Examples Of Exodus 32: 7-11
Exodus 32:7-14 shows the interaction between Moses and God following the Golden Calf incident. God is ready to destroy His people, but Moses successfully pleads that God changes his mind. This passage may appear to some that God’s power and divinity should be questioned; however, through this interaction with Moses, God shows that He wants to be a relational God who gives His people enough free will to make their own decisions while still being able to use them for his ultimate plan.
When God chose the Israelite people to be his people, He created a covenant with them. The Israelites had a hard time upholding their side of the covenant. This was demonstrated in verse 8 when God exclaims to Moses, “They have been quick to turn away from what I commanded them and have made themselves an idol cast in the shape of a calf” (Exodus 32:8 New International Version). As implied in this statement, this act of creating and worshipping an idol was a direct violation of the covenantal agreement. Not only does this result in God threatening to destroy them, it causes God to immediately disown the people He chose to be His own. Earlier in this passage it says, “Then the LORD said to Moses, “Go downs, because your people whom you brought up out of Egypt, have become corrupt” (Exodus …show more content…
32:7). Michael Widmer (2003) notes that Yahweh “immediately distances Himself from His people by informing Moses that ‘Your [emphasis added] people have acted perversely’” (p. 59). Feelings of anger and disappointment cause God to lose His personal connection with these people. Dr. Thomas Constable (2012) suggests that God refers to the Israelites as Moses’ people in verse 7 because as soon as the covenant was broken, God no longer saw Himself as the God of the Israelites. When the Israelites made a new god, God responded similarly by wanting to make a new people. This resulted in a broken relationship in addition to a broken covenant.
Moses was appointed to a mediator position between God and the Israelite people. Therefore, God’s relationship with Moses was stronger than His relationship with any other Israelite person. When the people broke the covenant, God wanted to destroy them and, in turn, make Moses the new patriarch of His people. In verse 10 God says to Moses “Leave me alone so that my anger may burn against them and that I may destroy them. Then I will make you into a great nation” (Exodus 32:10). At this point, Moses intercedes with God’s plan and insists that He changes his mind. As part of this request, verse 13 shows Moses reminding God of the ancestral promise that He made to Abraham, saying the following:
“Remember your servants, Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, to whom you swore by your own self: ‘I will make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and I will give your descendants all this land I promised them, and it will be their inheritance forever” (Exodus 32:13).
Moses is reminding God of the relationship He has built with His people, going all the way back to Abraham.
Even though Moses is also reminding God of His promise, one should not assume that God had forgotten about it. One author suggests that “the fact that [Yahweh] wanted to make Moses into a great nation implies that He had not forgotten His promise to Abraham” (Widmer, 2003, p. 77). By offering to make Moses into a great nation, God shows that He remembers His promise of land, descendants and relationship that was made to Abraham. By following through with the threat made to the Israelites, God would have simply altered the fashion through which He followed through with His ancestral
promise.
The offer presented to Moses in this passage can be viewed as a test of the relationship between God and Moses; God wants to see if Moses is properly equipped for his mediator role. F.B. Hole (1947) and Dr. Thomas Constable (2012) suggest that Moses is being tested in a similar fashion to Abraham earlier in the Bible. In Abraham’s test, he was asked to sacrifice his son to see if he was loyal to God (Genesis 22). In this case, Moses was tested to see if he would stand up for his people – thus demonstrating love and forgiveness – or chose the selfish route and become the new patriarch of God’s people. In his commentary, Albert Barnes (1870) infers that this test made Moses decide “whether he would prefer that he should himself become the founder of a ‘great nation’ or that the Lord’s promise should be fulfilled in the whole people of Israel”. Moses chose to ask for God to spare His people. In their commentary on the Old Testament, Keil and Delitzsch (1854-89) infer the following:
“The preservation of Israel was dearer to him than the honour of becoming the head founder of a new kingdom of God. True to his calling as a mediator, he entered the breach before God, to turn away His wrath, that He might not destroy the sinful nation.”
