Volume 1 — THE PROPHET HOSEA.

THE PROPHET HOSEA.

GENERAL PRELIMINARY REMARKS.

That the kingdom of Israel was the object of the prophet's ministry is so evident, that upon this point all are, and cannot but be, agreed. But there is a difference of opinion as to whether the prophet was a fellow-countryman of those to whom he preached, or was called by God out of the kingdom of Judah. The latter has been asserted with great confidence by Maurer, among others, in his Observ. in Hos., in the Commentat. Theol. ii. i. p. 293. But the arguments by which he supports this view will not stand the test. He appeals (1) to the inscription. The circumstance that, in this, there is mention made of the kings of Judah under whom Hosea exercised his ministry,—that they are mentioned at all,—and that they are mentioned first and completely, while only one of the kings of Israel is named, proves, according to him—especially on a comparison with the inscription of Amos—that the prophet acknowledged the kings of Judah as his superiors. But this mode of argumentation entirely overlooks the position which the pious in Israel generally, and the prophets especially, occupied in reference to Judah. They considered the whole separation—the civil as well as the religious—as an apostasy from God. And how could they do otherwise, since the eternal dominion over the people of God had been granted, by God, to the house of David? The closeness of the connection between the religious and the civil sufficiently appears from the fact, that Jeroboam and all his successors despaired of being able to maintain their power, unless they made the breach, in religious matters also, as wide as possible. The chief of the prophets in the kingdom of the ten tribes—Elijah—by taking twelve stones according to the number of the tribes of Israel (1 Kings xviii. 31), plainly enough declared, that he considered the separation as one not consistent with the idea of the Jewish kingdom, and that therefore, in reality, it must at some future period be done away with; that he considered the government in Israel as existing de facto, but not de jure.

By none do we find this view so distinctly brought out as by Hosea. "They have set up kings, and not by Me"—says the Lord by him, chap. viii. 4—"they have made princes, and I knew it not." In his view, then, the whole basis of the government in Israel is ungodliness. Because they have chosen kings and princes without God, and against the will of God, they shall be taken from them by God, chap. iii. 4. Salvation cannot come to the people until Israel and, Judah set over themselves one head, ii. 2 (i. 11), until the children of Israel seek Jehovah their Lord, and David their king, iii. 5. These two things are, in his view, intimately connected; no true return to the invisible head of the Theocracy is possible without, at the same time, a return to the visible one—the house of David. What, at some future time, the mass of the people, when converted, were to do, the converted individual must do even now. He even now recognised the kings of the tribe of Judah as truly his sovereigns, although he yielded civil obedience to the rulers of Israel, until God should again abolish the government which He gave to the people in wrath, and set up in opposition to the government of the house of David in His anger, on account of their apostasy. From all this, it clearly appears that, in order to account for the peculiarity of the inscription, we need not have recourse to the conjecture, that Hosea was a native of Judah. One might, with as much reason, maintain that all the prophets in the kingdom of Israel, who rejected the worship of the calves—and hence all the prophets without exception—were natives of the kingdom of Judah. For the worship of the calves is quite on a par with the apostasy from the anointed of God. Hosea mentions, first and completely, the kings of the legitimate family. He then further adds the name of one of the rulers of the kingdom of Israel, under whom his ministry began, because it was of importance to fix precisely the time of its commencement. Uzziah, the first in the series of the kings of Judah mentioned by him, survived Jeroboam nearly twenty-six years; compare Maurer, l. c. p. 284. Now, had the latter not been mentioned along with him, the thought might easily have suggested itself, that it was only during the latter period of Uzziah's reign that the prophet entered upon his office; in which case all that he said about the overthrow of Jeroboam's family would have appeared to be a vaticinium post eventum, inasmuch as it took place very soon after Jeroboam's death. The same applies to what was said by him regarding the total decay of the kingdom which was so flourishing under Jeroboam; for, from the moment of Jeroboam's death, it hastened with rapid strides towards its destruction. If, therefore, it was to be seen that future things lie open before God and His servants "before they spring forth" (Is. xlii. 9), it was necessary that the commencement of the prophet's ministry should be the more accurately determined; and this is effected by the statement, that it happened within the period of the fourteen years during which Uzziah and Jeroboam reigned contemporaneously. That this is the main reason for mentioning Jeroboam's name, is seen from the relation of ver. 2 to ver. 1. The remark there made,—that Hosea received the subsequent revelation at the very beginning of his prophetic ministry, corresponds with the mention of Jeroboam's name in ver. 1. But this is not all; nor can we say that, had it not been for this reason, Hosea would not have mentioned any king of Israel at all, in order that, from the outset, he might exhibit his disposition. There was a considerable difference between Jeroboam and the subsequent kings. Cocceius remarked very strikingly: "The other kings of Israel are not considered as kings, but as robbers." Jeroboam possessed a quasi legitimacy. The house of Jehu, to which he belonged, had opposed the extreme of religious apostasy. It was, to a certain degree, acknowledged, even by the prophets. Jeroboam had obtained the throne, not by usurpation, but by birth. He was the last king by whom the Lord sent deliverance to the people of the ten tribes; compare 2 Kings xiv. 27: "And the Lord would not blot out the name of Israel from under heaven; and He saved them by the hand of Jeroboam, the son of Joash." (2.) The internal reason adduced by Maurer (S. 294) is equally insignificant. "The morum magistri," he says, "are wont more slightly to reprove, in the case of strangers, that which they severely condemn in their own people; but Hosea rebukes with as much severity the inhabitants of Judah, when he comes to speak of them, as he does the Israelites." But no certain inferences can be drawn from such commonplaces; for, in this way we might as reasonably infer, that Isaiah and the writer of the Books of Kings were natives of the kingdom of the ten tribes, because they censure the sins of the Israelites as severely as they do those of the inhabitants of Judah. To this commonplace we might as easily oppose another equally true, viz., the "morum magistri, from a partiality for their own people, are wont to judge more leniently of their faults than of those of strangers." Such maxims require to be applied with the utmost caution, even in the territory to which they belong, because one consideration may be so easily outweighed by another. Here, however, its application is altogether out of the question. The prophets, as the instruments of the Spirit, spoke pure and plain truth without any regard to persons. Whether Hosea was a native of Judah or of Israel, he would express himself in the same way concerning the inhabitants of Judah. He would severely rebuke their sins, and at the same time readily acknowledge, as he does, their advantages,—for "Salvation cometh of the Jews."

If, then, these be the arguments in favour of the Judean origin of Hosea, it readily appears that the probabilities of such an origin, compared with that of his Israelitish descent, are not even in the proportion of one to a hundred. The prophets were almost more numerous in the kingdom of Israel than in that of Judah; and yet the entire history knows of only two instances of prophets being sent from the kingdom of Judah to that of Israel, viz., the prophet spoken of in 1 Kings xiii. and Amos. And the former of these even scarcely belongs to this class, inasmuch as he received only a single mission into the kingdom of Israel, and that, at a time when the prophetic institution was not as yet organized there. In the case of Amos likewise, it is manifest not only that he was only an exception to the rule,—as appears from the transactions with the priest Amaziah, reported in Amos vii. (compare especially ver. 12),—but still more plainly, from the mention in the inscription of his having been a native of Judah.

With regard to the time of the prophet, the inscription places his ministry in the reigns of the kings Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah. A long period is, no doubt, thus assigned to it,—a period embracing at least twenty-six years of Uzziah's reign, and, in addition, the sixteen years of that of Jotham, the sixteen years during which Ahaz reigned, and at least one or two years of the reign of Hezekiah, making, at the lowest calculation, a period of sixty years in all.

