Exodus 32:7-14 (II); How Quickly They Forget (II)

The Jewish tradition loves the next four verses (vv. 11-14) because it demonstrates something foundational to their religion, which is that people argue with God. There really isn't the sense that personal religion in Judaism is solely about command and submission. Rather, religion is about command, negotiation, reconsideration, and final decision. Judaism emphasizes the essential role of debate and argument with God. No one can study the Talmud without realizing that the reason the rabbis argued literally about everything is that they learned the science of argument from God. In one Talmudic passage God even shows delight because one of the rabbis has bested God in argument! Rather than being offended by the impertincence of creatures who want to argue, God seemingly longs for the conversation, the give and take, and occasionally, the compelling argument that the creature can bring. It is as if a parent sees the child mature and "hold his/her ground" against the parent in asserting independence or his/her own ability to reason. What parent wouldn't be pleased?

This, then, is the tone of vv. 11-14. God has told Moses what God plans to do. It is a devastating judgment, and it will no doubt be exercised with dispatch and severity. But Moses protests. Notice that the essence of Moses' protest is that he doesn't want to be separated from the people. The essence of God's word in v. 10 was that Moses would start a new people, that the old would be destroyed but that Moses would be the exemplar of fidelity, of people God could really use. But Moses will have none of it. He feels so connected to the people, so much a part of them, that he doesn't want to be removed from them. Thus, it will be cold comfort for Moses if he is spared and the rest of the people are destroyed.

Once we understand this basic principle, we also understand the threefold argument Moses gives to convince God to change the divine mind. Moses first argues that destruction is not a good thing because God brought up the people from Egypt. Notice the subtle changes in language in v. 11. Previously God had called the people "your people," (i.e., Moses' people--v. 7). Now Moses, having learned from God, is throwing it right back in the divine face. "O Lord, why does your wrath burn hot against your people?" (v. 11). Whose people are they anyway? Moses will say that they remain the divine people. That, friends, is really what this passage is about. Whose people are they? If Moses had agreed that they are "my people," then God would have had fewer qualms in destroying them. But Moses realized that though his fate was identified with the people, they really were people of the divine choice. This, then is Moses' first argument.

The second argument against God's expressed intention to destroy is almost an argument designed to shame God. Moses says, in essence, 'Look, God, if you destroyed the people you would give the Egyptians lots of reasons to gloat and to conclude that you simply are a malevolent deity. You would then have brought the people into the desert to starve. You would lose all credibility with everyone, God.' That, in essence, is Moses' second argument. God would have fatally injured the divine credibility by destroying the people whom God said were the creatures of his love and choice.

Moses will not stop here, but he advances a third argument. God shouldn't destroy the people for the sake of the patriarchs. It is not as if the patriarchs had built up a "treasury of merits," to use Childs' phrase (taken from medieval Roman Catholic theology). Rather they were the people of promise, the ones to whom God made all kinds of commitments in the past. In fact, v. 13 is almost a direct quotation of Gen. 15:2. Moses is skillfully using Scripture against God to try to wean the divine from the "unwise" course that God has decided to perform.

Thus in sum, Moses' argument is that by destroying the people, God will be destroying the divine credibility. Any further divine promises, choices, giftings and blessings will now be shrouded in a cloud. The word would get out that God simply destroys the work of the divine hand. Moses has argued like a rabbi! Indeed, one of the reasons that the Jewish tradition is renowned for its lawyers and eloquent spokespeople for the causes of human rights is that they have learned their techniques from "Moseh rabbenu" ("Moses our rabbi").

IV. Changing God's Mind

The passage ends with what to us is a paradox. God, the one who is unchangeable (doesn't theology tell us that?), changes the divine mind. God will decide not to bring disaster on the people. Some may say, "Well, God knew all along that no destruction would come on the people." But that is to miss the point of the story. It is portrayed as a story in which there is serious divine consideration, serious debate and a serious change of mind. We take away from the power of the narrative (and we ignore the beauty of argument in theology and in the Jewish tradition) if we too quickly let theology save us here. The text says that God changed the divine mind. Judgment would not be executed. Moses "persuaded" God to change.

So, the passage ends with a bit of a paradox for those of us who read it from a Christian perspective. We have a God who decisively will act, but we also have a God who will change the divine mind as a result of human argument. We have a God who will be "slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love" (34:7), a God who is "merciful and gracious," but who "by no means clears the guilty" (34:7). Does this mean that God does whatever God wants, whimsically being merciful one moment and then bringing irreparable judgment the next? I don't think so. It means that God is one who can be "reasoned with." God can be "appealed to" on the basis of history, personal experience and, if the second argument of Moses "holds," on the basis of shame.

Conclusion

One of the most freeing realizations we can have is to realize that God is one who can be argued with. We often hear that we can express our anger to God or our feelings, but the point this passage makes is slightly different. It is that we ought, like Moses, to "make our case" to God. And, God may not simply listen to all our words but may actually change the divine mind. Fancy that.

2879