Hosea 13:11

Hos 13:11 I gave thee a king in mine anger, and took [him] away in my wrath.

Ver. 11. I gave thee a king in mine anger] As once before he gave them quails to choke them. A king, that is, all those kings they had since they fell off from the house of David. These were God’s gifts, but giftless gifts (αδωρα δωρα και ουκ ονησιμα), which he cast upon them in his anger, for a punishment both of the sins of David’s house, and likewise of the people’s rebellion. It was ab irate potius quam ab exorato Deo. Take him (saith he, since you will needs have him) with all that shall follow after. The hypocrite shall reign, that the people may be ensnared, Job 34:30. "Set thou a wicked man over him" (saith the psalmist), "and let Satan stand at his right hand," Psa 109:6; see Dan 8:23. Saul was a hypocrite, Jeroboam a wicked man; so were all his successors in that throne. Lev 26:17, it is written as a heavy curse of God, If you still trespass against me, I will set princes over you that shall hate you, mischievous, odious princes; odious to God, malignant to the people.

And took him away in my wrath] Heb. In mine immoderate wrath, that passed the bounds. This is spoken of God after the manner of men; for he cannot exceed or over do; "fury is not in him," Isa 27:4; but here he threateneth to take away king and kingdom together: as he did Hoshea, by the Assyrian that carried them all captive. Observe here, that better a bad magistrate than none, for this latter is the fruit of God’s utter indignation. Those Anabaptists that from this text inferred that no Christian can with a good conscience take upon him kingly dignity should have observed, that as an evil king is reckoned as a plague to a people, so a good king is to be held a special blessing to them.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Hos_13:11

I gave thee a king in Mine anger, and took him away in My wrath.

Saul

The Israelites seem to have asked for a king from an unthankful caprice and waywardness. The ill conduct of Samuels sons was the occasion, an evil heart of unbelief was the cause. To punish them, God gave them a king after their own heart. There is, in true religion, a sameness, an absence of hue and brilliancy, in the eyes of the natural man. Samuel had too much of primitive simplicity about him to please the Israelites; they felt they were behind the world, and clamoured to be put on a level with the heathen. Saul had much to recommend him to minds thus greedy of the dust of the earth. He was brave, daring, resolute; gifted, too, with strength of body as well as of mind. Both his virtues and his faults were such as became an Eastern monarch, and were adapted to secure the fear and submission of his subjects. Samuels conduct in the national emergency is far above human praise. Personally qualified Saul was for a time a prosperous king. But from the beginning the prophets voice is raised both against the people and king in warnings and rebukes, which are omens of his destined destruction, according to the text. Here, then, a question may be raised--Why was Saul thus marked for vengeance from the beginning? The question leads to a deeper inspection of his character. The first duty of every man is the fear of God--a reverence for His Word, a love of Him, and a desire to obey Him. Now Saul lacked his one thing. He was never under the abiding influence of religion, however he might be at times moved and softened. What nature made him, that he remained, without improvement; with virtues which had no value, because they required no effort, and implied the influence of no principle. There was a deadness to all considerations not connected with the present world. It is his habit to treat prophet and priest with a coldness, to say the least, which seems to argue some great internal defect. We have no reason to believe, from the after history, that the Divine gift at his anointing left any religious effect on his mind. The immediate occasion of his rejection was his failing under a specific trial of his obedience, as set before him at the very time he was anointed. There was no professed or intentional irreverence in Sauls conduct. He outwardly respected the Mosaic ritual. But he was indifferent, and cared for none of these things. From the time of Sauls disobedience in the matter of Amalek, Samuel came no more to see Saul, whose season of probation was over. He finishes his bad history by an open act of apostasy from the God of Israel. He consulted the sorceress at Endor. Unbelief and wilfulness are the wretched characteristics of Sauls history--an ear deaf to the plainest commands, a heart hardened against the most gracious influences. (J. H. Newman, B. D.)

A gift of Gods anger

You were so set upon it, that you would have a king; if you will, take him, saith God, and take him with all that shall follow after. So that it was (as one speaks) rather from an angry God than from an entreated one. Saul and Jeroboam were both given in anger.

1. God may have a hand in things wherein men sin exceedingly.

2. Things that are evil may yet have present success.

3. Gods gifts are not always in love. Take heed of immoderate desires for any worldly thing.

I. How we may know that what god gives is in anger, not in love. It is a very hard thing to convince men, if they have their desires satisfied, that it is rather from anger than love. Men are so well pleased with the satisfying of their desires that they can be very hardly convinced but that God intends good to them in it

1. When you desire a gift, rather than God in it. When your desires are for the gift rather than the Giver, you can have no comfort that there is love in it.

