Copyright
© 1982 by Westminster Theological Seminary, cited with permission.
REBELLION, PRESENCE, AND COVENANT:
A STUDY IN EXODUS 32-34
DALE RALPH DAVIS
Introduction
THE thesis
of this paper is that the narrative of Exodus 32-34
is a basic
unity, that it is more likely to stem from one original
hand than
from a number of contributors plus the final redactor,
and that the
connections and materials of the narrative itself re-
veal and
support such a unity. There is no claim
here that diffi-
culties are
non-existent--only that a real basic unity inheres in
the
narrative if it is approached by way of its canonical presenta-
tion. This in turn suggests a methodology: that the
text is to be
approached
holistically with a serious attempt to discern an inter-
nal
consistency if it be there. This is not
to rule out the place of
(source)
analysis; it is to say that analysis has a tendency to
begin too
soon, and thus not really to "hear" the text. Most of
our
attention will be focused on literary concerns with some con-
cluding
remarks about the theology of the unit.
The
Basic Unity of the Narrative
First of all, it is necessary to deal briefly
with the tradition of
32:1-6 which forms the backdrop for all three
chapters. It is, of
course,
rather common to see this tradition taken as a polemic
against
Jeroboam I's calf worship at Dan and
tion
projecting the condemnation backwards in order to denounce
it out of
the mouth of Moses.1 But this
is open to question. In 1
Kings 12 the
cult stems from Jeroboam's initiative, while here
1 So Martin Noth, A History of Pentateuchal Traditions
(
Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1972) 143; George
W. Coats, Rebellion in the
Wilderness (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1968) 185; and Ronald E.
Clements, Exodus (The
CUP, 1972) 206. For Jeroboam, see 1 Kgs
12:26ff.
71
72
the
groundswell comes from the people.
Moreover, if we are
intended to
see Aaron in the role of Jeroboam, then the repre-
sentation is
truly inept, for Aaron is here a sort of weak and
pressured
victim, while Jeroboam appears as the strong instiga-
tor. A more astute polemic than this would be
needed--Aaron
would have
had to be cast into more of an image of Jeroboam
than this.
Some deny that Aaron's role in vv 1b-4 is
original; the original
picture of
vv 5f. shows him to be only a victim of the people's fait
accompli.2 Noth, who takes this view, bases the excision
of vv
1b-4 on the
idea that vv 21-24, which seek to excuse Aaron, are
secondary. Thus his role in vv 1b-4 must be
likewise. I feel this
misses the
intent of vv 21-24 (wholly aside from whether they
are
original), for rather than excuse Aaron they tend to blast
him as a
sort of Caspar Milquetoast. There is no
need to ques-
tion the
unity of vv 1-6.3
Incidentally, there may be good grounds
for following
v 5a in
repointing the form wayyar' as wayyira' (= "then Aaron
feared"
instead of "when Aaron saw";
against
this case,
the idea would be that when Aaron saw what the peo-
ple were
making of the calf (v 4), he became alarmed and tried
to steer the
affair back to some semblance of Yahwism by pro-
claiming a
feast to Yahweh for the next day. One
could have a
diluted if
not an orthodox Yahwism.4 Now
let us consider the
larger
complex.
2 Martin Noth, Exodus (OT Library;
1962) 244f.
3 B. S. Childs, The Book of Exodus (OT Library;
minster Press, 1974) 558f.
4 I have not dealt with the historical antecedents of the
calf/bull worship
here.
See, among others, Lloyd R Bailey, "The Golden Calf," HUCA 42
(1971) 97-115, and John N. Oswalt,
"The Golden Calves and the Egyptian
Concept of Deity," EvQ 45 (1973) 13-20. Whatever kind of worship
this was intended to be, the cultic
confession ("these are your gods,
who brought you up from the
ject and verb ('eloheyka . . . he'eluka)
shows the writer branded it as
idolatry.
