John Calvin Commentary Hosea 11

God here expostulates with the people of Israel for their ingratitude. The obligation of the people was twofold; for God had embraced them from the very first beginning, and when there was no merit or worthiness in them. What else, indeed, was the condition of the people when emancipated from their servile works in Egypt?

They doubtless seemed then like a man half-dead or a putrid carcass, for they had no vigor remaining in them. The Lord then stretched forth his hand to the people when in so hopeless a state, drew them out, as it were, from the grave, and restored them from death into life.

But the people did not acknowledge this so wonderful a favor of God, but soon after petulantly turned their back on him. What baseness was this, and how shameful the wickedness, to make such a return to the author of their life and salvation? The Prophet therefore enhances the sin and baseness of the people by this circumstance, that the Lord had loved them even from childhood; when yet, he says, Israel was a child, I loved him.

The nativity of the people was their coming out of Egypt. The Lord had indeed made his covenant with Abraham four hundred years before; and, as we know, the patriarchs were also regarded by him as his children. However, God wished his Church to be, as it were, extinguished when he redeemed it.

Therefore, the Scripture, when it speaks of the liberation of the people, often refers to that favor of God in the same way as of one born into the world. It is not, therefore, without reason that the Prophet here reminds the people that they had been loved when in childhood. The proof of this love was that they had been brought out of Egypt. Love had preceded, as the cause is always before the effect.

But the Prophet enlarges on the subject: I loved Israel, even while he was yet a child; I called him out of Egypt; that is, “I not only loved him when a child, but before he was born I began to love him; for the liberation from Egypt was the nativity, and my love preceded that.

It then appears that the people had been loved by me before they came forth to the light, for Egypt was like a grave without any spark of life; and the condition this miserable people was in was worse than a thousand deaths. Then by calling my people from Egypt, I sufficiently proved that my love was gratuitous before they were born.”

The people were consequently less excusable when they returned such an unworthy recompense to God, since he had previously bestowed his free favor upon them. We now understand the meaning of the Prophet.

But here arises a difficult question, for Matthew accommodates this passage to the person of Christ. Those who have not been well versed in Scripture have confidently applied to Christ this passage; yet the context is opposed to this. As a result, it has happened that scoffers have attempted to disturb the whole religion of Christ, as though the Evangelist had misapplied the declaration of the Prophet. A more suitable answer is given by those who say that in this case there is only a comparison: as when a passage from Jeremiah is quoted in another place, when the cruelty of Herod is mentioned, who raged against all the infants of his dominion, who were under two years of age,

Rachel, bewailing her children, would not receive consolation, because they were not, (Jeremiah 31:15).

The Evangelist says that this prophecy was fulfilled (Matthew 2:18). But it is certain that Jeremiah’s intention was different; however, nothing prevents that declaration from being applied to what Matthew relates. So they understand this passage. But I think that Matthew had more deeply considered the purpose of God in having Christ led into Egypt, and in his return afterwards into Judea.

In the first place, it must be remembered that Christ cannot be separated from his Church, as the body will be mutilated and imperfect without a head. Whatever then happened formerly in the Church ought eventually to be fulfilled by the head. This is one thing.

Then also, there is no doubt that God in his wonderful providence intended that his Son should come forth from Egypt, so that he might be a redeemer to the faithful. Thus, he shows that a true, real, and perfect deliverance was eventually effected when the promised Redeemer appeared.

It was then the full nativity of the Church, when Christ came forth from Egypt to redeem his Church. So in my view, that comment is too frigid, which embraces the idea, that Matthew made only a comparison. For we ought to consider this, that God, when he formerly redeemed his people from Egypt, only showed by a certain prelude the redemption which he deferred until the coming of Christ.

Thus, as the body was then brought forth from Egypt into Judea, so eventually the head also came forth from Egypt: and then God fully showed him to be the true deliverer of his people. This then is the meaning. Matthew therefore most fitly accommodates this passage to Christ, that God loved his Son from his first childhood and called him from Egypt.

We know at the same time that Christ is called the Son of God in a respect different from the people of Israel, for adoption made the children of Abraham the children of God, but Christ is by nature the only-begotten Son of God. His own dignity must remain to the head, so that the body may continue in its inferior state. There is, then, nothing inconsistent in this.

