Restoration Quarterly 44 (2002) 109-16.
Copyright © 2002 by
Restoration Quarterly. Cited with permission.
TOWARD A LITERARY UNDERSTANDING OF
MOSES
AND THE LORD "FACE TO FACE"
(MyniPA-lx, MyniPA) IN EXODUS 33:7-11
MARK D. WESSNER
I.
Background
Throughout the narratives of the
Hebrew Bible, perhaps no other biblical
character is portrayed as being more intimate with
God than Moses, the
unequaled leader of the ancient Israelites. Not
only is Moses well known for the
mighty deeds he did on behalf of the Lord, he is also
renowned for the profound
nature of his relationship with the Lord of Israel.
Within the framework of their
personal relationship, the brief story of Exod 33:7-11 explicitly claims that the
Lord
spoke MyniPA-lx,
MyniPA)1 with Moses, as a man
speaks with his friend. It is
the theological, literary and historical nature of
this unique face-to-face com-
munication that is explored in
this brief essay.
2. Text, Genre and Form
Within the book of Exodus, defining
the textual limits of this particular
passage does not pose a significant problem,
given the distinctive nature of the
material itself. For example, John Durham writes
that "verses [7-11] are. . .
strikingly different in both content and style from
the dramatically arranged
narrative composite that precedes and follows
them."2 Umberto Cassuto
sepa-
rates these verses from the rest of chapter 33 due to
the use of the imperfect
rather than the perfect verb form found in the
surrounding text. Finally, the MT
indicates that verse 7 is the start of an
"open" paragraph and that verse 12 is the
start of a "closed" paragraph (indicated by
a s).
1 Within the OT, MyniPA-lx, MyniPA occurs five times: Gen
32:31; Exod 33:11; Deut
34:
10; Judg 6:22; Ezek 20:35. The passage in Genesis has
previously been explored in
Mark
D. Wessner, "Toward a Literary Understanding of
'Face to Face' (MyniPA-lx,
MyniPA)
in Genesis 32:23-32," ResQ (2000/42:3): 169-77.
2 John
110
RESTORATION
QUARTERLY
Although
verses 7-11 function primarily as a theophany, the
passage
appears to have no particular cultic and/or
religious significance in the life of
ancient
"had no connections with the
Yahweh's Presence, or with any rituals of
sacrifice or blessing. It was
exclusively and solely a place where Yahweh's
Presence could be met. . . a kind
of post-Sinai point oftheophany."3
However, it is not only 33:7-11 that is seen
as a theophany; Frank Polak indicates that, in fact, "the theophany theme
dominates the entire book of Exodus . . . [and]
stands at the center of the book
as a whole, and permeates all traditions, sources
and redaction layers."4
Verses
7-11, however, do more than just present a one-time theophanic
event between the Lord and his servant Moses. The pericope's use of the
imperfect verb forms causes Fretheim
to conclude that verses 7-11 function as
"a retrospective: this is how things have been in the recent
past."6 Walter
Moberly
concurs that "there is a sense in which the tradition of Exodus 32-34
as a Sinai tradition, functions
aetiologically."7 It seems therefore, that Exod
33:7-11
has a twofold form and purpose within the literature of ancient
it functions as a theophany
(due to the appearance of the LORD) and also as an
etiology (due to the habitual nature of the
events).
3.
Literary Context
In contrast to the relatively easy
task of identifying the textual limits of
33:7-11,
the literary placement of the passage within its larger context is more
challenging. Cassuto,
33:7-11
properly fits within the larger section of the story of the Israelites'
disobedience and the golden calf (Exod 32:1-34:35). Moberly concludes, "this
unit lies at the mid-point of 32-34 and marks the
turning point in the story. It
continues and concludes the theme of
prepares for the revelation of God's grace as the
theme of what follows."9
3
the text when he states that in this passage
"there is no priesthood, cult, or ritual of any
sort (Nahum Sarna, Exodus; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication
Society, 1991), 211.
4 Frank Polak, "Theophany and
Mediator" Studies in the Book of
Exodus (
5 Cf.
6 Fretheim,
Exodus, 295.
7 R. W.
L. Moberly, At the
8 Cassuto,
Exodus, 407;
Exodus, 241; Sarna, "Book of Exodus" ABD 2.693.
9
Moberly, At the
WESSNER/TOW ARD A
LITERARY UNDERSTANDING 111
The
simple fact that 33:7-11 is within the larger literary section of chapters
32-34
does not answer the question of why it is there. In his commentary,
of the biblical text as a whole and in the light
of the theological purpose binding
the pericopae into larger
sequences, entire books, and even whole sections of the
Bible,"10 and "these three
chapters constitute a marvelous literary unity."11
However,
he later acknowledges the difficulty of understanding why 33:7-11 is
where it is and concludes "the five verses of Exod 33:7-11, therefore, as impor-
tant as they are, are
nonetheless completely out of place in the taut narrative of
Exod 32:1-34:9."12
Perhaps the best way to make sense
of the placement of Exod 33:7-11 is to
understand that it is central, not peripheral, to
the larger unit of chapters 32-34.
