John Calvin Commentary Exodus 33:1

"And Jehovah spake unto Moses, Depart, go up hence, thou and the people that thou hast brought up out of the land of Egypt, unto the land of which I sware unto Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, saying, Unto thy seed will I give it:" — Exodus 33:1 (ASV)

Depart, and go up hence, thou and the people. I have used the pluperfect tense.³⁶⁰ The reason is given here why Moses was stirred to such vehemence in prayer: namely, because although God had not altogether abandoned the care of the people, He had still renounced His covenant and had proclaimed to them that after He had once performed His engagement of giving them possession of the land, He would have no more to do with them. Therefore, what is related here preceded, in order of time, the prayer of Moses. For, being astonished at the sad and almost fatal message, he burst forth into that confused and wild request that he might be blotted out of the book of life.

Let us now try to determine the true meaning of the passage. It is plain that when God bids Moses depart with the people, He utterly renounces the responsibility which He Himself had previously sustained. He only promises that He will cause them to attain the promised inheritance, and not that He will preside over them, preserve them there in safety, and even cherish them as a father does his children; in fact, that He will merely fulfill the promise He had made to their fathers.

And so He anticipates their complaints, for they might reply that consequently His promise would be rendered vain and ineffectual. But by way of anticipation, He says that although He would renounce them, He would still maintain this truth, because He will cast out the inhabitants of the land of Canaan, so that their dwelling place would be vacant for them.

In summary, He repudiates them so that they may no longer count themselves as His own special people or expect more from Him than if they were strangers. He mentions His oath, lest they should accuse Him of faithlessness, as if He had said that He would be discharged from His engagement when they had obtained the land. And so, while depriving them of the hope of salvation and the grace of adoption, He still asserts the stability and steadfastness of His covenant.

I, therefore, understand the word angel here in a different sense from its meaning just before, and in many other passages of this book. For when mention was previously made of the angel, the familiar presence of God was denoted by it; indeed, it was used interchangeably with the name of God itself.

But here God is said to be about to send the angel in such a way as to separate Himself from the people. I will not go up (He says) in the midst of thee; and the reason is added—namely, because He could not possibly endure their perverse spirits any longer. Again, He uses an analogy taken from rebellious oxen, which cannot be broken to bear the yoke. The sum is that because they are so intractable, God cannot perform the office of their guide without immediately destroying them.

³⁶⁰ See Lat., “Locutus autem fuerat Jehova;” but the Lord had spoken, etc. Prof. Bush says, “The right adjustment of the events of this chapter in the chronological order of the narrative, is a matter attended with some difficulty. From the rendering of our established version, it would seem that what was now said to Moses was posterior in point of time to the incidents recorded in the close of the preceding chapter; but from an attentive consideration and collation of the tenor of the whole, we are persuaded, with Calvin, and other critics of note, that the proper rendering of “Locutus autem fuerat Jehova;” but the Lord had spoken, etc. Prof. Bush says, “The right adjustment of the events of this chapter in the chronological order of the narrative, is a matter attended with some difficulty. From the rendering of our established version, it would seem that what was now said to Moses was posterior in point of time to the incidents recorded in the close of the preceding chapter; but from an attentive consideration and collation of the tenor of the whole, we are persuaded, with Calvin, and other critics of note, that the proper rendering of ver. 1 is in the pluperfect, ‘The Lord is in the pluperfect, ‘The Lord had said,’ and that the appropriate place for the interview and incidents here related is said,’ and that the appropriate place for the interview and incidents here related is prior to the order and the promise contained in to the order and the promise contained in ver. 34 of chap. 32. In that verse God declares his purpose of sending his angel before the people, and we naturally inquire how it happens that such an assurance was necessary? Was there any danger that an angel would not be sent? Had any intimation been given that his guidance and protecting presence would be withdrawn? To this the correct answer undoubtedly is, that all that is related in chap. 33 had occurred of chap. 32. In that verse God declares his purpose of sending his angel before the people, and we naturally inquire how it happens that such an assurance was necessary? Was there any danger that an angel would not be sent? Had any intimation been given that his guidance and protecting presence would be withdrawn? To this the correct answer undoubtedly is, that all that is related in chap. 33 had occurred anterior to the promise made in to the promise made in chap. 32:34. God had threatened to send Moses and the people forward without the accompanying presence of the angel of the Shekinah, and it was only in consequence of the fervent intercession of Moses that He was induced to retract this dread determination. In the foregoing chapter, therefore, the historian merely, states in a summary way the fact of his earnest prayer, and the concession made to it; in the present, he goes back and relates minutely the train of circumstances which preceded and led to the declaration above mentioned. In doing this he virtually makes known to us one main ground of the urgency of his supplications. He was afraid that God would withdraw the tokens of his visible presence. As a punishment for the mad attempt of the people to supply themselves with a false symbol of his presence, he was apprehensive that God might be provoked to take from them the . God had threatened to send Moses and the people forward without the accompanying presence of the angel of the Shekinah, and it was only in consequence of the fervent intercession of Moses that He was induced to retract this dread determination. In the foregoing chapter, therefore, the historian merely, states in a summary way the fact of his earnest prayer, and the concession made to it; in the present, he goes back and relates minutely the train of circumstances which preceded and led to the declaration above mentioned. In doing this he virtually makes known to us one main ground of the urgency of his supplications. He was afraid that God would withdraw the tokens of his visible presence. As a punishment for the mad attempt of the people to supply themselves with a false symbol of his presence, he was apprehensive that God might be provoked to take from them the true, and hence his impassioned entreaty that He would not visit them with so sore a judgment.” and hence his impassioned entreaty that He would not visit them with so sore a judgment.”