. Hosea 1:11 The word of the Lord that came unto Hosea, the son of Beeri, in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah, and in the days of Jeroboam, the son of Joash, king of Israel. ______________ PART FIRST. Hosea 1:2 to Hosea 3:5 Hosea 1:2 to Hosea 2:3A. The Rejection of the Kingdom of Israel, and especially of the House of Jehu, on account of their “Whoredom,” is symbolically announced.—Hosea 1:2-92 The beginning of the Word of the Lord by Hosea. And the Lord said to Hosea [In the beginning when Jehovah spoke with Hosea, then Jehovah said to Hosea ]: Go, take unto thee a wife of whoredoms and children of whoredoms; for the land hath committed great whoredom, departing from the Lord [Jehovah]. 3So he went and took Gomer the daughter of Diblaim; which [and she] conceived, and bare him a Song of Solomon 4 And the Lord [Jehovah] said unto him, Call his name Jezreel; for yet a little while, and I will avenge the blood of Jezreel upon the house of Jehu, and will cause to cease the 5 kingdom of the house of Israel. And it will come to pass in that day, that I will break the bow of Israel in the valley of Jezreel. 6And she conceived again, and bare a daughter. And God said unto him, Call her name Lo-ruhamah [Unpitied]; for I will no more have mercy upon the house of Israel; but I will utterly take them away [that I should keep on forgiving them ]. 7But I will have mercy upon the house of Judah, and will save them by the Lord [Jehovah] their God, and will not save them by bow, nor by sword, nor by battle [war ], by horses, nor by horsemen. 8Now when she had weaned Lo-ruhamah, she conceived, and bare a son [And she weaned Lo-Ruhamah and conceived and bare a son ]. 9Then said God, call his name Lo-ammi [Not-my-people ], for ye are not my people, and I will not be your God [yours].B. And yet Israel will be again accepted by GodHos_2:1-31 Yet [And] the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said 2 unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God. Then shall the children of Judah and the children of Israel be gathered together, and appoint themselves one head; 3 and they shall come up out of the land: for great is the day of Jezreel. Say to your brethren, Ammi [My-people ], and to your sisters, Ruhamah [compassionated ]. AND Hos_1:1. Superscription. It has been shown al ready in the Introduction (§ 1) that the chronological limits assigned in the title must be admitted to be essentially correct. Difficulties have been suggested to the minds of some from the circumstance that when the duration of Hosea’s ministry is given, it is, in the first line, placed in relation to the reigns of Judah, and that a king of Israel is mentioned only in the second line. To argue from this, however, that Hosea belonged to the kingdom of Judah, is inadmissible; for as we saw in the Introduction, all other evidence goes to prove that he was a resident of the Northern Kingdom. But a further difficulty is felt. Only one king of Israel is named, whom Hosea long survived, and the succession of Judaic kings brings down the life of the prophet far beyond the time of that single monarch, Jeroboam II. Hence it is: alleged that the second part of the superscription does not agree with the first. Keil seeks to solve this difficulty by assuming that the Prophet acknowledged only the legitimate rulers of the kingdom of Judah as the real kings of the people of God; and that he defined the limits of his ministry according to the real succession of that kingdom. He introduces along with the names of those kings, that of the Israelitish monarch, under whom he began his prophetic course, not only to indicate that occasion more definitely, but chiefly on account of the significant position occupied by Jeroboam in the kingdom of the Ten Tribes. He was the last king through whom God vouchsafed any aid to that state. The succeeding rulers scarcely deserved the title of king. But this explanation, brought forward in order to defend the originality of the superscription, can scarcely be acquitted of the charge of arbitrariness. (The precedence assigned to the Judaic kings would be better explained on the hypothesis that Hosea, at a later period, took up his residence in Judah and there composed his book.) Ewald, who, to be sure, does not admit in its full extent the correctness of the chronological statements of the superscription, supposes that the allusion to the kings of Judah was added by a later hand (which also inserted Isaiah 1:1), while the remainder is the old original superscription, which, however, he thinks belonged at first only to chaps, 1, 2. The question, whether the superscription in its present form is quite original, must be allowed to remain undecided. [As serving however to defend the genuineness of the superscription, comp. with the view of Keil adduced above, the following full and forcible presentation of the probable design of the prophet in its insertion given by Hengstenberg in his Christology: “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 of the series of the kings of Judah mentioned by him, survived Jeroboam nearly twenty-six years. Now, had the latter not been mentioned along with him, the thought might easily have suggested itself, that it was only in the latter period of Uzziah’s reign that the prophet entered upon his office; in which case all that he says 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 is 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 toward destruction. If, therefore, it was to be seen that future things lie open to God and his servants ‘before they spring forth’ (Isaiah 42:9), it was necessary that the commencement of the Prophet’s ministry should be the more accurately determined; and this is effected by the intimation that it took place 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 Hos 1:2 to Hosea 1:1. The remark made in Hosea 1:2, that Hosea received the subsequent revelation at the very beginning of his prophetic ministry, corresponds with the mention of Jeroboam’s name in Hosea 1:1. But this is not all.… There was a considerable difference between him and the subsequent kings. Cocceius remarks very strikingly: ‘The other kings of Israel are not viewed 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 recognized 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 Ten Tribes; comp. 2 Kings 14:27.” The English commentators hold to the originality of the superscription, with the exception of Noyes, who speaks of it as “doubtful.” The arguments which establish it are mainly these: (1.) The very fact of its existence in its present form from the earliest known period. (2.) The analogy of other prophetic books as well as of many other portions of the Old Testament, the genuineness of whose superscriptions has never been successfully impugned either by German critics or their English followers. (3.) The improbability of any other hypothesis. Any “redactor” (Ewald and others) could have had no reason to insert such a peculiar title. Its anomalous character shows it to have been the work of the author himself. Any other would either have made no allusion to the kings of Israel, or would have given a complete list of the contemporary ones. There is a purpose manifest here which a collector would not have conceived, and which it was beyond his province to convey to the world by embodying it in an addition to his author’s writings. (4.) The exact correspondence between the character of the superscription, the contents of the book, and the position of the author, as partly shown above, and as might be further proved abundantly. The superscription therefore is original, and original in its present form. As to the place of its composition there is no improbability in the opinion, mentioned by Schmoller above, that with the rest of the book it was composed in Judah. But this cannot explain, as he supposes, the anomalies of the superscription. It only increases the difficulties. Why was an Israelitish king mentioned at all? This question remains unanswered, while the old difficulty of the non-allusion to succeeding kings of Israel remains in all its force. The true solution must therefore be sought not in any local conditions of the Prophet, but in his necessary relations as a Prophet of God to the two kingdoms, as determined by their respective characters, and in his desire to assign definitely the limits of his ministry.—M.] A. Hosea 1:2-9. The Prophet announces symbolically to the Kingdom of Israel that it will be rejected on account of its Whoredom.” Hosea 1:2-3. In the beginning of Jehovah’s speaking with Hosea … and bare him a son—αְּ ?δεֹ ?ωֵׁ ?ς, literally, in Hosea, that is, into Hosea. The simple translation in, as expressive of an inner revelation which he received, is excluded even by the usage of the language (comp. Zechariah 1:9; Zechariah 1:14); as also is the explanation: by Hosea. This “into,” however, must not be modified into simple “to him.” This would have been—ΰֶ ?μ. αְּ evidently expresses here a closer, personal relation into which the speaker enters with another person, while ΰֶ ?μ, “to,” merely indicates the direction of the discourse. It therefore betokens an energy of speaking, probably also in connection with a certain continuity; answering best to our “speaking with” (comp. besides the passages cited above, also Numbers 12:6; Numbers 12:8; Habakkuk 2:1). The whole clause, ϊְּ ?ηִ ?μַּ ?ϊΞαְּ ?δִ ?Χ, could be regarded as a kind of superscription = The beginning of that which Jehovah spoke with Hosea. The discourse would then begin with εַ ?ιּ ?ΰξֶ ?ψ. But it is preferable to attach the whole clause, as a specification of time, to the following εַ ?ιּ ?ΰξֶ ?ψ and to take ϊְּ ?δִ ?μַּ ?ϊ which is therefore = in the beginning, as an accusative of time: In the beginning, when Jehovah spoke. The sense would be: When Jehovah began to speak with Hosea, then, etc. [For the internal structure of the clause, see the first Grammatical Note.—J. F. M.] This means that God has begun his revelation to the Prophet with the command immediately following; in other words, that the prophet must enter upon active duty with the following testimony against the spiritual adultery of the kingdom of Israel: Go take to thee a wife of whoredom and children of whoredom. “Wife of whoredom:” ζְ ?λεּ ?λִ ?ιν occurs only in the plural, expressing a plurality of acts.—ΰֵ ?ωֶׁ ?ϊζ֨, a woman whose element is whoredom, with whom the ζπδ is a thing not merely incidental. From this designation, as applied to the woman it is evident that it was just in her marriage with the prophet that she would show herself to be an ΰֵ ?ωֶׁ ?ϊζΧ, and would thereby become an adulteress (though naturally this does not exclude the idea that the Prophet begets children by her). The truth to be represented demands this view of the case. For it is Israel married to Jehovah that commits whoredom. But who are the ιַ ?μְ ?γֵ ?ιζְ ?πΧ? “Children” mentioned along with the “wife,” naturally make the latter appear to be the mother. But they cannot be called children of whoredom simply for the reason that their mother is an ΰֵ ?ωֶׁ ?ϊζΧ. They can have that designation only because they themselves stand essentially connected with ζπεּ ?πιν. But in what relation? It is readily suggested: “they are related to it as its results = they are the fruit of the ζְ ?πεּ ?πιν, of the mother, are born of the mother in consequence of her unchastity, are of illegitimate birth.” But, according to this explanation, the genitive would have a sense different from that which it has in the former connection, and this creates a difficulty. If a woman, who practices lewdness and is in fact wholly given up to it, is called ΰֵ ?ωֶׁ ?ϊִ ζΧ it is most natural to assume that the construction exactly similar and immediately following should be understood in like manner to express action and disposition. ιַ ?μֵ ?γֵ ?ιζְ ?πεּ ?πִ ?ιν therefore = children who act and are disposed like their mother, children of the same character as their mother. And this must be admitted to be the correct explanation when it is remembered what is to be represented by the woman and her children, namely, Israel conceived of as the mother of a people, and its children. And the fact which is to be established with regard to Israel and its children is, that they all practice whoredom; comp. the explanatory clause, λִּ ?ιΞϊִ ?ζְ ?πֶ ?δδָ ?ΰָ ?ψֶ ?ς. It is not said that the children are of adulterous origin, but that the whole people—the people as a whole and in their individual members, or, according to the Hebrew personifying mode of conception, the mother and her children, commit lewdness. “Go, take to thee:” μָ ?χַ ?ηΰּ ?ωָׁ ?η is, according to the constant Hebrew usage, equivalent to our phrase, “to take a wife,” i.e., to take a woman to be a wife, to marry. And εַ ?ιִּ ?χִּ ?η (Hosea 1:3), which expresses the fulfillment of the command given with χη, has certainly no other sense. In our verse, another object, still, ιַ ?μְ ?γֵ ?ιζְ ?πεּ ?πִ ?ιν, is joined to μχη. This is done by zeugma, in the sense: Accipe tibi uxorem et suscipe ex ea filios scortationum. He is, accordingly, to ally himself with an unchaste wife, and the children which he begets with her are to be like their mother. This is just the position of Israel. Israel, Jehovah’s spouse, committed lewdness, and the children, who belonged both to Jehovah and to her, acted just as their mother did. Wife and children grieved equally the Husband and Father. The reference here is therefore not to children which the woman is supposed to have had before her marriage with the Prophet. The force of the painful experience of grief over his own children, through which the Prophet was to pass, would then be lost. By these children of whoredom we are not to understand directly just the three children mentioned afterwards, for the expression is a general one, but they do certainly fall under this category, and it is only they who are named. The command which the Prophet receives is supported by the words: for the whole land is whoring, whoring away from Jehovah (falling away from Jehovah). ζָ ?πָ ?δ: evidently a metaphorical expression here designating apostasy from Jehovah to idolatry, according to the conception of Israel’s relation to Jehovah as that of a marriage. He who serves idols accordingly commits whoredom and breaks the marriage vow, is unfaithful to a lawful spouse, because surrendering himself to a stranger, with whom no marriage relation can exist. This notion of infidelity is further indicated expressly by the addition: ξֵ ?ΰַ ?ηֲ ?ψֵ ?ιιιΧ. ξֵ ?ΰַ ?ηֲ ?ψιֵ is a significant composite preposition, which expresses not merely absence from Jehovah, but conveys the notion that a relation, the direct opposite of ηַ ?μַ ?κְ ΰַ ?ηֲ ?ψֵ ?ιιιΧ, has been entered into, and therefore expresses forcibly a position of infidelity, of a discontinuance of fidelity. On this notion of ζָ ?πָ ?δ in a spiritual sense, see the Doctrinal Section. As ζָ ?πֹ ?δϊִּ ?ζְ ?πֶ ?δ expressed the intensity of the apostasy, so δָ ?ΰָ ?ψֶ ?υ‍ ?ֽ expresses forcibly its extent. As the sequel shows, it is the inhabitants of the kingdom of Israel who are meant. This whole sentence gives the ground of the command which the Prophet receives to take a wife of whoredom. He is to take a wife who commits bodily unchastity because the whole land commits whoredom spiritually. Why? The most natural answer is: In order to hold up to the people a mirror in which they might behold their guilt, and thus to bring to their consciousness more surely and powerfully than could be done by mere didactic discourse, how greatly they, by their idolatry, had sinned against their God. and dishonored Him. God would thus be represented as standing in a position which would hardly be imputed to a man, namely, that of living in marriage with a woman given up to adultery; or that such a relation would be as dishonoring to God as marriage with a whorish woman would be to a prophet. But the taking of this wife had, besides, the express purpose of begetting children with her, who by their names should annonnce to Israel the punishment incurred by its guilt. For to the people (represented by the woman and her ιַ ?μְ ?γֵ ?ιζְ ?λΧ) was to be presented the consequence of their whoredom, and it was to be brought to their consciousness what punishments then rightful husband, Jehovah, would inflict as the consequences of their infidelity. The children, as ιַ ?μְ ?γֵ ?ιζλְ ?Χ, represent the children of Israel in their guilt, but, at the same time, by their names, the punishment thereby entailed, and as those names, significant of punishment, are affixed to those who represent the guilt, the fact is expressed that the punishment is directly consequent upon the guilt. It is clearly incorrect to lay stress upon χַ ?ηΞμְ ?κָ and the alliance of the Prophet with the woman, by itself considered, and so give to the thought a positive turn: that, by the Prophet’s marriage with a lewd woman, and by the announcement of its results and by the names of the children, it was intended to be illustrated how Jehovah entered into a marriage with the faithless nation of Israel through Hosea, and that the children and the consequences of such marriage would represent severe chastisements from the hand of love (Lφwe). This notion is imported into the sentence. In so far as it is correct, it belongs to chap. 3 and not here. But of an alliance being entered into between Jehovah and the disloyal people, there is nothing said even there, simply because Jehovah had, on his part, entered into such a marriage with the people long before. To infer from the fact of the Prophet’s marriage that God entered into the same alliance would be a false application of the image. The Prophet cannot be conceived of as standing already in that relation. He must contract this marriage in order to symbolize Jehovah’s marriage with the people already existing. It would be just as baseless, however, to infer from this marriage contracted by Hosea with the woman, that the original covenant between God and his people at Sinai is to be represented; that God had concluded the alliance with the people as with a pure virgin, and that they became unchaste after they came under the covenant; that therefore also ΰֵ ?ωֶׁ ?ϊζְ ?πΧ is not a woman who has already practiced lewdness, but that an undefiled virgin is to be understood, of whom, however, it was foreseen that she would become unfaithful and bear children of adultery. Apart from the emphasis placed upon the words ΰֵ ?ωֶׁ ?ϊζְ ?πΧ, this view is seen to stand in direct contradiction to the causal sentence: “for the land,” etc. Because the land commits whoredom must the prophet take a maiden who will become unchaste? No. “The marriage which the prophet was to contract was simply intended to symbolize the relation already existing between Jehovah and Israel, and not the way in which it had come into existence. The wife does not represent the nation of Israel in its virgin state, when the covenant was being concluded at Sinai, but the nation of the Ten Tribes in its relation to Jehovah at the period of the prophet, when that kingdom, considered as a whole, had become a wife of whoredom, and in its several members resembled children of whoredom.” (Keil.) Hosea 1:3. Took Gomer, a daughter of Diblaim. The command is obeyed without delay. βֹּ ?ξֶ ?ψ occurs elsewhere only as the name of a nation: Genesis 10:2-3; Ezekiel 38:6. If the name be taken here symbolically, the derivation from βָּ ?ξַ ?ψ might afford the signification, “completion,” i.e., not annihilation, utter ruin; but, completion of whoredom=completed whoredom (so already Aben Ezra, Jerome). According to Fόrst it is also possible to explain, “fire-glow,” literally, a being consumed with passion. γִּ ?αְ ?μַ ?ιִ ?ν occurs only as a proper name. In attempts to interpret it, it is usually explained as =γְּ ?αֵ ?μִ ?ιν, fig-cakes (so already Jerome), in which an allusion is perceived to chap. 3 Hos 1:1, where raisin-cakes appear as an image of that idolatry which ministers to sensuality. “Daughter of fig-cakes” would then=loving fig-cakes, or more generally, deliciis dedita. The identification of γִּ ?αְ ?μַּ ?ιִ ?ν and γְּ ?αֵ ?μַ ?ιν has its difficulties, however. Fόrst supposes that the root γαμ, besides the sense, press together, from which we have γְּ ?αֵ ?μָ ?δ, fig-cake, has also the signification, enclose, and thus gains the meaning, embracing (strictly, as in the dual form: double-embracing, copulation), therefore: daughter of embraces. And this would naturally mean, not the fruit of such embraces, but (as in the other explanation, expressing a connection or intercourse), abandoned to embraces, complexibus dedita. The interpretation of these names is accordingly attended with difficulties. For we cannot say that in themselves they necessarily demand such an explanation, at least so far as our knowledge of the Hebrew language permits us to judge. But it cannot be adduced against the admissibility of such interpretation that the names are not elucidated for us as are those in Hosea 1:4 ff. “This may be simply explained from the circumstance that the name was not given to the woman, but that she had it already when the prophet married her” (Keil). If the names have really these meanings, it is clear that a woman designated, “consummata in scortatione, complexibus dedita,” would be a striking picture of Israel, uttering a severe rebuke. [Henderson, holding the literal interpretation of the narrative, maintains that there is no need of assuming any symbolical meaning whatever for these names. On the other hand, if the narrative be not the record of actual occurrences, the necessity of a symbolical interpretation of the names is manifest. Most of the English expositors who note the names show a general agreement with the explanations: completed whoredom, and: given up to dainties.—J. F. M.] And she conceived and bore to him a son. The taking of the wife had evidently in view the birth of children. That the woman conceived by the prophet, and that the son is to be regarded as his, is clear even from the simple connection of the words, but is placed beyond question by the express addition: bore to him. The opinion that the children were illegitimate, has arisen only from the false assumption, at variance with the context, that the woman must have formerly been a virgin; for the designation, ΰֵ ?ωֶׁ ?ϊζΧ, must then be justified, and if she were not such before marriage, she must have become unchaste after it. Hosea 1:4-5. Then the Lord said to him: Call his name Jezreel—in the valley of Jezreel. The names of the children were to be significant, in view of the announcement of punishment, and must therefore be determined by God. That of the first child was to be Jezreel. This was to the house of Jehu a nomen cum omine, on account of the significant connection of the “plain of Jezreel” with that family. It should remind them of that place and of that which occurred there. It cried out to them according to the meaning of the word, “God will disperse,” and thus threatened punishment for what was there transacted; and also, according to what follows, presented to their fears the “plain of Jezreel” as the place where the punishment should be inflicted. Blood-guiltiness of Jezreel. Jehu had, by one fearful massacre, exterminated the whole house of Ahab in the city of Jezreel (2 Kings 9:30; 2 Kings 10:17). This city was situated in the plain of Jezreel, which lay in the well-known Valley of Kishon. Now there appears this difficulty: Jehu did this at the express command of God through Elisha (2 Kings 9:1 ff.), and the deed was afterwards commended by God (1 Kings 10:30), and yet it is to be avenged as murder upon Jehu’s house. It might be said that in the mind of the author of the books of the Kings, and in that of the prophet, there were different views with regard to the violent overthrow of Ahab’s house. But the prophet also could regard the overthrow of a family like that of Ahab only as a merited judgment of God, and hold the same view with reference to the extension of the massacre to Ahaziah of Judah and his brethren, by reason of their connection with the house of Ahab. The correct solution may be seen in the words of Keil: “The apparent contradiction is resolved simply by distinguishing between the act itself and the motive by which Jehu was instigated. Regarded in itself, as a fulfillment of the command of God, the extermination of Ahab’s family was an act for which Jehu could not be held criminal.” But the motive which actuated Jehu was not at all the desire to fulfill the will of the Lord; for, even if he did not use the command of God as a cover for his own selfish and ambitious feelings, he did yet in no way enter into the intention of the Divine injunction. God desired that the kingdom of Israel should be cleansed from idolatry by the extermination of the house of Ahab and the elevation of a new dynasty. In that purpose lay the justification of the deed, which was to be simply a judgment of God upon idolatry. But Jehu, though ceasing from the worship of Baal, retained the worship of the calves. He fulfilled God’s command indeed, but only went half way. After he had gained the throne, to which God had destined him, he struck out for himself a false path, from a false policy in which he thought it advisable to retain the worship of the calves, and thus rendered God’s intentions nugatory. Thus was the bloody deed of Jehu divested of all real value, and thus it entailed a burden of guilt upon him and his house (wherefore also the possession of the throne was promised to him only to the fourth generation). This section of the book shows directly that the idolatry countenanced by Jehu and his house is to be brought into connection with his deed as an act of blood-guiltiness, for “the whoring of the land” is expressly designated as the sin to be punished (Hosea 1:2). Such apostasy from Jehovah (this is the first announcement), is to be punished by the way in which the deed of blood in Israel is regarded and avenged as a sinful act of blood-guiltiness. The ground of the resentment towards that act therefore does not lie in the deed itself, but the punishment is inflicted for something else without which it would not have been incurred. The objection therefore is not just which maintains that this deed cannot be the crowning crime of Jehu and his house. Nor is there any discrepancy between the prophet and the books of the Kings, where all the members of that louse are adduced as guilty by not departing from the sin of Jerusalem. [Pusey: “Jehu, by cleaving against the will of God to Jeroboam’s sin, which served his own political ends, showed that in the slaughter of his master he acted not as he pretended, out of zeal (2 Kings 10:16) for the will of God, but served his own will and his own ambition only. By his disobedience to the one command of God he showed that he would equally have disobeyed the other, had it been contrary to his own will or interest. He had no principle of obedience. And so the blood which was shed according to the righteous judgment of God, became sin to him who shed it in order to fulfill not the will of God but his own. Thus God said to Baasha: ‘I exalted thee, out of the dust and made thee prince over my people Israel,’ which he became by slaying his master the son of Jeroboam and all the house of Jeroboam (1 Kings 16:2). Yet because he followed the sins of Jeroboam, ‘the word of the Lord came against Baasha for all the evil that he did in the sight of the Lord in being like the house of Jeroboam, and because he killed him’ (Hosea 1:7). The two courses of action were inconsistent: to destroy the son and the house of Jeroboam, and to do those things for which God condemned him to be destroyed. Further yet; not only was such execution of God’s judgments itself an offense against Almighty God, but it was sin, whereby he condemned himself, and made his other sins to be sins against the light. In executing the judgment of God against another, he pronounced his judgment against himself, in that he that judged, in God’s stead, did the same things (Romans 2:1).” M.] Will visit: alluding to extermination which corresponds to the act of Jehu. It followed not long after the death of Jeroboam II. in the murder of his son through the conspiracy of Shallum (2 Kings 15:8 ff.). But the threatening goes further: will utterly destroy the kingdom of the house of Israel. “House of Israel” here designates the kingdom of Israel in a special sense, the kingdom of the Ten Tribes, as distinguished from the house of Jehu (ver 7). The kingly office in general should cease in the kingdom of Israel, and that would naturally be a cessation of the kingdom itself. But this was connected with the fall of the house of Jehu, because, in consequence of that event, a state of the wildest anarchy ensued, so that only one king, Menahem, had a son for successor, the rest being all overthrown and slain by conspirators. The fall of that house was therefore “the beginning of the end, the beginning of the process of rejection” (Hengstenberg). Hosea 1:5. And it happens in that day, that I break the bow of Israel in the valley of Jezreel. “That day” is the day on which the destruction of the kingdom takes place. “Bow of Israel” “by synecdoche for the military force on which the strength of the kingdom and consequently its existence rested” (Keil). The valley of Jezreel is the plain in which the city Jezreel lay, in the Apocrypha and Josephus: τὸ μέγαπεδίονΕσδραίλων, or simply: τὸ μέγαπεδίον. There the threat was to be fulfilled, because it was there that the bloody deed was committed. It was, moreover, the natural battle-field of the northern kingdom (comp. Judges 4:5; Judges 6:33). Israel forms here an unmistakable paronomasia with Jezreel. The words, and especially also the mention of a locality, point clearly to a battle, here an overthrow, by which the before-named destruction of the kingdom should be effected, and thus in this sentence not only is the punishment indicated, but the mode of its infliction stated. The enemy who should effect this annihilation of the kingdom is not yet indicated. No definite enemy is named before the second part of the book where Assyria is brought forward. (It is not mentioned in the books of the Kings where Assyria dealt this blow.) Hosea 1:6-7. And she conceived again and bore a daughter,—by horses and riders. The second child is a daughter who receives the symbolical name: μΰ̇ ψֻ ?ηָ ?ξָ ?δ [See Gram. Note]. That the second child should be a daughter is not a voucher for the necessity of the literal view, but is grounded in the inner connection between the female sex and compassion. The announcement that there was no more compassion, becomes so much the more emphatic as the representative of the nation which was not to find compassion was a daughter. For the “female sex finds more compassion than the male,” and yet there is no compassion to be found. That must be a sad case indeed! The explanation is incorrect which supposes that the daughter signifies a more degenerate race (e. g., Jerome). For I will no longer have any compassion. An explanation, telling what the name of the daughter implies, namely, the exhaustion of Divine compassion. The kingdom owed its preservation in the midst of the prevailing idolatry only to the undeserved compassion of God. [On the rest of Hos 1:6, see Gram. Note.] Hosea 1:7. But I will have compassion on the house of Judah. A keen reproach for the house of Israel; if they were like the house of Judah, they too would find compassion; but they are not so; they live only by the compassion of Jehovah as is plain from the words. Why Judah finds favor, and Israel does not, is indicated in the words that follow, in the peculiarly emphatic expression: I will deliver them through Jehovah their God (comp. Genesis 19:24). Here allusion is made to the connection in which Judah stands with Jehovah, while it contains, at least by implication, the thought that Judah owes its deliverance directly to the fact that it acknowledges Jehovah to be its God, and not, as is further said, to its military force, while Israel on the contrary, trusting in its military strength instead of in Jehovah who is its God no longer, shall for that very reason, and in spite of its warlike resources, utterly perish. By war is an unexpected expression as occurring along with, the other words; but it naturally means not: by weapons of war, but obviously: by waging war. The bow and the sword are named, as the weapons, and the words: by war, show more definitely that the employment of those weapons is meant. Horses and riders, according to a familiar mode of expression, indicate the force which completed the military strength in which so much pride was taken. The occurrence of these words at the close is specially emphatic. When Jehovah delivers, He needs no weapons of war, no horses or riders, nor can these give any help without Him. Hosea 1:8-9. And she weaned Lo-Ruhamah, will not be yours. The weaning and the conception are to be taken together, that is, as soon as she had weaned, she again conceived, in order to indicate the continuity of the announcement of evil. There is no interruption until the end of the rejection. [Henderson: “The mention of the weaning of Lo-Ruhamah seems designed rather to fill up the narrative than to describe figuratively any distinct treatment of the Israelites.” J. F. M.]. Not my people: thus should the people in the kingdom of Israel be designated. The covenant relation between God and his people is to be completely dissolved. μΰ̇Ξΰֶ ?δְ ?ιֶ ?δμָ ?λֶ ?ν=I will not belong to you [see Gramm. Note]. On the relation of the three threatenings to one another, see the Doctrinal Section (2). On the whole narrative see Introd. § 3. B. Hosea 2:1-3. And yet Israel shall be accepted again. Immediately upon the announcement of the judgment extending even to the complete rejection of the kingdom of Israel, follows, to the surprise of the reader, an announcement of deliverance. The verses, in distinction from the Hebrew arrangement, should form one section with chap. 1. The arrangement by which Hosea 1:1-2 are joined to chap. 1, and a new chapter begun with Hosea 1:3, as is done by the LXX. and Jerome, and after them by Luther, is more incorrect still. Hosea 2:1. And the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea,—children of the living God. The promise in Hosea 1:1 a, agrees almost verbatim with the promise of Gen 22:17; Genesis 32:13, an agreement which is designed. The rejection of the Ten Tribes just announced forms a strong contrast to the promise there made to the patriarch with regard to the boundless increase of his posterity. Now if the promise is firmly believed one might have doubts of the rejection, or if the threatening of the Prophet were to be accepted one might feel that he had mistaken the promise. Hence the Prophet goes back directly to that promise, and shows how the promise is in no way annulled by the threatening, but that the latter agrees well with the former, which will certainly reach its fulfillment. (Comp. also the reference to that promise in Isaiah 10:22, in opposition to false security, and in Jeremiah 33:22). The promise given to the fathers is just the pledge that a time of deliverance will come again! The announcement of deliverance in Hosea 1:1 ff. is rooted in that promise. Thus the words are strictly to be regarded as a citation=and yet what was promised will come true, that, etc., ιִ ?ωְׂ ?ψָ ?ΰֵ ?μαְּ ?πֶ ?ι is therefore naturally to be understood of the people of Israel generally (against Keil). For the promise is made with reference to the whole people, and in Hosea 1:2 mention is made expressly of a union between those who had been divided. But that enlargement of the whole body cannot take place with the return of those whose rejection is now announced. Hence the second member of the verse turns to them. For those who are here called “not my people” are naturally identical with those referred to in Hosea 1:9. In the place in which it is said to them, etc. There is no need of inquiring what place is meant, whether Palestine or the Land of Exile. The expression has rather the more general sense: “Just as it has been said—so will it now rather be said,” etc. The one will answer exactly to the other. Children of the living God. Instead of simply: my people, or, people of God, which would be expected at first, we have here a much stronger expression, ΰֵ ?μδַ ?ι naturally in opposition to dead idols, whose service brings the people to ruin. They are not merely a people of God, but his children: they shall have in Him not merely a God but a Father (see below in the Doctrinal Section). There is no allusion here to the moral ground of this gracious acceptance, and such a notion must not be introduced. For to the darkness of the first part (chap. 1) the light is here contrasted quite abruptly and in a way quite unprovided for. The connecting link is not found before the more profound exhibition of the subject in chap. 2. It is understood, of course, that only a remnant is to meet with compassion, but it is not here expressed. Hosea 2:2-3. And the children of Judah and the children of Israel are gathered together—Ruhamah. The acceptance of the rejected ones by God will be followed by a reunion of’ those who had been separated (inwardly as well as outwardly—on the one side belief in God, on the other idolatry). Comp. Jeremiah 50:4, which rests upon our passage, and 3:18, and still more fully Ezekiel 37:15 ff. The children of Israel, by being contrasted with the children of Judah, receive here their more restricted and special meaning, as belonging to the Ten Tribes. The words: appoint for themselves one head, denoting one common king, express this union still more definitely (comp. Hosea 3:5; Ezekiel 34:24; Ezekiel 37:24). And go up out of the land. These words are difficult. “The land” is, according to most, the land of Exile, and a return from it would therefore be expressed. It is certain that the Prophet does not in our section predict a leading away into exile; for “the place,” etc., in Hosea 1:1 is not necessarily to be understood of a foreign land. Yet the remark of Reinke is not incorrect: When it is said of Israel that they are no more a people of God, and will no more receive compassion, the fact is presupposed that they could remain no longer in the Holy Land which they had received as God’s people and had retained through his mercy. Already in Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28 banishment into an enemy’s country was threatened to the people as the punishment of obdurate apostasy. It may be objected, however, that by this explanation, the Prophet would seem to have presupposed an exile of Judah, while he says absolutely nothing of it, but, on the contrary, distinguishes in Hosea 1:7, Judah from Israel. Difficulty is felt further in the indefinite expression: φָ ?μָ ?δξִ ?οΞδֽ ?ΰָ ?ψֶ ?υ, which gives no hint of a land of exile. Reinke, however, as after him Keil, gives this explanation: The prophet refers to Exodus 1:10 and borrows the expression from that passage, a supposition put beyond doubt by Hosea 2:16-17, where the re-acceptance of Israel is represented as a leading through the wilderness to Canaan, and a parallel is drawn to the leading forth out of Egypt, as in chaps. Hosea 8:13; Hosea 9:3, the carrying into Exile is described as a carrying into Egypt (comp. also already Deuteronomy 28:68). Egypt was thus a type of the heathen world, over which Israel was to be dispersed; the deliverance from Egypt a type and earnest of deliverance from captivity and dispersion among the heathen. Well: but would ξοδΰψυυμδ, an altogether general expression, in telligible in itself, have been a strictly technical term for “going up out of Egypt.” And upon the single passage, Exodus 1:10, in which, moreover, no allusion is really made to a withdrawal from Egypt as from a land of captivity, but Pharaoh only speaks of a departure of the Israelites from it, could such a linguistic usage have been based that ςμδξοδΰψυ would have been understood correctly without any explanation? No other passages occur upon which such a usage could have been founded, and none in which it actually occurs. In Hosea 2:15, e. g., “Egypt” is expressly mentioned. No matter how much, therefore, may be said for this explanation as being actually correct, it cannot be approved unconditionally. Others therefore understand “the land,” simply of Palestine. “Going up out of the land,” is thus viewed either as a marching up to Jerusalem (Simson), and to this the context gives much support, especially in the reference to the reunion of Israel and Judah under one head (David). This would imply that Jerusalem would become again the common central point of the nation. But to this also objection may be made (in another direction) to the too general expression ςμδξοδΰψυ. The terminus a quo would then be quite irrelevant. Why then mention this terminus a quo, and omit the terminus ad quem—to Jerusalem (Zion), which is the important point? Hence ςμδξοδΰψυ is regarded by others as a marching forth to victory (Ewald), as David did. The comparison with Micah 2:13 f. is certainly a fitting one. The preceding words, about their marshalling, and uniting and appointing one head, also suit this view well; one is led to think in this of a rising up to vigorous action (because viribus unitis). This explanation demands the mention of the place whither this ςμδ was to be directed less than the others. But perhaps it is indicated in the following still more obscure sentence: for great is the day of Jezreel. This naturally refers back to Hosea 1:4-5. But there Jezreel was the place of overthrow of divine judgment. Keil supposes the same thing is meant here also, that that day of defeat was great, i.e., decisive, glorious, because it formed the critical occasion by which the return of the recreant and their reunion with Judah were rendered possible! Others think of the appellative meaning of the name Jezreel, which certainly appears in 2:24, 25: God sows. This use of the term is supposed to express the notion that the Valley of Jezreel, in consequence of the overthrow there suffered, becomes a place where God sows the seed of the people’s renovation. Keil also admits this as a secondary allusion. But to understand by ιεֹ ?νιִ ?ζְ ?ψְ ?ςֶ ?ΰμ, that day of disaster, and to suppose that a day of defeat is called great on account of its good remote results, is a far-fetched notion. Here in Hosea 2:1-2, in the announcement of deliverance, we find ourselves upon other ground than that of Hos 2:4 ff. What is here praised as great, is not and cannot be the same as that which in chap. 1 is announced as punishment, but must be something of an opposite character. But if we leave out of view that day of battle, we have left only the vague notion: time of God’s sowing, i.e., when God plants as He had before rooted out, i.e., the time of reacceptance; and such a time is designated as great by βָּ ?γεֹ ?μ. But our sentence cannot be supposed to give utterance to such a general thought. The confirmatory λִּ ?ι does not suit such a view; for ιενιζΧ alludes too definitely (as Keil has perceived correctly) to Hosea 1:4, and therefore refers to a definite event; only not the same event, but one which is its counterpart. The sense evidently is this, that there where Israel was overthrown, and its bow broken, a victory will yet be achieved: thither will the children of Israel and Judah gather themselves together under one king, marching up out of the country. And still the appellative significance of Jezreel may be retained; for by this victory God makes a new sowing or planting. Thus, as the threatening is connected with the names of the children, Hosea 1:4 ff., so also is the promise: in the first name without any modification, in the other two by the change into their opposite by the omission of the μΰ̇ ?. [The English expositors usually take the reference to be primarily to the return from the Babylonian captivity. Some of them (of whom Cowles is the latest) refer the fulfillment only to the consequences of the reign of Messiah, the “Head” chosen not only by the united children of Israel and Judah but also by the world. Henderson, denying any multiple sense in prophecy, interprets the “head” to be Zerubbabel, “because the Messiah, whom most suppose to be intended, is nowhere spoken of as appointed by men, but always as the choice and appointment of God.” But (1) it is not said that they will appoint their leader to be the Messiah. That is of course God’s appointment. (2.) The Messiah thus appointed must necessarily be the chosen leader of his people. It is the service of a “willing people” in which they engage. Even God always offers Himself to his people as their king. They are to choose whom they will serve. This argument is evidently only the plea of one who has a theory to uphold. As to the main application of these verses, it is probably best to regard its promise as partially and but to a very small degree fulfilled in the case of those out of the Ten Tribes who returned to Jerusalem after the Exile, and to be constantly undergoing its fulfillment in the increase of the true Israel until the “great multitude which no man could number of all nations” (the 144,000, the mystical number of those sealed of the twelve tribes of Israel), shall be completed. That the Messianic application is almost exclusively the true one is evident both from the grand comprehensiveness of the promise, and from the paucity of evidence as to subsequent reunion to any extent of the representatives of the two kingdoms.—M.] Hosea 2:3.—Say to your brethren, Ammi, and to your sisters, Ruhamah. According to some the children of the Prophet are addressed. Those who had first called out to the people by their own names: Not-my-people! and Unfavored! are now to call out to them the opposite, the son to his brethren, the daughter to her sisters, that is, to the rest of the Israelites. According to others, it is the people who obtain mercy that are addressed, whose members are to salute one another with the new name bestowed on them by God (Hengstenberg, Keil, Umbreit). The latter is to be preferred. For the verse is naturally connected with the close of Hos 1:2, and it should therefore present the rejoicing shouts of the victors. Their victory is to them a pledge of their acceptance by God, which is to be celebrated by these joyful shouts, according to the requirement of the Prophet, or rather of God through him. AND ETHICAL1. One of the most profound conceptions of the Old Testament is that which regards the covenant relation between Jehovah and Israel as a marriage. As a consequence, Israel’s idolatry and apostasy from God appear as whoredom or adultery; for idols are paramours as contrasted with Jehovah the husband. The fundamental elements of this conception are found as early as in the Pentateuch: Exodus 34:14-15; Leviticus 17:7; Leviticus 20:5-6; Numbers 14:33; (Numbers 15:39); Deuteronomy 31:16; Deuteronomy 32:16; Deuteronomy 32:21. Exodus 34:14-15 must be regarded as the most important and the fundamental passage. Other passages are Judges 2:17; Judges 8:33; 1 Kings 14:24; 1 Kings 15:12; 1 Kings 22:47; 2 Kings 9:22; 2 Kings 23:7; 1 Chronicles 6:25; 2 Chronicles 21:11; 2 Chronicles 21:13. Further in the Psalms (if we leave Psalms 45 out of the question); Psalms 73:27; Psalms 106:39. Such passages of later time, as those from Chronicles, naturally presuppose the prophetic development of this doctrine. This is found first in our Prophet, who has made that conception the fundamental idea of his discourses, in some of which it is directly discussed, while it permeates others as an essential principle (e. g., in chap. 11). On the ground of these discourses it is more fully presented by Jeremiah (especially chaps. 3; Jeremiah 5:7; Jeremiah 13:27, etc.), and Ezekiel (chaps. 16–23). It is only hinted at in Isaiah (chaps. Isaiah 1:21; Isaiah 54:5; Isaiah 57:3; Isaiah 62:5). It is not met with in the other prophets. For Nahum 3:4 ff. does not belong here (although the expressions show allusions to our prophet). Nor does Isaiah 23:16 ff.; for there it is not idolatry that is represented by the whoredom of Nineveh and Tyre. In addition, on the positive side, namely, the love of Jehovah to Israel, we must name the Song of Solomon, which bears besides, unmistakable allusions to our Prophet. In the New Testament this conception returns, naturally modified in form, in the description of the great Whore, Revelation 17. ff. (embracing, at the same time, the ideas that are found in the last-named passages concerning great and commercial cities). But the positive notion of a marriage of Jehovah to his people is found again in a New Testament form in Ephesians 5:22 ff, though there in an inverted order; for an actual marriage is first taken, and a parallel is then drawn between it and the relation of Christ to the Church. For the meaning and significance of this whole conception of Jehovah’s relation to his people, our Prophet is, according to the above remarks, the best commentator in all his writings, and especially in chap. 2. See therefore the remarks upon that chapter. 2. “God will not be mocked” is the truth which the writings of the Prophet, written in letters of flame, bear upon their front in the announcement of the destroying judgments which God must and will inflict upon his apostate people. The mode of this announcement in our chapter through the three children with symbolical names, is full of instruction. The very fact that they represent the apostate children of Israel and declare by their names the punishment for this apostasy, sets forth unmistakably the close connection between sin and guilt, namely, that punishment is, so to speak, attached to sin. And the sudden appearance of the three children without any interval expresses evidently the certainty and unavoidableness of the infliction of the divine judgment. The three symbolic names, moreover, were given for the purpose of intensifying and emphasizing the announcement of the judgment. If the first name simply presages the fact of a retribution by an overwhelming judgment, the second unveils with terrible clearness its ground in the divine nature: it is that they shall no more find compassion, that God has turned away from them. And the result of all this is that the nation ceases to be a people of God. Thus the whole significance of this judgment is exhibited. Destruction, the cessation of I mercy, might be felt by any other people or kingdom; but with the people of God its influence was different, it was to them the loss of its special prerogative. Such a judgment has therefore a significance which is not merely political or social but also theocratic, and must be inflicted with a terrible severity elsewhere unfelt. But it is most palpably enounced in our chapter how far judgment is from being the end of God’s ways toward his people. Immediately after the three strokes of destruction, so to speak, had been dealt, the sun of divine favor breaks forth from the darkest clouds of divine judgment in the brightest splendor of words of deliverance, as three names are again sounded forth each more distinctly than the former. This great transformation is presented without the least preparation, evidently as an enigma, thus exciting the greatest desire for its solution. The connecting link between these two announcements so broadly contrasted; namely, on the side of God, love, in which even his wrath against his faithless people is rooted—if He were indifferent He would not be angry,—and on the side of man, a return to Him in consequence of the chastening of his judgments, is not yet displayed here. This is done by the longer exposition given in the following chapter. 3. A man may be the instrument of God and, by his acts, execute his will, and yet be rejected: so Jehu. Our position is determined by the relation which we inwardly bear to that will, according to the simple truth that God regards the heart, whether we make the desires of God our own and are willing to be nothing but his instruments and to serve Him, or whether we assert and claim a place for our own interests, and thus in truth seek our own will and not the will of God. If we in this seek our own ends, the result is inevitable; our execution of the divine will is impeded and disturbed, if it is not rather only a seeming fulfillment and our labors abortive. 4. The New Testament conception of sonship with God, has as its Old Testament correlative that of a people of God. This places God in a close, unique relation to men. But God appears there as only Lord and King, though bestowing blessings and offering the conditions of life; and man, to whom He thus stands in relation, is not the individual but only the people of God as a whole. Therefore also this government of God has for one of its aims the restoration and preservation of the outward conditions of national existence, including the natural basis of such a community, the land itself. Under the New Covenant there is also a people of God, but the individuals, who constitute the whole, are all regarded as children of God. But in another direction the Old Testament notion of a people of God tends undeniably towards the New Testament conception of sonship, and thus shows itself to be a germ ever developing with living power as the earnest of its fruit. All Israel appears as a son of God in the significant passage, Exodus 22:11; comp. further Hosea 11:1. The Israelites themselves are also called “sons of God,” Deuteronomy 14:1; Deuteronomy 32:19, and here in our chapter. But these are only single whispers, and the grand distinction must not be overlooked, that this expression is applied only to the totality of the people, even when it relates to their great multitude. Moreover our passage is contained in an announcement with regard to the future, and we must hold beyond question that the prophets go beyond the stand-point of the Old Covenant. It is just as Paul declares in Galatians 4:1 ff. Israel indeed actually held the position of sonship toward God, but ἐφ̓ ὅσονχρόνονὁ κληρον. νήπιόςἐστινοὺ ?̀δὲνδιαφέρειδούλου. Only the incarnation of the Son of God Himself in an individual person could confer the privilege of the relation of individual and personal sonship towards God, the υἱοθεσία of individual personality. 