Volume 1 — THE PROPHET HOSEA. (continued 2)

According to another interpretation still more prevalent, "the blood of Jezreel" denotes "all the evil deeds committed by the Israelitish kings in Jezreel." But this interpretation is sufficiently invalidated by the single circumstance, that the residence of the family of Jehu, which, after all, alone comes into consideration in this place, was, from the very beginning, not Jezreel, but Samaria; compare 2 Kings x. 36, xiii. 10, xiv. 23.

Two particulars are contained in the announcement of punishment. First,—The whole house of Jehu, and then all Israel, are to become a Jezreel as regards punishment, as they are even now in point of guilt; and, in this announcement, the significant paronomasia must not be overlooked between Israel—the designation of the dignity of the people, and Jezreel—that which is base in deeds and condition. Calvin makes prominent the last-mentioned feature only: "You are," he explains, "a degenerate people, you differ in nothing from your king Ahab." We cannot, however, follow him in this explanation; the words, "I cause to cease the kingdom of the house of Israel," cannot, as several interpreters suppose, mean merely, "I will put an end to the dominion of the family of Jehu over Israel." That these words rather announce the cessation of every native regal government, and hence of the entire national independence, is so evident, that it stands in need of no proof. Both of these features are, in their fulfilment, separated indeed by a long period of time (see the Introduction); but they are nevertheless closely connected. With the ruin of the house of Jehu, the strength of the kingdom of Israel was broken; from that time it was only a living corpse. The fall of the house of Jehu was the beginning of the end,—the commencement of the process of putrefaction. The omission, in the inscription, of all mention of any of the kings after Jeroboam, coincides with the circumstance that the fall of the house of Jehu is connected with the fall of the kingdom. With regard, however, to the former event, Hosea had an earlier prophecy before him. It had been prophesied to Jehu (2 Kings x. 30) that his children should sit on the throne until the fourth generation. Now, since Jeroboam was the great-grandson of Jehu, the glory of this family must come to an end with his son. But at no period did the house of Jehu, and the kingdom of Israel, seem to be so far from destruction as under the reign of Jeroboam; and, hence, it was time that the forgotten prophecy should be revived, and, at the same time, expanded.

Ver. 5. "And it shall come to pass at that day, that I break the bow of Israel in the valley of Jezreel."

Of this, Calvin gives the following paraphrase: "Ye are puffed up with pride; ye oppose your fierceness to God, because ye excel in weapons and strength; because ye are warlike men, ye believe that God can do nothing against you. But surely your bows shall not prevent His hands from destroying you."—In the valley of Jezreel, Israel shall become, as to punishment, what they already are, as to guilt, viz., a "Jezreel." The verse is a further expansion of the last words of the preceding one, to which the words, "at that day," refer. He whose bow is broken is defenceless and powerless; compare Gen. xlix. 24; 1 Sam. ii. 4; Jer. xlix. 35. It is evident that we can here think only of the defeat of Israel by the Assyrians, the consequence of which was the total overthrow of the kingdom of Israel. But it is not to be overlooked, that the Assyrians, who in the second section of Hosea are frequently mentioned in express terms, as the instruments of God's punishment, are not spoken of at all as such in the first section, which belongs to the reign of Jeroboam. Amos likewise abstains from mentioning any name of the enemies. The Assyrians had not at that time appeared on the historical horizon. But the prophecy was to evince itself as such, by the fact of the announcement of the judgment at a time when its instruments were not as yet prepared; just as Elijah, in 1 Kings xviii. 41, hears the rushing of the rain before there was even a cloud in the sky.—We are not told in the historical books at what place Israel was defeated by the Assyrians. Jerome, in his remarks on our passage, says that it took place in the valley of Jezreel. It is very probable, however, that this is only an inference clothed in the garb of history. But even apart from the passage under review, the matter is very probable. The valley of Jezreel or Esdrelon "is the largest, and at the same time the most fertile, plain of Palestine. The brook of Kishon, which is, next to Jordan, the most important river of Palestine, waters and fructifies it, and, with its tributaries, flows through it in all directions." (Ritter, S. 689.) In all the wars which were carried on within the territories of the ten tribes, especially when the enemies came from the North, it was the natural battle-field. "It was, in the first centuries, the station of a legion (μέγα πεδίον λεγεῶνος); it is the place where the troops of Nebuchadnezzar, Vespasian, Justinian, the Sultan Saladdin, and many other conquering armies were encamped, down to the unsuccessful expedition of Buonaparte, whose success in Syria here terminated. Clarke found erected here the tents of the troops of the Pacha of Damascus. In later times, it was the scene of the skirmishes between the parties of hostile hordes of Arabs and Turkish pachas. In the political relations of Asia Minor, it is to this locality that there must be ascribed the total devastation and depopulation of Galilee, which once was so flourishing, full of towns, and thickly populated." (Ritter, Erdk. 1 Ausg. ii. S. 387.) We may add, that, in the same plain also, the battle was fought in which Saul and Jonathan perished (for the plain of Esdrelon is bounded on the south-east by the mountains of Gilboa), and so likewise was the battle between Ahab and the Syrians. To it also belonged the plain near the town of Megiddo, where Josiah, in the battle against Pharaoh-Necho, was mortally wounded. Compare Rosenmüller, Alt. ii. 1, p. 149.

Ver. 6. "And she conceived again, and bare a daughter. And He said to him, Call her name Lo-Ruhamah (i.e., one who has not obtained mercy): for I will not continue any more to have mercy upon the house of Israel; for I will take away from them."—Interpreters ask why the second child was a female; and this question is by no means an idle one, since the prophet everywhere else adheres closely to the subject-matter, and adds no feature, merely for the sake of giving vividness to the picture. We cannot for a moment suppose, as Jerome and others do, that the female child denotes a more degraded generation. For why, then, is the third again a male child? The supposition proceeds from the altogether unfounded notion that the three children denote different generations. The reason must, on the contrary, be sought for in the name. Schmid says: "It seems to have reference to the weakness of the sex. For the female sex finds greater sympathy than the male." The verb רחם does not denote any kind of love, but only the love of him who is high to him who is low, of the strong to the weak; and hence the LXX., whom Peter follows in 1 Pet. ii. 10 (οὐκ ἠλεημένη), render the word more accurately than Paul, in Rom. ix. 25 (οὐκ ἠγαπημένη). Hence it is never used of man's love to God, but only of the love of God to man,—of His mercy. The only passage which seems to contradict this, Ps. xviii. 2, is not to the purpose, as, there, the Kal is used. But the female sex, being weaker, stands in greater need of the compassion of men, than does the male. Is. ix. 16. The female child places the neediness and helplessness of the people in more striking contrast with the refusal of help from Him who alone can bestow it. The רחמה is either Participle in Pual which has cast off the מ, or the 3d fem. Pret. in pause; thus Cocceius, who explains it by: "She has not obtained mercy." It is in favour of the latter view, that according to Ewald, § 310 b, לא does not often stand before a Participle. The words, "I will not continue," refer to the former great manifestations of divine mercy, and especially the last under Jeroboam, which the people still, at that time, enjoyed; compare 2 Kings xiii. 23: "And the Lord was gracious unto them, and had mercy upon them, and turned towards them because of His covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and would not destroy them, neither cast them from His presence." Upon this contrast, also, rests the mild expression, "I will not have mercy,"—an expression which, in virtue of this contrast, becomes stronger than any other. Several interpreters here lay peculiar stress upon the circumstance, that "the house of Israel" is spoken of. This, the kingdom of Israel, they say, as an independent state, is given over to everlasting destruction; it is only single individuals who shall obtain mercy after they have joined the house of David. But the supposition that "house of Israel" is used in this sense, is altogether unfounded. The house is equivalent to the family; and the prophets speak of "a house of Israel" after the destruction, no less than before it. The words in ii. 6 (4), "I will not have mercy upon her children," and the circumstance that she who is here called Lo-Ruhamah is afterwards called Ruhamah, also militate against referring "house of Israel" to the state. The right view rather is, that the denial of mercy must not be understood absolutely, but relatively. It is not for ever that mercy shall be denied to them, but for a time,—until God's punitive justice shall have been satisfied. Just as Israel shall not always remain Jezreel, Lo-Ammi shall, at some future time, become again Ammi.—The last words are, by the greater number of recent interpreters, almost unanimously explained: "That I should forgive them." But, in that case, we can perceive no reason why the Inf. abs. should be placed before the tempus finitum. Why should the verbal idea here be rendered so emphatic? In addition to this, the extreme feebleness of the sense would be remarkable. Nothing would be said that would not be already implied in the words, "I will not continue any more to have mercy." But, on the other hand, we obtain a very suitable sense if we translate thus: "I will take away from them." The object is not mentioned, just because every thing is to be understood. The prominence given to the verbal idea is then accounted for from its being contrasted with the having mercy, which implies giving. There is then, moreover, a very striking contrast with the standing phrase נשא עון ל, or also simply נשא ל: I shall take away from them, not, however, as hitherto, their guilt (compare Amos vii. 8), but all that they have. Calvin had previously directed attention to the circumstance that the following verse also is in favour of the translation by tollere: "Servare et tollere inter se opponit propheta." Chap. v. 14 may also be compared, where נשא is used in a similar manner, the object being likewise omitted: "I will tear and go away, I will take away, and there is none that delivereth."

