24 Exodus 34, the Middoth and the Doctrine of God: The Importance

Exodus 34, the Middoth

and the Doctrine of God:

The Importance of Biblical Theology to

Evangelical Systematic Theology

Graham A. Cole

Graham A. Cole is Professor of

Biblical and Systematic Theology at

Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. Prior

to joining the TEDS faculty, Dr. Cole

was for ten years principal of Ridley

College, University of Melbourne, Aus-

tralia, where he lectured in philosophy,

systematic theology, ethics, and apolo-

getics. He has contributed numerous

articles to books and periodicals. Dr.

Cole is the author of He Who Gives

Life: The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit

(Crossway, 2007) and Engaging with

the Holy Spirit: Real Questions, Practical

Answers (Crossway, 2008).

Introduction

We were created to worship the living

God. According to Jesus, the Father seeks

such worship (John 4:23). There is no

higher calling. Indeed, it is a rm biblical

principle that we become in character like

the object of our worship. However, in a

fallen world, this calling can be distorted.

The key is the nature of the God or gods

we adore. If we worship the living God

of biblical revelation then we will image

him. If we worship idols we will image

them: “Those who make them become

like them; so do all who trust in them”

(Ps 115:8). A. W. Tozer wrote in his work

on the attributes of God,

What comes into our minds when

we think about God is the most

important thing about us.... The his-

tory of mankind will probably show

that no people has ever risen above

its religion, and man’s spiritual his-

tory will positively demonstrate that

no religion has ever been greater

than its idea of God.

Tozer saw the importance of a right char-

acterization of God and he knew also that

the Scriptures are the key, because the

Scriptures are nothing less than God’s

self-revelation.

To use John Calvin’s classic image, the

Scriptures are like glasses that bring God

into focus. Calvin argued,

Just as old or bleary eyed men and

those with weak vision, if you thrust

before them a most beautiful vol-

ume, even if they recognize it to be

some sort of writing, yet can scarcely

construe two words, but with the

aid of spectacles will begin to read

distinctly; so Scripture, gathering up

the otherwise confused knowledge

of God in our minds, having dis-

persed our dullness, clearly shows

us the true God. This, therefore, is a

special gift, where God, to instruct

the church, not merely uses mute

teachers but also opens his own

most hallowed lips. Not only does

he teach the elect to look upon a god,

but also shows himself as the God

upon whom they are to look.

In Old Testament times, that coming into

focus in general terms is nowhere more

evident than in the theophany on Sinai

as described in the book of Exodus. In

particular, it is Exodus 34, which espe-

cially brings the living God into sharper

relief—albeit not in such a way as to leave

mystery behind.

After all, Moses will

only be able to see God’s back. The face of

God must not be seen (Exod 33:23).

Judaism has long recognized Exo-

dus 34—in particular the revelation of

the divine name in Exod 34:6-7 and its

presentation of the so called “Thirteen

Attributes”—as the nearest thing to a

systematic statement of the being and

attributes of God in the Hebrew Bible.

According to Benno Jacob, “They have

been a leitmotif of the Jewish penitential

prayers since that time and form the foun-

dation of the countless s’li-hot composed

through centuries. The repentant people

of Israel have used these thoughts to plead

to HIM with complete contrition, ardor,

and zeal.”

How exactly thirteen attributes

or middôth (“measures”) are derived con-

vincingly from Exod 34:6-7 requires quite

a feat of exegetical imagination.

A great theologian of the Reformation

period who recognized the importance

of the middôth was John Calvin. In his

Institutes of the Christian Religion he argues

that “the attributes of God according to

Scripture agree with those known in his

creatures”—in other words, communi-

cable attributes—and chooses Exod 34:6-7

to do so. He writes,

Indeed, in certain passages clearer

descriptions are set forth for us,

wherein his true appearance is

exhibited, to be seen as in an image.

For when Moses described the

image, he obviously meant to tell

briey whatever was right for men

to know about him. “Jehovah,”

he says, “Jehovah, a merciful and

gracious God, patient and of much

compassion, and true, who keepest

mercy for thousands, who takest

away iniquity and transgression

… in whose presence the innocent

will not be innocent, who visitest

the iniquity of the fathers upon the

children and the children’s chil-

dren.” Here let us observe that his

eternity and his self-existence are

announced by that wonderful name

twice repeated. Thereupon his pow-

ers are mentioned, by which he is

shown to us not as he is in himself,

but as he is toward us: so that this

recognition of him consists more in

living experience than in vain and

highflown speculation. Now we

hear the same powers enumerated

there that we have noted as shin-

ing in heaven and earth: kindness,

goodness, mercy, justice, judgment,

and truth. For power and might are

contained under the title Elohim.

Paul Helm rightly maintains, “Calvin’s

comments in the Institutes on this pas-

sage constitute a fundamental locus of his

exposition of the divine nature.”

My brief then is to explore a pivotal

part of the theophany on Sinai—namely,

Exod 34:6-7—and its implications for con-

structing an evangelical doctrine of God.

To do so, I will rst examine what it is to

develop our doctrine of God evangeli-

cally; next, consider Exod 34:5-8 in par-

ticular in context; then relate the passage

to the discussions of the doctrine of God

in some standard evangelical systematic

theologies (Erickson and Grudem) and to

the discipline of Biblical Theology.

Pen-

ultimate, I will argue for the importance

of the discipline of Biblical Theology and

nally offer a summation.

One nal introductory note: for the

purposes of this exploration from this

point on I will use the term middôth to

refer to the set of descriptors of God found

in Exod 34:6-7.

Developing The Doctrine of God

Evangelically

In my rst year of theological college, I

remember meeting an evangelical friend

who was studying at another place. To

be ordained in his denomination he had

no choice but to do so. His seminary was

liberal, mine evangelical. He lamented

that he had just completed a semester

course on the doctrine of God. The Bible

was not opened once, but Paul Tillich’s

first volume of systematic theology

was opened constantly. His experience

contrasted starkly with my own. In my

college, Scripture was foundational and

normative.

