6<\/strong>. A further explanation of these severe judgments, the moral effect of which the prophet has been considering.<\/p>\n For I desired mercy and not sacrifice<\/em> ] Rather, for I delight in piety and not in sacrifice.<\/strong> The Hebrew is vague; khsedh<\/em> ‘dutiful love’ may mean either ‘piety’ or ‘kindness’, love to God or love to man. The parallel clause favours the former, the context at first sight the latter; but we may keep ‘piety’, for both love to God and the knowledge of God are regarded as leading to the imitation of God’s (comp. Jer 22:16<\/span> ‘was not this to know me’, and 2Sa 9:3<\/span> ‘that I may show the kindness of God unto him’). As Aben Ezra well remarks, it is stedfast love which the prophet means, not that which is like a cloud ( Hos 6:4<\/em><\/span>). ‘And not sacrifice’ = ‘rather than sacrifice’; the prophet thinks comparatively little of sacrifices, but does not denounce them as positively displeasing to God. Comp. Isa 1:11-20<\/span>; Mic 6:6-8<\/span>; Jer 7:22-23<\/span> (though this is of doubtful interpretation). The sacrifices alluded to are those which the Israelites will at a future time offer in the vain hope of propitiating Jehovah (Hos 5:6<\/span>). This first half of the verse is twice quoted by our Lord (Mat 9:13<\/span>; Mat 12:7<\/span>). A striking parallel occurs in a saying ascribed to Buddha, who, however, unlike our Lord, denounced animal sacrifices as in themselves wrong: ‘If a man live a hundred years, and engage the whole of his time and attention in religious offerings to the gods, sacrificing elephants and horses, and other life, all this is not equal to one act of pure love in saving life’ (Beal’s Texts from the Buddhist Canon<\/em>).<\/p>\n For I desired mercy and not sacrifice – <\/B>God had said before, that they should seek Him with their flocks and herds, and not find Him. So here He anticipates their excuses with the same answer wherewith He met those of Saul, when he would compensate for disobedience by burnt-offerings. The answer is, that all which they did to win His favor, or turn aside His wrath, was of no avail, while they willfully withheld what He required of them. Their mercy and goodness were but a brief, passing, show; in vain He had tried to awaken them by His prophets; therefore judgment was coming upon them, for, to turn it aside, they had offered Him what He desired not, sacrifices without love, and had not offered Him, what He did desire, love of man out of love for God. God had Himself, after the fall, enjoined sacrifice, to foreshow and plead to Himself the meritorious Sacrifice of Christ. He had not contrasted mercy and sacrifice, who enjoined them both.<\/P> When then they were contrasted, it was through mans severing what God united. If we were to say, Charity is better than Church-going, we should be understood to mean that it is better than such Church-going as is severed from charity. For, if they were united, they would not be contrasted. The soul is of more value than the body. But it is not contrasted, unless they come in competition with one another, and their interests (although they cannot in trust be,) seem to be separated. in itself, Sacrifice represented all the direct duties to God, all the duties of the first table. For Sacrifice owned Him as the One God, to whom, as His creatures, we owe and offer all; as His guilty creatures, it owned that we owed to Him our lives also. mercy represented all duties of the second table. In saying then, I will have mercy and not sacrifice, he says, in effect, the same as John, If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar, for he that loveth not his brother, whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen? 1Jo 4:20<\/span>.<\/P> As the love, which a man pretended to have for God, was not real love, if a man loved not his brother, so sacrifice was not an offering, to God at all, while man withheld from God that offering, which God most required of him, the oblation of mans own self. They were, rather, offerings to satisfy and bribe a mans own conscience. Yet the Jews were profuse in making these sacrifices, which cost them little hoping thereby to secure to themselves impunity the wrongful gains, oppressions, and fulnesses which they would not part with. It is with this contrast, that God so often rejects the sacrifices of the Jews, To what purpose is the multitude of your oblations unto Me? Bring no more vain oblations unto Me; new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; iniquity and the solemn meeting Isa 1:11-13<\/span>. I spake not to your fathers, nor commanded them, in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt-offerings or sacrifices; but this thing commanded I them, saying, Obey My voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be My people Jer 7:22-23<\/span>. And the Psalmist; I will not reprove thee for thy sacrifices or thy burnt-offerings, to have been continually before Me. Offer unto God thanksgiving, etc. But unto the wicked God saith, What hast thou to do, to declare My statutes, etc. Psa 1:1-6<\/span>, Psa 8:1-9<\/span>, Psa 14:1-7<\/span>, Psa 16:1-11<\/span>.<\/P> But, further, the prophet adds, and the knowledge of God more than burnt-offerings. The two parts of the verse fill out one another, and the latter explains the former. The knowledge of God is, as before, no inactive head-knowledge, but that knowledge, of which John speaks, Hereby we do know that we knew Him, if we keep His commandments Eph 2:3<\/span>. It is a knowledge, such as they alone can have, who love God and do His will. God says then, that He prefers the inward, loving, knowledge of Himself, and lovingkindness toward man, above the outward means of acceptableness with Himself, which He had appointed. He does not lower those His own appointments; but only when, emptied of the spirit of devotion, they were lifeless bodies, unensouled by His grace.