![mySPU](/images/global_header_images/mySPU-hover.png")
![51°µĶų](/images/global_header_images/spu-home-logo-transparent.png"){kind=logo}
0
Selections From Israel's Story Week 4
The Golden Calf: Exodus 32
Enlarge
From Covenant Sealing to Covenant Breaking
Our last Lectio ended with , and we have skipped over , in which God gives Moses instructions about the tabernacle. It makes dramatic sense for us to move from : was when the covenant was sealed, and is when the covenant is broken. But we cannot miss the importance of the intermediate chapters, and the context they provide.
give instructions about the tabernacle, recount the problem of the golden calf, and return to the topic of the tabernacle. The story of the golden calf is literarily and literally in the middle of Godās Torah on tabernacle, and, within that context, the problem becomes even more serious.
The Tabernacle
Tabernacle is both a noun and a verb. , its meaning is fairly complex, encompassing the ātent of meetingā [Authorās Note 1] and the various things inside the tent, including the āark of the covenantā [Authorās Note 2]. One of the benefits of the tabernacle is its portability ā as the Israelites move from Mount Sinai to the Promised Land, they can disassemble the tabernacle for travel, and reassemble it when they stop to camp.
, tabernacle means ādwellā: God will tabernacle with the Israelites, will pitch Godās tent in their midst. The peopleās explanation that they want a god āwho will go before usā () is ironic at best within a text that describes Godās plan to tabernacle with them.
This chapter is one of the most dramatic in the entire Old Testament, based on what is done and said by the Israelites, Aaron, Moses, and God. But adding to the drama are the different places within the story where motivations and words are not entirely clear, and those will be noted below. Ultimately, this story is about Godās covenant with Israel: a covenant that is maintained ā despite what the Israelites do ā by and because of God.
In this first verse, we encounter the first ambiguity: Mosesā long absence from the Israelites. When we last saw Moses, he was going up to meet God on Mount Sinai, and tells us that he remained on the mountain for 40 days and 40 nights. That number is not always meant to be read literally in the Bible; it can represent a full period of time.
According to , it was āwhen the people saw that Moses delayed to come down from the mountainā that they approached Aaron and asked him to make them a god. It is not clear whether the people had been told how long Moses would be and he truly was late, or the ādelayā was simply their perception and they were impatient. Either way, they instigate what is to follow.
There is another ambiguity that is built into . It is translated in most English versions as āgods,ā but can also be translated as the singular noun āGod.ā Are the people asking Aaron to create other gods for them to follow, or are they asking for Aaron to fashion a physical representation of God? Or it could be that the people are asking for other gods, but Aaron hears their request differently. In , Aaron declares a festival to the LORD, which would support that, at least in Aaronās mind, the golden calf is an image of the LORD.
Third, are the people gathering āagainstā Aaron in a hostile manner? The same string of words that is used in appears in in an explicitly threatening act. But the text records no protest from Aaron and no statement about his fear. He responds to the peopleās request with one of his own, that they bring him the golden rings from their ears [Authorās Note 3]. After Aaron receives the raw materials, he fashions it into the form of a calf. Here, too, the Hebrew is not clear as to whether Aaron shapes the calf with a graving tool or casts it into the mold, but, aside from the specifics of how, the text is quite clear that Aaron did make this object.
Why a Calf?
Several people have wondered about the choice of a calf. In Egypt the bull symbolized , while in Canaan it represented Baal. Again, we must return to the ambiguity in the word elohim. Did Aaron make a foreign god for the Israelites to follow, or did Aaron make a physical representation of the LORD, choosing a familiar object? Is this a breaking of the first or second commandment?
Either way, the people immediately assign the image a function: in , they ā and not Aaron ā say, āThese are your gods [Authorās Note 4], O Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt!ā After Aaron proclaims the ensuing festival to be directed to the LORD, the people perform a fast-paced series of actions: in one verse () they rise, they offer, they bring sacrifices, they sit down, and they rise up to ārevelā [Authorās Note 5].
changes locations from the base of the mountain to the top, where the LORD tells Moses to āGo down!ā Godās command is followed by the reason: the people are acting perversely. God describes the people to Moses as āyour people, whom you brought up out of the land of Egyptā () and Moses does the same, asking God, āwhy does your anger burn hot against your people, whom you brought out of the land of Egypt ā¦ā (). It is as if neither one wants to claim ownership of the Israelites!
Several commentators have noticed that Godās severe punishment, āI may consume themā is conditioned on Mosesā agreement to Godās statement, ālet me alone.ā It is as if God has opened up the door to Moses to intercede, in contrast to a passage like , where Moses has no say. But that must not diminish the seriousness of the threat, nor the intensity of Mosesā intercession ā according to and , Moses lies prostrate before the LORD, praying for the people for another 40 days and nights.
Does God Change Godās Mind?
When Moses responds to God, he does not give God any excuses or apologies for the Israelitesā actions. Instead, he makes three different appeals to God:
- First, Moses refers to the history of Godās deliverance of the Israelites from Egypt ().
- Second, Moses wonders about Godās reputation among the Egyptians ().
- Third, Moses calls God to remember Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and the promise that was made to them.
And immediately after Mosesā appeals, we read, in the New Revised Standard Version, āAnd the LORD changed his mind about the disaster that he planned to bring on his peopleā (). Different English translations soften this statement: the Jewish Publication Society Translation reads, āthe LORD renounced the punishment he had planned to bring on his people,ā and the New International Version reads, āThen the LORD relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatenedā [Authorās Note 6].
