Can We Change God's Mind?

As someone who has a minor in history, has worked in and around the legal profession for most of my career, and has recently obtained a Masters Degree in Theology, I am fascinated by the similarities of argument between law and theology. This overlap is perfectly understandable. In Biblical times, theologians were the "lawyers." They were the "Pharisees and scribes;" the interpreters of The Law.

To add some historical perspective to the evolution of philosophical and legal thought systems, it was almost 600 years after the famous prophets of Samuel and Nathan, 350 years after Elijah and Elisha, and 150-250 years after Jeremiah and Ezekiel that the Greek philosophers Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle fashioned arguments from logic that attempted to explain the Universe and God's ("the Logos'") role in its creation and sustainment. [Compare that time frame to the mere 239 years since the signing of the Declaration of Independence]. Pontius Pilate, in an abdication of his judicial, legal role, "washed his hands" more than 1,000 years after David committed adultery with Bathsheba and then wrote Psalm 51 as his confession and cathartic cleansing. As we study history, let's remember that the Greeks were building on a foundation laid by Hebrew prophets, philosophers, lawyers and scribes who had been writing for more than one-thousand years before the birth of Socrates. In fact, the last book of the Old Testament, Malachi, is dated as finalized in 430 BC; Socrates was born in 470 BC, and his student, Plato, in 428 BC. And, Greek philosophy led to Roman law, which, over time, evolved into English common and chancellery law, which, combined with the Mosaic Law of the Old Testament, was the basis of America's initial legal system.

Plato's belief in the separation between God and the matter of the Universe was rejected by Christian theologians as early as the late second century AD (see especially Tertullian and Augustine, two of the brightest minds of the ancient church -- both Blacks from North Africa, I might add), and the Church wrestled with Aristotle for several centuries after Thomas Aquinas' 13th Century Summa Theologica, with Aristotelian ontology ultimately rejected in the early-16th Century by Martin Luther. [As an aside, one major difference in the theology of Jews and Muslims, on the one hand, versus Christians on the other, is the viewpoint taken toward Aristotelian metaphysics: The Jewish Rabbi Maimonides and Islamic philosopher Averroes both used Aristotle to support their rejection of the Christian Trinity, whereas Aquinas tried to reconcile Christianity to Aristotelian ontological arguments on being, as well as to Maimonides' and Averroes' theologies, and ultimately gave up the attempt to do so as "impossible."]

Both the monotheistic religious (Jew, Christian, Muslim) and the non-Humanist "metaphysicist" (for lack of a better generic term) believe in a God, a Prime Mover, a Being transcendent to the Universe and thereby able to be its Creator. The monotheistic religions all profess a belief in God's immutability, perfection, and inerrancy. In light of God's sovereignty (is that the same as "perfect foreknowledge"?) and His inability to err, why, then, do we pray? If it is already written, why ask? If it is already commanded, why plead?

Many have suggested that we are commanded to pray by our Holy books because of the change it makes within us, the pray-ers. While that is no doubt true, this paper looks at the challenging theological question of whether we can change God's plans via our prayers and supplications (dare I say "negotiations"?). This paper is legalistic, so will likely only be of interest to people who enjoy determining whether all five requirements for a valid contract have been met (you know who you are). It also uses Bible stories to support its case, so those who do not believe in the Bible as history will not necessarily concur with my analysis.

 

 

Fuller Theological Seminary, Houston Campus

Can We Change God’s Mind Through Negotiation or Prayer?

Old Testament – Pentateuch (OT 501X)

Dr. Andrew Dearman

By: E. Marcus Jonesi

November 30, 2007

 

I have often wondered why we are called upon to pray. After all, if God is sovereign, omnipotent, and omniscient, then does He not already know what He is going to do long before I ask anything of Him? I have also wondered if God can change His mind, because to change one’s mind means either (1) to have been wrong in a former choice or decision or (2) to have gained new information that one previously did not have, information that changed their decision-making matrix. If God has perfect knowledge, then “new information” is not possible, and thus, a change in opinion would have to mean the correction of an error, error being contrary to the nature of God. Before this course, I had concluded that God, by definition, cannot change His mind and, therefore, asks us to pray solely to effectuate changes within ourselves and not to change the course of His actions. Then, I re-read Genesis and Exodus.