<\/P> Yet the words of God go beyond the immediate occasion and bearing, in which they were first spoken. And so these words, I will have mercy and not sacrifice Mat 9:13<\/span>, are a sort of sacred proverb, contrasting mercy, which overflows the bounds of strict justice, with sacrifice, which represents that stern justice. Thus, when the Pharisees complained at our Lord for eating with Publicans and sinners, He bade them, Go and learn what that meaneth. I will have mercy and not sacrifice. He bade them learn that deeper meaning of the words, that God valued mercy for the souls for which Christ died, above that outward propriety, that He, the All-Holy, should not feast familiarly with those who profaned Gods law and themselves. Again, when they found fault with the hungry disciples for breaking the sabbath by rubbing the ears of grain, He, in the same way, tells them, that they did not know the real meaning of that saying. If ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless Mat 12:7<\/span>. For as, before, they were envious as to mercy to the souls of sinners, so how they were reckless as to others bodily needs. Without that love then, which shows itself in acts of mercy to the souls and bodies of people, all sacrifice is useless.<\/P> Mercy is also more comprehensive than sacrifice. For sacrifice was referred to God only, as its end; mercy, or love of man for the love of God, obeys God who commands it; imitates God, Whose property it is always to have mercy; seeks God who rewards it; promotes the glory of God, through the thanksgiving to God, from those whom it benefits. mercy leads man up to God, for mercy brought down God to man; mercy humbled God, exalts man. mercy takes Christ as its pattern, who, from His Holy Incarnation to His Precious Death on the Cross, bare our griefs, and carried our sorrows Isa 53:4<\/span>. Yet neither does mercy itself avail without true knowledge of God. For as mercy or love is the soul of all our acts, so true knowledge of God and faith in God are the source and soul of love. Vain were it to boast that we have the other members, if faith, the head, were cut off .<\/P> <\/p>\n Hos 6:6<\/span><\/p>\n For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n Mercy and sacrifice not contrasts<\/strong><\/p>\n God had Himself, after the fall, enjoined sacrifice to foreshow and plead to Himself the meritorious sacrifice of Christ. He had not contrasted mercy and sacrifice who enjoined them both. When then they were contrasted, it was through mans severing what God had united. If we were to say, Charity is better than churchgoing, we should be understood to mean that it is better than such churchgoing as is severed from charity. For, if they were united, they would not be contrasted. The soul is of more value than the body. But it is not contrasted, unless they come in competition with one another, and their interests seem to be separated. In itself, sacrifice represented all the direct duties to God, all the duties of the first table. Mercy represented all the duties of the second table. (E. B. Pusey, D. D.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n The double rule of religion<\/strong><\/p>\n It requires both mercy and sacrifice, but the relations between them properly preserved.<\/p>\n 1. <\/strong>The rule of true religion requires that all God commands should be respected, and obedience endeavoured, so that moral duties be chiefly made conscience of. Under sacrifice and burnt-offerings is comprehended all their ceremonial performances so far as they were mere external performances rested on by the people. His not desiring sacrifice is not to be understood simply, as if the Lord did not approve, even of the external performances which were enjoined by Himself; but comparatively, that He desired moral duties more than burnt-offerings. To which may be added, that in some cases, when moral duties come in competition with ceremonials, the Lord doth not desire ceremonials at that time, but moral duties.<\/p>\n 2. <\/strong>Let men submit never so much to the external injunctions of religion and worship, or think to satisfy their own consciences therewith, yet where Christ is not closed with, to enable and make men willing and active in moral duties, they will not be approved in the other at all.<\/p>\n 3. <\/strong>Such as would approve themselves to God, ought to make conscience of moral duties, both of the first and second table of the law, and particularly, the saving knowledge of God, whereby we may regulate the rest of our obedience. Shewing of mercy in cases wherein we seem not to be so strictly bound, will prove our reality in religion. (George Hutcheson.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Mercy rather than sacrifice<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. <\/strong>What is the difference between natural ordinances and instituted duties? By natural duties understand such duties as we owe to God as God, and to man as man, which we should have been required to fulfil if there had been no written law in relation to them. By instituted duties understand those which, if God had not revealed them, would have had no claim on us. Natural duties refer to attributes in Gods nature and character, instituted, to the expression of His will.