¹sn This narrative is an unhappy interlude in the flow of the argument of the book. Between the giving of the Law and the instructions for the tabernacle the people get into idolatry. So this section tells what the people were doing when Moses was on the mountain. Here is an instant violation of the covenant that they had just agreed to uphold. But through it all Moses shines as the great intercessor for the people. So the subject matter is the sin of idolatry, its effects and its remedy. Because of the similarities to Jeroboam’s setting up the calves in Dan and Bethel, modern critics have often said this passage was written at that time. Cassuto shows how the language of this chapter would not fit an Iron Age setting in Dan. Rather, he argues, this story was well enough known for Jeroboam to imitate the practice (Cassuto, 407-10). This chapter can be divided into four parts for an easier exposition: idolatry (32:1-6), intercession (32:7-14), judgment (32:15-29), intercession again (32:30-33:6). Of course, these sections are far more complex than this, but this gives an overview. Four summary statements for expository points might be: I. Impatience often leads to foolish violations of the faith, II. Violations of the covenant require intercession to escape condemnation, III. Those spared of divine wrath must purge evil from their midst, and IV. Those who purge evil from their midst will find reinstatement through intercession. Several important studies are available for this: R. Moberly, At the Mountain of God: Story and Theology in Exodus 32-34 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1983); G. Coats, “The King’s Loyal Opposition: Obedience and Authority in Exodus 32-34,” in Canon and Authority (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977), 91-109; D. R. Davis, “Rebellion, Presence, and Covenant: A Study in Exodus 32-34,” WTJ 44 (1982): 71-87; M. Greenberg, “Moses’ Intercessory Prayer,” Ecumenical Institute for Advanced Theological Studies (1978): 21-35; R. A. Hamer, “The New Covenant of Moses,” Judaism 27 (1978): 345-50; R. L. Honeycutt, Jr., “Aaron, the Priesthood, and the Golden Calf,” RevExp 74 (1977): 523-35; J. N. Oswalt, “The Golden Calves and the Egyptian Concept of Deity,” EvQ 45 (1973): 13-20.
²tn The meaning of this verb is properly “caused shame,” meaning cause disappointment because he was not coming back (see also Judg 5:28 for the delay of Sisera’s chariots [Driver, 349]).
³tn The infinitive construct with the lamed preposition is used here epexegetically, explaining the delay of Moses.
⁴tn Heb “the people.”
⁵tn The imperative means “arise.” It could be serving here as an interjection, getting Aaron’s attention. But it might also have the force of prompting him to get busy.
⁶tn The plural translation is required here (although the form itself could be singular in meaning) because the verb that follows in the relative clause is a plural verb—that they go before us).
⁷tn The text has “this Moses.” But this instance may find the demonstrative used in an earlier deictic sense, especially since there is no article with it.
⁸tn The interrogative is used in an indirect question (see GKC §137.c).
⁹sn B. Jacob argues that Aaron simply did not have the resolution that Moses did, and wanting to keep peace he gave in to the crowd. He also tries to explain that Aaron was wanting to show their folly through the deed (937-38). Cassuto also says that Aaron’s request for the gold was a form of procrastination, but that the people quickly did it and so he had no alternative but to go through with it (p. 412). These may be right, since Aaron fully understood what was wrong with this, and what the program was all about. The text gives no strong indication to support these ideas, but there are enough hints from the way Aaron does things to warrant such a conclusion.
¹⁰tn This “all” is a natural hyperbole in the narrative, for it means the large majority of the people.
¹¹tn “them” has been supplied.
¹²tn The verb looks like rXy (yasar), “to form, fashion” by a plan or a design. That is the verb used in Gen 2:7 for Yahweh God forming the man from the dust of the ground. If it is here, it is the reverse, a human—the dust of the ground—trying to form a god or gods. The active participle of this verb in Hebrew is “the potter.” And a related noun is the word rX#y@ (yeser), “evil inclination,” the wicked designs or intent of the human heart (Gen 6:5). But see the discussion by Childs on a different reading, one that links the root to a hollow verb meaning “to cast out of metal” (as in 1 Kgs 7:15). The form in the text is pointed as a preterite from the hollow or geminate root; if it is from the verb “form, fashion,” then the vav consecutive cannot be correct (see 555,6).
