Did Moses change Gods words?
Moses, Sinai, and the Question of Added Commands
A Study on Exodus 19–24
Introduction
A growing argument in some circles claims that Moses altered or added to the commandments of God during the Sinai narrative. Two major examples are often presented:
- In Book of Exodus 19, God commanded the people not to touch Mount Sinai, yet Moses only explicitly tells the people not to “come at your wives.”
- In Exodus 24, Moses sprinkles blood on the people even though the text does not explicitly record God commanding him to do so.
From these observations, some conclude:
- Moses changed the words of God,
- introduced practices God did not command,
- and became responsible for the people’s fear and mediated relationship with God.
This study examines those claims carefully through the text itself.
Part I — The Sinai Boundary in Exodus 19
God’s Original Command
In Exodus 19:10–13, God gives Moses several instructions:
- sanctify the people,
- have them wash their clothes,
- prepare for the third day,
- and establish boundaries around the mountain.
The central warning is clear:
“Take heed to yourselves, that ye go not up into the mount, or touch the border of it.”
— Exodus 19:12
The restriction against touching Sinai originates directly from God.
What Moses Says to the People
Exodus 19:14–15 states:
“And Moses went down from the mount unto the people, and sanctified the people; and they washed their clothes.
And he said unto the people, Be ready against the third day: come not at your wives.”
Here the narrative explicitly records:
- washing clothes,
- and sexual abstinence,
but it does not explicitly repeat:
“Do not touch the mountain.”
This omission has led some readers to argue that Moses failed to communicate God’s warning.
Does the Text Present Moses as Disobedient?
The larger context strongly argues against that conclusion.
Later in the same chapter, God tells Moses:
“Go down, charge the people, lest they break through unto the LORD to gaze…”
— Exodus 19:21
Moses responds:
“The people cannot come up to mount Sinai: for thou chargedst us, saying, Set bounds about the mount…”
— Exodus 19:23
This response is significant for several reasons.
1. Moses clearly knows the command
He repeats the boundary instruction back to God accurately.
2. Moses speaks as though the people already know
“The people cannot come up…”
This assumes the restriction had already been communicated.
3. God does not rebuke Moses
God does not answer:
- “You failed to tell them,”
- “They were unaware,”
- or “You disobeyed.”
Instead, God simply reiterates the warning.
If Moses had fundamentally failed in his task, the absence of correction would be difficult to explain.
Why Did Moses Mention Abstinence?
God told Moses to:
“sanctify the people.”
Moses’ command regarding abstinence appears to function as an application of consecration and ritual preparation.
Temporary abstinence before divine encounter appears elsewhere in scripture:
- First Book of Samuel 21:4–5
- priestly purity traditions
- preparation for holy encounter or holy war
The text does not present Moses as contradicting God, but as implementing sanctification.
Did the People Fear God Because Moses Failed?
The text itself gives a different explanation.
The people do not ask for Moses to mediate until after the voice of God speaks the commandments in Exodus 20.
Exodus 20:18–19 says:
“And all the people saw the thunderings, and the lightnings, and the noise of the trumpet, and the mountain smoking…”
Then they say:
“Speak thou with us, and we will hear: but let not God speak with us, lest we die.”
Their fear is explicitly connected to:
- divine presence,
- thunder,
- smoke,
- trumpet,
- and the direct voice of God.
The narrative never states that God became angry because Moses failed to warn the people.
Part II — The Blood of the Covenant in Exodus 24
The Covenant Ceremony
In Exodus 24:
- Moses writes the words of the LORD,
- builds an altar,
- offers sacrifices,
- and collects blood in basins.
The text says:
“And Moses took half of the blood, and put it in basons; and half of the blood he sprinkled on the altar.”
— Exodus 24:6
Then later:
“And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant…”
— Exodus 24:8
Was Moses Commanded to Sprinkle the People?
The text does not explicitly record a direct command from God saying:
“Sprinkle the people with blood.”
This observation is technically correct.
However, the conclusion that Moses therefore acted rebelliously is much harder to support.
The Narrative Gives No Rebuke
Again, the passage contains:
- no divine anger,
- no correction,
- no punishment,
- and no indication that Moses acted improperly.
Instead, immediately afterward:
- Moses and the elders ascend,
- they behold God,
- and the covenant proceeds successfully.
The ceremony is presented as covenant ratification, not disobedience.
Blood and Covenant in the Ancient World
The symbolism is important.
The blood is divided:
- half on the altar (representing God’s side),
- half on the people (representing Israel’s side).
This creates covenant union between both parties.
Moses declares:
“Behold the blood of the covenant…”
The act is therefore presented as a covenant-binding ritual.
Later Scripture Affirms This Event
A major point against the accusation comes from later biblical interpretation.
Epistle to the Hebrews 9:18–20 refers positively to this exact event:
“Moses… sprinkled both the book, and all the people…”
The New Testament treats the event as:
- legitimate,
- authoritative,
- and spiritually significant.
Not as rebellion.
Understanding the Broader Argument
The claims against Moses usually come from a larger interpretive framework which argues that:
- direct relationship with God was replaced by mediation,
- ritual systems,
- sacrifice,
- priesthood,
- and hierarchy.
Some point to tensions within scripture itself regarding sacrifice and ritual:
- Book of Jeremiah 7:22–23
- Book of Hosea 6:6
- Book of Micah 6:6–8
These passages emphasize obedience and mercy over ritualism.
So the broader discussion about mediation and sacrifice is not entirely unfounded.
However, the specific accusations against Moses in Exodus 19 and 24 go beyond what the narrative explicitly states.
Final Conclusion
The textual evidence supports several conclusions:
1. The omission of repeated instructions is not proof of disobedience
Biblical narrative frequently summarizes speech rather than repeating every instruction verbatim.
2. Moses clearly understood and affirmed the Sinai boundary
Exodus 19:23 strongly implies the command had already been communicated to the people.
3. God never rebukes Moses for failing to communicate
The absence of correction is significant.
4. The people’s fear came from direct encounter with divine holiness
Exodus 20 explicitly explains their fear.
5. The blood sprinkling in Exodus 24 is presented positively
The covenant ceremony succeeds and later scripture affirms it.
Overall Assessment
The observations behind these arguments are real:
- Moses does sometimes speak beyond the exact recorded words of God,
- and the text does not always record every instruction explicitly.
However, the claim that Moses was acting in rebellion or corrupting God’s commands is not strongly supported by the narrative itself.
The text consistently presents Moses as:
0 Comments