We run our website the way we wished the whole internet worked: we provide high quality original content with no ads. We are funded solely by your direct support. Please consider supporting this project.
What is the significance of Exodus 33:1–3, 14?
“The Lord said to Moses, ‘Go, leave this place, you and the people whom you have brought up out of the land of Egypt, and go to the land of which I swore to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob…I will send an angel before you, and I will drive out the Canaanites…Go up to the land flowing with milk and honey; but I will not go up among you, or I would consume you on the way, for you are a stiff-necked people…’” Moses then pleads with the Lord to stay with the Israelites [vs. 12–13] and the Lord responds, “My presence will go with you, and I will give you rest.”
For several centuries God had planned on leading the Israelites out of Egypt and into the land of Canaan. Now, however, he was so disgruntled with his people that he was considering a “Plan B,” as it were. He wouldn’t destroy them, as he previously threatened. Nor would he cancel his promise to give them the land flowing with milk and honey. Indeed, by sending his angel to lead them he would continue to help them in acquiring this land. But he was now considering withdrawing his presence from them. They would continue on without him, and he would help them do this! Only Moses’ pleading (once again) caused God to change his mind and remain with the Israelites.
I do not see how the classical view can account for a straightforward reading of this fascinating passage. Very clearly we find the Lord offering Moses a rather elaborate “Plan B” in light of the remarkable obstinacy of his people. If the future is eternally settled in God’s mind, however, there really can never be a “Plan B,” however things may appear. That is, if God eternally knew he would never do what he told Moses he was planning on doing, then he wasn’t really planning on doing what he told Moses he was planning on doing. So far as I can see, the entire episode is thereby reduced to a rather elaborate charade. Why go to the bother of distinguishing between his presence and the angel as well as mentioning all the various people he would help drive out (33:2) if it was certain all along that he will never carry out such a plan?
A straightforward reading of this text would rather suggest that God in fact seriously considered this “Plan B” until Moses moved him to do otherwise. And the only way this divine consideration could be serious was if the future was open to the possibility of what God was considering.
Category: Q&A
Tags: Open Theism, Q&A
Topics: Open Theism
Verse: Exodus 33
Related Reading
Support for Open Theism from Science and Experience
I have discussed the scriptural support that depicts the future as partially open and that God knows it as such. I do this in God of the Possible. If a position is true, every avenue of reflection ought to point in its direction, including science. What follows are two more “pointers” to the view that the…
Is speaking in tongues the initial evidence of receiving the baptism of the Holy Spirit?
Pentecostals have traditionally taught that speaking in tongues is evidence that a person is filled with the Holy Spirit. Those who defend this position do so primarily on the basis of a pattern they discern in Acts. They note that when the disciples were first baptized in the Spirit on the day of Pentecost, “all…
What do you think of the classical view that God is impassible?
The classical view has historically held that God is impassible, meaning he is above pathos (passion or emotions). The main reason the church came to this view was that, following the Hellenistic philosophical tradition, they associated emotions with change while believing God was above all change (immutable). Moreover, experiencing emotions implies that one is affected…
Re-Thinking Divine Sovereignty
Many people in the church have been taught that divine sovereignty is synonymous with unilateral control. Some have even argued that if God is not in control of everything, then something must be in control of him. Still others have proposed that if God is not sovereign over all, then he has no sovereignty at…
Do you believe God is pure actuality?
The basis of the classical view of God as pure actuality (actus purus) is the Aristotelian notion that potentiality is always potential for change and that something changes only because is lacks something else. So, a perfect being who lacks nothing must be devoid of potentiality, which means it must be pure actuality. I think…
What God Doesn’t Know (According to W.L.Craig)
Hello bloggers. Here’s Part II of my response to Bill Craig’s podcast critique of the open model of providence. As I see it, the central difference between Craig’s position (Molinism) and my own (open theism) boils down to our different assessments of futurity. As I noted in my previous blog, Craig believes that propositions asserting…