Seventh-day Adventist Bible CommentaryExodus 32

Ellen G. White

Break off. Alarmed by the heedless folly and threatening attitude of the people, and fearing for his own safety, Aaron surrendered to the demands of the multitude instead of nobly and stoutheartedly upholding the honor of God (see ch. 23:2). Hoping they would refuse to give up their cherished possessions, he ordered a collection of the “golden earrings.” But he was mistaken in this hope. Having taken the first compromising step, he could not retreat.

These be thy gods. The “calf” would naturally suggest itself to the Israelites because they had witnessed in Egypt the worship of Apis the bull. But the golden calf was presumably a material representation of the true God, not of some heathen deity (see v. 5).

Ellen G. White

Made proclamation. Sensing popular approval, Aaron further committed himself to this apostasy by announcing a “feast.” Strangely enough, it was to be “a feast to the Lord.” This spirit of compromise, the endeavor to harmonize the worship of the Lord with that of idols, was not manifested by Israel in this case alone; it was also to motivate much of the idolatry that plagued them in the future (1 Kings 12:26–33; 2 Kings 17:32, 33; Zeph. 1:5).

Rose up early. So enthusiastic and wrought up were the people over their new- found religion that they could not rise early enough to begin its worship. Sat down to eat. Only certain portions of sacrificial victims were commonly burned, the rest being eaten by the offerers. Rose up to play. This was a sensual exercise. Heathen sacrificial feasts terminated in the most profligate orgies (Num. 25:1–9; 1 Cor. 10:7, 8). This episode illustrates the warfare that is constantly going on in human nature between the flesh and the Spirit (Rom. 7:23; 8:1–13). From the time the Israelites left Egypt they had been leading a spiritual life, depending upon the unseen God and reposing under His protection. At length, however, when the restraining influence of Moses’ example and guidance was removed, evil prevailed. They reverted to idolatry, and in so doing, to the licentiousness that was inseparably connected with heathen worship. Sensual pleasure masqueraded as religion (2 Tim. 3:4, 5). Such religion is as pleasing to the multitudes now as it was in the days of Israel. And there are still pliant leaders to yield to the desires of the unconsecrated and encourage them in sin (PP 317).

Thy people. God disowned Israel; He no longer spoke of them as “my people” (Ex. 3:10; etc.; cf. Matt. 21:13; 23:28). They had broken their covenant relation with Him, and had “separated” themselves from His care and guidance (Isa. 59:2). Resentment against sin is inherent in the divine character. God loves the sinner, but hates sin. Moses, far removed from the camp, did not know what was going on below.

Turned aside quickly. A few weeks previously the people had entered into a solemn covenant with God and pledged themselves to obey Him (chs. 19:8; 24:3). Now that covenant was broken (PP 320). Having “no root” in themselves when temptation came, the people fell quickly into sin (see Matt. 13:20, 21). Many of them, specially those of the “mixed multitude,” could not resist their old idolatrous practices (see 2 Peter 2:22). The word “stiffnecked” conveys the idea of perversity, as with a horse that stiffens its neck when the driver pulls the rein right or left, refusing to go the way it should.

Let me alone. God was testing Moses and preparing him for what lay ahead (see Gen. 18:23–32; 32:26–28). This was not the last occasion on which such an experience came to him (Num. 16:21, 45). Moses perceived that God’s proposal was not final, and proceeded to intercede for his people. Make of thee. The Lord confronted Moses with an opportunity to choose between his own glory, and the honor of God and the well-being of those who were under his charge (see Matt. 4:8–10). He rose nobly to the occasion and thereby proved his loyal devotion to God and to the tasks committed to him.

Moses besought. Moses protests that Israel is still God’s people—not his (see v. 7). God has done so much for them; surely He will not now reject them, and thereby acknowledge the failure of His own plan. That God could not afford to do this, for His own name’s sake, was Moses’ first plea. Moses could not excuse the sin of his people, but he could intercede for their forgiveness (see Job 42:10; Jer. 14:19–21; Eze. 14:14, 20; Dan. 9:4–11).

Wherefore. The surrounding nations had learned of the wonderful deliverance of the Hebrews from Egypt, and as a result they feared what the Lord might yet do for Israel. If, therefore, Israel were now destroyed, the heathen would rejoice and God would be dishonored. The accusations of the Egyptians would prove true, that instead of leading His people into the wilderness to sacrifice (ch. 5:1–3), He had brought them there to be

sacrificed (ch. 10:10). To avoid the exultant triumph of the heathen over Israel was Moses’ second plea.

Remember Abraham. The third plea consisted of reminding God of His promises to Abraham (Gen. 15:5; 17:2–8), Isaac (Gen. 26:4), and Jacob (Gen. 28:14; 35:11). These promises had thus far been but partially fulfilled, and surely God would not fail to make good His word.

