21. What did this people unto thee? He casts the blame on Aaron, inasmuch as he, who is possessed of power, seems to permit the evil which he does not prevent. We have previously seen that when Moses went up into the mount he resigned his charge to Aaron; it was therefore his duty so to preside over them as, in right of his power, to restrain the people, however perverse they might be. Consequently he is deservedly reproved with this severity, as if he had been the author of the sin which he had suffered to be committed. Hence we gather how weighty a burden is borne by all (344) who are appointed to be governors; for if any sin is committed through their negligence, or timidity, or indolence, they must themselves give account for it, as if they had given the signal for licentiousness. The reproof here is very emphatic, viz., that he was as bitter an enemy to the public welfare as if he had desired to avenge himself on his mortal enemies. Not that vengeance would be lawful, although he might have had any colorable ground for it, but Moses means that if Aaron had desired to ruin any persons, and had therefore purposely endeavored to do the worst thing he could against them, he could not have injured them more. Hence He deserves the greater reprehension for having taken such bad care of this poor people, the charge of whom he had undertaken; nay, for having, as far as in him lay, brought final destruction upon them. This, too, is worthy of observation, that when God’s service is in question, Moses no more spares his own and his only brother than he would an utter stranger. If he had consulted flesh and blood, it would have been easy to invent some pretext for being more lenient towards his brother, since he had been compelled by necessity and violence to make the calf; but, inasmuch as he knew how strenuously we should contend for God’s glory, he assails his brother as if he were entirely unconnected with him. This is a rare virtue; but, unless we strive to attain it, we shall often betray God’s cause by our treacherous indulgence towards our relatives.

(344) “Tous juges, et chefs du people;” all judges and rulers of the people. — Fr.

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.Exo. 32:21-25

SHIFTING RESPONSIBILITY

And I said unto them, Whosoever hath any gold, let them break it off. So they gave it to me: then I cast it into the fire, and there came out this calf.
Aaron has acted a very sorry part at a great crisis, and his conduct, and the apology he made for it, are worthy of being attentively considered by us, as we are very apt to fall into similar errors. Being charged with the great sin of which he was guilty, Aaron sought to shift the responsibility, and rest the blame elsewhere.

I. He blamed society. And Aaron said, Let not the anger of my lord wax hot: thou knowest the people that they are set on mischief, Exo. 32:22. So they gave it me, Exo. 32:24.

Thus is it with men now. Yielding to the pressure of society, we do not live out our highest convictions. We defer to public opinion. Great is the tyranny of public opinion, and many dare not brave it. Aaron dare not in the text, and thousands still are overawed by it. We like to be talked about, but not against. We stay short of being what we ought to be, of doing what we ought to do, for fear of the adverse criticism of our neighbours, work-fellows, countrymen. We defer to public custom. The Jewish rabble wanted images, such as were in Egypt, and Aaron had not courage to resist the demand. So we often bow to the questionable customs of society. Our convictions are otherwise, but we have not the bravery to be singularwe cast a grain of incense on the worlds altar when we ought to hurl a stone at its gods. We defer to public violence. They gathered themselves together unto, Exo. 32:1rather againstAaron in a tumultuous manner, to compel him to do what they wished. And Aaron was coerced by them. So we often fear the anger, menace, violence of those around us, and act a consciously unworthy part. Aaron in the text blaming the people is a picture of thousands of us to-day! We do not wish to act thus and thus, but we are the victims of our social surroundings. It is not I, but the people. We, none of us, are guilty, it is the crowd behind which pushes us.

II. He blamed nature. I cast it into the fire, and there came out this calf. As if it were not his fault, but natures. He says nothing about the mould that he made; nothing about the graving tool that he used, Exo. 32:4; but nature has done itit has done itself. So do we reason still.

1. We blame nature for our sins. We cannot hold ourselves responsible for various sins; we look upon them as springing from nature, and as not being amenable to control. We ignore the fact that we failed to interpose our will; that we fed the fires of passion; that in making preparation for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof, we constructed the mould.

2. We blame nature for our miseries. Aaron seems to represent himself as an ill-used manone to whom nature has been unkind. His miseries were selfcreated, but he fumbles about to represent them as an unfortunate outcome of nature. So do we act still. The other night we heard a man the worse for liquor, abusing a telegraph pole against which he had bruised his face. The spectators smiled; but they might have seen in the complaining sot a striking picture of poor foolish human nature in general. We foolishly, wilfully dash ourselves against the great laws of the creation, and then, bruised and weeping, rail against that creation, all of whose laws are pure and sublime. We transgress the physical laws on which health depends, and there comes out the sickly calf; we transgress the moral laws on which happiness depends, and there comes out the wretched calf; we transgress the intellectual laws on which knowledge depends, and there comes out the stupid calf; we transgress the social and political laws on which national prosperity depends, and there comes out the bloody calves of civil strife and revolution; we transgress the economical laws on which wealth depends, and there comes out the lean and ill-favoured calf of poverty. We blame nature for a score of ugly things by which we are plagued when they are simply the consequences of our own folly.