<\/p>\n 2. <\/strong>God required sacrifice as well as mercy, but with these limitations.<\/p>\n (1)<\/strong> I will have sacrifice, but net without the spirit. Instituted worship separated from natural worship is not regarded.<\/p>\n (2)<\/strong> Not sacrifices to make atonement for their sins.<\/p>\n (3)<\/strong> Not sacrifices of your own devising.<\/p>\n 3. <\/strong>Why should God require mercy rather than sacrifice? Because mercy is good in itself, but sacrifice is good only in reference to something else. Sacrifices are but to further us in natural duties.<\/p>\n 1. <\/strong>Mens hearts are deceitful, and they may pretend cases of mercy when there is no such thing in hand. It is not for us to judge the sincerity of other men. God gives general rules for the ordering of a Christian life; and these general rules being observed, particular eases are to be ordered in prudence, faithfulness, and zeal; end where there is miscarrying through frailty, God will have mercy.<\/p>\n 2. <\/strong>Can any duty of the second table be more excellent than the duties of the first? In both the tables there are internal and substantial duties and superadded duties. Comparing them it is plain that the substantial are to be preferred before the superadded. Yet God is pleased to indulge men so far that <\/strong>He will let the duties of the second table take precedence.<\/p>\n 3. <\/strong>But if Gods ordinances are duties, can they be omitted at any time? There are two sorts of precepts, negative and affirmative. A negative binds always and at all seasons, an affirmative only hinds always, but not at all seasons; for we cannot do two things at once, and one duty must be preferred to another. It is the Christians skill, when two duties come together, which to choose. If Gods own worship may be forborne in case of mercy, how much more mens institutions and inventions. God will have mercy rather than disputing about sacrifice. Mercy must be preferred before our own wills and lusts. (Jeremiah Burroughs.<\/em>)<\/p>\n Verse 6<\/span>. I desired mercy, and not sacrifice<\/B><\/I>] I taught them righteousness by my prophets; for I desired mercy. I was more willing to save<\/I> than to destroy<\/I>; and would rather see them full of penitent<\/I> and holy resolutions<\/I>, than behold them offering the best<\/I> and most numerous victims<\/I> upon my altar. See Mt 9:13<\/span>.<\/P> <\/p>\n I so hewed and slew them, because they did not what I most of all required, approved, and could accept of; they were full of sacrifices, and spared them not, but either to idols, or else in formality and pride. These sacrificers were either abominable idolaters, as were they of Ephraim, or proud hypocrites, as were too many of Judah. <\/P> I desired mercy; compassion and charity towards men, this one principal duty of the second table put for all works of godly humanity, pleaseth me, in this I delight. I had found little of this among you, nor could I persuade you to it; though this was it that I required, Mic 6:8<\/span>. <\/P> And not sacrifice; rather than, or more than, sacrifice, for it is not an absolute, but a comparative negative. Mercy to man who needed it, without a sacrifice to me who need it not, was more pleasing than a sacrifice (though required) with cruelty to man, which I forbade. <\/P> The knowledge of God more than burnt-offerings: hearty, affectionate knowledge of God, which fills the mind with reverence of his majesty, fear of his goodness, love of his holiness, trust in his promise, and submission to his will; knowledge of Gods law, the rule of our obedience, of his favour, the reward of our obedience, and knowledge of his omniscience, discerning and judging it, with those excellent effects, proper fruits hereof; are more than all sacrifice, as though they were burnt-sacrifices, which of all other were entirely given to God. But truth is, who knows God aright, and doth keep his heart for God, gives God more than he that brings whole burnt-offerings; for these are but ceremonies and signs, empty and insipid to God, without the heart. In short, these people acted all so contrary to this temper of their God, gave him so much of that he valued not, and so little of that he did most value, that he could not be too severe against them, nor is it any wonder he was so displeased with their sacrifices. <\/P> <\/p>\n 6. mercy<\/B>put for piety<\/I>in general, of which mercy<\/I> or charity<\/I> is a branch. <\/P> not sacrifice<\/B>that is,”rather than<\/I> sacrifice.” So “not” ismerely comparative (Exo 16:8<\/span>;Joe 2:13<\/span>; Joh 6:27<\/span>;1Ti 2:14<\/span>). As God Himselfinstituted sacrifices, it cannot mean that He desired them notabsolutely, but that even in the Old Testament, He valued moralobedience<\/I> as the only end for which positive<\/I> ordinances,such as sacrifices, were institutedas of more importance than amere external ritual obedience (1Sa 15:22<\/span>;Psa 50:8<\/span>; Psa 50:9<\/span>;Psa 51:16<\/span>; Isa 1:11<\/span>;Isa 1:12<\/span>; Mic 6:6-8<\/span>;Mat 9:13<\/span>; Mat 12:7<\/span>).<\/P> knowledge of God<\/B>experimentaland practical, not merely theoretical (Hos 6:3<\/span>;Jer 22:16<\/span>; 1Jn 2:3<\/span>;1Jn 2:4<\/span>). “Mercy”refers to the second<\/I> table of the law, our duty to our fellowman; “the knowledge of God” to the first<\/I> table, ourduty to God, including inward spiritual worship. The second table isput first, not as superior in dignity, for it is secondary, but inthe order of our understanding.