1tn The word “like” is added for clarity, making explicit the implied comparison in the statement “I have made you God to Pharaoh.” The word <yh!la$ (‘elohim) is used a few times in the Bible for humans (e.g., Pss 45:6; 82:1), and always clearly in the sense of a subordinate to GOD—they are his representatives on earth. The explanation here goes back to 4:16. If Moses is like God in that Aaron is his prophet, then Moses is certainly like God to Pharaoh. Only Moses, then, is able to speak to Pharaoh with such authority, giving him commands.
2tn The word ;a#yb!n+ (nebi’eka), “your prophet,” recalls 4:16. Moses was to be like God to Aaron, and Aaron was to speak for him. This indicates that the idea of a “prophet” was of one who spoke for God, an idea with which Moses and Aaron and the readers of Exodus are assumed to be familiar.
3tn The imperfect tense here should have the nuance of instruction or injunction: “you are to speak.” The subject is singular (Moses) and made emphatic by the presence of the personal pronoun “you.”
4tn “All that I command you” is a noun clause serving as the direct object of the verb “speak.” The verb in the clause, ;W\x^a& (‘asawweka), is the Piel imperfect. It could be classified as a future: “all that I will command you.” A nuance of progressive imperfect also fits well: “all that I am commanding you.”
sn The distinct emphasis is important. Aaron will speak to the people and Pharaoh what Moses tells him, and Moses will speak to Aaron what God commands him. The use of “command” keeps everything in perspective for Moses’ position.
5tn The form is jL^v!w+ (wesillah), a Piel perfect with vav consecutive. Following the imperfects of injunction or instruction, this verb continues the sequence. It could be taken as equal to an imperfect expressing future (“and he will release”) or subordinate to express purpose (“to release” = “in order that he may release”).
6tn The clause begins with the emphatic use of the pronoun and a disjunctive vav expressing the contrast “But as for me, I will harden.” They will speak, but God will harden.
sn The imperfect tense of the verb hvq (qasa) is found only here in these “hardening passages.” The verb (here the Hiphil for “I will harden”) summarizes Pharaoh’s resistance to what God would be doing through Moses—he would stubbornly resist and refuse to submit; he would be resolved in his opposition. See R. R. Wilson, “The Hardening of Pharaoh’s Heart,” CBQ 41 (1979): 18-36.
7tn The form beginning the second half of the verse is the perfect tense with vav consecutive, yt!yB@r+h! (hirbeti). It could be translated as a simple future in sequence after the imperfect preceding it, but the logical connection is not obvious. Since it carries the force of an imperfect due to the sequence, it may be subordinated as a temporal clause to the next clause that begins in v. 4. That maintains the flow of the argument.
8tn Heb “and Pharaoh will not listen.”
9tn Heb “put my hand into.” The expression is a strong anthropomorphism to depict God’s severest judgment on Egypt. The point is that neither the speeches of Moses and Aaron nor the signs that God would do will be effective. Consequently, God would deliver the blow that would destroy.
10tn Often translated “hosts” or “armies,” toabx*= (seba’ot) is a military term that portrays the people of God in battle array. “Regiments” is perhaps more easily understood as a force for battle than “companies” or “divisions,” which can have commercial associations.
11tn The emphasis on sequence is clear because the form is the perfect tense with the vav consecutive.
sn The use of the verb “to know” (udy [yada’]) underscores what was said with regard to 6:3. By the time the actual exodus took place, the Egyptians would have “known” the name Yahweh, probably hearing it more than they wished. But they will know—experience the truth of it—when Yahweh defeats them.
12sn This is another anthropomorphism, parallel to the preceding. If God were to “put” (/tn [natan]), “extend” (hfn [nata]), or “reach out” (jlv [salah]) his hand against them, they would be destroyed. Contrast Exod 24:11.
13tn Heb “And Yahweh said.”
14tn Heb “said to Moses and Aaron, saying.”
15tn The verb is WnT= (tenu), properly “give.” The imperative is followed by an ethical dative that strengthens the subject of the imperative: “you give a miracle.”
16tn Heb “and throw it.” The direct object, “it,” is implied.
