32:1–34:35 · Crisis at Sinai: The Golden Calf - Exodus 32–34 forms an important watershed for understanding God’s relationship to the world. The Creator had sought to redeem, form, and live among the people. To this end God delivered them out of Egypt, brought them to Mt. Sinai by going with them in the fiery cloud, and provided for them in the wilderness. At Sinai God set about forming them into the sort of community originally intended: in trust and fidelity with the Lord, with each other, and with the nonhuman creation.
During their time at Sinai, the people had again witnessed a dramatic revelation of God as Lord of creation. The detailed laws of the book of the covenant demonstrated God’s concern for every aspect of human life. The people accepted this covenant in 24:3, 8. Then Moses had climbed the mountain again and was gone for forty days and nights (24:18), during which time God described the tabernacle, where God would continue to dwell among them, at great length.
In Moses’ absence, the people did not know that God intended to dwell with them in the tabernacle. Without Moses, and left to their own offhanded devices, they had asked a priest (Aaron) to throw together a god (32:24). By repeating the lie, “these are your gods, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt,” they chose to live in a convenient darkness of their own making rather than in the light of God’s presence. While they were doing this, God was unveiling a perfect plan to invite the whole community to join in creating a beautiful dwelling place, a cooperative enterprise with the Creator. In this context, Aaron’s “meanwhile-building” of the golden calf is a paltry and ironic act.
At first God honored their choice to reject the Lord. Then, in conversation with Moses, God “relented” (32:14). This “change of mind” is in itself a theological revolution and reveals the radical nature of the God of the Bible. This particular decision to relent led to an eternal change in the way God relates to the world. A series of difficult conversations between God and Moses reveal God’s anguish and struggle (32:7–34:7, as we will see below).
The Lord’s decision to be a forgiving God had a lasting effect on how God would relate to the wider world through Israel. It meant that God would not, hereafter, always punish the wicked in the world promptly. It meant that even God’s people could choose sin without immediate (and just) repercussions. It also meant that forgiveness and reconciliation were possible, even in the worst cases, for those who turned to the Lord. It meant that God would unrelentingly pursue recalcitrant people.
God’s four major decisions provide a framework for the extended narrative of Exodus 32–34. The long process of dialogue and action reveal God’s anguish over the faithlessness of the people. God’s final decisions resolve to take more responsibility for the relationship with them. Even in their rebellion, God would not forsake the people (see also Hos. 11:1–9).
The Lord’s first decision after the golden calf incident was whether or not to “consume” the people and be finished with them. Moses interceded for the first time and the Lord “relented” concerning the threatened “disaster” (32:9–14). This decision was limited only to not destroying the people. Repentance, forgiveness, reconciliation, and renewal of the covenant were not yet in view. The people were still celebrating their calf-god. The question was simply what the Lord would do about it. God ruled out annihilation.
The Lord’s second decision after the golden calf incident concerned whether or not God’s presence would go among them (32:30–33:6). God said, “I will not go with you” (33:5). Instead, God decided to send a protecting angel in front of them. Having determined not to be finished with Israel, God would at least provide for their protection. Moses’ second intercession (32:30–34) was a request for forgiveness on Moses’ terms. The Lord did not grant it but was still deciding what to do with people who rejected the source of their life and deliverance (33:5). The turning point in the Lord’s decision to go among them follows the description of Moses’ face-to-face relationship with the Lord “as a . . . friend” (33:11). Moses’ personal friendship with God was the basis on which the Lord reversed his second decision. The Lord’s presence would go (33:14, 17). The unresolved tension at this point in the narrative is how the Lord would go among them without forgiving them.
The Lord’s third decision after the golden calf incident was whether or not to forgive the people. The biblical text in no way takes this for granted. The Lord agreed to show Moses God’s glory as he hid in the cleft of the rock. That “glory” was more than a visual show. It was the revelation of the identity of God to this emerging, failed, and faithless people. In this dramatic event the Lord declared God to be the one who forgives “wickedness, rebellion and sin” (34:7). Yet God “does not leave the guilty unpunished.” This juxtaposition of forgiveness and punishment will require further explanation (see comment on 34:7). In any case, the crucial point is that the Lord decided to go among the people, forgiving them.