<\/P><\/p>\n For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice<\/strong>,…. That is, the one rather than the other, as the next clause explains it. Sacrifices were of early use, even before the law of Moses; they were of divine appointment, and were approved and accepted of by the Lord; they were types of Christ, and led to him, and were continued unto his death; but in comparison of moral duties, which respect love to God, and to our neighbour, the Lord did not will them, desire them, and delight in them; or he had more regard for the former than the latter; see<\/p>\n 1Sa 15:22<\/span>; nor did he will or accept at all of the sacrifices ordered to the calves at Dan and Bethel; nor others, when they were not such as the law required, or were not offered up in the faith of Christ, attended with repentance for sin, and in sincerity, and were brought as real expiatory sacrifices for sin, and especially as now abrogated by the sacrifice of Christ. And as these words are twice quoted by our Lord, at one time to justify his mercy, pity, and compassion, to the souls of poor sinners, by conversing with them, Mt 9:13<\/span>; and at another time to justify the disciples in an act of mercy to their bodies when hungry, by plucking ears of corn on the sabbath day, Mt 12:7<\/span>; “mercy” may here respect both acts of mercy shown by the Lord, and acts of mercy done by men; both which the Lord wills, desires, and delights in: he takes pleasure in showing mercy himself, as appears by his free and open declarations of it; by the throne of grace and mercy he has set up; by the encouragement he gives to souls to hope in his mercy; by the objects of it, the chief of sinners; by the various ways he has taken to display it, in election, in the covenant of grace, in the mission of Christ, in the pardon of sin by him, and in regeneration; and by his opposing it to everything else, in the affair of salvation. And he likewise has a very great regard to mercy as exercised by men; as this is one of the weightier matters of the law, and may be put for the whole of it, or however the second table of it, which is love to our neighbours, and takes in all kind offices done to them; and especially designs acts of liberality to necessitous persons; which are sacrifices God is well pleased with, even more than with the ceremonious ones; these being such in which men resemble him the merciful God, who is kind to the unthankful, and to the evil;<\/p>\n and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings<\/strong>; which were reckoned the greatest and most excellent sacrifices, the whole being the Lord’s; but knowledge of God is preferred to them; by which is meant, not the knowledge of God, the light of nature, which men might have, and not him; nor by the law of Moses, as a lawgiver, judge, and consuming fire; but a knowledge of him in Christ, as the God and Father of Christ, as the God of all grace, gracious and merciful in him; as a covenant God and Father in him, which is through the Gospel by the Spirit, and is eternal life, Joh 17:3<\/span>; this includes in it faith and hope in God, love to him, fear of him and his goodness, and the whole worship of him, both internal and external. These words seem designed to expose and remove the false ground of trust and confidence in sacrifices the people of Israel were prone unto; as we find they were in the times of Isaiah, who was contemporary with Hoses; see Isa 1:12<\/span>. The Targum interprets them of those that exercise mercy, and do the law of the Lord.<\/p>\n The reason why God was obliged to punish in this manner is given in the following verses. Hos 6:6<\/span>. “For I take pleasure in love, and not in sacrifices; and in the knowledge of God more than in burnt-offerings.<\/em> Hos 6:7<\/span>. But they have transgressed the covenant like Adam: there have they acted treacherously towards me.” Chesed <\/em> is love to one’s neighbour, manifesting itself in righteousness, love which has its roots in the knowledge of God, and therefore is connected with “the knowledge of God” here as in Hos 4:1<\/span>. For the thought itself, compare the remarks on the similar declaration made by the prophet Samuel in 1Sa 15:22<\/span>; and for parallels as to the fact, see Isa 1:11-17<\/span>; Mic 6:8<\/span>; Psa 40:7-9<\/span>, and Psa 50:8<\/span>., in all which passages it is not sacrifices in themselves, but simply the heartless sacrifices with which the wicked fancied they could cover their sins, that are here rejected as displeasing to God, and as abominations in His eyes. This is apparent also from the antithesis in Hos 6:7<\/span>, viz., the reproof of their transgression of the covenant. (they) are Israel and Judah, not the priests, whose sins are first referred to in Hos 6:9<\/span>. , not “after the manner of men,” or “like ordinary men,” – for this explanation would only be admissible if referred to the priests or prophets, or if a contrast were drawn between the rulers and others, as in Psa 82:7<\/span> – but “like Adam,” who transgressed the commandment of God, that he should not eat of the tree of knowledge. This command was actually a covenant, which God made with him, since the object of its was the preservation of Adam in vital fellowship with the Lord, as was the case with the covenant that God made with Israel (see Job 31:33<\/span>, and Delitzsch’s Commentary). The local expression “there,” points to the place where the faithless apostasy had occurred, as in Psa 14:5<\/span>. This is not more precisely defined, but refers no doubt to Bethel as the scene of the idolatrous worship. There is no foundation for the temporal rendering “then.”