The Lord repented. The Lord was moved by the earnest, selfless prayer of His faithful servant. God could not refuse the pleadings of one who thought more of his people than he did of his own exaltation and honor. What a tribute this was to the character of Moses, what a revelation of divine love (John 3:16; Phil. 2:5–8). The words “the Lord repented” are a feeble attempt to express the divine will in human language. Strictly speaking, God cannot change His purpose, for He knows “the end from the beginning” (1 Sam. 15:29; Isa. 46:9, 10; 55:11). However, when sinners forsake their sin and turn to Him, when His children supplicate Him for mercy and forgiveness, then He does “repent.” He changes from wrath to mercy, from judgment to gracious pardon (Ps. 106:44, 45; Jer. 18:5–10; 26:3; Joel 2:12–14; Jonah 3:9, 10; 4:2).

In his hand. That is, in both hands (Deut. 9:15).

When Joshua heard. In his descent Moses met Joshua, who remained where Moses had left him six weeks previously (see ch. 24:12–18). Together they made their way down to camp. Being a soldier, Joshua thought the sound they heard from the encampment was that of war, but Moses, having been warned by the Lord that something was wrong, suspected the true nature of the noise. The latter part of the descent from Mt. Sinai denies a view of the plain below, so that any sound coming from the plain would be heard before its cause could be seen. Perhaps the mounds at the foot of the mountain provided a barrier to the sight (see on ch. 19:1).

He came nigh. The religious ceremonies of most ancient nations included dancing. Among the Hebrews this was sometimes solemn and dignified, like that of David (2 Sam. 6:14), sometimes festive and joyful (see on Ex. 15:20). Among the heathen, however, and especially so among the Oriental nations, such dances were of a loose and lascivious character. Egyptian dancers were professionals of a degraded type, and their dancing was sensual and indecent. In Syria, Asia Minor, and Babylon dancing was a wild orgy. It was in this type of dancing that the Israelites now indulged, a fact which accounts for the heated anger of Moses. It was idolatry at its worst. It is not strange that he cast the two tables violently upon the ground and “brake them.” By this he indicated that as they had broken their covenant with God, so God broke His covenant with them (Deut. 9:17; PP 320).

Ellen G. White

He took the calf. Compare this with similar action by Josiah (2 Kings 23:1–27). Strawed it. That is, “sprinkled” or “scattered” it. Since this “water” was “the brook” that descended out of the mount (Deut. 9:21), and was the only water available, when the Israelites drank it they risked swallowing particles of gold. Thus it was that the instrument of their sin became also the instrument of their punishment. Sin repays in its own coin (Ps. 7:15, 16; 9:15; Prov. 1:31, 32; 5:22). In completely destroying the golden calf, Moses taught the people the utter futility and nothingness of an idol (1 Cor. 8:4). If the calf could not save itself, it certainly could not save its worshipers (Ps. 115:3–9; Isa. 46:5–7).

Unto Aaron. Having destroyed the idol, Moses naturally turned to the one who had been left in charge of the people and who, therefore, should have resisted and halted this apostasy (ch. 24:14). Moses did not mean to imply that the people had done anything to Aaron; the question was asked in reproach, as a rebuke. Had Aaron taken a firm stand this iniquity might not have occurred (PP 316, 317).

Thou knowest. Instead of humbly accepting the responsibility for their idolatry, Aaron justified himself by placing the blame for it upon the people. In doing so he proved himself a true descendant of Adam and Eve (Gen. 3:12, 13). What a contrast to the spirit of Moses (see on Ex. 32:10-14, 32).

There came out. To further justify his course Aaron implied that a miracle had occurred, that supernatural power had converted the gold cast “into the fire” into “this calf.” The bewitching power of sin causes otherwise sound-minded men to engage in a rationalization of their course of action. Aaron would have been destroyed for his sin had it not been for the earnest intercession of Moses in his behalf (Deut. 9:20). Because of his position as leader, in the absence of Moses, Aaron’s iniquity was the more reprehensible. To whom God grants much, of him is much expected (Luke 12:48).

Were naked. Or possibly, “had broken loose.” That is, the people were giving free rein to their wild passions. Moral restraint had been completely abandoned. The people were practically in a state of riot, having worked themselves up to a frenzy. They had become a wild mob. Aaron was responsible for the orgy, for he had made the calf and proclaimed the feast. Their shame. Perhaps some of the Amalekites (see Ex. 17:8–16) were still in the vicinity to witness this riotous occasion and its licentious indecencies.

Then Moses stood. Failing to stop this vile demonstration, and realizing that something must be done, Moses stationed himself at “the gate of the camp” and summoned those who would do so to join him in quelling the disturbance. In the warfare between good and evil there is no such thing as neutrality. We are either on God’s side or on Satan’s. There is no middle ground (Joshua 24:14, 15; 1 Kings 18:21; Matt. 6:24). The ultimate test of being on the Lord’s side is to remain faithful when those around us are apostatizing. Weak character sides with the multitude (Matt. 7:13, 14). Determined piety reveals itself in being able to resist the contagion of numbers. It takes courage to be singular (see Dan. 3:14–18). Alone among their brethren, the “sons of Levi” rallied to “the Lord’s side.” They had not participated in the idolatrous worship.

