Exodus QA#4 - Dr. Michael Heiser

追加: 2026-05-25

[00:00:00]Charlotte really enjoyed the episode on the Kenite hypothesis.

[00:00:05]In the episode on Exodus 5 and 6, you touched on the translation of Exodus 6:3. You said it could mean the opposite of how it was translated. Implying that God had indeed revealed himself by his name Yahweh to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. However, in Genesis 32:24-32, Jacob wrestles with God in human form and asks his name. The man refuses.

[00:00:27]How does this passage relate to the Kenite hypothesis, especially considering the fact that at the time when Jacob wrestled with the man, the Kenites had been around for at least two generations since Abraham and Jacob could therefore have potentially known it? Why does God refuse to give Jacob his name in this instance?

[00:00:47]Well, let's let's briefly briefly review what I said back in episode 266. That was where That's that's what's being referenced here. I was commenting on Francis Anderson's opinion, which is published in his book The Sentence in Biblical Hebrew. There's some some great late-night reading for you.

[00:01:04]Uh Anderson was commenting that Exodus 6:3 should be translated, "I am the Lord."

[00:01:10]You know, in other words, "I am Yahweh."

[00:01:12]"I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as El Shaddai, and my name is Yahweh.

[00:01:17]Did I not make myself known to them?"

[00:01:20]That's that's quite opposite of what you're seeing in most English translations.

[00:01:23]And, you know, Anderson is doing that based upon his understanding of the syntax uh in that verse uh and turning it into a a question.

[00:01:32]Uh which, you know, Anderson is a very famous, very well-known Hebraist and Semiticist. Um He's not He's not an amateur.

[00:01:41]And so, he this this could very well be what what the point is.

[00:01:45]And if Anderson is correct, then therefore the verse is no proof of the divine name criterion for JEDP.

[00:01:54]Again, the documentary hypothesis of the Pentateuch, which takes Yahweh and El names as proof of separate source documents for the Torah.

[00:02:02]So, if Anderson's right, then the divine name criterion and they they reference Exodus 6:3 a lot as justifying the using divine names as a cri- as a criterion for separate sources.

[00:02:16]But if he's correct, then that whole argument just sort of falls flat.

[00:02:20]Uh in the Hebrew Bible as it stands, of course, Yahweh does appear in texts that source critics say originally didn't have the name.

[00:02:28]They believe that the critics believe that Yahweh gets sprinkled in the non-Yahweh source or sources by a later editor to help dovetail the sources together.

[00:02:38]And, you know, to help their concr- uh content and create a connection between the patriarchal deity, the El names, El Shaddai, El this, El that, uh and other sources that use Yahweh.

[00:02:49]They would say, again, the source critics would say Abraham didn't know Yahweh as the name of the deity who visited him, but he knew the deity that visited him by some El name. That's just That's how the argument goes. Anyone with a study Bible or, you know, anybody who looks for Lord in in all small caps will see the name Yahweh in patriarchal stories and wonder what in the world is going on here. But again, the if you wonder what's going on here, then that shows you're not familiar with the whole JEDP approach that originally the Torah is composed of these source documents.

[00:03:23]This one source document used Yahweh, another source document described the deity in El names, and then some later editor came along and spliced them together and and to to tighten the agreement, he sprinkled in the divine name in all sorts of places just so it would, you know, it would just cohere more readily. Okay, and that that's the theory.

[00:03:43]Uh source critics, you know, the people with that perspective would say that the Kenites would have been El worshipers, not Yahweh worshipers, and they would have followed the patriarchal traditions, and the patriarchs, of course, in this view uh used El names for God. And so, they would argue that Exodus 6:3 is new information to Moses and therefore to others in Midian.

[00:04:04]Uh and even broadly to the Israelites.

[00:04:06]They would argue that Yahweh is a new name, a special covenant name forever to be associated with the deliverance from Egypt to which the God of the burning bush was calling Moses.

[00:04:17]As far as the Jacob incident itself, this is another part of the question, and the refusal of the angel to give a name, the answer could follow a couple trajectories, and I'm you know, I'll I'll just reference a There's a There's a decent commentary discussion here. I I think uh Hamilton's commentary, I believe, does a nice job of this. But in a nutshell, there's two ways to look at this.

[00:04:39]You could say that since the point of the episode is is Jacob wrestling with the man, again, who turns out to be Elohim, uh God. Since the point of the episode is that God has decided to change Jacob's name, again, Jacob's name is is his given name is thus surrendered or or taken from him.

[00:04:58]The point could be that Jacob was out of line to ask the angel to surrender his name.

[00:05:04]After all, Jacob is a trickster in the in the patriarchal stories, and he was could have been seeking information that wasn't relevant to perhaps seeking advantage in the exchange. Now, Currid, we referenced his commentary before in the Exodus series.

