Hosea 4
1 “Hear
the word of the LORD, ye children of
hath a controversy with the inhabitants of
the land, because there is
no truth, nor mercy, nor knowledge of God
in the land.”
A new and distinct division of the book commences with this
fourth chapter and continues till the close. What had
previously been
presented in figure and symbol is now plainly and literally
stated. The
children of
charge preferred against them and the sentence pronounced.
Having
convened, as it were, a public assembly and cited the
persons concerned,
the prophet proceeds to show cause why they are bound to
give an
attentive hearing. In God’s controversy with the people of
the land the
prophet acts as His ambassador, accusing the people of
great and grievous
sins, and vindicating the justice of God’s judgments in
their punishment.
The ki with which
the last clause of the verse commences may be either
causal or recitative, and may thus specify either the
ground or subject of
controversy. It is commonly understood here in the former
sense.
charged with want of truth, mercy, and the knowledge of
God. Kimchi
comments on this controversy as follows: “With the
inhabitants of the land
of
that they should exercise righteousness and judgment, and
on this condition
I pledged myself to them that my eyes would be upon them
from the
beginning of the year to the end of the year. But since
they practice the
opposite — cursing, lying, etc. — I also will act with them
in a way
contrary to what I assured them, and will hide my face from
them.” He
adds, “There were some
righteous among them, but they were few, and
they hid themselves from the face of the multitude who were
wicked.”
Truth and mercy are at once Divine attributes and human
virtues; it is in
the latter sense, of course, that they are here employed. Truth includes
works as well as words, doing as well as saying; it implies uprightness in
speech and behavior — thorough integrity of character and conduct,
Mercy goes beyond and supplements this. We sometimes say of such a one
that he is an honest but a hard man. Mercy combined with
truth, on the
contrary, makes a man kind as well as honest, benevolent as
well as
upright. In a somewhat similar sense the apostle conjoins
goodness and
righteousness when he says, “Scarcely
for a righteous man will one die: yet
peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die” (Romans 5:7).
The knowledge of God is the real root of these two virtues
of truth and mercy.
If we know God as He is in Himself and as He stands in His
relations to us,
we shall conform our conduct to His character and our
actions to His will. If
we know God to
be a God of truth, who delighteth in truth in the
inward
parts, we shall cultivate truth in our hearts,
express it with our lips, and
practice it in our lives. If we know God as a God of mercy, who has shown
such boundless mercy to us in pardoning our multiplied and
aggravated
offences, we shall imitate that mercy in our relations to
our fellow-man;
nor shall we enact the part of the merciless man in the
parable, who owed
his lord ten thousand talents, and who, having nothing to
pay, was freely
forgiven the debt; but finding his fellow-servant, who owed
him only an
hundred pence, laid hands on him and took him by the
throat, saying, “Pay
me that thou owest,” and, deaf to
that fellow-servant’s supplications, cast
him into prison till he should pay the debt (Matthew
18:23-34). The intimate
connection of the knowledge of God with the virtues in
question is confirmed
by the Prophet Jeremiah, “Did not thy father eat and drink, and
do judgment
and justice, and then it was well with him? he judged the
cause of the poor
and needy; then it
was well with him: was not this to know me, saith the
Lord?” (Jeremiah 22:15-16)
2 “By
swearing, and lying, and killing, and stealing, and committing
adultery, they break out, and blood toucheth blood.” Having given
a picture
of
specified implies the presence of the opposite vices. In
the most vivid and impressive
manner the prophet, instead of enumerating prosaically the
vices so prevalent at the
time, expresses them more emphatically by a species of
exclamation, using
and murdering, and
stealing, and committing adultery.”
They may,
however, be regarded as in the nominative as subjects to יֵשׁ. Instead of
either supplying לְשָׁוְא, to allot, or closely connecting” allot” with the verb
“to lie,” which immediately
follows, it is better to understand the two verbs
separately, as expressing two
different species of sin; that is, swearing and
cursing, and lying. So the
Septuagint renders them by the nouns ἀρὰ καὶ
ψεῦδος, – ara kai
pseudo - equivalent to “cursing and
lying;” as also the
Chaldee, “they swear falsely and lie.” The commandments which the children
of
and the seventh.
version, takes the infinitives (nounal expressions of habitual or continued
actions) as nominatives to the
verb paratsu; thus: “Cursing, and
lying, and
murder, and theft, and adultery abound (κέχυται – kechutai - or
εκκέχυται – ekkechutai - ) in the land
or gerundively as in the
Authorized Version, and in either case understanding
an indefinite subject to paratsu, is preferable on the whole; thus: “By
swearing, etc., they break out.” The allusion to the water overflowing its
banks and spreading
in all directions, implied in the
Septuagint Version, is
approved by Jerome in his
Commentary: “He (the prophet) did not say est,
but, to demonstrate the
abundance of crimes, introduced inundaverunt
(overflowed).” The common meaning of parats
is to tear or break — break
in upon, especially with
violence, as robbers and murderers; so paritsim has
the sense of murderers and
robbers. It is better, therefore, to take the verb
here as a present perfect
connecting past and present, and to translate it”
break through,” or” in to,” that
is, as burglars into houses. So Kimchi,
though figuratively: “They break through
the wall which is the fence of the
Law, and multiply transgressions.” The context, which
speaks of
bloodshed, is quite in keeping
with acts of violence.
The next three verses relate, with much particularity, the sufferings consequent
on sins,
especially such as are
specified in the preceding verses. The mourning of the land
mentioned in v.3 may
be understood either figuratively or literally. If in the former way,
there are many Scripture parallels which represent nature in full accord with
human feelings, sympathizing with man, now in joy, again in sorrow; for example:
“The little hills rejoice on every side;” the
valleys “shout for joy, they also sing”
(Psalm 65:12-13); on the other hand, “The earth mourneth and fadeth
away, the
World languisheth and fadeth away, the
haughty people of the earth do languish.”
(Isaiah 24:4)
3 “Therefore
shall the land mourn, and every one that dwelleth
therein
shall languish, with the beasts of the
field, and with the fowls of heaven;
yea, the fishes of the sea also shall be
taken away.” But if the expression
be taken literally, it conveys a solemn fact, and one in
perfect harmony with the
entire tone and character of the old economy, according to
which moral evil
transmutes itself into physical evil, and impresses itself
in dismal characters on the
face of inanimate nature. The Hebrew commentators seem to
understand the statement
literally; thus Rashi: “The land
shall be laid waste, and there shall be great mourning;”
likewise Kimchi: “The
latter has this further comment: “After the
laid waste, man and beast shall be cut off out of it. But
under the beasts of
the field the prophet does not mean the wild beasts, but
the large domestic
animals which dwell with the sons of men, likewise called חיה. It is also
possible that even the beasts that roam at largo are
included, for the wild
beast does not come to inhabited places that are laid
waste, unless they are
partially inhabited.” He also adds, in reference to the
fowls of heaven,
“When he speaks of the fowls of heaven, it is because most
of the fowls do
not dwell in the wilderness, but in inhabited places, where
they find seeds
and fruits and blossoms of trees. Or the fowls of heaven
are mentioned by
way of hyperbole to represent the matter in its totality;
and, according to
this sense, it is used in the Prophet Jeremiah; and it
explains itself in like
manner in one of these two ways.” With the mourning of the
land the
dwellers therein languish. Nor is this languishing
condition confined to
rational beings; it comprises the irrational as well, and
that without
exception. The dominion assigned man at the beginning over
the whole
creation of God is here reversed in the case of
denunciation of wrath has that reversal for its dark
background. The terms
of the dominion to man by the Creator are, “Have dominion over the fish
of the sea, and
over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that
moveth upon the earth” (Genesis 1:28); but in this denunciation these terms
are reversed and read backwards, being, “with the beasts of the field, and
with the fowls of
heaven; yea, the fishes of the sea also.”
Thus all nature,
inanimate and animate,
and all
creation, rational and irrational, are
involved in the consequences of
preceding “the fishes of the sea”
(such as the
seas and rivers), show the entirely unexpected as well as unusual
nature of the
event. The Chaldee paraphrases
the clause as follows: “And even the fishes
of the sea shall be diminished in number, on account of
their (
sins.” Earth refuses sustenance to man and beast, no longer
yielding grass
for the cattle or herb for the service of man; the waters
of the sea, being
lessened by drought or becoming putrid by stagnation, no
longer supply
their accustomed quota of fishes for human food. An
illustration of the
literal sense has been quoted by Rosenmüller
and Pusey from Jerome. It is
the following: “Whoso believeth not that this befell the
people of
him survey Illyricum, let him
survey the
Dosphorus to the
man, all the creatures also fail, which afore were
nourished by the Creator
for the service of man.” The le before הי
is explained by Abarbanel
in the
sense of through, as though the inhabitants would be
slain by wild beasts:
by Hitzig as extending to;
by Keil as of in enumeration. It is simply with.
4 “Yet let no
man strive, nor reprove another: for thy
people are as
they that strive with the priest.” This looks like
an interjected clause, coming
in the middle of the enumeration of Divine judgments; and
the purpose is not so
much to justify the severity of those judgments as to
intimate their inefficacy, owing
to the incorrigible character of the people. There is:
reprove another.” This seems to show that mutual reproof was out of
place, since one was as bad as
another; or that every one was to look to
his own sins, and not throw the
blame on others; but this rendering is not
tenable nor capable of being
supported by such an expression as ish beish.
let no man reprove them. This imports:
a.
that reasoning
with them would be useless, and reproof thrown away,
in consequence of the
desperate obstinacy of these offenders; or
b.
that they were so
self-willed that they would not allow any one to
reprove them for their conduct.
The rendering (1) is
favored by Kimchi: “Let a man not strive, nor reprove
his fellow
For his wickedness, for it profits him not, because he also
does evil like him.”
The fact often experienced in a season of public calamity,
that
every one
comes forth as a correcter of
morals, and transfers to his neighbor the
cause of such calamity.