A word

1. As to the childishness of this method of shifting responsibility. They did it; is did it. How childish! The little children say, It did itit fellit broke, and their seniors smile at the transparent sophistry. But do not the seniors also the same? Blaming society, their body, nature? The calf came out! He was the calf, and we all feel that he was, and we are also when we shirk responsibility, and speak of it and them. We are men, gifted with the power of self-determination, and it is supremely ignoble and childish to attempt to rest the onus of our conduct on the laws of nature or the exactions of society.

2. The foolishness of it. Sin not only makes cowards of us all, but fools also. They did it; it did it. What shuffling and foolish excuses! How irrational! Aarons reply to the reproachful question of Moses is designedly obscure and confused, because he was himself conscious of the great crime which his fatal want of moral courage had abetted.Kalisch (in loco). The reason is confused before we sin, and sinning confuses it all the more, and we awkwardly seek to veil our sin and shame by the most unmanly and illogical vindications.

3. The uselessness of it. Aaron is severely blamed and censured. Moses gives no reply to the childish apology, but directly charges the crime home upon Aaron. Thou hast brought so great sin upon them, Exo. 32:21. Aaron had made them naked, Exo. 32:25. See also Deu. 9:20. So will it be with us all in the great day of judgment and retribution; our personal responsibility will be insisted upon, and the flimsy reasonings by which we sought to evade that responsibility will be scattered to the winds.

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.

Responsibility! Exo. 32:21-24. Aaron sought to shift the responsibility of this apostacy from his own shoulders to those of others.

1. He blamed the people (Exo. 32:22) for

(1) desiring, and
(2) demanding.

2. He blamed the furnace (Exo. 32:24) for

(1) protecting, and
(2) producing. Kalisch says that Aarons reply to the reproachful question of Moses is designedly obscure and confused, because he was himself conscious of the great crime which his fatal want of moral courage had abetted. A crazy house is propped up by one support; but conscious of its insecurity, the owner places a second to keep up the structure. Aaron was sensible of the flimsiness of his defence, and he must need prop it up with two supports, which, after all, disclosed its insecurity.

Sin and shame are ever tied together
With Gordian knots, of such a strong thread spun,
They cannot without violence be undone.

Personal Responsibility! Exo. 32:23. That puckered mouth had once known smiles! Those withered, parchment-like cheeks had once worn the rose bloom! Those hungry eyes had once been like those of doves, washed with milk and fitly set! Those lean, clutching hands had once tenderly embraced a fair and loved form! And that heart, dry and worthless as a decayed nut-kernel, had once been soft and gushing with love and sympathy! Now he was a miser, smiling only as he saw the yellow dross and clutched the golden coins. To bleed a stone were easier than to find pity and unselfish sympathy for the woes and wants of others. He was a miser; yet he had his moments when conscience, like a second Moses to Aaron, would ask, What is this that thou hast done! Adam-like, Aaron-like, Saul-like, aye, man-like, he would reply to himself, She made me what I am. He had loved, and his love had proved faithlesshad, on the very morning of their intended marriage, been wedded to another. She had made him love gold, become selfish and avaricious, live a hard and unsympathetic life. She made me! No, Aaron, death before dishonour. Fearing the anger, menace, and violence of the Israelites, he acted a consciously unworthy part, and all the more because he was their leader pro tempore. We are what we make ourselves, not what others make usthe victims of our fears or follies, our lusts or lingerings after evil.

Our acts our angels are, or good or ill,
Our fatal shadows that walk by us still.

Beaumont.

Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell

(21) Moses said unto Aaron, What did this people unto thee ?The second step was to inquire how the idolatry came about; and here Moses very reasonably addressed himself to Aaron. Aaron had been left in charge of the people (Exo. 24:14), to advise them, direct them, control them, if necessary. How had he acquitted himself of this charge? He had allowed the people to commit a great sin. What excuse could he offer for his conduct? Had the people injured him in any way? The question is asked ironically.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

21. What did this people unto thee A question of rebuke, the more searching because of the thought that Aaron himself had brought so great a sin upon the people . Aaron’s response and effort at apology, in Exo 32:22-24, is at best a pitiable plea, and virtually a confession of his own weakness.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

Moses Faces The Rebels ( Exo 32:21-28 ).

This next section has to be looked at from two points of view, that of Yahweh’s sovereignty with all under perfect control, and that of Moses tactics in the face of the very dangerous situation that was awaiting him. Outwardly he went on his triumphant way without much of a problem, but if we read the account more carefully we discover that (humanly speaking) it was a close run thing. It is only this that explains what Moses did in ordering what may seem otherwise to be indiscriminate killing.