This exceedingly long duration of the prophet's ministry might easily excite suspicion regarding the genuineness and correctness of the inscription; but such suspicion is at once set at rest by the fact, that the statements contained in the book itself lead us to assume a period equally extended. The beginning of the prophet's ministry cannot be assigned to any later period; for, in chap. i. 4, the fall of Jeroboam's house, which took place soon after his death, is announced as a future event. Moreover, the condition of the kingdom appears still, throughout the whole first discourse, as a very flourishing one. Nor can the end of his ministry be assigned to any earlier period. For in chap. x. 14, an expedition of Shalman or Shalmaneser against the kingdom of Israel (Vitringa, Proleg. in Is. p. 6) is described as being already past, and a second invasion is threatened. But the first expedition of Shalmaneser, reported in 2 Kings xvii. 1 seqq., is almost contemporaneous with the beginning of Hezekiah's reign. For it was directed against Hoshea, king of Israel, who began his reign in the twelfth year of that of Ahaz, which lasted sixteen years. The exact harmony of the passage in Hosea with that in 2 Kings xvii. is very evident. In 2 Kings xvii. 3, it is said: "Against him came up Shalmaneser, king of Assyria, and Hoshea became his servant and gave him tribute." This was the first expedition of Shalmaneser. Then followed the second expedition, which was caused by the rebellion of Hoshea,—in consequence of which Samaria was taken and the people carried away. In Hos. x. 14, 15, it is said: "And tumult ariseth against thy people, and all thy fortresses shall be spoiled, as Shalman spoiled Beth-arbel in the day of battle; the mother was dashed in pieces upon (her) children. So shall he do unto you, Bethel, because of your great wickedness in the dawn of the morning, destroyed, destroyed shall be the king of Israel." Hosea here declares that the beginning of the destruction by Shalmaneser is the prophecy of the end of the kingdom of Israel. The "morning dawn" is the time of apparently reappearing prosperity, when, according to Cocceius, a time of peace begins to shine. In Amos iv. 13, v. 8, the prosperity again dawning upon the kingdom of Israel is likewise expressed by "morning" and "morning dawn." The identity of Beth-arbel and Arbelah in Galilee can the less be doubted, because recent researches have rendered it certain that this place, now called Irbid, was an important fortress. (Compare Münchener gelehrte Anzeigen 1836, S. 870 ff.; Robinson, iii. 2, p. 534; v. Raumer, S. 108.) The use of Beth-arbel, instead of the more common Arbelah, as well as that of Shalman instead of Shalmaneser, belongs to the higher style. At the first expedition, the decisive battle had, no doubt, taken place at Arbelah. They who disconnect this passage from 2 Kings xvii. do not know what to make of it. Simson complains of the darkness resting on the passage under consideration.—But Hos. xii. 2 (1) likewise leads us to the very last times of the kingdom of Israel,—those times when Hoshea endeavoured to free himself from the Assyrian servitude by the help of Egypt. "Ephraim feedeth on wind, and followeth after the east-wind; he daily increaseth lies and desolation; and they do make a covenant with Assyria, and oil is carried into Egypt." Their sending oil to Egypt, notwithstanding the covenant made with Assyria, is the lie, which goes hand in hand with desolation, while they imagine thereby to work deliverance. This explanation has been already given by J. H. Manger, of whose Commentarius in Hoseam, Campen, 1782—a commentary in many respects excellent—most of the recent commentators, and, lastly, Simson, have, to their great disadvantage, not availed themselves. Manger says: "These words refer to the ambassadors who were sent with splendid presents by king Hoshea to the king of Egypt, in order to win him over to himself, and induce him to assist him against the Assyrians, to whom he had become subject by a solemn treaty."—To the last times of the kingdom of Israel we are likewise led by what occurs in other passages concerning the relation of Israel to Egypt and Asshur. The matter has been falsely represented by very many as if two parties among the people were spoken of,—an Assyrian and an Egyptian party. Nor is it so, that the whole people turn at one time to Egypt in order to free themselves from the Assyrians, and at another time to Assyria to assist them against Egypt. The position is rather thus: The people, heavily oppressed by Asshur, at one time seek help from Egypt against Asshur, and, at another, attempt to conciliate the latter. Precisely thus is the situation described in vii. 11: "They call to Egypt, they go to Asshur." That by which Israel was threatened, was, according to viii. 10, "the burden of the king of princes, the king of Asshur," ver. 9. This they seek to turn off, partly by artifices, and partly by calling to their help the king of Egypt. Asshur alone is the king "warrior" (Jareb), v. 13, x. 6; he only has received the divine mission to execute judgment; compare xi. 5: "He, i.e., Israel, shall not return to the land of Egypt, and Asshur, he is his king." As an ally not to be trusted, Egypt is described in vii. 16, where, after the announcement of their destruction on account of their rebellion against the Lord, it is said: "This shall be their derision on account of the land of Egypt," i.e., thus they shall be put to shame in the hope which they place on Egypt. Is. xxx. 1-5 is quite analogous. In that passage the prophet announces that Judah's attempt to protect themselves against Asshur by means of Egypt would be vain; compare, especially, ver. 3: "And the fortress of Pharaoh shall be your shame, and the trust in the shadow of Egypt, your confusion;" and ver. 5: "Not for help nor for profit, but for shame and for reproach." Such historical circumstances, however, had not yet occurred under Menahem. At that time, Israel was not yet placed in the midst betwixt Asshur and Egypt. It is expressly mentioned in 2 Kings xv. 20, that the invasion of Pul was only transitory, and that not conquest, but spoil, was its aim. The real commencement of the Assyrian oppression is formed by the invasion of Tiglathpileser at the time of Ahaz. Isaiah, in chap. vii., points out the pernicious consequences of Ahaz's calling the Assyrians to his assistance against Syria and Israel. The very fact of this war carried on against Judah by Syria and Ephraim shows, that up to that time, Asshur had not laid his hand upon these regions. It was only with the invasion under Ahaz that there was any display of Asshur's tendency to make permanent conquests on the other side of Euphrates, which could not fail to bring about the conflict with the Egyptian power.—"King Jareb,"—such had already become the historical character of the king of Asshur, at the time when Hosea wrote; but prior to the times of Ahaz and Hezekiah, he did not stand out as such.

There is no decisive weight to be attached to what Simson advances in order to prove that we must fix an earlier date. He argues thus: "Gilead, which, according to 2 Kings xv. 29, was taken and depopulated by Tiglathpileser, whom Ahaz had called to his assistance, appears in vi. 8, xii. 12 (11) to be still in the possession of Israel. Hence, the ministry of the prophet cannot have extended beyond the invasion of Judah by the Syrians and Ephraim." But since the book gives the sum and substance of Hosea's prophecies during a prolonged period, there must necessarily occur in it references to events which already belonged to the past, at the time when the prophet wrote. In chap. i. 4, even the overthrow of the house of Jeroboam appears as being still future.

But even although we could not establish, from other sources, the statement contained in the inscription, the inscription itself would nevertheless be a guarantee for it; and the more so, because there are other analogies in favour of so long a duration of the prophetic office, which was sometimes entered upon even in early youth. The inscription has the same authority in its favour as every other part of the book; and it is hardly possible to understand the levity with which it has, in recent times, been pretty generally designated as spurious, or, at least, suspicious. It is altogether impossible to sever it from the other parts of the book. There must certainly have been some object in view when, in ver. 2, it is expressly remarked, that what follows took place at the beginning of Hosea's ministry. But such an object it will be possible to point out, only in the event of its being more accurately determined at what time this beginning took place—viz., still under the reign of Jeroboam, when the state of things as it appeared to the eye did not yet offer any occasion for such views of the future as are opened up in the first three chapters. Ver. 1 cannot, therefore, be regarded as an addition subsequently made, unless the words in ver. 2, from תחלת to בהושע be so likewise. But these again are most closely connected with what follows by the Future with Vav convers., which never can begin a narrative. There remains, therefore, only this alternative:—either to regard the whole as having been written at a later period, or to claim for Hosea the inscription also. We cannot agree with the view of Simson, that the remark by which the beginning of the book is assigned to the beginning of the prophet's ministry, originated from a chronological interest only; and we can the less do so, because the prophet does not pay any attention to chronology in any other place, but is anxious to give only the sum and substance of what he had prophesied during a series of years. The only exception which he makes in this respect must have originated from strong reasons; and such do not exist, if the inscription in ver. 1, or the mention of the kings in it, be spurious. The mention of the beginning in ver. 2 would, in that case, be so much the more groundless, as we could know nothing at all regarding the length of his ministry.

Much more fruitful, certainly, than all such vain doubts, are the reflections of Calvin on the long duration of the prophet's ministry: "How grievous is it to us when God requires our services for twenty or thirty years; and, especially, when we have to contend with ungodly people, who would not willingly take upon them the yoke, yea, who even obstinately resist us! we then wish to be freed at once, and to become pensioned soldiers. But, seeing this prophet's long protracted ministry, let us take from it an example of patience, that we may not despair although the Lord should not at once free us from our burden."

Many interpreters have zealously attempted to determine the particular portions of this lengthened period to which the particular portions of this book belong. But such an undertaking is wholly vain in the case before us, as well as in that of Micah, and most of the minor prophets generally. The supposition upon which it rests is false—viz., that the collection consists of a number of single, detached portions. We do not possess the whole of Hosea's prophecies, but only the substance of their essential contents,—a survey which he himself gave towards the end of his ministry. This appears (1) from the דבר יהוה in the inscription. In itself, this would not be a decisive argument, as the prophet might also have comprehended in an ideal unity, discourses outwardly distinct; but, nevertheless, as long as no reason appears for the contrary, it is more naturally referred to a continuous discourse with an external unity also. (2.) It appears from the entire omission of all chronological data. The only exception is in ver. 2; but this exception serves only to strengthen the argument drawn from the omission everywhere else. (3.) It is proved by the absence of all certain indications about the beginning and ending of the particular portions. There occur, just as in the second part of Isaiah, new starting points only; but, with these exceptions, the discourse always moves on in the same manner. (4.) It is seen from the indefiniteness and generality of the historical references, which must necessarily arise if the prophet referred, in like manner, to the whole of this lengthened period. That the facts, upon which the last two arguments rest, really exist, is made sufficiently apparent from the immense diversity of opinions as to the number and extent of the particular portions, and as to the time of their composition. There are not even two of the more important interpreters who agree in the main points alone. Such a diversity does not exist in reference to any of the prophetical books which actually consist of detached prophecies. (5.) The style and language are too much the same throughout the whole, to admit of the idea that any long period could have elapsed between the particular prophecies. This, indeed, is only a subordinate argument; but it acquires its full importance, when connected with the foundation of the third and fourth proofs.

It now only remains to give a survey of the historical circumstances at the time of the prophet. This is the more necessary, as a knowledge of these is required for the exposition of the Messianic prophecies, not only of Hosea, but also of Amos, his contemporary.

The kingdom of Israel carried within it, from its very commencement, a twofold element of destruction—viz., the establishment of the worship of the calves, and the rebellion against the dynasty of David. With regard to the former,—the consequence of this apparently so much isolated transgression of a Mosaic ordinance extended much further than would appear upon a superficial view. In this case also it was seen that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. Of far higher importance than the low conceptions of God produced by this symbolical representation of Him, was another aspect of the transaction. The prohibition of image-worship in the Pentateuch was as distinct and clear as it was possible to make it. The kings of Israel were far from rejecting it; but still, how difficult soever it may appear, they found out an interpretation by which they evaded the application of it to their institution. Such a course once entered upon, could only lead them further and further astray. As, in so important a case, they had, in opposition to their own better convictions, allowed themselves to pervert and explain away the law—asserting, probably, that it was given only on account of the coarse sensuality of former generations—the same was done in other things also, as often as it was called for by the disposition of the corrupted heart. All unfaithfulness which is known to be so, and yet is cherished, and excused to the conscience and before men, must draw after it entire ruin, in a community, not less than in an individual. As a reason for this ruin, it is very strikingly said in 2 Kings xvii. 9: "And they covered (this is the only ascertained signification of חפא) words that were not so, over the Lord their God;" i.e., they ventured, by a number of perversions and false interpretations of His word, to veil its true form. To this, the following consideration must be added:—That first change of the religious institutions proceeded from the political power which secured to itself, for the future, an absolute influence upon the religious affairs, by subjecting to its control the ecclesiastical power, which had hitherto been independent of it. Those Levites who, having no regard to the miserable sophisms invented by the king as an excuse, declared against the worship of calves, were expelled, and, in their stead, creatures of the king were made ministers of the sanctuary. This became now the king's sanctuary (compare the remarkable passage, Amos vii. 13), and all the ecclesiastical affairs were, in strict contradiction to the Mosaic law, submitted to his arbitrary power. The consequences of this must necessarily have been all the sadder, the worse the kings were; and they must inevitably have become so, because of the bad foundation on which the royal power rested.

