Original Meaning
The Nature of the False Claim (9:1–6)
WITH THE PROMISE OF Yahweh’s confirmation of the covenant to the fathers in the background (8:18), Moses speaks of Yahweh’s dispossessing the Canaanites and handing over their land to Israel.3 This raises the question: Why should Yahweh be interested in the Israelites at all? Moses answers this question first by refuting any claim to merit as the basis for the divine favor, and then by highlighting the mercy of Yahweh in getting them to the Promised Land. Loosely following the form of a disputation speech, this section divides into two major paragraphs (vv. 1–3 and vv. 4b–6), separated by a hypothesis explaining Yahweh’s interest in Israel, cast as direct speech in the mouth of a hypothetical interlocutor (v. 4a).
Introduction (vv. 1–3). Following the opening call to attention, Moses announces the fulfillment of the divine agenda presented in Exodus 3:8 (cf. Ex. 6:1–8): rescuing Israel from the bondage of Egypt (v. 6), establishing them as Yahweh’s covenant people at Sinai (v. 7), and taking them to the Promised Land (v. 8)—elements familiar from previous utterances (cf. 1:28; 4:38; 7:1). Obviously the challenge facing this generation is no different than it had been thirty-eight years earlier. The quotation in verse 3, “Who can stand up to the sons of Anak?” [pers. trans.], has a proverbial ring.4 Assuming a negative answer, in effect the Canaanites were saying, “You may have dispossessed Sihon and Og, but no one can dislodge us from our land.”
This reminder of the enemies’ apparent invincibility sets the stage for Moses’ confident declaration in verse 3, namely, that the key to the Israelite’s future is not to be found in their own strength but in the strength of their divine Commander-in-Chief. The description of the one who is crossing over ahead of the Israelites reinforces this notion. This one is identified by name—“Yahweh”; by his relationship to Israel—“your God”; by epithet—ʾEsh ʾOkelah; and by his actions on Israel’s behalf: (1) “He is the one crossing over before you”; (2) “He will destroy them”; and (3) “And he will subdue them before you” [all pers. trans.].
Here, ʾEsh ʾOkelah (“Devouring Fire”) functions as a quasi-titular designation. Whereas in 4:24 the reference to the fiery passion of Yahweh was intended to motivate Israelite fidelity and warn against worshiping other gods, here Moses promises that the same fury will be turned against the enemy. This is what the Israelites should “know” as they dispossess and destroy the enemy. As we have seen elsewhere (e.g., 7:1), the credit for the conquest will go to Yahweh, but his people are to engage the enemy, who will capitulate, just as Yahweh promised them.
The hypothesis (v. 4a). In verse 4a Moses again introduces a hypothetical interlocutor to speak for the people. As in 7:17 and 8:17, the response is cast as internal (“in your heart”; NIV “to yourself”) rather than external speech, as if one would think this but never dare actually to say it. As a judicial term, “righteousness” speaks of virtuous character, reflecting an upright heart (lit., “straightness of heart,” v. 5) and demonstrated in conduct aligned with covenantal standards (6:20). In this context its opposite is represented by “wickedness” (vv. 4, 5).5 The hypothetical speaker imagines himself to be virtuous, but the word speaks of smug self-righteousness and inflated self-esteem. According to this hypothesis, Yahweh’s transfer of the land from the Canaanites to Israel is a reward for the latter’s moral superiority.
Moses’ counter-thesis (vv. 4b–6). If this were a pure disputation speech, Moses would have begun his response to the mistaken hypothesis by explicitly disputing the claim. He does indeed do so twice in this short paragraph—in verse 5a and then in verse 6. However, around these repudiations of the hypothesis, he weaves his counter-thesis, which consists of three arguments, each relating to a different party in this equation.
(1) The Canaanites. Yahweh’s act of driving out the Canaanites is not grounded in Israel’s righteousness but is a response to the wickedness of the Canaanites.6
(2) Yahweh. Yahweh is driving out the Canaanites to fulfill the promise that he made to the patriarchs, listed here by name as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (v. 5; cf. 1:8; 8:18).
