4<\/strong>. Yet let no man strive as they that strive with the priest<\/em> ] The view of the meaning of this verse suggested by A.V. may be expressed in the words of Henderson. ‘All reproof on the part of their friends or neighbours generally would prove fruitless, seeing they had reached a degree of hardihood, which was only equalled by the contumacy of those who refused to obey the priest, when he gave judgment in the name of the Lord, Deu 17:12<\/span>.’ This assumes that the counsel not to strive comes from Jehovah. We might however follow Ewald, who understands the opening words of Hos 4:4<\/em><\/span> to mean that the people ‘will not permit any one, even a prophet, to contend with them, although they themselves do not scruple in the least to quarrel with every one, even with the priest who would admonish them, in spite of the traditional reverence for his office, Deu 17:8-18<\/span>; Eccl. 4:17, 18.’ The comparison at the end of the verse, when explained thus, is no doubt obscurely expressed, but not more so than that in Hos 5:10<\/span>, ‘the princes of Judah are become like those that remove the bound.’ Still there are objections, viz. (1) that in Hos 4:6<\/em><\/span> the second person undoubtedly refers to the priesthood, and why should it be taken differently in Hos 4:5<\/em><\/span>? and (2) that in Hos 4:6<\/em><\/span> the priests are so vehemently denounced, that we can hardly suppose that contending with them would be referred to as a sin in Hos 4:5<\/em><\/span>. Various conjectures have been proposed for emending the passage. The most plausible is that of Prof. Robertson Smith ( The Prophets of Israel,<\/em> p. 406), who for kim’ribh<\/em> ‘as they that strive with’, reads mr bh<\/em> ‘have rebelled against me.’ At any rate, we must agree with him and with Mr Heilprin, that the concluding word is a vocative ‘O priest.’ The view of the meaning of Hos 4:4-6<\/em><\/span> given in the note before this is based upon this conjecture. ‘Priest’ here = priestly caste, as ‘a prophet’ in Deu 18:18<\/span> = an order of prophets.<\/p>\n 4 6<\/strong>. It is not you, the laity, bad as you are, who are most to blame; do not waste your time in mutual recrimination. The real blame lies with the priests. Jehovah has a solemn word for thee, O priest; thy whole clan are virtually in rebellion against me. For thy penalty, thou shalt suffer one blow after another, (a ‘fall’ means a calamity), as it were by day and by night; and thine accomplice, the prophet, shall partake in thy punishment. Yea, thy whole stock, priests as well as people, Jehovah will destroy. And why? Because thou, O priest, whose duty it was to teach the life-giving knowledge of God, hast absolutely rejected it thyself. Henceforth thou art no priest of mine.<\/p>\n Yet let no man strive, nor reprove another – <\/B>Literally, Only man let him, not strive, and let not man reprove. God had taken the controversy with His people into His own hands; the Lord, He said , hath a controversy (rib) with the inhabitants of the land Hos 4:1<\/span>. Here He forbids man to intermeddle; man let him not strive. He again uses the same word . The people were obstinate and would not hear; warning and reproof, being neglected, only aggravated their guilt: so God bids man to cease to speak in His Name. He Himself alone will implead them, whose pleading none could evade or contradict. Subordinately, God, teaches us, amid His judgments, not to strive or throw the blame on each other, but each to look to his own sins, not to the sins of others.<\/P> For thy people are as they that strive with the priest – <\/B>God had made it a part of the office of the priest, to keep knowledge Mal 2:7<\/span>. He had bidden, that all hard causes should be taken to Deu 17:8-12<\/span> the priest who stood to minister there before the Lord their God; and whose refused the priests sentence was to be put to death. The priest was then to judge in Gods Name. As speaking in His Name, in His stead, with His authority, taught by Himself, they were called by that Name, in Which they spoke, <\/span> ‘elohym<\/I> Exo 21:6<\/span>; Exo 22:8-9<\/span>, God, not in regard to themselves but as representing Him. To strive then with the priest was the highest contumacy; and such was their whole life and conduct. It was the character of the whole kingdom of Israel. For they had thrown off the authority of the family of Aaron, which God had appointed. Their political existence was based upon the rejection of that authority. The national character influences the individual. When the whole polity is formed on disobedience and revolt, individuals will not tolerate interference. As they had rejected the priest, so would and did they reject the prophets. He says not, they were priest-strivers, (for they had no lawful priests, against whom to strive,) but they were like priest-strivers, persons whose habit it was to strive with those who spoke in Gods Name. He says in fact, let not man strive with those who strive with God. The uselessness of such reproof is often repeated. He that reproveth a scorner getteth to himself shame, and he that rebuketh a wicked man getteth himself a blot Pro 9:7-8<\/span>. Reprove not a scorner, lest he hate thee Pro 23:9<\/span>. Speak not in the ears of a fool, for he will despise the wisdom of thy words. Stephen gives it as a characteristic of the Jews, Ye stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Spirit; as your fathers did, so do ye Act 7:51<\/span>.<\/P> <\/p>\n Hos 4:4<\/span><\/p>\n Yet let no man strive, nor reprove another.