1. At the risk of contradicting myself, I will mention here once—and only once—my dissertation: Exodus Retold: Ancient Exegesis of the Departure From Egypt in Wis 10:15–21 and 19:1–9 (Harvard Semitic Monographs 57; Atlanta: Scholars, 1997).
1. Two prominent examples of this countertrend are R. Rendtorff, The Problem of the Process of the Transmission of the Pentateuch, trans. J. J. Scullion (JSOTSup 89; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1990), and R. N. Whybray, The Making of the Pentateuch: A Methodological Study (JSOTSup 53; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1989). For helpful overviews of the history of the debate see R. N. Whybray, Introduction to the Pentateuch (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 12–28, and G. Wenham, “Pentateuchal Studies Today,” Themelios 22/1 (1996): 3–13.
2. These are two of a number of “standard” difficulties with Mosaic authorship raised by the Pentateuch itself. It should be made clear, however, that these non-Mosaic elements have no bearing whatsoever on whether Moses is responsible for some writing. In fact, the passages listed in the previous paragraph demonstrate that Moses did write. I might also add that many of these standard difficulties have been routinely pointed out by conservative scholars, so I am offering nothing new here.
3. On the other hand, determining the dates of many psalms is still uncertain, since historical markers in the psalms are for the most part conspicuously absent.
4. A well-known example in recent years is the discovery of an inscription in Tel Dan that makes reference to the “House of David,” thus lending extrabiblical support for the historicity of David’s reign. The discovery and interpretation of this inscription has sparked a great deal of controversy. See A. Biran, “‘David’ Found at Dan,” BAR 20 (March–April 1994): 26–39; W. Schiedewind, “Tel Dan Stela: New Light on Aramaic and Jehu’s Revolt,” BASOR 302 (1996): 75–90. With respect to the historicity of Exodus specifically I suggest the recent study by J. K. Hoffmeier, Israel in Egypt: The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Exodus Tradition (New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1997).
5. On the lack of the precise identification of the location of the Red Sea, see Hoffmeier, Israel in Egypt, 215.
6. A seminary professor of mine, the late Raymond Dillard, would evaluate student sermons on the Old Testament by asking, “Could this sermon have been preached in a synagogue?” The answer had better be “no”! His point was that there should be something distinct about Christian preaching of the Old Testament.
7. Jesus and the apostles typically referred to this as “the Scriptures.” It seems to me that sometimes the term “Old Testament” puts up barriers for contemporary interpretation that would have been wholly foreign to what the New Testament itself not only presents but assumes.
1. “And” also begins the books of Leviticus and Numbers, although there it is attached to verbs, which is somewhat less unexpected. Deuteronomy begins with “These,” but a few ancient manuscripts include “and.” See comments by C. Houtman, Exodus, 1:226–27.
2. The commentaries are in routine agreement over this. See, e.g., U. Cassuto, Commentary on Exodus, 7, and J. I. Durham, Exodus, 3–5. James S. Ackerman argues that Ex. 1:1–14 as a whole acts as a bridge linking the patriarchal narratives and the Exodus (“The Literary Context of the Moses Birth Story [Exodus 1–2],” Literary Interpretations of Biblical Narratives, ed. K. Gros. Louis, J. Ackerman, and T. S. Warshaw [Nashville: Abingdon, 1974], 74–119).
3. Verb tense in Hebrew is determined by context as much as by form. Hence, in Exodus 1:1, the participle is certainly to be translated as past (IBHS, 623; GKC, §116.d). Nevertheless, the use of the participle in 1:1 is no doubt an echo of Gen. 46:8.
4. In this regard, see also J. Plastaras, The God of Exodus, 8–11; T. E. Fretheim, Exodus, 24–26.
5. See also the similarity in wording between Ex. 1:7 and Gen. 47:27: “Now the Israelites settled in Egypt in the region of Goshen. They acquired property there and were fruitful and increased greatly in number.” For a fuller discussion, see Houtman, Exodus, 1:230–34. The Exodus/Noah connection (Gen. 9:1) is made more explicit in Ex. 2:3 (see below): Moses, like Noah, is placed in an “ark” (Heb. tebah). This Hebrew word occurs only in Ex. 2 and Gen. 6–9. Apparently, the Exodus is meant to be understood in light of several past events.
6. J. Ackerman speaks of “repeated allusions in Exodus 1–2 to the primeval stories in Genesis 1–11” (“Literary Context,” 74). See also his discussion of Ex. 1:1–7 (ibid., 75–79).
7. This is similar to B. Childs’s view that Pharaoh and the midwives represent ideal types, i.e., figures that represent patterns of conduct rather than specific individuals (Book of Exodus, 13).
8. No one, however, should refer to these gaps in the narrative as “incidental” when speaking to biblical archaeologists or historians! It is precisely the terseness of passages such as these that has led to considerable debate over the identity of the pharaoh of the Exodus, the Israelites’ precise location during their stay in Egypt, etc.
9. C. Isbell advocates reading Exodus “as if for the first time” (“Exodus 1–2 in the Context of Exodus 1–14: Story Lines and Key Words,” in Art and Meaning: Rhetoric in Biblical Literature, ed. D. J. A. Clines, D. M. Gunn, and A. J. Hauser [JSOTSup 19; Sheffield: JSOT, 1982], 38). This is all well and good and is profitable advice for who those want to encounter the text afresh. Still, it appears to be more of a modern convention than ancient.
10. J. Goldingay discusses “The Role of Ambiguity and Openness in Stories” in Models for Interpretation of Scripture (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 39–41.
11. Moreover, most commentators agree that “Israelites” in v. 7 (Hebrew “sons of Israel”) should be understood as an expression of national identity (e.g., Childs, Book of Exodus, 2). This is to be contrasted to the use of the same phrase in v. 1 where a patriarchal, familial meaning is intended. The point is that Israel’s stay in Egypt was a formative event in its move from family to nation status. The Israelites were now a people with whom Pharaoh had to reckon.
12. Ackerman correctly compares Pharaoh’s machinations in v. 10 to those of the inhabitants of Babel in Gen. 11:3–4 (“Come, let us . . . lest they . . .”). A comparison of the Hebrew of Ex. 1:10 and Gen. 11:3–4 shows clear similarities in wording. This is further support that Exodus should be read in light of Genesis.
13. Fretheim speaks of Pharaoh as “a symbol for the anticreation forces of death” (Exodus, 27).
14. Many commentators consider it contradictory that Pharaoh would want to reduce the numbers of his labor force. Killing one’s own slaves makes little economic sense. J. Nohrnberg attributes Pharaoh’s strategy to “the politics of terror” (Like Unto Moses: The Constituting of an Interruption [Bloomington: Indiana Univ. Press, 1995], 243).
15. Here is another curiosity in the opening chapter of Exodus that raises some basic questions. Why are the midwives mentioned by name? Are they so integral to the story? Also, were there only two Hebrew midwives to supervise the entire population? Or perhaps were these only two of many midwives, the two whose particularly brave adherence to the Lord ensured their continued remembrance (cf. Matt. 26:13)? The text simply does not provide us with adequate information to answer these questions. Cassuto suggests that the mention of their names is an indication of the “poetic” nature of the narrative, although he does not explain this further (Commentary on Exodus, 12–14).
16. There is some ambiguity in the text whether this refers to the midwives bearing their own children, or to their becoming “tribal” mothers (i.e., matriarchal heads) of families (cf. Houtman, Exodus, 1:259–60).
17. Furthermore (cf. above) great reduction in male population would undermine Pharaoh’s efforts to assemble a suitably sized male workforce to build his cities (J. Cohen, The Origins and Evolution of the Moses Nativity Story [SHR 58; Leiden: Brill, 1993], 5, n. 2). It is a popular point of view among ancient Jewish interpreters to assume that Pharaoh rescinded the edict after he had been told by his court astrologers that the promised redeemer (Moses) had already been born (e.g., Jubilees 47:3). This, of course, is not a point of fact in the biblical text. Rather, it is an explanation developed to fill this narrative gap.
18. On this point, see also P. Enns, “Creation and Re-creation: Psalm 95 and Its Interpretation in Hebrews 3:1–4:13,” WTJ 55 (1993): 255–80, esp. 258–64.
19. Further information on the theology of the genealogies in Chronicles can be found in H. G. M. Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 38–92, esp. 38–40 (pp. 2 and 38 are reversed in this volume), and R. Braun, 1 Chronicles (WBC 14; Waco, Tex.: Word, 1986), 3–5.