The Lord’s fourth decision after the golden calf incident concerned how to start over with them to accomplish God’s intended mission in the world. God would make a covenant, making promises based on God’s own faithfulness to God’s own word: “I will do wonders . . . how awesome is the work that I, the LORD, will do for you” (34:10). The previous Sinai covenant in the book of the covenant and the tabernacle instructions remained, but God now placed these laws on a new foundation. God’s forgiveness, faithfulness, and promises would secure the future of the people. God’s word cannot fail, even though hindered by human rebellion and sin.
Exodus 32–34 generally moves from the crisis of rebellion to judgment, to uncertainty at the center, and finally to reconciliation with God.
A 32:1–6 Crisis of the golden calf
B 32:7–14 Moses intercedes and God relents concerning the disaster
C 32:15–29 Confrontations through Moses’ leadership
D 32:30–35 The plague: Will God forgive them?
D′ 33:1–6 God will not go with them. How will the Lord be present?
C′ 33:7–11 Face to face: Tent of meeting
B′ 33:12–17 Moses intercedes again and God decides to dwell with Israel
A′ 33:18–23 God’s glory: God will be gracious
Exodus 34 provides for Israel’s restitution and future with the Lord. The self-revelation of God occurs in a new way in time and history. The structure of Exodus 34 is as follows:
vv. 1–4: New stone tablets
vv. 5–9: The name of the Lord
vv. 10–28: A new covenant
vv. 29–35: Moses’ radiant face
These vital three chapters separate God’s tabernacle instructions (chs. 25–31) from the people’s tabernacle building (chs. 35–40). The people’s creation of the tabernacle demonstrated their true repentance after the golden calf crisis (36:3–7; 39:42–43). God showed forgiveness by dwelling in the midst of Israel’s camp at the conclusion of Exodus (40:34–38). The fact that the crisis and the Lord’s further revelation separate the instructions from the building of the Lord’s dwelling place highlights these three chapters as a prominent theological revelation of the nature of reality.
As Moses was receiving the instructions on the mountain, the people had no idea of God’s detailed plan for living in their midst. They could not conceive of the preparations God was making for them and for their future.
32:1–6 The creation of the golden calf god who had supposedly “delivered the people from Egypt” temporarily “set the people free” to serve themselves. Their self-made religion created not only a new god (v. 1), but also a new version of their story of freedom and a new kind of celebration (vv. 4, 6b). It was a perverse reflection of what the living Lord had done for them and promised to them.
Their falsely created faith began with the slippery lie that some other god had led them out of Egypt (v. 4). Exchanging the truth for this lie impoverished the freedom they did have. It resulted in a broken covenant (v. 19), the removal of the true God’s presence (33:3) and, for some, death (vv. 28, 35). Their celebration ended in the loss of their freedom to serve the true God altogether (see 33:3–5). They displaced God’s initiative on their behalf with their own. They replaced a place to meet their Creator and redeemer with a small object of worship. A visible, controlled, and inanimate calf-bull became a substitute for the tabernacle and the Lord’s invisible and living presence in their midst. They not only made the god; in making it they became their own gods. They twisted God’s intended freedom for them to serve the Lord into a new form of self-slavery.
They asked for “gods who will go before us.” The expression “who will go before us” means a god who “will lead and protect us.” Up to this point in the narrative, the Lord had been that leader and protector through the cloud and an angel. The people’s request was an attempt to usurp that leadership, forgetting the past. The people quickly dismissed their memory of the facts of their exit from Egypt, survival in the wilderness, and covenant-making at the mountain. Instead of recalling the Lord’s mighty acts on their behalf they disparagingly referred to Moses, literally, as “this fellow Moses [the man] who brought us up out of Egypt.” (The NIV unfortunately omits “the man.”) They were implying that Moses was the one who delivered them and then they dismissed him because he had been on the mountain so long. They also conveniently forgot that they had previously accepted (24:3) the prohibition against making any other gods (20:4–5; 22:20), especially of gold (20:23).