17tn The form is the jussive yh!y+ ( yehi). Gesenius notes that frequently in a conditional clause, a sentence with a protasis and apodosis, the jussive will be used. Here it is in the apodosis (GKC §109.h).
18tn The clause begins with the preterite and the vav consecutive; it is here subordinated to the next clause as a temporal clause.
19tn Heb “and Aaron threw.”
20tn The noun used here is /yN]T^ (tannin), and not the word for “serpent” or “snake” used in chap. 4. This noun refers to a large reptile, in some texts large river or sea creatures (Gen 1:21; Ps 74:13) or land creatures (Deut 32:33). Driver thinks here it must be a large land reptile, or even a small crocodile. This wonder paralleled Moses’ miracle in 4:3 when he cast his rod down. But this is Aaron’s rod, and a different miracle. The noun could still be rendered “snake” here since the term could be broad enough to include it.
21sn For information on this Egyptian material, see D. B. Redford, A Study of the Biblical Story of Joseph (Leiden: Brill, 1979), 203-4.
22tn The <yM!F%r+j^ (hartummim) seem to have been the keepers of Egypt’s religious and magical texts, the sacred scribes.
23tn The term <h#yf@h&l^B= (belahatehem) means “by their secret arts”; it is from FWl (lut, “to enwrap”). The Greek renders the word “by their magic”; Onqelos uses “murmurings” and “whispers” (Sanh. 67b); and other Jewish sources “dazzling display” or “demons” (see further B. Jacob, 253-54). They may have done this by clever tricks, manipulation of the animals, or demon power. Many have suggested that Aaron and the magicians were familiar with an old trick in which they could temporarily paralyze a serpent and then revive it. But here Aaron’s snake swallows their snakes.
24tn The verb is plural, but the subject is singular, “a man—his staff.” This noun can be given a distributive sense: “each man threw down his staff.”
25tn This phrase translates the Hebrew word qzj; see Driver, 53.
sn For more on this subject, see B. Jacob, Exodus, 241-49. Driver notes that when this word (qzj [hazaq]) is used it indicates a will or attitude that is unyielding and firm, but when dbK (kabed) is used, it stresses the will as being slow to move, unimpressionable, slow to be affected (Driver, 53).
26sn With the first plague, or blow on Pharaoh, a new section of the book unfolds. Until now the dominant focus has been on preparing the deliverer for the exodus. From here the account will focus on preparing Pharaoh for it. The theological emphasis for exposition of the entire series of plagues may be: The sovereign Lord is fully able to deliver his people from the oppression of the world so that they may worship and serve him alone. The distinct idea of each plague then will contribute to this main idea. It is clear from the outset that God could have delivered his people simply and suddenly. But he chose to draw out the process with the series of plagues. There appear to be several reasons: First, the plagues are designed to judge Egypt. It is justice for slavery. Second, the plagues are designed to inform Israel and Egypt of the ability of Yahweh. Everyone must know that it is Yahweh doing all these things. The Egyptians must know this before they are destroyed. Third, the plagues are designed to deliver Israel. The first plague is the plague of blood: God has absolute power over the sources of life. Here Yahweh strikes the heart of Egyptian life with death and corruption. The lesson is that God can turn the source of life into the prospect of death. Moreover, the Nile was venerated; so by turning it into death Moses was showing the superiority of Yahweh.
27tn Or “unresponsive” (so HALOT s.v. db@K*).
28tn The Piel infinitive construct jL^v^l= (lesallah) serves as the direct object of /a@m@ (me’en), telling what Pharaoh refuses (characteristic perfect) to do. The whole clause is an explanation (like a metonymy of effect) of the first clause that states that Pharaoh’s heart is hard.
29tn The clause begins with hN@h! (hinneh); here it provides the circumstances for the instruction for Moses—he is going out to the water so go meet him. A temporal clause translation captures the connection between the clauses.
30tn The instruction to Moses continues with this perfect tense with vav consecutive following the imperative. The verb means “to take a stand, station oneself.” It seems that Pharaoh’s going out to the water was a regular feature of his day and that Moses could be there waiting to meet him.
31sn The Nile, the source of fertility for the country, was deified by the Egyptians. There were religious festivals held to the god of the Nile, especially when the Nile was flooding. The Talmud suggests that Pharaoh in this passage went out to the Nile to make observations as a magician about its level. Others (including Tg. Yer. I) suggest he went out simply to bathe or to check the water level (Ibn Ezra)—but that would not change the view of the Nile that was prevalent in the land.
