Exodus 32:1-35 (4)

Exodus 32:1-35 (4)

31. And Moses returned unto the Lord This relation does not stand in its proper place, since, as we have already said, Moses does not exactly preserve the order of time. For we shall see in the next chapter that God refuses with respect to His angel what he here accords; since it is a mere quibble to say that a mere ordinary angel is here promised, in whom God will not so manifest His presence as He has done before. Therefore now Moses briefly records what he will afterwards more fully set forth, i.e., how God was appeased and received the people back into favor, which was not the case until he was commanded to hew out or polish the new tables. And we know that it was a figure of speech in common use with the Hebrews to touch upon the chief points of a matter, and then to fill up, in the progress of the history, what had been omitted.

Note 354. “R. Menacheus on this place saith, “This angel is not the Angel of the Covenant, of whom He spake in the time of favorable acceptance, My presence shall go; for now the holy blessed God had taken away His divine presence from amongst them, and would have led them by the hand of another angel. And Moses’ speech in Exodus 33:12, seemeth to imply so much.” — Ainsworth in loco.

His prayer commences with confession; for in such a case of wicked ingratitude nothing remained but freely to acknowledge their guilt, so as to look nowhere else for safety in their state of ruin and despair but to the mercy of God; for hypocrites only inflame His wrath the more by extenuating their offenses. The particle אנא, ana, which we have followed others in translating “I beseech,” (obsecro,) is sometimes expressive of exhortation, and used like Agedum, (come on;) here it only signifies what the Latins express by amabo After having anticipated God’s judgment by the confession of their guilt, he nevertheless implores for pardon; and this with extreme earnestness, which is the reason why his address is suddenly broken off, for the sentence is imperfect, as is often the case in pathetic appeals, “if thou wilt forgive their sin.” I have no objection to make if any should construe the particle אם, im, “I would,” (utinam,) still in the vehemence of his feelings he seems to burst forth into an exclamation, “Oh, if thou wilt forgive;” though it may be but a modest petition, “Wilt thou forgive?” for, though the prayers of the saints flow from their confidence, still they have to struggle with doubts and questionings within themselves, whether God is willing to listen to them. Hence it arises that their prayers begin hesitatingly, until faith prevails.

Note 355. “Formula (says Facciolati) obsecrantis, vel obtestantis: di grazia, deh, per cortesia.” Elsewhere, it would appear, our translators have always rendered אנא, “I pray thee; or I, or we, beseech thee,” except at Psalm 116:16, where it is translated as here, “oh.” — Taylor’s Concordance. “The Scriptures deal but sparingly in such interjectional phrases as the present, and, wherever they occur, they indicate the most profound emotion in the speaker.” — Prof. Bush.

Note 356. A. V., “If.” Noldius, obsecro; equivalent to the rendering towards which C. inclines. — W. “Vray est que le sens est tel, O que tu leur pardonnes: mais cependant il ne parle qu’a demie bouche, comme un homme angoisse, et s’escrie que si Dieu leur pardonne, il a tout gagne;” it is true that this is the sense, O that thou wouldest pardon them! but still he speaks but half his meaning, like a man in anguish, and cries out, that if God would pardon them, he has gained all he wants. — Fr.

What follows may in many respects appear to be absurd; for Moses both imperiously lays down the law to God, and in his eager impetuosity seeks to overthrow, as far as he can, His eternal counsel, and inconsiderately robs him of His justice. Surely all must condemn the pride of this address, Unless thou sparest the offenders, count me not as one of thy servants; nor can there seem to be less of folly in his attempt to bring to nought God’s eternal predestination. Besides, when he desires that he himself should be involved in the same punishment, what is this but to destroy all distinction, that God should rashly condemn the innocent with the transgressors? Nor would I indeed deny that Moses was carried away by such vehemence, that he speaks like one possessed. Still it must be observed, that when believers unburden their cares into God’s bosom, they do not always deal discreetly, nor with well-ordered language, but sometimes stammer, sometimes pour forth “groans which cannot be uttered,” sometimes pass by everything else, and lay hold of and press some particular petition. Assuredly there was nothing less present to the mind of Moses than to dictate to God; nor, if he had been asked, would he have said that what God had decreed respecting His elect before the creation of the world could be overthrown. Again, he knew that nothing was more foreign to the Judge of all the world than to destroy the innocent together with the reprobate. But since his care for the people, whose welfare he knew to be consigned to him by God, had absorbed, as it were, all his senses, nothing else occupies his mind but that they may be saved, whilst he does not entertain a single thought which interferes with this his great solicitude. Hence it is, that arrogating far too much to himself, he throws himself forward as the people’s surety, and forgets that he is predestined to salvation by God’s immutable counsel; and, finally, does not sufficiently consider what would be becoming in God. Nor is Moses the only one who has been thus carried away; but Paul has gone even further, expressing himself thus in writing after full premeditation, “I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren.” (Romans 9:3.) The fact is, that intent on the welfare of the elect people, they neither of them examine critically into particulars, and therefore devote themselves in behalf of the whole Church; inasmuch as this general principle was deeply rooted in their minds, that if the welfare of the whole body were secured, it would be well with the individual members. Hence the question arises whether it is a pious feeling to prefer the salvation of others to our own? Some being afraid lest the example of Moses and Paul should be prejudicial, have said that they were only influenced by their zeal for God’s glory, when they devoted themselves to eternal destruction; and that they did not prefer the people’s salvation to their own. Even, however, though this should be accepted, still their words would have been hyperbolical; for, although God’s glory may well be preferred to a hundred worlds, yet He so far accommodates Himself to our ignorance, that He will not have the eternal salvation of believers brought into opposition with His glory; but has rather bound them inseparably together, as cause and effect. Moreover, it is abundantly clear that Moses and Paul did devote themselves to destruction out of regard to the general salvation. Let, therefore, that solution which I have advanced hold good, that their petition was so confused, that in the vehemence of their ardor they did not see the contradiction, like men beside themselves. Nor is it matter of surprise that they should have been in such perplexity, since they supposed that by the destruction of the elect people God’s faithfulness was abandoned, and He Himself in a manner brought to nought, if the eternal adoption wherewith He had honored the children of Abraham should fail.

