55 STRUCTURE

A. EXODUB 3-4(5) TEXT W Ri r2 a b c ’3]N ’b a nyi3 7h T?N ’3 b

b’IYbb 7X1K)’ ’il ÎIH N’YIN ’31 C

TRANSLATION SYLLABLE 4 x7 14 #io am I

that I should go to Pharaoh

and that I should bring the Israelites out of Egypt? After revealing himself to Moses at the burning bush (vss 1-6) Yahweh informs him that he is to return to Egypt and lead the Israelites out of their slavery there (vss 9-10). Moses responds with this lament over his unworthiness.

.The opening Lament is a formula of self-deprecation (of. 1 Sam 18.18; 2 Sam

7

.

18

. It is used also as an Insult in the third person; Ex 5.2; Ju

9

.

28

; 1 Sam

17

.

35

;

25

.

10

). Essentially it questions the position and qualification of the one designated. The precise meaning has to be determined from the c o n t e x t .Here it stresses Moses’ sense of

Inadequacy and unworthiness for the task. The rhetorical question

includes within Itself the two Reasons for the Lament. Each Is introduced by ’3 and are coordinated by the waw copula (lines b and

0

) and each

reiterates the two tasks given Moses. It is not surprising therefore to find the prayer composed out of the language of the preceding divine

word ; "Come and I shall send you to Pharaoh and you will bring my people

ft

the Israelites out of Egypt"(vs 10)!l^^Moses, shepherd of sheep in Midlan,

cannot see himself as shepherd of Israel.

Note should be taken of the repetition of the f i r s t person singular at the beginning of each line and its relationship to the other participants. Bach line adds an additional participant: in line a Moses alone, line b adds Phai’aoh and line a adds the Israelites and substitutes Egypt for

Pharaoh. In addition to this there is a progression from "being" (Who am I?) through "movonent" (I shall go) to "action" (I shall bring out). Corresponding to this movement in the prayer is the approximate

doubling of each succeeding line; 4/7/14 syllables.

The divine response is the promise o f Yahweh's presence ("I shall be #

with y o u " ) I t is followed by the promise of a sign,^^^

This prayer o f Moses is the first of a series o f responses by Moses to Yahweh’s call for him to be the instrument o f Israel’s deliverance

from Egypt. The idea of having to re tu rn to Egypt, to speak vdth Pharaoh and |

to bring the Hebrew slaves out of bondage fills Moses with a sense of inadequacy which is admirably expressed in the well constructed lament. 2. j . u rE)

R VNIB/’ "7N O HJH a 12

’ in'?» QD’in m ’hVn an'? ’ rnaxi b 20

10WI nn ’*? naxi c 8

P(L) anVN w no d 6

a If I go to the Israelites

b and I say to them, "The God of your fathers

has sent me to you,"

c and they say to me, "What is his name?"

d 'ite.t shall I tell them?

I

I

Y - '- v\ -v?-'....«if?:. " , ( /"f ;-.- 87.

to authorize his mission is satisfied and m n ’ is Introduced into the narrative.The giving of the name follows in verses l4ff.,^5a)

How far can this prayer be regarded as a lamentation? We shall be discuss­ ing this question below in chapter è . Insofar as it functions to satisfy a deep felt need and therefore carries a lamenting tone we should understand

1

This second response to Yahweh’s call/of Moses follows the divine I reassurance which promises Yahweh’s presence (vs 12). Moses shifts the

ground of his argument away from himself to the people. They will want to know the name of the God whom he represents and who claims to be the God of their ancestors. How is he to answer them?