Moses’ selfless decision showed competence in his position. It is important to realize that throughout this intervention, Moses never suggests that the Israelite people were right in their actions. Moses does not try to disprove the fact that these people have sinned and broken the covenant; rather Moses passes over this completely and goes straight to appealing to God’s perfect love and mercy while agreeing with God’s perfect justice. Two Biblical commentators state that in this situation Moses “prayed that…[God] would show mercy instead of justice” (Keil and Delitzsch 1854-89). Additionally, one author suggests that “the Bible presents God as loyal, responsive and wanting to act according to grace and mercy” (Werline 2007 p.382). Moses’ intervention shows how well he knows God by calling on these aspects of His nature. Demonstrating that He knows God more intimately than others lets Moses pass this test and prove that he is well equipped for his position.
After Moses’ intercession on behalf of the Israelite people, God decides to show mercy and not to follow through with the plan of destroying the Israelites. The passage in Exodus concludes saying, “Then the LORD relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened” (Exodus 32:14). This appears as though Moses has successfully changed God’s plan. This puts God’s divinity into question. By giving humans free will, God’s plans would need to be somewhat flexible. Dr. Thomas Constable (2012) offers the following explanation of this situation:
“Within the plan of God, however, He has incorporated enough flexibility so that in most situations there are a number of options that are acceptable to Him. In view of Moses’ intercession God proceeded to take a different course of action than He had previously intended”.
This suggests that God has an ultimate plan but the way of getting to that final goal may change along the way due to human decisions. Widmer (2003) proposes that “[Yahweh’s] nature enable Him to respond to any kind of development and incorporate it in the shaping of the future” (p.253). Whether or not the outcome would have been different if Moses had made a different choice will never be known. If this was a test for Moses, one could assume that God, being omniscient, knew that Moses would make the decision that he did, and his plan would unfold predictively. Keil and Delitzsch (1854-89) argue that “God knows the hearts of His servants, and forsees what they will do…He gives to human freedom, room enough for self-determination that He may test the fidelity of His servants”. This suggests that God can use situations to test His people, but He likely already knows what the outcome will be. This paradox between God’s omniscience and the free will of humans remains unclear. Two commentators write, “No human speculation, however, can fully explain the conflict between divine providence and human freedom” (Keil and Delitzsch 1854-89).
The interaction between Moses and God in this passage shows how God interacts and relates with His people. He shows His strong sense of identification and His desire for individual interactions with His people. While some aspects of God’s nature will remain a mystery, He demonstrates the importance He places on building relationships with His people.
When God chose the Israelite people to be his people, He created a covenant with them. The Israelites had a hard time upholding their side of the covenant. This was demonstrated in verse 8 when God exclaims to Moses, “They have been quick to turn away from what I commanded them and have made themselves an idol cast in the shape of a calf” (Exodus 32:8 New International Version). As implied in this statement, this act of creating and worshipping an idol was a direct violation of the covenantal agreement. Not only does this result in God threatening to destroy them, it causes God to immediately disown the people He chose to be His own. Earlier in this passage it says, “Then the LORD said to Moses, “Go downs, because your people whom you brought up out of Egypt, have become corrupt” (Exodus …show more content…
32:7). Michael Widmer (2003) notes that Yahweh “immediately distances Himself from His people by informing Moses that ‘Your [emphasis added] people have acted perversely’” (p. 59). Feelings of anger and disappointment cause God to lose His personal connection with these people. Dr. Thomas Constable (2012) suggests that God refers to the Israelites as Moses’ people in verse 7 because as soon as the covenant was broken, God no longer saw Himself as the God of the Israelites. When the Israelites made a new god, God responded similarly by wanting to make a new people. This resulted in a broken relationship in addition to a broken covenant.
Moses was appointed to a mediator position between God and the Israelite people. Therefore, God’s relationship with Moses was stronger than His relationship with any other Israelite person. When the people broke the covenant, God wanted to destroy them and, in turn, make Moses the new patriarch of His people. In verse 10 God says to Moses “Leave me alone so that my anger may burn against them and that I may destroy them. Then I will make you into a great nation” (Exodus 32:10). At this point, Moses intercedes with God’s plan and insists that He changes his mind. As part of this request, verse 13 shows Moses reminding God of the ancestral promise that He made to Abraham, saying the following:
“Remember your servants, Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, to whom you swore by your own self: ‘I will make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and I will give your descendants all this land I promised them, and it will be their inheritance forever” (Exodus 32:13).
