*Minor differences ignored. Grouped by changes, with first version listed as example.
This verse has given occasion to many interpreters to think that all the particulars we have noticed ought to be restricted to the priests alone: but there is no sufficient reason for this. We have already said, that the Prophet is wont frequently to pass from the people to the priests: but as a heavier guilt belonged to the priests, he very often inveighs against them, as he does in this place, They eat, he says, the sin of my people, and lift up to their iniquity his soul, that is, every one lifts up his own soul,' or, they lift up the soul of the sinner by iniquity;' for the pronoun applies to the priests as well as to the people. The number is changed: for he says,y'klv, iacalu and ys'v ishau, [1] in the plural number, They will eat the sin, and will lift up, etc., in the third person; and then his soul it may be, their own; it is, however, a pronoun in the singular number: hence a change of number is necessary. We are then at liberty to choose [2], whether the Prophet says this of the people or of the priests: and as we have said, it may apply to both, but in a different sense. We may understand him as saying, that the priests lifted up their souls to the iniquity of the people, because they anxiously wished the people to be given to many vices, for they hoped thereby to gain much prey, as the case is, when any one expects a reward from robbers: he is glad to hear that they become rich, for he considers their riches to be for his gain. So it was with the priests, who gaped for lucre; they thought that they were going on well, when the people brought many sacrifices. And this is usually the case, when the doctrine of the law is adulterated, and when the ungodly think that this alone remains for them, -- to satisfy God with sacrifices, and similar expiations. Then, if we apply the passage to the priests, the lifting up of the soul is the lust for gain. But if we prefer to apply the words to sinners themselves, the sense is, Upon their iniquity they lift up their soul,' that is, the guilty raise up themselves by false comforts, and extenuate their vices; or, by their own flatteries, bury and entirely smother every remnant of God's fear. Then, according to this second sense, to lift up the soul is to deceive, and to take away all doubts by vain comforts, or to remove every sorrow, and to erase every guilt by a false notion. I come now to the meaning of the whole. Though the Prophet here accuses the priests, yet he involves, no doubt, the whole people, and deservedly, in the same guilt: for how was it that the priests expected gain from sacrifices? Even because the doctrine of the law was subverted. God had instituted sacrifices for this end, that whosoever sinned, being reminded of his guilt, might mourn for his sin, and further, that by witnessing that sad spectacle, his conscience might be more wounded: when he saw the innocent animal slain at the altar, he ought to have dreaded God's judgment. Besides, God also intended to exercise the faith of all, in order that they might flee to the expiation which was to be made by the promised Mediator. And at the same time, the penalty which God then laid on sinners, ought to have been as a bridle to restrain them. In a word, the sacrifices had, in every way, this as their object, -- to keep the people from being so ready or so prone to sin. But what did the ungodly do? They even mocked God, and thought that they had fully done their duty, when they offered an ox or a lamb; and afterwards they freely indulged themselves in their sins. So gross a folly has been even laughed to scorn by heathen writers. Even Plato has so spoken of such sacrifices, as to show that those who would by such trifles make a bargain with God, are altogether ungodly: and certainly he so speaks in his second book on the Commonwealth, as though he meant to describe the Papacy. For he speaks of purgatory, he speaks of satisfactions; and every thing the Papists of this day bring forward, Plato in that book distinctly sets forth as being altogether sottish and absurd. But yet in all ages this assurance has prevailed, that men have thought themselves delivered from God's hand, when they offered some sacrifice: it is, as they imagine, a compensation. Hence the Prophet now complains of this perversion, They eat, he says, (for he speaks of a continued act,) the sins of my people, andto iniquity they lift up the heart of each; that is, When all sin, one after the other, each one is readily absolved, because he brings a gift to the priests. It is the same thing as though the Prophet said, "There is a collusion between them, 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 of 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. We now then understand the real meaning of the Prophet: and thus I prefer the latter exposition as to the lifting up of the soul,' which is, that the priests lifted up the soul of each, by relieving their consciences, by soothing words of flattery, and by promising life, as Ezekiel says, to souls doomed to die, (Ezekiel 13:19.) It now follows --
1 - These verbs are in the future tense; but the future in Hebrew is often used, as Calvin says in another place, to express a continued act, or an habitual practice.
2 - This choice can hardly be conceded. People,' in Hebrew, is in the singular number, and the pronouns referring to people are commonly put in the same number; but not so in our language. His' here evidently belongs to the people, and not to the priests, and ought to be rendered their,' as in our version. The verse literally translated is as follows, only the future is taken for the present tense: -- The sin of my people they eat, And to their (own) iniquity they raise up their heart.' To render sin,' as Newcome and Horsley do, sin-offerings,' is to destroy the whole force of the passage, that through the superstition of the people they gained their living. And iniquity' means, no doubt, idolatry, to which the priests raised up the people's heart, or attached them. --Ed.
They eat up the sin of My people - The priests made a gain of the sins of the people, lived upon them and by them, conniving at or upholding the idolatries of the people, partaking in their idol-sacrifices and idolatrous rites, which, as involving the desertion of God, were "the sin of the people," and the root of all their other sins. This the priests did knowingly. True or false, apostate or irregularly appointed, they knew that there was no truth in the golden calves; but they withheld the truth, they held it down in unrighteousness, and preached Jeroboam's false-hood, "these be thy gods, O Israel." The reputation, station, maintenance of the false priests depended upon it. Not being of the line of Aaron, they could be no priests except to the calves, and so they upheld the sin whereby they lived, and, that they might themselves be accounted priests of God, taught them to worship the calves, as representatives of God.
