The question which here above all engages our attention, and requires
to be answered, is this: Whether that which is reported in these
chapters did, or did not, actually and outwardly take place. The
history of the inquiries connected with this question is found most
fully in _Marckius's_ "_Diatribe de uxore fornicationum_," Leyden,
1696, reprinted in the Commentary on the Minor Prophets by the same
author. The various views may be divided into three classes.
1. It is maintained by very many interpreters, that all the events here
narrated took place actually and outwardly. This opinion was advanced
with the greatest confidence by _Theodoret_, _Cyril_ of Alexandria, and
_Augustine_ from among the Fathers of the Church; by most interpreters
belonging to the Lutheran and Reformed Churches (_e.g. Manger_); most
recently, by _Stuck_, _Hofmann_ (_Weissag u. Erf._ S. 206), and, to a
certain extent, by _Ewald_ also, who supposes "a free representation of
an event actually experienced by the prophet."
2. Others consider it as a parabolical representation. Thus does
Calvin, who expressly opposes the supposition not only of an external,
but also of an internal event. He explains it thus: "When the prophet
began to teach, he commenced thus: The Lord has placed me here as on a
stage, that I might tell you, I have taken a wife," etc. Entirely
similar was the opinion of the Chaldee Paraphrast, by whom the words,
"Go," etc., are thus paraphrased: "Go and prophesy against the
inhabitants of the adulterous city." Of a like purport is the view
held, from among recent interpreters, by _Rosenmüller_, _Hitzig_ ("that
which the prophet describes as actual, is only a fiction"), _Simson_
and others. The strange opinion of Luther, which, out of too great
respect, was adopted by a few later theologians (_Osiander_, [Pg 185]
_Gerhard_, _Tarnovius_), is only a modification of this. It is to the
effect, that the prophet had only ascribed to his own chaste wife the
name and works of an adulteress, and, hence, had performed with her,
before the people, a kind of play. (Compare, against this view,
_Buddeus_, _de peccatis typicis_ in the _Misc. s. t._ i. p. 262.) The
same opinion is expressed by _Umbreit_: "His own wife is implicated in
the general guilt, and hence she is a representative of the whole
people." In opposition to this view, compare _Simson's_ Commentary.
3. Others suppose that the prophet narrates events which took place
_actually_, indeed, but _not outwardly_. This opinion was, considering
the time at which it was advanced, very ably defended by _Jerome_ in
_Epist. ad Pammachium_, and in his commentary on chap. i. 8. According
to _Rufinus_, all those in Palestine and Egypt who respected the
authority of _Origen_, asserted that the marriage took place only in
spirit. The difficulties attaching to the first view were made
especially obvious by the ridicule of the Manicheans (_Faustus_ and
_Secundinus_ in _Augustine_, t. vi. p. 575) on this narrative. The most
accomplished Jewish scholars (_Maimonides_ in the _More Nebuch._ p. ii.
c. 46, _Abenezra_, _Kimchi_) support this opinion. Some new arguments
in defence of it have been adduced by _Marckius_.
Of these three views:--actually and outwardly; neither outwardly nor
actually; actually, but not outwardly,--the second must be at once
rejected. Those who hold it supply, "God has commanded me to tell you."
But there is not the slightest intimation of such an ellipsis; and
those interpreters have no better right to supply it in this, than in
any other narrative. There is before us action, and nothing but action,
without any intimation whatsoever that it is merely an invention.
But the following arguments are decisive in favour of the third, and
against the first view.
1. The defenders of an outward transaction rely, in support of their
view, upon the supposition, that their interpretation is most obvious
and natural;--that they are thus, as it were, in the _possession_ of
the ground, and in a position from which they can be driven only by the
most cogent reasons;--that if the transaction had been internal, it
would have been necessary for the prophet to have expressly marked it
as such. But precisely the reverse of all this is the case. The most
obvious supposition [Pg 186] is, that the symbolical action took place
in vision. If _certain_ actions of the prophets, especially seeing,
hearing, and their speaking to the Lord, etc., must be conceived of as
having taken place inwardly, unless there be distinct indications of
the opposite, why not the remainder also? For the former presupposes
that the world in which the prophets move, is altogether different from
the ordinary one; that it is not the outward, but the spiritual world.