The plural subject and verb are sometimes thought to fit Jero-
boam's two calves more appropriately (1
Kgs 12:28), but this ignores the
fact that there was only one at each cult
center, thus making the plural
no more suitable for 1 Kgs 12 than for
Exod 32. On the problem of the
REBELLION, PRESENCE, AND COVENANT 73
1. Evidence
of structural design supports the unity of chap. 32.
If one considers the flow of chap. 32
(through v 29) a definite
pattern
seems to emerge. In tabular form it
would look like this:
Idolatry
originates, vv 1-6 Idolatry
discovered, vv 15-19a
Expression
of Yahweh's wrath, Expression of
Moses' wrath,
vv 7-10 vv 19b-21 (or,
20)
Quest to
conciliate God, Quest to
conciliate Moses,
vv 11-13 vv
22-24
Total
judgment restrained, Partial
judgment executed,
v 14 vv
25-29
Viewed as such the narrative appears to
have a thematic,
parallel
development. Of course this is true only
of the extant
text. However, a common literary analysis holds the
basic nar-
rative to
have consisted only of vv 1-6, 15-20, 35,5 while vv 7-
14 are
usually suspected as being Deuteronomic.
This latter
point--aside
from vv 25-29 (see below)--wipes out three
elements of
the narrative as depicted in the above table.
How-
ever, it is
only with vv 7-14 that the chapter possesses the
symmetry I
have attempted to sketch. It might be
observed that
part of the
problem rests with vv 7-8: they are held to be too
anticipatory
of vv 15ff. as to make Moses' wrath inexplicable
since he
would have known everything beforehand.6 Yet Driver
sees no
difficulty here: "Moses' anger may
naturally have been
kindled by
the spectacle of the doings in the camp, the full char-
acter of
which he did not before realize."7 Childs would also
retain vv
7-8.8 Of course, if the
extant narrative does possess
this
structural unity it may simply mean that it has been so
arranged by
a redactor using his various materials in a skillful
"Jeroboam" and "Aaron"
traditions, one would do well to ponder the
comments of historian Marc Bloch, The
Historian's Craft (
Vintage, 1953) 123f., 130f.
5 J. P. Hyatt, Exodus (New Century Bible; London:
Oliphants, 1971)
301; also Georg Beer, Exodus (HAT;
Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1939)
153, except for vv 17-18.
6 Elias Auerbach, Moses (Detroit: Wayne State, 1975)
123.
7 S. R. Driver, The Book of Exodus (
Colleges;
8 Childs, Book of Exodus, 559.
74
manner. This is recognized. However, one of the main reasons
for dividing
the chapter is usually its alleged lack of unity (see
most
commentaries). It is the latter which is
being questioned
here.
There is another manner in which the
narrative may be viewed
which may
indicate a conscious unity behind it.
This pattern
centers
around the sequence in which key persons and items are
introduced. It may be set out as follows:
People rebelling, v 1
Aaron's role, vv 2ff.
Calf produced, v 4
Two tablets intact, vv
15-16
Two tablets broken, v 19
Calf destroyed. v 20
Anger at Aaron, vv 21-24
People judged, vv 25-29
This pattern indicates that the primary
elements of the narra-
tive are
introduced in a particular order in the first portion of
the chapter
and then are "picked up" and dealt with in exactly
the reverse
order in the second half of the chapter.
Insofar as this
may betray
conscious literary design it argues for the unity of
the piece.
The key function of vv 15-16 in this
scheme should be ob-
served. The full and elaborate description of the
tables is neces-
sary and
reveals the literary skill of the narrator.
This intense
dwelling
upon the two tables seems meant to underscore the vast
privilege of
the same
time it most effectively conveys to us the sense of utter
tragedy, for
the reader already knows that the covenant has been
bartered
away for a bastard bull. Again, this
would appear to be
literary
artistry at its best.
Finally, the effective contrast between
the beginning and the
end of the
main narrative in chap. 32 should be appreciated. In
vv 1-6 the
people gather (qhl) to Aaron, who proves to be a false
leader, for
rebellion and sin; while in vv 25-29 the Levites gather
('sp) to Moses, the true leader, for
Yahweh and in order to exe-
cute
judgment on sin. Thus there is set up a
vivid contrast between
"the
true congregation" and the false one.