32tn The verb jQ^T! (tiqqah), the Qal imperfect of jql (laqah), functions here as the imperfect of instruction, or injunction perhaps, given the word order of the clause.
33tn The final clause begins with the noun and vav disjunctive, which singles this instruction out for special attention—“now the rod…you are to take.”
34tn The form rm)al@ (le’mor) is the Qal infinitive construct with the lamed preposition. It is used so often epexegetically that it has achieved idiomatic status—“saying” (if translated at all). But here it would make better sense to take it as a purpose infinitive. God sent him to say these words.
35tn The imperfect tense with the vav (yn]d%b=u^y~w+ [weya’abduni]) following the imperative is in volitive sequence, showing the purpose—“that they may serve me.” The word “serve” (dbu [‘abad]) is a general term to include religious observance and obedience.
36tn The final hK)-du^ (‘ad-koh), “until now,” narrows the use of the perfect tense to the present perfect: “you have not listened.” That verb, however, involves more than than mere audition. It has the idea of responding to, hearkening, and in some places obeying; here “you have not complied” might catch the point of what Moses is saying, while “listen” helps to maintain the connection with other uses of the verb.
37tn Or “complied” ( Tumv^ [sama‘ta]).
38tn The construction using hN@h! (hinneh) before the participle (here the Hiphil participle hK#m^ [makkeh]) introduces a futur instans use of the participle, expressing imminent future, that he is about to do something.
39sn Kaiser summarizes a view that has been adopted by many scholars, including a good number of conservatives, that the plagues overlap with natural phenomena in Egypt. Accordingly, the “blood” would not be literal blood, but a reddish contamination in the water. If there was an unusually high inundation of the Nile, the water flowed sluggishly through swamps and was joined with the water from the mountains that washed out the reddish soil. If the flood were high, the water would have a deeper red color. In addition to this discoloration, there is said to be a type of algae which produce a stench and a deadly fluctuation of the oxygen level of the river that is fatal to fish (W. C. Kaiser Jr, “Exodus,” in EBC, 350; he cites Greta Hort, “The Plagues of Egypt,” ZAW 69 [1957]: 84-103; ZAW 70 [1958]: 48-59). While most scholars would agree that the water did not actually become blood (any more than the moon will be turned to literal blood [Joel 2:31]), many are not satisfied with this kind of explanation. If the event was a fairly common feature of the Nile, it would not have been any kind of sign to Pharaoh—and it should still be observable. The features that would have to be safeguarded are that it was understood to be done by the rod of God, that it was unexpected and not a mere coincidence, and that the magnitude of the contamination, color, stench, and death, was unparalleled. God does use natural features in miracles, but to be miraculous signs they cannot simply coincide with natural phenomena.
40tn The definite article here has the generic use, indicating the class—“fish” (R. J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax, §92).
41tn The verb hal (la’a), here in the Niphal perfect with a vav consecutive, means “be weary, impatient.” The Niphal meaning is “make oneself weary” in doing something, or “weary (strenuously exert) oneself.” It seems always to indicate exhausted patience (see BDB 521). The term seems to imply that the Egyptians were not able to drink the red, contaminated water, and so would expend all their energy looking for water to drink—in frustration of course.
42tn Or “irrigation rivers” of the Nile.
43sn The Hebrew term means “gathering,” i.e., wherever they gathered or collected waters, notably cisterns and reservoirs. This would naturally lead to the inclusion of both wooden and stone vessels—down to the smallest gatherings.
44tn The imperfect tense with vav after the imperative indicates the purpose or result: “in order that they [the waters] be[come] blood.”
45tn Or “in all.”
46sn Both Moses and Aaron had tasks to perform. Moses, being the “god” to Pharaoh, dealt directly with him and the Nile. He would strike the Nile. But Aaron, “his prophet,” would stretch out the rod over the rest of the waters of Egypt.
47tn Heb “And he raised”; the referent (Moses) has been specified in the translation for clarity.
48tn Gesenius calls the preposition on “rod” the B= instrumenti, used to introduce the object (GKC §119.q). This construction provides a greater emphasis than an accusative.
