1

Ask and You Shall Intercede: The Peculiar Perlocutionary Power of Asking God Questions

IBR 2017 Annual Meeting Research Group: Old Testament Theology of Prayer

Steven T. Mann

Introduction

This essay joins the ongoing discussion of the theology of prayer in the Old Testament by

exploring the theological function of questions in intercessory prayer.1 Of course, the use of

questions is not limited to intercessory prayer in the Old Testament, and an intercessory prayer

can be performed without utilizing questions.2 The present study seeks to understand the

function(s) of questions when they are used in petitions made to God by an individual on behalf

of another person or group. Miller points out that “there is no common form for intercessory

prayer” and that “because there is no single form or shape that may be exemplified by a

particular intercessory prayer, one can gain a sense of its character best by looking at some of

the different prayers.”3 This investigation will focus on three intercessory prayers: (1)

Abraham’s prayer in Genesis 18:16-33, (2) Moses’s prayer in Exodus 32:7-14, and (3) Amos’s

prayers in Amos 7:1-6.4 The results of this investigation will then be discussed in light of the

conversation between Jonah and Yahweh in Jonah 4:1-11, an exchange in which God utilizes

questions in ways that compare favorably with the aforementioned passages.

This discussion will study the questions within the prayers in these passages by means of

speech act theory (SAT). The speech act approach asks, “What does this question do?” The

questions will be analyzed in regard to their function within the world of the text (which I call

1 This essay contributes to the discussion found in Phillip G. Camp and Tremper Longman III, eds., Praying

with Ancient Israel: Exploring the Theology of Prayer in the Old Testament (Abilene: Abilene Christian University Press, 2015). In particular, this study comes alongside Phillip Camp’s essay, “Prayer in the Pentateuch” (pp. 21-36) and especially the brief section on questioning God on pages 27-29.

2 For a helpful discussion of asking God questions in prayer, see John Goldingay, Old Testament Theology:

Volume Three: Israel’s Life (Downer’s Grove: IVP Academic, 2009), 215-222. See also Goldingay’s section on intercessory prayer on pages 267-287.

3 Patrick D. Miller, They Cried to the Lord: The Form and Theology of Biblical Prayer (Minneapolis: Fortress

Press, 1994), 267. 4 The selected texts are intended to serve as a sample of intercessory prayers that utilize questions as

opposed to a complete list. For example, Ezekiel’s intercessory prayer in Ezek. 11:13 consist entirely of a question (along with physical acts). While the present discussion does not include every occurrence of asking God questions in intercession, the results of this investigation may be set in conversation with other such occurrences.

2

the story level) as well as the world of the audience (the storyteller level).5 The story level will

receive the most attention in this study, after which suggestions concerning the storyteller level

will be offered.

A brief description of the terminology of SAT will be helpful. First, an illocutionary act is

achieved in saying something whereas a perlocutionary act is achieved by saying something. For

example, a server in a restaurant can warn you that the plate is hot (illocutionary act) so that

you take steps necessary to avoid burning yourself (perlocutionary act). The success of the

illocutionary act depends upon the speaker saying something, whereas the success of the

perlocutionary act depends upon the illocutionary act as well as a particular response of the

hearer. Second, the taxonomy of John Searle provides a helpful way by which to categorize

illocutionary acts (directive, commissive, assertive, declarative, expressive), although it should

be noted that an utterance can perform several of these acts simultaneously.6 For the present

study, it is particularly important to recognize that questions function as directives.7 Asking a

question can serve as a directive for someone to respond with an answer,8 or direct someone

to perform an action (e.g., “Can you pass the salt?”). A question might also be used to make a

hearer consider or contemplate the propositional content. Third, the illocutionary force of an

utterance depends upon the speech situation, which is comprised of various aspects of the

context (including speaker, hearer, location, etc.).9 Fourth, illocutionary acts utilize different fits

between the words and the world. For example, commissives and directives work to affect the

world (a world-to-words direction of fit), whereas assertives attempt to describe the world (a

5 For an explanation of the story and storyteller levels, see Steven T. Mann, “Performative Prayers of a

Prophet: Investigating the Prayers of Jonah as Speech Acts,” CBQ 79, no. 1 (January 2017): 23; idem, Run David Run! An Investigation of the Theological Speech Acts of David’s Departure and Return (2 Samuel 14–20) (Siphrut 10; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2013), 30-57.

6 John R. Searle, Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language (Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press, 1969); Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1979). For a concise description of this taxonomy of illocutionary acts, see Mann, “The Prayers of Jonah,” 21-23.