However, as to the charge of ingratitude—that such a great favor of God was not acknowledged—this cannot apply to the person of Christ, as we well know. Nor is it necessary in this respect to refer to him, for we see from other places that not everything said of David, or of the high priest, or of the posterity of David, applies to Christ, though they were types of Christ. There is always a great difference between the reality and its symbols.

The Prophet now repeats the ingratitude of the people in neglecting to keep in mind their redemption. The word “called” is here to be taken in a different sense. For God effectually called, as they say, the people, or his Son, from Egypt; he has again called by the outward voice or teaching through his Prophets.

Hence, when he said before that he called his Son from Egypt, it ought to be understood, as they say, of actual liberation; but now when he says, They have called them, it is to be understood of teaching. The name of the Prophets is not expressed, but that they are intended is plain.

And the Prophet seems intentionally to have said in an indefinite manner that the people had been called, so that the indignity might appear more evident, as they had been called so often and by so many, and yet had refused. Hence, they have called them. When he speaks in this way, he is not to be understood as referring to one or two men, or to a few, but as including a great number of men, doing this everywhere.

And so they have called them; that is, this people have been called, not once or twice, but constantly. God has not only sent one messenger or preacher to call them, but there have been many Prophets, one after the other, often so employed, and yet without any benefit. We now perceive what the Prophet meant.

They have called them, he says, so they went away from their presence. The particle so, כן, can, is introduced here to enliven the description, for the Prophet points out, as if pointing with his finger, how wickedly they conspired to execute their own plans, as if they wished purposely to show openly their contempt.

So they went away; when the Prophets called them to one path, they proceeded in an opposite one. We then see that to point out their conduct in this way was not superfluous, when he says that they went away in this manner.

And then he says, from their face. Here he shows that the people sought hiding-places and shunned the light.

We may indeed conclude from these words that so great was the perverseness of the people, that they not only wished to be alienated from God, but also that they would have nothing to do with the Prophets. It is indeed a proof of extreme wickedness when instruction itself is a weariness and ministers cannot be endured; and no doubt the Prophet meant to highlight this sin of the people.

He afterwards says that they sacrificed unto Baalim and burnt incense to graven images. In the former clause, he shows the contumacy of the Israelites: that they refused to listen to God’s servants. He now adds that they made incense to graven images, and also offered worship to their idols.

By Baalim, as it has been already stated, the Prophet means the inferior gods. For no such stupidity prevailed among the people as not to think that there is some chief deity; indeed, even profane Gentiles confessed that there is some supreme God.

But they called their advocates (patronos) Baalim. As we see to be the case today under the Papacy, this same office is transferred to the dead; they are to procure for people the favor of God. The Papists then have no grounds for seeking an evasion by words, for the very same superstition prevails currently among them as prevailed formerly among Gentiles and the people of Israel.

Here the Prophet enhances the wickedness of the people, for they not only contemptuously neglected every instruction in religion but also openly perverted the whole worship of God and abandoned themselves to all abominations, so as to burn incense to their own idols. Let us go on—

Here again God amplifies the sin of the people, by saying that by no kindness, even for a long time, could they be persuaded, or turned, or reformed, or restored to a sound mind. It was surely enough that the people of Israel, who had been brought by the hand of God from the grave to the light of life, should have rejected every instruction; it was a great and an atrocious sin. But now God goes on further, and says that He had not ceased to show His love to them, and yet had achieved nothing by His perseverance, for the wickedness and depravity of the people were incurable.

Hence He says, I have led Ephraim on foot. Some are of the opinion that it is a noun, from רגל, regel, foot, and this seems the most suitable. For otherwise there would be a change of a letter, which grammarians do not allow in the beginning of a word; for ת, tau, in this case would be put instead of ה, he—and put so as if it were of frequent occurrence in Hebrew; but no such instance can be cited.

So those who are skilled in the language think that for this reason it is a noun, and with them I agree. Those, however, who regard it as a verb, give this view: “I have led him on foot, תרגלתי, teregelti; that is, as a child who cannot yet walk with a firm step is gradually accustomed to do so, and the nurse, or the father, or the mother, who lead him, are considerate of his infancy; so also have I led Israel, as much as his feet could bear.”

