6<\/strong>. For from Israel was it also<\/em> ] Rather, was this also<\/strong>; i. e. this idol too (as well as the usurping kings) was Israel’s work, unsanctioned by me. But the construction is very dubious, and the integrity of the text may well be questioned.<\/p>\n the workman made it; therefore it is not God<\/em> ] Lit., ‘and it is not God.’ It has a merely fictitious existence (so Hos 13:2<\/span>). The sarcastic words of Hosea contain the germ of the vehement polemic of the later prophets against idolatry in general.<\/p>\n but in pieces<\/em> ] Rather, yea, Samaria’s calf shall be (broken to) shivers<\/strong> (Targum, ‘chips of boards’).<\/p>\n For – <\/B>This verse may assign the reasons of Gods displeasure, mine anger is kindled; or of Israels impenitency, How long will it be? This indeed is only going a little further back, for Israels incorrigibleness was the ground of Gods displeasure. And they were incorrigible; because they had themselves devised it; for from Israel was it also. Those are especially incorrigible, who do not fall into error through ignorance, but who through malice devise it out of their own heart. Such persons act and speak, not as seduced by others, but seducing themselves, and condemned by their own judgment. Such were Israel and Jeroboam his king, who were not induced or seduced by others to deem the golden calf to be God, but devised it, of malicious intent, knowing that it was not God. Hence, Israel could be cured of the worship of Baal, for this was brought from without by Jezebel; and Jehu destroyed Baal out of Israel. But of the sin of the calf they could not be healed. In this sin all the kings of Israel were impenitent.<\/P> From Israel was it also – <\/B>Their boast, that they were of Israel, aggravated their sin. They said to God, we, Israel, know thee. So then their offence, too, their brutishness also, was from those who boasted themselves of bearing the name of their forefather, Israel, who were the chosen people of God, so distinguished by His favor. The name of Israel, suggesting their near relation to God, and the great things which He had done for them, and their solemn covenant with Him to be His people as He was their God, should, in itself, have made them ashamed of such brutishness. So Paul appealeth to us by our name of Christians, Let every one who nameth the Name of Christ depart from iniquity 2Ti 2:19<\/span>.<\/P> The workman made it, therefore it is not God – <\/B>The workman was rather a god to his idol, than it to him, for he made it; it was a thing made. To say that it was made, was to deny that it was God. Hence, the prophets so often urge this special proof of the vanity of idols. No creature can be God. Nor can there be anything, between God and a creature. : Every substance which is not God is a creature; and that which is not a creature, is God. God Himself could not make a creature who should be God. The Arian heresy, which imagined that God the Son could be a creature and yet an object of our worship, or that there could be a secondary god, was folly as well as blasphemy. They did not conceive what God is. They had low, debased notions of the Godhead. They knew not that the Creator must be removed as infinitely above His most exalted creature, as above the lowest.<\/P> Nor do the prophets need any subtleties (such as the pagan alleged) that their idol might be indwelt by some influence. Since God dwelt not in it, any such influence could only come from a creature, and that, an evil one.<\/P> The calf of Samaria shall be broken in pieces – <\/B>The calves were set up at Bethel and at Dan, but they were the sort of tutelar deity of the ten tribes; therefore they are called the calf of Samaria. They represented one and the same thing; from where they are called as one, the calf, not calves. A thing of nought it was in its origin, for it had its form and shape from man; a thing of nought it should be in its end, for it should be broken in pieces, or become chips, fragments, for fire.<\/P><\/p>\n Hos 8:6<\/span><\/p>\n The workman made it; therefore it is not God.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n The religion of humanity<\/strong><\/p>\n Humanitarianism has become the creed of the earnest and thoughtful who have found for themselves the awful truth regarding their fellow-men in the depths, and with that ever pressing upon them, have forsaken all else to grapple with that evil and right that wrong. It has become the home of loving, aching hearts that have lost their God. It has also become the mere fad of many who put on charity as they do a garment when it is fashionable, and are philanthropic when philanthropy is in vogue. But let these hangers-on of humanitarianism be distinguished from humanitarians. Humanitarians proper are large-souled enthusiasts. Humanitarianism has been elevated to the dignity of a religion, and the humanitarian god has been hailed as the God of humanity. When that is so, we have to look at the work in a new light, and study anew the claims which it puts forth. And, first of all, I think we may safely say that the first duty of any one who desires to elevate a cult to the rank of a religion is to demonstrate that it is applicable to humanity in general, that it is deep enough to find a common basis in characters the most widely diverse. For that only is really religious which can be shared by all. The beauty-lover, who is convinced that in the power of perceiving and appreciating the beauty and harmony of the universe lies the