John Calvin Commentary Hosea 10:1

"Israel is a luxuriant vine, that putteth forth his fruit: according to the abundance of his fruit he hath multiplied his altars; according to the goodness of their land they have made goodly pillars." — Hosea 10:1 (ASV)

Interpreters explain this verse in various ways. Those who think בוקק, bukok, here applied to the vine, means “empty,” are mistaken; for the Prophet means rather, that Israel was like a vine, which is robbed after the ingathering has come: for the word בקק, bekok, means properly to pillage, or to plunder.

But the Prophet compares the gathering of grapes to robbing; and this view best suits the passage. He says, then, that Israel is like a robbed vine; for it was stripped of its fruit; and then he adds, He will make fruit for himself. The verb שוה, shue, means to equal; and many render it thus—He will equalize fruit to himself, or, “fruit has been equalled to him.” But this rendering does not produce a clear meaning.

I rather follow those who render it, “to lay up.” This verb also sometimes means “to lie;” at least some render the clause this way, “Fruit will lie to him.” And though, in the sense of lying, it has a different final letter, שוה, shue, it is yet said to be derived from this root, so that there is a change of א, “alef,” into ה, “he,” as grammarians think. And yet it does not seem probable that שוא, shua, means to lie. But they elicit this meaning: “Israel is a plundered vine; therefore fruit will lie to him;” that is, it will bring no produce, for that will happen to it which usually happens when robbers have laid waste fields and vineyards. But as I have said already, some more correctly render it, “to lay up;” He will lay up fruit for himself. Some, however, read the sentence as a question—“Will Israel lay up fruit for himself?” Then the meaning is, that Israel was so plundered, that no restitution could be hoped for. But these interpreters do not seem to understand the Prophet’s meaning.

I derive a different meaning from the words, which is that Israel would lay up fruit for himself after the robbing, and sacred history confirms this view. For this people, we know, had been chastised in various ways; yet, they gathered new strength. For the Lord intended only to admonish them gently, that they might be healed; but nothing, as has appeared before, was achieved by God’s moderation. However, Israel did produce new fruit, just as a vine, after being robbed one year, brings forth a new vintage, for one ingathering does not kill the vine. Thus also Israel did lay up fruit for himself; that is, after the Lord had collected his vintage there, he again favored the people with his blessing and, so to speak, restored them anew, just as vines in the spring put forth their branches and then produce fruit.

But what did happen? According to the abundance of his fruit, he says, he multiplied his altars. Here God complains that Israel, after having been once gathered, continued in his own wickedness. Chastisements ought at least to have been effective enough to induce Israel to return to the pure worship of God.

But God not only reproves the people here for having always been obstinate but also for having, as if designedly, increased their vices. For it was like a horrible conspiracy against God for the people, as soon as they acquired new strength, to multiply altars to themselves, when yet the Lord had already shown by clear evidence that fictitious modes of worship did not please him; indeed, that they were to him the greatest abominations.

We now understand the Prophet’s meaning. Then Israel, a robbed vine, multiplied altars for himself; that is, Israel has indeed been gathered, but the Lord restored to him wealth and abundance of provisions, and whatever pertains to a safe and happy condition. Has Israel become better through correction? Has he repented after the Lord has so mercifully withdrawn his hand? By no means, he says; but he has multiplied altars for himself, he has become worse than he used to be; and according to the goodness of his land, he has been doing good in statues.

Now this is a very useful doctrine, for we see how the Lord forbears in inflicting punishments—he does not execute them with the utmost rigour, for as soon as he lays on a few stripes, he withholds his hand. But how do those act who are thus moderately chastised?

As soon as they can recover their spirits, they are carried away by a more headstrong inclination and grow insolent against God. We see this evil prevalent in the world even in our day, as it has been in all ages. We need not wonder, then, that the Prophet here expostulates with the people of Israel; but it is, at the same time, right for us to apply the doctrine for our own instruction.

Though, then, the Lord should spare us, and, after having begun to chastise us, should soon show indulgence and restore us, as it were, anew, let us beware lest forgetfulness of our former sins should creep over us; but let his chastisements exert an influence over us, even after God has put a limit and an end to them.

For the meaning of what the Prophet teaches is this: that people are not to forget the wrath of God, though he may not always, or continually, lay on stripes, but are to consider that the Lord deals so gently that they may have more time to repent, and that a truce is granted them that they may more quietly reflect on their sins.

But he says, According to the goodness of their land, they have been doing good in statues. I have stated before that some take this as meaning that they made good statues, and consider “good” to mean elegant. But I repeat the preposition ל, “lamed,” before altars. When the Prophet said that Israel multiplied altars to himself, the literal reading is that he multiplied in altars, or with respect to altars; that is, he did much, or very liberally spent money on altars.

So also here, it is proper to repeat, that they did good with respect to statues. But a concession is made in the verb הימיבו, eithibu; for it is certain that they grievously sinned; they would not have provoked the wrath of God had they not dealt wickedly in altars and statues.

But the Prophet speaks ironically of the perverted worship of God, as when we say today that the Papists are mad in their good intentions: when I call intentions good, I attribute to them a quality which does not rightly belong to them. It is therefore from their perspective that the Prophet speaks here; but he says, ironically, that they did good in statues; that is, that they seemed to themselves to be the most holy worshipers of God, for they made a show of great zeal. It was, as they say, insane devotion. But there appeared here something more than blind hardness, since they had so soon forgotten the Lord’s displeasure, of which they had been reminded by clear signs. So now we perceive the Prophet’s aim and what is the application of his doctrine. Let us go on—