Posted on by Powered by Bible Gateway

The Daily Audio Bible Reading for Sunday January 28, 2024 (NIV)

Exodus 5:22-7:25

The Assurance of Deliverance

22 [a] Moses returned[b] to the Lord, and said, “Lord,[c] why have you caused trouble for this people?[d] Why did you ever[e] send me? 23 From the time I went to speak to Pharaoh in your name, he has caused trouble[f] for this people, and you have certainly not rescued[g] them!”[h]

6 Then the Lord said to Moses, “Now you will see what I will do to Pharaoh,[i] for compelled by my strong hand[j] he will release them, and by my strong hand he will drive them out of his land.”[k]

2 God spoke[l] to Moses and said to him, “I am the Lord.[m] 3 I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob as[n] God Almighty,[o] but by my name ‘the Lord’[p] I was not known to them.[q] 4 I also established my covenant with them[r] to give them the land of Canaan, where they were living as resident foreigners.[s] 5 I[t] have also heard[u] the groaning of the Israelites, whom the Egyptians are enslaving,[v] and I have remembered my covenant.[w] 6 Therefore, tell the Israelites, ‘I am the Lord. I will bring you out[x] from your enslavement to[y] the Egyptians, I will rescue you from the hard labor they impose,[z] and I will redeem you with an outstretched arm and with great judgments. 7 I will take you to myself for a people, and I will be your God.[aa] Then you will know that I am the Lord your God, who brought you out from your enslavement to[ab] the Egyptians. 8 I will bring you to the land I swore to give[ac] to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob—and I will give it to you[ad] as a possession. I am the Lord.’”

9 [ae] Moses told this[af] to the Israelites, but they did not listen to him[ag] because of their discouragement[ah] and hard labor. 10 Then the Lord said to Moses, 11 “Go, tell Pharaoh king of Egypt that he must release[ai] the Israelites from his land.” 12 But Moses replied to[aj] the Lord, “If the Israelites did not listen to me, then[ak] how will Pharaoh listen to me, since[al] I speak with difficulty?”[am]

13 The Lord spoke[an] to Moses and Aaron and gave them a charge[ao] for the Israelites and Pharaoh king of Egypt to bring the Israelites out of the land of Egypt.

The Ancestry of Moses and Aaron

14 [ap] These were the heads of their fathers’ households:[aq]

The sons[ar] of Reuben, the firstborn son of Israel, were Hanoch and Pallu, Hezron and Carmi. These were the clans[as] of Reuben.

15 The sons of Simeon were Jemuel, Jamin, Ohad, Jakin, Zohar, and Shaul, the son of a Canaanite woman. These were the clans of Simeon.

16 Now these were the names of the sons of Levi, according to their records:[at] Gershon, Kohath, and Merari. (The length of Levi’s life was 137 years.)

17 The sons of Gershon, by their families, were Libni and Shimei.

18 The sons of Kohath were Amram, Izhar, Hebron, and Uzziel. (The length of Kohath’s life was 133 years.)

19 The sons of Merari were Mahli and Mushi. These were the clans of Levi, according to their records.

20 Amram married[au] his father’s sister Jochebed, and she bore him Aaron and Moses. (The length of Amram’s life was 137 years.)

21 The sons of Izhar were Korah, Nepheg, and Zikri.

22 The sons of Uzziel were Mishael, Elzaphan, and Sithri.

23 Aaron married Elisheba, the daughter of Amminadab and sister of Nahshon, and she bore him Nadab and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar.

24 The sons of Korah were Assir, Elkanah, and Abiasaph. These were the Korahite clans.

25 Now Eleazar son of Aaron married one of the daughters of Putiel and she bore him Phinehas.

These were the heads of the fathers’ households[av] of Levi according to their clans.

26 It was the same Aaron and Moses to whom the Lord said, “Bring the Israelites out of the land of Egypt by their regiments.”[aw] 27 They were the men who were speaking to Pharaoh king of Egypt, in order to bring the Israelites out of Egypt. It was the same Moses and Aaron.

The Authentication of the Word

28 [ax] When[ay] the Lord spoke to Moses in the land of Egypt, 29 he said to him,[az] “I am the Lord. Tell[ba] Pharaoh king of Egypt all that[bb] I am telling[bc] you.” 30 But Moses said before the Lord, “Since I speak with difficulty,[bd] why should Pharaoh listen to me?”

7 So the Lord said to Moses, “See, I have made you like God[be] to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron will be your prophet.[bf] 2 You are to speak[bg] everything I command you,[bh] and your brother Aaron is to tell Pharaoh that he must release[bi] the Israelites from his land. 3 But I will harden[bj] Pharaoh’s heart, and although I will multiply[bk] my signs and my wonders in the land of Egypt, 4 Pharaoh will not listen to you.[bl] I will reach into[bm] Egypt and bring out my regiments,[bn] my people the Israelites, from the land of Egypt with great acts of judgment. 5 Then[bo] the Egyptians will know that I am the Lord when I extend my hand[bp] over Egypt and bring the Israelites out from among them.”

6 And Moses and Aaron did so; they did just as the Lord commanded them. 7 Now Moses was eighty years old and Aaron was eighty-three years old when they spoke to Pharaoh.

8 The Lord said[bq] to Moses and Aaron,[br] 9 “When Pharaoh says to you, ‘Do[bs] a miracle,’ and you say to Aaron, ‘Take your staff and throw it down[bt] before Pharaoh,’ it will become[bu] a snake.” 10 When[bv] Moses and Aaron went to Pharaoh, they did so, just as the Lord had commanded them—Aaron threw down[bw] his staff before Pharaoh and his servants and it became a snake.[bx] 11 Then Pharaoh also summoned wise men and sorcerers,[by] and the magicians[bz] of Egypt by their secret arts[ca] did the same thing. 12 Each man[cb] threw down his staff, and the staffs became snakes. But Aaron’s staff swallowed up their staffs. 13 Yet Pharaoh’s heart became hard,[cc] and he did not listen to them, just as the Lord had predicted.

Plague One: Water to Blood

14 [cd] The Lord said to Moses, “Pharaoh’s heart is hard;[ce] he refuses to release[cf] the people. 15 Go to Pharaoh in the morning when[cg] he goes out to the water. Position yourself[ch] to meet him by the edge of the Nile,[ci] and take[cj] in your hand the staff[ck] that was turned into a snake. 16 Tell him, ‘The Lord, the God of the Hebrews, has sent me to you to say,[cl] “Release my people, that they may serve me[cm] in the wilderness!” But until now[cn] you have not listened.[co] 17 This is what the Lord has said: “By this you will know that I am the Lord: I am going to strike[cp] the water of the Nile with the staff that is in my hand, and it will be turned into blood.[cq] 18 Fish[cr] in the Nile will die, the Nile will stink, and the Egyptians will be unable[cs] to drink water from the Nile.”’” 19 Then the Lord said to Moses, “Tell Aaron, ‘Take your staff and stretch out your hand over Egypt’s waters—over their rivers, over their canals,[ct] over their ponds, and over all their reservoirs[cu]—so that it becomes[cv] blood.’ There will be blood everywhere in[cw] the land of Egypt, even in wooden and stone containers.” 20 Moses and Aaron did so,[cx] just as the Lord had commanded. He raised[cy] the staff[cz] and struck the water that was in the Nile right before the eyes[da] of Pharaoh and his servants,[db] and all the water that was in the Nile was turned to blood.[dc] 21 When the fish[dd] that were in the Nile died, the Nile began[de] to stink, so that the Egyptians could not drink water from the Nile. There was blood[df] everywhere in the land of Egypt! 22 But the magicians of Egypt did the same[dg] by their secret arts, and so[dh] Pharaoh’s heart remained hard,[di] and he refused to listen to Moses and Aaron[dj]—just as the Lord had predicted. 23 And Pharaoh turned and went into his house. He did not pay any attention to this.[dk] 24 All the Egyptians dug around the Nile for water to drink,[dl] because they could not drink the water of the Nile.

Plague Two: Frogs

25 [dm] Seven full days passed[dn] after the Lord struck[do] the Nile.

Footnotes:

  1. Exodus 5:22 sn In view of the apparent failure of the mission, Moses seeks Yahweh for assurance. The answer from Yahweh not only assures him that all is well, but that there will be a great deliverance. The passage can be divided into three parts: the complaint of Moses (5:22-23), the promise of Yahweh (6:1-9), and the instructions for Moses (6:10-13). Moses complains because God has not delivered his people as he had said he would, and God answers that he will because he is the sovereign covenant God who keeps his word. Therefore, Moses must keep his commission to speak God’s word. See further, E. A. Martens, “Tackling Old Testament Theology,” JETS 20 (1977): 123-32. The message is very similar to that found in the NT, “Where is the promise of his coming?” (2 Pet 3:4). The complaint of Moses (5:22-23) can be worded with Peter’s “Where is the promise of his coming?” theme; the assurance from Yahweh (6:1-9) can be worded with Peter’s “The Lord is not slack in keeping his promises” (2 Pet 3:9); and the third part, the instructions for Moses (6:10-13) can be worded with Peter’s “Prepare for the day of God and speed its coming” (2 Pet 3:12). The people who speak for God must do so in the sure confidence of the coming deliverance—Moses with the deliverance from the bondage of Egypt, and Christians with the deliverance from this sinful world.
  2. Exodus 5:22 tn Heb “and Moses returned.”
  3. Exodus 5:22 tn The designation in Moses’ address is “Lord” (אֲדֹנָי, ʾadonay)—the term for “lord” or “master” but pointed as it would be when it represents the tetragrammaton.
  4. Exodus 5:22 tn The verb is הֲרֵעֹתָה (hareʿotah), the Hiphil perfect of רָעַע (raʿaʿ). The word itself means “to do evil,” and in this stem “to cause evil”—but evil in the sense of pain, calamity, trouble, or affliction, and not always in the sense of sin. Certainly not here. That God had allowed Pharaoh to oppose them had brought greater pain to the Israelites.sn Moses’ question is rhetorical; the point is more of a complaint or accusation to God, although there is in it the desire to know why. B. Jacob (Exodus, 139) comments that such frank words were a sign of the man’s closeness to God. God never has objected to such bold complaints by the devout. He then notes how God was angered by his defenders in the book of Job rather than by Job’s heated accusations.
  5. Exodus 5:22 tn The demonstrative pronoun serves for emphasis in the question (see R. J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax, 24, §118). This second question continues Moses’ bold approach to God, more chiding than praying. He is implying that if this was the result of the call, then God had no purpose calling him (compare Jeremiah’s similar complaint in Jer 20).
  6. Exodus 5:23 sn Now the verb (הֵרַע, heraʿ) has a different subject—Pharaoh. The ultimate cause of the trouble was God, but the immediate cause was Pharaoh and the way he increased the work. Meanwhile, the Israelite foremen have pinned most of the blame on Moses and Aaron. Moses knows all about the sovereignty of God, and as he speaks in God’s name, he sees the effect it has on pagans like Pharaoh. So the rhetorical questions are designed to prod God to act differently.
  7. Exodus 5:23 tn The Hebrew construction is emphatic: וְהַצֵּל לֹא־הִצַּלְתָּ (vehatsel loʾ hitsalta). The verb נָצַל (natsal) means “to deliver, rescue” in the sense of plucking out, even plundering. The infinitive absolute strengthens both the idea of the verb and the negative. God had not delivered this people at all.
  8. Exodus 5:23 tn Heb “your people.” The pronoun (“them”) has been used in the translation for stylistic reasons here, to avoid redundancy.
  9. Exodus 6:1 sn The expression “I will do to Pharaoh” always refers to the plagues. God would first show his sovereignty over Pharaoh before defeating him.
  10. Exodus 6:1 tn The expression “with a strong hand” (וּבְיָד חֲזָקָה, uveyad khazaqah) could refer (1) to God’s powerful intervention (“compelled by my strong hand”) or (2) to Pharaoh’s forceful pursuit (“he will forcefully drive them out”). In Exod 3:20 God has summarized what his hand would do in Egypt, and that is probably what is intended here, as he promises that Moses will see what God will do. All Egypt ultimately desired that Israel be released (12:33), and when they were released Pharaoh pursued them to the sea, and so in a sense drove them out—whether that was his intention or not. But ultimately it was God’s power that was the real force behind it all. U. Cassuto (Exodus, 74) considers that it is unlikely that the phrase would be used in the same verse twice with the same meaning. So he thinks that the first “strong hand” is God’s, and the second “strong hand” is Pharaoh’s. It is true that if Pharaoh acted forcefully in any way that contributed to Israel leaving Egypt it was because God was acting forcefully in his life. So in an understated way, God is saying that when forced by God’s strong hand, Pharaoh will indeed release God’s people.”
  11. Exodus 6:1 tn Or “and he will forcefully drive them out of his land,” if the second occurrence of “strong hand” refers to Pharaoh’s rather than God’s (see the previous note).sn In Exod 12:33 the Egyptians were eager to send (release) Israel away in haste, because they all thought they were going to die.
  12. Exodus 6:2 tn Heb “And God spoke.”
  13. Exodus 6:2 sn The announcement “I am the Lord” (Heb “Yahweh”) draws in the preceding revelation in Exod 3:15. In that place God called Moses to this task and explained the significance of the name “Yahweh” by the enigmatic expression “I am that I am.” “I am” (אֶהְיֶה, ʾehyeh) is not a name; “Yahweh” is. But the explanation of the name with this sentence indicates that Yahweh is the one who is always there, and that guarantees the future, for everything he does is consistent with his nature. He is eternal, never changing; he remains. Now, in Exodus 6, the meaning of the name “Yahweh” will be more fully unfolded.
  14. Exodus 6:3 tn The preposition bet (ב) in this construction should be classified as a bet essentiae, a bet of essence (see also GKC 379 §119.i).
  15. Exodus 6:3 tn The traditional rendering of the title as “Almighty” is reflected in LXX and Jerome. But there is still little agreement on the etymology and exact meaning of אֵל־שַׁדַּי (ʾel shadday). Suggestions have included the idea of “mountain God,” meaning the high God, as well as “the God with breasts.” But there is very little evidence supporting such conclusions and not much reason to question the ancient versions.
  16. Exodus 6:3 tn Heb “Yahweh,” traditionally rendered in English as “the Lord.” The phrase has been placed in quotation marks in the translation to indicate it represents the tetragrammaton.
  17. Exodus 6:3 tn The verb is the Niphal form נוֹדַעְתִּי (nodaʿti). If the text had wanted to say, “I did not make myself known,” then a Hiphil form would have been more likely. It is saying, “but by my name Yahweh I was not known to them.”sn There are a number of important issues that need clarification in the interpretation of this section. First, it is important to note that “I am Yahweh” is not a new revelation of a previously unknown name. It would be introduced differently if it were. This is the identification of the covenant God as the one calling Moses—that would be proof for the people that their God had called him. Second, the title “El Shadday” is not a name, but a title. It is true that in the patriarchal accounts “El Shadday” is used six times; in Job it is used thirty times. Many conclude that it does reflect the idea of might or power. In some of those passages that reveal God as “El Shadday,” the name “Yahweh” was also used. But Wellhausen and other proponents of the earlier source critical analysis used Exod 6:3 to say that P, the so-called priestly source, was aware that the name “Yahweh” was not known by them, even though J, the supposed Yahwistic source, wrote using the name as part of his theology. Third, the texts of Genesis show that Yahweh had appeared to the patriarchs (Gen 12:1; 17:1; 18:1; 26:2; 26:24; 26:12; 35:1; 48:3), and that he spoke to each one of them (Gen 12:7; 15:1; 26:2; 28:13; 31:3). The name “Yahweh” occurs 162 times in Genesis, 34 of those times on the lips of speakers in Genesis (W. C. Kaiser, Jr., “Exodus,” EBC 2:340-41). They also made proclamation of Yahweh by name (4:26; 12:8), and they named places with the name (22:14). These passages should not be ignored or passed off as later interpretation. Fourth, “Yahweh” is revealed as the God of power, the sovereign God, who was true to his word and could be believed. He would do as he said (Num 23:19; 14:35; Exod 12:25; 22:24; 24:14; 36:36; 37:14). Fifth, there is a difference between promise and fulfillment in the way revelation is apprehended. The patriarchs were individuals who received the promises but without the fulfillment. The fulfillment could only come after the Israelites became a nation. Now, in Egypt, they are ready to become that promised nation. The two periods were not distinguished by not having and by having the name, but by two ways God revealed the significance of his name. “I am Yahweh” to the patriarchs indicated that he was the absolute, almighty, eternal God. The patriarchs were individuals sojourning in the land. God appeared to them in the significance of El Shadday. That was not his name. So Gen 17:1 says that “Yahweh appeared…and said, ‘I am El Shadday.’” See also Gen 35:11; 48:2; 28:3. Sixth, the verb “to know” is never used to introduce a name which had never been known or experienced. The Niphal and Hiphil of the verb are used only to describe the recognition of the overtones or significance of the name (see Jer 16:21, Isa 52:6; Ps 83:17ff; 1 Kgs 8:41ff. [people will know his name when prayers are answered]). For someone to say that he knew Yahweh meant that Yahweh had been experienced or recognized (see Exod 33:6; 1 Kgs 18:36; Jer 28:9; Ps 76:2). Seventh, “Yahweh” is not one of God’s names—it is his only name. Other titles, like “El Shadday,” are not strictly names but means of revealing Yahweh. All the revelations to the patriarchs could not compare to this one, because God was now dealing with the nation. He would make his name known to them through his deeds (see Ezek 20:5). So now they will “know” the “name.” The verb יָדַע (yadaʿ) means more than “aware of, be knowledgeable about”; it means “to experience” the reality of the revelation by that name. This harmonizes with the usage of שֵׁם (shem), “name,” which encompasses all the attributes and actions of God. It is not simply a reference to a title, but to the way that God revealed himself—God gave meaning to his name through his acts. God is not saying that he had not revealed a name to the patriarchs (that would have used the Hiphil of the verb). Rather, he is saying that the patriarchs did not experience what the name Yahweh actually meant, and they could not without seeing it fulfilled. When Moses came to the elders, he identified his call as from Yahweh, the God of the fathers—and they accepted him. They knew the name. But, when they were delivered from bondage, then they fully knew by experience what that name meant, for his promises were fulfilled. U. Cassuto (Exodus, 79) paraphrases it this way: “I revealed Myself to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in My aspect that finds expression in the name Shaddai…I was not known to them, that is, it was not given to them to recognize Me as One that fulfils his promises.” This generation was about to “know” the name that their ancestors knew and used, but never experienced with the fulfillment of the promises. This section of Exodus confirms this interpretation, because in it God promised to bring them out of Egypt and give them the promised land—then they would know that he is Yahweh (6:7). This meaning should have been evident from its repetition to the Egyptians throughout the plagues—that they might know Yahweh (e.g., 7:5). See further R. D. Wilson, “Yahweh [Jehovah] and Exodus 6:3, ” Classical Evangelical Essays in Old Testament Interpretation, 29-40; L. A. Herrboth, “Exodus 6:3b: Was God Known to the Patriarchs as Jehovah?” CTM 4 (1931): 345-49; F. C. Smith, “Observation on the Use of the Names and Titles of God in Genesis,” EvQ 40 (1968): 103-9.
  18. Exodus 6:4 tn The statement refers to the making of the covenant with Abraham (Gen 15 and following) and confirming it with the other patriarchs. The verb הֲקִמֹתִי (haqimoti) means “set up, establish, give effect to, conclude” a covenant agreement. The covenant promised the patriarchs a great nation, a land—Canaan, and divine blessing. They lived with those promises, but now their descendants were in bondage in Egypt. God’s reference to the covenant here is meant to show the new revelation through redemption will start to fulfill the promises and show what the reality of the name Yahweh is to them.
  19. Exodus 6:4 tn Heb “the land of their sojournings.” The noun מְגֻרִים (megurim) is a reminder that the patriarchs did not receive the promises. It is also an indication that those living in the age of promise did not experience the full meaning of the name of the covenant God. The “land of their sojournings” is the land of Canaan where the family lived (גָּרוּ, garu) as foreigners, without owning property or having the rights of kinship with the surrounding population.
  20. Exodus 6:5 tn The addition of the independent pronoun אֲנִי (ʾani, “I”) emphasizes the fact that it was Yahweh himself who heard the cry.
  21. Exodus 6:5 tn Heb “And also I have heard.”
  22. Exodus 6:5 tn The form is the Hiphil participle מַעֲבִדִים (maʿavidim, “causing to serve”). The participle occurs in a relative clause that modifies “the Israelites.” The clause ends with the accusative “them,” which must be combined with the relative pronoun for a smooth English translation. So “who the Egyptians are enslaving them,” results in the translation “whom the Egyptians are enslaving.”
  23. Exodus 6:5 sn As in Exod 2:24, this remembering has the significance of God’s beginning to act to fulfill the covenant promises.
  24. Exodus 6:6 tn The verb וְהוֹצֵאתִי (vehotseʾti) is a perfect tense with the vav (ו) consecutive, and so it receives a future translation—part of God’s promises. The word will be used later to begin the Decalogue and other covenant passages—“I am Yahweh who brought you out….”
  25. Exodus 6:6 tn Heb “from under the burdens of” (so KJV, NASB); NIV “from under the yoke of.”
  26. Exodus 6:6 tn Heb “from labor of them.” The antecedent of the pronoun is the Egyptians who have imposed slave labor on the Hebrews.
  27. Exodus 6:7 sn These covenant promises are being reiterated here because they are about to be fulfilled. They are addressed to the nation, not individuals, as the plural suffixes show. Yahweh was their God already, because they had been praying to him and he is acting on their behalf. When they enter into covenant with God at Sinai, then he will be the God of Israel in a new way (19:4-6; cf. Gen 17:7-8; 28:20-22; Lev 26:11-12; Jer 24:7; Ezek 11:17-20).
  28. Exodus 6:7 tn Heb “from under the burdens of” (so KJV, NASB); NIV “from under the yoke of.”
  29. Exodus 6:8 tn Heb “which I raised my hand to give it.” The relative clause specifies which land is their goal. The bold anthropomorphism mentions part of an oath-taking ceremony to refer to the whole event and reminds the reader that God swore that he would give the land to them. The reference to taking an oath would have made the promise of God sure in the mind of the Israelite.
  30. Exodus 6:8 sn Here is the twofold aspect again clearly depicted: God swore the promise to the patriarchs, but he is about to give what he promised to this generation. This generation will know more about him as a result.
  31. Exodus 6:9 sn The final part of this section focuses on instructions for Moses. The commission from God is the same—he is to speak to Pharaoh and he is to lead Israel out. It should have been clear to him that God would do this, for he had just been reminded how God was going to lead out, deliver, redeem, take the people as his people, and give them land. It was God’s work of love from beginning to end. Moses simply had his task to perform.
  32. Exodus 6:9 tn Heb “and Moses spoke thus.”
  33. Exodus 6:9 tn Heb “to Moses.” The proper name has been replaced by the pronoun (“him”) in the translation for stylistic reasons.
  34. Exodus 6:9 tn The Hebrew מִקֹּצֶּר רוּחַ (miqqotser ruakh) means “because of the shortness of spirit.” This means that they were discouraged, dispirited, and weary—although some have also suggested it might mean impatient. The Israelites were now just not in the frame of mind to listen to Moses.
  35. Exodus 6:11 tn The form וִישַׁלַּח (vishallakh) is the Piel imperfect or jussive with a sequential vav; following an imperative it gives the imperative’s purpose and intended result. They are to speak to Pharaoh, and (so that as a result) he will release Israel. After the command to speak, however, the second clause also indirectly states the content of the speech (cf. Exod 11:2; 14:2, 15; 25:2; Lev 16:2; 22:2). As the next verse shows, Moses doubts that what he says will have the intended effect.
  36. Exodus 6:12 tn Heb “And Moses spoke before.”
  37. Exodus 6:12 sn This analogy is an example of a qal wahomer comparison. It is an argument by inference from the light (qal) to the heavy (homer), from the simple to the more difficult. If the Israelites, who are Yahwists, would not listen to him, it is highly unlikely Pharaoh would.
  38. Exodus 6:12 tn The final clause begins with a disjunctive vav (ו), a vav on a nonverb form—here a pronoun. It introduces a circumstantial causal clause.
  39. Exodus 6:12 tn Heb “and [since] I am of uncircumcised lips.” The “lips” represent his speech (metonymy of cause). The term “uncircumcised” makes a comparison between his speech and that which Israel perceived as unacceptable, unprepared, foreign, and of no use to God. The heart is described this way when it is impervious to good impressions (Lev 26:41; Jer 9:26) and the ear when it hears imperfectly (Jer 6:10). Moses has here returned to his earlier claim—he does not speak well enough to be doing this.
  40. Exodus 6:13 tn Heb “And Yahweh spoke.”
  41. Exodus 6:13 tn The term וַיְצַוֵּם (vayetsavvem) is a Piel preterite with a pronominal suffix on it. The verb צָוָה (tsavah) means “to command” but can also have a much wider range of meanings. In this short summary statement, the idea of giving Moses and Aaron a commission to Israel and to Pharaoh indicates that come what may they have their duty to perform.
  42. Exodus 6:14 sn This list of names shows that Moses and Aaron are in the line of Levi that came to the priesthood. It helps to identify them and authenticate them as spokesmen for God within the larger history of Israel. As N. M. Sarna observes, “Because a genealogy inherently symbolizes vigor and continuity, its presence here also injects a reassuring note into the otherwise despondent mood” (Exodus [JPSTC], 33).
  43. Exodus 6:14 tn The expression is literally “the house of their fathers.” This expression means that the household or family descended from a single ancestor. It usually indicates a subdivision of a tribe, that is, a clan, or the subdivision of a clan, that is, a family. Here it refers to a clan (S. R. Driver, Exodus, 46).
  44. Exodus 6:14 tn Or “descendants.”
  45. Exodus 6:14 tn Or “families,” and so throughout the genealogy.
  46. Exodus 6:16 tn Or “generations.”
  47. Exodus 6:20 tn Heb “took for a wife” (also in vv. 23, 25).
  48. Exodus 6:25 tn Heb “heads of the fathers” is taken as an abbreviation for the description of “households” in v. 14.
  49. Exodus 6:26 tn Or “by their hosts” or “by their armies.” Often translated “hosts” (ASV, NASB) or “armies” (KJV), צְבָאוֹת (tsevaʾot) is a military term that portrays the people of God in battle array. In contemporary English, “regiment” is perhaps more easily understood as a force for battle than “company” (cf. NAB, NRSV) or “division” (NIV, NCV, NLT), both of which can have commercial associations. The term also implies an orderly departure.
  50. Exodus 6:28 sn From here on the confrontation between Yahweh and Pharaoh will intensify until Pharaoh is destroyed. The emphasis at this point, though, is on Yahweh’s instructions for Moses to speak to Pharaoh. The first section (6:28-7:7) ends (v. 6) with the notice that Moses and Aaron did just as (כַּאֲשֶׁר, kaʾasher) Yahweh had commanded them; the second section (7:8-13) ends with the note that Pharaoh refused to listen, just as (כַּאֲשֶׁר) Yahweh had said would be the case.
  51. Exodus 6:28 tn The beginning of this temporal clause does not follow the normal pattern of using the preterite of the main verb after the temporal indicator and prepositional phrase, but instead uses a perfect tense following the noun in construct: וַיְהִי בְּיוֹם דִּבֶּר (vayehi beyom dibber). See GKC 422 §130.d. This verse introduces a summary (vv. 28-30) of the conversation that was interrupted when the genealogy began.
  52. Exodus 6:29 tn Heb “and Yahweh spoke to Moses saying.” This has been simplified in the translation as “he said to him” for stylistic reasons.
  53. Exodus 6:29 tn The verb is דַּבֵּר (dabber), the Piel imperative. It would normally be translated “speak,” but in English that verb does not sound as natural with a direct object as “tell.”
  54. Exodus 6:29 tn The clause begins with אֵת כָּל־אֲשֶׁר (ʾet kol ʾasher) indicating that this is a noun clause functioning as the direct object of the imperative and providing the content of the commanded speech.
  55. Exodus 6:29 tn דֹּבֵר (dover) is the Qal active participle; it functions here as the predicate in the noun clause: “that I [am] telling you.” This one could be rendered, “that I am speaking to you.”
  56. Exodus 6:30 tn See note on Exod 6:12.
  57. Exodus 7:1 tn The word “like” is added for clarity, making explicit the implied comparison in the statement “I have made you God to Pharaoh.” The word אֱלֹהִים (ʾelohim) 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.
  58. Exodus 7:1 tn The word נְבִיאֶךָ (neviʾekha, “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.
  59. Exodus 7:2 tn 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.”
  60. Exodus 7:2 tn The phrase translated “everything I command you” is a noun clause serving as the direct object of the verb “speak.” The verb in the clause (אֲצַוֶּךָ, ʾatsavvekha) is the Piel imperfect. It could be classified as a future: “everything that I will command you.” A nuance of progressive imperfect also fits well: “everything 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.
  61. Exodus 7:2 tn The form is וְשִׁלַּח (veshillakh), a Piel perfect with vav (ו) 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”).
  62. Exodus 7:3 tn The clause begins with the emphatic use of the pronoun and a disjunctive vav (ו) expressing the contrast “But as for me, I will harden.” They will speak, but God will harden.sn The imperfect tense of the verb קָשָׁה (qashah) 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.
  63. Exodus 7:3 tn The form beginning the second half of the verse is the perfect tense with vav (ו) consecutive, הִרְבֵּיתִי (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.
  64. Exodus 7:4 tn Heb “and Pharaoh will not listen.”
  65. Exodus 7:4 tn 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.
  66. Exodus 7:4 tn See the note on this term in 6:26.
  67. Exodus 7:5 tn 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” (יָדַע, yadaʿ) 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.
  68. Exodus 7:5 sn This is another anthropomorphism, parallel to the preceding. If God were to “put” (נָתַן, natan), “extend” (נָטָה, natah), or “reach out” (שָׁלַח, shalakh) his hand against them, they would be destroyed. Contrast Exod 24:11.
  69. Exodus 7:8 tn Heb “And Yahweh said.”
  70. Exodus 7:8 tn Heb “said to Moses and Aaron, saying.”
  71. Exodus 7:9 tn The verb is תְּנוּ (tenu), literally “give.” The imperative is followed by an ethical dative that strengthens the subject of the imperative: “you give a miracle.”
  72. Exodus 7:9 tn Heb “and throw it.” The direct object, “it,” is implied.
  73. Exodus 7:9 tn The form is the jussive יְהִי (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 323 §109.h).
  74. Exodus 7:10 tn The clause begins with the preterite and the vav (ו) consecutive; it is here subordinated to the next clause as a temporal clause.
  75. Exodus 7:10 tn Heb “and Aaron threw.”
  76. Exodus 7:10 tn The noun used here is תַּנִּין (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). This wonder paralleled Moses’ miracle in 4:3 when he cast his staff down. But this is Aaron’s staff, and a different miracle. The noun could still be rendered “snake” here since the term could be broad enough to include it.
  77. Exodus 7:11 sn For information on this Egyptian material, see D. B. Redford, A Study of the Biblical Story of Joseph (VTSup), 203-4.
  78. Exodus 7:11 tn The חַרְטֻמִּים (khartummim) seem to have been the keepers of Egypt’s religious and magical texts, the sacred scribes.
  79. Exodus 7:11 tn The term בְּלַהֲטֵיהֶם (belahatehem) means “by their secret arts”; it is from לוּט (lut, “to enwrap”). The Greek renders the word “by their magic”; Tg. Onq. uses “murmurings” and “whispers,” and other Jewish sources “dazzling display” or “demons” (see further B. Jacob, Exodus, 253-54). They may have done this by clever tricks, manipulation of the animals, or demonic 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 up their snakes.
  80. Exodus 7:12 tn 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.”
  81. Exodus 7:13 tn This phrase translates the Hebrew word חָזַק (khazaq); see S. R. Driver, Exodus, 53.sn For more on this subject, see B. Jacob, Exodus, 241-49. S. R. Driver (Exodus, 53) notes that when this word (חָזַק) is used it indicates a will or attitude that is unyielding and firm, but when כָּבֵד (kaved) is used, it stresses the will as being slow to move, unimpressionable, slow to be affected.
  82. Exodus 7:14 sn 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.
  83. Exodus 7:14 tn Or “unresponsive” (so HALOT 456 s.v. I כָּבֵד).
  84. Exodus 7:14 tn The Piel infinitive construct לְשַׁלַּח (leshallakh) serves as the direct object of מֵאֵן (meʾen), 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.
  85. Exodus 7:15 tn The clause begins with הִנֵּה (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.
  86. Exodus 7:15 tn The instruction to Moses continues with this perfect tense with vav (ו) 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.
  87. Exodus 7:15 sn 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 suggest he went out simply to bathe or to check the water level—but that would not change the view of the Nile that was prevalent in the land.
  88. Exodus 7:15 tn The verb תִּקַּח (tiqqakh), the Qal imperfect of לָקַח (laqakh), functions here as the imperfect of instruction, or injunction perhaps, given the word order of the clause.
  89. Exodus 7:15 tn The final clause begins with the noun and vav disjunctive, which singles this instruction out for special attention—“now the staff…you are to take.”
  90. Exodus 7:16 tn The form לֵאמֹר (leʾmor) is the Qal infinitive construct with the lamed (ל) 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.
  91. Exodus 7:16 tn The imperfect tense with the vav (וְיַעַבְדֻנִי, veyaʿaveduni) following the imperative is a volitive sequence showing the purpose—“that they may serve me.” The word “serve” (עָבַד, ʿavad) is a general term that includes religious observance and obedience.
  92. Exodus 7:16 tn The final עַד־כֹּה (ʿad 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.
  93. Exodus 7:16 tn Or “complied” (שָׁמַעְתָּ, shamaʿta).
  94. Exodus 7:17 tn The combination of הִנֵּה (hinneh) plus the participle expresses imminent future, that he is about to do something.
  95. Exodus 7:17 sn W. C. 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 (see W. C. Kaiser, Jr., “Exodus,” EBC 2:350; he cites Greta Hort, “The Plagues of Egypt,” ZAW 69 [1957]: 84-103; same title, 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 staff 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.
  96. Exodus 7:18 tn The definite article here has the generic use, indicating the class—“fish” (R. J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax, 19, §92).
  97. Exodus 7:18 tn The verb לָאָה (laʾah), 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 s.v.). 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.
  98. Exodus 7:19 tn Or “irrigation rivers” of the Nile.
  99. Exodus 7:19 sn 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.
  100. Exodus 7:19 tn The imperfect tense with vav (ו) after the imperative indicates the purpose or result: “in order that they [the waters] be[come] blood.”
  101. Exodus 7:19 tn Or “in all.”
  102. Exodus 7:20 sn 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 staff over the rest of the waters of Egypt.
  103. Exodus 7:20 tn Heb This probably refers to Aaron who is instructed to do so in v. 19. Durham suggests that the subject may be the Lord (J. Durham, Exodus [WBC], 94).
  104. Exodus 7:20 tn Gesenius calls the preposition on “staff” the ב (bet) instrumenti, used to introduce the object (GKC 380-81 §119.q). This construction provides a greater emphasis than an accusative.
  105. Exodus 7:20 tn 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.
  106. Exodus 7:20 sn U. Cassuto (Exodus, 98) 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).
  107. Exodus 7:20 sn 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 (Exodus, 258), who prefers the view of Rashi that the blow affected only water in use.
  108. Exodus 7:21 tn The first clause in this verse begins with a vav disjunctive, introducing a circumstantial clause to the statement that the water stank. The vav (ו) 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.
  109. Exodus 7:21 tn 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.
  110. Exodus 7:21 tn Heb “and there was blood.”
  111. Exodus 7:22 tn Heb “thus, so.”
  112. Exodus 7:22 tn The vav consecutive on the preterite introduces the outcome or result of the matter—Pharaoh was hardened.
  113. Exodus 7:22 tn Heb “and the heart of Pharaoh became hard.” This phrase translates the Hebrew word חָזַק (khazaq; see S. R. Driver, Exodus, 53). In context this represents the continuation of a prior condition.
  114. Exodus 7:22 tn Heb “to them”; the referents (Moses and Aaron) have been specified in the translation for clarity.
  115. Exodus 7:23 tn The text has וְלֹא־שָׁת לִבּוֹ גַּם־לָזֹאת (veloʾ shat libbo gam lazoʾt), 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; Pss 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.
  116. Exodus 7:24 sn 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.
  117. Exodus 7:25 sn 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.
  118. Exodus 7:25 tn 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.
  119. Exodus 7:25 tn This is a temporal clause made up of the preposition, the Hiphil infinitive construct of נָכָה (nakhah), הַכּוֹת (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.
New English Translation (NET)

NET Bible® copyright ©1996-2017 by Biblical Studies Press, L.L.C. http://netbible.com All rights reserved.

Matthew 18:21-19:12

21 Then Peter came to him and said, “Lord, how many times must I forgive my brother[a] who sins against me? As many as seven times?” 22 Jesus said to him, “Not seven times, I tell you, but seventy-seven times![b]

The Parable of the Unforgiving Slave

23 “For this reason, the kingdom of heaven is like a king who wanted to settle accounts with his slaves.[c] 24 As[d] he began settling his accounts, a man who owed 10,000 talents[e] was brought to him. 25 Because[f] he was not able to repay it,[g] the lord ordered him to be sold, along with[h] his wife, children, and whatever he possessed, and repayment to be made. 26 Then the slave threw himself to the ground[i] before him, saying,[j] ‘Be patient with me, and I will repay you everything.’ 27 The lord had compassion on that slave and released him, and forgave him the debt. 28 After[k] he went out, that same slave found one of his fellow slaves who owed him 100 silver coins.[l] So[m] he grabbed him by the throat and started to choke him,[n] saying, ‘Pay back what you owe me!’[o] 29 Then his fellow slave threw himself down and begged him,[p] ‘Be patient with me, and I will repay you.’ 30 But he refused. Instead, he went out and threw him in prison until he repaid the debt. 31 When[q] his fellow slaves saw what had happened, they were very upset and went and told their lord everything that had taken place. 32 Then his lord called the first slave[r] and said to him, ‘Evil slave! I forgave you all that debt because you begged me! 33 Should you not have shown mercy to your fellow slave, just as I showed it to you?’ 34 And in anger his lord turned him over to the prison guards to torture him[s] until he repaid all he owed. 35 So also my heavenly Father will do to you, if each of you does not forgive your[t] brother[u] from your heart.”

Questions About Divorce

19 Now when[v] Jesus finished these sayings, he left Galilee and went to the region of Judea beyond the Jordan River.[w] 2 Large crowds followed him, and he healed them there.

3 Then some Pharisees[x] came to him in order to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful[y] to divorce a wife for any cause?”[z] 4 He answered, “Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator made them male and female,[aa] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and will be united with his wife, and the two will become one flesh’?[ab] 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” 7 They said to him, “Why then did Moses command us to give a certificate of dismissal and to divorce her?”[ac] 8 Jesus[ad] said to them, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because of your hard hearts,[ae] but from the beginning it was not this way. 9 Now I say to you that whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another commits adultery.” 10 The[af] disciples said to him, “If this is the case of a husband with a wife, it is better not to marry!” 11 He[ag] said to them, “Not everyone can accept this statement, except those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are some eunuchs who were that way from birth,[ah] and some who were made eunuchs[ai] by others,[aj] and some who became eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who is able to accept this should accept it.”

Footnotes:

  1. Matthew 18:21 tn Here the term “brother” means “fellow believer” or “fellow Christian” (cf. BDAG 18 s.v. ἀδελφός 2.a), whether male or female. Concerning the familial connotations, see also the note on the first occurrence of this term in v. 15.
  2. Matthew 18:22 tn Or “seventy times seven,” i.e., an unlimited number of times. See L&N 60.74 and 60.77 for the two possible translations of the phrase.
  3. Matthew 18:23 tn See the note on the word “slave” in 8:9.
  4. Matthew 18:24 tn Here δέ (de) has not been translated.
  5. Matthew 18:24 sn A talent was a huge sum of money, equal to 6,000 denarii. One denarius was the usual day’s wage for a worker. L&N 6.82 states, “a Greek monetary unit (also a unit of weight) with a value which fluctuated, depending upon the particular monetary system which prevailed at a particular period of time (a silver talent was worth approximately 6,000 denarii with gold talents worth at least thirty times that much).”
  6. Matthew 18:25 tn Here δέ (de) has not been translated.
  7. Matthew 18:25 tn The word “it” is not in the Greek text, but is implied. Direct objects were often omitted in Greek when clear from the context.
  8. Matthew 18:25 tn Grk “and his wife.”
  9. Matthew 18:26 tn Grk “falling therefore the slave bowed down to the ground.” The redundancy of this expression signals the desperation of the slave in begging for mercy.
  10. Matthew 18:26 tc The majority of mss (א L W Γ Δ 058 0281 ƒ1, 13 33 565 579 1241 1424 M it syp,h co) begin the slave’s plea with “Lord” (κύριε, kurie), though a few key witnesses lack this vocative (B D Θ 700 lat sys,c Or Chr). Understanding the parable to refer to the Lord, scribes would be naturally prone to add the vocative here, especially as the slave’s plea is a plea for mercy. Thus, the shorter reading is more likely to be authentic.
  11. Matthew 18:28 tn Here δέ (de) has not been translated.
  12. Matthew 18:28 tn Grk “one hundred denarii.” The denarius was a silver coin worth about a day’s wage for a laborer; this would be about three month’s pay.
  13. Matthew 18:28 tn Here καί (kai) has been translated as “so.” A new sentence was started at this point in the translation in keeping with the tendency of contemporary English style to use shorter sentences.
  14. Matthew 18:28 tn Grk “and he grabbed him and started choking him.”
  15. Matthew 18:28 tn The word “me” is not in the Greek text, but is implied.
  16. Matthew 18:29 tn Grk “begged him, saying.” The participle λέγων (legōn) is redundant here in contemporary English and has not been translated.
  17. Matthew 18:31 tn Grk “Therefore when.” Here οὖν (oun) has not been translated.
  18. Matthew 18:32 tn Grk “him”; the referent (the first slave mentioned in v. 24) has been specified in the translation for clarity.
  19. Matthew 18:34 tn Grk “handed him over to the torturers,” referring specifically to guards whose job was to torture prisoners who were being questioned. According to L&N 37.126, it is difficult to know for certain in this instance whether the term actually envisions torture as a part of the punishment or is simply a hyperbole. However, in light of the following verse and Jesus’ other warning statements in Matthew about “fiery hell,” “the outer darkness,” etc., it is best not to dismiss this as mere imagery.
  20. Matthew 18:35 tn Grk “his.” The pronoun has been translated to follow English idiom (the last pronoun of the verse [“from your heart”] is second person plural in the original).
  21. Matthew 18:35 tn Here the term “brother” means “fellow believer” or “fellow Christian” (cf. BDAG 18 s.v. ἀδελφός 2.a), whether male or female. Concerning the familial connotations, see also the note on the first occurrence of this term in v. 15.
  22. Matthew 19:1 tn Grk “it happened when.” The introductory phrase ἐγένετο (egeneto, “it happened that”) is redundant in contemporary English and has not been translated.
  23. Matthew 19:1 tn “River” is not in the Greek text but is supplied for clarity. The region referred to here is sometimes known as Transjordan (i.e., “across the Jordan”).
  24. Matthew 19:3 tn Grk “And Pharisees.”sn See the note on Pharisees in 3:7.
  25. Matthew 19:3 tc ‡ Most mss have either ἀνθρώπῳ (anthrōpō, “for a man” [so א3 C D W Δ Θ 087 ƒ1, 13 33 1241 M latt]) τινί (tini, “for someone” 700), ἀνθρώπῳ τινί (anthrōpō tini, “for a man” [565]) or ἀνδρί (andri, “for a husband” [1424c]) before the infinitive ἀπολῦσαι (apolusai, “to divorce”). “For a husband” is an assimilation to the parallel in Mark; the other readings may have been motivated by the clarification needed (especially to give the following αὐτοῦ [autou, “his”] an antecedent). But a few significant mss (א* B L Γ 579 1424*) have neither noun or the pronoun. In light of the variety of additions that clarify the subject of the infinitive, and especially since the shorter reading is the more difficult, it is likely that none of these additions was present in the autograph. As the harder reading, the shorter reading seems to best explain the rise of the others. NA28, however, reads ἀνθρώπῳ here.
  26. Matthew 19:3 sn The question of the Pharisees was anything but sincere; they were asking it to test him. Jesus was now in the jurisdiction of Herod Antipas (i.e., Judea and beyond the Jordan) and it is likely that the Pharisees were hoping he might answer the question of divorce in a way similar to John the Baptist and so suffer the same fate as John, i.e., death at the hands of Herod (cf. 14:1-12). Jesus answered the question not on the basis of rabbinic custom and the debate over Deut 24:1, but rather from the account of creation and God’s original design.
  27. Matthew 19:4 sn A quotation from Gen 1:27; 5:2.
  28. Matthew 19:5 sn A quotation from Gen 2:24.
  29. Matthew 19:7 tc ‡ Although the majority of witnesses (B C N W Γ Δ 078 087 ƒ13 33 565 1241 1424 M syp,h) have αὐτήν (autēn, “her”) after the infinitive ἀπολῦσαι (apolusai, “to divorce”), several authorities lack the αὐτήν. This shorter reading may be due to assimilation to the Markan parallel, but since it is attested in early and diverse witnesses (א D L Z Θ ƒ1 579 700 lat) and since the parallel verse (Mark 10:4) already departs at many points, the shorter reading seems more likely to be initial text’s wording here. The pronoun has been included in the translation, however, for clarity. NA28 includes the word in brackets, indicating reservations about its authenticity.sn A quotation from Deut 24:1. The Pharisees were all in agreement that the OT permitted a man to write a certificate of dismissal and to divorce his wife (not vice-versa) and that remarriage was therefore sanctioned. But the two rabbinic schools of Shammai and Hillel differed on the grounds for divorce. Shammai was much stricter than Hillel and permitted divorce only in the case of sexual immorality. Hillel permitted divorce for almost any reason (cf. the Mishnah, m. Gittin 9.10).
  30. Matthew 19:8 tc A few significant witnesses (א Φ a b c mae) have the name “Jesus” here, but it is almost certainly not original. Nevertheless, for clarity’s sake, “Jesus” is added in the translation.tn Grk “He”; the referent (Jesus) has been specified in the translation for clarity.
  31. Matthew 19:8 tn Grk “heart” (a collective singular).
  32. Matthew 19:10 tc ‡ Some significant witnesses, along with the majority of later mss (P25 C D L N W Z Γ Δ 078 ƒ1, 13 33 565 579 700 1241 1424 M lat sy samss bo), read αὐτοῦ (autou, “his”) after μαθηταί (mathētai, “disciples”), but this looks to be a clarifying reading. Other early and significant witnesses lack the pronoun (P71vid א B Θ e ff1 g1 sams mae; SBL), the reading adopted here. NA28 includes the pronoun in brackets, indicating some doubts as to its authenticity.
  33. Matthew 19:11 tn Here δέ (de) has not been translated.
  34. Matthew 19:12 tn Grk “from the womb of the mother” (an idiom).
  35. Matthew 19:12 tn The verb εὐνουχίζω occurs twice in this verse, translated the first time as “made eunuchs” and the second time as “became eunuchs.” The term literally refers to castration. The second occurrence of the word in this verse is most likely figurative, though, referring to those who willingly maintain a life of celibacy for the furtherance of the kingdom (see W. D. Davies and D. C. Allison, Matthew [ICC], 3:23).
  36. Matthew 19:12 tn Grk “people.”
New English Translation (NET)

NET Bible® copyright ©1996-2017 by Biblical Studies Press, L.L.C. http://netbible.com All rights reserved.

Psalm 23

Psalm 23[a]

A psalm of David.

23 The Lord is my shepherd,[b]
I lack nothing.[c]
2 He takes me to lush pastures,[d]
he leads me to refreshing water.[e]
3 He restores my strength.[f]
He leads me down[g] the right paths[h]
for the sake of his reputation.[i]
4 Even when I must walk through the darkest valley,[j]
I fear[k] no danger,[l]
for you are with me;
your rod and your staff reassure me.[m]
5 You prepare a feast before me[n]
in plain sight of my enemies.
You refresh[o] my head with oil;
my cup is completely full.[p]
6 Surely your goodness and faithfulness[q] will pursue[r] me all my days,[s]
and I will live in[t] the Lord’s house[u] for the rest of my life.[v]

Footnotes:

  1. Psalm 23:1 sn Psalm 23. In vv. 1-4 the psalmist pictures the Lord as a shepherd who provides for his needs and protects him from danger. The psalmist declares, “The Lord is my shepherd,” and then extends and develops that metaphor, speaking as if he were a sheep. In vv. 5-6 the metaphor changes as the psalmist depicts a great royal banquet hosted by the Lord. The psalmist is a guest of honor and recipient of divine favor, who enjoys unlimited access to the divine palace and the divine presence.
  2. Psalm 23:1 sn The Lord is my shepherd. The opening metaphor suggests the psalmist is assuming the role of a sheep. In vv. 1b-4 the psalmist extends the metaphor and explains exactly how the Lord is like a shepherd to him. At the surface level the language can be understood in terms of a shepherd’s relationship to his sheep. The translation of vv. 1-4 reflects this level. But, of course, each statement also points to an underlying reality.
  3. Psalm 23:1 tn The imperfect verbal form is best understood as generalizing; the psalmist highlights his typical or ongoing experience as a result of having the Lord as his shepherd (habitual present use). The next verse explains more specifically what he means by this statement.
  4. Psalm 23:2 tn Heb “he makes me lie down in lush pastures.” The Hiphil verb יַרְבִּיצֵנִי (yarbitseni) has a causative-modal nuance here (see IBHS 445-46 §27.5 on this use of the Hiphil), meaning “allows me to lie down” (see also Jer 33:12). The point is that the shepherd takes the sheep to lush pastures and lets them eat and rest there. Both imperfect verbal forms in v. 2 are generalizing and highlight the psalmist’s typical experience.
  5. Psalm 23:2 tn Both genitives in v. 2 indicate an attribute of the noun they modify: דֶּשֶׁא (desheʾ) characterizes the pastures as “lush” (i.e., rich with vegetation), while מְנֻחוֹת (menukhot) probably characterizes the water as refreshing. In this case the plural indicates an abstract quality. Some take מְנֻחוֹת in the sense of “still, calm” (i.e., as describing calm pools in contrast to dangerous torrents), but it is unlikely that such a pastoral scene is in view. Shepherds usually watered their sheep at wells (see Gen 29:2-3; Exod 2:16-19). Another option is to take מְנֻחוֹת as “resting places” and to translate, “water of/at the resting places” (i.e., a genitive of location; see IBHS 147-48 §9.5.2e).sn Within the framework of the metaphor, the psalmist/sheep is declaring in v. 2 that his shepherd provides the essentials for physical life. At a deeper level the psalmist may be referring to more than just physical provision, though that would certainly be included.
  6. Psalm 23:3 tn The appearance of the Hebrew term נַפְשִׁי (nafshi), traditionally translated “my soul,” might suggest a spiritualized interpretation for the first line of v. 3. However, at the surface level of the shepherd/sheep metaphor, this is unlikely. When it occurs with a pronominal suffix נֶפֶשׁ (nefesh) is often equivalent to a pronoun, especially in poetry (see BDB 660 s.v.נֶפֶשׁ 4.a). In this context, where the statement most naturally refers to the physical provision just described, the form is best translated simply “me.” The accompanying verb (a Polel form [factitive use] of שׁוּב [shuv]), if referring to the physical provision just described, carries the nuance “refresh, restore strength.”
  7. Psalm 23:3 tn The imperfect verbal forms in v. 3 (יְשׁוֹבֵב [yeshovev] and יַנְחֵנִי [yankheni]), like those in vv. 1-2, highlight what is typical of the shepherd/sheep relationship.
  8. Psalm 23:3 tn The attributive genitive צֶדֶק (tsedeq) is traditionally translated “righteousness” here, as if designating a moral or ethical quality. But this seems unlikely, for it modifies מַעְגְּלֵי (maʿgele, “paths”). Within the shepherd/sheep metaphor, the phrase likely refers to “right” or “correct” paths, i.e., ones that lead to pastures, wells, or the fold. While צֶדֶק usually does carry a moral or ethical nuance, it can occasionally refer to less abstract things, such as weights and offerings. In this context, which emphasizes divine provision and protection, the underlying reality is probably God’s providential guidance. The psalmist is confident that God takes him down paths that will ultimately lead to something beneficial, not destructive.
  9. Psalm 23:3 tn The Hebrew term שֵׁם (shem, “name”) refers here to the shepherd’s reputation. (The English term “name” is often used the same way.) The statement לְמַעַן שְׁמוֹ (lemaʿan shemo, “for the sake of his name”) makes excellent sense within the framework of the shepherd/sheep metaphor. Shepherds, who sometimes hired out their services, were undoubtedly concerned about their vocational reputation. To maintain their reputation as competent shepherds, they had to know the “lay of the land” and make sure they led the sheep down the right paths to the proper destinations. The underlying reality is a profound theological truth: God must look out for the best interests of the one he has promised to protect, because if he fails to do so, his faithfulness could legitimately be called into question and his reputation damaged.
  10. Psalm 23:4 tn The Hebrew term צַלְמָוֶת (tsalmavet) has traditionally been understood as a compound noun meaning “shadow of death” (צֵל [tsel] + מָוֶת [mavet]; see BDB 853 s.v. צַלְמָוֶת). Other scholars prefer to vocalize the form צָלְמוּת (tsalmut) and understand it as an abstract noun (from the root צָלַם, tsalam) meaning “darkness.” An examination of the word’s usage favors the latter derivation. It is frequently associated with darkness/night and contrasted with light/morning (see Job 3:5; 10:21-22; 12:22; 24:17; 28:3; 34:22; Ps 107:10, 14; Isa 9:1; Jer 13:16; Amos 5:8). In some cases the darkness described is associated with the realm of death (Job 10:21-22; 38:17), but this is a metaphorical application of the word and does not reflect its inherent meaning. If the word does indeed mean “darkness,” it modifies גַיְא (gayʾ, “valley, ravine”) quite naturally. At the metaphorical level, v. 4 pictures the shepherd taking his sheep through a dark ravine where predators might lurk. The life-threatening situations faced by the psalmist are the underlying reality behind the imagery.
  11. Psalm 23:4 tn The imperfect verbal forms in v. 4, as in vv. 1-3, highlight what is typical in the psalmist’s experience.
  12. Psalm 23:4 tn The Hebrew term רָע (raʿ) is traditionally translated “evil” here, perhaps suggesting a moral or ethical nuance. But at the level of the metaphor, the word means “danger, injury, harm,” as a sheep might experience from a predator. The life-threatening dangers faced by the psalmist, especially the enemies mentioned in v. 5, are the underlying reality.
  13. Psalm 23:4 tn The Piel of נָחַם (nakham), when used with a human object, means “comfort, console.” But here, within the metaphorical framework, it refers to the way in which a shepherd uses his implements to assure the sheep of his presence and calm their nerves. The underlying reality is the emotional stability God provides the psalmist during life threatening situations.
  14. Psalm 23:5 sn In v. 5 the metaphor switches. (It would be very odd for a sheep to have its head anointed and be served wine.) The background for the imagery is probably the royal banquet. Ancient Near Eastern texts describe such banquets in similar terms to those employed by the psalmist. (See M. L. Barre and J. S. Kselman, “New Exodus, Covenant, and Restoration in Psalm 23, ” The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth, 97-127.) The reality behind the imagery is the Lord’s favor. Through his blessings and protection he demonstrates to everyone, including dangerous enemies, that the psalmist has a special relationship with him.
  15. Psalm 23:5 tn The imperfect verbal form in v. 5a carries on the generalizing mood of vv. 1-4. However, in v. 5b the psalmist switches to a perfect (דִּשַּׁנְתָּ, dishanta), which may have a generalizing force as well. But then again the perfect is conspicuous here and may be present perfect in sense, indicating that the divine host typically pours oil on his head prior to seating him at the banquet table. The verb דָשַׁן (dashan; the Piel is factitive) is often translated “anoint,” but this is misleading, for it might suggest a symbolic act of initiation into royal status. One would expect the verb מָשָׁח (mashan) in this case; דָשַׁן here describes an act of hospitality extended to guests and carries the nuance “refresh.” In Prov 15:30 it stands parallel to “make happy” and refers to the effect that good news has on the inner being of its recipient.
  16. Psalm 23:5 tn The rare noun רְוָיָה (revayah) is derived from the well-attested verb רָוָה (ravah, “be saturated, drink one’s fill”). In this context, where it describes a cup, it must mean “filled up,” but not necessarily to overflowing.
  17. Psalm 23:6 tn The noun חֶסֶד (khesed; v. 6) has been the subject of several monographs. G. R. Clark concludes that חֶסֶד “is not merely an attitude or an emotion; it is an emotion that leads to an activity beneficial to the recipient.” He explains that an act of חֶסֶד is “a beneficent action performed, in the context of a deep and enduring commitment between two persons or parties, by one who is able to render assistance to the needy party who in the circumstances is unable to help him- or herself.” (See G. R. Clark, The Word Hesed in the Hebrew Bible [JSOTSup], 267.) HALOT 336-37 s.v. defines the word as “loyalty,” or “faithfulness.” Other appropriate meanings might be “commitment” and “devotion.”
  18. Psalm 23:6 tn The use of רָדַף (radaf, “pursue, chase”) with טוֹב וָחֶסֶד (tov vakhesed, “goodness and faithfulness”) as subject is ironic. This is the only place in the entire OT where either of these nouns appears as the subject of this verb רָדַף (radaf, “pursue”). This verb is often used to describe the hostile actions of enemies. One might expect the psalmist’s enemies (see v. 5) to chase him, but ironically God’s “goodness and faithfulness” (which are personified and stand by metonymy for God himself) pursue him instead. The word “pursue” is used outside of its normal context in an ironic manner and creates a unique, but pleasant word picture of God’s favor (or a kind God) “chasing down” the one whom he loves.
  19. Psalm 23:6 tn Heb “all the days of my life.”
  20. Psalm 23:6 tn The verb form וְשַׁבְתִּי (veshavti) is a Qal perfect (with vav [ו] consecutive), first common singular, from שׁוּב (shuv, “return”) and should be translated, “and I will return.” But this makes no sense when construed with the following phrase, “in the house of the Lord.” The term שׁוּב (shuv) appears only here with the following phrase בְּבֵית (bevet). The form should be emended to וְשִׁבְתִּי (veshivti; an infinitive construct from יָשַׁב [yashav, “live”] with pronominal suffix) or to וְיָשַׁבְתִּי (veyashavti; a Qal perfect with vav [ו] consecutive, first common singular, from ישׁב [see BHS, note c]). In either case one could then translate, “and I will live [in the house of the Lord].” The phrase “in the house” frequently follows the verb יָשַׁב in the OT.
  21. Psalm 23:6 tn Heb “the house of the Lord.” The phrase may be purely metaphorical here, referring to the royal palace where the royal host of v. 5 holds his banquet and lives. If one takes the phrase more literally, it would refer to the earthly tabernacle (if one accepts Davidic authorship) or the later temple (see Judg 19:18; 1 Sam 1:7, 24; 2 Sam 12:20; 1 Kgs 7:12, 40, 45, 51).
  22. Psalm 23:6 tn The phrase אֹרֶךְ יָמִים (ʾorekh yamim, “length of days”) is traditionally translated “forever.” However, this phrase, when used elsewhere of people, usually refers to a lengthy period of time, such as one’s lifetime, and does not mean “forever” in the sense of eternity. (Cf. Deut 30:20; Job 12:12; Ps 91:16; Prov 3:2, 16; Lam 5:20.) Furthermore, the parallel phrase “all the days of my life” suggests this more limited meaning. Psalm 21:4, where the phrase is followed by “forever and ever,” may be an exception, though the juxtaposition of the phrases may be an example of intensification, where the second phrase goes beyond the limits of the first, rather than synonymity. Even if one takes both expressions as referring to eternal life, the language is part of the king’s hyperbolic description of the Lord’s blessings and should not be taken literally.
New English Translation (NET)

NET Bible® copyright ©1996-2017 by Biblical Studies Press, L.L.C. http://netbible.com All rights reserved.

Proverbs 5:22-23

22 The wicked[a] will be captured by his[b] own iniquities,[c]
and he will be held[d] by the cords of his own sin.[e]
23 He will die because[f] there was no discipline;
because of the greatness of his folly[g] he will reel.[h]

Footnotes:

  1. Proverbs 5:22 tn The suffix on the verb is the direct object suffix; “the wicked” is a second object by apposition: They capture him, the wicked. Since “the wicked” is not found in the LXX, it could be an old scribal error; or the Greek translator may have simply smoothed out the sentence. C. H. Toy suggests turning the sentence into a passive idea: “The wicked will be caught in his iniquities” (Proverbs [ICC], 117).
  2. Proverbs 5:22 tn The word is the subject of the clause, but the pronominal suffix has no clear referent. The suffix is proleptic, referring to the wicked.
  3. Proverbs 5:22 tn Heb “his own iniquities will capture the wicked.” The translation shifts the syntax for the sake of smoothness and readability.
  4. Proverbs 5:22 sn The lack of discipline and control in the area of sexual gratification is destructive. The one who plays with this kind of sin will become ensnared by it and led to ruin.
  5. Proverbs 5:22 tn The Hebrew is structured chiastically: “his own iniquities will capture the wicked, by the cords of his own sin will he be held.”
  6. Proverbs 5:23 tn The preposition ב (bet) is used in a causal sense: “because” (cf. NCV, TEV, CEV).
  7. Proverbs 5:23 sn The word אִוַּלְתּוֹ (ʾivvalto, “his folly”) is from the root אול and is related to the noun אֶוִיל (ʾevil, “foolish; fool”). The noun אִוֶּלֶת (ʾivvelet, “folly”) describes foolish and destructive activity. It lacks understanding, destroys what wisdom builds, and leads to destruction if it is not corrected.
  8. Proverbs 5:23 sn The verb שָׁגָה (shagah, “to swerve; to reel”) is repeated in a negative sense. If the young man is not captivated by his wife but is captivated with a stranger in sinful acts, then his own iniquities will captivate him and he will be led to ruin.
New English Translation (NET)

NET Bible® copyright ©1996-2017 by Biblical Studies Press, L.L.C. http://netbible.com All rights reserved.