(3) Israel. Saving the most devastating argument for last, Moses declares that far from claiming “righteousness” as their characteristic attribute, the Israelites are fundamentally “a stiff-necked people.” This idiom is based on the image of draft animals, especially yoked oxen, whose locus of power is perceived to be in the neck, but who often refuse to work as their master directs.7
With his verdict of “stiff-necked” Moses pricks Israel’s balloon of inflated self-esteem and sets the stage for his portrayal of the Israelite’s fundamentally flawed character. They have nothing to commend themselves to God: no physical greatness (7:7), or power (8:17), or moral character. Their election, occupation of the land, and prosperity within it are all gifts of divine grace, granted to them in spite of their lack of merit.
Bridging Contexts
ISRAELITE IDOLATRY. THE MEMORY of Israel’s rebellion at Sinai/Horeb would not die out with Moses and his generation. We hear echoes of the account of the golden calf in Exodus 32 most clearly in Jeroboam’s speech dedicating the two calves at Bethel and Dan as symbols of the northern kingdom’s religious unity: “Here are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt” (1 Kings 12:28).25 The use of the name Horeb (rather than Sinai) in Psalm 106:19 suggests the psalmist has been inspired by Moses’ recollections of the event when he remembered the utter folly of this sort of idolatry (Ps. 106:19–22).
Centuries later Stephen remembered this event not only as an act of folly but also of willful disobedience and rebellion, repudiating Yahweh and turning to other gods (Acts 7:39–41). But Stephen went even further. In a shocking turn, with obvious echoes of Deuteronomy 10, Stephen accused the members of the Sanhedrin of being stiff-necked and “uncircumcised of heart” (Acts 7:51), resisting the Holy Spirit just like their ancestors.26 The use of a bovine metaphor like stiff-neckedness is especially apt in contexts involving the worship of the calf.
However, in Israel’s subsequent history the rebellion tended not to take the form represented here, involving an image of a calf. This was clearly a case of syncretism, combining a pagan form with orthodox theology. Within a generation Israel’s apostasy would take on less subtle forms. From the time of the judges (Judg. 2:11–23) to the days of Manasseh and beyond (2 Kings 21:1–9), doing “the evil in the eyes of the LORD” involved the overt worship of pagan gods: the Baals, the Ashtaroth, and the Asherim. It is no wonder, then, that in the end Yahweh’s fury should rage against his people. They had rejected the one who had so graciously redeemed them, invited them to covenant relationship, revealed to them his will, and cared for them in the desert, in favor of lifeless idols.
However favorably the Israelites might have told their own story, Ezekiel told it the way God saw it. Despite Yahweh’s grace in calling her to life and elevating her to the status of queen (Ezek. 16:1–14) and despite her claims to nobility, by going after other “lovers” (vv. 15–34) she proved her true parentage; her father was an Amorite and her mother a Hittite (vv. 3, 44–50).
Contemporary Significance
BY GRACE, NOT BY merit. Earlier Moses had denied that the call to salvation and mission for the kingdom of God might be based either on the greatness (Deut. 7:7) or the special giftedness (8:17–18) of those called. This episode opens with a truth that pervades all of Scripture, namely, that the call to relationship with God is never based on merit. In response to Israelites, who might be tempted to attribute their status in the divine scheme to their superior righteousness (in contrast to the Canaanites), Moses demonstrates that the Israelites had been undeserving of the mission to which God had called them; from the beginning they had demonstrated that they were fundamentally depraved and that if they had been rescued from Egypt and would be handed the Promised Land as their grant, these were privileges granted by grace alone. And so it is with us. As Paul reminds Titus:
At one time we too were foolish, disobedient, deceived and enslaved by all kinds of passions and pleasures. We lived in malice and envy, being hated and hating one another. But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life. (Titus 3:3–7)
Paul goes on to challenge those who have trusted in God to be careful to devote themselves to doing what is good, for these things are excellent and profitable for everyone (Titus 3:8). With respect to the call to salvation, human righteousness counts for nothing with God. Indeed, apart from God’s grace we are all Canaanites.
The nature of idolatry. Israel’s rebellion at Sinai/Horeb is typical of the human race in general and, sadly, of the church in particular. Like Israel, humankind was created as the image of God and charged to reflect the glory and grace of God in their government of the world. But however privileged this role was, the status of vassals was not good enough. By eating of the forbidden fruit we thrust God from the throne and defined reality on our own terms (Gen. 3). We were not satisfied to let God be God on his terms and our role in the universe to be defined on his terms. Such is the nature of idolatry. It dethrones the one and only God and substitutes him with pathetic and grotesque images. It robs the living God of the credit for creation and redemption and ascribes sovereignty to lifeless substitutes. In the words of John Calvin, the heart is an “idol factory.”