The contrast may
REBELLION, PRESENCE, AND COVENANT 75
mean that vv
25-29 are as "original" as vv 1-6, an anathema to
most
commentators.
However, with vv 25-29 the question arises
as to whether this
tradition
does not owe its existence to a time when the rights of
Levites were
being questioned, so that these verses then consti-
tute a
levitical apology in face of some need.
Obviously the
shadow of
Jeroboam again casts itself upon the passage, for he
clearly
excluded Levites from being priests in his royal sanctu-
aries (1 Kgs
12:31). Is this tradition then meant to
justify the
levitical
claim to priestly office?9
Not necessarily. If one can put
some stock
in the tradition of 2 Chr 11:13-17 (also 13:8ff.), the
primary
response of the priests and Levites was not to argue for
their rights
but to emigrate to
sible that a
tradition like vv 25-29 may explain why Jeroboam
did not want
the likes of the Levites around--they weren't the
type that
cooperated with new religious deals.
2. The
coherence and progression in Moses' intercession binds
all three
chapters together.
For purposes of discussion, Moses'
intercession will be divided
into the
following rough segments: 32:9-14, 32:30-34, 33:12-17,
33:18-23,
34:5-10a. The first section, 32:9-14,
begins with
Yahweh's
announcing his intention totally to consume (Piel of
klh) the people and begin all over with Moses
(vv 9-10). How-
ever, after
Moses' reasoned and impassioned plea, we read that
"Yahweh
repented about the punishment [lit., evil] which he had
thought of
bringing on his people (v 14). Please
note: there is
not one word
about forgiveness in
this section. The only success
with which
Moses' intercession meets is Yahweh's withdrawal of
threatened
total extinction. The text itself gives
no ground what-
ever for
inferring any idea of forgiveness or restoration to favor.
Such must be
read into the text, and commentators commonly do
just that as
can be seen via their comparisons of this section with
32:30ff.10 The two sections are not in parallelism (not
doublets)
but in
progression, 32:9-14 only dealing with the turning away
of Yahweh's
immediate and totally consuming wrath.
In 32:30-34 Moses does plead for
9 See Noth, Exodus, 250£.
10 Thus Childs, Book of Exodus, 560, 571; Hyatt, Exodus,
303.
76
the degree
of losing his own life if such forgiveness cannot be
obtained. And his plea is rejected! Forgiveness is at
the least
delayed; it
is not yet granted. However, the theme
of 32:13 is
picked up in
v 34. Thus the idea probably is that
Yahweh, who
must be true
to his word, will then fulfill the covenant promise
which Moses
had pleaded in 32:13, albeit in a "distant" manner
(see
below). Moreover, although the sentence
of immediate
extinction
was withdrawn (32:14), the guilty ones will still
meet
retribution at some time in the future (vv 33, 34b). The
main advance
that 32:30-34 makes on 32:9-14 is in Yahweh's
assurance of
fulfilling the gift of the land to
The following verses, 33:1-4, expand on
what was involved
in "my
angel will go before you" (32:34).11 Again we hear, "I
will send
before you an angel" (v 2), and now we understand
this as a
judgment when we read, "But I will not go up in your
midst"
(ki lo' e'eleh beqirbeka, v
3). Yahweh, then, promises
a remote
help rather than an intimate presence.
The latter is still
forfeit; the
former is granted in order to fulfill his promise to the
patriarchs. The impression received is that Yahweh can
only ful-
fill his
"bare" word--the former intimacy is gone. However,
even in
"lest I consume you along the way" (v 3) there is yet a
hint of
grace. It is too perilous for Yahweh's
presence to accom-
pany them,
and thus in mercy he withholds it. Thus
the basic
problem is
twofold and interrelated: Yahweh's
presence and
The next movement in the motif of Moses'
intercession occurs
in
33:12-17. Moses is evidently
dissatisfied with the vagueness
of the
"angel promise"--"You have not made known to me
whom you
will send with me" (v 12). However,
a new and cru-
cial datum
appears in this section: the special
standing of Moses.
