Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Exodus 32:15
And Moses turned, and went down from the mount, and the two tables of the testimony [were] in his hand: the tables [were] written on both their sides; on the one side and on the other [were] they written.
15. of the testimony ] The expression is P’s (see on Exo 25:16); and will have been introduced here by R P [219] on the basis of Exo 31:18 a, Exo 34:29. E would have written ‘the tables of stone ’ (Exo 31:18 b).
[219] See pp. xi, xii.
written on both their sides, &c.] This statement is made only here. The tables, since Moses could carry them himself, will have been pictured by the writer as comparatively small.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
15 20. Moses’ return to the camp. His punishment of the people for their sin.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Verse 15. The tables were written on both their sides] If we take this literally, it was certainly a very unusual thing; for in ancient times the two sides of the same substance were never written over. However, some rabbins suppose that by the writing on both sides is meant the letters were cut through the tables, so that they might be read on both sides, though on one side they would appear reversed. Supposing this to be correct, if the letters were the same with those called Hebrew now in common use, the samech, which occurs twice, and the final mem which occurs twenty-three times in the ten commandments, both of these being close letters, could not be cut through on both sides without falling out, unless, as some of the Jews have imagined, they were held in by miracle; but if this ancient character were the same with the Samaritan, this through cutting might have been quite practicable, as there is not one close letter in the whole Samaritan alphabet. On this transaction there are the three following opinions:
1. We may conceive the tables of stone to have been thin slabs or a kind of slate, and the writing on the back side to have been a continuation of that on the front, the first not being sufficient to contain the whole.
2. Or the writing on the back side was probably the precepts that accompanied the ten commandments; the latter were written by the Lord, the former by Moses; See Clarke on Ex 34:1; and “Ex 34:27“.
3. Or the same words were written on both sides, so that when held up, two parties might read at the same time.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Not on the inside and outside, which is unusual and unnecessary, but on the inside only, some of the ten commands being written on the right hand, and others on the left, not for any mystery, but only for conveniency of writing.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
15-18. Moses turned, and went downfrom the mountThe plain, Er-Raheh, is not visible from the topof Jebel Musa, nor can the mount be descended on the side towardsthat valley; hence Moses and his companion, who on duty had patientlywaited his return in the hollow of the mountain’s brow, heard theshouting some time before they actually saw the camp.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And Moses turned, and went down from the mount,…. He turned himself from God, with whom he had been conversing forty days; his back was to the ascent of the mount, and he turned himself in order to go down; or “he looked” g, as a man considers what is to be done, as Aben Ezra observes, and he saw that he was obliged to go down in haste:
and the two tables of the testimony [were] in his hand; or hands, as in Ex 32:19 for they were, perhaps, as much as he could carry in both hands, being of stone, as in Ex 31:18 on which was written the law, the “testimony” of the will of God with respect to what was to be done or not done:
the letters were written on both their sides, on the one side and on the other were they written; some think that the engraving of the letters was such, that it went through the stones, and in a miraculous manner the letters and lines were in a regular order, and might be read on the other sides; to which Jarchi seems to incline, saying, the letters might be read, and it was a work of wonders; others think that the letters were written both within and without, like Ezekiel’s book of woes; that the same that was within side was written without, that so, when held up, they might be read by those that stood before and those that stood behind; but rather so it was that the whole was written within, some of the commands on the right, and some on the left, and so the tables might be clapped together as a book is folded.
g “et aspexit”, Pagninus.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
When Moses departed from God with the two tables of the law in his hand (see at Exo 31:18), and came to Joshua on the mountain (see at ch. Jos 24:13), the latter heard the shouting of the people (lit., the voice of the people in its noise, for , from noise, tumult), and took it to be the noise of war; but Moses said (Exo 32:18), “ It is not the sound of the answering of power, nor the sound of the answering of weakness, ” i.e., they are not such sounds as you hear in the heat of battle from the strong (the conquerors) and the weak (the conquered); “ the sound of antiphonal songs I hear.” ( is to be understood, both here and in Psa 88:1, in the same sense as in Exo 15:21.)
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
| Moses Breaks the Tablets of the Law. | B. C. 1491. |
15 And Moses turned, and went down from the mount, and the two tables of the testimony were in his hand: the tables were written on both their sides; on the one side and on the other were they written. 16 And the tables were the work of God, and the writing was the writing of God, graven upon the tables. 17 And when Joshua heard the noise of the people as they shouted, he said unto Moses, There is a noise of war in the camp. 18 And he said, It is not the voice of them that shout for mastery, neither is it the voice of them that cry for being overcome: but the noise of them that sing do I hear. 19 And it came to pass, as soon as he came nigh unto the camp, that he saw the calf, and the dancing: and Moses’ anger waxed hot, and he cast the tables out of his hands, and brake them beneath the mount. 20 And he took the calf which they had made, and burnt it in the fire, and ground it to powder, and strawed it upon the water, and made the children of Israel drink of it.
Here is, I. The favour of God to Moses, in trusting him with the two tables of the testimony, which, though of common stone, were far more valuable than all the precious stones that adorned the breast-plate of Aaron. The topaz of Ethiopia could not equal them, Exo 32:15; Exo 32:16. God himself, without the ministry either of man or angel (for aught that appears), wrote the ten commandments on these tables, on both their sides, some on one table and some on the other, so that they were folded together like a book, to be deposited in the ark.
II. The familiarity between Moses and Joshua. While Moses was in the cloud, as in the presence-chamber, Joshua continued as near as he might, in the anti-chamber (as it were), waiting till Moses came out, that he might be ready to attend him; and though he was all alone for forty days (fed, it is likely, with manna), yet he was not weary of waiting, as the people were, but when Moses came down he came with him, and not till then. And here we are told what constructions they put upon the noise that they heard in the camp, Exo 32:17; Exo 32:18. Though Moses had been so long in immediate converse with God, yet he did not disdain to talk freely with his servant Joshua. Those whom God advances he preserves from being puffed up. Nor did he disdain to talk of the affairs of the camp. Blessed Paul was not the less mindful of the church on earth for having been in the third heavens, where he heard unspeakable words. Joshua, who was a military man, and had the command of the train-bands, feared there was a noise of war in the camp, and then he would be missed; but Moses, having received notice of it from God, better distinguished the sound, and was aware that it was the voice of those that sing. It does not however appear that he told Joshua what he knew of the occasion of their singing; for we should not be forward to proclaim men’s faults: they will be known too soon.