The narrative reports that Aaron answered them without reflection or argument. He responded to their demand with his own demand that drove the idol-making forward. Demanding imperative voices (vv. 1–2) dominated the conversation. In contrast, God requested that the requirements for the tabernacle materials be given in a freewill and heartfelt offering (25:2; 35:4–9, 20–29). The translation of Aaron’s words “Take off the gold” is a weak rendering of the verb paraq, which means “grab,” “tear,” or “plunder.” It is a synonym of the so-called “plundering” of the Egyptian gold that the Lord arranged through Egyptian generosity (natsal, 3:22; 12:36). The gold was to be a resource for building the tabernacle. Now they “plundered” themselves to make another god. They used their gold to make their god, rather than honoring the living God with their gold in the making of the tabernacle.
The people’s response was enthusiastic. “These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt.” They expressed the central and most egregious lie of the crisis. It falsified their whole existence as a people and had the potential to destroy all of them. God considered destruction as an option, based on the law that made this a capital offense (22:20). Aaron continued to attempt to be relevant to the cultural situation. Led by his best intentions, he built an altar in front of the calf and announced, for the following day, a festival to the LORD. The use of seemingly appropriate religious words created a half-truth. The biblical text does not exonerate Aaron of responsibility (see comments on vv. 21–25).
A “festival to the Lord” could have been a good thing. God had asked for a remembrance of the Exodus as a festival to the Lord in the Feast of Unleavened Bread (khag leyhwh, 12:14–17; 13:6–8). Their sin was not their celebrating, singing, or dancing. Rather, it was worshiping a god of their own making and celebrating it on their own terms. They had reduced the revelation of the living God to an image they could control. Having done so, they did not even mind that Aaron called the calf “the Lord.” Their newfound religion looked a lot like Yahwism and sounded similar to the festivals the Lord had asked for in the building of the tabernacle. The insidiousness of their rebellion was in its half-truths. The form of what they did looked similar to what the Lord commanded: they sacrificed burnt offerings and presented fellowship offerings; they remembered their deliverance; they sat down to eat and drink; and they celebrated. But they based the object of their worship and its content on a self-serving lie.
Since they had already replaced the living Lord with a golden calf that they called by the same name, they also felt free to improvise in their celebration. When they had finished eating, they got up to indulge in revelry. They created a new aspect of their festival that did not resemble any of the festivals in the book of the covenant (23:14–17). Their revelry included (potentially good) dancing and singing (vv. 18–19). The last time the people danced was after the crossing of the sea, in celebration of the Lord’s deliverance. They danced and sang again here, but the tone was different. The Lord called the celebration “corrupt” (v. 7). They celebrated what they had made as the “authors” of their own deliverance and salvation. In this move, they celebrated themselves as if they were their own saviors. Their revelry was the natural result of a self-serving celebration.
32:7–14 God’s first decision was whether or not to destroy the people. The Lord sent Moses down the mountain to intercede. God severed any association with them, telling Moses that “your people, whom you brought up out of Egypt, have become corrupt.” This shift in pronouns suggests that the Lord’s passion against self-serving betrayal was as strong as God’s passion for those who were faithful (see 2 Sam. 22:26–28). The NIV translation here is too passive (“have become corrupt”). It is better read, “have corrupted themselves” (reflexive piʿel of shakhat, “ruined,” “destroyed”). God implied that Moses might be able to do something. God’s accusation was that the people “have been quick to turn away” from the prohibitions against worshiping other gods and making idols (20:4–6, 23; 22:20). The Lord noted especially that they had said, “These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt.” God then said, “I have seen these people.” Idolatry and all kinds of intentional sin are the result of living as if God cannot see (Ezek. 8:12; 9:9; Pss. 14:1–2; 53:1–2).
God continued with the request, “Now leave me alone so that my anger may burn against them and that I may destroy them.” God’s anger did not burn simply because they rejected the Lord. It burned because they had known God as their savior from slavery, provider in the wilderness, and giver of their new life together in the covenant. They spurned God’s friendship and grace. The Lord’s anger burns most fiercely when the redeemed live as if they had not been redeemed.