Abraham appears to bargain with God in Gen 18 to spare Sodom if the city has as few as ten righteous people dwelling within it. Even more striking, Moses seems to actually talk God out of His announced intention to destroy the Israelites and start over with Moses’ descendants in Ex 32-34. These passages appeared on their surface to contradict my “logical” conclusions, so I chose the topic of whether we can negotiate with God and get Him to change His mind for my term paper.

One distinction needs to be made at the outset. God frequently couches His promises in “If-Then-Else” language, declaring that some person or group must obey a specific command before He will perform a promised action. When He says “If you listen carefully to the voice of the Lord your God and do what is right in His eyes…[then] I will not bring on you any of the diseases I brought on the Egyptians” at Ex 15.26, Israelite obedience was required for them to receive the promised lack of disease. Because the people violated that command not less than two months later when they built the Golden Calf at Mt.Sinai, the Lord struck them with a plague (Ex. 32.35). This example is one of many “If-Then-Else” declarations of God within the Old Testament.

In contrast to these conditional statements, this paper looks at two situations where God appears to declare unconditionally that He is going to do something and men then appearing to negotiate with God to change His “absolute” decision.

Genesis 18.16-33

The story of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah troubles many in the modern world. How could a just and loving God sweep away two cities and everyone therein, sparing no one? It sounds neither loving nor graceful, two attributes that are foremost on the list of God’s virtues. Many Christians use the story of Sodom and Gomorrah to fuel their virulence against the homosexual lobby. Many non-believers use it and the Canaan Conquest stories to justify their contentions that God is not just, or that God does not exist, or that the Bible is a collection of fables with no historical accuracy. Against this background noise, what is it that we can discern about God and our interactions with Him through the dialogue between God and Abraham regarding the pending destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah?

I've read this pericope many times in my life, yet I have previously overlooked what Claus Westermann observes: God never does announce an intention to destroy Sodom! It is implied at v 17, but never stated before Abraham begins the dialogue.[1] Yet, somehow, Abraham divined God’s intention to destroy the city and proceeded to engage Him in a series of questions. Historically, I have read these questions as Abraham simply trying to “bargain God down” on the number of righteous Sodomites needed to spare Lot and his family from being destroyed, with Abraham stopping at ten because he felt that many people must be Yhwh-centric in a community of that size. Lot had been living in Sodom for years, so surely he must have rubbed off on at least one other household by then?[2] Superficially, I read this passage as nothing more than Abraham trying to change God’s mind about destroying Sodom for the sole purpose of sparing Lot’s family.

Many scholars, however, approach this pericope from a completely different perspective. John Walton concludes that sparing a city of wicked and evil people because of only a very few righteous would be every bit as unjust as sweeping away the righteous with the wicked, so Abraham could not have been arguing for that.[3] Walter Brueggemann goes so far as to say that God’s initial action plan was to destroy the righteous within Sodom along with the wicked and that Abraham became a moral mentor to God—that “Abraham is the bearer of a new theological possibility” and that “God is pressed by Abraham to consider a new alternative.”[4] One Jewish commentator, E.A. Speiser, sees this story as exploring the salvific relationship between the meritorious individual and the otherwise worthless society.[5] Another Jewish commentator, Nahum Sarna, sees within the verbal exchange a genuine searching by Abraham to understand the mind of God in a complex interplay between righteousness, wickedness, and God’s judgment.[6] I think Nahum’s perspective most accurately articulates the intent of the pericope’s author: “Because God is universal and omnipotent, humankind needs assurance that His almighty power is not indiscriminately applied and that He is not capricious like the pagan gods….Abraham’s struggle to apprehend the nature of God’s purposes assumes that God must act according to a principal that man can try to understand.”[7]

Abraham could not perceive of a way that God could both punish the wicked while protecting the righteous. Accordingly, the dialogue between Abraham and God at vv 23-32 is not so much a negotiation by Abraham to spare wicked people from the consequences of their actions as it is to probe God as to “which affects God more regarding Sodom’s future — the many who are wicked or the few who are innocent.”[8] I must ultimately reject Brueggemann’s analysis of this pericope, concluding along with Walter that “God does not need to be urged to do justice by Abraham; the discussion takes place so that Abraham can consider the issue of justice, not so that God can be admonished to do the right thing.”[9]

Interestingly, Abraham did not consider the possibility that God could remove the righteous from the city before He destroyed it.[10] If he had, there would have been no need for the apparent “bargaining.”[11] It was Abraham’s concern regarding how God viewed the interplay between the “rights” of the innocent versus the justified punishment of the wicked that is the primary concern within these verses.

