Exodus
32
THE IDOLATRY OF THE GOLDEN CALF
(vs. 1-6)
During the
absence of Moses in
Israelites
grew impatient, and regarding their leader as lost to them, and the Divine
Presence
which they had hitherto enjoyed as lost with him, insisted on having a
symbol of
that presence made for them, which should henceforth go in front of the
host and so
lead them on in their journeys. It would
seem that the pillar of the cloud,
which had
gone before them from Succoth to Sinai, was now removed from the
camp, and
resting upon the “mount” where
Moses was (ch. 24:15). Under these
circumstances
they wanted a visible tangible something, in which they could regard
the Divine
Presence as resting, and whereto they might offer worship and sacrifice
(v. 8).
They therefore went to Aaron, whom Moses had bid them consult in any
difficulty
(ch. 24:14),
and requested him to “make them
a god.” Aaron had not
the
courage to
meet this request with a plain negative. As
Augustine and Theodoret
conjecture
with much probability, he sought to turn them from their
purpose by
asking them
to give up those possessions which he conceived that they most valued
— viz, the personal ornaments of their wives and children.
But he had miscalculated
the
strength of their fanaticism. The people immediately complied — the ornaments
were
brought in — and Aaron was compelled, either to fly from his word, or to lend
himself to
the people’s wishes. He did the latter. Either looking to
pattern,
or falling back on some old form of Syrian or Chaldaean
idolatry (see the
comment on
v. 4), he melted down the gold and cast it into the form of a calf.
The “god” being thus
made, an altar was built to it (v. 5) and sacrifice offered (v 6).
Such was
the condition of affairs when Moses, having just received the two tables of
stone, was
warned by God of what had occurred, and bidden to descend from Sinai.
1 “And when the people saw that Moses delayed to come down out of the
mount,
the people gathered themselves together
unto Aaron, and said unto him, Up,
make us gods, which shall go before us; for
as for this Moses, the man that
brought us up out of the
And when the people saw that Moses delayed to come down - He had been
absent,
probably,
above a month. It was the first day of their worship when he descended;
and a week
would suffice for the collection of the ornaments, the formation of the
mold, and
the casting of the idol - unto Aaron - It is not
clear why no mention is
made of Hur, who had been made co-regent with Aaron (ch. 24:14); but perhaps
Aaron was
known to be the weaker of the two. Up, make us gods. Most moderns
translate”
a god.” But the word is vague, and the speakers
did not themselves
perhaps care whether one idol was made or more - which shall go before us –
The
Israelites were apparently tired of their long delay at Sinai, and were anxious
to
proceed
upon their journey. They wanted a visible god at their head, to give them
confidence
and courage. Compare I Samuel 4:3-8 - we wot not what is become of him.
They
thought he:
Ø might
be dead,
Ø might
have returned to
Ø might
be going to stay always with God in the mount
which they did not dare to approach. At
any rate, he was lost to them, and they
might
never see him again.
2 “And Aaron said unto them, Break off the golden earrings, which are in
the ears of your wives, of your sons, and
of your daughters, and
bring them
unto me.”
Break
off. “Take off”
would perhaps be a better translation.
The
ear-rings would not require any breaking. They were penannular, and
could be
removed by a smart pull. Your wives, your sons, and your daughters.
See the
comment on ch. 3:22. It is implied that the men did
not wear earrings.
At an
earlier date the household of Jacob, chiefly men, had worn them (Genesis 35:4).
3 “And all the people brake off the golden earrings which were in their
ears,
and brought them unto Aaron.” - Thus,
as is supposed, disappointing Aaron, who
had
counted on the refusal of the women to part with their finery, and the
reluctance
of the
men to compel them. Had
ear-rings been still regarded as amulets it is not
likely that
they would have been so readily given up.
4 “And he received them at their hand, and fashioned it with a graving
tool, after he had made it a molten calf:
and they said, These be thy
gods, O
4 “And he received them at their hand, and fashioned it with a graving tool,
after he had made it a molten calf: and
they said, These be thy gods,
O Israel, which brought thee up out of the
with a graving tool. Rather,
“and bound it (the gold) in a bag.” Compare II Kings
5:23, where
the same two Hebrew words occur in the same sense. It is impossible
to extract
from the original the sense given in the Authorized Version, since the
simple
copula vau cannot mean “after.” When two verbs in the same
tense are
conjoined
by “and,” the two
actions must be simultaneous, or the latter follow
the former.
But the calf cannot have been graven first, and then molten. It
is objected
to the rendering, “he bound it in a bag,” that that action is so
trivial
that it would be superfluous to mention it (Keil).
But it is quite
consonant
with the simplicity of Scripture to mention very trivial
circumstances.
The act of putting up in bags is mentioned both here and
also in II
Kings 5:23 and 12:9. They said. The fashioners
of the
image said this. These be thy gods. Rather, “This is thy God.” Why
Aaron
selected the form of the calf as that which he would present to the
Israelites
to receive their worship, has been generally explained by
supposing
that his thoughts reverted to
to follow.
But there are several objections to this view.
1. The
Egyptian gods had just been discredited by their powerlessness
being
manifested — it was an odd time at which to fly to them.
2. Apis and Mnevis were not molten
calves, but live bulls. If the design had
been to
revert to
3. The calf
when made was not viewed as an image of any Egyptian god,
but as a
representation of Jehovah (v. 5).
4. The Israelites are never taxed with having
worshipped the idols of
anywhere
else than in
probable that
Aaron reverted to an earlier period than the time of the sojourn in
Joshua
warned the Israelites some sixty years later, to “put away” (Joshua 24:14).
The subject
is one too large for discussion here; but may not the winged and
human-headed
bull, which was the emblem of divine power from a very early
date
in
wanderings,
and have formed a portion of their religions symbolism? May it not
have been
this conception which lay at the root of the cherubic forms, and the
revival of
which now seemed to Aaron the smallest departure from pure monotheism
with which
the people would be contented?
5 “And when Aaron saw it, he built an altar before it; and Aaron made
proclamation, and said, Tomorrow is a feast
to the LORD.”
And when Aaron saw it, he built an altar before it - Aaron thus proceeded to
“follow a multitude to evil” (ch.
23:2), and encouraged the idolatry which he felt
himself
powerless to restrain. Still, he did not intend that the people should
drift away
from the
worship of Jehovah, or view the calf as anything but a symbol of Him. He
therefore made proclamation and said, Tomorrow is a feast to the
Lord (literally,
“to Jehovah”).
6 “And they rose up early on the morrow, and offered burnt offerings,
and brought peace offerings; and the people
sat down to eat and to
drink, and rose up to play.” And they
rose up early on the morrow - The
people
were
like a child with a new toy. They
could scarcely sleep for thinking of it. So, as
soon
as it was day, they left their beds, and hastened to begin the new worship –
and offered burnt offerings, and brought peace offerings; and the people sat
down to eat” - A feast almost always followed upon a sacrifice, only
certain portions
of the
victim being commonly burnt, while the rest was consumed by the offerers.
See
ch.18:32 – And
rose up to play. This “play” was
scarcely of a harmless kind.
The sensualism of idol-worship
constantly led on to sensuality; and the feasts
upon idol-sacrifices
terminated in profligate orgies of a nature which cannot
be described. See the application of the passage by
Paul in the I Corinthians 10:7-8,
and compare v.
25.
The Hankering after Idols and its
Consequences (vs. 1-6)
There is a
war ever going on in human nature between the flesh and the spirit
(Romans
7:23; 8:1-13). The two are “contrary the one to the other.” From the
time
of their
leaving
an unseen
God — following His mandates — reposing under the sense of His
protection. But the strain was too much for them.
So long as they had Moses with
them, to
encourage them by his exhortations and support them by his good example,
they
managed to maintain
this higher life, to “walk in the spirit,” (Galatians
5:16) to
“live by faith and not by sight.” (II Corinthians 5:7). When he was gone, when he
seemed to them
lost, when they had no hope of
seeing him again, the reaction set in.
The flesh asserted itself.
They had given
way to idolatry in
in part,
Egyptian gods, in part, “the gods
which their fathers served on the other
side of the flood” (Joshua 24:14-15); they had, no doubt, accompanied this
worship
with the licentiousness which both the Egyptians (Herod. 2:60) and the
Babylonians
(ib, 1:199) made
a part of their religion. Now the recollection
of these
things
recurred to them, their desires became inflamed — the flesh triumphed.
The
consequences were:
TO
WHICH THEY HAD RECENTLY PLEDGED THEMSELVES. “All
the
words which the Lord hath said,” they had declared “we will do”
(ch.
24:3); and among these “words” was
the plain one — “Thou
shalt not make to thyself any graven image, nor the
likeness of anything
that
is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, or in the water under
the
earth; thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor
serve them.”
Nevertheless they required Aaron to
make them a material god, and it was
no sooner made than they hastened to
worship it with burnt-offerings and
other sacrifices.
WRITTEN
IN THEIR HEARTS, AND LATELY REINFORCED BY
THE
PLAIN PROHIBITION OF THE SEVENTH COMMANDMENT.
“They sat
down to eat and drink, and rose
up to play.” They
engaged in
licentious dancing (v.19), and
perhaps laid aside some of their usual
garments (v. 25). They turned a
worship, which they still pretended to
render to Jehovah (v. 5) into an orgy. If they did not proceed to the
lengths of completed sin, they
entered upon the slippery path which, almost
of necessity, leads to it. By this conduct they so provoked God:
THE EARTH. A
sentence of death was at first pronounced against the
whole people (v. 10),
and would infallibly have taken effect, had not
Moses interceded, and by his
intercession prevailed. Universal
apostasy
deserved
universal destruction. There is no reason to believe that the
execution of the sentence pronounced
would have been stayed, but for the
expostulation and the prayer
recorded in vs. 11-13.
HEAVY PUNISHMENT. The
immediate slaughter of three thousand was
required to purge the offence
(v.28). The sin was further visited upon
the offenders subsequently (see
comment on ver. 34). Some were, on
account of it, “blotted out of God’s book” (v. 33). Christians should take
warning, and not, when they have
once begun “living after the Spirit,”
fall
back and “live after the flesh” (Romans 8:13). There are still in the
world numerous tempting idolatries. We may
hanker after the “lusts of the
flesh,”
or “of the eye” (I
John 2:15-17) — we may weary of the strain upon
our nature which the spiritual life
imposes — we may long to exchange the
high and rare atmosphere
in which we have for a while with difficulty
sustained ourselves,
for the lower region where we shall breathe more easily.
But we must
control our inclinations. To draw back is to incur a terrible danger –
no less a one than “the perdition of our souls.” It were
better “not to have
known
the way of righteousness,” or walked in it for a time, “than, after
we have
known it,” and walked in it, “to
turn from the holy
commandment delivered unto us” (II Peter
2:21).
The Golden Calf (vs. 1-6)
Ø The cause of the request. There are really two causes to be considered
here, first, a cause of which they were conscious, and then,
secondly, a
deeper cause of which they were not conscious. The delay of
Moses to
return was the reason they put forward. We must do them the
justice of
noticing that they seem to have waited till the forty days
were well-nigh
expired before preferring their request; and an absence of
forty days was
inexplicable to minds as yet so spiritually darkened and
benumbed as
those of the majority of the people. What he could have to
do, and how
he could live so long, away up on a barren mountain, was
beyond their
power of imagination. Moses was given up just as a ship is
given up
when it has not been heard of for many days after the
reasonable period
of the voyage. It was not a case of being out of sight, out
of mind; he
had been a great deal in mind, and the general conclusion
was that in
some mysterious way he had vanished altogether. But there is
also
the deeper reason of the request to be found in the people’s
continued
ignorance of the real hold which Jehovah had upon them, and
the sort
of future towards which He would have them look. Their
action here
was founded not on what they knew, but emphatically on what
they did
not know. They could not say, “Moses is dead,” or “he has
forsaken us.”