For the evangelical, his or her doctrine

of Scripture ows out of submission to the

lordship of Christ. Christology and bibli-

ology are inextricably linked. How can the

disciple have a different view of Scripture

to that of the Master? Jesus’ own view of

Scripture is clearly portrayed in his debate

with the Sadducees over the resurrection

(Matt 22:23-33). They tested him with a

conundrum about a woman who lost hus-

band after husband. Whose wife would

she be in the resurrection? Jesus’ response

is denitive. The Sadducees had erred

formally and materially. Formally, they

were showing their ignorance of Scripture

in doing theology, and, materially, there

was a specic Scripture in the canon they

embraced that undermined the premise

of their argument. They denied the resur-

rection, but the text from Exod 3:6 which

Jesus quotes—“I am (egō eimi) the God of

Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God

of Jacob”—presupposes life after death in

relation to God (Matt 22:32). Jesus argues

from this text that “He is not the God of

the dead, but of the living” (Matt 22:32).

Instructively, in contrast to the pluralism

of our day, the Jesus of the canonical Gos-

pels thought that there could be truth or

error in theology.

If the incarnate Master lives by every

word that proceeds out of the mouth of

God, so too ought the disciple. Conse-

quently an evangelical way of doing the-

ology is predicated upon a high view of

Scripture. By “evangelical” in this context

I mean, therefore, the epistemic claim that

the doctrine of God ought to be based on

this high view of the Scriptures as the

infallible (will not mislead) and inerrant

(teaches no error) Word of God—albeit

in human words (more anon.).

And,

with this claim, there is a further one

that Scripture as special revelation is

normative for Christian belief, values, and

practices. Scripture constitutes the norm

of norms (norma normans). Other norms

do operate in doing theology—tradition,

reason, and experience—but they are

subservient to Scripture as normed norms

(norma normata). This is the heart of the

Reformers’ view of sola Scriptura—not

that Scripture is the only norm operat-

ing, but in any clash between authorities

Scripture is the nal court of appeal.

a doctrine is in any way textless it ought

to be unconvincing.

What, then, does Exodus 34 have to say

to us normatively about God?

God Proclaims His Name:

Exodus 34:5-8

Let’s begin with the background to the

passage. By the time the reader reaches

Exodus 34 much has already been encoun-

tered in the narrative. God has heard the

cries of his oppressed people and rescued

them from Pharaoh through his covenant

agent Moses (Exodus 1-15). His grumbling

people have made their way to Sinai. On

the way the Lord has met their survival

needs. He has provided water, manna,

and quail (Exodus 15-17). Moreover, the

Lord has gone victoriously to war again

for them against the Amelakites (Exodus

17). Jethro’s visit has led to a redistribution

of Moses’s workload as judge (Exodus 18).

At Sinai the people have been awed by the

dramatic theophany (Exodus 19). The Ten

Commandments have been announced

to Israel (Exodus 20). After the revelation

of this apodictic law has come that of

casuistic law (Exodus 21-23). The covenant

has been conrmed (Exodus 24). Moses

has gone up the mountain into the cloud

forty days and nights during which time

the details of the tabernacle have been

revealed to him (Exodus 25-31). How-

ever, during this time Israel has become

impatient with Moses’ absence. They have

prevailed upon Aaron to provide tangible

gods to worship, and so, while Moses was

on the mountain receiving the Torah on

the tablets of stone from God, Israel below

was making and worshipping an idol

(Exodus 32). R. W. L. Moberly comments,

“Israel’s impatient making of the golden

calf is presented as, in effect, a breaking

of the rst of the two commandments,

and while Israel is still at the mountain of

God; it is rather like committing adultery

on one’s wedding night.”

Angered by

their folly, the Lord has declared that he

would start afresh with only Moses and

his family. But Moses has interceded on

Israel’s behalf with considerable chutz-

pah. The Lord then has judged rebellious

Israel with a plague (Exodus 32). However,

he also has answered Moses’ plea that he

persevere with Israel (Exodus 32).

Just before our key passage, we nd in

Exodus 33 that Moses has met with God

outside the camp in the tent of meeting.

The Lord had in effect withdrawn his

presence from his people and declared

that he would not go with Israel to the

land owing with milk and honey. Moses,

again with considerable chutzpah, has

reminded YHWH that Israel is his people.

The Lord has promised that his presence

would go with them (Exod 33:17), but

only after Moses has argued for it (Exod

33:15-16). At rst the Lord promised only

to go with Moses and give Moses rest

(Exod 33:14).

Moses has wanted to know more

deeply the God who had rst revealed

his name to him at the burning bush

(cf. Exodus 3 and 33:13). YHWH identi-

ed himself there as “I am Who I am”

or “I will be what I will be” (Exod 3:14).

According to Brevard Childs, God is

saying that the subsequent events of

history will pour content into the name.

He maintains, “The content of his name

is lled by what he does (Ex. 3:14), and

Israel experiences God’s identity through

revelation and not by clever discovery.”

Now having journeyed to Sinai, Moses

wanted to know more. As Maimonides

suggests, “The phrasing ‘Shew me now

thy ways and I shall know thee’ indicates

that God is known by His attributes: if

one knows the WAYS one knows Him.”

Moses has asked the Lord to show him his

glory (Exod 33:18). The divine response is

instructive,

And he said, “I will make all my

goodness pass before you and will

proclaim before you my name ‘The

Lord.’ And I will be gracious to

whom I will be gracious, and will

show mercy on whom I will show

mercy” (Exod 33:19-20).

Moses wanted glory. He wanted to see

the majesty of God. Instead God gave

him goodness.