It is certainly not a matter of chance, that the _seeing_ in the case
of the prophets must be understood spiritually; and if there be a
reason for this, the same reason entitles us to assert that the
walking, etc., also took place inwardly only. By what right could we
make any difference between the actions of others, described by the
prophet, and his own? Vision and symbolical action are not opposed to
each other; the former is only the _genus_ comprehending the latter as
a _species_. By this we do not at all mean to assert, that _all_ the
symbolical actions of the prophets took place in inward vision only. An
inward transaction always lay at the foundation; but sometimes, and
when it was appropriate, they embodied it in an outward representation
also (1 Kings xx. 35 seq., xxii. 11; Jer. xix. xxviii.; and a similar
remarkable instance from modern times, in _Croesi Hist. Quakeriana_, p.
13). For this very reason, however, this argument cannot be altogether
decisive by itself; but it furnishes, at least, a presumptive proof,
and that by no means unimportant. If regularly and naturally the
transaction be internal only, then the opposite requires to be proved
in this case. If this had been admitted, no attempt would have been
made elsewhere also, _e.g._, Is. xx., by false and forced
interpretations to explain away the supposition of a merely internal
transaction.
2. No one will certainly venture to assert that a merely internal
transaction would have missed its aim, since there exists a multitude
of symbolical actions, in regard to which it is undeniable, and
universally admitted, that they took place internally only. For the
inward action, being narrated and committed to writing, retained the
advantage of vividness and impressiveness over the naked representation
of the same truth. Sometimes, in the case of actions concentrated into
a single moment, this advantage may be still further increased by the
inward transaction being represented outwardly also. But, here, just
the [Pg 187] opposite would take place. We have here before us a
symbolical transaction which, if it had been performed outwardly, would
have continued for several years. The separation of the single events
would have prevented its being taken in at a single view, and have thus
deprived it of its impressiveness. But, what is still more important,
the natural _substratum_ would have occupied the attention so much more
than the _idea_, that the latter would have been thereby altogether
overlooked. The domestic affairs of the prophet would have become the
subject of a large amount of _tittle-tattle_, and the idea would have
been remembered only to give greater point to the ridicule.
3. The command of God, when considered as referring to an outward
transaction, cannot be, by any means, justified. This is most glaringly
obvious, if we understand this command, as several do, to mean that the
prophet should beget children with an unchaste woman, and without
legitimate marriage. Every one will sympathize with the indignation
expressed by _Buddeus_ (l. c. p. 206) against _Thomas Aquinas_, who,
following this view, maintains that the law of God had been, in this
special case, repealed by His command. God Himself cannot set us free
from His commands; they are an expression of His nature, an image of
His holiness. To ascribe arbitrariness to God in this respect, would be
to annihilate the idea of God, and the idea of the Law at the same
time. This view, it is true, is so decidedly erroneous as to require no
further refutation; but even the opinion of _Buddeus_ and others
presents insurmountable difficulties. They suppose that the prophet had
married a woman who was formerly unchaste. In opposition to this,
Calvin very strikingly remarks: "It seems not to be consistent with
reason, that God should spontaneously have rendered His prophet
contemptible; for how could he ever have appeared in public after such
ignominy had been inflicted upon him? If he had married such a wife, as
here described, he ought rather to have hidden himself all his lifetime
than have assumed the prophetic office." In Lev. xxi. 7 the law forbids
the priests to take a wife that is a whore, or profane. That which,
according to the letter, referred to the priests only, is applicable,
in its spirit, to the prophets also,--yea, to them in a higher degree,
as will be seen immediately, when the ordinance is reduced to its
_idea_. The latter is easily inferred from the reason stated, [Pg 188]
viz., that the priests should be holy to their God. The servants of God
must represent His holiness; they are, therefore, not allowed, by so
close a contact with sin, to defile or desecrate themselves either
inwardly or outwardly. Although the inward pollution may be prevented
in individual cases by a specially effective assistance of divine
grace, yet there always remains the outward pollution.