Image-worship was very speedily followed by idolatry,—which is, however, in like manner, not to be looked upon in the light of an undisguised opposition to the true God. Such an opposition took place during the reign of only one king—Ahab—under whom the matter was carried to an extreme. Holy Scripture, however, with a total disregard of the whole multitude of miserable excuses ordinarily made, designates as direct apostasy from God, everything which was substantially such, although it did not outwardly manifest itself as such. Externally, they remained faithful to Jehovah; they celebrated His feasts,—they offered the sacrifices prescribed in the Pentateuch,—they regulated, in general, all the religious institutions according to the requirements there laid down, as may be proved from the Books of Kings, and, still more plainly, from Amos and Hosea. But in all this they discovered a method by which light and darkness, the worship of idols with that of the Lord, might be combined. Nor was this discovery so very difficult, since their eye was not single. They had before them the examples of heathen nations, who were quite prepared reciprocally to acknowledge their deities, in all of whom they recognised only different forms of manifestation of one and the same divine being; and they were quite willing to extend this acknowledgment even to the God of Israel also, as long as they did not meet with intolerance on the part of those who professed to worship Him, and were therefore not roused to the practice of intolerance in return. This reciprocal recognition of their deities by the nations in the midst of whom the Israelites lived, is sufficiently evident from the circumstance, that they all called their highest deity by the same name—Baal—and expressed, by some epithet, only the form of manifestation peculiar to each. Now, the Israelites imagined that they might be able, at one and the same time, to satisfy the demands of their God, and to propitiate the idols of the neighbouring mighty nations—especially of the Phœnicians—if they removed the wall of separation betwixt the two. Jehovah and Baal were, in their view, identical as to their essence. The former was that mode of manifestation peculiar to them, and the main object of their worship according to the method prescribed by Himself in His revelation. But the latter was not to be neglected; inasmuch as they imagined that they might thereby become partakers of the blessings which this form of manifestation of the deity was able to bestow. And thus to Jehovah they gave the name of Baal also, Hos. ii. 18 (16); they celebrated the days appointed by Jehovah, ver. 13 (11), but those also devoted to Baalim, ver. 15 (13). In this way we receive an explanation of the fact which, at first sight, is so startling, viz., that according to Hosea and Amos, all is filled with the service of Baal; while the Books of Kings would lead us to think that, with the reign of Ahab, the dominion of this worship had ceased. But it was only its hostile opposition to the worship of Jehovah that had disappeared, while a far more dangerous religious compromise took its place. No doubt can be entertained as to the party on whose side lay the advantage in this compromise. It was plainly on that side on which it always lies, whensoever the heart is divided betwixt truth and falsehood. Externally, the worship of Jehovah remained the prevailing one; but, inwardly, idolatry obtained almost the sole dominion. If only the limits betwixt the two religions were removed, that religion would of course come with the highest recommendation, the spirit of which was most in accordance with the spirit of the people. But, owing to the corrupt condition of human nature, this would not be the strict religion of Jehovah, which, as coming from God, did not bring God down to the level of human debasement, but demanded that man should be raised to His elevation,—which placed the holiness of God in the centre, and founded upon it the requirement that its possessors should be holy;—but it would be the soft, sensual, idolatrous doctrine which flattered human corruption, because from that it had its origin. Thus the Jehovah of the Israelites became in reality what they sometimes called Him by way of alternation—a Baal. And the matter was now much more dangerous than if they had deserted Him externally also, inasmuch as they now continued to trust in His covenant and promises, and to boast of their external services,—thus strengthening themselves in their false security.

The natural consequence of this apostasy from the Lord was a frightful corruption of manners. The next result of spiritual adultery was the carnal one. Voluptuousness formed the fundamental characteristic of the Asiatic religions in general, and, in particular, of those with which the Israelites came in contact. But the pernicious influence extended still further over the whole moral territory. Where there is no holy God, neither will there be any effort of man after holiness. All divine and human laws will be trampled under foot. All the bonds of love, law, and order, will be broken. And, as such, the condition of the country in a moral point of view is described by its two prophets throughout. Compare, e.g., Hosea iv. 1, 2: "There is no truth, nor mercy, nor knowledge of God in the land. Swearing, and lying, and killing, and stealing, and committing adultery—they break through, and blood toucheth blood." There then followed, from the moral corruption, the internal dissolution of the state, and its external weakness.

The supernatural consequences of the apostasy from the Lord, were the severe punishments which He inflicted upon the people. With whomsoever God has entered into a closer connection, whomsoever He thinks worthy of His grace, in him the Lord will be glorified by the infliction of punishment upon him, if, through his own guilt. He has not been glorified by sanctification in him. Just because Israel formed part of the Covenant-people, they could not be allowed to continue to retain the outward appearance of it, when, inwardly, they did not retain a vestige.

As the second element of the ruin, we mentioned the rebellion against the dynasty of David. Their dominion rested on divine right, while the new Israelitish kingdom rested upon the sandy foundation of human caprice. The first king had raised himself to the throne by his own power and prudence, and through the favour of the people. Whosoever had the same means at his disposal, imagined that these gave him the right to do likewise. And thus dynasty supplanted dynasty, regicide followed regicide. In the bloody struggles thereby occasioned, the people became more and more lawless. Sometimes interregna, and periods of total anarchy took place; and by these internal struggles the power to resist external enemies was more and more broken. No king was able to stop this source of mischief, for such an effort would have required him to lay aside his position as a king. And as little was any one able to put a stop to that source of evil formerly mentioned: for, if the religious wall of partition which was erected between Israel and Judah were once removed, the civil one likewise threatened to fall.

Such were, in general, the circumstances under which Hosea, like the other prophets of the kingdom of Israel, appeared. There cannot be any doubt that these were much more difficult than those of the kingdom of Judah. There, too, the corruption was indeed very great; but it was not so firmly intertwined with the foundation of the whole state. Thorough-going reforms, like those under Hezekiah and Josiah, were possible. The interest of a whole tribe was closely bound up with the preservation of true religion.

The reign of Jeroboam II., which was externally so prosperous, and in which Hosea entered upon his prophetic ministry, had still more increased the apostasy from the Lord, and the corruption of manners, and thus laid the foundation for the series of disastrous events which began soon after his death, and which, in quick succession, brought the people to total ruin. The prosperity only confirmed them still more in their security. Instead of being led to repentance by the unmerited mercy of God (compare 2 Kings xiv. 26, 27), they considered this prosperity as a reward of their apostasy, as the seal by which Jehovah-Baal confirmed the rectitude of their ways. The false prophets, too, did what was in their power to strengthen them in their delusion, whilst the true prophets preached to deaf ears.

Immediately after the death of Jeroboam, it soon became apparent on which side the truth lay. There followed an interregnum of from eleven to twelve years.^[1] After the termination of it, Zachariah, the son of Jeroboam, succeeded to the throne; but he was murdered by Shallum, after a short reign of six months, 2 Kings xv. 10. Shallum, after he had reigned only one month, was slain by Menahem, ver. 14. Menahem reigned ten years at Samaria. Under him, the catastrophe was already preparing which brought the kingdom to utter destruction. He became tributary to the Assyrian king Pul, vers. 19-21. He was succeeded by his son Pekahiah, in the fiftieth year of Uzziah. After a reign of two months, he was slain by Pekah, the son of Remaliah, who held the government for twenty years (ver. 27), and, by his alliance with the kings of Syria against his brethren the people of Judah (comp. Is. vii.), hastened on the destruction of Israel. The Assyrians, under Tiglathpileser, called to his assistance by Ahaz, even at that time carried away into captivity part of its citizens,—the tribes who lived on the other side of the Jordan. In the fourth year of Ahaz, Pekah was slain by Hoshea, who, after an interregnum of eight years, began to reign in the twelfth year of Ahaz, xvii. 1. He became tributary to Shalmaneser; and the end of his government of nine years was also the end of the kingdom of the ten tribes. His having sought for an alliance with Egypt drew down, upon himself and his people, the vengeance of the king of Assyria.

We have already proved that the historical references in the prophecies of Hosea extend to the time when the last king of Israel attempted to secure himself against Asshur, by the alliance with Egypt. It is very probable that the book was written at that time. At the time when the sword of the Lord was just being raised to inflict upon Israel the death-blow, Hosea wrote down the sum and substance of what he had prophesied during a long series of years, beginning in the last times of Jeroboam, when, to a superficial view, the people were in the enjoyment of the fullest prosperity. When at the threshold of their final fulfilment, he condensed and wrote down his prophecies, just as, in the annus fatalis, the fourth year of Jehoiakim, Jeremiah, according to chap. xxv., gave a survey of what he had prophesied over Judah during twenty-three years.