49tn The text could be rendered “in the sight of,” or simply “before,” but the literal idea of “before the eyes of” may stress how obvious the event was and how personally they were witnesses of it.
50sn Cassuto notes that the striking of the water was not a magical act. It signified two things: (1) the beginning of the sign, which was in accordance with God’s will, as Moses had previously announced, and (2) to symbolize actual “striking,” wherewith the Lord strikes Egypt and its gods (see v. 25) (Exodus, 98).
51sn There have been various attempts to explain the details of this plague or blow. One possible suggestion is that the plague turned the Nile into “blood,” but that it gradually turned back to its normal color and substance. However, the effects of the “blood” polluted the water so that dead fish and other contamination left it undrinkable. This would explain how the magicians could also do it—they would not have tried if all water was already turned to blood. It also explains why Pharaoh did not ask for the water to be turned back. This view was put forward by B. Schor; it is summarized by B. Jacob, who prefers the view of Rashi that the blow affected only water in use (B. Jacob, Exodus, 258).
52tn The first clause in this verse begins with a vav disjunctive, introducing a circumstantial clause to the statement that the water stank. The vav consecutive on the next verb shows that the smell was the result of the dead fish in the contaminated water. The result is then expressed with the vav beginning the clause that states that they could not drink it.
53tn The preterite could be given a simple definite past translation, but an ingressive past would be more likely, as the smell would get worse and worse with the dead fish.
54tn Heb “and there was blood.”
55tn Heb /K@ (ken), “thus, so.”
56tn The vav consecutive on the preterite introduces the outcome or result of the matter—Pharaoh was hardened.
57tn Heb “and the heart of Pharaoh became hard.” This phrase translates the Hebrew word qzj (see Driver, 53). In context this represents the continuation of a prior condition.
58tn Heb “to them”; the referents (Moses and Aaron) have been specified in the translation for clarity.
59tn The text has taz)l*-<G^ oBl! tv*-aOw+ (welo’-sat libbo gam-lazo’t), which literally says, “and he did not set his heart also to this.” To “set the heart” to something would mean “to consider it.” This Hebrew idiom means that he did not pay attention to it, or take it to heart (cf. 2 Sam 13:20; Ps 48:13; 62:10; Prov 22:17; 24:32). Since Pharaoh had not been affected by this, he did not consider it or its implications further.
60sn The text stresses that the water in the Nile, and Nile water that had been diverted or collected for use, was polluted and undrinkable. Water underground also was from the Nile, but it had not been contaminated, certainly not with dead fish, and so would be drinkable.
61sn An attempt to connect this plague with the natural phenomena of Egypt proposes that because of the polluted water due to the high Nile, the frogs abandoned their normal watery homes (seven days after the first plague) and sought cover from the sun in homes wherever there was moisture. Since they had already been exposed to the poisonous water, they died very suddenly. The miracle was in the announcement and the timing, i.e., that Moses would predict this blow, and in the magnitude of it all, which was not natural (Greta Hort, “The Plagues of Egypt,” ZAW 69 [1957]: 95-98). It is also important to note that in parts of Egypt there was a fear of these creatures as embodying spirits capable of great evil. People developed the mentality of bowing to incredibly horrible idols to drive away the bad spirits. Evil spirits are represented in the Book of Revelation in the forms of frogs (Rev 16:13). The frogs that the magicians produced could very well have been in the realm of evil spirits. Exactly how the Egyptians thought about this plague is hard to determine; but there is enough evidence to say that the plague would have made them spiritually as well as physically uncomfortable, and that the death of the frogs would have been a “sign” from God about their superstitions and related beliefs. The frog is associated with the god Hapi, and a frog-headed goddess named Heqet was supposed to assist women at childbirth. The plague would have been evidence that Yahweh was controlling their environment and upsetting their beliefs for his own purpose.
62tn The text literally has “and seven days were filled.” Seven days gave Pharaoh enough time to repent and release Israel. When the week passed, God’s second blow came.
63tn This is a temporal clause made up of the preposition, the Hiphil infinitive construct of hkn (naka), toKh^ (hakkot), followed by the subjective genitive YHWH. Here the verb is applied to the true meaning of the plague: Moses struck the water, but the plague was a blow struck by God.
