to this chapter.) So there is to be
preferred.

Where you shall stand upon the rock is literally “and you shall stand upon the rock.” The
word for stand also means “to take one’s stand” or “to station oneself.” (See 2.4; 17.9; and
others.) The rock, of course, was located on Mount Sinai. The word refers to a boulder or large
stone. 33.22 TEV renders this first sentence as “but here is a place beside me where you can
stand on a rock.” However, it is also possible to reorder the clauses and translate “There is a
rock not far from me. Stand on it!”

And while my glory passes by is literally “and it shall be in the passing by of my kavod.”
(For kavod see verse 18 and the comment at 16.7.) An alternative rendering is “and while I
pass by with my dazzling light, I … .” I will put you in a cleft of the rock is literally “and I will
place you in a crevice of the rock.” The word for cleft also means a hole or a gap. This probably
refers to a vertical crack in a large section of the rock in which Moses could position himself.
33.22 TEV has “opening in the rock,” while 33.22 CEV has “a large crack.”

And I will cover you with my hand is literally “and I will hold [or, cover] my palm over you
[singular].” The word for cover means to “shield” (NJB) or “screen” (Durham). Until I have
passed by suggests the picture of Yahweh reaching ahead to cover Moses with his hand, then
keeping his hand over the cleft of the rock as he walks on by, and then reaching back until he
is at a safe distance before removing his hand. This description is very “anthropomorphic,”
meaning that God describes himself as though he were human. This anthropomorphism
should be retained in translation if at all possible.

33.23

Then I will take away my hand, literally “and I will cause my palm to go away,” continues
the anthropomorphism of verse 22. And you shall see my back literally means that Moses will
be able to have a rear view of Yahweh. This is a “daring anthropomorphism” which Durham
avoids by translating “so that you may see where I have passed.” But most translations
translate literally in order to retain the vividness of this unusual description. Here, of course, it
is intentionally used in contrast with the face of Yahweh.

But my face shall not be seen: this is the common idiom used for the presence of Yahweh,
but to translate my face as “My Presence” (Durham) in this verse destroys the intended
vividness of the anthropomorphism. In languages that do not use the passive voice, one may
translate “but you will not see my face.”

(3) The Lord Renews the Covenant (34.1–35)

(a) New Stone Tablets are Prepared (34.1–4)

(a) New stone tablets are prepared (34.1–4)

Chapter 34 presents a number of problems of which the translator should be aware. But
the temptation to adjust the text in order to minimize these problems must be resisted. The
most obvious problem is that the laws given in verses 11–26, which are supposed to be “the
words that were on the first tablet” (verse 1), do not agree with the ten commandments in
chapter 20, even though verse 28 speaks of them as such. Another problem is that it is
impossible to limit the number of these commandments to ten.

Most commentaries discuss these problems, with the general consensus that the material
in this chapter has been edited and reworked to support the theme of “The covenant broken
and restored.” It is likely that these laws came originally from a different source, usually
identified as the Yahwist source (“J”), which did not include the idea of a broken covenant and
the need for renewal. They were included here as a convenient summary of the terms of the
covenant. (See the discussion on “Sources” in “Translating Exodus,” page 2.)

In the present form of the book, therefore, chapter 34 gives the necessary balance to
chapter 32. The sin of the people in worshiping the golden calf is balanced by the forgiveness
of a merciful God and the rewriting of the terms of the covenant on a new set of stone tablets.
This covenant renewal becomes possible only through the special role that Moses plays in
chapter 33 as mediator and intercessor.

Section Headings: translators who follow the Handbook’s outline should include the
general heading “The Lord renews the covenant” (34.1–35), which may also be rendered as
“Yahweh makes a covenant again with the Israelites.” Translations have a variety of headings
for the section, verses 1–4: “The Second Set of Stone Tablets” (33.23 TEV), “The Second Set of
Commandments” (33.23 CEV), “The New Stone Tablets” (33.23 NIV); and this Handbook has
“New stone tablets are prepared.” An alternative heading using a full sentence is “Moses
prepares [or, cuts] two new stone tablets.”

34.1

The Lord said to Moses, of course, introduces the words of Yahweh, but the more
common word for said (’amar) is used, which does not usually mark a major division. Verses
1–3 may therefore be understood as the conclusion to the fourth dialogue exchange that
begins at 33.18. (See the comment at 32.7.) However, since this verse marks the beginning of a
new chapter, some translators will need to add some words to connect this verse to the
previous chapter; for example, “After Yahweh appeared to Moses, he said to him, …”

Cut two tables of stone like the first is literally “You [singular] carve for yourself two
tablets of stone like the first ones.” The word for cut is the verb form of the noun for “graven
image” in 20.4. 34.1 NIV has “chisel out.” (For tables of stone see the comment at 24.12.) JB
and NJB add the words “and come up to me on the mountain,” on the basis of the Septuagint,
but the Hebrew does not have these words.

And I will write upon the tables means that Yahweh will again do the writing. (See 24.12
and 31.18.) The words that were on the first tables uses the usual word devarim for words,
which probably is intended to refer to the ten words introduced in 20.1. (See also verse 28
below.) So 34.1 CEV has “I will write on them the same commandments … .” Which you broke
uses the same verb as 32.19, meaning “which you broke in pieces” (TOT). The you, of course, is
singular, since it refers to Moses.

34.2

Be ready in the morning is literally “You [singular] be standing firm for the morning.” The
same command is given to the people in 19.15. This may mean “Get ready for tomorrow
morning” (NAB) or “Be ready tomorrow morning” (34.2 CEV), but 34.2 TEV’s “Get ready
tomorrow morning” may incorrectly suggest waiting until morning to start getting ready. And
come up in the morning to Mount Sinai is literally “and you will ascend in the morning unto
Mount Sinai.” The distinction between come up and “go up” (REB) is discussed at 32.15 and
1.1. In the present context Yahweh should be understood as speaking to Moses at the foot of
the mountain.

And present yourself there to me is literally “and you will stand there to [or, for] me.” The
same word is used in 33.21. (See the comment there.) 34.2 TEV simply has “meet me there,”
but NJB has “wait for me there.” This may be conditioned by verse 5, which suggests that
Moses got there first. On the top of the mountain, literally “on the head of the mountain,”
means the peak or the “summit” (Durham). (See 24.17.) 34.2 TEV has “meet me there at the
top” (similarly CEV).

34.3

No man shall come up with you is literally “And a man will not ascend with you [singular].”
As in verse 2, the Hebrew does not distinguish between come up and “go up” (REB); but in a
number of languages “come up” will be more natural, agreeing with verse 2. And let no man
be seen throughout all the mountain is literally “and even a man will not be seen in all the
mountain.” This means, as 34.3 TEV translates, “no one is to be seen on any part of the
mountain.” Another way to express this is “I don’t want to see anyone on any part of the
mountain.” 34.3 CEV renders the two clauses as “No one is to come up with you or to be on the

JB JERUSALEM BIBLE
mountain at all.” The form of the verb with the negative particle also suggests a command, so
34.3 NRSV has “do not let anyone be seen” (34.3 NRSV). “Do not let me see anyone” is also
possible.

Let no flocks or herds feed is literally “even the flock and the herd will not graze.” Here
also the verb form suggests a prohibition. Feed or “graze” (34.3 TEV) here means “to eat grass.”
The word for flocks refers to small domesticated animals, specifically sheep and goats. The
word for herds is the same word used for “cattle” (34.3 TEV). (See the comments on herds and
flocks at 9.2–3.) These two terms are intended to include all domesticated animals. Before
that mountain is literally “unto the front of that mountain.” 34.3 TEV and 34.3 CEV take this to
mean “at the foot of the mountain” (similarly TAN and TOT). Durham has “anywhere near that
mountain.” Both are possible interpretations, and the meaning is very similar. REB’s “within
sight of that mountain” goes beyond what is intended.

34.4

So Moses cut two tables of stone like the first is literally “and he carved two tablets of
stone like the first ones.” Moses is not named until the second clause. The same words are
used in verse 1. (See the comment there.) And he rose early in the morning means “early the
next morning” (TEV, CEV). The idea of “rising” need not be made explicit, since it is understood
in connection with the following verb. It should be clear that the “stone tablets” (34.4 TEV), or
“flat stones” (34.4 CEV), were prepared the day before.

And went up on Mount Sinai uses the same word “to ascend.” (See the comment at
verses 2 and 3.) As the Lord had commanded him adds the word had, since the context clearly
indicates the pluperfect. (See the comment at 33.5.) And took in his hand two tables of stone
is literally correct, with hand in the singular and no definite article for the “stone tablets.” 34.4
NIV makes both adjustments: “and he carried the two stone tablets in his hands.” NAB is more
natural, “taking along the two stone tablets.” 34.4 TEV combines the actions of he rose, went
up, and took into one verb, “and early the next morning he carried them up Mount Sinai”
(similarly CEV).

(b)The Lord Appears to Moses (34.5–9)

(b)The Lord appears to Moses (34.5–9)

Section Heading: the Handbook’s heading for this subsection, “The Lord appears to
Moses,” should present no problem for translators. One may also say “Yahweh reveals himself
to Moses.”

34.5

And the Lord descended in the cloud suggests that Yahweh came down to the top of the
mountain in the same cloud mentioned in 19.9, and probably the “pillar of cloud” in 33.10.
And stood with him there is literally “and he took his stand with him there.” It is not clear in
the Hebrew whether Yahweh stood with Moses or Moses stood with Yahweh. For example,
REB has “as Moses stood there in his presence,” and JB has “and Moses stood with him there.”
On the basis of 33.21, this is a possible interpretation. Most translations, however, interpret
the Hebrew as 34.5 RSV and 34.5 TEV have done. 34.5 CEV is even more explicit: “The Lord came
down in a cloud and stood beside Moses there on the mountain.” One may then translate the
first part of this verse as “Yahweh came down in [or, inside] a cloud and stood beside Moses
there on the mountain.”

And proclaimed the name of the Lord is literally “and he called out the name Yahweh.”
The “he” is again ambiguous and may be either Moses or Yahweh, as mentioned above.
Following the former, for example, JB has “He called on the name of Yahweh.” It is better,
however, for translators to interpret Yahweh as the subject, following most translations. This
may be made explicit either as 34.5 TEV has done—“and pronounced his holy name”—or as
“Then the Lord pronounced his name ‘Yahweh.’ ” The word of is not in the Hebrew and is
usually indicated by the form of the preceding word. Here, however, the form of name is the
same for either meaning. Since the Lord is actually the sacred name itself, yhwh, it should
therefore be understood as “he [the Lord] called out the name ‘Yahweh.’ ”

34.6

The Lord passed before him is literally “And Yahweh passed by over his face.” This fulfills
the promise in 33.22. The word for passed means to pass from one side to the other. The
idiom “over his face” means “in front of Moses” (34.6 CEV). And proclaimed is literally “and he
cried out,” or “called out” (34.6 TEV). In this verse it is clear that it is Yahweh who calls out the
name, not Moses.

The Lord, the Lord is literally “Yahweh, Yahweh.” In the Hebrew text the first “Yahweh”
may be understood simply as the subject of proclaimed, but most translations take this as two
utterances by Yahweh of his personal name. 34.6 TEV, however, has “I, the Lord, am … ,” and
34.6 CEV has “I am the Lord God,” both of which are possible interpretations. If indeed the
meaning of the name yhwh was originally “he is,” then it is possible to imagine that God would
call himself “I AM” rather than “HE IS.” But this is not really what the Hebrew says. (See the
comment at 3.14.) Translators may choose between the two interpretations: (1) have two
instances of “Yahweh” or “The Lord”, or (2) follow the interpretation of 34.6 TEV and 34.6 CEV.

A God merciful and gracious uses the general term ’El for God rather than ’elohim. (See
the comment at 6.3.) The word for merciful is related to the word for “womb,” and the word
for gracious is the adjective form of the verb used in 33.19. (See the comment there on both
words.) Slow to anger, literally “long of nostrils,” is an idiom suggesting that the nostrils are
slow in reflecting anger. REB translates this as “long-suffering,” while 34.6 TEV has “not easily
angered.” One may say “I do not get angry quickly” or “my heart does not get hot quickly.”
34.6 CEV has “very patient with my people.” In some languages it will be helpful to start a new
sentence here rather than following 34.6 RSV and TEV; for example, “Then he passed in front of
Moses and called out, ‘I am the Lord God. I am merciful … .’ ”

And abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness is literally “and numerous of chesed and
’emethrs;emeth.” The word chesed, usually translated in 34.6 RSV as steadfast love, suggests a
constant and “unchanging love” (Durham), and ’emeth suggests the idea of reliability and
truth. (See the comment on chesed at 15.13.) The two words are often used together. Possible
renderings are “great love and faithfulness” (34.6 TEV), “faithful love and constancy” (NJB), and
“ever faithful and true” (REB). Another way to express this is “I show great love to my people
and they can trust me.”

34.7

Keeping steadfast love for thousands, literally “guarding chesed for thou sands,” uses the
same word as verse 6. The word for keeping means to preserve or maintain. Thousands may
be understood as referring to individuals or to “generations” (34.7 TEV). 34.7 NRSV now has “for
the thousandth generation.” (See the comment at 20.6.) Although 34.7 TEV and 34.7 CEV
interpret this as “keeping promises,” it is more likely that Yahweh is saying “I will keep on
loving my people for thousands of generations [or, forever].”

Forgiving iniquity and transgressions and sin lists three words that are very similar in
meaning. The word for iniquity suggests activity that is crooked or wrong. The word for
transgressions refers to rebellion or revolt. The word for sin, chata’, is discussed at 20.20. In
certain languages it will be necessary to make it explicit that what God forgives is people who
do these things; for example, “I forgive people who do evil, who rebel, and commit sin.” There
will also be languages that do not have three synonyms for “sin” as in the Hebrew and English.
One may therefore follow 34.7 TEV and say “forgive evil and sin” or combine the three as 34.7
CEV does, “anyone who sins.” Forgiving comes from the word meaning to lift or raise. In
context it may be understood as “taking away the guilt or consequences” of the three
conditions listed. (See the discussion on forgive at 10.17.)

But who will by no means clear the guilty is literally “and clearing he will not clear.” This is
the same emphatic negative form used in some of the participial laws discussed in chapter 21.
(See 21.12, 15–17.) The words the guilty are implied by the verb and the context. REB has
“without acquitting the guilty,” but NJB has “yet letting nothing go unchecked.” 34.7 TEV
combines this with the idea expressed in the following phrase, “but I will not fail to punish.”
34.7 CEV has two separate sentences, “but I also punish anyone who sins. When people sin, I
punish them and their children … .”

Visiting the iniquity of the fathers … is similar to the expression in 20.5, with a few
differences. (See the comment there.) Here it has upon the children and the children’s
children, which may be rendered as “children and grandchildren” (34.7 TEV). To the third and
fourth generation is literally “upon the third and upon the fourth.” Here again generation is
implied by the context. 34.7 CEV has “their children, and also their grandchildren and great-
grandchildren.”

34.8

Literally the verse reads “And Moses hurried, and he bowed down earthward and
worshiped.” NJB seems more natural, “Moses immediately bowed to the ground in worship.”
The two words for bowing down and worshiping, used together, imply kneeling down and then
touching the head to the ground, or even prostrating oneself, in a posture of worship. (See the
comment at 11.8.) In some languages one must supply the object or goal of worshiped and say
“worshiped the Lord [or, Yahweh].”

34.9

And he said introduces Moses’ prayer. So one may translate “He prayed” (34.9 CEV). If now
I have found favor in thy sight is the same as in 33.13. O Lord is ’adonairs;adonai, not
Yahweh, so the lower case letters are used in most English translations. (See the comment at
3.2a.) Let the Lord, I pray thee, go in the midst of us is still addressing ’adonai but in the third
person. It may be more natural to say “I ask you to go with us” (34.9 TEV). The two-letter word
for I pray thee is the same as in verse 33.13. Although it is a stiff-necked people, literally
“even though a people hard of neck he [or, it],” is introduced by a word that often means “for”
or “indeed,” but here it gets its meaning from the context. Moses is admitting that the
Israelites are “stubborn” (34.9 TEV). (See the comment at 32.9.)

And pardon our iniquity and our sin is literally “and you will forgive for our crookedness
and for our missing the mark.” These are the first and third terms used in verse 7. The word for
pardon means to practice forbearance, but it is essentially the same meaning as “forgiving” in
verse 7. (A different word is used in 32.32.) And take us for thine inheritance is just one word,
meaning “and you inherit us.” The word means, as 34.9 TEV translates, “and accept us as your
own people.”

(c) Another Decalogue (34.10–28)

(c) Another decalogue (34.10–28)

This section has frequently been referred to as the “ritual decalogue,” to distinguish it
from the so-called “ethical decalogue” in chapter 20. Some of the problems of considering this
material a “decalogue” are discussed in the introduction to this chapter. Regardless of these
difficulties the present context presents all these laws as a renewal of the terms of the
covenant that the people broke when they worshiped the golden bull-calf. And verse 28 still
refers to them as “the ten commandments.”

Section Heading: 34.9 TEV has the heading “The Covenant is Renewed” for verses 10–28,
and 34.9 CEV has “A promise and its demands.” This may be also expressed as “Yahweh makes
another covenant [or, solemn promise] to his people.” The Handbook’s heading, “Another
decalogue,” stresses a different theme in this same section, namely, “Yahweh gives the ten
commandments again to his people,” or “Moses writes the ten commandments on two new
stone tablets.”

34.10

And he said means “The Lord said to Moses” (34.10 TEV). Behold has been omitted in
34.10 NRSV and 34.10 TEV, but it is a word that calls attention to what is going to be said. (See
the comment at 1.9.) I make a covenant is literally “I [am] a cutter of a covenant.” The word
for make is the participle of the verb “to cut.” (See the comment on “cutting a covenant” at
23.32, and also the comment on covenant at 6.4.) The phrase may therefore be understood
either as “I am about to make a covenant” or as “I now make a covenant” (34.10 TEV). REB has
“Here and now I am making a covenant.” One may also say “I no
423

w solemnly promise that … .”

One version of the Septuagint adds the words “with you [singular],” which interpretation is
followed by NIV. TEV has “with the people of Israel,” which is certainly what is meant, since the
word for covenant always implies two parties. (See the comment at 6.4.)

Before all your people is literally “opposite all your [singular] people.” It means “in their
presence” (34.10 TEV) or “in full view of all your people.” I will do marvels, literally “I will make
extraordinary [things],” may be understood as “I will do extraordinary deeds” (Durham),
“wonderful miracles” (TOT), or simply “wonders” (34.10 NIV). (The same word is used in 3.20.)
Such as have not been wrought … is literally “which they were not created in all the earth and
in all the nations.” (This is the verb used for creating in Genesis 1.) These marvels are not
specified, but they refer to “great things” that have not yet been “done” (34.10 TEV). 34.10 CEV
has “that have never been seen anywhere on earth.”

And all the people among whom you are is literally “and all the people which you
[singular] [are] in its midst.” It is not clear whether this refers to all the Israelites or to the non-
Israelites among whom they will settle. 34.10 NRSV has “all the people among whom you live,”
and 34.10 TEV has only “all the people,” but both are still ambiguous. TAN has “all the people
who are with you,” which limits it to the Israelites. But TOT has “all the nations round you,” and
34.10 CEV has “Neighboring nations.” The singular you, when addressed to Moses, often means
all Israel. Probably both Israelites and non-Israelites are intended. If this is so, an alternative
rendering may be “among you [plural] and all the nations around you.”

Shall see the work of the Lord is literally “they will see the doing of Yahweh.” Since
Yahweh is speaking, 34.10 TEV changes this to first person, “will see what great things I, the
Lord, can do.” For it is a terrible thing that I will do with you is quite literal, using the word
that means “something feared,” or “an awesome thing” (TEV, 34.10 NRSV). With you is singular,
which may refer to Moses only, but it may also refer to Israel as a nation. 34.10 TEV interprets

423Osborn, N. D., & Hatton, H. (1999). A handbook on Exodus. UBS handbook series; Helps for
translators (770). New York: United Bible Societies.

NIV NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION

TEV Today’s English Version

TOT TRANSLATOR’S OLD TESTAMENT

CEV Contemporary English Version

NRSV New Revised Standard Version

TAN TANAKH (NEW JEWISH VERSION)

it as “for you,” and NAB has “at your side.” An alternative translation model for the final part of
this verse is “You and all the nations around you will fear greatly and know that I was the one
who did these marvelous things [or, miracles].”

34.11

Observe what I command you this day is literally “guard to you [singular] what I am
commanding you today.” The participle suggests the meaning “which I am about to command
you,” so the reference is evidently to “the laws” (34.11 TEV) that are given in the following
verses. (The Hebrew word is related to mitswah, discussed in the introductory comments to
20.22–26.) The use of the singular you, both here and throughout the section, refers to each
Israelite, both singularly and collectively. (See the introduction to chapter 20.) 34.11 CEV
reorders the clauses of the verse as follows: “I will force out the Amorites … , but you must do
what I command you this day.” Another way to express this is “… but you must obey all the
laws that I am giving you today.”

Behold calls attention to who is speaking as well as to what is being said. Literally it is
“behold me [the] driver out from before your faces.” Again the participle may be understood
as “I am going to drive out” (TOT). The Amorites begins another listing of the six different
nations or ethnic groups that were living in the land where the Israelites were to go. (See the
comment at 3.8 and at 13.5.)

34.12

Take heed to yourself, literally “be protected for you,” or “be on your guard,” is a different
form of the same word used in verse 11 for “observe.” Another way to express this is “Be
careful that you don’t … .” Here it is followed by the negative lest, which may be understood as
“beware” (TAN, REB). Lest you make a covenant is literally “lest you cut a covenant.” (See the
comment on “cutting a covenant” at 23.32.) This means “Do not make any treaties” (34.12
TEV). In certain languages figurative expressions like the Hebrew may be used; for example,
“Do not cut any agreements with … .” With the inhabitants of the land whither you go refers
to “the people who live in the land where you are going” (34.12 NIV). They are named in verse
11. The inhabitants, literally “the dweller,” is singular in form but plural in meaning.

Lest it become a snare in the midst of you is literally “lest it [or, he] will be for a trap in
your [singular] midst.” The word for snare is a common word for a bird trap. The it refers to
“any treaties” (34.12 TEV) the Israelites might make, or possibly to the act of making such
treaties. It is also possible for the pronoun it (or, “he”) to refer to “the dweller,” which is
singular in form but means the inhabitants. Thus 34.12 NIV has “or they will be a snare among
you” (similarly REB, NAB, and others). 34.12 TEV calls the snare “a fatal trap,” which may be
implied. This is a metaphor that may be changed to a simile, “it [or, they] will be like a trap for
you” or “it [or, they] will be like falling into a trap.” If this figure of speech cannot be used, the

NAB NEW AMERICAN BIBLE

REB REVISED ENGLISH BIBLE

basic meaning may need to be expressed: “a treaty with them will be a continual source of
temptation for you to sin,” or “they will be … .” (see verse 15 below.)

34.13

You shall tear down their altars begins with the word ki, which sometimes mean “if,”
“because,” or “indeed.” Here it introduces the opposite of what has just been said, so 34.13
TEV has “Instead.” TAN and TOT begin with “No.” Literally the command is “their altars you
[plural] will demolish.” (See the comment on altars at 17.15.) And break their pillars is literally
“and their [vertical] stones you [plural] will shatter.” The same word for break is used in 32.19,
where Moses “shattered” the stone tablets. The same word for pillars is used in 24.4. (See the
comment there.)

And cut down their Asherim is literally “and his Asherim you [plural] will cut.” (The “his”
refers back grammatically to the singular “inhabitant” in verse 12.) The same word for cut
down is used for “cutting a covenant” in verse 10. Asherim is the plural form of “Asherah,”
who was the mother goddess of the Canaanite religion. But the word itself sometimes refers to
sacred trees or man- made objects, such as wooden poles, placed at the pagan shrines. So
34.13 NIV has “their Asherah poles,” but others simply have “their sacred poles.” Since the
exact nature of these objects is not clear, 34.13 TEV has “cut down their symbols of the
goddess Asherah.” 34.13 CEV interprets pillars and Asherim as referring to the same objects:
“tear down the sacred poles they use in the worship of the goddess Asherah.” In some
languages “goddess Asherah” will be translated as “the female god Asherah.”

34.14

RSV marks this verse as a parenthetical statement because it begins with for (ki), but this is

not necessarily so. (Verse 13 also begins with ki.) This verse corresponds to, but is not identical
with, 20.3, 5. You shall worship no other god is literally “you [singular] shall not bow down to
another god [’El].” The word for worship suggests the act of bowing down, so REB has “You are
not to bow in worship to any other god.”

For the Lord, whose name is Jealous, literally “for Yahweh, jealous his name,” uses the
same word for jealous as 20.5, but here it is presented as another name. The word may also
mean “envious” or “zealous.” TAN has “because the Lord, whose name is Impassioned.” It must
be made clear in translation that the adjective is the name. Durham makes this clear: “whose
very name is ‘Jealous,’ ” and NJB has “since Yahweh’s name is the Jealous One.” The same word
is then repeated, is a jealous God. And the same word for God is used (’El) as in no other god.
(See the comment on ’El at 15.2.) However, if translators have difficulty using a name here,
one may also translate the meaning; for example, “I want you to be completely loyal to me,”
or “because I, the Lord, tolerate no rivals” (34.14 TEV).

RSV Revised Standard Version

NJB NEW JERUSALEM BIBLE

34.15

Lest you make a covenant … land is identical with verse 12. And when they play the
harlot is just one word in the Hebrew that means, literally, “and they will commit adultery” or
“engage in prostitution.” After their gods uses ’elohim for gods. The expression is often used
figuratively to describe the Israelites’ unfaithfulness to Yahweh when they worshiped other
gods. The intended meaning here may suggest the actual sexual immorality practiced by the
pagan religions as part of their worship, or it may simply be an Israelite way of describing all
pagan worship. 34.15 TEV abandons the figure entirely, “when they worship their pagan gods,”
but 34.15 NRSV has “when they prostitute themselves to their gods.” The translation, however,
should not suggest that these inhabitants of the land actually engaged in sexual intercourse
with their gods. Translators may use the figure of “prostitution” if it will be natural in the
receptor language. Otherwise it will be better to follow the idea of “worshiping other gods.”

And sacrifice to their gods is literally “and they will sacrifice to their ’elohim.” The idea of
when, both here and in the preceding clause, is implied by the main clause, you eat of this
sacrifice, at the end of the verse. And one invites you is literally “and he calls to you
[singular].” 34.15 RSV renders this as the third part of a long temporal clause introduced by
when. 34.15 NRSV has changed this to the main clause, “someone among them will invite you.”
34.15 TEV adds the implied meaning, “they will invite you to join them.”

You eat of his sacrifice, literally “and you will eat from his sacrifice,” is the main clause in
34.15 RSV. This is the danger referred to by the word lest at the beginning of the verse. In some
translations this clause is interpreted as a prediction of what will definitely happen. (Similarly
34.15 NRSV, 34.15 NIV, and TAN.) But the force of the word lest, which probably continues even
through verse 16, makes this only a possibility. So 34.15 TEV has “you will be tempted to eat
the food they offer to their gods.” And NAB has “one of them may invite you and you may
partake of their sacrifices.” (For a similar New Testament situation, see 1 Corinthians 8.) 34.15
TEV’s model will be a good one for many translators.

