Exodus 32:4 - Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

Bible Comments

And he received them at their hand, and fashioned it with a graving tool, after he had made it a molten calf: and they said, These be thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.

he ... fashioned it with a graving tool, х wayaatsar (H3335) 'otow (H853) bachereT (H2747)]. Bochart ('Hierozoicon,' part 1, lib. 2:, ch. 34:) takes the verb here to signify bound or tied up [from tsuwr (H6696), to straiten, to press; and bachereT (H2747), to denote, in a bag. In this sense both words are used 2 Kings 5:23]; and the act of Aaron would be much the same as that which was long afterward done by Gideon, when the earrings contributed at his request were thrown into a garment spread on the ground (Judges 8:25).

But the interpretation adopted by the Septuagint [kai eplasen auta en tee grafidi], 'and he formed or moulded them (namely, the earrings) with the graving-tool,' is preferred by most modern scholars, and has been substantially followed by our translators, who, however, are more faithful to the original, in saying "fashioned it" (namely, the mould) with the instrument. The words, are transposed; and to make the meaning intelligible the rendering may be paraphrased thus: 'he framed with a graving tool the image to be made, and made it a molten calf' х `eegel (H5695) maceekaah (H4541)] - a steer overspread. [The verb naacak (H5258) signifies not only to pour, to melt, to cast or found metals, but also to cover, to overspread; and hence, maceekaah (H4541) signifies, according to Gesenius, 1. a fusion of metal; 2. a covering.]

A modern reader, judging from the implements and the state of art in the present day, will form an erroneous conception of the process followed in the construction of the golden calf, in supposing either that it was a mass of metal sculptured or carved by the tool of the graver, or that molten images were formed of metal, first fused by fire, and then shaped by being poured in its liquid state into a mould. That, however, is a mistake; for the images made by ancient idolaters were first cut as a rude block from a tree by the carpenter (cf. Isaiah 44:9-20), and then, on being fashioned in the figure intended, the wooden frame was overlaid with thin plates either of gold, silver or other metal. Being thus completed, it was called indifferently either a graven or a molten image-`graven' (i:e., carved), in respect to the substructure of wood; and 'molten,' with reference to the external covering of metal.

A knowledge of this mechanical usage will serve to explain some apparent incongruities of language employed by the sacred writers, one of whom, in view of the metallic case, speaks of a founder making a graven image (Judges 17:4); another, of a workman that melteth a graven image (Isaiah 40:19; cf. Isaiah 44:10-12). In both these passages 'overlayeth' and 'overlaid' is the proper rendering (cf. also Nahum 1:14; Habakkuk 2:18-19). [See Rosenmuller's 'Schol.' on Exodus 32:4; Exodus 32:20; Leigh's 'Critica Sacra;' Henderson's 'Isaiah,' and also his 'Minor Prophets;' Parkhurst's 'Heb. Lex.' sub voce naacak (H5258)].

It is not said whether the image was of life size-whether it was of solid gold, or merely a wooden frame laminated with a thin covering of gold. Although a high authority (Westmacott, 'Handbook of Sculpture, Ancient and Modern') has stated that the Hebrews, in the formation of the golden calf, showed themselves familiar 'with the more difficult processes of metallurgy,' the execution of an elaborate statue could scarcely have been completed within the period of Moses' sojourn on the mount, even if the people had entered on the work immediately after his ascent, much less when they did not begin it until his protracted absence had made them despair of his return; and the probability therefore is, that it was only an imperfect and diminutive figure of gilded wood, hastily prepared to meet the urgency of the occasion.

The question has been agitated-What led to the adoption of one particular form? Moncoeus ('Aaron Purgatus') has advanced the theory that Aaron, who accompanied Moses and the 70 elders to the ascent of the mount, and saw the God of Israel (Exodus 24:10-12), beheld him exalted on a cherub, which had the form of an ox. This hypothesis forms, the basis of his elaborate apology for Aaron's conduct; but it is not only at variance with the jealous care which Yahweh uniformly showed to prevent any visible representation being formed of Him; it is contrary to the express declaration of the actual fact, (Deuteronomy 4:15, etc.)