¹³sn The word means a “young bull” and need not be translated as “calf” (although “calf” has become the traditional rendering in English). The word could describe an animal three years old. Aaron probably made an inner structure of wood, and then after melting down the gold, plated it. The verb “molten” does not need to imply that the image was solid gold; the word is used in Isa 30:22 for gold plating. So it was a young bull calf that was overlaid with gold, and the gold was fashioned with the stylus.
¹⁴tn The word could be singular here and earlier; here it would then be “this is your god, O Israel.” However, the use of “these” indicates more than one god was meant by the image. But their statement and their statue, although they do not use the holy name, violate the first two commandments.
¹⁵sn B. Jacob says that they actually returned to Egypt with this golden calf (p. 940).
¹⁶tn The preterite with the vav consecutive is subordinated as a temporal clause to the next preterite.
¹⁷tn “this” have been supplied.
¹⁸tn “Before it” means before the deity in the form of the calf. Aaron tried to redirect their worship to Yahweh, but the people had already broken down the barrier and were beyond control (U. Cassuto, 413).
¹⁹tn Heb “called.”
²⁰sn The word is gj^ (hag), the pilgrim’s festival. This was the word used by Moses for their pilgrimage into the wilderness. Aaron seems here to be trying to do what Moses had intended they do, make a feast to Yahweh at Sinai, but his efforts will not compete with the idol. As B. Jacob says, Aaron saw all this happening and tried to rescue the true belief (p. 941).
²¹tn The second infinitive is the infinitive absolute. The first is the infinitive construct with the lamed preposition, so it serves as a genitive, expressing the purpose of their sitting down. The infinitive absolute that follows cannot take the preposition, but with the conjunction follows the force of the form before it (see GKC §113.e).
²²tn The form is qjx^l= (l^esaheq), the Piel infinitive construct, giving the purpose of their rising up after the festal meal. On the surface it would seem that with the festival there would be singing and dancing, so that the people were celebrating even though they did not know the reason. Kaiser says the word means “drunken immoral orgies and sexual play” (W. C. Kaiser, Jr, “Exodus,” in EBC 478). That is quite an assumption for this word. The word means “to play, trifle.” It can have other meanings in contexts. It is used of Lot when he warned his sons-in-law and appeared as one who “mocked” them; it is also used of Ishmael “playing” with Isaac, which Paul interprets as mocking; it is used of Isaac “playing” with his wife in a manner that revealed to Abimelech that they were not brother and sister; and it is used by Potiphar’s wife to say that her husband brought this slave Joseph in to “mock” them. The most that can be gathered from these is that it is playful teasing, serious mocking, or playful caresses. It might fit with wild orgies, but there is no indication of that in this passage, and the word does not mean it. The fact that they were festive and playing before an idol was sufficient.
²³tn The two imperatives could also express one idea: “get down there.” In other words, “Make haste to get down.”
²⁴sn By giving the people to Moses in this way, God is saying that they have no longer any right to claim him as their God, since they have shared his honor with another. This is God’s talionic response to their “These are your gods who brought you up.” The use of these pronoun changes also would form an appeal to Moses to respond, since Moses knew that God had brought them up from Egypt.
²⁵tn The verb is a perfect tense, reflecting the present perfect nuance: “they have turned aside” and are still disobedient. But the verb is modified with the adverb (actually a Piel infinitive absolute), “quickly.” It has only been a couple of weeks or so since they heard the voice of God prohibiting this.
²⁶sn This is a bold anthropomorphism; it is as if God has now had a chance to get to know these people and has discovered how rebellious they are. The point of the figure is that there has been discernible evidence of their nature.
²⁷tn Heb “and behold” or “and look.”
²⁸sn B. Jacob says the image is that of the people walking before God, and when he called to them the directions, they would not bend their neck to listen or to hear; they were resolute in doing what they intended to do (p. 943). The figure describes them as refusing to submit, but resisting in pride.
²⁹tn The imperative, from the word “to rest” (j~Wn [nuah]), has the sense of “leave me alone, let me be.” It is a directive for Moses not to intercede for the people. Childs reflects the Jewish interpretation that there is a profound paradox in God’s words. He vows the severest punishment, but then suddenly conditions it on Moses agreement. “Let me alone that I may consume them” is the statement, but the effect is that he has left the door open for intercession. He allows himself to be persuaded—that is what a mediator is for. God could have slammed the door (as when Moses wanted to go into the promised land). Moreover, by alluding to the promise to Abraham God gave Moses the strongest reason to intercede (Childs, 567, drawing especially on B. Jacob).
