Israel's Jacob-Like Striving, False Security, and the Call to Return

Hos 12:6 To this God Israel is now to return. Hos 12:6. “And thou, to thy God shalt thou turn: keep love and right, and hope continually in thy God. ” שׁוּב with ב is a pregnant expression, as in Isa 10:22 : “so to turn as to enter into vital fellowship with God;” i. e. , to be truly converted. The next two clauses, as the omission of the copula before chesed and the change in the tense clearly show, are to be taken as explanatory of תּשׁוּב.

The conversion is to show itself in the perception of love and right towards their brethren, and in constant trust in God. But Israel is far removed from this now. This thought leads the way to the next strophe (Hos 12:8 -15), which commences afresh with a disclosure of the apostasy of the people.

Hos 12:7-8 “Canaan, in his hand is the scale of cheating: he loves to oppress. Hos 12:8. And Ephraim says, Yet I have become rich, have acquired property: all my exertions bring me no wrong, which would be sin. ” Israel is not a Jacob who wrestles with God; but it has become Canaan , seeking its advantage in deceit and wrong. Israel is called Canaan here, not so much on account of its attachment to Canaanitish idolatry (cf.

Eze 16:3), as according to the appellative meaning of the word Kena‛an , which is borrowed from the commercial habits of the Canaanites (Phoenicians), viz. , merchant or trader (Isa 23:8; Job 40:30), because, like a fraudulent merchant, it strove to become great by oppression and cheating; not “because it acted towards God like a fraudulent merchant, offering Him false show for true reverence,” as Schmieder supposes.

For however thoroughly this may apply to the worship of the Israelites, it is not to this that the prophet refers, but to fraudulent weights, and the love of oppression or violence. And this points not to their attitude towards God, but to their conduct towards their fellow-men, which is the very opposite of what, according to the previous verse, the Lord requires ( chesed ūmishpât ), and the very thing which He has forbidden in the law, in Lev 19:36; Deu 24:13-16, and also in the case of ‛âshaq , violence, in Lev 6:2-4; Deu 24:14.

Ephraim prides itself upon this unrighteousness, in the idea that it has thereby acquired wealth and riches, and with the still greater self-deception, that with all its acquisition of property it has committed no wrong that was sin, i. e. , that would be followed by punishment. און does not mean “might” here, but wealth, opes , although as a matter of fact, since Ephraim says this as a nation, the riches and power of the state are intended.

כּל־יגיעי is not written at the head absolutely, in the sense of “so far as what I have acquired is concerned, men find no injustice in this;” for it that were the case, בּי would stand for לי; but it is really the subject, and יצמצאוּ is to be taken in the sense of acquiring = bringing in (cf. Lev 5:7; Lev 12:8, etc.)

Hos 12:7-8 “Canaan, in his hand is the scale of cheating: he loves to oppress. Hos 12:8. And Ephraim says, Yet I have become rich, have acquired property: all my exertions bring me no wrong, which would be sin. ” Israel is not a Jacob who wrestles with God; but it has become Canaan , seeking its advantage in deceit and wrong. Israel is called Canaan here, not so much on account of its attachment to Canaanitish idolatry (cf.

Eze 16:3), as according to the appellative meaning of the word Kena‛an , which is borrowed from the commercial habits of the Canaanites (Phoenicians), viz. , merchant or trader (Isa 23:8; Job 40:30), because, like a fraudulent merchant, it strove to become great by oppression and cheating; not “because it acted towards God like a fraudulent merchant, offering Him false show for true reverence,” as Schmieder supposes.

For however thoroughly this may apply to the worship of the Israelites, it is not to this that the prophet refers, but to fraudulent weights, and the love of oppression or violence. And this points not to their attitude towards God, but to their conduct towards their fellow-men, which is the very opposite of what, according to the previous verse, the Lord requires ( chesed ūmishpât ), and the very thing which He has forbidden in the law, in Lev 19:36; Deu 24:13-16, and also in the case of ‛âshaq , violence, in Lev 6:2-4; Deu 24:14.

Ephraim prides itself upon this unrighteousness, in the idea that it has thereby acquired wealth and riches, and with the still greater self-deception, that with all its acquisition of property it has committed no wrong that was sin, i. e. , that would be followed by punishment. און does not mean “might” here, but wealth, opes , although as a matter of fact, since Ephraim says this as a nation, the riches and power of the state are intended.

כּל־יגיעי is not written at the head absolutely, in the sense of “so far as what I have acquired is concerned, men find no injustice in this;” for it that were the case, בּי would stand for לי; but it is really the subject, and יצמצאוּ is to be taken in the sense of acquiring = bringing in (cf. Lev 5:7; Lev 12:8, etc.)

Hos 12:9-11 “Yet am I Jehovah thy God, from the land of Egypt hither: I will still cause thee to dwell in tents, as in the days of the feast. Hos 12:10. I have spoken to the prophets; and I, I have multiplied visions, and spoken similitudes through the prophets. Hos 12:11. If Gilead (is) worthlessness, they have only come to nothing: in Gilgal they offered bullocks: even their altars are like stone-heaps in the furrows of the field.

” The Lord meets the delusion of the people, that they had become great and powerful through their own exertion, by reminding them that He (ואנכי is adversative, yet I) has been Israel’s God from Egypt hither, and that to Him they owe all prosperity and good in both past and present (cf. Hos 13:4). Because they do not recognise this, and because they put their trust in unrighteousness rather than in Him, He will now cause them to dwell in tents again, as in the days of the feast of Tabernacles, i.

e. , will repeat the leading through the wilderness. It is evident from the context that mō‛ēd (the feast) is here the feast of Tabernacles. מועד (the days of the feast) are the seven days of this festival, during which Israel was to dwell in booths, in remembrance of the fact that when God led them out of Egypt He had caused them to dwell in booths (tabernacles, Lev 23:42-43).

אד אושׁיבך stands in antithesis to הושׁבתּי ot si in Lev 23:43. “The preterite is changed into a future through the ingratitude of the nation” (Hengstenberg). The simile, “as in the days of the feast,” shows that the repetition of the leading through the desert is not thought of here merely as a time of punishment, such as the prolongation of the sojourn of the Israelites in the wilderness for forty years really was (Num 14:33).

For their dwelling in tents, or rather in booths ( sukkōth ), on the feast of Tabernacles, was intended not so much to remind the people of the privations of their unsettled wandering life in the desert, as to call to their remembrance the shielding and sheltering care and protection of God in their wandering through the great and terrible wilderness (see at Lev 23:42-43). We must combine the two allusions, therefore: so that whilst the people are threatened indeed with being driven out of the good and glorious land, with its large and beautiful cities and houses full of all that is good (Deu 6:10.)

, into a dry and barren desert, they have also set before them the repetition of the divine guidance through the desert; so that they are not threatened with utter rejection on the part of God, but only with temporary banishment into the desert. In Hos 12:10 and Hos 12:11 the two thoughts of Hos 12:9 are still further expanded. In Hos 12:10 they are reminded how the Lord had proved Himself to be the God of Israel from Egypt onwards, by sending prophets and multiplying prophecy, to make known His will and gracious counsel to the people, and to promote their salvation.

דּבּר with על, to speak to, not because the word is something imposed upon a person, but because the inspiration of God came down to the prophets from above. אדמּה, not “I destroy,” for it is only the kal that occurs in this sense, and not the piel , but “to compare,” i. e. , speak in similes; as, for example, in Hos 1:1-11 and Hos 3:1-5, Isa 5:1. , Ezekiel 16 etc.

: “I have left no means of admonishing them untried” (Rosenmüller). Israel, however, has not allowed itself to be admonished and warned, but has given itself up to sin and idolatry, the punishment of which cannot be delayed. Gilead and Gilgal represent the two halves of the kingdom of the ten tribes; Gilead the land to the east of the Jordan, and Gilgal the territory to the west.

As Gilead is called “a city (i. e. , a rendezvous) of evil-doers” (פּעלי און) in Hos 6:8, so is it here called distinctly און, worthlessness, wickedness; and therefore it is to be utterly brought to nought. און and שׁוא are synonymous, denoting moral and physical nonentity (compare Job 15:31). Here the two notions are so distributed, that the former denotes the moral decay, the latter the physical.

Worthlessness brings nothingness after it as a punishment. אך, only = nothing, but equivalent to utterly. The perfect היוּ is used for the certain future. Gilgal, which is mentioned in Hos 4:15; Hos 9:15, as the seat of one form of idolatrous worship, is spoken of here as a place of sacrifice, to indicate with a play upon the name the turning of the altars into heaps of stones ( Gallim ).

The desolation or destruction of the altars involves not only the cessation of the idolatrous worship, but the dissolution of the kingdom and the banishment of the people out of the land. שׁורים, which only occurs in the plural here, cannot of course be the dative (to sacrifice to oxen), but only the accusative. The sacrifice of oxen was reckoned as a sin on the part of the people, not on account of the animals offers, but on account of the unlawful place of sacrifice.

The suffix to mizbechōthâm (their sacrifices) refers to Israel, the subject implied in zibbēchū .

Hos 12:9-11 “Yet am I Jehovah thy God, from the land of Egypt hither: I will still cause thee to dwell in tents, as in the days of the feast. Hos 12:10. I have spoken to the prophets; and I, I have multiplied visions, and spoken similitudes through the prophets. Hos 12:11. If Gilead (is) worthlessness, they have only come to nothing: in Gilgal they offered bullocks: even their altars are like stone-heaps in the furrows of the field.

” The Lord meets the delusion of the people, that they had become great and powerful through their own exertion, by reminding them that He (ואנכי is adversative, yet I) has been Israel’s God from Egypt hither, and that to Him they owe all prosperity and good in both past and present (cf. Hos 13:4). Because they do not recognise this, and because they put their trust in unrighteousness rather than in Him, He will now cause them to dwell in tents again, as in the days of the feast of Tabernacles, i.

e. , will repeat the leading through the wilderness. It is evident from the context that mō‛ēd (the feast) is here the feast of Tabernacles. מועד (the days of the feast) are the seven days of this festival, during which Israel was to dwell in booths, in remembrance of the fact that when God led them out of Egypt He had caused them to dwell in booths (tabernacles, Lev 23:42-43).

