Moses turned, and went down from the mountain, with the two tablets of the covenant in his hand; tablets that were written on both their sides. They were written on one side and on the other.
Parallel Translations
-
Moses turned, and went down from the mountain, with the two tablets of the covenant in his hand; tablets that were written on both their sides. They were written on one side and on the other.
-
And Moses turned, and went down from the mount, and the two tables of the testimony were in his hand: the tables were written on both their sides; on the one side and on the other were they written.
-
And Moses turned, and went down from the mount, with the two tables of the testimony in his hand; tables that were written on both their sides; on the one side and on the other were they written.
Cross-references (8)
Passages linked to Exodus 32:15 in the Treasury of Scripture Knowledge, ordered by reader-vote popularity; verse text shown in World English Bible.
- Deuteronomy 9:15 So I turned and came down from the mountain, and the mountain was burning with fire. The two tablets of the covenant were in my two hands.
- Exodus 16:34 As Yahweh commanded Moses, so Aaron laid it up before the Testimony, to be kept.
- Exodus 24:18 Moses entered into the middle of the cloud, and went up on the mountain; and Moses was on the mountain forty days and forty nights.
- Exodus 31:18 When he finished speaking with him on Mount Sinai, he gave Moses the two tablets of the covenant, stone tablets, written with God’s finger.
- Exodus 40:20 He took and put the covenant into the ark, and set the poles on the ark, and put the mercy seat above on the ark.
- Deuteronomy 5:22 Yahweh spoke these words to all your assembly on the mountain out of the middle of the fire, of the cloud, and of the thick darkness, with a great voice. He added no more. He wrote them on two stone tablets, and gave them to me.
- Psalms 19:7 Yahweh’s law is perfect, restoring the soul. Yahweh’s covenant is sure, making wise the simple.
- Revelation 5:1 I saw, in the right hand of him who sat on the throne, a book written inside and outside, sealed shut with seven seals.
Cross-references from openbible.info (CC BY 4.0)
Explain this verse (18 sources)
Historical commentary, presented as a primary source — not an endorsement.
Private notes
Saved on this device only — never synced or sent anywhere.
John Trapp 1656 · Public Domain Exo 32:15 And Moses turned, and went down from…
Exo 32:15 And Moses turned, and went down from the mount, and the two tables of the testimony [were] in his hand: the tables [were] written on both their sides; on the one side and on the other [were] they written.
Ver. 15. Written on both their sides.] See the like in other mystical books. {Eze 2:10 Rev 5:1}
John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Matthew Poole 1685 · Public Domain Not on the inside and outside, which is unusual…
Not on the inside and outside, which is unusual and unnecessary, but on the inside only, some of the ten commands being written on the right hand, and others on the left, not for any mystery, but only for conveniency of writing.
Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Matthew Henry 1710 · Public Domain Here is, I. The favour of God to Moses,…
Here is, I. The favour of God to Moses, in trusting him with the two tables of the testimony, which, though of common stone, were far more valuable than all the precious stones that adorned the breast-plate of Aaron. The topaz of Ethiopia could not equal them, Exo 32:15, Exo 32:16. God himself, without the ministry either of man or angel (for aught that appears), wrote the ten commandments on these tables, on both their sides, some on one table and some on the other, so that they were folded together like a book, to be deposited in the ark.
II. The familiarity between Moses and Joshua. While Moses was in the cloud, as in the presence-chamber, Joshua continued as near as he might, in the anti-chamber (as it were), waiting till Moses came out, that he might be ready to attend him; and though he was all alone for forty days (fed, it is likely, with manna), yet he was not weary of waiting, as the people were, but when Moses came down he came with him, and not till then. And here we are told what constructions they put upon the noise that they heard in the camp, Exo 32:17, Exo 32:18. Though Moses had been so long in immediate converse with God, yet he did not disdain to talk freely with his servant Joshua. Those whom God advances he preserves from being puffed up. Nor did he disdain to talk of the affairs of the camp. Blessed Paul was not the less mindful of the church on earth for having been in the third heavens, where he heard unspeakable words. Joshua, who was a military man, and had the command of the train-bands, feared there was a noise of war in the camp, and then he would be missed; but Moses, having received notice of it from God, better distinguished the sound, and was aware that it was the voice of those that sing. It does not however appear that he told Joshua what he knew of the occasion of their singing; for we should not be forward to proclaim men's faults: they will be known too soon.
Read full note →
III. The great and just displeasure of Moses against Israel, for their idolatry. Knowing what to expect, he was presently aware of the golden calf, and the sport the people made with it. He saw how merry they could be in his absence, how soon he was forgotten among them, and what little thought they had of him and his return. He might justly take this ill, as an affront to himself, but this was the least part of the grievance; he resented it as an offence to God, and the scandal of his people. See what a change it is to come down from the mount of communion with God to converse with a world that lies in wickedness. In God we see nothing but what is pure and pleasant, in the world nothing but pollution and provocation. Moses was the meekest man on the earth, and yet when he saw the calf, and the dancing, his anger waxed hot. Note, It is no breach of the law of meekness to show our displeasure at the wickedness of the wicked. Those are angry and sin not that are angry at sin only, not as against themselves, but as against God. Ephesus is famous for patience, and yet cannot bear those that are evil, Rev 2:2. It becomes us to be cool in our own cause, but warm in God's. Moses showed himself very angry, both by breaking the tables and burning the calf, that he might, by these expressions of strong indignation, awaken the people to a sense of the greatness of the sin they had been guilty of, which they would have been ready to make light of if he had not thus shown his resentment, as one in earnest for their conviction. 1. To convince them that they had forfeited and lost the favour of God, he broke the tables, Exo 32:19. Though God knew of their sin, before Moses came down, yet he did not order him to leave the tables behind him, but gave them to him to take down in his hand, that the people might see how forward God was to take them into covenant with himself, and that nothing but their own sin prevented it; yet he put in into his heart, when the iniquity of Ephraim was discovered (as the expression is, Hos 7:1), to break the tables before their eyes (as it is Deu 9:17), that the sight of it might the more affect them, and fill them with confusion, when they saw what blessings they had lost. Thus, they being guilty of so notorious an infraction of the treaty now on foot, the writings were torn, even when they lay ready to be sealed. Note, The greatest sign of God's displeasure against any person or people is his taking his law from them. The breaking of the tables is the breaking of the staff of beauty and band (Zac 11:10, Zac 11:14); it leaves a people unchurched and undone. Some think that Moses sinned in breaking the tables, and observe that, when men are angry, they are in danger of breaking all God's commandments; but it rather seems to be an act of justice than of passion, and we do not find that he himself speaks of it afterwards (Deu 9:17) with any regret. 2. To convince them that they had betaken themselves to a God that could not help them, he burnt the calf (Exo 32:20), melted it down, and then filed it to dust; and, that the powder to which it was reduced might be taken notice of throughout the camp, he strewed it upon that water of which they all drank. That it might appear that an idol is nothing in the world (Co1 8:4); he reduced this to atoms, that it might be as near nothing as could be. To show that false gods cannot help their worshippers, he here showed that this could not save itself, Isa 46:1, Isa 46:2. And to teach us that all the relics of idolatry ought to be abolished, and that the names of Baalim should be taken away, the very dust to which it was ground was scattered. Filings of gold are precious (we say), and therefore are carefully gathered up; but the filings of the golden calf were odious, and must be scattered with detestation. Thus the idols of silver and gold must be cast to the moles and the bats (Isa 2:20; Isa 30:22), and Ephraim shall say, What have I to do any more with idols? His mixing this powder with their drink signified to them that the curse they had thereby brought upon themselves would mingle itself with all their enjoyments, and embitter them; it would enter into their bowels like water, and like oil into their bones. The backslider in heart shall be filled with his own ways; he shall drink as he brews. These were indeed waters of Marah.
Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Gill 1763 · Public Domain And the tables were the work of God,.... And…
And the tables were the work of God,.... And not of angels or men; the stones were made and formed by God into the shape they were:
and the writing was the writing of God, graven upon the tables; the letters in which the law was written were of his framing, devising, and engraving; and this was to show that this law was his own, and contained his mind and will; and to give the greater dignity and authority to it, and to deter men from breaking it.
John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Wesley 1765 · Public Domain On both their sides - Some on one table…
On both their sides - Some on one table and some on the other, so that they were folded together like a book, to be deposited in the ark.
John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.
Adam Clarke 1810 · Public Domain Verse 15. The tables were written on both their…
Verse 15. The tables were written on both their sides] If we take this literally, it was certainly a very unusual thing; for in ancient times the two sides of the same substance were never written over. However, some rabbins suppose that by the writing on both sides is meant the letters were cut through the tables, so that they might be read on both sides, though on one side they would appear reversed. Supposing this to be correct, if the letters were the same with those called Hebrew now in common use, the ס samech, which occurs twice, and the final ם mem which occurs twenty-three times in the ten commandments, both of these being close letters, could not be cut through on both sides without falling out, unless, as some of the Jews have imagined, they were held in by miracle; but if this ancient character were the same with the Samaritan, this through cutting might have been quite practicable, as there is not one close letter in the whole Samaritan alphabet. On this transaction there are the three following opinions:
1. We may conceive the tables of stone to have been thin slabs or a kind of slate, and the writing on the back side to have been a continuation of that on the front, the first not being sufficient to contain the whole.
Read full note →
2. Or the writing on the back side was probably the precepts that accompanied the ten commandments; the latter were written by the Lord, the former by Moses; See Clarke on Ex 34:1; and "Ex 34:27".
3. Or the same words were written on both sides, so that when held up, two parties might read at the same time.
Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Joseph Benson 1811 · Public Domain Exo 32:15-16. On both their sides — Thus it…
Exo 32:15-16. On both their sides — Thus it was effectually provided against a possibility of any one either taking from or adding to this law, to do either of which God expressly forbade his people, Deu 4:2. The tables were the work of God — Herein they differed from the second tables, which were the work of Moses, Exo 34:1.
Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary 1859 · Public Domain Both sides. The ten commandments were written twice over,…
Both sides. The ten commandments were written twice over, or on both sides, that all who stood round Moses, might be able to read them. (Menochius) --- On one side, appeared the laws regarding God; on the other, those which relate to man. (Haydock) --- They were like two originals. The common way of writing was only on one side. (Calmet)
George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).
Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset & David Brown 1871 · Public Domain Moses turned, and went down from the mount--The plain,…
Moses turned, and went down from the mount--The plain, Er-Raheh, is not visible from the top of Jebel Musa, nor can the mount be descended on the side towards that valley; hence Moses and his companion, who on duty had patiently waited his return in the hollow of the mountain's brow, heard the shouting some time before they actually saw the camp.
Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
Daniel D. Whedon 1874 · Public Domain 15. Moses turned — After his intercession he turned…
15. Moses turned — After his intercession he turned away with an anxious heart, and went down from the mount to encounter in the camp of Israel a still deeper trial. On the two tables see note at Exo_31:18. Being written on both their sides they need not have been large tablets of stone to contain the entire decalogue, and the fact that Moses carried them in his hand shows that they must have been rather small. The Hebrew text of Exo_20:1-17, if spread out over four pages, might be written in large, bold characters, and the pages each not exceed a surface of six inches square.
Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges 1878 · Public Domain 15. of the testimony] The expression is P’s (see…
15. of the testimony] The expression is P’s (see on Exo_25:16); and will have been introduced here by RP[219] on the basis of Exo_31:18 a, Exo_34:29. E would have written ‘the tables of stone’ (Exo_31:18 b).
[219] See pp. xi, xii.
Read full note →
written on both their sides, &c.] This statement is made only here. The tables, since Moses could carry them himself, will have been pictured by the writer as comparatively small.
15–20. Moses’ return to the camp. His punishment of the people for their sin.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers 1878 · Public Domain (15) And Moses turned—i.e., “returned,” or “set out on…
THE DESCENT OF MOSES FROM SINAI, AND THE SUPPRESSION OF THE IDOLATRY.
(15) And Moses turned—i.e., “returned,” or “set out on his return,” apparently without making any communication to Joshua, who was waiting for him not far off (see Exo_32:17).
Read full note →
The two tables . . . were in his hand.—In Deu_9:15 we read that the two tables were in his “two hands,” which is more exact, and more as we should have expected.
