In all this discourse the Prophet condemns the ingratitude of the people, and then he shows how shamefully they had departed from the example of their father, in whose name they still took pride. This is the substance. Their ingratitude is shown in this: that they did not acknowledge that they had been anticipated, in the person of their father Jacob, by the gratuitous mercy of God.

The first history is indeed referred to for this purpose: that the posterity of Jacob could understand that they had been elected by God before they were born. For Jacob did not, by choice or design, take hold of his brother's heel in his mother’s womb, but it was an extraordinary thing. Therefore, it was God who guided the hand of the infant and by this sign testified that his adoption was gratuitous.

In short, by saying that Jacob held his brother's foot in his mother’s womb, the intention is the same as if God were reminding the Israelites that they did not excel other people by their own virtue or that of their parents, but that God, of His own good pleasure, had chosen them. The same is alleged against them by Malachi,

Were not Jacob and Esau brethren? Yet Jacob I loved, and Esau I regarded with hatred ([Reference Malachi 1:2-3]).

For we know with what haughtiness this nation has always exalted itself. “But from where have you arisen? Look back to your origin: you are indeed the children of Abraham and Isaac. In what then do you differ from the Idumeans? They have certainly been begotten by Esau; and Esau was the son of Isaac and the brother of Jacob, and indeed the first-born. You then do not excel as to any dignity that may exist in you. Acknowledge then your origin, and know that whatever excellence may be in you proceeds from the mere favour of God, and this ought to bind you more and more to Him. From where then is this pride?”

Thus our Prophet now speaks, Jacob held the foot of his brother in his mother’s womb; that is, “You have a near relationship with Esau and his posterity, but they are detested by you. From where does this come? Is it for some merit of your own? Boast when you can show that anything has proceeded from you which could gain favour before God.”

No, your father Jacob, a most holy man indeed, while still in his mother’s womb, took hold of the foot of his brother Esau. That is, when he became superior to his brother and gained primogeniture, he was not grown up and could do nothing by his own choice or power, for he was then enclosed in his mother’s womb and had no worthiness, no merit.

Your ingratitude is therefore now all the more base, for God had placed you under obligation to Him before you were born. In the person of the holy patriarch He chose you for His possession. But now, having forsaken Him and relinquished the worship which He has taught in His law, you abandon yourselves to idols and impious superstitions.

“Bring now your pretences by which you cover your impiety! Is not your baseness so gross and palpable that you ought to be ashamed of it?” We now therefore understand the purpose for which the Prophet said that Esau’s foot was laid hold on by Jacob in his mother’s womb.

Moreover, this passage clearly shows that men do not gain the favour of God by their free will, but are chosen by His goodness alone before they are born, and are chosen not on account of works, as the Papists imagine. They concede some election to God but think that it depends on future works. But if it is so, the Prophet's charge was cold and uninspired.

Now since God, through His good pleasure alone, anticipates men and adopts those whom He pleases—not on account of works, but through His own mercy—it therefore follows that those who have been chosen are more bound to Him, and that they are less excusable when they reject the favour offered to them.

But here someone may object and say that it is strange that the posterity of Jacob should be said to have been elected in his person, and yet they had in the meantime departed from God, for the election of God in this case would not be sure and permanent.

And we know that whom God elects He also justifies, and their salvation is so secured that none of them can perish. All the elect are also delivered to Christ as their preserver, so that He may keep them by His divine power, which is invincible, as John teaches in John 10.

What then does this mean? Now we know, and it has been previously stated, that the election of God concerning that people was twofold: for the one was general, and the other special. The election of holy Jacob was special, for he was really one of the children of God. Special also was the election of those who are called by Paul the children of the promise ([Reference Romans 9:8]).

There was another, a general election, for He received His whole seed into His faith and offered to all His covenant. At the same time, they were not all regenerated; they were not all gifted with the Spirit of adoption. This general election was not then efficacious in all.

The matter in debate is now solved: that no one of the elect shall perish, for the whole people were not elected in a special manner. But God knew whom He had chosen out of that people; and them He endowed, as we have said, with the Spirit of adoption and supplied with His own grace, that they might never fall away.

Others were indeed chosen in a certain way; that is, God offered to them the covenant of salvation. Yet through their ingratitude they caused God to reject them and to disown them as children.

But the Prophet adds that Jacob by his strength had power with God, and had prevailed also with the angel. He here reproaches the Israelites for making a false claim to the name of Jacob, since they had nothing in common with him but had shamefully departed from his example.