The explanation (2b), which is pretty much that of Ewald,
is supported by the comments of Rashi
and Aben Ezra. The former explains: “Ye
warn the true prophets against striving with you and
against reproving you;” the latter:
“There is no one that strives with another or reproves him:
and yet it was the right of
the priest to reprove
wicked in his works.”
conveys a different sense. It is
“Only men let him not strive, and let not
man reprove,” which he explains
as follows: “God had taken the
controversy with His people into
His own hands; the Lord, he said (v.1),
had a controversy (rib)
with the inhabitants of the land. 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… so God bids man
to cease to speak
in His Name. He Himself alone will plead them, whose
pleading none could evade
or contradict.”
The rendering (2) is, in our opinion, decidedly entitled to the preference
both on
The ground of simplicity and agreement with the following
clause. That clause,
for thy people are as they that strive with the priest, is
thought by
Abarbanel to allude to the opposition of Korah
and his company to Aaron
the high priest, as recorded in Numbers 16., and referred
to in Psalm 106:16.
In Numbers 16:11, it is asked, “And what is Aaron, that ye murmur against
him?” while in the latter, at ver. 16,
we read the statement: “They envied Moses
also in the camp, and Aaron the saint of the Lord.”
This allusion, by which the
Israelites of the prophet’s day were compared to the Korathires, will appear to
most as far-fetched.
(1) The usual acceptation is both simpler and more
satisfactory.
It takes the expression to denote such contumacy as is
reproved in Deuteronomy
17:12, “The man that will do presumptuously, and will not hearken
unto
the priest that standeth to minister there before the Lord thy God, or unto
the judge, even that
man shall die: and thou shalt put away the evil from
who were so obstinate and presumptuous as neither to obey
nor reverence,
but rather rebel against, the
true priests of Jehovah, who, in his Divine
Name and by Divine authority, instructed or reproved. Such persons
neither feared God nor regarded man. (Compare Romans 3:18, “There
is no
fear
of God before their eyes.” It was the refractoriness of pupils
acting in opposition to their teacher, or of a people
rising in rebellion
against their spiritual instructors. Thus the Chaldee understands it: “And
thy people contend
[quarrel] with their teachers.” The last clause
is fairly well explained by Kimchi
(except that he explains kaph of
certainty
and not similitude) as follows: “The prophet says, The
priest should have
taught, striven with, and reproved the people; but at this
time the people
strive with the priest; for it is not enough that they do
not receive his
reproof, but they strive with
and reprove him, after the way they
say, ‘A
generation that judges its judges.’ Or the explanation is,
‘The priest is as
wicked as they, and if he reproves them so also they
reprove him.’”
(2) The Septuagint has ὡς ἀντι
λεγόμενος
ἱερεὺς – hos anti legomenos
iereus - bring charges against a priest - as a priest spoken against.
The text being thus somewhat doubtful, Michaelis
made a very slight
change in the pointing, putting a patach
instead of tsere in the word for
“contend;” thus: כִמְרבַי instead of כִמְרִיבֵי
so that the translation would
be, “And thy people are as my adversaries (those who
contend with me), O
priest.” The people that
should have learnt the Law from the lips of the
priest WOULD NOT EVEN SUBMIT TO REPROOF FROM THE
MOST HIGH HIMSELF! The expression, “priest-disputers” or “priest-
gainsayers,” is admittedly an unusual one, and given as a specimen of the
peculiarities of this prophet’s style, to which, however, there is a parallel in
“boundary-movers” (ch.5:10). Still, we see no real advantage gained by the
conjectural emendation of Michaelis, though
some are disposed to accept it on
the ground that the representation of the incorrigibleness of a
people by
.gainsaying opposition to the priest appears incongruous
with the
immediately succeeding denunciation of the priesthood. The
objection is
obviated by understanding, as above, opposition to the true
priests of the
Lord. Another conjectural reading is that of Beck, via וְעַמִּי כַכְּמָרָיו,
equivalent to “and my
people are like their priests” (see v.9).
Such
conjectural emendation is needless as useless.
5 Therefore
shalt thou fall in the day, and the prophet also
shall fall
with thee in the night,” - The parallelism of this verse is marked by the
peculiarity of dividing
between the two members what belongs to the sentence
as one whole.
Instead of saying that the people would fall (literally, stumble)
in the day, and
the prophet with them in the night, the meaning of the sentence,
divested of its peculiar form of parallelism, is that people and prophet alike
would fall together,
at all times, both by day and by night, that
is to say, there
would be no time free from
the coming calamities; and there would be no
possibility of escape,
either for the sinful people or their unfaithful priests;
the darkness of the
night would not hide them, the light of the day would
not aid them; destruction was the doom of priests and people,
inevitable and
at all times – “and I will destroy thy mother.” Their mother was the
whole nation
as such — the
he said of the individual members that they were truly
their mother’s children —
RESEMBLING HER IN HER SIN AND JOINING HER SOON
IN SORROW.
Abarbanel, as quoted by Rosenmüller,
translates, “I have been like thy
mother,” and explains of the
people addressing priest and prophet as a
mother reproving her petulant
children in order to improve them. Besides
the far-fetched nature of such a
rendering, there is the formidable
grammatical objection that, in
the sense of “similitude,” this verb requires
to be constructed with le or
el. so that it should be le immeka or el
immeka. “This word, when derived from demuth,
likewise has el with
seghol after it; but without
el, it has the meaning of destroy,” is the
statement of Aben
Ezra. The Septuagint. assigning to the verb the sense of
“similarity,”
renders the phrase by πυκτὶ ὀμοίωσα τὴν μητέρα
σου –
nukti omoiosa taen
maetera sou - “I have compared thy mother to night.”
sense of “silence:” “I have made
thy mother silent in the night; that is,
“
overwhelming distress.” The Syriac likewise has: “And thy mother has
become silent” (if shathketh be read). The Chaldee,
though more
periphrastic, brings out nearly
the same sense: “I will overspread your
assembly with stupefaction.” To
the same purport is the exposition of
Rashi: “My people shall be stupefied as a man who sits and is
overwhelmed with stupor, so that no answer is heard from his mouth.”
The meaning “destroy” is well supported by the cognate Arabic, and
gives
a good sense; thus Gesenius renders: “I destroy
thy mother, that is, lay waste
thy country.”
Rather, the nation, collectively, is the mother; while the members
individually are the children. Nor shall private
persons escape in the public
catastrophe — root and
branch are to perish. Kimchi’s
comment on
דמיחי is: “I will cut off
the whole congregation, so that no congregation
shall remain in
theother there.”
The prophet is Jehovah’s mouth-piece, and as such he calls
on his fellowmen
to hear the word of the Lord; he thus speaks by commission and with
authority.
Having thus claimed an attentive hearing in his Master’s Name,
he denounces
this discharge of his duty the prophet has a twofold object
in view. By his
timely and truthful warning he
hopes to reclaim some, at least, of his
countrymen, and
in any case he means to leave all without excuse. God by
His ambassador displays in this way both His mercy and His
justice. His
mercy in that He speaks to them before He strikes them — He
warns them of
their danger while it is yet impending, and before they are
actually involved
in it; His justice — for He condescends to debate the
matter with His people,
and convince them of the reasonableness of His dealings,
that they may see
that He does not contend with them without cause, and that
when He is
forced to execute sentence for their sills, that sentence
has been well deserved.
religion begins with a saving
knowledge of God. This is the fountain-head;
moral duties are the salutary
streams that issue from it. Godliness is the
source of
uprightness; piety towards God produces propriety of conduct
in demeaning ourselves and in dealing with
others; where the right
knowledge of God is
absent, we need not expect truth or mercy among men.
(It is vain to expect mercy from
someone who will not do justice) On the
contrary, a profession of piety
without the performance of duty to our
fellows God will disown; without
truth and mercy religion is only a
pretence, a painful hypocrisy.
Religion, then, is the rich soil in which
virtue strikes root and its
growth is maintained.
regard to mercy and truth, Kimchi has well remarked that “no truth”
imports that there is “no one
doing the truth, and no one speaking the
truth;” while on the words “nor
mercy,” he adds, “How much [does it
follow thence] that there is no
mercy, for mercy is the superabundance of
goodness over and above what is
meet; and as to him who does not
maintain either truth or
justice, how much less will he show mercy?” The
combination of truth, mercy, and
knowledge of God may be compared
with the triple duties specified
by Micah, as doing justly, loving mercy, and
walking humbly with God (Micah
6:8); and with the apostolic triad of living
soberly, righteously, and godly in this present world (Titus 2:12). In
each
of these our duty to ourselves,
to our neighbor, and to our God is expressed;
so, too, in the verse before us.
While mercy mainly respects the duty we owe
our fellowman, and knowledge of God
our relation to Him, truth has to do
with a man himself as well as
with his neighbor. We are to be true to
conscience, seeking to have it
enlightened, striving to keep it clear, and
having the courage of our
convictions. We are to be true to ourselves, in
our strangely composite
personality; true to the soul by seeking its salvation,
for “what
shall it profit a man, should he gain the whole world, and lose
his own soul?” (Mark 8:36) - true to the body by preserving its purity,
maintaining its sobriety, and securing its health, that we may possess a
sound mind in a sound body. Of course, truth has large scope in our
intercourse with others. We are required to be
truthful in our utterances,
true to our promises, true in
all our
engagements, true and just in all our
dealings. The duty of mercy, in
a world
where sin has wrought such ruin
and caused such misery, is
obvious. As
sinful creatures, we need the mercy
of our Creator; as suffering, sorrowful
beings, we are strongly obligated to
the exercise of mercy towards each
other.
“The
quality of mercy is not strain’d:
It droppeth, as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon
the place beneath: it is twice bless’d;
It blesseth him that gives, and him that takes:
The
mightiest in the mightiest;…”
while
“In
the course of justice, none of us Should see salvation.”
