Peter Pett's Commentary on the Bible
Exodus 32:15-20
Moses Descends And Witnesses What Is Happening And Acts Decisively To Bring Matters Under Control (Exodus 32:15).
a Moses turns and descends with the tablets of the Covenant in His hands, which were written on both sides (Exodus 32:15).
b The tablets were written in the hand of God, and the writing was the writing of God (Exodus 32:16).
c They hear the noise from the camp, and Joshua say that there is a sound of war (Exodus 32:17).
c Moses replies that it is not of war but of singing (Exodus 32:18).
b When he sees the calf and the dancing he hurls down the tablets and breaks them (Exodus 32:19)
a He took the calf, burned it with fire, ground it to powder, strewed it in the water, and made the people drink it (Exodus 32:20).
Note the contrasting parallels. In ‘a' Moses comes down from Yahweh with the firm and solid covenant in his hands written on both sides. Nothing could be more secure. Under this covenant they had drunk of water from the Rock. In the parallel he takes the image, burns it, grinds it to powder, strews it in the water and makes them drink it. The elders had eaten and drunk before Yahweh (Exodus 24:11), the people had eaten and drunk before their molten image (Exodus 32:6). Now they ate and drank the image itself. It is a tale of contrasts and descents. In ‘b' it is stressed that the tablets were written with the hand of God, in the parallel the tablets are hurled down and broken. They have forfeited the hand of God. In ‘c' Joshua thinks that he hears the sound of war, a worthy sound, but in the parallel it is rather the sound of decadence and rebellion and idolatry that they hear.
‘And Moses turned and went down from the mount, with the two tablets of Testimony in his hand, tablets that were written on both their sides. They were written on the one side and on the other. And the tablets were the work of God, and the writing was the writing of God, graven on the tablets.'
So having unknowingly passed his test Moses went back down from the mountain. And in his hands he held the two tablets of stone on which God had caused the covenant to be written. The detail is remarkable and brings out the reminiscence of an eyewitness. He had remembered that the tablets were written on both sides. They were clearly written in the same way as earlier covenant tablets written by the patriarchs, which were stored in the Tent of Meeting. (These small indications which constantly appear, confirm that an eyewitness lies behind the narratives).
“ And the tablets were the work of God, and the writing was the writing of God, graven on the tablets.” ‘The writing of God' probably indicates ‘God-like writing', smooth clear writing, so perfect that it could easily be read. And they were the work of God, His handywork. It was an act of personal love so that they would remember that their covenant had come directly from God. And they had already broken it!
The fact that the tablets were of stone and were engraved brings out the intended permanence of the covenant. This testimony was to last through the ages. The permanence of the tablets compares with the total unreliability of the people. And it was the covenant under which Yahweh had constantly give them water to drink at their request.
‘And when Joshua heard the noise of the people as they shouted, he said to Moses, “There is a sound of fighting in the camp.” And he said, “It is not the sound of those who shout to achieve mastery, nor is it the sound of those who cry out as a result of being defeated, but I hear the sound of those who cry out spontaneously.” '
Moses had once again been joined by his servant, Joshua, who had been faithfully waiting for him on the mountain. All we are told about Joshua is that he went up into the mount with Moses (Exodus 24:13), and that he came down again with him. The total absence of any other comment suggests that it is only mentioned because it happened. It is just the kind of thing that might have been mentioned simply because the scribe who was doing the actual writing remembered it clearly and took a kind of pride in it. We can compare Mark 14:51. It gives the appearance of being the reminiscence of the inscriber. And in those days writers did not need to artificially try to make their writings sound genuine. Those who read them were not suspicious like us.
Joshua must have been bursting to know what had happened in the mount but the impression given is that they came down in silence. He could see that Moses had something very much on his mind, something of great import, and did not wish to talk, and he honoured his wishes. No doubt he would learn what had happened when Moses chose to reveal it.
And as they came down together that was when they heard noises coming from down below. Joshua was concerned. It appeared that fighting had broken out, either with some unknown foe or in order to pass the time. But Moses, grim-faced, gave a noncommittal reply, for he knew what it was. He had been given prior knowledge. It was not the cry of victory or defeat, it was the sound of wild, unrestrained shouts ringing out in false and degraded worship.
Once again we have the reminiscences of eye witnesses as the scribe remembers the conversation that they had had together. Moses had not told Joshua of what was coming, and so he had gained the wrong impression. It is clear that the camp was not yet in sight and that what they heard were simply cries ringing out through the desert air. But Moses knew what they were.
‘And so it was that as soon as he came near the camp he saw the calf and the dancing. And Moses anger waxed hot, and he cast the tablets from his hands, and broke them beneath the mount.'
When the camp loomed into sight, Moses and Joshua saw the molten calf and the wild dancing, evidence, not of a people eagerly awaiting the return of Moses, but of a people who were not concerned about him, and had lost all restraint and were engaged in wild religious celebrations. Indeed they were a people who did not want him back and were in no mood to listen. They had found another god who had clearly won their support.
The fact of such dancing is often reported on important religious occasions. On the occasions of Miriam and the women at the heavenly defeat of Egypt (Exodus 15:20); of Jephthah's daughter and the other young women as she welcomed her victorious father (Judges 11:34); of the young maidens at their religious festival (Judges 21:21); of the women from ‘all Israel' at the defeat of the Philistines by Saul and David (1 Samuel 18:6); of David when the Ark of Yahweh was finally restored to its rightful place (2 Samuel 6:14). But here the impression given is that the dancing concerned not only the women but all. So Moses knew exactly what was happening. This was different. It was the unrestrained dancing of Baalism, with fertility rights, orgies and all.