From the point of view from which it was written therefore, Exo 32:21-28 reveal Yahweh’s sovereignty over the matter. It is a looking back after the event. It describes how Moses, having seen what was happening, and having broken the covenant tablets, dealt with what he discovered so that the opposition collapsed. It comes chronologically before Exo 32:20. Exo 32:20 had finalised the description of his descent from the mount in victory. Now we are to go back and see the detail behind the victory.

Basically the writer is saying in Exo 32:20, ‘this is how Moses taught the people a lesson’. Then it goes back to explain how he was able to do so.

The conversation with Aaron probably occurred as he approached the camp. It is then followed by the support that came from his fellow-tribesmen, the Levites, and the further punishment of Israel in the killing that had to take place. But in all this we get the impression from the text that Moses was invulnerable. That all went along smoothly. And in fact it did, because God was with him. But that comes from looking back on what happened, and knowing God was in charge. The progress of events from a human point of view was probably very different. It is this that explains the ‘indiscriminate’ killing.

For if we look at that fatal day from a human point of view we see a dangerous underlying situation. As events unfolded through the day, things would have been very different for Moses from what a casual reading suggests. Indeed it is probably true to say that humanly speaking it was only due to his brilliant tactics and dependence on Yahweh that he survived the day. For we should consider the fact that when Moses arrived the people would unquestionably be angry, and hostile to him, especially the leaders with their sense of guilt and resentment, and they would feel that Aaron was on their side. After all he had set the whole thing in motion. So they might well have been ready to do violence to Moses, and even cut him down if he opposed them (compare Exo 17:4). They now had the God they wanted. It would be the whole nation against one man. So he had better watch his step. And Aaron’s desertion would only increase their anger and fear of what Moses would do to them unless he was got rid of. They would not submit easily.

And Moses must have known this. We become accustomed to thinking that Moses was always in control and had little trouble in remaining so. That the people were always subservient. But sometimes a closer reading indicates that this was outwardly far from the case. There were factions that constantly raised up dissatisfaction and dissent (see Exo 17:4; Num 14:1-4; Num 14:10). There were factions who were ready to oppose him (Num 16:41). And no more so than here.

Indeed he must have been aware from what Yahweh had said that trouble lay ahead. Yahweh had warned him that the people were no longer following Him but were worshipping a molten image. That could only mean that they had disowned both Yahweh and Moses, and that Moses would be no longer welcome. If he went among them, therefore, he must have known that he might well be in grave danger. For there were an awful lot of them, and he only had Joshua, and they were angry and bitter.

Furthermore to Moses, as he considered the situation, there was the problem of Aaron. What had happened suggested that Aaron was no longer in authority, for surely had he been he would not have allowed such a thing to happen? What then could have happened to him? Perhaps he had already been put to death? So Moses in his quiet musing as he approached the camp would be more than a little concerned, and very wary about what he might find when he arrived there, and what kind of a reception he would receive.

He must have been very much aware of the large numbers of people down there, and how unreliable they could be. For this was not the first time, they had demonstrated their belligerence before. So he knew that when he arrived near the camp they might well seek to kill him in order to prevent his interference. For was it not clear that they had rejected his authority and would have appointed other leaders? And strength in numbers was on their side. Apart from God’s faithfulness, and Moses was keenly aware that he had after all rejected God’s solution for his own, his one consolation must have been that Joshua was with him so that they were lacking their best military leader. But he would know that he had to think carefully and plan how he should approach the situation. His thoughts must have been on how he could seize the initiative? Such were the things that must have been occupying his mind as they came down the mountain.

When the campsite came suddenly into view it must have been immediately clear how bad things were. The people were dancing round the molten calf in various states of undress, and their cries were ringing out as they threw themselves in abandon into their sexual perversions. The sight would have filled him with anger. Was this what they had come to? But he must have been well aware that he could not just walk into the camp and take over. Things had clearly gone too far for that. They were in no mood or condition to receive him. Indeed the likelihood might well be the opposite. He was a reject, and they would know that he had come to stop them. So he had to think carefully how to approach the situation.

We tend to forget that Moses had developed into a brilliant strategist. Somehow he knew that he had to regain his authority over the camp. But the question was, how? For in their present mood they were unlikely just to meekly surrender.

And then he fixed on his plan of action. It would require great courage, and he knew that unless Yahweh was with him it would not work. But that was a situation he had got used to, and he determined to go ahead. It had to be a question of quick action and surprise attack.

Striding forward within sight of the camp he lifted the covenant tablets above his head and smashed them to the ground. And because they saw it, it would be to them a public declaration that they were no longer within the covenant and that he was assuming no further responsibility for them as they were. That he was no longer bound to them. That he wanted nothing further to do with them. It indicated that he was rejecting them, and so was God. It was a challenge to them either to surrender to Yahweh or face up to his wrath.

