Help with Discussion Thread: Moses

7

Plagues, Passover, and the Exodus

Exodus 7:1–15:21

This section of Exodus is devoted principally to a description of the plagues that God sent on Egypt (7:14–11:10; 12:29–32), and of the exodus from Egypt via the Red (or Reed) Sea. Moses receives from the Lord, as preparation, this astounding word: “I make you as God to Pharaoh” (7:1 rsv). But before elation can set in, God also says, “Pharaoh will not listen to you” (7:4 rsv). A God who will not be listened to!

The Plagues (7–11)

The function of the plagues goes back to the word of Pharaoh (5:2 nrsv): “I do not know the Lord.” The key word here is “know.” It appears in:

6:7: “and you [Israel] shall know that I am the Lord your God” (rsv)

7:5: “and the Egyptians shall know that I am the Lord” (nrsv)

7:17: “by this you [Pharaoh] shall know that I am the Lord” (nrsv; the first plague)

8:10: “that you [Pharaoh] may know that there is no one like the Lord our God” (nrsv; the second plague)

8:22: “that you [Pharaoh] may know that I am the Lord in the midst of the earth” (rsv; the fourth plague)

9:14: “I will send all my plagues … that you [Pharaoh] may know that there is none like me in all the earth” (nrsv; the seventh plague)

9:29: “I [Moses] will stretch out my hands … there will be no more hail, that you [Pharaoh] may know that the earth is the Lord’s” (rsv; also the seventh plague)

10:2: “that you [Moses and Israel] may tell … what signs I [the Lord] have done among them [Egyptians]; that you may know that I am the Lord” (rsv; the eighth plague)

11:7: “that you [Moses and Israel] may know that the Lord makes a distinction between the Egyptians and Israel” (rsv; the tenth plague)

14:4: “and I will get glory over Pharaoh … and the Egyptians shall know that I am the Lord” (rsv; crossing the sea)

14:18: “and the Egyptians shall know that I am the Lord, when I have gotten glory over Pharaoh, his chariots, and his horsemen” (rsv)

The use of this idiom continues in Exodus beyond this pericope, as indicated by 16:6, 12. In the wilderness Israel will “know” that he is the Lord God through his miraculous provisions. Elsewhere in the Pentateuch the phrase occurs only in Deut. 29:6. Beyond the Pentateuch its use is sporadic (1 Kings 20:13, 28; Isa. 45:3; 49:23, 26; 60:16; Hos. 2:20; Joel 2:27; 3:17). Of these the closest to those directed at Pharaoh (“so that you may know that I am the Lord”) is Isa. 45:3, in which God uses the phrase in addressing Cyrus, king of Persia. The exception to the infrequency of this phrase in the Old Testament outside of Exodus is Ezekiel. It occurs there an incredibly high number of times, most of which are directed to the prophet’s audience, the Judean exiles (e.g., Ezek. 5:13; 6:7, 14; 7:4, 9, 27; 11:10, 12; 12:15, 16; 13:9, 14, 21, 23). The difference between the popular use of this phrase in these two books is that in Exodus it is placed in a context of confinement and oppression that is about to give way to liberty, while in Ezekiel it is placed in a context where liberty has recently given way, or is about to give way, to confinement and oppression, thus the exact opposite of the Exodus setting.

The Purpose of the Plagues

This emphasis on knowing the Lord lifts the plagues beyond the function of chastisement. The plagues are not God’s revenge on Pharaoh. The Lord’s intention is not to leave behind in Egypt a bruised and bloodied Pharaoh, nor is the Lord interested in leaving the Egyptian king breathless via an exhibition of miracles.

The divine purpose is that Pharaoh and his people—to say nothing of the Israelites—will indeed acquire knowledge of the true God. They have an educative rationale. It will be knowledge based on observation and confrontation, not on hearsay. To know the Lord as Lord means to recognize and then submit to his authority. This is the choice that Pharaoh needs to make and is invited to make. To be sure, there is no reference in later chapters to Pharaoh saying, “I now know Yahweh,” or “I now know who Yahweh is,” and there is nothing remotely approaching Isaiah’s prophecy vis-à-vis Egypt: “In that day five cities of Egypt will speak the language of Canaan and swear allegiance to the Lord Almighty” (Isa. 19:18 niv).

Ten plagues are recorded:

1. 7:14–25: water to blood

2. 8:1–15: swarms of frogs

3. 8:16–19: gnats (or lice)

4. 8:20–32: swarms of flies (Hebrews spared [8:22])

5. 9:1–7: pestilence upon cattle (Hebrews’ livestock spared [9:4, 6])

6. 9:8–12: boils on humans and animals

7. 9:13–35: hail, thunder, and lightning (except in the portion of territory assigned to the Hebrews [9:26])

8. 10:1–20: swarm of locusts

9. 10:21–29: three days of thick darkness

10. 11:1–12:36: death of the firstborn, both people and cattle (Hebrews exempted if the necessary preparations are taken [12:7, 13])

The suggestion often has been made that each of these plagues is aimed directly at some aspect of Egyptian religion. In several instances this is quite possible, but in others the connection is difficult to make. Indeed, Exod. 12:12 has the Lord saying, “And on all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgments” (rsv). See also Num. 33:4b: “For the Lord had brought judgment on their gods” (niv). That does apply to some of the plagues:

1. Hapi, the god of the Nile, bringer of fertility

2. Hek/qet, the frog-headed goddess of fruitfulness

4. Kheper(a), in the form of a beetle (if that may be included among “swarms of flies”). He symbolizes the daily cycle of the sun across the sky.

5. Many Egyptian gods and goddesses are pictured in the hieroglyphs zoomorphically: Hathor, a cow-headed goddess, or a goddess with a human head adorned with horns or cow’s ears; Khnum, a ram-headed male figure; Amon, king of the gods and patron deity of the Pharaohs, a male figure with a ram’s head, or a ram wearing a triple crown; Geb, god of the earth, a goose or a male figure with his head surmounted by a goose; Isis, queen of the gods, a cow’s or ram’s horns on her head

7. Nut, the sky goddess, also protector of the dead

8. Serapia, protector from locusts

9. Re, the personification of the sun, king of the gods, and father of humankind

10. Possibly Taurt, goddess of maternity, who presided over childbirth; later a protective household deity

We should note that the biblical text gives no indication that the plagues are to be associated with Egyptian religion and deities. The similarities may, therefore, be coincidental. As far as the nature of the plagues is concerned, some of them, more than likely, would already have been experienced by the Egyptians (e.g., the red hue of the waters of the Nile, and a plague of frogs coming from the marshy banks of the river). Others of them probably were unprecedented, such as the plagues of hail and darkness, given Egypt’s virtual lack of rain and its year-round bright, sunny days (except for windstorms that quickly blot out the light of the sun).

Some scholars have argued that the plagues can be explained chronologically within the ecosystem of Egypt, and so what one finds in Exodus 7–10 is a literal history of a succession of natural phenomena (see Hort 1957; 1958). Many other scholars reject the attempt to defend the account of the plagues as historically accurate and true information. But J. K. Hoffmeier (1992: 375) raises this interesting question: If the sequence of events outlined by Hort and others for the annual fall and rise of the Nile is on target, “how is it that a variety of traditions could be drawn together centuries later by a redactor that makes such good sense in Egypt, but certainly not in Palestinian locales?”

Z. Zevit (1976: 211) has looked for analogies to the plagues elsewhere. He has discovered similar terms and language in the pericope about the plagues and in the creation narratives of Genesis, and he suggests that Genesis 1–2 is the background, thematically, for the plagues. Thus, for example, in the plague of blood the phrase “all their pools of water” (Exod. 7:19) is literally “every gathering of their waters,” which is a parallel to the “waters that were gathered together” of Gen. 1:10. Zevit also connects the ten plagues with the tenfold “and he [God] said” of Gen. 1:3, 6, 9, 11, 14, 20, 24, 26, 28, 29.

The Hardening of Pharaoh’s Heart

Terms Used to Describe Pharaoh’s Heart

Terminology about the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart appears twenty times in Exodus 4–14, and three different Hebrew verbs are used—kābēd, ḥāzaq, qāšâ—to describe the act of hardening. The basic meaning of kābēd is “to be heavy.” In addition to describing the heart, the word kābēd can describe the eyes (Gen. 48:10), the ears (Isa. 6:10), or the mouth and the tongue (Exod. 4:10). All these references are to the malfunction of a particular organ, the malfunction being caused by either age or disease (Gen. 48:10; Exod. 4:10). Thus R. R. Wilson (1979: 22) says that in these passages the writer is “referring to an organ of perception that is no longer receiving outside stimuli.”

The verb ḥāzaq means “to be strong, hard.” The root is in the name “Hezekiah,” meaning “the Lord is my strength,” and in “Ezekiel,” meaning “may God strengthen.” Put in a negative context, perhaps our closest English equivalent is “bullheaded.” The verb qāšâ means “to be hard, difficult, severe.”

Following below are the passages from Exodus that use one of these Hebrew verbs. After each reference is a listing of the particular verb that is used and an indication of what stem that verb assumes there, the basic Qal stem or the Piel or Hiphil stems (put most simply, the Qal describes a state, “to be …”; the Piel and Hiphil describe a condition or situation that is caused, “to make …”). The translation is that of the nrsv. I include parallels from the Jerusalem Bible (jb) and the New English Bible (neb) if they are different from the nrsv. These two modern versions of Scripture, which I consider to be among the best, show flexibility in choice of translation for one of the three Hebrew verbs listed above. Whenever a verse number is put in brackets, it is the verse number in the Hebrew text, which is at variance with the English text.

1. 4:21: “I will harden his heart”; “make him obstinate” (neb); ḥāzaq in the Piel

2. 7:3: “I will harden Pharaoh’s heart”; “I will make Pharaoh’s heart stubborn” (neb, jb); qāšâ in the Hiphil

3. 7:13: “still Pharaoh’s heart was hardened”; “Pharaoh, however, was obstinate” (neb); “stubborn” (jb); ḥāzaq in the Qal

4. 7:14: “Pharaoh’s heart is hardened”; “obdurate” (neb); “adamant” (jb); kābēd in adjectival form

5. 7:22: “Pharaoh’s heart remained hardened”; “remained obstinate” (neb); “was stubborn” (jb); ḥāzaq in the Qal

6. 8:15[11]: “Pharaoh … hardened his heart”; “he became obdurate” (neb); “became adamant” (jb); kābēd in the Hiphil

7. 8:19[15]: “Pharaoh’s heart was hardened”; “remained obstinate” (neb); “was stubborn” (jb); ḥāzaq in the Qal

8. 8:32[28]: “Pharaoh hardened his heart”; “became obdurate” (neb); “was adamant” (jb); kābēd in the Hiphil

9. 9:7: “the heart of Pharaoh was hardened”; “he remained obdurate” (neb); “became adamant” (jb); kābēd in the Qal

10. 9:12: “the Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh”; “made Pharaoh obstinate” (neb); “made Pharaoh’s heart stubborn” (jb); ḥāzaq in the Piel

11. 9:34: “he hardened his heart”; “became obdurate” (neb); “became adamant” (jb); kābēd in the Hiphil

12. 9:35: “the heart of Pharaoh was hardened”; “remained obstinate” (neb); “was stubborn” (jb); ḥāzaq in the Qal

13. 10:1: “I have hardened his heart”; “I have made him obdurate” (neb); “stubborn” (jb); kābēd in the Hiphil

14. 10:20: “the Lord hardened Pharaoh’s heart”; “made Pharaoh obstinate” (neb); “made Pharaoh’s heart stubborn” (jb); ḥāzaq in the Piel

15. 10:27: “the Lord hardened Pharaoh’s heart”; “made Pharaoh obstinate” (neb); “made Pharaoh’s heart stubborn” (jb); ḥāzaq in the Piel

16. 11:10: “the Lord hardened Pharaoh’s heart”; “made him obstinate” (neb); “made Pharaoh’s heart stubborn” (jb); ḥāzaq in the Piel

17. 13:15: “Pharaoh stubbornly refused to let us go”; “proved stubborn and refused to let us go” (neb); “stubbornly refused to let us go” (jb); qāšâ in the Hiphil

18. 14:4: “I will harden Pharaoh’s heart”; “make Pharaoh obstinate” (neb); “make Pharaoh’s heart stubborn” (jb); ḥāzaq in the Piel

19. 14:8: “the Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh”; “made obstinate” (neb); “made … stubborn” (jb); ḥāzaq in the Piel

20. 14:17: “I will harden the hearts of the Egyptians”; “make obstinate” (neb); “make … stubborn” (jb); kābēd in the Piel

Of the three verbs, then, ḥāzaq is used most frequently (11×), followed by kābēd (7×) and qāšâ (2×).

Analyses of the Terminology

It is interesting to arrange these twenty verses on the basis of the subject of the verb. See table 6.

From these analyses at least several observations may be made. To be sure, there is the word from God to Moses in 4:21 and 7:3 that “I will harden Pharaoh’s heart.” Twice Moses hears this before the commencement of the plagues. But neither time does the announcement elicit either protest or a demand for an explanation from Moses. And we have already seen in the Exodus narrative (chs. 3–4) that Moses occasionally protests or presses God for additional facts. Here, however, he is compliant.

Table 6

God as Subject (10 References)

kābēd

ḥāzaq

qāšâ

10:1 Hiphil

4:21 Piel

7:3 Hiphil

14:17 Piel

9:12 Piel

10:20 Piel

10:27 Piel

11:10 Piel

14:4 Piel

14:8 Piel

Pharaoh as Subject (4 References)

kābēd

ḥāzaq

qāšâ

8:15[11] Hiphil

13:15 Hiphil

8:32[28] Hiphil

9:34 Hiphil

Pharaoh’s Heart as Subject (6 References)

kābēd

ḥāzaq

qāšâ

7:14 adjective

7:13 Qal

9:7 Qal

7:22 Qal

8:19[15] Qal

9:35 Qal

Is this, then, an indication that Moses has accepted his responsibilities and is confident enough that he does not question God? Or may we assume that on hearing such an enigmatic word from God, Moses engaged in even further remonstrations with God? May not such announcements be considered God’s declaration of the outcome?

On examining the description of the plagues, one notices that references to God’s hardening of Pharaoh’s heart emerge only late in the narrative. Thus:

1. “Pharaoh’s heart is hardened” (7:14)

2. “he hardened his heart” (8:15[11])

3. “Pharaoh’s heart was hardened” (8:19[15])

4. “But Pharaoh hardened his heart” (8:32[28])

5. “But the heart of Pharaoh was hardened” (9:7)

6. “But the Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh” (9:12)

7. “But Pharaoh hardened his heart” (9:34)

“So the heart of Pharaoh was hardened” (9:35)

8. “I have hardened his heart” (10:1)

“But the Lord hardened Pharaoh’s heart” (10:20)

9. “But the Lord hardened Pharaoh’s heart” (10:27)

10. “The Lord hardened Pharaoh’s heart” (11:10)

What is noticeable is that there is no reference to God’s hardening the heart of Pharaoh until after the sixth plague is well under way. There are only two references (9:34, 35) to Pharaoh hardening his own heart after God’s hardening is done. And surely it is significant that even after God has hardened Pharaoh’s heart (#6 [9:12]), Pharaoh, at least once more, can harden his own heart (#7 [9:34]). But after that God, and God alone, does the hardening (#8 [10:20]; #9 [10:27]; #10 [11:10]). It is as if Pharaoh’s window of opportunity has slammed shut.

Moshe Greenberg (1969: 181) graphically captures Pharaoh’s problem: “In this dramatic evolution of Pharaoh’s reactions there is a consistency of principle—the core of his intransigence—namely the maintenance of his sovereignty. That is the crux of the matter; that is what cannot coexist with God’s authority. Thus the opposition of Pharaoh is the archetypal opposition of human power, of human authority to the claims of God. Under pressure it will show flexibility and accommodation, even reversing itself—first by crying for help, then by confessing guilt and making concessions. But after all its retreats, it clings to its last redoubt, a core of self-assertiveness and independence, to surrender which would mean the end of its claim to ultimate, self-sufficient power. Here it resists, careless of the cost, unto death.”

Can this be fortuitous? Or is the Scripture implying that Pharaoh, now so impervious to God, has forfeited his right to choose consciously and independently? May freedom be abrogated? At least for a while Pharaoh had control over his own choice, but never did he exercise control over the consequences of his choice.

A strong concentration on the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart can cause us to miss the several clear ways in which God attempted to soften his heart:

1. By the prayers of Moses: “Pray to the Lord” (8:8[4]; 9:28; 10:17); “Pray for me” (8:28[24])

2. By the testimony of his own magicians: “This is the finger of God” (8:19[15])

3. By moving him to partial obedience: “I will let the people go to sacrifice to the Lord” (8:8[4]); “Go, sacrifice to your God within the land … I will let you go … only you shall not go very far away” (8:25–28[21–24]); “Go … only let your flocks and your herds remain behind” (10:24)

4. By moving him to partial penitence: “I have sinned this time; the Lord is in the right, and I and my people are in the wrong” (9:27); “I have sinned against the Lord your God, and against you. Now therefore, forgive my sin” (10:16). Putting together the “I have sinned” of 9:27 and the “he sinned yet again” of 9:34, Greenberg (1969: 161) notes, “He acknowledged guilt but went right on being guilty.” Pharaoh needs to hear the word in Matt. 3:8: “Prove your repentance by the fruit it bears” (neb).

5. By continually giving Pharaoh another chance: God is as long-suffering with Pharaoh as he was with Moses after the burning bush. Moses’ repeated “I will not go” is matched by Pharaoh’s repeated “I will not let you go.” That God had to act ten times before Pharaoh acquiesced is neither unexpected nor surprising. After all, in terms of long-range effectiveness, or even for the first few generations after the deluge, how successful was the flood, another act of divine judgment?

Explanations about the Hardening of Pharaoh’s Heart

Addressing the issue of the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart, and similar events, Walther Eichrodt (1961–1967: 2:178–79) states:

The remarkable thing, however, is that this never led to a flat determinism, depriving Man of the responsibility for his actions. At all times the capacity for self-determination is insistently retained. The whole ethical exhortation of the prophets is based on the conviction that decision is placed in the hands of men. But the Law too … rests on this presupposition. The fundamental postulate of moral freedom is thus found in equal force alongside the religious conviction of God’s effective action in all things; and no attempt is made to create a harmonizing adjustment between them. It is testimony to the compelling power of the Old Testament experience of God that it was able to affirm both realities at once, and to endure the tension between them, without discounting anything of their unconditional validity.

What God has joined together, let no one put asunder!

In the New Testament one finds further explanation of the motif in Romans 9–11. Paul refers to the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart (9:17–18) and to the hardening of Israel (11:7, 25). Following Eichrodt, we will observe that the New Testament, no less than the Old, holds in tension God’s divine sovereignty and humankind’s moral freedom. This is precisely what emerges out of this Pauline passage.

Contending that physical descent from Abraham is insufficient to qualify one as a spiritual child of Abraham, Paul buttresses his case by appealing to Genesis. Both Isaac and Ishmael were physical sons of Abraham, but only one was the child of promise (9:7–9). Both Jacob and Esau were children of Isaac, but Esau was passed over in favor of Jacob (9:10–13). Paul thus has addressed the questions of God’s fidelity (9:6) by showing God’s principle of selectivity in operation in patriarchal history.

But if God is selective, does this imply injustice on God’s part (9:14)? Were Ishmael and Esau indiscriminately rejected? To respond to that objection, Paul turns to Exodus and essentially says, “If you maintain that the God of the patriarchs is unjust, you must maintain the same about the God of Exodus.” Here too selectivity was in operation. On Israel he showed mercy; Pharaoh’s heart he hardened. (Note that in Romans “mercy” appears eleven times, nine of which are in chs. 9–11: 9:15 [2×], 16, 18, 23; 11:30, 31 [2×], 32.)

Crucial here is Rom. 9:17: “I have raised you [Pharaoh] up for the very purpose of showing my power in you …” (nrsv). This verse is a quotation of Exod. 9:16. The equivalent in Exodus to “I have raised you up” (in Romans) is “I have let you live.” “Raising up,” then, has nothing to do with being born or created. Rather, it means “I have not destroyed you” or “I have allowed you to continue to live.” The raising up is itself an expression of God’s mercy. And God’s mercy and hardening both are expressions of his sovereignty (Rom. 9:18).

To underscore this idea of a sovereign God, Paul appeals to creation (God as potter), plus several quotes from Hosea and Isaiah (Rom. 9:19–29).

