The Heart of God in Exodus 3
Notes from a Seminar with Nico Tromp
We began the session by reading a poem written by Nico Tromp, “The heart”.
The methodology we used for this seminar was different from previous
days. Nico Tromp gave us the text of Exodus 3, which
we read together. Afterwards each one of us took some time to consider two
questions; “What is YHWH’s programme, and by whom is
it executed?” The reflection gave rise
to some very interesting insights which were then shared by each one.
Background to the
text
Using the historical method we find two different traditions in the text of Exodus 3: the Yahwist tradition, from around 1000BC and the Elohist tradition, from 700-600BC. Each is recognisable by its use of the name of God. The Yahwist tradition uses the name “Yahweh” while the Elohist tradition uses the name God. We find the Yahwist in the verses 6-8 and16-22, and the Elohist tradition in the verses 9-15.
Unfortunately in most bible translations the Yawhistic name for God is rendered as “the Lord”, which in fact falsifies and gives a completely different meaning to God’s name. From a feminist theological point of view, particularly, “the Lord” presents considerable difficulties.
Nico Tromp prefers to render the translation as “the faithful one”. Quite different from the connotations usually associated with “Lord”, the name “Yahweh” expresses much more clearly God’s nearness. It is not a static presence, but a dynamic one. The name is verbal in character, a dynamic name, a name of action. It is more akin to the German “dasein”, being present in an involved way.
The name “Yahweh” is probably a future tense of the Hebrew verb, expressing not only God’s immediate presence, but also God’s constancy and loyalty. God is personally present to the people, now and always.
The revelation of God’s name as “I am that I am” shows that God has an identity of God’s own; sovereign, not dependent, always new and unpredictable, not determined from the outside, but from within. God is loyal, present and at the same time beyond our reach.
Nico invited us to look into the text for its narrative programme. He explained its content by means an example: the story of the blind man in John 9. Jesus cures the blind man so that he can see. But in order to perform this action a number of modalities are needed: knowledge of the situation of the person, the will to do something about it and reasons for wanting to act. It is a complicated scheme.
We find a similar scheme in the text of Exodus 3. It is God’s programme for God’s people. How would we express this programme?
Carl:
After Yahweh sees, hears and knows about the oppression of the Israelites he wants to rescue them. He wants to be close. He wants to reveal Himself as present, as well now as he has been for ever, as it was in the time of the ancestors. God wants to let himself be known as a faithful God.
God encounters Moses to mission him and let him be part of the means of carrying out His plan of rescue. Moses is unsure about his identity, but is to find his true identity in the presence of God: “Who am I?” is followed by: “I am with you”. In God’s presence he will find identity and strength.”
Ton:
Yahweh’s action contains four elements:
· He wants to rescue his people from the power of the Egyptians
·
He wants to bring them up out of the country. It
is not a liberation within
· He wants to bring them to a fine land, abundant in milk and honey. No shortage of anything.
· He wants the Israelites to replace the Canaanites etc. They are even mentioned twice. Apparently Yahweh is not their God.
This big vision is then brought down to smaller proportions.
God calls Moses and sends him to Pharaoh in order to liberate his people. Moses
objects as being inadequate to such a task. But God will be with him and gives
him a sign: “when you have
brought the people out of
Moses’ second objection has to do with his own people. Moses doesn’t feel confident to face them and carry out his mission. God gives him detailed instructions: telling him what he has to say and to do.
Mark
Looking at the program of God from the point of view of “God’s will and knowledge”:
God was touched by seeing his people oppressed by the Egyptians and He wants to rescue them. That is His “will”.
The proof “that they will worship God on the mountain” will be a proof that God has liberated them. Worship is thanking God for the liberation. It is a celebration of freedom. And liberation is ahead of the law, for Moses received the Ten Commandments only after the people were liberated and the Ten Commandments are seen as the way of “living in freedom”.
Yahweh asks Moses to carry out his plans. God needs Moses to carry them out, but Moses also needs God to rescue the people. The collaboration is necessary. They need one another.
To send Moses to Pharaoh, God has to convince him of His plan. Moses doesn’t know what to do or how to do it. Therefore God has to hand down to Moses His knowledge of how to do it. But by sharing His knowledge Moses also develops the will to do it. He becomes convinced and will go.
