Exodus - how can this be?

[Rose2020]

I am reading Exodus, about Moses.

I am having great trouble with reconciling the God of love, life and goodness with the events in chapter 32.

How can this be - our God, Father, Creator, ordering violence and murder?

Please someone explain to me. Did God really speak to Moses with the commands in verses 27- 29?

[theophile]

I am reading Exodus, about Moses.

I am having great trouble with reconciling the God of love, life and goodness with the events in chapter 32.

How can this be - our God, Father, Creator, ordering violence and murder?

Please someone explain to me. Did God really speak to Moses with the commands in verses 27- 29?

You're missing the key to this whole event. i.e., Read Exodus 32:14 and the verses leading up to it: "Then the Lord relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened."

Which means, it is only when Moses goes down the mountain and sees for himself what Israel has been doing that he gives the kill order. But that kill order was not from God (again, see verse 14), but is rather Moses speaking in God's name, and misleadingly at that.

In other words, we shouldn't trust anyone, not even Moses, when they claim to speak for God.

[Difflugia]

Which means, it is only when Moses goes down the mountain and sees for himself what Israel has been doing that he gives the kill order. But that kill order was not from God (again, see verse 14), but is rather Moses speaking in God's name, and misleadingly at that.

In other words, we shouldn't trust anyone, not even Moses, when they claim to speak for God.

That's an interesting apologetic, but it's not the sense of the text. Verse 14 is in reference to God's threat in verse 9 to destroy the Israelites and start over with Moses. While Moses commanded the start of the civil war in verses 25-29, there's nothing in the text to justify your claim that Moses wasn't in accord with God and in fact, the narrator tells us in verse 35 that "Yahweh smote the people, because they made the calf, which Aaron made." The civil war was God's compromise.

[theophile]

Which means, it is only when Moses goes down the mountain and sees for himself what Israel has been doing that he gives the kill order. But that kill order was not from God (again, see verse 14), but is rather Moses speaking in God's name, and misleadingly at that.

In other words, we shouldn't trust anyone, not even Moses, when they claim to speak for God.

That's an interesting apologetic, but it's not the sense of the text. Verse 14 is in reference to God's threat in verse 9 to destroy the Israelites and start over with Moses. While Moses commanded the start of the civil war in verses 25-29, there's nothing in the text to justify your claim that Moses wasn't in accord with God and in fact, the narrator tells us in verse 35 that "Yahweh smote the people, because they made the calf, which Aaron made." The civil war was God's compromise.

I may have to respectfully disagree.

It seems to me that Exodus 32 has a repetition going on, all in response to the golden calf scene playing out at the bottom of the mountain. (The focus never changes from this scene, and what to do with Israel because of it...)

Iteration 1: God sees it, grows angry, and is talked down from destroying Israel by Moses (i.e., God relents).
Iteration 2: Moses sees it, grows angry, and is not talked down by Aaron (i.e., Moses orders Israel's destruction).

But yah, it comes down to this I think: your argument requires that God and Moses had a separate, non-explicit conversation about what to do with Israel after the explicit conversation we see where God relents (verse 14). My argument assumes that God's explicit words on the matter are final (there is no secret discussion where God yet again changes God's mind...).

Who is right? I agree it's impossible to say for certain. But it's very strange that God would do a 180 after God's first 180 with no indication as to why... Better interpretation, I think, is that Aaron failed in his role with Moses where Moses had succeeded with God... (Aaron : Moses = Moses : God)

More importantly, it shows how important our role is as humankind to prevent such disasters in the first place. Going so far as standing up to God.

[Difflugia]

I may have to respectfully disagree.

It seems to me that Exodus 32 has a repetition going on, all in response to the golden calf scene playing out at the bottom of the mountain. (The focus never changes from this scene, and what to do with Israel because of it...)

Iteration 1: God sees it, grows angry, and is talked down from destroying Israel by Moses (i.e., God relents).
Iteration 2: Moses sees it, grows angry, and is not talked down by Aaron (i.e., Moses orders Israel's destruction).

