Introduction
Exodus 33:12-23 describes an exchange between Moses and Yahweh that allows the audience to gain an understanding of God’s presence. This understanding is for both the original audience of people in biblical times, as well as for people reading the Bible today.
There is no agreement among biblical scholars about who wrote Exodus, though the two most widely held views are that either a “J” source contributed to the book (document hypothesis view,) or that Moses wrote the book. It is most likely that Moses wrote the book, as the way it is composed seems fitting that Moses was writing in the literary style of his time. For the purpose of studying this passage, the exegesis will be done according to the view that Moses was the author of Exodus. This being the case, the book was written by Moses sometime near the end of the forty-year period after the Israelites left Egypt and before they entered Canaan. Moses intended the book of Exodus to be for the second post exodus generation, as a reminder of who they were and what their origins had been. Along with this, he wanted the people to be reminded of what was required of them in the covenant God made with their parents in the generation preceding them.
During the time period in which Exodus takes place, there are many significant historical events occurring. Some of these events include: an increase in the population of Israelites in Northeast Egypt, the Egyptian population control plan that involved killing male infants, the plagues, and the national and international escape from Egypt, that being the “exodus.” In response to the crises occurring at this time, Exodus is often thought to be a theological response to these events.
Exodus is written in bifold composition, meaning there are two separate parts of the book that express different meanings or themes. The themes in Exodus are expressed through stories from an author’s point of view, and because of this the book of Exodus as a whole is considered to be a narrative genre. This means that the telling of historical events is from a narrator’s perspective. Exodus is commonly seen as containing a mixture of narration as well as law and liturgical matter, meaning the passages are and were used regularly in public worship. The Law is certainly a major portion of the book of Exodus, with the Ten Commandments being received by Israel at Sinai in the second half of the book, along with the specific instructions for the tabernacle given by Yahweh to the Israelites. The passage specifically being studied here is a narrative containing important theological concepts. Along with the two main genres of Exodus, there are two main themes that are expressed through the writing of Moses. The first is the theme of rescue from human bondage, and then the rescue from sin’s bondage. Another theme is the theme of servanthood, which begins with Israel being the servant of Pharaoh in Egypt, and then transitioning into Israel becoming God’s servants at Sinai, where the law is given.
Overall, it is most generally accepted that the core purpose of the writings in Exodus is covenantal liberation. This can be seen throughout the whole book, as well as in the specific text being studied.
Extended Exposition
The verses in Exodus 33:12-23 describe an event in history in which Yahweh and Moses have an interaction regarding the presence of God. However. in order to understand the deeper theological concepts of this passage, it is necessary to realize that this chapter proceeds the story of the Golden Calf, in which Israel rebelled and turned from God, causing Him to punish them by limiting His presence among the people. This created a sense of loss of God among the Israelites. Looking ahead from this point to the beginning of Chapter 33, the interaction in verses 12-23 can be even further understood by looking back to verses 7-11 of Chapter 33. In these verses, God allows His presence to be found within a tent. This tent was used by Moses as a tabernacle of meeting, and the Israelites who were seeking the Lord went there. According to many bible scholars, these verses and reference to the tent are used as a “pause,” or a way to relieve the pressure of the narrative. Because Israel’s future survival and well-being relied on the presence of Yahweh, this tent may have given the people assurance of Yahweh’s promise. These verses highlight the emphasis on presence in chapter 33 of Exodus that has many theological implications, and is expanded on in the verses being exegeted.
The verses being studied contain two major sections: the first being in verses 12-16, where an exchange occurs between Yahweh and Moses about presence. The second section of the passage, in verses 17-23, contains the final resolution, in which God grants a less than complete self-exposure.
Verses 12-16: Exchange Between Yahweh and Moses
The first section of this passage begins with Moses realizing that without God, he could achieve nothing. At this point, Israel had begun to panic over the state of their covenantal relationship with Yahweh. They had two main worries concerning presence: whether they would be able to continue being present as a nation, and whether God would be present with them on their continued journey to the promised land. As God’s representative, Moses wanted to act accordingly to God’s ways, which is why he asked for God to show him His “ways.” God’s presence has previously been denied to the rebellious people of Israel, so Moses also wanted to guarantee that presence to his people as well. These actions of Moses, asking for his people rather than for just himself, have been regarded as exemplary for those who are leaders in service to the Lord. Moses acting as an intercessor for his people here is an important concept of this passage. Before him, Abraham acted as an intercessor for his people; after him, Amos acted as an intercessor Israel, and finally; Jesus was the intercessor for all of humanity.
For Moses, in this passage, his plea to God is the first step in the bargaining process for God to give him His presence. Moses believed that just an angel was no substitute for God.One technique he uses is telling God that it is His presence with the people of Israel that makes them special and will stand out to the Gentiles in testimony. Moses also uses God’s own words in attempt to persuade God to concede to his requests. An example of this is that throughout Moses’s conversation with God, the phrase “māsā hēn bĕcênê” (to find favor/be pleased with) appears five times. This refers to God being pleased with Israel and Moses, and is used by both Moses and God. Moses uses it as a persuasive tool, as the words came from God himself describing Moses and his people.
Upon hearing Moses’s pleas, God makes two concessions: the first being that his presence will go with him, and the second being that He will give him rest. “To go” is translated from hlk, which was before seen in Exodus 33:1 with God commanding Moses and Israel “to go.” For this reason, God’s promise to Moses that He will make His presence “to go” with him gave Moses significant comfort, as it showed that God was committed to what he requires of the people.
The second part of the promise, the rest promised to Moses, has a few possible implications. The first implication is simply that Moses’s job of leading the people would be easier with God’s help. Another way that God has already given Moses rest here in this passage, is by His words and promises of reassurance. This is more of a personal rest from Moses’s anxieties about His leadership and the fate of Israel. By knowing that God will go with Him, Moses is granted this “rest.” However, the more likely audience for this statement was Israel as a whole. The “rest” was that which was already promised to the people, the promised land of rest in Canaan. Along with this, rest is an expression often used in the Pentateuch to describe entering a land and receiving rest from engaging in war with the enemies.
After God makes His first concession, Moses asks for more reassurance, not just for himself, but for all the people of Israel. A pertinent point to consider in verses 12-16 of chapter 33 is that the argument Moses uses serves the purpose of ensuring that the people of Israel will not be left behind. This is a concern Moses has after God’s punishment of withdrawing His presence from the people. In verse 14, God says to Moses “My Presence will go with you and I will give you rest.” Moses sees no benefit of entering the promised land, and in continual intercession for his people responds using the pronoun “us” to be sure that God is not excluding the people of Israel.
Verses 17-23: The Final Resolution
After God responds to Moses that He will make His “face” go with the people, Moses wishes for more- to see God’s glory. The word for glory here, “kavod,” literally means “weight,” and in this context this means the inner reality that makes up what is God’s character. To this request, God responds with four “I will” statements that provide assurance for Moses. He says: “I will cause all my goodness to pass in front of you, I will proclaim my name in your presence, I will have mercy…., and I will have compassion….” These statements are affirmative and direct- God does not hold back from Moses, as he is pleased with him and is ready to restore His covenant with Israel.
When God says that he will allow his “goodness” to pass in front of Moses, this means His whole character and nature. This goodness that God speaks of, rather than glory, is more abstract and is beyond any simple manifestation of the kind of God He is. Goodness, being an all-encompassing word for God’s characteristics, is all that His people need for well-being.
Along with the promise of His goodness, God promised to proclaim His name in front of Moses, a further aspect of His revelation. The original phrase here, “qārāh bĕsēm” is an idiom meaning “call on the name of” or “call out to.” Through this, God made his promise to Moses to speak His own name so that Moses would have no doubt of what he was experiencing. In the culture of the time of Exodus, a person’s name expressed much more about a person than simply just a name- it expressed something important or a type of power the person holds. This is true in the context of this passage, where the name of God shows His true power. The name of God includes his nature, character, person, and standards of living. It also includes characteristics that God mentions in this passage, “mercy” and “compassion.” These things were guaranteed to all of God’s covenant people, as well as to Moses specifically.
To Moses, what was more important than what he could see is what he could hear, which is this proclamation of God’s name. Hearing this was a special type of theophany. Unlike previous theophanies to Moses, such as the burning bush, in this case it was more important to Moses to know what kind of God he was experiencing than to physically see what kind of God his God is. The theophany promised here would reassure Moses by strengthening him and giving him confidence. Although Moses and other Old Testament figures receive God’s presence in theophanies, these are not a rule of God’s revelation to humans, rather, they are exceptions. God clearly has a special relationship with Moses, and because of this and His pleasure with Moses, He allowed him this experience. More often, God limits His presence to people, as He did initially in this chapter of Exodus.
The immediacy of both the first and second responses of God seem to demonstrate that a test of Moses was taking place in these verses. Because God is omniscient and omnipotent, He did not need persuasion to be argued down from a position he was holding to. Instead, here God acts as a teacher who desires a specific response from a student. Moses was a good student, and did as God wanted, which made God overjoyed.