Childs has examined this question of Moses in some d e t a i l . H e concludes that it has to do with validating Moses’ mission asyprophet speaking in 1 the name of Yahweh. "Early in Israel’s history the test for being a true #

messenger was linked to prophesying in the name of Yahweh,

The form of the prayer is to be found also in Genesis 24.12-14(1)

((r-Z §112t); nan plus a participial construction followed by a series % of coordinated hypothetical statements formed from waw consécutives with

perfect verbs. The apodosis (line d) stands in apposition to the protasis (lines a-c). But in this case the apodosis is a Petition-question

requesting information whereas in the prayer of Abraham’s servant the

apodosis is a statement of expected fulfilment which provides the ground for Yahweh to act. The prayer is therefore not a request for a sign which

will confirm an anticipated happening as God’s will but a request for ^ knowledge which will satisfy the demands of those to whom the prophet is

sent. As with many of Moses’ addresses to Yahweh there is no Address. From the point of view of the Elohist Moses’ request for God to state

his name is important. Up until this stage God has simply been known as

I

G’n^Nn. By^ speaking his name, m n ’, Moses’ need to know it in order 4

I

<s.

it to be a lamentation even though it possesses no Lament element. The threefold repetition of'7K and 4ihH form an interesting pattern enfolding the protasis and apodosis together: "7N VlhK;,.

The use of these two words illustrates the three dominant features of Hebrew rhetorical style evident in the prayers under consideration:

Inatusio: Chiasmus: Insotutus: 3. *7H ’*? i i w

H*7

im ’V i lyiaK^’ N71 nhN’ ’3 m n ’ i’*7N nNia h?

But tlmy will not believe me

and they will not listen to my voice. No, they will say,

"Yahweh has not appeared to you."

in the J account of Moses’ call this objection by Moses functions as a sign-request. Even though Yahweh says that the people will obey him

(

3

.

18

)^ Moses appears flatly to contradict the assertion. Moses adopts this pose in order to extract from Yahweh an authenticating sign. In so doing the narrator reveals his deep theological Insight into Israel’s past as a history of refusal to hear God’s word and rebellion against his chosen servants the prophets. Exactly the same thing happened to Jeremiah (43.2). The prophet-messenger must validate his claim. Mere

89

.

of the reality of a divine revelation. The simple proclamation of Yahweh^s

56)

J

name is an inadequate basis for faith - some tangible evidence is needed. The signs which follow operate on three levels: first, for Moses that his uncertainty may be removed; secsandly, for the people (vs 5) that they may believe Yahweh*s word spoken through Mbses;and thirdly, for the Egyptians

that they may know that Yahweh is the only true God by experiencing his i| unique power (vss 21ff,).^^^^ |

The objection is in two parts. The first half is made up of two Laments

I

over the anticipated reaction of the people (lines a and b). The second

at cry % 'I

half is introduced by the adverslve ’D, ‘ ^which functions both as another I negative lamentation and also as a causative providing the Reason for the

Lament, (line c and d): the people will flatly deny his experience. The initial im is a rare construction and only occurs elsewhere at 2 Chronicles

7.13

but that is the second of a series s

4

*. im .in. This suggests that | in this prayer the im understands a suppressed sentence such as IMX in

mn? ’9k HKl], Again no Addpess is used. The use of X9 to Introduce the main elements of the prayer ties the prayer together.

An Irrpottant aspect of the prayer is the introduction Into the call narrative for the first time the concept of faith (hi^lAK) which is picked up and made a major theme in the verses following (vss 5, 8 and 9). The verb appears nowhere else in the narrative except at the very end where we

90. 4. #XDD%8 4.24YJJ 59) A ’37N n a 4 L ?33N a’117 K9 b 8 0A G 3 Dy9K»n QA 5 17iy 9N 1117 7X0 ÜA 10 R(L) ’33X 11W9 713 ’3 d 8 a o iriy Lord

b I am not a man àf words

c even from yesterday and from the day before

and from vtei you began to speak to yoirr servant

d for I am heavy of tmgue.