Commentators have, with almost unanimous consent, traced its origin to the influence of Egyptian associations, which, from various Scripture references, appear to have been very powerful (Psalms 106:19-20; Ezekiel 20:4-8; Amos 5:25-26; Acts 7:39-40); and they have supposed-whether Aaron resorted to it proprio motu, or to gratify the expressed wishes of a self-willed and clamorous faction-that it was a designed imitation of a religious ceremonial very popular and attractive in Egypt, and of the existence of which in the Mosaic age there is clear monumental evidence-namely, that of doing homage to the creative power and energy of nature, through the sensuous representation of a three years' old ox.

The selection of the animal was determined by the possession of some special traits described by Herodotus

(b. 3:, ch. 28), such as being the calf of a cow which conceives by lightning from heaven, and is never afterward able to bear young. It must have a square spot of white upon its forehead, and on its back the figure of an eagle; the hairs in its tail double, and the form of a beetle under its tongue (cf. Plutarch, 'De Iside,' sec. 43; Pliny, b. 8:, ch. 46:; Rawlinson, 'Herodotus,' vol. 2:, pp. 65, 423, 424); and on the discovery of a bull distinguished by those rare characteristics great public rejoicings were made; (Wilkinson's 'Ancient Egypt,' first series, vol. 4:, pp. 354-356; Selden, 'De Diis Syris. Syntag.,' 1:, cap. 4:): it was placed in a temple, where priests officiated, oblations were presented to it, and at its death its remains were embalmed. A mausoleum of these mummified animals was recently discovered. Such a bull was believed to embody the soul of Osiris (the sun) (Plutarch,` De Iside,' 20:, 29; Warburton, 'Divine Legation,' b. 4:, ch. 4:; Rawlinson 'Herodotus,' b.

iii., ch. 28:, note 2); and it was of different names as well as hues (variis coloribus-Ovid), being called Apis at Memphis, where the image was black, and Mnevis at Heliopolis, where it was bright or yellow (Wilkinson's 'Ancient Egypt,' second series, vol. 2:, p. 196), which must have been in its youthful form the bull with which the Israelites were familiarly acquainted.

Images of it, in the form of a whole ox or of a calf's head, on the end of a pole, were very common; and it makes a great figure on the monuments, where it is represented in the van of all processions as borne aloft on men's shoulders.

In an ancient Papyrus (described in Wilson's 'Lands of the Bible,' vol. 1:, pp. 96, 97) it appears covered with gilding;' and as there is reason to believe that the golden calf was formed after Egyptian models as a work of art as well as an idol, it may be concluded, from the great improbability of there being a sufficiency of earrings to construct a statue of solid gold, that the calf at Horeb exhibited only an exterior of thin plates of the precious metal, like many of the Egyptian images, which, though popularly described as golden (Deuteronomy 29:17), were, as Wilkinson states, merely gilded.

They said, These be thy gods, O Israel (see the note at Exodus 32:1 as to "gods" in the plural). It is inconceivable that they, who but a few weeks before had witnessed such amazing demonstrations of the true God, could have suddenly sunk to such a pitch of infatuation and brutish stupidity as to imagine that human art or hands could make a god that should go before them. But it must be borne in mind, that though by election and in name they were the people of God, they were as yet, in feelings and associations, in habits and taste, little, if at all different, from Egyptians (Ezekiel 20:6-10). They meant the calf to be an image-a visible sign or symbol of Yahweh, so that their sin consisted not in a breach of the FIRST but of the SECOND commandment.

Exodus 32:4

4 And he received them at their hand, and fashioned it with a graving tool, after he had made it a molten calf: and they said, These be thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.