--- title: "Commentary on Joel, Amos and Obadiah" author: "John Calvin" translator: "John Owen" languages: [en] shelf: "Commentaries" section: 77 of 79 url: https://scriptura.si/works/john-calvin-commentary-on-joel-amos-and-obadiah/77/ cite: "John Calvin, tr. John Owen, Commentary on Joel, Amos and Obadiah, section 77. Scriptura (scriptura.si), https://scriptura.si/works/john-calvin-commentary-on-joel-amos-and-obadiah/77/" --- # Commentary on Joel, Amos and Obadiah *John Calvin, tr. John Owen* Calvin on three of the shorter prophets: Joel, Amos and Obadiah. ## 77. Addenda to Hosea · 2 of 2 Source: https://scriptura.si/works/john-calvin-commentary-on-joel-amos-and-obadiah/77/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/john-calvin-commentary-on-joel-amos-and-obadiah/77/#p-N [¶0] “Ephraim hath encompassed me with falsehood, And the house of Israel with deceit; And as for Judah, he is still inconstant with God, Even with the faithful holy ones.” [¶1] So various become versions, when once a license is taken with the text, or with the current meaning of the words. Junius and Tremelius agree with Calvin, except as to time, the past tense is adopted. The last two lines are thus given, — [¶2] “Quando Jehudah adhuc dominabatur cum Deo forti, Et cum sanctis fidelis erat.” [¶3] The whole verse, according to this version, is as follows, — [¶4] “Surround me did the Ephraimites with falsehood, And with guile, the house of Israel; When Judah as yet ruled with God, And with the saints was faithful.” [¶5] By referring to past times, the objection as to the condition of Judah, he being at that time much given to superstition and idolatry, though still adhering to the outward form of true worship, is to a great extent removed. But the remarks of Calvin on this point seem sufficient. [¶6] Hosea 12:8, In all my labors, etc. Newcome’s version is very different, he having been led astray, as usual, by the Septuagint, — [¶7] “All his labors shall not be found profitable unto him, For the iniquity wherewith he hath sinned.” [¶8] Horsley’s rendering is nearly as far from the Original as this — “All my labors procured not for me what may expiate iniquity.” Henderson’s version is a paraphrase, but materially agrees with that of Calvin, — [¶9] “In none of my labors am I chargeable with guilt.” [¶10] What he considers the literal rendering is this — “With respect to all my efforts, they shall not find attaching to me iniquity which is sin.” Perhaps the words may admit of a still more literal rendering — “All my labors shall not be found to be an iniquity to me, that is a sin.” [¶11] Hosea 12:11, Is there iniquity in Gilead? There is considerable difficulty connected with this passage, and, indeed, with the whole of this chapter, from the eighth verse to the end. The main drift is evidently what is stated by Calvin, and in this most commentators agree. It was clearly the design of the Prophet, in alluding to Jacob and his history, to prove the ingratitude and to beat down the pride of Ephraim. But still, to connect the whole together in a continuous narrative, is no easy task. On this very line there is a great variety. Grotius reads, “Si in Galaade idolum fuit;” Junius and Tremelius, “An in Gilhade iniquitas?” Horsley, “Was there idolatry in Gilead?” Newcome, “Verily, in Gilead there is iniquity;” and Henderson, “Verily, Gilead is iniquitous.” [¶12] It appears that Gilead was at this time destroyed; for what is said in 2 Kings 15:29, was evidently previous to the time of Hosea. It is there stated that the king of Assyria had taken Gilead, with other cities, and carried the inhabitants captive to Assyria. The reference, then, to Gilead, must have been to its former state. Gilgal being still in the possession of Israel, its state at that time is described. This shows that Grotius and Horsley are more correct than Calvin, Newcome, and Henderson. Gilead is evidently introduced as an instance of the effects of idolatry, and the folly of Israel is exposed in continuing the same idolatry at Gilgal. That I may attempt to exhibit the whole passage from verse eighth to the end, in a connected form, I submit to the reader the following version, — [¶13] 8. Canaan is he! In his hand are the balances of deceit; He loves to oppress: [¶14] 9. Yet Ephraim says, “Surely I am become rich, I have found substance for myself; In all my labors they will not find against me An iniquity that is a sin.” [¶15] 10. But I, Jehovah, thy God from the land of Egypt, Will yet make thee to dwell in tents, As in the days of meeting: [¶16] 11. Thus have I spoken by the prophets, When I had visions multiplied, And by the prophets showed similitudes. [¶17] 12. If Gilead has been iniquitous, (literally, iniquity;) Surely vain have they become in Gilgal; They sacrifice oxen, yea their altars Are like the heaps on the furrows of the field. [¶18] 13. When Jacob fled to the land of Aram, Then Israel served for a wife, And for a wife he kept sheep; By a prophet also did Jehovah bring Israel from Egypt, And by a prophet was he preserved. [¶19] 14. Yet Ephraim has caused the bitterest provocation: But his blood on himself shalt be left, And his reproach will his Lord return to him. [¶20] Hosea 13:2, Who sacrifices men, etc. Henderson, after mentioning several authors for and against this rendering, strengthens his own, which agrees with our common version, by referring to a rule of syntax laid down by Gesenius; but that rule refers to adjectives and to passive participles, according to the instances given, and not to participles, as in the present case, in an active form. The words here are literally “the sacrificers of men,” which certainly can never mean the men who sacrifice. The words are not in apposition but in regimine. We have in Deuteronomy 18:3, הזבח זבחי, “the sacrificers of the sacrifice,” a phrase similar to the present. [¶21] Hosea 13:14, From the power of the grave would I redeem thee, etc. The conditional form is adopted by Grotius and others, but disapproved by Horsley, Newcome, and Henderson. When we consider what precedes this verse, and what follows it, the condition seems the most suitable. Then the expression, “repentance is hid from my eyes,” appears more consistent with a threatening than with a promise, especially as the threatening is continued in the next verse. To repent of evil, and not of good, is the phrase usually found in the Old Testament. It is true that Paul makes use of the expression with regard to the gifts of God, (Romans 11:29,) but the context here seems to favor the other notion. [¶22] Hosea 14:2, Bring good. Horsley reads, “Accept the good;” Newcome, “Let us receive good;” Henderson, “Graciously receive us.” The words are וקח-טוב, literally, “and receive,” or “bring good.” The verb means simply to “take’” but then it is used to express taking for one’s self in the sense of receiving, and taking for another in the sense of bringing. Naaman said to Elisha, קח נא ברכה, “Take,” or “receive, I pray, a blessing,” 2 Kings 5:15; and Jacob said to Joseph, קחם-נא אלי, “Take,” or “bring them, I pray, to me,” Genesis 48:9. See also Genesis 15:9; 2 Kings 2:20. So the meaning may be either that given by Horsley or by Calvin; and as the latter is more consonant with this passage, and does not blend in sense, as the former does, with the next clause in the verse, it ought to be preferred. But the Bishop’s note must be added, — “Take away all iniquity, i.e., Take away entirely the sinful principle within us. Take away the carnal heart of the old Adam. Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me. And then, when we are thus begotten again unto holiness by thy Spirit, accept the good, accept as good, what, so regenerate, we shall be enabled to perform.” All this is perfectly true; but the former part is not an explanation of the text; for to take away sin does not mean the renewal of the heart, but the forgiveness of sin. Though they be two gracious acts which go together, they are yet wholly separate and distinct; and to confound them may lead to serious mistakes. [¶23] The same verb is used at the beginning of the verse, Take, or bring with you words. As they were to bring words of confession and prayer, so God is solicited to bring good; and to bring good very suitably follows the taking away of iniquity; and then follows the gratitude that is required.