They could only say, “We wot not what is become of him.” So far as
outward circumstances were concerned, the people seem to have been
in a state of comparative security and comfort. When Moses went up
into the mountain, he knew not how long he would have to wait; that
was not for him or Aaron or any man to know. But however long he
was to be away, all due provision had been made for the people’s
welfare. The daily morning manna was there; and Aaron and Hur
were appointed to settle any disputes that might arise.
There is no
word of any external enemy approaching; there is no threatening
of civil strife; there is not even a recurrence of murmuring
after the
fleshpots of
of the people; if they had waited forty months instead of
forty days,
there would have been nothing to cause reasonable
astonishment;
for Jehovah and not man
is the Lord of times and seasons.
Ø The request itself. There is a certain unexpectedness in this
request.
Who is it that is missing? Moses, the visible leader,” the
man that brought
us up out of the
of the people would be to put some one in Moses’ place; even
as later
they said, “Let us make a captain, and
let us return into
(Numbers 14:4). But instead of this their cry to Aaron is, “Make us
gods.” How little
did Moses expect, when he put Aaron to be counselor
of the people in his absence, that it was for image-worship
they would
seek his help! And yet the more we ponder, the more we shall
be led
to feel that this was just the kind of request that might be
expected from
the people. Their ancestors, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob
believed in the
invisible Jehovah; but faith in the invisible will not go
down from
generation to generation, as if it were a blood quality. The
God of
Abraham was one whom, though Abraham could not see, he could
hear as speaking with most miraculous organ. But these
people at
Sinai wanted above all things a god whom they could see,
even though
it was but a lifeless, sightless, voiceless image. Great is
the mystery of
idolatry. How men have come to bow down to stocks and stones
is not
a question to be dismissed with a few contemptuous words.
These
idolatrous Israelites were seeking satisfaction for a desire
of the
heart as imperious in its own way as bodily hunger and
thirst. They
wanted something to be a center of worship and religious
observances
in general, and the quickest way seemed to fabricate such a
center by
the making of gods. Whereas, if they had only been patient
and trustful
and waited for Moses, they would have found that, even by
the very
absence of Moses, God Himself was providing for the worship
of
the people. We have here another illustration of the
frequent follies
of popular decisions. The greatest thing that required to be
done for
these Israelites was the thing that needed to be done in
them.
readiness in falling in with the request; and it has been
suggested that his
readiness was only in appearance, and that he hoped the
women would
refuse to surrender their cherished ornaments, thus making
the
construction of a suitable image impossible. It may have
been so; but why
should we not think that Aaron may have been as deeply
infected with the
idolatrous spirit as any of his brother Israelites? There is
everything to
indicate that he went about the execution of the request
with cordiality and
gratification. And it must not be forgotten that in the
midst of all his
forgetfulness of the command against image-worship, he
evidently did not
think of himself as forsaking Jehovah. When the image and
the altar were
ready, it was to Jehovah he proclaimed the feast. What Aaron
and the
people along with him had yet to learn was that Jehovah was not to be
served by will-worship or by a copy of the rites observed in
honoring the
gods of other nations. Thus all unconsciously,
needful were the patterns given in the mount. The feast to
Jehovah,
indicated in v. 6, was nothing but an excuse for the most reckless and
degrading self-indulgence. How
different from the ideal of those solemn
seasons which Jehovah Himself in due time prescribed;
seasons which were
meant to lift the people above their common life into a more
hearty
appreciation of the Divine presence, goodness and favor, and
thus lead
them into joys worthy of the true people of God.
GOD’S
REACTION (vs. 7-10)
7 “And the LORD said unto Moses, Go, get thee down; for thy people, which
thou broughtest
out of the
Go, descend — i.e., “make
haste to descend — do not tarry —
there is
need of thy immediate presence.” Thy people, which thou
broughtest, etc. Words
calculated to awaken the tenderness between
which and
self-love the coming struggle was to be.
The Sin of the Golden Calf (vs. 1-7)
Disastrous
effects followed in the camp of
Moses’ to
the mount. Moved as by a common impulse, the people
“gathered themselves together,” and demanded of Aaron that he
should
make them “a god,” i.e. an idol, that it might go — be
carried in procession
— before
them (compare Amos 5:26). It was a case of “hand joined in
hand”
to do iniquity (Proverbs 11:21). Many, doubtless, looked on
the
movement
with dismay and horror (compare v. 26); but their voices were
drowned in
the general clamor. The “lewd fellows of the baser
sort”
(Acts 17:5)
had, for the moment, the upper hand in the host, and swept
all before
them. Intimidated by the show of violence, Aaron weakly
acceded to
the people’s request. The whole incident strikingly illustrates
the
commanding space which must have been filled in the camp of
the
personality of Moses, and affords some measure of the turbulent and
refractory
dispositions of the multitude whom ordinarily he had to deal
with. It
sheds light, also, on the greatness of Moses’ character, set as that
is in
contrast with the weakness and irresolution exhibited by Aaron.
Consider:
placed has its elements of trial. These are purposely
mingled with our lot:
(1) that dispositions may be tested, and
(2) that life may be to us in fact, what it is
needful that it should be for the
proper development of character, viz. a succession of
probations.
The trial of the Israelites consisted:
Ø In the delay in the return of Moses. Moses had disappeared in the
mountain. Weeks had passed without his return. It had not
been told the
people how long his absence was to last. This constituted a
trial of faith
and patience. It gave color to the allegation that Moses had
perished —
that he had gone from them for ever. Compare what is said in Luke
12:37-49 of the uncertainty left to rest upon the time of
the Lord’s
second advent. Faith
has its trial here also. Because Christ’s coming
is delayed, there are those who would fain persuade
themselves that
He will not return at all (II Peter 3:4).
Ø In the scope given by his absence for
the manifestation of character.
On this, again, compare Luke 12:37-49. It was
the first time since the
departure from
Hitherto, Moses had always been with them. His presence had
been a
check on their wayward and licentious tendencies. His firm
rule
repressed disorders. Whatever inclinations some of them may
have
felt for a revival of the religious orgies, to which,
perhaps, they had
been accustomed in
camp, to vent their desires publicity. The withdrawal of the
lawgiver’s
presence, accordingly, so soon after the conclusion of the
covenant,
was plainly of the nature of a trial. It removed the curb.
It left room
for the display of character. It tested the sincerity of
recent professions.
It showed how the people were disposed to conduct themselves
when
the tight rein, which had hitherto kept them in, had been a
little
slackened. It tested, in short, whether there were really a
heart in them
to keep all God’s commandments always (Deuteronomy 5:29).
(All we have to do is obey!
How different our lives would be!
CY - 2017) Alas!
that in the hour of their trial, when so splendid
an opportunity was given them of testifying their
allegiance, their
failure should have been so
humiliating and complete.
Ø The sin itself. They had
made for them “a molten calf” (v. 4),
which,
forthwith, they proceeded to worship with every species of
disgraceful
revelry (v. 6). The steps in the sin are noted in the
narrative.
o
They approached Aaron with a demand to make them
“a god.” The
light, irreverent way in which, in connection
with this demand, they
speak of their former leader — “As for this Moses, the man that
brought us
up out of the
of him” (v. 1) — betrays an extraordinary levity, ingratitude, and
callousness of nature.
o
They stripped themselves of their ornaments of
gold for the making of
the “god” (v. 3). They did this gladly. People, as a rule, spend freely
on their vices. They are not so ready to part with their valuables for the
service of Jehovah.
o
They mixed up their calf worship with the service
of the true God. On
the supposed connection with the ox and
calf-worship of
exposition. The calf made by Aaron was evidently
intended as a symbol
of Jehovah (v. 4). The result was an
extraordinary piece of syncretism.
An altar was built before the calf, and due
honors were paid to it as the
god which had brought
proclaimed to Jehovah (v. 5). When the morrow
came, the people
“offered
burnt offerings, and brought peace offerings,” only, however,
to engraft on the
sacrificial festivities the rites
of the filthiest heathen
worships (v. 6; compare v. 25). It was their own
passions which they
sought to gratify; but, in gratifying them, they still endeavored to keep
up the
semblance of service of the revealed God. Strange
that the
wicked should like, if possible, to get the cloak of
religion even for
their vices.
But light and darkness will not
mingle. The first
requirement in worship is obedience. “To obey is better
than
sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams” (I Samuel 15:22).
“The
sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the Lord” (Proverbs
15:8). It
was monstrous to propose to worship the
spiritual Jehovah,
who had
expressly forbidden the use of graven images in His service,
under the symbol of a calf, albeit the idol
was of gold. It was worse
than monstrous,
it was hideous, to employ the name of the Holy One
to cover
the shameless and revolting orgies with which their
calf-worship was associated.
o
They were eager in this worship. They rose up early in the
morning to
engage in it (v. 6). Would that God’s people
were as eager in His service
as these servants of Belial were in the service
of their idol!
Ø The sin in its generic character. The sin at Sinai was a case:
o
of sense reasserting its supremacy over faith.
(This is something that
contemporary Christianity needs to be wary of -
CY - 2017) “As
for
this Moses,
we wot not what has become of him” (v. 1).
o
Of carnal
tendencies regaining the ascendancy over temporary
religious
impressions.
o
Of engrained evil habits resuming their sway
after having been for a
time forcibly kept in check. The incident shows
that nothing short of a
thorough
regeneration, of a radical change of heart, can be relied
on to keep men
in the way of good. It is
the heart that needs
renewal.
David seized the matter at the root when he was led to pray, “Create
in me a
clean heart” etc. (Psalm 51:10). It was the want of this
thorough
renewal which was the bane of
31:27-30).
Ø Aggravations of the sin. The circumstances under which the sin was
committed added greatly to its enormity.
o
It was a sin
committed immediately after solemn covenant with God.
The transactions recorded in ch.
24 were not yet forty days old. The
people had literally heard God speaking to them.
They had
acknowledged the solemnity of the situation by
entreating Moses to
act as mediator. They had formally, and under awful
impressions of
God’s majesty, pledged themselves to life-long
obedience. Yet within
this brief space of time, they had thrown off
all restraints, and violated
one of the main stipulations of their agreement.
A more flagrant act of
impiety it would be difficult to imagine.
o
It was a sin committed while Moses was still in
the mount transacting
for them. He had gone to receive the tables of
the law. He had been
detained to receive instructions for the making
of the sanctuary — that
God might dwell among them. A solemn time,
truly! While it lasted,
the people might surely have been depended on to
conduct themselves
with at least ordinary propriety. Instead of
this, witness their mad
gambols round
their calf. The very time when, of all others,
their frame of mind ought to
have been devout, sober, prayerful, was the time
chosen for the
perpetration of this great iniquity.
noted, the narrative makes no attempt to conceal. It tells
the story with
perfect impartiality. The Bible, like its author, is without
respect of
persons. If Aaron leads the people astray, he must, like
others, submit to
have the truth told about him. This is not the way of
ordinary biographies,
but it is the way of Scripture. It is one mark of its
inspiration. It is a
guarantee of its historic truthfulness. The conduct of Aaron
cannot be
justified; but suggestions may be offered which help to
render intelligible.
Ø
Aaron
was placed in a situation in which it was very difficult to know
exactly
what to do. A mob
confronted him, evidently bent on gratifying
its dangerous humor, its demand was peremptory. To resist
its will was
to run the risk of being stoned. The temptation which, in
these
circumstances, naturally presented itself to a timid mind,
and to which
Aaron yielded, was to put the people off, and endeavor to
gain time by
some show of concession. In the interval, Moses might
return, and the
difficulty would be solved. See the mistake of this policy.
It was:
o
Wrong. It involved a sacrifice of principle. It was temporizing.
(One should never
sacrifice principle for temporary gain!
CY – 2017)
o
Weak. Had Aaron been brave enough to take a firm stand, even at the
risk of losing his life for it, not improbably
he might have crushed the
movement in its bud. As it was, his sanction and
example gave it an
impetus which carried it beyond the possibility
of being subsequently
controlled.