Then he bravely advanced towards the camp entrance with Joshua in the hope that some would gather to his support. That was his only hope, for without that he was lost.

To his relief the first thing he saw was Aaron coming out to meet him. And from him he quickly learned the sad story of what had happened. He was probably very disappointed with his brother but that could wait another day. And no doubt from Aaron he learned the resentment and anger that there was in the camp against him.

But meanwhile at least they were now three, and an important three. The two deliverers from Egypt and Israel’s general (Exo 17:9). While the camp was without a recognised supreme chieftain, and would be in some disarray. On the other hand he knew the antagonism that there was against him in the camp. Possibly even that when they saw him they intended to kill him. The camp was in a drunken state as a result of the feast, and in an ugly mood because he had been so long away, and they would be very conscious that he would consider that they had rejected him. Moreover they now had their God with whom they were very satisfied. They would brook no interference from Moses. They had found their alternative and would not easily give it up. And Aaron no doubt confirmed his worst fears. Things looked very ugly.

And it was no doubt at this stage that he recognised that he had, humanly speaking, to gamble everything on the final daring move that he had planned, trusting in Yahweh to stand by him. Everything would depend on it. If he failed all would be lost. So coming to the main entrance to the camp he stood there with his two companions and cried out his challenge. “Who is for Yahweh? To me.” The question was left hanging in the air. The question was, would anyone respond? What would they do?

We need to stop and consider the situation in order to appreciate it. Moses and Joshua alone, with a repentant Aaron behind them. The whole people seemingly against them. It was undoubtedly a tricky situation.

Fortunately for him Yahweh had prepared the way, indeed had probably shown him this way for that reason. For his own tribe, the tribe of Levi, knowing of the plots against Moses and the dangers that awaited him, rallied to his support, probably accompanied by any loyal Yahwists who were pleased to see Moses. For once the sentries had announced that he was coming it is probable that the leading Levites had hurriedly gathered their fighting men together for the very purpose of supporting Moses. Moses was back. They knew that he would need them. Perhaps some had already been uneasy at the turn of events. He was after all of their tribe and they may well have felt that they should support him, come what may. So they now came to Moses and Aaron with that offer of support.

But the remainder did not come. They were not ready to surrender. Some would creep to their tents to arm themselves with weapons. Others would mutter and discuss what to do among themselves. And large numbers would simply ignore him and go on dancing and engaging in their sexual activity. After all, they must have thought, what could he do?

Moses must have been relieved that at least his own tribe stood by him, and by Yahweh, and his response was immediate. They may be outnumbered but if they acted quickly surprise was on their side. If they acted with speed they could retrieve the situation and gain the upper hand. They must make the first, surprise strike. So he commanded that they obtain their swords from their tents and immediately attack and slay some of the opposition and some of the blasphemous, drunken revellers before they could rally and find someone to lead them, for with Aaron being with Moses the rebels would for a short while be bereft of a central authority. Thus speed was of the essence while they were unprepared.

His fellow-tribesmen immediately obeyed him unquestioningly, obtained their weapons, and began their assault, taking all by surprise. It would be in such a context that the ‘three thousand’ (indicating a complete number) were killed. But there was no alternative.

Meanwhile some of the leaders of the other tribes had undoubtedly also become aware of Moses’ approach and must have been wondering what to do, for they did not know what he was going to do. But they were seemingly caught unprepared by the assault, and found that they were under attack before they even had chance to make their plans or collect their people together with their own weapons. And there were so many of the people who were in no state to listen to them. So without weapons to hand, and with little support, they would know instinctively that there was only one thing to do and that was to escape the avenging Levites, and hope to rally later. Thus hastily they would flee the camp and leave it in Moses’ hands, calling on their people to follow. And others would also flee as they saw the Levite slayers among them, although some no doubt sought to put up resistance. They would be among the slain. But why else would only three thousand be killed among so large a number with a fairly powerful group on the attack?

In the course of the conflict ‘three thousand’ of the opponents and revellers were slain, but the result of this was that the battle was quickly over and the camp was in Moses’ possession, with his opponents routed. Now the only thing necessary was to await the surrender of the scattered tribes, once they had sobered up and sought to return. And then he could carry out his planned punishment on them and make them drink their own god. That is how it almost certainly happened. So let us now confirm it from the text.

