Comments on Exodus 3 This chapter presents the quintessential theophany, where Moses is introduced to the Lord, and the Lord announces His name. Especially note throughout this chapter the heavy usage of the first-person pronoun "I" when the Lord is speaking. The Lord is emphasizing His reality, His independence, and His active role in Israel. The Lord is a God who exists, acts for Himself and relates with people. v1-6 contains some rather obscure symbolism. First, lets address, the removal of the shoes. The symbolism is that when entering a holy place wherein is the presence of the Lord, one is to leave behind those things they normally walk in and step on when in the world. Recall Moses is a shepherd, he is walking all day long through dirt and occasionally stepping on dung and who knows what, so his shoes are hardly clean. The feet are also considered the lowest and dirtiest part of the body in the Semitic mind. Thus, removing the shoes become a symbol of leaving behind the filth of the world, which we accumulate thorough our daily walk in the world, upon entering God's presence. The next symbol is very obscure and difficult to interpret, namely the burning bush. Typically, when the Scriptures refer to something as "burning" it is referring to it being a blinding light such as lightning. However, in this case, the text suggests the bush appears as though it is in fact on fire, and not simply a gloriously bright tree. One thing that does aid the interpretation is noting that here the mountain is referred to as Horeb and not Sinai. The Hebrew "horeb" is associated with the root "harev", which means "dry". Thus, this bush is alive and healthy despite being in an adversely dry clime, not to mention being aflame. A common symbol for something divine being aflame is that of being in a sanctified condition, take for example the fiery sword which guards the way to the Garden of Eden in Genesis 3:24 and fiery chariot-throne of God in Ezekiel 1:13-14. We can also contrast this bush with the tree described in Alma 5:52, a corruptible tree which is thrown into an unquenchable fire (i.e., the Justice of God). From the Alma usage we can see that a tree which fails to bring forth good fruit is one which is dry and ready to be consumed. So, one which is the opposite of this is a tree which is bearing good fruit. This then leads through the rather circuitous path to Lehi's Tree of Life, which is a bright and shining tree bearing good fruit representing the love of God (the fact that this bush is on fire and not just bright and apparently fruitless argues against such a comparison). While the connections are increasingly tenuous as they go on, they are about as good as any of the other attempts to determine what the burning bush represents. It is probably safest to avoid a Tree of Life comparison, as that is problematic, and simply draw on the more contextual interpretations drawn from the inconsumable nature of the bush despite the apparent dryness of its surrounding to say the bush is one that has life in itself and is independent (which is a major theme of the rest of the chapter) of its surroundings. It would therefore represent the Lord's independent, incorruptible, and sanctified nature, and serve as a contrast to all of the other natural vegetation around. v6 "Moses hid his face", it is a common Semitism to hide one's face out of fear of God. The background behind it is the symbolism that if God's face is inclined towards you then you are in God's favor (cf. 2 Chron. 7:14, Hosea 5:15, Dan. 9:17), but if away from you then you are in His disfavor (cf. Moses 5:39, Deut. 31:17-18, Deut. 32:19-22, Isa. 54:8, Jer. 18:17, Ezek. 39:23-29. Micah 3:4, Ps. 27:8-9). He will turn His face away from you if you are in His disfavor because if He were to continue to look upon you your sinful nature would require His divine Justice to destroy you in your sins. Thus, His looking away from you is in fact an act of mercy. And the person being confronted by God turns their face away from them for fear of God seeing them in their sin, thus it is an act of humility. v7-10 The Lord announces His intent to Moses. He has heard the cry of the Israelites and has come to fulfill the promise He formerly made to Abraham (cp. v. 8 with v. 17, and Gen. 15:18- 21). He then commissions Moses to deliver Israel. v11-12 Moses questions the commission by debasing himself. The Lord's response is "I will be with thee". This is a statement of divine support granted to all of God's servants throughout all the ages, cp. Moses 1:26, Num. 14:9, Joshua 1:9, Isa. 43:5, Jer. 15:20, Matt. 28:20, Acts 18:10, D&C 34:11. The statement of "I am with you" is connected to the Lord's statement in v. 14 of "I am". God's name reflect's His nature and this nature is to support His servants and interact with them. He is no deaf and dumb idol that grants no support. What Moses is saying here is "I am not worthy to be your servant" and the Lord says "My support makes you worthy". v12 "this mountain", i.e. Sinai, a.k.a. Horeb. v13-15 Moses requests the name of the Lord, and the Lord responds "eyeh asher eyeh" or "I am that I am...ywhw, the God of your fathers" (there are various translations of "eyeh asher eyeh" forwarded, but they all pretty much forward something similar to "I am that I am"). Moses is requesting the name of the Lord because people generally wanted to know the name of their god at that point in time so they could invoke it when they needed