In Exodus 5:22-23 we read Moses' complaint against the Lord, the substance of which is that he had been placed in an impossible position because of the Lord's call and commission on his life. Even more, the complaint implies that the Lord had not fulfilled his word, in that far from bringing deliverance to his people, the encounter with Pharaoh (at the Lord's command, no less!) had made matters worse. Moses' implies that his present difficulty was the Lord's fault and that the Lord should act to remedy the situation.

It is in this context that we read of what effectively amounts to Moses' re-commissioning. Having retreated to the Lord after his rebuttal by Pharaoh and his becoming the object of the Israelites' indignation, Moses complains that he is too unskilled in speech (still!) to deliver the Lord's people (Ex. 6:12, 30 cf. 4:10). That Israel did not listen to Moses is true enough, but this was not because Moses lacked verbal dexterity. The Israelites had believed that the Lord had sent him (Ex. 4:30-31), but they, too, seem to have thought the deliverance would be immediate and uncontested. When the liberation did not come instantaneously-and the Israelite's lot was instead made harder to boot-not only did they complain against Moses (Ex. 5:20-21) but their loss of hope meant that they would not hear the Lord's word through him (Ex. 6:9). Their anger at Moses and Aaron is thus revealed as anger against the Lord who had sent them to speak to Pharaoh in the Lord's name. While embryonic here, this latent anger against God will soon reveal itself in the repeated grumbling and murmuring following their miraculous deliverance. Throughout the narrative that runs from Exodus to Deuteronomy, Israel will be shown to be an incorrigibly stubborn and rebellious people (Deut. 9:6, 13; 31:27), and in this way they stand as a demonstration in type of the thankless nature of the human heart (cf. Rom. 1:21).

However, countering all this is that fact that in Exodus 6 we note the repeated refrain ‘I am the LORD' (6:2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 29 cf. 7:5, 17). This echoes the divine self-revelation of Exodus 3:14ff. The LORD (Yahweh) is the great I AM. Moses' assurance lies in who God is, and the fact that he is who is, eternally and consistently. In addition, the list of ‘I will' statements from the Lord's mouth is stunning in its scope, dealing on the one hand with the fulfillment of the covenant promises of God and on the other with God's sovereignty over Pharaoh (Ex. 6:1, 6, 7, 8 cf. 7:3, 4, 17). Pharaoh's heart, as we have already seen, was regarded as the supreme power over Egypt, and that the Lord designates his own sovereignty over it will be underscored by his multiplied signs and wonders which will leave Egypt in ruins.

In the religious mythology of Egypt (and elsewhere) the various gods and spiritual powers are capricious and unpredictable. People must employ magic to protect themselves, and the gods are also portrayed as using magic to defeat one another in their jockeying for power and position. In some senses, Pharaoh was the guardian of order and harmony in the land. However, the Divine ‘I wills' reinforce the meaning of the name of the LORD, indicating that he is always in action to fulfill his covenant promises. In accord with this he will act to bring judgment on the gods of Egypt. His covenant relationships indicate that the Lord is ever trustworthy; always acting in line with his nature as revealed through his words and deeds. Israel could be confident that Yahweh would always be consistent in his covenant actions, and that his faithfulness would persist (beyond reason and sense) to deal with Israel precisely according to the covenant relations he had set in place.

Exodus 6:3 is to be understood in this light. Rather than indicating that the ancient patriarchs did not know the name ‘Yahweh' in any way, it is indicating that while the form of the name may have been familiar to them (e.g. Gen. 14:22), the meaning of that name was not yet fully revealed. Alec Motyer (The Message of Exodus, p. 104) points out that the name El Shaddai in its various contexts in the patriarchal narratives refers to the God who is sufficient for personal inadequacies (e.g. childlessness, barrenness, helplessness, etc.). This God, sufficient for all their needs, is still sufficient for the needs of the patriarchs' descendants. However, the full meaning of the name Yahweh could not be revealed to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, since it is in the context of the mighty deeds about to be revealed that the character of the name Yahweh will be opened up. As Motyer says, it is ‘not a new or different God, but the same God more fully known...the sufficient God is about to redefine his sufficiency'. His nature as the great I AM is about to be revealed in history. In much the same way in the New Testament, we have the full revelation of the name of ‘Father'. This was not unknown in the Old Testament (e.g. Is. 63:16; 64:8), but by the very nature of the case the full meaning of God as Father could not be revealed until the coming of the Son, in whose face the Father is fully seen (e.g. John 5:37 cf. 14:9).

With all this in mind, we may see that this encounter with the Lord effectively re-launches Moses on his trajectory to be the shepherd leader of God's flock. Yes, he is still the same Moses, with the same inadequacies of speech and lack of natural power. However, the sufficient God of the patriarchs is now showing himself to be sufficient to fulfill his covenant promises to the whole nation, and to enter into specific covenant relationship with them through Moses. Moses' only task is to trust that the Lord is in his deeds the same as he has revealed him self to be in his words. In so doing, Moses has to trust that he, not Moses, will bring about all that he has promised.

The genealogy of Exodus 6:14-25 is specifically selected to emphasis the line of Aaron, who, together with Moses, is to be the appointed leader of the flock. From the point of view of the ancient near east, such a genealogy gives necessary honour and validation to the persons thus described. Up until this point in the narrative the main focus has been on Moses' story. However, given the close working relationship of the two brothers-and Aaron's later role as High Priest-the genealogy gives him due prominence and proper definition.