In the prophecies of Hosea, as in those of Amos, the threatening character prevails. The number of the elect in Israel was small, and the judgment was at hand. In Jeremiah and Ezekiel, too, the prophecies, previous to the destruction, are mainly minatory. It was only after the wrath of God had been manifested in deeds, that the stream of promise brake forth without hindrance. Hosea, nevertheless, does not belie his name, by which he had been dedicated to the helping and saving God, and which he had received, non sine numine. (הושע, properly the Inf. Abs. of ישע, is, in substance, equivalent to Joshua, i.e., the Lord is help.) Zeal for the Lord fills and animates him, not only in the energy of his threatenings, but also in the intensity and strength of his conviction of the pardoning mercy and healing love of the Lord, which will, in the end, prevail. In this respect, Hosea is closely connected with the Song of Solomon—that link in the chain of Holy Scripture into which he had, in the first instance, to fit. There are in Hosea undeniable references to the Song of Solomon. (Compare my Comment. on the Song of Solomon, on chap. i. 4, ii. 3.) It is certainly not by accident that the brighter views appear with special clearness at the beginning, in chap. i. 3 (compare ii. 1-3, 16-25 [i. 10, ii. 1, 14-23], iii. 5), and at the close, xiv. 2-10 (1-9), where the fundamental thought is expressed in ver. 4 (3): "For in Thee the fatherless findeth mercy." But even in the darker middle portions, they sometimes suddenly break through; compare v. 15, vi. 3, where the subject is: "He teareth and He healeth us; He smiteth and He bindeth up;" vi. 11, where, after the threatening against Israel, we suddenly find the words: "Nevertheless, O Judah! He grants thee a harvest, when I (i.e., the Lord) return to the prison of My people." (Judah is here mentioned as the main portion of the people, in whom mercy is bestowed upon the whole, and in whose salvation the other tribes also share.) Compare also xi. 8-11, where we have this thought: After wrath, mercy; the Covenant-people can never, like the world, be altogether borne down by destructive judgments; xiii. 14, where the strong conviction of the absolutely imperishable nature of the Congregation of the Lord finds utterance in the words, "I will ransom them from the hand of hell; I will redeem them from death: O death! where is thy plague? O hell! where is thy pestilence? repentance is hid from Mine eyes." Simson is perplexed "by the sudden transition of the discourse, in this passage, from threatening to promise,—and this without even any particle to indicate the mutual relation of the sentences and thoughts." But the same phenomenon occurs also in vi. 11 (compare Micah ii. 12, 13), where, likewise, several expositors are perplexed by the suddenness and abruptness of the transition. It is explained from the circumstance, that behind even the darkest clouds of wrath which have gathered over the Congregation of the Lord, there is, nevertheless, concealed the sun of mercy. In the prophets, it sometimes breaks through suddenly and abruptly; but in this they are at one with history, in which the deepest darkness of the night is oftentimes suddenly illuminated by the shining of the Lord: "And at midnight there was a cry made: Behold, the bridegroom cometh."

The sum and substance of Hosea's prophetic announcement is the following:—Israel falls, through Asshur: Judah, the main tribe, shall be preserved from destruction in this catastrophe. (The prophet's tender care for Judah is strikingly brought out in his exhortation to Israel, in iv. 15, that they should desist from their compromises in religion, and that, if they chose to commit sin, they should rather desert the Lord altogether, lest by their hypocrisy Judah also should be seduced and infected.) But at a later period, Judah too is to fall under the divine judgment (ii. 2 [i. 11], where it is supposed that Judah shall also be carried away into captivity; v. 5: "Israel and Ephraim fall by their iniquity, Judah also falleth with them;" v. 12: "I am unto Ephraim as a moth, and to the house of Judah as rottenness;" compare also xii. 1, 3), although the immediate instruments of the judgment upon Judah are not mentioned by Hosea. But the judgments which the two houses of Israel draw upon themselves by their works (ii. 2 [i. 11], iii. 5, indicate that even Judah will, at some future time, rebel against the house of David) shall be followed by the deliverance to be accomplished by grace. Judah and Israel shall, in the future, be again gathered together under one head, ii. 2 (i. 11); a glorious king out of David's house not only restores what was lost, but also raises the Congregation of the Lord to a decree of glory never before conceived of, iii. 5: "Afterwards shall the children of Israel return and seek the Lord their God, and David their King, and shall fear the Lord and His goodness in the latter days."

The peculiarity of the Messianic prophecies of Hosea, as compared with those of the time of David and Solomon, consists in the connection of the promise with threatenings of judgments, and in the Messiah's appearing as the light of those who walk in the deepest darkness of the divine judgments. It was necessary that this progress should have been made in the Messianic announcements, before the breaking in of the divine judgments; for, otherwise, the hope of the Messiah would have been extinguished by them, because it was but too natural to consider the former as, in fact, an annihilation of these dreamy hopes. But now there was offered to the elect a staff on which they might support themselves, and walk with confidence through the dark valley of the shadow of death.

The Book of Hosea may be divided into two parts, according to the two principal periods of the prophet's ministry,—under Jeroboam, when the external condition was as yet prosperous, and the bodily eye did not as yet perceive anything of the storms of divine wrath which were gathering,—and under the following kings, down to Hosea, when the punishment had already begun, and was hastening, by rapid strides, towards its consummation.—Another difference, although a subordinate one, is this:—that the first part, which comprehends the first three chapters, contains prophecies connected with a symbol, while the second part contains direct prophecies which have no such connection. A similar division occurs in Amos also,—with this difference, that there, the symbolical prophecies form the conclusion. The first part may be considered as a kind of outline, which all the subsequent prophecies served to fill up; just as may the 6th chapter in Isaiah, and the first and second in Ezekiel. We shall give a complete exposition of this section, as it will afford us a vivid view of the whole position of Hosea, and as it is just there that the Messianic announcement meets us in its most developed form.

^[1] Ewald, Thenius, and others, will not grant that such an interregnum took place. As numbers were originally expressed by letters, in which an interchange might easily happen, we cannot deny the possibility of such an error having occurred in 2 Kings xiv. 23. It is quite possible that the duration of Jeroboam's reign was there originally stated at fifty-two or fifty-three, instead of forty-one years. But strong reasons would be required for rendering such a supposition admissible,—the more so, as the interchange would not have been limited to one letter, as Thenius supposes, but must have extended to both. But no such reasons exist. The silence of the Books of Kings upon the subject of this interregnum cannot be urged as a reason, since these books are so exceedingly short as regards the history of the last times of the kingdom of Israel. Sacred historiography has no interest in the details of this process of decay, which began with the death of Jeroboam,—which also is represented by Amos as if it were the day of Israel's death (Amos vii. 11: "Jeroboam shall die by the sword, and Israel shall be led away captive out of their own land"), although bare existence is still, for some time, spared. By the rejection of this interregnum, Hosea's ministry would be shortened by twelve years; but this gain—if such it be—can be purchased only at the expense of a most improbable extension of the duration of Jeroboam's reign. Simson, S. 201, has defended the interregnum.

THE SECTION CHAP. I.-III.

The question which here above all engages our attention, and requires to be answered, is this: Whether that which is reported in these chapters did, or did not, actually and outwardly take place. The history of the inquiries connected with this question is found most fully in Marckius's "Diatribe de uxore fornicationum," Leyden, 1696, reprinted in the Commentary on the Minor Prophets by the same author. The various views may be divided into three classes.

1. It is maintained by very many interpreters, that all the events here narrated took place actually and outwardly. This opinion was advanced with the greatest confidence by Theodoret, Cyril of Alexandria, and Augustine from among the Fathers of the Church; by most interpreters belonging to the Lutheran and Reformed Churches (e.g. Manger); most recently, by Stuck, Hofmann (Weissag u. Erf. S. 206), and, to a certain extent, by Ewald also, who supposes "a free representation of an event actually experienced by the prophet."

2. Others consider it as a parabolical representation. Thus does Calvin, who expressly opposes the supposition not only of an external, but also of an internal event. He explains it thus: "When the prophet began to teach, he commenced thus: The Lord has placed me here as on a stage, that I might tell you, I have taken a wife," etc. Entirely similar was the opinion of the Chaldee Paraphrast, by whom the words, "Go," etc., are thus paraphrased: "Go and prophesy against the inhabitants of the adulterous city." Of a like purport is the view held, from among recent interpreters, by Rosenmüller, Hitzig ("that which the prophet describes as actual, is only a fiction"), Simson and others. The strange opinion of Luther, which, out of too great respect, was adopted by a few later theologians (Osiander, Gerhard, Tarnovius), is only a modification of this. It is to the effect, that the prophet had only ascribed to his own chaste wife the name and works of an adulteress, and, hence, had performed with her, before the people, a kind of play. (Compare, against this view, Buddeus, de peccatis typicis in the Misc. s. t. i. p. 262.) The same opinion is expressed by Umbreit: "His own wife is implicated in the general guilt, and hence she is a representative of the whole people." In opposition to this view, compare Simson's Commentary.

3. Others suppose that the prophet narrates events which took place actually, indeed, but not outwardly. This opinion was, considering the time at which it was advanced, very ably defended by Jerome in Epist. ad Pammachium, and in his commentary on chap. i. 8. According to Rufinus, all those in Palestine and Egypt who respected the authority of Origen, asserted that the marriage took place only in spirit. The difficulties attaching to the first view were made especially obvious by the ridicule of the Manicheans (Faustus and Secundinus in Augustine, t. vi. p. 575) on this narrative. The most accomplished Jewish scholars (Maimonides in the More Nebuch. p. ii. c. 46, Abenezra, Kimchi) support this opinion. Some new arguments in defence of it have been adduced by Marckius.

Of these three views:—actually and outwardly; neither outwardly nor actually; actually, but not outwardly,—the second must be at once rejected. Those who hold it supply, "God has commanded me to tell you." But there is not the slightest intimation of such an ellipsis; and those interpreters have no better right to supply it in this, than in any other narrative. There is before us action, and nothing but action, without any intimation whatsoever that it is merely an invention.

But the following arguments are decisive in favour of the third, and against the first view.