An interesting aspect of God’s response to Moses is that it was not a complete revelation- He said that Moses could not see His face. God assured Moses that this would be more than any man could bear. When Moses interacted with God, what he saw of Him was his “tĕmunāh,” meaning his “likeness” or “depiction.” This word is paired in a parallel structure with the word pānayinn,” which means “face.” This implies that Moses was having a personal encounter with God, rather than meaning Moses could already see the face of God. Being able to physically see the face of God is only possible through Jesus Christ, veiled by human flesh, which He accomplished in His time on earth. The reason that humans cannot see the face of God is because God as He is, in all his divine mystery, is more than a living being can comprehend. Thus, humans must wait for Jesus.
After God promises to reveal himself to Moses, he gives Moses a location where the revelation will occur. In verse 21, he tells Moses he will stand “on a rock.” Following this in verse 22, God tells Moses that He will put him in a “cleft” in the rock and cover him with His hand. These references to the rocks indicate the specific location as Mt. Sinai. This makes sense, as Sinai had been God’s temporary dwelling place throughout the book of Exodus.
Finally, at the end of the passage being studied, God tells Moses that he will see God’s back rather than his face. This does not literally mean that Moses will see a physical “back” of God, but is anthropomorphism meaning “the after-effects” of all his glory. Another way to understand this is that Moses would understand God more fully in retrospect, in light of what he had done.
Overall, chapters 32-34 of Exodus are intended to convey a message of rebellion, mediation, and restoration. The mediation and restoration are the themes that are namely seen in the specific passage being studied here. In Chapter 34 of Exodus, the restoration of the covenant between Israel and God occurs with Moses going up to Mt. Sinai and getting the stone tablets. Here, God gives Moses further laws for the people of Israel, as well as more promises, such as the promise to do wonders with the nation of Israel. Because of God’s covenant with his people, He gives them grace and mercy despite their rebellious ways. The messages Moses intended for the post exodus generations to hear were both this message of God’s grace despite rebellion, as well as where they had come from and what God had done for them.
Conclusions
Overall, this passage is a passage that, with context, demonstrates not only the importance of God’s presence, but also the implications of God’s covenantal relationship with His people. Israel rebelled, and they were to be punished by God. With the absence of God, Israel was doomed to fail. However, with Moses acting as an intercessor, the people were given God’s grace. This was done without their efforts or work, but solely by God’s goodness. Moses intended for his audience to hear these words and this interaction, and to understand the restoration of the covenant that God allowed to happen despite the people’s sinful ways. Along with this, this passage of Exodus shows that without God’s presence, the people would be lost and unable to make a great nation for themselves. They would be no witness to the Gentiles, and would not survive or prosper in the Promised Land. Prior to this passage, in earlier chapters of Exodus, the law is clearly stated for the people to follow. This passage is not an excuse for the people to argue with God or to sin and still have God’s presence be with them, but rather a reminder of what God expects and what His true character is like. God is compassion, mercy, and goodness.
Without this bible passage, it would be hard to understand the importance of God’s presence, and what it truly means to experience His presence. For Moses, he was able to experience a revelation of God, but not fully see God’s “face,” for he would have to be in heaven to experience that. However, this passage allows the audience to see God in a way that shows His characteristics and why those things make His presence so magnificent.
The verses in this Bible passage are the climax of Chapters 32-34 of Exodus. They provide deep theological insight through the presentation Moses gives in his speech and communication with God. If read and understood properly, both from understanding of the original context and from an understanding of how the original meaning can apply to now, there is much value to the content of this passage.
Connections and Applications
The text being studied here in chapter 33 of Exodus is unique in that it depicts an image of God that most people today are uncomfortable with. Upon first reading, it seems that God is harsh to remove His presence from the people, which would ultimately lead to their downfall. This makes God appear condemning, angry, and jealous. It also raises the question of why God is so condemnatory in the beginning of this Old Testament, as opposed to the all-forgiving, loving God of the New Testament. This leads to one of the initial warnings of reading this passage and applying it to the world today- it is crucial to realize that this passage occurs before there is any official means of grace or atonement for the sin of mankind. The covenant is in place between God and Israel, and the punishment for breaking of the covenant is loss of relationship with God, meaning God is not unfair to punish the people for his rebellion in the beginning of chapter 33. Because the Savior had not yet come to earth and the New Covenant was not yet in place, this passage shows God as He used to be, not as He is. This is not to say that the nature of God himself has changed, it simply means that the mediator has not come yet at this time in history. For Israel, Moses was the mediator, and God was gracious in granting corporate compassion even though His favor was with Moses, who had remained faithful. It is clear to see here direct parallels between this Old Testament story and Moses’s intercession on behalf of his people, and the New Testament where Jesus was the intercessor for all of humanity.