אד אושׁיבך stands in antithesis to הושׁבתּי ot si in Lev 23:43. “The preterite is changed into a future through the ingratitude of the nation” (Hengstenberg). The simile, “as in the days of the feast,” shows that the repetition of the leading through the desert is not thought of here merely as a time of punishment, such as the prolongation of the sojourn of the Israelites in the wilderness for forty years really was (Num 14:33).

For their dwelling in tents, or rather in booths ( sukkōth ), on the feast of Tabernacles, was intended not so much to remind the people of the privations of their unsettled wandering life in the desert, as to call to their remembrance the shielding and sheltering care and protection of God in their wandering through the great and terrible wilderness (see at Lev 23:42-43). We must combine the two allusions, therefore: so that whilst the people are threatened indeed with being driven out of the good and glorious land, with its large and beautiful cities and houses full of all that is good (Deu 6:10.)

, into a dry and barren desert, they have also set before them the repetition of the divine guidance through the desert; so that they are not threatened with utter rejection on the part of God, but only with temporary banishment into the desert. In Hos 12:10 and Hos 12:11 the two thoughts of Hos 12:9 are still further expanded. In Hos 12:10 they are reminded how the Lord had proved Himself to be the God of Israel from Egypt onwards, by sending prophets and multiplying prophecy, to make known His will and gracious counsel to the people, and to promote their salvation.

דּבּר with על, to speak to, not because the word is something imposed upon a person, but because the inspiration of God came down to the prophets from above. אדמּה, not “I destroy,” for it is only the kal that occurs in this sense, and not the piel , but “to compare,” i. e. , speak in similes; as, for example, in Hos 1:1-11 and Hos 3:1-5, Isa 5:1. , Ezekiel 16 etc.

: “I have left no means of admonishing them untried” (Rosenmüller). Israel, however, has not allowed itself to be admonished and warned, but has given itself up to sin and idolatry, the punishment of which cannot be delayed. Gilead and Gilgal represent the two halves of the kingdom of the ten tribes; Gilead the land to the east of the Jordan, and Gilgal the territory to the west.

As Gilead is called “a city (i. e. , a rendezvous) of evil-doers” (פּעלי און) in Hos 6:8, so is it here called distinctly און, worthlessness, wickedness; and therefore it is to be utterly brought to nought. און and שׁוא are synonymous, denoting moral and physical nonentity (compare Job 15:31). Here the two notions are so distributed, that the former denotes the moral decay, the latter the physical.

Worthlessness brings nothingness after it as a punishment. אך, only = nothing, but equivalent to utterly. The perfect היוּ is used for the certain future. Gilgal, which is mentioned in Hos 4:15; Hos 9:15, as the seat of one form of idolatrous worship, is spoken of here as a place of sacrifice, to indicate with a play upon the name the turning of the altars into heaps of stones ( Gallim ).

The desolation or destruction of the altars involves not only the cessation of the idolatrous worship, but the dissolution of the kingdom and the banishment of the people out of the land. שׁורים, which only occurs in the plural here, cannot of course be the dative (to sacrifice to oxen), but only the accusative. The sacrifice of oxen was reckoned as a sin on the part of the people, not on account of the animals offers, but on account of the unlawful place of sacrifice.

The suffix to mizbechōthâm (their sacrifices) refers to Israel, the subject implied in zibbēchū .

Hos 12:9-11 “Yet am I Jehovah thy God, from the land of Egypt hither: I will still cause thee to dwell in tents, as in the days of the feast. Hos 12:10. I have spoken to the prophets; and I, I have multiplied visions, and spoken similitudes through the prophets. Hos 12:11. If Gilead (is) worthlessness, they have only come to nothing: in Gilgal they offered bullocks: even their altars are like stone-heaps in the furrows of the field.

” The Lord meets the delusion of the people, that they had become great and powerful through their own exertion, by reminding them that He (ואנכי is adversative, yet I) has been Israel’s God from Egypt hither, and that to Him they owe all prosperity and good in both past and present (cf. Hos 13:4). Because they do not recognise this, and because they put their trust in unrighteousness rather than in Him, He will now cause them to dwell in tents again, as in the days of the feast of Tabernacles, i.

e. , will repeat the leading through the wilderness. It is evident from the context that mō‛ēd (the feast) is here the feast of Tabernacles. מועד (the days of the feast) are the seven days of this festival, during which Israel was to dwell in booths, in remembrance of the fact that when God led them out of Egypt He had caused them to dwell in booths (tabernacles, Lev 23:42-43).

אד אושׁיבך stands in antithesis to הושׁבתּי ot si in Lev 23:43. “The preterite is changed into a future through the ingratitude of the nation” (Hengstenberg). The simile, “as in the days of the feast,” shows that the repetition of the leading through the desert is not thought of here merely as a time of punishment, such as the prolongation of the sojourn of the Israelites in the wilderness for forty years really was (Num 14:33).