uplifting of his Kind, sets himself to show that that power is to be found, latent at least, in every one. The moralist, who thinks that a certain code of laws, if strictly adhered to, would meet all wants and settle all difficulties, has, for the first part of his task, to prove that an inherently moral nature is co-existent everywhere with human nature. And the humanitarian, too, must show that his religion may be a religion for humanity. To the enthusiasts who are fired to generous forgetfulness of self it may seem for a time to fulfil the purposes of religion. They find in it an aim, an inspiration, a faith. But what of the other side! Will it do for a religion to those who are to be uplifted to the passive element, which, in their scheme, is simply to permit itself to be raised to better conditions of life? Ah! that is where humanitarians err. They cling tenaciously to their theory that conditions make humanity. It is true, we grant it, but it must at the same time be admitted that humanity makes its own conditions. The conditions of mans material life, ii they be evil, eat slowly but surely into his soul with corroding influence. But is the converse not also true? Does what a man is, down in the heart of him, not stamp itself upon his surroundings? Does not the likeness of a soul body itself out by slow degrees in the conditions amid which it exists? Conditions the most favourable for the growth of virtue, if round an ignoble soul, become a rich soil for vice to grow in. Beauty may be changed to ugliness by mans vulgar breath, harmony to discord by his strident voice. Conditions make humanity, and humanity makes its conditions. But these two truths were never meant to be brought into violent opposition. A perfect humanity is the humanitarians dream, but a perfect humanity is an impossible thing. If humanitarians would study humanity more they would see the weakness of their claim for humanitarianism as a religion. There is a something in humanity, an unknown quality, which for ever evades the analyst. There is a wailing need for something greater than itself, the something never seen but still desired, there is a hidden strength totally unpresaged by the individuals past life. Humanity is full of surprises; only the most careful student of it knows how small the circle is within which he may work, how great is the tract outside of it which must be allowed for unknown powers and their influences. Only those who know its waywardness, its uncertainty, its inherent weakness, its potential greatness, know how strong a hope, how Divine a thought, humanity needs for its deliverance. To serve is to obey, but do humanitarians ever dream of obeying the humanity which they deify? And to look to humanity as a paymaster, ah, what wages of sorrow they are earning, what disappointed hopes, what frustrated endeavours, what bitterness of heart that there is not sweetness enough in the world to sweeten! Oh, that they had given as unto God, and He would have repaid; that they had followed Christs example–to serve God and save humanity. Then God would have rewarded, and humanity would have been the recompense. And now the thought of Christ arrests us. What, after all, is the humanitarianism which we have been seriously considering as a new religion, but a branch of practical Christianity? The limitation, which is its weakness, is all that is new in it. Why, then, has it attained such great proportions, become so prominent that it has for the time overshadowed all other considerations? Simply because it was for so long overshadowed and neglected. And yet the Church, whatever it may have done, has seen and attempted the greater part. It has taught this part of Christs doctrine, that to be heroic and Christlike is better than to be comfortable. But the humanitarian flood answers back vehemently–Your God is a God for the idealists, for those who in their visionary world delight themselves with thoughts of ideal beauty, and goodness, and truth, and never feel the burdened heart of the world of reality labouring beside them. Your creed is a creed for the comfortable, the well-to-do, the intellectual who study Christs marvellous philosophy, and forget that His practice gave it its power, and demonstrated its truth. Heroism is for the strength of the individual heart; the ideal is a home for the individual soul, but the attitude and practice of man towards his fellow-men should be that of pitying, helpful love. Christ was heroic. He stood majestic and unmoved in the midst of a scoffing, incensed mob. Yet He was the champion of the friendless woman taken in adultery. He lived the life of an idealist, and fed His soul on the beauty of heaven. Yet He was always ready to render practical help to those in trouble or adversity. The duty of the Church as an exponent of Christ is to expound Him fully and equally. The Founder of Christianity came to enlarge, and deepen, and exalt the sphere of every life. It is terrible to think how, instead of helping Christ in such a work, we spend so much time and energy in crushing the life and power out of men; out of the boy or girl who want sunshine and joy to brighten their growth; out of the young man or woman enthusiastic with a great purpose to do good;–how we crowd men and women out of their places and push them down and cause them to despond, when all the while we could have inspired hope and given them life. The mission of religion is to give true increase of life, and the Church of Christ exists to help on the work. And the members