Ver. 7. "And I will have mercy upon the house of Judah, and I save them by the Lord their God; and I do not save them by bow, and by sword, and by war, and by horses, and by horsemen."

Several interpreters suppose that mercy is here promised to Judah as a consolation to Israel, inasmuch as the latter should partake in it. But this view is erroneous. From the antithesis to ver. 6, it is evident that mercy is here promised to Judah for the time when Israel shall not find mercy; and we are not at liberty to anticipate the time described in ii. 1-3, when both become partakers of mercy. This is apparent also from the circumstance that in vers. 8, 9, the threatening of punishment to Israel is still continued. It can then only be the intention of the prophet, by describing the mercy which Judah their brethren should experience, to sharpen the goad, more effectually to rouse Israel from their false security, and to direct their attention to the bad foundation of the entire constitution of their political and ecclesiastical affairs, in consequence of which they considered as legitimate that which, in Judah, was only an abuse. As the showing of mercy to Judah runs parallel with the withholding of it from Israel, we can, primarily and chiefly, think only of the different fates of the two, during the Assyrian dominion. The wonderful deliverance of Judah on that occasion is foretold by Isaiah, xxxi. 8, in a similar manner: "And Asshur falls through the sword not of a man, and the sword not of a man devours him." We must not, however, limit ourselves to this event; a preference of Judah over Israel, a remnant of divine mercy appeared, even when they were carried away into captivity. During its continuance, they were not altogether deprived of marks of the continuance of the divine election. Prophets continued to labour among them, as immediate ambassadors of God. Wonderful events showed them in the midst of the Gentiles the superiority of their God, and prepared the way for their deliverance. They maintained, in a far greater degree, their national constitution; and, lastly, their affliction lasted for a far shorter time than did that of the Israelites. Contrary to all human expectation, their affairs soon took a favourable turn, in which only a comparatively small number of their Israelitish brethren partook, while, for the rest, the withholding of mercy continued. But it is just by means of this contrast with the lot of Judah, that the announcement of the lot of Israel appears in its true light. Without this contrast, one might have imagined, that the announcement of the prophet did not go beyond his human vision. It would, of course, appear highly probable that a kingdom so weak as that of Israel,—weak, especially when compared with those great Asiatic kingdoms which were great already, and yet were continually striving after enlargement,—a kingdom, moreover, placed in the midst between these kingdoms, and their natural enemy and rival, Egypt—should not have been able to maintain its existence for any length of time. But this probability existed in a far higher decree in the case of the kingdom of Judah, which was smaller and weaker still, and which had suffered much through Jehoash the father of Jeroboam (2 Kings xiv. 13), under the latter of whom, the splendour and glory of Israel had been so greatly increased. But that which prevented this probability from becoming a reality lay altogether beyond the sphere of human calculation, as Hosea himself here so emphatically expresses. And by such help, the kingdom of Israel would have been delivered, no less than the kingdom of Judah. It is true that this prediction of Hosea is no prediction of some accidental event, but has its foundation in the idea. The lots of Israel and Judah could not be otherwise than so different, after their different position in reference to the Covenant-God was once fixed. Nor is this prediction one which has ceased after its first and literal fulfilment, but is constantly and anew realizing itself. The proceeding of God towards the different Churches and States is regulated by their conduct towards Him. The history of the world is a judgment of the world. But even to know this truth is, in itself, a supernatural gift; and they only are able to use it with safety, to whom God has given an insight into the mysteries of His government of the world. This becomes very evident, if we observe how often the predictions of those who knew the truth in general, down to Bengel and his followers, have been put to shame by the result. God's ways are not our ways. No one knows them except Himself, and those to whom He will reveal them. The extent to which the prophecy rests on the idea is, moreover, clearly seen by the words, "And I save them by Jehovah their God." Here we have the ground of their deliverance. Jehovah is the God of Judah, and, hence, the source of their salvation, which does not cease to flow although all human sources be dried up. The reason why Israel does not obtain mercy must then be, that Jehovah is not their God. That this contrast is implied here, is confirmed by iii. 5: "Afterwards shall the children of Israel return and seek the Lord their God, and David their king." That which in aftertimes they shall seek, and thereby obtain salvation, they must have lost now; and this loss must be the source of their affliction. Calvin makes the following pertinent remark: "The antithesis between the false gods and Jehovah must here be kept in mind. Jehovah was the God of the house of Judah; and hence, it is just as if the prophet had said, 'Ye indeed profess the name of God, but ye worship the devil, and not God. Ye have no part in Jehovah. He resides in His temple, and has pledged His faithfulness to David when He commanded him to build Him a temple on Mount Zion; but from you, the true God has departed!'" (Compare Amos ii. 8, where the prophet speaks of the god of the ten tribes as one who belongs to them alone, and with whom he has nothing to do.) In contrast with Him who alone could grant help, and whom Israel did not possess, but Judah did, the prophet enumerates, in the remaining part of the verse under consideration, the aids which could not afford any real help, in which Israel was, at that time, much richer than Judah, and in which they placed a false confidence. Compare x. 13: "Thou didst trust in thy way, in the multitude of thy mighty men;" Ps. xx. 8; Mic. v. 9 seqq.; and Deut. xxxiii. 29, where the Lord is spoken of as the only true bulwark and armour: "Happy art thou, Israel: who is like unto thee? a people saved by the Lord, the shield of thy help, thy proud sword: thine enemies shall be liars unto thee, and thou shalt tread upon their high places." Calvin says, "God does not require any other aids; His own strength is quite sufficient. The sum and substance is therefore this, that although the weakness of the kingdom of Judah excites the contempt of all, this shall be no obstacle to its deliverance by the grace of God, although there be no help at all from men."—The prophet has, at the same time, before his eyes the great events of former history, where, when all human resources failed, the power of God had shown itself to be alone quite sufficient.—We cannot assert with Gesenius, that "war" should here be quite identical with "weapons of war;" it rather comprehends everything which is required for war, viz., the prudence of the commanders, the valour of the heroes, the strength of the army, etc. "Heroes and horsemen" are, however, specially mentioned, because in ancient times the main strength of the armies lay in these. Even Mahommed thought himself entitled to hold up a victory which he had obtained without cavalry—by infantry alone—as a miracle wrought immediately by God; comp. Abulf. vit. Moh. pp. 72, 91.

Ver. 8. "And she weaned Lo-Ruhamah, and conceived, and bare a son."

Ver. 9. "And He said, Call his name, Lo-Ammi (i.e., not my people); for you are not My people, and I, not will I be yours."

As the prophet everywhere else adheres closely to his subject-matter, as, indeed, he allows the figure to recede behind the subject of his discourse, but never the opposite, we cannot well imagine that the weaning is mentioned merely for the purpose of making the description more graphic. Calvin says, "I do not doubt that the prophet intends here to commend the Lord's long-continued mercy and forbearance towards that people." The unfaithfulness of the wife, and the forbearance of the prophet, do indeed continue for years. But it is better to suppose that the mention of the weaning is intended to separate the territory of Lo-Ruhamah from the following birth, and to call forth the idea that, now, there may follow one of better import.—The literal translation of the close of the verse is, "And I will not be to you"—equivalent to, "I will not any longer belong to you." We cannot assume, as Manger does, that לאלהים has been here left out, nor, as others do, that it must be supplied. Since it is God who speaks, "to you," or "yours," is sufficiently definite. Similar is Ezek. xvi. 8: "And I entered into a covenant with thee, and thou becamest Mine," ותהיי לי; Ps. cxviii. 6: "The Lord is mine, יהוה לי, I will not fear." The explanation given by some, "I shall not be among you," is too limited. It is the highest happiness to possess God Himself, with all His gifts and blessings, and the greatest misery to lose Him. The fulfilment of this threatening is reported in 2 Kings xvii. 18: "And the Lord was very angry with Israel, and removed them out of His sight; and there was none left but the tribe of Judah alone;" comp. also Is. vii.

The first three verses of the following chapter ought to have been connected with the first chapter; for they contain the announcement of salvation which is necessary to complete the first prophecy.

Chap. ii. 1. "And the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which is not measured nor numbered. And it shall come to pass, in the place where it was said unto them, Not my people ye, it shall be said unto them. Sons of the living God."