64sn Beginning with 8:1, the verse numbers through 8:32 in English Bibles differ from the verse numbers in the Hebrew text (BHS), with 8:1 ET = 7:26 HT, 8:2 ET = 7:27 HT, 8:3 ET = 7:28 HT, 8:4 ET = 7:29 HT, 8:5 ET = 8:1 HT, etc., through 8:32 ET = 8:28 HT. Thus in English Bibles chapter 8 has 32 verses, while in the Hebrew Bible it has 28 verses, with the four extra verses attached to chapter 7.
65tn The construction here uses the deictic particle and the participle to convey the imminent future: “I am going to plague/about to plague.” The verb [gn [nagap] means “to strike, to smite,” and its related noun means “a blow, a plague, pestilence” or the like. For Yahweh to say “I am about to plague you” could just as easily mean “I am about to strike you.” That is why these “plagues” can be described as “blows” received from God.
66tn Heb “plague all your border with frogs.” The expression “all your border” is figurative for all the territory of Egypt and the people and things that are within the borders (also used in Exod 10:4, 14, 19; 13:7).
sn This word for frogs is mentioned in the OT only in conjunction with this plague (here and Pss 78:45, 105:30). Cole suggests that the word “frogs,” <yu!D=r+p^x= (separde’im), may be an onomatopoeic word, something like “croakers”; it is of Egyptian origin and could be a Hebrew attempt to write the Arabic dofda (R. A. Cole, Exodus, 91).
67sn The choice of this verb Jrv (saras) recalls its use in the creation account (Gen 1:20). The water would be swarming with frogs in abundance. There is a hint here of this being a creative work of God as well.
68sn This verse lists places the frogs will go. The first three are for Pharaoh personally—they are going to touch his private life. Then the text mentions the servants and the people. Mention of the ovens and kneading bowls (or troughs) of the people indicates that food would be contaminated and that it would be impossible even to eat a meal in peace.
69tn Here again is the generic use of the article, designating the class—frogs.
70sn The word order of the Hebrew text is important because it shows how the plague was pointedly directed at Pharaoh: “and against you, and against your people, and against all your servants frogs will go up.”
71sn After the instructions for Pharaoh (7:25-8:4), the plague now is brought on by the staff in Aaron’s hand (8:5-7). This will lead to the confrontation (vv. 8-11) and the hardening (vv. 12-15).
72tn The noun is singular, a collective. B. Jacob notes that this would be the more natural way to refer to the frogs (Exodus, 260).
73tn Heb /K@ (ken), “thus, so.”
74sn In these first two plagues the fact that the Egyptians could and did duplicate them is ironic. By duplicating the experience, they added to the misery of Egypt. One wonders why they did not use their skills to rid the land of the pests instead, and the implication of course is that they could not.
75tn The verb arq (qara’) followed by the lamed preposition has the meaning of “to summon.”
76tn The verb WryT!u=h^ (ha’tiru) is the Hiphil imperative of the verb rtu (‘atar). It means “to pray, supplicate,” or “make supplication”—always addressed to God. It is often translated “entreat” to reflect that it is a more urgent praying.
77tn This form is the jussive with a sequential vav that provides the purpose of the prayer: pray…that he may turn away the frogs.
sn This is the first time in the conflict that Pharaoh even acknowledged that Yahweh existed. Now he is asking for prayer to remove the frogs and is promising to release Israel. This result of the plague must have been an encouragement to Moses.
78tn The form is the Piel cohortative hj*L=v^a&w~ (wa’asallehah) with the vav continuing the sequence from the request and its purpose. The cohortative here stresses the resolve of the king: “and (then) I will release.”
79tn Here also the imperfect tense with the vav shows the purpose of the release: “that they may sacrifice.”
80tn The expression yl^u* ra@P*t=h! (hitpa’er ‘alay) is problematic. The verb would be simply translated “honor yourself” or “deck yourself with honor.” It can be used in the bad sense of self-exaltation. But here it seems to mean “have the honor or advantage over me” in choosing when to remove the frogs. The LXX has “appoint for me.” Moses is doing more than extending a courtesy to Pharaoh; he is giving him the upper hand in choosing the time. But it is also a test, for if Pharaoh picked the time it would appear less likely that Moses was manipulating things. As U. Cassuto puts it, Moses is saying my trust in God is so strong you may have the honor of choosing the time (Exodus, 103).