God’s words to Moses, “Now leave me alone,” revealed that God would not act in judgment unless Moses refused to intercede. The Lord thus gave Moses an opening to leave God alone or to stand in the gap. God asked Moses’ permission and opened a window of hope for the rebellious people. What Moses did next made all the difference for some, but not for all (vv. 25–27). In Israel’s refusal to be loved they had rejected God’s love. Moses argued for their lives using two warrants: God’s reputation as a redeemer and the Creator’s promise to Abraham, Isaac, and Israel.
But Moses sought the favor of the LORD his God (lit., “sought to make the Lord’s face pleasant”). Moses did not make excuses for the Israelites. He himself would see that the worst offenders were executed (see comment on v. 26). Yet he appealed for an outcome other than judgment alone. God had already decided to bring judgment but had not yet determined its extent. Moses took the opening that God gave by interceding for the people.
Moses began by asking the Lord questions about the salvation from Egypt and God’s reputation with the Egyptians. God had made so much progress. The Lord had delivered the people “with great power and a mighty hand.” The Egyptians had come to know (and potentially all the earth would come to know) that the Lord was the Creator and redeemer. Moses was shockingly direct: “Why should the Egyptians say, ‘It was with evil intent that he brought them out, to kill them in the mountains and to wipe them off the face of the earth?” The sin of the people had put the reputation of the Lord’s salvation at risk. Moses and the Lord are quite open about the crisis of the salvation of the world.
Then Moses made several appeals to God’s openness to relationship. He did not challenge the justice of God’s anger, but asked the Lord to Turn away from it, relent, and “not bring disaster on your people.” Moses knew that behind the circumstantial wrath of this apostate situation was the Lord’s redeeming love for creation. Moses appealed to the Lord’s promises, made out of this steadfast and unrelenting love. Faithfulness to promises is one of God’s attributes. Moses reminded God of this when he spoke of “Abraham, Isaac and Israel, to whom you swore by your own self.” God swore by what was ever true: “your own self.” Moses quoted God’s own promises back to God (v. 13; Gen. 15:5; 22:17; 26:4; Deut. 9:26–29). While God might have fulfilled the promises through Moses (v. 10b), the Lord chose not to start over.
God responded to Moses’ questions and appeals because what God had already accomplished in delivering the people was significant (see also Phil. 1:6). God’s reputation among the unbelieving nations mattered because God had bigger plans than Israel (Col. 1:15–20). The Lord’s response demonstrated unending faithfulness to fulfilling God’s own promises.
The narrator reports the first decision of the crisis: “Then the LORD relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened.” The older translations use the expression “God repented of the evil” (KJV, RSV). The NIV has, more accurately, “relented . . . the disaster.” When God is the subject of the verb nakham it is best translated “had compassion” or “relented.” The basic meaning of the verb is “have compassion” or “feel sorrow.” When people feel sorrow, or are “sorry,” the context of sin often warrants the translation “repent.” Nakham means “repentance” in the sense of feeling sorrow. When God feels sorrow, however, the word cannot mean “repent” since God does not sin. Rather, it indicates God’s sorrow for the consequences people must face as a natural result of their sin and the Lord’s justice in the world order. God expresses this “sorrow” in compassion and in “relenting.”
32:15–29 Moses’ confrontation with Aaron and two confrontations with the people once again mark his skill as a leader. As Moses went down the mountain with Joshua, he carried the two tablets of the Testimony. The text places the Ten Commandments at the center of the narrative (also at 31:18). Two verses (vv. 15–16) mention the tablets and the writing on them three times each. They represented the agreement the people had made with the Lord in the book of the covenant (24:3). The work of the living God in history and in the lives of these specific people is at stake. Whether hope remained for God’s project in time and space depended on what happened next.