Ultimately, God agrees with Abraham that He will not destroy the city if there were as few as ten righteous people within it. However, regrettably, we learn in Gen 19 that the city cannot even boast of ten, and so it is destroyed. While there are literally scores of other interesting theological points that we could look at within this passage, space demands that I limit my focus to the issue of whether Abraham changed God’s mind through negotiation within this pericope.

As John Sailhamer observes: “[The] central issue of the discourse between Abraham and the Lord is expressed in Abraham’s question, ‘Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?’...to which the Lord answers with a resounding yes.”[12] I believe that Abraham was not arguing for the preservation of the city of Sodom or its wicked inhabitants; rather, he was probing God to better understand His provision for the righteous. Thus, in light of all the evidence within the commentaries I have cited above, it is my conclusion that Abraham did not attempt to change God’s mind within this pericope, but instead, that as a result of this dialogue, left God’s presence convinced that God had proved Himself trustworthy to the righteous.

 

Exodus 32-34

This passage is known as the Golden Calf incident where the people, tired of waiting for Moses to return from atop Mt.Sinai, ask Aaron the High Priest to fashion “gods” for them, and then celebrate a festival unto Yhwh. These three chapters are rich in historical and theological significance, and whole books have been written on just this pericope. I believe that Peter Enns summarizes these three chapters best when he says their message is one of “rebellion, mediation, and restoration.”[13] And, it is mediation that most concerns us as we look at the topic of our ability to change God’s mind.

As a quick summary of these three chapters as they pertain to our topic, Moses is told by God that the Israelites have fashioned an idol, sacrificed to it, and that He intends to destroy them all and start over with Moses in His program to populate the Promised Land and build a great nation (32.7-10). Moses tells God that He should not do so, and God is said to “repent” and change His mind regarding the annihilation of the Israelites (32.11-14). Moses then goes down to the camp at the base of Mt. Sinai, sees for himself how out-of-control the people have become, breaks the tablets that contain the word of God written with His own finger, and then destroys the golden calf and makes the people drink the powdery ashes of its remains (32.15-20). He then questions Aaron as to how he could have done such a terrible thing as to build the calf. Aaron lies, and Moses then asks people to declare whether they are for the Lord. Only the Levites step forward, and Moses then has them go throughout the camp, killing the people who had participated in the idolatry (32.21-29). Moses then goes to intercede with God again about the plight of the people, with this intercession scattered over the next two chapters (see 32.31-34, 33.12-17, and 34.8-10). By the end of Chapter 34, God has renewed His covenant with the people of Israel and has agreed to accompany them to the Promised Land. To analyze these events through the lens of Enns’s analysis, (1) rebellion occurs at 32.1-6; (2) mediation then occurs from 32.7-34.9; and (3) restoration finally occurs at 34.10-35.

It is a unanimous consensus among the commentators I reviewed that Moses actually changed God’s mind at verse 32.14. The NIV says “Then the Lord relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened.” The RSV is perhaps clearer on this point when it says “And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do to His people.” It is clear and unambiguous that God intends to wipe out the Israelites, Moses intercedes on their behalf, and God changes His mind. However, even though God agrees at 32.14 not to destroy the Israelites, Moses still needs three further mediation sessions with God to convince Him to continue with the people on their journey and to reclaim them as His people. God ultimately does not come to agree to all this until He announces a new iteration of the Sinai Covenant at 34.10.