1. The defenders of an outward transaction rely, in support of their view, upon the supposition, that their interpretation is most obvious and natural;—that they are thus, as it were, in the possession of the ground, and in a position from which they can be driven only by the most cogent reasons;—that if the transaction had been internal, it would have been necessary for the prophet to have expressly marked it as such. But precisely the reverse of all this is the case. The most obvious supposition is, that the symbolical action took place in vision. If certain actions of the prophets, especially seeing, hearing, and their speaking to the Lord, etc., must be conceived of as having taken place inwardly, unless there be distinct indications of the opposite, why not the remainder also? For the former presupposes that the world in which the prophets move, is altogether different from the ordinary one; that it is not the outward, but the spiritual world. It is certainly not a matter of chance, that the seeing in the case of the prophets must be understood spiritually; and if there be a reason for this, the same reason entitles us to assert that the walking, etc., also took place inwardly only. By what right could we make any difference between the actions of others, described by the prophet, and his own? Vision and symbolical action are not opposed to each other; the former is only the genus comprehending the latter as a species. By this we do not at all mean to assert, that all the symbolical actions of the prophets took place in inward vision only. An inward transaction always lay at the foundation; but sometimes, and when it was appropriate, they embodied it in an outward representation also (1 Kings xx. 35 seq., xxii. 11; Jer. xix. xxviii.; and a similar remarkable instance from modern times, in Croesi Hist. Quakeriana, p. 13). For this very reason, however, this argument cannot be altogether decisive by itself; but it furnishes, at least, a presumptive proof, and that by no means unimportant. If regularly and naturally the transaction be internal only, then the opposite requires to be proved in this case. If this had been admitted, no attempt would have been made elsewhere also, e.g., Is. xx., by false and forced interpretations to explain away the supposition of a merely internal transaction.

2. No one will certainly venture to assert that a merely internal transaction would have missed its aim, since there exists a multitude of symbolical actions, in regard to which it is undeniable, and universally admitted, that they took place internally only. For the inward action, being narrated and committed to writing, retained the advantage of vividness and impressiveness over the naked representation of the same truth. Sometimes, in the case of actions concentrated into a single moment, this advantage may be still further increased by the inward transaction being represented outwardly also. But, here, just the opposite would take place. We have here before us a symbolical transaction which, if it had been performed outwardly, would have continued for several years. The separation of the single events would have prevented its being taken in at a single view, and have thus deprived it of its impressiveness. But, what is still more important, the natural substratum would have occupied the attention so much more than the idea, that the latter would have been thereby altogether overlooked. The domestic affairs of the prophet would have become the subject of a large amount of tittle-tattle, and the idea would have been remembered only to give greater point to the ridicule.

3. The command of God, when considered as referring to an outward transaction, cannot be, by any means, justified. This is most glaringly obvious, if we understand this command, as several do, to mean that the prophet should beget children with an unchaste woman, and without legitimate marriage. Every one will sympathize with the indignation expressed by Buddeus (l. c. p. 206) against Thomas Aquinas, who, following this view, maintains that the law of God had been, in this special case, repealed by His command. God Himself cannot set us free from His commands; they are an expression of His nature, an image of His holiness. To ascribe arbitrariness to God in this respect, would be to annihilate the idea of God, and the idea of the Law at the same time. This view, it is true, is so decidedly erroneous as to require no further refutation; but even the opinion of Buddeus and others presents insurmountable difficulties. They suppose that the prophet had married a woman who was formerly unchaste. In opposition to this, Calvin very strikingly remarks: "It seems not to be consistent with reason, that God should spontaneously have rendered His prophet contemptible; for how could he ever have appeared in public after such ignominy had been inflicted upon him? If he had married such a wife, as here described, he ought rather to have hidden himself all his lifetime than have assumed the prophetic office." In Lev. xxi. 7 the law forbids the priests to take a wife that is a whore, or profane. That which, according to the letter, referred to the priests only, is applicable, in its spirit, to the prophets also,—yea, to them in a higher degree, as will be seen immediately, when the ordinance is reduced to its idea. The latter is easily inferred from the reason stated, viz., that the priests should be holy to their God. The servants of God must represent His holiness; they are, therefore, not allowed, by so close a contact with sin, to defile or desecrate themselves either inwardly or outwardly. Although the inward pollution may be prevented in individual cases by a specially effective assistance of divine grace, yet there always remains the outward pollution.

It is inconceivable that, at the very commencement of his ministry, God should have commanded to the prophet anything, the inevitable effect of which was to mar its successful execution. Several—and especially Manger—who felt the difficulties of this interpretation, substituted for it another, by which, as they imagined, all objections were removed. The prophet, they say, married a person who had formerly been chaste, and fell only after her marriage. This view is no doubt the correct one, as is obvious from the relation of the figure to the reality. According to ver. 2, it is to be expressed figuratively that the people went a-whoring from Jehovah. The spiritual adultery presupposes that the spiritual marriage had already been concluded. Hence, the wife can be called a whoring wife, only on account of the whoredom which she practised after her marriage. This is confirmed by chap. iii. 1, where the more limited expression "to commit adultery" is substituted for "to whore," which has a wider sense, and comprehends adultery also. The former unchastity of the wife would be without any meaning, yea, would be in direct contradiction to the real state of the case. For before the marriage concluded at Sinai, Israel was devoted to the Lord in faithful love; comp. Jer. ii. 2: "I remember thee, the kindness of thy youth, the love of thine espousals, thy walking after Me in the wilderness, in a land not sown." Compare also Ezek. xvi., where Israel, before her marriage, appears as a virgo intacta. But how correct soever this view may be—and every other view perverts the whole position—it is, nevertheless, erroneous to suppose that thereby all difficulties are removed. All which has been urged against the former view, may be urged here also. It might have been better for the prophet to have married one who was previously unchaste, in the hope that her subsequent better life might wipe out her former shame, than one previously chaste, who was required to become unchaste, and to remain so for a long time, because, otherwise, the symbolical action would have lost all its significance. The objection brought forward, that whatever is unbecoming as an outward action, is so likewise though it were only an internal action, can scarcely be meant to be in earnest. For, in this case, every one knew that the prophet was a mere type; and, with regard to his wife, this circumstance was so obvious, that mockery certainly gave way to shame and confusion. But a marriage outwardly entered into is never purely typical. It has always its significance apart from the typical import, and must be justifiable, independently of its typical character. Ridicule would, in this case, have been not only too obvious, but to a certain extent also well founded.

4. If the action had taken place only outwardly, it would have been impossible to explain the abrupt transition from the symbolical action to the mere figure, and again to the entirely naked representation as we find it here, and vice versa. In the first chapter, the symbolical action is pretty well maintained; but in the prophecy ii. 1-3 (i. 10-ii. 1), which belongs to the same section, it is almost entirely lost sight of. As the corporeal adultery, and rejection in consequence of it, were to be the type of the spiritual adultery and rejection, so the receiving again of the wife, rejected on account of her faithlessness, but now reformed, was to typify the Lord's granting mercy to the people. But of this, not a trace is found. And yet, we are not at liberty to say that the ground of it lies in a difference betwixt the type and the thing typified,—in the circumstance that the wife of the prophet did not reform. If there existed such a difference, the type could not have been chosen at all. The contrary appears also from ii. 9 (7).—In the whole second section, ii. 4-25 (ii. 2-23), regard is indeed had to the symbolical action; but in a manner so free, that it dwindles away to a mere figure, from behind which the thing itself is continually coming into view. In chap. iii. the symbolical action again acquires greater prominence. These phenomena can be accounted for, only if the transaction be viewed as an inward one. In the case of an outward transaction, the transition from the symbolical action to the figure, and from the figure to the thing itself, would not have been so easy. The substratum of the idea is, in that case, far more material, and the idea itself too closely bound to it.