7 A possible exception are rhetorical questions, although even these questions might direct the hearer to

consider a specific view. 8 Searle includes all yes/no questions as directives for a hearer to respond. Searle, Expression and

Meaning, 14. 9 John L. Austin, How to Do Things With Words (eds. J. O. Urmson and Marina Sbisà; Cambridge, Mass.:

Harvard University Press, 1975), 100; The speech situation is analyzed in detail by John Searle and Daniel Vanderveken, Foundations of Illocutionary Logic (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1985), 27-28.

3

words-to-world direction of fit). Declaratives operate with both directions of fit, and a

storyteller can actually create a world from words.10

To perform an intercessory prayer is both an illocutionary act and a perlocutionary act.

As an illocutionary act, the intercessory prayer is a directive for Yahweh to act favorably on

behalf of an individual or group. However, the success of the perlocutionary act (which involves

the results of the prayer) depends upon God responding in such a favorable way. On the story

level, the questions facilitate the success of the prayer as a perlocutionary act by attempting to

direct Yahweh’s focus away from negative aspects of the situation and toward other aspects to

which he is more likely to respond with favor. Operating as directives within the directive, the

questions incorporate assertives that utilize what can be called a prayerful imagination.11 On

the storyteller level, the successful use of the prophet’s questions as displayed on the story level

invites the audience to consider the perlocutionary power that these questions have upon God.

This may stimulate those audiences who utilize a hermeneutic of belief to examine their own

imaginations, and to pray and to act in such ways that follow God’s heart.

Abraham’s Prayer in Genesis 18

Questions play an important role in the exchange between Yahweh and Abraham concerning

the fate of Sodom. The two main parts of this passage (vv. 16-21 and vv. 22-32) display similar

speech situations as well as a similarity in structure when the utterances are viewed as speech

acts. On the story level, these similarities may suggest that Abraham constructs his act of

intercession (see Figure 2) upon the way in which Yahweh initiates the conversation (see Figure

1). Many interpreters have suggested that Yahweh’s speech invites Abraham to become

10

For more on the direction of fit between words and the world, and especially regarding the world-from-words direction of fit, see Mann, Run David Run, 36, 45-49.

11 I am borrowing the term “prayerful imagination” from Phillip Camp, “Prayer in the Pentateuch,” 31.

Camp uses the term to denote an aspect of God’s creative activity, specifically the way in which prayer “opens one’s eyes to the power of God and the future God is creating.” I will use the term as a way to describe the ways in which an intercessor can utilize a world-from-words direction of fit that can open God’s eyes to possible aspects of the speech situation.

4

involved in the situation.12 It is possible that Abraham construes Yahweh’s speech to also direct

the methodology of his participation.13

Speech situation: “And the men (ים (האנש

went out from there (שם and they looked (מ

toward Sodom (סדם); and Abraham (ואברהם)

was walking with them on their way” (v. 16).

Yahweh’s Speech (vv. 17-21)

A. Question: Directive (v. 17)

B. Assertives + Directive (vv. 18-19)

A’ Yahweh’s Response: Assertive + Commissive (vv. 20-21)

Speech situation: “And the men (ים turned (האנש

from there (שם ,(סדם) and went toward Sodom (מ

and Yahweh remained standing before Abraham

.(v. 22) ”(ואברהם)

Abraham and Yahweh’s Conversation (vv. 23-32)

A. Question: Directive (+ Assertive) (vv. 23-24)

B. Assertives + Directive (v. 25)

A’ Yahweh’s Responses: Commissives (+ Abraham’s Assertives) (vv. 26-32)

Figure 1 Figure 2

The opening to Yahweh’s speech is of particular interest for the present study, as

Yahweh begins by posing a question to the group (consisting of the “men” and Abraham).14 He

asks, “Shall I hide from Abraham that which I am doing?” (v. 17). Yahweh’s question is not a

directive for the members of this audience to provide a response, as his assertives in verses 18-

19 clearly answer the question in the negative.15 Yahweh’s hearers are thus directed to think.

The non-human hearers (ironically, ים are to redirect their focus, if only briefly, from (האנש

Sodom (v. 16) to Abraham (v. 17). The question directs Abraham not only to become involved in

the conversation, but reminds him of the purpose of his election.

12

E.g., Goldingay, Old Testament Theology: Volume Three, 267-268; Robert B. Chisholm Jr., “Anatomy of an Anthropomorphism: Does God Discover Facts?” Bibliotheca Sacra 164 (2007): 3-20 (8); Terence Fretheim, The Suffering of God: An Old Testament Perspective (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), 49-50.

13 This idea can be set in conversation with Brueggemann’s suggestion that Abraham serves as Yahweh’s

theological teacher in this exchange. Walter Brueggemann, Genesis, Interpretation (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1982), 168.