III. The great and just displeasure of Moses against Israel, for their idolatry. Knowing what to expect, he was presently aware of the golden calf, and the sport the people made with it. He saw how merry they could be in his absence, how soon he was forgotten among them, and what little thought they had of him and his return. He might justly take this ill, as an affront to himself, but this was the least part of the grievance; he resented it as an offence to God, and the scandal of his people. See what a change it is to come down from the mount of communion with God to converse with a world that lies in wickedness. In God we see nothing but what is pure and pleasant, in the world nothing but pollution and provocation. Moses was the meekest man on the earth, and yet when he saw the calf, and the dancing, his anger waxed hot. Note, It is no breach of the law of meekness to show our displeasure at the wickedness of the wicked. Those are angry and sin not that are angry at sin only, not as against themselves, but as against God. Ephesus is famous for patience, and yet cannot bear those that are evil, Rev. ii. 2. It becomes us to be cool in our own cause, but warm in God’s. Moses showed himself very angry, both by breaking the tables and burning the calf, that he might, by these expressions of strong indignation, awaken the people to a sense of the greatness of the sin they had been guilty of, which they would have been ready to make light of if he had not thus shown his resentment, as one in earnest for their conviction. 1. To convince them that they had forfeited and lost the favour of God, he broke the tables, v. 19. Though God knew of their sin, before Moses came down, yet he did not order him to leave the tables behind him, but gave them to him to take down in his hand, that the people might see how forward God was to take them into covenant with himself, and that nothing but their own sin prevented it; yet he put in into his heart, when the iniquity of Ephraim was discovered (as the expression is, Hos. vii. 1), to break the tables before their eyes (as it is Deut. ix. 17), that the sight of it might the more affect them, and fill them with confusion, when they saw what blessings they had lost. Thus, they being guilty of so notorious an infraction of the treaty now on foot, the writings were torn, even when they lay ready to be sealed. Note, The greatest sign of God’s displeasure against any person or people is his taking his law from them. The breaking of the tables is the breaking of the staff of beauty and band (Zec 11:10; Zec 11:14); it leaves a people unchurched and undone. Some think that Moses sinned in breaking the tables, and observe that, when men are angry, they are in danger of breaking all God’s commandments; but it rather seems to be an act of justice than of passion, and we do not find that he himself speaks of it afterwards (Deut. ix. 17) with any regret. 2. To convince them that they had betaken themselves to a God that could not help them, he burnt the calf (v. 20), melted it down, and then filed it to dust; and, that the powder to which it was reduced might be taken notice of throughout the camp, he strewed it upon that water of which they all drank. That it might appear that an idol is nothing in the world (1 Cor. viii. 4); he reduced this to atoms, that it might be as near nothing as could be. To show that false gods cannot help their worshippers, he here showed that this could not save itself, Isa 46:1; Isa 46:2. And to teach us that all the relics of idolatry ought to be abolished, and that the names of Baalim should be taken away, the very dust to which it was ground was scattered. Filings of gold are precious (we say), and therefore are carefully gathered up; but the filings of the golden calf were odious, and must be scattered with detestation. Thus the idols of silver and gold must be cast to the moles and the bats (Isa 2:20; Isa 30:22), and Ephraim shall say, What have I to do any more with idols? His mixing this powder with their drink signified to them that the curse they had thereby brought upon themselves would mingle itself with all their enjoyments, and embitter them; it would enter into their bowels like water, and like oil into their bones. The backslider in heart shall be filled with his own ways; he shall drink as he brews. These were indeed waters of Marah.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
Verses 15, 16:
“Turned,” panah, “to face, front.” Moses faced in the direction of Israel’s camp and started back to interpose in the matter of their idolatry.
“Tables,” luach, “tablet, board,” see Ex 24:12; 31:18. The size, shape, and composition of these tablets of stone are unknown.
The tablets were written “on both their sides.” This was a common method of writing for Assyrian and Babylonian inscriptions, but not for the writing of the Egyptians.
The writing upon these -two tablets was inscribed by God Himself, not by the hand of Moses, see Ex 31:18; De 9:10.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
15. And Moses turned, and went down, from the mount Moses comes down by God’s command to be a spectator of this wicked revolt, that the enormity of the act might the more arouse him both to disgust and detestation of the crime, and to the endeavor to find a remedy for it. Although, however, God had pronounced sentence of rejection against the people, He still leaves the tables that testified of the covenant untouched in the hands of Moses, not that He wished them to remain whole, as we shall soon see, but that first the sight of them, and then the breaking of them, might inspire the apostates with greater horror, whose madness had otherwise stupified them.
Why the Law was divided into two tables has been elsewhere seen, viz., because it first sets forth piety and the worship of God; and, secondly, prescribes the rule of righteous living between man and man, and instructs us in the mutual offices of charity. It was doubtless in testimony of the perfection of their doctrine that they were written on both sides. A fuller revelation was indeed afterwards added; but God would have it clearly understood that He had thus embraced all in ten commandments, so that it was not lawful to add anything; and, (339) therefore, lest men should annex anything of their own inventions, God filled both sides, so that nothing remained unwritten upon. Moreover, the tables are called “the work of God,” because he had prepared them for the purpose of being written on. Thus they are distinguished from those that came afterwards, on which, although God inscribed His Law, yet He willed that the stones should be chiselled and fashioned by the hand and workmanship of men. The sum is, that not only were the ten commandments written by God on the first tables, but there was nothing human in the fashioning of the stones; and if it be inquired how the stones were engraved and the letters formed upon them, Moses indeed replies by a similitude, that it was done by the finger of God, meaning thereby His secret power; for He who created the world out of nothing by his more volition (nutu,) can by the same word convert all creatures to His own use in whatever way He pleases.
(339) This sentence is omitted in Fr.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.Exo. 32:15-20
THE TRUTH GIVEN AND LOST
We contemplate
I. The truth given, Exodus 31 :
Exo. 32:18.
1. The highest truth was given to man. That truth could not be divined by the genius of men. It was a revelation from God.
2. The fulness of the truth is intimated. Two tables, and they were written on both their sides. The whole truth needed to teach us our duty to God and man. Ten commandments seem few, but in them we have the great laws of the moral universe, and one such law properly understood explains a wide range of life, as the knowledge of one of the great laws of nature explains much phenomena.
3. The authority of the truth, Exo. 32:16. Written with the finger of God. This gift of the tables of testimony was Gods grandest gift to Israel. The source of light and purity and gladness (Psa. 19:7-9; Rom. 3:1-2). The truth is Gods grandest gift to the world. And when Christ declared unto us more fully the grand truths of the spiritual universe, He imparted to us the choicest blessings of heaven. What the sunshine is to the natural worldthat is the law of Moses, and the exposition of that law in Christ, to the moral world.
II. The truth lost, Exo. 32:19. Moses brake the tables of the law, because of the sin of the people. His was a righteous anger, and his action forcibly pictures the fact that in unbelief and sin we lose the truth.
1. Sin sometimes leads God to take away from a people the revelation of Himself. There is a famine of the word of God.
2. Sin always blinds men to the knowledge of the highest truth. Let us open the windows of our soul to the light of Gods truth, and let us carefully preserve that truth. We see nations who have lost the truth; we see Churches; we see individuals. That the truth may not be lost to us, let us live in purity, let us obey all its directions. If we lose the tables of the law we lose the foundation stones of empire, of Churches, of character.
ILLUSTRATIONS
BY
REV. WILLIAM ADAMSON
Idol-Idiosyncrasy. Exo. 32:1-35.
(1.) Material idolatry has passed away among civilised nations in its literal import. As Macmillan says, the old worship of stocks and stones is now impossible among a professedly Christian people. But although the outward mode has passed away, the essence of the temptation remains the same. Human society is changed, but human nature is unchanged. The impulse which led Israel to seek the golden calf is as strong as ever, and images are set up and worshipped now as fantastic as any pagan fetish or joss. For what is idolatry! Is it not in its essence the lowering of the idea of God and of Gods nature, and the exaltation of a dead image above a mans own living spirit! Is not an idol whatever is loved more than God, whatever is depended upon for happiness and help independent of God?
(2.) Sooner or later, as Moses pounded the calf and gave the Israelites the dust to drink in punishment of their idolatry, will all such moral idolaters have to drink the dust of their idols. Our sin will become our punishment, our idols our scourges. God is a jealous God, and every soul that turns aside from His love to the lying vanities of the world must drink the bitter water of jealousy, filled with the dust of the bruised and mutilated idols of spiritual idolatry: This shall ye have at My hand, ye shall lie down in sorrow.
Thou art the man within whose hearts deep cell
All evil sleeping lies;
Lust, in a dark hour waking, breaks the spell,
And straightway there arise
Monsters of evil thoughts and base desire.
Greok.
Apis-Adoration! Exo. 32:20. The Egyptian Apis was attended by a retinue of priests, and sacrifices of red oxen were offered to him. All his changes of appetite, his movements, and choice of places were watched as oracular. He was not allowed to live longer than twenty-five years. If he died a natural death before that age, his body was embalmed as a mummy, and interred in the subterranean tombs. Otherwise, he was secretly put to death, and buried by the priests in a sacred well. A new animal was then sought for. It was necessary that he should be marked with a white square on his forehead, an eagle on his back, and a knot like a cantharus under his tongue. When found, he was conveyed with great pomp to Nicopolis, where he remained for forty days, attended by naked women. He was then removed to Memphis.
The general world, unconscious pietists
Of falsest creeds and errors, God allowed
To live on, unreproved, till came the time
When all the mysteries of heaven and earth
Were put in evolution.
Calf-Carved! Exo. 32:20.
(1.) Most of the large idols of antiquity had a wooden centre; the metal being, by way of preparation, cast into a flat sheet which the goldsmith hammered and spread out. No doubt, this calf was made of wood, and then overlaid with gold. This explains the destruction by Moses. Being burnt, the wood was converted into charcoal, while the gold would be crushed to pieces.