What is particularly shocking about Israel’s act at Horeb is that it flies in the face of all that they had just witnessed of the living God and in the face of their threefold declaration, “We will do everything the LORD has said” (Ex. 19:8; 24:3, 7), and with the “blood of the covenant” by which they had been bound to Yahweh in an exclusive relationship (24:8). Yahweh had not even produced the covenant document before they broke their vows. In this respect Israel is not only typical of humanity in general, but those who call themselves the redeemed people of God in particular. Like the church at Ephesus, we too are so prone to forsake our “first love” (Rev. 2:4), which is the one and only Savior to whom we have committed ourselves by covenant. Scarcely have we declared our conversion and been baptized upon our confession of faith, when we forget the Lord and return to the gods of this world.
But the rebellion at Horeb represents a particularly sinister form of idolatry. This is syncretism at its cleverest. In his dedication speech Aaron had declared, “These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt” (Ex. 32:4), constructed an altar before it, and then announced the following day as a holiday, “a festival to the LORD” (v. 5). The words and actions appear orthodox, but the form is entirely pagan and in direct violation of Yahweh’s explicit command.
This is a serious and pervasive problem in Western worship—even the worship of evangelicals, with their high claims to regeneration and new birth and authentic Christianity. We are quick to declare our love for God, but we hate his “law.” We are passionate in our expressions of worship, but we refuse to ask him what kind of worship pleases him. Instead we take our idioms from the pagans around us. We claim new life in Christ, but then we reduce Christianity to a fertility religion, perverting slogans like “God has a wonderful plan for your life” into a health and wealth gospel. We take God’s good gifts and corrupt ourselves by making idols out of them. The Israelites took their precious metals and made them into a divine image; we take our families, the books we write, our toys, and our money, and we make them the focus of our devotion and homage.27 We have forgotten that true worship involves reverential acts of homage and submission before the divine Sovereign in response to his gracious revelation of himself and in accordance with his will.28
Original Meaning
The Refutation of the Claim (9:7–24)
THE OPENING DOUBLE IMPERATIVE, “remember this and never forget how you provoked the LORD your God to anger in the desert,” signals a new movement in this speech. Having declared that rather than commending her to Yahweh, Israel’s character is actually repelling him, Moses gathers evidence for this counter-thesis, urging his people to see themselves as God sees them.
Verse 7b begins the exposition of the thesis announced in verse 7a. In fact, it functions as a front bookend for this subsection, whose final counterpart occurs in verse 24. These two statements mirror each other both with respect to content and structure:
A From the day you left Egypt until you arrived,
B you have been rebellious against the LORD. (9:7)
B´ You have been rebellious against the LORD
A´ ever since I have known you. (9:24)
Moses will spend the rest of this speech reminiscing on Israel’s past troublesome relationship with Yahweh. In verses 7b–21 he concentrates on the most dramatic event as evidence of his thesis. However, in case this is insufficiently convincing, he adds three more illustrations in verses 22: Taberah, Massah, and Kibroth Hattaavah. And for good measure, in verse 23 he brings back the events of Kadesh Barnea, which he had already recounted in chapter 1. His opening statement (v. 7) describes the Israelites from God’s perspective with two new expressions: they have a habit of “provoking the LORD your God to anger,” and they have been in constant rebellion against him.8 The recollections of the golden calf incident at Horeb (vv. 8–21) display strong links with the narratives of Exodus 32–33.
Continuing the emphatic word order used in verses 4–6, Moses identifies Horeb as a symbol of Israel’s true character (vv. 8–10). This was the mountain where the Israelites were formally received as Yahweh’s covenant partners, where they had committed themselves to total and unreserved obedience to Yahweh (cf. Ex. 19:8; 24:3, 7), and where their representatives had eaten the covenant meal in the presence of God (Ex. 24:9–11). This was also the place where they had demonstrated their true colors. So intense was Yahweh’s provocation at their rebellion that within forty days of sealing the covenant, he threatened to destroy them (v. 8). So much for moral superiority! Instead of the Israelites’ righteous character commending them to Yahweh, these people have earned divine fury.