Where, then, does all of this place humankind? This is the concern of Rom. 9:30–10:21. It is important that we not stop with 9:29. God is sovereign, yes, but this does not negate human freedom. If there are Jews who are not justified, it is not because their unbelief was predetermined, but because they have “stumbled over the stumbling stone” (9:32 nrsv). Many preachers and missionaries have used Rom. 10:14–15 (“How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them?” [niv]) to appeal to people for their involvement in evangelism and world mission. This is appropriate as an application of the text beyond its context. But within the context, Paul is raising these questions ironically. The Jews to whom he writes have heard, and God has repeatedly sent messengers to them. So they cannot use ignorance as an excuse. There has been no lack of invitation on God’s part: “All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and contrary people” (10:21 niv). Thus we have, side by side, divine sovereignty (9:6–29) and human privilege and personal responsibility (9:30–10:21).

Turning from comments on Jews as individuals, Paul progresses to a discussion of Jews as a people, a community (Rom. 11:1–36). Although God has rejected individual Jews, he has never rejected his people in toto (11:2). In 11:7–25 Paul compares implicitly the hardening of Pharaoh and the hardening of Jews. In each case God uses the hardening redemptively. He hardened Pharaoh. The result? The Israelites were delivered from Egypt. He has hardened the Israelites. The result? Gentiles are allowed to enter God’s kingdom. What, then, of the Jews, not just the remnant? Is the hardening permanent? Paul’s answer is an emphatic no. “All Israel will be saved” (11:26 niv)—a tantalizing expression upon which Paul does not elaborate.

The Passover (12:1–13:16)

Exodus 12 spells out the procedures in the observance of Passover. Further information is found in the cultic calendars of the Pentateuch: Lev. 23:5–8; Num. 28:16–25; Deut. 16:1–8. In these three passages, as well as in Exodus 12, Passover is closely linked with the Feast of Unleavened Bread. The Old Testament records the observance of five particular Passovers besides the original one: the Israelites in the wilderness (Num. 9:1–14); at Gilgal after the Israelites enter Canaan (Josh. 5:10–12); that celebrated by Hezekiah (2 Chron. 30:1–27, but no parallel in Kings); that celebrated by Josiah (an abbreviated account in 2 Kings 23:21–23, and an extended account in 2 Chron. 35:1–19); that celebrated in the postexilic community (Ezra 6:19–22).

The Hebrew word for “Passover” is pesaḥ. There is also a verb, pāsaḥ. (“to pass over”), used three times in Exodus 12: “When I see the blood, I will pass over you” (12:13 niv); “The Lord will pass over the door” (12:23 rsv); “It is the sacrifice of the Lord’s passover, for he passed over the houses of the people of Israel in Egypt” (12:27 rsv).

But what is the meaning of “the Lord will pass over”? Does it mean that God will bypass the houses over whose door the blood is smeared? The clue is found in 12:23: “The Lord will pass over the door and will not allow the destroyer to enter your houses to slay you” (rsv). To “pass over,” then, means “to protect,” or as the neb suggests in a footnote, “stand guard over.” The Lord himself will block the entry of the destroyer. He will be a protective covering for his people. Their security is in his presence.

Most important here is the use of the blood. That blood is to be extracted from the lamb’s body and then smeared over the doorposts and the horizontal beam atop the door (12:7, 13). Failure to take this action will result in disaster.

It is no wonder, then, that Moses, in relating God’s word to his people (12:21–27), focuses exclusively on the role of the blood. As Brevard Childs (1974: 200) notes, “The literary effect of Moses’ speech is one of tremendous telescoping.” Moses says nothing about the meal in the home, the quality of the lamb to be chosen, when it is to be killed, how the meat is to be prepared, how much of it is to be eaten, or what type of clothing the people are to wear—all of which are included in God’s directions to Moses (12:1–13).

Exodus 12 is concerned not only about the when of Passover, the why of Passover, the how of observing it, but also about who may participate (12:43–49). The observance of Passover is not an indiscriminate invitation to everyone. Who may participate? The congregation of Israel (v. 47); the slave (v. 44), if circumcised, who has the same privileges as a Hebrew; the stranger (v. 48), the non-Israelite who has become a believer in Yahweh. Who may not participate? The foreigner (v. 43), the pagan unbeliever; the sojourner (v. 45), either the resident alien or the visitor who will settle temporarily on Israelite soil; the hired servant (v. 45), one belonging to another nation but working in Israel. These distinctions are necessary because of the “mixed multitude” (12:38) leaving Egypt, and this is why instructions about eligibility for participation in Passover (12:43–49) come just after this “mixed multitude” leaves Egypt (12:37–39).

The New Testament writers deliberately move from the lamb to the Lamb, from the type to the antitype, for this is the fullness of God’s plan. The prison now is a kingdom of darkness, not slavery in Egypt. The captive who is called forth is not Israel, but the world. Redemption is an ethical change rather than a geographical change.

As with the lamb in Egypt (Exod. 12:46), so not one bone of Jesus the Lamb was broken (John 19:36). The two explicit references in the epistolary literature of the New Testament to Christ the Passover Lamb are in 1 Cor. 5:7 (“Christ, our paschal lamb” rsv) and 1 Pet. 1:19 (“a lamb without blemish or spot” rsv). What is of interest in these passages is that both Paul and Peter are concerned more with the implications of redemption by the Lamb for holy living than they are in formulating a theological discourse on soteriology. That is, the apostles move beyond salvation into sanctification.

The immediate sequel to the Passover is Moses’ transmission of further instructions to the Israelites about the Feast of Unleavened Bread (13:3–10) and the consecration of the firstborn (13:11–16). Each of these two sections stresses that God’s redemption is both from and into. It is from Egypt, but into the land of the Canaanites (vv. 5, 11). Israel’s possession of the new land will be the fulfillment of God’s promises to the patriarchs. Suddenly the reader is taken back as far as Gen. 12:7. But once in the land, the people of Israel must share their testimony with the children whom God will give them (vv. 8, 14). God’s faithfulness reverberates over three periods: the past (your ancestors); the present (you); the future (your children).

The Exodus (13:17–15:21)

Exodus 12:37 informs us that six hundred thousand men, besides women and children, left Egypt. The total number of Israelites leaving would have been in excess of two million. This same number is repeated substantially in Exod. 38:26; Num. 1:46; 2:32; 26:51. How should we deal with this astronomical number? Exodus 23:29–30 suggests that God will drive out the Canaanites gradually because Israel’s population is too meager to repopulate Canaan: “Little by little I will drive them out from before you, until you are increased.” (See also table 12 in ch. 16.)

The Population of Israel

A great deal of discussion has surrounded the total number of those counted in the census: 603,550. This number excludes the Levites, all women, and all children under twenty years of age. The total size of the congregation would have been approximately two million people, perhaps as many as two and a half million.

Critics among biblical scholars have offered various explanations. One suggestion is that the figures are nothing short of fabulous, lacking any historical value. That is, they represent the unrestrained imagination of a later writer given to hyperbole. It is P, among the source documents (if one subscribes to this view), that is responsible for inventing these fictitious numbers, just as it is P that reports the astonishing longevity of those who lived prior to the flood in Genesis 5 (see Davies 1995: 465–67). G. A. Rendsburg (2001: 393) compares the Canaanite story from Ugarit in which Kret goes in search of his abducted wife accompanied by three million men (literally, “three hundred myriads”). A second suggestion is that the numbers have historical value but reflect a later census made during David’s reign (see the totals in 2 Sam. 24:9; 1 Chron. 21:5).

A third suggestion involves the Hebrew word ʾelep, whose normal translation is “thousand.” As early as 1905 the eminent archaeologist Flinders Petrie (1906: 209–11) suggested that the word should be translated not as “thousand” but as “family.” In this he has been seconded in more recent years by Jacob Milgrom (1978: 79–80). Verses cited to support this thesis include Judg. 6:15, “my clan [ʾelep] is the weakest in Manasseh”; Num. 1:16, “the ones chosen … the leaders … the heads of the clans [ʾelep] of Israel” (kjv: “heads of thousands in Israel”); 1 Sam. 10:19, “present yourselves before the Lord by your tribes [šēbeṭ.] and by your clans [ʾelep]” (nrsv, jb, niv, rsv, kjv: “thousands”); 1 Sam. 10:21, “he brought the tribe [šēbeṭ.] of Benjamin near by its families [mišpāḥah].” These latter two verses would seem to indicate that “clan” and “family” are synonyms. For other texts in which ʾelep means “clan,” see Josh. 22:14, 21, 30; 1 Sam. 23:23; Isa. 60:22 (niv: “a thousand”); Zech. 9:7; 12:5–6 (nrsv, niv: “leaders”). Thus, according to this system Judah does not have a population of 74,600 (Num. 1:27); rather, it totals 74 families and 600 people.

A third suggestion is much like the one made by Petrie. George Mendenhall (1958) suggests that the word ʾelep designates not “family,” “clan,” or “tent,” but a military unit within the clan (see Num. 1:3). Following this interpretation, we would paraphrase Num. 1:26–27 as, “Of the people of Judah registered by lineage in clans and ancestral homes: when all the males of twenty years or more who were fit for military service were polled, 74 units of the tribe were recorded, and from these 600 men were enrolled for military service.”

In either case, the conclusion is the same. The number of men (twenty years or older) in the wilderness is reduced from 603,550 to 5,550. Evangelical scholars have in many instances accepted the rendering of ʾelep as “military unit” or “family.” As C. J. Humphreys (1998: 199) has observed, “If the purpose of the Exodus account is to demonstrate the power of God in defeating the Egyptian army, greatly exaggerating the number of Israelites is hardly consistent with that purpose.”

Additional support for the decreased number perhaps is found in the military records from the ancient Near East. If Ramses II (1304–1234 b.c.) is the Pharaoh of the exodus—a possibility, but still not a totally accepted suggestion—it is interesting to observe that at the famous battle at Kadesh in Syria, Pharaoh and the Hittite king Muwatallis each fielded approximately twenty thousand troops (Breasted 1906: 3:127, 129). And these were the armies of the two titans of that day! By contrast the Israelites would have had, as they left Egypt, a group of males (twenty years and older) approximately one-fourth the size of the Egyptian and Hittite armies.

But is all of this explaining or explaining away the integrity of the biblical narrative? James Barr (1978: 250), focusing on this very section of Exodus and the opening chapters of Numbers, asks whether the modern conservative “is boldly upholding the accuracy of the Bible, relying on the power of God to sustain this great multitude by miraculous feedings? Not in the slightest. On the contrary, he is doing all he can to find a way to cut the numbers down.” Anyone who might think that all evangelical Old Testament scholars have abandoned the traditional translation—one that is retained in all modern Bible versions—should read the comments of Gleason Archer (1973: 234–38) in defense of the credibility of the high numbers. A sufficiently large number of Israelites must be assumed to make sense of Pharaoh’s words “Behold, the people of Israel are too many and too mighty for us” (Exod. 1:9 rsv). Also, the approximately six and one-half tons of precious metal donated to the tabernacle project by the Israelites (Exod. 38:21–31) presupposes a rather large base of people as contributors, to say nothing of how this was carried out of Egypt and into the wilderness.

The Crossing of the Reed Sea

The crossing of the Reed Sea (to be preferred to “Red Sea,” which is based not on the Hebrew but on the Greek erythra thalassa and the Latin mare rubrum) is described miraculously. Reading the Hebrew yām sûp as “Reed Sea” rather than “Red Sea” reflects the fact that sûp, when used alone, refers to reeds or rushes, as in Exod. 2:3, “She placed the child in it and put it among the reeds [sûp] along the bank of the Nile” (niv), or Exod. 2:5, “She saw the basket among the reeds [sûp] and sent her slave girl to get it” (niv). The people of God pass through on dry land between two walls of water, walls of water that subsequently converged and submerged the retreating Egyptians.

To have the Red Sea divided would be no insignificant event. Today the Red Sea is approximately 1,200 miles in length (excluding the gulfs on Aqaba and Suez at the north). Its width varies from 124 to 155 miles. Its average depth is a bit more than 1,600 feet. Minimum depth is 600 feet, and maximum depth is 7,700 feet. In addition, the name “Sea of Reeds” (or “Rushes”) presupposes fresh water, not salt water, in order for reeds to grow.

We conclude, then, that the Hebrews crossed not the Red Sea or the Gulf of Suez but rather some freshwater lake in northern Egypt (perhaps the southern tip of modern Lake Manzalah near Port Said). In no way, however, does this undercut the supernatural element in the story. Six hundred Egyptians were drowned, a fact that is not impossible, given this general area’s proneness to earthquakes and possible tidal waves, as Knight (1976: 104–5) and Kitchen (1975: 47) point out. Whether passage was through a sea, a lake, or a lagoon, God had delivered his people from the claws of the largest lion in the world, Egypt. What for Egypt is destructive, is for God’s people a rite of passage on their way to their God-given destiny (Dozeman 1996: 414). The means by which the Egyptians are drowned (Deut. 11:4; Josh. 24:6) are the means by which Israel is delivered (Deut. 1:40; 2:1; Josh. 4:21–24).

One might suspect that such a distinctive divine working would erase any suspicions that the Israelites might have entertained about God’s ability to deliver them and Moses’ ability to lead them. Such was not the case. As early as Exod. 16:2–3 the recently liberated people of God are yearning for Egypt. Freedom and pioneering are not as promising as bondage with the guarantee of three meals a day.

Exodus 14 concludes by observing, “The people feared the Lord; and they believed in the Lord and in his servant Moses” (v. 31 rsv). But such belief must be verbalized, for impression without expression leads to depression. Moses is coupled with the Lord at the end of ch. 14, but in the song of ch. 15 Moses is conspicuously absent.

It is fitting in this litany of praise in Exodus 15 that God is addressed primarily as Yahweh. Ten times the Tetragrammaton is used: vv. 1, 3 (2×), 6 (2×), 11, 16, 17, 18, 21. One time there is an abbreviated form of Yahweh, yāh (v. 2), one time the use of ʾădōnāy (v. 17), and two times ʾēl (v. 2). The hymn is, then, an affirmation of God’s lordship. Some commentators (e.g., Fretheim 1991: 162) have observed that Exod. 1:1–15:21 follows the pattern found often in the psalms of lament—psalms composed either by communities or individuals in a time of threat when it seemed hard to believe that God was with his people. They move from describing the crisis and the crying out to God that it provokes (Exodus 1–2), to relating God’s gracious intervention (what he says he plans to do [Exod. 3:1–7:7] and what he does do [Exod. 7:8–14:31]), ending with a doxology of some sort (15:1–21). Cry has turned to song.

In speaking of God, the hymn begins in the third person (vv. 1–5), shifts into the second person (vv. 6–17), then returns to and concludes with the third person (vv. 18–21). Preponderantly, then, this is a hymn addressed directly to God, the God “who dwells in the praises of his people.”

The emphasis is primarily on what God has done. Israel does serve a God who acts, and acts decisively. To tamper with God’s people is no small risk. As early as Genesis 12 an Egyptian Pharaoh discovered that truth. To wound the body is to wound the head. Indeed, the apostle Paul found out that to persecute the church was to persecute Christ.

The hymn celebrates not only the great acts of God but also his nature, who he is. He is “majestic in holiness” (v. 11). He is a God of covenant, and steadfast love (v. 13). He is incomparable (v. 11).

So, then, both God’s acts and God’s nature lend a predictability to the future (vv. 13–18). The Philistines, the Edomites, the Moabites, and the Canaanites too will fall as have the Egyptians. No exterior force can restrain the forward march of God’s people. Only sin and disobedience can loom as a deterrent.

There is an interesting translation difference in the versions for some of the lines in vv. 13–18. Here is the niv text, with the nrsv text in brackets:

1. 15:13: “You will lead [led] the people you have redeemed … you will guide [guided] them to your holy dwelling.”

2. 15:14: “Nations will hear and tremble [heard … trembled].”

3. 15:15: “Chiefs of Edom will be terrified [were dismayed] … leaders of Moab will be seized [seized] … people of Canaan will melt away [melted away].”

4. 15:16: “Terror and dread will fall [fell] upon them … they will be still [became still] as a stone … until your people pass by [passed by] … until the people you bought pass by [passed by].”

5. 15:17: “You will bring them in and plant them [brought … planted].”

In other words, the niv translates most of the verbs in vv. 13–18 as futures, while the nrsv (among many others) translates them as past or perfect verbs. A translation such as the nrsv renders the verbs as past tenses because that is their grammatical form (technically, preterites). A translation such as the niv renders the verbs as future tenses because they tell of things that have not yet happened. What God has done (vv. 1–12), he will continue to do (vv. 13–17); and although future events have not yet taken place, they can be celebrated as “done deals.” The incidents alluded to in vv. 13–18 could be either distant future events (e.g., the conquest of Canaan under Joshua, and David’s capture of Jerusalem) or the anticipation of more immediate future events in the ensuing chapters of Exodus (the wilderness journeys, arrival at Sinai, the construction of the tabernacle).

The Plagues Account (Exodus 7–11)

Brueggemann, W. 1995. “Pharaoh as Vassal: A Study of Political Metaphor.” CBQ 57:27–51.

Chisholm, R. B., Jr. 1996. “Divine Hardening in the Old Testament.” BSac 153:410–34.

Eakin, F. E., Jr. 1977. “The Plagues and the Crossing of the Sea.” RevExp 74:473–82.

Eichrodt, W. 1961–1967. Theology of the Old Testament. Trans. J. Baker. 2 vols. OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster.

Fretheim, T. E. 1991. “The Plagues as Ecological Signs of Historical Disaster.” JBL 110:385–96.

Greenberg, M. 1969. Understanding Exodus. New York: Behrman.

———. 1971a. “Plagues of Egypt.” EncJud 13:604–13.

———. 1971b. “The Redaction of the Plague Narrative in Exodus.” In Near Eastern Studies: In Honor of William Foxwell Albright. Ed. H. Goedicke. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Pp. 243–52.

Gunn, D. M. 1982. “The ‘Hardening of Pharaoh’s Heart’: Plot, Character and Theology in Exodus 1–14.” In Art and Meaning: Rhetoric in Biblical Literature. Ed. D. J. A. Clines et al. JSOTSup 19. Sheffield: JSOT Press. Pp. 72–96.

Hoffmeier, J. K. 1986. “The Arm of God versus the Arm of Pharaoh in the Exodus Narratives.” Bib 67:378–87.

———. 1992. “Egypt, Plagues in.” ABD 2:374–78.

Hort, G. 1957. “The Plagues of Egypt.” ZAW 69:84–103.

———. 1958. “The Plagues of Egypt.” ZAW 70:48–59.

Irwin, B. P. 2003. “Yahweh’s Suspension of Free Will in the Old Testament.” TynB 54:55–62.

Kuyper, L. J. 1974. “Hardness of Heart according to Biblical Perspective.” SJT 27:459–74.

Lemmelijn, B. 1996. “Transformations in Biblical Studies: The Story of the History of Research into the ‘Plague Narrative’ in Exod. 7:14–11:10.” JNSL 22:117–27.

Lowenstamm, S. E. 1971. “Number of Plagues in Psalm 105.” Bib 52:34–38.

———. 1974. “An Observation on Source-Criticism of the Plague Pericope.” VT 24:374–78.

Margulis, B. “Plagues Tradition in Ps. 105.” Bib 50:491–96.

McCarthy, D. J. 1965. “Moses’ Dealing with Pharaoh: Exodus 7:8–10:27.” CBQ 27:336–47. Repr., in Institution and Narrative: Collected Essays. AnBib 108. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1985. Pp. 115–26.

———. 1966. “Plagues and the Sea of Reeds: Exodus 5–14.” JBL 85:137–58.

Noegel, S. E. 1995. “The Significance of the Seventh Plague.” Bib 76:532–39.

———. 1997. “Moses and Magic: Notes on the Book of Exodus.” JANES 24:45–59.

Stieglitz, R. 1987. “Ancient Records and the Plagues of Egypt.” BAR 13 (6):46–49.

Van Seters, J. 1986. “The Plagues of Egypt: Ancient Tradition or Literary Invention?” ZAW 98:31–39.

Wilson, R. R. 1979. “The Hardening of Pharaoh’s Heart.” CBQ 41:18–36.

Zevit, Z. 1976. “The Priestly Redaction and Interpretation of the Plague Narrative in Exodus.” JQR 66:193–211.

———. 1990. “Three Ways to Look at the Plagues.” BRev 6 (3):16–23, 42, 44.

Passover and the Exodus (Exodus 12–15:21)

Ackerman, S. 2002. “Why Is Miriam Also among the Prophets? (And Is Zipporah among the Priests?).” JBL 121:47–80.

Archer, G. L. 1973. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction. Chicago: Moody.

Barr, J. 1978. Fundamentalism. Philadelphia: Westminster.

Batto, B. 1983. “The Reed Sea: Requiescat in Pace.” JBL 102:32–34.