The tables were written on both their sides.—Babylonian tablets and Assyrian monoliths have usually writing on both sides, Egyptian monoliths rarely. It has been calculated that the 172 words of the Decalogue could easily have been inscribed in letters of a fair size on the four surfaces indicated, if the tablets were 27 inches long by 18 inches broad, and that two tablets of this size could readily have been conveyed in a man’s two hands (Keil).
A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Pulpit Commentary 1880 · Public Domain Ver. 15-19. MOSES BREAKS THE TWO TABLES. The entire…
Ver. 15-19. MOSES BREAKS THE TWO TABLES. The entire conference between God and Moses being now ended, Moses hastened to descend from the mount, and interpose in the crisis that had arisen, he took carefully the two tables of stone, which he had received, in his two hands, (Deu_9:15) and set out on his return to the comp. On the way, he fell in with Joshua, who must have been on the watch for his descent, and the two proceeded together. When a certain portion of the distance had been traversed, the sounds of the festivity which was going on in the camp reached their ears; and Joshua, mistaking the nature of the shouts, suggested that fighting was in progress (ver. 17). Moses, however, better instructed in the actual nature of the proceedings (vers. 7, 8), caught their character more correctly, and declared that what he heard was nothing but shouting (ver. 18). Soon afterwards, the camp came into sight a disorderly crowd, half stripped of their garments (ver. 25), wassinging choruses and dancing round the figure which Aaron had cast the sights and sounds were those of a dissolute orgy Moses was struck with horror and in the frenzy of his indignation, dashed the two tables to the ground and broke them into fragments (ver. 19). The people, he felt, were utterly unworthy of the holy laws which he had brought them they had "altogether gone out of the way they had become "abominable at the moment he perhaps despaired of obtaining mercy for them, and expected their entire destruction. God had not as yet told him whether he would "turn from his fierce wrath," or not.
The two tables were in his hand. in Deu_9:15, using greater particularity, Moses says that they were "in his two hands." One was in each hand probably. Written on both their sides. This is the case generally with Assyrian and Babylonian tablets, but not with Egyptian ones, which are moreover scarcely found at this early date. Here we seem to have again an indication that some of the Israelitic civilisation had come to them from "Ur of the Chaldees.
Read full note →
Vers. 15-19. The act of Moses in breaking the tables.
At first sight the act seems impious, and wholly inexcusable. Here was a marvel the greatest marvel existing in all the world transcending the finest statue, the most glorious picture more wonderful than the pyramids themselves or the great temple of Karnak here was a monument shaped by the hand of God, and inscribed with his finger in characters that would have possessed through all ages an undying interest for man. Here, moreover, was a precious deposit of truth God"s great revelation to his people put in a written form, and so rendered unalterable; no more liable to be corrupted by the uncertainty of human memory, or the glosses of tradition pure, changeless, perfect truth; the greatest blessing that man can receive. All this, committed by God to his servant"s care, and knowingly, wilfully destroyed in a moment of time! The thing seems, at first, incredible; yet we have the witness of God that it is true. Then we ask, How could Moses have so acted, and was not his action inexcusable? We look to Scripture, and we find that he is never blamed for it. He relates it of himself without any sign of self-condemnation nay! he, at a later date, reminds the people of it in a tone which is evidently one of self-approval. (Deu_9:17) What is the explanation of all this? It may help us to find a satisfactory answer, if we consider
I THE PROVOCATION TO THE ACT. Moses had left the people devoted apparently to God"s service. When he reported to them the entire contents of the "Book of the Covenant," they had answered with one voice, "All the words which the Lord hath said, we will do". (Exo_24:3) He had given them in charge to Aaron and Hur, on whose faithfulness he might well imagine himself justified in placing complete reliance. He had been absent less than six weeks it might seem to him that he had been absent but a few days. And now now that on rounding a corner of the gorge through which he was descending he comes in sight of them once more and has them fully presented to his view, what is it he beholds? He sees the entire people Levites and priests as well as laymen dancing around a golden idol in a lewd and indecent way! Was not this enough to move him? Was it not enough to transport him out of himself, and render him no longer master of his actions? The wickedness of the people stood revealed to him, and made him feel how utterly unworthy they were of the treasure which he was bringing them. Yielding to an irresistible impulse, in a paroxysm of indignation, to shew his horror at what he witnessed, he cast the tables to the ground. God seems to have regarded the provocation as sufficient, and therefore Moses receives no blame for what he did.
II THE ACT ITSELF. The act was the destruction of a record which the people were at the moment setting at nought. It was akin to the action of God in withdrawing light from them who sin against light. It was a deserved punishment. It was a way of declaring to the people that they were unworthy to receive the truth and should not receive it. Those who saw Moses descend saw that he was bringing them something, carefully, in his two hands, and must have felt that, as he had gone up to the summit to God, it must be something from God. When he lifted up his two hands, and with a gesture of abhorrence, cast the "something" to the ground, there must have gone through them a sudden thrill of fear, a sudden sense of loss. They must have felt that their sin had found them out that their punishment had begun. Casting the tables down and breaking them, was saying to the multitude in the most significant way" God has cast you off from being his people.
III THE SEQUEL OF THE ACT. If anything could have brought the Israelites generally to a sense of their guilt and shame, it would have been the act of Moses which they had witnessed. As it was, a deep impression seems to have been made; but only on the men of his own tribe. When Moses, shortly afterwards, demanded to know," Who was on the Lord"s side?" (verse 26), "all the men of Levii.e. , the great mass of the tribe rallied to him, and were ready to become the executioners of his wrathupon the most determined of the idolaters. This revulsion of feeling on their part was probably brought about, in a great measure, by the exhibition of indignation on the part of Moses, which culminated in his dashing the tables to the earth.
HOMILIES BY J. ORR Vers. 15-25. The return of Moses to the comp.
It may well be believed that it was with deeply agitated heart that Moses, stunned by the tidings he had just received, rejoined his faithful attendant, and as speedily as possible descended the rocky sides of the mountain. Great was the contrast between the things heavenly on which for forty days and forty nights his eyes had been uninterruptedly feasting, and the scenes he was now to witness. Even the light of common day could hardly seem otherwise than strange to him, emerging from his ecstasy. His bodily aspect, too, would be considerably altered. But in his spirit there is a stored-up energy, the product of his long rapture, which it only needs the sight of Israel"s sin to kindle into awful heat of wrath.