As background to the rebellion at Horeb, Moses briefly describes what he was doing at the time (vv. 9–11). In his recollections we again hear clear echoes of the narrative in Exodus, with additional details found earlier in the first address.9 According to verse 9, Moses seems to have fasted whenever he went up the mountain to meet with Yahweh. His asceticism stands in sharp contrast to the activity of the Israelites below. The process of making the calf probably required time, in which case the people’s rebellion must have surfaced shortly after they had sworn fidelity to the covenant.10
To understand the significance of Moses’ climb to the top of Horeb we are dependent on Exodus 24:12–18. The basic terms of the covenant had been revealed, the people had committed themselves to the covenant, the ratification ritual had been completed, and the covenant meal celebrating the new relationship had been eaten in the presence of God. All that remained was documentation of the event in written text, which was the purpose of Moses’ ascent up the mountain.11 But while Moses was on the mountain on official business on behalf of the people, they searched for a replacement for him (Ex. 32:1).12 In his recollection Moses highlights the transformation in the symbolism of Horeb from a place of grace and glory, of revelation and response, of covenant and promise, to a place of human rebellion and divine fury.
After announcing Israel’s rebellion and providing background information, Moses shifts attention to Yahweh’s response (vv. 12–14). As in the Exodus account, Moses casts Yahweh’s response in the form of two direct speeches, verse 12 (cf. Ex. 32:7–8) and verses 13b–14 (cf. Ex. 32:9–10). Although the present text exhibits many links with Exodus 32:7–10, Moses’ language here is more intense, reflecting his own heightened emotion. This is seen most dramatically in the fate with which Yahweh threatened Israel. The choice of hišmîd (“to destroy,” Deut. 9:14a) in place of killâ (lit., “to put an end to,” Ex. 32:10) links Yahweh’s disposition here with the fate of the Canaanites in Deuteronomy 7:24. Yahweh’s determination to “blot out their name from under heaven” (9:14) is shocking. If Moses’ presentation of Yahweh’s fury is stronger than in the earlier narrative, the same is true of the honor Yahweh promised him (9:14b). Whereas Exodus 32:10 had simply echoed God’s general promise to make Abraham a great nation, Moses remembers it as a promise to make of him into a nation stronger and more numerous than the Canaanites.
Upon closer examination of Yahweh’s speech, several features stand out. (1) Yahweh distances himself from the Israelites by referring to them as “your people whom you brought out of Egypt” (v. 12). The people gathered at the foot of the mountain are not the product of God’s redeeming work, nor a people in covenant relationship with himself, but just another group of people on the move (cf. Amos 9:7). Reinforcing this disposition in verse 13, Yahweh refers to the Israelites contemptuously as “this people”13 and “a stiff-necked people.” The phrase “stiff of neck,” which literally speaks of an ox resisting the yoke of his master, may have been prompted by the sight of the golden calf; with classic irony the people have become like the image they worshiped.
(2) Yahweh seems reticent to talk about the people’s specific actions. This contrasts with the earlier narrative, where he had noted a series of specific concrete offenses (Ex. 32:8). Although Moses will identify the image as a “calf” (ʿēgel) in verse 21, here Yahweh refers to the image generically as a “an idol cast [massēkâ] in the shape of a calf” (v. 16). Suppressing interest in the form of the image and the ritual involved in its worship, the primary significance of the event lies in its implications for the covenant.
(3) In “begging” Moses to leave him alone that he might give full vent to his fury (Ex. 32:10) and destroy Israel, paradoxically Yahweh opens the door for his intervention.14 As an idiom meaning “Let me alone” (v. 14),15 Yahweh’s request reflects the extraordinary relationship between him and Moses. In effect, Yahweh said he would not act against Israel without Moses’ release. He removed all incentive for intercession by promising Moses that he would make of him a nation stronger and more populous than the Canaanites. Had Moses accepted this offer, he would have replaced Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as the ancestor of the nation and the history of God’s people would have been written as the history of the “Mushites” rather than “Israelites.”