The word, "sin," may include indirectly the sin-offerings of the people, as if they loved the sin or encouraged it, in order that they might partake of the outward expiations for it.
And they set their heart on their iniquity - , as the source of temporal profit to themselves. "Benefited by the people, they reproved them not in their sinful doings, but charged themselves with their souls, saying, on us be the judgment, as those who said to Pilate, His blood be upon us." That which was, above all, "their iniquity," the source of all the rest, was their departure from God and from His ordained worship. On this they "set their hearts;" in this they kept them secure by their lies; they feared any misgivings, which might rend the people from them, and restore them to the true worship of God. But what else is it, to extenuate or flatter sin now, to dissemble it, not to see it, not openly to denounce it, lest we lose our popularity, or alienate those who commit it? What else is it to speak smooth words to the great and wealthy, not to warn them, even in general terms, of the danger of making Mammon their god; of the peril of riches, of parade, of luxury, of immoral dressing, and, amid boundless extravagance, neglect of the poor; encouraging the rich, not only in the neglect of Lazarus, but in pampering the dogs, while they neglect him? hat is the praise of some petty dole to the poor, but connivance at the withholding from God His due in them? "We see now," says an old writer , "how many prelates live on the oblations and revenues of the laity, and yet, whereas they are bound, by words, by prayers, by exemplary life, to turn them away from sin, and to lead them to amendment, they, in various ways, scandalize, corrupt, infect them, by ungodly conversation, flattery, connivance, cooperation, and neglect of due pastoral care. Whence Jeremiah says, "My people hath been lost sheep: their shepherds have caused them to go astray." O how horrible and exceeding great will be their damnation, who shall be tormented for each of those under their care, who perish through their negligence" Jeremiah 50:6.
They eat up the sin of my people - חטאת chattath, the sin-offering, though it be offered contrary to the law; for their hearts are set on iniquity, they wish to do whatever is contrary to God.
(i) They eat up the sin of my people, and they set their heart on their iniquity.
(i) That is, the priests seek to eat the people's offerings, and flatter them in their sins.
They eat up the sin of my people,.... That is, the priests did so, as the Targum, the priests of Jeroboam; they ate up the sacrifices which the people brought for their sins: and their fault was, either that they ate that which belonged to the true priests of the Lord, so Jarchi; or they did that, and had no concern to instruct the people in the right way; all that they regarded were good eating and drinking, and living voluptuously; and were altogether careless about instructing the people in the nature of sacrifices, and in the way of their duty: or this may regard the Bacchanalian feasts, as some think, which the people made in the temples of idols, and so sinned; and of which the priests greatly partook, and encouraged them in, and so were partakers not only of their banquets, but of their sins.
They set their heart on their iniquity: either their offerings for their iniquity, or their iniquity itself: or, "lift up their soul" (u) to it; diligently looking after it, not caring how much they committed; since the more sin offerings would be brought which would be to their advantage. Though some think the sin of whoredom, frequently and impudently committed at these idol feasts, is meant, which the priests were much addicted to, and very greedy of; they committed cleanness with greediness, Ephesians 4:19.
(u) "et ad iniquitatem eorum levaverunt animam suam", Montanus, Pagninus, Tigurine version; "attollunt", Junius & Tremellius, Piscator; "et ad iniquitatem eorum tollunt anumam suam", Schmidt.
eat . . . sin of my people--that is, the sin offerings (Leviticus 6:26; Leviticus 10:17). The priests greedily devoured them.
set their heart on their iniquity--literally "lift up the animal soul to lust after," or strongly desire. Compare Deuteronomy 24:15, Margin; Psalm 24:4; Jeremiah 22:27. The priests set their own hearts on the iniquity of the people, instead of trying to suppress it. For the more the people sinned, the more sacrificial victims in atonement for sin the priests gained.
"The sin of my people they eat, and after their transgression do they lift up their soul." The reproof advances from the sin of the whole nation to the sin of the priesthood. For it is evident that this is intended, not only from the contents of the present verse, but still more from the commencement of the next. Chatta'th ‛ammı̄ (the sin of my people) is the sin-offering of the people, the flesh of which the priests were commanded to eat, to wipe away the sin of the people (see Leviticus 6:26, and the remarks upon this law at Leviticus 10:17). The fulfilment of this command, however, became a sin on the part of the priests, from the fact that they directed their soul, i.e., their longing desire, to the transgression of the people; in other words, that they wished the sins of the people to be increased, in order that they might receive a good supply of sacrificial meat to eat. The prophet evidently uses the word chattâ'th, which signifies both sin and sin-offering, in a double sense, and intends to designate the eating of the flesh of the sin-offering as eating or swallowing the sin of the people. נשׂא נפשׁ אל, to lift up or direct the soul after anything, i.e., to cherish a longing for it, as in Deuteronomy 24:15, etc. The singular suffix attached to naphshō (his soul) is to be taken distributively: "(they) every one his soul."
(Note: It is evident from this verse, that the sacrificial worship was maintained in the kingdom of Israel according to the ritual of the Mosaic law, and that the Israelitish priests were still in possession of the rights conferred by the Pentateuch upon Levitical priests.)
They - The priests who minister to the idols. The sin - Probably by sin is meant sin - offering, in which the priest had his share. And they - Covetous, luxurious, idolatrous priests.
*More commentary available at chapter level.