(I would like to recommend a sermon by Adrian Rogers
with particular
emphasis on “Truth Fallen in the Street” of verse 14 –
it was entitled
“A Nation in Crisis” – program 2093 – which
aired on April 5, 2009 - I
recommend accessing this site (Bro. Rogers is
deceased) – at www.lwf.org
(lwf = Love Worth Finding) – Every American should ponder
this -
every person in the world could and should profit from
it – CY – Nov.
27, 2012)
duties of truth,
mercy, and the knowledge of God were omitted, the
grossest sins
succeeded and took their place. But we
must notice the
expression, “in the land;”
this appears to mean more than the general
prevalence of such through all
this country; it seems to hint at
ingratitude. God had given them
that good land, where God should have
had grateful worshippers and a
holy people. Kimchi makes the following
judicious comment on this
subject: “I have a controversy with them (the
inhabitants of the
they should exercise justice and
judgment; and herein I made a covenant
with them, that my eyes should
be upon it from the beginning of the year
even to the end of the year. But
since they acted in a way contrary to this
— perjuring, stealing, and
committing adultery — I also will act towards
them in a way contrary to what I
promised, and hide my face from them;
and the land shall mourn, and
all the dwellers in it shall languish.” The
sins
committed by
STATE OF
most enormous sins
committed; nor was this strange, when
there was no knowledge of God in the land;
and yet this very circumstance was the great aggravation both of their
omissions and commissions. It was the privilege
of the highly favored inhabitants
of that land to know God; as we read,
“In
His tabernacle, and His dwelling-place in
while both tables of the Law
were transgressed,
and fearfully transgressed,
the violations of the sixth commandment were
something shocking. This
black feature in
specially noticed by the Hebrew
expositors. Rashi says, “They multiply the
shedding of bloods until the blood of one slain man touches the blood of his
neighbor;” and Kimchi’s comment is, “The bloods of the slain touch one
another from abundance.”
Though we may not be able to fix with certainty
the period referred to, it
may with considerable probability be conjectured
that about this time the numerous and dreadful regicides occurred. Shallum slaying Zechariah; Menahem slaying Shallure; Pekah slaying Pekahiah; and Hoshea slaying Pekah; so that “the land was polluted with blood.” (And
don’t forget the slaying of the children in their sacrifices – a la – abortion
on demand – CY – 2012)
We have here at once an
expansion and illustration of the sentiment of the
Psalm 107:33-34), “He turneth… a fruitful land into barrenness, for the
wickedness of them that dwell therein.”
Man and beast, fish and fowl
alike,
are sufferers in consequence of
human sin. The whole creation groaneth
and suffereth together
in consequence of the creature having been
subjected to vanity (Romans
8:20-22). “When,” says Jerome, on this verse,
“the inhabitant
is removed, the beasts also, and fowls of heaven, and fishes
of the
sea shall fail; and even the dumb elements shall feel the wrath of God.”
Many actual illustrations of
this state of things, we doubt not, had taken
place in the history of
besides. When rain was long
delayed and drought ensued, the land
mourned and its inhabitants
languished. (I caught part of a TV
program
today from the
When people become so froward and perverse as to be beyond reproof, so
that God says of them, as He
does in effect of
them proceed and reproof cease,”
they are on the very verge of a fearful
precipice.
private person was permitted to
warn, if so disposed, or reason with his
neighbor; not even the priest,
God’s appointed minister, in those days
dared venture to do so, or if he
did it was labor lost. They stumble and fall,
teacher and
taught, prophet and people together.
As also both night and
day alike; by day, when danger
was least and the disgrace greatest; in the
night season, when darkness made
destruction inevitable. Worst of all, no
helper to be hoped for; or,
rather, the mother — she that might be
expected to hold up or lift up
her children — is herself doomed. That
mother, whether
mother of them all, was devoted
to the silence of destruction.
Two lessons of this passage are specially prominent:
Fathers were aware of this
truth when in Article 3 of the Northwest
Land Ordinance of 1787 they
said: “Religion, morality, and knowledge,
being necessary to good government and the happiness of
mankind,
schools and the means of education shall forever be
encouraged.” –
Oh, how far we have declined! - CY – 2012)
Wherever the right knowledge of
God is wanting, there sin and Satan are
sure to triumph. Ancient
both of political and
intellectual life and was herself resplendent with the
choicest triumphs of literature
and art; yet some of her wisest philosophers
countenanced the practice of
unmentionable vices. The sun never shone
upon a more brilliant company of
scholars, poets, philosophers, orators,
jurists, and litterateurs,
than that which adorned the court of Augustus, the
first emperor of
were plunging into depths of
moral degradation which ultimately led to the
ruin of the empire. On the other
hand, when the general overthrow of the
continental monarchs took place
in 1848, and the throne of
remained as stable as ever, M. Guizot said one day to Lord Shaftesbury,
“I
will tell you what saved your
empire. It was not your constable; it was not
your army; it was not your statesmen.
It was the deep, solemn, religious
atmosphere that still is
breathed over the whole people of
nations, knowledge of God and
acceptance of His salvation are necessary,
in order to the prevalence of that righteousness which is the source of
national
stability. And for each citizen in
like manner, “This is life eternal,
to know the only
true God, and Jesus Christ whom He hath sent.”
(John 17:3)
6 “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge:” Here the
verb is plural
and its subject singular, because, being collective, it
comprehends all the individual
members of the
nation. The word wmdk
is rendered by Jerome in the sense of
“silence:” “conticuit populus incus,” which he explains
to mean “sinking into eternal
silence.” So also the Chaldee. The Septuagint, understands it in the sense
of
“likeness:” “My people are like (ὡμοιώθη –
homoiothae - destroyed) as if they
had no knowledge.” Aben Ezra
disproves this sense as follows:
“This word, if it
were from the root signifying ‘likeness,’ would have after it el with seghol, as,
‘To [el with seghol]
whom art thou like in thy greatness?’
(Ezekiel 31:2); but
without the word el it has the meaning of ‘ cutting off.’” So Kimchi:
“Here also it
has the sense of ‘cutting
off.’” The article before “knowledge” implies renewed
mention and
refers to the word in v.1; or it may emphasize the word as that
knowledge by way of eminence, which surpasses all other
knowledge, and
without which no other knowledge can really prove a blessing in the
end.
THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOD IS THE MOST EXCELLENT OF ALL
SCIENCES. Paul counted all things but loss in comparison with its
possession (Philippians 3:8) and our blessed
Lord Himself
says, “This is life eternal,
that they might
know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou
hast sent” (John
17:3) while the Prophet Isaiah attributed the captivity to its
absence: “My people are gone
into captivity because they have no knowledge”
(Isaiah 5:13) – “because thou hast rejected knowledge,”
- The cause
of this ignorance is here charged on the unfaithfulness of
the priesthood.
They rejected knowledge and forgot the Law of their God. The two
concluding clauses of this verse may be regarded as “split
members” of a
single sentence. As rejection implies the presence of the
object rejected,
while forgetfulness implies its absence from the mind or
memory, some
have understood rejection of knowledge as the sin of the
priest, and
forgetfulness that of the people. This separation is not
necessary, for WHAT
MEN CONTINUE TO DESPISE FOR A TIME, THEY WILL BY
AND BY FORGET. (Reader, do not choke on this one, but, is this not
what
is happening in your day in
unscientific and by
despising it, ARE YOU NOT IN THE PROCESS
OF FORGETTING IT? –
CY – 2012) The
forgetfulness is thus an
advance upon rejection. The sin of these priests was very great, for, while
the priests’ lips were required to keep knowledge
(Malachi 2:7), they neither
preserved that knowledge themselves NOR PROMOTED IT AMONG
THE PEOPLE, hence the indignant and direct address. Thus Kimchi says:
“He addresses the priestly order that existed at that time: Thou hast
rejected the
knowledge for thyself (this reminds me of a very serious
charge of Jesus,
“Woe unto you lawyers!
for ye have taken away the key to knowledge:
ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering
in ye
hindered.” - Luke 11:52 – American Civil Liberty Union members and
sympathizers
– SIT UP AND LISTEN – CY – 2012) and to teach it
to the
people, consequently I will reject thee from being a priest
unto me. Since
thou dost not exercise the office of priest, which is to
teach the Law, I will
reject thee so that thou shalt
not be a priest in my house.” I will also reject
thee that thou shalt be no priest
to me: seeing thou hast forgotten
the law of God, I will also forget thy children (even
I).” The
punishment
resembles the offence; the human delinquency is
reflected in the Divine retaliation.
To make this the more pointed, the “thou on thy part
(attah)” at the head of the
sentence has its counterpart, or rather is
counterbalanced by the “even I” or
“I too (gam ani)” at its
close. The severity of the punishment is augmented by the
threat that, not only the then existing priests, but their
sons after them,
would be excluded from the honor of the priesthood. This
was touching
painfully the tenderest part. It
needs scarcely be observed that forgetfulness
is only spoken of God in a figurative sense, and after the
manner of men,
that being forgotten which
is no longer the object of attention or affection.
“The meaning of אשׁ,” says Kimchi, “is by way of
figure, like the man who
forgets something and does not take it to heart.” The
unusual form
אֶמְאָסְאָך
has been variously accounted for. The Massorites mark the
aleph before caph as redundant; it is omitted in several
manuscripts of
Kennicott and De Rossi, as also some of the early printed editions. Kimchi
confesses his ignorance of its use. Olshausen
treats it as a copyist’s error;
but Ewald “regards it as an Aram-seen pausal form.” Some take
the
reference to be to
than to the actual priesthood.
7 “As they
were increased,” - As they were increased; rather, multiplied.