Breasted, J. H. 1906. Ancient Records of Egypt: Historical Documents from the Earliest Times to the Persian Conquest. 5 vols. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Repr., New York: Russell & Russell, 1962.

Childs, B. S. 1970. “A Traditio-historical Study of the Reed Sea Tradition.” VT 20:406–18.

———. 1974. The Book of Exodus: A Critical, Theological Commentary. OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster.

Coats, G. W. 1969. “The Song of the Sea.” CBQ 31:1–17.

———. 1975. “History and Theology in the Sea Tradition.” ST 29:141–54.

Collins, J. J. 1995. “The Exodus and Biblical Theology.” BTB 25:152–60.

Craigie, P. C. 1969. “Yahweh as a Man of Wars.” SJT 22:183–88.

Davies, E. W. 1995. “A Mathematical Conundrum: The Problem of the Large Numbers in Numbers i and xxvi.” VT 45:449–69.

Dozeman, T. B. 1996. “The yam-sup in the Exodus and the Crossing of the Jordan River.” CBQ 58:407–16.

Francisco, C. T. 1977. “The Exodus in Its Historical Setting.” Southwestern Journal of Theology 20:3–20.

Freedman, D. N. 1974. “Strophe and Meter in Exodus 15.” In A Light unto My Path: Old Testament Studies in Honor of Jacob M. Myers. Ed. H. N. Bream et al. Gettysburg Theological Studies 4. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Pp. 163–203.

Frerichs, E. S., and L. H. Lesko, eds. 1997. Exodus: The Egyptian Evidence. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns.

Gottwald, N. 1989. “The Exodus as Event and Process: A Test Case in the Biblical Grounding of Liberation Theology.” In The Future of Liberation Theology: Essays in Honor of Gustavo Gutierrez. Ed. M. H. Ellis and O. Maduro. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis. Pp. 250–60.

Grabbe, L. L. 2000. “Adde praeputium praeputio magnus acervus erit: If the Exodus and Conquest Had Really Happened.” BibInt 8:23–32.

Heinzerling, R. 2000. “On the Interpretation of the Census Lists by C. J. Humphreys and G. E. Mendenhall.” VT 50:250–52.

Hendel, R. 2001. “The Exodus in Biblical Memory.” JBL 120:601–22.

Hoffmeier, J. K. 1997. Israel in Egypt: The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Exodus Tradition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Huddlestun, J. 1992. “Red Sea.” ABD 5:633–42.

Humphreys, C. J. 1998. “The Number of People in the Exodus from Egypt: Decoding Mathematically the Very Large Numbers in Numbers i and xxvi.” VT 48:196–213.

———. 2000. “The Numbers in the Exodus from Egypt: A Further Appraisal.” VT 50:323–28.

Kitchen, K. A. 1975. “Red Sea.” ZPEB 5:46–49.

Knight, G. A. F. 1976. Theology as Narration: A Commentary on the Book of Exodus. Edinburgh: Handsel.

———. 1995. The Song of Moses: A Theological Quarry. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Levenson, J. D. 1991. “Exodus and Liberation.” HBT 13:134–74.

Lowenstamm, S. E. 1969. “The Lord Is My Strength and Glory.” VT 19:464–70.

Mann, T. W. 1971. “The Pillar of Cloud in the Reed Sea Narrative.” JBL 90:15–30.

———. 1996. “Passover: The Time of Our Lives.” Int 50:240–50.

McIntire, M. 1999. “A Response to Colin J. Humphreys’s ‘The Number of People in the Exodus from Egypt: Decoding Mathematically the Very Large Numbers in Numbers i and xxvi.’ ” VT 49:262–64.

Mendenhall, G. E. 1958. “The Census Lists of Numbers 1 and 26.” JBL 77:52–66.

Milgrom, J. 1978. “Priestly Terminology and the Political and Social Structure of Pre-monarchic Israel.” JQR 69:65–81. Repr., in Studies in Cultic Theology and Terminology. SJLA 36. Leiden: Brill, 1983. Pp. 1–17.

———. 1999. “On Decoding Very Large Numbers.” VT 49:131–32.

Miller, P. D., Jr., 1973. The Divine Warrior in Ancient Israel. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Oblath, M. D. 2000. “Of Pharaohs and Kings—Whence the Exodus?” JSOT 87:23–42.

Patterson, R. D. 1995. “The Song of Redemption.” WTJ 57:453–61.

Petrie, F. 1906. Researches in Sinai. London: Murray.

Rendsburg, G. A. 2001. “An Additional Note to Two Recent Articles on the Number of People in the Exodus from Egypt and the Large Numbers in Numbers 1 and 26.” VT 51:392–95.

Routledge, R. 2002. “Passover and Last Supper.” TynB 53:203–21.

Snaith, N. 1965. “The Seed of Reeds: The Red Sea.” VT 15:395–98.

Van Seters, J. 2001. “The Geography of the Exodus.” In The Land I Will Show You: Essays in the History and Archaeology of the Ancient Near East in Honor of J. Maxwell Miller. Ed. J. A. Dearman and P. M. Graham. JSOTSup 343. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Pp. 255–76.

Vervenne, M. 1994. “The Sea Narrative Revisited.” Bib 75:80–98.

Walsh, J. T. 1977. “From Egypt to Moab: A Source-Critical Analysis.” CBQ 39:20–33.

Wolters, A. 1990. “Not Rescue but Destruction: Reading Exodus 15:8.” CBQ 52:223–40.

8

Testing in the Wilderness

Exodus 15:22–18:27

A dramatic change in atmosphere and mood occurs after 15:1–21 into 15:22–18:27. The celebration of 15:1–21 gives way to the complaining of 15:22–26. Grumbling replaces gratitude, and so soon after the doxologies of 15:1–21. In fact, one of the key words in this section of Exodus, lûn (“complain, grumble, murmur”), occurs in the Old Testament only in the wilderness stories of the Bible (Exod. 15:22–17:16; Num. 11:1–36:13). It appears in Exod. 15:24; 16:2, 7, 8; 17:3, and nine times in the comparable stories in Numbers (Num. 14:2, 27 [2×], 29, 36; 16:11, 41; 17:5, 10). The one time that the verb appears outside of the wilderness traditions is in Josh. 9:18: “the whole assembly grumbled against the leaders.”

There are a number of vocabulary parallels between this section of Exodus and the plagues of an earlier section that tie the two together. (1) In 7:24 “they could not drink” the (bloodied) water of the river; in 15:23 “they could not drink” the (bitter) water of Marah. (2) In 9:18 and 22 God “rains” hail all over Egypt; in 16:4 God “rains” bread all over the Israelite camp. (3) In 10:14, 15 locusts “came up” (niv: “invaded”) and “covered” all the ground; in 16:13 quail “came up” (niv: “came”) and “covered” the camp. (4) In 7:20 Moses “struck” the Nile with his raised staff, and in 17:5–6 he “struck” the rock with the staff. (5) The purpose of the plagues is that Pharaoh/Egypt “shall know that I am the Lord” (7:5, 17, and others nrsv); God supplies manna and quail so that his people may “know” who their deliverer and provider is (16:6, 8).

The three-month journey from Egypt to Sinai was not carefree, either for Moses or for the Israelites. During this brief part of their itinerary they confronted at least four crises: the bitter waters at Marah (15:22–27); the need for sufficient quantities of food (16:1–36); a lack of drinking water at Rephidim (17:1–7); the invasion of the Amalekites (17:8–16). A fifth crisis might be the state of Moses’ health. He is evidently overtaxed. Can he continue at such a pace indefinitely? Might Israel lose its leader, now dangerously close to the point of complete physical exhaustion (18:1–27)? His hands are weary (17:12), and his schedule of appointments is hectic (18:13).

A key verb used throughout this section is nāsâ, “to prove, put to the test.” It appears in 15:25 and 16:4 with God as subject and the Israelites as the object of the testing. It is the same verb used to describe God’s putting Abraham to the test with Isaac (Gen. 22:1). Nāsâ is used similarly in the postlude to the Decalogue, Exod. 20:20 (see also Deut. 8:2, 16; 13:3; 33:8). Other places where God “tests” (using the same Hebrew verb) are Judg. 2:22; 3:1, 4; 2 Chron. 32:31; Ps. 26:2. Moberly (2000: 98) notes that with the exception of 2 Chron. 32:31 and Ps. 26:2, all other testings take place in contexts of considerable significance: (1) the climactic moment in Abraham’s life (Gen. 22:1); (2) the start of Israel’s destiny after their deliverance from Egypt (Exod. 15:25; 16:4); (3) to explain why God gave his people the Decalogue (20:20); (4) as a comment on the duration of Israel’s four-decade-long wilderness wanderings (Deut. 8:2, 16); (5) the exercise of discernment in refusing to follow or be seduced by false prophets (Deut. 13:3); (6) an occasion when the Levites remained loyal to God and were rewarded with the priesthood (Deut. 33:8); (7) God leaving nations to test Israel in the Promised Land (Judg. 2:22; 3:1, 4).

Twice the verb is used in this unit with negative overtones (17:2, 7). Here subject and object are reversed. The Israelites are the subject and God is the object, as in Deut. 6:16. The implications in these two verses of ch. 17 are clear. God is not to be tested. His reliability is not something that needs to be established. A companion to testing God is murmuring (15:24; 16:2). To be sure, such murmurings are directed immediately at Moses, but to raise a question about God’s servant is to raise a question about God (16:7–8; cf. “You did not lie to us but to God!” [Acts 5:4 nrsv]). Murmuring is a frame of mind in which one believes that in difficulties God is insufficient. The author of Hebrews, referring to the rebellion described in Exod. 17:1–7, suggests that murmuring leads to hardening of the heart, and that leads to forfeiting one’s position in God’s kingdom (Heb. 3:7–13).

There is here, then, precious little of letting requests be made known unto God with thanksgiving. Nevertheless, God is not piqued. He does respond, not because of the Israelites’ murmurings, but in spite of their murmurings.

First, bitter waters become sweet after Moses throws a tree into the water (15:25). This happened in response to prayer by Moses. In the first plague water became blood. Here, brackish water becomes sweet water. In the New Testament water will become wine (John 2:9).

Second, the daily supply of bread and meat came in the form of manna and quail (16:1–36). Both foods have been described as typical at one time in the Sinai peninsula. Manna has been explained as a secretion from insects or lice produced when they puncture the fruit on the branches of tamarisk trees, the juice of which forms into white balls or flakes (hardly designed to whet the appetite!). Quail are the smallest member of the pheasant family. The Sinai peninsula is the natural stopping place for these birds when they fly north to Europe from Africa in the spring, and when they return to Africa in the fall.

Most interesting here is God’s order not to gather in excess of one day’s supply of manna (16:4). The only limitation is that the amount collected be consumable within the day (16:16, 18). None could be left until the next day (16:19). Predictably, some people disobeyed, and they had to suffer the embarrassing consequences (16:20). Each day God furnished a fresh supply of manna for his people. In this way God taught them about a relationship of trust, an attitude reflected later in words of Jesus, “Do not be anxious about your life, what you shall eat or what you shall drink.… Do not be anxious about tomorrow” (Matt. 6:25, 34 rsv), as well as in Jesus’ teaching that we are to ask God for daily bread (Matt. 6:11). The Israelites are to trust God to meet their physical needs one day at a time. Tomorrow is God’s concern and problem, not theirs.

In addition to the restriction on the amount, there is also a restriction about gathering manna on the Sabbath (16:25–26), for none will be available. God’s bakeries shut down on that day. Once again, there were those who did not believe that Moses meant what he said. He meant what he said! The curious found nothing (16:27).

At the beginning of the narrative God informs Moses (16:5) that the gathering of manna on Fridays would result in the ingathering of a double portion. This is precisely what happened (16:22). But nowhere between vv. 5 and 22 is it recorded that Moses relayed this information to the people. Brevard Childs (1974: 290) comments, delightfully, “God gives Israel, as it were, a surprise party.” Indeed, the comment in v. 22b—“and when all the leaders of the congregation came and told Moses” (rsv)—confirms their happy surprise. Their mouths are opened in astonishment.

Finally, we note Moses’ instruction to Aaron to put some manna in a jar and place it “before the testimony” (16:33–34). “Testimony” usually is a reference to the tables of the covenant inscribed with the Ten Commandments (see Exod. 31:18; 32:15; 34:29). Or it may refer to the ark into which the “testimony” was placed (see Exod. 25:22; 26:33–34). Exodus 25:16, 21 contain the actual commands to place the testimony into the ark.

Of course, there is no testimony (see Exod. 27:21; 30:6, 36) or ark or tabernacle yet in existence in Exodus 16. And yet how significant it is that the reader discovers that before there was any reference to putting God’s law in the ark, there is the notice to put God’s manna in front of, in, or on the ark. A God who has given us his law? Yes. But first a God who has mercifully and bountifully met our needs and shown himself to be faithful and graceful.

The third crisis is a lack of water at Rephidim (17:1–7). The first time there was undrinkable water (15:23). Now it is no water at all. God’s solution to this dilemma is unusual. In v. 6 we read that God said to Moses, “I will stand before you there on the rock at Horeb; and you shall strike the rock” (rsv). And all this is to be done publicly, not privately (v. 6b).

Even to read that God stood before Moses is surprising. To stand before someone else sometimes indicates a state of subordination or servitude (e.g., Gen. 18:8; Deut. 1:38; 10:8; in kjv, 1 Sam. 16:22). Thus, possibly, Gen. 18:22, which reads, “but Abraham still stood before the Lord” (rsv), may once have read, “and the Lord still stood before Abraham.” At least there is an indication that the later scribes emended certain passages of Scripture that they felt to be offensive in what was said or implied about God. Such changes in the text are called tiqqune soferim, “emendations of the scribes” (see Ginsburg 1966: 347–63, especially 352–53).

God stations himself on the rock that is to be struck, thus making himself vulnerable to injury. It is perhaps with this particular imagery in mind that Paul can say, “Our fathers … all ate the same supernatural food [Exodus 16] and all drank the same supernatural drink [Exodus 17]. For they drank from the supernatural Rock which followed them, and the Rock was Christ” (1 Cor. 10:1, 3–4 rsv).

Although on this occasion God had saved the Israelites from thirst, and death, the names given to this site recall not God’s goodness but the people’s faithlessness: Massah and Meribah (“proof” and “contention”). Their attitude overshadowed God’s act.

Three times in succession God has performed a supernatural act. It is interesting to observe where miracles appear in the Bible. In substantial sections of Scripture there is no hint of miracle at all. The Wisdom literature is an obvious example. How many miracles does one read about, for example, in the prophecies of Isaiah or Jeremiah, the historical books of Samuel and Kings, the Pauline Epistles, or the Catholic Epistles? Actually, there are only three places where one finds a cluster of miracles: during the career of Moses, during the times of Elijah and Elisha, and during the ministry of Jesus and parts of Acts—that is, at the beginning, during the period of greatest temptation, and at the launching of the church. Miracle, yes, but not too much miracle. Too much miracle can be as debilitating as none at all. And surely it is of interest that when Jesus asked, “Who do people say that I am?” (he whose ministry certainly was marked by miracles), two of the three individuals whom the disciples named never performed even a single miracle that we know of: Jeremiah and John the Baptist (Matt. 16:13–16). So possibly, the essence of Jesus’ ministry is to be discovered not in how many signs and wonders he could perform, but elsewhere.

The fourth crisis was a surprise invasion against the Israelite camp by the Amalekites (Exod. 17:8–16). In the first incident at Rephidim it was God who “stood” on the rock. Now Moses will “stand” on the top of the hill (17:8). The slashing rod (17:6) is still in Moses’ hand (17:9), but it is his hands, not the rod, that are paramount.

Actually, the reference to the raising and lowering of Moses’ hands, resulting respectively in either success or setback, is not explained in terms of purpose or function. Perhaps it is best to say that we do not know what Moses was doing. Was he giving encouragement, as some scholars have suggested? Was he simply raising the rod heavenward to invoke divine assistance? For two reasons, the traditional explanation that Moses assumes the posture of intercessor should not be dismissed lightly. One reason is the references in the Psalter to the raising of hands in prayer, twice as a gesture of adoration (Ps. 63:4; 134:2), once as a gesture of petition (Ps. 28:2). The other reason is the consistent picture that emerges of Moses as intercessor par excellence. Already we have read three times that Moses “cried” to the Lord: Exod. 14:15; 15:25; 17:4.

And while Moses is atop the hill holding “the staff of God” in his hand, Joshua is fighting below (17:13). Whatever Moses was doing, it did not eliminate the need to battle with the antagonist. The walls of Jericho will collapse, but not until the Israelites march around them. Jesus can turn the water into wine, but not before the servants fill the jugs with water.

The Amalekite attack is not the last of Israel’s problems. On the contrary, all four crises described here have parallels in Israel’s history after the people leave Sinai. The first and third crises, both having to do with water, have their parallel in the incident recorded in Num. 20:2–13, another Meribah. The second crisis, the need for food, is close to that recorded in Num. 11:4–35. The fourth crisis is paralleled by a subsequent invasion by the Amalekites (Num. 14:39–45).

There is, however, one major difference between the narratives in Exodus and those recorded in Numbers. In the former, the complainers suffer no personal consequences in spite of their attitude. In the latter, with the covenant now behind them, Moses is excluded from entry into Canaan (Num. 20:12); a number of Israelites die because of a God-sent plague (Num. 11:33); the Amalekites, unlike the first time, are victors over the Israelites (Num. 14:45). The difference between the two seems to suggest that there is a greater fallout from post-covenantal sins (e.g., death for adultery) than for pre-covenantal sins (e.g., financial compensation to the father for sexually seducing his virgin daughter).

The fifth crisis in this unit, if it can be called such, is precipitated by a visit of Moses’ father-in-law, Jethro, to the Israelite camp (Exod. 18:5). The incentive for his visit is rumors that the Lord had brought Israel out of Egypt. Like the Queen of Sheba, who came to visit Solomon, Jethro must come to confirm the veracity of those rumors.

Moses is more than eager to testify (18:8). His testimony elicits praise from Jethro as well as either a new commitment or a deeper commitment by Jethro to following Yahweh (depending on how one interprets the phrase “now I know” of v. 11).

All of this sets the context for the overburdened Moses. Jethro’s suggestion is that Moses delegate authority, not try to do everything himself. This is not an easy proposal for administrators to accept, especially if they have a messianic complex and feel the urge to monopolize. Realizing that they were unable to be involved in every issue, the apostles chose to concentrate on preaching and prayer, while the ministry to widows was delegated to seven deacons who met the spiritual qualifications (Acts 6:1–6).

What about Moses? Is he too condescending to take advice? Proverbs 12:15b says that “the wise listen to advice” (nrsv), and 13:10b that “wisdom is with those who take advice” (nrsv). This attitude is to be contrasted with that of the “old and foolish king who will no longer take advice” (Eccles. 4:13). Strange, too, it is that the suggestion comes from Jethro, a priest in Midian; it is not whispered into Moses’ ear by the angel of the Lord. Are the children of this world sometimes wiser than the children of light (Luke 16:8)? If God speaks directly to Moses on most occasions, here is one time when he speaks to Moses through another person, and perhaps an unexpected person at that.

Happily, Moses approvingly accepts Jethro’s idea. He will adjudicate the difficult cases, while the ordinary cases can be handled by his appointees. The narrative ends by reporting that Jethro said farewell to his son-in-law and returned to Midian. He had come as an enquirer. Now he departs contentedly, his curiosity satisfied, his questions answered. He now believes, not because of hearsay evidence, but because he has indeed heard for himself, and knows.

Testing in the Wilderness (Exodus 15:22–18:27)

Brueggemann, W. 1977. The Land. Philadelphia: Fortress. Pp. 28–44.

Carpenter, E. 1997. “Exodus 18: Its Structure, Style, Motifs and Function in the Book of Exodus.” In A Biblical Itinerary: In Search of Method, Form and Content; Essays in Honor of George W. Coats. Ed. E. Carpenter. JSOTSup 240. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Pp. 91–108.

Childs, B. S. 1974. The Book of Exodus: A Critical, Theological Commentary. OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster.

Coats, G. W. 1968. Rebellion in the Wilderness: The Murmuring Motif in the Wilderness Traditions of the Old Testament. Nashville: Abingdon.

———. 1972. “The Wilderness Itinerary.” CBQ 34:135–52.

———. 1975. “Moses versus Amalek: Aetiology and Legend in Exodus xvii 8–16.” In Congress Volume, Edinburgh 1974. Ed. G. W. Anderson. VTSup 28. Leiden: Brill. Pp. 29–41.

Davies, G. I. 1974. “The Wilderness Itineraries: A Comparative Study.” TynB 25:46–81.

Feliks, J. 1971a. “Mana.” EncJud 11:883.

———. 1971b. “Quail.” EncJud 13:1420.