I THE BREAKING OF THE TABLES (vers. 15-19). The downward journey was a silent one. Moses refrains from communicating to Joshua the news he has received. He is absorbed in his own thoughts. And while he muses, the fire burns. (Psa_39:3) So soon as they approach the camp, sounds of revelry are heard. Joshua, with his soldier"s instinct, thinks at once of war, but Moses can tell him that it is "not the voice of them that shout for mastery," nor yet "the voice of them that cry for being overcome" that he hears, but "the voice of them that cry" (ver. 8). Even Moses, however, is unprepared for the spectacle which presents itself, as, pursuing the descent, some turn in the road at length puts before his eyes the whole scene of folly. The tables of testimony are in his hands, but these, in his hot anger, he now dashes from him, breaking them in pieces on the rocks (ver. 19). It was an act of righteous indignation, but symbolic also of the breaking of the covenant. Of that covenant the tables of stone were all that still remained, and the dashing of them to pieces was the final act in its rupture. Learn,
1. The actual sight of wickedness is necessary, to give us full sympathywith God in the hot displeasure with which he regards it.
2. The deepest and most loving natures are those most capable of beingaffected with holy indignation. Who shall compete with Moses in the boundlessness of his love for Israel? But the honour of Jehovah touches him yet more deeply.
3. It is right, on suitable occasions, to give emphatic expression to thehorror with which the sight of great wickedness inspires us.
II THE DESTRUCTION OF THE CALF (ver. 20). Returning to the camp, Moses brought the orgies of the people to a speedy termination. He had little difficulty in restoring order. His countenance, blazing with anger, and exhibiting every sign of grief, surprise, and horror, struck immediate dismay into the evil-doers. No one, apparently, had the courage to resist him. The idolaters slunk in guilty haste to their tents, or stood paralysed with fear, rooted to the spot at which he had discovered them. He, on his part, took immediate steps for ridding the camp of the visible abomination. "He took the calf which they had made and burnt it in the fire, and ground it to powder, and strewed it upon the water, and made the children of Israel drink of it." View this
1. As a bitter humiliation. What could be more humiliating to these idolaters than to see their god ground to powder, and its dust made into a nauseous mixture, which afterwards they were compelled to drink? But is not this the end of all sin? The instruments of our sin become the instruments of our punishment. Our sin turns to bitterness. The golden sheen by which it at first allured us disappears from it. It ends in humiliation and degradation.
2. As a righteous retribution. Why was the calf thus ground to powder, and given to the Israelites to drink? It was no mere act of revenge on Moses" part. It was no hasty doing of his anger. It was a just retribution for a great sin. It was a method deliberately adopted of branding idol and idolaters alike with the print of the Almighty"s judgment. It suggests to us the correspondence between sin and its punishment; the certainty of our sins coming home to roost; the fact that sin will be paid back to us in its own coin. Sin and retribution hang together. We "receive the things done in the body". (2Co_5:10)
3. As a prophecy of worse evil to come. Bitter as this humiliation was, it was not the whole. It was but the mark put upon the deed by God, which told those who had committed it that they must abide by it, and be prepared to eat the fruit of their doings. The drinking of the dust had its sequel in the slaughter and the plagues (vers. 27, 35). Even so, the bitterness and humiliation following from sins in this life do not exhaust their punishment. They warn of worse punishment in the world to come.
III AARON"S EXCUSES (vers. 21-25). The first duty was to destroy the calf. This accomplished, or while the work was proceeding, Moses addresses himself to Aaron. His words are cuttingly severe, did this people unto thee?" etc. (ver. 21). Aaron, on his side, is deprecating and humble. He is afraid of Moses" anger. He addresses Moses as "my lord," and proceeds to make excuses. His excuses are typical, and deserve consideration.
1. He falls back upon the old, old plea as old as Edenthat the blame of his sin rested on some one else than himself. "Let not the anger of my lord wax hot: thou knowest the people, that they are bent on mischief. For they said to me," etc. (vers. 22-24). It is, as we say, the old, old story of all evil-doers wasn"t me, indeed it wasn"t; it was those wicked people who made me do it." It is the weak, childish excuse of all who, having been tempted into sin, or having through their own irresolution fallen into it, have not the honesty or manliness to make at once a frank avowal of their fault. An easy way this, were the excuse admissible, of getting rid of our responsibility; but transgressors were early taught that they will not be allowed to avail themselves of it. (Gen_3:12-20) It is not a plea which will be held valid on the day of judgment. All, more or less, are conscious of pressure exerted on them by their circumstances. There is, however, no fatality binding us to yield to that pressure, if yielding means sin. The pressure is our trial. Aaron"s sin lay in his unmanly fear, in his not having the resolution to say at the critical time, No. Probably Aaron would have urged that if he had not yielded, the people would have killed him. "Then," Moses would have answered, "let them kill you. Better a thousand times that they had killed you than that you should have been the means of leading Israel into this great sin." Yet how often is the same species of excuse met with! "I couldn"t help it;" "The necessity of my situation;" "Compelled by circumstances;" "Customs of the trade;" "If I hadn"t done it, I would have offended all my friends;" "I should have lost my situation," etc. It may be all true: but the point is, Was the thing wrong? If it was, the case of Aaron teaches us that we cannot shield ourselves by transferring the blame of what we have done to circumstances.
2. If Aaron"s first excuse was bad, the second was worseit just happened. He put the gold, poor man, into the fire, and there came out this calf!" It came out. He did not make it; it just came out. This was a kind of explaining which explained nothing. Yet it is precisely paralleled by people attributing, say, to their "luck," to "chance," to "fate," to "destiny," what is really their own doing. Thomas Scott says wise man ever made a more unmeaning or foolish excuse than Aaron did. We should never have supposed "that he could speak well," were we to judge of his eloquence by this specimen." Note
(1) The right way of dealing with a fault is frankly to acknowledge it.
