Keluaran 2:13

2:13 When he went out ¹  the next day, ²  there were ³  two Hebrew men fighting. So he said to the one who was in the wrong, ⁴  “Why are you attacking ⁵  your fellow Hebrew?” ⁶ 

Keluaran 4:11

4:11 The Lord said to him, “Who gave ⁷  a mouth to man, or who makes a person mute or deaf or seeing or blind? Is it not I, the Lord? ⁸ 

Keluaran 5:2

5:2 But Pharaoh said, “Who is the Lord ⁹  that ¹⁰  I should obey him ¹¹  by releasing ¹²  Israel? I do not know the Lord, ¹³  and I will not release Israel!”

[2:13]  ¹ tn The preterite with the vav consecutive is subordinated to the main idea of the verse.

[2:13]  ² tn Heb “the second day” (so KJV, ASV).

[2:13]  ³ tn The deictic particle is used here to predicate existence, as in “here were” or “there were.” But this use of הִנֵּה (hinneh) indicates also that what he encountered was surprising or sudden – as in “Oh, look!”

[2:13]  ⁴ tn The word רָשָׁע (rasha’) is a legal term, meaning the guilty. This guilty man rejects Moses’ intervention for much the same reason Pharaoh will later (5:2) – he does not recognize his authority. Later Pharaoh will use this term to declare himself as in the wrong (9:27) and God in the right.

[2:13]  ⁵ tn This is the third use of the verb נָכָה (nakha) in the passage; here it is the Hiphil imperfect. It may be given a progressive imperfect nuance – the attack was going on when Moses tried to intervene.

[2:13]  ⁶ sn Heb “your neighbor.” The word רֵעֶךָ (re’ekha) appears again in 33:11 to describe the ease with which God and Moses conversed. The Law will have much to say about how the Israelites were to treat their “neighbors, fellow citizens” (Exod 20:16-17; 21:14, 18, 35; 22:7-11, 14, 26; cf. Luke 10:25-37).

[4:11]  ⁷ tn The verb שִׂים (sim) means “to place, put, set”; the sentence here more precisely says, “Who put a mouth into a man?”

[4:11]  sn The argumentation by Moses is here met by Yahweh’s rhetorical questions. They are intended to be sharp – it is reproof for Moses. The message is twofold. First, Yahweh is fully able to overcome all of Moses’ deficiencies. Second, Moses is exactly the way that God intended him to be. So the rhetorical questions are meant to prod Moses’ faith.

[4:11]  ⁸ sn The final question obviously demands a positive answer. But the clause is worded in such a way as to return to the theme of “I AM.” Isaiah 45:5-7 developed this same idea of God’s control over life. Moses protests that he is not an eloquent speaker, and the Lord replies with reminders about himself and promises, “I will be with your mouth,” an assertion that repeats the verb he used four times in 3:12 and 14 and in promises to Isaac and Jacob (Gen 26:3; 31:3).

[5:2]  ⁹ tn Heb “Yahweh.” This is a rhetorical question, expressing doubt or indignation or simply a negative thought that Yahweh is nothing (see erotesis in E. W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech, 944-45). Pharaoh is not asking for information (cf. 1 Sam 25:5-10).

[5:2]  ¹⁰ tn The relative pronoun introduces the consecutive clause that depends on the interrogative clause (see GKC 318-19 §107.u).

[5:2]  ¹¹ tn The imperfect tense here receives the classification of obligatory imperfect. The verb שָׁמַע (shama’) followed by “in the voice of” is idiomatic; rather than referring to simple audition – “that I should hear his voice” – it conveys the thought of listening that issues in action – “that I should obey him.”

[5:2]  sn The construction of these clauses is similar to (ironically) the words of Moses: “Who am I that I should go?” (3:11).

[5:2]  ¹² tn The Piel infinitive construct here has the epexegetical usage with lamed (ל); it explains the verb “obey.”

[5:2]  ¹³ sn This absolute statement of Pharaoh is part of a motif that will develop throughout the conflict. For Pharaoh, the Lord (Yahweh) did not exist. So he said “I do not know the Lord [i.e., Yahweh].” The point of the plagues and the exodus will be “that he might know.” Pharaoh will come to know this Yahweh, but not in any pleasant way.