Exodus 33:15-17

If Thy presence go not with me, carry us not up hence.

The withdrawal of God’s presence deprecated

What was the special grace desired by Moses in these memorable words? What withdrawal of honour and privilege was threatened? If we had only this chapter, we might infer that the difference in God’s future dealings with Israel would be, that He would henceforth commit them to the care of an angel--some messenger of His providence less holy than Himself--and that the honour and privilege which His personal presence implied would be withdrawn (Exodus 33:1). Apart, however, from the fact that it is difficult to conceive of any real difference between God’s personal and instrumental superintendence, we no sooner turn our attention to the account of His proposed dealings with Israel before they fell into the idolatry of the golden calf, than we find that the handing over of the command of their hosts to an angel could not have been the change of treatment that filled Moses with such dismay. There is no warrant for the supposition that the angel of this chapter is an inferior being to the angel of the Divine presence spoken of in chap. 33. Indeed, there can be no reasonable doubt that when God says, “Must My presence (literally, My face) go with thee, that I may give thee rest?” the reference is to the angel in whom God’s name was, and whose visible symbol was the pillar of cloud and of fire. And of course the reference will be the same in Moses’ reply: “If Thy presence go not,” etc. What, then, was the grace which God proposed to withdraw from Israel? By their shameful apostasy after the manifestation of the Divine glory at Sinai, they had shown that the grandest and most awful signs of the Divine Majesty could easily be forgotten; and it really seemed that the presence of the pillar of cloud and of fire in their midst would not, when once it should become familiar, deter them from rebellion. It would be better not to give them the opportunity of openly insulting the Divine Majesty. A grace which failed to inspire awe would inevitably harden. God intimated, therefore, that the angel of His face, instead of having His holy tent in the midst of the tents of the congregation, should simply go before them to prepare their way. If, now, we look at Exodus 29:42, we shall see of what they would be deprived by the threatened change in God’s dealings. Evidently they would lose the sanctuary which was to be their peculiar glory. To the nations they would appear a people that not only had no visible God, but no public religious rites. Moses, their leader, instead of being able to commune with God and ask counsel of Him, would be left to the guidance of his own sagacity. The Children of Israel could not come to inquire of God; no atonement could be carried into the presence of His mercy-seat; and no blessing could be spoken by the priests, conveying peace to the hearts of the thousands of Israel. They were to be left to follow their own desires and the counsels of their own hearts. God would fill them with their own ways. Only His providence engaged to direct their path and prepare their way to enter the Promised Land. The effect of this terrible reservation in the conditions on which God pardoned their apostasy, would have resembled the effect of a papal interdict in mediaeval times, when nations were denied the public offices of religion and shut up to a life almost without God in the world. It was this terrible prospect that called forth Moses’ passionate entreaty, “If Thy presence go not with us, carry us not up hence.” Better that we should remain in the wilderness, better that we should die where we are, than live under such perpetual discouragement, so manifestly forsaken of God! The lesson God desired to teach was conveyed by the mere threatening, and, in answer to the intercession of Moses, He consents to the construction and erection of the Sanctuary. When completed, He solemnly took possession of it, and Jehovah’s sacred tent became the visible centre of the camp of Israel (Exodus 40:34). The application of this incident is obvious, though, since we live under a new and better covenant, we are in a somewhat different case from the children of Israel. The Shekinah has been set up in the family of man, and can never be removed. Immanuel, God with us, is the imperishable possession of the human family. Atonement for the sins of mankind has been made; Divine forgiveness has been pronounced; God and man are reconciled. The question for us is, Are we content to live without a personal sense of the Divine presence, without tasting for ourselves that the Lord is gracious, without seeking counsel and guidance from the oracles of God and obtaining answers of peace to our prayers? Does a life of practical atheism seem to us something too terrible to be endured? Would an interdict of our sanctuary services, a prohibition laid upon private prayer, a withdrawal of Divine promises, fill us with heart-felt dismay? (E. W. Shalders, B.A.)