The first point which requires to be determined, is the subject of the verse. Every other reference except that to the ten tribes is here out of the question; inasmuch as the same who, in the preceding verse, were called Lo-Ammi, are now to be called sons of the living God. Several of the ancient expositors here assume a sudden transition to the Christian Church; but such would be a salto mortale. Nor are we to understand by the children of Israel, all the descendants of Jacob; for the children of Judah are distinguished from them in ver. 2. Substantially, however, those too are included, as appears from this very verse; for both shall then form one nation of brethren. But here the prophet views only one portion, because to this only did the preceding threatening, and the mission of the prophet in general, refer. From this, also, it may be explained how the prophet may apply to the part the promises of Genesis, which there refer to the whole. The reference to these promises, in the first part of the verse, cannot be at all mistaken. Compare especially, as agreeing most literally, the passage in Gen. xxii. 17: "I will multiply thy seed as the stars of heaven, and as the sand which is on the shore of the sea;" and xxxii. 13 (12): "I make thy seed as the sand of the sea, which is not numbered for multitude." A similar literal reference is in Jer. xxxiii. 22: "As the host of heaven is not numbered, neither the sand of the sea measured; so will I multiply the seed of David My servant." Now, the reference here cannot be accidental. It supposes that these promises were at that time generally known in the kingdom of Israel. They served to strengthen the ungodly in their false security. Relying on them, they charged the prophets with making God a liar in thus announcing the impending destruction of the kingdom, inasmuch as the prophecy had not yet been fulfilled in all its extent. The prophet, however, by his almost literal repetition of the promise, shows that thereby his threatenings are not excluded—"teaches that the visitation of which he had spoken would be such that, nevertheless, God would not forget His word; that the rejection of the people would be such that, nevertheless, its election should stand firm and sure,—and, finally, that the adoption should not be invalid by which He had chosen Abraham's progeny as His people" (Calvin).—The case is quite analogous, when corrupted Christian churches harden themselves in trusting in the promise that the Lord would be with them all the days, and that the gates of hell should not prevail against His Church. The Lord knoweth how to execute His judgments so that His promises shall not suffer thereby, yea, that their fulfilment is thereby rendered possible. The relation of our passage to Is. x. 22 requires further to be considered: "For though thy people Israel be as the sand of the sea, the remnant only shall return." Here, too, the reference to the promises in Genesis cannot be mistaken. But there is this difference,—that in the time of Isaiah, the people, viewing the partial fulfilment of the promises of God in their then prosperous condition, as a sure pledge of divine mercy, founded thereupon their false security. To this, however, the prophet replies, that even the perfect fulfilment would give no warrant for it. In Hosea, however, they rely on the perfect fulfilment, which had, as yet, no existence at all. But Hosea has in view the godly as much as the ungodly. To the former he shows that here also there would be a fulfilment of what is written in Num. xxiii. 19: "God is not a man, that He should lie; neither the son of man, that He should repent. Should He say, and not do it; and speak, and not fulfil it?" Moreover, we cannot fail to see that, in the verse under review, as also in ver. 2, there is an allusion to the first child, Jezreel,—that in the second member of the verse there is an allusion to Lo-Ammi, and in ver. 3, to Lo-Ruhamah. But the name Jezreel is now taken in a good sense, probably in the sense in which it was first given to the valley (compare remarks on i. 4), and also to the town by its founders. Jezreel means "God sows." The founders of the town thereby expressed the hope that God would cause an abundant harvest to proceed from a small sowing—a glorious end from a small beginning. Thus God will now sow the small seed of Israel, and an infinitely rich harvest shall be gained from this sowing; compare remarks on ver. 25.—But if now we seek for the historical reference of the announcement, we are compelled to go back to the sense of those declarations in Genesis. By many, these are referred merely to the bodily descendants of the Patriarchs; by many, also, to their spiritual descendants, their successors in the faith. But the latter reference is altogether arbitrary; and the former could be well-founded only, if the Congregation of the Lord had been destined solely for the natural descendants, and if all the Gentiles had been refused admittance into it. But that such is not the case, is evident from the command to circumcise every bondservant; for, by circumcision, a man was received among the people of God. This appears, further, from the command in Exod. xii. 48, that every stranger who wished to partake of the Passover must be previously circumcised; and this implies that strangers might partake in the sign and feast of the covenant if they wished; compare Michaelis, Mos. Recht. Th. iv. § 184. This appears, moreover, from Deut. xxiii. 1-8, where the Edomites and Egyptians are expressly declared to be capable of being received into the Congregation of the Lord. It appears, still further, from the circumstance that, in the same passage, the command to exclude the Ammonites and Moabites is founded upon a special reason. And, finally, it appears from the Jewish practice at all times. But the heathens who were received among the people of God were considered as belonging to the posterity of the Patriarchs, as their sons by adoption. How indeed could it be otherwise, since, by intermarriage, every difference must have very soon disappeared? They were called children of Israel, and children of Jacob, no less than were the others. It now appears to what extent the promise to the Patriarchs refers to the Gentiles also—viz., in so far as they became believers in the God of Israel, and joined themselves to Israel. Compare Is. xliv. 5: "One shall say, I am Jehovah's, and another shall call the name of Jacob, and another shall write with his hand. Unto the Lord! and boast of the name of Israel." Such an eager desire of the Gentiles towards the kingdom of God regularly took place, either when the God of Israel had revealed Himself by specially distinguishing manifestations of His omnipotence and glory, as, e.g., in the deliverance from the Egyptian and Babylonish captivities, in both of which events we find a number of those who had previously been heathens, ערב, in the train of the Israelites;—or when a feeling of the vanity of the idols of the heathen world had been awakened with special vividness, as in the times after Alexander the Great, in which Roman and Greek heathenism became more and more effete, and rapidly hastened on towards ruin. In the time of Christ, both of these causes co-operated. If there were soundness in the opinion now generally prevalent, according to which the Church of the New Testament stands quite independent of the Congregation of Israel, having originated from a free and equal union of believers from Israel, and of those from among the Gentiles, then indeed the promise now before us would have no longer any reference to New Testament times. The New Testament Church would be a generation altogether different, and no longer acknowledge Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as their fathers. But, according to the constant doctrine of the Old as well as of the New Testament, there is only one Church of God from Abraham to the end of the days—only one house under two dispensations. John the Baptist proceeds upon the supposition that the members of the New Testament also must be children of Abraham, else the covenant and promise of God would come to nought. But as the bodily descent from Abraham is no security against the danger of exclusion from his posterity—of which Ishmael was the first example—and as, so early as in the Pentateuch, it is said, with reference to every greater transgression, "This soul is cut off from its people," so, on the other hand, God, in the exercise of His sovereign liberty, may give to Abraham, in the room of his degenerate children after the flesh, adopted children without number, who shall sit down with him, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of God, whilst the sons of the kingdom are cast out.