(And many lost their lives over it.
CY – 2017)
o
Self-defeating. A temporizing policy usually is. The favorable chance
on which everything has been staked, does not
turn up. Moses did not
return, and Aaron, having yielded the
preliminary point, found himself
hopelessly committed to a bad cause.
Ø
Aaron
may have thought that by requiring the women of the camp to
part
with their personal ornaments, he was taking an effectual plan to
prevent
the movement from going further (v. 2). They might, he may
have reasoned, be very willing to get gods, and yet not be
willing to
make this personal sacrifice to obtain them. If this was his
idea, he
was speedily undeceived. The gold ornaments came pouring in
(v. 3),
and Aaron, committed by this act also, had no alternative
but to
proceed further. “He received them at their
hands,” etc. (v. 4).
Ø
Aaron
may have thought that, of the two evils, it would be better to put
himself
at the head of the movement, and try to keep it within bounds,
than
to allow it to drift away, without any control whatever. He may
have argued that
to allow himself to be stoned would not make matters
better, but would
make them greatly worse. On the other hand, by
yielding a little, and placing himself at the head of the movement, he
might at least succeed in checking its grosser abuses. (There is no
right way to do the wrong
thing! CY –
2017) This is a not an
uncommon opiate to conscience, in matters involving compromise
of principle. It is the idea of the physician who humors a mad patient,
in the hope of being able to retain some control over him. The step
was a false one. Even with madmen, as wiser doctors tell us, the
humoring policy is not the most judicious. With a mob, it is about
the worst that could be adopted.
Ø The
strength of evil propensities in human nature.
Ø The
fleetingness of religious impressions, if not accompanied by a true
change of heart.
Ø The degrading character of idolatry. SIN bestializes, and the
bestial
nature seeks a god in
bestial form (compare Romans 1:21-32).
“Men,” says Xenophanes, “imagine
that the gods are born, are
clothed in our garments, and endowed with our form and
figure.
(“These things hast thou done,
and I kept silence; thou thoughest
I was altogether such an one
as thyself: but I will reprove thee,
and set them in order before thine eyes.” Psalm
50:21) But if oxen
or lions had hands, and could paint and fashion things as
men do,
they too would form the gods after their own similitude,
horses
making them like horses, and oxen like oxen.” But we have
seen
that men also can fashion their gods in the similitude of
oxen.
“They that make them are like
unto them” (Psalm 115:8).
Ø
Mammon-worship (wealth regarded as an evil influence or false
object of worship and devotion) is a
worship of the golden calf..
8 “They have turned aside quickly out of the way which I commanded
them: they have made them a molten calf,
and have worshipped it,
and have sacrificed thereunto, and said, These
be thy gods, O
They have turned aside quickly out of the way which I
commanded them” –
A few weeks
have sufficed to make them forget their solemn pledges (chps.
19:8;
24:3), and fly in the face
of a plain unmistakable commandment.
A molten calf – in the
contemptuous language of Holy Scripture when speaking
of idols,
such an emblematic figure as the Babylonion man-bull
would be a
mere “calf.” That the
figure made by Aaron is called always “a molten calf” —
literally,
“a calf of fusion” — disposes of the theory of Keil,
that it was of
carved wood
covered with gold plates hammered on to it. These be thy gods,
which have brought thee. Rather,
“This is thy god, which has brought thee.”
The plural
must be regarded as merely one of dignity.
9 “And the LORD said unto Moses, I have seen this people, and, behold, it
is a
stiffnecked people:” - This
epithet, which will be used nine more times in scripture,
is here used for the first time. It does not
so much mean “obstinate” as “perverse”
like a
horse that stiffens the neck when the driver pulls the
right or left rein, and
will not go
the way he is wanted to go. (Compare chps. 33:3,5; 34:9; Deuteronomy
9:6, 13; 10:16,
31:27; II Chronicles 20:8, Acts 7:51)
10 “Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them,
and that I may consume them: and I will
make of thee a great nation.”
Now, therefore, let me alone. This was
not a command, but rather a suggestion;
or, at any
rate, it was a command not intended to compel obedience — like that
of the
angel to Jacob — “Let
me go, for the day breaketh” (Genesis
32:26).
Moses was
not intended to take the command as absolute. He did not do so —
he “wrestled
with God,” like Jacob, and
prevailed. That
my wrath may wax hot.
Literally,
“and my wrath will
wax hot.” I
will make of thee a great nation.
(Compare Numbers
14:12.) God could, of course,
have multiplied the seed of
Moses,
as He had that of Abraham; but in that case all that had been as yet done
would
have gone for naught, and His purposes with respect to His “peculiar people”
would
have been put back six hundred years and more.
The
Anger of God (vs. 7-10)
God may
well be angry when His people apostatize; and having recently professed
entire
submission to His will (chps. 19:8; 24:3), rebel
suddenly, and cast His words
behind
their backs. God’s anger against
by a series of stupendous miracles
from a cruel bondage. He had brought
them out of
them through it — He had given them
a complete victory over the
Amalekites.
He was supporting them day after day by a miraculous supply
of food. He had condescended to
enter into covenant with them, and to
make them His “peculiar treasure” — “a kingdom of priests, and an holy
nation” (ch.19:5-6). He was further engaged in giving them a law
which
would place them far in advance of
other nations, and render them
the main source of life and light in
a world of moral darkness and deadness.
There had been no moment in their
history when they were more bound by
every consideration of duty, honor, and
thankfulness to cling to Jehovah
— yet, spite of all, they had
rebelled and rushed into idolatry.
aside quickly out of the way,” said the
Almighty to Moses (v. 8). A few
weeks only had gone by since they
had declared themselves God’s willing
servants — had entered into covenant
with Him, and promised to keep all
His commandments. What had caused
the sudden and complete change?
There was nothing to account for it
but the absence of Moses. But surely it
might have been expected that their
convictions would have had sufficient
root to outlive the disappearance of
Moses for as long as six weeks. The
fact, however, was otherwise. They
were of those who had “no root in
themselves”
(Mark 4:17) — and as soon as temptation came, they fell
away.
The remembrance of their old
idolatries came upon them with a force that
they had not strength to resist —
and it happened unto them according to the
true proverb: “The dog is turned to his own vomit again, and the sow that
was washed to
her wallowing in the mire” (II Peter 2:22).
delivery of the second commandment
at Sinai, it might perhaps have been a
doubtful point whether the worship
of God under a material form was, or
was not, offensive to Him. But after
that delivery, all doubt was removed.
The bowing down to an image had been
then and there declared an
“iniquity,” an offence
to a “jealous God,” which He
would visit unto the
third and fourth generation. Nor was
this all. An express prohibition of the
very act that
“Book of the Covenant” — which opens thus — “Ye have seen that I have
talked with you from
heaven — ye shall not make with me gods of silver,
neither
shall ye make unto you gods of gold” (ch. 20:22-23). It was
impossible therefore that they
should plead ignorance. Knowingly and
willfully they had transgressed a
plain command of the Great
God, whose
power and glory
had so lately been revealed to them. They had sinned in
the full light of day. Christians in
their manifold idolatries — of
covetousness, lust, fashion-worship,
etc. — are more ungrateful than even
the Israelites, since they sin
against One who has died to redeem
them, and
they sin against a still clearer
light — the double light of a full revelation of
God’s will, and of a conscience
enlightened by the Holy Ghost. God’s
wrath may well “wax hot against them, to consume them from the face of
the earth.”
THE
INTERCESSION OF MOSES (vs. 11-13)
Moses, in
Sinai, was so far removed from the camp, and the cloud so shut out his vision
of it, that
he had neither seen nor heard anything unusual, and was wholly ignorant of
what had
happened, until God declared it to him (vs. 7-8). After declaring it, God
announced
His intention of destroying the people for their apostasy, and fulfilling His
promise to
Abraham by raising up a “great nation”
out of the seed of Moses (v.10).
No doubt
this constituted a great trial of the prophet’s character. He might, without
sin,
have
acquiesced in the punishment of the people as deserved, and have accepted the
promise
made to himself as a fresh instance of God’s goodness to him. There would
have been
nothing wrong in this; but it would have shown that he fell short of the
heroic
type, belonged to the ordinary run of mortals, was of the common “delft,” not
of “the precious
porcelain of human clay.” God’s trial of him gave him an opportunity
of rising
above this; and he responded to it. From the time that he reached full
manhood (ch. 2:11) he had cast in his lot with his nation; he had
been appointed
their
leader (ch. 3:10); they had accepted him as such (ch. 4:31); he had led them out
of
separated
his fate from theirs, he would have been false to his past, and wanting in
tenderness
towards those who were at once his wards and his countrymen. His own
glory
naturally drew him one way, his affection for
honor that
he chose the better part; declined to be put in Abraham’s place, and
generously
interceded for his nation (vs. 11-13).
He thereby placed himself among
the heroes
of humanity, and gave additional strength and dignity to his own character.
11 “And
Moses besought the LORD his God, and
said, LORD, why doth
thy wrath wax hot against thy people, which
thou hast brought forth
out of the
the Egyptians speak, and say, For mischief
did He bring them out, to slay them
in the mountains, and to consume them from
the face of the earth? Turn from
thy fierce wrath, and repent of this evil
against thy people.” 13 “Remember
Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, thy servants,
to whom thou swarest by thine
own
self, and saidst
unto them, I will multiply your seed as the stars of heaven, and
all this land that I have spoken of will I
give unto your seed, and they shall
inherit it for ever.” - Moses has
three pleas wherewith he “wrestles with God:”
not now destroy them, and so undo
His own work.
the Divine action.
and Jacob (Genesis
28:14; 35:11), which had received a partial fulfillment,
would seem to be
revoked and withdrawn if the nation already formed were
destroyed and a
fresh start made.
14 “And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto His
people.”
The Lord repented of the evil. Changes of purpose are, of course, attributed
to God
by an
“economy,” or accommodation of the truth to human modes of speech and
conception.
“God is not a man that He should repent.” (Numbers
23:19) He
“knows the end from the beginning.” (Isaiah
46:10) When He threatened to
destroy
first, His
anger, and then, at a later period, His intention
to spare, He is said to
have “repented.” The expression is an anthropomorphic
one, like so many others,
on which we have already commented. (See the comment on ch.
2:24-25; 3:7-8;
31:17.)
The
Wrath of Jehovah and the Intercession of Moses (vs. 7-14)
Jehovah is omniscient; even while spreading before Moses,
with all
elaboration, the patterns in the mount, His all-observant
eye is equally on
the doings of the people below. And now, just when Moses is
expecting to
be dismissed with his instructions for the people, he is
fated to learn that
they have proved themselves utterly unworthy of Jehovah’s
great designs.
The thing described is an utter, shameless, and precipitate
apostasy from
Jehovah. Previous outbreaks of the sinful heart were as
nothing compared
to this. If it had only been the sin of a few, some
half-secret departure from
Jehovah confined to a corner of the camp; if there had been
a prompt
repudiation of it and punishment of it on the part of the
great majority:
then, indeed, Jehovah might have found cause even for
rejoicing that the
apostasy of the few had been occasion to prove the fidelity
of the many.
But alas!:
Ø the transgression is general;
Ø there is a public adoption of the golden calf with worship and
Ø sacrifice. (A great warning for
The idolatrous spirit has been shown in
the most complete and demonstrative
way. Idolatry, with its awful
degradations and its fatal influences, must always
be an abomination to God; but
how peculiarly abominable when it rose in the
midst of a people with
whom God had been dealing with the most tender
compassion and the sublimest power! It is to be noticed that God calls special
attention to the
quickness of this apostasy. “They have turned aside
quickly,
out of the way.” The fact
of course was that they had also been turned
quickly into that
way, and kept in it by a kind of external force. They might
promise, and while they promised mean to keep the promise,
but nature
was too much for them; and as
soon as the Divine constraint was in any
way relaxed they returned to the old path. The
impression Jehovah would
make on the mind of His servant is that nothing can be
expected from them.