³⁰tn Driver draws on Arabic to show that the meaning of this verb (hlj [hala]) was properly “make sweet the face” or “stroke the face”; so here “to entreat, seek to conciliate.” In this prayer, Driver adds, Moses urges four motives for mercy: 1) Israel is Yahweh’s people, 2) Israel’s deliverance has demanded great power, 3) the Egyptians would mock if the people now perished, and 4) the oath God made to the fathers (p. 351).
³¹tn The question is rhetorical; it really forms an affirmation that is used here as a reason for the request (see GKC §150.e).
³²tn Heb “speak, saying.” This is redundant in English and has been simplified in the translation.
³³tn The word “evil” means any kind of life-threatening or ending calamity. “Evil” is that which hinders life, interrupts life, causes pain to life, or destroys it. The Egyptians would conclude that such a God would have no good intent in taking his people to the desert if now he destroyed them.
³⁴tn The form is the Piel infinitive construct from hlK (kala), “to complete, finish,” but in this stem, “bring to an end, destroy.” As a purpose infinitive this expresses what the Egyptians would have thought of God’s motive.
³⁵tn The verb “repent, relent” when used of God is certainly an anthropomorphism. It expresses the deep pain that one would have over a situation. Earlier God repented that he had made humans (Gen 6:6). Here Moses is asking God to repent/relent over the judgment he was about to bring, meaning that he should be moved by such compassion that there would be no judgment like that. Hyatt observes that the Bible uses so many anthropomorphisms because the Israelites conceived of God as a dynamic and living person in a vital relationship with people, responding to their needs and attitudes and actions (p. 307). See H. V. D. Parunak, “A Semantic Survey of NHM,” Bib 56 (1975): 512-32.
³⁶tn Heb “your seed.”
³⁷tn “about” has been supplied.
³⁸tn Heb “seed.”
³⁹tn The relative clause explaining “the evil” has “which he had said to do to his people.” The infinitive construct serves as the direct object of the verb, answering the question of what he had said about the evil. The infinitive needs some clarification in the sentence.
⁴⁰tn The disjunctive vav serves here as a circumstantial clause indicator.
⁴¹sn See F. C. Fensham, “New Light from Ugaritica V on Ex, 32:17 (br’h),” JNSL 2 (1972): 86-7.
⁴²tn Heb “he”; the referent (Moses) has been specified in the translation for clarity.
⁴³tn Heb “the sound of the answering of might,” meaning it is not the sound of shouting victory (Cassuto, 418).
⁴⁴tn Heb “the sound of the answering of weakness,” meaning the cry of the defeated (Cassuto, 415).
⁴⁵tn Heb “answering in song” (a play on the twofold meaning of the word).
⁴⁶sn See A. Newman, “Compositional Analysis and Functional Ambiguity Equivalence: Translating Exodus 32, 17-18,” Babel 21 (1975): 29-35.
⁴⁷tn Heb “and the anger of Moses burned hot.”
⁴⁸sn See N. M. Waldham, “The Breaking of the Tablets,” Judaism 27 (1978): 442-47.
⁴⁹tn Here “it” has been supplied.
⁵⁰tn Here “it” has been supplied.
sn The pouring the ashes into the water running from the mountain in the brook (Deut 9:21) and making them drink it was a type of the bitter water test that tested the wife suspected of unfaithfulness. Here the reaction of the people who drank would indicate guilt or not (Cassuto, 419).
⁵¹sn My lord refers to Moses.
⁵²tn Heb “that on evil it is.”
⁵³tn Here “it” has been supplied.
⁵⁴sn Aaron first tried to blame the people, and then he tried to make it sound like a miracle—was it to sound like one of the plagues where out of the furnace came life? This text does not mention it, but Deut 9:20 tells how angry God was with Aaron. Only intercession saved his life.
⁵⁵tn The word is difficult to interpret. There does not seem to be enough evidence to justify the older translation “naked.” It appears to mean something like “let loose” or “lack restraint” (Prov 29:18). The idea seems to be that the people had broken loose, were undisciplined, and were completely given over to their desires.