(2.) In a French Bible appears the ridiculous gloss that the ashes of the calf which Moses caused to be burnt and mixed with the water that was drunk by the Israelites stuck to the beards of such as had fallen down before it, by which they appeared with gilt beards, as a peculiar mark to distinguish those who had worshipped the graven image.
Mans a poor deluded bubble,
Wandring in a mist of lies;
Seeing false, or seeing double;
Who would trust to such weak eyes?
Dodsley.
Idol-Impotency! Exo. 32:20.
(1.) After the defeat of the Persian army in the Libyan desert, Cambyses returned to Memphis. On his arrival, he found its inhabitants rejoicing at the discovery of a calf marked with the mystic characters which declared it to be a divine bull. Ignorant of this fact, and supposing the public joy to be over his defeat, Cambyses summoned the magistrates. They endeavoured to pacify him by explaining about the bull; but he ordered them to be executed as liars. The bull and priests were then brought into his presence, when, drawing his dagger, he stabbed the calf.
(2.) Was Moses by this act desirous of showing the utter impotency of their newly adopted god? He certainly took the most effectual way to do so. When the English officer struck the Brahmin bull amid its crowd of worshippers, these deluded devotees looked for his immediate destruction. But when no harm came to him, when he seized a rough branch, and drove it with many lusty, sacrilegious blows about the market-place, the people then ridiculed their priests and animal god. The merciless grinding and pounding of the Apis or Mnevis calf may have been a design to convince Israel of their folly.
What, Dagon up again! I thought we had hurled him
Down on the threshold, never more to rise.
Bring wedge and axe; and neighbours, lend your hands,
And rive the idol into winter faggots.
Athelstane.
Dust-Drink! Exo. 32:20.
(1.) She was his idol, his only daughter! A fairy, sylphlike form was hers; and fondly his eye watched her flitting hither and thither. In his love, the proud peer and father forgot the suffering world aroundits sorrows and its woes. In his idol-worship, he lost sight of God, who had given him that living soul. He placed the human form, overlaid with the gold of sweetness and fairy charms, upon the throne in his being, which rightly was Jehovahs only. One day the pony shied, and the idol fellfell on a rude stone by the pathway. She lived, but became a decrepit form, with distorted face. He had to drink of the bitter water with the dust of his idol, as from day to day he saw her nerveless form, and marked her twitching, pinched features.
(2.) The observed of all observers! What queenly grace was hers! What exquisitely chiselled features! Women envied her surpassing loveliness; while men thirsted for her smiles. And she knew it all. Her beauty became her idolwood overlaid with gold. She learned to adore her own charms. She worshipped her image reflected in the boudoir mirror. God was forgotten in her idolatry of self-beauty. An evening came, when the flashing jewels lay untouchedwhen the princely saloon felt not the witchery of her presence. It was small-pox; and she rose from her bed with disfigured features. The powdered dust of marred and charred loveliness was mingled with the bitter water, as she gazed in the now hateful mirror. Therefore
Seek not the world!
Tis a vain show at best;
Bow not before its idol-shrine; in God
Find thou thy DAY and REST.
Bonar.
Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell
THE DESCENT OF MOSES FROM SINAI, AND THE SUPPRESSION OF THE IDOLATRY.
(15) And Moses turnedi.e., returned, or set out on his return, apparently without making any communication to Joshua, who was waiting for him not far off (see Exo. 32:17).
The two tables . . . were in his hand.In Deu. 9:15 we read that the two tables were in his two hands, which is more exact, and more as we should have expected.
The tables were written on both their sides.Babylonian tablets and Assyrian monoliths have usually writing on both sides, Egyptian monoliths rarely. It has been calculated that the 172 words of the Decalogue could easily have been inscribed in letters of a fair size on the four surfaces indicated, if the tablets were 27 inches long by 18 inches broad, and that two tablets of this size could readily have been conveyed in a mans two hands (Keil).
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
15. Moses turned After his intercession he turned away with an anxious heart, and went down from the mount to encounter in the camp of Israel a still deeper trial . On the two tables see note at Exo 31:18. Being written on both their sides they need not have been large tablets of stone to contain the entire decalogue, and the fact that Moses carried them in his hand shows that they must have been rather small. The Hebrew text of Exo 20:1-17, if spread out over four pages, might be written in large, bold characters, and the pages each not exceed a surface of six inches square .
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Moses Descends And Witnesses What Is Happening And Acts Decisively To Bring Matters Under Control ( Exo 32:15-20 ).
a
b The tablets were written in the hand of God, and the writing was the writing of God (Exo 32:16).
c They hear the noise from the camp, and Joshua say that there is a sound of war (Exo 32:17).
c Moses replies that it is not of war but of singing (Exo 32:18).
b When he sees the calf and the dancing he hurls down the tablets and breaks them (Exo 32:19)
a He took the calf, burned it with fire, ground it to powder, strewed it in the water, and made the people drink it (Exo 32:20).
Note the contrasting parallels. In ‘a’ Moses comes down from Yahweh with the firm and solid covenant in his hands written on both sides. Nothing could be more secure. Under this covenant they had drunk of water from the Rock. In the parallel he takes the image, burns it, grinds it to powder, strews it in the water and makes them drink it. The elders had eaten and drunk before Yahweh (Exo 24:11), the people had eaten and drunk before their molten image (Exo 32:6). Now they ate and drank the image itself. It is a tale of contrasts and descents. In ‘b’ it is stressed that the tablets were written with the hand of God, in the parallel the tablets are hurled down and broken. They have forfeited the hand of God. In ‘c’ Joshua thinks that he hears the sound of war, a worthy sound, but in the parallel it is rather the sound of decadence and rebellion and idolatry that they hear.
Exo 32:15-16
‘And Moses turned and went down from the mount, with the two tablets of Testimony in his hand, tablets that were written on both their sides. They were written on the one side and on the other. And the tablets were the work of God, and the writing was the writing of God, graven on the tablets.’
So having unknowingly passed his test Moses went back down from the mountain. And in his hands he held the two tablets of stone on which God had caused the covenant to be written. The detail is remarkable and brings out the reminiscence of an eyewitness. He had remembered that the tablets were written on both sides. They were clearly written in the same way as earlier covenant tablets written by the patriarchs, which were stored in the Tent of Meeting. (These small indications which constantly appear, confirm that an eyewitness lies behind the narratives).
“ And the tablets were the work of God, and the writing was the writing of God, graven on the tablets.” ‘The writing of God’ probably indicates ‘God-like writing’, smooth clear writing, so perfect that it could easily be read. And they were the work of God, His handywork. It was an act of personal love so that they would remember that their covenant had come directly from God. And they had already broken it!
The fact that the tablets were of stone and were engraved brings out the intended permanence of the covenant. This testimony was to last through the ages. The permanence of the tablets compares with the total unreliability of the people. And it was the covenant under which Yahweh had constantly give them water to drink at their request.
Exo 32:17-18
‘And when Joshua heard the noise of the people as they shouted, he said to Moses, “There is a sound of fighting in the camp.” And he said, “It is not the sound of those who shout to achieve mastery, nor is it the sound of those who cry out as a result of being defeated, but I hear the sound of those who cry out spontaneously.” ’
Moses had once again been joined by his servant, Joshua, who had been faithfully waiting for him on the mountain. All we are told about Joshua is that he went up into the mount with Moses (Exo 24:13), and that he came down again with him. The total absence of any other comment suggests that it is only mentioned because it happened. It is just the kind of thing that might have been mentioned simply because the scribe who was doing the actual writing remembered it clearly and took a kind of pride in it. We can compare Mar 14:51-52. It gives the appearance of being the reminiscence of the inscriber. And in those days writers did not need to artificially try to make their writings sound genuine. Those who read them were not suspicious like us.
Joshua must have been bursting to know what had happened in the mount but the impression given is that they came down in silence. He could see that Moses had something very much on his mind, something of great import, and did not wish to talk, and he honoured his wishes. No doubt he would learn what had happened when Moses chose to reveal it.