Although human prayer in today’s world cannot “change” God’s mind, Moses does provide an example of what prayer and conversation with God can be like. It is natural for humans to engage God in a very “human” way, which is why logic and arguments are sometimes brought into prayer- because this is the level on which humans know how to interact with a non-human being. This is not wrong, but rather simply a fact of human relationship with God. God has favor with His beloved people, and sees them in a way similar to the way He looked upon Moses in their encounter.
Another interesting point to consider when applying this passage to the world today and current situations is God’s change of heart after Moses’s pleading with Him. If read without context or understanding, it seems that a person may be able to change God’s mind by simply presenting a good argument, or using God’s own words to convince Him to do what one wants. In this passage- the dilemma God was facing was true, he fully intended to destroy Israel. In the bible, there are different ways God is presented, depending on the overall goal of the passage or intended purpose. In some instances, God is presented in the most divine, heavenly way. In other cases, God is presented in human ways for the audience to better understand. Here, the author is focusing more on Moses’s role as intercessor than on God’s inner workings or divine characteristics. For this reason, it cannot be deduced that God will change His mind based on a prayer, for this would have implications regarding his omnipotence. It also is not to say that God does not care about prayers or that prayers are not effective, but the emphasis today is still on the intercessor- that is, Jesus Christ. Because of Him, mankind has access to God despite failure to keep humanity’s side of the covenant with God.
Along with God’s change of heart, it can be challenging not to apply God’s words of compassion and mercy to personal salvation and circumstances. God is compassionate and merciful to all His beloved people, but in this passage He is speaking to the Israelites specifically. This relates back to the overall purpose of Moses writing the book of Exodus- for the post- Exodus generation to see what God has done for them. God’s speaking of his compassion and mercy is a summary of what He has done for them in the past by bringing them out of slavery in Egypt.
Although it is not wise to begin applying each part of this passage, as much of it is specific to the original intended audience or Old Testament circumstances, there are some themes that are applicable to contemporary context. For example, there is a great deal of liturgical matter in this text relating to the parallels between Moses and Jesus as intercessors for Israel, or for all of mankind. Along with this, there is the overall theme of presence, which can certainly apply today. The people of God on Earth today experience God’s presence in a way similar to how Israel experienced it in Exodus- limited for now. God is present to His people through His own designated “tents” today, which can be seen as the church, where God has promised to be present. His presence is also available to His people through prayer and the power of the Holy Spirit. However, like Moses, God’s people on earth today are unable to fully know the “ways” of the Lord, or see His “face” until heaven, when God and His presence will be revealed in all His power and glory.
In application to the theme of “Sleep, Surrender, and Sabbath,” God makes a significant part of his promise to Moses the promise of rest. Whether this is rest on the individual level, just for Moses in his job of leading the people through the promised land, or rest on the level of all of Israel once they reach the promised land, God’s words here are important. In more than just this Bible passage, God gives a promise of rest to His people, making it clear that rest is something he finds to be valuable. God also shows He cares to ease Moses’s doubts and worries, giving him rest in this way. This can give assurance to people today that God desires for His people to have rest from their anxieties as well. Rest is a blessing given by God to mankind in His covenant with His people, and it is to be appreciated as one of God’s gracious gifts to the underserving and rebellious people.
Another important application of this passage is the implications of leadership and how servants of the Lord are to serve Him in a way He desires. God was pleased and found favor with Moses, as he was a faithful student. As mentioned before, Moses saw no benefit of entering the promised land alone, and persisted in pleading with God on behalf of all the people of Israel. This selfless nature is parallel with Jesus’s attitude towards His sacrifice- there is no glory in getting to the promised land of heaven alone, without the people God loves. It is also an example for earthly leaders and how God desires for people to approach Him- not with selfish requests, but with requests that will further His mission and hope for His people.
Finally, a small portion of this passage raises an interesting thought to ponder. In verse 23, when God tells Moses that he shall only see God’s back, this was previously discussed as being the “afterglow” of God’s glory, or that Moses would understand God more only after God’s revelation. If this can be applied to today, it is possible that all of humanity now will also not be able to fully see God’s “face” or fully understand Him until it is the “afterglow” that is being experienced, either in heaven or on the day of final judgment.
e…