5. When the transaction is viewed as an outward one, insurmountable difficulties are presented by the third chapter; and the argument drawn from this would, in itself, be quite sufficient to settle the question: "Then the Lord said unto me. Go again, love a woman beloved of her friend and an adulteress." Interpreters who have adopted that view, find themselves here in no little embarrassment. Several suppose that the woman, whom the prophet is here commanded to love, is his former wife, Gomer,—with her he should get reconciled. But this is quite out of the question. In opposition to it, there is, first, the indefinite signification by אשה; then, in ver. 2, there is the purchase of the woman,—which supposes that she had not yet been in the possession of the husband; and, further, the words, "beloved of her friend, and an adulteress," can, according to a sound interpretation, mean only, "who, although she is beloved by her faithful husband, will yet commit adultery;" so that, if it be referred to the reunion with Gomer, we should be compelled to suppose that, after being received again, she again became unfaithful,—and in favour of this opinion, no corresponding feature can be pointed out in the thing typified. Lastly,—The word "love" cannot mean "love again," "restitue amoris signa." For the love of the prophet to his wife must correspond with the love of God to the people of Israel. That this love, however, cannot be limited to the love which God will show to the Congregation after her conversion, is seen from the additional clause, "And they turn themselves to other gods, and love grape-cakes." Hence it appears that the love of God continues even during the unfaithfulness, and consequently, also, the love of the prophet, by which it is typified.—Equally untenable is the other opinion, that the prophet is here called upon, by his entering into a new marriage, to prefigure the relation of God to the Covenant-people a second time. In that case, it is supposed either that Gomer had been rejected, because she would not return, or that she had died. In either case, however, she would not have been chosen by God to be a type of the people of Israel. The ground of this choice can be no other than the correspondence with the antitype. But this would be wanting just in the most important point. If the ungodly part of the nation were not to be deprived of all hope, nor the pious of all consolation, it was of special importance to point out that even the rejected congregation would receive mercy; that the Lo-Ruhamah should be the Ruhamah. Just the reverse of all this, however, would, according to this view, have been typified. Two different women would, quite naturally, suggest the thought of two different nations. Moreover, the non-conversion of Gomer would be in direct opposition to the prophet's own expressions. There cannot be any doubt, that her relation to the prophet still lies at the foundation of the description in ii. 4 seqq. For they are her three children whose former names, announcing disaster, are changed, in ver. 25 (23), into such as are significant of salvation. In vers. 4-6 (2-4) the whole relation, as previously described, is presupposed. But now, she who, in ver. 9 (7), says, "I will go and return to my first husband, for then was it better with me than now," is the same who said in ver. 7 (5), "I will go after my lovers that give me my bread and my water, my wool and my flax." To the same result we are also led by the showing of mercy to her children, announced in the first section, ii. 1-3 (i. 10-ii. 1), where the prophet alludes to their names; and still more distinctly in the second section; compare ver. 25 (23). But now, the showing of mercy to the children cannot be conceived of without the conversion of the mother, and mercy being subsequently shown to her also. As they are to be rejected on account of the unfaithfulness of the mother (compare ii. 6 [4], and, specially, the כי at the commencement of ver. 7), so the ground of their being received into favour can only be the faithfulness of the mother. Being begotten in adultery, they stand in connection with the prophet only through the mother; as soon as he has rejected the mother, he has nothing further to do with them.—The supposition that Gomer had died, is evidently the result of an embarrassment which finds itself compelled to invent such fictions.—Finally,—Several interpreters, after the example of Augustine, suppose that no marriage at all is here spoken of, but only a certain kindness which the prophet should manifest to some woman, in order to encourage her conversion. But this opinion is contradicted by these circumstances:—that the prophet's love towards the woman must necessarily be of the same extent, and of the same nature, as the love of God towards the people of Israel, since the אהב and the כאהבת exactly correspond with each other; that only conjugal love is suitable to the image; that this view falls, of itself, to the ground when רֵעַ is referred to the prophet, as it must be; that, in such circumstances, no satisfactory account can be given of the purchase of the woman, etc. To all these suppositions there is, moreover, the common objection that, according to them, no account can be given of the omission of very important circumstances which the prophet leaves to his hearers and readers to supply from the preceding symbolical action. Two things only are pointed out, viz., the appropriation of the woman by the prophet, ver. 2, and the course which he pursues for her reformation, ver. 3. Every intervening circumstance—the criminal, long-continued unfaithfulness of the wife—is passed over in silence. If we suppose an outward action, this circumstance cannot be accounted for. For we are not at liberty to draw, from the first case, any inference bearing upon the second. The latter would again have required a complete account. But if we suppose an inward transaction, everything is easily explained. The question as to whether it was Gomer, or some other person, does not come up at all. If Gomer was only an ideal person, that which applied to her was equally applicable to the second ideal wife of the prophet; since both typified the same thing, and without having an independent existence of their own, came into consideration as types only. Thus, very naturally, the second description was supplemented from the first, and the prophet was allowed abruptly to point out those circumstances only which were of special importance in the case before him.

6. If the whole be viewed as an outward transaction, there arises a difficulty, by no means inconsiderable, as regards the children mentioned in chap. i. These had been begotten in adultery. Even although the mother did reform, they could yet never be considered by the prophet as, in the full sense, his own. There would then arise a great difference between the type and the thing typified. But if we suppose a transaction merely inward, this difficulty vanishes. The physical impossibility then no longer comes into consideration. That which is possible in the thing typified, viz., that those who formerly were not children of God, become children of God, is transferred to the type. In point of fact, the mother does not exist beside, and apart from, the children; she stands related to them as the whole to the parts; and hence it is, that in ii. 25 (23), the mother and children are imperceptibly blended in the prophet's description.

7. We are led to the idea of a mere inward transaction by the symbolical names of the first wife, and of her father. On the other hand, if such a symbolical signification could not be proved, this might be used as an argument for the literal interpretation,—although, indeed, it would be only a single argument which would be obliged to yield to other counter-arguments. For it may well be conceived that the prophet, in order to give to the inward transaction more of the appearance of an outward one, should have chosen names usual at that time; just as, in a similar manner, poetry would not be satisfied with invented names used only in certain formulas and proverbs, but makes use of names which would not, at once, be recognised by every one as mere fictions.—גֹּמֶר can only mean "completion" in the passive sense. For Segolate-forms in o are only used to express passive and intransitive notions, and the verb גמר is found in the signification "to be completed," in Ps. vii. 10, xii. 2. The sense in which the woman, the type of the Israelitish people, is called completion,—i.e., one who, in her whoredom, had proceeded to the highest pitch,—is so obvious from the context, as to render nugatory the argument which Maurer (p. 360) has drawn from the omission of express statements on this point, in order thereby to recommend his own interpretation, which is altogether opposed to the laws of the language. A significant proper name can, in any case, convey only an allusion; but such an allusion was here quite sufficient, inasmuch as the mention of the wife's whoredom had preceded. Compare, moreover, Zech. v. 5-11, where the thought, that Israel had filled up the measure of their sins, is represented by a woman sitting in an Ephah. Hofmann explains the name Gomer by "end," "utmost ruin:" "By luxury, Israel has become wanton, and hence it must come to an end, to utter ruin." But this interpretation is at variance with the context, from which it must necessarily be derived; for it is not the punishment, but the guilt which is spoken of in the context. גמר, "Completion" (compare the גמיר, "perfectus," "absolutus," in Ezra vii. 12), is equivalent to אשת זנונים, "a wife of whoredom." The בת דבלים can only mean, "daughter of the two fig-cakes," = filia deliciarum = deliciis dedita. The word "daughter" serves to indicate every relation of dependence and submission: Gesenius, Thesaurus, p. 220. Fig-cakes were considered as one of the greatest dainties; compare Faber on Harmar. i. p. 320 ff. Sensuality was the ground of the Israelites' apostasy from the severe and strict religion of Jehovah to the idolatry of their neighbours, which was soft, sensual, and licentious. The occasion which had called it forth with their neighbours was one which rendered them favourably disposed towards it. The masculine form can offer no difficulty as to the derivation from דבלה, "fig-cake;" for the masculine form of the plural occurs also in 1 Sam. xxv. 18; 1 Chron. xii. 40. As little difficulty can arise from the Dual form, which may be explained from the circumstance that fig-cakes commonly consisted of a double layer of figs, or of double cakes (Hesych. παλάθη—which Greek word is a corruption of the Hebrew דבלה—ἡ τῶν σύκων ἐπάλληλος θέσις), and the Dual is used in reference to objects which are commonly conceived of as a whole, consisting of two parts, even when several of them are spoken of. That this explanation of the Dual is correct, is proved from the circumstance, that it occurs also as the name of a Moabitish town, Beth-Dibhlathaim, Jer. xlviii. 22, and Dibhlathaim, Num. xxxiii. 46, which, probably, was famous for its fig-cakes.—There existed another special reason for the prophet's choosing the Dual in the masculine form, viz., that there was the analogy of other proper names of men—as Ephraim, etc.—in its favour; and such an analogy was required,—for, otherwise, the name would not have been, as it was intended to be, a riddle. Our whole exposition, however, which was already in substance, although without proper foundation and justification, advanced by Jerome, is raised above the condition of a mere hypothesis, by its being compared with chap. iii. There, the words, "They turn themselves to other gods, and love grape-cakes," are a mere paraphrasis of "Gomer Bath Dibhlaim." It scarcely needs to be remarked, that the difference betwixt grape-cakes and fig-cakes does not here come into consideration at all, inasmuch as both belonged to the choicest dainties; and it is as evident, that "to love," and "to be the daughter of," express the same idea. But if thus the symbolical signification of the name be established, the correctness of the supposition of a merely internal transaction is established at the same time. The symbolical names of the children alone could not have furnished a sufficient foundation for this supposition. Against this an appeal might, with the most perfect propriety, have been made to Shear-Jashub, and Maher-shalal-hash-baz, neither of whom can, by any means, have been an ideal person. The prophet gave them these names; but the matter is quite different in the case of the wife, who already had her name when the prophet took her. All that we can grant to Hofmann is, that such a providential coincidence was possible; but probable it could be, only if other decisive arguments favoured the view of the transaction having been an outward one. If the name were not symbolical—if it belonged to the real wife of the prophet, it cannot be easily explained, why he did not afterwards mention the name of his second wife also, but content himself with the general term, "a wife."