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n Restraint of converting agencies<\/strong><\/p>\n Here is given an order of court that no pains should be taken with the condemned criminal to bring him to repentance, and the reason for that order.<\/p>\n 1. <\/strong>They are determined to go on in sin, and no reproofs will cure them of that. Thy people are as those that strive with the priests; they have grown so very impudent in sin that they will fly in the face even of a priest himself if he should but give them the least check. Those sinners have their hearts wickedly hardened who quarrel with their ministers for dealing faithfully with them.<\/p>\n 2. <\/strong>God also is determined to proceed in their ruin. Therefore shalt thou fall. The ruin of those who have helped to ruin ethers will, in a special manner, be intolerable. When all are involved in guilt nothing less can be expected than that all should be involved in ruin. (Matthew Henry.<\/em>)<\/p>\n Verse 4<\/span>. Yet let no man strive<\/B><\/I>] Or, no man contendeth<\/I>. All these evils stalk abroad unreproved, for all are guilty. None can say, “Let me pluck the mote<\/I> out of thy eye,” because he knows that “there is a beam<\/I> in his own.”<\/P> <\/P> For thy people<\/B><\/I> are<\/B>] The people<\/I> and the priest<\/I> are alike rebels<\/I> against the Lord; the priests having become idolaters, as well as the people. Bp. Newcome<\/I> renders this clause, “And as is the provocation of the priest, so is that of my people<\/I>.” The whole clause in the original is veammecha kimeribey<\/I> cohen<\/I>, “and thy people as the rebellions of the priest.” But one of my oldest MSS. omits cohen<\/I>, “priest;” and then the text may be read, And thy people are as rebels<\/I>. In this MS. cohen<\/I> is added in the margin by a much later hand.<\/P> <\/p>\n Yet; though judgments great and wasting are so sure, though the approaching calamities will lay all utterly waste. <\/P> Let no man; none of private capacity, no priest or prophet, any more open their mouths to reason and debate with this people; let all know they are so obstinate and hardened it is to no purpose to warn any more. <\/P> Strive; contend, as in causes pleaded before a judge; lay not the law before them, who have so often refused to hear it. <\/P> Nor reprove; no more chide, or sharply inveigh against their sins and ways. Or this whole passage may be thus read, <\/P> Yet certainly there is none that may or can strive, & c. All are so corrupted, that there is none free who may with confidence argue against others. But our version is better of the two. <\/P> Thy people; thy countrymen, Hosea, if the former words be the words of God to the prophet. Or else, if they be the words of the prophet to the people, then he speaks to them of the temper of their neighbours and people with whom they dwelt. It is much one which we take, for Hosea was now among them; and whether his people or no, they are still the same persons spoken of. <\/P> Are as they that strive with the priest; there is no ingenuity, modesty, or fear of God or man left among them, they will contend with their teachers, reprovers, and counsellors; they will justify themselves, and contemn all reproof; they will adhere to sin, and reject all better advice, just as they Mal 1:2<\/span>,7<\/span>; 2:14<\/span>. This doth not suppose, much less assert, the priests of Baal and the calves to be true priests; but were they as true as they are false, yet such is the temper of the people, they would not hear, consider, and amend, whoever contested with them. Let them alone therefore to perish with obstinate sinners. <\/P> <\/p>\n 4. let no man . . . reprove<\/B>Greatas is the sin of Israel, it is hopeless to reprove them; for theirpresumptuous guilt is as great as that of one who refuses to obey thepriest when giving judgment in the name of Jehovah, and who thereforeis to be put to death (De 17:12<\/span>).They rush on to their own destruction as wilfully as such a one. <\/P> thy people<\/B>the tentribes of Israel; distinct from Judah (Ho4:1<\/span>).<\/P><\/p>\n Yet, let no man strive, nor reprove another<\/strong>,…. Or rather, “let no man strive, nor any man reprove us” q; and are either the words of the people, forbidding the prophet, or any other man, to contend with them, or reprove them for their sins, though guilty of so many, and their land in so much danger on that account: so the Targum,<\/p>\n “but yet they say, let not the scribe teach, nor the prophet reprove:”<\/p>\n or else they are the words of God to the prophet, restraining him from striving with and reproving such a people, that were incorrigible, and despised all reproof; see Eze 3:26<\/span> or of the prophet to other good men, to forbear anything of this kind, since it was all to no purpose; it was but casting pearls before swine; it was all labour lost, and in vain:<\/p>\n for thy people are as they that strive with the priest<\/strong>; they are so far from receiving correction and reproof kindly from any good men that they will rise up against, and strive with the priests, to whom not to hearken was a capital crime, De 17:12<\/span>. Abarbinel interprets it, and some in Abendana, like the company of Korah, that contended with Aaron; suggesting that this people were as impudent and wicked as they, and there was no dealing with them. So the Targum,<\/p>\n “but thy people contend with their teachers;”<\/p>\n and will submit to no correction, and therefore it is in vain to give it them. Though some think the sense is, that all sorts of men were so corrupt, that there were none fit to be reprovers; the people were like the priests, and the priests like the people, Ho 4:9<\/span>, so that when the priests reproved them, they contended with them, and said, physician, heal thyself; take the beam out of your own eye; look to yourselves, and your own sins, and do not reprove us.