20. The purpose of the structure of Matthew’s genealogy is a debated point (see D. A. Hagner, Matthew 1–13 [WBC 33A; Dallas, Tex.: Word, 1993], 5–9). The genealogy as a whole, however, should be viewed in light of what is generally recognized as a characteristic of Matthew’s Gospel: It is directed (albeit not exclusively) to a Jewish-Christian audience (ibid., lxiv). Furthermore, the genealogy’s focus on Abraham, David, and Jesus serves to present Jesus as “King of the Jews,” as Matt. 2:2 makes explicit (R. H. Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on His Handbook for a Mixed Church Under Persecution [2d ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994], 14).
21. See, e.g., R. E. Brown, The Gospel According to John (i–xii) (AB 29; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1966), 4.
22. It is worth noting that the catalog of Old Testament saints in Heb. 11 begins with creation (v. 3). This is similar to Isaiah’s appeal to creation mentioned above.
23. This notion has most recently been discussed by D. A. Gowan, Theology in Exodus, 1–24. B. Childs makes the observation that the “absence” of God in ch. 2 is one of several indicators that the story of Moses’ birth may have been a product of wisdom circles (“The Birth of Moses,” JBL 84 [1965]: 118–22). God is mentioned in Ex. 1:17, 20–21, though not as an active player, but as someone behind the scenes.
24. Gowan, Theology in Exodus, 7–12.
25. Ibid., 16.
26. It is difficult to reconcile the midwives’ pious refusal to obey Pharaoh in v. 17 with their excuse in v. 19 that the safe birth of the Israelite children was simply a result of the mothers’ vigor. Why did they not simply declare openly their obedience to God rather than to Pharaoh?
27. Gowan, Theology in Exodus, 2.
28. God’s presence with his people on the world stage touches on the pervasive “divine warrior” theme in Scripture; see T. Longman III and D. G. Reid, God Is a Warrior (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995). This is a recurring theme in Exodus.
29. J. Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. J. T. McNeill; trans. F. L. Battles (LCC 20; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960), 37.
1. As Cassuto puts it, the narrative’s main focus is not “details of secondary import,” such as “genealogical particulars” (Commentary on Exodus, 17).
2. S. R. Driver is certainly correct in pointing out that the mention of “taking” (laqaḥ) a wife (v. 1), followed immediately by the announcement of the child’s conception, implies that Moses was their first child (The Book of Exodus in the Revised Version [Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1929], 8). Since reference to the child’s older sister in v. 4 clearly indicates the opposite, some have reasoned that Miriam and Aaron were children of Amram by a previous marriage. There is, however, no mention of this elsewhere in the Old Testament. Cassuto explains the difficulty by suggesting that this child was merely the first born after Pharaoh’s decree (Commentary on Exodus, 18). Although this is a possible explanation, it is certainly in order, with the writer’s selectivity evinced repeatedly in the previous passage, that the manner in which the child’s conception is mentioned expresses nothing more than the writer’s desire to draw the reader’s attention to the birth of Moses.
3. The standard commentaries typically draw attention to this issue: J. Skinner, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1956), 41–50; 174–81; G. J. Wenham, Genesis 1–15 (WBC 1; Waco, Tex.: Word, 1987), xlvi–l; C. Westermann, Genesis 1–11: A Commentary, trans. J. J. Scullion (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1984), 399–406. See also A. Heidel, The Babylonian Genesis: The Story of Creation (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1963).
4. Sargon was a king of ancient Akkad (2300 B.C.) whose mother, as the story goes, put him at birth in a reed basket treated with bitumen and placed him on a river. He was found by a drawer of water, who raised him as his son. Sargon grew up to be a mighty king (see J. B. Pritchard, ed., Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, 3d ed. [Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 1969], 119). Virtually no commentary on Exodus fails to draw a connection between this legend and Ex. 2:1–10. See N. Sarna, Exodus, 267–68; B. Lewis, The Sargon Birth Legend: A Study of the Akkadian Text and the Tale of the Hero Who Was Exposed at Birth (ASORDS 4; Cambridge, Mass.: ASOR, 1984); T. Longman III, Fictional Akkadian Autobiography: A Generic and Comparative Study (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1991), 53–60.
5. “The Literary Motif of the Exposed Child,” Numen 14 (1967): 209–28. Redford’s conclusions can certainly be challenged on a case-by-case basis, but the general thrust of the data remains.
6. For two recent evangelical treatments of this broader issue see, R. L. Pratt Jr., He Gave Us Stories: The Bible Student’s Guide to Interpreting Old Testament Narratives (Brentwood, Tenn.: Wolgemuth & Hyatt, 1990), and V. P. Long, The Art of Biblical History (Foundations of Contemporary Interpretation 5; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994).
7. See also J. Plastaras’s discussion on “folkloric” elements in Moses’ birth story (The God of Exodus, 43–44). Concerning the historicity of the abandonment motif in the ancient Near East, particularly with respect to the Sargon legend, T. Longman III argues: “While certainly a folklore theme, the practice of placing a child in the river may have been a widely practiced form of abandonment, similar to the more modern practice of leaving a child on the doorstep of a house” (Fictional Akkadian Autobiography, 56). See also Hoffmeier, Israel in Egypt, 136–38.
8. The incarnational analogy is an approach to understanding Scripture that has a long and honored history. Strong undercurrents are evident, for example, in Reformed theology, e.g., the writings of Calvin (his theory of “accommodation” and the “lisping” of God), the Old Princeton School (J. A. Alexander, W. H. Green, B. B. Warfield), as well as the Dutch Reformed tradition (H. Bavinck, G. C. Berkouwer). Some examples of explicit treatments of the incarnational model are the following: J. P. Smyth, How God Inspired the Bible: Thoughts for the Present Disquiet (New York: James Pott, 1892), esp. 119–35; J. Hannah, The Relation Between the Divine and Human Elements in Holy Scripture (London: John Murray, 1863); K. B. Trembath, Evangelical Theories of Biblical Inspiration: A Review and Proposal (New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1987). Two essays (with responses) in The Proceedings of the Conference on Biblical Inerrancy 1987 (Nashville: Broadman, 1987) are dedicated to this issue: J. I. Packer, “Inerrancy and the Divinity and the Humanity of the Bible,” 135–51, and K. Kantzer, “Inerrancy and the Humanity and Divinity of the Bible,” 153–73. Two Catholic treatments include B. Vawter, Biblical Inspiration (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1972), 95–113, and L. Alonso Schökel, The Inspired Word: Scripture in the Light of Language and Literature (London: Burns & Oates, 1967), esp. 49–53. One recent investigation of the Christological analogy in Karl Barth’s thinking is F. M. Hasel, “The Christological Analogy of Scripture in Karl Barth,” TZ 50 (1994): 41–49. See also P. Enns, “The ‘Moveable Well’ in 1 Cor 10:4: An Extra-Biblical Tradition in an Apostolic Text,” BBR 6 (1996): 23–38.
9. On the other hand, Ex. 2:1–10 is not simply a reproduction of the motif without its own flavor. B. Childs, for example, has argued that the ancient Near Eastern motif has been modified in Exodus by wisdom influences, which may be seen by the presence of various wisdom themes in these verses, e.g., God’s absence, a positive attitude toward foreigners, the piety of the midwives (“The Birth of Moses,” JBL 84 [1965]: 109–22; see also Childs, Book of Exodus, 13).
10. I disagree with Cassuto and others, who feel that the child’s physical beauty would have made the mother especially distraught at the potential loss of a child such as this (Commentary on Exodus, 19; see also Childs, Book of Exodus, 18). Likewise, Calvin argues at some length that the parents showed an excusable timidity in abandoning Moses in the first place, particularly since God had made Moses so handsome so as to indicate to the parents that the child was someone worth holding on to (Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the Form of a Harmony, trans. C. W. Bingham [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979], 40–42).
11. For other attempts by ancient interpreters to explain ṭob, see Houtman, Exodus, 1:273–74, and Sarna, Exodus, 9.
12. Sarna, Exodus, 9. E.g., after God created the light in Gen. 1:3, v. 4 says, “God saw the light, ki ṭob,” i.e., “that it was good.”
13. We are also told that the boy’s mother hid him for three months. The motive seems clear enough: to protect the boy from Pharaoh’s harsh decree in 1:22. Note Heb. 11:23, that hiding Moses was an act of faith on the part of Moses’ parents. The reasons for the three-month period are not made explicit, nor are the means that they chose to hide him or the reasons why the day came when they were no longer able to do so. See Houtman, Exodus, 1:274, for ancient exegesis of the significance of “three months.” Some, including Cassuto, suggest that the infant’s crying became too loud by this time (Commentary on Exodus, 18), although anyone acquainted with a newborn’s shrill, nighttime serenade might find Cassuto’s explanation wanting.