WHICH HE
PROPOSES TO TREAT
think here not only of the words of Jehovah, but also of the
attitude of
Moses, which seems to be indicated by these words. Even
before Moses
puts in his earnest intercession, we have a hint of what is
in his heart.
Jehovah says, “Let me alone;” as one
man, about to strike another, might
speak to some third person stepping between to intercept the
blow In the
speaking of Jehovah’s words there must have been an
indication of wrath,
such as of course cannot be conveyed by the mere words
themselves. And
what, indeed, could Jehovah do, but give an unmistakable
expression of His
wrath with such an outbreak of human
unrighteousness as is found in
idolatry? No doubt there is great difficulty in
understanding such
expressions as those of Jehovah here. When we remember the low estate of
the Israelites spiritually,
and the infecting circumstances in which they had
grown up, it seems hardly just to reproach them for their
lapse into
idolatry. But then we must bear in mind that the great
object of the
narrative here is to show how Jehovah cannot
bear sin. The thing to be
considered first of all is, not how
these
Israelites became idolaters, but the
sad and stubborn fact that they seemed inveterate (unlikely to change a
bad habit) idolaters. Such a
decided manifestation of idolatry as the one
here revealed, when it came to the knowledge of Jehovah, was
like a spark
falling into the midst of gunpowder. It matters not how such
a spark may be
kindled; it produces an explosion the moment it touches the
powder. The
wrath of God must be revealed
against all ungodliness and unrighteousness
of men. (Romans
1:18) Yet doubt not that the God who
spoke here in such
wrath and threatening loved these Israelites
in the midst of their apostasy.
But it was not possible in one and the same moment, and from
one and the
same voice, to make equally evident love for the benighted
apostate himself,
and wrath because of the evil that was so intimately mixed with
his nature.
On such an occasion it became God to give a direct and
emphatic expression of
wrath from His own lips, leaving His love and pity to be
known indirectly
through the intercession of His servant Moses. When Jehovah
is angry, it is
then we need most of all to remember that love is the great
power in His nature.
TO MOSES. “I will make of thee a great nation.” Thus we
see how the
word of Jehovah is made to serve two purposes. It both expresses
the
fullness of wrath with an apostate people, and at the same
time puts a
cherished servant upon a most effectual trial of his
magnanimity and
mediatorial unselfishness. Thus this
proposition of Jehovah comes in most
beautifully to emphasize the simplicity and purity of the
feeling of Moses in
his subsequent mediation. And though Moses makes no
reference to this
proposition, it is well to be enabled to see how little hold
any self-seeking
thoughts took of his mind.
that we need stay to investigate the merits of the
considerations which
Moses here puts forward. He could only speak of things
according as they
appeared to him. We know, looking at these same things in
the light of the
New Testament, that even if God had destroyed these people
as at first He
hinted, His promises would not therefore have been
nullified. The temporal
destruction of a single generation of men, however
perplexing it might
have seemed at the time, would afterwards have been seen as neither any
hindrance in the fulfillment
of God’s purposes, nor any dimming of the
brightness of His glory. Be it
remembered that these same people whom
God brought out with great power and a mighty hand, yet
nevertheless
perished in the wilderness. Spared
this time, they were in due season cut
down as cumberers of the ground. And as to any scornful
words the
Egyptians might speak, God’s glow was not at the mercy of
their tongues;
for it had been manifested beyond all cavil in a sufficiently
terrible chapter
of their own history. Then as to the words spoken to
Abraham, Isaac, and
Jacob, even if all but Moses had been swept away, yet in him
the seed of
Abraham would have been continued, just as in the days of
the flood. God
did not utterly destroy the human race, but narrowed it down
to one
family. And more than all we should bear in mind that the
true fulfillment of
God’s promises was to Abraham’s spiritual seed; they who
being of faith
are blessed with faithful Abraham. Hence we must not too
readily conclude
that what Moses said was the
thing which here influenced Jehovah in what
is called His repentance. The influential power was, that
here was a man to
say something, to act as a mediator, one deeply concerned to
secure escape
for these people, even while they, reveling in the plain
below, are all
unconscious of their danger. (Same
today – “....as a bird hasteth
to the
snare, and knoweth not it is for his life.” Proverbs 7:23;
“But as in the
days of Noah were, so shall also
the coming of the Son of man be. For
as in the days that were
before the flood they were eating and drinking,
marrying and given in
marriage, until the day Noah entered into the
ark. And knew not until the flood came and took
them all away...”
Matthew 24:37-39)
Notice that Moses says nothing by way of excuse
for the people. Indeed, the full magnitude of their offence
had not
yet been comprehended by him; and it is interesting to
contrast his
pleadings here with an angry God, and his own wrath when he
came
actually in sight of the golden calf. The one thing Moses
fixes on, in his
appeal to God, is the great Divine purpose for
that purpose is; he is profoundly concerned that it should
not be interfered
with; and so we are led to think of Jesus
the true Mediator, with a
knowledge of Divine purposes
and human needs, such as it was not for
Moses to attain. Consider how Jesus dwells and caused His
apostles to
dwell on God’s great purposes for the children of men. Thus
both from
Moses the type, and Jesus the antitype, we should learn to
think of men not
as they are only, but as they ought to be, and as God
proposes they should
be. Evidently
Moses kept constantly in mind God’s purposes for
even though he knew not how profound and comprehensive those
purposes were. So let us, knowing more than Moses of God’s
purposes for
men in Christ Jesus, keep constantly in mind that which will come to all
who by a deep patient, and
abiding faith approve themselves true children
of Abraham.
Some Powers Restrain, Some Compel (v. 14)
Here we see
a restraining power, and one which can even restrain God.
Notice:
Ø
Justly merited. Remember all that had gone before: deliverance
after a
series of awe-inspiring judgments on the
oppressors; warnings after
previous murmurings; now, with a fuller
revelation of God’s majesty, this
act of impatient
apostasy: all compelled to the conclusion that the
people
were utterly stiff-necked (v. 9).
Ø
Complete and final. As a molder in clay, when he finds his material
getting hard and intractable, throws it down,
casts it away, and takes up
with something more pliable, so God determines
with regard to
(v. 10). Let the children of
the promises.
As though God could not act without the consent
of Moses. [A hot
sun would melt snow but for shadow of protecting wall.] The
heat of
God’s wrath cannot consume so long as Moses stands in the
way and
screens those against whom it burns. What a power! See how
it was
exercised:
Ø
Unselfishly. He might have thought, “A disgrace to we if
these people
are lost when I have led them;” this fear, however,
provided against by the
promise that he shall be made “a great nation,” The intercession is
prompted by pure unselfishness; Moses identifies
himself with those for
whom he pleads; and this gives the power. To
come between the sun and
any object, you must be in the line of the sun’s
rays; and to come, as Moses
did, between God and a people, you must be in the line of God’s will
Ø
With perfect freedom. Moses talks with Jehovah as a trusted steward
might with his employer:
o
Why so angry when he has exercised such power on
their behalf? (v. 11).
o
Why should the Egyptians be permitted to taunt
Him with caprice and
cruelty? (v. 12).
o
Let Him remember his oath to Abraham, Isaac, and
Jacob (v. 13).
The unselfish man need not fear to speak thus
openly with God.
Unselfishness is so God-like that it permits familiarity whilst it
guards against irreverence.
Ø The
repentance was in direct answer to the intercession (vs. 12,14).
God did as Moses begged that He would do. Had Moses
been less
firm, God’s wrath would certainly have consumed the people.
Yet:
Ø God cannot change! No: but
Moses kept his place [i.e. - the wall
screening the snow]; and therefore the
conditions were never such
as they must have been for judgment to be
executed. God’s repentance
was one with Moses’ persistence. The evil
threatened was against
the people, but the
people apart from Moses. Moses identifying himself
with them altered the character of the total.
o Conclusion — What
Moses did for his people that our Lord
does for his Church (Romans 8:34; Hebrews 7:25).
That also
we may do, each in his measure in behalf of
others. It is the
Pharisee who thanks God that he is not as other
men are!
True men
love rather to identify themselves with
their
race, thus, salt-like (Matthew 5:13), saving it from
corruption; giving it shelter by the intercession of their
lives.
\ The Intercession of Moses (vs. 11-15)
This
intercession should be studied and laid to heart by all Christians, especially
by
Christian
ministers, whose duty it is to “watch
for the souls” of others, as “they
that must give account.” (Hebrews
13:17) - It was;
utterance, was heard in the words
whereby the leader sought to save his
people. Prayer, expostulation,
almost reproach, sound in them. God is
besought, urged, importuned, to
grant the boon begged of him. The tone of
Jacob’s answer rings in them, — “I will not let thee go, except thou bless
me” (Genesis 32:26).
will make of thee
a great nation,” has evidently taken no hold of the
unselfish nature of the prophet. He
declines to give it a thought. God must
keep His promises to Abraham, Isaac,
and Jacob — not make a new
promise, as if everything was now to
begin afresh. The offer, which might
have tempted any man, is simply set
aside, as if it had not been made, or at
any rate could not have been
seriously meant; and the whole energy of the
speaker
concentrated on inducing God to spare His people.
has real weight:
ü
protected and defended after
a marvelous fashion. All this Divine effort
would have been simply
thrown away, if the announced purpose were
carried out and
to be balked, His
designs to remain unaccomplished. If He “has
begun
a
good work,” He (commonly) wills to
“bring it to good effect.”
(Philippians 1:6) Will He not do so in this
case?
ü Are the enemies of God to be allowed a triumph?
would afford to the
Egyptians an ample field for scoffs, ridicule,
self-glorification. Would God suffer this?
ü Promises had been made, with great solemnity (“Thou swarest by
thine own self,” v.13), to the patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and
Jacob,
that the “Peculiar people” should spring from them. These might be
kept in the letter, but would they be kept in the
spirit, if all their
descendants were now destroyed, except some three, and a new nation
was created out
of the descendants of Moses?
ü EFFECTUAL. “The Lord repented
of the evil, which He thought to
do unto His
people” (v.14). The
intercession of Moses prevailed —
the announced
purpose was given up. God spared His People, though
His anger against them continued; and they were punished in a
different way (vs.33-35).
MOSES
BREAKS THE TWO TABLES (vs. 15-19)
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 (Deuteronomy 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 (v.17). Moses, however, better
instructed
in the actual nature of the proceedings (vs. 7-8), caught
their character
more
correctly, and declared that what he heard was nothing but shouting
(v.18).
Soon
afterwards, the camp came into sight — a disorderly crowd, half stripped of
their garments (v. 25), was
singing choruses and dancing round the figure which
Aaron had
cast — the sights and sounds were those of a dissolute orgy — Moses
was struck
with horror and in the frenzy of his indignation, dashed the two tables to
the ground
and broke them into fragments (v. 19). The people, he felt, were
utterly
unworthy of the holy laws which he had brought them — they had
“altogether gone out of the way”
– (Romans 3:12) - 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,” (v.12) or
not.
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.” The two tables…
were in his hand. In
Deuteronomy 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
civilization had come to them
from “
The First Intercessions (vs. 7-15)
If
eye has
been on all their doings. There has not been a thought in their
heart, or a
word on their tongue, but, lo! it has altogether been well known
to Him
(Psalm 139:4). It is God’s way, however, to permit matters to
reach a
crisis before He interposes. For a time He keeps silence. During the
inception
and early stages of the movement in
discovery
of it to Moses. He allows it to ripen to its full proportions. Then
He tells
his servant all that has happened, and orders him to repair at once
to the
scene of the apostasy (vs. 7-11). Mark the expression: — “Thy
people, which thou broughtest out of the
themselves” — indicating that they are no longer God’s, that
the covenant
is broken.