<\/p>\n q “et ne reprehendito quisquam, [scil.] nos”, Schmidt.<\/p>\n Notwithstanding the outburst of the divine judgments, the people prove themselves to be incorrigible in their sins. Hos 4:4<\/span>. “Only let no man reason, and let no man punish; yet thy people are like priest-strivers.” <\/em> is to be explained from the tacit antithesis, that with much depravity there would be much to punish; but this would be useless. The first clause contains a desperatae nequitiae argumentum<\/em>. The notion that the second ‘sh <\/em> is to be taken as an object, is decidedly to be rejected, since it cannot be defended either from the expression in Isa 3:5<\/span>, or by referring to Amo 2:15<\/span>, and does not yield any meaning at all in harmony with the second half of the verse. For there is no need to prove that it does not mean, “Every one who has a priest blames the priest instead of himself when any misfortune happens to him,” as Hitzig supposes, since signifies the nation, and not an individual. is attached adversatively, giving the reason for the previous thought in the sense of “since thy people,” or simply “thy people are surely like those who dispute with the priest.” The unusual expression, priest-disputers, equivalent to quarrellers with the priest, an analogous expression to boundary-movers in Hos 5:10<\/span>, may be explained, as Luther, and Grotius, and others suppose, from the law laid down in Deu 17:12-13<\/span>, according to which every law-suit was to be ultimately decided by the priest and judge as the supreme tribunal, and in which, whoever presumes to resist the verdict of this tribunal, is threatened with the punishment of death. The meaning is, that the nation resembled those who are described in the law as rebels against the priest (Hengstenberg, Dissertations on Pentateuch<\/em>, vol. 1. p. 112, translation). The suffix “thy nation” does not refer to the prophet, but to the sons of Israel, the sum total of whom constituted their nation, which is directly addressed in the following verse.<\/p>\n The Prophet here deplores the extreme wickedness of the people, that they would bear no admonitions, like those who, being past hope, reject every advice, admit no physicians, and dislike all remedies: and it is a proof of irreclaimable wickedness, when men close their ears and harden their hearts against all salutary counsels. Hence the Prophet intimates, that, together with their great and many corruptions, there was such waywardness, that no one dared to reprove the public vices. <\/p>\n He adds this reason, For the people are as chiders of the priest, or, they really contend with the priest: for some take כ, caph, in this place, not as expressive of likeness, but as explaining and affirming what is said, ‘They altogether strive with the priest.’ But I prefer the former sense, which is, that the Prophet calls all the people the censors of their pastors: and we see that froward men become thus insolent when they are reproved; for instantly such an objection as this is made by them, “Am I to be treated like a child? Have I not attained sufficient knowledge to understand how I ought to live?” We daily meet with many such men, who proudly boast of their knowledge, as though they were superior to all Prophets and teachers. And no doubt the ungodly make a show of wit and acuteness in opposing sound doctrine: and then it appears that they have learnt more than what one would have thought, — for what end? only that they may contend with God. <\/p>\n Let us now return to the Prophet’s words. But, he says: אך, ak is not to be taken here as in many places for “verily:” but it denotes exception, “In the meantime”. But, or, in the meantime, let no one chide and reprove another. In a word, the Prophet complains, that while all kinds of wickedness abounded among the people, there was no liberty to teach and to admonish, but that all were so refractory, that they would not bear to hear the word; and that as soon as any one touched their vices, there were great doctors, as they say, ready to reply. <\/p>\n And he enlarges on the subject by saying, that they were as chiders of the priest; for he declares, that they who, with impunity, conducted themselves so wantonly against God, were not yet content in being so wayward as to repel all reproofs, but also willfully rose up against their own teachers: and, as I have already said, common observation sufficiently proves, that all profane despisers of God are inflated with such confidence, that they dare to attack others. Some conjecture, in this instance, that the priest was so base, as to become liable to universal reprobation; but this conjecture is of no weight, and frigid: for the Prophet here did not draw his pen against a single individual, but, on the contrary, sharply reproved, as we have said, the perverseness of the people, that no one would hearken to a reprover. Let us then know that their diseases were then incurable, when the people became hardened against salutary counsels, and could not bear to be any more reproved. It follows — <\/p>\n (4) Yet let no man strive, nor reprove another.<\/strong>Better, Nevertheless, let no one contend, let no one reprove,<\/em> for the voices of wise counsel, the warnings of the prophet, will be silenced. Ephraim will in his obstinate wrong-doing be left alone. The last clause of the verse is rendered by nearly all versions and commentators, Though thy people are as those who contend with a priest<\/em>i.e.<\/em>, are as guilty as those who transgress the teaching of the Torah by defying the injunctions of the priest (Deu. 17:12-13<\/span>; Num. 15:33<\/span>). But the Speakers Commentary<\/em> gives a different rendering, which is better adapted to the denunciations of the priest in the following verses (comp. Hos. 6:9<\/span>). By a slight change in the punctuation of the Hebrew we obtain the interpretation, And thy people, O priest, are as my adversaries. The position of the vocative in Hebrew, and the absence of the article, are, no doubt, objections to such a construction, but they are not insuperable, and the compensating advantage to exegesis is manifest.<\/p>\n The religious leaders are chiefly responsible for the sins of the people, Hos 4:4-8<\/span><\/em>.<\/p>\n Hos 4:4<\/span>, as it stands now, offers considerable difficulties to the interpreter, and has been variously explained. <\/p>\n Yet let no man strive reprove <\/strong> In 1-3 the prophet has condemned the people, in 5ff. he accuses the priests, with these facts in mind we must seek for an interpretation of 4. The verse seems to mark the transition between the two sections. It is best interpreted as the utterance of the prophet, in a sense defending the people, who are to be pitied more than blamed. The words appear to be addressed partly to the speaker himself, the prophet, as if he desired to correct the harsh judgment uttered in 1, 2, partly to the people, who in the presence of the serious calamity described in 3 would accuse one another of being responsible for it. In the latter part of 4 he begins to point out where the real trouble lies. <\/p>\n Thy people are as they that strive with the Priest <\/strong> If this is the original reading the suggested interpretation of 4a cannot be correct, for here the people are again severely condemned. Following the present text, Henderson and others interpret the verse as meaning that the striving among the people is ordered by Jehovah to cease since “all reproof on the part of their friends and neighbors generally would prove fruitless, seeing they had reached a degree of hardihood which was equalled by the contumacy of those who refused to obey the priest when he gave judgments in the name of the Lord (Deu 17:12<\/span>).” A similar comparison is found in Hos 5:10<\/span>. Others interpret 4a as spoken by the people, who are out of patience with the prophet and desire his denunciations and rebukes to cease; for this they are condemned by the prophet in 4b. There are serious doubts, however, concerning the accuracy of the text of 4b. (1) In Hos 4:6<\/span> the priests are addressed; 5 is most naturally interpreted as addressed to the same. If so, it is strange that in or preceding 5 the priests are not mentioned as being addressed directly. (2) In view of the fierce denunciation of the priesthood in Hos 4:6<\/span>, would it not seem strange in Hosea to demand of the people obedience to priestly instruction, and that he should consider disobedience the limit of transgression? The trouble was that the people followed the example and instruction of the priests too willingly. (3) Hosea opposed the priests more vehemently than anyone else in the nation. Is it natural to suppose that he should hold up his own prophetic attitude as the culmination of apostasy? To relieve the difficulty various emendations have been suggested, all based more or less upon the unvocalized text and upon LXX. The most acceptable of these seems that of Beck, followed by G.A. Smith and others: “For my people are as their priestlings. O priest” Hos 4:4<\/span> and the opening words of Hos 4:5<\/span> would then read, “Let none find fault and none upbraid, for my people are but as their priestlings. O priest, thou shalt stumble” This emendation requires but slight alterations in the consonantal text.<\/p>\n From the people (4a), for whom the prophet has great sympathy, he turns to denounce the religious leaders (4b ff.). On priestlings, <\/em> see on Hos 10:5<\/span>. Marti rejects 5, 6a as “foreign to the original context,” but his reasons are not convincing. <\/p>\n Fall <\/strong> R.V., “stumble.” Not with reference to sin, but punishment; equivalent to perish <\/em> (Hos 14:1<\/span>). <\/p>\n In the day night <\/strong> Both day and night; at all times. The night is mentioned with the prophet, since dreams and night visions (Num 12:6<\/span>; Zec 1:8<\/span>) form a very important means of prophetic revelation; the priest’s work is chiefly in the daytime. <\/p>\n Prophet <\/strong> Not spiritually minded prophets like Amos and Hosea, nor prophets of foreign deities, but mercenary prophets, who prophesied from low, selfish motives (Mic 3:11<\/span>; compare Amo 7:12<\/span>; 1Ki 22:6<\/span>; Isa 28:7<\/span>). Prophets and priests who have become misleaders shall fall together. <\/p>\n Thy mother <\/strong> In Hos 2:2<\/span>, where the Israelites are addressed, the whole nation. In Psa 149:2<\/span>, the inhabitants of Jerusalem are called children of Zion (compare 2Sa 20:19<\/span>). In these passages the mother is the nation or city, of which the inhabitants are the children. The priests who are here addressed are the constituent parts of the priestly order; the individual priests might be called its children; thy mother <\/em> is therefore probably the priestly order or guild.<\/p>\n Hos 4:6<\/span> <\/strong> continues the condemnation of the priests. <\/p>\n My people are destroyed <\/strong> A prophetic <\/em> perfect. The event is still future, but the prophet is so sure of its occurrence that he pictures it as already present. The people must suffer for their sins, though these are due largely to the neglectfulness of priest and prophet. <\/p>\n For lack of knowledge <\/strong> Of Jehovah; the secret of the people’s sinfulness. For this lack the priests are responsible (see on Hos 2:20<\/span>). <\/p>\n Thou <\/strong> The priest; the pronoun is emphatic in Hebrew. <\/p>\n Knowledge <\/strong> Has the article in Hebrew; a specific kind of knowledge, of Jehovah and his will, of which the priests were the custodians (Eze 44:23<\/span>). <\/p>\n Rejected <\/strong> They have failed to be guided by it and to give proper instruction in it. Jehovah can use them no longer; they shall cease to be his priests. The latter part of Hos 4:6<\/span> repeats the thought for the sake of emphasis. <\/p>\n Forgotten forget <\/strong> Practically equivalent to reject; <\/em> for as Jehovah’s knowing has an ethical aspect (see on Amo 3:2<\/span>), so his forgetting. <\/p>\n <\/em><\/p>\n Law of thy God <\/strong> Parallel with knowledge <\/em> in the first part. The law supplies the knowledge. That written laws existed in Hosea’s time is beyond doubt (Hos 8:12<\/span>); but the term law <\/em> (Hebrews torah<\/em>) in prophetic literature is not limited to written law or to law in the narrow sense of that term; frequently it is synonymous with word <\/em> (Isa 1:10<\/span>; Isa 2:3<\/span>), where in margin R.V. it is rendered “teaching,” or “instruction.” Like many theological terms, the word has a history, and in the course of that history it did not retain at all times the same meaning. In the postexilic period it became the technical term for the Five Books of Moses, <\/em> or Pentateuch. <\/em> From the occurrence of the word in various Old Testament books it has been assumed that this fact in itself proves conclusively the existence of the Pentateuch in complete written form at the time these books were written. If law <\/em> and Pentateuch <\/em> were always identical this would be valid reasoning, but there are many passages throughout the Old Testament in which the word does not refer to the Pentateuch. The noun comes probably though this is questioned by some from a verb to throw, <\/em> that is, arrows; it is used also of the casting of lots. The casting of lots was one primitive way of determining the will of the deity (Eze 21:21<\/span>). From this usage of the verb the noun received its primary significance: every kind of instruction received from the deity by the casting of the lot. When a higher stage of communion with God was attained the noun came to denote every revelation received from God by prophet or priest, whatever the means of communication. When these expressions of the divine will were collected and put in writing, at first probably in small collections, the separate items and the entire collection were called Torah <\/em> Law. At this stage the term came to be restricted to legal requirements. Only in a more advanced stage, when it was seen that practically all Hebrew law was contained in the Pentateuch, the term was employed to designate that group of books. (Compare Journal of Biblical Literature, <\/em> xxiv, part i, pp. 1-16.) The significance of the word in any given passage must be determined very largely from the context. Here it is used of written law as well as of instruction otherwise received and given. <\/p>\n Thy children <\/strong> The individual members of the priestly guild (Hos 4:5<\/span>).<\/p>\n ‘Yet let no man strive, nor let any man reprove, for your people are as those who strive with the priest.’<\/p>\n But none of the people of Israel will have any cause to grumble, or disagree with YHWH’s actions, or reprove Him for what He has done, because they themselves are lawless. They are like ‘priest-challengers’. In Israel the priests were the final supreme court, and to openly challenge their final decision was seen as worthy of death (see Deu 17:12-13<\/span>). It was to engage in anarchism. And those who are lawless and anarchists are in no position to lay charges against anyone else at all, and especially not against God.<\/p>\n (Rendering ’al (not) as God (’El) instead of as the negative, although possible linguistically, does not seem likely in view of the fact that Hosea uses El elsewhere only in order to distinctively stress His power e.g. Hos 1:10<\/span>; Hos 11:9<\/span>; Hos 11:12<\/span>).<\/p>\n Hos 4:4<\/span><\/em><\/strong>. <\/strong>Yet let no man strive, <\/em><\/strong>&c.<\/strong> Let no one expostulate or reprove; <\/em>for all expostulation and reproof will be lost upon this people, such is their stubbornness and obstinacy. <\/p>\n For thy people are as they that strive, <\/em><\/strong>&c.<\/strong> “It is in vain for you to reproach one another. You are given up as to an incurable malady; for you are as a man who strives with the priests; guilty of the highest degree of rebellion, and incapable of correction, by opposing the authorized interpreter of the law, and the typical intercessor between God and the people. This passage therefore refers to the Mosaic institutions.” The law condemned those to death who resisted the authority of the priest, Deu 17:12<\/span>. Houbigant renders it, after the LXX, For thy people follow the<\/em> rebellion of the priest; <\/em>that is to say, are as wicked as those priests who infamously deserted the service of God for that of idols. <\/p>\n Hos 4:4 Yet let no man strive, nor reprove another: for thy people [are] as they that strive with the priest.<\/p>\n Ver. 4. Yet let no man strive nor reprove another<\/strong> ] Let him not lose so much good labour, and spill so many sweet words upon this people; for they are grown uncounsellable, incurable, incorrigible. They have rejected the counsel of God within, or against, themselves, Luk 7:30<\/span> , corripiuntur sed non corriguntur; <\/em> it is because the Lord intendeth to destroy them, 1Sa 2:25<\/span> , yea, he hath determined it, 2Ch 25:16<\/span> . Hence as dying men lose their hearing and other senses by degrees, so those that are destined to destruction grow stupid and stubborn, and will neither hear good counsel, nor see the things that concern their peace, but spurn at admonition and scorn at reproof. <\/p>\n “ Tunc etiam docta plus valet arte malum.<\/em> ”<\/p>\n<\/p>\n And therefore God forbids to reprove such, as deplored and desperate; to cast pearls of good counsel before such dogs, who prefer loathsome carrion before sweet odours; yea, rage at them as tigers do, and fly in the faces of such as present them; or, at best, grunt and go their ways, as swine; leave good counsel where they find it, not putting it in practice. Now, as dogs and swine were counted unclean creatures, and unfit for sacrifice, so are such for admonition. Let a man be never so able and apt to teach, let him be vir praestans, eximius, insignis,<\/em> a gallant man (as the word here used sometimes signifieth), and one that can do his work never so well, yet the wisdom of his words shall be despised, Pro 23:9<\/span> . Let him strive till his heart aches, et disputatos arguere,<\/em> as St Jude speaketh ( , Jdg 1:22 ), he shall but strive against the stream, and by reproving a scorner get him a blot, Pro 9:7<\/span> . The Pharisees denied our Saviour, and blew their noses at him ( ), Luk 16:14<\/span> . Let them alone, therefore, saith our Saviour to his disciples, they be blind leaders of the blind, Mat 15:14<\/span> ; there is no good to be done of them: therefore “let him that is filthy be filthy still,” Rev 22:11<\/span> , and he that is ignorant let him be ignorant, since he will needs be so, 1Co 14:38<\/span> . Let him “pine away in his iniquity,” Lev 26:38<\/span> . Let him pine and perish, go on, despair, die, and be damned. My spirit shall no longer strive with him, unless it be by furious rebukes, Eze 5:15<\/span> , and by fire, Amo 7:4<\/span> . Oecolampadius upon this text doubts not to say that the sin of such as reject admonition is the sin against the Holy Ghost: certainly it is worse than all the forementioned, swearing, lying, &c. Blind nature could see and say as much. Hesiod saith that there are three sorts of men: the first and best are those that live so well as not to need reproof ( . Hesiod. Oper. et Dier. V 29). The second (and those not bad) are such as do not so well, but can be content to hear of it. The third and worst are they that will neither do as they ought, nor be advised to do better. Plutarch saith those that are troubled with tooth ache will go to the physician; those that have a fever will send for him; but he that is frantic or stark mad will do neither, but reject the remedy and strike at the physician. So doth the scorner. See my commonplace of admonition. <\/p>\n <\/p>\n For this people are as they that strive with the priest<\/strong> ] Though God’s officer, and in his stead, 2Co 5:20<\/span> , though the people’s oracle to preserve and present knowledge to them, Mal 2:7<\/span> , and though to strive with such be to invert God’s order, who hath appointed the people to hear and obey their teacher, and not to prescribe to them; to follow their guides, and not to run before them, Heb 13:7<\/span> ; Heb 13:17<\/span> 1Ti 1:20<\/span> 2Ti 1:15<\/span> Num 16:1-3<\/span> . From which texts and 1Co 11:2-3<\/span> , a grave divine argueth thus. It is a vile sin to vex our ministers by our obstinace, yea, though they were not able to make so full demonstration; yet when they reprove such and such things out of a spiritual jealousy and fear they corrupt their hearts, they are to he heard; how much more when they come “in the demonstration of the Spirit and of power?” 1Co 2:4<\/span> . And yet how full is the Church and ever hath been of such Vitilitigatores as contend with the best ministers, quarrel at God’s word, and take up arms against it! snuffing at it, Mal 1:13<\/span> , chatting at it, Rom 9:19-20<\/span> , casting reproaches upon it, Jer 20:8-9<\/span> , enviously swelling at it, Act 13:45<\/span> . The more you touch these toads the more they swell; the more you meddle with these serpents the more they gather poison to spit at you. Go about to cool them with fair words, you shall but add to their heat; as the smith’s forge fries when cold water is cast upon it; and as hot water, if stirred, casteth up the more fume. Vultures unguento irritantur et scaraboni rosa:<\/em> vultures cannot endure sweet odours (Plin. Elian.). Tigers, if they hear the sound of a drum, will rage and tear themselves. Ahab cannot abide Micaiah; nor Herod, John Baptist. The people contested with Jeremiah and cursed him, Jer 15:10<\/span> , though he were concionator admirabilis,<\/em> as Keckerman hath it, an admirable preacher; yet they sought his life, saying, “Prophesy not in the name of the Lord, that thou die not by our hands,” Jer 11:21<\/span> (Rhet. Eclesiast. cap. ult.), yea, they told him, flat and plain, “The word which thou hast spoken unto us in the name of the Lord we will not hear,” Jer 44:16<\/span> . O lewd losels (as that martyr in like case exclaimed), O faithless hard hearts, O Jezebel’s guests, rocked and laid asleep in her bed! O sorrowless sinners and shameless harlots! (Bradford). Ministers are lights, offensive to sore eyes; the salt of the earth, which is bitter to wounds. Among the Athenians, if the comedians (which were their teachers, such as they had) pleased not the people, they were overwhelmed with stones. “Once was I stoned,” saith Paul, 2Co 11:25<\/span> . And Jeremiah is said to have met with the like death from his flagitious countrymen in Egypt, among whom he was ever a man of strife, and his service was (in that behalf) like that of Manlius Torquatus among the Romans, who gave it over, saying, Neither can I bear their manners, nor they my government.