Every man his sword. Wherever the Levites saw any still persisting in the licentious rites they were to “slay” them with the sword, ignoring every tie of family and friendship (Deut. 33:8, 9; Eze. 9:6). Resolute action was necessary to quell rebellion. Jesus made it plain that no earthly ties are to be allowed to stand between us and our duty to Him (Matt. 8:21, 22; 10:37). Thus it was that the place of feasting became the place of death. This summary execution of those who led out in idolatry among the people was necessary to prove to the surrounding nations the definite displeasure of God against heathen worship. As to His own people, the Lord had to convince them that iniquity such as this would not be tolerated. Had God permitted this offense to pass without severe punishment, in the future the Jews would have the more readily yielded to the temptations of idolatry. As the loving protector of Israel, God removed from them those determined to go their own rebellious way, lest they lead others to ruin. These are times when God in His mercy permits the few to perish in order to save the many. Furthermore,

if sin had persisted God could no longer have protected them and they would have fallen, defenseless, before their enemies.

Consecrate yourselves. Moses pronounces the favor of Heaven upon the Levites, who so heartily joined with him in the punishment of the idolaters. The Hebrew word for “consecration” carries with it the idea of being ordained to a holy office. Here it implies, also, the special “blessing” God had in store for the Levites, the honor of being chosen to serve in the sanctuary (Num. 3:5–9; 18:1–7; Deut. 10:8).

On the morrow. This suggests that the people had at last realized their great guilt and were terrified lest every offender be slain. Moses’ love and pity toward his people led him to intercede with the Lord again on their behalf. There is a profound lesson here that ministers of the gospel should ponder well. While, as pastors of the flock, they should love their members and draw them close to God, they must not fail to show the people their transgressions (Isa. 58:1). At the same time they must plead earnestly with God for the forgiveness of sin through the mercy of Christ.

Ellen G. White

This people. Moses had spoken to God of the Israelites as “thy people” (v. 11). Here, thinking of the gravity of the sin which made them unworthy to be called the people of God, he refers to them as “this people.”

If thou wilt forgive. So moved was Moses in his appeal to God that he did not complete the first, the conditional, part of it. This omission might have been, “Then I shall be content,” or “I shall have no more to say.” Similar omissions are found in Luke 13:9; 19:42. Blot me. So great was Moses’ love for his erring brethren that, if he could not prevent their destruction, he did not want to see it (see Num. 11:15). He was willing not to be “written among the living” (see Isa. 4:3). He was willing to surrender his own life, if that would serve to atone for their sin. He was willing to bear their guilt, here and in the hereafter, in order to secure their forgiveness. Paul manifested similar unselfishness toward the Jews of his day (Rom. 9:1–3). Moses performed many noble acts, but this was the noblest of them all. It is not easy to estimate the measure of love in such men as Moses and Paul, for our limited powers of reason do not comprehend it any more than a little child is able to comprehend the courage of heroes. Moses is a type of the Good Shepherd, who laid down His life for the sheep (John 10:11, 15), who was “cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression” of His people (Isa. 53:8; Dan. 9:26; John 15:13). Out of thy book. This refers to the “book of life,” in which are recorded the names of all those who have professed to be children of God (Ps. 69:28; Dan. 12:1; Phil. 4:3; Rev. 3:5; 13:8; 17:8; 20:12, 15; 21:27). Those who fall away from God, who because of their unwillingness to forsake sin become hardened against the influence of the Holy Spirit (Gen. 6:3; Eph. 4:30; Heb. 10:29; 1 Thess. 5:19), will have their names blotted out of the book of life, and be destroyed.

Whosoever hath sinned. In general, the Bible teaches that everyone must bear his own punishment (Deut. 24:16; 2 Kings 14:6; Ps. 49:7, 8; Jer. 31:29, 30; Eze. 18:20). There is only one substitutionary atonement that the Word of God accepts, and that is the atonement of Jesus Christ, who, being without sin, could be punished for the sins of others (Isa. 53:5, 6; John 1:29; 1 Cor. 15:3; Heb. 9:28; 1 Peter 2:24). In interceding as he did for Israel, Moses typified the intercession of Christ for sinners. But he could not, as did our Lord, bear the guilt of the transgressors.

34.In the day when I visit. It has been suggested that this refers to the declaration that none of those who had left Egypt would enter Canaan (Num. 14:26–35).

The Lord plagued. After the slaying of the 3,000 (v. 28) a plague had broken out in the camp. Even this was an evidence of divine mercy to emphasize the danger of yielding to sin. Though God was willing to forgive His people, if pardon were too easily obtained they would be emboldened to commit transgression again. They must be made sensible to the evil effects of iniquity. Comfort was postponed that conviction might be the more deeply impressed. In all of God’s dealings with us today we should study to understand His divine purpose and to learn the lessons He designs that we should learn. It is thus that He would develop and strengthen character.