Exodus 32:4

And he received them, &c.— And he received it at their hand, and tied it in a bag: (Bochart.) Or, cast it into a mould, and made of it a molten calf. See 2 Kings 5:23. Judges 8:24. Either of the translations given above may be very well justified, and wholly remove the objection which some have raised from our version. Houbigant renders it, "Aaron reduced to form the gold received at their hands, and made it a molten calf." See Psalms 106:20. It is very common in Scripture to call the sign by the name of the thing signified; so this image of a calf is called a calf. Soon as the people saw this emblem before them, they cry out, These are thy Elohim, O Israel, who brought thee up out of the land of Egypt; that is, "this is the visible representation, the symbol, or image of that God who brought thee," &c. Sensible of whose power, and of the wonders he had wrought for their sake, they thought themselves safe, under his auspices, from any future injury among, the Egyptians; nay, and probably imagined, that, returning to Egypt, they should become entire masters of the country, now that Pharaoh and his host were destroyed in the Red-sea. In Numbers 14:4 we read, that they had then the same inclination to return; let us choose a captain, said they, and let us return into Egypt: see Nehemiah 9:17 and in this view it is manifest, that a learned writer's conjecture cannot be right, who supposes that "they chose a calf, as being the object of adoration in Egypt; and as an Egyptian god to go before them, as a kind of atoner and reconciler:" (see Divine Legation, vol. 2: b. 4: sect. 5.) So far from this, they say expressly of this calf, that it was not an Egyptian god, but the Elohim, the god which brought them up out of Egypt: and, in the next verse, when a solemn feast to this god is kept, it is expressly called a feast to JEHOVAH; so that there can be no question that this calf was designed as a symbol of Jehovah, that God who brought them up out of Egypt. In forming this symbol or image, and worshipping it, they were guilty of direct disobedience to the second commandment, worshipping the true God in a false manner; and that they did so, is still further evident from the words of St. Stephen, Acts 7:42 who tells us, that in consequence of their making and worshipping this idol-calf, God turned and gave them up to worship the host of heaven, the sun, moon, and stars; which being the first and most ancient objects of false worship, it is plain that the calf could not be a representative of these, since the Israelites were given up to the worship of them in consequence of, and as a punishment for, their worshipping the calf. From whence we gather, that this calf could not possibly have been formed in imitation of the Egyptian Osiris, since it is beyond all dispute that Osiris was no other than the sun; and it would perhaps be no easy matter to prove, that the ox was held sacred to Osiris so early as this period: neither could it have been representative of Apis, which was no other than an emblem of the Nile. Indeed, from what we have just observed, it is clear, that this calf, which they served as a symbol of the God who brought them out of Egypt, could not be made in imitation of any Egyptian gods, upon all of which the Jehovah of the Hebrews had exercised fearful judgments. (See Jablonski de diis Egypt. lib. 2: cap. 1 lib. 4: cap. 2.)

What, then, it may be asked, could have induced the Israelites to make choice of a calf, or young ox, to represent Jehovah? Some, who believe that the cherubim were known from the beginning, imagine that the idea was derived from thence; the ox's head there, according to them, being a symbol of Jehovah. See Ezekiel 7:10. Joseph Mede's works, p. 567. Archbishop Tennison of Idolatry, ch. 6 and on our note on ch. Exodus 25:18. A very learned person of Frankfort upon Oder, whose opinion Jablonski produces in his Pantheon, endeavours largely to prove, that the first sacrifice, after the fall of man, was a young bullock, emblematical of the sacrifice of Christ, as a young bullock was sacrificed for the consecration of the high-priest; (ch. Exodus 29:1.) and from hence derives the original of this idolatry. But the best arguments that can be adduced on this point must be full of conjecture.