Joshua, who was with Moses (24:13), heard the noise of the people shouting and thought it was the sound of war (or “fighting”) in the camp. The mention of Joshua helps to validate his future leadership role. His focus on war is typical. Moses responded in poetic verse:
not victory’s singing sound
not defeat’s singing sound
singing sound I hear (v. 18; author’s translation)
Twelve Hebrew words in verse 18 tell the truth about the “celebration” of the calf. It was not a victory for the people. They had thrown down and shattered the gift of new life they had previously accepted (24:3–8). Neither was it a defeat. They had not lost a battle with an enemy. No one had forced them to abandon the Lord. Moses’ point was that the singing was meaningless. It was an empty party (“random singing,” so Durham, Exodus, p. 424).
Moses . . . saw the calf and the dancing. Again this contrasts with the celebration of the people at the sea. After their deliverance, there had been singing and dancing to celebrate their deliverance through the Lord’s victory over the pursuing Egyptians (15:20). The singing and dancing were not the issue. The emptiness of the singing and dancing, and its false object, the self-made calf, were the problem. They had tossed away meaningful life and hope for the future. Like the Lord, when Moses saw them, his anger burned (vv. 9–10; 19), because so much was being lost.
Moses responded with appropriate symbolic actions in his first confrontation with the people. He threw the tablets . . . breaking them to pieces. The original covenant with the Lord was shattered in the same place it had been made, at the foot of the mountain (v. 19; 24:4). The tablets contained the Ten Commandments, but they also represented the whole book of the covenant (24:3–7). The people had already agreed to the terms of the book, in order that they could be the people of God. God might dwell in their midst, but they had now annulled the relationship. The exodus project, the blessing of the nations through the Israelites, was in jeopardy and God would have to start over (v. 10). The Lord did just that (34:10).
Then Moses took the calf . . . burned it in the fire . . . ground it to powder, and scattered it on the water. Gold, of course, melts when fired and is too soft to be ground into powder. The Hebrew words used here for burned, ground, and scattered convey total destruction. These verbs constitute a formulaic sequence also found in the annihilation of a Ugaritic god. The action was practical as well as symbolic. Whatever the melted and fragmented result was, Moses put it in water and made the Israelites drink it. This resembles a trial by ordeal in which people were observed as they drank in order to discern the guilty from the innocent (Num. 5:16–22).
After his first confrontation with the people, Moses also confronted Aaron for leading them into such great sin (vv. 21–24; “great sin,” khataʾah gedolah, see comment on v. 30). Aaron began with Moses, as Moses had begun with the Lord, by asking him not to be angry (vv. 10, 22). Aaron even called Moses “Sir” (NIV my lord; ʾadoni, not yhwh, “Lord”). The similarity ended there. While Moses had immediately turned to God’s redeeming power, Aaron proceeded to make excuses and put all the blame upon the people “for their tendency to evil” (vv. 11–12, 22). He recounted for Moses what had happened between himself and the people (vv. 1–3; 23–24a). His description of how he made the idol was, however, a lie: “I threw it into the fire, and out came this calf!” (v. 24b). In fact he had made the “idol cast in the shape of a calf, fashioning it with a tool” (v. 4). He had also built the altar in front of the calf and announced the festival (v. 5). To Moses, he claimed that the calf had somehow magically self-generated. Moses later recounted that the Lord was angry enough to destroy Aaron too, but did not (Deut. 9:20).
The text does not exonerate Aaron of guilt. He made the calf and acted as its priest (vv. 2–6, 21–25, 35). He tried to be relevant to the people’s expressed need in Moses’ absence, but in doing so he lost the core of faith itself. The Lord’s restitution of Aaron and his ordination as the high priest may seem a bit scandalous. As a result, some interpreters have sought to explain Aaron’s actions in the kindest way, suggesting that he was forced to act as the people wanted. Others have suggested that the death of his two sons at their ordination somehow atoned for Aaron’s sin. None of this is in the biblical text. The scandal is the scandal of God’s grace. God’s decision to live among people the Lord knew to be rebellious extended to Aaron. It revealed the reality that the most devout are prone to the greatest sins. No one is exempt from turning away from the Lord, and no one is beyond God’s forgiveness, though unalterable consequences may endure (see the comments on 34:6–7).
