The Pulpit Commentaries
Exodus 32:15-19
EXPOSITION
MOSES BREAKS THE TWO TABLES. The entire conference between God and Moses being now ended, Moses hastened to descend from the mount, and interpose in the crisis that had arisen, he took carefully the two tables of stone, which he had received, in his two hands (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 (verse 17). Moses, however, better instructed in the actual nature of the proceedings (verses 7, 8), caught their character more correctly, and declared that what he heard was nothing but shouting (verse 18). Soon afterwards, the camp came into sight—a disorderly crowd, half stripped of their garments (verse 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 (verse 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"—they had become "abominable"—at the moment he perhaps despaired of obtaining mercy for them, and expected their entire destruction. God had not as yet told him whether he would "turn from his fierce wrath," or not.
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 civilisation had come to them from "Ur of the Chaldees."
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.
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 (Exodus 24:13), to await his return, and had remained in the middle portion of the mount, where he may have fed upon manna, until Moses came down from the top. The noise of the people. It is noted by travellers, that in all the latter part of the descent from Sinai, the plain at its base is shut out from sight; and that sounds would be heard from it a long time before the plain itself would open on the view. Sounds, however, which come circuitously, are always indistinct; and it is not surprising that Joshua, knowing nothing of the proceedings in the camp, should have fancied he heard a sound of war.
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.
The dancing. Rather "dancing." There is no article; and as the subject had not been mentioned before, the use of the article would have been unmeaning. Dances were a part of the religious ceremonial in most ancient nations. Sometimes they were solemn and grave, like the choric dances of the ancient Dorians, and (probably) that of David in front of the Ark (2 Samuel 6:5); sometimes festive and joyous, yet not immodest, like the Pyrrhic and other dances at Sparta, and the dancing of the Salii at Rome; but more often, and especially among the Oriental nations, they were of a loose and lascivious character. In Egypt, the dancers appear to have been professionals of a degraded class, and the dancing itself to have been always sensual and indecent; while in Syria, Asia Minor, and Babylon, dancing was a wild orgy, at once licentious and productive of a species of phrenzy. We must suspect that it was this sort of dancing in which the Israelites were 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 (Exodus 32:26-2).
HOMILETICS
The act of Moses in breaking the tables.
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 Karnak—here was a monument shaped by the hand of God, and inscribed with his finger in characters that would have possessed through all ages an undying interest for man. Here, moreover, was a precious deposit of 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, wilfully destroyed in a moment of time! The thing seems, at first, incredible; yet we have the witness of God that it is true. Then we ask, How could Moses have so acted, and was not his action inexcusable? We look to Scripture, and we find that he is never blamed for it. He relates it of himself without any sign of self-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—
I. THE PROVOCATION TO THE ACT. Moses had left the people devoted apparently to God's service. When he reported to them the entire contents of the "Book of the Covenant," they had answered with one voice, "All the words which the Lord hath said, we will do" (Exodus 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.
II. THE ACT ITSELF. The act was the destruction of a record which the people were at the moment setting at nought. It was akin to the action of God in withdrawing light from them who sin against light. It was a deserved punishment. It was a way of declaring to the people that they were unworthy to receive the truth and should not receive it. Those who saw Moses descend saw that he was bringing them something, carefully, in his two hands, and must have felt that, as he had gone up to the summit to God, it must be something from God. When he lifted up his two hands, and with a gesture of abhorrence, cast the "something" to the ground, there must have gone through them a sudden thrill of fear, a sudden sense of loss. They must have felt that their sin had found them out—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."
III. THE SEQUEL OF THE ACT. If anything could have brought the Israelites generally to a sense of their guilt and shame, it would have been the act of Moses which they had witnessed. As it was, a deep impression seems to have been made; but only on the men of his own tribe. When Moses, shortly afterwards, demanded to know," Who was on the Lord's side?" (Exodus 32:26), "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.
HOMILIES BY J. ORR
The return of Moses to the camp.