[00:05:18]He thinks that Jacob was essentially playing games at this point to seek an advantage. Cur- Currid writes, "Jacob then attempts to turn the tables by asking, 'Now, tell me your name.'"

[00:05:28]"The angel of Yahweh responds with another rhetorical question."

[00:05:32]"Jacob already knows with whom he is wrestling." He had The The angel asks, "Why do you ask my name?"

[00:05:38]Again, implying that Jacob already knows who it is. So, the angel isn't letting Jacob call any shots here. He's just refusing.

[00:05:46]Now, another way to look at this is is the ancient belief that to know the name of a supernatural being is to have power over it. You know, some have argued, and it's fairly common in exorcism texts, for example, that this is what's going on. Now, Hamilton uh in the New International Commentary on Genesis, he rejects this idea, drawing on on a parallel in Judges, the book of Judges, that certainly has no such hint of trying to get power over the supernatural being by asking for the name.

[00:06:17]So, I'm I'm going to read a little bit from Hamilton here. Open him up.

[00:06:21]"The man's question." Again, if if if you go back to Judges 13, this is Samson's parents. They get visited by the angel, okay? The the man, and you know, Samson's mother refers to this this figure as as a man, okay?

[00:06:35]So, they end up encountering him again, and then they ask the angel, you know, for his name. And so, Hamilton writes this. "The man's question in response is, 'Why is it that you inquire about my name?'"

[00:06:49]"It is a question," Hamilton says, "to which Jacob is not given the opportunity to respond." Again, he's What Hamilton's doing is comparing the two stories.

[00:06:58]"Or perhaps he chooses not to respond. The scene is much like the one between the angel of Yahweh, again, with Jacob and back to Samson's mother or father, Manoah.

[00:07:10]In the Judges story, Manoah said to the angel of Yahweh, 'What is your name, so that we may honor you?'"

[00:07:18]Uh there's a little, you know, this is me interjecting now. There's a little important feature there because in the Judges story, it's clearly not to seek power or to seek some advantage, you know, over the angel. They're not trying to pull a pull a fast one here.

[00:07:33]"So, what is your name that we may honor you?" And the angel of Yahweh said to him, to Manoah, this is the Judges story, "Why do you ask my name, seeing it is wonderful?" That's Judges 13:17-18.

[00:07:44]"Both the man, Genesis 32, and the angel in Judges 13 ask the same question.

[00:07:51]In both instances, the silence, the hesitancy of the other being begins to produce within Jacob or Manoah, depending on the story, a realization of the supernatural status of that being.

[00:08:02]One wonders if 'Why is it that you inquire about my name?'

[00:08:07]is another way of asking, 'Jacob, don't you realize who I am?'"

[00:08:11]So, at this point, Hamilton is sort of veering off to where Currid is at, you know, this the first view.

[00:08:18]"And he adds, 'The text contains no evidence that Jacob desires to know the name of his adversary so that he might exercise power over him. This interpretation is based solely on parallels drawn from primitive religion in which demons and numens played a large part. Jacob's question is nothing more than a request for information from and identification of his adversary.

[00:08:40]This request is a formal element in the theophanies of the Old Testament." He references Judges 13 again there.

[00:08:46]"A feature of those theophanies seems to be that only with the disappearance of the deity does the protagonist realize he or she has had contact with the divine." And he references uh Judges 6 along with that, and then Luke 24:31.

[00:09:02]So, I mean, what's going on here is that both Hamilton and Currid, and I think I think the comparison with Judges 13 does rule out seeking power by asking the name in this passage.

[00:09:15]So, that leaves us with this option. The refusal, again, in Judges is akin to saying, "You can't handle the truth." Or or you want to know better.

[00:09:23]You want to know who I am.

[00:09:25]Um and Currid, again, is sort of tracking the same thing. So, I'm I'm with, you know, Currid and and Hamilton as far as he's, you know, concurring, you know, with Currid here.

[00:09:35]"The angel doesn't give an answer to Jacob's question. But yet, think about the story. Yet, Jacob calls the name of the place Peniel, the face of God, the face of El, and exclaims, 'I have seen God or a god.

[00:09:52]I've seen Elohim face to face.'

[00:09:55]So, I think it's it's reasonable to conclude that Jacob did know.

[00:10:01]He had some inkling that this wasn't an ordinary man.

[00:10:05]And so therefore the question again is Jacob playing games and you know trying, you know, to to seek something in the exchange that the the angel is not willing to give him. But I don't think it's it's sort of a magical sort of formulation. Uh seeking power over a supernatural being.

[00:10:24]I think that goes too far.

