Did Moses let his anger get out of control?

'The Lord said to Moses, "Cut for yourself two tablets of stone like the first, and I will write on the tablets the words that were on the first tablets, which you broke."' (Exodus 34:1)

The first set of tablets were 100% made by God. The second time round Moses contributes. Why?

John Calvin believes it is to serve as a reminder to Israel of their sin, so that "the ignominy of their crime was not altogether effaced". Another alternative is floated by Peter Enns who says it "may indicate God's displeasure with [Moses] at having smashed them" (p. 584, Exodus (NIVAC)).

I'm not sure, and would welcome any suggestions, but find the idea that God did not approve of Moses's actions on finding the golden calf intriguing. In Exodus 32 there are the following facts to consider:

• God's is angry with Israel's sin and warns Moses, "my wrath may burn hot against them and I may consume them"
• Moses implores God "Turn from your burning anger", and God does so.
• Moses comes down and his "anger burned hot, and he threw the tablets out of his hands and broke them at the foot of the mountain".
• Moses calls together some Levites and "he said to them, 'Thus says the Lord God of Israel, "Put your sword on your side each of you, and go to and fro from gate to gate throughout the camp, and each of you kill his brother and his companion and his neighbour."'" Throughout Moses emphasises that they are doing the LORD's work, and yet the narrator says "the sons of Levi did according to the word of Moses."

All in all, the actions of Moses are some of the most brutal in the OT, not very discerning (Aaron suffers no punishment, and the commands to the Levites seem to encourage undiscerning punishment), not specifically commanded by God, and seem to have been done in the heat of the moment.

Nevertheless, God himself offers no opinion on Moses's actions, either positive or negative. When Moses meets God again, God has decided to send a plague on Israel because of their sin, although he sticks to his promise not to destroy them.

There seem to be arguments either way.