5. How is the promise in Hosea 2:1-3 fulfilled? We might at first be inclined to seek the fulfillment in the return of the people from Babylonish Exile. For that event certainly marks the turning-point where God’s judgment upon his people reached its end and his favor again shone upon them. But in truth we cannot yet discern the accomplishment of the prophecy in that event. It could hardly be the subject of the promise, inasmuch as the Prophet only speaks and knows here of a judgment upon the Ten Tribes. But if a return from the Assyrian Exile and a consequent reunion with the kingdom of Judah had taken place, we might expect to see in these events a fulfillment of the promise. But such a return and consequent remission of the judgment upon the kingdom of Israel never took place; and the return from the Babylonish Exile affected that kingdom but very slightly, and brought about only to a very small degree a season of deliverance. God’s favor returned, indeed, inasmuch as this period was an assurance that God had not utterly rejected his people, and the hope of the fulfillment of the prophetic promises became so much the brighter. But it was not the fulfillment itself. No; to arrive at that we have only to look at our promise a little more closely. Before the eye of the Prophet there is evidently standing here a picture of a people of Israel, not only innumerably increased and united into one kingdom, but also actually realizing the idea of a people of God (“sons of the living God”). That is, the time which he promises is in his mind directly the “time of fulfillment,” which we, upon the ground of other prophecies, since Hosea himself scarcely speaks of the Messiah (not even in Hosea 3:5), must designate the Messianic. Hence we can in no case seek the fulfillment in events which transpired before the advent of the Messiah. But now the Messiah has come in Jesus of Nazareth. Is this promise of prophecy already fulfilled? Is this picture of the future already realized? If we keep to the words of the Text we must answer, No. In fact the coming of the Messiah did not bring for Israel, as a whole, the time of deliverance, but on account of its guilt, rather a time of rejection, and the consequence was the infliction of a new and still more complete judgment. It is quite clear also that we cannot find the fulfillment of the present promise in the acceptance of the Messiah by the comparatively few who did accept Him. Must we then say that God did indeed design for the people in the Messiah such blessings as are here promised; but that, since they rejected Him, the promised time will never be theirs? In one respect this is perfectly true. But we cannot rest satisfied with it. The prophetic promise with all its rich fullness of meaning would then simply fall to the ground. But still more unjustifiable is the assumption that the promise is to be regarded as only suspended for the people of Israel during the time of their obduracy, and to expect its fulfillment in that nation when it shall be converted to the Messiah. For this opinion, though so much favored of late, simply holds mechanically and restrictively to the letter, with a complete misconception of the nature of the Old and New Testament and their mutual relations, and of the higher plane to which divine Revelation rose with Christ, and supposes it possible that Revelation could retreat from the stand-point of the fulfillment to that of the Old Testament preparation, where Israel as a people represented the kingdom of God. It would assume also that allusion was made to the one kingdom only, for the purpose of showing that the distinction between children of Judah and children of Israel was lost by the extinction of the whole kingdom, even of the kingdom of Judah, independently of the consummation of the reunion under one head here promised. And therefore a promise which takes that division for granted and holds out the prospect of its removal and conversion into a higher unity, cannot be regarded as one whose fulfillment (according to the plain sense of the words) is still to be expected; or is that division of the two kingdoms, which no longer exist, yet to take place, in order that it may at some time be removed? If we have to give up the main position of this assumption of a literal fulfillment yet to be accomplished, on account of its intrinsic impossibility, all support is taken away from the notion that the promise will be realized in and for the people of Israel upon the soil of the Holy Land. It falls to pieces from internal weakness. Instead, therefore, of dreaming of a future fulfillment in the literal sense, we must rather say, that the Prophet knows of a people of God only in the form of Israel, and hence what he hopes and promises for the people of God he hopes and promises for Israel, and in the form conditioned by Israel’s history. But it has become clear to as under the New Testament through Christ: Israel was only a type, necessary for its time and chosen by God, of the true people of God, only a shell which contained the kernel in the mean while, but at the same time was also to protect it until the time of its maturity. But the shell was too small and must be burst; the kernel had not and has not sufficient room, and it would be reversing the order of things, after the kernel is laid bare to retain the shell. It is not the outward Israel that is God’s people; it was just the period of its ruin, just the rejection of the Messiah at his coming by the external Israel that opened the way for this. It was made clear that a people as such was insufficient for this high calling, to be the chosen people of God, as the prophets themselves distinguished more and more between the mere external Israel and the true Israel, and saw the heathen coming to Zion and entering the breach. And though Israel is still held as the central point, the fulfillment is not in outward form, but ideally, inasmuch as Christ came the “Saviour of the Jews;” Israel therefore remaining the root in which the others were engrafted. We can understand now the promise of the innumerable increase (Hosea 2:1). Literally it would apply to the people of Israel, but can only apply to them as the people of God; and even though the older prophets say nothing as yet of the calling of the Gentiles, as Micah and Isaiah do, we have now assuredly a right to abandon the notion of an increase of the external Israel, and to see the fulfillment in the founding of a people of God by Christ just in the time of the final ruin of Israel, who have become, especially by the conversion of the heathen, a numberless multitude, and will become still more numerous. Then the reunion of the divided kingdoms is an essential element in the Messianic picture of the future held up in prophecy, as this very passage shows. This is altogether natural. Since prophecy knows a people of God only in the form of the people of Israel, it was necessary, if salvation was to be brought by the reign of the Messiah, that the breach, so harmful to God’s people, and the fruitful source, even more than the consequence, of apostasy from Jehovah, should be removed. If Israel was to be described as becoming converted to God, it must also be represented as returning to its unity under the divinely chosen House of David. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/ Fuller Discourse of Jehovah Concerning His Adulterous Spouse, Israel Hosea 2:4-23A. Complaint and Threatening of PunishmentHos_2:4-154 Plead with your mother, plead! For she is not my wife And I am not her husband, That she put away her whoredom from before her And her adultery from between her breasts. 5 Lest I strip her naked, And place her as (she was in) the day of her birth, And make her like the wilderness, And set her (so as to be) like a barren land, And slay her with hunger. 6 And on her children I will not have mercy, For they are children of whoredom 7 Because their mother has committed whoredom And she that bore them has caused shame, Because she said: I will go after my lovers, Who furnished my bread and my water, My wool and my flax, My oil and my (pleasant) drinks. 8 Therefore behold I am hedging up thy way with thorns, And will wall up a wall [raise a wall before her ] And she will not find her paths. 9 And she will pursue her lovers and not overtake them And will seek them and not find; And she will say: I will go and return to my former husband, For (it was) better with me then than now. 10 And she did not know that I gave her The corn and the wine and the oil, And that I increased for her silver and gold, (Which) they used for Baal. 11 Therefore will I take back my corn in its time And my wine in its season, And snatch away my wool and my flax (Which was) to cover her nakedness, 12 And then will I uncover her shame In the eyes of her lovers, And none will deliver her from my hands. 13 And I will bring to an end all her joy; Her feast-making, her new-moons, her sabbaths, And all her festivals. 14 And will lay waste her vine and her fig tree Of which she said: they are my reward Which my lovers gave to me: And will make her a forest, And the beast of the field will devour her. 15 And I will visit upon her the days of the Baals; To which she burnt incense, And (then) put on her ring and her jewels, And went after her lovers, And forgot me, saith Jehovah. B. The Punishment leads to Conversion, and thus to the glorious Renewal of the Marriage Contract between Jehovah and IsraelHos_2:16-2316 Therefore, behold, I am alluring her, And will lead her into the wilderness And speak unto her heart [speak with comfort ]. 17 And I will give her her vineyards from thence, And the Valley of Achor as a door of hope, And she will answer then as in the days of her youth, As in the day of her coming up from the land of Egypt. 18 And it will be in that day, saith the Lord, Thou wilt call: My husband, And thou wilt no more call me: My Baal. 19 And I will remove the names of the Baals from her mouth, And they shall no more be remembered by their name, 20 And I will make for them in that day a covenant With the beast of the field, And with the birds of heaven, And the creeping things of the earth, And bow and sword and war will I destroy from the land, And make them dwell in security. 21 And I will betroth thee to me for ever, And betroth thee to me in righteousness and justice, And in mercy and in compassion; 22 And betroth thee to me in faithfulness, And thou shalt know Jehovah. 23 And it will be in that day, I will answer, saith the Lord, Will answer the heavens, And they will answer the earth, 24 And the earth will answer the corn and the wine and the oil, And they will answer Jezreel [God’s sowing ] 25 And I will sow her for myself in the land, And favor “Unfavored,” And say to “Not-my-people”: “Thou art my people,” And they shall say: “My God.” AND This chapter is the essential supplement to chap. 1. It contains, in a more discursive style, an exposition, justifying and elucidating that which in chap. 1 was presented only as a theme, and in some parts even enigmatically in its brief sentences. The complaint and threatening of destroying judgments were uttered without any preparation; and still more suddenly were they followed immediately by as glorious an announcement of salvation. Chap. 1 must thus excite inquiries, not so much through the symbolical representation of the first part, as by these unexpected utterances, inquiries which demand an answer. Such answer is given by the Lord Himself in Hosea 2:4 ff., in a longer discourse. This is now altogether based upon the conception of Israel as an unchaste wife, which was only indicated in chap. 1 and then disappeared, and is developed in two sections, of threatening and of promise. A complaint is first raised against the unchaste wife, and then the course of punishment is figuratively described, which, however, is seen to be really a chastening with the view to conversion from idolatry. This conversion itself is promised, and the way thus prepared for the announcement of salvation. Israel, returning as penitently as a wife to her husband, finds mercy with God. So the close, Hosea 2:23 f., returns expressly to chap. 1–2:3, and the discourse is thus shown to be most closely connected with that section. The complaint and announcement of punishment occupy Hosea 2:4-15. The discourse takes a turn with Hosea 2:16. The declaration of deliverance is introduced by the announcement of conversion, and from Hosea 2:20 onwards becomes a glorious promise. A. Hosea 2:4-15. Complaint, and Announcement of Punishment.Hosea 2:4-6. Plead with your mother—for they are children of whoredom. The person who makes the demand is naturally Jehovah. Those who are addressed are not the children of the Prophet, Hosea 1:4 ff. (Kurtz), but the children of the adulterous spouse, Israel (and therefore those who are designated children of whoredom, Hosea 1:2). These children are distinguished ideally from their mother, because Israel is from one point of view regarded as the spouse. Israel viewed as a unit is the mother: the children then represent the individual Israelites (the mother can not be conceived as existing without the children). The children are now to plead with their mother. But this does not mean that a part of Israel did not serve idols, so that the better disposed among the people would be addressed (Keil, et al.). This would conflict with what has been said of the relation between the mother and the children. The children are conceived of as those who have to dread misfortune on account of the prevailing “whoredom.” They, in fact, however, represent just what the mother does; they are to suffer the same punishment with her, though in Hosea 2:6 the punishment is as yet only mentioned expressly as that about to fall upon the children. But the distinction made between the mother and the children is only a rhetorical mode of presentation resorted to for the purpose of casting upon the mother, through the children, the reproach that she by her conduct was bringing misfortune upon them, and thus persuading her to abandon her lewdness. Not as though the children had acted differently from the mother, but now when the punishment is to be presented, the complaint is naturally directed against the latter. For if the children have sinned, they have followed their mother in doing so. She is the really guilty one in this punishment. The children are comparatively innocent, and have been only seduced, and yet they must suffer like their mother! And then they must participate in the sufferings which the mother endures for her own sins. They are therefore the ones who should be represented as pleading with the mother. This mode of representation is not pursued beyond the beginning of the chapter. For she is not my wife, expresses well the sin of the mother. It is as though Jehovah had said: “It is her sin that she deports herself as one who could not be my wife, and whose husband I could not be, and I cannot look upon myself any more as her husband.” The next member of the verse shows the cause of this feeling, for it is the conduct of the mother that gives occasion to the children to upbraid her. The punishment would be: I know her no longer as my wife, and will be her husband no longer. But punishment is not introduced before Hosea 2:5—εϊָ ?ρֵ ?ψ. The ψִ ?ια involves the demand to cease from the present conduct. This conduct is “whoredom,” but in the case of a wife it is also more, it is “adultery.” From her face—from between her breasts. The whoredom (idolatry) of Israel is thus not secret, but is done openly. Israel is like a public barefaced whore, who displays her profession in her face and (bared) breasts. Hosea 2:5. The demand is supported by calling attention to the punishment. Lest I strip her naked. This is perhaps connected with the foregoing so as to=as a punishment for the shameless exposure of her person which she wantonly practices, strip her bare in a way she does not like and of which she would be ashamed. Divested of the figure the expression would mean: lest I take from her everything that I have given her and reduce her to the condition in which she was before I delivered her and made her what she now is (comp. Ezekiel 16:4 ff.) The prophet now turns to this earlier condition with the words: as in the day of her birth. Primarily this is an image of nakedness=like a new-born child, but not simply =without clothing, but=divested of everything, stripped of all she can call her own. Thus was Israel on the day of its birth. This birth took place when Israel was chosen to be the people of God. According to Hosea 11:1, this was done in Egypt. Israel was there naked, for it dwelt as an oppressed nation of slaves without a country. And make her like a wilderness, that is, reduce her to a situation where the necessaries of life are wanting as they are to those in a desert, so that they die of hunger; and like a parched land, that is, a place in which there is no water, so that she may “die of thirst.” This dying of thirst is only mentioned because her situation is compared to a desert; and the general sense is=reduce her to a situation of utter destitution from a condition of great abundance. A reference to Israel’s sojourn in the desert cannot be well disproved (as by Keil) along with the mention of the day of her birth. Israel, it is true, was supplied with food and water by God. But the desert itself had neither food nor drink, as Israel felt only too keenly. And that desert is an image of the condition to which Israel is to be reduced by God. Hosea 2:6. And will not have compassion upon her children. This verse is in sense still dependent upon τֶּ ?ο of Hosea 2:5. The want of compassion is a consequence of the conduct of the mother, but may be turned away by conversion. Even the children shall share the same lot, that is, all individually; none are to suppose that they shall escape punishment,—for they are children of whoredom. Because they are begotten of whoredom and also witnesses of it, the Lord who is to punish his adulterous spouse cannot endure them. Still the question of Hos 1:2 repeats itself here, whether αְּ ?πֵ ?ιζְ ?πΧ are not rather: children who commit whoredom. This is most natural, for the children are in fact identical with the mother. Hosea 2:7-9. Because their mother hath practiced whoredom—it was better with me then than now. The last explanation given of αְּ ?πֵ ?ιζְ ?Χ would certainly be incorrect if Hosea 2:7 were an explanation of Hos 2:6 b = They are children of whoredom, for their mother, etc. But such an explanation, continued too in the parallelism (Hosea 2:7 a, and b), would make the sense extremely prolix. The same remark would apply if the verse were coφrdinate to Hosea 2:6 b, and supported it along with Hosea 2:6 a. Besides, this expression concerning the mother’s sin would not be appropriate as justifying the punishment threatened against the children. The solution is to be found in the wider scope of Hos 2:7. For here the thought is so enlarged that it cannot be regarded simply as an explanation of Hos 2:6, and at the same time coφrdinate to the second member of that verse. Such a view supposes that if that verse is an explanation, Hosea 2:7 must be so also. The thought is, however, evidently an independent one. Nor does it refer backwards, but, as its contents show, it reaches forward and is therefore rather to be connected with Hosea 2:8-9. (So Meier; even the Vulgate and Luther have detached it from Hosea 2:6.) [So also Henderson, and Cowles in his exposition though not in his translation.—M.]—δεֹ ?αִ ?ιωָׁ ?δ here not=to become a disgrace, but=to commit shame. Luther: conduct herself shamefully.—Who gave my bread, etc.=food, clothing, and the enjoyments of life (Keil), comp. Jeremiah 44:17 ff. We may refer this to a condition of things which actually prevailed in Israel (comp. also Hosea 2:16). If it did exist along with idolatry, it would be naturally suggested that it was due to the idols. In the figurative representation it is the reward which the adulteress received from her paramours (comp. Hosea 2:14). [Keil: “This delusive idea entertained by the wife arose from the sight of the heathen nations round about, who were rich and mighty, and attributed this to their gods.”—M.] Hosea 2:8. Therefore behold, I hedge up her way with thorns. The hedging up of the way, strengthened in the parallel member by the figure of raising up a wall, means in general to place an obstacle in the way, to set up a wall of separation, and that evidently between the wife and the paramours, Israel and the idols, so that the alliance between them will be dissolved. This is shown further by the words: and she will not find the path to them, and also in Hosea 2:9. This causa dirimens is here intentionally referred to only in a general way, in a sort of enigmatical allusion. The “that” is expressed only once with its immediate sequence in Hosea 2:9. The “how” does not appear till Hosea 2:11 ff. It is already hinted at in the conclusion of Hos 2:9. It is the feeling of distress in strong contrast to the situation just extolled so highly as the gift of the idols. This privation must itself excite doubts as to the power of the idols, and still more must their impotence in the midst of her distress. Israel would indeed become at first more ardent in its worship of idols; to “pursue” after them, etc., the more their prosperity was regarded as their gift, the more would they be missed. But “she will not reach them and will not find them.” It is represented, as though outwardly it were no longer possible to hold intercouse with the idols. This mode of representation, however, is connected only with the image of raising a hedge, etc., something which effects an external separation. But the expression is very suitable, especially as the idols denoted by the paramours, prove themselves to be a mere phantom, dead nothings, just when men turn to them for help. They are therefore really not found. Such experience of the nothingness of idols then awakens again a longing after Jehovah as the One, in whom alone help is to be found, a longing after the good bestowed by Him upon his people. The discourse here is just ready to pass over into the thought that this punishment is a chastening to lead to conversion (Hosea 2:16 ff.), but upon the mention of former prosperity, it turns again to complaint, in order to complete the announcement of the punishment merited by the ungrateful forgetfulness of the giver of such prosperity. This is continued till Hosea 2:15. [Hengstenberg: “There can be no doubt, that by the hedging and walling about, severe sufferings are intended, by which the people are encompassed, straitened, and hindered in every free movement. For sufferings appear constantly as the specific against Israel’s apostasy from God.… We can by no means think of an external obstacle. Outwardly there was, during the exile, and in the midst of idolatrous nations, a stronger temptation to idolatry than they had in their native land. Hence we can think of an internal obstacle only, and then again, only of an absolute incapacity of the idols to grant to the people consolation and relief in their sufferings. If this incapacity is first ascertained by experience, men lose their confidence in them, and seek help where alone it is to found.”—M.] Hosea 2:10-12. She knew not, etc. The reference is to Hosea 2:7. Israel had shamefully ascribed to the idols what they owed to God. That God was the Giver they must have been inwardly conscious, in fact could have known it from the Law; but they ignored this truth, denied it, and naturally so, because they had departed from their God. The abundance of the natural productions of the country then led to an abundance of silver and gold, but—cutting reproach—that which they owed to God ςָ ?ωεּ μַ ?αַּ ?ςַ ?μ, probably; they employed it for Baal, not: they made it a Baal, as the article especially shows. “Employed,” partly in making idol images, partly in the service of idols. Baal may be taken here for idols generally, since the actual Baal-worship was done away with by Jehu, though not entirely, comp. 2 Kings 13:6 (Keil). Hosea 2:11. Now the punishment is expressed which was in Hosea 2:8-9, only hinted at, the withdrawal of the good things which had been so enjoyed. My corn = the corn which they received from me. In its time, that is, the season when corn and wine are expected. Hence the absence of them was the more distressing, but also more significant and striking, showing itself to be a punishment from God. Since He was not acknowledged as the Giver when He gave them, He will manifest Himself more clearly as such in taking them away. Which was to cover her nakedness. The resulting want should be complete, its consequence ignominious bareness=utter destitution. And then will I uncover her shame. = her lovers (idols) shall also look upon her nakedness to her disgrace. She would become so miserable, that even they shall despise her, though she once held herself so highly with them. Hosea 2:13-15. And I will bring to an end all her joy, etc. A still more definite indication of the punishment before threatened. All joy must cease. But joy culminates, and has its purest expression in the festivals, the yearly feasts, strictly speaking. ηַ ?β. Upon these follows the monthly feast, that of the new moon, and the weekly one, that of the Sabbath. λָ ?μΞξεֹ ?ςֲ ?γָ ?δּ then gathers all these up in one general expression. Even during the prevalence of idolatry the feast-days probably remained outwardly the same as before. Hosea 2:14. The devastation mentioned here is probably intended to follow up the cessation of joy; for the vine and the fig tree are the finest productions of Canaan, not necessary to the support of life, but affording the choicest delicacies (comp. Joe 1:7-12). [Henderson: “These nouns are to be taken as collectives, or rather, as Horsley suggests, as plantations of vines and fig trees. These should be left uncultivated on the removal of the inhabitants to a foreign region, comp. Isaiah 5:6; Isaiah 7:23-24.—M.] Hosea 2:15. And will visit upon her the days of Baal, that is, the feast-days just mentioned, for they were celebrated in honor of Baal, and not of Jehovah. And put on her ring, etc. This is an expression which in its strictness belongs only to the image; for Israel is compared to a coquettish prostitute, who is in the habit of thus adorning herself. Yet there may be allusion to the festal attire worn at the idol-feasts. And forgot me. A sharp and mournful contrast to the vain adornments of the prostitute. For the sake of the paramours she was never weary of decking herself out; but no more thought of Jehovah. It is plain how completely this whole threatening was fulfilled by the Assyrian invasion. Yet it is to be observed that this itself is not threatened here, and still less banishment. In general, no enemy is yet named, at least none definitely, but only the laying waste of the land. [Henderson: “Their entirely abandoning themselves to the service of idols, and their dereliction from the God of their fathers, are brought forward at the conclusion of this description of their conduct, in order to heighten the aggravation of their guilt, and render the announcement of the kindly disposition of Jehovah toward them, at the beginning of the following verse, the more surprising.”—M.] B. Announcement of the Conversion of Israel and the beneficent Renewal of the Covenant.Hosea 2:16-19. Therefore behold I will allure her, etc. μָ ?λֵ ?ο. We have had this word twice already in a similar construction (Hosea 2:8; Hosea 2:11) with the sense: because Israel has transgressed, therefore God will punish them. μλο also here naturally means: therefore. Every other explanation, such as veruntamen, or profecto, is arbitrary, and has arisen from the embarrassment occasioned by the difficulty which a “therefore” causes in this connection; for it is not clear from what a conclusion is drawn, whether from their sin or from their punishment or from their sudden desire to return (Hosea 2:9). Nor is it clear what conclusion is drawn, whether punishment or a display of love. As regards the first question it is to be observed that the mention of Israel’s sin immediately precedes (Hosea 2:15 at the end), while their punishment had been previously described, whose converting influence Hosea 2:9 had already indicated. The expression: I will allure her, might certainly form a contrast to the words: she forgot me=while she forgets me, I am mindful of her and recall her to my thoughts. But the whole can hardly be merely an inference from what is said at the close of Hos 2:15, for the reference to the sin is there only incidental and subordinate to the description of the punishment. μλο therefore draws an inference not from Israel’s sin in itself, but from that sin as being punished, and punished not without severity, as was before plainly stated. Hence we find that μλο introduces a conclusion drawn from the contents of the whole preceding section=therefore because Israel has been punished for her sin and forgetfulness of me, and has been so reduced to a condition of distress that she longs after happiness in communion with me, I will allure her, etc. This reference to the whole of the preceding is certainly justified in our verse, since the discourse evidently takes here a new direction. if this is the sense of μλο, the conclusion which is drawn is not an announcement of punishment, against which the expression, “I will allure her” is decisive, but an exhibition of love, and yet such a display as is virtually determined by the sin that is punished, and which is connected immediately with the punishment, in order to foster those first motions of longing into a steadfast resolution to return. [Pocock, Newcome, Noyes, and Henderson translate: nevertheless, notwithstanding. They failed to discern the inner connection between the passages divided by this particle, which, in fact, never has the meaning they assign to it. Cowles reaches the right conclusion, though not upon exegetical grounds: “Some have found a difficulty here, inasmuch as the grievous sins of Israel seem to be no natural reason for giving the blessings hereafter promised. But the reasons, viewed fundamentally, lie deeper than the sins of Israel, even in God’s covenant love and faithfulness. He cannot bear that his own Israel should sink hopelessly under her sins into ruin. Therefore his pity moves Him to discipline and to mercy.” So also Pusey with most of the German Expositors—M.] And lead her into the desert: not as a punishment, for the allusion is to the leading of the children of Israel into the desert by Moses (comp. Hosea 2:17). But this was really a deliverance, namely, from the afflictions of Egypt. At first it is such only negatively, implying that they will no longer continue in such distress. They are not yet in Canaan. Even the desert brought want and destitution with it: and this is brought first into view here. In so far the situation indicated by the leading into the desert coincides actually and outwardly with the punishment by affliction and calamity pictured in Hosea 2:11 (the “wilderness” is the realization of that which is threatened in Hosea 2:11 ff.). But this situation is presented here also under another point of view, namely (as being compared with the wanderers in the desert under Moses), that of a situation while surrounded with affliction yet leading in truth to deliverance, and the idea of punishment is thereby converted into that of chastisement. For the destitution felt in the desert meant here had its definite disciplinary aim,—to shut up the people to the discovery of their need of help, and to lead them to faith in God through the help and gracious guidance which they then experienced. Thus they in the desert, even though encompassed with need, were still upon the way to Canaan, the land of blessings, and salvation. This is made plain from what follows: And speak to her heart = comfort her (comp. e. g.Genesis 34:3; Genesis 50:21; Isaiah 40:2). These words imply an inward consolation by manifestations of love which immediately follow—the blessings that were withdrawn are again supplied. Hosea 2:17. And I will give her her vineyards from thence = from the desert, so that they, as soon as they shall have passed the limits of Canaan, shall receive them, that is, the vineyards which Israel once possessed but had lost (Hosea 2:14), therefore: her vineyards. What happened once is a type of that which shall happen again. And the Valley of Achor for a door of hope. The Valley of Achor here comes into view: (1) on account of its appellative signification: valley of trouble, affliction (Isaiah 7:25). This shall be made a gate of hope (a valley=a natural gate): therefore a transformation of mourning into joy; (2) but also on account of its position near the border of Canaan. For Israel is conceived of as marching out of the desert into Canaan. It remains a question whether the occasion of the name is also to be taken into account. In this valley the anger of God was appeased by the stoning of Achan, and was removed from Israel to give place to renewed favor. Through that which then happened to Achan, this valley became a door of hope to Israel, which lay exposed to the anger of God. And this again sets forth the thought that punishment, affliction, shall become to them the way to renewed favor. The conception is more profound than if it merely set forth a change from one situation to another. But the image and the thing represented are not exact counterparts. Here Israel is the party who is punished and is again to find favor. But there Israel finds favor through the punishment of a single individual. [Hengstenberg: “The people when they entered into Canaan were immediately deprived of the favor of God by the transgression of an individual—Achan,—which was only a single fruit from the tree of the sin which was common to all. But God himself in his mercy made known the means by which his lost favor might be regained; and thus the place which seemed to be the door of destruction became the door of hope.… This particular dealing of God, however, is based upon his nature, and must therefore repeat itself when Israel again comes into similar circumstances.”—M.] And she shall shout aloud thither. The Lord comes to meet Israel (comp. Hosea 2:16 : shall comfort her); and Israel cries out towards the plaee whence he comes forth, looking back to the ξִ ?ωָׁ ?ν. The meaning is, that with thankful acknowledgments she accepts these tokens of his love; not only receives them but answers to them by suitable conduct. Others suppose that ςָ ?πָ ?δ means here: to be afflicted, or to be humbled. But such a sense is unsuitable in this verse. Besides, ωָׁ ?ξָּ ?δ would be equal to simple ωָׁ ?ν. [The view given above as to the meaning of this clause, and adopted by most of the German expositors, is defended at length by Hengstenberg, and is probably the correct one. All the English expositors, on the other hand, follow the old explanation which translates the verb: to sing, and see a special allusion to the song of Miriam and the Israelites after the crossing of the Red Sea. The chief arguments in favor of the former view are, (1.) The greater fitness of the idea of “answering,” as exhibiting a change of character in the Israelites and their readiness to turn to God. Singing would merely indicate that their distress was removed, which was not the ultimate object of God’s dealing with them. (2.) The meaning, “answering,” is the leading usage of the Kal; that of singing is proper to the Piel. (3.) ωָׁ ?ξָּ ?δ ought to be rendered “thither,” which suits the idea of answering, especially as explained above, but not that of singing.—M.] As on the day, etc. Perhaps there is an allusion here to the song of Moses (Exodus 15), in which Israel gave a grateful answer to the deliverance which God had wrought for them. ςπδ would then be rendered directly: sing. So the Vulgate and Luther (comp. 1 Samuel 18:7; 1 Samuel 21:11; 1 Samuel 29:5, to strike up a responsive song). Yet the general signification is probably to be preferred. Hosea 2:18 is then attached to this ςπδ. My husband. That is, she will recognize in Jehovah her true spouse, regard Baal no longer as combined with God, thus (by a convenient escamotage so natural to the human heart which becomes inwardly apostate from God) to all appearance calling upon Jehovah, but really putting Baal in his place and thus dispossessing Him. Hosea 2:19. And I will remove the name of Baal from her mouth = I will so act that thou shalt not take the name of the idols into thy mouth any longer, that is, shalt not honor them (for as long as they are honored they are taken into the mouth, are thought of), but wilt depart from them entirely, have nothing more to do with them. The promise is a literal fulfillment of Exo 23:13; (comp. also Zechariah 13:2), and expressed in the same words. Hosea 2:20-22. And I will mate a covenant for them in that day, etc. A covenant for them, in their interest, so that they shall suffer no injury. Observe here how the figure of the woman as addressed is here departed from, only to be returned to in the next verse. The covenant with the wild beasts lays upon them the obligation not to injure mankind, and especially not to lay waste the land. That punishment was threatened for the immediate future (comp Hosea 2:14). Just for that reason it is now promised to the converted and favored people that they shall be defended from it. [Keil: “The three classes of animals that are dangerous to men are mentioned here, as in Genesis 9:2. Beasts of the field as distinguished from the domestic animals (behemoth are beasts that live in freedom in the fields, either wild beasts, or game that devours or injures the fruits of the field). By the fowls of heaven, we are to understand chiefly the birds of prey. Remes does not mean reptiles, but active creatures, the smaller animals of the earth which move about swiftly.”—M.] And I will break bow and sword and war. To break the weapons of war means to cause war to cease forever. This is expressly intimated in what is attached here by a zeugma. To break war in pieces,—to break bow and sword, and so to put an end to war. The whole is the fulfillment of Lev 26:3 ff.; comp. Isaiah 2:4; Isaiah 11:6 ff; Isaiah 35:9; Zechariah 9:10; Ezekiel 34:25 ff. And not merely will a condition of security and peace be afforded, but also that after which Israel longs (Hosea 2:18) will be given, namely, intercourse with God. Upon this alone is Israel’s renewed prosperity based. And I will betroth thee to me forever. A new marriage-contract is to be signed. Israel now converted, becomes altogether different, is regarded again as an unstained virgin, and is betrothed by God to Himself. What formerly existed, that she was once a faithless spouse, is left quite out of sight. For ΰֵ ?ψֵ ?ωׂ means: to woo a maiden, to betroth her. The words, “I will betroth her,” are thrice repeated, to take all doubt away from the statement. This covenant is now to last forever without any interruption—in righteousness and justice, in mercy and compassion. We are evidently to understand here the righteousness which is displayed in Jehovah’s appearing to favor his people and defending their cause against their enemies, from whose power he delivers them. Such righteousness and judgment are, with relation to the enemies, only negative, that is, they are displayed in punishing them; but, with relation to God’s people, positive, so that righteousness really bears the sense of salvation, deliverance. In so far Luther is right, when he holds that such righteousness is the imputed righteousness of Christ. For there is certainly presented the notion of God’s intervention to bestow favor upon man, and therefore of an act of justification, only not at first as connected with the accusings of conscience by reason of guilt, but in relation to God’s punitive judgments against sin. These, so to speak, lose the right to destroy God’s people any longer, because they are accepted by Him as converted. Keil explains the words as meaning, the righteous judgment by which God purifies his people, in order to eradicate everything which, on the side of the Church, could do prejudice to the covenant. But the discourse has already passed beyond this. The judgment has been already inflicted, and we are now upon the ground of the complete promises of salvation, when God no more appears against his people, but interferes in their behalf in accordance with the purification which has been effected. The disposition of mind in God represented by this righteousness and judgment is still further brought out by the two words: in mercy and compassion. Every idea of an intervention of God in his people’s behalf upon the ground of their merit is thus excluded. What God exercises towards them is purely favor and compassion. Hosea 2:22. But these shall never cease. Hence the addition: in faithfulness. Only thus does this engagement receive the pledge of its eternal duration, while by the preceding generally the possibility of its ratification is set forth. Righteousness and judgment, favor and compassion, are the conditio sine qua non and causa efficiens; faithfulness is the essential modus of the engagement. The end then is: And thou shalt know Jehovah. No interruption of such relation shall ever intervene between Jehovah and Israel; upon the establishment of such intercourse, a true knowledge of God will be imparted. This naturally does not mean a mere cognition of God, least of all a mere logical conception of Him,—in general, not a mere intellectual relation to Him based upon the operations of the understanding, but a personal living relation, that deeper notion which is certainly sometimes conveyed by ιָ ?γַ ?ς. Hosea 2:23-23. And it will be on that day that I will answer, etc. The consequence of the covenant newly ratified is the readiness of God to bless his people most richly. The betrothal having been accomplished, the marriage presents are not wanting, and heaven and earth, standing in the service of the bridegroom and husband, must contribute their share. The heavens, etc., in a descending series, are represented as earnestly asking the personified objects above them respectively whether the blessing which they expect is to be dispensed. The heavens ask Jehovah, the earth the heavens, etc., or they look towards them with longing. And now this questioning, this earnest request (in the time of Israel’s rejection) is “answered” cordially and assuringly. In how far, however, this original sense of ςπδ is carried out, or whether it does not pass over into the signification of our “agree with”=comply, listen to, cannot be definitely shown. It is, however, in accordance with the largely poetical conception to assume here a strict prosopop�ia. The first object of the representation is Jehovah; therefore the sense of the whole naturally is, that Jehovah, upon whom all blessing depends, will confer upon his Church the blessings He had withdrawn from it (comp. Deuteronomy 28:12 and the contrast, Deuteronomy 28:23 f.; Leviticus 26:19). [Keil: “By prosopopζia the prophet represents the heavens as praying to God, to allow it to give to the earth that which will insure its fertility, whereupon the heavens fulfill the desires of the earth, and the earth yields its produce to the nation.” Umbreit: “It is as though we heard the exalted harmonies of the united powers of creation sending forth their notes as they are sustained and moved by the eternal key-note of the creative and moulding Spirit.” Henderson compares the personification in Tibullus, I., Eleg. vii. 25. The extreme beauty of the figure here has often been praised.—M.] Will answer Jezreel. The name Jezreel is here used unexpectedly instead of Israel. The same name which symbolized the judgment upon Israel (Hosea 1:4) is here employed directly to designate the favored people according to its appellative significance: God will sow, especially as in Hosea 2:2 the hope of victory was connected with Jezreel. Israel appears as the sowing of God, because planted anew by divine grace, as Hosea 2:25 shows immediately. Thus the first name of evil omen is taken away and converted into its opposite. The same is true of the other two names. Israel will again be called “Favored,” and the “People of God,” because it is his. It is therefore said, beautifully completing the picture, that the people again know God as their God. Thus God’s renewed favor, and the people’s new heart, go hand in hand. On the fulfillment of the promise, see the Doctrinal Section, No. 4. AND ETHICAL1. The whole tenor of our chapter presupposes that Jehovah’s relation to Israel as his people is compared to a marriage. If we seek the tertium comparationis in this comparison, it is manifest upon a general view, that everything of an accidental or external nature is denied of this relation, that it is presented as a union inward, sacred, and indissoluble, involving indefeasible rights and obligations. But, more especially, there are two elements entering into the nature of marriage, which form the points of comparison, namely, love, by which the husband is bound to the wife, and its correlative the requirement of fidelity, or of exclusive reciprocal affection, which He makes of her. Hence the relation of Jehovah to his people is compared to a marriage because his love to Israel is as strong and intimate as that of a husband to his wife. As the husband chooses the wife from love, and perhaps, urged by love, takes a poor maiden and raises her to himself, and in his married life attests his affection by being her protector and benefactor who cannot show her too many evidences of his devotion, so is it with Jehovah towards his people (comp. Hosea 2:10, 23, 24). Such love on the part of the husband must have as its correlative on the part of the wife, fidelity, undivided, exclusive affection. As certainly as the husband should expect this fidelity from his wife, so certainly shall Jehovah expect it from Israel; as strongly as the wife is bound to love him to the exclusion of all others, and as she does basely violate this duty by attaching herself to another, the same is true of the relation of Israel, God’s people, to Jehovah. But if unfaithfulness on the part of the wife is a violation of duty, it is also worthy of punishment. And if the punishment (rejection) of an unfaithful, adulterous wife is justifiable, so also is the punishment (rejection) of God’s faithless people. But this is only a chastisement wrung from love, and the source of deep anguish to the loving husband. Therefore the husband who loves his wife truly, with a love answering to the idea of marriage, while angry at her infidelity and employing the most severe means to punish it, only does so in order if possible to bring her back to her duty and as the only way to continue the alliance. Thus is it with Jehovah towards Israel. As his love has established the covenant with Israel, and displayed itself in it, so does it seek with its whole strength to preserve it unbroken through all interruptions,—in other words, to restore it. 2. The exhibition of God’s relation to his people under the figure of a marriage permits us, on the other hand, to draw an inference as to the nature of the marriage itself. Such an exalted and sacred relation could only be thus represented under an exalted view of marriage. The lively, strong, unchangeable love of God to his people, and the demand of an unchangeable fidelity answering to such love, and turning aside to no other object, is the subject of the representation. This marriage is necessarily conceived of as a relation constituted by such love on the part of the husband and such fidelity on the part of the wife. Without these it is not contracted; where these are wanting or cease to exist, it is shaken to its foundation. The husband cleaves in love to his wife and to none other: true marriage is in its very nature monogamic; the wife must in fidelity belong to this husband and to none other. How severe is thus the condemnation of all actual adultery, and of all unchastity as the source of adultery, as read in the strong complaints against Israel as the unfaithful wife! What a spirit of moral purity and of chastity is expressed here! We find here already just the view of marriage, and, on the other side, of adultery and whoredom, which meets us in the New Testament, e. g., in the writings of Paul. The prophet know no better image than that of marriage to set forth the depth and sacredness of Jehovah’s relation to Israel, and the Apostle knows no better image than the relation of Christ to his Church to set forth the depth and sacredness of the marriage union. 3. “She knew not that I gave her,” etc. This is perpetually repeated. God blesses men with good things—undeservedly, even when they do not serve Him but “idols.” But they do not know that it is his hand from which they receive everything. It is just the superabundance of his gifts, that makes them so self-exalted and completely forgetful of Him. God must then change this abundance into want, and make presumptuous men feel their own impotence. And how deeply God can humble men! Such visitations are then the means by which God draws them again to Himself, teaches them to know Him, how unjust and at the same time how foolish is their apostasy from Him, how little their “idols” can help them, rather how ill they reward them; and how good it is, on the other hand, to abide by the service of the true God (“it was better with me then than now”). The fruit of such knowledge by humiliation is then the abandonment of idols and a turning to God. 4. That Hosea reverts with special fondness to the ancient history of Israel was already remarked in § 2 of the Introduction, and there shown to be connected with the fundamental idea of his prophetic discourses. In the later chapters (from the ninth onwards) this is specially apparent: but it is also found in our chapter, and thus in the earlier portion of his writings. In this he chiefly takes up the great deeds by which God manifested Himself to the fathers,—the exodus from Egypt, the journey through the Desert, the entrance into the Promised Land. These were the great fundamental acts of God in behalf of Israel, and were most deeply impressed upon the consciousness of the people; for they owed to these their very existence as his people, so that they could never forget them, not even in the season of their greatest decline. Prophetic discourse has in them therefore a sure, unassailable foundation upon which to take its stand. It can point out to the present, in a manner not to be resisted, the dealings of God in his specific relation to Israel his people, can draw from thence its most forcible arguments for its warning and chastening, as well as for its comfort and promises. It has been an advantage which it well understands and knows well how to use. Special stress is in our chapter laid upon the journey through the desert as upon a season of great significance for Israel. Israel was in the wilderness: the milk and honey of the Promised Land were not yet; the flesh-pots of Egypt were no more. In the latter respect this season was one of deprivation and of want, and apparently of loss. But this was only apparent; for in reality it was not only a deliverance from the bondage of Egypt, which had both outwardly and inwardly injured the people, but God could draw so much nearer to the people spiritually as they were now reduced to corporeal distress, and attest and reveal Himself to them by his helpful and blessed mercy. It was just here that God concluded his covenant with Israel and made them his people, so that their real gain outweighed their apparent loss; and the people to whom God betrothed Himself was or became the people which found itself upon the way to the Promised Land. So the Prophet sees in the profound and fruitful significance of this journey, or rather of this leading through the Desert, a type of the blessing which a removal into the desert as a chastening would convey to the people who had become unfaithful to their God. They are deprived of their possessions, but so only stripped of the prosperity which had made them forgetful of God, and which was therefore an evil. And now when they have these no longer, and are thus freed from the fetters which have bound them spiritually, when, by foreign influences, so to speak, they are brought face to face with God, He has again free access to them; the time has come when God can again betroth Himself to the people who again return to Him, lead them again into the Promised Land, and restore them to a state of renewed prosperity and of richest blessing. Those then who were led forth into the Desert did not realize the object of that experience. Nor was it individuals whom it was to profit, but the people as such. For them the journey through the wilderness was a season of trial in which they were being prepared to become God’s people, who should take possession of the Promised Land. And so in the sense of the prophetic promise the individuals who should suffer the judgment of devastation were not the same as those for whom the day of the new salvation was to break forth. That was to be a new generation. But the people were still the same, in the sense to be stated more clearly immediately. 