Moses’ second confrontation with the people was necessary because they still were running wild. He began by standing at the gate, the traditional place of court proceedings. A just administration of courtroom procedure lies between the lines of this text. This is also what one would expect after having read the concern for justice in the book of the covenant. Zeal for God’s law stood behind what followed, but the text does not condone wanton zealotry.
Moses stood at the entrance (“at the gate”). The due process of law had already begun as Moses stood at the place of judgment. The people had heard the law against idolatry and agreed to it (20:4–6; 22:20). Moses had confronted them with the tablets of the covenant (v. 19), destroyed their idol, and made them drink its failure, probably as a public trial (v. 20). Still, they persisted in “running wild” and out of control. Again Moses warned them, this time standing at the gate of judgment. He called out, “Whoever is for the LORD, come to me.” This was the second opportunity for repentance. Once they had made and confirmed their choices, Moses commissioned the Levites with a third and final confrontation. Those who persisted were slain.
The Levites’ killing may also be understood as an action to stop the wild behavior. Not necessarily vengeful, it was a battle to wrest control of the community from the lawless who would not stand down. The anguish of Moses’ words reveals an absence of vengeance, “each killing his brother and friend and neighbor.” The specific mention of each Levite killing his brother and friend and neighbor tells the truth about the pathos of the situation. Those who would not stop wantonly “running wild” were executed by people they knew. They were “out of control” as individuals and as a crowd.
The creation of a people who would bless other nations seems hopelessly lost at this point in the narrative. The main concern was to bring the wild celebration of a false god to an end. The Levites had the crucial role of ending the riotous situation. As a result Moses commended them: “You have been set apart to the LORD today” (better, “Set yourselves apart today,” see additional note on v. 29), and “he has blessed you” is literally, “He gives you a blessing” because of what you did. They were not blessed by the awful action of executing men, but God blessed them for suffering their role in restoring law and order to the community.
32:30–35 Would God forgive the people? God’s second and third decisions concerned whether God’s presence would go among the people (ch. 33) and whether God would forgive them (ch. 34). Exodus 32 ends with a preview of these issues. In both cases, the preliminary answer was “No.” God’s angel would lead them and the Lord would not forgive the guilty.
Moses spoke to the Lord about what a great sin (khataʾah gedolah) the people had committed, repeating what he said to the people: “You have committed a great sin” (lit., “You, you have sinned a great sin”). This great sin is reminiscent of the sin in the garden of Eden. There, the Lord’s instructions had been clear about the limits of human freedom. Adam and Eve could eat of all the trees, including the tree of life, but God asked them to accept their limitations regarding the tree of knowledge of good and evil. At Sinai, the Lord asked that they make no false gods but trust the Lord alone. In both cases the narrative reports the sin in a painfully casual way. In Genesis 3, “the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it” (Gen. 3:6). At Sinai, the tone of the people’s remarks is similarly cavalier: “Come, make us gods who will go before us. As for this fellow Moses who brought us up out of Egypt, we don’t know what has happened to him” (v. 1). The excuses they give are also casual in tone (Gen. 3:12–13; Exod. 32:22–24). The offhanded manner in which they dismiss God’s concern intensifies the reader’s experience of the insidious, rationalizing nature of the sin. Alienation from God and blaming others is “sin” in the original sense—the sin has corrupted all relationships and yet the sinner defends the behavior as normal.
Moses told the people that he would try to make atonement for their sin with the Lord. This atonement (or “covering”) had nothing to do with blood or sacrifice. Moses’ best possibility for restoration was by means of God’s friendship and through conversation. He made an either-or request: “please forgive (nasaʾ, “lift the consequences”) their sin—but if not, then blot me out (makhah, “erase” or “wipe out”) of the book you have written.” God did not accept either of Moses’ alternatives. Rather, God would be selective: “Whoever has sinned against me I will blot out of my book.” The Levites killed only a small percentage of the guilty (see additional note on v. 28). Many had ceased their revelry at Moses’ first confrontation (vv. 19–20).