(2) Though Moses so severely rebuked Aaron, he could yet intercede for. (Deu_9:20) The future high priest, who truly had "infirmity", (Heb_5:2) needed, on this occasion, an intercessor for himself. The severity of Moses was the severity of aggrieved love. J.O.
HOMILIES BY J. URQUHART Vers. 15-35. Judgment and mercy.
I THE DESCENT or MOSES THE EMBLEM OF THE LAW"S ENTRANCE INTO A WORLD OF SIN (vers. 15-29).
1. He came with tables written by God"s own finger. The Divine origin andclaims of the law are still attested by its own nature and by man"s conscience.
2. He was met by the exhibition of gross and defiant sin. The law does notcome to a people waiting to receive the knowledge of God"s will, but busy with their idolatry and breaking what they already know to be his will.
3. The law"s advent, therefore, is in wrath (ver. 19).
(1) The broken tables declare that God"s covenant is broken. This is still shown in the taking away of God"s word from the sinful: it is not understood. Though held in the hand, a veil is drawn between the soul and it. Spiritual death, rationalism, and infidelity, are tokens to-day of God"s broken covenant.
(2) The burning of the idol, etc. The broken law is a prophecy and foretaste of wrath.
(3) The slaughter of the persistent idolaters. The place of feasting becomes the place of death.
II THE INTERCESSOR.
1. His deep consciousness of the evil of their sin (vers. 30, 31). Theintercessor cannot make light of man"s iniquity. He who bore our burdens felt their weight and terribleness as we have never yet done.
2. His love. Though he hates their iniquity, his life is bound up with theirs( ver. 32).
III THE TERRIBLENESS OF SIN AS SEEN IN THE MIRROR OF THE DIVINE ANGER.
1. The impossibility of ransom. "Whosoever hath sinned against me himwill I blot out of my book." There is but one sacrifice which avails, and that reaches the heart of the sinful and changes it.
2. Mercy to the unrenewed only means a delayed judgement: "Nevertheless, in the day when I visit I will visit their sins upon them. U.
The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary 1892 · Public Domain MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.—Exo_32:15-20
MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.—Exo_32:15-20
THE TRUTH GIVEN AND LOST
Read full note →
We contemplate—
I. The truth given, Exodus 31 :
Exo_32:18.
1. The highest truth was given to man. That truth could not be divined by the genius of men. It was a revelation from God.
2. The fulness of the truth is intimated. “Two tables, and they were written on both their sides.” The whole truth needed to teach us our duty to God and man. Ten commandments seem few, but in them we have the great laws of the moral universe, and one such law properly understood explains a wide range of life, as the knowledge of one of the great laws of nature explains much phenomena.
3. The authority of the truth, Exo_32:16. “Written with the finger of God.” This gift of the tables of testimony was God’s grandest gift to Israel. The source of light and purity and gladness (Psa_19:7-9; Rom_3:1-2). The truth is God’s grandest gift to the world. And when Christ declared unto us more fully the grand truths of the spiritual universe, He imparted to us the choicest blessings of heaven. What the sunshine is to the natural world—that is the law of Moses, and the exposition of that law in Christ, to the moral world.
II. The truth lost, Exo_32:19. Moses brake the tables of the law, because of the sin of the people. His was a righteous anger, and his action forcibly pictures the fact that in unbelief and sin we lose the truth.
1. Sin sometimes leads God to take away from a people the revelation of Himself. There is a famine of the word of God.
2. Sin always blinds men to the knowledge of the highest truth. Let us open the windows of our soul to the light of God’s truth, and let us carefully preserve that truth. We see nations who have lost the truth; we see Churches; we see individuals. That the truth may not be lost to us, let us live in purity, let us obey all its directions. If we lose the tables of the law we lose the foundation stones of empire, of Churches, of character.
ILLUSTRATIONS
BY
REV. WILLIAM ADAMSON
Idol-Idiosyncrasy. Exo_32:1-35.
(1.) Material idolatry has passed away among civilised nations in its literal import. As Macmillan says, the old worship of stocks and stones is now impossible among a professedly Christian people. But although the outward mode has passed away, the essence of the temptation remains the same. Human society is changed, but human nature is unchanged. The impulse which led Israel to seek the golden calf is as strong as ever, and images are set up and worshipped now as fantastic as any pagan fetish or joss. For what is idolatry! Is it not in its essence the lowering of the idea of God and of God’s nature, and the exaltation of a dead image above a man’s own living spirit! Is not an idol whatever is loved more than God, whatever is depended upon for happiness and help independent of God?
(2.) Sooner or later, as Moses pounded the calf and gave the Israelites the dust to drink in punishment of their idolatry, will all such moral idolaters have to drink the dust of their idols. Our sin will become our punishment, our idols our scourges. God is a jealous God, and every soul that turns aside from His love to the lying vanities of the world must drink the bitter water of jealousy, filled with the dust of the bruised and mutilated idols of spiritual idolatry: “This shall ye have at My hand, ye shall lie down in sorrow.”
“Thou art the man within whose heart’s deep cell
All evil sleeping lies;
Lust, in a dark hour waking, breaks the spell,
And straightway there arise
Monsters of evil thoughts and base desire.”
—Greok.
Apis-Adoration! Exo_32:20. The Egyptian Apis was attended by a retinue of priests, and sacrifices of red oxen were offered to him. All his changes of appetite, his movements, and choice of places were watched as oracular. He was not allowed to live longer than twenty-five years. If he died a natural death before that age, his body was embalmed as a mummy, and interred in the subterranean tombs. Otherwise, he was secretly put to death, and buried by the priests in a sacred well. A new animal was then sought for. It was necessary that he should be marked with a white square on his forehead, an eagle on his back, and a knot like a cantharus under his tongue. When found, he was conveyed with great pomp to Nicopolis, where he remained for forty days, attended by naked women. He was then removed to Memphis.
“The general world, unconscious pietists
Of falsest creeds and errors, God allowed
To live on, unreproved, till came the time
When all the mysteries of heaven and earth
Were put in evolution.”
Calf-Carved! Exo_32:20.
(1.) Most of the large idols of antiquity had a wooden centre; the metal being, by way of preparation, cast into a flat sheet which the goldsmith hammered and spread out. No doubt, this calf was made of wood, and then overlaid with gold. This explains the destruction by Moses. Being burnt, the wood was converted into charcoal, while the gold would be crushed to pieces.