Ferris, P. W. 1975. “Manna Narrative of Exodus 16:1–10.” JETS 18:191–99.

Ginsburg, C. D. 1966 [1897]. Introduction to the Massoretico-Critical Edition of the Hebrew Bible. New York: Ktav.

Moberly, R. W. L. 2000. The Bible, Theology, and Faith: A Study of Abraham and Jesus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Smith, M. S. 1997. The Pilgrimage Pattern in Exodus. JSOTSup 239. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.

Talmon, S. 1966. “The ‘Desert Motif’ in the Bible and in Qumran Literature.” In Biblical Motifs: Origins and Transformations. Ed. A. Altmann. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Pp. 31–63.

Tigay, J. H. 1975. “Empirical Basis for the Documentary Hypothesis.” JBL 94:329–42.

9

Law and Covenant

Exodus 19–24

After three months of traveling, the Hebrews reached Mount Sinai, usually associated with Jebel Musa (Arabic, “the mountain of Moses”), which is about 7,500 feet in height. Moses constantly goes up and down the mountain: “and Moses went up to God” (19:3); “so Moses came [down]” (19:7); “Moses went up” (19:9 [implied]); “so Moses went down” (19:14); “Moses went up” (19:20); “Moses went down” (19:25) (see Arichea 1989).

If the Israelites arrive at Sinai in Exod. 19:1, they will not depart from there until Num. 10:11–12. They reached Sinai “in the third month” (Exod. 19:1) after they left Egypt. Numbers 10:11 reports that the Israelites moved on from Sinai on “the twentieth day of the second month of the second year.” That is, the encampment at Sinai lasted about eleven months. Surely it is a monumental and defining moment in the lives of the people of God. According to Blenkinsopp (1992: 48), the events narrated over the Pentateuch cover 2,706 years. Only eleven months of these almost three millennia are spent at Sinai. And yet this unit (Exod. 19:1–Num. 10:10) takes up about one-third of the Pentateuch. Schramm (2000: 328) provides these figures: Gen. 1:1–Exod. 18:27 = 2,028 verses; Exod. 19:1–Num. 10:10 = 1,972 verses; Num. 10:11–Deut. 34:12 = 1,849 verses.

The Covenant at Sinai (19)

The first time that Moses ascends Sinai, God speaks and Moses listens (vv. 3–6). It is, first of all, a reminder to Israel of God’s faithfulness and concern. Israel has not come this far either by coincidence or aggressiveness (v. 4). But from the “what I did … I bore … and brought you” of v. 4 we pass to the “now … if you will obey” of v. 5 (rsv). We pass from cause to effects, from divine love to human responsibility, and then from effects to results: “you shall be” (v. 5).

1. Cause: “what I did to the Egyptians, … I bore you on eagle’s wings and brought you to myself”

2. Effect: “if you will obey my voice and keep my covenant”

3. Results: “you shall be my treasured possession”; “you shall be to me a kingdom of priests”; “you shall be … a holy nation.” Thus God’s people are unique, separated from the world, but only that they may serve as ministers of reconciliation in that world.

The first of these three expressions we may call a word about privilege; the second, a word about responsibility (which is also a privilege); the third, a word about character. The phrase “treasured possession” (nrsv) reflects the Hebrew word sĕgūllâ (used again to define the privileged status of Israel in Deut. 7:6; 14:2; 26:18; Ps. 135:4; Mal. 3:17). In 1 Chron. 29:3 and Eccles. 2:8 the word refers to royal wealth, and it marks the special treasure acquired by kings. The Vulgate correctly renders this word as peculium—that which is set apart, being of special value (and the origin of the kjv’s famous rendering “my peculiar people,” with “peculiar” in its meaning of “distinctive, special”).

The second expression reminds God’s people that they are called to be a servant people, a towel-and-basin community. The third phrase, “a holy nation,” uses the word “holy” for the first time in the Bible in conjunction with people. Previously it has been used only to refer to certain times (Gen. 2:3) or certain places (Exod. 3:5). The expression appears regularly in Deuteronomy, except with “people” instead of “nation” (7:5; 14:2, 21; 26:19; 28:9). One difference between the two is that Exodus (19:6; 22:31) holds out holiness as a goal and an ideal (“you shall be a holy nation”), while Deuteronomy views holiness as an accomplished fact (e.g., 7:6: “you are a people holy to the Lord”).

Perhaps all too quickly the people respond positively and enthusiastically (v. 8), without taking the time to think about the implications of their response.

The second time (vv. 10–13) there is again only monologue. To give verbal assent to obedience is one thing; to consecrate and purify oneself is another. Israel’s response to God’s first word at Sinai was words. Israel’s response to God’s second word is action: putting on clean clothes and avoiding physical contact with the mountain upon pain of death. To touch it is as fatal as touching a high-voltage wire today. Third, the people temporarily abstain from normal sexual activities (v. 5; cf. a similar injunction from Paul in 1 Cor. 7:5; and what Eve said to the snake, “Neither shall you touch it, lest you die” [Gen. 3:3]).

The people spend the better part of three days (v. 16) preparing to meet God. Nothing is casual or cavalier. There is no place for nonchalance. One does not rush precipitously into the presence of God; rather, it is something for which one prepares diligently and thoroughly. And most importantly, the worshipers must be sanctified or purified (v. 14). Known sins cannot deliberately be transported into the presence of God. Anything that is obnoxious to God must be purged.

The third time is prefaced by the descent of Yahweh to the peak of Mount Sinai (v. 18). Far from being his domicile, the mountain functions only as Yahweh’s temporary abode. His revelation to his people is accompanied by thunder, lightning, a thick cloud, dense smoke, fire, a shaking of the mountain, and trumpet blasts. All of this is hardly intended to encourage the Israelites to press for too much familiarity. It is their Lord whom they are about to encounter. And for all the electrifying atmosphere present throughout this chapter—thunder, cloud, lightning, threat of death, and so on—the Israelites are not tempted to run and get as far away as possible, to put as much distance between themselves and Sinai as they can. The luminous and numinous presence of God attracts; it does not repel. Thus the people are told not to go too near to Sinai (19:12–13). As Gowan (1994: 27) notes, “It is important that they can take precautions, for this is not a danger to be escaped from, but to be approached as nearly as possible.”

Walther Eichrodt (1961–1967: 1:16) points out how such theophanies are different from pagan counterparts. “In marked contrast to the Canaanite and Babylonian conceptions it is not those natural phenomena which are directly familiar to Man and welcomed by him as beneficent, such as sun and moon, springs and rivers, trees and woods, … but the natural forces which break out with startling suddenness to terrify men and to threaten them with destruction.”

For a third time Moses ascends to the top of the mountain (v. 20). On this occasion the Lord adds a further restriction. Not even the priests are to approach God (v. 24). Only Aaron may accompany Moses. In anticipation of the tabernacle, the tip of Sinai has become a Holy of Holies—God’s holy presence is there. It is forbidden to everyone except Moses and Aaron, who will eventually be the high priest.

Hebrews 12:18–29 is an interesting commentary on Exodus 19. It begins (vv. 18–24) by contrasting approaching God under the old covenant at Mount Sinai with approaching God under the new covenant at Mount Zion. Pyrotechnics give way to Jesus as an indication of God’s presence. And yet such a change means not less accountability but greater accountability (vv. 25–29), for God not only was (at Sinai) but still is “a consuming fire.” So while the medium of God’s self-revelation has changed, God himself has not changed. He has not transformed himself from a holy God into a “consumer-friendly” God.

The Decalogue (20:1–21)

In all of the dealings between the Israelites and the Egyptians, while the former were in servitude to the latter, Moses’ role was primarily that of mediator. God did not speak to Pharaoh, but he did send Moses to speak to Pharaoh. That role continued for Moses into the Passover (“Tell all the congregation of Israel” [12:3 rsv]) and into the exodus (“Tell the people of Israel” [14:2 rsv]). At Sinai his function still was to transmit God’s word to the people (“These are the words which you shall speak to the children of Israel” [19:6 rsv]).

In the laws that follow the giving of the Ten Commandments (20:21–23:33), the mediatorial ministry of Moses is again underscored: “Thus you shall say to the people of Israel” (20:22 rsv). Similarly, God’s word about the tabernacle reaches the people through Moses (25:1; 35:1).

By contrast, in the revelation of the Decalogue this theme is omitted. Moses joins his peers as listener. God now speaks directly to his people: “And God spoke all these words, saying” (20:1 rsv). Is this the Bible’s way of informing us that when we read the Decalogue, we are face to face with the apogee or the summum bonum of God’s will for his followers in terms of lifestyle and moral commitment? Note the sequel to the commandments: “I have talked with you from heaven” (20:22), not from Sinai.

When God speaks to the Israelites, he addresses them as individuals, not as a group. All the occurrences of “you” in the commandments are masculine singular, not plural. The Hebrew clearly distinguishes between the two. For example, the “You shall not make” of v. 4, lōʾ taʿăśeh if plural, would be lō taʿăśû.

It is interesting to note that although God alone transmits the Decalogue, he speaks of himself in vv. 2–6 in the first person (“I am the Lord … before me … I the Lord your God … who hate me … who love me and keep my commandments” rsv). But in vv. 7–17 God speaks of himself in the third person (e.g., in v. 7, “The Lord will not hold anyone guiltless who takes his name in vain,” where we might expect, “I the Lord will not hold anyone guiltless who takes my name in vain”).

Characteristics of the Decalogue

Eight of the Ten Commandments are negative prohibitions. Only two are positive: “Remember the sabbath day.… Honor your father and your mother” (nrsv). This is not surprising in light of the fact that law is essentially restrictive. It functions as a deterrent. It is more proscriptive than it is prescriptive. Behavior in the community is regularized by the outlawing of certain types of activities.

Eight-tenths of the Decalogue are negative apodictic (i.e., categorical) prohibitions, put in the second-person singular. The Hebrew language has two ways of expressing a prohibition: (1) the negative particle ʾal with the jussive form of the verb (reproduced in the Septuagint usually by mē with the imperative or aorist subjunctive); (2) the negative particle lōʾ with the imperfect form of the verb (reproduced in the Septuagint usually by ou with the future indicative).

John Bright (1973) has analyzed the distribution of these two formulations of prohibitions in the Old Testament. As to the difference in nuance between the two, he concludes that ʾal with the jussive is the weaker of the two, and it is concerned with a specific command for a specific occasion, with no implication for the future. By contrast, lōʾ with the imperfect expresses a categorical prohibition of binding validity for the present and the future.

The first formulation predominates in Wisdom literature, where a prohibition is often justified by a motive clause: “Do not walk in the way with them … for their feet run to evil” (Prov. 1:15–16 rsv). The second is clearly the choice in the Pentateuch, especially in sections dealing with legal and cultic matters. Thus, in the four chapters of Exodus occupied with the laws of the covenant (21–23, 34), the first occurs but twice, while the second is used fifty-five times.

It is not incidental that the laws of prohibition in the Decalogue have been consistently couched in the strongest form of negation that the Hebrew language had available. The commandments are not open to review and/or revision by any advisory panel that may freely abandon them if convenience warrants. They have, linguistically, a built-in permanence. Obsolete they are not. Absolute they are.

Purpose of the Decalogue

George Mendenhall (1973: 200) lists six differences between covenant and law. We are interested here in how he states the difference between the two at the point of purpose. The purpose of covenant is to create a new relationship. The purpose of law is to regulate or perpetuate an existing relationship by orderly means. Similarly, Brevard Childs (1974: 383) comments, “The law defines the holiness demanded of the covenant people.… The measurement of holiness in terms of God’s own nature prevents the covenant claim from being given a moralistic interpretation.”

Chapter 19 of Exodus is concerned with the institution of the covenant. Then in ch. 20 and following are the laws. The purpose of the Decalogue is explicitly spelled out in 20:20: “Do not fear; for God has come to prove [test] you, and that the fear of him may be before your eyes, that you may not sin” (rsv). The verse appears almost to contain a contradiction: “do not fear … that the fear of him may be before your eyes.” Hans W. Wolff (1974) has collected and analyzed all the “fear of God” passages in Genesis and Exodus. He translates Exod. 20:20 as “Do not fear: for God has come to prove you, and that the fear of him may do its work on you, that you may not sin.”

One type of fear is condemned; another type of fear is indispensable. Which goes and which remains? That for which there is no permanent place is fear in the sense of terror and trembling. No relationship will be healthy if it is based only on fright. The glory of the Lord that appeared to the shepherds at the birth of Jesus produced dread in them—“they were filled with fear” (rsv)—and to calm them the angel had to say, “Be not afraid” (Luke 2:9–10). The angel’s “Be not afraid” is the same as Moses’ “Do not fear.”

What, then, is the fear that is encouraged? It is fear in the sense of obedience to God’s revealed law. God’s purpose for his people in the giving of the Decalogue is “that you may not sin.” The language brings to mind 1 John 2:1: “I am writing this to you so that you may not sin” (rsv). That is the divine standard. But John’s fresh word is about divine sympathy: “But if any one does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous” (nrsv). The connections of Exod. 20:20 with Abraham in Genesis 22 are especially important. These are the only two passages in the Old Testament in which we read of a divine testing (using the Hebrew verb nāsâ) whose purpose is to produce “fear of God” in the one being tested. Abraham was tested, and in obeying he demonstrated that he feared God. Israel is now to be tested via the Decalogue, and obedience to those commandments will evidence fear of God. Abraham thus becomes a model or example for Israel to emulate.

These, then, are God’s ten commands. They are law. But is there promise here too? Are the commandments more than a code imposed from above? Does God provide not only the law but also the enablement to keep that law? No one is able to live up to this standard in his or her own power. Augustine’s prayer is to the point here: “Command what thou wilt, and perform what thou commandest.”

Structure of the Decalogue

The commandments are referred to (in Hebrew) as “ten words” in Deut. 4:13; 10:4; Exod. 34:28. Exactly where and how these ten words should be divided and distinguished is still open to question, as is evidenced by the different enumerations in different religious traditions. In Judaism alone the first commandment is Exod. 20:2: “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt” (nrsv). In Catholic and Protestant traditions this is considered a prologue to the Decalogue. To continue with Judaism, the instructions about “no other gods” (v. 3) and no “graven image” (vv. 4–6) are taken as one commandment, and together they constitute the second commandment. Commandments three through ten are the same as in most Protestant traditions.

In Roman Catholic and Lutheran traditions vv. 3–6 are considered the first commandment. The second commandment (v. 7, respecting the Lord’s name) is in Protestant and Jewish tradition the third commandment. The difference of one continues through the ninth (or eighth) commandment (no false witness). What in Protestant and Jewish tradition is the final commandment (v. 17, no covetousness) is divided into two distinct commandments (17a, 17b) to form the ninth and tenth commandments in Catholic and Lutheran traditions (nine, “you shall not covet your neighbor’s house”; ten, “you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife …” niv). In any subsequent reference to a particular commandment I will follow the numbering system generally used in Protestant traditions.

There is a deuterograph of the Exodus Decalogue in Deut. 5:6–21. Essentially the list is a duplicate, but there are three interesting variations in the wording of commandments four, five, and ten. For the fourth commandment, in Exodus to “remember” the Sabbath, Deut. 5:12 instead reads “observe,” and it adds the motive clause “as the Lord your God commanded you.” In addition, whereas Exod. 20:11 grounds the Sabbath in God’s day of rest after the six days of creation, Deut. 5:15 roots the Sabbath in Israel’s exodus from Egypt.

The second divergence is in the fifth commandment, about parents. Again Deut. 5:16 adds the phrase “as the Lord your God commanded you,” and it inserts another phrase not found in Exodus, “that it may go well with you” (nrsv). Third, in the tenth commandment Exod. 20:17 prohibits first the coveting of the neighbor’s house, and second the neighbor’s wife, while Deut. 5:21 reverses the order of those two and also adds “field” to the list of untouchables. And while Exod. 20:17 uses “covet” (ḥāmad) for both clauses (“you shall not covet your neighbor’s house/wife”), Deut. 5:21 uses two different verbs: “you shall not covet [ḥāmad] your neighbor’s wife; you shall not crave [ʾāwâ] your neighbor’s house.”

It is quite obvious that the intent of the first four commandments is different from that of the last six. The first four are vertical in their orientation and have to do with one’s relationship to God. The last six are horizontal and deal with one’s relationships with fellow human beings. Perhaps it is significant that the commandment about parents is the first in those of horizontal dimension (see Cassuto 1967: 246). There is a shift from creator to procreator; one’s life is owed to both.

When asked about the greatest commandment (as if they could be arranged in a hierarchy), Jesus quoted Deut. 6:5: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind” (Matt. 22:37 nrsv). That reduces into one sentence the first four commandments. And although not solicited for further information, Jesus goes on to say, “And a second is like it, You shall love your neighbour as yourself” (Matt. 22:39 rsv). That reduces into one sentence the last six commandments. Note that Jesus reinforces that love can be commanded. Is that not a violation of love? Is not love something voluntarily chosen? By putting love within the context of a demand, or even an ultimatum, Jesus is suggesting that love for God and for others is centered in the will, not in the emotions.

Following Jesus’ word about keeping the commandments in order to enter life, the rich young ruler asked, “Which one[s]?” Jesus said nothing about the first four commandments, but drew only from the second category, and even his order of recital was interesting: six, seven, eight, nine, and five! Lack of love for one’s brothers and sisters cancels out the possibility of love for God, and it turns expressions of love for God into a charade (one of the messages of 1 John).

Exposition of the Decalogue

The first commandment is “You shall have no other gods before me.” The force of the expression “before me” most likely means “in addition to me.” The temptation of Israel (and with us?) is not so much to abandon serving God in order to serve other gods, but to worship other gods in addition to the Lord. Unlike the second commandment, which addresses itself to the “how” of worship, this one speaks to the “who” to worship. God’s people must allow nobody else and nothing else to exercise an ultimate claim over or demand an ultimate loyalty from them. The very fact that this prohibition exists, and even heads the list, assumes that members of the believing community are indeed prone to pay homage to surrogates for God. (This is not a word directed to the Moabites or to the Philistines, but to those who have embraced a covenantal relationship with God.) Similarly, in today’s world the establishment of speed limits on highways is necessitated by (apart from energy conservation) the fact that without any restrictions many drivers would treat public roads like private racetracks.

The commandment to worship no other gods is senseless unless the alternative does indeed exist and is at times attractive, and unless human beings have a proclivity compelling them in that direction. It is a logical fact that one does not have to prohibit or discourage activities that most people are disinclined to do anyway. Thus, for example, there is no commandment saying, “Thou shalt not leap off high cliffs.” Conversely, the opposite of prohibitive commandments—performative commandments—urge behavior that may not be predictable or chosen. Thus, Jesus “commands” his followers to “love another.” Left to our own devices, we may choose simply to ignore, manipulate, or abuse one another.

The second commandment is “You shall not make for yourself a graven image.” Old Testament religion is aniconic. To be sure, religious art with powerful symbolic significance is permitted—witness the adornments in the tabernacle and temple—but images of God, or any deity, are outlawed. For all the times that the patriarchs and Moses spoke “face to face” with God, not once did any of them give us any inkling of what they saw or what God looked like.

Abraham Heschel (1954: 118) draws a distinction between “real” symbols and “conventional” symbols. Using a national flag as an illustration of a conventional symbol, he suggests that this type of symbol represents a reality not because it possesses the inherent qualities of that reality, but because of the association, relationship, or convention suggested by it. A real symbol, on the other hand, is a “visible object that represents something invisible, something present representing something absent … he who has the image has the god.”

The Bible is not lacking in parodies of idolatry. The latter chapters of Isaiah abound in them. For example, in Isa. 46:1–2 we read of the Babylonians fleeing Babylon at the invasion of Cyrus. They have placed their gods on the backs of their animals. Why? Are the gods in danger? Are the people responsible for their gods’ safety? If the people do not look after their gods in this time of crisis, who will? And the gods are valuable, made as they were by people. Through this God says to his people, “You do not carry me on your back. I carry you on my back.”

To have access to an image of God suggests almost that such a god can be controlled and manipulated. Perhaps we cannot improve on Augustine’s definition of idolatry: “Idolatry is worshiping anything that ought to be used, or using anything that is meant to be worshiped.”

The third commandment is “You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.” Presumably, what is proscribed here is more than just profanity or vulgarity in the modern sense. Also, the common statement that the command forbids false swearing or oath-taking in court is true, but it is not exhaustive of the meaning.

The Hebrew word for “vain” used here comes from a root meaning “to be empty” in the sense of “to be without substance, to be worthless.” Any invocation of God’s presence, any calling on his name that is simply perfunctory, is taking God’s name in vain—that is, using the divine name for or in something that lacks vitality, reality, and substance. So Elton Trueblood (1972: 31) can say, “The worst blasphemy is not profanity, but lip service.”