And as they came down together that was when they heard noises coming from down below. Joshua was concerned. It appeared that fighting had broken out, either with some unknown foe or in order to pass the time. But Moses, grim-faced, gave a noncommittal reply, for he knew what it was. He had been given prior knowledge. It was not the cry of victory or defeat, it was the sound of wild, unrestrained shouts ringing out in false and degraded worship.
Once again we have the reminiscences of eye witnesses as the scribe remembers the conversation that they had had together. Moses had not told Joshua of what was coming, and so he had gained the wrong impression. It is clear that the camp was not yet in sight and that what they heard were simply cries ringing out through the desert air. But Moses knew what they were.
Exo 32:19
‘And so it was that as soon as he came near the camp he saw the calf and the dancing. And Moses anger waxed hot, and he cast the tablets from his hands, and broke them beneath the mount.’
When the camp loomed into sight, Moses and Joshua saw the molten calf and the wild dancing, evidence, not of a people eagerly awaiting the return of Moses, but of a people who were not concerned about him, and had lost all restraint and were engaged in wild religious celebrations. Indeed they were a people who did not want him back and were in no mood to listen. They had found another god who had clearly won their support.
The fact of such dancing is often reported on important religious occasions. On the occasions of Miriam and the women at the heavenly defeat of Egypt (Exo 15:20); of Jephthah’s daughter and the other young women as she welcomed her victorious father (Jdg 11:34); of the young maidens at their religious festival (Jdg 21:21); of the women from ‘all Israel’ at the defeat of the Philistines by Saul and David (1Sa 18:6); of David when the Ark of Yahweh was finally restored to its rightful place (2Sa 6:14-16). But here the impression given is that the dancing concerned not only the women but all. So Moses knew exactly what was happening. This was different. It was the unrestrained dancing of Baalism, with fertility rights, orgies and all.
“ And Moses anger waxed hot.” No wonder he was angry. Anger ‘waxing hot’ is a theme of the passage (Exo 32:10-11). He knew that he stood in the place of God. God might have restrained His hot anger at the plea of Moses (Exo 32:14), but it still had to be expressed. This likening to the anger of God suggests that what followed had a twofold purpose. It was on the one hand necessary in order to gain control, but it was also a deliberate act in order to bring home the seriousness of what they had done.
“ And he cast the tablets from his hands, and broke them beneath the mount.” Moses had had plenty of time to consider what he would do as he was coming down in his grim silence from the mount. His anger was like the anger of God. And God had prepared him for what he saw. What followed was not due to loss of temper but a deliberate act of righteous anger against sin and rebellion. He knew that he was acting in the name of God and so before all the people, at the bottom of the mount, he hurled the tablets of the covenant onto the hard ground and broke them. We should note that he was never rebuked for this. It was a deliberate, dramatic gesture like that of a man tearing up a contract publicly. By it he was bringing home to the people what they had done. They had smashed the covenant.
Thus they would know that He was no longer with them, and he was no longer accountable to them. And in the event it was a declaration of war. He was firmly indicating that they no longer had a part in the covenant of Yahweh and were therefore fair targets unless they surrendered. It was probably his hope that by his action he would shake some of them into supporting him. Certainly it would make them uneasy, and he could only hope.
But once the situation had been recovered it would also bring out something else. That there was now a subtle change in the nature of Yahweh’s attitude towards Israel. Up to now it had been direct and personal. From now on they would receive all at second hand, for they were not worthy. Only Moses would be allowed to see the glory of Yahweh (Exo 33:19). Israel would receive a second hand covenant (Exo 34:27-28). It was thus also an early grim prophecy of what lay before them, not only now but in the more distant future.
Exo 32:20
‘And he took the calf which they had made, and burnt it with fire, and ground it to powder, and strewed it on the water, and made the children of Israel drink of it.’
This is foreshortening events. It clearly could not happen before verse 21 onwards for he could not make the people drink it until he had gained full control. It is placed here to indicate his final victory before the detail of the encounter is gone into, finishing off the analysis we have seen above with victory. The result is that as we now view the battle we need not worry for Moses has already won. (This in fact was a regular method of presenting things in those days which is also found elsewhere. First the conclusion and then the process).
So it is saying that once he was again master of the situation the molten calf, that had been so carefully shaped, was hurled back into the fire from which it had come that it might lose its shape, and was then ground to powder and scattered on to water. And then he made the children of Israel drink the water. They would be made to drink their own god. It is put in the perfect tense (the tense of completeness) because it was seen as certain, as something that would happen. Thus we could translate, ‘he smashed the tablets — and in his mind, to be fulfilled later, he took the calf which they had made — and made the children of Israel drink it.’
In other words he determined that once he had won he would take the calf which they had made, and grind it to powder, and strew it on the water, and make the children of Israel drink of it.’
That this must have happened after what follows is confirmed by the fact that in Exo 32:25 the people are still running loose, and still had to be brought under control. It is described here, not chronologically, but because it is the final result of Moses response to what had happened, and the main item to which the writer wants to draw attention. Let the reader not doubt that Yahweh will be victorious,
(This describing the result and then going into detail occurs also elsewhere. See for example Exo 4:20-23; Jdg 6:24-32. It was seemingly a common method in these early records to describe the main happening and then enter into the detail of how it was brought about. This was what in our day caused some scholars to talk of ‘doublets’. It was actually ancient literary method).
“ The calf which they had made.” A pointed description. It was man made and therefore useless. And it was made at their choosing. They had wanted it and so now they could have what they wanted.
“ And burnt it with fire.” Always a symbol of judgment on something (Jos 7:25). It was to be rendered useless to anyone and committed to God in judgment. Burning it at white heat would also make it easier for it to be turned into powder.
“ And ground it to powder.” Necessary for the purpose that he intended, but also an indication of its total destruction. And it could do nothing about it. It was powerless. Moses had made it like chaff without it even complaining.
“ And strewed it on the water.” Here we have a good example of the use of the article in Hebrew. No water is mentioned in context anywhere but here. It simply means ‘the water I am talking about’. But which water was it? The point behind the account is that Moses intends to make them drink it. It is thus in the end water that he has had brought to him in vessels so that it can be passed around the people for them to drink. But Deu 9:21 tells us its source. It was from ‘the brook that descended out of the mount’, into which he had cast the powder of the molten idol. Its source was thus the water that descended from the mountain of God, a fitting source for such a purpose. God’s provision had become the source of His judgment.
(It matters little whether the powder was scattered in the brook and the water drawn from it, which Deuteronomy taken at face value suggests, or whether the water was drawn from the brook and then sprinkled with the powder. The symbolism was the same).
“ And made the children of Israel drink of it.” They had to drink their god. It was not something that they would forget easily. So they wanted a visible god? Well, here he was. Let them drink it. Thus they would be made to recognise that their god was not heavenly, but very much earthy. And that this god was unpleasant to drink, and would soon turn into waste matter. It is noteworthy that in describing this incident in Deu 9:21 Moses tactfully misses out the drinking aspect. By then his anger had assuaged.
In the wider context this drinking must be seen as significant. The elders had previously eaten and drunk before Yahweh (Exo 24:11). The people had eaten and drunk before the molten image (Exo 32:6). Both had thought in terms of sealing a covenant. Now they had to drink their folly. Their covenant with their new god had turned sour.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
The Wrath of Moses
v. 15. And Moses turned and went down from the mount, and the two tables of testimony were in his hand. The tables were written on both their sides; on the one side and on the other were they written, v. 16. And the tables were the work of God, v. 17. And when. Joshua heard the noise of the people as they shouted, he said unto Moses, There is a noise of war in the camp. v. 18. And he v. 19. And it came to pass, as soon as he came nigh unto the camp, v. 20. And he took the calf which they had made, and burned it in the fire, and ground it to powder, and strewed it upon the water, and made the children of Israel drink of it. v. 21. And Moses said unto Aaron, What did this people unto thee, v. 22. And Aaron said, Let not the anger of my lord wax hot. Thou knowest the people, that they are set on mischief. v. 23. For they said unto me, Make us gods which shall go before us; for as for this man Moses, the man that brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we wot not what is become of him.
v. 24. And I said unto them, Whosoever hath any gold, let them break it off. So they gave it me; then I cast it into the fire, and there came out this calf.