14 Some interpreters have called this utterance a soliloquy; e.g., William John Lyons, Canon and Exegesis:

Canonical Praxis and the Sodom Narrative (London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002) 174. Those who view this as a

soliloquy interpret the Hebrew אמר to indicate thinking rather than thinking. However, it is just as possible that

here Yahweh really is speaking in the presence the “men” and Abraham, who is walking with them. The fact that Abraham is not himself being addressed (as Lyons points out) does not mean that he cannot hear what Yahweh is saying. In fact, it is widely acknowledged that Abraham’s act of intercession is performed in his role as a prophet (so Gen 20:7). For example, Goldingay points out that intercession is expected of leaders such as prophets, who can participate in Yahweh’s cabinet. Goldingay, Old Testament Theology: Volume Three, 270-71. This fits with the way that Abraham is being treated accordingly, as part of this (admittedly small) divine council meeting.

15 In recognition of this the NRSV adds the word “No” at the beginning of verse 19.

5

The assertives that follow the opening question are that “Abraham will become a great

nation, and all the nations of the land shall be blessed in him” (v. 18).16 Yahweh goes on to

indicate that Yahweh has known Abraham so that Abraham may direct his kin to keep the “way

of Yahweh,” which here is identified as “doing righteousness (צדקה) and justice (שפט By ”.(מ

Abraham doing this, Yahweh will bring about his promise to Abraham. The clear connection of

these utterances to the covenant with Abraham may be a reason for why the opening question

is not whether Yahweh should reveal his plans to Abraham, but whether he shall hide them.

Abraham is to be involved in Yahweh’s dealings in the world, and the way in which he does so

specifically involves performing directives on righteousness and justice, the way of Yahweh.

Yahweh then shares with Abraham what he is doing. First he gives an assertive

concerning the greatness of the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah and the gravity of their

sin (v. 20). Then, he issues a commissive whereby he commits himself to investigate the matter.

Many interpreters have assumed that Yahweh is proclaiming judgment and coming destruction

against the cities, as if God has already completed his investigation.17 This would mean that

Abraham’s intercession involves changing God’s mind from that of bringing destruction to

showing mercy.18 However, these assumptions have recently been challenged by interpreters

who note that God has only indicated his plans to investigate.19 Indeed, “What I am doing” in

God’s question corresponds to the commissive, “I must go down and see. . .” Abraham is invited

not to change God’s mind that has been made up already, but to be a part of the decision itself.

Abraham begins his intercession after the men depart for Sodom, leaving Abraham and

Yahweh alone together (v. 22). Abraham utilizes four questions, alternating between a general

question and one involving a specific number. The fourth question is actually a continuation (or

re-articulation) of the second question (see Figure 3).

16

It is possible that the assertive continues as part of the question (e.g., NRSV, NKJV, NASB), although it maintains its function as a reason or justification for the question if it stands alone (e.g., CSB).

17 E.g., Westermann sees an indication of the destruction of Sodom in v. 17. Westermann, Genesis 12–36,

285. For a helpful overview of this prevailing viewpoint, see Nathan MacDonald, “Listening to Abraham—Listening to Yhwh: Divine Justice and Mercy in Genesis 18:16-33,” CBQ 66, no. 1 (January 2004): 28-30.

18 E.g., Ben Zvi states, “The conclusion to which Abraham’s argument leads is clear from the onset: God

should change his/her plans concerning Sodom…” Ben Zvi, “The Dialogue Between Abraham and Yhwh,” 33. 19

E.g., Lyons, Canon and Exegesis, 174-176; MacDonald, “Listening to Abraham,” 29.

6

Abraham’s Questions to Yahweh

“Will you sweep away the righteous with the wicked?” (v. 23b)

“Will you sweep away and not forgive the place for the fifty righteous who are in it?” (v. 24b)

“Shall the judge of all the land not do justice?” (v. 25b)

“Will you destroy the whole city for lack of five?” (v. 28ab)

Figure 3

Lundbom notes that “Yahweh does not answer every question, only those containing specific

numbers for saving the city. Neither of the big questions posed at the beginning of the dialogue

is answered (vv. 23, 25b).”20 The general questions do not require an answer; they serve as

directives for Yahweh to think. This will impact Yahweh’s answers to the specific questions.

The chiastic structure for the broader conversation identified in Figure 2 above can be

expanded as follows:

Abraham’s speech and Yahweh’s Responses (vv. 23-32)

A Abraham’s Questions: Directive (+ Assertive) (v. 23-24)

a Will you sweep away (ה ספ ”?the righteous with the wicked (האף ת

b Perhaps (אולי) there are fifty righteous within the city;

a’ Will you sweep away ( ההאף ת ספ ) and not forgive the place for the fifty righteous who

are in it?