It is inconceivable that, at the very commencement of his ministry, God
should have commanded to the prophet anything, the inevitable effect of
which was to mar its successful execution. Several--and especially
_Manger_--who felt the difficulties of this interpretation, substituted
for it another, by which, as they imagined, all objections were
removed. The prophet, they say, married a person who had formerly been
chaste, and fell only after her marriage. This view is no doubt the
correct one, as is obvious from the relation of the figure to the
reality. According to ver. 2, it is to be expressed figuratively that
the people went a-whoring from Jehovah. The spiritual adultery
presupposes that the spiritual marriage had already been concluded.
Hence, the wife can be called a whoring wife, only on account of the
whoredom which she practised after her marriage. This is confirmed by
chap. iii. 1, where the more limited expression "to commit adultery" is
substituted for "to whore," which has a wider sense, and comprehends
adultery also. The former unchastity of the wife would be without any
meaning, yea, would be in direct contradiction to the real state of the
case. For before the marriage concluded at Sinai, Israel was devoted to
the Lord in faithful love; comp. Jer. ii. 2: "I remember thee, the
kindness of thy youth, the love of thine espousals, thy walking after
Me in the wilderness, in a land not sown." Compare also Ezek. xvi.,
where Israel, before her marriage, appears as a _virgo intacta_. But
how correct soever this view may be--and every other view perverts the
whole position--it is, nevertheless, erroneous to suppose that thereby
all difficulties are removed. All which has been urged against the
former view, may be urged here also. It might have been better for the
prophet to have married one who was previously unchaste, in the hope
that her subsequent better life might wipe out her former shame, than
one previously chaste, who _was required_ to become unchaste, and to
remain so for a long time, because, [Pg 189] otherwise, the symbolical
action would have lost all its significance. The objection brought
forward, that whatever is unbecoming as an outward action, is so
likewise though it were only an internal action, can scarcely be meant
to be in earnest. For, in this case, every one knew that the prophet
was a mere type; and, with regard to his wife, this circumstance was so
obvious, that mockery certainly gave way to shame and confusion. But a
marriage outwardly entered into is never purely typical. It has always
its significance apart from the typical import, and must be
justifiable, independently of its typical character. Ridicule would, in
this case, have been not only too obvious, but to a certain extent also
well founded.
4. If the action had taken place only outwardly, it would have been
impossible to explain the abrupt transition from the symbolical action
to the mere figure, and again to the entirely naked representation as
we find it here, and _vice versa_. In the first chapter, the symbolical
action is pretty well maintained; but in the prophecy ii. 1-3 (i.
10-ii. 1), which belongs to the same section, it is almost entirely
lost sight of. As the corporeal adultery, and rejection in consequence
of it, were to be the type of the spiritual adultery and rejection, so
the receiving again of the wife, rejected on account of her
faithlessness, but now reformed, was to typify the Lord's granting
mercy to the people. But of this, not a trace is found. And yet, we are
not at liberty to say that the ground of it lies in a difference
betwixt the type and the thing typified,--in the circumstance that the
wife of the prophet did not reform. If there existed such a difference,
the type could not have been chosen at all. The contrary appears also
from ii. 9 (7).--In the whole second section, ii. 4-25 (ii. 2-23),
regard is indeed had to the symbolical action; but in a manner so free,
that it dwindles away to a mere figure, from behind which the thing
itself is continually coming into view. In chap. iii. the symbolical
action again acquires greater prominence. These phenomena can be
accounted for, only if the transaction be viewed as an inward one. In
the case of an outward transaction, the transition from the symbolical
action to the figure, and from the figure to the thing itself, would
not have been so easy. The substratum of the idea is, in that case, far
more material, and the idea itself too closely bound to it.