⁵⁶tn These last two words read literally “for a whispering among those who rose up against them.” The foes would have mocked and derided them when they heard that they abandoned the God who led them out of Egypt (Driver, 354).
⁵⁷tn “come” is not in the text, but has been supplied.
⁵⁸tn Driver suggests that it was more tersely put: “Who is for Yahweh? To me!” (p. 354).
⁵⁹tn Heb “put.”
⁶⁰tn The two imperatives form a verbal hendiadys: “pass over and return,” meaning, “go back and forth” throughout the camp.
⁶¹tn The phrases have “and kill a man his brother, and a man his companion, and a man his neighbor.” The instructions were probably intended to mean to kill the guilty leaders whether they were brothers, friends or relatives—those they knew to be guilty because they were seen, or because they failed the water test.
⁶²tn Heb “did according to the word of Moses.”
⁶³tn Heb “fell.”
⁶⁴tn The Hebrew has the phrase “fill your hands,” a familiar expression having to do with commissioning and devotion to a task that is earlier used in 28:41; 29:9, 29, 33, 35. This has usually been explained as a Qal imperative. Driver explains it “Fill your hand today,” meaning, take a sacrifice to God and be installed in the priesthood (p. 355). But it probably is a Piel perfect, meaning “they have filled your hands today,” or, “your hand was filled today.” This was an expression meant to say that they had been faithful to God even though it turned them against family and friends—but God would give them a blessing.
⁶⁵tn The text simply has “and to give on you today a blessing.” Gesenius notes that the infinitive construct seems to be attached with a vav (like the infinitive absolute) as the continuation of a previous finite verb. He reads the imperative: “fill your hand today…and that to bring a blessing on you, i.e., that you may be blessed” (see GKC §114.p). If the preceding verb is taken as the perfect tense, then this would also be the perfect— “he has blessed you today.”
⁶⁶tn Heb “and it was on the morrow and Moses said to the people.”
⁶⁷tn The text uses a cognate accusative: “you have sinned a great sin.”
⁶⁸tn The form hr*P=k^a& (‘akapp^era) is the Piel cohortative/imperfect. Here with only a possibility of being successful, a potential imperfect nuance works best.
⁶⁹tn As before, the cognate accusative is used; it would literally be “this people has sinned a great sin.”
⁷⁰tn The apodosis is not expressed; it would be understood as “good.” It is not stated because of the intensity of the expression (the figure is aposiopesis, a sudden silence). It is also possible to take this first clause as a desire and not a conditional clause, rendering it “Oh that you would forgive!”
⁷¹tn The word “blot” is a figure of speech indicating “remove me” (meaning he wants to die). The translation “blot” is traditional, but not very satisfactory; it does not convey complete removal.
⁷²sn The book that is referred to here should not be interpreted as the NT “book of life” which is portrayed (figuratively) as a register of all the names of the saints who are redeemed and will inherit eternal life. Here it refers to the names of those who are living and serving in this life, whose names, it was imagined, were on the roster in the heavenly courts as belonging to the chosen. Moses would rather die than live if these people are not forgiven (Driver, 356).
⁷³tn Heb “behold, look.” Moses should take this fact into consideration.
⁷⁴sn The Law said that God would not clear the guilty. But here the punishment is postponed to some future date when he would revisit this matter. Others have taken the line to mean that whenever a reckoning was considered necessary, then this sin would be included (see B. Jacob, p. 957).
⁷⁵tn The verse is difficult because of the double reference to the making of the calf. The NJPS’s translation tries to reconcile the two by reading “for what they did with the calf that Aaron had made.” Childs explains in some detail why this is not a good translation based on syntactical grounds; he opts for the conclusion that the last three words are a clumsy secondary addition (p. 557). It seems preferable to take the view that both are true, Aaron is singled out for his obvious lead in the sin, but the people sinned by instigating the whole thing.
⁷⁶sn Most commentators have difficulty with this verse. Driver thinks it reads like a scribe’s correction, but is out of place. Kaiser says the strict chronology is not always kept, and so the plague here may very well refer to the killing of the three thousand (W. C. Kaiser, Jr, “Exodus,” in EBC 481).