[00:10:27]John has our last question and it's about episode 266 where Dr. Heiser discussed the biblical motif of the arm of the Lord.

[00:10:36]I believe he tied it to the Egyptian pharaohs who believed themselves to be Horus incarnate, i.e. Horus in human form.

[00:10:44]Isaiah 53 clearly speaks of Jesus and states "And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?"

[00:10:51]Is it safe for us to view Jesus as the arm of the Lord?

[00:10:55]Does this give readers a hint that the Messiah Jesus would be God in human form?

[00:11:01]Well, I I I think the language in Isaiah 53 certainly points to a personal, an individual deliverer.

[00:11:09]Uh I don't think readers would intuitively know from the language that God would come as a man though. As opposed to the passage speaking of a man empowered by God. You know, even in John 12:38 where where the Isaiah passage the Isaiah 53 passage is actually cited.

[00:11:28]It's actually referenced.

[00:11:30]Uh let's just read that in back in John.

[00:11:33]"So that the word spoken by the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled. Lord, who has believed what he heard from us and to whom is the arm of the Lord been revealed?" And even in that passage uh it's linked, you know, two verses earlier to signs, you know, signs and wonders.

[00:11:49]So even in John 12:38 the verse is referenced in connection with signs not as a part of an argument that God had become a man.

[00:11:58]Though, you know, elsewhere in John I think some of the things John says make that evident.

[00:12:04]But in this passage the citation itself isn't making that point.

[00:12:08]Now, you know, think about it. Moses was the conduit through which God did signs and wonders and he wasn't God in human flesh, obviously.

[00:12:17]If the Messiah was perceived as a new Moses, the prophet like unto Moses, which the New Testament makes pretty obvious obvious that's how Jesus, you know, was to be perceived. That's Acts 3:22, Acts 7:37 for instance.

[00:12:31]Then the arm of the Lord reference could quite easily have been understood in the way that it was used to describe Moses.

[00:12:37]Here is a human agent of God's power.

[00:12:41]Which falls short of incarnation.

[00:12:45]So I I think it would be to read too much into the language of Isaiah 53 uh to say that the arm of the Lord points to incarnation. I think that that takes takes the language a bit too far.

[00:12:59]Larry in Denver, Colorado has our next question.

[00:13:03]What or who are the mixed multitude in Exodus 12:38? Are they the same people in Numbers 11:4 when they were referred to as the rabble?

[00:13:14]Yeah, this is actually kind of a an interesting question. Mixed multitude in Exodus 12:38 is the Hebrew is erev rav. Rav is a is a is a noun that means multitude. And so erev is the important term. And for those who have some Hebrew this is this is a homonym to another erev. Erev is is is a Hebrew word for evening.

[00:13:38]Um this is a different erev. This this erev is used for people of foreign descent. In other words, non-Israelite descent.

[00:13:45]Or not descended from Abraham. Examples would be Nehemiah 13:3.

[00:13:50]"As soon as the people heard the law, they separated from Israel all those of foreign descent." Again, the word there is erev.

[00:13:57]Jeremiah 25:20, "All the mixed tribes among them." Again, mixed tribes, erev tribes, okay? So you get the idea. So the mixed multitude would therefore refer to foreign peoples, i.e. non-Israelites, not non-Hebrews who left Egypt with the Hebrews.

[00:14:15]The word translated rabble in Numbers 11:4 is an entirely different word.

[00:14:21]Okay?

[00:14:22]And you would think that ought to end the discussion, but it actually doesn't.

[00:14:27]Some rabbinic commentators do make this identification. They they do you know, view these passages as as parallels. Targum Onkelos actually translates uh the term in in Numbers uh 11:4. Let me just get the terms because I know I'm going to have to uh to repeat it here. It's it's saf suf, okay? We have an aleph appended uh in the text. This is a weird instance we're not going to get into but but it's one of the few times in in the Hebrew Bible where a letter doesn't have any vocalization for it. So it's it's pronounced saf suf even though it begins with aleph.

[00:15:07]Uh again, for those of you have Hebrew you can care about that. For those of you who don't, don't worry about it. But you've got saf suf. Let let's just say that.

[00:15:15]So that doesn't sound anything like erev rav.

[00:15:19]But again, you have some rabbinic commentators that view them together.

[00:15:22]And Targum Onkelos, this is Targum is an Aramaic translation of something in this case the Hebrew Bible, actually translates the saf suf term with an Aramaic term that is nearly identical to the erev rav in Exodus 12:38. [laughter] So it's almost like the Aramaic translator, the translator of the Targum, intentionally tried to harmonize the two.

