that the blame of his sin rested on soma rme else than himself. " Let not the ,mg~r or mr lord w~x hot: thou knowest the people, that they are bent on mischief. I•'or they s:wl to me, etc, (vers. 22-24). It 1s, as we say, the old, old story of all evil-doers-- " It wasn't me, indeed it wasn't; it was those wicked people who made me do it." Jt is the weak, childish excuse of all who, having been tempted into sin, or h:win(7 thro,wh their own irresolution fallen into it, have not the honesty or manliness to make at on~e a frank 1wowal of their fault. An easy way this, were the excuse admissible, of "Cttin,, rid of our responsibility; but transgressors were early taught that they will ~10 t h~ allowed to avail themselves of it (Gen. iii. 12--20). It is not a plea which will be hel,l valid on the day of judgment. All, more or less, are conscious of pressure exerted on them by their circumstances. There is, however, no fatality bincling us to yield to that pressure, if yielding means sin. The pressure is our trial. Aaron's sin lay in his unmanly fear, in his not having tho resolution to say at the critical time, No. Probably Aaron would have urged that if ho had not yielded, the people would have killed him. " Then," Moses would have answered, "let them kill you. Better a thousand times tl-.at they had killed you than that you should have been the means of lea.ding Israel into this great sin." Yet how often is the same species of excuse met with! "I couldn't help it;" "The necessity of my situation ; " " Compelled by circumstances;" " Customs of the trade ; " " If I hadn't done it, I would have offended all my friends ; " "I should have lost my situatioa," etc. It may be all true : but the point is, Was the thing wrong? If it was, the case of Aaron teaches us that we cannot shield ourselves by transferring the blame of what we have done to circumstances. 2. If Aaron's first excuse was bad, the second was wors&-it Just happened. He put the gold, poor man, into the fire, and" there came out this calf!" It came out. He did not make it; it just came out. This was a kind of explaining which explained nothing. Yet it is precisely paralleled by people attributing, say, to their "luck," to "chance," to "fate," to "des- tiny," what is really their own doing. Thomas Scott says-" No wise man ever made a more unmeaning or foolish excuse than Aaron did. We should never have supposed 'that he could speak well,' were we to judge of his eloquence by this specimen." Note --(1) The right way of dealing with a. fault is frankly to acknowledge it. (2) Though Moses so severely rebuked Aaron, he could yet intercede for him (Deut. ix. 20). The future high priest, who truly had "infirmity" (Heh. v. 2), needed, on this occasion, an intercessor for himself. The severity of Moses was the severity of aggrieved love.--J. 0.
Vers. 15-35.-Judgment and mercy. L THE DESCENT OF :MOSES THE EMBLEM OF THE LAW'S ENTRANCE INTO A WORLD OF BIN (vers.15-29). 1. He came with tables written by God's own finger. The Divine origin and claims of the law are still attested by its own nature and by man's conscience. 2. He was met by the exhibition of gross and defiant sin. The law does not come to a people waiting to receive the knowledge of God's will, but busy with their idolatry and breaking what they already know to be his will. 3. The law's advent, therefore, is in wrath (ver.19). (1) The broken tables declare that God's covenant is broken. This is still shown in the taking a.way of God's word from the sinful: it is not understood. Though held in the hand, a veil is drawn between the soul and it. Spiritual death, rationalism, and infidelity, are tokens tCHiay of God's broken covenant. (2) The burning of the idol, etc. The broken law is a prophecy and foretaste of wrath. (3) The slaughter of the persistent idolaters. The place of feasting becomes the place of death. II. THE INTERCESSOR. 1. His deep consciousness of the evil of their sin (vers. 30, 31). The intercessor cannot make light of man's iniquity. He who bore our burdens felt their weight and terribleness as we have never yet done. 2. His love. Though he hates their iniquity, his life is bound up with theirs (ver. 32). , Ill. THE TERRIBLENESS OF BIN AB SEEN IN THE MIBROR OF THE DIVINE ANGER. 1. The impossibility of ransom. "Whosoever hath sinned against me him will I blot out of my book." There is but one sacrifice. which avails, and that reaches the heart of the sinful and changes it. 2. Mercy to the, unrenewed only means a delayed judgment : "Nevertheless, in the day when I visit I will visit their sins upon them."-U.
lllIODOS-lL z 336 THE BOOK OF EXODUS. [en. xxxn. 20.
EXPOSlTION. Ver. 20.-MOIIIIII DEl!TROYI! THE GOLDEN hand, and provide for, before proceeding to CALF. The fim vengeance which M011ee took anything eliie. Only when the " abomina- ",.. upon the idol. Jt wu probably hollow, and t.ion " WM removed and ita destruction CODI.• pM!ibl)· of no grmt Bi&e. Be might e&Bily meneed, would he tum his attention to other break it to pil!Ce!i and subject the pieces to tbe points. action of fire, whereby they would be cal- cined, and might the11 be euily reduced to Ver. 20.-lurnt it Uld Jl'O'IUld it to pow- powder. Tbils powder be eaued to be mixed der. Silver and gold 1111bJeeted for a short with the strsa of the brook that Bowed from time to a white heat, which may be easily produced by bellows, readily calcine, and a.re Sinai., 110 that the Imielit.es were obliged to then easily crushed to a fine powder. Sil- nra.J.low with their drillk particle& of their ver becomes detonating. I am not awe.re own idol. Compare the action of Joeiah with whether the ease is the same with gold respect t.o the " grove " Bet up ill the temple also. Btrawed ~.e., "sprinkled it." We precincts by Man.ameb (t Kings xxiii. 6), need not BUppose Moses to have done the which Wll8 not iden.tieal, but still was similar. whole--or even any part-himself. It was enough that he directed it to be done. The It has been sugga,ted. that this portion of the water. The article shows some particular narrative ils out of proper chronological order ; wat.er to be meant. We learn from Deutero- and this may be so far true that the calcin- nomy that it was the water of " the brook ing and m.ixillg with the water were at tbils that descended out of the mount." llade the point C0111JDD.ded rather than execut.ed ; but ahildren of Iarael drink of it. The• brook being the only water readily accessible, the the destruction of the idol would naturally be Israeli~ if they drank at all, were compelled the first thing which Moses would t&ke in to usk swallowing particles of their "god."