<\/p>\n NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Hos 4:4-6<\/p>\n 4Yet let no one find fault, and let none offer reproof;<\/p>\n For your people are like those who contend with the priest.<\/p>\n 5So you will stumble by day,<\/p>\n And the prophet also will stumble with you by night;<\/p>\n And I will destroy your mother.<\/p>\n 6 My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.<\/p>\n Because you have rejected knowledge,<\/p>\n I also will reject you from being My priest.<\/p>\n Since you have forgotten the law of your God,<\/p>\n I also will forget your children.<\/p>\n Hos 4:4 to Hos 5:7 This literary unit deals with the sins of the priests!<\/p>\n Hos 4:4 The first two VERBS are JUSSIVES:<\/p>\n 1. let no one find fault, Qal JUSSIVE<\/p>\n 2. let none offer reproof, Hiphil JUSSIVE.<\/p>\n These both have legal connotations (e.g., #1 Jdg 6:31-32; #Judges 2 Amo 5:10). But who is the speaker in 4a?<\/p>\n 1. an unnamed objector (cf. Amo 5:10)<\/p>\n 2. a priestly representative (i.e., High Priest)<\/p>\n 3. the nation of Israel (represented by priest and prophet)<\/p>\n 4. YHWH Himself (the Judge speaks, cf. Hos 4:5 c)<\/p>\n NASB, NKJVFor you people are like those who contend with the priest<\/p>\n NRSVFor with you is my contention, O priest<\/p>\n TEVmy complaint is against you priests<\/p>\n NJBit is you, priest, that I denounce<\/p>\n JPSOAfor this your people has a grievance against [you], O priest<\/p>\n The NASB does not fit the context well. A different revocalization and a doubling of one consonant can result in My contention is against you, O Priests, which fits the context (cf. Hos 4:6) better.<\/p>\n Hos 4:5 The VERB stumble (BDB 505, KB 502, Qal PERFECT) is repeated twice. To stumble is the opposite metaphor of faithfulness (i.e., sure footedness).<\/p>\n NASB, NKJV,<\/p>\n NRSVAnd I will destroy your mother<\/p>\n TEVand I am going to destroy Israel, your mother<\/p>\n NJBand I will make your mother perish<\/p>\n JPSOAAnd I will destroy your kindred<\/p>\n The NET Bible (p. 1562) suggests an emendation (two consonant changes). You have destroyed your own people. This then would not be a quote from YHWH, but the first in a series of condemnations of the priests. Priests are condemned (1) for not teaching the truth of God’s covenant and (2) for living lives of corrupted fertility practices.<\/p>\n Hos 4:6 My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.<\/p>\n Because you have rejected knowledge The term destroy (BDB 198, KB 225, Niphal PERFECT) means to cut off and thereby to cease to exist. The people were guilty, not because they did not understand, but because they knowingly turned away and refused (BDB 549, KB 540, Qal PERFECT) to obey God. This was especially true of the religious and political leaders.<\/p>\n I also will reject you from being My priest The nation of Israel was meant to be priests to all the world (cf. Exo 19:4-6). Here, however, it refers to the priests who were to instruct the people in the law of God (cf. Lev 10:11; Deu 17:10-11; Deu 33:10; Jer 18:18; Mal 2:6-7), which they did not!<\/p>\n Since you have forgotten the law of your God Knowledge has two aspects: (1) personal relationship; and (2) covenant obligations. They forgot (BDB 1013, KB 1489, Qal IMPERFECT) YHWH and His covenant so He will forget (Qal IMPERFECT) their descendants. This is a reversal of the covenant promises of Exo 20:6 and Deu 5:10; Deu 7:9! Priests (and Levites) were to be the teachers of Israel, but they became the corruptors of Israel! They could no longer serve as sacrificial offerers!<\/p>\n let no man. The reason being given in Hos 4:4. <\/p>\n they that strive with the priest. Reference to Pentateuch (Num 16:1, &c. Deu 17:12). App-92. <\/p>\n let: Hos 4:17, Amo 5:13, Amo 6:10, Mat 7:3-6 <\/p>\n as: Deu 17:12, Jer 18:18 <\/p>\n Reciprocal: Psa 95:11 – my rest Mal 2:12 – the master and the scholar<\/p>\n Hos 4:4. A glance at some verses ahead will help io grasp the meaning of this one. With that in view. I consider this to mean the common people are all guilty of unfaithfulness. And if the priest, with the advantage that he has, is so hardened in error that he cannot be affected by striving or reasoning with him. there is no use for any man to strive with the common people.