The Lord knew who had sinned. The final word of the Lord was, “when the time comes for me to punish (paqad), I will punish (paqad) them for their sin.” Hebrew does not have a word for “punish.” The same word, paqad, is used for God’s “visitation” that brings blessing or punishment. The difference depends on the relationship one has with the Lord. Literally, the text says, “when I visit, I will visit their sin upon them.” The difference between “visiting” their sin and “punishing” for their sin may seem subtle, but it is important for understanding the consequences of sin in relation to God. This distinction is crucial for understanding God’s identity described in 34:6–7 (see comment below). The Lord’s visitation on those who sinned was in the form of a plague that struck the people.
At the end of Exodus 32, the people had shattered their covenant with the Lord. The ugly work of the Levites in killing three thousand recalcitrant Israelites and the plague that followed put God’s reputation at risk. Yet God took responsibility for killing and making alive, in history and in the flesh of a specific people. In Christ, the Lord would take on the scandal of God’s own death. God’s grace abounds, but judgment attends those who do not seek refuge in the Lord (34:6–7; Rev. 19:11–16).
33:1–6 The Lord repeats the instructions from Exodus 32 in more detail (see 32:34a): “Leave this place . . . go up to the land . . . I will send an angel before you.” The Lord reminded them of the oath to Abraham and the land of the Canaanites flowing with milk and honey, taking Moses back to the words of the original promise God made at Sinai (3:6–8, 16–17). At this point, God had partially answered Moses’ petition to restore the people (32:13) so the second half of 33:3 comes as a shock: “But I will not go with you, because you are a stiff-necked people” (see additional note on “stiff-necked” at 32:9). The Lord had told them to “take off your ornaments” (“adornment” or “finery”). They stripped off (natsal) their ornaments, as they had “stripped” the Egyptians (3:22). Jewelry remained the symbol of the golden calf that they had made from their earrings. This stripping of ornaments and their mourning in 33:4 (ʾabal, grief as at a funeral) were both signs of their repentance. They accepted the reality of their condition as “stiff-necked” and relinquished the “plunder” of their deliverance from Egypt.
Additional Notes
32:1–34:35 Critical scholarship has explained the disjunctures in the extended narrative of Exod. 32–34 as a redaction of separate independent sources (JE). This commentary follows the inclination to interpret the sense of the whole text (Childs, Exodus, pp. 557–81). Moberly demonstrates the logic of the final redactor in forming a narrative that moves from sin (ch. 32) to dialogue (ch. 33), to new covenant (Exod. 34; Moberly, Mountain). Brueggemann summarizes the progression: “Israel receives an articulation of God’s fierce, unwarranted graciousness in the face of a profound act of disobedience. This is precisely the theological conclusion that would be most important to the exilic makers of canon” (Brueggemann, “Exodus,” p. 927).
32:1 “Make us gods” may also be translated “make us a god” (ʾelohim). Hebrew uses the simple plural form in a royal way throughout this text. The text even refers to the single calf-bull idol in the plural (v. 4b, NIV “these are your gods”). This can also be properly translated “this is your god.”
32:4 The “idol cast in the shape of a calf” (ʿegel) was a bull-calf, a symbol of power and fertility. Usually in the Canaanite representation of the god El, sometimes called “Bull-El,” the god stood on top of the calf-bull. Ancient worshipers represented the god Hadad in a similar way. See also 1 Kgs. 12:26–33 for the bulls Jeroboam erected at Bethel and Dan. Jeroboam misused the words of v. 4 as a positive precedent. The inclusion of the detail that Aaron made the idol, “fashioning it with a tool,” heightens the foolishness of creating a “god” by one’s own hand. See Isa. 44:9–20.
32:6 The celebration of worship in front of the calf is similar to the sin in the garden of Eden. Adam and Eve also sought to establish themselves as authors of their own futures by eating from the tree (see comment on v. 30 above). The Heb. word “revelry” (tsakhaq, in the piʿel) usually means “mocking” or “teasing.” The sexual connotations sometimes attributed here stem from a comparison with a positive use of the word referring to sexual relations between Isaac and Rebecca in Gen. 26:8. It is more likely that the mocking was rooted in the knowledge that the calf-bull was in their control and they were free to do anything they liked. The unrestrained sexuality is a more likely reference in v. 25, “running wild” (paraʿ) that also means “uncovered.”