—After these remarks on the promise to the Patriarchs, there can be no longer any difficulty in making out the historical reference of the announcement before us. It cannot refer to the bodily descendants of Abraham, as such, any more than the promise of a son to Abraham was fulfilled in the birth of Ishmael, or than the Arabs stand related to the promise of the innumerable multitude of his descendants,—a promise which is repeated, in the same extent, to Isaac and Jacob, although they were not the ancestors of the Arabs. Degenerate sons are not a blessing; they are no objects of promise, no sons in the full sense. Every one is a son of Abraham, only in so far as he is a son of God. For this reason the phrases "sons of Israel" and "sons of the living God" are, in the passage before us, connected with each other. Not as though the corporeal descent were altogether a matter of indifference. The corporeal descendants of the Patriarchs had the nearest claims to becoming their children in the full sense. It was to them that the means of becoming so were first granted. To them pertained the covenants, the promises, and the adoption, Rom. ix. 4. But all these external advantages were of no avail to them when they allowed them to remain unused; in these circumstances, neither the promise to Abraham, nor the announcement before us, had any reference to them. Both of them would have remained to this day unfulfilled, although the unconverted children of Israel had increased so as to have become the most populous nation on the face of the whole earth. It thus appears that the announcement before us was first truly realized in the time of the Messiah; inasmuch as it was at that time that the family of the Patriarchs was so mightily increased; and that it will yet be more fully realized, partly by the reception of an innumerable multitude of adopted sons, and partly by the elevation of those who were sons only in a lower sense, to be sons in the highest. That which occurred at the time after the Babylonish captivity, when the Lord stirred up a number of Israelites to return to Palestine, we can regard as only an insignificant prelude; partly because this number was too small to correspond, even in any degree, to the infinite extent of the promise, and partly because there were among them certainly a few only who, in the fullest sense, deserved the name of "Children of Israel." "Israel"—which is the higher name, and has reference to the relation to God—is here used emphatically, as appears especially from a comparison with ver. 4, where it is taken from the degenerate children, and exchanged for the name "Jezreel."—In the second part of the verse, we must first set aside the false interpretation of במקום אשר by "instead of," which is given by Grotius and others. It has arisen from an inappropriate reference to the Latin, which has, however, no support in the Hebrew usus loquendi. The words can only mean (compare Lev. iv. 24, 33; Jer. xxii. 12; Ezek. xxi. 35; Neh. iv. 14): "in the place where," or, more literally still, "in the place that"—the wider designation instead of the narrower. The status constr. is explained by the circumstance that the whole succeeding sentence together expresses only one substantive idea, equivalent to: "in the place of the being said unto them." The place may here be, either that where the people first received the name Lo-Ammi, i.e., Palestine, or the place of the exile, where they first felt the full meaning of it,—the misery being a sermo realis of God. Decisive in favour of the latter reference is the following verse, where the הארץ, the land of the exile, corresponds with מקים in the verse before us. (According to Jonathan, the sense is: "In the place to which they have been carried away among the Gentiles.") It is intentionally that both times the Future יֵאָמֵר is used, which is to be understood as the Present. The difference of time being thus disregarded, the contrast becomes so much the more striking.—By "people" and "children" of God, the same thing is expressed according to different relations. The Israelites were the people of God, inasmuch as He was their King; and children of God, in as far as He was their Father,—their Father, it is true, in the first place, not, as in the New Testament (John i. 12, 13), in reference to the spiritual generation, but in relation to heart-felt love, similar to the love of a father for a son. With regard to the Old Testament idea of son ship to God, compare the remarks on Ps. ii. 7. In this relation, sometimes all Israel is personified as the son of God; thus, e.g., Exod. iv. 22: "Thus thou shalt say unto Pharaoh: My son. My first-born is Israel." Sometimes the Israelites are also called the children or sons of God; e.g., Deut. xiv. 1: "Ye are children to the Lord your God" (compare also Deut. xxxii. 19), although not every single individual could on this account be called "son of God." In this sense, that designation is never used, evidently because the sonship under the Old Testament does not rest so much on the personal relation of the single individual to God,—as is the case in the New Testament,—but the individual rather partakes in it only as a part of the whole. But there is an easy transition from the sonship as viewed in the Old Testament, to the sonship as seen in the New. The former, in its highest perfection, cannot exist at all without the latter. It is only when its single members are born of God, that the Congregation can be regarded and treated as the child of God in the full sense of the word, and that the whole fulness of His love can be poured out upon it; for this is the only way of attaining to likeness with God, which is the condition of admission to the rights of children. Hence it appears that the υἱοθεσία under the Old Testament was an actual prophecy of the times of the New Testament; and from it, it follows also that the announcement under consideration has its ultimate reference to these times. Earlier fulfilments—especially at the return from the Babylonish captivity—are not to be excluded, inasmuch as the idea comprehends in it everything in which it is, even in the least degree, realized; but they can be considered only as a slight prelude to Its real fulfilment, which takes place only when the reality fully coincides with the idea; so that we are not at liberty to limit ourselves to the commencement of the Messianic time, but must include the Messianic time in its last consummation.—Another question still remains:—Why is God here called the "living?" Plainly, to point out the antithesis of the true God to dead idols, which cannot love, because they do not live; and thus to bring out the greatness of the privilege of being the child of such a God. The same antithesis is found in Deut. xxxii. 3 seqq.: "Where are now their gods, the rock in whom they trusted, which did eat the fat of their sacrifices, and drank the wine of their drink-offerings? Let them rise up and help you; let it be a covering to you. See now that I, I am He, and not is a God beside Me. I kill and I make alive. I wound and I heal." This antithesis still continues; the world has only changed its idols. It still always seeks the life from the dead, from the gross idol of sin up to the refined idol of a self-made abstract god, whether he be formed from logical notions or from emotions and feelings. But how much soever they may strive to give life to their idols, they remain dead, although they should even attain to a semblance of life. The true God, on the contrary, lives and continues to live, how much soever they may strive to slay Him. He manifests Himself as the living one, either by smiting and killing them, if they continue in their impenitence, or by healing and quickening them, if they become His children.—Finally,—we must still consider the two citations, in the New Testament, of the passage before us. One in 1 Pet. ii. 10, οἱ ποτὲ οὐ λαὸς, νῦν δὲ λαὸς Θεοῦ· οἱ οὐκ ἠλεημένοι, νῦν δὲ ἐλεηθέντες, must certainly strike us, inasmuch as this epistle, on conclusive grounds (compare Steiger S. 14 ff.), cannot be considered as being addressed to Jewish Christians exclusively. But still more striking is the second quotation in Rom. ix. 25, 26: ὡς καὶ ἐν τῷ Ὡσηὲ λέγει· Καλέσω τὸν οὐ λαόν μου, έν μου· καὶ τὴν οὐκ ἠγαπημένην, ἠγαπημένην. Καὶ ἔσται, ἐν τῷ τόπῳ οὗ ἐῤῥήθη αὐτοῖς οὐ λαός μου ὑμεῖς, ἐκεῖ κληθήσονται υἱοὶ Θεοῦ ζῶντος. Here our passage is not only alluded to, but expressly quoted, and, in opposition to the Jews, the calling of the Gentiles is proved from it. But how can a passage which, according to the whole context, can refer to Israel only, be applied directly to the Gentiles? The answer very readily suggests itself when we reduce the prophecy to its fundamental idea. This is none other than that of divine mercy, which may indeed, by apostasy and unfaithfulness, be prevented from manifesting itself, but can never be extinguished, because it has its foundation in God's nature. Compare Jer. xxxi. 20: "Is Ephraim a dear son to Me, a child of joy? For as often as I speak of him, I must still remember him. Therefore My bowels sound for him, I will have mercy upon him, saith the Lord." Now, in the same manner as this truth was realized in the restoration of the children of Israel to be again the children of God, so it is in the reception of the Gentiles. It is not at all a mere application, but a real proof which here forms the question at issue. It is because God had promised to receive again the children of Israel, that He must receive the Gentiles also; for otherwise that divine decree would have its foundation in mere caprice, which cannot be conceived to have any existence in God. Although the Gentiles are not so near as Israel, yet He must satisfy the claims of those who are more remote, just because He acknowledges the claims of those who are near. The necessity of going back to the fundamental idea appears in the promises as well as in the commandments. We cite only one instance which is especially fitted to serve as a parallel to the case before us. There is no doubt, and prejudice alone could have denied, that in the Pentateuch, by friend and brother the Israelite is to be understood throughout; it is in the New Testament that the command of Christian brotherly love is given. After having commended truthfulness, Paul adds: "Because ye are members of one another"—a reason which can refer to those only who have Christ as their common head. From this limitation, can anything be inferred to the prejudice of love towards the whole human race, or of the duties towards all without any distinction? Just the reverse. It is just because the Israelite is bound to love the Israelite, and the Christian the Christian, that he should embrace all men in love. If the special relation to God as the common Redeemer afford the foundation for the special love, then the general relation to God as the Creator and Preserver must also afford the foundation of universal love; just as from the command to honour father and mother, it necessarily follows that we must also honour uncle and aunt, king and magistrate. This is the only correct view of the laws and prophecies; and if it be consistently followed out, it will make water to flow out of the rock, and will create streams in the wilderness.