11 I recognize the grammatical roughness of 33:1-4 in
MT. However,
this does not obscure the essential
meaning. Nor do I apologize for taking
33:1-4 as a harmonious and natural
explanation of 32:34. Since all hands
acknowledge the extreme difficulty of
analysis in chap. 33 (see Childs,
Book of Exodus, 584), no objection can really be lodged against taking
these verses as consistently explicative
of 32:34 (so U. Cassuto, A Com-
mentary on the Book of Exodus [
12 Hyatt, Exodus, 312-313, sees an inconsistency
between Yahweh's not
going up among the people in v 3 and his
promising to send an angel in
v 2.
However, this is because Hyatt identifies the angel of v 2 with that
of 23:20ff.
REBELLION, PRESENCE, AND COVENANT 77
That Moses
uses the first person in v 13 shows beyond a doubt
that the
"I know you by name and, furthermore, you have found
favor in my
eyes" in v 12 was limited to Moses.
That is, the second
person
singular in v 12 was not corporate (the people) but
personal
(Moses). Moses seeks for fuller
explication of God's
ways,
attaching to his plea a hint of his desire to include the
whole people
with himself in the hoped-for answer ("consider
that this
nation is your people," v 13).
Whether v 14 is taken
as a
question ("Shall my face go with you ?") or as a statement
is of little
immediate concern.13 Moses
latches on to this neces-
sity of
Yahweh's personal presence in vv 15-16 as the sine qua
non of
Moses'
tenacious way of seeking to include the people with him-
self as,
objects of Yahweh's favor, as his insistent "I and your
people"
(twice) in v 16 reveals. Moses contends
that it is in
Yahweh's
"going with us" that they are unique among nations.
Yahweh's
response in v 17 seems to show that he has granted
Moses' plea,
because Yahweh views
favor. There is still no explicit word about
forgiveness. That it
would be
implied in the renewed promise of Yahweh's personal
presence may
well be so, but for the purposes of the narrative
it is not
yet stated. Even now there remains a
certain suspense;
the tension
has not completely ceased.14
13 I prefer to read 33:14 as a question though it is without
the regular
interrogative particle. This is not impossible (GKC, sect. 150a), and
the
text flows more logically if so
construed. It is taken interrogatively
by
Beer, Exodus, 158; W. Beyerlin, Origins
and History of the Oldest
Sinaitic Traditions (Oxford: Blackwell, 1966) 103; and M. Buber, Moses:
The Revelation and the Covenant (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1958)
155.
I might say that I am assuming panim ("face") to be
virtually
identical with personal presence. So if Yahweh's face will go with them it
means that the verdict of 33:3, 5 has been
reversed. This follows Cassuto
(Commentary, 434), who points to 2
Sam 17: 11 as showing face = person.
W. Eichrodt disputes this view (Theology
of the Old Testament [Phila-
delphia:
source division than solid argument--and
sources are singularly elusive
in Exod 33.
14 Two additional comments:
(i) My treatment of only the successive
movements in Moses' intercession makes
Yahweh's reversal of his verdict
of 33:3 appear abrupt. It should be remembered that at least one,
possibly
two, "repentance scenes" intervene
(33:5-6,7-11), which will be discussed
later.
(ii) I cannot agree with those who see the crux of vv 12-17 in the
78
The division or separation of 33:18-23
from the foregoing
passage (vv
12-17) is arbitrary to be sure. Yet
since it intro-
duces one to
the theophany of 34:5ff., I have severed it from
its
foregoing context in order to consider it now in conjunction
with the
final segment of Moses' intercession, 34:5-10a.