Whether כְּרֻבָּם
be taken as infinitive with suffix and
prefix, or as a noun, it will
amount to the same. The reference is rather to the multitude of the
population than to
the greatness of their prosperity or the abundance of their
wealth. In the
latter sense it is understood by the Chaldee
paraphrase, but in the former
by the Syriac translator. So also
Kimchi, where he says, “As for Aaron the
priest their father, the Law of truth was in his mouth; but
now that his sons
have multiplied and spread abroad, they have sinned against
me and
forgotten my law; according as I did them good they did
evil.” He also
gives as the explanation of others, “As I increased them in
wealth and
riches, they sinned against me” - “so they sinned against me: therefore
will I change their glory into shame.” The “therefore” of the Authorized
Version is inserted unnecessarily. Both the Chaldee and Syriac render, “And
they changed their glory into shame;” as they took אָמִיר for the infinitive הָמִיר,
and
that in the sense of the preterite; or the infinitive
in the gerundival sense:
“changing their
glory into shame.” Kimchi
explains the meaning correctly:
“Therefore I made them heads over the people and expiators,
yet if they do not
observe my Law I will change their glory into shame; and the people will contemn
and despise them.”
(Dear Reader, if you are unsaved and when you come to
judgment, who will rise up and accuse you? Compare Jesus’ teaching in Matthew
12:41-42 – Besides the men of
the Queen of Sheba who inconvenienced herself and others,
by traveling far to
meet Solomon, will there not be a great number who rise up
and say “O Lord
of hosts, that judgest
righteously, that triest the reins and the heart,
let me see thy vengeance on them:” -
Jeremiah 11:20 – CY – 2012) Their
numbers multiplied with the multiplication of idols, and THE APOSTASY OF
THE PEOPLE KEPT PACE WITH BOTH and now as a fit
punishment
they are to be deprived of their priestly glory — their
dignity and splendor.
8 “They eat up the sin of my people,” - The word חַטַּאה
may be understood
In either of two senses; and the meaning of the verse will
correspond thereto.
It may either mean that these faithless priests lived upon
the sin of the
people, deriving their
livelihood and profit from the people’s idolatrous
practices (Does this sound familiar to the American Bar Association member-
ship?
to those who roam the halls of Congress? to those who sit on the bench
of the
or that they were delighted with their sin, approving
rather than
reproving them for the same. The other explanation understands the word
of sin offering, and is thus expressed by Kimchi: “They are only priests for
eating up the sin and trespass offering which the people
offer on account of
sins, not for teaching the Law or right way” - “and they
set their heart on
their iniquity.” To their iniquity
they lift up (each one) his soul. They set
their heart upon
and eagerly desire the continued
practice of sin on the
part of the people that they may
profit by the
sacrifices. Thus Kimchi
explains this clause in accordance with his exposition of
the former: “The priests
lift up every one his soul to the sin of the people,
saying, When will they sin, and
bring sin offering and trespass offering that we may eat?”
9 “And there shall be,
like people, like priest,” - As it had
fared with the
people who had sinned and had been punished, as is stated
in the third and fifth
verses; so shall it be with the priest or whole priestly
order. He has involved
himself in sin and punishment like the people, and that as the consequence
of his extreme unfaithfulness; whereas by faithful dealing
with the people
and discharge of his duty he might have delivered his own
soul, as stated
by Ezekiel 33:9, “Nevertheless,
if thou warn the wicked of his way to
turn from it; if
he do not turn from his way, he shall die in his iniquity; but
thou hast
delivered thy soul.” It is well explained
by Kimchi as follows:
“These two caphs of
likeness are by way of abbreviation, and the
explanation is — the
people are like the priest and the priest is like the
people. And the
meaning is that, as the people and the
priest are equal with
respect to sin, SO SHALL THE BE EQUAL IN RELATION TO
PUNISHMENT! - “and I will punish them for their ways, and
reward
them their doings.” The retribution here threatened includes the whole priestly
order, not people and
priest as one man, according to Pusey, who, however,
makes
the following
excellent comment on מעלליו: “The word rendered doings
signifies great doings when used of God, bold
doings on the part of man.
These bold presumptuous doings against the Law and will of
God, God
will bring back to the sinner’s bosom,” or rather, DOWN OVER-
WHELMINGLY UPON HIS HEAD.
The singular individualizes; so
both
Aben Ezra and Kimchi: “Upon every one of
them.”
It is doubtless sometimes the fact that the priest and the people never
become assimilated to each other at all. It was so, e.g., in the case of
Hosea; in that of Jeremiah; in that of the Lord Jesus Himself, during His
earthly ministry. But what the text expresses is simply an ordinary tendency
in connection with this sacred relationship. Let our thought be this, that the
obligation involved in the pastoral tie is a mutual one. If his Church
responsibilities should weigh heavily upon the minister’s heart, they should
also press
upon the conscience of each member. Both are
responsible for the
results of the tie.
It is, “like people, like priest.”
10 “for they shall eat,
and not have enough: they shall commit
whoredom, and shall not increase:” - This part of the verse states the
punishment to be inflicted and the reward to be received;
it is thus an
expansion of the closing clause of the preceding verse,
with an obvious
allusion to the sin specified in the eighth verse. To eat and not
be satisfied
may occur in
time of famine, or be the effect of disease or the consequence
of insatiable
craving. “Since,” says Kimchi,
“they eat in an unlawful
manner, their food shall
not be to them a blessing.” This was
one of the
punishments threatened for violation of the Law, as we read
in
Leviticus 26:26, “When
I have broken the staff of your bread, ten
women shall bake
your bread in one oven, and they shall deliver you your
bread again by
weight: and ye shall eat, and not be satisfied.” Further, the
multiplication of wives or concubines would not increase
their posterity;
Solomon long previously had been a notable exemplification of
this. “So in
their cohabitation with their women, since it is in a
whorish manner, they
shall not increase, for they shall not have children by
them; or, if they have,
they shall die from the birth.” The Hiph.
hiznu has rather the intensive
sense of Qal than that of causing
or encouraging whoredom – “because they
have left off to take heed to the Lord.” The
verbal lishmor either
The former has, “To observe His ways,
for they have no delight in Him and
in His ways; to observe His ways
they have left off;” the latter has, “They
have forsaken Jehovah, to
observe His way or His Laws.” But
connected the word with the
verse that comes after it; they have
forsaken the
Lord to observe whoredom and wine and new wine.”
Priestly Neglect and Its Consequences (vs.
6-10)
This section deals with the sin and punishment of the
priests, as the preceding
one had described the sin and punishment of the people. The
priests here referred
to were probably Levitical
priests still scattered through the northern kingdom,
since God speaks of them as His priests; while those which
Jeroboam appointed
out of other tribes than that of Levi, and from all, even
the lowest, ranks of society,
were rather priests for the worship of the calves.
here attributed to priestly negligence. They disliked and despised the
knowledge of God for themselves,
and consequently had no heart for
dispensing it to others. The
means available for knowing God they did not
take advantage of, and
accordingly their own ignorance unfitted them for
instructing the people. Idleness
combined with indifference in the ease of
these unfaithful ministers of
religion, so that they were neither rightly
instructed themselves nor capable of instructing others; while their
carelessness increased their
incapacity. It is incumbent on all public
teachers to be
diligent in their private studies; and
a fearful
responsibility is incurred by
those who, appointed to instruct others in
religious matters, refuse to
take the pains necessary to qualify them for
the efficient discharge of such
important duty. It is a grievous sin
for
ministers of
religion to serve God with what costs them nothing, and
so to feed God’s people with husks instead of the finest of the wheat.
How different is the picture our
Lord gives
us of one who is faithful to
such an important trust! “Therefore,” He says, “every scribe which is
instructed unto the kingdom of heaven is like
unto a man that is a
householder, which bringeth
forth out of his treasure things new and old.”
rejected Divine knowledge; God
rejects their priestly services. They had
forgotten the Law from disuse,
no doubt having previously forsaken it;
God threatens to forget them,
and, what was more galling, their children
after them, so that the
priesthood would be lost to them forever. Wunsche
and some others insist that it
is the people and not the priesthood that is
here addressed; that the whole
nation is addressed as a single person, and
that consequently the children
are the individual members of the nation.
Both priests and
people were guilty in this matter.
Both had shut their
Eyes upon the light, and the
light was at length withdrawn. Both had said,
“Depart from us:
we desire not the knowledge of thy ways”
(Job 21:14);
and God in turn had virtually
said to them, “Depart from me:
I know you
not”
(Luke 13:25). The priests, whose duty
was to teach the people
knowledge, had been unable or
unwilling to do so, and the people
remained in
ignorance; the people, who should have
received the Law
from the priests’ lips, are represented as striving with, and gainsaying,
their spiritual
instructors. The consequence was that they
destroyed
themselves, for the verb nidmu has here the proper reflexive sense
of the
Niphal; nor is it without knowledge, but because of the want of (mibb’li)
the necessary knowledge. The
punishment, if it be not a re-echo, yet
reminds us of I Samuel 15:26,
where Samuel says to Saul, “For thou hast
rejected the word of the Lord, and the Lord hath rejected thee from being
king over
grievous ingratitude; for just in proportion as,, they increased in numbers
and in wealth they multiplied transgression (Just like contemporary
Americans who think “it’s the economy stupid” – CY –
2012); just as
of
old when Jeshurun waxed fat, he kicked (Deuteronomy
32:15); Kimchi,
indeed, in mentioning the
exposition of those who regarded the increase as financial rather than
numerical, says, “Some interpret ‘according to their
increase’ as equivalent to as I
increased them in wealth and riches so they
sinned after the manner of ‘when
Jeshurun waxed fat he kicked.’” Their
either in number or riches — and
both we think, are included — ministered
to THE
SINS OF AN UNTHANKFUL PEOPLE and
afforded occasions
of trespassing yet more and more
against God. Justly, then, did God turn to
shame that which He had given
used for vain-glory. “He,” says Pusey,” not only gives them shame instead
of their
glory; He makes the glory itself the means and occasion of their
shame. (Oh, Lost Person –
consider yourself when God is revealed in glory
and you yourselves not a part of
it – compare Matthew 8:11-12; Luke 13:28) - THAT
WILL BE SHAME – CY – 2012)
Beauty becomes the occasion of degradation;
pride is proverbially near a fall; ‘vaulting ambition overleaps
itself and falls on the ‘other
side;’ riches and abundance of population tempt nations to wars which become
their destruction, or they invite other and
stronger nations to prey upon
them.” Jehoash’s reproof of Amaziah
and the
result, as recorded in II Kings
14:9-14, furnishes a good illustration of this subject.
interpretation be adopted, the
general sense here remains the same. The
priests pandered to the sins of
the people, and, lest they should lose their
influence with them, they
connived at and countenanced their sins when
they should have sharply
censured them. Or they encouraged sin that they
might share the sin offerings
presented in expiation. What was this in
either case but to live by and upon the sin of a people sinful and laden
with iniquity? Calvin, who makes the priests and people share the sin in
common, says, “There is a
collusion between the priests and the people.
