== The metaphorical palm blocks Moshe's vision until *Yah* has passed by
*NOT* his glory
Are you saying Yahweh's presence can be divorced from His glory? If so, then
I agree. And the text doesn't say anything about a "metaphorical" palm. That
is a theologically preferable interpretation.
== Notice the reference to Yah being invisible, yet paradoxically Moshe saw
him.
There is no paradox once we realize the Greek here for "invisible" can
simply mean "hidden." Things can be hidden without being "invisible" in a
metaphysical, nature sense. Moses was given the privilege to see what is
usually hidden, the visual manifestation of God. No compelling reason to
give up here and assume paradox.
== As has been demonstrated,it is widely understood by many that physical
references to Yah can be understood as a mechanism of describiing Yah while
working within the limitations of a language which is physically orientated,
i.e. they are just metaphors.
But most of those whom "widely understand" this are interpreters of the
theologian/minister type, not OT scholars.
== Yah's blocking Moshe's vision with his palm can be understood as Yah
using his power to block Moshe's vision and Yah's 'back' can be understood
as the aftereffects of his 'passing by' e.g. When you see a bright light for
a few seconds which suddenly dissappears,you continue to see its
aftereffects in the form a glow in your eyes (caused by temporarily burnt
retinas). I don't know if that was followable or not. I do garble a bit
sometimes.
So God's hand is really just God's "power" to keep Moses from looking? Seems
pretty superfluous since the fear of death would generally be enough to keep
someone from trying to look, and the same "Hand" that parted the sea is the
same "power" required to shut Moses'eyelids. And God's "backparts" is really
just an allusion to Moses'attempts to regain his vision?
These are very creative attempts, but there seems to be nothing to justify,
let alone require it, other than theology. I think the text makes perfect
sense when read literally, and it seems his ANE audience would have
understood it this way as well.
Also vs. 21 says that God placed Moses on a rock by him: "And the LORD said,
Behold, there is a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock:"
This is an indication that God wanted to SHOW him something. He could have
explained his "goodness," (i.e. his attributes) from any distance. This
indicates that metaphor is not the meaning behind these anthropomorphic
allusions.
If we understand "glory" to be a blinding light, then much of this makes
sense. Vs. 22 says, "And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by,
that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my
hand while I pass by:"
Moses couldn't see the "face" of God because of the tremendous light that
was blinding his view. But this verse says that the glory will "pass by."
For what purpose? To prevent Moses from being blinded so he could get a good
look at the anthropomorphic form. But to keep the face hidden from Moses,
God uses his hand to block his sight as he passed by:
"And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my
face shall not be seen."
Thus, Moses was privileged to see the "form" of God, but the face of God he
was not allowed to see. He was permitted to see God's backparts, which is
still a great privilege. I agree that God's attributes relate to his glory
and goodness, but the visual experience remains, and the view that it is
merely metaphor seems untenable. This literal reading is in perfect harmony
with parallel passages that refer to the Lords "form." Consider Numbers
12:7-9
"My servant Moses is not so; he is faithful in all my house: with him will I
speak mouth to mouth, even manifestly, and not in dark speeches; and the
FORM OF YHWH shall he behold: wherefore then were ye not afraid to speak
against my servant, against Moses? And the anger of Jehovah was kindled
against them; and he departed."
Psalm 17:15 "As for me, I shall behold thy face in righteousness; I shall be
satisfied, when I awake, with BEHOLDING THY FORM."
If we understand this as metaphor, then there are simply too many other
related passages and traditions that need to be "metaphorized" as well.