81tn Or “destroyed”; Heb “to cut off the frogs.”
82tn The phrase “so that” is implied.
83tn Or “survive, remain.”
84tn Heb “And he said”; the referent (Moses) has been specified in the translation for clarity.
85tn “It will be” has been supplied.
86tn Or “as you say.”
87tn The verb qux (sa’aq) is used for prayers in which people cry out of trouble or from danger. Cassuto observes that Moses would have been in real danger if God had not answered this prayer (U. Cassuto, Exodus, 103).
88tn Heb “over the matter of.”
89tn The verb is an unusual choice if it were just to mean “brought on.” It is the verb <C* (sam), “place, put.” Driver thinks the thought is “appointed for Pharaoh” as a sign (S. R. Driver, Exodus, 64). The idea of the sign might be too much; but certainly the frogs were positioned for the instruction of the stubborn king.
90tn Heb “and the frogs died.”
91tn Heb “and they piled them.” For clarity the translation supplies the referent “the Egyptians” as the ones who were piling the frogs.
92tn The word “heaps” is repeated: <r!mh( <r!mj( (homarim homarim), “heaps, heaps.” The repetition serves to intensify the idea to the highest degree—“countless heaps” (see GKC §123.e).
93tn The word hjwr+ (rewahah) means “respite, relief.” BDB relates it to the verb jwr (rawah), “to be wide, spacious.” There would be relief when there was freedom to move about.
94tn dB@k=h^w+ (wehakbed) is a Hiphil infinitive absolute, functioning as a finite verb. The meaning of the word is “to make heavy,” and so stubborn, sluggish, indifferent. It summarizes his attitude and the outcome, that he refused to keep his promises.
95sn The end of the plague revealed clearly God’s absolute control over Egypt’s life and deities—all at the power of the man who prayed to God. Yahweh had made life unpleasant for the people by sending the plague, but he was also the one who could remove it. The only recourse anyone has in such trouble is to pray to the sovereign Lord God. Everyone should know that there is no one like Yahweh.
96sn The third plague is brief and unannounced. Moses and Aaron were simply to strike the dust so that it would become gnats. Not only was this plague unannounced, but also it was not duplicated by the Egyptians.
97tn The verb is the perfect tense with vav consecutive, meaning “and it will be.” When hyh (haya) is followed by the lamed proposition, it means “become.”
98tn The noun is <yN]K! (kinnim). The insect has been variously identified as lice, gnats, ticks, flies, fleas, or mosquitoes. “Lice” follows the reading in the Peshitta and Targum (and so Josephus, Antiq. 2.14.3). Greek and Latin had “gnats.” By “gnats” many commentators mean “mosquitoes,” which in and around the water of Egypt were abundant (and the translators of the Greek text were familiar with Egypt). Whatever they were they came from the dust and were troublesome to people and animals.
99tn Heb “man,” but in the generic sense of “humans” or “people” (also in v. 18).
100tn The preterite with vav consecutive is here subordinated to the main clause as a temporal clause.
101sn The report of what the magicians did (or as it turns out, tried to do) begins with the same words as the report about the actions of Moses and Aaron—“and they did so” (vv. 17 and 18). The magicians copy the actions of Moses and Aaron, leading readers to think momentarily that the magicians are again successful, but at the end of the verse comes the news that “they could not.” Compared with the first two plagues, this third plague has an important new feature, the failure of the magicians and their recognition of the source of the plague.
102tn Heb “and the magicians said.”
103tn The word “finger” is a bold anthropomorphism. The point of the magicians’ words is clear enough. They knew they were beaten and by whom. The reason for their choice of the word “finger” has occasioned many theories, none of which is entirely satisfying. At the least their statement highlights that the plague was accomplished by God with majestic ease and effortlessness.
sn Perhaps the reason that they could not do this was that it involved producing life—from the dust of the ground, as in Genesis 2:7. The creative power of God confounded the magic of the Egyptians and brought on them a loathsome plague.