Note 357. See this difficult subject somewhat more fully discussed by C. himself on Romans 9:3, (Calvin Soc. edit., pp. 335-337,) together with Mr. Owen’s note. If, however, the opinion of many, as stated by Prof. Bush, as to this passage be adopted, and it surely has much show of reason, it is far more easily comprehended than the expression of St. Paul: “There is no intimation in these words of any secret book of the Divine decrees, or of anything involving the question of Moses’ final salvation or perdition. He simply expressed the wish rather to die than to witness the destruction of his people. The phraseology is in allusion, probably, to the custom of having the names of a community enrolled in a register, and, whenever one died, of erasing his name from the number.”

By “the book,” in which God is said to have written His elect, must be understood, metaphorically, His decree. But the expression which Moses uses, asking to be blotted out of the number of the pious, is an incorrect one, since it cannot be that one who has been once elected should be ever reprobated; and those lunatics who, on this ground, overturn, as far as they can, that prime article of our faiith concerning God’s eternal predestination, thereby demonstrate their malice no less than their ignorance. David uses two expressions in the same sense, “blotted out,” and “not written:”

“Let them be blotted out of the book of the living, and not be written with the righteous.” (Psalm 69:28.)

We cannot hence infer any change in the counsel of God; but this phrase is merely equivalent to saying, that God will at length make it manifest that the reprobate, who for a season are counted amongst the number of the elect, in no respect belong to the body of the Church. Thus the secret catalogue, in which the elect are written, is contrasted by Ezekiel 13:9 with that external profession, which is often deceitful. Justly, therefore, does Christ bid His disciples rejoice, “because their names are written in heaven,” (Luke 10:20;) for, albeit the counsel of God, whereby we are predestinated to salvation, is incomprehensible to us,

“nevertheless (as Paul testifies) this seal standeth sure, The Lord knoweth them that are his.” (2 Timothy 2:19.)

33. Whosoever hath sinned against me, him will I blot out In these words God adapts Himself to the comprehension of the human mind, when He says, “him will I blot out;” for hypocrites make such false profession of His name, that they are not accounted aliens, until God openly renounces them: and hence their manifest rejection is called erasure. Moreover, God reproves the preposterous request of Moses, inasmuch as it does not consist with His justice to reject the innocent; whence it follows, that Moses had prayed inconsiderately. The sum is, that God, whenever He punishes the ungodly and iniquitous, pays them the wages which they have earned; whereas He never punishes the just. Yet it is to be observed, that when God declares that he will be the avenger of sins, His mercy is not excluded, whereby He buries the transgressions of His people, so that they come not into mind. Thus, when Paul says, “Neither fornicators, nor adulterers, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor murderers, nor revilers, shall possess the kingdom of God,” (1 Corinthians 6:9, 10;) it would be incorrect to conclude that they were all shut out from the hope of salvation; since he only speaks of the reprobate, who never repent, so that being converted they may obtain grace.

Note 358. It will be seen that C. here, as is often the case, quotes from memory.

34. Therefore now go, lead the people In these words God shews that He is appeased, for it was a sure sign of His reconciliation that His angel is appointed to guide them during the rest of their way. The exposition which some give, that an angel is now promised to take care of them, such as Daniel testifies to have been sometimes assigned even to heathen nations, and an instance of which we shall see in the next chapter, is but a poor conjecture; besides, God declares that though the people have departed from the faith, still He stood firm to His agreement as to their enjoyment of the promised inheritance.

His postponement of their punishment is an indirect reproof of the people’s wickedness, as though He had said that they were of so perverse a nature that they would hereafter give many fresh occasions for it. If any object that, whenever God afterwards punished other sins, He did not then take into account this act of idolatry, I reply that it is no new thing with God, when men contract again fresh guilt, to accumulate their punishments, and also to call to judgment many sins together under one general punishment. Besides, we know that God casts the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generation. Lastly, there is nothing to prevent Him from visiting at another time with temporal punishments the iniquity which He has once pardoned; for wherefore did He then forgive them? Was it not lest the truth of His covenant, should perish? Those, then, whom He thus was unwilling to destroy, He might at His own time call up again for punishment, provided the chastisement were but moderate. Hence let us learn not to flatter ourselves, if ever God suspends His judgment, nor to abuse His long-suffering, as if we had escaped with impunity.

Note 359. “L’execution de son jugement;” the execution of His judgment. — Fr.

35. And the Lord plagued the people Moses here briefly attributes to God what he had before related as to the slaughter of the three thousand, lest any should think that he had smitten them with immoderate severity Therefore Paul bids us consider in this history, as in a mirror, how greatly displeasing to God idolatry is; lest we should imitate those who were smitten by His hand. (1 Corinthians 10:7.) The indignation of Moses is consequently connected with the command of God. Meanwhile he commends the mercy of God in having spared Aaron, whilst he speaks of the calf as his work, as well as of the whole of the people; in a different way indeed, for Aaron formed the calf at their request; still the criminality was common to them.