In this the fourth objection to his call Moses returns to the original basis of his unwillingness to comply with Yahweh's direction - he lacks the necessary personal qualifications to do the work. He cannot speak with the eloquence and fluency of a prophet. At no time in the past has he been anything other than inarticulate and the command of Yahweh has not

changed the situation (lines c and d). Tliis need for the capacity to communicate verbally Yahweh ^s word fluently and eloquently appears also in the calls of the three great prophets Isaiah^^^ Jeremiah,^^^and Ezekiel^^\

Moses shifts his ground so abruptly that, the prayer, instead of picking

up the language of the previous divine instructions for the basis of

objection,itself becomes the basis for the divine reply (vss llff.).

There is now no way out but acceptance or refusal.

The structure of the prayer is straightforward: an Adâpees (line a), the first used so far in the objections, using the polite form of speech

■I

Î

- ■I .w

I

91

.

to a superior (’37x) strengthened by the particle of entreaty ’1. ’1 is | frequently used in prose lamentations of early Israel (Jos 7.8; Jud 6.13,15;

13.8 (prayers) and Gen 43.20; 44.18; Nu 12.11; 1 8am 1.26; 1 Kgs 3.1Z,26 ^

(seculiar addresses)); a Lament^ over his inability to speak well, expressed •

I

in a negative verbless sentence (line b); and a Heaeon, introduced by ’3,

which is also a verbless clause (line d). Both verbless clauses are f

of the [P“*Sj type. They are separated by a comlex of three temporal inclusive clauses introduced by .. .DA,. .DA,.,t»A (line The use of

?33N at the end of lines b and d provides the inotusio for the whole I I prayer. It will be seen that Addresses are not normally included within or | made part of the tnolusio bracket where used.

5. EXODUS é . U Ïd)

A ’37N ’3 a 4

p nV&n 7’3 N3 n*7E/ b 7 a O my Lord,

b send by the hand of (the one) you want to send! Moses, having had his previous objection answered (vs 11) and a further promise given him by Yahweh (vs 12), brings the dialogue to a climax

With an ambiguous equivocation. Yahweh*s response is one of anger (vs 14a)

but as Martin Noth remarks it is "quite astonishing that the divine wrath I ... nevertheless immediately leads to a further premise, that Aaron shall

be a coirpanion for MoSes (vss 14a0b)."^^^ It forms an interesting contrast to the outburst of divine wrath in chapter

32

.

9

ff* which is only turned aside by Moses’ intercession. The piece about Aaron is to be taken as

secondary.In this case verses 24-26 originally followed close on 4

verse l4a in the J narrative and could have been the outworking of the %

taken as a blank refusal. Indeed we shall argue for the opposite point of view. In the current narrative in spite of his anger Yahweh positively

responds to Moses’ prayer by appointing Aaron as Moses' spokesman. The Address of the prayer is the same as in verse 10 (line a). The

Petition requests God to send whom he will (line b). The verb is in the imperative and X3 adds emotional intensity to it.^^®"^ But it does not necessarily mean "Send someone else!" as most scholars ass u m e , T h e request is ambiguous and may also mean "Send wKomâveryou want to send! " i.e., if you really want me to go I shall go. In other words he

resigns himself to Yahweh’s will - albeit ever so reluctantly. His heart is not in this mission back to Egypt and it this reluctance and ill-grace that brings forth Yahweh's wrath. But alongside the anger is another promise from Yahweh.

The verb n9% which forms a verbal bracket {inotusio) to the Petition* 70)

characterizes the JE narrative of chapters 3-5 • It first appears in the initial summons of Moses to return to Egypt ...nyiB 9x inVwxi n39 nnyi

(3.10). It reappears in this Moses’ final response to Yahweh’s call. Thus it corresponds in chapters 3 and 4 more or less to its function as

inotusio in the following narrative of chapter 5, It therefore should be looked on as a deliberate stylistic feature of this particular call

narrative and of the resulting mission narrative which ties both narratives together into a whole.

I

95

In document The prose lamentations of pre exile Israel (Page 98-106)