of Christs Church should each feel upon them the twofold chain that links them to God and their fellow-men. If our march were but from the cradle to the grave, then we could afford to leave such aids as the Church and religious communion out of account, and the creed and practice of the humanitarian might satisfy us. But are we only the creatures of the passing hour? Nay; verily the chords we strike here in the music of life are but the prelude to a never-ending song. When all our material wants are satisfied there is still a hunger of the soul which refuses to be allayed, because only God, the Infinite One, can satisfy it. We are infinite, spiritual beings, and no finite, material God, such as the humanitarian worships, can give lasting help and sarisfaction. Nothing but the Infinite can fulfil our infinite needs; nothing but the Highest can satisfy those who are made in the image of the Most High. We need a God wide as the universe and eternal as the life to which we belong. (A. H. M. Sime.<\/em>)<\/p>\n Verse 6<\/span>. The workman made it; therefore it<\/B><\/I> is <\/B>not God<\/B><\/I>] As God signifies the supreme eternal Good, the Creator and Upholder of all things, therefore the workman cannot make Him who made all things. This is an overwhelming argument against all idols. Nothing need be added. The workman has made them; therefore they<\/I> are not God<\/I>.<\/P> <\/p>\n For, <\/B>or because, <\/P> from Israel, <\/B>by their invention and authority, was it also, both the idol and the worship of it. <\/P> The workman, <\/B>the founder, silversmith, or goldsmith, <\/P> made it; <\/B>fashioned the calf. <\/P> Therefore it is not God; <\/B>you are sottish fools to think it is a god: if the making it will not convince you it is no god, yet I hope the destroying it will prove, whatever it was made for, or whatever thought to be, yet it was not, nor could it ever be, a god. <\/P> But the calf of Samaria shall be broken in pieces; <\/B>but when the idol is broken into pieces, Samaria shall see it was but a calf, and confess their folly in worshipping it; however, the destruction of it will be a perpetual witness of Samarias sin, and Gods just displeasure in its ruin. <\/P> <\/p>\n 6. from Israel was it<\/B>that is,the calf originated with them, not from Me. “It also,” aswell as their “kings set up” by them, “but not by Me”(Ho 8:4<\/span>).<\/P><\/p>\n For from Israel [was] it also<\/strong>,…. That is, the calf was from Israel; it was an invention of theirs, as some say; they did not borrow it from their neighbours, as they did other idols, but it was their own contrivance: but this tines not seem to be fact; for the calf, the making of it indeed, was of themselves, but the worship of it they borrowed from the Egyptians; with this difference, the Egyptians worshipped a living cow or ox, these the golden image of a calf: but rather the sense is, that this calf was made by the advice of Israel, by the advice of Jeroboam their king, and of their princes, they assenting to it, so Aben Ezra; or the gold and silver of which it was made was exacted on them, and collected from them, as the Targum and Jarchi; or workmen were employed by them to make it; and so it was of them also, as any other work that was done by their advice and direction, and at their expense; and therefore could never have any divinity in it, any more than other things they did; though this is commonly interpreted as having respect to the making of the golden calf by Aaron, that this also was of Israel as well as that:<\/p>\n the workman made it; therefore it [is] not God<\/strong>; a strong and invincible reason this; for, since the call was the work of an artificer, of the goldsmith or founder, it could not be God; there could not be deity in it; for a creature cannot make a God, or give that which itself has not; if the workman was not God, but a creature, if deity was not in him, he could never give it to a golden image, a lifeless statue fashioned by him: this, one would think, should have been a clear, plain, striking, and convincing argument to them, that their calf was, as the Targum has it,<\/p>\n “a deity in which there was no profit:”<\/p>\n but the calf of Samaria shall be broken to pieces<\/strong>; or “for f the calf of Samaria”, c. being another reason to prove it could not be God if the former would not convince them, this surely would, when they should see it broke to pieces by the enemy, from whom it could not save itself; and therefore could not be a god that could be of any service to them, or save them. The Vulgate Latin version renders it, “for the calf of Samaria shall become spiders webs”: and Jerom says he learned it of a Jew that the word so signifies; but his Jew imposed upon him: it, does not appear to be any where so used, either in the Bible, or in any other writings. Kimchi interprets it shivers, fragments, broken pieces of anything. Jarchi says it signifies, in the Syriac language, beams, planks, and boards, pieces of them; so the Targum and Ben Melech from the Rabbins; or rather the dust which falls from them in sawing, sawdust; to dust as small as that should this calf be reduced, as the golden calf was ground to powder by Moses, to which, it is thought, there is an allusion.<\/p>\n f “nam”, Junius Tremellius, Piscator, Cocceius “quia”, Schmidt; “quoniam”, Pagninus, Montanus.