[00:15:48]And and so that gets picked up on by later rabbinic commentary and leads to putting these two things together and identifying the two groups, identifying the mixed multitude of Exodus 12:38 with the rabble of Numbers 11:4. Now I'm going to read you some real short sections here from some commentators that sort of you know, they Well, I'll just I'll just read it and you can you can see where they're where they're coming from here. Bud, this is the word biblical commentary. He he writes this.

[00:16:16]"The word occurs" This is He's talking about saf suf now. "The word occurs only here and might literally mean a gathering of people from asaf to collect."

[00:16:25]"Some commentators associate this group with the mixed multitude of Exodus 12:38."

[00:16:31]"The root however is different and there is no clear warrant for that assumption." So that's pretty clear cut in Bud's mind. Now Baruch Levine in his commentary on Numbers writes this.

[00:16:42]"The Hebrew asaf suf" So he's going to vocalize the aleph for us.

[00:16:47]"is a reduplicative form of the verb asaf to gather."

[00:16:52]"Which is said of taking in foundlings as well as lost objects."

[00:16:57]Now see what he's doing here is he's going to say, "Okay, if you go back to Exodus 12:38 you'll notice erev rav. Erev rav.

[00:17:05]Erev rav." You the that there's the that RV or RB actually section of both words. It's like a repetition.

[00:17:15]Erev rav.

[00:17:17]He says, "If you look at Numbers 11:4, asaf suf is also a reduplication of a particular verblem asaf to gather in."

[00:17:27]He says, "The verb asaf otherwise, you know, can connote" He'll say often connotes the assembling of fighting forces." Okay, he's he's going to draw, you know, a conclusion from that too. So it remains he says it remains unclear whether the reference here is to auxiliary fighting forces or to camp followers and other non-Israelite hangers-on. He's basically going to turn this into a mob is what he what Levine's doing in his commentary.

[00:17:51][laughter] Um but anyway, he says, "On the parallel account of Exodus 12:38." So he just assumes out of the gate that Exodus 12:38 is parallel because both forms of the word have this reduplication thing going on in them.

[00:18:07]He says, "In Exodus 12:38 the term used is erev rav, perhaps originally arav rav, also a reduplicated form."

[00:18:16]"In both accounts in Numbers and in Exodus, these presumably non-Israelites are blamed for incurring God's wrath, whereas the fault of the Israelites themselves was that they followed suit."

[00:18:27]Now in Exodus 12:38, where's the wrath?

[00:18:33]So I'm going to object to what Levine's saying here. I think he's reading some things into this. Now he could say, "Well, if they were Egyptians, God's wrath was upon them." Well, okay, but if they're leaving, doesn't that suggest whose side they're on?

[00:18:48]I mean, the Israelites are going to get out of there. The Hebrews are are going to going to be gone. So their problem should be over. If they were really not on the Hebrews' side for some reason, whatever reason, they'd stay.

[00:19:00]So I I you know, I I I just think that he's reading a little bit into this, but it's not a big deal.

[00:19:05]But that that's how the two get identified by some commentators.

[00:19:10]They'll either, you know, look at the morphology of the terms and say, "Oh, they're both reduplication forms, so maybe you know, maybe there's a relationship there." Or they'll go look at the Targum and say, "Oh, the Targum thought so."

[00:19:21]Targum translator, you know, tried to harmonize them, so you know, we should look at it that way, too. That that's essentially the the two trajectories that you get to joining these things. But if you just looked up the lemmas, you're going to see that they're quite different.

[00:19:36]All right, Lance has a comment about Exodus 23:19 and 34:26 and Deuteronomy 14:21.

[00:19:44]Cooking the baby goat in its mother's milk. It seems so left field. What's up?

[00:19:51]Yeah, pretty much.

[00:19:52]>> [laughter] >> Uh it It It really is and it's not only that it is to us, but this has been This is one of those passages that that will probably never get resolved. I mean, people still wonder about this, but you have you have you know, commentators that that really I think try and and you know, they they do well to articulate a a possibility or two.

[00:20:14]I'm going to read you what Sarna says here and then I'll follow that with what Tigay says in the Deuteronomy passage.

[00:20:20]Uh Sarna writes, "This rule, this law, largely remains an enigma. Its importance may be measured by its being repeated twice more in the Torah, Exodus 34:26, Deuteronomy 14:21.

[00:20:33]In this latter source, the prohibition appears in the context of the dietary laws. So, in the in Deuteronomy, it's in that section.

[00:20:41]But the other two sources indicate that its origin lies in the overall context of the festivals. So, you even get different contexts here.

[00:20:49]Sarna continues, "The juxtaposition of this rule with the law of the firstfruits led Menahem ibn Saruq, 10th century, to interpret gedi, that's kid or you know, the baby, not as a kid of the goats, but as berries.