5. With regard to the promise of our chapter and its fulfillment, the remark made in chap. 1 applies, namely, (a.) The fulfillment is not to be seen in the return of the Jews from the exile. This was, to be sure, a fulfillment, but only a small and feeble beginning. For the promise is to be regarded as essentially Messianic. And therefore we Christians, if to us the truth is fully and differently realized that Jesus Christ is the promised Messiah, must hold that this promise has found its fulfillment in Christ, and still finds it in Him; that is, in Christ the new “betrothal” of God to his people has already taken place; but the great salvation which is involved in this is as yet only partially realized, the completion is yet to come. The people of God are still marching through the desert; in Christ we are upon the sure way to the Promised Land, but that goal is not yet reached. (b.) Israel, to whom salvation is here promised by the Prophet, comes into view, not according to its natural nationality, but according to its divine destiny, or according to its typical significance as the People of God. They cannot perish beneath any judgment: for them a new day of salvation is waiting. But as this salvation is conditioned upon the coming of the Messiah, and we know clearly that the Messianic salvation is and shall be universal, so we are forbidden to restrict this great promised day of salvation to the external Israel, although the Prophet undeniably speaks of it,—Israel and God’s people being as yet to him essentially one,—and must extend it to the people of God generally, therefore to all believers, believers of Israel together with those of the Gentiles incorporated into the ancient Churchy, which must ever remain the parent stem. To Israel, who had become “Not-my-people,” many of the heathen who had been “Not-my-people” will unite themselves, and to them, to this whole complex “Not-my-people,” will God say: “Thou art my people:” and they will say: “My God.” So clearly and truly has Paul shown that the Gentiles must first become what Israel was, and that they shall and will really become so, that they shall actually overshadow Israel and so repair what they had lost. If these promises have not found and still do not find their fulfillment in the literal interpretation of what is said of Israel, it is clear that it is not a literal fulfillment of their contents, which speak of temporal blessings in the Holy Land, that is to be expected. Such limited blessings are inseparably connected with the limited range of application; but if the latter, the restriction to Israel, is only the shell and not the kernel, so is it with the former. When the people of God were embodied in a nation, under the Old Testament, the possession of a definite country as the inheritance assigned them by God was something essential, and therefore, as the desolation of the country was a token of the Divine anger, so its fruitfulness, or in general a state of temporal prosperity, was necessarily an indication of the Divine favor. And so the temporal blessings predicted by the Prophet are the tokens of acceptance, of the returning favor of God. The latter, however, the return of favor, is the main element, the kernel which remains after the husk is stripped off. Yet the favor of God manifests itself still under the New Covenant in temporal blessings, while his wrath is declared in temporal punishments. But it does not need to be shown that the complete abandonment of the notion of a national and local settlement in a definite country, as belonging to the conception of a people of God, went further than this; that the New Covenant opens up a prospect of spiritual and inward blessings and enjoyments of which the former were only a thin shadow; and, in spite of this, to insist upon the literal sense is to beat in the face of the New Covenant, and to deny to the prophetic promises generally their lasting significance. For the legitimate consequence of such a theory is to declare that these are not and never shall be fulfilled; it is not simply to dream of a fulfillment expected still in the millennium, and to transfer to this epoch, which is not described any more definitely in the Apocalypse, conditions for which it is felt that room can be found nowhere else. AND God’s testimony against this apostate people: (1) threatening them with severe judgment; (2) and yet alluring them back with glorious promises.—The judgments of God, (1) invoked only by faithless apostasy from Him and base disowning of his favor; (2) aiming only at the complete conversion of the apostate and the joyful acceptance of the converted. Hosea 2:4. Pfaff. Bibelwerk: Believers are bound to warn in love their brothers, sisters, or parents, who are remiss in the practice of true religion, and to bring them to the right way. Hosea 2:7. God is the real Giver of all temporal and spiritual blessings. If, therefore, thou hast any want, seek its supply from God. Lange: It is much more easy and pleasant for a true child of God to serve Him in the enjoyment of his favor and with inward peace, than it is for an untaught child of the world to cleave to it with its restless service of sin. [Matthew Henry: Crosses and obstacles in an even course are great blessings, and are so to be accounted; they are God’s hedges to keep us from transgressing, to restrain us from wandering out of the green pastures, to “withdraw man from his purpose” (Job 33:17), to make the way of sin difficult that we may not go on in it, and to keep us from it whether we will or not. We have reason to bless God for restraining grace and for restraining judgment. God is a bountiful benefactor even to those whom He foresees will be ungrateful and unthankful to Him.—M.] Hosea 2:10. God ever remains the Possessor of the gifts He bestows. Pfaff. Bibelwerk: It is a shameful and inexcusable sin to misuse the gifts of God, in order to serve our evil desires or to promote evil ends. It is a great sin to devote the riches, which God bestows, to the service of idolatry or superstition. [Pusey: Since “men have as many strange gods as they have sins,” what do they who seek pleasure or gain greatness or praise in forbidden ways or from forbidden sources, than make their pleasure or gain or ambition their god, and offer their time and understanding and ingenuity and intellect, yea their whole lives and their whole selves, their souls and bodies, all the gifts of God, in sacrifice to the idols they have made?—M.] Hosea 2:11. Pfaff. Bibelwerk: God takes his gifts from us when we misuse them. He demands a heavy reckoning. [Matthew Henry: Those that abuse the mercies God gives them to his dishonor cannot expect to enjoy them long.—M.] Hosea 2:12. Hengstenberg: Him who forsakes God for the world, God puts to shame before the world, and that all the more, the nearer he formerly stood to Him. [Matthew Henry: Those who will not deliver themselves into the hand of God’s mercy cannot be delivered out of the hand of his justice.—M.] Hosea 2:14. Pfaff. Bibelwerk: Thus on account of false worship of God and impious doctrine, are whole countries destroyed by the Lord. O, that true zeal would animate the great ones of this world to destroy the kingdom of Satan everywhere powerfully, so that the hand of the Lord may not smite them. [Hengstenberg: The sacred writers are not ashamed to use a base word for such base traffic. They speak throughout of common things in a common manner; for the vulgar word is the most suitable for a vulgar thing. The morality of a people or of an age may be measured by their speaking of a vulgar thing in a vulgar manner, or the reverse.—M.] Hosea 2:15. Pfaff. Bibelwerk: This is the way of the gracious and merciful God: if He does first lead us into the desert and make us feel the rod of his wrath, He speaks kindly to us afterwards when we repent, and applies his mercy to our stricken hearts, which are thus made more capable of using it aright. [Matthew Henry: The best way of reducing wandering souls to God is by fair means. By the promise of rest in Christ we are invited to take his yoke upon us, and the work of conversion may be forwarded by comforts as well as by convictions. Pusey: God has mercy, not because we deserve it, but because we need it. He draws us because we are so deeply sunken. He prepares the soul by these harder means, and thus the depths of her misery cry to the depths of his compassion: and because chastisement alone would stupefy her, not melt her, He changes his wrath into mercy, and speaks to the heart which, for her salvation, He has broken.—M.] Hosea 2:17. Strife and tribulation are to believers by God’s grace a door of hope (Romans 5:4). It is a peculiar and special work for God’s children to praise Him with mouth, heart, and life, for so many blessings received. Pfaff. Bibelwerk: Behold, O soul, the consequence of thy true repentance. Thou hast new hope, new joy, new faith in Jesus the Bridegroom of our souls, the abandonment of all false and hypocritical worship, new blessings from God, security, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost! [Pusey: To each returning soul, the valley of trouble, or the lowliness of repentance, becometh a door of patient longing, not in itself but because God giveth it so; a longing which reacheth on, awaiteth on, entering within the vail, and bound fast to the throne of God.—M.] Hosea 2:19. Keil: The abandonment of idolatry and mixed religion is a work of divine grace which renews the heart and fills it with abhorrence of idolatry in its gross or refined forms. Hosea 2:20. Only then can men live with full enjoyment and security in the world, when they feel assured that they have a merciful God. [Matthew Henry: Tranquillus Deus tranquillat omnia.—M.] Hosea 2:21. Rieger: When the kind alluring of God finds entrance into us, when it educes an answer of humble penitence, how the faithful God becomes inclined to make all his covenant good to us, and to let no good thing fail of all that He has spoken. Pfaff. Bibelwerk: How highly are the souls of believers esteemed by God that He should betroth Himself to them, and that to eternity, and present Himself and his love to them literally as their own! For in this He presents to them his dear righteousness, the righteousness of Christ, which is of infinite worth; He acquits them in judgment; He displays toward them mercy and compassion by the forgiveness of sins. He even betroths Himself to them in faithfulness, and thus implants the true knowledge of Him in their souls. Prove, O soul, whether thou art as intimate with Him: Dost thou enjoy with Him a blessed and true communion of love? Why is it then that thou dost still love so much the world and sin, and that thy mind is ever occupied with other objects than Jesus? [Saint Bernard: How can it be that so mighty a king should become a Bridegroom, that the Church should be exalted into a bride? That alone which is all-powerful hath power for this, Love that is strong as death. How should that not raise her up, which has already made Him to stoop? If He hath not acted as a spouse, if He hath not loved as a spouse, been jealous as a spouse, then hesitate thou to think thyself espoused.—M.] Hosea 2:23, 24. If God be for us, who can be against us. Faith will assuredly gain a hearing. Behold, all creatures are ready to serve believers. Everything must drop blessings upon them. Pfaff. Bibelwerk: God pours down upon believers from the lofty heaven of his mercy a shower of spiritual gifts, yes, even the oil of the Holy Spirit Himself. It is our part to open the mouths of our heart, and most eagerly receive those blessing which God’s mercy vouchsafes to us. [Matthew Henry: See what a peculiar delight those that are in covenant with God may take in their creature comforts, as seeing them all come to them from the hand of God; they can run up all the streams to the fountain, and taste covenant love in common mercies, which makes them doubly sweet.—M.] Hosea 2:25. Pfaff. Bibelwerk: There is thus always time left for repentance, and the Lord still preserves a seed for Himself, which He makes fruitful and increases. If He then is so rich in mercy, O let us become ready to receive it by a true repentance and conversion, and not suppose that this great work can be accomplished in a life-less spirit or with a hypocritical behavior. Cramer: True faith knows God not only as God, but as its God. Rieger: All in this life that is truly good is included in this: My God! if said not from habit, but with a full title to its use. This is a word of faith, by which we place our whole reliance upon the almighty, true, and compassionate God; it is a word of hope by which we provide ourselves with all good perpetually in God, who is a Rock of Eternity, a word of love and fellowship by which we delight ourselves in the goodness of God, and give ourselves wholly up to Him. [Pusey: To say my God, is to own an exclusive relation to God alone. It is to say, my Beginning and my End, my Hope and my Salvation, in whom alone I will hope, whom alone I will fear, love, worship, trust in, and obey, and serve, with all my heart, soul, strength, and mind, my God and my All!—M.] Footnotes:Hosea 2:4.—πַ ?ΰֲ ?τεּ ?τִ ?ιν, ἅπ. λεγ.= πִ ?ΰֻ ?τִ ?ιλ. Fόrst regards it as signifying objects of idolatrous worship, there fore: little images, which are represented as being carried upon the breast. [But this is opposed to the parallel expression, ζְ ?πεּ ?λִ ?ιν, which, as Hengstenberg says, is evidently to be taken as the species (adultery) of which the other (whoredoms, acts of unchastity) is the genus. As illustrating the fitness of this picture, Manger compares Ezekiel 23:3, and Horace, Od., i., 19, 7, 8.—M.] [Hosea 2:8—βְּ ?γֵ ?ιָ ?δ. J. H. Michaelis and Jahn point in their editions πְּ ?γֵ ?ψָ ?δּ, her wall, and this reading, Hengstenberg assumes, without any discussion, to be correct. But there is an obvious unsuitableness in this. The wall could not be represented as being “her” wall unless it were conceived of as existing before the action on the part of Jehovah, which action was to make the wall.—M.] [Hosea 2:11.—μְ ?λַ ?ρּ ?εֹ ?ϊ, (which were) to cover. Such an ellipsis is quite common. The rendering of the LXX. γοῦ μὴ καλύπτειν, conveys the sense, but is not a translation. It was quite unnecessary for Newcome, Horsley, Boothroyd, and others following Houbigant, who was misled by the LXX., to change the μְ into ξְ.—M.] Hosea 2:14.—ΰֶ ?ϊְ ?πָ ?δ. This is usually derived from ϊπδ, as also is the usual synonym, ΰֶ ?ϊְ ?πָ ?ο. Hengstenberg labors to prove the derivation of both words from πϊο and its 1st fut.: a “I-will-give-thee,” similar to our “forget-me-not.” The absence of daghesh-forte in both nouns would seem to prove the untenableness of this hypothesis.—M.] Hosea 2:17.—ςָ ?πְ ?ϊָ ?δ. Some take this from ςπδ, to be bowed down, here: to be humble. But this does not suit the sense of the verse. Besides, ωָׁ ?ξָּ ?δּ would then = ωָׁ ?ν. Hosea 3The Love which Jehovah preserves towards the “Adulterous” People, and the Chastening in Love which He undertakes for their Conversion, again symbolically represented.1 Then said the Lord [And Jehovah said] unto me, Go yet, love a woman beloved of her friend, yet an adulteress, according to the love of the Lord [Jehovah] toward the children of Israel, who look [and they turn] to other gods, and love flagons of wine [raisin-cakes]. 2So I bought her to me for a homer of barley and a half-homer of barley. 3And I said unto her, Thou shalt abide [remain quiet] for me many days; thou shalt not play the harlot, and thou shalt not be for another man: so will I also be for thee. 4For the children of Israel shall abide many days without a king, and without a prince, and without a sacrifice, and without an image, and without an ephod, and without teraphim. 5Afterward shall the children of Israel return and seek the Lord [Jehovah] their God, and David their king, and shall fear the Lord and his goodness in the latter days [shall tremble towards Jehovah and towards his goodness at the end of the days ]. AND Chapter 3 narrates a second symbolical action, in which the prophet has again to represent by his relations to a women the relation of God to Israel. But as regards this relation, that which is to be presented to the senses is essentially different from that which the symbolical action of chap. 1 was to present. There the sin of Israel was to be symbolized, with the judgment which Jehovah would inflict upon Israel for their idolatry. Here there is no distinct reference to these. It might be assumed of itself that a simple repetition of the comparison would be inadmissible. We must rather expect an advance. This is found when we consider that we are no longer at the beginning as in chap. i, but that the whole exposition, from Hosea 2:1 onwards, lies between, and especially the section Hosea 2:4 ff., where it is clearly stated that Israel will be deservedly punished, but only because of God’s love in order that they may by chastisement be led to return and secure his favor. This announcement is presupposed in our chapter, which naturally stands in close relation to chap. 1. But as the latter chapter forms a beginning, so also does it form a conclusion. For here we have not to do with the judgment, as such, which Israel has to suffer, the judgment of rejection, but with the symbolical declaration, that God loves Israel, must chasten them, but does so only out of love, only because He will not cast them off. The symbolizing of this love of God is shown expressly in Hosea 3:1, to be the main object of this purely symbolical transaction, and the emphasis is therefore placed upon the command, to “love,” laid upon the prophet, which is inserted designedly. The sequel shows of what kind this love is, and what is its aim. Hosea 3:1-3 describe the symbolical action. Hosea 3:4-5 afford its explanation and inform us of its object. Hosea 3:1. And Jehovah said to me: go once more, etc. The reference to Hosea 1:2 is clear even by the collocation of ςεֹ ?γ and μֵ ?κְּ ?ΰֱ ?δַ ?α is essential, as already hinted, and therefore cannot be modified into a mere χη (Hosea 1:2) [=take], on account of the ςֹ ?γμֵ ?κְ, which expresses the repetition of the former action. It is only the δָ ?μַ ?κְ that needs to be repeated, in relation to the woman. But what the prophet is to do this time in respect to the woman is ΰδα. This must express not merely a disposition to love (for a command, and especially the command μֵ ?κְ, would not agree with this, expressing as it does an outward act), but an attestation or effectuation of love. Yet this presupposes an inclination to love; in so far it is demanded of the prophet. For he is to represent the conduct of God, and in that his displays of love spring from a loving mind. The prophet is to love a woman who is not in the least worthy of love—to love whom one feels and can feel no desire. ΰωָׁ ?δΰδֻ ?αϊψֵ ?ςַ εּ ?ξπָ ?ΰֶ ?τֶ ?ϊ. Looking to the second epithet the sense is clear: committing adultery. Thus the prophet must marry an adulterous woman. This can scarcely be a woman who has been unfaithful to her marriage with another. It might be supposed, indeed, that she had been separated from her husband, and it would be difficult to love such a woman, as she gives no guarantee of her fidelity. But nothing is said of any such separation from another, and the tertium comparationis is just the fact that the prophet acts after the analogy of God, and therefore must love a woman who is unfaithful to her marriage with himself. But the difficulty lies in the indefiniteness of the time indicated by the part. ξπΰτϊ. Keil takes it to be future = who will become adulterous: naturally, if the woman is one who is first married to the prophet. But the difficulties which attend the explanation as future are less patent with Keil, for he regards χַ ?η=ΰֱ ?δַ ?α, which, however, is arbitrary. If we take ΰֱ ?δַ ?α as ΰֱ ?δַ ?α, it is felt immediately that it cannot be simply a future adultery that is here meant. It is meant that love coexists with adultery at present existing, by which love is not destroyed, but rather is displayed to the adulteress as that which she had trifled with by her infidelity. Hence love is here rather something that is to follow. Only so is it the representative of the attitude of God which is here depicted. For God has indeed loved Israel, though He knew they would afterwards be unfaithful to Him. But it is not that which happened once that is to be exhibited by the prophet, but that which is now transpiring, the present conduct of God towards Israel (as in chap. 1 the present conduct of Israel towards God, as Keil there correctly remarks; see above). It is this, that God does not withdraw his love from a spouse who has been and still is unfaithful. Besides, the supposition of a future adultery on the part of a wife whom the prophet is to take, is not admissible according to what follows. For the prophet in fulfilling the command makes this impossible for her (Hosea 3:3). And to suppose that she commits adultery in spite of this prohibition in Hosea 3:3 is against Hosea 3:4; for there a condition of Israel is described in which there is no longer adultery (idolatry). Finally, we may ask more generally, how we can call a woman who is to commit adultery at some future time, ?ΰּ ?ωָׁ ?δξְ ?πָ ?ΰֶ ?τֶ ?ϊ Therefore ξπΰτϊ is to be taken as a preterite or as a present = a woman who has been or is unfaithful to thee. And the conclusion is a necessary one, that a woman is supposed with whom the Prophet was already united. It would then be surprising, if it were quite forgotten in chap. 3 that a marriage of the prophet had already been described, and a new one were introduced. Such a broken, atomizing method of representation can hardly be imputed to a prophetic writer, especially as there is absolute necessity for understanding a reference to chap. 1 in the very matter in question. No, as our chapter presupposes the preceding in a general way, it presupposes chap. 1 specially; yet it naturally is not a repetition of the image, but an extension of it. There the prophet was commanded to marry a lewd woman (and to beget children by her). When such a woman is married she is no longer a whore, but an adulteress. For a woman, once characterized as ΰֵ ?ωֶׁ ?ϊζְ ?πεּ ?πιν, naturally retains that character, and when married will be ΰִ ?ωָׁ ?δξְ ?πָ ?ΰֶ ?τֶ ?ϊ. It is thus that she appears in chap. 3. And as first the prophet was to marry a whorish woman, so now he is to love the whorish woman as married, i.e., an adulterous wife. Compared with the other this is something higher, something new. The former was to exhibit a disturbed actual condition of things,—the existing inversion of the normal relations between God and Israel (and in the children the deserved punishment); the latter a comforting truth, the desired restitution of those relations. (We might add: As the unpropitious names of the children have been changed into their opposites, the same thing happens in a certain sense in the unpropitious marriage. There it was said: Thou must take a wife just because she is a whore, and so testify against Israel’s sin and of their rejection, and now: Thou must love her although she is an adulteress, and so testify of Israel’s hope). And as something essentially different is to be symbolized by this relation of the prophet to his wife, it is not to be wondered at—which cannot be denied,—that the form of the discourse is such that something altogether new appears to begin, or that it appears as though the prophet were now for the first time being brought into relations with this woman. We have here again an indication that we have not to do with real, actual events. A narrative of an actual marriage of the prophet is not given; he is only conceived of as standing in that relation, and since it is only a feigned condition of things, it can very well be viewed first from one side, and then, without any preparation, from another. The woman is naturally called ΰִ ?ωָּׁ ?δ, not ηָ ?ΰִ ?ωָּׁ ?δ. For the emphasis lies upon the predicates; his wife appears here as an adulterous woman = love (in thy wife) an adulterous woman. The absence of the article can therefore not be urged against the identity of this woman with the former. This identity is, in fact, only presupposed in the command of our chapter. The main point is that the Prophet may be thought of (1) as being already married, (2) as experiencing his wife’s adultery. No importance is attached to the person of the woman, for no actual event is described. If this were the case, a woman, living in wedlock with the Prophet, could not be spoken of as this one is here described. From this it is evident that we have here only the symbolizing of religious truth; as soon as this is accomplished the person of the woman possesses no further interest. The suffix in ΰֶ ?λּ ?ψֶ ?δָ (Hosea 3:2), also appears to allude to a well known woman, and this cannot be disposed of by Keil’s remark that the suffix refers simply to the woman mentioned in Hosea 3:1. For according to Keil’s view a woman is only described in Hosea 3:1; it is only said what kind of woman she is. This mere predicate of a woman whose person is as yet undefined cannot afterwards be supplied by a personal pronoun but only by: such a woman, or, since that expression is unknown to the Hebrew, by repeating the whole predicate: a woman beloved, etc., if her name were not to be given. The pers. pron. would presuppose that the person named in Hosea 3:1 was already well defined, and not simply a person of the kind described. But this woman is further described as ΰֲ ?δֻ ?αַ ?ϊψֵ ?ςַ, and that before the other predicate. The sense has been taken differently: (1) = beloved by a paramour, and therefore parallel with ξπΰτϊ, or the latter would express its consequence: beloved by a paramour, and so committing adultery. (2) “Since ψֵ ?ς in Jeremiah 3:20 denotes a husband but never an adulterous paramour,” the phrase is supposed = beloved by a husband and yet practicing adultery. But it is certainly incorrect to say that ψς can be understood only of a husband and not of a paramour. It means paramour in Jeremiah 3:1, at all events. It means simply: one with whom one has intercourse, a companion, and specially in the relations of love: one beloved (see the lexicons). The word does not determine whether the intercourse be lawful or not. Therefore the notion of the marriage relation must not be imported into the word, and we must remain by the sense: beloved one (friend, companion). If the marriage relation is indicated, ψֵ ?ςַ is abstracted from this relation as such, and only its inner side, so to speak, the love that is felt in the married state, is brought into view. Now it is just this disposition of love that is to be emphasized in this connection, and therefore ψֵ ?ςַ is chosen designedly. The word would thus be just as suitable used of illicit as of conjugal love. But it is especially in favor of the latter that, so far as the conduct of the woman is brought before us, she appears as the (guilty) subject of a love directed towards another, and is therefore to be represented actively, not passively, as the object of a love displayed by another; hence the passive expression: ΰֲ ?δֻ ?αַ ?ϊψֵ ?ςַ, would give an unsuitable sense if it should mean: beloved by a paramour. Israel is essentially one who turns to paramours, runs after them unremittingly, while, on the other hand, Israel is the object of the Husband’s love from the beginning, and is here represented as receiving it. Therefore in the figurative presentation also the love is regarded as coming from, and being bestowed by the husband upon the wife. (It would be otherwise if we had a different punctation: ΰֹ ?δֶ ?αֶ ?ϊ). Hence the sense is: Love a woman, who, although beloved by her friend, has yet become an adulteress. Her sin is thus sharply stigmatized, that the love enjoined may appear in greater contrast to it and as something unmerited. This view of ΰִַ ?δֻ ?αַ ?ϊψֵ ?ςַ shows all the more the untenableness of any reference to a woman whom the Prophet must now marry. For that phrase would then allude to some person who now appears for the first time. But what meaning would there be in the command: love a woman who will or is to be beloved by her husband, i.e., by thee? The notion would be more tolerable only if ΰδα be (with Keil) modified into χַ ?η which is, however, certainly inadmissible. The words: as Jehovah loves the children of Israel, etc., indicate expressly that what the prophet is to do has a symbolical meaning, and declares also what that meaning is. For they are plainly not merely to be connected (Keil) with ΰδαϊψςεξπΰτϊ = (love) a woman who, although beloved by her husband, commits adultery, and who acts as does Israel, who was loved by God and yet, etc. It is more natural to refer them to the command which the prophet received. This command of God, in itself so surprising and exacting, receives by them its symbolical explanation. It is laid upon him only that he may thus exhibit the love of God, who loves his people and manifests that love, in spite of their unfaithfulness, and by the love enjoined upon him he is to represent and assure to the people this love of God. λְּ ?ΰַ ?ηְ ?αַ ?ϊ does not merely indicate the reason why the prophet is to love this woman, but it declares also how he is to do so: he must not merely “love” in the general, but must love after that definite manner in which Jehovah loves the children of Israel (which is shown immediately thereafter). And love raisin-cakes. These must have been connected in some way with idolatrous worship: they probably belonged to the offerings presented to the idols, and eaten at the idol-festivals. Hence we are to understand first an image of idol-worship, whose enticing dainties are contrasted with the hard and healthy fare of the serious religion of Jehovah. But this special feature of the worship is chosen in order to show the service to be something agreeing with the flesh, satisfying the sensual nature; which explains the more easily Israel’s apostasy, and at the same time includes a bitter reproach: “They forget their God for the sake of dainties.” Hosea 3:2-3. Then I purchased her for myself for fifteen silverlings, etc. In Hosea 3:2 we necessarily find the fulfillment of the command of Hos 3:1, the ΰδα there enjoined. This is a guide to the exposition. With λֶּ ?ρֶ ?σ we must supply ωֶׁ ?λֶ ?μ:fifteen shekels of silver. Homer is the name of a dry measure = a cor, or ten baths or ten ephahs (see Ezekiel 45:11), μֶ ?ϊֶ ?κְ = a half homer. Together = a homer and a half or fifteen ephahs. The money value of this quantity of barley cannot be determined; for it is arbitrary to suppose, because fifteen ephahs are mentioned along with fifteen shekels of silver, that therefore they are of equal value, and that an ephah of barley was worth an ephah of silver. An agreement of the numbers would then have been avoided; nothing would have been said of the fifteen ephahs, and an altogether different measure would have been given. Nothing is to be concluded from 2 Kings 7:1-18, nor from Exodus 21:32, if, indeed, the latter can be at all connected with this verse. It is supposed that the passage in Exodus affords the key to the understanding of our passage, and the thirty pieces of silver are sought here the more earnestly. Thirty pieces of silver are there stated to be the price of a slave, and it is supposed that the Prophet paid the same sum for the woman in order to symbolize the state of bondage from which God redeemed Israel. But Kurtz rightly rejects this explanation of the passage and its application to our verse, on the ground that there it is not the price of a slave that is alluded to, but the compensation allowed for a slave killed on account of the carelessness of another. In the latter case it was just as allowable and fitting to fix one and the same price without respect to age, sex, and constitution, as it would have been wrong and foolish to fix the market price under the same conditions. For in the former case (of killing) the responsibility was just the same no matter who the slave might be, a strong man, or a woman, or a decrepit or aged person. Zechariah 11:12 might better be compared. But this passage does not speak of the price of a slave, and besides, it is an arbitrary assumption that our passage speaks of thirty shekels’ worth. So we are shut up to an explanation of our passage from itself alone, and we have no sure ground for believing that a redemption from bondage is alluded to. On the other hand, we are not justified in assuming a purchase of the woman from her parents with the pieces of silver, etc., for “it cannot be shown that it was a custom with the Israelites to purchase the bride from her parents” (Keil). Keil therefore holds that the fifteen silverlings, etc., are something given to the woman. Of course it cannot be meant that the pieces of silver, etc., were given to the present paramour of the woman. Such an offering would be itself surprising: but we must also remember that the woman is not conceived of as being adulterously connected with a paramour. What now does εָ ?ΰֶ ?λְּ ?ψֶ ?δָ mean? It is clear that the meaning “dig” is unsuitable here, for the explanation of Hengstenberg, from Exodus 21:6; Deuteronomy 15:17, is strange and awkward. In Genesis 50:5; Deuteronomy 2:6; Job 6:27; Job 40:30, it has the meaning: purchase, make a bargain; in the last two passages with ςַ ?μ of the person or thing for or about which the bargain was made: in the first two with an accusative = to purchase, buy; in the first with μְ, of the person who is bought: in the second with αְּ, of the price paid. So also here: I purchased her to me for, etc. This certainly appears not to agree with our explanation of chap. 3, which we hold is concerned with a woman with whom the prophet is already married; but this contradiction is only apparent. For, though the woman is married to the prophet, she is yet an adulterous wife, and has therefore renounced her husband (compare Israel’s attitude towards God). If he “loves” her still, and would prove to her his enduring love, he must act towards her as one who weds a wife, he must purchase her, like a stranger, with a bridal gift. If this points to the guilt, the extreme estrangement of the woman, it shows also directly the endurance of the husband’s love that he should act thus, that he should treat as a bride a degraded, adulterous wife, from whom it would he most natural to cut himself entirely loose, that he should even give her a bridal present in opposition to all natural inclinations! Yet this is not a blind love, but it corresponds to the circumstances of the case (compare God’s attitude towards Israel), a love which involves a beneficial chastening. This is indicated in our verse. It is assuredly not without design that a production of nature forms part of the gift. It shows that it was intended for the support of life. It is probably indicated that the woman is not yet taken into the husband’s house; for such a gift would then have no meaning. Further, the bridal gift is such a one as the wife had the least right to claim or expect: a token that her husband loves her still and will not cut himself off wholly from her. And if this cannot be maintained with certainty, it is still probable (barley was among the ancients a food but little esteemed) that this whole present was not at all a rich one, but only barely sufficient, especially if we can assume that it was to last “many days.” Hosea 3:3 gives additional information as to the action of the prophet described in Hosea 3:2, ιָ ?ξινψַ ?αִּ ?ιν, an indefinite period of long duration: the end will depend upon the conduct of the wife. ϊֵּ ?ωְׁ ?αִ ?ιμִ ?ι. ιָ ?ωַׁ ?α=to sit, i.e., “to keep quiet. The μִ ?ι shows that such conduct was to be observed with reference to the husband, that he so disposes of her from love to her, in order to improve her and educate her to become his faithful wife.” ιָ ?ωַׁ ?αμִ ?ι therefore does not mean: dwell with me. What was remarked in Hosea 3:2 proves this already, and the meaning of ver 4, especially, would not suit such a sense, for a relation of communion with God is here denied. The difficult words εְ ?βַ ?νΰֲ ?πιΰֵ ?μַ ?ικְ, are probably to be explained in a corresponding manner with the recent expositors: and I will be so towards thee, namely, observe the same conduct towards thee, i.e., have no conjugal intercourse with thee. Another explanation is: and I also will hold myself ready for thee, wait for thee, i.e., not take any other wife. This is possible in itself, but not suitable to Hosea 3:4, which contains the explanation of Hos 3:3. For this verse contains only a negative thought (see on Hosea 3:4). Therefore the sense of the whole is: The Prophet displays unmerited love towards his adulterous wife, according to the command ΰֱ ?δַ ?α for, like a bridegroom he again acquires her with a bridal gift. But this love has also for its object the improvement of the wife, and he therefore manifests his love in such a manner as to secure that end. He cares for her support, but limits her allowance that she may learn salutary humility. He naturally interdicts her adulterous habits, but does not at once resume his conjugal intercourse with her. This is therefore a manifestation of love of a disciplinary character, but still essentially of love,—just as is that of God toward Israel. Hosea 3:4. For many days will the children of Israel sit, etc. Hosea 3:4 is the explanation (λִּ ?ι=for) of Hosea 3:3. Three pairs of objects are named of which the children of Israel shall be deprived. King and prince—holders of the civil government, which will therefore cease in Israel. Also the worship will cease with it. This is represented by the two following, ζֶ ?αַ ?η, sacrifice, and ξַ ?φֵּ ?αָ ?δ, statues, defining the sense more closely. Besides these, two objects used as oracles are mentioned: the ephod, which was strictly the High-priest’s shoulder-garment, with the Urim and Thummim, which was put on or brought out when oracles were given. It is brought into view here evidently not in relation to the High-priest, but on account of its connection with oracles in general, as its use was imitated even by idolaters in worship (Judges 17:5; Judges 18:14; Judges 18:17-18; Judges 18:20). The ϊְּ ?ψָ ?τִ ?ιν were also used for the same purpose. They are equivalent to Penates (comp. Zech. 19:2; Ezekiel 21:26), and in the passage cited from Judges are mentioned along with the ephod. Whether the sense is that Israel will have neither the worship of Jehovah nor idolatry, remains doubtful. For, according to what has been said, the ephod does not directly imply the worship of Jehovah; still less does ζֶ ?αַ ?η. Probably the distinction between the two is not implied, but worship simply indicated. The condition of things is described as one of the deprivation of that which had been Israel’s support (king and prince) and joy and consolation (sacrifice, etc.); and the important fact is that idolatry should cease. This should be effected against Israel’s desire, would be a punishment like the cessation of their own government, civil independence; but the punishment is a chastening in love, a token that God had not forgotten Israel. It is true that this positive truth, of a manifestation of love, lies in the background in our verse, which wears a negative aspect. But this love was declared in Hosea 3:1 to be the main thought, and in Hosea 3:5 (whose purport, moreover, transcends the symbol) it appears quite clearly by the issue to be the object in view. Hosea 3:5. Afterwards will the children of Israel return:a post hoc which includes, however, clearly a propter hoc, i.e., the situation described in Hosea 3:4 is an essential coφperating factor. Will seek Jehovah their God and David their king. “Seeking Jehovah their God is connected with seeking David their king. For as the apostasy of the ten tribes from the kingdom of David was only the consequence and result of its inner apostasy from Jehovah, so the true return to God could not take place without a return to their king David, since God had promised the kingdom to David forever in his seed (2 Samuel 7:13; 2 Samuel 7:16); thus David is the only true king of Israel—their king” (Keil). The family of David is probably primarily meant, and more strictly, a king of that family. The conclusion, “at the end of the days,” alludes to the Messianic period, according to prophetic usage elsewhere; hence we are justified in assuming the Messiah to be also meant here. Will tremble towards Jehovah.τָּ ?ηַ ?γ, to tremble; with ΰֶ ?μ it forms a pregnant expression: tremble hastening towards. It is a stronger expression for the preceding αִּ ?χִּ ?ωׁ = seek with anxiety, since the needed help is found in the One sought; therefore sought with solicitude, although He assuredly will be found, because He is the seeker’s only dependence. This is thus the direct contrast to the former abandonment of Jehovah and seeking help in idols. What is sought in God is his goodness, especially in his gifts, of which they had been deprived (comp. Jeremiah 31:12; Zechariah 9:17). On the end of the days see the preceding remarks. This is therefore the end of the “many days,” or the fuller explanation of ΰַ ?ηַ ?ψ. [The discussion given above of this chapter is so full and able, both as to its general purport and as to its special features, that no additions are necessary from any writer holding the identity of the woman here described with that of chap. 1. The force of some of the arguments employed is over-estimated, and others, as is readily perceived, are too largely based on mere speculation, yet the general results go to show the strong probability of the correctness of this hypothesis and of its consequences, where they affect the interpretation of individual passages. The recent English commentators agree with the majority of the moderns in holding this view. Newcome adopts the old opinion that the Prophet’s former wife (Gomer) had died in the interval. Noyes thinks that it is immaterial whether the women are identical or not. The fullness of the discussion of the several minor features of this short chapter precludes the necessity of additions from the remarks of Anglo-American expositors, which are, moreover, usually of a comparatively general nature. On some points, as, for example, the object of the “purchase” of the woman, and its symbolical meaning, the difficulties cannot be said to be yet satisfactorily solved.—M.] AND ETHICAL1. On the love of Jehovah to Israel, which endures in spite of all unfaithfulness, but does not forget to chasten, see the Introduction, and especially No. 1 in the Doctrinal and Ethical section attached to chap. 2. 2. A condition of things, such as that threatened in Hosea 3:4, characterized the kingdom of the ten tribes when they were led away into exile by Assyria; and in this we can see a fulfillment, although nothing is said of any captivity, and in fact nothing of the manner in which the kingdom and worship should cease. It is very doubtful, to say the least, whether we can claim for the threatening a wider range, and make it apply also to the kingdom of Judah. Nothing can be adduced from the resemblance to the threatening which the Prophet Azariah uttered against Judah in the days of Asa (2 Chronicles 15:2; 2 Chronicles 15:4). For Hosea 3:5 of our chapter points too clearly to the kingdom of the ten tribes, and no judgments are pronounced against Judah until the later chapters, which belong to a later period. The threatening goes hand in hand with the promise. The latter holds out, first of all, a return, which, according to the words: shall seek Jehovah their God, is to be taken as a contrast to the resort made to other gods (Hosea 3:1). According to the promise they will also seek David their king. [See the passage quoted from Keil in the exegetical section.] The house of David is naturally the primary object of the reference. For in returning thither they acknowledge the divine right of David to the kingdom. This promise is shown here indubitably to be Messianic by the expression: “at the end of the days,” which “does not denote the future in general, but always the coming consummation of the kingdom of God, which begins with the advent of the Messiah.” (Keil.) We cannot, therefore, find the fulfillment in that which happened in the return from the Babylonian exile, apart from the consideration that that event affected mainly the kingdom of Judah, while here the kingdom of Israel is the subject of discourse; thus the promise was not then fulfilled. Hence the question is suggested here also: Since this promise was not fulfilled to Israel even with the coming of the Messiah, has it fallen to the ground, or is the fulfillment yet to be expected? According to what has been remarked under chap. 1, both questions are to be answered in the negative, and the answer rather is: The fulfillment has already begun in Him, in whom all the promises of God are Yea and Amen, but in another and far higher sense than the Prophet imagined, who saw the people of God in Israel alone. Separating the kernel from the husk, we must, upon the ground of the New Covenant, see the fulfillment in the gathering of a people of God around a descendant of David who was greater than David’s son,—around Christ. And so, though this is not the literal meaning of the promise, “King David” that one of David’s family who was to be sought after, is the Messiah. In this Son of David it is fulfilled, though not yet completely. The promise is still in course of fulfillment, and to its perfect fulfillment is specially necessary the universal conversion of Israel to Christ, but, as is natural, not merely the people of the ten tribes, here literally indicated. AND Hos_3:1. Luther: Let us cease to fear the wrath and judgment of God on account of our sins, and believe what the Prophet says, that God is like a husband who, although he has been deserted by an adulterous wife and is angry thereat, is yet more impelled by mercy, than urged by the sin of the adulteress, and wins her back to hislove. And truly has the Prophet in two respects set forth great things. For, in the first place, he could not describe sin as being more dreadful than he here pictures it in the sin of the adulteress. And, again, he extols highly the love of God by this image, when he says that He is animated by love towards the adulteress. [Pusey: His love was to outlive hers, that He might win her at last to Himself. Such, God says, is the love of the Lord for Israel.—M.] [Hosea 3:2. Matthew Henry: Those whom God designs honor and comfort for He first makes sensible of their own worthlessness, and brings them to acknowledge with the prodigal: “I am no more worthy to be called thy son.” Poverty and disgrace sometimes prove a happy means of making great sinners penitent. Comp. the Exegetical remarks.—M.] Hosea 3:4. Although it is a great punishment of God, that a government should be cast down, it is yet a much greater punishment that liberty should be taken away to serve God and teach his Word. Luther: Hosea 3:5. These are glorious words of the Prophet who thus combines God and Christ in worship, so that, when we call upon God, we should do so through Christ; when we hope in the mercy of God we hope through Christ that God would have mercy on us. [Pusey: So God’s goodness overflows with beneficence and condescension, and graciousness and mercy and forgiving love, and joy in imparting Himself, and complacence in the creatures which He has reformed, and refound, redeemed, and sanctified for his glory. Well may his creatures tremble towards it with admiring wonder that all this can be made theirs!—M.] Footnotes:Hosea 3:1.—ςεֹ ?γ might, especially to gain a relation to ϊְּ ?ηִ ?μַּ ?ϊ (Hosea 1:2), be connected with εַ ?ιּ ?ΰֹ ?ξֶ ?ψ. But there is no sufficient ground for a change in the accentuation. The reference to Hosea 1:2 is clear by the connection with μֵ ?κְ. [Hosea 3:1.—The translation of the last two words of Hos 3:1, in E. V.: “flagons of wine,” which is that of Junius, Tremellius, and others, and the various other renderings, have not been due to different readings, but to misconceptions of the meaning of ΰַ ?ωִׁ ?ιωֵׁ ?ι. The only variation of reading seems to have been that held by Aquila, who translates: παλαιὰ, having read ιְ ?ωִׁ ?ιωֵׁ ?ι.—M.] [Hosea 3:2.—εָ ?ΰֶ ?λְּ ?ψֶ ?δָ has here daghesh-forte separative. See Green, Gr., § 24 b; Ewald, § 90 c (b); Bφttcher, § 229, 3; 399 b (1). Note the repetition of ωְׂ ?ςֹ ?ψִ ?ιν as characteristic of the Hebrew. It might be better to avoid the like construction in English, as many have done, by rendering: a homer-and-a-half of barley. See the exposition.—M.] Hosea 3:5.—τηγεεβ is a pregnant construction: tremble (and come) toward Jehovah and toward his goodness. PART SECONDJehovah pleads with Israel his Beloved but Unfaithful SpouseHosea 4-14___________ FIRST Hosea 4-11I. THE Hosea 4-7A. Against the People as a Whole on Account of their Idolatry and the Corruption of their Morals (Promoted by the Priests) Hosea 4:1-191 Hear the word of Jehovah, ye children of Israel! For Jehovah has a difference with the inhabitants of the land, Because there is no fidelity and no goodness And no knowledge of God in the land; 2 (Only) cursing and lying, And murdering and stealing and adultery; They break in, and murder follows upon murder. 3 Therefore will the land mourn, And all who dwell therein shall languish, With the beast of the field and the bird of heaven; And the fish of the sea also shall be swept away. 4 Only let none contend, And let none reprove (another); And thy people is like those that strive with the priest. 5 And thou shalt fall in the day-time. And the Prophet also shall fall with thee in the night, And I will destroy thy mother. 6 My people are destroyed for want of knowledge!Because thou despisest knowledge, So do I despise thee3 to be my Priest; Because thou dost forget the law of thy God, I also will forget thy children. 7 The more they increased the more they sinned against me; Their glory will I turn into shame. 8 They eat [make profit of] the sin of my people, And direct their desires after their transgressions. 9 And so it is: as the people, so the priest, And I will visit their ways upon them, And reward to them their deeds. 10 Then they shall eat and not be satisfied, Will practice whoredom and not spread abroad, Because they forgot Jehovah, to regard Him. 11 Whoredom and wine and new wine Will take (possession of) a heart. 12 My people inquires of its wood [idols], And their staff shall declare to it; For the spirit of whoredom has deceived them, And they commit whoredom (departing) from under their God. 13 They sacrifice on the summits of the mountains, And burn incense on the hills; Under the oak and poplar and terebinth, Because their shadow is pleasant. Therefore your daughters commit whoredom And your daughters-in-law commit adultery. 14 Yet I will not visit upon [punish] your daughters because they commit whoredom, Nor your daughters-in-law because they commit adultery; For they [you] themselves go aside with prostitutes, And sacrifice with temple-girls, And the people without understanding shall be cast down, 15 If thou commit whoredom, O Israel! Let not Judah become guilty, Go not to Gilgal, And ascend not to Beth-aven, And swear not: by the life of Jehovah. 16 For Israel is as intractable as an unbroken heifer; Now Jehovah will pasture them Like a lamb in a wide field. 17 Ephraim is joined to idols—let him be. 18 Their drinking-feast is spoiled; They keep on whoring. Their shields [rulers] keep on loving shame.19 The tempest seizes them with its wings: And they shall be ashamed of their sacrifices. AND Four strophes may be supposed with Keil (Hosea 4:1-5; Hosea 4:6-10; Hosea 4:11-14; Hosea 4:16-19), although it can hardly be maintained in general, that our Prophet observes a strict strophical division. Hosea 4:1. Hear the word of Jehovah, etc. Jehovah appears against Israel as a Judge (that is, Israel of the Ten Tribes, comp. Ver 15), who raises the accusation, and pronounces the sentence and punishment. In a certain sense this first strophe contains the sense of the whole. Jehovah has a contest = legal action, comp. Micah 6:2, and with relation to the heathen, Joe 3:2.—ΰֶ ?ξֶ ?ϊ is faithfulness, trueness to one’s word. ηֶ ?ρֶ ?ψ is affection, kindness, love. These qualities are frequently mentioned together; usually as divine attributes, but sometimes also as human virtues. ηρψ is here probably special kindness towards the feeble and distressed (Keil). The opposites are primarily moral defects. But they have their root in the knowledge of God, i.e., they do not know the living God or know Him any longer—naturally through their own fault—since they do not care to serve Him. Hosea 4:2. Along with the negative description of the corruption we have the positive. The sins are not described by substantives, but are expressed in a lively manner as actions by verbs, and that with special emphasis by the inf. absol. Five sins are thus mentioned, corresponding to five of the Ten Commandments, and at the fidelity and goodness. Swearing along with lying naturally=false swearing, or, at all events, wanton swearing. τָּ ?ψָ ?φεּ forms the transition to the finite verb; the last three sins, especially murder, are represented in the concrete, and at the same time as something fearfully prevalent. [The literal translation of the last three words is: and bloody deed touches bloody deed. ψּ ?ξִּ ?ιν meant originally: drops of blood, then transferred to deeds of blood in general, and it is altogether probable that this word was chosen here to present to the imagination the picture of a swift succession of murderous assaults, following so closely that drops of the blood of one victim might be conceived as meeting and mingling with those of another. If so, this is a striking illustration of Hosea’s wonderful power of graphic poetical delineation. Henderson: “What the Prophet means is that murder was so common that no space was left between its acts. LXX.: αἵματαἐφαἵματιμίσγουσι. Coverdale: one bloudgiltyness foloweth another. And Ritterhusius powerfully in his poetical metaphrase:— —‘Sic sanguini sanguisTruditur, et scelerum nullus finisve modusve est.’ ” See 2 Kings 15; Micah 7:2.—M.] Hosea 4:3. Therefore will the land mourn, etc. The punishment of that moral deprivation; a great and universal drought, such, e.g., as prevailed under Ahab, was a judgment of God. This is described in its effects: The mourning of the land is a lively figurative expression for the scorching away of all vegetable productions, and the languishing of animal life, and the beasts are named, because the drought was, so to speak, to be described from its natural side (comp. Joe 1:10 ff.). It is just in this condition of nature generally that God executes judgment upon man. The drought is not be conceived of as existing at present, but is threatened, as the whole chapter generally is occupied with threatening. αָּ ?δּ ?λָ ?μΞιωֵׁ ?α probably does not refer to the men themselves but is specified by the following αְּ, and therefore refers to the beasts, etc. [Keil: αְּ ?Χ is used in the enumeration of the individuals as in Genesis 7:21; Genesis 9:10. The fishes are mentioned last, and introduced by the emphatic εְ ?βַ ?ν to show that the drought would prevail to such an extent that even lakes and other bodies of waters would be dried up. δֵ ?ΰָ ?ρֵ ?σ: to be collected, to be taken away, to disappear or perish.”—M.] Hosea 4:4. Only let none contend, and let none reprove, etc. These words appear quite unexpectedly and are not quite clear. There seems to be a verbal reference to Hosea 4:1; and it may be that there is a contrast to that contending there announced on the part of God. The sense would then be: The Lord will contend, but it is presumptuous for men to strive against Him; none are to contend or reprove. Or we might forego the reference to Hosea 4:1, and explain generally: let none contend or reprove! The hardened hearts of the people would then be referred to, who would listen to no rebuke. So Luther after the Vulgate: yet let none rebuke, etc. But ΰַ ?κְ is thus falsely rendered. It is not=yet. Therefore others hold that there is a demand “only” to neglect pleading with and rebuking the corrupt people. There would indeed be much to rebuke, but it would be to no purpose (Keil). But this thought is not suitable to the context. It is just on the part of God that the ψִ ?ια does take place, and is not the whole prophetic discourse a rebuke? Others suppose a demand to the people not to resist God and his judgment. But δεֹ ?λִ ?ιηַ will not suit here; it must be taken in the sense of censuring: let none censure God and his deeds. The explanation of Wόnsche is therefore better: let none quarrel with another and attribute to him the blame of the calamity. And thy people as those who contend with the priest, that is, are like those, etc. With the first explanation of the preceding words, the ones now considered would surround them with still greater difficulties: let none contend—uttered with respect to the spirit of contradiction among the people—and they act as, etc. With the second explanation the words serve to support the preceding, to show the uselessness of contending and rebuking: yet thy people are like, etc. The explanation of Wόnsche shows the best connection: the reason is given why none should reproach the others: the whole people are alike. In form however the sentence is not a confirmatory one, being simply coφrdinated by εְ [This objection is not conclusive. ε very often introduces a reason. See Green, Gr., § 287, 1. The opinion assigned to Wόnsche is that not only adopted in E. V. but approved by most of the recent English commentators. Noyes prefers the view assigned above to Keil. On attempts to amend the text for other renderings, see the Textual note.—M.] Contend with the priest—an unexpected expression, perhaps to be explained by Deuteronomy 17:12 f. The people are like those who in the Law are described as rebels against the authority of the priest. They are therefore those who would not allow themselves to be directed aright by those whose prerogative it was to direct them (Hengstenberg, Keil). Hosea 4:5. λָּ ?ωַׁ ?μ naturally refers to the punishment [as the cause of the fall (destruction) of the people, whom the Prophet now directly addresses.—M.] Prophet, naturally=false prophets (comp. 1 Kings 22:6 ff.), “who followed prophesying as a source of gain.” In the day,—by night: a figurative representation distributed according to the members of the sentence. The meaning is: the people and prophets shall fall all the time. And I will destroy thy mother = the whole nation conceived of as the mother of the children of Israel. Hosea 4:5. My people is destroyed.δַ ?ψַּ ?ςַ ?ϊξִ ?αְּ ?μִ ?ι, not: unawares (Meier), but: from want of knowledge [see Gram. note], i.e., chiefly, knowledge of God. Yet the expression is to be taken primarily in its general reference; compare the beginning and end of the next strophe [Hosea 4:11-14]. This want of knowledge is blameworthy, a despising of knowledge. This shows the nearer reference to be to the knowledge of God. Israel could have gained this from the law, but had forgotten that law. And I will despise thee from being a priest to me. This does not refer to the priest simply. All Israel, according to Exodus 19:6, was to be a priestly people, and to be thus distinguished from the heathen, the profane. But they were to forfeit this high prerogative. The notion therefore=“shall be not-my-people,” chaps. 1–2. Hosea 4:7. The more they increased, not merely in numbers, but in prosperity, power, etc.,—the more they sinned; comp. Hosea 2:7. They ascribed this prosperity to their idols, and were thus confirmed in idolatry. Accordingly Israel’s glory, consisting in their richness and greatness, shall be turned into shame, i.e., they shall lose their glory and stand dishonored. Hosea 4:8. A transition to the Priests, according to the purport of the words, and the beginning of Hos 4:9. They eat the sin of my people. They live upon, derive their support from, the sin of the people. That is their right to do so, the more the people sin, i.e., serve idols. For the very existence of the idol priesthood depended upon the idolatry of the people. Keil, still more specially, makes ηַ ?θַּ ?ΰϊςַ ?ξּ ?ι= sin-offering of the people (so also Luther). In the Law the priest was enjoined to eat the flesh of the sin-offering to blot out the sin of the people (Leviticus 6:19). But that became sin to the priests, because (second member of the verse) they directed their desires towards the transgression of the people, that is, wished their transgressions to multiply, so as to acquire a large supply of food from their offerings. The peculiar expression: eat the sin, may still bear allusion to the sacrificial ritual. But the notion is probably more general: they live upon the sin=the idolatry of the people, as they eat the flesh of the sacrifice offered to idols. He lifts up his soul towards = directs his desires towards. The singular suffix is anomalous; it is perhaps distributive: each one lifts up his soul. The meaning of the whole would be: Since they live upon the sin of my people, they wish for nothing more earnestly than that the people should keep on sinning more and more, namely, in idolatry. [So the expositors generally.—M.] Hosea 4:9. Since the priests go hand in hand with the people, the people serving idols and the priests desiring their idolatry, a like punishment will overtake them all. [Henderson: “The rank and wealth of the priests will not exempt them from sharing the same fate with the rest of the nation.”—M.] Hosea 4:10. They will eat, etc. “Eat” refers back to Hosea 4:8, and therefore the primary reference is to the priests—δζπε. The usual force of the hiphil=entice to whoredom, would hardly suit here, although it is the priests who are spoken of. The addition εְ ?μεֹ ιִ ?τְ ?μφεּ, is unsuitable to this sense, for an extension by the procreation of children, which is here denied of them, could be predicated of those who commit whoredom, but not of those who only seduce others into that sin. Therefore it probably=a strengthened kal, as in Hosea 4:18; 2 Chronicles 21:13. The literal signification cannot here be excluded, if we take into account the conclusion of the verse, and especially the parallelism with “eat.” Hosea 4:11, also, necessitates the conjunction of whoredom with “wine and must”=debauchery, and thus supports the literal interpretation, as also in Hosea 4:13-14, the daughters are said to be actual whores. But yet all this is only the consequence of spiritual whoredom=idolatry, and in closest connection with it. It is that which is to be rebuked, and the figurative sense therefore predominates in Hosea 4:12, where idolatrous practices are specially denounced, in the expression: spirit of whoredom. Whoredom as a consequence of idolatry, and as connected with it, and idolatry itself, are to the prophet perfectly identical, because inseparably united. The reason why they will not be satisfied or be extended, which are negative expressions affirming strongly their opposite, is that they forsook to regard. The expression refers to Jehovah: they forsook Jehovah, to keep Him, to regard, to honor Him (comp. Psalms 31:7; Proverbs 27:18)=they forsook Him and ceased to regard, honor Him. [See Gram. note.—M.] Hosea 4:11. Whoredom and wine and new wine takes possession of the heart, μֵ ?α, “the centre of the whole spiritual and moral life, the understanding, the will, and the sensibilities” (Wόnsche). Hence the capture of the heart=the obscuring and perversion of the understanding and the will, expressing generally the intellectually and morally polluting influence of a life given up to sensual enjoyment. Then in the first member of Hos 4:12 a proof of this is adduced,—a special instance of apostasy from the living God. Hosea 4:12. ωָׁ ?ΰַ ?μαְּ ?ςֵ ?φεֹ, inquire of idols framed of wood, especially teraphim, in order to gain a divine revelation; in direct contrast to ιְ ?δεָֹ ?δωָׁ ?ΰַ ?μ. The reproach is made keener by the contrasted words: my people, their wood: the people who are Jehovah’s seek to wood, which is made their god instead of Jehovah. Their staff shall instruct them. This was the so-called rhabdomancy: two staves placed upright were allowed to fall while incantations were being repeated, and an oracular response was supposed to be given by the direction of its fall, backwards or forwards, to the right or to the left. [So described by Cyril of Alexandria. Compare the use of divining-rods or wishing-rods.—M.] This course of action is expressly attributed to the influence of a spirit of whoredom: idolatry (in connection with its consequences, whoredom and debauchery) is a seductive, demoniacal power, which they could no longer resist. ξִ ?ϊַּ ?ηַ ?ϊΰֵ ?μΧ, literally, from under their God, like ξֵ ?ΰַ ?ηְַ ?ψֵ ?ι (Hosea 1:2), the normal relation to God is here regarded as one of subjection. It is from this that they withdraw themselves. Hosea 4:13. Upon the summits of the mountains, etc. (comp. Deuteronomy 12:2; Jeremiah 2:20; Jeremiah 3:6; Ezekiel 6:13). Mountains and hills, as is well known, were favorite places for idolatrous worship. So also were green and shady trees in pleasant places (here specified instead of the usual general expression, “under every green tree”). “Therefore”=because the places of idol-worship everywhere arranged gave abundant opportunity, therefore your daughters commit lewdness (Keil). “Lewdness” is here, at all events, used in its literal sense, see especially Hosea 4:14, second part. The prostitution of young maidens and of wives formed an essential portion of the nature-worship of Babylon and Canaan. It would seem from the mention of temple-girls in Hosea 4:14 that the worship of Astarte, or something similar, is implied. But, even apart from this, the sensuous character of idolatry commonly induced unchaste practices. Hosea 4:14. Those who are young cannot be blamed, for those who are older are worse still. ηֵ ?ν: they=husbands and fathers. τֵּ ?ψֵ ?γ, here intransitive: to go aside in order to be alone with the ζֹ ?επεֹ ?ϊ. χָ ?γֵ ?ωׁ is one who is consecrated to the service of Astarte, or some similar Canaanitish divinity; women who prostituted themselves for gain. Offer with the temple-girls; appear with them at the altar. To such an extent did they carry their impudence and shamelessness. At the end of the strophe want of understanding is again emphasized; it is this that brings them to their fall. Hosea 4:15-19 contain a warning to Judah not to participate in Israel’s idolatry and shameless conduct, in order to escape the dreadful ruin of the former. Hosea 4:15. If thou, Israel, dost commit whoredom. Whoredom is here predominantly employed in its metaphorical, but includes also the literal sense. A participation in Israel’s idolatry would have been induced by pilgrimages to the shrines of the ten tribes, which still, presumably, were made. Such places were: Gilgal, southwest from Shiloh, now Djidjilia, formerly the seat of a School of the Prophets (2 Kings 2:1; 2 Kings 4:38); later a seat of idolatrous worship, and mentioned as such besides in our Prophet, Hosea 9:15; Hosea 12:12, and Amos 4:4; Amos 5:5; and Bethel, south of Gilgal, near the borders of Israel and Judah; now Betin. This is probably meant here by Beth-Aven, the name being intentionally changed; comp. Amos 5:5; mentioned also in Amos 4:4 along with Gilgal. Swear not: by the life of Jehovah. This cannot be forbidden in itself, for in Deuteronomy 6:13; Deuteronomy 20:20 it is directly enjoined. Swearing applied to the service of idolatry must be meant, and that in the two places above-mentioned. It appears evident that certain formulas of swearing characteristic of Jehovah’s worship were employed in idolatrous service, and that for the purpose of giving to the latter a seeming justification. Hosea 4:16. The punishment of Israel is pointed out in order to strengthen the warning to Judah. ρֹ ?ψֵ ?ψ, intractable, stubborn, will not be subject to God. God then gives them a free course—bitter irony,—like a sheep on a wide plain: that is, they shall be dispersed far and wide. [Henderson: “The latter hemistich contains the language of irony. As lambs are fond of ranging at large, but are in danger of being lost or devoured, so God threatens to remove the Israelites into a distant and large country, where they would be separated from those with whom they associated in idolatrous worship, and thus be left solitary and exposed as in a wilderness. The phrase, to feed in a large place, is elsewhere used in a good sense. Isaiah 30:23.”—M.] Hosea 4:17. Joined to idols, i.e., joined to them so fast that they cannot give them up; therefore probably ηַ ?πַּ ?ηΞμεֹ = let them, that is, keep on, let them serve idols forever, the punishment will not delay. Ephraim was the most powerful of the ten tribes, and therefore often stands for the ten tribes generally. [The other interpretation, not so much favored, but numbering amongst its supporters Jerome, Grotius, Rosenmόller, and Maurer, is that the inhabitants of Judah are commanded to have nothing to do with the idolatry of Israel. This view has also the support of Cowles, but the other is approved by the majority of the English expositors.—M.] Hosea 4:18. A difficult one. ρֹ ?αֶ ?ΰ liquor, then: a drinking-bout. Fόrst assumes besides λεּ ?ψ to turn aside, another ρεּ ?ψ to become worthless or corrupt, here=to be spoiled. So also Keil [so also Ewald, Horsley, Pusey, and others, with E. V.—M.]. Meier takes it in the usual sense, to be removed, disappear: their carousing has disappeared. He then takes the following as in sense a dependent sentence: the carousing of those who commit whoredom, whose shields, etc. But this is rather artificial. To be sure, the mention of the punishment might be expected here, but it is just as suitable that Hosea 4:18 should describe only their wicked conduct, and Hosea 4:19 pictures them as being seized by a storm-wind in the midst of it. [Henderson translates the first clause: when their carousals are over they indulge in lewdness. Here ΰִ ?ν is supposed to be omitted. Cowles suggests the impossible explanation: He (Ephraim) becomes more apostate from God through strong drink.—M.] Along with their debauchery they commit whoredom,—again in the double sense. [For the construction of the next clause, see Gram. note.—M.] The shame which they love is not expressed, but is clearly enough contained in the two preceding hemistichs, therefore=shameful conduct in a moral sense; not=what brings disgrace upon them in its punishment. Her shields = her princes, as defenders of the people. “Her” refers to Ephraim, regarded as the wife. The princes are named specially: the whole nation is corrupt from the highest to the lowest. Hosea 4:19. In the midst of their sins destruction carries them away like a tempest with irresistible force. φַ ?ψַ ?ψ=bind together; seize upon. It is the prophetic preterite. The tempest is regarded as already present. ιֵ ?αωׁ ?εּ ξִ ?ζִּ ?αηֹ ?ϊָ ?ν. This means either that they shall be shamed away from their sacrifices, because they were proved not to be able to help them, or that they shall be ashamed of their sacrifices. The sense is that both they and their sacrifices would be put to shame. AND ETHICAL1. With bold freedom and with holy earnestness the Prophet here displays a picture of the religious and moral corruption of the nation, before which we tremble. He has an eye open for both, and expresses most clearly the inseparable connection between religion and morality. Not only is immorality censured, but the religious depravation also (Hosea 4:1-6; Hosea 4:10-13), so that it may be clearly perceived that this religious decline is the source of the moral corruption, and therefore the (true) religion, that belief in Jehovah is the root of all morality. Observe here how the knowledge of God is exhibited as the essence of religion, and the want of this knowledge as the great error in connection with religion. Apostasy from God therefore consists or is rooted in the loss of the knowledge of Him, which includes not merely a theoretical cognition, but also belief in Him, as the self-revealed God, and the acquaintance and intimacy with Him thence drawn by experience. It is thus that Hosea elsewhere also insists upon the “knowledge of Jehovah” (Hosea 5:4; Hosea 6:3, and especially 6). In contrast hereto the idolater is described as one who is “joined to idols” (Hosea 4:17), enters into conjugal intercourse with them. The Prophet, however, does not, in a one-sided fashion, pay exclusive attention to the conduct of the people with respect to religion, but lays just as much stress upon the moral consequences of their religious decline. In his several pictures he brands and rebukes the depravation of morals; want of fidelity and goodness, swearing, lying, stealing, murder, and adultery. Murdering and stealing, probably includes also deeds of violence committed against the poor, defenseless, etc. Special prominence is given to sins against the Sixth [Seventh] Commandment, which, on the basis of idolatry raged so violently in consequence of the terrible increase of unchaste practices during the prevalence of heathen religion and rites. The morally destructive influence of devotion to sensual and fleshly lusts is aptly described in the rebuke of Hos 4:11 it takes possession of the heart, and the extent of that influence is shown in Hosea 4:13-14, where the complete destruction of all morality in domestic life is described. A large element of the moral corruption is the influence exerted by the corruption of the priests who make gain of the people’s sins (Hosea 4:8-9), partly also of the prophets. It is also here to be observed how, on the other hand, the moral corruption hastens the religious ruin of the people, drawn as they are ever further from God, and led deeper into idolatry, superstition, and unbelief. Comp. Hosea 4:12 in relation to Hosea 4:11. In Hosea 4:12 b, it is clearly indicated that men, through their estrangement from God and their immoral conduct, lose the power of voluntary self-determination, and become subject to a power, and evil “spirit,” which they must follow, and, in the end, against their bitter feelings. Where such universal corruption obtains a spirit will prevail by which the individual is easily borne along with it (comp. also Hosea 5:4). 2. Jehovah has a contest with Israel (Hosea 4:1). The expression evidently rests upon the covenant-relation in which two parties assume obligations conditioned on both sides. Israel with God and God with Israel. The relation is therefore a legal one. The one party is bound only so long as the other fulfills his obligations; if one party does not fulfill them, the other may accuse him of an infringement of the compact and institute legal proceedings against him. Thus Jehovah has a “suit-at-law” with Israel, because the latter did not fulfill its obligations. In Joel 4:2 the expression has a more general application to the judgment which God is to inflict upon the heathen; for they are also related to Jehovah as the Lord of the world. He will not be unjust with them, will not subject them to disadvantages, and will not do them injustice through his people; but they are not to infringe upon his rights, among which is his special relation to Israel. Attacking this, they attack Him also: hence this controversy with them. But alas! there is a dispute between Jehovah and his own people: instead of being united they are divided into two opposing parties. Because the land, shorn of fidelity, goodness, etc., is brought to shame through sin and infamous deeds (Hosea 4:1-2), it shall mourn and languish (Hosea 4:3)—be visited by drought—as the punishment decreed by God. If this “languishing” is extended even to the unintelligent creation, such a dispensation would express not merely the extent and degree of the visitation, but would show the lower animals to be also included in the punishment. Man, as lord of creation, has by his sin brought punishment upon the rest of the animal world: though these have not sinned, they must suffer with their master on account of his guilt. The punishment is elsewhere also set closely parallel to the guilt: in Hosea 4:9 and especially in Hosea 4:6; because Israel has despised and forgotten God, He shall also despise and forget them. In particular, I they show themselves unworthy of the high prerogative of being Jehovah’s priest, to which they were really called as being the chosen people. 3. Between Israel and Judah there was always an important distinction morally and religiously. Hence the kingdom of Israel could be held before to the kingdom of Judah as a warning example. And this must be done: for it may easily be understood how the example of Israel was most dangerous to Judah. We feel clearly, when the Prophet utters the warning: “If thou dost commit whoredom, O Israel, let not Judah become guilty,” how warmly his heart beats for Judah. He regards Judah not merely as a kingdom of kindred origin, but as the one which, after Israel’s apostasy, represented alone the people of God, and thus he must all the more desire to have Judah preserved from Israel’s ways. The position of a Prophet like Hosea, who was a citizen of the northern kingdom, was peculiar. In the discord that existed between Israel and Judah, such warm sympathy with the one would hardly be expected from a citizen of the other. But with a Prophet of Jehovah theocratic feelings, higher than natural ones, must prevail. In Judah was Jerusalem with the temple; in Judah the House of David ruled; Judah was always comparatively more faithful to God, and that was decisive. His heart must therefore turn towards Judah. He could regard the separation of Israel from Judah, partly in itself and partly on account of its disastrous consequences especially to Israel, which were so clearly manifested, only as something utterly false and unrighteous, as an act of injustice, and would behold the nation only in both kingdoms, so that the theocratic conception was in the deeper sense also the natural one. Yet in this he displayed his patriotism even in respect to his nearer home, just in his earnest testimony against the prevailing corruption, whose consequence he foresaw would be certain ruin. Hosea certainly does not expect this ruin to be averted, but only expects a religious and moral renovation through its influence, with which he could not but see the restoration of the national unity necessarily united. See further No. 4 in the Doctrinal and Ethical section on chaps. 5 and 6. AND Luther: Hosea 4:1. Who will stand in the judgment in which he is accused by God? For then it will be no argument of words as before an earthly judge, but we ourselves bring against ourselves the testimony of our consciences as our indictment. What is the source of this evil in the world, that nothing true is found, but everything is done from a false heart, and that nowhere can any evidence of honest kindness be seen? The reason is, because there is no knowledge of God in the land, i. e., because men despise God’s Word. [Matthew Henry: Sin is the great mischief-maker: it sows discord between God and Israel: God’s controversies will be pleaded; pleaded by the judgments of his mouth before they are pleaded by the judgments of his hand, that He may be justified in all He doth, and may make it appear that He does not desire the death of sinners. And God’s pleadings ought to be attended to, for sooner or later they shall have a hearing.—M.] Hosea 4:2. Wόrt. Summ.: Faithfulness and sincerity among a people are like great and precious jewels in a land. So also are paternal confidence and love and pure and faithful preachers of the Word of God. So there is no greater need than when these things are absent; and especially when God’s Word and pure teachers and preachers are wanting. This is the fountain of all evil. For God’s Word keeps sin at a distance. Where it is not, or where it is not preached in its simplicity and purity, or men will not be reproved by it, nor follow it, nor amend their ways, there one blood-guiltiness and deadly sin follow after another, and all kinds of evil break in like a flood. [Pusey: Speculative and practical knowledge are bound up together, through the oneness of the relation of the soul to God, whether in its thoughts of Him or acts towards Him. Wrong practice corrupts belief, and misbelief corrupts practice.—M.] Hosea 4:4. Luther: It is not so great an offense for men to sin as for them not to be willing to suffer the reproval of sin. For when they live in such a way as that their hearts have a horror of the cure of their malady, punishment can no longer delay. This sin is the most common of our time. Just look at Christian churches, and you will see everywhere that the teachers are hated for rebuking sin so freely. But this only excites God’s wrath more fiercely against us. For not man but God rebukes and challenges the sinner. Hosea 4:6. God will not be mocked. Men may reject God, but He is still beside them, and shows that He is there in his judgments. The self-deception of sin: in rejecting God (forgetting his commands) thou doest so as one who is rejected by Him. [Matthew Henry: Ignorance is so far from being the mother of devotion that it is the mother of destruction. Pusey: In an advanced stage of sin, men may come to forget what they once despised.—M.] Hosea 4:8. There is nothing more shameful than to draw profit from the sin of our neighbor, and thus to strengthen him in his sin, or become the occasion of his sinning; doubly shameful if we abuse our office and more exalted position to do so. [Pusey: What else is to extenuate or flatter sin than to dissemble it, not to see it, not openly to denounce it, lest we lose our popularity, or alienate those who commit it?—M.] [Hosea 4:9. Matthew Henry: Sharers in sin must expect to be sharers in ruin.—M.] [Hosea 4:10. Pusey: Single marriage, according to God’s law: “they twain shall be one flesh,” yields in a nation a larger increase than polygamy. Illicit intercourse God turns to decay. His curse is upon it.—M.] Hosea 4:11. Luther: These two vices, whoredom and debauchery, so take possession of a man that he does not know what he thinks, speaks, or does. The boy Cyrus in Xenophon admirably says, that wine is mixed with poison. And the saying of Archilochus, with reference to impure love, is well known:— “Πολλὴνκατ̓ ἔρωςἀχλὺνὀμμάτωνἔχευεν,Κλέψαςἐκστηθέωναπαλὰςφρένας.” Comp. Luke 21:34; Ephesians 5:18. Hosea 4:12. Luther: The spirit of whoredom is that evil spirit which takes away from men’s hearts true thoughts of God, and either perverts their hearts, or entirely subdues them by filling them with trust in the creature, which is true and sheer idolatry. For idolatry does not consist merely in calling upon idols, but also in trust in our own righteousness, works, and service, in riches and human influence and power. And this, as it is the most common, is also the most harmful idolatry. [Pusey: The sins of the fathers descend very often to the children, both in the way of nature, that the children inherit strong temptations to their parents’ sin, and by way of example, that they greedily imitate, often exaggerate them. Wouldst thou not have children which thou wouldst wish unborn, reform thyself.—M.] Hosea 4:13. Wόrt. Summ.: Corporeal and spiritual whoredom are commonly united, and mutually dependent. For how should he who does not abhor a departure from God through idolatry, abhor a life abandoned to fleshly lusts? For idolatry is a much greater sin than corporeal indulgence: the one offends against the first table of the law and against God Himself, but the other against the second table and our neighbor. Starke: When worship is performed in any other way than God has appointed, God is honored no longer, and idolatry is committed. Hosea 4:14. Experience teaches that children are prone to imitate the shameful and unchaste lives of their parents. When such is the case the parents are most responsible; they deserve the chief punishment. Luther: If God gives his Word to men, and they will not receive his instructions, what else should He do with them, than give them up to a reprobate mind, i.e., let them live on according to their own counsel and pleasure, until they finally perish? [Clarke: While there is hope, there is correction. Pusey: To be chastened severely for lesser sins is a token of the great love of God toward us. To sin on without punishment is a token of God’s extremest displeasure and a sign of reprobation. “Great is the offense, if, when thou hast sinned, thou art undeserving of the wrath of God.”—M.] Hosea 4:15. Pfaff. Bibelwerk: Ye pious and true believers, let not the ungodly seduce you to follow their steps, but beware of them lest ye also have part in their punishment. But ye sinners, if ye will go on sinning, do not seduce the innocent, and thus heap up the measure of your iniquities. Comp. Galatians 5:9. [Matthew Henry: The nearer we are to the infection of sin, the more need have we to stand upon our guard. Those that would be steady in their adherence to God must possess themselves with an awe and reverence of God, and always speak of Him with solemnity and seriousness; for those who can make a jest of the true God will make a god of anything.—M.] Hosea 4:16. The Prophet employs this simile of a lamb in the desert, because nothing is more pitiable than a little lamb which has lost its shepherd. For the same reason Christ employs this figure of the lost sheep, when He would show the piteous condition of the sinner, and his great compassion towards him. Schmieder: He who will not submit to the restraints imposed by God, shall obtain a freedom which will at last become most irksome. This applies both to nations and to individuals. [Scott: While sinners obstinately reject the easy yoke of Christ, they are bringing down the heavy load of his vengeance upon themselves. Pusey: Woe is it to that man, whom, when he withdraws from Christ’s easy yoke, God permits to take the broad road which leadeth to destruction.—M.] Hosea 4:19. Starke: God does indeed bear with sinners in great patience and long-sufferings, and calls them to repentance; but when they do not amend, his punishment is swift. 1 Thessalonians 5:3. [Pusey: So does God, by healthful disappointment, make us ashamed’ of seeking out of Him those good things which He alone hath, and hath in store for them that love Him.—M.] Footnotes:[Hosea 4:3.—αְּ ?ηַ ?ιַּ ?ϊεβΧ. αְּ is used here as in Genesis 7:21; Genesis 9:10, to specify or enumerate objects indicated before in the general. In usage, though not in grammatical function, it is equivalent to our namely.—M.] [Hosea 4:4.—εְ ?ςַ ?ξְּ ?κָ. Newcome gives a variety of emendations and transpositions, partly from other sources, in order to obtain a more natural sense than the one he draws from the text. He seems to have been misled by the difficulty suggested by Houbigant, who remarks that it could not be a crime to contend with idolatrous priests. These of course, are not meant. See the exposition. Among the ancient translators, the LXX., Aquila, and Arab. read ςַ ?ξּ ?ι: my people, which seems more natural but is not necessary.—M.] Meier would point differently, and reads εְ ?ςִ ?ξְּ ?κָ: with thee, against thee, namely, God, and makes the negation continue: (let no one be) against thee. This is forced. The ιְ ?δִ ?ι would be necessary, and ςν would not be the proper preposition. [Hosea 4:6.—We must not read ξִ ?αְּ ?μִ ?ιγַּ ?ςַ ?ϊ unexpectedly (Meier). The article is essential—εָ ?ΰֶ ?ξְ ?ΰַ ?ρΰκָ. According to the Masora the third ΰ is superfluous, and therefore probably a chirographical error. According to Ewald it is an Aramaic pausal form. [Henderson: The third ΰ is not found in a great number of Kennicott’s and De Rossi’s manuscripts, nor in some of the earlier printed editions; in others it is marked as redundant, and a few have χψιΰξΰρκ.—M.] Hosea 4:10.—μִ ?ωְׁ ?ξֹ ?ψ. Meier attaches this word to the following verse: to practice lewdness, etc. But this is forced. [Henderson cites the similar view of Saadias, Arnold, and Horsley, but thinks “there is something so repugnant to Hebrew usage in the combination: to observe fornication, wine and new wine, that it is altogether inadmissible.” But his choice of the term “observe” is arbitrary. In thus opposing Horsley, he overlooks the fact that the latter renders: to give attention to, a sense of the word which is not at all repugnant to Hebrew usage. It must be remembered that they “neglected “Jehovah or dropped Him from their thoughts; the antithesis would naturally be: to keep in mind lewdness, etc. This is the exact usage of the word in Genesis 37:11; Psalms 130:3. Horsley’s arguments are mainly based upon the double anomaly of the construction as formerly assumed, in which ςζα was supposed to govern its object indirectly (and irregularly) by means of μְ with the infinitive, and ωׁ ?ξψ was regarded as governing (against usage) ιδεδ as its direct object: they forsook to regard Jehovah. ςζα is now admitted by some to govern ιδεδ directly, and the pers pron.: him, is supplied after regard, as is done by Schmoller. But, even with this construction, the omission of the object in the original after μִ ?ωְׁ ?ξֹ ?ψ would he unaccountable and very abrupt. To these considerations this other may be added, that under the present division of the verses, Hosea 4:11 is made unusually brief. These difficulties in the way of the ordinary constructions should lead us to regard the subversion of the mark of division between the verses with more favor than should ordinarily be shown to attempts at amending the text. The proposed change would give the translation: because they have neglected Jehovah to set their minds on whoredom and wine and new wine, (which) will take possession of the heart.—M.] [Hosea 4:12.—Henderson: “The LXX. and most versions which follow them connect ςַ ?ξַּ ?ι with μֵ ?α at the end of the preceding verse; a mode of construction adopted by Michaelis and Dathe, but otherwise disapproved by modern translators.—M.] Hosea 4:18.—ΰָ ?δֲ ?αεּ δֵ ?αεּ perhaps belong together, a pialal form from ΰδα, except that the doubling has been separated in an extraordinary manner. It is therefore really instead of ΰֲ ?δַ ?αְ ?ηֳ ?αεּ. Wόnsche would read ΰֱ ?δַ ?αΰָ ?δֲ ?αεּ resembling the preceding δַ ?ζπֵ ?δηִ ?ζְ ?πεּ. [On this combination see Green, Gr., §§ 92 a, 122, 1; Ewald, § 120 a; Bφttcher, § 1055 b. These grammarians, as well as the best critics generally, regard it as one word. The form with which it is usually compared is φִ ?ξηֻ ?ϊεּ ?πִ ?ι, Psalms 88:17. The last named author calls our form a Qetaltal, corresponding to the form adopted by Schmoller. The notion conveyed by such forms is that of intensity, or repetition. So Ewald: es lieben lieben Schmach seine Schilde. Comp the rendering of Delitzsch in the passage just cited: vernichtnichtigt. It the alternative of separate words be adopted, it would be almost necessary to adopt some such expedient as that of Wόnsche given above; for the rendering of E. V.: her rulers with shame do love; give ye, is almost unintelligible.—M.] B. An Accusation especially against the Priests and the Royal House. The untheocratic Policy of the Kingdom of Israel in seeking for Help to Assyria and Egypt is denouncedHosea 5-7I. Mainly against the Priests Hosea 5:1-151 Hear this ye Priests, And give ear, thou House of Israel, And listen, thou House of the King, Because the judgment is for you, And you have been a snare for Mizpah, And a net spread upon Tabor, 2 And the apostates make slaughter deep [are deeply sunk in slaughter], And I am a chastening for them all. 3 I know Ephraim, And Israel is not hidden from me; For even now hast thou committed whoredom, Ephraim, Israel is defiled. 4 Their deeds will not suffer (them) To return to their God. Because the spirit of whoredom is in their inward parts [their inmost heart] And they do not know Jehovah. 5 And the pride of Israel testifies to its face, And Israel and Ephraim will totter, through their guilt, And Judah will totter with them. 6 With their sheep and cattle They will go to seek Jehovah, But will not find Him; He hath withdrawn Himself from them. 7 They have been faithless to Jehovah, For they begot strange children; Now the new moon will consume them Together with their portions. 8 Blow the horn in Gibeah, The trumpet in Ramah! Cry out in Beth-Aven“Behind thee, O Benjamin!” 9 Ephraim will become a waste In the day of chastisement, Among the tribes of Israel Have I made known what is sure. 10 The princes of Judah have become Like the removers of land-marks: I will pour out upon them My wrath like water. 11 Ephraim is oppressed, Shattered by judgment,For it thought good To follow idol-images.412 And I (am) like the moth to ephrann. And like rottenness to the house of Judah. 13 And Ephraim saw its disease, And Judah its wound, And Ephraim went to Assyria, And sent to the warlike monarch; But he will not be able to heal for you, And will not remove your wound. 14 For I am like the lion to Ephraim, And like the young lion to the house of Judah, I, I will rend and go on (rending) Will carry away and there will be no deliverer. 15 I will go again to my place, Until they make expiation (by suffering), And seek my face; In their distress they will seek me. Hosea 6:1-21 “Come let us return to Jehovah! For He hath torn, and will heal us, He hath smitten and will bind us up. 2 He will revive us after two days, On the third day He will raise us up, That we may live before Him. 3 Let us know, follow on to know, Jehovah: Like the dawn his coming is sure, And He shall come like the rain for us, Like the latter rain (which) waters the earth.” 4 What shall I do to thee, Ephraim? What shall I do to thee, Judah? For your love is like the morning cloud, And like the dew, vanishing soon away. 5 Therefore I have smitten (them) through the Prophets, And slain them with the words of my mouth, And my judgment goes forth like light.66 For I delight in love and not sacrifice, And in the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings. 7 Yet they, like Adam, have broken the covenant, They were faithless to me then. 8 Gilead is (like) a city of evil-doers, Besmeared with blood. 9 And as the robber lurks,So (does) a band of priests. Upon the highway they murder (those going) to Schechem, Yea they commit wickedness. 10 In the house of Israel I beheld an abomination, a horror: Ephraim committed whoredom, Israel (is) defiled. 11 For thee, also, Judah, a harvest is prepared,When I turn the captivity of my people. AND The beginning in Hosea 5:1 (corresponding to the opening of chap. 4.) shows that the discourse here commences anew. Though connected with chap. 4, this chapter contains an accusation and threatening more definitely directed against the priests along with the king and his counsellors and princes, yet without being confined to this, for the discourse again becomes general, applying to the whole people. Along with idolatry which here again becomes prominent as the sin of Israel (especially in chap. 5) and gross sins among the people (deceit, robbery, murder, chap. 6), the conduct of the court is afterwards specially reproved, but particularly the false policy of seeking help in Assyria and Egypt (which itself presupposes the beginning of the kingdom’s decay). Chap. 6 is inseparably connected with chap. 5. But chap. 7 is also related to both of them, for a new section begins only with chap. 7. (See Introduction.) A single central and controlling idea, however, can hardly be indicated in these two chapters, or in the second part of the book generally. The discourse is too excited, moving suddenly from one thought to another, especially from accusation to threatening, and vice versa. Hosea 5:1. Hear this, ye priests. It is doubtful whether ζֹ ?ΰϊ refers to the foregoing, but it is not improbable that it does. The solemn discourse just ended would now be applied to the hearts of those specially addressed here, and the continuation of the discourse would then be attached to it. House of the king = the royal family, or possibly those who surrounded him ordinarily. The king referred to cannot be with certainty determined. Keil conjectures Zachariah or Menahem, or both. According to 2 Kings 15:19 f. the resort to Assyria would suit Menahem better than Zachariah. For the judgment is for you. This refers specially, according to the sequel, to the Priests and the Court. [“The judgment” is that announced in the preceding chapter; the special application is made here.—M.] The rulers of the people are compared to a snare and net. The birds whom they have taken or allured to destruction, are the people. Mizpah cannot be the Mizpah strictly so called in the tribe of Benjamin, but must be= ξִ ?φְ ?τֶּ ?δ and that= ξִ ?φְ ?τֵּ ?δβִ ?μְ ?ςַ ?γ an elevated place in Gilead, perhaps identical with ψָ ?ξַ ?ϊξִ ?φְ ?τֶּ ?δ in the tribe of Dan. Tabor, on this side the Jordan, would correspond to the elevated point on the other side. These two places are probably selected as prominent points to represent the whole country; for it is not known that they were places of sacrifice. Keil conjectures that they are chosen in this image because they were places suitable for bird-catching. Hosea 5:2. δֶ ?ςְֶ ?ξִ χ, to make deep. Literally: they have made slaughter deep=they have sunk deep in it. Slaughter might of itself be understood as murder, but the thought is carried further. ωָׁ ?ηַ ?θ is usually employed of the slaughter of beasts for sacrifice, and thus is most suitable here according to the foregoing, where the evil influence of the rulers upon the nation is spoken of, and this consisted in the idolatry which they saw them practice. But this sacrificing is intentionally called only slaying, and suggested by it. ωֵׁ ?θִ ?ιν a ἁπλεγ is uncertain. The most probable explanation makes it= ρֵ ?θִ ?ιν, apostates. This is then the subject of the sentence, which would be rendered: the apostates are deeply sunk in murder. Keil, with others, takes it quite differently: transgressions, more literally: deviations. He explains ωַׁ ?ηְַ ?θָ ?δ after ωָׁ ?ηεּ ?θ, 1 Kings 10:16 f.: to stretch, stretch along; therefore: deviations; they have made deep to stretch out=they have carried their transgressions very far. But what a tortuous mode of expression: to stretch out deviations! [The Anglo-American Commentators generally adopt the former view, rendering: revolvers, or: apostates.—M.] Hosea 5:3. The second half of this verse tells what God discerns in Ephraim and Israel. ςַ ?ϊָּ ?δ: now, at this very moment, pointing out, as an actual fact, that which at present lies open to the eye of God. [Henderson: “To express an assertion more strongly, the Hebrews put it first in the form of an affirmative, and afterwards in the form of a negative.”—M.] Hosea 5:4. Their deeds will not allow, etc. Their works stand in the way of their returning to God; for they are not isolated things, but are the expression of their inner nature, and that is held securely by the spirit of whoredom (Hosea 4:12), as by a demoniacal power which has stifled the knowledge of God. They are therefore not free—not lords over themselves, but slaves. [The rendering adopted here is that given in the margin of the English Bible, and approved by the majority of the Expositors of Continental Europe, ancient and modern, and by Horsley among the English ones. But there he stands alone, all other Anglo American translators adopting the rendering: they will not frame their doings to return to the Lord. They have been led to this view by the mistaken notion that the other translation involved a grammatical impossibility. See Gram. Note.—M.] Hosea 5:5. The pride of Israel according to some, denotes God, as One in whom Israel might have pride. The sense would then be that God, by his judgments testifies in the very face of Israel. But such an explanation is forced. The natural impression, on reading the words, is rather that Israel and its conduct is spoken of Therefore the words are to be taken as they stand; the pride of Israel testifies to its face, namely, when the punishment of such pride is being suffered. It will be then felt what it is to reject Jehovah in presumptuous self-reliance (Wόnsche). Judah also totters with them. In Hosea 4:15 Judah is warned not to be partaker in Israel’s guilt; but this must have been done because such participation was already begun, or foreseen as about to be assumed. On the other hand in Hosea 1:7 Judah’s destiny is distinguished definitely from that of Israel. [Henderson and others account for this seeming discrepancy by assuming that this chapter was written at a period considerably subsequent to that of the utterance of the last. But the evidence of the connection between them is too strong to admit of this supposition. The solution given above is therefore probably the correct one.—M.] Hosea 5:6. They shall go with their flocks and with their herds. The fruitlessness of Israel’s sacrifices without a mind answering to the offering, is here shown (comp. Hosea 6:6; Isaiah 1:11 ff.; Jeremiah 7:21 ff.; Psalms 40:7; Psalms 1:6 ff.). Hosea 5:7. αָּ ?βַ ?γ, to act faithlessly, especially of the infidelity of a wife to her husband. The proof (λִּ ?ι) of such unfaithfulness of Israel to Jehovah, the Husband, is then given. Instead of bearing children to God in covenant with Him, they had rather, by their illicit intercourse with idols, begotten strange, illegitimate children, children not belonging to the household, i.e., children whom the Lord cannot acknowledge as his own. The punishment is then announced: The new moon will devour them. “The new moon is the festal season on which sacrifices were offered, and is here employed for the sacrifices themselves. The meaning is: your festal sacrifices are so far from bringing deliverance as rather to induce your ruin” (Keil). The sentence must, at the same time, be understood in a temporal sense=the time will soon come when they will perish, as also appears clearly from Hosea 5:8. Their portions are their possessions, part of which they brought as offerings. Hosea 5:8. The judgment is seen in the Spirit as being already inflicted. The invasion of the enemy is to be announced by the horn and the trumpet. Gibeah and Ramah were most suitable for giving signals on account of their lofty situation. Both were on the northern boundary of Benjamin. Thus Judah is already menaced (see Hosea 5:5), and Israel actually occupied. δֵ ?ψִ ?ιςַ, to raise a shout=to sound the alarm in danger. Beth-aven again=Bethel; αְּ is to be supplied. Behind thee, Benjamin. The danger which is signaled, the enemy, is coming. He is already close behind thee. Hosea 5:9. Israel shall assuredly be destroyed, and permanently also: πֶ ?ΰְֶ ?ξָ ?πָ ?δ=enduring, that is, lasting misfortune (comp. Deuteronomy 28:59). Others make it=true, what will surely he fulfilled. [The latter view is preferable, and is approved by most expositors.—M.] Hosea 5:10. Like the removers of landmarks. Is this to be taken literally ? It is certain that we are not to think of hostile seizures of the territory of Israel, but the tertium comp. is the curse which, according to Deuteronomy 27:17, is laid upon the removal of a neighbor’s landmark=they have done something worthy of cursing. The curse attending the removal of the landmarks must therefore regarded here as something well known. The question then arises: what is it that they have lone incurring a curse. ‘Keil and Hengstenberg think that a spiritual removal of boundaries is indicated, a subversion of the bounds of justice, lamely, by participating in the guilt of Ephraim which they did by breaking down the barriers between Jehovah and the idols. And it is true that the princes of Judah are to be regarded as in a special sense divided off as against Israel and its idolatry, by virtue of the true faith which still prevailed in Judah as contrasted with Israel. The sense would then be: The princes of Judah, by their favoring idolatry, by this transgressing of spiritual limits, have become like those who remove the land-marks of fields, and thus become subject to the curse. God’s anger will seize upon them like a full stream of water. Comp. Psalms 69:25; Psalms 79:6; Jeremiah 10:25. Hosea 5:11-15 declare that even Assyria cannot help, and that the vanity of all help outside of God, drives Israel to Him. Hosea 5:11. ςָ ?ωׁ ?εּ ?χ and ψָ ?φεּ ?υ are “united also in Deuteronomy 28:33 to denote the complete subjugation of Israel under enemies in the event of apostasy from God” (Keil). φַ ?ε occurs only here and in Isaiah 28:10. In the latter case, at all events, it= ξִ ?φְ ?εַ ?δ, command. So many here also: a human statute [“in contrast to the ordinances of God”] alluding to the worship of calves (Keil). [See Textual note.] Hosea 5:12. A moth and rottenness are symbols of destroying influences. The moth is alluded to in the same way in Isaiah 1:9; Isaiah 51:8; Psalms 39:12; both united in Job 13:28. Such influences also destroy slowly but surely: Certa Dei judicia (Calvin). Hosea 5:13. ηְָ ?μִ ?ι and ξָ ?ζεֹ ?ψ, injury and wound, hardly denote religious and moral depravation (Keil); for it would scarcely have been said that Ephraim perceived this, but the judgment of God mentioned in Hosea 5:12, which according to the image there employed is not one which brings sudden ruin, but a more secret corruption, of which, indeed, moral depravation forms a part, but only as a judgment of God. That a divine judgment is intended, is clear from what is said of the vanity of help that is sought, especially in the sequel, and from the ground assigned for its insufficiency in Hosea 5:14. Assyria is here named for the first time. In the subsequent chapters the Prophet frequently recurs to the false policy of seeking help from Assyria. Only Ephraim is named because Israel is the main subject. Judah is referred to only incidentally. ιָ ?ψֵ ?α, a contender, an epithet devised by the Prophet to denote the Assyrian king. Hosea 5:14. They can as little defend themselves from God’s judgments as they can from the attack of lions. (Comp. Hosea 13:7; Isaiah 5:29; Deuteronomy 32:39). Hosea 5:15. The figure of the lion is continued. As the lion, without fear of being attacked, withdraws into his lair, so the Lord withdraws into heaven; none can or dare call Him to account. Until they make expiation = suffer. The suffering shall drive them to God. ωַׁ ?ηֵ ?ψ=seek earnestly. Comp. Hosea 2:9 and Deuteronomy 4:29-30, where comp. also the expression αִּ ?φַ ?ψμִ ?κָ. Hosea 6:1. Come let us return to Jehovah. The words are plainly connected with the last words of chap. 5. where a seeking of God on the part of the people is mentioned as the aim and consequence of the divine judgment. The opinion is, therefore, the most natural (so already the LXX) that they are just the expression of that seeking, that in them Israel announces its resolve, and immediately thereafter the hope of favor on the ground of the return. The view of Keil is less suitable, that we have here an exhortation addressed by the Prophet in the name of God to the people whom God has smitten. The words are only and naturally put in the mouths of those who, punished for their sins, would return to God. [The Anglo American Commentators, generally, adopt the view here advocated. Henderson gives the additional plea that the bearing of Hos 6:5 favors the hypothesis.—M.] For He hath torn, etc. (comp. Hosea 5:14). Strong faith. The Lord who had spoken with such threatenings, and such implacable severity, would yet give salvation (and not Assyria, 6:13). This would also be true if the words ειψτּ ?ΰπε, ειηαωׁ ?πε are taken as expressing a wish, which is readily suggested by a frequent usage of ε with the future: and may He heal us, etc. (so also in the following sentences).—λι. The resolve to return would then be strengthened by the calamity which God sends. If γιηαωׁ ?πε be taken not as expressing a wish but simply a hope the determination to return would rather be strengthened by this hope, as the healing, etc., would be the fruit of the return. [On the grammatical and logical connection of the different clauses of the first three verses, see Gram. note.—M.] An allusion to Deuteronomy 32:39 can hardly be mistaken, especially if we look to Hosea 6:2. Hosea 6:2. He will revive us again, etc. The definite limits: two days, and: on the third day, hold out the prospect of the speedy and sure revival of Israel. “Two and three days are very short periods of time; and the linking of two numbers following the one upon the other, expresses the certainty of what is to take place within the period named, just as in the so-called number-sayings in Amos 1:3; Job 5:19; Proverbs 6:16; Proverbs 30:15; Proverbs 30:18, in which the last and greatest number expresses the highest or utmost extent of the matter dealt with” (Keil). Both the Rabbinical interpretations of these numbers (e.g., that they relate to the three captivities, the Egyptian, the Babylonish, and the Roman) and the Christian, according to which Christ’s resurrection on the third day is indicated, are naturally inadmissible. The latter is excluded even by the words themselves. Israel is the subject of discourse: “it is torn, smitten, slain”; nothing is said of the exile itself, but in general there is set forth the termination of its existence as a people through the divine judgment (which to be sure was brought to pass by means of the exile). Israel expects, in the event of conversion, to be delivered from this situation and to be restored, and that speedily. It is naturally not the awakening of the physically dead that is announced; but it is a significant fact, that such an awakening is employed to illustrate the restoration of Israel, for it may lead us to infer that such a belief lay not far from the Prophet’s mind. Comp. for our verse, Isaiah 36:19 ff. (and for the whole section, Isaiah 6:16–21), and especially the well-known vision in Ezekiel 37:1-14. (See further No. 4 in the Doctrinal section.) [Comp. the remarks of Delitzsch on Job 19:25 ff. in his Commentary on that book, which contain the true principle of interpretation in such cases, and substantially agree with the method approved by Schmoller here. Henderson and Cowles agree in excluding any but an historic allusion, while Horsley and Pusey maintain the allegorical interpretation, the former seeing a “no very obscure, though but an oblique, allusion to our Lord’s resurrection on the third day,” the latter repudiating any other application, and carrying out the analogy to the extreme possibilities of fanciful conjecture. The explanation of the two and three days given above is probably the true one. With it Newcome and Henderson agree. Cowles suggests an allusion to the duration of the pestilence in Israel after David’s census of the people, and thinks that besides there “may be a tacit allusion to the fact that three days is about the extent of human endurance under extreme privations and hardships.”—M.] That we may live before Him: “under his protecting shelter and favor, comp. Genesis 17:18” (Keil). Hosea 6:3. Let us know, pursue the knowledge of Jehovah. Keil rightly makes the verse parallel with Hosea 6:1, as a further appeal. The expression πִ ?ψְ ?γְּ ?τָ ?δ especially indicates an appeal, or, according to our view, a self-exhortation. The zeal and earnestness of the return is thus presented. “Know” must be taken in the sense of Hos 4:1; Hosea 4:6. Jehovah had become an unknown, a strange God to the (idolatrous) people. Such knowledge has thus a practical aim, to acknowledge, to serve Him. The following words declare what is hoped for as the fruit of that knowledge: His coming forth is sure like the dawn, etc. Jehovah will appear bringing salvation. This is set forth under the figures of the daybreak and a fertilizing rain. The appearing of Jehovah is denoted as a rising by the image of the dawn (ιַ ?φַ ?ΰ, usually employed of the sun). The transition from night to day is set forth. Comp. Isaiah 58:8. And He will come as the rain for us, etc., i.e., reviving and refreshing. “In Deuteronomy 11:14 (comp. Deuteronomy 28:12 and Leviticus 26:4-5), the rain, or the early and latter rain, is mentioned among the blessings which the Lord will bestow upon his people if they shall serve Him with the whole heart. This promise the Lord will so fulfill in the case of his newly-revived people, that He himself will refresh them like a fertilizing rain” (Keil). Hosea 6:4. What shall I do to thee, Ephraim? It is common to break off the discourse here, wrongly, with Hosea 6:3. It is supposed that there is here a first section containing a promise, to which the promise in chaps. 11. and 14. correspond, and that a new section begins in Hosea 6:4 with a new objurgatory discourse (Keil). But, in the first place, Hosea 6:1-3 do not really contain a promise of the Prophet, or of God through the Prophet, but only a hope of the people themselves. And, in the second place, Hosea 6:4 is too closely connected with the preceding (not as a promise of God attached to the foregoing), according to Luther’s translation: how will I do thee good, etc. ? For ςωׂ ?δ does not mean: to do good, and ηַ ?ρְ ?γְּ ?λֶ ?ν is not=the mercy which I will show you, and, especially, the comparison of God’s favor to the morning cloud and the vanishing dew would be unsuitable. The words rather contain a bitter complaint of Israel’s inconstancy, and that suggested just by the preceding words. A good and joyful feeling was there expressed. If Israel only had now such a feeling as was expressed in the words which the Prophet puts in their mouth, all would be well! But Israel is as inconstant as God is constant. Its goodness is as the morning cloud and the swiftly vanishing dew. Both the dew and the morning cloud are figures of evanescence. The dew has an allusion to the rain, with which Jehovah is compared by way of contrast; and the morning cloud disappearing so soon, points back to the dawn which surely brings the day. ηργ, love, is naturally, on account of God’s complaint against the inconstancy of the people, to be understood of love towards God. Yet it may also be taken generally, and made to include man’s love to his neighbor as well. What shall I do to thee?=how shall I further punish thee? Then follows what God would yet do. Hosea 6:5. Therefore—because the character of Israel was such as was described in Hosea 6:4. The words of my mouth is parallel to the Prophets, because the latter proclaimed God’s purposes; and the ηφα was performed by the prophets just so far as they uttered the words of God. δָ ?φַ ?α, to hew out or off. The figure is that of hard stone or wood to which, by hewing, the right shape is given, and obdurate Israel is conceived of as having been subjected to such treatment for its good through the objurgations of the prophets. Similarly Luther after Jerome: to plane off.—The expression of the second member is stronger still: I slew them. A slaying influence is ascribed to God’s word. He gives to the prophets to announce death and ruin. In the words that follow we are probably to change the reading, and translate=and my judgment (goes forth) as light. [See Textual note.—M.] The image may have been chosen with reference to Hosea 6:4 : Since your love is like the morning cloud and the dew, vanishing quickly, when the sun rises, I will make such a sun rise as you do not wish. The judgment is here compared to a sunrise, which is elsewhere rather an image of a gracious visitation (comp. Hosea 6:3), perhaps in the sense that judgment reveals sins, the works of darkness, in their true light (comp. Ephesians 5:13). Hosea 6:6 and the following ones confirm more definitely what is said in Hosea 6:5. What God wishes is love and the knowledge of God. The knowledge of God (=piety here) goes back to the essential idea of ηֶ ?ρֶ ?γ as embracing in its general sense, love to God and man, though the latter here preponderates. In this sense Jesus cites it in Matthew 9:13; Matthew 12:7. On the meaning, comp. No. 5 in the Doctrinal and Ethical section. Hosea 6:7. Yet the conduct of the people is just the opposite of what God desires. But they, like Adam, have broken the covenant. The reference is to Ephraim and Judah, not to the priests. And, therefore, λְּ ?ΰָ ?γָ ?ν does not express a contrast to these=ordinary men. It would rather indicate a contrast to Ephraim and Judah as the people of God. But this thought is quite remote. Viewing the passage without prejudice, the usual explanation is seen to be the most natural: like Adam Allusion is thus made to Genesis 3. Adam’s sin was the violation of a covenant: for with the command laid upon Adam, God entered into a relation with him, which, in accordance with the analogies of later agreements made with mankind, might be called a covenant. Such covenant-breaking is a αβγ, a breach of fidelity. Then they were unfaithful to Me, as it were, pointing with the finger to the well known places of idolatrous worship, e.g., Bethel. Israel’s position, therefore, is one of apostasy from God. Israel contradicts its destiny, which was, to be God’s people. In fact, the verse expresses the want of that one thing which God desires, the want of the “knowledge of God.” Being a condition of intimacy with God, it is lost in apostasy from Him. Therefore, also, there is no ηֶ ?ρֶ ?ε Hosea 6:8 ff. [Newcome, Pusey, and Cowles prefer the interpretation that understands Adam to be meant. Henderson rejects it, and prefers the rendering: they (are) like men (who) break a covenant. To this it might be objected, first, that this, which is in any case, a paraphrase, is not the natural translation of the words. If it were the author’s meaning, every reader, contemporary with him or otherwise, would have mistaken it, on the first view, at least. In the second place, such a periphrastic expression would be a very feeble, as well as unusual, way of conveying the notion that they had broken God’s covenant, in marked contrast to the directness of the charge in the second member of the verse. He objects to the other view that nowhere is there mention made of God’s entering into a covenant with Adam. But this objection is not valid if it appears that the transaction in which God and Adam were the parties was really of the nature of a covenant. And that term “is a concise and correct mode of asserting a plain Scriptural fact, namely, that God made to Adam a promise suspended upon a condition, and attached to disobedience a certain penalty. This is what in Scriptural language is meant by a covenant.” (Hodge, Systematic Theology, vol. 2. p. 117.) His other objection is trivial, that with the exception of three doubtful passages, of which the present is one, Adam is not used in the Old Testament after the first chapter of Genesis (he probably meant the fifth) as a proper name, nor is any reference made to our first parents. The nearest parallel to our passage is Job 31:33 : if I have concealed my transgression like Adam; of the correctness of which rendering there can be no reasonable doubt. Comp. Delitzsch on that passage in his Commentary on Job.—M.]. Hosea 6:8. Gilead might be taken here as the name of a city. But it never occurs as such, only as the name of a district on the east of the Jordan. It must therefore be assumed that the name of the district is applied here to the chief city, Mizpah. Or we might remain by the notion of the district, and the expression would then be a comparison=All Gilead is, as it were, a city of evil-doers, as full of them as a city is of men.—ςָ ?χֵ ?α .ςַ ?χֻ ?αָּ ?δ is a foot-mark, therefore: tracked with blood, full of bloody tracks. Here murderous actions are indicated without being definitely named. Hosea 6:9. But the most shameful transactions occur in the west of the Jordan. Even priests act like robbers. βְּ ?γεּ ?γ is a predatory band, a band of freebooters or robbers, therefore ΰִ ?ιωׁ βְּ ?γεּ ?γּ ?ιν=a companion of such bands, a robber. Like the lurking of robbers = as robbers lurk, so lurk a company of priests, they murder on the way to Shechem. Travellers are surprised by them on the way to Shechem. Shechem was a City of Refuge. Perhaps those are meant who sought refuge there. The priests are by many thought to be residents of Shechem. But Shechem was a Levitical, not a sacerdotal, city. The expression would then refer not to those dwelling within the city, but to those without, who fall upon persons going to Shechem. Bethel was rather the seat of the priests. Keil therefore supposes: “The way to Shechem is mentioned as a place of murders and bloody deeds, because the road to Bethel, the principal seat of worship belonging to the ten tribes, from Samaria the capital, and in fact from the northern part of the kingdom generally, lay through this city. Pilgrims to the feasts for the most part took this road; and the priests, who were taken from the dregs of the people, appear to have lain in wait for them, to rob, or, in case of resistance, to murder.” More strictly speaking, it must have been done on the return from Bethel to Shechem. The allusion is evidently to a definite event unknown to us. The same remark applies to the following words. λִּ ?ι is climactic. ζִ ?ξָּ ?δ=shame, perhaps, unchastity. [This word does not mean shame or dishonor. It is primarily a device or plan either evil or good (comp. Job 17:11), though usually the former. The next meaning is wickedness; then specially a crime resulting from unchastity. For the connection between the two meanings see Leviticus 18:11.—M.] Hosea 6:10. The consequences of the preceding. Probably both corporeal and spiritual whoredom are included. Hosea 6:11. A threatening is appended against Judah also. “Judah also” is guilty. The harvest is as elsewhere an image of judgment, a cutting down (comp. also Isaiah 28:24 ff.) When I shall turn the captivity of my people. This appears, on the contrary, to refer to a deliverance, and therefore to be a promise. But it must be remembered that the judgment has for its aim the deliverance of God’s people (ςַ ?ξּ ?ι) as a whole. But such deliverance is effected only through the judgment that falls upon the several parts first upon Israel and then upon Judah. The meaning therefore is, when Israel, the Ten Tribes, shall have received its punishment and been restored, Judah also will be punished. [This paraphrase of the passage does not agree with historical fact, and must therefore be rejected. The true view seems to be that of Keil: “ωׁ ?εּ ?αωְׁ ?αεּ ?ϊ never means: to bring back the captives, but in every passage where it occurs simply: to turn the captivity and that in the figurative sense of restitutio in integrum. ‘My people,’ i.e., the people of Jehovah is not Israel of the Ten Tribes but the covenant nation as a whole. Consequently ‘the captivity of my people’ is the misery into which Israel (of the twelve tribes) had been brought through its apostasy from God, not the Assyrian or Babylonian Exile, but the misery brought about by the sins of the people. God could avert this only by judgments, through which the ungodly were destroyed and the penitent converted. Consequently the following is the thought which we obtain from the verse: When God shall come to punish that He may root out ungodliness, and restore his people to their true destiny, Judah will also be visited with the judgment.”—] The whole is, not to be regarded as a promise, or the harvest as a harvest of joy. Nor is it necessary to attract the second hemistich of Hos 6:11 to the first verse of chap. 7. (e.g., Meier). AND ETHICAL1. Prophetic rebuke does not merely not spare rulers and kings: it is specially directed against them. This follows from the conviction of the high vocation the monarchy had to fulfill. It is the bearer of the magisterial office, and as such must administer and guard the divine law, and must therefore care both for the purity of God’s worship and the administration of justice. And if it neglects or directly violates its obligation, despises the divine law, and even introduces idolatry, perverts justice, exercises injustice or leaves it unpunished, it becomes recreant to God, from whom it receives its authority, and incurs his punishment. This, the Prophet, as God’s messenger, announces, and his voice is therefore at first a voice of warning in order to bring it back to the true path. But the Prophet arraigns not merely neglect or violation of the obligations entailed by the office a such, but also the personal conduct of the bearers of the office, with a due appreciation of the influence which they exercise by word and still more by deed, in virtue of their high position. 2. “In all inroads of sin and corruption we are to look not merely at the outward work, but at the power of darkness, the spirit, that lies behind as their most dexterous and astute controlling influence, which will maintain most craftily its right and cause; comp. Hosea 6:4” (Rieger). 3. Rieger: “So long as man under divine chastisement, supposes that he can find help and mitigate his misfortunes by trust in the creatures, he wanders off as though in a trackless wilderness, from the living fountain, and might preclude himself from the most essential self-humbling, the knowledge of his guilt. But when God presses upon him with his hand and he has no deliverer then is quickened in his heart a little seed implanted there before by God’s good hand; and thus the love of God is like a man who has sown seed in his land; he goes away to his place, and depends on that which the seed will produce it time and after the rough winter.” Most beautiful is the believing assurance with which the Prophet makes the chastened express their hope of favor if they should return to God. (This same hope is expressed in Deuteronomy 32:29.) Thus restoration after past destruction is hoped for, and the blessedness of this restoration is further and happily described by comparing the returning favor of God to the rising dawn and the descending rain of harvest, as beneficent and refreshing as the one, as fertilizing and fraught with as rich blessings as the other, it spreads its influence. Such a visitation of mercy was most fully vouchsafed through the Messiah; He was the Day-star from on high; in Him came to us the Son of God in the flesh to diffuse upon us the Holy Spirit like fertilizing rain. He brings, therefore, the true healing for the bruised, the true binding up of the wounds for the smitten, the true reviving for the slain—all under the condition (presupposed by the Prophet) of a penitent returning to God. That the Prophet himself, in putting these words into the mouths of the penitent, thought of the Messiah, can not be maintained. We must apply here also canon laid down at chaps 1–2. that the fulfillment took place under the Messiah, but in another and higher sense than the Prophet fancied, that the words inspired by the Spirit of God had a further range than the Prophet knew. The “revival” and the “upraising” imply primarily a restoration of Israel, and we have in Ezekiel 37:1-14 the completed picture of which our short sentence affords the outlines. But if the true restoration of God’s people has been and is now being accomplished only through Christ, we can go a step further, and show that the revival, proceeding from Him, which is essentially a partaking in a new spiritual life, finds its completion only in the awakening even from corporeal death to the enjoyment of eternal life, of those who have been spiritually quickened by Him. If we, therefore, from the stand-point of the New Testament, find in the words of our Prophet here an allusion to this, we are not really so far wrong as might seem. Nay, as the Prophet certainly speaks of a reviving in a spiritual sense, so he must take that image from an actual revival of the dead, as he took the preceding ones in Hosea 6:1 from the binding and healing of a wound, and this idea cannot be so remote from his language, even if we can say no more (Isaiah in Isaiah 26:19 evidently goes further). As regards the specification of time: on the third day, which so naturally suggests Christ’s resurrection,—the coincidence is certainly not accidental so far as the resurrection on the third day is to be regarded as a rising in “a very brief space of time.” He was, indeed, to die, but not to remain in the state of the dead any longer than was necessary, so to speak, in order to make his death an indubitable fact; rather, as the “First Fruits,” He should be soonest brought out of death by the mighty working of the Father, and it would thus be shown how completely God’s wrath, borne by Him, was quenched, and God’s favor restored. On the third day the sun of mercy thus rose even here. And upon this revival of the Messiah on the third day, is conditioned the revival of sinners, proceeding from Him, in time and eternity. We must, therefore, regard this passage of prophecy as at least significant from a New Testament stand-point, nor do we err if we say, that there is here contained more than the Prophet could conceive; it is a divine word resembling a seed of corn which does not simply represent what it actually is (even the most precious stone does no more than this), but conceals in itself something else far higher, the germ which it enfolds. 4. Hosea 6:5. There is expressed here a clear consciousness of the aim and lofty position of prophecy. It is above all not something inciDeutal, but is embraced organically in the divine economy. Its special mission is fulfilled when the people of God forget their calling, and disregarding the voice of their own conscience, no longer seize the true path, and, having already inwardly apostatized, attain only to weak resolves, which are never fulfilled (Hosea 6:4). Then God appears before his people, and sends them the prophets, who are, so to speak, a conscience standing outside of them. Through them He speaks the “words of his mouth” and rebukes his people. He announces through them his judgment; their words of rebuke themselves are a punishment to the people, at all events, a punishment by words before the punishment by deeds is sent, but yet essentially identical with it, inasmuch as it was intended to produce deep sorrow, to touch the inner man, and to bring painfully to the consciousness criminal apostasy from God, and has thus the same aim as actual punishment has. Thus the sending of the prophets appears in one passage as a punishment; therefore also the expression which speaks of God’s hewing and slaying through them is employed, and there is conjoined with it in one line the “rising of judgment like the sun,” which may be understood of the efficiency of the prophets themselves. It is declared in such passages as Hosea 12:11 that prophecy had in itself a more general significance, as it effected God’s revelation to the people, and brought Him into close relations with them, and was, in so far, an element of his dispensation of mercy. And, apart from this, as Hosea directly shows, it had not only a legal but also an evangelical aspect by its vocation as proclaiming God’s faithfulness, in virtue of which He had not rejected his people but had destined for them a great deliverance. Here, however, it is occupied with the race for which it was specially designed, and for them it preached punishment by holding up before them the law they had so contemptuously violated; it became a chastening rod through the Word, and it was to hold out to the people the prospect of the future salvation only through the medium of punishment, and must as its main duty “cut to pieces” and “slay.” The preaching of the New Covenant has, on the other hand, as its main duty, an evangelical mission, which must never be ignored. But still it cannot dispense with the preaching of the Law. It must, even there, recur to that as its next duty; for the Law is the true παιδαγωγὸςεἰςΧριστόν. The worthlessness of sacrifice as a mere opus operatum is most distinctly emphasized by prophecy in opposition to the false esteem in which it was held, which was a token of religious and moral ruin, going hand in hand with an empty service forms and outward works. Sacrifice, in general was, as it seems, regarded as a good because a religious work, even when it was not performed in the strict legal manner, but was associated with calf and idol-worship, and therefore with a transgression of the Law (as in our context it is not legal sacrifice that is spoken of the address being to the kingdom of the ten tribes). In this they wishes to honor Jehovah, or pretended to do so. Comp. Hosea 6:6. In that passage the worthlessness of the outward sacrifice, which was only in form a seeking of Jehovah, and could not be a seeking from the heart (Hosea 6:15), is strongly expressed. Comp. Micah 6:8; Isaiah 1:11-17; Psalms 40:7; Psalms 40:9; Ps. 1:8 ff.; Psalms 51:18 ff.; 1 Samuel 15:22. To infer, however, from this polemic of prophecy against the opus operatum of sacrifice (sacrifice to an idol is to the Prophet only slaughter), that it values sacrifice in itself but little, and stands as to the Law, etc., upon a freer stand-point, is assuredly wrong. If the prophets were the stern guardians of the Law, and especially of the worship of Jehovah, and directed their rebukes against every depreciation of the law and every apostasy from Johavath, and if they also placed the ceremonial clement in worship in contrast to the ethical and internal, they did so because the latter was absent, and because it alone gave to sacrifice its real worth. And in our passage it is not to be overlooked that Hosea turns first to the sacrifices of the ten tribes, to the places of unlawful sacrifice, and denounces them as worthless, not merely on account of the absence of the inner qualities, but because he saw the people engaged in a course of conduct illegal and therefore displeasing to God, rejects their sacrifices and therefore so much the more opposes to these the inner qualities, and amongst these, the knowledge of God, which would lead back to God and thereby also to the legal worship of Jehovah with its sacrifices. On the relation of the sacrificial service to the future time of salvation, see on chap. 14 5. Hosea 6:7. “They have, like Adam, broken the covenant.” The passage is important as being the only, but a clear, reference to the Fall in the Old Testament. This is presented as a transgression of the Covenant, and God is therefore conceived of as standing to the first man in a covenantrelation. Adam’s sin appears, therefore, to the Prophet, not as something trifling, but as a great transgression, just as Paul speaks of it in the Epistle to the Romans, though there is nothing said of the consequences of this sin upon mankind. And while this transgression is thought of as a (the first) violation of the covenant, there is also ascribed to it a significance as influencing the destiny of the world. AND Hos_6:1. Wόrt. Summ.: Preachers should rebuke the sins of rulers as well as those of subjects, so that they bear not the guilt of the souls that are lost, whose blood God will require at their hands. Hosea 6:2. Great zeal, even though it be in the cause of religion, is not the chief thing. It is of itself mere bigotry and has no merit, but is rather to be rejected if it is against the truth. [Matthew Henry: Those that have apostatized from the truths of God are often the most subtle and barbarous persecutors of those that still adhere to them.—M.] Hosea 6:4. The longer thou continuest in sin the more difficult is the return. He who commits sin is the servant of sin. At first he will not return, at last he cannot. The heart is hardened. The spirit of whoredom: not single sins that are committed, but an evil spirit rising up and taking possession of the soul. The more men sin against God, the more they lose the knowledge of Him, and the more difficult it is for them to return; and so the chastisement of God must be more severe to bring them back to Him. Hosea 6:5. God spares not even his own, when they sin. Starke: He who mingles with the ungodly will be punished with them. [Pusey: In the presence of God there is needed no other witness against the sinner than his own conscience.—M.] Hosea 6:6. Starke: God will not be slighted with the outward appearance of godliness. In distress men should indeed seek God, though not in hypocrisy, but in sincerity. Our most acceptable sacrifice to God, is the surrender of ourselves, body and soul, to Him. Hosea 6:7. Wόrt. Summ.: Godless parents usually bring up godless children, whom God regards not as his, but as strange children, children of whoredom. They shall suffer a like punishment with their parents. But God will require their blood at the hands of their parents, from whom a heavy reckoning will be demanded. Therefore bring up your children in the chastening and admonition of the Lord, and they will not be strange children, but God’s, and heirs of eternal life. Hosea 6:9. Starke: In time of war men should not be troubled so much about the cruelty and tyranny of their enemies, as they should lament and bewail their sins. Hosea 6:10. Pfaff Bibelwerk: God has set firm bounds even to the great ones of this earth, and prescribed to them laws which they must observe. But when they remove these limits God pours out his wrath upon them like water. Hengstenberg: If those are cursed who remove a neighbor’s landmarks, how much more they who remove those of God! [Scott: When princes break down the fence of the divine law by their edicts, decisions, or examples, they open the flood-gates of God’s wrath: and when subjects willingly obey ungodly and persecuting statutes, they may expect to be given up to grievous exactions and oppressions; for God will disregard the interests, liberty, and security of those who disregard his honor and renounce his service.—M.] Hosea 6:12. Luther: There is nothing more delicate than a moth. One can scarcely touch it without killing it, and yet it eats through cloth, and so destroys our clothing. And the wood-worm eats little by little through the hardest wood. So the wrath of God is despised by the ungodly, as though it were without power; yet whatever contends with it must come to destruction, and cannot be restored to its former condition by any might or influence. We are thus warned not to live on in such security, but to fear the Lord and walk in all his ways. All strength and force without this, will not defend us from his wrath. [Pusey: So God visits the soul with different distresses, bodily or spiritual. He impairs, little by little, health of body or fineness of understanding; or He withdraws grace or spiritual strength, or allows lukewarmness or distaste for the things of God to creep over the soul. These are the gnawings of the moth, overlooked by the sinner, if he persevere in carelessness as to his conscience, yet bringing in the end entire decay of health, of understanding, of heart, of mind, unless God interfere by the mightier mercy of some heavy chastisement, to awaken him.—M.] Hosea 6:13. Seek not thy consolation in the world, when the consequences of sin make themselves felt. It helps thee indeed, but only to drag thee completely into its power, and to certain ruin. If men would have the wounds of sin healed, they must hasten to the true Physician, and not to false ones, whose help is of no avail. [Matthew Henry: Those who neglect God and seek to creatures for help shall certainly be disappointed; that depend upon them for support, will find them not foundations but broken reeds; that depend upon them for supply will find them not fountains but broken cisterns; that depend upon them for comfort and a cure will find them miserable comforters and physicians of no value.—M.] Hosea 6:14. Starke: Those who have an angry God, concern themselves to no purpose about resisting their enemies or other misfortunes. Hosea 6:15. [Matthew Henry: When men begin to complain more of their sins than of their afflictions, there begin to be some hopes of them. And this is that which God requires of us when we are under his correcting hand, that we own ourselves to be in fault, and to be justly corrected.—M.] Chap. 6. Hosea 6:1. The language of the repenting sinner. How often does it come so late as this! But O that it would always come! How much must intervene before it comes (much use of the Lord’s chastening rod)! but how great also is the gain! Alas that it is so hard for men to decide so! but what a blessed decision it is!—M.] Hosea 6:2. God revives us not only that we may live before Him, i.e., to his glory and service, but also live in the enjoyment of his presence and blessing. Hosea 6:3. Delay is more disastrous in nothing than in turning to God. [Pusey: We know in order to follow: we follow in order to know. Light prepares the way for love. Love opens the mind for new love. The gifts of God are interwoven. They multiply and reproduce each other, until we come to the perfect state of eternity.—M.] Hosea 6:4. Transient heats in religion do not accomplish the work which steadfastness must crown. [Matthew Henry: God never destroys sinners till He sees there is no other way with them.—M.] Hosea 6:5. Cramer: The Law is the ministry which, through the letter, kills. He, therefore, who is not slain and does not die to sin, cannot be made alive through the voice of the Gospel. [Pusey: God’s past loving kindness, his pains (so to speak), his solicitations, the drawings of his grace, the tender mercies of his austere chastisements, will, in the day of judgment, stand out as clear as the light, and leave the sinner confounded, without excuse. In this life also God’s judgments are as a light which goeth forth, enlightening not the sinner who perishes, but others, in the darkness of ignorance, on whom they burst with a sudden blaze of light.] Hosea 6:6. Wόrt. Summ.: The means by which we become partakers of the mercy of God, are not our works and desert, but the true knowledge of God and faith in Christ which works by love, in which God has more delight and satisfaction than in all outward works. And this is the sum of the whole Christian religion, that we believe in the name of the Son of God and have love toward one another. Hosea 6:7. Pfaff. Bibelwerk. Beware of transgressing, by presumptuous sin, the covenant which thou hast made with thy God. He is a great God and not a man, with whom thou hast entered into obligations. [Pusey: There, He does not say, where. But Israel and every sinner in Israel know full well, where. God points out to the conscience of sinners the place and the time, the very spot, where they offended Him. …The sinner’s conscience and memory fills up the word there. It sees the whole landscape of its sins around.—M.] Hosea 6:10. Pfaff. Bibelwerk: Woe to the land, the city, or the church, where God sees nothing but abominations and sins! Hosea 6:11. Each one reaps what he has sown. If thou dost become partaker in other men’s sins, thou wilt meet with their punishment. If the captivity of God’s people is certain, so is also deliverance But, on the other hand also, the promise presupposes the threatening: no deliverance without judgment upon sin; salvation comes, but only after a long and dark night.  Footnotes:Hosea 5:2.—ωַׁ ?δֲ ?θָ ?δ is probably the Inf. Piel from ωָׁ ?ηַ ?θ. [It is the inf. absol. with δ paragogic. The regular form would be ωָׁ ?ηָ ?θָ ?δ, but the Kamets-Hhatuph is changed to Patach. See Green, Gr., § 119, 3. Its construction with the finite verb follows a peculiar idiom, common in Hebrew. The literal translation is: they have made deep to slaughter. Comp. Isaiah 31:6. Ewald, comparing with Hosea 9:9, holds that our word is a false reading for ωׁ ?ηϊδ, but there is no reason why the Prophet should not have used both expressions.—M.] [Hosea 5:4.—E. V. and most Anglo-American expositors adopt another construction in the first hemistich, rendering: they will not frame their doings. Horsley, with the best Continental critics, prefers the rendering which is given in the margin of E. V. and adopted by Schmoller. Pusey is undecided, and indeed it is difficult to determine which is the true view; for no importance is to be attached to the objection of Henderson, that ιִ ?ϊְּ ?πεּ would require an object expressed if the construction last referred to were the correct one.—M.] Hosea 5:8.—Before αֵּ ?ιϊΰָ ?εֶ ?ο supply αְּ. Hosea 5:11.—ψְ ?φεּ ?υ is in the construct, state before ξִ ?ωְׁ ?τָ ?θ. It is not=broken, harassed in law, which is unsuitable here, but we have a genitivus efficient is, and ξωׁ ?τθ=judgment, as in Hosea 5:1 : crushed by judgment. On the combination δεֹ ?ωִׁ ?ιμδָ ?μַ ?κְ, see Ewald, § 285, 6. The words are coφrdinate. [See Green, § 269. This construction is frequent in Hosea; comp. Hosea 1:6; Hosea 6:4—M.] Fόrst takes φַ ?ε in our passage= φִ ?εּ ?εּ ?ο, a pillar, especially a fingerpost. He, however, has the conjecture that= φεֹ ?ΰ, φεֹ ?ΰָ ?δ filth, dirt, and this= ωִׁ ?χּ ?εּ ?φִ ?ιν, βִּ ?μּ ?εּ ?μִ ?ιν, idols, and would then take γεΰιμ from ιΰμ, to be foolish (of which the Niphal occurs)=he was foolish, and followed after filth (filthy idol-worship). A further conjecture is that it may be an Ephraimitish mode of writing ωָׁ ?ε (Job 15:31) =nothing, vanity. LXX.: ὀπίσωτῶνματαίων. [Chap. 6 Hosea 5:1-3.—The true construction of the various sentences in these verses is probably as follows: The first line of Hos 5:1 contains an exhortation, the remainder of that and the following verse consisting of arguments in support of it; and the first line of Hos 5:3 contains a parallel exhortation, followed in the remainder of the verse, by parallel arguments. A glance at the verses in their connection will show the appropriateness of this general view. That the opposite is true of the construction adopted in E. V. and by the English expositors generally, according to which the opening of Hos 5:3 is regarded as a continuation of the reasons for returning, is evident both from the unfitness of that line as an argument, and from the consideration that all the pleas adduced in all three verses are drawn from expectations of favor from God Himself. The form of the Heb. pret. (with δ paragogic) here employed, also confirms this view. But there is no need of holding, according to the view preferred by Schmoller, that any of the intermediate verbs introduce an exhortation. This both weakens the force of the array of pleas successively adduced and mars the regular and beautiful structure of the section. πָ ?ωׁ ?εּ ?αָ ?δ (Hosea 5:1), πֵ ?γְ ?ςָ ?δ and πִ ?ψְ ?γְּ ?τָ ?δ, (Hosea 5:3), therefore, being paragogic futures (Green, §§ 97, 1, 264), are cohortatives, and the only cohortatives in the section.—M] Hosea 5:5.—The object of ηָ ?φַ ?αְ ?ϊִּ ?ι is to be supplied by anticipation from δֲ ?ψַ ?βִ ?ϊִּ ?ιν. Instead of ΰεֹ ?ψεּ ?ξִ ?ωְׁ ?τָּ ?θֶ ?ικָ, the punctation and division of the words is probably to be changed according to the ancient versions, and εּ ?ξִ ?ωְׁ ?τָּ ?θִ ?ιλְ ?ΰεֹ ?ψ to be read. The Masoretic reading is encumbered with too many difficulties. Hosea 5:9.—ηַ ?λֵּ ?ι is for ηַ ?λֵּ ?δ = γַ ?λּ ?εֹ ?ϊ [constr. inf. Piel, equivalent to a participial noun. It is an imitation of the Chaldee. Henderson conjectures that the form is for ξְ ?δַ ?λּ ?ι, Piel. Part.—ωֶׁ ?λְ ?ξָ ?δ. The translation of E. V.: by consent, has arisen from the Targum rendering, λְּ ?ϊַ ?σδַ ?γ: one shoulder. This view is now almost altogether abandoned—M.] Hosea 5:11.—ωָׁ ?ϊ is used impersonally, being equivalent to a passive sense [one sets, prepares a harvest=a harvest is prepared.—M.] 2. Chiefly against the CourtHos_7:1-161 When I would heal Israel, Then the iniquity of Ephraim is made manifest, And the evil deeds of Samaria. For they have worked deceit, and the thief enters (the houses). A band of robbers plunders in the street. 2 And they will not say to their heart, (That) I have remembered all their wickedness; Now their deeds have beset them round; They are before my face. 3 By their wickedness they have pleased the king, And by their falsehood the princes. 4 All of them (are) adulterers, (They are) like an oven heatedby the baker, Who rests, stirring up (the fire), From the kneading of the dough, until it is raised. 5 On the (feast-) day of our king, The princes begin in the heat of wine He draws out his hand [goes hand in hand] with scorners. 6 For they draw close together; like the oven is Their heart in its craftiness; Their anger sleeps the whole night, In the morning it burns like a flame of flre. 7 All of them are heated like the oven, And devour their judges, All their kings have fallen, And there is none among them that cries to me. 8 Ephraim mingles with the heathen, Ephraim has become a cake not turned. 9 Strangers devour his strength, Yet he does not know it. Gray hairs are also sprinkled over him, And he does not know it. 10 And the pride of Israel testifies to his face; Yet they do not return to Jehovah their God, And do not seek Him with [in spite of] all this. 11 And Ephraim became a silly dove, without understanding. To Egypt they called: To Assyria they went. 12 As they are going I will spread over them my net; As a bird of heaven I will bring them down. I will chastise them, according to the announcement to their congregation. 13 Woe to them that they have wandered from me! Destruction upon them, that they have sinned against me! For I would have redeemed themBut they spoke lies against me. 14 They did not cry to me with their heart, For they shrieked upon their beds; For corn and new wine they distress themselves;They apostatized from me. 15 And I instructed (them), I strengthened their arm; But they devised evil against me. 16 They will not return upwards [to God], They have become like a deceitful bow. Their princes will fall by the sword, On account of the rage of their tongues: This7 (will be) their scorn in the land of Egypt. AND Hos_7:1-2. When I would heal Israel, etc. It was just when God attempted to heal them that their corruption was displayed in its full extent. If it had not been so great the attempt would not have been vain. The latter consisted in the chastisements themselves, but also in the discourses of the Prophet calling them to repentance. Now follows a description of their dreadful condition: lying, theft, and robbery. In the midst of it all, the greatest security, not a single thought of divine punishment. Their deeds have beset them round. This expresses evidently the boldness of their sinning=their sins have so increased as to become mountains hedging them round. Hosea 7:3. The situation is the more desperate as the corruption extends to the highest ranks. Hosea 7:4. They are all adulterers. The whole people are such, not merely the king and princes, though these are necessarily included. The adultery in this connection (comp. Hosea 7:2 : lying, thieving, and robbery, and Hosea 7:5 : debauchery) is to be taken in its literal sense. The comparison of the adulterer to a burning oven is here decisive; which does not suit adultery in the figurative application=idolatry, but expresses well the burning of lust. αֹּ ?ςֵ ?ψָ ?δξֵ ?ΰֹ ?τֶ ?δ, literally: burning from the baker=heated by the baker. This burning of the oven is further described still more closely and figuratively, and that with relation to the increase of the heat, in the following words: ιִ ?ωׁ ?αֹּ ?ϊεβΧ. Wόnsche: Who rests, stirring up, from the kneading of the dough until it is leavened, i. e., when he has kneaded the dough, he rests, namely from kneading, which is the most fatiguing part of the whole process of bread-baking, but then does something else, which compared with the other is resting, namely, heats the stove and stirs it up from the time the dough is kneaded until it is raised. During this time while the process of fermentation is going on, the stove is being heated so as to become quite hot, i.e., hot enough for baking. The Part. therefore is not used for the Inf. depending on ιωτϊ=who ceases to stir up. It would be strange if emphasis were to be laid upon ceasing, leaving off, when the object is to show that the heat increases. And Wόnsche remarks rightly that it would be out of place to heat the oven before the dough was kneaded, and then to cease heating it, but that the contrary process is the one followed. [Henderson takes ξςιψ in the sense of heating, as also does Gesenius. His application is as follows: “To place the violent and incontinent character of their lust in the strongest light, the Prophet compares it to a baker’s oven which he raises to such a degree of heat that he only requires to omit feeding it during the short period of the fermentation of the bread. Such was the libidinous character of the Israelites that their impure indulgences were subject to but slight interruptions.” But it is evident that the Prophet did not intend to call attention to any interruption of indulgence (and if he had the mode of conveying that notion would not have been very natural), but to emphasize its constant commission. Horsley takes ξςιψ in the sense of stoker, one who attends to the fire, and makes it the subject of ιωׁ ?τϊ: “the stoker desists after the kneading of the dough until the fermentation be complete.” He then gives a most fanciful application to the act of indulgence. For a sufficient explanation of the images see the Doctrinal and Ethical section, No. 1.—M.] Hosea 7:5. But they are not only adulterers; they are also drunkards. They are heated with wine as well as with lust. The rulers here lead the way by their example. In the day of our king = festal day, probably birth-day. A banquet is referred to, given by the king to his nobles. By the phrase, our king, Hosea indicates his citizenship in the kingdom of Israel. δֶ ?ηֱ ?μεּ: the LXX., Syr., Chald., and Jerome: they began. Others: they are diseased. But the Hiphil does not mean: to be sick—ξָ ?ωַׁ ?κְ εβΧ. The king is the subject; literally: draws out [stretches out] his hand with. This means: he holds out his hand constantly to them=keeps company, goes hand in hand with them. Scorners, men who throw ridicule upon what is sacred, and is regarded as sacred. Such derision is specially natural in a state of intoxication. Hence the connection in which it stands here with the drinking-bout, a connection which is certainly not fortuitous. Hosea 7:6. The figure of the heated oven is again taken up. But it becomes here an image of the heat of anger which burns in their hearts, which, being craftily concealed, does not at first make itself manifest, but which grows only the more surely, and at last breaks out in deeds of violence. (Just so is it in Hosea 7:4 with the heat of the bake oven.) The notion is evidently this, that the cordiality of the princes towards the king in the banquet is only apparent, only the result of cunning. It ends with an insurrection, with the murder of the king, who has certainly richly deserved such a lot.—χֵ ?Ξְ ?αεּ εβΧ. This is a difficult expression Some: they have made their heart approach (resemble) an oven. But this is languid. Would any one say, in giving an illustration, that the object was only “approximately” like the image ? Besides, λְּ with ϊַּ ?πּ ?εּ ?ψ would be superfluous. Keil: they have brought their heart into their craftiness as into an oven. The cunning is compared with the oven; the heart with the fuel. This clearly gives a plain sense. It would be perhaps more correct to detach χψαε from what follows as forming a clause by itself. Simson: they (the conspirators) approach. Wόnsche, perhaps better: they draw close together, namely, in the banquet, at all events, as conspirators. The following words then mean simply: like an oven is their heart in their malice. Thus the malicious heart is like an oven which only waits for the kindling of a fire.—λָ ?μΞδַ ?μַּ ?ιְ ?μָ ?δεβΧ; according to the Masoretic punctation: the whole night sleeps their baker. Baker would then =he who heats the oven, i.e., their heart inflames them. By the baker might be understood passion (Ewald, Keil). This would rather be compared to the fire. “The baker sleeps” would then be explained as meaning that the baker after kindling the fire, cared no more about it. But it would not be exactly suitable to conceive of “passion” as sleeping, that is, not stirring up the fire. Simson refers “baker” to a person, the leader of the conspiracy. But the following member of the verse creates most difficulty. διּ ?ΰ introduces another subject, the oven. It is therefore naturally suggested (Wόnsche) to change the pointing into ΰַ ?τֵ ?χֻ ?ν, =their anger. This is represented as fire, and this sleeps in the night, i.e., it burns on, unperceived, during the whole night, until in the morning it becomes a clearly burning flame. So with their anger. “Night” and “morning” allude primarily to the figure of the fire, but probably also to the thing represented itself, especially if it be supposed that at the end of the feast, which has lasted the whole night, the anger breaks forth in the morning in violent acts, which are more particularly described in Hosea 7:7. All of them, probably not merely the princes, but the whole people, together with the princes, who gave the impulse to the rest. They devour their judges, i.e., the kings. The following clause: all their kings fall, does not add anything new, but only expresses what is meant by the judges. This applies, to the period, succeeding that of Jeroboam II., when in swift succession Zachariah was overthrown by Shallum, Shallum by Menahem, and Menahem’s son Pekahiah by Pekah, and between Zachariah and Shallum eleven years anarchy prevailed. The Prophet alludes here to such events, certainly to a number of such events (perhaps also to earlier revolutions in the succession), as the plural, judges, kings, plainly shows. Yet the particular description in Hosea 7:5-6, suggest the conjecture that the Prophet had in mind a special case, and then in Hosea 7:7 gives a general view. And there is none amongst them who calls upon me. The reference probably is to the kings. The sentence thus indicates briefly but strikingly the complete estrangement from God, the deplorable situation of these kings. Keil supposes the whole nation to be referred to: no one is brought to reflection in the midst of these mournful circumstances, that he should return to the Lord. Hosea 7:8. Ephraim mingles itself up with the nations. This refers certainly not to the invasion of the Israelitish possessions by the heathen, nor merely to alliances with them (Hosea 7:11), but in addition to something more profound, it supposes that through idolatry heathen practices were followed. Com. Psalms 105:35-36; Psalms 105:39, “which passage furnishes a commentary upon ours” (Wόnsche). A cake not turned, and therefore burnt on one side (while it is not baked at all on the other). The idea is plain. [On the preceding sentence, Henderson: “In Psalms 105:35 a similar expression is used of promiscuous intercourse with idolaters. That such intercourse generally, and not specifically the entering into leagues with them, is meant, appears from the following clause, in which, to express the worthlessness of the Ephraimitish character, the people are compared to a cake, which, from not having been turned, is burnt and good for nothing. … Such was the state of the apostate Israelites; they had corrupted themselves and were fit only for rejection.”—M.] Hosea 7:9. Their being burnt declared figuratively that strangers devoured their strength. This is not merely an outward devastation by war, but an inner consumption by the inroads of heathen practices. Indications of old age also are apparent in Israel as tokens of speedy decay. Hosea 7:10. See Hosea 5:5. Hosea 7:11. A consequence of impenitence. Israel is like a simple dove, which, not observing the snare set for her, is caught in it (Hosea 7:12). They called out to Egypt; they went to Assyria. As syria threatened Israel. The latter then turned immediately to Egypt, to obtain help against Assyria, and partly sought to gain the favor of Assyria (Hosea 8:9). And after all they fell into the net of Assyria. Hosea 7:12. It is the Lord who inveigles them into destruction. According to the announcement to their congregation = according to the oft-repeated threatening against the people (comp. in the Law, Leviticus 26:14 ff.; Deuteronomy 28:15 ff.). Hosea 7:13. They spoke lies conerning me, namely, that I would not help them. And they, in effect, lie when they do not call out for help. Hosea 7:14. And they did not cry out to me with their heart, even if they did cry with the mouth. Their cry was one of unbelieving despair. ιִ ?ψְ ?βּ ?εֹ ?ψָ ?ψεּ, according to Fόrst, to distress themselves, parallel to ιְ ?ιֵ ?μִ ?ιμεּ. Others: assemble themselves in crowds, i.e., with eager desire for corn and wine. [See Grammatical Note.] Hosea 7:15. They devise evil against me, namely, in their apostasy. Hosea 7:16. ςַ ?μ, probably adverb=upwards. [See Grammatical Note] A deceitful bow: a bow upon which the archer cannot depend, which, when he is in the act of shooting, he fears may cause him to miss his aim. So God cannot depend upon Israel, is deceived in them every moment, cannot reach the aim with them which He desires. Others claim for ψְ ?ξִ ?ιָּ ?δ the meaning: slackness, therefore, a slack, bow, which cannot carry the arrow to the mark. Each meaning affords essentially the same result. The princes are emphasized, because they were the seducers of the people. This (will become) a scorning in the land of Egypt; that is: the scorn of Egypt will fall upon them for this reason, namely, on account of the falling of the princes just mentioned. Not=because they placed their trust in Egypt and fell notwithstanding (Keil), for this would rather earn them the scorn, of Assyria. They would be ridiculed by Egypt because of the weakness revealed in their fall, while they had magnified their strength before Egypt. AND ETHICAL1. The Prophet assails the practices of the court without ceremony, and brands them with some powerful strokes, as a course of life, in which the nobles are as ready to carouse together as to conspire against one another. All discipline, as well as all fidelity, is wanting. “Even when they hold a feast in honor of their king, there is no end to their gorging, lewdness, carousing, etc. The more vilely they behave, the better they suppose they shall celebrate the day of the king. On the other hand, when they are dissatisfied with their king they are as eager and anxious to murder him, as they formerly were to drink his health until they became intoxicated.” The spirit which governs these circles is aptly compared to a fire, for it is a powerful passion by which they are driven about, revealed in various forms, partly in the form of sensual and fleshly lust, and partly in the form of craft, rage, and party-intrigue. With the loss of morality, frivolity goes hand in hand, partly as consequence and partly as cause. The courtiers together with the king are “scorners,” or make common cause with them. “The scorner, μֵ ?υ, is the presumptuous, haughty, puffed-up (enlightened) man, who sets himself above what is and is regarded as sacred, and so practices his scornful amusement.” Comp. also Hosea 7:16 : the insolence of the tongue. 2. The decay of the kingdom is already patent. Hosea 7:9 : Gray hairs show themselves. But where the mistake lies, namely, in apostasy from Jehovah, those of the upper circles will not regard it (for it is these that the Prophet has specially in mind, comp. also Hosea 7:16). Therefore, instead of returning to Him and seeking Him (Hosea 7:10), the opposite means are seized upon, which have a result just the opposite of what they desire: help is sought in the world-powers (Hosea 7:11). Not merely the vanity but the disastrous nature of such dealing is now clearly expressed; for Israel is just preparing the way for its own ruin. It is like a silly dove, which does not see the net; and so straightway falls into it, i.e., the world-powers are preparing its destruction. In truth, however, it is God who employs them to punish his faithless people (Hosea 7:12). And thus will be fulfilled the previous announcement of punishment by the prophets (according to the declaration to their congregation, Hosea 7:12). It is not yet particularly indicated how the world-powers are to accomplish their destruction, nothing being as yet said of a captivity. 3. We may collect the other scattered strokes delineating Israel’s conduct towards God (for in such brief touches are the moral and religious views of our book exhibited). Hosea 7:2 describes the insensibility of the conscience, which in the commission of evil deeds ignores God’s omniscience, while nothing is more certain than that God knows them—they are before his face. AND Pfaff. Bibelwerk: Hosea 7:1. When God lays his hand upon the conscience and his Spirit chastens it, then is first truly felt the greatness of sin. O, that we would subject ourselves to such chastening of the Spirit, and we would be saved! Cramer: When a sinner is about to receive help, it is with him as with many patients. They often do not feel their disease and danger, until the physician comes and reveals them. Pfaff. Bibelwerk: Hosea 7:2. It is great simplicity on the part of the ungodly to suppose that God does not know their wickedness. Mark, soul, the eyes of the Lord are like flames of fire, and know even the most secret things of thy heart, and accompany thee in all thy evil ways. [Matt. Henry: This is the sinner’s atheism. As good say there is no God, as say He is either ignorant or forgetful; none that judgeth in the earth, as say He remembers not the things He is to give judgment upon.—M.] Pfaff. Bibelwerk: Hosea 7:4. Ye lustful men who burn so in your lascivious desires, know that a fire is prepared for you in the other world where you will burn forever. Pfaff. Bibelwerk: Hosea 7:7. What a deplorable situation men are in, when they have no longer confidence to cry out to God for help in their distress, because conscience tells them that they have made Him their enemy. But it is a great consolation to the pious that, when there is none to take their part, they have free access to God and his help. Hosea 7:8. Beware of heathenish desires and practices. As soon as thou dost admit them—and they may obtain entrance in all kinds of seemingly harmless shapes, even in a refined form—they injure thy religious nature. The result is a stupefying of the spiritual sense, the loss of spiritual taste, then only remains an “unturned, insipid, and disgusting cake.” [Pusey: Hosea 7:9. “Thy gray hairs are thy passing-bell,” says the proverb.—M.] Pfaff. Bibelwerk: Hosea 7:10. Man, thy sins condemn thyself. What! wouldst thou exculpate thyself? Turn only to thy conscience and ask it; it will soon utter thy condemnation. [Pusey: Hosea 7:13. To be separated from God is the source of all evils. Whoever seeks anything out of God or against his will, whoever seeks from man or from idols, from fortune or from his own powers, what God alone bestows; whoever acts as if God were not a good God ready to receive the penitent, or a just God who will avenge the holiness of his laws and not clear the guilty, does in fact speak lies against God.—M.] Hosea 7:14. Is it the worst with thee when prosperity is past? To be vexed at the loss of temporal blessings, is a mourning of this world, and does not lead to life. Matt. Henry: To pray is to lift up the soul unto God; this is the essence of prayer. If that be not done, words, though never so well worded, are but wind; but if there be that, it is an acceptable prayer though the groanings cannot be uttered.—M.] [Pusey: Hosea 7:15. The creature can neither hurt nor profit the Creator. But since God vouchsafed to be their King, He designed to look upon their rebellions as so many efforts to injure Him.—M.] Hosea 7:16. Whither dost thou turn? Upwards or downwards? [Pusey: Like a deceitful bow. In like way doth every sinner act, using against God in the service of Satan, God’s gifts of nature or of outward means, talents or wealth, or strength, or beauty, or power of speech,—God gave all for his own glory; and man turns all aside to do honor and service to Satan.—M.] Footnotes:Hosea 7:4.—αֹּ ?ςֵ ?ψָ ?δ is accentuated as Milel, probably because the Masorites took objection to the fem. form, ϊּ ?πּ ?εּ ?ψ which is elsewhere masculine. But the names for fire and anything connected therewith are in the Semitic languages usually fem. Hence αςςψδ is to be regarded as actually fem., and to be pointed αֹּ ?μַ ?ψָ ?δ [See Green, Heb. Gr., § 196 c.—ηֻ ?ξִ ?φ‍ ?ֽ ?ϊֹ ?ι. ηָ ?ξֵ ?υ takes in the construct inf. the fem. ending, like ηָ ?ξַ ?μ (Ezekiel 16:5).—M.] [Hosea 7:5.—ηֲ ?ξַ ?ϊ is an example of a construct before a noun having a preposition. This may denote the direct and powerful influence of the wine upon the revellers, or it may merely be an example of a poetical usage, Green, §255,1.—μֹ ?φְ ?φִ ?ινἁπ. λεγ. Some assume a verb μָ ?φַ ?υ, but Gesenius, Fόrst and most regard the form as Piel Part. of μεּ ?υ with ξְ dropped. Houbigant would change the reading into μֵ ?φִ ?ιν, but needlessly.—M.] [Hosea 7:6.—Henderson objects, to the change of reading to ΰַ ?τֵּ ?ιδֶ ?ν, that this never occurs in the sense, ira, furor, eorum. But as anger is a frequent sense of the dual form, and as the exigencies of the case seem to demand another reading, it seems reasonable to adopt the emendation. The conjecture has also the support of antiquity, as the Targum renders ψεּ ?βְ ?ζְ ?δεֹ ?ο and the Syr.;ܘ ?ܰ ?ܔ ?ܐ ?ܗ ?ܘ ?ܰ ?? Only it is not necessary to retain the ι—; the form given in the Exposition is probably the correct reading.—M.] Hosea 7:12.—ΰַ ?ιְ ?ρִ ?ψֵ ?ν. This form is from the Hiphil δִ ?ιρִ ?ιψ for γερִ ?ιψ. Hosea 7:13.—ΰֶ ?τְ ?γֵּ ?ν is a voluntative or optative: I would or would like to redeem them. Hosea 7:14.—The LXX. have read ιִ ?ϊְ ?βּ ?εֹ ?γֵ ?γεּ: they wound themselves. [But authority vastly preponderates in favor of the received reading.—M.] [Hosea 7:16—μֹ ?ΰςָ ?μ. It is agreed that the Kamets is due to the pause and that the normal form is ςַ ?μ. Critics are divided as to whether this should be regarded as a noun used collectively (they return to no-gods=idols; or as an adverb: upwards=to heaven, where God is. The word means properly an elevation, summit; hence the notion that it might be used concretely=most High. In Hosea 11:7 this certainly seems the true meaning. Again it might be used adverbially, as in 2 Samuel 23:1. The best lexicographers (Gesenius, Fόrst) approve the former sense here; some of the best Expositors (Manger, Ewald, Keil, and others) prefer the latter. The Anglo American expositors, generally, agree with the first named class. Newcome prefers to read μֹ ?ΰιεֹ ?ςִ ?ιμ: that which cannot profit.—M.]—ζεֹ ?= ζֶ ?δ, ἁπ. λεγ. 2. THE A. “Sowing the Wind brings forth the Whirlwind as a Harvest.” Galling Dependence upon Assyria Hosea 8:1-141 To thy mouth (set) the trumpet: “Like the eagle (it is coming) upon the house of Jehovah,” Because they broke my Covenant, And sinned against my Law. 2 To me they will cry: “My God, we know Thee, (we) Israel. 3 Yet Israel has rejected the good; Let the enemy pursue him!4 They set up kings, but not by me, Made princes, but I knew (them) not. Their silver and their gold They made into idols for themselves, That it [silver and gold] might be destroyed. 5 He has rejected thy calf, Samaria, My anger is inflamed against them, How long shall ye be incapable of purity? 6 For that also [the calf] is from Israel, The maker has formed it, And it is no God, For the calf of Samaria will become fragments.7 For they sowed wind and will reap a whirlwind, It has no stalk, (But) a sprout which will yield no meal; If it should yield (any), Strangers would devour it. 8 Israel is swallowed up, Even now have they become among the nations, Like a vessel, in which no pleasure is taken. 9 For they have gone up to Assyria; (As) a wild-ass going alone by herself, Ephraim gave presents (for) love. 10 Even if they give presents4 among the nations, I will now gather [carry] them together (thither), And in a little they will have sorrow for the tribute of the king of the princes.11 For Israel has increased altars for sinning, They became to him altars for sinning. 12 I presented to him a myriad (precepts) of my Law, (Yet) they are regarded as something strange. 13 My sacrificial offerings they sacrifice as flesh and eat (them): Jehovah has no pleasure in them, He will now remember their guilt, And will punish their princes; They will return to Egypt! 14 For Israel forgot his Creator And built (idol-) temples, And Judah increased the fortified cities:But I will send fire into his cities, And it shall devour her palaces. AND Ver. I. (Set) the trumpet to thy mouth. Jehovah commands the Prophet, as the herald of God, to proclaim with the trumpet of Israel the impending judgment: “Like an eagle (it is coming) upon the house of Jehovah.” The judgment will fall as swiftly as an eagle (comp. Deuteronomy 28:49). The house of Jehovah not=the Temple, but Israel, as the people among whom God dwells (should and would dwell), comp. Hosea 9:8-15; Numbers 12:7; Jeremiah 12:7; Zechariah 9:8. Hosea 8:2. Every one will cry: “My God!” Israel is in apposition to the subject contained in the verb [we know thee, we, Israel]. They rely upon the knowledge of God, which, as his people, they assuredly have. But it is a dead knowledge which can bring no deliverance. Hosea 8:3-4 show the position of Israel. Hosea 8:4. They have set up kings, but not by me. This refers to the self-authorized schism from the royal house of David. All the kings of Israel were not from God (that the government of the Ten Tribes was announced beforehand to Jeroboam by Ahijah the Prophet, 1 Kings 11:30 ff., and that Jehu was anointed king and commissioned by Elisha, do not contradict this, for God makes use even of human sins to execute his decrees); and besides, according to Hosea 7:7, the Prophet probably has in view the frequent violent dethronements and usurpations individually.—Σμְ ?ξַ ?ςַ ?οιִ ?λָּ ?ψֵ ?ϊ in order that it, namely, the silver and gold, may be destroyed (comp. Hosea 8:6). μξςο expresses the certainty of the result as if it had been designed. [Most have regarded Israel (collectively) as the subject of this verb, but, as Keil says, the same thing is more fully stated in Hosea 8:6, and the connection of the clause is clear.—M.] Hosea 8:5. He has rejected thy calf, Samaria. Samaria is mentioned as the capital instead of the whole kingdom. The Calf in Bethel is meant. [Henderson, with many Continental Translators, renders: thy calf is an abomination, the verb being taken intransitively. This is better than the translation of E. V., which is retained by Pusey in its natural sense, and by Horsley with a most astonishing application of the expression: “Here God himself turns short upon Samaria or the Ten Tribes, and upbraids their corrupt worship by taking to Himself the title of Samaria’s calf. I whom on have so dishonored by setting up that contemptible idol as the symbol of my glory—now expressly disown you.” The parallelism, as well as the whole drift of the passage seems to confirm the view adopted above.—M.] How long will they be incapable of purity? incapable of walking purely before the Lord instead of polluting themselves with idols. Hosea 8:6. εְ ?ηεּ ?ΰ is the predicate; this also=the Calf. It originated from men—from Israel through the maker—and is therefore no God. Hosea 8:7. This result is the natural harvest of the evil sowing. The same image occurs in Hosea 12:2ψεּ ?ηַ is an image of vain human efforts, from which ruin is developed, as naturally as the wind becomes a tempest. Hosea 10:13; Job 6:8; Proverbs 22:8 are analogous, where ΰָ ?εֶ ?ο, ςָ ?ξָ ?μand ςεμδ are the seed. The sowing of the wind is first regarded as one which brings a harvest of disaster and ruin, but afterwards, as one which, like the wind (image of nothingness, from which nothing can come), deceives the sower, brings him in no harvest φֶ ?ξָ ?ηΞΞχֶ ?ξַ ?η: a word-play. The latter is literally meal, flour: perhaps ears, as bearing the grains from which the flour is made. The following sentence declares that all their prospects were blasted. Israel’s efforts in every direction are fruitless. The judgment through Assyria stands in the back ground already. Hosea 8:8 is connected with Hosea 8:7, but advances through the pret. παְ ?μַ ?ς. Israel is now—already—actually swallowed up. The sequel shows how far and by what means. Like a vessel, etc.: comp. Jeremiah 22:28; Jeremiah 48:38. Hosea 8:9. τֶּ ?ψֶ ?ΰαּ ?γֵ ?γμֹ ?ε. Keil gives the meaning thus: While a wild ass, a silly animal, remains alone by itself, in order to maintain its independence, Ephraim seeks to make alliances with the nations of the world, that are unnatural and incompatible with its position. Yet such a comparison by antithesis is somewhat forced. It is much more natural to consider as the tertium comp. the burning lust of the wild ass, and to attach the sentence to the following, in which Ephraim is described as a paramour. Wόnsche finds the tert. comp. in the stubborn and intractable nature of the wild ass: that Israel made a like exhibition in going to Assyria in spite of all prophetic admonition. [So Henderson and, to a certain extent, Pococke, Horsley, Newcome, and Pusey. There is no reason why the two ideas should not be united.—M.] The meaning of the following member is clearly the same as in our phrase: courting one’s friendship or love, and with this object giving him presents, flattering him, etc. So did Ephraim court the friendship of Assyria; but the expression is peculiarly pregnant. They presented love=they gave presents in order thereby to obtain love=they gave gifts for love. Hosea 8:10. But this is all in vain. ΰֲ ?χַ ?αִּ ?φֵ ?ν: I will bring them together, namely, among the nations, i.e., will carry them together thither.—The following words again are very difficult. According to the Masoretic punctation: εַ ?ιָּ ?ηֵ ?μּ ?εּ, they began. Therefore R. Tanchum, and, among the modems, Eichhorn, Rosenmόller, Hitzig, Keil: They began to become small from the burden of the king of the princes. Others, after the LXX. (Symm., Theodot, Syr., Vulg.), deduce the word from ηεμ, and take it=to cease from, rest: they will rest a little from the burden of the king and princes: to be understood ironically=they will in captivity be deprived of their kings, and will have therefore to pay tribute to them no longer. Ewald and Meier read εְ ?ιָ ?ηִ ?μεּ, also from ηεּ ?μ: to wait, abstain from anything = that they may cease a little from, paying this shameful tribute, i.e., that they should wait a little before paying it. But was it Jehovah’s purpose only to relieve Israel a short time from this tribute? Simson would therefore explain: In a little sorrow will seize them from the tribute of the king and the princes=in a little they will reap in sorrow the fruits of the tribute which they intend to pay as their security, and which makes them a prey to Assyria. So also Wόnsche. [It will be noticed that E. V. takes the same view of the verb, but translates: they shall sorrow a little for the burden. Henderson agrees exactly: they shall suffer in a little (so the marginal reading in E. V.) by reason of the tribute. So also Cowles. Pusey thinks the meaning to be, that they shall sorrow but a little now on account of their burdens, in comparison with the greater trials of the captivity.—M.] The various views taken of ξֶ ?μֶ ?κְ ωָׂ ?ψִ ?ιν are already apparent. It is usually and probably correctly understood of the Assyrian king, in the sense: king of kings. [The native Assyrian word for prince, as lately made out from the inscriptions, is sarru, answering to the Hebrew sar, and Professor Green (Pres. Quarterly, July, 1872, p. 128) is inclined to suspect that it explains this expression: king of princes, “which would seem not to be an arbitrary or merely poetic variation of the lordly title, ‘king of kings,’ but to contain a designed allusion to the native Assyrian word. And a like allusion may be found in the words attributed to Sennacherib (Isaiah 10:8): ‘Are not my princes altogether kings?’ ”—M.) Therefore (regarding ξַ ?ωָּ ?ΰ as=tribute) tribute to the king, or tribute which he imposes. [See Textual note.] Hosea 8:11. Increased the altars, while Israel should have only one altar. Hosea 8:12. Myriads of my Law, hyperbole, to express the almost innumerable individual commands of the Law. [See Textual note.] Hosea 8:13. δַ ?αְ ?δָ ?αֵ ?ι, according to Fόrst from a root δεּ ?α, to roast, formed by reduplication: a sacrifice burnt upon the altar, a holocaust. It is incomplete unless joined with ζֶ ?αַ ?η, literally, a sacrifice of what is burnt, a burnt-offering. My burnt-offerings, i.e., those which should be burnt for Me, they slaughter for meat and devour. Therefore a complete profanation of the sacrifices. They were concerned only about the flesh. [The usual derivation from ιδα, to give, with the meaning: offerings, gives substantially the same sense: sacrificial offerings, and is, at least, as probable as the other.—M.] They return to Egypt. Egypt is a type of the land of bondage (comp. Deuteronomy 28:68). Actual captivity in Egypt is scarcely meant. Hosea 8:14. Israel forgot his Creator. Comp. Deuteronomy 32:15. Temples, perhaps idol-temples. Keil: palaces. The assertion would then be similar to that concerning Judah. But the notion is that Israel builds idol-temples, while Judah does not do that, but by increasing its fortified cities upon which it relied, it showed no less that it was forgetting God. Cities, Palaces, therefore refer to Judah alone. AND ETHICAL1. In spite of all departure from God, the sinner will often not quite abandon religion, worship, and prayer. In his hypocrisy he often misuses the most beautiful words (Hosea 8:2): “Thou art my God,” is otherwise the sum of all precious prayer. Hypocrites compile from the Scriptures a little book of compliments when they find some formulas which are extolled there. They place themselves behind these, while they are far from feeling their power (Rieger). 2. To practice idolatry, in the grosser or in the more refined sense, is to sow the wind, and the whirlwind follows sooner or later, as the harvest. When men forsake the living God, they build upon themselves, upon their own power and wisdom, and the more self-inflated they become, the more certain is their violent fall. All the more so that the foundations of a moral life have been undermined by forgetting the living God; more place is gradually given to vanity, thirst for pleasure, and evil desires, even against their own inclination. They are given up by the God to whom they would not give the glory. There must come a dreadful harvest of whirlwinds, though it may tarry long, though the results of the sowing may deceive and corrupt him long with their glitter and eclat. How often has this been proved in the history of individuals and nations! Compare the fate of the Second French Empire. 3. “God prescribed to Israel myriads of commands.” How strongly this expresses the care of God of his people, and the comprehensiveness of his revelation! Truly nothing is wanting to them; in no way can they complain that they have been meagrely supplied. All the greater is their guilt, in regarding these commands as something “strange,” as though they did not concern them at all, while they were issued solely for that people, and designed for their good. On the other side, the expression, “myriads of my Law,” is certainly most significant as regards the Old Testament stand-point. All these myriads were then received, but the Gospel was not yet given. The one gospel, the one message: the Word became Flesh, outweighs them all. The mercy of God in Christ assured by that message has a force quite different from all law. This mercy of the Gospel is also regarded as something strange, though men should regard it as most truly their own, i.e., as answering their most intimate and their inmost needs, which can be said of no law. 4. “They shall return to Egypt.” See on Hosea 9. AND Hos_8:2-3. How ready men are in time of affliction to depend upon their acquaintance with God and their service of Him, and upon their religious life, and to found on these a claim for help, and yet at other times they inquire after God so little! In affliction we hear nothing else than: my God. Wόrt. Summ: The cause of war and all its resulting evils, is, that men reject “the good.” And the good is God and his Word, with faith and obedience. [Pococke: God is simply, supremely, wholly, universally good, and good to all, the Author and Fountain of all good, so that there is nothing simply good but God; nothing worthy of that title except in respect of its relation to Him who is good and doing good. Psalms 119:68.—M.] Hosea 8:5-6. Idolatry is man’s foulest pollution. [Matthew Henry: Deifying any creature makes way for the destruction of it.—M.] Hosea 8:8. Pfaff. Bibelwerk: Sin has this bitter fruit also, that those who serve it come to be despised even by the world. Hosea 8:9-10. Trust in men or in earthly things more than in God is by Him counted idolatry. Trust in men must be most sorely repented of; for not only is the desired help most frequently not found, but those who trust in them are outwardly or inwardly still dependent upon them, and will be heavily oppressed. Hosea 8:11. It does not help to increase altars. It depends on the one to whom the sacrifice is made. Hosea 8:12. How richly has God remembered us with direction! What a rich treasure of the most varied instruction we have in his Word! But what will it profit us if we regard it as something “strange,” when God in it addresses Himself directly to us?—The one Gospel is assuredly a greater gift of God than the myriads of the Law. Hosea 8:13. God is as strict a creditor toward impenitent sinners as He is a kind and indulgent one towards the penitent. [Matt. Henry: A petition for leave to sin amounts to an imprecation of the curse for sin, and so it shall be answered. Pusey: God seems to man to forget his sins, when He forbears to punish them; to remember them when He punishes.—M.] Hosea 8:14. Incomprehensible that man should forget his Maker! but it is only too frequent. To have been created by God, and yet to build temples to idols; what a plain contradiction! Footnotes:[Hosea 8:2.—ΰֱ ?μֹ ?δַ ?ι: my God. A distributive use of the singular pronoun. Each of the Israelites is represented as uttering the exclamation, and then all combined as making the protestation in common. Israel is in apposition to the subject of ιְ ?γַ ?ςֲ ?πεּ ?κָ.—M.] [Hosea 8:3.—The rendering of Schmoller follows the reading ιִ ?ψְ ?γְּ ?τεֹ which has nearly as much authority (“forty-seven of De Rossi’s MSS., and two more by correction, eight of the most ancient and sixty-two other editions, the Syr., Vulg., and Targ.”) as ιִ ?ψְ ?γְּ ?τεּ in the Textus Receptus, and is probably correct.—M.] [Hosea 8:6.—ωְׁ ?αָ ?αִ ?ιν, ἅπ. λεγ. Its root does not exist in Heb. It is usually compared with Chald. ωׁ ?αַ ?α to break in pieces. Henderson prefers to consider it= ωְׁ ?αִ ?ιαִ ?ιν flames. Arab. Τَ ?Θَ ?ّ ?, to kindle a fire.—M.] Hosea 8:9-10.—δִ ?ϊְ ?πεּ ?—ιִ ?ϊְ ?πεּ. The Hiphil and the Kal have here the same meaning: to give presents. Hosea 8:10.—Simson and others translate: king and princes, namely, those of Israel, referring to the tribute which they pay. Here an asyndeton is assumed, or εְ ?ωָׂ ?ψִ ?ιν is read, after the ancient versions and several codices. Hosea 8:12.—ψαε. According to the Kethibh= ψαּ ?ε with ϊ rejected=10000, a myriad. The Masorites, probably because they thought the expression too strong, would make the reading ψֻ ?αֵּ ?ι, multitudes, from ψֹ ?α, which however does not elsewhere occur in the plural. Hosea 8:14.—αְּ ?ςָ ?ψָ ?ιε, ΰַ ?ψְ ?ξִ ?πֹ ?ϊֶ ?ιδָ. Both of these refer merely to Judah. In the former the people are thought of and therefore the masc. suffix is employed; in the latter the country, and therefore the fern. [It is possible, also, that the latter refers to each of the cities regarded individually.—M.] B. The carrying away into Assyria. Decrease of the People Hosea 9:1-171 Rejoice not, Israel, Unto exultation, like the heathen, For thou hast committed whoredom, departing from thy God, Thou hast loved the reward of whoredom, On all corn-floors. 2 The threshing-floor and the (oil-) press will not nourish them,And the new wine will deceive them. 3 They will not remain in the land of Jehovah, But Ephraim will return to Egypt, And in Assyria he will eat (things) unclean. 4 They will not pour out wine for Jehovah, For their offerings will not please Him; Like bread of mourning (their food will be) to them, All who eat it will defile themselves: For their bread is only for themselves, It does not come into the house of Jehovah. 5 What will ye do on the day of the assembly, And on the day of the feast of Jehovah? 6 For, behold, they have gone away because of the desolation: Egypt will gather them, Memphis will bury them. Their precious things of silver, Thistles will inherit them; Thorns (will be) in their tents. 7 The days of punishment have come, The days of retribution, Israel will discover: The prophet is foolish, The man of the spirit is crazed— Because of the greatness of thy guilt, And because the enmity is so great.8 Ephraim is a searcher (after revelations) with my God: (As to) the Prophet, the snare of the fowler Is upon all his paths: There is enmity in the house of his God. 9 They have wrought deep corruption as in the days of Gibeah, He will remember their guilt, He will visit (upon them) their sins. 10 I found Israel as grapes in the desert, Like the early fruit on the fig tree in its first (bearing) I found your fathers, Yet they went after Baal-Peor, And consecrated themselves to shame, And became an abomination, like their paramour. 11 Ephraim—his glory will fly away as a bird; No bearing, no pregnancy, no conception. 12 Even if they rear up their sons, I will bereave them of men, For, indeed, woe is to them, When I depart from them! 13 Ephraim, like as I saw Tyre, (Is) planted by the sea, Yet must Ephraim lead out his sons to the murderer. 14 Give to them, O Lord:—what wilt Thou give? Give a barren womb and dry breasts. 15 All their evil is in Gilgal— For there have I hated them; For the evil of their deeds Will I drive them out of my house, Will not love them any more; All their princes are apostates. 16 Ephraim is smitten, Their root is withered, They will not bear fruit; And even if they should bear, I will slay the darlings of their womb. 17 My God will abhor them, Because they did not hear Him, And they will be fugitives among the nations. AND Hos_9:1-2. ΰֶ ?μΞβְּ ?ιμ intensifies the notion of rejoicing=unto exultation (comp. Job 3:22). According to what follows it is rejoicing over a bountiful harvest. It was this that Israel expected and for which they would rejoice. But such joy was to be taken from them. λָּ ?ςַ ?ξִּ ?ιν Keil: “Israel, after the heathen fashion, attributed the blessing of harvest to the gods, and rejoices in it as in a gift of the gods, after the manner of the heathen.” That this is the meaning is evident from what follows, in which I discover not so much the ground why Israel should not rejoice, as an explanation of the λָּ ?ςַ ?ξִּ ?ιν, especially in the second member: thou hast loved. The lover’s reward is the reward which the paramour gives to his mistress, or here the idol to its servant, the people. The addition: upon all corn-floors, shows what is regarded as that reward: it is that which is laid upon these floors, the fruits of harvest, which Israel considers to be the gift of the idols, as their reward for serving them (comp. Hosea 2:7-14). Press: probably =oil-press, as new wine is specified afterwards; comp. also Hosea 2:10-23; corn, wine, and oil are therefore mentioned together. Hosea 9:3 shows how this will be brought about; it is not owing to the failure of the harvest, but to a captivity: thus they will lose their harvest which had grown. Return to Egypt, etc.: Keil is here undoubtedly correct when he says: “The expulsion is described as a return to Egypt, as in Hosea 8:13; but Assyria is mentioned immediately afterwards as the real land of banishment. That this threat is not to be understood as implying that they will be carried away to Egypt as well as to Assyria, but that Egypt is referred to here and in Hosea 9:6, just as in Hosea 8:13 simply as a type of the land of captivity, so that Assyria is represented as a new Egypt, may be clearly seen from the very words of our verse, in which the eating of unclean bread in Assyria is mentioned as the immediate consequence of a return to Egypt, whereas neither here nor in Hosea 9:6 is there any allusion to a carrying away to Assyria at all; but, on the contrary, in Hosea 9:6, Egypt only is introduced as the place where they are to find their grave. This becomes still more evident from the fact that Hosea speaks throughout of Assyria as the rod of God’s wrath for his apostate people (comp. Hosea 5:13; Hosea 10:6; Hosea 10:14). Finally, it is clearly stated in Hosea 11:5 that Israel will not return to Egypt, but that Assyria will be their king. By the allusions to Egypt, therefore, the carrying away into Assyria is simply represented as a state of bondage and oppression similar to Israel’s residence in Egypt, or merely the threatening of Deu 28:68, transferred to Ephraim.” They will eat (what is) defiled: partly because the legal prohibitions with relation to particular kinds of food could be observed only with difficulty in a foreign country, and especially because with the cessation of the sacrificial rites in general, the offering of the first-fruits must cease also, and all food not sanctified by the offering of the first fruits was unclean to Israel. This is completed in Hosea 9:4. Hosea 9:4. εְ ?μֹ ?ΰιֶ ?ςֶ ?ψְ ?αεּ μֹ ?ε: will not be well pleasing to Him; therefore their sacrifices must be taken as the subject in spite of the accents. The meaning is: the sacrifices would not please Him, and therefore none are brought. Israel could not sacrifice to God in exile when He had withdrawn from them his gracious presence. Like bread of mourning to them (will be their food). Bread that was partaken of where a dead body lay was considered unclean, because the dead defiled for seven days the house, and all that came in contact with them; therefore: all who eat it will defile themselves. Their bread will be μְ ?πַ ?τְ ?ωָׁ ?ν=for the support of life, and therefore it must be eaten by them, but it does not come into the house of God to be consecrated. Hosea 9:5. Festal days are no longer possible. To attempt to distinguish between ξֹ ?εςֵ ?γ and ηַ ?β (the former = the three annual pilgrim feasts, the latter = the other feasts, or, specially, the great harvest-feast, that of Tabernacles), is arbitrary. The expressions are probably synonymous. The notion is only emphasized by the second expression. ξεςγ regards the feasts outwardly, as gatherings; ηβ rather denoting the rejoicing, or festal character of those occasions. Hosea 9:6. They have gone away: the prophet sees them in the Spirit as already in banishment. ξִֹ ?ωּ ?γ, literally: out of desolation. On Egypt see at Hosea 9:3. [Keil: “Egypt is mentioned as the place of banishment, in the same sense as in Hosea 9:3. There they will all find their graves. ξֹ ?σ or πֹ ?σ, as in Isaiah 19:13; Jeremiah 2:16; Jeremiah 44:1; Ezekiel 30:13-16, probably contracted from ξְ ?πֹ ?σ, answers rather to the Coptic Membe, Memphe, than to the old Egyptian, Men-nefr, i.e., mansio bona, the profane name of the city of Memphis, the ancient capital of Lower Egypt, the ruins of which are to be seen on the west bank of the Nile, to the south of Old Cairo.” Memphis was a celebrated burying-place of the Egyptians. The Anglo-American Commentators generally assume a literal allusion to Egypt.—M.] ξַ ?ηְ ?ξַ ?γμְ ?λρְ ?τָּ ?ν = the costliness of their silver [see Gram. note], probably = their houses filled and decked with silver, comp. the parallel ΰָ ?δָ ?μֵ ?ιδֶ ?ν. The growth of thorns and thistles is an image of utter desolation (comp. Isaiah 34:13). Hosea 9:7-8. The Prophet is foolish. This is in sense dependent upon ιֵ ?γְ ?ςεּ. False prophets are meant, who flattered the people, promising them only good. These will be shown to be fools. Even the false prophet is a man of the spirit, but it is an evil spirit that possesses him (ψεּ ?ηַ ωֶׁ ?χֶ ?ψ1 Kings 22:22). On account of the greatness of thy guilt, this will happen, namely, that mentioned at the beginning of the verse. ξַ ?ωְׂ ?θֵ ?ξָ ?δ, ambush, enmity, namely, against God and his prophets, as is explained in Hosea 9:8. Keil: a searcher is Ephraim with my God. φֹ ?τֶ ?δ is used of the “looking out” of the prophet while waiting for a divine revelation. The meaning is: Israel searches out divine revelations along with “my God,” i.e., the God of the prophet. He trusts in his own prophets, not in those inspired by Jehovah. Others find in φτδ the notion of lying in wait. God would then be the object of the lying in wait of an enemy. He would be so in the person of the prophets, for whom, according to the following hemistich, snares were set (Ewald, Umbreit, Meier). But the prep. ςִ ?ν would not suit. The notion: lying in wait for God, is also strange. In the second hemistich πָ ?αִ ?ιΰ could be the false prophet. The snare of the fowler is upon all his paths would = he brings the people to ruin by all his actions. A snare is in the house of his God, would then be=in the house of the god of the false prophet. But it is better to understand the verse of the enmity which the true prophet must everywhere meet=As to the prophet, the snare, etc. “In the house of his God=in the temple. Hosea 9:9. δֶ ?ςֱ ?ξιχεּ ωִׁ ?ηֲ ?ϊεּ, literally, they have made deep, they have wrought corruption = they have wrought deep corruption as in the days of Gibeah, when the shameful deed was done (recorded in Judges 19 ff.) to the Levite’s concubine, which resulted in the almost complete extermination of the Tribe of Benjamin. Such conduct must be visited with punishment. Comp. Hosea 8:13. Hosea 9:10. Israel sinned grievously not only in Gibeah but earlier also, when God yet took such delight in him. His disposition now is shown to be that which he ever had. So much the more deserved is the punishment. Like grapes, etc.=As men prize grapes, etc., so did I prize thee. In the desert applies both to the grapes and to the finding, since grapes can be found in the desert, only when one is in the desert. An allusion to Deuteronomy 32:10. In its beginning, that is, when it begins to bear. Baal-Peor is here local, according to Keil, since ΰֶ ?μ is wanting; therefore: to the place of Baal-Peor; elsewhere: to the house of Baal-Peor. εַ ?ιִּ ?πָּ ?ζְ ?ψεּ, the same word, used designedly, as that employed to express consecration to Jehovah. They became Nazarites to Baal-Peor, to shame. The worship of Baal-Peor is alluded to. [See Numbers 25:1-5. The worship of Baal was then Israel’s crowning offense, and the old Baal-Peor worship is now renewed. Hosea 9:11-12. They shall increase no longer. The unchaste worship of Baal may be referred to, whose natural punishment is the decrease of the population. Hosea 9:13. Difficult. Keil: Ephraim is the object of ψָ ?ΰִ ?ιϊִ ?ι, and precedes on account of the emphasis laid upon it=I have selected Ephraim for a Tyre=I would make it as glorious as Tyre. [Comp. Genesis 22:8 for a similar use of ψָ ?ΰָ ?δ.—M.] To describe its glory more particularly, we have the addition: planted in a meadow, a place favorable to growth. Wόnsche: Ephraim is the subject to be connected with “planted”=Ephraim is planted in a meadow. The intervening clause he translates: like as I look upon Tyre; and the meaning is: Ephraim blooms like the lordly Tyre, wherever men may look. But this is clearly unnatural. The meaning would rather be: Ephraim is as when I look upon Tyre, i.e., when I look on Ephraim, it is as when I look on Tyre. Others (Ewald) by changing the reading to Σμְ ?φεּ ?ψָ ?δ in shape, as to form, outward appearance. Others take φεֹ ?ψ in the sense of the Arabic: a palm = Ephraim, as I beheld (it), is a palm. [The opinion approved above is apparently that entertained by the translators in E. V. It is that approved by most expositors, and is the most obvious sense suggested by the words.—M.] Hosea 9:14. According to many expositors, this is an intercession of the prophet: May the Lord not let the mothers bring forth, rather than that the sons should be destined to death. But an intercession would scarcely suit in such a severe announcement of judgment. Therefore others consider it a prayer that other punishment may be inflicted. An important element in the punishment is the unfruitfulness of marriages. The thought of ver 11 would then be essentially resumed. Hosea 9:15. It cannot now be shown how all their evil was in Gilgal. Comp. for the rest, Hosea 4:15. [Henderson: “Gilgal, being one of the chief places of idolatrous worship, the wickedness of the nation might be said to be concentrated in it.” This is the usual explanation.—M.] From my house = out of my congregation (Hosea 8:1). Hosea 9:16. The prophet beholds the future as already present (comp. Hosea 9:11); only that here the image of a tree which can no longer put forth its shoots, is first employed. In the last member, however: and even if they should bear, no figure is employed. Hosea 9:17 completes the whole, by giving the ground of the punishment, and stating that punishment clearly to be banishment among the nations, when the people should be fugitives. AND ETHICAL1. The judgment stands here altogether in the foreground, and the punishment which the people are to expect is that they will be carried away into Assyria. That event is here indicated as “a return to Egypt,” not literally, but rather symbolically (Hosea 9:3). The captivity is regarded not so much as an outward fact, but according to its internal aspect, as the direct negation of that which God had done to Israel in leading them out of Egypt. Several features in the Exodus made it of special significance to Israel. One was the great and undeniable mercy of God. Viewing it more closely, it was a merciful liberation of Israel from bondage, from complete subjection to a foreign power. It was thus the condition and the beginning of Israel’s existence as an independent nation. But not only so: God thus brought this people, under special obligations to Him. As He had owned them to be his so expressly and emphatically in Egypt, and separated them from Egypt, they became by his leading them forth justly and legitimately his inheritance. And although this specific relation of Israel towards God did not assume its normal form until the giving of the Law, yet the leading of Israel out of Egypt lay at the foundation of their exaltation to become his people. Finally, it was the condition of, and the first step towards, their introduction into that country which God had promised to give to Israel as his people, and had therefore a fundamental significance in their history. Now the Assyrian Captivity is the direct contrast to this, and is therefore represented as a “return to Egypt.” It is as signal a display of God’s displeasure and wrath as the former was of his mercy. It is the loss of freedom, a reduction to a state of bondage, and a surrender to the power of a foreign enemy. Israel is only free through his God, and remains so only so long as he serves Him; by apostasy from Him, he therefore forfeited that freedom, and therefore at last must lose it, and forego an independent existence. This surrender to the power of the heathen stands further in the strongest contrast to Israel’s relation to God as his people. They are thus really dismissed from this position by God, and abandoned by Him as his people (comp. Hosea 9:15; Hosea 9:17). They are in fact made a “Not-My-People.” Israel ignored the Law given at Sinai, and Jehovah ignores the deliverance from Egypt; and, lastly, the Assyrian Captivity is the loss of that country in which Israel’s position as God’s people had its material basis, as the deliverance from Egypt looked towards the possession of that country. Comp. Hosea 9:3. And as the Promised Land was essentially one of divine blessing, the loss of this blessing is naturally referred to with special emphasis. If Israel has, like the heathen, ascribed such a blessing to false gods, it cannot enjoy the land presented to it as God’s people, but as it became like the heathen, it shall return again into their countries. With the loss of the “Land of Jehovah,” however, is united, as a peculiarly distressing consequence, the loss of the sacrificial service, and of the sanctification in life thereby conditioned. Israel is sent away into the land of impurity. In this the Captivity is like a return to Egypt. Already in this we hear the sigh of the banished after the Holy Land. Those against whom the objurgatory discourse is primarily directed will, it is true, feel least the impossibility of serving God. And yet even they cannot deny their Israelitish character, and least of all in a strange land. That which they now do not wish to do, or to be able to do, will hereafter be the occasion of their bitter sorrow—and thus it ever is. 2. “All nations rejoice over and enjoy a rich harvest (comp. Isaiah 9:2), because they see in the bountiful harvest a sign and pledge of the divine favor, demanding gratitude to the Giver. If now the heathen ascribe these gifts to their gods and thank them after their manner, they do this in the ignorance of their hearts, without being specially guilty in so doing, because they live without the light of divine revelation. If, on the contrary, Israel rejoiced in the blessings of harvest like the heathen, and ascribed them to Baal (Hosea 2:7), God could not leave unpunished this denial of his gracious benefits” (Keil). It amounts to the same thing when one generation ascribes such blessings partly to their own labor and partly to “nature, and accordingly its joy is purely “natural,” altogether devoid of gratitude to the great Giver, and manifests itself necessarily in all kinds of self-indulgence. 3. When the judgment comes, the falseness of the false prophets becomes manifest. By these are, without doubt, to be understood those who, aping the position of Prophets of Jehovah, came forward as the pretended announcers of the divine will, and as the advisers of the people, especially of the rulers, but in their flattery of the people would pronounce good and justify everything, and therefore predicted prosperity and deliverance (Ezekiel 13:10), and never uttered a word of earnest rebuke. They were trusted only too well. On the contrary, the true Prophets had to meet everywhere snares and enmity. Men know too late who are their true friends, and who their false. 4. The true prophet must, it is true, enter into God’s designs, not merely of mercy, but also of righteous judgment; must announce them, so far as they have been revealed; and he may even desire their fulfillment, in order that a limit may be set to sin, and God’s glory be spread. Yet it must he observed that when the prophets invoke judgment, they do not implore the destruction and death of the individual sinner, but only the “political” death, the destruction of a godless kingdom, because it had filled up the measure of its sins and thus became amenable to judgment, concerning which there could be no doubt in the prophet’s mind. 5. With respect to Israel’s conduct towards God, we are to observe the retrospect of former times (Hosea 9:9-10, comp. Hosea 10:7; Hosea 11:1-2). The sins of the present are thus shorn of their individuality and shown to form part of a whole complexity of sin. These are only a mode of manifestation, a new phase, of the same spirit, which was before, and had been always, displayed. As with the displays of God’s love to Israel, so with the sins of Israel against God. Instead of an atomizing and mechanical view of this subject, we have a dynamic one, which alone is justifiable in the ethical sphere. From this conception of the evil, according to which its several manifestations of a constant fundamental tendency in the minds of a single nation, no great step is needed to reach the assumption of a constant disposition to evil in mankind generally, of hereditary sin, in which the individual with his special offenses only confirms and realizes the sinful disposition of the race. AND Wurt. Summ.: Hosea 9:1-2. Sincere Christians should, in the blessings of God, so rejoice in the Lord, as to acknowledge that all good is from Him alone, to whom they must therefore give thanks, and so use them as not abusing them, but employ them to God’s glory. Then will God the Lord not cease to do them good. Hosea 9:3. Starke: That is the Lord’s land where God is truly worshipped and honored. Hosea 9:4-5. Pfaff. Bibelwerk: When the measure of iniquity is full, God at last takes away the lamp of his Word from its place. Beware, then, you who have the truth, lest darkness fall upon you. [Pusey: It is in human nature to neglect to serve God when He wills it, and then to neglect to serve Him when He forbids it. The more solemn the day and the more total man’s exclusion, the more manifest God’s withdrawal.—M.] [Hosea 9:6. Matt. Henry: Those that think pre sumptuously to outrun God’s judgments are likely enough to meet their deaths when they had hoped to save their lives.—M.] Hosea 9:7. We usually discover too late who are our true friends and who our false. Pfaff. Bibelwerk: False prophets are a token of God’s wrath burning over a church or nation. [Pusey: The man of the world and the Christian judge of the same things by clear contrary rules, use them for quite contrary ends. The slave of pleasure counts him mad who foregoes it; the wealthy trader counts him mad who gives away profusely. In these days profusion for the love of Christ has been counted a ground for depriving a man of his property. One or the other is mad, and worldlings must count the Christian mad, or they must own themselves to be so most fearfully (Wis 5:3-6). The sinner first neglects God; then, as the will of God is brought before him, he willfully disobeys Him; then, when he finds God’s will irreconcilably at variance with his own, or when God chastens him, he hates Him, and hates Him greatly.—M.] Hosea 9:8. Let it not offend you, if, for the sake of the truth, you must suffer persecution. “Even so persecuted they the prophets who were before you.” Hosea 9:12. When God is graciously disposed to wards us, He is our Light, our Way, our Life, our Love, our Comfort, our Joy, our Shepherd, our Physician, our Bridegroom, our Father, and our. Redeemer. If He departs from us, all this is gone, like as when the sun sets and darkness covers all. Spur: When the divine wrath has begun to burn, it rises, so to speak, by degrees. And God commonly proceeds by beginning at what is most external to us, whose loss we would not deeply feel, but ever advances further towards that which is dearer and of more moment, until at last He strikes at our very selves. If God is not gracious towards us, He is angry; He can sustain no intermediate relation. Hosea 9:15. God refuses at last to grant to unfaithful children even the privileges of his house. He at the same time disinherits them. When God ceases to love us we are lost. Hence nothing is more necessary than the prayer: Withdraw not thy love from us. Nothing is more precious than the power to say: I am persuaded that nothing can separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus, our Lord. Hosea 9:16. Whole families, even whole nations die out through God’s judgments! Footnotes:Hosea 9:1.—The ancient Translators appear to have read ΰַ ?μβִּ ?ιμ. [This is false grammatically, as ΰַ ?μ is always followed by the future.—M.] Hosea 9:2.—αָּ ?δּ. The people are here regarded as a woman. [Tanchum gives the rule that “in continued discourse when a nation or people is spoken of either the fem. suffix agreeing with ςֵ ?γָ ?δ: congregation, or the masc. agreeing with ςַ ?ν: people, may be used, as also that the singular may be used of them viewed as a body, and the plural when they are regarded as consisting of distinct individuals.” So Ewald as to the gender, making the suffix relate to “die treulose Gemeine.”-—M.] Hosea 9:6.—ξַ ?ϊְ ?ξַ ?γ is in the construct state with μְ. Hosea 9:7.—εְ ?ψַ ?αָּ ?δ. The sentence continues as though a conjunction [because] preceded. The conjunction is implied in φμ. [Hosea 9:9.—For the asyndeton here, see note on Hosea 5:2. It is best to take ωִׁ ?ϊֲ ?ϊεּ intransitively, and not understand an object, e.g. γַּ ?ψְ ?λֵּ ?ιδֶ ?ν, which some supply.—M.] Hosea 9:13.—εΰֶ ?τִ ?ψַ ?ιִ ?ν forms the apodosis which introduces a contrast to the protasis. μδְ ?εֹ ?φִ ?ιΰ=must lead forth. See Ewald, 237, e. [The literal rendering is: But Ephraim (is) to lead forth, etc.—M.] C. Devastation of the Seats of Worship. Destruction of the KingdomHos_10:1-151 Israel is a thriving vineWhich sends forth its fruit; As its fruit abounded, It multiplied altars; According to the prosperity of the land, The better they made their images. 2 Their heart is smooth: now will they make expiation: He will cut down their altars, he will destroy their images 3 For now they will say: We have no king, Because we did not fear God, And the king—what will he do for us. 4 They speak words, Swearing falsely and contracting alliances: And justice grows like the poison-plant In the furrows of the field. 5 For the calves of Samaria, The inhabitants of Samaria will tremble, For its people mourn for it, And its idol-priests will tremble for it, For its glory, that it has departed from it 6 Itself will be carried to Assyria, As a present to the warlike king: Shame will take hold upon Ephraim, And Israel will be ashamed of its counsel. 7 Samaria is destroyed, Its king is like a chip on the surface of the water. 8 The high places of Aven are devastated, The sin of Israel, Thorns and thistles will grow upon its altars, Then they will say to the mountains: Cover us! And to the hills: Fall upon us! 9 Since the days of Gibeah, thou hast sinned, Israel! There they stood: The war against the sons of iniquity did not reach them in Gibeah, 10 As I please, I will fetter them,And the nations will gather themselves against them, When I bind them for their two offenses. 11 For Ephraim is a well-trained heifer, Which loves to thresh: But I will pass over her fair neck: I will yoke Ephraim, Judah shall plough, Jacob [Ephraim] shall harrow. 12 Sow for yourselves according to righteousness, And reap for yourselves in the (like) measure of mercy! Break for yourselves (new) soil! For it is time to seek Jehovah, Until he come and rain righteousness upon you. 13 (Yet) ye have ploughed wickedness, Ye have reaped iniquity, Ye have eaten the fruit of lying: Because thou didst trust in thy way, In the multitude of thy heroes. 14 And the noise of war has risen among your tribes,And all thy fortresses are destroyed, As Shalman destroyed Beth-arbel in the day of battle, The mother is dashed upon her children. 15 Thus has Bethel done to you, For the evil of your evil [your great evil], In the early morning [soon] the king of Israel shall be utterly destroyed. AND Hos_10:1. Comp. Psalms 80:9-12. There is also an allusion to Hosea 9:10, and yet the image is quite differently applied. Israel is represented here not so much as being pleasant in itself and of worth in the sight of Jehovah (and is therefore not compared to fruit), but from the stand-point of its fruitfulness, which, however, was of the wrong kind. Hence even its fruitfulness will be taken away from it (Hosea 9:16). αֹּ ?εχֵ ?χ, according to Fόrst blooming (LXX, Syr., Aquila), and thereafter according to Keil climbing, thriving, after the primary idea of αχχ: to pour out, to run itself out, here=climb upwards. [Fόrst compares the Arab. bakka: to bloom. If this sense is the correct one, this is the only case of the occurrence of this verb.—M.] The meaning empty, is unsuitable. ωִׁ ?εָּ ?δ: to place, set=prepares, furnishes fruit for itself. Hosea 10:2. Their heart is smooth. The expression is elsewhere employed of the tongue, lips, words=deceitful, false, not sincere (devoted to God). The explanation divided, is false, for the Kal means: to divide, transitive. ιַ ?ςֲ ?ψֹ ?σ is properly: to cut off the head by striking the neck, [Henderson: “It is properly a sacrificial term. It is here, with much force, used metonymically, in application to the destruction of the altars on which the animals themselves were offered.” For the force of ιֶ ?ΰְ ?ωָֹׁ ?ξεּ see on Hosea 10:15.—M.] Hosea 10:3. They will then see that they have no king any longer, because they forsake Jehovah, i.e., none appointed by God, and none, therefore, who can help them. ςָ ?ωָׂ ?δ to do=to profit. Hosea 10:4 explains especially the smoothness of the heart of Hos 10:2. They speak words, mere words, without sincerity. The following infinitives avouch the statement. The covenants are such as truth; they were concluded (with foreign nations) only for the sake of an expected advantage, not from real friendship. ψֹ ?ΰωׁ, poison, here=poison-plant. ξִ ?ωְׁ ?τָּ ?θ Most take this=judgment. A force far-reaching and seizing upon everything is supposed to be described. But the judgment cannot be compared to a vile plant outgrowing everything else. Hence we must remain by tile meaning: justice. The thought is manifest: If justice prevailed, the land would be like a well-appointed field, but it is now like one that is neglected, and in which therefore poison plants spring up. because justice was prostrated. By a somewhat bold figure justice, when falsely administered, when perverted and abused, is compared to a poisonous plant. It has been changed into it, as it were. Comp. Amos 6:12. [Henderson adheres to the former explanation; Pusey approves the latter. It is also preferred by Cowles, who illustrates it from Amos 5:7; Amos 6:12, and supposes that Hosea adapted the image from its use by his predecessor.—M.] Hosea 10:5. The punishment can therefore not linger. Already the inhabitants of Samaria tremble for the golden calves. Keil: The plural ςֶ ?βְ ?μεֹ ?ϊ stands here as indefinite and general, without our being obliged to infer that several golden calves had been set up in Bethel.” A sing. at all events immediately follows. Wόnsche: “The Prophet is thinking of all the calves in the northern kingdom which were imitations of tile chief golden idol erected at Bethel. By these imitations all Israel had, in a certain manner, become a Beth Aven.” Beth-Aven. See Hosea 4:15. Its people,—its priests. The suffixes refer to the idol-god. What a strong accusation! The people are named the people of the calf-god. ιָ ?βִ ?ιμεּ usually=to rejoice, but here (employed for the sake of the assurance with βָ ?μָ ?δ) = ηִ ?ιμ to writhe in anguish, to mourn, parallel to ΰָ ?αַ ?μ On its account, also refers to the calf, and is more nearly explained by the words, for its glory, i. e., the glory and the divine nimbus which were associated with the calf-worship. This glory will depart from the calf, where it cannot give protection from the enemy, and will itself be carried away. Hosea 10:6. Itself also, namely, the golden calf. [See Gram, note]. Its counsel, namely, that which it-self gave to itself, namely, to apply to Assyria: [On the phrase: warlike king, see Hosea 5:13.—M.] Hosea 10:7-8. The kingdom of Samaria falls along with its gods. [See Gram. note.] The image of a chip on the surface of the water denotes the untraceable disappearance, and probably also the violent destruction=as a chip upon the water is driven on by the stream and so disappears. ΰָ ?εֶ ?οαָּ ?ξεֹ ?ϊ are literally: the heights of evil. But Aven, in allusion to Beth-Aven=Bethel; for its high places were heights of evil, since the image-worship which rose in Bethel=Beth-Aven, was practiced there. The sin of Israel is in apposition to the high-places, etc. Those high places were the sin of Israel. because it was by means of them that Israel sinned. Then they say to the mountains, etc. This expresses the hopelessness of despair. They would rather he buried by the mountains, than undergo the afflictions of such a time. Applied in Luke 23:30 and Revelation 6:16. Hosea 10:9. From the days of Gibeah. These days, referred to already in Hosea 4:9 (see that passage), are regarded as the beginning of Israel’s sinning. Others take the words comparatively: more than in the days of Gibeah. [So Cowles: This opinion is not common.—M.] The following words are difficult. Ewald: There they (the Israelites) stood. Should not war against the sons of impiety reach them in Gibeah? Keil: There, that is, in the same sin, they stood, i.e., remained; the war against the sons of iniquity did not reach them in Gibeah, that is, the war once waged by the other tribes of Israel against the tribe of Benjamin, on account of the infamous deed of the men of Gibeah, did not reach the Ten Tribes, i.e., they were destroyed by no such war like others of the Israelites, though they did not less deserve such a fate, therefore God will punish them now. But the translation is forced. Wόnsche perhaps explains better, though much might be said against his translation also: They stood there—that war might not reach them in Gibeah—beside the sons of iniquity. The passage accordingly says in what the sin of Israel in the days of Gibeah had consisted, namely in this, that they, the Benjamites, had stood by the Levites in Gibeah=the sons of iniquity against the rest of the Israelites. Esther 9:16; Esther 8:11 are cited in proof that ςָ ?ξַ ?γ with ςַ ?μ has the sense of standing by [assisting]. [The translation assigned above to Keil, which is also that of E. V., is approved by Cowles. Instead of being “forced” it is evidently the most simple and natural. Henderson translates: shall not the war against the unjust overtake them in Gibeah? See Textual note.—M.] Hosea 10:10. αְּ ?ΰָ ?εָּ ?ϊִ ?ι: in my desire=when or as I will. [Keil: “An anthropomorphic description of the severity of the chastisement.”] To take part in the infliction of chastisement, nations will be gathered against Israel. The reference is to the war against the sons of iniquity (Hosea 10:9). [This reference is not clear unless the construction of Ewald and Henderson given above be adopted.—M.] The last hemistich is difficult. The Kethibh is ςֵ ?ιπεֹ ?ϊָ ?ν. According to Fόrst from ςַ ?ιִ ?ο in the sense of nothingness= ΰֵ ?ιο, therefore in the concrete: idol-image. Keri ςֹ ?επεֹ ?ϊָ ?ν=sins. According to the first explanation, idol-images=calves. The latter is probably correct as referred by Keil to the double sin of apostasy from Jehovah and from the royal house of David. The whole clause would therefore be: When I bind them to their two transgressions (namely, by punishing them) so that they must drag them, so to speak, as an oppressive burden. The sense may, however, be simply: on account of their two transgressions. The image of the heifer in the next verse is anticipated here. [The explanation last given is now usually followed and is the most probable. Raschi and Ewald translate: before their two eyes, i.e., openly. The rendering: furrows, in E. V. follows the Targum and the majority of the Rabbins.—M.] Hosea 10:11. ξְ ?μֻ ?ξָּ ?γָ ?δ, taught, trained for work. Which loves to thresh: According to many expositors this refers to the circumstance that threshing is the lighter work, in which, besides, the heifer may eat at her pleasure, and hence is an image of the pleasant and prosperous condition of Israel. According to others the tert. comp. is the treading, and hence the victorious power and dominion of Israel, as under Jeroboam II would be represented with the accessory notion of a violent treatment of those who had been subdued. But now the situation of Israel would be different. [This is the more common and certainly the preferable explanation. So Henderson, Cowles, and other English Expositors.—M.] I will pass over her fair neck—in a hostile sense=I will place a yoke upon her. θεּ ?α: beauty, alluding to her fatness. ΰַ ?ψְ ?λִּ ?ια: I will cause to be driven=I will yoke, namely, for ploughing and harrowing. The compulsory endurance of severe toil appears here in complete contrast to the preceding situation. Judah shall share the same fate. This is mentioned only incidentally and in comparison with Ephraim; but the similar lot of the former is constantly alluded to. Jacob, here mentioned along with Judah, probably=Ephraim. μεֹ shall harrow for himself, forcibly expressing strongly that this toil is not spared him. [So also Keil; but this explanation seems unnatural. Others, as Fausset, translate: break the clods before him; but the preposition must be unduly forced to make it convey such a sense. The best way is to regard it as a pleonasm. Comp. Genesis 12:1; Job 15:28; Sol. Son 2:17, and many other passages.—M.] Hosea 10:12-13. The image of ploughing and harrowing leads to that of sowing and reaping. But the discourse turns from the threatening, which holds out the prospect of punishment, to an exhortation to return (in order to escape punishment), which is then (Hosea 10:13) supported by an allusion to the present conduct of the people (under the same figure). According to righteousness. The divine righteousness, by its being sown, i.e., by its operation, should be their determining principle, be their norm and standard. ηֶ ?ρֶ ?γ is then to be understood of the mercy of God. The harvest will, if they sow thus, be determined by the mercy of God (not merely by desert), shall be bountiful and of good quality; this mercy itself shall be the harvest. Keil understands φְ ?γָ ?χָ ?δ to mean justice towards their fellow-men, ηֶ ?ρֶ ?γ of (condescending) love (towards the despised), and explains the clause thus: sow righteousness as the seed; the fruit will be love. But χָ ?φַ ?ψ has too clearly the signification “the divine reward of Israel’s religious and moral sowing” (Wόnsehe). πִ ?ιψεּ εβΧ, to plough new soil. The words go back now beyond the sowing. Israel does not merely need to scatter the true seed; it needs a new soil and must therefore begin anew. The explanation of φֶ ?γֶ ?χ is again difficult. It could be taken in the sense of salvation, blessing, so that the bestowal of salvation and blessings would be the consequence of seeking the Lord. In not a few passages this signification is most appropriate, and the usual meaning will not suit here. We expect the mention not of a moral quality, but of its consequences. Keil explains: “God rains righteousness not merely in giving the power to gain it as He gives rain for the growth of the seed (comp. Isaiah 44:3), but also because He himself must create it and inform the soul with it by his Spirit” (Psalms 51:12). This in itself is quite true, but is it proper to speak of raining or pouring out righteousness? This differs altogether from the expression: to pour out the Spirit. [This figurative expression would be quite characteristic of the style of Hosea. It would be only another instance of the boldness and freedom of his imagery. The figure is double, including also a metonymy, in which righteousness, the effect of the outpouring of the Spirit, is put for the cause itself. Many, following the Syr., Targ., and Vulg., take ιεֹ ?ψֶ ?δ=He will teach.—M.] Hosea 10:13, as it now stands, says that iniquity has been ploughed; iniquity is the soil which they cultivated, and the seed and the harvest corresponded to it. From wickedness there resulted wickedness. One step further still than the harvest is taken in the following words: Ye have eaten the fruit of lying = the fruit which deceives. The result of this conduct is nothing, no profit but disaster and ruin. The cause is still more specially indicated; in other words, the false conduct of Israel is characterized: since thou didst trust, etc., namely, instead of in Jehovah. Hosea 10:14. Among thy peoples. People either=military host, or as in the Pentateuch=tribe. As Shalman destroyed Beth-arbel. This fact is not known from history, and the explanation is therefore uncertain. According to the usual opinion Shalman is a contraction for Shalmaneser, the name of the Assyrian king who destroyed the kingdom of the Ten Tribes. (2 Kings 17:6). Fόrst understands an older Assyrian king before Pul, since the name Shalmaneser never appears shortened to Shalman, and the Assyrians never engaged in a destructive battle with Israel, and Shalmaneser destroyed Samaria forty years later (after Hosea). Beth-arbel, according to him, is Beth-arbel near Gargamela, made famous later by the victory of Alexander the Great. Keil supposes that the Prophet, since the conquest of such a distant city would scarcely have been known to the Israelites, could not have held up the destruction of this city before them as an example, and would therefore understand the Arbela in Upper Galilee, between Saphoris and Tiberias, mentioned in 1Ma 9:2, and later by Josephus. Hosea 10:15. The subject of ςָ ?ωָׂ ?δ is either Shalman (if=Shalmaneser) or Jehovah, of whom the Assyrian king is the instrument, or (as the Targum and also Keil) Bethel, because that city prepared the way for the ruin which befell Israel. Evil of your evil = the most extreme evil (comp. Ewald, § 313 c.). αַּ ?ωַּׁ ?ηַ ?ψ: in the early morning, probably=early, not: at the time when prosperity shall seem to be dawning or near (Keil). There is not the remotest hint of this in the context. The king of Israel, naturally collective=the kingdom of Israel. AND ETHICAL1. “In the midst of the calf-worship established by Jeroboam, the Israelites still would keep before them the God of Israel; but this resulted in a divided heart, a halting between two opinions (Hosea 10:2). And when their prosperity became undermined by God’s judgments, the smiting of a guilty conscience told them of their sin; but that was not a repentance unto life. The improvement of circumstances which the Israelites sought in the schism of Jeroboam cost them dear. For, since he led them away from the fear of God, the help which was to have been expected from his government was already undermined. The sinner awakened by chastisement discovers this deception of sin much more readily than he discovers his obligation to return to God with a contrite heart” (Rieger). 2. One chief element in God’s judgment upon Israel was the destruction of the seats of worship (comp. Hosea 8.), and here, more particularly, the carrying away of the idol-gods by the enemy (Hosea 10:5-6). Both the nothingness of idolatry and the great guilt of Israel are here unmistakably exhibited. With this are connected the destruction of the kingdom (Hosea 10:7; Hosea 10:15) and the conquest of the country. Freedom is lost; instead of it comes slavery (Hosea 10:11). The anguish of the judgment is most forcibly depicted (Hosea 10:8) in expressions which, in Luke 23:30, are employed to set forth the distress occasioned by the destruction of Jerusalem, but, in Revelation 6:16, to describe the terror of “the great day of the Lord.” Thus the description of the judgment announced by Hosea is of such a character as to be a type of the final judgment, even though Hosea himself does not designate it “the day of the Lord.” The distress of a late repentance is expressed in Hosea 10:3. It is a part of the judgment, since it consists in vain self-reproaches, all too late. In our chapter again the necessary connection between the judgment and sin is emphasized by the image of the sowing and the reaping: from an evil sowing nothing can come but an evil harvest. The expected reward must only be a manifest deception: “the fruit of lying.” AND Hos_10:1. This was the result of God’s mercy. God makes the vine and also gives the growth and the precious fruit. And as long as God’s favor lasts, so long are men like such a plant. A beautiful image of a life blessed by God, and as true of nations as of individuals. But it is a deplorable thing that man usually cannot bear his prosperity, and that, instead of being led by God’s goodness to repentance and nearer to God, he rather forgets Him (see at Hosea 2:9). The fruits are not given back to God. Thus is God often defrauded of the fruits which men owe to Him; and “idols,” the world, and the flesh, enjoy what are his. [Matthew Henry: What we do not rightly employ we may justly expect to be emptied of It is a great affront to God and a great abuse of his goodness, when, the more mercies we receive from Him, the more sins we commit against Him.—M.] Hosea 10:2. The state of the heart is the source of the evil. As long as this does not belong to Him, so long will men rob Him of his own. God will have the heart as his alone, and suffers none to share that possession. Hosea 10:5-6. [Pusey: Without the grace of God men mourn, not their sins, but their idols. Fausset: Separated from God all human power is weakness, and all apparent stability fluctuating and perishing as the foam. The fear of God is the only true basis of solidity and permanence.—M.] Hosea 10:8. A fearful expression of the despair with which impiety shall at last end: a type of the anguish of the lost at the last judgment. [Fausset: Surely it is infinitely better to pray to Jesus now to “cover” our transgressions with the blood of his atonement, than through neglect of this to have to cry to the mountains at last, “Fall on us and cover us.” Our prayer to Jesus, if offered in faith now, shall surely be heard; but prayer to the mountains then shall be in vain.—M.] Hosea 10:11. Berlenburger Bible: The pride which exalts itself and does not fear before Him who is the God of the whole earth, must be abased. O, that Ephraim would submit himself and his neck to the yoke of the gentle and humble Lamb! Hosea 10:12. Berlenburger Bible: When a man redeems uncultivated soil he restores it to the one to whom it rightly belongs. For he is the only one who can redeem it. We have received from God his soil, and as we have no strength to make it profitable, it remains unfilled. But as soon as God sees that we would break up this uncultivated ground, and we, feeling our inability, seek help in Him, He ploughs it Himself with the ploughshare of the cross. Then He sows righteousness in it, and makes it fruitful in itself, that it may bear much fruit in Christ. [Matthew Henry: Let them break up the fallow ground; let them cleanse their hearts from all corrupt affections and lusts which are as weeds and thorns, and let them be humbled for their sins, and be of a broken and contrite spirit in the sense of them; let them be full of sorrow and shame at the remembrance of them, and prepare to receive the divine precepts, as the ground that is ploughed is to receive the seed that it may take root. See Jeremiah 4:3. Fausset: Grace used well is rewarded gratuitously with more grace.—M.] Hosea 10:13. The fruit of sin is ever the “fruit of lies.” For sin always deceives those who serve it. Going in our own ways and trusting to human power is shown especially to be deceptive. [Fausset: Only when we mistrust ourselves, and trust in the Lord and his righteousness alone, are we safe, justified, and blessed.—M.] Footnotes:[Hosea 10:1.—βֶ ?τֶ ?ο is always fem. except here and in 2 Kings 4:39. It is masc. here as relating to Israel. μֹ ?ε is not strictly pleonastic here, it haying the force of the poss. pronoun.: its fruit.—M.] Hosea 10:4.—ΰָ ?μֹ ?εϊ, though an inf. absol. is here conformed to λָּ ?ψֹ ?ϊ instead of ΰָ ?μֹ ?δ. Hosea 10:5.—Wόnsche: “ςֶ ?βְ ?μεֹ ?ϊ. The fem. is surprising, since the calves which were worshipped, really three-year-old steers, appear elsewhere always masc. It cannot be deemed far-fetched to suggest that the fem, is employed somewhat contemptuously and sarcastically.” Hosea 10:6.—ΰεֹ ?ϊεֹ with the passive. According to Ewald, § 299 d, the active sense pervades the passive throughout in such a case as this; thus ιεּ ?αָ ?μ here=one leads it. Fόrst is of a different opinion. According to him the primary notion of ΰεϊ is being, essence, and it therefore serves to emphasize the subject. [The former is the prevailing and preferable view. Comp. Green, Gr., § 271, 4 a. The opinion of Fόrst seems to have been based upon his theory that there is an affinity between ΰεֹ ?ϊ (ΰֵ ?ϊ) and ιֵ ?ωׂ, and some other words of similar radicals and significations.—M.] Hosea 10:7.—ξַ ?μְ ?λָּ ?δּ, with a fem. suffix, because ωׁ ?ξְִ ?ψεֹ ?ο, as being a city, is fem. On the other hand πִ ?γְ ?ξֶ ?δ has a masc. form because it stands at the beginning of the sentence. The construction here, according to the Masoretic punctation is either an asyndeton: Samaria and her king, or the latter is explanatory of the former: Samaria, namely, her king (=the whole kingdom). Wόnsche adopts the probably preferable view that ξμλδ begins a new sentence. Hosea 10:9.—ςַ ?μְ ?εָ ?δ transposed from ςַ ?εְ ?μָ ?δ. One edition (the Brisian) and many MSS. have the common form. This would be the only case of the occurrence of the transposition.—M.] Hosea 10:10.—εΰֶ ?ρְּ ?ψֵ ?ν. ε marks the apodosis. The verb is from ΰָ ?ρַ ?ψ [with daghesh compensative. M.]. [Hosea 10:11.—ΰֹ ?δַ ?αְ ?ϊִּ ?ι. The ι is paragogic with the fem part. ΰֹ ?δֶ ?αֶ ?ϊ.—M.] [Hosea 10:14.—εְ ?χָ ?ΰν. The ΰ is either epenthetic, or it is merely a mater lectionis, which is most probable; see Green, Gr., §11,1—M.] [Hosea 10:14.—A number of MSS. and early editions read αְּ ?ςַ ?ξְּ ?κָ instead of αְּ ?ςַ ?ξֶּ ?ικָ. The ancient Versions are claimed as having followed this reading also; but it is more probable that they rendered the plural as sing., the noun being a collective one.—M.] Hosea 10:15.—Some suppose the αְּ to have been omitted before αֵּ ?ιϊΞΰֶ ?μ and the latter to be local [The Assyrian monuments show that it was Sargon, the son of Shalmaneser, who destroyed Samaria. The passage cited above simply speaks of “the king of Assyria.”—M.] III. MERCY Hosea 11God cannot utterly destroy Israel, whom He has always loved, though they have so basely requited Him, but will again show Mercy unto themHos_11:1-111 When Israel was a youth, then I loved Him, And out of Egypt I called my son. 2 They [the Prophets] called them; so (often) they turned away from them; They sacrificed to the Baals, They burnt incense to the idol-gods. 3 And I led Ephraim along,— He took them upon his arm;— Yet they knew not that I healed them. 4 With the bands of a man I drew them, With cords of love; And I was towards them, As those that would raise the yoke-strap over their jaws, And I reached out to them to eat.5 They will not return to the land of Egypt, But Assyria, it is their king, For they refused to return. 6 And the sword goes its rounds in their cities, And destroys their bars [defenses], And devours them for their devices. 7 And my people incline to fall away from me;They [the Prophets] call them (to look) upwards, All together they refuse to raise themselves. 8 How should I give thee up, Ephraim? How should I surrender thee, Israel? How should I make thee like Admah, Set thee like Zeboim? My heart is turned within me; My repentings are kindled together. 9 I will not execute the fierceness of my anger, I will not again destroy Ephraim: For I am God and not man; In the midst of thee is a Holy One, And I will not come in wrath. 10 They will follow the Lord: Like a lion He will roar; Yea He will roar, and children from the sea will come trembling [hasten]; 11 Will hasten like a bird from Egypt, And like a dove from Assyria: Then will I make them dwell in their houses, saith Jehovah. AND Hos_11:1. Jehovah calls to mind the love which He had displayed to Israel ages before. But it was rewarded with unfaithfulness, and they must be the more severely punished. See Exodus 4:22 f. Israel was Jehovah’s first-born son, because they were chosen as the people of his inheritance. Hence the love of God, which redeemed them from Egypt, in order to give to their fathers the Land of Promise. On the citation of this passage in Matthew 2:15 f., see the Doctrinal Section. 2. They called, namely, the prophets. As the prophets called, so (λֵּ ?ο) they refused to listen—turned away from their (the prophets’) faces. αְּ ?ςָ ?μִ ?ιν, see Hosea 2:15. [Henderson: “The use of the verb: to call, in the preceding verse, suggested the idea of the subsequent messages which had been delivered to the Israelites by the prophets, to which Hosea now appeals, in order to contrast with the means which had been employed for their reformation, the obstinate character of their rebellion.”—M.] Hosea 11:3. A further description of the love of God displayed towards Israel, chiefly in the march through the wilderness. He took them upon his arms. The sudden transition to the third person is to be explained from the fact that it is the prophet that is speaking in the name of Jehovah, and that this can therefore easily pass over into a discourse by Jehovah. Comp. Deuteronomy 1:31; Exodus 15:26, for the same thoughts. Hosea 11:4. With bands of a man = such as those with which men, especially children, would be led, opposed to ropes, with which beasts are tied,=cords of love in the next hemistich. “This image leads on to the similar one of the yoke laid upon cattle to yoke them in for work.” In this image gentle treatment is implied; for comparison is made with one who takes the yoke, or rather the strap with which it is secured, and which passes through the month, and draws it back over the jaws so that the animal may eat conveniently. Jehovah in his conduct towards Israel is like such a gentle master. Literally: I was to them as those who raise the yoke over their jaws. But the opinion of Keil is far-fetched, who thinks that there is a definite allusion to the commands laid upon the people, which God had made light for them, partly by many displays of his mercy, and partly by the means of grace in their religion. The tert. comp. is simply the gentleness, the kind consideration shown to them in his dealings towards them. [Though, of course, this general reference includes, with other manifestations of kindness, the special application made by Keil. For the construction and rendering of the last clause, see the Grammatical Note.—M.] Hosea 11:5. They shall not return to the land of Egypt. An apparent contradiction of Hos 8:13; Hosea 9:3. But, as may be seen there, Egypt is in those passages only a type of the land of bondage. But here Egypt is employed in the literal sense, just as in Hosea 11:1, to which our verse alludes. “The people of Jehovah shall not return to the land from which He called them, in order that it may not seem as though the design of the exodus and the march through the desert were frustrated through their impenitence. But they shall enter into another bondage.” To return, namely, to Jehovah. Hosea 11:6. εְ ?ηָ ?μָ ?δ, from ηεּ ?μ, to describe a circle, to move in a circle, as it were, to make the rounds; spoken of a sword=to rage. Their bars, the bars of the strong cities=their gates. These will be destroyed, and the cities be captured, and laid waste. [Others, as Gesenius and Cowles, take the word in a metaphorical sense, which is frequent: rulers, defenders. But the former is preferable, as being more directly connected with the strong cities. E. V. adopts the first derived sense of the word: branches. Calvin, following the same view, interpreted branches as=villages, the branches of the cities. In this he is followed by Fausset.—M.] Hosea 11:7 returns again to the sin of the people. ϊָּ ?μָ ?ΰ is here used intransitively: hang over, to incline. Σΰֶ ?μΞςַ ?μ above (comp. Hosea 7:16). They (the prophets) call them. ιְ ?ψξֵ ?ν, here probably intransitive (the strengthened Kal)=raise themselves, strive to rise. [The passage may be thus paraphrased: “My people are bent on turning away from me. Though the prophets call upon them to look above (to the Most High), yet with one accord they refuse to raise themselves up.”—M.] Hosea 11:8. Still Jehovah cannot utterly blot out his people. The love with which He has loved them still endures and breaks forth strongly. How could I give thee up, etc. This is still at first a continuation of the threatening. Chastisement even to utter destruction, is justified=how I should, how just it would be to give thee up! But with this expression thus justifying the punishment, the threatening is exhausted and satisfied. It is just the contemplation of the great measure of the suffering which would really be deserved which leads to the feeling that such punishment, however justifiable, cannot be executed, and that it shall be restrained=I should do this, but how terrible it would be! no, it cannot be. Thus the threatening having reached its climax, brings itself to its end. Others translate: how should I?=how should it be possible, that, etc.?=I cannot do so. But then there is no transition from Hosea 11:7 to Hosea 11:8. [This, the most common view, is certainly correct. There is no need of any intermediate words between the threatening and the relenting. The true theory with regard to the relation between God and the people is this, that God must be considered as all the time melting with love towards the people whom He must reject. Hence the frequent and seemingly unprepared words of promise in the book, suddenly appearing after long denunciations. No transition is needed. It is supplied by that constant yearning love of which wrath and mercy are the negative and the positive poles. The other view has to encounter the very difficulty which it seeks to obviate. For the transition would only be more abrupt from the justification of extreme punishment to its abandonment; and the difficulty is greater, because such transition would occur in the middle of a verse, and not with the beginning of a new one.—M.] Like Admah,—like Zeboim: comp. Deuteronomy 29:22, where these two cities are expressly mentioned, as having been destroyed together with Sodom and Gomorrah, which in Genesis 19:24 stand alone. My heart is changed within me—so that wrath has disappeared. [For a like use of the preposition ςַ ?μ, comp. Jeremiah 8:18; Ps. 42:6, 12; Psalms 43:5.—M.] Hosea 11:9. I will not return to destroy Ephraim. “After my heart has been once changed with the resolve not to punish, I will not change it again.” This is supported by the consideration that God is God and not a changeable man. ςιψΣαְּ ?ςִ ?ιψ is here probably=glow, heat of wrath. [E. V. has: into the city, which would have been αָּ ?ςִ ?ιψ, and which gives no pertinent sense. This rendering is now almost universally abandoned, but it is, strange to say, approved by Pusey and Fausset, the latter of whom speaks of the other translation as held “needlessly.”—M.] Hosea 11:10. The consequence of the Lord’s compassion; He will call, and the people, following Him, will return home from banishment. They shall go after the Lord. This probably involves both the changed, converted heart, and the walking in God’s ways thence resulting. Will roar like a lion. The point of comparison is not the terrifying influence of the sound, but its extent. It reaches far and near. Thus must the cry be when it calls the people to their restoration. Or is it implied that these displays of mercy towards Israel are coupled with judgments upon the heathen? Hosea does not allude to this elsewhere. Trembling will be a consequence of this call, but it implies chiefly haste united with anxiety not to neglect the summons, and therefore the eagerness of obedience. Hence also the comparison with birds. Hosea 11:11. From the sea = from the west, as well as from Egypt and Assyria. The notion is: from all quarters of the earth (comp. Isaiah 11:11). AND ETHICAL1. Israel became “God’s son,” by virtue of their being chosen as God’s peculiar people, according to Exodus 4:22 f. The bestowal of this privilege, confirmed by the deliverance from Egypt, and sealed by the ratification at Sinai, forms the first step in God’s redemptive work, which is completed by the incarnation of his Son for the redemption of the world. The whole development and leading of Israel as God’s people terminate upon Christ not as though Israel were begotten as the Son of God, but in such a way as that the relation which the Lord of Heaven and earth established and preserved between Himself and this people prepared and foreshadowed the union of God and Man, and laid the way for the Incarnation of his Son by training this people as a vessel of the Divine mercy. All the important events in Israel’s history bore upon this, and thereby became types and actual prophecies of the life of Him, in whom the reconciliation of God and man should be effected, and the union of God with the human race unfold itself as a Personal Unity. In this sense is the second half of Hos 11:1 quoted in Matthew 2:15, as a prophecy of Christ (Keil). But here we must stop. The further remark of Keil, in justification of the reference of this passage to Christ, goes too far and is not direct, when he says that it was made “because the residence in Egypt and the leading out from it had the same significance in the unfolding of Christ’s life, as they had for the people of Israel. As Israel in Egypt, free from contact with the Canaanites, grew into a nation, so was the child Jesus concealed in Egypt from the enmity of Herod.” 2. There is here presented to Israel in an affecting manner the love with which God had assumed the care of them in their beginnings, “when they were still young,” and made them what they were. And such love is represented as being so tender, all-considerate, helpful, and advancing, that it finds its image only in the love of a father or mother to a child. Jehovah called Israel his son in their early days, when He brought them out of Egypt. Exodus 4:22 f. He had always acted towards them as became that relation, and displayed to them the love of a father toward his child, even his youngest child. As Jehovah’s love and faithfulness to Israel in the years of their manhood finds its fitting symbol only in the love and faithfulness of a husband, so his love and care of Israel in their childhood is compared with the solicitous, tender love of a father. So much the more inexcusable then is the conduct of Israel towards God, the opposition which they displayed towards Him from the beginning. This base ingratitude characterized them continually, and does also in the present. Their present conduct is only the direct continuation of the former. Observe the description of such conduct of Israel toward their God in Hosea 11:2 : idolatry before the very eyes of the God who had displayed such love to them; Hosea 11:7 : failure to recognize God’s purposes of salvation; see also Hosea 11:7; Hosea 11:9. A special proof of Jehovah’s love was the sending of the prophets; they call the people upwards=that they should return to God, but they will not raise themselves; they remain below, averse from God. 3. No wonder, therefore, if a people, who reward so basely and mistake the love of God, are visited by Him with the severest judgments (comp. Hosea 11:6; Hosea 11:8). But retributive and punitive justice finds in our Prophet, as we may satisfy ourselves in every chapter, where accusation and threatening are pealed forth incessantly, such appalling expression, that we can no longer decline the question: “Are not these things spoken revengefully? is it not a spirit of vindictiveness that has inspired such words?” It cannot be claimed that human revenge bears any part here, for it is not the offering of personal injuries of which the prophet announces the punishment, but he is indignant in God’s behalf, over Israel’s sins against God, and announces their punishment. In this, moreover, it is to be borne in mind that the prophet was never a mere passive organ (as the mechanical inspiration theory would have it) of the prophetic utterances, that his own faculties certainly were not at the time overborne, but were elevated, and that these announcements of judgment in the midst of a ruined generation are to be regarded as energic expressions of the life of faith, faith in the Holy One of Israel. On the other hand, the subjectivity of the prophet is not to be unduly emphasized, as though his purely human feelings and emotions were really the source of these threatenings. We must hold to the truth that the prophets were heralds of that which was revealed to them by the Spirit of God (comp. Hosea 6:5), and that their separate efficiency was exerted only by completely entering by faith into this divine revelation, in their affirmation of it through faith. But the question then assumes this form: Though the Prophet himself does not merit the reproach of a selfish spirit, should not this reproach so much the rather fall upon God Himself, whose (conscious) organ the prophet was? But it is evident that the retribution announced is to be sent in a spirit of strict justice; it is to be a punishment of sin justly deserved. The punishment is closely related to the sins rebuked, and in close connection with them; it is punishment and not vengeance, which usually exceeds the measure of desert. But certainly we are not merely to trace back these threatenings to a dead law of just recompense; the punishment is not merely in accordance with the moral order of the world, according to which sin is followed by its own punishment. It is a personal action, as certainly as the infliction and the threatenings proceed from a personal God. And thus the course of action is not and cannot be unaccompanied by personal “πάθος” or feeling. But this feeling is the emotion of love, love grieved, vilely disowned and rejected. It is true that it must be angry, that it cannot be content without being reciprocated, but must be most intimately stirred up, and the greater, the more deeply seated it is, the more it seeks the good of its object, the more conscious it is that it has neglected nothing, and has been to blame in nothing. For this very reason the punishment assumes the appearance of revenge, and even wears its garments, while in truth it is only sin that is meeting with its deserved punishment according to an inner necessity, and not as the consequence of arbitrary passion. And as this love of God is unselfish and pure and seeks only the good of its object, so this “revenge” of God bears, so to speak, its corrective, that is, its aim in itself. The threatening has, then, a fearfully wide range, and is uttered with a violence which has something painful in it, since the Holy God, free, on his part, from all blame and neglect, appears against the sinner, upon whom alone the responsibility lies. But He does not simply display his anger; He does not cease to love. His wrath does not find its satisfaction in itself by the punishment or destruction of the unfaithful loved one. Actual destruction, which vengeance would demand, is never undertaken. In the background of the threatenings stands the full and flowing stream of love in assurances of mercy and compassion, which, though made in expectation that the people will return, are yet made before such return takes place, and for the purpose of promoting that end. How little the Law, though proceeding from God’s well-intentioned love towards Israel, realized its aim, is manifest; Israel had completely broken the covenant founded upon it, and instead of showing themselves to be worthy of the promises attached to it, only rendered themselves amenable to the curse, which they must bear unto the uttermost. Thus love appears in the form of free grace, compassionating the unworthy and coming forth to meet them, so leading to the stand-point of the New Covenant. Hence all these promises, rising up behind the severe threatenings of judgment, are rightly to be regarded as Messianic, even though they are not outwardly marked as such. That an actual annihilation of Israel is not intended, but that the prediction of punishment—thus revealing its origin in pure love which thinks of its object alone, and thus being distinguished from all self-avenging—halts before the last step is reached, has notably been clearly expressed already by the Prophet in his reference to the “remnant” that is still left. It finds in our chapter also its clear expression in Hosea 11:8. Jehovah could and should give up Israel like Admah and Zeboim (not merely destroy the kingdom, deliver it over to Assyria), but He will not do so; and just when the threatening reaches its height, the assurance of fullest mercy breaks forth, and is expressed beautifully in Hosea 11:8-11. If God’s love in the beginning of his interest in Israel was something great and exalted (Hosea 11:1-4), it is something greater now, as being in the form of compassion (Hosea 11:9-10), in which He refuses to give up his people, all unworthy as they had become of the love He had shown them (comp. Hosea 11:11). A return to Jehovah is then announced as the fruit of this compassion, and the removal of the state of subjection to punishment by a restoration to the inheritance they had trifled away is promised as its manifestation. No further description of the future deliverance is as yet given. 4. As to the fulfillment of this promise, see the remarks on chs. 1 and 2 It may suffice to repeat here that we are not to hold to any fulfillment which would contradict the actual course of God’s revelation. Hence we must not think of a future return of the external Israel into their own land from Assyria, if it were only from the consideration that Assyria exists no longer, and Israel is no longer in bondage to such a nation, and we cannot take the one (Israel, the Holy Land, the return) as literal, and the other (Assyria, captivity) as figurative. We must rather say, from the stand-point of the fulfillment of the Old “Testament, i.e., from the stand-point of the New Testament, and in accordance cordance with the actual course of events: the compassionate mercy of God towards his faithless people, which the Prophet sees win the victory over wrath, has been revealed in Christ—but still as being far greater than he sees it; what is clear to him is only the σκιὰ of that which in Christ has actually occurred, and what is still going on, in the forgiveness of sin and deliverance from its through free grace. The Prophet hopes for this in behalf of his people Israel, but only because they are God’s people. But it will be true of all who shall become God’s people too, even though they be not of Israel; they will experience this compassionate favor of God, which is essentially identical with the love, in which God has chosen to Himself a people (from the nations), and completes it so that it realizes its purpose in spite of the breach of the covenant on the part of men, manifested in opposition to the Law and apostasy from God. The voice of mercy, which shall resound so powerfully, and towards which those hasten who stand under God’s judgment, has reached far and wide the Gospel, and will again be sounded forth, when Christ shall gather his own from all ends of the earth, and portion out to them the everlasting inheritance which they had forfeited by sin. AND Hos_11:1. Thou also hast experienced such love of God from thy childhood’s years, in temporal and yet more in spiritual things. This love of God is an incontestable truth. It is as important as it is necessary to be reminded of it continually. Rieger: God delights to trace back in his Word and in man’s conscience everything to its first beginning. [Fausset: God, by sending the Spirit of his Son into the hearts of his people (Galatians 4:6) as the spirit of adoption, calls them his, while they are still in the Egypt of this world. Indeed He separates them to Himself from the womb, and calls them by his grace, as He did Paul (Galatians 1:15.—M.] Hosea 11:2. Rieger: God is ever calling men back to their first love: but one goes to his farm, another to his merchandise, and most to their worldly idols. Hosea 11:3. God’s condescension to all our needs. He knows our weakness and treats us accordingly. We must be led along and taken by the arm; else we do not advance, but stumble and fall every moment. Hosea 11:4. Starke: God throws over us the cords of love even to day, when He calls us through the preaching of his Word, gives us his sacraments, promises and supplies us with every good thing, and visits us with precious afflictions: so we would pray that God would draw us further still after Himself. Rieger: God directs us according to our weakness and the riches of his love. And when He must press us with a yoke, He gives us something with it that helps us to bear it, and leaves us at least food and clothing. And He would warn us against falling back in our pride upon our own help, and neglecting to wait for his counsel. But as Israel was always inclined to turn again to Egypt, and would seek help there against God’s judgments, so does self-sufficient man always act, resorting to everything rather than submit to the counsel of God. [Fausset: The Son of God becomes man, in order to draw men as such by the cords of sympathy, as partaking of a common nature with us. His bands of love sit so lightly on those who wear them that they are no hindrance to us in enjoying all that is really good for us, and which God has so richly laid before us.—M.] Hosea 11:7. We are called upwards continually: and yet we will not go! All calling upward is then in vain! Our flesh draws us downwards like weight of lead, and neutralizes the drawings of the Spirit upwards. Hosea 11:8-9. Starke: God is disposed, when angry, quite differently from men. Men are intent upon vengeance, but God upon reconciliation. Rieger: The thought that we have to do with God and not with man, makes it often difficult to our terrified conscience, to seek and believe in the forgiveness of sins. But this is merely a motive to the divine magnanimity to bestow richer favors upon us. [Matthew Henry: Those who submit to the influence may take the comfort of God’s holiness.] Footnotes:Hosea 11:3.—ϊִּ ?ψְ ?βַּ ?μְ ?ϊּ ?ι, from ϊִּ ?ψִ ?βּ ?ιμ= δִ ?ψְ ?βּ ?ιμ, Hiphil from ψָ ?βִ ?μ: to make to walk, to lead, construed with μ, [Comp. Jeremiah 12:5; Jeremiah 22:15, and see Ewald, § 122 a, Green, § 94 a. The corresponding Syriac (shargel) means: to mislead.—M.] Hosea 11:3.—χָ ?ηָ ?ν Instead of μְ ?χָ ?ηָ ?ν. Hosea 11:4.—εְ ?ΰַ ?θ, usually regarded as first fut. Hiphil, from πθδ, instead of εָ ?ΰַ ?θ=and I inclined myself. Others take it to be an adverb: softly, gently. ΰֵ ?μָ ?ιε would then be best connected with it: and gently towards them, I gave them food. ΰεֹ ?λιμ for ΰַ ?ΰֲ ?λִ ?ιμ. Hosea 11:5.—εְ ?ΰַ ?ωּׁ ?εψ is adversative. δεּ ?ΰ emphasizes Assyria in contrast to Egypt. Hosea 11:7.—ξְ ?ωׁ ?εּ ?αָ ?ϊι The suffix is here used in a subjective sense=apostasy from me. B. SECOND Hosea 12-14I. AccusationHosea 121 Ephraim has surrounded me with lies, And the house of Israel with deceit; And Judah still vacillates with God, With the faithful holy One.2 Ephraim feeds upon the wind and pursues the east wind; Every day it increases violence and lying, And they make a covenant with Assyria, And oil [as a gift] is carried to Egypt. 3 Jehovah has a contest with Judah And (He has) to punish Jacob according to his ways, According to his works he will reward him. 4 In the womb he seized his brother by the heel, And in his (manly) vigor he strove with God. 5 He wrestled against the angel and prevailed, He wept and made supplication unto Him: He found him in Bethel and then He spoke with us.6 And Jehovah, God of Hosts, Jehovah is his memorial (name). 7 And thou, turn thou unto thy God, Observe mercy and justice, And wait upon thy God continually! 8 Canaan—in his hand (are) the balances of deceit: He loveth to oppress. 9 And Ephraim says: surely I have become rich, I have found wealth for myself, All my gains shall not discover transgression in me, Which (would be) sin. 10 Yet I, Jehovah, am thy God, From the land of Egypt, Still I make thee dwell in tents, As in the day of the Feast (of Tabernacles). 11 And I spoke to the prophets, And multiplied visions, And through the prophets gave similitudes. 12 Is not Gilead iniquity? Surely they have become wickedness. In Gilgal they sacrifice bulls, Their sacrifices also are like heapsOn the furrows of the field. 13 And Jacob fled to the fields of Aram, And Israel served for a wife, and for a wife kept (sheep). 14 And Jehovah led Israel from Egypt by a prophet, And by a prophet was it guarded. 15 Ephraim has provoked bitter anger;He [God] will leave his blood upon him, And will return to him his disgrace. AND Hos_12:1. Ephraim has surrounded me with lying. Israel’s conduct towards Jehovah was lying and deceit. He reckoned upon attachment and fidelity, and might well do so, as being their rightful Lord. But instead of this they turn away from Him and to idols, and seek help in the heathen, and not in God. They surrounded Him: it was no isolated act; it was the general Practice; He was treated so by all Israel. ψָ ?γ. The meaning is uncertain. The word occurs only besides in Genesis 27:40; Psalms 55:3; Jeremiah 2:31. Probably=rove about, vacillate, therefore: and Judah vacillates still with God = does not remain faithful to Him. Others see here rather a commendation of Judah, and take ψεּ ?γ= ψγδ, to tread down, subdue: prevails still with God. Lφwe accordingly explains the last hemistich differently from the usual method. He joins ιֶ ?ΰְֶ ?ξַ ?ο also to ιְ ?δεּ ?γָ ?δ, and translates: faithful towards the Holy One. The connection of the clauses might justify such a view. But such a contrast between Judah and Ephraim, in which Judah is as strongly commended as Ephraim is accused of unfaithfulness, is hardly suitable here. Jehovah has a controversy with Judah (Hosea 12:3), comp. Hosea 4:1; not to speak of the character and course of conduct ascribed to Judah in Hosea 10:11; Hosea 5:5; Hosea 5:10; Hosea 5:12-14. Judah is indeed differently characterized from Israel, but the difference lies in the term: vacillate. It could not be said that the former was firm and faithful. The two words are therefore to be taken together=the faithful holy One. God is called holy in strong contrast to the conduct of Judah. Hosea 12:2. ψεּ ?ηַ an image of nothingness, vanity, χָ ?γִ ?ιν: east wind, a hot wind coming from the Arabian desert, which dries up everything in its course. [Comp. Job 27:21. See the appendix to Delitzsch on Job.—M.] As in the case of ψεּ ?ηַ, the destructive, and not merely the unprofitable, is here the tert. comp. The second member thus probably contains an inference from the first=because Ephraim loves what is vain, it pursues—certainly without meaning it—that which entails destruction. Lying and violence, probably towards their neighbors, especially if we compare Hosea 12:7, where they are admonished to preserve mercy and justice. Bear oil to Egypt, namely, as a gift, in order to win the alliance of Egypt; comp. 2 Kings 17:4. At one time help is sought in Egypt against Assyria, and at another in Assyria against Egypt. Hosea 12:3. Jehovah, has a contest = has sins to reprove; comp. Hosea 4:1. This time the controversy is with Judah. In distinction from Judah, Jacob denotes, as in Hosea 10:11, the kingdom of the Ten Tribes, Israel. The name Jacob forms a transition to the allusion to the patriarch Jacob (Hosea 12:4-5). Hosea 12:4-5. In the womb, etc. Jacob was to be a type of his descendants by his struggling for the birth-right, and his wrestling with God in which he prevailed through prayer and supplication. That Jacob’s conduct is not held up here to the people as a warning example of cunning and deceit, but as one of earnest striving after the birth-right and its blessings, is apparent from the wrestling with God mentioned in the second member of the verse (comp. Genesis 32:23-29). The two members of the verse form a close parallel and at the same time a climax—4a: in the womb; 4b: in manhood; 4a: but seizes the heel, a: secret, indeed, not an open struggle as was only possible in the womb, but 4b: he wrestled, in the full sense; 4a: with his brother; 4b: with God. There is something also in the two names chosen, which also indicate a climax: Jacob from seizing the heel, and the more honored name Israel from wrestling with God. The struggle with God is more particularly described in Hosea 12:5. God appeared to him in the form of an angel. εַ ?ιֻּ ?λָ ?μ is taken from Genesis 32:29. He wept and prayed to him. These words indicate the nature of the conflict, the weapons with which he conquered. At Bethel he found him. At the very place where idolatry and moral corruption prevail, Jacob found God. This shows the issue of the conflict, and alludes to Genesis 35:9 ff., where God bestowed upon Jacob his name Israel and renewed the promise of blessing. And then He spoke with us, namely, with Jacob; what God then promised to Jacob applies to us, his children. The mention of the conflict with God and especially its issue, in Hosea 12:5, show clearly that Jacob is not here referred to as a warning example of deceit, but that something typical is discovered in his action. See the Doctrinal remarks. Hosea 12:6 then more specially marks the God who spoke, as Jehovah, God of Hosts,—scarcely without the design of placing Him, the only true God, in contrast to the gods now worshipped in Bethel. While God is specially designated Jehovah, in view of his revelation of Himself to Israel, He is called “God of Hosts” to show his supreme exaltation. And Israel could prefer idols to such a God as this! [The second member of the verse: Jehovah (is) his memorial, means that Jehovah is the name by which Israel was to remember Him. Comp. Exodus 3:15; Psalms 135:13.—M.] Hosea 12:7. For this reason Ephraim is exhorted to return to this God, an admonition further explained in the words which follow: observe mercy and justice, and wait upon God continually. Israel is now far from doing this. Hosea 12:8-9. This passage again begins with a description of the sinful conduct of Israel, which is made incisively by calling Israel Canaan, with an allusion also to the appellative signification of the word: merchant. They are like a dishonest merchant, who aims to become rich by deceit, from which results the oppression of the poor. This deceit is not to be taken out of its literal sense, as in Hosea 12:1 (of idolatry as deceit practiced towards God), but is according to the context to be understood literally. The very opposite is practiced of that which is required in Hosea 12:7, mercy and justice. ΰֹ ?εο here=means. ιָ ?βִ ?ιςַ = the results of labor. No injustice which would be sin = would entail punishment. In all his labor they would not be able to discover anything worthy of punishment. Hosea 12:10. God reminds the deluded and presumptuous Ephraim (in order to bring home to it the folly and injustice of its insolent speeches), how He had been its benefactor since leaving Egypt, and had led it hitherto as a Father, as once He had done in the wilderness. “Not merely during the forty years wandering through the desert had the people enjoyed the wondrous protection of their God; even now—ςֹ ?εγ—they still experienced his mercy. The expression ‘dwelling in tents’ accordingly alludes not merely to the privations and toils of the temporary wanderings in the wilderness, but also specially to the abundant blessings of God in the present (comp. 2 Kings 13:5).” ξεֹ ?ςֵ ?γ=the Feast of Tabernacles. As in the days of the feast = as the yearly dwelling in tents in a literal sense at the Feast calls to mind that protection afforded them in the desert. Others take the dwelling in tents to be a threat. But this does not suit the beginning of the verse, which is an allusion to a deed of divine mercy (comp. Hosea 13:4). Hosea 12:11 continues to call to mind what God had done to Israel. Σςַ ?μ “because the divine revelation, descending from heaven, reached to the prophets” (Keil). I spoke: probably a general, reference, specified in the following clauses.—Σΰֲ ?γַ ?ξֶּ ?δ to compare, to use figurative language. [Henderson: “In such language, including metaphor, allegory, comparison, prosopop�ia, apostrophe, hyperbole, etc., the prophets abound. They accommodated themselves to the capacity and understanding of their hearers by couching the high and important subjects of which they treated under the imagery of sensible objects, and invested them with a degree of life and energy which could only be resisted by an obstinate determination not to listen to religious instruction.—M.] Hosea 12:12. The intermediate thought is probably: all was vain; Israel apostatized from his God. Therefore the punishment must come. “Gilead and Gilgal represented the two parts of the northern kingdom. Gilead the eastern, Gilgal the western.” ΰִ ?ν is difficult here. “When” is unsuitable. Hence it is probably to be taken as an interrogative particle: Is not Gilead, etc. Gilead is here called ΰָ ?εֶ ?ο, directly (Hosea 6:8, a city of those who work iniquity); worthlessness, iniquity. ΰַ ?κְ yea, surely=altogether. ωָׁ ?εְ ?ΰ parallel with ΰָ ?εֶ ?ο, The moral ruin has its counterpart in the physical=become a nothing, be annihilated. [It is better to take both words as relating to moral corruption: iniquity, evil. The expressions are virtually synonymous, and the combination is intensive.—M.] ωְׁ ?εָ ?ψִ ?ιν, accusative, not: to the bulls. This sacrifice was no sin in itself, but it was so as being done in Gilgal in honor of the idols. See Hosea 4:15; Hosea 9:15. Hosea 12:13-14. The great deeds of God for Israel are once more referred to, the ancient times being again recalled. There is again an allusion to Jacob, and as Hosea 12:4-5 referred to his actions, so here we have his misfortunes, his humiliation; how he had to take to flight, serve for a wife, and that by keeping sheep. We are then to supply: And yet I have guarded and blessed him. To this then would follow in Hosea 12:14, a further example of God’s care. But more probably Hosea 12:14 is to be taken together with Hosea 12:13, and then is seen in that servitude of the progenitor the beginning of the bondage of his immediate descendants in Egypt. The sense would then be: and how has God concerned Himself for Israel (in the name Israel the person of Jacob and the nation would be united), and defended them! Comp. Deuteronomy 34:5 ff., where the bondage in Egypt is connected immediately with Jacob and even with his flight to Mesopotamia. By a prophet: The greatness of God’s deeds is still more clearly shown: God raised up and employed a prophet specially for this object. If Hosea 12:13-14 are taken together, πִ ?ωְׁ ?ξָ ?ψ perhaps alludes to ωָׁ ?ξַ ?ψ, Hosea 12:14; from protecting he came to be protected. It is also possible that the second αְּ ?πָ ?αִ ?ιΰ forms a contrast to the second αְּ ?ΰִ ?ωָּׁ ?δ, one being a mark of humiliation, the other of exaltation. Hosea 12:15. Instead of acknowledging what God had done to the nation, and thanking Him therefor humbly (which according to Deuteronomy 26:5 ff., was to be done by the yearly offering of the first-fruits), Ephraim bitterly excited God’s anger. Therefore the Lord would punish them. γָּ ?ξָ ?ιε=his blood-guiltiness. ιִ ?θּ ?ωׁ, to leave alone, opposite to taking away or forgiving. His disgrace, probably that which Israel casts upon God. AND ETHICALThe way in which Jacob is mentioned in this chapter is peculiar. In Hosea 12:4-5 mention is made of two events recorded in Genesis: that which, according to Genesis 25:26, he did in seizing his brother’s heel in the womb, and that which, according to Genesis 32:24, he did as a man. These two are placed in mutual relation: and the expressions which describe them are clearly parallel. Moreover they form a climax. They were analogous; but the second was an essential advance upon the first (as really as manhood is an advance upon pre-natal existence). Hence the first is only briefly indicated; forms only the starting-point. The stress is laid upon the second, upon which the discourse dwells longer (Hosea 12:5). If it should excite surprise that just these two events should be made prominent and compared as they are here, it must be remembered that in Genesis the two names of the patriarch are said to have been connected with them, and in such a way as that the second is an advance upon the first. Accordingly we can briefly indicate the meaning of this reference to Jacob thus: He who was a Jacob (holder of the heel) even in his mother’s womb, became afterwards in his manhood an Israel, a wrestler with God. The former was, so to speak, the beginning of the latter; the latter the completion of the former. The Prophet sees in the record of that seizing of the heel, something significant, namely, an allusion to the precedence which Jacob, although the second-born κατὰ φύσιν, should have, by the free elective favor of God, over the first-born who by nature had the preλminence; that he received the divine promises, and even that the action was regarded as an (unconscious) striving of the embryo itself after the possession of that which the divine favor had in store for it. Then what the embryo did unconsciously by struggling, as it were, for the possession of the divine promise, the man did consciously with higher powers by wrestling with God Himself. The Prophet evidently regards the possession of the divine promises as the end and object of the conflicts. Having striven after it in his mother’s womb, he gained it from God as a man. Hosea 12:5 shows how the Prophet understood this struggle with God, or what he regarded as its essence: it was humble but persistent supplication, showing how nearly the matter lay to his heart. This wrestling in prayer had the desired result: he prevailed. The Prophet finds the proof of this in Genesis 35:9 ff. For there in Bethel, Jacob not only had his name Israel confirmed, but the promise was given, which declared him to be the chosen of God: “He spoke with Him.” But the Prophet says: “with us.” This shows that Jacob, in Hosea 12:4-5, does not mean the individual, but that the Jacob who afterwards proved himself an Israel, becomes an ideal personality, i.e., a type of the true Israel, the true people of God. This picture of the true Jacob-Israel, struggling for the possession of God’s gracious promises, and therefore of the divine blessing, is held up to the shame of the present degenerate Israel, who tread under foot God’s election of grace, and defy his judgments. What a contrast does the victorious conflict with God present to the course of Israel seeking to Assyria and Egypt for help! Hence the warning of Hos 12:7 : to return to God and to confide steadfastly in Him. Jacob is mentioned in Hosea 12:13 in another way. It is not his conduct towards God that is there alluded to, but God’s dealings with Him—in raising him from his humiliation. And yet not him really; for more clearly still than in Hosea 12:4, the person of Jacob and the people of Israel low into one another, or rather the former is a type of the latter. What is said in Hosea 12:13 of humiliation by flight and servitude, refers primarily to the person of Jacob, but it is to be understood as that by the person the people proceeding from him are thought of. So in Hosea 12:14, the deliverance of Israel from Egypt, and their preservation in the desert, are marked as the exaltation following, by divine grace, that humiliation. Thus what is here said falls under the point of view elsewhere held by our Prophet of the love which God had shown to Israel in ancient times (comp. also Hosea 12:10), with which Israel’s present conduct is then sharply contrasted (comp. Hosea 12:15). But it is mentioned, as something special, that this gracious deed of God was brought about by a prophet. This manifestly serves to make it appear greater. God ordained a prophet for the special task of helping Israel. In Hosea 12:11, also, Prophecy appears as an element of God’s gracious dealings with Israel. In Hosea 6:5 prophets were distinguished as the preachers of repentance and judgment sent by God. In our chapter they appear more generally, as the organs of God’s revelation to Israel, as the tokens that God stood constantly towards his people in a living relation (as already in Amos 2:11). The sending of Moses falls under this point of view: in him as a Prophet God entered into a living and gracious relation with Israel and showed Himself to be their God. AND Hos_12:1. How sad it is that God must so complain of his people! and yet how often is it necessary! He is faithful and true, so well disposed, and we are so insincere towards Him! pretending to serve Him, and yet only serving Him with the lips while the heart is far from Him! Hosea 12:4-5. Starke: God’s blessing is to be obtained not by desert, but by weeping and entreaty. Tears and prayers are the true method of struggling with God. Pfaff. Bibelwerk: Great victory and blessing are to be found in prayer; for prayer can ever overcome God. Only struggle on, my soul, and persist until thou dost reach to the very heart of God, and thou wilt certainly receive an answer from Him, if not always outwardly, yet always in the Spirit. [Fausset: Tears were the indication of one whose words of prayer were no feigned words, but whose heart was deeply moved by the sense of his great needs, and whose feelings were excited by vehement and longing desires. Therefore at Bethel “he found God,” because God first “found him,” and moved him so to weep and supplicate. And there God spake not only with him but “with us,” whosoever of us follow the unconquerable faith of his tearful prayers. Pusey: There He spake with us, how, in our needs, we should seek and find Him. In loneliness, apart from distractions, in faith rising in proportion to our fears, in persevering prayer, in earnestness, God is sought and found.—M.] Hosea 12:6. In the name Jehovah, Israel had the security that God was their God, and they his people. “Our Father” is the same for us; for God is our Father as the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and that Name is the security of our blessedness. Hosea 12:7. How easy is conversion, when we are not converted to a strange God, but to our own God, who helps us towards Him! But it is just as certain that all who have departed from God need to return. Turn unto God! is the most natural, but also the most pressing cry. True conversion must be attested by its fruits. Men are converted truly to God, when they trust in Him constantly. Lange: Faith, love, and hope must abide together. [Matt. Henry: Let our eyes be ever towards the Lord, and let us preserve a holy security and serenity of mind under the protection of the divine favor, looking without anxiety for a dubious event, and by faith keeping our spirits sedate and even; and that is waiting on God as our God, in covenant, and this we must do continually.—M.] Hosea 12:8. The chief distinction of the Canaanitish character is the earthly mind, which leads of necessity to unrighteous deeds. Avarice is a root of all evil, and a mother of unrighteousness. [Fausset: How much deceit is practiced by so-called Christians of the trading world, who are “Christians” only in name!—M.] Hosea 12:9. Starke: Those who infer the possession of divine favor from outward prosperity make a great mistake. Much deceit and injustice is done in trade and intercourse with men, and when God does not punish at once, every one supposes that he who practices them is not guilty. [Fausset: None are more blind to their spiritual danger than those eager in pursuing gain. The conventional tricks of trade and the alleged difficulty of competing with others save by practicing the usual frauds, are made the excuses for usages, which, whatever else they gain, end in the eternal loss of the soul! In regard to spiritual riches the soul is never so poor as when satisfied with its own imaginary riches.—M.] Hosea 12:10. Starke: We should diligently call to mind and never forget the benefits which God bestowed upon our forefathers. [Pusey: The penitent sees in one glance how God has been his God from his birth until that hour, and how he had all along offended God. The Feast of Tabernacles typifies this our pilgrim state, the life of simple faith in God, for which God provides; poor in this world’s goods, but rich in God. The Church militant dwells, as it were, in tabernacles; hereafter we hope to be received into everlasting habitations in the Church triumphant.—M.] Hosea 12:13. A man may be chosen by God’s grace, and an heir of God’s promises, and yet may suffer distress and humiliation. In the fullest measure was this realized in the Son of God Himself. What else then can we expect? Footnotes:Hosea 12:1.—χְ ?γεֹ ?ωִׁ ?ιν: is an intensive plural [plural of majesty], like ΰֱ ?μֹ ?γִ ?ιν, and therefore coupled with a sing, adjective [comp. Psalms 7:10]. [Hosea 12:5.—ςִ ?ξָּ ?πεּ. Aquila, Theodotion, Symmachus, Syr. et al. render: with him, as if they had read ςξּ ?εֹ. But there is no variety of reading in the MSS. For the propriety of the reading in the Text., comp. the Exegetical Remarks.—M.] Hosea 12:9.—ςָ ?εֹ ?ο is perhaps employed as a word-play upon the preceding ΰεֹ ?ο. Hosea 12:12.—βַּ ?μּ ?ιν, a word-play with βִּ ?μְ ?βַ ?μ. Hosea 12:15.—ϊַּ ?ξְ ?ψεּ ?ψִ ?ιν is here used as an adverb. [Comp. Green, § 274, 2 e. [Hosea 12:15.—ΰֲ ?γֹ ?πָ ?ιε is the subject of ιִ ?θֹּ ?ω as well as of ιָ ?ωִׁ ?ια—M.] 2. The Judgment of God’s AngerHosea 131 When Ephraim spoke, there was trembling;He exalted himself in Israel, Then he transgressed through Baal and died. 2 And now they continue to sin, They made for themselves idols of their silver, Images according to their understanding [as they pleased], All of them the work of artificers; To them men who sacrifice are speaking (in prayer), They kiss the calves. 3 Therefore will they be like the morning cloud, And like the dew, which soon passes away, Like chaff which is whirled out of the threshing-floor, And like smoke from a window. 4 And (yet) I am Jehovah, thy God, From the land of Egypt, And thou dost not know a God besides me, And there is no Saviour except me. 5 I knew thee in the desert, In the land of droughts. 6 According to their pasture [as they fed] they were satisfied, They were satisfied, and their heart was uplifted, Therefore they forgot me. 7 And (so) I became as a lion to them, And as a leopard I lurked in the path. 8 I will attack them like a bear robbed of her whelps, And rend the inclosure of their heart, I will devour them then like a lioness; The wild beast of the field shall rend them. 9 It has destroyed thee, Israel, That thou (hast been) against me, against thy Help. 10 Where then is thy king, And he (who) will help thee in all thy cities? And thy judgest of whom thou saidst: “Give me a king and princes?” 11 I give thee a king in my anger, And will take him away in my wrath. 12 Ephraim’s guilt is bound up, His sin is treasured away. 13 The pains of a travailing woman shall come upon him: (But) he is an unwise son; Because at the (right) time he would not enter the opening of the womb. 14 Should I redeem them from the hand of hell? Should I free them from death? Where are thy plagues, O death? Where is thy destruction, O hell? Repentance shall be hidden from my eyes. 15 For (though) among (his) brethren he may be fruitful,An east wind will come, A breath of Jehovah rising from the desert, And his spring shall dry up and his fountain be parched; He [Assyria] shall plunder the treasure of all the costly vessels. AND Hos_13:1. When Ephraim spoke, etc. An allusion to the high respect paid to Israel. πָ ?ωָׂ ?ΰ here is intransitive [comp. Psalms 89:10; Nahum 1:5. The reference is to the unrighteous desire for predominance cherished by Ephraim, which led at to the schism from the House of David. But internal declension was immediately connected with this. The worship of Baal evidently began really the calf-worship according to the view of the Prophet. He cannot allow it to be maintained the latter was the worship of Jehovah. And died: They died spiritually, and then outward that ruin comes also. [This view of the whole is verse approved by Henderson, Pusey, and most recent Expositors.—M.] Hosea 13:2. All their former transgressions were continued. μָ ?δֶ ?νδֵ ?νΰֹ ?ξְ ?ψִ ?ιν. This is difficult. ζֹ ?αְ ?διΰָ ?γָ ?ν is not=who sacrifice men, for human sacrifices were not offered in the calf-worship, but=those among men who sacrifice, according to the analogy of ΰֶ ?αְ ?ιεֹ ?πֵ ?ιΰָ ?γָ ?ν (Isaiah 29:19). Keil renders: of them they say (those of the men that sacrifice); they kiss the calves. But this is linguistically harsh, for “they kiss calves” would be oratio obliqua, and μָ ?δֶ ?ν would mean: of them, namely, of the images. It is besides unnatural. To whom should the offerers “say” that they kiss the calves? They certainly perform such actions, and it is that is the conduct here rebuked, but their saying that they do so is a very remote idea. We are therefore obliged to take ΰֹ ?ξְ ?ψִ ?ιν here absolutely as it is nowhere else employed=speak in prayer. This is just the thought that is suitable here. It had been previously said that these images are purely the work of men themselves, and yet—how cutting is the reproof!—they speak with these very works of their hands, they kiss them, as though they were flesh and blood. Hosea 13:3. The punishment of this is swift destruction. As to the figures of the morning cloud and the early dew, see on Hosea 6:4. Here there are added other comparisons; the usual one of chaff, and, besides, that of smoke, which escaped by the windows since there were no chimneys. Hosea 13:4-5. As contrasted with Israel’s idolatry Jehovah points again to what he had done for Israel long ago, at first with the same words as those employed in Hosea 12:10, but afterwards more fully. I knew thee, with the accessory notions of love and compassion. Hosea 13:6. The goodness of God is abused. According to their pasture, i.e., in the land given them by God. The complaint rests upon Deuteronomy 8:11 ff. (comp. also Hosea 31:20; Hosea 32:15 ff.). That against which they were there warned, has been done. Hosea 13:7-8 therefore describe the punishment, in accordance with the figure of the pasture, in which Israel is the flock. The flock will be rent as by wild beasts (comp. also, Hosea 5:14). εֶ ?ΰְ ?δִֶ ?ι, and I became to them: the punishment had already begun and would be continued. The inclosure of their heart = their breast. Hosea 13:9. It has destroyed thee, O Israel, that thou wert against me, thy Help. The second clause gives the cause of the first. αְּ is then to be taken in the sense of “against;” that thou against me, against thy help. According to the sequel the special reference is to the falling away from the House of David. [So Ewald, Keil, and most of the recent Continental Expositors agree in adopting the above explanation. Pusey and Noyes among the Anglo-Americans also prefer it. The others generally hold to the rendering of the E. V. The two chief objections against the latter view are that it demands a very roundabout rendering of ωִׁ ?ηֶ ?ϊְ ?κָ, and that the second αְּ is most naturally to be taken in the same sense as the first, and therefore cannot be a Beth essentiζ.—M.] Hosea 13:10. Israel had indeed a king, but not one who could help them, or defend their cities (against Assyria). And thy judges, probably=the princes who surround the king, “the ministers and counsellors appointed by the king, who along with him exercise the highest judicial and executive authority.” Give me a king and princes; not without allusion to the request of the people in the time of Samuel. On the case of Jeroboam, they repeated this ancient demand, at that time reproved by the Lord, in a still more sinful way. Hosea 13:11. I give thee a king in my anger, not: I gave thee, because the expression is not to be limited to the elevation of Jeroboam, but refers generally to the kings of Israel. When they separated from the House of David and set up their own kings, God punished them, because in doing so “they forsook his worship, and gave themselves over to the power of their ungodly kings.” And will take him away. This refers not merely to the dethronement of one king by another, but to the kingdom generally, which God would overthrow in his anger. The anger of God stands therefore at the beginning and at the end; giving kings and taking them away, are both an evidence of his displeasure. Hosea 13:12 shows that the taking away of the king is inevitable: “servata sunt ad vindictam omnia peccata eorum” [Henderson: “The metaphors are here borrowed from the custom of tying up money in bags and depositing it in some secret place in order that it might be preserved. The certainty of punishment is the idea conveyed by them. Comp., for the former, Job 14:17; for the latter, Deuteronomy 32:34; Job 21:19.”—M.] Hosea 13:13 describes the punishment under the image of birth-pangs, in which, however, the pains of the mother are not so much thought of as the pressure which the child must suffer. And yet, though there is distress in child-birth, it does not tend to destruction, but to birth, to a new life. So also here. But death does follow if the child is not pressed out into the vagina in consequence of the labor, so as to come into the world alive: So is it with Israel. Under God’s judgment they put off a return to Him, and will not be born again; that judgment must therefore be their destruction. Hosea 13:14, according to the common view, introduces a promise without any preparation. Yet, though we cannot be surprised at the occurrence of sudden transition in our Prophet, a promise is evidently quite unsuitable. We would from the foregoing words rather expect a mention of the punishment reserved for their guilt, or a description of their pains. It would then be surprising if a promise were introduced; and the fact is that threatening is here unmistakably becoming stronger, until Hosea 14:1. To be sure, if Hosea 13:14 be regarded as a promise, Hosea 13:15 must bear the same character, as they are connected by “for.” But the change would be only the more violent, taking place in one and the same verse, and Keil only imports his notion into the passage, when he, for this reason, makes a distinction, and refers the beginning of the verse to those who walk in the footsteps of the faith, etc., of their progenitor, and the rest to Ephraim who had become changed into Canaan [a merchant]. But, besides, the second part of Hos 13:15 manifestly presupposes the beginning of the same verse, the image of the blasting wind presupposing that of the fruit-bearing, or the former is chosen with direct reference to the latter; the judgment is regarded as a devastation by scorching wind, because Israel is conceived of as a fruitful field. Under any other view members of a verse, which are connected in meaning, would be sundered. If therefore Hosea 13:15 throughout is nothing but threatening, its beginning with “for” argues the same character for Hosea 13:14. The beginning of Hos 13:14 is then to be explained as a question, though without the particle of interrogation: From the hand of hell should I deliver them? The second member contains an energetic negative response. Nay, even death and hell are summoned and charged to inflict and execute the judgment upon them. ΰֱ ?δְ ?ι as in Hosea 13:10 =where (see farther in the Doctrinal Section, No. 4). πֹ ?ηַ ?ν: either repentance or compassion. The former is most suitable: it is not to be supposed that I repent of this threatening, that I recall it. Hosea 13:15. λִּ ?ιδεּ ?ΰεְ ?βΧ alludes, with a play upon the name Ephraim (ιַ ?τְ ?ψִ ?ιΰ and ΰֶ ?τְ ?ψָ ?ΰִ ?ιν), to their fruitfulness, in order to represent the judgment as a scorching wind destroying that fertility. He will spoil. “He,” i.e., the enemy presented under the image of the parching wind, Assyria. The treasure of all precious vessels, is to be sought especially in the chief city, Samaria, which is named immediately hereafter. AND ETHICAL1. Apostasy from Jehovah, which appears here also as Israel’s chief sin, brought death upon them: they died (Hosea 13:1). This conception sounds the depths of the subject. Outwardly regarded, they lived long, even after they gave themselves up to the worship of Baal (just like a fruitful tree, Hosea 13:15), but in truth inwardly they were dead. For true life consists in union with Jehovah: idols can give no life. Israel owed its life to Jehovah alone (Hosea 13:4). Therefore, Hosea 13:9 : “It has destroyed thee that thou hast been against me, thy help.” What God had done for Israel from the beginning is here again (Hosea 13:4-5) made prominent, and the deliverance from Egypt with the leading through the Desert appear again as the fundamental act of mercy, for through them Israel became “living.” Their present conduct towards God was a base and ungrateful ignoring of those deeds in the presumption of a prosperity which they owed to their God (Hosea 13:6). A people who are inwardly dead cannot long outwardly survive. That God whom they had forgotten and from whom they had turned away, would and must at last show them that He had not forgotten them (Hosea 13:12) by destroying them without sparing. This is indeed the only means of bringing them to life. For that and that alone is designed by God in their case; see Hosea 14. This must ever be kept in view if we are to understand the threatenings aright, which are reproduced here in a peculiarly intensified form: Hosea 13:7-8, Hosea 13:12 to Hosea 14:1. But how true and striking is such a description seen to be, when we remember that this divine judgment is executed by the invasion of a foreign conqueror! With what can his attack be better compared than with the attack of devouring beasts, or, after another image, with a scorching wind that destroys everything in its course? How often has that been repeated in the history of the nations! 2. The whole (temporal) kingdom was a divine system of punishment and chastening. At the request of the people, He granted them a king, but with the expression of his displeasure at their desire because it proceeded from unbelief and vanity, and with the declaration that they would lose their freedom by its realization. But, at the same time, this kingdom of Israel might become a blessing if it with its king would obey God. Nay, God, by establishing the throne of David in Zion, even connected the most precious promises with this kingdom, if the king were entirely one with God and should gather about him a nation obedient to God. But the people with their king followed more and more decidedly a course opposed to God by separating (in the kingdom of the Ten Tribes) from the house with which God had connected his promises, and so forsaking the king which God had given them, they must therefore be punished by having this self-erected kingdom taken away, and the punishment is all the greater that they shall never return to a state of freedom, but must lie under the much viler bondage of foreign rulers until they return to the king whom God had promised to raise up from the House of David. 3. The passage in Hosea 13:14 is and remains difficult, and, although in the light of the context we cannot regard it as containing a promise, yet the view which regards it as such is in so far to be respected as the beginning of the verse especially, taken by itself, makes it appear natural. For this reason, probably, the LXX. translate in this sense, and the Apostle Paul, freely following them, cites these words (in connection with Isaiah 25:8; 1 Corinthians 15:55), in the sense of a challenge indeed, but in the same with the implication that death and hell should reveal their impotence, and therefore in the sense of a promise. But this will not compel us to explain the words otherwise than as the context requires, and we find this in accord path any but the simply mechanical theory of inspiration. But it is still to be kept in mind that in one passage the possibility of a redemption from death and hell is presupposed even if its accomplishment is refused by the threatening. But it corresponds with the character of the New Testament that it has changed the threatening into a promise. While the Old Testament summons death and the underworld to execute judgment upon their servants, the New Testament rather shows them conquered and powerless, so much so that they must even yield up the prey which they already have, and so far Paul had internal justification to convert the Old Testament threatening into a promise, or rather into a pζan of triumph, and thus in the Spirit chose the true course. For the view of Hos 13:14 as containing a promise, we may cite further the beautiful remarks of Rieger: “Outward ruin becomes to many a path upon which they rush suddenly down to death and hell, and with their hardened hearts they prefer to be lost beyond redemption in death and hell rather than turn to God with contrite hearts, and yield themselves up to trust in Him. Therefore God’s promise comprehends the whole ruin, the whole abyss of destruction into which the sinner rushes, so as to subdue proud unbelief by the promised redemption from death and hell, and make men driven to extremity well disposed towards God. O, that all to whom sin has become their destruction would allow themselves to be rescued by this hand offered them at the brink of death and hell, especially as we can behold more fully in the New Testament the victory which God has given us through Christ Jesus, and thus more easily gain its consolation.” AND Hos_13:1. Gerlach: Pride comes before a fall. See how the sins of pride and false worship lead to spiritual and eternal death! With sin there came not only guilt but also the seeds of death, and so the heart and life-blood are consumed. On the other hand, with the new righteousness comes new life into dead souls. [Fausset: Sin separates from God, the true life of the soul. Let all professors of religion ever remember this, that sin, habitual or unatoned for, and spiritual life cannot coexist in the same individual (Romans 8:6).—M.] Hosea 13:4. Pfaff. Biblewerk: Since God has showered down upon us so many blessings from our youth up, and since all that we have we owe to his goodness, it is vile ingratitude to rely, not upon Him, but upon human power, false worship, and the like. We have only one God and Redeemer. Besides Him we must know no other. [Matthew Henry: It is a happy ignorance not to know that which we are not to meddle with. Whatever we take for our God we expect to have for our Saviour, that is, to make us happy here and hereafter. As where we have protection we owe allegiance, so where we have salvation, and hope for it, we owe adoration.”—M.] Hosea 13:6. Pfaff. Bibelwerk: So is it with the ungodly. They misuse God’s blessings and become secure, forgetting the gracious Giver, when they should rather erect an imperishable monument to Him in their souls. See thou, too, O my soul! whether thou art thankful to thy Saviour, whether thou dost bring home to thyself rightly and constantly the blessings which God has given thee, both temporal and spiritual, whether thou dost praise and live for the gracious Giver with mouth and heart and a holy walk. [Pusey: They who follow God for Himself, things of this sort are not called their pasture, but the Word of God is their pasture, according to Deuteronomy 8:3. In like way, let all think themselves blamed, who attend the altar of Christ not for the love of the sacraments [ordinances] which they celebrate, but only to live of the altar.—M.] Hosea 13:9. It is the conduct of men towards God which determines their woe or weal. God alone is our true Help; therefore everything that resists Him must be lost; and there is no greater folly than to rise up against Him. Pfaff. Bibelwerk: God is guilty of no man’s destruction, but only man himself. Hosea 13:11. Pfaff. Bibelwerk: It is a great callamity to a country when the Lord gives it a prince in his anger that he may be the instrument of his vengeance. [Fausset: God often punishes men by giving them their wish.—M.] Hosea 13:12. God can and would remit our sins; but He can also retain them, and must do so as long as we remain impenitent; and as long as God retains them all hope of being freed from them is vain. Hosea 13:14. So far can the love of God be changed into wrath that He, to whom it were easy to save, does not do so, but delivers over to death and destruction, nay, even, as it were, invokes the powers of destruction to execute his wrath, without his repenting or recalling his purpose. Even in this God has assuredly purposes of salvation. He punishes so severely only to open the eyes, when and since all other means have failed. [See the Exegetical and Doctrinal Remarks.—M.] Hosea 13:15. When God withdraws his hand all prosperity disappears, and that often suddenly, before men are aware. [Matthew Henry: See the folly of those that lay up their treasures on earth, that lay it up in pleasant vessels, vessels of desire, so the word is, on which they set their affections, and in which they place their comfort and satisfaction. Pusey: Such are ungodly greatness and prosperity. While they are fairest in show their life-fountains are drying up—M.]. Footnotes:Ver. l. ψְ ?ϊֵ ?ϊ, ἅπ. λεγ.= ψֶ ?θֶ ?θ [Jeremiah 49:24. Targ. ψְ ?ϊִ ?ιϊָ ?ΰ.—M.] [Hosea 13:2.—ζֹ ?αְ ?ηֵ ?ιΰָ ?γָ ?ν. This construction is to be explained on the principle laid down by Ewald, § 287 g, that the subordinate word in the construct may sometimes denote the individual or individuals of the class denoted by the principal word. For an example of the same construction in addition to the one given in the exposition, see Micah 5:4, πְ ?ρִ ?ιּ ?λֵ ?ιΰָ ?γָ ?νθ, those of men that are anointed.—M.] [Hosea 13:3.—ιְ ?ρֹ ?ςψ. See Green, § 92 b—M.] [Hosea 13:7.—ιָ ?ΰֶ ?δι. ε is inferential, Green, § 287, 1.—M.] [Hosea 13:8.—γֹּ ?α here means the female bear, and yet, being of the common gender, it may be joined with a part, masculine. Comp. Psalms 144:14 for a parallel case—M.] [Hosea 13:9.—ωִׁ ?ηֶ ?ϊְ ?κָ. We have here the third sing. Piel. There is no ground for assuming a substantive: destruction, as Henderson does.—M.] Hosea 13:10.—ΰֱ ?δִ ?ι. A particle of interrogation. It is dialectical, and occurs only here and in Hosea 13:14. It is = ΰַ ?ιֵּ ?δ: where, and is strengthened by ΰֵ ?τεֹ ?ΰ = tandem, ποτέ when then? [Hosea 13:10.—Supply ΰֱ ?δִ ?ι before ωֹׁ ?τְ ?θֶ ?ικָ. [Hosea 13:13.—ςֵ ?ϊ must be taken here adverbially: at the (right) time.—M.] [Hosea 13:15.—ιַ ?τְ ?ψִ ?ιΰ A ἅπ. λεγ. The form τָ ?ψָ ?ΰ is supposed, with probable correctness, to have been chosen instead of the usual τָּ ?ψָ ?δ, in order to conform to ΰֶ ?τְ ?ψָ ?ΰִ ?ιν, of which it is the root.—M.] 3. Exhortation to Return: Promise of Complete Redemption.Hosea 141 Samaria will suffer punishment,Because she rebelled against her God; They shall fall by the sword, Their sucklings shall be dashed to pieces, Their pregnant women shall be cut open. 2 Return, O Israel, to Jehovah, thy God, For thou hast fallen through thy transgression. 3 Take with you words And return to the Lord and say unto Him: “Forgive all (our) iniquity and receive (what is) good [acceptable], And we shall render unto thee our lips (as) oxen [as our sacrifices]. 4 Assyria shall not help us, We will not ride upon horses, We will no more say: our God, to the work of our hands, (O Thou) in whom the orphan finds pity:” 5 I will heal their backsliding; I will love them readily,For my anger is turned away from them. 6 I will be as the dew to Israel: He shall bloom as the lily, And shall strike his roots like Lebanon!7 His shoots shall go forth, And his glory shall be like the olive, And his fragrance like Lebanon! 8 Those that dwell under his shade shall revive [produce] corn once more. And shall bloom as the vine, His renown (shall be) like the wine of Lebanon. 9 O Ephraim, what have I to do any longer with idols? I answer and regard [watch over] him. I am like a green cypress; With me is thy fruit found. 10 Who is wise, that he may understand these things? Discerning, that he may know them? For the ways of the Lord are direct, And the righteous walk in them; But transgressors stumble thereon. AND Hos_14:1. Samaria shall make expiation, etc, ϊֶּ ?ΰְ ?ωַׁ ?ν, from ΰָ ?ωָׁ ?νַ, to make atonement, to suffer punishment. [Rendered in E. V.: shall be desolate, comp. the remarks in the Text. and Gram. Section.—M.] It is unnecessary to join this verse to Hosea 13, although it is naturally connected with it. The foregoing threatenings converge here first into the prophecy “concerning the destruction of Samaria because of its apostasy from its God,” and then upon this groundwork is based the exhortation to return, and the promise of renewed mercy conditioned upon repentance. [Henderson] “For the concluding portion of the verse, comp. 2 Kings 8:12; 2 Kings 15:16; Amos 1:13. That such cruelties were not unknown among other nations, see Iliad, 6:58, and Horace, Carm. 4 Od. 6.”—M.] Hosea 14:2. ςַ ?γιְ ?δεָֹ ?δ, even unto Jehovah [literally: until, as far as, unto Jehovah.—M.] Hosea 14:3. Take with you words: They are not to come to Jehovah empty, but at the same time need take nothing more than words, no outward gifts. The words they are to use are now named, εְ ?χַ ?ηθεֹ ?α: and accept good, namely, what now follows: the sacrifices of the lips. [The true idea of the phrase seems to be: receive what is good, pleasing, acceptable. For this sense of θεα, comp. Numbers 24:1; Deuteronomy 6:18. I find the meaning of the passage admirably expressed by Ewald: “The people must first return to God’s love. The Prophet does not merely exhort them to this course; he shows them also in what manner it should be made; how and in what spirit the penitent are again to draw near to God’s favor; namely, not with outward, even though imposing sacrifices, with bulls, e.g., but with words, with the lips, i.e., with the living promises of the spirit that struggles after mercy and offers what is good.” The English expositors have, for the most part, followed the rendering of E. V.: and receive us graciously. Horsley (who is strangely opposed by Henderson “on the ground of philolgy”) and Pusey recognize and adopt the natural and true construction.—M.] Literally: and we will render as bullocks our lips, i.e., we will offer to thee for our sins the confession of our guilt and the promise of our return instead of sacrificial oxen (comp. Psalms 51:17-19; Psalms 69:31 f.; Psalms 116:17; Psalms 141:2). Hosea 14:4 follows immediately with such a vow, no longer to rely upon Assyria, no longer upon warlike power (horses) generally, no longer to serve idols, ΰֲ ?ωֶׁ ?ψαְּ ?κָ: Thou, through whom, etc. Reliance upon God’s compassion is that upon which the whole prayer of penitence is based. Hosea 14:5. The promise of mercy follows as an answer to such a prayer of penitence. Heal their apostasy = the calamities which it has entailed. πְ ?γָ ?αָ ?δ [spontaneously] expresses God’s perfect readiness to bestow such love. Hosea 14:6 ff. The effects of this love of the Lord are rich blessings upon Israel: Jehovah Himself will become to Israel like a refreshing dew, and the consequences of this would be that they should bloom and strike root and send forth branches, or that they should flourish and develop a vigorous life. Like Lebanon, not simply like the cedars, but like the mountain itself, rooted as deeply and firmly. Like the olive [Hosea 14:7] with its evergreen leaves and rich fruitage. His fragrance like Lebanon with its cedars and aromatic shrubs. Hosea 14:8. Here from Israel as a whole, compared to a tree, are distinguished the members of the people, as those who flourish vigorously beneath the shadow of the tree. ιָ ?ωׁ ?εּ ?αεּ is to be joined with ιְ ?ηַ ?ιּ ?εּ in an adverbial sense=again. The latter word=live again, become fruitful. They themselves shall even become like a vine, producing wine as precious as that of Lebanon. O Ephraim! what have I still to do with idols? = I will have nothing more to do with idols, i.e., “I have now no longer to plead with thee on account of idols, as during the whole course of this prophecy Jehovah’s claims to honor as against idols have formed the predominant theme. This is all done away upon the ground on which this promise rests, that Israel has returned to the Lord” (Schmieder). I have answered and will regard him (Ephraim)=will concern myself, care for him. God lastly compares Himself to a green cypress. In Him the people are to find their fruit, i.e., the fruit which shall nourish them. [The English expositors, generally, adopt the rendering of the E. V., chiefly because the words of the first line do not seem to them suitable as uttered by God. But if they are held to assert that God would not have anything more to do with idols, would not come any longer into competition with idols for the affections of the people and so be brought into connection with them, they are seen to be suitable, and just what would be expected at the close of this book. And it would be altogether unnatural to introduce Ephraim as uttering this single exclamation in the midst of an extended passage in which God is the speaker. Finally, it is a most arbitrary principle which would require the insertion of the supplied words, or of any other, in a sentence in which the sense would be complete without an ellipsis. Manger carries such an unwarranted license to an extreme when he supposes that the whole verse forms a sort of dialogue, thus:— Ephraim: What have I more to do with idols? God: I have answered him and will regard him. Ephraim: I am like a green cypress. God: From me is thy Fruit found. Upon this it is obvious to remark, that if the verse is a dialogue, and it were necessary to indicate who the speaker is in his first utterance, it would be just as necessary to give a similar intimation at the beginning of his next response.—M.] Hosea 14:9. Who is wise, etc. An epilogue to the whole Prophetic Book. ΰֵ ?μֶּ ?δ refers to all that precedes, to the chidings and threatenings concerning sin and idolatry. For right are the ways of the Lord. This the crowning declaration, comp. Deuteronomy 32:4. The ways which God is said to follow are straight, i.e., direct, leading to the object. The righteous walk upon them, and are thereby righteous. But transgressors stumble thereon, i.e., they deviate from them, and are thereby transgressors, and at the same time the consequences of such deviation are recorded: they fall into ruin. AND ETHICAL1. It is clearly manifest here that the severe judgments announced as impending upon the kingdom of Israel have not their object in themselves, but are only means to an end. The kingdom in its present form must assuredly be destroyed, for it is utterly corrupt. But this is not to be done because God has turned Himself away from his people or desired to do so, or because his love for them is extinguished, but only because it is the only means of making room for something new, for the regeneration of his people. 2. Repentance, a return to God who had been forsaken, is to be the fruit of these judgments (comp. Hosea 2:18-19), because it was their only design to lead to repentance, to make its necessity clear to the hearts of the people, and to prepare them for it through the severity of the wrath of God which they experienced, through their condition as “orphans” (Hosea 14:4). The essential element of such a return was the prayer for forgiveness of guilt, involving both confession of and sorrow for sin, and in connection therewith the vow of a change of life. Rieger: “When the sinner resolves to return unto the Lord, the Spirit of Grace makes his soul willing. I said, I will confess my transgression to the Lord. O how good it is if only the sullen silence is broken and he begins to speak with God from a heart freed from deceit. The highest instance of the honor which he can give to God in sincerely returning to Him, is to reject all help in men which he had sought before, and all creaturely consolation, to sanctify God the Lord in his heart, and to seek mercy like a helpless orphan, as our Lord Jesus has shown us that we are all orphans, teaching us to seek our Father in Heaven, like orphans who have no father on earth.” 3. It is significant how “words” are emphasized as an expression of such repentance, and as explained by the contrast to “sacrifices,” literal offerings of animals, every external legal service. Such sacrifices are not needed; “words” are sufficient; these are the true sacrifices well pleasing to God; and yet they must be words that express a right state of mind within. (On the other hand it must be remembered that words are no guarantee of a freedom from outward lip-service.) It cannot be said with certainty from this brief remark, whether the Prophet contemplates the sacrifices as entirely done away, as in the expected time of the coming redemption. The main object is to speak of the return to God, and it is clear that he regards this as a going forth of the heart, which does not need the intervention of any sacrifice, and therefore as a prayerful and penitent approach to Him without the medium of an offering. The idea is certainly at once suggested that if mercy can be found without sacrifices, there is no need of them afterwards in the state of grace. 4. Such a return presupposes the restoration of God’s favor, which is manifested by the promise of a condition of rich blessing. On this promise a restoration into their own country is not indicated as a special element, although it is evidently assumed, as exile from their country is to be regarded as the punishment that was decreed, according to the threatenings of chaps. 9–11. The promise in our chapter presents, so to speak, the positive side, after the negative has been shown. Punishment shall not merely be taken away; blessing shall be restored to them, through which alone a return to their country is to be gained. From the fact, however, that here at the close of the Book such a return is not promised, it is to be inferred that in the picture of the future redemption which the Prophet sketches, such return is not of itself the most important element, i.e., the Prophecy looks beyond it and towards something greater connected with it, a complete manifestation of God’s favor to his people, which finds its expression in a state of rich and wondrous blessedness. This we designate the Messianic character of the prophetic promise. It is therefore clear that we are not to seek the fulfillment of this promise in premessianic time; apart from the consideration that it did not then appear. The Messiah Himself, according to the statement of the promise, did not accomplish it as consisting in the glorious bloom and vigor of the people; nor will He do so, simply because He has already brought a still higher disclosure of God’s mercy, and will yet introduce a more glorious display, in which the whole believing people of God will enjoy (outward and inward) blessedness, as the nation of Israel will no longer be the object of special favor. 5. The promise here made to the people of Israel, that of full bloom and prosperity, and vigor, through the influence of God’s grace—still chiefly in a temporal sense,—shall be fulfilled for all believers as God’s true people in a higher sense: they shall be perpetually bedewed with power from God. The favor of God is ever fresh and blooming for them, and they enjoy its fruits without intermission, as they themselves become like a living, firmly-rooted, wide-spreading, never-fading, sweet-smelling tree. All this has its beginning even now, as surely as the divine favor brought to us through Christ is a reality, but shall only find its complete perfection when the kingdom of God shall have attained its complete realization. 6. “It is the object of the Prophet Hosea and of all Prophecy, in the spirit of Hosea 14:10, to alarm and to warn the apostate, to confirm and to comfort the converted, and to glorify the Lord” (Schmieder). Only the ways of the Lord are right. Then inevitable destruction must befall him who departs from them. True wisdom is to regard them, and all the prophetic Scriptures are like an uplifted finger, which warns against any departure from them, and at the same time like an outstretched finger which points to the way upon which the righteous must walk. AND Hos_14:2-9. Franke: He who would read what is sweet and agreeable, should read the close of all the Prophets. They are like a choir of singers, one singing one part, another another; but at last they all dwell upon one note. The glory of Christ’s Church at last is the finale. Hosea 14:2. This is the key-note of all Prophecy; it always comes back to this. This warning is the most needed and the weightiest of all. All God’s judgments have this as their aim. They cry out earnestly: Return. O that we might hear! It is well to hear when God calls through his deeds; but it is better to hear his Words. “To thy God,” not to a strange God, but to One from whom so much good has been experienced, and who remains, the God of mercy and our God, even when He must punish us. Return! (I) the object: to the Lord, thy God; (2) the reason: because thou hast fallen through thy iniquity. [Matt. Henry: Sin is a fall, and it concerns those who have fallen by sin to get up again by repentance. Fausset: God assures us that He is the God of his people, and invites us not merely to return towards, but never to rest until we have reached even up to Himself—to be satisfied with nothing short of Himself.—M.] Hosea 14:3. Words are nothing unless they come from the depths of the heart. But when they come from thence, as did the Publican’s prayer, and David’s psalm of confession, then, though seemingly slight and less than “sacrifices,” they are in truth as great and naturally more than all merely outward offerings, since they are measured according to the disposition of the heart. All grief over sin avails nothing without the prayer for forgiveness addressed to God. Not repentance but forgiveness, gives rest and peace. [Pusey: What other good can we offer than detestation of our past sins with burning desire of holiness? Fausset: What so cheap as words? And yet words such as God requires are not natural to fallen man. The Spirit of God alone can teach such words. In Gospel times we have no longer burdensome literal sacrifices to offer, but we have an offering continually to render which is more acceptable to Him (Psalms 69:30-31), the thanksgivings of unfeigned “lips,” sanctified through the offering of Christ once for all.—M.] Hosea 14:4. God is gracious to orphans. O that all orphaned ones might turn to God’s mercy! [Pusey: He is indeed fatherless who hath not God for his Father. Hosea 14:5. Pusey: Steadfastness to the end is the special gift of the Gospel. In healing that disease of unsteadfastness God heals ail besides.—M.] Hosea 14:6. Starke: God alone can truly revive the heart. Let him who needs comfort and refreshing seek them in God. Pfaff. Bibelwerk: See how believers bloom in their holiness, strike root, bring forth fruit, and diffuse fragrance all around! Art thou also such a fruitful tree displaying such vigor of spiritual life? [Fausset: All that is beautiful, solid, harmonious, and enduring shall be found in harmonious unison in the “trees of righteousness,” etc. (Isaiah 61:3). Pusey: Such reunion of qualities, being beyond nature, suggests the more, that that wherein they are all combined, the future Israel, the Church, shall flourish with graces that are beyond nature, in their manifold ness, completeness, unfadingness.—M.] Hosea 14:9. O that God could speak thus of us, finding in us no idolatry, nor needing to plead with us any longer because of our idols! What better thing could we wish than that God would regard us in mercy? In Christ this is realized. In Him he is also as an evergreen tree of life to believers; his mercy never ceases, and from its fullness they may all receive grace for grace. He is for them an evergreen tree of life, but also one whose fruit never fails, and ever nourishes. [Matt. Henry: God will be to all true converts both a delight and a defense; under his protection and influence they shall both dwell in safety and dwell at ease. He will be either a sun and a shield, or a shade and a shield, as their case requires. Pusey: Created beauty must at best be but a faint image of the beauty of the soul in grace; for this is from the indwelling of God the Holy Ghost.—M.] Hosea 14:10, God’s ways are direct; we must therefore not follow roundabout or crooked courses, but go straight forward in faith and labor; a straight course makes the best runner. Righteousness brings a blessing; unfaithfulness a curse, remains the simple and infallible rule of living, attested by God’s word, and confirmed by experience. Luther: Let us thank the merciful Father of Jesus Christ, for these greatest gifts, that He has revealed to us these direct ways, and pray that He would guide by his Holy Spirit those that walk therein, and preserve us to eternity. [Matt. Henry: God’s discovery of Himself, both in the judgments of his mouth, and the judgments of his hand, is to us according as we are affected by it. The same sun softens wax and hardens clay. But of all transgressors, those certainly have the most dangerous fatal falls that fall in the way of God, that split on the Rock of Ages, that suck poison out of the balm in Gilead. Let sinners in Zion be afraid of this. Pusey God reveals his ways to us not that we may know them only, but that we may do them, The life of grace is a life of progress. Every attribute or gift or revelation of God, which is full of comfort to the believer, becomes in turn an occasion of stumbling to the rebellious. With this the Prophet sums up all the teaching of the seventy years of his ministry. This is to us the end of all; this is thy choice, O Christian soul, to walk in God’s ways, or to stumble at them.—M.] Footnotes:Hosea 14:1.—ϊֶּ ?ΰְ ?ωֵׁ ?ν. From the notion of suffering punishment is derived the signification: to be desolated, waste =ωָׁ ?ξֵ ?ν. [The reverse would be the order if any connection between the verbs existed. But there is none whatever. The latter meaning in all likelihood arose from the similarity in form between the two words, the one form naturally suggesting the other. But it is not to be inferred from this that the words are cognate. The roots are not at all related, but belong to families essentially distinct. Fόrst, however, holds to the affinity. But see the forms in Arabic and Ethiopic related to ΰωׁ ?ν, and compare the radically different notions which lie at the basis of their prevailing significations respectively.—M.] Hosea 14:1.—δָ ?ψִ ?εָּ ?δ= δָ ?ψָ ?δ. The masc. verb, with a fem. substantive is anomalous. According to Ewald it is to be explained from the fact that the fem, terminations of the plur. imperf. are but seldom employed. [The suggestion of Henderson is worthy of consideration, that the anomaly was occasioned by the form of ιְ ?ψֻ ?θָּ ?ωׁ ?εּ immediately preceding.—M.] Hosea 14:3.—λָּ ?μΞϊִּ ?ωָּׂ ?ΰςָ ?εֹ ?ο. λָּ ?μ precedes for the sake of emphasis, and becomes an adverbial notion [=take away our iniquity altogether.] Hosea 14:5.—πְ ?γָ ?αָ ?δ is an adverbial accusative [spontaneously, voluntarily, readily]. Hosea 14:6.—Newcome prefers to read μְ ?αֹ ?πָ ?δ, as more consistent with the context. But this cannot be admitted though it was the one followed by the Targum. See the exposition for the propriety of the image.—M.]