The making of the Golden Calf and the sacrifices, feasts, and pageantry that then surrounds the Calf constitutes a huge sin by the Israelites, one that John Goldingay calls “the original sin of the people of God.”[14] It effectively abrogated the conditional covenant made at Mt. Sinai between God and the people at Ex 19, where God agreed to be their God if (and only if) the people would obey Him (19.5).[15] Theologically speaking:

The unconditional Covenant of the Fathers could not be broken; God had to honor His promise to give them [the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob] a land and make them a nation. The Covenant of Sinai, to make them His people, on the other hand, could be, and was, broken….and [God] was ready to return the people to its prior status [of not being His chosen people.][16]

Given the magnitude of the sin involved, how does Moses approach the issue of changing “the wrathful deity’s”[17] mind? At first, he is focused on saving the Israelites from extermination, using three arguments as to why God should not destroy them: (1) He emphasizes that Israel is God’s own people, and not Moses’ people as God had just referred to them; (2) he suggests that if God persists in His intention, the Egyptians will impute base motives to His having brought the Israelites to Sinai; and (3) he reminds God that He promised the patriarchs that He would give their descendants a land of their own and make them a numerous nation.[18] Goldingay sees this third argument as being the most important: “Once Yhwh has sworn [to Abraham by Himself at Gen 22.16], there is no way out of fulfilling the commitment [to make his descendants as numerous as the stars and allow his descendants to possess the land of Canaan]. Moses will remind Yhwh of this at Sinai, and Yhwh will accept the necessity to be held to it at Ex 32.13.”[19]

But, even though God changes His mind as a result of Moses’ arguments at 32.14, God still has no intention to accompany the people to Canaan (Ex 33.3). This prospect filled the people with dread, bringing them, for the first time in the story, to a place of mourning and repentance; only now do they truly comprehend the nature and severity of their sin.[20] It is against this backdrop that Moses again approaches God on their behalf, reminding Him once more that the Israelites are His people and asking Him to go up with them to the Promised Land, if only for Moses’ sake (Ex 33.12-16). God finally agrees with Moses to accompany the people to the Promised Land for the stated reason that He is pleased with Moses (Ex 33.17). However, the Sinai Covenant is still in a state of abrogation, and God has not yet reclaimed the Israelites as His people, so Moses approaches God a fourth time at Ex 34.8-9, in effect asking God to restore the Israelites as His “inheritance.” It is at this point that God makes a covenant with Moses that, even in spite of the fact that the Israelites are (and will continue to be) a stiff-necked people, He will Covenant with them again and “do wonders never before done in any nation in all the world (Ex 34.10).” It is finally at this point that Israel has been completely restored in its Covenantal relationship with Yhwh.

The importance of this tenacious negotiation by Moses should not be overlooked. To quote Hammer:

Paradoxically, the grant-Covenant [to Abraham], which entailed so much less, was responsible for the continued physical existence of the Jewish people, while the treaty-Covenant [at Sinai] had almost led to their destruction. Only when the grant-Covenant had rescued them from destruction could Moses begin again to work toward his higher goal of the restoration of the treaty-Covenant.

The Sinai Covenant might never have existed or never been actualized. The Jews could have been given the land without becoming the Lord’s people, with all that the choice implies. This was exactly what God agreed to, following Moses’ first plea, an agreement that was totally unsatisfactory to Moses. Perhaps the oath to the Fathers was sufficient, in and of itself, at one time, but, later, that was no longer true. On the contrary, the New Covenant, with its deeper meaning and wider implications, was so important that a return to the promise of the Fathers was viewed as a catastrophic step backwards.[21]

Simply stated, Moses saved his people. Had it not been for him, the Israelites might have been wholly obliterated, or, had God spared them, might have been brought to the Promised Land as a people estranged from God. In this passage, at Mt.Sinai, Moses really does appear to have changed God’s mind.

Conclusion

If Moses changed God’s mind at Mt.Sinai after God had announced His decision to destroy the Israelites, is it reasonable to assume that I can do so today? After all, as Terence Fretheim acknowledges, God sought out Moses’ opinion as His hand-picked mediator between Himself and the Israelites, and Moses was God’s “friend” with whom He spoke “face to face.”[22] Sarna, too, notes that Moses “played the role of the exclusive mediator between Israel and God.”[23] As such, is it not possible that God listened to Moses in situations where he might not listen to others, simply because of His special relationship with Moses? Furthermore, can we compare a situation which might result in the extermination of Israel to the far less significant issues I bring before the Lord in my prayer life?

