Summary of main points

1. Yes. The Torah itself anticipates “hard cases” and builds in a covenant mechanism for inquiry (priests, judges, prophet like Moses), so guidance is not reduced to a closed rulebook (Deut 17:8-11).

2. Numbers 9:6-14 is a clean example: the law is clear about corpse impurity, but not explicit about a conflict case (unclean on Passover). Israel asks, Moses inquires, and YHWH issues an added statute (Pesach Sheni).

3. This supports a real “working relationship” in administration and guidance, without implying that God lacks foreknowledge or that His eternal plan is contingent. God wills relational dependence and mediated guidance as part of covenant life.

Exegesis

1) The key verse: Numbers 9:8

Hebrew (MT, BHS):
וַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵהֶם מֹשֶׁה עִמְדוּ וְאֶשְׁמְעָה מַה יְצַוֶּה יְהוָה לָכֶם

Transliteration:
vayyomer ‘alehem Mosheh ‘imdu ve’eshme’ah mah yetsavveh YHWH lakhem

Very literal gloss:
“And Moses said to them, Stand, and let me hear what YHWH will command for you.”

Grammar and syntax observations

• ‘imdu (עִמְדוּ) is a plural imperative: “Stand” or “Wait here.” It signals a procedural pause in judgment, not indecision.

• ve’eshme’ah (וְאֶשְׁמְעָה) is a 1cs cohortative form (“let me hear” / “I will hear”), expressing Moses’ resolved intent to seek YHWH’s directive rather than improvise.

• mah yetsavveh (מַה יְצַוֶּה) uses tsavah (צוה) “to command.” The expectation is not advice but covenant command.

2) What is the actual legal tension in Numbers 9:6-8?

The men are unclean by a corpse:

Hebrew phrase: tme’im lenefesh ‘adam (טְמֵאִים לְנֶפֶשׁ אָדָם)
Literal: “unclean with respect to the nefesh of a human” – idiomatically, corpse impurity.

• nefesh (נֶפֶשׁ) here does not mean “immortal soul” in a later philosophical sense; it is the life-person reality, and in corpse contexts it functions as a Hebrew idiom for the human person/body as the bearer of life now defiled by death-contact.

• Torah already regulates corpse impurity broadly (esp. Num 19), but Numbers 9 presents a collision case: “What if you cannot be clean in time for Passover?”

3) The narrative outcome matters: Numbers 9:9-14

The inquiry results in a new, specific ruling: those unclean by a corpse or on a journey may keep Passover in the second month (what later Jewish tradition calls Pesach Sheni). The text depicts Torah not as exhaustively casuistic for every scenario, but as a covenant constitution with built-in procedures for edge cases.

Theological analysis

A) Covenant and “relational jurisprudence”

Your instinct about a “working relationship” is substantially sound if defined carefully:

• In the Pentateuch, Torah (תּוֹרָה, torah) is fundamentally “instruction,” not merely a statute book. It forms a people into communion-order under YHWH.

• God gives genuine commands, but He also gives Israel a relational mode of governance: when a case is not directly specified, the covenant community seeks the Judge of all the earth through the mediators He appointed.

This is not an ad hoc patch to a deficient law. It is a designed feature of covenant life.

B) Torah itself predicts the need for inquiry (Deut 17:8-11)

Deuteronomy explicitly legislates for cases “too difficult” and commands Israel to go to the Levitical priests and the judge in office and to do “according to what they declare.” That is the Torah acknowledging (and authorizing) ongoing adjudication and application.

So Numbers 9 is not Moses doing something foreign to Torah; it is Torah-in-action.

C) Free-will oriented synthesis (with contrast)

From a conservative Free Will (non-extreme) perspective:

• God truly engages His covenant servants in real-time decision situations. The inquiry is meaningful, not theater.

• God is free to disclose further instruction at chosen moments, and humans are morally responsible to seek and obey.