34.16

And you take of their daughters for your sons is literally “and you [singular] will take from
his daughters for your sons.” In 34.16 RSV this continues the long sentence beginning with
verse 14. In other words 34.16 RSV considers all of verses 15–16 as the possible result of
making any treaty with the ethnic groups mentioned in verse 12. 34.16 TEV makes this verse
into a new sentence but still shows the influence of the word “lest” in verse 15, “Your sons
might marry those foreign women.” However, in cultures where marriage is always arranged
by the parents, one may follow the Hebrew and say, for example, “You might arrange for their
daughters to marry your sons.”

And their daughters is literally “and his daughters,” but the singular pronoun should be
understood as still referring to “the inhabitant” in verse 12. (See the comment there.) Play the
harlot after their gods is the same expression discussed at verse 15. And make your sons … is
literally “and they will cause your sons.” As in verse 15, 34.16 TEV interprets this as a figure of
speech for pagan worship and translates “who would lead them to be unfaithful to me and to
 worship their pagan gods.” One may also say “and they [the daughters] would lead them to be
unfaithful.”

An alternative translation model for this verse is:

• You will even arrange for their daughters to marry your sons, and these women will cause
them to be unfaithful to me and worship their gods.

34.17

Literally the Hebrew says “Gods [’elohim] of molten metal you [singular] shall not make for
yourself.” The same word for molten is used in 32.4 in describing the gold bull-calf. (See the
comment there.) This verse is similar to the commandment in 20.4, but different words are
used.

34.18

This verse begins a series of laws that deal more directly with the observance of cultic
festivals and rituals. It is almost identical with 23.15. (See the comment there.) The only
differences are: 1) the wording of as I commanded you is slightly different; 2) in the month of
Abib is mentioned twice; 3) there is an additional sentence in 23.15 which is repeated in verse
20 below, but not here. (For the meaning of feast see the comment at 23.14.)

34.19

Verses 19–20 are quite similar to 13.12–13. All that opens the womb is mine is discussed
at 13.2. It is simply a technical expression for the firstborn. All your male cattle presents some
textual difficulty. Literally the Hebrew says “and all your [singular] livestock she is
remembered,” which does not make much sense. With a slight change of one letter, the text
can be made to read “and all your livestock the male,” and this is what the ancient versions
have. (See the 34.19 RSV footnote.) This is also suggested by the context and the similar verses
in chapter 13. The same word for cattle is used in 9.3. (See the comment there.)

The firstlings of cow and sheep uses the technical term that means “what opens a
mother’s womb.” It means the same as “first-born” (34.19 TEV). The Hebrew word for cow
often refers specifically to a full-grown male bovine, or ox, but here the broader meaning of
large domesticated animal is intended. The word for sheep actually includes both sheep and
goats. It is usually used in reference to the flock, which included both animals. NJB correctly has
“every first-born of flock or herd.”

The first part of the verse is probably a general statement that includes the sons of the
Israelites as well as their animals. So TEV condenses the whole verse, “Every first-born son and
first-born male domestic animal belongs to me.” CEV has “The first-born males of your families
and your flocks and herds belong to me.”

34.20

The firstling of an ass … break its neck is identical with 13.13 except that the word “every”
is not used here. (See the comment there.) As in verse 19, the firstborn male is intended. All
the first-born of your sons you shall redeem is almost identical with 13.13, which adds “first-
born of man among your sons.”

And none shall appear before me empty is identical with 23.15. (See the comment there.)
This sentence seems to have no relation to the first part of the verse, so 34.20 TEV, 34.20 CEV,
and others show this as a separate paragraph. Some scholars have suggested that it originally
followed verse 23.

34.21

This verse is an abbreviated statement of the commandment in 20.8–11. Six days you shall
work is identical with 20.9. But on the seventh day you shall rest uses the verb shavath, which
means to cease or stop working. It does not have the basic meaning of resting from being
tired. 34.21 TEV is quite correct: “but do not work on the seventh day”; 34.21 CEV states it
positively: “rest on the seventh day.” The same word is used for “rest” in Gen 2.3, but a
different word is used in 20.11. (See the comment there and at 16.30.)

In plowing time is one word derived from the verb “to plow.” In harvest is derived from
the verb “to harvest.” Together they mean “during the seasons of plowing and harvesting”
(NAB). You shall rest uses the word shavath again, meaning “you must cease work” (REB). An
alternative model is “not even during the times when you plow the fields or harvest the
crops.”

34.22

And you shall observe the feast of weeks refers to the second of the three great festivals
mentioned in 23.14–17. (The meaning of feast is discussed at 23.14.) It is called “the feast of
harvest” in 23.16, but it later came to be known as “Pentecost.” 34.22 TEV and 34.22 CEV call it
“the Harvest Festival” in both places.

The first fruits of wheat harvest refers to the first crop of wheat that was harvested about
seven weeks after the barley harvest. (See the comment at 23.15-16.) This does not refer to an
additional feast but rather to what the people were to offer in celebrating the feast of weeks.
TOT makes this clear: “You shall celebrate the festival of Weeks by offering the first crop of the
wheat harvest.” One may also say “Celebrate the Harvest Festival each spring by offering the
first wheat that you harvest.”

The feast of ingathering refers to the third great annual festival, also mentioned in 23.16.
(See the comment there.) At the year’s end, literally “at the turning of the year,” refers to the
turning of the sun at the autumnal equinox, which was the end of the agricultural year. 34.22
NRSV has “at the turn of the year,” 34.22 TEV has “in the autumn when you gather your fruit,”
and 34.22 CEV has “each autumn when you pick your fruit.”

34.23

This verse is identical with 23.17 except for the final phrase, the God of Israel, which is
added here. It should be noted that 34.23 RSV has “the Lord God” in 23.17, but here it has the
Lord God. (See the comment there.) The Hebrew is the same in both places: haha’adon
Yahwehrs;adon Yahweh, literally “the Lord Yahweh.” The difference is due to the additional
phrase, which changes the emphasis, “the Lord, Yahweh God of Israel.” 34.23 TEV has “the
Lord, the God of Israel,” and 34.23 CEV has: “the Lord God of Israel,” which really means the
same thing. REB has “the Lord, the Lord the God of Israel.” A few translations, however, still
read it as “Lord Yahweh, God of Israel” (NJB). 34.23 NIV and TAN have “the Sovereign Lord, the
God of Israel.”

34.24

For is the particle ki, which must always be translated according to the context. Note the
variety of interpretations: “After” (34.24 TEV), “Indeed” (Durham), “Since” (NAB). (See the
comment at verse 13.) I will cast out nations before you is similar to verse 11, but a different
verb is used. Cast out translates the verb meaning to “dispossess” (NJB) or “drive out” (34.24
NIV). 34.24 RSV and 34.24 NRSV translate the same word as “destroy” in 15.9. And enlarge your
borders is literally “and I will cause to become wide your [singular] territory,” and this will be a
helpful model for many translators. NJB has “I shall … extend your frontiers.”

Neither shall any man desire your land is literally “and a man shall not crave your
[singular] land.” The same word is used for “covet” in 20.17. (See the comment there.) It is not
clear whether your land refers to individual property or to the country as a whole. Both are
probably intended. 34.24 TEV has “no one will try to conquer your country,” and REB has “there
will be no danger from covetous neighbours.” Yahweh is here promising protection of property
in the people’s absence. So 34.24 CEV has “Then no one will try to take your property when …
.” But another way to express this is “No one will try to take the land that you [plural] own
while … .” This allows for both meanings—“private property” or “country.”

When you go up is literally “in your [singular] ascending.” To appear before the Lord your
God refers back to the command of verse 23. This suggests a later time when the Israelites
were settled in the promised land, and the males were all to go up to Jerusalem three times in
the year. The context implies that these three times were to be “during the three festivals”
(34.24 TEV) mentioned in verses 18 and 22. However, since the three festivals have just been
mentioned in previous verses, 34.24 CEV has “these three times each year.” This is also a
possible model. Since all the men would be away from their homes at the same time, their
land would certainly be vulnerable.

34.25

You shall not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven is identical with 23.18, except
that a different verb is used. Both verbs mean “to slaughter,” and 34.25 RSV translates both as
You shall not offer. But in 23.18 34.25 RSV translates the same Hebrew word for leaven as
“leavened bread.” (See the comment there.) In both places the meaning is “Do not offer bread
made with yeast when you sacrifice an animal to me” (34.25 TEV) or “When you sacrifice an
animal on the altar, don’t offer bread made with yeast” (34.25 CEV).

Neither shall the sacrifice … morning is literally “and shall not remain to [or, for] the
morning [the] sacrifice of [the] feast of the passover.” This refers to “any part of the animal
killed at the Passover Festival” (34.25 TEV). This is similar to 23.18, where just “the fat of my
feast” is mentioned. But this command is first given in different words at 12.10. (See the
comment there.)

34.26

This verse is identical in every detail with 23.19. (See the comment there.) Since the two
laws are not related, most translations set off the second command as a separate paragraph.
(RSV is inconsistent here.) Note that this completes the long uninterrupted quotation which
began with verse 10.

34.27

And the Lord said to Moses introduces one final command of Yahweh which is addressed
just to Moses. Write these words is literally “You [singular] write for you these words
[devarim].” In the present context this refers to all that Yahweh has said in verses 10–26, and
Moses is the one to do the writing. (See the comment on devarim in the introduction to
20.22–26.)

In accordance with these words is literally “for over the mouth of these words.” 34.27 TEV
has “because it is on the basis of these words.” I have made a covenant with you and with
Israel is literally “I cut with you [singular] a covenant and with Israel.” (See the comment on
“cutting a covenant” at 23.32.) The intended tense of the verb “I cut” is not clearly indicated,
so 34.27 TEV has “I am making a covenant.” The word order is significant, for it indicates that
the covenant is first made with Moses, and through him with Israel. Translators are urged to
follow 34.27 TEV’s model.

34.28

And he was there with the Lord means, of course, that “Moses stayed there” (34.28 TEV)
with Yahweh. Forty days and forty nights is the same expression as in 24.18. In the present
context of the book of Exodus, it is clear that Moses spent two periods of “forty days and
nights” (34.28 TEV) on the mountain. (See Deut 10.10.) He neitherate bread nor drank water is
literally “bread he did not eat and water he did not drink.” This means that, for the entire
forty-day period, he was “without food or drink” (REB). In the Bible, of course, forty is a
symbolic number that indicates both a long time and a time of testing. But this is an
interpretation that should not be included in the translation.

And he wrote upon the tables is ambiguous. On the basis of verses 27–28 alone, it is clear
that he refers to Moses. But in the wider context the he seems to refer to Yahweh. (See 34.1.)
Since this problem cannot be resolved, it may be best simply to translate the pronoun as in
34.28 TEV, “He wrote on the tablets” (similarly also CEV). In some languages it may be necessary
to be explicit, in which case the he should be identified as Moses. A footnote may then be
added to explain that the Hebrew has only the pronoun “he.”

The words of the covenant, the ten commandments is literally “words of the covenant,
the ten words.” The Hebrew devarim is used in both instances, showing a close connection
with verse 27. This is the only place in Exodus where the phrase “the ten words” appears, but
it is found in Deut 4.13 and 10.4. Regardless of the problems of the preceding verses, it is still
best to consider this as a reference to the decalogue, or “the Ten Commandments.”

(d) Moses’ Shining Face (34.29–35)

(d) Moses’ shining face (34.29–35)

This section concludes the narrative material of chapters 32–34. The focus is once again on
Moses and his unique role as mediator between Yahweh and the people. By contrast Moses
now descends from the mountain with a shining face, while in chapter 32 he descended with a
burning nose. Both times he carried stone tablets on which were written the terms of the
covenant. The first tablets were broken to show that the people had broken that relationship.
Now the new tablets are proof that Yahweh had restored that relationship. It is Moses,
through his persistent intercession, who has made the difference.

There are two parts to this section. Verses 29–33, in simple narrative style, tell about
Moses’ shining face and how he covered it with a “veil.” Verses 34–35, by means of a different
style, explain how the use of the veil became a continuing ritual for Moses as he continued to
meet with Yahweh in the tent of meeting. In this way the reader is prepared to leave the “oasis
of narrative” in chapters 32–34 and return to the “desert of detail.” The rest of the book then
describes, step by step, how the Tabernacle was finally constructed to ensure the continued
presence of Yahweh with his people.

Section Heading: translators may choose between the headings of 34.28 TEV and CEV:
“Moses Goes [or, Comes] Down from Mount Sinai,” or the heading suggested by this
Handbook: “Moses’ shining face.” They focus on separate themes in this section. This latter
heading may also be expressed as “The skin on Moses’ face shines.”

34.29

When Moses came down is literally “And it was in Moses’ descending.” The word for “And
it was” clearly marks a transition in the story. With the two tables of the testimony in his
hand is literally “and two tablets of the reminder [were] in the hand of Moses.” (See the
comment on testimony at 16.34.) TAN calls them “the two tablets of the Pact,” and NAB has
“the two tablets of the commandments.” 34.29 TEV and 34.29 CEV simply say “carrying the Ten
Commandments,” but this changes the text more than necessary. So translators are urged to
say something like “carrying the stone tablets containing the commandments” or “… on which
were written the commandments.” As he came down the mountain repeats what has already
been said, so some translations omit it. (So 34.29 NIV, NAB, and 34.29 TEV.)

Moses did not know simply means that “he was not aware” (34.29 NIV). That the skin of
his face shone uses an unusual verb for shone that is not used elsewhere. It is derived from
the noun for “horn,” which refers to the horns of an animal and even the “horns” of the altar
(see 27.2). Here it means that “his face was shining” (34.29 TEV) in the sense that the skin of
his face was sending out horn- like rays of light. TOT has “his face sent out shining rays.” Others
have “the skin of his face was radiant.” (Similarly NJB, TAN, and NAB.)
 TEV and CEV helpfully rearrange the clauses in this verse. It may be more natural to state
first that “his face was shining” and then, at the end of the verse, explain that “he did not
know it.”

Because he had been talking with God is literally “in his speaking with him.” The context
clearly shows that Moses and God had been talking with each other, even though God is not in
the text. Most translations use “the Lord” instead of God, since Yahweh is used throughout
these chapters. This may be understood either as “he had spoken with the Lord” (34.29 NIV), or
as “the Lord has been talking to him” (TOT).

34.30

And when Aaron … saw Moses is literally “And Aaron saw Moses.” The when makes it a
temporal clause that is dependent on the second clause. And all the people of Israel is literally
“and all the sons of Israel.” It is significant that Aaron is mentioned first. One may also express
this as “When Aaron and all the other people saw Moses.”

Behold is the usual word used to call attention to what follows. Here it also adds a bit of
suspense in the story. The skin of his face shone has the same verb as verse 29. (See the
comment there.) This should not suggest that it was only when the people saw him that his
face began to shine. 34.30 TEV is better, “his face was shining,” and 34.30 NIV has “his face was
radiant.” And they were afraid to come near him is literally “and they feared to approach
him.” TAN has “and they shrank from coming near him,” and 34.30 CEV has “and they were
afraid to go near him,” which suggests that Moses approached the people, not knowing that
“his face was shining” (34.30 TEV), and frightened them away. The following verse supports
this.

34.31

But Moses called to them implies that the people were some distance from him. And
Aaron and all … returned to him suggests that they had come out to meet him, but then drew
back when they saw his shining face. 34.31 NIV says that they “came back to him.” 34.31 TEV
and 34.31 CEV do not reflect this double movement of coming near, drawing back, and then
returning to him. All the leaders of the congregation probably refers to all the tribal leaders.
The same expression is used in 16.22. (For congregation see the comment at 12.3.) 34.31 TEV
has “all the leaders of the community.”

And Moses talked with them is literally “and Moses spoke unto them.” This suggests that
Moses did most of the talking. What he said is not indicated, but we may assume he assured
them that Yahweh had been willing to renew the covenant.

34.32

And afterward marks a brief period of time, suggesting that all the people of Israel waited
to see if it was safe to approach Moses. “After that” (34.32 TEV) they came near. The verb
means to approach or come near. 34.32 TEV says that they “gathered around him,” but this
may assume too much. NJB has “the Israelites came closer.” At least they were close enough
for him to speak to them.
 And he gave them in commandment is literally “and he commanded them,” but this must
be interpreted with the rest of the sentence. All that the Lord had spoken with him is marked
with the accusative particle, indicating that this phrase is the direct object of the verb
“commanded.” Literally it says “all that Yahweh told him.” It should be clear in translation,
then, that he simply “passed on to them all the orders that Yahweh had given to him” (NJB).
The pluperfect (had spoken) is obvious from the context. In Mount Sinai really means “on
Mount Sinai” (34.32 TEV).

34.33

And when Moses had finished speaking with them is literally “And Moses finished from
speaking with them.” Most translations follow the same pattern of making this a temporal
clause (when) and using the English pluperfect (had finished).

He put a veil on his face uses a word found only here, so its meaning is not certain. The
context makes clear that it was a covering of some kind. Some scholars have suggested it may
have been a face mask, similar to what the Egyptian priests wore to represent the “face” of
their god. But this theory has not been widely accepted, so most translations call it a veil,
which suggests a cloth covering that would conceal his face but still allow him to see. TOT
simply calls it “a covering.”

34.34

But whenever Moses went in is literally “and in Moses’ entering.” The idea of whenever
comes from the verb he took off, which is the frequentative form of the verb, meaning “he
used to remove.” It is not indicated what it was that Moses entered, but before the Lord
suggests the tent of meeting. So 34.34 TEV has “into the Tent of the Lord’s presence.” (See
33.7–11.) To speak with him means, of course, to speak with Yahweh. He took the veil off is
better rendered as “he would take the veil off” (34.34 TEV), adding the word “would” in order
to bring out the idea of repeated action.

Until he came out is literally “until his exiting.” 34.34 TEV omits this phrase in order to
avoid the suggestion that he put the veil on again before he came out. Verse 35 makes clear
that the people saw his shining face each time he came out. (See the comment there.)

And when he came out means “whenever he came out” (TOT). And told the people of
Israel is better rendered as “he would tell the Israelites.” What he was commanded is quite
literal, but it means “what Yahweh had commanded him to say.” 34.34 TEV has “everything
that he has been commanded to say,” which is implied, but “everything” is not explicit in the
text. TOT says that “he reported the Lord’s orders to the Israelites.”

34.35

The people of Israel saw the face of Moses continues the sentence from verse 34, as well
as the idea of repeated action; that is, every time Moses came out of the tent, “they would see
his face shining” (34.35 TEV). That the skin of Moses’ face shone uses the same verb first
mentioned in verse 29. Most translations combine this phrase with the first part of the verse,
as in 34.35 TEV. REB begins a new sentence, “The Israelites would see how the skin of Moses’
face shone.”

And Moses would put the veil upon his face again is literally “and Moses used to cause to
return (or, replace) the covering over his face.” This suggests that Moses did not wear the veil
while he was reporting to the people what Yahweh had commanded him to say (verse 34).
Until he went in to speak with him is literally “until his entering to speak with him.” This
means that Moses evidently wore the veil most of the time, removing it only when entering
the tent of meeting to speak with Yahweh and then reporting Yahweh’s commands to the
people.

c. The Implementation of the Instructions (35.1–39.43)

Chapters 35–39 provide a kind of balance to chapters 25–31 in that they repeat most of
the details about the construction of the Tabernacle and all its equipment. These chapters
report how the instructions given to Moses on the mountain were actually carried out after
the covenant was broken and then restored. Although the repetition seems monotonous, it is
necessary to the story. The tabernacle and the worship were at the very heart of the tradition,
so the account had to show two things: that all the instructions were of divine origin, and that
they were carefully carried out in every detail.

The wording of the earlier chapters is frequently repeated verbatim, with only the verbs
changing from future to past tense. The pattern of “You shall make,” typical of the instructions
to Moses, now changes to “and he made,” referring mainly to Bezalel, the chief craftsman who
worked under Moses’ supervision.

There are, however, some differences which the translator will note. The listing of the
various items that were made is now changed to a more logical order. The instructions about
how some of these items were to be placed are now reserved for chapter 40, the final chapter
in the book, when everything is assembled and put in place within one day. And the actual
consecration of Aaron and his sons is missing entirely from the book of Exodus, but it is
recorded later in Leviticus 8.

In view of all this, the comments below frequently refer back to the parallel passages in
the “blueprint” chapters for explanation. Significant additions and omissions, however, as well
as any differences in detail, are carefully noted.

(1) Special Announcements (35.1–19)

(a) Regulations for the Sabbath (35.1–3)

(a) Regulations for the Sabbath (35.1–3)

It is significant that the first thing Moses announces to the people concerns the Sabbath.
This was the final instruction given to him on the mountain, and it now becomes the first thing
to be mentioned to the people. This shows that the law of the Sabbath was considered the
most important of all. So even before any work begins, the people are reminded that the
seventh day, under Yahweh’s instructions, must be kept as a day of rest.

Headings: translators who follow the Handbook’s outline should include two general
headings: first “The implementation of the instructions” (35.1–39.43), which may also be
rendered as “The people do what Yahweh instructed them to do”; and secondly “Special
announcements” (35.1–19). Another way to express this is “Moses makes some special
announcements.” The headings for the section, verses 1–3, “Regulations for the Sabbath”
(34.35 TEV and Handbook) and “Laws for the Sabbath” (34.35 CEV), are identical in meaning.
Some translators may wish to use a complete sentence; for example, “Moses tells the people
how to observe the Sabbath.”

35.1

Moses assembled all … the people of Israel is literally “And Moses caused to assemble all
the company of the sons of Israel.” TAN has “Moses then convoked the whole Israelite
community.” And said to them introduces Moses’ words. These are the things, literally “these
the words [devarim],” points to the words of Yahweh that Moses will quote in the following
verse. Which the Lord has commanded you to do is literally “which Yahweh commanded to do
them.” NAB has “what the Lord has commanded to be done,” and NJB has “the things Yahweh
has ordered to be done.” 35.1 CEV avoids the quotation, with “Moses called together the
people of Israel and told them that the Lord had said: … .” However, in certain languages the
words that Moses “called” must be in quotes; for example “Moses called to the people of
Israel, ‘Come here.’ When they had gathered around him, he said, ‘This is what Yahweh has
commanded you to do… .’ ”

35.2

Verses 2–3 may be understood as a direct quotation of the words of Yahweh, or they may
be taken as indirect speech. TEV and CEV show a direct quotation by ending verse 1 with a
colon. Another way to do this is “1 … commanded you to do. 2 He says, ‘You …’ ” Six days shall
work be done is almost identical with 31.15. This is not so much a command to work as it is a
statement of when work may be done. The focus is not on the six days but rather on the
seventh. NJB has “Work must be done for six days,” but REB has “Work may be done for six
days.” 35.2 TEV and 35.2 CEV catch the intended meaning, “You have six days in which to do
your work.”

But on the seventh day … to the Lord is the same as 31.15, but here the words you shall
have are added, using the plural you. The Hebrew shabbath shabbathon is explained at 31.15.
Here again 35.2 TEV changes to first person, since Yahweh is the speaker: “dedicated to me, the
Lord.” Whoever does work on it shall be put to death is literally “every doer of work in it shall
be caused to die.” This is not the intensive form of the verb used in the laws of 21.12–17, but it
is still absolute and unconditional.

35.3
 You shall kindle no fire is literally “you [plural] shall not kindle a fire.” In the context of
verse 2, 35.3 TEV has “Do not even light a fire.” Because of the way this is worded, Jewish
tradition permitted a fire on the Sabbath if it was kindled just before the Sabbath and not
refueled. In all your habitations, literally “in all your [plural] sitting places,” means “in any of
your dwellings” (35.3 NIV), or “at your homes” (35.3 TEV), or even “at home” (35.3 CEV). On the
Sabbath day is literally “on the day of the sabbath.”

(b) Materials to be Donated (35.4–9)

(b) Materials to be donated (35.4–9)

Section Heading: 35.3 TEV’s heading for verses 4–9 is “Offerings for the Sacred Tent,” while
this Handbook suggests the heading “Materials to be donated.” This may also be expressed as
“Moses tells the people what materials the Lord wants them to donate [or, give] for the
tabernacle.”

35.4

Moses said, literally “And Moses said … saying,” marks a surprising break from the words
of Yahweh (verses 2–3) to Moses’ words, especially since Moses again quotes Yahweh’s words,
which seem to continue uninterrupted from verse 5 to verse 19. It may be more natural to say
“Moses said further” (TAN) or “Moses also said” (TOT). All the congregation of the people of
Israel is identical with verse 1.

This is the thing which the Lord has commanded is almost identical with verse 1, but the
words “these” and “words” are now changed to the singular, this and thing. The word for
thing is davar, which is often translated as “word.” Also, the words “to do them” are not
repeated. This introduces the words of Yahweh, which may be understood either as a direct
quote or as an indirect report of Yahweh’s commands. 35.4 TEV here presents them as indirect
rather than direct.

35.5

Take from among you uses the plural in both “You take” and among you. An offering to
the Lord uses the same word for offering as in 25.2, which literally means “something lifted up
or dedicated.” NJB has “a contribution for Yahweh,” while NAB calls it “a collection,” and TAN
has “gifts.” Whoever is of a generous heart is literally “everyone [who is] willing to his heart.”
35.5 NIV has “Everyone who is willing,” and TAN has “everyone whose heart so moves him.”
35.5 TEV’s “Everyone who wishes to do so” may be too weak.

Let him bring is literally “he will cause it to enter.” The form of the Hebrew verb allows for
either the idea of let him bring or “is to bring” (35.5 TEV). TAN has “shall bring,” while NJB has
“should bring.” All these interpretations are possible. Gold, silver, and bronze is the same as
25.3. (See the comment there.)

35.6–7
 These two verses are identical with 25.4–5, with only a slightly different spelling of the
word for acacia. (See the comment there.) Note that 35.7 NRSV has corrected fine twined linen
to simply “fine linen” (so also 35.7 TEV and CEV). Note also that 35.7 TEV has placed “fine linen”
first, perhaps for English style, but the order in 35.7 RSV should be followed.

35.8–9

These two verses are also identical with 25.6–7, with the exception that the conjunction
waw is added before oil, spices, and onyx stones. (See the comment there.)

(c) Articles to be Made (35.10–19)

(c) Articles to be made (35.10–19)

Section Heading: 35.9 TEV has “Articles for the Tent of the Lord’s Presence,” and the
Handbook has “Articles to be made.” An alternative model is “The things that skilled men will
make for the sacred tent.”

35.10

And let every able man among you come is literally “And all wise of heart among you
[plural], they will enter.” The same expression “all wise of heart” is used in 28.3, where 35.10
RSV has “all who have ability,” and 35.10 TEV has “all the craftsmen.” As in verse 5, the form of
the verb allows for either “let them come” or “they will come.” So 35.10 TEV has “All the skilled
workmen among you are to come.” TOT has “shall come,” and NJB has “must come.”

