Keluaran 2:19

2:19 They said, “An Egyptian man rescued us ¹  from the shepherds, ²  and he actually ³  drew water for us and watered the flock!”

Keluaran 17:1

Water at Massa and Meribah

17:1 ⁴ The whole community ⁵  of the Israelites traveled on their journey ⁶  from the Desert of Sin according to the Lord’s instruction, and they pitched camp in Rephidim. ⁷  Now ⁸  there was no water for the people to drink. ⁹ 

Keluaran 24:7

24:7 He took the Book of the Covenant ¹⁰  and read it aloud ¹¹  to the people, and they said, “We are willing to do and obey ¹²  all that the Lord has spoken.”

Keluaran 29:25

29:25 Then you are to take them from their hands and burn ¹³  them ¹⁴  on the altar for a burnt offering, for a soothing aroma before the Lord. It is an offering made by fire to the Lord.

[2:19]  ¹ sn Continuing the theme of Moses as the deliverer, the text now uses another word for salvation (נָצַל, natsal, “to deliver, rescue”) in the sense of plucking out or away, snatching out of danger.

[2:19]  ² tn Heb “from the hand of the shepherds” (so NASB); NAB “saved us from the interference of the shepherds.” Most recent English versions translate simply “from the shepherds.”

[2:19]  ³ tn The construction is emphatic with the use of the perfect tense and its infinitive absolute: דָלָה דָּלֹה (daloh dalah). B. Jacob says, “They showed their enthusiasm through the use of the infinitive absolute – And think of that, he even drew water for us; a man did this for us girls” (Exodus, 41).

[17:1]  ⁴ sn This is the famous story telling how the people rebelled against Yahweh when they thirsted, saying that Moses had brought them out into the wilderness to kill them by thirst, and how Moses with the staff brought water from the rock. As a result of this the name was called Massa and Meribah because of the testing and the striving. It was a challenge to Moses’ leadership as well as a test of Yahweh’s presence. The narrative in its present form serves an important point in the argument of the book. The story turns on the gracious provision of God who can give his people water when there is none available. The narrative is structured to show how the people strove. Thus, the story intertwines God’s free flowing grace with the sad memory of Israel’s sins. The passage can be divided into three parts: the situation and the complaint (1-3), the cry and the miracle (4-6), and the commemoration by naming (7).

[17:1]  ⁵ tn Or “congregation” (KJV, ASV, NASB, NRSV).

[17:1]  ⁶ tn The text says that they journeyed “according to their journeyings.” Since the verb form (and therefore the derived noun) essentially means to pull up the tent pegs and move along, this verse would be saying that they traveled by stages, or, from place to place.

[17:1]  ⁷ sn The location is a bit of a problem. Exod 19:1-2 suggests that it is near Sinai, whereas it is normally located near Kadesh in the north. Without any details provided, M. Noth concludes that two versions came together (Exodus [OTL], 138). S. R. Driver says that the writer wrote not knowing that they were 24 miles apart (Exodus, 157). Critics have long been bothered by this passage because of the two names given at the same place. If two sources had been brought together, it is not possible now to identify them. But Noth insisted that if there were two names there were two different locations. The names Massah and Meribah occur alone in Scripture (Deut 9:22, and Num 20:1 for examples), but together in Ps 95 and in Deut 33:8. But none of these passages is a clarification of the difficulty. Most critics would argue that Massah was a secondary element that was introduced into this account, because Exod 17 focuses on Meribah. From that starting point they can diverge greatly on the interpretation, usually having something to do with a water test. But although Num 20 is parallel in several ways, there are major differences: 1) it takes place 40 years later than this, 2) the name Kadesh is joined to the name Meribah there, and 3) Moses is punished there. One must conclude that if an event could occur twice in similar ways (complaint about water would be a good candidate for such), then there is no reason a similar name could not be given.

[17:1]  ⁸ tn The disjunctive vav introduces a parenthetical clause that is essential for this passage – there was no water.

[17:1]  ⁹ tn Here the construction uses a genitive after the infinitive construct for the subject: “there was no water for the drinking of the people” (GKC 353-54 §115.c).

[24:7]  ¹⁰ tn The noun “book” would be the scroll just written containing the laws of chaps. 20-23. On the basis of this scroll the covenant would be concluded here. The reading of this book would assure the people that it was the same that they had agreed to earlier. But now their statement of willingness to obey would be more binding, because their promise would be confirmed by a covenant of blood.

[24:7]  ¹¹ tn Heb “read it in the ears of.”

[24:7]  ¹² tn A second verb is now added to the people’s response, and it is clearly an imperfect and not a cohortative, lending support for the choice of desiderative imperfect in these commitments – “we want to obey.” This was their compliance with the covenant.

[29:25]  ¹³ tn “turn to sweet smoke.”

[29:25]  ¹⁴ tn “them” has been supplied.