[00:21:03]This eccentric explanation was taken up by Menahem ben Solomon in the 12th century, who took mother's milk to be figurative for the juice of the bud that contains the berry. This You see, I threw that in because people are really going to great lengths to try and try and >> [laughter] >> make sense of this.

[00:21:20]Uh in the another paragraph, "There are other rabbinic interpreters."

[00:21:23]And he gives a list. He says it that who in various ways adduce a humanitarian motivation akin to that cited earlier in in uh Numbers, excuse me, uh Exodus 22:29.

[00:21:37]Rashbam further suggests that because festivals were the celebrated were celebrated with feasts of meat. Again, so these are the Exodus contexts here, the festivals. And because goats are generally multiparous and have a high yield of milk, it was customary to slaughter one of the kids of a fresh litter and to cook it in its mother's milk.

[00:21:57]Now, this is just rabbinic opinion here.

[00:21:59]There's nothing factual here to to nail this with.

[00:22:02]Sarna continues, "The Torah looks upon such a practice as exhibiting insensitivity to the animal's feelings.

[00:22:08]The explanation of Rashbam has been buttressed by the modern observation that in biblical times, goats were far more plentiful than sheep in the land of Israel and were the main source of milk.

[00:22:19]The flesh of the young kid is more tender and more delicate in flavor than the lamb. Also, since the estrous cycle of goats occurs during the summer months and part parturition takes place in the rainy season, the earliest litter would be produced just around the time of Sukkot.

[00:22:37]This injunction, therefore, regulates the festivities at the festival of the ingathering of the harvest. The interdiction of boiling a kid in its mother's milk was generalized to outlaw the mixing of all meat and milk. This is why in in observant Jews, they don't mix those two things. Meaning all dairy products when it when when the reference is milk.

[00:22:58]So, he he basically he says this is a the law is there to regulate this practice at the festival specifically, but he includes through Rashbam and others this notion of you know, compassion or humanitarian motivation. Now, Tigay in his Deuteronomy commentary writes this about the Deuteronomy passage. "The point of this prohibition is that the animal's own mother's milk may not be used. It is similar to the rules against slaughtering cattle on the same day as their young and capturing a mother bird along with her fledglings or her eggs, and the requirement that newborn cattle remain with their mothers at least a week before they may be sacrificed. All of these rules have the humanitarian aim of preventing acts of insensitivity against animals. It is likely, therefore, that the present rule also applied to lambs and calves and that kids are mentioned only because goats were the most commonly owned type of cattle or because their meat is most in need of tenderizing and flavor."

[00:24:00]So, that's where Tigay is at and then he goes on to discuss again rabbinic opinion about this or that, but that gives you you know, sort of the both trajectories there. There's a humanitarian trajectory and then there's this regulation of what happens at the uh at the feast. Now, Tigay gets into this thing about its association with paganism, which is what you'll hear a lot, you know, when this is if this is ever preached, but you I mean, you'll you'll hear a lot.

[00:24:24]Uh Tigay writes, "Maimonides reasoned that since this prohibition is mentioned twice in Exodus right after the pilgrimage festivals, boiling a kid in milk was probably a rite practiced at pagan festival and prohibited for that reason.

[00:24:38]This is not a sufficient explanation, Tigay writes, since the Torah does not oppose all pagan forms of worship.

[00:24:46]Even sacrifice and prayer were practiced by pagans." Let me stop there. What he's What What What he's saying is that, "Hey, pagans prayed.

[00:24:54]They offered sacrifices. So, if if if just because a pagan did it was the reason to prohibit it, prayer and sacrifice would be prohibited, too."

[00:25:03]Instead, you know, you just cutting to the chase here.

[00:25:06]Instead, you know, Tigay would say, "Well, they're they're modified. You know, it depends who you pray to. It depends who you sacrifice to, but the practice itself, those practices are not outlawed just because and you know, pagans do them, too."

[00:25:17]So, this is his point. It's not sufficient to say, "Well, the pagans, you know, offered you know, they boiled the you know, little baby goats in their mother's milk and so that's why it's prohibited." Well, pagans did other things that just get modified in some form and not outright banned. So, he doesn't find this trajectory very very uh coherent. So, I wanted to throw that in because again, you'll you'll hear that perspective. Now, there there's obviously more trajectories here that we could get into, but you know, for the sake of of this episode and in time, I'm just going to leave it at that.

[00:25:51]Jason from Ohio's question is in reference to episode 280, Exodus 15, part two. And uh his it is, "How far or at what point do we cross from exegesis into eisegesis when looking for symbolism in the Bible?"