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
EXPOSITION
MOSES BREAKS THE TWO TABLES. The entire conference between God and Moses being now ended, Moses hastened to descend from the mount, and interpose in the crisis that had arisen, he took carefully the two tables of stone, which he had received, in his two hands (Deu 9:15), and set out on his return to the camp. On the way, he fell in with Joshua, who must have been on the watch for his descent, and the two proceeded together. When a certain portion of the distance had been traversed, the sounds of the festivity which was going on in the camp reached their ears; and Joshua, mistaking the nature of the shouts, suggested that fighting was in progress (verse 17). Moses, however, better instructed in the actual nature of the proceedings (verses 7, 8), caught their character more correctly, and declared that what he heard was nothing but shouting (verse 18). Soon afterwards, the camp came into sighta disorderly crowd, half stripped of their garments (verse 25), was singing choruses and dancing round the figure which Aaron had castthe sights and sounds were those of a dissolute orgyMoses was struck with horror and in the frenzy of his indignation, dashed the two tables to the ground and broke them into fragments (verse 19). The people, he felt, were utterly unworthy of the holy laws which he had brought themthey had “altogether gone out of the way”they had become “abominable”at the moment he perhaps despaired of obtaining mercy for them, and expected their entire destruction. God had not as yet told him whether he would “turn from his fierce wrath,” or not.
Exo 32:15
The two tables were in his hand. In Deu 9:15, using greater particularity, Moses says that they were “in his two hands.” One was in each hand probably. Written on both their sides. This is the case generally with Assyrian and Babylonian tablets, but not with Egyptian ones, which are moreover scarcely found at this early date. Here we seem to have again an indication that some of the Israelitic civilisation had come to them from “Ur of the Chaldees.”
Exo 32:16
The tables were the work of God. Shaped, i.e; by the same power by which the commandments were inscribed upon them; not, necessarily, of matter newly created for the purpose.
Exo 32:17
When Joshua heard. This abrupt introduction of Joshua, who has not been mentioned for seven entire chapters, is curious. Probably he had considered himself bound, as Moses’ minister (Exo 24:13), to await his return, and had remained in the middle portion of the mount, where he may have fed upon manna, until Moses came down from the top. The noise of the people. It is noted by travellers, that in all the latter part of the descent from Sinai, the plain at its base is shut out from sight; and that sounds would be heard from it a long time before the plain itself would open on the view. Sounds, however, which come circuitously, are always indistinct; and it is not surprising that Joshua, knowing nothing of the proceedings in the camp, should have fancied he heard a sound of war.
Exo 32:18
This verse is difficult to translate, being markedly antithetical and at the same time idiomatic. Perhaps it would be best to render”It is not the voice of them who raise the cry of victory, nor is it the voice of them who raise the cry of defeatthe voice of them who raise a cry do I hear.” The verb is the same in all the three clauses; and it would seem that Moses simply denied that there was any sound of war without making any clear suggestion as to the real character of the disturbance.
Exo 32:19
The dancing. Rather “dancing.” There is no article; and as the subject had not been mentioned before, the use of the article would have been unmeaning. Dances were a part of the religious ceremonial in most ancient nations. Sometimes they were solemn and grave, like the choric dances of the ancient Dorians, and (probably) that of David in front of the Ark (2Sa 6:5-22); sometimes festive and joyous, yet not immodest, like the Pyrrhic and other dances at Sparta, and the dancing of the Salii at Rome; but more often, and especially among the Oriental nations, they were of a loose and lascivious character. In Egypt, the dancers appear to have been professionals of a degraded class, and the dancing itself to have been always sensual and indecent; while in Syria, Asia Minor, and Babylon, dancing was a wild orgy, at once licentious and productive of a species of phrenzy. We must suspect that it was this sort of dancing in which the Israelites were engagedwhence the terrible anger of Moses. He saw idolatry before his eyes, and idolatry with its worst accompaniments. In the extremity of his anger, he cast the tables out of his hands, dashed them violently against the ground, and brake them. For this act he is never reprehended. It is viewed as the natural outcome of a righteous indignation, provoked by the extreme wickedness of the people. We must bear this in mind when we come to consider the justice or injustice of the punishment which he proceeded to inflict on them for their sin (Exo 32:26-29).
HOMILETICS
Exo 32:15-19
The act of Moses in breaking the tables.
At first sight the act seems impious, and wholly inexcusable. Here was a marvelthe greatest marvel existing in all the worldtranscending the finest statue, the most glorious picturemore wonderful than the pyramids themselves or the great temple of Karnakhere was a monument shaped by the hand of God, and inscribed with his finger in characters that would have possessed through all ages an undying interest for man. Here, moreover, was a precious deposit of truthGod’s great revelation to his peopleput in a written form, and so rendered unalterable; no more liable to be corrupted by the uncertainty of human memory, or the glosses of traditionpure, changeless, perfect truth; the greatest blessing that man can receive. All this, committed by God to his servant’s care, and knowingly, wilfully destroyed in a moment of time! The thing seems, at first, incredible; yet we have the witness of God that it is true. Then we ask, How could Moses have so acted, and was not his action inexcusable? We look to Scripture, and we find that he is never blamed for it. He relates it of himself without any sign of self-condemnationnay! he, at a later date, reminds the people of it in a tone which is evidently one of self-approval (Deu 9:17). What is the explanation of all this? It may help us to find a satisfactory answer, if we consider
I. THE PROVOCATION TO THE ACT. Moses had left the people devoted apparently to God’s service. When he reported to them the entire contents of the “Book of the Covenant,” they had answered with one voice, “All the words which the Lord hath said, we will do” (Exo 24:3). He had given them in charge to Aaron and Hur, on whose faithfulness he might well imagine himself justified in placing complete reliance. He had been absent less than six weeksit might seem to him that he had been absent but a few days. And nownow that on rounding a corner of the gorge through which he was descendinghe comes in sight of them once more and has them fully presented to his view, what is it he beholds? He sees the entire peopleLevites and priests as well as laymendancing around a golden idol in a lewd and indecent way! Was not this enough to move him? Was it not enough to transport him out of himself, and render him no longer master of his actions? The wickedness of the people stood revealed to him, and. made him feel how utterly unworthy they were of the treasure which he was bringing them. Yielding to an irresistible impulse, in a paroxysm of indignation, to shew his horror at what he witnessed, he cast the tables to the ground. God seems to have regarded the provocation as sufficient, and therefore Moses receives no blame for what he did.
II. THE ACT ITSELF. The act was the destruction of a record which the people were at the moment setting at nought. It was akin to the action of God in withdrawing light from them who sin against light. It was a deserved punishment. It was a way of declaring to the people that they were unworthy to receive the truth and should not receive it. Those who saw Moses descend saw that he was bringing them something, carefully, in his two hands, and must have felt that, as he had gone up to the summit to God, it must be something from God. When he lifted up his two hands, and with a gesture of abhorrence, cast the “something” to the ground, there must have gone through them a sudden thrill of fear, a sudden sense of loss. They must have felt that their sin had found them outthat their punishment had begun. Casting the tables down and breaking them, was saying to the multitude in the most significant way” God has cast you off from being his people.”
III. THE SEQUEL OF THE ACT. If anything could have brought the Israelites generally to a sense of their guilt and shame, it would have been the act of Moses which they had witnessed. As it was, a deep impression seems to have been made; but only on the men of his own tribe. When Moses, shortly afterwards, demanded to know,” Who was on the Lord’s side?” (Exo 32:26), “all the men of Levi”i.e; the great mass of the triberallied to him, and were ready to become the executioners of his wrath upon the most determined of the idolaters. This revulsion of feeling on their part was probably brought about, in a great measure, by the exhibition of indignation on the part of Moses, which culminated in his dashing the tables to the earth.
HOMILIES BY J. ORR
Exo 32:15-25
The return of Moses to the camp.