It may well be believed that it was with deeply agitated heart that Moses, stunned by the tidings he had just received, rejoined his faithful attendant, and as speedily as possible descended the rocky sides of the mountain. Great was the contrast between the things heavenly on which for forty days and forty nights his eyes had been uninterruptedly feasting, and the scenes he was now to witness. Even the light of common day could hardly seem otherwise than strange to him, emerging from his ecstasy. His bodily aspect, too, would be considerably altered. But in his spirit there is a stored-up energy, the product of his long rapture, which it only needs the sight of Israel's sin to kindle into awful heat of wrath.
I. THE BREAKING OF THE TABLES (Exodus 32:15-2). The downward journey was a silent one. Moses refrains from communicating to Joshua the news he has received. He is absorbed in his own thoughts. And while he muses, the fire burns (Psalms 39:3). So soon as they approach the camp, sounds of revelry are heard. Joshua, with his soldier's instinct, thinks at once of war, but Moses can tell him that it is "not the voice of them that shout for mastery," nor yet "the voice of them that cry for being overcome" that he hears, but "the voice of them that cry" (verse 8). Even Moses, however, is unprepared for the spectacle which presents itself, as, pursuing the descent, some turn in the road at length puts before his eyes the whole scene of folly. The tables of testimony are in his hands, but these, in his hot anger, he now dashes from him, breaking them in pieces on the rocks (verse 19). It was an act of righteous indignation, but symbolic also of the breaking of the covenant. Of that covenant the tables of stone were all that still remained, and the dashing of them to pieces was the final act in its rupture. Learn,
1. The actual sight of wickedness is necessary, to give us full sympathy with God in the hot displeasure with which he regards it.
2. The deepest and most loving natures are those most capable of being affected with holy indignation. Who shall compete with Moses in the boundlessness of his love for Israel? But the honour of Jehovah touches him yet more deeply.
3. It is right, on suitable occasions, to give emphatic expression to the horror with which the sight of great wickedness inspires us.
II. THE DESTRUCTION OF THE CALF (verse 20). Returning to the camp, Moses brought the orgies of the people to a speedy termination. He had little difficulty in restoring order. His countenance, blazing with anger, and exhibiting every sign of grief, surprise, and horror, struck immediate dismay into the evil-doers. No one, apparently, had the courage to resist him. The idolaters slunk in guilty haste to their tents, or stood paralysed with fear, rooted to the spot at which he had discovered them. He, on his part, took immediate steps for ridding the camp of the visible abomination. "He took the calf which they had made and burnt it in the fire, and ground it to powder, and strewed it upon the water, and made the children of Israel drink of it." View this—
1. As a bitter humiliation. What could be more humiliating to these idolaters than to see their god ground to powder, and its dust made into a nauseous mixture, which afterwards they were compelled to drink? But is not this the end of all sin? The instruments of our sin become the instruments of our punishment. Our sin turns to bitterness. The golden sheen by which it at first allured us disappears from it. It ends in humiliation and degradation.
2. As a righteous retribution. Why was the calf thus ground to powder, and given to the Israelites to drink? It was no mere act of revenge on Moses' part. It was no hasty doing of his anger. It was a just retribution for a great sin. It was a method deliberately adopted of branding idol and idolaters alike with the print of the Almighty's judgment. It suggests to us the correspondence between sin and its punishment; the certainty of our sins coming home to roost; the fact that sin will be paid back to us in its own coin. Sin and retribution hang together. We "receive the things done in the body" (2 Corinthians 5:10).
3. As a prophecy of worse evil to come. Bitter as this humiliation was, it was not the whole. It was but the mark put upon the deed by God, which told those who had committed it that they must abide by it, and be prepared to eat the fruit of their doings. The drinking of the dust had its sequel in the slaughter and the plagues (verses 27, 35). Even so, the bitterness and humiliation following from sins in this life do not exhaust their punishment. They warn of worse punishment in the world to come.