For their dwelling in tents, or rather in booths ( sukkōth ), on the feast of Tabernacles, was intended not so much to remind the people of the privations of their unsettled wandering life in the desert, as to call to their remembrance the shielding and sheltering care and protection of God in their wandering through the great and terrible wilderness (see at Lev 23:42-43). We must combine the two allusions, therefore: so that whilst the people are threatened indeed with being driven out of the good and glorious land, with its large and beautiful cities and houses full of all that is good (Deu 6:10.)

, into a dry and barren desert, they have also set before them the repetition of the divine guidance through the desert; so that they are not threatened with utter rejection on the part of God, but only with temporary banishment into the desert. In Hos 12:10 and Hos 12:11 the two thoughts of Hos 12:9 are still further expanded. In Hos 12:10 they are reminded how the Lord had proved Himself to be the God of Israel from Egypt onwards, by sending prophets and multiplying prophecy, to make known His will and gracious counsel to the people, and to promote their salvation.

דּבּר with על, to speak to, not because the word is something imposed upon a person, but because the inspiration of God came down to the prophets from above. אדמּה, not “I destroy,” for it is only the kal that occurs in this sense, and not the piel , but “to compare,” i. e. , speak in similes; as, for example, in Hos 1:1-11 and Hos 3:1-5, Isa 5:1. , Ezekiel 16 etc.

: “I have left no means of admonishing them untried” (Rosenmüller). Israel, however, has not allowed itself to be admonished and warned, but has given itself up to sin and idolatry, the punishment of which cannot be delayed. Gilead and Gilgal represent the two halves of the kingdom of the ten tribes; Gilead the land to the east of the Jordan, and Gilgal the territory to the west.

As Gilead is called “a city (i. e. , a rendezvous) of evil-doers” (פּעלי און) in Hos 6:8, so is it here called distinctly און, worthlessness, wickedness; and therefore it is to be utterly brought to nought. און and שׁוא are synonymous, denoting moral and physical nonentity (compare Job 15:31). Here the two notions are so distributed, that the former denotes the moral decay, the latter the physical.

Worthlessness brings nothingness after it as a punishment. אך, only = nothing, but equivalent to utterly. The perfect היוּ is used for the certain future. Gilgal, which is mentioned in Hos 4:15; Hos 9:15, as the seat of one form of idolatrous worship, is spoken of here as a place of sacrifice, to indicate with a play upon the name the turning of the altars into heaps of stones ( Gallim ).

The desolation or destruction of the altars involves not only the cessation of the idolatrous worship, but the dissolution of the kingdom and the banishment of the people out of the land. שׁורים, which only occurs in the plural here, cannot of course be the dative (to sacrifice to oxen), but only the accusative. The sacrifice of oxen was reckoned as a sin on the part of the people, not on account of the animals offers, but on account of the unlawful place of sacrifice.

The suffix to mizbechōthâm (their sacrifices) refers to Israel, the subject implied in zibbēchū .

Hos 12:12-14 This punishment Israel well deserved. Hos 12:12. “And Jacob fled to the fields of Aram; and Israel served for a wife, and for a wife did he keep guard. Hos 12:13. And through a prophet Jehovah brought Israel out of Egypt, and through a prophet was he guarded. Hos 12:14. Ephraim has stirred up bitter wrath; and his Lord will leave his blood upon him, and turn back his shame upon him.

” In order to show the people still more impressively what great things the Lord had done for them, the prophet recals the flight of Jacob, the tribe-father, to Mesopotamia, and how he was obliged to serve many years there for a wife, and to guard cattle; whereas God had redeemed Israel out of the Egyptian bondage, and had faithfully guarded it through a prophet. The flight of Jacob to Aramaea, and his servitude there, are mentioned not “to give prominence to his zeal for the blessing of the birthright, and his obedience to the commandment of God and his parents” (Cyr.

, Theod. , Th. v. Mops.) ; nor “to bring out the double servitude of Israel - the first the one which the people had to endure in their forefather, the second the one which they had to endure themselves in Egypt” (Umbreit); nor “to lay stress upon the manifestation of the divine care towards Jacob as well as towards the people of Israel” (Ewald); for there is nothing at all about this in Hos 12:12.

The words point simply to the distress and affliction which Jacob had to endure, according to Genesis 29-31, as Calvin has correctly interpreted them. “Their father Jacob,” he says, “who was he? what was his condition?... He was a fugitive from his country. Even if he had always lived at home, his father was only a stranger in the land. But he was compelled to flee into Syria.

And how splendidly did he live there? He was with his uncle, no doubt, but he was treated quite as meanly as any common slave: he served for a wife . And how did he serve? He was the man who tended the cattle. ” Shâmar , the tending of cattle, was one of the hardest and lowest descriptions of servitude (cf. Gen 30:31; Gen 31:40; 1Sa 17:20). Sedēh 'ărâm (the field of Aram) is no doubt simply the Hebrew rendering of the Aramaean Paddan - 'ărâm (Gen 28:2; Gen 31:18 : see at Gen 25:20).

Jacob’s flight to Aramaea, where he had to serve, is contrasted in sv. 10 with the leading of Israel, the people sprung from Jacob, out of Egypt by a prophet, i. e. , by Moses (cf. Deu 18:18); and the guarding of cattle by Jacob is placed in contrast with the guarding of Israel on the part of God through the prophet Moses, when he led them through the wilderness to Canaan.