14. See, for example, Cassuto, Commentary on Exodus, 18–19; Sarna, Exodus, 9.
15. Driver mentions that the length of time is likely three to four years, at which point the child would have been weaned and returned to Pharaoh’s daughter (Book of Exodus, 11). Houtman suggests a span of two to three years (Exodus, 1:288).
16. Childs, “The Birth of Moses,” 111.
17. Childs considers 2:1–10 to be “a free adaptation of this traditional material within a narrative setting” (ibid.). He feels that there is enough evidence “to make highly plausible a common Near Eastern tradition which is reflected in Exod 2” (112).
18. The Hebrew idiom is the verb hayah plus the preposition lamed. This idiom is often to be translated as “to become” (e.g., Ex. 4:3 and 9:24).
19. The English “Moses” derives more directly from the Greek Moüses.
20. Calvin’s arguments to the contrary are unconvincing. He cites Ps. 81:5 and Gen. 42:23 as possible support for Pharaoh’s daughter being able to speak Hebrew (Four Last Books of Moses, 45–46).
21. See the discussions by J. P. Hyatt, Commentary on Exodus (London: Oliphints, 1971), 65; Sarna, Exodus, 9; G. Widengren, “What Do We Know About Moses?” Proclamation and Presence: Old Testament Essays in Honour of Gwynne Henton Davies, ed. J. I. Durham and J. R. Porter (Macon, Ga.: Mercer Univ. Press, 1983), 28. The complex matter of Egyptian derivation is dealt with thoroughly by J. G. Griffiths, “The Egyptian Derivation of the Name Moses,” JNES 12 (1952): 225–31.
22. I prefer the second explanation (see Cassuto, Commentary on Exodus, 20).
23. E.g., Childs, Book of Exodus, 12.
24. Hoffmeier makes a point of this (Israel in Egypt, 140–42). See also J. G. Griffiths, “Egyptian Derivation,” 231.
25. The patriarch is not called Abraham until Gen. 17:5, where his name is changed from Abram. Likewise, Sarah is known as Sarai before 17:15. Nevertheless, for sake of simplicity, the names Abraham and Sarah will be used here regardless of what portion of Genesis we are in.
26. Sarah’s strategy represents a fairly well-attested ancient Near Eastern practice. C. Westermann provides both primary and secondary sources (Genesis 12–36: A Commentary, trans. J. J. Scullion [Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1985], 239).
27. Pertinent here is the command in Deuteronomy to exclude any Ammonite or Moabite from entering the assembly of the Lord—even to the tenth generation (Deut. 23:3). Naomi’s grief truly must have been great.
28. As with the midwives in Ex. 1 and Moses’ mother and sister in Ex. 2, we see a degree of ingenuity being displayed by Naomi. God is once again behind the scenes of the narrative, but he directs the actions, as Ruth 4:13–15 clearly implies.
29. Boaz is called a “kinsman-redeemer” (e.g., 2:20; 3:9, 12). The legal obligation for a close relative to take care of his departed brother’s widow is set out in Deut. 25:5–10 (see also Lev. 25:25–28, 47–49).
30. We could note also the birth of Jeremiah alluded to in Jer. 1:4–10 and the birth of Isaiah’s son in Isa. 7:14. On this latter one, the birth of the child was a concrete testimony to God’s presence with his people, as the name Immanuel itself indicates.
31. The Greek for Jesus, Iesous, is the same name for the Hebrew Joshua (yehošuaʿ ). Joshua in turn is derived from the Hebrew verb yašaʿ, to save, deliver. The name Joshua means “the LORD saves.”
32. Note too that in Matt. 2:13–18 we see how Jesus’ birth incites strong reaction from Herod, the ruler at that time. The parallel to Pharaoh’s decree in Ex. 1:22 is self-evident. Both Jesus and Moses endure the forces of a powerful political machine and emerge triumphant. The parallels between Jesus and Moses extend beyond their birth stories. Heb. 3:1–4:13 and the Gospel of John expound on many direct parallels between the two, some of which will be discussed later. On Hebrews and John, see M. R. D’Angelo, Moses in the Letter to the Hebrews (SBLDS 42; Missoula: Scholars, 1979), and T. F. Glasson, Moses in the Fourth Gospel (SBT; London: SCM, 1963).
33. There is another sense in which Jesus is our kinsman-redeemer. He parallels not only Obed, but Boaz, who is called “kinsman-redeemer” in Ruth. As Naomi through Ruth sought deliverance from a close relative, Jesus is our close relative. He was made our brother, as the author of Hebrews puts it (Heb. 2:11, 17), in order to redeem his people from the helplessness of sin.
1. The Hebrew phrase wayyarʿ besiblotam (NIV: “[he] watched them at their hard labor”) suggests more emotional investment on Moses’ part than mere “observance” (see Durham, Exodus, 19; Driver, Book of Exodus, 13), although we should perhaps not put too much stress on this.
2. See, for example, Childs, Book of Exodus, 30; Sarna, Exodus, 11. See also Exodus Rabbah 1.32.
3. See also Plastaras, The God of Exodus, 45.
4. See also 12:12–13, where God “strikes” (nakah) the firstborn of Egypt. The tenth plague is the final prelude to the Exodus.
5. This is B. Jacob’s opinion (The Second Book of the Bible: Exodus, trans. W. Jacob [Hoboken, N.J.: Ktav, 1992], 38).
6. See Durham, Exodus, 19. The fact that Moses looked “this way and that” (v. 12), however, seems to indicate that he knows quite well what he is about to do. Jacob, however, adduces Isa. 59:15–16 as proof to the contrary (Exodus, 37–38).
7. This is especially true, since Moses is not officially commissioned until he meets Yahweh on Mount Horeb in chs. 3–4.
8. The Israelites rebel in virtually the same way in Num. 20:1–13. These two parallel rebellious acts occur near the beginning and end of the forty-year desert period. By framing the entire desert experience, these episodes present the picture of those forty years as a time of constant rebellion.
9. Midian is a term that describes more an ethnic or political entity than a location, although archaeological research has safely demonstrated Midianite presence near the Gulf of Aqaba in the Sinai Peninsula. See G. E. Mendenhall, “Midian,” ABD, 4:815–18.
10. See M. D. Dunnam, Exodus (Communicator’s Commentary Series; Waco, Tex.: Word, 1987), 50.
11. T. Fretheim is especially helpful in highlighting this feature in the narrative. In fact, the subtitle for 2:11–22 of his commentary is “Moses As Embodiment of the Future” (Exodus, 41–46).
12. Exodus Rabbah 1.32 states: “He [Moses] adopted the practice of his ancestors. Three met their marriage partners at the well—Isaac, Jacob, and Moses.” Another parallel often mentioned is the Egyptian story of Sinuhe, which exhibits noticeable similarities to Moses’ sojourn in Midian (Houtman, Exodus, 1:318; Pritchard, Ancient Near Eastern Texts, 18–22). In this respect, the comments in the previous section regarding the Sargon legend and Moses’ birth are relevant.
13. There is some discrepancy between 2:16–22, where the clear implication is that Zipporah is a Midianite, and Num. 12:1–2, where she is called a Cushite. Another discrepancy is the name of Zipporah’s father. His name is Reuel in Ex. 2:18, but in 3:1 and 18:2ff. his name is Jethro (see also Jeter in 4:18, although the NIV translators prefer the variant reading Jethro). Not surprisingly, theories abound, but two names for one person should not pose a significant difficulty. In any event, a precise explanation is lacking. For various attempts at solving this issue, see Driver, Book of Exodus, 15; G. W. Coats, “Moses in Midian,” JBL 92 (1973): 3–10; W. F. Albright, “Jethro, Hobab and Reuel in Early Hebrew Tradition” CBQ 25 (1963): 1–11. Sarna suggests that Jethro is not a name but a title: “his excellency” (Exodus, 12).
14. See, e.g., Ps. 77:20. Speaking of the Exodus we read, “You [God] led your people like a flock by the hand of Moses and Aaron.” See also Num. 27:15–17, where Moses is to “shepherd” the people into Canaan, but because of his disobedience in 20:1–13, that task is given to Joshua.
15. The feminine plural suffix an on the verb wayyošiʿan (“he delivered them”; NIV, “he came to their rescue”) either stands for the flock (a collective noun) or for the daughters. The latter is likely, esp. in light of v. 19, where the daughters (not the sheep) are said to have been delivered (naṣal) from the shepherds.
16. The Hebrew verbal construction in v. 19 is emphatic, daloh dalah, which can be translated, “Why, he even drew water!”
17. The etymology is a debated point. If the former is in the mind of the author, we have another example of a theologically rather than linguistically motivated etymology, as we have already seen with the name Moses in 2:10 (see comments on 2:10). I do not concur with Durham’s judgment that this popular etymology is “incorrect” (Exodus, 23); it is theological. Furthermore, although worth considering, I also disagree with Durham’s judgment that the foreign land Moses refers to in v. 22 is Egypt, i.e., Moses has finally found his home in Midian. Rather, the point of this pericope seems to accent Moses’ displacement away from his country and people (see also Houtman, Exodus, 1:317).