B Abraham’s Assertives (v. 25)

a Far be it from you ( לה לך (חל

b such a thing: to kill righteous (יק ,with wicked (צד

b‘ so that the righteous (יק .are like the wicked (צד

a’ Far be it from you ( לה לך (חל

B’ Abraham’s Directive (v. 25)

a Shall the judge of

b all the land

a not do justice?

20

Jack R. Lundbom, “Parataxis, Rhetorical Structure, and the Dialogue Over Sodom in Genesis 18,” Pages 136-145 in World of Genesis: Persons, Places, Perspectives (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 141.

7

A’ Yahweh’s Responses: Commissives (+ Abraham’s Assertives) (vv. 26-32)

Yahweh: If I find in Sodom fifty righteous in the city, I will forgive the whole place for their sake.

Abraham: (+Behabitive,21 v. 27) Perhaps (אולי) five of the fifty are lacking. Will you destroy

the whole city for lack of five?

Yahweh: I will not destroy it if I find forty-five there.

Abraham: Perhaps (אולי) forty are found there.

Yahweh: I will not do it for the sake of the forty.

Abraham: (+Behabitive, v. 30) Perhaps (אולי) thirty are found there.

Yahweh: I will not do it if I find thirty there.

Abraham: (+Behabitive, v. 31) Perhaps (אולי) twenty are found there.

Yahweh: I will not destroy it for the sake of the twenty.

Abraham: (+Behabitive) Perhaps (אולי) ten are found there.

Yahweh: I will not destroy it for the sake of the ten.

Figure 2b

The outer framework follows the specific questions through which Abraham questions

Yahweh in light of a potential world in which there are fifty righteous in the city (A), and then

Yahweh’s initial response followed by responses to Abraham subsequently and continuously

reducing the number (A’). Abraham’s first two questions serve to direct Yahweh to think about

how he will act in a given situation that is framed by these questions, “Perhaps (אולי) there are

fifty righteous in the city.”22 The illocutionary force of this assertive is impacted by the word

perhaps, allowing it to function more like a directive to consider the propositional content than

as an assertive which must be critiqued for its fit with the world.23 Indeed, the direction of fit

for the success of this utterance does not depend upon fitting this world; it must only fit with

Abraham’s imagination. In fact, neither Abraham nor Yahweh claim to know how many

21

A behabitive is an utterance that relies upon societal conventions, including speeches made with the intention of being polite. J.L. Austin, How To Do Things With Words (eds. J.O. Urmson and Marina Sbisà; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1975) 152. For a study on the politeness of Abraham’s intercession, see Edward Bridge, “Abraham’s Dialogue with God in Genesis 18,” JSOT 40.3 (2016): 281-296.

22 Interpreters are divided on whether Abraham is interceding for the entire city, or only for the righteous.

For a discussion of this topic, see Lyons, Canon and Exegesis, pp. 197-202. 23

Cf. the translation for אולי here in the NRSV and NASB as “suppose.”

8

righteous are in the city of Sodom.24 Earlier Yahweh had framed the subject of his investigation

in terms of the greatness of the outcry and the gravity of the sin of the city; here Abraham is

redirecting the search so that the focus is on the righteous in the city.

Before Yahweh responds to Abraham’s question concerning the imaginary world,

Abraham answers the question for him. He does so by using the phrase that is often translated

“Far be it from you” ( לה לך as an inclusio (a, a’) for describing the act of killing the righteous (חל

with the wicked (b), and treating the righteous like the wicked (b’). Brueggemann points out

that manner in which the first word derives from the term to pollute or defile indicates that the

phrase is strongly opposed to Yahweh performing such an act. In fact, it would violate Yahweh’s

holiness.25 Abraham continues by asking, “Shall the judge of all the land not do justice?” When

taken by itself this question appears to be ambiguous as it conspicuously lacks צדקה to go with

שפט ,However, the question functions along with the previous assertive. As Miller states 26.מ

“The appeal of this intercessory prayer is to God’s own way of being and acting in the world,

the way of justice and righteousness. The question appeals to the character and reputation of

God, to press the Lord to be and act according to the divine intention and nature.”27 It can be

noted that the first chiasm highlights the word יק שפט and the second chiasm contains צד .מ

Abraham’s question directs Yahweh to think about Yahweh’s own judgment, which is

characterized by righteousness (unlike the judgment of earthly kings).28

24

Some interpreters assume that Yahweh already knows the number of righteous in the city. For example, Kimelman says that “God had already ascertained that the cities, having no saving grace, were to be destroyed. The unresolved issue was whether to apprise Abraham.” Reuven Kimelman, “Prophecy as Arguing with God and the Ideal of Justice,” Int 68 (2014) 20.

