Exodus 32 as an argument for traditional theism

Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Dec 2002 by Master, Jonathan

(ProQuest Information and Learning: Foreign text omitted)

I. RECENT FORMULATIONS DENYING IMMUTABILITY

Of the modern theological approaches, process theism must be considered as one of the most far-reaching. It bases its theology in large measure upon man as the ontological starting point.1 The existence and attributes of God are said to be corollary to those of man himself. God, too, is subject to time. He, too, is ever-changing.

More recently, some of these conclusions have been endorsed by branches of evangelicalism. The seminal bridge for this acceptance was built by Terrence Fretheim, most notably in his commentaries on Exodus and Jonah and his more comprehensive biblical theology, The Suffering of God.2 Although Fretheim's work, in particular, deserves attention, as do the many variants of openness exegesis, openness theologians are consistent in asserting that traditional theism ignores the biblical texts, among them Exodus 32.3

II. THE NEED FOR AN EVANGELICAL ASSESSMENT OF EXODUS 32

This persistent charge against traditional theists-a lack of honesty and fidelity to the biblical text-is one which evangelicals must take seriously.4 In fact, it could reasonably be stated that the popularity of open theism within evangelical circles is directly traceable to its appeal to biblical theology.5 Chief among the texts addressed is Exodus 32.6 Although open theists assert that Exodus 32 unequivocally bolsters their case, a thorough look at the argument of Exodus, coupled with a close study of chapter 32 itself, shows just the opposite. Exodus 32 is consistent in presenting a picture of God which is best described using the traditional terminology of immutability and omniscience.

III. AN EXPLANATION OF THE ARGUMENT OF EXODUS

The message and argument of Exodus plays a significant role in an understanding of Exodus 32 and, more specifically, in the narrative purpose of Moses' dialogue with God. If properly understood, the argument of Exodus points toward a decidedly traditional understanding of God's immutability. By the time the reader reaches Exodus 32, certain exegetical patterns have emerged. These patterns serve to highlight the theology of the author. Exodus lays a foundational understanding of God-one which would be built upon later in Israel's history.

1. Exodus 1: Introduction and transition. Exodus 1 introduces the situation of Israel's bondage. In essence, it acts as the transition from Genesis and the stories of the patriarchs to Moses' particular focus on the nation Israel. God's goodness to his people in slavery is repeated several times, as is the fact that they multiplied greatly during these years. This terminology of multiplication builds upon God's command to Adam and Eve in the garden; although the Egyptian Pharaoh was attempting to thwart the creation mandate in the lives of the Israelites, they nevertheless were able to carry it out-even in slavery. Fretheim, in commenting correctly on chapter 1 writes, "The focus is on continuity with both creation and promise themes within Genesis."7 In fact, the chapter begins with a focus on the final chapters of Genesis, with a list of Jacob's sons (Exod 1:1-6). When Pharaoh appears in verse 8, he is placed in opposition both to Joseph, and to the creation blessing of Israel.8 This opposition lies behind his command to kill all male Israelite babies. As Joseph stated repeatedly, God was working within the situation to preserve and bless his people (Gen 45:7-8). Pharaoh's goal is exactly the opposite. If anything, this chapter serves to reinforce the notion that God's plans will not be thwarted. The evil work of Pharaoh does not frustrate the good plan of God. In fact, the irony of the situation highlights Pharaoh's inability to do so: his means of destruction (the Nile) becomes a vehicle for Moses' deliverance; Moses' mother gets paid to take care of him; Moses' name reflects his mission as Israel's deliverer.9

2. Exodus 2-15: Dialogue and deliverance. Exodus 2-7a introduces the human deliverer of Israel: Moses. As the chapters progress, the reader sees Moses' own imperfection as he resists the Lord's call and fails to circumcise even his own son. Moses as the human mediator between God and the people is not portrayed as an individual without fear or faults. Yet, even so, he is the one chosen by God. A God looking for a willing and able deliverer would have rejected Moses immediately. A God prone to frequently change his mind would soon have seen Moses' inadequacy. Instead, from the outset, Exodus presents a God who is not thwarted by man and who is unswerving in his commitment, first to bless and redeem Israel, and then to use Moses as the mediator of that redemption and blessing. Moses' role as mediator, especially as it relates to the argument of the book, will take on increasing significance as the story progresses. For now, it is enough to note two things: that God is Creator and not thwarted in his plans, and that Moses is his chosen mediator.10 These two facts, so clearly in evidence within this section, provide the backdrop for Exodus 32. In fact, they provide the basis for Moses' own theology. As he later dialogues with a God, he knows him to be the Creator and is convinced that his plans for redemption are unassailable.