2. When our desires are immoderate and violent.

3. When God grants men their desires before the due time. They have what they would have, but they have it not in Gods time.

4. When God grants us what we would have, but without the blessing. He grants the thing, but takes away the blessing of the thing, He takes away the comfort and satisfaction of it. They shall eat, but they shall not be satisfied.

5. When that which we desire is merely to satisfy our lusts. We do not desire such and such things that by them we may be fitted for the service of God.

6. When men are so eager that they care not whether the gift comes from a reconciled or a provoked God; it is all one to them (Num_11:1-35.).

7. When God regards not our preparation for a mercy. Carnal hearts take no great care themselves of it. Let me have it, say they, our fitness matters not. It is your sin and wickedness not to regard the preparation of your hearts for what you have, and it is Gods judgment to give it to you before you are pre pared. A gracious heart, when it would have a mercy, is as careful to get the heart prepared for the mercy as to obtain it.

8. When we rest on the means we use, and seek not God by prayer.

9. When God gives us our desires, but not a sanctified use of them. When God gives you the shell, but not the kernel, surely it is not in love. All the good things that wicked men have, are but shells without kernels.

10. When a secret curse attends what we have.

11. When we regard not what becomes of others, so we have our wants satisfied.

12. When God, in satisfying our desires, makes way for some judgment.

13. When men are greedy of things to the disregard of results; when they would have their desires satisfied in a foolish way, never minding what inconveniences may follow, but merely looking to their present comfort.

14. When men seek to have their desires satisfied, merely because they love change.

15. When our desires of further mercies make us forget former mercies.

16. When men desire new things out of mistrust of God.

17. If we seek to attain our desires by unlawful means. (Jeremiah Burroughs.)

Answers to improper prayers

The flying fish, says the fable, had originally no wings, but being of an ambitious and discontented temper she repined at being always confined to the water, and wished to soar into the air. If I could fly like the birds, said she, I should not only see more of the beauties of nature, but I should be able to escape from those fish which are continually pursuing me, and which render my life miserable. She therefore petitioned Jupiter for a pair of wings, and immediately she perceived her fins to expand. They suddenly grew to the length of her whole body, and became at the same time so strong as to do the office of a pinion. She was at first much pleased with her new powers, and looked with an air of disdain on all her former companions; but she soon perceived herself exposed to new dangers. While flying in the air she was incessantly pursued by the tropic bird and the albatross, and when for safety she dropped into the water, she was so fatigued with her flight that she was less able than ever to escape from her old enemies the fish. Finding herself more unhappy than before, she now begged of Jupiter to recall his present; but Jupiter said to her, When I gave you your wings I well knew that they would prove a curse; but your proud and restless disposition deserved this disappointment. Now, therefore, what you begged as a favour keep as a punishment. (Evenings at Home.)

The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

13:11 Israel had crowned her kings without consulting the Lord, so now he would take them away in fury.

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

I gave . . . king in . . . anger . . . took . . . away in . . . wrath--true both of Saul (Sa1 15:22-23; Sa1 16:1) and of Jeroboam's line (Kg2 15:30). Pekah was taken away through Hoshea, as he himself took away Pekahiah; and as Hoshea was soon to be taken away by the Assyrian king.

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Verse 11. I gave thee a king in mine anger] Such was Saul; for they highly offended God when they clamored to have a king like the heathen nations that were around them.

Took him away in my wrath.] Permitted him and the Israelites to fall before the Philistines. Others think that Shalmaneser was the king thus given, and Hoshea the king thus taken away.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