He had then power with the angel and with God himself, and he prevailed over the angel. But what sort of persons were they? As the pagan poets called the Romans, when they became degenerated and effeminate, Romulidians, and said that they had descended from those remarkable and illustrious heroes, whose prowess was then well known, and for the same reason called them Scipiadians. So also the Prophet says, “Come now, you children of Jacob, what sort of men are you?

He was endowed with a heroic, yes, with an angelic power, and even more than angelic, for he wrestled with God and gained the victory. But you are the slaves of idols. The devil retains you devoted to himself. You are, as it were, in a brothel—for what else is your temple but a brothel?

And then you are like adulterers and daily commit adultery with your idols. Your abominations, what are they but filthy chains, and which prove that there is no knowledge and no heart in you? For you must have been fascinated when you forsook God and adopted new and profane modes of worship.”

This difference between the holy patriarch Jacob and his posterity must be noted, otherwise we shall not understand the Prophet's objective. And it will be of little use to collect various opinions unless we first know what the Prophet meant, and what was the purport of this rebuke and of this narrative that Jacob had power with God and the angel.

But it must be noted that God and angel are here mentioned in the same sense. We may, indeed, render it ‘angel’ in both places, for אלהים, Aleim, as well as מלאך, melac, signifies an angel. However, every doubt is removed by the Prophet when he at last adds, Jehovah, God of hosts, Jehovah is his name. For here the Prophet expressly mentions the essential name of God, by which he testifies that this same one was the eternal and the only true God, who yet was at the same time an angel.

But it may be asked, How was He the eternal God and at the same time an angel? Indeed, it occurs so frequently in Scripture that it must be well known to us that when the Lord appeared by His angel, the name of Jehovah was given to him—not indeed to all the angels indiscriminately, but to the chief angel by whom God manifested Himself.

This, as I have said, must be well known to us. It therefore follows that this angel was truly and essentially God.

But this would not strictly apply to God unless there is some distinction of persons. Therefore, there must be some person in the Deity to whom this name and title of an angel can apply.

For if we take the name God without difference or distinction and regard it as denoting His essence, it would certainly be inconsistent to say that He is God and an angel too. But when we distinguish persons in the Deity, there is no inconsistency.

How so? Because Christ, the eternal Wisdom of God, put on the character of a Mediator before He put on our flesh. He was therefore a Mediator then, and in that capacity He was also an angel. He was at the same time Jehovah, who is now God manifested in the flesh.

But we must, on the other hand, refute the delirium, or the diabolical madness of that caviller, Servetus, who imagined that Christ was from the beginning an angel, as if He were a phantom and a distinct person, having an essence apart from the Father; for he says that He was formed from three untreated elements. This diabolical notion ought to be wholly discarded by us.

But Christ, though He was God, was also a Mediator. And as a Mediator, He is rightly and fitly called the angel or the messenger of God, for He has of His own accord placed Himself between the Father and men.

Prayer:

Grant, Almighty God, that inasmuch as You show Yourself to us at this day so kindly as a Father, having presented to us a singular and an invaluable pledge of Your favour in Your only begotten Son—O grant that we may entirely devote ourselves to You and truly render You that free service and obedience which is due to a Father, so that we may have no other object in life but to confirm that adoption with which You have once favoured us, until we at length, being gathered into Your eternal kingdom, shall partake of its fruit, together with Christ Jesus Your Son. Amen.

[Exposition continues from previous day's lecture]

Yesterday we explained how it seemed proper to call Him who appeared to holy Jacob in Bethel both God and an angel. For the name Jehovah, by which is expressed the eternal power, essence, and majesty of God, could not be transferred to a mere angel. It is therefore certain that He was the only true God.

But He could not be simply and without any distinction called an angel. However, as Christ even then sustained the character of a Mediator, He was not inconsistently called an angel; and yet we know that He is the eternal God.

So this passage is worthy of being remembered, as it bears testimony to the divinity of Christ. For the Prophet clearly affirms that He is Jehovah, the Creator of heaven and earth, and that He is so by His own power, and that He does not subsist in another, as all creatures do.

Since then He is so, His sovereignty is proved, so that He is not inferior to the Father.

But He says that this is His memorial, or remembrance. This expression has reference to men. The Prophet then means that this wonderful and magnificent name would be well known in the world when Christ should be revealed.

The people, indeed, even then acknowledged that the true God appeared to their father Jacob, but the knowledge of a Mediator was until now obscure.

The Prophet then seems here to refer to the coming of Christ, as though he said that the name Jehovah would be widely known to all when the Mediator would be more clearly exhibited. But I will come now to the other parts of the passage.