Motyer notes: “If God has made his mind known on any given matter, no amount of prayer will change it.”[24] This theme is developed at great length by Fretheim, where he analyzes this Exodus 32-34 exchange between God and Moses as one in which God has not set His mind on the matter and is actually seeking out Moses’ thoughts upon the issues.[25] Both commentators conclude that God did change His mind, yet they both also assert that God’s mind was not fully set on destroying the Jews and starting over with Moses. Walter Kaiser’s take on the subject is that “God’s repentance is an anthropomorphism that aims at showing us that He can and does change in His actions and emotions to men when given proper grounds for doing so, and thereby He does not change His basic integrity or character.”[26] Thus, in response to human intercession, God might change His decision regarding the severity of His judgment,[27] but He never will change His character or His laws.

Enns notes that implicit in all prayer requests, no matter how small or large, is the “fact that God has not yet made up His mind, that His will can be shaped somehow.”[28] Motyer puts it thus: “While it is true that He does not change, there is at the heart of His changelessness a ‘mystery,’ a ‘revealed secret,’ that the sovereign, unchangeable God accomplishes his purposes through the prayers of His people….Prayer is one of the ‘laws of God’ by which He runs the world.”[29] Fretheim adds: “Human prayer is honored by God as a contribution to a conversation that has the capacity to change future directions for God, people, and world.”[30] And, we can see in Jesus’ prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane an implication that He believed that God could change the game plan regarding the Crucifixion.

Motyer discerns five marks of true and effective prayer, all of which are present in the Exodus 32-34 passage:

1. True prayer does not seek – rather refuses – glory for self;
2. True prayer matches the known will of God;
3. True prayer pleads on the basis of what the Lord has done;
4. True prayer is concerned with the Lord’s good name; and
5. True prayer rests on what the Lord has promised in the confidence that “what he has promised he will most surely keep and perform.”[31]

Prayer that conforms to these five attributes is prayer that God honors. And, prayers of this type can obviously ask God to do things, to change things, and even to change what appears to be His decision about something.

Here is the conundrum I face as I attempt to conclude whether I can change God’s mind through negotiation or prayer. I am not Jesus (God’s Son) or Moses (the sole mediator between God and Israel), and it seems a bit preposterous to me that my prayers of intercession or supplication could actually change God’s mind. Sure, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus all talked directly to God and negotiated with Him, sometimes to successful conclusions (Moses) and sometimes to what appear to be unsuccessful ones (Jesus). But, I have never talked to God face to face and my prayer life is feeble compared to these men.

Yet, [Christian theology holds that] I am indwelled by the Holy Spirit, God living within me, which is a state of being that was not true for either Abraham or Moses. If God would dialogue with his “friends,” and change His mind based upon Moses’ intercession on behalf of a "stiff-necked people," how much more so is He likely to do so with His adopted children who approach Him “in Christ.” He has demonstratively changed His mind in the past through the petitions of his servant, Moses; surely He will today change His mind, at appropriate times, as a response to the Spirit-enlightened request of His sons and daughters. I therefore must conclude that, unlikely as it seems, we can get God to change His mind through negotiation or prayer, even today.

 

Bibliography

Books

Brueggemann, Walter. Genesis. Interpretation – A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching. Atlanta, GA: John Knox Press, 1982.

Dunnam, Maxie D. Mastering the Old Testament: Exodus. The Communicator’s Commentary Series, Old Testament. Dallas, TX: Word Publishing, 1987.

Enns, Peter. Exodus. The NIV Application Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2000.

Fretheim, Terence E. Exodus. Interpretation – A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching. Atlanta, GA: John Knox Press, 1991.

Goldingay, John. Old Testament Theology. Vol 1., Israel’s Gospel. Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 2003.

Hamilton, Victor P. The Book of Genesis: Chapters 18-50. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1995.

Kaiser Jr., Walter C. Exodus. Vol. 2, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1990.

Motyer, Alec. The Message of Exodus: The Days of Our Pilgrimage. The Bible Speaks Today: Old Testament series. Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 2005.