Ver. 2. "And the children of Judah and the children of Israel assemble themselves together, and set over themselves one head, and go up out of the land; for great is the day of Jezreel."

The words, "They appoint themselves a king," appear strange at first sight. For it is not, in general, the union of Judah and Israel which the prophet expects from better times;—a perverse union of both, one, it may be, in which the house of Judah shall also give up Jehovah his God, and David his King, only in order to be able to live on a right brotherly footing with Israel, would have been anything but a progress and a blessing;—but such a union as has for its foundation the return of Israel to the true God, and to the Davidic dynasty. This appears clearly from iii. 5. The difficulty is removed by a comparison with the passage of the Pentateuch to which the prophet seems to allude: "Thou shalt set over thee a king, whom the Lord thy God shall choose," Deut. xvii. 15. The prophet seems to have these words before his eyes, as it appears elsewhere also, where he describes the hitherto opposite conduct of the Israelites; compare the remarks on iii. 4. From these it appears that the election of the king by God, who had promised eternal dominion to the house of David, and his election by the people, do not in the least exclude one another. On the contrary, it is because God had elected the king, that now the people also elect him. Calvin remarks: "There appears to be transferred to men what properly belongs to God alone—viz., the appointment of a king; but the prophet expresses, by this word, the obedience of faith; for it is not enough that Christ be given, and placed before men as a King, but they must also acknowledge and reverently receive Him as a King. From this we infer, that when we believe the Gospel, we choose, as it were by our own vote, Christ as our King." That the prophet understands the "setting of a head" in this sense, appears also from the circumstance that the whole verse is based upon the reference to the Exodus from Egypt, which is now to be repeated. To this the words, "They assemble themselves together," likewise refer; for the departure from Egypt was preceded by the assembling together of the whole people. The mention of a "head" refers back to Moses. In his case, as well as that of David subsequently, the election by the people was only the acknowledgment of his having been divinely called.—Another question is, How are the words, "They go up out of the land," to be understood? There can be no doubt that by "land," the land of captivity is designated. For the words are borrowed from Exod. i. 10, where Pharaoh says, "When there falleth out any war, they will join our enemies, and fight against us, and go up out of the land," ועלה מן הארץ. The prophet, moreover, is his own interpreter in ii. 17, where he expressly compares this new going up to the promised land with the former going up from Egypt: "As in the day when she went up out of the land of Egypt;" just as, in other passages, he describes their being carried away, under the figure of their being carried away to Egypt—Assyria being considered as another Egypt. Compare viii. 13: "Now will He remember their iniquity and visit their sins; they shall return to Egypt;" ix. 3: "They shall not dwell in the Lord's land, and Ephraim returns to Egypt." (Compare, on this passage, the Author's Dissertations on the Genuineness of the Pentateuch, vol. i. p. 121 ff.) Moreover, in the other prophets also, the going up from, or deliverance out of, Egypt, forms throughout the basis of the second great deliverance. And this is quite natural; for both of those events stand in the closest actual connection with each other;—both proceeded from the same Divine Being; and the former was a prophecy by fact, and a pledge of the latter. The deliverance of the people of God from Egypt sealed their election; and from the latter the new deliverance necessarily followed;—a relation which repeats itself in individuals also. From this we may explain the fact that in the Psalms, they who celebrate God's former mercies, prove from them to Him and to themselves, throughout, that He must now also be their helper. It is then by no means a mere external similarity which induces the prophets ever and anon to refer to the deliverance from Egypt (compare the passages Mic. ii. 12, 13; Jer. xxiii. 7, 8, which bear so close a resemblance to the passage before us), any more than that the Passover is a mere memorial. Such cannot occur in the true religion which has a living God, and hence knows nothing of anything absolutely past. Ewald's exposition, that they go up out of the country for the purpose of further conquest, and that of Simson, that they go up to Jerusalem, sever the three events which, as the example of previous history shows, are evidently so closely allied; and these expositors, moreover, give, by an addition of their own, that definiteness to the words, "And they shall go up out of the land," which they can obtain only by a reference to the history of the past. In their ambiguity, they almost expressly point to such a commentary.—The article in הארץ, the (i.e., the definite) land, is explained from the circumstance that, in the previous context, there had been an indirect allusion to their being carried away into a strange land. If Israel was no more the people of God,—if they no longer enjoyed His mercy, then it is supposed that they could not remain in the land which they had received only as the people of God, and had hitherto retained only through His mercy. But, primarily, the article refers to "the place where it was said unto them," in the preceding verse.—That along with the children of Israel, the children of Judah also assemble themselves and go up, implies a fact which the prophet had not expressly mentioned, because it did not stand immediately connected with his purpose—viz., that Judah too should be carried into captivity. It thus supplements chap. i. 7, by showing that the mercy there promised to the inhabitants of Judah is to be understood relatively only. Such suppositions, indeed, show very plainly how distinctly the future lay before the eyes of the prophet.^[5]—With regard, now, to the historical reference,—it must, in the first place, be remarked, that whatever is here determined concerning it, must be applicable to all other parallel passages also, in which a future reunion of Israel and Judah, and their common return to the promised land, are announced; e.g., Jer. iii. 18: "In those days the house of Judah shall walk with the house of Israel, and they come together out of the land of the north to the land that I have given to their fathers;" l. 4: "In those days the children of Israel shall come, they and the children of Judah together, weeping shall they come and seek the Lord their God." Compare also Is. xi.; Ezek. xxxvii. 19, 20. In the passage under consideration, several interpreters, as Theodoret, think of the return from Babylon, and refer the "one head" to Zerubbabel. Now we certainly cannot deny that, in that event, there is a small beginning of the fulfilment. But if that had been the entire fulfilment, Hosea would more resemble a dreamer and an enthusiast than a true prophet of the living God. The objection which immediately presents itself—viz., that, after all, the greatest portion of the ten tribes, and a very considerable part of Judah, remained in captivity—is by no means the strongest. Although the whole both of Judah and Israel had returned, the real and final fulfilment could not be sought for in that event. It is not the renewed possession of the country, as such, which the prophet promises, but rather a certain kind of possession,—such a possession as that the land is completely the land of God, partaking in all the fulness of His blessings, and thus a worthy residence for the people of God, and for their children. One may be in Canaan, and yet, at the same time, in Babylon or in Assyria. Had not the threatened punishment of God been indeed as fully executed upon those who, during the Assyrian and Babylonish captivities, wandered about the country in sorrow and misery, as upon those who were carried away? Can the circumstance that Jews are even now living in Jerusalem in the deepest misery, be adduced as a proof that the loss of the promised land, with which the people were threatened, had not been completely fulfilled? It is true that, during the times of the Old Covenant, there existed a certain connection betwixt the lower and the higher kinds of possession. As soon as the people ceased to be the people of the Lord, they lost with the former, after being often previously warned by the decrease of it, the latter also. As soon as they obtained again the lower kind of possession, which could happen only in the case of a return to the Lord, they recovered, to a certain degree, in proportion to the earnestness and sincerity of their conversion, the higher kind of possession also. A commencement of the fulfilment must, therefore, be at all events assumed in the return from the Babylonish captivity; but a very feeble commencement only. Just as the conversion was very superficial, so was the degree of the higher kind of possession but a very small one. The manifestations of mercy were very sparing; the condition of the new colony was, upon the whole, very poor; they did not possess the land as a free property, but only under the dominion of a foreigner. That which was, in one respect, the termination of the captivity, was, in another, much rather a continuation of it. It was certainly not the true Canaan which they possessed, any more than one still possesses the beloved object while he embraces only his corpse. Where the Lord is not present with His gifts and blessings, there Canaan cannot be. It was just as the land of the presence of the Lord, that it was so dear and valuable to all believers.—From what has now been said, it appears that, as regards the historical reference, we need not limit ourselves to the times of the Old Covenant, nor dream of a return of Israel to Canaan to take place at some future time. Luther's explanation, "They will go up from this place of pilgrimage to the heavenly father-land," is quite correct,—not indeed according to the letter, but according to the spirit. It is not the form, but the essence of the divine inheritance, which the prophet has in view. The form is a different one under the New Covenant, where the whole earth has become a Canaan; but the essence remains. To cling here to the form, would be just as absurd as if one, who, for Christ's sake, has forsaken all, were to upbraid Him because he had not received again, according to the letter of His promise, precisely an hundred-fold, lands, brothers, sisters, mothers, etc., Mark x. 30. The words of God, which are spirit and life, must be understood with spirit and life.—Suppose that the children of Israel were, at some future time, to return to Canaan, this would have nothing to do with our prophecy. In a religious point of view, it would be a matter of no consequence, and could not serve to prove the covenant-faithfulness of God. Under the New Covenant it finds its fulfilment, that "Canaan must, even in the North, bloom joyfully around the beloved." The three stations—Egypt, the wilderness, and Canaan—will continue to exist for ever; but we go from the one to the other only with the feet of the spirit, and not, as in the Old Covenant, with the feet of the body at the same time. The grossly literal explanation which knows not to separate the thought from its drapery, the essential from the accidental, agrees, just in the main point, with the allegorical explanation—viz., in interpolating, instead of interpreting.—The fulfilment of the prophecy before us is, therefore, a continuous and progressive one, which will not cease until God's whole plan of salvation be consummated. It began at Babylon, and was carried forward at the appearance of Christ, whom many out of Judah and Israel set over themselves as their head, to be their common leader to Canaan. It is, even now, realized every day before our eyes in every Israelite who follows their example. It will, at some future time, find its final fulfilment in the last and greatest manifestation of God's covenant-faithfulness towards Israel, which, happily, is as strongly guaranteed by the New as it is by the Old Testament.—The last words of the verse have been already explained, substantially, in ver. 1. The name "Jezreel" is here used with a reference to its appellative signification. Israel appears here (compare ver. 25 [23], which serves as a commentary and as a refutation of differing interpretations) as a seed which is sown by God in fruitful land, and which shall produce a rich harvest. The figure appears, with a somewhat different turn, in Jer. xxxi. 27; Ezek. xxxvi. 9, where the house of Israel, and the house of Judah, appear as the soil in which the seed is sown by God. Analogous is also Ps. lxxii. 16: "They of the city shall flourish up like the grass of the earth."—The כי is explained by the circumstance that the sowing, which can take place only in the land of the Lord (compare ver. 25), supposes the going up from the land of the captivity. But if the day of sowing be great, if it be regarded by God as high and important, then the going up, which is the condition of sowing, must necessarily take place.

Ver. 3. "Say ye unto your brethren, My people (Ammi); and to your sisters, Who has obtained mercy (Ruhamah)."

The words, "My people," are a concise expression for: "You whom the Lord has called. My people." The mention of the brothers and sisters is explained by the reference to the male and female members of the prophet's family. The phrase, "Say ye," is in substance equivalent to: "Then will ye be able to say." The prophet sees before him the people of the Lord who have experienced mercy; and calls upon the members to salute one another joyfully with the new name given to them by God. Such is the simple meaning of the verse, which has been darkened by a multitude of forced interpretations.

^[1] In Hab. ii. 1, where the prophet is standing upon his watch, and watches to see what the Lord will say unto him, it would be rather strange to translate "in me." There is nothing else to lead us to conceive that the apparition of angels in Zech. is internal. But Num. xii. 8 is quite decisive. The Lord there says, with reference to His relation to Moses, "Mouth to mouth I speak to him (בו);" and immediately afterwards it is said, "Wherefore, then, were ye not afraid to speak to My servant (בעבדי), to Moses?" It is evident that the ב cannot be explained by "in" in the one case, and by "through" in the other. It is remarkable, however, that דבר with ב occurs very frequently when the Lord Himself, or, as in Zechariah, the Angel, speaks. This may, perhaps, be explained from the circumstance, that the heavenly discourses have an especially penetrating power, and sink very deeply into the heart.

^[2] This is very natural, for the proper name has originally a cheering signification. It is apparent from the remarks of Schubert (Reise iii. S. 164-166), and of Ritter (Erdkunde 16, i. S. 693), on the natural condition of the plain of Jezreel, how it happened that it received this name, which means: "God sows." Schubert calls the soil of Jezreel a field of corn, the seed of which is not sown by any man's hand, the ripe ears of which are not reaped by any reaper. The various kinds of corn appeared to him to be wild plants; the mules walked in them with half their bodies covered by them; the ears of wheat were sown by themselves. "All travellers," says Ritter, "agree in their descriptions of the extraordinary beauty and fertility of the plain."