25 Brueggemann, Great Prayers of the Old Testament, 5-6. Brueggemann points out that the term

“holiness” (qdš) is the antithesis of the term “profane” (ḥll). 26

Lyons states that “the rhetorical question, ‘shall not the Judge of all the earth do justice’ [is] deeply ambiguous. Obviously, YHWH is that judge (cf. vv. 20-21) and it is, so Abraham believes, unthinkable that the deity should act unjustly. But it is not clear what Abraham now considers justice to be…” Lyons, Canon and Exegesis, 193. MacDonald suggests that Abraham “did not rightly understand Yhwh” and points to his omission of “righteousness” as evidence. MacDonald goes on to suggest that Abraham is concerned with judicial procedure. MacDonald, “Listening to Abraham,” 37.

27 Miller, They Cried to the Lord, 116-118, 269.

28 For a description of a human king’s שפט .see 1 Sam 8:11-17 ,מ

9

Persuaded, Yahweh responds by issuing a favorable judgment on behalf of the whole

city for the sake of the fifty righteous that exist in Abraham’s imaginary world. Then Abraham

decreases the number of possible (אולי) righteous in the assertive, and then restates his

question. After Yahweh responds in the same manner as before, Abraham reduces the number

four more times, each time using the qualifier “perhaps” (אולי). Each time, Yahweh responds in

the same way. By reducing the number of righteous in his imaginary city of Sodom and

restating his question, Abraham demonstrates that the force of his intercessory question is not

in the number of righteous, but the presence of the righteous.29 In this way, the outer parts of

the chiasm (A and A’) illustrate the central idea that killing the righteous with the wicked is far

from Yahweh’s nature (B and B’).

Moses’s Prayer in Exodus 32

Yahweh’s speech to Moses consists of two parts, one describing the situation involving

the Israelites’ apostasy and the other involving an imaginary world in which Yahweh commits

himself to consuming the Israelites with his wrath and starting over with Moses (see Figure 4).

Both sections start with similar directives for Moses to leave. However, as perlocutionary acts

they function in an ironic way: Moses stays and becomes involved. As Childs famously noted,

Yahweh’s second directive (“Leave me alone”) operates paradoxically as an invitation that

opens up the possibility of intercession in a manner similar to that made by Abraham.30

29

Against Lyons (Canon and Exegesis, 189) and Kimelman (“Prophecy as Arguing with God,” 19). Lyons insists that during this exchange Abraham is “rattled” and “under intense pressure” as he thinks on his feet without any planned method to his approach. Similarly, Kimelman finds Yahweh’s response surprising and says, “The ball is now in Abraham’s court. Aware that he is over-reaching, possibly flustered at having his offer totally accepted, he goes humble . . . His professed humility, however, does not stop him from pressing on.”

30 Brevard Childs, The Book of Exodus (OTL; Louisville: The Westminster Press, 1974), 567. Cf. Camp,

“Prayer in the Pentateuch,” 27.

10

Yahweh’s Speech (vv. 7b-10)

A Directive (“Go down at once”) (v. 7ba)

B Assertives concerning present situation (vv. 7bb-9)

Description of Israelites (“your people”)

Summary and description of their apostasy

Description of Israelites as stubborn

A’ Directive (“Now, leave me alone”) (v. 10aa)

B’ Commissives (v. 10ab-10b)

Yahweh’s wrath against the Israelites

Yahweh’s promise to Moses

Moses’s Speech (vv. 11b-13)

A Directive (Question) (v. 11ba) +

B Assertives concerning present situation (vv. 11bb)

Description of Israelites as “your people”

A’ Directive (Question) (v. 12aa) +

B Assertives (world-from-words) of resulting

Egyptian speech (v. 12ab)

A Directives (12b-13)

Yahweh’s wrath against the Israelites

Yhwh’s promise to Abraham

Figure 4 Figure 5

Moses begins his response to Yahweh with two questions (v. 11b-12a), each starting

with “Why?”(למה). These questions are clearly not intended as requests for information; if so,

then the first question of why Yahweh’s wrath burns against his people is positioned

immediately after the answer has been given! But as directives to think, these questions invite

Yahweh to consider aspects of the situation that differ from the focus of Yahweh’s opening

speech.

Interpreters have noticed the way Moses uses his first question to counter Yahweh’s

designation of the Israelites as “your [Moses’s] people” and to point out that it was Yahweh

who brought them out of Egypt.31 Conspicuously, Moses then offers no assertive regarding the

present actions of the Israelites. He removes that aspect of Yahweh’s speech and replaces it

with the question, “Why should the Egyptians say, ‘With evil (ברעה) he brought them out, to kill

them in the mountains to consume them from the face of the earth’?” This directive utilizes a

prayerful imagination its accompanying assertive that is similar to the assertives offered by

Abraham concerning the righteous in Sodom. Unlike Abraham, Moses does not utilize the

qualifier of “perhaps” in the world he creates with his words. Instead, he utilizes Yahweh’s own

description of his intended action to “consume” the Israelites and simply asserts how this will

31

Camp, “Prayer in the Pentateuch,” 28.