Sailhamer, John H. Genesis. Vol. 2, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1990.

Sarna, Nahum M. Exploring Exodus: The Heritage of Biblical Israel. New York, NY: Schocken Books, 1986.

Sarna, Nahum M. The JPS Torah Commentary – Genesis. Philadelphia, PA: The Jewish Publication Society, 1989.

Speiser, E.A. Genesis: Introduction, Translation and Notes. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1964.

Walton, John H. Genesis. The NIV Application Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2001.

Westermann, Claus. Genesis 12-36.A Continental Commentary. Translated by John J. Scullion. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1995.

 

Periodicals and Journals

Ben Zvi, Ehud. “The Dialogue Between Abraham and Yhwh in Gen. 18.23-32: A Historical-Critical Analysis.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 53 (Mar 1992), pp 27-46.

Hammer, Robert A. “The New Covenant of Moses.” Judaism, 27.3 (1978), pp 345-350.

McCann Jr., J. Clinton. “Exodus 32.1-14.” Interpretation 44.03 (1990), pp 277-281.

Whybray, R.N. “The Immorality of God: Reflections on Some Passages in Genesis, Job, Exodus and Numbers.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 72 (Dec 1996), pp 89-120.

 

Reference Works

Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch. Alexander, T. Desmond and David W. Baker, eds. Downers Grove, IL: InterVaristy Press, 2003.

. Fretheim, Terence E. “Exodus, Book of.”

. Martens, Elmer A. “Sin, Guilt.”

 

 

---

[1] Claus Westermann, Genesis 12-36, A Continental Commentary, translated by John J. Scullion (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1995), p 285.

[2] In fact, Lot may have been one of the City Elders at the time this story occurs. We are told that he was “sitting in the gateway of the city” when the angels of God arrived at Sodom in Gen 19.1, suggesting that Lot was at that time a member of the ruling council.

[3] John H. Walton, Genesis, The NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2001), p 482.

[4] Walter Brueggemann, Genesis, Interpretation – A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching (Atlanta, GA: John Knox Press, 1982), p 168.

[5] E.A. Speiser, Genesis: Introduction, Translation and Notes (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1964), p 135.

[6] Nahum M. Sarna, The JPS Torah Commentary – Genesis (Philadelphia, PA: The Jewish Publication Society, 1989), p. 133.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis: Chapters 18-50 (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1995), p 25.

[9] Walter, p 475.

[10] R.N Whybray, “The Immorality of God: Reflections on Some Passages in Genesis, Job, Exodus and Numbers,” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 72 (Dec 1996), p 101.

[11] Ehud Ben Zvi, “The Dialogue Between Abraham and Yhwh in Gen. 18.23-32: A Historical-Critical Analysis,” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 53 (Mar 1992), pp 40-41.

[12] John H. Sailhamer, Genesis, Vol. 2, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1990), p 152.

[13] Peter Enns, Exodus, The NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2000), p 568.

 

[14] John Goldingay, Old Testament Theology, Vol 1., Israel’s Gospel (Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 2003), p 377.

[15] Robert A. Hammer, “The New Covenant of Moses,” Judaism, 27.3 (1978), pp 347-348 and J. Clinton McCann Jr., “Exodus 32.1-14,” Interpretation 44.03 (1990), p 278.

[16] Hammer, p 348.

[17] Whybray, p 113.

[18] Ibid. Also, Enns, p 572.

[19] Goldingay. P 197.

[20] Alec Motyer, The Message of Exodus: The Days of Our Pilgrimage, The Bible Speaks Today: Old Testament series (Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 2005), p 313.

[21] Hammer, p 349.

[22] Terence E. Fretheim, Exodus, Interpretation – A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching (Atlanta, GA: John Knox Press, 1991), p 296.

[23] Nahum M. Sarna, Exploring Exodus: The Heritage of Biblical Israel (New York: Schocken Books, 1986), p 217.

[24] Motyer, p 303.

[25] Fretheim, p 283.

[26] Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., Exodus, Vol. 2, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1990), p 479.

[27] Fretheim, p 286.

[28] Enns, p 595.

[29] Motyer, p 303.

[30] Fretheim, p 287.

[31] Motyer, pp 303-304.