^[3] This transference was so much the more natural, as, under the government of the house of Jehu, guilt had certainly been frequently concentrated in the form of blood-guiltiness. Compare Is. i. 21, where the prophet, in order to mark out the reigning sin in its highest degree, represents Jerusalem as being full of murderers.

^[4] Hitzig is of opinion that "the prophet cannot blame him for the death of Joram and Jezebel, but may well do so for the murder of Ahaziah, king of Judah, and of his brethren, and for the carnage described in 2 Kings x. 11." But Ahaziah was not killed at Jezreel: compare 2 Kings ix. 27; 2 Chron. xxii. 9. And "the carnage in 2 Kings xii." likewise took place at Jezreel to a small extent only, in so far, namely, as it concerned the princes of the house of Ahab, who still remained in Jezreel. Compare Thenius on this passage.

^[5] That the carrying away of Judah, which is here supposed, is a total and future one, and not, as Hofmann (Weiss. u. Erf. i. S. 210) asserts, one which is partial and already past (Joel iv. [iii.] 2-8; Amos i. 6, 9), appears from the analogy of the children of Israel,—from the reference to the type of the Egyptian conditions,—from a comparison of chap. v. 5, 12, xii. 1-3,—from the fact that the carrying away is placed in the view of the whole people as early as in the Pentateuch, e.g., Deut. xxviii. 36, iv. 26, 27,—and, finally, from the fact, that the other prophets also, even from the most ancient times, manifest a clear knowledge of the catastrophe which threatened Judah also; comparee.g., Amos ii. 4, 5. Moreover, in Is. xi. 11, 12, also, the return of Judah is prophesied, although no express announcement of the carrying away precedes. In like manner, in Amos ix. 11, the restoration of the fallen tabernacle of David is foretold, although no express mention is made of its fall.

CHAP. II. 4-25 (2-23).

"The significant couple"—Rückert remarks—"disappears in the thing signified by it; Israel itself appears as the wife of whoredoms." This is the only essential difference between this and the preceding sections; and it is the less marked, because even there, in the last part of it, the symbolical action passed over into a mere figure. With this exception, this section also contains the alternation of punishment and threatening, and of promise,—the latter beginning with ver. 16 (14). The features of the image, which were less attended to in the preceding portion, but are here more carefully portrayed, are the rejection of the unfaithful wife, and her gradual restoration. Calvin says: "After God has laid open their sins before men. He adds some consolation, and tempers the severity, lest they should despair. But then He returns again to threatenings, and He must do so necessarily; for though men may have been terrified by the fear of punishment, yet they do not recover, and become wise for ever." "By a new impetus as it were," says Manger, "he suddenly returns to expand the same argument, and sets out again from things more sad."

Ver. 4. "Contend with your mother, contend; for she is not my wife, and I am not her husband: and let her put away her whoredoms from her face, and her adultery from her breasts."

Calvin is of opinion that a contrast is here intended, inasmuch as the Israelites were striving with God, and attributed to Him the cause of their misfortune: "Do not contend with Me, but rather with your mother, who, by her adultery, has brought down righteous punishment upon herself and upon you." But this interpretation is inadmissible; because it proceeds from the unfounded supposition that the divorce is to be considered as having already taken place outwardly, whilst the contending here clearly appears as one by which divorce may yet be averted. The words, "Contend with your mother," rather mean, on the contrary, that it is high time to call her to account, if they would not go to destruction along with her. From this, however, we are not entitled to infer that the moral condition of the children was better than that of the mother. Without any regard to their moral condition, the prophet only wishes to say that their interest required them to do this. If it were not his intention just to carry out the image of adultery, he might as well have called upon the mother to contend against the children, as it is said in Is. li. 1: "Behold, for your iniquities you have been sold, and for your transgression your mother has been put away." In point of fact, the mother has no standing-place apart from the children. Vitringa says: "One and the same people is called 'mother' when viewed in their collective character; and 'children' when viewed in the individuals who are born of that people. For a people is born from the people. For the whole people is considered according to that which is radical in it, which constitutes its nature and substance,—and, in this respect, it is called the 'mother of its citizens.'" But we are as little entitled to infer from this exhortation, that a reform, and an averting of the threatened judgments, may still be hoped for. This is opposed by what follows, where the wife appears as incorrigible, and her rejection as unavoidable. The fundamental thought is, on the contrary, only this:—that a reform is necessary if the threatened judgments are to be averted. That this necessity, however, would not become a reality, the prophet foresaw; and for this reason he speaks unconditionally in the sequel. But from this again it must not be inferred that, in that case, his exhortations and threatenings would be altogether in vain. Though no reform was to be expected from the people, single individuals might, nevertheless, be converted. At the same time, it was of great importance for the future, that before the calamity should break in, a right view of it should be opened up to the whole people. It is of great importance, that if any one be smitten, he should know for what reason. The instructions in the doctrines of Christianity, which a criminal has received in childhood, may often seem for a long series of years to have been altogether in vain; but afterwards, notwithstanding, when punishment has softened his heart, they bring forth their fruits.—In the words, "For she is not my wife, and I am not her husband," the ground of the exhortation is stated. Even for this reason, the words cannot be referred to the external dissolution of the marriage, to the punishment of the wife; they signify rather the moral dissolution of the marriage—the guilt of the wife—and are equivalent to: "our marriage is dissolved de facto." But in the case of the spiritual marriage, this dissolution de facto is always, sooner or later, according to the greater or smaller measure of God's forbearance, followed by the dissolution de jure; or, to speak without figure, wherever there is sin, punishment will always follow. God bears with much weakness on the part of His people; but wherever, through this weakness, the relation to Him is essentially dissolved, He there annuls the relation altogether. The παρεκτὸς λόγου πορνείας applies to spiritual marriages also. The surrender of the main faculties and powers of our nature to something which is not God, stands on a par with carnal adultery. Thus, then, the connection betwixt "contend" and "for" clearly appears.—Many interpreters, viewing the clause beginning with כי as parenthetical, would connect the last words of the verse with ריבו: "Contend with your mother that she may put away." But the words are rather to be considered as parallel with the first member; for "contend," etc., is equivalent to: "seek to bring your mother to a better way," or: "let your mother reform herself." Her crime is designated first as whoredom, and then as adultery. The relation in which the two stand to one another is plainly seen from chap. i. 2, where the notion of adultery is paraphrased by: "whoring away from the Lord." By "whoredom," the genus—carnal crimes in general—is designated; by "adultery," the species, or carnal crime by which the sacred rights of another person are, at the same time, violated. The idea of whoredom, when transferred to a spiritual relation, implies chiefly the worldliness of those with whom God has not entered into any special relation; whilst the idea of adultery implies the worldliness of individuals and communities with whom God has entered into a special marriage, and whose apostasy is, for this reason, far more culpable. Leaving out of view the more aggravating circumstance, the prophet first speaks of whoredom in the case of the children of Israel also.—The reason why the whoredom is here attributed to the face, and the adultery to the breasts, is well given by Manger: "We need not have any difficulty about seeing adultery attributed to the very face and breasts. There is a certain expressiveness in this conciseness which demonstrates, as it were before our eyes, that, in her whole deportment, the wife was given over to sensuality, and that her whole aim was only to excite to it, and to practise it. For the face is, with women, the sign of dissolute lasciviousness—as Horace expresses it in his Odes, I. 19:—

Urit grata protervitas Et vultus nimium lubricus aspici.

Ezekiel, too, in chap. xxiii. 3, speaks of 'the pressed breasts of Israel in Egypt.'" Schmid states as the reason why just the face and breasts are mentioned, "that Scripture, in order not to offend modesty, forbears to mention the worse and grosser deeds of fornication." But this is very little in harmony with the manner of Scripture—as may be seen from a comparison of Ezek. xvi. and xxiii., and of ver. 12 of the chapter before us. The reason rather is, that those parts are here specially to be mentioned, in which the whoring nature openly manifests itself; so that the highest degree of impudence is thereby expressed. This then shows that there is no longer any halting, no longer any struggle of the better against the evil principle. Such an impudent whore he resembles who, without shame or concern, publicly exhibits his devotedness to the world. In this way has Calvin also explained it. "There is no doubt," says he, "that the prophet here expresses the impudence of the people, who in their hardihood, in their contempt of God, in their sinful superstitions, and in every kind of wickedness, had gone to such lengths, that they were like whores who do not conceal their turpitude, but publicly prostitute themselves, yea, try to exhibit the signs of their wickedness in their eyes, as well as in their whole body."

Ver. 5. "Lest I strip her naked and expose her as in the day of her birth, and make her like the wilderness, and set her like dry land, and slay her by thirst."