From a Reformed/Calvinist contrast:

• The inquiry is still fully real, but it is typically framed as an ordained means within a comprehensive decree.

• Even in that view, the relational mechanism remains essential: God uses asking, waiting, and mediated instruction to accomplish what He has eternally willed.

Either way, the text supports covenantal interaction, not a deistic “manual only” model.

Historical context

1) Casuistic law and “open texture”

Ancient Near Eastern law codes commonly include paradigmatic cases rather than exhaustive scenario coverage. Torah resembles this in form at many points, but differs in that Israel is governed by a living, holy, personal God who speaks and dwells among them. That makes inquiry not just judicial convenience, but covenant posture.

2) Institutionalized guidance: priests, lot/oracle, and prophets

Within Israel’s system, guidance is mediated in multiple authorized ways:

• Priestly instruction and judgment (Levites teaching Torah).

• “Hard case” escalation (Deut 17).

• Oracular means in certain contexts (e.g., Urim and Thummim in the broader Pentateuch narrative framework).

• Prophetic word when God chooses.

Numbers 9 sits squarely inside that world: Moses is not “making it up”; he is functioning as covenant mediator and prophet.

Scholarly insight (no direct quotations)

A mainstream conservative reading of Numbers treats this pericope as a deliberate demonstration of (1) the priority of Passover, (2) the seriousness of purity, and (3) YHWH’s provision of a lawful alternative that preserves covenant participation without nullifying holiness boundaries. That is, the passage models how divine holiness and covenant inclusion are held together through divinely authorized guidance rather than human improvisation.

Select conservative resources worth consulting on Numbers 9 and Torah jurisprudence:

• Gordon J. Wenham, Numbers (Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1981).

• Timothy R. Ashley, The Book of Numbers (New International Commentary on the Old Testament; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993).

• R. Dennis Cole, Numbers (New American Commentary; Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 2000).

• For Torah law genre and function in canonical theology: e.g., standard evangelical OT theologies and Pentateuch introductions (varies by author).

(I am not quoting these works here, so I am not attaching page numbers.)

Metaphysical level: what reality itself is doing

If we describe the ontology implied by the text:

1. Reality is covenant-structured, not merely law-structured.
   Law is not an impersonal mechanism; it is the expression of the will of a personal, holy Lord who relates. The community is meant to live “before YHWH,” not merely under regulations.

2. God governs through personal speech and authorized mediators.
   In Numbers 9, the decisive factor is not clever reasoning but divine command sought and received. That means ultimate normativity remains personal: the living God speaks.

3. The “non-exhaustive” character of Torah is pedagogical and relational.
   Edge cases force Israel into dependence and communion, turning legal uncertainty into an occasion for covenant fidelity.

This is a world where holiness is real, impurity is real, time is appointed (“at its appointed time”), and God is the living Lawgiver who can specify further without contradicting Himself.

Psychological-spiritual level (soul, will, affections)

Numbers 9 also reveals a spiritual psychology:

• The men do not use impurity as an excuse to disengage; they desire participation in worship.

• Moses refuses both legalism (a harsh, self-authorized exclusion) and antinomianism (a casual override).

• The community is trained into a posture of humble suspension: “Stand, and let me hear.” That disciplines the will away from self-rule and toward obedient waiting.

So the “working relationship” is not egalitarian negotiation. It is covenantal: humans ask under authority; God answers as Lord; leaders mediate faithfully; the people obey.

Divine-perspective level: how God sees and wills this

From the text’s implied divine perspective:

• God wills to be sought. He builds inquiry into covenant life so that Israel’s obedience stays personal and responsive, not merely procedural.

• God also wills to preserve both holiness boundaries and covenant inclusion. The added statute (second-month Passover) is a divinely authorized path that upholds both.

• God is not portrayed as surprised by the case. He is portrayed as the sovereign Lawgiver who chooses the moment and means of disclosure, thereby forming His people.