God’s glory lies in his

goodness, not his might, and that good-

ness is seen expressed in sovereign grace

and mercy.

We now turn to our key passage.

At divine behest, Moses chisels out two

stone tablets. YHWH will write afresh

the Ten Commandments on them once

Moses returns to the top of the mountain.

What happens next is one of the singular

revelatory moments in the canonical

presentation.

The Lord descended in the cloud

and stood with him there, and pro-

claimed the name of the Lord. The

Lord passed before him and pro-

claimed, “The Lord, the Lord, a God

merciful and gracious, slow to anger,

and abounding in steadfast love and

faithfulness, keeping steadfast love

for thousands, forgiving iniquity

and transgression and sin, but who

will by no means clear the guilty,

visiting the iniquity of the fathers

on the children and the children’s

children, to the third and the fourth

generation” (Exod 34:5-7).

The only appropriate response to such a

revelation of the divine nature is the one

Moses adopts: “And Moses quickly bowed

his head toward the earth and worshiped”

(Exod 34:8). This is the protocol one adopts

in the presence of overwhelming great-

ness, indeed goodness.

Signicantly Moses does more than

simply acknowledge the Lord in worship.

He is quick to turn the self-revelation of

God into the platform for prayer to God.

He wants further reassurance that the

Lord will truly go with Israel. Prayer is

no leap in the dark but a response to the

God who has declared what he is truly

like. Israel has sinned and had proven to

be a stiff necked people (Exod 33:3). And

without the divine presence, Israel is at

risk as it journeys to the land of promise.

The Lord had just declared himself to be a

gracious and forgiving God, and so Moses

prays: “If now I have found favor in your

sight, O Lord, please let the Lord go in the

midst of us, for it is a stiff-necked people,

and pardon our iniquity and our sin,

and take us for your inheritance” (Exod

34:9). Moses in effect, echoes the middôth

at numerous points in idea and language:

“favor,” “pardon,” “iniquity,” and “sin.”

This is a feature of the biblical practice of

prayer. What God reveals about his might

and character, whether in words, or by

deeds of creation, or deeds of redemption

are turned into the grounds for praise or

petition by the supplicant.

The divine name has been proclaimed.

Moses has responded fittingly, as he

should. The question remains, however,

as to precisely what YHWH has declared

about his own nature. A brief adumbra-

tion will need to sufce:

The Lord is merciful (“compas-•

sionate,” NIV). Pierre Berthoud

offers this nuanced comment:

“The term raḥûm lays the empha-

sis on God’s deep appreciation

and understanding of the mis-

ery and suffering of the creation

including man.”

For example,

YHWH accedes to Moses’ plea

(Exod 32:12b-14).

The Lord is gracious (• ḥannûn).

For example, earlier in the Torah

his graciousness is exhibited in

the gift of family and prosper-

ity that he gave to Jacob (Gen

33:5, 11).

The Lord is a slow to anger. •

He is patient towards even the

grumbling. Laney captures the

idea well: “It is as if He takes a

long deep breath as He deals

with sin and holds His anger

in abeyance.”

For example,

the divine patience with Israel

on its grumbling way to Sinai

(Exod 15:22-17:7)

The Lord abounds in steadfast •

love (ḥéseḏ) and faithfulness

(ĕmeṯ). His love is persistent

because it is grounded in his

covenant loyalty. It is no passing

fancy. The Lord also abounds

in faithfulness. His Word is to

be relied upon. For example, he

honors his promise to Abraham

and remembers—that is to say,

acts on—his covenant obliga-

tions (Exod 2:23-25; 32:12b-

14).

The Lord is forgiving. He is pre-•

pared to forgive iniquity, trans-

gression, and sin. This cluster,

which appears elsewhere in the

Hebrew Bible, covers the three

core sins of humanity outside

of Eden (e.g., see Ps 51:1-2; Dan

9:24).

The Lord by no means clears the •

guilty. God’s forgiving character

is not to be presumed upon.

Unrepentant sin will not go

unpunished. Walter Kaiser

comments, “But his grace is bal-

anced, for ‘he does not leave the

guilty unpunished.’ The other

side of our merciful and loving

God is his justice and righteous-

ness. Woe to them who reject

God’s grace!”

The Lord visits the iniquity of •

one generation on the next. Sin

has consequences. To go against

the moral grain of the universe

has repercussions. As Wayne

Grudem suggests in his note

on the passage, “This statement

shows the horrible nature of

sin in the way it has effects far

beyond the individual sinner,

also harming those around the

sinner and harming future gen-

erations as well.”

For example,

think of the troubles in David’s

house after his sin with Bath-

sheba, which included the death

of the baby and arguably a

factor in Ahithophel’s revolt

against David. Ahithophel was

Bathsheba’s grandfather and the

baby’s great-grandfather (cf. 2

Sam 12:14-18 and 2 Sam 16-17).

Exodus 34:6-7 and Systematic

Theology

Both Millard J. Erickson’s Christian

Theology and Wayne Grudem’s Systematic

Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doc-

trine are widely used texts by evangelicals

and rightly so.

How do these respected

theologians discuss the doctrine of God

and what role, if any, do the middôth of

Exod 34:6-7 play in their presentations?

Erickson devotes part three of his work

to the topic of “What God Is Like.”

In this

part he canvases the attributes of God. He

makes the excellent point from the start

that “[t}he doctrine of God is the central

point of the rest of theology. One’s view

of God might even be thought of as sup-

plying the whole framework within which

one’s theology is constructed and life is

lived.”

He offers a modication—at least

in terminology—of one of the traditional

ways of dividing the attributes of God.

Instead of discussing the natural and

moral attributes of God he delineates the

“attributes of greatness” and the “attri-

butes of goodness.”