Come and make is literally “they will enter and they will make.” All that the Lord has
commanded refers to the long list that follows in verses 11–19. Another way to express this is
“come and use your skills to make what the Lord has commanded.” According to BHS the
tabernacle really belongs in verse 11, as in 35.10 TEV and 35.10 CEV, so the verse number
should come before the tabernacle. 35.10 RSV, 35.10 NRSV, and NAB have it incorrectly placed.
(See the next verse.)

35.11–12

The tabernacle is the last word in verse 10, according to 35.12 RSV, but it should be placed
here as the first word in verse 11 (see the comment above). It is the Hebrew word mishkan,
which here seems to refer to the entire structure, as in 25.9, with all the various parts then
listed in the verses that follow. (See the comments on mishkan and ’ohel, at 27.21, and in the
introduction to 33.7–11.) Its tent (35.12 RSV verse 11) is simply “its ’ohel,” meaning the primary
tent described in 26.1–6. 35.12 NIV has “the tabernacle with its tent,” which helps to clarify this
distinction. (Similarly also NAB.) This does not refer to the “tent of meeting,” as in 33.7. 35.12
TEV translates mishkan as “Tent,” and ’ohelrs;ohel as “its covering.”

BHS BIBLIA HEBRAICA STUTTGARTENSIA

 Its tent and its covering, literally “its ’ohel and its mikseh,” therefore refers to the primary
tent and its “outer covering” (35.12 TEV). The same word for covering is used in 26.14 for an
additional layer (or layers) of animal skins. (See the comment there.) Its hooks and its frames
refers to the “clasps” in 26.6 and the frames in 26.15. (The two words in Hebrew are listed
together because they sound alike, since its hooks is qerasaw and its frames is qerashaw.) Its
bars refers to the “crossbars” (35.12 TEV) described in 26.26–28. Its pillars refers to the “posts”
(35.12 TEV) mentioned in 26.32. Its bases refers to the “sockets” (TAN and others) mentioned in
26.19.

The ark with its poles refers to “the Covenant Box” (35.12 TEV) and “its poles” described in
25.10–15, where it indicates that the poles were always to be kept in the rings of the ark. The
mercy seat refers to the “lid” (35.12 TEV) of solid gold, or “propitiatory” (NAB), that was be the
“cover” (TAN) for the ark. And the veil of the screen is changed in 35.12 NRSV to “the curtain for
the screen,” but it is better rendered as “the covering curtain.” This refers only to the veil, or
“curtain” (35.12 TEV), separating the Holy of Holies from the Holy Place (31.33). 35.12 TEV has
“the curtain to screen it off,” and 35.12 CEV has “the curtain in front of it.” The same word for
screen is used in 26.36 for the “curtain” that was to hang at the entrance to the enclosure, and
it is used with this meaning in verse 15 below.

35.13–14

The table with its poles, literally “and the table and its poles,” is discussed at 25.23–28.
And all its utensils uses the same general term for utensils as 30.27. (See the comment at
30.26-28.) And the bread of the Presence is discussed at 25.30.

The lampstand also for the light, literally “and the menorah of the light,” is discussed at
25.31–36. The word for light is a different word from “lamp” in 25.37. It is a general term
meaning a “luminary” or “source of light,” so here it refers to the lampstand as the source of
light produced by the lamps. With its utensils is the same word as verse 13, but all is not
repeated. And its lamps is the same as 25.37. (See the comment there.) And the oil for the
light uses the general word for oil and repeats the same word for the light. (See the comment
at 25.6.)

35.15–16

And the altar of incense is discussed at 30.1–4, and with its poles is discussed at 30.5. And
the anointing oil, described in 30.23–25, uses the same words as 30.25. And the fragrant
incense, described in 30.34–35, uses the same words as 30.7. And the screen for the door,
literally “and the covering of opening,” refers to the “curtain” at the “entrance” (35.16 TEV)
into the Holy Place from the outside. At the door of the tabernacle is literally “to [or, for] the
opening of the mishkan.” (See the comment at 26.36.)

The altar of burnt offering is described in 27.1–2. With its grating of bronze, literally “and
the grating of bronze which is to it,” is described in 27.4, and its poles in 27.6. And all its
utensils is identical with verse 13. The laver and its base refers to the “bronze basin with its
stand” (35.16 NIV) mentioned in 30.18. (See the comment there.)
35.17–18

The hangings of the court were “the curtains for the enclosure” (35.18 TEV) that marked
off the open “courtyard” around the tent. The same words are used in 27.9. (See the comment
there.) Its pillars and its bases refers to the “posts” (35.18 TEV) to which the hangings were
fastened and the bronze “sockets” on which these “posts” were placed. These are described in
27.9–15. And the screen for the gate of the court is discussed at 27.16.

The pegs of the tabernacle … of the court were the bronze “Tent pegs” (35.18 TEV)
mentioned in 27.19. (See the comment there.) And their cords were the “ropes” that were
tied to the pegs.

35.19

The finely wrought garments, literally “the clothes of serad,” were the vestments worn by
the priests. The identical expression is discussed at 31.10. For ministering in the holy place is
literally “for serving in the holy [place].” This is the same expression used in 28.43. The verb
“to minister” is discussed at 28.35, and the holy place is discussed at 26.33.

The holy garments, literally “the clothes of holiness,” refers more specifically to the
vestments for Aaron the priest. (See the comment at 28.2.) And the garments of his sons, for
their service as priests is literally “and the clothes of his sons for priesting.” The entire phrase
for their service as priests is one word, the verb form derived from the noun “priest.” (See the
comment at 28.1.)

(2) The Preparation for the Construction (35.20–36.7)

(a) The Donations Begin (35.20–29)

(a) The donations begin (35.20–29)

The special announcements that Moses gave to the Israelites are now completed, and the
action begins. (The quotation begun at verse 4 concludes with verse 19.) All of verses 20–29 is
in narrative form and in the third person.

Headings: translators who follow the Handbook’s outline should include the general
heading “The preparation for the construction” (35.20–36.7), which may also be expressed as
“The Israelites get ready to build the sacred tent.” For the section, verses 20–27, 35.19 TEV has
The People Bring Their Offerings,” 35.19 CEV has “Gifts for the Lord,” and this Handbook has
“The donations begin.” One may also combine the 35.19 TEV and 35.19 CEV models and say
“The people bring their gifts for the Lord.”

35.20

This verse is quite literal from the Hebrew, except for two expressions that are used again
and again. The people of Israel is literally “the sons of Israel,” and the presence of Moses is
literally “the face of Moses.” The expression the congregation of the people of Israel is used in
verse 1. 35.20 TEV shortens the verse into just six words, “All the people of Israel left,” and
35.20 CEV has “Moses finished speaking and everyone left.” Either model is possible. The word
for departed is the usual word for “exit,” it is the first word in the Hebrew sentence, and it
stands in contrast with the word for “enter” in the following verse.

35.21

And they came is literally “And they entered.” The place to which they came is not
indicated, but we may presume that it was wherever Moses was. The contrast of the first
word, and they came, with the first word in verse 20, “and they departed,” may be understood
as “they returned to Moses.” But those who came back included every one whose heart
stirred him, literally “every man whom his heart lifted him.” This included the women as well.
The same idea is repeated in different words, and every one whose spirit moved him, literally
“and every [one] whom his spirit urged him.” Translators should use figurative expressions like
this if it is natural style in the receptor language.

These two parallel clauses are interpreted in different ways: “everyone who was willing
and whose heart moved him” (NIV); “all those who were eager and willing to give” (TOT);
“everyone, as his heart suggested and his spirit prompted” (NAB); “everyone who was so
minded [brought] of his own free will” (REB). TAN has “everyone who excelled in ability” for the
first clause, but there is not sufficient textual support for this interpretation. TEV again
combines the two clauses into one, “everyone who wished to do so.” But this does not
adequately represent the intended emphasis.

And brought the Lord’s offering is literally “they caused to enter the offering of Yahweh.”
The word for offering literally means something lifted up or dedicated. (See 25.2.) In this case
it consisted of the various items listed in the following verses. The Lord’s offering, of course,
should be understood as “an offering to the Lord” (35.21 TEV). To be used for the tent of
meeting means that these items were to be used in the construction of the tabernacle and its
furnishings. Tent of meeting is the literal rendering of ’ohel mo‘ed, but it should be obvious
that the tabernacle (mishkan) is intended here. (See the discussion at 27.21.)

And for all its service, literally “and for all its work,” means “everything needed for use in
worship” (35.21 TEV), or “to maintain the daily worship” (TOT). And for the holy garments is the
same expression as in verse 19. Here it probably refers to the vestments both for Aaron and
for his sons. (See the comment at 28.2.)

35.22

So they came is identical with the first word in verse 21. Both men and women is literally
“men over women,” but it means women in addition to men, or “men and women alike” (NIV,
REB). All who were of a willing heart uses an adjective derived from the verb “moved,” or
“urged,” in verse 21. 35.22 TEV’s “all who wanted to” again seems to be too weak. 35.22 CEV is
a bit stronger: “Men and women came willingly.” Brought is the same word as in verse 21.

Brooches is a word that means “hook” or “clasp.” It was probably a decorative gold
ornament bent something like a safety pin. So 35.22 TEV has “decorative pins.” Earrings is the
same word used in 32.3. Signet rings means “finger-rings” (REB, TOT). The same word is used
for the larger rings on the ark of the covenant for holding the carrying poles. (See 25.12.)
Armlets is 35.22 RSV’s translation of a word for an ornament that cannot be identified with
certainty. 35.22 NRSV has changed this to “pendants,” and 35.22 TEV has “necklaces,”
interpreting them as ornaments for hanging around the neck. It is better to follow either 35.22
NRSV or 35.22 TEV.

All sorts of gold objects, literally “all articles of gold,” uses the general word that means
“utensils” in verse 13, but here it probably means “jewelry” (35.22 TEV). 35.22 CEV places this at
the beginning of the list, “and gave all kinds of gold jewelry such as pins … .” This will be a
helpful model for many translators. Every man dedicating an offering of gold to the Lord is
literally “and every man who caused to be elevated an elevation offering of gold to Yahweh.”
(See the comment on “wave offering” at 29.24.) This may suggest certain gestures in the act of
presenting these gifts of gold to Yahweh, but the main idea is clear, namely, that those who
came “presented an offering of gold to the Lord” (NAB), which was to be used in constructing
the tabernacle. Every man here means both men and women; so possible translations are
“every person” or “everyone.”

35.23

And every man with whom was found is quite literal. It is better to say, as 35.23 TEV
renders it, “Everyone who had.” The verb found carries the implied meaning of “finding by
chance,” so NAB has “Everyone who happened to have,” and NJB has “all those who happened
to own.” Blue or purple or scarlet stuff is the same phrase first used in 25.4. (See the
comment there.) Fine linen is just one word, which is mistranslated as “fine twined linen” in
25.4. 35.23 TEV again places this first in the list, as in verse 6. Goats’ hair, tanned ram’s skins,
and goatskins are all discussed at 25.4–5. Note that goatskins is no longer considered an
accurate translation of the Hebrew techashim, which 35.23 TEV, 35.23 CEV, and 35.23 NRSV
render as “fine leather.”

35.24

Every one who could make an offering of silver or bronze is literally “all lifters-up of an
offering of silver or bronze.” The word for offering is the same as in verse 5. (For bronze see
the comment at 25.3.) Brought it as the Lord’s offering is literally “they caused to enter [or,
come] an offering of Yahweh.”

And every man with whom was found is identical with verse 23. (See the comment there.)
Acacia wood is discussed at 25.5. Of any use in the work is literally “for every [or, any] work of
the service. 35.24 TEV is clear, “which could be used for any of the work.” Brought it is the
same word used earlier in the verse.

35.25–26

And all the women who had ability, literally “And every woman wise of heart,” means “All
the skilled women” (35.26 TEV), or “The women who were good at weaving cloth” (35.26 CEV).
The same expression is used in 28.3 without specifying either men or women. (See the
comment there.) Spun with their hands, literally “by her hands they spun,” refers to the
 ancient skill of spinning thread or yarn from animal or vegetable fibers. In some modern
cultures spinning is still done by hand, so spun with their hands should be retained. But since
the spinning was obviously done with their hands, some translations omit these words (REB,
TOT). 35.26 TEV even omits the word spun and assumes it is understood with the word “made.”
So and brought what they had spun may be understood as “they brought the thread [or, yarn]
which they had made.”

In blue and purple and scarlet stuff is the same formula first used in 25.4. (See the
comment there.) And fine twined linen is simply “and the linen,” which probably refers to the
“fine linen thread” (35.26 TEV) before it was woven into cloth.

All the women whose hearts were moved with ability is literally “and all the women who
their heart lifted them up in wisdom.” This may be another way of referring to the same
women as in verse 25, but it may also refer to women who specialized in spinning goats’ hair,
assuming it took special skill. 35.26 TEV takes the former view and simply has “They” in
reference to those mentioned in verse 25. But 35.26 NRSV has “all the women whose hearts
moved them to use their skill,” and TAN has “all the women who excelled in that skill.” Goats’
hair is literally “goats,” but the hair is understood. (See the comment at 25.4.)

35.27–28

And the leaders probably refers to the tribal “chiefs” (REB). They are called the “leaders of
the congregation” in 16.22 and 34.31. Brought onyx stones, literally “they caused to enter [or,
come] the stones of onyx,” refers to the two stones to be placed on the shoulder straps of the
ephod (28.9–12) and on the breastpiece of the high priest (28.20). The stones to be set,
literally “stones of the setting,” were the twelve different kinds of stones for the breastpiece
(28.17–20). (See the comment at 28.17.)

The spices were to be used for both the anointing oil (30.23–25) and the fragrant incense
(30.34–35). They were not mixed with the oil for the light. (See 25.5 and the comment there.)
The oil for the light, literally “oil for the lumi nary,” was olive oil, to be used in the lamps for
the lampstand (25.37). It was also used in the recipe for the anointing oil (30.24). 35.28 CEV
simply has a short summary of the lists of objects in verses 27 and 28, probably because they
have all been listed in detail earlier:

• 27 The leaders brought different kinds of jewels to be sewn on the special clothes and the
breastpiece of the high priest. 28 They also brought olive oil for the lamps and sweet-smelling
spices to be mixed with the incense and with the oil for ordaining the priests.

35.29

All the men and women, literally “Every man and woman,” is singular, but whose heart
moved them refers to them in the plural. Whose heart moved them is literally “who their
heart urged them.” The verb is the same as verse 21 in reference to the “spirit.” Here again
35.29 TEV’s “who wanted to” seems too weak, suggesting there were many who were not
interested. The people of Israel, literally “the sons of Israel,” comes at the end of the verse in
the Hebrew.
 To bring anything for the work is literally “to cause to enter [or, come] for all the work.”
This means “for any [or, all] of the work.” But this is specified as the work which the Lord had
commanded, inserting the English word had to show the sense of the pluperfect. This refers,
of course, to the instructions Yahweh had given to Moses on the mountain. By Moses is
literally “by the hand of Mo ses,” but it really means “through Moses” (35.29 NIV), since Moses
was not to do the work himself.

Brought it as their freewill offering to the Lord is literally “the sons of Israel brought
[caused to enter] a voluntary gift to Yahweh.” Freewill offering is one word in the Hebrew that
comes from the verb “to urge,” and which is used in the phrase whose heart moved them
earlier in this verse. TOT brings out the meaning of freewill offering with “offered their gift
voluntarily.” 35.29 TEV omits the word freewill as already understood. 35.29 CEV reorders the
clauses of the verse as follows: “Moses had told the people what the Lord wanted them to do,
and many of them decided to bring their gifts.”

(b) The Craftsmen Appointed (35.30–36.1)

(b) The craftsmen appointed (35.30–36.1)

This section gives Moses’ words to the people, informing them that Yahweh had already
chosen two men, Bezalel and Oholiab, to supervise the work. This refers back to Yahweh’s
words to Moses on the mountain in 31.1–6.

Section Heading: 35.29 TEV’s heading for this section (35.30–36.1) is “Workers to Make the
Tent of the Lord’s Presence,” while the Handbook suggests the heading “The craftsmen
appointed.” Since these verses tell about the actual appointment of Bezalel and Oholiab, as in
31.1–11 (see the section heading there), another way to express this is “Moses appoints the
special craftsmen,” or “Moses announces that Bezalel and Oholiab will be the special
craftsmen for the tabernacle.”

35.30–31

And Moses said to the people of Israel introduces Moses’ words to “the Israelites” (35.31
TEV), literally “the sons of Israel.” See is literally “You [plural] see.” Durham has “Take note,”
and NJB has “Look.” This functions in the same way as “Behold,” which is intended to command
attention. 35.31 TEV omits it entirely. The Lord has called by name is quite literal. It means
“Yahweh has singled out” (NJB), or simply “The Lord has chosen” (TEV, CEV).

Bezalel was the specially gifted craftsman who directed all the skilled work in building the
tabernacle. His name means “in the shadow of God (’El).” His father was Uri and his
grandfather was Hur, who is mentioned in 17.10 and 24.14. They were “from the tribe of
Judah” (35.31 TEV).

He has filled him with the spirit of God means, as 35.31 TEV expresses it, that Yahweh
“filled him with his power,” literally “with ruach ’elohim.” (See the comment at 31.3.) With
ability … craftsmanship is identical with 31.3, with the exception of two uses of “and.” (See
the comment there.)
35.32–33

These two verses are identical with 31.4–5 in every way, the only exception being the
addition of the word skilled at the end of verse 33. For work in every skilled craft is literally
“for work in every mission of design.” The word for skilled in verse 33 is another form of the
word translated as artistic designs in verse 32.

35.34

And he has inspired him to teach is literally “And to teach he has placed in his heart.” This
means that Yahweh “has bestowed the gift of teaching” (NJB) on Bezalel. This may be
interpreted as “the ability to teach others” (35.34 NIV), “to give directions” (TAN), or “to teach
their crafts to others” (35.34 TEV). This “ability” (35.34 TEV) was also given to Oholiab. 35.34 CEV
has a helpful model: “The Lord is urging him and Oholiab … to teach others.” Some translations
(KJV, NEB, REB), spell the name “Aholiab,” another way of pronouncing the Hebrew. He and his
father, Ahisamach, were of the tribe of Dan, literally “to the tribe of Dan.” This means they
belonged to the tribe of Dan.

35.35

He has filled them with ability is literally “He filled them [with] wisdom of heart.” (See the
comment at 28.3.) To do every sort of work done by, literally “to do all work of,” introduces
the list of four skills. The word for craftsman is a general term that refers to one who is skilled
in different crafts, such as carpentry, masonry, or metalworking. 35.35 NRSV has “artisan,” but
Durham has “metal-worker,” and TAN has “carver.” 35.35 TEV and others limit this to
“engravers,” since the word is used in this sense in 28.11. Another form of the same word is
translated as “craftsmanship” in 31.3, so it is better to use the more general term here, such as
craftsman or “artisan.”

The word for designer comes from the verb “to think,” which also means to invent as well
as create artistic things. The word for embroiderer refers to one who works with colored
fabrics, so the familiar list of yarns is mentioned again, in blue and purple and scarlet stuff.
(See the comment at 25.4.) The fine twined linen should be simply “fine linen” (35.35 TEV), as
explained at 25.4.

The word for weaver is the participle of the verb that means specifically “to weave.” Most
translations list this as the fourth skill, but 35.35 TEV considers this to have the same meaning
as embroiderer and translates “weavers” for both. It is better, however, to list four different
terms for these skills in the receptor language, if this is possible. By any sort of workman or
skilled designer is added in order to include all other skills not already mentioned. Repeating
some of the terms already used, the Hebrew literally says “a doer of all work and a designer of
designs.”

KJV KING JAMES VERSION

NEB NEW ENGLISH BIBLE

 36.1

This verse obviously belongs with chapter 35, although the division places this in chapter
36. This is a long and complex sentence in English, but the main verb, shall work, comes first in
the Hebrew. Literally the opening words are “And Bezalel shall work and Oholiab and every
man.”

Every able man, literally “every man wise of heart,” is the same as in 28.3. (See the
comment there.) In whom the Lord has put ability and intelligence is literally “whom Yahweh
gave wisdom and aptitude in them.” This may seem repetitive, but it emphasizes the fact that
Yahweh “had given” them this “skill and understanding” (36.1 TEV). In some languages it will be
helpful to put this at the beginning of the verse and say “The Lord had given to Bezalel,
Oholiab, and all the others the skills needed” or “The Lord had caused Bezalel, … to have the
skills needed.” To know how to do any work in the construction of the sanctuary is literally
“to know to make all work of service of the holy [place].” This means that they knew “how to
make everything needed to build the sacred Tent” (36.1 TEV).

In accordance with all that the Lord has commanded is simply “to all that Yahweh
commanded.” This phrase describes how they shall work, and so it needs to be connected to
the main verb of the sentence, if possible. It may be easier to divide this verse into two
sentences, or restructure it as follows:

• Bezalel and Oholiab, along with all the other craftsmen, must follow Yahweh’s instruction very
carefully. Yahweh has given them all the ability and understanding to know how to make
everything needed for building the sacred tent.”

(c) The Donations Terminated (36.2–7)

(c) The donations terminated (36.2–7)

The outline of this Handbook reveals that the first verse of chapter 36 is really the end of
the preceding section entitled “The Craftsmen Appointed.” It also shows that verses 2–7,
which are entitled “The donations terminated,” really belong to the larger unit that began with
35.20, entitled “The preparation for the construction,” with the subheading “The donations
begin.” The actual construction of the tabernacle begins with verse 8.

Section Heading: in verse 7 Moses tells the people to stop bringing gifts because there is
now enough material for building the Tabernacle and furnishing it. So this Handbook suggests
the heading “The donations terminated.” Other ways to express this are “Moses tells the
people to stop bringing gifts” or “The people don’t have to bring any more gifts.”

36.2

Much of the previous verse is repeated here, but in verse 1 it is still part of Moses’ words
to the people. This verse simply reports that Moses began to carry out Yahweh’s instructions.
And Moses called Bezalel and Oholiab simply means that he “summoned” them. The And may
be rendered as “Then” (CEV, NIV) or “So” (Durham), since this begins a new section. And every
able man is identical with verse 1. In whose mind the Lord had put ability, literally “whom
Yahweh gave wisdom in his heart,” is slightly different from verse 1.

Every man whose heart stirred him up, literally “everyone whom his heart lifted him,” is
identical with 35.21. (See the comment there.) 36.2 TEV has “who were willing to help,” and
36.2 CEV has “who were eager to work.” This suggests that some of the specially gifted people
may not have been willing. TAN has “everyone who excelled in ability,” as in 35.21, and this
restricted meaning may be what is intended here. Translators, however, may choose between
these two interpretations. In 35.21 it refers to all the people who brought offerings, but here it
refers only to those who were specially gifted for the work.

To come to do the work is literally “to draw near unto the task to do it.” TAN has “to
undertake the task and carry it out.” It is not clear whether this is what Moses told them to do,
or whether it is what their hearts stirred them to do. 36.2 TEV, 36.2 CEV, TAN, and REB take the
former view, with a comma at the end of the preceding phrase. So 36.2 TEV has “and Moses
told them to start working,” and 36.2 CEV has “Then Moses brought together these workers.”
This seems to be the intended meaning.

36.3

And they received from Moses is literally “and they took from the face [the presence] of
Moses.” This suggests that all the construction materials were with Moses. These were all the
freewill offering which the people of Israel had brought. The word for freewill offering in this
first instance should be only offering, or “contributions” (REB), without freewill. NJB has
“everything.” A different word is used in the second sentence. This offering includes all the
materials listed in 35.22–28. (See the comment on offering at 25.2.) People of Israel, literally
“the sons of Israel,” can also be rendered as “Israelites” (36.3 TEV). For doing the work on the
sanctuary is literally “for the task of the service of the holy [place],” as in verse 1.

They still kept bringing him freewill offerings every morning is literally “and they, they
caused to enter [or, brought] unto him still a voluntary gift by morning by morning.” In this
second instance the word for “freewill offering” is the same as that used in 35.29. The
emphatic they refers to the people of Israel, not to the special workers whom Moses had
called. 36.3 TEV repeats “people of Israel” to make this clear. (Similarly also 36.3 NIV, REB, and
NAB.)

36.4–5

So that all the able men seems to continue a long sentence, but literally it is “and all the
wise [men],” referring to “every able man” in verse 2. They were “the skilled men” (36.5 TEV),
“the artisans” (36.5 NRSV, TAN), “The craftsmen” (REB), or “the skilled craftsmen” (36.5 NIV).
Who were doing every sort of task on the sanctuary is literally “the doers of every task of the
holy [place].” It is enough to say “who were doing the work” (36.5 TEV), since this is already
clear from the preceding verses. Came, literally “they entered,” is the main verb, which in the
Hebrew comes first in the sentence. The sentence pictures the men arriving in order to speak
to Moses.
 Each from the task that he was doing is omitted by 36.5 TEV and 36.5 CEV, since it seems to
repeat what has already been said. Literally the Hebrew says “a man of [or, to] a man from his
work which they were doing,” and in this way it emphasizes that every single craftsman came,
even though they had already started some specific task in the construction of the tabernacle.

And said to Moses introduces their exact words. The people bring much more than
enough is literally “the people are makers of more than enough to bring.” The present
progressive “are bringing” (TEV, 36.5 NRSV) is better than simply bring. Enough for doing the
work is literally “enough of the service for the task.” This means “more than is needed for the
work” (36.5 TEV), or “more than is needed to build the sacred tent.” Which the Lord has
commanded us to do is literally “which Yahweh commanded to do it”; the word us is not in
the Hebrew, but it is clearly implied. 36.5 TEV uses the passive voice, “which the Lord com
manded to be done,” but in many languages the active voice will be used; for example, “what
Yahweh has commanded us to do,” or even “what the Lord has assigned us to do” (36.5 CEV).

36.6–7

So Moses gave command is literally “and Moses commanded.” And word was proclaimed
throughout the camp is literally “and they caused a sound to pass through the camp.” The
pronoun “they
437

” is indefinite, so 36.7 RSV and others use the passive form, was proclaimed. The two
clauses together introduce the words of the command, so they may be understood as “Moses
sent a command through out the camp” (36.7 TEV), or as “Moses issued this order throughout
the camp” (TOT). The exact words of the “command” are marked with the Hebrew word
“saying.” 36.7 TEV changes the direct quote to indirect. However, in some languages one will
need to use the direct quote; for example, “So Moses told them to tell all the people, ‘None of
you have to give any more things for the sacred tent.’ ”

Let neither man or woman do anything more is literally “A man and a woman shall not
make still a task.” This is like a third person imperative, which 36.7 NRSV changes to “No man or
woman is to make anything else.” The Hebrew specifies both man and woman, but 36.7 TEV
considers this to be understood with “no one.” NJB has “No one, whether man or woman.” For

437Osborn, N. D., & Hatton, H. (1999). A handbook on Exodus. UBS handbook series; Helps for
translators (805). New York: United Bible Societies.