[Pg 190]
5. When the transaction is viewed as an outward one, insurmountable
difficulties are presented by the third chapter; and the argument drawn
from this would, in itself, be quite sufficient to settle the question:
"Then the Lord said unto me. Go again, love a woman beloved of her
friend and an adulteress." Interpreters who have adopted that view,
find themselves here in no little embarrassment. Several suppose that
the woman, whom the prophet is here commanded to love, is his former
wife, Gomer,--with her he should get reconciled. But this is quite out
of the question. In opposition to it, there is, _first_, the indefinite
signification by אשה; _then_, in ver. 2, there is the purchase of the
woman,--which supposes that she had not yet been in the possession of
the husband; and, _further_, the words, "beloved of her friend, and an
adulteress," can, according to a sound interpretation, mean only, "who,
although she is beloved by her faithful husband, will yet commit
adultery;" so that, if it be referred to the reunion with Gomer,
we should be compelled to suppose that, after being received again,
she again became unfaithful,--and in favour of this opinion, no
corresponding feature can be pointed out in the thing typified.
_Lastly_,--The word "love" cannot mean "love again," "_restitue
amoris signa_." For the love of the prophet to his wife must correspond
with the love of God to the people of Israel. That this love,
however, cannot be limited to the love which God will show to the
Congregation _after_ her conversion, is seen from the additional
clause, "And they turn themselves to other gods, and love grape-cakes."
Hence it appears that the love of God continues even during the
unfaithfulness, and consequently, also, the love of the prophet, by
which it is typified.--Equally untenable is the other opinion, that the
prophet is here called upon, by his entering into a new marriage, to
prefigure the relation of God to the Covenant-people a second time. In
that case, it is supposed either that Gomer had been rejected, because
she would not return, or that she had died. In either case, however,
she would not have been chosen by God to be a type of the people
of Israel. The ground of this choice can be no other than the
correspondence with the antitype. But this would be wanting just in the
most important point. If the ungodly part of the nation were not to be
deprived of all hope, nor the pious of all consolation, it was of
special importance to [Pg 191] point out that even the rejected
congregation would receive mercy; that the Lo-Ruhamah should be the
Ruhamah. Just the reverse of all this, however, would, according to
this view, have been typified. Two different women would, quite
naturally, suggest the thought of two different nations. Moreover, the
non-conversion of Gomer would be in direct opposition to the prophet's
own expressions. There cannot be any doubt, that her relation to the
prophet still lies at the foundation of the description in ii. 4 seqq.
For they are her three children whose former names, announcing
disaster, are changed, in ver. 25 (23), into such as are significant of
salvation. In vers. 4-6 (2-4) the whole relation, as previously
described, is presupposed. But now, she who, in ver. 9 (7), says, "I
will go and return to my first husband, for then was it better with me
than now," is the same who said in ver. 7 (5), "I will go after my
lovers that give me my bread and my water, my wool and my flax." To the
same result we are also led by the showing of mercy to her children,
announced in the first section, ii. 1-3 (i. 10-ii. 1), where the
prophet alludes to their names; and still more distinctly in the second
section; compare ver. 25 (23). But now, the showing of mercy to the
children cannot be conceived of without the conversion of the mother,
and mercy being subsequently shown to her also. As they are to be
rejected on account of the unfaithfulness of the mother (compare ii.
6 [4], and, specially, the כי at the commencement of ver. 7), so the
ground of their being received into favour can only be the faithfulness
of the mother. Being begotten in adultery, they stand in connection
with the prophet only through the mother; as soon as he has rejected
the mother, he has nothing further to do with them.--The supposition
that Gomer had died, is evidently the result of an embarrassment which
finds itself compelled to invent such fictions.--_Finally_,--Several
interpreters, after the example of _Augustine_, suppose that no
marriage at all is here spoken of, but only a certain kindness
which the prophet should manifest to some woman, in order to
encourage her conversion. But this opinion is contradicted by
these circumstances:--that the prophet's love towards the woman must
necessarily be of the same extent, and of the same nature, as the love
of God towards the people of Israel, since the אהב and the כאהבת
exactly correspond with each other; that only conjugal love is suitable
to [Pg 192] the image; that this view falls, of itself, to the ground
when רֵעַ is referred to the prophet, as it must be; that, in such
circumstances, no satisfactory account can be given of the purchase of
the woman, etc. To all these suppositions there is, moreover, the
common objection that, according to them, no account can be given of
the omission of very important circumstances which the prophet leaves
to his hearers and readers to supply from the preceding symbolical
action. Two things only are pointed out, viz., the appropriation of the
woman by the prophet, ver. 2, and the course which he pursues for her
reformation, ver. 3. Every intervening circumstance--the criminal,
long-continued unfaithfulness of the wife--is passed over in silence.
If we suppose an outward action, this circumstance cannot be accounted
for. For we are not at liberty to draw, from the first case, any
inference bearing upon the second. The latter would again have required
a complete account. But if we suppose an inward transaction, everything
is easily explained. The question as to whether it was Gomer, or some
other person, does not come up at all. If Gomer was only an _ideal_
person, that which applied to her was equally applicable to the second
_ideal_ wife of the prophet; since both typified the same thing, and
without having an independent existence of their own, came into
consideration as types only. Thus, very naturally, the second
description was supplemented from the first, and the prophet was
allowed abruptly to point out those circumstances only which were of
special importance in the case before him.
6. If the whole be viewed as an outward transaction, there arises a
difficulty, by no means inconsiderable, as regards the children
mentioned in chap. i. These had been begotten in adultery. Even
although the mother did reform, they could yet never be considered by
the prophet as, in the full sense, his own. There would then arise a
great difference between the type and the thing typified. But if we
suppose a transaction merely inward, this difficulty vanishes. The
physical impossibility then no longer comes into consideration. That
which is possible in the thing typified, viz., that those who formerly
were not children of God, become children of God, is transferred to the
type. In point of fact, the mother does not exist beside, and apart
from, the children; she stands related to them as the whole to the
parts; and hence it is, that in ii. 25 (23), the [Pg 193] mother and
children are imperceptibly blended in the prophet's description.
7. We are led to the idea of a mere inward transaction by the
symbolical names of the first wife, and of her father. On the other
hand, if such a symbolical signification could not be proved, this
might be used as an argument for the literal interpretation,--although,
indeed, it would be only a single argument which would be obliged to
yield to other counter-arguments. For it may well be conceived that the
prophet, in order to give to the inward transaction more of the
appearance of an outward one, should have chosen names usual at that
time; just as, in a similar manner, poetry would not be satisfied with
invented names used only in certain formulas and proverbs, but makes
use of names which would not, at once, be recognised by every
one as mere fictions.--גֹּמֶר can only mean "completion" in the
passive sense. For _Segolate-forms_ in _o_ are only used to express
passive and intransitive notions, and the verb גמר is found in the
ignification "to be completed," in Ps. vii. 10, xii. 2. The sense in
which the woman, the type of the Israelitish people, is called
_completion_,--_i.e._, one who, in her whoredom, had proceeded to the
highest pitch,--is so obvious from the context, as to render nugatory
the argument which _Maurer_ (p. 360) has drawn from the omission of
express statements on this point, in order thereby to recommend his
own interpretation, which is altogether opposed to the laws of the
language. A significant proper name can, in any case, convey only an
allusion; but such an allusion was here quite sufficient, inasmuch as
the mention of the wife's whoredom had preceded. Compare, moreover,
Zech. v. 5-11, where the thought, that Israel had filled up the measure
of their sins, is represented by a woman sitting in an Ephah. _Hofmann_
explains the name Gomer by "end," "utmost ruin:" "By luxury, Israel has
become wanton, and hence it must come to an end, to utter ruin." But
this interpretation is at variance with the context, from which it must
necessarily be derived; for it is not the _punishment_, but the _guilt_
which is spoken of in the context. גמר, "Completion" (compare the גמיר,
"_perfectus_," "_absolutus_," in Ezra vii. 12), is equivalent to אשת
זנונים, "a wife of whoredom." The בת דבלים can only mean, "daughter of
the two fig-cakes," = _filia deliciarum_ = _deliciis_ [Pg 194]
_dedita_. The word "daughter" serves to indicate every relation of
dependence and submission: _Gesenius_, _Thesaurus_, p. 220. Fig-cakes
were considered as one of the greatest dainties; compare _Faber_ on
_Harmar_. i. p. 320 ff. Sensuality was the ground of the Israelites'
apostasy from the severe and strict religion of Jehovah to the idolatry
of their neighbours, which was soft, sensual, and licentious. The
occasion which had called it forth with their neighbours was one which
rendered them favourably disposed towards it. The masculine form can
offer no difficulty as to the derivation from דבלה, "fig-cake;" for the
masculine form of the plural occurs also in 1 Sam. xxv. 18; 1 Chron.
xii. 40. As little difficulty can arise from the Dual form, which may
be explained from the circumstance that fig-cakes commonly consisted of
a double layer of figs, or of double cakes (_Hesych._ παλάθη--which
Greek word is a corruption of the Hebrew דבלה--ἡ τῶν σύκων ἐπάλληλος
θέσις), and the Dual is used in reference to objects which are commonly
conceived of as a whole, consisting of two parts, even when several of
them are spoken of. That this explanation of the Dual is correct, is
proved from the circumstance, that it occurs also as the name of a
Moabitish town, _Beth-Dibhlathaim_, Jer. xlviii. 22, and _Dibhlathaim_,
Num. xxxiii. 46, which, probably, was famous for its fig-cakes.--There
existed another special reason for the prophet's choosing the Dual in
the masculine form, viz., that there was the analogy of other proper
names of men--as Ephraim, etc.--in its favour; and such an analogy was
required,--for, otherwise, the name would not have been, as it was
intended to be, a riddle. Our whole exposition, however, which was
already in substance, although without proper foundation and
justification, advanced by _Jerome_, is raised above the condition of a
mere hypothesis, by its being compared with chap. iii. There, the
words, "They turn themselves to other gods, and love grape-cakes," are
a mere paraphrasis of "_Gomer Bath Dibhlaim_." It scarcely needs to be
remarked, that the difference betwixt grape-cakes and fig-cakes does
not here come into consideration at all, inasmuch as both belonged to
the choicest dainties; and it is as evident, that "to love," and "to be
the daughter of," express the same idea. But if thus the symbolical
signification of the name be established, the correctness of the
supposition of a merely internal transaction is established [Pg 195] at
the same time. The symbolical names of the children alone could not
have furnished a sufficient foundation for this supposition. Against
this an appeal might, with the most perfect propriety, have been made
to _Shear-Jashub_, and _Maher-shalal-hash-baz_, neither of whom can, by
any means, have been an ideal person. The prophet gave them these
names; but the matter is quite different in the case of the wife, who
already had her name when the prophet took her. All that we can grant
to _Hofmann_ is, that such a providential coincidence was _possible_;
but _probable_ it could be, only if other decisive arguments favoured
the view of the transaction having been an outward one. If the name
were not symbolical--if it belonged to the real wife of the prophet, it
cannot be easily explained, why he did not afterwards mention the name
of his second wife also, but content himself with the general term, "a
wife."
8. A main argument against the literal interpretation is further
furnished by iii. 2. The verse is commonly translated: "And then I
bought her to me for fifteen pieces of silver, and an homer of barley,
and a lethech of barley;" and is explained from the custom prevalent in
the East of purchasing wives from their parents. But it is very
doubtful whether the verb כרה has the signification "to purchase."
There is no necessity for deviating from the common signification "to
dig," in Deut. ii. 6: "And water also ye shall dig from them for money,
and drink" (compare Exod. xxi. 33); the existing wells were not
sufficient for so great a multitude, compare Gen. xxvi. 19, 21, 22. To
this philological reason, we must _further_ add, that the circumstance
would be here altogether destitute of significance, while every other
feature in the description is full of meaning. We base our
interpretation upon the supposition, already sufficiently established
by _J. D. Michaelis_, that the whole purchase-money amounted to thirty
shekels, of which the prophet paid one-half in money, and the other
half in the value of money. According to Ezek. xlv. 11, the homer
contained ten ephahs, and a lethech was the half of an homer. We have
thus fifteen pieces of silver, and also fifteen ephahs; and the
supposition is very probable that, at that time, an ephah of barley
cost a shekel,--the more so, as according to 2 Kings vii. 1, 16,
18, in the time of a declining famine, and only relative cheapness,
two-thirds of an ephah of barley cost a shekel. We are unable [Pg 196]
to say with certainty, why one-half was paid in money, and the other
half in natural productions; but a reason certainly exists, as no other
feature is without significance. Perhaps it was determined by custom,
that the sum by which servants were purchased was paid after this
manner. The lowness of their condition was thereby indicated; for
barley, _vile hordeum_, was, in all antiquity, very little esteemed.