First, Erickson discusses the attributes

of greatness (akin to God’s natural attri-

butes). These include spirituality, person-

ality, life, innity and constancy.

The last

of these is somewhat question begging

since Erickson argues that constancy

shows itself in these terms: “Thus, God is

ever faithful to his covenant with Abra-

ham, for example.” And again, “What we

are dealing with here [in this section] is

the dependability of God. He will be the

same tomorrow as he is today. He will act

as he has promised.”

This sounds more

like a moral attribute than a natural one.

Immutability would have been a better

descriptor.

Next, Erickson in a separate chapter

deals with the attributes of goodness

(akin to God’s moral attributes). These

include moral purity, integrity and love.

A subset of God’s love is God’s grace. In

this part of the discussion is one of his

two references to Exodus 34 in the entire

work.

It gures in a comparison with

Paul’s claim in Eph 1:5-8 concerning God’s

grace. Both Exod 34:6 and Eph 1:5-8 speak

of the grace of God. Therefore, that ancient

heretic Marcion, for example, was wrong

to pitch one testament against the other.

On the very next page, in discussing God’s

persistence, Erickson again refers to Exod

34:6, as a reference to the divine love: God

is slow to anger.

The middôth per se are

not in view.

Like Erickson, in his discussion of the

doctrine of God, Grudem divides the attri-

butes of God into two classes. He rightly

observes, “When we come to talk about

the character of God, we realize that we

cannot say everything the Bible teaches

us about God’s character at once. We need

some way to decide which aspect of God’s

character to discuss rst, which aspect to

discuss second, and so forth.”

Unlike

Erickson, Grudem works with the widely

accepted dichotomy of incommunicable

and communicable attributes.

Grudem rst deals with the incom-

municable attributes. These are attributes

that indicate how God is different from us.

These include independence, unchange-

ableness, eternity, omnipresence, and

un ity.

There is one curious feature of

his discussion. He argues, “Not one of the

incommunicable attributes of God is com-

pletely without some likeness in the char-

acter of human beings.”

Independence

(aseity), however, is surely an attribute

that is uniquely God’s own by denition.

God’s existence depends on nothing

outside of God. Thus, for example, the

Christian doctrine of creation ex nihilo is

an act of generosity not necessity.

In two further chapters, Grudem

expounds the communicable attributes of

God. These indicate how God is like us in

his being, in mental and moral attributes,

in will and excellence. They include attri-

butes describing God’s being (spiritual-

ity and invisibility), mental attributes

(knowledge, wisdom, and truthfulness),

moral attributes (goodness, love, mercy,

holiness, peace, righteousness, jealousy,

and wrath), attributes of purpose (will,

freedom, and omnipotence), and sum-

mary attributes (perfection, blessedness,

beauty, and glory).

In chapter 12 Grudem

has his only reference to the middôth of

Exod 34:6-7: the Scripture memory pas-

sage.

Otherwise the middôth per se plays

no role in his doctrine of God.

Exodus 34:6-7 and Biblical

Theology

In the New Dictionary of Biblical Theol-

ogy, Brian S. Rosner’s provides a rst rate

denition of Biblical Theology:

To sum up, biblical theology may be

dened as theological interpretation

of Scripture in and for the church. It

proceeds with historical and literary

sensitivity and seeks to analyze and

synthesize the Bible’s teaching about

God and his relations to the world

on its own terms, maintaining sight

of the Bible’s overarching narrative

and Christocentric focus.

In the light of Rosner’s denition, how

is Exod 34:6-7 to be placed in “the Bible’s

overarching narrative”?

Canonically speaking, our passage

is located within the framework of the

promise to Abraham and the covenant

that God made with the patriarch (Gen

12:1-3; 15:1-21). It is on the basis of this

covenant that God acts to rescue Israel

from Egyptian bondage (Exod 2:23-24).

Furthermore, he identifies himself to

Moses as the God of Abraham, the God of

Isaac, and the God of Jacob (Exod 3:6). The

Mosaic covenant in fact nestles within the

more fundamental Abrahamic one. The

Abrahamic covenant is unconditional,

whereas the Mosaic one is conditional.

The Abrahamic covenant is royal grant-

like, whereas the Mosaic one is suzerainty

treaty like.

With regard to Exod 34:6-7, each of the

middôth either has an earlier Old Testa-

ment story behind it—either found in

Genesis or Exodus—or is illustrated by

a later Old Testament story or passage.

Laney expresses the point admirably:

The importance of Exodus 34:6-7 as

a foundation for biblical theology

is evidenced by the fact that this

statement is repeated many times

in the Old Testament (Num. 14:18;

Neh. 9:17; Pss. 103:8, 17; 145:8; Jer.

32:18-19; Joel 2:13; Jon. 4:2). Echoes

of this self-revelation also appear

in Deuteronomy 5:9-10; 1 Kings

3:6; Lamentations 3:32; Daniel 9:4;

and Nahum 1:3. The biblical writ-

ers clearly regarded Exodus 34:6-7

as a foundational statement about

God.

He also rightly observes, “Strangely,

this great passage has received little

attention from systematic theologians

and I might add and neither has the way

it ramies through the rest of the Old

Testament canon.”

Space limitations forbid an extended

examination of each of the anticipations

or repetitions of the middôth or its echoes.

However, one later canonical restatement

of the middôth will usefully serve as a

more extended case in point: namely,

the book of Jonah. Jonah is particularly

interesting because, like Joel, there is an

important addition to the list.

Whenever I lecture on the doctrine of

God and refer to Jonah‘s knowledge of

the middôth, I ask the class how many of

them have heard a sermon on the book

that explains Jonah’s ight to Tarshish as

motivated by fear of the Ninevites. Typi-

cally a goodly number have. The applica-

tion is about our need to heed the call of

God and not be afraid of the opposition.