Moses is reminding God of the relationship He has built with His people, going all the way back to Abraham.
Even though Moses is also reminding God of His promise, one should not assume that God had forgotten about it. One author suggests that “the fact that [Yahweh] wanted to make Moses into a great nation implies that He had not forgotten His promise to Abraham” (Widmer, 2003, p. 77). By offering to make Moses into a great nation, God shows that He remembers His promise of land, descendants and relationship that was made to Abraham. By following through with the threat made to the Israelites, God would have simply altered the fashion through which He followed through with His ancestral
promise.
The offer presented to Moses in this passage can be viewed as a test of the relationship between God and Moses; God wants to see if Moses is properly equipped for his mediator role. F.B. Hole (1947) and Dr. Thomas Constable (2012) suggest that Moses is being tested in a similar fashion to Abraham earlier in the Bible. In Abraham’s test, he was asked to sacrifice his son to see if he was loyal to God (Genesis 22). In this case, Moses was tested to see if he would stand up for his people – thus demonstrating love and forgiveness – or chose the selfish route and become the new patriarch of God’s people. In his commentary, Albert Barnes (1870) infers that this test made Moses decide “whether he would prefer that he should himself become the founder of a ‘great nation’ or that the Lord’s promise should be fulfilled in the whole people of Israel”. Moses chose to ask for God to spare His people. In their commentary on the Old Testament, Keil and Delitzsch (1854-89) infer the following:
“The preservation of Israel was dearer to him than the honour of becoming the head founder of a new kingdom of God. True to his calling as a mediator, he entered the breach before God, to turn away His wrath, that He might not destroy the sinful nation.”
Moses’ selfless decision showed competence in his position. It is important to realize that throughout this intervention, Moses never suggests that the Israelite people were right in their actions. Moses does not try to disprove the fact that these people have sinned and broken the covenant; rather Moses passes over this completely and goes straight to appealing to God’s perfect love and mercy while agreeing with God’s perfect justice. Two Biblical commentators state that in this situation Moses “prayed that…[God] would show mercy instead of justice” (Keil and Delitzsch 1854-89). Additionally, one author suggests that “the Bible presents God as loyal, responsive and wanting to act according to grace and mercy” (Werline 2007 p.382). Moses’ intervention shows how well he knows God by calling on these aspects of His nature. Demonstrating that He knows God more intimately than others lets Moses pass this test and prove that he is well equipped for his position.
After Moses’ intercession on behalf of the Israelite people, God decides to show mercy and not to follow through with the plan of destroying the Israelites. The passage in Exodus concludes saying, “Then the LORD relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened” (Exodus 32:14). This appears as though Moses has successfully changed God’s plan. This puts God’s divinity into question. By giving humans free will, God’s plans would need to be somewhat flexible. Dr. Thomas Constable (2012) offers the following explanation of this situation:
“Within the plan of God, however, He has incorporated enough flexibility so that in most situations there are a number of options that are acceptable to Him. In view of Moses’ intercession God proceeded to take a different course of action than He had previously intended”.
This suggests that God has an ultimate plan but the way of getting to that final goal may change along the way due to human decisions. Widmer (2003) proposes that “[Yahweh’s] nature enable Him to respond to any kind of development and incorporate it in the shaping of the future” (p.253). Whether or not the outcome would have been different if Moses had made a different choice will never be known. If this was a test for Moses, one could assume that God, being omniscient, knew that Moses would make the decision that he did, and his plan would unfold predictively. Keil and Delitzsch (1854-89) argue that “God knows the hearts of His servants, and forsees what they will do…He gives to human freedom, room enough for self-determination that He may test the fidelity of His servants”. This suggests that God can use situations to test His people, but He likely already knows what the outcome will be. This paradox between God’s omniscience and the free will of humans remains unclear. Two commentators write, “No human speculation, however, can fully explain the conflict between divine providence and human freedom” (Keil and Delitzsch 1854-89).
The interaction between Moses and God in this passage shows how God interacts and relates with His people. He shows His strong sense of identification and His desire for individual interactions with His people. While some aspects of God’s nature will remain a mystery, He demonstrates the importance He places on building relationships with His people.