How so? Because the priests were
the associates of robbers, and gladly
seized on what was brought; and
so they carried on no war, as they ought
to have done, with vices, but,
on the contrary, urged only the necessity of
sacrifices; and it was enough if
men brought things plentifully to the
temple. The people also
themselves showed their contempt for God;
for
they imagined that, provided
they made satisfaction by their ceremonial
performances, they would be
exempt from punishment. Thus, then, there
was an ungodly compact between
the priests and the people; the Lord was
mocked in the
midst of them.”
gone,” is a common proverb and a
very pithy one; so with these faithless
priests in their ministrations
for a sinful people. They said in effect, “The
more sin the more sacrifices,
and so the greater share of our profits;” but
there was no satisfaction in
such things and no success by our share of
profits;” but there was no
satisfaction in such things and no success by
them.
Ř
The pleasures of sin
are mostly sensual; they last only for a season —
a short one; and they
afford no real satisfaction and need to be
repeated for the effect. “What
profit,” asks the apostle, “had ye
then in those
things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end
of those things is
death.” (Romans 6:21)
Ř
The priests, instead
of reproving sin, did practically recommend it
by their own godless
conduct; and the people were well pleased to
have it so (Jeremiah
5:31). Alike in sin, however, they shall be
alike in suffering; they helped each other in sin, they must have
their share in punishment.
The priests abused their position by
neither practicing piety
themselves nor inculcating its practice on
others; the people, freed
from all restraint and having no fear of
God before their eyes,
sinned with a high hand. Both ran to an
excess of riot, and both
are to be punished with equal severity;
neither can reasonably
expect to be spared.
Ř
The root of the evil
was their leaving off to take heed to the Lord.
The word shamar, here rendered “to take heed to,” is
very expressive;
it means to have a sharp
eye upon, then to observe attentively. Applied
to a person, it signifies
to have the eye steadily set on his will, to meet
his wishes, to obey. Thus it is
said of one waiting on his master, as in Proverbs 27:18,“He that waiteth on his master shall be
honored;”
while in Psalm 123:2, we have a
good practical illustration of the observance indicated: “Behold, as the eyes of servants look unto the hand of
their masters, and as the eyes of a maiden unto the hand
of her mistress;
so our eyes wait upon the Lord our God, until
that He have
mercy upon us.”
11 “Whoredom
and wine and new wine take away the heart.”
It makes no great difference whether we regard this verse
as
concluding the foregoing or commencing a new paragraph,
though we
prefer the latter mode of connecting it. It states the debasing influence
which debauchery and drunkenness are known to exercise over both
HEAD AND HEART, they dull the faculties of the former and deaden the
affections of the latter. The heart is not only the seat of
the affections, as with us; it
comprises also the, intellect and hwill;
while the word יִקַּת
is not so much to
take away as to captivate the heart, Rashi
gives the former sense: “The
whoredom and
drunkenness to which they are devoted take away their
heart from me.” Kimchi’s explanation is
judicious: “The whoredom to
which they surrender themselves and the constant drunkenness
which they
practice take their heart, so
that they have no understanding to perceive
what is the way of goodness along which they should go.” He further
distinguishes the tirosh
from the yayin, remarking that the former
is the
new wine which takes the heart and suddenly intoxicates.
The prophet,
having had occasion to mention the sin of whoredom in v.10,
makes a
general statement about the consequences of that sin
combined with
drunkenness, as not only
debasing, BUT DEPRIVING MEN OF THE
RIGHT USE OF THEIR REASON, AND THE PROPER EXERCISE
OF THEIR AFFECTIONS. (One time in my teaching career, a young girl
gave an oral report on the effects of alcohol on human sexuality. She said
that “Alcohol increases the desire while hindering the performance.” – CY –
2012) The following verses afford abundant evidence of all this
in the insensate
conduct of
This verse contains the solemn statement of a great moral
truth respecting
all sin, and which is specially applicable to sins of
sensuality. Who can place
confidence in the moral judgments of an adulterer or a
fornicator? (Thus
the plight of our legislative branch of government and
often that of the
executive branch.
The Judicial Branch hands down decisions that in the
last half century has promoted whoredom, i.e. Roe v. Wade and other
anti-morality rulings – CY - 2012) How sad when such
men occupy
positions of influence in Church or state!
“Beware
of lust; it doth pollute and foul
Whom
God in baptism washed with His own blood:
It
blots thy lesson written in thy soul;
The
holy lines cannot be understood.
How
dare those eyes upon a Bible look,
Much
less towards God, whose lust is all their book!”
(George
Herbert.)
The first of the next three verses exhibits the private life of the people as depraved
by sin and folly; the second their public
life as degraded by idolatry and lewdness;
while the third points to the corresponding chastisement
and its cause.
12 “My people ask counsel
at their stocks (literally, wood), and
their staff
declareth unto them:” - Rashi explains “stocks,” or literally, “wood,” to
mean
“a graven image made out of wood;” while Aben Ezra prefaces his exposition of
this by an observation which serves well as a link
of connection between the
eleventh and twelfth verses. It is as follows: “The
sign that they are in reality without
heart, is that my people turn to ask counsel of its
stocks and wood.” Kimchi not
inaptly remarks, “They are like the blind man to whom his
staff points out
the way in which he should go.” The
stupidity of idolatry and the sin of
divination are here combined. By the “wood” is meant an idol carved out
of wood; while the staff may likewise have an image carved
at the top for
idolatrous purposes, or it may denote mode of divination by
a staff which
by the way it fell determined their course. Theophylact explains this
method of divination as follows: “They set up two
rods, and muttered some
verses and enchantments; and then the rods falling through
the influence of
demons, they considered how they fell, whether forward or
backward, to
the right or the left, and so gave answers to the foolish
people, using the
fall of the rods for signs.” Cyril, who attributes
the invention of
rabdomancy to the Chaldeans, gives the same
account of this method of
divination. Herodotus mentions a mode of divination
prevalent among the
Scythians by means of willow rods; and Tacitus
informs us that the
Germans divined by a rod cut from a fruit-bearing tree.
“They (the
Germans) cut a twig from a fruit tree, and divide it into
small pieces,
which, distinguished by certain marks, are thrown
promiscuously on a
white garment. Then the priest or ‘the canton, if the
occasion be public —
if private, the master of the family — after an invocation
of the gods, with
his eyes lifted up to heaven, thrice takes out each piece,
and as they come
up, interprets their signification according to the marks
fixed upon them.”
The sin and folly of any people consulting an idol of wood
about the
success or otherwise of an undertaking, or deciding whether
by a species of
teraphim or staff divination, is sufficiently obvious. But the
great
aggravation of
hinted by the possessive “my” attached to “people.” That a people like
distinguished by special tokens of Divine favor, and to whom
He had given
the ephod with the truly oracular Urim
and Thummim, should forsake Him
and the means He had given them of knowing His will, and turn
aside to
gods of wood, evinced at once stupidity unaccountable and sin
inexcusable.
“The prophet,” says Calvin, “calls here the Israelites the
people of God, not
to honor them, but rather to increase their sin; for the
more heinous was
the perfidy of the people, that, having been chosen, they
had afterwards
forsaken their heavenly Father.... Now this people, that
ought to be mine,
consult their own wood, and their staff answers them!” – “for
the spirit of
whoredoms hath caused them to err, and they have gone a-whoring
from under their God.”
In this part of the verse the
prophet attempts to
account for the extreme folly and heinous sin of
first clause. It was an evil spirit, some demoniac power,
that had inspired
them with an insuperable fondness for idolatry, which in
prophetic
language is spiritual
adultery. The consequence was a sad
departure from
the true God and a sinful wandering away from His worship,
notwithstanding His amazing condescension and love by which
He placed
Himself in the relation of a husband towards them.
13 “They sacrifice upon
the tops of the mountains, and burn
incense upon the hills, under oaks and poplars and elms, because
the
shadow thereof is good:”
- The prophet here enlarges on the
sin of idolatry
mentioned in the preceding verse, and explains fully HOW IT SHOWED
ITSELF IN THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE PEOPLE. Two places are
specified as scenes of idolatrous worship: one was the tops
of mountains and hills;
the other under every green tree, here specified as oaks,
poplars, and terebinths,
whether growing alone or in groves, in vale or upland. The
hills and
mountain-tops were selected on account of their elevation, as
though the
worshippers were thus brought nearer to the objects of
their adoration; the
green trees as affording shade from the scorching heat of
an Eastern sun,
secrecy for their licentious rites, and a sort of solemn
awe associated with
such shadow. In such scenes they not only slew victims, but
burnt odors in
honor of their idols. The resemblance to, if not imitation
of, the rites of
heathenism in all this is obvious. Among the Greeks the oak
was sacred to
Jupiter at
practiced their superstitions in the shadow of the oaks.
The poplar again
was sacred to Hercules, affording a most grateful shade;
while in
Ezekiel 6:13 we read that “under every thick terebinth” was one of
the
places where “they
did offer sweet savor to their idols.” The inveterate
custom of these idolaters is implied in the Piel or iterative form of the verb;
the singular of the nouns, under oak and poplar and terebinth, intimates
that scene after scene of
each exciting his deep indignation; the mention of the goodly shadow
seems designed to heighten that feeling of just
indignation, as though it
came into competition or comparison with “THE SHADOW OF THE
ALMIGHTY,” the abiding-place of him that “dwelleth
in the secret
place of the Most
High.” – “therefore your daughters
shall commit
whoredom, and your spouses (properly, daughters-in-law) shall commit
adultery. hL;K" primarily
signifies “bride,” but for the parents of the bridegroom,
“daughter-in-law,” its secondary sense. The bad example of the parents
acts upon their children and reacts upon themselves; on
their children in
causing bad conduct, on themselves by way of
chastisements. The parents
had been guilty of spiritual whoredom by their idolatry; their daughters
and daughters-in-law would commit whoredom in THE LITERAL
AND
CARNAL SENSE! This would wound the parents’ feelings to the quick and
pain them in the tenderest part. Their personal honor would be compromised by
such scandalous conduct on the part of their daughters; their
family honor
would be wounded and the
fair fame (and name) of
posterity TARNISHED
BY SUCH GROSS MISCONDUCT
on the part of the daughters-in-law.
The following observations are made on the last member of this thirteenth
verse by
The Hebrew commentators: “Because the men of the house go out of the
city
to the high
mountains and under every green tree there to serve idols,
therefore their
daughters and daughters-in-law have opportunity to commit
whoredom and
adultery” (Kimchi).
To like purpose Aben Ezra writes:
“The sense is — On the bare mountains and so on the hills
they sacrifice;
they say to the priests of Baal that they shall sacrifice;
and therefore,
because the men go out of the cities in order to burn
incense, the daughters
and daughters-in-law remain in the houses behind, therefore
they commit
whoredom.” Somewhat different is the explanation of Rashi: “Because ye
associate for idolatry
after the manner of the heathen, and the heathen
associate with you, and ye form affinities with them, your
daughters also
who are born to you by the daughters of the heathen conduct
themselves
after the manner of their mothers, and commit whoredom.”
14 “I will not punish your
daughters when they commit whoredom,
nor your spouses when they commit adultery:” - The
spiritual
adultery of parents and husbands would be punished by the carnal adultery
of daughters and wives; SIN
WOULD THUS BE PUNISHED BY SIN!
Their own dishonor and disgrace, through the unfaithfulness
of persons
so near to them, would impress them with a sense of the DISHONOR
DONE TO GOD, the spiritual Husband of His people; their feeling of pain
and shame in consequence would convey to them a clearer notion of the
abhorrence which their offences had occasioned to God. But their punishment
would become more severe, and their pain intensified by the Divine refusal
to avenge them by punishing the lewdness that caused such
dishonor.
(It took me a long time in my life before I understood
homosexuality as a
Judgment from God! “For this cause God gave them up unto vile
affections:
for even their
women did change the natural use into that which is against
nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the
natural use of the woman,
burned in their lust one toward another; men with men
working that
which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of
their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God
in their
knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those
things which are not convenient;” – Romans
1:26-28 – CY – 2012) While
punishment would prevent the sin and consequent reproach,
impunity, or
the postponement of punishment, would leave the offenders
to go on in
their course of sin and shame. Aben
Ezra comments on this fourteenth
verse as follows: “The sense is — It is not to be wondered
at if the
daughters commit whoredom; for they themselves, when they
go up to the
tops of the mountains to burn incense, eat and drink with
harlots and
commit whoredom — all of them. And, behold, the sense is,
not that he
shall not punish them at all, but He speaks in regard to, i.e.
in comparison
with, the fathers; for
they teach them to commit whoredom doing
according to their works. Perhaps the daughters are still little, therefore I
shall not punish.” Rashi thinks
that this threatening refers to the disuse of
the bitter waters of jealousy, so that suspected guilt
could not be detected.
But there is nothing to intimate such a reference; nor
would it be in
keeping with the scope of the passage. Again, some, as in
the margin of the
Authorized Version, read the words, not indicatively, but
interrogatively —
“Shall I not punish,” etc.? This would require such a
meaning to be read
into the passage as the following: “Assuredly I shall
punish them; and not
the daughters and daughters-in-law only, but the parents
and husbands still
more severely, because of their greater criminality.” Equally
unsatisfactory
is
the explanation of Theodoret, who, taking פָקַד
in a good sense, which it
has with the accusative, understands it of God’s refusing
any protection or
preservation of their daughters and spouses from outrage at
the hands of a
hostile soldiery, so that such sins as they themselves had
been guilty in
private, would be committed with the females of their
family in public – “for
they themselves are separated with whores, and they
sacrifice with
harlots:” - The change
of person appears to imply that God turns away with
inexpressible
disgust from such vileness, and, turning aside to a third party,
explains the
grounds of His procedure. The Qedesheth were females who
devoted themselves to licentiousness in the service of Ashtaroth, the
Sidonian Venus. Persons of this description were attached to idol
temples
and idolatrous worship in heathen lands in ancient times,
as in
present time. The ‘Speaker’s Commentary’ calls them
“devotee-harlots,”
and cites an allusion to the custom from the Moabite Stone,
as follows: “I
did not kill the women and maidens, for I devoted them to Ashtarkemosh.”
After stating the humiliating fact that fathers and husbands in
Israel, instead of uniting with their wives in the
worship of Jehovah,
separated themselves,
going aside with these female idolaters for
the
purpose of lewdness, and shared in their sacrificial feasts, the prophet, or
rather God by the prophet, impatient of the recital of such
shameless
licentiousness, and
indignant at such presumptuous sinning, closes abruptly
with the declaration
of the recklessness, and denunciation of the ruin of all
such offenders, in
the words — “the people that doth not
understand
shall fall.” - margin, be punished;
rather, dashed to the ground, or plunge
into ruin (nilbat). Both Aben Ezra
and Kimchi give from the Arabic, as an
alternative sense of silbat,
to FALL INTO ERROR!
Faults in the Life Breed Errors in the Brain
and
Errors in the Brain Produce Faults in the Life (vs. 11-14)
Thus it was with
degree, had:
o
darkened the
understanding,
o
hardened the heart,
o
paralyzed the will,
and
o
seared the conscience.
In this ENFEEBLED STATE of their intellectual and
moral powers, they had
recourse, in cases of doubt or difficulty, not to the high
priest, or prophets of God,
or Divine Word, for guidance and direction, but to their
images of wood or
idolatrous divining staff.
often the culprit endeavors to
conceal his guilt by lying, and thus adds one
sin to another! Lewdness and intemperance, as
here intimated, frequently
go hand in hand.
Since, then, sins are so linked to each other, our safety as
well as our duty is to resist the
very beginning and budding of evil in the
soul. Every time sin is indulged the power of resistance is
weakened, until
men become the prey of the evil
one, and, after a few weak wrestlings of
the spirit against the flesh, the heart
is easily taken captive (II Timothy
2:26). An effectual way of avoiding vice or any
vicious course is to
practice the
opposite virtues. This is vastly more
than forming a theory
of virtue in one’s thoughts;
for, as
of habits passive impressions,
by being repeated, grow weaker,” but
“practical habits are formed and
strengthened by repeated acts.”
traced to a spirit of whoredoms. The ruach, or spirit, in
this passage
somewhat resembles the
personification of Ate by the Greeks, which in
Homer denotes the infatuation or
spirit of error that prompts to crime, then
the crime committed, and also
the punishment that overtakes crime. In the
allegoric representation of Ate
by Homer she has different and apparently
contradictory attributes: as
infatuation, taking possession of the mind; and
blinding its faculties through passion. She has tender feet, does not tread
on the ground, but moves gently
and noiselessly over men’s heads,
surprising them in their
unguarded moments, to their unspeakable injury.
Again, in the commission of
crime her gait is marked by strength of body
and firmness of step and strong
excitement, while in the punishment of
crime the retribution is sudden,
powerful, and certain. In these two
capacities, that that is to say,
the perpetration of crime and its punishment,
she is vigorous and firm of
step. To the spirit of whoredom as an evil spirit
of infatuation, like this Greek
Ate, bewilderingly misleading men to the
perpetration of evil and making
them obnoxious to punishment, the
prophet traces
divination on the one hand, and their sin in departing from God, the
loving Husband
and rightful Head of his people, on the other. Thus the
spirit of whoredoms may be compared with similar Scripture expressions,
such as a spirit of jealousy,
a lying spirit, an unclean spirit; or it may denote
the vehement spirit with which men, bent on idolatry and
adultery —
adultery both in the
spiritual and carnal sense — were hurried along; while
the
faithlessness of the adulteress fitly represents the spiritual infidelity
of
fancied that they were
worshipping God on the high hills and under the
tall trees; but this was
ignorant will-worship, or worse. God had appointed
incense to be offered there, and
NOWHERE ELSE!
Ř
The multiplication of
altars and memorials elsewhere, however
praiseworthy
Divine command; and so God
regarded it, for “behold, to obey
is
better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the
fat of rams?
(I Samuel 15:22)
Will-worship may have a show of wisdom
in it,
and may be well meaning,
yet it is will-worship all the same. If
we will worship God
acceptably, then it must be in the place He
has appointed and in the
manner He has Himself prescribed.
Mountains have often been
associated with sacred service and
sacred scenes. Thus the sacrifice of
Isaac was to be on a mountain
(Genesis 22); the giving of the Law was on a mountain
(Exodus 19);
the temple was erected on a
mountain (I Kings 8); the transfiguration,
the crucifixion, and the
ascension, were each on a mountain (Matthew
17; Luke 23; Acts 1). But
mountains became scenes of idolatry and
sin, and therefore God,
when He forbade such worship, forbade the
scenes thereof.
Ř
their sacrifices, for it is the
intensive form of the verb that is used — yezabbeehu
(Piel), not yizbechu
(Qal); it distinguished their burning
of incense, for again it is
first yeqatteru, not yaqteru.
“The words
express,” says Pusey, “that this which God
forbade they did
diligently; they sacrificed much
and diligently; they burned incense
much and diligently.”
Nor was this all. They performed with equal diligence both the important parts
of the service — the sacrifice and
the burning of incense.
Ř
The blood of the
sacrifice signified atonement; the pleasant smell
of the incense typified service
acceptably offered. “Incense, being fragrant, represented that which is
pleasing, and which has in it acceptability; and when offered along with
prayer, praise, or any
feeling of the soul, exhibited a
type of the merits of the Surety
enveloping His people’s
services.”
Never did the great poet of
human nature give expression to a truer
sentiment than that —
“The
gods are just, and of our pleasant vices
Make
instruments to scourge us.”
This was eminently the case with
Spurgeon Sermon- How a Man’s
Conduct Comes Home to Him – this web
site – CY - 2012)
They had committed spiritual adultery, renouncing their subjection to
Him by violation of the marriage covenant, and thereby
forfeiting that protection
secured to them by the conditions of that covenant. “They,” says an old
writer,” who commit idolatry, and follow false religions,
and so do renounce subjection to
God, and
put themselves from under His directions, do also put themselves from under His
protection; for in both
these respects it is true that
They prostituted themselves to
idols, and withdrew from under God’s
authority, casting off the
obedience they owed Him and the reverence
which was His due. Nay, more,
fathers of families and husbands at the
head of households were not only
guilty of spiritual whoredom or idolatry;
they were guilty of carnal
whoredom with those vile priestesses to
abominable idols and prostitutes
to the worshippers — devotee-harlots
who had
consecrated themselves to a life of sin,
as though such
shameful desecration of
themselves were consecration to Divine service.
Now they are in turn disgraced
and distressed by the whoredom of
their daughters and the adultery
of their wives; nor are they allowed to
comfort themselves by the hope
of a speedy cessation of such corruption,
for, unchecked by chastisement, the licentiousness continues,
PROSPERITY IN SIN
TEMPTING TO PERSERVERANCE. “So,”
says Pusey,
“through their own disgrace and bitter griefs, in the persons
of those whose
honor they most cherished, they should learn how
ill they themselves had done, in departing from Him who is the Father and
Husband OF EVERY SOUL! The sins of the fathers descend very often
to the children, both in the way of nature, that the children inherit strong temptations
to their parents’ sin, and by way of
example, that THEY
GREEDILY IMITATE,
and often EXAGGERATE THEM!
In the next section, vs. 15-17, the prophet, as if despairing of any
improvement or amendment on the part of
spiritual whoredom, addresses AN
EARNEST WARNING TO
15 “Though thou,
proximity to those idolatries and debaucheries so prevalent
in this northern
kingdom, and from the corruption at least of the court in
the southern kingdom
during the
reigns of Joram, Ahaziah, and Ahaz,
DANGER and hence the
prophet turned aside, with words of earnest warning,
to the sister kingdom not to involve herself in the same or
similar guilt. Rashi’s
brief comment here is, “Let not
the children of
“and come not ye unto Gilgal,
neither go ye up to Bethaven, nor swear,
The Lord liveth.” - From a
solemn warning in general terms, He proceeds to a
specific prohibition. The prohibition forbids pilgrimages
to places of idol-worship,
such as Gilgal and Bethaven; it also forbids a profession of
Jehovah-worship to be
made by persons inclined to idolatrous practices. Gilgal, now the
which had been a school of the prophets in the days
of Elijah and Elisha, had, as
we may rightly infer from passages in Hoses and
Amos, become a seat of idolatrous
worship. The Hebrew interpreters confound the Gilgal here referred to
with the still more renowned Gilgal
between
Joshua circumcised the people a second time, and celebrated
the Passover,
and where, manna failing, the people ate of the old corn of
the land. “And
why,” asks Kimchi, “to Gilgal? Because at Gilgal the
sanctuary was at the
first when they entered the land; therefore when they went
to worship idols
they built high places there for the idols. But with respect to the tribe of
sanctuary which is in their own cities?” And Beth-el, now Beitin,
had
become Beth-aven — the house of
God a house of idols, after Jeroboam
had set up the calf there.
purity of worship;
also a practice hypocritical in its nature and highly
dangerous in its tendency, namely, confessing Jehovah with
the lips, and by
a solemn act of attestation indicative of adherence to His
worship, but
belying that confession by complicity in idolatrous
practices, like the
peoples who “worshipped
Jehovah, but served their own gods”
(II Kings 17:33). Kimchi observes as follows: “For ye engage in strange
worship, and yet swear by the Name of Jehovah; this is the
way of incensing
and despising Him.”
16 “For
Lord will feed them s, a lamb in a large place.” This verse conveys the
reason of the warning
contained in the preceding; and that reason is
the
punishment which is to overtake
refractoriness. If this view
of the connection be correct, it will help to the
right understanding of a difficult passage. The
“backsliding,” according to
the Authorized Version, is rather “stubbornness,”
“intractableness,” or
“unmanageableness.” Keil renders it “refractory.” This refractoriness was
became refractory, like an unmanageable heifer, which rebels upon being
trained. Aben Ezra explains סֹרֵרָה
(which, by the way, has tsere beforethe tone syllable) as follows: “סי
is he who turns aside from the way that isappointed him, so that he does not walk in it. And, behold,
he compares
to a stubborn cow, with which a man cannot plough.” So also
Kfinchi: “Like a
heifer which goes on a crooked way, and curves itself from
under the yoke, that
a man cannot plough with it; so
have taken upon them the yoke of the Law and of the
commandments
which He commanded them, and curve themselves under the
yoke, and
break from off them the yoke of the commandments.”
against instruction, waxed stubborn and intractable. They would have their
own way, and worshipped according to their own will, in
indulging all the
while with a high hand IN
VILEST LUSTS. Now the season of
punishment
is arrived; and as they refused instruction and rebelled
against Divine guidance,
God, in just judgment and deserved punishment, LEAVES THEM UNTO
THEMSELVES. Carried into captivity,
they may worship what they will,
and live as they list. IN THESE
CIRCUMSTANCES THEY WILL
RESEMBLE A LAMB TAKEN AWAY INTO A WILDERNESS AND
LEFT THERE TO RANGE THE WILD AND LIVE AT LARGE, BUT
WITHOUT PROVISION AND WITHOUT PROTECTION. Untended
by the shepherd’s watchful care, unguarded from ravening
wolves or
other beasts of prey, THAT
LAMB IS IN A LOST AND PERISHING
CONDITION! (Is
that not the condition that the
Christian Nation, the New Testament equivalent of
So shall it be with
17 “Ephraim is joined to
idols: let him alone.” Ephraim
being the
dominant tribe, gave its name to the northern kingdom. The
idols were
Ephraim’s folly, and to that they were wedded; and in consequence they
are left to their folly, and at the same time surrendered to their fate. They
may persist in their folly; they cannot be prevented. “Give him rest,” as the
words literally mean:
He will:
·
persist in his
folly,
·
prepare for his
fate, and
·
PERISH IN HIS SIN.
(This abandonment was not without precedent: see Genesis 6:3 – nor is it
to be the last! Is not God in the process of withdrawing His Holy Spirit from
the world which will set up the scenario found in II Thessalonians 2:7-12? –
CY –
2012) This
abandonment of Ephraim proves the desperate
nature of his case. Left to
his own recklessness, HE IS RUSHING
TOWARD RUIN!
lest by interference he might get implicated in the sin and
involved in the
punishment of Ephraim.
The Hebrew commentators express the
word
rendered “joined to” in the Authorized Version by words
importing “yoked to,”
“allied with,” and “cleaving to.” Again, הַנַה, imperative of הֵנִחַ, is explained by
them as follows: — Rashi: “Leave off, O prophet, and prophesy not to reprove
him, for it is of no use.” Aben Ezra: “Let him alone till
God shall chastise
him;
perhaps his eyes shall then open.” Kimchi: “Jehovah
says to the prophet,
Cease to reprove him, for it is of no use .... As a man who
is angry with his fellow,
because he will not hearken to him when he reproves him,
and says, Since thou
hearkenest not to me, I will cease for
ever to reprove thee.”
18 “Their drink is sour (margin, is gone): they have committed whoredom
continually:” – This verse gives a picture of the degeneracy of the
times. If the
first clause be taken literally:
vice the people of the northern
kingdom, as is well known, were addicted:
the wine, from oft-repeated
potations, became sour in the stomach and
produced loathsome eructations.
as in the margin, explain the
meaning to be that “when their intoxication is
gone they commit whoredom.” But
though drunkenness and debauchery
frequently go together, it is
rather during the former than afterwards that
the latter is indulged in.
either literally or
figuratively, or both. Thus the sense is the degeneracy of
principle among the people in
general, or rather among the principal men of
that day. By the finest wine
becoming vapid, the prophet represents THE
LEADING MEN OF
THE NATION, ON WHOM SO MUCH
DEPENDED AND
FROM WHOM SO MUCH MIGHT BE
EXPECTED, AS
BECOMING UNPRINCIPLED, AND AS
BEING ADDICTED TO
IMMORALITY OR IDOLATRY,
OR PROBABLY BOTH - (hazneh hiznu): “whoring they
have committed whoredom.” (Does this paragraph not only call
to memory, leadership in the
House, Senate and the White House
[living and deceased; openly gay, reputedly and known drunkards,
the known sexually
promiscuous] in
a warning. How does the
general populace get into position, or should
I say condition, to elect such
to represent and lead them? – Because
as Psalm 47:9 reveals that
leaders are to be shields for the people, GOD
GETS INVOLVED BECAUSE OF THEIR NEGLIGENCE - CY –
2012)
“her rulers (margin, shields)
with shame do love, Give ye.” - or rather,
her shields love, love
shame. The first takes הֵביּ for הָבוּ, as imperative of יָהַב,
to give, and should rather be, “Her shields love, ‘ Give ye
— shame, as there is no
preposition before the word “shame;” even thus it is awkward. Most modern
expositors take הֵבוּ as a contraction of אָהֵב ו, and so a repetition of part of the
full verb preceding; thus: אָחְבוּ הֵבוּ, equivalent to “loved, loved.” Ewald,
Delitzsch,
and Pusey understand it so; the
latter says this “is probably one of the earliest forms of
the intensive verb, repeating a part of the verb itself
with its inflection.”