It may well be believed that it was with deeply agitated heart that Moses, stunned by the tidings he had just received, rejoined his faithful attendant, and as speedily as possible descended the rocky sides of the mountain. Great was the contrast between the things heavenly on which for forty days and forty nights his eyes had been uninterruptedly feasting, and the scenes he was now to witness. Even the light of common day could hardly seem otherwise than strange to him, emerging from his ecstasy. His bodily aspect, too, would be considerably altered. But in his spirit there is a stored-up energy, the product of his long rapture, which it only needs the sight of Israel’s sin to kindle into awful heat of wrath.
I. THE BREAKING OF THE TABLES (Exo 32:15-19). The downward journey was a silent one. Moses refrains from communicating to Joshua the news he has received. He is absorbed in his own thoughts. And while he muses, the fire burns (Psa 39:3). So soon as they approach the camp, sounds of revelry are heard. Joshua, with his soldier’s instinct, thinks at once of war, but Moses can tell him that it is “not the voice of them that shout for mastery,” nor yet “the voice of them that cry for being overcome” that he hears, but “the voice of them that cry” (verse 8). Even Moses, however, is unprepared for the spectacle which presents itself, as, pursuing the descent, some turn in the road at length puts before his eyes the whole scene of folly. The tables of testimony are in his hands, but these, in his hot anger, he now dashes from him, breaking them in pieces on the rocks (verse 19). It was an act of righteous indignation, but symbolic also of the breaking of the covenant. Of that covenant the tables of stone were all that still remained, and the dashing of them to pieces was the final act in its rupture. Learn,
1. The actual sight of wickedness is necessary, to give us full sympathy with God in the hot displeasure with which he regards it.
2. The deepest and most loving natures are those most capable of being affected with holy indignation. Who shall compete with Moses in the boundlessness of his love for Israel? But the honour of Jehovah touches him yet more deeply.
3. It is right, on suitable occasions, to give emphatic expression to the horror with which the sight of great wickedness inspires us.
II. THE DESTRUCTION OF THE CALF (verse 20). Returning to the camp, Moses brought the orgies of the people to a speedy termination. He had little difficulty in restoring order. His countenance, blazing with anger, and exhibiting every sign of grief, surprise, and horror, struck immediate dismay into the evil-doers. No one, apparently, had the courage to resist him. The idolaters slunk in guilty haste to their tents, or stood paralysed with fear, rooted to the spot at which he had discovered them. He, on his part, took immediate steps for ridding the camp of the visible abomination. “He took the calf which they had made and burnt it in the fire, and ground it to powder, and strewed it upon the water, and made the children of Israel drink of it.” View this
1. As a bitter humiliation. What could be more humiliating to these idolaters than to see their god ground to powder, and its dust made into a nauseous mixture, which afterwards they were compelled to drink? But is not this the end of all sin? The instruments of our sin become the instruments of our punishment. Our sin turns to bitterness. The golden sheen by which it at first allured us disappears from it. It ends in humiliation and degradation.
2. As a righteous retribution. Why was the calf thus ground to powder, and given to the Israelites to drink? It was no mere act of revenge on Moses’ part. It was no hasty doing of his anger. It was a just retribution for a great sin. It was a method deliberately adopted of branding idol and idolaters alike with the print of the Almighty’s judgment. It suggests to us the correspondence between sin and its punishment; the certainty of our sins coming home to roost; the fact that sin will be paid back to us in its own coin. Sin and retribution hang together. We “receive the things done in the body” (2Co 5:10).
3. As a prophecy of worse evil to come. Bitter as this humiliation was, it was not the whole. It was but the mark put upon the deed by God, which told those who had committed it that they must abide by it, and be prepared to eat the fruit of their doings. The drinking of the dust had its sequel in the slaughter and the plagues (verses 27, 35). Even so, the bitterness and humiliation following from sins in this life do not exhaust their punishment. They warn of worse punishment in the world to come.
III. AARON‘S EXCUSES (verses 21-25). The first duty was to destroy the calf. This accomplished, or while the work was proceeding, Moses addresses himself to Aaron. His words are cuttingly severe,”What did this people unto thee?” etc. (verse 21). Aaron, on his side, is deprecating and humble. He is afraid of Moses’ anger. He addresses Moses as “my lord,” and proceeds to make excuses. His excuses are typical, and deserve consideration.
1. He falls back upon the old, old pleaas old as Edenthat the blame of his sin rested on some one else than himself. “Let not the anger of my lord wax hot: thou knowest the people, that they are bent on mischief. For they said to me,” etc. (verses 22-24). It is, as we say, the old, old story of all evil-doers”It wasn’t me, indeed it wasn’t; it was those wicked people who made me do it.” It is the weak, childish excuse of all who, having been tempted into sin, or having through their own irresolution fallen into it, have not the honesty or manliness to make at once a frank avowal of their fault. An easy way this, were the excuse admissible, of getting rid of our responsibility; but transgressors were early taught that they will not be allowed to avail themselves of it (Gen 3:12-20). It is not a plea which will be held valid on the day of judgment. All, more or less, are conscious of pressure exerted on them by their circumstances. There is, however, no fatality binding us to yield to that pressure, if yielding means sin. The pressure is our trial. Aaron’s sin lay in his unmanly fear, in his not having the resolution to say at the critical time, No. Probably Aaron would have urged that if he had not yielded, the people would have killed him. “Then,” Moses would have answered, “let them kill you. Better a thousand times that they had killed you than that you should have been the means of leading Israel into this great sin.” Yet how often is the same species of excuse met with! “I couldn’t help it;” “The necessity of my situation;” “Compelled by circumstances;” “Customs of the trade;” “If I hadn’t done it, I would have offended all my friends;” “I should have lost my situation,” etc. It may be all true: but the point is, Was the thing wrong? If it was, the case of Aaron teaches us that we cannot shield ourselves by transferring the blame of what we have done to circumstances.
2. If Aaron’s first excuse was bad, the second was worseit just happened. He put the gold, poor man, into the fire, and “there came out this calf!” It came out. He did not make it; it just came out. This was a kind of explaining which explained nothing. Yet it is precisely paralleled by people attributing, say, to their “luck,” to “chance,” to “fate,” to “destiny,” what is really their own doing. Thomas Scott says”No wise man ever made a more unmeaning or foolish excuse than Aaron did. We should never have supposed ‘that he could speak well,’ were we to judge of his eloquence by this specimen.” Note
(1) The right way of dealing with a fault is frankly to acknowledge it.
(2) Though Moses so severely rebuked Aaron, he could yet intercede for him (Deu 9:20). The future high priest, who truly had “infirmity” (Heb 5:2), needed, on this occasion, an intercessor for himself. The severity of Moses was the severity of aggrieved love.J.O.
HOMILIES BY J. URQUHART
Exo 32:15-35
Judgment and mercy.
I. THE DESCENT or MOSES THE EMBLEM OF THE LAW‘S ENTRANCE INTO A WORLD OF SIN (Exo 32:15-29).
1. He came with tables written by God’s own finger. The Divine origin and claims of the law are still attested by its own nature and by man’s conscience.
2. He was met by the exhibition of gross and defiant sin. The law does not come to a people waiting to receive the knowledge of God’s will, but busy with their idolatry and breaking what they already know to be his will.
3. The law’s advent, therefore, is in wrath (Exo 32:19).
(1) The broken tables declare that God’s covenant is broken. This is still shown in the taking away of God’s word from the sinful: it is not understood. Though held in the hand, a veil is drawn between the soul and it. Spiritual death, rationalism, and infidelity, are tokens to-day of God’s broken covenant.
(2) The burning of the idol, etc. The broken law is a prophecy and foretaste of wrath.
(3) The slaughter of the persistent idolaters. The place of feasting becomes the place of death.
II. THE INTERCESSOR.
1. His deep consciousness of the evil of their sin (Exo 32:30, Exo 32:31). The intercessor cannot make light of man’s iniquity. He who bore our burdens felt their weight and terribleness as we have never yet done.
2. His love. Though he hates their iniquity, his life is bound up with theirs (Exo 32:32).
III. THE TERRIBLENESS OF SIN AS SEEN IN THE MIRROR OF THE DIVINE ANGER.
1. The impossibility of ransom. “Whosoever hath sinned against me him will I blot out of my book.” There is but one sacrifice which avails, and that reaches the heart of the sinful and changes it.