11

be construed by the Egyptians.32 Thus, Moses uses his second question to direct Yahweh to

think about his reputation rather than the Israelites’ transgression, an approach similar to his

intercession in Numbers 14:13-25 .33 The force of such an appeal to Yahweh is not based on his

vanity,34 but is tied to his purpose in the world.35 Bruckner states that “the sin of the people

had put the reputation of the Lord’s salvation at risk.” 36 But Moses invites Yahweh to consider

that his reputation will only be damaged if he acts in accordance with his anger.

After Moses uses questions to direct Yahweh to consider his relationship with the

Israelites and his own reputation, Moses proceeds with directives for Yahweh to turn from his

anger and change his mind about this punishment. Moses concludes his speech by referencing

Yahweh’s promise to Abraham, an utterance that corresponds with Yahweh concluding his

speech with a similar (provisional) commissive to Moses. The questions that Moses asks are not

the only aspect of his intercession, but they perform the crucial task of redirecting Yahweh to

think about his reputation in the world rather than his people’s apostasy.

Amos’s Prayers in Amos 7:1-6

Whereas most of the book of Amos directs God’s message of judgment to the northern

kingdom, two intercessory prayers by Amos for the nation appear in Amos 7:1-6. The prayers

are brief and nearly identical, although the situations differ in the type and scope of calamity

32

Durham points out that such a response would be an incorrect interpretation on the part of the Egyptians. John I Durham, Exodus (WBC; Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1987), 429.

33 The idea that Moses appeals to Yahweh’s reputation is a widely held interpretation. Coats offers a

different interpretation, stating, “It is not that the Egyptians would attribute an evil intention to God, and thus in order to protect his reputation he should desist. Rather, it corresponds to similar arguments in intercession (Num 14:13-19); to pursue the intention to destroy the people would violate the previous promise to establish a covenant of loyalty with the people. . .” George W. Coats, “The King’s Loyal Opposition: Obedience and Authority in Exodus 32-34,” pages 91-109 in Canon and Authority: Essays in Old Testament Religion and Theology (George W. Coats and Burke O. Long, eds.; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977), 97-98. While Coats is certainly correct to point out the importance of loyalty in the covenant between Yahweh and his people, his argument works best with Moses’s first question, not the second one (which clearly involves the Egyptians and what they will say if Yahweh destroys the people). Similarly, the idea fits with Moses’s point in Numbers 14:17-18 but not with vv. 13-16.

34 Against Propp, who suggests that “Moses’ second argument appeals to God’s vanity. . .This technique

works because kings are by nature competitive. Despite his theoretically limitless might, the anthropomorphized Yahweh still worries about his reputation among the nations. . .” William H.C. Propp, Exodus 19-40 (ABD; New York: Doubleday, 2006), 555.

35 Miller, They Cried to the Lord, 272.

36 James K. Bruckner, Exodus (New International Biblical Commentary; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson

Publishers, Inc., 2008), 284-285.

12

facing Israel. The first prayer includes a wide sweeping request to forgive (v. 2b) whereas the

second request asks Yahweh to stop the punishment (v. 5b). For both, Amos utilizes the same

question (“How can Jacob stand?”), followed by the same assertive, “He is so small” (see

Figures 6 and 7).

Amos’s First Plea (v. 2b)

Speech situation: vision of the Lord

Yahweh forming locusts that ate up the

grass of the land.

Expressive (“O Lord Yahweh”)

Directive (“Please forgive”)

Directive (“How can Jacob stand?”)

Assertive (“He is so small!”)

Amos’s Second Plea (v. 5b)

Speech situation: vision of the Lord Yahweh calling to

contend by fire, which devoured the great deep and was

devouring the plot [of land].

Expressive (“O Lord Yahweh”)

Directive (“Please cease”)

Directive (“How can Jacob stand?”)

Assertive (“He is so small!”)

Figure 6 Figure 7

While there are differences in Amos’s argument when compared to the intercession of

Abraham and Moses (most conspicuously in length, but also in content),37 the function of the

questions remains consistent. As in the prayers of Abraham and Moses, the question functions

as a directive to think about the situation according to the prayerful imagination of the prophet.