The fourth commandment is “Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.” Childs (1974: 415) renders “to keep it holy” as a factitive Piel in Hebrew and translates it as “to make holy.” Those legitimate concerns of the previous six days are to be laid aside momentarily for what Herman Wouk (1959: 60) colorfully calls “a retreat into restorative magic.” Umberto Cassuto (1967: 415) points out the connection between the Sabbath, which is the seventh day, and the seven living beings called to observe it: you, your son, your daughter, your manservant, your maidservant, your cattle (even the animals observe the Sabbath!), the sojourner.

Too much should not be made of the different motive clauses in Exodus and Deuteronomy. We have already observed that Exodus links the Sabbath with the seventh day of rest after creation, while Deuteronomy connects it with the exodus from Egypt. As B. D. Napier (1963: 82) observes, “The fundamental sanction of the Sabbath in both statements of commandment is creation—in Deuteronomy the creation of a people, in Exodus the creation of the world.”

Israel was not alone in the observance of special and sacred days. Not a little has been written about a possible connection between the biblical Sabbath and the Babylonian shapattu. Eichrodt (1961–1967: 1:132) writes:

In Babylonia the “seventh” days (i.e., the seventh, fourteenth, nineteenth, twenty-first and twenty-eighth of the month) had the character of a dies nefastus (Bab. ûmu limnu) on which special care had to be taken, the king in particular having to submit to all kinds of precautionary measures (e.g., not to mount his chariot, not to offer sacrifice, etc.). Of a general intermission of work there is no mention whatsoever. Only on the fifteenth day was work suspended in Babylonia; and far from this being due to the joyful, festal character of the day, it was obviously actuated by quite different motives, namely that on this particular day there was no luck to be had, and it was necessary to pacify the gods (whence the name ûm nuḫ libbi: “day of pacification of the heart”) and to appease their anger by a kind of day of penitence and prayer.

In some ways this fourth commandment feeds off and naturally follows (and partially protects) the first two commandments. The proper observance of the Sabbath guards against people idolizing their own work and agendas. On this one day no work is to be done. In contrast to the days of public sacrifices when laborious or heavy work (mĕleʾket ʿăbōdâ) is forbidden (Num. 28:18, 25, 26; 29:1), only on the Sabbath and Yom Kippur/Day of Atonement is no work at all to be done (kolmĕlāʾkâ). See Num. 29:7 and Lev. 23:3, 28.

Not only does the fourth commandment relate to the first two, but also it is a bridge into the last six, those dealing with one’s relationship with other members of the community, for the Sabbath is a gift of God for everyone—children, slaves, the stranger, all those who otherwise might not be able to find rest.

The fifth commandment is “Honor your father and your mother.” What the reader of the Bible might have expected is “Obey your father and mother.” It is, however, easier to obey than to honor. One can hate but obey. One cannot both hate and honor.

The seriousness of the injunction is reinforced by the choice of the verb “honor.” Several times it is used with God as the object (1 Sam. 2:30; Ps. 50:23; Prov. 3:9; Isa. 29:13; 43:20, 23). Both God and parents are worthy of honor. The underlying Hebrew word sometimes is translated as “glorify,” and it describes how God is to be worshiped (Ps. 22:23; 50:15; 86:9, 12; Isa. 24:15).

This is not to say that parents are worthy of worship. Jesus quoted and endorsed the fifth commandment (Matt. 15:4; Mark 7:10; Paul also in Eph. 6:2), but he also said, “He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me” (Matt. 10:37 rsv). Parents, as part of the “other gods” proscribed in the first commandment, make feeble gods indeed.

As in Lev. 19:3, but in opposite order, the commandments about keeping the Sabbath and honoring one’s parents are in sequence. Possibly the connection between the two lies in the idea that observing the Sabbath is a way of honoring God, and thus is a counterpart to honoring one’s parents.

The sixth commandment is “You shall not kill.” Some scholars have translated the verb as “murder.” That is, what is banned is not all forms of killing (such as the death penalty for certain crimes, or involvement in war), but the unnecessary taking of life out of anger or greed. Occasionally the verb describes nonculpable homicide (Num. 35:11; Deut. 4:42; Josh. 20:3, 5), indicated by the addition of some qualifier such as “unintentionally” or “in ignorance or unwittingly.” Another illustration of this is Num. 35:27: an avenger of the blood who kills a manslayer who has wandered outside the limits of the city of refuge is not guilty.

But these are exceptions. The normal meaning is culpable homicide, and the commandment is thus best translated, “You shall not murder,” especially in light of the negative particle lōʾ. Cain did this directly; David did it indirectly. God forbids one person from killing another, and also from taking his or her own life. Interestingly, there is only one clear-cut instance of suicide in the Old Testament, that of Ahithophel (2 Sam. 17:23).

Jesus extended the sixth commandment to include feelings of anger, verbal abuse of another person, or derogatory name-calling (Matt. 5:21–26). His admonition is “make friends quickly with your accuser” (rsv).

The seventh commandment is “You shall not commit adultery.” If the previous commandment upheld the sanctity of life, and the one before that the sanctity of the home, this commandment upholds the sanctity of marriage. Marriage is not simply a relationship of convenience, nor is it to be tampered with. Infidelity carries with it the most serious of consequences.

Jesus expanded this prohibition to include the ocular as well as the physical (Matt. 5:27–30). Lust is possessive and self-gratifying. Witness David’s behavior with Bathsheba. It reduces the other person to an object. Mutual obligation and commitment are nonexistent.

One suspects that a passage of Scripture such as Lev. 20:10–21, which deals with other forbidden sexual behaviors, is simply an extension of the law about adultery. There are ten commandments, not one thousand or ten thousand. The infractions cited in the Decalogue are representative, not exhaustive, what von Rad (1962: 1:194) has called “signposts on the margin of a wide sphere of life.” The restriction of the Decalogue to ten statements plus a basic absence of sanctions eliminates it from being seen as the equivalent of a manual or textbook. Hence, its ongoing value is to be discovered in the basic principles and boundaries that it fosters.

The eighth commandment is “You shall not steal.” The reference is to theft of property and possibly also kidnapping. The right of possession is affirmed. The attempt to get something for nothing is condemned. The commandment militates against the philosophy of “What is yours is mine, and I’m going to take it away from you.”

The antidote for stealing is reflected in Paul’s word to the church at Philippi: “And my God will supply every need of yours” (Phil. 4:19 rsv), but such a promise covers only needs, not greeds.

The ninth commandment is “You shall not bear false witness.” Probably the original application of this commandment was to the offering of false, misleading testimony in court or at official transactions and exchanges in the marketplace. If the story of Ahab and Jezebel and Naboth’s vineyard in 1 Kings 21 follows legal teaching (false accusation and testimony can be a means of depriving one’s neighbor of what rightfully belongs to him or her), then perhaps it sheds light on why this commandment comes between the eighth and tenth commandments. Number eight refers to taking another’s property by force or stealth. Number nine refers to taking another’s property by false testimony. Number ten refers to coveting another’s property.

But a broader and more general interpretation surely is permissible. The commandment extends to any malicious conversation, intentional or unintentional, that raises a question about the integrity of someone else’s character. And character defamation is as ancient as Genesis 3.

Not without reason does James refer to the tongue as an arsonist. Uncontrolled, it becomes incendiary. Unchecked, it becomes the most lethal weapon in destroying the unity in a believing community.

Again we turn to Paul for the opposite of what this commandment forbids: “Count others better than yourselves” (Phil. 2:3). Such an attitude will restrain the temptation to be a false witness.

The tenth commandment is “You shall not covet.” Quite obviously this commandment is different from the preceding nine, or at least the preceding five, in at least two ways. One is the way that it appears to prohibit even an inner, subjective attitude, while the others address specific, visible acts. What one thinks and feels, and not simply what one does, has moral consequences. The second involves the means by which one could establish guilt and then prosecute for coveting.

The first nine commandments present no problem in this regard.

One, “You shall have no other gods.” Compare Exod. 22:20: “Whoever sacrifices to any god, save to the Lord only, shall be utterly destroyed” (rsv).

Two, “You shall not make for yourself a graven image.” Compare the nearly catastrophic result after the incident of the golden calf (Exodus 32).

Three, “You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.” Note the remainder of the verse: “for the Lord will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name” (niv).

Four, “Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.” Compare Exod. 31:15: “The seventh day is a sabbath of solemn rest, … whoever does any work on the sabbath day shall be put to death” (nrsv).

Five, “Honor your father and your mother.” Compare Exod. 21:15, 17: “Whoever strikes/curses his father or his mother shall be put to death” (rsv).

Six, “You shall not kill.” Compare Exod. 21:12: “Whoever strikes a person mortally shall be put to death” (nrsv).

Seven, “You shall not commit adultery.” Compare Deut. 22:22: “If a man is found lying with the wife of another man, both of them shall die” (rsv).

Eight, “You shall not steal.” Compare Exod. 22:1–3: “When someone steals an ox or a sheep … the thief shall pay five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep” (nrsv). See also Exod. 21:16: “Whoever kidnaps a person … shall be put to death” (nrsv).

Nine, “You shall not bear false witness.” Compare Deut. 19:18–19: “If the witness is a false witness, having testified falsely against another, then you shall do to the false witness just as the false witness had meant to do to the other” (nrsv).

The pattern is this: in the Decalogue there is a straightforward prohibition or admonishment, without reference to any penalty for violation. Subsequent to the Decalogue we encounter the violation posed as a possibility, and the consequences of such a violation are spelled out.

Could the pattern be made to continue into the last commandment: “Thou shalt not covet.… Anyone who covets … shall die/be put to death”? Such a verse would be surprising, but narratives to support the idea are not lacking. This is the story of Eve, of Achan, of Ahab and Jezebel over Naboth’s vineyard, of Judas Iscariot.

Some exegetes have suggested that the verb “covet” includes actions as well as emotions, on the basis of verses such as Deut. 7:25, “You shall not covet the silver or the gold … or take it for yourselves” (rsv), and Mic. 2:2, “They covet fields, and seize them” (nrsv).

One suspects, however, that this explanation is dictated less by exegesis than by the desire to understand the prohibition in terms amenable to law enforcement. In addition, the two verbs for “covet” in the Deuteronomy Decalogue (Deut. 5:21) are different. The first is the same as that used twice in Exod. 20:17, ḥāmad. But the second is ʾāwâ: “You shall not desire/crave your neighbor’s house.” And the connotation of this verb, a synonym of ḥāmad in Deut. 5:21, concerns emotions, quite apart from any outward act. As Childs (1974: 427) remarks, “The Deuteronomic recension simply made more explicit the subjective side of the prohibition which was already contained in the original command.”

Perhaps this is the reason why this particular commandment is placed last. It is the most comprehensive of all the commandments, and it includes what is absent from the rest of the Decalogue. And who will not recognize that behind much killing, adultery, stealing, and lying is covetousness? This is the root of the problem.

We have looked to Paul for some positive reformulations of the prohibitive commandments. Again we may appeal to him, and again the verse is from his letter to the Philippians: “I have learned, in whatever state I am, to be content” (4:11 rsv). This is the difference between ruling over one’s desires and being a slave to them.

The Book of the Covenant (20:21–23:33)

The title given to this section of Exodus is taken from Exod. 24:7: “Then he took the book of the covenant, and read it in the hearing of the people” (nrsv).

Unlike the Decalogue, which God transmits directly to his people, this section of Exodus finds Moses once again in the ministry of mediation: “Thus you shall say to the people of Israel” (20:22 rsv). He is neither author nor collator, just transmitter. Indeed, it would not be inappropriate to apply here Peter’s dictum that “no prophecy ever came by human will, but people moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God” (2 Pet. 1:21). The Bible, and this section of Exodus especially, goes to great lengths to reinforce the idea that Moses is but a conveyor of truth, not the originator of truth.

And yet many Christians approach chs. 21–23 of Exodus in the same way as they eat fish. The bones are to be thrown away, and only the meat digested. To press the analogy, the Ten Commandments of ch. 20 are the meat, the “eternal word of God”; the following three chapters are the bones—the unedifying, the unpalatable, the anachronistic, and hence the disposable. That no such hierarchy appears in the biblical text itself is beside the point. It is, for example, difficult to conceive of these three chapters as a gold mine for expository preaching.

Types of Laws in the Book of the Covenant

The laws in this unit are as follows:

1. proscriptions of idols and the law about the altar (20:22–26)

2. the law for male and female slaves (21:1–11)

3. prohibitions against murder, physical and verbal abuse of parents, and kidnapping, all of which elicit the death penalty (21:12–17)

4. laws penalizing those who injure and maim others: a neighbor, a slave, a pregnant woman (violations that do not incur the death penalty) (21:18–26)

5. the law about the goring ox that tramples to death a human being, with culpability also attached to a careless owner (21:28–32)

6. the law about the uncovered pit into which an unsuspecting animal tumbles (21:33–34)

7. the law about one animal that is fatally injured by another, with blame going to the owner of the killer animal if necessary precautions were shirked (21:35–36)

8. prohibitions against thievery, mandating restitution (22:1–4)

9. the law about destroying the crops of another through illegal grazing of one’s own animals or through arson (22:5–6)

10. laws pertaining to borrowers and to those entrusted with the belongings of others (22:7–15)

11. the law about seduction of a virgin, leading to premarital intercourse (22:16–17)

12. a collection of miscellaneous laws on religious and social matters, such as magic, bestiality, idolatry, mistreatment of aliens, and usury (22:18–31)

13. justice in the courtroom, both in the witness stand and on the judge’s bench (23:1–9)

14. Sabbath laws (23:10–13)

15. a summons to observe the thrice-held festivals on the calendar (23:14–19a)

16. a prohibition against cooking a young goat in its mother’s milk (23:19b)

17. epilogue (23:20–33)

Though it is futile to look for some significance in the sequence of the laws, perhaps it is not trite to observe that the first law and the last are parallel in subject matter. The code begins and ends with a call to worship, that which brings the devotee directly into the presence of God: worship in the right way (the law about the altar) and at the right time (the three annual festivals).

Although there is no particular pattern in the sequence of the laws, there is a distinct pattern in the literary forms in which the laws are couched. Note that the first law (the altar law [20:22–26]) is phrased much like one of the Ten Commandments: “You shall not make gods of silver … you shall not go up by steps to my altar” (rsv). I have previously referred to this type of law as apodictic law.

But beginning with 21:1 and continuing through 22:17, the laws are framed in a conditional way (the exceptions are the statements in 21:12, 15, 16, 17). This type of law usually is referred to as casuistic law. That is, instead of making a generalization, a casuistic law addresses itself to a specific situation. Accordingly, most of these laws first have a protasis, a section that deals with the specific situation at question. Normally a violation is described and is introduced by “when” or “supposing that”: “when people quarrel,” “when someone strikes a slave.” Occasionally a legitimate transaction may be involved: “when you buy a Hebrew slave.”

The second part of the law is called the apodosis. Usually this part spells out the consequence of the violation: “When a slaveowner strikes a slave … and the slave dies [protasis], … the owner shall be punished [apodosis].” Further qualification or extenuating circumstances often are included. The apodosis, if it follows a legitimate transaction, addresses the privileges of any parties involved.

Beginning with 22:18 and continuing to 23:19, there is a return to apodictic law: “You shall not permit a female sorcerer to live” (nrsv). Thus, the code begins with apodictic law (20:22–26), shifts to casuistic law (21:1–22:17), then returns to apodictic law (22:18–23:19). Exodus 21:1 introduces what follows with “These are the laws [mišpātîm] you are to set before them” (niv). Exodus 24:3 begins by saying, “Moses went and told the people all the Lord’s words [dĕbārîm] and laws [mišpātîm]” (niv). Many commentators suggest that the word “laws” (mišpātîm) refers to the casuistic regulations of 21:1–22:17, while “words” (dĕbārîm) refers to the apodictic regulations of 20:22–26; 22:18–23:19.

One possible conclusion to draw from this is that 21:1–22:17, the casuistic laws, once existed separately from the rest of the code and was inserted secondarily by a redactor into its present position. Indeed, this is the prevailing view of biblical scholarship.

But perhaps another solution is possible. Cyrus Gordon (1965: 83) has drawn attention to the literary form of ancient Near Eastern literature, including parts of the Bible, an observation that warns against the premature dissecting of the text. Thus, for example, the Book of Job begins and ends in prose, with poetry in between, and the Book of Daniel begins and ends in Hebrew, with the middle section in Aramaic. Might not the same literary structure be found in the Book of the Covenant? The beginning and the end are identical in form; the middle section is different from both its predecessor and successor. (The Decalogue begins with three negative commandments, continues with two positive ones, then concludes with five negative commandments.)

Comparison of Biblical and Nonbiblical Legal Codes

It is not without advantage to compare biblical law with other legal codes composed in those nations that surrounded Israel in the second and first millennia b.c. The most important, in order of antiquity, are:

1. Code of Ur-nammu, named after the first king of the third dynasty of Ur (ca. 2100–2000 b.c.). This is the first law code known in history (ca. 2050 b.c.). It is written in Sumerian, and only portions have survived. This includes a prologue and twenty-nine laws, all of which are casuistic in form.

2. Code of Eshnunna, not a personal name but a place name. It is located near modern Baghdad and flourished between the fall of Ur (2000 b.c.) and the age of Hammurabi (1800–1600 b.c.). The laws, sixty-one in total, are the oldest ones written in Babylonian, and date back to ca. 1980 b.c.

3. Code of Lipit-Ishtar, a ruler of the first dynasty of Isin (ca. 2000–1900 b.c.), one of the prominent city-states to emerge after the fall of Ur. The code consists of three main parts: a prologue, the laws, and an epilogue. It too is written in Sumerian. Thirty-eight laws, in part or in whole, have survived, and all of these are casuistic in form. They date to ca. 1930 b.c.

4. Code of Hammurabi, who was the sixth king of the first dynasty of Babylon, with the years of his reign being 1792–1750 b.c. It is written, as is the Code of Eshnunna, in Babylonian and is the most famous of the extrabiblical law codes. It is structured, as is Lipit-Ishtar, in tripartite fashion: prologue, laws, epilogue. There are 282 casuistic laws in this code.

5. The Hittite Law Code, which is not precisely datable, although Hittitologist Harry Hoffner (1975: 1:800) states that “it is possible that the first recension of the Hittite laws dates from the reign of Telipinu (1525–1500 BC).” The laws are found on two tablets, each having one hundred laws.

6. The Middle Assyrian Laws, preserved on clay tablets. The tablets date from the time of the Assyrian king Tiglath-pileser I (1115–1077 b.c.), but the laws may predate the tablets by as much as three centuries. Some 116 laws are preserved on eleven different tablets, again in casuistic form. To a degree unseen in the previous law codes, penalties for violations often include all forms of bodily mutilation—for example, cutting off the nose or removing a finger.

The existence of such law codes does not mean that they were appealed to by courts or judges in the administration of justice. Never did they assume a normative status. On the contrary, they were all but ignored. The point is well made by two Assyriologists. Says Leo Oppenheim (1977: 158), “This code [of Hammurabi] … does not show any direct relationship to the legal practices of the time. Its contents are rather to be considered in many essential respects a traditional literary expression of the king’s social responsibilities and of his awareness between existing and desirable conditions.” Or, to quote William Hallo (1971: 176), “They [these law codes] made no attempt to provide universal criteria of culpability, nor were they cited, or even necessarily followed, in the determination of lawsuits. But they were studied in the schools … and must have formed part of the education of scribes and judges.” Thus, the guides for legal decision are not codes but tradition, public opinion, and even common sense.

An examination of these laws shows in some cases an almost word-for-word correspondence with one of the laws in the Covenant Code of Exodus or the laws of Deuteronomy. Other laws are remarkably similar to those of Exodus, with changes only in terminology. Childs (1974: 462–63) is able to provide a parallel (or parallels) in pagan law codes to every unit in the Covenant Code, and Westbrook (1994b: 21) notes, “More than half of the Covenant Code’s provisions have some parallel in one or more of the cuneiform codes, whether in the form of the same problem addressed or distinction applied, a similar rule, or an identical rule.” For at least two reasons, the fact that some biblical law shares the precepts of other ancient Near Eastern legal corpora should not be surprising or unexpected, nor should it raise suspicions. First, a number of behaviors that the Covenant Code forbids are ones that all ancient societies would forbid—for example, murder. Thus Exod. 21:12, “Anyone who strikes a man and kills him shall surely be put to death” (niv), is not significantly different from the Sumerian Ur-nammu code, paragraph 1: “If a man kills, that man shall be put to death.” Second, just a few chapters back in Exodus (ch. 18), counsel on how to administer justice in Israelite society comes from a non-Israelite source, Moses’ Midianite father-in-law, Jethro (see Olson 1996: 262).

The Law about Female Slaves

As an illustration I will use the law in Exod. 21:7–11 about a daughter sold into slavery by her father. The constituent parts are that unlike the male slave, she may not go free after six years; if she is unpleasing to her prospective husband, she is to be returned to her family; if she becomes her employer’s daughter-in-law, she is to be treated as a daughter; if she is married to her employer, a subsequent marriage by the husband to another woman does not diminish the slave’s status in any way; violation of any of these last four contingencies by the employer or husband results in the woman’s freedom.

Here are the parallels.

Code of Hammurabi, 170, 171: “When a man’s first wife bore him children and his female slave also bore him children, if the father during his lifetime has ever said ‘my children!’ to the children whom the slave bore him … after the father dies, the children of the first wife and the children of the slave shall share equally in the goods of the paternal state.” Law 171 deals with the opposite situation of the father vis-à-vis the children of his female slave—“If he never said [of them] ‘my children!’ ”—then the slave’s offspring are not entitled to part of the paternal estate, but both slave and offspring are manumitted.

Code of Hammurabi, 119: “If an obligation came due against a man and he has accordingly sold his female slave who bore him children, the owner of the female slave may repay the money which the merchant paid out and thus redeem his female slave.”

Code of Hammurabi, 146, 147: “A barren wife who provides her husband with a female slave may not sell the slave if the latter mothers a child by the wife’s husband before and when the wife does.”

Code of Eshnunna, 31: “If a man deprives another man’s slave-girl of her virginity, he shall pay one-third of a mina of silver; the slave-girl remains the property of her owner.”

Code of Eshnunna, 34: “If a slave-girl of palaces gives her son or her daughter to a palace or temple official for bringing him or her up, the palace may take back the son or the daughter whom she gave.”

Hittite Code, 31 (tablet 1): “If a free man and a slave-girl are lovers and they cohabit, he takes her for his wife, they found a family and have children, but subsequently … they break up the family, the man receives the children, but the woman receives one child.” Laws 32 and 33 deal respectively with the marriage of a male slave to a free woman, and a male slave to a female slave. In both laws, if a marital separation ensues, the consequences are the same as those in law 31.

Code of Lipit-Ishtar, 25, 26: “If a man married a wife and she bore him children, and those children are living, and a slave also bore children for her master, but the father granted freedom to the slave and her children, the children of the slave shall not divide the estate with the children of their former master.” Law 26 covers the marriage of a widower to a slave girl with children produced from both the first and second marriages. The children of the first marriage are not negated as heirs.

The Law about an Ox That Gores

One more example of commonality in biblical and nonbiblical law codes will suffice. It concerns the law about the goring ox in Exod. 21:28–36. Actually, this involves three laws presented as one extended law: (1) the case where an ox gores a human (21:28–32); (2) an intervening law dealing with a careless person who digs a pit and does not cover it, thus allowing an animal to fall into it and injure itself (21:33–34); (3) the case where an ox gores another ox (21:35–36). The particulars are that if an ox kills a person, it is put to death by stoning, but its flesh may not be eaten. No liability is attached to the owner of the ox. If, however, the ox is known to be temperamental, and warnings to the owner have gone unheeded, and if the ox kills a human being, the owner too is executed. If someone’s ox falls into an open pit dug by another person, the latter must pay restitution to the owner of the deceased animal. If someone’s ox kills an ox belonging to another person, they share the loss. If the owner knew that the ox was prone to goring and yet took no precautions, the owner of the goring ox assumes all the damages.

The parallels are:

Code of Hammurabi, 250: “If an ox, when it was walking along the street, gored a man to death, that case is not subject to claim.”

Code of Hammurabi, 251: “If a man’s ox was a gorer, and his city council made it known to him that it was a gorer, but he did not pad its horns or tie up his ox, and that ox gored to death a member of the aristocracy, he shall give one-half mina of silver.”

Code of Eshnunna, 53: “If an ox gores another ox and causes its death, both ox owners shall divide [between themselves] the price of the live ox and also the equivalent of the dead ox.”

Code of Eshnunna, 54: “If an ox is known to gore habitually and the authorities have brought the fact to the knowledge of its owner, but he does not have his ox dehorned, and it gores a man and causes his death, then the owner of the ox shall pay two-thirds of a mina of silver.”

Finkelstein (1981: 36–39) perceives a significant difference in Exodus between the case where the ox gored a human (21:28–32) and the case where the ox gored another ox (21:35–36). By contrast, the parallel cases in the Code of Eshnunna are presented without any interruption such as one finds in Exod. 21:33–34. Damage to persons outweighs damages to property. This explains why in the Codes of Hammurabi and Eshnunna the owner of a rogue ox that kills someone is merely fined, whereas in the Covenant Code he is sentenced to death (Exod. 21:29).

Differences between Biblical and Nonbiblical Legal Codes

The point is well taken, then, that many biblical laws have almost precise counterparts in pagan literature. The absence of such parallels, rather than their presence, would raise suspicions about the integrity of the biblical laws. It is fair to say that all societies and cultures outlaw certain practices (e.g., murder, hate, oppression) and encourage the implementation of others (e.g., justice, compassion for the poor). In these areas Israel had no monopoly and often had no word from God that went beyond the practices of its neighbors.

This is not, however, to equate all ancient Mediterranean law codes. Even in those areas where similarity may be the greatest, differences between biblical and nonbiblical law are apparent. Consider, for example, the discussion about the various laws about the goring ox. The significant difference is, as we saw, the much more severe punishment mandated by the passage in Exodus. In the Codes of Hammurabi and Eshnunna the only concern is the economic compensation of the victim’s family: “he shall give one-half mina of silver” (Hammurabi, 251); “the owner of the ox shall pay two-thirds of a mina of silver” (Eshnunna, 54). By contrast, Exod. 21:28 calls for the death of the ox (cf. Gen. 9:5–6) and abstention from eating its meat. Furthermore, if the owner has callously sloughed off previous warnings about the dangerous animal, and the latter kills someone, the owner dies too (Exod. 21:29), unless the victim’s family is willing to settle for the imposition of a steep fine (Exod. 21:30). Note here the high value placed on human life. In taking another’s life, a fine is no substitute for proper justice.

One observes also a distinct emphasis in the laws dealing with slaves. The particular verses in Exodus are concerned almost exclusively with the slave’s privileges or the reparations that fall upon the owner if the slave is in any way abused or mishandled (21:1–11, 20–21, 26–27, 32). Surely it is not insignificant that laws on slavery in the Covenant Code come toward the beginning of that code, while those on this subject in the Code of Hammurabi come at the end (278–82).

Nowhere in the Covenant Code do punishments take the form of physical mutilation, except in the “eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth” passage in Exod. 21:23–25. By contrast, in the first millennium b.c. Middle Assyrian Laws, such penalties reach epidemic proportions. But even the Code of Hammurabi legislates for certain offenses the cutting off of half of the hair (127); the removal of the tongue (192), the eye (193), the ear of a slave (205), or the hand (218, 226, 253). Prisoners of war might be treated similarly. Witness Samson at the mercy of the Philistines (Judg. 16:21); the residents of Jabesh-gilead intimidated by Nahash the Ammonite (1 Sam. 11:2); the slain Saul and the Philistines (1 Sam. 31:9–10); David’s troops in Ammonite territory (2 Sam. 10:4).

It is true that Scripture does mandate “an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth” (Exod. 21:24–25). This is the famous lex talionis, and the parallel in the Code of Hammurabi is 197, “a bone for a bone,” and 200, “a tooth for a tooth.” Both of these laws, however, cover only assaults by a member of the aristocracy against a peer.

Primarily because of Jesus’ reference to this particular law in Matt. 5:38–48 and a misunderstanding of the intent of that reference, many people have assumed that this is a classic distinction between the spirits of the Old and the New Testaments: the first teaches retaliation, while the second teaches forgiveness. Such a dichotomy could not be further from the truth. The Book of the Covenant itself (see Exod. 23:4–5) urges that people exert themselves to help their enemy. What the law in Exodus does teach is the principle of equal justice for all. That is, the penalty must match the crime (an eye for an eye, or a tooth for a tooth). The penalty must not exceed what the crime merits (thus prohibiting the victimizing of the poor and underprivileged through overpenalization), nor must the penalty fall below what the crime merits (thus prohibiting the rich from escaping the law’s demands because of position, contacts, and bargaining money). What Jesus does in the Sermon on the Mount is elevate the response to evil beyond the concern for simple justice to voluntary assistance for the oppressor.

We may conclude that the distinctions between biblical and nonbiblical law should not be unduly magnified (see Jackson 1973a) or minimized. Apart from any specific law, perhaps the most significant thing to be observed, in terms of comparative studies, is the crucial position that God assumes in this section of Exodus. First, God is the author of these laws: “And the Lord said to Moses, ‘Thus shall you say to the people of Israel’ ” (Exod. 20:22 rsv); “These are the ordinances which you shall set before them” (Exod. 21:1 rsv). True, the stela on which the Code of Hammurabi is written is topped by a bas-relief showing Hammurabi receiving the commission to write the law code from the sun god, Shamash, the god of justice. And in both the epilogue and prologue appeal is made to the stimulation and authority of Shamash and Marduk. However, nowhere in the 282 laws does a god ever speak. The same is true of the other law codes.

By contrast, God not only commissions Moses to speak, but also he speaks in the first person throughout the section, especially in 20:22–26 and 22:20–23:19: “I have talked with you” (20:22 rsv); “An altar of earth you shall make for me” (20:24 rsv) (the words “me” or “I” appear seven times in the brief section of 20:22–26). Also, “I will appoint for you a place” (21:13 rsv); “I will surely hear their cry” (22:23 rsv); “I will kill” (22:24); “I will hear” (22:27); “I will not acquit” (23:7); “I have said” (23:13); “I commanded you” (23:15); “Behold, I send” (23:20). Even in the articulation of the laws, Moses, the law mediator, takes a subordinate position to God, the lawgiver. God does not speak, then disappear, then briefly reappear before the end.

If we wish to underline that Israel, as reflected in these law codes, reached a higher moral sensitivity than did its neighbors, we nevertheless must note that even in the Book of the Covenant inequities remain. Despite the privileges granted to slaves, they are treated as less than free people. Murder is a capital offense (Exod. 21:12). If a slave is murdered by an owner, the owner is “to be punished” (Exod. 21:20). The formula “shall be put to death” is not used. The lex talionis, with its expression of equal justice for all, does not include the slave (Exod. 21:26–27). The male slave may go free after six years (Exod. 21:2). Apparently no such provision was extended to the female slave, except in cases where she was subjected to physical abuse (Exod. 21:27). Only males may make pilgrimages to the thrice-held religious festivals (Exod. 23:17); females are excluded. This latter point does not necessarily provide evidence, as some have claimed, of the Old Testament’s patriarchal and misogynistic agenda. Given the degrading role of women in the public fertility cults of the ancient Near East, where they functioned as shrine prostitutes, the exclusion of women from these Israelite festivals does not represent demotion to second-class status; rather, it is a way of protecting and valuing their honor and dignity as human beings. Then again, all that a verse like 23:17 may be saying is that attendance at these festivals is mandatory for men, while it is optional for women. Were they, say, pregnant or nursing, women would be exempt from participation.

If the Book of the Covenant rises above the Code of Hammurabi, we must also conclude that this early “sermon on the mount” anticipates a fuller word from the later Sermon on the Mount.

The Ceremony of Covenant Ratification (24:1–18)

It is not enough just to hear the word of the Lord, to be simply “hearers” but not “doers.” Nor is nodding, halfhearted, token obedience acceptable. Perhaps prematurely, the people had said, after first reaching Sinai, “All that the Lord has spoken we will do” (Exod. 19:8 rsv). They thought that they were prepared to match God’s challenge to them, recorded in Exod. 19:5–6: “Now therefore, if you will obey my voice …” (rsv).

Then follows the divine recitation of the Decalogue and the mediation of the Covenant Code laws through Moses (Exodus 20–23; 24:3a, 7), plus their inscription (24:4). Unanimously the people affirm their acceptance of and future loyalty to the word of the Lord—and not once, but twice (Exod. 24:3b, 7b)! That the commitment was made in total sincerity is without doubt (as was Peter’s “Lord, I am ready to go with you to prison and to death”). However, as the events of ch. 32 confirm, such a profession of loyalty proved to be short-lived. But at no point does Moses raise a question about the people’s integrity. He takes them at their word.

To clinch the covenant agreement, Moses builds an altar at the bottom of the mountain, as he did in 17:15, and he has the appropriate persons offer sacrifices to the Lord (the Hebrew word for “altar” means “place of sacrifice”). Half of the blood from the slain animals is thrown against this altar, and the other half is sprinkled over the people. This particular ritual probably speaks of commitment by both sides to this new relationship. The Lord, here represented by the altar, binds himself to his people. He will not be faithless. Similarly, the people commit themselves. After all, can there be any kind of meaningful relationship if the commitment is not mutual? As Janzen (1997: 187) suggests, “Blood also implies a life so committed to the covenant relation that it is prepared to lay itself down for the sake of that relation.” There may be another explanation for this ritual where blood is sprinkled first on the altar (v. 6) and then on the people (v. 8). The one other occurrence of this is at the time of the consecration of the priests. The blood of the sacrifice is first sprinkled on the altar (Exod. 29:20; Lev. 8:24) and then on Aaron and his sons (Exod. 29:21; Lev. 8:30). Furthermore, both episodes also include eating scenes (Exod. 24:11b and Exod. 29:22–34; Lev. 8:31–36). As Gen. 26:30 and 31:54 indicate, covenants often were sealed and celebrated with a meal (as in a wedding reception of today). So, before God anoints and consecrates one (small) part of his people (the priestly clergy) to his service, he anoints and consecrates all of his covenant people to his service.

With this ceremony behind him, Moses is now free, along with a select group, to ascend the mount. The language is nothing short of astounding: “they saw the God of Israel … they beheld God” (Exod. 24:10–11 nrsv); and subsequently they were treated to a heavenly banquet: they “ate and drank.” Not surprisingly, no conversation is recorded.

First, seventy-four men were distinguished from the people (Exod. 24:9). Then Moses is removed from this group (24:12), but only after waiting six days. What then happens brings us back into the milieu of ch. 19. God’s glory as a devouring fire envelops the mountain, and Moses too. For Moses, the mountain’s peak is his Holy of Holies, into which he enters, unaccompanied, surely with an accelerated heartbeat.

It is interesting to compare this situation, where Moses “entered the cloud” (v. 18) as he went up the mountain, with 40:35, which states that “Moses could not enter the Tent of Meeting because the cloud had settled upon it, and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle” (niv). At Sinai (in contradistinction to the tabernacle, where Moses is not admitted into the divine cloud) he is admitted into the divine cloud. About the only way we can put these two side by side (permission granted, permission denied) is to assume that what Moses was allowed to do at Sinai was a one-time, unique, unrepeatable experience. Anytime Moses enters the tabernacle it is to hear the voice of God, not to see him, his view of the ark being blocked by the veil/curtain.

The Sinai Theophany and Covenant (Exodus 19–24)

Alexander, T. D. 1999. “The Composition of the Sinai Narrative in Exodus xix i–xxiv ii.” VT 49:2–20.

Arichea, D. C., Jr. 1989. “The Ups and Downs of Moses: Locating Moses in Exodus 19–33.” BT 40:244–46.

Blenkinsopp, J. 1992. The Pentateuch: An Introduction to the First Five Books of the Bible. New York: Doubleday.

———. 1997. “Structure and Meaning in the Sinai-Horeb Narrative.” In A Biblical Itinerary: In Search of Method, Form and Content; Essays in Honor of George W. Coats. Ed. E. Carpenter. JSOTSup 240. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Pp. 109–25.

Brettler, M. Z. 2000. “The Many Faces of God in Exodus 19.” In Jews, Christians, and the Theology of the Hebrew Scriptures. Ed. A. O. Bellis and J. S. Kaminsky. SBLSymS 8. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. Pp. 353–67.

Dozeman, T. B. 1989a. “Spatial Form in Exodus 19:1–8a and in the Large Sinai Narrative.” Semeia 46:87–101.

———. 1989b. God on the Mountain: A Study of Redaction, Theology and Canon in Exodus 19–24. SBLMS 37. Atlanta: Scholars Press.

Eichrodt, W. 1961–1967. Theology of the Old Testament. Trans. J. Baker. 2 vols. OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster.

Gowan, D. E. 1994. Theology in Exodus: Biblical Theology in the Form of a Commentary. Louisville: Westminster John Knox.

Hague, M. R. 2001. The Descent from the Mountain: Narrative Patterns in Exodus 19–40. JSOTSup 323. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.

Hendel, R. S. 1989. “Sacrifice as a Cultural System: The Ritual Symbolism of Exodus 24,3–8.” ZAW 101:366–90.

Hilber, J. W. 1996. “Theology of Worship in Exodus 24.” JETS 39:177–89.

Mendenhall, G. E. 1990. “Covenant.” Encyclopaedia Britannica. 15th ed. 32 vols. Chicago and London: Encyclopaedia Britannica. Vol. 5, pp. 226–30.

Muilenburg, J. 1959. “The Form and Structure of the Covenantal Formulations.” VT 9:347–65.

Nicholson, E. W. 1974. “The Interpretation of Exodus xxiv 9–11.” VT 24:77–97.

———. 1975. “The Antiquity of the Tradition in Exodus xxiv 9–11.” VT 25:69–79.

———. 1976. “The Origin of the Tradition in Exodus xxiv 9–11.” VT 26:148–60.

———. 1986. God and His People: Covenant and Theology in the Old Testament. Oxford: Clarendon.

Phillips, A. 1984. “A Fresh Look at the Sinai Pericope—Part 2.” VT 34:282–94. Repr., in Essays on Biblical Law. JSOTSup 344. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002. Pp. 37–48.

Rad, G. von. 1962. Old Testament Theology. Trans. D. M. G. Stalker. 2 vols. New York: Harper & Row. Vol. 1, pp. 190–219.

Rendtorff, R. 1989. “ ‘Covenant’ as a Structuring Concept in Genesis and Exodus.” JBL 108:385–93. Repr., in Canon and Theology: Overtures to an Old Testament Theology. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993. Pp. 125–34.

Schramm, B. 2000. “Exodus 19 and Its Christian Appropriation.” In Jews, Christians, and the Theology of the Hebrew Scriptures. Ed. A. O. Bellis and J. S. Kaminsky. SBLSymS 8. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. Pp. 327–52.

Van Seters, J. 1988. “ ‘Comparing Scripture with Scripture’: Some Observations on the Sinai Pericope of Exodus 19–24.” In Canon, Theology and Old Testament Interpretation: Essays in Honor of Brevard S. Childs. Ed. G. M. Tucker et al. Philadelphia: Fortress. Pp. 111–30.

Weinfeld, M. 1975. “Berith.” TDOT 2:253–79.

The Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:1–21)

Barclay, W. 1974. The Ten Commandments for Today. New York: Harper & Row.

Bright, J. 1973. “The Apodictic Prohibition: Some Observations.” JBL 92:185–204.

Brooks, R. 1990. The Spirit of the Ten Commandments: Shattering the Myth of Rabbinic Legalism. San Francisco: Harper & Row.

Brown, W. P., ed. 2004. The Ten Commandments: The Reciprocity of Faithfulness. Library of Theological Ethics. Louisville: Westminster John Knox.

Cassuto, U. 1967. A Commentary on the Book of Exodus. Jerusalem: Magnes.

Childs, B. S. 1974. The Book of Exodus: A Critical, Theological Commentary. OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster.

Clines, D. J. A. 1995. “The Ten Commandments, Reading from Left to Right.” In Words Remembered, Texts Renewed: Essays in Honour of J. F. A. Sawyer. JSOTSup 195. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Pp. 97–112.

Curtis, E. M. 1985. “The Theological Basis for the Prohibition of Images in the Old Testament.” JETS 28:277–87.

Greeley, A. M. 1975. The Sinai Myth: A New Interpretation of the Ten Commandments. New York: Doubleday.

Greenberg, M. 1971. “Decalogue.” EncJud 5:1435–46.

Haggerty, B. A. 1978. Out of the House of Slavery: On the Meaning of the Ten Commandments. New York: Paulist Press.

Harrelson, W. 1980. The Ten Commandments and Human Rights. Philadelphia: Fortress.

Heschel, A. J. 1954. Man’s Quest for God: Studies in Prayer and Symbolism. New York: Scribner.

Johnstone, W. 1988. “The Decalogue and the Redaction of the Sinai Pericope in Exodus.” ZAW 100:361–85.

Mendenhall, G. E. 1973. The Origins of the Biblical Tradition. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Miller, P. D., Jr. 1989. “The Place of the Decalogue in the Old Testament and Its Law.” Int 43:229–42.