Clearly,
Moberly's notion that this pericope is the turning
point of the unit must
be correct. It is the reality of the presence of
God with his people13 that ties the
larger literary unit together, in which the MyniPA-lx, MyniPA encounter of 33:7-11
plays a crucial role.
An analysis of the Hebrew text
reveals that the small pericope of 33:7-11
contains a chiastic structure that suggests the
central focus of the narrative itself:
10
11 Ibid.,
418.
12 Ibid.,
443.
13 The repetitive
structure of Exod 33:1-23 indicates that 7-11 are
semantically
distinct from their surroundings. Throughout the
larger section of 1-23, the continuing
presence of hvhy (the LORD), rbd (speaking), hwm (Moses), and Mf (people) occur
repeatedly and serve to hold the chapter together
as a unit. However, 33:7-11 is clearly
marked by the exclusive use of lhx (tent), hnHm (camp) and, Htp (door), Hebrew roots
that occur neither before nor after the pericope. Only the face/presence motif (hnp)
carries on after vv. 7-11. The unique element
that is being presented in this pericope is
Moses'
Tent of Meeting and it is within this context that MyniPA-lx,
MyniPA must be
considered. (A review of chapters 32-34 reveals
that after each private encounter with the
LORD
(32:1-18, 34:1-28), the LORD proceeds to speak to Moses in view of the
Israelites (33:7-11, 34:29-35).)
112
RESTORATION
QUARTERLY
A Moses pitched the tent outside the camp (7a)
hn,HEm.aha
B those who sought the Lord (7b)
hvAhy;
C all the people/every man arose and stood at the entrance of
his tent (8)
OlhIxA HtaP, wyxi Ubx;.niv; MfAhA-lKA UmUqyA
D’ pillar of cloud at the entrance of the tent (9a)
lh,xohA
HtaP, dmafAv; NnAfAh, dUm.fa
E and he spoke with Moses (9b)
hw,mo-Mfi
rB,div;
D' pillar of cloud at the entrance of the tent (10a)
lh,xohA
HtaP, dmefo NnAfAh, dUm.fa
C' all the people/every man arose and worshipped at the
entrance of his tent (10b)
OlhIxA HtaP, wyxi UUHETaw;hiv; MfAhA-lKa MqAv;
B' the Lord spoke14 to Moses (11a)
hvAhy;
A' Moses returned to the camp (11b)
hn,HEm.aha
A clear structure such as this likely indicates
that the passage is primarily
concerned with the Lord's speaking to Moses--the
central point of the chiasm.
The
other elements (outside the camp, the pillar of cloud, etc.) serve to highlight
both the subtle nuances and the overall significance
of the entire pericope. This
also helps to explain how verse 11, "the Lord
spoke to Moses MyniPA-lx,
MyniPA"
relates to the corresponding chiastic point of
"those who wqb (sought) the
LORD."
Either the Lord spoke to those who truly sought Him, or because Moses
sought the Lord, the Lord in turn spoke to him face to
face.
Finally, the narrative setting of the entire
book indicates that the forty-year
wandering of the Israelites took place immediately
after the exodus from the
pagan
powerful and national ways (i.e., the ten
plagues, the parting of the sea), and now
in the latter part of Exodus, he presents himself
in a personal way, sometimes to
individuals and sometimes for the benefit of the
people as a whole. It is within
14 The verb-form of 'spoke" is piel, from rbd, meaning "to speak" with the primary
subject (the Lord) being active, and the
under-subject (Moses) being passive. The
significance of the verb forms is
fully explained in Bruce Waltke and Michael O'Connor,
Introduction to Biblical
Hebrew Syntax
(Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 358.
VOICE OF UNDERSUBJECT
n/a Passive Active
VOICE
OF Active Qal Piel Hiphil
PRIMARY
Middle/Passive Niphal Pual Hophal
SUBJECT
Reflexive Niphal Hithpael Int. Hiphil
WESSNER/TOWARD A LITERARY UNDERSTANDING 113
this larger context of the Lord's personal presentation of himself (to
both
individuals and to the people) that 33:7-11 takes
place.
4. Historical Context
If the events of Exod
33:7-11 are to be understood as both theophany and
etiology, then it would be expected that the
narrative itself serves a cultic func-
tion for the people.