RSV Revised Standard Version

TEV Today’s English Version

TOT TRANSLATOR’S OLD TESTAMENT

NRSV New Revised Standard Version

NJB NEW JERUSALEM BIBLE

the offering of the sanctuary is literally “for the contribution for the holy [place].” The word
for offering is the same word used in the first part of verse 3. (See the comment at 25.2.)

So the people were restrained from bringing is literally “and the people were kept back
from bringing [or, causing to enter].” There is no object for bringing, so it may be added from
the context: “bringing gifts” (REB), or “bringing more” (36.7 NIV). 36.7 TEV has “So the people
did not bring any more,” but the verb for were restrained carries the idea of being prevented.
NJB is better: “So the people were prevented from bringing any more.” In languages that do
not use the passive voice, one may say, for example “so they [unknown agents] stopped the
people from bringing any more.”

For the stuff they had was sufficient is literally “and the task [or, work] was their
sufficiency.” The pronoun they may refer either to the people who had brought the materials
or to the workers who now had these materials to work with. TAN takes the former view, “their
efforts had been more than enough,” and 36.7 NIV takes the latter view, “what they already
had was more than enough.” 36.7 TEV avoids taking one or the other view, by changing to the
passive voice: “What had already been brought was more than enough,” and 36.7 CEV has “But
there was already more than enough to do what needed to be done.” Translators are urged to
follow 36.7 TEV or 36.7 CEV. To do all the work, and more is literally “to do [or, make] and to
have remaining.”

(3) The Construction of the Tabernacle (36.8–38)

(a) The Curtains (36.8–19)

(a) The curtains (36.8–19)

From verse 8 to the end of the chapter, there are three sections that describe how the
various parts of the tabernacle were constructed. This repeats much of the detail found in
chapter 26.

Headings: translators who follow the Handbook’s outline should include the general
heading “The construction of the tabernacle” (36.8–38), which may also be rendered as “They
build the sacred tent.” For the heading of the section, verses 8–19, see the discussion on the
same Section Heading at 26.1-14.

36.8

And all the able men among the workmen is literally “All the wise of heart in [or, among]
workers of the task.” (For “wise of heart” see the comment at 28.3.) This refers to “the most

REB REVISED ENGLISH BIBLE

NIV NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION

TAN TANAKH (NEW JEWISH VERSION)

CEV Contemporary English Version

skilled men among those doing the work” (36.8 TEV). Made the tabernacle, literally “they
made the mishkan,” refers to the tent itself and not to the outer court surrounding it. (See the
introductory comment to chapter 26.) With ten curtains, literally “ten tent-fabrics,” seems to
be dangling in the Hebrew. The word with is added. It is better to repeat the verb with a new
sentence as in 36.8 TEV, “They made it out of ten pieces.” (See 26.1.)

They were made of interprets the words “he made them,” which in the Hebrew come at
the end of the verse. (See the comment below.) Fine twined linen is two words in the Hebrew,
identical with 26.1. Blue and purple and scarlet stuff is also identical with 26.1. (See the
comment there.)

With cherubim carefully worked is literally “keruvim, work of reflection.” But “work of
reflection” may also be understood as “work of a skilled craftsman.” (See the comment at
26.1.) Since the focus seems to be on the material rather than on the craftsman, it is better to
follow 36.8 NRSV, “with cherubim skillfully worked into them,” or 36.8 TEV and 36.8 CEV,
“embroidered with figures of winged creatures.” (For cherubim see the comment at 25.18.)

As mentioned above, the verse ends with the words “he made them,” which RSV earlier
renders as they were made of. Some translations (NIV, REB) relate this singular verb to the
“work of a skilled craftsman,” another possible rendering of carefully worked. ASV even has
“Bezalel made them.” In comparing this verse with 26.1, however, “he made them” simply
replaces “you will make them,” which was spoken to Moses. (NJB even has here “Moses made
it.”) Most translations therefore take the singular “he” to refer to Bezalel and the other skilled
craftsmen. So 36.8 TEV has “they made,” and 36.8 CEV translates “The skilled workers got
together to make.” This is true in a number of the following verses as well.

36.9–10

Verse 9 is identical in every way with 26.2. Since the entire verse has no verb in the
Hebrew, it is only the context in translation that places the verbs was and had in the past
tense. Each curtain was “14 yards long and 2 yards wide” (36.10 TEV), or “twelve metres long
and two metres wide.”

Verse 10 is slightly different from 26.3. And he coupled five curtains to one another is
literally “and he joined five tent-fabrics one unto one.” And the other five curtains he coupled
to one another is almost the same as the first clause, literally “and five curtains he joined one
unto one.” Other has been added in translation. The singular pronoun he may refer to either
Bezalel or to Moses. But in translation it is better to use the plural “they,” since it is clear from
verse 8 that the work was done by “all the able men.” 36.10 CEV changes to the passive voice,
“and they were sewn,” and this will be a possible solution in many languages.

36.11–12

ASV AMERICAN STANDARD VERSION

 And he made loops … is almost identical with 26.4, with the main difference in the verb,
and he made. 36.12 TEV and others have “They made,” in keeping with the context. (see verse
8.) Likewise he made them … is also identical except for the verb. The same choice of words
used in 26.4 should be used here.

Verse 12 is almost identical with 26.5. Here again the verb is changed from “you shall
make” to he made, which is better translated as “they made.” The loops were opposite one
another is literally “matching [were] the loops one unto one.” (In 26.5 it is “a woman unto her
sister.”)

36.13

This verse is almost identical with 26.6. Only the verbs are different he made, (he)
coupled, and (it) was. The singular he made, however, should be changed to “they made” on
the basis of verse 8. Coupled is better rendered as “joined” (36.13 NRSV). One whole means
“one piece.” 36.13 NIV has “so that the tabernacle was a unit.”

36.14

This verse is identical with 26.7 except for the verb he made, which should be rendered as
“they made” (36.14 TEV) on the basis of verse 8 above.

36.15–16

Verses 15–16 are practically identical with 26.8–9a. Verse 15 has no verb in the Hebrew,
and neither does 26.8, so the context must determine the tense of the verbs was and had in
place of “shall be” and “shall have” in 26.8.

He coupled replaces “you shall couple” in 26.9, but it is better to translate “they joined”
(36.16 NIV), using the plural instead of the singular he, on the basis of verse 8. 36.16 CEV
translates this as “were joined,” again using the passive voice. 36.16 TEV’s “they sewed five of
them together” is the correct meaning.

The last part of 26.9 is not repeated here, probably because it simply involved the folding
over the excess material when the tent was erected. This was not a detail for the construction
but for the final assembly.

36.17–18

Verse 17 is quite similar to 26.10, with only a few minor differences. The verb he made, of
course, replaces the verb “you shall make.” With this change it may be translated in the same
way.

Verse 18 is not identical with 26.11, but the meaning is the same. And he made fifty clasps
simply changes the verb from a command spoken to Moses (26.11) to the narrative account
here, that Bezalel and his assistants actually “made fifty bronze hooks” (36.18 TEV). He made
should be changed to “they made” (36.18 TEV), as explained above. 36.18 CEV has “were put.”
(see verse 8.) To couple the tent together describes only the purpose of the clasps; it does not
state here that the two pieces were actually joined at this time. The final assembly of the
various parts of the Tabernacle is recorded in chapter 40 as part of the grand climax of the
book.

36.19

This verse is identical with 26.14, with the verb “you shall make” changed to And he made.
But again 36.19 RSV is a mistranslation of the Hebrew, which refers to two separate coverings,
not just one. (See the comment there.)

(b) The Framework (36.20–34)

(b) The framework (36.20–34)

Section Heading: see the discussion on the same Section Heading at 26.15–30.

36.20–2136.22

Verses 20–22 are practically identical with 26.15–17, except that the verbs are changed
from instructions in the second person singular to reporting the actual construction in the third
person singular. This means that all the verbs—he made, was, had, and he did this—are the
only change. Here again, however, it is better to use the third person plural—“they made”
(36.22 TEV), and “they did the same” (REB, TAN)—on the basis of verse 8 above. (See the
comment there.)

The only other difference is that in verse 22 the phrase for fitting together is literally “one
unto one,” as in verses 10 and 12 above. In 26.17 it is literally “a woman unto her sister.” (This
is also true for 26.3, 5, 6.) Since the meaning is exactly the same, translators should probably
not try to reflect this difference between these parallel passages.

36.23–24

Verses 23–24 are almost identical with 26.18–19, but again the verbs here show
completed action and are translated in the past tense. And the second person (“you”) is
changed to third person (he). He made thus is literally “he made,” with thus added to
introduce the details that follow. 36.24 NRSV has “in this way,” and NAB has “as follows.” 36.24
TEV changes the he to “they” and omits the first clause as unnecessary. (So also 36.24 NIV.)

The problem of the two tenons, which 36.24 TEV translates as “two projections,” is
discussed at 26.19.

36.25–2636.27

Verses 25–27 are identical with 26.20–22 except for the verb he made, which is added in
verse 25. In verse 27 it is changed from “you shall make” to he made, to show that the
construction was actually completed. As in the other parallel verses, it is better to change he
made to “they made” on the basis of verse 8 above. Again 36.27 CEV uses a passive expression,
“were used.”

NAB NEW AMERICAN BIBLE

36.28–29

Verses 28–29 are almost identical with 26.23–24. In verse 28 the verb he made replaces
“you shall make” in 26.23, and in verse 29 the same verb replaces “shall it be” in 26.24. In both
cases he made should be changed to “they made.” (See verse 8 above.) A few other
differences should make no difference in the translation.

The two words, separate and joined, present a textual problem that is identical with the
problem in 26.24. (See the comment there.) HOTTP gives the same interpretation and rating in
both places.

36.30

Verse 30 is identical with 26.25 in every way except for the last phrase. Under every frame
two bases is literally “two bases two bases under one frame” (repeating “two bases”), while in
26.25 it is literally “two bases under one frame and two bases under one frame.” 36.30 RSV
shows this difference by shortening the phrase. 36.30 TEV translates the same in both places,
“two under each frame.” There is no difference in meaning.

36.31–32

Verses 31–32 are almost identical with 26.26–27. And he made is used instead of “and you
shall make,” showing that these instructions were carried out. It is good to change the verb to
“They made” on the basis of verse 8. 36.32 TEV again adds “fifteen” in the first part of the verse
for a more natural rendering.

In verse 32 the word side is not used for the rear of the tabernacle as it is in 26.27. In both
places, however, 36.32 TEV correctly has “on the west end, at the back.” Other than this the
differences are insignificant.

36.33

This verse is almost the same as 26.28. The verb he made is added here, and the infinitive
to pass through replaces the participle in 26.28. From end to end probably means “from one
end of the Tent to the other,” as 36.33 TEV interprets it. 36.33 CEV has “running the full length
of the wall.” (See the comment at 26.28.) He made, of course, should be changed to “they
made.”

36.34

This verse is almost the same as 26.29, with the verbs, he overlaid (twice) and made,
showing the completed action to the earlier commands, “you shall overlay” and “shall make.”
The singular verb he overlaid should be made plural, “They overlaid” (36.34 NIV and others) in
order to show that Bezalel was not the only one doing the work. (see verse 8 above.)

(c) The Veil and the Screen (36.35–38)

HOTTP HEBREW OLD TESTAMENT TEXT PROJECT

(c) The veil and the screen (36.35–38)

Section Heading: see the discussion on the same Section Heading for 26.31–37

36.35

This verse is practically the same as 26.31, with the verbs changed to he made to show
completed action. As in the preceding verses, 36.35 TEV properly changes he made to “they
made,” since there were skilled craftsmen assisting Bezalel. (see verse 8 above.) The veil uses
the definite article in contrast to 26.31, since it has already been mentioned. This refers to the
“curtain” that was to separate the Holy Place from the Holy of Holies. As in 26.36, a different
Hebrew word is used for the “screen.” (see verse 37 below.)

36.36

This verse shows the completed action of the work commanded in 26.32. He made should
be “they made,” and the verbs overlaid and he cast should likewise be made plural, as
explained in the comments above. Acacia is used here without the addition of “wood,” as in
verses 20 and 31 above. It may be necessary in some languages, however, to say “acacia
wood.” For them, of course, refers to the four pillars and not to their hooks. (See the
comment at 26.32.)

36.37

This verse is identical with 26.36, with the only difference in the verb he also made. As
explained above, this is better rendered as “they made,” in order to include the other skilled
workers who assisted Bezalel. (see verse 8.) The definite article is not used here as it is for “the
veil” in verse 35, but it may be used in translation. This is the screen mentioned in 26.36,
which is a different Hebrew word from that used for the “veil.”

36.38

This verse corresponds with 26.37, but there are differences that should be shown in
translation. And its five pillars is a continuation of the previous verse and depends upon the
verb “he also made.” With their hooks is literally “and their hooks,” with the pronoun their
referring to the pillars. (See the comment on hooks at 26.37.)

He overlaid their capitals is literally “and he overlaid their heads,” meaning the “tops” of
the “posts” (36.38 TEV). This should not suggest a decorative crown at the top of the pillars like
those in Solomon’s Temple. (In 1 Kings 16 a different He brew word is used.) Although it is not
stated in the Hebrew, “with gold” (36.38 TEV) should be understood. Note that in 26.37 the
entire posts were to be “overlaid,” but here only the “tops” are mentioned. This does not
necessarily mean that the posts were not overlaid. Some consider this to be a clarification of
36.37, but it should not influence the translation there. 36.38 CEV has “They made five posts,
covered them completely with gold, … ,” and this of course includes the tops.

And their fillets were of gold refers to either the “bands” (36.38 NRSV) or “rods” (36.38
TEV) that were similar to those for the posts used for the courtyard enclosure. The term for
fillets is first used in 27.10. (See the comment there.) For these “posts,” however, they were
made of gold, not of silver.

But their five bases were of bronze is literally “and their five bases bronze,” with the verb
were understood. The use of but shows the contrast with the gold, although it is the common
conjunction waw. So a few translations simply have “and” instead of but.

(4) The Construction of the Furnishings (37.1–38.8)

(a) The Ark (37.1–9)

(a) The ark (37.1–9)

As mentioned in the introductory comments to chapter 35, the sequence of the items to
be constructed in chapters 35–39 is more logical, from a construction standpoint, than the
sequence given in the “blueprint chapters” (25–31). As recorded in chapter 36, the tabernacle
was the first thing to be made, and then followed the furnishings.

The sequence of these furnishings now begins with the most sacred piece, the Ark of the
Covenant, and then moves to the other furnishings in what seems to be a descending degree
of holiness. We assume this on the basis of how close or how far they were to be placed in
relation to the Holy of Holies. It is significant that the Altar for Incense was constructed before
the Altar for Burnt Offering, which was to be placed outside the tent itself.

Headings: translators who follow the Handbook’s outline should include the general
heading “The construction of the furnishings” (37.1–38.8). See the comment on a similar
heading at 25.10–40. On the section heading “The ark” (37.1–9), see the comment on the
same section heading at 25.10-22.

37.1–2

Verses 1–2 repeat the details mentioned in 25.10–11. The wording is almost identical, but
here Bezalel is named as the one who made the ark. The definite article the is used here
instead of “an ark” in 25.10, since this is now “old information.” But in some languages it will
be more natural style to retain the indefinite article. In contrast with 25.10, which says “they
shall make an ark,” it seems that Bezalel alone actually did the work, at least as far as the ark is
concerned. (See also 36.8.)

And he overlaid it uses the same verb as 25.11, but here the verb is not repeated as it is
there. The only other difference is that here, in reference to the molding, the Hebrew says “he
made it for the ark,” while in 25.11 it says “upon the ark.” 37.2 TEV has “put a gold border
around it,” and 37.2 CEV has “and put a gold edging around the top.”

37.3

This verse is identical with 25.12 with two exceptions. The verb he cast here shows the
completed action. And the verb “you shall put” in 25.12 is not used here. It is only implied that
he actually attached the rings to the sides of the ark. It may be necessary in some languages to
make it clear that he “attached them” (37.3 TEV) to the sides of the ark, if this will not be
understood otherwise. 37.3 NIV adds the words “and fastened them.”

37.4–5

Verses 4–5 are identical with 25.13–14 with the exception of the verbs he made, he
overlaid, and he put, which show the work was done by Bezalel exactly as Yahweh had
specified to Moses. One other minor difference is that 25.14 has “to carry the ark by them,”
whereas here it is simply to carry the ark. 37.5 TEV puts “carrying poles” at the beginning of the
verse, whereas 37.5 CEV has the idea of “carried” in the final sentence, “so the chest could be
carried by the poles.” In languages that do not use the passive, one may say, for example, “so
that they could use the poles to carry the chest.”

37.6

This verse is identical with 25.17, with the exception of the verb And he made, meaning
that Bezalel did the work.

37.7–8

Verses 7–8 are almost identical with 25.18–19. The verb he made, used three times, is of
course changed to completed action. In verse 7 the Hebrew word order is the same, but 37.8
RSV rephrases it by placing the semicolon in a different place. In verse 8 on its two ends is
literally “from its two ends,” while in 25.19 it is literally “upon its two ends.” As in 25.19, of
one piece with the mercy seat is an interpretation of the literal “from the kapporeth,” which
37.8 TEV renders as “they formed one piece with the lid.” Either interpretation is possible. (See
the comment there.)

37.9

This verse is identical with 25.20, with the only change in the verbs from incomplete to
completed action, which in English is from future to past tense. (See the comment there.)

(b) The Table (37.10–16)

(b) The table (37.10–16)

Section Heading: see the comment on the same section heading for 25.23–30.

37.10–11

These verses are identical with 25.23–24. The verbs he made (two times) and he overlaid
are in past tense to show the completed action in the Hebrew. One other difference in verse
10 is that the table now has the definite article the instead of “a table” in 25.23. 37.11 TEV has
the definite article, but 37.11 CEV retains the indefinite one. Either one is possible.

37.12

This verse is identical with 25.25 with the exception of the verb he made, which is now in
the past tense. (See the comment there.)
37.13–15

These verses are almost the same as 25.26–28. The following differences should be noted:
All the verbs are now in the past tense to show that the action is completed. He cast is more
specific than “you shall make” in 25.26. (But see the comment at 25.12.) As holders for the
poles, literally “houses for the poles,” does not have the word as in the Hebrew, but it is
present in 25.27. The mean ing, of course, is the same, and 37.15 RSV translates it the same.
(See the comment there.)

37.16

This verse is similar to 25.29, but the word order is not the same. A compari son in RSV
reveals the difference. And he made the vessels, literally “and he made the articles,” uses the
same general term for vessels that is frequently used for all kinds of “accessories” (NJB), or
“utensils” (TOT). (In 3.22 it is used for “jewelry.”) The context here identifies these vessels as
plates, dishes, bowls, and flagons, using the same terms as in 25.29. (See the comment there.)

Its bowls and flagons is changed from “its flagons and bowls” in 25.29, but probably there
is no intended difference in meaning. The following phrase, with which to pour libations,
should be understood to refer to both the bowls and the flagons, not just to the flagons. 37.16
TEV retains the same order as in 25.29, but it is better to follow the Hebrew here, unless it is
more natural to speak of “jars and bowls” than it is of “bowls and jars.” 37.16 CEV has a helpful
model for this verse: “Everything that was to be set on the table was made of pure gold—the
bowls, plates, jars, and cups for wine offerings.”

(c) The Lampstand (37.17–24)

(c) The lampstand (37.17–24)

Section Heading: see the comment on the same section heading for 25.31–40.

37.17

This verse is almost identical with 25.31, with only two differences: The verbs, he also
made, were made, and were, are here in the past tense to show that the work was completed.
And the definite article the is used in the lampstand, since this is now old information. In
25.31, which mentions the menorah for the first time, it is “a lampstand.” (See the comment
there.)

The same textual problem occurs here as in 25.31, where a few translations read the word
for shaft in the plural, with the meaning of “branches.” (See the comment there.) It is better,
however, to follow the MT and understand it as the “central stem” of the lampstand (TOT).

37.18–19

MT MASORETIC TEXT
 These verses are exactly identical with 25.32–33, with only the verb and there were
changed from “and there shall be.” In the Hebrew on the other branch is literally “on one
branch,” without the definite article, as in 25.33. Translators, however, should probably not try
to show this minor distinction.

37.20–21

Verses 20–21 are identical with 25.34–35, except that the word lampstand is repeated at
the end of 25.35. In verse 21, however, the Hebrew simply has going out of it. In verse 20 the
verb were has been added in translation, since there is no verb at all in the Hebrew.

37.22

This verse is identical with 25.36, with only the verbs were and was being changed from
future tense to past tense, showing the completed action of the Hebrew verbs.

37.23–24

These verses are similar to 25.37–39, but there are several significant differences,
especially in verse 23. The verbs, of course, are here rendered in the past tense. The second
part of 25.37 is omitted entirely in verse 23, since it refers to the placement of the lamps
rather than to how they were made. Verse 24 is almost the same as 25.39, but all its utensils is
different from “all these utensils.”

The seven lamps, as 37.24 RSV, 37.24 CEV, 37.24 NIV, and others translate, seem to have
been made of pure gold, whereas in 25.37 it is not indicated what material was used. (See the
comment there.) 37.24 TEV may be correct in separating the first part of verse 23 from the
second part with a comma, for the MT shows a major mark setting the word for lamps apart
from the other things. Thus the words of pure gold may be understood as referring only to the
snuffers and the trays. The ceramic oil lamp was used so widely in Israelite households that we
would expect the Hebrew text to be more explicit than it is. However, it is probably better to
assume that these lamps were also made of gold.

(d) The Altar for Incense (37.25–28)

(d) The altar for incense (37.25–28)

Section Heading: see the comment on the same heading for 30.1–10.

37.25

This verse combines the information given in 30.1–2. The altar of incense is what is
described in 30.1 as “an altar to burn incense upon.” The verb he made shows that Bezalel
carried out Yahweh’s instructions, “you shall make.” Beginning with the words its length, the
rest of the verse is identical with 30.2 except for the verb were, literally “they were.” The verb
was, repeated four times in 37.25 RSV, is not in the Hebrew, but it is clearly understood by the
context.

37.26
 This verse is identical with 30.3 except for the verbs he overlaid and he made, which
replace the commands “you shall overlay” and “you shall make.”

37.27–28

These verses correspond with 30.4–5. The verbs, of course, are changed from future tense
to past tense in the translation, to show the completed action indicated by the Hebrew verbs.
In verse 27 the verb “they shall be” (30.4) is omitted. As holders for the poles is literally “for
houses for the poles.” Other than these differences the text is the same as 30.4–5. (See the
comment there.)

(e) The Oil and the Incense (37.29)

(e) The oil and the incense (37.29)

This verse summarizes all the detail in 30.22–38. It must be assumed that Bezalel followed
those recipes carefully.

Section Heading: see the comment on “The oil” at 30.22–33 and on “The incense” at
30.34–38.

37.29

The holy anointing oil is literally “the oil of the anointing, holy.” It is similar to “the sacred
anointing oil” in 30.25, using the same words in slightly different form.

The pure fragrant incense, literally “the fragrant incenses, clean,” uses the plural form as
in 25.6 with the collective or singular meaning. Blended as by the perfumer is literally “work of
a mixer.” This is slightly different from the expression in 30.35, but 37.29 RSV translates it in the
same way. This should not suggest that a professional perfumer other than Bezalel did the
mixing. The meaning is simply that he mixed it, “blending it as a perfumer would” (NJB).
Durham has “a spice-mixer’s blend,” and TAN has “expertly blended.”

(f) The Altar for Burnt Offering (38.1–7)

(f) The altar for burnt offering (38.1–7)

The construction of the bronze altar and the bronze basin complete the furnishings for the
tabernacle. Since they are to be placed outside the tent itself, they are to be overlaid with
bronze instead of gold. The final thing to be built was the curtained enclosure that would
surround the open courtyard around the tabernacle. With this the tabernacle was completed,
and so the chapter closes with the tabulation of all the metals used. The only thing remaining
to be done was the making of the priestly garments for Aaron and his sons. This is reported in
chapter 39.

Section Heading: see the comment on “The altar” at the Section Heading for 27.1–8. For
“burnt offering” see the comment at 29.18.

38.1
 This verse is quite similar to 27.1. There this altar is simply called “the altar,” but here it is
called the altar of burnt offering, literally “the altar of what is caused to go up [in smoke].”
(See the comment on ‘olah at 29.18.) This was the altar placed in the open courtyard where
animals were sacrificed and burned whole. REB calls it “the altar of whole-offering.” 38.1 TEV
rephrases this clause to show its purpose: “For burning offerings, he made an altar out of
acacia wood.” The pronoun he refers to Bezalel, who was responsible for the work. 38.1 NIV
prefers to say “They built the altar,” in order to include the others who helped him, but the
Hebrew still holds to the singular he.

The rest of the verse is the same as 27.1, except that the pronoun its is used on all three
measurements—its length, its breadth, and its height. The verbs, of course, are changed from
incomplete (future) to complete (past), since these closing chapters show that the instructions
given to Moses were actually carried out.

38.2

This verse follows 27.2 exactly, except that the three verbs are changed to the past tense:
he made, were, and he overlaid. See the comment there.

38.3

This verse is similar to 27.3, listing the five utensils in the same order. Note here, however,
that the word utensils is used twice, and the five items all have the definite article the, which
is not used in 27.3. Similarly the possessive pronoun “its,” used for each item in 27.3 (but not
translated in 38.3 RSV), is used here only in the final clause, all its utensils. The word for
utensils is the general term that may be translated in many different ways, such as
“equipment” (38.3 TEV), “accessories” (NJB), or “vessels” (ASV).

38.4–5

These verses combine the information in 27.4–5 in different order. The verbs he made and
he cast are again in past tense to show that the work was completed. For the altar replaces
“for it” in 27.4. Under its ledge, halfway down uses the same words as 27.5, but this is
mentioned before the reference to the four rings. (See the comment there on the meaning of
ledge and halfway down.)

He cast four rings uses the same verb used in 25.12, which is more specific than the verb
“to make” in 27.4. This suggests that the metal was melted and poured into a mold. It is not
stated here what metal was used for these rings, but we know from 27.4 that it was bronze
instead of gold. On the four corners is a bit confusing. Literally it says “in the four extremities,”
which here refers to corners. But to say that he cast these rings on the four corners evidently
means, as 38.5 TEV expresses it “he made four carrying rings and put them on the four
corners.” 38.5 CEV is a little more precise: “Then he attached a bronze ring beneath the ledge
at the four corners to put the poles through.”

As holders for the poles, literally “in houses for the poles,” is not used in 27.4, but the
expression is used in and 30.4.
38.6–7

These verses include the same details given in 27.6–8 with only a few changes. Verse 6
condenses what is commanded in 27.6, and of course it changes the tense of the verbs to
show completed action. And he put the poles through the rings is literally “and he caused the
poles to enter into the rings.” Note that it says the poles and not “its poles” as in 27.7. And
here it says on the sides of the altar, not “the two sides of the altar.” To carry it with them,
literally “to carry it by them,” is changed from “in carrying it” in 27.7.

He made it hollow, with boards is identical with the first part of 27.8, with the exception
of the change in the verb. This probably means “he made it as a hollow wooden box” (TOT), or
“was shaped like an open box” (38.7 CEV). (See the comment at 27.8.)