Having described the final certain victory punishment the account goes into more detail of how the victory came about.

a First Moses challenges Aaron as to why he has behaved as he has (Exo 32:21).

b Aaron’s reply is that the people had been set on evil, for they had said, ‘Make us God (or ‘a god’, or ‘gods’) who will go before us (Exo 32:22-23 a).

c They had also said, ‘For as for this Moses, the man who brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we do not know what has become of him’ (Exo 32:23 b).

d So Aaron rather pathetically explains why he made them a god of gold (Exo 32:24)

e Moses sees the dissipated state of the people (Exo 32:25)

f Then he stands in the gate and calls out, ‘who is on Yahweh’s side?’ (Exo 32:26).

g The Levites respond, and he calls on them in the name of Yahweh to immediately attack all who are in rebellion and slay them (Exo 32:27).

g The sons of Levi obey him and slay 3,000 men (Exo 32:28).

f Moses then calls on them to consecrate themselves to Yahweh for the battle is not yet won, but Yahweh will give them the blessing (Exo 32:29).

e On the next day Moses tells the people that they have sinned greatly but that he will plead for them (Exo 32:30).

d He goes before Yahweh and admits their sin and pleads for them because they have made gods of gold (Exo 32:31).

c He pleads that if Yahweh does not hear him He may blot out Moses’ name from His book. Yahweh’s reply is that He will blot out those who deserve it (Exo 32:32-33).

b So Moses can now lead his people forward and His Angel will go with him, but punishment for the people must follow (Exo 32:34).

a Finally Yahweh smites the people because they made the calf that Aaron made (Exo 32:35).

We note that in ‘a’ Aaron is challenged as to why he has behaved as he has (in making the calf of gold), while in the parallel the people are smitten because of the calf that Aaron made. In ‘b’ he tells how they had wanted him to make gods who would go before them, in the parallel Yahweh promises that His Angel will go before them. In ‘c’ the people dismiss Moses casually, in the parallel Moses is not treated casually. Rather he is seen as one whose name Yahweh will not blot out, whereas there are those that He will blot out. In ‘d’ Aaron explains why he made a god of gold, in the parallel Moses pleads with Yahweh because His people have made gods of gold. In ‘e’ Moses sees the dissipated and loose state of the people, in the parallel he tells the people that they have sinned greatly. In ‘f’ he stands in the gate and calls out, ‘who is on Yahweh’s side?’, in the parallel he calls on the Levites to consecrate themselves to Yahweh for the battle is not yet won, but Yahweh will give them the blessing. In ‘g’ the Levites respond, and he calls on them in the name of Yahweh to immediately attack all who are in rebellion and slay them, and in the parallel the sons of Levi obey him and slay 3,000 men.

Exo 32:21

‘And Moses said to Aaron, “What did this people do to you, that you have brought a great sin on them?” ’

This almost certainly comes timewise before the preceding verses (chronology was not in the main important to the Hebrews). Having described the event that followed the final victory the narrative now goes back to Moses’ approach on the camp, in order to explain how it happened. Moses was clearly in two minds at this stage, not knowing what lay ahead, but he was no doubt relieved, although puzzled, as he approached the camp and found his brother coming out to meet him. He recognised that Aaron had no doubt been alerted by a watchman, and that he was clearly free. Thus he wanted to know how on earth they had persuaded Aaron to do what he had done. Here was the one whom God had intended to appoint as the bringer of great blessing on His people and instead he had brought a great sin on them. He wanted to know what method they had used to persuade him. He was probably trying to find some kind of excuse for his brother as well as assess the situation in the camp.

This incident in fact brings out that although Moses was crystal clear that Yahweh was the only God, and that all others were as nothings, the same was probably not true of all, or even the majority, of Israel. Possibly not even fully of Aaron. We only have to think today how even convinced Christians can be superstitious, believing in some kind of fate that affects the world when they spill salt, or walk under ladders, or see black cats.

Exo 32:22-23

‘And Aaron said, “Do not let the anger of my lord wax hot. You know the people that they are set on evil. For they said to me, ‘Make us God (or ‘a god’, or ‘gods’) who will go before us, for as for this Moses, the man who brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we do not know what has become of him.”

Aaron’s extreme anxiety is brought out in his words. His brother has just seemingly come back from the dead, but instead of giving him a rapturous welcome he addresses his younger brother as ‘my lord’, a clear indication of submission and guilt. Note that the theme of waxing hot continues. Anger against their sin lies at the back of this whole account. But he tries to allay his sense of having failed God by suggesting to Moses that surely he is well aware of what these people are like. They are always set on sin. And they had had enough of things as they were. That is why they had asked for an image of God. So what could he have been expected to do about it? For the people’s words compare verse 1.