Moses intercedes for
should not
destroy them (vs. 11-14). Consider:
wax hot against them, and
that I may consume them” (v. 10). This wrath
of God against the sin of
Ø Real. What we
have in these verses is no mere drama, acted between
God and Moses, but a most real wrath, averted by most real
and earnest
intercession. But for Moses’ intercession,
been destroyed.
Ø Holy. Wrath against sin is a necessary part of God’s character.
Not that
we are to conceive of the thrice Holy One as swayed by human
passions,
or as needing to be soothed by human entreaty. But sin does awaken
God’s displeasure. He would
not be God if it did not. “Resentment
against sin is an element in the very life of God. It can no
more be
separated from God than heat from fire! God is merciful. What does
this mean? It means a willingness to lay aside resentment
against those
who have sinned. But it follows that the greater the
resentment, the
greater is the mercy; if there is very little resentment,
there can be
very little mercy; if there is no resentment at all, mercy
is impossible.
The difference between our religion, and the religion of
other times,
is this — that we do not believe that God has any very
strong
resentment against sin, or against those who are guilty of
sin; and
since His resentment has gone, His mercy has gone with it.
We
have not a God who is more merciful than the God of our
fathers,
but a God who is less righteous; and a God who is not righteous,
a God who does not glow with fiery indignation against sin
is no
God at all.” Put otherwise, a God who cannot be angry with
my sin,
is one from whom it would be meaningless in me to sue for
pardon.
His pardon, could I obtain it, would have no moral value.
Yet,
Ø
Restrained. The expression is peculiar — “Now, therefore, let
me alone,
that
my wrath may wax hot,” etc.. The
meaning is, that God is self-
determined in His wrath, even as in His love (compare ch. 33:19). He
determines Himself in the exercise of it. It does not carry
Him away. In
the present instance He restrained it, that room might be
left for
intercession. The
words were a direct encouragement to Moses to
entreat for his erring charge.
we met with Moses as an intercessor was at the court of
Egypt. We have
now to listen to him in his pleadings for his own people.
Four separate acts
of intercession are recorded in three chapters (vs. 31-35; ch. 33:12-18; 34:9).
Taken together, they constitute a Herculean effort of
prayer. Each intercession
gains a point not granted to the previous one:
Ø First, the
reversal of the sentence of destruction (v. 14);
Ø next, the
consent of God to the people going up to
however, under the conduct of an angel (ch. 33:1-4);
Ø third, the
promise that His own presence would go with them (ibid. v.14);
Ø finally,
the perfect reestablishment of friendly relations, in the renewal
of the covenant (ch.
34:10).
Like Jacob, Moses, as a prince, had power with God, and
prevailed
(Genesis 32:28). It is to be noted, also, that this advance
in power of prayer
is connected with an advance in Moses’ own experience. In
the first intercession,
the thought which chiefly fills his mind is the thought of
the people’s danger.
He does not attempt to excuse or palliate their sin, but
neither does he make
direct confession of it. He sees only the nation’s impending
destruction, and
is agonizingly earnest in his efforts to avert it. At this
stage in his entreaty,
Moses might almost seem to us more merciful than God. A
higher stage is
reached when Moses, having actually witnessed the
transgression of the
people, is brought to take sides with God in His wrath
against it. His second
intercession, accordingly, is pervaded by a much deeper
realization of the
enormity
of the sin for which forgiveness is
sought. His sense of this is
so awful, that it is now a moot question with him whether
God possibly
can forgive it (v. 32). The third intercession, in
like manner, is connected
with a special mark of Jehovah’s condescending favour to himself (ch. 33:9),
emboldening him to ask that God will restore His presence to
the nation
(v. 15); while the fourth follows on the sight which is given
him of Jehovah’s
glory, and on the revelation of the name (ch. 34:5-8). Observe more
particularly in regard to the intercession in the text:
Ø The boon sought. It is that God will spare the people, that He
will turn
aside His fierce anger from them, and not consume them (v.
12). Thus
far, as above hinted, it might almost seem as if Moses were
more
merciful than God. God seeks to destroy; Moses pleads with
Him to
spare. The wrath is in God; the pity in His servant.
(Contrast with
this the counter scene in Jonah 4.) The affinity of spirit
between
Jehovah and Moses, however, is evinced later, in the hot anger
which Moses feels on actually
witnessing the sin. God’s mercy, on
the other hand, is shown in giving Moses the opportunity to
intercede.
It was He who put the pity into His servant’s heart, and
there was
that in His own heart which responded to it.
Ø The spirit of the supplication.
o
How
absolutely disinterested. Moses sets aside, without even taking
notice of it, the most glorious offer ever made
to mortal man — “I will
make of thee
a great nation” (v. 10). This was Moses’ trial. It tested
“whether he loved his own glory better than he loved
the brethren who
were under his charge.” He endured it
nobly.
o
How
intensely earnest. He seems to clasp the feet of God as one who
could not, would not, leave, tilt he had
obtained what he sought.
o
How
supremely concerned about GOD’S GLORY. That is with
Moses the consideration above all others.
Ø The pleas urged. Moses in these pleas appeals to three
principles in the
Divine character, which really govern the Divine action:
o
To God’s
regard for His own work (v. 11). The finishing of
work He
has begun (Philippians 1:6).
o
To God’s
regard for His own honor (v. 12). Moses cannot bear to
think of God’s action being compromised.
o
To God’s
regard for His own servants (v. 13). The love He bears to
the fathers (compare Deuteronomy 4:31; 10:15). These are points in
God’s heart on which all intercession may lay hold.
Ø The effect produced. God repented Him of the evil He thought to do
to
displeasure moved Him to pursue, and which, but for Moses’
intercession, He would have pursued. It does not appear,
however,
that Moses was at this time informed of the acceptance of
his
intercession. Notice, also, that the actual
remission
was bestowed
gradually. In this first act of intercession God sees, as it
were, the
point to which the whole series of intercessions tends, and
in
anticipation thereof, lays aside His anger.
16 “And the tables were the WORK OF GOD, and the writing was the writing
of God, graven upon the tables.” 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.
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.” 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
(ch. 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 travelers, 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 (Stanley, Sinai and Palestine, p. 44). 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.
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. 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 defeat — the 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.
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.” “And it came to pass,
as soon as he came nigh unto the camp, that he saw the calf, and the dancing:”
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
immodest,
like the Pyrrhic and other dances at
the Salii at
nations, they were of a loose and lascivious character. In
dancers
appear to have been professionals of a degraded class, and the
dancing
itself to have been always sensual and indecent; while in
Asia Minor,
and
productive of a species of phrenzy. We must suspect that it was this sort of
dancing in
which the Israelites were engaged — whence 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
(vs. 26-29).
The
Act of Moses in Breaking the Tables (15-19)
At first
sight the act seems impious, and wholly inexcusable. Here was a marvel —
the
greatest marvel existing in all the world — transcending the finest statue, the
most
glorious picture — more wonderful than the pyramids themselves or the great
temple of
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
truth — GOD’S GREAT REVELATION TO HIS
PEOPLE — put in
a written
form, and so rendered unalterable;
no more liable to be corrupted by the
uncertainty
of human memory, or the glosses of
tradition — PURE, CHANGELESS,
PERFECT TRUTH, the greatest blessing that man can
receive. All this, committed
by God to
His servant’s care, and knowingly, willfully
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-condemnation — nay! He, at a later date,
reminds
the people of it in a tone which is evidently one of self-approval
(Deuteronomy
9:17). What is the explanation of all this? It may help us to find a
satisfactory
answer, if we consider:
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” (ch. 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 weeks — it might seem to him
that he had been absent but a few
days. And now — now that on rounding
a corner of the gorge through which
he was descending — he comes in
sight of them once more and has them
fully presented to his view, what is it
he beholds? He sees the entire people — Levites and priests as
well as
laymen
— dancing 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.
people were at the moment setting at
naught. 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 out” - (Numbers
32:23) - that
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.”
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?” (v. 26), “all the men of Levi” — i.e., the great mass of the tribe
— rallied 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.
MOSES
DESTROYS THE GOLDEN CALF (v. 20)
The
first vengeance which Moses took was upon the idol. It was probably hollow,
and
possibly of no great size. He might easily break it to pieces and subject the
pieces
to the
action of fire, whereby they would be calcined, and
might then be easily
reduced
to powder. This powder he caused to be mixed with the stream of the brook
that
flowed from Sinai, so that the Israelites were obliged to swallow with
their drink
particles
of their own idol. Compare the action of Josiah with respect
to the “grove”
set up
in the temple precincts by Manasseh (II Kings 23:6), which was not identical,
but
still was similar. The destruction of
the idol would naturally be the first thing
which
Moses would take in hand, and provide for, before proceeding to anything
else.
Only when the “abomination” was
removed and its destruction commenced,
would
he turn his attention to other points.
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
gold
subjected for a short time to a white heat, which may be easily produced
by bellows,
readily calcine, and are then easily crushed to a
fine powder. Silver
becomes
detonating. I am not aware whether the case is the same with gold
also. Strawed it — i.e.,
“sprinkled it.” We need not suppose Moses to
have done
the whole — or even any part — himself. It was enough that he
directed it
to be done. The
water. The
article shows some particular water
to be
meant. We learn from Deuteronomy that it was the water of “the
brook that descended out of the
mount.” Made the children of Israel
drink of it. The brook
being the only water readily accessible, the Israelites,
if they
drank at all, were compelled to risk swallowing particles of their “god.”
Idolatry
Condemned by the Idol’s Weakness and Nothingness
(v. 20)
An idol is
“nothing in the world” (I
Corinthians 8:4) — has no power — cannot even
save
itself. Nothing convinces men of the vanity of idolatry so much as to see their
idol
destroyed. Hence the command given “utterly to abolish idols” (Isaiah 2:18). And
what is
true of idols proper, is true also, in its measure, of all those substitutes
for
God which
the bulk of men idolize. Riches readily make themselves wings, and vanish,
leaving
their worshipper a beggar. Wife, mistress, favorite child, lover, erected into
an
idol, is
laid low by death, decays, and crumbles in the grave. Reputation, glory, sought
and striven
for throughout long years as the one sole good, fades suddenly away before
the breath
of slander or the caprice of fortune. And when they are gone — when the
bubble is
burst — men feel how foolish was their adoration. Their idolatry stands
self-condemned by their idol’s weakness and nothingness.
AARON
TRIES TO EXCUSE HIMSELF (vs. 21-24)
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 (ch. 24:14). How had he acquitted himself of his task?
He had led
the people into a great sin — had at any rate connived at it — assisted 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 fault — he must excuse himself. And
his excuse
is twofold:
calf.”
We are not surprised, after this, to read in Deuteronomy 9:20; that
“the Lord was very angry with Aaron to have destroyed him,” and was
only hindered from his purpose by the intercession of Moses
21 “And Moses said unto Aaron, What did this people unto thee, that
thou hast brought so great a sin upon
them?” 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 reproach — they had done nothing to thee — had
in
no way
injured
thee — and 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 place — the people
might
have been brought to a better mind.
22 “And Aaron said, Let not the anger of my Lord wax hot: thou knowest the
people, that they are set on mischief” – 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”
23 “For they said unto me, Make us gods, which shall go before us: for as for
this Moses, the man that brought us up out
of the
what is become of him.” Make us gods. Rather “Make us a god.”
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.” Aaron
speaks
as if
he had prepared no mold, but simply thrown the gold into the hot furnace, from
which there issued forth, to his surprise,
the golden calf. Having no even plausible
defense
to make, he is driven to the weakest
of subterfuges, “He lied!”
Aaron’s
Excuses (vs. 22-24)
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” (Romans
2:1).
Do not we
all, when we are taxed with faults,
seek to shift the blame of them elsewhere?
corrupt — is “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 it — we admit it (Roe v.
Wade, Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,
Forbid children to pray in school,
to be taught about God and the Bible, etc.