Yahweh responds to Moses' prayer to see
his glory by promis-
ing to show
Moses his goodness and to proclaim his name,
Yahweh,
which is related in 34:5-10a. The
revelation there given
perfectly
answers to the concerns which have burdened Moses'
prayers
hitherto. It is precisely the proclamation
of 34:6-7 which
Moses and
are assured
of finding forgiveness in this God who "takes away /
forgives
iniquity and rebellion and sin." In
this climactic procla-
mation the
tension is finally relieved. The basic
progression in
Moses'
encounters with Yahweh should be fairly clear.
First,
total
extinction is averted, that and nothing more (32: 9ff.). Next,
forgiveness
is sought and refused, though a remote kind of help
is promised
to fulfill the promise of the land (32:30ff.).
Then,
Yahweh's
previous verdict is reversed and his full personal
presence is
again assured (33:12ff.; but this is only done be-
cause Yahweh
regards the mediator graciously and not for any
merit on the
part of the people, v 17). Finally, the
forgiveness
for which
(34:6ff.). There appears to be a coherent and conscious
progres-
sion
involved.
Further, it may not be amiss to see a
special significance here
in the
proclamation of the name, Yahweh. I do
not mean at this
point to
kindle all the debate that can rage over the derivation
of the
Tetragrammaton. However, I am reasonably
convinced
that the
most satisfying explanation (because it is based on actual
context) of
its meaning in Exod 3:14-15 is found by linking
it to the
preceding ki 'ehyeh 'immak ("But I will be with you")
idea that Sinai is regarded as the real
place of the divine presence and
that what Moses is concerned about is
Yahweh's presence with them when
they leave Sinai (so Noth, Exodus,
257; cf. Clements, Exodus, 214).
There is no need to see any other problem
except that of the narrative
context--the rebellion and
covenant-breaking of
clear from 34:5 that Yahweh's presence is
not glued to Sinai, for he
"comes down" to appear on
Sinai. It is simply the place where he
manifests
himself.
REBELLION, PRESENCE, AND COVENANT 79
of
3:12. This would indicate that Yahweh is
the Present One, the
One who is
there with his own to act in their behalf as they have
need.15 If this is cogent, the proclamation of
Yahweh's name here
in 34:6-7
may well be most appropriate to
situation
posed in the preceding narrative:
despite their covenant
breaking
Yahweh is nevertheless willing again to be the Present
One for
them, to go with them. Should this be
granted, it would
nicely fit
the problem of the divine presence with which Moses
had been
grappling.
Both "prongs" of
Moses final
prayer of 34:9. This verse ought not to
be separated
from its
context (as Beyerlin, Origins, 90ff., does). It fits per-
fectly with
all of the foregoing. The petition,
"May my Lord go
in our
midst" (yelek na' 'adonai beqirbenu), is the final plea
regarding the
"presence problem" and is directly related to the
"hard
word" of 33:3 (lo' 'e'eleh beqirbeka, cf. also 33:5). The
second
request--"and pardon our iniquities and our sins"--
relates to
the other aspect of the problem, the solution of which
had just
been offered in Yahweh's climactic proclamation (vv
6f.). It should be observed that Moses speaks of
"our midst,"
"our
iniquities," "our sins."
There is real identification with his
people. Verse 10a reads naturally as a sequel to
Moses' last
it,
prayer--"Look! I am cutting a covenant" is the divine response
of renewed
favor.
This writer then holds that the motif of
Moses' intercession
forms a
unifying thread for these chapters, that it follows a step-
by-step
pattern to its triumph, and that it betrays conscious
literary
design. It is Moses' version of Jacob's
wrestling: 'I will
not let you
go until you bless your people.'
3. The sections about the ornaments and
about the tent of
meeting
(33:4-6 and 33:7-11) consistently fit their niche in the
narrative as
repentance and Judgment motifs.
These sections are most problematical and
puzzling in one
sense. The purpose here is not to untie all the
critical knots but
to suggest
that these sections do make relatively good sense in
15 See Morris S. Seale, The Desert Bible (
1974) 154-156. See too M. Greenberg, Understanding Exodus
(
Behrman House, 1969) 81f., and K.-H.
Bernhardt, "Hayah," TDOT 3.
380-381.
80
the
narrative sequence where they are now placed.
In the "orna-
ments"
section, v 4 suggests a spontaneous laying aside of this
jewelry in
response to Yahweh's "evil" word refusing his pres-
ence in
their midst, while vv 5-6 specify a permanent custom
imposed by
Yahweh. At any rate, the main idea seems
to be
one of
grief, and repentance, which stands appropriately here.16
How does the
tent of meeting section function within the nar-
rative? Basically, we contend, as a judgment motif in
the face of
appear as a
kind of "floating" passage, it is nevertheless grounded
in the
context. It paints an immediate contrast
to the action of
the people
in vv 4-6, since in its opening phrase, "And Moses
took" (umoseh
yiqqah), the position of the subject before the
verb form
"expresses antithesis or marks a parallelism with the
action of
another subject."17 Thus
while the people are stripping
off their
ornaments in mourning the loss of Yahweh's presence,
Moses, on
his part, pitches the tent of communion outside the
camp where
he will experience Yahweh's presence.
The fact that
the tent of
communion is now placed outside the camp serves as
a visible
parable of
presence.18 He cannot dwell in their midst, precisely as
he had
said (33:
3). So there is a stark contrast between
the people and
Moses: Yahweh will commune with him, even "face
to face" as
one speaks
intimately with his friend (v 11). Moses
is distinctly
set apart
from the people,19 a distinction that is clearly presup-
16 Some scholars (e.g., Beer, Exodus, 157) assume that there must have
been an account of the making of the ark
here originally (i.e., that's what
the ornaments were used for), which has
subsequently dropped out. This
is to argue from utter silence and without
any hard evidence.
17 Cassuto, Commentary,
430.
18 George Bush, Notes,
Critical and Practical, on the Book of Exodus
(Andover: Gould & Newman, 1841)
2.229-230. The question of the
"tent
of meeting" ('ohel mo'ed) is
beyond the proper scope of this paper.
Cer-
tainly the tent of meeting here (vv 7-11)
is not to be identified with that
of the tabernacle (27:21ff. passim). Many, link 33:7-11 with Num 11:16-
17, 24, 26; 12:5, 10; and Deut 31:14-15
and see in these an alternate
tradition to that of P's tabernacle, viz.,
one that knew of a simpler struc-
ture outside the camp; see, e.g., G.
Henton Davies, "Tabernacle," IDB
4.502.
However, a close reading of these additional texts (Num 11, etc.)
indicates that there is no insurmountable
problem in identifying their
'ohel mo'ed with (P's) tabernacle.
19 Buber, Moses, 153-154, draws attention to the fact
that in 33:7 Moses
REBELLION, PRESENCE, AND COVENANT 81
posed in his
intercession that follows (33:12ff., see above). It is
as if he
alone yet stands in covenant with Yahweh.20 Observe
that in 34:3
only Moses the mediator is to be involved in the
covenant
renewal.
4.
The covenant (renewal) of 34:10-28 most suitably relates
to the preceding
narrative in its contents as well as its context.
The covenant of 34:10ff. cannot be
discussed without reference
to
34:1-9. Initially there appears to be a
critical consensus about
chap.
34. Though it is customarily recognized
as a covenant re-
newal within
its present textual form, it is common for scholars
to excise
the two references to the "first" covenant tablets in v 1,
the similar
reference in v 4, and the "ten words" clause of v 28b,
and then to
view it as J's counterpart to E's Sinai covenant.21
How to
explain chap. 34 then becomes the task, and it is at this
point that
the apparently solid phalanx of opinion scatters in
radically
different directions.22 This
writer is not contending that
such
disparity of opinion is necessarily a support for the view
that will be
argued here. He does contend that such
diversity at
least
suggests that a consideration of the obvious (the canonical
context as
primary rather than secondary) is a valid option.
Indeed, the
unwillingness of most to allow chap. 34 to be a genu-
ine covenant
renewal is a little mystifying. Though
it is a truism,
it is worth
pointing out that those who refuse to see a covenant