In the marriage here spoken of, there was this peculiarity, that the husband first redeemed the wife from a condition the most wretched and miserable, before he united himself to her; and hence became her benefactor, before he became her husband. Compare iii. 2, where the Lord redeems the wife from slavery; and Ezek. xvi. 4, where the people appear as a child exposed, naked, and covered with filth, upon whom the Lord has mercy,—whom He provides with precious clothing and splendid ornaments, and destines for His spouse. During the marriage, the husband continues his liberality towards his wife. But now, the gifts, all of which had been bestowed upon her only with a view to the marriage which was to take place or was already entered upon, are to cease, because the marriage-tie has been broken by her guilt. She now returns to the condition of the deepest misery in which she had been sunk before her union to the Lord.—There is, in this, an allusion to that which, in the case of actual marriage, the husband was bound to give to his wife, viz., clothing and food; compare Is. iv. 1. If God withdraws His gifts, the consequences are infinitely awful, because, altogether unlike the natural husband, He has everything in His possession; if He does not give anything to drink. He then slays by thirst. If we keep in view this aggravation of the punishment, which has its ground only in the person of the husband, it is evident that we have here before us only a reference to the withdrawal of the marriage-gifts which is the consequence of the divorce, and not, as several interpreters—e.g., Manger—suppose, to a punishment of adultery, alleged by them to have been common at that time, "that the wife was stripped of her clothes, exposed to public mockery, and killed by hunger and thirst." The eternal and universal truth which, in the verse before us, is expressed with a special reference to Israel, is, that all the gifts of God are bestowed upon individuals, as well as upon whole nations, either in order to lead them to the communion of life with Him, or because this communion already exists; just as our Saviour says that to him who has successfully sought for the kingdom of heaven, all other things shall be added, without any labour on his part. If we overlook the truth that the gifts of God have this object—if they be not received and enjoyed as the gifts of God—if the spiritual marriage be refused, or if, having been already entered into, it be broken,—sooner or later the gifts will be withdrawn.—The word "naked" properly includes a whole clause: "I shall strip her so that she shall become naked." The verb הצּיג, "to place," "to set," has the secondary signification of public exhibition; compare Job xvii. 6. The literal translation ought to be, "I shall expose her as the day of her birth;" and we must assume that there is here the occurrence of one of those numerous cases, in which the comparison is merely alluded to, without being carried out; compare, e.g., "Like the day of Midian," Is. ix. 3; "Their heart rejoiceth like wine," Zech. x. 7. The tertium comparationis between the day of her birth and her future condition is only the entire nakedness; compare Job i. 21. Any allusion to the filth, etc., is less obvious; the prophet would have been required to give an intimation of this in some manner. The two parts of the first hemistich of the verse correspond with each other; just as do the three parts of the second hemistich. In the first, the withdrawal of clothing, and nakedness; in the second, the withdrawal of food, and hunger and thirst. It is questionable whether the mention of the birth-day here belongs merely to the imagery, is a mere designation of entire nakedness, because man is never more naked than when he comes into the world; or whether it is to be understood as belonging to the thing itself, and refers to the condition of the people in Egypt to which they are now to be reduced. In favour of the latter explanation, there is not only the comparison of the parallel passage in Ezekiel, but, still more, the purely matter-of-fact character of the entire description. Israel is, in this section, not compared to a wife, so that figure and thing would be co-ordinate, but appears as the wife herself. Ver. 17 also is in favour of this interpretation.—The words, "I make her like the wilderness," which, by Hitzig and others, are erroneously referred to the country instead of the people, are pertinently explained by Manger: "The prophet depicts a horrible and desperate condition, where everything necessary for sustaining life is awanting,—where she has to endure a thirst peculiar to an altogether uncultivated and sunburnt wilderness." The comparison appears so much the more suitable, when we remark that wilderness and desert are here personified, and appear as hungry and thirsty. This, however, was too poetical for several prosaic interpreters. Hence they would in both instances supply a ב after the כ, "as in the wilderness" = "I place her in the condition in which she was formerly, in the wilderness." But it is self-evident that such a supplying of the ב is inadmissible. If we were to receive this interpretation, we must rather assume that here also there is merely a comparison intimated: "as the wilderness,"—for, "as she was in the wilderness." But even then, the interpretation cannot, for another reason, be admitted. The impending condition of the people did not, in the least, correspond to what it was in the wilderness. The natural condition of the wilderness was not then seen in all its reality; the people of the Lord received bread from heaven, and water from the rock. It has its antitype rather in such a condition as that which is to follow upon the punishment, ver. 16. The Article indicates that, by "the wilderness," we are here to understand, specially, the Desert of Arabia,—the desert κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν. But that this comes into consideration only as one especially desolate, and not as the former abode of the Israelites, appears from the following—"in dry land," without the Article, and not, as otherwise we would expect, "in the dry land." Finally,—We have a parallel to this in the threatening in Deut. xxviii. 48: "And thou servest thine enemy whom the Lord thy God will send upon thee, in hunger, and in thirst, and in nakedness, and in great want."

Ver. 6. "And I will not have mercy upon her children, for they are children of whoredoms."

It appears from ver. 7, that the children are to be repudiated on account of their origin (compare the remarks on i. 2), and not on account of their morals. Michaelis says, "They have the same disposition, and follow the same course as their adulterous mother; for a viper bringeth forth a viper, and a bad raven lays a bad egg." The cause of their rejection is, that they are children of whoredoms. That they are such, is proved by the circumstance that their mother is whoring. Compare also v. 7: "They have become faithless to the Lord, for they have born strange children." In point of fact, however, a sinful origin and a sinful nature are identical.

Ver. 7. "For their mother has been whoring, she who bore them has been put to shame; for she has said, I will go after my lovers, the givers of my bread and my water, of my wool and my flax, of my oil and my drink."

הובישה is explained in a two-fold way. The common explanation is: "She has practised what is disgraceful, she has acted shamefully." Others, on the contrary, explain: "She has been put to shame, she has been disgraced." In this latter way it is explained by Manger, who remarks, "that this word is stronger than זנה; that it implies not only an accusation of vile whoredom, but also that she has been convicted of this crime, and as it were apprehended in flagranti; so that, even if she were yet impudent enough, she could no longer deny it, but must sink down in confusion and perplexity." This latter exposition is, without doubt, the preferable one; for, 1. הוביש never occurs in the first-mentioned signification. Winer contents himself with quoting the passage before us. Gesenius refers, moreover, to Prov. x. 5. But the בן מביש of that passage is evidently a son bringing disgrace upon his parents,—in xxix. 15 אמּו is added,—or making them ashamed, disappointing their hopes. On the other hand, the signification, "to be put to shame," "to be convicted of a disgraceful deed," is quite an established one. Compare, e.g., Jer. ii. 26: "As the disgrace of a thief when he is found, thus the whole house of Israel is put to shame;" Jer. vi. 15: "They are put to shame, for they have committed abomination; they shamed not themselves, they felt no shame;" compare also Jer. viii. 9. In all these passages, הוביש signifies the shame forced upon those who have no sense of shame.—2. The signification, "to act disgracefully," does not admit of a regular grammatical derivation. Gesenius refers to analogies such as הרע ,היטיב; but these would be admissible only if the Kal בוש signified, "to be infamous," while it means only "to be ashamed." Being derived from בוש, the verb can mean only "to put to shame," in which signification it occurs, e.g., in 2. Sam. xix. 6. But, on the other hand, the signification, "to be put to shame," can be well defended. As the Hiphil cannot have an intransitive signification, it must, with this signification, be considered as derived from בשת, "pudorem, ignominiam contraxit,"—a view which is favoured by Jer. ii. 26.—The "lovers" are the idols; compare the remarks on Zech. xiii. 6. The כי confirms the statement, that she who bare them has been whoring, and has been put to shame by a further exposure of the crime and its origin. The same delusion which appears here as the cause of the spiritual adultery, is stated as such also in Jer. xlix. 17, 18. Jeremiah there warns the people not to contract sin by idolatry, because that was the cause of all their present misery, and would bring upon them greater misery still. But they answer him, that they would continue to offer incense and drink-offerings to the Queen of heaven, as they and their fathers had formerly done in their native land; for, "since we left off to do so, we have wanted all things, and were consumed by hunger and sword." The antithesis in Jer. ii. 13 of the fountain of living waters, and the broken cisterns that hold no water, has reference likewise to this delusion. But that which is the cause of the gross whoredom, is the consequence of the refined one. The inward apostasy must already have taken place, when one speaks as the wife does in the verse before us. As long as man continues faithfully with God in communion of life, he perceives, by the eye of faith, the hand in the clouds from which he receives everything, which guides him, and upon which everything—even that which is apparently the most independent and powerful—depends. As soon as, through unbelief, he has lost this communion with God, and heaven is shut against him, he allows his eye to wander over every visible object, looks out for everything in the world which appears to manifest independence and superior power, makes this an object to which he shows his love, soliciting its favour, and making it his god. In thus looking around, the Israelites would, necessarily and chiefly, have their eyes attracted by the idols. For they saw the neighbouring nations wealthy and powerful; and these nations themselves derived their power and wealth from the idols. To these also the Israelites now ascribed the gifts which they had hitherto received; and this so much the rather, because it was easier to satisfy the demands of these idols, than those of the true God, who requires just that which it is most difficult to give—the heart, and nothing else. And, being determined not to give it to Him, they felt deeply that they could expect no good from Him. Whatever good He had still left to them, they could consider as only a gift of unmerited mercy, and destined to lead them to repentance,—a consideration which makes a natural man recoil and draw back, inasmuch as, in his relation to God, he always thinks only of merit. That which we thus perceive in them is even now repeated daily. We need only put in the place of idols, the abstract God of the Rationalists and Deists, man's own power, or the power of other men, and many other things besides, and it will at once be seen that the words, "I will go after my lovers that give me my bread," etc., are, up to the present moment, the watch-word of the world.—"Bread and water" signify the necessaries of life; "oil and (strong) drink," those things which serve rather for luxuries.—"My bread," etc., is an expression of affection, indicating that she regards these as most necessary, and to be sought after, in preference to everything else.