But exegesis shows that the meaning lies

elsewhere. Jonah’s problem was that he

knew all too well the revealed character

of God. He knew the middôth as the fol-

lowing passage shows:

When God saw what they did, how

they turned from their evil way, God

relented of the disaster that he had

said he would do to them, and he

did not do it. But it displeased Jonah

exceedingly, and he was angry. And

he prayed to the Lord and said, “O

Lord, is not this what I said when I

was yet in my country? That is why

I made haste to flee to Tarshish;

for I knew that you are a gracious

God and merciful, slow to anger and

abounding in steadfast love, and relent-

ing from disaster. Therefore now, O

Lord, please take my life from me,

for it is better for me to die than to

live.” And the Lord said, “Do you do

well to be angry?” (Jonah 3:10-4:4,

emphasis added).

The echoes of the middôth are plain:

“gracious,” “merciful,” “slow to anger,” and

“abounding in steadfast love.” The interest-

ing addition is “and relenting of disaster.”

Has Jonah, as a prophet much later than

Moses, expanded the list in the light of

God’s dealings with Israel post Sinai? Joel

likewise extends the list (Joel 2:13).

Thus far we have explored how Exod

34:6-7 informs the Old Testament. How-

ever, the exploration cannot end there.

As Rosner avers, Biblical Theology has

a “Christocentric focus.” And so to the

luminous gure of Christ we must turn.

By “the luminous gure of Christ” I don’t

mean as critically reconstructed or decon-

structed by a certain kind of scholarship,

but to the Christ as canonically presented

or to the “Jesus of Testimony” to use

Richard Bauckham’s helpful phrase, and

to “the theophanic character of the history

of Jesus.”

The Gospel of John reveals that in the

new era theophany gives way to Chris-

tophany. The God who cannot be seen

is denitively “exegeted” by the Word

become esh, Jesus Christ, the Son (cf.

John 1:18; 5:37; and 14:5-9). But Christo-

phany does not leave the middôth behind,

but rather embodies them. The Prologue

of John is a good example. As Andreas

J. Köstenberger correctly contends, “The

reference in 1:14 to Jesus taking up resi-

dence among God’s people resulting in

the revelation of God’s glory … also harks

back to OT references to the manifestation

of the presence and glory (kābōd) of God,

be it theophanies, the tabernacles, or the

temple.”

The rst OT Scripture he cites

is from the Sinai theophany Exod 33:22,

namely, Moses request to see YHWH’s

glory. And he surely is right to argue that

John 1:14 and 17 which speak of Jesus as

“full of grace and truth” “in all probability

harks back to the phrase ‘loving-kindness

[hesed] and truth [ĕmet]’ in Exod. 34:6.”

Again Köstenberger is our guide: “In

its original context this joint expression

refers to God’s covenant faithfulness to

His people Israel. John’s message found

ultimate expression in the sending of

God’s one-of-a-kind Son (1:14,18).”

Why Systematic Theology Needs

Biblical Theology

As we have seen in the presentations

both of Erickson and Grudem, the mid-

dôth per se do not gure and yet as we

have seen, the middôth is integral to the

canonical portrayal of God’s character

(hashem) both Old Testament and New.

How, then, would Biblical Theology be

of help to the systematic theologian? As

previously argued, methodologically, a

biblical theology predicated on a high

view of Scripture works with the entire

canon (tota Scriptura) by placing texts in

their contexts in their literary units in

their books in the canon in the light of the

ow of redemptive history. Thus, Biblical

Theology is methodologically prior to

Systematic Theology. It helps the system-

atician both avoid simplistic proof texting

(dicta probantia) and remain sensitive to the

narrative drive of Scripture.

To be fair, the structures of most sys-

tematic theologies do preserve the over-

arching narrative of Scripture, as do the

classic creeds (Apostles, Nicene, and Atha-

nasian). Like Scripture and like the creeds,

they move from the Maker of Heaven and

Earth to the world to come. However, that

narrative structure can be hard to detect

because of the need for systematic theolo-

gies rightly to interact with discussions of

the past (e.g., Augustine versus Pelagius

on sin) and issues of the present (e.g., the

claim by some feminist theologians that

the cross represents divine child abuse)

and by discussing prolegomena matters

(e.g., sources for theology, theological

method, and so forth).

Most importantly Biblical Theology

can help the systematician in articulating

the doctrine of God in such a way as to

get the biblical accents right. In this way,

Geerhardus Vos’s observation gets some

real purchase: “Dogmatics is the crown

which grows out of all the work that

Biblical Theology can accomplish.”

For

example, you would never know, from

reading whether Erickson, Grudem, or

others, how important the middôth are

for knowing God as God has chosen to

make his nature known. The revelation of

the name (hashem) of course is more than

the offering of a convenient designation.

Rather in the canon the divine name refers

to the very nature of God. As Charles

H. H. Scobie argues, ‘’God’s name is an

expression of his essential nature.”

The God

of biblical revelation wants to proclaim

his moral attributes in the rst instance.

Erickson is on sound ground to work with

this category. However, like Grudem, he

places the moral attributes—in Grudem’s

case the communicable attributes—sec-

ond in presentation: goodness comes after

greatness. Not so on Sinai. The revelation

of the divine graciousness and mercy on

Sinai is of a piece with the Genesis account

where blessing is rst, cursing is second

(cf. Gen 2:3; 3:14-19), and, as we saw in

John’s Prologue, with the incarnation,

grace comes through Jesus Christ (John

1:14-17). Moreover, in this same Gospel we

see that Christ came, in the rst instance,

not to condemn the world but to save

it, even though he is the eschatological

judge, and those who remain in darkness

will ultimately be held accountable (cf.

John 3:17; 12:47; 5:24-27).