However, the tent of meeting in 7-11 "is not the Tabernacle
--which has not yet been constructed--but a private tent where
he [Moses]
might commune with God."15 With
regard to this pericope,
the significance of the Tent of Appointed Meeting
however there can be little
question. ..this Tent
was a primary symbol of Yahweh's Presence, and
especially of the accessibility of the Presence to
those in need of guidance,
represented primarily by Moses."16
5. Biblical Context
Within the canon of OT literature, the
unique phrase "pillar of cloud" is used
only thirteen times,17 with all but two
of the occurrences appearing in the Torah.
Rather
than for the guidance and protection of
primarily in connection with either the Lord's
leading of his people (Exod
22,
(Exod 33:9, 10; Num 12:5; Deut 31: 15; Ps 99:7). The pillar
of cloud is reserved
for God himself as he makes his presence known
among his people, often as a
means of divinely legitimizing the recipient, or
"seer" of the cloud.18 That is, one
of the primary functions of the pillar of cloud is
to portray the presence of the
Lord
visually.
Also of significance is the term "tent of
meeting," with ninety-nine occur-
rences in the Torah and only
nine occurring elsewhere in the entire OT. When
the use of this phrase is further restricted to
referring exclusively to the tent
15 Sarna, Exodus, 211.
16
formal Israelite Tabernacle is the fact that the Lord
visits this tent only occasionally; he
does not "dwell" there, as he does in the
Tabernacle. Also, there is no
is outside of the camp (in contrast to the
Tabernacle), which is an area of impurity (cf.
Lev
9:11, 10:4-5, 13:46, l6:27; Num 5:2-4).
17 Exod
Num
12:5, Deut 31: 15, Ps 99:7, Neh
the New Testament, a cloud is often mentioned with
regard to both the presence of God
(cf. Matt 17:5, Mark 9:7; Luke
Matt
24:30, 26:64; Mark 13:26, 14:62; Luke 21:27; Acts 1:9; I Thess
4:17; Rev 1:7). The
cloud motif, as representative of the presence of the
Lord, is presented throughout the
entire Bible.
18 Thomas W. Mann, Divine Presence and Guidance in Israelite Traditions,
(Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1977),
138.
114
RESTORATION
QUARTERLY
described in Exod 33:11
(i.e., not the "official" tent of meeting), it occurs in just
three other passages: Num
instances portray the Lord's initiation of
communication with his servant Moses;
and interestingly, in all three cases, the Lord
desired to communicate with
someone other than Moses,20 but
insisted on having Moses there in his presence
instead. Within the context of the exodus and
the wandering, Moses was the only
person with whom the Lord spoke in private.
Perhaps there is no other passage in the OT that
is more apt to cause
difficulty in understanding how the Lord spoke to
Moses MyniPA-lx,
MyniPA than
Exod 33:17-23:
<20>And
he said, "You are not able to see my face, ynAPA-tx,
(qal) txor;li lkaUt
xlo rm,xyo.va
For no one can see me and live" yHAvA
MdAxAhA ynixar;yi-xlo
yKi
<23>"Then
I will take away my hand " yPiKa-tx,
ytirosihEva
and you will see my back "
yrAHoxE-tx,
(qal) tAyxirAv;
but my face will not been
seen by you" (niphal) UxrAye
xlo ynaPAU
The difficulty, however, quickly becomes the
solution if Waltke' s linguistic
lens (see n. 15) is used to view the text. When one
considers the verb forms, it
becomes apparent that Moses could be the active
agent (qal) in seeing the Lord's
back, but he could not be the active agent (qal) in seeing the Lord's face. The
Lord
would not let His face be the passive object of someone else's seeing. As
the concepts of the Lord's actively speaking (rbd) to Moses face to face
and the
Lord's
face being passively seen (hxr) deal with different
issues, they are not
in contradiction; rather, they expand and clarify
the nature of the Lord's
revealing of himself, both verbally and
physically. As a result of this verbal
nuance, verses 17-23 help the reader attain a more
complete understanding of
verses 7-11. As in the other OT uses of MyniPA-lx, MyniPA, humankind does not
actively initiate face-to-face interaction (hxr, rbd, etc.) with the Lord.21
Instead,
the Lord is active initiator, and the people are
the passive receptors of his
intimate presentation of himself.22
19 See
Meeting," Tehillah le-Moshe (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns,
1997), 74.
20 The seventy elders (Num
Joshua
(Deut 31: 14-15).
21 See Wessner, Face to Face: Panim
'el-Panim in Old Testament Literature
(Theological Research Exchange Network,
#048-0211, 1998), 103-4.
22 Num 12:8 ("with him I speak mouth
to mouth") is possibly a reference to the
events of Exod 33: 11,
although this passage uses hP,-lx,
hP, as the description of the
Lord's
communication with Moses. rbd (to speak) occurs in
the Piel form, in which the
subject (the Lord) is active and the undersubject (Moses) is passive.
WESSNER/TOWARD A LITERARY UNDERSTANDING 115
6. Other Ancient
Literature
Due to the anthropomorphic nature of Exod 33:7-11, the transcendentali-
zation of God might be
expected in the Samaritan text of this passage in order
to "adjust" the theology.23
It is significant to note that the only difference
between the MT and the Samaritan Pentateuch is
in verse 11, where the MT has
wymy, while the Samaritan
Pentateuch instead has wvmy, likely a scribal
variance.
The
Samaritans did not transcendentalize this passage, as
they may have
understood that the Lord was in the pillar of cloud
and therefore not personally
present, although it is more likely that, in
fact, the Lord's MyniPA-lx,
MyniPA
encounter with Moses was not theologically
upsetting.
As is often the case, the textual witness of the
Septuagint is an aid in
determining the ancient Jewish understanding of Exod 33:11. With regard to our
immediate concerns, the only significant textual
feature of this passage is its use
of
e]nw<pion e]nwpi<w rather than pro<swpon pro>j/kata> pro<swpon,
which is
used in each of the four other OT uses of "face
to face." This Greek phrase is
used nowhere else in the Septuagint and seems to
present a more abstract (there-
fore, less physical) notion than pro<swpon pro>j pro<swpon.
Targum Onqelos
is also helpful in seeking to uncover the way this passage
may have been understood by the ancient readers due
to its combination of both
translation and interpretive commentary:
<7> Now Moses took the tent and pitched it
outside the camp far from
the camp and called it the Tent of the Place of Instruction. Now
anyone seeking
instruction from before
the Lord would
go out to the Tent of the Place of
Instruction which is outside the camp. <11> Now the Lord
would speak
with Moses literally just as one would speak with
his fellow man, and he
would return to the camp, while his attendant, Joshua
son of Nun, the
youth, would not depart from
the tent.
In the same manner as both the Samaritan
Pentateuch and the Septuagint,
Targum Onqelos leaves the MT
essentially unmodified in verse 11, except to add
the word "literally" in order to remove
any doubt as to the "real" nature (i.e., it
was not a vision, dream) of the face-to-face
communication between the Lord
and Moses, again initiated by the Lord and received
by Moses. Targum Neofiti
also varies from the traditional Hebrew in verse 11
by using "speech to speech"
the nature of the communication.
7. Conclusion
There is essentially no uncertainty that the
text says that the Lord spoke to
Moses
"face to face" due to the witness of the MT, the Septuagint, and even
the
Samaritan Pentateuch. In addition, the chiastic
structure of the text, the recurring
theophany motif throughout the
book of Exodus, as well as the numerous OT
23 See Bruce Waltke,
"Textual Criticism of the Old Testament and Its Relation to
Exegesis and Theology" NIDOTE 1.59.
116
RESTORATION QUARTERLY
and NT allusions to the passage, indicate that it
was indeed the Lord who
descended within the supernatural pillar of cloud.
However, the fact that the
event itself is presented and understood as fact does
not answer our questions
about the theological/spiritual nature of God's
communication with Moses.
As indicated in the text of Exod
33:7-11 (and also Num 12:8), the Lord
spoke to Moses face to face, as a man speaks with his
friend--clearly and not in
riddles. In fact, the Lord considered Moses to
be such a friend that not only did
he speak to him MyniPA-lx,
MyniPA but he also required Moses to be present in the
tent when he wished to speak to others. Clearly,
face-to-face communication
with the Lord was not possible for every one of his
people, at least not at the
same level of intimacy
that Moses personally and privately experienced
throughout his time as leader of God's people.24
In addition, it is the Hebrew morphology that
brings to light a secondary
component of the unique nature of face-to-face
communication with the Lord-
the Lord is the active and initiating participant
in interacting MyniPA-lx,
MyniPA
while his partner is passive. The face-to-face
communication in Exod 33:7-11,
as presented in the biblical text (Exodus,
Numbers) and further confirmed by the
earliest readers (Septuagint, Samaritan
Pentateuch, and Targums), is a picture of
immediate and profound intimacy that reflects both
God's initiative25 and Moses'
fulfilled desire to seek his Lord within an
ongoing relationship. As in the other
biblical MyniPA-lx,
MyniPA encounters, verses 7-11 reflect the four common
charac-
teristics of divine initiation,
profound intimacy, intentional solitude, and super-
natural verification.
24 In fact, there were occasions when the
people were saved from divine destruction
due solely to the close relationship between Moses
and God (e.g. Exodus 32, Numbers
14).
25 Interestingly, in Genesis 32 Jacob
thought he had actively encountered God face
to face, and he expected to lose his life as a
result. Moses however, was the recipient of
the Lord's active encounter, and he went back again
and again and never seemed to
become tired or fearful of spending time with his God.
This
material is cited with gracious permission from:
Restoration
Quarterly Corporation
www.restorationquarterly.org
Please
report any errors to Ted Hildebrandt at: