---
title: "Commentary on Hosea"
author: "John Calvin"
translator: "John Owen"
languages: [en]
shelf: "Commentaries"
section: 35 of 86
url: https://scriptura.si/works/john-calvin-commentary-on-hosea/35/
cite: "John Calvin, tr. John Owen, Commentary on Hosea, section 35. Scriptura (scriptura.si), https://scriptura.si/works/john-calvin-commentary-on-hosea/35/"
---

# Commentary on Hosea

*John Calvin, tr. John Owen*

Calvin on Hosea, the prophet of a faithful God and an unfaithful people.

## 35. Hosea 6:6-7

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/john-calvin-commentary-on-hosea/35/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/john-calvin-commentary-on-hosea/35/#p-N

[¶0] Hosea 6:6-7 6. For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings. 6. Quia misericordiam volo (vel, quia humanitas placet mihi) et non sacrificuim; et cognitio Dei (placet mihi, subaudiendum est) prae holocaustis. 7. But they like men have transgressed the covenant: there have they dealt treacherously against me. 7. Et ipsi tanquam homines ransgressi sunt pactum; illic perfide egerunt in me (vel, Tanquam hominis pactum transgressi sunt, ut postea videbimus.)

[¶1] God in this place declares that he desires mercy, and not sacrifices; and he does so to prevent an objections and to anticipate all frivolous pretenses. There is never wanting to hypocrites, we well know, a cover for themselves; and so great is their assurance, that they hesitate not sometimes to contend with God. It is indeed their common practice to maintain that they worship God, provided they offer sacrifices to him, provided they toil in ceremonies, and accumulate many rites. They think then that God is made bound to them, and that they have fully performed their duty. This evil has been common in all ages. The Prophet therefore anticipates this evasion, and says, Mercy I desire, and not sacrifice; as though he said, “I know what you are ready to allege, and that you will say, that you offer sacrifices to me, that you perform all the ceremonies; but this excuse is deemed by me frivolous and of no moment.” Why? “Because I desire not sacrifices, but mercy and faith.” We now understand the main object of this verse.

[¶2] It is a remarkable passage; the Son of God has twice quoted it. The Pharisees reproached him for his intercourse with men of bad and abandoned life, and he said to them in Matthew ‘Mercy I desire, and not sacrifice:’ he shows, by this defense, that God is not worshipped by external ceremonies, but when men forgive and bear with one another, and are not above measure rigid. Again, in the Matthew 12, when the Pharisees blamed the disciples for gathering ears of corn, he said ‘But rather go and learn what this is, Mercy I desire, and not sacrifice.’ Inasmuch as they were so severe against his disciples, Christ shows that those who make holiness to consist in ceremonies are foolish worshipers of God; and that they also blamed their brethren without a cause, and made a crime of what was not in itself sinful, and what could be easily defended by any wise and calm expounder.

[¶3] But that we may more fully understand this sentence of the Prophet, it must be observed, firsts that the outward worship of God, and all legal ceremonies, are included under the name of sacrifice and burnt-offerings. These words then comprise a part for the whole. The same may be said of the word חסד, chesad, which means, mercy or kindness; for the Prophet here, no doubt, sets faith or piety towards God, and love towards neighbors, in opposition to all external ceremonies. “I desire,” he says, “mercy;” or, “mercy pleases me more than sacrifice, and the knowledge of God pleases me more than burnt-offerings.” The knowledge of God here is doubtless to be taken for faith or piety, because hypocrites suppose that God is rightly worshipped when they use many ceremonies. The Prophet derides all such pomp and empty show, and says, that the worshipping of God is far different; it being only done when he is known. The chief point is, that God desires to be worshipped otherwise than sensual men dream; for they only display their rites, and neglect the spiritual worship of God, which stands in faith and love.

[¶4] These two clauses ought then to be read conjointly — that kindness pleases God — and that faith pleases God. Faith by itself cannot please God, since it cannot even exist without love to our neighbor; and then, human kindness is not sufficient; for were any one to abstain from doing any injury, and from hurting his brethren in any thing, he might be still a profane man, and a despiser of God; and certainly his kindness would be then of no avail to him. We hence see that these two sentences cannot be separated, and that what the Prophet says is equally the same as if he had connected piety with love. The meaning is, that God values faith and kindness much more than sacrifices and all ceremonies. But when the Prophet says that sacrifice does not please God, he speaks, no doubt, comparatively; for God does not positively repudiate sacrifices enjoined in his own law; but he prefers faith and love to them; as we more clearly learn from the particle מ, mem, when he says, מעולות, meoulut, than burnt-offerings.” It then appears that God is not inconsistent with himself, as though he rejected sacrifices which he himself had appointed; but that he condemns the preposterous abuse of them, in which hypocrites gloried.

[¶5] And here two things are to be noticed: God requires not external ceremonies, as if they availed any thing of themselves, but for a different end. Faith of itself pleases God, as also does love; for they are, as they say, of the class of good works: but sacrifices are to be regarded differently; for to kill an ox, or a calf, or a lamb, what is it but to do what the butcher does in his shambles? God then cannot be delighted with the slaughter of beasts; hence sacrifices, as we have said, are of themselves of no account. Faith and love are different. Hence the Lord says, in Jeremiah,

[¶6] ‘Have I commanded your fathers, when I brought them out of Egypt, to offer sacrifices to me?’ [Jeremiah 7:22]

[¶7] no such thing; ‘I never commanded them,’ he says, ‘but only to hear my voice.’ But what does the law in great measure contain except commands about ceremonies? The answer to this is easy, and that is, that sacrifices never pleased God through their own or intrinsic value, as if they had any worth in them. What then? Even this, that faith and piety are approved, and have ever been the legitimate spiritual worship of God. This is one thing. It is further to be noticed, that when the Prophets reprove hypocrites, they regard what is suitable to them, and do not specifically explain the matters which they handle. Isaiah says in one place, ‘He who kills an ox does the same as if he had killed a dog,’ and a dog was the highest abomination;

[¶8] ‘nay, they who offer sacrifices do the same as if they had killed men,’ (Isaiah 66:3.)

[¶9] What! to compare sacrifices with murders! This seems very strange; but the Prophet directed his discourse to the ungodly, who then abused the whole outward worship prescribed by the law: no wonder then that he thus spake of sacrifices. In the same manner also ought many other passages to be explained, which frequently occur in the Prophets. We now then see that God does not simply reject sacrifices, as far as he has enjoined them, but only condemns the abuse of them. And hence what I have already said ought to be remembered, that the Prophet here sets external rites in opposition to piety and faith, because hypocrites tear asunder things which are, as it were, inseparable: it is an impious divorce, when any one only obtrudes ceremonies on God, while he himself is void of piety. But as this disease commonly prevails among men, the Prophet adds a contrast between this fictitious worship and true religion. It is also worthy of being observed, that he calls faith the knowledge of God. We then see that faith is not some cold and empty imagination, but that it extends much farther; for it is then that we have faith, when the will of God is made known to us, and we embrace it, so that we worship him as our Father. Hence the knowledge of God is required as necessary to faith. The Papists then talk very childishly about implicit faith: when a man understands nothing, and has not even the least acquaintance with God, they yet say that he is endued with implicit faith. This is a romance more than foolish; for where there is no knowledge of God, there is no religion, piety is extinct and faith is destroyed, as it appears evident from this passage.

[¶10] God then subjoins a complaint, — But they like men have transgressed the covenant; there have they dealt treacherously against me. Here God shows that the Israelites boasted in vain of their sacrifices and of all the pomps of their external worship, for God did not regard these external things, but only wished to exercise the faithful in spiritual worship. Then the import of the whole is this, “My design was, when I appointed the sacrifices and the whole legal worship, to lead you so to myself, that there might be nothing carnal or earthly in your sacrificing; but ye have corrupted the whole law; you have been perverse interpreters; for sacrifices have been nothing else among you but mockery as if it were a satisfaction to me to have an ox or a ram killed. You have then transgressed my covenant; and it is nothing that the people say to me, that they have diligently performed the outward ceremonies, for such a worship is not in the least valued by me.”

[¶11] And he proceeds still farther and says, There have they dealt treacherously against me. He had said before, ‘They have transgressed the covenant;’ as though he said, “If they wished to keep my covenant, this was the first thing, — to worship me spiritually, even in faith and love; but they, having despised true worship, laid hold only on what was frivolous: they have therefore violated my covenant.” But now he adds, that “there” appeared their perfidy; yea, that they were convicted of violating their faith, and shown to be covenant-breakers, by this, — that they abused the sacred marks by which God had sanctioned his covenant, to cover their own perfidy. There is then great importance in the adverb שם, shim, as if he had said, “In that particular you have acted perfidiously:” for the Prophet means, that when hypocrites especially raise their crests, they are convicted of falsehood and perjury. But how? Because they set forth their own ceremonies, as we see them introduced as speaking thus in Isaiah 58, ‘Wherefore have we fasted, and thou hast not regarded?’ In this passage they accuse God of too much rigor, because they lost all their toil when they worshipped so laboriously, “We have then in vain spent labour and so diligently worshipped him.” God answers: ‘Who has required this at your hands?’ So also in this place the Prophet says, and more sharply, There have they dealt treacherously against me: that is, “They think that my mouth would be stopped by this defense only, when they brought forward their sacrifices, and, after their manner, made a great display, as if they were the best observers of religion; but I will show that in this very thing they are covenant-breakers.” How? “Because there is no falsehood worse than to turn the truth of God into a lie, and to adulterate his pure doctrine.” And this is what all hypocrites do, when they thus turn sacraments into gross abuses and false worship, when they build temples, when they imagine that God is rightly worshipped whenever an ox or a ram is offered. Since then hypocrites so grossly mock God and turn away sacrifices from Christ, they turn away from the doctrine of repentance and faith; in a word, they regard God only as a dead idol. When then they thus deprave the whole worship of God and adulterate it, when they so impiously corrupt the word of God and pervert his institutions, are they not covenant-breakers? There then they perfidiously acted against me. This ought to be carefully observed, because it has not been noticed by interpreters.

[¶12] Some thus render the word אדם, adam, — “As the covenant of man have they transgressed it,” transferring it to the genitive case, “And they have transgressed the covenants as if it was that of man;” that is, as if they had to do with a mortal man, so have they despised and violated my holy covenant; and this exposition is not very unsuitable, except that it somewhat changes the construction; for in this case the Prophet ought to have said, “They have transgressed the covenant as that of a man;” but he says, ‘They as a man,’ etc. But this rendering is far from being that of the words as they are, ‘They as men have transgressed the covenant.’ I therefore interpret the words more simply, as meaning, that they showed themselves to be men in violating the covenant.

[¶13] And there is here an implied contrast or comparison between God and the Israelites; as though he said, “I have in good faith made a covenant with them, when I instituted a fixed worship; but they have been men towards me; there has been in them nothing but levity and inconstancy.” God then shows that there had not been a mutual concord between him and the Israelites, as men never respond to God; for he sincerely calls them to himself, but they act unfaithfully, or when they have given some proof of obedience, they soon turn back again, or despise and openly reject the offered instruction. We then see in what sense the Prophet says that they had transgressed the covenant of God as men.

[¶14] Others explain the words thus, “They have transgressed as Adam the covenant.” But the word, Adam, we know, is taken indefinitely for men. This exposition is frigid and diluted, “They have transgressed as Adam the covenant;” that is, they have followed or imitated the example of their father Adam, who had immediately at the beginning transgressed God’s commandment. I do not stop to refute this comment; for we see that it is in itself vapid. Let us now proceed —

### Hosea 6:8

[¶16] Hosea 6:8 8. Gilead is a city of them that work iniquity, and is polluted with blood. 8. Galaad civitas operantium iniquitatem, astuta a sanguine (ad verbum ita est, vel,retenta a sanguine; alii vertunt, supplantata a sanguine; alii, inquinata a sanguine.)

[¶17] I shall first speak of the subject, and then something shall be added in its place of the words. The Prophet here notices, no doubt, something special against Gilead, which through the imperfection of history is now to us obscure. But in the first place, we must remember, that Gilead was one of the cities of refuge; and the Levites possessed these cities, which were destined for fugitives. If any one killed a man by chance, that the relatives might not take revenge, the Lord provided that he should flee to one of these cities appointed for his safety. He was there safe among the Levites: and the Levites received him under their protection, the matter being previously tried; for a legal hearing of the cause must have preceded as to whether he who had killed a man was innocent. We must then first remember that this city was occupied by the Levites and the priests; and they ought to have been examples to all others; for as Christ calls his disciples the light of the world, so the Lord had chosen the priests for this purpose, that they might carry a torch before all the people. Since then the highest sanctity ought to have shone forth in the priests, it was quite monstrous that they were like robbers, and that the holy city, which was as it were the sanctuary of God, became a den of thieves.