CY – 2010) but 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 crime — a
disgrace to the age we live in.” But let the
popular voice call for the war a
little loudly — and 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.” 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 wrecked — and
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.” Jesus said in Matthew
7:13 – “Enter ye in at
the
strait gate: for wide is the gate, and
broad is the way, that leadeth
to
destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:” (What is some
going down the broad way would like
to turn around? Does that mean
that the push of the crowd prevents
this?? – CY – 2010)
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 fulfill the lusts thereof.” (Romans 13:14) In thus
doing they construct the mold 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 mold, or even asking for
the ornaments.
The Return of Moses to the Camp (15-25)
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
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 (Psalm 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” (v. 18).
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 (v. 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,
Ø The actual
sight of wickedness is necessary, to give us full sympathy
with God in the hot displeasure with which he regards it.
Ø 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
him yet more deeply.
Ø It is
right, on suitable occasions, to give emphatic expression to the
horror with which the sight of great
wickedness inspires us.
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 paralyzed
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
Ø 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.
Ø 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” (II
Corinthians 5:10).
Ø 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 (vs. 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.
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. (v. 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.
Ø
He falls back upon the old, old plea — as old as
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. (vs.
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 (Genesis 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,
(I would say that resolution means to have one’s mind made
up on
what he would do in such a situation and then to avoid ever
getting
in that situation. CY
– 2017) 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
is the same species of excuse met with!
o “I couldn’t help it;”
o “The necessity of my situation;”
o “Compelled by circumstances;”
o “Customs of the trade;”
o “If I hadn’t done it, I would have offended all my friends;”
o “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.
Ø
If Aaron’s first excuse was bad, the second was
worse — it 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’
(ch. 4:14), were we to judge of
his eloquence by this specimen.” Note:
o The right
way of dealing with a fault is frankly to acknowledge it.
o Though
Moses so severely rebuked Aaron, he could yet intercede
for him (Deuteronomy 9:20). The future high
priest, who truly
had “infirmity” (Hebrews
5:2), needed, on this occasion, an
intercessor for himself. The severity of Moses
was the severity
of aggrieved love.
MOSES
PUNISHES THE RING-LEADERS (vs. 25-29)
The
presence of Moses in the camp — his impressive act in breaking the tables -
even
his
seizure of the idol and consignment of it to destruction — did not arrest the
licentious
orgy in which the people had engaged before his coming. The “play” that
had
followed on the feasting still continued; though we may suppose that many had
been
impressed and had desisted. Moses felt
that an example must be made, and a
stop put
to conduct which was more and more provoking the Almighty, and might at
any moment
bring down the judgment of complete destruction upon the whole people.
(What
about the same “playing” done
in society today? Is it
possible the Lord Jesus
may come? WE HAD BETTER BE READY, AND IF NOT, GET READY - CY
–
2010) He therefore took his station at the main
gate of the camp (v. 26), and shouted
the
words “Who is on Jehovah’s side? Let him come unto me!” The
sound of the
words
could not, of course, have reached very far — but they rallied to him those
of his
own tribe who stood near, and thus placed a strong force at his disposal.
Moses
bade them get their swords, and proceed through the camp from end to end,
slaying
the idolaters — not, we may be sure, indiscriminately,
but executing God’s
judgment
on those who were most conspicuous and persistent. They were
especially
bidden
not to spare their own nearest and dearest, which
implies that many Levites
were among
the ringleaders. (Compare Ezekiel 9:4-6 –
CY – 2010) The result was
the
destruction by the sword of three thousand men — and the suppression
of the
festival. It is not to be doubted that Moses had Divine sanction for what
he did
in this matter (v. 27).
25 “And when Moses saw that the people were naked; (for Aaron had
made them naked unto their shame among
their enemies:)” The people
were naked. The primary sense of pharua is “naked,” “stripped;” and of the
licentious
orgies of the East, stripping or uncovering the person was a feature
(Herodias 2:60), so that there is no reason for changing
the expression used
in the Authorised Version. Moses
saw that most of the people were still without
the
garments that they had laid aside when they began to dance, and were probably
still engaged
in dancing and shouting. (for Aaron
had made them naked unto their
shame among their enemies:) Amalekites were no doubt still hovering about the
camp;
indeed, the tribe probably still held most of the surrounding mountains. They
would
witness the orgy, and see the indecent and shameful exposure.
26 “Then Moses stood in the gate of the camp, and said, Who is on the
LORD’s side? let him come unto me. And all the sons of Levi gathered
themselves together unto him.” Moses stood in the gate of the camp. We must
understand
“the principal gate,” since the camp had several (v. 27) Who is on the
Lord’s side? Let him come to
me. Literally,
“Who for Jehovah? To me”
— but
expressed, as the Hebrew idiom allows, in three words, forming an
excellent
rallying cry. All
the sons of Levi — i.e., all who heard the cry. It
is evident
that there were Levites among the idolaters (vs. 27, 29.)
The
following points suggest a practical treatment of the passage:
NEED FOR
TAKING SIDES. Some side we must take. We cannot remain
neutral. Not to be on the Lord’s side, is to be on the side
of his enemies.
Jesus said “He that is not with me is
against me; and he that gathereth
not with me scattereth abroad.” (Matthew 12:30) It is our duty to choose
the Lord’s side.
Ø He has a claim on our allegiance.
Ø It is the side of honor and of duty.
Ø It is the side we will ultimately wish we had chosen.
HIMSELF ON
THE LORD’S SIDE, AFFORDS A RALLYING-POINT
FOR
OTHERS. He gathers others around him. His influence decides and
emboldens them.
OTHERS ARE
APOSTATISING AROUND US, WE REMAIN
FAITHFUL. Weak
natures will always go with the multitude. Decided
piety shows itself in being able to resist the contagion of
numbers. It needs
courage to be singular.
OBLIGATIONS.
Ø The
obligation of personal consecration.
Ø The obligation
of renouncing earthly ties, so far as inconsistent
with the higher allegiance.
Ø The obligation of doing the Lord’s work.
ULTIMATE
REWARD.
27 “And he said unto them, Thus saith the LORD
God of
every man his sword by his side, and go in
and out from gate to
gate throughout the camp, and slay every
man his brother, and
every man his companion, and every man his
neighbor.”
Go in and out from gate to gate - “pass through the whole camp —
visit
every
part of it — and, where you see the licentious rites continuing, use
your
swords — do not spare, though the man be a brother, or a companion,
or a
neighbor — strike nevertheless, and bring the revel to an end.”
28 “And the children of Levi did according to the word of Moses: and
there fell of the people that day about
three thousand men.”
About three thousand. We cannot gather from this, as some
have done,
that the Levites who rallied to Moses were only 3,000 — for
every Levite
was not obliged to kill a man — but only that, when this
number was
slain, the idolaters desisted from their orgy.
29 “For Moses had said, Consecrate yourselves today to the LORD,
even every man upon his son, and upon his
brother; that he may
bestow upon you a blessing this day.” For Moses had said. Moses,
on giving
them their commission (v. 27),
had told them, that their zeal
in the
matter would be a consecration,
and would secure them God’s blessing.
They earned
by it the semi-priestly
position, which was soon afterwards
assigned to
them (Numbers
3:6-13).
The
Punishment of Idolatry (vs. 26-28)
God did not long allow the sin against His
majesty to remain unpunished. He
declared
His will to Moses (v. 27) — “Thus saith the Lord God of
Moses,
with his usual dutifulness, was prompt to execute His will. (Ponder
Ecclesiastes
8:11-13 – CY – 2010 - “Because sentence against an
evil work
is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men
is fully set
in them to do evil. Though a sinner do evil an hundred times, and
his days
be prolonged, yet surely I know that it shall be well with
them that fear God,
which fear before Him:
But it shall not be well with
the wicked, neither shall
he prolong his days, which are as a shadow; because he feareth not before
God.”) Having obtained the necessary force, Moses lost
no time in inflicting
the punishment.
Of the punishment itself, we shall do well to note:
sins against God’s majesty. They
profess scepticism, agnosticism, atheism,
“with a light heart.” The idea
does not occur to them that their conduct is
likely to bring upon them any
punishment. But “God’s thoughts are not as
man’s thoughts” – (Isaiah
55:8-9) - God visits such sins with death. Three
thousand are slain with the sword on
one day because of a few hours of idol-
worship. Such is God’s award. And the
record of it has been “written for our
learning,
upon whom the ends of the world are come.” (I Corinthians 10:
1-11) It is intended to teach us
that God will visit for these things; and, if not
in this world, then assuredly in the
next.
back” — a turning
away from Him, and a deliberate preference to Him of
something which is not He, and which
cannot therefore but be infinitely
inferior. The heart
witnesses against idolatry; it tells us that we are bound,
being God’s creatures, to devote our
whole existence to Him. Idolatry
might well be punished with death,
if it had never been positively
forbidden. But the
Israelites had heard it forbidden amid the thunders of
Sinai ( 20:4-5). They had a law
against it in “the Book
of the Covenant”
(ch. 20:23). They had pledged themselves to obey this law (ch. 24:3). They
could not therefore now complain. If
all who had taken
part in the calf-worship
had perished, no injustice would
have been done. But God
tempers justice with
mercy. There were
well-nigh six hundred thousand
sinners; but the lives of
three
thousand only were taken. God did not
long allow the sin against His
majesty to remain unpunished. He declared
His will to Moses (v. 27) —
“Thus saith the Lord God of
dutifulness, was prompt to execute
His will. Having obtained the necessary
force, he lost no time in inflicting the punishment. Of the punishment itself,
we shall do well to note:
away
their sin as:
ü The
Levites, who hastened to repent, and placed themselves on the
Lord’s side at the first
summons made by Moses. This was the best
course, and the only
safe one. This was “turning to the Lord
with all
the
heart;” and, though no atonement for past sin, was
accepted by
God through the (coming) atonement of His Son, and
obtained from
Him, not only forgiveness, but a blessing (v.
29).
ü Those
escaped who desisted either when Moses made his first appeal,
or even when they
saw the swords drawn, and vengeance about to be
taken. To draw back from sin is the only way to
escape its worst
consequences. Even then, all its consequences are not escaped. Their
iniquity was
still “visited” on those who were
now allowed to escape
with their lives — “the Lord plagued the people because they made
the calf” (v. 35) at a later date.
MOSES ONCE MORE INTERCEDES WITH GOD FOR THE PEOPLE
AND
GOD ANSWERS HIM (vs. 30-35)
No distinct
reply seems to have been given to the previous intercession of Moses
(vs.
11-13). He only knew that the people
were not as yet consumed, and therefore
that God’s
wrath was at any rate held in suspense. It might be that the punishment
inflicted
on the 3000 had appeased God’s wrath: or something more might be needed.
In the
latter case, Moses was ready to sacrifice himself for his nation (v. 32). Like
Paul,
he elects
to be “accursed from God, for his
brethren, his kinsfolk after the flesh”
(Romans
9:3). But God will not have this sacrifice. “The soul that sinneth,
it shall
die” (Ezekiel 18:4). He declares, “Whosoever
hath sinned against me, him will I
blot out of my book”
(v. 33). Moses shall not make himself a victim. Without any
such
sacrifice, God will so far spare them, that they shall still go on their way
towards
the
promised land, with Moses as their earthly, and an Angel as their heavenly
leader.
Only, their
sin shall still be visited in God’s own good time and in His own way.
How, is
left in obscurity; but the
decree is issued — “In the day that I
visit, I will
visit their sin upon them” (v. 34). And, writing long years after the event, the author
observes —
“And God did plague the people because
they made the calf which
Aaron made”
(v. 35).
30 “And it came to pass on the morrow, that Moses said unto the people,
Ye have sinned a great sin: and now I will
go up unto the LORD; peradventure
I shall make an atonement for your
sin.” On the
morrow - The
day must have
been
well-nigh over when the slaughter of the 3000 was completed: and after that
the
corpses had to be buried, the signs of carnage to be effaced, and the wounded,
of
whom there must have been many, cared for – Moses said
unto the
people –
Not now to
the elders only, as in ch. 24:14, but to all
the people, since all had
sinned, and. each man is
held by God individually responsible for his own sin –
Ye have sinned a great sin - One which
combined ingratitude and falseness
with
impiety. Peradventure
I shall make an atonement for your sin.