(2.) In a French Bible appears the ridiculous gloss that the ashes of the calf which Moses caused to be burnt and mixed with the water that was drunk by the Israelites stuck to the beards of such as had fallen down before it, by which they appeared with gilt beards, as a peculiar mark to distinguish those who had worshipped the graven image.
“Man’s a poor deluded bubble,
Wand’ring in a mist of lies;
Seeing false, or seeing double;
Who would trust to such weak eyes?”
—Dodsley.
Idol-Impotency! Exo_32:20.
(1.) After the defeat of the Persian army in the Libyan desert, Cambyses returned to Memphis. On his arrival, he found its inhabitants rejoicing at the discovery of a calf marked with the mystic characters which declared it to be a divine bull. Ignorant of this fact, and supposing the public joy to be over his defeat, Cambyses summoned the magistrates. They endeavoured to pacify him by explaining about the bull; but he ordered them to be executed as liars. The bull and priests were then brought into his presence, when, drawing his dagger, he stabbed the calf.
(2.) Was Moses by this act desirous of showing the utter impotency of their newly adopted god? He certainly took the most effectual way to do so. When the English officer struck the Brahmin bull amid its crowd of worshippers, these deluded devotees looked for his immediate destruction. But when no harm came to him, when he seized a rough branch, and drove it with many lusty, sacrilegious blows about the market-place, the people then ridiculed their priests and animal god. The merciless grinding and pounding of the Apis or Mnevis calf may have been a design to convince Israel of their folly.
“What, Dagon up again! I thought we had hurled him
Down on the threshold, never more to rise.
Bring wedge and axe; and neighbours, lend your hands,
And rive the idol into winter faggots.”
—Athelstane.
Dust-Drink! Exo_32:20.
(1.) She was his idol, his only daughter! A fairy, sylphlike form was hers; and fondly his eye watched her flitting hither and thither. In his love, the proud peer and father forgot the suffering world around—its sorrows and its woes. In his idol-worship, he lost sight of God, who had given him that living soul. He placed the human form, overlaid with the gold of sweetness and fairy charms, upon the throne in his being, which rightly was Jehovah’s only. One day the pony shied, and the idol fell—fell on a rude stone by the pathway. She lived, but became a decrepit form, with distorted face. He had to drink of the bitter water with the dust of his idol, as from day to day he saw her nerveless form, and marked her twitching, pinched features.
(2.) The observed of all observers! What queenly grace was hers! What exquisitely chiselled features! Women envied her surpassing loveliness; while men thirsted for her smiles. And she knew it all. Her beauty became her idol—wood overlaid with gold. She learned to adore her own charms. She worshipped her image reflected in the boudoir mirror. God was forgotten in her idolatry of self-beauty. An evening came, when the flashing jewels lay untouched—when the princely saloon felt not the witchery of her presence. It was small-pox; and she rose from her bed with disfigured features. The powdered dust of marred and charred loveliness was mingled with the bitter water, as she gazed in the now hateful mirror. Therefore—
“Seek not the world!
’Tis a vain show at best;
Bow not before its idol-shrine; in God
Find thou thy DAY and REST.”
—Bonar.
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary (gen. ed. Joseph S. Exell; Funk & Wagnalls, c. 1892) — public domain (pre-1929). A full-Bible homiletical/sermon-outline anthology covering 65 of 66 books (2 John is absent from the source module). Text from a community e-Sword module.
Alexander MacLaren 1905 · Public Domain Exo 32:15 - - Exo 32:26.
Exodus
THE SWIFT DECAY OF LOVE
Read full note →
Exo 32:15 - - Exo 32:26.
Moses and Joshua are on their way down from the mountain, the former carrying the tables in his hands and a heavier burden in his heart,-the thought of the people’s swift apostasy. Joshua’s soldierly ear interprets the shouts which are borne up to them as war-cries; ‘He snuffeth the battle afar off, and saith Aha!’ But Moses knew that they meant worse than war, and his knowledge helped his ear to distinguish a cadence and unison in the noise, unlike the confused mingling of the victors’ yell of triumph and the shriek of the conquered. If we were dealing with fiction, we should admire the masterly dramatic instinct which lets the ear anticipate the eye, and so prepares us for the hideous sight that burst on these two at some turn in the rocky descent.
I. Note, then, what they saw. The vivid story puts it all in two words,-’the calf and the dancing.’ There in the midst, perhaps on some pedestal, was the shameful copy of the Egyptian Apis; and whirling round it in mad circles, working themselves into frenzy by rapid motion and frantic shouts, were the people,-men and women, mingled in the licentious dance, who, six short weeks before, had sworn to the Covenant. Their bestial deity in the centre, and they compassing it with wild hymns, were a frightful contradiction of that grey altar and the twelve encircling stones which they had so lately reared, and which stood unregarded, a bowshot off, as a silent witness against them. Note the strange, irresistible fascination of idolatry. Clearly the personal influence of Moses was the only barrier against it. The people thought that he had disappeared, and, if so, Jehovah had disappeared with him. We wonder at their relapses into idolatry, but we forget that it was then universal, that Israel was at the beginning of its long training, that not even a divine revelation could produce harvest in seedtime, and that to look for a final and complete deliverance from the ‘veil that was spread over all nations,’ at this stage, is like expecting a newly reclaimed bit of the backwoods to grow grass as thick and velvety as has carpeted some lawn that has been mown and cared for for a century. Grave condemnation is the due of these short-memoried rebels, who set up their ‘abomination’ in sight of the fire on Sinai; but that should not prevent our recognising the evidence which their sin affords of the tremendous power of idolatry in that stage of the world’s history. Israel’s proneness to fall back to heathenism makes it certain that a supernatural revelation is needed to account for their possession of the loftier faith which was so far above them.