[¶18] It was then for this reason that the Prophet especially inveighs against the city Gilead, and says Gilead is a city of the workers of iniquity, and is covered with blood But if Gilead was so corrupt, what must have been the case with the other cities? It is then the same as if the Prophet had said, “Where shall I begin? If I reprove the people indiscriminately, the priests will then think that they are spared, because they are innocent; yea, that they are wholly without blame: nay,” he says, “the priests are the most abandoned, they are even the ringleaders of robbers. Since then so great corruptions prevail among the order of priests, in whom the highest sanctity ought to have shone forth, how great must be the licentiousness of the people in all kinds of wickedness? And then what must be said of other cities, since Gilead is so bad, which God has consecrated for a peculiar purpose, that it might be a sort of sanctuary? Since then Gilead is a den of robbers, what must be the other cities?” We now comprehend the meaning of the Prophet.

[¶19] “Polluted with blood,” עקובה מדם, okube medam: עקב, okob, in Hebrew, means “to deceive,” and also, “to hold” or “retain.” עקב, okob, is the sole of the foot; hence עקב, okob, signifies “to supplant.” And there is no doubt but that “to deceive” is its meaning metaphorically. I will now come to the meaning of the Prophet; he says that the city was עקובה מדם, okube, medan; some say, “deceptive in blood,” because they did not openly kill men, but by lying in wait for them; and hence they elicit this sense. But I approve more of what they hold who say, that the city was “full of blood;” not that such is the strict sense of the Hebrew word; but we may properly render it, “occupied by blood.” Why so? Because עקב, okob, as I have said, means sometimes to hold, to stay, and to hinder. We may then properly and fitly say, that Gilead was “occupied” or “possessed by blood.” But here follows a clearer and a fuller explanation of this sentence —

### Hosea 6:9

[¶21] Hosea 6:9 9. And as troops of robbers wait for a man, so the company of priests murder in the way by consent: for they commit lewdness. 9. Et sicut expectant latrones hominum, societas sacerdotum (vel, factio;) in via trucidant consensu, quia cogitationem (aut, scelus) perficiunt.

[¶22] The Prophet pursues more at large what he had briefly touched; for he does, not now confine himself to the common people, but directs his accusation against the sacerdotal order. “See,” he says, “the priests conspire among themselves like robbers, that they may slay wretched men, who may meet them in the way.” It is indeed certain that the Prophet speaks not here of open murders; for it is not credible that the priests had proceeded into so great a licentiousness, that Gilead had become a slaughter-house. But the Prophets, we know, are thus wont to speak, whenever they upbraid men with being sanguinary and cruel; they compare them to robbers, and that justly. Hence he says, The faction of the priests kill men in the way, as if they were robbers conspiring together. And then he shows that the priests were so void of every thing like the fear of God, that they perpetrated every kind of cruelty as if they were wholly given to robberies. This is the meaning.

[¶23] The word שכמה, shicame, is no doubt taken by the Prophet for “consent.” What is meant by שכם, shicam, is properly the “shoulder;” but it is metaphorically changed into the sense which I have mentioned; as it is in the Zephaniah 3 ‘They shall serve the Lord שכם אחד, shicam ached, with one shoulder;’ that is, “with one consent.” So also in this place, the priests conspire together שכמה, shicame, with consent.” For they who think that the name of a place is intended are much mistaken.

[¶24] Now in the last clause of the verse it is made evident why the Prophet had said that the priests were like robbers, ‘because,’ he says, ‘they do the thought,’ or ‘wickedness.’ The verb to זמם, zamem signifies “to think,” as it has been already said: hence זמה, zame is “thought” in general; but is often taken by the Hebrews in a bad sense, for a “bad design,” or “wicked trick:” They do then their conceived wickedness We hence learn that they were not open robbers, and publicly infamous in the sight of men, but that they were robbers before God, because the city was full of wicked devices, which were there concocted; and since they executed their schemes, it is justly said of them by the Prophet, that they imitated the licentiousness of robbers. Let us now go on —