But the other version is less obscure, and that is, My walking on foot was for him; that is, I humbled Myself as mothers are accustomed to do. And therefore He says that He had carried the people on His shoulders; and we will soon see the same comparison used.

And Moses says in Deuteronomy that the people had been carried on God’s wings, or that God had spread His wings like the eagle who flies over her young ones. Regarding the matter itself, the meaning of the Prophet is not obscure; for he means that these people had been treated by God in a fatherly and indulgent manner, and also that the Lord’s perseverance in continuing to bestow His blessings on them had been without any fruit.

He afterwards adds, To carry on his arms. Some render the expression, קחם, kochem, “He carried them,” as if the verb were in the past tense; and they consider the word ‘Moses’ to be implied. But it is God who speaks here. Some think it to be an infinitive—“To carry,” as when one carries another on his shoulders; and this seems to be the most suitable explanation.

There is no ambiguity in the meaning; for the Prophet’s purpose is what I have already stated, which is to show that these people were most wicked in not obeying God, since they had been so kindly treated by Him. For what could they have expected more than what God had done for them?

As He also says by Isaiah, ‘What, my vine, ought I to have done more than what I have done?’ (Isaiah 5:4). So also in this place, My walking has been on foot with Ephraim; and for this end, to carry them, as when one carries another in his arms. ‘They yet,’ He says, ‘did not know that I healed them’ (Hosea 11:3); that is, “Neither the beginning of My goodness, nor its continued exercise, has any effect on them.”

“When I brought them out of Egypt, I restored the dead to life; this kindness has been forgotten. Again, in the desert I testified, in various ways, that I was their best and most indulgent Father: I have in this instance also lost all My labor.” How so? “Because My favor has been in no way acknowledged by these perverse and foolish people.” We now see then what the Prophet meant; and he continues the same subject in the next verse.

The Prophet states, first, that this people had not been severely dealt with, as slaves, oxen, or donkeys are usually treated. He had said before, that the people of Israel were like a heifer, which shakes off the yoke and in its unruliness loves only the threshing of grain.

But though the perverseness of the people was so great, God shows here that He had not used extreme rigor: I have drawn him, He says, with human cords and lovely bands. By "human cords," He means humane government. "I have not," He says, "treated you as slaves, but dealt with you as with children; and I have not regarded you as cattle, I have not driven you into a stall; but I have only drawn you with lovely bands."

In essence, the government which God had laid on the people was a sure and unique sign of His fatherly favor. Therefore, the people could not complain of too much rigor, as if God had considered their disposition and had used a hard wedge for a hard knot (as the common proverb says). For if God had dealt with the people in this way, they could have objected, saying that they had not been kindly drawn by Him, and that it was no wonder they did not obey, since they had been so roughly treated.

"But there is no ground for them," the Lord says, "to allege that I have used severity, for I could not have dealt more kindly with them. I have drawn them with human cords; I have governed them just as a father governs his own children; I have been bountiful towards them."

I indeed wished to do them good and, as it was right, required obedience from them. At the same time, I have laid on them a yoke, not servile, nor such as is usually laid on brute animals; but I was content with paternal discipline." Since such kindness had no influence over them, is it not right to conclude that their wickedness is irreclaimable and extreme?

He then adds, I have been to them like those who raise up the yoke upon the cheeks. "I have not burdened you," He says, "with too heavy burdens, as oxen and other beasts are usually burdened; but I have raised up the yoke upon the cheeks. I have chosen instead to bear the yoke Myself and to ease these ungodly and wicked men of their burden."

And God does not claim this in vain, for we know that when He uses His power and vindicates His authority, He does this not to burden the people, as earthly kings usually do; instead, He bears the burden which He lays on men. It is no wonder then that He says now, that He had lifted the yoke upon the cheeks of His people, like one who wishes not to burden his ox, but bears up the yoke himself with his own hands, so that the ox should not faint from weariness.

He afterwards adds, And I have made them to eat in quietness, or, "I have brought food to them." Some think the verb אוכיל, aukil, is in the future tense, and that אוכיל, aukil, is put for אאכיל, aakil; that is, I will cause them to eat; and that the future is to be resolved into the past. It is certain that the word אט, ath, sometimes means tranquil. Then it will be, "I have caused them quietly to eat." But another interpretation is more commonly received; as the word אט, ath, is derived from נטה, nathe (to raise), it is as if the Prophet had said that food had been brought to them.