104tn Heb “and the heart of Pharaoh became hard.” This phrase translates the Hebrew word qzj (see Driver, 53). In context this represents the continuation of a prior condition.
105sn The announcement of the fourth plague parallels that of the first plague. Now there will be flies, likely dogflies. Egypt has always suffered from flies, more so in the summer than in the winter. But the flies the plague describes involve something greater than any normal season for flies. The main point that can be stressed in this plague comes by tracing the development of the plagues in their sequence. Now, with the flies, it becomes clear that God can inflict suffering on some people and preserve others—a preview of the coming judgment that will punish Egypt but set Israel free. God is fully able to keep the dog-fly in the land of the Egyptians and save his people from these judgments.
106tn Heb “And Yahweh said.”
107tn The construction uses the predicator of nonexistence—/ya@ (‘en), “there is not”—with a pronominal suffix prior to the Piel participle. The suffix becomes the subject of the clause. Heb “but if there is not you releasing.”
108tn Here again is the futur instans use of the participle, now Qal with the meaning “send”: j~yl!v=m^ yn]n+h! (hineni masliah), “here I am sending.”
109tn The word br)u (‘arob) means “a mix” or “swarm.” It seems that some irritating kind of flying insect is involved. Ps 78:45 says that the Egyptians were eaten or devoured by them. Various suggestions have been made over the years: (1) it could refer to beasts or reptiles; (2) the Greek took it as the dog-fly, a vicious blood-sucking gadfly, more common in the spring than in the fall; (3) the ordinary house fly, which is a symbol of Egypt in Isa 7:18 (Hebrew zebub); and (4) the beetle, which gnaws and bites plants, animals, and materials. The fly probably fits the details of this passage best; the plague would have greatly intensified a problem with flies that already existed.
110tn Or perhaps “the land where they are.”
111tn Or “distinguish.” yt!yl@p=h!w+ (wehipleti) is the Hiphil perfect of hlP (pala).The verb in Hiphil means “to set apart, make separate, make distinct.” God was going to keep the flies away from Goshen—he was setting that apart. The Greek text assumed that the word was from alP (pale’), and translated it something like “I will marvelously glorify.”
112tn The relative clause modifies the land of Goshen as the place “in which my people are dwelling.” But the normal word for “dwelling” is not used here. Instead, dm@u) (‘omed), “standing” (literally). The land on which Israel stood was spared the flies and the hail.
113tn Or “land.”
114tn The word in the text is td%p= (pedut), “redemption.” This would give the sense of making a distinction by redeeming Israel. The editors wish to read tl%p= (pelut) instead—“a separation, distinction” to match the verb in the preceding verse. G. I. Davies suggests that a letter was omitted, that the root was drP (parad), which would have left a noun formation of prdt, “separation.” See G. I. Davies, “The Hebrew Text of Exodus VIII 19 [English 23]: An Emendation,” VT 24 (1974): 489-92.
115tn Heb “this sign will be tomorrow.”
116tn Heb “and there came a….”
117tn The word is db@K* (kabed), which means “heavy, severe.” Driver suggests using “heavy,” since it combines both numerous and severe (9:3, 18, 24). “Dense” or “thick” would also capture the idea.
118tn Here, and in the next phrase, the word “house” has to be taken as an adverbial accusative of termination.
119tn The Hebrew text has the singular here.
120tc Concerning the connection of “the land was ruined” with the preceding, Driver suggests reading with the LXX, SP, and Peshitta; this would call for adding a conjunction before the last clause to make it read, “into the house of Pharaoh, and into his servants’ houses, and into all the land of Egypt; and the land was…” (S. R. Driver, Exodus, 68).
tn tj@V*T! (tissahet) is a strong word; it is the Niphal imperfect of tjv (sahat), and is translated “ruined.” If the classification as imperfect stands, then it would have to be something like a progressive imperfect (the land was being ruined); otherwise, it may simply be a preterite without the vav consecutive. Cassuto wonders if perhaps some of this material is from an ancient poem in which such forms would be natural. Be that as it may, the verb describes utter devastation. This is the verb that is used in Gen 13:10 to describe how Yahweh destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. Swarms of flies would disrupt life, contaminate everything, and bring disease.
121sn After the plague is inflicted on the land, then Pharaoh makes an appeal. So there is the familiar confrontation (vv. 25-29). Pharaoh’s words to Moses are an advancement on his previous words. Now he uses imperatives: “Go, sacrifice to your God.” But he restricts it to “in the [this] land.” This is a subtle attempt to keep them as a subjugated people and prevent their absolute allegiance to their God. This offered compromise would destroy the point of the exodus—to leave Egypt and find a new allegiance under the Lord.
122tn The clause is a little unusual in its formation. The form /okn* (nakon) is the Niphal participle from /WK (kun), which usually means “firm, fixed, steadfast,” but here it has a rare meaning of “right, fitting, appropriate.” It functions in the sentence as the predicate adjective, because the infinitive toCu&l^ (la’asot) is the subject—“to do so is not right.”
123tn This translation has been smoothed out to capture the sense. The text literally says, “for the abomination of Egypt we will sacrifice to Yahweh our God.” In other words, the animals that Israel would sacrifice were sacred to Egypt, and sacrificing them would have been abhorrent to the Egyptians.
124tn An “abomination” is something that is off-limits, something that is tabu. It could be translated “detestable” or “loathsome.”
125sn U. Cassuto says there are two ways to understand “the abomination of the Egyptians.” One is that the sacrifice of the sacred animals would appear an abominable thing in the eyes of the Egyptians; and the other is that the word “abomination” could be a derogatory term for idols—we sacrifice what is an Egyptian idol. So that is why he says if they did this the Egyptians would stone them (p. 109).
126tn Heb “if we sacrifice the abomination of the Egyptians [or “of Egypt”] before their eyes.”
127tn The interrogative clause has no particle to indicate it is a question, but it is connected with the conjunction to the preceding clause, and the meaning of these clauses indicate it is a question (GKC §150.a).
128tn The verb El@n@ (nelek) is a Qal imperfect of the verb Elh (halak). Here it should be given the modal nuance of obligation: “we must go.”
129tn This clause is placed first in the sentence to stress the distance required. Er#D# (derek) is an adverbial accusative specifying how far they must go. It is in construct, so “three days” modifies it. It is a “journey of three days,” or, “a three day journey.”
130tn The form is the perfect tense with a vav consecutive; it follows in the sequence: we must go…and then [must] sacrifice.”
131tn The form is the imperfect tense. It could be future: “as he will tell us,” but it also could be the progressive imperfect if this is now what God is telling them to do: “as he is telling us.”
132sn By changing from “the people” to “you” (plural) the speech of Pharaoh was becoming more personal.
133tn This form, a perfect tense with vav consecutive, is equivalent to the imperfect tense that precedes it. However, it must be subordinate to the preceding verb to express the purpose. He is not saying “I will release…and you will sacrifice,” but rather “I will release…that you may sacrifice” or even “to sacrifice.”
134tn The construction is very emphatic. First, it uses a verbal hendiadys with a Hiphil imperfect and the Qal infinitive construct: tk#l#l* Wqyj!r+t^-aO (lo’ tarhiqu laleket), “you will not make far to go” meaning, “you will not go far.” But this prohibition is then emphasized with the additional infinitive absolute qj@r+h^ (harheq)—“you will in no wise go too far.” The point is very strong to safeguard the concession.
135tn “Do” has been supplied here to convey that this somewhat unexpected command is tacked onto Pharaoh’s instructions as his ultimate concern, which Moses seems to understand as such, since he speaks about it immediately (v. 29).
136tn The deictic particle with the participle usually indicates the futur instans nuance: “I am about to…,” or “I am going to….” The clause could also be subordinated as a temporal clause.
137tn The verb llT (talal) means “to mock, deceive, trifle with.” The construction in this verse forms a verbal hendiadys. The Hiphil jussive [s@y)-la^^ (‘al-yosep), “let not [Pharaoh] add,” is joined with the Hiphil infinitive lt@h* (hatel), “to deceive.” It means: “Let not Pharaoh deceive again.” Changing to the third person in this warning to Pharaoh is more decisive, more powerful.
138tn The Piel infinitive construct after lamed (and the negative) functions epexegetically, explaining how Pharaoh would deal falsely—“by not releasing.”
139tn This phrase translates the Hebrew word dbk; see Driver, 53.