2. The Golden Calf (32:1-34:35)

At the same time God was giving Moses instructions for meeting the people’s need for a tangible center for worship and guidance (see above on 25:1ff.), the people despaired of having that need met by God and insisted that Aaron meet it for them. The results were both tragic and predictable. Whenever humans insist on meeting their own needs, deification of creation follows. And close behind that comes misuse of resources and the uninhibited expression of sexuality as the worship of the life force. In many ways this brief and poignant story teaches us the heart of the biblical drama as clearly as any other portion of Scripture. Serving God is not merely a matter of making a decision. Nor are God’s options merely to bless or to curse. Somehow a faithful God must find ways to continue on with a people whose performance again and again falls short of their best intentions. He must do so until they can finally realize that the cure for their sinfulness lies beyond themselves.

“Make us gods” (32:1): The same Hebrew word can mean “God,” “god,” or “gods.” Here it is probably used to mean “a god” in the sense of “an idol.” Instead of voluntary and varying contributions (see 25:2; 35:21-29), the people are required to bring a gift, and one kind only (vv.2-3). “Calf” (32:4) is almost certainly a pejorative diminutive, much as a prejudiced person might call an adult of another race “boy.” The idol was probably of a full-grown bull, similar to idols the Israelites had known in Egypt. The bull idol represented life, fertility, and power. The biblical writer mockingly calls it a calf. “These are your gods” probably indicates that Aaron and the people did not recognize any essential problem in what they were doing. If Moses, wherever he was, was worshiping the invisible Yahweh, they were merely worshiping the visible one (so also v.5). They did not recognize that to make an idol of God was to undermine every truth about God that he was trying to teach them. The Hebrew word for “revelry” (v.6) has a wide range of meaning from simple play to sexual activity (Ge 26:8). In view of the sexual orgies regularly associated with bull worship, that connotation is surely intended here.

God’s response to this flagrant breach of the covenant was perfectly just. The people had sworn on pain of death to keep the covenant. Now they have broken it and deserve to die. They are no longer God’s people (32:7). Nevertheless, there are undertones here that suggest something else is going on. Has God really forgotten his promise to Abraham (v.13; see 2:24)? Would he so easily shift the promise to Moses (v.10)? Why is he so easily moved by Moses' appeal (v.14)? One suspects that we have here not a revelation of an arbitrariness in God so much as a test of Moses. Will Moses reject this fallible people and accept the honor lightly dangled before him, or will he care more for the honor of God than about his own? If this interpretation is correct, Moses passes the test with flying colors.

As passionate as Moses was for the honor of God, he is equally towering in his rage over the people’s foolishness (32:19-20). He symbolizes the brokenness of the covenant by hurling the divinely inscribed tablets (31:18) to the ground, and he forces the people to defile the pulverized idol by passing it through their own digestive tracts. If no one else understands, he at least does: idolatry cannot coexist with the truth that God is not part of this world. And if that understanding is lost, all the rest of biblical faith is as well. That faith is uniquely dependent on the truth that God transcends this world.

Ex 32:24 is one of the great expressions of the human tendency to excuse ourselves and deny personal responsibility. The results of Aaron’s inability to stand up to the people in their demand for a god to manipulate are threefold: brother set against brother (vv.25-29), a plague (v.35), and the distance of God (33:3). God had planned for brother to serve brother, for health and abundance, and for his presence in their midst, but all that is jeopardized by the people’s efforts to achieve these things for themselves (see on 32:1).

The most serious problem is the distance of God. Moses' concern is seen in his attempt to maneuver God into an “or else” situation (32:31-32). God, in effect, tells him to calm down (v.33). But Moses' statement is a final rejection of any offer to make a nation for himself (see v.10). God’s words and actions in response (vv.33-35) show that he will forgive the Israelites as a people and continue his election of them, but that individual Israelites will still experience the temporal results of their actions. He goes on to say (33:1-3) that he will keep his promise to give the people the land of Canaan but that he himself cannot go with them because of their stubborn (stiff-necked) tendency to disobedience. People with that attitude cannot survive in the presence of a holy God. The people’s shocked response is to take off the ornaments, which probably symbolize their pride (v.6).