32:9 God called them a stiff-necked people three times in this crisis (v. 9; 33:3, 5). God makes sure that Moses tells them so (33:5). When God forgave them, it was not because they were no longer stiff-necked. God forgave them in spite of their stiff necks (34:9–10). On the importance of the term “stiff-necked” in this context see Moberly, Mountain, pp. 89–93. See also Deut. 10:16; 31:27; Jer. 7:26; 17:23; 19:15.
32:10 See Childs’ discussion of “Let me alone” in Exodus, p. 567; also Fretheim, Exodus, pp. 283–84.
32:14 For a good discussion of the translation issue of nakham as “repent” (people) and “relent” (God), see Craig, Poetics, p. 34. Note also that the older translations “of the evil” also misunderstood the reliance of the word raʿah upon its context. “Disaster” is correct. It may be experienced as an “evil” by those who are caught in sin because of its catastrophic results. The word does not in itself refer to intrinsic evil.
32:22 When Aaron later wore the medallion on his turban that says “HOLY TO THE LORD,” it did not mean that Aaron was holy in himself (28:36; 39:30). It meant that God had conferred upon Aaron the Lord’s own holiness. The only indications in Scripture of Aaron’s participation in God’s judgment (or even in his forgiveness) were that he remained silent when the Lord destroyed his two arrogant sons and that he refused the meat that was due to him by law (Lev. 10:3, 16–20).
32:25 The expressions “running wild” and “out of control” are from the same root, paraʿ, meaning “broken loose.” The text leaves the details of the wildness to the reader’s imagination. Commentators have concluded that it entailed drunkenness, violence, and sexual abuses of all kinds. They had become a laughingstock (shimtsah), literally, “a shamed whisper” or “derision.”
32:27 Moses said, “This is what the LORD, the God of Israel says.” The narrative does not record God’s instructions to Moses. The Lord had already given the legal grounds for these executions in the book of the covenant: “Whoever sacrifices to any god other than the LORD must be destroyed” (22:20). The Lord referred to this law in speaking with Moses (v. 8).
32:28 The “three thousand” people the Levites killed were 0.5% (1 in 200) of the 600,000 men who left Egypt (12:37) The percentage is even lower in relation to all who left Egypt.
32:29 The LXX has the reflexive, “You have ordained yourselves,” implying that the killing by the sword “filled their hands,” which implies that they took the responsibility of being priests into their own hands. The Heb., however, has the imperative milʾu yedkem (“fill your hands,” meaning “ordain yourselves”). It means that they should hereafter consider themselves as set apart for special service to the Lord. God described the ordination of the Levitical priests of Aaron’s family to Moses in Exod. 29. The Deuteronomist considers all Levites to be priests (Deut. 18:1–8).
32:30 Verses 21, 30–31; and 2 Kgs. 17:21 mention “great sin” (also “sin” or “sinned” in vv. 32, 33, 34). Choosing not to trust the Lord at both Eden and Sinai had consequences that shaped the persistence of evil in the world and the Lord’s strategy to bring all creation under God’s rule. In both cases God decided, in response to foolish human choices, not to terminate the project to bless the creation. Rather God took on more responsibility, including more vulnerability to human accusation and disbelief. God decided to forgive, to be long-suffering, and to continue to provide, even for those who rejected God. After the “great sin” it is increasingly clear that only God’s initiative and unrelenting love for creation will be able to save any of it.
32:32 Exodus does not elsewhere mention “the book you have written.” It may be similar to “the book of life” (Ps. 69:28; Phil. 4:3; Rev. 3:5; 20:12–15; 21:27) or the “scroll of remembrance” (Mal. 3:16–18).
33:3 The essential conversations concerning the Lord’s decisions are in vv. 3, 12–19 and 34:5–10. They form the structure and themes that the other sections of the text support.
33:4–5 They “stripped off their ornaments at Mount Horeb” (Sinai). The tradition took the removal of ornaments to mean a perpetual ban on ornamental “jewelry.” For the rabbis, the initial removal was a sign of repentance. The perpetual ban demonstrated their awareness of their tendency toward evil.