<\/p>\n The beginning of this verse is not rightly explained, as I think, by those who so connect the pronoun demonstrative הוא, eva, as if it had an interposed copulative; and this ought to be noticed, for it gives a great emphasis to the Prophet’s words. Even this is from Israel But what does the Prophet mean? He means this, that the calf was from Israel, as they had long before, at the beginning, formed to themselves a calf in the desert. But we do not yet clearly apprehend the mind of the Prophet, unless we perceive that there is here an implied comparison. For he accuses the Israelites of being the first founders of this superstition, and that they had not been, as it were, deceived by others; for they had not borrowed this corruption from the Gentiles, as it had been at times the case; but it was, so to speak, an intrinsic invention. From Israel, he says, it is; that is, “I find that you are now the second time the fabricators of this impious superstition. Could your fathers, when they forged a calf for themselves in the desert, make excuse (as they did) and say, that they were led by the faith of others? Could they plead that this cause of offence was presented to them by the Gentiles, and that they were ensnared, as it often happens, when some draw others into error? By no means. As then your fathers, when no one tempted them to superstition, became the founders of this new superstition through their own inclination, and, as it were through the instigation of the devil, so this calf is the second time from Israel, for ye cannot otherwise account for its origin, ye cannot transfer the fault to other nations; within, within,” he says, “has this evil been generated.” We now perceive the meaning of the Prophet, which is, that this superstition was not derived from others, but that Israel, under the influence of no evil persuader, had devised for themselves, of their own accord, this corruption, through which they had departed from the true and pure worship of God. It ia indeed true, that oxen and calves were worshipped in Egypt, and the same also might be said of other nations; but rivalship did not influence the people of Israel. What then? It cannot certainly be denied, but that they had stimulated themselves to this impious denial of God. <\/p>\n The same thing may be brought against the Papists of this day; that is, that the filthy mass of superstitions, by which the whole worship of God is corrupted by them, has been produced by themselves. If they object and say, that they have borrowed many rites from the heathens: this is indeed true; but was it the imitation of heathens which led them to these wicked inventions? By no means, but their own lust has led them astray; for being not content with the simple word of God, they have devised for themselves strange and spurious modes of worship; and afterwards additions were made according to the caprices of individuals: thus it has happened, that they are sunk in the deepest gulf. Whence then have the Papists so many patrons, on whom relying, then despise Christ the Mediator? Even because they have adopted them for themselves. Whence also have they so many ungodly ceremonies, by which they pervert the worship of God? Even because they have fabricated them for themselves. <\/p>\n We now then see how grievous was the accusation, that the calf was even from Israel. “There is no reason then”, the Lord says, “for you to say that you have been deceived by bad examples, like those who are mixed with profane heathens and contract their vices, as contagion creeps in easily among men, for they are by nature prone to vice; there is no reason,” he says, “for any one to make an objection of this kind.” Why? “Because the calf your fathers made for themselves in the desert was from Israel; and this calf also is from Israel, for it was not thrust upon you by others, but Jeroboam, your king, made it for you, and you willingly and applaudingly received it.” <\/p>\n The workman, he says, made it, and it is not God Here the Prophet derides the stupidity oú the people; and there are many other like places, which occur everywhere, especially in the Prophets, in which God reprobates this madness of having recourse to modes of worship so absurd. For what is more contrary to reason than for man to prostrate himself before a dead piece of wood or before a atone, and to seek salvation from it? The unbelieving indeed put on their guises and say that they seek God in heaven, and, because idols and images are types of God, that they come to him through them; but yet what they do appears evident. These pretencea are then altogether vain, for their stupidity is openly seen, when they thus bend their knees before a wood or stone. Hence the Prophet here inveighs against this senseless stupidity, because man had made the idol. “Can a mortal man make a god? Ye do certainly ascribe divinity to the calf; is this in the power of the workman? Man has not bestowed life on himself, and cannot for one moment preserve that life which he has obtained at the pleasure of another; how then can he make a god from wood or stone? What sort of madness is this?” <\/p>\n He then adds, It is not God, for in fragments shall be the calf of Samaria The Prophet shows here from the event, how there was no power or no divinity in the calf, because it was to be reduced to fragments. The event then would at length show how madly the Israelites played the fool, when they formed to themselves a calf, to be as it were the symbol of the divine presence. We now see what the Prophet means: for he enhances the sin of Israel, because they had not been enticed by others to depart from the pure and genuine worship of God, but they had been their own deceivers. This is the meaning. It follows — <\/p>\n (6) It is best to abandon the Masoretic punctuation, and translate, For it<\/em> (i.e.,<\/em> the calf) is from Israel<\/em> (not of Divine origin); as for it, an artificer made it, and it is no god. Yea, the calf of Samaria shall be shattered to fragments<\/em> (literally, become splinters<\/em> or fine dust<\/em>). 6<\/strong>. <\/strong> From Israel was it also <\/strong> [“is even this”] What? Evidently the calf of Hos 8:5<\/span>. In its establishment Jehovah had no part; it is the work of Israel; therefore the former has cast it off. To join this clause more closely with 5a, 5b is transposed by some so as to stand before Hos 8:5<\/span>; Hos 8:5<\/span> c is explained as a later gloss. Since the idol is made by human hands it can be no God <\/strong> (R.V.) These words imply that the people identify the image with the deity. To show its impotence it will be broken to pieces.<\/p>\n Under the figures of sowing, growing, and reaping (compare Hos 10:12-13<\/span>) the prophet pictures once more, in Hos 8:7<\/span>, the destruction of Israel. “Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap” (Gal 6:7<\/span>). <\/p>\n Wind <\/strong> A picture of vain, unprofitable conduct. The harvest will be whirlwind <\/strong> Not only will they derive no benefit from their conduct, it will result in actual destruction. Of the sentences following G.A. Smith says, “Indeed, like a storm Hosea’s own language now sweeps along, and his metaphors are torn in shreds upon it.” <\/p>\n It hath no stalk <\/strong> R.V., “he hath no standing grain.” The figure differs slightly from the preceding. Israel is pictured as sowing corn, but it withers before the stalk develops. A.V. is to be preferred. <\/p>\n The bud <\/strong> [“blade”] shall yield no meal <\/strong> Even if the stalk forms it will yield no grain from which meal might be made. Should it bring forth grain Israel will not be benefited, for strangers shall seize it. Nothing but disappointment and ruin is ahead of the nation.<\/p>\n In Hos 8:8-11<\/span> the prophet, in a sense, corrects himself. In Hos 8:7<\/span> he has said that the destruction is sure to come, but as he looks upon the nation he sees that ruin is already present, and he cries out in agony, <\/p>\n Israel is swallowed up <\/strong> Foreigners have already begun to devour the nation (Hos 7:8-9<\/span>); complete destruction is only a question of time. <\/p>\n Now shall they be <\/strong> Better, R.V., “now are they”; the prophet is describing a present situation. <\/p>\n A vessel wherein is no pleasure <\/strong> [“none delighteth”] A worthless vessel. Its resources have been sapped (Hos 7:9<\/span>) by greedy nations; now it is cast aside like a vessel for which there is no further use (Jer 22:28<\/span>; Jer 48:38<\/span>). In illustrating this phrase, Thomson speaks of the readiness with which pottery is cast away in the East: “The coarse pottery of the country is so cheap that even poor people cast it away in contempt, or dash it to pieces on the slightest occasion.”<\/p>\n What has caused this condition of affairs? Their own stubbornness. 9. They were determined to mingle among the nations, and these proved their destruction. Of the nations one is singled out. <\/p>\n Gone up to Assyria <\/strong> For assistance (Hos 7:11<\/span>). <\/p>\n A wild ass alone by himself <\/strong> To be taken with the preceding words; it is a description of Israel’s foreign policy. The point of comparison is obstinacy (Gen 16:12<\/span>; Job 39:5-8<\/span>). Wild asses ordinarily move in droves, but sometimes a single animal, resisting the gregarious instinct, will run away and thus expose itself to danger.<\/p>\n Israel has been warned again and again, but resisting all warnings is determined to have its own way, whatever the consequences. <\/p>\n Ephraim hath hired lovers <\/strong> Literally loves<\/em>. In the Hebrew there is a play upon words, the original for wild ass <\/em> and for Ephraim <\/em> being similar in sound. The reference is apparently to the gifts sent by Ephraim (Israel) to secure the friendship of Assyria or Egypt (Hos 7:11<\/span>; Hos 12:1<\/span>). LXX. has a different reading, but it is no improvement over the Hebrew. Various emendations have been proposed; for example, “Ephraim gives love gifts,” which requires but a very slight alteration. To restore the parallelism, as in Hos 7:11<\/span>; Hos 12:1<\/span>, some read “Egypt” in the place of “Ephraim”: “To Egypt they give love-gifts.” The thought is not altered by these emendations.<\/p>\n Of Hos 8:10<\/span> it has been said, “No single word of this entire verse is of certain meaning.” As a result translations have been many and emendations not a few. The most recent commentators, Marti and Harper, relieve the situation by rejecting the verse as a later gloss, but for this there are no adequate reasons. For 10a, unless the text is changed, the interpretation suggested by the English versions, especially R.V., “though they hire among the nations,” seems the most satisfactory. Though they may succeed to some extent in gaining the support of the nations, Jehovah cannot permit the present policy to continue, for its continuation would frustrate completely the purpose of Jehovah for Israel. <\/p>\n Now will I gather them <\/strong> Israel, not the nations. Israel is to be gathered in like a flock, which is put in the fold to prevent the wandering of the sheep. They are to be put under restraint, their