8. A main argument against the literal interpretation is further furnished by iii. 2. The verse is commonly translated: "And then I bought her to me for fifteen pieces of silver, and an homer of barley, and a lethech of barley;" and is explained from the custom prevalent in the East of purchasing wives from their parents. But it is very doubtful whether the verb כרה has the signification "to purchase." There is no necessity for deviating from the common signification "to dig," in Deut. ii. 6: "And water also ye shall dig from them for money, and drink" (compare Exod. xxi. 33); the existing wells were not sufficient for so great a multitude, compare Gen. xxvi. 19, 21, 22. To this philological reason, we must further add, that the circumstance would be here altogether destitute of significance, while every other feature in the description is full of meaning. We base our interpretation upon the supposition, already sufficiently established by J. D. Michaelis, that the whole purchase-money amounted to thirty shekels, of which the prophet paid one-half in money, and the other half in the value of money. According to Ezek. xlv. 11, the homer contained ten ephahs, and a lethech was the half of an homer. We have thus fifteen pieces of silver, and also fifteen ephahs; and the supposition is very probable that, at that time, an ephah of barley cost a shekel,—the more so, as according to 2 Kings vii. 1, 16, 18, in the time of a declining famine, and only relative cheapness, two-thirds of an ephah of barley cost a shekel. We are unable to say with certainty, why one-half was paid in money, and the other half in natural productions; but a reason certainly exists, as no other feature is without significance. Perhaps it was determined by custom, that the sum by which servants were purchased was paid after this manner. The lowness of their condition was thereby indicated; for barley, vile hordeum, was, in all antiquity, very little esteemed. Upon this estimate of it was based its use at the jealousy offering (Num. v. 11 seqq.; compare Bähr's Symb. ii. S. 445), and the symbolical use of the barley-bread in Judg. vii. 13. The statement of the sum leads us, involuntarily, to think of slaves or servants. It is the same sum which was commonly given for a man-servant, or a maid-servant, as is expressly mentioned in Exod. xxi. 32; compare the remarks on Zech. xi. 12. And this opinion is confirmed by the use of ואכרה. The ears of a servant who was bound to his master to perpetual obedience, were bored; compare Exod. xxxi. 5, 6; Deut. xv. 17, where it is added: "And also unto thy maid-servant thou shalt do likewise." In conformity with the custom of omitting the special members of the body, in expressions frequently occurring, it is said simply "to bore." The meaning then is: I made her my slave. It was not a free woman, then, whom the prophet desired in marriage, but a servant, whom he was obliged, previous to marriage, to redeem from servitude; who was therefore under a double obligation to him, and over whom he had a double claim. The reference to the thing to be typified is quite apparent. It was not a free, independent people whom the Lord chose, but a people whom He was obliged first to redeem from vile servitude, before He entered into a nearer relation to them. This redemption appears, throughout, as a ransoming from the house of bondage,—and the wonderful dealings of the Lord, as the price which He paid. Compare, e.g., Deut. vii. 8: "But because the Lord loved you, and because He kept His oath which He had sworn to your fathers, He has brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed thee (ויפדך) from the house of bondmen (מבית עבדים), from the hand of Pharaoh, king of Egypt." See also Deut. ix. 26. It is upon this redemption that the exhortation to the people is founded—that, as the Lord's servants, they should serve Him alone; comp., e.g., the introduction to the Decalogue. Thus, we have here also a feature so evidently typical, so plainly transferred from the thing typified to the type, that we cannot any longer think of an outward transaction. This argument, however, is, in the main point, quite independent of the philological interpretation of כרה. Even if it be translated "I bought her to me," the circumstance, notwithstanding, always remains, that the wife was redeemed from slavery, unless there be a denial of the connection of the sum mentioned with Exod. xxi. 32, and Zech. xi. 12, where the thirty pieces of silver likewise appear as the estimate of a servant's value; and this circumstance evidently suggests the inward character of the transaction.

The first germs of the representation of God's relation to Israel under the figure of marriage, are found so early as in the Pentateuch, Exod. xxxiv. 15, 16; Lev. xx. 5, 6, xvii. 7; Num. xiv. 33—where idolatry, and apostasy from the Lord in general, are represented as whoredom—Deut. xxxii. 16, 21; compare the author's Dissertations on the Genuineness of the Pent. vol. i. p. 107 ff.; and commentary on the Song of Solomon, S. 261. But it was only through the Song of Solomon that it became quite a common thing to represent the higher love under the figure of the lower. It is not through accident that this representation appears so prominent just in Hosea, where it not only pervades the first three chapters, but returns continually in the second part also. Hosea, being one of the oldest prophets, was specially called to fit, as a new link, into the Song of Solomon, which was the last link in the chain of Sacred Literature. There are, moreover, in the details, other undeniable references to the Song of Solomon, which coincide with this connection with it, as regards the fundamental idea. The basis, however, for this whole figurative representation is Gen. ii. 24, where marriage appears as the most intimate of all earthly relations of love, and must, for this very reason, have a character of absolute exclusiveness.

CHAP. I.-II. 3 (II. 1).

The section chap. i.-iii. is distinguished from the other prophecies by this,—that, in it, the relation of the Lord to the people of Israel Is represented, throughout, under the figure and symbol of marriage, whilst this same mode of representation is soon relinquished wherever else it occurs in the book. By this closer limitation, the objections of Böckel and Stuck to the common division of the collection into two parts, are set aside. This first portion may be divided into three parts, which are, in one respect, closely connected, as is shown by the Fut. with the Vav Conv. in iii. 1, and likewise by the fact that this chapter requires to be supplemented from the two preceding ones, while, in another respect, they may be considered as wholes, complete in themselves. They do not, by any means, so distribute the contents among themselves, as that the first describes the apostasy; the second, the punishment; and the third, the return and restoration; but each of them contains all these three features, and yet in such a manner, that here the one feature, and there the other, is more fully expanded; so that the whole description is complete, only when all the three parts are taken together. In the portion now before us, the covenant relation into which the Lord entered with Israel is typified by a marriage which the prophet contracted at the command of the Lord; the apostasy of the people, and especially of the ten tribes, to whom the prophet was sent in the first instance, is typified by the adultery of the wife, by the divine punishment, and the unpropitious names which he gives to the children born by the adulterous wife. In chap. ii. 1-3, there follows the announcement of salvation more directly, and only with a simple allusion to the symbol.

Ver. 1. "The word of the Lord that came unto Hosea, the son of Beeri, in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, Hezekiah, kings of Judah, and in the days of Jeroboam, the son of Joash, king of Israel. Ver. 2. At the beginning when the Lord spake to Hosea, the Lord said to Hosea: Go take unto thee a wife of whoredoms, and children of whoredoms; for the land is whoring away from the Lord."

דִּבֶּר is never a noun—not even in Jer. v. 13—but always the 3d pers. Pret. Piel. The status constr. תחלת is explained by the fact, that the whole of the following sentence is treated as one substantive idea: the beginning "of the Lord hath spoken," etc., for "the beginning of speaking." יום דבר יהוה, the day of "the Lord spoke," instead of, "the day on which the Lord spoke." Similar constructions occur also in Is. xxix. 1, and Jer. xlviii. 6.—The Fut. with Vav Conv., ויאמר, "and then He spoke," carries forward the discourse, as if there had preceded: the Lord began to speak to Hosea. There is here a constructio ad sensum. It is intentionally, and in order the more distinctly to point out the idea of the beginning, that the prophet has made use of the noun תחלת, not of the verb. The construction of דבר with ב, with the signification "to speak to some one," may be explained thus:—that the words are, as it were, put into the mind of the hearer in order that they may remain there. Several interpreters erroneously translate, "spoke through:" others, following Jerome (the last is Simson), "spoke in;" as if thereby the act of speaking were to be designated as an inward one. The difference between outward and inward speaking disappears in the vision; and, for this reason, we cannot imagine that there is any intention of here noticing it particularly. Everything which takes place in the vision is substantially, indeed, internal, but in point of form it is external. Moreover, דבר with ב several times occurs in other passages also, where the signification, "to speak to some one," is alone admissible. Thus 1 Sam. xxv. 39, where Simson's explanation, "David sent and ordered to speak about Abigail," is set aside by ver. 40. The analogy of the construction of the verbs of hearing and seeing with ב is likewise in favour of our explanation.^[1]—A wife of whoredoms and children of whoredoms. The wife belongs to whoredoms in so far as she is devoted to them; the children, in so far as they proceed from them. For we cannot suppose that the children themselves are described as given to whoredom. Such a thought would here be altogether out of place. For whoredom is here only the general designation of adultery, as, by way of applying it to the case in question, it is immediately subjoined, "away from Jehovah." The subject of consideration is only the relation of the wife and children to the prophet, as the type of the Lord; and with this view, it is only the origin of the children from an adulterous wife which can be of importance. That this alone is regarded, appears from ii. 6 (4), compared with ver. 7 (5). That the children, as children of whoredoms, deserve no compassion, is founded upon the fact that their mother plays the harlot. אשת זנונים is stronger than זונה; it expresses the idea that the woman is given, soul and body, to whoredoms. The same emphasis is expressed also by the analogous designations: man of blood, of deceit, etc.—Calvin says, "She is called a wife of whoredoms, because she was long accustomed to them, gave herself over to the lusts of all indiscriminately, did not prostitute herself once, or twice, or to a few, but to the debauchery of every one." It is not without reason that "take" is connected with the children also. The prophet shall, as it were, receive and take, along with the wife, those who, without his agency, have been born of her. It is self-evident, and has been, moreover, formerly proved, that we cannot speak of children who were previously born of the prophet's wife; but that, on the contrary, the children are they whose birth is narrated in ver. 4 seqq. And that we cannot consider these children as children of the prophet, as is done by several interpreters (Drus.: "Accipe uxorem et suscipe ex eâ liberos"), is obvious from their being designated "children of whoredoms;" from the word "take" itself, which is expressive of the passive conduct of the prophet; from the fact that, in the subsequent verses, the conceiving and bearing of the wife are alone constantly spoken of, but never, as in Is. viii. 3, the begetting by the prophet; and, finally, from the relation of the type to the thing typified. By the latter, it is absolutely required that children and mother stand in the same relation of alienation from the legitimate husband and father. The words in ver. 3, "She bare him a son," are not indeed in opposition to it, for these words are only intended to mark the deceit of the wife who offers to her husband the children begotten in adultery, as if they were his, and, at the same time, to bring out the patience and forbearance of the husband who receives them, and brings them up as if they were his, although he knows that they are not. In like manner, the Lord treated, for centuries, the rebellious Israelites as if they were His children, and granted to them the inheritance which was destined only for the children, along with so many other blessings, until at length He declared them to be bastards, by carrying them away into captivity. The last words state the ground of the symbolical action. The causal כי is explained from the fact that the import of a symbolical action is also its ground. The Inf. absol. preceding the tempus finitum gives special emphasis to the verbal idea. The prophet thereby indicates that, in using the expression "to whore," he does so deliberately, and because it corresponds exactly to the thing, and wishes us to understand it in its full strength and compass. In calling the thing by its right name, he silences, beforehand, every attempt at palliating and extenuating it. Of such palliations and extenuations the Jews had abundance. They had not the slightest notion that they had become unfaithful to their God, but considered their intercourse with idols as trifling and allowable attentions which they paid to them.—Manger understands by whoredoms, their placing, at the same time, their confidence in man; but from what follows, where idolatry alone is constantly spoken of, it is obvious that this is inadmissible. If this special thing be reduced to its idea, it is true that trusting in men is, then, not less comprehended under it than idolatry, inasmuch as this idea is the turning away from God to that which is not God. And, from this dependence of what is special upon the idea, it follows that the description has its eternal truth, and does not become antiquated, even where the folly of gross idolatry has been long since perceived.—הארין, the definite land, the land of the prophet, the land of Israel.—Concerning the last words, Ps. lxxiii. 27 may be compared, where זנה מן occurs with a similar signification. This phrase contains an allusion to the common expression, "to walk with, or after, God;" compare 2 Kings xxiii. 3. According to Calvin, the spiritual chastity of the people of God consists in their following the Lord.

Ver. 3. "And he went and took Gamer the daughter of Dibhlaim, and she conceived and bare him a son."

Many interpreters suppose that, by the three children, three different generations are designated, and the gradual degeneracy of the people, which sinks deeper and deeper. But this opinion must certainly be rejected. There is no gradation perceptible. On the contrary, the announcement of the total destruction of the kingdom of Israel is connected immediately with the name of the first child, ver. 4. Nor is it legitimate to say, as Rückert does, that the three children are a designation of the "conditions" in which the Israelites would be placed in consequence of their apostasy from the Lord. For, how could mercy be shown to conditions? The right view rather is, that the wife and children are both the people of Israel, viewed only in different relations. In the first designation, they are viewed as a unity; in the latter, as a plurality proceeding from, and depending upon, this unity. The circumstance that the prophet mentions the birth of children at all, and the birth of three only, is accounted for by their names. The children exist only that they may receive a name. The three names must, therefore, not be considered separately, but must be viewed together. In that case they present a corresponding picture of the fate impending upon Israel. The circumstance that the mother and sons are distinguished in Hosea, rests upon the Song of Solomon. (Compare the more copious remarks in my commentary on the Song of Sol. iii. 4: "By the mother, the people is designated according to its historical continuity,—by the daughter or sons, according to its existence at any moment.")

Ver. 4. "And the Lord said unto him, Call his name Jezreel; for yet a little (while), and I visit the blood of Jezreel upon the house of Jehu, and cause to cease the kingdom of the house of Israel."

The name "Jezreel" is, by most expositors, explained in this passage as meaning: "God disperses." This they maintain to be its real signification, according to the etymology, and that all the rest is only an allusion. But this exposition is erroneous, as Manger has correctly perceived. For, 1. No instance occurs where the verb זרע has this signification. When applied to men, it is always used only in a good sense: compare ii. 25, Ezek. xxxvi. 9, and the subsequent remarks on Zech. x. 9. The idea of scattering is not at all the fundamental one; so that the signification, to disperse, is much further from the fundamental signification than might, at first sight, appear. 2. The subsequent words must be considered as an explanation of the name Jezreel, as is obvious from the corresponding explanations of the names Lo-Ruhamah in ver. 6, and Lo-Ammi in ver. 9, which are intimately connected with these names. But in this explanation, not even a single word is said on the subject of the dispersion of the people of Israel. The circumstance that, in this explanation, Jezreel occurs as a proper name, without any regard being paid to its appellative signification^[2]—an allusion to which occurs only in the announcement of the salvation—shows that here too it must be viewed in the same way. The correct view is this. Jezreel was the place where the last great judgment of God upon the kingdom of Israel had been executed. The apostasy from the Lord, and the innocent blood of His servants, shed by Jezebel and the whole house of Ahab, had been there avenged upon them by Jehu, the founder of the dynasty which was reigning at the time of the prophet. At the command of God, Jehu is anointed as king by one of the sons of the prophets sent by Elisha, 2 Kings ix. In vers. 6-9 the Lord says to him through the latter: "I anoint thee king over the people of the Lord, over Israel. And thou shalt smite the house of Ahab thy master; and I avenge the blood of My servants the prophets, and the blood of all the servants of the Lord at the hand of Jezebel, and the whole house of Ahab shall perish. And I give the house of Ahab like the house of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, and like the house of Baasha the son of Ahijah." The execution corresponded with the command. When Jehu approached Jezreel, Joram the son of Ahab went out against him, and met him in the portion of Naboth the Jezreelite, ver. 21. Appealing to the declaration of the Lord, "Surely I have seen the blood of Naboth, and the blood of his sons, and I will requite thee in this portion of ground" (ver. 26), Jehu orders the corpse of the slain king to be cast thither. At Jezreel, Jezebel too found a disgraceful death. Thither, as to the central point of vengeance, were sent the heads of the seventy royal princes, who had been slain, x. 1-10, and there Jehu slew all that remained of the house of Ahab, ver. 11.—The royal house, and, along with it, all Israel, are now anew to become a Jezreel; i.e., the same divine punitive justice which, at that time, was manifested at Jezreel, is to be exhibited anew. The reason why this should be, is stated in the explanation. The house of Jehu, and all Israel, shall become a Jezreel, in as far as punishment is concerned, because they have become a Jezreel with respect to guilt, and because, as in former times at Jezreel, so now again, blood that has been shed cries to the Lord for vengeance. Where a new carcase is, there the eagles must anew be gathered together.—It must have, already appeared from this, how we understand the words, "I visit the blood of Jezreel," used in the explanation of the name of Jezreel, in the verse under consideration. According to the prophet's custom of designating, by the name of an old thing, any new thing which is substantially similar to it, the new guilt is marked by the name of the old; and it is marked as blood, because the former guilt was pre-eminently blood-guiltiness;^[3] and as the blood of Jezreel, because the former blood-guiltiness had been especially contracted there, and it was there where the punishment was executed. The deep impression, which just this mode of representation must have produced, must not be overlooked. The sins formerly committed at Jezreel were acknowledged as such by the whole people, and especially by the royal house, whose whole rights were based upon this acknowledgment. The recollection of the fearful punishment was still in the minds of all; but they did not by any means imagine that they were implicated in the same guilt, and had to expect the same punishment. That which they considered as already absolutely past, the prophet, by a single word, brings again into the present, and the immediate future. By a single word of dreadful sound he terrified and aroused them out of their self-deception (which will not recognise its own sin in the picture of the sins of others), and out of their carnal security. Entirely analogous are 2 Kings ix. 31, where Jezebel says to Jehu, "Hast thou peace, Zimri, murderer of his master?" which Schmid well explains by—"It is time for thee to desist, that thou mayest not experience the same punishment as Zimri;" Zech. v. 11, where the prophet mentions Shinar as the place of Israel's future banishment; and x. 11, where he calls their future oppressors by the names of Asshur and Egypt, and describes a new passing through the Red Sea. In Revelation, the degenerate church is called by the names of Sodom and Egypt (xi. 18); the true Church, by Jerusalem; Rome, by Babylon.—The explanation which we have given will be its own defence against the current, and evidently erroneous, expositions. Many interpreters understand, by the blood of Jezreel, the slaughter of the family of Ahab which was accomplished there by Jehu. It is, indeed, quite correct to say that a deed objectively good does not thereby become one which is subjectively so. That which has been willed and commanded by God may itself become an object of divine punishment, if it be not performed from love and obedience to God, but from culpable selfishness. But that Jehu was actuated by motives so bad, is sufficiently obvious from the circumstance, that he himself did the very thing which he had punished in the house of Ahab. Calvin rightly remarks: "That slaughter is, as far as God is concerned, a just vengeance; but, as far as Jehu is concerned, it is open murder." But yet, this deed cannot be regarded as the principal crime of Jehu and his family. We must not overlook other crimes far more heinous, and consider the guilty blood shed by them as the sole ground of their punishment. That this was indeed considered as guilt, but only as a lower degree of it, is clearly seen from 1 Kings xvi. 7, where destruction is announced to Baasha, who had destroyed the house of Jeroboam I., "on account of all the evil which he did in the sight of the Lord, in provoking Him to anger with the works of his hands, so that he may be like the house of Jeroboam, and because he killed him." The main crime is, that Baasha had become like the house of Jeroboam. What he perpetrated against this house is the minor crime, and becomes a crime only through the former.—It is worthy of notice that "the blood of Jezreel" exactly corresponds, according to our explanation, with the expression, "so that he may be like the house of Jeroboam." It may be further noticed, that, in the deed of Jehu, every better feeling cannot be excluded. If the command of God had been used by him merely as a pretext, we could not account for the praise and the promises given to him on account of this very deed, 2 Kings x. 30. It is true that the limitation of the promise shows that pure motives alone did not prevail with him.^[4]—"The bloody deed to which the house of Jehu owed its elevation" nowhere else appears as the cause of the catastrophe which befell this house. That which he had done against the house of Ahab, whose sins were crying to heaven for vengeance far more than those of Baasha, is, in 2 Kings x. 30, 31, represented as his merit. His guilt consisted in his not departing from the ways of Jeroboam, and in his making Israel to sin. It is this guilt alone which, in the Book of Kings, is charged against all the members of his family,—against Jehoahaz, the son of Jehu, in 2 Kings xiii. 2; against Jehoash, in 2 Kings xiii. 11; against Jeroboam, in 2 Kings xiv. 24; against Zechariah, under whom the catastrophe took place, in 2 Kings xv. 9: "And he did that which was evil in the eyes of the Lord, as his fathers had done, and departed not from the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who had made Israel to sin." According to the context, we must, in the first place, think of the religious guilt; the blood of Jezreel, in the verse under consideration, must correspond with the whoredoms in ver. 2.—Moreover, the extension of the punishment to all Israel could not, according to this explanation, be understood; for the deed was only that of Jehu and his assistants. How, then, could not only the house of Jehu be punished, but also the kingdom of the house of Israel be destroyed, and its bow broken in the valley of Jezreel?