III. AARON'S EXCUSES (verses 21-25). The first duty was to destroy the calf. This accomplished, or while the work was proceeding, Moses addresses himself to Aaron. His words are cuttingly severe,—"What did this people unto thee?" etc. (verse 21). Aaron, on his side, is deprecating and humble. He is afraid of Moses' anger. He addresses Moses as "my lord," and proceeds to make excuses. His excuses are typical, and deserve consideration.
1. He falls back upon the old, old plea—as old as Eden—that the blame of his sin rested on some one else than himself. "Let not the anger of my lord wax hot: thou knowest the people, that they are bent on mischief. For they said to me," etc. (verses 22-24). It is, as we say, the old, old story of all evil-doers—"It wasn't me, indeed it wasn't; it was those wicked people who made me do it." It is the weak, childish excuse of all who, having been tempted into sin, or having through their own irresolution fallen into it, have not the honesty or manliness to make at once a frank avowal of their fault. An easy way this, were the excuse admissible, of getting rid of our responsibility; but transgressors were early taught that they will not be allowed to avail themselves of it (Genesis 3:12-1). It is not a plea which will be held valid on the day of judgment. All, more or less, are conscious of pressure exerted on them by their circumstances. There is, however, no fatality binding us to yield to that pressure, if yielding means sin. The pressure is our trial. Aaron's sin lay in his unmanly fear, in his not having the resolution to say at the critical time, No. Probably Aaron would have urged that if he had not yielded, the people would have killed him. "Then," Moses would have answered, "let them kill you. Better a thousand times that they had killed you than that you should have been the means of leading Israel into this great sin." Yet how often is the same species of excuse met with! "I couldn't help it;" "The necessity of my situation;" "Compelled by circumstances;" "Customs of the trade;" "If I hadn't done it, I would have offended all my friends;" "I should have lost my situation," etc. It may be all true: but the point is, Was the thing wrong? If it was, the case of Aaron teaches us that we cannot shield ourselves by transferring the blame of what we have done to circumstances.
2. If Aaron's first excuse was bad, the second was 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,' were we to judge of his eloquence by this specimen." Note—
(1) The right way of dealing with a fault is frankly to acknowledge it.
(2) Though Moses so severely rebuked Aaron, he could yet intercede for him (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.—J.O.
HOMILIES BY J. URQUHART
Judgment and mercy.
I. THE DESCENT or MOSES THE EMBLEM OF THE LAW'S ENTRANCE INTO A WORLD OF SIN (Exodus 32:15-2).
1. He came with tables written by God's own finger. The Divine origin and claims of the law are still attested by its own nature and by man's conscience.
2. He was met by the exhibition of gross and defiant sin. The law does not come to a people waiting to receive the knowledge of God's will, but busy with their idolatry and breaking what they already know to be his will.
3. The law's advent, therefore, is in wrath (Exodus 32:19).
(1) The broken tables declare that God's covenant is broken. This is still shown in the taking away of God's word from the sinful: it is not understood. Though held in the hand, a veil is drawn between the soul and it. Spiritual death, rationalism, and infidelity, are tokens to-day of God's broken covenant.
(2) The burning of the idol, etc. The broken law is a prophecy and foretaste of wrath.
(3) The slaughter of the persistent idolaters. The place of feasting becomes the place of death.
II. THE INTERCESSOR.
1. His deep consciousness of the evil of their sin (Exodus 32:30, Exodus 32:31). The intercessor cannot make light of man's iniquity. He who bore our burdens felt their weight and terribleness as we have never yet done.
2. His love. Though he hates their iniquity, his life is bound up with theirs (Exodus 32:32).
III. THE TERRIBLENESS OF SIN AS SEEN IN THE MIRROR OF THE DIVINE ANGER.
1. The impossibility of ransom. "Whosoever hath sinned against me him will I blot out of my book." There is but one sacrifice which avails, and that reaches the heart of the sinful and changes it.
2. Mercy to the unrenewed only means a delayed judgement: "Nevertheless, in the day when I visit I will visit their sins upon them."—U.