Exo 32:24

‘And I said to them, “Whoever has any gold let them take it off. So they gave it to me, and I cast it into the fire, and there came out this calf.” ’

Poor innocent Aaron. He had hardly been involved at all. The ‘earrings’ he had actually targeted had now become a vague ‘gold’. And the calf one that emerged from the fire having made itself! It simply came out. A wonder indeed. So the fault was all external, the people set on sin, the gold simply there available, and a self-manufacturing calf. It was not his fault. But he knew in his heart that that was not so. He knew that he had been deeply involved. It was he who had selected and decided on the use of religious talismans. It was he who had carefully prepared the gold and had equally carefully fashioned the molten calf. But he did not want to have to admit that to Moses while he was so angry. He was deeply ashamed. That was the one good thing to be said for him. That and the fact that he had come to meet Moses.

We almost see here again a repetition of the Garden of Eden. God asking what man has done, and man replying that it was nothing really, he had simply eaten what the woman had given him. For while others sin grievously our own sins never seem too serious.

But Moses was not deceived. He knew that a great deal of the blame lay at Aaron’s door. However, by the time of writing it was now in the past, and he did not want to open up old wounds, especially as Aaron was possibly dead, so we are told nothing more.

But we do in fact learn from Deu 9:20 that as a result the anger of God was directed against Aaron. For Yahweh knew all the truth And it was in the event only the intervention of Moses that saved him. It is actually remarkable that God did not insist on him being cast off, or even make him face the death penalty. Certainly he must surely be excluded from the priesthood. And yet in His graciousness God heeded Moses and still allowed Aaron to be installed as ‘the Priest’. Oh, the grace of God. He understood man’s heart. And He knew that Aaron had learned a lesson he would never forget.

Exo 32:25

‘And when Moses saw that the people had got out of control, for Aaron had let them get out of control so that they might be whispered about by their enemies.’

This description must also be referring to a time before the final disposal of the calf, as Moses next action after speaking to Aaron. For he would not have been able to enforce the drinking of the calf powder until things were under control. Indeed when he arrived at the entrance to the camp, all he found was chaos and wild behaviour and men and women satisfying their lusts without regard. And he knew now that Aaron must take much of the blame. Aaron, who should have maintained order and firm discipline, had instead encouraged this kind of behaviour, by his actions if not by his words. He was deeply at fault. It was the kind of behaviour that brought shame to the name of Yahweh and made them a source of whispered mockery among their enemies. The very use of the word ‘whisper’ indicates how shameful what was happening was felt to be. It was not the kind of thing that even their enemies spoke of openly. The ways of Canaan were despised by the desert tribes.

“ Out of control.” The idea of nakedness lies at the root of the verb, stressing the kind of behaviour that was going on.

Exo 32:26

‘Then Moses stood at the entrance to the camp, and said, “Who is for Yahweh? To me!” And all the sons of Levi gathered themselves together to him.’

Why did Moses stand at the main entrance to the camp? It could surely only be because this happened at the time of his arrival. But the sudden arrival of Moses had either been disregarded or had gone unnoticed by many. Their attitude may well have been that he no longer counted and they were not interested. They could deal with him later. And no doubt most of them were drunk. Although others would undoubtedly be hostile. However, they were not expecting any trouble. After all he was by himself. As usual they underestimated Yahweh and Moses.

The scene that follows is electric. Moses stands boldly at the entrance to the camp and issues a sharp and loud cry. “Whoever is for Yahweh, to me!” He no doubt hoped that the command would result in some response from the less degraded, and that therefore his other plan would not need to be carried into effect. But it was not to be. It was only his fellow-tribesmen who came in response. (The ‘all’ should be taken as meaning the large majority. No doubt some lingered among the dregs). The remainder ignored him. Thus he recognised the danger signs and that he had no choice.

The arrival of the Levites as one body indicated that the fact of his arrival had certainly been notified to the people of his own tribe. They must have been quickly brought together by their leaders. And now they came to the entrance to welcome him. They were almost certainly aware that he would need their support, and tribal feeling was strong. That is not to say that they had not been involved in what had happened. Aaron was a tribal leader and they had no doubt supported him too. But at the arrival of Moses they had come to recognise their responsibilities, and their duty towards Moses, their fellow-tribesman and erstwhile leader, and thus their duty towards Yahweh. They were in fact almost the only ones who did come to Moses and take any notice of his plea, an indication of the danger of the situation. It indicated that the mass were against him. (There would, of course, have been some others who had not participated and had hoped for his arrival. But they were seemingly not many).

Exo 32:27-28

‘And he said to them, “Thus says Yahweh, the God of Israel, Put every man his sword on his thigh and go to and fro, entrance to entrance throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour.” And the sons of Levi did according to the word of Moses, and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men.’

At this point Moses knew that he had to act swiftly. He had in mind three things when he made his plan, quick and severe action in the face of likely opposition, punishment for the guilty and finally the eventual restoring of order. The worst cases would be selected out simply by the fact that those who put up resistance would mainly be the most obdurate. Any others would flee once the vengeance began. But the lesson was to come home to all that what they all deserved was death, so serious was their sin. This command was commensurate with Yahweh’s command concerning dealing with idolaters (Deu 13:15).