The Prophet says that he was a prince, or had power, by his strength with God. I shall shortly explain what this saying means. The name Israel was given to Jacob because of the victory he obtained in that noble wrestling, of which mention is made in Genesis 32. For the holy man did not have a contest with a mortal being but with God Himself; and he overcame in that combat and is therefore called the conqueror of God.

As this way of speaking is harsh, some have attempted by a comment to change it to something more moderate: that is, that Jacob was a prince with God, meaning that God approved of his unusual courage. But God meant to express something more when He gave this name to His servant, for He confessed that He gave way, being, as it were, overcome, and yielded the palm of victory to holy Jacob.

And this ought not to seem strange to us, for we know that whenever God proves our faith and tries us by temptations, these are so many combats by which He contends with us; for He seeks to find out what the strength of our faith is.

Now, when we are said to wrestle with God, and the issue of the contest is such that God leaves the victory to us, we are not then improperly called conquerors, yes, even of God Himself.

But how? Because God works wonderfully in His saints, so that by His own power He casts down Himself; and while He wrestles with us, He supplies us with strength by which we are enabled to bear the weight and pressure of the contest.

Were God to assail us, what would He find but weakness? But when He calls us to the struggle, He at the same time supplies us with the necessary arms.

And it is a wonderful arrangement of the contest when God on one side makes Himself an antagonist and, on the other, fights in us against His own temptations, or against all those wrestlings by which He tries our faith.

Therefore, God is said to be overcome by us when, by the power and aid of His own Spirit, He strengthens and renders us unconquerable; yes, when He makes us triumph over temptations.

And when we consider everything, such is the state of the case that God wills the greater portion of strength to be on our side, and He only takes the weaker portion to tempt and try us.

Indeed, we are not to imagine in this case any such separation, as if God were divided against Himself. But we know that when He tries our faith, He comes forth as if He were a contender or as if He challenged us to the contest. This is indeed certain.

For what are temptations, or what is their object, but to afford us an occasion to exhibit—as on a field of battle—an example and proof of our strength and firmness? But this could not be done without an adversary. For what advantage would it be to fight with a shadow, or when no one engages with us? Therefore, God is like an adversary whenever He tries our faith. And, as has been said before, we have this contest not with men, but with God Himself.

We have indeed to contend with the devil. For Paul says that we have to fight not (only) with flesh and blood, but with mighty powers ([Reference Ephesians 6:12]). This is doubtless true. But the Lord, at the same time, holds the first place, as that remarkable passage in Job testified, The Lord gave, the Lord has taken away ([Reference Job 1:21]). So then, we must engage with God Himself.

How so? Because He tries and proves us. But He does not tempt us, as James says ([Reference James 1:13-14]), for a person is tempted when he is drawn away by his own lust. He does not tempt us to evil; He does not instil into us corrupt desires, which grow up spontaneously and which are innate in our nature. But He tempts, that is, proves us, as He is said to have tempted Abraham ([Reference Genesis 22:1]).

Since it is so, we must now wrestle with God. But for what purpose? That we may conquer. For God does not intend to overwhelm us while He is making known our faith and constancy of obedience; on the contrary, He builds a theatre on which to show His gifts.

We therefore come to the struggle with the hope of overcoming. That we may overcome, He, as I have said, not only exhorts us to be strong but also supplies us with arms, endows us with strength, and also fights Himself, in a manner, with us, and is powerful in us, and enables us to overcome our temptations.

For this reason, Jacob is said to have power with God, or to have been God’s conqueror.

But what the Prophet adds may seem strange: that this was done by his strength. He had power with God, he says, by his own strength. But if Israel had fought by his own valour, he could not have borne even the shadow of God, for he must have fallen.

He must have been brought to nothing had he not possessed power greater than that of man. What then does this mean: that he was a conqueror by his own strength? We grant that this strength of which the Prophet speaks may be ascribed to holy Jacob when he gained dominion.

There is no better title, as they commonly say, than that of donation, and God is accustomed to transfer to us whatever He bestows, as if it were our own. It is therefore necessary to distinguish wisely here between the strength which man has in himself and that which God confers on him.

The Papists, as soon as any mention is made of the strength or power of man, instantly seize upon it and say, “If there is no free will in man, there is no strength, or there is no power to resist.”

But they betray their own stupidity and thoughtlessness, because they cannot distinguish between the intrinsic strength which is in man himself by nature, and the adventitious strength with which God endows men, and which is the gift of the Holy Spirit.

And the Prophet, when he here commends the strength of holy Jacob, does not extol his free will, as though Jacob derived strength from himself by which he overcame God; but the Prophet means that Jacob was divinely endowed with unconquerable power, so that he came forth a conqueror in the contest.