“ And Moses anger waxed hot.” No wonder he was angry. Anger ‘waxing hot' is a theme of the passage (Exodus 32:10). He knew that he stood in the place of God. God might have restrained His hot anger at the plea of Moses (Exodus 32:14), but it still had to be expressed. This likening to the anger of God suggests that what followed had a twofold purpose. It was on the one hand necessary in order to gain control, but it was also a deliberate act in order to bring home the seriousness of what they had done.
“ And he cast the tablets from his hands, and broke them beneath the mount.” Moses had had plenty of time to consider what he would do as he was coming down in his grim silence from the mount. His anger was like the anger of God. And God had prepared him for what he saw. What followed was not due to loss of temper but a deliberate act of righteous anger against sin and rebellion. He knew that he was acting in the name of God and so before all the people, at the bottom of the mount, he hurled the tablets of the covenant onto the hard ground and broke them. We should note that he was never rebuked for this. It was a deliberate, dramatic gesture like that of a man tearing up a contract publicly. By it he was bringing home to the people what they had done. They had smashed the covenant.
Thus they would know that He was no longer with them, and he was no longer accountable to them. And in the event it was a declaration of war. He was firmly indicating that they no longer had a part in the covenant of Yahweh and were therefore fair targets unless they surrendered. It was probably his hope that by his action he would shake some of them into supporting him. Certainly it would make them uneasy, and he could only hope.
But once the situation had been recovered it would also bring out something else. That there was now a subtle change in the nature of Yahweh's attitude towards Israel. Up to now it had been direct and personal. From now on they would receive all at second hand, for they were not worthy. Only Moses would be allowed to see the glory of Yahweh (Exodus 33:19). Israel would receive a second hand covenant (Exodus 34:27). It was thus also an early grim prophecy of what lay before them, not only now but in the more distant future.
‘And he took the calf which they had made, and burnt it with fire, and ground it to powder, and strewed it on the water, and made the children of Israel drink of it.'
This is foreshortening events. It clearly could not happen before verse 21 onwards for he could not make the people drink it until he had gained full control. It is placed here to indicate his final victory before the detail of the encounter is gone into, finishing off the analysis we have seen above with victory. The result is that as we now view the battle we need not worry for Moses has already won. (This in fact was a regular method of presenting things in those days which is also found elsewhere. First the conclusion and then the process).
So it is saying that once he was again master of the situation the molten calf, that had been so carefully shaped, was hurled back into the fire from which it had come that it might lose its shape, and was then ground to powder and scattered on to water. And then he made the children of Israel drink the water. They would be made to drink their own god. It is put in the perfect tense (the tense of completeness) because it was seen as certain, as something that would happen. Thus we could translate, ‘he smashed the tablets -- and in his mind, to be fulfilled later, he took the calf which they had made --- and made the children of Israel drink it.'
In other words he determined that once he had won he would take the calf which they had made, and grind it to powder, and strew it on the water, and make the children of Israel drink of it.'
That this must have happened after what follows is confirmed by the fact that in Exodus 32:25 the people are still running loose, and still had to be brought under control. It is described here, not chronologically, but because it is the final result of Moses response to what had happened, and the main item to which the writer wants to draw attention. Let the reader not doubt that Yahweh will be victorious,
(This describing the result and then going into detail occurs also elsewhere. See for example Exodus 4:20; Judges 6:24. It was seemingly a common method in these early records to describe the main happening and then enter into the detail of how it was brought about. This was what in our day caused some scholars to talk of ‘doublets'. It was actually ancient literary method).
“ The calf which they had made.” A pointed description. It was man made and therefore useless. And it was made at their choosing. They had wanted it and so now they could have what they wanted.
“ And burnt it with fire.” Always a symbol of judgment on something (Joshua 7:25). It was to be rendered useless to anyone and committed to God in judgment. Burning it at white heat would also make it easier for it to be turned into powder.
“ And ground it to powder.” Necessary for the purpose that he intended, but also an indication of its total destruction. And it could do nothing about it. It was powerless. Moses had made it like chaff without it even complaining.
“ And strewed it on the water.” Here we have a good example of the use of the article in Hebrew. No water is mentioned in context anywhere but here. It simply means ‘the water I am talking about'. But which water was it? The point behind the account is that Moses intends to make them drink it. It is thus in the end water that he has had brought to him in vessels so that it can be passed around the people for them to drink. But Deuteronomy 9:21 tells us its source. It was from ‘the brook that descended out of the mount', into which he had cast the powder of the molten idol. Its source was thus the water that descended from the mountain of God, a fitting source for such a purpose. God's provision had become the source of His judgment.
(It matters little whether the powder was scattered in the brook and the water drawn from it, which Deuteronomy taken at face value suggests, or whether the water was drawn from the brook and then sprinkled with the powder. The symbolism was the same).
“ And made the children of Israel drink of it.” They had to drink their god. It was not something that they would forget easily. So they wanted a visible god? Well, here he was. Let them drink it. Thus they would be made to recognise that their god was not heavenly, but very much earthy. And that this god was unpleasant to drink, and would soon turn into waste matter. It is noteworthy that in describing this incident in Deuteronomy 9:21 Moses tactfully misses out the drinking aspect. By then his anger had assuaged.
In the wider context this drinking must be seen as significant. The elders had previously eaten and drunk before Yahweh (Exodus 24:11). The people had eaten and drunk before the molten image (Exodus 32:6). Both had thought in terms of sealing a covenant. Now they had to drink their folly. Their covenant with their new god had turned sour.