Note that the Levites first had to collect their swords and gird them on. So they too had been in the middle of feasting. But they had come to their senses on the arrival of Moses. Now they had to go from tent to tent, ‘from entrance to entrance throughout the camp’, as commanded, and do their grisly work, quickly and ruthlessly without regard, before hostile factions could gather their senses.

All who were still involved in their own wild behaviour and failed to make their escape were to be dealt with, although the idea was clearly not to kill all, but to administer a harsh, short lesson indiscriminately and drive the others into flight. Thus would they rapidly diffuse the situation and quell any opposition.

Moses’ shout in itself would have alerted many to the danger, and, once the Levites began their work, realisation of what was happening would quickly spread, and they would recognise that things were not quite going according to plan. So, disorganised and panic stricken, for they were not brave fighters, the rest would make for safety. And that was what he wanted. Disorganised they would represent no danger to his authority

Thus the feast which had been so blasphemous ended in a short, sharp blood bath, and the re-establishment of Moses’ authority. By this action the camp was now his and order could now be finally restored among a chastened people when they crept back to the camp, all opposition having been crushed. The number who died were ‘about three thousand (eleph) men’. This might literally mean three thousand, or it may signify three sub-tribes of men, possibly the nearest to the avenging Levites when they emerged from their tents and began their work. (Eleph can mean ‘thousand’, ‘clan’, ‘sub-tribe’, ‘family’, ‘military unit’, ‘captain’, etc.). In the event Moses’ prompt action had undoubtedly prevented a major crisis, and possibly a civil war. For his own tribe would never have surrendered him without a fight.

We tend to be horrified at such loss of life. because we see Moses as almost invulnerable and not needing to use such tactics. Why, we ask, would Moses do this thing? But possibly that is because we have not recognised the true situation. Moses was clearly aware that he was at the time very vulnerable and that they might well in their present mood kill him. That if he did not act quickly all might be lost, both for himself and Yahweh. For he could see that they had turned against what he stood for and were in no mood to yield. They were in rebellion against him and against Yahweh. He thus acted as he did to save Yahwism.

For having persuaded Yahweh not to destroy them all, he had had to recognise that by doing so he had put himself in great danger. They knew nothing of his plea for their safety and were antagonistic and resentful. That was why the vital thing had been to establish his own authority, and quickly. He had known that unless he acted swiftly his own end and the end of Yahwism in its distinctiveness might be near. Indeed he had almost certainly become aware as he approached the camp that there would be a great amount of hostility against him. Why else, instead of entering the camp had he shouted from the entrance? So he had recognised that whatever happened he had to gather rapid support and quell any prospective violence, and actually save lives by quick action. And he acted to that end, and that was what he achieved. His cry at the entrance to the camp was in fact a very brave action. He might simply have been cut down where he stood. But he had trusted in Yahweh and he was, from a human point of view, saved by the loyalty of his own tribe.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

EXPOSITION

AARON TRIES TO EXCUSE HIMSELF. Having taken the needful steps for the destruction of the idol, Moses naturally turned upon Aaron. He had been left in charge of the people, to guide them, instruct them, counsel them in difficulties (Exo 24:14). How had he acquitted himself of his task? He had led the people into a great sinhad at any rate connived at itassisted in it. Moses therefore asks, “What had the people done to him, that he should so act? How had they injured him, that he should so greatly injure them?” To this he has no direct reply. But he will not acknowledge himself in faulthe must excuse himself. And his excuse is twofold:

1. It was the people’s fault, not his; they were “set on mischief.”

2. It was a fatalityhe threw the gold into the fire, and “it came out this calf.” We are not surprised, after this, to read in Deuteronomy, that “the Lord was very angry with Aaron to have destroyed him,” and was only hindered from his purpose by the intercession of Moses

Exo 32:21

What did this people unto thee? Moses does not suppose that the people had really done anything to Aaron. He asks the question as a reproachthey had done nothing to theehad in no way injured theeand yet thou broughtest this evil upon them. So great a sin. Literally, “a great sin”the sin of idolatry. If Aaron had offered a strenuous opposition from the first, the idolatry might not have taken placethe people might have been brought to a better mind.

Exo 32:22

Let not the anger of my lord wax hot. Aaron’s humility is extreme, and the result of a consciousness of guilt. He nowhere else addresses Moses as “my lord.” Set on mischief. Or “inclined to evil” (Kalisch).

Exo 32:23

Make us gods. Rather “Make us a god.”

Exo 32:24

There came out this calf. Aaron speaks as if he had prepared no mould, but simply thrown the gold into the hot furnace, from which there issued forth, to his surprise, the golden calf. This was not only a suppressio veri, but a suggestio falsi. Having no even plausible defence to make, he is driven to the weakest of subterfuges.