That howling, leaping crowd tells what sort of religion they would have ‘evolved’ if left to themselves. Where did ‘Thou shalt have none other gods beside Me’ come from? Note the confusion of thought, so difficult for us to understand, which characterises idolatry. What a hopelessly inconsequential cry that was, ‘Make us gods, which shall go before us!’ and what a muddle of contradictions it was that men should say ‘These be thy gods,’ though they knew that the thing was made yesterday out of their own earrings! It took more than a thousand years to teach the nation the force of the very self-evident argument, as it seems to us, ‘the workman made it, therefore it is not God.’ The theory that the idol is only a symbol is not the actual belief of idolaters. It is a product of the study, but the worshipper unites in his thought the irreconcilable beliefs that it was made and is divine. A goldsmith will make and sell a Madonna, and when it is put in the cathedral, will kneel before it.
Note what was the sin here. It is generally taken for granted that it was a breach of the second, not of the first, commandment, and Aaron’s proclamation of ‘a feast to the Lord’ is taken as proving this. Aaron was probably trying to make an impossible compromise, and to find some salve for his conscience; but it does not follow that the people accepted the half-and-half suggestion. Leaders who try to control a movement which they disapprove, by seeming to accept it, play a dangerous game, and usually fail. But whether the people call the calf ‘Jehovah’ or ‘Apis’ matters very little. There would be as complete apostasy to another god, though the other god was called by the same name, if all that really makes his ‘name’ was left out, and foreign elements were brought in. Such worship as these wild dances, offered to an image, broke both the commandments, no matter by what name the image was invoked.
The roots of idolatry are in all men. The gross form of it is impossible to us; but the need for aid from sense, the dependence on art for wings to our devotion, which is a growing danger to-day, is only the modern form of the same dislike of a purely spiritual religion which sent these people dancing round their calf.
II. Mark Moses’ blaze of wrath and courageous, prompt action. He dashes the tables on the rock, as if to break the record of the useless laws which the people have already broken, and, with his hands free, flings himself without pause into the midst of the excited mob. Exo 32:19 - - Exo 32:20 bear the impression of his rapid, decisive action in their succession of clauses, each tacked on to the preceding by a simple ‘and.’ Stroke followed stroke. His fiery earnestness swept over all obstacles, the base riot ceased, the ashamed dancers slunk away. Some true hearts would gather about him, and carry out his commands; but he did the real work, and, single-handed, cowed and controlled the mob. No doubt, it took more time than the brief narrative, at first sight, would suggest. The image is flung into the fire from which it had come out. The fire made it, and the fire shall unmake it. We need not find difficulty in ‘burning’ a golden idol. That does not mean ‘calcined,’ and the writer is not guilty of a blunder, nor needed to be taught that you cannot burn gold. The next clause says that after it was ‘burned,’ it was still solid; so that, plainly, all that is meant is, that the metal was reduced to a shapeless lump. That would take some time. Then it was broken small; there were plenty of rocks to grind it up on. That would take some more time, but not a finger was lifted to prevent it. Then the more or less finely broken up fragments are flung into the brook, and, with grim irony, the people are bid to drink. ‘You shall have enough of your idol, since you love him so. Here, down with him! You will have to take the consequences of your sin. You must drink as you have brewed.’ It is at once a contemptuous demonstration of the idol’s impotence, and a picture of the sure retribution.
But we may learn two things from this figure of the indignant lawgiver. One is, that the temper in which to regard idolatry is not one of equable indifference nor of scientific investigation, but that some heat of moral indignation is wholesome. We are all studying comparative mythology now, and getting much good from it; but we are in some danger of forgetting that these strange ideas and practices, which we examine at our ease, have spread spiritual darkness and moral infection over continents and through generations. Let us understand them, by all means; let us be thankful to find fragments of truth in, or innocent origins of, repulsive legends; but do not let the student swallow up the Christian in us, nor our minds lose their capacity of wholesome indignation at the systems, blended with Christ-like pity and effort for the victims.
We may learn, further, how strong a man is when he is all aflame with true zeal for God. The suddenness of Moses’ reappearance, the very audacity of his act, the people’s habit of obedience, all helped to carry him through the crisis; but the true secret of his swift victory was his own self-forgetting faith. There is contagion in pure religious enthusiasm. It is the strongest of all forces. One man, with God at his back, is always in the majority. He whose whole soul glows with the pure fire, will move among men like flame in stubble. ‘All things are possible to him that believeth.’ Consecrated daring, animated by love and fed with truth, is all-conquering.
III. Note the weaker nature of Aaron, taking refuge in a transparent lie. Probably his dialogue with his brother came in before the process described in the former verses was accomplished. But the narrative keeps all that referred to the destruction of the idol together, and goes by subject rather than by time. We do not learn how Moses had come to know Aaron’s share in the sin, but his question is one of astonishment. Had they bewitched him anyhow? or what inducement had led him so far astray? The stronger and devouter soul cannot conceive how the weaker had yielded. Aaron’s answer puts the people’s wish forward. ‘They said, Make us gods’; that was all which they had ‘done.’ A poor excuse, as Aaron feels even while he is stammering it out. What would Moses have answered if the people had ‘said’ so to him? Did he, standing there, with the heat of his struggle on him yet, look like a man that would acknowledge any demand of a mob as a reason for a ruler’s compliance? It is the coward’s plea. How many ecclesiastics and statesmen since then have had no better to offer for their acts! Such fear of the Lord as shrivelled before the breath of popular clamour could have had no deep roots. One of the first things to learn, whether we are in prominent or in private positions, is to hold by our religious convictions in supreme indifference to all surrounding voices, and to let no threats nor entreaties lead us to take one step beyond or against conscience.
Aaron feels the insufficiency of the plea, when he has to put it into plain words to such a listener, and so he flies to the resource of timid and weak natures, a lie. For what did he ask the gold, and put it into the furnace, unless he meant to make a god? Perhaps he had told the people the same story, as priests in all lands have been apt to claim a miraculous origin for idols. And he repeats it now, as if, were it true, he would plead the miracle as a vindication of the worship as well as his absolution. But the lie is too transparent to deserve even an answer, and Moses turns silently from him.
Aaron’s was evidently the inferior nature, and was less deeply stamped with the print of heaven than his brother’s. His feeble compliance is recorded as a beacon for all persons in places of influence or authority, warning them against self-interested or cowardly yielding to a popular demand, at the sacrifice of the purity of truth and the approval of their own consciences. He was not the last priest who has allowed the supposed wishes of the populace to shape his representations of God, and has knowingly dropped the standard of duty or sullied the clear brightness of truth in deference to the many-voiced monster.