One of the results of the golden calf incident was a new level of intimacy between Moses' and God (33:7-34:35). The central issue is whether God will go with the people to the Promised Land. Moses argues that without God’s presence for himself personally and with the people as a whole, the whole enterprise is pointless. This underlines what the entire book of Exodus and, indeed, the whole process of salvation, is about: experiencing God’s presence (see on 24:12-40:38). The upshot of these encounters is that Moses himself becomes a symbol of God’s presence through the radiance of his face (34:29-30).

The tabernacle was also called the Tent of Meeting (40:2), and some believe that 33:7-11 is a reference to the tabernacle, here placed out of chronological order for reasons of topical coverage (Moses' meetings with God). But that does not seem correct since this tent is pitched outside the camp (v.7) and the tabernacle was set up in the center of the camp (Nu 2:2). Thus it appears that this tent was a temporary measure until the tabernacle was completed.

“Face to face” (33:11), literally “mouth to mouth,” is an expression of extreme intimacy but also of directness in communication. If Moses is to lead God’s people, then he must have an intimate knowledge of God and his ways (v.13). It is the experience and evidence of the presence of God (v.16) that distinguishes biblical religion from all others. This is summed up in the word glory: the awesome reality of God. See above on 16:10. God will reveal his character (name) to Moses and give him a glimpse of his actual being (33:19-23). But mortality and corruption cannot survive a direct and unmediated experience of immortality and perfection. In Christian tradition the cleft rock is seen as a symbol of Christ, through whose protection we sinners can come into the presence of God and live.

God’s response to Moses' plea is to reaffirm the covenant (34:1-28). In many ways this is a brief reenactment of chs. 19-24. God manifests himself (vv.5-7), offers his presence and protection (v.10), stipulates what the people’s side of the agreement will entail (vv.11-26), and directs that the covenant be put in writing (vv.27-28). Interestingly, this promulgation of the covenant is one-sided. God merely states that he is willing to go on with the previous relationship even though it has been technically dissolved by disobedience. The stipulations deal specifically with two aspects: the response of the people to idol worshipers (vv.11-16) and true worship (vv.17-26). This is as might be expected in view of the recent bout with idolatry.

Compassion is not the dissolution of moral cause and effect (34:6-7). Unless there are real consequences for guilt, there is no such thing as mercy. However, it should not be thought that God arbitrarily punishes the descendants of sinners. This statement means that a person’s actions have long-term consequences because God has made the world that way. God’s mercy is in his limiting the deadly effects of sin to three or four generations. The effects of righteousness he extends to a thousand generations (see Dt 7:9).

Ex 34:11-17 provides a theological explanation for the destruction of the peoples who lived in the land of Canaan. Any attempt to coexist with them would result in an acceptance of their false religions. While many falsehoods can coexist together, the truth cannot coexist with any of them. Jealousy (34:14) has an unsavory connotation in English. It is petty and possessive. That is not the case in Hebrew. It is the same word as is sometimes translated “zeal.” So it was because Jesus was jealous for the house of God that he drove out the money changers (Jn 2:17). God’s jealousy is on our behalf, not his.

In view of the preceding verses, it is likely that the stipulations for worship here (34:18-26) are specifically designed to set the Hebrew worship apart from the pagan worship practices of the Canaanites. Of special prominence are the three pilgrim feasts (vv.23-24): Unleavened Bread (and Passover, v.18, 25); Weeks (or Firstfruits, vv.22, 26); and Ingathering (v.22). At the turn of the year (v.22): This feast occurred in September. The civil year began in the autumn, as the Jewish New Year still does. See above on 23:14-19 for a further discussion of the feasts.