Keluaran 9:19

9:19 So now, send instructions ¹  to gather ²  your livestock and all your possessions in the fields to a safe place. Every person ³  or animal caught ⁴  in the field and not brought into the house – the hail will come down on them, and they will die!”’”

Keluaran 12:15

12:15 For seven days ⁵  you must eat ⁶  bread made without yeast. ⁷  Surely ⁸  on the first day you must put away yeast from your houses because anyone who eats bread made with yeast ⁹  from the first day to the seventh day will be cut off ¹⁰  from Israel.

Keluaran 22:5-6

22:5 “If a man grazes ¹¹  his livestock ¹²  in a field or a vineyard, and he lets the livestock loose and they graze in the field of another man, he must make restitution from the best of his own field and the best of his own vineyard.

22:6 “If a fire breaks out and spreads ¹³  to thorn bushes, ¹⁴  so that stacked grain or standing grain or the whole field is consumed, the one who started ¹⁵  the fire must surely make restitution.

Keluaran 33:7

The Presence of the Lord

33:7 ¹⁶ Moses took ¹⁷  the tent ¹⁸  and pitched it outside the camp, at a good distance ¹⁹  from the camp, and he called it the tent of meeting. Anyone ²⁰  seeking ²¹  the Lord would go out to the tent of meeting that was outside the camp.

Keluaran 33:16

33:16 For how will it be known then that I have found favor in your sight, I and your people? Is it not by your going with us, so that we will be distinguished, I and your people, from all the people who are on the face of the earth?” ²² 

Keluaran 35:5

35:5 ‘Take ²³  an offering for the Lord. Let everyone who has a willing heart ²⁴  bring ²⁵  an offering to the Lord: ²⁶  gold, silver, bronze,

[9:19]  ¹ tn The object “instructions” is implied in the context.

[9:19]  ² tn הָעֵז (ha’ez) is the Hiphil imperative from עוּז (’uz, “to bring into safety” or “to secure”). Although there is no vav (ו) linking the two imperatives, the second could be subordinated by virtue of the meanings. “Send to bring to safety.”

[9:19]  ³ tn Heb “man, human.”

[9:19]  ⁴ tn Heb “[who] may be found.” The verb can be the imperfect of possibility.

[12:15]  ⁵ tn This expression is an adverbial accusative of time. The feast was to last from the 15th to the 21st of the month.

[12:15]  ⁶ tn Or “you will eat.” The statement stresses their obligation – they must eat unleavened bread and avoid all leaven.

[12:15]  ⁷ tn The etymology of מַצּוֹת (matsot, “unleavened bread,” i.e., “bread made without yeast”) is uncertain. Suggested connections to known verbs include “to squeeze, press,” “to depart, go out,” “to ransom,” or to an Egyptian word “food, cake, evening meal.” For a more detailed study of “unleavened bread” and related matters such as “yeast” or “leaven,” see A. P. Ross, NIDOTTE 4:448-53.

[12:15]  ⁸ tn The particle serves to emphasize, not restrict here (B. S. Childs, Exodus [OTL], 183, n. 15).

[12:15]  ⁹ tn Heb “every eater of leavened bread.” The participial phrase stands at the beginning of the clause as a casus pendens, that is, it stands grammatically separate from the sentence. It names a condition, the contingent occurrences of which involve a further consequence (GKC 361 §116.w).

[12:15]  ¹⁰ tn The verb וְנִכְרְתָה (vÿnikhrÿtah) is the Niphal perfect with the vav (ו) consecutive; it is a common formula in the Law for divine punishment. Here, in sequence to the idea that someone might eat bread made with yeast, the result would be that “that soul [the verb is feminine] will be cut off.” The verb is the equivalent of the imperfect tense due to the consecutive; a translation with a nuance of the imperfect of possibility (“may be cut off”) fits better perhaps than a specific future. There is the real danger of being cut off, for while the punishment might include excommunication from the community, the greater danger was in the possibility of divine intervention to root out the evildoer (S. R. Driver, Exodus, 94). Gesenius lists this as the use of a perfect with a vav consecutive after a participle (a casus pendens) to introduce the apodosis (GKC 337 §112.mm).