The object of this is to call to the nation’s remembrance that elevation from the lowest condition, which they were to acknowledge with humility every year, according to Deu 26:5. , when the first-fruits were presented before the Lord. For Ephraim had quite forgotten this. Instead of thanking the Lord for it by love and faithful devotedness to Him, it had provoked Him in the bitterest manner by its sins (הכעיס, to excite wrath, to provoke to anger: tamrūrı̄m , an adverbial accusative = bitterly).

For this should its blood-guiltiness remain upon it. According to Lev 20:9. , dâmı̄m denotes grave crimes that are punishable by death. Nâtash , to let a thing alone, as in Exo 23:11; or to leave behind, as in 1Sa 17:20, 1Sa 17:28. Leaving blood-guiltiness upon a person, is the opposite of taking away (נשׂא) or forgiving the sin, and therefore inevitably brings the punishment after it.

Cherpâthō (its reproach or dishonour) is the dishonour which Ephraim had done to the Lord by sin and idolatry (cf. Isa 65:7). And this would be repaid to it by its Lord, i. e. , by Jehovah.

Hos 12:12-14 This punishment Israel well deserved. Hos 12:12. “And Jacob fled to the fields of Aram; and Israel served for a wife, and for a wife did he keep guard. Hos 12:13. And through a prophet Jehovah brought Israel out of Egypt, and through a prophet was he guarded. Hos 12:14. Ephraim has stirred up bitter wrath; and his Lord will leave his blood upon him, and turn back his shame upon him.

” In order to show the people still more impressively what great things the Lord had done for them, the prophet recals the flight of Jacob, the tribe-father, to Mesopotamia, and how he was obliged to serve many years there for a wife, and to guard cattle; whereas God had redeemed Israel out of the Egyptian bondage, and had faithfully guarded it through a prophet. The flight of Jacob to Aramaea, and his servitude there, are mentioned not “to give prominence to his zeal for the blessing of the birthright, and his obedience to the commandment of God and his parents” (Cyr.

, Theod. , Th. v. Mops.) ; nor “to bring out the double servitude of Israel - the first the one which the people had to endure in their forefather, the second the one which they had to endure themselves in Egypt” (Umbreit); nor “to lay stress upon the manifestation of the divine care towards Jacob as well as towards the people of Israel” (Ewald); for there is nothing at all about this in Hos 12:12.

The words point simply to the distress and affliction which Jacob had to endure, according to Genesis 29-31, as Calvin has correctly interpreted them. “Their father Jacob,” he says, “who was he? what was his condition?... He was a fugitive from his country. Even if he had always lived at home, his father was only a stranger in the land. But he was compelled to flee into Syria.

And how splendidly did he live there? He was with his uncle, no doubt, but he was treated quite as meanly as any common slave: he served for a wife . And how did he serve? He was the man who tended the cattle. ” Shâmar , the tending of cattle, was one of the hardest and lowest descriptions of servitude (cf. Gen 30:31; Gen 31:40; 1Sa 17:20). Sedēh 'ărâm (the field of Aram) is no doubt simply the Hebrew rendering of the Aramaean Paddan - 'ărâm (Gen 28:2; Gen 31:18 : see at Gen 25:20).

Jacob’s flight to Aramaea, where he had to serve, is contrasted in sv. 10 with the leading of Israel, the people sprung from Jacob, out of Egypt by a prophet, i. e. , by Moses (cf. Deu 18:18); and the guarding of cattle by Jacob is placed in contrast with the guarding of Israel on the part of God through the prophet Moses, when he led them through the wilderness to Canaan.

The object of this is to call to the nation’s remembrance that elevation from the lowest condition, which they were to acknowledge with humility every year, according to Deu 26:5. , when the first-fruits were presented before the Lord. For Ephraim had quite forgotten this. Instead of thanking the Lord for it by love and faithful devotedness to Him, it had provoked Him in the bitterest manner by its sins (הכעיס, to excite wrath, to provoke to anger: tamrūrı̄m , an adverbial accusative = bitterly).

For this should its blood-guiltiness remain upon it. According to Lev 20:9. , dâmı̄m denotes grave crimes that are punishable by death. Nâtash , to let a thing alone, as in Exo 23:11; or to leave behind, as in 1Sa 17:20, 1Sa 17:28. Leaving blood-guiltiness upon a person, is the opposite of taking away (נשׂא) or forgiving the sin, and therefore inevitably brings the punishment after it.

Cherpâthō (its reproach or dishonour) is the dishonour which Ephraim had done to the Lord by sin and idolatry (cf. Isa 65:7). And this would be repaid to it by its Lord, i. e. , by Jehovah.

Hos 12:12-14 This punishment Israel well deserved. Hos 12:12. “And Jacob fled to the fields of Aram; and Israel served for a wife, and for a wife did he keep guard. Hos 12:13. And through a prophet Jehovah brought Israel out of Egypt, and through a prophet was he guarded. Hos 12:14. Ephraim has stirred up bitter wrath; and his Lord will leave his blood upon him, and turn back his shame upon him.