Moses has
formed the design, which he executes (v. 32); but will not reveal it
to the
people, from modesty probably.
The Zeal of Levi (vs. 25-30)
Panic was
in the camp. The idolaters stood as they had been taken in their
guilty
revels. Their sin had been of too heinous a nature to admit of its
being
passed over without severe punishment. Law must be vindicated.
Vengeance
must be taken for the injury offered to the majesty of Jehovah.
Stern as
the duty is, the mediator does not shrink from immediately
addressing
himself to the execution of judgment.
on the Lord’s side? Let him come
unto me” (v. 26). This must be taken
to mean, not, “Who is willing to be on the Lord’s side now?”
but “Who has
shown himself on the Lord’s side during the recent
apostasy?” Note — the
Lord’s side, though for a time the unpopular one, proves in
the end to be
the side of honor, of safety, and of comfort. Fidelity has
its ultimate
reward. Wisdom is justified of her
children. (Matthew 11:19.)
unto him” (v. 26).
The Levites, as a tribe, would thus appear to have
been less implicated in the idolatry than the rest of the
people.
“Faithful found
Among the faithless, faithful only he”
This now turns to their honor. The text, however, does not
forbid the
supposition that individuals from the other tribes also came
out, and
separated themselves at the call of Moses.
fidelity, of Levi to a terrible test. “Thus saith the Lord God of
every man his sword by his side,
and go in and out,” etc. (v. 27).
Ø
In the work of executing Jehovah’s vengeance, the
Levites were to
“consecrate”
themselves (v. 29). They were to devote themselves.
They were to be actuated in what they did by pure zeal for
God’s
glory. They were to obey to the letter the command He had
given
them.
Ø
In the doing of this work, they
were sternly to repress all natural
impulses: “every man upon his son, and
upon his brother” (v. 29;
compare Deuteronomy 33:9). So earthly ties are not to be
permitted
to stand between us and duty to Christ (Matthew 8:21-22).
Ø The Levites showed unflinching zeal in
the work entrusted to them. By
their zeal on this, and on other occasions (Deuteronomy
33:8), they
reversed the curse which lay upon their tribe, and won for
themselves
great honor and blessing. In particular, they won the
privilege of
serving in the sanctuary.
Ø They slew three thousand of the people (v. 28).
“Terrible surgery
this,” as Carlyle says of the storming of
judgment, or atrocious murder merely?” The number of the
slain was
after all small as compared with the whole body of the
people. Probably
only the ringleaders and chief instigators of the revolt were
put to death,
with those who still showed the disposition to resist. Note,
that
notwithstanding their great zeal on this occasion, the Levites
were
among those afterwards excluded from
striking circumstance. It shows how those that think they
stand need
to take heed lest they fall (I Corinthians 10:12). It
reminds us that one
heroic act of service is not enough to win for us the
“We are made partakers of
Christ, if we hold the beginning of our
confidence fast unto the end” (Hebrews
3:14). It may suggest to us
also, that many of the Israelites who failed
under the later trial, and
so were excluded from
may yet have had the root of the matter in them, and so, spiritually,
were saved.
31 “And Moses returned unto the LORD, and said, Oh, this people have
sinned a great sin, and have made them gods
of gold.” - gods of gold –
Rather “a god of gold.”
32 “Yet now, if thou wilt forgive their sin—; and if not, blot me, I pray
thee, out of thy book which thou hast
written.” If thou wilt forgive their
sin.
The
ellipsis which follows, is to be supplied
by some such words, as “well and good”
— “I am
content” — “I have no
more to say.” Similar cases of ellipses will be found
in Danial 3:5; Luke
13:9; 19:42; John 6:62; Romans 9:22. And if not,
blot me, I pray thee, out of
thy book. Some
interpret this as merely
equivalent
to, “Blot me out of the book of the living,” and explain that
phrase as meaning
simply — “Take my life — kill me instead of them” —
but
something more seems to be meant. “The book of the living” — “the
book of life” — the book of God’s writing — is not
merely a register of
those who
happen to be alive at any given time. It “contains the list of the
righteous,
and ensures to those whose names are written therein, life before
God, first
in the earthly kingdom of God, and then eternal life also” (Keil).
Thus Moses
declared his willingness — nay, his wish — that God would
visit on
him the guilt of his people, both in this world and the next, so that
he would
thereupon forgive them. Paul has a similar burst of feeling
(Romans
9:1-3); but it does not involve a formal offer — it is simply
the
expression of a willingness. Ordinary men are scarcely competent to
judge these
sayings of great saints. As Bengel says — “It is not
easy to
estimate
the measure of love in a Moses and a Paul; for the narrow
boundary of
our reasoning powers does not comprehend it, as the little
child is
unable to comprehend the courage of heroes.” Both were willing
— felt
willing,
at any rate — to sacrifice their own future for their
countrymen
— and Moses made the offer. Of all the noble acts in Moses’
life it is
perhaps the noblest; and no correct estimate of his character can be
formed
which does not base itself to a large extent on his conduct at this
crisis. (The death of Moses or Paul in either
instance, would be useless.
Only the death of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, can and doth avail!
CY – 2017)
The Confession and Intercession of Moses (vs.
31-32)
Notice
here:
contrast the words of Moses in vs. 31 and 32 with his
previous words in
vs. 11-13. What a difference there is in the ground,
elements, and tone of
the two appeals! and this difference is fully explained by
the experience
through which he had been in the interval. It was a bitter
and humiliating
experience — we may almost say an unexpected one. For,
although, before
he had gone down from the mount, Jehovah had given him a
clear
forewarning of what awaited him, somehow he seems not to
have taken in
the full drift of Jehovah’s words. It is not till he gets
down into the camp
and sees the golden image, and the revelry and riot, and the
implication of
his own brother in a broken covenant, that he discerns the full extent of the
calamity, and the
difficulty, almost the impossibility of bringing together
again Jehovah and His revolted people. Vain is it to seek
for anything like
sure conclusions in the details of Moses’ conduct on this
occasion. The
things he did were almost as the expressions of a heart
beside itself with
holy grief. There is a good deal of obscurity in this
portion of the narrative;
and our wisest course is to turn to what is clear and
certain and most
instructive, namely, the great result which came out of this
experience. It
was truly a result, beyond all estimation, to have been led
to the conclusion
— “This people have sinned a
great sin.” That was just the light in which
Jehovah looked upon their conduct; and though Moses could
not see all
that Jehovah saw, we may well believe that he saw all that a
brother man
could see, one whose own heart’s vision was not yet perfectly
clear.
Blessed is that man who, for himself and for others, can see
the reality and
magnitude of the human heart’s departure from God. (Like
those mentioned
in Ezekiel 9:4 who “sigh and that
cry for all the abominations that be
done.....” in Jerusallem – CY – 2017)
It would not, indeed,
be hard, from a certain point of view, to frame a very
plausible story on
behalf of these Israelites; but it is far better to bear in
mind that just at this
particular juncture this very Moses who at first had expostulated
with
Jehovah, making not the slightest reference to the people’s
sin, is now
found on account of that sin bending himself in the utmost
submission
before God. Aaron came to Moses with an excuse (vs.
22-24); he spoke
in the spirit of Adam, laying
the blame elsewhere. But Moses attempts
neither excuse nor extenuation. Nor was any enlargement
needed. The
brief sentence he spoke, standing in all its naked severity,
was quite
enough.
confession is as full and emphatic as it can be, but the
heart is of necessity
very doubtful as to what may come out of the confession. The
words of
Moses here are very consistent with the quick fluctuations
of human
nature. From extreme to extreme the pendulum swings. Previously
he
spoke as almost rebuking Jehovah for thinking to destroy His
people; now
even when the insulting image is ground to powder, and the
ringleaders in
transgression destroyed, he makes his way into the Divine
presence as one
who is fully prepared for the worst. “If thou wilt forgive them.” One can
imagine the stammering, half-ashamed tones in which these
words would
issue from the lips of Moses. The man who was so fruitful of
reasons
before is silent now. Jehovah’s past promises and past
dealings he cannot
urge; for the more he thinks of them, the more by an
inevitable
consequence, he thinks of the broken
covenant. The light of these glorious
promises shines for the present, upon a scene of ruin and shame. Then it is
noteworthy that Moses had to go up, from the impulse of his
own heart.
We do not hear as yet of any general confession; it is not
the weeping and
wailing of a nation returning in penitence that he bears
before God. If only
the people had sent him to say, “We have sinned
a great sin;” if only they
had made him feel that he was their chosen spokesman; if
only their
continued cry of contrition, softened by distance, had
reached his ears, as
he ventured before God, there might have been something to
embolden
him. But as yet there was no sign of anything of this sort.
He seems to have
gone up as a kind of last resort, not encouraged by any
indication that the
people comprehended the near and
dreadful peril. Learn from this that
there can be no availing plea and service from our great
advocate, except
as we look to Him for the plea and service, in full
consciousness that we
cannot do without them. We get no practical good from the
advocacy of
Jesus, unless as in faith and
earnestness, we make
Him our advocate.
(I John 2:1)
THE FATE OF
HIS BRETHREN. He could not but feel the difference
there was between his position and theirs; but at the moment
there was a
feeling which swallowed all others up, and that was the unity of
brotherhood. The
suggestion to make out of him a new and better
covenant people came back to him now, with a startling
significance which
it lacked before. Israel, as
the people of God, seemed shut up to
destruction now. If God
said the covenant could not be renewed; if He said
the people must return and be merged and lost in the general
mass of
human-kind, Moses knew he had no countervailing plea; only
this he could
pray that he also might be included in their doom. He had no
heart to go
unless where his people went; and surely it must have a most
inspiring and
kindling influence to meditate on this great illustration of
unselfishness.
Moses, we know, HAD BEEN BROUGHT VERY NEAR TO GOD –
what glimpses must have been opened up to him of a glorious
future.
But then he had only thought of it as being his future along
with his people.
In the threat that God was about to forsake those who had
forsaken Him,
there seemed no longer any brightness even in the favor of
God to him
as an individual.
Apostate in heart and deed as his brethren were, he felt
himself a member of the body still; and to be separated from
them would
be as if the member were torn away. He who had preferred
affliction with
the people of God rather than the pleasures of sin for a
season (Hebrews
11:28), now prefers obliteration along with his own people
rather than to
keep his name on God’s great book. It can hardly be said
that in this he
spurns or depreciates the favor of God; and it is noticeable
that God does
not rebuke him as if he were preferring human ties to
Divine. Jehovah
simply responds by stating the general law of what is
inevitable in all
sinning, He who sins must be blotted out
of God’s book. God will
not in so many words rebuke the pitying heart of his
servant; but yet
we clearly see that there was no way out by that course
which Moses
so very deferentially suggests. When first Moses heard of
the
apostasy of
he speaks as if it might be found in his own submission and
self-sacrifice;
but God would have him understand that whatever
chance there may be
depends on a much needed change in the
hearts of the people, a change
of which all sign so far
was lacking.
33 “And the LORD said unto Moses, Whosoever hath sinned against
me, him will I blot out of my book.” Beyond a doubt, it is the general teaching
of
Scripture that vicarious punishment will
not be accepted. “The son shall not
bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the
iniquity of the
son — the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and
the wickedness
of the wicked shall be upon him” (Ezekiel 18:20). Man “cannot deliver
his brother,
or make agreement with God for him; for it cost more to redeem
their souls, so
that he must let that alone for ever” - (Psalm 49:7-8). One only atonement is
accepted — that of Him who is at once man and God — who has, Himself,
no sin — and can therefore take the punishment
of others – that is
JESUS CHRIST, THE RIGHTEOUS SON OF GOD, OUR
SAVIOR!