[00:26:06]"Podcast 280 discussed how certain references to trees, wood, and mountains are likely associated with God, but scripture also connects God to wind, water, and fire at various places. At what point is, say, the rod of Aaron simply a rod and not a symbol for the garden or for God himself? Is it when there's supernatural language involved that we can make the connection?

[00:26:31]Sometimes when listening to and reading biblical scholars, I'm reminded of my English lit classes where my professors asserted that everything, even very mundane things, were symbols for something else. But is always the case that the author intended his audience to understand the language in that way? How do we know when we get carried away reading into the author's intent?"

[00:26:52]Yeah, that's a good question. I would certainly say that no, they're not always to be taken you know, metaphorically or symbolically.

[00:27:00]Uh the the examples actually given don't really clarify, you know, wind, water, and fire. Well, you know, wind and water got Why does God appear in in in the tempest in a storm?

[00:27:12]Uh again, you you can pick up a lot of the vocabulary in those passages back in the creation account. And so, the the the whole point there would be you know, the link back to the God who brought order out of chaos. He is in control of the forces of nature cuz he's the creator. That doesn't mean that the wind and the water doesn't mean like the prophet's not getting splashed or maybe he just sees it and isn't isn't getting burned. You know, it's not a fire that he can touch and be burned. It's not water that he can get splashed with.

[00:27:39]Maybe it's just something visual.

[00:27:41]And in that case, you know, is God getting wet? I mean, we we don't know because typically in those instances, God doesn't even have a body.

[00:27:49]So, if you start asking questions like this and then you you start realizing, "Okay, you know, the terminology here cuz I can look it up with a concordance.

[00:27:56]You know, it occurs in creation passages. Well, it's it's probably just designed to to get us to think that this is the creator and he has mastery over over creation, mastery over chaos, and so we ought to listen to him."

[00:28:06]That That's a real simple path. But again, that doesn't mean that everywhere you see these things, you know, we we we are supposed to abstract them. The real question is, would it make sense in the context to be learning these things about the figure in the maelstrom, you know, in in the storm? Does that make sense in the context that we're looking at, you know, directly? Same thing with fire. You know, fire is a is a is often used for the presence of God because it's it's purifying. Either the fiery coals or a fiery basin or fire just fire fire flames like Ezekiel 1, okay?

[00:28:41]Where where God part of God's form is fire and there's fire there in in other contexts as well.

[00:28:47]So, it you know, my take on this is that the the metaphorical or symbolic reading ought to be on the table for all of them.

[00:28:56]And then you have to ask yourself, well, does it make Does it make sense in context, you know, to to go that direction or not? Or maybe it's a little bit of both.

[00:29:04]You know, there there's no like guidebook at at the end of the Bible that really tells you how to parse this, but I would not be, you know, categorical and say always it has to be, you know, going down one direction.

[00:29:13]So, there's no way often to be really conclusive uh when it when it comes to to this. Biblical authors are like authors now.

[00:29:22]Even us, we might intend a double meaning or not.

[00:29:25]Now, in the in the case of like Aaron's rod or Moses, you know, that whole situation that the question had brought up. Because this rod of Moses originated at the burning bush.

[00:29:33]That's where he gets the rod.

[00:29:35]And it was used as a source of miraculous control over creation. It seems that the biblical writer might want us to think of the creator and thus Eden or another tree at which Yahweh was associated, the tree of life.

[00:29:46]And you also the fact that theophanies, you know, these appearances of God prior to Exodus 3 often occur at or are connected to trees.

[00:29:55]You know, and so when you take all that together it lends support for the again the metaphorical, you know, idea. By the way, if we say that Aaron's rod or Moses' rod you know, that that the whole point of that is is to make, you know, people, you know, consider, you know, the God of the of the burning bush or the God of the tree of life or something like that.

[00:30:14]It's still a rod. I mean, it still exists. It's not like it it's not real or it's not or the event didn't happen.

[00:30:19]All those things are still in place.

[00:30:21]It's just how we sort of parse what's going on, you know, why it's this description and not some other.

[00:30:29]So, I I I like to put them all on the table and then just spend time thinking about it.

[00:30:33]And you might come out with one or two or more possibilities, but to me that that's the fun part of Bible study.

[00:30:40]There's just a lot to think about.

[00:30:43]Trey in Palmdale, California was wondering why when Mike was talking about hardening of Pharaoh's heart, why you you didn't bring up Romans 9.

[00:30:52]Regardless of views on soteriology and all the other theological problems that people have, why wouldn't you bring up the verses that talk about the hardening of Pharaoh's heart according to what the New Testament says about it?

[00:31:04]Yeah, probably because I was just focused on Exodus in my head at the time, but you know, it I I have to confess it it it's actually far from certain to me how much freight we should attach to God's use of Pharaoh in Romans 9. What what I mean by that is just because God makes an example of Pharaoh who played a role in his own hardening.