to. Here, the Lord does not reveal his real name to Moses, but rather gives him a symbolic name-title. This is because the local idolaters at that time thought that having the name of a particular god gave you the power to invoke them and perhaps goad them into action on your behalf (as was also the case with angels, hence their general refusal to reveal their names, cf. Gen. 32:29, Judges 13:18). Here, the Lord avoids that kind of nonsense and asserts His independence and autonomy. The emphatic statement "I am that I am" is a blatant authority statement used forever afterwards throughout the Scriptures. It is an assertion of "independence" in the Philosophical meaning of the word. The Philosophical definition of "independence" means that the thing relies upon nothing for its existence, and is self-existent. This is in sharp contrast to idols. Idols rely upon people to create and worship them, and when the men die and their memories fade the idols cease to exits. The Lord however, is completely independent of mankind, and was in fact created by him, and not the other way around as is the case with idols (this contrast between the Creating Lord who makes man and the man-made idols is particularly prominent in Isa. 44 & 46). Thus, the name "I am" is a name-title indicating His exalted and independent nature, but lest we see Him as aloof, the name, as indicated above (cf. comments on v. 11-12), also indicates He is a condescending God who supports and interacts with His creation. Thus we have: Name Implications ---- ------------ I am that I am Exalted above and superior to man, independent from man, the Creator of man I am with you Condescending to work with man, associating with man, interacting with His Creation v16-22 The Plagues and Exodus are predicted. The Lord is well acquainted with the incredible pride of the Egyptians as well as their dependance upon the Hebrews for services provided, so He knows perfectly well they are not going to simply accept Moses' claim and permit Israel to leave. Thus, the series of miracles culminating in the Passover (cf. 4:22-23) are predicted. v17 as was the case with v. 8, the Lord again states He is here to fulfill the promises made to Abraham. v18 The Lord tells Moses to make a request of Pharaoh that they both already know he will reject. Are they therefore being dishonest? Of course not. If you already know how someone is going to answer a question, asking the question doesn't make you dishonest, it just makes for dull conversation. But is Moses lying to Pharaoh when he makes the request to take Israel out to worship, when his real intent is to leave? And if Moses already knows Pharaoh will reject the offer, then why is he still trying to get Israel out of Egypt in this manner? Moses is informed beforehand that the Passover is going to occur (cf. 4:22-23), but he doesn't know when it will occur and he also does not know how it will occur. All Moses knows is that at some point in the near future the Lord is going to kill all of the first born sons of Egypt. I think it quite likely that Moses' intention was to get Israel out of Egypt prior to the Passover so if things got ugly the two populations would be separate when it occurred, and then the Israelites would not be blamed for subterfuge or murder. The text presents the Lord as giving Moses some of the details but not all, the specific details of the Passover are not given until immediately beforehand. And then in 5:3 Moses warns Pharaoh of the impending disaster upon "us" (the Israelites alone, or both the Egyptians or the Israelites as well? I think the latter as the Lord has already told Moses the Plagues are imminent so Moses wants to get Israel out of Egypt before the Plagues hit) if he fails to permit them to go an worship the Lord. This suggests Moses wants to separate the two populations before the Plagues start, assuming that afterwards the Plagues will dispose the Egyptians such that they will tell them to just go away rather than come back into servitude in Egypt. Thus, there is no need to accuse Moses of lying or being sneaky when he says they just want to go off and worship the Lord for a few days. I believe his intent was to distance the two populations so there could be no accusation of foul play by the Egyptians. Especially note the statement in 5:3 says "lest he [the Lord] fall upon us with pestilence, or with the sword". Moses already knows the pestilence is imminent so there is no question of that, and the Lord never mentions anything about His armed conflict. So, Moses concern here is avoiding direct conflict, "the sword", with the Egyptians in the event they blame them for the Plagues or more specifically the Passover. v21-22 On these two verses Everett Fox in the Schocken Bible states: The despoiling of the Egyptians is reminiscent of obtaining booty in war. At the same time, there is probably a legal background to this: the furnishing of a freed slave with provisions. The follow-up to the despoiling, intended or not, is God's command that, in Israel's future observance of religious festivals in the Promised Land, "no one is to be seen in my presence empty handed" (Exod. 23:15). Copyright © 2002 by S. Kurt Neumiller . All rights reserved. No part of this text may be reproduced in any form or by any means for commercial gain without the express written consent of the author. Digital or printed copies may be freely made and distributed for personal and public non-commercial use.