<\/p>\n Hos 4:4-5. Yet let no man strive, nor reprove another Bishop Horsley translates this clause, By no means let any one expostulate, nor let any one reprove; adding, by way of paraphrase, For all expostulation and reproof will be lost upon this people, such are their stubbornness anal obstinacy. For my people are as they that strive (Are exactly like those who will contend, Horsley) with the priest To contend with the priest, the authorized interpreter of the law, and the typical intercessor between God and the people, was the highest species of contumacy and disobedience, and by the law was a capital offence, Deu 17:12. God tells the prophet that contumacy and perverseness, even in this degree, were become the general character of the people; that the national obstinacy, and contempt of the remonstrances and reproofs of the prophets, were such as might be compared with the stubbornness of an individual who, at the peril of his life, would arraign and disobey the judicial decisions of Gods priests. In other words, that there was no modesty, nor fear of God or man, left among them, but they would contend with their teachers, reprovers, and counsellors. The LXX. translate this clause, <\/p>\n , My people are as a gainsaying priest, that is, as Houbigant interprets it, they follow the rebellion of the priest: or, are as wicked as those priests who infamously desert the service of God for that of idols. Pocock on the place quotes a MS. Arabic version, which considers the words as declarative, and translates them accordingly; a sense which is approved by Archbishop Newcome, who renders the verse, Yet no man contendeth, and no man reproveth; and as is the provocation of the priest, so is that of my people. While every kind of wickedness abounded, and crimes of all sorts were openly committed from one end of the land to the other, there was no person, either prophet, priest, or magistrate, who protested against such vices, or steadily opposed them. Therefore shalt thou fall The last sentence was addressed to the prophet, Thy people, O prophet; this to the people themselves, Thou, O stubborn people. This sudden conversion of the speech of the principal speaker, from one to another of the different persons of the scene, is frequent in the prophets. In the day Not for want of light to see thy way; but in the full daylight of divine instruction thou shalt fall. Even at the rising of that light which is for the lighting of every man that cometh into the world. In this daytime, when our Lord himself visited them, the Jews made their last false step, and fell. Thou shalt fall when it is least probable; when thou thinkest thy state most secure and prosperous. And the prophet also, &c., in the night In the night of ignorance, which shall close thy day, the prophet shall fall with thee; that is, the order of prophets among you shall cease. Thus Bishop Horsley, who understands the words as spoken of true prophets. But it seems more probable that they are intended of false prophets, and that the meaning is, that their revelations, to which they pretended in the night, or in the darkness of ignorance and error, should be delusive and dangerous ones. Or, the people were to fall by day, the prophets by night, because the ruin of the latter would be the consequence of the ruin of the former: the prophets would then fall after the people, when the people, being destroyed, it should appear that the prophets had spoken falsely by predicting prosperity. And I will destroy thy mother That is, the mother city, the metropolis. So Capellus, Houbigant, and Archbishop Newcome. If the prophet be considered as addressing the ten tribes only, Samaria is meant; but if he addressed the children of Israel in general, then Jerusalem must be intended: which city, and not Samaria, was the metropolis of the whole nation.<\/p>\n 4:4 Yet {c} let no man strive, nor reprove another: for thy people [are] as they that strive with the priest.<\/p>\n (c) As though he would say that it was in vain to rebuke them, for no man can endure it: indeed, they will speak against the prophets and priests whose office it is chiefly to rebuke them.<\/p>\n The guilt of Israel’s priests 4:4-10<\/span><\/p>\n In this pericope God addressed the Israelites as a whole but identified sins of their priests in particular.<\/p>\n Israel’s guilt was so clear that the Lord forbade the people from denying His charge against them. As judge, He silenced them in His court. In defying Him they were like witnesses who brazenly defied their authority on earth, the priest.<\/p>\n Yet let no man strive, nor reprove another: for thy people [are] as they that strive with the priest. 4. Yet let no man strive as they that strive with the priest ] The view of the meaning of this verse suggested by A.V. may be expressed in the words of Henderson. ‘All reproof on … Continue reading “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Hosea 4:4”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-22148","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22148","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=22148"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22148\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=22148"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=22148"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=22148"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
I. <\/strong>The order itself. Let no man strive, nor reprove another. Let.no means be used to reduce or reclaim them; let their physicians give them up as desperate and past cure. It intimates that as long as there is any hope we ought to reprove sinners for their sins. It is a duty we owe to one another to give and take reproof. Sometimes there is need to rebuke sharply, not only to reprove but to strive, so loth are men to part with their sins. But it is a sign that persons and people are abandoned to ruin when God says, Let them not be reproved. They are so hardened in sin, and so ripened for ruin, that it will be to little purpose either to deal with them, or to deal with God for them. It bodes ill to a people when reprovers are silenced.<\/p>\n
II. <\/strong>The reasons of this order.<\/p>\nFuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible <\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"