However, it is not only a matter of

rightly ordering the systematic discus-

sion. There is the question of weighting

the discussion. Perhaps a theological

primer like I. H. Marshall’s Pocket Guide

To Christian Beliefs shows a suggestive way

forward—albeit undeveloped, since only

a primer. His chapter on the nature of God

provides an example. When discussing

God as Trinity he cites a large passage of

Scripture, rather than a single verse (Eph

1:3-14).

Strangely, though, the Ephesians

passage plays no real role in what follows.

What would a systematic theology look

like that worked not with individual proof

texts only but with the great landmark

passages of Scripture like Exodus 34 that

are integral to the way God has elected to

self reveal? On this approach, for example,

the discussion of the incarnation might be

anchored in a lengthy discussion of John

1:1-18, carefully understood as a prologue

to the theology of John as a whole and

then considered in the sweep of the canon

with a sensitivity to the fact that such a

passage does not belong to former times

when God spoke to the forefathers by the

prophets but in these last days when he

has spoken through his Son as Hebrews

makes plain (Heb 1:1-2). Such a method

better exhibits the analogy of Scripture

(analogia scripturae or in some traditions

analogia dei), whereby Scripture is com-

pared with Scripture, Scripture interprets

Scripture, and plain Scripture interprets

more obscure or difficult portions of

Scripture. The classic alternative would

simply use brackets with Scriptural proof

texts (dicta probantia) listed in them to but-

tress the points being made. For example,

in the incarnation, the Second Person of

the Godhead assumed human nature

without abandoning deity (John 1:14 and

so forth). The traditional proof texting

method needs to be complemented by a

Biblical Theology that provides the land-

mark biblical passages as well. Karl Barth

is methodologically helpful on this point,

despite an inadequate bibliology. His

unnished Church Dogmatics contains not

only 15,000 biblical references but around

2,000 small print exegetical discourses as

well.

Herbert Hartwell comments, “[I]n

Barth’s view . . . the task of theology is the

expository presentation of that revelation

on the basis of a theological exegesis of the

content of the Bible.”

Richard Lints is an evangelical theo-

logian who is sensitive to the need for

Biblical Theology to shape a systematic

theology. In his The Fabric of Theology:

A Prolegomena to Evangelical Theology, he

devotes much of the last part of the work

to the subject.

In this part he considers

the theological nature of the Bible, the

move from the biblical text to a theo-

logical framework, and the move from

that framework to a theological vision.

He rightly argues that “The dominant

themes of the biblical text ought to be the

dominant themes of the theological frame-

work” and that “the simple insight that

the Scriptures have a ‘story-like’ character

will be important.”

In fact, the premise

he adopts for the book is “that systematic

theology must be structurally dependent

on biblical theology and hence would

need to undergo a major change from its

traditional categories of presentation.”

Conclusion

The middôth of Exodus 34 are integral to

the knowledge of God and not incidental

to the canonical plotline. This is who God

is, which his prior and subsequent acts

illustrate, and which Biblical Theology as

a method displays. Doing is predicated

on being. This is his name proclaimed.

We saw how it is echoed in every part of

the Hebrew Bible and has its instantiation

in Jesus himself. It is the basis for biblical

prayer. It explains why God spared repen-

tant Ninevah much to Jonah’s disappoint-

ment. In contradistinction, we also saw

that two standard evangelical systematic

theologies—those of Erickson and Gru-

dem—present the nature of God in such

a way as to make the middôth incidental.

This lack of due emphasis raises acutely

the question of how systematic theology

ought to use Scripture to construct a doc-

trine of God. In doing theology, alongside

the classic proof texting method—which

is still needed for brevity’s sake—a place

at the table needs to be given to a way of

reading Scripture that locates a text in its

context in its literary unit in its book in the

canon in the light of the ow of redemp-

tive history. This way of reading Scripture

is at the heart of Biblical Theology as a

discipline. As Richard Lints suggests,

“Biblical theology and systematic theol-

ogy are mutually enriching, they do not

compete.”

I would only add “and exege-

sis must lie at the heart of both.”

ENDNOTES

A. W. Tozer, The Knowledge of the Holy

(London: James Clarke, 1965), 9.

John Calvin The Institutes of the Christian

Religion (The Comprehensive John Calvin

Collection; Rio, WI: Ages Software, 2002),

1:6:1 (CD-Rom version).

Geerhardus Vos, (Redemptive History And

Biblical Interpretation: The Shorter Writings

of Geerhardus Vos [ed. Richard Gafn Jr.;

Phillipsburg, New Jersey: P&R, 2001],

431) describes Exod 34:6-7 as one of

“four classic statements, where the Torah

rises to the height of a description of the

character of God.” The others he cites are

Exod 20:5-6; Num 14:8; and Deut 7:9-10.

For example, see Moses Maimonides,

The Guide Of the Perplexed (trans. Chaim

Rabin; Indianapolis: Hackett Publish-

ing, 1995), 71-77. Maimonides’s dates are

1135-1204. For a contemporary Jewish

view see Jeffrey H. Tigay, “Exodus,” in

The Jewish Study Bible (Oxford: Oxford

University, 2004), 189.

Benno Jacob, The Second Book of the Bible:

Exodus (trans. Walter Jacob in associa-

tion with Yaakov Elman; Hoboken, New

Jersey: KTAV, 1992), 985 (emphasis in

original).

See, for example, “Selichot – Brief

Explanation of the Thirteen Attributes

of Mercy” ([accessed 3 March 2008].

Online: http://www.ou.org/chagim/

elul/selichotattrib.htm), which main-

tains that the rst mention of the Name

(Yahweh) is the attribute of mercy shown

before a person sins, whilst the second

mention of the Name (hashem) refers to

another attribute of mercy, one shown

to the sinner after sin.

Calvin, Institutes, 1:10:2. Paul Helm drew

my attention to Calvin on this point in

his slightly revised John Murray Lecture

delivered at the Highland Theological

College, entitled “John Calvin—What’s

the Big Idea?” [accessed 28 April 2008].