Calling the nation by the name Jacob directs Yahweh to consider the beginnings of his

relationship with this people.38 Interpreters have noticed that this prayer appeals to God’s

nature, including his mercy and his tendency to side with the weak.39 When followed by the

37

E.g., Shalom Paul notes that in these prayers Amos “does not call upon the traditional guarantees of salvation, nor does he cite the Lord’s promises to the patriarchs. The prayer, moreover, is not even motivated by a reminder of Israel’s election.” Paul goes on to point out that for Amos, Israel’s election is actually connected to the punishment (Amos 3:2). Shalom M. Paul, Amos (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991), 229.

38 Against Stuart, who has argued against the idea that Amos intends to allude to something in the

patriarchal history. Stuart says, “His purpose is probably to personify the nation in terms of an individual who

cannot survive (יקום) without a harvest, rather than to allude to something in the patriarchal history. Little (קטן)

Jacob seems to stand before Yahweh like the little people—the poor and needy—before the wealthy and powerful (as in 2:6-8; 4:1; 5:11, etc.).” Douglas Stuart, Hosea—Jonah (WBC; Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1987), 371.

39 “His intercession is predicated upon the quality of mercy inherent within the nature of the God of Israel.

Jacob, the northern kingdom, is too small and helpless to survive such a catastrophe. . .” Paul, Amos, 229. Miller states, “The prophet knows the nature of this God who has called him. The one whose power is everywhere apparent is prone to act in behalf, not of the powerful, but of the weak. Identifying Jacob among the insignificant and weak is to draw God’s positive attention because the story of Israel and the lesson of its torah are that there is a special place in the heart and will of God for the weak ones of the community.” Miller, They Cried to the Lord, 274.

13

assertive (“He is so small!”) the question also functions as an indirect assertive that presents a

case that Israel will not survive the punishment. Apparently, Amos does not think that he must

direct Yahweh here to think about his justice (so Abraham) or his covenant and reputation (so

Moses), but simply to consider the devastating results that the implementation of the visions

will have on Israel. Perhaps then Yahweh’s mercy will work on its own (cf. Hosea 11:8-9).

Preliminary Conclusions on the Story Level

Patrick Miller suggests that the primary intent of the great intercessors in the Old Testament is

“to divert the divine anger at the sin of the people, as, for example, Abraham does for Sodom

and Gomorrah, Moses for the sinful community in the wilderness, Amos for the sins of the

Northern Kingdom.”40 The present study agrees with this assessment, but notes that in all three

cases this act of diverting God’s anger is one that God himself prompts. Miller goes on to

identify the function of motive clauses within these prayers: “In the broadest sort of way, they

tend either to draw attention to some feature of God’s nature and character or to lift up some

aspect of the situation of the petitioner(s). There are also a number of motive clauses that point

to the relationship between God and the petitioner(s) as a reason for God’s response.”41 The

present study suggests that it is the questions in these intercessory prayers that contribute to

the aim identified by Miller.

By asking God questions, the intercessor directs Yahweh to think about the situation in

ways that guide him to respond favorably to the petition. Abraham uses his questions to

participate in Yahweh’s decision concerning Sodom by directing Yahweh’s attention to the

(possible) righteous rather than the people in Sodom. Moses uses questions to direct Yahweh’s

focus away from his people’s apostasy and toward Yahweh’s covenant with them. In addition,

by his questions Moses guides Yahweh to consider one outcome of proceeding with his decision

to destroy the Israelites and start over with Moses. Amos uses one question in two prayers, to

direct Yahweh to consider the frailty of his people and thus the need for Yahweh to forgive and

to cease. In each of these cases, the intercessor prays in response to God’s prompting, which

suggests that God invites the opportunity to think about aspects of these situations in ways that

40

Miller, They Cried to the Lord, 90. 41

Miller, They Cried to the Lord, 116 [italics original].

14

correspond to his character and viewpoints. Hence the prophets do not engage in acts of

manipulation, but rather acts of joining with God.42

Yahweh’s Exchange with Jonah in Jonah 4

While the conversation between Yahweh and Jonah in Jonah 4 does not include an intercessory

prayer, a strong case can be made that the story should have included an intercessory prayer!

This passage can be set in dialogue with the other passages already discussed due to similarities

involving the speech situation and especially the function of questions utilized by Yahweh.

Yahweh first asks Jonah questions that attempt to redirect the prophet’s perspective of his own

response to God’s grace toward the city of Nineveh, and then asks the sort of question that

Jonah could have (should have?) directed toward Yhwh in an act of intercession for the city.