Moses’ reaction to Israel’s rebellion (vv. 15–21). As Moses recalls the events at Horeb, he leaves his hearers momentarily wondering how he would respond to Yahweh’s challenge (vv. 15–21). Unlike the narrative of Exodus 32, Moses skips over the details associated with his descent from the mountain (Ex. 32:15–20) as well as his verbal response. Instead, he concentrates entirely on his nonverbal reaction—he will report his prayer later (vv. 25–29). Moses’ report of his own actions consists of four summary parts: (1) He smashed the tablets (vv. 15–17); (2) he interceded before Yahweh (vv. 18–19); (3) he interceded for his brother Aaron (v. 20); and (4) he disposed of the calf (v. 21).
Moses’ smashing of the tablets (vv. 15–17). When Yahweh finished his speech of verses 13–14, Moses turned around and headed back down the fiery mountain, carrying the symbols of the covenant in his hands. The reference to the fire links this event with the day that Moses had declared the words of the covenant “out of the fire, on the day of the assembly” (v. 10),16 but it also links this scene with the divine epithet ʾEsh ʾOkelah (“Consuming Fire”) in verse 3. Exodus 24:16–18 suggests the people’s request for Aaron to make the image arose from a conviction that Moses himself had been consumed by the fire that shrouded the mountain. However, the people should have realized that the blazing fire symbolized not only Yahweh’s theophanic presence, but also his consuming fury, particularly in the face of idolatry (4:23–24; cf. 29:20[19]).
Later Moses will state that as he came down the mountain, he feared that Yahweh’s wrath would blaze against the people (v. 19). The added note that Moses descended the mountain with the two tablets of stone seems like an incidental detail, except that these are “the tablets of the covenant,” concrete symbols of the relationship that had been established. The opening words of verse 16 highlight Moses’ shock at what he saw: “And I looked, and behold!” [pers. trans.].17 Ironically, in the fifteen words that follow, only two involve a visible object: “a cast/molten calf.” The rest represent interpretive comments on that object.
The precise significance of the calf is not clear. If it was intended as an image of Yahweh, it was a blasphemous act reducing the formless deity to physical form, directly contravening Yahweh’s warning in 4:15. But if the calf was intended as an image of another deity,18 it represented a blatant violation of the first commandment of the Decalogue and flagrant denial of the Shema. Whatever the people’s perception of the image, Yahweh interpreted its manufacture and worship as “corrupt” acts and a “turning away” from his way (v. 12), and Moses characterized it as “sin” and “turning aside . . . from the way that the LORD had commanded” (v. 16). This was rebellion of the first order.
Moses describes his reaction to the people’s rebellion in three dramatic acts: he seized the two tablets, threw them to the ground, and smashed them in full view of all the people. These actions were both legal and symbolic, analogous to the Mesopotamian custom of breaking tablets on which contracts were written when the agreement had been violated. As the representative of Yahweh, by smashing the tablets Moses declared the covenant null and void even before the people had a chance to see the divinely produced written documentation.
Moses’ intercession for the people (vv. 18–19). Although he delays reporting the contents of his prayer until verses 25–29, in these verses Moses the statesman becomes Moses the prophetic intercessor par excellence. Here the focus is entirely on his physical gestures and on the urgency of his intercession, when he “fell prostrate before the LORD,” begging for mercy and fasting for forty days.19 Whereas previously Moses had given up food and drink to concentrate on his official role as recipient of communication from Yahweh to the people (v. 9), here his fast arises from his intercessory role to Yahweh on behalf of the people.
Verses 18b–19 clarify the nature of Moses’ intercession. (1) Moses characterizes Israel’s crime as “all the sin the people had sinned by doing the evil in Yahweh’s eyes” (pers. trans.; cf. 4:25). The definite article on the word for “evil” suggests a specific crime, in this case and generally elsewhere, the violation of the first commandment. (2) Moses reveals the inner emotion behind his actions: he was frightened at the prospect of Yahweh’s anger, whose superlative intensity is expressed by heaping up a triad of Hebrew expressions for anger. Moses feared that Yahweh would destroy his people.
Although Moses’ report of Yahweh’s response here lacks the drama of Exodus 32:14, the relief in his voice is still evident thirty-eight years later when he adds, “But again the LORD listened to me.” The addition of the particle gam (“also, as well”) alludes to some other crises during the desert wanderings when the people were spared because of his intercession.20 It also reflects the extraordinary relationship between Yahweh and his representative. The prayer of this righteous man was indeed powerful and effective (James 5:16).