There are theological dangers if we push too hard on either side of this issue. On the one hand, if we overemphasize that God can ā and does ā change Godās mind, where is Godās omniscience? Why would God change if God knows all things that are going to happen? If we argue that God has been convinced by Mosesā appeals, where is Godās omnipotence? What kind of sovereignty does God have if a mere human can talk God out of what God planned to do?
On the other hand, if we overemphasize that God is in complete, total control; that God has a plan for everything that is to happen from before the foundations of the earth and will make that plan happen, where is human free will? What role do humans play at all? Some people explain that God knew all along that God would not destroy the Israelites, and was just testing Moses to see how he would respond. Others will say that prayer is not to change God, but to change the humans who pray it; therefore, Mosesā intercession had no effect on God but was for the point of shaping Mosesā own feelings about the Israelites.
Strangely enough, the safest theological space is to take seriously the words of the text and believe that in response to Mosesā plea, God decided not to do what God originally said. Indeed, like Abraham pleading with God for Sodom and Gomorrah, the Old Testament gives us examples of humans who understand prayer to be a conversation, and God to be a relational God who does actually listen to humans. To settle here does not deny that God is God, but clarifies that God is a God for us and with us.
As Moses descends the mountain, his action is interrupted by the description of the tablets of the law in . Despite the urgency of Mosesā descent, we are asked to pause and reflect ā in some detail ā on the physical details of these tablets. Moses meets up with Joshua (compare ), who seems to have misunderstood the sound that he has heard, describing it as a ānoise of warā ().
Enlarge
Mosesā Reaction to the Golden Calf
God had asked Moses in , āNow let me alone, so that my wrath may burn hot against them and I may consume them.ā Moses did not do so then, but in we see Mosesā own anger expressed in a series of violent actions. First, he throws down the tablets with such force that they are broken (). Second, he burns the calf, grinds it up, and scatters it on the water. Then, he forces the people to drink it [Authorās Note 7]. If Israelites can ingest that which they were just worshipping, it demonstrates the lack of power of this āgod.ā
Moses also has a question for Aaron, and it shows the shared responsibility of the people and Aaron: what did they do to you that you brought such a great sin against them? At first, the people are the subject, doing something to Aaron. But then Aaron is the subject, bringing a sin on the people. Aaronās response verges on the ludicrous. He refuses to take any responsibility, telling Moses, āyou know the people, that they are bent on evilā (). He then repeats verbatim what the people had said, but drastically minimizes and abbreviates his own role:
Mosesā violence then extends to the , whose actions may also be a commentary on Aaron. Aaron let the people run wild (), but his relatives respond ācorrectly.ā How can someone reading this text today not be disturbed by ? Ancient commentators were also bothered by it, but explained it in a number of ways.
- First, the people are described as a collective throughout the chapter until this section, when the Levites separate themselves out from others, and 3,000 of them are killed.
- Second, when we compare that number with , which tells us that āabout six hundred thousand men … besides women and childrenā left Egypt, we see that 3,000 is a fraction (1/200) of the entire population.
- Third, in the Exodus Rabbah, the rabbis argue that all of those 3,000 are the foreigners who left with the Israelites.
If those explanations mitigate our discomfort, good. Still, we take note that Moses tells the Levites that God commanded them to kill (). We note that, after they do so, Moses explains that their actions (1) equal their ordination and (2) have resulted in a blessing (). Perhaps what must be taken away from is the enormous cost ā to themselves and to the people ā by which the Levites distinguish themselves. Again, this may also be a commentary against Aaron, who was less than rigorous in separating out false deities from the LORD.
The final section of this chapter, , shows Moses as a mediator between the people and God. Moses is neither complacent nor certain about his ability to intercede; he tells the people, āperhaps I can make atonement for your sinā (). When Moses does intercede, he asks for God to forgive the people at a potential cost for himself, āif not, please blot me out of your bookā (). Mosesā offering of himself is not necessary, for God does forgive. Yet, Godās forgiveness does not preclude punishment, as the final verse in the chapter indicates.
It is hard not to see foreshadowing of Jesus in Mosesā actions: one who did not sin, but is willing to offer himself in their place, whose own blood makes atonement for the sins of all humans. In Exodus as well as in the New Testament and beyond, the covenant between God and the people is maintained because of Godās mercy.
Questions for Further Reflection
- It is easy to look at the actions of the Israelites in this chapter as foolish, but all of us are prone to the sin of idolatry.Ģż Spend some time in honest reflection.Ģż In what situations have you set-up golden calves in place of God?Ģż When have you allowed impatience to supersede our need to live in dependence on our Creator?
- The Lectio writer notes some ambiguity in the usage of the Hebrew in this chapter.Ģż What difference does it make if the Israelites are asking Aaron to create another god, or to make them a physical representation of God? Would one be more understandable than the other?
- What does the Lectio writer say about the tension between Godās omniscience and human free will in this text?Ģż How is your faith challenged or encouraged because of these theological mysteries?
- Likewise, this text is a strong testament to the power of prayer.Ģż Even if it is difficult to understand the complexities of how it actually works, what do Mosesā actions teach us about prayer?Ģż What are some examples you know of where prayer resulted in similarly tangible results?
This work is licensed under a .