Napier, B. D. 1963. The Book of Exodus. The Layman’s Bible Commentary 3. Richmond: John Knox.

Nicholson, E. W. 1977. “The Decalogue as the Direct Address of God.” VT 27:422–33.

Patrick, D. 1995. “The First Commandment in the Structure of the Pentateuch.” VT 45:107–18.

Phillips, A. 1970. Ancient Israel’s Criminal Law: A New Approach to the Decalogue. Oxford: Blackwell.

———. 1983. “The Decalogue—Ancient Israel’s Criminal Law.” JJS 34:1–20. Repr., in Essays on Biblical Law. JSOTSup 344. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002. Pp. 2–24.

———. 1984. “A Fresh Look at the Sinai Pericope—Part 1.” VT 34:39–52. Repr., in Essays on Biblical Law. JSOTSup 344. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002. Pp. 25–37.

Provan, I. 2001. “ ‘All These I Have Kept Since I Was a Boy’ (Luke 18:21): Creation, Covenant and the Commandments of God.” Ex Auditu 17:31–46.

Segal, Ben-Zion, ed. 1985. The Ten Commandments in History and Tradition. Jerusalem: Magnes.

Stamm, J. J., and M. E. Andrews. 1967. The Ten Commandments in Recent Research. Naperville, Ill.: Allenson.

Tappy, R. E. 2000. “The Code of Kingship in the Ten Commandments.” RB 107:321–33.

Trueblood, E. 1972. Foundations for Reconstruction. Waco, Tex.: Word.

Weinfeld, M. 1973. “The Origin of the Apodictic Law: An Overlooked Source.” VT 23:63–75.

Williams, J. G. 1971. Ten Words of Freedom: An Introduction to the Faith of Israel. Philadelphia: Fortress.

Wolff, H. W. 1974. “The Elohistic Fragments in the Pentateuch.” In The Vitality of Old Testament Traditions, by H. W. Wolff and W. Brueggemann. Atlanta: John Knox. Pp. 67–82.

Wouk, H. 1959. This Is My God. New York. Doubleday.

The Covenant Code (Exodus 20:22–23:33)

Anderson, C. B. 2004. Women, Ideology, and Violence: Critical Theory and the Construction of Gender in the Book of the Covenant and Deuteronomic Law. New York: Continuum.

Blenkinsopp, J. 1995. Wisdom and Law in the Old Testament: The Ordering of Life in Israel and Early Judaism. Rev. ed. New York: Oxford University Press. Pp. 94–102.

Carmichael, C. M. 1972. “A Singular Method of Codification in the Mishpatim.” ZAW 84:19–25.

———. 1992. The Origins of Biblical Law: The Decalogues and the Book of the Covenant. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.

Elison, H. L. 1973. “The Hebrew Slave: A Study in Early Israelite Society.” EvQ 45:30–35.

Fensham, F. C. 1976. “The Role of the Lord in the Legal Sections of the Covenant Code.” VT 26:262–74.

Finkelstein, J. J. 1981. The Ox That Gored. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 71.2. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society.

Fuller, R. 1994. “The Miscarriage Interpretation and the Personhood of the Fetus.” JETS 37:169–84.

Gordon, C. H. 1965. The Ancient Near East. New York: Norton.

Greenberg, M. 1960. “Some Postulates of Biblical Criminal Law.” In Yehezkel Kaufmann Jubilee Volume. Ed. M. Haran. Jerusalem: Magnes. Pp. 5–28.

Greengus, S. 1992. “Law.” ABD 4:242–65.

———. 1976. “Law in the Old Testament.” IDBSup 532–37.

———. 1994. “Some Issues Relating to the Comparability of Laws and the Coherence of the Legal Tradition.” In Theory and Method in Biblical and Cuneiform Law: Revision, Interpolation and Development. Ed. B. M. Levinson. JSOTSup 181. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Pp. 60–87.

Hallo, W. W., and W. K. Simpson. 1971. The Ancient Near East: A History. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Hanson, P. D. 1977. “The Theological Significance of Contradiction within the Book of the Covenant.” In Canon and Authority. Ed. G. W. Coats and B. O. Long. Philadelphia: Fortress. Pp. 110–31.

Haran, M. 1979. “Seething a Kid in Its Mother’s Milk.” JJS 30:23–35.

Hoffner, H. A., Jr. 1975. “Hittites.” In Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia. Ed. C. F. Pfeiffer, H. F. Vos, and J. Rea. 2 vols. Chicago: Moody. Vol. 1, pp. 799–801.

Jackson, B. S. 1972. Theft in Early Jewish Law. New York: Oxford University Press.

———. 1973a. “Reflections on Biblical Criminal Law.” JJS 24:8–38.

———. 1973b. “The Problem of Exod. xxi 22–25 (ius talionis).” VT 23:273–304.

———. 1975. Essays in Jewish and Comparative Legal History. SJLA 10. Leiden: Brill.

———. 1979. “Legalism.” JJS 30:1–22.

Kline, M. 1977. “Lex Talionis and the Human Fetus.” JETS 20:193–201.

Lemeche, N. P. 1975. “The Hebrew Slave: Comments on the Slave Law, Ex xxi 2–11.” VT 25:129–44.

———. 1976. “Manumission of Slaves—The Fallow Year—The Sabbatical Year—The Yobel Year.” VT 26:38–59.

Levinson, B. M., ed. 1994a. Theory and Method in Biblical and Cuneiform Law: Revision, Interpolation and Development. JSOTSup 181. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.

———. 1994b. “The Case for Revision and Interpolation within the Biblical Legal Corpora.” In Theory and Method in Biblical and Cuneiform Law: Revision, Interpolation and Development. Ed. B. M. Levinson. JSOTSup 181. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Pp. 37–59.

Lowenstamm, S. E. 1977. “Exodus xxi 22–25.” VT 27:352–60.

Malul, M. 1990. The Comparative Method in Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical Legal Studies. AOAT 227. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag.

McKay, J. W. 1971. “Exodus xxiii 1–3, 6–8: A Decalogue for the Administration of Justice in the City Gate.” VT 21:311–25.

Mendenhall, G. E. 1954. “Law and Covenant in Israel and in the Ancient Near East.” BA 17 (2):26–46.

Olson, D. T. 1996. “The Jagged Cliffs of Mount Sinai: A Theological Reading of the Book of the Covenant (Exod. 20:22–23:19).” Int 50:251–63.

Olyan, S. M. 1996. “Why an Altar of Unfinished Stones? Some Thoughts on Ex 20,25 and Dtn 27,5–6.” ZAW 108:161–71.

Oppenheim, A. L. 1977. Ancient Mesopotamia: Portrait of a Dead Civilization. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Patrick, D. 1973. “Casuistic Law Governing Primary Rights and Duties.” JBL 92:180–87.

———. 1977. “The Covenant Code Source.” VT 27:145–57.

———. 1978. “I and Thou in the Covenant Code.” In SBLSP 1978. Ed. P. J. Achtemeier. Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press. Vol. 1, pp. 71–86.

———. 1985. Old Testament Law. Atlanta: John Knox.

Paul, S. 1970. Studies in the Book of the Covenant in the Light of Cuneiform and Biblical Law. VTSup 18. Leiden: Brill.

———. 1971. “Book of the Covenant.” EncJud 4:1214–17.

Sprinkle, J. M. 1993. “The Interpretation of Exodus 21:22–25 (lex talionis) and Abortion.” WTJ 55:233–53.

———. 1994. The Book of the Covenant: A Literary Approach. JSOTSup 174. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.

Tate, M. 1977. “The Legal Traditions of the Book of Exodus.” RevExp 74:483–509.

Van Seters, J. 1996. “The Law of the Hebrew Slave.” ZAW 108:534–46.

Wenham, G. J. 1971. “Legal Forms in the Book of the Covenant.” TynB 22:95–102.

Westbrook, R. 1986. “Lex Talionis and Exodus 21, 22–25.” RB 93:52–69.

———. 1988. Studies in Biblical and Cuneiform Law. Cahiers de la Revue biblique 26. Paris: Gabalda.

———. 1994a. “The Deposit Law of Exodus 22, 6–12.” ZAW 106:390–404.

———. 1994b. “What Is the Covenant Code?” In Theory and Method in Biblical and Cuneiform Law: Revision, Interpolation and Development. Ed. B. M. Levinson. JSOTSup 181. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Pp. 15–36.

Wright, D. P. 2003. “The Laws of Hammurabi as a Source for the Covenant Collection (Exodus 20:23–23:19).” Maarv 10:11–87.

10

Tabernacle, the Golden Calf, and Covenant Renewal

Exodus 25–40

Quite possibly the last major unit of Exodus (that dealing with the tabernacle) seems anticlimactic, maybe even tedious, for many modern readers of the Old Testament. Who, having made some general observations about these chapters, might have an abiding interest in their content except perhaps an interior decorator or architect? Nevertheless, Scripture has given us an intricate description of the tabernacle, a description that ranges over sixteen chapters, from divine orders to build (25–31), to interruption and delay of implementation because of apostasy (32–34), to final execution of the divine mandate (35–40). The movement is from instruction (25–31) to interruption (32–34) to implementation (35–40). Sandwiched in between two sections (25–31 and 35–40) that deal with proper worship of God and building what God wants his people to build is a section (32–34) that deals with improper worship of God and building/making what God does not want his people to build/make. One may also discern that Exodus begins and ends with Israelites building something. At the beginning they are forced to build store cities for Pharaoh (1:11); at the end they choose to build a portable place of worship where God may dwell in their midst.

The Tabernacle (25–31; 35–40)

Most of the concerns of biblical scholarship vis-à-vis the tabernacle have been with historical questions, to the virtual neglect of theological analysis. The late-nineteenth-century formulation of Julius Wellhausen has been revised but not abandoned. It was his contention that the account in Exodus about the tabernacle is fictional, that indeed no such edifice ever existed during the wilderness period. Rather, the story was composed in the late exilic period, using the Solomonic temple as a model.

Historical Analysis

Wellhausen based his conclusions on the following considerations. First, can we believe that the Israelites had available in the desert sufficient quantities of the necessary metals and fabrics? To be sure, verses such as Exod. 12:35–36 (also 3:21, 22; 11:2–3) inform us that the Israelites did not leave Egypt empty-handed. Exodus 38:21–31 summarizes the amounts of gold, silver, and bronze used. Following R. B. Y. Scott on Hebrew weights and their approximate modern equivalents, Brevard Childs (1974: 637) calculates 1,900 pounds of gold, 6,437 pounds of silver, and 4,522 pounds of bronze as the respective amounts of precious metals used in the building of the tabernacle—altogether, slightly less than 13,000 pounds, or 6.5 tons, of metal.

As an extension of this, Wellhausen doubted whether the Israelites possessed the necessary skills to work with these metals in the wilderness, to say nothing of engineering and carpentry skills. This is a stronger objection when it is recalled that considerably later Solomon had to import Phoenician artisans as construction supervisors to build the temple (1 Kings 7:13–14) rather than use indigenous laborers.

Second, Wellhausen observed the virtual silence of Scripture on the role of the tabernacle after the conquest. The references are indeed few, and these are limited primarily to identifying where it was erected in Palestine (Josh. 18:1; 19:51; 1 Sam. 1:7; 2:22). This paucity of allusions raised suspicions in his mind about the historicity of a tabernacle in the wilderness, if indeed it was as pivotal as Exodus would lead us to believe.

For various reasons modern scholars have divorced themselves from the total skepticism of Wellhausen on this subject. The consensus now is that probably there did exist in the time of Moses some kind of simple tent shrine, reflected in the key text Exod. 33:7–11. Here the reference is to a much smaller edifice, situated outside, not in the middle, of the camp. The details in Exodus 25–31 and 35–40 are then dismissed as a much later exaggerated priestly tale of an unspectacular tent. But one may wonder if the tent mentioned in 33:7–11 ever functioned as the designated place of worship and the place from which God spoke to his people. Could it be that this tent is a provisional substitute for the more permanent tent in the middle of the camp, brought on by the idolatry in the preceding chapter (Moberly 1983: 63–66, 171–77)? In the preceding paragraph (33:1–6) God has spoken of the removal of his presence from the people because of their sinful idolatry, and so perhaps we should see this tent in that context. The fact that this tent is spoken of twice in one verse (v. 7) as “outside the camp,” and is further qualified as being “some distance away/farther away,” reinforces such an interpretation of this tent in the larger context of chs. 32–33.

Innumerable suggestions have been made in an attempt either to mesh P’s ornate tabernacle and E’s simple tent (i.e., two mutually exclusive descriptions of the same phenomenon) or to distinguish between the two structures in terms of purpose and provenance. The latter approach is the minority approach. However, the assumption that we are dealing with two different phenomena—and no text in Exodus demands that the two are interchangeable—obviates the need for much hypothetical reconstruction of the history of the tabernacle (Feinberg 1975: 582).

Theological Analysis

We may make the following observations about the tabernacle as described in these chapters of Exodus.

In the tabernacle there are seven pieces of furniture, if we assume that the carved cherubim are decorative extensions of the mercy seat. Can the number of furniture pieces be fortuitous?

The articles of clothing worn by those officiating in the tabernacle number eight, four of which are worn by the high priest alone (the ephod [28:6–12]; the breastpiece of judgment [28:15–30]; the ephod’s robe [28:31–35]; a turban [28:36–38]), and four more that are worn by all the priests (a coat, girdle, cap, and linen breeches [28:40–42]). The only part of the human body not covered is the feet, perhaps indicating that the priests performed their tasks barefooted (compare God’s command to Moses and Joshua to remove their shoes in his presence [Exod. 3:5; Josh. 5:15]).

Figure 5

God does not delegate the responsibility for designing the tabernacle to any building or advisory committee. He alone is architect. The tabernacle, no less than the Decalogue, is rooted in divine revelation. Therefore, one is not surprised to encounter the frequently repeated phrase “he [or ‘they’] did [or ‘put’] … as the Lord had commanded Moses” in the closing chapters of Exodus. It appears ten times in ch. 39 (vv. 1, 5, 7, 21, 26, 29, 31, 32, 42, 43) and eight times in ch. 40 (vv. 16, 19, 21, 23, 25, 27, 29, 32). It also appears twice in ch. 36 (vv. 1, 5). Thus God’s commands are for execution and implementation, not for consideration and discussion.

The materials necessary for the tabernacle and the priestly vestments are to come from the freewill offerings of the people. No one is taxed or assigned dues or apportionments. The giving is voluntary (25:1–7, especially v. 2). The response to Moses’ appeal was overwhelming. Unlike many clergy who often beg and cajole for monies, Moses had to restrain the people from further giving—a magnanimous spirit on the part of the congregation indeed (36:2–7)!

The description of the furniture of the tabernacle starts with the pieces at the center and works outward, but not consistently so. And in the sections dealing with the actual construction, the order of completion is different from the order of instruction. See table 7.

Table 7

Instruction

Completion

Holy of Holies

ark

mercy seat

25:10–16

25:17–22

ark

mercy seat

37:1–5

37:6–9

Holy of Holies

The Holy Place

table of shewbread

lampstand

25:23–30

25:31–40

table of shewbread

lampstand

37:10–16

37:17–24

The Holy Place

Outer Court

bronze altar

27:1–8

altar of incense

37:25–28

Outer Court

The Holy Place

altar of incense

30:1–10

bronze altar

38:1–7

The Holy Place

Outer Court

laver

30:17–21

laver

38:8

Outer Court

In the left-hand column what is most intriguing is the separation by two chapters (28–29) of the command to build the incense altar (30:1–10) from the previous commands about the furniture. Responding to scholars who view this particular paragraph as a later interpolation, Menahem Haran (1978: 228–29) remarks, “No doubt the literary form in which P has come down to us does not satisfy the requirements of classical taste … but such phenomena … cannot be taken as an argument for splitting up the sources into different strata.” There may be, however, an explanation in the text as to why the description of the incense altar is not joined with that of the other inner sancta in ch. 25. Jacob Milgrom (1991: 236–37) observes that God’s instructions to Moses fall into two parts: the tabernacle in blueprint (25:1–27:19) and the tabernacle in operation (27:20–30:38). The incense altar comes in the second section because it is described functionally (30:7–8). The same explanation applies as to why the laver in the courtyard is delayed until later in chs. 26–31 (30:17–21), where its use or purpose is revealed.

The text of Exodus itself should caution us against reading too much symbolic interpretation into the tabernacle. To detect in each piece of furniture, in each fabric, in each curtain ring, in each color some hidden meaning is more speculative than exegetical.

Similarly, modern attempts to assert the superiority of the tent or tabernacle over the later temple seem liable to the same charge. Thus Walter Brueggemann (1979: 169–70) states, “The old tradition of ‘tent’ asserts a claim of mobility and freedom for God. The ‘house’ tradition … stresses the abiding presence of Yahweh to Israel.… Now the notion of presence is primary and God’s freedom is severely constricted.” I respond by asking, Does the Old Testament clearly delineate such a tension? Is such friction the transparent witness of Scripture?

There is symbolism in the portrayal of the tabernacle. The symmetrical dimensions bear this out. The length of the court is twice that of the width. The Holy Place is twice the size of the Holy of Holies. The latter is a cube of ten cubits.

The choice of metals is indicative of greater degrees of sanctity: the more crucial the object, the more precious the metal used to make it. The term “pure gold” is applied only to the furniture of the tabernacle proper: the ark (25:11), the mercy seat (25:17), the table of shewbread (25:24), the lampstand (25:31, 36, 38, 39), the altar of incense (30:3). By contrast, the altar and the laver in the court are made of bronze or copper (27:2, 4, 6; 30:17). Ordinary gold was used for the moldings, the rings and the poles (the latter used for carrying objects such as the ark). In the case of the ark, these poles were never to be pulled out of the rings (25:15). The use of silver was limited to objects such as the base of a pillar near the veil (26:32) or rods joining the pillars around the edge of the court (27:10).

The same gradation applies to fabrics. The most crucial piece of fabric is the veil, separating the Holy Place from the Holy of Holies. Primarily it is made of blue, purple, and crimson wools, along with fine linen (26:31). The tabernacle curtains are just the opposite: primarily a fine linen product, along with the blue, purple, and crimson wool (26:1). Last are the curtains of goat’s hair (26:7).

Parallels between the Passages about Creation and the Tabernacle

In the discussion of Joseph’s story in Genesis I showed some parallels between the beginning and end of the Book of Genesis. Some scholars have suggested parallels between the beginning of Genesis and the end of Exodus, or more specifically, between creation and tabernacle. Thus, P. J. Kearney (1977) relates the seven divine speeches in chs. 25–31 (25:1; 30:11; 30:17; 30:22; 30:34; 31:1; 31:12) to the seven days of creation, noting parallels between each day and each corresponding divine speech in Exodus about the tabernacle. Some of these parallels appear forced, while others appear to have validity, especially those involving days six and seven and speeches six and seven. Exodus 25–31 is creation. Exodus 32–33 is the fall. Exodus 34–40 is the restoration.

Somewhat differently, Joseph Blenkinsopp (1976: 280; 1977: 62) unites the two by isolating vital parallel phrases in both the creation and tabernacle sections. With Blenkinsopp’s argument as a guide, it is convenient to structure the passages as I have done in figure 6.

Further, binding the two together is the reference to “the Spirit of God” in both the creation of the world and the creation of the tabernacle (Gen. 1:2; Exod. 31:3; 35:31). It should not escape us that the first individual filled with God’s Spirit was not a patriarch, a lawgiver, a prophet, or a judge, but an artisan, Bezalel, supervisor of the tabernacle project.

Parallels between Mount Sinai and the Tabernacle

Apart from the relationship of the tabernacle to creation, what, if any, is the relationship of the tabernacle to Sinai? It appears that Israel’s experience of God at Sinai in 19–24 is an archetype of the tabernacle. What the peak of Mount Sinai is in 19–24, the Holy of Holies is in 25–40. Only Moses may ascend to the former, and only Aaron may enter the latter. The very sight of Sinai’s summit is punishable by death (Exod. 19:21), and so is its tabernacle counterpart (Lev. 16:2). Joshua, Aaron, and seventy of the elders may go partway up Sinai’s slopes (Joshua going a bit higher than the others, possibly to the cloud perimeter [24:13]), but no farther. Only the priests may enter the Holy Place, but no farther. The third division is “at the foot of the mountain” (24:4 niv). Here is where all the people assemble and where Moses builds an altar. Its equivalent in the tabernacle is the forecourt area of the courtyard, where the people bring their sacrifices.