But yah, it comes down to this I think: your argument requires that God and Moses had a separate, non-explicit conversation about what to do with Israel after the explicit conversation we see where God relents (verse 14). My argument assumes that God's explicit words on the matter are final (there is no secret discussion where God yet again changes God's mind...).

That's an interesting take that I hadn't thought of. If that's what was intended by the author, it seems odd to me that the conclusion paints the guilt as Aaron's alone and then says that it was Yahweh that "struck the people." I definitely see what you're seeing there, though, which makes me wonder if that isn't the moral of an older story that was worked into Exodus by a later author.

[theophile]

I may have to respectfully disagree.

It seems to me that Exodus 32 has a repetition going on, all in response to the golden calf scene playing out at the bottom of the mountain. (The focus never changes from this scene, and what to do with Israel because of it...)

Iteration 1: God sees it, grows angry, and is talked down from destroying Israel by Moses (i.e., God relents).
Iteration 2: Moses sees it, grows angry, and is not talked down by Aaron (i.e., Moses orders Israel's destruction).

But yah, it comes down to this I think: your argument requires that God and Moses had a separate, non-explicit conversation about what to do with Israel after the explicit conversation we see where God relents (verse 14). My argument assumes that God's explicit words on the matter are final (there is no secret discussion where God yet again changes God's mind...).

That's an interesting take that I hadn't thought of. If that's what was intended by the author, it seems odd to me that the conclusion paints the guilt as Aaron's alone and then says that it was Yahweh that "struck the people." I definitely see what you're seeing there, though, which makes me wonder if that isn't the moral of an older story that was worked into Exodus by a later author.

It would be unfair to say that Aaron is solely to blame, but he is a clear point of failure. And it is his failure in particular that the decimation of Israel hinges on here, or that the author is highlighting...

And yah, there are still open questions like why God would later strike Israel with a plague if God had relented? I would say God relented from destroying Israel in verse 14 and starting fresh with Moses (i.e., acting rashly out of anger), but not from punishing them in due time (i.e., responding in a measured way to what Israel did). After all, sin is still sin, Israel is a stiff-necked people, and there is a world of difference between being blotted out completely and being covered in boils or whatever the plague inflicted upon them.

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to Rose2020 in post #1]

For me it is not that difficult. The Old Testament is written by Jews that did not know Jesus. Abraham did, but very few Jews ever did.

The Jews decided they wanted an earthly king and kingdom and that is what they got. They did their best to bring the light of God to the world and failed. They tell stories from the primitive warrior mentality. They paint God out to be a warrior because they thought that was cool.

If they fought wars and won, they thought God fought for them. If they lost, they thought God was angry with them.

[Rose2020]

[Replying to AquinasForGod in post #16]

I am inclined to agree. There is a lot to consider here, none of it simple.

[RIP]

[Replying to Rose2020 in post #1]

For me it is not that difficult. The Old Testament is written by Jews that did not know Jesus. Abraham did, but very few Jews ever did.

The Jews decided they wanted an earthly king and kingdom and that is what they got. They did their best to bring the light of God to the world and failed. They tell stories from the primitive warrior mentality. They paint God out to be a warrior because they thought that was cool.

If they fought wars and won, they thought God fought for them. If they lost, they thought God was angry with them.

What a warped sence of Scripture.

Rip

[RIP]

[Replying to AquinasForGod in post #16]

I am inclined to agree. There is a lot to consider here, none of it simple.

What a man-pleaser you are.

There is nothing complex in what has been said. It's only complex when people like AquinasForGod want to make it complex so as to hide the simple truth. And you, you want to agree for the same reason. Man-pleasers.

Not just ignorance of the Scripture. But 'willful ignorance' of the Scripture.

Rip

[Rose2020]

[Replying to RIP in post #19]

I am simply concerned at some partsthat I read in the Old Testament. Each of us has the right to explore scripture until we understand. I do believe in a loving, merciful God but still, it is hard to read of His wrath.