John Calvin Commentary Exodus 32:31

"And Moses returned unto Jehovah, and said, Oh, this people have sinned a great sin, and have made them gods of gold." — Exodus 32:31 (ASV)

And Moses returned to the Lord. This account 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 grants; since it is³⁵⁴ a mere quibble to say that an ordinary angel is here promised, in whom God will not manifest His presence as He has done before. Therefore, Moses now briefly records what he will afterwards more fully set forth, that is, 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 tablets. 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.

His prayer commences with confession, for in such a case of wicked ingratitude, nothing remained but to freely 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.³⁵⁵ After having anticipated God’s judgment by the confession of their guilt, he nevertheless implores 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 you will forgive their sin—” I have no objection if any should construe the particle³⁵⁶ אם, im, as “I wish” (utinam); still, in the vehemence of his feelings, he seems to burst forth into an exclamation, “Oh, if you will forgive!” though it may be but a modest petition, “Will you forgive?” For, though the prayers of the saints flow from their confidence, still they have to struggle with doubts and questionings within themselves as to whether God is willing to listen to them. Hence it arises that their prayers begin hesitatingly, until faith prevails.

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 you spare the offenders, do not count me as one of your servants; nor can there seem to be less folly in his attempt to bring to nothing 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, so that God would 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 occupied his mind but that they might be saved, while he did not entertain a single thought which interfered with this his great solicitude. Hence it is that, arrogating far too much to himself, he throws himself forward as the people’s surety, 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; Paul has gone even further, expressing himself thus in writing after full premeditation: “I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren” (Romans 9:3). The fact is, that intent on the welfare of the elect people, neither of them critically examined particulars, and therefore they devoted themselves on 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.

Hence³⁵⁷ the question arises: Is it a pious feeling to prefer the salvation of others to our own? Some, being afraid that the example of Moses and Paul might 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 if this should be accepted, however, their words would still 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 for the general salvation. Therefore, let the solution 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 a 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 nothing, if the eternal adoption with which He had honored the children of Abraham should fail.

By “the book,” in which God is said to have written His elect, must be understood, metaphorically, His decree. But the expression Moses uses, asking to be blotted out from the number of the pious, is an incorrect one, since it cannot be that one who has once been elected should ever be reprobated. And those lunatics who, on this ground, overturn, as far as they can, that prime article of our faith 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” (Psalms 69:28).

We cannot from this infer any change in the counsel of God; but this phrase is merely equivalent to saying that God will eventually make it manifest that the reprobate, who for a season are counted among 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, Christ bids His disciples rejoice, “because their names are written in heaven” (Luke 10:20), for, although the counsel of God, by which we are predestined 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).

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 , seemeth to imply so much.” — Ainsworth in loco.

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.

³⁵⁶ A. V., “If.” Noldius, “If.” Noldius, obsecro; equivalent to the rendering towards which equivalent to the rendering towards which C. inclines. — . 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. — . “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..

³⁵⁷ See this difficult subject somewhat more fully discussed by C. himself on himself on Romans 9:3, (Calvin Soc. edit., , (Calvin Soc. edit., pp. 335-337,) together with Mr. Owen’s ,) 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.”. 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.”