The Holy Stubbornness of Moses

The Holy Stubbornness of Moses                     

By Dr. Eli Lizorkin-Girzhel

 Explore how Moses disagreed with God, challenged him and lived on to tell the story!

In the Torah, the relationship between God and His chosen people, Israel, is marked by moments of profound intimacy, bold intercession, and transformative encounters that shape the covenantal bond. Among these, the interaction between Moses and God in Exodus 23 and 34 stands as a vivid testament to the audacity of faith and the depth of divine grace.

When God declares that He will send an angel to guide Israel on their journey, warning that this messenger will not forgive their transgressions (Ex. 23:21), Moses responds with a daring request: he implores God to personally accompany Israel, refusing to proceed without His direct presence (Ex. 33:15).

This bold challenge to God’s initial plan reveals Moses’ profound understanding of Israel’s nature and God’s character, culminating in a pivotal moment where Moses, hidden in the cleft of the rock, perceives the gracious and forgiving essence of YHWH (Ex. 34:6-7).

Moses’ plea—that God Himself should go with Israel precisely because they are a stiff-necked people (Ex. 34:9)—underscores a theological conviction: Israel’s propensity for sin necessitates the presence of a forgiving God rather than an unforgiving angel. This argument, rooted in Moses’ intercessory role and echoed in other biblical examples, illuminates why Moses risked challenging God and why he believed the original arrangement was inadequate, ultimately forging a covenantal relationship defined by divine mercy and human dependence.

The narrative begins in Exodus 23, where God outlines His plan to send an angel to lead Israel to the Promised Land. This angel, acting as God’s representative, is endowed with authority, and Israel is sternly cautioned: “Pay attention to him and obey his voice; do not rebel against him, for he will not pardon your transgressions, for My name is in him” (Ex. 23:21). The angel’s role is to ensure Israel’s safe passage, but the warning is clear: disobedience will meet with unforgiving judgment.

This arrangement, while practical, assumes a level of obedience that Israel, as later events reveal, struggles to maintain. The angel’s inability to forgive transgressions introduces a potential vulnerability, given Israel’s recurring tendency toward rebellion. This sets the stage for Moses’ bold intervention, as he perceives a mismatch between Israel’s character and the angel’s uncompromising nature.

Moses’ response to this divine plan is not passive acceptance but a courageous challenge, rooted in his role as Israel’s mediator. In Exodus 33, following the sin of the golden calf, God initially distances Himself, stating that He will send an angel to guide Israel but will not go among them, lest His presence consume the sinful people (Ex. 33:2-3). Moses, however, refuses to settle for this arrangement. He pleads, “If Your presence does not go with us, do not send us up from here” (Ex. 33:15),

insisting that God’s personal presence is essential to Israel’s identity as His people.

This audacity is striking: Moses risks divine displeasure by questioning God’s plan, yet his request stems from a deep conviction about Israel’s needs and God’s nature. He understands that an angel, bound by strict justice, cannot accommodate the flaws of a “stiff-necked” people, whereas God Himself embodies the grace necessary to sustain them.

This conviction reaches its climax in Exodus 34, when Moses, emboldened by his intimate encounter with God, articulates the heart of his plea. Hidden in the cleft of the rock, Moses witnesses the “back” of God and hears the proclamation of His attributes: “The Lord, the Lord, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness, keeping steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin” (Ex. 34:6-7).

This revelation of God’s fundamentally forgiving nature galvanizes Moses’ argument. He declares, “If I have found favor in Your sight, O Lord, please let the Lord go in our midst, because it is a stiff-necked people. Pardon our iniquity and our sin, and take us for Your own!” (Ex. 34:9). Here, Moses ingeniously links Israel’s sinfulness with God’s grace, arguing that their rebellious nature necessitates God’s personal presence. Unlike the angel, who will not forgive, YHWH has the capacity to pardon “iniquity, transgression, and sin,” making Him the perfect companion for a flawed people. This is not a rejection of God’s justice but an appeal to His mercy, which Moses perceives as the foundation of the covenant.

Why did Moses take such a risk? His boldness reflects a profound trust in God’s relational character, forged through prior encounters. Earlier, in Exodus 32, when God threatens to destroy Israel for worshiping the golden calf, Moses intercedes, urging God to relent: “Turn from Your fierce anger and relent from this disaster against Your people” (Ex. 32:12). He even offers his own life, saying, “If You will not forgive their sin, please blot me out of Your book” (Ex. 32:32).

This willingness to stand in the gap for Israel demonstrates Moses’ priestly role, akin to Abraham’s intercession for Sodom (Gen. 18:16-33). Like Abraham, who boldly questioned God’s justice while trusting His mercy, Moses engages God in dialogue, confident that His grace can prevail over judgment. This pattern of intercession, rooted in relational intimacy, emboldens Moses to challenge the angel’s role, believing that only God’s presence can sustain Israel’s covenantal journey.

Moses’ approach finds echoes in other biblical figures who similarly engage God with boldness to secure mercy for others. Abraham’s intercession for Sodom exemplifies this, as he pleads for the city’s survival if even ten righteous people are found, daring to question, “Shall not the Judge of all the earth do what is just?” (Gen. 18:25). His persistence reflects a trust in God’s justice tempered by mercy, much like Moses’ plea for God’s presence. Similarly, Jacob’s wrestling with the divine figure in Genesis 32:24-30 reveals a tenacious faith that refuses to let go until a blessing is granted, earning him the name Israel, meaning “he who wrestles with God.”

This struggle symbolizes a relational engagement that seeks transformation, paralleling Moses’ insistence on God’s personal guidance. In the prophetic tradition, Samuel’s intercession for Israel during the Philistine threat (1 Sam. 7:9) and his commitment to pray despite their demand for a king (1 Sam. 12:23) mirror Moses’ mediatorial role, emphasizing the priestly function of advocating for a wayward people.

Why did Moses believe the angel’s guidance would not suffice? The answer lies in Israel’s character as a “stiff-necked” people, a term God Himself uses to describe their stubbornness (Ex. 32:9). The golden calf incident, occurring shortly before Moses’ plea, exposes Israel’s propensity for rebellion, as they quickly turn to idolatry despite witnessing God’s miracles. An angel, bound by the mandate to enforce obedience without forgiveness, would likely respond to such transgressions with judgment, potentially derailing Israel’s covenantal destiny. Moses recognizes that Israel’s survival depends on a divine companion who can both guide and forgive.

The revelation of God’s attributes in Exodus 34 confirms this: YHWH’s mercy, patience, and forgiveness are uniquely suited to a people prone to failure. As Moses sees it, Israel’s sinfulness and God’s grace are a “match made in heaven,” ensuring the covenant’s endurance through divine forbearance rather than angelic rigidity.

This theological insight aligns with Israel’s broader calling as a “kingdom of priests” (Ex. 19:6), a role that requires mediating God’s presence to the nations.

An unforgiving angel could not model the grace central to this mission, whereas God’s presence among a flawed people demonstrates His redemptive power. Moses’ plea thus secures not only Israel’s survival but also its purpose, as God’s forgiveness becomes a testimony to His character. This dynamic is later reflected in the prophetic hope of Isaiah, who envisions Israel as a “light to the nations” (Isa. 42:6), a role sustained by God’s merciful presence.

In conclusion, Moses’ bold request for God’s personal presence over an angel’s guidance reflects his deep understanding of Israel’s sinfulness and God’s grace. Risking divine displeasure, he intercedes as a priestly mediator, trusting that YHWH’s forgiving nature is essential for a stiff-necked people. This approach, mirrored in Abraham, Jacob, and Samuel, underscores a faith that engages God relationally, seeking mercy amid judgment. By securing God’s presence, Moses ensures that Israel’s covenantal journey is marked by divine forgiveness, fulfilling their calling as a people through whom God’s grace shines to the world. This sacred interplay of human frailty and divine mercy defines the heart of the covenant, a legacy forged in the cleft of the rock.

A story is told about a rabbi, with a heart full of love for his people Israel, lifted his voice to God in prayer:“HaShem (Lord), blessed be Your holy name! You are righteous and pure, while we, Your people, stumble in our unrighteousness and sin. Yet Your grace is boundless, Your forgiveness endless. So, I come before You with a humble proposal, a deal, if I may be so bold! Let us offer You all our sins—every last one. In return, pour out Your grace and forgiveness upon us. What do You say, HaShem?

But if You pause, if You think this trade unfair, hear me out! I would say, ‘O HaShem, if we had no sins, what would You do with all that forgiveness?