[00:31:27]Should we then reason that God is working the same way with the lost whom he wants to redeem?

[00:31:33]I don't really see much of a desire on God's part to redeem Pharaoh. Frankly, I don't see any desire. It's time for Pharaoh to be judged.

[00:31:40]So, the analogy at least in some respects, some respects, I think breaks down.

[00:31:47]I think Paul's point is that God doesn't have to show mercy.

[00:31:51]But then Paul proceeds to try and convince readers that God is showing mercy to the Gentile and will show mercy to the Jew.

[00:32:00]Again, the Gentiles are are part of that that process.

[00:32:03]So, I think the passage is often read through a damnation lens rather than a mercy lens.

[00:32:09]And so, I question whether that's really the point. Is damnation really the point here?

[00:32:15]Or is the point, you know, God doesn't have to show mercy, but he does and he's willing to and he wants to.

[00:32:20]That to me that that that sounds a little bit more like what Paul is angling for in Romans 9. So, I I don't really know how much mileage we can get out of the Pharaoh case to make Paul's point.

[00:32:33]All right. Keith, when he was in seminary uh he had an Old Testament professor state that when pastors used the story of Jethro and Moses in Exodus 18 to justify delegating ministry, they are taking the passage out of context. He suggested that Moses made the wrong decision when he listened to Jethro. Our professor never told us why. He was the type to make bold claims like this to wet our appetite to hit the library and do the hard work of research ourselves. It has been over 10 years since I finished seminary and I have never come across a scholar who teases out my professor's bold statement. To be fair to my professor, as a bi-vocational pastor with several other irons in the fire, I have not had time to do the research the way he would have liked. I was wondering if Dr. Heiser has come across this interpretation at any point in his research. The best I can theorize is that Moses' decision to follow Jethro's advice could be interpreted as the wrong decision because the idea did not come from Yahweh himself in this circumstance.

[00:33:37]Well, no, I've never seen this before and it really strikes me as odd because when I hear that Moses was wrong to delegate or or that we shouldn't use Exodus 18 as a justification for delegating ministry, what pops into my head is is ministry therefore a dictatorship?

[00:34:00]Like do we have pastors that everything that happens in the church, everything done it has to go over their desk?

[00:34:07]You know, like is is it a sin to to let someone else do something? It just it just it sounds just kind of odd. Now, I don't have no idea if this fellow was saying that or implying that. I I'd give him the benefit of the doubt. I wouldn't think so, but that's just what I hear, you know, if that it's it's somehow wrong to delegate ministry. That's just what pops into my head. I I I suspect though that the that Keith's guess at the end of the question might be on the right track that that the rationale for why he would say this might be just what he supposed that okay, you know, you know, Yahweh didn't tell Moses to do this and then on that basis you can conclude that Moses shouldn't have.

[00:34:52]But I I really can't think of any reason why that would make sense either. You know, Moses is never rebuked for the decision nor are there failure stories that are traced back to the decision, back to Exodus 18.

[00:35:06]So, I suspect that the professor just had the notion stuck in his head that unless a suggestion came from Yahweh, it couldn't be a good one or a right one.

[00:35:14]And and I would disagree. You know, I'd ask for biblical evidence that it was it was the wrong thing to do. I don't I don't really see anything there. I mean, Moses married Jethro's daughter. I'm betting Jethro had good things to say about that.

[00:35:29]And Yahweh says nothing about it.

[00:35:31]Again, we're not we're not told Yahweh said, "Hey, go marry that girl." But I don't see any evidence that that was the wrong decision either.

[00:35:38]I mean, did Yahweh tell Moses to go to Midian? Again, we don't read that. Was that a bad decision? I mean, cuz he meets Yahweh Yahweh there at the burning bush.

[00:35:47]But but Yahweh didn't say, "Hey, you know, turn left here at the at the sagebrush or whatever." You know, I want to make sure he doesn't direct him. I mean, we don't we don't get any any direct uh statement where Yahweh tells him which way to go.

[00:36:01]Um so, I mean, there Well, let's face it. In any biblical story, you know, you you could come out with with something where a character makes a decision and God isn't the one who told him to do that, but the decision in the story there's there's nothing wrong with it.

[00:36:17]So, I don't know why we'd have to pick at Exodus 18. It just again, it really strikes me as odd.

[00:36:23]Um and again, I don't know the fellow, but again, what pops into my head is is this someone who has such a view of ministry that that there's a control problem here.

[00:36:37]And it may be. I I I don't know because I I just can't I can't see any any coherent rationale for rejecting the idea of delegation generally or that Moses did something wrong here.