Upon this estimate of it was based its use at the jealousy offering
(Num. v. 11 seqq.; compare _Bähr's Symb._ ii. S. 445), and the
symbolical use of the barley-bread in Judg. vii. 13. The statement
of the sum leads us, involuntarily, to think of slaves or servants.
It is the same sum which was commonly given for a man-servant, or a
maid-servant, as is expressly mentioned in Exod. xxi. 32; compare the
remarks on Zech. xi. 12. And this opinion is confirmed by the use of
ואכרה. The ears of a servant who was bound to his master to _perpetual_
obedience, were bored; compare Exod. xxxi. 5, 6; Deut. xv. 17, where it
is added: "And also unto thy maid-servant thou shalt do likewise." In
conformity with the custom of omitting the special members of the body,
in expressions frequently occurring, it is said simply "to bore." The
meaning then is: I made her my slave. It was not a free woman, then,
whom the prophet desired in marriage, but a servant, whom he was
obliged, previous to marriage, to redeem from servitude; who was
therefore under a double obligation to him, and over whom he had a
double claim. The reference to the thing to be typified is quite
apparent. It was not a free, independent people whom the Lord chose,
but a people whom He was obliged first to redeem from vile servitude,
before He entered into a nearer relation to them. This redemption
appears, throughout, as a ransoming from the house of bondage,--and the
wonderful dealings of the Lord, as the price which He paid. Compare,
_e.g._, Deut. vii. 8: "But because the Lord loved you, and because He
kept His oath which He had sworn to your fathers, He has brought you
out with a mighty hand, and redeemed thee (ויפדך) from the house of
bondmen (מבית עבדים), from the hand of Pharaoh, king of Egypt." See
also Deut. ix. 26. It is upon this redemption that the exhortation to
the people is founded--that, as the Lord's servants, they should serve
Him alone; comp., _e.g._, the introduction to the Decalogue. Thus, we
have here also a feature so evidently typical, [Pg 197] so plainly
transferred from the thing typified to the type, that we cannot any
longer think of an outward transaction. This argument, however, is, in
the main point, quite independent of the philological interpretation of
כרה. Even if it be translated "I bought her to me," the circumstance,
notwithstanding, always remains, that the wife was redeemed from
slavery, unless there be a denial of the connection of the sum
mentioned with Exod. xxi. 32, and Zech. xi. 12, where the thirty pieces
of silver likewise appear as the estimate of a servant's value; and
this circumstance evidently suggests the inward character of the
transaction.
The first germs of the representation of God's relation to Israel under
the figure of marriage, are found so early as in the Pentateuch,
Exod. xxxiv. 15, 16; Lev. xx. 5, 6, xvii. 7; Num. xiv. 33--where
idolatry, and apostasy from the Lord in general, are represented as
whoredom--Deut. xxxii. 16, 21; compare the author's _Dissertations on
the Genuineness of the Pent._ vol. i. p. 107 ff.; and commentary on the
Song of Solomon, S. 261. But it was only through the Song of Solomon
that it became quite a common thing to represent the higher love
under the figure of the lower. It is not through accident that this
representation appears so prominent just in Hosea, where it not only
pervades the first three chapters, but returns continually in the
second part also. Hosea, being one of the oldest prophets, was
specially called to fit, as a new link, into the Song of Solomon, which
was the last link in the chain of Sacred Literature. There are,
moreover, in the details, other undeniable references to the Song of
Solomon, which coincide with this connection with it, as regards the
fundamental idea. The basis, however, for this whole figurative
representation is Gen. ii. 24, where marriage appears as the most
intimate of all earthly relations of love, and must, for this very
reason, have a character of absolute exclusiveness.