<\/p>\n God in this place declares that he desires mercy, and not sacrifices; and he does so to prevent an objections and to anticipate all frivolous pretenses. There is never wanting to hypocrites, we well know, a cover for themselves; and so great is their assurance, that they hesitate not sometimes to contend with God. It is indeed their common practice to maintain that they worship God, provided they offer sacrifices to him, provided they toil in ceremonies, and accumulate many rites. They think then that God is made bound to them, and that they have fully performed their duty. This evil has been common in all ages. The Prophet therefore anticipates this evasion, and says, Mercy I desire, and not sacrifice; as though he said, “I know what you are ready to allege, and that you will say, that you offer sacrifices to me, that you perform all the ceremonies; but this excuse is deemed by me frivolous and of no moment.” Why? “Because I desire not sacrifices, but mercy and faith.” We now understand the main object of this verse. <\/p>\n It is a remarkable passage; the Son of God has twice quoted it. The Pharisees reproached him for his intercourse with men of bad and abandoned life, and he said to them in Matthew (34) ‘Mercy I desire, and not sacrifice:’ he shows, by this defense, that God is not worshipped by external ceremonies, but when men forgive and bear with one another, and are not above measure rigid. Again, in the Mat 12:0<\/span>, (35) when the Pharisees blamed the disciples for gathering ears of corn, he said ‘But rather go and learn what this is, Mercy I desire, and not sacrifice.’ Inasmuch as they were so severe against his disciples, Christ shows that those who make holiness to consist in ceremonies are foolish worshipers of God; and that they also blamed their brethren without a cause, and made a crime of what was not in itself sinful, and what could be easily defended by any wise and calm expounder. <\/p>\n But that we may more fully understand this sentence of the Prophet, it must be observed, firsts that the outward worship of God, and all legal ceremonies, are included under the name of sacrifice and burnt-offerings. These words then comprise a part for the whole. The same may be said of the word חסד, chesad, which means, mercy or kindness; for the Prophet here, no doubt, sets faith or piety towards God, and love towards neighbors, in opposition to all external ceremonies. “I desire,” he says, “mercy;” or, “mercy pleases me more than sacrifice, and the knowledge of God pleases me more than burnt-offerings.” The knowledge of God here is doubtless to be taken for faith or piety, because hypocrites suppose that God is rightly worshipped when they use many ceremonies. The Prophet derides all such pomp and empty show, and says, that the worshipping of God is far different; it being only done when he is known. The chief point is, that God desires to be worshipped otherwise than sensual men dream; for they only display their rites, and neglect the spiritual worship of God, which stands in faith and love. <\/p>\n These two clauses ought then to be read conjointly — that kindness pleases God — and that faith pleases God. Faith by itself cannot please God, since it cannot even exist without love to our neighbor; and then, human kindness is not sufficient; for were any one to abstain from doing any injury, and from hurting his brethren in any thing, he might be still a profane man, and a despiser of God; and certainly his kindness would be then of no avail to him. We hence see that these two sentences cannot be separated, and that what the Prophet says is equally the same as if he had connected piety with love. The meaning is, that God values faith and kindness much more than sacrifices and all ceremonies. But when the Prophet says that sacrifice does not please God, he speaks, no doubt, comparatively; for God does not positively repudiate sacrifices enjoined in his own law; but he prefers faith and love to them; as we more clearly learn from the particle מ, mem, when he says, מעולות , meoulut, than burnt-offerings.” It then appears that God is not inconsistent with himself, as though he rejected sacrifices which he himself had appointed; but that he condemns the preposterous abuse of them, in which hypocrites gloried. <\/p>\n And here two things are to be noticed: God requires not external ceremonies, as if they availed any thing of themselves, but for a different end. Faith of itself pleases God, as also does love; for they are, as they say, of the class of good works: but sacrifices are to be regarded differently; for to kill an ox, or a calf, or a lamb, what is it but to do what the butcher does in his shambles? God then cannot be delighted with the slaughter of beasts; hence sacrifices, as we have said, are of themselves of no account. Faith and love are different. Hence the Lord says, in Jeremiah, <\/p>\n ‘<\/p>\n Have I commanded your fathers, when I brought them out of Egypt, to offer sacrifices to me?’ [Jer 7:22<\/span> ] <\/p>\n no such thing; ‘I never commanded them,’ he says, ‘but only to hear my voice.’ But what does the law in great measure contain except commands about ceremonies? The answer to this is easy, and that is, that sacrifices never pleased God through their own or intrinsic value, as if they had any worth in them. What then? Even this, that faith and piety are approved, and have ever been the legitimate spiritual worship of God. This is one thing. It is further to be noticed, that when the Prophets reprove hypocrites, they regard what is suitable to them, and do not specifically explain the matters which they handle. Isaiah says in one place, ‘He who kills an ox does the same as if he had killed a dog,’ and a dog was the highest abomination; <\/p>\n ‘<\/p>\n nay, they who offer sacrifices do the same as if they had killed men,’ (Isa 66:3<\/span>.) <\/p>\n What! to compare sacrifices with murders! This seems very strange; but the Prophet directed his discourse to the ungodly, who then abused the whole outward worship prescribed by the law: no wonder then that he thus spake of sacrifices. In the same manner also ought many other passages to be explained, which frequently occur in the Prophets. We now then see that God does not simply reject sacrifices, as far as he has enjoined them, but only condemns the abuse of them. And hence what I have already said ought to be remembered, that the Prophet here sets external rites in opposition to piety and faith, because hypocrites tear asunder things which are, as it were, inseparable: it is an impious divorce, when any one only obtrudes ceremonies on God, while he himself is void of piety. But as this disease commonly prevails among men, the Prophet adds a contrast between this fictitious worship and true religion. It is also worthy of being observed, that he calls faith the knowledge of God. We then see that faith is not some cold and empty imagination, but that it extends much farther; for it is then that we have faith, when the will of God is made known to us, and we embrace it, so that we worship him as our Father. Hence the knowledge of God is required as necessary to faith. The Papists then talk very childishly about implicit faith: when a man understands nothing, and has not even the least acquaintance with God, they yet say that he is endued with implicit faith. This is a romance more than foolish; for where there is no knowledge of God, there is no religion, piety is extinct and faith is destroyed, as it appears evident from this passage. <\/p>\n (34) Mat 9:13<\/span>. — fj. <\/p>\n (35) Mat 12:7<\/span>. — fj. <\/p>\n CRITICAL NOTES<\/strong>.<\/p>\n Hos. 6:6<\/span><\/strong>. Sac<\/strong>.] which they brought. Mercy<\/strong>] which they lacked; a comparison by negatives; things less worthy are rejected. Moral obedience is better than ritual offerings (Mat. 9:13<\/span>). Knowl<\/strong>.] experimental and practical, which is more than empty service. Internal is put before external worship; the prophet, a teacher and interpreter of the law, rebukes apostasy. <\/p>\n Hos. 6:7<\/span><\/strong>. They]<\/strong> Eph. and Jud., Gods professed people. Like men<\/strong>] Lit. like Adam in covenant relation to God, have wilfully transgressed, are guilty of a breach of fidelity. Others, like men generally, who break lightly every day compacts with their fellows. God sought to preserve Adam and Israel in intimate relation to himself. Sin is a violation of the covenantIsrael contradicted their destiny as the people of God. There<\/strong>] Wherever and whenever sin is committed, the place is known to God and pointed out by the Divine finger. <\/p>\n HOMILETICS<\/em><\/p>\n MERCY AND NOT SACRIFICE.Hos. 6:6<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n There are two sides of religion, the outward and the inward: Israel depended upon sacrifices, ritual forms, rather than moral life, the knowledge and love of God. If men offer sacrifice to God without joining it with mercy to men, or offer it in fanatical zeal and unmercifulness, he will reject it. He prefers mercy which contains cheerfulness and self-sacrifice. Looking at these words in their connection, learn<\/p>\n I. God desires to give mercy rather than accept sacrifice<\/strong>. Israel would give to God rather than seek the healing mercy required. But God will take nothing from them, desires to impart mercy to them. It is for us, first and above all, to seek pardon; confess and forsake sin. The less is blessed of the better, without any contradiction. God requires no sacrifice from us. Our offerings cannot enrich or bless him. Pagan sacrifices were considered feasts to the gods. If I were hungry, says God, I would not tell thee; for the word is mine, and the fulness thereof. He can provide for himself, and will never be suppliant to his own creatures. The cattle upon a thousand hills are his gifts, are not our own; and faith in the offering without love in the heart represents God as beholden to man. Thou desirest not sacrifice, else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt-offering. No form of burnt-offerings can purchase Divine favour; no banners and music and incense will be acceptable without truth in the inward parts. God will have mercy and accept a broken spirit. A broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise. <\/p>\n II. God stamps mercy with more value than sacrifice<\/strong>. God does not reject all, only heartless sacrifices. They must not be neglected nor despised, but offered in the right spirit. Christ commends the scribe for giving due place and proportion to the ceremonial and moral service. Sacrifice is good for its own sake, required by God and reasonable in man. But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy and not sacrifice (Mat. 9:13<\/span>). The ritual must not be esteemed above the moral. We must not be religious before God and immoral before men; alive to the letter, but dead to the spirit of the law; scrupulous in the formalities, but negligent in the moralities of life. He who finds mercy from God, will be kind