” In order to show the people still more impressively what great things the Lord had done for them, the prophet recals the flight of Jacob, the tribe-father, to Mesopotamia, and how he was obliged to serve many years there for a wife, and to guard cattle; whereas God had redeemed Israel out of the Egyptian bondage, and had faithfully guarded it through a prophet. The flight of Jacob to Aramaea, and his servitude there, are mentioned not “to give prominence to his zeal for the blessing of the birthright, and his obedience to the commandment of God and his parents” (Cyr.

, Theod. , Th. v. Mops.) ; nor “to bring out the double servitude of Israel - the first the one which the people had to endure in their forefather, the second the one which they had to endure themselves in Egypt” (Umbreit); nor “to lay stress upon the manifestation of the divine care towards Jacob as well as towards the people of Israel” (Ewald); for there is nothing at all about this in Hos 12:12.

The words point simply to the distress and affliction which Jacob had to endure, according to Genesis 29-31, as Calvin has correctly interpreted them. “Their father Jacob,” he says, “who was he? what was his condition?... He was a fugitive from his country. Even if he had always lived at home, his father was only a stranger in the land. But he was compelled to flee into Syria.

And how splendidly did he live there? He was with his uncle, no doubt, but he was treated quite as meanly as any common slave: he served for a wife . And how did he serve? He was the man who tended the cattle. ” Shâmar , the tending of cattle, was one of the hardest and lowest descriptions of servitude (cf. Gen 30:31; Gen 31:40; 1Sa 17:20). Sedēh 'ărâm (the field of Aram) is no doubt simply the Hebrew rendering of the Aramaean Paddan - 'ărâm (Gen 28:2; Gen 31:18 : see at Gen 25:20).

Jacob’s flight to Aramaea, where he had to serve, is contrasted in sv. 10 with the leading of Israel, the people sprung from Jacob, out of Egypt by a prophet, i. e. , by Moses (cf. Deu 18:18); and the guarding of cattle by Jacob is placed in contrast with the guarding of Israel on the part of God through the prophet Moses, when he led them through the wilderness to Canaan.

The object of this is to call to the nation’s remembrance that elevation from the lowest condition, which they were to acknowledge with humility every year, according to Deu 26:5. , when the first-fruits were presented before the Lord. For Ephraim had quite forgotten this. Instead of thanking the Lord for it by love and faithful devotedness to Him, it had provoked Him in the bitterest manner by its sins (הכעיס, to excite wrath, to provoke to anger: tamrūrı̄m , an adverbial accusative = bitterly).

For this should its blood-guiltiness remain upon it. According to Lev 20:9. , dâmı̄m denotes grave crimes that are punishable by death. Nâtash , to let a thing alone, as in Exo 23:11; or to leave behind, as in 1Sa 17:20, 1Sa 17:28. Leaving blood-guiltiness upon a person, is the opposite of taking away (נשׂא) or forgiving the sin, and therefore inevitably brings the punishment after it.

Cherpâthō (its reproach or dishonour) is the dishonour which Ephraim had done to the Lord by sin and idolatry (cf. Isa 65:7). And this would be repaid to it by its Lord, i. e. , by Jehovah.

Hos 13:1-2 Because Israel would not desist from its idolatry, and entirely forgot the goodness of its God, He would destroy its might and glory (Hos 13:1-8). Because it did not acknowledge the Lord as its help, its throne would be annihilated along with its capital; but this judgment would become to all that were penitent a regeneration to newness of life. Hos 13:1.

“When Ephraim spake, there was terror; he exalted himself in Israel; then he offended through Baal, and died. Hos 13:2. And now they continue to sin, and make themselves molten images out of their silver, idols according to their understanding: manufacture of artists is it all: they say of them, Sacrificers of men: let them kiss calves. ” In order to show how deeply Israel had fallen through its apostasy, the prophet points to the great distinction which the tribe of Ephraim formerly enjoyed among the tribes of Israel.

The two clauses of Hos 13:1 cannot be so connected together as that נשׂא should be taken as a continuation of the infinitive דּבּר. The emphatic הוּא is irreconcilable with this. We must rather take רתת (ἁπ. λεγ. , in Aramaean = רטט, Jer 49:24, terror, tremor ) as the apodosis to kedabbēr 'Ephraim (when Ephraim spake), like שׂאת in Gen 4:7 : “As Ephraim spake there was terror,” i.

e. , men listened with fear and trembling (cf. Job 29:21). נשׂא is used intransitively, as in Nah 1:5; Psa 89:10. Ephraim, i. e. , the tribe of Ephraim, “exalted itself in Israel,” - not “it was distinguished among its brethren” (Hitzig), but “it raised itself to the government. ” The prophet has in his mind the attempts made by Ephraim to get the rule among the tribes, which led eventually to the secession of the ten tribes from the royal family of David, and the establishment of the kingdom of Israel by the side of that of Judah.

When Ephraim had secured this, the object of its earnest endeavours, it offended through Baal; i. e. , not only through the introduction of the worship of Baal in the time of Ahab (1Ki 16:31.) , but even through the establishment of the worship of the calves under Jeroboam (1Ki 12:28), through which Jehovah was turned into a Baal. ויּמת, used of the state or kingdom, is equivalent to “was given up to destruction” (cf.

