Keluaran 7:17-18

7:17 Thus says the Lord: “By this you will know that I am the Lord: I am going to strike ¹  the water of the Nile with the staff that is in my hand, and it will be turned into blood. ²  7:18 Fish ³  in the Nile will die, the Nile will stink, and the Egyptians will be unable ⁴  to drink water from the Nile.”’”

Keluaran 7:20-21

7:20 Moses and Aaron did so, ⁵  just as the Lord had commanded. Moses raised ⁶  the staff ⁷  and struck the water that was in the Nile right before the eyes ⁸  of Pharaoh and his servants, ⁹  and all the water that was in the Nile was turned to blood. ¹⁰  7:21 When the fish ¹¹  that were in the Nile died, the Nile began ¹²  to stink, so that the Egyptians could not drink water from the Nile. There was blood ¹³  everywhere in the land of Egypt!

Keluaran 8:9

8:9 Moses said to Pharaoh, “You may have the honor over me ¹⁴  – when shall I pray for you, your servants, and your people, for the frogs to be removed ¹⁵  from you and your houses, so that ¹⁶  they will be left ¹⁷  only in the Nile?”

Keluaran 8:11

8:11 The frogs will depart from you, your houses, your servants, and your people; they will be left only in the Nile.”

[7:17]  ¹ tn The construction using הִנֵּה (hinneh) before the participle (here the Hiphil participle מַכֶּה, makkeh) introduces a futur instans use of the participle, expressing imminent future, that he is about to do something.

[7:17]  ² 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.

[7:18]  ³ tn The definite article here has the generic use, indicating the class – “fish” (R. J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax, 19, §92).

[7:18]  ⁴ tn The verb לָאָה (la’a), 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.

[7:20]  ⁵ 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.

[7:20]  ⁶ tn Heb “And he raised”; the referent (Moses) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[7:20]  ⁷ tn Gesenius calls the preposition on “staff” the בְּ (bet) instrumenti, used to introduce the object (GKC 380-81 §119.q). This construction provides a greater emphasis than an accusative.

[7:20]  ⁸ 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.

[7:20]  ⁹ 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).

[7:20]  ¹⁰ 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.

[7:21]  ¹¹ 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.

[7:21]  ¹² 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.

[7:21]  ¹³ tn Heb “and there was blood.”

[8:9]  ¹⁴ tn The expression הִתְפָּאֵר עָלַי (hitpa’er ’alay) is problematic. The verb would be simply translated “honor yourself” or “deck yourself with honor.” It can be used in the bad sense of self-exaltation. But here it seems to mean “have the honor or advantage over me” in choosing when to remove the frogs. The LXX has “appoint for me.” Moses is doing more than extending a courtesy to Pharaoh; he is giving him the upper hand in choosing the time. But it is also a test, for if Pharaoh picked the time it would appear less likely that Moses was manipulating things. As U. Cassuto puts it, Moses is saying “my trust in God is so strong you may have the honor of choosing the time” (Exodus, 103).

[8:9]  ¹⁵ tn Or “destroyed”; Heb “to cut off the frogs.”

[8:9]  ¹⁶ tn The phrase “so that” is implied.

[8:9]  ¹⁷ tn Or “survive, remain.”