What does the Great Commission have to do with mobile devices? More than you might think.
32:1 1 When the people saw that Moses delayed2 in coming down3 from the mountain, they4 gathered around Aaron and said to him, “Get up,5 make us gods6 that will go before us. As for this fellow Moses,7 the man who brought us up from the land of Egypt, we do not know what8 has become of him!”
sn This narrative is an unhappy interlude in the flow of the argument of the book. After 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. U. 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 (Exodus, 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. See, among others, 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.
tn The infinitive construct with the lamed (ל) preposition is used here epexegetically, explaining the delay of Moses.
tn Heb “the people.”
tn 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.
tn 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).
tn 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.
Sign up for the Verse of the Day
Get beautiful Bible art delivered to your inbox. We’ll send you a new verse every day to download or share.