These are the princes, of whom thou hast said, Give me a king and princes. I gave to thee in my wrath, and took away in my fury; that is “It was a cursed beginning, and it shall be a cursed end; for the election of Jeroboam was not lawful; but through an impious wilfulness, the people then rebelled against me, when they revolted from the family of David.” Nothing successful could then proceed from so inauspicious a beginning. For it is only then an auspicious token, when we obey God, when his Spirit presides over our counsels, when we ask at his mouth, and when we begin with prayer to him. But when we despise the word of God, and give loose reins to our own humour, and fix on whatever pleases us, it cannot be but that an unhappy and disastrous issue will follow. God therefore says, that he gave them a king in his wrath; as though he said, “Ye think that you have done nobly, when Jeroboam was raised to the throne, that he might become eminent: for the kingdom of Judah was then far inferior to that of Israel, which not only excelled in power, but also in the number of its subjects. Ye think that you were then happy, because Jeroboam ruled over you: but he was given you in the anger and wrath of God,” saith the Prophet. “But God commanded Jeroboam to be anointed.” True, it was so: but this, says God, I did in my wrath; and now I will take away in my fury; that is, “I will deprive you of that kingdom which I see is the cause of your blindness. For if that kingdom remains entire, I shall be nothing, the authority of my word will be of no weight among you. It is then necessary that this kingdom should be wholly subverted; for ye began to be unhappy as soon as ye sought a new king.”

We now understand what the Prophet means. At the same time, we learn from this passage, that God so executes his judgements, that whatever evil there is, it ought to be ascribed to men. For the raising of Jeroboam to the kingdom, we certainly allow to have been rash and unjust; for thereby was violated that celestial decree made known to David,

“My Son art thou, I have this day begotten thee. Ask of me, and I will give thee the Gentiles,’ etc., (Psalm 2:7,8.)

But who appointed Jeroboam to be king? The Lord himself. How could it be, that God raised Jeroboam to the throne, and that he yet by his decree set David, not only over the children of Abraham, but also over the Gentiles, with reference to Christ who was to come? God seems here to be inconsistent with himself. By no means; for when he set David over his chosen people, it was a lawful appointment: but when he raised Jeroboam to the throne, it was a singular judgement; so that in God there is no inconsistency. The people at the same time, who by their suffrages adopted Jeroboam and made him their king, acted impiously and perversely. “Yet God seems to have directed the whole by his providence.” True; for before the people knew any thing of the new king, God had already determined to elect him and resolved also to punish in this way the defection and ingratitude of Solomon. All these things are true, that is, that God by his secret counsel had directed the whole business, and yet that he had no participation in the sin of the people.

Thus let us learn wisely to admire the secret judgements of God, and not imitate those profane cavillers, who make a great noise, because they cannot understand how God thus makes use of wicked men, and how he directs for the best end what is done by men wickedly and foolishly. As they do not perceive this, they conclude that if the Lord governs all things, he must be the author of sin. But the Scripture, as we see, when it speaks of the wrath and fury of God, does at the same time set forth to us his rectitude in all his judgements, and distinguishes between God and men, even as the difference is great; for God does not turn the perverse designs of men to answer their own ends — he is a just judge. And yet his purpose is not always apparent to us: it is, however, our duty reverently and with chastened minds to admire and adore those mysteries which surpass our comprehension. It follows —

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

(11) Gave . . . Took.—The past tenses should be present: “I give . . .” “take away.” The whole succession of Israelite kings, who generation after generation had been taken away, some by violent death, would close with Hoshea, who was to disappear as “a fragment on a stormy sea” (Hos_10:7).

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

11. I gave thee, &c.] Rather, I give thee kings [lit., a king] in mine anger, and take (them) away in my wrath. The reference is to the elevation of Jeroboam I., but also to the various dynasties which from time to time forced their way to the throne (comp. on Hos_7:7). Indulged self-will brought with it its own punishment—hardening of the heart in apostasy. Thus our passage seems to mediate between the two different views of Jeroboam’s act presented to us in Hos_1:11 (see note) and 1Ki_11:29-39 respectively. In one sense Jehovah ‘gave’; in another, he ‘gave’ not.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

I gave thee a king in mine anger,.... Not the king of Assyria, sent to waste and destroy them, and carry them captive, as some, for of him the next clause cannot be said; nor Jeroboam, the first king of the ten tribes, as others, who was not given in anger to Israel, but to Solomon; rather Saul, as Kimchi and Aben Ezra, the first king of all Israel; and who was given at the request of the people, though in anger and resentment, they rejecting God their King; or it may design the kingly office and power in general, in a succession of kings from him the first of them:

and took him away in my wrath; not Jeroboam, who does not appear to be taken away by death in wrath; rather Saul, who died in battle with the Philistines, and fell on the mountains of Gilboa: but it may be rendered better, "I will take him away" (o); and refers not to Zedekiah the last king of Judith, as some in Kimchi; but to Hoshea, the last king of the ten tribes; for it is of there more especially the words, both in the text and context, are spoken; and so it respects the entire removal of kingly power from them, which ceased in Hoshea; see Hos 3:4.