Moses’ intercession for Aaron (v. 20). Moses interrupts his report of the national crisis with a surprising reference to his brother Aaron.21 Because Aaron had participated in the rebellion, Yahweh’s fury burned against him as well, and he threatened to destroy him. However, through Moses’ intercession, Yahweh’s threat on Aaron’s life was also lifted. Nonetheless, for his involvement in this event, Aaron was barred from entrance into the Promised Land.22
Moses’ disposal of the golden calf (v. 21). Moses concludes this phase of his report of the rebellion at Horeb by describing how he disposed of the calf itself. Referring to the “calf” as “that sinful thing of yours” (lit., “your sin”), he describes his actions against it with a rapid-fire sequence of verbs: He “took” it, “burned it,” “ground it to power as fine as dust,” and “threw the dust” into the stream flowing down the mountain, flushing it away as excrement.23 Josiah’s similar treatment of idolatrous objects in 2 Kings 23:12–16 suggest these were stereotypical procedures for dealing with offensive pagan objects (cf. 7:5).24
The postscript (vv. 22–24). As if the golden calf incident were insufficient evidence for Israel’s fundamentally rebellious disposition vis-à-vis Yahweh, Moses offers four additional illustrations of their unrighteousness. For the first three he simply lists place names that serve as code words for different dimensions of their rebellious character. Taberah (“Burning”) symbolizes Yahweh’s response to Israel’s sour disposition; it illustrates both Yahweh’s destructive power as “a consuming fire” and the constant need for Moses’ intervention (Num. 11:1–3). Massah (“Place of Testing”) is a code word for Israel’s contentious disposition toward Moses (the place was also called Meribah, “Place of Contention”) and testiness toward Yahweh (Ex. 17:1–7). At Kibroth Hattaavah (“Graves of Craving”), the people had expressed their boredom with Yahweh’s provision by complaining about the manna (Num. 11:4–34), to which Yahweh responded by providing quail and punishing by plague. Regarding Kadesh Barnea, in verse 23 Moses summarizes in a sentence what he had described in great detail in 1:26–43. Here the Israelites’ refusal to enter the land from Kadesh Barnea was paradigmatic of their rebellion, unbelief, and disobedience (cf. 1:26, 32).
Moses concludes his recitation of the Israelites’ fundamentally unrighteous character with one final sweeping generalization: They have been in revolt against Yahweh from the day he was first introduced to them. Although this is obviously rhetorical hyperbole, the history of sour relations between the people, on the one hand, and Yahweh and Moses, on the other, can be traced as far back as Exodus 5:20–23.
Bridging Contexts
ISRAELITE IDOLATRY. THE MEMORY of Israel’s rebellion at Sinai/Horeb would not die out with Moses and his generation. We hear echoes of the account of the golden calf in Exodus 32 most clearly in Jeroboam’s speech dedicating the two calves at Bethel and Dan as symbols of the northern kingdom’s religious unity: “Here are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt” (1 Kings 12:28).25 The use of the name Horeb (rather than Sinai) in Psalm 106:19 suggests the psalmist has been inspired by Moses’ recollections of the event when he remembered the utter folly of this sort of idolatry (Ps. 106:19–22).
Centuries later Stephen remembered this event not only as an act of folly but also of willful disobedience and rebellion, repudiating Yahweh and turning to other gods (Acts 7:39–41). But Stephen went even further. In a shocking turn, with obvious echoes of Deuteronomy 10, Stephen accused the members of the Sanhedrin of being stiff-necked and “uncircumcised of heart” (Acts 7:51), resisting the Holy Spirit just like their ancestors.26 The use of a bovine metaphor like stiff-neckedness is especially apt in contexts involving the worship of the calf.
However, in Israel’s subsequent history the rebellion tended not to take the form represented here, involving an image of a calf. This was clearly a case of syncretism, combining a pagan form with orthodox theology. Within a generation Israel’s apostasy would take on less subtle forms. From the time of the judges (Judg. 2:11–23) to the days of Manasseh and beyond (2 Kings 21:1–9), doing “the evil in the eyes of the LORD” involved the overt worship of pagan gods: the Baals, the Ashtaroth, and the Asherim. It is no wonder, then, that in the end Yahweh’s fury should rage against his people. They had rejected the one who had so graciously redeemed them, invited them to covenant relationship, revealed to them his will, and cared for them in the desert, in favor of lifeless idols.