HOMILETICS

Exo 32:22-24

Aaron’s excuses.

We are all ready enough to condemn Aaron for his insincere and shifty answer; but do not the apostle’s words occur to any of us?”Therefore, thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest, for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things” (Rom 2:1). Do not we all, when we are taxed with faults, seek to shift the blame of them elsewhere? e.g.:

I. ON THE PEOPLE WITH WHOM WE LIVE. Society, we say, is corruptis “set on mischief.” Its customs are wrong, we know; but it is too strong for us. We must conform to its ways. There is no use in resisting them. Public men say”Such and such changes in the law would be bad we know itwe admit itbut the people ask for them, so we must lend ourselves to their wishes, and take steps to get the changes made.” Or again”This or that war would be unjust, iniquitous, a flying in the face of Christian principle. To engage in it would be a crimea disgrace to the age we live in.” But let the popular voice call for the war a little loudlyand the public man yields, silences the remonstrances of his conscience, and becomes an active agent in bringing the war about. And the case is the same in private life. Ask a man why he spends on entertainments twice as much as he spends in charity, and he will immediately lay the blame on others”every one does it.” Ask him why he wastes his whole time in frivolous pursuits, newspaper-reading, club-gossiping, card-playing, party-going, and his reply is the same. Descend a little in the social scale, and ask the manufacturer why he scamps his goods; the shopkeeper why he adulterates; the ship-owner why he insures ships that he knows to be unseaworthy and sends out to be wreckedand his answer is parallel”every one in his line of business does the same.” They compel him to follow their bad example. Descend again, ask the confidential servant why he takes “commission” from tradesmen; the cook, why she hides fresh joints among the broken victuals; the footman, why he purloins wine and cigars; they defend themselves with the same plea”It is wrong, they know: but their class has established the practice.” “We are all the victims of our social surroundings; it is not we who are in fault, but the crowd that pushes us on.”

II. ON THE NATURE THAT GOD HAS GIVEN US, ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH WE ARE PLACED. Sins of temper and sins of impurity are constantly set down by those who commit them to their nature. Their tempers are naturally so bad, their passions naturally so strong. As if they had no power over their nature; as if again, they did not voluntarily excite their passions, work themselves up into rages; “make provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof.” In thus doing they construct the mould into which the sins run. Sins of dishonesty are commonly attributed to circumstances: the temptation came in their way, men say, without their seeking it, and was too much for them, was not to be resisted. So with drunkenness, idleness, and the other sins connected with evil companionship; men’s plea is they were brought into contact with persons who dragged them, almost forced them into evil courses. Had they been more happily circumstanced it would have been different. As if a man did not to a large extent make his own circumstances, choose his companions, construct his own way of life. We are not forced to company with any men, much less any women, out of business hours. We are not compelled to go to places of public amusement where we are tempted. The “circumstances” which lead to sin are usually circumstances which we might easily have avoided, if we had chosen, as Aaron might have avoided making the mould, or even asking for the ornaments.

Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary

So great a sin. It appears that, but for the intercession of Moses, Aaron would have been cut off for it, see Deu 9:20 . But reader! remember in all this Moses only typified Christ.

Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

Exo 32:21 And Moses said unto Aaron, What did this people unto thee, that thou hast brought so great a sin upon them?

Ver. 21. What did this people unto thee? ] The people sinned by precipitancy; Aaron by popularity.

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

sin. Hebrew. chat’a. App-44.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

Gen 20:9, Gen 26:10, Deu 13:6-8, 1Sa 26:19, Jos 7:19-26, 1Ki 14:16, 1Ki 21:22, 2Ki 21:9-11

Reciprocal: Gen 3:12 – General Gen 12:18 – General Num 25:18 – vex you Deu 9:20 – General Jdg 2:2 – why have 1Sa 2:24 – ye make 1Sa 8:6 – prayed 2Sa 11:13 – made him 1Ki 15:26 – in his sin 1Ki 16:2 – hast made my people 2Ki 10:29 – made Israel 2Ki 17:21 – a great sin 2Ki 21:16 – beside his sin 1Ch 21:3 – why will 2Ch 16:3 – break Ecc 4:10 – if Jer 32:35 – to cause Mic 1:13 – she Act 14:18 – scarce 1Co 8:12 – when Gal 2:11 – because Eph 4:26 – ye Heb 5:2 – is compassed Heb 7:28 – the law maketh Heb 12:15 – and thereby

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

Exo 32:21. What did this people unto thee? He takes it for granted that it must needs be something more than ordinary that prevailed with Aaron to do such a thing. Did they overcome thee by importunity, and hadst thou so little resolution as to yield to popular clamour? Did they threaten to stone thee, and couldest not thou have opposed Gods threatenings to theirs?

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments