Ezekiel 23:3

23:3 They engaged in prostitution in Egypt; in their youth they engaged in prostitution. Their breasts were squeezed there; lovers ¹  fondled their virgin nipples there.

Ezekiel 23:19

23:19 Yet she increased her prostitution, remembering the days of her youth when she engaged in prostitution in the land of Egypt.

Ezekiel 23:21

23:21 This is how you assessed ²  the obscene conduct of your youth, when the Egyptians fondled ³  your nipples and squeezed ⁴  your young breasts.

Exodus 32:4

32:4 He accepted the gold ⁵  from them, ⁶  fashioned ⁷  it with an engraving tool, and made a molten calf. ⁸  Then they said, “These are your gods, ⁹  O Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt.”

Exodus 32:1

The Sin of the Golden Calf

32:1 ¹⁰ When the people saw that Moses delayed ¹¹  in coming down ¹²  from the mountain, they ¹³  gathered around Aaron and said to him, “Get up, ¹⁴  make us gods ¹⁵  that will go before us. As for this fellow Moses, ¹⁶  the man who brought us up from the land of Egypt, we do not know what ¹⁷  has become of him!”

Exodus 12:28

12:28 and the Israelites went away and did exactly as the Lord had commanded Moses and Aaron. ¹⁸ 

Exodus 12:2

12:2 “This month is to be your beginning of months; it will be your first month of the year. ¹⁹ 

Exodus 10:29

10:29 Moses said, “As you wish! ²⁰  I will not see your face again.” ²¹ 

Exodus 17:16

17:16 for he said, “For a hand was lifted up to the throne of the Lord ²²  – that the Lord will have war with Amalek from generation to generation.” ²³ 

[23:3]  ¹ tn In the Hebrew text the subject is left unstated and must be supplied from the context.

[23:21]  ² tn Or “you took note of.” The Hebrew verb פָּקַד (paqad) in the Qal implies evaluating something and then acting in light of that judgment; here the prophet depicts Judah as approving of her youthful unfaithfulness and then magnifying it at the present time. Some translations assume the verb should be repointed as a Niphal, rendering “you missed” or by extension “you longed for,” but such an extension of the Niphal “to be missing” is otherwise unattested.

[23:21]  ³ tn Heb “when (they) did,” but the verb makes no sense here and is better emended to “when (they) fondled,” a verb used in vv. 3 and 8. See L. C. Allen, Ezekiel (WBC), 2:43.

[23:21]  ⁴ tn Heb “for the sake of,” but the expression is awkward and is better emended to read “to squeeze.” See L. C. Allen, Ezekiel (WBC), 2:43.

[32:4]  ⁵ tn Here “the gold” has been supplied.

[32:4]  ⁶ tn Heb “from their hand.”

[32:4]  ⁷ tn The verb looks similar to יָצַר (yatsar), “to form, fashion” by a plan or a design. That is the verb used in Gen 2:7 for Yahweh God forming the man from the dust of the ground. If it is here, it is the reverse, a human – the dust of the ground – trying to form a god or gods. The active participle of this verb in Hebrew is “the potter.” A related noun is the word יֵצֶּר (yetser), “evil inclination,” the wicked designs or intent of the human heart (Gen 6:5). But see the discussion by B. S. Childs (Exodus [OTL], 555-56) on a different reading, one that links the root to a hollow verb meaning “to cast out of metal” (as in 1 Kgs 7:15).

[32:4]  ⁸ sn The word means a “young bull” and need not be translated as “calf” (although “calf” has become the traditional rendering in English). The word could describe an animal three years old. Aaron probably made an inner structure of wood and then, after melting down the gold, plated it. The verb “molten” does not need to imply that the image was solid gold; the word is used in Isa 30:22 for gold plating. So it was a young bull calf that was overlaid with gold, and the gold was fashioned with the stylus.

[32:4]  ⁹ tn The word could be singular here and earlier; here it would then be “this is your god, O Israel.” However, the use of “these” indicates more than one god was meant by the image. But their statement and their statue, although they do not use the holy name, violate the first two commandments.

[32:1]  ¹⁰ sn This narrative is an unhappy interlude in the flow of the argument of the book. After the giving of the Law and the instructions for the tabernacle, the people get into idolatry. So this section tells what the people were doing when Moses was on the mountain. Here is an instant violation of the covenant that they had just agreed to uphold. But through it all Moses shines as the great intercessor for the people. So the subject matter is the sin of idolatry, its effects and its remedy. Because of the similarities to Jeroboam’s setting up the calves in Dan and Bethel, modern critics have often said this passage was written at that time. U. Cassuto shows how the language of this chapter would not fit an Iron Age setting in Dan. Rather, he argues, this story was well enough known for Jeroboam to imitate the practice (Exodus, 407-10). This chapter can be divided into four parts for an easier exposition: idolatry (32:1-6), intercession (32:7-14), judgment (32:15-29), intercession again (32:30-33:6). Of course, these sections are far more complex than this, but this gives an overview. Four summary statements for expository points might be: I. Impatience often leads to foolish violations of the faith, II. Violations of the covenant require intercession to escape condemnation, III. Those spared of divine wrath must purge evil from their midst, and IV. Those who purge evil from their midst will find reinstatement through intercession. Several important studies are available for this. See, among others, D. R. Davis, “Rebellion, Presence, and Covenant: A Study in Exodus 32-34,” WTJ 44 (1982): 71-87; M. Greenberg, “Moses’ Intercessory Prayer,” Ecumenical Institute for Advanced Theological Studies (1978): 21-35; R. A. Hamer, “The New Covenant of Moses,” Judaism 27 (1978): 345-50; R. L. Honeycutt, Jr., “Aaron, the Priesthood, and the Golden Calf,” RevExp 74 (1977): 523-35; J. N. Oswalt, “The Golden Calves and the Egyptian Concept of Deity,” EvQ 45 (1973): 13-20.

[32:1]  ¹¹ tn The meaning of this verb is properly “caused shame,” meaning cause disappointment because he was not coming back (see also Judg 5:28 for the delay of Sisera’s chariots [S. R. Driver, Exodus, 349]).

[32:1]  ¹² tn The infinitive construct with the lamed (ל) preposition is used here epexegetically, explaining the delay of Moses.

[32:1]  ¹³ tn Heb “the people.”

[32:1]  ¹⁴ tn The imperative means “arise.” It could be serving here as an interjection, getting Aaron’s attention. But it might also have the force of prompting him to get busy.

[32:1]  ¹⁵ tn The plural translation is required here (although the form itself could be singular in meaning) because the verb that follows in the relative clause is a plural verb – that they go before us).

[32:1]  ¹⁶ tn The text has “this Moses.” But this instance may find the demonstrative used in an earlier deictic sense, especially since there is no article with it.

[32:1]  ¹⁷ tn The interrogative is used in an indirect question (see GKC 443-44 §137.c).

[12:28]  ¹⁸ tn Heb “went away and did as the Lord had commanded Moses and Aaron, so they did.” The final phrase “so they did,” which is somewhat redundant in English, has been represented in the translation by the adverb “exactly.”

[12:2]  ¹⁹ sn B. Jacob (Exodus, 294-95) shows that the intent of the passage was not to make this month in the spring the New Year – that was in the autumn. Rather, when counting months this was supposed to be remembered first, for it was the great festival of freedom from Egypt. He observes how some scholars have unnecessarily tried to date one New Year earlier than the other.

[10:29]  ²⁰ tn Heb “Thus you have spoken.”

[10:29]  ²¹ tn This is a verbal hendiadys construction: “I will not add again [to] see.”

[17:16]  ²² tn The line here is very difficult. The Hebrew text has כִּי־יָד עַל־כֵּס יָהּ (ki yad ’al kes yah, “for a hand on the throne of Yah”). If the word is “throne” (and it is not usually spelled like this), then it would mean Moses’ hand was extended to the throne of God, showing either intercession or source of power. It could not be turned to mean that the hand of Yah was taking an oath to destroy the Amalekites. The LXX took the same letters, but apparently saw the last four (כסיה) as a verbal form; it reads “with a secret hand.” Most scholars have simply assumed that the text is wrong, and כֵּס should be emended to נֵס (nes) to fit the name, for this is the pattern of naming in the OT with popular etymologies – some motif of the name must be found in the sentiment. This would then read, “My hand on the banner of Yah.” It would be an expression signifying that the banner, the staff of God, should ever be ready at hand when the Israelites fight the Amalekites again.

[17:16]  ²³ sn The message of this short narrative, then, concerns the power of God to protect his people. The account includes the difficulty, the victory, and the commemoration. The victory must be retained in memory by the commemoration. So the expositional idea could focus on that: The people of God must recognize (both for engaging in warfare and for praise afterward) that victory comes only with the power of God. In the NT the issue is even more urgent, because the warfare is spiritual – believers do not wrestle against flesh and blood. So only God’s power will bring victory.