reckless negotiations are to be interrupted. Thus Jehovah may yet be able to teach Israel his ways. What the method of restraint will be is not stated, but the next sentence indicates that the prophet has in mind an exile. Hos 8:10<\/span> b is even more difficult. <\/p>\n And they shall sorrow a little for the burden of the king of princes <\/strong> R.V., “and they begin to be diminished by reason of the burden of the king of princes.” Margin, R.V., goes back to A.V. With either translation the sense seems to be that Israel, when under restraint, will suffer from the burdens imposed by the king of princes the king of Assyria (compare Isa 10:8<\/span>). In the inscriptions the Assyrian kings frequently call themselves “king of kings.” The translations do not agree as to the derivation of the verb; A.V. derives it from a verb to sorrow, to be sick, to suffer pain, <\/em> while R.V. traces it to a verb begin, <\/em> to which Von Orelli gives the additional meaning, release, relieve. <\/em> As the form is written in the great majority of the Hebrew manuscripts the translation of R.V. is to be preferred. The policy of oppression practiced by the conquerors will diminish the prosperity and numbers of Israel. Why “begin”? A smoother reading, requiring but few changes in the original, is afforded by LXX.:” and they shall cease for a little while from the anointing of a king and of princes.” While the exile lasts they will be compelled to be without their own rulers (Hos 3:4<\/span>; compare Hos 13:10<\/span>). This threat is exceedingly appropriate here, and it is quite probable that LXX. has preserved the original text. What contrast to the ease with which they now place kings upon the throne! (Hos 8:4<\/span>.)<\/p>\n Hos 8:11<\/span> <\/strong> introduces the justification for the threat of judgment, which is repeated in 13b. The substitution of a cold, formal ceremonial for obedience to the divine requirements is responsible for the downfall. The present text is made somewhat cumbersome by the presence of the first “for sinning,” or “to sin.” To remove the difficulty some read in its place “to make atonement,” which requires but a slight change in the vocalization of the verb form. Ephraim made the altars for purposes of atonement, but their purposes have become perverted. This is an improvement, but it is more likely that the first “for sinning” has come into the text through the carelessness of a copyist, whose eyes lighted accidentally upon the end of the second part of the verse, and that it should be omitted. With this omission the verse may be translated, “For though Ephraim made many altars, they have become to him altars for sinning.” The common notion was that the offering of sacrifice was sufficient to win the divine favor; the more numerous the altars the greater the divine pleasure. This false notion the prophet attacks (Isa 1:11<\/span> ff.; Amo 5:21<\/span> ff.); the altars have only increased Israel’s guilt. How? Hos 4:12<\/span> ff., supplies the answer.<\/p>\n Hos 8:12<\/span> <\/strong> also is full of difficulties. The translation itself is uncertain. R.V. differs from A.V. only in reading “the ten thousand things” instead of “the great things”; the latter is in accord with the Masoretic suggestion, the former follows the Hebrew text; in this R.V. is preferable. For “my law” LXX. and Vulgate read “my laws,” which is probably original. To get this reading no change in the consonantal text is required. The translation of the tenses also is uncertain; LXX. and Vulgate have the future, Targum and Peshitto the past. The first, verb in Hebrew is an imperfect, <\/em> which expresses a variety of ideas but always implies incompleteness, Here the verb might be rendered, (1) “I did write” (and am writing still); (2) “I will write”; (3) “I am writing,” or “I am wont to write”; (4) “I did write repeatedly”; (5) it might be hypothetical, “Were I to write,” or (6) concessive, “Though I wrote,” or “Though I should write.” Which of these is the proper translation? Naturally, commentators disagree. To the present writer the choice seems to lie between (5) and (6), and of these (6) seems the more probable; and of the two possible renderings the former seems more in accord with the context. If this translation is accepted the whole verse will read: “Though I wrote for him the ten thousand of my laws, they were counted as strange things,” or “as those of a stranger.” The misconduct of Israel is not due to ignorance; Jehovah gave instruction continuously, but his laws were considered as something foreign, and therefore of no authority. Ten thousand <\/em> or myriads <\/em> is not to be understood literally; it simply means a great number. On law <\/em> see comment on Hos 4:6<\/span>. The passage certainly implies the existence of written laws, but it does not prove the existence of the entire Pentateuchal legislation. On the contrary, the context seems to indicate that the laws did not deal to any great extent with the ceremonial or with sacrifice; of these Hosea speaks very lightly. He seems to emphasize rather the moral and civil legislation, such as is found, for example, in Exodus 21-23.<\/p>\n In Hos 8:13<\/span> the prophet returns to the religious practices. <\/p>\n They sacrifice flesh for the sacrifices of mine offerings, and eat it <\/strong> R.V., “As for the sacrifices of mine offerings, they sacrifice flesh and eat it.” The latter follows the Hebrew text more closely. The word translated “mine offerings” occurs only here; its meaning is not quite certain, though it comes probably from a root to give. Sacrifices of mine offerings <\/em> is ordinarily interpreted as equivalent to my sacrificial offerings, <\/em> and, unless we assume a corruption of the text, this is the best interpretation. These sacrifices, consisting of flesh, are offered, but Jehovah does not care for them, since the right disposition is wanting and the givers neglect the weightier matters. Therefore “the only positive result is that the sacrificer has the luxury of a dinner of fresh meat” (compare Hos 4:8<\/span>). The whole is a condemnation of the heartless religious practices. The measure is full. The blood of the sacrificial animals cannot blot out their sins; he will remember them and will proceed to execute the judgment, which will take the form of an exile. <\/p>\n They shall return to Egypt <\/strong> The house of their former bondage. The mention of Egypt could not but suggest the sufferings of the early Israelites, but it is hardly correct to regard Egypt here as “merely a type of the land of bondage” (Keil), and thus to interpret the reference as a “poetic expression for captivity in general.” The prophet undoubtedly intended the words to be understood as predicting an exile in Egypt (compare Hos 9:3<\/span>; Hos 9:6<\/span>; Hos 11:5<\/span>). The Israelites appealed, now to Assyria, now to Egypt; these very nations will prove the ruin of Israel (compare Isa 7:18<\/span>; Isa 11:11<\/span>, etc.).<\/p>\n Hos 8:14<\/span> <\/strong> sums up the cause of it all. <\/p>\n Israel hath forgotten his Maker <\/strong> This is the root of all evil (see on Hos 2:20<\/span>), but especially of the false policy which could see help only in human defenses, and which led them to seek help among the surrounding nations and build temples <\/strong> Better, with R.V., “palaces,” or “castles,” in parallelism with fenced <\/strong> [“fortified”] cities <\/strong> The building of palaces and fortified cities, as such, is not condemned by the prophet. What he does condemn is the fact that in these, and these alone, the people put their trust, to the absolute disregard of Jehovah. The latter will vindicate himself by utterly destroying the human defenses. <\/p>\n Fire <\/strong> War (as in Amo 1:4<\/span> to Amo 2:5<\/span>). Hos 9:14<\/span> b seems to be dependent upon Amos (Amo 1:4<\/span>; Amo 1:7<\/span>, etc.), who prophesied about twenty years earlier. Hosea might, therefore, have been acquainted with the words of the earlier prophet. Most modern commentators consider Hos 8:14<\/span> an addition. The reasons for this opinion are summed up by Harper: (1) The reference to Judah is not called for; (2) the style resembles that of Amos rather than that of Hosea; (3) the natural conclusion of the discourse is in Hos 8:13<\/span>, hence Hos 8:14<\/span> only weakens the climax; (4) the thought of Jehovah as Israel’s Creator is unexpected in Hosea’s time; (5) the verse is superfluous in the strophic system. Whether or not these reasons are conclusive against Hosea’s authorship of Hos 8:14<\/span> each one must decide for himself.<\/p>\n Hos 8:6 For from Israel [was] it also: the workman made it; therefore it [is] not God: but the calf of Samaria shall be broken in pieces.<\/p>\n Ver. 6. For from Israel was it also<\/strong> ] There is an emphasis in “also,” and it is as if the prophet should say, This calf of Samaria is no less from Israel, and came out of his shop or device, than that of old set up by them in the wilderness. Israel then brought a calf out of Egypt, Jeroboam brought two; and Israel hath received them, and are much taken with them; so that they cannot attain to innocence (as it is in the former verse), so far they are engaged and so fast joined to idols, that they cannot get off; there is so much of self in it; it was the bairn of their own brain; and hence so overly admired, so clasped and hugged, with the ape, &c.; or rather, as Cleopatra hugged her vipers that sucked her blood, and took away her life, so did they their own inventions, though fairly warned of the danger, Hos 8:3-5<\/span> . Lo, this was Israel that acted thus madly. Israel that was wont to laugh at or pity other nations for their idolomany, for worshipping the works of their own hands, for going a whoring after their own inventions, for changing the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things, Rom 1:23<\/span> ; as in Lapland, the people worship that all day for a god whatsoever they see first in the morning, Now that a calf worship should be found in Israel, and not only so, but found out by Israel; who was herein worse than Egypt; for that the Egyptians worshipped a living ox of God’s making; but Israel, a dead calf of their own making; such sots they were grown, and so thwart to the very principles of reason. <\/p>\n <\/p>\n The workman made it<\/strong> ] Who confessedly is no God: <\/p>\n <\/p>\n therefore it is not God<\/strong> ] for no man can give that divinity to another which himself hath not. Nay, it is certain that God himself by his infinite power cannot make anything to be a God to us. He cannot do this, I say; like as he cannot lie, he cannot die, he cannot deny himself, &c., so he cannot raise a created excellence to that height as to be a God to us. How vile, then, is the voluptuary, that maketh his belly his god! the mammonist, that maketh his gold his god! the ambitionist, that maketh his honour his god! How abominable the mass monger, that maketh his god and eateth him when he hath done! This made Averroes, the Mahometan, cry out; Quoniam Christiani Deum suum mauducant, sit anima mea cum Philosophis,<\/em> that is, Forasmuch as Christians do eat their God, let my soul be rather with the souls of the philosophers. Those Pseudo Christians, the Papists, stick not to call the consecrated host their God and Lord; and Harding (that sottish apostate, for he was once a zealous preacher against Popery, and wished that he had a voice as loud as the bells of Oseney, to cry it down, Artic. 