Charles Ellicott Commentary Exodus 32:11-14

Charles Ellicott Commentary

Exodus 32:11-14

1819–1905
Anglican
Charles Ellicott
Charles Ellicott

Charles Ellicott Commentary

Exodus 32:11-14

1819–1905
Anglican
SCRIPTURE

"And Moses besought Jehovah his God, and said, Jehovah, why doth thy wrath wax hot against thy people, that thou hast brought forth out of the land of Egypt with great power and with a mighty hand? Wherefore should the Egyptians speak, saying, For evil did he bring them forth, to slay them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth? Turn from thy fierce wrath, and repent of this evil against thy people. Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, thy servants, to whom thou swarest by thine own self, and saidst unto them, I will multiply your seed as the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have spoken of will I give unto your seed, and they shall inherit it for ever. And Jehovah repented of the evil which he said he would do unto his people." — Exodus 32:11-14 (ASV)

MOSES’ REPLY, AND GOD’S “REPENTANCE.”

Moses has three arguments:

  1. God has done so much for His people that surely He will not now make all of no effect (Exodus 32:11);
  2. Their destruction will give a triumph to the Egyptians (Exodus 32:12);
  3. It will nullify the promises made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Genesis 15:5; Genesis 17:2–6; Genesis 26:1; Genesis 28:12; Genesis 35:11), causing Moses to eclipse their glory and to be looked upon as the true patriarch and progenitor of the “peculiar people” (Exodus 32:13).

To these arguments, he adds entreaties that God will be merciful and change His purpose (Exodus 32:12).

The Lord repented of the evil.—Moses’ intercession was effective. God spared the people at his request. He is, therefore, said to have “repented”; not that He had really changed His purpose, for He had known from the beginning that Moses would intercede and that He would spare, but because He first announced a (conditional) purpose and then announced a different one. This manner of speaking is, as is so often the case, anthropomorphic.