Other questions
arising from the text
An important question throughout history is whether or not God ever truly intervenes? While we may like to underline God’s reliability, for many people that is not their experience of God. Maybe part of the problem is the image of God held by many – that of some sort of a magician, whereas God reveals Godself rather as one who is present. God is participating in the suffering of God’s people, and is suffering as much as the people who suffer. God is not the easy liberator who wipes away the trouble, but shares in it. In a way it seems to speak of God’s inability – something of a problem. Then people ask: “What use is a God who cannot act?” The power of evil in the world is real. Nevertheless, while God is suffering, he cannot be defeated, he will find a way out. There is always a new beginning.
There is also a double kind of suffering: the suffering of the those who suffer, but also the suffering of the people who witness the suffering of others.
God offers a double liberation. On the one hand Moses is liberated from his fears (the liberator is himself first liberated). On the other hand there is the liberation of the people.
God takes the initiative by first calling Moses. But Moses also needs initiative – he needs to keeps his eyes open. If one is not attentive one cannot hear the voice of God. It is only by pursuing his curiosity, by going to the burning bush, by investigating the strange sight, that Moses enters upon Holy ground.
In one Jewish tradition the burning bush represents the
people of
Moses objects considerably to God’s plan. He gradually
becomes convinced of his mission, but this takes time. He is very human, like
all of us. But while Moses finds it hard to accept all that
God is asking of him, the people will find it hard to believe that they can be
liberated. When they are in the desert they want to return to
God is the inspiration, the Spirit who works from within, rather than an outside God.
The mission of Moses was to confront Pharaoh. This is clearly a theology of Liberation. It starts from the reality of life, from the suffering of the people. That is where we also have to start. Thus, a thorough social analysis is very important, not just as an academic exercise but as carried out by the people in poverty and suffering themselves, reflecting on their own experiences and making the connections between different issues. Social analysis is, of course, relatively easy if the oppressor is a highly visible dictator. It’s more difficult if we are dealing with a system that is mostly hidden.
The name of Yahweh
The name of Yahweh has both a meaning and a function:
In Ex
The loyalty Yahweh extends is his, his choice, not deserved by any merits. Because it is his, it is always there, reliable, always new, a God of surprises. God is greater than people can even imagine. Moses felt too small for the task assigned to him. The answer of God is: I am with you as I am, the same God, by choice, for ever. He is the God of “the fathers” (of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob), over time, now and in the future as much as in the past. God is loyal but also unpredictable. He is himself, God cannot be grasped.
The function of revealing Yahweh’s name is that Moses can now give an answer to the inevitable questions of the Israelites – who sent you? So, Yahweh gives His name, but at the same time makes clear that his name cannot be used for magical purposes. He does not deliver himself into the hands of men. The “idem per idem” formula (I AM WHO AM) is a revelation but at the same time a holding back: a mysterious name, a name that one cannot fully grasp, an unpronounceable name. So, one cannot use God for one’s own purposes and personal plans.
Beside this, the name of Yahweh is also an encouragement for Moses: “I am with you”, in word and in deed. You don’t have to do it all by yourselves.
Theoretical and
pastoral implications of the text
Sharing the stories of the bible offers us both theoretical and practical implications.
Theoretically, we come to understand more of God’s vision and God’s dream. By exploring the text we also come to understand God better and what are God’s plans for us.
By realising that God is a God who is present to the people, we also have to be present to them. God does not choose to help the people because of their faith or because of their prayers or their goodness. God chooses to help them because they are His people, because they are oppressed and because He hears their cries. God is not judgemental in this. We also, therefore, should not be quick to judge.
Just as Moses is concerned about the question of his authority in carrying out God’s vision and plan, there is also for us the same question: who do we say God is to the people we encounter? Who do we say we are? This is certainly an important question for us as we prepare to move into a secular neighbourhood. It has to do with identification, authorisation and legitimation. In whose name are we there? We do not go to live there for our own sake. Nor are not sent by ourselves, but by God.
In Nico’s second poem Yahweh is my name we read: “His name for us a weapon”. Or perhaps, “we have no other weapon than his name”. Therefore it is important to reflect on both how to name ourselves and how to name God.