2. Mercy to the unrenewed only means a delayed judgement: “Nevertheless, in the day when I visit I will visit their sins upon them.”U.
Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary
2Co 3:3 .
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Exo 32:15 And Moses turned, and went down from the mount, and the two tables of the testimony [were] in his hand: the tables [were] written on both their sides; on the one side and on the other [were] they written.
Ver. 15. Written on both their sides. ] See the like in other mystical books. Eze 2:10 Rev 5:1
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Exodus
THE SWIFT DECAY OF LOVE
Exo 32:15 – – Exo 32:26
Moses and Joshua are on their way down from the mountain, the former carrying the tables in his hands and a heavier burden in his heart,-the thought of the people’s swift apostasy. Joshua’s soldierly ear interprets the shouts which are borne up to them as war-cries; ‘He snuffeth the battle afar off, and saith Aha!’ But Moses knew that they meant worse than war, and his knowledge helped his ear to distinguish a cadence and unison in the noise, unlike the confused mingling of the victors’ yell of triumph and the shriek of the conquered. If we were dealing with fiction, we should admire the masterly dramatic instinct which lets the ear anticipate the eye, and so prepares us for the hideous sight that burst on these two at some turn in the rocky descent.
I. Note, then, what they saw. The vivid story puts it all in two words,-’the calf and the dancing.’ There in the midst, perhaps on some pedestal, was the shameful copy of the Egyptian Apis; and whirling round it in mad circles, working themselves into frenzy by rapid motion and frantic shouts, were the people,-men and women, mingled in the licentious dance, who, six short weeks before, had sworn to the Covenant. Their bestial deity in the centre, and they compassing it with wild hymns, were a frightful contradiction of that grey altar and the twelve encircling stones which they had so lately reared, and which stood unregarded, a bowshot off, as a silent witness against them. Note the strange, irresistible fascination of idolatry. Clearly the personal influence of Moses was the only barrier against it. The people thought that he had disappeared, and, if so, Jehovah had disappeared with him. We wonder at their relapses into idolatry, but we forget that it was then universal, that Israel was at the beginning of its long training, that not even a divine revelation could produce harvest in seedtime, and that to look for a final and complete deliverance from the ‘veil that was spread over all nations,’ at this stage, is like expecting a newly reclaimed bit of the backwoods to grow grass as thick and velvety as has carpeted some lawn that has been mown and cared for for a century. Grave condemnation is the due of these short-memoried rebels, who set up their ‘abomination’ in sight of the fire on Sinai; but that should not prevent our recognising the evidence which their sin affords of the tremendous power of idolatry in that stage of the world’s history. Israel’s proneness to fall back to heathenism makes it certain that a supernatural revelation is needed to account for their possession of the loftier faith which was so far above them.
That howling, leaping crowd tells what sort of religion they would have ‘evolved’ if left to themselves. Where did ‘Thou shalt have none other gods beside Me’ come from? Note the confusion of thought, so difficult for us to understand, which characterises idolatry. What a hopelessly inconsequential cry that was, ‘Make us gods, which shall go before us!’ and what a muddle of contradictions it was that men should say ‘These be thy gods,’ though they knew that the thing was made yesterday out of their own earrings! It took more than a thousand years to teach the nation the force of the very self-evident argument, as it seems to us, ‘the workman made it, therefore it is not God.’ The theory that the idol is only a symbol is not the actual belief of idolaters. It is a product of the study, but the worshipper unites in his thought the irreconcilable beliefs that it was made and is divine. A goldsmith will make and sell a Madonna, and when it is put in the cathedral, will kneel before it.
Note what was the sin here. It is generally taken for granted that it was a breach of the second, not of the first, commandment, and Aaron’s proclamation of ‘a feast to the Lord’ is taken as proving this. Aaron was probably trying to make an impossible compromise, and to find some salve for his conscience; but it does not follow that the people accepted the half-and-half suggestion. Leaders who try to control a movement which they disapprove, by seeming to accept it, play a dangerous game, and usually fail. But whether the people call the calf ‘Jehovah’ or ‘Apis’ matters very little. There would be as complete apostasy to another god, though the other god was called by the same name, if all that really makes his ‘name’ was left out, and foreign elements were brought in. Such worship as these wild dances, offered to an image, broke both the commandments, no matter by what name the image was invoked.
The roots of idolatry are in all men. The gross form of it is impossible to us; but the need for aid from sense, the dependence on art for wings to our devotion, which is a growing danger to-day, is only the modern form of the same dislike of a purely spiritual religion which sent these people dancing round their calf.
II. Mark Moses’ blaze of wrath and courageous, prompt action. He dashes the tables on the rock, as if to break the record of the useless laws which the people have already broken, and, with his hands free, flings himself without pause into the midst of the excited mob. Exo 32:19 – – Exo 32:20 bear the impression of his rapid, decisive action in their succession of clauses, each tacked on to the preceding by a simple ‘and.’ Stroke followed stroke. His fiery earnestness swept over all obstacles, the base riot ceased, the ashamed dancers slunk away. Some true hearts would gather about him, and carry out his commands; but he did the real work, and, single-handed, cowed and controlled the mob. No doubt, it took more time than the brief narrative, at first sight, would suggest. The image is flung into the fire from which it had come out. The fire made it, and the fire shall unmake it. We need not find difficulty in ‘burning’ a golden idol. That does not mean ‘calcined,’ and the writer is not guilty of a blunder, nor needed to be taught that you cannot burn gold. The next clause says that after it was ‘burned,’ it was still solid; so that, plainly, all that is meant is, that the metal was reduced to a shapeless lump. That would take some time. Then it was broken small; there were plenty of rocks to grind it up on. That would take some more time, but not a finger was lifted to prevent it. Then the more or less finely broken up fragments are flung into the brook, and, with grim irony, the people are bid to drink. ‘You shall have enough of your idol, since you love him so. Here, down with him! You will have to take the consequences of your sin. You must drink as you have brewed.’ It is at once a contemptuous demonstration of the idol’s impotence, and a picture of the sure retribution.
But we may learn two things from this figure of the indignant lawgiver. One is, that the temper in which to regard idolatry is not one of equable indifference nor of scientific investigation, but that some heat of moral indignation is wholesome. We are all studying comparative mythology now, and getting much good from it; but we are in some danger of forgetting that these strange ideas and practices, which we examine at our ease, have spread spiritual darkness and moral infection over continents and through generations. Let us understand them, by all means; let us be thankful to find fragments of truth in, or innocent origins of, repulsive legends; but do not let the student swallow up the Christian in us, nor our minds lose their capacity of wholesome indignation at the systems, blended with Christ-like pity and effort for the victims.
We may learn, further, how strong a man is when he is all aflame with true zeal for God. The suddenness of Moses’ reappearance, the very audacity of his act, the people’s habit of obedience, all helped to carry him through the crisis; but the true secret of his swift victory was his own self-forgetting faith. There is contagion in pure religious enthusiasm. It is the strongest of all forces. One man, with God at his back, is always in the majority. He whose whole soul glows with the pure fire, will move among men like flame in stubble. ‘All things are possible to him that believeth.’ Consecrated daring, animated by love and fed with truth, is all-conquering.
III. Note the weaker nature of Aaron, taking refuge in a transparent lie. Probably his dialogue with his brother came in before the process described in the former verses was accomplished. But the narrative keeps all that referred to the destruction of the idol together, and goes by subject rather than by time. We do not learn how Moses had come to know Aaron’s share in the sin, but his question is one of astonishment. Had they bewitched him anyhow? or what inducement had led him so far astray? The stronger and devouter soul cannot conceive how the weaker had yielded. Aaron’s answer puts the people’s wish forward. ‘They said, Make us gods’; that was all which they had ‘done.’ A poor excuse, as Aaron feels even while he is stammering it out. What would Moses have answered if the people had ‘said’ so to him? Did he, standing there, with the heat of his struggle on him yet, look like a man that would acknowledge any demand of a mob as a reason for a ruler’s compliance? It is the coward’s plea. How many ecclesiastics and statesmen since then have had no better to offer for their acts! Such fear of the Lord as shrivelled before the breath of popular clamour could have had no deep roots. One of the first things to learn, whether we are in prominent or in private positions, is to hold by our religious convictions in supreme indifference to all surrounding voices, and to let no threats nor entreaties lead us to take one step beyond or against conscience.