Online: http://paulhelmsdeep.blogspot.

com.

Ibid.

Brevard S. Childs comments, “[T]he

God of the Old Testament has a name

by which he lets himself be known. The

decisive passage is Ex. 34:5-6” (Biblical

Theology of the Old and New Testaments:

Theological Reection on the Christian Bible

[Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993], 354).

As a convention I will adopt Biblical

Theology with capitals for the discipline,

that is a particular reading strategy for

engaging Scripture. Many refer to any

way of doing theology that is grounded

in a high view of Scripture as biblical

theology. To avoid possible confusion,

if I refer to any of the latter I will use

lower case.

I am aware that there are evan-

gelicals who do not afrm a view

of Scripture as high as this and

that conservative representatives

of other traditions would likewise

embrace Scripture as the Word of

God—albeit with a longer canon

(e.g., Roman Catholic and Ortho-

dox).

See my “Thinking Theologically,”

Reformed Theological Review 48, no.

2 (1989); and my “Sola Scriptura:

Some Historical and Contemporary

Perspectives,” Churchman 104, no.

1 (1990).

R. W. L. Moberly, “Exodus, Book of,”

in Dictionary for Theological Interpre-

tation of the Bible (ed. Kevin J. Van-

hoozer; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005),

214. Moberly also draws interesting

parallels between Exodus 32-34 and

Genesis 6-9, especially between the

gures of faithful Noah and faithful

Moses (215).

Childs, Biblical Theology, 355.

Maimonides, T he Guide, 72 (emphasis

in original). This verse (Exod 33:13)

contains an important epistemic

principle. To know a person one

needs to be exposed to their ways:

that is to say, the characteristic

behaviors of a person. This usually

takes some time or exposure to sto-

ries that narrate those behaviors. It

is not enough merely to know that

God exists. One needs to know the

moral disposition of the God who

exists. Herein lies the genius of the

“storied” nature of biblical revela-

tion. See my article “God, Doctrine

of,” in Dictionary for Theological

Interpretation of the Bible, 259-263.

All biblical quotations are from

the English Standard Version unless

otherwise stated.

J. Carl Laney has misread John

I. Durham on this point. Laney

maintains, “Durham suggests that

‘goodness (bWj) here may imply

the “beauty” of the Lord and so it

anticipated a theophany’” (“God’s

Self-Revelation In Exodus 34:6-8,”

Bibliotheca Sacra 158 [2001]: 39-40).

However, Durham is expounding

someone else’s view which he goes

on to critique: “[W]hat he gives to

Moses is quite specically not the

sight of his beauty, his glory, his

Presence—that, indeed, he point-

edly denies. What he gives rather is

a description, and at that, a descrip-

tion not of how he looks but how

he is” (J. I. Durham, Exodus [Word

Biblical Commentary; Dallas: Word:

Dallas, 2002], CD-Rom version

[emphases in original]).

For an illuminating study of the

passage see R. W. L. Moberly, At

The Mountain Of God: Story and

Theology in Exodus 32-34 (Shefeld:

JSOT, 1983).

Pierre Berhoud, “The Compas-

sion of God: Exodus 34:5-9 in the

light of Exodus 32-34,” in Engaging

the Doctrine of God: Contemporary

Protestant Perspectives (ed. Bruce L.

McCormack; Grand Rapids: Baker,

2008), 163.

Laney, “God’s Self-Revelation In

Exodus 34:6-8,” 46.

Divine remembering is not referring

to a divine memory lapse but is idi-

omatic for God acting. He remem-

bered Noah, he remembered Israel,

and Jesus promises to remember the

thief on the cross (cf. Gen 8:1; Exod

2:24; and Luke 23:42).

With regard to the multiplicity

of terms, at least fifty, denoting

“sin” in the Old Testament, Henri

Blocher describes transgression,

sin, and iniquity as “[t]hree of the

most important” (“Sin,” in New

Dictionary of Biblical Theology [ed. T.

D. Alexander and Brian S. Rosner;

Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity,

2000], 782).

This point is well made by R. W.

L. Moberly, “How May We Speak

Of God? A Reconsideration Of The

Nature Of Biblical Theology,” Tyn-

dale Bulletin 53, no. 2 (2002): 200.

Walter Kaiser Jr., “Exodus,” The

Expositor’s Bible Commentary (Grand

Rapids: Zondervan, 1990).

Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theol-

ogy: An Introduction to Biblical Doc-

trine (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,

1994), 209.

The tone of my comments on

Erickson and Grudem ought not

to be exaggerated. Both works are

immensely useful, and I recom-

mend both to my own students.

Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theol-

ogy, (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993),

chapters 12 and 13 are the relevant

ones. This is the unabridged, one

volume edition.

Ibid., 263.

Ibid., 267-81.

Ibid., 278-79.

In discussing God’s integrity, Erick-

son has a subsection on God’s

faithfulness which shows itself in

the fact that ‘’God keeps all his

promises” (ibid., 291). As we have

seen, however, he makes a similar

claim under the head of God’s con-

stancy. Which is it then? Is promise

keeping an expression of the attri-

bute of greatness or an attribute of

goodness?

Ibid., 295.

Ibid., 296.

Grudem, Systematic Theology, 156.

Ibid., 160-80.

Ibid., 157.

Ibid., chapters 12 and 13.

Ibid., 209.

B. S. Rosner, “Biblical Theology,”

New Dictionary of Biblical Theology,

10.

See the excellent discussion of the

differences between royal grant

covenants and suzerainty treaties

in Michael S. Horton, God Of Prom-

ise: Introducing Covenant Theology

(Grand Rapids: Baker, 2006), 41-43.