and compassionate to men. We must do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with God. The tithing of cummin must not be neglected, says Gurnal, but take heed thou doest not neglect the weightiest things of the lawjudgment, mercy, and faith: making your preciseness in the less a blind for your horrible wickedness in the greater. To do justice and judgment is more acceptable to the Lord than sacrifice. <\/p>\n III. Sacrifice must not be substituted for mercy<\/strong>. No amount of offerings can replace the everlasting principles of morality. But how easy to present the one for the living sacrifice of the other. The Corban gift stands in the place of filial piety. The present on the altar atones for the offence to a brother. Love to God whom we have not seen covers charity to man whom we see day by day. Temple service is honoured above godly life, and sacrifice is offered before mercy. God delights in showing mercy, and earthly power doth then show likest Gods when mercy seasons justice. God is better pleased with the relief of suffering than gold and silver offered in the church. Transient enthusiasm, fashionable benevolence, and party spirit must not supersede love to God and man. The first commandment is like unto the second. One cannot supersede and must not be placed instead of the other. To love him with all the heart, and all the understanding, and with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love his neighbour as himself, is more than all burnt-offerings and sacrifices. <\/p>\n IV. Sacrifice and mercy must ever be united together<\/strong>. One is the outward form and fruit of the other. He who prays as he ought, will endeavour to live as he prays, says Dr Owen. There is a balance of moral as of natural forces. Religion unites what philosophy could notsupreme devotion to God and paramount obligation to man. Faith and works, piety and charity, contemplation and activity, heaven and earth, are reconciled in Christian life. The life hidden with God is the life that diffuses blessings among men. Without love to man, love to God grows languid. They are inseparable and essential to each other. This union was perfect in the life of Christ, and constitutes the keystone of morality. All true philanthropists have worked in his spirit and carried out his teaching. Howard in the prisons of Europe, Judson in benighted Burmah, and Florence Nightingale in the Crimea, were devoted to God in their sacrifices for humanity. A life of purity is a life of public duty. The man who loves God will not serve his country less. Allow them to pray to God, they will not fight the worse for it, was said of some. The heat and the light can never be separated from the sun; benevolence to men can never be cut off from love to God. What God has joined together let not man put asunder. Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father, is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.<\/p>\n COVENANT BREAKERS.Hos. 6:7<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n In this verse we have a reference to the fall of man and the first covenant with Adam. God stood in covenant relation to man. Israel was bound by Gods goodness and their own oath. But they sinned after the similitude of Adams transgression. God was constant and faithful, but they were inconstant and treacherous, they broke the covenant. Notice<\/p>\n I. The guilt of which they were accused<\/strong>. They have transgressed the covenant. <\/p>\n 1. Out of irreverence to its authority<\/em>. If it be only a mans covenant, there is something sacred and binding (Gal. 3:15<\/span>). But Gods word is supreme and of Divine authority. <\/p>\n 2. In forgetfulness of their own promise and privileges<\/em>. Israel solemnly took an oath to keep all the words of the lawnot to forsake God; but they sacrificed to other gods, and were base and perfidious in their conduct. Men who break their promise and despise their obligation bring shame and disgrace upon themselves, and deserve not the confidence and esteem of their fellow-men. Truthfulness should shine in every word and deed. <\/p>\n II. The spirit in which they indulged<\/strong>. They dealt treacherously. They not only rebelled, but aggravated their guilt by falsehood and treacherous dealing. They disregarded most singular privileges, thought most sacred obligations of no consequence, and covered most heinous sins in the garb of religious forms. They sinned (a<\/em>) wilfully, (b<\/em>) obstinately, and (c<\/em>) deceitfully. For the house of Judah and the house of Israel have dealt very treacherously against me, saith the Lord.<\/p>\n HOMILETIC HINTS AND OUTLINES<\/em><\/p>\n Transgressing like Adam<\/em>. <\/p>\n 1. Violating sacred obligations. ILLUSTRATIONS TO CHAPTER 6<\/p>\n Hos. 6:6<\/span>. The outward service of ancient religion, the rites, ceremonies, and ceremonial restraints of the old law, had morality for their end. They were the letter, of which morality was the spirit; the enigma, of which morality was the meaning. But morality itself is the service and ceremonial of the Christian religion [Coleridge<\/em>]. The artist may mould matter into forms of surprising beauty, and make us feel their elevating and purifying influences: but what is the marble Moses of a Michael Angelo, or the cold statue of his living Christ, compared to the embodiment of Jesus in the sculpture of a holy life? What are all the forms of moral beauty in the Pharisee of religion, compared with the true and holy life of the heart of the devoted Christian? [Bishop Thompson<\/em>].<\/p>\n (6) Mercy.