Aaron feels the insufficiency of the plea, when he has to put it into plain words to such a listener, and so he flies to the resource of timid and weak natures, a lie. For what did he ask the gold, and put it into the furnace, unless he meant to make a god? Perhaps he had told the people the same story, as priests in all lands have been apt to claim a miraculous origin for idols. And he repeats it now, as if, were it true, he would plead the miracle as a vindication of the worship as well as his absolution. But the lie is too transparent to deserve even an answer, and Moses turns silently from him.
Aaron’s was evidently the inferior nature, and was less deeply stamped with the print of heaven than his brother’s. His feeble compliance is recorded as a beacon for all persons in places of influence or authority, warning them against self-interested or cowardly yielding to a popular demand, at the sacrifice of the purity of truth and the approval of their own consciences. He was not the last priest who has allowed the supposed wishes of the populace to shape his representations of God, and has knowingly dropped the standard of duty or sullied the clear brightness of truth in deference to the many-voiced monster.
IV. Note the rallying of true hearts round Moses. The Revised Version reads ‘broken loose’ instead of ‘naked,’ and the correction is valuable. It explains the necessity for the separation of those who yet remained bound by the restraints of God’s law, and for the terrible retribution that followed. The rebellion had not been stamped out by the destruction of the calf; and though Moses’ dash into their midst had cowed the rebels for a time, things had gone too far to settle down again at once. The camp was in insurrection. It was more than a riot, it was a revolution. With the rapid eye of genius, Moses sees the gravity of the crisis, and, with equally swift decisiveness, acts so as to meet it. He ‘stood in the gate of the camp,’ and made the nucleus for the still faithful. His summons puts the full seriousness of the moment clearly before the people. They have come to a fork in the road. They must be either for Jehovah or against Him. There can be no mixing up of the worship of Jehovah and the images of Egypt, no tampering with God’s service in obedience to popular clamour. It must be one thing or other. This is no time for the family of ‘Mr. Facing-both-ways’; the question for each man is, ‘Under which King?’ Moses’ unhesitating confidence that he is God’s soldier, and that to be at his side is to be on God’s side, was warranted in him, but has often been repeated with less reason by eager contenders, as they believed themselves to be, for God. No doubt, it becomes us to be modest and cautious in calling all true friends of God to rank themselves with us. But where the issue is between foul wrong and plain right, between palpable idolatry, error, or unbridled lust, and truth, purity, and righteousness, the Christian combatant for these is entitled to send round the fiery cross, and proclaim a crusade in God’s name. There will always be plenty of people with cold water to pour on enthusiasm. We should be all the better for a few more, who would venture to feel that they are fighting for God, and to summon all who love Him to come to their and His help.
Moses’ own tribe responded to the summons. And, no doubt, Aaron was there too, galvanised into a nobler self by the courage and fervour of his brother, and, let us hope, urged by penitence, to efface the memory of his faithlessness by his heroism now.
We do not go on to the dreadful retribution, which must be regarded, not as massacre, but as legal execution. It is folly to apply to it, or to other analogous instances, the ideas of this Christian century. We need not be afraid to admit that there has been a development of morality. The retributions of a stern age were necessarily stern. But if we want to understand the heart of Moses, or of Moses’ God, we must not look only at the ruler of a wild people trampling out a revolt at the sacrifice of many lives, but listen to him, as the next section of the narrative shows him, pleading with tears for the rebels, and offering even to let his own name be blotted out of God’s book if their sin might be forgiven. So, coupling the two parts of his conduct together, we may learn a little more clearly a lesson, of which this age has much need,-the harmony of retributive justice and pitying love; and may come to understand that Moses learned both the one and the other by fellowship with the God in whom they both dwell in perfection and concord.
Fuente: Expositions Of Holy Scripture by Alexander MacLaren
went down. Moses’ fourth descent. See note on Exo 19:3 (the fifth ascent was in Exo 24:9),
the two tables. See on Exo 31:18.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Moses Breaks the Tables and Burns the Calf
Exo 32:15-24
There was no weak compromise on the part of Moses. He cast the tables from his hands as though he felt that the covenant between God and the Hebrew race was hopelessly broken. He remonstrated with Aaron, destroyed the calf, and appointed the tribe of Levi as the executors of divine justice. How striking the act that forced the people to drink the dust of the golden calf! Men always have to drink the dust of their idolatries. You cannot make an idol without growing into the likeness of your idol and becoming, some day, nauseated with it.
As Israel turned from the splendors that shone on the summit of Sinai to fashion the calf, and found that the end of those things was misery, so those who turn from the Savior, who is the brightness of the Fathers glory and the express image of His Person, pierce themselves through with many sorrows and perish. See Heb 12:25.
Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary
turned: Exo 24:18, Deu 9:15
the testimony: Exo 16:34, Exo 40:20, Deu 5:22, Psa 19:7
written: Rev 5:1
Reciprocal: Exo 24:12 – tables Exo 25:16 – General Exo 31:18 – gave Exo 34:29 – Two tables Deu 10:5 – I turned 2Ch 5:10 – save Psa 122:4 – the testimony 2Co 3:7 – written
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Exo 32:15-16. On both their sides Thus it was effectually provided against a possibility of any one either taking from or adding to this law, to do either of which God expressly forbade his people, Deu 4:2. The tables were the work of God Herein they differed from the second tables, which were the work of Moses, Exo 34:1.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Aaron’s excuse 32:15-24
Moses broke the tablets of the law (Exo 32:19) symbolizing the fact that Israel had broken its covenant with Yahweh. He then proceeded to destroy the golden calf, the symbol of the illicit covenant into which they had entered (cf. 2Ki 23:15). By treating the calf image as he did (Exo 32:20) Moses was dishonoring as well as destroying it.
". . . the biblical description of the destruction of the Golden Calf constitutes an Israelite development of an early literary pattern that was employed in Canaan to describe the total annihilation of a detested enemy." [Note: Samuel Loewenstamm, "The Making and Destruction of the Golden Calf," Biblica 48 (1967):485.]
Moses probably ordered the people to drink the polluted water for the following reason.
". . . to set forth in a visible manner both the sin and its consequences. The sin was poured as it were into their bowels along with the water, as a symbolical sign that they would have to bear it and atone for it, just as a woman who was suspected of adultery was obliged to drink the curse-water (Num 5:24)." [Note: Keil and Delitzsch, 2:226.]
"In this manner the thing they had worshiped would become a product of their own waste, the very epitome of worthlessness and impurity." [Note: Merrill, Deuteronomy, p. 196. Cf. Jacob, p. 950.]
Some writers have suggested that this water with the gold dust suspended in it would have been red and is a type of the blood of Christ. [Note: E.g., M. R. DeHaan, The Chemistry of the Blood and Other Stirring Messages, pp. 61-63.] This view lacks support in the text. The writer said nothing about Moses offering it to the Lord to make atonement for the sins of the Israelites. The people drank it; they did not offer it to God (Exo 32:20).
Exo 32:24 suggests Aaron may have formed the calf by casting it in a mold, but Exo 32:4 gives the impression that he carved it out of a shapeless mass. [Note: See Loewenstamm; idem, "The Making and Destruction of the Golden Calf-a Rejoinder," Biblica 56 (1975):330-43; and Stanley Gevirtz, "Heret in the Manufacture of the Golden Calf," Biblica 65 (1984):377-81.] The best solution seems to be that Aaron made this calf like similar Egyptian idols. He probably built a wooden frame and then overlaid it with gold that he shaped (cf. Isa 30:22).
Aaron tried to shift the blame for his actions to the people (cf. Gen 3:12-13).
"A woman of society and fashion will say, ’I admit that I am not what I might be, but then look at my set; it is the furnace that did it.’ A man will doubt God, question the Bible and truth, and excuse himself by saying, ’It is not I, it is the drift of modern tendency; it is the furnace that did it.’ ’There came out this calf.’" [Note: Meyer, p. 422.]