And Keil calls it “a construction
resembling the pealal form.” Among the
sebirin, or conjectural readings, we find both words united into
one; thus:
אֲהַבהֵבוּ, equivalent to “mightily love.” The shields are the princes, or
natural protectors of the state, as in Psalm 47:9, “The princes of the
people are
gathered together.., for the shields of the earth belong unto
God.” The shame they loved was the sin which is a shame to
either princes
or people, causes shame,
and ends in shame. Isaiah expounds the
thought
(in Isaiah 1:23), a comparison of
which confirms the above exposition.
The last verse predicts the destruction that would ensue.
19 “The wind hath bound
her up in her wings,” - or, she hath bound up the
wind with her in her skirts. In the one case the
wind is the strong storm-wind of
Divine wrath that will seize on Ephraim, wrap her up with
its wings, and carry her
away. (For this ability of God, consider the effects of
Hurricanes Katrina and Sandy –
CY – 2012). In the
other case, Ephraim wraps up the wind, that is, disappointment,
the result of her sin, in the fold of her skirt.
storm takes her in its wings, as
that bird which the wind does not let rest
until it makes him go far away;
so the enemies will come upon them and
carry them into exile.”
“As the man who binds the
wind in the folds of his robe without finding
anything therein.”
“and they shall be ashamed because of their
sacrifices.” Frustrated in her
hopes, and disappointed by the idols, from which she hoped
so much and
got so little, she is ashamed of the sacrifices she offered
them; not of the
altars (Septuagint), for the preposition
min is indispensable.
A Passing Word of Warning is Addressed to
The prophet pauses in his dark catalogue of
turning aside, speaks a word of warning to
southern kingdom might be deterred from the crimes and awed
by the
calamities of their northern neighbors. In the large heart and catholic spirit
of the prophet both Judahite and
Israelite found a place; he had a message
from God for both.
had hitherto maintained
their superiority to
and moral conduct; but their proximity to
such neighbors was fraught with
PERIL! Evil communications
exercise a fearful potency in corrupting
good manners (I Corinthians
15:33); sensual indulgences, especially in the
guise and under the name of
religion, present strong inducements; scenes
of sin have not infrequently a
fatal glamour about them. If
steer clear of the rocks on which
the faith of
must keep aloof from such places
of peril and scenes of dissipation as Gilgal
and Beth-avon.
Wantonness and crime had proved disastrous to
therefore let
in their prayers and in their
efforts to avoid temptation, they must keep away
from those places
and those persons that would tend to lead them into temptation. Hypocritical profession with irreligious practice was both
detrimental and dangerous. After this friendly warning to Judah, Hosea
resumes his complaint aboutIsrael.
SINS.
started backward or turned sideward
instead of drawing forward. They
declined God’s service, and
determined to have full liberty and license.
They got their desire, but it
was given them in judgment. The limits of the
law and its straitness
provoked their resistance; now they will be
permitted
to wander forth as
captives through the wide wilderness of the East, or as
exiles with all the
world before them. They had been
strong and stubborn
as a headstrong, unmanageable
heifer; now they are to become solitary as a
lamb shut out from its flock or
separated from its dam, and in a state as
helpless as that same weak
creature when exposed to savage beasts of
prey, and left alone amid the wasteness of a wilderness. Ephraim, turning
away her affections from her
Maker as her Husband, got attached to idols,
and clave fast to them; and so
they are given up to their own hearts’ lusts.
They don’t wish to part with
their beloved idols, or to be parted from
them; nor shall they. They are incorrigible, and God gives them up as
beyond reproof and without hope
— absolutely desperate. They wished to
be left to themselves and their
own ways, and so they are; not even
is to interfere with them. They are to be let go on without check from
conscience, or reproof from
prophet, or warning from the Divine Word, or
any interference by
to be let alone in sin: for God
to say concerning a sinner,” HE IS JOINED
TO IDOLS, the world and the
flesh; he is incurably proud, covetous, or
profane, an incurable drunkard
or adulterer, — LET HIM ALONE;
conscience, let him alone;
minister, let him alone; providences, let him alone.
Let nothing awaken him till the
flames of hell do it. The father corrects not
the rebellious son any more when
he determines to disinherit him. “Those
that are not disturbed in their
sin will be destroyed for their sin.”
Ř
Persistence in evil. Idolaters are so attached to their idol-gods that
they will not give them up,
however hideous those idols or however
vile those gods may be.
o
The people of
says, “They hold fast
deceit” (Jeremiah 8:5); they are even as
loath to change as to give
up their idols. “Hath a nation changed
their gods, which are yet no gods?” (Ibid. ch. 2:11) The word in
the original is the same as
that used in Genesis 14. of the kings
who came together as confederates
unto the
The word is also used of fascination,
by binding magical knots;
and never was magical knot
tighter or fascination stronger than
that of an easily besetting sin
over its victim. Men have been
found to sacrifice their best
and dearest interests for the sake of
some low lust, some evil
propensity, or some sinful habit.
o
A great disproportion.
“But,” says an old writer, “will idolaters
thus adhere to their idols?
will their hearts be united to them? are
they willing to be one
spirit with them? Oh, how much more
should we be joined to the Lord our God, to Jesus Christ, the
Savior, and to the Holy Spirit the Sanctifier,
the glorious
triune Jehovah, to be as one spirit with Him! That exhortation
of Barnabas (Acts 11:23),
that with full
‘purpose of heart they
should cleave unto the Lord,’ is seasonable at all times.”
Ř
Divine desertion. This was implied in the injunction to whomsoever
it was addressed.
o
If addressed to
srael, though their countrymen and brethren — to have nothing
more to do with them, to leave them to themselves, to let them alone. Few
things are worse to bear than spiritual isolation. When the saints withdraw
from a man because of the stubbornness of his rebellion against God, and his
incorrigible willfulness in the pursuit of sin,
it is a heavy judgment from God; it is equal
in bitterness to the
curse pronounced on the man who loveth not the Lord Jesus Christ, and of whom it is said, “Let
him be Anathema-Maranatha”
(I Corinthians 16:22). As if it were said, “Let a curse rest on the
devoted head of such a one; let him be left to himself, deserted by
the saints and the
Lord will deal with him.”
o
If the injunction is
addressed to the prophet, it means that he is to
take no further trouble
with Ephraim, and cast no more pearls
before swine (Matthew 7:6); that
he is to cease his ministry in that direction, and shake the very dust off his
feet as a testimony
against such wayward rebels
(Ibid. ch. 10:14). So when ministers
have exhausted all their powers
of persuasion, and all the varied resources of admonition, warning, entreaty,
remonstrance with
stout-hearted, refractory
sinners, a time comes when they must
just let them
alone, LEAVING
THEM TO BE DEALT WITH
BY THE MASTER AT HIS
COMING.
o
But, worst of all, God
Himself lets them alone; and when He does
so, it is a token of their
rejection. A father has used all legitimate means to reclaim his profligate,
prodigal, or rebellious son; and
when all has proved in vain, he
is forced to say, “I have done with him; I disown him; I will have nothing more
to do with him; I will leave him to himself, and let him alone.” So God lets men alone
when He gives them
over to themselves, leaving them to their
own devices, to
their lusts, to their evil ways, to their doings that
are not good. “They would none of me,”
saith God, “so I gave
them up to their own counsels” (Psalm 81:11-12).
The Spirit of
the living God has striven
with that man to turn him away from
his injustice, or
profanity, or drunkenness, or impurity, or
hypocrisy; but he has resisted
the Spirit, stifled the voice of conscience, and gone on in his way of
wickedness, till God,
long-suffering though He be, and
full of infinite loving-kindness,
says at last, “My Spirit shall not always strive. Let him that is
filthy be filthy
still; let him that is unjust be unjust still.”
(Genesis 6:3; Revelation 22:11)
o
Consider the dreadful
import of this brief sentence — “Let him
alone.” It is as if God said, “Let him alone — he is rushing on
ruin; let no barrier interpose to stop
him; let him take his own
way. Hitherto, and for
long, he has
been checked by the
restraints of
when a man is at ease, in
safety, or among his friends, to let
him alone; but when he is
rushing into the sweltering tide of
ocean, or into the blazing
fire of a widespread conflagration,
or in among most deadly
enemies, to let him alone is to consign
him to destruction. It is
not necessary that God should send His
power to overwhelm us, in
His justice to condemn us, or His
wrath to consume us; He has
only to let us alone, and
our destruction is
inevitable. When He let Adam alone, leaving
him to himself, he undid himself
and his posterity; when he let Hezekiah alone, what misery that good king
brought upon
himself and his subjects! (II Kings 20)
o We must refuse to partake of other men’s sins, if we would not
share their punishment. One cannot touch pitch without being
defiled.
o We must beware of the “large place” outside of the Lord’s fold.
The broad way leads to destruction. Men of firm Christian
principle are sometimes called “narrow;” but we must dare to
be as narrow as the straight line of God’s righteousness (Matthew
7:13-14), and at no time depart from the leading of the good
Shepherd.
o
Let the fear of this
terrible Lord God awe us! Beware of
committing willful sin,
lest God should say, “Let him alone.”
Dread of being thus let
alone is a sure sign that God has
not let us alone, and safe
way of keeping us from being let
alone. May the good Lord preserve us from such a fearful
fate!
Terms for Thougtht
The Connection Between Religion and Morality
The Connection Between National Sin and National Suffering
God’s Lawsuit Spiritual
Insensibility
Religious Ignorance Feeding
on Sin
"Excerpted text Copyright AGES Library, LLC. All rights reserved.
Materials are reproduced by
permission."
This material can be found at:
http://www.adultbibleclass.com
If this exposition is helpful, please share
with others.