Ver. 8. "Therefore, behold, I hedge up thy way with thorns, and I wall her wall, and her paths she shall not find."

The apostate woman is first addressed: "thy way;" but the discourse then passes to the third person,—"her wall, her paths." We must not conceive of this, as if the wife were to be shut up in a two-fold way:—first, by a hedge of thorns, and then, by a wall; but the same thing is expressed here by a double figure, as is also done in Is. v. 5. First, the shutting up is alone spoken of; it is afterwards brought into connection with the effects to be thereby produced; and because she is enclosed by a wall, she cannot find her path. "I wall her wall" is tantamount to, "I make a wall for her." The words of the husband in the verse under consideration form an evident contrast to those of the wife in the preceding verse. Schmid says: "The punishment is by the law of retaliation. She had said, 'I will go to my lovers;' but God threatens, on the contrary, that He will obstruct the way so that she cannot go."הנני points to the unexpectedness of the result. The wife imagined that she would be able to carry out her purpose with great safety and ease; it does not even occur to her to think of her husband, who had hitherto allowed her, from weakness, as she imagines, to go on her way undisturbed; but she sees herself at once firmly enclosed by a wall.—There can be no doubt, that, by the hedging and walling about, severe sufferings are intended, by which the people are encompassed, straitened, and hindered in every free movement. For sufferings regularly appear as the specific against Israel's apostasy from their God. Compare, e.g., Deut. iv. 30: "In the tribulation to thee, and when all these things come upon thee, thou returnest in the end of the days to the Lord thy God, and hearest His voice;" Hosea v. 15: "I will go and return to My place till they become guilty; in the affliction to them, they will seek Me." The figure of enclosing has elsewhere also, undeniably, the meaning of inflicting sufferings. Thus in Job iii. 23: "To the man whose way is hid, and whom God has hedged in round about;" xix. 8: "He hath fenced up my way and I cannot pass, and upon my paths He sets darkness;" Lam. iii. 7: "He hath hedged me about, and I cannot get out; He hath made my chain heavy;" compare also ibid. ver. 9; Ps. lxxxviii. 9.—The object of the walling about is to cut her off from the lovers; the infliction of heavy sufferings is to put an end to idolatrous tendencies.—The words, "thy way," clearly refer to, "I will go after my lovers," in ver. 7; and by "her paths which she cannot find," her whole previous conduct in general is indeed to be understood, but chiefly, from the connection with ver. 7, her former intercourse with idols. But here the question arises:—How far is the remedy suited for the attainment of this end? We can by no means think of an external obstacle. Outwardly, there was, during the exile, and in the midst of idolatrous nations, a stronger temptation to idolatry than they had in their native land. Hence, we can think of an internal obstacle only; and then again we can think only of the absolute incapacity of the idols to grant to the people consolation and relief in their sufferings. If this incapacity has been first ascertained by experience, we begin to lose our confidence in them, and seek help where alone it can be found. As early as in Deut. xxxii. we are told how misery proves the nothingness of false gods, and shows that the Lord alone is God; compare especially ver. 36 sqq. Jeremiah says in ii. 28, "And where are thy gods that thou hast made thee? Let them arise and help thee in the time of trouble." That which the gods cannot turn away, they cannot have sent; and if the suffering be sent by the Lord, it is natural that help should be sought from Him also. Compare vi. 1: "Come and let us return unto the Lord, for He hath torn and He healeth us, He smiteth and He bindeth us up."

Ver. 9. "And she runs after her lovers and shall not overtake, and she seeks them and shall not find; then she saith: I will go and return to my first husband, for it was better with me then than now."

רדף has, in Piel, not a transitive, but an intensive meaning. Calvin remarks: "By the verb, insane fervour is indicated, as indeed we see that idolaters are like madmen; it shows that such is the perverseness of their hearts, that they will not at once return to a sound mind." The distress at first only increases the zeal in idolatry; compare Jer. xliv. 17. Every effort is made to move the idols to help. But if help be, notwithstanding, refused—and how could it be otherwise, since they from whom it is sought are Elilim, i.e., nothings?—they by and by begin to bethink themselves, and to recover their senses. They discover the nothingness of their idols, and return to the true God. This apostasy and return are in a touching manner described by our prophet in xiv. 2-4 also. The words, "I will go and return to my first husband," form a beautiful contrast to, "I will go after my lovers," in ver. 7. This statement of the result shows that God's mercy is then greatest and most effective, just when it seems to have disappeared altogether, and when His punitive justice seems alone to be in active exercise. For the latter is by no means to be excluded, inasmuch as there is no suffering which does not, at the same time, proceed from it, and no punishment which is inflicted solely on account of the reformation.

Ver. 10. "And she, she does not know that I gave her the corn, and the must, and the oil, and silver I multiplied unto her, and gold which upon Baal they spent."

The prophet, starting anew, here returns to a description of her guilt and punishment; and it is only from ver. 16 that he expands what, in ver. 9, he had intimated concerning her conversion, and her obtaining mercy. The words, "She saith," in that verse, belong thus to a period more remote than the words, "She does not know," in the verse before us. The things which are here enumerated were, in the case of Israel, in a peculiar sense, the gift of God. He bestowed them upon the Congregation as her Covenant-God, as her husband. They are thus announced as early as in the Pentateuch; compare, e.g., Deut. vii. 13: "And He loveth thee, and blesseth thee, and multiplieth thee, and blesseth the fruit of thy womb, and the fruit of thy land, thy corn, thy must, and thy oil;" xi. 14: "And I give the rain of your land in due season, and thou gatherest in thy corn, thy must, and thy oil." It is certainly not accidental that Hosea enumerates the three objects, just in the same order in which they occur in these two passages. By the celebration of the feasts, and by the offering of the first-fruits, the Israelites were to give expression to the acknowledgment, that they derived these gifts of God from His special providence—from the covenant relation. The relative clause עשו לבעל is subjoined, as is frequently the case, without a sign of its relation, and without a pron. suff., which is manifest from the preceding substantive. Several interpreters, from the Chaldee Paraphrast down to Ewald, give the explanation, "which they have made for a Baal," i.e., from which they have made images of Baal, and appeal to viii. 4: "Their silver and their gold they have made into idols for themselves." But we must object to this opinion on the following grounds. 1. עשה, with ל following, is a religious terminus technicus, with the sense of, "to make to any one," "to appropriate," "to dedicate," as appears from its frequent repetition in Exod. x. 25 sqq., and also from the fact that ליהוה is frequently omitted. The phrase is used with a reference to idolatry in 2 Kings xvii. 32; 2 Chron. xxiv. 7.—2. It cannot be proved that הבעל, in the singular and with the Article, could be used for "statues of Baal."—3. By this explanation we lose the striking contrast between that which the Israelites were doing, and that which they were to do. That which the Lord gave to them, they consecrated to Baal, instead of to Him, to whom alone these embodied thanks were due. And, not satisfied in withdrawing from the true God the honour and thanks which were due to Him, they transferred them to His enemy and worthless rival,—a proceeding which bears witness to the deep corruption of human nature, and which, up to the present day, is continually repeated, and must be so, because the corruption remains the same. It is substantially the same thing that the Israelites dedicated their gold to Baal, and that our great poets consecrate to the world and its prince the rich intellectual gifts which they have received from God. The words, "and she knew not," in both cases show that they are equally guilty and equally culpable. He who bestows the gifts has not concealed Himself; but they on whom they are bestowed have shut their eyes, that they may not see Him to whom they are unwilling to render thanks. They would fain wish that their liberal benefactor were utterly annihilated, in order that they may not be disturbed in the enjoyment of His gifts by a disagreeable thought of Him,—in order that they may freely use and dispose of them, without being obliged to fear their loss,—and in order that they may be able to devote them, without any obstruction, to a god who is like themselves, who is only their own self viewed objectively (ihr objectivirtes Ich). Parallel to the passage before us, and, it may be, formed after it, is Ezek. xvi. 17, 18: "And thou didst take thy ornament of My gold and of My silver which I gave thee, and madest to thyself images of men, and didst commit whoredom with them. And thou tookest thy broidered garments, and coveredst them, and My fat and Mine increase thou gavest before them." Hitzig understands, by the Baal here, the golden calf, appealing to the fact that the real worship of Baal had been abolished by Jehu. But no proof at all can be adduced for the assertion that the name of Baal had been transferred to the golden calf. It is self-evident, and is confirmed by 2 Kings xiii. 6, xvii. 16 (in the latter of which passages the worship of Baal appears as a continuous sin in the kingdom of the ten tribes), that the destruction of the heathenish worship by Jehu was not absolute. But so much is certain, that by the mention of Baal, the sin is here designated only with reference to its highest point, and that, in substance, the service of the calves is here included. In 1 Kings xiv. 9, it is shown that the sin of worshipping Jehovah under the image of calves is on a par with real idolatry; and in 2 Chron. xi. 15, the calves are put on a footing with the goat-deities of Egypt.