God then does here in various ways highlight the ingratitude and wickedness of the people, because they had not acknowledged His paternal kindness, when He had Himself so kindly displayed His favor before their eyes. I have, He says, extended meat to them; that is, "I have not thrown it on the ground, nor placed it too high for them; they have not toiled in getting it; but I have, as it were, brought it with My own hand and set it before them, that they might eat without any trouble."

In short, God declares that He had tried in every way to find out whether there was any meekness or docility in the people of Israel, and that He had bestowed all His blessings to no avail. For this people were blind to favors so kind—favors that clearly proved that God had in every way shown Himself to be a Father.

Here the Prophet denounces a new punishment: that the people hoped in vain that Egypt would be a place of refuge or an asylum for them, for the Lord would draw them away to another region.

The Israelites had cherished this hope that if, by any chance, the Assyrians should be too powerful for them, there would still be a suitable refuge for them in Egypt among their friends, with whom they had made a treaty.

Since, then, they promised themselves a hospitable exile in Egypt, the Prophet here exposes their vain confidence. He says, “This expectation of theirs, that they will find a way open to Egypt, will disappoint the people; it is shut up.”

He further says, They shall not return to the land of Egypt, but the Assyrian shall be their king. By saying that the Assyrian would rule over them, he means that the people would become exiles under the Assyrians, which indeed happened.

He then anticipates here all the vain hopes by which the people deceived themselves and by which they hardened themselves against all the threats of God. “There is no reason for them,” he says, “to look towards Egypt, for the Lord will not allow them to go there; He will draw them to Assyria.”

He afterwards gives the reason: Because they have been unwilling, he says, to return. This word “return” is to be understood in another sense here; but there is a striking similarity in the words. They thought they would have free passage into Egypt, and yet they had been unwilling to return to God when He had so often called them.

The Prophet therefore says that a return to Egypt was now denied them, since they had been unwilling to return to God. The import of what is said is that when people perversely resist God, they hope in vain for freedom of movement in any direction, for the Lord will hold them tied and bound.

Just as is done with wild beasts that show too much ferocity and are shut up in cages or bound with chains, or as is usually done with frantic men who are bound with strong bonds, so also the Lord deals with obstinate people: He binds them fast, so that they cannot move a finger. This, then, is the meaning of the Prophet.

At the same time, we should understand an implied comparison here between the former bondage they endured in Egypt and the new bondage that awaited them. They had known what kind of hospitality Egypt offered, and yet such great blindness possessed their minds that they wished to return there.

Their fathers had been received kindly enough, but their descendants were grievously burdened; indeed, they were not far from being entirely destroyed. What madness was this, to wish of their own accord to return to Egypt, when they knew how great the ferociousness and cruelty of the Egyptians were? But as I have said, something more grievous awaited them; they were not worthy to return to Egypt.

To return there would indeed have been a dreadful calamity; the Lord, however, would not open a way for them to go there, for He would force them to go to another country. Indeed, they were to be forcibly dragged away by their conquerors into Assyria.

The main point of it all is that though the people had been cruelly treated in Egypt, a more grievous tyranny was now drawing near, for the Assyrians would double the injuries, the violence, and all kinds of wrongs and reproaches that had been inflicted on this people.

Some think that it was added for consolation that God, though greatly provoked by the people, was still unwilling to lead them again into Egypt, lest the former redemption should be made void. Instead, a middle course was prepared by which He would chastise the ungrateful and yet retain them as His peculiar possession. But I have already shown what I mostly approve. At the same time, whichever view is taken, we see how grievous and severe the Prophet’s denunciation was.

Prayer:

Grant, Almighty God, that as you have deigned to choose us before the foundations of the world were laid, and included us in your free adoption when we were the children of wrath and doomed to utter ruin, and afterwards embraced us even from the womb, and have at length favoured us with a clearer proof of your love, in calling us by your gospel into a union and communion with your only-begotten Son, — O grant, that we may not be unmindful of so many and so singular benefits, but respond to your holy calling, and labour to devote ourselves wholly to you, and labour, not for one day, but for the whole time designed for us here, both to live and to die according to your good pleasure, so that we may glorify you to the end, through our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.