<\/strong>Better rendered, love.<\/em> This passage is richly sustained by our Lords adoption of its teaching (Mat. 9:13<\/span>; Mat. 12:7<\/span>). Mar. 12:33<\/span> shows that according to even Old Testament teaching, the moral ranks above the ceremonial, that ritual is valueless apart from spiritual conformity with Divine will.<\/p>\n 6<\/strong>. <\/strong> Why does Jehovah use these severe means? Because he has for the people a lofty ideal of righteousness to which they are strangers and against which they rebel. His ideal is mercy <\/strong> R.V. “goodness.” See on Hos 2:19<\/span>; used here in all the fullness of its meaning. <\/p>\n Sacrifice <\/strong> The whole external ceremonial service. The attitude of Hosea is that of the other eighth century prophets (Amo 5:21<\/span> ff.; Isa 1:11<\/span> ff.; Mic 6:6<\/span> ff.). Did these prophets intend to condemn sacrifice as such? Did they desire to abolish it entirely? Some think they did; but all the passages referred to bear a different interpretation. The people addressed were corrupt, steeped in sin, living under the false impression that the bringing of sacrifice met all religious requirements. Condemnation of sacrifices offered by these people, in this spirit, does not necessarily imply condemnation of sacrifice offered in the proper spirit by a penitent people. Besides, there are passages which show that the prophets did not discard sacrifice entirely. A prophet who considers the discontinuation of sacrifice a national calamity (Hos 9:1<\/span> ff.; compare Hos 3:4<\/span>; Isa 19:21<\/span>; Jer 17:26<\/span>; Jer 33:18<\/span>) cannot be understood as condemning all sacrifice. The prophets were not abolitionists, but reformers; they attacked the abuses of sacrifice and sought to place the emphasis where it belonged, on the life and spirit (1Sa 15:22<\/span>). This the passage before us is intended to do. (See article “Sacrifice” in Hastings’s Dictionary of the Bible, <\/em> and last sermon in Driver, Sermons on the Old Testament.<\/em>) <\/p>\n Knowledge of God <\/strong> See on Hos 2:20<\/span>. <\/p>\n Burnt offerings <\/strong> The offerings entirely consecrated to God and completely burned upon the altar (Lev 1:3<\/span> ff.; compare Amo 5:22<\/span>; Mic 6:6<\/span>).<\/p>\n With Hos 6:7<\/span> begins a description of the people’s corruption, the depth of which proves that they are incorrigible. <\/p>\n Transgressed the covenant <\/strong> Made with Israel at the time of the Exodus, when Jehovah adopted the nation as his child. <\/p>\n Like men <\/strong> A much-discussed expression. If the translation of A.V. is correct, the thought is, in human fashion, <\/em> as men are wont to do; recognizing a tendency in unregenerate men to break covenants, the law written in the human heart (Job 31:33<\/span>). Others consider men <\/em> to be a designation of the neighboring nations. Israel, with all his special privileges, has broken the divine covenant like the heathen nations who enjoyed none of these. R.V. margin translates, with less probability and force, “they are as men that have transgressed a covenant.” The Revisers embodied in the text a translation favored by many moderns, “they like Adam <\/em> have transgressed.” True, there is no statement in the Old Testament that Jehovah made a covenant with Adam, or that the latter broke such a covenant, but the command which God gave and which Adam broke was in the nature of a covenant; for on obedience to it depended continued fellowship with God. All the interpretations are based upon the text as it now stands; they all give fairly acceptable sense. <\/p>\n There <\/strong> Where? Some say the northern kingdom, to which the prophet turns with a “gesture of indignation”; others, the localities mentioned in 8ff. Ordinarily there <\/em> refers to a locality already named. The divergence from the rule in this case leads some commentators to suspect in the word translated “like Adam” or “like men” the corrupt name of a locality. With very slight alterations one could read “in Edom,” or “in Aram,” or “in Admah” (Hos 11:8<\/span>); Marti suggests the modern Tel-ed-Damije, <\/em> near the juncture of the Jabbok with the Jordan; Cheyne, Beth-aven. <\/em> None of these places, except Beth-aven (Beth-el), is known as connected with special transgressions, and any conjecture must remain more or less doubtful. If the present Hebrew text is retained there <\/em> must refer to Israel.<\/p>\nFuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
I.<\/strong> <\/em><\/strong>Answer some questions.<\/p>\n
II. <\/strong>Satisfy some objections.<\/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
2. Justifying sin when committedcharging it upon God or their own nature, upon circumstances or fate. Man, as man, that is as sinful man, desireth that there might be a seal set or a vail put upon all his sins. It is as natural to man to be a sin-coverer as a sin-committer; and he had rather make some poor shift of his own to cover it than go to God (whose privilege and glory it is to cover sin) to have his sin covered. Neither Adam nor the woman denied what they had done; but both thought they were very pardonable in doing it. Both made a confession, yet theirs was a faulty confession. They covered while they acknowledged their sin, and hid it in their bosoms while they held it out upon their tongues. Thus did Adam the first man, and thus do the sons of Adam excuse their sins, and increase their guilt and punishment [Caryl<\/em>].<\/p>\nFuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n