Amo 2:2). The dying commenced with the introduction of the unlawful worship (cf. 1Ki 12:30). From this sin Ephraim (the people of the ten tribes) did not desist: they still continue to sin, and make themselves molten images, etc. , contrary to the express prohibition in Lev 19:4 (cf. Exo 20:4). These words are not merely to be understood as signifying, that they added other idolatrous images in Gilgal and Beersheba to the golden calves (Amo 8:14); but they also involve their obstinate adherence to the idolatrous worship introduced by Jeroboam (compare 2Ki 17:16).

בּתבוּדם from תּבוּנה, with the feminine termination dropped on account of the suffix (according to Ewald, §257, d ; although in the note Ewald regards this formation as questionable, and doubts the correctness of the reading): “according to their understanding,” i. e. , their proficiency in art. The meaning of the second hemistich, which is very difficult, depends chiefly upon the view we take of זבחי אדם, viz.

, whether we render these words “they who sacrifice men,” as the lxx, the fathers, and many of the rabbins and Christian expositors have done; or “the sacrificers of (among) men,” as Kimchi, Bochart, Ewald, and others do, after the analogy of אביוני אדם in Isa 29:19. Apart from this, however, zōbhechē 'âdâm cannot possibly be taken as an independent sentence, such as “they sacrifice men,” or “human sacrificers are they,” unless with the lxx we change the participle זבחי arbitrarily into the perfect זבחוּ.

As the words read, they must be connected with what follows or with what precedes. But if we connect them with what follows, we fail to obtain any suitable thought, whether we render it “human sacrificers (those who sacrifice men) kiss calves,” or “the sacrificers among men kiss calves. ” The former is open to the objection that human sacrifices were not offered to the calves (i.

e. , to Jehovah, as worshipped under the symbol of a calf), but only to Moloch, and that the worshippers of Moloch did not kiss calves. The latter, “men who offer sacrifice kiss calves,” might indeed be understood in this sense, that the prophet intended thereby to denounce the great folly, that men should worship animals; but this does not suit the preceding words הם אמרים, and it is impossible to see in what sense they could be employed.

There is no other course left, therefore, than to connect Zōbhechē 'âdâm with what precedes, though not in the way proposed by Ewald, viz. , “even to these do sacrificers of men say. ” This rendering is open to the following objections: (1) that הם after להם would have to be taken as an emphatic repetition of the pronoun, and we cannot find any satisfactory ground for this; and, (2) what is still more important, the fact that 'âmâr would be used absolutely, in the sense of “they speak in prayer,” which, even apart from the “prayer,” cannot be sustained by any other analogous example.

These difficulties vanish if we take Zōbhechē 'âdâm as an explanatory apposition to hēm : “of them (the ‛ătsabbı̄m ) they say, viz. , the sacrificers from among men (i. e. , men who sacrifice), Let them worship calves. ” By the apposition zōbhechē 'âdâm , and the fact that the object ‛ăgâlı̄m is placed first, so that it stands in immediate contrast to 'âdâm , the absurdity of men kissing calves, i.

e. , worshipping them with kisses (see at 1Ki 19:18), is painted as it were before the eye.

Hos 13:1-2 Because Israel would not desist from its idolatry, and entirely forgot the goodness of its God, He would destroy its might and glory (Hos 13:1-8). Because it did not acknowledge the Lord as its help, its throne would be annihilated along with its capital; but this judgment would become to all that were penitent a regeneration to newness of life. Hos 13:1.

“When Ephraim spake, there was terror; he exalted himself in Israel; then he offended through Baal, and died. Hos 13:2. And now they continue to sin, and make themselves molten images out of their silver, idols according to their understanding: manufacture of artists is it all: they say of them, Sacrificers of men: let them kiss calves. ” In order to show how deeply Israel had fallen through its apostasy, the prophet points to the great distinction which the tribe of Ephraim formerly enjoyed among the tribes of Israel.

The two clauses of Hos 13:1 cannot be so connected together as that נשׂא should be taken as a continuation of the infinitive דּבּר. The emphatic הוּא is irreconcilable with this. We must rather take רתת (ἁπ. λεγ. , in Aramaean = רטט, Jer 49:24, terror, tremor ) as the apodosis to kedabbēr 'Ephraim (when Ephraim spake), like שׂאת in Gen 4:7 : “As Ephraim spake there was terror,” i.

e. , men listened with fear and trembling (cf. Job 29:21). נשׂא is used intransitively, as in Nah 1:5; Psa 89:10. Ephraim, i. e. , the tribe of Ephraim, “exalted itself in Israel,” - not “it was distinguished among its brethren” (Hitzig), but “it raised itself to the government. ” The prophet has in his mind the attempts made by Ephraim to get the rule among the tribes, which led eventually to the secession of the ten tribes from the royal family of David, and the establishment of the kingdom of Israel by the side of that of Judah.