We now therefore understand the Prophet's meaning.

And since this was especially worthy of being remembered, he repeats that he had power with the angel and prevailed. But we have already said how Jacob prevailed not indeed of himself, but because God had so distributed His power that the greater part was in Jacob himself.

I am therefore accustomed, when I speak of the wrestling and of the daily contests with which God exercises the godly, to adduce this similitude: that God fights with us with His left hand and defends us with His right hand.

That is, He assails us in a weak manner (so to speak) and at the same time stretches forth His right hand to defend us; He displays, in the latter instance, His greater power, so that we may become victorious in the struggle.

And this way of speaking, though at first view it seems harsh, yet wonderfully sets forth the grace and goodness of God, because He deigns to humble Himself for our sake, so as to choose to concede to us the praise of victory—not indeed that we may become proud of ourselves, but that He may be thus more glorified when He prefers exercising His power in defending us rather than in overwhelming us, which He could do with one breath of His mouth.

For He has no need to make any effort to reduce us to nothing: if He only chooses to blow on the whole human race, the whole world would in a moment be extinguished.

But the Lord fights with us and at the same time does not allow us to be crushed; no, He raises us up on high and, as I have already said, concedes the victory to us. Let us now go on.

The Prophet adds that he wept and entreated. He wept, he says, and made supplication unto him. Some explain this clause as referring to the angel, but I do not know whether weeping was suitable for him. The saying may indeed be defended that the angel was, as it were, a suppliant when he yielded up the conquest to the holy man, for it was the same as though one who acknowledges himself unequal in a contest were to throw himself on the ground.

Then they explain weeping thus: “The angel entreated the patriarch when he said, ‘Let me go,’ and this was a confession of victory.” The sense would then be that the patriarch Jacob did not gain any ordinary thing when he came forth a conqueror in the struggle, for God was in a manner the suppliant, because He conceded to him the name and praise of a conqueror.

But I prefer explaining this as referring to the patriarch, and to do so is, in my judgement, more suitable. It is not indeed said that Jacob wept; that is, it is not, I own, stated distinctly and expressly by Moses.

But weeping may be taken for that humility which the faithful always bring to the presence of God; and then weeping was fitting for the patriarch.

For he so gained the victory in the combat that he did not depart without grief and loss, because we know that his leg was put out of joint and that his thigh was dislocated so that he was lame all his life.

Jacob then obtained the victory and there triumphed with God’s approval; but yet he did not depart whole, for God had left him lame. He then felt no small grief, since this weakness in his body continued throughout life. Therefore, weeping was not unbefitting for the holy man, who was humbled in the struggle, though he carried away the palm of victory.

And this ought to be carefully noted, for here the Prophet meets all slanders when he so moderates the sentence that he takes away nothing from God and His glory, though he thus splendidly adorns the patriarch's victory. He was then a prince with God; he prevailed also; he became a conqueror—but how?

He yet wept and entreated Him; this means that there was no cause for pride that he carried away the palm of victory from the contest, but that God led him to humility even by the dislocation of his thigh or leg; and so he entreated Him. The prayer of Jacob is related by Moses, which he made when he asked to be blessed.

But the less, as the Apostle says, is blessed by the greater ([Reference Hebrews 7:7]). Then Jacob did not exalt himself, as blind men do who claim merit for themselves; but he prayed to God and asked to be blessed by Him who acknowledged Himself to be overcome.

And this ought to be carefully observed, especially the additional circumstance, for we therefore learn that there is no reason why those who are proved by temptations should flee from God, though our flesh indeed seeks ease and desires to be spared.

But when a temptation is at hand, we withdraw ourselves, and there is no one who would not gladly make a truce and also hide himself far from the presence of God.

Since then we desire God to be far from us when He comes forth as an antagonist to try our faith, this prayer of Jacob ought to be remembered. For though he had his leg disjointed, though he was worn out with weariness, he did not yet withdraw himself; he did not wish the angel's departure but retained him, as it were, by force: “You shall bless me; I would rather contend with You and be wholly consumed than let You go before You bless me.”

We therefore see that we ought to seek the presence of God. Though He may severely try us, though we may suffer much, though our strength may fail, though we may be made lame throughout life, we ought not yet to shun God's presence but rather embrace Him with both arms and retain Him, as it were, by force.

For it is much better to groan under our burden and to feel His power who is above us than to continue free from toil and to rot in our pleasures, as those do whom God forsakes.

And we see how much such an indulgence ought to be dreaded by us, for unless we are daily sharpened by various temptations, we immediately gather rust and other evils. It is therefore necessary, so that we may continue in a sound state, that our contests should be daily renewed. And for this reason I have said that we ought to seek the presence of God, however severe the wrestling may be.

It follows, He found him in Bethel. To remove every ambiguity, I would render it: “In Bethel He had found him.” It is indeed a verb in the future tense, but it is certain that the Prophet speaks of the past.

But when we take the past tense, ambiguity in the language still remains, for some understand the passage this way: that God had afterwards found Jacob in Bethel, or that Jacob had found God—that is, when the name of Israel was confirmed to him after the destruction of the town of Sichem, for, to console his grief, God appeared to him there again.

They then explain this as referring to a second vision in that place. But it seems to me that the Prophet had another thing in view: namely, that God had already found Jacob in Bethel; that He had met him when he fled to Syria and went away through fear of his brother.

It was then for the first time that God appeared to His servant and exhorted him to faithfulness; He promised him a safe return to his own country. The Prophet then means that Jacob gained the victory because God had long before begun to embrace him in His love and also testified His love when He had manifested Himself to him in Bethel.

Therefore, He found him in Bethel. This might indeed be referred to Jacob: “He found Him in Bethel”—that is, Jacob found God. But as it is immediately added, There He spake with us, and as this cannot be applied to any other than to God Himself, I am inclined to add also that God had found Jacob in Bethel.

And the Prophet again commends to us the gratuitous goodness of God toward Jacob, because He deigned to meet him on his way and to show that He was Jacob's leader on his journey; for Jacob did not previously think that God was near him, as he says himself:

This is the house of God, and the gate of heaven,
and I knew it not, ([Reference Genesis 28:16-17]).

When therefore the holy man thought himself to be, as it were, cast away by God and destitute of all aid—when he was alone and without any hope—God is said to have found him. For of His own good will He presented Himself to him when the holy man hoped for no such thing, nor conceived such a thing in his mind.

Therefore, God had already found His servant in Bethel; and there He spoke, or (to continue in the same tense) had spoken to him.

There He had spoken with us. Some take עמנו, omnu, for עמו, omu (He had spoken with him); and they do this, being forced by necessity, for they find no sense in the words that God spoke with us in Bethel. But there is no need to change the words contrary to rules of grammar.

Others who dare not depart from the words of the Prophet imagine a wholly different sense. Some say, “He spoke with us there”—that is, “The Lord speaks by me, Hosea, and by Amos, who is my colleague and friend; for we denounce on you, by His authority, utter ruin and destruction, and God has made known to us at Bethel whatever we bring to you.” But how strained this is, all must see; this is to wrest Scripture, and not to explain it.

Others also speak even more coldly: “There He spoke with us,” as though the angel had said, “Wait, the Lord will speak with us. I have called you Israel, but the Lord will at length come, who will ratify what I now say to you:” as if He were not indeed the eternal God. But this the Prophet immediately expresses when he says, Jehovah is His memorial, Jehovah of hosts. But thus the Jews trifle, who are like irrational beings whenever there is a reference made to Christ.

However, there does not seem to be any great reason why we should toil much about the Prophet’s words; and some even of the Rabbis (not to deprive them of their just praise) have observed this to be the meaning: that the Lord had so spoken with Jacob that what He said belonged to the whole people.

For doubtless whatever God then promised to His servant pertained to the whole body of the people and all his posterity. Why then do interpreters so greatly torment themselves when it is evident that God spoke through the person of one man with all Abraham's posterity?

And this agrees best with the context, for the Prophet now applies, so to speak, to the whole people what he had until now recorded of the patriarch Jacob.

So that they might not then think that the history of one man was related, he says that it belongs to all. How so? Because the Lord had so spoken with holy Jacob that His voice ought to resound in the ears of all.

For what was said to the holy man? Did God only reveal Himself to him? Did He promise to be a Father only to him? No, He adopted his whole seed and extended His favour to all his posterity.

Since then He had so spoken to all the Israelites, they ought now to be more ashamed of their defection, because they had so greatly degenerated from their father, with whom they were still connected.

For there was a sacred bond of unity between Jacob and his children, since God embraced them all in His love and favoured them all with His adoption. We now perceive the Prophet's mind. Let us proceed—

Commentaries

Albert Barnes

On Hosea 12:3

Charles Ellicott

On Hosea 12:3–4

John Calvin

On Hosea 12:3–5

Go Ad-Free

John Gill

On Hosea 12:3

Matthew Henry

On Hosea 12:1–6