[00:36:51]It's it's really an odd uh hermeneutic.

[00:36:54]So, yeah, I don't I just I wouldn't assign any any validity to it.

[00:37:00]Okay, Isaiah from Baldwin, Missouri has our next question and many years ago Dr. Heiser did a lecture series on Gnosticism and the Da Vinci code controversy.

[00:37:10]When he gets to the two powers in heaven theology, Mike uses Exodus 34:5-8 as an example of a two powers event.

[00:37:20]He says that there are two ways to read the story of God walking before Moses.

[00:37:25]He even has someone come up and illustrate that.

[00:37:27]One of the Yahweh figures could have been standing by Moses and proclaiming the name while the other Yahweh figure walked by Moses. I was curious to know if Mike had changed his mind about this passage since he didn't mention any of this on the episode that dealt with Exodus 33 and 34.

[00:37:45]Yeah, the the short answer here is I I didn't I didn't recall any of that. And I'd have to go back and watch the video to remember actually what I said.

[00:37:54]>> [laughter] >> Um so, not going to take a commercial break and go watch the the lecture series on Gnosticism.

[00:38:02]Uh I would just say this way, you know, you you know, you you could read it the other way, but I'm going to I'm going to land with the way I took it on the recent episode of the podcast. I mean, to me that feels, you know, satisfying as far as a good interpretation and context and I'm I'm content with it. So, even though I can't quite remember what you know, I I I said. Gosh, that's got to be that's that's that's probably 12 13 years ago. Um yeah.

[00:38:31]I'm I'm content with what we did on the episode of the podcast. [laughter] Another short one.

[00:38:37]Yeah, I also like Mike how people ask me like what did Mike when did what did Mike say on the 34th January 1970? Like I'm some data base of what >> [laughter] >> you say. I can't remember anything. I got no idea, man.

[00:38:50]I get emails asking me, "Hey, when did Mike say this this this?" I don't know.

[00:38:54]Google it. I'm not Mike's keeper, but uh I find that funny.

[00:39:00]Matthias has our last question and he's noticed that Sarna is a scholar that you've quoted the most in the entire Exodus series. Is his commentary on Exodus the best one out there?

[00:39:11]You know, it I'm it's fair to say it's my favorite. Um I think Carpenter's EEC, Evangelical Exegetical Commentary, is good. Uh it's certainly more detailed.

[00:39:23]Uh Enns' commentary is is is pretty good, too. But I like Sarna because and and generally I like the JPS Torah Commentary series because um you know, okay, you know, the the the the volume volume on Leviticus you You is still kind of what I'm going to say here that numbers I think maybe gets a little bit too detailed but I like that set because by and large it avoids technical jargon.

[00:39:53]You know, it'll it'll just give you it'll give you really important relevant information and and it'll tell you why.

[00:40:01]You know, it'll answer the why question, why the commentator is veering over here or there you know, without spending you know, a half a page or a page and a half on source critical discussion. I mean, you in scholarly commentaries on any book but especially the Torah, you just commentators just get lost in this because they feel as academics they feel that they've got to address source critical theories everywhere and I just get tired of that.

[00:40:26]I just get tired of it.

[00:40:28]Um I want a commentary that deals with the text as we have received it. I don't care about the author's speculations as to where the text came from or how the text came together. If that is relevant for interpretation, okay, then it might be worth reading. But I would rather have a commentary that deals with the text as received with an eye toward, you know, good, you know, ancient Near Eastern background information and and a good bit of, you know, like literary discussion which I think is real important for intertextuality.

[00:41:02]So, JPS series um does more of that well than other commentaries. Again, they just seem to get lost in these nuts and bolts critical questions. Uh so, I I really like Sarna's Exodus. I I really like Tigay's commentary on Deuteronomy in the same series.

[00:41:21]Uh you know, we used the one on on Leviticus. It's either by Milgrom or Levine. I think it's Levine because they they switch off Numbers and Leviticus in two different suit commentary series so I always get them mixed up. But uh the other thing is is you'll notice in the JPS series if you have one when they get into these really technical discussions, they will relegate that discussion to an appendix so it doesn't get in the way.

[00:41:47]So, if you're interested in it, you can still get it.

[00:41:50]I think like Tigay's commentary has something like 40 excursuses for you, 40 appendixes. Just but it makes his commentary so much more readable.

[00:41:59]But if you want to get into the weeds, you can. It just doesn't get in the way of of reading about a a particular passage.

[00:42:06]He'll He'll He'll do both. So, yeah, I I really like Sarna. There aren't that many commentaries on Exodus to begin with. But um Sarna's has more detail than most but it's still it's readable. It just doesn't get you doesn't distract you with a lots of these other things.