However favorably the Israelites might have told their own story, Ezekiel told it the way God saw it. Despite Yahweh’s grace in calling her to life and elevating her to the status of queen (Ezek. 16:1–14) and despite her claims to nobility, by going after other “lovers” (vv. 15–34) she proved her true parentage; her father was an Amorite and her mother a Hittite (vv. 3, 44–50).
Contemporary Significance
BY GRACE, NOT BY merit. Earlier Moses had denied that the call to salvation and mission for the kingdom of God might be based either on the greatness (Deut. 7:7) or the special giftedness (8:17–18) of those called. This episode opens with a truth that pervades all of Scripture, namely, that the call to relationship with God is never based on merit. In response to Israelites, who might be tempted to attribute their status in the divine scheme to their superior righteousness (in contrast to the Canaanites), Moses demonstrates that the Israelites had been undeserving of the mission to which God had called them; from the beginning they had demonstrated that they were fundamentally depraved and that if they had been rescued from Egypt and would be handed the Promised Land as their grant, these were privileges granted by grace alone. And so it is with us. As Paul reminds Titus:
At one time we too were foolish, disobedient, deceived and enslaved by all kinds of passions and pleasures. We lived in malice and envy, being hated and hating one another. But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life. (Titus 3:3–7)
Paul goes on to challenge those who have trusted in God to be careful to devote themselves to doing what is good, for these things are excellent and profitable for everyone (Titus 3:8). With respect to the call to salvation, human righteousness counts for nothing with God. Indeed, apart from God’s grace we are all Canaanites.
The nature of idolatry. Israel’s rebellion at Sinai/Horeb is typical of the human race in general and, sadly, of the church in particular. Like Israel, humankind was created as the image of God and charged to reflect the glory and grace of God in their government of the world. But however privileged this role was, the status of vassals was not good enough. By eating of the forbidden fruit we thrust God from the throne and defined reality on our own terms (Gen. 3). We were not satisfied to let God be God on his terms and our role in the universe to be defined on his terms. Such is the nature of idolatry. It dethrones the one and only God and substitutes him with pathetic and grotesque images. It robs the living God of the credit for creation and redemption and ascribes sovereignty to lifeless substitutes. In the words of John Calvin, the heart is an “idol factory.”
What is particularly shocking about Israel’s act at Horeb is that it flies in the face of all that they had just witnessed of the living God and in the face of their threefold declaration, “We will do everything the LORD has said” (Ex. 19:8; 24:3, 7), and with the “blood of the covenant” by which they had been bound to Yahweh in an exclusive relationship (24:8). Yahweh had not even produced the covenant document before they broke their vows. In this respect Israel is not only typical of humanity in general, but those who call themselves the redeemed people of God in particular. Like the church at Ephesus, we too are so prone to forsake our “first love” (Rev. 2:4), which is the one and only Savior to whom we have committed ourselves by covenant. Scarcely have we declared our conversion and been baptized upon our confession of faith, when we forget the Lord and return to the gods of this world.
But the rebellion at Horeb represents a particularly sinister form of idolatry. This is syncretism at its cleverest. In his dedication speech Aaron had declared, “These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt” (Ex. 32:4), constructed an altar before it, and then announced the following day as a holiday, “a festival to the LORD” (v. 5). The words and actions appear orthodox, but the form is entirely pagan and in direct violation of Yahweh’s explicit command.
This is a serious and pervasive problem in Western worship—even the worship of evangelicals, with their high claims to regeneration and new birth and authentic Christianity. We are quick to declare our love for God, but we hate his “law.” We are passionate in our expressions of worship, but we refuse to ask him what kind of worship pleases him. Instead we take our idioms from the pagans around us. We claim new life in Christ, but then we reduce Christianity to a fertility religion, perverting slogans like “God has a wonderful plan for your life” into a health and wealth gospel. We take God’s good gifts and corrupt ourselves by making idols out of them. The Israelites took their precious metals and made them into a divine image; we take our families, the books we write, our toys, and our money, and we make them the focus of our devotion and homage.27 We have forgotten that true worship involves reverential acts of homage and submission before the divine Sovereign in response to his gracious revelation of himself and in accordance with his will.28