18. Cyrus, king of Persia, is called “my shepherd” in Isa. 44:28 (see also Hos. 12:12–13). Sheep is a common way of describing the Israelites (see Ps. 23:1; 74:1; 95:7; 100:3; Isa. 53:6; Jer. 50:6; Ezek. 34:11; Zech. 13:7). Often in these contexts, it is God himself who is the shepherd rather than an earthly king.
1. There is some discrepancy between 3:1 and 2:18, where Moses’ father-in-law’s name is Reuel (see comments on 2:18). In my view, the two names do not suggest two traditions or sources brought together by a redactor, a conclusion reached by a number of commentators. It seems to me that it is best not to ferret out any meaning in these alternative names, but to treat them simply as two names for the same person (e.g., George Ruth, better known as Babe Ruth), or perhaps Jethro as a priestly title. An unequivocal solution is not forthcoming.
2. Horeb and Sinai, somewhat like Jethro and Reuel, seem to be alternate names for the same site, although some commentators suggest that Horeb may be “a slightly wider term than ‘Sinai,’” designating the region rather than simply the mountain (Driver, Book of Exodus, 19; see also Sarna, Exodus, 14). On the centuries-old debate on the possible locations of the mountain, see Houtman, Exodus, 1:116–20; R. L. Cate, Exodus (Layman’s Bible Book Commentary; Nashville: Broadman, 1979), 28–29. The word “Sinai” is not used in Exodus until 16:1.
3. See comments above on 2:16–17. See also Ps. 77:20 and Num. 27:15–17. Ancient reflection on this theological theme may be found in Ex. Rab. 2.2–3. An excerpt from this passage reads as follows: “Our Rabbis said that when Moses our teacher, peace be upon him, was tending the flock of Jethro in the wilderness, a little kid escaped from him. He ran after it until it reached a shady place. When it reached the shady place, there appeared to view a pool of water and the kid stopped to drink. When Moses approached it, he said: ‘I did not know that you ran away because of thirst; you must be weary.’ So he placed the kid on his shoulder and walked away. Thereupon God said: ‘Because thou hast mercy in leading the flock of a mortal, thou wilt assuredly tend my flock Israel’” (Midrash Rabbah: Exodus, trans. S. M. Lehrman [London/New York: Soncino, 1983], 49).
4. “Appeared” is the Niphal (passive) of the verb raʾah, “to see.” This root serves to connect the announcement in 2:25 that God “saw” the Israelites and the various repetitions of this verb in 3:2, 4, 7 (emphatic: “I have indeed seen”), 9, 16; 4:1, 5, 14. Houtman, however, does not consider the use of this root to be of any significance (Exodus, 1:335).
5. Other Old Testament passages that speak of the angel of the Lord are: Gen. 16:7, 9, 11; 22:15; 31:11, 13; Num. 22:22–35; Judg. 2:1–5; 6:11–23; Zech. 3:1–6; 12:8.
6. Philo wrote extensively on Moses in a work called De vita Mosis (On the Life of Moses; see Loeb Classical Library, Philo, vol. 6. See p. 311 in that volume for Philo’s explanation of the fire.
7. “Here I am” seems like an inappropriate response, almost flippant, in light of the magnitude of the encounter. This phrase is a translation of the Hebrew hinneni, which can also be translated (albeit inadequately), “It is I” or “Behold, it is I.” No translation captures the essence of the original. Perhaps it would be best simply to think of it as a “yes” response. Plastaras suggests, “Here I am! At your service!” (The God of Exodus, 64).
8. The Hebrew is more abrupt than the English implies: “Do not come near here.”
9. See Houtman, Exodus, 1:351–53; Durham, Exodus, 31; see also Sarna, Exodus, 15.
10. The Hebrew of v. 6 is singular, “God of your [i.e., Moses’] father” rather than “God of your fathers.” Some ancient versions (see also Acts 7:32, which follows LXX) have “God of your fathers,” which make the following phrase “the God of Abraham . . .” appositional, i.e., further defining “God of your fathers.”
11. See Houtman, Exodus, 1:354; Cassuto, Commentary on Exodus, 33; Fretheim, Exodus, 59–61.
12. The verb is ʿalah. Another commonly used verb is is yaṣaʾ, “to go out.”
13. Houtman (Exodus, 1:357) suggests that the reference to milk and honey is mythological language referring to divine sustenance, which evokes images of paradise. Fretheim seems to be in line with this view, for he sees a connection here between paradise and the “new creation” theme (Exodus, 58–59). In this respect, the allusion to paradise is another example of deliverance spoken of in creation language, a theme encountered already in chapter 1 (see comments), and to which we will return repeatedly. Entrance into Canaan is, in a manner of speaking, a return to the garden.
14. A similar list of nations occurs in Gen. 15:19–21; Ex. 13:5; 23:23, 28; 33:2; 34:11; Deut. 7:1; 20:17; Josh. 3:10; 9:1; 11:3; 12:8; 24:11, although the number of nations varies considerably.
15. The allusion to the Sodom episode (Gen. 18:21) seems clear, thus providing another connection to Genesis.
16. The word “like” is not in the Hebrew of 4:16 but is implied. The point is that Moses is being infused with divine strength for the task at hand. See further comments below.
17. See 4:8, 9, 17, 28, 30; 7:3, 5; 8:16–19; 10:1; 12:13; 13:9, 16; 31:13, 17.
18. Durham, however, suggests a rationale for this delayed sign: The reason the gathering of the Israelites at Mount Horeb is mentioned as the sign is that the Israelites then will experience what Moses is experiencing now, i.e., theophany (Exodus, 33). Such an explanation, although still dissatisfying in light of Moses’ self-doubt, fits nicely into the theme discussed in the previous section, i.e., Moses’ experiences foreshadow those of the Israelites.
19. For solutions and discussions on this issue, see Childs, Book of Exodus, 56–60; Sarna, Exodus, 17; Houtman, Exodus, 1:364–65.
20. On this third option, see Houtman, Exodus, 1:366. This may also reflect the “rejection of the leader” theme seen in chapter 2, which becomes more pronounced in later chapters.
21. In addition to the commentaries (see esp. Childs, Book of Exodus, 60–70), the following articles are helpful in laying out the various issues involved: D. N. Freedman, “The Name of the God of Moses,” JBL 79 (1960): 151–56; R. Abba, “The Divine Name Yahweh,” JBL 80 (1961): 320–28; E. C. B. MacLaurin, “YHWH: The Origin of the Tetragrammaton,” VT 12 (1962): 439–63; B. Albrektson, “On the Syntax of 
in Exodus 3:14,” in Words and Meanings: Essays Presented to David Winton Thomas, ed. P. R. Ackroyd and B. Lindars (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1968), 15–28; D. J. McCarthy, “Exod. 3:14: History, Philology and Theology,” CBQ 40 (1978): 311–22; C. D. Isbell, “The Divine Name 
As a Symbol of Presence in Israelite Tradition,” HAR 2 (1978): 101–18; G. S. Ogden, “Idem per Idem: Its Use and Meaning,” JSOT 53 (1992): 107–20. See also Plastaras, The God of Exodus, 86–100; Gowan, Theology in Exodus, 80–85.
22. Exodus, 1:367; see also 1:94–100.
23. See C. D. Isbell, “The Divine Name,” 102–5 along with some of the sources cited in his bibliography.
24. For a thoughtful presentation of the opposite view, see R. W. L. Moberly, The Old Testament of the Old Testament: Patriarchal Narratives and Mosaic Yahwism (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 13–26. Moberly essentially argues that 3:14 introduces the revelation of the divine name in v. 15 rather than being the answer to Moses’ question, which, in my opinion, is elaborated in v. 15. Although I disagree, Moberly’s insights are quite perceptive (although not as firm as he seems to suggest) and should prove helpful to readers who may not be convinced by the analysis I have offered here.
25. This is the E in the well-known JEDP of the Documentary Hypothesis. It stands for the Elohist source, since, it is argued, Elohim is the name of God used by this writer throughout Genesis and up to Ex. 3:14–15, where “Yahweh” is supposedly revealed for the first time. E is thought to stem from roughly the eighth century B.C. The Documentary Hypothesis reached its clearest and most forceful expression in the work of Julius Wellhausen in the second half of the nineteenth century, although the antecedents of Wellhausen’s theory reach back at least to the time of the philosopher Spinoza in the middle third of the seventeenth century. Discussions of the history of this scholarly debate can be found in most commentaries on this verse and will not be repeated here. B. Childs does a particularly good job of highlighting the important issues (Book of Exodus, 112–14). See also R. E. Friedman’s popular (although somewhat overconfident and at times even self-congratulatory) presentation of one dominant understanding of the Documentary Hypothesis, Who Wrote the Bible? (New York: Harper and Row, 1989). Recently, two helpful and concise overviews of the history of Pentateuchal studies have appeared: G. Wenham, “Pentateuchal Studies Today,” Themelios 22 (1996): 3–13; D. L. Peterson, “The Formation of the Pentateuch,” Old Testament Interpretation: Past, Present, and Future, ed. J. L. Mays et al. (Nashville: Abingdon, 1995), 31–45. In recent years, however, this scholarly “consensus” is being questioned more and more. There have always been diverse opinions on the authorship of the Pentateuch, and this is more so the case today than ever. A thorough consensus does not exist. See R. N. Whybray, Introduction to the Pentateuch (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 12–28, and G. Wenham, “Pentateuchal Studies Today,” Themelios 22 (1996): 3–13.
26. “J” is the first letter in the German spelling of Yahweh, a reminder of the pervasive influence German scholarship has had on modern notions of Pentateuchal authorship.
27. I should also make clear that my reason for adopting this solution is not a broader desire to debunk the Documentary Hypothesis. Although I have found this hypothesis to be wholly inadequate for explaining the Pentateuch, my views on the proper interpretation of 3:14–15 are not fueled by any such negative concerns. I am attempting to argue as best as I can from the data the narrative provides.
28. See similarly Sarna, Exodus, 18.
29. Too often, appeal is made to a theory of a “mindless redactor,” who evidently is not bothered by such tensions as the presence of the name Yahweh in the immediate context of vv. 14–15, where that name is supposedly introduced for the first time. In my view, it has never been adequately explained why, according to source criticism, authors are assumed to be consistent in their use of names for God and other terms, but redactors are perfectly happy to bring these sources together in seemingly contradictory ways.
30. See E. J. Young, “The Call of Moses,” WTJ 29 (1966–67): 117–35 and 30 (1967–68): 1–23 (see esp. Young’s comments in 29:129).
31. See Houtman, Exodus, 1:368.
32. See also Jacob, Exodus, 65–71.
33. Another solution offered is that Moses is not asking for God to reveal the name, but for God to explain the significance of the name (Young, “Call of Moses,” 19 and n. 42). This is worth considering seriously, but seems a bit too subtle in the context of the narrative.
34. See Driver, Book of Exodus, 25; Houtman, Exodus, 1:375–77. Houtman underscores the point that Moses is to introduce Yahweh to Pharaoh as a national God (“the God of the Hebrews”). In accordance with ancient Near Eastern customs, Pharaoh should have respected the Israelites’ request and let them leave to perform their required religious duties. Fretheim refers to Moses’ request as an “initial negotiating stance” (Exodus, 66).
35. Sarna, Exodus, 19; G. A. F. Knight, Theology As Narration: A Commentary on the Book of Exodus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976), 26.
36. Cassuto, Commentary on Exodus, 43.
37. For example, Jubilees 48:18; Philo’s De vita Mosis 1.140–42; Ezekiel the Tragedian’s Exagoge 162–66. See also Houtman, Exodus, 1:382–86; Cassuto, Commentary on Exodus, 44.
38. Houtman, Exodus, 1:386.
39. See the apocryphal book the Wisd. Sol. 11:15–20.
40. Sarna writes, “The snake, the uraeus, represented the patron cobra-goddess of Lower Egypt” (Exodus, 20). Others suggest that turning the staff into a snake symbolizes God’s power over the magic of snake-charming (Houtman, Exodus, 1:391).
41. Sarna (Exodus, 20) and Knight (Theology As Narration, 28–29) consider this a sign of Moses’ faith in God.
42. Houtman, Exodus, 1:395–96. A similar event happens to Miriam in Num. 12:10 and Gehazi in 2 Kings 5:27—both times as a sign of God’s punishment.
43. Ibid., 1:399.
44. This aspect of the narrative will be brought out more fully below regarding the plagues.
45. It is possible, however, that some speech impediment is implied by v. 11. See Fretheim, Exodus, 71.
46. See also Deut. 18:18, which uses similar wording and seems to set up Moses as a paradigm for all future prophetic activity, those through whom God will speak.
47. For a technical discussion, see N. Habel, “The Form and Significance of the Call Narratives,” ZAW 77 (1965): 297–323. See also Plastaras, The God of Exodus, 77–82.
48. Moses would have been the one to complete the mission and lead the people into the Promised Land had he remained faithful to the Lord (Num. 20:12).
49. “I will be with you” in Judg. 6:16 is the same Hebrew clause as in Ex. 3:12.
50. The question of the literary relationship between the call narratives of Moses and Gideon (was there a genre of call narratives that dictated the form both narratives took? is one narrative dependent upon the other?) will not detain us here. In their theological, canonical context, what is important is reading each call narrative in light of the others.
51. Mention here should also be made of Solomon’s humility in 1 Kings 3, where he asks for wisdom to rule Israel. This is not a call narrative in any proper sense, but the humility that accompanies Solomon’s request for wisdom (vv. 7–8) is a mark of several of the call narratives. That humility is the proper response to God’s plan for him. God rewards Solomon by giving him not only wisdom, but wealth and honor as well. Had Moses responded too quickly to God’s call on his life, his suitableness for the task may have been rendered suspect.
52. The Hebrew is somewhat different here from the other instances of this clause (see also Jer. 1:19).
53. In this context, it is also at least worth glancing at Isa. 40, which has certain characteristics of a call narrative. There the prophet is also confronted by God and told to give a message of judgment, but this time to the nations, specifically Babylon. Jeremiah, too, is called as a prophet to the nations (Jer. 1:5).
54. We could also mention here the calls of Amos and Jonah. Like Moses’ call, Amos’s comes unexpectedly as he is doing his work, and like Moses, he has no desire to be a mouthpiece for God (Amos 7:14–15). The book of Jonah does not include a call, but it does indicate Jonah’s reluctance: He flees to Tarshish. But God triumphs through him all the same.
55. The extreme example of this is Jonah. Jonah doesn’t even confront God directly with what he perceives to be a great injustice: the evangelization and eventual conversion of the pagan Ninevites. The Lord is angry with Jonah because the reluctant prophet simply refuses the order and attempts to run away. As a result, God gives him time to think it over while sitting in the belly of a fish for three days.
56. One thinks here of C. S. Lewis’s famous account of his own conversion, Surprised by Joy: The Shape of My Early Life (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1955).
1. The name in Hebrew here is Jeter, which is likely a variant spelling of Jethro. Many ancient translations of the Hebrew changed Jeter to Jethro, no doubt to make it conform to 3:1. Cassuto suggests that “Jethro” reflects an earlier Hebrew spelling of the name (Commentary on Exodus, 52).
2. Chapter and verse divisions were introduced in the medieval period.
3. Jethro later comes to support and even aid Moses in his role as deliverer (18:1–27).
4. Exodus, 1:419.
5. See also Jacob, Exodus, 101.
6. I lean toward the opinion that Moses left his family in Midian in 4:20, but I cannot give convincing reasons.
7. Houtman plausibly suggests that v. 21 is evidence of an unrecorded exchange between the Lord and Moses (Exodus, 1:428–29). I prefer to read v. 21 as having more an explicit theological purpose in the narrative rather than being an example of terseness, but the reader is invited to assess the arguments of both options.
8. Apparently, Moses is to speak to Pharaoh the words of vv. 22–23 just before the commencement of the tenth plague. Hence, v. 23 might better be translated, “I have been saying to you, ‘Let my people go so that they might serve me,’ but you have kept refusing to let them, so I am about to kill your firstborn son.”
9. Houtman’s words are worth citing: “In the dispute about the question to whom Israel belongs and who is her legitimate ruler, Pharaoh or YHWH, YHWH at last will show that he has intimate emotional ties with Israel. Pharaoh had better know that to YHWH Israel is not just his own people, they are also dear to him, and therefore he will go to bat for them all the way. Pharaoh is going to be hit (4:23) at his most sensitive spot, the spot where he has touched YHWH himself, viz. in the love for the firstborn” (Exodus, 1:430).
10. A sampling of the scholarly literature includes the following: H. Kosmala, “The ‘Bloody Husband,’” VT 12 (1962): 14–28; J. Morgenstern, “The ‘Bloody Husband’ (?) (Exod. 4:24–26) Once Again,” HUCA 34 (1963): 35–70; W. Dumbrell, “Exodus 4:24–26: A Textual Re-examination,” HTR 65 (1972): 285–90; L. Kaplan, “‘And the Lord Sought to Kill Him’ (Exod 4:24): Yet Once Again,” HAR 5 (1981): 65–74; C. Houtman, “Exodus 4:24–26 and Its Interpretation,” JNSL 11 (1983): 81–105; B. P. Robinson, “Zipporah to the Rescue: A Contextual Study of Exodus IV 24–6,” VT 36 (1986): 447–61; W. H. Propp, “That Bloody Bridegroom (Exodus IV 24–6),” VT 43 (1993): 495–518; R. B. Allen, “The ‘Bloody Bridegroom’ in Exodus 4:24–26,” BSac 153 (1996): 259–69. For additional bibliography, see Durham, Exodus, 51–52; Houtman, Exodus, 1:432–33.
11. “Feet” is likely a euphemism for genitals (Plastaras, The God of Exodus, 103; Sarna, Exodus, 26 and n. 38).
12. For brief synopsis of the various views of this passage, see Durham, Exodus, 57; Jacob, Exodus, 106–10; Childs, Book of Exodus, 95–101.
13. Sarna discusses this approach in his commentary (Exodus, 25; see also Childs, Book of Exodus, 104).
14. It is worth pointing out that, once again, a woman comes to the rescue to deliver Moses (cf. chs. 1–2).
15. Jacob, Exodus, 110.
16. Houtman, Exodus, 1:450.
17. Since Moses originally seems to have requested these signs in anticipation of Israelite incredulity (4:1), the fact that the wonders are performed before the people seems to imply that they need to be performed, i.e., that these elders offer some resistance to Moses’ message. See also Houtman, Exodus, 1:453.
18. The unrequited love God has for Israel is also expressed in terms of the husband/wife metaphor (e.g., Isa. 50:1–2; Hos. 1–3, where Israel is an adulterous wife).
19. See also Matt. 17:5; Rom. 8:29; Col. 1:15, 18; Heb. 1:5; 5:5. The relationship between Hos. 11:1–11 and Matt. 2:15 has already been mentioned in the Bridging Contexts section of Ex. 2:11–25.
20. Similar language is also found in Ps. 89:26–29.
21. John 3:3. The Greek word anothen can mean either “again” or “above.” The ambiguity may well be intentional: to be born again means that you have received the birth that comes from God, who is above.
22. The story of Jacob and Esau is found in Gen. 27–33. The famous statement, “Yet I have loved Jacob, but Esau I have hated” is found in Mal. 1:2–3. Echoes of this can be seen in the Cain and Abel story, where God chooses to accept Abel’s offering but not Cain’s (no explicit reason is given, but see Heb. 11:4 and 1 John 3:12).
23. See R. Allen, “The ‘Bloody Bridegroom,’” 265.
24. This point is forcefully made by J. D. Levenson, “Liberation Theology and the Exodus,” Midstream 35/7 (1989): 30–36.
25. Ibid., 34, 35.
26. The fact that the post-Exodus Israelite society made provisions for slavery, class distinctions, and other societal differences should be enough to demonstrate that Exodus does not paint a picture of a God who is “against oppression” (ibid., 32).
27. Ibid., 35.
28. Of course, this must be tempered with the Arminian response, “What did I do to deserve this?”
1. As we have seen so often in the opening chapters of Exodus, various details of these events are not provided. How much time elapsed between Moses’ meeting with the Israelites and his audience with Pharaoh? How did he get in to see Pharaoh in the first place? Did he barge in? Was he granted an audience?
2. Verse 1 does say that Moses and Aaron speak to Pharaoh. This should hardly be taken literally, however, as if they both speak in unison or that they may have alternated in their address. We should understand this to mean, at least for now, that they both confront Pharaoh while Aaron is the one who does the talking (4:10–17). In keeping with the Exodus narrative itself, however, I will sometimes refer to Moses as the speaker, since Moses addresses Pharaoh regularly in the plague narrative. The possible significance of Moses as speaker rather than Aaron will be discussed at an appropriate juncture below.
3. Jewish tradition, for example, recognizes the difficulty in reconciling 3:18 and 5:1, and explains the elders’ absence as due to their loss of nerve. They intend to go with Moses but, on the way, they lose nerve and drop out one by one (Sarna, Exodus, 27; cf. Ex. Rab. 5.17). This tradition is obviously aimed at exonerating Moses, i.e., he did take the elders with him, but they reneged on their own account.
4. As Fretheim puts it, God’s goal is that Pharaoh will “know” (Exodus, 86; cf. 7:17; 8:10, 22; 9:14, 29; 10:2; 11:7; 14:4, 18).
5. See, e.g., Cassuto, Commentary on Exodus, 66; Sarna, Exodus, 28.
6. Cate, Exodus, 40; Jacob, Exodus, 125; Plastaras, The God of Exodus, 116, n. 23.
7. See Driver, Book of Exodus, 34–35.
8. The Hebrew phrase here can also be translated, “God is on our side” (Niphal of the verb qaraʾ plus the preposition ʿal). This would further strengthen Moses’ reprimand.
9. Sarna, Exodus, 28, n. 7.
10. Elsewhere in Exodus, the root ngp is used to describe plagues (8:2 [MT 7:27]; 12:23, 27).
11. Houtman suggests that the reference to your work in 5:4 may presume the presence of the elders with Moses and Aaron, since Moses and Aaron never work (Exodus, 1:466–67). Admittedly, telling Moses and Aaron to get back to work is problematic, but having the elders present would not necessarily make much more sense, since Pharaoh’s intention is to have the people as a whole get back to work—not just the elders. The command to Moses and Aaron should be understood as a command given to the people through Moses. The matter is clarified in the second part of v. 5: “their work,” meaning the people’s.
12. Fretheim, Exodus, 85; Childs, Book of Exodus, 106.
13. Sarna, Exodus, 29, n. 14.
14. Fretheim, Exodus, 83.
15. Both phrases begin kob ʾamar, “Thus says.”
16. Sarna, Exodus, 30, n. 18.
17. For example, David was incited by Satan to number his fighting men (1 Chron. 21:1). Satan accuses Job before God in Job 1:6–12.
18. Here we see some overlap with two themes discussed earlier: patience in view of God’s apparent absence (Ex. 1) and patience under suffering (discussed under 2:1–10).
1. See Sarna, Exodus, 30.
2. This nuance of the Hebrew lamah zeh is effectively lost in the NIV. The demonstrative adjective zeh when following the interrogative serves to intensify the interrogative (IBHS, 312–13, 323–24). See also Houtman’s translation, “Why did you ever send me?” (Exodus, 1:497).
3. Consider, for example, the following English sentences: “Now, what I want to say is . . . ,” or “Now, I don’t know about that.”
4. I am referring here again to the well-known “Documentary Hypothesis,” mentioned in the discussion of 3:14.
5. The NIV has “God Almighty,” which is one possible translation of the Hebrew ʾel šadday. The precise meaning of this term is not clear, but neither is it crucial for discussing the matter at hand.
6. My observations on 6:3 are informed to a certain extent by the following works (as well as others): the commentaries by Sarna, Childs, and Cassuto; E. A. Martens, God’s Design: A Focus on Old Testament Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1986), 11–20; W. R. Garr, “The Grammar and Interpretation of Exodus 6:3,” JBL 111 (1992): 385–408; S. D. Glisson, “Exodus 6:3 in Pentateuchal Criticism,” ResQ 28 (1985–86): 135–43; G. E. Whitney, “Alternate Interpretations of loʾ in Exodus 6:3 and Jeremiah 7:22,” WTJ 48 (1986): 151–59; R. D. Wilson, “Critical Notes on Exodus VI 3,” PTR 22 (1924): 108–19. This list of secondary sources is no more than a sampling of the generous amount of activity that this verse has engendered.
7. My comments on 3:14–15 above are relevant here as well. I will not repeat them in full.
8. See Sarna, Exodus, 31. He cites Isa. 52:6 and Jer. 16:21 in support. See also Fretheim, Exodus, 92. Childs cites the commentaries of Rashi and Ibn Ezra (medieval Jewish commentators) and Calvin, among others, as proponents of this view (Book of Exodus, 112).
9. For a similar view, see Moberly, The Old Testament of the Old Testament, 26–35.
10. See also 14:10–31; 15:22–25; 16:1–36; 17:1–7; 32:1–33:6.
11. But see Cassuto, Commentary on Exodus, 85–87.
12. Sarna comments, “Because a genealogy inherently symbolizes vigor and continuity, its presence here also injects a reassuring note into the otherwise despondent mood. . . . A detailed analysis of the content of the genealogy discloses careful design and purpose” (Exodus, 33).