[12:15]  sn In Lev 20:3, 5-6, God speaks of himself as cutting off a person from among the Israelites. The rabbis mentioned premature death and childlessness as possible judgments in such cases, and N. M. Sarna comments that “one who deliberately excludes himself from the religious community of Israel cannot be a beneficiary of the covenantal blessings” (Exodus [JPSTC], 58).

[22:5]  ¹¹ tn The verb בָּעַר (ba’ar, “graze”) as a denominative from the word “livestock” is not well attested. So some have suggested that with slight changes this verse could be read: “If a man cause a field or a vineyard to be burnt, and let the burning spread, and it burnt in another man’s field” (see S. R. Driver, Exodus, 225).

[22:5]  ¹² tn The phrase “his livestock” is supplied from the next clause.

[22:6]  ¹³ tn Heb “if a fire goes out and finds”; NLT “if a fire gets out of control.”

[22:6]  ¹⁴ sn Thorn bushes were used for hedges between fields, but thorn bushes also burned easily, making the fire spread rapidly.

[22:6]  ¹⁵ tn This is a Hiphil participle of the verb “to burn, kindle” used substantivally. This is the one who caused the fire, whether by accident or not.

[33:7]  ¹⁶ sn This unit of the book could actually include all of chap. 33, starting with the point of the Lord’s withdrawal from the people. If that section is not part of the exposition, it would have to be explained as the background. The point is that sinfulness prevents the active presence of the Lord leading his people. But then the rest of chap. 33 forms the development. In vv. 7-11 there is the gracious provision: the Lord reveals through his faithful mediator. The Lord was leading his people, but now more remotely because of their sin. Then, in vv. 12-17 Moses intercedes for the people, and the intercession of the mediator guarantees the Lord’s presence. The point of all of this is that God wanted the people to come to know that if he was not with them they should not go. Finally, the presence of the Lord is verified to the mediator by a special revelation (18-23). The point of the whole chapter is that by his grace the Lord renews the promise of his presence by special revelation.

[33:7]  ¹⁷ tn Heb “and Moses took.”

[33:7]  ¹⁸ sn A widespread contemporary view is that this section represents a source that thought the tent of meeting was already erected (see S. R. Driver, Exodus, 359). But the better view is that this is a temporary tent used for meeting the Lord. U. Cassuto explains this view very well (Exodus, 429-30), namely, that because the building of the tabernacle was now in doubt if the Lord was not going to be in their midst, another plan seemed necessary. Moses took this tent, his tent, and put some distance between the camp and it. Here he would use the tent as the place to meet God, calling it by the same name since it was a surrogate tent. Thus, the entire section was a temporary means of meeting God, until the current wrath was past.

[33:7]  ¹⁹ tn The infinitive absolute is used here as an adverb (see GKC 341 §113.h).

[33:7]  ²⁰ tn The clause begins with “and it was,” the perfect tense with the vav conjunction. The imperfect tenses in this section are customary, describing what used to happen (others describe the verbs as frequentative). See GKC 315 §107.e.

[33:7]  ²¹ tn The form is the Piel participle. The seeking here would indicate seeking an oracle from Yahweh or seeking to find a resolution for some difficulty (as in 2 Sam 21:1) or even perhaps coming with a sacrifice. B. Jacob notes that the tent was even here a place of prayer, for the benefit of the people (Exodus, 961). It is not known how long this location was used.

[33:16]  ²² sn See W. Brueggemann, “The Crisis and Promise of Presence in Israel,” HBT 1 (1979): 47-86; and N. M. Waldman, “God’s Ways – A Comparative Note,” JQR 70 (1979): 67-70.

[35:5]  ²³ tn Heb “from with you.”

[35:5]  ²⁴ tn “Heart” is a genitive of specification, clarifying in what way they might be “willing.” The heart refers to their will, their choices.

[35:5]  ²⁵ tn The verb has a suffix that is the direct object, but the suffixed object is qualified by the second accusative: “let him bring it, an offering.”

[35:5]  ²⁶ tn The phrase is literally “the offering of Yahweh”; it could be a simple possessive, “Yahweh’s offering,” but a genitive that indicates the indirect object is more appropriate.