(g) The Bronze Basin (38.8)

(g) The bronze basin (38.8)

Section Heading: see the comment for the same heading for 30.17–21.

38.8

This verse needs to be set off as a separate section. It should be checked against 30.18, for
the first part is identical except for the necessary change in the verb. (See the comment there.)
The words “for washing” are not repeated here, since this verse only states that Bezalel made
it. The instructions concerning this “bronze basin” (38.8 TEV) are given in 30.17–21, but nothing
is said there about its size or how it should be made. Here, however, we are at least told where
the bronze came from.

From the mirrors of the ministering women who ministered is literally “in [or, by] mirrors
of the [female] servers who served.” The feminine participle (“servers”) is used from the verb
that usually refers to military service. But in Num 4.33 the verb is used in reference to the
Levites, who were expected to “enter for service” in the tabernacle. Just who these women
were and how they “served” (38.8 TEV) is not indicated, so the translator must simply work
with the text as it we have it.

The mirrors were evidently made from highly polished bronze, which was commonly used
for this purpose in the ancient Near East. It is interesting to note that the “bronze basin and its
bronze base” are not listed in verses 30–31 below, so the purpose of this verse may be simply
to explain the source of the bronze. It was evidently not a part of the special offering to
Yahweh mentioned in 35.24.

At the door of the tent of meeting is literally “opening of ’ohel mo‘ed,” which probably
refers to the tabernacle (mishkan), even though it was not yet built. It is unlikely that the small
tent of meeting mentioned in 33.7 would ever have required the services of a corps of women.
(See the introductory comment to chapter 26.)

(5) The Construction of the Court Enclosure (38.9–20)

 Section Heading: see the comment on the heading for 27.9–19. The heading here, “The
construction of the court enclosure,” may also be expressed as “They made the curtains and
posts for the courtyard [or, flat enclosed space] around the sacred tent.”

38.9–11

These verses should be translated following the pattern of 27.9–11. (See the comments
there.) The following differences should be noted: And he made the court changes the verb to
show completed action, and the court should be understood to refer to “the court of the
tabernacle.” The word for court, however, as in 27.9, actually refers to the open space around
the tabernacle, which Bezalel of course could not make. But it is used here for the hangings of
the court, which were the curtains that would mark off the “enclosure” (38.11 TEV).

In verse 10 the Hebrew here actually has their pillars instead of “its pillars,” so the textual
problem in 27.10 does not occur here. This is also true for their bases. The problem of the
dangling phrase of bronze, however, is identical with that in 27.10. Note that 38.11 NRSV
revises the structure of 38.11 RSV to make it clear that the pillars were also made of bronze:
“its twenty pillars and their twenty bases were of bronze.” Others interpret the phrase to refer
only to the bases (NIV, REB). 38.11 TEV again has “twenty bronze posts in twenty bronze bases,”
and 38.11 CEV has “He used twenty bronze posts on bronze stands.” Translators are urged to
follow this interpretation. (But see also 26.32, where it is clearly stated that the pillars for
holding up the veil of the Most Holy Place were actually of acacia wood and overlaid with
gold.)

Verse 11 repeats for the north side what has already been said about the south side,
almost word for word. 38.11 TEV, as in 27.11, has therefore condensed this verse out of
consideration for the intended audience. Nothing has been lost except the repetition, which
may be important in some languages.

38.12

This verse corresponds to the instructions in 27.12. (See the comment there.) The Hebrew
has no verb in this verse, so the verb were has been added twice in 38.12 RSV. The words “the
breadth of the court” are not repeated here, but the rest of the wording is the same. The last
clause, which is missing in 27.12, simply repeats what has been said for the south and the
north sides. (The use of sockets in 38.12 RSV is inconsistent, for the same Hebrew word is
translated “bases” in verse 11 and elsewhere.)

38.13–16

Verses 13–15 repeat almost word for word what is said in 27.13–15, and verse 16 repeats
part of 27.18. The word order is different, especially in verse 15, which reads literally “and for
the second shoulder, from this and from that to the gate of the court, hangings of fifteen
cubits, their pillars three and their bases three.” TEV again combines these verses in order to
bring out the meaning more clearly: “On each side of the entrance there were 7½ yards of
curtains, with three posts and three bases.” (The British edition has “6.6 metres of curtains.”)
 Verse 16 summarizes what was true for all hangings, namely, that they were all made from
fine twined linen, literally “fine linen twisted.” (See the comment at 26.1.)

38.17

This verse is similar to 27.17, but the items are listed in different order. The bases are
listed first, then the hooks and the fillets. (For hooks see the comment at 26.32; for fillets see
the comment at 27.10.)

Their capitals refers to “the tops of the posts” (38.17 TEV), as in 36.38. (See the comment
there.) They are not mentioned in 27.17. Since these pillars were a greater distance from the
Holy of Holies, their “tops” (38.17 TEV) were overlaid with silver rather than gold. Only the
pillars of the tent itself had the gold.

All the pillars … filleted with silver is literally “they [were] filleted [with] silver all pillars of
the court.” This is almost identical with the first part of 27.17. Only the word order is changed.
As explained there, this may mean either that each post had “silver bands” (38.17 NIV), or that
they were all “connected with silver rods” (38.17 TEV). 38.17 CEV combines verses 9–17,
summarizing the repeated information. Some translators will find this model helpful:

• 9–17 Around the sacred tent Bezalel built a courtyard one hundred fifty feet long on the south
and north and seventy-five feet wide on the east and west. He used twenty bronze posts on
bronze stands for the south and north and ten for the west. Then he hung a curtain of fine
linen on the posts along each of these three sides by using silver hooks and rods. He placed
three bronze posts on each side of the entrance at the east and hung a curtain seven and a half
yards wide on each set of posts.

38.18

This verse follows the instructions given in 27.16 and 18, but there are differences in the
word order. The screen, of course, should be distinguished from the “veil,” as explained at
26.36. Embroidered with needle work is also discussed at 26.36. (For the materials and the
colors, see the comments at 26.1 and 25.4.)

Five cubits high in its breadth, literally “and height in breadth five cubits,” is an awkward
expression. It refers to the entire piece of material for the screen, which was twenty by five
cubits, or “10 yards” by “2½ yards” (38.18 TEV). (In the British edition it is “9 metres long and 2
metres high.”) But when it was hung the breadth of the material would become the height of
the “curtain” (38.18 TEV). Corresponding to the hangings of the court refers to 27.18, which
specifies that the hangings all around the entire “enclosure” (38.18 TEV) were to be five cubits
in height. The word for corresponding means “just like,” or “in keeping with” (NAB).

38.19–20

These verses repeat the rest of the information given in 27.16–19. Their pillars is the same
grammatical problem as in 27.16, for there seems to be no antecedent for the pronoun their.
This may be changed to “its pillars,” referring to the “screen” in verse 18. 38.20 TEV has “It was
supported by four posts.” Their four bases, of course, refers to the pillars or “bronze posts”
(38.20 CEV). The overlaying of their capitals is the same as verse 17 above. This expression is
not included in chapter 27 but is found in 36.38. (See the comment there.) And their fillets
suggests that the “rods” (38.20 TEV) or “bands” (38.20 NRSV) were also overlaid with silver. (See
the comment on fillets at 27.10.)

Verse 20 is the same as 27.19, except that there is no reference to the “utensils … for
every use.” (See the comment there.)

(6) A Tabulation of the Metals Used (38.21–31)

This section records the inventory of all the gold, silver, and bronze that was used in the
construction of the tabernacle. The inventory was evidently made before the construction
actually began. There is no parallel to this in the earlier “blueprint chapters,” since the gold
and the bronze was what the people gave voluntarily as recorded in 35.21–24, and the silver
was what was collected from the census tax that Moses had been commanded to take in
30.11–16. The total weight of the metal came to more than 15,000 pounds, according to this
tabulation.

Section Heading: the headings suggested by 38.20 TEV and this Handbook are very similar.
Other possibilities are “A list of the metals used in the sacred tent,” or “The metals that Bezalel
and Oholiab used for the sacred tent.”

38.21

This is the sum of the things for the tabernacle is only three words in the Hebrew, literally
“these [the things] mustered of the tabernacle [mishkan].” 38.21 RSV has added the words the
things for. The word for sum is the passive participle of the verb meaning to muster or call to
account, which is difficult to translate in this context. 38.21 NRSV has changed this to “These
are the records of the taberna cle,” following TAN. But what follows is, as 38.21 TEV puts it, “a
list of the amounts of the metals used.” Others call it “an account” (NAB) or “an inventory”
(TOT). Translators will notice that the list of metals doesn’t begin until verse 24. So it is possible
to put verses 22 and 23 before verse 21. (See the model after verse 23.)

The tabernacle of the testimony is an expression used only here in Exodus and only three
times in Numbers (1.50, 53; 10.11) It is simply another way of referring to the tabernacle itself.
TAN calls it “the Tabernacle of the Pact,” and 38.21 NRSV calls it “the tabernacle of the
covenant.” The word for testimony is sometimes used alone in reference to the stone tablets,
as in 25.16. (But see the comment on testimony at 16.34.) So TOT translates this expression as
“the Shrine of the covenant symbols.” 38.21 TEV expands this into a long clause, “where the
two stone tablets were kept on which the Ten Commandments were written.”

As they were counted at the commandment of Moses is literally “which [were] mustered
upon the mouth of Moses.” The verb counted is the same word used earlier for the sum. This
may be also rendered as “drawn up” (38.21 NRSV) or “recorded” (38.21 NIV). For the work of
the Levites means that the counting was done by the Levites, that is, the members of the tribe
of Levi. Under the direction of Ithamar is literally “by the hand of Ithamar.” Ithamar was the
 fourth and youngest son of Aaron. (See 6.23.) 38.21 CEV expresses this verse as “Moses made
Aaron’s son Ithamar responsible for keeping record of the metals used for the sacred tent.”

38.22–23

Bezalel is first introduced in 35.30. (See the comment there.) Made all that the Lord
commanded Moses is quite literal from the Hebrew, but 38.23 TEV omits Moses. This omission
may be on the assumption that Moses is understood, but it may also be an attempt to avoid
the idea that Bezalel did what Moses himself was supposed to do. It is possible to retain
reference to Moses and avoid this misunderstanding. One may say “he made everything that
Yahweh had commanded Moses to have made.”

Oholiab is first mentioned in 35.34–35, along with a listing of the skills he shared with
Bezalel. It is possible to put Bezalel and Oholiab’s kinship information in a footnote (as in CEV),
since it has already been mentioned at 35.30. (See the alternative model below.) The final part
of verse 23, beginning with a craftsman, is identical with part of 35.35. Here, however, these
skills are attributed only to Oholiab. This does not mean that Bezalel lacked these skills, and
the translator should guard against such a misunderstanding. (See the comment at 35.35.)

An alternative translation model similar to CEV, and placing verses 22 and 23 before verse
21, is the following:

• 22–23 Bezalelx had worked closely with Oholiabx, who was skilled in designing and engraving,
and in embroidering blue, purple and red wool [or, thread].

21 Moses made Aaron’s son Ithamar responsible for keeping record of the metals used for the sacred tent.

For translators using footnotes, the footnote in CEV serves as a good model:

·x 38.21–23 Bezalel … Oholiab: Hebrew “Bezalel son of Uri and grandson of Hur of the
Judah tribe had worked closely with Oholiab son of Ahisamach from the tribe of Dan.”

38.24

All the gold that was used for the work is literally “All the gold made [or, produced] for
the task.” The word for used is the common word meaning “to do,” or “to make.” In all the
construction of the sanctuary is literally “in all the task of the holy [place].” The word for
sanctuary is the general term meaning “holy.” (See 15.17.) The same Hebrew word for work is
repeated again for construction. Its specific meaning depends on the context.

The gold from the offering, literally “gold of the elevation offering,” uses the same term
discussed at 29.24. (See the comment there.) This refers to what the people donated in 35.22,
where the same term is used for all the gold objects that were dedicated to Yahweh. It is
probably sufficient to call it simply an offering, but 38.24 TEV brings out the idea of “elevation
offering,” with “the gold that had been dedicated to the Lord.” One may also say “the gold that
the people had dedicated.”

Twenty-nine talents equals about 2,175 pounds, or 991 kilograms, and seven hundred
and thirty shekels equals about twenty pounds, or nine kilograms, so the total weight was
approximately “2,195 pounds” (38.24 TEV), or “a thousand kilo grammes.” (See the comments
on the talent and the shekel at 25.39 and 30.13.) Measured by the sanctuary shekel is literally
“by the holy shekel.” (See the comment at 30.13.) 38.24 TEV adjusts this to a more meaningful
rendering, “according to the official standard,” and 38.24 CEV has “According to the official
weights.”

38.25

And the silver from those of the congregation who were numbered is literally “And silver
of those numbered of the congregation.” This refers to Yahweh’s command for Moses to
receive a census tax in 30.11–16. Here the word silver means “silver,” not just money. (See the
comment at 30.13.) The congregation refers to the Israelite “community” (38.25 TEV).

A hundred talents equals about 7,500 pounds, or 3,400 kilograms, and a thousand seven
hundred and seventy-five shekels equals about fifty pounds, or thirty kilograms. So the total
weight of silver was approximately “7,550 pounds” (38.25 TEV), or “3,430 kilogrammes.” By the
shekel of the sanctuary is literally “by the holy shekel.” (See the comment at verse 24 and at
30.13.)

38.26

A beka a head, literally “a beqabeqa‘ls; for a skull,” means “one beka per person” (38.26
NIV). The beqa‘, a unit of weight measurement, was equal to half a shekel and is mentioned

only here and in Gen 24.22, where 38.26 RSV translates “a half shekel.” It is not used in 30.13,
to which this verse refers. There is therefore no need to retain it here, so TAN has “a half-shekel
a head.” 38.26 TEV avoids using even the word shekel, but this depends on how 30.13 is
translated. That is, half a shekel is added in the Hebrew to explain what the beqa‘ was. (See
the comment on half a shekel at 30.13.) By the shekel of the sanctuary is the same as in verse
24. (See the comment there.) 38.26 CEV has a helpful model: “Everyone who was counted paid
the required amount, and there was a total of 603,550 men who were twenty years old or
older.”

For every one who was numbered in the census, literally “for every passer- over to the
counted ones,” is the same expression used in 30.13, 14. From twenty years old and upward
is identical with 30.14. (See the comment there.) For six hundred and three thousand … men
may be more easily written as “603,550 men” (38.26 TEV), but rules of style in the receptor
language should be followed consistently. This was the total number of men who had been
“enrolled in the census” (38.26 TEV).

38.27

The hundred talents of silver were is literally “And there was one hundred talent of the
silver.” This refers back to verse 25. For casting the bases of the sanctuary indicates that the
bases, first mentioned in 26.19, were made by casting. (See the comment there.) The
sanctuary, literally “the holy place,” refers to the tent itself, not including the enclosure. The
bases of the veil refers to the four bases mentioned in 26.32.
 A hundred bases … a talent for a base is a simple calculation showing that the talent must
have been the planned measurement for each base. That means that each base weighed “75
pounds” (38.27 TEV), or “34 kilogrammes.”

An alternative translation model for this verse is:

• Bezalel used seventy-five pounds of the silver to make each of the one hundred bases for the
sacred tent and the curtain.

38.28

The thousand seven hundred and seventy-five shekels accounts for “the remaining 50
pounds of silver” (38.28 TEV), or “30 kilogrammes.” (See the comment at verse 25 above.)
Shekels is not in the Hebrew, but it is clearly understood. He made hooks for the pillars refers
to the silver hooks that Bezalel made for the pillars of the court enclosure. (see verse 17
above.) The hooks for the pillars used for the veil and the screen in the tent itself were made
of gold. (See 36.36 and 38.) Overlaid their capitals and made fillets for them uses the same
terms as verse 19 above. (See the comment there.)

38.29

The bronze that was contributed is literally “And bronze of the elevation offering.” As
mentioned at verse 24 above, the term “elevation offering” is discussed at 29.24. This refers to
what the people donated in 35.24, although a different term for “offering” is used there. The
two terms are so similar that 38.29 TEV translates in the same way: “The bronze which was
dedicated to the Lord.”

Seventy talents, at 75 pounds each, amounts to 5,250 pounds, or 2,397 kilograms. Two
thousand and four hundred shekels equal about sixty pounds, or twenty-eight kilograms, so
the total is approximately “5,310 pounds” (38.29 TEV), or “2,425 kilogrammes.”

38.30–31

With it means with the bronze listed in verse 29. The bases for the door of the tent of
meeting is literally “the bases of the entrance of [the] ’ohel mo‘ed.” This refers to the bases to
go under the four posts at the “entrance” (38.31 TEV) of the tent itself, where the “screen” was
to be hung. (See 36.38.) The bronze altar and the bronze grating for it refers to the “altar of
burnt offering” in 38.1 and the “grating” mentioned in 38.4. (See the comments there.)

The bases round about the court refers to the bronze bases mentioned in verses 10–12
above. The bases of the gate of the court refers to the four bases mentioned in verse 19
above. All the pegs … about the court refers to all the pegs mentioned in verse 20 above.

(7) The Making of the Priestly Garments (39.1–31)

(a) The Ephod (39.1–7)

(a) The ephod (39.1–7)
 This chapter concludes the longest block of material in the book of Exodus, which began
with chapter 25. These fifteen chapters, which cover forty-two percent of the book, reveal the
concern the Israelites had in preserving the tradition of the building of the Tabernacle and the
preparation for the proper worship of Yahweh.

Five sections deal with the making of the priestly garments, and then the final section
summarizes the completion of all the work. It is important to note that, as each of these
vestments for Aaron and his sons is reported to have been made, the account concludes with
the formula “as the Lord had commanded Moses.” This formula occurs seven times,
emphasizing not only that they were made exactly according to Yahweh’s instructions, but also
that they were done to perfection, since the number seven is a perfect number.

In translating the major part of this chapter, frequent reference will have to be made to
chapter 28, where the details for the priestly garments are first explained to Moses. There are
a number of expected omissions, since this chapter is mainly concerned with the actual making
of the garments and not their use. But there are also some significant additions that must be
noted.

The shift back and forth from the singular pronoun “he” to the plural “they” may be
intentional, at least in the final form of the text. It indicates that, although Bezalel was in
charge of everything, there were other skilled craftsmen who assisted him. This is clearly
stated in references like 28.3 and 36.1–2.

Headings: translators who follow the Handbook’s outline should include the general
heading “The making of the priestly garments” (39.1–31), which may also be rendered as
“They make special clothes for the priests.” For a comment on the section heading “The
ephod,” verses 1–7, see the Section Heading at 28.6-14 and the comment on “ephod” that
follows.

39.1

This verse, which introduces the chapter in a general way, is a summary of 28.4–5. The
blue and purple and scarlet stuff is frequently repeated in the same form, with the word stuff
added for clarity. (See the comment at 25.4.) The usual reference to “fine twined linen,”
however, is omitted in this case. They made refers to Bezalel, Oholiab, and the other skilled
workers mentioned in 36.1. Finely wrought garments, literally “clothes of serad,” is translated
in various ways, since the meaning of serad is not clear. (See the comment at 31.10.) 39.1 TEV’s
“magnificent garments,” or CEV’s “Beautiful priestly clothes,” provide safe models.

For ministering in the holy place, literally “to serve in the holy [place],” uses the same
word for “serve” as 28.35. (See the comment there and at 28.43.) The holy garments were not
different from the finely wrought garments, but the expression is used for clothing that was
specifically for Aaron, as in 28.2. As the Lord had commanded Moses is literally “just as
Yahweh commanded Moses.” The use of the English pluperfect, with had, helps to place the
actual command of Yahweh at an earlier time, specifically in chapter 28.

39.2–3
 Verse 2 is identical with 28.6, with just two changes. The words “skilfully worked” are
omitted here but added at the end of verse 3. And the verb he made is singular rather than
plural. This probably refers to Bezalel, but some translations use the plural “they” throughout
the chapter. (So 39.3 NIV, REB, and NJB.) 39.3 CEV uses the passive voice throughout, thus
avoiding the problem. But in languages that do not have the passive voice, one may use
“they,” or even “Bezalel and his helpers,” since this is the beginning of a new chapter. As
explained above, the wider context clearly indicates that Bezalel was assisted by Oholiab and
other skilled workers whom they also trained. (See 35.34.)

The ephod is described in 28.6–8. (The Hebrew word itself is ’efod, as explained at 28.4.)
Gold probably refers to “gold thread” (39.3 TEV), which was used for the embroidery work after
the cloth was woven. (See the comment at 28.5.) This is made clear in verse 3. 39.3 TEV places
“gold thread” at the end of the verse to distinguish it from the blue and purple and scarlet
stuff, which is identical with the phrase in 25.4. The fine twined linen agrees with 28.6, not
with .

Verse 3 provides new information not given elsewhere. And gold leaf was hammered out
is literally “and they stamped [or, beat] the leaves of gold.” This means that the workmen
actually “hammered” the gold into “thin sheets” (39.3 NIV), which were then cut into threads,
or “thin strips” (39.3 TEV). The verb for cut is literally “and he cut,” shifting again to the singular
subject, but it is probably better to keep the plural “they.” 39.3 RSV and 39.3 NRSV change to
the passive voice for both verbs. (So also 39.3 CEV, REB, and NAB.) The word for threads comes
from the verb meaning “to twist,” so REB has “cut and twisted into braid,” but this may be
reading too much into the one word.

To work into the blue … is literally “to make [or, do] into the midst of the blue … .” The
Hebrew word for “into the midst of” is repeated for the purple and for the scarlet stuff. It is
also repeated for the fine twined linen, which is literally only “the [fine] linen.” (39.3 NRSV has
failed to remove “twisted” here as it has in 25.4 and elsewhere. See the comment there.) 39.3
TEV is correct in having simply “the fine linen.”

The Hebrew for in skilled design is identical with 28.6, where 39.3 RSV has “skilfully
worked.” Literally it is “work of reflection,” or “something done by a thinker,” as explained at
26.1. 39.3 TEV has omitted it here, perhaps inadvertently, but the same expression in 28.6 is
rendered as “decorated with embroidery.” (See the comment there.)

An alternative model for verse 3 may be:

• They took gold and hammered it into thin sheets. Then they cut these into strips and wove
them skillfully into the fine linen and also into the blue, purple, and red thread.

39.4–5

Verse 4 is similar to 28.7, with a few changes. They made for the ephod shoulder-pieces is
literally “shoulders they made for it, joined.” 39.5 TEV has “two shoulder straps,” transferring
the “two” from its two edges. Joined at its two edges is literally “upon two of its edges it was
joined.” 39.5 TEV has “and attached it to its sides,” assuming that the word for edges means
“sides.” (See the comment at 28.7.)

Verse 5 is almost identical with 28.8. The verb was, of course, replaces “shall be.”
Materials and workmanship are changed from “workmanship and materi als” because of the
change in word order. The only other difference is the addition of the formula as the Lord had
commanded Moses.

39.6

The onyx stones refers to the two stones mentioned in 28.9. (On the problem of whether
to use onyx or “carnelians” (39.6 TEV), see the comment at 28.20.) Were prepared, literally
“they made,” again shifts to the passive voice. 39.6 TEV has “They prepared.” Enclosed in
settings of gold filigree is identical with the expression in 28.11. Engraved like the engravings
of a signet is literally “engraved [as] engravings of a seal.” This is also based on 28.11.

According to the names of the sons of Israel is literally “upon the names … .” As in 28.9,
39.6 TEV translates this as “the names of the twelve sons of Jacob.” (See the comment there.)

39.7

This verse is almost identical with the first part of 28.12. And he set, literally “And he
placed,” replaces “And you shall set.” The singular he may refer to Bezalel, but a number of
translations use “they” throughout the chapter. (See the comment at verse 2 above.) The
various possible meanings of stones of remembrance are mentioned at 28.12. 39.7 TEV again
has “to represent the twelve tribes of Israel.” For the third time the formula as the Lord had
commanded Moses is repeated. (See the comment at verse 1 above.) 39.7 CEV begins a new
sentence: “Everything was done exactly as the Lord had commanded Moses.”

(b) The Breastpiece (39.8–21)

(b) The breastpiece (39.8–21)

Section Heading: see the same heading for 28.15–30 and the comment on “breastpiece”
that follows.

39.8–9
451

Verse 8 is almost identical with 28.15. He made replaces “you shall make,” but some
translations continue the plural “they made” (39.9 TEV) throughout the chapter. (See the
comment at verse 2 above.) “A breastpiece of judgment” in 28.15 is shortened here to the
breastpiece. The rest of the verse is exactly the same. 39.9 TEV has shortened this verse

451Osborn, N. D., & Hatton, H. (1999). A handbook on Exodus. UBS handbook series; Helps for
translators (842). New York: United Bible Societies.

TEV Today’s English Version

considerably by replacing the words of gold … linen with “of the same materials … and with
similar embroidery.”

Verse 9 is almost identical with 28.16. The verb “it shall be,” of course, is changed to it
was. The breastpiece was made double is literally “double they made the breastpiece.” The
word for double is repeated again at the end of the verse, suggesting that its size, “9 inches
long and 9 inches wide” (“22 by 22 centimetres”), was after it had been “folded double” (39.9
TEV). So 39.9 RSV and 39.9 NRSV have “when doubled.” (Similarly also REB.) NAB is clear, “in its
folded form,” and TOT makes this explicit, “square after it had been folded double.” (See the
comment at 28.16.)

39.10–1139.1239.13

These verses are nearly identical with 28.17–20. Only the verbs are changed from showing
incomplete action (future tense) to showing completed action (past tense). RSV again translates
the different kinds of stones in the same way, but there is considerable uncertainty as to the
meaning of the Hebrew terms. This is discussed at 28.17–20.

In verse 13 they were enclosed in settings of gold filigree is literally “encircled [in] settings
of gold in their settings.” Two different words are used for “settings”: The first one is identical
with 28.11 and suggests the idea of filigree. (See the comment there.) The second one is
identical with 28.20 and comes from the word that means “to fill.” 39.13 TEV’s “mounted in
gold settings” (similarly CEV) does not bring out the idea of filigree, but this is a matter of
interpretation. TAN has “frames of gold,” and REB has “gold rosettes.”

39.14

This verse is identical with 28.21 with the exceptions of the verbs, which are here
translated in the past tense to show the completed action of the Hebrew verbs. (See the
comment there.)

39.15–16

Verse 15 is the same as 28.22, with the exception of the verb, which is here literally “and
they made.” Verse 16 is quite similar to 28.23, but the reference to the two settings of gold

RSV Revised Standard Version

NRSV New Revised Standard Version

REB REVISED ENGLISH BIBLE

NAB NEW AMERICAN BIBLE

TOT TRANSLATOR’S OLD TESTAMENT

CEV Contemporary English Version

TAN TANAKH (NEW JEWISH VERSION)

filigree is added here. Literally the Hebrew has “and they made two settings of gold.” The
word for settings is the same as that used in 28.11 and only implies the idea of filigree. (See
the comment there and at verse 13 above.) These “two gold settings” (39.16 TEV) are first
mentioned in 28.13 and again in 28.25. (See the comment there.) They are mentioned again in
verse 18 below.

