John Calvin Commentary Hosea 8

Interpreters nearly all agree on this point: that the Prophet does not threaten the kingdom of Israel, but the kingdom of Judah, at the beginning of this chapter, because he names the house of God, which they take to be the temple. I indeed allow that the Prophet has already spoken in two places of the kingdom of Judah, but, as it were, in passing.

He has, it is true, introduced some reproofs and threatenings, but in such a way that the distinction was quite clear. We see that he now turns to the kingdom of Judah, but in the second verse, he names Israel and yet continues his discourse. To thy mouth, he says, the trumpet, and so on; and afterwards he adds, To me shall they cry, My God; we know thee, Israel.

Here, certainly, the discourse is addressed to the ten tribes. Therefore, I am by no means inclined to explain the beginning of the chapter by applying it to the kingdom of Judah. I certainly wonder that interpreters have been mistaken in such a trivial matter, for the house of God means not only the temple but also the whole people.

As Israel retained this boast that they were a people holy to God and that they were His family, he says, “Put or set the trumpet to thy mouth, and proclaim the war, which is now near at hand. For the enemy hastens, who is to attack the house of God—that is, this holy people, who cover themselves with the name of God and who, trusting in their election and adoption, think that they shall be free from all evils. War shall come as an eagle against this house of God.”

Had the Prophet added anything that could be referred specifically to the kingdom of Judah, I would willingly agree with the opinion of those who think that the house of God is the sanctuary. But let the whole context be read, and anyone can easily perceive that the Prophet speaks of Israel no less in the first verse than in the second and third. For, as has been said, he makes no distinction but continues his teaching or discourse in the same vein throughout.

He says first, A trumpet to thy mouth, or, “Set to thy mouth the trumpet.” It is a vivid description (hypotyposis), for we know that God, in order to affect the people more powerfully, invests His Prophets with various roles. The Prophet, then, is introduced here as a herald who proclaims war, or a messenger, or by whatever name you may wish to call him.

Here then the Prophet is commanded not to speak with his mouth but to show by the trumpet that war was near, as though God Himself by His trumpet declared war against Israel, which was to be carried on soon after by earthly enemies. The enemies were to come soon after, and the herald was to come in the usual manner to declare war.

The Greeks call them κηρρυκες (proclaimers); we say, “Les heraux.” Just as earthly kings have their proclaimers, or κηρυκες, or heralds, or messengers, who proclaim war, so the Lord sends His Prophet with the usual charge to declare war: “Go then, and let the Israelites know, not now by your mouth, but even by your throat, by the sound of the trumpet, that I am an enemy to them and that I am present with a strong army to destroy them.”

It is indeed certain that the Prophet did not use a trumpet. But the Lord, by this representation, as I have already said, increased the reality of what was taught so that the Israelites might perceive that the Prophet was not threatening them in sport or play, but that it was done seriously, as though they now saw the heralds who were to proclaim war. For this was usually done only when the army was already prepared for battle.

He then says, As an eagle against the house of Jehovah. We have already said what the Prophet means by the house of Jehovah: namely, that people who thought they would be exempt from every evil because they had been adopted by the Lord. Hence the Israelites called themselves God’s household; and though under this cover they impiously and profanely abandoned themselves to every kind of turpitude, yet they thought that they were on the best of terms with God Himself.

“There shall come,” he says, “a common ruin to you all; this boasting shall not prevent Me from taking vengeance at last on your sins.” But he adds, As an eagle, so that the Israelites might not think there was to be a long delay, for the impious procrastinate when they see any danger near.

Hence, so that the Israelites might not continue torpid in their vices, the Prophet says that the destruction of which he spoke would be like the eagle. For in a moment, the eagle covers an immense distance, and we wonder when we see it over our heads, though a little before it did not appear. So also the Prophet says that destruction, though not yet seen, was nevertheless near at hand, so that, being struck with terror (though now late), as the Lord was thus urging them, they might return to Him.

Prayer:

Grant, Almighty God, that since You continue daily to restore us to Yourself, both by scourges and by Your word, though we do not cease to go astray after sinful desires—O grant that by the direction of Your Spirit, we may at length so return to You that we may never afterwards fall away, but be preserved in pure and true obedience, and thus constantly continue in the pure worship of Your majesty and in true obedience, so that after this life has passed, we may at last reach that blessed rest which is reserved for us in heaven, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

[Exposition continues from previous day's lecture]

We were not able yesterday to complete the first verse of the eighth chapter. It remains, then, for us to consider the latter clause, in which the Prophet expresses the cause of the war which he had previously proclaimed by God’s command. He says that the Israelites had transgressed the covenant of the Lord and conducted themselves perfidiously against His law.

He repeats the same thing twice, for the covenant and the law are synonymous. Only the word 'law,' in my view, is added as explanatory, as though he had said that they had violated the covenant of the Lord, which had been sanctioned or sealed by the law.

God, then, had made a covenant with Israel, which He designed to be comprehended in the tablets. Since, then, it was not unknown to the Israelites what they owed to God, they were covenant-breakers.

This, then, as the Prophet shows, was the doubling of their crime: that they had not transgressed by mistake when they violated the covenant of the Lord, for they had been more than sufficiently taught by the law what faith and what purity the Lord required of them. Yet, at the same time, the covenant which the Lord so openly made with them was neglected.

When the Prophet says, To me shall they cry, some understand that the Israelites are blamed for not fleeing to God, and they explain the Prophet’s words in this way: “They ought to have cried to me.” To others, it seems to be an exhortation: “Let the Israelites now cry to me.”

However, I take the words simply as they are: that God here again touches on the pretense of the Israelites, They will cry to me, We know thee; and to this the ready answer is: Israel has cast away good far from himself; the enemy shall pursue him. I connect the two verses in this way. In the former, the Lord relates what they would do and what the Israelites had already begun to do. In the latter verse, He shows that their labor would be in vain, because they always cherished wickedness in their hearts and falsely invoked the name of God, as has been previously noted, even in their prayers.

Israel, then, will cry to me, My God, we know thee. In this way, hypocrites confidently profess the name of God and with a lofty air affirm that they are God’s people; but God scoffs at all this boasting, as it is vain and worthy of derision.

They will then cry to me; and then He imitates their cries, My God, we know thee. When hypocrites, as if they were God’s friends, cover themselves with His shadow, profess to act under His guardianship, and also boast at the same time of their knowledge of true doctrine, and boast of faith and of the worship of God—even if, He says, these cries are uttered by their mouths, yet facts speak differently, and rebuke and expose their hypocrisy.

We now see, then, how these two verses are connected and what the Prophet’s object is.

The verb זנח, zanech, means “to remove far off” and “to throw to a distance”; and sometimes, as some think, “to detest.” There is here, I doubt not, an implied contrast between the rejection of good and the pursuing of which the Prophet speaks afterwards, Israel has driven good far from himself; some interpret טוב, thub, as God Himself, as if it were of the masculine gender. However, the Prophet, I have no doubt, simply accuses the Israelites of having retreated from all justice and uprightness, indeed, of having driven far off everything right and just.

Israel, then, has repelled good; the enemy, he says, will pursue him. There is a contrast between repelling and pursuing, as if the Prophet said that the Israelites had by their defection brought it about that the enemy would now seize them.

There is then no better defense for us against all harm than attention to piety and justice; but when integrity is banished from us, then we are exposed to all evils, for we are deprived of God’s aid.

We then see how beautifully the Prophet compares these two things: the rejection of good by Israel, and their pursuit by their enemies. He then adds—

The Prophet here notices two things, with respect to which he condemns the treachery and impious stubbornness of the people: they had, against the will of God, framed a religion for themselves, and they had instituted a new kingdom. The salvation of that people, we know, was, as it were, founded on a certain kingdom and priesthood; and by these two things God testified His alliance with the children of Abraham.

We know where the happiness of the godly is deposited: even in Christ, for Christ is to us the fullness of a blessed life, because He is a king and a priest. Therefore, I have said that through a certain kingdom and priesthood the favor of God towards the people then shone forth.

Now when the Israelites overturned the kingdom, which God by His own authority instituted, and when they corrupted and adulterated the priesthood, did they not, as it were, deliberately extinguish the favor of God, and strive to annihilate whatever was necessary for their salvation? This then is what the Prophet now speaks of: that the Israelites, in changing the kingdom and priesthood, had undermined the whole appointment of God, and openly showed that they were unwilling to be ruled by God’s hand. For they would have never dared to turn aside even in the least degree from the kingdom of David, nor would they have dared to set up a new and spurious priesthood, if any particle of the fear of God had prevailed in their hearts.

We now perceive the Prophet's purpose, which interpreters have not sufficiently considered. For some refer this to the covenants, as it seemed strange to them that the Israelites should be so severely rebuked for setting up Jeroboam as their king, since Ahijah the Shilonite had already declared by God’s command that it would be so.

But they do not pay sufficient attention to what the Prophet had in view. For, as I have already said, when God instituted the priesthood, there shone forth in it the image of Christ the Mediator, whose office it is to intercede with God that He might reconcile Him to men; and then in the person of David shone forth also the kingdom of Christ. Now when the people tumultuously chose a new king for themselves without any command from God, and when they built for themselves a new temple and altar contrary to what the law prescribed, and when they divided the priesthood, was not all this a manifest corruption, a denial of religion? It is therefore evident that the Israelites were in both these respects apostates; for they forsook God in two ways: first, by separating from the house of David, and then by forming for themselves an unauthorized worship, which God had not commanded in His law.

With regard to the first, he says, They have caused to reign, but not through me; they have instituted a government, and I knew it not, that is, without My consent; for God is said not to know what He does not approve, or that concerning which He is not consulted.

But someone may object and say that God knew of the new kingdom since He was the founder of it. To this the answer is that God so works that this pretext does not excuse the ungodly, since they aim at something else rather than to execute His purpose.

For instance, God designed to prove the patience of His servant Job: were the robbers who took away his property excusable? By no means. For what was their object but to enrich themselves by injustice and plunder? Since then they purchased their advantage at the expense of another, and unjustly robbed a man who had never injured them, they were without any excuse.

The Lord, however, did in the meantime execute by them what He had appointed, and what He had already permitted Satan to do. He intended, as it has been said, that His servant should be plundered; and Satan, who influenced the robbers, could not himself move a finger except by the permission of God; indeed, except it was commanded him.

At the same time, the Lord had nothing in common or in connection with the wicked, because His purpose was far apart from their depraved desires. The same must also be said of what the Prophet states here. As God intended to punish Solomon, so He took away the ten tribes.

He indeed allowed Solomon to reign to the end of his days and to retain the government of the kingdom; but Rehoboam, who succeeded him, lost the ten tribes. This did not happen by chance, for God had so decreed; indeed, He had declared that it would be so. He sent Ahijah the Shilonite to offer the kingdom to Jeroboam, who had dreamed of nothing of the kind.

God then ruled the whole by His own secret counsel, so that the ten tribes should desert their allegiance to Rehoboam, and that Jeroboam, being made king, should possess the greater part of the kingdom. This, I say, was done by God’s decree. But yet the people did not think that they were obeying God in revolting from Rehoboam, for they desired some relaxation when they saw that the young king wished tyrannically to oppress them; therefore they chose for themselves a new king. But they should have endured every wrong rather than deprive themselves of that inestimable blessing, of which God gave them a symbol and pledge in the kingdom of David. For David, as it has been said, did not reign as a common king but was a type of Christ, and God had promised His favor to the people as long as his kingdom flourished, as though Christ then dwelt in the midst of the people. Therefore, when the people shook off the yoke of David, it was the same as if they had rejected Christ Himself, because Christ in His type was despised.

Thus we see how base was the conduct of the people in joining themselves to Jeroboam. For that sedition was not merely a proof of levity, as some people often rashly upset the state of things; it was not merely a rash levity, but an impious denial of God’s favor, the same as if they had rejected Christ Himself.

They had also, in this way, torn themselves from the body of the Church; and though the kingdom of Israel surpassed the kingdom of Judah in wealth and power, it yet became like a putrid member, for the whole soundness depended on the head, from which the ten tribes had cut themselves off.

We now then see why the Prophet so sharply remonstrates with the Israelites for setting up a kingdom, but not through God. And the question is also solved, how God here declares that it was not through Him, which He nonetheless had determined and testified by the mouth of His prophet, Ahijah the Shilonite; that is, that God, as it has been said, had not given a command to the people, nor permitted the people to withdraw themselves from their allegiance to Rehoboam.

God then denies that that kingdom, with respect to the people, was set up by His decree; and He says that what was done was this: that the people made a king without consulting Him. For the people should have attended to what pleased Him, to what the Lord Himself allowed; this they did not, but suddenly followed their own blind impulse.

And this passage is noteworthy, for from this we learn that the same thing is done and not done by the Lord. Foolish men today, not versed in the Scripture, excite great uproars among us about the providence of God. Indeed, there are many rabid dogs who bark at us because we say (what even Scripture teaches everywhere) that nothing is done except by the ordination and secret counsel of God, and that whatever is carried on in this world is governed by His hand.

“How so? Is God, then, a murderer? Is God, then, a thief? Or, in other words, are slaughters, thefts, and all kinds of wickedness, to be attributed to Him?” These men show, while they wish to be considered perceptive, how stupid they are, and also how absurd; indeed, rather what mad wild beasts they are.

For the Prophet here shows that the same thing was done and not done by the Lord, but in a different way. God here expressly denies that Jeroboam was made king by Him. On the other hand, by referring to sacred history, it appears that Jeroboam was made king, not by the votes of the people, but by the command of God. For no such thing had yet entered the mind of the people when Ahijah was instructed to go to Jeroboam; and he himself did not aspire to the kingdom, no ambition impelled him; he remained quiet as a private man, and the Lord stirred him up and said, “I will have you to reign.” The people knew nothing about these things.

After it was done, who could have denied that Jeroboam was set on the throne, as it were, by the hand of God? All this is true; but with regard to the people, he was not made king by God. Why? Because the Lord had commanded David and his posterity to reign perpetually.

Thus we see that all things done in the world are so disposed by the secret counsel of God that He regulates whatever the ungodly attempts and whatever even Satan tries to do, and yet He remains just. And it does not lessen the fault of evil deeds when they say that all things are governed by the secret counsel of God.

With regard to themselves, they know what the Lord commands in His law; let them follow that rule. When they deviate from it, there is no ground for them to excuse themselves and say that they have obeyed God, for their design is always to be considered. Thus we see how the Israelites appointed a king, but not by God; for it was sedition that impelled them, when, at the same time, the law enjoined that they should choose no one as a king except him who had been elected by God; and He had designated the posterity of David, and designed that they should occupy the royal throne until the coming of Christ.

Then follows the other charge—that they made to themselves idols from their gold and from their silver. God here complains that His worship had not only decayed, but that it was also completely corrupted by superstitions. It was an unbearable impiety that the people had desired a new king for themselves; but it was the summit of all evils when the Israelites converted their gold and their silver into idols.

They have made, he says, their gold and silver idols; that is, “I destined the gold and the silver, with which they have been enriched, for very different purposes. When, therefore, I was liberal to them, they abused My kindness, and from their gold and their silver they made to themselves idols or gods.” Here, then, the Prophet, by implication, sharply rebukes the blind madness of the people, that they made to themselves gods of corruptible things, which should, in the meantime, be useful to them. For to what purpose is money given us by the Lord, but for our daily use?

Since, then, the Lord has destined gold and silver for our service, what frenzy it is when men work them into gods for themselves! But this main point must always be remembered: that the Israelites, in all things, betrayed their own apostasy. For they hesitated not to overthrow the kingdom which God had instituted for their salvation, and they dared to pervert the whole worship of God, together with the priesthood, by introducing new superstitions.

Then follows a denunciation of punishment—Therefore Israel shall be cut off. If anyone were indeed to object and say that God was too rigid, there would be no reason for such an objection. For they had betrayed and violated their pledged faith, and by condemning and trampling underfoot both the kingdom and priesthood, they had rejected His favor. Thus we see that the Prophet threatens them now with deserved destruction. Let us proceed—

The Prophet continues with the same subject, for he shows that Israel perished through their own fault, and that the crime, or the cause of destruction, could not be transferred to anyone else. There is some ambiguity in the words, which, however, does not obscure the meaning; for whether we read calf in the objective case, or say, your calf has removed you far off, it will be the same.

Some say, “has forsaken you,” as they do above, “Israel has forsaken good;” but the meaning of throwing away is to be preferred. Your calf, then, Samaria, has cast you off, or, “The Lord has cast far off your calf.” If we read your calf in the “objective” case, then the Prophet denounces destruction not only on the Israelites but also on the calf in which they hoped.

But the probable interpretation is that the calf had removed Samaria far away, or driven its people far away; and this, I have no doubt, is the meaning of the words. For the Prophet, to confirm his previous teaching, seems to remind the Israelites again that the cause of their destruction was to be found nowhere else but in their wickedness, and especially because they, having forsaken the true God, had made an idol for themselves and formed the calf to be in the place of God.

Now, it was an extremely gross and perverse stupidity that, having experienced through so many miracles the infinite power and goodness of God, they should yet have turned to a dead thing. They forged a calf for themselves! Must they not have been driven, as it were, by a monstrous madness when they thus fell away from the true God, who had so often and so wonderfully made himself known to them?

Therefore God now says, Thy calf, O Samaria; that is, “The captivity that now threatens you will not happen by chance, nor will it be right to ascribe it to the wrongdoing of enemies, that they will by force take you to distant lands; but your very calf drives you away.

God had indeed established you in this land, that it might be a quiet inheritance for you to the end; but your calf has not allowed you to rest here. The land of Canaan was indeed your inheritance, as it was also the Lord’s inheritance; but after God has been banished, and the calf has been introduced in His place, by what right can you now remain in possession of it? Your calf, then, expels you, because by your calf you first attempted to banish the true God.” We now perceive the Prophet's mind.

He afterwards says that his anger kindled against them. He includes here all the Israelites and shows that it could not be otherwise: God would inflict extreme vengeance on them, because they were not teachable (as we have often observed before) and could not be turned or reformed by any warnings.

How long, he says, will they not be able to attain cleanness, or innocence? He here deplores the obstinacy of the people: that at no time had they returned to their senses, and that there was no future hope for them.

How long then will they not be able to attain innocence? “Since it is so; that is, since they are unreceptive (incompatibiles, as is commonly said), since they are devoid of all purity or innocence, I am, therefore, now forced to adopt the final remedy, which is to destroy them.”

Here God shuts the mouths of the ungodly, so that they cannot object that the severity he so rigidly exercised towards them was immoderate. He refutes their false accusations by saying that he had patiently endured them and was still enduring them. But he saw that they were so obstinate in their wickedness that no hope could be entertained for them.

The beginning of this verse is not correctly explained, in my opinion, by those who connect the demonstrative pronoun הוא, eva, as if it had an interposed copulative; and this should be noted, for it gives great emphasis to the Prophet’s words. Even this is from Israel. But what does the Prophet mean?

He means that the calf was from Israel, as they had long before, at the beginning, formed a calf for themselves in the desert. But we do not yet clearly understand the Prophet's meaning, unless we perceive that there is an implied comparison here. For he accuses the Israelites of being the first founders of this superstition, and that they had not been, as it were, deceived by others; for they had not borrowed this corruption from the Gentiles, as had sometimes been the case; but it was, so to speak, an intrinsic invention.

From Israel, he says, it is; that is, “I find that you are now the second time the fabricators of this impious superstition. Could your fathers, when they forged a calf for themselves in the desert, make an excuse (as they did) and say that they were led by the faith of others?

Could they plead that this cause of offense was presented to them by the Gentiles, and that they were ensnared, as often happens when some draw others into error? By no means. So, just as your fathers, when no one tempted them to superstition, became the founders of this new superstition through their own inclination, and, as it were, through the instigation of the devil, so this calf is the second time from Israel. For you cannot otherwise account for its origin; you cannot transfer the fault to other nations. ‘Within, within,’ he says, ‘has this evil been generated.’ We now understand the Prophet's meaning: that this superstition was not derived from others, but that Israel, under the influence of no evil persuader, had devised this corruption for themselves, of their own accord, through which they had departed from the true and pure worship of God.

It is indeed true that oxen and calves were worshipped in Egypt, and the same might also be said of other nations; but rivalry did not influence the people of Israel. What then? It certainly cannot be denied that they had stimulated themselves to this impious denial of God.

The same argument can be made against the Papists of today; that is, that the filthy mass of superstitions, through which they have corrupted the entire worship of God, originated with themselves. If they object, saying that they have borrowed many rites from the heathens, this is indeed true. But was it the imitation of heathens that led them to these wicked inventions? By no means; rather, their own lust has led them astray. For, not being content with the simple word of God, they have devised for themselves strange and spurious modes of worship; and afterwards, additions were made according to the caprices of individuals. Thus it has happened that they are sunk in the deepest gulf.

From where, then, do the Papists have so many patrons, on whom they rely while despising Christ the Mediator? Simply because they have adopted them for themselves. From where also do they have so many ungodly ceremonies, by which they pervert the worship of God? Simply because they have fabricated them for themselves.

We now see then how grievous the accusation was, that the calf was even from Israel. “Therefore, there is no reason,” the Lord says, “for you to say that you have been deceived by bad examples, like those who are mixed with profane heathens and contract their vices, as contagion creeps in easily among people, for they are by nature prone to vice. There is no reason,” He says, “for anyone to make an objection of this kind.” Why? “Because the calf your fathers made for themselves in the desert was from Israel; and this calf also is from Israel, for it was not thrust upon you by others, but Jeroboam, your king, made it for you, and you willingly and applaudingly received it.”

The workman, he says, made it, and it is not God. Here the Prophet derides the stupidity of the people. There are many other similar passages, which occur everywhere, especially in the Prophets, in which God reprobates this madness of resorting to such absurd modes of worship. For what is more contrary to reason than for a man to prostrate himself before a dead piece of wood or before a stone, and to seek salvation from it?

The unbelieving indeed adopt their guises and say that they seek God in heaven and, believing that idols and images are representations of God, that they come to Him through them. But what they actually do is evident. These pretenses are then altogether vain, for their stupidity is openly seen when they bend their knees in this way before wood or stone.

Hence the Prophet here inveighs against this senseless stupidity, because a human had made the idol. “Can a mortal make a god? You certainly ascribe divinity to the calf; is this in the workman's power? A human has not bestowed life on himself and cannot for one moment preserve the life he has obtained at another's pleasure. How then can he make a god from wood or stone? What sort of madness is this?”

He then adds, It is not God, for in fragments shall be the calf of Samaria. The Prophet shows here from the event how there was no power or divinity in the calf, because it was to be reduced to fragments. The event then would eventually show how madly the Israelites played the fool when they formed a calf for themselves to be, as it were, the symbol of the divine presence. We now see what the Prophet means: for he enhances the sin of Israel, because they had not been enticed by others to depart from the pure and genuine worship of God, but they had been their own deceivers. This is the meaning.