Practical application (conservative evangelical)

1. Do not treat Scripture as a mechanical codebook. It is sufficient and authoritative, but it often requires faithful application through authorized principles, wisdom, and dependence on God.

2. The right posture in ambiguous cases is Moses’ posture: neither autonomous decision-making nor paralysis, but disciplined seeking of God’s will through His ordained means (Scripture, godly counsel, prayer, and in the NT era the Spirit-guided community under the apostolic Word).

3. This supports your thesis with a boundary: yes, God desires real relational administration with His people, but the relationship is covenantal and hierarchical: God commands; we inquire and obey.

Summary of main points

1. Yes, John 16:12-13 presents the same covenant pattern: God does not unload the whole deposit at once, but gives further, timely instruction later, in this case through the Holy Spirit.

2. The text is not mainly about God fixing gaps in Jesus teaching, but about capacity, timing, and the post-resurrection, post-Pentecost mode of revelation and illumination for the apostolic mission.

3. This strengthens (with guardrails) your “working relationship” claim: God intends His people to live by ongoing dependence on His voice and presence, but in the NT this is tethered to Christ and culminates in the apostolic witness that becomes Scripture.

Exegesis

John 16:12-13 in Greek (NA28) with transliteration and literal sense

NA28 Greek:
16:12 Eti polla echo hymin legein, all’ ou dynasthe bastazein arti.
16:13 hotan de elthe ekeinos, to pneuma tes aletheias, hodegesei hymas eis ten aletheian pasan …

(NA28 text, Gospel of John 16:12-13.)

Transliteration (standard):
16:12 Eti polla echo hymin legein, all’ ou dynasthe bastazein arti.
16:13 hotan de elthe ekeinos, to pneuma tes aletheias, hodegesei hymas eis ten aletheian pasan …

Very literal gloss:

• Eti polla echo hymin legein = “Still many things I have to say to you.”

• all’ ou dynasthe bastazein arti = “but you are not able to bear/carry (them) now.”

• to pneuma tes aletheias = “the Spirit of truth.”

• hodegesei hymas = “he will guide you.”

• eis ten aletheian pasan = “into all the truth.”

Key lexical and syntactical points

1. bastazein (βασταζειν) “to bear, carry, endure”
   This is capacity language. Jesus is not saying the content is unimportant, but that the disciples are not presently able to carry it responsibly. That matches the narrative moment: impending betrayal, scattering, crucifixion, grief, fear.

2. arti (αρτι) “now”
   This is timing. The limitation is situational, not permanent.

3. hodegesei (οδηγησει) “he will guide”
   This is directive language, not merely emotional comfort. The Spirit is described as guiding the apostolic band into the truth that is needed for their post-resurrection witness.

4. The immediate context (John 14-16) repeatedly links the Spirit ministry to reminding, teaching, testifying, and glorifying Christ (cf. John 14:26; 15:26; 16:14-15). The Spirit does not freelance; He mediates and applies the revelation centered in the Son.

Relation to your paraphrase

Your paraphrase catches the thrust (not all can be borne now; later Spirit-guidance). But the text emphasizes “bearing” and “guiding” rather than “I will tell you later” as a simple deferred lecture. The later disclosure is mediated by the Spirit and anchored to Christ.

Theological analysis

1) Continuity with the Torah pattern (Numbers 9)

Numbers 9 shows an edge case where Moses refuses autonomous inference and seeks YHWH instruction. John 16 shows a climactic version of the same covenant logic:

• In the Mosaic economy: the living God governs His people through mediated inquiry and timely command.

• On the cusp of the New Covenant: Jesus indicates that further, timely instruction will come, but now through the Spirit who will guide the apostolic witnesses.

Both are relational administration rather than exhaustive preemptive legislation.

2) Progressive revelation vs open-ended novelty

This matters: John 16 is not a blank check for endless new doctrine. In conservative evangelical terms:

• It supports progressive revelation in redemptive history: God discloses more as His plan advances toward its climactic fulfillment in Christ.