First, the tabernacle perpetuates Mount Sinai. At the conclusion of the revelation at Sinai we read, “The glory of the Lord settled on Mount Sinai, and the cloud covered it six days” (24:16 rsv); when the tabernacle was finished, “The cloud covered the tent of meeting, and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle” (40:34 nrsv). God’s presence, once on Sinai, is now over the tabernacle.

Figure 6

And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. (Gen. 1:31)

And Moses saw all the work, and behold, they had done it; as the Lord had commanded, so had they done it. (Exod. 39:43)

Thus the heavens and the earth were finished. (Gen. 2:1)

Thus all the work of the tabernacle of the tent of meeting was finished. (Exod. 39:32)

God finished his work which he had done. (Gen. 2:2)

So Moses finished the work. (Exod. 40:33)

So God blessed the seventh day. (Gen. 2:3)

And Moses blessed them. (Exod. 39:43)

Second, the tabernacle intensifies Mount Sinai. At the peak of Mount Sinai Moses “entered the cloud” (24:18). But when the same divine glory enshrouded the tabernacle, Moses “was not able to enter the tent of meeting” (40:35 nrsv). At Sinai the divine presence is penetrable; at the tabernacle the divine presence is initially impenetrable.

Third, the tabernacle completes Mount Sinai. Sinai is a marriage, the start of a new relationship. Now the partners must start to live together. In Sinai God has said, “I have chosen you”; in the tabernacle God has said, “I will dwell among the people of Israel, and will be their God” (29:43–46 rsv). Of course, it is precisely this divine presence that imparts sanctity to the tabernacle, not the gold or expensive fabrics or presence of the Levites. The tabernacle is holy only because it is the dwelling place of the holy God. If he leaves, all sanctity leaves.

Fourth, the tabernacle extends Mount Sinai. The Israelites cannot take a mountain with them when it is time to break camp, but they can take along a portable tent. To leave Sinai behind is not to leave the God of Sinai behind. The God whose presence at Sinai is restricted to the top of Sinai, where it is enshrouded in cloud, will be the God who will dwell in the midst of his people.

The tabernacle is the place where God and people can be closest to each other. Here God meets with his people (29:42–43). As such, the tabernacle is, as Davies (1962: 506) notes, “the principal bridgehead in the OT to the doctrine of the Incarnation.” God, who once dwelt among his people in an edifice, now dwells among us in Jesus Christ (John 1:14: “the Word made his dwelling [tabernacled] among us”; Col. 1:19: “For in him [the Son] all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell” [nrsv]).

For the author of Hebrews, the tabernacle or tent is a prefigurement of the heavenly tent. (Revelation 21:16 makes the same equation. “The holy city, the new Jerusalem” and the Holy of Holies are the only two things in Scripture explicitly said to be cubic in dimensions.) The latter is greater and more perfect. It is not made with hands (Heb. 9:11). Its officiating high priest is Jesus Christ. The point, then, of the New Testament use of the tabernacle is twofold: the dwelling of God in Jesus Christ in the incarnation, and the dwelling of God in heaven. In both the believer is brought into proximity with God.

The Golden Calf and Covenant Renewal (32–34)

Exodus 32 relates how, in the absence of Moses, the Israelites and Aaron built a golden calf at the foot of Sinai, an act of flagrant apostasy. These are the same people who recently had said, not once but twice, “All the words that the Lord has spoken we will do” (24:3, 7 nrsv). Converts and committed believers had become casualties, almost overnight. An affirmation of obedience was forgotten.

Clearly, Aaron emerges as the villain in the story. As far back as the preexodus days the Lord had said to Moses about Aaron, “Is there not Aaron?… I know that he can speak well.… He shall be a mouth for you” (4:14, 16 rsv); “Aaron your brother shall be your prophet” (7:1 rsv). This proved to be no understatement! Aaron talked so well and so convincingly that he became the leader in soliciting materials for the idolatrous calf (32:2–3) and in the actual construction (32:4)—and all this coated with religious praxis (32:5–6)! The setting is perfect for a prophet to intrude and say, “Has the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord?” (1 Sam. 15:22 nrsv).

To make matters worse, when confronted by his younger brother, Aaron is prepared to place all the blame on the people at large: “You know the people, that they are set on evil” (32:22 rsv). He is also audacious enough to gloss over his own participation in this fiasco: “They gave it [the gold] to me, and I threw it into the fire, and out came this calf!” (32:24 nrsv). The parallels between Aaron and Adam in Genesis 3 are obvious. Both claim that they did what they did because someone else incited them by giving them something (“The woman … she gave me some fruit … and I ate it” [Gen. 3:12 niv]; “They gave me the gold, and I threw it into the fire” [Exod. 32:24b]). Some scholars are not prepared to say that Aaron was not telling the truth, but rather that the story indeed presupposes that the calf emerged from the flame self-produced (see Loewenstamm 1967; 1975). This can hardly be the case, and besides, such an interpretation badly misses one of the points of the chapter: the contrast between the faithful Moses and the conniving Aaron.

If Aaron is villain, then Moses is hero. He is first intercessor. In language almost without equal for boldness in the Old or New Testaments, he urges God not to follow through on his intentions to wipe out his people (32:12). And to Moses’ pleadings God accedes: “And the Lord repented of/relented of/changed his mind about the evil that he thought to do to his people” (32:14). Said Pascal, “God instituted prayer to lend His creatures the dignity of causality.” Yehezkel Kaufmann (1960: 284–85) remarks that Moses does not “avert God’s wrath from Israel by rousing them to repentance; he intercedes on their behalf, invoking God’s promise to the patriarchs, and the glory of his name.” Such intercession is carried to the extent that Moses risks his own relationship with God: “If not, blot me out of the book that you have written” (32:32 nrsv; cf. Paul’s expression in Rom. 9:3).

The Old Testament uses the verb nāḥam (repent? relent? change one’s mind?) thirty-four times with God as subject. Two texts (Num. 23:19; 1 Sam. 15:29) teach that God, unlike human beings, never needs to repent of sin. And he never repents of his choice of David (Ps. 110:4). But in the other thirty-plus passages that speak of God repenting/relenting, many times God is said to repent of “evil” (not sin!), which in a version such as the niv is rendered as “calamity” or “disaster.” Sometimes God repents/relents of evil in response to somebody’s repentance (e.g., Jer. 18:8; 26:3; Jon. 3:9–10). At other times God repents/relents in response to somebody’s intercession on behalf of the guilty, as here in Exodus 32 and in Amos 7:3, 6. Extremes of interpretation should be avoided here. On the one hand, the note about divine repentance in Exodus 32 suggests that God, although sovereign, is not unbending and unyielding, that he takes our intercessions seriously, and that in his love and mercy he is unchangeable. On the other hand, the note about divine repentance in Exodus 32 should not be used to suggest that in intercessory prayer God can be won over to our side by a good argument and be persuaded to do what we would do if we were God. As Master (2002) has reminded us, Exodus 32 must be placed in the context of the message and argument of the whole book of Exodus. For example, a God who is open to changing his mind and who is looking for a willing, enthusiastic, obedient individual to lead his people out of Egypt certainly would have changed his mind about the Moses of chs. 3–6. And in chs. 7–14 God’s will is to liberate the Israelites, with or without the cooperation of Pharaoh. And in chs. 15–18 God will continue to lead the people toward Canaan and graciously meet their needs, their sin of grumbling notwithstanding. In ch. 32 God’s words to Moses about Israel’s future are couched more in the form of threatened judgment than decree, and as such they invite and stimulate a prophetic intercessory response from Moses. Thus what God does in Exodus 32 is best characterized by mercy, than by change of mind (Master 2002: 595).

But Moses is more than intercessor. There is no concession made to the people. In a fit of rage, not unlike Jesus in the temple, he casts the divinely made and inscribed tablets to the ground upon observing this scenario. After the calf is ground to powder, it is mixed with water, and the people are made to drink (32:20). It is still something of a mystery how, according to v. 20, one can (1) burn gold (unless “burn” in this instance means “smelt”), (2) grind gold to powder, and (3) grind to powder what has been burnt. Possibly the calf was encased in wood, or sat on a wooden pedestal, and that is what was burnt. But there is no clear support for that in the text. But there is no mystery in why Moses then made them “drink” the gold, now burnt and ground to powder, once he had scattered it on the waters. In another setting (Num. 5:11–31), a wife whose husband is suspicious of her fidelity is made to drink water taken (presumably) from the laver and mixed with dirt from the floor of the tabernacle (Num. 5:16–22). Imbibing such a potion will produce some kind of physical manifestation of guilt. The purpose of Moses making the people drink the mixture is not stated, but it may well be a means/ordeal to distinguish the innocent from the guilty, for how else would the Levites have known whom to strike down (Exod. 32:26–29)? Another item connecting Num. 5:11–31 and Exodus 32 is that both deal with the betrayal of an exclusive relationship: the (possibly) adulterous wife, and idolatrous Israel (see Janzen 1990: 607).

Still, it is for the people’s redemption and reclamation that Moses is ultimately concerned (32:30). In the presence of the people and Aaron he is critic, fulminator, and antagonist. In the presence of God he is mediator, intercessor, and protagonist.

Far from obliterating his people, God commands Moses to lead the congregation on, but God will supply a surrogate for his presence (32:34; 33:1–5). God’s refusal to be in the midst of his people is reinforced by the reference to the tent “outside the camp” to which Moses goes alone (33:7–11). God has become aloof.

If God is not finished with Israel, Moses is not finished with God. The intercessions of Moses, begun in ch. 32, continue into ch. 33. Moses asks of God, “Show me your ways.… Show me your glory” (vv. 13, 18 nrsv).

It is hard to miss the glaring contrast between “I will not go up among you” (33:3 nrsv) and “My presence will go with you” (33:14 nrsv). Childs (1974: 595) has caught the implication in Moses’ request: “God has said: ‘My presence will go with you.’ Moses replies: ‘If thy presence will not go, then do not make us leave this place.’ The effect is to minimize the partial concession in order to press for the full request. Indeed, what Moses is really after comes out clearly in his repetition of the phrase ‘I and thy people.’ God’s response had continued to attach itself to Moses himself. Moses shakes it off and demands that the response include the people.”

To both of Moses’ requests there is an answer. To the first, “Show me your ways,” the answer is, “My presence will go with you.” To the second, “Show me your glory,” the answer is, “I will make all my goodness pass before you [i.e., a visual revelation], and will proclaim before you my name [i.e., a conceptual revelation]” (33:19 rsv). The promise is then dropped and picked up in 34:6: “The Lord passed before him, and proclaimed, ‘The Lord, the Lord, a God merciful and gracious.…’ ” (nrsv). What follows is a description of God’s character, often referred to in Jewish tradition as the “thirteen attributes of God,” a list reflected in texts such as Num. 14:18; Neh. 9:17, 31; Ps. 86:15; 103:8; 145:8; Jer. 32:18; Joel 2:13; Jon. 4:2; Nah. 1:3. God is seen in what he does and how he acts.

Before, God himself had stood on the rock at Horeb (17:6); now, it is Moses’ turn to stand in a cleft of the rock and catch a fleeting glimpse of God’s back (33:23), much as Elijah did at Horeb/Sinai when the Lord passed by (1 Kings 19:11–13).

By ch. 34 we are prepared for covenant renewal. The language is reminiscent of Exodus 19: “Be ready in the morning.… No one shall come up with you … let no flocks or herds feed in front of that mountain.… The Lord descended in the cloud” (34:2–5).

Moses is still concerned about his congregation: “Go in the midst of us … pardon our iniquity and our sin and take us for thy inheritance” (34:9 rsv). There is no boastfulness here, nor is Moses attempting to exonerate himself. He identifies fully with his people.

Verses 10–26 are God’s words to all Israel, a kind of short version of the Covenant Code in 20:22–23:19. In both an “angel” figures prominently (23:20–23; 32:34; 33:1–2). First, God commands intolerance toward all pagan forms of worship (vv. 11–16). There is to be no yoking with unbelievers. Then follows in vv. 17–26 a selective sample of laws from both the Decalogue (34:17, 21) and the Book of the Covenant (34:23, 26). Of special interest is the law of 34:17: “Do not make cast idols.” Although it bears resemblance to the first two commandments of the Decalogue, it bears most directly on what happened with the golden calf in ch. 32. In other words, says God, let there be no repetition of the incident of the golden calf. These particular prohibitions or admonitions fall into one of two general categories: the prohibition of apostasy, and the observance of the cultic calendar. These are precisely the areas in which Israel trespassed in building the golden calf: erecting a forbidden idol, followed by a religious festival.

Fittingly, the chapter concludes with Moses’ descent from Sinai, his face aglow—a fact that becomes readily apparent to everyone except Moses himself (34:29–30). And how different is Moses’ descent from the mountain with tablets in hand in ch. 34 from his descent from the mountain with tablets in hand in ch. 32 (v. 15)! A beaming and radiant face replaces a face exuding rage. Childs (1974: 619) remarks, “The biblical story is concerned that the divine glow on Moses’ face should not be understood as a type of metamorphosis. Moses did not himself become a deity. He was unaware of any transformation. The whole point of the story emphasizes that his was only a reflection of God’s glory.” Indeed, this is the point of Psalm 8: human beings are made a little less than God and are crowned with glory and honor. Humankind is a reflection of God, but never an equal.

Verses 29–35 fall into two distinct units: what happened on this particular occasion (vv. 29–33), and what happens on all future occasions whenever Moses enters into God’s presence and mediates that revelation to Israel (vv. 34–35). Moses is the one through whom God’s glory shines, and he is the one through whom God’s word comes forth. To be sure, Moses is not made divine, but he is set apart from all his peers, including his older, priestly brother, Aaron. And all this is a gift of God. As Dozeman (2000: 29) comments, “Authority arises not from his [Moses’] own personality or charisma but only in his role as a channel for divine teaching.”

When the text says that Moses’ face was “radiant, shone” (vv. 29, 30, 35), it uses a verb that suggests “became horned.” Thus some scholars have argued that what happened here is that Moses wore a mask with horns, or he was disfigured in some way through too much access to the divine glory (Propp 1987)—that is, his face blistered and looked like little horns. That is hardly the case. It is likely that the writer chose a verb that refers to “horns” to describe Moses’ shining face in order to recall the golden calf/bull of ch. 32 and its horns. God is making Moses what the people wanted the calf to be, a mediator and representative of God’s presence (Moberly 1983: 109). The apostle Paul’s use of this incident (2 Cor. 3:7–18) teaches, among other things, that all disciples of Jesus reflect God’s glory (“we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the Lord’s glory” niv). A privilege once reserved for an extraordinary servant of God is now extended to even the most ordinary follower of the Messiah, in whose face God’s glory shines (2 Cor. 4:6).

The Tabernacle (Exodus 25–31; 35–40)

Abrahams, I. 1971. “Tabernacle.” EncJud 15:679–88.

Blenkinsopp, J. 1976. “The Structure of P.” Bib 38:275–92.

———. 1977. Prophecy and Canon: A Contribution to the Study of Jewish Origins. SJCA 3. Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press. Pp. 54–79.

Brueggemann, W. 1979. “Trajectories in OT Literature.” JBL 98:161–85.

Childs, B. S. 1974. The Book of Exodus: A Critical, Theological Commentary. OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster.

Cross, F. M., Jr. 1981. “The Priestly Tabernacle in the Light of Recent Research.” In Temples and High Places in Biblical Times. Ed. A. Biran. Jerusalem: Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology of Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion. Pp. 169–80.

Davies, G. Henton. 1962. “Tabernacle.” IDB 4:498–506.

Elnes, E. E. 1994. “Creation and Tabernacle: The Priestly Writers’ ‘Environmentalism.’ ” HBT 16:144–55.

Feinberg, C. 1975. “Tabernacle.” ZPEB 5:572–83.

Freidman, R. E. 1992. “Tabernacle.” ABD 6:292–300.

Gutmann, J. 1971. “The History of the Ark.” ZAW 83:22–30.

Haran, M. 1965. “The Priestly Image of the Tabernacle.” HUCA 36:191–226.

———. 1971a. “Priestly Vestments.” EncJud 13:1063–69.

———. 1971b. “Shewbread.” EncJud 14:1394–96.

———. 1978. Temples and Temple Service in Ancient Israel. Oxford: Clarendon.

Hurowitz, V. 1985. “The Priestly Account of Building the Tabernacle.” JAOS 105:21–30.

Jackson, J. J. 1995. “The Ark and Its Making.” HBT 17:117–22.

Kearney, P. J. 1977. “Creation and Liturgy: The P Redaction of Exodus 25–40.” ZAW 89:375–87.

Klein, R. W. 1996. “Back to the Future: The Tabernacle in the Book of Exodus.” Int 50:264–76.

Lewis, J. 1977. “The Ark and the Tent.” RevExp 74:28–44.

Longacre, R. E. 1995. “Building for the Worship of God: Exodus 25:1–30:10.” In Discourse Analysis of Biblical Literature: What It Is and What It Offers. Ed. W. R. Bodine. SemeiaSt. Atlanta: Scholars Press. Pp. 41–49.

McEvenue, S. E. 1974. “The Style of a Building Instruction.” Semitica 4:1–9.

Milgrom, J. 1991. Leviticus 1–16. AB 3. New York: Doubleday.

Motyer, J. A. 1974. “The God Who Is Sufficient: The Indwelling God (Exodus 25:1–40:38).” The Keswick Week, 111–21.

Rodriguez, A. M. 1986. “Sanctuary Theology in the Book of Exodus.” AUSS 24:29–37.

Woudstra, M. H. 1970. “The Tabernacle in Biblical-Theological Perspective.” In New Perspectives on the Old Testament. Ed. J. Barton Payne. Waco, Tex.: Word. Pp. 88–103.

The Golden Calf and Covenant Renewal (Exodus 32–34)

Bailey, L. R. 1971. “The Golden Calf.” HUCA 42:97–115.

Brichto, H. C. 1983. “The Worship of the Golden Calf: A Literary Analysis of a Fable on Idolatry.” HUCA 54:1–44.

Coats, G. W. 1977. “The King’s Loyal Opposition: Obedience and Authority in Exodus 32–34.” In Canon and Authority. Ed. G. W. Coats and B. O. Long. Philadelphia: Fortress. Pp. 91–109.

Dozeman, T. B. 2000. “Masking Moses and Mosaic Authority in Torah.” JBL 119:21–45.

Frankel, D. 1994. “The Destruction of the Golden Calf: A New Solution.” VT 44:330–39.

Halpern, B. 1976. “Levitic Participation in the Reform Cult of Jeroboam I.” JBL 95:31–42.

Hanson, A. 1976. “John 1:14–18 and Exodus 34.” NTS 23:90–101.

Honeycutt, R. L., Jr. 1977. “Aaron, the Priesthood, and the Golden Calf.” RevExp 74:523–35.

Irvin, W. H. 1997. “The Course of the Dialogue between Moses and Yhwh in Exodus 33:12–17.” CBQ 59:629–36.

Janzen, J. G. 1990. “The Character of the Calf and Its Cult in Exodus 32.” CBQ 52:597–607.

Kaufmann, Y. 1960. The Religion of Israel. Trans. M. Greenberg. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Knoppers, G. N. 1995. “Aaron’s Calf and Jeroboam’s Calves.” In Fortunate the Eyes That See: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of His Seventieth Birthday. Ed. A. B. Beck et al. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Pp. 92–104.

Laney, J. C. “God’s Self-Revelation in Exodus 34:6–8.” BSac 158:36–51.

Loewenstamm, S. E. 1967. “The Making and Destruction of the Golden Calf.” Bib 48:481–90.

———. 1975. “The Making and Destruction of the Golden Calf—A Rejoinder.” Bib 56:330–43.

Master, J. 2002. “Exodus 32 as an Argument for Traditional Theism.” JETS 45:585–98.

McCann, J. C., Jr. 1990. “Exodus 32:1–14.” Int 44:277–81.

Moberly, R. W. L. 1983. At the Mountain of God: Story and Theology in Exodus 32–34. JSOTSup 22. Sheffield: JSOT Press.

Newing, E. G. 1993. “Up and Down—In and Out: Moses on Mount Sinai; The Literary Unity of Exodus 32–34.” ABR 41:18–34.

Oswalt, J. 1973. “The Golden Calves and the Egyptian Concept of Deity.” EvQ 45:13–20.

Perdue, L. G. 1973. “The Making and Destruction of the Golden Calf—A Reply.” Bib 54:237–46.

Propp, W. H. 1987. “The Skin of Moses’ Face—Transfigured or Disfigured?” CBQ 49:375–86.

Sasson, J. M. 1968. “Bovine Symbolism in the Exodus Narrative.” VT 18:380–87.

Sommer, B. D. 2001. “Conflicting Constructions of Divine Presence in the Priestly Tabernacle.” BibInt 9:25–40.

Victor P. Hamilton, Handbook on the Pentateuch, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2005), 157–228.