Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Hosea 4:8
They eat up the sin of my people, and they set their heart on their iniquity.
8. They eat up the sin of my people ] The subject of the verb is evidently the priests (see Hos 4:9), and the phrase can therefore only mean, they eat the sin-offering of my people (i.e. the portion assigned to the priests, comp. Lev 10:17). Here we come into collision with a theory of the radical school of criticism that the Levitical legislation (including the appointment of ‘sin-offerings’ and ‘guilt-offerings’) originated after the Babylonian captivity. There are however two earlier references to the sin-offering, viz. here and in Psa 40:6, and one to the guilt-offering in Pro 14:9, not to insist on the disputable allusions in Isa 1:11; Mic 6:7; 2Ki 12:16 (17). And if the dates of one or another of these passages be challenged, yet the supposed novelties are not referred to at all frequently in undoubtedly post-Captivity writings. Sin-offerings are mentioned twice (Neh 10:34; 2Ma 12:43 ); guilt-offerings only once (if we accept a very probable emendation of Ezr 10:19, pointing ashmm). Next, granting a reference to the sin-offering, does the prophet mean to condemn the priests for eating of it? Certainly not; whatever were the traditional rules respecting the sin-offering, the priests would naturally have a just claim to their portion of the victim. The next clause explains the charge brought against them it is that (like the sons of Eli, 1Sa 2:13-17) they greedily devoured what the people brought to atone for their sins; so that in eating the ‘sin-offering’, they also fed upon the ‘sin’ (the same word, khattath, covers both) of Jehovah’s people. Instead of trying to stem the tide of iniquity, they long for its onward march, with a view to unholy gains.
set their heart ] Literally, ‘lift up their soul’ (or, ‘each one his soul’), i.e. ‘direct their desires’, as Psa 24:4; Psa 25:1.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
They eat up the sin of My people – The priests made a gain of the sins of the people, lived upon them and by them, conniving at or upholding the idolatries of the people, partaking in their idol-sacrifices and idolatrous rites, which, as involving the desertion of God, were the sin of the people, and the root of all their other sins. This the priests did knowingly. True or false, apostate or irregularly appointed, they knew that there was no truth in the golden calves; but they withheld the truth, they held it down in unrighteousness, and preached Jeroboams false-hood, these be thy gods, O Israel. The reputation, station, maintenance of the false priests depended upon it. Not being of the line of Aaron, they could be no priests except to the calves, and so they upheld the sin whereby they lived, and, that they might themselves be accounted priests of God, taught them to worship the calves, as representatives of God.
The word, sin, may include indirectly the sin-offerings of the people, as if they loved the sin or encouraged it, in order that they might partake of the outward expiations for it.
And they set their heart on their iniquity – , as the source of temporal profit to themselves. Benefited by the people, they reproved them not in their sinful doings, but charged themselves with their souls, saying, on us be the judgment, as those who said to Pilate, His blood be upon us. That which was, above all, their iniquity, the source of all the rest, was their departure from God and from His ordained worship. On this they set their hearts; in this they kept them secure by their lies; they feared any misgivings, which might rend the people from them, and restore them to the true worship of God. But what else is it, to extenuate or flatter sin now, to dissemble it, not to see it, not openly to denounce it, lest we lose our popularity, or alienate those who commit it? What else is it to speak smooth words to the great and wealthy, not to warn them, even in general terms, of the danger of making Mammon their god; of the peril of riches, of parade, of luxury, of immoral dressing, and, amid boundless extravagance, neglect of the poor; encouraging the rich, not only in the neglect of Lazarus, but in pampering the dogs, while they neglect him? hat is the praise of some petty dole to the poor, but connivance at the withholding from God His due in them? We see now, says an old writer , how many prelates live on the oblations and revenues of the laity, and yet, whereas they are bound, by words, by prayers, by exemplary life, to turn them away from sin, and to lead them to amendment, they, in various ways, scandalize, corrupt, infect them, by ungodly conversation, flattery, connivance, cooperation, and neglect of due pastoral care. Whence Jeremiah says, My people hath been lost sheep: their shepherds have caused them to go astray. O how horrible and exceeding great will be their damnation, who shall be tormented for each of those under their care, who perish through their negligence Jer 50:6.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Hos 4:8
They eat up the sin of My people.
Feeding on sin
Dr. Henderson renders these words, They devour the sin-offering of My people. The priests lived upon the sacrificial meat (Lev 6:26), and the more they had of this the more they were pleased. But this increased with the increase of the sins of the people. The more the people sinned, the more sin-offerings, and the more sin-offerings, the more priestly banquets. So in truth, without a figure, they feed upon the sin of the people. Such men can be found now–
I. In the ecclesiastical world.
II. In the commercial world.
1. Men who have vested interest in the sin of intemperance.
2. Men who have vested interest in the sin of war.
III. In the professional world. What could lawyers do without chicaneries, breach of contracts, and all kinds of social immoralities and crimes? What would popular journalists do were there no scandals, no tragedies, no crimes, no fraudulent advertisements? What would become of the sensational novelist, if there were no sinful love in the people for the horrible and the prurient? Herein is the great obstruction to moral reformations. Destroy a popular sin, and you destroy the livelihood of hundreds, and the pomp and splendour of many. (Homilist.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Verse 8. They eat up the sin of my people] chattath, the sin-offering, though it be offered contrary to the law; for their hearts are set on iniquity, they wish to do whatever is contrary to God.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
They, the priests who minister to the idols,
eat up the sin of my people; live upon with delight, maintain themselves and theirs; either by conniving at their sins, not reproving as they deserve, lest thereby they should disoblige persons, and lessen their bounty to them; or leave them to sin first, and next look for sacrifices for those sins, like some that make gain by the sins of people with whom they dispense. Or more plainly, by
sin is meant sin-offering, in which the priest had his share.
My people: see Hos 4:6.
And they; covetous, luxurious, idolatrous priests, the priests of Baal and the calves,
set their heart on their iniquity; watch to, and earnestly desire, hope, and expect the people will sin, and bring offerings for sin, which is the iniquity as well as gain of these priests.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
8. eat . . . sin of my peoplethatis, the sin offerings (Lev 6:26;Lev 10:17). The priests greedilydevoured them.
set their heart on theiriniquityliterally, “lift up the animal soul to lustafter,” or strongly desire. Compare De24:15, Margin; Psa 24:4;Jer 22:27. The priests set theirown hearts on the iniquity of the people, instead oftrying to suppress it. For the more the people sinned, the moresacrificial victims in atonement for sin the priests gained.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
They eat up the sin of my people,…. That is, the priests did so, as the Targum, the priests of Jeroboam; they ate up the sacrifices which the people brought for their sins: and their fault was, either that they ate that which belonged to the true priests of the Lord, so Jarchi; or they did that, and had no concern to instruct the people in the right way; all that they regarded were good eating and drinking, and living voluptuously; and were altogether careless about instructing the people in the nature of sacrifices, and in the way of their duty: or this may regard the Bacchanalian feasts, as some think, which the people made in the temples of idols, and so sinned; and of which the priests greatly partook, and encouraged them in, and so were partakers not only of their banquets, but of their sins.
They set their heart on their iniquity: either their offerings for their iniquity, or their iniquity itself: or, “lift up their soul” u to it; diligently looking after it, not caring how much they committed; since the more sin offerings would be brought which would be to their advantage. Though some think the sin of whoredom, frequently and impudently committed at these idol feasts, is meant, which the priests were much addicted to, and very greedy of; they committed cleanness with greediness, Eph 4:19.
u “et ad iniquitatem eorum levaverunt animam suam”, Montanus, Pagninus, Tigurine version; “attollunt”, Junius Tremellius, Piscator “et ad iniquitatem eorum tollunt anumam suam”, Schmidt.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
“The sin of my people they eat, and after their transgression do they lift up their soul.” The reproof advances from the sin of the whole nation to the sin of the priesthood. For it is evident that this is intended, not only from the contents of the present verse, but still more from the commencement of the next. Chatta’th amm (the sin of my people) is the sin-offering of the people, the flesh of which the priests were commanded to eat, to wipe away the sin of the people (see Lev 6:26, and the remarks upon this law at Lev 10:17). The fulfilment of this command, however, became a sin on the part of the priests, from the fact that they directed their soul, i.e., their longing desire, to the transgression of the people; in other words, that they wished the sins of the people to be increased, in order that they might receive a good supply of sacrificial meat to eat. The prophet evidently uses the word chatta’th , which signifies both sin and sin-offering, in a double sense, and intends to designate the eating of the flesh of the sin-offering as eating or swallowing the sin of the people. , to lift up or direct the soul after anything, i.e., to cherish a longing for it, as in Deu 24:15, etc. The singular suffix attached to naphsho (his soul) is to be taken distributively: “(they) every one his soul.”
(Note: It is evident from this verse, that the sacrificial worship was maintained in the kingdom of Israel according to the ritual of the Mosaic law, and that the Israelitish priests were still in possession of the rights conferred by the Pentateuch upon Levitical priests.)
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
This verse has given occasion to many interpreters to think that all the particulars we have noticed ought to be restricted to the priests alone: but there is no sufficient reason for this. We have already said, that the Prophet is wont frequently to pass from the people to the priests: but as a heavier guilt belonged to the priests, he very often inveighs against them, as he does in this place, They eat, he says, the sin of my people, and lift up to their iniquity his soul, that is, ‘every one lifts up his own soul,’ or, ‘they lift up the soul of the sinner by iniquity;’ for the pronoun applies to the priests as well as to the people. The number is changed: for he says, יאכלו, iacalu and ישאו ishau, (14) in the plural number, They will eat the sin, and will lift up, etc. , in the third person; and then his soul it may be, their own; it is, however, a pronoun in the singular number: hence a change of number is necessary. We are then at liberty to choose (15), whether the Prophet says this of the people or of the priests: and as we have said, it may apply to both, but in a different sense.
We may understand him as saying, that the priests lifted up their souls to the iniquity of the people, because they anxiously wished the people to be given to many vices, for they hoped thereby to gain much prey, as the case is, when any one expects a reward from robbers: he is glad to hear that they become rich, for he considers their riches to be for his gain. So it was with the priests, who gaped for lucre; they thought that they were going on well, when the people brought many sacrifices. And this is usually the case, when the doctrine of the law is adulterated, and when the ungodly think that this alone remains for them, — to satisfy God with sacrifices, and similar expiations. Then, if we apply the passage to the priests, the lifting up of the soul is the lust for gain. But if we prefer to apply the words to sinners themselves, the sense is, ‘Upon their iniquity they lift up their soul,’ that is, the guilty raise up themselves by false comforts, and extenuate their vices; or, by their own flatteries, bury and entirely smother every remnant of God’s fear. Then, according to this second sense, to lift up the soul is to deceive, and to take away all doubts by vain comforts, or to remove every sorrow, and to erase every guilt by a false notion.
I come now to the meaning of the whole. Though the Prophet here accuses the priests, yet he involves, no doubt, the whole people, and deservedly, in the same guilt: for how was it that the priests expected gain from sacrifices? Even because the doctrine of the law was subverted. God had instituted sacrifices for this end, that whosoever sinned, being reminded of his guilt, might mourn for his sin, and further, that by witnessing that sad spectacle, his conscience might be more wounded: when he saw the innocent animal slain at the altar, he ought to have dreaded God’s judgment. Besides, God also intended to exercise the faith of all, in order that they might flee to the expiation which was to be made by the promised Mediator. And at the same time, the penalty which God then laid on sinners, ought to have been as a bridle to restrain them. In a word, the sacrifices had, in every way, this as their object, — to keep the people from being so ready or so prone to sin. But what did the ungodly do? They even mocked God, and thought that they had fully done their duty, when they offered an ox or a lamb; and afterwards they freely indulged themselves in their sins.
So gross a folly has been even laughed to scorn by heathen writers. Even Plato has so spoken of such sacrifices, as to show that those who would by such trifles make a bargain with God, are altogether ungodly: and certainly he so speaks in his second book on the Commonwealth, as though he meant to describe the Papacy. For he speaks of purgatory, he speaks of satisfactions; and every thing the Papists of this day bring forward, Plato in that book distinctly sets forth as being altogether sottish and absurd. But yet in all ages this assurance has prevailed, that men have thought themselves delivered from God’s hand, when they offered some sacrifice: it is, as they imagine, a compensation.
Hence the Prophet now complains of this perversion, They eat, he says, (for he speaks of a continued act,) the sins of my people, and to iniquity they lift up the heart of each; that is, When all sin, one after the other, each one is readily absolved, because he brings a gift to the priests. It is the same thing as though the Prophet said, “There is a collusion between them, between the priests and the people.” How so? Because the priests were the associates of robbers, and gladly seized on what was brought: and so they carried on no war, as they ought to have done, with vices, but on the contrary urged only the necessity of sacrifices: and it was enough, if men brought things plentifully to the temple. The people also themselves showed their contempt of God; for they imagined, that provided they made satisfaction by their ceremonial performances, they would be exempt from punishment. Thus then there was an ungodly compact between the priests and the people: the Lord was mocked in the midst of them. We now then understand the real meaning of the Prophet: and thus I prefer the latter exposition as to ‘the lifting up of the soul,’ which is, that the priests lifted up the soul of each, by relieving their consciences, by soothing words of flattery, and by promising life, as Ezekiel says, to souls doomed to die, (Eze 13:19.) It now follows —
(14) These verbs are in the future tense; but the future in Hebrew is often used, as Calvin says in another place, to express a continued act, or an habitual practice.
(15) This choice can hardly be conceded. ‘People,’ in Hebrew, is in the singular number, and the pronouns referring to people are commonly put in the same number; but not so in our language. ‘His’ here evidently belongs to the people, and not to the priests, and ought to be rendered ‘their,’ as in our version. The verse literally translated is as follows, only the future is taken for the present tense: —
‘
The sin of my people they eat, And to their (own) iniquity they raise up their heart.’
To render ‘sin,’ as Newcome and Horsley do, ‘sin-offerings,’ is to destroy the whole force of the passage, that through the superstition of the people they gained their living. And ‘iniquity’ means, no doubt, idolatry, to which the priests raised up the people’s heart, or attached them. — Ed.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
‘They feed on the sin of my people, and set their heart on their iniquity.’
The ‘they’ here might suggest that the priests are in mind as a distinctive body, becoming wealthy as a result of leading the people astray (feeding on the sin of His people). And the second charge is that they themselves then also set their minds on iniquity, being therefore without excuse either way.
There is a warning in this to any who minister in God’s name, lest they use their position to obtain wealth for themselves. It is a reminder that it will then not be long before set their minds on iniquity. Wealth is a dangerous thing to possess, especially for a man of God, and many a ministry has been rendered powerless by the effects of wealth.
Alternately the ‘they’ might simply refer to Israelites as taking advantage of fellow-Israelites even though they were God’s people. Certainly all the people did at that time take advantage of the general sins of the people in order to enrich themselves. And all, apart from a few godly souls, set their hearts on iniquity. So the words could equally be seen as applying to Israelites.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
The first verse in this paragraph is a very striking scripture. In some of our old Bibles the margin hath it in yet stronger terms; they eat up the excrement of my people, meaning that which is most to be abhorred, is most delighted in by the enemies of God. And it should seem, that this is what most defines the character of the seed of the serpent. Say what men will, yet the fact returns with double strength and violence, there is an everlasting line drawn between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent; between the Cains and the Abels, the Esaus and the Jacobs of every generation. The children of the bond-woman will mock and manifest their hatred to the children of the free. Neither can they ever join, either in the life that now is, or in that which is to come. Reader! consult some few of the scriptures in confirmation. Joh 8:42-44 ; Gal 4:22 to the end 1Jn 3:7-12 .
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Hos 4:8 They eat up the sin of my people, and they set their heart on their iniquity.
Ver. 8. They eat up the sin of my people ] That is, the sin offerings, as Exo 29:14 . This they might lawfully do, Lev 6:16 ; Lev 6:18 ; Lev 6:23 ; Lev 6:26 ; Lev 6:29-30 ; Lev 10:17 . But they were greedy dogs; and looked every one to his gain from his quarter, Isa 5:6 ; Isa 5:11 . They winked at the people’s sins, and cared not what evils they fell into, so that they would bring in store of fat and good expiatory sacrifices, which made for the priest’s advantage. They ate that on earth which they were to digest in hell; they fed upon such diet as bred the worm of conscience, that never dies. Just so the Papists do at this day: they teach the people, though they sin, yet, by giving money for so many masses to be mumbled over by a greasy priest, or by so many indulgences and dirges purchased of the pope’s pardon mongers, they shall be delivered, etiamsi, per impossibile, matrem Dei vitiassent. although impossible, they may damage the mother of God, I tremble to translate it. Tecelius told them so in Germany; and got huge masses of money for the pope’s coffers. The common sort of Papists (for want of better teaching) will say, when we have sinned we must confess: and when we have confessed we must sin again, that we may confess again; and make work for new indulgences and jubilees. But have these “workers of iniquity no knowledge, that eat up God’s people as they eat bread?” Psa 14:4 , that drink up the blood of souls, much more worth than the lives that David’s men had jeopardized to procure him the water of the well of Bethlehem, which therefore he dared not drink of? This surely is that filthy lucre ( ) ministers should be free from, 1Pe 5:2 . Let all non-residents look to it, that carry only forcipes et mulctrum, tongs and a milking pail, those instruments of a foolish shepherd, Zec 11:15 See Trapp on “ Zec 11:15 “ feeding themselves, but starving the flock: a heavy account will they one day make to the arch-shepherd, of their sacrilegious rapacity.
And they set their hearts on their iniquity
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
eat up the sin = the sin-offering. Reference to Pentateuch (Lev 6:30): i. e. those sin-offerings which should have been wholly burnt, and not eaten. See notes on Lev 6:26, Lev 6:30. App-92.
Set their heart = lift up their soul: i. e. desire. Hebrew. nephesh. App-13.
iniquity = wrong-doing.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
eat: Lev 6:26, Lev 7:6, Lev 7:7
set their heart on their iniquity: Heb. lift up their soul to their iniquity, 1Sa 2:29, Psa 24:4, Psa 25:1, Isa 56:11, Eze 14:3, Eze 14:7, Mic 3:11, Mal 1:10, Rom 16:18, Tit 1:11, 2Pe 2:3
Reciprocal: Lev 5:13 – shall be Jdg 18:4 – hired me 2Ki 12:16 – trespass money 2Ch 11:16 – set Pro 19:28 – the Jer 5:23 – a revolting Amo 2:8 – they drink Joh 15:5 – same Act 19:25 – ye know 1Co 13:6 – Rejoiceth not
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Hos 4:8. The!/ evidently refers to the priests who were supposed to be teachers and lead the people in the ways of righteousness. Instead of doing that, it is said they eat up the sin of my people. The meaning is that they found satisfaction in the sin of the people, and that is as objectionable to God as to be the direct doers of the wrong. This principle of responsibility is taught by Paul la Rom 1:32.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Hos 4:8-11. They eat up the sin of my people These priests, mentioned Hos 4:6, live upon the sin-offerings of the people; and are so far from restraining them, that they take delight in seeing them commit iniquity, because the more they sin, the greater is the number of their sin-offerings, which are the priests portions. Bishop Horsley translates the verse, Every one of them, while they eat the sin-offerings of my people, sets his own heart upon the crime; that is, while they exercise the sacred function of the priesthood, and claim its highest privileges, their own hearts are set upon the prevailing idolatry. And there shall be, like people, like priest The peoples sins deserve to be punished with such priests; and such priests have helped to make the people thus wicked. Bishop Hall. Or, rather, the sense is, It shall be, as with the people, so with the priest; that is, as they are alike in sinning, so shall they be alike in punishment, which shall be correspondent to their crimes. For they shall eat and not have enough Or, not be satisfied, as the word, , is elsewhere translated. The expression may signify, either that their food should not afford due nourishment, for want of Gods blessing, or that they should be afflicted with a famine or scarcity, so that they should not have food enough to satisfy their craving appetites. The contrary phrase, To eat and be full, or satisfied, denotes plenty. They shall commit whoredoms, &c., and not increase Though they think to multiply by taking a plurality of wives, or concubines, yet in this they shall find their expectations disappointed. Because they have left off to take heed to the Lord Here the reason is given why they should eat and not have enough, &c., namely, because they had apostatized from the love and service of God; for how ready so ever we may be to attribute every thing to the operation of natural causes, yet the Scriptures always speak of Gods co-operation with them as necessary in order to the producing of their desired effects. Whoredom and wine, &c., take away the heart Deprive men of their judgment, and darken their understandings. So a gift is said to destroy the heart, Ecc 7:7, that is, to bereave men of the use of their discerning faculties.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
4:8 {i} They eat up the sin of my people, and they set their heart on their iniquity.
(i) That is, the priests seek to eat the people’s offerings, and flatter them in their sins.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Israel’s priests were feeding on the sin offerings that the people brought to their pagan shrines. Yet since these offerings were to idols it was as though the priests really fed on the people’s sins. The priests desired these offerings, which meant they wanted the people to practice idolatry so they would bring more sacrifices. King Jeroboam I had appointed as priests people from any tribe and all walks of life in Israel (1Ki 12:31; 1Ki 13:33).