• It also supports Spirit-enabled apostolic understanding and proclamation after the cross and resurrection, which then becomes the normative teaching foundation for the church.

So, yes: “working relationship.” But the relationship is covenantally structured and, in the NT, it is finally tethered to the apostolic witness to Christ, not an always-open stream of new public doctrine.

3) Dispensational and Free Will oriented synthesis

A moderately dispensational reading often stresses that covenant administrations differ: Torah was external, mediated, and national; the New Covenant brings internalization and the Spirit indwelling for the people of God. John 16 fits naturally: the coming Spirit ministry is part of the new administration that empowers witness and comprehension.

From a Free Will emphasis, the “you cannot bear now” highlights real human cognitive-affective limits and real divine accommodation. The Spirit does not bypass the human; He enables, guides, reminds, and brings understanding in time.

4) Reformed contrast (brief)

A Reformed account will emphasize that this Spirit-guidance is ordained as the means by which God brings the apostles into full understanding and inscripturates the deposit for the church. But even there, the relational pedagogy and real-time guidance are fully affirmed.

Historical context

In Second Temple Judaism, wisdom and Torah were not treated as a mere static code; there is a strong tradition of applying Torah to new cases (without replacing it), and of seeking God for guidance. John 14-16 reframes this around Jesus as the locus of revelation and the Spirit as the agent of post-resurrection instruction. The pattern is Jewish-covenantal in its logic (God speaks, guides, and governs a people) while being christologically intensified.

Metaphysical level: what reality itself is doing

John 16 implies that revelation is not just information transfer. It is covenant governance by divine speech that arrives in the right season.

1. Truth is personal and christocentric. The Spirit of truth guides into truth by taking what belongs to the Son and declaring it (John 16:14-15). Reality is ordered around the Son as the revelatory center.

2. Time and capacity are built into how God acts. God does not treat humans as disembodied processors. He trains a people through stages, integrating event (cross, resurrection, exaltation) with interpretation (Spirit-guided apostolic understanding).

3. Covenant life is lived under ongoing divine agency. The Spirit is not an add-on; He is the mode by which the risen Christ governs and builds His people.

Psychological-spiritual level

1. Jesus explicitly recognizes limits of attention, fear, grief, and interpretive readiness (“you cannot bear now”). That is a doctrine of human finitude, not a critique of the disciples sincerity.

2. The Spirit ministry therefore includes not only cognition (teaching, reminding) but fortification of the inner person so that the truth can be borne without collapse.

3. Practically, this models a non-rationalistic spirituality: God can require waiting until the heart and mind are made capable of receiving what is true.

Divine-perspective level

God wills to be known, but He also wills to be known rightly, in the right order, and through the means He appoints.

• The Father gives the Son as the definitive revelation.

• The Son speaks what the disciples can bear in the moment and promises Spirit-guidance for what must come after the decisive redemptive events.

• The Spirit completes the revelatory transition by guiding the apostolic witnesses into the truth needed for the church.

This is not God improvising. It is God executing a wise pedagogy within His eternal plan, using relationship, timing, and mediated guidance as essential features.

Practical application (guardrailed)

1. Your “working relationship” principle is sound if you mean: God intends His people to live dependently, seeking and receiving guidance rather than operating as autonomous legal technicians.

2. In the New Covenant era, the primary public doctrinal outcome of that Spirit-guidance is the apostolic deposit. So present-day appeals to “the Spirit will tell us later” must be measured against the closed, sufficient canonical witness to Christ.

3. The model for ambiguous cases today is therefore: deep submission to Scripture, prayerful dependence, wise communal discernment, and Spirit-enabled application, rather than expectation of new doctrinal revelation that would rival or supplement the apostolic foundation.

If you want, I can map Numbers 9, Deuteronomy 17, John 16, and Acts 15 into a single “covenant guidance workflow” chart (Torah era vs apostolic transition vs post-apostolic church) without using any special characters that break Excel.