Was Moses Stubborn?
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 interactions between Moses and God in Exodus stand as testaments 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 (Exod 23:21), Moses responds with a daring request: he implores God to personally accompany Israel and refuses to proceed without His direct presence (Exod 33:15). This bold challenge to God’s initial plan culminates in a pivotal moment: Moses, hidden in the cleft of the rock, perceives the gracious and forgiving essence of the Lord (Exod 34:6-7). Moses’s plea—that God Himself should go with Israel because they are a stiff-necked people (Exod 34:9)—underscores a theological conviction: Israel’s propensity for sin necessitates the presence of a forgiving God rather than an unforgiving angel. Moses’s intercessory role, echoed in other biblical examples, illuminates why he risked challenging God. Moses’s holy stubbornness helped to solidify a covenantal relationship in which recurrently stubborn people are met with divine mercy.
The narrative begins in Exodus 23, in which God plans to send an angel to lead Israel to the Promised Land. This angel represents God and embodies divine authority. The Lord says, “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” (Exod 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 would struggle 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’s bold intervention when he perceives a mismatch between Israel’s character and the angel’s uncompromising nature.
Moses’s 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 (Exod 33:2-3). Moses, however, refuses to settle. He pleads, “If Your presence does not go with us, do not send us up from here” (Exod 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; God Himself must embody the grace necessary to sustain them.
This conviction reaches its climax when Moses articulates the heart of his plea in Exodus 34. Hidden in the cleft of the rock, Moses sees 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” (Exod 34:6-7). This revelation of God’s fundamentally forgiving nature galvanizes Moses’s argument when 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!” (Exod 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, the Lord 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, saying, “Turn from Your fierce anger and relent from this disaster against Your people” (Exod 32:12). He even offers his own life, saying, “If You will not forgive their sin, please blot me out of Your book” (Exod 32:32). This willingness to stand in the gap for Israel demonstrates Moses’s priestly role, akin to Abraham’s intercession for Sodom (Gen 18:16-33). Like Abraham, Moses engages God in dialogue, confident that His grace can prevail over judgment. This pattern of intercession, rooted in relationship, emboldens Moses to request God’s presence over that of an angelic mediator.
This approach finds echoes in other biblical figures who similarly engage God 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. He asks, “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’s 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 and transformative engagement that parallels Moses’s 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’s mediating role for the people of Israel.
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 the people (Exod 32:9). The golden calf incident, which occurs shortly before Moses’s plea, reflects the frailty of human beings—even the beloved people of God. An angel bound by the mandate to enforce obedience without forgiveness would likely respond to such transgressions with judgment that could derail Israel’s covenantal destiny. Moses recognizes that Israel’s survival depends on a companion who can both guide and forgive. The revelation of God’s attributes in Exodus 34 confirms this: the Lord’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.”
This theological insight aligns with Israel’s broader calling as a “kingdom of priests” (Exod 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’s bold request for God’s personal presence over an angel’s guidance reflects his deep understanding of divine grace. Moses intercedes as a priestly mediator, trusting in God’s forgiving nature. This approach, mirrored in Abraham, Jacob, and Samuel, underscores a faith whose goal is true relationship with God. This sacred interplay of human infirmity and divine mercy defines the heart of a covenant whose legacy had been forged in the cleft of the rock.
You can learn more profound insights (CLICK HERE for more)