13. The issue here is clearly more than simply marrying a foreign woman, since Moses himself married Zipporah, daughter of Reuel, priest of Midian (2:15–21). This episode concerns sexual immorality in the context of spiritual seduction. Phinehas’s actions are extolled in Ps. 106:30–31.
14. For some scholarly works that treat the functions of biblical genealogies in general, see G. A. Rendsburg, “The Internal Consistency and Historical Reliability of the Biblical Genealogies,” VT 40 (1990): 185–206; R. R. Wilson, Genealogy and History in the Biblical World (New Haven: Yale Univ. Press, 1977). Both these works deal more with the historicity of genealogies, Wilson being more skeptical than Rendsburg, but they are nevertheless thoughtful and interesting studies. Rendsburg’s article does treat Ex. 6 specifically (albeit briefly), whereas Wilson’s does not.
15. The Hebrew phrase in 7:1 is different from 4:16. The latter uses the idiom “to be” (hayah) plus the preposition le while the former uses the root “to give” (natan). The meaning, however, is essentially the same.
16. This approach to the text is also hinted at in rabbinic literature, e.g., Exodus Rabbah 8.2: “Go and make him that made himself a god an abomination in the world, because he exalted himself.”
17. This imagery is unfortunately lost in the NIV.
18. Note, too, that Moses is explicitly referred to as a prophet in Deut. 18:15 and 34:10.
19. The primary oracles against the nations are found in Isa. 13:1–24:23; Jer. 46:1–51:64; Ezek. 25:1–32:32; Amos 1:3–2:3; Zeph. 1:14–2:15.
20. See also the comments in the introduction concerning Isa. 49:8 and its use by Paul in 2 Cor. 6:2.
21. Christopher Lasch, The Culture of Narcissism: American Life in an Age of Diminishing Expectations (New York: Warner, 1979). This is a curious irony in our culture. We are self-centered and narcissistic while at the same time entertaining the subhuman understanding of what it means to be human.
22. Calvin, Four Last Books of Moses, 112–13.
1. Although I am by no means the first to do so. See Houtman, Exodus, 2:17–21.
2. Similar charts may be found in A. M. Cartun, “‘Who Knows Ten?’ The Structural and Symbolic Use of Numbers in the Ten Plagues: Exodus 7:14–13:16,” USQR 45 (1991): 107; N. Sarna, Exploring Exodus, 76.
3. See Durham, Exodus, 89.
4. D. J. McCarthy, however, argues that the staff to snake episode is the first plague and the plague of darkness is the last plague. Exodus 11 (plague of death) and the subsequent chapters should be separated from the preceding narrative (“Plagues and Sea of Reeds: Exodus 5–14,” JBL 85 [1966]: 137–58; “Moses’ Dealings With Pharaoh: Ex 7,8–10,27,” CBQ 27 [1965]: 336–47).
5. Fretheim, Exodus, 113.
6. Ibid., 106. In the 9th plague, only Moses’ “hand” is mentioned rather than the staff (compare this to 9:22–23 and 10:12–13). I do not think this is a significant variation.
7. Scholars such as Durham (Exodus, 91) argue for a special significance in this change of term. He suggests that a more “monstrous” reptile is meant here.
8. See also Fretheim, Exodus, 113–14.
9. See Hoffmeier, Israel in Egypt, 154–55.
10. It is interesting to note that in Ezek. 29:3, Pharaoh himself is called tannin.
11. The Hebrew word translated “magician” (ḥaraṭummim) is likely of Egyptian derivation and refers to a priest of some sort engaged in magical rituals (J. Quaegebeur, “The Egyptian Equivalent of Biblical Ḥarṭummîm,” Pharaonic Egypt: The Bible and Christianity, ed. S. Israelit-Groll [Jerusalem: Magnes, 1985], 163–64).
12. See Sarna, Exodus, 37.
13. There are clear similarities between this episode and the confrontation between Elijah and the priests of Baal in 1 Kings 18:16–46.
14. See Currid, “The Egyptian Setting of the ‘Serpent’: Confrontation in Exodus 7,8–13,” BZ 39 (1995): 206–8.
15. The apocryphal book Wisdom of Solomon (likely written somewhere between 100 B.C. and A.D. 50) speaks of the first plague as a “rebuke for the decree to slay the infants” in Ex. 1 (Wisd. Sol. 11:5–7).
16. The name of the god is Hapi (see Sarna, Exodus, 39). D. P. Silverman points out, more correctly, that it was not the Nile itself that was personified but the yearly inundation of the Nile that was so important to Egypt’s agriculture (“Divinity and Deities in Ancient Egypt,” Religion in Ancient Egypt: Gods, Myths, and Personal Practice, ed. B. E. Shafer et al. [Ithaca: Cornell Univ. Press, 1991], 34).
17. H. L. Ellison, Exodus (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1982), 51.
18. There is Egyptian literary evidence for the Nile becoming “blood.” Some scholars mention the oxygen imbalance that results from such sediment, which results in the death and subsequent stench of water life (Sarna, Exodus, 38–39; idem, Exploring Exodus, 70–71).
19. Cassuto, Commentary on Exodus, 97–98.
20. This is Cassuto’s suggestion (ibid., 98–99).
21. Sarna, Exodus, 39.
22. Moreover, the noun miqweh occurs only nine times in the Old Testament, three times in the Pentateuch.
23. Egyptian religion had a strong notion of cosmic order called Maʿat, which suggests that these creation reversals would have spoken powerfully to them as well as to the Israelites (Hoffmeier, Israel in Egypt, 151).
24. An informative overview of the creation theme in the ten plagues is Z. Zevit, “Three Ways to Look at the Ten Plagues,” Bible Review (June 1990): 16–23, 42. He concludes: “Through the plagues the Lord demonstrated that he was the God of creation” (22).
25. The Hebrew versification for this plague is 7:26–8:11. References to specific verses will be given according to the English.
26. The connection with Gen. 1:20–21 is also brought out by Zevit, “Three Ways to Look at the Ten Plagues,” 22, and Cassuto, Commentary on Exodus, 101.
27. See Fretheim, Exodus, 116.
28. See Zevit, “Three Ways to Look at the Ten Plagues,” 21. No Egyptian gods seem to correspond to the third, fourth, and sixth plagues. Durham (Exodus, 104) and Hoffmeier (Israel in Egypt, 150) remain somewhat skeptical of any connection between the plagues and Egyptian gods, though Hoffmeier does suggest that the ninth plague is a polemic against the sun god Re or Atum (ibid., 151).
29. Sarna, Exodus, 40.
30. Childs, Book of Exodus, 155.
31. Cate suggests that this is meant to be humorous (Exodus, 91).
32. The Hebrew here may mean “tomorrow,” as we have it in the NIV, or “as soon as possible” (Houtman, Exodus, 2:49–50; Cassuto, Commentary on Exodus, 103; Durham, Exodus, 105).
33. Note that the first plague also results in the stench of death (7:21). In a way, the deliverance is no better than the plague itself. Also, T. Fretheim reminds us that the heap of frogs in 8:14 will later be called to mind when we see the mass of Egyptian soldiers lying dead on the shore; they, too, come up from the water (Fretheim, Exodus, 117).
34. The Hebrew versification is 8:12–15.
35. The following information is summarized by Sarna (Exploring Exodus, 76), although recognition of this literary pattern goes back to rabbinic writings. See also Cassuto, Commentary on Exodus, 92–93; Sarna, Exodus, 38.
36. Sarna, Exploring Exodus, 77.
37. Similar observations were made in connection with Moses’ birth narrative and the Sargon epic (see comments on 2:10).
38. For the various options, see Houtman, Exodus, 1:138–39; 2:52–53; Fretheim, Exodus, 118; Hyatt, Exodus, 110.
39. Fretheim, Exodus, 56. Z. Zevit takes the Genesis connection further by arguing that the “lice correspond to the crawling creatures (remes [sic]) that come forth from the earth in Genesis 1:24” (“Three Ways to Look at the Ten Plagues,” 22). Although I am sympathetic to Zevit’s argument, it may not be best to tease the Genesis connection to the third plague in this way, particularly since the word remeś does not appear in the plague narrative. A more legitimate way of seeing the Genesis connection is in terms of the divine command-fulfillment pattern that we see throughout the plague narrative and in Genesis 1: God speaks and it happens (Plastaras, The God of Exodus, 127–28).
40. With Cassuto, it seems that v. 17 should be understood as hyperbole. Are we to think that every speck of dust becomes a gnat and that no dust remains in Egypt? This type of expression, so common to the Hebrew idiom, merely conveys the fact of a tremendous, incalculable number of these pesky insects in Egypt.
41. It is worth noting that the second plague corresponds more to 7:1, where Moses is said to be “God to Pharaoh”: The Lord gives Moses a directive that he is to bring to Pharaoh directly.
