Keluaran 4:1

The Source of Sufficiency

4:1 ¹ Moses answered again, ²  “And if ³  they do not believe me or pay attention to me, ⁴  but say, ‘The Lord has not appeared to you’?”

Keluaran 13:8

13:8 You are to tell your son ⁵  on that day, ⁶  ‘It is ⁷  because of what ⁸  the Lord did for me when I came out of Egypt.’

Keluaran 24:3

24:3 Moses came ⁹  and told the people all the Lord’s words ¹⁰  and all the decisions. All the people answered together, ¹¹  “We are willing to do ¹²  all the words that the Lord has said,”

Keluaran 24:7

24:7 He took the Book of the Covenant ¹³  and read it aloud ¹⁴  to the people, and they said, “We are willing to do and obey ¹⁵  all that the Lord has spoken.”

[4:1]  ¹ sn In chap. 3, the first part of this extensive call, Yahweh promises to deliver his people. At the hesitancy of Moses, God guarantees his presence will be with him, and that assures the success of the mission. But with chap. 4, the second half of the call, the tone changes sharply. Now Moses protests his inadequacies in view of the nature of the task. In many ways, these verses address the question, “Who is sufficient for these things?” There are three basic movements in the passage. The first nine verses tell how God gave Moses signs in case Israel did not believe him (4:1-9). The second section records how God dealt with the speech problem of Moses (4:10-12). And finally, the last section records God’s provision of a helper, someone who could talk well (4:13-17). See also J. E. Hamlin, “The Liberator’s Ordeal: A Study of Exodus 4:1-9,” Rhetorical Criticism [PTMS], 33-42.

[4:1]  ² tn Heb “and Moses answered and said.”

[4:1]  ³ tn Or “What if.” The use of הֵן (hen) is unusual here, introducing a conditional idea in the question without a following consequence clause (see Exod 8:22 HT [8:26 ET]; Jer 2:10; 2 Chr 7:13). The Greek has “if not” but adds the clause “what shall I say to them?”

[4:1]  ⁴ tn Heb “listen to my voice,” so as to respond positively.

[13:8]  ⁵ tn The form is the Hiphil perfect with the vav (ו) consecutive, carrying the sequence forward: “and you will declare to your son.”

[13:8]  sn A very important part of the teaching here is the manner in which the memory of the deliverance will be retained in Israel – they were to teach their children the reasons for the feast, as a binding law forever. This will remind the nation of its duties to Yahweh in gratitude for the great deliverance.

[13:8]  ⁶ tn Heb “day, saying.” “Tell…saying” is redundant, so “saying” has not been included in the translation here.

[13:8]  ⁷ tn “it is” has been supplied.

[13:8]  ⁸ tn The text uses זֶה (zeh), which Gesenius classifies as the use of the pronoun to introduce a relative clause after the preposition (GKC 447 §138.h) – but he thinks the form is corrupt. B. S. Childs, however, sees no reason to posit a corruption in this form (Exodus [OTL], 184).

[24:3]  ⁹ sn The general consensus among commentators is that this refers to Moses’ coming from the mountain after he made the ascent in 20:21. Here he came and told them the laws (written in 20:22-23:33), and of the call to come up to Yahweh.

[24:3]  ¹⁰ sn The Decalogue may not be included here because the people had heard those commands themselves earlier.

[24:3]  ¹¹ tn The text simply has “one voice” (קוֹל אֶחָד, qol ’ekhad); this is an adverbial accusative of manner, telling how the people answered – “in one voice,” or unanimously (see GKC 375 §118.q).

[24:3]  ¹² tn The verb is the imperfect tense (נַעֲשֶׂה, na’aseh), although the form could be classified as a cohortative. If the latter, they would be saying that they are resolved to do what God said. If it is an imperfect, then the desiderative would make the most sense: “we are willing to do.” They are not presumptuously saying they are going to do all these things.

[24:7]  ¹³ 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]  ¹⁴ tn Heb “read it in the ears of.”

[24:7]  ¹⁵ 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.