(o) "et auferam", Zanchius, Piscator, Cocceius, V. L. "recipiam", Drusius; "accipiam", Schmidt.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

I gave thee a king in Mine anger - o: “God, when He is asked for ought amiss, sheweth displeasure, when He giveth, hath mercy, when He giveth not.” “The devil was heard,” (in asking to enter into the swine) “the Apostle was not heard,” (when he prayed that the messenger of Satan might depart from him) , “God heard him whom He purposed to condemn; and He heard not him whom He willed to heal.” : “God, when propitious, denieth what we love, when we love amiss; when wroth, He giveth to the lover, what he loveth amiss. The Apostle saith plainly, “God gave them over to their own hearts’ desire.” He gave them then what they loved, but, in giving, condemned them.” God did appoint Jeroboam, although not in the way in which Israel took him. Jeroboam and Israel took, as from themselves, what God appointed; and, so taking it, marred God’s gift.

Taking it to themselves from themselves, they maintained it for themselves by human policy and sin. As was the beginning, such was the whole course of their kings. The beginning was rebellion; murder, intestine commotion, anarchy, was the oft-repeated issue. God was against them and their kings; but he let them have their way. In His displeasure with them He allowed them their choice; in displeasure with their evil kings He took them away. Some He smote in their own persons, some in their posterity. So often as He gave them, so often He removed them, until, in Hoshea, He took them away forever. This too explains, how what God “gave in anger,” could be “taken away” also “in anger.” The civil authority was not a thing wrong in itself, the ceasing whereof must be a mercy. Israel was in a worse condition through its separate monarchy; but, apart from the calf-worship, it was not sin. The changing of one king for another did not mend it.

Individual kings were taken away in anger against themselves; their removal brought fresh misery and bloodshed. Nations and Churches and individuals may put themselves in an evil position, and God may have allowed it in His anger, and yet, it may be their wisdom and humility to remain in it, until God change it, lest He should “take” it away, not in forgiveness, but in “anger.” : “David they neither asked for, nor did the Lord give him in His anger; but the Lord first chose him in mercy, gave him in grace, in His supreme good-pleasure He strengthened and preserved him.” : “Let no one who suffereth from a wicked ruler, accuse “him” from whom he suffereth, for it was from his own ill deserts, that he became subject to such a ruler. Let him accuse then his own deeds, rather than the injustice of the ruler, for it is written, “I gave thee a king in Mine anger.” Why then disdain to have as rulers, those whose rule we receive from the anger of God?” : “When a reprobate people is allowed to have a reprobate pastor, that pastor is given, neither for his own sake, nor for that of the people; inasmuch as he so governeth, and they so obey, that neither the teacher nor the taught are found meet to attain to eternal bliss. Of whom the Lord saith by Hosea, “I gave thee a king in Mine anger.” For in the anger of God is a king given, when the bad have a worse appointed as their ruler. Such a pastor is then given, when he undertakes the rule of such a people, both being condemned alike to everlasting punishment.”

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

King; Saul, Jeroboam, or the Assyrian. --- Away. Osee, (Calmet) so that you shall have no more kings of Israel. (Haydock) --- Septuagint alone have, "I took (Calmet) or had him in," &c. (St. Jerome)

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

I gave thee a king in mine anger; such as Shallum, Menahem, Pekah, &c.; but in displeasure against you.

I took him away; the Hebrew says not what; I think, their kings mentioned.

In my wrath: God was angry when he gave such kings to Israel, and he was no better pleased when he took them away; they were punishments when given, and it was punishment to Israel when they were taken away. If you read this verse in the future tense, as you may, I will give them a king in my anger, it may refer to God’s giving the king of Assyria the rule over them, making them his vassals; and I will take away, i.e. you, O Israelites, in my wrath, I will destroy some, and send others into captivity, take all away out of your land, and send you in wrath to the grave, or captives into Assyria.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

I gave thee a king in mine anger, and took him away in my wrath. The imperfects yja and yqa here are correctly explained by Keil as denoting "an action that is repeated again and again, for which we should use the present; and refer to all the kings that the kingdom of the ten tribes had received and was receiving still, and to their removal." Hitzig calls it here the historical present. Jerome, Aben Ezra, and Kimchi refer the first clause to Saul as given in anger; and the second to Zedekiah as taken away in wrath.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

A king - Such as Shallum, Menahem, Pekah.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.