When Ephraim had secured this, the object of its earnest endeavours, it offended through Baal; i. e. , not only through the introduction of the worship of Baal in the time of Ahab (1Ki 16:31.) , but even through the establishment of the worship of the calves under Jeroboam (1Ki 12:28), through which Jehovah was turned into a Baal. ויּמת, used of the state or kingdom, is equivalent to “was given up to destruction” (cf.

Amo 2:2). The dying commenced with the introduction of the unlawful worship (cf. 1Ki 12:30). From this sin Ephraim (the people of the ten tribes) did not desist: they still continue to sin, and make themselves molten images, etc. , contrary to the express prohibition in Lev 19:4 (cf. Exo 20:4). These words are not merely to be understood as signifying, that they added other idolatrous images in Gilgal and Beersheba to the golden calves (Amo 8:14); but they also involve their obstinate adherence to the idolatrous worship introduced by Jeroboam (compare 2Ki 17:16).

בּתבוּדם from תּבוּנה, with the feminine termination dropped on account of the suffix (according to Ewald, §257, d ; although in the note Ewald regards this formation as questionable, and doubts the correctness of the reading): “according to their understanding,” i. e. , their proficiency in art. The meaning of the second hemistich, which is very difficult, depends chiefly upon the view we take of זבחי אדם, viz.

, whether we render these words “they who sacrifice men,” as the lxx, the fathers, and many of the rabbins and Christian expositors have done; or “the sacrificers of (among) men,” as Kimchi, Bochart, Ewald, and others do, after the analogy of אביוני אדם in Isa 29:19. Apart from this, however, zōbhechē 'âdâm cannot possibly be taken as an independent sentence, such as “they sacrifice men,” or “human sacrificers are they,” unless with the lxx we change the participle זבחי arbitrarily into the perfect זבחוּ.

As the words read, they must be connected with what follows or with what precedes. But if we connect them with what follows, we fail to obtain any suitable thought, whether we render it “human sacrificers (those who sacrifice men) kiss calves,” or “the sacrificers among men kiss calves. ” The former is open to the objection that human sacrifices were not offered to the calves (i.

e. , to Jehovah, as worshipped under the symbol of a calf), but only to Moloch, and that the worshippers of Moloch did not kiss calves. The latter, “men who offer sacrifice kiss calves,” might indeed be understood in this sense, that the prophet intended thereby to denounce the great folly, that men should worship animals; but this does not suit the preceding words הם אמרים, and it is impossible to see in what sense they could be employed.

There is no other course left, therefore, than to connect Zōbhechē 'âdâm with what precedes, though not in the way proposed by Ewald, viz. , “even to these do sacrificers of men say. ” This rendering is open to the following objections: (1) that הם after להם would have to be taken as an emphatic repetition of the pronoun, and we cannot find any satisfactory ground for this; and, (2) what is still more important, the fact that 'âmâr would be used absolutely, in the sense of “they speak in prayer,” which, even apart from the “prayer,” cannot be sustained by any other analogous example.

These difficulties vanish if we take Zōbhechē 'âdâm as an explanatory apposition to hēm : “of them (the ‛ătsabbı̄m ) they say, viz. , the sacrificers from among men (i. e. , men who sacrifice), Let them worship calves. ” By the apposition zōbhechē 'âdâm , and the fact that the object ‛ăgâlı̄m is placed first, so that it stands in immediate contrast to 'âdâm , the absurdity of men kissing calves, i.

e. , worshipping them with kisses (see at 1Ki 19:18), is painted as it were before the eye.

Hos 13:3 They prepare for themselves swift destruction in consequence. Hos 13:3. “Therefore will they be like the morning cloud, and like the dew that passes early away, as chaff blows away from the threshing-floor, and as smoke out of the window. ” Lâkhēn , therefore, viz. , because they would not let their irrational idolatry go, they would quickly perish.

On the figures of the morning cloud and dew, see at Hos 6:4. The figure of the chaff occurs more frequently (vid. , Isa 17:13; Isa 41:15-16; Psa 1:4; Psa 35:5, etc.) יס'ער is used relatively: which is stormed away, i. e. , blown away from the threshing-floor by a violent wind. The threshing-floors were situated upon eminences (compare my Bibl. Archäol. ii. p.

114). “Smoke out of the window,” i. e. , smoke from the fire under a saucepan in the room, which passed out of the window-lattice, as the houses were without chimneys (see Psa 68:3).

Hos 13:4-5 “And yet I am Jehovah thy God from the land of Egypt hither; and thou knowest no God beside me, and there is no helper beside me. Hos 13:5. I knew thee in the desert, in the land of burning heats. ” As in Hos 12:10, a contrast is drawn here again between the idolatry of the people and the uninterrupted self-attestation of Jehovah to the faithless nation.

From Egypt hither Israel has known no other God than Jehovah, i. e. , has found no other God to be a helper and Saviour. Even in the desert He knew Israel, i. e. , adopted it in love. ידע, to know, when applied to God, is an attestation of His love and care (compare Amo 3:2; Isa 58:3, etc.) The ἁπ. λεγ. תּלאוּבת, from לאב, Arab. lâb , med. Vav , to thirst, signifies burning heat, in which men famish with thirst (for the fact, compare Deu 8:15).