21), in his disputation against Jewel, is not ashamed to defend it. And yet we all know that that host or sacrament, as they call it, of the altar is the work of the baker, therefore it is no God, neither Lord nor God (whatsoever our Lord God the pope say to the contrary). Which yet further appeareth, in that (as the calf of Samaria here) it may be broken in pieces, or to shivers (which word of ours seemeth to come from the Hebrew shebharim<\/em> here used), yea, ground to powder, as was the molten calf in the wilderness, whereto the prophet may well here allude. Is not their breaden god broken by the priest into three bits? Is it not chewed with his teeth? May it not be gnawed by mice, become meat for worms, &c.? Murescit, putrescit, et corrumpitur; <\/em> all which things the Papists themselves confess may befall their god, which is therefore no god, or nomine tantum et non numine deus,<\/em> a nominal god only ( in cautelis Missae<\/em> ) in the sureties of the Mass. And the like we may say of images and relics (such as is at Genoa, the tail of that ass whereon Christ rode into Jerusalem); these and other monuments of idolatry may, nay, they ought to be broken, burnt, and utterly abolished, Exo 34:13 Deu 7:5<\/span> Eze 20:7<\/span> ; as (blessed be God) they are lately among us, by our worthies in parliament; to whom, perhaps, for that and the like good services, we attributed but too much, we even idolized them; and the king of Sweden (that bright northern star) a little before his decease, being in discourse with Dr Fabricius, his chaplain, he told him that he thought God would ere long take him away, because the people did so overvalue and deify him (Mr Clark in his Life).<\/p>\n For from Israel, &c. Render: “For from Israel! (i.e. from Israel, of all people) [doth this conduct proceed! and he! (i.e., and that calf, what is it)]? A craftsman made him, so no God is he”. <\/p>\n be = become. <\/p>\n pieces = fragments, or splinters. Hebrew. shebabim. Occurs only here. <\/p>\n from: Psa 106:19, Psa 106:20 <\/p>\n the workman: Psa 115:4-8, Psa 135:15-18, Isa 44:9-20, Jer 10:3-9, Jer 10:14, Hab 2:18, Act 17:29, Act 19:26 <\/p>\n the calf: Hos 10:2, Hos 10:5, Hos 10:6, Jer 43:12, Jer 43:13, Jer 50:2 <\/p>\n shall: 2Ki 23:15, 2Ki 23:19, 2Ch 31:1, 2Ch 34:6, 2Ch 34:7 <\/p>\n Reciprocal: 2Ki 10:29 – the golden calves 2Ki 17:29 – made gods 2Ch 11:15 – for the calves 2Ch 13:8 – with you golden 2Ch 13:9 – no gods 2Ch 32:19 – the work Isa 2:8 – worship Isa 37:19 – no gods Isa 40:19 – General Jer 1:16 – worshipped Jer 48:13 – as the Dan 11:8 – their gods Hos 8:5 – calf Amo 8:14 – sin Mic 1:5 – is it Mic 1:7 – all the graven<\/p>\n Hos 8:6. The idol came from Israel, originated there, because their workman made it. The true God is the maker of all things and is the only One who should be worshiped. But these people of Israel were worshiping a god that was the work of their own hands. Calf of Samaria shall be broken predicts that idolatry was to be uprooted and excluded from the practices of the nation. The fulfillment of this is shown in the quotation from history at Isa 1:25, volume 3 of this COMMENTARY.<\/p>\n 8:6 {e} For from Israel [was] it also: the workman made it; therefore it [is] not God: but the calf of Samaria shall be broken in pieces.<\/p>\n (e) Meaning the calf was invented by themselves, and by their fathers in the wilderness.<\/p>\n From Israel, of all people, had come the pagan idol. A human craftsman had fashioned it, so the idol was not the true God (cf. Isa 40:18-20; Isa 44:9-20). When Jeroboam I originally presented these idols to the people of Israel, he said, "Behold your gods, O Israel" (1Ki 12:28; cf. Exo 32:4). These idols, represented here as the calf of Samaria, would be broken to pieces, demonstrating the impotence of the gods.<\/p>\n For from Israel [was] it also: the workman made it; therefore it [is] not God: but the calf of Samaria shall be broken in pieces. 6. For from Israel was it also ] Rather, was this also; i. e. this idol too (as well as the usurping kings) was Israel’s work, unsanctioned by me. But … Continue reading “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Hosea 8:6”<\/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-22211","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22211","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=22211"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22211\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=22211"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=22211"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=22211"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: 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: Calvin’s Complete Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
<\/em><\/p>\nFuente: 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: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/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: Geneva Bible Notes<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"