As with the previous passages, the situation involves Yahweh’s judgment which involves

the imminent destruction of an offending party, in this case the city of Nineveh. Yahweh opens

up the conversation with the prophet in the beginning of the story by using a directive and

revealing his plans to respond to the offender’s wickedness (Jonah 1:1-2). This is a perfect

opportunity for Jonah to intercede for the wicked city by directing Yahweh to consider other

possible aspects of the situation, by reminding Yahweh that this people cannot stand up to him,

by directing Yahweh to change his mind as he considers his grace and mercy. These ideas do

appear in the story, but not from the mouth of Jonah. Jonah first chooses to flee from Yahweh’s

presence, and later goes to pronounce destruction to the city. It should be noted that Jonah

prays twice in the story.43 While both of his prayers utilize questions, neither of them are

intercessory prayers but rather attempt to focus God’s attention on Jonah.

Unlike the previous passages, this exchange between Jonah and Yahweh occurs after

Yahweh has acted on behalf of a sinful group. Jonah’s prayer reveals that his knowledge of

God’s character was the very reason he had initially fled in response to Yahweh’s call. The irony

of this response to the potential of God’s grace when compared to requests for God’s grace

42

Cf. Camp, who says that “prayer is no way manipulates or forces God to act. Though prayer is relational, it is not a relationship of equals” (“Prayer in the Pentateuch,” 29).

43 For a study of these prayers, see Steven T. Mann, “Performative Prayers of a Prophet: Investigating the

Prayers of Jonah as Speech Acts,” CBQ 79 (2017): 20-40.

15

made by prophets such as Abraham, Moses, and Amos has not been lost on interpreters.

Yahweh’s first question is framed in general terms and directs Jonah to consider whether or not

his current anger is appropriate, “Is it right for you to be angry?” (Jon 4:4). After receiving no

verbal response, God appoints a bush to give shade to Jonah and then a worm to kill the bush.

Yahweh then asks a similar but specific question, “Is it right for you to be angry about the

bush?” This time Yahweh succeeds in prompting Jonah to respond, although given Jonah’s

response God may have failed at persuading Jonah to re-think his angry response.

After the initial questions, Yahweh performs an assertive concerning Jonah’s lack of a

relationship with the plant that would warrant Jonah’s anger. He then asks Jonah a question

that reveals several reasons for his own commitment to the city of Nineveh. Yahweh asks,

“Should I not be concerned concerning Nineveh, the great city, in which there are more than a

hundred and twenty thousand humans (אדם) who do not know their right hand from their left,

and also many animals (בהמה)?” With these questions Yahweh focuses on the great size of the

city, as well as the presence of many humans and animals. Yahweh’s reference to Ninevites as

humans (אדם) casts the situation in a way that fits with God’s creative act in Genesis 1, which

celebrates all humanity (אדם) as made in God’s image. The reference to the animals (בהמה) in

the city not only fits with Genesis 1 but also to the covenant that God makes with Noah (see

Gen 9:10).44 With these descriptions Yahweh defends his act of giving grace to Nineveh. Indeed,

these are the very questions that Jonah could have used to redirect Yahweh’s focus away from

the wickedness (רעה) of the city and toward aspects of the situation that would help him

consider responding with grace.

The Storyteller Level

Many interpreters consider the final question in the book Jonah as an invitation for the

audience to reflect. Thus God’s speech to Jonah can function as a bridge between the story

level and the storyteller level of interpretation. While it is unknown whether Jonah on the story

44

Interpreters have noticed the ways in which the book of Jonah portrays Yahweh as the creator and thus the God of all the earth. E.g., James Limburgh, Jonah (OTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1993), 34.

16

level is aware of the intercessory prayers of Abraham, Moses, and Amos, an audience who has

watched those situations unfold might also reflect on the similarities of the questions posed to

God by these great intercessors. The questions within the intercessory prayers do not simply to

influence God, but can influence the listening audience.

The questions in all four passages discussed in this essay may direct audiences to

consider the significance of how someone can intercede by using questions that direct God’s

focus away from those aspects of the situation that break his heart and imagine those aspects

that appeal to his justice and compassion. This may serve a didactic purpose of teaching us to

pray more effectively on behalf of others, but it is also possible that these questions can

redirect our own perspective when we encounter troubling situations. Smith suggests that “the

underlying goal of many of the oral and written communications described in the Bible was to

persuade listeners or readers to accept a new idea from God, to give up a present

misunderstanding or evil behavior, or to internalize a new way of thinking or acting.”45 These

prayers do more than teach us how to pray, they can teach us how to live as God’s people. The

questions in these intercessory prayers might redirect our focus from one of a legalistic

judgmental attitude to one that seeks outs aspects of every situation that can be used to appeal

to the gracious judgment of God.

45

Gary V. Smith, “Persuasive Rhetoric in Divine Inspiration,” Didaskalia (Otterburne, Man.) 8, no. 2 (1997) 60.