34 “Therefore now go, lead the people unto the place of which I have
spoken unto thee: behold, mine Angel shall
go before thee:
nevertheless in the day when I visit I will
visit their sin upon them.”
Lead the people unto the
place, etc. This was a revocation of
the
sentence of death passed in v. 10. The people was to be spared, and
Moses was
to conduct them to
thee. Mine Angel
— not I myself (compare ch. 33:2-3). Another
threatened
punishment, which was revoked upon the repentance of the
people (ibid.
vs.4, 6), and the earnest prayer of Moses (ibid.
vs.14-16).
I will visit their sin upon
them. Kalisch thinks that a plague was at once sent,
and so understands
v. 35. But most commentators regard the day of visitation
as that on
which it was declared that none of those who had quitted
should
enter
fact,
provoked by the golden calf idolatry (ibid. vs. 22-23).
35 “And the LORD plagued the people, because they made the calf,
which Aaron made.” The Lord plagued, or
“struck” — i.e., “punished”
the people. There is
nothing in the expression which requires us to understand
the sending of a pestilence.
Moses
as the Forerunner of Christ (vs. 30-34)
“A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto
you like unto me,” said
the great
lawgiver, ere he left the earth (Deuteronomy 18:15,18); and
the parallelism
between Christ and Moses is in many respects most striking:
“a man of the house of Levi.”
— Herod — Pharaoh.
thirty, Moses for forty years.
their brethren. “He came unto his own, and His own received Him
not”
(John 1:11). “He supposed his brethren would have understood how
that
God by his hand would deliver them: but they understood not”
(Acts 7:25).
earth, and thus made it manifest
that their missions were from God.
of an imperfect, Christ of a perfect
law — (“ the perfect law of love”).
Christ of the Christian Church.
people from
the
wilderness of this life to heaven.
the one sacrifice (v.
33), but could and did accept the other.
“Yet it pleased
the
LORD to bruise Him; He hath put Him to grief:
when thou shalt
make
His soul an offering for sin, He shall see His seed, He shall prolong
His
days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in His hand.
He
shall see of the travail of His soul, and shall be satisfied: by His
knowledge
shall my righteous servant justify many; for HE SHALL
BEAR
THEIR INIQUITIES” – (Isaiah
53:10-11)
Judgment and Mercy (vs. 15-35)
ENTRANCE
INTO A WORLD OF SIN (vs.
15-29).
Ø 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.
Ø 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.
Ø The law’s
advent, therefore, is in wrath (v. 19).
o
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 today of God’s broken covenant.
o
The burning of the idol, etc. The broken law is
a prophecy and foretaste
of wrath.
o
The slaughter of the persistent idolaters. The
place of feasting becomes
the place of death.
Ø His deep
consciousness of the evil of their sin (vs. 30-31). 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.
(“And being in an agony He
prayed more earnestly: and His sweat
was as it were great drops of
blood falling down to the ground.”
(Luke 22:44)
Ø His love.
Though he hates their iniquity, his life is bound up with
theirs (v. 32).
THE DIVINE
ANGER.
Ø 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, THE BLOOD OF
JESUS
CHRIST WHICH WAS SHED UPON THE CROSS FOR US
ALL!
Ø Mercy to
the unrenewed only means A DELAYED
JUDGMENT!
“Nevertheless, in the day
when I visit I will visit their sins upon
them.” (v. 34)
Moses’ Second Intercession (vs. 30-35)
This second
intercession of Moses is even more wonderful than the first.
The
question raised on that former occasion — Is Moses more merciful
than God? —
will, indeed, no longer occur. Those who might have been
disposed to
press that question then will probably not be disposed to press
it now.
They have since had sufficient evidence of Moses’ severity. They
have found
that, whatever elements of character are lacking to him, he is
not wanting
in energy of indignation at patent wickedness. The temptation,
on the
contrary, may now be to accuse the lawgiver of unjustifiable and
unholy
anger — of reckless disregard of human life. The charge is
groundless;
but if, for a moment, it should appear natural, the reply to it is
found in
the study of this second scene upon the mount. Surely, if ever
human heart
laid bare its intense and yearning love for those whose sin
fidelity to
duty yet compelled it to reprobate and loathe, it is the heart of
Moses in
this new, and altogether marvelous, juncture in his history.
Consider:
confession of the sin of the people. This confession was:
Ø Holy. He has just views of the demerit of the sin for which he
seeks
forgiveness. His impressions of its enormity are even
stronger than at the
time of his first intercession. So heinous does it now
appear to him that
he is mentally in doubt whether God possibly can forgive it.
Ø Perfectly truthful. Moses fully admits the people’s sin. He does not
make light of it. He does not seek to minimize
it. Not even to secure the
salvation of the people over whom he yearns with
so intense an affection
will he unduly palliate (make a disease or its symptoms less severe or
unpleasant without removing
the cause their offence) or feign an excuse
where he knows that there is none to offer. Mark
how, in both of these
respects, Moses answers to the true idea of a
mediator. “A mediator is
not a mediator of one” (Galatians
3:20). It is his function, in conducting
his mediation, to uphold
impartially the interests of both of the parties
between whom he mediates.
Both are represented in his work. He stands
for both equally. He must do justice by both.
His sympathy with both
must be alike perfect. He must favor neither at
the expense, or to the
disadvantage, of the other. These acts of intercession show in how
supreme a degree this qualification of the mediator is found in Moses.
He has sympathy with the people, for whose sin he is willing, if need
be, even to die; he has also the fullest sympathy with God. He looks
at the sin from God’s standpoint. He has sympathy with God’s wrath
against it. He is as jealous for God’s honor as he
is anxious for the
forgiveness of the people. He is thus the true daysman (Job 9:33),
able to lay his hand upon both.
Ø Vicarious. He confesses the people’s sin for them. On the
depth to
which this element enters into the idea of atonement, and on the place
which it holds in the
atonement of Jesus!
impressions Moses had received of the enormity of the
people’s conduct
gave rise in his mind to the feeling of the need of
atonement. “Now I will
go up to the Lord,” he says to
them, “peradventure I shall make an
atonement for your sin” (v. 30).
That the intercessory element entered
into Moses’ idea of “making an atonement” is not to be
denied. But it is
not the only one. So intensely evil does the sin of the people now
appear to
him that he is plainly in doubt whether
it can be pardoned without some
awful expression of God’s
punitive justice against it; whether, indeed, it
can be PARDONED AT ALL! This sense of what is due to justice resolves
itself into the proposal in the text — a proposal, probably,
in which Moses
comes as near anticipating Christ, in His great sacrifice on
possible for any one, beating the limitations of humanity,
to do (compare
Romans 9:3). Observe:
Ø The proposal submitted. It amounts to this, that Moses, filled with an
immense love for his people, offers himself as a sacrifice
for their sin. If
God cannot otherwise pardon their transgression, and if this
will avail, or
can be accepted, as an atonement for their guilt, let him —
Moses —
perish instead of them. The precise meaning attached in
Moses’ mind to
the words, “If not, blot me, I pray
thee, out of the book which thou hast
written,” must always
be a difficulty. Precision, probably, is not to be
looked for. Moses’ idea of what was involved in the blotting
out from
God’s book could only be that afforded him by the light of
his own
dispensation, and by his sense of the exceeding greatness of
God’s wrath.
His language is the
language of love, not that of dogmatic
theology.
Infinite things were to be hoped for from God’s love;
infinite things were
to be dreaded from His anger. The general sense of the
utterance is, that
Moses was willing to die; to be cut off from covenant hope
and privilege;
to undergo whatever awful doom subjection to God’s wrath
might imply;
if only thereby his people could be saved. It was a
stupendous proposal to
make; an extraordinary act of self-devotion; a wondrous
exponent of his
patriotic love for his people; a not less wondrous
recognition of what was
due to the justice of God ere sin could be forgiven — a
glimpse even,
struck out from the passionate yearning of his own heart, of
the actual
method of redemption. A type of Christ has been seen in the
youthful
Isaac ascending the hill to be offered on the altar by Abraham
his father.
A much nearer type is Moses, “setting his
face” (compare Luke 9:51) to
ascend the mount, and bearing in his heart this sublime
purpose of
devoting himself for the sins of the nation. “Greater love hath no man
than this, that a man lay down
his life for his friends” (John 15:13).
Ø The alternative desired. If the people must perish — this meaning also
seems to be conveyed in the words — Moses would wish to
perish with
them. Not only has the proposal to make of him “a great nation”
(ch. 32:10) no allurement for his
mind, but, if the people are to be
destroyed, he would prefer to die with them. He desires no
life outside of
theirs. Patriotic devotion could no further go. Noble Moses!
Yet only the
type of the nobler than himself, who, devoting Himself in the same spirit,
has actually achieved the
redemption of the world. See in this incident:
o
The connection of a feeling of the need of
atonement with just views of
sin’s demerit.
o
The certainty, when just views of sin are
entertained, of this feeling of
the need of atonement arising. In declining the
proposal of Moses, God
does not say that atonement is not needed. He
does not say that His
servant has exaggerated the enormity of the sin,
or the difficulties which
stand in the way of its forgiveness. He does not
say that it is not by
means of atonement that these difficulties
connected with the forgiveness
of sins are ultimately to be removed. On the
contrary, the spirit of Moses
in this transaction is evidently in the very
highest degree pleasing to
Jehovah, and so far as atonement is made for the
people’s sins, it is by
Jehovah accepting the spirit of his sacrifice,
even when rejecting the
proposal in its letter.
(3) The naturalness of
this method of salvation. The proposal sprang
naturally from the love of Moses. It expressed
everything that was grandest
in his character. It shadowed forth a way in
which, conceivably, a very true
satisfaction might be offered to Divine justice,
while yet mercy was
extended to the sinner. The fulfillment of the
prophecy is the Cross.
Ø The atonement is declined in its letter. God
declares that so far as
there is to be any blotting from the book of life, it will be
confined
to those who have
sinned. It may be noted, in respect to this declinature
(a plea denying jurisdiction) of the proposal of Moses that, as above
remarked, it does not proceed on the idea that atonement is not needed,
but:
o
Moses could
not, even by his immolation (offering himself in sacrifice),
have made
the atonement required.
o
God, in His
secret counsel, had the true sacrifice provided. (Christ
stood as a
lamb slain from the foundation of the world! – Revelation
13:8 – CY – 2017)
o
Atonement is inadmissible on the basis proposed,
viz. that the innocent
should be “blotted
out from the book of life.” Had no means of salvation
presented itself but this, the world must have
perished. Even to redeem
sinners, God could not have consented to the “blotting
from his book”
of the sinless. The
difficulty is solved in
the atonement of the Son,
who
dies, yet rises
again, HAVING MADE AN END OF SIN!
No other could
have offered this atonement BUT
CHRIST!
Ø While declining the atonement in its
letter, God accepts the spirit of it.
In this sense Moses, by the energy of his self-devotion,
does make
atonement for the sins of
sentence. Further
intercession is required to make the reconciliation
complete. (And this Christ did nearly 1500 years
later! “But when
the fullness of the time
was come, God sent forth His Son, made of
a woman, made under the
law, to redeem them that were under
the law, that we might
receive the adoption of sons.”- Galatians 4:4-5 –
CY – 2017)
Ø God makes known His purpose of visiting
the people for their sin
(v. 34). The meaning is:
o
That the sin of the people, though for the
present condoned, would be
kept in mind in reckoning with them for future
transgressions.
o
That such a day of reckoning WOULD COME! (“But the day of
the
Lord WILL COME....” – II Peter 3:10) GOD
IN THE
CERTAINTY
OF HIS FOREKNOWLEDGE SEES ITS
APPROACH!
foreknowledge,
sees its approach.
"Excerpted text Copyright AGES Library, LLC. All rights
reserved.
Materials
are reproduced by permission."
This material can
be found at:
http://www.adultbibleclass.com
.