And two gold rings is the same as in 28.23. The rest of verse 16 is the same as 28.23, with
the exception of the verb, which here shows the completed action. (See the comment there.)

39.17–18

These two verses follow quite closely the same wording in 28.24–25. With the exception of
the verbs they put and they attached (twice), they should be translated in the same way. The
two settings of filigree, as in 28.25, is literally “the two settings,” with filigree added from the
context. 39.18 TEV just has “the two settings,” and 39.18 CEV has “gold settings on the shoulder
straps.”

39.19

This verse is almost identical with 28.26. Of course the two verbs, they made and put, are
here translated in the past tense. And put them is literally “and they put,” with the word them
missing from the Hebrew text. It must be added for clarity.

39.20

This verse is practically identical with 28.27. With the exception of the verbs they made
and attached, it should be translated in the same way.

39.21

This verse is identical with 28.27, with only a slight difference in the spelling. The one verb
and they bound must be translated in the past tense, of course. And the final clause is the
formula, as the Lord had commanded Moses, repeated here for the fourth time. (See the
comment at verse 1 above.)

(c) The Robe (39.22–26)

(c) The robe (39.22–26)

Section Heading: see the same heading for 28.31–35 and the comment on “robe” that
follows.

39.22–23

Verse 22 is the same as 28.31 with two exceptions: The verb he also made replaces “And
you shall make.” The word woven is added here, giving the explicit information that the robe
was woven. It is the same as the expression in 28.32, which literally is “work of a weaver.” But
there it refers to the binding around the opening. (See the comment there.) So one may
express this as “They [Bezalel and his helpers] wove the robe entirely out of blue thread.”
 Verse 23 says about the same thing as 28.32, but the word order is changed. And the
opening of the robe in it is literally “and the mouth of the robe in its midst.” As explained at
28.32, both 39.23 RSV and 39.23 TEV fail to bring out the idea of “in its midst.” 39.23 NRSV now
has “in the middle of it,” and 39.23 CEV has “in the center.” Like the opening in a garment, as
in 28.32, is literally “like a mouth of a tachra’.” Since the meaning of tachra’ is uncertain, there
are various ways to translate it in context. (See the comment there.)

With a binding around the opening, literally “a lip for its mouth all around,” refers to the
“binding” around the “hole for the head” (39.23 TEV). Others have “band” (39.23 NIV),
“oversewn edge” (REB), and “selvage” (NAB). 39.23 TEV calls it “a woven binding” as in 28.32,
but that is not what the text says here. The Hebrew for “woven,” literally “work of a weaver,”
is here placed in verse 22 in reference to the robe itself. Therefore 39.23 TEV’s adjustment to
conform with 28.31–32 is not recommended. CEV’s model will be helpful for many translators:
“The material around the collar was bound so as to keep it from raveling.”

That it might not be torn, literally “it will not be torn,” is identical with the phrase in 28.32.

An alternative translation model for verse 23 is:

• They shall make an opening in the center of it for the [or, his] head, and sew a special edging
around the opening to keep it from tearing.

39.24–26

These verses refer to the instructions given in 28.33–34. They are not identical in wording,
however. On the skirts of the robe is changed from “On its skirts,” but the meaning is the
same. They made is changed from “you shall make.” Pomegranates of blue and purple and
scarlet stuff is the same as 28.33, but the words and fine twined linen are added here.
Literally the Hebrew has only “twisted,” which usually follows the word for fine linen. A few
translations relate this word to the blue and purple and scarlet stuff. For example, REB
translates it as “finely woven,” and TAN has “twisted,” referring to the same thing. For some
reason this word is missing in the MT, but it probably should be added here.

Bells of pure gold is changed from “bells of gold” in 28.33. And put the bells … changes
the word order of 28.34. The verb put, literally “and they put,” is not used at all in 28.33–34.
The bells, of course, refers to the “bells of gold,” as they are called in 28.33. The word gold is
not repeated again here, in contrast to the repetition of “golden bell” in 28.34. Upon the skirts
of the robe round about is the same as in 28.34, but it is advanced here in verse 25 before the
repetition of verse 26. Between the pomegranates, literally “in the midst of the
pomegranates,” is repeated twice here, whereas 28.33 has simply “between them” one time
only.

NIV NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION

MT MASORETIC TEXT
 The first part of verse 26 is identical with 28.34, except that “a golden bell” is simply a bell.
The second part of verse 26 is added. For ministering is literally “to serve,” the same word
used in 28.35. (See the comment there.) And for the fifth time the formula as the Lord had
commanded Moses is added. (See the comment at verse 1 above.)

(d) The Additional Garments (39.27–29)

(d) The additional garments (39.27–29)

Section Heading: the subheading “The additional garments” may be more easily translated
as “Other clothes for Aaron and his sons.”

39.27–30

These verses follow the instructions given in 28.39–43, but they refer specifically to the
wording in 28.39–40 and 42. They also made the coats refers both to the coat for Aaron
(28.39) and the coats for his sons (28.40). Here it is clear that even the coats for the sons were
woven of fine linen. Literally the Hebrew says “[fine] linen, work of a weaver.”

The turban of fine linen is the same as in 28.39. This was just for Aaron, not for his sons.
(See the comment there.) The caps of fine linen refer to what the sons were to wear. Here the
Hebrew has “head-dresses of the head-bands,” but in 28.40 only the word for “head-bands” is
used. (See the comment there.) Only a few translations try to bring out this difference: REB has
“tall headdresses” and Durham has “high-hat headwear.” Since we cannot be certain of the
type of headdress for the sons, most translations simply combine the two and refer to them as
in 28.40.

The linen breeches are mentioned in 28.42, where they are also called literally
“undershorts of linen.” The word for linen refers to the common quality. But the surprising
thing is that here the words for fine twined linen are also given. So 39.29 NRSV has “the linen
undergarments of fine twisted linen.” This suggests that these breeches may have been made
from a finer quality of linen than the instructions specified.

The girdle refers to the instructions in 28.39, and since it is singular it must refer only to
Aaron’s “sash” (39.29 TEV). This was also of fine twined linen and of blue and purple and
scarlet stuff, even though 28.39 does not mention this. But it was embroidered with
needlework, literally “work of an embroiderer.” This is specified in 28.39. (See the comment
there.) Nothing is said about the girdles for the sons, which are mentioned in 28.40. As the
Lord had commanded Moses is now repeated for the sixth time. (See the comment at verse 1
above.)

(e) The Headpiece (39.30–31)

(e) The headpiece (39.30–31)

Section Heading: the Handbook’s heading for this subsection, “The head piece,” may also
be expressed as “The plate of gold for the Aaron’s turban” or “The gold ornament for Aaron’s
turban.”
39.30–31

These verses follow the instructions given in 28.36–37, with a few changes. The verbs
again are changed to show that the instructions were carried out. The plate of the holy crown
of pure gold is a combination of “a plate of pure gold” in 28.36 and “the holy crown” in 29.6.
As explained at 28.36, the gold plate was probably made first and then attached to the holy
crown. The inscription was made on the plate rather than on the crown. And wrote upon it
an inscription is literally “and they wrote upon it a writing.” This is different from “engrave on
it” in 28.26. But like the engraving of a signet is the same. The word like is added to clarify the
meaning. (See the comment on “engravings of a seal” at 28.11.) Holy to the Lord, literally
“holy to Yahweh,” is identical with 28.36.

And they tied to it a lace of blue uses a different verb from that in 28.37, and the direct
object is the lace rather than the plate. Here it is literally “and they put upon it a thread of
blue.” To fasten it to the turban above is literally “to put [it] upon the turban from above.”
Note that the literal Hebrew does not say that they then tied the plate to the turban, as 39.31
TEV suggests. At this time the lace was attached to the plate in preparation for tying it to the
turban. Lev 8.9 further suggests that the plate itself was not fastened to the turban until the
time when Aaron was actually installed as high priest. There is no mention here of “the front of
the turban” as in 28.37, even though 39.31 TEV includes the phrase. This follows 28.37 rather
than , which is an unnecessary adaptation. 39.31 CEV has simply “which was fastened to
Aaron’s turban.”

As the Lord had commanded Moses is repeated now for the seventh time. (See the
comment at verse 1 above.)

(8) The Completion of the Work (39.32–43)

This section forms a fitting conclusion to the “construction chapters” that began in chapter
35. It parallels the listing in 35.10–19 of the various articles of the tabernacle that are to be
constructed. Here is a similar list of these items after they have been completed. They are all
brought to Moses unassembled, in preparation for the grand climax when the complete
tabernacle is assembled under Moses’ direction “on the first day of the first month” (40.1), and
the Presence of Yahweh finally comes to dwell with the people.

Section Heading: 39.31 TEV and this Handbook have the same heading, “The completion of
the work.” CEV’s heading is similar, “The Work Is Completed.” If translators wish to use a
complete sentence, a possible model is “Bezalel and his helpers complete the work.”

39.32

Thus all the work … was finished is literally “And came to an end all the service [or,
labor].” The word for work comes from the root meaning “to serve” and is the same word
used in 1.14 for the “hard service” of slavery into which the Israelites had been forced by the
king of Egypt. Here now, at the close of the book, this “service” has been devoted to Yahweh in
building the tabernacle of the tent of meeting. Literally the Hebrew has “the mishkan of the
’ohel mo‘ed,” an interesting combination of the terms from two separate traditions. (See the
introductory comment to 33.7–11.) Since the two terms are here used for the same thing, it is
better to consider them as being in apposition to one another. 39.32 TEV uses only the one
term for both, “the Tent of the Lord’s presence,” but this hides the significance of these two
traditions now being merged. 39.32 CEV avoids any mention of the tabernacle. 39.32 NIV is
better, “the tabernacle, the Tent of Meeting.” Another way to express this is “The sacred tent,
where the people will meet with Yahweh.”

And the people of Israel had done, literally “and the sons of Israel made [or, did],” uses
the English pluperfect (with the word had) to indicate that this was now finished. According to
all that the Lord had commanded Moses is similar to the formula used seven times previously
in this chapter. Here, however, the word all is now added as a summary. So had they done is
literally “thus they did.” This only emphasizes what has already been said, so some translations
omit it.

39.33–34

And they brought the tabernacle to Moses, literally “And they caused the mishkan to
enter unto Moses,” is the introductory statement to the list of items that follows. The
tabernacle, as it is used here, refers to the sum total of all the parts that are listed, and it is not
yet put together. The assembling of all these parts is reserved for chapter 40.

The tent is the ’ohel, referring to all the curtains for the tent shrine in 26.1–5. All its
utensils means “all its parts” (Durham) that will still have to be put together. The list is the
same as in 35.11. (See the comment at 35.10-11.) The word for utensils is the same general
term that may mean “equipment” (39.34 TEV), “furnishings” (TAN), “appurtenances” (NAB), or
“accessories” (NJB).

The covering of TANned rams’ skins and goatskins is another mistranslation in 39.34 RSV,
for two separate coverings are mentioned. Literally the Hebrew says “the covering of the skins
of rams, the ones dyed red, and the covering of the skins of the techashim.” 39.34 NRSV has
corrected this, “the covering of TANned rams’ skins and the covering of fine leather.” These
are not included in the list of 35.11–19 but are mentioned in . (See the comments at 25.5 and
26.14.)

The veil of the screen is mentioned in 35.12. (See the comment there.) It refers to the
“curtain” (39.34 TEV) that was to separate the Holy Place from the Holy of Holies. (See 26.31.)

39.35–37

The ark of the testimony is listed simply as “the ark” in 35.12. This expression is first
mentioned in 26.33. (See the comment there.) This ark, of course, is the same as “the ark of
the covenant” (39.37 NRSV), or “the Covenant Box” (39.37 TEV), but the testimony refers to the
“reminders,” or “the commandments” (NAB) written on “the stone tablets” (39.37 TEV) that

NJB NEW JERUSALEM BIBLE

were placed inside. With its poles is literally “and its poles.” The mercy seat was the “lid”
(39.37 TEV) to the “Box.” (See the comment at 25.17.)

The table, listed in 35.13, is described in and 37.10. With all its utensils includes the
carrying poles as well as the different “vessels” mentioned in 25.29 and 37.16. The bread of
the Presence is mentioned in 25.30. (See the comment there.)

The lampstand of pure gold is literally “the pure lampstand [menorah].” The word gold is
not in the text, but it is implied from the description in 25.31 and 37.17. And its lamps is
literally “with its lamps” (39.37 NRSV). These were the seven lamps mentioned in 25.37 and
37.23. With the lamps set is literally “lamps of the row.” This may mean that the lamps were
already placed on the lampstand, or that they were “arranged” (Durham) in some order, or
that they were “to be set in a row” (TOT). NAB has “with its lamps set up on it,” which seems
most likely. 39.37 TEV and 39.37 CEV omit this phrase entirely.

And all its utensils refers to the “snuffers” and “trays” that were to be kept with the
lampstand. (See the comment at 25.38 and at 37.23.) And the oil for the light, literally “and
the oil of the luminary,” refers to the olive oil to be burned in the lamps. (See the comment at
25.6.)

39.38–39

The golden altar refers to the “altar of incense” in 35.15. This is described in 30.1–4 and
37.25–27. The anointing oil is described in 30.23–25. The fragrant incense is described is
30.34–35. The screen for the door of the tent is listed in 35.15 as “the screen for the door, at
the door of the tabernacle.” This refers to “the curtain for the entrance of the Tent” (39.39
TEV). (See the comment at 26.36.)

The bronze altar refers to the “altar of burnt offering” described in 38.1–2. (See also
27.1–2.) Its grating of bronze, literally “the bronze grating which is to it,” is mentioned in
27.4–5 and 38.4. (See the comments there.) Its poles are described in 27.6–7 and 38.6. All its
utensils includes the five different items listed in 27.3 and 38.3. The laver and its base,
mentioned in 35.16, is the bronze “washbasin and its base” (39.39 TEV) described in 30.18 and
38.8. (See the comments there.)

39.40

From the hangings of the court to the gate of the court, the text is almost identical with
35.17. (See the comment there.) Its cords, and its pegs refers to the “ropes” and the “Tent
pegs” (39.40 TEV). The pronoun its refers specifically to the court, or “enclosure” (39.40 TEV),
but it should be understood to include those for the tabernacle as well. (See 35.18 and 38.20.)

All the utensils for the service of the tabernacle has no parallel in 35.11–19. The word for
utensils is a general term that may be translated in various ways, depending on the context.
TOT here takes it to mean “all the tools used in erecting the Shrine.” This is a possible
interpretation, since the service of the tabernacle is the same expression translated as “the
work of the tabernacle” in verse 32 above. (See the comment there.) However, it probably
refers in summary to “all the equipment to be used in the Tent” (39.40 TEV), that is, in carrying
out the ceremonies and rituals of worship in the tabernacle.

For the tent of meeting is another example of the two terms, representing two separate
traditions, brought together in the editing process to refer to the same thing. 39.40 NIV makes
this clearer with a slight adjustment: “all the furnishings for the tabernacle, the Tent of
Meeting.” As in verse 32, this may be expressed as “all the furnishings for the sacred tent,
where the people will meet with Yahweh.”

39.41

This verse is exactly identical with 35.19 and should be translated in the same way. (See
the comment there.)

39.42–43

Verse 42 is almost identical with the second part of verse 32 above. Only the word order is
changed. All the work is literally “all the service [or, labor],” as in the first part of verse 32. So
verse 42 concludes the section in the same words as it begins (verse 32).

And Moses saw all the work is quite literal. The word for work may mean “task,” or
“labor,” or “mission.” It is not the same word used in verse 42. The word for saw may also
mean “examined” (39.43 TEV) or “inspected” (REB and others). So this means that Moses
probably gave “everything” that had been made a thorough examination. And behold is the
frequently used marker for calling attention to what follows—in this case, they had done it.
Most translations omit behold, but some bring out the emphasis in different ways: “and in
fact” (Durham), “and here” (Fox), “indeed” (NJB), “exactly” (TOT).

As the Lord had commanded, so had they done it repeats the same idea for emphasis.
The addition of the word had, the English pluperfect, helps to show that the work had already
been done. And Moses blessed them means that Moses spoke some words of good fortune
for them. His blessing was probably in the form of a pronouncement, calling on Yahweh to
grant them all the good things in life, such as health, happiness, and long life.

THE EPILOGUE: THE LORD’S PRESENCE (40.1–38)

The climax of the book comes in the final chapter. After all the parts of tabernacle have
been completed, with strict attention being given to all the details specified in Yahweh’s
instructions, the day has come for putting everything together and setting up this structure.
This chapter is more than just a narrative account of how the tabernacle was finally put
together; it is a theological statement of the presence of Yahweh now coming to dwell with his
people. It therefore completes the fourth relationship described in the book of Exodus,
namely, the relationship of the Lord with his chosen people.

In the first two sections of this chapter, there is really no new information given, except
that the day of erection was to be “the first day of the first month” and “the first month of the
second year” after the departure from Egypt. (See verses 1 and 17.) The significantly new
development is reported in the final section, where the cloud of Yahweh’s presence comes
down to dwell with the people and to continue with them as they journey onward toward the
land of promise.

1. The Lord’s Final Instructions (40.1–15)

This section may be divided into two, for verses 1–8 deal with the actual erection of the
tabernacle, and verses 9–15 deal with the act of anointing everything, including Aaron and his
sons, after things are all set up.

Headings: translators who follow the Handbook’s outline should include the general
heading “The epilogue: The Lord’s presence” (40.1–38), which may also be expressed as “The
final part [or, conclusion]: Yahweh comes to dwell [or, be] with his people.” For this section,
verses 1–15, 39.43 TEV has the heading “Setting Up and Dedicating the Tent of the Lord’s
Presence,” and CEV’s is similar, “The Lord’s Tent Is Set Up.” Other ways to express this are
“They set up the sacred tent, and Moses dedicates it” or “Moses has them set up the Lord’s
tent.” The Handbook, as noted above, has a more general heading, “The Lord’s final
instructions.” This may also be expressed as “The Lord gives Moses final instructions.”

40.1–2

The Lord said to Moses is literally “And Yahweh spoke to Moses saying.” This is the longer
formula used at 25.1; 30.11; and elsewhere. (See the discussion of ’amar and dibber at
25.1–2.) On the first day of the first month is literally “In the head day of the month, in the
first month.” This was the first day of the new year. (see verse 17 below.)

You shall erect, literally “you will cause to stand up,” is addressed only to Moses, using the
singular you. This does not suggest, however, that Moses is to do all of this by himself. The
form of the verb is not imperative, but 40.2 TEV, 40.2 CEV, and 40.2 NIV suggest the idea of a
command, with “Set up.” The tabernacle of the tent of meeting is literally “the mishkan of
[the] ’ohel mo‘ed.” The two terms are again brought together as in 39.32, but they are
referring to the same thing. It is better to consider them in apposition, as in 40.2 NIV, “the
tabernacle, the Tent of Meeting.”

40.3

And you shall put in it is literally “And you [singular] shall place there.” The ark of the
testimony, of course, refers to the “ark of the covenant” (40.3 NRSV), as at 25.22. This
expression focuses on the idea of “reminder,” which refers to the terms of the covenant
written on the stone tablets. So 40.3 TEV has “the Covenant Box containing the Ten
Commandments.”

And you shall screen the ark with the veil is literally “and you [singular] shall isolate the
ark with the veil.” The word for veil is the same word used in 26.31, which is distinguished
from the “screen” in 26.36. However, the word for screen here is the verb from which the
noun “screen” is derived. It means to block off, or “screen off” (TAN), or “shield” (40.3 NIV).

40.4–5
 And you shall bring in, literally “and you [singular] shall cause to enter,” is used twice in
verse 4. The table is described in 25.23–27 and 37.10–14. And set its arrangements in order,
literally “and you shall arrange its arrangement,” refers to the things that were to be placed on
the table. 40.5 TEV has “and place the equipment on it,” which suggests the “gold vessels” that
are mentioned in 37.16. But it may also refer to the bread that is to be placed there (see verse
23 below). TOT has “and set in order what is to be placed upon it,” and 40.5 CEV has “and set on
it those things that are made for it.” This allows for both “the equipment” and the bread.

The lampstand is the menorah, described in 25.31–36 and 37.17–22. And set up its lamps
is literally “and you [singular] shall cause its lamps to go up.” This expression is used in 25.37.

And you shall put uses the verb meaning “to give,” but here it means to “place” or “set.”
The golden altar for incense is described in 30.1–4 and 37.25–27. Before the ark of the
testimony, literally “to the face of the ark of the reminder,” means “in front of the Covenant
Box” (40.5 TEV), or “in front of the sacred chest” (40.5 CEV). But this, of course, was on the
other side of the “veil.” (see verse 3.) And set up the screen for the door of the tabernacle
refers to the outer “curtain” (40.5 TEV) that was to be “at the entrance to the Tent,” that is, to
the Holy Place.

40.6–7

You shall set uses the same word as in verse 5, where 40.7 RSV has “you shall put.” The
altar of the burnt offering is described in 27.1–5 and 38.1–4. Before the door of the
tabernacle is literally “to the face of the entrance of the mishkan.” This means that this altar
was to be placed outside the “Tent” but “in front of the entrance” (CEV, 40.7 NIV, NAB, REB). 40.7
TEV’s “in front of the Tent” may not be clear enough. The tabernacle of the tent of meeting is
the same as in verse 1.

And place the laver uses the same word for place as for set in verse 6. The laver is the
bronze “washbasin” that is mentioned in 30.18 and 38.8. Between the tent of meeting and
the altar means that the bronze altar for sacrifice had to be placed far enough from the
entrance to the tent itself that there was enough space for the laver. And put water in it is
literally “and you shall give water there.” The same word is used again for put. 40.7 TEV’s “fill it
with water” is not clearly stated, but it is a possible interpretation. (So also 40.7 CEV, NJB, and
TOT).

40.8

And you shall set up the court round about is literally “And you [singular] shall place the
chatser all around.” As explained at 27.9, the meaning of chatser is “open space,” so this really
refers to the “surrounding enclosure” (40.8 TEV), or the curtained fence that marked off the
open space. Round about really means “on all four sides” (Durham), and should not be
understood as circular in shape.

And hang up the screen for the gate of the court is literally “and place the screen for [the]
gate of the chatser.” The word for hang up is the same word used in verses 5, 6, and 7, but it is
 different from the word for set up. It refers to the “curtain” that was to be placed at the
“entrance” into the open space (chatser). This is described in 27.16 and 38.18.

40.9

Verses 9–15, as stated above, may be considered a separate section, since they deal with
the anointing of all the parts of the tabernacle, including the priests. Then you shall take,
literally “And you shall take,” is still addressed to Moses, using the singular you. The anointing
oil is described in 30.23–25 and is mentioned again in 37.29. And anoint the tabernacle,
literally “and you shall anoint the mishkan,” suggests that Moses was to apply the anointing
oil on the tent itself. (See the comment on anoint at 28.41.) And all that is in it refers to all the
different parts of the tabernacle.

And consecrate it is literally “and you shall make it holy.” This is probably not a separate
action from that of anointing but rather the result of it. (See the comment at 28.41.) 40.9 TEV
has “Dedicate … by anointing,” which is the same interpretation followed by 40.9 CEV, REB, NAB,
TAN and others. And all its furniture uses the general term for “accessories” (NJB), “furnishings”
(40.9 NIV), “equipment” (40.9 TEV), or “everything in it” (40.9 CEV). This includes the earlier
reference to all that is in it. And it shall become holy means that the entire tabernacle and
every part of it will be set apart for sacred use. 40.9 CEV expresses this meaning with “dedicate
the tent and everything in it to me.” This implies that it will acquire a special quality of taboo
so that it must be handled only by those appointed to do so.

40.10–11

These verses repeat the same words used in verse 9, except that here the altar of burnt
offering and the laver are mentioned separately. This is probably because they were to be
placed outside the tent itself. This altar, however, shall be most holy, which is literally “it shall
be holy of holies.” 40.11 TEV renders this as “completely holy,” and NJB has “especially holy.”
One may also express this as “completely set apart for me” or “only used for my service.” This
shows the importance of the altar in the sacrificial worship of the people. (See 29.37.) The
laver and its base are mentioned separately, but they will not have the same degree of
holiness.

An alternative translation model for verses 10–11 is:

• 10 Also take the sacred olive oil and anoint the altar to dedicate it for offering sacrifices, along
with its equipment. The altar must be completely set aside for me. 11 Also dedicate the
washbasin and its stand in the same way so that it too will be set apart for me.

40.12–13

Then you shall bring Aaron and his sons is literally “And you [singular] shall cause Aaron
and his sons to draw near.” This does not necessarily mean that Moses was to escort them.
One may say “you shall have them draw near,” or even “you shall have them bring Aaron and
his sons to … .” To the door of the tent of meeting refers to the “entrance of the tent” itself
(40.13 TEV). This was where the washbasin was placed. (See verses 6–7 above.) And shall wash
them with water is exactly what the text says. 40.13 TEV has “and have them take a ritual
bath,” but this may be influenced by verse 31 below. It was certainly to be “a ritual bath,” but
Moses himself was to do the washing. (See the comment at 29.4.) NJB has “bathe them
thoroughly,” but this is a doubtful interpretation.

And put upon Aaron the holy garments is literally “and you [singular] shall clothe Aaron
with the clothes of holiness.” Here it seems that Moses himself was to put “the priestly
garments” (40.13 TEV) on Aaron. These are “the sacred vestments” (40.13 NRSV) mentioned in
chapters 28 and 39. And you shall anoint him and consecrate him is similar to the instructions
in 28.41. (See the comment there.) Since this probably refers to just one action, 40.13 TEV has
“anoint him, and in this way consecrate him,” and 40.13 CEV has “use the sacred oil to ordain
him.” (See also the comment at verse 9 above.) That he may serve me as priest is literally “and
he will priest to [or, for] me,” using a verbal form of the word for priest. (See the comment at
28.1.)

40.14–15

You shall bring his sons also, literally “And his sons you [singular] shall cause to draw
near,” uses the same verb as verse 12. And put coats on them, literally “and you shall clothe
them with tunics,” uses the same verb as verse 13. These are the coats mentioned in 39.27.
(See the comment at 28.4.)

And anoint them, literally “and you shall anoint them,” still depends on you shall in verse
14. As you anointed their father is quite literal, but it should be clear in translation that this is
still part of Yahweh’s instructions, and Aaron has not yet been anointed. This may be
understood in the sense of the English future perfect, “just as you will have anointed their
father,” or one may say “and ordain them in the same way as you will ordain their father.”
Durham has “you are to anoint them as you shall have anointed their father.” 40.15 CEV simply
has “and ordain them in the same way.” That they may serve me as priests is literally “and
they will priest to [or, for] me.” (See the comment at verse 13 above.)

And their anointing shall admit them is literally “and their anointing shall become to be
for them.” The idea of shall admit them, which 40.15 NRSV retains, suggests that their
ordination is an initiation. To a perpetual priesthood is literally “for a priesthood of long time.”
Throughout their generations is literally “to [or, for] their generations.” After all this has been
put together, it may be stated in different ways: “This anointing will make them priests for all
time to come” (40.15 TEV); “Their anointing is to authorize them for priestly ministry down
through their generations in perpetuity” (Durham); “This anointing will confer an everlasting
priesthood on them for all their generations to come: (NJB); “Their anointing inaugurates a
hereditary priesthood for all time” (REB); “so that they and their descendants will always be my
priests” (40.15 CEV). 40.15 CEV will be the easiest to follow in many languages.

2. The Erection and Consecration of the Tabernacle

(40.16–33)
 Section Heading: the Handbook has a subsection here with the heading “The erection and
consecration of the tabernacle.” This may also be expressed as “Moses has them erect the
sacred tent, and he dedicates it” or “The sacred tent is erected and dedicated.”

40.16–17

Verse 16 is considered by some translations (NIV, TAN) to be a part of the preceding

paragraph. It seems better to have it introduce this new section that actually tells what Moses
did, step by step. Thus did Moses is literally “And Moses did.” According to all that the Lord
commanded him is a new clause that ends with the verb phrase so did he, literally “thus he
did.” The whole verse may be shortened as 40.17 TEV has done, “Moses did everything just as
the Lord had commanded.”

And in the first month in the second year, on the first day of the month is literally “and it
was in the head month in the second year in the first to [or, for] the month.” This is an
expanded form of verse 2. Here the second year is added. This makes it one year from the
time the Israelites left Egypt and ten months after they arrived at Mount Sinai. (See 12.2 and
19.1.) The tabernacle was erected, literally “the mishkan was caused to stand up,” refers back
to the instruction given in verse 2. Another way to express this final clause is “they erected the
sacred tent,” meaning that people under the supervision of Moses (see below) put up the tent.
However, it is also possible to use the passive voice throughout this chapter as 40.17 CEV has
done, “the sacred tent was set up.”

40.18–19

Moses erected the tabernacle uses the same verb as in verses 2 and 17. The third person
singular is used throughout this section, meaning that Moses supervised all the work of setting
up the tabernacle. It should not be thought that Moses did all of this by himself while the
people stood and watched. This would have been impossible. So in many languages one may
express this as “Moses had them erect the tabernacle.”

He laid its bases, literally “he gave [or, put] its bases,” may be rendered as “Moses put
down its bases” (40.19 TEV) or “he put the bases in place” (40.19 NIV). (See 26.19.) And he set
up its frames, literally “and he placed its frames,” may be rendered as “erected the frames”
(40.19 NIV) or “inserted the frames” (REB). (See 26.15.) And put in its poles, literally “and he
gave [or, put] its bars,” may be rendered as “attached its crossbars” (40.19 TEV), “inserted its
bars” (TAN), or “its crossbars were inserted.” (See 26.26.) And raised up its pillars, literally “and
he caused its pillars to stand up,” may be rendered as “put up its posts” (40.19 TEV) or “set up
its columns” (NAB). 40.19 CEV puts all of this into the passive voice, “The posts, stands, and
framework were put in place.”

And he spread the tent over the tabernacle is literally “and he spread out the ’ohel upon
the mishkan.” This uses the same expression as 26.7 and 36.14, so it refers to the eleven
curtains of goats’ hair that had been fastened together (see 36.8–10) and spread out over the
ten linen curtains of the mishkan (see 36.8). We must assume that the linen curtains were
already spread out upon the framework, although this step is not listed.
 And he put the covering of the tent over it, literally “and he placed the covering of the
’ohel upon it from above,” refers to the third layer made of “tanned rams’ skins” (26.14), and
possibly the fourth layer as well, which was made of tachash skins. Here we must think of the
covering as having two layers, but it should not affect the translation. (See the discussion of
the problem at 26.14.)

As the Lord had commanded Moses is the same formula used repeatedly in chapter 39.
(See the comment at 39.1.) It is again used seven times in this chapter. (See the introductory
comment to chapter 39.) Because this is describing what Moses did, it is more natural to say
“as Yahweh had com manded him.” NAB has “as the Lord had commanded him” here and in all
the following instances. 40.19 CEV has “These things were done exactly as the Lord had
commanded Moses,” with the implicit meaning that Moses had others do the work. 40.19 TEV
simply omits Moses entirely, “just as the Lord had commanded.”

40.20–21

And he took the testimony means that “he took the two stone tablets” (40.21 TEV). (See
the comment at verse 3 above.) And put it in the ark means that he placed “them” inside “the
Covenant Box” (40.21 TEV). The Hebrew literally says “and he took and he gave the testimony
unto the ark.” Two separate actions are not intended by this Hebrew expression, so one may
simply say “he placed the stone tablets inside the ark.” MFT has “He placed the law inside the
ark.” at has “Taking the decrees, he put them inside the ark.” 40.21 CEV states “The stones with
the Ten Commandments written on them were stored in the sacred chest.”

And put the poles on the ark, literally “and he placed the poles upon the ark,” means that
he inserted them through the rings that were on the sides of the ark. And set the mercy seat
above on the ark, literally “and he gave [or, put] the kapporeth upon the ark from above,”
simply means that he “put the lid on it” (40.21 TEV). (But see the comment at 25.17.)

And he brought the ark into the tabernacle, literally “and he caused the ark to enter unto
the mishkan,” means that “he put the Box in the Tent” (40.21 TEV). And set up is literally “and
he placed.” The veil of the screen is literal but confusing, for it uses the two terms that
distinguish the veil of the Holy of Holies from the screen of the Holy Place. (See 26.33 and 36.)
It is better to say “the curtain for screening” (40.21 NRSV) or “the shielding curtain” (40.21 NIV).
And screened the ark of the testimony, literally “and he isolated [or, covered over] the ark of
the testimony,” uses the same verb as verse 3 above. The noun for screen comes from this
same verb.

As the Lord had commanded Moses is the second use of the formula first used in 39.1.
(See the comment there and at verse 19 above.) As explained at verse 19, it is better to say “as
Yahweh had commanded him.” Because of the repetition in this verse, it may be more natural
simply to say “Then he put the ark inside the tent, hung up the veil, and screened if off, just as
Yahweh had commanded him” or “The chest was brought into the tent and set behind the

MFT MOFFATT
curtain in the most holy place. These things were done exactly as the Lord had commanded
Moses” (40.21 CEV).

40.22–23

And he put the table in the tent of meeting is literally “And he gave [or, put] the table in
the ’ohel mo‘ed.” And on the north side of the tabernacle is literally “on the side of the
mishkan northward.” Once again the two Hebrew terms are referring to the same thing. It is
better here to omit the tent of meeting and use only the tabernacle. (See the introductory
comment to chapter 26.) One may simply say “he placed the table [for the sacred bread] inside
the tabernacle on the north side.” Outside the veil means that it was placed in the larger room
of the tent and not inside the Holy of Holies.

And set the bread in order on it is literally “and he arranged upon it an arrangement of
bread.” TAN has “Upon it he laid out the setting of bread,” and NAB has “and arranged the
bread on it.” Before the Lord, literally “to the face of Yahweh,” means “in the Presence of
Yahweh” (Durham). As the Lord had commanded Moses may be changed to “as the Lord had
commanded him.” This is the third time this formula is used.

40.24–25

And he put the lampstand in the tent of meeting is literally “And he placed the menorah
in the ’ohel mo‘ed.” This, of course, refers to the tabernacle. (See the comment at verse 22
above.) Opposite the table on the south side of the tabernacle means that it was the
lampstand that was on the south side, since the table was already placed on the north side.
40.25 TEV avoids this confusion: “He put the lampstand in the Tent, on the south side, opposite
the table.” 40.25 CEV reduces this to “The lampstand was put along the south wall.”

And set up the lamps is literally “and he caused the lamps to go up.” This is the same verb
used in verse 4 above and in 25.37. (See the comment there.) 40.25 TEV here changes its
rendering to “he lit the lamps,” which is another possible interpretation of the same Hebrew
text. (Similarly also TAN and ASV.) But assuming that the lamps were not a part of the
lampstand, it would follow that they would have to be “set in place” (Durham) before they
could be lighted. It is better therefore to be consistent with the other references where this
expression is used.

Before the Lord and as the Lord had commanded Moses are discussed at verse 23 above.

40.26–27

And he put the golden altar, literally “And he placed the gold altar,” refers to the altar for
burning incense, or “gold incense altar” (40.27 CEV). In the tent of meeting, the ’ohel mo‘ed,
refers to the tabernacle. And we know that this would be in the Holy Place, the larger of the
two rooms of the tent. Before the veil, literally “to the face of the veil,” means, as 40.27 TEV

ASV AMERICAN STANDARD VERSION

translates it, “in front of the curtain,” that is, the curtain that separated the Holy of Holies from
the Holy Place. (See the comment at 26.33.)

And burnt fragrant incense upon it, literally “and he caused fragrant incense to smoke
upon it,” uses the same terms as in 30.7. (See the comment there.) As the Lord had
commanded Moses is the fifth use of this formula in this section. (See the comment at verse
19 above.)

40.28

And he put in place is simply “And he placed,” but since this is the screen, which was
really a “curtain,” it may be more natural to use the term “he hung” (40.28 TEV). The screen for
the door of the tabernacle is literally “the screen of the opening to the mishkan.” The word
for screen is the same word used in 26.36. It was the curtain that closed off the Holy Place
from the outside.

40.29

And he set the altar of burnt offering again uses the verb meaning “he placed.” This altar
was the larger one for offering sacrifices that had to be outside the tent itself, but within the
enclosure. It was placed at the door of the tabernacle of the tent of meeting, which means
that it was “near the entrance to the tabernacle, the Tent of Meeting” (40.29 NIV). As explained
at verse 2 above, the two terms, mishkan and ’ohel mo‘ed, should be read in apposition with
one another, since both are referring to the tent itself. (See the comment at 39.32.)

And offered upon it the burnt offering is literally “and on it he caused to go up what goes
up.” As explained at 24.5, the words for offered and burnt offering are from same root. (See
the comment there.) And the cereal offering, literally “and the gift,” refers to an offering of
“grain.” (See Leviticus 2 and the comment at 29.41.) As the Lord had commanded Moses is
the sixth time this formula is used in this section. (See the comment at verse 19 above.)

40.30

And he set the laver, literally “and he placed the basin,” refers to the bronze “washbasin”
(40.30 TEV), or “large bronze bowl” (40.30 CEV), along with its base. (See 38.8.) Between the
tent of meeting and the altar means somewhere in between the tent and the bronze altar
mentioned in verse 29. And put water in it for washing is literally “and he gave there water to
wash.” (see verse 7 above.)

40.31–32

With which Moses and Aaron and his sons washed is obviously a continuation of verse 30
in 40.32 RSV. Literally the Hebrew says “and Moses and Aaron and his sons washed from it.”
The word for “from it” refers to the washbasin mentioned in verse 30, not to the water. 40.32
TEV translates this as “there.” (Similarly also NAB, NJB, and TAN.) Their hands and their feet
indicates the extent of their washing, and this became the usual ceremonial washing for all
priests. (This contrasts with the washing discussed at 29.4.)
 When they went into the tent of meeting is literally “in their entering unto [the] ’ohel
mo‘ed.” The infinitive form of the verb “to enter” gives the idea of when, but this should not
be understood as a single event. 40.32 TEV has “whenever,” which really means “each time
before entering the tent” (40.32 CEV). The idea of repeated action comes from the verb they
washed, which should be understood in the frequentative sense. And when they approached
the altar, literally “and in their approaching unto the altar,” uses the same infinitive form of
the verb “to draw near.”

As the Lord commanded Moses is the seventh and last time this formula is used in this
chapter. The Hebrew is identical in each case, but 40.32 RSV does not use the word “had” here
as in the previous examples. (See the comment at verse 19 above.) 40.32 NRSV has corrected
this.

40.33

And he erected the court, literally “And he caused the open space to stand up,” refers to
the curtained “enclosure” that set off the court from the outside. (See the comment at 27.9
and at verse 8 above.) Round the tabernacle, literally “all around the mishkan,” refers to “the
Tent” on the inside of the “enclosure” (40.33 TEV). And the altar refers to the bronze altar that
was outside the tent but inside the courtyard.

And set up the screen, literally “and he gave the screen,” uses the verb often translated as
“put” and the same word for screen as in 26.36 and 27.16. Again, since it was a “curtain,” it
seems more natural to use the verb “hung” (40.33 TEV). This was at the gate of the court,
which was the “entrance” (40.33 TEV) into the courtyard from the outside. So Moses finished
the work is literally “and Moses completed the task,” using the same word for work as in
39.43. (See the comment there.)

3. The Cloud of the Lord’s Presence (40.34–38)

Section Heading: 40.33 TEV has “The Cloud over the Tent of the Lord’s Presence,” this
Handbook has “The cloud of the Lord’s presence,” and 40.33 CEV has “The Glory of the Lord.”
Another way to express this is “A cloud covers the sacred tent.”

40.34–35

Verses 34–35 are significant for the climax of the book of Exodus. Here the two terms for
this portable shrine, ’ohel mo‘ed and mishkan, are brought together in a way that cements the
two traditions together. (See the introductory comment at 33.7.) 40.35 TEV’s use of “Tent”
completely obscures the interwoven segments of 34a and 35a with those of 34b and 35b,
which can be seen quite clearly in the more literal translations. We may separate them as
follows for purposes of analysis:

The ’ohel mo‘ed tradition

(Verses 34a and 35a)

 Then the cloud covered the tent of meeting,

And Moses was not able to enter the tent of meeting, because the cloud abode upon it,

The mishkan tradition

(Verses 34b and 35b)

and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle.

and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle.

This analysis suggests that in these closing verses there was a theological purpose in
preserving the older ’ohel mo‘ed tradition and weaving it in with the more elaborate mishkan
tradition. Here the two strands are finally tied together to emphasize the significance of both
the cloud and the glory of Yahweh. The real journey is not over; rather it is only now
beginning. The cloud will continue to guide them to the Promised Land, but now the glory will
go with them, filling this new tent-shrine with the very presence of Yahweh!

Translators must remember, however, that only one tent-shrine is intended here. In many
languages, depending upon the type of translation and the intended audience, readers may be
confused if both terms are used. In a more dynamic translation a footnote explaining this
blending of the two tent traditions will help the reader to appreciate what the Hebrew text has
done.

And the cloud covered the tent of meeting refers to the cloud that represented Yahweh’s
presence. (See 13.21; 14.19–20; 19.16; 33.9.) It covered the ’ohel mo‘ed in the sense of hiding
it from view. The verb means “to conceal.” And the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle
means that the kavod of Yahweh filled the mishkan. (See the comment on kavod at 16.7.) As
mentioned above, both the mishkan and the ’ohel mo‘ed refer to the same thing, so 40.35 TEV
has “the dazzling light of the Lord’s presence filled it.” A footnote for tent of meeting and for
tabernacle can be used to point out this distinction of terms.

And Moses was not able to enter the tent of meeting means that Moses could not enter
as a result of what was happening there. But the reason is given in what follows, not from
verse 34: because the cloud abode upon it. The pronoun it refers to the tent of meeting. The
verb for abode (40.35 NRSV “settled”) is shakan, from which the noun mishkan is derived.
Sometimes it means to settle temporarily, but other times it means to settle down and dwell.
(This is why NAB and NJB translate mishkan as “Dwelling.”)

And the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle repeats word for word the second part of
verse 34. The repetition seems to be intentional in order to emphasize this dramatic moment
and to complete the interweaving of the two traditions, represented by the terms ’ohel mo‘ed
and mishkan.

CEV has a helpful model for these two verses:

• 34 Suddenly the sacred tent was covered by a thick cloud and filled with the glory of the Lord.
35 And so, Moses could not enter the tent.

40.36–37

Throughout all their journeys comes at the end of the verse in the Hebrew. Literally it says
“in all their breaking [of camp].” The word for journeys comes from the verb meaning “to pull
up stakes.” (See the comment at 12.37.) Whenever the cloud was taken up from over the
tabernacle is literally “in the cloud’s being taken up from upon the mishkan.” The passive form
of the verb is used (“in its being taken up”), suggesting that the cloud did not rise by its own
power. Most translations, however, seem to ignore this feature. 40.37 TEV has “only when the
cloud lifted from the Tent,” and 40.37 CEV has “Whenever the cloud moved from the tent.”

The people of Israel would go onward is literally “the sons of Israel pulled up stakes.”
Here the verb should be understood as frequentative, giving the idea of whenever. But if the
cloud was not taken up again uses the passive form of the verb. Then they did not go onward
uses the same verb, “they did not pull up stakes.” Till the day that it was taken up is literally
“until the day of its being taken up.”

40.38

Throughout all their journeys again comes at the very end of the verse, as in verse 36.
(See the comment there.) But the verse begins with For, which translates a Hebrew particle
that may also mean “Indeed” (Durham) or “So” (40.38 NIV). The cloud of the Lord, literally
“cloud of Yahweh,” is translated in 40.38 TEV as “the cloud of the Lord’s presence.” This, of
course, is implied from the context. Was upon the tabernacle by day is literally “upon the
mishkan during the day,” with the verb was implied. And fire was in it by night is literally “and
fire was at night in it,” with the verb was explicit in the Hebrew. The pronoun it refers to the
cloud and not to the tabernacle. 40.38 NRSV has now made this clear: “and fire was in the
cloud by night.” TOT has “and at night fire shone in the cloud.” 40.38 CEV is also possible: “each
night a fire could be seen in the cloud.”

In the sight of all the house of Israel is literally “in the eyes of all the house of Israel.” The
house of Israel really means “all the Israelites,” so REB is clearer, “all the Israelites could see it.”

And alternative translation model for this verse is:

• No matter where the Israelites traveled, the Lord was with them. Each day they could see his
cloud over the tent, and each night they could see a fire burning in the cloud.

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ancient Texts
 Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. 1966/77, 1983. Edited by K. Elliger and W. Rudolph.
Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft. (Cited as BHS.)

Septuaginta: id est Vetus Testamentum graece iuxta LXX interpretes. 1935; combined one-
volume edition, 1979. Edited by Alfred Rahlfs. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft. (Cited as
Septuagint.)

Biblia Sacra: Iuxta Vulgatam Versionem. 1983. Edited by Robert Weber. Stuttgart:
Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft. (Cited as Vulgate.)

Grammars and Lexicons

Brown, Francis, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs. 1959. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of
the Old Testament. Oxford: Clarendon Press. (Cited as BDB.)

Cowley, A.E., editor. 2nd English edition, 1910. Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar: As Edited and
Enlarged by the Late E. Kautzsch. Oxford: The University Press.

Holladay, William L. 1974. A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament.
Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Koehler, Ludwig, and Walter Baumgartner, editors. 1958. Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti
Libros. Two volumes. Leiden: E.J. Brill; and Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans. (Cited as K-B.)

Versions

Die Bibel: Nach der Übersetzung Martin Luthers, Revidierter Text. 1975, 1978. Stuttgart:
Deutsche Bibelstiftung. (Cited as LU, Luther.)

Die Bibel in heutigem Deutsch: Die Gute Nachricht des Alten und Neuen Testaments. 1982.
Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft. (Cited as GECL, German common language version.)

The Bible: A New Translation. 1925. Translated by James Moffatt. New York: Harper and
Brothers. (Cited as MFT.)

La Bible en français courant. 1982. Paris: Société biblique française. (Cited as FRCL, French
common language version.)

BHS BIBLIA HEBRAICA STUTTGARTENSIA

LXX SEPTUAGINT

BDB BROWN, DRIVER, AND BRIGGS

K-B KOEHLER-BAUMGARTNER

LU LUTHER

GECL GERMAN COMMON LANGUAGE VERSION

FRCL FRENCH COMMON LANGUAGE VERSION

 “The Book of Exodus (Translator’s Old Testament).” n.d. Typescript, photo copy. London:
The British and Foreign Bible Society. (Cited as TOT.)

The Complete Bible: An American Translation. 1923. J.M. Powis Smith and Edgar
Goodspeed, translators. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (Cited as at.)

Dios Habla Hoy: La Bibliacon Deuterocanónicos. Versión Popular. 1979. New York:
Sociedades Bíblicas Unidas. (Cited as SPCL, Spanish common language version.)

Fox, Everett. 1986. Now These are the Names: A New English Rendition of the Book of
Exodus. New York: Schocken Books. (Cited as Fox.)

Good News Bible: The Bible in Today’s English Version. 1976, 1979; second edition, 1992.
New York: American Bible Society. (Cited as TEV.)

Note: Citations of weights and measurements using the metric system are from the British
usage edition, Swindon: British and Foreign Bible Society (1976).

The Holy Bible (Authorized or King James Version). 1611. (Cited as KJV.)

The Holy Bible: Contemporary English Version. 1995. New York: American Bible Society.
(Cited as CEV.)

The Holy Bible: New International Version. 1978. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Bible
Publishers. (Cited as NIV.)

The Holy Bible: New Revised Standard Version. 1989. New York: Division of Christian
Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America.
(Cited as NRSV.)

The Holy Bible: Newly Edited by the American Revision Committee. 1901. New York:
Thomas Nelson & Sons. (Cited as ASV, American Standard Version.)

The Holy Bible: Revised Standard Version. 1952, 1971, 1973. New York: Division of
Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of
America. (Cited as RSV.)

The Jerusalem Bible. 1966. London: Darton, Longman, & Todd; and New York: Doubleday.
(Cited as JB.)

The Living Bible. 1971. Translated by Kenneth Taylor. Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House.
(Cited as LB.)

SPCL SPANISH COMMON LANGUAGE VERSION

KJV KING JAMES VERSION

JB JERUSALEM BIBLE

LB LIVING BIBLE
 The New American Bible. 1970. New York: P.J. Kenedy & Sons. (Cited as NAB.)

The New American Standard Bible. 1960, 1973. Chicago: Moody Press. (Cited as NASB.)

The New English Bible. 1961, 1970. London: Oxford University Press; and Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. (Cited as NEB.)

The New Jerusalem Bible. 1985. Garden City, New York: Doubleday. (Cited as NJB.)

The Revised English Bible. 1989. London: Oxford University Press; and Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. (Cited as REB.)

TANAKH: A New Translation of the Holy Scriptures According to the Tradi tional Hebrew
Text. 1985. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society. (Cited as TAN, New Jewish Version.)

Commentaries

Childs, Brevard S. 1974. The Book of Exodus: A Critical, Theological Commen tary (The Old
Testament Library). Philadelphia: The Westminster Press.

Durham, John I. 1987. Exodus (Word Biblical Commentary, Volume 3). Waco, Texas: Word
Books.

Gispen, W.H. 1982. Exodus (Bible Student’s Commentary). Translated by Ed van der Maas.
Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House.

Hyatt, J. Philip. 1971. Commentary on Exodus (New Century Bible). London: Oliphants.

Knight, George A. F. 1976. Theology as Narration: A Commentary on the Book of Exodus.

Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Noth, Martin. 1962, 1974. Exodus: A Commentary (The Old Testament Library). Translated
by J.S. Bowden. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press.

Sarna, Nahum M. 1991. Exodus (The JPS Torah Commentary). Philadelphia, New York: The
Jewish Publication Society.

Special Studies

Arichea, Daniel C. 1981. “Translating Biblical Festivals,” The Bible Translator 32.413–423
(October).

Couroyer, B. 1956. “Le Doigt de Dieu,” Revue Biblique 63.481–495.

NASB NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE

NEB NEW ENGLISH BIBLE

JPS JEWISH PUBLICATION SOCIETY VERSION

 Hatton, Howard A. 1991. “The Projections on the Frames of the Tabernacle,” The Bible
Translator 42.205–209 (April).

Muilenburg, James. 1966. “A Liturgy on the Triumphs of Yahweh,” Studia Biblica et

Semitica: T. C. Vriezen Dedicata, pages 238–50. Wageningen, The Netherlands: H. Veenman &
Zonen.

Osborn, Noel D. 1990. “Tent or Tabernacle? Translating Two Traditions,” The Bible
Translator 41.214–221 (April).

Other Works

Barthélemy, Dominique; A.R. Hulst; Norbert Lohfink; W.D. McHardy; H.P. Rüger; and James
A. Sanders. 1973. Preliminary and Interim Report on the Hebrew Old Testament Text Project,
Volume 1, Pentateuch. New York: United Bible Societies. (Cited as HOTTP.)

Fauna and Flora of the Bible. 1972, 1980. New York: United Bible Societies. (Cited as FFB.)

GLOSSARY
This Glossary contains terms that are technical from an exegetical or a linguistic viewpoint. Other
terms not defined here may be found in a Bible dictionary.

active, active voice. See voice.

actor is the one who accomplishes the action in a sentence or clause, regardless of whether the
grammatical construction is active or passive. In “John struck Bill” (active) and “Bill was struck
by John” (passive), the actor in either case is John.

adjective is a word that limits, describes, or qualifies a noun. In English, “red,” “tall,” “beautiful,”
and “important” are adjectives.

agent is one who does the action in a sentence or clause, regardless of whether the grammatical
construction is active or passive. In “John struck Bill” (active) and “Bill was struck by John”
(passive), the agent in both cases is “John.”

ambiguous (ambiguity) describes a word or phrase that in a specific context may have two or
more different meanings. For example, “Bill did not leave because John came” can mean either
(1) “the coming of John prevented Bill from leaving” or (2) “the coming of John was not the
cause of Bill’s leaving.” It is often the case that what is ambiguous in written form is not
ambiguous when actually spoken, since features of intonation and slight pauses usually make
clear which of two or more meanings is intended. Furthermore, even in written discourse, the
entire context normally serves to indicate which meaning is intended by the writer.

HOTTP HEBREW OLD TESTAMENT TEXT PROJECT

FFB FAUNA AND FLORA OF THE BIBLE

analysis is the process of determining what are the various units that come together to form any
complex structure, and then describing how these units are related to one another.

ancient versions. See versions.

antecedent describes a person or thing that precedes or exists prior to something or someone
else. In grammar an antecedent is the word, phrase, or clause to which a pronoun refers.

anthropomorphism is a figure of speech in which a nonhuman being or object is described as

having human features or performing human actions; for example, “the hand of God” and
“flowers dancing in the breeze” are anthropo morphisms.

apodictic, as used in this Handbook, describes laws expressed as demands with no punishment
listed, nor is any reason given for such laws; for example, “You shall not kill.”

apposition (appositional) is the placing of two expressions together so that they both refer to the
same object, event, or concept; for example, “my friend, Mr. Smith.”

Aramaic is a language that was widely used in lands east of the Mediterranean Sea before and
during the time of Christ. Some parts of the Old Testament were written in Aramaic.

archaeological evidence refers to materials from the past that are dug up or that are found and
interpreted to explain life in earlier times. This evidence may lend support to written
documents or may give us information to help us understand the text.

article is a grammatical class of words, often obligatory, which indicate whether the word to which
it is connected is definite or indefinite. In English the definite article is “the,” and the
indefinite article is “a” or “an.”

aspect is a grammatical category that specifies the nature of an action; for example, whether the
action is completed, uncompleted, repeated, begun, continuing, or increasing or decreasing in
intensity. “Was built” indicates completed aspect, while “was running” indicates continuing
aspect.

borrowed term refers to a foreign term that is used in another language. For example, “matador”
is a Spanish word that has been borrowed by English speakers for “bullfighter.”

causative (causal) relates to events and indicates that someone or something caused something to
happen, rather than that the person or thing did it directly. In “The child grew flowers,” the
verb “grew” is a causative, since it was not the child who grew, but rather the child caused the
flowers to grow.

clause is a grammatical construction, normally consisting of a subject and a predicate. An

independent clause may stand alone. The main clause is that clause in a sentence that can
stand alone as a complete sentence, but which has one or more dependent or subordinate
clauses related to it. A subordinate clause is dependent on the main clause, but it does not
form a complete sentence. See also complex sentence.

climax is the point in a discourse, such as a story or speech, which is the most important, or the
turning point, or the point of decision.
collective describes a group of things (or persons) considered as a whole, such as “rice” or
“crowd.” In English a collective noun is considered to be singular or plural, more or less on the
basis of traditional usage; for example, “The crowd is [The people are] becoming angry.”
481

command. See imperative.

comparative refers to the form of an adjective or adverb that indicates that the object or event
described possesses a certain quality to a greater or lesser degree than does another object or
event. “Richer” and “smaller” are adjectives in the comparative degree, while “sooner” and
“more quickly” are adverbs in the comparative degree. See also superlative.

complex sentence contains at least one modifying clause in addition to the main clause.

components are the parts or elements that go together to form the whole of an object. For
example, the components of bread are flour, salt, shortening, yeast, and water. The
components of the meaning (semantic components) of a term are the elements of meaning
that it contains. For example, some of the components of “boy” are “human,” “male,” and
“immature.”

compound refers to forms of words or phrases consisting of two or more parts.

condition is that which shows the circumstance under which something may be true. In English a
conditional phrase or clause is usually introduced by “if.” For example, “If you dig a pit, you
may fall into it.”

conjunctions are words that serve as connectors between words, phrases, clauses, and sentences.
“And,” “but,” “if,” and “because” are typical conjunctions in English.

connective is a word or phrase that connects other words, phrases, clauses, etc. See conjunctions.

connotation involves the emotional attitude of a speaker (or writer) to an expression he uses, and
the emotional response of the hearers (or readers). Connotations may be good or bad, strong
or weak, and they are often described in such terms as “colloquial,” “taboo,” “vulgar,” “old-
fashioned,” and “intimate.”

consequence is that which shows the result of a condition or event. In the sentence “If you dig a
pit, you may fall into it,” falling is the consequence of the first action, digging.

construction. See structure.

context (contextual) is that which precedes or follows any part of a discourse. For example, the
context of a word or phrase in Scripture would be the other words and phrases associated with
it in the sentence, paragraph, section, and even the entire book in which it occurs. The context
of a term often affects its meaning, so that a word may not mean exactly the same thing in one

481Osborn, N. D., & Hatton, H. (1999). A handbook on Exodus. UBS handbook series; Helps for
translators (883). New York: United Bible Societies.
 context that it does in another. Context is also the set of circumstances or facts surrounding an
event or situation.

cultic is an adjective formed from the noun “cult”; it is used to describe any custom or action that
is required in the performance of religious practices. It is broadly synonymous with the
adjectives “ritual” and “ceremonial.”

culture (cultural) is the sum total of the beliefs, patterns of behavior, and interpersonal relations
of any group of people. A culture is passed on from one generation to another but undergoes
development or gradual change.

declarative refers to forms of a verb or verb phrase that indicate statements assumed to be
certain; for example, “prepared” in “She prepared a meal.” Such a statement is, for example,
declarative rather than imperative or interrogative.

definite article. See article.

demonstrative pronoun refers to one or more specific persons, things, events, or objects by
indicating or singling out what is referred to. “That,” “this,” and “those” are demonstrative
pronouns in English.

dependent clause is a grammatical construction consisting normally of a subject and predicate,

which is dependent upon or embedded within some other construction. For example, “if he
comes” is a dependent clause in the sentence “If he comes, we’ll have to leave.” See clause.

descriptive is said of a word or phrase that characterizes or describes another term.

direct discourse, direct quotation, direct speech. See discourse.

direct object is the goal of an event or action specified by a verb. In “John hit the ball,” the direct
object of “hit” is “ball.”

discourse is the connected and continuous communication of thought by means of language,

whether spoken or written. The way in which the elements of a discourse are arranged is
called discourse structure. Direct discourse (or, direct quotation, direct speech) is the
reproduction of the actual words of one person quoted and included in the discourse of
another person; for example, “He declared ‘I will have nothing to do with this man.’ “ Indirect
discourse (or, indirect quotation, indirect speech) is the reporting of the words of one person
within the discourse of another person, but in an altered grammatical form rather than as an
exact quotation; for example, “He said he would have nothing to do with that man.”

double negative is a grammatical construction in which two negative words are used in the same
clause. In English two negatives usually produce a positive meaning (“He did not say nothing”
means “He did say something”). In many languages, however, a double negative is an
emphatic negative (as in Greek, where “not no” means “definitely not”).

dual is a grammatical form, in Hebrew and some other languages, involving two paired objects
such as “eyes,” “hands,” or “horns.” Sometimes words fall into the dual category, even though
they do not exist in pairs. This is true, for example, of the word “Egypt” in Hebrew.
dynamic equivalence is a type of translation in which the message of the original text is so
conveyed in the receptor language that the response of the receptors is (or, can be) essentially
like that of the original receptors, or that the receptors can in large measure comprehend the
response of the original receptors, if, as in certain languages, the differences between the two
cultures are extremely great. In recent years the term functional equivalence has been applied
to what is essentially the same kind of translation.

ellipsis points are periods with space between ( … ), indicating the place where words have been
omitted from a quotation.

embedded quote is a quotation within the quoted words of another.

emphasis (emphatic) is the importance given to an element in a discourse, sometimes indicated by

the choice of words or by position in the sentence. For example, in “Never will I eat pork
again,” “Never” is given emphasis by placing it at the beginning of the sentence.

episode is a story within a longer story, but it is itself a complete story. The story of the water of
the sea dividing is an episode within the story of Israel’s departure from Egypt.

equivalent: having a very close similarity in meaning, as opposed to similarity in form; see dynamic
equivalence.

euphemism is a mild or indirect term used in the place of another term that is felt to be impolite,
distasteful, or vulgar; for example, “to pass away” is a euphemism for “to die.”

event is a semantic category of meanings referring to actions, processes, etc., in which objects can
participate. In English, most events are grammatically classified as verbs (“run,” “grow”
“think,” etc.), but many nouns may also refer to events, as for example, “baptism,” “song,”
“game,” and “prayer.”

exaggeration is a figure of speech that states more than the speaker or writer knows to be true.
For example, “Everyone is doing it” may simply mean “Many people are doing it.” See also
hyperbole.

exclusive first person plural excludes the person(s) addressed. That is, a speaker may use “we” to
refer to himself and his companions, while specifically excluding the person(s) to whom he is
speaking. See inclusive.

explicit refers to information that is expressed in the words of a discourse. This is in contrast to
implicit information. See implicit.

feminine is one of the categories of nouns and pronouns in many languages. In most of these
languages this category may include terms that are not related to the female sex.

figure, figure of speech, or figurative expression involves the use of words in other than their
literal or ordinary sense, in order to bring out some aspect of meaning by means of
comparison or association; for example, “raindrops dancing on the street,” or “his speech was
like thunder.” metaphors and similes are figures of speech.

first person. See person.

flashback is a part of a narrative, inserted within the main narrative, but telling about events that
occurred earlier than the narrative being told.

focus is the center of attention in a discourse or in any part of a discourse.

full stop is a punctuation mark indicating the end of a sentence; this mark is also called a “period.”

functional equivalence. See dynamic equivalence.

future tense. See tense.

future perfect is the tense that indicates that the event expressed by the verb will be completed
before a specific time or before another specific event will occur. For example, in “John will
have returned by tomorrow,” “will have returned” is in the future perfect tense. See also
tense.

general. See generic.

generic has reference to a general class or kind of objects, events, or descriptive words. It is the
opposite of specific. For example, the term “animal” is generic in relation to “dog,” which is a
specific kind of animal. However, “dog” is generic in relation to the more specific term
“poodle.”

goal is the object that receives or undergoes the action of a verb. Grammatically, the goal may be
the subject of a passive construction (“John was hit,” in which “John” is the goal of “hit”), or of
certain intransitives (“the door shut”), or it may be the direct object of a transitive verb (as
“John” in “the ball hit John”).

grammatical refers to grammar, which includes the selection and arrangement of words in
phrases, clauses, and sentences.

Greek is the language in which the New Testament was written. It belongs to the Indo-European
family of languages and was the language spoken in Achaia, which is Greece in modern times.
By the time of Christ Greek was used by many of the people living in the eastern part of the
Roman empire, so that early Christians could speak and write to one another in Greek, even
though they were born in different countries. By that time the entire Hebrew Old Testament
had been translated into Greek, a version referred to as the septuagint.

Hebraism refers to Hebrew idioms and thought patterns that appear, not only in the Greek
writings of the New Testament, but also in many modern translations of the Bible.

Hebrew is the language in which the Old Testament was written. It belongs to the Semitic family of
languages. By the time of Christ many Jewish people no longer used Hebrew as their common
language. The Hebrews originally included people who did not belong to the twelve tribes of
Israel, but after the Israelites settled in Canaan, the term generally was used to refer to the
people of the twelve tribes, who had their own Hebrew language and culture.

hendiadys is a figure in which a single complex idea is expressed by two words or structures,
usually connected by a conjunction. For example, “weary and worn” may mean “very tired.”
honorific is a form used to express respect or deference; for example, “my lord,” “sir,” or “I am
your humble servant.” In many languages such forms are obligatory in talking to or about
royalty and persons of social distinction.

hyperbole is a figure of speech that makes use of exaggeration. That is, a deliberate
overstatement is made to create a special effect. For example, “Johnate tons of rice for
dinner.”

hypothetical refers to something that is not recognized as true but is assumed to be true, in order
to give an example or to show an argument or line of reasoning. For example, “Imagine what
would happen if no more girls were born.”

ideophone is a vocal expression, often one that does not fit into the usual grammatical categories
of a language, yet expresses such things as an emotion, a quality, or a movement, and may
sometimes mark or emphasize a feature of discourse. Ideophones are especially common in
African languages, where their use and definition vary greatly.

idiom, or idiomatic expression, is a combination of terms whose meanings cannot be understood

by adding up the meanings of the parts. “To hang one’s head,” “to have a green thumb,” and
“behind the eightball” are American English idioms. Idioms almost always lose their meaning
or convey a wrong meaning when translated literally from one language to another.

immediate context is that context which precedes or follows a discourse or segment of discourse
with no intervening context. For example, John 3.17 is a passage in the immediate context of
John 3.16.

imperative refers to forms of a verb that indicate commands or requests. In “Go and do likewise,”
the verbs “Go” and “do” are imperatives. In many languages imperatives are confined to the
grammatical second person; but some languages have corresponding forms for the first and
third persons. These are usually expressed in English by the use of “must” or “let”; for
example, “We must not swim here!” or “They must work harder!” or “Let them eat cake!”

imperfect is a form of a Hebrew verb that expresses the action as ongoing,con tinuative, or
incomplete, regardless of the time of the action in relation to the time of speaking or writing.

implicit (imply, implied) refers to information that is not formally represented in a discourse, since
it is assumed that it is already known to the receptor, or evident from the meaning of the
words in question. For example, the phrase “the other son” carries with it the implicit
information that there is a son in addition to the one mentioned. This is in contrast to explicit
information, which is expressly stated in a discourse. See explicit.

inclusive first person plural includes both the speaker and the one(s) to whom that person is
speaking. See exclusive.

indefinite article. See article.

independent clause. See clause.

indicative refers to forms of a verb in which an act or condition is stated as an actual fact rather
than as a potentiality, a hope, or an unrealized condition. The verb “won” in “The king won the
battle” is in the indicative form.

indirect discourse, indirect speech. See discourse.

indirect object is that which benefits from the event or action of a verb. In “John threw Henry the
ball,” the direct object or goal of “threw” is “ball,” and the indirect object is “Henry.” See direct
object.

infinitive is a verb form that indicates an action or state without specifying such factors as agent or
time; for example, “to mark,” “to sing,” or “to go.”

intensive (intensifier) refers to increased emphasis or force in any expression, as when “very”
occurs in the phrase “very active” or “highly” in the phrase “highly competitive.” The Hebrew
language has particles that serve as intensifiers, as well as verb forms and other constructions
that indicate that the action of the verb is intensive.

interjections are exclamatory words or phrases, invariable in form, usually used to express
emotion. “Hey!” or “Oh!” and “Indeed!” are examples of interjections.

irony is a sarcastic or humorous manner of discourse in which what is said is intended to express
its opposite; for example, “That was a smart thing to do!” when intended to convey the
meaning “That was a stupid thing to do!”

linguistic refers to language, especially the formal structure of language.

literal means the ordinary or primary meaning of a term or expression, in contrast with a figurative
meaning. A literal translation is one that is very close to the forms and word order of the
source language; such a translation is frequently unnatural or awkward in the receptor
language.

literary device refers to particular uses of words or of language by authors to achieve special
effects or to conform to a particular artistic style. This includes, for example, figures of speech
or plays on words or sounds, or information that is inserted or else kept secret.

liturgical refers to liturgy, that is, public worship; more particularly to the prayers, responses, and
so forth, that are often expressed in traditional or archaic language forms.

main clause. See clause.

manuscripts are books, documents, or letters written or copied by hand. Thousands of manuscript
copies of various Old and New Testament books still exist, but none of the original manuscripts
are known to exist. See text.

markers (marking) are features of words or of a discourse that signal some special meaning or
some particular structure. For example, words for speaking may mark the onset of direct
discourse, a phrase such as “once upon a time” may mark the beginning of a fairy story, and
certain features of parallelism are the dominant markers of poetry. The word “body” may
require a marker to clarify whether a person, a group, or a corpse is meant.
masculine is one of the categories of nouns and pronouns in many languages. In most of these
languages this category may include terms that are not related to the male sex.

Masoretic text is the form of the text of the Hebrew Old Testament established by Hebrew
scholars around the eighth and ninth centuries a.d.

metaphor is likening one object, event, or state to another by speaking of it as if it were the other;
for example, “flowers dancing in the breeze” compares the movement of flowers with dancing.
Metaphors are the most commonly used figures of speech and are often so subtle that a
speaker or writer is not conscious of the fact that he or she is using figurative language. See
simile.

mood (or mode) defines the psychological background of the action, and involves such categories
as possibility, necessity, and desire. Some languages (for example, Greek) use specific verb
forms to express mood.

nominal refers to nouns or noun-like words. See noun.

noun is a word that names a person, place, thing, or idea, and often serves to specify a subject or
topic of discussion.

object of a verb is the goal of an event or action specified by the verb. In “John hit the ball,” the
object of “hit” is “ball.” See direct object.

overlapping is the way in which part of the meanings of two words cover the same general area of
meaning, although the remainder of the meanings covered by the two words is not the same.
For example, “love” and “like” overlap in referring to affection.

paragraph is a distinct segment of discourse dealing with a particular idea, and usually marked
with an indentation on a new line.

parallel, parallelism, generally refers to some similarity in the content or form of two parts of a
construction; for example, “The man was blind; he could not see.” The structures that
correspond to each other in the two statements are said to be parallel. Parallel passages are
two separate biblical references that resemble each other in one or more ways.

parenthetical statement is a statement that interrupts a discourse by departing from its main
theme. It is frequently set off by marks of parenthe sis, ( ), or by a dash, —.

participial indicates that the phrase, clause, construction, or other expression described is marked
by a participle.

participial phrase is a phrase marked by a participle. See participle.

participle is a verbal adjective, that is, a word that retains some of the characteristics of a verb
while functioning as an adjective. In “singing children” and “painted house,” “singing” and
“painted” are participles.

particle is a small word whose grammatical form does not change. In English the most common
particles are prepositions and conjunctions.
passive. See voice.

past tense. See tense.

Pentateuch refers to the first five books of the Bible, sometimes called “the Torah,” “the Law,” or
“the Books of Moses.”

perfect is a form of a Hebrew verb that expresses the action as a unit, or as a complete, total
action, regardless of the time of the action in relation to the time of speaking or writing.

perfect tense is a set of verb forms that indicate an action completed before the time of speaking
or writing. For example, in “John has finished his task,” “has finished” is in the perfect tense.
See also tense.

person, as a grammatical term, refers to the speaker, the person spoken to, or the person or thing
spoken about. First person is the person(s) speaking (such as “I,” “me,” “my,” “mine,” “we,”
“us,” “our,” or “ours”). Second person is the person(s) or thing(s) spoken to (such as “thou,”
“thee,” “thy,” “thine,” “ye,” “you,” “your,” or “yours”). Third person is the person(s) or thing(s)
spoken about (such as “he,” “she,” “it,” “his,” “her,” “them,” or “their”). The examples here
given are all pronouns, but in many languages the verb forms have affixes that indicate first,
second, or third person and also indicate whether they are singular or plural.

personal pronoun is one that indicates first, second, or third person. See person and pronoun.

phrase is a grammatical construction of two or more words, but less than a complete clause or a
sentence. A phrase is usually given a name according to its function in a sentence, such as that
of a “noun phrase,” “verb phrase,” or “prepositional phrase.” For example, “the boy in front” is
a noun phrase, “in front of the house” is a prepositional phrase, and “carried a heavy load” is a
verb phrase.

play on words is the use of the similarity in the sounds of two words to produce a special effect.

pluperfect means, literally, “more than perfect” and refers to a verb form that indicates an action
already completed when another action occurred. For example, in “The meeting had already
ended when the speaker arrived,” the verb “had … ended” is a pluperfect. See tense.

plural refers to the form of a word that indicates more than one. See singular.

point of view. See viewpoint.

possessive refers to a grammatical relationship in which one noun or pronoun is said to “possess”
another (“John’s car,” “his son,” “their destruction”). See also possessive pronouns under
pronouns.

prefix is a part of a word that cannot stand alone and that is positioned at the beginning of the
word to which it belongs; for example, “im-possible,” or “re-structure.”

preposition is a word whose function is to indicate the relation of a noun or pronoun to another
noun, pronoun, verb, or adjective. Some English prepositions are “for,” “from,” “in,” “to,” and
“with.”
prepositional refers to prepositions. A prepositional phrase or expression is one governed by a
preposition. “For his benefit” and “to a certain city” are prepositional phrases.

present tense. See tense.

progressive is an aspect of an event referring to its continuation or duration. For example, “the
bird is singing” is the progressive aspect of “the bird sings.”

pronouns are words that are used in place of nouns, such as “he,” “him,” “his,” “she,” “we,”
“them,” “who,” “which,” “this,” or “these.” Possessive pronouns are pronouns such as “my,”
“our,” “your,” or “his,” which indicate possession.

prose is the ordinary form of spoken or written language, without special forms and structure such
as meter and rhythm that are often characteristic of poetry.

purpose clause designates a construction that states the purpose involved in some other action;
for example, “John came in order to help him,”

quotation. See discourse.

read, reading. See text, textual.

receptor is the person(s) receiving a message. The receptor language is the language into which a
translation is made. For example, in a translation from Hebrew into German, Hebrew is the
source language and German is the receptor language. The receptor culture is the culture of
the people who speak the receptor language.

redundant describes anything that is entirely predictable from the context. For example, in “John,
he did it,” the pronoun “he” is redundant. A feature may be redundant and yet may be
important to retain in certain languages, perhaps for stylistic or for grammatical reasons.

reflexive has to do with verbs and pronouns [James hbk] where the one doing the action and the
one on whom the action is performed are the same person. Sometimes the goal is explicit (as
in “He dresses himself”); at other times it is implicit (as in “He dresses”).

relative clause is a dependent clause that describes the object to which it refers. In “the man
whom you saw,” the clause “whom you saw” is relative because it relates to and describes
“man.”

relative pronoun is a pronoun that refers to a noun in another clause, and that serves to mark the
subordination of its own clause to that noun; for example, in “This is the man who came to
dinner,” “who” is the relative pronoun referring to “the man” in the previous clause. The
subordinate clause is also called a relative clause.

render means to translate or express in a language different from the original.

rendering is the manner in which a specific passage is translated from one language to another.

restructure. See structure.

rhetorical refers to forms of speech that are employed to highlight or make more attractive some
aspect of a discourse. A rhetorical question, for example, is not a request for information but
is usually a way of making an emphatic statement. For example, “Why did I do that?” really
means “I should not have done that!”

rhyme refers to similarity in the sounds of different words, as often found at the ends of lines of
poetry.

rhythm is the periodic pattern of accented syllables in a line of poetry.

root refers to the smallest element of a word, from which other words may be derived. For
example, “friend” is the root of “friendliness.” In Hebrew most words are made up of three
consonants, and many words are formed on the basis of this root. For example, the root b-r-k
is the basis for the noun “blessing,” the adjective “blessed,” and the verb “to bless.”

sarcasm (sarcastic) is an ironical and frequently contemptuous manner of discourse in which what
is said is intended to express its opposite; for example, “What a brilliant idea!” when intended
to convey the meaning, “What a ridiculous idea!”

second person. See person.

semantic refers to meaning.

Semitic is a term derived from the name “Shem” and refers to a family of nations and their
languages, including Hebrew, Aramaic, and Arabic.

sentence is a grammatical construction composed of one or more clauses and capable of standing
alone.

Septuagint is a translation of the Hebrew Old Testament into Greek, begun some two hundred
years before Christ. It is often abbreviated as lxx.

simile (pronounced SIM-i-lee) is a figure of speech that describes one event or object by
comparing it to another, using “like,” “as,” or some other word to mark or signal the
comparison. For example, “She runs like a deer,” “He is as straight as an arrow.” Similes differ
from metaphors in that metaphors do not mark the comparison with words such as “like” or
“as.” See metaphor.

singular refers to the form of a word that indicates one thing or person, in contrast to plural,
which indicates more than one , or dual, which indicates a pair. See dual, plural.

specific refers to the opposite of general, generic. See generic.

staccato style is a manner of speech in which individual utterances are detached from those
immediately preceding and those following, interrupting the continuity of the utterances.

structure is the systematic arrangement of the elements of language, including the ways in which
words combine into phrases, phrases into clauses, clauses into sentences, and sentences into
larger units of discourse. This process can be compared to constructing a building, so
structures are often spoken of as constructions. To separate and rearrange the various
 components of a sentence or other unit of discourse in the translation process is to restructure
it.

style is the manner in which an idea is expressed. Individuals and groups have their own style of
speaking or writing. Some authors write in ordinary language, using an informal style, while
others may use a more formal or sophisticated style. Each language has its own set of stylistic
devices, and these are often used to make a text more pleasing. For example, synonyms are
sometimes used to avoid the monotonous repetition of the same words, or the normal order
of clauses and phrases may be altered for the sake of emphasis.

subject is one of the major divisions of a clause, the other being the predicate. In “The small boy
walked to school,” “The small boy” is the subject. Typically the subject is a noun phrase. It
should not be confused with the semantic “agent,” or actor.

subjunctive refers to certain forms of verbs that are used to express an act or state as being
contingent or possible (sometimes as wish or desire), rather than as actual fact. For example,
in “If I were young, I would enjoy my health,” “were” and “would” are subjunctive forms.

subordinate clause. See clause.

superlative refers to the form of an adjective or adverb that indicates that the object or event
described possesses a certain quality to a degree greater than does any other object or event
being considered. “Most happy” and “finest” are adjectives in the superlative degree. See also
comparative.

symbol (symbolic) is a form, whether linguistic or nonlinguistic, which is arbitrarily and

conventionally associated with a particular meaning. For example, the word “cross” is a
linguistic symbol, referring to a particular object. Similarly, within the Christian tradition, the
cross as an object is a symbol for the death of Jesus.

synecdoche is a figure of speech in which part is used for the whole, or the whole is used for a
part. For example, “My eye has seen it” is a figure for “I have seen it”; or “England has arrived”
may mean that the representative of England has arrived.

synonyms are words that are different in form but similar in meaning, such as “boy” and “lad.”
Expressions that have essentially the same meaning are said to be synonymous. However, no
two words are completely synonymous.

syntax (syntactic) is the selection and arrangement of words in phrases, clauses, and sentences.
See also grammar.

taboo refers to something set apart as sacred by religious custom and is therefore forbidden to all
but certain persons or uses (positive taboo), or something that is regarded as evil and
therefore forbidden to all by tradition or social usage (negative taboo).

temporal clause is a dependent clause that indicates the time of the action in the main clause; for
example, “when the bell rang, the students went home.
tense refers to the time an event occurs, often in relation to other events in a discourse. The most
common tenses are past, present, and future.

textual refers to the various biblical manuscripts. A textual reading is the form in which words
occur in a particular manuscript (or group of manuscripts), especially where it differs from
others. textual evidence is any evidence from manuscripts that may support a particular
reading. textual problems arise when manuscripts contain different readings. These textual
variants are readings of the same passage that differ in one or more details.

theme is the subject of a discourse.

third person. See person.

transition in discourse involves passing from one thought to another or one literary unit to
another. Most languages have special words such as “now” or “then” to mark these
transitions.

translation is the reproduction in a receptor language of a message in the source language. This is
best done when it is the closest natural equivalent, first, in terms of meaning, and second, in
terms of style.

transliterate (transliteration) is to represent in the receptor language the approximate sounds or

letters of words occurring in the source language, rather than translating their meaning; for
example, “Amen” from the Hebrew, or the title “Christ” from the Greek.

verbs are a grammatical class of words that express existence, action, or occurrence, such as “be,”
“become,” “run,” or “think.”

verbal has two meanings. (1) It may refer to expressions consisting of words, sometimes in
distinction to forms of communication that do not employ words (“sign language,” for
example). (2) It may refer to word forms that are derived from verbs. For example, “coming”
and “engaged” may be called verbals, and participles are called verbal adjectives.

versions are translations. The ancient versions are translations of the Bible, or of portions of the
Bible, made in early times; for example, the Greek Septuagint, the ancient Syriac, or the
Ethiopic versions.

viewpoint (point of view) is the place or situation or circumstance from which a speaker or writer
presents a message. If, for example, the viewpoint place is the top of a hill, movement in the
area will be described differently from the way one would describe it from the bottom of a hill.
If the viewpoint person is a priest, he will speak of the temple in a way that differs from that
of a common person.

vocative indicates that a word or phrase is used for addressing a person or persons spoken to. In
“Brother, please come here,” the word “Brother” is a vocative.

voice in grammar is the relation of the action expressed by a verb to the participants in the action.
In English and many other languages, the active voice indicates that the subject performs the
 action (“John hit the man”), while the passive voice indicates that the subject is being acted
upon (“The man was hit”).

vowels are the sounds of the vocal cords, produced by unobstructed air passing from the lungs
though the mouth. They are also the letters representing those sounds, such as “a,” “i,” or “u.”
They were not originally included in the Hebrew system of writing; they were added later as
marks associated with the consonants. See also consonants.

Vulgate is the Latin version of the Bible translated and/or edited originally by Saint Jerome near
the end of the fourth century. It has been traditionally the official version of the Roman
Catholic Church.
482

482Osborn, N. D., & Hatton, H. (1999). A handbook on Exodus. UBS handbook series; Helps for
translators (921). New York: United Bible Societies.