42. Ellison, Exodus, 47.
43. Fretheim, Exodus, 119.
44. The Hebrew versification is 8:16–28.
45. The commentaries routinely suggest some sort of a biting fly (a dog-fly). Houtman, however, prefers not to restrict the term so, and simply translates it “vermin” (Exodus, 2:58).
46. Zevit, “Three Ways to Look at the Ten Plagues,” 21. Durham connects this plague to Beelzebub (“lord of the flies”), but not to the Egyptian pantheon, an unlikely suggestion (Exodus, 117).
47. Zevit, “Three Ways to Look at the Ten Plagues,” 22.
48. W. H. Gispen, Exodus (The Bible Student’s Commentary; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982), 93.
49. There is, perhaps, a hint of exasperation in the Hebrew: “Pharaoh hardened his heart even [gam] this time” (v. 32).
50. Houtman, Exodus, 2:72.
51. See Sarna for a helpful discussion of the possibly anachronistic mention of camels in 9:3 (Exodus, 44).
52. Zevit, “Three Ways to Look at the Ten Plagues,” 21. See also Gispen, Exodus, 96.
53. Zevit, “Three Ways to Look at the Ten Plagues,” 22. Houtman, however, questions such a connection (Exodus, 2:70).
54. See Durham, Exodus, 118.
55. Houtman does take it literally. The question of how there can be livestock again so quickly in Egypt does not, in Houtman’s opinion, concern the writer, and, hence, should not concern us (Exodus, 2:69–70). This solution, however, raises more questions than it answers. Problems such as this are often adduced as evidence for multiple sources in the Pentateuch (i.e., the Documentary Hypothesis; see Hyatt, Exodus, 115). Conflicting sources were supposedly combined by an editor into one document. Why, however, an author of a source would necessarily be completely consistent, but an editor, apparently, would feel no need to smooth out such inconsistencies, is rarely discussed by advocates of this theory.
56. See Cassuto, Commentary on Exodus, 111; Fretheim, Exodus, 121; Plastaras, The God of Exodus, 5, 131.
57. There is an interesting interchange in the Exodus narrative concerning the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart (see chart at the beginning of this chapter). Plagues 1, 3, 5, and 7 say “Pharaoh’s heart was/became hard.” Plagues 2 and 4 say “Pharaoh hardened his heart.” In Plagues 6, 8, and 9, it is God who hardens Pharaoh’s heart. I see no significant difference between the first two expressions.
58. Houtman, Exodus, 2:73–74.
59. Cassuto, Commentary on Exodus, 112–13. Houtman, however, feel this is too subtle an interpretation (Exodus, 2:77).
60. Zevit, “Three Ways to Look at the Ten Plagues,” 22.
61. The text is not clear whether this inability results from their physical discomfort or a demoralizing awareness of their own impotence. Perhaps this ambiguity is purposeful.
62. Helpful overviews on the various issues concerning the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart may be found in Fretheim, Exodus, 96–103; Childs, Book of Exodus, 170–75; Plastaras, The God of Exodus, 133–37. For more technical and critical discussions, see R. R. Wilson, “The Hardening of Pharaoh’s Heart,” CBQ 41 (1979): 18–36.
63. See also Gispen, Exodus, 99. Some commentators understand “all” to refer to the remainder of the plagues (plagues 7–10), which is a reasonable option (Sarna, Exodus, 146).
64. The word “could” is not a separate word in Hebrew but is inferred from the context. In view of this ambiguity, some commentators have argued that it should be translated “should” (i.e., “This is what you deserve, Pharaoh”). See Fretheim, Exodus, 124; Cassuto, Commentary on Exodus, 116; Durham, Exodus, 124–25. It seems, however, that this does not do full justice to the conjunction ʾulam, which normally means “however” (see IBHS, 668–73, esp. 671–73).
65. See, for example, Cate, Exodus, 57; Gispen, Exodus, 102.
66. The sudden mention of “rain” in v. 33 is abrupt. Is the hail of v. 23 meant? If so, why not simply say so? It is not entirely clear how this phenomenon coincides with the flow of the narrative to this point.
67. The god Seth manifested himself in the wind and storms (Zevit, “Three Ways to Look at the Ten Plagues,” 21).
68. Houtman, Exodus, 2:90.
69. These “God-fearers” may be those who make up the “mixed crowd” (NRSV) that leaves Egypt with the Israelites (see 12:38; NIV has “many other people”).
70. Here again the Hebrew uses the word kol (all), which may be hyperbole or a reference to all available vegetation (see comments on 9:6). The latter solution is suggested by vv. 31–32, which indicates that only some of the vegetation is harmed; vv. 31–32 also explain how some vegetation remains for the locusts (10:5).
71. Zevit, “Three Ways to Look at the Ten Plagues,” 22–23.
72. The verb is Piel in v. 25. The same word is used in 32:19 for the smashing of the stone tablets that contained the Ten Commandments.
73. Houtman, Exodus, 2:84–85. Zevit also suggests that a polemic against Egyptian gods may be at work here, since both Isis and Min were connected to the yearly crop cycle. As Zevit puts it, “Min is an especially likely candidate for these two plagues [hail and locusts] because the notations in Exodus 9:31 indicate that the first plague came as the flax and barley were about to be harvested, but before the wheat and spelt had matured. A widely celebrated ‘Coming out of Min’ was celebrated in Egypt at the beginning of the harvest. These plagues, in effect, devastated Min’s coming-out party” (“Three Ways to Look at the Ten Plagues,” 21).
74. The use of the root ḥaṭaʾ (to sin) in both Pharaoh’s “confession” of sin in v. 27 and his change of heart, referred to as sin in v. 34, draws the reader’s attention to make some comparison between the two. The insincerity of the former is suggested by how quickly Pharaoh can fall into sin again.
75. Verse 35 seems to be a concerted attempt on the part of the writer to emphasize Moses’ perceptive grasp of the events. It is the only plague in which Pharaoh’s hardened heart is said to occur “just as the LORD had said through Moses.” Vv. 31–32 is a parenthetical comment designed to explain the existence of crops in 10:5 (Sarna, Exodus, 47).
76. See also Deut. 28:38; Amos 4:9; 7:1–3. Sometimes armies are compared to locusts as instruments of God’s judgment (e.g., Isa. 33:4; Jer. 51:14).
77. See remarks above under the 7th plague. See also Cate, Exodus, 59; Zevit, “Three Ways to Look at the Ten Plagues,” 21.
78. In this context the writer’s use of the word “to fill” (mlʾ ) also seems significant. The locusts (10:6) and flies (8:21) “fill” Egypt, perhaps in retribution for the Egyptians objecting to the Israelites “filling” the land in 1:7.
79. Cassuto, Commentary on Exodus, 128–29.
80. The NIV here says that the locusts “covered all the ground until it was black.” This is one possible translation, but it obscures the obvious verbal link between 10:15 and 10:21–22. Furthermore, the Hebrew can also mean that there are so many locusts that they blot out the sun and, thus, make the earth “dark.”
81. “Darkness” also connects this plague back to creation (see comments on the ninth plague).
82. Such is the opinion of Houtman, Exodus, 2:100.
83. Pharaoh also “calls” (qrʾ ) for Moses and Aaron in 8:8 and for the last time in 12:31.
84. There is routine agreement on this point: Zevit, “Three Ways to Look at the Ten Plagues,” 21; Ellison, Exodus, 58; Cate, Exodus, 61; Durham, Exodus, 126; Sarna, Exodus, 51.
85. Shafer, ed., Religion in Ancient Egypt, 59, 65, 97, 100, 109.
86. Darkness is used in a similar way elsewhere in the Old Testament, including Deut. 28:29; Isa. 8:22; 13:10; 59:9; Joel 2:2, 10; Amos 5:20; Zeph. 1:15. See esp. Ezek. 32:7–8, which speaks of the eventual destruction of the pharaoh of Ezekiel’s day and is described in terms reminiscent of the ninth plague.
87. Both phrases are made up of a form of the verb hayah (to be) plus ʾor (light).
88. See Houtman, Exodus, 2:120–21; Gispen, Exodus, 109; Hyatt, Exodus, 126; Cassuto, Commentary on Exodus, 129; Sarna, Exodus, 50–51.
89. An insightful discussion of this passage is J. H. Walton, “Joshua 10:12–15 and the Mesopotamian Celestial Omen Texts,” in Faith, History, and Tradition: Old Testament Historiography in Its Near Eastern Context, ed. A. R. Millard, J. K. Hoffmeier, and D. W. Baker (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1994), 181–90.
in Exodus 20:20 and the Purpose of the Sinaitic Theophany,”