IV. Note the rallying of true hearts round Moses. The Revised Version reads ‘broken loose’ instead of ‘naked,’ and the correction is valuable. It explains the necessity for the separation of those who yet remained bound by the restraints of God’s law, and for the terrible retribution that followed. The rebellion had not been stamped out by the destruction of the calf; and though Moses’ dash into their midst had cowed the rebels for a time, things had gone too far to settle down again at once. The camp was in insurrection. It was more than a riot, it was a revolution. With the rapid eye of genius, Moses sees the gravity of the crisis, and, with equally swift decisiveness, acts so as to meet it. He ‘stood in the gate of the camp,’ and made the nucleus for the still faithful. His summons puts the full seriousness of the moment clearly before the people. They have come to a fork in the road. They must be either for Jehovah or against Him. There can be no mixing up of the worship of Jehovah and the images of Egypt, no tampering with God’s service in obedience to popular clamour. It must be one thing or other. This is no time for the family of ‘Mr. Facing-both-ways’; the question for each man is, ‘Under which King?’ Moses’ unhesitating confidence that he is God’s soldier, and that to be at his side is to be on God’s side, was warranted in him, but has often been repeated with less reason by eager contenders, as they believed themselves to be, for God. No doubt, it becomes us to be modest and cautious in calling all true friends of God to rank themselves with us. But where the issue is between foul wrong and plain right, between palpable idolatry, error, or unbridled lust, and truth, purity, and righteousness, the Christian combatant for these is entitled to send round the fiery cross, and proclaim a crusade in God’s name. There will always be plenty of people with cold water to pour on enthusiasm. We should be all the better for a few more, who would venture to feel that they are fighting for God, and to summon all who love Him to come to their and His help.
Moses’ own tribe responded to the summons. And, no doubt, Aaron was there too, galvanised into a nobler self by the courage and fervour of his brother, and, let us hope, urged by penitence, to efface the memory of his faithlessness by his heroism now.
We do not go on to the dreadful retribution, which must be regarded, not as massacre, but as legal execution. It is folly to apply to it, or to other analogous instances, the ideas of this Christian century. We need not be afraid to admit that there has been a development of morality. The retributions of a stern age were necessarily stern. But if we want to understand the heart of Moses, or of Moses’ God, we must not look only at the ruler of a wild people trampling out a revolt at the sacrifice of many lives, but listen to him, as the next section of the narrative shows him, pleading with tears for the rebels, and offering even to let his own name be blotted out of God’s book if their sin might be forgiven. So, coupling the two parts of his conduct together, we may learn a little more clearly a lesson, of which this age has much need,-the harmony of retributive justice and pitying love; and may come to understand that Moses learned both the one and the other by fellowship with the God in whom they both dwell in perfection and concord.
Alexander MacLaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture (1904–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Paul E. Kretzmann 1924 · Public Domain The Wrath of Moses
The Wrath of Moses
v. 15. And Moses turned and went down from the mount, and the two tables of testimony were in his hand. The tables were written on both their sides; on the one side and on the other were they written, engraved, or chiseled, in the stone by the finger of God.
Read full note →
v. 16. And the tables were the work of God, hewn or fashioned by God Himself, and the writing was the writing of God, graven upon the tables.
v. 17. And when. Joshua heard the noise of the people as they shouted, he said unto Moses, There is a noise of war in the camp. It was characteristic of the soldier that his thoughts were engaged with matters of war.
v. 18. And he (Moses) said, It is not the voice of them that shout for mastery, neither is it the voice of them that cry for being overcome, it was neither the triumphant shout of the victors nor the answering moans of the conquered, but the noise of them that sing do I hear, the sound of antiphonal songs which the people shouted as they frolicked in their idolatrous dance.
v. 19. And it came to pass, as soon as he came nigh unto the camp, so that he could distinguish things clearly, that he saw the calf and the dancing, for the riotous celebration was now at its height; and Moses’ anger waxed hot, and he cast the tables out of his hands, and brake them beneath the mount, at its foot, where it merged into the plain. His action symbolized the fact that Israel had broken the covenant of the Lord.
v. 20. And he took the calf which they had made, and burned it in the fire, and ground it to powder, and strewed it upon the water, and made the children of Israel drink of it. So he not only demonstrated to them the nothingness of their god, but even had them drink down, devour, the idol, thus humbling them and putting them to shame openly for some time.
v. 21. And Moses said unto Aaron, What did this people unto thee, what kind of sorcery, what means of persuasion did they employ, that thou hast brought so great a sin upon them? It was a sharp question, a direct accusation. making Aaron the moral author of the sin and the seducer of the people.
v. 22. And Aaron said, Let not the anger of my lord wax hot. Thou knowest the people, that they are set on mischief. It is always the sinner’s convenient excuse to blame the transgression on some one else’s wickedness.
v. 23. For they said unto me, Make us gods which shall go before us; for as for this man Moses, the man that brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we wot not what is become of him.
v. 24. And I said unto them, Whosoever hath any gold, let them break it off. So they gave it me; then I cast it into the fire, and there came out this calf. He speaks of the calf as almost an accidental image produced by the fire without his design, without his knowledge and will. Thus Aaron added to his first sin the second of attempting to evade the accusation and casting the blame on others, whose spiritual knowledge did not equal his own. True repentance will not make use of such schemes. Cf Deu 9:20.
Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
unfoldingWord translationNotes 2017 · CC BY-SA 4.0 tablets of the covenant decrees
tablets of the covenant decrees
These are the two stone slabs on which God had engraved his commandments.
Read full note →
The tablets were God's own work, and the writing was God's own writing
These two phrases share similar meanings. The second explains how the tablets were "God's own work." (See: Parallelism)
translationWords
written
unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.
Tyndale Open Study Notes 2022 · CC BY-SA 4.0 32:15-29 When Moses actually saw what was going on,…
32:15-29 When Moses actually saw what was going on, he was much less calm than he had been on the mountain. He smashed the tablets (32:15-19), destroyed the calf (32:20), confronted Aaron (32:21-25), and had the ringleaders killed (32:26-29).
Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.