For the exegesis of Exod 34:6-8, I am

indebted to J. Carl Laney’s helpful

article (“God’s Self-Revelation In

Exodus 34:6-8”). Laney indepen-

dently covers some of the same

ground as this present article,

especially with regard to Grudem

and Erickson, and I warmly com-

mend it.

Ibid., 36.

Ibid.

Jeremiah 18:7-10 provides the prin-

ciple behind divine relenting and

best explains the divine consistency

in not judging Ninevah as had origi-

nally been promised.

Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the

Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewit-

ness Testimony, (Grand Rapids: Eerd-

mans, 2006), chapter 18, esp. 500.

Andreas J. Köstenberger, “John,” in

Commentary on the New Testament

Use of the Old Testament (ed. G. K.

Beale and D. A. Carson; Grand Rap-

ids, Michigan: Baker, 2007), 422.

Ibid.

Geerhardus Vos, Redemptive His-

tory, 24.

Charles H. H. Scobie, The Ways Of

Our God: An Approach to Biblical

Theology, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,

2003), 108 (emphasis in original).

Moses Maimonides took a different

view. As Maimonides commentator

Julius Guttman rightly observes,

“According to Maimonides these

[the Middoth] do in reality not apply

to the essence of God but to His

works, which indicate by attribut-

ing to God that quality which in

man would produce corresponding

activities. The thirteen Dispositions

which were revealed to Moses

are then to be interpreted in this

sense” (Maimonides, The Guide,

210). Maimonides position is deeply

inuenced by Greek philosophy at

this point and leaves one in deep-

est agnosticism as to what God is

really like.

I. Howard Marshall, A Pocket Guide

To Christian Beliefs, (3d ed.; London:

InterVarsity, 1990), 39-42.

These statistics are found in Bernard

Ramm, After Fundamentalism: The

Future of Evangelical Theology (San

Francisco: Harper and Row, 1983),

94-95. Some of the more signicant

exegetical portions can be found

collected in Karl Barth: Preaching

Through the Christian Year (ed. John

McTavish and Harold Wells; trans.

G. W. Bromiley and T. F. Torrance;

Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1978).

Herbert Hartwell, The Theology of

Karl Barth: An Introduction (London:

Gerald Duckworth, 1964), 15.

Richard Lints, The Fabric of Theol-

ogy: A Prolegomena to Evangelical

Theology, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,

1993), chapters 7-9.

Ibid., 271 and 274, respectively.

Ibid., 271 n. 17. I have attempted

to make a start on such a project

in a work on the Holy Spirit that

utilizes not just systematic theology

and biblical commentaries but also

biblical theologies: He Who Gives

Life: The Doctrine Of The Holy Spirit

(Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2007). On

method, also see my article “God,

doctrine of,” 259-63.

Richard Lints, “Thinking System-

atically about Theology,” Modern

Reformation (January/February,

2003), 28.

Available at your local bookstore, www.bakeracademic.com, or by calling 1-800-877-2665

Subscribe to Baker Academic’s electronic newsletter (E-Notes) at www.bakeracademic.com

New in the Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament

Presenting an Introduction to Theological Interpretation for the Classroom

JUDE AND 2 PETER

Gene L. Green

9780801026720 • 432 pp. • $39.99c • Available November 2008

“Green has written a solidly conservative evangelical commentary on Jude and 2 Peter that is informed by

ancient rhetorical practice and sociological observation. It contains a wealth of exegetical detail and judicious

observations, which means that this work will have to be consulted by future scholars researching Jude and

2 Peter and will immediately proﬁ t pastors and Bible teachers exploring and applying these works

in various contemporary settings. It is well worth the effort expended to work through the abun-

dance of information that it presents.”—Peter H. Davids, St. Stephen’s University

MARK

Robert H. Stein

9780801026829 • 864 pp. • $49.99c • Available November 2008

“Robert H. Stein has composed an excellent commentary on Mark 1:1–16:8. He explains well the

purpose and structure of the Gospel, discusses in detail its problematic verses, judiciously selects

views of other commentators, and explains why he thinks the Gospel ends at 16:8. Hence Stein’s

commentary will be a precious vade mecum for pastors and preachers, students of the New

Testament, and teachers in biblical studies.”—Joseph A. Fitzmyer, SJ, Catholic University of

America

1–3 JOHN

Robert W. Yarbrough

9780801026874 • 464 pp. • $39.99c • Available November 2008

“The latest addition to the BECNT series by Robert Yarbrough is not narrowly exegetical but is

intended to help preachers and general readers apprehend the message of 1–3 John for today. It offers a

meticulously detailed study of the Greek text (including special attention to textual variants) that will pro-

vide students with ample information on every aspect of the argument of the letters. This commentary well

maintains the standards that we have come to expect from this series.”—I. Howard Marshall, University

of Aberdeen

INTRODUCING THEOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE

RECOVERING A CHRISTIAN PRACTICE

Daniel J. Treier

9780801031786 • 224 pp. • $17.99p

“Treier is one of the brightest scholars working at the intersection of Scripture, hermeneutics, and theology in

the evangelical academy today. Here he offers a masterful survey of the landscape and shows how evangeli-

cals can join with Catholic scholars and others in moving the discussion forward.”—Timothy George, Beeson

Divinity School

“Many voices today clamor for the recovery of theological interpretation, from many corners and for diverse

reasons. For those concerned with the signiﬁ cance of the church for reading Scripture, and the signiﬁ cance

of Scripture for the church, this is a renaissance most welcome. So many different voices, though, can leave

us confused—not only on the ﬁ ner points of the discussion, but even about its most basic question, What

is theological interpretation? We need a map, and this is precisely what Treier has provided: a map that will

be as useful to those already engaged in the conversation as it is crucial for those trying to gain their ﬁ rst

bearings.”—Joel B. Green, Fuller Theological Seminary